1 00:00:04,440 --> 00:00:12,399 Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there, 2 00:00:12,400 --> 00:00:15,880 Speaker 1: and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host Jonathan Strickland. 3 00:00:15,960 --> 00:00:19,200 Speaker 1: I'm an executive producer with iHeart Podcasts and how the 4 00:00:19,200 --> 00:00:21,680 Speaker 1: tech are you. It's time for the tech news for 5 00:00:21,720 --> 00:00:25,959 Speaker 1: the week ending on Friday, April twelfth, twenty twenty four. 6 00:00:26,200 --> 00:00:30,479 Speaker 1: First up, Sam Bankman Freed aka SBF has filed an 7 00:00:30,560 --> 00:00:34,800 Speaker 1: appeal for his recent conviction and sentencing, So quick recap. 8 00:00:35,400 --> 00:00:38,360 Speaker 1: SBF was co founder of a couple of cryptocurrency firms, 9 00:00:38,520 --> 00:00:43,040 Speaker 1: namely FTX, which was a cryptocurrency exchange, and Alimator Research, 10 00:00:43,080 --> 00:00:46,600 Speaker 1: which was a crypto hedge fund. And a couple of 11 00:00:46,640 --> 00:00:49,360 Speaker 1: years ago, some folks noticed that something hinky seemed to 12 00:00:49,360 --> 00:00:52,960 Speaker 1: be going on at FTX, and it turned out that 13 00:00:53,000 --> 00:00:56,000 Speaker 1: the company was using customer funds to cover bets that 14 00:00:56,040 --> 00:00:59,040 Speaker 1: had been made by Alimator Research. If you're one put 15 00:00:59,040 --> 00:01:01,920 Speaker 1: a kind of like high level view of this. Ultimately, 16 00:01:01,960 --> 00:01:05,200 Speaker 1: the whole house of cards came crashing down and billions 17 00:01:05,200 --> 00:01:09,800 Speaker 1: of dollars were lost or stolen. So SBF argued he 18 00:01:09,920 --> 00:01:13,679 Speaker 1: was without blame, even as his various friends and peers 19 00:01:13,720 --> 00:01:17,279 Speaker 1: and employees were pleading guilty to fraud charges and saying 20 00:01:17,280 --> 00:01:21,280 Speaker 1: that SBF was totally to blame. So SBF ultimately was 21 00:01:21,280 --> 00:01:24,240 Speaker 1: found guilty, he received a sentence for twenty five years 22 00:01:24,240 --> 00:01:26,959 Speaker 1: for his crimes, and now he's appealing both the ruling 23 00:01:27,040 --> 00:01:32,800 Speaker 1: and the sentencing. So will that appeal succeed? Now? Personally, 24 00:01:32,840 --> 00:01:35,760 Speaker 1: I have my doubts. I am no legal expert, I'm 25 00:01:35,760 --> 00:01:38,040 Speaker 1: not a lawyer or anything like that, but I doubt 26 00:01:38,080 --> 00:01:41,920 Speaker 1: it simply because SBF didn't exactly conduct himself very well 27 00:01:41,959 --> 00:01:44,800 Speaker 1: throughout the whole investigation and trial process to begin with, 28 00:01:44,959 --> 00:01:48,680 Speaker 1: and allegedly engaged in acts of witness intimidation and witness tampering, 29 00:01:48,720 --> 00:01:51,960 Speaker 1: among other things. That kind of stuff does not tend 30 00:01:51,960 --> 00:01:54,600 Speaker 1: to go so well in the court system. But we'll 31 00:01:54,720 --> 00:01:58,160 Speaker 1: just have to wait and see. US Senator Maria Cantwell 32 00:01:58,320 --> 00:02:02,680 Speaker 1: recently said that the US government might give Byte Dance 33 00:02:02,760 --> 00:02:06,360 Speaker 1: a little more time to divest itself of TikTok, or 34 00:02:06,440 --> 00:02:09,760 Speaker 1: at the very least, she's in favor of such an extension. 35 00:02:09,919 --> 00:02:12,600 Speaker 1: The original plan if the bill were to become law. 36 00:02:12,680 --> 00:02:15,160 Speaker 1: More on that in just a moment, was that Byte 37 00:02:15,200 --> 00:02:19,000 Speaker 1: Dance would have about six months to divest itself of TikTok. 38 00:02:19,080 --> 00:02:21,240 Speaker 1: But now Contwell says she thinks the deadline of one 39 00:02:21,320 --> 00:02:24,840 Speaker 1: year would better ensure success. Now, the cynical among us 40 00:02:24,960 --> 00:02:27,600 Speaker 1: might also point out that extending the deadline into twenty 41 00:02:27,639 --> 00:02:30,600 Speaker 1: twenty five would push things after elections here in the 42 00:02:30,680 --> 00:02:32,960 Speaker 1: United States, and that maybe this is more about an 43 00:02:32,960 --> 00:02:36,520 Speaker 1: attempt to avoid, you know, voters holding politicians accountable for 44 00:02:36,600 --> 00:02:40,079 Speaker 1: their votes. But all this might be moot because while 45 00:02:40,120 --> 00:02:43,560 Speaker 1: the US House of Representatives voted in favor of this measure, 46 00:02:43,720 --> 