WEBVTT - Tech News: NPR Says X Isn't Worth It

0:00:04.440 --> 0:00:12.280
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there,

0:00:12.280 --> 0:00:15.720
<v Speaker 1>and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland.

0:00:15.760 --> 0:00:18.480
<v Speaker 1>I'm an executive producer with iHeartRadio. And how the tech

0:00:18.520 --> 0:00:22.720
<v Speaker 1>are you. I'm having a rough recovery day. I'm still

0:00:22.760 --> 0:00:26.720
<v Speaker 1>getting over COVID. I'm no longer testing positive for COVID,

0:00:27.280 --> 0:00:30.680
<v Speaker 1>but there's been some lingering symptoms and some days are

0:00:30.680 --> 0:00:32.840
<v Speaker 1>better than others. This is not one of the better days.

0:00:32.960 --> 0:00:35.600
<v Speaker 1>But it is a Thursday, which means it's in tech

0:00:35.760 --> 0:00:37.960
<v Speaker 1>News day. So we're going to cover the tech news

0:00:38.000 --> 0:00:43.839
<v Speaker 1>for October twelfth, twenty twenty three, and like Tuesday's news episode,

0:00:43.840 --> 0:00:46.559
<v Speaker 1>we're going to start off with a bunch of Twitter

0:00:46.800 --> 0:00:51.120
<v Speaker 1>slash x news. So first up, I mentioned that a

0:00:51.120 --> 0:00:55.600
<v Speaker 1>lot of people from media outlets to government agencies to

0:00:55.640 --> 0:00:58.920
<v Speaker 1>watchdog groups have been directing criticism at X for the

0:00:58.960 --> 0:01:04.200
<v Speaker 1>proliferation of misinformation and disinformation, specifically in the wake of

0:01:04.319 --> 0:01:08.160
<v Speaker 1>the ongoing war in Israel. It did not take long

0:01:08.240 --> 0:01:12.640
<v Speaker 1>at all for bad information to flood the platform after

0:01:12.680 --> 0:01:17.880
<v Speaker 1>Hamas launched attacks within Israel, and that bad information included

0:01:17.959 --> 0:01:22.800
<v Speaker 1>everything from photos and footage of past conflicts being passed

0:01:22.800 --> 0:01:26.560
<v Speaker 1>off as if they were from the most recent circumstances,

0:01:26.920 --> 0:01:29.800
<v Speaker 1>to some accounts claiming that footage that was taken from

0:01:29.840 --> 0:01:35.160
<v Speaker 1>modern video games actually represented circumstances in either Israel or Gaza.

0:01:35.680 --> 0:01:40.440
<v Speaker 1>One critic who raised concerns about the platform in general

0:01:41.160 --> 0:01:46.319
<v Speaker 1>was Thierry Breton or Breton, I apologize for my pronunciation,

0:01:46.440 --> 0:01:50.160
<v Speaker 1>but we're talking about a European Union commissioner who said

0:01:50.160 --> 0:01:53.480
<v Speaker 1>that X was a place for people to quote disseminate

0:01:53.640 --> 0:01:58.120
<v Speaker 1>illegal content and disinformation end quote. That could mean that

0:01:58.440 --> 0:02:00.880
<v Speaker 1>X could be found guilty of viol leading the EU's

0:02:00.960 --> 0:02:05.680
<v Speaker 1>Digital Services Act, or DSA. So the DSA went into

0:02:05.720 --> 0:02:09.519
<v Speaker 1>effect earlier this year, back in August, and it covers

0:02:09.560 --> 0:02:13.080
<v Speaker 1>a lot of ground when it comes to a platform's responsibilities.

0:02:13.440 --> 0:02:18.480
<v Speaker 1>The DSA expects that large platforms ones like x Slash,

0:02:18.520 --> 0:02:22.600
<v Speaker 1>Twitter or Facebook, or even platforms like Google and Amazon,

0:02:22.919 --> 0:02:27.160
<v Speaker 1>have to take an active role in content moderation. Unlike

0:02:27.200 --> 0:02:30.720
<v Speaker 1>the United States, which has Section two thirty, the EU's

0:02:30.840 --> 0:02:34.520
<v Speaker 1>DSA holds these platforms at least somewhat accountable for the

0:02:34.560 --> 0:02:38.560
<v Speaker 1>material that users post to those platforms, and the DSA

0:02:38.720 --> 0:02:42.640
<v Speaker 1>gives the EU government the authority to find companies that

0:02:42.720 --> 0:02:45.799
<v Speaker 1>failed to comply with the law, they can get hit

0:02:45.880 --> 0:02:49.600
<v Speaker 1>with a really hefty penalty, up to six percent of

0:02:49.639 --> 0:02:54.600
<v Speaker 1>their global turnover, which for the purposes of this episode,

0:02:54.600 --> 0:02:57.440
<v Speaker 1>will just kind of reference as revenue. It's there's a

0:02:57.520 --> 0:03:00.959
<v Speaker 1>slight distinction there, but you'll get the idea. So last year,

0:03:01.000 --> 0:03:05.000
<v Speaker 1>Twitter's global revenue was around four point four billion dollars,

0:03:05.600 --> 0:03:09.520
<v Speaker 1>so the DSA essentially says they could take six percent

0:03:09.639 --> 0:03:12.440
<v Speaker 1>of that. They could find Twitter six percent of that

0:03:12.520 --> 0:03:15.320
<v Speaker 1>for failing to comply with the DSA. That would be

0:03:15.360 --> 0:03:19.960
<v Speaker 1>around two hundred and fifty million dollars. That's not a

0:03:20.080 --> 0:03:24.080
<v Speaker 1>small fine. Plus. If the EU finds out that a

0:03:24.160 --> 0:03:28.680
<v Speaker 1>platform continues to fall short of the DSA's requirements, the

0:03:28.720 --> 0:03:33.440
<v Speaker 1>EU has the authority to suspend that platform's operations within

0:03:33.520 --> 0:03:37.320
<v Speaker 1>the European Union, which of course would also mean the

0:03:37.400 --> 0:03:39.640
<v Speaker 1>loss of even more revenue. If you can't operate in

0:03:39.680 --> 0:03:42.760
<v Speaker 1>a major part of the world, you're missing out on

0:03:42.840 --> 0:03:47.640
<v Speaker 1>a tremendous amount of revenue. Ex's CEO Linda Yakarino has

0:03:47.840 --> 0:03:52.600
<v Speaker 1>posted that Twitter has removed hundreds of accounts affiliated with

0:03:52.640 --> 0:03:57.280
<v Speaker 1>hamas and removed or labeled quote unquote tens of thousands

0:03:57.920 --> 0:04:02.920
<v Speaker 1>of pieces of content also said that Twitter slash X

0:04:03.320 --> 0:04:08.200
<v Speaker 1>has not received any information from europoll about illegal content

0:04:08.240 --> 0:04:11.240
<v Speaker 1>on the platform. She's saying, well, we're being accused of something,

0:04:11.280 --> 0:04:14.920
<v Speaker 1>but no one has actually come to us with these concerns.

0:04:14.920 --> 0:04:18.560
<v Speaker 1>It's the first we're hearing about. Essentially, the company is

0:04:18.600 --> 0:04:22.480
<v Speaker 1>relying on the quote unquote community, which essentially means volunteers

0:04:22.560 --> 0:04:26.880
<v Speaker 1>who are flagging posts that might violate the DSA or

0:04:27.080 --> 0:04:30.560
<v Speaker 1>x's own policies. But then X kind of has to

0:04:30.760 --> 0:04:35.000
<v Speaker 1>rely on volunteers because Elon Musk effectively gutted the content

0:04:35.080 --> 0:04:38.320
<v Speaker 1>moderation team by laying off most of them in the

0:04:38.320 --> 0:04:43.240
<v Speaker 1>wake of his acquisition The Federal Anti Discrimination Agency or

0:04:43.720 --> 0:04:49.720
<v Speaker 1>FADA THODA is leaving X. This German anti racism group

0:04:49.760 --> 0:04:53.760
<v Speaker 1>explained the decision to bounce off the platform. They claim

0:04:53.839 --> 0:04:58.680
<v Speaker 1>that incidents of hate speech have quote increased, particularly end quote,

0:04:59.120 --> 0:05:03.279
<v Speaker 1>ever since Elon Musk took control of Twitter. FADA said

0:05:03.400 --> 0:05:08.440
<v Speaker 1>that cases of anti trans and homophobic content, and racism, misogyny,

