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 iHeart Radio. And
Speaker 1: how the tech are you. It's time for the tech
Speaker 1: news for Thursday, August twenty two. Here in the United States,
Speaker 1: we are headed toward another election. This one is a
Speaker 1: mid term election. That means that the president is not
Speaker 1: up for re election, but a lot of folks in
Speaker 1: Congress and in local positions around the US are It
Speaker 1: also means that there is a heightened concern about the
Speaker 1: spread of misinformation online. And you know, that's been an
Speaker 1: issue for years, but it really came under the spotlight
Speaker 1: in and it has stayed in the spotlight ever since,
Speaker 1: hogging center stage. Now to that end, in twenty twenty, Facebook,
Speaker 1: the platform and actually the company itself, because the company
Speaker 1: had not yet changed its name to Meta in anyway,
Speaker 1: it took the significant step of banning new political ads
Speaker 1: from being published in the week leading up to the election.
Speaker 1: Now Meta is going to do the same thing for
Speaker 1: the US mid terms this year. And if you listened
Speaker 1: to Tuesday's episode this week, you know that there was
Speaker 1: a watchdog group that called out Meta for failing to
Speaker 1: follow its own content moderation policies on Facebook. In Brazil,
Speaker 1: the group had submitted several ads purposefully containing misinformation within them,
Speaker 1: and Facebook accepted all of those ads. Now, it's true
Speaker 1: that in English speaking countries, Facebook's content moderation is, you know,
Speaker 1: slightly less incompetent. But rather than deal with the flood
Speaker 1: of possible attack ads and misinformation campaigns, Facebook is gonna
Speaker 1: wash its hands of the whole business, at least for
Speaker 1: the week leading up to the election itself. It remains
Speaker 1: to be seen if Facebook will copy exactly what it
Speaker 1: did in because while the plan was just to have
Speaker 1: a temporary band that lasted a week, Facebook actually kept
Speaker 1: that ban on political ads in place all the way
Speaker 1: for six months. Pretty sure that's not gonna happen this year,
Speaker 1: but maybe it will. TikTok is taking a similar approach
Speaker 1: when it comes to political content. Now, the company has
Speaker 1: a band that restricts influencers from posting paid political content.
Speaker 1: That's pretty much been the case from day one. The
Speaker 1: company has never accepted political ads. But it does start
Speaker 1: to get tricky when you understand that TikTok influencers aren't
Speaker 1: necessarily looking to TikTok as their payday. They take sponsorship
Speaker 1: deals instead. And one of these days I really need
Speaker 1: to do a full episode on how various influencers make
Speaker 1: their money, because it varies from platform to platform, and
Speaker 1: it's never as straightforward as you might imagine. Anyway, TikTok
Speaker 1: isn't banning political content outright. You can still post a
Speaker 1: video where you express your political beliefs or where you
Speaker 1: critique a politician or policy or whatever, so long as
Speaker 1: you don't break the other rules. For instance, if your
Speaker 1: video spreads misinformation, or it's meant to incite violence, or
Speaker 1: it turns out that you were paid to put that
Speaker 1: specific viewpoint up online, all of that is right out.
Speaker 1: The video is likely going to get deleted or at
Speaker 1: least heavily restricted, and there's a chance that the account holder,
Speaker 1: the person who made the video, might find themselves without
Speaker 1: an account before too long. TikTok says it will make
Speaker 1: available information to creators so that they understand the rules.
Speaker 1: You know, it's making sure that people know what they're
Speaker 1: getting into, especially people who might be new to TikTok,
Speaker 1: and you know they're they're taking sponsorship deals maybe they
Speaker 1: aren't aware of the ban on political content when it
Speaker 1: comes to sponsorship and paid content. I don't know if
Speaker 1: the steps that Facebook and TikTok are taking are going
Speaker 1: to have a significant impact on the spread of misinformation online.
