Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: And how the tech are you. It's time for the
Speaker 1: tech News for May third, twenty twenty two, and let's
Speaker 1: just get into it. So in a previous episode, I
Speaker 1: talked about how we're heading towards a real bottleneck when
Speaker 1: it comes to electric vehicles because of supply chain issues. Namely,
Speaker 1: you know, more places around the world are starting to
Speaker 1: pass laws and regulations that are going to require automakers
Speaker 1: to migrate away from producing new internal combustion engine vehicles
Speaker 1: and switch to electric vehicles or maybe hybrid vehicles or
Speaker 1: even fuel cell vehicles, but mostly we focus on e vs. However,
Speaker 1: a massive challenge that faces us is that currently the
Speaker 1: world doesn't produce nearly enough batteries to make that kind
Speaker 1: of future possible. One estimate is that right now we're
Speaker 1: making around ten percent of the batteries we're going to need,
Speaker 1: assuming we do see this massive change from internal combustion
Speaker 1: engine vehicles to electric vehicles. Now that doesn't mean we're stuck,
Speaker 1: but it does mean we have to put more money
Speaker 1: and effort into battery production. To that end, the US
Speaker 1: Department of Energy announced it will be granting three point
Speaker 1: one billion dollars that's billion with a B two various
Speaker 1: companies that are meant to use that money for a
Speaker 1: quote the creation of new, retrofitted and expanded commercial facilities
Speaker 1: end quote within the battery ecosystem, and that includes everything
Speaker 1: from the processing of raw materials all the way to
Speaker 1: recycling old batteries once they've reached the end of their
Speaker 1: useful life. Now, not only is this meant to give
Speaker 1: battery production of boost, it's also an attempt to bring
Speaker 1: the cost of electric vehicles down. With more R and
Speaker 1: D dedicated to battery production, the thought is that companies
Speaker 1: are going to find more efficient ways to produce more batteries,
Speaker 1: and that will bring the overall cost of production down,
Speaker 1: and ultimately those savings would theoretically pass on to customers
Speaker 1: so that electric vehicles aren't prohibitively expensive for the majority
Speaker 1: of drivers those Right now, electric vehicles are more expensive
Speaker 1: than their internal combustion engine counterparts, unless you happen to
Speaker 1: live in a place where there are a lot of
Speaker 1: government incentives to get an electric vehicle where you might
Speaker 1: get tax breaks or refunds that sort of thing. Now,
Speaker 1: I may need to do a full episode about the
Speaker 1: challenges when it comes to, you know, producing batteries at scale,
Speaker 1: because because there's a lot of um, you know, there's
Speaker 1: not just the monetary cost, but there are social and
Speaker 1: political costs as well, particularly when you start looking into
Speaker 1: things like mining the materials that we use to make batteries.
Speaker 1: A lot of those are those operations are centered in
Speaker 1: countries that have absolutely horrible human human rights records. Uh,
Speaker 1: So we're gonna probably do a full episode about that
Speaker 1: in the future. Apple continues to face opposition among EU regulators.