00:02:46,560 Speaker 1: the US Senate, which is the other half of Congress 47 00:02:46,560 --> 00:02:48,800 Speaker 1: here in the United States, has yet to take up 48 00:02:48,840 --> 00:02:51,560 Speaker 1: the matter, and there's no guarantee that they will even 49 00:02:51,760 --> 00:02:54,919 Speaker 1: vote on the bill, although Chuck Schumer has indicated that 50 00:02:54,919 --> 00:02:57,359 Speaker 1: that's at least a possibility. If they do vote on 51 00:02:57,400 --> 00:02:59,880 Speaker 1: the bill, there's no guarantee that the whole bill's going 52 00:02:59,919 --> 00:03:02,760 Speaker 1: to pass into law. The public response to the House 53 00:03:03,400 --> 00:03:05,440 Speaker 1: that might just be enough to convince senators that they 54 00:03:05,440 --> 00:03:08,560 Speaker 1: would rather not touch this particular topic because it appears 55 00:03:08,639 --> 00:03:12,400 Speaker 1: to have some prickly political consequences. Okay, I got a 56 00:03:12,400 --> 00:03:15,360 Speaker 1: couple of Apples stories for y'all. First up, the company 57 00:03:15,480 --> 00:03:19,280 Speaker 1: had a setback in UK courts today. Apple had petitioned 58 00:03:19,280 --> 00:03:22,320 Speaker 1: the court to throw out a mass lawsuit brought against 59 00:03:22,320 --> 00:03:26,320 Speaker 1: the company by more than fifteen hundred app developers. The 60 00:03:26,360 --> 00:03:29,960 Speaker 1: court has denied Apple's request. The lawsuit will be allowed 61 00:03:29,960 --> 00:03:33,120 Speaker 1: to go forward, and it alleges that Apple's policy to 62 00:03:33,120 --> 00:03:36,680 Speaker 1: take a hefty percentage of transaction fees, up to thirty 63 00:03:36,720 --> 00:03:40,400 Speaker 1: percent of transaction fees in some cases, is inherently unfair, 64 00:03:40,720 --> 00:03:43,760 Speaker 1: and that Apple policies meant that the iOS store was 65 00:03:43,840 --> 00:03:47,520 Speaker 1: really the only game in town. You couldn't have apps 66 00:03:47,520 --> 00:03:50,880 Speaker 1: on like an Independence store, at least not in anywhere 67 00:03:50,880 --> 00:03:54,200 Speaker 1: besides the European Union at this point. And it meant 68 00:03:54,240 --> 00:03:57,120 Speaker 1: that in order to make your apps available to iOS 69 00:03:57,240 --> 00:03:59,160 Speaker 1: users in the first place, you had to play by 70 00:03:59,200 --> 00:04:01,520 Speaker 1: Apple's rules. It was the only game in town. There 71 00:04:01,520 --> 00:04:05,320 Speaker 1: were no other alternatives. To be clear, Apple hasn't won 72 00:04:05,560 --> 00:04:08,520 Speaker 1: or lost this court battle yet, It just failed to 73 00:04:08,520 --> 00:04:12,560 Speaker 1: get the case dismissed. But considering the current regulatory attitude 74 00:04:12,560 --> 00:04:15,440 Speaker 1: toward big tech, I imagine Apple is considering its various 75 00:04:15,440 --> 00:04:18,400 Speaker 1: options right now. I personally would not be surprised if 76 00:04:18,400 --> 00:04:21,800 Speaker 1: some sort of settlement follows in the future. If Apple 77 00:04:21,880 --> 00:04:25,280 Speaker 1: is unable to get this case thrown out, Bloomberg apparently 78 00:04:25,520 --> 00:04:28,880 Speaker 1: reports that Apple has a Mac computer refresh coming up 79 00:04:28,920 --> 00:04:31,279 Speaker 1: that will introduce some pretty big changes for the line 80 00:04:31,320 --> 00:04:35,080 Speaker 1: of computers. Now, I say Bloomberg apparently reports because I 81 00:04:35,160 --> 00:04:38,120 Speaker 1: do not have a subscription to Bloomberg, so I'm actually 82 00:04:38,160 --> 00:04:41,240 Speaker 1: pulling this information from an article in The Verge by 83 00:04:41,320 --> 00:04:45,520 Speaker 1: Emma Roth, who goes on to actually cite that Bloomberg article. 84 00:04:45,560 --> 00:04:47,680 Speaker 1: So this is like third hand once you hear it 85 00:04:47,720 --> 00:04:51,240 Speaker 1: from me. Anyway, the new computers will have Apple's M 86 00:04:51,320 --> 00:04:54,800 Speaker 1: four processor, and that hasn't even really gone into production yet, 87 00:04:54,880 --> 00:04:57,359 Speaker 1: but the buzzword for M four is that these chips 88 00:04:57,360 --> 00:05:02,159 Speaker 1: are optimized for processing AI Apple locations, because AI is 89 00:05:02,200 --> 00:05:06,000 Speaker 1: the new black, y'all, and to be fair, AI processing 90 00:05:06,040 --> 00:05:08,840 Speaker 1: does require an awful lot of oomph. It takes up 91 00:05:09,160 --> 00:05:11,480 Speaker 1: tons of processing