Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there,
Speaker 1: and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host Jonathan Strickland.
Speaker 1: I'm an executive producer with iHeartRadio. And how the tech
Speaker 1: are you. It's time for the tech news for Tuesday,
Speaker 1: August twenty second, twenty twenty three. First up, Microsoft and
Speaker 1: Activision Blizzard are still trying to complete that enormous sixty
Speaker 1: eight point seven billion dollar acquisition deal. The main hurdle
Speaker 1: now would be the Competition and Market's Authority or CMA
Speaker 1: in the United Kingdom or the UK. Okay, sorry but
Speaker 1: I don't know what happened to me there kind of
Speaker 1: short circuited anyway. One of the objections that the CMA
Speaker 1: has had to this deal is a concern that it
Speaker 1: could potentially give Microsoft almost monopolistic command of the cloud
Speaker 1: gaming industry, and thus the deal would then be anti competitive.
Speaker 1: To amend this, Microsoft has now restructured its deal to
Speaker 1: quote acquire a narrower set of rights end quote. This
Speaker 1: is according to Brad Smith, the president of Microsoft. The
Speaker 1: big piece of this deal or this restructuring, is that
Speaker 1: Microsoft is handing off the cloud streaming rights for all
Speaker 1: current Activision Blizzard games, as well as all new Activision
Speaker 1: Blizzard games for the next fifteen years to another company.
Speaker 1: Those rights will actually be held in perpetuity, which means
Speaker 1: the entity that has secured these rights will always have
Speaker 1: the rights for those specific titles now presumably in sixteen years.
Speaker 1: Microsoft would then get the exclusive rights to all Activision
Speaker 1: Blizzard games and the cloud streaming space moving forward. Anyway,
Speaker 1: the other entity happens to be Ubisoft. That's a games publisher.
Speaker 1: It's known for series like Assassin's Creed and numerous titles
Speaker 1: in the Tom Clancy universe. This new deal would mean
Speaker 1: that Microsoft would not have the authority to release any
Speaker 1: Activision Blizzard titles on Xbox Cloud Gaming as an exclusive.
Speaker 1: Those rights would go to Ubisoft, so theoretically that should
Speaker 1: quell the CMA's concerns. The CMA has launched a new
Speaker 1: investigation into this restructured deal, and the deadline they have
Speaker 1: to make a decision on whether or not they'll authorize
Speaker 1: the deal is October eighteenth. That also happens to be
Speaker 1: when Microsoft would need for this deal to close before
Speaker 1: having to negotiate another extension with Activision Blizzard. So originally
Speaker 1: Microsoft and Activision Blizzard had play and for this deal
Speaker 1: to already be closed, but because that didn't happen, they
Speaker 1: had to extend the deal once already. So if it
Speaker 1: comes up to October eighteenth, then the decision still hasn't
Speaker 1: been made. Microsoft and Activision Blizzard would have to come
Speaker 1: together again and decide whether they wanted to try and
Speaker 1: extend the deal or extend the period before the deal
Speaker 1: would close yet again in an effort to secure those rights.
Speaker 1: We'll have to wait and see if this restructured deal
Speaker 1: satisfies regulators. I have really complex feelings about this deal.
Speaker 1: So on the one hand, as I have said many
Speaker 1: times on this show, consolidation and markets rarely leads to
Speaker 1: better outcomes for customers in the long run. But on
Speaker 1: the other hand, Activision Blizzard is a company that has
Speaker 1: a really rough history with regard to corporate culture and
Speaker 1: how leaders have treated employees, to put it lightly, so
Speaker 1: there's a hope that a change in ownership would lead
Speaker 1: to better conditions for employees. And that's that's not nothing.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I have complicated thoughts on this, but for
Speaker 1: now that's where the deal is. If I had to
Speaker 1: place a bet, I would say that this new restructured
Speaker 1: approach should end up working because it seems to address
Speaker 1: the concerns the CMA had. But then the CMA hasn't
Speaker 1: really reversed its decision on anything for the past several years,
Speaker 1: so we'll have to see. Sticking with Microsoft, the company
Speaker 1: is killing off the Connect. But wait, I hear some
Speaker 1: of you say, I thought they already did that years ago,
Speaker 1: and you and I would be in the same boat
Speaker 1: because I remember Microsoft discontinuing the Connect way back in
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen. So for those of y'all out there who
Speaker 1: have no idea what I'm talking about, the original Connect
Speaker 1: was a peripheral for the Xbox three P sixty game console.
