1 00:00:04,440 --> 00:00:12,280 Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there, 2 00:00:12,320 --> 00:00:16,040 Speaker 1: and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host Jonathan Strickland. 3 00:00:16,079 --> 00:00:19,320 Speaker 1: I'm an executive producer with iHeartRadio. And how the tech 4 00:00:19,360 --> 00:00:22,120 Speaker 1: are you. It's time for the tech news for Tuesday, 5 00:00:22,239 --> 00:00:28,240 Speaker 1: August twenty second, twenty twenty three. First up, Microsoft and 6 00:00:28,360 --> 00:00:33,080 Speaker 1: Activision Blizzard are still trying to complete that enormous sixty 7 00:00:33,120 --> 00:00:38,280 Speaker 1: eight point seven billion dollar acquisition deal. The main hurdle 8 00:00:38,320 --> 00:00:42,720 Speaker 1: now would be the Competition and Market's Authority or CMA 9 00:00:43,159 --> 00:00:47,320 Speaker 1: in the United Kingdom or the UK. Okay, sorry but 10 00:00:47,720 --> 00:00:49,479 Speaker 1: I don't know what happened to me there kind of 11 00:00:49,479 --> 00:00:54,560 Speaker 1: short circuited anyway. One of the objections that the CMA 12 00:00:54,720 --> 00:00:58,080 Speaker 1: has had to this deal is a concern that it 13 00:00:58,080 --> 00:01:03,639 Speaker 1: could potentially give Microsoft almost monopolistic command of the cloud 14 00:01:03,920 --> 00:01:09,320 Speaker 1: gaming industry, and thus the deal would then be anti competitive. 15 00:01:09,760 --> 00:01:13,039 Speaker 1: To amend this, Microsoft has now restructured its deal to 16 00:01:13,440 --> 00:01:18,280 Speaker 1: quote acquire a narrower set of rights end quote. This 17 00:01:18,360 --> 00:01:21,880 Speaker 1: is according to Brad Smith, the president of Microsoft. The 18 00:01:21,959 --> 00:01:26,640 Speaker 1: big piece of this deal or this restructuring, is that 19 00:01:26,680 --> 00:01:31,080 Speaker 1: Microsoft is handing off the cloud streaming rights for all 20 00:01:31,600 --> 00:01:36,000 Speaker 1: current Activision Blizzard games, as well as all new Activision 21 00:01:36,040 --> 00:01:39,720 Speaker 1: Blizzard games for the next fifteen years to another company. 22 00:01:40,680 --> 00:01:43,919 Speaker 1: Those rights will actually be held in perpetuity, which means 23 00:01:44,240 --> 00:01:48,920 Speaker 1: the entity that has secured these rights will always have 24 00:01:49,160 --> 00:01:54,240 Speaker 1: the rights for those specific titles now presumably in sixteen years. 25 00:01:54,720 --> 00:01:58,840 Speaker 1: Microsoft would then get the exclusive rights to all Activision 26 00:01:58,880 --> 00:02:03,520 Speaker 1: Blizzard games and the cloud streaming space moving forward. Anyway, 27 00:02:04,120 --> 00:02:08,880 Speaker 1: the other entity happens to be Ubisoft. That's a games publisher. 28 00:02:09,000 --> 00:02:12,960 Speaker 1: It's known for series like Assassin's Creed and numerous titles 29 00:02:13,000 --> 00:02:18,079 Speaker 1: in the Tom Clancy universe. This new deal would mean 30 00:02:18,120 --> 00:02:22,040 Speaker 1: that Microsoft would not have the authority to release any 31 00:02:22,080 --> 00:02:27,120 Speaker 1: Activision Blizzard titles on Xbox Cloud Gaming as an exclusive. 32 00:02:28,560 --> 00:02:32,440 Speaker 1: Those rights would go to Ubisoft, so theoretically that should 33 00:02:32,520 --> 00:02:36,680 Speaker 1: quell the CMA's concerns. The CMA has launched a new 34 00:02:36,720 --> 00:02:41,359 Speaker 1: investigation into this restructured deal, and the deadline they have 35 00:02:41,440 --> 00:02:44,240 Speaker 1: to make a decision on whether or not they'll authorize 36 00:02:44,240 --> 00:02:47,640 Speaker 1: the deal is October eighteenth. That also happens to be 37 00:02:48,320 --> 00:02:52,520 Speaker 1: when Microsoft would need for this deal to close before 38 00:02:52,560 --> 00:02:57,040 Speaker 1: having to negotiate another extension with Activision Blizzard. So originally 39 00:02:57,720 --> 00:03:01,240 Speaker 1: Microsoft and Activision Blizzard had play and for this deal 40 00:03:01,280 --> 00:03:05,200 Speaker 1: to already be closed, but because that didn't happen, they 41 00:03:05,240 --> 00:03:10,800 Speaker 1: had to extend the deal once already. So if it 42 00:03:10,840 --> 00:03:13,360 Speaker 1: comes up to October eighteenth, then the decision still hasn't 43 00:03:13,360 --> 00:03:15,680 Speaker 1: been made. Microsoft and Activision Blizzard would have to come 44 00:03:15,720 --> 00:03:19,280 Speaker 1: together again and decide whether they wanted to try and 45 00:03:19,360 --> 00:03:23,000 Speaker 1: extend the deal or extend the period before the deal 46 00:03:23,040 --> 00:03:27,920 Speaker 1: would close yet again in an effort to secure those rights. 47 00:03:28,400 --> 00:03:31,200 Speaker 1: We'll have to wait and see if this restructured deal 48 00:03:31,240 --> 00:03:37,120 Speaker 1: satisfies regulators. I have really complex feelings about this deal. 49 00:03:37,440 --> 00:03:40,160 Speaker 1: So on the one hand, as I have said many 50 00:03:40,200 --> 00:03:44,520 Speaker 1: times on this show, consolidation and markets rarely leads to 51 00:03:44,600 --> 00:03:48,840 Speaker 1: better outcomes for customers in the long run. But on 52 00:03:48,880 --> 00:03:51,720 Speaker 1: the other hand, Activision Blizzard is a company that has 53 00:03:51,760 --> 00:03:55,840 Speaker 1: a really rough history with regard to corporate culture and 54 00:03:55,920 --> 00:03:59,680 Speaker 1: how leaders have treated employees, to put it lightly, so 55 00:04:00,400 --> 00:04:02,880 Speaker 1: there's a hope that a change in ownership would lead 56 00:04:02,920 --> 00:04:07,200 Speaker 1: to better conditions for employees. And that's that's not nothing. 