0:05:08.960 --> 0:05:12.479
<v Speaker 1>anti semitism, and other examples of hateful speech are all

0:05:12.560 --> 0:05:17.440
<v Speaker 1>on the rise, and that ultimately this forced the leaders

0:05:17.480 --> 0:05:20.520
<v Speaker 1>of FADA to ask the question, does it make sense

0:05:20.560 --> 0:05:24.520
<v Speaker 1>to stay on X? Is it providing more of a

0:05:24.560 --> 0:05:29.480
<v Speaker 1>benefit than a cost. And clearly the endecision was that

0:05:29.560 --> 0:05:32.599
<v Speaker 1>it just wasn't worth sticking around, or, as Fada's statement

0:05:32.640 --> 0:05:36.200
<v Speaker 1>puts it, quote in our opinion, X is no longer

0:05:36.240 --> 0:05:40.040
<v Speaker 1>an acceptable environment end quote. Now I've said this before,

0:05:40.839 --> 0:05:43.760
<v Speaker 1>but in the years past, Twitter, which by the way,

0:05:43.800 --> 0:05:46.840
<v Speaker 1>has always been a deeply flawed platform. It's not like

0:05:47.000 --> 0:05:50.279
<v Speaker 1>Elon Musk took it over and then it went from

0:05:50.320 --> 0:05:54.159
<v Speaker 1>being a shining beacon to the absolute worst. It had

0:05:54.240 --> 0:05:57.760
<v Speaker 1>problems well before Elon Musk entered into the picture. It's

0:05:57.839 --> 0:06:03.920
<v Speaker 1>just those problems have magna fight arguably since Musk took over. Anyway,

0:06:04.800 --> 0:06:08.200
<v Speaker 1>back in the day, if you will, Twitter was put

0:06:08.240 --> 0:06:11.960
<v Speaker 1>to effective use by various activists and humanitarian groups and

0:06:12.040 --> 0:06:14.760
<v Speaker 1>news outlets. It was a scene as a very useful

0:06:14.839 --> 0:06:19.600
<v Speaker 1>tool and worth the investment of time it takes to

0:06:19.680 --> 0:06:24.799
<v Speaker 1>create and cultivate and maintain a Twitter account. But Musk's

0:06:24.839 --> 0:06:28.159
<v Speaker 1>capricious leadership and the massive changes the he's made to

0:06:28.400 --> 0:06:31.040
<v Speaker 1>X have convinced a lot of those entities just to

0:06:31.080 --> 0:06:33.400
<v Speaker 1>pull up stakes and leave X behind. They're saying it

0:06:33.440 --> 0:06:37.640
<v Speaker 1>no longer makes sense to stay there. And now we're

0:06:37.680 --> 0:06:40.839
<v Speaker 1>actually starting to see what effect this has had on

0:06:40.960 --> 0:06:46.000
<v Speaker 1>the organizations that decided to leave. So let's take NPR

0:06:46.360 --> 0:06:50.600
<v Speaker 1>National Public Radio, for example. So in April of this year,

0:06:51.360 --> 0:06:55.000
<v Speaker 1>NPR made the decision to leave X. This is right

0:06:55.040 --> 0:06:58.080
<v Speaker 1>around the time that Musk actually renamed Twitter to X.

0:06:58.720 --> 0:07:01.840
<v Speaker 1>And to be clear, MP made this decision for the

0:07:01.880 --> 0:07:06.400
<v Speaker 1>official NPR accounts. They did not mandate that for everybody

0:07:06.760 --> 0:07:10.960
<v Speaker 1>who works for NPR, but they decided they were going

0:07:11.000 --> 0:07:16.800
<v Speaker 1>to stop their accounts on Twitter or X. The platform

0:07:16.960 --> 0:07:19.920
<v Speaker 1>at that time had appended a label to NPR, and

0:07:19.960 --> 0:07:24.720
<v Speaker 1>the label was US state affiliated Media. Now, Twitter's own

0:07:24.880 --> 0:07:30.840
<v Speaker 1>definition for state affiliated media was quote outlets where the

0:07:30.880 --> 0:07:36.800
<v Speaker 1>state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct

0:07:36.920 --> 0:07:40.680
<v Speaker 1>or indirect political pressures, and or control over production and

0:07:40.720 --> 0:07:45.080
<v Speaker 1>distribution end quote. So clearly that definition is meant to

0:07:45.120 --> 0:07:49.240
<v Speaker 1>designate media outlets that are serving as a mouthpiece for

0:07:49.360 --> 0:07:53.240
<v Speaker 1>a government. So the content produced by those types of

0:07:53.280 --> 0:07:57.880
<v Speaker 1>outlets tends to be heavily biased in favor of whichever

0:07:57.960 --> 0:08:01.080
<v Speaker 1>government is in charge. I mean, that's clear, right. It's

0:08:01.120 --> 0:08:04.080
<v Speaker 1>the kind of designation that you might give to a

0:08:04.160 --> 0:08:07.240
<v Speaker 1>media outlet in places like Russia or China, where you

0:08:07.280 --> 0:08:11.520
<v Speaker 1>have authoritarian leaders who crack down on any voices that

0:08:11.600 --> 0:08:16.120
<v Speaker 1>oppose the state. Now, MBR does receive money directly from

0:08:16.160 --> 0:08:19.240
<v Speaker 1>the US federal government, but it makes up less than

0:08:19.240 --> 0:08:23.240
<v Speaker 1>one percent of its budget, and it is clear that

0:08:23.240 --> 0:08:26.880
<v Speaker 1>the government doesn't have any influence on the content that

0:08:26.920 --> 0:08:32.080
<v Speaker 1>INPR produces. So the crux of what makes a media

0:08:32.080 --> 0:08:38.520
<v Speaker 1>outlet a state affiliated media outlet wasn't there, but that's

0:08:38.559 --> 0:08:42.960
<v Speaker 1>what Twitter was labeling in PR. So NBR decided that's it,

0:08:43.040 --> 0:08:44.840
<v Speaker 1>we don't have to deal with this, We're a gone,

0:08:44.880 --> 0:08:47.959
<v Speaker 1>and that it leaves. It was clear that Musk had

0:08:47.960 --> 0:08:51.199
<v Speaker 1>an axe to grind against NPR, So six months later,

0:08:51.480 --> 0:08:55.400
<v Speaker 1>now that we're in present day, leadership at NBR has

0:08:55.440 --> 0:09:00.079
<v Speaker 1>circulated a memo to the company's staff. In that memom,

0:09:00.800 --> 0:09:04.280
<v Speaker 1>the leaders addressed the impact that the organization has seen

0:09:04.440 --> 0:09:10.680
<v Speaker 1>since leaving X and it's not that much so, according

0:09:10.679 --> 0:09:15.360
<v Speaker 1>to Niemann Reports, The NPR memo says that traffic to

0:09:16.000 --> 0:09:19.719
<v Speaker 1>NPR has dropped by only a single percentage point as

0:09:19.720 --> 0:09:24.080
<v Speaker 1>a result of leaving Twitter slash X. NPR also pointed

0:09:24.080 --> 0:09:27.800
<v Speaker 1>out that even before all this kerfuffle, traffic from Twitter

0:09:27.840 --> 0:09:31.320
<v Speaker 1>amounted to less than two percent of all of NPR's traffic,

0:09:31.760 --> 0:09:34.600
<v Speaker 1>and that explains how the organization found the decision to

0:09:34.720 --> 0:09:38.080
<v Speaker 1>leave Twitter to not be difficult at all. The message

0:09:38.160 --> 0:09:40.800
<v Speaker 1>is one that X definitely does not want to hear

0:09:41.040 --> 0:09:44.920
<v Speaker 1>that staying on Twitter just isn't worth the effort. The

0:09:44.960 --> 0:09:48.440
<v Speaker 1>negligible amount of traffic NPR got from Twitter was not

0:09:48.600 --> 0:09:52.640
<v Speaker 1>worth the frustration of operating on Twitter. I suspect other

0:09:52.720 --> 0:09:56.559
<v Speaker 1>media outlets may also reevaluate their position on the platform,

0:09:56.679 --> 0:09:59.880
<v Speaker 1>particularly as it deals with more allegations of hosting disinformation

0:10:00.040 --> 0:10:03.400
<v Speaker 1>and illegal content. But obviously it's not going to be

0:10:03.400 --> 0:10:07.000
<v Speaker 1>the same for everybody, right, some media outlets may say, well, yeah,