Speaker 1: I do think they are steps in the right direction,
Speaker 1: but I imagine that all this really will do is
Speaker 1: make those who are are determined to spread misinformation to
Speaker 1: just find new ways to do it. Amazon is reportedly
Speaker 1: testing a short form video feature in its app that's
Speaker 1: sort of similar to TikTok. That's how I'm seeing it reported,
Speaker 1: though I I don't. I don't draw it as close
Speaker 1: a connection as others do. So instead of it being
Speaker 1: a platform for dances and pranks and sketches and dubious
Speaker 1: life hacks and that kind of thing the way TikTok is,
Speaker 1: Amazon's version is meant to let users post short videos detailing,
Speaker 1: you know, like a review or a demonstration of a
Speaker 1: product that's found on Amazon's store. So let's say you
Speaker 1: pop onto Amazon in order to buy yourself a brand
Speaker 1: new sewing machine, and when it arrives, maybe you shoot
Speaker 1: a quick unboxing video, or maybe you show how to
Speaker 1: set it up for its first use, particularly if the
Speaker 1: one you butt has poor and auctions. I've had that
Speaker 1: happen with stuff I've bought, where you know, I spent
Speaker 1: way more time trying to figure out how to just
Speaker 1: set it up than necessary because the instructions were terrible.
Speaker 1: Or maybe you shoot a video to demonstrate how the
Speaker 1: device works as you actually finish a project on it.
Speaker 1: That's the kind of stuff that Amazon is looking into.
Speaker 1: The feature right now is called Inspire, and Amazon is
Speaker 1: testing it out, but there's no guarantee that the company
Speaker 1: will actually integrate it into the app for everyone and
Speaker 1: roll it out. It might be that tests show that
Speaker 1: users aren't crazy about it or just never use it,
Speaker 1: but it is interesting to see how other big companies
Speaker 1: are testing the waters and trying to tap into the
Speaker 1: appeal of TikTok like presentations. Tech Crunch has made available
Speaker 1: a tool designed to see if your Android device is
Speaker 1: listed on a database indicating that spyware is installed on
Speaker 1: that device. All right, I'm going to back up a
Speaker 1: little bit. So earlier this year, tech Crunch received a
Speaker 1: large amount of data that came from US spyware groups
Speaker 1: internal servers, and the information contains a list of all
Speaker 1: the Android devices that have been infected by the Truth
Speaker 1: Spy spyware and its network of spyware that includes other
Speaker 1: lots of other spyware apps, tons of them. And these
Speaker 1: apps sit quietly on Android phones and they do stuff
Speaker 1: like log activity and track the device. And obviously there
Speaker 1: are a lot of nefarious reasons someone might be using spyware.
Speaker 1: I can't think of any like legit reasons for using it,
Speaker 1: but there are a lot of bad ones. And one
Speaker 1: uh that tech Crunch pointed out that is particularly scary
Speaker 1: and of real concern is that a stalker might attempt
Speaker 1: to infect a target's phone with spywear in order to
Speaker 1: keep tabs on that target. That is terrifying, y'all, and
Speaker 1: it's all too real. We have seen instances of this.
Speaker 1: We've seen it not just with things like apps and
Speaker 1: and using spywear, We've seen it with using things like
Speaker 1: air tags. Right. So tech Crunch has now create a
Speaker 1: tool that makes it possible for Android device owners to
Speaker 1: check and see if their own device shows up in
Speaker 1: that list that tech Crunch received, which led up to
Speaker 1: all the devices that had been infected by these various
Speaker 1: kinds of spyware up to June of two. So the
Speaker 1: tool is located at tech crunch dot com slash pages
Speaker 1: Slash the Truth Spy Dash Investigation. Now, if you go
Speaker 1: there and you want to check on your device to
Speaker 1: make sure it's not in this list, there will be
Speaker 1: a few steps you have to take, but the page
Speaker 1: actually walks you through all of that. So I suggest
Speaker 1: if you have an Android device that you go through
Speaker 1: the trouble of doing this, particularly if you suspect that
Speaker 1: there could be spyware on your device. Now, if you
Speaker 1: find that your device is a match in that system,
Speaker 1: which I would say is kind of a worst case scenario,
Speaker 1: the page also has links to guide you through the
Speaker 1: steps of removing spywear from your device. Now that crunch
Speaker 1: does issue a warning that I want to repeat. If
Speaker 1: you think that someone is using your device to spy
Speaker 1: on you and you're in a stalker situation, you need
Speaker 1: to be very careful moving forward because removing the spyware
Speaker 1: is likely to alert whomever put it on your device
Speaker 1: that you're onto them and that you're doing this. So
Speaker 1: just things to keep in mind to try and remain safe.