57 00:04:07,800 --> 00:04:11,400 Speaker 1: So yeah, I have complicated thoughts on this, but for 58 00:04:11,520 --> 00:04:15,280 Speaker 1: now that's where the deal is. If I had to 59 00:04:15,360 --> 00:04:18,880 Speaker 1: place a bet, I would say that this new restructured 60 00:04:19,080 --> 00:04:23,880 Speaker 1: approach should end up working because it seems to address 61 00:04:23,960 --> 00:04:28,320 Speaker 1: the concerns the CMA had. But then the CMA hasn't 62 00:04:28,320 --> 00:04:32,600 Speaker 1: really reversed its decision on anything for the past several years, 63 00:04:32,680 --> 00:04:36,760 Speaker 1: so we'll have to see. Sticking with Microsoft, the company 64 00:04:36,880 --> 00:04:40,480 Speaker 1: is killing off the Connect. But wait, I hear some 65 00:04:40,520 --> 00:04:44,080 Speaker 1: of you say, I thought they already did that years ago, 66 00:04:44,760 --> 00:04:46,600 Speaker 1: and you and I would be in the same boat 67 00:04:46,640 --> 00:04:50,520 Speaker 1: because I remember Microsoft discontinuing the Connect way back in 68 00:04:50,560 --> 00:04:53,400 Speaker 1: twenty seventeen. So for those of y'all out there who 69 00:04:53,440 --> 00:04:56,440 Speaker 1: have no idea what I'm talking about, the original Connect 70 00:04:56,880 --> 00:05:01,080 Speaker 1: was a peripheral for the Xbox three P sixty game console. 71 00:05:02,040 --> 00:05:05,920 Speaker 1: It uses depth sensing cameras to detect the environment and 72 00:05:05,960 --> 00:05:10,160 Speaker 1: to interpret physical gestures as commands, which could be used 73 00:05:10,160 --> 00:05:13,640 Speaker 1: in applications and games. It also had stuff like microphones 74 00:05:13,720 --> 00:05:16,599 Speaker 1: to pick up voice commands that kind of thing. Microsoft 75 00:05:16,760 --> 00:05:20,159 Speaker 1: updated the Connect with the launch of the Xbox One, 76 00:05:20,640 --> 00:05:23,000 Speaker 1: but there was a general kind of lack of interest 77 00:05:23,080 --> 00:05:26,039 Speaker 1: from both developers and gamers. It was sort of a 78 00:05:26,120 --> 00:05:29,040 Speaker 1: chicken and egg problem, right, Like, developers didn't have a 79 00:05:29,080 --> 00:05:31,599 Speaker 1: lot of incentive to make stuff for the Connect because 80 00:05:31,640 --> 00:05:34,840 Speaker 1: there didn't seem to be a large audience for it. Meanwhile, 81 00:05:34,839 --> 00:05:37,479 Speaker 1: the audience didn't have very many games they could purchase 82 00:05:37,520 --> 00:05:40,880 Speaker 1: because developers weren't actually making a whole lot of stuff 83 00:05:40,880 --> 00:05:42,640 Speaker 1: for it, and some of the stuff that was made 84 00:05:42,760 --> 00:05:47,160 Speaker 1: was some of the most widely panned video games out there. 85 00:05:48,120 --> 00:05:51,359 Speaker 1: So yeah, it kind of led Microsoft to just shelve 86 00:05:51,440 --> 00:05:54,839 Speaker 1: the whole thing in twenty seventeen. Now, what I did 87 00:05:54,880 --> 00:05:58,960 Speaker 1: not realize was that Microsoft actually brought the Connect back 88 00:05:59,279 --> 00:06:03,360 Speaker 1: in two thousand nineteen, but it wasn't for gamers this time. Instead, 89 00:06:03,880 --> 00:06:08,400 Speaker 1: this version was the Azure Connect Developer Kit. So it's 90 00:06:08,600 --> 00:06:11,599 Speaker 1: a tech kit for folks who are working in fields 91 00:06:11,640 --> 00:06:16,600 Speaker 1: like robotics and computer vision and artificial intelligence. So one 92 00:06:16,640 --> 00:06:19,800 Speaker 1: of the fascinating things about areas of computer research is 93 00:06:19,800 --> 00:06:23,680 Speaker 1: that often researchers will take advantage of hardware that was 94 00:06:23,720 --> 00:06:28,080 Speaker 1: intended for some other use, like a video game peripheral, 95 00:06:28,400 --> 00:06:32,960 Speaker 1: and then repurpose that technology for research. This actually happens 96 00:06:32,960 --> 00:06:37,880 Speaker 1: a lot in areas like mixed reality and artificial intelligence research. Anyway, 97 00:06:37,920 --> 00:06:40,840 Speaker 1: Microsoft saw the opportunity to make a little money by 98 00:06:40,880 --> 00:06:44,279 Speaker 1: creating these kits and marketing them to like research groups 99 00:06:44,279 --> 00:06:48,400 Speaker 1: and such, but now Microsoft has discontinued the Azure Connect 100 00:06:48,480 --> 00:06:52,719 Speaker 1: Developer Kit as well, so existing kits will continue to work. 101 00:06:52,720 --> 00:06:55,679 Speaker 1: According to Microsoft, they're not going to turn off support 102 00:06:55,760 --> 00:06:58,120 Speaker 1: for the stuff that's already out there. The company has 103 00:06:58,160 --> 00:07:01,640 Speaker 1: also said it will continue to sell these kits through 104 00:07:01,680 --> 00:07:06,120 Speaker 1: October or until they're all gone, whichever comes first. For 105 00:07:06,240 --> 00:07:09,360 Speaker 1: developers who are hoping to take advantage of the Connect's capabilities. 106 00:07:09,800 --> 00:07:14,520 Speaker 1: Microsoft also has some suggested alternatives through its various partners, 107 00:07:14,640 --> 00:07:17,320 Speaker 1: so you can research that if you're into it. If 108 00:07:17,320 --> 00:07:19,080 Speaker 1: you can't get hold of one of these kits and 109 00:07:19,120 --> 00:07:22,440 Speaker 1: you're in the field. But yeah, the long and winding 110 00:07:22,520 --> 00:07:25,720 Speaker 1: road for the Connect has come to an end again. 111 00:07:26,480 --> 00:07:29,840 Speaker 1: Forbes received a copy of a draft agreement from twenty 112 00:07:30,120 --> 00:07:34,960 Speaker 1: twenty two. This is between TikTok and the Committee on 113 00:07:35,080 --> 00:07:39,560 Speaker 1: Foreign Investment in the United States or SCIPHIUS. That gives 114 00:07:39,560 --> 00:07:43,200 Speaker 1: insight into the negotiations between TikTok and the US government. 115 00:07:43,320 --> 00:07:46,120 Speaker 1: So for those of you not up to speed, one 116 00:07:46,160 --> 00:07:50,800 Speaker 1: of the few unifying concepts among politicians in both major 117 00:07:50,880 --> 00:07:55,560 Speaker 1: political parties is a concern about TikTok in general, and 118 00:07:55,600 --> 00:07:59,880 Speaker 1: with regard to national security in particular. Lots of government bodies, 119 00:08:00,080 --> 00:08:05,160 Speaker 1: ranging from local governments to federal organizations, have banned TikTok 120 00:08:05,200 --> 00:08:09,480 Speaker 1: from government owned devices some regions, some states in the 121 00:08:09,600 --> 00:08:14,960 Speaker 1: US really one has banned TikTok outright. Others are considering 122 00:08:15,520 --> 00:08:18,280 Speaker 1: similar bands. And this mostly has to do with the 123 00:08:18,280 --> 00:08:22,440 Speaker 1: fact that TikTok's parent company, Byteedance, is a Chinese