0:10:07.000 --> 0:10:09.559
<v Speaker 1>but we have a more significant percentage of our traffic

0:10:09.600 --> 0:10:12.200
<v Speaker 1>coming from Twitter. That's going to be a much harder

0:10:12.240 --> 0:10:15.560
<v Speaker 1>decision to leave. In fact, I would be surprised if

0:10:15.600 --> 0:10:17.959
<v Speaker 1>a media outlet chose to leave in the wake of

0:10:19.000 --> 0:10:23.400
<v Speaker 1>a revelation that Twitter was providing a significant percentage of

0:10:23.400 --> 0:10:28.000
<v Speaker 1>traffic to the media outlet. But for those that are

0:10:28.000 --> 0:10:30.560
<v Speaker 1>in a position similar to NPR, I would not be

0:10:30.600 --> 0:10:35.600
<v Speaker 1>surprised to see more of those outlets follow suit. Okay,

0:10:36.200 --> 0:10:38.520
<v Speaker 1>we're going to take a quick break. When we come back,

0:10:38.760 --> 0:10:42.280
<v Speaker 1>we're going to have some AI news, the other big

0:10:42.320 --> 0:10:46.240
<v Speaker 1>story that continues to unfold throughout twenty twenty three. But

0:10:46.280 --> 0:10:58.520
<v Speaker 1>first let's take a break to thank our sponsors. Okay,

0:10:58.559 --> 0:11:02.240
<v Speaker 1>we're back, so let's talk about artificial intelligence in general

0:11:02.800 --> 0:11:07.199
<v Speaker 1>and generative AI in particular. So first up, open ai

0:11:07.400 --> 0:11:10.480
<v Speaker 1>has plans to make it less expensive for developers to

0:11:10.480 --> 0:11:16.760
<v Speaker 1>build applications on top of open AI's models. So, as

0:11:16.800 --> 0:11:20.480
<v Speaker 1>it turns out, using artificial intelligence, like using it and

0:11:20.520 --> 0:11:25.440
<v Speaker 1>incorporating it into your work, tends to be really expensive

0:11:25.679 --> 0:11:29.560
<v Speaker 1>because AI requires a lot of computational resources in order

0:11:29.559 --> 0:11:32.840
<v Speaker 1>to work, and that goes all up and down. The

0:11:33.120 --> 0:11:37.920
<v Speaker 1>computational resources gamut from processing power to computer memory to

0:11:38.000 --> 0:11:41.920
<v Speaker 1>things like storage. Not every developer has easy access to

0:11:42.000 --> 0:11:45.880
<v Speaker 1>all of those things. It's entirely possible to come up

0:11:45.920 --> 0:11:49.640
<v Speaker 1>with a potentially brilliant idea on how to incorporate AI

0:11:49.720 --> 0:11:53.520
<v Speaker 1>into an app, but not be able to afford the

0:11:53.600 --> 0:11:57.440
<v Speaker 1>costs of bringing that idea to life. So open ai

0:11:57.640 --> 0:12:01.440
<v Speaker 1>plans to offer options that can mitigate some of those costs,

0:12:01.920 --> 0:12:05.280
<v Speaker 1>like offering memory storage, for example, which is a huge

0:12:05.280 --> 0:12:08.240
<v Speaker 1>cost apparently for developers who are working in the field

0:12:08.240 --> 0:12:11.880
<v Speaker 1>of AI. So that's just part of open AI's strategy.

0:12:11.960 --> 0:12:15.319
<v Speaker 1>The company also plans to unveil some computer vision tools,

0:12:15.520 --> 0:12:18.240
<v Speaker 1>which can make it possible for developers to create applications

0:12:18.240 --> 0:12:22.920
<v Speaker 1>that include some element of image analysis in them. You know,

0:12:22.960 --> 0:12:26.439
<v Speaker 1>it's pretty easy for humans to describe stuff that's included

0:12:26.480 --> 0:12:29.120
<v Speaker 1>inside an image. It tends to be a pretty heavy

0:12:29.160 --> 0:12:32.800
<v Speaker 1>lift for a computer, and the computer vision tools simplify

0:12:32.840 --> 0:12:36.079
<v Speaker 1>this and gives developers access to capabilities that otherwise they

0:12:36.360 --> 0:12:39.679
<v Speaker 1>likely wouldn't be able to create on their own. According

0:12:39.679 --> 0:12:42.160
<v Speaker 1>to various news outlets, the company is going to roll

0:12:42.160 --> 0:12:46.439
<v Speaker 1>out these features around November sixth. That's during the company's

0:12:46.440 --> 0:12:50.960
<v Speaker 1>first ever developer conference, which is taking place in San Francisco, California,

0:12:51.040 --> 0:12:54.360
<v Speaker 1>on November sixth. And this matters to you and me

0:12:55.080 --> 0:12:57.560
<v Speaker 1>because it likely means we're going to be seeing a

0:12:57.760 --> 0:13:02.240
<v Speaker 1>rush of new applications that incorporate AI, at least to

0:13:02.280 --> 0:13:06.080
<v Speaker 1>some extent in the not too distant future. So like

0:13:06.120 --> 0:13:10.000
<v Speaker 1>it or not, the AI revolution is going to intensify

0:13:10.679 --> 0:13:14.080
<v Speaker 1>before much longer. Now that's going to have some hefty

0:13:14.160 --> 0:13:18.400
<v Speaker 1>real world consequences. Even if we assume that every AI

0:13:18.520 --> 0:13:22.920
<v Speaker 1>application is benign or goodness, let's say that it's even helpful.

0:13:23.000 --> 0:13:25.520
<v Speaker 1>Let's be super optimistic. Let's say that the incorporation of

0:13:25.559 --> 0:13:30.960
<v Speaker 1>AI is genuinely helpful in all of its implementations, there

0:13:30.960 --> 0:13:33.680
<v Speaker 1>would still be consequences we would have to face even

0:13:33.760 --> 0:13:37.640
<v Speaker 1>with like perfect AI. Tech Spot reported on a research

0:13:37.679 --> 0:13:42.520
<v Speaker 1>paper written by Alex Devrie titled the Growing Energy Footprint

0:13:42.559 --> 0:13:48.160
<v Speaker 1>of Artificial Intelligence, and Devree argues that while much research

0:13:48.200 --> 0:13:50.880
<v Speaker 1>has been focused on how much energy AI language large

0:13:50.920 --> 0:13:54.200
<v Speaker 1>language models require during their training phase, it's a lot

0:13:54.720 --> 0:13:57.280
<v Speaker 1>like when you are training a large language model, you're

0:13:57.320 --> 0:14:01.480
<v Speaker 1>spending a great deal of money just on electricity to

0:14:01.720 --> 0:14:08.280
<v Speaker 1>power that process. However, less studied, but just as important, arguably,

0:14:09.120 --> 0:14:14.200
<v Speaker 1>is the amount of electricity needed during normal operations. Like

0:14:14.240 --> 0:14:18.760
<v Speaker 1>you've stopped training now you're just deploying applications built on

0:14:18.800 --> 0:14:21.920
<v Speaker 1>top of those large language models. Defrie is saying, well,

0:14:21.920 --> 0:14:26.080
<v Speaker 1>that's going to still put a pretty hefty demand on

0:14:27.240 --> 0:14:32.160
<v Speaker 1>electricity generation, especially as more and more of these apps

0:14:32.280 --> 0:14:37.360
<v Speaker 1>are deployed, are developed and deployed. So an analysis firm

0:14:37.560 --> 0:14:42.320
<v Speaker 1>called semi Analysis estimated that if Google were to incorporate

0:14:42.400 --> 0:14:47.240
<v Speaker 1>AI into every single search, which it cannot do. I

0:14:47.360 --> 0:14:50.840
<v Speaker 1>want to be clear about that, it lacks the physical

0:14:50.880 --> 0:14:54.840
<v Speaker 1>capability of powering that. But if Google were to try

0:14:54.960 --> 0:14:59.960
<v Speaker 1>and do that, it would require electricity equivalent to somewhere

0:15:00.000 --> 0:15:03.200
<v Speaker 1>in the neighborhood of twenty nine point two tarawatt hours

0:15:03.200 --> 0:15:06.240
<v Speaker 1>on an annual basis, which is pretty much the same

0:15:06.280 --> 0:15:11.280
<v Speaker 1>amount of electricity that Ireland uses per year. So to

0:15:11.520 --> 0:15:16.680
<v Speaker 1>power AI enhanced Google searches, you would need the same

0:15:16.680 --> 0:15:19.360
<v Speaker 1>amount of electricity that Ireland needs for a full year.