power in order to get AI to 92 00:05:11,560 --> 00:05:14,760 Speaker 1: work properly. And Roth points out that Apple's sales in 93 00:05:14,800 --> 00:05:17,400 Speaker 1: the macline have kind of slowed down in recent years, 94 00:05:17,400 --> 00:05:19,679 Speaker 1: so maybe this is what the company is hoping will 95 00:05:19,880 --> 00:05:22,599 Speaker 1: kind of inject new life in those sales. And I 96 00:05:22,600 --> 00:05:25,400 Speaker 1: think I say this nearly every week, but I feel 97 00:05:25,400 --> 00:05:28,719 Speaker 1: like part of the reason why Mac sales have declined 98 00:05:28,800 --> 00:05:31,920 Speaker 1: is the same reason why sales for lots of high 99 00:05:32,040 --> 00:05:35,279 Speaker 1: end products have declined in recent times. You had that 100 00:05:35,360 --> 00:05:38,720 Speaker 1: whole economic uncertainty thing, you know, just hovering above us. 101 00:05:38,800 --> 00:05:42,159 Speaker 1: You had rising interest rates, you had crazy inflation out there, 102 00:05:42,520 --> 00:05:45,560 Speaker 1: and folks just decided that they would rather make do 103 00:05:45,680 --> 00:05:48,479 Speaker 1: with what they have rather than shell out big bucks 104 00:05:48,480 --> 00:05:51,200 Speaker 1: for new items, which I think is totally understandable. In fact, 105 00:05:51,200 --> 00:05:54,400 Speaker 1: according to nerd wallet dot com, inflation in the United 106 00:05:54,440 --> 00:05:57,800 Speaker 1: States for consumer prices, this isn't inflation in general, it's 107 00:05:57,839 --> 00:06:03,200 Speaker 1: just consumer prices rows nearly twenty percent since January twenty twenty, 108 00:06:03,440 --> 00:06:07,039 Speaker 1: So in those years, like, you're paying twenty percent more, 109 00:06:07,120 --> 00:06:11,280 Speaker 1: almost twenty percent more for consumer goods, particularly high end goods. 110 00:06:11,480 --> 00:06:13,560 Speaker 1: And it's pretty hard to convince people to push through 111 00:06:13,600 --> 00:06:17,520 Speaker 1: barriers like that when you still also have iterative generational 112 00:06:17,560 --> 00:06:20,280 Speaker 1: improvements in the tech itself, Like, unless the tech is 113 00:06:20,640 --> 00:06:25,279 Speaker 1: unbelievably impressive, it's pretty hard to convince someone, hey, do 114 00:06:25,320 --> 00:06:26,920 Speaker 1: you want to spend a lot of money for a 115 00:06:26,960 --> 00:06:29,880 Speaker 1: computer that's a little bit better? And you know, when 116 00:06:29,920 --> 00:06:33,839 Speaker 1: your business depends upon selling more hardware every year, which 117 00:06:34,400 --> 00:06:38,440 Speaker 1: that's one big part of Apple's business. Although they're app's 118 00:06:38,520 --> 00:06:41,080 Speaker 1: businesses kind of eclipse that, but it means you're in 119 00:06:41,120 --> 00:06:44,240 Speaker 1: a tough spot, right, Like, how do you keep selling 120 00:06:44,520 --> 00:06:51,800 Speaker 1: hardware when economic factors are disincentivizing customers from purchasing stuff. 121 00:06:51,960 --> 00:06:55,400 Speaker 1: It's particularly tough for Apple because obviously Apple has long 122 00:06:55,440 --> 00:06:58,640 Speaker 1: been associated as being sort of a premium brand. But 123 00:06:58,800 --> 00:07:01,040 Speaker 1: we'll have to wait to learn more about the company's 124 00:07:01,080 --> 00:07:03,600 Speaker 1: plans a little later this year. They're going to have 125 00:07:03,680 --> 00:07:06,920 Speaker 1: their Worldwide Developer Conference in the summer and in the falls, 126 00:07:06,960 --> 00:07:09,720 Speaker 1: typically when we get a big announcement about things like, 127 00:07:09,920 --> 00:07:12,760 Speaker 1: you know, their iPhone strategy and stuff. So we'll probably 128 00:07:12,840 --> 00:07:16,680 Speaker 1: learn more about these planned Mac refreshes as the year 129 00:07:16,760 --> 00:07:19,960 Speaker 1: goes on. Michael Krider of PC World as an article 130 00:07:20,000 --> 00:07:23,920 Speaker 1: titled ew co Pilot AI might auto launch with Windows 131 00:07:23,920 --> 00:07:27,920 Speaker 1: eleven soon, And you may have gathered that Michael is 132 00:07:27,960 --> 00:07:30,560 Speaker 1: not a big fan of this idea. I don't blame him. 133 00:07:30,560 --> 00:07:34,480 Speaker 1: I'm not either, And he reports that Microsoft's Copilot AI, 134 00:07:34,640 --> 00:07:38,680 Speaker 1: which is a generative AI tool, could auto start on 135 00:07:38,760 --> 00:07:41,680 Speaker 1: Windows eleven machines in the not too distant