Speaker 1: Welcome to tex 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 I love all things tech. And this is the
Speaker 1: tech news for Tuesday, November twenty three, twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1: And just as a heads up, we will not have
Speaker 1: a news episode on Thursday because here in America that
Speaker 1: is Thanksgiving, So we will be playing our history of
Speaker 1: Cyber Monday episode on Thursday, which I feel is going
Speaker 1: to become my own annual tradition. Anyway, let's get to
Speaker 1: the news. One of the biggest stories of and mental note,
Speaker 1: I should probably remember that when I do an end
Speaker 1: of the year wrap up episode has been about Facebook
Speaker 1: internal documents that got leaked to regulators and the press,
Speaker 1: along with whistleblower Francis Hogan's testimony to various governmental bodies
Speaker 1: around the world regarding Facebook's policies and it's impact on
Speaker 1: the world. Well, now, a collection of organizations are committed
Speaker 1: to releasing those documents so that folks like you or
Speaker 1: I will be able to see them. Note uh, this
Speaker 1: presumes that you aren't already a member of one of
Speaker 1: those regulatory bodies or part of the press that received
Speaker 1: the documents. People from the American Civil Liberties Union and
Speaker 1: several universities, as well as the tech news outlet Gizmoto,
Speaker 1: are partnering to go through the documents and make them
Speaker 1: available to everyone. They plan on reviewing each document first
Speaker 1: in order to protect the privacy and security of people
Speaker 1: who might be named in those documents. They don't want
Speaker 1: to docks anyone. And also in the case of documents
Speaker 1: relating to specific countries like besides the United States, they
Speaker 1: plan on enlisting the aid of people from those countries
Speaker 1: before they decide to release the documents. So, in other words,
Speaker 1: it sounds like they are working towards establishing a responsible
Speaker 1: process when it comes to releasing all those internal documents,
Speaker 1: as opposed to just you know, dumping them on a
Speaker 1: cloud server somewhere. Facebook reps have repeatedly argued that these
Speaker 1: documents that were cited by various media outlets have been
Speaker 1: misleading and that they only play a small part in
Speaker 1: a much larger picture. And I'm not saying that the
Speaker 1: thousands of documents are a definitive repository of all things Facebook,
Speaker 1: but it might be a harder sell to defend the
Speaker 1: company should those documents prove to be as damaging as
Speaker 1: has been indicated over the last couple of months. One
Speaker 1: document that wasn't in that big leak was one that
Speaker 1: alleges Facebook executives chose to override researchers suggestions to tweak
Speaker 1: the Facebook algorithm in an effort to curb the spread
Speaker 1: of hate speech and racism. Business Insider reports that the
Speaker 1: document shows researchers had identified issues with this algorithm, pointing
Speaker 1: out how it would allow for the spread of hateful
Speaker 1: and harmful speech that predominantly targeted ethnic minorities. But because
Speaker 1: Facebook has been the target of criticism from white conservatives
Speaker 1: in the past, including powerful media outlets like Fox News,
Speaker 1: the executives that Facebook didn't want to make any changes
Speaker 1: for fear that it would seem as though the company
Speaker 1: was actively opposing white conservatives. The name of the research
Speaker 1: project was Project Wow No. Business Insider also refers to
Speaker 1: it as quote the worst of the worst end quote
Speaker 1: meaning the worst content and comments. The document apparently also
Speaker 1: indicates that Facebook's content moderation algorithms are much better at
Speaker 1: detecting and suppressing content that targets white people, but not
Speaker 1: so great when it comes to people of color. So
Speaker 1: not only did the executives nix the idea of adjusting
Speaker 1: the algorithm to protect vulnerable populations, they were supporting an
Speaker 1: algorithm that protects a group that you know, arguably really
Speaker 1: doesn't need protection to start with. The document also includes
Speaker 1: a passage that says Facebook execs, We're worried about offending
Speaker 1: conservatives who think quote hate targeted towards trans people is
Speaker 1: an expression of opinion. End quote. Now, y'all, let me
Speaker 1: just say that is a wretched, horrible thing to even think,
Speaker 1: let alone put down in an internal document. A glance
Speaker 1: at statistics like the suicide rate among trans youth will
Speaker 1: tell you straight away that targeted hate has a very real,
Speaker 1: very tragic effect on those who are targeted, and to
Speaker 1: dismiss it as an expression of opinion is so callous
Speaker 1: as to be disgusting. Then for Facebook executives to say
Speaker 1: they're worried about offending people who think that way is
Speaker 1: stomach churning. All right, I'm gonna hop off my soapbox.