0:15:19.920 --> 0:15:24.280
<v Speaker 1>That's incredible. It also reminds me a lot of cryptocurrency mining.

0:15:24.760 --> 0:15:27.960
<v Speaker 1>Like we talked a lot about how the process of

0:15:28.040 --> 0:15:33.320
<v Speaker 1>mining crypto coins, particularly proof of work crypto coins requires

0:15:33.360 --> 0:15:36.720
<v Speaker 1>a ton of electricity. Proof of stake less so, but

0:15:36.840 --> 0:15:39.680
<v Speaker 1>still requires some proof of work requires a lot. That's

0:15:39.720 --> 0:15:43.240
<v Speaker 1>the kind that like bitcoin uses. And we have already

0:15:43.240 --> 0:15:47.000
<v Speaker 1>talked about how in the past, at least mining operations

0:15:47.040 --> 0:15:51.360
<v Speaker 1>worthy creating the power need equivalent of what we would

0:15:51.400 --> 0:15:55.000
<v Speaker 1>see for some nations in Europe on an annual basis

0:15:55.120 --> 0:15:58.120
<v Speaker 1>pretty crazy. Well, same thing is true of AI, but

0:15:58.160 --> 0:16:01.000
<v Speaker 1>as I said, Google doesn't have that capability. This is

0:16:01.040 --> 0:16:05.040
<v Speaker 1>more of a theoretical kind of discussion. Google lacks the

0:16:05.080 --> 0:16:08.200
<v Speaker 1>equipment that would be needed to be able to do this,

0:16:08.840 --> 0:16:12.080
<v Speaker 1>and in fact, the companies that make the equipment, like

0:16:12.160 --> 0:16:15.400
<v Speaker 1>make the processors that would power this kind of thing,

0:16:15.880 --> 0:16:19.600
<v Speaker 1>they aren't producing chips at that scale, Like they could

0:16:19.600 --> 0:16:23.960
<v Speaker 1>not produce enough chips in the short term anyway to

0:16:24.080 --> 0:16:27.240
<v Speaker 1>power that. So this is really again just a hypothetical situation.

0:16:27.400 --> 0:16:35.200
<v Speaker 1>But the point is that AI is a power hungry technology,

0:16:36.120 --> 0:16:38.880
<v Speaker 1>not in the sense of you know, sky net taking

0:16:38.880 --> 0:16:40.680
<v Speaker 1>over the world, but in the sense of it requires

0:16:40.720 --> 0:16:44.600
<v Speaker 1>a ton of power for it to work. And it's

0:16:44.600 --> 0:16:49.760
<v Speaker 1>something that people like defriethink developers need to really take

0:16:49.760 --> 0:16:54.600
<v Speaker 1>into consideration. Does it make sense to incorporate AI into

0:16:54.640 --> 0:17:01.680
<v Speaker 1>an application knowing the energy demands of that particular application,

0:17:02.280 --> 0:17:04.760
<v Speaker 1>And if it makes sense, then sure. But if it

0:17:04.840 --> 0:17:06.800
<v Speaker 1>doesn't make sense, then don't just throw it in there

0:17:07.240 --> 0:17:10.720
<v Speaker 1>just to have AI as part of your value proposition

0:17:10.760 --> 0:17:14.399
<v Speaker 1>of your app, because you're going to be costing yourself

0:17:14.400 --> 0:17:16.720
<v Speaker 1>a lot more money due to the fact that there's

0:17:16.760 --> 0:17:20.040
<v Speaker 1>so much electricity needed to power the darn thing. Okay,

0:17:20.320 --> 0:17:23.600
<v Speaker 1>moving on to some other news. Microsoft got some bad

0:17:23.680 --> 0:17:26.840
<v Speaker 1>news in the mail last month, which we are now

0:17:27.080 --> 0:17:29.679
<v Speaker 1>learning about due to a filing with the Securities and

0:17:29.720 --> 0:17:34.080
<v Speaker 1>Exchange Commission up the United States Internal Revenue Service. The

0:17:34.400 --> 0:17:39.359
<v Speaker 1>dreaded IRS sent a notice to Microsoft that the company

0:17:39.400 --> 0:17:43.200
<v Speaker 1>had failed to pay a few bills. It was called

0:17:43.200 --> 0:17:47.439
<v Speaker 1>a notice of Proposed adjustment, which is a, you know,

0:17:48.280 --> 0:17:53.119
<v Speaker 1>a fairly benign sounding term, but it had some massive consequences.

0:17:53.480 --> 0:17:57.920
<v Speaker 1>According to the IRS, Microsoft ows about twenty nine billion

0:17:57.960 --> 0:18:02.400
<v Speaker 1>dollars twenty eight point nine billion to be more specific,

0:18:02.800 --> 0:18:05.240
<v Speaker 1>and that's in back taxes from the two thousand and

0:18:05.240 --> 0:18:10.040
<v Speaker 1>four to twenty thirteen period, as well as penalties associated

0:18:10.040 --> 0:18:12.760
<v Speaker 1>with a failure to pay those back taxes over the years.

0:18:14.160 --> 0:18:16.840
<v Speaker 1>Microsoft says the whole thing's a misunderstanding. In fact, they

0:18:16.840 --> 0:18:21.520
<v Speaker 1>say they outright disagree with the Notices of Proposed Adjustment

0:18:21.600 --> 0:18:24.959
<v Speaker 1>aka NOPA, So I guess they're saying NOPA to NOPA.

0:18:25.920 --> 0:18:28.480
<v Speaker 1>They're going to pursue an appeals process with the IRS,

0:18:28.480 --> 0:18:31.960
<v Speaker 1>and if that doesn't go Microsoft's way, they plan on

0:18:32.040 --> 0:18:35.639
<v Speaker 1>bringing the whole matter to court. It would be shocked

0:18:35.640 --> 0:18:39.359
<v Speaker 1>if this doesn't ultimately go to court at some point.

0:18:39.920 --> 0:18:41.879
<v Speaker 1>And yeah, it's going to take a minute for all

0:18:41.960 --> 0:18:43.600
<v Speaker 1>that to hash out, so we'll have to check back.

0:18:43.640 --> 0:18:48.080
<v Speaker 1>And I don't know, like five years or so, the

0:18:48.119 --> 0:18:51.919
<v Speaker 1>State of Utah has filed a lawsuit against TikTok, and

0:18:52.000 --> 0:18:54.640
<v Speaker 1>the charges are probably pretty much what you would expect.

0:18:54.800 --> 0:18:58.919
<v Speaker 1>So first and foremost, Utah's Governor, Spencer Cox, argues that

0:18:59.000 --> 0:19:03.440
<v Speaker 1>TikTok children both by getting them hooked on the platform

0:19:03.640 --> 0:19:07.120
<v Speaker 1>so that they're spending countless hours on it, and also

0:19:07.160 --> 0:19:11.600
<v Speaker 1>by serving up harmful material. The lawsuit cites research that

0:19:11.640 --> 0:19:16.280
<v Speaker 1>links social media activity, like prolonged activity on social media,

0:19:16.760 --> 0:19:21.120
<v Speaker 1>with poor mental health. However, I think it is very

0:19:21.200 --> 0:19:26.520
<v Speaker 1>important to note the distinction between causation and correlation here.

