1
00:00:04,440 --> 00:00:12,360
Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey therein

2
00:00:12,520 --> 00:00:15,880
Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland. I'm

3
00:00:15,880 --> 00:00:19,639
Speaker 1: an executive producer with iHeart Podcasts and how the tech

4
00:00:19,680 --> 00:00:22,759
Speaker 1: are you. It's time for the tech news for Tuesday,

5
00:00:22,880 --> 00:00:28,520
Speaker 1: November twenty first, twenty twenty three. And first up, of course,

6
00:00:28,600 --> 00:00:32,720
Speaker 1: we have some updates to the open ai situation. Now.

7
00:00:32,720 --> 00:00:35,280
Speaker 1: If you want to hear what led to open AI's

8
00:00:35,320 --> 00:00:39,760
Speaker 1: board of directors to fire CEO Sam Altman last Friday,

9
00:00:40,280 --> 00:00:43,640
Speaker 1: check out yesterday's Tech Stuff episode. I did a full

10
00:00:43,680 --> 00:00:48,680
Speaker 1: episode kind of about what led to that event and

11
00:00:48,680 --> 00:00:51,360
Speaker 1: what is happening in the aftermath. But I do have

12
00:00:51,400 --> 00:00:54,160
Speaker 1: a couple of new bits to add to that. First up,

13
00:00:54,160 --> 00:00:57,720
Speaker 1: According to The Verge, Sam Altman is still seeking reinstatement

14
00:00:57,840 --> 00:01:02,760
Speaker 1: as open ai CEO. Yesterday I talked about how Altman

15
00:01:02,880 --> 00:01:05,920
Speaker 1: claimed he would never wear a guest badge to open

16
00:01:05,959 --> 00:01:09,640
Speaker 1: AI's headquarters again. He did it once in order to

17
00:01:09,680 --> 00:01:12,360
Speaker 1: return to negotiate for his potential return to the company.

18
00:01:12,400 --> 00:01:16,240
Speaker 1: Once the board of directors said whoop, see those negotiations

19
00:01:16,240 --> 00:01:19,840
Speaker 1: went nowhere. So then he reportedly joined Microsoft and he

20
00:01:19,880 --> 00:01:25,240
Speaker 1: will be named CEO of an advanced AI division within Microsoft,

21
00:01:25,319 --> 00:01:28,440
Speaker 1: or maybe a spinoff company, But apparently that's just one

22
00:01:28,680 --> 00:01:31,520
Speaker 1: likely scenario, and the ink has not yet been put

23
00:01:31,560 --> 00:01:35,000
Speaker 1: to paper on that deal, so it's not a certainty

24
00:01:35,120 --> 00:01:38,080
Speaker 1: that he will be part of Microsoft. There is another

25
00:01:38,120 --> 00:01:42,520
Speaker 1: possibility that should the board members who voted Altman out

26
00:01:42,920 --> 00:01:46,240
Speaker 1: step down, Alman would return to the company as CEO,

27
00:01:46,840 --> 00:01:49,440
Speaker 1: but that was the main sticking point in the negotiations

28
00:01:49,800 --> 00:01:54,360
Speaker 1: over the weekend. However, since then, one board member, Elia Sutzkiver,

29
00:01:54,920 --> 00:01:58,480
Speaker 1: has come forward to express his regret for taking part

30
00:01:58,920 --> 00:02:00,600
Speaker 1: in the whole thing and said it was a mistake

31
00:02:01,240 --> 00:02:04,440
Speaker 1: and that he now sides with Altman, which means there

32
00:02:04,440 --> 00:02:08,000
Speaker 1: are just two members left on the open AI board

33
00:02:08,040 --> 00:02:12,359
Speaker 1: of Directors who would have to change their opinion, and

34
00:02:12,440 --> 00:02:15,360
Speaker 1: there's tremendous pressure on them to do it and to

35
00:02:15,400 --> 00:02:18,639
Speaker 1: step down. Not only do you have the pr nightmare

36
00:02:18,919 --> 00:02:22,600
Speaker 1: of going through perhaps what has been the worst CEO

37
00:02:22,840 --> 00:02:27,960
Speaker 1: firing in recent history, but you've also got an angry

38
00:02:28,080 --> 00:02:31,400
Speaker 1: corporate partner in the form of Microsoft, and you've got

39
00:02:31,400 --> 00:02:34,639
Speaker 1: the threat of perhaps hundreds of employees leaving the company

40
00:02:35,000 --> 00:02:39,440
Speaker 1: in solidarity with the ousted CEO. So refusing to step

41
00:02:39,480 --> 00:02:43,160
Speaker 1: down could mean open ai would be set back years

42
00:02:43,400 --> 00:02:47,600
Speaker 1: because of this. But then the reported reason that this

43
00:02:47,720 --> 00:02:50,840
Speaker 1: board fired Altman in the first place was that they

44
00:02:50,840 --> 00:02:53,639
Speaker 1: were concerned he was pushing hard to develop and deploy

45
00:02:53,760 --> 00:02:58,240
Speaker 1: AI tools without really giving proper regard to safety, and

46
00:02:58,280 --> 00:03:01,040
Speaker 1: that's the whole reason open aa Eye exists in the

47
00:03:01,080 --> 00:03:03,959
Speaker 1: first place. So this could be a case where those

48
00:03:04,000 --> 00:03:06,400
Speaker 1: board members decide they have to go down with the

49
00:03:06,440 --> 00:03:10,320
Speaker 1: ship that what does it mean to have an organization

50
00:03:10,720 --> 00:03:15,720
Speaker 1: ostensibly dedicated to developing AI in an ethical and safe

51
00:03:15,760 --> 00:03:20,120
Speaker 1: way if you don't do that? Or perhaps the threat

52
00:03:20,120 --> 00:03:23,720
Speaker 1: to open ai has actually been overstated, Maybe it's not

53
00:03:23,880 --> 00:03:27,919
Speaker 1: really in such a precarious position. Maybe the organization will

54
00:03:27,919 --> 00:03:31,120
Speaker 1: be fine after passing through, you know, a period of

55
00:03:31,120 --> 00:03:37,040
Speaker 1: turmoil that's unavoidable. Meanwhile, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has said

56
00:03:37,080 --> 00:03:40,920
Speaker 1: in an interview on CNBC and also with Bloomberg that

57
00:03:41,040 --> 00:03:45,120
Speaker 1: its clear open ai quote has to change around the

58
00:03:45,120 --> 00:03:50,120
Speaker 1: governance end quote, perhaps hinting someone from Microsoft should also

59
00:03:50,160 --> 00:03:53,320
Speaker 1: sit on the board of directors for open Ai. After all,