future. So 136 00:07:41,800 --> 00:07:45,480 Speaker 1: Michael is citing a report by MS power User that 137 00:07:45,640 --> 00:07:48,880 Speaker 1: says Microsoft has the feature turned on in a recent 138 00:07:48,960 --> 00:07:53,080 Speaker 1: Windows eleven Insider build. The Windows eleven Insider is kind 139 00:07:53,080 --> 00:07:56,280 Speaker 1: of like a test kitchen for Microsoft features. They can 140 00:07:56,400 --> 00:07:58,200 Speaker 1: roll it out and see how they do, and then 141 00:07:58,440 --> 00:08:03,120 Speaker 1: tweak them or sometimes just can them entirely before potentially 142 00:08:03,240 --> 00:08:06,880 Speaker 1: rolling them out to a broader public. So apparently the 143 00:08:06,960 --> 00:08:10,200 Speaker 1: auto start feature will depend at least to some extent 144 00:08:10,320 --> 00:08:13,560 Speaker 1: upon hardware. So if the user has a machine that 145 00:08:13,640 --> 00:08:16,360 Speaker 1: has a display this smaller than twenty seven inches, it's 146 00:08:16,400 --> 00:08:18,600 Speaker 1: not going to initiate an auto start. So that pretty 147 00:08:18,680 --> 00:08:20,760 Speaker 1: much means that if you have a laptop, this is 148 00:08:20,800 --> 00:08:22,600 Speaker 1: not going to be a factor, even if you're running 149 00:08:22,640 --> 00:08:25,560 Speaker 1: Windows eleven. So that's something at least. And you can 150 00:08:25,600 --> 00:08:29,080 Speaker 1: actually choose which programs do auto start by using the 151 00:08:29,080 --> 00:08:31,800 Speaker 1: Windows Task Manager menu. You can go in there and 152 00:08:31,840 --> 00:08:33,920 Speaker 1: set that, which reminds me, I need to do that 153 00:08:34,000 --> 00:08:37,000 Speaker 1: on my personal machine because the number of programs that 154 00:08:37,040 --> 00:08:39,320 Speaker 1: are auto launching at this point is starting to reach 155 00:08:39,440 --> 00:08:42,439 Speaker 1: ludicrous levels and I just like close them out when 156 00:08:42,440 --> 00:08:46,240 Speaker 1: they pop up, and I should just turn off the 157 00:08:46,280 --> 00:08:50,640 Speaker 1: auto start thing in the first place. So memo to myself. 158 00:08:51,080 --> 00:08:55,080 Speaker 1: Meta has introduced or will be introducing new protective measures 159 00:08:55,080 --> 00:08:58,679 Speaker 1: for younger Instagram users. The company has created a default 160 00:08:58,720 --> 00:09:01,280 Speaker 1: setting for users under the age of eighteen that's meant 161 00:09:01,360 --> 00:09:05,040 Speaker 1: to detect and to blur out images that include nudity. 162 00:09:05,360 --> 00:09:08,040 Speaker 1: Adults will also have the option of turning this feature on. 163 00:09:08,240 --> 00:09:10,360 Speaker 1: It just won't be on by default for them, and 164 00:09:10,400 --> 00:09:11,920 Speaker 1: it might be a nice change of pace for some 165 00:09:11,960 --> 00:09:14,760 Speaker 1: of y'all out there. I would know not on Instagram, 166 00:09:14,800 --> 00:09:17,560 Speaker 1: I don't have this problem. So the feature will give 167 00:09:17,720 --> 00:09:20,400 Speaker 1: users actually the option to see the blurred image, like 168 00:09:20,440 --> 00:09:24,360 Speaker 1: you can click see image and see the full unblurred version. 169 00:09:24,679 --> 00:09:26,160 Speaker 1: But in order to do that, you have to make 170 00:09:26,160 --> 00:09:28,840 Speaker 1: the conscious choice to do so, and Meta will also 171 00:09:28,880 --> 00:09:31,560 Speaker 1: include warnings to let you know that you don't need 172 00:09:31,600 --> 00:09:35,000 Speaker 1: to respond to such messages don't You shouldn't feel pressured 173 00:09:35,000 --> 00:09:39,320 Speaker 1: to do so. The real concern here is sextortion, right, 174 00:09:39,480 --> 00:09:43,360 Speaker 1: using these images to try and extort things out of 175 00:09:43,400 --> 00:09:46,880 Speaker 1: the recipient, and Meta's taking a lot of efforts to 176 00:09:47,040 --> 00:09:50,199 Speaker 1: try and push back against that. Obviously, the company has 177 00:09:50,240 --> 00:09:53,120 Speaker 1: been under scrutiny and criticism for this kind of thing 178 00:09:53,120 --> 00:09:55,480 Speaker 1: in the past about allowing it to happen, so this 179 00:09:55,640 --> 00:09:58,480 Speaker 1: I think is a correction for that. To learn more 180 00:09:58,640 --> 00:10:02,240 Speaker 1: about the measures that Meta is taking and the process 181 00:10:02,240 --> 00:10:04,920 Speaker 1: it's using. You should check out the article