WEBVTT - TechStuff Tidbits: What the Heck is a Qubit? 0:00:04.440 --> 0:00:12.280 Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there, 0:00:12.280 --> 0:00:15.720 and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland. 0:00:15.720 --> 0:00:19.119 I'm an executive producer with iHeartRadio. And how the tech 0:00:19.200 --> 0:00:25.120 are you. Today's tech stuff tidbits is what's a cubit? Well, 0:00:25.280 --> 0:00:28.880 he's this little orange guy who jumps up and down 0:00:28.880 --> 0:00:33.120 a pyramid like structure while trying to avoid snakes. He 0:00:33.159 --> 0:00:38.520 also has a habit of cursing. Wait, sorry, I'm being 0:00:38.520 --> 0:00:44.000 told by the Yeah, okay, no, sorry, guys, got that 0:00:44.120 --> 0:00:49.120 totally wrong. That's Cubert. A cubit is something else entirely, 0:00:50.159 --> 0:00:54.640 I know cringe jokes. Also, Originally I thought maybe I 0:00:54.640 --> 0:00:56.920 would go a different way with that, and I would 0:00:57.120 --> 0:01:02.080 talk about cubits being a unit of measurement used to 0:01:02.240 --> 0:01:06.800 build arcs in Biblical times. But you see that joke 0:01:06.920 --> 0:01:10.360 about what a cubit is, Well, it existed in two 0:01:10.480 --> 0:01:14.160 states simultaneously, but ultimately, when it came time for me 0:01:14.200 --> 0:01:18.200 to choose which joke to use, it had to collapse 0:01:18.280 --> 0:01:22.560 into a single state, which is the Cubert joke. And 0:01:23.000 --> 0:01:26.160 that whole bit about collapsing into a single state. I 0:01:26.200 --> 0:01:28.840 can't promise it'll make more sense later. But I can 0:01:28.959 --> 0:01:32.720 promise we're gonna talk about it all right. So to 0:01:32.880 --> 0:01:36.840 understand what a cubit is. Cubit, by the way, actually 0:01:36.840 --> 0:01:40.679 stands for quantum bit. Well, it stands to reason that 0:01:40.720 --> 0:01:44.119 first we have to understand what a bit is. Now. 0:01:44.160 --> 0:01:47.200 Way back in nineteen forty eight, in the early days 0:01:47.640 --> 0:01:51.600 of computer science, a man named Claude Shannon published a 0:01:51.640 --> 0:01:57.400 work titled A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Shannon was mentored 0:01:57.440 --> 0:02:01.640 by a guy named Van Var Bush that I really 0:02:01.680 --> 0:02:05.680 need to dedicate at least one episode, but probably multiple 0:02:05.720 --> 0:02:11.080 episodes two at some point, very important person in tech 0:02:11.160 --> 0:02:14.600 in general played a large part in some really historic 0:02:15.720 --> 0:02:21.400 and sometimes terrible technological events in history. I have actually 0:02:21.400 --> 0:02:24.040 dedicated an episode to Claude Shannon in the past, so 0:02:24.080 --> 0:02:26.119 if you go and do a search in the Tech 0:02:26.120 --> 0:02:30.960 Stuff archives, you'll find an episode just about him. But anyway, 0:02:31.160 --> 0:02:36.040 in this work, Shannon proposed a basic unit of information, 0:02:36.520 --> 0:02:41.520 a binary digit or bit. The bit exists in one 0:02:41.880 --> 0:02:46.680 of two states. It is either a zero or a one. 0:02:47.280 --> 0:02:49.760 Shannon's work goes into a lot of other territory with 0:02:49.840 --> 0:02:54.399 a fascinating treatment on communication theory that fundamentally changed how 0:02:54.520 --> 0:02:58.120 communication engineers think about the subject, but it gets really 0:02:58.360 --> 0:03:01.760 technical really quickly, and I honestly would have to study 0:03:01.800 --> 0:03:04.760 it for days to feel comfortable even talking about it 0:03:04.800 --> 0:03:07.640 in a way where I didn't feel I was getting 0:03:07.639 --> 0:03:12.200 it all wrong. So rather than blindly lead you into 0:03:12.320 --> 0:03:15.440 a discussion that I would likely get completely wrong, we're 0:03:15.480 --> 0:03:19.079 going to move on to something else that's equally complicated. 