60
00:03:53,840 --> 00:03:58,040
Speaker 1: Microsoft has committed to investing ten billion dollars into open

61
00:03:58,080 --> 00:04:01,040
Speaker 1: ai and already has sent a few billion of those

62
00:04:01,480 --> 00:04:04,960
Speaker 1: to the company. The chaos at open Ai has had

63
00:04:04,960 --> 00:04:08,560
Speaker 1: some odd rippling effects as well. For example, when word

64
00:04:08,600 --> 00:04:12,400
Speaker 1: got out that Microsoft was apparently hiring both Sam Altman

65
00:04:12,680 --> 00:04:17,000
Speaker 1: and former open Ai president Greg Brockman, the company sought

66
00:04:17,040 --> 00:04:21,279
Speaker 1: stock price increase. In fact, Microsoft's stock value rose to

67
00:04:21,320 --> 00:04:24,480
Speaker 1: three hundred and seventy seven dollars forty four cents per

68
00:04:24,680 --> 00:04:29,480
Speaker 1: share yesterday. That is the highest closing stock price in

69
00:04:29,640 --> 00:04:34,080
Speaker 1: Microsoft history. It's pretty wild to me that a couple

70
00:04:34,120 --> 00:04:37,680
Speaker 1: of executives coming over from another company could be enough

71
00:04:37,720 --> 00:04:41,440
Speaker 1: to boost stock prices like that. Also, in a similar move,

72
00:04:41,640 --> 00:04:44,279
Speaker 1: when word Firse got out that open ai had fired

73
00:04:44,360 --> 00:04:48,160
Speaker 1: Altman last Friday, Microsoft sought stock price dip by one

74
00:04:48,200 --> 00:04:52,080
Speaker 1: point seven percent. I think this really shows how people

75
00:04:52,120 --> 00:04:55,599
Speaker 1: feel AI is a critically important technology. I'm still not

76
00:04:55,720 --> 00:05:00,000
Speaker 1: convinced that very many of them actually understand artificial intelligence,

77
00:05:00,600 --> 00:05:03,279
Speaker 1: but then I'm not getting rich off the stock market,

78
00:05:03,360 --> 00:05:05,719
Speaker 1: so what do I know. Then you have the various

79
00:05:05,720 --> 00:05:07,719
Speaker 1: companies that are champion at the bit to get their

80
00:05:07,760 --> 00:05:11,840
Speaker 1: hands on the talent at open Ai. Hundreds of open

81
00:05:11,880 --> 00:05:15,200
Speaker 1: ai staff, some of the most knowledgeable people in the

82
00:05:15,240 --> 00:05:19,159
Speaker 1: discipline of artificial intelligence, have indicated a willingness to leave

83
00:05:19,200 --> 00:05:23,400
Speaker 1: the company if Altman doesn't return as CEO. And one

84
00:05:23,640 --> 00:05:27,240
Speaker 1: company that has expressed interest in hiring that talent that

85
00:05:27,520 --> 00:05:31,280
Speaker 1: may feel like a change of scenery is merited is Salesforce.

86
00:05:31,760 --> 00:05:36,000
Speaker 1: CEO Marc Benioff posted on x the platform formerly known

87
00:05:36,000 --> 00:05:38,520
Speaker 1: as Twitter and a company that we'll be talking a

88
00:05:38,560 --> 00:05:42,520
Speaker 1: lot about later in this episode, said that quote, Salesforce

89
00:05:42,560 --> 00:05:45,520
Speaker 1: will match any open Ai researcher who has tendered their

90
00:05:45,520 --> 00:05:50,520
Speaker 1: resignation full cash and equity, ote to immediately join our

91
00:05:50,600 --> 00:05:56,159
Speaker 1: salesforce Einstein Trusted Ai research team under Silvio Sevres. So

92
00:05:56,600 --> 00:05:59,599
Speaker 1: that's end quote, by the way. So that's another big

93
00:05:59,640 --> 00:06:02,400
Speaker 1: threat that's facing open Ai. There are other companies that

94
00:06:02,440 --> 00:06:06,599
Speaker 1: recognize the value of the knowledge held by their staff, right,

95
00:06:07,040 --> 00:06:09,239
Speaker 1: That's one of the big things that open ai has.

96
00:06:09,440 --> 00:06:13,360
Speaker 1: Before they came out with chat GPT, you could argue

97
00:06:13,600 --> 00:06:18,680
Speaker 1: that the most valued asset of open ai was its talent.

98
00:06:19,200 --> 00:06:21,560
Speaker 1: There were people who were taking jobs at open Ai.

99
00:06:21,640 --> 00:06:23,520
Speaker 1: They could have made more money somewhere else, but they

100
00:06:23,520 --> 00:06:26,039
Speaker 1: took it at open ai because it meant working with

101
00:06:26,080 --> 00:06:29,600
Speaker 1: the best people and on a very challenging goal. So

102
00:06:30,080 --> 00:06:31,960
Speaker 1: obviously there are a lot of companies that would really

103
00:06:32,040 --> 00:06:34,559
Speaker 1: love to be able to bring those folks on board

104
00:06:34,600 --> 00:06:37,760
Speaker 1: to their own teams, and they're already coming forward with

105
00:06:37,839 --> 00:06:40,880
Speaker 1: offers should those people decide to leave open AI. So again,

106
00:06:41,400 --> 00:06:44,360
Speaker 1: immense pressure on the board of directors over at Open AI.

107
00:06:45,000 --> 00:06:48,679
Speaker 1: According to an article by Rob Thubrunn of tech Spot

108
00:06:48,920 --> 00:06:51,520
Speaker 1: or Thubron, I'm not certain how to say your last name, Rob,

109
00:06:51,680 --> 00:06:55,320
Speaker 1: don't know you, but I like your work anyway. According

110
00:06:55,360 --> 00:06:57,960
Speaker 1: to this article, more than half of tech workers view

111
00:06:58,040 --> 00:07:02,520
Speaker 1: AI as being overrated and overhyped now. This in turn,

112
00:07:02,600 --> 00:07:06,880
Speaker 1: comes from a survey that a company called Retool conducted.

113
00:07:07,120 --> 00:07:11,520
Speaker 1: So Retool puts out this survey and asks various tech

114
00:07:11,560 --> 00:07:17,040
Speaker 1: workers to evaluate how AI is treated how it's viewed

115
00:07:17,480 --> 00:07:21,160
Speaker 1: in the tech sphere. Now, the simple size is not

116
00:07:21,320 --> 00:07:26,520
Speaker 1: particularly large. Retool surveyed around fifteen hundred tech professionals across

117
00:07:26,560 --> 00:07:32,360
Speaker 1: the industry. Everyone from programmers to designers to executives, like

118
00:07:32,680 --> 00:07:35,200
Speaker 1: pretty much every kind of role that's in tech was

119
00:07:35,240 --> 00:07:39,640
Speaker 1: represented in this survey. According to the survey, only twenty

120
00:07:39,680 --> 00:07:42,720
Speaker 1: three percent of the respondents felt as though AI is

121
00:07:42,880 --> 00:07:45,679
Speaker 1: more or less fairly assessed in the industry as a whole.