Instagram to 182 00:10:05,000 --> 00:10:08,559 Speaker 1: blur out nude images sent to teens and dms. It's 183 00:10:08,600 --> 00:10:12,000 Speaker 1: by Todd Spangler and you can find that in variety 184 00:10:12,280 --> 00:10:15,360 Speaker 1: of all places. All Right, we've got several more news 185 00:10:15,400 --> 00:10:17,640 Speaker 1: stories to go through, but first let's take a quick 186 00:10:17,679 --> 00:10:30,440 Speaker 1: break to thank our sponsors. Okay, we're back. So Russian 187 00:10:30,480 --> 00:10:32,880 Speaker 1: software companies are having a pretty rough go of it 188 00:10:32,920 --> 00:10:35,680 Speaker 1: in recent years. Y'all. You got the Russian government, which 189 00:10:35,720 --> 00:10:39,199 Speaker 1: can get pretty darn involved in companies within the country, 190 00:10:39,240 --> 00:10:42,080 Speaker 1: and that has led to some issues there, including companies 191 00:10:42,200 --> 00:10:46,480 Speaker 1: choosing to discontinue certain services within Russia itself for fear 192 00:10:46,559 --> 00:10:49,200 Speaker 1: of running a foul of Russian law. But now you've 193 00:10:49,200 --> 00:10:51,960 Speaker 1: also got the United States, which is reportedly preparing to 194 00:10:52,160 --> 00:10:56,160 Speaker 1: ban US citizens and companies from using products from the 195 00:10:56,240 --> 00:10:59,840 Speaker 1: Russian company Kaspersky Labs. Now that name might sound familiar 196 00:10:59,880 --> 00:11:02,320 Speaker 1: to so a lot of y'all out there. Kaspersky Labs 197 00:11:02,360 --> 00:11:07,040 Speaker 1: is a huge name in cybersecurity. They are really important 198 00:11:07,120 --> 00:11:10,960 Speaker 1: in cybersecurity. But now US officials are concerned that Kasperski 199 00:11:11,040 --> 00:11:14,800 Speaker 1: Labs software could weaken national security. And it's not that 200 00:11:14,960 --> 00:11:18,120 Speaker 1: different from the fear that TikTok could be an information 201 00:11:18,240 --> 00:11:21,160 Speaker 1: collection tool for the Chinese Communist Party in China. So 202 00:11:21,240 --> 00:11:26,720 Speaker 1: already US policy forbids federal agencies from using Kasperski Lab products. 203 00:11:26,760 --> 00:11:29,120 Speaker 1: You're not supposed to install any of those on any 204 00:11:29,280 --> 00:11:33,280 Speaker 1: federal owned hardware, So this potential measure would actually have 205 00:11:33,280 --> 00:11:36,160 Speaker 1: a much more broad scope and expand that to US 206 00:11:36,240 --> 00:11:39,240 Speaker 1: companies and citizens in general. It's unclear how this would 207 00:11:39,240 --> 00:11:42,520 Speaker 1: actually be enforced, or if it would be enforced at 208 00:11:42,600 --> 00:11:45,160 Speaker 1: least in every case. I mean, if you're running a 209 00:11:45,200 --> 00:11:48,640 Speaker 1: modest business that has no connection to national security and 210 00:11:48,920 --> 00:11:52,040 Speaker 1: you rely on one or more Kaspersky Labs products, it 211 00:11:52,120 --> 00:11:54,960 Speaker 1: might be a bit extreme to force you to disengage 212 00:11:55,000 --> 00:11:58,760 Speaker 1: those products from your business practices and either find replacements 213 00:11:58,840 --> 00:12:02,080 Speaker 1: or just do without. Anyway, According to CNN, the matter 214 00:12:02,160 --> 00:12:04,800 Speaker 1: isn't fully fleshed out yet and it may change, so 215 00:12:04,920 --> 00:12:08,120 Speaker 1: we should know that in a few days. Either way, 216 00:12:08,760 --> 00:12:12,000 Speaker 1: it's time to throw another Google product on top of 217 00:12:12,040 --> 00:12:16,120 Speaker 1: the pile of corpses of other former Google products that 218 00:12:16,160 --> 00:12:18,839 Speaker 1: no longer exist, or at least it will be that 219 00:12:19,000 --> 00:12:23,000 Speaker 1: time pretty soon. And that's because Google is discontinuing its 220 00:12:23,400 --> 00:12:28,360 Speaker 1: Google one VPN service. So Google one is Google's consumer 221 00:12:28,480 --> 00:12:31,600 Speaker 1: cloud storage service. Your standard Google account comes with I 222 00:12:31,600 --> 00:12:35,680 Speaker 1: think fifteen gigabytes of storage across multiple services like Gmail 223 00:12:35,760 --> 00:12:38,840 Speaker 1: and Google Docs. It shares that fifteen gigabytes across all 224 00:12:38,880 --> 00:12:41,840 Speaker 1: those different products. Google One can expand this to like 225 00:12:41,920 --> 00:12:44,920 Speaker 1: one hundred gigabytes or beyond, depending upon the tier of 