Speaker 1: It uses depth sensing cameras to detect the environment and
Speaker 1: to interpret physical gestures as commands, which could be used
Speaker 1: in applications and games. It also had stuff like microphones
Speaker 1: to pick up voice commands that kind of thing. Microsoft
Speaker 1: updated the Connect with the launch of the Xbox One,
Speaker 1: but there was a general kind of lack of interest
Speaker 1: from both developers and gamers. It was sort of a
Speaker 1: chicken and egg problem, right, Like, developers didn't have a
Speaker 1: lot of incentive to make stuff for the Connect because
Speaker 1: there didn't seem to be a large audience for it. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the audience didn't have very many games they could purchase
Speaker 1: because developers weren't actually making a whole lot of stuff
Speaker 1: for it, and some of the stuff that was made
Speaker 1: was some of the most widely panned video games out there.
Speaker 1: So yeah, it kind of led Microsoft to just shelve
Speaker 1: the whole thing in twenty seventeen. Now, what I did
Speaker 1: not realize was that Microsoft actually brought the Connect back
Speaker 1: in two thousand nineteen, but it wasn't for gamers this time. Instead,
Speaker 1: this version was the Azure Connect Developer Kit. So it's
Speaker 1: a tech kit for folks who are working in fields
Speaker 1: like robotics and computer vision and artificial intelligence. So one
Speaker 1: of the fascinating things about areas of computer research is
Speaker 1: that often researchers will take advantage of hardware that was
Speaker 1: intended for some other use, like a video game peripheral,
Speaker 1: and then repurpose that technology for research. This actually happens
Speaker 1: a lot in areas like mixed reality and artificial intelligence research. Anyway,
Speaker 1: Microsoft saw the opportunity to make a little money by
Speaker 1: creating these kits and marketing them to like research groups
Speaker 1: and such, but now Microsoft has discontinued the Azure Connect
Speaker 1: Developer Kit as well, so existing kits will continue to work.
Speaker 1: According to Microsoft, they're not going to turn off support
Speaker 1: for the stuff that's already out there. The company has
Speaker 1: also said it will continue to sell these kits through
Speaker 1: October or until they're all gone, whichever comes first. For
Speaker 1: developers who are hoping to take advantage of the Connect's capabilities.
Speaker 1: Microsoft also has some suggested alternatives through its various partners,
Speaker 1: so you can research that if you're into it. If
Speaker 1: you can't get hold of one of these kits and
Speaker 1: you're in the field. But yeah, the long and winding
Speaker 1: road for the Connect has come to an end again.
Speaker 1: Forbes received a copy of a draft agreement from twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two. This is between TikTok and the Committee on
Speaker 1: Foreign Investment in the United States or SCIPHIUS. That gives
Speaker 1: insight into the negotiations between TikTok and the US government.