122
00:07:45,800 --> 00:07:50,240
Speaker 1: That the attitude and hype, or maybe hype is the

123
00:07:50,240 --> 00:07:53,080
Speaker 1: wrong word because that has a negative connotation, but the

124
00:07:53,160 --> 00:07:57,480
Speaker 1: treatment of AI is appropriate, that it's the right level. However,

125
00:07:58,640 --> 00:08:02,000
Speaker 1: fifty one point six percent of them feel that AI

126
00:08:02,040 --> 00:08:06,480
Speaker 1: is overrated and perhaps overhyped. This also means, by the way,

127
00:08:06,480 --> 00:08:08,920
Speaker 1: that about twenty five percent of the respondents actually feel

128
00:08:08,960 --> 00:08:12,840
Speaker 1: that AI is underrated. So keep that in mind, and

129
00:08:12,920 --> 00:08:15,320
Speaker 1: it seems like the type of job you have in

130
00:08:15,360 --> 00:08:20,000
Speaker 1: tech has a big influence on how you view artificial intelligence.

131
00:08:20,440 --> 00:08:24,000
Speaker 1: Executives seem more inclined to say AI was either rated

132
00:08:24,040 --> 00:08:29,520
Speaker 1: fairly or was actually underrated. And as Rob points out, well, yeah,

133
00:08:29,680 --> 00:08:32,720
Speaker 1: of course executives think that because they're looking at artificial

134
00:08:32,720 --> 00:08:37,280
Speaker 1: intelligence largely as a cost benefit analysis, and they're salivating

135
00:08:37,320 --> 00:08:41,079
Speaker 1: over the thought of replacing all those expensive human drones

136
00:08:41,440 --> 00:08:45,960
Speaker 1: with more economical AI powered algorithms, So of course they

137
00:08:46,040 --> 00:08:49,839
Speaker 1: think that it's as important, if not more important, than

138
00:08:49,880 --> 00:08:53,880
Speaker 1: the way the industry treats it. Meanwhile, the folks who

139
00:08:53,920 --> 00:08:57,160
Speaker 1: actually have to interact with AI on a daily basis

140
00:08:57,200 --> 00:08:59,360
Speaker 1: in order to do their work. Now, the people who

141
00:08:59,400 --> 00:09:02,680
Speaker 1: are using AI to do stuff like write code, for example,

142
00:09:03,280 --> 00:09:07,520
Speaker 1: they were far more likely to call AI overrated. Presumably

143
00:09:08,040 --> 00:09:10,040
Speaker 1: that's because so much of their time has to be

144
00:09:10,080 --> 00:09:13,760
Speaker 1: spent checking for errors and correcting them and that sort

145
00:09:13,800 --> 00:09:16,679
Speaker 1: of thing. So with the sample size of fifteen hundred people,

146
00:09:16,720 --> 00:09:20,120
Speaker 1: I'm not sure we can actually draw any sweeping conclusions

147
00:09:20,120 --> 00:09:23,360
Speaker 1: from this survey. And again, it's a survey that's talking

148
00:09:23,400 --> 00:09:27,200
Speaker 1: about people's opinions toward AI. It's not like it's a

149
00:09:27,240 --> 00:09:31,839
Speaker 1: metric that actually measures AI itself, but rather our perception

150
00:09:32,000 --> 00:09:36,160
Speaker 1: of artificial intelligence. I would say that the survey indicates

151
00:09:36,200 --> 00:09:38,320
Speaker 1: it's probably a good idea to pay attention to the

152
00:09:38,360 --> 00:09:42,440
Speaker 1: people who are working directly with the artificial intelligence powered tools,

153
00:09:43,040 --> 00:09:47,040
Speaker 1: because if your staff is indicating that the AI is

154
00:09:47,080 --> 00:09:51,240
Speaker 1: actually making their jobs more frustrating or inefficient, that is

155
00:09:51,280 --> 00:09:55,120
Speaker 1: worth paying attention to. Otherwise, the leaders might find that

156
00:09:55,160 --> 00:09:59,359
Speaker 1: they have committed to a solution that is actually a problem.

157
00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:02,040
Speaker 1: And I don't think we're careening toward a world of

158
00:10:02,120 --> 00:10:05,160
Speaker 1: automation and that we'll never be able to turn back

159
00:10:05,520 --> 00:10:08,040
Speaker 1: and once we turn that corner, it's all downhill from there.

160
00:10:08,080 --> 00:10:11,120
Speaker 1: I don't think that's the case. I do think that

161
00:10:11,200 --> 00:10:13,520
Speaker 1: a lot of companies need to be careful in how

162
00:10:13,559 --> 00:10:16,800
Speaker 1: they implement AI if they don't want to rush into

163
00:10:16,880 --> 00:10:20,439
Speaker 1: an expensive and complicated mess I think that there are

164
00:10:20,480 --> 00:10:23,960
Speaker 1: ways to incorporate AI that can have a direct benefit

165
00:10:24,040 --> 00:10:28,560
Speaker 1: to both the overall company and to the employees who

166
00:10:28,600 --> 00:10:30,960
Speaker 1: are making use of the AI. I think there are legitimate,

167
00:10:31,040 --> 00:10:34,160
Speaker 1: good uses for this technology, but I also think it's

168
00:10:34,240 --> 00:10:38,080
Speaker 1: very easy to implement it willy nilly, and to do

169
00:10:38,200 --> 00:10:40,760
Speaker 1: so in a way that ends up being counterproductive. And

170
00:10:40,800 --> 00:10:44,440
Speaker 1: that's what companies really need to be careful about. All Right,

171
00:10:45,200 --> 00:10:47,160
Speaker 1: we're going to take a quick break. When we come back,

172
00:10:47,480 --> 00:10:50,840
Speaker 1: I got a whole lot of news about everybody's favorite

173
00:10:50,840 --> 00:11:04,280
Speaker 1: social network platform, X, But first let's thank our sponsors. Okay,

174
00:11:04,280 --> 00:11:06,840
Speaker 1: we're back. And I mentioned before the break that we

175
00:11:06,880 --> 00:11:10,280
Speaker 1: would be talking about X today, So here goes. First up,