0:19:27.040 --> 0:19:30.760
<v Speaker 1>So does staying on social media for a long time

0:19:31.440 --> 0:19:35.480
<v Speaker 1>lead to poor mental health? Possibly, But it's also possible

0:19:35.760 --> 0:19:39.680
<v Speaker 1>that people who have poor mental health tend to use

0:19:39.720 --> 0:19:43.840
<v Speaker 1>social media for longer than other people do, and that

0:19:43.880 --> 0:19:47.280
<v Speaker 1>would mean that using social media a lot doesn't necessarily

0:19:47.359 --> 0:19:50.639
<v Speaker 1>lead to poor mental health. But perhaps poor mental health

0:19:50.920 --> 0:19:54.240
<v Speaker 1>makes you more inclined to use social media. It's similar

0:19:54.240 --> 0:19:57.320
<v Speaker 1>to how people who commit violence may also play a

0:19:57.320 --> 0:20:00.440
<v Speaker 1>lot of violent video games, but that doesn't necessarily mean

0:20:00.480 --> 0:20:04.760
<v Speaker 1>that playing violent video games makes you violent. Again, there

0:20:04.760 --> 0:20:08.199
<v Speaker 1>could be a correlation, but no causation there. We don't know,

0:20:08.960 --> 0:20:12.359
<v Speaker 1>is my point. So I think making legislation on something

0:20:12.359 --> 0:20:17.800
<v Speaker 1>where there's not a clear causal link is problematic. You're

0:20:17.840 --> 0:20:21.800
<v Speaker 1>not likely to actually address whatever underlying issue is at stake,

0:20:21.880 --> 0:20:27.480
<v Speaker 1>But anyway, Alex Horrik of TikTok contested the charges brought

0:20:27.520 --> 0:20:32.800
<v Speaker 1>against the platform by the state of Utah. He said

0:20:33.160 --> 0:20:37.359
<v Speaker 1>that TikTok quote has industry leading safeguards for young people,

0:20:37.480 --> 0:20:41.480
<v Speaker 1>including an automatic sixty minute time limit for users under

0:20:41.520 --> 0:20:45.359
<v Speaker 1>eighteen and parental controls for teen accounts end quote, So

0:20:45.960 --> 0:20:50.080
<v Speaker 1>he's saying we already have protections in place. These are

0:20:50.119 --> 0:20:54.720
<v Speaker 1>here to prevent young people from being harmed by TikTok.

0:20:54.960 --> 0:20:58.040
<v Speaker 1>According to AP News, the lawsuit also brings up a

0:20:58.040 --> 0:21:01.000
<v Speaker 1>concern that we've seen many, many times from lawmakers here

0:21:01.040 --> 0:21:04.800
<v Speaker 1>in the United States that is related to the relationship

0:21:04.840 --> 0:21:10.320
<v Speaker 1>between TikTok, the American company, and Byte Dance, TikTok's Chinese

0:21:10.320 --> 0:21:14.600
<v Speaker 1>parent company, arguing that maybe there are deeper links there

0:21:14.680 --> 0:21:18.760
<v Speaker 1>than what TikTok claims. This is a song we've seen

0:21:18.800 --> 0:21:22.840
<v Speaker 1>again and again, so not a big surprise here, but

0:21:22.920 --> 0:21:25.800
<v Speaker 1>we'll keep an eye on where this lawsuit goes and

0:21:25.840 --> 0:21:28.480
<v Speaker 1>how it unfolds in the future. Got one more than

0:21:28.480 --> 0:21:30.920
<v Speaker 1>I'm going to tell before we get into another quick

0:21:31.000 --> 0:21:33.960
<v Speaker 1>break it has been a hot minute since I've talked

0:21:33.960 --> 0:21:37.840
<v Speaker 1>about FTX, the cryptocurrency exchange that famously went up in

0:21:37.880 --> 0:21:40.800
<v Speaker 1>flames almost a year ago. Next month will be a

0:21:40.920 --> 0:21:46.200
<v Speaker 1>year since FTX went under. Fdx's co founder Sam Bankman

0:21:46.320 --> 0:21:51.240
<v Speaker 1>freed AKASBF is in court to face charges that he

0:21:51.280 --> 0:21:55.440
<v Speaker 1>committed several fraud related crimes in his role as CEO

0:21:55.680 --> 0:22:01.720
<v Speaker 1>of FTX. Yesterday, Caroline Ellison, the former CEO of Alimator Research,

0:22:02.040 --> 0:22:07.680
<v Speaker 1>which was intrinsically connected to FTX, testified that FDx engaged

0:22:07.720 --> 0:22:11.600
<v Speaker 1>in some pretty darn shifty behavior, including an attempt to

0:22:11.760 --> 0:22:16.120
<v Speaker 1>bribe a Chinese official. So, as Ellison tells the story,

0:22:16.440 --> 0:22:21.879
<v Speaker 1>Chinese authorities brows ftx's funds on the OKX and quea

0:22:21.960 --> 0:22:27.520
<v Speaker 1>by exchanges. So apparently someone at Alibator Research, which by

0:22:27.520 --> 0:22:30.280
<v Speaker 1>the way, was an investment company that specialized in the

0:22:30.280 --> 0:22:35.679
<v Speaker 1>crypto market and had been co founded by SBF. Apparently

0:22:36.040 --> 0:22:41.560
<v Speaker 1>this person unnamed person ended up doing business with some

0:22:41.560 --> 0:22:45.520
<v Speaker 1>someone else who was suspected of money laundering. So the

0:22:45.600 --> 0:22:49.320
<v Speaker 1>Chinese authorities locked down around a billion dollars worth of

0:22:49.359 --> 0:22:53.280
<v Speaker 1>FTX assets, and this prompted folks at FTX to try

0:22:53.320 --> 0:22:55.720
<v Speaker 1>and come up with various strategies on how to free

0:22:55.840 --> 0:23:00.119
<v Speaker 1>up that money that otherwise was just locked away. It

0:23:00.200 --> 0:23:03.080
<v Speaker 1>sounds like first they started off with some fairly reasonable

0:23:03.400 --> 0:23:07.399
<v Speaker 1>and more importantly legal options, but apparently those did not

0:23:07.440 --> 0:23:11.960
<v Speaker 1>get any results. So the leaders, including SBF himself, began

0:23:12.000 --> 0:23:15.359
<v Speaker 1>to consider alternatives, and while they did not necessarily approve

0:23:15.440 --> 0:23:19.360
<v Speaker 1>them initially, further down the line they did, and that

0:23:20.160 --> 0:23:24.840
<v Speaker 1>ultimately resulted in offering a one hundred and fifty million

0:23:24.840 --> 0:23:29.040
<v Speaker 1>dollars bribe to a Chinese official to grease the wheels

0:23:29.040 --> 0:23:34.719
<v Speaker 1>and get that money unlocked. Not only did the company

0:23:34.720 --> 0:23:38.000
<v Speaker 1>apparently actually do this, it also listed the expenditure in

0:23:38.040 --> 0:23:41.679
<v Speaker 1>its State of Alameda documentation. Now, they didn't go so

0:23:41.760 --> 0:23:45.399
<v Speaker 1>far as to label it bribery costs that might have

0:23:45.920 --> 0:23:50.240
<v Speaker 1>been a red flag. Instead, it was filed under notable

0:23:50.359 --> 0:23:56.119
<v Speaker 1>slash idiosyncratic PNL stuff. And here's the wild thing, y'all.

0:23:56.480 --> 0:23:59.280
<v Speaker 1>The bribery thing isn't even one of the legal charges

0:23:59.359 --> 0:24:04.600
<v Speaker 1>brought again SBF. Right, that's not even a material component

0:24:04.760 --> 0:24:08.600
<v Speaker 1>of this trial. The whole story really just becomes part

0:24:08.640 --> 0:24:13.119
<v Speaker 1>of establishing SBF's character and leadership decisions and willingness to

0:24:13.240 --> 0:24:18.560
<v Speaker 1>engage in illicit activities. Ellison, for her own part, has

0:24:18.600 --> 0:24:22.719
<v Speaker 1>pled guilty to several fraud charges already, so things are

0:24:22.760 --> 0:24:26.440
<v Speaker 1>not looking so great for SBF at the moment. Okay,

0:24:26.880 --> 0:24:28.800
<v Speaker 1>we're going to take another quick break. When we come back,

0:24:28.800 --> 0:24:31.560
<v Speaker 1>I've got you know, I got quite a few more

0:24:31.920 --> 0:24:43.719
<v Speaker 1>news stories, so stick around. We'll be right back. Okay,

0:24:43.800 --> 0:24:45.399
<v Speaker 1>we have come back, and now for a couple of

0:24:45.440 --> 0:24:48.160
<v Speaker 1>stories about how the US government is trying to make

0:24:48.200 --> 0:24:51.439
<v Speaker 1>companies be more transparent when it comes to stuff like

0:24:52.240 --> 0:24:55.600
<v Speaker 1>you know, bills, service fees. So first up is the

0:24:55.640 --> 0:24:59.800
<v Speaker 1>Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, which has taken aim at

0:25:00.080 --> 0:25:03.439
<v Speaker 1>so called junk fees. So these are those hidden fees

0:25:04.240 --> 0:25:06.920
<v Speaker 1>that won't pop up in a transaction until it's right

0:25:06.960 --> 0:25:09.840
<v Speaker 1>at the moment of purchase. So the customer might get

0:25:09.880 --> 0:25:13.080
<v Speaker 1>a price quote on a product or a service and