226 00:12:45,080 --> 00:12:48,240 Speaker 1: service you choose. One benefit of being a Google one 227 00:12:48,320 --> 00:12:52,720 Speaker 1: customer at least has been the use of a VPN service, 228 00:12:52,920 --> 00:12:57,040 Speaker 1: but apparently not many people are actually using the virtual 229 00:12:57,080 --> 00:13:00,360 Speaker 1: private network that Google offered, so Google said that was 230 00:13:00,440 --> 00:13:03,559 Speaker 1: one of the reasons the company was choosing to discontinue 231 00:13:03,600 --> 00:13:06,240 Speaker 1: the feature. The other one is that it would allow 232 00:13:06,640 --> 00:13:10,520 Speaker 1: people who had been supporting the VPN to get freed 233 00:13:10,640 --> 00:13:13,120 Speaker 1: up to work on features that you know people are 234 00:13:13,360 --> 00:13:16,480 Speaker 1: actively using. But for those few customers out there who 235 00:13:16,559 --> 00:13:19,200 Speaker 1: did make use of the VPN by Google One service, 236 00:13:19,280 --> 00:13:22,760 Speaker 1: they'll get prompts suggesting alternative third party solutions that they 237 00:13:22,800 --> 00:13:25,839 Speaker 1: can use instead. Or if you have a Pixel seven 238 00:13:26,040 --> 00:13:29,199 Speaker 1: or later, then you'll still be able to use Google's VPN, 239 00:13:29,320 --> 00:13:32,720 Speaker 1: So I guess some folks will continue to have access 240 00:13:32,760 --> 00:13:35,880 Speaker 1: to it. And now for some muskie news. First up, 241 00:13:35,960 --> 00:13:39,360 Speaker 1: Ours Technica's John BROADCN has a fun piece titled Elon 242 00:13:39,480 --> 00:13:43,240 Speaker 1: Musk's x botched, an attempt to replace Twitter dot com 243 00:13:43,320 --> 00:13:46,920 Speaker 1: links with x dot com. So here's what happened. So, 244 00:13:47,120 --> 00:13:49,480 Speaker 1: at least for folks who are using the iOS app 245 00:13:49,559 --> 00:13:52,640 Speaker 1: version of Twitter, that's where these changes rolled out. The 246 00:13:52,800 --> 00:13:57,640 Speaker 1: service would automatically find and replace instances of Twitter dot 247 00:13:57,679 --> 00:14:00,000 Speaker 1: com and they would replace it with x dot com. 248 00:14:00,600 --> 00:14:03,679 Speaker 1: But that find and replaced feature was really rudimentary when 249 00:14:03,720 --> 00:14:07,480 Speaker 1: it first rolled out. It wouldn't search for just Twitter 250 00:14:07,559 --> 00:14:10,600 Speaker 1: dot com. It would look for any URL that would 251 00:14:10,600 --> 00:14:13,200 Speaker 1: then end in Twitter dot com. So, in an example 252 00:14:13,240 --> 00:14:16,000 Speaker 1: that Broadkin gives in the article, you could create a 253 00:14:16,240 --> 00:14:23,560 Speaker 1: URL like netfliit Twitter dot com, like netfli Twitter dot com, 254 00:14:23,880 --> 00:14:26,760 Speaker 1: and the find and replaced feature would take the Twitter 255 00:14:26,800 --> 00:14:29,160 Speaker 1: dot com part of that URL and change it to 256 00:14:29,360 --> 00:14:32,120 Speaker 1: x dot com. So then your link would appear as 257 00:14:32,320 --> 00:14:35,760 Speaker 1: Netflix dot com and it would look like it was 258 00:14:35,800 --> 00:14:38,960 Speaker 1: an official Netflix dot com link. But if you clicked 259 00:14:39,000 --> 00:14:41,280 Speaker 1: on it, you wouldn't go to Netflix dot com. You 260 00:14:41,320 --> 00:14:45,320 Speaker 1: would go to netfliit Twitter dot com. So, in other words, 261 00:14:45,320 --> 00:14:47,960 Speaker 1: it was possible for someone to create like a phishing 262 00:14:48,120 --> 00:14:51,680 Speaker 1: site and spoof it to look like something else and 263 00:14:51,800 --> 00:14:55,080 Speaker 1: use that to you know, farm things like usernames and 264 00:14:55,120 --> 00:14:59,000 Speaker 1: passwords and stuff, or to pass along malware all sorts 265 00:14:59,040 --> 00:15:02,520 Speaker 1: of different militia ways, or just you know, mischievous ways. 266 00:15:02,560 --> 00:15:04,920 Speaker 1: In some cases, like you could just redirect people to 267 00:15:05,000 --> 00:15:08,240 Speaker 1: something that they probably would rather not have seen. And 268 00:15:08,320 --> 00:15:10,920 Speaker 1: this only works with URLs, where the final letter in 269 00:15:10,960 --> 00:15:14,560 Speaker 1: the second level domain would be X, right, like Netflix. 