176
00:11:10,320 --> 00:11:13,360
Speaker 1: the company has filed a lawsuit against a media watchdog

177
00:11:13,400 --> 00:11:16,840
Speaker 1: group called Media Matters. The group had previously published a

178
00:11:16,920 --> 00:11:21,000
Speaker 1: report indicating that ads could appear next to objectionable material

179
00:11:21,520 --> 00:11:27,200
Speaker 1: such as extremist and racist messaging, including antisemitic messaging. That

180
00:11:27,320 --> 00:11:30,720
Speaker 1: obviously is something that does not go over well with

181
00:11:30,840 --> 00:11:35,360
Speaker 1: advertisers as they are trying to promote and protect their brands,

182
00:11:36,040 --> 00:11:40,640
Speaker 1: and last week, several major advertisers left X after Elon

183
00:11:40,760 --> 00:11:45,040
Speaker 1: Musk indicated support for a conspiracy theory promoted by anti

184
00:11:45,200 --> 00:11:50,199
Speaker 1: Semitic groups and white supremacists. So clearly it must have

185
00:11:50,280 --> 00:11:52,600
Speaker 1: been Media Matters that was the real problem, not the

186
00:11:52,600 --> 00:11:55,880
Speaker 1: fact that the owner of the company was elevating this messaging.

187
00:11:56,480 --> 00:12:01,199
Speaker 1: You know. Anyway, some big names in in companies had

188
00:12:01,280 --> 00:12:08,400
Speaker 1: halted all advertising on X. They include media companies like Paramount, Disney, NBC, Universal,

189
00:12:08,920 --> 00:12:13,840
Speaker 1: Warner Brothers, Discovery. They include telecommunications companies like Comcast and

190
00:12:13,960 --> 00:12:18,839
Speaker 1: tech companies like Apple, among many many other companies. And

191
00:12:18,920 --> 00:12:21,240
Speaker 1: the thought is that their departure is probably going to

192
00:12:21,280 --> 00:12:26,080
Speaker 1: prompt other companies to follow suit. Now, x's complaint against

193
00:12:26,120 --> 00:12:31,040
Speaker 1: Media Matters is that Media Matters supposedly manufactured the images

194
00:12:31,160 --> 00:12:34,520
Speaker 1: it showed in its report by creating a test account

195
00:12:34,520 --> 00:12:38,520
Speaker 1: on X and then just refreshing the view over and over,

196
00:12:38,640 --> 00:12:43,760
Speaker 1: like following some specific accounts that were posting problematic stuff

197
00:12:43,960 --> 00:12:47,160
Speaker 1: and then just hitting refresh until they started to get

198
00:12:47,240 --> 00:12:52,440
Speaker 1: ads to appear next to some of these entries. And

199
00:12:52,559 --> 00:12:55,120
Speaker 1: so what X is saying is that this is not

200
00:12:55,240 --> 00:12:58,680
Speaker 1: representative of the typical experience on X. Most people on

201
00:12:58,880 --> 00:13:02,320
Speaker 1: X would never see this thing at all. Media Matters

202
00:13:02,320 --> 00:13:05,280
Speaker 1: had to game the system in order to get these

203
00:13:05,320 --> 00:13:12,600
Speaker 1: sorts of results. That's what X is arguing personally. I mean,

204
00:13:12,679 --> 00:13:16,480
Speaker 1: that might be a legitimate argument that Media Matters perhaps

205
00:13:16,600 --> 00:13:20,640
Speaker 1: kind of orchestrated this so it would appear this way. However,

206
00:13:20,679 --> 00:13:23,360
Speaker 1: you still have the issue of the owner of the

207
00:13:23,400 --> 00:13:30,400
Speaker 1: company promoting these messages, which whether whether Media Matters orchestrated

208
00:13:30,480 --> 00:13:34,600
Speaker 1: anything is still an issue. Media Matters, by the way,

209
00:13:34,679 --> 00:13:38,439
Speaker 1: says that they disagree with X's accusations and that they

210
00:13:38,480 --> 00:13:40,840
Speaker 1: are willing to go to court and to prove that

211
00:13:41,280 --> 00:13:45,319
Speaker 1: their methodology was legitimate. So so far there's no one

212
00:13:45,360 --> 00:13:48,760
Speaker 1: backing down from this fight. Musk continues to behave in

213
00:13:48,760 --> 00:13:51,240
Speaker 1: a way that is really alarming to advertisers, and that

214
00:13:51,320 --> 00:13:53,080
Speaker 1: means that X is going to have a problem no

215
00:13:53,120 --> 00:13:56,400
Speaker 1: matter what any watch dog group says. You don't even

216
00:13:56,440 --> 00:14:00,520
Speaker 1: need watchdog groups to bring these matters to attend if

217
00:14:00,520 --> 00:14:02,600
Speaker 1: you've got the owner of the company doing these sorts

218
00:14:02,600 --> 00:14:05,640
Speaker 1: of things, because that is so newsworthy that you know

219
00:14:05,720 --> 00:14:08,320
Speaker 1: that's going to be brought to attention and be put

220
00:14:08,320 --> 00:14:12,000
Speaker 1: in the spotlight, whether whether there's a watchdog group dedicated

221
00:14:12,040 --> 00:14:14,880
Speaker 1: to it or not. On a semi related note, I

222
00:14:14,920 --> 00:14:17,920
Speaker 1: deactivated my own account on X. I had not been

223
00:14:18,040 --> 00:14:20,600
Speaker 1: checking it regularly for weeks, so I decided it was

224
00:14:20,680 --> 00:14:22,880
Speaker 1: just time to walk away. Part of it is that

225
00:14:22,920 --> 00:14:26,480
Speaker 1: I don't want to be on a platform where a

226
00:14:26,720 --> 00:14:31,520
Speaker 1: fundamentally important person on there is promoting things that can

227
00:14:31,560 --> 00:14:34,760
Speaker 1: cause direct harm to others. So my apologies to anyone

228
00:14:34,760 --> 00:14:36,600
Speaker 1: who's trying to use X to get in touch with me.

229
00:14:37,040 --> 00:14:40,280
Speaker 1: It no longer will work. But let's talk about X

230
00:14:40,320 --> 00:14:43,360
Speaker 1: some more, because of course we're not done yet. Tech

231
00:14:43,400 --> 00:14:47,320
Speaker 1: Crunch reports that the mass exodus of advertisers, which really

232
00:14:47,320 --> 00:14:50,280
Speaker 1: happened last week, is likely to have a pretty darn

233
00:14:50,400 --> 00:14:53,400
Speaker 1: hefty impact to x's bottom line. You got to remember,

234
00:14:54,520 --> 00:14:59,840
Speaker 1: ninety percent of X's revenue came from advertising, and when

235
00:15:00,080 --> 00:15:03,200
Speaker 1: a bunch of advertisers leave, it means the company is

236
00:15:03,200 --> 00:15:05,440
Speaker 1: going to have a lot of trouble bringing in revenue.

