1
00:00:04,440 --> 00:00:12,280
Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there,

2
00:00:12,320 --> 00:00:15,600
Speaker 1: and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland.

3
00:00:15,640 --> 00:00:18,320
Speaker 1: I'm an executive producer with iHeartRadio. And how the tech

4
00:00:18,360 --> 00:00:20,440
Speaker 1: are you. It's time for the tech news for Tuesday,

5
00:00:20,480 --> 00:00:23,959
Speaker 1: April twenty fifth, twenty twenty three. Last week, I talked

6
00:00:23,960 --> 00:00:28,080
Speaker 1: about how the SpaceX Starship launch was a success despite

7
00:00:28,120 --> 00:00:30,960
Speaker 1: the fact that the ding dang darn thing sploded all

8
00:00:30,960 --> 00:00:34,440
Speaker 1: over the Gulf of Mexico. As a reminder, this was

9
00:00:34,479 --> 00:00:38,680
Speaker 1: a test launch of the world's most powerful launch vehicle

10
00:00:38,800 --> 00:00:42,519
Speaker 1: ever and had no crew aboard it, thank goodness, and

11
00:00:42,560 --> 00:00:45,040
Speaker 1: the purpose was just to get the launch vehicle off

12
00:00:45,080 --> 00:00:48,000
Speaker 1: the ground without destroying the launch tower in the process.

13
00:00:48,440 --> 00:00:51,199
Speaker 1: While there was a hope that the starship would actually

14
00:00:51,240 --> 00:00:55,040
Speaker 1: be able to achieve orbit, that was a secondary goal.

15
00:00:55,480 --> 00:00:58,640
Speaker 1: So when there was an engine failure and a failure

16
00:00:58,680 --> 00:01:01,320
Speaker 1: for the first stage to separate from the second and

17
00:01:01,360 --> 00:01:03,880
Speaker 1: then the ship began to spin in the air, SpaceX

18
00:01:03,960 --> 00:01:06,679
Speaker 1: chose to toggle a self destruct switch so that the

19
00:01:06,760 --> 00:01:09,520
Speaker 1: starship would detonate safely over the Gulf and not go

20
00:01:09,920 --> 00:01:13,720
Speaker 1: flying off somewhere. Since then, we've learned that there was

21
00:01:13,920 --> 00:01:18,440
Speaker 1: extensive damage to the launch pad itself during the launch,

22
00:01:18,600 --> 00:01:22,560
Speaker 1: while the tower remained standing. There are craters in debris

23
00:01:22,760 --> 00:01:25,600
Speaker 1: across the launch area, and it may be weeks or

24
00:01:25,680 --> 00:01:29,880
Speaker 1: maybe months before the launch pad is ready for another launch.

25
00:01:30,160 --> 00:01:32,759
Speaker 1: It will take some extensive repairs, and in the meantime,

26
00:01:33,080 --> 00:01:36,400
Speaker 1: Elon Musk has indicated that SpaceX may make some changes

27
00:01:36,440 --> 00:01:38,760
Speaker 1: to the launchpad to give it a better chance of

28
00:01:38,800 --> 00:01:42,640
Speaker 1: holding up to the incredible heat and force generated by

29
00:01:42,680 --> 00:01:47,320
Speaker 1: the thirty three rocket engines of the Starship's first stage.

30
00:01:47,400 --> 00:01:52,000
Speaker 1: This actually isn't dissimilar to issues NASA has encountered with

31
00:01:52,120 --> 00:01:55,800
Speaker 1: their Space Launch System, which has about half the thrust

32
00:01:55,800 --> 00:01:59,960
Speaker 1: power of the Starship. The SLS has also damaged lawn

33
00:02:00,000 --> 00:02:03,200
Speaker 1: bunch facilities during operations. It turns out when you play

34
00:02:03,280 --> 00:02:06,680
Speaker 1: with really big rockets, you can sometimes end up with

35
00:02:06,720 --> 00:02:09,639
Speaker 1: a real big hole in the ground. Now, let's talk

36
00:02:09,680 --> 00:02:13,560
Speaker 1: about Twitter. So last week the platform pulled the trigger

37
00:02:13,600 --> 00:02:16,120
Speaker 1: on a promise it had been making for a while.

38
00:02:16,320 --> 00:02:19,440
Speaker 1: Folks who had a verified check mark but who were

39
00:02:19,480 --> 00:02:23,400
Speaker 1: not subscribed to Twitter blue saw those check marks go

40
00:02:23,600 --> 00:02:27,320
Speaker 1: bye bye, which includes yours truly, my check mark went away,

41
00:02:27,639 --> 00:02:32,720
Speaker 1: and Elon Musk, ever the mature businessman comped certain celebrities

42
00:02:32,800 --> 00:02:37,040
Speaker 1: and gave them their check marks. These were mainly celebrities

43
00:02:37,200 --> 00:02:40,640
Speaker 1: who had been criticizing the move to turn the verification

44
00:02:40,760 --> 00:02:44,359
Speaker 1: system into a paid perk as opposed to, you know,

45
00:02:44,560 --> 00:02:48,200
Speaker 1: a means of actually verifying a user's identity. And the

46
00:02:48,240 --> 00:02:51,720
Speaker 1: blue check mark implies, or actually, heck it outright says it,

47
00:02:51,760 --> 00:02:54,519
Speaker 1: if you were to hover your mouse over the check mark,

48
00:02:55,080 --> 00:02:58,280
Speaker 1: that the person who has the check mark had paid

49
00:02:58,639 --> 00:03:01,120
Speaker 1: for that privilege, even though in the case of folks

50
00:03:01,160 --> 00:03:04,360
Speaker 1: like the famous author Stephen King, that wasn't the case.

