WEBVTT - Tech News: Crime, Punishment, and Generative AI

0:00:04.440 --> 0:00:12.399
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there,

0:00:12.400 --> 0:00:15.880
<v Speaker 1>and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host Jonathan Strickland.

0:00:15.960 --> 0:00:19.200
<v Speaker 1>I'm an executive producer with iHeart Podcasts and how the

0:00:19.200 --> 0:00:21.680
<v Speaker 1>tech are you. It's time for the tech news for

0:00:21.720 --> 0:00:25.959
<v Speaker 1>the week ending on Friday, April twelfth, twenty twenty four.

0:00:26.200 --> 0:00:30.479
<v Speaker 1>First up, Sam Bankman Freed aka SBF has filed an

0:00:30.560 --> 0:00:34.800
<v Speaker 1>appeal for his recent conviction and sentencing, So quick recap.

0:00:35.400 --> 0:00:38.360
<v Speaker 1>SBF was co founder of a couple of cryptocurrency firms,

0:00:38.520 --> 0:00:43.040
<v Speaker 1>namely FTX, which was a cryptocurrency exchange, and Alimator Research,

0:00:43.080 --> 0:00:46.600
<v Speaker 1>which was a crypto hedge fund. And a couple of

0:00:46.640 --> 0:00:49.360
<v Speaker 1>years ago, some folks noticed that something hinky seemed to

0:00:49.360 --> 0:00:52.960
<v Speaker 1>be going on at FTX, and it turned out that

0:00:53.000 --> 0:00:56.000
<v Speaker 1>the company was using customer funds to cover bets that

0:00:56.040 --> 0:00:59.040
<v Speaker 1>had been made by Alimator Research. If you're one put

0:00:59.040 --> 0:01:01.920
<v Speaker 1>a kind of like high level view of this. Ultimately,

0:01:01.960 --> 0:01:05.200
<v Speaker 1>the whole house of cards came crashing down and billions

0:01:05.200 --> 0:01:09.800
<v Speaker 1>of dollars were lost or stolen. So SBF argued he

0:01:09.920 --> 0:01:13.679
<v Speaker 1>was without blame, even as his various friends and peers

0:01:13.720 --> 0:01:17.279
<v Speaker 1>and employees were pleading guilty to fraud charges and saying

0:01:17.280 --> 0:01:21.280
<v Speaker 1>that SBF was totally to blame. So SBF ultimately was

0:01:21.280 --> 0:01:24.240
<v Speaker 1>found guilty, he received a sentence for twenty five years

0:01:24.240 --> 0:01:26.959
<v Speaker 1>for his crimes, and now he's appealing both the ruling

0:01:27.040 --> 0:01:32.800
<v Speaker 1>and the sentencing. So will that appeal succeed? Now? Personally,

0:01:32.840 --> 0:01:35.760
<v Speaker 1>I have my doubts. I am no legal expert, I'm

0:01:35.760 --> 0:01:38.040
<v Speaker 1>not a lawyer or anything like that, but I doubt

0:01:38.080 --> 0:01:41.920
<v Speaker 1>it simply because SBF didn't exactly conduct himself very well

0:01:41.959 --> 0:01:44.800
<v Speaker 1>throughout the whole investigation and trial process to begin with,

0:01:44.959 --> 0:01:48.680
<v Speaker 1>and allegedly engaged in acts of witness intimidation and witness tampering,

0:01:48.720 --> 0:01:51.960
<v Speaker 1>among other things. That kind of stuff does not tend

0:01:51.960 --> 0:01:54.600
<v Speaker 1>to go so well in the court system. But we'll

0:01:54.720 --> 0:01:58.160
<v Speaker 1>just have to wait and see. US Senator Maria Cantwell

0:01:58.320 --> 0:02:02.680
<v Speaker 1>recently said that the US government might give Byte Dance

0:02:02.760 --> 0:02:06.360
<v Speaker 1>a little more time to divest itself of TikTok, or

0:02:06.440 --> 0:02:09.760
<v Speaker 1>at the very least, she's in favor of such an extension.

0:02:09.919 --> 0:02:12.600
<v Speaker 1>The original plan if the bill were to become law.

0:02:12.680 --> 0:02:15.160
<v Speaker 1>More on that in just a moment, was that Byte

0:02:15.200 --> 0:02:19.000
<v Speaker 1>Dance would have about six months to divest itself of TikTok.

0:02:19.080 --> 0:02:21.240
<v Speaker 1>But now Contwell says she thinks the deadline of one

0:02:21.320 --> 0:02:24.840
<v Speaker 1>year would better ensure success. Now, the cynical among us

0:02:24.960 --> 0:02:27.600
<v Speaker 1>might also point out that extending the deadline into twenty

0:02:27.639 --> 0:02:30.600
<v Speaker 1>twenty five would push things after elections here in the

0:02:30.680 --> 0:02:32.960
<v Speaker 1>United States, and that maybe this is more about an

0:02:32.960 --> 0:02:36.520
<v Speaker 1>attempt to avoid, you know, voters holding politicians accountable for

0:02:36.600 --> 0:02:40.079
<v Speaker 1>their votes. But all this might be moot because while