237
00:15:05,800 --> 00:15:10,320
Speaker 1: They had already seen some drastic drops in revenue in

238
00:15:10,360 --> 00:15:12,920
Speaker 1: the wake of Elon Musk purchasing the company last year,

239
00:15:13,200 --> 00:15:18,080
Speaker 1: so this was already an issue before last week. In fact,

240
00:15:18,080 --> 00:15:21,320
Speaker 1: analysts from Insider Intelligence estimated that X was going to

241
00:15:21,320 --> 00:15:24,600
Speaker 1: see a fifty four point four percent decline in ad

242
00:15:24,640 --> 00:15:29,240
Speaker 1: business year over year, but now that's likely to be

243
00:15:29,280 --> 00:15:33,480
Speaker 1: an even more dramatic decline. Linda Yakarino, the CEO of X,

244
00:15:33,480 --> 00:15:37,080
Speaker 1: has said that data will show X is actually dedicated

245
00:15:37,120 --> 00:15:42,320
Speaker 1: toward fighting misinformation and racism, including anti Semitism, and that

246
00:15:43,040 --> 00:15:46,440
Speaker 1: they will prove that in fact, the company has been

247
00:15:46,640 --> 00:15:51,040
Speaker 1: working hard on this, despite the fact that Elon Musk

248
00:15:51,120 --> 00:15:56,720
Speaker 1: famously dismissed almost the entirety of the content moderation departments

249
00:15:56,760 --> 00:16:00,920
Speaker 1: within Twitter when he purchased the company. Reportedly, several advertisers

250
00:16:00,960 --> 00:16:05,440
Speaker 1: have actually urged Yakarinos to step down as CEO, going

251
00:16:05,480 --> 00:16:08,320
Speaker 1: so far as to suggest that she is potentially causing

252
00:16:08,360 --> 00:16:12,840
Speaker 1: irreparable damage to her own reputation by serving as CEO

253
00:16:12,880 --> 00:16:15,680
Speaker 1: of X, Like they're essentially saying, you're better than this.

254
00:16:15,880 --> 00:16:18,160
Speaker 1: You need to get away from this company. It is

255
00:16:18,240 --> 00:16:21,440
Speaker 1: toxic and it is bringing you down with it. Yakarino

256
00:16:21,520 --> 00:16:24,480
Speaker 1: so far has rejected these calls. I think she's going

257
00:16:24,520 --> 00:16:27,600
Speaker 1: to continue to find it challenging to champion X's policies

258
00:16:27,840 --> 00:16:30,520
Speaker 1: while the owner continues to promote content that appears to

259
00:16:30,600 --> 00:16:35,000
Speaker 1: contradict her. So that's a mess anyway. That's the update

260
00:16:35,040 --> 00:16:39,120
Speaker 1: on x let's now switch over to YouTube for a moment.

261
00:16:39,840 --> 00:16:45,119
Speaker 1: Amir Siddicky of Android Authority posted an article titled YouTube

262
00:16:45,200 --> 00:16:49,960
Speaker 1: is reportedly slowing down videos for Firefox users. So essentially

263
00:16:50,560 --> 00:16:54,120
Speaker 1: the story says that folks who are using non Chrome browsers,

264
00:16:54,440 --> 00:16:58,760
Speaker 1: primarily Firefox and Microsoft Edge, have reported that when they

265
00:16:58,800 --> 00:17:02,800
Speaker 1: try to launch a video on YouTube, they're encountering a

266
00:17:02,840 --> 00:17:06,000
Speaker 1: delay in playback, and it's a delay that lasts several seconds,

267
00:17:06,000 --> 00:17:10,120
Speaker 1: like five seconds. But if they close out that browser

268
00:17:10,200 --> 00:17:13,160
Speaker 1: and open up Chrome and go to YouTube, they can

269
00:17:13,160 --> 00:17:15,479
Speaker 1: try and load that same video and there's no delay.

270
00:17:16,000 --> 00:17:19,960
Speaker 1: Now that is troubling. It could indicate that Google is

271
00:17:20,040 --> 00:17:24,919
Speaker 1: purposefully throttling performance on non Chrome browsers in an effort

272
00:17:24,960 --> 00:17:29,359
Speaker 1: to coax folks to use Chrome instead. Now, this is

273
00:17:29,720 --> 00:17:33,080
Speaker 1: preferential treatment that could be seen as anti competitive. In fact,

274
00:17:33,400 --> 00:17:36,080
Speaker 1: I think, especially in the current climate in the United States,

275
00:17:36,119 --> 00:17:39,800
Speaker 1: it would automatically be listed as being anti competitive behavior.

276
00:17:40,280 --> 00:17:42,480
Speaker 1: And considering that Google is currently in the hot seat

277
00:17:42,520 --> 00:17:46,719
Speaker 1: for that sort of thing, that's not good. It definitely

278
00:17:46,760 --> 00:17:48,879
Speaker 1: is not in line with the concept of net neutrality.

279
00:17:49,320 --> 00:17:55,480
Speaker 1: But YouTube has responded to this report and has claimed

280
00:17:55,480 --> 00:17:58,200
Speaker 1: that it really doesn't have anything to do with which

281
00:17:58,240 --> 00:18:03,440
Speaker 1: browser someone's using. That is immaterial according to Google. Instead,

282
00:18:03,640 --> 00:18:08,639
Speaker 1: what's happening, YouTube says is that it is putting in

283
00:18:08,720 --> 00:18:12,720
Speaker 1: delays for people who are using browsers that have ad

284
00:18:12,760 --> 00:18:15,560
Speaker 1: blocker extensions activated on them. So it's a way to

285
00:18:15,600 --> 00:18:19,520
Speaker 1: fight ad blocking. The statement says, quote users who have

286
00:18:19,680 --> 00:18:24,560
Speaker 1: ad blockers installed may experience suboptimal viewing, regardless of the

287
00:18:24,600 --> 00:18:28,560
Speaker 1: browser they are using. End quote. I don't doubt that

288
00:18:28,640 --> 00:18:31,440
Speaker 1: Google is using this approach to discourage ad blockers, as

289
00:18:31,440 --> 00:18:34,880
Speaker 1: the company has taken a pretty hardline stance against ad

290
00:18:34,920 --> 00:18:38,440
Speaker 1: blockers this year in particular. But I'm curious to see

291
00:18:38,480 --> 00:18:41,320
Speaker 1: if that's as far as this goes, because the stories