51
00:03:04,400 --> 00:03:08,160
Speaker 1: He had not paid the Twitter subscription. The check mark

52
00:03:08,240 --> 00:03:11,720
Speaker 1: returned because Elon Musk, I guess wanted to rub it

53
00:03:11,720 --> 00:03:15,000
Speaker 1: in Stephen King's face because King had been criticizing the

54
00:03:15,080 --> 00:03:17,919
Speaker 1: whole paid for check mark thing in the first place,

55
00:03:18,280 --> 00:03:20,840
Speaker 1: and now it makes it seem like Stephen King had

56
00:03:20,840 --> 00:03:24,359
Speaker 1: paid for it, makes him seem like he's a hypocrite,

57
00:03:24,919 --> 00:03:29,400
Speaker 1: when in fact he didn't pay for this. So yeah,

58
00:03:29,560 --> 00:03:32,800
Speaker 1: there's been a lot of trash talking about Twitter turning

59
00:03:32,840 --> 00:03:36,720
Speaker 1: the check mark into a revenue generating scheme, and that

60
00:03:37,280 --> 00:03:41,440
Speaker 1: you know, now these critics have been branded with that

61
00:03:41,520 --> 00:03:44,360
Speaker 1: check mark as opposed to the check mark being a verification,

62
00:03:45,320 --> 00:03:48,840
Speaker 1: and Musk then expanded his generosity because Twitter accounts with

63
00:03:48,920 --> 00:03:51,400
Speaker 1: more than a million followers began to see their check

64
00:03:51,440 --> 00:03:54,520
Speaker 1: marks returned, even though they hadn't asked for it. I

65
00:03:54,560 --> 00:03:57,720
Speaker 1: remember seeing a tweet from author Neil Gaiman who expressed

66
00:03:57,720 --> 00:03:59,640
Speaker 1: curiosity about this. He went so far as to point

67
00:03:59,680 --> 00:04:02,520
Speaker 1: out that he had not subscribed to Twitter Blue, and

68
00:04:02,600 --> 00:04:06,320
Speaker 1: yet his check mark had returned. And now that check

69
00:04:06,360 --> 00:04:09,800
Speaker 1: mark is sort of viewed as a badge of dishonor like.

70
00:04:09,840 --> 00:04:13,120
Speaker 1: The implication is that people who have a check are

71
00:04:13,200 --> 00:04:16,680
Speaker 1: desperate for recognition and have paid for it. So even

72
00:04:16,720 --> 00:04:20,080
Speaker 1: people who did subscribe to Twitter Blue, some of them

73
00:04:20,080 --> 00:04:22,440
Speaker 1: are now trying to dump it in order to get

74
00:04:22,480 --> 00:04:24,160
Speaker 1: rid of that check mark, because they don't want to

75
00:04:24,200 --> 00:04:29,040
Speaker 1: be associated with a perception that they're paying to be recognized.

76
00:04:29,440 --> 00:04:32,480
Speaker 1: It's actually a pretty fascinating situation. Something that was once

77
00:04:32,600 --> 00:04:35,680
Speaker 1: viewed as a kind of status symbol and something to

78
00:04:35,720 --> 00:04:39,400
Speaker 1: be desired is now looked at as almost being taboo.

79
00:04:40,000 --> 00:04:43,719
Speaker 1: And I think there's a possible sociology dissertation in there somewhere,

80
00:04:44,000 --> 00:04:47,719
Speaker 1: and you're welcome, grad students. By the way, this gets

81
00:04:47,760 --> 00:04:51,120
Speaker 1: even more confusing because Twitter accounts that belong to people

82
00:04:51,120 --> 00:04:54,279
Speaker 1: who are no longer with us, people who have died.

83
00:04:54,400 --> 00:04:57,719
Speaker 1: Over the past few years, they've seen their check marks return,

84
00:04:57,800 --> 00:05:00,880
Speaker 1: and again, if you hover your mouth over the check mark,

85
00:05:00,920 --> 00:05:04,680
Speaker 1: it says that the person who owns that account is

86
00:05:04,760 --> 00:05:08,600
Speaker 1: paying for a Twitter Blue subscription, which you know, raises

87
00:05:08,680 --> 00:05:11,640
Speaker 1: questions as to how dead people were able to do that.

88
00:05:12,360 --> 00:05:17,120
Speaker 1: So again, not like the smoothest transition. A real shock

89
00:05:17,200 --> 00:05:20,760
Speaker 1: when you think about how Twitter has laid off seven

90
00:05:20,800 --> 00:05:24,400
Speaker 1: thousand of their employees over the last several months. On

91
00:05:24,440 --> 00:05:27,280
Speaker 1: a related note, some folks on Twitter are asking if

92
00:05:27,279 --> 00:05:32,039
Speaker 1: perhaps these check marks represent false advertising in a way.

93
00:05:32,400 --> 00:05:36,800
Speaker 1: So Twitter user drill Dril brought this question up, asking

94
00:05:36,839 --> 00:05:41,160
Speaker 1: if maybe this falls under the umbrella of a false endorsement.