Speaker 1: So for those of you not up to speed, one
Speaker 1: of the few unifying concepts among politicians in both major
Speaker 1: political parties is a concern about TikTok in general, and
Speaker 1: with regard to national security in particular. Lots of government bodies,
Speaker 1: ranging from local governments to federal organizations, have banned TikTok
Speaker 1: from government owned devices some regions, some states in the
Speaker 1: US really one has banned TikTok outright. Others are considering
Speaker 1: similar bands. And this mostly has to do with the
Speaker 1: fact that TikTok's parent company, Byteedance, is a Chinese company
Speaker 1: and by extension, a potential conspirator with the Chinese government,
Speaker 1: specifically the Chinese Communist Party. So there's a long time
Speaker 1: fear that TikTok could be acting as a funnel and
Speaker 1: be directing information to Chinese agents who could be using
Speaker 1: it as intelligence for all sorts of things, from gaining
Speaker 1: information about US companies and US government agencies and institutions,
Speaker 1: to developing new ways to manipulate the American public through
Speaker 1: misinformation and disinformation campaigns. This leaked agreement from twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: which came from some unnamed sources, has some fairly dramatic
Speaker 1: stuff in it. So, for example, the terms of this
Speaker 1: agreement would give the US government the authority to perform
Speaker 1: reviews of TikTok's facilities and equipment, including their servers, at
Speaker 1: pretty much any time without any warning. The government would
Speaker 1: also have the power to veto changes in TikTok's terms
Speaker 1: of service here in the United States if the government
Speaker 1: had decided that those changes in terms of service were
Speaker 1: potentially harmful to national security or American citizens. The government
Speaker 1: would even have a say on the types of executives
Speaker 1: that TikTok could hire, at least for certain positions. They
Speaker 1: would also be able to demand that TikTok temporarily suspends
Speaker 1: service in the United States. So this is pretty extreme stuff.
Speaker 1: It is beyond rare to see any kind of document
Speaker 1: that would allow this level of involvement from the US
Speaker 1: government into a company's operations. That's just not typically how
Speaker 1: things are done here in the United States. So a
Speaker 1: lot of that document appears to aim at severing byte
Speaker 1: Dance's connection to TikTok. Not completely, not forcing byte Dance
Speaker 1: to release TikTok, to spin it off, or to sell
Speaker 1: it off, but it does essentially remove any decision making
Speaker 1: processes between byte Dance and TikTok, or at least really
Speaker 1: neuters them quite a bit. As Forbes writer Emily Baker
Speaker 1: White points out, this agreement potentially hands the United States
Speaker 1: government the exact same power that US politicians are worried
Speaker 1: that the Chinese could abuse or perhaps are already abusing.
Speaker 1: Now that shouldn't comfort anybody, because various agencies in the
Speaker 1: United States have shown a distinct lack of restraint when
Speaker 1: it comes to surveillance in spying upon American citizens, So
Speaker 1: it should be a concern that the US government would
Speaker 1: get that power. It's really trading one government that we're
Speaker 1: worried would conduct surveillance on US citizens to another. It
Speaker 1: just happens to also be the US government. In fact,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, anyone having this capability is concerning to me.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter if it's the Chinese government or the
Speaker 1: US government or the company itself. Doesn't matter to me
Speaker 1: if the company is public versus private. I just think
Speaker 1: it's bad news. No matter who is in charge. If
Speaker 1: they're able to get access to that amount of information,
Speaker 1: it doesn't turn out well. So, in other words, it
Speaker 1: doesn't really matter who's in charge in the sense of
Speaker 1: the danger is present no matter who's holding the reins.
Speaker 1: It's just the question of how is it going to
Speaker 1: potentially be abused anyway. Again, this was a draft agreement.
Speaker 1: Negotiations are ongoing between TikTok and the United States. It's
Speaker 1: just wild to say terms like these laid out in
Speaker 1: a document between the US government and a company. All Right,
Speaker 1: we're going to take a quick break to thank our sponsors,
Speaker 1: and we'll be back with more news. We're back so late.
Speaker 1: Last week, DC District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled
Speaker 1: that only human beings can hold a copyright, which means
Speaker 1: any art, any creative work that AI generates is not
Speaker 1: eligible for copyright. The ruling stemmed from a court case
Speaker 1: in which a man named Stephen Taller attempted to argue
Speaker 1: that he should be allowed to own a copyright of
Speaker 1: an AI generated piece as though it were a work
Speaker 1: for higher piece. So Taller had created this AI tool.