0:03:19.600 --> 0:03:22.520 But for our discussion, the important thing is the bit 0:03:23.040 --> 0:03:26.280 zero or one. You can think of it as no 0:03:26.919 --> 0:03:31.280 or yes, or off or on. It's as basic as 0:03:31.280 --> 0:03:34.600 you can get. By grouping bits together, you can express 0:03:34.639 --> 0:03:39.080 more complex information. So one bit has two states. If 0:03:39.120 --> 0:03:42.280 you have two bits, you have four states. You can 0:03:42.360 --> 0:03:47.400 express zero, zero, zero, one, one, zero, and one one. 0:03:48.000 --> 0:03:51.440 With three bits, you've got eight possible states. Four bits, 0:03:51.640 --> 0:03:55.400 you've got sixteen possible states. By the time you get 0:03:55.480 --> 0:03:58.360 up to eight bits, it's two hundred and fifty six states. 0:03:58.400 --> 0:04:01.560 So you see how adding one bit to a string 0:04:02.160 --> 0:04:06.040 doubles the number of states that string can express compared 0:04:06.040 --> 0:04:09.440 to when it was one bit fewer. All right, So 0:04:10.080 --> 0:04:12.800 then we get into an era in which computer scientists 0:04:13.000 --> 0:04:17.200 start working with this concept in a practical way, and 0:04:17.279 --> 0:04:21.479 after a while, computer scientists begin to agree on other stuff, 0:04:21.880 --> 0:04:25.880 like the idea of eight bits representing a bite. This 0:04:26.240 --> 0:04:28.919 wasn't always the case. There were some who proposed six 0:04:28.960 --> 0:04:32.479 bits rather than eight, et cetera. But we're gonna skip 0:04:32.520 --> 0:04:36.840 way ahead and talk about processors for a moment. Processors 0:04:37.160 --> 0:04:41.120 take data in the form of bits and execute operations 0:04:41.400 --> 0:04:45.919 on that data to create output, like mathematical operations, and 0:04:45.960 --> 0:04:49.000 those operations come from a program. The program is really 0:04:49.040 --> 0:04:51.880 just a set of instructions that the processor is meant 0:04:51.880 --> 0:04:56.440 to follow while working with this data, and it generates 0:04:56.480 --> 0:04:59.400 some sort of result. And a lot of factors determine 0:04:59.400 --> 0:05:02.839 how fast the processor is, like how much data it 0:05:02.880 --> 0:05:07.039 can process within a given amount of time. Now, generally speaking, 0:05:07.440 --> 0:05:10.720 the more bits the processor can accept at once, and 0:05:10.760 --> 0:05:13.680 the higher the clock speed of the processor, which really 0:05:13.720 --> 0:05:17.400 means the number of operational steps the processor can complete 0:05:17.440 --> 0:05:20.120 in a second. Well, then the more powerful the computer 0:05:20.279 --> 0:05:23.839 is and the faster it will solve problems to a point, 0:05:24.320 --> 0:05:27.920 but there are some computational problems that are much harder 0:05:27.960 --> 0:05:31.760 to solve than others, and even a fast processor can 0:05:31.800 --> 0:05:35.240 get bogged down by them and it becomes impractical or 0:05:35.320 --> 0:05:40.839 even impossible to compute that problem. So, for example, there's 0:05:41.000 --> 0:05:44.720 the famous traveling salesman problem, which is a type of 0:05:45.000 --> 0:05:51.320 NP hard computational problem. The NP stands for nondeterministic polynomial time. 0:05:51.920 --> 0:05:53.800 But we don't need to really get into all of that. 0:05:54.440 --> 0:05:57.680 The traveling salesman problem presents a list of cities and 0:05:57.680 --> 0:06:01.680 it asks the question, what is the shortest route starting 0:06:01.720 --> 0:06:06.000 from the salesman home city to each of these cities 0:06:06.480 --> 0:06:10.000 and then back to home without visiting a city twice. 