0:02:40.120 --> 0:02:43.560
<v Speaker 1>the US House of Representatives voted in favor of this measure,

0:02:43.720 --> 0:02:46.560
<v Speaker 1>the US Senate, which is the other half of Congress

0:02:46.560 --> 0:02:48.800
<v Speaker 1>here in the United States, has yet to take up

0:02:48.840 --> 0:02:51.560
<v Speaker 1>the matter, and there's no guarantee that they will even

0:02:51.760 --> 0:02:54.919
<v Speaker 1>vote on the bill, although Chuck Schumer has indicated that

0:02:54.919 --> 0:02:57.359
<v Speaker 1>that's at least a possibility. If they do vote on

0:02:57.400 --> 0:02:59.880
<v Speaker 1>the bill, there's no guarantee that the whole bill's going

0:02:59.919 --> 0:03:02.760
<v Speaker 1>to pass into law. The public response to the House

0:03:03.400 --> 0:03:05.440
<v Speaker 1>that might just be enough to convince senators that they

0:03:05.440 --> 0:03:08.560
<v Speaker 1>would rather not touch this particular topic because it appears

0:03:08.639 --> 0:03:12.400
<v Speaker 1>to have some prickly political consequences. Okay, I got a

0:03:12.400 --> 0:03:15.360
<v Speaker 1>couple of Apples stories for y'all. First up, the company

0:03:15.480 --> 0:03:19.280
<v Speaker 1>had a setback in UK courts today. Apple had petitioned

0:03:19.280 --> 0:03:22.320
<v Speaker 1>the court to throw out a mass lawsuit brought against

0:03:22.320 --> 0:03:26.320
<v Speaker 1>the company by more than fifteen hundred app developers. The

0:03:26.360 --> 0:03:29.960
<v Speaker 1>court has denied Apple's request. The lawsuit will be allowed

0:03:29.960 --> 0:03:33.120
<v Speaker 1>to go forward, and it alleges that Apple's policy to

0:03:33.120 --> 0:03:36.680
<v Speaker 1>take a hefty percentage of transaction fees, up to thirty

0:03:36.720 --> 0:03:40.400
<v Speaker 1>percent of transaction fees in some cases, is inherently unfair,

0:03:40.720 --> 0:03:43.760
<v Speaker 1>and that Apple policies meant that the iOS store was

0:03:43.840 --> 0:03:47.520
<v Speaker 1>really the only game in town. You couldn't have apps

0:03:47.520 --> 0:03:50.880
<v Speaker 1>on like an Independence store, at least not in anywhere

0:03:50.880 --> 0:03:54.200
<v Speaker 1>besides the European Union at this point. And it meant

0:03:54.240 --> 0:03:57.120
<v Speaker 1>that in order to make your apps available to iOS

0:03:57.240 --> 0:03:59.160
<v Speaker 1>users in the first place, you had to play by

0:03:59.200 --> 0:04:01.520
<v Speaker 1>Apple's rules. It was the only game in town. There

0:04:01.520 --> 0:04:05.320
<v Speaker 1>were no other alternatives. To be clear, Apple hasn't won

0:04:05.560 --> 0:04:08.520
<v Speaker 1>or lost this court battle yet, It just failed to

0:04:08.520 --> 0:04:12.560
<v Speaker 1>get the case dismissed. But considering the current regulatory attitude

0:04:12.560 --> 0:04:15.440
<v Speaker 1>toward big tech, I imagine Apple is considering its various

0:04:15.440 --> 0:04:18.400
<v Speaker 1>options right now. I personally would not be surprised if

0:04:18.400 --> 0:04:21.800
<v Speaker 1>some sort of settlement follows in the future. If Apple

0:04:21.880 --> 0:04:25.280
<v Speaker 1>is unable to get this case thrown out, Bloomberg apparently

0:04:25.520 --> 0:04:28.880
<v Speaker 1>reports that Apple has a Mac computer refresh coming up

0:04:28.920 --> 0:04:31.279
<v Speaker 1>that will introduce some pretty big changes for the line

0:04:31.320 --> 0:04:35.080
<v Speaker 1>of computers. Now, I say Bloomberg apparently reports because I

0:04:35.160 --> 0:04:38.120
<v Speaker 1>do not have a subscription to Bloomberg, so I'm actually

0:04:38.160 --> 0:04:41.240
<v Speaker 1>pulling this information from an article in The Verge by

0:04:41.320 --> 0:04:45.520
<v Speaker 1>Emma Roth, who goes on to actually cite that Bloomberg article.