270 00:15:14,800 --> 00:15:17,840 Speaker 1: It works for that because that's how Netflix ends is 271 00:15:17,920 --> 00:15:21,160 Speaker 1: with an X. Wouldn't work so great for like Facebook, right, 272 00:15:21,200 --> 00:15:24,960 Speaker 1: it would be facebooks. So the issue was active long 273 00:15:25,040 --> 00:15:28,440 Speaker 1: enough for a bunch of enterprising folks to register various 274 00:15:28,520 --> 00:15:32,680 Speaker 1: domains for all sorts of shenanigans. But thankfully Twitter slash 275 00:15:32,880 --> 00:15:36,160 Speaker 1: X has now corrected the utter replace feature so it 276 00:15:36,160 --> 00:15:37,920 Speaker 1: doesn't do that anymore. But yeah, that was a big 277 00:15:37,960 --> 00:15:42,160 Speaker 1: old whip scene. I'm Rita Khalid of The Verge reports 278 00:15:42,200 --> 00:15:45,240 Speaker 1: that X is also taking away the ability for premium 279 00:15:45,320 --> 00:15:48,760 Speaker 1: users to hide their shame I'm sorry, I mean hide 280 00:15:48,760 --> 00:15:51,280 Speaker 1: their blue check marks. So you might remember that once 281 00:15:51,360 --> 00:15:54,160 Speaker 1: upon a time, the check mark on Twitter marked a 282 00:15:54,320 --> 00:15:57,880 Speaker 1: verified account, So these accounts typically belonged to people of 283 00:15:57,960 --> 00:16:00,560 Speaker 1: some note for some reason I was also included. I 284 00:16:00,640 --> 00:16:03,680 Speaker 1: don't know how I qualified, And it really was just 285 00:16:03,720 --> 00:16:06,560 Speaker 1: to tell users that, yes, this Twitter account actually does 286 00:16:06,640 --> 00:16:10,080 Speaker 1: belong to the legitimate person who claims it. It is verified. 287 00:16:10,280 --> 00:16:13,840 Speaker 1: That is who you're talking to. It's not someone impersonating 288 00:16:14,120 --> 00:16:17,120 Speaker 1: this figure. But then Musk turned the checkmark into a 289 00:16:17,160 --> 00:16:20,280 Speaker 1: designation for people who paid to become premium members, and 290 00:16:20,360 --> 00:16:23,400 Speaker 1: suddenly the social cachet of the check mark went up 291 00:16:23,400 --> 00:16:26,200 Speaker 1: in smoke and it became kind of like an albatross. 292 00:16:26,320 --> 00:16:29,040 Speaker 1: So some folks felt that having that check mark was 293 00:16:29,040 --> 00:16:31,440 Speaker 1: a badge of dishonor and they would rather people not 294 00:16:31,640 --> 00:16:34,520 Speaker 1: know that they had paid to become premium members or 295 00:16:34,600 --> 00:16:38,240 Speaker 1: had been designated premium members because they just had enough followers. 296 00:16:38,240 --> 00:16:41,640 Speaker 1: Because Elon Musk did turn some of those really popular 297 00:16:41,680 --> 00:16:45,800 Speaker 1: Twitter accounts into premium accounts without them having subscribed. But 298 00:16:45,960 --> 00:16:48,200 Speaker 1: now bad news. You know, it used to be that 299 00:16:48,240 --> 00:16:50,880 Speaker 1: you could hide that check mark if you winto settings, 300 00:16:50,920 --> 00:16:54,320 Speaker 1: but that's getting removed. Why is X removing the ability 301 00:16:54,440 --> 00:16:58,120 Speaker 1: to hide those check marks. That's a mystery. Maybe it's 302 00:16:58,160 --> 00:17:00,440 Speaker 1: an attempt to flex by saying, hey, look how many 303 00:17:00,480 --> 00:17:02,960 Speaker 1: of our users are premium subscribers. You know, these are 304 00:17:02,960 --> 00:17:05,879 Speaker 1: people who are willing to pay for services. So maybe 305 00:17:05,880 --> 00:17:08,560 Speaker 1: some of you advertisers would really like to come back 306 00:17:08,600 --> 00:17:11,159 Speaker 1: and tap into that market pretty please. I don't know, 307 00:17:11,200 --> 00:17:13,760 Speaker 1: I'm just spitballing here. For certain accounts that have lots 308 00:17:13,800 --> 00:17:16,399 Speaker 1: of followers, they get the premium upgrade for free, like 309 00:17:16,440 --> 00:17:19,320 Speaker 1: I mentioned, So it's not exactly verification. I guess it's 310 00:17:19,359 --> 00:17:23,119 Speaker 1: more like validation maybe, depending on whether you think the 311 00:17:23,200 --> 00:17:25,520 Speaker 1: check mark is a good or bad thing. Now to 312 00:17:25,560 --> 00:17:28,440 Speaker 1: talk about a different Muskie company, that of Tesla. Elon 313 00:17:28,560 --> 00:17:32,440 Speaker 1: Musk announced last week to expect a Tesla robotaxi something 314 00:17:32,520 --> 00:17:35,760 Speaker 1: or other announced on August eighth of this year. Now, 315 00:17:36,480 --> 00:17:40,600 Speaker 1: the exact nature of this robotaxi product is still not 316 00:17:40,880 --> 00:17:43,359 Speaker 1: really clear yet. I think most folks