0:06:10.440 --> 0:06:13.279 What's the shortest route that you can take? Well, for 0:06:13.320 --> 0:06:15.720 a computer to solve that question, it would need to 0:06:15.760 --> 0:06:20.719 calculate the route using every possible combination, and that route 0:06:20.720 --> 0:06:24.039 obviously gets more complicated as you add more cities to 0:06:24.120 --> 0:06:26.720 the list, and a sufficiently large list would keep a 0:06:26.760 --> 0:06:32.880 computer busy for a really long time, like months or years, 0:06:33.279 --> 0:06:36.600 or decades or centuries, depending on the complexity of the problem. 0:06:37.160 --> 0:06:42.400 So that's an issue, right. You cannot easily solve this 0:06:42.600 --> 0:06:47.120 class of computational problems with a classical computer. But what 0:06:47.240 --> 0:06:50.039 if you could design a computer that could potentially solve 0:06:50.080 --> 0:06:57.000 this problem in a flash by essentially calculating every route simultaneously. 0:06:57.760 --> 0:07:00.680 Now we're getting into the possibilities offered up by quantum 0:07:00.720 --> 0:07:05.159 computing and the cubit. The cubit is a quantum bit, 0:07:05.279 --> 0:07:08.120 and like a bit, it can have a value of 0:07:08.400 --> 0:07:12.200 zero or one, though we represent them asket zero and 0:07:12.360 --> 0:07:14.600 cut one states. But I'm gonna leave it there because 0:07:15.120 --> 0:07:19.680 describing representation and notation in an audio only podcast is futile. 0:07:20.120 --> 0:07:22.760 I'd be like, okay, then you have a little squiggly line. 0:07:23.040 --> 0:07:25.120 None of that would make any sense, so we're gonna 0:07:25.200 --> 0:07:27.680 leave it there for now. But here's the thing. A 0:07:27.760 --> 0:07:32.240 cubit can also have both values at the same time 0:07:32.280 --> 0:07:36.760 and technically all values in between, and hold those values 0:07:36.840 --> 0:07:41.400 in superposition until the system collapses and the cubit assumes 0:07:41.520 --> 0:07:44.720 one or the other states. And which one it assumes 0:07:44.800 --> 0:07:48.280 is based on probabilities. So it may be that it's 0:07:48.320 --> 0:07:50.360 a fifty to fifty, which means half the time the 0:07:50.400 --> 0:07:52.080 cubit would be a zero and half the time the 0:07:52.120 --> 0:07:54.200 cubit would be a one. It doesn't have to be 0:07:54.280 --> 0:07:56.520 fifty to fifty, however, so this is one of those 0:07:56.560 --> 0:08:00.880 weird quantum effects that Schrodinger wanted to poke at with 0:08:01.040 --> 0:08:06.840 his cat thought experiment see Early quantum physicists theorized about 0:08:07.080 --> 0:08:14.200 superposition that certain quantum stuff can hold multiple states simultaneously 0:08:14.840 --> 0:08:17.560 until something disturbs them, at which point they collapse into 0:08:17.640 --> 0:08:22.480 a single state. Schrodingsher's absurd example was that of a 0:08:22.560 --> 0:08:25.640 box containing a kitty cat and then a time release 0:08:25.720 --> 0:08:29.720 method of making the kitty cat unalive, as you might 0:08:29.760 --> 0:08:34.520 say on TikTok. But this time release method would be unpredictable. 0:08:34.840 --> 0:08:38.480 It might trigger five minutes in or it might hold 0:08:38.480 --> 0:08:42.439 off for hours. So you've got this box, thirty minutes 0:08:42.440 --> 0:08:46.319 have passed. Is the cat alive or dead? Well, if 0:08:46.360 --> 0:08:48.040 we were to think of the cat as being in 0:08:48.080 --> 0:08:51.000 a quantum state, you could argue the cat is both 0:08:51.120 --> 0:08:54.160 alive and dead at the same time. And it's only 0:08:54.200 --> 0:08:57.400 when you open the box and observe the system do 0:08:57.480 --> 0:09:01.480 the possibilities collapse into one reality. And in this reality 0:09:01.520 --> 0:09:03.800 we're gonna say the kitty cat lives. Because I've always 0:09:04.000 --> 0:09:08.640 hated this thought experiment, Shrodinger was trying to say this 0:09:08.800 --> 0:09:12.480 idea was ridiculous, And of course, on the classical level 0:09:12.480 --> 0:09:15.600 of cats and cars and cigar boxes and stuff like that, 0:09:16.160 --> 0:09:18.840 all the stuff we can see and touch and manipulate, 0:09:19.600 --> 