company 124 00:08:22,640 --> 00:08:28,000 Speaker 1: and by extension, a potential conspirator with the Chinese government, 125 00:08:28,280 --> 00:08:32,800 Speaker 1: specifically the Chinese Communist Party. So there's a long time 126 00:08:32,920 --> 00:08:36,880 Speaker 1: fear that TikTok could be acting as a funnel and 127 00:08:36,960 --> 00:08:39,880 Speaker 1: be directing information to Chinese agents who could be using 128 00:08:39,880 --> 00:08:43,480 Speaker 1: it as intelligence for all sorts of things, from gaining 129 00:08:43,480 --> 00:08:48,439 Speaker 1: information about US companies and US government agencies and institutions, 130 00:08:48,760 --> 00:08:52,560 Speaker 1: to developing new ways to manipulate the American public through 131 00:08:52,800 --> 00:08:58,400 Speaker 1: misinformation and disinformation campaigns. This leaked agreement from twenty twenty two, 132 00:08:58,400 --> 00:09:03,319 Speaker 1: which came from some unnamed sources, has some fairly dramatic 133 00:09:03,400 --> 00:09:06,520 Speaker 1: stuff in it. So, for example, the terms of this 134 00:09:06,640 --> 00:09:09,800 Speaker 1: agreement would give the US government the authority to perform 135 00:09:09,880 --> 00:09:15,480 Speaker 1: reviews of TikTok's facilities and equipment, including their servers, at 136 00:09:15,520 --> 00:09:19,440 Speaker 1: pretty much any time without any warning. The government would 137 00:09:19,440 --> 00:09:23,360 Speaker 1: also have the power to veto changes in TikTok's terms 138 00:09:23,360 --> 00:09:25,880 Speaker 1: of service here in the United States if the government 139 00:09:26,240 --> 00:09:30,600 Speaker 1: had decided that those changes in terms of service were 140 00:09:30,640 --> 00:09:35,680 Speaker 1: potentially harmful to national security or American citizens. The government 141 00:09:35,720 --> 00:09:39,880 Speaker 1: would even have a say on the types of executives 142 00:09:39,880 --> 00:09:43,320 Speaker 1: that TikTok could hire, at least for certain positions. They 143 00:09:43,320 --> 00:09:47,079 Speaker 1: would also be able to demand that TikTok temporarily suspends 144 00:09:47,160 --> 00:09:50,920 Speaker 1: service in the United States. So this is pretty extreme stuff. 145 00:09:51,400 --> 00:09:55,640 Speaker 1: It is beyond rare to see any kind of document 146 00:09:56,000 --> 00:09:58,640 Speaker 1: that would allow this level of involvement from the US 147 00:09:58,760 --> 00:10:03,120 Speaker 1: government into a company's operations. That's just not typically how 148 00:10:03,160 --> 00:10:06,320 Speaker 1: things are done here in the United States. So a 149 00:10:06,320 --> 00:10:09,520 Speaker 1: lot of that document appears to aim at severing byte 150 00:10:09,559 --> 00:10:14,080 Speaker 1: Dance's connection to TikTok. Not completely, not forcing byte Dance 151 00:10:14,160 --> 00:10:18,320 Speaker 1: to release TikTok, to spin it off, or to sell 152 00:10:18,360 --> 00:10:23,120 Speaker 1: it off, but it does essentially remove any decision making 153 00:10:23,200 --> 00:10:27,440 Speaker 1: processes between byte Dance and TikTok, or at least really 154 00:10:27,840 --> 00:10:31,640 Speaker 1: neuters them quite a bit. As Forbes writer Emily Baker 155 00:10:31,679 --> 00:10:36,720 Speaker 1: White points out, this agreement potentially hands the United States 156 00:10:36,720 --> 00:10:40,800 Speaker 1: government the exact same power that US politicians are worried 157 00:10:41,040 --> 00:10:44,719 Speaker 1: that the Chinese could abuse or perhaps are already abusing. 158 00:10:45,360 --> 00:10:48,679 Speaker 1: Now that shouldn't comfort anybody, because various agencies in the 159 00:10:48,760 --> 00:10:52,280 Speaker 1: United States have shown a distinct lack of restraint when 160 00:10:52,280 --> 00:10:57,120 Speaker 1: it comes to surveillance in spying upon American citizens, So 161 00:10:57,280 --> 00:10:59,640 Speaker 1: it should be a concern that the US government would 162 00:10:59,640 --> 00:11:05,600 Speaker 1: get that power. It's really trading one government that we're 163 00:11:05,600 --> 00:11:09,960 Speaker 1: worried would conduct surveillance on US citizens to another. It 164 00:11:10,040 --> 00:11:13,080 Speaker 1: just happens to also be the US government. In fact, 165 00:11:13,080 --> 00:11:16,839 Speaker 1: in my opinion, anyone having this capability is concerning to me. 166 00:11:17,400 --> 00:11:20,280 Speaker 1: It doesn't matter if it's the Chinese government or the 167 00:11:20,440 --> 00:11:24,599 Speaker 1: US government or the company itself. Doesn't matter to me 168 00:11:24,640 --> 00:11:27,800 Speaker 1: if the company is public versus private. I just think 169 00:11:27,880 --> 00:11:31,440 Speaker 1: it's bad news. No matter who is in charge. If 170 00:11:31,480 --> 00:11:34,720 Speaker 1: they're able to get access to that amount of information, 171 00:11:35,600 --> 00:11:39,280 Speaker 1: it doesn't turn out well. So, in other words, it 172 00:11:39,280 --> 00:11:42,120 Speaker 1: doesn't really matter who's in charge in the sense of 173 00:11:43,000 --> 00:11:46,439 Speaker 1: the danger is present no matter who's holding the reins. 174 00:11:46,480 --> 00:11:48,240 Speaker 1: It's just the question of how is it going to 175 00:11:48,240 --> 00:11:53,320 Speaker 1: potentially be abused anyway. Again, this was a draft agreement. 