Speaker 1: The company now must fend off charges from the European
Speaker 1: Union regulators that Apple has restricted competitor access to its
Speaker 1: NFC chip technology found on iPhones. UH. NFC stands for
Speaker 1: near field communication, and these types of chips are used
Speaker 1: for short distance wireless communications, typically of very small amounts
Speaker 1: of data. It's UH it's ideal for something like using
Speaker 1: your smartphone as a payment device, where it sends a
Speaker 1: little bit of data to a point of payment and
Speaker 1: authorizes the payment so that it goes through. So it's
Speaker 1: NFC technology that allows for this kind of thing. These
Speaker 1: you know, when you see someone holding or if you
Speaker 1: hold your smartphone over that mobile payment space, Uh, that's
Speaker 1: the technology that allows that to happen. So closing that
Speaker 1: off means that you're effectively discouraging iPhone users from relying
Speaker 1: on any payment system other than Apple's own. If Apples
Speaker 1: is the only one that works with it, then people
Speaker 1: aren't even gonna bother using alternatives. Now, Apple reps dispute
Speaker 1: the allegations and say that Apple has quote ensured equal
Speaker 1: access to NFC while setting industry leading standards for privacy
Speaker 1: and security end quote. If the regulators conclude that Apple
Speaker 1: has restricted access to NFC and that the restriction isn't
Speaker 1: solely based off of security concerns, which is something that
Speaker 1: Apple has suggested in the past, like the reason why
Speaker 1: it doesn't open up n FC more is beca because
Speaker 1: it could it could stand as a security vulnerability. If
Speaker 1: Apple can't prove that that that's the reason why they've
Speaker 1: they've limited NFC accessibility, then hypothetically, the EU regulators could
Speaker 1: levy a fine against Apple equal to up to ten
Speaker 1: percent of the company's global revenue, which, let me see,
Speaker 1: let me check my notes is yeah, it says here
Speaker 1: a crap ton of money. Yeah whoo. Finance reports that
Speaker 1: a survey of Apple employees shows a growing opposition to
Speaker 1: the company's requirement that corporate workers return at least part
Speaker 1: time to the office. Now, I have a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of caveats I want to put out there before I
Speaker 1: go any further with this story. First, the survey was
Speaker 1: really tiny. I'm not sure how many people currently work
Speaker 1: in Apple's corporate offices, but it's famed spaceship campus is
Speaker 1: designed to allow for up to twelve thousand employees. But
Speaker 1: the survey includes just six hundred fifty two responses, So
Speaker 1: that would be less than five and a half percent
Speaker 1: of all employees, or at least all the total potential
Speaker 1: employees at Apple headquarters. And with a sample size that small,
Speaker 1: it's really not possible to extrapolate. And I'm sure you've
Speaker 1: also noticed that people who are really upset are far
Speaker 1: more likely to engage in feedback than those who are happy. Like,
Speaker 1: you know, it's just people are more prone to writing
Speaker 1: a negative response than a positive one. Positive they're just like, yeah,
Speaker 1: that was nice. Sometimes they'll they'll go to trouble but
Speaker 1: the folks who are mad, they are not shy about
Speaker 1: letting you know, So that means it's also possible that
Speaker 1: the most disgruntled employees were the ones who participated in
Speaker 1: the survey, while the UH the grunt old employees didn't
Speaker 1: bother anyway. This survey found that more than half of
Speaker 1: those who respond and did fifty six percent of them
Speaker 1: in fact, said they are looking to leave Apple explicitly
Speaker 1: because of the required return to office. So we're seeing
Speaker 1: some headlines talk about how more than half of Apple
Speaker 1: corporate employees planned to leave UH. I think we can
Speaker 1: safely say that there are a lot of Apple workers
Speaker 1: who do not like the return to office requirement. I
Speaker 1: also believe that some of them might actually be looking
Speaker 1: for work elsewhere and they do plan to leave the company.
Speaker 1: But I suspect that the total number is well below
Speaker 1: even of those who responded to the survey. I bet
Speaker 1: that a lot of the people who said they were
Speaker 1: doing that aren't really doing that, and that you know,
Speaker 1: once you expand that to the population as a whole,
Speaker 1: obviously we can't make any real determination because five and
Speaker 1: a half percent is just way too small of a
Speaker 1: size for us to base any firm belief on our
Speaker 1: estimation on um so. I've already heard predictions of a
Speaker 1: mass exodus of Apple employ ease. In fact, there was
Speaker 1: one that was supposedly going to happen in the middle
Speaker 1: of April, when people's UH share options were maturing, but
Speaker 1: it didn't happen. We didn't see a mass exodus, so
Speaker 1: I'll honestly be shocked if we do see something like that. Now.