0:25:13.119 --> 0:25:17.040
<v Speaker 1>then they'll start the whole process of purchasing it or

0:25:17.080 --> 0:25:19.720
<v Speaker 1>agreeing to it, and right when they're getting at that

0:25:19.840 --> 0:25:23.119
<v Speaker 1>last moment to complete a transaction, a bunch of weird

0:25:23.200 --> 0:25:28.199
<v Speaker 1>fees pop up and the cost increases, sometimes significantly. So

0:25:28.240 --> 0:25:31.600
<v Speaker 1>this happens in lots of different kinds of transactions. Personally,

0:25:31.800 --> 0:25:34.000
<v Speaker 1>I see it most whenever I use a ticket broker

0:25:34.400 --> 0:25:37.480
<v Speaker 1>to purchase a seat for an event, whether it's a

0:25:37.520 --> 0:25:41.160
<v Speaker 1>show or a concert or whatever it may be, sometimes

0:25:41.560 --> 0:25:43.920
<v Speaker 1>the fees end up being as much as the cost

0:25:43.960 --> 0:25:46.280
<v Speaker 1>of the ticket itself, so it doubles the amount I

0:25:46.320 --> 0:25:48.119
<v Speaker 1>would have to spend if I wanted to, I don't know,

0:25:48.800 --> 0:25:53.359
<v Speaker 1>go see thump Asaurus performs Strutton Live. Actually, that's probably

0:25:53.359 --> 0:25:55.960
<v Speaker 1>a bad example because thump Asaurus tends to play small

0:25:55.960 --> 0:25:59.199
<v Speaker 1>to medium venues. Those are less dependent on ticket brokers.

0:25:59.240 --> 0:26:01.560
<v Speaker 1>But you get what I'm saying. You can also find

0:26:01.600 --> 0:26:05.320
<v Speaker 1>it in other places, like vacation rentals, right, so Airbnb

0:26:05.480 --> 0:26:09.280
<v Speaker 1>has been brought in as a possible perpetrator of these

0:26:09.359 --> 0:26:12.600
<v Speaker 1>kinds of junk fees or car rentals. It can be

0:26:12.640 --> 0:26:15.920
<v Speaker 1>like that too, where you'll see one price quoted as

0:26:15.960 --> 0:26:18.679
<v Speaker 1>you log into a car rental company, but as you

0:26:18.760 --> 0:26:22.000
<v Speaker 1>go through it suddenly balloons as you get further into

0:26:22.000 --> 0:26:24.280
<v Speaker 1>the process. Not all car rental companies are like that,

0:26:24.320 --> 0:26:27.080
<v Speaker 1>by the way, I've noticed that a few have started

0:26:27.119 --> 0:26:31.000
<v Speaker 1>to already post what the full price would be on

0:26:31.040 --> 0:26:35.119
<v Speaker 1>that initial screen, and I think that's admirable because not

0:26:35.200 --> 0:26:37.200
<v Speaker 1>every one of them does that. A lot of them

0:26:37.680 --> 0:26:39.560
<v Speaker 1>starts off with a price where you're like, oh wow,

0:26:39.600 --> 0:26:42.080
<v Speaker 1>it's like eighty bucks for the full week. That's not bad.

0:26:42.560 --> 0:26:44.280
<v Speaker 1>Then you click through and you're like, oh wait, it's

0:26:44.359 --> 0:26:46.440
<v Speaker 1>actually like two hundred and seventy dollars for the full

0:26:46.440 --> 0:26:48.720
<v Speaker 1>week once you add all these fees in. So the

0:26:48.840 --> 0:26:53.720
<v Speaker 1>FTC would force companies to include any additional fees within

0:26:53.800 --> 0:26:56.760
<v Speaker 1>the advertised prices themselves. They could no longer hide it

0:26:57.080 --> 0:27:00.320
<v Speaker 1>until the end, and they have to explain in what

0:27:00.480 --> 0:27:04.800
<v Speaker 1>those fees are actually for, like why does that fee exist?

0:27:05.119 --> 0:27:09.000
<v Speaker 1>What is that fee going to? Like? Those convenience fees

0:27:09.080 --> 0:27:11.199
<v Speaker 1>drive me nuts because I'm wondering who the heck is

0:27:11.200 --> 0:27:14.600
<v Speaker 1>this convenient for, because it's not me anyway. It's also

0:27:14.640 --> 0:27:18.920
<v Speaker 1>supposed to indicate which, if any, fees could be refundable.

0:27:19.200 --> 0:27:22.240
<v Speaker 1>So all of this has to be done if FTC

0:27:22.760 --> 0:27:25.119
<v Speaker 1>adopts these rules. I'm sure the companies are not eager

0:27:25.160 --> 0:27:28.840
<v Speaker 1>to comply with any rule like this if it is

0:27:28.880 --> 0:27:32.160
<v Speaker 1>in fact adopted. But as a consumer, I am personally

0:27:32.200 --> 0:27:34.840
<v Speaker 1>fully in favor of making companies be more transparent when

0:27:34.840 --> 0:27:38.480
<v Speaker 1>it comes to costs to customers. Now, on a related note,

0:27:38.680 --> 0:27:44.200
<v Speaker 1>the US Federal Communications Commission or FCC has transparency rules

0:27:44.200 --> 0:27:47.840
<v Speaker 1>that are going to impact the major Internet service providers

0:27:47.880 --> 0:27:51.479
<v Speaker 1>in the United States starting on or in April of

0:27:51.520 --> 0:27:55.199
<v Speaker 1>twenty twenty four. So starting then, providers will have to

0:27:55.240 --> 0:27:58.960
<v Speaker 1>include a broadband consumer label, and this label will break

0:27:59.040 --> 0:28:05.280
<v Speaker 1>down the provider's services. It has to include the service's features,

0:28:05.600 --> 0:28:09.399
<v Speaker 1>its limitations, any restrictions that are in place, as well

0:28:09.480 --> 0:28:12.680
<v Speaker 1>as the price for the service. So that means the

0:28:12.720 --> 0:28:17.399
<v Speaker 1>label should show customer stuff like what broadband speed is

0:28:17.480 --> 0:28:20.840
<v Speaker 1>available in their area, how much is the introductory rate

0:28:21.040 --> 0:28:24.479
<v Speaker 1>for enrolling in that service, what are the actual rates

0:28:24.600 --> 0:28:28.040
<v Speaker 1>once you're done with the introductory period. Are there any

0:28:28.119 --> 0:28:32.320
<v Speaker 1>data allowances or data caps? If you prefer on that service,

0:28:32.720 --> 0:28:34.680
<v Speaker 1>it would need to have all of that listed out,

0:28:34.680 --> 0:28:38.720
<v Speaker 1>plus any other fees that would come into place, and that,

0:28:38.960 --> 0:28:41.280
<v Speaker 1>in theory, should make it easier for customers to do

0:28:41.360 --> 0:28:45.760
<v Speaker 1>some comparison shopping. However, I should also add that for

0:28:45.840 --> 0:28:48.200
<v Speaker 1>a lot of folks in the United States, comparison shopping

0:28:48.360 --> 0:28:52.400
<v Speaker 1>is more of a dream than a reality. It's not

0:28:52.480 --> 0:28:55.160
<v Speaker 1>a luxury for a lot of people because a lot

0:28:55.160 --> 0:29:00.560
<v Speaker 1>of locations, including where I live, there's not much choice. Technically,

0:29:00.640 --> 0:29:05.080
<v Speaker 1>I have two providers in my area that provide for

0:29:05.560 --> 0:29:10.640
<v Speaker 1>actual broadband speed service, and only one of them can

0:29:10.760 --> 0:29:14.320
<v Speaker 1>provide service at greater than fifty megabits per second. The

0:29:14.360 --> 0:29:16.520
<v Speaker 1>other one, I think max is out right at twenty five,

0:29:16.560 --> 0:29:18.680
<v Speaker 1>which I think is even I think that is the

0:29:18.680 --> 0:29:21.960
<v Speaker 1>threshold for broadband. So it's not like I even have

0:29:22.760 --> 0:29:25.719
<v Speaker 1>a different option to go with if I wanted to,

0:29:26.080 --> 0:29:28.680
<v Speaker 1>at least not one that would work for what I

0:29:28.760 --> 0:29:31.960
<v Speaker 1>do for a living, So that's kind of a bummer,

0:29:31.960 --> 0:29:33.880
<v Speaker 1>But at least I would have a better understanding of

0:29:33.920 --> 0:29:36.560
<v Speaker 1>what I'm spending my money on and what all those