Speaker 1: The AI tool in turn generated some art, and Taller says, well,
Speaker 1: we should treat that as if the tool is my employee,
Speaker 1: and I hired this employee to create the art for me,
Speaker 1: and I own the copyright on the art. This is
Speaker 1: not an unusual thing when we talk about human beings, right, Like,
Speaker 1: there are corporations that own the copyright on material that
Speaker 1: was created by the corporation's employees or contractors. So while
Speaker 1: the employee or contractor is the person who actually created
Speaker 1: the thing. The corporation is the entity that owns the copyright.
Speaker 1: Great example, this show. I don't own the copyright to
Speaker 1: this show. I do all the research, I do all
Speaker 1: the writing, I do all the recording. I do not
Speaker 1: own the copyright. That's a company thing, and it's not
Speaker 1: unusual for that case. So Taller was arguing the same
Speaker 1: consideration should be granted to him. He should be able
Speaker 1: to hold the copyright on AI generated art. Judge Howell
Speaker 1: has rejected this argument and said that quote human authorship
Speaker 1: is a bedrock requirement of copyright end quote. Taller plans
Speaker 1: to appeal this case, and I'm sure there are a
Speaker 1: lot of companies watching this closely. The entire Hollywood establishment
Speaker 1: is probably pretty concerned. There's been a great interest in
Speaker 1: using AI in creative endeavors out of Hollywood. But while
Speaker 1: Hollywood executives might salivate over the possible costs that they
Speaker 1: cut by using AI instead of human beings, the threat
Speaker 1: of being unable to secure IP ownership would likely outweigh
Speaker 1: everything else. Right, the studios would be like, well, if
Speaker 1: we don't own the stuff, that's worse. So when you're
Speaker 1: looking at greed motivators, I think that the ownership outweighs
Speaker 1: cutting costs by using AI instead of human beings. Honestly,
Speaker 1: I'm kind of curious how my old employer, HowStuffWorks dot
Speaker 1: Com is looking at this, because they famously, as or
Speaker 1: at least famously on this show, switched over to AI
Speaker 1: generated articles, and as such, if that means that how
Speaker 1: Stuffworks cannot own a copyright over that material, that I
Speaker 1: think is a big risk for the company, And right
Speaker 1: now in US law it appears that that's the case,
Speaker 1: that you cannot copyright something that was generated by AI,
Speaker 1: so definitely complicates matters for companies like that. Anyway, the
Speaker 1: whole issue is far from closed. I imagine it's going
Speaker 1: to take a good amount of time to hash out
Speaker 1: how copyright applies or does not apply to works that
Speaker 1: AI either created outright or helped to create. This is
Speaker 1: going to be probably something that's going to eventually lead
Speaker 1: to new legislation, but right now, at least according to
Speaker 1: Judge Howell, current legislation has no place for it, and
Speaker 1: thus copyright does not apply. Mashable has a piece in
Speaker 1: which a third party researcher named Travis Brown analyzed Elon
Speaker 1: Musk's followers on x the platform formerly known as Twitter.
Speaker 1: Musk has the most followed account on the platform. He's
Speaker 1: got more followers than anyone else. On x he has
Speaker 1: around one hundred and fifty three million followers. So Mashable
Speaker 1: was kind of curious about how many of those accounts
Speaker 1: represented real people, or at least, you know, active users.
Speaker 1: And while Brown's work cannot give a definitive answer on
Speaker 1: how many followers might be bots, some of the findings
Speaker 1: do suggest that a whole dang bunch of Musk's followers,
Speaker 1: at the very least, are not hardcore users of the platform.