Speaker 1: I know y'all don't like it, but you know I've
Speaker 1: got this platform and I feel like i'm going to
Speaker 1: use it. Another big tech news last week, Reuters reported
Speaker 1: that Amazon had been behind vigorous lobbying efforts to undermine
Speaker 1: consumer privacy protection laws in twenty five states. That's that's
Speaker 1: half of all the states for those of y'all not
Speaker 1: in the US. Now, several members of Congress are proposing
Speaker 1: a federal level of consumer privacy legislation that would apply
Speaker 1: across all fifty states. The report showed that Amazon has
Speaker 1: been working hard to whittle away, or sometimes hack away,
Speaker 1: protections that would prevent the company from harvesting vast amounts
Speaker 1: of personal data of customers and others. On top of that,
Speaker 1: Reuters has quoted a few people who say Amazon has
Speaker 1: and pretty hypocritical, paying lips service to the concept and
Speaker 1: the importance of data privacy and security in public, while
Speaker 1: simultaneously privately working to remove any barrier that would stand
Speaker 1: between the company and that precious, precious information. Amazon reps
Speaker 1: have also essentially said, Hey, we just want a nice
Speaker 1: unified privacy law so that we can have a set
Speaker 1: standard and operate that way across the United States. And
Speaker 1: on the surface you can sort of understand that, I
Speaker 1: mean each state having a different definition and standard for
Speaker 1: privacy makes operating across state borders pretty complicated. However, that
Speaker 1: doesn't explain away all the actual efforts to gut the
Speaker 1: existing state legislation. Amazon could have instead lobbied for a
Speaker 1: nationwide federal standard, so I would say Amazon's explanation is
Speaker 1: only partly true. Anyway, We'll have to wait and see what,
Speaker 1: if any legislation follows from this and show effort. There's
Speaker 1: no guarantee that anything will actually come about due to this.
Speaker 1: Let's shift over to Apple, a company that also has
Speaker 1: had a rough time PR wise in recent months. I
Speaker 1: should add, by the way, that all of these companies, Facebook, Amazon,
Speaker 1: and Apple have been raking in cash by the truckload.
Speaker 1: So while it might be rough in the papers when
Speaker 1: it comes to the amount of money they're bringing in
Speaker 1: and the amount of of hikes they're seeing in share price,
Speaker 1: that that doesn't necessarily reflect the you know, the same
Speaker 1: sort of PR issues in the news. So it's it's
Speaker 1: like two different worlds. Anyway, Apple recently told the U
Speaker 1: S Securities and Exchange Commission or SEC that Apple did
Speaker 1: not use non disclosure agreements or in DA's in order
Speaker 1: to prevent people from revealing you know, acts of quote harassment, discrimination,
Speaker 1: and other unlawful acts in quote. So in other words,
Speaker 1: Apple was saying, we don't make people sign legal agreements
Speaker 1: to prevent the dirty laundry from getting out. But then
Speaker 1: a former Apple employee named share Scarlett filed a whistleblower
Speaker 1: complaint with the SEC and then subsequently she came forward.
Speaker 1: She had previously been referred to as an anonymous former employee,
Speaker 1: and in her complaint Scarlett revealed that Apple does indeed
Speaker 1: issue in DA's at least in some cases. Scarlett worked
Speaker 1: as an engineered Apple, but she also was you know,
Speaker 1: working behind the scenes to push for changes in policy,
Speaker 1: such as a move toward pay equity among Apple employees.
Speaker 1: And when she left the company, Apple lawyers urged her
Speaker 1: to sign what if was effectively a gag order that
Speaker 1: would limit her explanation of why she left as quote,
Speaker 1: after eighteen months at Apple, I've decided it is time
Speaker 1: to move on and pursue other opportunities end quote. She
Speaker 1: shared that in d a with a company called or
Speaker 1: an organization and called NIA Impact Capital that is an
Speaker 1: activist investor organization. It holds share of Apple and it
Speaker 1: has currently been trying to force a vote among other
Speaker 1: shareholders that would make Apple reveal its use of India's
Speaker 1: and be more transparent in the future. Uh, something that
Speaker 1: I suspect the company would not be too keen on,
Speaker 1: seeing as how they just told the SEC earlier last
Speaker 1: month that they totally didn't do that. Later today, we
Speaker 1: expect to hear an announcement that Samsung will establish a
Speaker 1: new chip making plant in Taylor, Texas. That's about a
Speaker 1: stone's throw away from Austin if you can throw a stone,
Speaker 1: you know, thirty miles or so. The facility would likely
Speaker 1: build chips, not for Samsung products, but more as a
Speaker 1: business to business that has other corporations as its customers.