292
00:18:41,320 --> 00:18:44,800
Speaker 1: that were being shared seem to suggest that Chrome users

293
00:18:44,840 --> 00:18:48,680
Speaker 1: were getting a better experience. Now, maybe it was that

294
00:18:48,760 --> 00:18:52,520
Speaker 1: they had ad blockers installed on their non Chrome browsers,

295
00:18:53,040 --> 00:18:56,560
Speaker 1: but for whatever reason, they had not installed ad blockers

296
00:18:56,560 --> 00:19:01,200
Speaker 1: on Chrome. Maybe it's that Google has been rolling out

297
00:19:01,320 --> 00:19:07,399
Speaker 1: this feature to affect non Chrome browsers first, like they

298
00:19:07,440 --> 00:19:10,360
Speaker 1: are designing YouTube so that it can detect the presence

299
00:19:10,359 --> 00:19:14,200
Speaker 1: of ad blockers on each browser, and Chrome just hasn't

300
00:19:14,200 --> 00:19:17,679
Speaker 1: been rolled out yet And that eventually, no matter what

301
00:19:17,920 --> 00:19:21,440
Speaker 1: browser you're using, you're going to have this issue. That

302
00:19:22,080 --> 00:19:24,680
Speaker 1: might be true, but it still kind of smacks of

303
00:19:24,720 --> 00:19:28,080
Speaker 1: being anti competitive to me to because again, Chrome gets

304
00:19:28,119 --> 00:19:32,600
Speaker 1: preferential treatment. If your perception is that, oh well, as

305
00:19:32,600 --> 00:19:34,479
Speaker 1: long as I'm on Chrome it's better, I might as

306
00:19:34,480 --> 00:19:38,040
Speaker 1: well just use Chrome, that's an issue. If it's not

307
00:19:38,160 --> 00:19:42,879
Speaker 1: just legit a natural advance of Chrome. If the system

308
00:19:42,920 --> 00:19:45,760
Speaker 1: is being gamed on the back end, that's bad. So

309
00:19:46,160 --> 00:19:50,000
Speaker 1: we'll have to wait and see if more developments happen

310
00:19:50,080 --> 00:19:54,920
Speaker 1: in this story, because again, Google is currently in the

311
00:19:54,960 --> 00:19:58,040
Speaker 1: hot seat with the US government when it comes to

312
00:19:58,200 --> 00:20:05,199
Speaker 1: anti competitive behaviors, and there's a real threat that the

313
00:20:05,240 --> 00:20:09,639
Speaker 1: government will demand Google break apart into different pieces as

314
00:20:09,680 --> 00:20:12,240
Speaker 1: a result of this. Whether it actually gets to that point,

315
00:20:12,320 --> 00:20:15,399
Speaker 1: I don't know. I personally kind of doubt it, simply

316
00:20:15,440 --> 00:20:19,399
Speaker 1: because the last time we saw something this big happen,

317
00:20:20,480 --> 00:20:24,680
Speaker 1: the US government ultimately reversed its decision to break apart

318
00:20:24,760 --> 00:20:27,320
Speaker 1: a big tech company. In that case, it was Microsoft.

319
00:20:27,800 --> 00:20:31,639
Speaker 1: So not that it's impossible, but it hasn't happened in

320
00:20:31,720 --> 00:20:34,719
Speaker 1: a very long time, so I would be surprised if

321
00:20:34,760 --> 00:20:37,360
Speaker 1: it went that far. But we'll have to see. All right,

322
00:20:37,720 --> 00:20:40,000
Speaker 1: We're going to take another quick break. When we come back,

323
00:20:40,040 --> 00:20:54,200
Speaker 1: I've got a couple more stories I want to talk about. Okay, now,

324
00:20:54,320 --> 00:20:57,679
Speaker 1: let's have a quick story about Nothing. This is not

325
00:20:57,800 --> 00:21:02,160
Speaker 1: a Seinfeld reference. It's nothing like that. We're talking about

326
00:21:02,200 --> 00:21:06,880
Speaker 1: the Nothing Company, the makers of the Nothing Phone. That's

327
00:21:06,880 --> 00:21:10,080
Speaker 1: a smartphone. It runs on Android. It had a lot

328
00:21:10,119 --> 00:21:13,120
Speaker 1: of hype when it was first launching. There were all

329
00:21:13,160 --> 00:21:15,159
Speaker 1: these kind of hopes that the Nothing Phone was going

330
00:21:15,240 --> 00:21:18,880
Speaker 1: to be a really awesome flagship Android phone with really

331
00:21:18,920 --> 00:21:22,000
Speaker 1: cool features like these glyphs that light up on the

332
00:21:22,040 --> 00:21:24,600
Speaker 1: back of the phone indicating whether you got a text

333
00:21:24,640 --> 00:21:28,000
Speaker 1: message versus an incoming call or whatever. But so far,

334
00:21:28,320 --> 00:21:31,000
Speaker 1: the Nothing Phone has fallen. I think it's fair to

335
00:21:31,040 --> 00:21:35,280
Speaker 1: say it's fallen short of expectations since the original announcement

336
00:21:35,320 --> 00:21:38,560
Speaker 1: for the project. But this story specifically has to do

337
00:21:38,640 --> 00:21:43,919
Speaker 1: with an app that Nothing put its name on. Nothing

338
00:21:44,000 --> 00:21:49,000
Speaker 1: launched an app called Nothing Chats, and this app claimed

339
00:21:49,000 --> 00:21:52,480
Speaker 1: it could, among other things, let Android users get a

340
00:21:52,520 --> 00:21:55,800
Speaker 1: taste of the promised land. That is, if the promised

341
00:21:55,880 --> 00:21:58,280
Speaker 1: land is made up of blue chat bubbles in Apple's

342
00:21:58,280 --> 00:22:01,960
Speaker 1: I message. All right, so I've talked about this a

343
00:22:02,000 --> 00:22:06,919
Speaker 1: little bit recently, mostly because I find it all really exasperating.