176 00:11:53,640 --> 00:11:58,720 Speaker 1: Negotiations are ongoing between TikTok and the United States. It's 177 00:11:58,800 --> 00:12:01,640 Speaker 1: just wild to say terms like these laid out in 178 00:12:01,679 --> 00:12:06,160 Speaker 1: a document between the US government and a company. All Right, 179 00:12:06,679 --> 00:12:09,040 Speaker 1: we're going to take a quick break to thank our sponsors, 180 00:12:09,080 --> 00:12:22,120 Speaker 1: and we'll be back with more news. We're back so late. 181 00:12:22,280 --> 00:12:27,959 Speaker 1: Last week, DC District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled 182 00:12:28,280 --> 00:12:32,640 Speaker 1: that only human beings can hold a copyright, which means 183 00:12:33,320 --> 00:12:39,080 Speaker 1: any art, any creative work that AI generates is not 184 00:12:39,679 --> 00:12:44,000 Speaker 1: eligible for copyright. The ruling stemmed from a court case 185 00:12:44,040 --> 00:12:48,600 Speaker 1: in which a man named Stephen Taller attempted to argue 186 00:12:48,600 --> 00:12:51,960 Speaker 1: that he should be allowed to own a copyright of 187 00:12:52,000 --> 00:12:55,480 Speaker 1: an AI generated piece as though it were a work 188 00:12:55,559 --> 00:12:59,560 Speaker 1: for higher piece. So Taller had created this AI tool. 189 00:13:00,120 --> 00:13:04,040 Speaker 1: The AI tool in turn generated some art, and Taller says, well, 190 00:13:04,080 --> 00:13:07,199 Speaker 1: we should treat that as if the tool is my employee, 191 00:13:07,559 --> 00:13:10,520 Speaker 1: and I hired this employee to create the art for me, 192 00:13:10,640 --> 00:13:12,800 Speaker 1: and I own the copyright on the art. This is 193 00:13:12,880 --> 00:13:17,679 Speaker 1: not an unusual thing when we talk about human beings, right, Like, 194 00:13:17,960 --> 00:13:22,000 Speaker 1: there are corporations that own the copyright on material that 195 00:13:22,080 --> 00:13:26,440 Speaker 1: was created by the corporation's employees or contractors. So while 196 00:13:26,440 --> 00:13:30,160 Speaker 1: the employee or contractor is the person who actually created 197 00:13:30,160 --> 00:13:33,800 Speaker 1: the thing. The corporation is the entity that owns the copyright. 198 00:13:34,840 --> 00:13:37,920 Speaker 1: Great example, this show. I don't own the copyright to 199 00:13:37,960 --> 00:13:40,160 Speaker 1: this show. I do all the research, I do all 200 00:13:40,200 --> 00:13:42,520 Speaker 1: the writing, I do all the recording. I do not 201 00:13:42,600 --> 00:13:45,800 Speaker 1: own the copyright. That's a company thing, and it's not 202 00:13:45,880 --> 00:13:49,600 Speaker 1: unusual for that case. So Taller was arguing the same 203 00:13:49,920 --> 00:13:52,920 Speaker 1: consideration should be granted to him. He should be able 204 00:13:52,920 --> 00:13:56,960 Speaker 1: to hold the copyright on AI generated art. Judge Howell 205 00:13:57,040 --> 00:14:01,240 Speaker 1: has rejected this argument and said that quote human authorship 206 00:14:01,400 --> 00:14:06,480 Speaker 1: is a bedrock requirement of copyright end quote. Taller plans 207 00:14:06,520 --> 00:14:09,600 Speaker 1: to appeal this case, and I'm sure there are a 208 00:14:09,640 --> 00:14:14,600 Speaker 1: lot of companies watching this closely. The entire Hollywood establishment 209 00:14:14,720 --> 00:14:18,200 Speaker 1: is probably pretty concerned. There's been a great interest in 210 00:14:18,320 --> 00:14:22,880 Speaker 1: using AI in creative endeavors out of Hollywood. But while 211 00:14:22,920 --> 00:14:27,200 Speaker 1: Hollywood executives might salivate over the possible costs that they 212 00:14:27,280 --> 00:14:31,040 Speaker 1: cut by using AI instead of human beings, the threat 213 00:14:31,480 --> 00:14:36,080 Speaker 1: of being unable to secure IP ownership would likely outweigh 214 00:14:36,360 --> 00:14:39,160 Speaker 1: everything else. Right, the studios would be like, well, if 215 00:14:39,160 --> 00:14:42,800 Speaker 1: we don't own the stuff, that's worse. So when you're 216 00:14:42,840 --> 00:14:48,240 Speaker 1: looking at greed motivators, I think that the ownership outweighs 217 00:14:48,560 --> 00:14:51,560 Speaker 1: cutting costs by using AI instead of human beings. Honestly, 218 00:14:51,880 --> 00:14:56,400 Speaker 1: I'm kind of curious how my old employer, HowStuffWorks dot 219 00:14:56,440 --> 00:14:59,640 Speaker 1: Com is looking at this, because they famously, as or 220 00:14:59,640 --> 00:15:03,400 Speaker 1: at least famously on this show, switched over to AI 221 00:15:03,600 --> 00:15:10,880 Speaker 1: generated articles, and as such, if that means that how 222 00:15:10,920 --> 00:15:15,360 Speaker 1: Stuffworks cannot own a copyright over that material, that I 223 00:15:15,400 --> 00:15:19,600 Speaker 1: think is a big risk for the company, And right 224 00:15:19,640 --> 00:15:22,240 Speaker 1: now in US law it appears that that's the case, 225 00:15:22,280 --> 00:15:26,360 Speaker 1: that you cannot copyright something that was generated by AI, 226 00:15:27,000 --> 00:15:32,920 Speaker 1: so definitely complicates matters for companies like that. Anyway, the 227 00:15:32,960 --> 00:15:36,360 Speaker 1: whole issue is far from closed. I imagine it's going 228 00:15:36,400 --> 00:15:38,400 Speaker 1: to take a good amount of time to hash out 229 00:15:38,440 --> 00:15:42,360 Speaker 1: how copyright applies or does not apply to works that 230 00:15:42,440 --> 00:15:46,560 Speaker 1: AI either created outright or helped to create. This is 231 00:15:46,600 --> 00:15:50,080 Speaker 1: going to be probably something that's going to eventually lead 232 00:15:50,120 --> 00:15:53,360 Speaker 1: to new legislation, but right now, at least according to 233 00:15:53,440 --> 00:15:57,440 Speaker 1: Judge Howell, current legislation has no place for it, and 234 00:15:57,520 --> 00:16:01,480 Speaker 1: thus copyright does not apply. Mashable has a piece in 235 00:16:01,520 --> 00:16:06,160 Speaker 1: which a third party researcher named Travis Brown analyzed Elon 236 00:16:06,320 --> 00:16:10,680 Speaker 1: Musk's followers on x the platform formerly known as Twitter. 237 00:16:11,200 --> 00:16:15,520 Speaker 1: Musk has the most followed account on the platform. He's 238 00:16:15,560 --> 00:16:18,280 Speaker 1: got more followers than anyone else. On x he has 239 00:16:18,360 --> 00:16:22,320 Speaker 1: around one hundred and fifty three million followers. So Mashable 240 00:16:22,400 --> 00:16:24,800 Speaker 1: was kind of curious about how many of those accounts 241 00:16:25,240 --> 00:16:29,160 Speaker 1: represented real people, or at least, you know, active users. 242 00:16:29,600 --> 00:16:33,000 Speaker 1: And while Brown's work cannot give a definitive answer on 243 00:16:33,080 --> 00:16:36,920 Speaker 1: how many followers might be bots, some of the findings 244 00:16:36,920 --> 00:16:40,480 Speaker 1: do suggest that a whole dang bunch of Musk's followers, 245 00:16:40,800 --> 00:16:44,240 Speaker 1: at the very least, are not hardcore users of the platform. 