Speaker 1: I do think some people are gonna leave, and it
Speaker 1: may even be a fairly significant number, but I don't
Speaker 1: think it's gonna be anything close to or even twenty
Speaker 1: who leave the company. I think this is more likely
Speaker 1: a case of frustrated employees attempting to send a message
Speaker 1: to management that their current policies are unpopular to say
Speaker 1: the least. Now, all that being said, if this does
Speaker 1: lead to massive employee turnover, I think the employees are
Speaker 1: in the right. We've heard a lot about Apple's culture
Speaker 1: and how it can be beyond demanding. We've also heard
Speaker 1: stories about Apple culture fostering harassment and other despicable behaviors.
Speaker 1: Whether anything changes or not remains to be seen. Currently,
Speaker 1: all eyes are on May. That's the day that Apple
Speaker 1: is going to step up it's in office policy and
Speaker 1: require corporate workers to go to the office at least
Speaker 1: three days a week. So if there is going to
Speaker 1: be something that will be a turning point, a lot
Speaker 1: of people are thinking it's going to be that. Over
Speaker 1: at Google, the company's AI division continues to court controversy
Speaker 1: in Google and AI ethicist Timnant Gebriu parted ways after
Speaker 1: gebrie published a paper about ethics and AI that Google
Speaker 1: claimed failed to meet the company's qualifications for publication, and
Speaker 1: Gebrie says that Google subsequently fired her, but the company
Speaker 1: claimed that Gebriu resigned. Now there is a reason for
Speaker 1: this apparent contradiction. Gebrew said that she pushed back against
Speaker 1: Google's objections to her paper and said that if her
Speaker 1: conditions were not met, she would resign, like this was
Speaker 1: essentially an ultimatum, and then Google subsequently accepted her resignation.
Speaker 1: Like first, Google said, we're not changing anything. We accept
Speaker 1: your resignation. And Gebrie at the time was was on vacation.
Speaker 1: She wasn't even at work, which is a big old
Speaker 1: yikes to me. And in February twenty one, David Baker,
Speaker 1: and engineer with sixteen years of employment with Google, left
Speaker 1: the company, stating that Gebber's departure was evidence that the
Speaker 1: company was actively suppressing diversity and dissenting voices within its departments.
Speaker 1: A software engineer named Venesh Canan also left, citing Gebber's
Speaker 1: treatment as one of the reasons for his decision to resign.
Speaker 1: Also in March of one, Google fired Margaret Mitchell, not
Speaker 1: the author of Gone with the Wind, but rather the
Speaker 1: other co lead of the Ethical AI Research Division. In
Speaker 1: February twenty two, Dr Alex Hannah and Dylan Baker also
Speaker 1: left Google, joining Gebra's new Distributed AI Research Institute nonprofit organization.
Speaker 1: And now Google has fired the tragic chatter Gee and
Speaker 1: my apologies for the butchering of that pronunciation. He's a
Speaker 1: scientist specializing in machine learning. He was part of a
Speaker 1: group within Google who wrote a paper pushing back on
Speaker 1: earlier research that Google published about using AI to design
Speaker 1: computer chips. His group raised concerns about the findings of
Speaker 1: the earlier research and argued that they weren't totally valid.
Speaker 1: In other words, that maybe AI isn't ideally suited for
Speaker 1: creating superior computer chip architecture. UH. He was later fired
Speaker 1: by Google. Now complicating this particular story, however, are reports
Speaker 1: that he harassed one of the authors of that original
Speaker 1: research and quote unquote impugned her work. Um. He has
Speaker 1: claimed that he was being scientifically rigorous in challenging the
Speaker 1: research and that was it. But obviously if harassment is
Speaker 1: a part of this, it does complicate things and may
Speaker 1: not fall into the general narrative of Google executives wanting
Speaker 1: AI research to follow a specific perspective and any deviation
Speaker 1: from that perspective ends up being suppressed. That's kind of
Speaker 1: what we're hearing. We're also hearing a lot from these
Speaker 1: same researchers that Google uh is overwhelmingly white in its hierarchy,
Speaker 1: and that that is also a big issue. So those
Speaker 1: are the kind of things that we're hearing from this UH.