Speaker 1: For example, more than seventy two percent of all of
Speaker 1: Musk's followers that's around one hundred twelve million accounts have
Speaker 1: fewer than ten followers themselves, and more than sixty five
Speaker 1: million of those accounts have zero followers. So forty two
Speaker 1: percent of all the followers that Musk has have no
Speaker 1: followers themselves. Now, that does not mean that all or
Speaker 1: even most of those accounts are bots, but it's not
Speaker 1: a good sign, right like. It suggests that perhaps these
Speaker 1: accounts are are inactive or unseen like, So it seems
Speaker 1: like Musk's following is largely inflated, but that's not all.
Speaker 1: On top of that, around forty one percent of all
Speaker 1: of his followers, or around sixty two and a half
Speaker 1: million of them, have no posts at all. None of
Speaker 1: them like, this's just an empty, empty little account. Now,
Speaker 1: Mashable points out, this might not mean that they have
Speaker 1: never posted a message. It is possible that they did
Speaker 1: once upon a time, but then subsequently deleted their history
Speaker 1: of messages. So that's a possibility. And some of them
Speaker 1: could just be lurking, right. They're not there to generate content,
Speaker 1: They're there to consume content. More than one hundred million
Speaker 1: of his followers have fewer than ten posts on their account.
Speaker 1: About a quarter of all the accounts that are following
Speaker 1: Musk have the default user profile image. More than forty
Speaker 1: percent of his followers have a user handle that contains
Speaker 1: four or more numbers in it. Again, when you start
Speaker 1: thinking about things like the generic or the default icon
Speaker 1: for your profile image, or having lots of numbers in
Speaker 1: the name, those are things that often suggest a bot
Speaker 1: account as opposed to a real person. Only zero point
Speaker 1: three percent of his followers are ex premium subscribers, so
Speaker 1: while the findings cannot definitively say that the bulk of
Speaker 1: musks following made up of inactive or fake accounts. The
Speaker 1: circumstantial evidence suggests that maybe he's not the most popular
Speaker 1: person on Twitter. I mean X after all. Speaking of X,
Speaker 1: Over the weekend, the platform experienced a problem that affected
Speaker 1: posts made before December twenty fourteen. This problem affected messages
Speaker 1: that contained either an image or it contained a URL
Speaker 1: that Twitter had auto shortened so that it would take
Speaker 1: up fewer characters. Remember, there was a limit to one
Speaker 1: hundred and forty and then later two hundred eighty characters
Speaker 1: on Twitter for a long time, So this meant that,
Speaker 1: at least temporarily, it looked like a ton of material
Speaker 1: had been lost, all of these images and all these
Speaker 1: messages that had contained a link in them. That prompted
Speaker 1: a lot of folks to worry that the loss could
Speaker 1: be permanent. But X's support department sent a message stating
Speaker 1: that a bug had made this info inaccessible. They did
Speaker 1: not give details on what that bug was, and that
Speaker 1: all the information was actually safe. Nothing got deleted, it
Speaker 1: just wasn't able to display on X for the moment,
Speaker 1: and that the support department had fixed this issue, but
Speaker 1: it would take some time for those older messages to
Speaker 1: essentially repopulate, but according to the support staff, it should
Speaker 1: all be back within a few days, so that's good. Now.
Speaker 1: Normally I would put this next story at the very
Speaker 1: end of the episode because it involves a bit of absurdity,
Speaker 1: but this story also relates to Tesla, one of Elon
Speaker 1: Musk's other companies, so I am putting it here instead.
Speaker 1: This story came out last week, but I totally missed it.
Speaker 1: Tesla has created kind of a goofy product to promote
Speaker 1: the upcoming Cybertruck electric vehicle. This product is a cat bed,
Speaker 1: and the cat bed's frame is made out of cardboard.
Speaker 1: The cardboard folds into this angular shape that's meant to
Speaker 1: remind you of the weird truck bed of the cyber Truck.