95
00:05:41,600 --> 00:05:44,240
Speaker 1: So the argument kind of goes like this. The check

96
00:05:44,320 --> 00:05:48,719
Speaker 1: mark claims that the person whose name is in front

97
00:05:48,760 --> 00:05:51,760
Speaker 1: of that check has paid for this service. But as

98
00:05:51,800 --> 00:05:56,040
Speaker 1: we've seen, many, maybe even most, of the celebrities who

99
00:05:56,080 --> 00:05:59,440
Speaker 1: currently have a check mark didn't actually pay for it,

100
00:05:59,800 --> 00:06:05,360
Speaker 1: So that could imply that this celebrity is approving of

101
00:06:05,440 --> 00:06:07,840
Speaker 1: the service right because the claim is that they paid

102
00:06:07,880 --> 00:06:11,200
Speaker 1: for it, even if they haven't Twitter is saying they did.

103
00:06:11,680 --> 00:06:13,960
Speaker 1: And so you see a celebrity's name, you see that

104
00:06:14,080 --> 00:06:16,520
Speaker 1: check mark after it, You see the check mark claiming

105
00:06:16,560 --> 00:06:19,400
Speaker 1: that the person with the check mark has paid for

106
00:06:19,400 --> 00:06:23,960
Speaker 1: a subscription. That seems like the celebrity is endorsing the service,

107
00:06:24,040 --> 00:06:27,320
Speaker 1: like they're saying, this is cool, That's why I bought it,

108
00:06:28,320 --> 00:06:32,479
Speaker 1: And that could be seen as an endorsement, even though

109
00:06:32,480 --> 00:06:35,640
Speaker 1: the celebrities have not done that. They haven't made any

110
00:06:35,680 --> 00:06:38,720
Speaker 1: kind of deal with Twitter. There's no endorsing going on.

111
00:06:38,800 --> 00:06:43,320
Speaker 1: It's against their will, right, even if they don't really

112
00:06:43,320 --> 00:06:45,800
Speaker 1: care one way or another. They didn't seek it out.

113
00:06:46,120 --> 00:06:47,800
Speaker 1: So when you view it that way, it does sound

114
00:06:47,839 --> 00:06:50,400
Speaker 1: like Twitter. It could be violating some rules here with

115
00:06:50,520 --> 00:06:55,080
Speaker 1: various high profile accounts pulled in by association. However, it's

116
00:06:55,120 --> 00:06:57,880
Speaker 1: not a cut and dry case, so to be seen

117
00:06:58,080 --> 00:07:01,320
Speaker 1: as actually being illegal, this matter would have to be

118
00:07:01,400 --> 00:07:05,440
Speaker 1: framed as a type of advertisement, like it's an advertisement

119
00:07:05,520 --> 00:07:09,279
Speaker 1: of Twitter Blue subscriptions. That's what the laws cover fair

120
00:07:09,320 --> 00:07:13,800
Speaker 1: practices and advertising. But if you could frame it as

121
00:07:14,000 --> 00:07:17,600
Speaker 1: not being an advertising issue, if it's in a different context,

122
00:07:17,960 --> 00:07:21,120
Speaker 1: well you don't have that same legal foundation to support

123
00:07:21,120 --> 00:07:24,560
Speaker 1: your argument. So it may never go any further than this.

124
00:07:25,040 --> 00:07:27,560
Speaker 1: You know, we may not see anyone ever bring legal

125
00:07:27,600 --> 00:07:31,360
Speaker 1: action against Twitter for forcing a check mark on people

126
00:07:31,360 --> 00:07:34,160
Speaker 1: who don't want it, but it raises some really weird

127
00:07:34,240 --> 00:07:37,160
Speaker 1: questions that I didn't think I would ever be asking.

128
00:07:37,800 --> 00:07:40,520
Speaker 1: And one last Twitter piece for today before we move

129
00:07:40,560 --> 00:07:44,080
Speaker 1: on to other news. Keith Berghart, a computer scientist at

130
00:07:44,080 --> 00:07:48,200
Speaker 1: the Information Sciences Institute, has shared results from a research

131
00:07:48,280 --> 00:07:52,080
Speaker 1: project that looks at hate speech on Twitter. So Burghart

132
00:07:52,120 --> 00:07:56,440
Speaker 1: and his research team created a methodology to identify and

133
00:07:56,640 --> 00:08:01,920
Speaker 1: quantify hate speech on Twitter. Essentially, the team identified about

134
00:08:02,000 --> 00:08:07,240
Speaker 1: four dozen keywords closely associated with hate speech. I didn't

135
00:08:07,400 --> 00:08:09,320
Speaker 1: dare look at the list because I have a feeling

136
00:08:09,440 --> 00:08:11,880
Speaker 1: it would just make me sick. But they use these

137
00:08:11,960 --> 00:08:15,000
Speaker 1: keywords as the starting point. They started to search for

138
00:08:15,080 --> 00:08:19,600
Speaker 1: tweets that contain these keywords, but then they fed those

139
00:08:19,640 --> 00:08:24,720
Speaker 1: tweets to a tool called Perspective API. This tool tries

140
00:08:24,760 --> 00:08:28,800
Speaker 1: to identify examples of hate speech, and it differentiates between

141
00:08:28,920 --> 00:08:33,520
Speaker 1: hate speech and something that's not hate speech. So, for example,

142
00:08:33,600 --> 00:08:37,760
Speaker 1: you might have a tweet that is discussing hate speech,

143
00:08:37,800 --> 00:08:40,400
Speaker 1: but it is not actually an example of hate speech.