Speaker 1: It's a very complicated topic and one that I think
Speaker 1: requires lots of investigation to see. You know, which stories
Speaker 1: are the most supported. I honestly don't know, but you know, externally,
Speaker 1: just looking in on this, it doesn't look great. It
Speaker 1: does look like Google has taken steps to kind of
Speaker 1: get rid of anyone who brought up anything that would
Speaker 1: potentially slow Google down with its deployment of AI products.
Speaker 1: But again that's just my perspective and it could be
Speaker 1: that it's off base. We have more stories to cover,
Speaker 1: but before we get to that, let's take a quick break.
Speaker 1: The Information reports that Meta Slash Facebook has plans for
Speaker 1: four different virtual reality headsets in addition to the company's
Speaker 1: work on developing an augmented reality headset. So these four
Speaker 1: headsets currently have names like Arcata, which was previously known
Speaker 1: as Project Cambria, Funston, Stinson, and Cardiff. Arcata and Funston
Speaker 1: sound like they're gonna be higher end headsets with greater
Speaker 1: resolution and the ability to do stuff like code in VR.
Speaker 1: Imagine you can wear that VR headset, you can read
Speaker 1: the text floating in front of you, and all you
Speaker 1: have to do is is wear something on your face,
Speaker 1: which is so much easier than you know, typing on
Speaker 1: a keyboard and using a computer display. Anyway, Stinson and
Speaker 1: Cardiff sound like they'll be updates to the company's Quest
Speaker 1: line of head sets, which are a tad less expensive.
Speaker 1: So on the Quest side, we're looking at hardware that
Speaker 1: costs between two and the Arcata and Fundstone levels sound
Speaker 1: like they're going to be closer to seven I'm still
Speaker 1: not entirely sold on all this, But then I'm also
Speaker 1: notoriously critical of Meta, and I have no plans to
Speaker 1: get a mixed reality headset that requires me to be
Speaker 1: an active part of Meta's ecosystem. So I admit I
Speaker 1: do have a strong bias against this. I do want
Speaker 1: to see more advanced VR and a R headsets out there.
Speaker 1: I just would prefer some that don't require me to
Speaker 1: feed yet more data to Facebook. I have no desire
Speaker 1: to be part of that machine. Now we've got a
Speaker 1: couple of podcasting related news items. First up, back to Facebook.
Speaker 1: It is shuttering its podcast platform service. And you might
Speaker 1: not know that Facebook had a pod cast platform, and
Speaker 1: it launched last year. In fact, it hasn't even been
Speaker 1: a full year since launch, and now it's shutting down.
Speaker 1: And the selling point to podcasters is the one that's
Speaker 1: the same for advertisers, namely that you know, there are
Speaker 1: a couple of billion people who have Facebook accounts, So
Speaker 1: wouldn't you just love it if your show could reach
Speaker 1: this huge audience? And yeah, that's like incredibly tempting. It's
Speaker 1: the same thing that tempted tons of content companies out there,
Speaker 1: like companies that create online content to engage with Facebook,
Speaker 1: because that looked like that was gonna be the big benefit,
Speaker 1: you know, instead of s e O, make sure that
Speaker 1: your stuff's on Facebook so that audiences find it. I'm
Speaker 1: sure a lot of podcasters were eager to jump on
Speaker 1: that opportunity, but apparently didn't work out so well. Now.