Speaker 1: And this is also a reminder that you should always
Speaker 1: be careful with your devices. I'm not victim blaming here,
Speaker 1: because it is not always possible to avoid getting hit
Speaker 1: by stuff like this. We have seen really, really inventive
Speaker 1: attacks where the target of the attack had had little
Speaker 1: to no chance of avoiding it. So this is not blaming,
Speaker 1: but just saying that taking precautions and following best practices
Speaker 1: when it comes to browsing on your device or downloading
Speaker 1: and installing apps, you know, doing your homework to make
Speaker 1: sure you're being as or full as you can be,
Speaker 1: that can really improve your chances of staying safe. But again,
Speaker 1: no shade thrown on people who are affected by this stuff.
Speaker 1: It can be easy to fall victim to it, and sometimes,
Speaker 1: like I said, unavoidable. Reuter's reports that major financial institutions
Speaker 1: like banks are cracking down on the types of messaging
Speaker 1: and communication apps that employees are allowed to use while
Speaker 1: they conduct business. And here's the thing. I often bristle
Speaker 1: at the thought of a company, organization, or boss restricting
Speaker 1: what employees can do and how they do it, and
Speaker 1: in this instance actually have to side with the organizations. See,
Speaker 1: these financial institutions are responsible for moving huge amounts of
Speaker 1: money around. Moreover, they are often responsible for transactions that
Speaker 1: can indicate massive important things going on in business that
Speaker 1: might not yet be public knowledge, and that opens up
Speaker 1: opportunities for stuff like insider trading or just getting head
Speaker 1: start on everybody else on something. And because of that,
Speaker 1: the financial industry traditionally keeps a very close watch on
Speaker 1: employee activities in order to remain compliant, so failing to
Speaker 1: do so could bring regulators down on the financial institution
Speaker 1: with hefty fines to follow. Should it turn out that
Speaker 1: a lack of supervision led to employees of using their
Speaker 1: position and knowledge and breaking rules, then enter the pandemic. Suddenly,
Speaker 1: these institutions needed to pivot, just like everybody else did,
Speaker 1: so that their employees could work remotely and business would
Speaker 1: not be disrupted, and some employees began using all sorts
Speaker 1: of different services to communicate with their clients. Some of
Speaker 1: those services include features meant to ensure secure in private communications.
Speaker 1: That's not a bad thing. Secure and private communications are
Speaker 1: a good thing in most cases. I'm talking about stuff
Speaker 1: like end to end encryption or the communications services that
Speaker 1: don't keep a log of past communication sations so there's
Speaker 1: not a record. But that is a legal nightmare for
Speaker 1: financial companies. They need to be able to present these
Speaker 1: communications in the wake of an investigation. They need to
Speaker 1: be able to know what happened, who knew about it,
Speaker 1: who were who was making decisions. And if you have
Speaker 1: these kinds of communications channels that aren't keeping track of
Speaker 1: that stuff, you have no proof and you're not compliant.
Speaker 1: So right now, financial institutions around the world are one
Speaker 1: they're setting aside large amounts of money to pay incoming
Speaker 1: fines because of these types of communications that are going on.