144
00:08:40,400 --> 00:08:42,840
Speaker 1: You would want to separate that out. Or you might

145
00:08:42,920 --> 00:08:47,880
Speaker 1: have a tweet that's meant perhaps in a sexual context,

146
00:08:48,080 --> 00:08:50,480
Speaker 1: but not a hateful one. You'd want to separate that

147
00:08:50,559 --> 00:08:55,160
Speaker 1: out too, So they use this tool. They filtered through

148
00:08:55,200 --> 00:08:57,640
Speaker 1: the results and then they compared the amount of hate

149
00:08:57,640 --> 00:09:01,000
Speaker 1: speech present on Twitter before us took control of the

150
00:09:01,000 --> 00:09:04,360
Speaker 1: company late last year, and how things are going now

151
00:09:04,400 --> 00:09:07,840
Speaker 1: that he's in charge. And the findings are likely confirming

152
00:09:07,880 --> 00:09:13,120
Speaker 1: your guesses. Incidents increased after Musk took control, both in

153
00:09:13,160 --> 00:09:17,679
Speaker 1: the number of hateful keywords appearing in individual tweets, so

154
00:09:17,760 --> 00:09:21,120
Speaker 1: more of these keywords are cropping up now, and also

155
00:09:21,520 --> 00:09:25,720
Speaker 1: how frequently hateful users are tweeting out hate speech, So

156
00:09:26,040 --> 00:09:29,720
Speaker 1: the number of times that people are tweeting out these

157
00:09:29,760 --> 00:09:33,559
Speaker 1: things has increased. In fact, it was close to twice

158
00:09:33,679 --> 00:09:37,280
Speaker 1: as much as it was before Musk took over. Now,

159
00:09:37,320 --> 00:09:40,480
Speaker 1: I should also add hate speech has always been a

160
00:09:40,640 --> 00:09:44,880
Speaker 1: problem on Twitter. This is not unique to Musk taking

161
00:09:44,960 --> 00:09:48,520
Speaker 1: over the company. It was present before he ever started

162
00:09:48,559 --> 00:09:52,680
Speaker 1: to express any interest in buying Twitter. And also, we

163
00:09:52,760 --> 00:09:55,280
Speaker 1: haven't even had a full year's worth of data since

164
00:09:55,360 --> 00:09:58,040
Speaker 1: Musk took over, right, we had a year has not passed,

165
00:09:58,600 --> 00:10:01,439
Speaker 1: so we have a pretty small all sample size of data.

166
00:10:01,480 --> 00:10:04,320
Speaker 1: We should keep that in mind too. This might not

167
00:10:04,480 --> 00:10:07,640
Speaker 1: be a trend. It might be a spike, and it

168
00:10:07,679 --> 00:10:10,600
Speaker 1: could be that over time the spike levels out. Again,

169
00:10:10,679 --> 00:10:13,520
Speaker 1: we don't know yet, so I don't want anyone to

170
00:10:13,600 --> 00:10:16,200
Speaker 1: jump to conclusions just to say, all right, well, Twitter

171
00:10:16,360 --> 00:10:19,840
Speaker 1: is now a haven for hate and it will be

172
00:10:19,960 --> 00:10:22,760
Speaker 1: like that forever. We don't know that. We do know

173
00:10:23,480 --> 00:10:27,760
Speaker 1: that the incidents have definitely increased since Musk took over,

174
00:10:28,040 --> 00:10:31,120
Speaker 1: but that's as far as we can go. News like

175
00:10:31,160 --> 00:10:34,000
Speaker 1: this is not good good for Twitter obviously. It's still

176
00:10:34,040 --> 00:10:37,760
Speaker 1: trying to attract advertisers back to the platform, and when

177
00:10:37,800 --> 00:10:41,440
Speaker 1: you see a report like this, that's a that's not

178
00:10:41,480 --> 00:10:44,120
Speaker 1: a big selling point. Okay, we've got a lot more

179
00:10:44,200 --> 00:10:46,600
Speaker 1: news to cover before we get into any more. Let's

180
00:10:46,600 --> 00:10:59,800
Speaker 1: take a quick break. We're back. Snapchat launched it's My

181
00:11:00,200 --> 00:11:03,640
Speaker 1: Ai feature last week to users around the world. So

182
00:11:03,800 --> 00:11:08,200
Speaker 1: before that, the feature was only available to Snapchat users

183
00:11:08,240 --> 00:11:12,000
Speaker 1: who had enrolled in a subscription service, so it was

184
00:11:12,040 --> 00:11:17,160
Speaker 1: a subscriber only feature until last week. Now, the reception

185
00:11:17,280 --> 00:11:21,839
Speaker 1: of the feature has been pretty mixed, with the most

186
00:11:21,960 --> 00:11:25,920
Speaker 1: vocal users going the old review bombing route and giving

187
00:11:25,960 --> 00:11:30,400
Speaker 1: the Snapchat app a terrible review. According to tech Crunch,

188
00:11:30,960 --> 00:11:34,319
Speaker 1: users hit the Snapchat app with an average of one

189
00:11:34,400 --> 00:11:39,040
Speaker 1: point sixty seven stars out of five. Seventy five percent

190
00:11:39,520 --> 00:11:44,480
Speaker 1: of all reviews last week were one star. That is brutal.

191
00:11:45,160 --> 00:11:49,320
Speaker 1: The chief reason cited for these low reviews was the

192
00:11:49,360 --> 00:11:53,520
Speaker 1: incorporation of the AI chatbot. As it stands, the AI

193
00:11:53,640 --> 00:11:57,080
Speaker 1: feature is pinned to the top of the app's chat feature.