Speaker 1: I don't know the details behind all of it, but
Speaker 1: if I had to hazard a guess, just based on
Speaker 1: the way I've observed people using Facebook, I would say
Speaker 1: that when most folks or on Facebook, they're not really
Speaker 1: looking to engage in audio content like that. Like they're
Speaker 1: not likely to open the Facebook app in order to
Speaker 1: listen to a podcast. They're probably using a dedicated podcast
Speaker 1: app for that. Facebook will also be shutting down a
Speaker 1: couple of other audio related features. The one that I
Speaker 1: saw was Soundbites, which is kind of a short form
Speaker 1: audio service, so sort of like TikTok, but audio instead
Speaker 1: of video. In addition, Facebook is moving is Live Audio
Speaker 1: Rooms feature into the overall umbrella of Facebook Live. And
Speaker 1: if you're not familiar with the live Audio rooms offering,
Speaker 1: it's essentially what clubhouses, you know, the app that allows
Speaker 1: for streaming audio. Facebook is famous for imitating anything that
Speaker 1: gets buzz around it. Like, if there's anything that could
Speaker 1: theoretically take even a moment away from someone staying on Facebook,
Speaker 1: then Facebook wants to incorporate those features directly into Facebook
Speaker 1: and thus hopefully discourage people from leaving Facebook for even
Speaker 1: even a split second. Um. Unfortunately for Facebook, the buzz
Speaker 1: around clubhouse died out pretty darn fast. Like just last year,
Speaker 1: people were essentially saying that clubhouses is kind of a
Speaker 1: ghost town now, like once it once it stopped being exclusive,
Speaker 1: then people stopped wanting to be part of it, which
Speaker 1: just tells you, like people want to be part of
Speaker 1: a a an exclusive club. If a club says you're
Speaker 1: not allowed in, people really want to get in. And
Speaker 1: then once everyone's allowed in there are people are like
Speaker 1: it's not that special and they leave. Same thing happened
Speaker 1: to Google Plus, by the way. Anyway, Facebook found that
Speaker 1: making podcasting work on the platform was more trouble than
Speaker 1: what it's worth I reckon. So Bloomberg reports that Facebook
Speaker 1: will close down its podcasting platform on June three. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: over at Spotify, the co founder of the podcasting platform,
Speaker 1: anchor Michael mcgano, has submitted his resignation from Spotify. He'll
Speaker 1: stay with Spotify until the end of June and then
Speaker 1: he's out Skis. So Spotify is obviously a big player
Speaker 1: in the podcast space. It's infamous for the incredibly lucrative
Speaker 1: and controversial deal with podcast provocateur Joe Rogan. It also
Speaker 1: went on something of an acquisition spree over the last
Speaker 1: few years, buying up companies like Anchor, Gimlet, wushaka, Megaphone,
Speaker 1: pod Sites, Charitable Podcast, and The Ringer, all of which
Speaker 1: are involved in the production, publication, marketing, ad sales, and
Speaker 1: content creation of podcasting. Spotify also has had some recent
Speaker 1: challenges in the space. Uh the company shut down its
Speaker 1: own in house podcast studio group, which internally was called
Speaker 1: Studio four. I should probably do a whole episode about
Speaker 1: Studio for, because I mean, it's it's kind of ugly.
Speaker 1: Spotify called its own podcast division Studio for because presumably
Speaker 1: Studios one through three were acquisitions like Gimlet Podcast and
Speaker 1: The Ringer. So if you work for a company that
Speaker 1: company acquires other companies and then the company says your
Speaker 1: department is fourth in line to those acquisitions, that just
Speaker 1: doesn't feel good. That's bad for employee morale anyway. Mcgono's
Speaker 1: upcoming departure follows other executives like Courtney Holt. Holt spearheaded
Speaker 1: the Joe Rogan deal for Spotify, so her departure was
Speaker 1: a big surprise, and Lydia Paul Green, who was head
Speaker 1: of Gimblet Media. Uh. I don't think this necessarily means
Speaker 1: that Spotify's podcasting division is in trouble. I do think
Speaker 1: that the company is having to reckon with some tough criticisms,
Speaker 1: mostly centered around the whole Joe Rogan situation and um
Speaker 1: and also just find a a settling point from which
Speaker 1: it can grow. Right now, a lot of the growth
Speaker 1: has been through acquisitions, which you can only continue for
Speaker 1: so long. It's not it's not something that you can
Speaker 1: sustain long term. Also in Spotify news, the company has
Speaker 1: announced it has opened an interactive space within the Roadblocks
Speaker 1: online universe called Spotify Island. And at Spotify Island, visitors
Speaker 1: can hang out in virtual venues, or they can make
Speaker 1: music like you can actually make music on Spotify Island,
Speaker 1: or of course they can purchase virtual merchandise. Because ultimately,
Speaker 1: what the metaverse really represents is ways for people to
Speaker 1: make more money. Now Apparently part of this island's offerings
Speaker 1: is a chance for musicians to connect with and thus
Speaker 1: sell their music to their audiences. I think that's kind
Speaker 1: of cool, right, Like this idea of being able to
Speaker 1: connect with artists that you really like, maybe you're able
Speaker 1: to like get rare recordings or demo recordings, that kind
Speaker 1: of stuff. I think that would be really neat and
Speaker 1: would really create a sense of community among fan bases.