344
00:22:07,480 --> 00:22:12,720
Speaker 1: But there's this perception among certain iPhone owners, particularly here

345
00:22:12,760 --> 00:22:16,480
Speaker 1: in the United States, that people who use other types

346
00:22:16,520 --> 00:22:20,520
Speaker 1: of phones, you know, non iPhones, are the dirty, unwashed

347
00:22:20,560 --> 00:22:24,400
Speaker 1: masses who lack sophistication and intelligence, and they should be

348
00:22:24,480 --> 00:22:30,679
Speaker 1: ostracized and ridiculed and shunned. And the dead giveaway if

349
00:22:31,320 --> 00:22:33,399
Speaker 1: it's not just looking at what the phone is when

350
00:22:33,400 --> 00:22:36,840
Speaker 1: they're holding it, is that when you are messaging with

351
00:22:37,040 --> 00:22:40,120
Speaker 1: them and you're using an iPhone, so you're an eye message,

352
00:22:40,920 --> 00:22:44,320
Speaker 1: their messages show up in little green bubbles rather than

353
00:22:44,359 --> 00:22:49,360
Speaker 1: little blue bubbles. So iPhone users all get blue bubbles,

354
00:22:49,359 --> 00:22:52,600
Speaker 1: but an Android user, they are completely restricted to green,

355
00:22:53,080 --> 00:22:57,480
Speaker 1: and they should be shunned. I guess I don't know.

356
00:22:57,520 --> 00:22:59,880
Speaker 1: I'm an Android user who doesn't really I don't care

357
00:23:00,040 --> 00:23:02,679
Speaker 1: about any of this stuff. I don't care if anyone

358
00:23:02,720 --> 00:23:05,320
Speaker 1: makes fun of me for the type of phone I use,

359
00:23:05,680 --> 00:23:08,719
Speaker 1: because if that's the kind of person they are, then

360
00:23:08,760 --> 00:23:12,280
Speaker 1: they're not worthy of me being worried about them. They're

361
00:23:12,280 --> 00:23:15,959
Speaker 1: beneath my concern, is what I'm saying. So yes, I

362
00:23:16,000 --> 00:23:20,080
Speaker 1: have my own issues of superiority. But I do understand

363
00:23:20,640 --> 00:23:23,040
Speaker 1: that other people care a lot about this stuff, and

364
00:23:23,080 --> 00:23:25,600
Speaker 1: they care about it so much that they will go

365
00:23:25,640 --> 00:23:28,359
Speaker 1: out of their way to make folks feel inferior about

366
00:23:28,440 --> 00:23:32,320
Speaker 1: not having an iPhone. And that is just lame. I mean,

367
00:23:32,720 --> 00:23:35,440
Speaker 1: you know, I get that, Like, especially like school kids

368
00:23:35,440 --> 00:23:39,520
Speaker 1: and stuff, they'll always find ways where they define a

369
00:23:39,560 --> 00:23:42,600
Speaker 1: group and they define outsiders to the group. Like that's

370
00:23:42,760 --> 00:23:47,560
Speaker 1: just kind of how it goes. But it's lame, y'all. Anyway.

371
00:23:48,280 --> 00:23:52,360
Speaker 1: Nothing claimed that the nothing chats app would let Android

372
00:23:52,440 --> 00:23:56,320
Speaker 1: users appear to be iPhone users in I Message conversations,

373
00:23:56,320 --> 00:24:00,280
Speaker 1: that their texts would appear in little blue bubbles. It

374
00:24:00,320 --> 00:24:04,000
Speaker 1: turned out that nothing Chats was actually a reskin of

375
00:24:04,040 --> 00:24:08,240
Speaker 1: a different app called the Sunbird app, and installing the

376
00:24:08,280 --> 00:24:12,720
Speaker 1: app would prompt Android users to submit their Apple username

377
00:24:12,840 --> 00:24:17,880
Speaker 1: and password, and then the app would reportedly log into

378
00:24:18,000 --> 00:24:21,280
Speaker 1: I Message on the behalf of the Android user and

379
00:24:21,359 --> 00:24:24,399
Speaker 1: kind of act like a middleman. And supposedly it was

380
00:24:24,440 --> 00:24:28,680
Speaker 1: going to include end to end encryption, except folks discovered

381
00:24:29,000 --> 00:24:33,520
Speaker 1: that Sunbird was not protecting this information at all. This

382
00:24:33,560 --> 00:24:38,000
Speaker 1: is a huge, huge security and privacy problem. So again,

383
00:24:38,040 --> 00:24:40,479
Speaker 1: the app claimed that it was incorporating into enn encryption.

384
00:24:41,040 --> 00:24:45,280
Speaker 1: It wasn't. Sunbird was logging and storing messages in plane

385
00:24:46,040 --> 00:24:50,480
Speaker 1: text in multiple places, not just in one location, which

386
00:24:50,680 --> 00:24:54,840
Speaker 1: makes it doubly vulnerable, right because that means hackers have

387
00:24:55,400 --> 00:24:58,600
Speaker 1: multiple targets they could look at in order to get

388
00:24:58,640 --> 00:25:03,600
Speaker 1: access to Lane text messaging. Researchers show it was possible

389
00:25:03,600 --> 00:25:06,159
Speaker 1: for a hacker to infiltrate a message server and to

390
00:25:06,200 --> 00:25:09,920
Speaker 1: read the messages sent via this app, which is actually

391
00:25:09,960 --> 00:25:13,119
Speaker 1: the opposite of what end to end encryption is supposed

392
00:25:13,160 --> 00:25:15,399
Speaker 1: to do. And the apps are no longer in the store.

393
00:25:15,680 --> 00:25:18,960
Speaker 1: They disappeared after just a day. But the whole thing

394
00:25:19,000 --> 00:25:23,480
Speaker 1: indicates that both Sunbird and Nothing have not taken proper

395
00:25:23,520 --> 00:25:26,679
Speaker 1: steps to actually be serious about security and privacy, not

396
00:25:26,760 --> 00:25:29,480
Speaker 1: even a little bit. Now. If you want to learn

397
00:25:29,480 --> 00:25:34,040
Speaker 1: more about this, I recommend Ron Amadeo's article in Ours Tetnica.

398
00:25:34,119 --> 00:25:37,640
Speaker 1: It is titled Nothing's I Message app was a security

399
00:25:37,640 --> 00:25:42,160
Speaker 1: catastrophe taken down in twenty four hours. Now. Our last

400
00:25:42,160 --> 00:25:46,680
Speaker 1: story is that the test launch of the SpaceX Starship

401
00:25:46,760 --> 00:25:51,760
Speaker 1: vehicle once again ended in an explosion. So back in April,

402
00:25:52,200 --> 00:25:55,919
Speaker 1: SpaceX first held a test launch of the next generation spacecraft,

403
00:25:55,920 --> 00:26:00,199
Speaker 1: which includes the Starship spacecraft and the super Heavy the

404
00:26:00,400 --> 00:26:04,240
Speaker 1: launch vehicle, and a few minutes after takeoff, like four

405
00:26:04,280 --> 00:26:08,480
Speaker 1: minutes after the first test mission took off, there was

406
00:26:08,520 --> 00:26:12,680
Speaker 1: a big explosion and then SpaceX chose to self destruct