194
00:11:58,040 --> 00:12:00,640
Speaker 1: Users who are critical of this inclusion wanted a way

195
00:12:00,679 --> 00:12:02,600
Speaker 1: to turn it off or opt out of the feature,

196
00:12:03,080 --> 00:12:06,240
Speaker 1: and currently there's not a way to do that. Criticisms

197
00:12:06,440 --> 00:12:11,080
Speaker 1: ranged from this is lame to this is creepy. One

198
00:12:11,240 --> 00:12:15,520
Speaker 1: alleged exchange between the AI and a user named Brittany

199
00:12:16,080 --> 00:12:19,560
Speaker 1: made the rounds on Twitter. Some screenshots showed that Brittany

200
00:12:19,600 --> 00:12:21,880
Speaker 1: asked the AI tool to point her in the direction

201
00:12:21,960 --> 00:12:26,040
Speaker 1: of the closest gas station, So the AI suggested a

202
00:12:26,040 --> 00:12:28,240
Speaker 1: gas station that was about five miles away from her,

203
00:12:28,240 --> 00:12:31,040
Speaker 1: and then Brittany followed that up by asking how did

204
00:12:31,040 --> 00:12:35,439
Speaker 1: the AI know where she was? The AI essentially said,

205
00:12:35,679 --> 00:12:38,400
Speaker 1: I don't know where you are, but Snapchat may have

206
00:12:38,480 --> 00:12:42,000
Speaker 1: access to your location. Well, Brittany then says, well, how

207
00:12:42,080 --> 00:12:45,200
Speaker 1: is that possible because I chose to have snapchat hidden

208
00:12:45,280 --> 00:12:49,319
Speaker 1: from maps, it shouldn't know my location. Then the AI said, oh,

209
00:12:49,360 --> 00:12:51,439
Speaker 1: I don't have access to your location. I can't tell

210
00:12:51,480 --> 00:12:54,800
Speaker 1: you where the closest gas station is actually, And Brittany said,

211
00:12:54,960 --> 00:13:00,120
Speaker 1: but you kind of already did that. So now I

212
00:13:00,120 --> 00:13:04,280
Speaker 1: cannot say for sure that this exchange was legitimate. The

213
00:13:04,320 --> 00:13:07,720
Speaker 1: screenshots could be faked, they could be photoshopped or something.

214
00:13:08,200 --> 00:13:11,640
Speaker 1: But I have seen similar issues with other AI chatbots

215
00:13:11,679 --> 00:13:16,160
Speaker 1: out there, chatbots who seem to unwittingly reveal that their

216
00:13:16,280 --> 00:13:19,120
Speaker 1: creators know way more about us than they let on,

217
00:13:19,360 --> 00:13:22,520
Speaker 1: including things where you ask a chatbot, hey, where am

218
00:13:22,559 --> 00:13:24,720
Speaker 1: I right now? And the chatbot says, oh, I don't

219
00:13:24,760 --> 00:13:28,040
Speaker 1: know where you are, so what's my location? I don't

220
00:13:28,080 --> 00:13:30,880
Speaker 1: have that information. Okay, what's the closest gas station? And

221
00:13:30,920 --> 00:13:34,000
Speaker 1: then it tells you, which obviously points out that somehow

222
00:13:34,000 --> 00:13:37,120
Speaker 1: it did know your location, or at least the general location.

223
00:13:37,640 --> 00:13:40,640
Speaker 1: It raises a lot of questions anyway. While I can't

224
00:13:40,679 --> 00:13:43,600
Speaker 1: say for sure that Britney's exchange was real, though to

225
00:13:43,640 --> 00:13:45,840
Speaker 1: be clear, I have no reason to doubt it either,

226
00:13:46,440 --> 00:13:49,000
Speaker 1: I can say for sure that a lot of users

227
00:13:49,000 --> 00:13:51,840
Speaker 1: have been vocal in their dislike of this new feature.

228
00:13:52,240 --> 00:13:55,199
Speaker 1: That doesn't necessarily mean everyone hates it. Of course, it

229
00:13:55,240 --> 00:13:59,199
Speaker 1: is possible that the vast majority of Snapchat users actually

230
00:13:59,320 --> 00:14:03,040
Speaker 1: love AI. They're just being quiet about it, and the

231
00:14:03,040 --> 00:14:04,839
Speaker 1: only people who are making a fuss are the ones

232
00:14:04,840 --> 00:14:08,840
Speaker 1: who hate it. That's a possibility. While some music studios

233
00:14:08,880 --> 00:14:11,880
Speaker 1: are attempting to use law so that they can stave

234
00:14:11,960 --> 00:14:15,720
Speaker 1: off a wave of AI generated deep fake songs featuring

235
00:14:15,840 --> 00:14:20,200
Speaker 1: recognizable voices signed to their labels, one musical artist is

236
00:14:20,280 --> 00:14:25,400
Speaker 1: welcoming our robot overlords. That artist is Grimes. She has

237
00:14:25,480 --> 00:14:27,960
Speaker 1: told her fans that she wants to see what AI

238
00:14:28,040 --> 00:14:31,040
Speaker 1: collaborations can come up with. She said that she asks

239
00:14:31,080 --> 00:14:34,800
Speaker 1: for a fifty percent split in royalties on quote any

240
00:14:34,880 --> 00:14:38,640
Speaker 1: successful AI generated song that uses my voice end quote,

241
00:14:39,320 --> 00:14:43,080
Speaker 1: that being her voice, not my voice. She said she

242
00:14:43,200 --> 00:14:46,480
Speaker 1: is putting no boundaries on this. There are no legal bindings.