Speaker 1: That could be actually really really cool thing to be
Speaker 1: part of. Um. Spotify, however, will also take a chunk
Speaker 1: of sales because you know they're facilitating those sales, so
Speaker 1: it's this isn't surprising. It's the same thing that Google
Speaker 1: and Apple do where they take a chunk of every
Speaker 1: sale that goes through their app stores. Spotify would be
Speaker 1: doing the same thing. We don't know yet how much
Speaker 1: of a chunk that would be. Um Uh. This story
Speaker 1: I found on engadget, and you know, in gadget also
Speaker 1: didn't have any any further information about what that that
Speaker 1: revenue split would be like. Roadblocks is one of those
Speaker 1: things I've really been meaning to check out. I've been
Speaker 1: hearing about it like for a couple of years now,
Speaker 1: but I've never have never actually experienced going on roadblocks
Speaker 1: at all. I know that I would probably find it
Speaker 1: really fascinating. I love this idea of user generated content,
Speaker 1: where users can create games and experiences. I'd probably put
Speaker 1: on the parental controls because I don't want to run
Speaker 1: into the weird stuff. I'm just tired of weird stuff.
Speaker 1: I'm not yucking anyone's yum. If weird stuff to your thing,
Speaker 1: more power to you. I just I don't know. I
Speaker 1: only got so many spoons, y'all, and I don't think
Speaker 1: I can use them to handle all the crazy things
Speaker 1: that people come up with that my my, my limited
Speaker 1: brain is incapable of processing. So again, more power to y'all.
Speaker 1: Let your freak flags brought fly. I just think I'm
Speaker 1: gonna be putting on those controls to preserve my own sanity. Uh.
Speaker 1: I don't know if this is in for the long
Speaker 1: haul or not. We saw a lot of similar enthusiasm
Speaker 1: around Second Life when it was first starting to gain attention.
Speaker 1: Like early on in the hype cycle of Second Life,
Speaker 1: there was this assumption that every single company in the
Speaker 1: world was going to establish a Second Life um presence,
Speaker 1: but it didn't really work out. That way, and Second
Speaker 1: Life is still a thing. It's just it's kind of
Speaker 1: faded into semi obscurity. Like there are people who still
Speaker 1: go to Second Life, but it's not nearly the massive
Speaker 1: amount of people that we were expecting it to be
Speaker 1: back when Second Life was first getting hyped up. Hopefully
Speaker 1: Roadblocks doesn't follow that same pathway. I guess we'll have
Speaker 1: to wait and see. Honestly, I'm curious to check out
Speaker 1: both Roadblocks and Spotify Island. I really want to see
Speaker 1: what kind of environment they've created and what you can
Speaker 1: experience there. I think it could be potentially pretty neat. Okay,
Speaker 1: we've got a couple more stories to cover, but before
Speaker 1: we get to those, let's take another quick break. Okay.