0:09:22.920 it is absurd. But at the quantum level, it holds 0:09:23.000 --> 0:09:28.160 true quantum effects can exist in two states simultaneously. It's wild, 0:09:28.720 --> 0:09:32.320 but it is true. So if you could harness something 0:09:32.360 --> 0:09:36.440 that works on the quantum level, like electrons, for example, 0:09:36.920 --> 0:09:39.800 and you could use some feature of electrons such as 0:09:39.840 --> 0:09:43.600 their spin where they spin up or spin down, you 0:09:43.640 --> 0:09:46.560 could use that to serve as a cubit, And in 0:09:46.600 --> 0:09:49.720 a properly isolated system, you could use a bunch of 0:09:49.800 --> 0:09:54.679 cubits to run algorithms specifically designed for quantum systems, and 0:09:54.720 --> 0:10:00.280 these cubits, by occupying all states simultaneously, could generate all 0:10:00.320 --> 0:10:03.080 possible outcomes in the time it would take to solve 0:10:03.280 --> 0:10:06.160 you know, the hardest one. Another way to think about 0:10:06.160 --> 0:10:08.200 it is that if you have a bite, that is 0:10:08.400 --> 0:10:11.480 eight bits that are strung together, you can have one 0:10:11.960 --> 0:10:14.880 of two hundred and fifty six values. If you have 0:10:15.440 --> 0:10:19.520 eight q bits, then you can have all two hundred 0:10:19.559 --> 0:10:23.160 and fifty six values at the same time, at least 0:10:23.200 --> 0:10:26.200 until you measure it, at which point it loses coherence 0:10:26.200 --> 0:10:29.160 and settles into a single value and becomes one of 0:10:29.200 --> 0:10:31.840 the two hundred and fifty six possibilities. But while in 0:10:31.920 --> 0:10:37.800 superposition it's all of them. However, it gets weirder, and 0:10:37.840 --> 0:10:51.040 I'll explain after we come back from this quick break. Okay, 0:10:51.080 --> 0:10:54.120 what could be weirder than superposition? Well, I haven't talked 0:10:54.160 --> 0:10:59.160 about entanglement yet. All right. For this explanation, let's imagine 0:10:59.200 --> 0:11:02.360 that we have two cubits, and we'll say our cubits 0:11:02.360 --> 0:11:06.400 are in the form of electrons and their direction of spin, 0:11:06.760 --> 0:11:09.360 so the electrons can spin either up or down. And 0:11:09.440 --> 0:11:12.320 let's say I've prepared the cubits so that right now 0:11:12.360 --> 0:11:16.160 they're both spinning down, and we'll call that the zero 0:11:16.320 --> 0:11:19.760 state versus the one state for this example, So both 0:11:19.840 --> 0:11:24.040 cubits are spinning in the zero state, cubit A and 0:11:24.120 --> 0:11:28.959 cubit B. Now, if I apply an oscillating magnetic field 0:11:29.160 --> 0:11:33.200 to cubita a magnetic field at a frequency proportional to 0:11:33.280 --> 0:11:36.360 the energy difference between cubit a's zero state and its 0:11:36.360 --> 0:11:40.600 one state, I can actually rotate cubit A. I can 0:11:40.800 --> 0:11:45.240 rotate its spin. And the presence of cubit B complicates 0:11:45.280 --> 0:11:47.520 things a little bit, because these two cubits create their 0:11:47.559 --> 0:11:50.439 own magnetic fields. I have to take into account cubitb's 0:11:50.480 --> 0:11:55.280 magnetic field as I apply this external magnetic field to 0:11:55.440 --> 0:11:58.240 rotate cubit A. But I can do that and then 0:11:58.280 --> 0:12:01.720 move Cubita into superpositions. So now Cubita is both zero 0:12:01.800 --> 0:12:04.840 and one at the same time. All right, Now let's 0:12:04.920 --> 0:12:08.200 move on to cubit B. Now, remember I started with 0:12:08.240 --> 0:12:12.240 both cubits in the zero state. They're both spinning down. Well, 0:12:12.240 --> 0:12:15.200 now I apply the magnetic field I would need to 0:12:15.320 --> 0:12:19.600 use to rotate cubit B if Cubita were still in 0:12:19.800 --> 0:12:24.920 the zero state, except Cubita isn't in the zero state anymore. 