Speaker 1: So you or I wouldn't go out and you know,
Speaker 1: purchase a chip from this company. These chips would be
Speaker 1: going into products that other companies make. The plant is
Speaker 1: not expected to go into production for a couple of
Speaker 1: years because it's going to take time to build out
Speaker 1: the facility and attract the talent and all that kind
Speaker 1: of stuff. Apparently, the city of Taylor, Texas offered up
Speaker 1: some pretty generous tax benefits. According to the Wall Street Journal,
Speaker 1: the plant will have a nine reduction in property taxes
Speaker 1: over its first decade. There's been a recent push to
Speaker 1: bring more chip manufacturing over to the United States in
Speaker 1: the wake of the worldwide shortages and supply chain issues
Speaker 1: we've seen. Of course, the US also has these you know,
Speaker 1: pesky laws that protect people and thus make it way
Speaker 1: more expensive to build stuff over here. That's me being snarky.
Speaker 1: By the way, I am fully in favor of protecting workers,
Speaker 1: and in fact, I would actually love to see more
Speaker 1: manufacturing moved places that aren't as egregious when it comes
Speaker 1: to exploiting workers. Not saying that the United States is
Speaker 1: perfect on that regard, not by a long shot, but
Speaker 1: compared to some other countries, it's leagues ahead. Well, there
Speaker 1: are other efforts around the world to establish new manufact
Speaker 1: training facilities in order to kind of smooth things out
Speaker 1: alleviate the supply chain issues, but obviously it's going to
Speaker 1: take a couple of years for them to come online,
Speaker 1: and there's still the question of whether or not it
Speaker 1: actually ends up solving the problem, or if it just
Speaker 1: becomes another complicated cog in a very complex machine. In
Speaker 1: the meantime, we should expect more supply chain woes. Speaking
Speaker 1: of Texas, there's a development in that state that concerns me. Actually,
Speaker 1: to be fair, there are a lot of developments in
Speaker 1: Texas that concerned me, but the one I was thinking
Speaker 1: about was how the state is courting bitcoin mining operations.
Speaker 1: And this has to do with power consumption. Okay, so
Speaker 1: last year, or actually this past year, in February of
Speaker 1: Texas had some pretty massive blackouts during a particularly harsh
Speaker 1: cold front that brought temperatures way way down. And yeah,
Speaker 1: I know there are parts of the world that are
Speaker 1: way colder than what Texas got to, but you gotta
Speaker 1: remember Texas does not have the infrastructure to deal with
Speaker 1: super low temperatures. It's not common in that state. And
Speaker 1: Texas has a power grid authority called ERCOTT e R
Speaker 1: c OT. Ironically that stands for Electric Reliability Council of Texas,
Speaker 1: and it's responsible for about nine of the state's electric load.
Speaker 1: So pretty much everything apart from say like the far
Speaker 1: west of Texas is under ARCOT. When the cold weather hit,
Speaker 1: demand for electricity exceeded ercott's capacity and ARCOTT began to
Speaker 1: implement blackouts. The price for electricity also skyrocketed at that time.
Speaker 1: It it's hard to even express how high it went.
Speaker 1: The governor of Texas said that the you know, arcot
Speaker 1: reform would be a high priority. There would have to
Speaker 1: be a full investigation, and the the agency would have
Speaker 1: to put in place preparations for uh, you know, high
Speaker 1: demand winters in the future. And the reason I bring
Speaker 1: all that up is because bitcoin mining require there's a
Speaker 1: lot of electricity. And that's because bitcoin works on a
Speaker 1: proof of work concept, uh that is, one in which
Speaker 1: computers compete against each other. They are the mining operations,
Speaker 1: and they rush to try and solve what is essentially
Speaker 1: a very hard math problem. I mean, it's kind of
Speaker 1: similar to guessing a truly huge number. Anyway, bitcoin miners,
Speaker 1: at least the successful ones, use vast networks of powerful
Speaker 1: machines in order to get to that solution first, and
Speaker 1: those machines require a lot of electricity in order to operate.