243
00:14:46,600 --> 00:14:48,960
Speaker 1: She is not represented by a label, so there's no

244
00:14:49,080 --> 00:14:52,080
Speaker 1: danger of a giant company swooping in and saying no, no, no,

245
00:14:52,160 --> 00:14:55,960
Speaker 1: actually we own her voice, you can't have it. Grimes

246
00:14:55,960 --> 00:14:57,840
Speaker 1: says she wants to see what can come of this,

247
00:14:58,000 --> 00:15:01,240
Speaker 1: that she's willing to serve as a guinea pig, and

248
00:15:01,520 --> 00:15:04,160
Speaker 1: if she can create a model where an artist receives

249
00:15:04,160 --> 00:15:08,240
Speaker 1: compensation when someone else uses an AI generated version of

250
00:15:08,240 --> 00:15:11,440
Speaker 1: that person's voice, it could really shake things up in

251
00:15:11,480 --> 00:15:14,880
Speaker 1: the art world. I'm not saying that AI generated voices

252
00:15:14,920 --> 00:15:17,960
Speaker 1: will totally replace the real McCoy, but I could also

253
00:15:17,960 --> 00:15:21,080
Speaker 1: see some artists experiment with this, particularly if it means

254
00:15:21,080 --> 00:15:23,320
Speaker 1: you can sit back and collect the checks while the

255
00:15:23,400 --> 00:15:26,280
Speaker 1: robots do all the work. I am being a little

256
00:15:26,320 --> 00:15:30,320
Speaker 1: facetious here because clearly this only works because Grimes already

257
00:15:30,480 --> 00:15:34,040
Speaker 1: has done all the work. She has created art that

258
00:15:34,080 --> 00:15:36,760
Speaker 1: people want to emulate in the first place, and without that,

259
00:15:37,280 --> 00:15:40,240
Speaker 1: none of this works. An appeals court has issued a

260
00:15:40,320 --> 00:15:44,320
Speaker 1: ruling regarding the ongoing struggles between Apple and Epic Games.

261
00:15:44,680 --> 00:15:49,440
Speaker 1: The ruling upholds an earlier court's decision, which mostly finds

262
00:15:49,480 --> 00:15:53,280
Speaker 1: in favor of Apple, with one big exception. So just

263
00:15:53,400 --> 00:15:56,440
Speaker 1: as a reminder, this whole thing started when Epic Games,

264
00:15:56,520 --> 00:16:00,600
Speaker 1: the publisher for Fortnite, encouraged players on Iowa US and

265
00:16:00,600 --> 00:16:04,920
Speaker 1: Android devices, to use some workarounds for in game transactions

266
00:16:04,960 --> 00:16:09,400
Speaker 1: that would go outside the InApp transaction services. That way,

267
00:16:09,840 --> 00:16:12,680
Speaker 1: Epic Games would keep the full amount of the transaction

268
00:16:13,000 --> 00:16:15,880
Speaker 1: rather than Apple, or in the case of Android devices,

269
00:16:15,920 --> 00:16:19,760
Speaker 1: Google getting a thirty percent cut of every one of them.

270
00:16:20,440 --> 00:16:23,400
Speaker 1: Apple brought down the meteor hammer on Epic Games, and

271
00:16:23,520 --> 00:16:26,480
Speaker 1: a big legal fight has been going on ever since. Well.

272
00:16:26,480 --> 00:16:29,240
Speaker 1: While this particular part of the legal battle has mostly

273
00:16:29,320 --> 00:16:32,320
Speaker 1: found in favor of Apple, the one bit that helps

274
00:16:32,360 --> 00:16:35,960
Speaker 1: developers like Epic Games out is that Apple has to

275
00:16:36,040 --> 00:16:39,240
Speaker 1: allow links and buttons that go to third party in

276
00:16:39,400 --> 00:16:43,400
Speaker 1: app payment options if that's what the developer wants. So

277
00:16:43,560 --> 00:16:47,120
Speaker 1: Apple doesn't have to include these options by default, but

278
00:16:47,240 --> 00:16:49,880
Speaker 1: if a developer wants to give users the chance to

279
00:16:50,560 --> 00:16:54,920
Speaker 1: use some other transaction method, Apple isn't allowed to block that.

280
00:16:55,800 --> 00:16:58,920
Speaker 1: Apple has said it disagrees with this ruling. No big

281
00:16:58,920 --> 00:17:01,680
Speaker 1: surprise there, and the company has fourteen days to file

282
00:17:01,720 --> 00:17:05,040
Speaker 1: an appeal to this decision. If they do appeal, then

283
00:17:05,080 --> 00:17:07,680
Speaker 1: the case would then go to either a larger group

284
00:17:07,720 --> 00:17:10,800
Speaker 1: of judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which

285
00:17:10,880 --> 00:17:13,280
Speaker 1: is where this last case was heard, or it would

286
00:17:13,280 --> 00:17:17,000
Speaker 1: go straight to the US Supreme Court. Microsoft is backed

287
00:17:17,040 --> 00:17:19,480
Speaker 1: down in the EU in an effort to sidestep a

288
00:17:19,520 --> 00:17:24,119
Speaker 1: potential anti trust probe, kind of thematically tagging onto the

289
00:17:24,119 --> 00:17:26,760
Speaker 1: back of the Apple story here. So in this case,

290
00:17:26,840 --> 00:17:31,919
Speaker 1: at issue is Microsoft's practice of bundling Microsoft Teams with

291
00:17:32,040 --> 00:17:36,400
Speaker 1: its Office suite of productivity software. So competitors like Slack

292
00:17:36,920 --> 00:17:42,480
Speaker 1: have argued that Microsoft forcing Teams into Office bundles is

293
00:17:42,520 --> 00:17:46,200
Speaker 1: an anti competitive practice that Microsoft is trying to muscle

294
00:17:46,240 --> 00:17:51,240
Speaker 1: out competition from any other video conferencing or messaging services.