are assuming that 317 00:17:43,400 --> 00:17:46,040 Speaker 1: Tesla's going to launch some sort of robot taxi service, 318 00:17:46,240 --> 00:17:48,680 Speaker 1: and that might be the plan. But according to NBC News, 319 00:17:48,760 --> 00:17:52,720 Speaker 1: as David Ingram, agencies in California, Arizona, and Nevada, which 320 00:17:52,720 --> 00:17:57,480 Speaker 1: are three states that have specific permit requirements for robotaxi services, 321 00:17:57,680 --> 00:18:00,639 Speaker 1: none of them have yet received any kind of notice 322 00:18:00,640 --> 00:18:04,480 Speaker 1: from Tesla to initiate the permit process. Now it's possible 323 00:18:04,520 --> 00:18:07,520 Speaker 1: whatever Musk has in mind isn't intended for any of 324 00:18:07,560 --> 00:18:11,080 Speaker 1: those states, though if you're excluding California, that's a bit wild. 325 00:18:11,119 --> 00:18:14,160 Speaker 1: Considering that state has such a huge population. It would 326 00:18:14,160 --> 00:18:17,639 Speaker 1: be weird to purposefully cut that market out. So we 327 00:18:17,720 --> 00:18:19,919 Speaker 1: have ourselves a bit of a mystery. What could this 328 00:18:20,000 --> 00:18:24,080 Speaker 1: robotaxi announcement be if Tesla isn't actually applying for these 329 00:18:24,119 --> 00:18:27,600 Speaker 1: permits now? The process for Nevada is apparently pretty straightforward 330 00:18:27,600 --> 00:18:30,359 Speaker 1: and quick, so maybe that's still coming and it'll be fine. 331 00:18:30,480 --> 00:18:33,399 Speaker 1: California's process is not so fast, and the state has 332 00:18:33,440 --> 00:18:36,280 Speaker 1: put a lot of pressure on robotaxi services recently due 333 00:18:36,320 --> 00:18:39,159 Speaker 1: to some notable accidents and glitches in the past. So 334 00:18:39,480 --> 00:18:41,880 Speaker 1: could this just be another case of Elon Musk making 335 00:18:41,880 --> 00:18:44,720 Speaker 1: a statement or promise without really having the goods to 336 00:18:44,720 --> 00:18:47,320 Speaker 1: back it up. I don't know. I guess we'll find 337 00:18:47,359 --> 00:18:49,880 Speaker 1: out in August. All right, before I sign off, I've 338 00:18:49,920 --> 00:18:52,160 Speaker 1: got two pieces to recommend to you all today. First 339 00:18:52,240 --> 00:18:54,640 Speaker 1: up is a piece by David Klepper of AP News 340 00:18:54,680 --> 00:18:58,080 Speaker 1: titled A Congressman wants to understand AI. So he went 341 00:18:58,119 --> 00:19:00,720 Speaker 1: back to a college classroom to learn And yes, it's 342 00:19:00,720 --> 00:19:03,240 Speaker 1: about a US congressman who, in fact, in an effort 343 00:19:03,280 --> 00:19:06,119 Speaker 1: to expand his understanding of AI, has enrolled in computer 344 00:19:06,200 --> 00:19:08,960 Speaker 1: science classes in college. And I think that's a great approach. 345 00:19:09,160 --> 00:19:11,359 Speaker 1: We often talk about how those who are in charge 346 00:19:11,400 --> 00:19:13,760 Speaker 1: of creating laws are often out of touch when it 347 00:19:13,800 --> 00:19:17,240 Speaker 1: comes to areas that tend to evolve very quickly, such 348 00:19:17,280 --> 00:19:19,960 Speaker 1: as the case with tech, and next, I recommend the 349 00:19:20,000 --> 00:19:23,360 Speaker 1: piece titled Welcome to the Golden Age of User Hostility 350 00:19:23,600 --> 00:19:28,119 Speaker 1: by Charlie Warzel for The Atlantic. Warzel explores how technology 351 00:19:28,160 --> 00:19:31,119 Speaker 1: and connectivity have transformed the consumer experience in ways that 352 00:19:31,160 --> 00:19:34,480 Speaker 1: are often very much not good. And Warzel touches on 353 00:19:34,600 --> 00:19:37,520 Speaker 1: many things, including the story about Roku changing its terms 354 00:19:37,520 --> 00:19:40,840 Speaker 1: of service, which we covered recently in an episode about ULA's. 355 00:19:40,920 --> 00:19:43,159 Speaker 1: But Warzel's piece goes beyond that kind of stuff, so 356 00:19:43,200 --> 00:19:45,959 Speaker 1: I recommend you check that out. That's it for the 357 00:19:46,000 --> 00:19:49,159 Speaker 1: news this week. I hope that you are all well, 358 00:19:49,359 --> 00:19:58,240 Speaker 1: and I'll talk to you again really soon. Tech Stuff 359 00:19:58,320 --> 00:20:02,840 Speaker 1: is an iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit 360 00:20:02,880 --> 00:20:06,399 Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to 361 00:20:06,440 --> 00:20:07,399 Speaker 1: your favorite shows.