Speaker 1: Activision Blizzard, which I'm sure we all know, is heading
Speaker 1: towards being acquired by Microsoft, assuming regulators don't block the deal.
Speaker 1: Activision Blizzard has sent shareholders a notice about five proposals
Speaker 1: that are up for shareholder voting. This is something that
Speaker 1: happens with all companies that they'll send out to their shareholders. Hey,
Speaker 1: there's a big shareholder meeting. These are proposals that are
Speaker 1: up for vote. Uh, you know you can submit your vote,
Speaker 1: that kind of thing. The notice from the Board of
Speaker 1: Directors suggests that shareholders support three of the five proposals.
Speaker 1: Those three include approval of executive compensation, which of course
Speaker 1: they want that approved. Please let us pay our executives,
Speaker 1: those poor, poor executives, they make so few millions. And
Speaker 1: then there's also the ratification of the company's accounting firm,
Speaker 1: which is important. And finally, the election of the directors
Speaker 1: themselves is directors stand for election every so often. Uh,
Speaker 1: sometimes they stand for reelection, sometimes they'll step down and
Speaker 1: new people will new candidates will be considered. The notice
Speaker 1: also suggests that shareholders vote down to other proposals. One
Speaker 1: of those would allow for the nomination of an employee
Speaker 1: representative director, which I guess means that they Board of
Speaker 1: Directors does not want employees to have a spot at
Speaker 1: the table. I guess um, considering Activision blizzards past, that
Speaker 1: is a bad look. Uh. Perhaps an even worse look
Speaker 1: is that the fifth proposal would authorize the preparation of
Speaker 1: a report about how Activision Blizzard has been doing insofar
Speaker 1: as its effort to prevent abuse, harassment and discrimination. Uh. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's even worse, right, Like it just looks bad because
Speaker 1: Activision Blizzard is has really gained a terrible negative reputation
Speaker 1: for having a a toxic workplace that foments harassment. Um
Speaker 1: that this has stretched back for years in the company,
Speaker 1: that prominent people in the company had been part of this,
Speaker 1: many of whom have subsequently left the company, though the
Speaker 1: CEO is still there, and the company says Activision Blizzard
Speaker 1: says that this report would just be surperfluous and it'd
Speaker 1: be a waste of time and resources because really, Activision
Speaker 1: Blizzards should just be focusing on making positive change rather
Speaker 1: than you know, dwelling on how well it's doing towards
Speaker 1: creating that change. Uh. The notice also argues that the
Speaker 1: criteria for the proposed report is really too generic and general,
Speaker 1: and that it uses metrics that aren't necessarily meaningful for
Speaker 1: Activision Blizzard. So really shareholders shouldn't support it because, according
Speaker 1: to the notice, the report wouldn't even It would be
Speaker 1: trying to measure the wrong thing. It'd be like it's
Speaker 1: it would be like if you were asked to find, uh,
Speaker 1: how much water is in a bowl and you're given
Speaker 1: a ruler. It's the wrong tool for the job. That's
Speaker 1: what the notice argues. But y'all, considering that laundry list
Speaker 1: of complaints that former and current employees have brought against
Speaker 1: the company, it really does look kind of questionable for
Speaker 1: the Board of directors to urge shareholders to vote against
Speaker 1: making such a report. Still, it's up to the shareholders themselves,
Speaker 1: and my guess is a lot of folks will just
Speaker 1: kind of vote the way the board suggests, because you've
Speaker 1: got to protect your investment, right Blich, a Swedish video
Speaker 1: game company called Embracer Group, formerly known as THHQ Nordic
Speaker 1: and then known before that as Nordic Games Publishing, is
Speaker 1: now set to acquire game companies Crystal Dynamics, Idos Montreal
Speaker 1: and Square Enix Montreal for three hundred millions smackaroos. So
Speaker 1: I actually had to cup Embracer Group. I don't remember
Speaker 1: ever seeing that name before. I know th h Q,
Speaker 1: and so I had to look it up and it
Speaker 1: turns out that, you know, Nordic Games Publishing Public purchased
Speaker 1: the assets of th h Q when th HQ was
Speaker 1: going bankrupt, then it became th HQ Nordic, then eventually
Speaker 1: would rename itself to Embracer Group, and this company has
Speaker 1: bought up a lot of various video game assets over
Speaker 1: the years, often as companies were teetering on the verge
Speaker 1: of bankruptcy. Those acquisitions mean that Embracer Group has a
Speaker 1: really large I P pool under its ownership, including really
Speaker 1: well known franchises like Saints Row, Borderlands, Dead Island, Time
Speaker 1: Splitters That's a throwback, and and many more. So, these
Speaker 1: new acquisitions would allow for new titles to come into
Speaker 1: that same pool, like tomb Raider and d oh Sex,
Speaker 1: among others. Now, I need to do some further digging,
Speaker 1: but it sounds like this game company is really more
Speaker 1: known for perch seeing other game companies than producing games,
Speaker 1: and I guess that's one way to do it anyway,
Speaker 1: I doos Montreal has announced that it will produce a
Speaker 1: new title in the dios X franchise, which is absolutely wild.