295
00:17:51,920 --> 00:17:55,440
Speaker 1: This really isn't that different from when Microsoft faced similar

296
00:17:55,480 --> 00:17:59,000
Speaker 1: complaints when it bundled its web browser, which was then

297
00:17:59,200 --> 00:18:03,600
Speaker 1: Internet Exploited or with the Windows operating system, though that

298
00:18:03,680 --> 00:18:07,480
Speaker 1: case was further complicated by how deeply integrated Internet Explorer

299
00:18:07,720 --> 00:18:11,399
Speaker 1: was with Windows. It has long been a key element

300
00:18:11,440 --> 00:18:15,439
Speaker 1: in Microsoft's strategy to bundle programs together in an effort

301
00:18:15,480 --> 00:18:19,080
Speaker 1: to dominate a market. While users might prefer to go

302
00:18:19,200 --> 00:18:21,760
Speaker 1: a la carte when it comes to picking and choosing

303
00:18:21,760 --> 00:18:25,720
Speaker 1: productivity tools, Microsoft's approach has mostly been an all or

304
00:18:25,840 --> 00:18:30,119
Speaker 1: nothing affair. Now, Microsoft says it will offer options for

305
00:18:30,160 --> 00:18:34,760
Speaker 1: EU customers to purchase Office with or without Microsoft Teams,

306
00:18:34,800 --> 00:18:38,280
Speaker 1: though how that's actually going to manifest remains to be seen. Also,

307
00:18:38,800 --> 00:18:42,560
Speaker 1: that might not be enough to prevent an antitrust probe anyway,

308
00:18:42,600 --> 00:18:45,159
Speaker 1: We'll just have to see what the regulators say. In

309
00:18:45,240 --> 00:18:50,480
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one, Alphabet, Google's parent company began work on

310
00:18:50,640 --> 00:18:55,120
Speaker 1: a truly massive project building out a mega campus in

311
00:18:55,200 --> 00:18:58,960
Speaker 1: San Jose, California. Do you know the way to San Jose?

312
00:18:59,600 --> 00:19:02,560
Speaker 1: And when I say a mega campus, I mean this

313
00:19:02,560 --> 00:19:06,240
Speaker 1: thing was to be huge, like eighty acres in size.

314
00:19:06,280 --> 00:19:10,280
Speaker 1: According to Ours Technica, the Finnish campus was to include offices,

315
00:19:10,840 --> 00:19:18,479
Speaker 1: housing units, parks, hotels, restaurants, shops, theaters, museums, and more like.

316
00:19:18,520 --> 00:19:21,280
Speaker 1: It sounded like a city within a city, just to

317
00:19:21,280 --> 00:19:24,000
Speaker 1: say that happens to be, you know, owned and operated

318
00:19:24,000 --> 00:19:27,199
Speaker 1: by Google. But now the company has hit pause on

319
00:19:27,240 --> 00:19:32,439
Speaker 1: those plants, or perhaps even stop, while construction crews have

320
00:19:32,480 --> 00:19:37,879
Speaker 1: already performed a wave of demolition work that now looks

321
00:19:37,920 --> 00:19:41,520
Speaker 1: like it's just going to be in limbo. According to CNBC,

322
00:19:42,320 --> 00:19:46,080
Speaker 1: that demolition work destroyed some landmarks in San Jose and

323
00:19:46,119 --> 00:19:48,840
Speaker 1: forced others to relocate to other parts of the city.

324
00:19:49,200 --> 00:19:53,280
Speaker 1: And now Google has nothing to go in those places.

325
00:19:53,320 --> 00:19:57,800
Speaker 1: It's just bulldozed territory. And there's a real fear that

326
00:19:57,880 --> 00:20:00,520
Speaker 1: these spots in San Jose will just remain un finished

327
00:20:00,520 --> 00:20:04,760
Speaker 1: for the foreseeable future. Google, like most big tech companies,

328
00:20:04,760 --> 00:20:07,960
Speaker 1: has been making some serious cost cutting moves recently, so

329
00:20:08,000 --> 00:20:10,520
Speaker 1: it's not exactly a surprise that the company would back

330
00:20:10,560 --> 00:20:13,560
Speaker 1: off on such an aggressive plan. In fact, one wonders

331
00:20:13,640 --> 00:20:17,600
Speaker 1: what convinced Google executives to even pursue this idea back

332
00:20:17,600 --> 00:20:20,280
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty one. That was a year after the

333
00:20:20,320 --> 00:20:23,600
Speaker 1: pandemic had begun and the world had really kind of

334
00:20:23,800 --> 00:20:28,320
Speaker 1: adjusted to a remote work situation, which makes it seem

335
00:20:28,359 --> 00:20:31,119
Speaker 1: like a pretty weird time to say, Hey, no one's

336
00:20:31,119 --> 00:20:33,600
Speaker 1: in the office, so let's build a whole lot more

337
00:20:33,640 --> 00:20:38,720
Speaker 1: office space, like a truly enormous amount office space, And

338
00:20:38,840 --> 00:20:42,280
Speaker 1: following rounds of layoffs at Google it measures like desk

339
00:20:42,440 --> 00:20:46,080
Speaker 1: sharing procedures and offices, it really seems like office space

340
00:20:46,160 --> 00:20:49,520
Speaker 1: isn't way up on the company's priorities. So the question

341
00:20:49,600 --> 00:20:52,520
Speaker 1: remains what happens to all that property in San Jose.