Speaker 1: So the companies they're there's they're not even saying it's
Speaker 1: not our fault. They're saying, yeah, we're saying aside money
Speaker 1: because we know that these are violations. And meanwhile, they're
Speaker 1: trying to require employees to only use tools that can
Speaker 1: record an archive communications in order to meet compliance with
Speaker 1: various laws. So this is an interesting example of a
Speaker 1: scenario where the very features I usually think of as
Speaker 1: being important for personal communication are ones that are absolutely
Speaker 1: inappropriate it for this particular use case. All right, we've
Speaker 1: got some more news items to go over, but before
Speaker 1: we do that, let's take a quick break. We're back
Speaker 1: in Saudi Arabia. The courts have sentenced a woman named
Speaker 1: Salma al Shahab to thirty four years in prison. So
Speaker 1: what was Salma's crime, Well, she had been retweeting activists
Speaker 1: who were calling for women's rights in Saudi Arabia and
Speaker 1: for the release of certain political prisoners within the country.
Speaker 1: Salma had been attending university in the UK in pursuit
Speaker 1: of a PhD, and upon returning to Saudi Arabia for
Speaker 1: a vacation, she was detained and arrested, then tried and
Speaker 1: convicted on charges that she was aiming to quote disturb
Speaker 1: public order and destabilize the security and stability of the
Speaker 1: state end quote. This is absolutely horrifying, and to test
Speaker 1: a full stop on top of that, the Saudi regime
Speaker 1: owns a significant chunk of Twitter itself through what is
Speaker 1: called the Public Investment Fund. That's an interesting name for
Speaker 1: a fund that represents sovereign wealth and not you know,
Speaker 1: public wealth. So this puts Twitter in an awkward position
Speaker 1: to write because this is the platform where the supposed
Speaker 1: infraction happen. And meanwhile, the entity that has has incarcerated
Speaker 1: this woman has ownership partial ownership of that platform. Not great.
Speaker 1: I am not sure what if anything can be done
Speaker 1: on behalf of Salma, who clearly doesn't deserve being imprisoned
Speaker 1: at all, let alone for thirty or four years for
Speaker 1: just retweeting social messages on Twitter. In India, government officials
Speaker 1: are considering rules that would require Apple to abandon its
Speaker 1: proprietary charging ports on devices like air pods and iPhones
Speaker 1: and switched to the Universal Standard of SBC. Now should
Speaker 1: these officials decide that, Apple might have to make the
Speaker 1: switch as early as four in India. This follows a
Speaker 1: similar decision that we talked about in a previous text,
Speaker 1: stuff that happened in the European Union, which also seeks
Speaker 1: to simplify the market and to make it easier for
Speaker 1: consumers to swap out charging chords without worrying if this
Speaker 1: cord matches that device or not. I suspect Apple will
Speaker 1: migrate to USBC for those devices, at least for certain models. Uh,
Speaker 1: It's aready done so for things like Mac computers, and
Speaker 1: largely I think this is going to happen because while
Speaker 1: Apple was once primarily known as a hardware company during
Speaker 1: the Steve Jobs era, now we're in the Tim Cook era,
Speaker 1: and Apple has been repositioning itself to be more of
Speaker 1: a services company. I think Cook is less resistant to
Speaker 1: conforming to industry standards than Jobs was. Jobs was kind
Speaker 1: of like my way or no way at all, and
Speaker 1: Tim Cook is more like, let's do whatever it takes
Speaker 1: in or to continue to be able to provide services.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg reports that the upcoming AD supported tier of Netflix
Speaker 1: might have a few other restrictions for subscribers. The company
Speaker 1: had announced plans to introduce a lower cost AD supported
Speaker 1: tier in an effort to gain back some of the
Speaker 1: subscribers it has previously lost and presumably put the company
Speaker 1: back on track for growth, but we don't yet know
Speaker 1: the subscription price for that AD supported tier anyway, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: reports that Netflix might turn off a feature that current
Speaker 1: subscribers have, that being the ability to download content to