0:29:36.600 --> 0:29:39.320
<v Speaker 1>fees are going to, and also things like how much

0:29:39.320 --> 0:29:42.960
<v Speaker 1>would it cost to terminate the service early maybe suddenly

0:29:43.000 --> 0:29:47.960
<v Speaker 1>I get a different opportunity to use a different ISP,

0:29:48.680 --> 0:29:51.080
<v Speaker 1>how much would it cost for me to cancel my

0:29:51.280 --> 0:29:54.480
<v Speaker 1>agreement with my current provider? And as you might suspect,

0:29:54.520 --> 0:29:58.600
<v Speaker 1>the broadband companies have pushed hard against this move. They've

0:29:58.600 --> 0:30:01.080
<v Speaker 1>claimed that it would be too difficult to implement, and

0:30:01.120 --> 0:30:03.840
<v Speaker 1>that really just gives the FCC more ammunition, right, because

0:30:03.920 --> 0:30:06.800
<v Speaker 1>if listing out all your fees is something that you

0:30:06.880 --> 0:30:10.800
<v Speaker 1>say is too complicated, there's definitely a lack of transparency

0:30:10.840 --> 0:30:13.800
<v Speaker 1>going on among other issues. So I don't think it

0:30:13.960 --> 0:30:17.680
<v Speaker 1>is an argument that does the broadband service much favor.

0:30:18.360 --> 0:30:21.000
<v Speaker 1>Next up, we've got a story about eBay and a

0:30:21.040 --> 0:30:26.840
<v Speaker 1>potential two billion with a b dollar fine for the company.

0:30:27.080 --> 0:30:30.360
<v Speaker 1>So what did eBay do that would warrant such a

0:30:30.480 --> 0:30:33.640
<v Speaker 1>hefty fine. Well, it all has to do with the

0:30:33.680 --> 0:30:38.200
<v Speaker 1>facilitation of sales of products that violate environmental laws in

0:30:38.240 --> 0:30:43.920
<v Speaker 1>the United States, namely defeat devices aka gadgets that, when

0:30:43.920 --> 0:30:47.440
<v Speaker 1>you install it in a diesel powered vehicle, gives the

0:30:47.560 --> 0:30:51.920
<v Speaker 1>driver the ability to quote unquote roll coal. So if

0:30:51.920 --> 0:30:56.200
<v Speaker 1>you've ever seen a car or a truck blast out

0:30:56.240 --> 0:31:00.320
<v Speaker 1>a huge cloud of black exhaust all in one burd first,

0:31:01.040 --> 0:31:04.760
<v Speaker 1>that is rolling coal. I had not even heard about

0:31:04.760 --> 0:31:08.120
<v Speaker 1>that practice until just one day someone did it to me.

0:31:08.840 --> 0:31:11.760
<v Speaker 1>I had been walking back from our office back when

0:31:11.760 --> 0:31:15.000
<v Speaker 1>it was at Pont City Market, and it was a

0:31:15.040 --> 0:31:17.479
<v Speaker 1>three mile walk, and it was a hot day, and

0:31:17.520 --> 0:31:19.560
<v Speaker 1>I was taking a little break, and as I was

0:31:19.560 --> 0:31:22.160
<v Speaker 1>sitting down on a bench, a big old pickup truck

0:31:22.240 --> 0:31:25.080
<v Speaker 1>drove past me and then belched out a ton of

0:31:25.200 --> 0:31:29.960
<v Speaker 1>black smoke rolling coal. Well, here's the thing. These devices

0:31:30.080 --> 0:31:33.400
<v Speaker 1>violate the Clean Air Act, and if authorities find a

0:31:33.440 --> 0:31:38.720
<v Speaker 1>retailer selling them, they can find that retailer five eighty

0:31:38.760 --> 0:31:45.080
<v Speaker 1>dollars per sale, so it's accumulative, and the EPA has

0:31:45.120 --> 0:31:48.080
<v Speaker 1>set its sites on eBay. Now, eBay has said the

0:31:48.120 --> 0:31:52.080
<v Speaker 1>lawsuit is quote unquote entirely unprecedented. Now that might be true.

0:31:52.120 --> 0:31:55.120
<v Speaker 1>It might be entirely unprecedented, but that doesn't mean that

0:31:55.160 --> 0:31:58.480
<v Speaker 1>it's unwarranted. It also doesn't mean that the EPA won't

0:31:58.520 --> 0:32:00.920
<v Speaker 1>continue to do that sort of thing with other companies.

0:32:01.280 --> 0:32:04.480
<v Speaker 1>But eBay also claims it has actively removed listings for

0:32:04.520 --> 0:32:07.400
<v Speaker 1>such illegal devices for years and that it has a

0:32:07.440 --> 0:32:09.719
<v Speaker 1>ban on those kind of devices. Those are not allowed

0:32:09.720 --> 0:32:13.920
<v Speaker 1>to be sold on eBay, according to eBay's representatives. So

0:32:14.040 --> 0:32:16.200
<v Speaker 1>we'll have to see where this goes from here and

0:32:16.280 --> 0:32:19.080
<v Speaker 1>whether or not it actually ends up going to trial,

0:32:20.120 --> 0:32:24.400
<v Speaker 1>and whether eBay actually has the receipts to show that

0:32:24.560 --> 0:32:27.800
<v Speaker 1>it has cracked down on this practice, or if, as

0:32:27.840 --> 0:32:32.160
<v Speaker 1>the EPA alleges, eBay has allowed for the sale of

0:32:32.200 --> 0:32:37.000
<v Speaker 1>these devices. Google announced it stopped a distributed denial of

0:32:37.080 --> 0:32:40.480
<v Speaker 1>service attack or d DOS that was the largest ever

0:32:40.640 --> 0:32:44.200
<v Speaker 1>on record. In fact, according to Google, this attack was

0:32:44.240 --> 0:32:48.120
<v Speaker 1>seven and a half times larger than the previous record holder,

0:32:48.480 --> 0:32:51.400
<v Speaker 1>and the attack was blasting targets with three hundred and

0:32:51.520 --> 0:32:56.160
<v Speaker 1>ninety eight million requests per second. So, just in case

0:32:56.200 --> 0:32:58.800
<v Speaker 1>you don't know what a denial of service attack is,

0:32:59.600 --> 0:33:04.200
<v Speaker 1>it's basically a tactic meant to overwhelm a target server

0:33:04.800 --> 0:33:08.040
<v Speaker 1>a web server. So in its most basic form, a

0:33:08.120 --> 0:33:12.000
<v Speaker 1>denial of service attack will see attackers send out requests

0:33:12.080 --> 0:33:16.160
<v Speaker 1>to a target. The target is compelled to respond to

0:33:16.200 --> 0:33:20.200
<v Speaker 1>the requests because that's how the Internet works. So by

0:33:20.240 --> 0:33:24.080
<v Speaker 1>sending millions or even hundreds of millions, or even billions

0:33:24.120 --> 0:33:27.880
<v Speaker 1>of requests to a target, the target can get locked

0:33:28.000 --> 0:33:30.880
<v Speaker 1>up trying to respond to all these requests. It can

0:33:30.920 --> 0:33:34.480
<v Speaker 1>even shut down as a result of this. A distributed

0:33:34.480 --> 0:33:37.880
<v Speaker 1>denial of service attack is the same thing, except the

0:33:37.920 --> 0:33:42.239
<v Speaker 1>attacks are distributed across a network of attackers. It's not

0:33:42.360 --> 0:33:45.080
<v Speaker 1>just one source of attack, and that makes it a

0:33:45.200 --> 0:33:48.480
<v Speaker 1>much more effective means of attacking a target because if

0:33:48.560 --> 0:33:51.320
<v Speaker 1>the attacks were coming from one source, the target might

0:33:51.400 --> 0:33:54.920
<v Speaker 1>identify that source and then block traffic coming from that

0:33:55.080 --> 0:33:59.640
<v Speaker 1>source and then protect itself. If it's distributed across lots

0:33:59.640 --> 0:34:04.479
<v Speaker 1>of machines, it can be more challenging to actually protect

0:34:04.520 --> 0:34:08.040
<v Speaker 1>yourself against that kind of attack. Google says it detected

0:34:08.080 --> 0:34:11.200
<v Speaker 1>the attack and then launched mitigation efforts, and that included

0:34:11.239 --> 0:34:15.319
<v Speaker 1>reaching out to peers and started to patch a vulnerability