Speaker 1: The wild thing is that the design of this cat
Speaker 1: bed looks almost exactly like one of a cat lounger
Speaker 1: created by a company called Hulu Mao that was released
Speaker 1: way back in twenty seventeen. I mean, if you were
Speaker 1: to put these two products side by side, and you
Speaker 1: were to cover up the brand names that are printed
Speaker 1: on the cardboard, I don't think you would be able
Speaker 1: to tell which one was which at a casual glance. However,
Speaker 1: the creator of the Hulu Mau version said that he
Speaker 1: did not file for a patent on the design of
Speaker 1: that cat lounger. He was actually advised that it would
Speaker 1: have been too complicated and expensive to pursue one as
Speaker 1: sort of a small business pursuit. This is out of Taiwan,
Speaker 1: by the way, so technically the creator doesn't have IP
Speaker 1: rights that he can exercise against Tesla. He says that
Speaker 1: he doesn't really have any legal means to go after
Speaker 1: the company because he doesn't hold a patent on the
Speaker 1: original design. But it clearly is like it looks like
Speaker 1: a direct copy to me, or at least a very
Speaker 1: very very close copy. Maybe not maybe direct as being
Speaker 1: too extreme, but from my limited perceptible abilities, I would
Speaker 1: say that they're almost identical. The creator of the original
Speaker 1: version said it would be really cool for Tesla to,
Speaker 1: you know, compensate Hulumal for the use of that design,
Speaker 1: and I agree that would be very cool, but I'll
Speaker 1: also be absolutely shocked if that happens. Okay, let's move
Speaker 1: on to a different tech billionaire with grandiose ambitions. We're
Speaker 1: talking about Jeff Bezos and his space company Blue Origins
Speaker 1: in this section. So Fortune reports that back on June fourth,
Speaker 1: the International Space Station detected a huge methane emission while
Speaker 1: passing over West Texas, which is where Blue Origin will
Speaker 1: conduct lots of work. So analysts estimated that the release
Speaker 1: of gas was at a rate of one and a
Speaker 1: half metric tons per hour, and they don't know how
Speaker 1: long the event lasted. And that makes sense because the
Speaker 1: International Space Station orbits the entire planet in about an
Speaker 1: hour and a half, so it's not above any one
Speaker 1: point on Earth for a very long time. So what
Speaker 1: was the source of methane? Well, again, Bezos's private space company,
Speaker 1: Blue Origin. It's actually working on a rocket that runs
Speaker 1: on liquefied natural gas, which is almost entirely methane. And
Speaker 1: so the thought was that this emission came from a
Speaker 1: time when the company was perhaps transferring methane from a
Speaker 1: supplier to the company's storage tanks and a bunch got
Speaker 1: released in the process. The state of Texas doesn't have
Speaker 1: limits on methane emissions, and it also does not require
Speaker 1: companies to disclose when they release methane into the atmosphere.