407
00:26:13,200 --> 00:26:17,000
Speaker 1: the vehicle as a result of this, so four minutes

408
00:26:17,000 --> 00:26:22,920
Speaker 1: after lift off, everything went boom. This time this past weekend,

409
00:26:23,320 --> 00:26:26,280
Speaker 1: the vehicle made it further than it had in April,

410
00:26:26,320 --> 00:26:29,639
Speaker 1: but it's still encountered issues. So after the super Heavy

411
00:26:29,760 --> 00:26:32,600
Speaker 1: first stage booster separated from the rest of the vehicle,

412
00:26:33,240 --> 00:26:37,520
Speaker 1: the booster exploded over the Gulf of Mexico. Now, the

413
00:26:37,560 --> 00:26:43,080
Speaker 1: Starship stage continued in its trajectory initially anyway, but then

414
00:26:43,160 --> 00:26:48,640
Speaker 1: SpaceX mission control lost contact with the vehicle. The best

415
00:26:48,720 --> 00:26:53,960
Speaker 1: estimation was that the Starship stage initiated an automatic flight termination,

416
00:26:54,359 --> 00:26:57,000
Speaker 1: which is another way of saying it self destructed. Mission

417
00:26:57,000 --> 00:27:00,880
Speaker 1: control was unsure why the vehicle had actually initiated that.

418
00:27:01,359 --> 00:27:04,639
Speaker 1: The failure happened at around eight minutes into the test,

419
00:27:05,080 --> 00:27:07,840
Speaker 1: so four minutes longer than what happened back in April,

420
00:27:08,600 --> 00:27:11,399
Speaker 1: and it had also reached an altitude of ninety one miles,

421
00:27:11,440 --> 00:27:15,040
Speaker 1: which means by every definition, it reached space the US,

422
00:27:15,080 --> 00:27:17,399
Speaker 1: by the way, defines the edge of space as an

423
00:27:17,440 --> 00:27:21,920
Speaker 1: altitude of fifty miles, whereas the international standard is the

424
00:27:22,000 --> 00:27:24,800
Speaker 1: Karman line, which is at sixty two miles of altitude.

425
00:27:25,040 --> 00:27:28,560
Speaker 1: Either way, the starship got all the way up to

426
00:27:29,800 --> 00:27:32,720
Speaker 1: space because it was up ninety one miles in altitude.

427
00:27:33,200 --> 00:27:36,159
Speaker 1: The test is not a total failure. It is easy

428
00:27:36,200 --> 00:27:40,680
Speaker 1: to call things that when stuff blows up, but even

429
00:27:40,720 --> 00:27:43,000
Speaker 1: when things go wrong, that means there's an opportunity to

430
00:27:43,080 --> 00:27:45,879
Speaker 1: learn more and to learn what you need to do

431
00:27:45,920 --> 00:27:49,119
Speaker 1: differently and how to design things so that they're more reliable.

432
00:27:49,640 --> 00:27:50,960
Speaker 1: It does mean that there's going to have to be

433
00:27:51,040 --> 00:27:55,920
Speaker 1: more tests, obviously, to reach a point where the technology

434
00:27:55,920 --> 00:27:59,400
Speaker 1: can be demonstrated to be reliable and safe and consistently

435
00:27:59,720 --> 00:28:03,439
Speaker 1: working in good order. So that's an issue. It is

436
00:28:03,520 --> 00:28:07,640
Speaker 1: kind of a setback. It's not a failure, but I'm

437
00:28:07,680 --> 00:28:11,000
Speaker 1: sure it's something that SpaceX was not super pleased to

438
00:28:11,040 --> 00:28:13,879
Speaker 1: see because you know, they had already seen one of

439
00:28:13,920 --> 00:28:17,000
Speaker 1: these explode back in April. So we'll have to see

440
00:28:17,280 --> 00:28:20,560
Speaker 1: what happens moving forward. At In the meantime, you know,

441
00:28:20,600 --> 00:28:24,920
Speaker 1: you've got NASA. It's really kind of keeping an eye

442
00:28:25,040 --> 00:28:28,040
Speaker 1: on what's going on with SpaceX, while NASA is readying

443
00:28:28,119 --> 00:28:32,439
Speaker 1: up for the Artemis program to continue, which ultimately is

444
00:28:32,440 --> 00:28:35,240
Speaker 1: going to send astronauts back to the Moon. Clearly, for

445
00:28:35,320 --> 00:28:39,000
Speaker 1: that to happen, there need to be access to reliable

446
00:28:39,080 --> 00:28:42,880
Speaker 1: launch vehicles capable of sending a spacecraft as far out

447
00:28:42,920 --> 00:28:46,400
Speaker 1: as the Moon. So we'll see how things continue from here.

448
00:28:46,920 --> 00:28:49,840
Speaker 1: But that's it. That's the news for November twenty first,

449
00:28:49,880 --> 00:28:52,920
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three. Just a heads up for all of y'all.

450
00:28:53,040 --> 00:28:55,960
Speaker 1: This week in the United States, it's Thanksgiving, which means

451
00:28:56,280 --> 00:28:58,520
Speaker 1: we'll be off for the second half of the week.

452
00:28:58,600 --> 00:29:03,360
Speaker 1: I'll have some a rerun to play in place of

453
00:29:03,480 --> 00:29:05,720
Speaker 1: Thursday's episode, so I just want to give you a

454
00:29:05,720 --> 00:29:07,600
Speaker 1: heads up for that, but we should be back the

455
00:29:07,640 --> 00:29:09,880
Speaker 1: following week. Coming up, I'm going to be going on

456
00:29:09,880 --> 00:29:13,080
Speaker 1: a vacation in early December, so we'll probably have some

457
00:29:13,160 --> 00:29:16,680
Speaker 1: reruns then as well, And then of course we have

458
00:29:16,720 --> 00:29:19,040
Speaker 1: the Christmas holidays at the end that'll also have an

459
00:29:19,080 --> 00:29:21,920
Speaker 1: impact on the show, but then everything will be back

460
00:29:21,920 --> 00:29:25,920
Speaker 1: to what passes for normal on this wacky, zany show

461
00:29:26,000 --> 00:29:29,360
Speaker 1: called tech Stuff. I hope you are all well. I

462
00:29:29,360 --> 00:29:31,400
Speaker 1: hope those of you in the US who are about

463
00:29:31,400 --> 00:29:35,240
Speaker 1: to celebrate Thanksgiving, have a wonderful holiday, and I will

464
00:29:35,240 --> 00:29:44,560
Speaker 1: talk to you again really soon. Tech Stuff is an

465
00:29:44,560 --> 00:29:50,120
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,

466
00:29:50,240 --> 00:29:57,040
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.