0:04:45.560 --> 0:04:47.680
<v Speaker 1>So this is like third hand once you hear it

0:04:47.720 --> 0:04:51.240
<v Speaker 1>from me. Anyway, the new computers will have Apple's M

0:04:51.320 --> 0:04:54.800
<v Speaker 1>four processor, and that hasn't even really gone into production yet,

0:04:54.880 --> 0:04:57.359
<v Speaker 1>but the buzzword for M four is that these chips

0:04:57.360 --> 0:05:02.159
<v Speaker 1>are optimized for processing AI Apple locations, because AI is

0:05:02.200 --> 0:05:06.000
<v Speaker 1>the new black, y'all, and to be fair, AI processing

0:05:06.040 --> 0:05:08.840
<v Speaker 1>does require an awful lot of oomph. It takes up

0:05:09.160 --> 0:05:11.480
<v Speaker 1>tons of processing power in order to get AI to

0:05:11.560 --> 0:05:14.760
<v Speaker 1>work properly. And Roth points out that Apple's sales in

0:05:14.800 --> 0:05:17.400
<v Speaker 1>the macline have kind of slowed down in recent years,

0:05:17.400 --> 0:05:19.679
<v Speaker 1>so maybe this is what the company is hoping will

0:05:19.880 --> 0:05:22.599
<v Speaker 1>kind of inject new life in those sales. And I

0:05:22.600 --> 0:05:25.400
<v Speaker 1>think I say this nearly every week, but I feel

0:05:25.400 --> 0:05:28.719
<v Speaker 1>like part of the reason why Mac sales have declined

0:05:28.800 --> 0:05:31.920
<v Speaker 1>is the same reason why sales for lots of high

0:05:32.040 --> 0:05:35.279
<v Speaker 1>end products have declined in recent times. You had that

0:05:35.360 --> 0:05:38.720
<v Speaker 1>whole economic uncertainty thing, you know, just hovering above us.

0:05:38.800 --> 0:05:42.159
<v Speaker 1>You had rising interest rates, you had crazy inflation out there,

0:05:42.520 --> 0:05:45.560
<v Speaker 1>and folks just decided that they would rather make do

0:05:45.680 --> 0:05:48.479
<v Speaker 1>with what they have rather than shell out big bucks

0:05:48.480 --> 0:05:51.200
<v Speaker 1>for new items, which I think is totally understandable. In fact,

0:05:51.200 --> 0:05:54.400
<v Speaker 1>according to nerd wallet dot com, inflation in the United

0:05:54.440 --> 0:05:57.800
<v Speaker 1>States for consumer prices, this isn't inflation in general, it's

0:05:57.839 --> 0:06:03.200
<v Speaker 1>just consumer prices rows nearly twenty percent since January twenty twenty,

0:06:03.440 --> 0:06:07.039
<v Speaker 1>So in those years, like, you're paying twenty percent more,

0:06:07.120 --> 0:06:11.280
<v Speaker 1>almost twenty percent more for consumer goods, particularly high end goods.

0:06:11.480 --> 0:06:13.560
<v Speaker 1>And it's pretty hard to convince people to push through

0:06:13.600 --> 0:06:17.520
<v Speaker 1>barriers like that when you still also have iterative generational

0:06:17.560 --> 0:06:20.280
<v Speaker 1>improvements in the tech itself, Like, unless the tech is

0:06:20.640 --> 0:06:25.279
<v Speaker 1>unbelievably impressive, it's pretty hard to convince someone, hey, do

0:06:25.320 --> 0:06:26.920
<v Speaker 1>you want to spend a lot of money for a

0:06:26.960 --> 0:06:29.880
<v Speaker 1>computer that's a little bit better? And you know, when

0:06:29.920 --> 0:06:33.839
<v Speaker 1>your business depends upon selling more hardware every year, which

0:06:34.400 --> 0:06:38.440
<v Speaker 1>that's one big part of Apple's business. Although they're app's

0:06:38.520 --> 0:06:41.080
<v Speaker 1>businesses kind of eclipse that, but it means you're in

0:06:41.120 --> 0:06:44.240
<v Speaker 1>a tough spot, right, Like, how do you keep selling

0:06:44.520 --> 0:06:51.800
<v Speaker 1>hardware when economic factors are disincentivizing customers from purchasing stuff.

0:06:51.960 --> 0:06:55.400
<v Speaker 1>It's particularly tough for Apple because obviously Apple has long

0:06:55.440 --> 0:06:58.640
<v Speaker 1>been associated as being sort of a premium brand. But

0:06:58.800 --> 0:07:01.040
<v Speaker 1>we'll have to wait to learn more about the company's

0:07:01.080 --> 0:07:03.600
<v Speaker 1>plans a little later this year. They're going to have

0:07:03.680 --> 0:07:06.920
<v Speaker 1>their Worldwide Developer Conference in the summer and in the falls,

0:07:06.960 --> 0:07:09.720
<v Speaker 1>typically when we get a big announcement about things like,

0:07:09.920 --> 0:07:12.760
<v Speaker 1>you know, their iPhone strategy and stuff. So we'll probably

0:07:12.840 --> 0:07:16.680
<v Speaker 1>learn more about these planned Mac refreshes as the year

0:07:16.760 --> 0:07:19.960
<v Speaker 1>goes on. Michael Krider of PC World as an article

0:07:20.000 --> 0:07:23.920
<v Speaker 1>titled ew co Pilot AI might auto launch with Windows

0:07:23.920 --> 0:07:27.920
<v Speaker 1>eleven soon, And you may have gathered that Michael is

0:07:27.960 --> 0:07:30.560
<v Speaker 1>not a big fan of this idea. I don't blame him.