Speaker 1: So the concern is that Texas has power grid, which
Speaker 1: is already a little bit you know weak, is not
Speaker 1: up to the task of supporting those mining operations, that
Speaker 1: the state is actively trying to attract, and that this
Speaker 1: could potentially lead to similar situations like what we saw
Speaker 1: this past February. Now, the expectation is that Urcott will
Speaker 1: offer up some sort of incentive that would essentially pay
Speaker 1: bitcoin miners to not use electricity during times of peak demand.
Speaker 1: But critics point out that most bitcoin mining operations would
Speaker 1: likely be more inclined to just keep mining because the
Speaker 1: profits for mining would be way more than any incentive
Speaker 1: the state could offer, unless the price of electricity for
Speaker 1: bitcoin miners goes way way up. Like if Urcott said,
Speaker 1: all right, but if you want to use electricity at
Speaker 1: this peak time, it's going to cost you, you know,
Speaker 1: a thousand times more, that would pretty much drive away
Speaker 1: the very people that the state is trying to attract.
Speaker 1: So the fear is that the bitcoin miners would just
Speaker 1: keep gobbling up electricity even in high demand times and
Speaker 1: thus contribute to a situation that could result in more blackouts.
Speaker 1: We've got some more news to cover, but before we
Speaker 1: get to that, let's take a quick break. We're back
Speaker 1: over in the UK. The government has created a mandate
Speaker 1: that will require all new buildings and looting homes to
Speaker 1: include electric vehicle charge points starting next year. The UK
Speaker 1: is the first country to issue such a mandate, but
Speaker 1: it really does make a lot of sense. As we
Speaker 1: see more countries commit to switching to an electric vehicle
Speaker 1: fleet over the next decade, it becomes imperative that those
Speaker 1: countries also make sure that there's an infrastructure there to
Speaker 1: support the move. I mean, after all, like the the
Speaker 1: gasoline or petrol for those in the UK, UH, that
Speaker 1: infrastructure has been around for more than a century and
Speaker 1: so you know, there's been plenty of time for it
Speaker 1: to be built up. We're now talking about switching over
Speaker 1: to something that has a bit of infrastructure there. You know,
Speaker 1: some places are have a more dense uh population of
Speaker 1: of charging stations than others, but this is a real
Speaker 1: move to make sure that it becomes common throughout the
Speaker 1: entire nation. There's also plans that if you're making any
Speaker 1: large renovations, if you have parking space is for ten
Speaker 1: or more vehicles or I guess more than ten vehicles
Speaker 1: in your you know that building, you are also required
Speaker 1: to install some electric vehicle charging points. The UK currently
Speaker 1: plans to end the sale of new gas powered or
Speaker 1: diesel powered vehicles by people will still be allowed to
Speaker 1: buy and sell used cars that run on petrol or diesel,
Speaker 1: but all new cars starting that year will be electric vehicles. Okay,
Speaker 1: we all know that Facebook. The company changed its name
Speaker 1: to Meta and that Meta plans to launch a Metaverse
Speaker 1: product in the not too distant future. But it is
Speaker 1: not the only company itchen to get meta. Another one
Speaker 1: is Niantic. That's the company that originally started as a
Speaker 1: project at Google and then spun off to be a
Speaker 1: very successful game company. It's best known as the company
Speaker 1: behind the game Pokemon Go, but it also makes or
Speaker 1: made a few other games that incorporate augmented reality features.
Speaker 1: So at the heart of Niantics games is this kind
Speaker 1: of general philosophy that centers on getting people out into
Speaker 1: the real world to interact with the game in the
Speaker 1: virtual space. So they use technology to enhance rather than replace,
Speaker 1: our physical surroundings. So, for example, in Pokemon Go, the
Speaker 1: site of various Pokemon gems tends to correspond with interesting
Speaker 1: real world locations. So the ideas you travel to that
Speaker 1: location to play the game, and in theory, you also
Speaker 1: enjoy the physical space itself, you know, might be of
Speaker 1: some cultural significance or otherwise interesting. So the ideas you
Speaker 1: get out and about and you see stuff around that
Speaker 1: you might not otherwise ever look at. That's the idea, well,
Speaker 1: Niantics metaverse plans sound like it's an extension of that
Speaker 1: philosophy that the company will offer up an expanded a
Speaker 1: r d K that stands for Augmented Reality Developer Kit.