Speaker 1: mobile devices in order to be able to watch that
Speaker 1: content offline, for example, when you're on an airplane. And
Speaker 1: this actually makes sense to me. For Netflix, you know,
Speaker 1: it's in a position where it needs to prove to
Speaker 1: advertisers that the ads on its platform will have value,
Speaker 1: and the company needs to be able to show that
Speaker 1: the ads are actually being played and watched, and you
Speaker 1: can't really do that if the content is downloaded. For
Speaker 1: offline viewing. Also, Bloomberg reports that user will not be
Speaker 1: able to skip ads, and again that makes sense from
Speaker 1: Netflix's perspective. If users can just skip the ads, then
Speaker 1: why wouldn't everyone just downgrade to the cheapest ads supported option,
Speaker 1: you know, the and then just fast forward through all
Speaker 1: the ads. So Netflix has yet to comment on Bloomberg's report,
Speaker 1: and it's possible that these sorts of decisions haven't been
Speaker 1: finalized yet. And hey, I know what you're thinking. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'd love to scale Mount Kilimanjaro, but then I wouldn't
Speaker 1: be able to play today's wordle and I need an
Speaker 1: internet connection. Well, have I got good news for you,
Speaker 1: because the mountain has now got high speed WiFi on it.
Speaker 1: The Guardian has a pretty cheeky article about this news.
Speaker 1: The article is titled Kilimanjaro gets high speed Internet so
Speaker 1: climbers can tweet or instagram ascent And sure you could
Speaker 1: do that, but honestly, I feel like Tanzania has installed
Speaker 1: high speed internet service on kilimanjar Oh not so that
Speaker 1: influencers can post videos while they look for the most
Speaker 1: picturesque background. So it seems like their lives are perfect
Speaker 1: and without problems or limitations, but rather to make certain
Speaker 1: that there's a communications network in place to aid with
Speaker 1: navigation and to help in the event of an emergency.
Speaker 1: Having that safety net there could spell the difference between
Speaker 1: a successful rescue attempt and tragedy. I do think there
Speaker 1: will be plenty of people who will say, awesome, now
Speaker 1: I can live tweet my climbing experience. But I'm okay
Speaker 1: with that if it also means someone who got in
Speaker 1: over their head has an opportunity to make it back
Speaker 1: to safety. And yesterday's Tech Stuff Tidbits episode, which ended
Speaker 1: up being nearly fifty minutes long, I talked about how
Speaker 1: VR has some barriers to entry that could serve as
Speaker 1: a hurdle for companies like Meta that they have to
Speaker 1: get over in order to bring the Metaverse to life.
Speaker 1: One thing I didn't mention is the unveiling of the
Speaker 1: latest version of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's Metaverse avatar, which
Speaker 1: subsequently got a ton of news coverage in jokes about
Speaker 1: the avatar looking like a soulless creature and other people
Speaker 1: saying that's a fitting representation for Mark Zuckerberg, and I
Speaker 1: am not here to make jokes like that. Instead, I'll
Speaker 1: say I think this is an indication that Zuckerberg is
Speaker 1: trying to address some of those hurdles that I mentioned
Speaker 1: in yesterday's episode, because a big one is the cost
Speaker 1: of VR gear, and if VR is to be an
Speaker 1: important component in the metaverse, which I should add is
Speaker 1: not a foregone conclusion, it's just one of the more
Speaker 1: commonly referenced manifestations of the metaverse is that it's a
Speaker 1: VR experience. Well, that would mean that companies like Meta
Speaker 1: will want to make sure that the gear required isn't
Speaker 1: so expensive that it prices most people out of it.
Speaker 1: The metaverse is only going to be insanely profitable to
Speaker 1: Meta if the company can get a metric buttload of
Speaker 1: users to join it. So one way to ensure that
Speaker 1: the gear won't be too expensive is to make certain
Speaker 1: that the experience itself doesn't require top of the line
Speaker 1: gear to render and process the experience. It's make it
Speaker 1: so that lower cost or in other words, cheap equipment
Speaker 1: can work just fine on the platform. To do that,
Speaker 1: you have to make some pretty big compromises in graphical quality.