0:07:30.560 --> 0:07:34.480
<v Speaker 1>I'm not either, And he reports that Microsoft's Copilot AI,

0:07:34.640 --> 0:07:38.680
<v Speaker 1>which is a generative AI tool, could auto start on

0:07:38.760 --> 0:07:41.680
<v Speaker 1>Windows eleven machines in the not too distant future. So

0:07:41.800 --> 0:07:45.480
<v Speaker 1>Michael is citing a report by MS power User that

0:07:45.640 --> 0:07:48.880
<v Speaker 1>says Microsoft has the feature turned on in a recent

0:07:48.960 --> 0:07:53.080
<v Speaker 1>Windows eleven Insider build. The Windows eleven Insider is kind

0:07:53.080 --> 0:07:56.280
<v Speaker 1>of like a test kitchen for Microsoft features. They can

0:07:56.400 --> 0:07:58.200
<v Speaker 1>roll it out and see how they do, and then

0:07:58.440 --> 0:08:03.120
<v Speaker 1>tweak them or sometimes just can them entirely before potentially

0:08:03.240 --> 0:08:06.880
<v Speaker 1>rolling them out to a broader public. So apparently the

0:08:06.960 --> 0:08:10.200
<v Speaker 1>auto start feature will depend at least to some extent

0:08:10.320 --> 0:08:13.560
<v Speaker 1>upon hardware. So if the user has a machine that

0:08:13.640 --> 0:08:16.360
<v Speaker 1>has a display this smaller than twenty seven inches, it's

0:08:16.400 --> 0:08:18.600
<v Speaker 1>not going to initiate an auto start. So that pretty

0:08:18.680 --> 0:08:20.760
<v Speaker 1>much means that if you have a laptop, this is

0:08:20.800 --> 0:08:22.600
<v Speaker 1>not going to be a factor, even if you're running

0:08:22.640 --> 0:08:25.560
<v Speaker 1>Windows eleven. So that's something at least. And you can

0:08:25.600 --> 0:08:29.080
<v Speaker 1>actually choose which programs do auto start by using the

0:08:29.080 --> 0:08:31.800
<v Speaker 1>Windows Task Manager menu. You can go in there and

0:08:31.840 --> 0:08:33.920
<v Speaker 1>set that, which reminds me, I need to do that

0:08:34.000 --> 0:08:37.000
<v Speaker 1>on my personal machine because the number of programs that

0:08:37.040 --> 0:08:39.320
<v Speaker 1>are auto launching at this point is starting to reach

0:08:39.440 --> 0:08:42.439
<v Speaker 1>ludicrous levels and I just like close them out when

0:08:42.440 --> 0:08:46.240
<v Speaker 1>they pop up, and I should just turn off the

0:08:46.280 --> 0:08:50.640
<v Speaker 1>auto start thing in the first place. So memo to myself.

0:08:51.080 --> 0:08:55.080
<v Speaker 1>Meta has introduced or will be introducing new protective measures

0:08:55.080 --> 0:08:58.679
<v Speaker 1>for younger Instagram users. The company has created a default

0:08:58.720 --> 0:09:01.280
<v Speaker 1>setting for users under the age of eighteen that's meant

0:09:01.360 --> 0:09:05.040
<v Speaker 1>to detect and to blur out images that include nudity.

0:09:05.360 --> 0:09:08.040
<v Speaker 1>Adults will also have the option of turning this feature on.

0:09:08.240 --> 0:09:10.360
<v Speaker 1>It just won't be on by default for them, and

0:09:10.400 --> 0:09:11.920
<v Speaker 1>it might be a nice change of pace for some

0:09:11.960 --> 0:09:14.760
<v Speaker 1>of y'all out there. I would know not on Instagram,

0:09:14.800 --> 0:09:17.560
<v Speaker 1>I don't have this problem. So the feature will give

0:09:17.720 --> 0:09:20.400
<v Speaker 1>users actually the option to see the blurred image, like

0:09:20.440 --> 0:09:24.360
<v Speaker 1>you can click see image and see the full unblurred version.

0:09:24.679 --> 0:09:26.160
<v Speaker 1>But in order to do that, you have to make

0:09:26.160 --> 0:09:28.840
<v Speaker 1>the conscious choice to do so, and Meta will also

0:09:28.880 --> 0:09:31.560
<v Speaker 1>include warnings to let you know that you don't need

0:09:31.600 --> 0:09:35.000
<v Speaker 1>to respond to such messages don't You shouldn't feel pressured

0:09:35.000 --> 0:09:39.320
<v Speaker 1>to do so. The real concern here is sextortion, right,

0:09:39.480 --> 0:09:43.360
<v Speaker 1>using these images to try and extort things out of

0:09:43.400 --> 0:09:46.880
<v Speaker 1>the recipient, and Meta's taking a lot of efforts to

0:09:47.040 --> 0:09:50.199
<v Speaker 1>try and push back against that. Obviously, the company has

0:09:50.240 --> 0:09:53.120
<v Speaker 1>been under scrutiny and criticism for this kind of thing

0:09:53.120 --> 0:09:55.480
<v Speaker 1>in the past about allowing it to happen, so this

0:09:55.640 --> 0:09:58.480
<v Speaker 1>I think is a correction for that. To learn more

0:09:58.640 --> 0:10:02.240
<v Speaker 1>about the measures that Meta is taking and the process