0:12:25.080 --> 0:12:27.800 Or rather it is, but it's also in the one 0:12:27.840 --> 0:12:31.760 state because I've put Cubita into superposition. Well, now, when 0:12:31.840 --> 0:12:35.520 Cubita is in zero, cubit B will rotate to one 0:12:35.679 --> 0:12:39.240 because of this oscillating field I've put on it. But 0:12:39.480 --> 0:12:42.040 when cubit A is in the one position, cubit B 0:12:42.160 --> 0:12:45.320 will stay in the zero state because I would have 0:12:45.360 --> 0:12:48.760 needed to use a different frequency in my magnetic field 0:12:49.120 --> 0:12:52.319 to make cubit be rotate if Cubita is in the 0:12:52.360 --> 0:12:57.080 one state, so cubb also goes into superposition. If Cubita 0:12:57.520 --> 0:13:00.800 is zero, then the rotation worked, and if cubit B 0:13:01.000 --> 0:13:05.200 is one, then the rotation didn't work. But Cubita is 0:13:05.240 --> 0:13:08.520 technically both, so the rotation both did and didn't work 0:13:08.559 --> 0:13:11.960 at the same time. The two cubits are entangled, and 0:13:12.000 --> 0:13:14.520 the state of one depends upon the state of the other, 0:13:14.679 --> 0:13:17.920 and they're opposite. Even if we were to separate these 0:13:17.960 --> 0:13:20.600 two cubits and we were to put them at either 0:13:20.880 --> 0:13:24.800 end of the universe, they would remain entangled as until 0:13:24.800 --> 0:13:27.880 we observed them or something else disturbed them, at which 0:13:27.880 --> 0:13:31.360 point we would lose coherence and the state becomes either 0:13:31.480 --> 0:13:34.120 zero or one, and the state of the other one 0:13:34.160 --> 0:13:36.600 would be the opposite of the one you observed, even 0:13:36.600 --> 0:13:38.040 if it's on the other side of the universe. So 0:13:38.080 --> 0:13:40.040 if you went to one end of the universe and 0:13:40.080 --> 0:13:41.679 someone went to the other end of the universe with 0:13:41.760 --> 0:13:44.080 the other one, you've got Cubita, they've got cubit B. 0:13:44.400 --> 0:13:46.840 You observe Cubana, you see that it's zero. You know 0:13:46.920 --> 0:13:50.760 that cubit B was a one crazy, even though they 0:13:50.760 --> 0:13:52.880 were all the way across the universe from each other. 0:13:52.920 --> 0:13:55.600 Einstein hated this. By the way, he couldn't get the 0:13:55.600 --> 0:13:58.440 math to prove that it didn't work, but he hated 0:13:58.480 --> 0:14:00.959 the idea, and he called it spook key action at 0:14:00.960 --> 0:14:06.920 a distance in quantum computing entanglement creates a really counterintuitive opportunity. 0:14:07.320 --> 0:14:11.440 You can code for two bits that have unknown but 0:14:11.679 --> 0:14:15.480 opposite states, Like you don't know if cubita is a 0:14:15.559 --> 0:14:18.120 zero or a one, but you do know that whatever 0:14:18.200 --> 0:14:21.200 it is, cubit b is the opposite. And that might 0:14:21.240 --> 0:14:23.760 not sound useful at the surface level, but it opens 0:14:23.840 --> 0:14:28.520 up opportunities that simply aren't possible with classic computers. So, 0:14:29.320 --> 0:14:33.120 for a subset of computational problems, the ones that are 0:14:33.240 --> 0:14:36.960 really hard for classic computers, a quantum computer with sufficient 0:14:37.040 --> 0:14:41.320 cubits and the right algorithm you need both can turn 0:14:41.400 --> 0:14:45.240 what would be a massive challenge into a metaphorical piece 0:14:45.280 --> 0:14:49.320 of k Now. For other computational problems, a quantum computer 0:14:49.360 --> 0:14:52.760 would be no better than a classic computer, and depending 0:14:52.880 --> 0:14:55.600 on the number of cubits the quantum computer has at 0:14:55.600 --> 0:14:58.840 its disposal, it might be equivalent to a really, really 0:14:59.040 --> 0:15:03.880 bad classical computer. The thing is, some interesting and potentially 0:15:04.000 --> 0:15:07.720 dangerous problems might be simple for a quantum computer to unravel, 0:15:07.960 --> 0:15:12.160 problems like classic encryption