246 00:16:44,680 --> 00:16:50,000 Speaker 1: For example, more than seventy two percent of all of 247 00:16:50,160 --> 00:16:54,880 Speaker 1: Musk's followers that's around one hundred twelve million accounts have 248 00:16:55,000 --> 00:17:00,360 Speaker 1: fewer than ten followers themselves, and more than sixty five 249 00:17:00,480 --> 00:17:04,639 Speaker 1: million of those accounts have zero followers. So forty two 250 00:17:04,720 --> 00:17:09,320 Speaker 1: percent of all the followers that Musk has have no 251 00:17:09,480 --> 00:17:13,119 Speaker 1: followers themselves. Now, that does not mean that all or 252 00:17:13,119 --> 00:17:16,320 Speaker 1: even most of those accounts are bots, but it's not 253 00:17:16,359 --> 00:17:18,920 Speaker 1: a good sign, right like. It suggests that perhaps these 254 00:17:18,920 --> 00:17:25,680 Speaker 1: accounts are are inactive or unseen like, So it seems 255 00:17:25,760 --> 00:17:30,160 Speaker 1: like Musk's following is largely inflated, but that's not all. 256 00:17:30,240 --> 00:17:33,960 Speaker 1: On top of that, around forty one percent of all 257 00:17:34,040 --> 00:17:36,680 Speaker 1: of his followers, or around sixty two and a half 258 00:17:36,920 --> 00:17:41,000 Speaker 1: million of them, have no posts at all. None of 259 00:17:41,040 --> 00:17:45,720 Speaker 1: them like, this's just an empty, empty little account. Now, 260 00:17:45,800 --> 00:17:49,359 Speaker 1: Mashable points out, this might not mean that they have 261 00:17:49,600 --> 00:17:52,320 Speaker 1: never posted a message. It is possible that they did 262 00:17:52,359 --> 00:17:56,639 Speaker 1: once upon a time, but then subsequently deleted their history 263 00:17:56,680 --> 00:17:59,439 Speaker 1: of messages. So that's a possibility. And some of them 264 00:17:59,480 --> 00:18:02,719 Speaker 1: could just be lurking, right. They're not there to generate content, 265 00:18:02,760 --> 00:18:07,200 Speaker 1: They're there to consume content. More than one hundred million 266 00:18:07,359 --> 00:18:12,600 Speaker 1: of his followers have fewer than ten posts on their account. 267 00:18:13,040 --> 00:18:16,159 Speaker 1: About a quarter of all the accounts that are following 268 00:18:16,280 --> 00:18:20,760 Speaker 1: Musk have the default user profile image. More than forty 269 00:18:20,800 --> 00:18:24,440 Speaker 1: percent of his followers have a user handle that contains 270 00:18:24,480 --> 00:18:27,920 Speaker 1: four or more numbers in it. Again, when you start 271 00:18:27,920 --> 00:18:32,320 Speaker 1: thinking about things like the generic or the default icon 272 00:18:32,680 --> 00:18:36,359 Speaker 1: for your profile image, or having lots of numbers in 273 00:18:36,400 --> 00:18:39,800 Speaker 1: the name, those are things that often suggest a bot 274 00:18:40,119 --> 00:18:43,359 Speaker 1: account as opposed to a real person. Only zero point 275 00:18:43,680 --> 00:18:48,639 Speaker 1: three percent of his followers are ex premium subscribers, so 276 00:18:48,840 --> 00:18:52,040 Speaker 1: while the findings cannot definitively say that the bulk of 277 00:18:52,119 --> 00:18:57,399 Speaker 1: musks following made up of inactive or fake accounts. The 278 00:18:57,440 --> 00:19:02,720 Speaker 1: circumstantial evidence suggests that maybe he's not the most popular 279 00:19:02,760 --> 00:19:08,239 Speaker 1: person on Twitter. I mean X after all. Speaking of X, 280 00:19:08,600 --> 00:19:11,920 Speaker 1: Over the weekend, the platform experienced a problem that affected 281 00:19:11,960 --> 00:19:17,520 Speaker 1: posts made before December twenty fourteen. This problem affected messages 282 00:19:17,560 --> 00:19:21,360 Speaker 1: that contained either an image or it contained a URL 283 00:19:21,480 --> 00:19:24,640 Speaker 1: that Twitter had auto shortened so that it would take 284 00:19:24,760 --> 00:19:27,520 Speaker 1: up fewer characters. Remember, there was a limit to one 285 00:19:27,600 --> 00:19:30,000 Speaker 1: hundred and forty and then later two hundred eighty characters 286 00:19:30,320 --> 00:19:32,840 Speaker 1: on Twitter for a long time, So this meant that, 287 00:19:33,200 --> 00:19:35,800 Speaker 1: at least temporarily, it looked like a ton of material 288 00:19:36,080 --> 00:19:39,480 Speaker 1: had been lost, all of these images and all these 289 00:19:40,240 --> 00:19:44,000 Speaker 1: messages that had contained a link in them. That prompted 290 00:19:44,000 --> 00:19:45,960 Speaker 1: a lot of folks to worry that the loss could 291 00:19:45,960 --> 00:19:50,159 Speaker 1: be permanent. But X's support department sent a message stating 292 00:19:50,240 --> 00:19:53,320 Speaker 1: that a bug had made this info inaccessible. They did 293 00:19:53,359 --> 00:19:57,240 Speaker 1: not give details on what that bug was, and that 294 00:19:57,320 --> 00:20:01,080 Speaker 1: all the information was actually safe. Nothing got deleted, it 295 00:20:01,200 --> 00:20:05,359 Speaker 1: just wasn't able to display on X for the moment, 296 00:20:05,960 --> 00:20:09,879 Speaker 1: and that the support department had fixed this issue, but 297 00:20:10,000 --> 00:20:13,240 Speaker 1: it would take some time for those older messages to 298 00:20:13,320 --> 00:20:16,880 Speaker 1: essentially repopulate, but according to the support staff, it should 299 00:20:16,880 --> 00:20:20,040 Speaker 1: all be back within a few days, so that's good. Now. 300 00:20:20,640 --> 00:20:23,600 Speaker 1: Normally I would put this next story at the very 301 00:20:23,680 --> 00:20:26,680 Speaker 1: end of the episode because it involves a bit of absurdity, 302 00:20:27,240 --> 00:20:32,200 Speaker 1: but this story also relates to Tesla, one of Elon 303 00:20:32,320 --> 00:20:36,000 Speaker 1: Musk's other companies, so I am putting it here instead. 304 00:20:36,640 --> 00:20:39,320 Speaker 1: This story came out last week, but I totally missed it. 305 00:20:39,680 --> 00:20:43,240 Speaker 1: Tesla has created kind of a goofy product to promote 306 00:20:43,320 --> 00:20:48,760 Speaker 1: the upcoming Cybertruck electric vehicle. This product is a cat bed, 307 00:20:49,320 --> 00:20:52,000 Speaker 1: and the cat bed's frame is made out of cardboard. 308 00:20:52,560 --> 00:20:55,800 Speaker 1: The cardboard folds into this angular shape that's meant to 309 00:20:55,840 --> 00:20:59,760 Speaker 1: remind you of the weird truck bed of the cyber Truck. 