0:10:02.240 --> 0:10:04.920
<v Speaker 1>it's using. You should check out the article Instagram to

0:10:05.000 --> 0:10:08.559
<v Speaker 1>blur out nude images sent to teens and dms. It's

0:10:08.600 --> 0:10:12.000
<v Speaker 1>by Todd Spangler and you can find that in variety

0:10:12.280 --> 0:10:15.360
<v Speaker 1>of all places. All Right, we've got several more news

0:10:15.400 --> 0:10:17.640
<v Speaker 1>stories to go through, but first let's take a quick

0:10:17.679 --> 0:10:30.440
<v Speaker 1>break to thank our sponsors. Okay, we're back. So Russian

0:10:30.480 --> 0:10:32.880
<v Speaker 1>software companies are having a pretty rough go of it

0:10:32.920 --> 0:10:35.680
<v Speaker 1>in recent years. Y'all. You got the Russian government, which

0:10:35.720 --> 0:10:39.199
<v Speaker 1>can get pretty darn involved in companies within the country,

0:10:39.240 --> 0:10:42.080
<v Speaker 1>and that has led to some issues there, including companies

0:10:42.200 --> 0:10:46.480
<v Speaker 1>choosing to discontinue certain services within Russia itself for fear

0:10:46.559 --> 0:10:49.200
<v Speaker 1>of running a foul of Russian law. But now you've

0:10:49.200 --> 0:10:51.960
<v Speaker 1>also got the United States, which is reportedly preparing to

0:10:52.160 --> 0:10:56.160
<v Speaker 1>ban US citizens and companies from using products from the

0:10:56.240 --> 0:10:59.840
<v Speaker 1>Russian company Kaspersky Labs. Now that name might sound familiar

0:10:59.880 --> 0:11:02.320
<v Speaker 1>to so a lot of y'all out there. Kaspersky Labs

0:11:02.360 --> 0:11:07.040
<v Speaker 1>is a huge name in cybersecurity. They are really important

0:11:07.120 --> 0:11:10.960
<v Speaker 1>in cybersecurity. But now US officials are concerned that Kasperski

0:11:11.040 --> 0:11:14.800
<v Speaker 1>Labs software could weaken national security. And it's not that

0:11:14.960 --> 0:11:18.120
<v Speaker 1>different from the fear that TikTok could be an information

0:11:18.240 --> 0:11:21.160
<v Speaker 1>collection tool for the Chinese Communist Party in China. So

0:11:21.240 --> 0:11:26.720
<v Speaker 1>already US policy forbids federal agencies from using Kasperski Lab products.

0:11:26.760 --> 0:11:29.120
<v Speaker 1>You're not supposed to install any of those on any

0:11:29.280 --> 0:11:33.280
<v Speaker 1>federal owned hardware, So this potential measure would actually have

0:11:33.280 --> 0:11:36.160
<v Speaker 1>a much more broad scope and expand that to US

0:11:36.240 --> 0:11:39.240
<v Speaker 1>companies and citizens in general. It's unclear how this would

0:11:39.240 --> 0:11:42.520
<v Speaker 1>actually be enforced, or if it would be enforced at

0:11:42.600 --> 0:11:45.160
<v Speaker 1>least in every case. I mean, if you're running a

0:11:45.200 --> 0:11:48.640
<v Speaker 1>modest business that has no connection to national security and

0:11:48.920 --> 0:11:52.040
<v Speaker 1>you rely on one or more Kaspersky Labs products, it

0:11:52.120 --> 0:11:54.960
<v Speaker 1>might be a bit extreme to force you to disengage

0:11:55.000 --> 0:11:58.760
<v Speaker 1>those products from your business practices and either find replacements

0:11:58.840 --> 0:12:02.080
<v Speaker 1>or just do without. Anyway, According to CNN, the matter

0:12:02.160 --> 0:12:04.800
<v Speaker 1>isn't fully fleshed out yet and it may change, so

0:12:04.920 --> 0:12:08.120
<v Speaker 1>we should know that in a few days. Either way,

0:12:08.760 --> 0:12:12.000
<v Speaker 1>it's time to throw another Google product on top of

0:12:12.040 --> 0:12:16.120
<v Speaker 1>the pile of corpses of other former Google products that

0:12:16.160 --> 0:12:18.839
<v Speaker 1>no longer exist, or at least it will be that

0:12:19.000 --> 0:12:23.000
<v Speaker 1>time pretty soon. And that's because Google is discontinuing its

0:12:23.400 --> 0:12:28.360
<v Speaker 1>Google one VPN service. So Google one is Google's consumer

0:12:28.480 --> 0:12:31.600
<v Speaker 1>cloud storage service. Your standard Google account comes with I

0:12:31.600 --> 0:12:35.680
<v Speaker 1>think fifteen gigabytes of storage across multiple services like Gmail

0:12:35.760 --> 0:12:38.840
<v Speaker 1>and Google Docs. It shares that fifteen gigabytes across all

0:12:38.880 --> 0:12:41.840
<v Speaker 1>those different products. Google One can expand this to like

0:12:41.920 --> 0:12:44.920
<v Speaker 1>one hundred gigabytes or beyond, depending upon the tier of