Speaker 1: Enter the avatar, which to me looks like an Xbox
Speaker 1: three sixty era Avatar or maybe Nintendo Me avatar style.
Speaker 1: It's hardly a compelling virtual representation of a real person.
Speaker 1: This presents a really interesting dilemma, I think because I
Speaker 1: don't know about you, but when I imagine the concept
Speaker 1: of the metaverse, my imagination conjures up this virtual environment
Speaker 1: where people can have any sort of avatar they want,
Speaker 1: and these avatars tend to look really cool and really impressive. Uh,
Speaker 1: they're high resolution and well animated, and in fact, a
Speaker 1: well designed avatar becomes something of a status symbol within
Speaker 1: the metaverse. Then that only works if the environment supports
Speaker 1: that kind of a presentation, right, you need to be
Speaker 1: able to actually have that on there. But if instead
Speaker 1: the metaverse needs to aim for the lowest common denominator
Speaker 1: in order to attract the largest number of people so
Speaker 1: that the cheapest equipment can run the darn thing, then paradoxically,
Speaker 1: I think a lot of folks won't want to join
Speaker 1: because it won't look cool enough. It'll look kind of cheap,
Speaker 1: so they won't have that temptation of joining there, Like,
Speaker 1: that's not cool. I don't want to do that. So
Speaker 1: then you're stuck. You either design something that looks amazing,
Speaker 1: but in turn requires equipment that's so expensive that most
Speaker 1: people can't afford to participate, or you go super simple,
Speaker 1: but then no one feels tempted to join it in
Speaker 1: the first place. Now, I should add, we're still a
Speaker 1: very long way out from the true realization of the metaverse,
Speaker 1: and in the meantime, I expect we're going to continue
Speaker 1: to see advancements in technology that might be able to
Speaker 1: address these problems sufficiently so that they're a non issue
Speaker 1: when the ding dang darn thing is actually ready for
Speaker 1: prime time. All right, I have one more news item
Speaker 1: after this that I want to cover, but before we
Speaker 1: get to that, let's take another break. Let's talk about
Speaker 1: the final news item for today, because it's a fun one,
Speaker 1: I think, anyway, and it comes from a story from
Speaker 1: the Verge uh and it's it's a story that really
Speaker 1: tickled me. But it's also a story that's long since
Speaker 1: been moot because this is a story about the deep
Speaker 1: past of computer history, back in the Windows XP days.
Speaker 1: Arguably some places are still in the Windows XP days.
Speaker 1: I find it insane that there are people who are
Speaker 1: still running on Windows XP machines. I get that there
Speaker 1: are certain conditions that that mean that people just that's
Speaker 1: all they have access to. But you know that that's
Speaker 1: a truly defunct operating system. Although I mean, I gotta
Speaker 1: admit I was a big Window is XP fan back
Speaker 1: in the day. Okay, getting back to the story. So
Speaker 1: the story goes that this unnamed laptop manufacturer began to
Speaker 1: get complaints about computers crashing under very specific circumstances. Those
Speaker 1: circumstances involved someone playing the music video for Janet Jackson's
Speaker 1: hit Rhythm Nation. In fact, sometimes it wasn't even the
Speaker 1: laptop itself that was playing it when the crash happened.