310 00:21:00,160 --> 00:21:03,920 Speaker 1: The wild thing is that the design of this cat 311 00:21:04,000 --> 00:21:09,800 Speaker 1: bed looks almost exactly like one of a cat lounger 312 00:21:10,080 --> 00:21:13,240 Speaker 1: created by a company called Hulu Mao that was released 313 00:21:13,520 --> 00:21:16,800 Speaker 1: way back in twenty seventeen. I mean, if you were 314 00:21:16,840 --> 00:21:20,720 Speaker 1: to put these two products side by side, and you 315 00:21:20,760 --> 00:21:23,440 Speaker 1: were to cover up the brand names that are printed 316 00:21:23,440 --> 00:21:25,720 Speaker 1: on the cardboard, I don't think you would be able 317 00:21:25,800 --> 00:21:29,600 Speaker 1: to tell which one was which at a casual glance. However, 318 00:21:30,000 --> 00:21:33,320 Speaker 1: the creator of the Hulu Mau version said that he 319 00:21:33,720 --> 00:21:37,200 Speaker 1: did not file for a patent on the design of 320 00:21:37,320 --> 00:21:41,600 Speaker 1: that cat lounger. He was actually advised that it would 321 00:21:41,640 --> 00:21:45,640 Speaker 1: have been too complicated and expensive to pursue one as 322 00:21:45,680 --> 00:21:48,840 Speaker 1: sort of a small business pursuit. This is out of Taiwan, 323 00:21:48,920 --> 00:21:52,480 Speaker 1: by the way, so technically the creator doesn't have IP 324 00:21:52,680 --> 00:21:55,119 Speaker 1: rights that he can exercise against Tesla. He says that 325 00:21:55,200 --> 00:21:59,080 Speaker 1: he doesn't really have any legal means to go after 326 00:21:59,160 --> 00:22:02,040 Speaker 1: the company because he doesn't hold a patent on the 327 00:22:02,080 --> 00:22:06,240 Speaker 1: original design. But it clearly is like it looks like 328 00:22:06,280 --> 00:22:09,480 Speaker 1: a direct copy to me, or at least a very 329 00:22:09,640 --> 00:22:12,960 Speaker 1: very very close copy. Maybe not maybe direct as being 330 00:22:13,000 --> 00:22:18,880 Speaker 1: too extreme, but from my limited perceptible abilities, I would 331 00:22:18,920 --> 00:22:22,840 Speaker 1: say that they're almost identical. The creator of the original 332 00:22:22,920 --> 00:22:26,320 Speaker 1: version said it would be really cool for Tesla to, 333 00:22:26,359 --> 00:22:29,760 Speaker 1: you know, compensate Hulumal for the use of that design, 334 00:22:30,359 --> 00:22:33,200 Speaker 1: and I agree that would be very cool, but I'll 335 00:22:33,280 --> 00:22:38,440 Speaker 1: also be absolutely shocked if that happens. Okay, let's move 336 00:22:38,440 --> 00:22:42,880 Speaker 1: on to a different tech billionaire with grandiose ambitions. We're 337 00:22:42,880 --> 00:22:47,160 Speaker 1: talking about Jeff Bezos and his space company Blue Origins 338 00:22:47,520 --> 00:22:51,600 Speaker 1: in this section. So Fortune reports that back on June fourth, 339 00:22:51,680 --> 00:22:56,480 Speaker 1: the International Space Station detected a huge methane emission while 340 00:22:56,520 --> 00:23:01,040 Speaker 1: passing over West Texas, which is where Blue Origin will 341 00:23:01,119 --> 00:23:05,800 Speaker 1: conduct lots of work. So analysts estimated that the release 342 00:23:05,800 --> 00:23:07,520 Speaker 1: of gas was at a rate of one and a 343 00:23:07,560 --> 00:23:12,720 Speaker 1: half metric tons per hour, and they don't know how 344 00:23:12,760 --> 00:23:15,359 Speaker 1: long the event lasted. And that makes sense because the 345 00:23:15,359 --> 00:23:19,560 Speaker 1: International Space Station orbits the entire planet in about an 346 00:23:19,600 --> 00:23:22,760 Speaker 1: hour and a half, so it's not above any one 347 00:23:22,880 --> 00:23:26,720 Speaker 1: point on Earth for a very long time. So what 348 00:23:27,160 --> 00:23:30,920 Speaker 1: was the source of methane? Well, again, Bezos's private space company, 349 00:23:30,960 --> 00:23:34,200 Speaker 1: Blue Origin. It's actually working on a rocket that runs 350 00:23:34,280 --> 00:23:38,959 Speaker 1: on liquefied natural gas, which is almost entirely methane. And 351 00:23:39,000 --> 00:23:41,240 Speaker 1: so the thought was that this emission came from a 352 00:23:41,280 --> 00:23:44,199 Speaker 1: time when the company was perhaps transferring methane from a 353 00:23:44,240 --> 00:23:48,200 Speaker 1: supplier to the company's storage tanks and a bunch got 354 00:23:48,240 --> 00:23:51,840 Speaker 1: released in the process. The state of Texas doesn't have 355 00:23:51,920 --> 00:23:55,199 Speaker 1: limits on methane emissions, and it also does not require 356 00:23:55,240 --> 00:23:59,360 Speaker 1: companies to disclose when they release methane into the atmosphere. 357 00:23:59,480 --> 00:24:03,960 Speaker 1: So Blue Origin has very little reason to disclose this 358 00:24:04,040 --> 00:24:06,720 Speaker 1: kind of stuff. There's no reason to bring attention to it, 359 00:24:06,800 --> 00:24:10,879 Speaker 1: right because there's no legal requirement to do. So. What 360 00:24:11,000 --> 00:24:13,560 Speaker 1: is certain is that while it's pretty scary to think 361 00:24:13,640 --> 00:24:19,560 Speaker 1: of Blue Origin emitting enormous amounts of methane into the atmosphere, 362 00:24:19,680 --> 00:24:23,399 Speaker 1: and it's enough for an instrument that's in orbit around 363 00:24:23,480 --> 00:24:27,639 Speaker 1: the planet to pick up on those emissions, it's still 364 00:24:27,840 --> 00:24:32,000 Speaker 1: actually a very tiny amount compared to actual natural gas 365 00:24:32,200 --> 00:24:37,040 Speaker 1: industry companies. So yes, we could fixate on this, and honestly, 366 00:24:37,080 --> 00:24:39,359 Speaker 1: I think it is a problem that needs to be addressed, 367 00:24:39,760 --> 00:24:44,200 Speaker 1: but it's something that needs to be prioritized after we 368 00:24:44,240 --> 00:24:49,119 Speaker 1: address the larger issue of natural gas companies releasing far 369 00:24:49,160 --> 00:24:53,920 Speaker 1: more methane into the atmosphere. Prioritize. Don't say one versus another, 370 00:24:54,040 --> 00:24:56,080 Speaker 1: just say, Okay, we'll get to that after we get 371 00:24:56,080 --> 00:24:58,960 Speaker 1: to this other thing first. But we are going to 372 00:24:59,040 --> 00:25:03,320 Speaker 1: have to start actually making movement on that. Okay, We're 373 00:25:03,320 --> 00:25:05,240 Speaker 1: gonna take another quick break when we come back. I've 374 00:25:05,240 --> 00:25:17,480 Speaker 1: got a few more stories to cover. We're back, Okay, 375 00:25:17,480 --> 00:25:19,879 Speaker 1: we're going back to space. We were just talking about 376 00:25:20,040 --> 00:25:25,760 Speaker 1: Blue Origins and methane. Let's talk now about Russia. So 377 00:25:25,960 --> 00:25:30,560 Speaker 1: this past weekend, the Russian space program experienced a setback 378 00:25:31,119 --> 00:25:35,840 Speaker 1: when the Luna twenty five spacecraft, which was intended to 379 00:25:36,080 --> 00:25:40,720 Speaker 1: land on the Moon this week, instead malfunctioned and ultimately 380 00:25:40,840 --> 00:25:44,560 Speaker 1: crashed into the Moon. This was to be Russia's first 381 00:25:44,600 --> 00:25:47,760 Speaker 1: Moon mission since nineteen seventy six, that's when the Luna 382 00:25:47,880 --> 00:25:52,400 Speaker 1: twenty four landed on the Moon and actually returned moon 383 00:25:52,560 --> 00:25:56,440 Speaker 1: rocks to Earth. But since then, Russia has not been 384 00:25:56,480 --> 00:26:00,320 Speaker 1: able to land another spacecraft on the Moon. In fact, 385 00:26:00,440 --> 00:26:05,080 Speaker 1: nobody has except China. Roz Cosmos, which is the Russian 386 00:26:05,119 --> 00:26:08,560 Speaker 1: space program, says a full investigation is going to look 387 00:26:08,640 --> 00:26:11,719 Speaker 1: into this to find out where things went wrong, like 388 00:26:11,760 --> 00:26:15,680 Speaker 1: what was the cause of this malfunction. The Luna twenty 389 00:26:15,720 --> 00:26:19,560 Speaker 1: five had entered into the orbit of the Moon already, 390 00:26:19,640 --> 00:26:22,920 Speaker 1: and the operation that took place on Saturday was meant 391 00:26:23,320 --> 00:26:27,639 Speaker 1: to maneuver the spacecraft into a pre landing orbit, and 392 00:26:27,680 --> 00:26:31,440 Speaker 1: if everything had gone properly, the actual touchdown on the 393 00:26:31,480 --> 00:26:36,080 Speaker 1: Moon's surface would have happened yesterday. Considering the agency has 394 00:26:36,119 --> 00:26:39,840 Speaker 1: faced funding challenges over the last several years, this most 395 00:26:39,840 --> 00:26:43,960 Speaker 1: recent setback is really bad news. For Russia's space program. 396 00:26:44,600 --> 00:26:48,800 Speaker 1: Russia is a country that notoriously values results, and when 397 00:26:48,840 --> 00:26:55,480 Speaker 1: there's a failure to produce results, often there's a retraction 398 00:26:55,680 --> 00:26:59,920 Speaker 1: of support, let's say. And plus Russia's having lots of 399 00:27:00,200 --> 00:27:04,280 Speaker 1: political issues at the moment, to put it lightly, so 400 00:27:04,359 --> 00:27:07,440 Speaker 1: it may be that the space program will not have 401 00:27:07,680 --> 00:27:11,600 Speaker 1: priority of attention for the moment. So we'll have to see. 402 00:27:12,080 --> 00:27:17,960 Speaker 1: But yeah, bad timing, bad news for Russia. But tomorrow, 403 00:27:18,640 --> 00:27:23,440 Speaker 1: if everything goes as planned, a lunar lander will set 404 00:27:23,520 --> 00:27:26,800 Speaker 1: down on the Moon's surface, but it won't be coming 405 00:27:26,840 --> 00:27:31,320 Speaker 1: from Russia. Instead, it will come from India. So back 406 00:27:31,359 --> 00:27:34,600 Speaker 1: in twenty nineteen, India attempted to land a spacecraft on 407 00:27:34,600 --> 00:27:38,400 Speaker 1: the Moon, but that mission ultimately was a failure. This 408 00:27:38,640 --> 00:27:41,960 Speaker 1: new one is the latest attempt to land a spacecraft 409 00:27:41,960 --> 00:27:44,760 Speaker 1: on the Moon. It would include a lander and a rover, 410 00:27:45,200 --> 00:27:48,280 Speaker 1: so if it succeeds, India will then join China as 411 00:27:48,720 --> 00:27:51,080 Speaker 1: being one of only two countries to have landed a 412 00:27:51,119 --> 00:27:55,239 Speaker 1: spacecraft on the Moon in forty seven years. That's how 413 00:27:55,280 --> 00:27:57,640 Speaker 1: far back you have to go before you start finding 414 00:27:57,680 --> 00:28:00,480 Speaker 1: other countries having landed stuff on the Moon. Russia In 415 00:28:00,480 --> 00:28:05,040 Speaker 1: the United States, this lander has already sent back images 416 00:28:05,119 --> 00:28:07,760 Speaker 1: of the far side of the Moon. This is where 417 00:28:07,760 --> 00:28:11,040 Speaker 1: I remind you that the far side of the moon 418 00:28:11,160 --> 00:28:14,879 Speaker 1: is the side that's permanently facing away from Earth. It 419 00:28:14,960 --> 00:28:16,960 Speaker 1: is not the same thing as saying the dark side 420 00:28:17,000 --> 00:28:19,960 Speaker 1: of the moon, because the moon does have day and 421 00:28:20,040 --> 00:28:23,840 Speaker 1: night cycles, so all of the Moon will see light 422 00:28:24,080 --> 00:28:28,120 Speaker 1: and darkness over the course of time. So dark side 423 00:28:28,160 --> 00:28:30,720 Speaker 1: of the moon is a thing, but it's a temporary thing. 424 00:28:31,119 --> 00:28:33,840 Speaker 1: Far side of the moon is the permanent thing. Apologies 425 00:28:33,880 --> 00:28:36,800 Speaker 1: to pink Floyd. We should actually know by tomorrow morning. 426 00:28:37,320 --> 00:28:41,240 Speaker 1: The scheduled landing time is eight thirty four am Eastern. 427 00:28:42,360 --> 00:28:45,840 Speaker 1: That's assuming that nothing causes any delays. But then we 428 00:28:45,880 --> 00:28:48,800 Speaker 1: should know about whether or not the mission was a success. 