0:12:45.080 --> 0:12:48.240
<v Speaker 1>service you choose. One benefit of being a Google one

0:12:48.320 --> 0:12:52.720
<v Speaker 1>customer at least has been the use of a VPN service,

0:12:52.920 --> 0:12:57.040
<v Speaker 1>but apparently not many people are actually using the virtual

0:12:57.080 --> 0:13:00.360
<v Speaker 1>private network that Google offered, so Google said that was

0:13:00.440 --> 0:13:03.559
<v Speaker 1>one of the reasons the company was choosing to discontinue

0:13:03.600 --> 0:13:06.240
<v Speaker 1>the feature. The other one is that it would allow

0:13:06.640 --> 0:13:10.520
<v Speaker 1>people who had been supporting the VPN to get freed

0:13:10.640 --> 0:13:13.120
<v Speaker 1>up to work on features that you know people are

0:13:13.360 --> 0:13:16.480
<v Speaker 1>actively using. But for those few customers out there who

0:13:16.559 --> 0:13:19.200
<v Speaker 1>did make use of the VPN by Google One service,

0:13:19.280 --> 0:13:22.760
<v Speaker 1>they'll get prompts suggesting alternative third party solutions that they

0:13:22.800 --> 0:13:25.839
<v Speaker 1>can use instead. Or if you have a Pixel seven

0:13:26.040 --> 0:13:29.199
<v Speaker 1>or later, then you'll still be able to use Google's VPN,

0:13:29.320 --> 0:13:32.720
<v Speaker 1>So I guess some folks will continue to have access

0:13:32.760 --> 0:13:35.880
<v Speaker 1>to it. And now for some muskie news. First up,

0:13:35.960 --> 0:13:39.360
<v Speaker 1>Ours Technica's John BROADCN has a fun piece titled Elon

0:13:39.480 --> 0:13:43.240
<v Speaker 1>Musk's x botched, an attempt to replace Twitter dot com

0:13:43.320 --> 0:13:46.920
<v Speaker 1>links with x dot com. So here's what happened. So,

0:13:47.120 --> 0:13:49.480
<v Speaker 1>at least for folks who are using the iOS app

0:13:49.559 --> 0:13:52.640
<v Speaker 1>version of Twitter, that's where these changes rolled out. The

0:13:52.800 --> 0:13:57.640
<v Speaker 1>service would automatically find and replace instances of Twitter dot

0:13:57.679 --> 0:14:00.000
<v Speaker 1>com and they would replace it with x dot com.

0:14:00.600 --> 0:14:03.679
<v Speaker 1>But that find and replaced feature was really rudimentary when

0:14:03.720 --> 0:14:07.480
<v Speaker 1>it first rolled out. It wouldn't search for just Twitter

0:14:07.559 --> 0:14:10.600
<v Speaker 1>dot com. It would look for any URL that would

0:14:10.600 --> 0:14:13.200
<v Speaker 1>then end in Twitter dot com. So, in an example

0:14:13.240 --> 0:14:16.000
<v Speaker 1>that Broadkin gives in the article, you could create a

0:14:16.240 --> 0:14:23.560
<v Speaker 1>URL like netfliit Twitter dot com, like netfli Twitter dot com,

0:14:23.880 --> 0:14:26.760
<v Speaker 1>and the find and replaced feature would take the Twitter

0:14:26.800 --> 0:14:29.160
<v Speaker 1>dot com part of that URL and change it to

0:14:29.360 --> 0:14:32.120
<v Speaker 1>x dot com. So then your link would appear as

0:14:32.320 --> 0:14:35.760
<v Speaker 1>Netflix dot com and it would look like it was

0:14:35.800 --> 0:14:38.960
<v Speaker 1>an official Netflix dot com link. But if you clicked

0:14:39.000 --> 0:14:41.280
<v Speaker 1>on it, you wouldn't go to Netflix dot com. You

0:14:41.320 --> 0:14:45.320
<v Speaker 1>would go to netfliit Twitter dot com. So, in other words,

0:14:45.320 --> 0:14:47.960
<v Speaker 1>it was possible for someone to create like a phishing

0:14:48.120 --> 0:14:51.680
<v Speaker 1>site and spoof it to look like something else and

0:14:51.800 --> 0:14:55.080
<v Speaker 1>use that to you know, farm things like usernames and

0:14:55.120 --> 0:14:59.000
<v Speaker 1>passwords and stuff, or to pass along malware all sorts

0:14:59.040 --> 0:15:02.520
<v Speaker 1>of different militia ways, or just you know, mischievous ways.

0:15:02.560 --> 0:15:04.920
<v Speaker 1>In some cases, like you could just redirect people to

0:15:05.000 --> 0:15:08.240
<v Speaker 1>something that they probably would rather not have seen. And

0:15:08.320 --> 0:15:10.920
<v Speaker 1>this only works with URLs, where the final letter in

0:15:10.960 --> 0:15:14.560
<v Speaker 1>the second level domain would be X, right, like Netflix.