Speaker 1: So this will let other company needs build a R
Speaker 1: based experiences, including games, using Niantics tools. So the Niantic
Speaker 1: metaverse is a very different take than the you know,
Speaker 1: put on VR goggles and replace the real world with
Speaker 1: a digital one approach. In pursuit of that goal, Niantic
Speaker 1: has raised three hundred million dollars in funding, and that
Speaker 1: brings the valuation of the company up to nine billion bucks.
Speaker 1: When it comes to existential threats, a collision between the
Speaker 1: Earth and a large asteroid or comet or some other
Speaker 1: celestial debris is a big one. I mean, it's happened before,
Speaker 1: and statistically speaking, it will happen again. The question is
Speaker 1: really just when will it happen? Well, NASA plans to
Speaker 1: test a system called the Double Asteroid Redirection Test or
Speaker 1: DART with a launched this scheduled for today. The launch
Speaker 1: vehicle will push a spacecraft called the DART that will
Speaker 1: use what NASA describes as a kinetic impact or technique
Speaker 1: to change the path of an asteroid traveling through space. Now, first,
Speaker 1: just to calm some nerves, the target asteroid that NASA
Speaker 1: has chosen is not one that is on any sort
Speaker 1: of collision course with Earth, so this is literally just
Speaker 1: a test to see if this method is viable. The
Speaker 1: particular asteroid Dart will aim for has the name Dimorphous,
Speaker 1: and it circles around another larger asteroid called Didimus. The
Speaker 1: Dart spacecraft will essentially slam into Dimorphous in an effort
Speaker 1: to change its path and bring it into a tighter
Speaker 1: orbit around Didimus. And you can think of this as
Speaker 1: kind of like a game of galactic billiards. The cub
Speaker 1: ball hits the target ball and that moves it out
Speaker 1: the way. There are other proposed methods of diverting the
Speaker 1: path of asteroids. Some of them require us to identify
Speaker 1: the threat very early on and then rapidly respond to it. So,
Speaker 1: for example, there's a proposal of using a spacecraft to
Speaker 1: fly by an asteroid and alter its path through gravitational attraction.
Speaker 1: So it would be kind of like towing the asteroid
Speaker 1: out of its collision course with the Earth. The gravitational
Speaker 1: attraction would be slight, but it would be enough to
Speaker 1: affect the asteroids pathway, and if you catch the asteroid
Speaker 1: far enough out from the Earth, well you only have
Speaker 1: to change its path a tiny little bit for it
Speaker 1: to completely miss the planet and you remove the threat. However,
Speaker 1: the approach that Dart takes is a more let's say,
Speaker 1: direct method to change an asteroid's path. Also, if you're
Speaker 1: wondering about the science fiction film Armageddon, in which a
Speaker 1: group of space miners and plant and explosive to destroy
Speaker 1: and incoming threat, that would not work. At best, the
Speaker 1: exploded bits would just reform in space due to that
Speaker 1: gravitational attraction I was just talking about, so they would
Speaker 1: effectively be one big thing again. But at worst you
Speaker 1: would turn what was originally kind of a bullet into
Speaker 1: a cloud of shotgun pellets. Either way, it is not
Speaker 1: a solution. Motherboard reports that NASA is looking for proposals
Speaker 1: for nuclear power plant designs. This power plant would not
Speaker 1: be located on Earth, however, but on the Moon. I
Speaker 1: find that really interesting because it raises some big questions.
Speaker 1: I mean, if we are to establish any sort of
Speaker 1: lunar base, clearly we're gonna need electrical power. So this
Speaker 1: is a problem we have to solve. But nuclear fission
Speaker 1: is a tricky solution. I mean, you do have the
Speaker 1: issue of nuclear waste and what to do with it.
Speaker 1: I assume that the Space Treaty would make it a
Speaker 1: bit tricky to justify storing nuclear waste on the Moon itself.
Speaker 1: That seems to kind of fly in the face of
Speaker 1: the spirit, if not the actual word of the treaty.
Speaker 1: But let's say that we somehow solve the waste issue.
Speaker 1: Nuclear power plants don't just magically use atoms to generate electricity.