429 00:28:49,320 --> 00:28:52,400 Speaker 1: Should it be a success, then that means the lander 430 00:28:52,440 --> 00:28:55,080 Speaker 1: and the rover will touch down the Moon's surface and 431 00:28:55,120 --> 00:28:59,040 Speaker 1: they will have one lunar day to explore the moon, 432 00:28:59,440 --> 00:29:03,760 Speaker 1: soay is about fourteen days here on Earth. After that, 433 00:29:03,920 --> 00:29:07,880 Speaker 1: darkness will fall become lunar night. The machines will drain 434 00:29:08,080 --> 00:29:12,240 Speaker 1: out of energy and they will likely be unresponsive when 435 00:29:12,280 --> 00:29:15,440 Speaker 1: the dawn comes half a month later. So here's hoping 436 00:29:16,080 --> 00:29:19,320 Speaker 1: that the mission is a success. It's always good to 437 00:29:19,920 --> 00:29:24,600 Speaker 1: further science, no matter who is in the driver's seat, 438 00:29:24,680 --> 00:29:27,560 Speaker 1: so to speak, assuming that science isn't being used to, 439 00:29:27,600 --> 00:29:32,120 Speaker 1: you know, oppressor or hurt people. All right, I have 440 00:29:32,240 --> 00:29:36,240 Speaker 1: one final story before we get to some article recommendations, 441 00:29:36,560 --> 00:29:39,680 Speaker 1: and that story is to give a twenty one coin 442 00:29:39,800 --> 00:29:44,600 Speaker 1: salute to Charles Martinet. For more than twenty five years, 443 00:29:45,120 --> 00:29:49,080 Speaker 1: mister Martinez has been the voice of the beloved Nintendo 444 00:29:49,280 --> 00:29:55,640 Speaker 1: video game character Mario, sometimes known as Mario Mario. So 445 00:29:55,880 --> 00:30:00,840 Speaker 1: if you have ever attempted and it's Anne Ma in 446 00:30:00,920 --> 00:30:03,960 Speaker 1: your life, you were doing an impression of mister Martinee. 447 00:30:04,480 --> 00:30:06,440 Speaker 1: While he will no longer be voicing the character in 448 00:30:06,520 --> 00:30:09,880 Speaker 1: Nintendo games, including in the most recent one that's coming 449 00:30:09,880 --> 00:30:13,400 Speaker 1: out soon, he is still with Nintendo. He's actually been 450 00:30:13,480 --> 00:30:17,840 Speaker 1: named the Mario Ambassador. I don't know what being Mario 451 00:30:17,920 --> 00:30:21,840 Speaker 1: Ambassador actually means. I mean, maybe he will represent video 452 00:30:21,920 --> 00:30:25,600 Speaker 1: game stereotypes at the United Nations or something. I don't know, 453 00:30:26,280 --> 00:30:32,280 Speaker 1: but it's clear that his performance was really iconic, Like 454 00:30:32,360 --> 00:30:37,280 Speaker 1: people associate that performance with the character, so much so 455 00:30:37,440 --> 00:30:40,880 Speaker 1: that there was a bit of backlash when it was 456 00:30:40,960 --> 00:30:43,840 Speaker 1: revealed that Chris Pratt would be voicing the character in 457 00:30:43,880 --> 00:30:48,479 Speaker 1: the most recent animated Mario film. So yeah, thank you, 458 00:30:48,560 --> 00:30:52,560 Speaker 1: mister Martinee for your performances. I am glad that you 459 00:30:52,640 --> 00:30:55,560 Speaker 1: are still going to be a Mario ambassador. He's always 460 00:30:55,560 --> 00:31:00,480 Speaker 1: seemed to be a really enthusiastic and cool do like. 461 00:31:00,560 --> 00:31:02,760 Speaker 1: All the stories I've read about him have been really 462 00:31:02,800 --> 00:31:07,480 Speaker 1: positive ones. So great work, and I hope that Mario 463 00:31:07,560 --> 00:31:12,520 Speaker 1: ambassadorship suits you. Well. Okay, I've got some article recommendations 464 00:31:12,520 --> 00:31:15,239 Speaker 1: for y'all before we sign off. There have been a 465 00:31:15,320 --> 00:31:18,960 Speaker 1: ton of interesting think pieces in the tech space recently 466 00:31:19,520 --> 00:31:24,120 Speaker 1: that aren't really news. They're more like analysis or opinion 467 00:31:24,160 --> 00:31:27,240 Speaker 1: pieces about what's going on in tech. So first up 468 00:31:27,800 --> 00:31:32,080 Speaker 1: is Matthew King's piece for The New Republic. His article 469 00:31:32,160 --> 00:31:37,000 Speaker 1: is titled Big Tech's waste solutions are a scam. So 470 00:31:37,120 --> 00:31:40,800 Speaker 1: this piece addresses an issue that's incredibly important in tech, 471 00:31:41,320 --> 00:31:45,360 Speaker 1: and it works to demystify what these quote unquote solutions 472 00:31:45,760 --> 00:31:50,200 Speaker 1: actually accomplish, which, spoiler alert, is mostly about how they 473 00:31:50,400 --> 00:31:54,600 Speaker 1: let companies justify processes that generate a lot of waste 474 00:31:55,040 --> 00:31:58,240 Speaker 1: as opposed to actually getting to the source of the 475 00:31:58,280 --> 00:32:01,760 Speaker 1: problem itself. It's not exactly a pick me up, but 476 00:32:01,840 --> 00:32:04,960 Speaker 1: I think it's an important article to read. Next up, 477 00:32:05,280 --> 00:32:10,560 Speaker 1: we've got John Timmer's article political polarization toned down through 478 00:32:10,600 --> 00:32:15,280 Speaker 1: anonymous online chats. This is in Ours Technica. This piece 479 00:32:15,320 --> 00:32:17,280 Speaker 1: has some stuff in it that might surprise you. It 480 00:32:17,360 --> 00:32:21,080 Speaker 1: certainly surprised me, and it suggests that the echo chamber 481 00:32:21,120 --> 00:32:24,840 Speaker 1: effect is a really powerful and really pervasive one. It's 482 00:32:24,880 --> 00:32:29,480 Speaker 1: actually really hard to avoid. Finally, Leaf Weatherbeat at The 483 00:32:29,560 --> 00:32:34,000 Speaker 1: Daily Beast has an article titled Tesla Syndrome explains why 484 00:32:34,080 --> 00:32:38,320 Speaker 1: tech is making us miserable. This piece mostly focuses on 485 00:32:38,440 --> 00:32:42,480 Speaker 1: how innovation often means you're adding features that aren't really 486 00:32:42,560 --> 00:32:46,760 Speaker 1: solving any problems, and in fact can actually make tech worse, 487 00:32:47,280 --> 00:32:52,800 Speaker 1: like less easy or useful. As always, I don't have 488 00:32:52,920 --> 00:32:56,160 Speaker 1: any connection with any of these writers or the outlets 489 00:32:56,160 --> 00:32:59,360 Speaker 1: that they write for. I just found these particular pieces 490 00:32:59,480 --> 00:33:02,280 Speaker 1: to be interting. Thought you would too if you like 491 00:33:02,320 --> 00:33:04,640 Speaker 1: this show, so you can go check those out. I 492 00:33:04,640 --> 00:33:08,520 Speaker 1: think they're all worth reading. And that's it. I hope 493 00:33:08,680 --> 00:33:11,480 Speaker 1: you are all well, and I'll talk to you again 494 00:33:12,400 --> 00:33:22,360 Speaker 1: really soon. Tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For more 495 00:33:22,400 --> 00:33:27,160 Speaker 1: podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app Apple Podcasts or 496 00:33:27,160 --> 00:33:32,600 Speaker 1: wherever you listen to your favorite shows.