Speaker 1: So Blue Origin has very little reason to disclose this
Speaker 1: kind of stuff. There's no reason to bring attention to it,
Speaker 1: right because there's no legal requirement to do. So. What
Speaker 1: is certain is that while it's pretty scary to think
Speaker 1: of Blue Origin emitting enormous amounts of methane into the atmosphere,
Speaker 1: and it's enough for an instrument that's in orbit around
Speaker 1: the planet to pick up on those emissions, it's still
Speaker 1: actually a very tiny amount compared to actual natural gas
Speaker 1: industry companies. So yes, we could fixate on this, and honestly,
Speaker 1: I think it is a problem that needs to be addressed,
Speaker 1: but it's something that needs to be prioritized after we
Speaker 1: address the larger issue of natural gas companies releasing far
Speaker 1: more methane into the atmosphere. Prioritize. Don't say one versus another,
Speaker 1: just say, Okay, we'll get to that after we get
Speaker 1: to this other thing first. But we are going to
Speaker 1: have to start actually making movement on that. Okay, We're
Speaker 1: gonna take another quick break when we come back. I've
Speaker 1: got a few more stories to cover. We're back, Okay,
Speaker 1: we're going back to space. We were just talking about
Speaker 1: Blue Origins and methane. Let's talk now about Russia. So
Speaker 1: this past weekend, the Russian space program experienced a setback
Speaker 1: when the Luna twenty five spacecraft, which was intended to
Speaker 1: land on the Moon this week, instead malfunctioned and ultimately
Speaker 1: crashed into the Moon. This was to be Russia's first
Speaker 1: Moon mission since nineteen seventy six, that's when the Luna
Speaker 1: twenty four landed on the Moon and actually returned moon
Speaker 1: rocks to Earth. But since then, Russia has not been
Speaker 1: able to land another spacecraft on the Moon. In fact,
Speaker 1: nobody has except China. Roz Cosmos, which is the Russian
Speaker 1: space program, says a full investigation is going to look
Speaker 1: into this to find out where things went wrong, like
Speaker 1: what was the cause of this malfunction. The Luna twenty
Speaker 1: five had entered into the orbit of the Moon already,
Speaker 1: and the operation that took place on Saturday was meant
Speaker 1: to maneuver the spacecraft into a pre landing orbit, and
Speaker 1: if everything had gone properly, the actual touchdown on the
Speaker 1: Moon's surface would have happened yesterday. Considering the agency has
Speaker 1: faced funding challenges over the last several years, this most
Speaker 1: recent setback is really bad news. For Russia's space program.
Speaker 1: Russia is a country that notoriously values results, and when
Speaker 1: there's a failure to produce results, often there's a retraction
Speaker 1: of support, let's say. And plus Russia's having lots of
Speaker 1: political issues at the moment, to put it lightly, so
Speaker 1: it may be that the space program will not have
Speaker 1: priority of attention for the moment. So we'll have to see.
Speaker 1: But yeah, bad timing, bad news for Russia. But tomorrow,
Speaker 1: if everything goes as planned, a lunar lander will set
Speaker 1: down on the Moon's surface, but it won't be coming
Speaker 1: from Russia. Instead, it will come from India. So back
Speaker 1: in twenty nineteen, India attempted to land a spacecraft on
Speaker 1: the Moon, but that mission ultimately was a failure. This
Speaker 1: new one is the latest attempt to land a spacecraft
Speaker 1: on the Moon. It would include a lander and a rover,
Speaker 1: so if it succeeds, India will then join China as
Speaker 1: being one of only two countries to have landed a
Speaker 1: spacecraft on the Moon in forty seven years. That's how
Speaker 1: far back you have to go before you start finding
Speaker 1: other countries having landed stuff on the Moon. Russia In
Speaker 1: the United States, this lander has already sent back images
Speaker 1: of the far side of the Moon. This is where
Speaker 1: I remind you that the far side of the moon
Speaker 1: is the side that's permanently facing away from Earth. It
Speaker 1: is not the same thing as saying the dark side
Speaker 1: of the moon, because the moon does have day and
Speaker 1: night cycles, so all of the Moon will see light
Speaker 1: and darkness over the course of time. So dark side
Speaker 1: of the moon is a thing, but it's a temporary thing.
Speaker 1: Far side of the moon is the permanent thing. Apologies
Speaker 1: to pink Floyd. We should actually know by tomorrow morning.
Speaker 1: The scheduled landing time is eight thirty four am Eastern.
Speaker 1: That's assuming that nothing causes any delays. But then we
Speaker 1: should know about whether or not the mission was a success.