0:15:14.800 --> 0:15:17.840
<v Speaker 1>It works for that because that's how Netflix ends is

0:15:17.920 --> 0:15:21.160
<v Speaker 1>with an X. Wouldn't work so great for like Facebook, right,

0:15:21.200 --> 0:15:24.960
<v Speaker 1>it would be facebooks. So the issue was active long

0:15:25.040 --> 0:15:28.440
<v Speaker 1>enough for a bunch of enterprising folks to register various

0:15:28.520 --> 0:15:32.680
<v Speaker 1>domains for all sorts of shenanigans. But thankfully Twitter slash

0:15:32.880 --> 0:15:36.160
<v Speaker 1>X has now corrected the utter replace feature so it

0:15:36.160 --> 0:15:37.920
<v Speaker 1>doesn't do that anymore. But yeah, that was a big

0:15:37.960 --> 0:15:42.160
<v Speaker 1>old whip scene. I'm Rita Khalid of The Verge reports

0:15:42.200 --> 0:15:45.240
<v Speaker 1>that X is also taking away the ability for premium

0:15:45.320 --> 0:15:48.760
<v Speaker 1>users to hide their shame I'm sorry, I mean hide

0:15:48.760 --> 0:15:51.280
<v Speaker 1>their blue check marks. So you might remember that once

0:15:51.360 --> 0:15:54.160
<v Speaker 1>upon a time, the check mark on Twitter marked a

0:15:54.320 --> 0:15:57.880
<v Speaker 1>verified account, So these accounts typically belonged to people of

0:15:57.960 --> 0:16:00.560
<v Speaker 1>some note for some reason I was also included. I

0:16:00.640 --> 0:16:03.680
<v Speaker 1>don't know how I qualified, And it really was just

0:16:03.720 --> 0:16:06.560
<v Speaker 1>to tell users that, yes, this Twitter account actually does

0:16:06.640 --> 0:16:10.080
<v Speaker 1>belong to the legitimate person who claims it. It is verified.

0:16:10.280 --> 0:16:13.840
<v Speaker 1>That is who you're talking to. It's not someone impersonating

0:16:14.120 --> 0:16:17.120
<v Speaker 1>this figure. But then Musk turned the checkmark into a

0:16:17.160 --> 0:16:20.280
<v Speaker 1>designation for people who paid to become premium members, and

0:16:20.360 --> 0:16:23.400
<v Speaker 1>suddenly the social cachet of the check mark went up

0:16:23.400 --> 0:16:26.200
<v Speaker 1>in smoke and it became kind of like an albatross.

0:16:26.320 --> 0:16:29.040
<v Speaker 1>So some folks felt that having that check mark was

0:16:29.040 --> 0:16:31.440
<v Speaker 1>a badge of dishonor and they would rather people not

0:16:31.640 --> 0:16:34.520
<v Speaker 1>know that they had paid to become premium members or

0:16:34.600 --> 0:16:38.240
<v Speaker 1>had been designated premium members because they just had enough followers.

0:16:38.240 --> 0:16:41.640
<v Speaker 1>Because Elon Musk did turn some of those really popular

0:16:41.680 --> 0:16:45.800
<v Speaker 1>Twitter accounts into premium accounts without them having subscribed. But

0:16:45.960 --> 0:16:48.200
<v Speaker 1>now bad news. You know, it used to be that

0:16:48.240 --> 0:16:50.880
<v Speaker 1>you could hide that check mark if you winto settings,

0:16:50.920 --> 0:16:54.320
<v Speaker 1>but that's getting removed. Why is X removing the ability

0:16:54.440 --> 0:16:58.120
<v Speaker 1>to hide those check marks. That's a mystery. Maybe it's

0:16:58.160 --> 0:17:00.440
<v Speaker 1>an attempt to flex by saying, hey, look how many

0:17:00.480 --> 0:17:02.960
<v Speaker 1>of our users are premium subscribers. You know, these are

0:17:02.960 --> 0:17:05.879
<v Speaker 1>people who are willing to pay for services. So maybe

0:17:05.880 --> 0:17:08.560
<v Speaker 1>some of you advertisers would really like to come back

0:17:08.600 --> 0:17:11.159
<v Speaker 1>and tap into that market pretty please. I don't know,

0:17:11.200 --> 0:17:13.760
<v Speaker 1>I'm just spitballing here. For certain accounts that have lots

0:17:13.800 --> 0:17:16.399
<v Speaker 1>of followers, they get the premium upgrade for free, like

0:17:16.440 --> 0:17:19.320
<v Speaker 1>I mentioned, So it's not exactly verification. I guess it's

0:17:19.359 --> 0:17:23.119
<v Speaker 1>more like validation maybe, depending on whether you think the

0:17:23.200 --> 0:17:25.520
<v Speaker 1>check mark is a good or bad thing. Now to

0:17:25.560 --> 0:17:28.440
<v Speaker 1>talk about a different Muskie company, that of Tesla. Elon

0:17:28.560 --> 0:17:32.440
<v Speaker 1>Musk announced last week to expect a Tesla robotaxi something

0:17:32.520 --> 0:17:35.760
<v Speaker 1>or other announced on August eighth of this year. Now,

0:17:36.480 --> 0:17:40.600
<v Speaker 1>the exact nature of this robotaxi product is still not

0:17:40.880 --> 0:17:43.359
<v Speaker 1>really clear yet. I think most folks are assuming that