techniques. So a typical approach to 0:15:12.320 --> 0:15:16.440 encryption involves using mathematical operations and a really large number 0:15:16.800 --> 0:15:20.600 to scramble a message. Only someone with the proper key, 0:15:20.680 --> 0:15:24.240 can reverse this process to get the unscrambled message and 0:15:24.280 --> 0:15:27.840 to guess the value of the key that unscrambles everything 0:15:27.920 --> 0:15:31.000 would take a really, really long time. How long depends 0:15:31.040 --> 0:15:33.480 upon the strength of the encryption, but if we're talking 0:15:33.520 --> 0:15:37.520 like military grade, you could be there forever. But with 0:15:37.560 --> 0:15:40.320 a quantum computer that has a lot of cubits and 0:15:40.360 --> 0:15:43.560 the right algorithm, you could potentially solve for the encryption 0:15:43.720 --> 0:15:46.960 key in just a few minutes. This is why quantum 0:15:47.000 --> 0:15:50.480 computers could spell the end of our current methods of encryption. 0:15:50.920 --> 0:15:54.400 A person with access to a sufficiently powerful quantum computer 0:15:54.720 --> 0:15:58.480 and that pesky algorithm would then hold the skeleton keys 0:15:58.480 --> 0:16:01.400 that fit all the digital encrypt locks that are out there, 0:16:01.840 --> 0:16:04.840 which is kind of spooky. And for that reason, researchers 0:16:04.880 --> 0:16:08.480 are working on quantum encryption methods that can stand up 0:16:08.480 --> 0:16:12.000 to quantum computers that you know, uses a different approach 0:16:12.040 --> 0:16:15.040 to scramble those messages so that they stay safe from 0:16:15.160 --> 0:16:19.480 all but the intended recipient. Also, I started talking about 0:16:19.600 --> 0:16:23.160 Claude Shannon as the guy who popularized the term bits, 0:16:23.160 --> 0:16:27.360 although Shannon himself gave credit to John Tukey, whom Shannon said, 0:16:27.480 --> 0:16:30.280 use the term bits in a memo, but Shannon's is 0:16:30.320 --> 0:16:33.600 the first earliest you know, published work to use the 0:16:33.680 --> 0:16:37.280 term bits. But who coined cubit, Well, that would be 0:16:37.280 --> 0:16:41.880 Benjamin Schumacher, who submitted an article titled quantum Coding in 0:16:42.000 --> 0:16:46.000 nineteen ninety three to Physical Review. The article actually published 0:16:46.040 --> 0:16:50.520 in nineteen ninety five. Schumacher is a theoretical physicist. By that, 0:16:50.600 --> 0:16:53.440 I mean he's a real physicist. He's not theoretical, but 0:16:53.520 --> 0:16:57.840 he works in theoretical fields, including quantum information theory. He 0:16:57.960 --> 0:17:02.200 did for quantum information theory what Shannon did for communications theory, 0:17:02.600 --> 0:17:05.280 with about half a century separating the two, which is 0:17:05.320 --> 0:17:10.600 pretty darn cool. And so that's the basics on cubits. 0:17:11.000 --> 0:17:12.720 And if you were to come up to me and 0:17:12.760 --> 0:17:15.560 say do you understand this? Do you understand why it happens? 0:17:15.560 --> 0:17:18.520 I would honestly tell you no. But then when we 0:17:18.560 --> 0:17:22.600 get down to quantum effects, that's just the truthful answer 0:17:22.640 --> 0:17:25.600 for everybody. We can say that definitely happens, that we 0:17:25.680 --> 0:17:30.040 have the experimentational evidence to show that this does happen. 0:17:31.160 --> 0:17:34.879 Why it happens, that's a question that we're still trying 0:17:34.920 --> 0:17:37.560 to answer, and maybe we'll never come up with it, 0:17:37.800 --> 0:17:41.440 but it's really cool to look into it. Now, if 0:17:41.440 --> 0:17:44.480 you'll excuse me, I have a game of Hubert to 0:17:44.520 --> 0:17:54.280 get back to tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For 0:17:54.400 --> 0:17:59.240 more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, 0:17:59.359 --> 0:18:01.359 or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.