Speaker 1: It just happened to be close to another device that
Speaker 1: was playing the music video, and then the other the
Speaker 1: laptop from this unnamed manufacturer would crash. Uh. And I
Speaker 1: don't know, maybe you're just saying that the laptop hated
Speaker 1: Rhythm Nation because everybody is a critic, am alright, But
Speaker 1: what the heck was actually going on? Well, according to
Speaker 1: Raymond Chen, who is a software engineer with Microsoft, the
Speaker 1: problem was that the music video contained within it a
Speaker 1: sound effect that had a specific frequency in it, and
Speaker 1: that frequency just happened to be the resonant frequency for
Speaker 1: the laptops hard drive. So the sound effect would introduce
Speaker 1: vibrations into the hard drive and that would lead to
Speaker 1: a system crash. And you might wonder, well, how the
Speaker 1: heck did the laptop manufacturer deal with that problem? And yeah,
Speaker 1: this specific music video would set off that laptop, but
Speaker 1: then so would any other source of sound that contained
Speaker 1: that frequency, right, it would introduce these vibrations into the
Speaker 1: hard disk drive, and then the laptop would crash. So,
Speaker 1: according to Chen, this manufacturer issued essentially a hatch update
Speaker 1: that would prevent the computers speakers from playing that specific
Speaker 1: frequency at all. So, in other words, if you were
Speaker 1: to play Rhythm Nation, that sound effect would lack that
Speaker 1: specific frequency. I don't know if the entire sound effect
Speaker 1: would go silent, or if just that one frequency from
Speaker 1: the sound effect would no longer be audible. You might
Speaker 1: not even be able to tell the difference, you know,
Speaker 1: on casual listen. I don't know, but I assume if
Speaker 1: some other machine we're playing that music video, the laptop
Speaker 1: could still potentially crash. Though I also think things like
Speaker 1: speaker quality would determine that, because you're talking about producing
Speaker 1: a frequency with the proper amplitude for it to really
Speaker 1: be an issue for the the affected laptops. Anyway, I
Speaker 1: thought the story was really amusing, but it's also a
Speaker 1: great reminder that it's cool to learn about physics. Resonant
Speaker 1: frequencies are important for a lot of different stuff. Nicola
Speaker 1: Tesla was obsessed with the idea of resonant frequencies. Musical
Speaker 1: instruments are obviously dependent upon things like resonant frequencies, but
Speaker 1: these things can also lead to dangerous situations. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you are able to resonate adjust the right frequency,
Speaker 1: you could potentially dis roy stuff as large as suspension bridges.
Speaker 1: The idea being here that this is a frequency that
Speaker 1: resonates with whatever the material is and causes it to vibrate,
Speaker 1: and it can be kind of like being on a
Speaker 1: swing set and having someone push you at just the
Speaker 1: right moment and getting you to hire and higher arcs.
Speaker 1: Sort of like that, and just imagine that you get
Speaker 1: to a point where things begin to break. This is
Speaker 1: the classic example of this is where you hit the
Speaker 1: resonant frequency for a crystal container and shatter it as
Speaker 1: a result. Or maybe you might use resonantive frequencies purposefully
Speaker 1: in an attempt to conduct industrial sabotage and a nuclear
Speaker 1: facility by manipulating centrifuges rotational speeds and try and make
Speaker 1: them destroy themselves. Cough stucks net cough. Science is both
Speaker 1: cool and kind of scary. All right. That's it for
Speaker 1: today's tech Stuff news episode. Hope you enjoyed it. If
Speaker 1: you have suggestions for things I should cover and future
Speaker 1: episodes of tech Stuff, please reach out to me. There
Speaker 1: are a couple of different ways of doing that. You
Speaker 1: can download the i Heart Radio app and navigate to
Speaker 1: the tech Stuff page. There is a little microphone icon there.
Speaker 1: If you click on that, you can leave a voice
Speaker 1: message up to thirty seconds in length. Let me know
Speaker 1: if you would like me to use the voice message
Speaker 1: in an episode, and maybe we'll have you lead into one,
Speaker 1: or if you prefer, you can always reach out to
Speaker 1: me on Twitter. The handle for the show is tech
Speaker 1: Stuff h s W and I'll talk to you again
Speaker 1: really soon. Tech Stuff is an I Heart Radio production.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from my Heart Radio, visit the i
Speaker 1: Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to
Speaker 1: your favorite shows.