0:34:15.320 --> 0:34:20.239
<v Speaker 1>in the HTTP slash two protocol stack. The attackers were

0:34:20.320 --> 0:34:24.719
<v Speaker 1>leveraging this vulnerability and it's present in some but not

0:34:24.800 --> 0:34:28.480
<v Speaker 1>all servers. So server administrators have been informed they should

0:34:28.760 --> 0:34:31.440
<v Speaker 1>check to see if their machines are vulnerable, and if

0:34:31.440 --> 0:34:34.000
<v Speaker 1>those machines are vulnerable, to be on the lookout for

0:34:34.000 --> 0:34:37.680
<v Speaker 1>a security patch from whatever vendor made that machine in

0:34:37.800 --> 0:34:41.960
<v Speaker 1>order to close off this route of attack. And finally,

0:34:42.360 --> 0:34:46.560
<v Speaker 1>for some sky is falling news, the US Federal Aviation

0:34:46.640 --> 0:34:50.239
<v Speaker 1>Authority or FAA has a warning about all those satellites

0:34:50.280 --> 0:34:53.040
<v Speaker 1>that were putting up in orbit. So I talked earlier

0:34:53.080 --> 0:34:56.359
<v Speaker 1>this week about how companies like SpaceX and Amazon are

0:34:56.440 --> 0:35:02.240
<v Speaker 1>launching thousands of satellites constellation of satellites up into orbit.

0:35:02.719 --> 0:35:06.480
<v Speaker 1>And the warning that the FAA is giving us is

0:35:06.560 --> 0:35:09.640
<v Speaker 1>the old saying what goes up must come down, even

0:35:09.680 --> 0:35:11.839
<v Speaker 1>if it happens to be in low Earth orbit. So

0:35:11.880 --> 0:35:16.080
<v Speaker 1>the FAA did an analysis and estimates that up to

0:35:16.200 --> 0:35:20.640
<v Speaker 1>twenty eight thousand pieces of satellite could fall to Earth

0:35:20.920 --> 0:35:24.279
<v Speaker 1>each year based upon how much stuff we're putting up there,

0:35:25.000 --> 0:35:28.719
<v Speaker 1>and that these could potentially represent an actual threat to

0:35:28.800 --> 0:35:33.240
<v Speaker 1>people in property. So the FAA estimates that the chance

0:35:33.280 --> 0:35:37.560
<v Speaker 1>of being hurt or worse from a piece of falling

0:35:37.640 --> 0:35:41.080
<v Speaker 1>satellite equipment could be point six per year, and that

0:35:41.160 --> 0:35:44.680
<v Speaker 1>means that it could possibly happen every two years or so,

0:35:44.840 --> 0:35:48.640
<v Speaker 1>just when you look at the big picture of statistics.

0:35:49.640 --> 0:35:52.640
<v Speaker 1>And if that's not scary enough, the FAA also indicated

0:35:52.680 --> 0:35:55.400
<v Speaker 1>that falling satellite pieces could potentially be a threat to

0:35:55.440 --> 0:36:00.960
<v Speaker 1>aircraft in mid flight, though this represents an even smaller likelihood.

0:36:01.440 --> 0:36:05.839
<v Speaker 1>The FAA indicated that regulation could limit some of this risk.

0:36:06.120 --> 0:36:08.879
<v Speaker 1>So if some regulations were put into place that would

0:36:08.960 --> 0:36:12.480
<v Speaker 1>restrict how many satellites companies can put into orbit or

0:36:12.760 --> 0:36:16.440
<v Speaker 1>how they operate those satellites, maybe that would end up

0:36:16.600 --> 0:36:20.440
<v Speaker 1>helping this. But the FAA also stressed it only has

0:36:20.520 --> 0:36:22.239
<v Speaker 1>authority to do that kind of thing here in the

0:36:22.360 --> 0:36:26.120
<v Speaker 1>United States. There are other nations that are launching satellites

0:36:26.120 --> 0:36:29.880
<v Speaker 1>into orbit, and so there is potentially a need for

0:36:29.960 --> 0:36:33.600
<v Speaker 1>some sort of international body that could set global regulations

0:36:33.640 --> 0:36:36.480
<v Speaker 1>on satellites and launches and that kind of thing. And

0:36:36.800 --> 0:36:40.520
<v Speaker 1>the proliferation of space debris. SpaceX, by the way, says

0:36:40.560 --> 0:36:45.480
<v Speaker 1>that the FAA's analysis is flawed and that the company's satellites,

0:36:45.520 --> 0:36:49.560
<v Speaker 1>they're Starlink satellites are far more likely to burn up

0:36:49.560 --> 0:36:52.120
<v Speaker 1>on entry because they're not terribly big. So they're like,

0:36:52.239 --> 0:36:55.440
<v Speaker 1>this is a moot point, because if our satellites are falling,

0:36:55.719 --> 0:36:57.920
<v Speaker 1>they're not going to make it to the ground. They

0:36:57.920 --> 0:37:01.759
<v Speaker 1>will burn up before they reach that far, and so

0:37:01.800 --> 0:37:04.959
<v Speaker 1>there would be nothing significant landing on Earth afterward. They've

0:37:04.960 --> 0:37:10.120
<v Speaker 1>also raised some other objections, so again, interesting, scary. My

0:37:10.200 --> 0:37:12.640
<v Speaker 1>guess is that there's the truth is somewhere in the

0:37:12.640 --> 0:37:17.120
<v Speaker 1>middle here. I do think that the odds of being

0:37:17.160 --> 0:37:20.080
<v Speaker 1>struck by space debris are pretty darn low if you're

0:37:20.120 --> 0:37:23.600
<v Speaker 1>not in space, probably somewhere along the same lines as

0:37:23.600 --> 0:37:28.480
<v Speaker 1>getting struck by lightning. Although obviously you can help avoid

0:37:28.520 --> 0:37:30.800
<v Speaker 1>getting hit by lightning by not being out and about

0:37:30.840 --> 0:37:33.680
<v Speaker 1>while there's a lightning storm. It's a lot harder to

0:37:33.719 --> 0:37:36.279
<v Speaker 1>predict when a piece of a satellite's going to come

0:37:36.280 --> 0:37:39.120
<v Speaker 1>plummeting down, So I get it. It is kind of scary.

0:37:39.600 --> 0:37:41.920
<v Speaker 1>Now before I go, I do have an article to recommend.

0:37:42.239 --> 0:37:46.200
<v Speaker 1>This article is titled how AI reduces the World to Stereotypes.

0:37:46.480 --> 0:37:49.400
<v Speaker 1>It was written by Victoria Turk and it was published

0:37:49.520 --> 0:37:54.280
<v Speaker 1>in Restofworld dot org. So Turk is mainly talking about

0:37:54.360 --> 0:37:59.520
<v Speaker 1>generative AI and how text to image systems tend to

0:37:59.520 --> 0:38:04.760
<v Speaker 1>perpetual wait and amplify biases and stereotypes. So the article

0:38:04.840 --> 0:38:07.520
<v Speaker 1>follows an experiment in which a team at rest of

0:38:07.600 --> 0:38:12.279
<v Speaker 1>World use the text to image generative AI tool mid

0:38:12.360 --> 0:38:16.560
<v Speaker 1>journey to produce pictures associated with specific places or types

0:38:16.600 --> 0:38:19.600
<v Speaker 1>of people, and then analyze those images and looked for

0:38:19.640 --> 0:38:23.759
<v Speaker 1>the inclusion of elements that reinforce biases and stereotypes. So

0:38:24.000 --> 0:38:27.560
<v Speaker 1>I recommend that article again. It's titled how AI reduces

0:38:27.600 --> 0:38:32.640
<v Speaker 1>the World to Stereotypes by Victoria Turk at Restofworld dot org.

0:38:33.120 --> 0:38:36.360
<v Speaker 1>That's it for me today. I hope you are all well.

0:38:36.480 --> 0:38:39.840
<v Speaker 1>Stay safe out there, take care of yourselves both physically

0:38:39.880 --> 0:38:42.880
<v Speaker 1>and mentally. It is a really tough time right now,

0:38:43.280 --> 0:38:52.480
<v Speaker 1>and I'll talk to you again really soon. Tech Stuff

0:38:52.560 --> 0:38:57.080
<v Speaker 1>is an iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit

0:38:57.120 --> 0:39:00.680
<v Speaker 1>the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to

0:39:00.719 --> 0:39:01.640
<v Speaker 1>your favorite shows.