0:17:43.400 --> 0:17:46.040
<v Speaker 1>Tesla's going to launch some sort of robot taxi service,

0:17:46.240 --> 0:17:48.680
<v Speaker 1>and that might be the plan. But according to NBC News,

0:17:48.760 --> 0:17:52.720
<v Speaker 1>as David Ingram, agencies in California, Arizona, and Nevada, which

0:17:52.720 --> 0:17:57.480
<v Speaker 1>are three states that have specific permit requirements for robotaxi services,

0:17:57.680 --> 0:18:00.639
<v Speaker 1>none of them have yet received any kind of notice

0:18:00.640 --> 0:18:04.480
<v Speaker 1>from Tesla to initiate the permit process. Now it's possible

0:18:04.520 --> 0:18:07.520
<v Speaker 1>whatever Musk has in mind isn't intended for any of

0:18:07.560 --> 0:18:11.080
<v Speaker 1>those states, though if you're excluding California, that's a bit wild.

0:18:11.119 --> 0:18:14.160
<v Speaker 1>Considering that state has such a huge population. It would

0:18:14.160 --> 0:18:17.639
<v Speaker 1>be weird to purposefully cut that market out. So we

0:18:17.720 --> 0:18:19.919
<v Speaker 1>have ourselves a bit of a mystery. What could this

0:18:20.000 --> 0:18:24.080
<v Speaker 1>robotaxi announcement be if Tesla isn't actually applying for these

0:18:24.119 --> 0:18:27.600
<v Speaker 1>permits now? The process for Nevada is apparently pretty straightforward

0:18:27.600 --> 0:18:30.359
<v Speaker 1>and quick, so maybe that's still coming and it'll be fine.

0:18:30.480 --> 0:18:33.399
<v Speaker 1>California's process is not so fast, and the state has

0:18:33.440 --> 0:18:36.280
<v Speaker 1>put a lot of pressure on robotaxi services recently due

0:18:36.320 --> 0:18:39.159
<v Speaker 1>to some notable accidents and glitches in the past. So

0:18:39.480 --> 0:18:41.880
<v Speaker 1>could this just be another case of Elon Musk making

0:18:41.880 --> 0:18:44.720
<v Speaker 1>a statement or promise without really having the goods to

0:18:44.720 --> 0:18:47.320
<v Speaker 1>back it up. I don't know. I guess we'll find

0:18:47.359 --> 0:18:49.880
<v Speaker 1>out in August. All right, before I sign off, I've

0:18:49.920 --> 0:18:52.160
<v Speaker 1>got two pieces to recommend to you all today. First

0:18:52.240 --> 0:18:54.640
<v Speaker 1>up is a piece by David Klepper of AP News

0:18:54.680 --> 0:18:58.080
<v Speaker 1>titled A Congressman wants to understand AI. So he went

0:18:58.119 --> 0:19:00.720
<v Speaker 1>back to a college classroom to learn And yes, it's

0:19:00.720 --> 0:19:03.240
<v Speaker 1>about a US congressman who, in fact, in an effort

0:19:03.280 --> 0:19:06.119
<v Speaker 1>to expand his understanding of AI, has enrolled in computer

0:19:06.200 --> 0:19:08.960
<v Speaker 1>science classes in college. And I think that's a great approach.

0:19:09.160 --> 0:19:11.359
<v Speaker 1>We often talk about how those who are in charge

0:19:11.400 --> 0:19:13.760
<v Speaker 1>of creating laws are often out of touch when it

0:19:13.800 --> 0:19:17.240
<v Speaker 1>comes to areas that tend to evolve very quickly, such

0:19:17.280 --> 0:19:19.960
<v Speaker 1>as the case with tech, and next, I recommend the

0:19:20.000 --> 0:19:23.360
<v Speaker 1>piece titled Welcome to the Golden Age of User Hostility

0:19:23.600 --> 0:19:28.119
<v Speaker 1>by Charlie Warzel for The Atlantic. Warzel explores how technology

0:19:28.160 --> 0:19:31.119
<v Speaker 1>and connectivity have transformed the consumer experience in ways that

0:19:31.160 --> 0:19:34.480
<v Speaker 1>are often very much not good. And Warzel touches on

0:19:34.600 --> 0:19:37.520
<v Speaker 1>many things, including the story about Roku changing its terms

0:19:37.520 --> 0:19:40.840
<v Speaker 1>of service, which we covered recently in an episode about ULA's.

0:19:40.920 --> 0:19:43.159
<v Speaker 1>But Warzel's piece goes beyond that kind of stuff, so

0:19:43.200 --> 0:19:45.959
<v Speaker 1>I recommend you check that out. That's it for the

0:19:46.000 --> 0:19:49.159
<v Speaker 1>news this week. I hope that you are all well,

0:19:49.359 --> 0:19:58.240
<v Speaker 1>and I'll talk to you again really soon. Tech Stuff

0:19:58.320 --> 0:20:02.840
<v Speaker 1>is an iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit

0:20:02.880 --> 0:20:06.399
<v Speaker 1>the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to

0:20:06.440 --> 0:20:07.399
<v Speaker 1>your favorite shows.