Speaker 1: And finally, aerospace company rocket Lab recently celebrated a partly
Speaker 1: successful attempt of a helicopter catching a descending first stage rocket.
Speaker 1: All right, so rocket Lab creates launch vehicles called Electron,
Speaker 1: and the plan is to reuse that first stage of
Speaker 1: the launch vehicle for future launches. Right cuts way, back
Speaker 1: on costs if you can reuse components. Now, in the
Speaker 1: old days of space launches, NASA would plan for the
Speaker 1: first stage to fall into the Atlantic Ocean, where you're
Speaker 1: not likely to squash somebody. But seawater can really do
Speaker 1: a number on electronics and such, So it would be
Speaker 1: much better if you could I their return the first
Speaker 1: stage too, from to where it you know it launched,
Speaker 1: which is what SpaceX does right. SpaceX uses a a
Speaker 1: an approach where it either returns to its launchpad, or
Speaker 1: it can land on a floating launchpad in the ocean,
Speaker 1: or you could catch it right. So this would greatly
Speaker 1: improve the chances you could refurbish that rocket stage for
Speaker 1: reuse because it didn't get into the saltwater. Uh, that's
Speaker 1: less for you to have to deal with now. I
Speaker 1: said that it was a partly successful attempt because while
Speaker 1: the helicopter did catch the descending rockets parachute line as
Speaker 1: planned and the rocket dangled from the helicopter, the way
Speaker 1: that the rockets settled beneath the helicopter concerned the pilot.
Speaker 1: He wasn't certain that it would be safe to land
Speaker 1: with the way that the rocket was hanging from the
Speaker 1: helicopter or that it would be safe to continue to fly,
Speaker 1: and since safety is obviously way more important than you know,
Speaker 1: a rocket stage, the pilot elected to drop the rocket
Speaker 1: into the ocean as a safety measure. However, this is
Speaker 1: a huge step toward making rocket labs approach a viable one,
Speaker 1: which could expand options beyond companies like SpaceX, which again
Speaker 1: uses you know, the the approach of trying to land
Speaker 1: a first stage launch vehicle onto a landing pad, whether
Speaker 1: on land or in the ocean. Um Both both approaches
Speaker 1: are really difficult, but it's cool to see that we've
Speaker 1: had a lot of progress made on both of them.
Speaker 1: And that wraps up this news episode of tech Stuff.
Speaker 1: If you have suggestions for topic, session cover in future episodes,
Speaker 1: please reach out to me on Twitter. The handle for
Speaker 1: the show is text stuff H s W and I'll
Speaker 1: talk to you again really soon. Tech Stuff is an
Speaker 1: I Heart Radio production. For more podcasts from I Heart Radio,
Speaker 1: visit the i Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
Speaker 1: you listen to your favorite shows.