Speaker 1: Should it be a success, then that means the lander
Speaker 1: and the rover will touch down the Moon's surface and
Speaker 1: they will have one lunar day to explore the moon,
Speaker 1: soay is about fourteen days here on Earth. After that,
Speaker 1: darkness will fall become lunar night. The machines will drain
Speaker 1: out of energy and they will likely be unresponsive when
Speaker 1: the dawn comes half a month later. So here's hoping
Speaker 1: that the mission is a success. It's always good to
Speaker 1: further science, no matter who is in the driver's seat,
Speaker 1: so to speak, assuming that science isn't being used to,
Speaker 1: you know, oppressor or hurt people. All right, I have
Speaker 1: one final story before we get to some article recommendations,
Speaker 1: and that story is to give a twenty one coin
Speaker 1: salute to Charles Martinet. For more than twenty five years,
Speaker 1: mister Martinez has been the voice of the beloved Nintendo
Speaker 1: video game character Mario, sometimes known as Mario Mario. So
Speaker 1: if you have ever attempted and it's Anne Ma in
Speaker 1: your life, you were doing an impression of mister Martinee.
Speaker 1: While he will no longer be voicing the character in
Speaker 1: Nintendo games, including in the most recent one that's coming
Speaker 1: out soon, he is still with Nintendo. He's actually been
Speaker 1: named the Mario Ambassador. I don't know what being Mario
Speaker 1: Ambassador actually means. I mean, maybe he will represent video
Speaker 1: game stereotypes at the United Nations or something. I don't know,
Speaker 1: but it's clear that his performance was really iconic, Like
Speaker 1: people associate that performance with the character, so much so
Speaker 1: that there was a bit of backlash when it was
Speaker 1: revealed that Chris Pratt would be voicing the character in
Speaker 1: the most recent animated Mario film. So yeah, thank you,
Speaker 1: mister Martinee for your performances. I am glad that you
Speaker 1: are still going to be a Mario ambassador. He's always
Speaker 1: seemed to be a really enthusiastic and cool do like.
Speaker 1: All the stories I've read about him have been really
Speaker 1: positive ones. So great work, and I hope that Mario
Speaker 1: ambassadorship suits you. Well. Okay, I've got some article recommendations
Speaker 1: for y'all before we sign off. There have been a
Speaker 1: ton of interesting think pieces in the tech space recently
Speaker 1: that aren't really news. They're more like analysis or opinion
Speaker 1: pieces about what's going on in tech. So first up
Speaker 1: is Matthew King's piece for The New Republic. His article
Speaker 1: is titled Big Tech's waste solutions are a scam. So
Speaker 1: this piece addresses an issue that's incredibly important in tech,
Speaker 1: and it works to demystify what these quote unquote solutions
Speaker 1: actually accomplish, which, spoiler alert, is mostly about how they
Speaker 1: let companies justify processes that generate a lot of waste
Speaker 1: as opposed to actually getting to the source of the
Speaker 1: problem itself. It's not exactly a pick me up, but
Speaker 1: I think it's an important article to read. Next up,
Speaker 1: we've got John Timmer's article political polarization toned down through
Speaker 1: anonymous online chats. This is in Ours Technica. This piece
Speaker 1: has some stuff in it that might surprise you. It
Speaker 1: certainly surprised me, and it suggests that the echo chamber
Speaker 1: effect is a really powerful and really pervasive one. It's
Speaker 1: actually really hard to avoid. Finally, Leaf Weatherbeat at The
Speaker 1: Daily Beast has an article titled Tesla Syndrome explains why
Speaker 1: tech is making us miserable. This piece mostly focuses on
Speaker 1: how innovation often means you're adding features that aren't really
Speaker 1: solving any problems, and in fact can actually make tech worse,
Speaker 1: like less easy or useful. As always, I don't have
Speaker 1: any connection with any of these writers or the outlets
Speaker 1: that they write for. I just found these particular pieces
Speaker 1: to be interting. Thought you would too if you like
Speaker 1: this show, so you can go check those out. I
Speaker 1: think they're all worth reading. And that's it. I hope
Speaker 1: you are all well, and I'll talk to you again
Speaker 1: really soon. Tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For more
Speaker 1: podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app Apple Podcasts or
Speaker 1: wherever you listen to your favorite shows.