Speaker 1: The way they were work is that you have a
Speaker 1: system of water. Typically you actually have a couple of
Speaker 1: different closed and independent systems of water. And what you
Speaker 1: do is you use the energy given off by the
Speaker 1: nuclear fission reactions to heat the water up, which then
Speaker 1: turns into steam, and that steam turns turbines that generate electricity. So,
Speaker 1: in other words, nuclear power plants are really steam generators
Speaker 1: on steroids. But that would mean that we would have
Speaker 1: to transport not just the nuclear power generator to the Moon,
Speaker 1: we also have to bring up enough water to make
Speaker 1: it work. Now there is ice on the Moon. I
Speaker 1: don't know of any proposal that would involve harvesting the
Speaker 1: ice from the Moon in order to serve a purpose
Speaker 1: in a nuclear power plant. And the reason why I
Speaker 1: say this is a big deal is that water is
Speaker 1: actually pretty darn heavy stuff to send up to space,
Speaker 1: and every pound or kilogram costs a lot of money.
Speaker 1: So that's one of the reasons that facilities like the
Speaker 1: International Space Station have such extensive risk ecling and reclamation
Speaker 1: systems in place so that no drop of water is wasted. Anyway,
Speaker 1: we're just at the request for proposal stage right now,
Speaker 1: and since the entire Artemis project has been hit with
Speaker 1: some delays due to other issues, I expect it will
Speaker 1: give us some time to debate the merits of a
Speaker 1: nuclear power plant on the Moon before it becomes a reality.
Speaker 1: Rounding out our NASA news is a somewhat discouraging story.
Speaker 1: The James Webb Space Telescope, which has had a long
Speaker 1: and arduous journey towards launch, has hit another delay. The
Speaker 1: original plan was to launch it as early as two
Speaker 1: thousand seven, but for many reasons that never happened. The
Speaker 1: plan was to finally launch the telescope on December eighteenth
Speaker 1: of this year, but now there's been another setback. While
Speaker 1: preparing to attach the telescope to the Ariana five launch vehicle,
Speaker 1: a clamp band released unexpectedly and the telescope fortunately did
Speaker 1: not tumble to the ground that would have been the
Speaker 1: end of a multidecade, multibillion dollar project, but it did
Speaker 1: vibrate like there was a shutter that went through the telescope.
Speaker 1: And because this telescope has so many delicate moving parts
Speaker 1: and potential points of failure, the fear is that that
Speaker 1: vibration could have moved something out of alignment and put
Speaker 1: the mission in jeopardy. So NASA has formed an anomaly
Speaker 1: review Board that will investigate and test the telescope to
Speaker 1: look for any damage. That should be done by the
Speaker 1: end of this week, and assuming that the board finds
Speaker 1: no evidence of damage, the plan is to launch the
Speaker 1: telescope no earlier than December twenty two. So hopefully, fingers crossed,
Speaker 1: this is not going to turn into another chapter in
Speaker 1: the long story of the telescope's difficult journey from idea
Speaker 1: to reality. Finally, the Rolls Royce Aviation Company unofficially broke
Speaker 1: some speed and altitude records for electric airplanes. Now I
Speaker 1: say unofficially because as of my recording. Those records have
Speaker 1: yet to be certified, but the electric airplane prototype named
Speaker 1: the Spirit of Innovation hit a top eat of three
Speaker 1: eighty seven point four miles per hour and a sustained
Speaker 1: speed of five point four miles per hour. That beats
Speaker 1: out the previous record, which was held by an aircraft
Speaker 1: called the Extra three three zero l E that had
Speaker 1: a top speed of two miles per hour. And you
Speaker 1: have these planes run on electric engines. They rely upon
Speaker 1: arrays of batteries to supply the juice needed to generate
Speaker 1: the force necessary to create lift and flight. But batteries
Speaker 1: are significantly less energy dense than say, jet fuel, so
Speaker 1: don't expect to see the world's airlines switch over to
Speaker 1: e vs right away. It's far more likely that electric
Speaker 1: planes might be used for very short jumps, you know,
Speaker 1: flights that last like half an hour or so. For
Speaker 1: the longer stuff, we'll have to continue to rely on
Speaker 1: fuel powered aircraft. And that is the tech News for Tuesday,
Speaker 1: November twenty one. If you have suggestions for topics I
Speaker 1: should cover in future episodes of tech Stuff, please reach
Speaker 1: out to me. The best way to do that is
Speaker 1: on Twitter. The handle for the show is Text Stuff
Speaker 1: H s W and I'll talk to you again really soon.
Speaker 1: Y Text Stuff is an I heart Radio production. For
Speaker 1: more podcasts from I heart Radio, visit the i heart
Speaker 1: Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
Speaker 1: favorite shows.