342
00:20:52,920 --> 00:20:58,360
Speaker 1: And I don't know the answer to that except to say, yuck, Okay,

343
00:20:58,720 --> 00:21:01,240
Speaker 1: I've got a handful more stories to go through before

344
00:21:01,280 --> 00:21:13,680
Speaker 1: we get to that. Let's take another quick break, okay.

345
00:21:13,800 --> 00:21:17,560
Speaker 1: California's Senate Judiciary Committee is set to deliberate on a

346
00:21:17,600 --> 00:21:21,239
Speaker 1: proposed bill that if passed, would let Californians opt to

347
00:21:21,280 --> 00:21:25,200
Speaker 1: delete their personal information from a company's database if they

348
00:21:25,240 --> 00:21:30,040
Speaker 1: wanted to. It's nicknamed the Delete Act, and it's likely

349
00:21:30,080 --> 00:21:33,600
Speaker 1: to face some pretty stiff opposition from the tech space.

350
00:21:34,080 --> 00:21:36,639
Speaker 1: As I'm sure you all know, a lot of money

351
00:21:36,640 --> 00:21:40,280
Speaker 1: in tech comes from data. There are companies that exist

352
00:21:40,480 --> 00:21:43,840
Speaker 1: solely to collect and sell data to other companies. And

353
00:21:43,880 --> 00:21:46,159
Speaker 1: while the main focus is on advertising, there are a

354
00:21:46,200 --> 00:21:48,879
Speaker 1: lot of other issues here, even if you don't have

355
00:21:49,160 --> 00:21:54,159
Speaker 1: a problem with targeted ads themselves, namely, law enforcement agencies

356
00:21:54,160 --> 00:21:57,080
Speaker 1: have been known to use this data when it's inconvenient

357
00:21:57,119 --> 00:22:01,000
Speaker 1: to you know, secure a warrant to sue such information

358
00:22:01,040 --> 00:22:03,480
Speaker 1: through proper channels. Why do that when you can just

359
00:22:03,600 --> 00:22:07,720
Speaker 1: buy it? Or when someone has a personal acts to

360
00:22:07,800 --> 00:22:10,560
Speaker 1: grind and they use this data to track down like

361
00:22:10,680 --> 00:22:14,840
Speaker 1: a former boss or that ex romantic partner. We've seen

362
00:22:14,960 --> 00:22:18,240
Speaker 1: instances of that as well. So the Act is proposing

363
00:22:18,280 --> 00:22:22,199
Speaker 1: a solution in which companies are obligated to allow Californians

364
00:22:22,240 --> 00:22:26,120
Speaker 1: the option to just remove themselves from that data picture.

365
00:22:26,680 --> 00:22:29,240
Speaker 1: This is not the first time that progressive lawmakers in

366
00:22:29,240 --> 00:22:32,640
Speaker 1: California have tried something like this, but as I said,

367
00:22:32,680 --> 00:22:35,959
Speaker 1: resistance in the tech sector is high to such legislation,

368
00:22:36,240 --> 00:22:38,679
Speaker 1: and I imagine the journey to get this bill passed

369
00:22:39,359 --> 00:22:41,600
Speaker 1: will be a lot like a walk in moor door.

370
00:22:42,240 --> 00:22:46,320
Speaker 1: It ain't simple. Reuter's reports that GM and Samsung are

371
00:22:46,359 --> 00:22:51,000
Speaker 1: working together to build an electric vehicle battery manufacturing plant

372
00:22:51,320 --> 00:22:54,400
Speaker 1: here in the United States. Now, you may know that

373
00:22:54,440 --> 00:22:57,600
Speaker 1: one of the challenges the world faces as more countries

374
00:22:57,640 --> 00:23:01,720
Speaker 1: pass mandates to switch from in turn combustion engine vehicles

375
00:23:02,000 --> 00:23:05,119
Speaker 1: to electric vehicles is that right now we do not

376
00:23:05,359 --> 00:23:09,080
Speaker 1: produce enough batteries to meet global demand. Well, it's going

377
00:23:09,160 --> 00:23:11,560
Speaker 1: to take a few years for car companies to completely

378
00:23:11,640 --> 00:23:16,040
Speaker 1: change over to manufacturing evs, and in the meantime, projects

379
00:23:16,080 --> 00:23:19,440
Speaker 1: like this one aim to reduce some of the bottlenecks

380
00:23:19,880 --> 00:23:23,680
Speaker 1: in the production line. Now, there will be other bottlenecks,

381
00:23:23,680 --> 00:23:27,160
Speaker 1: such as just getting the raw materials necessary to make batteries,

382
00:23:27,480 --> 00:23:30,000
Speaker 1: but GM and Samsung are taking steps to build out

383
00:23:30,040 --> 00:23:34,080
Speaker 1: the infrastructure that's going to be necessary if this conversion

384
00:23:34,160 --> 00:23:37,960
Speaker 1: to evs is to succeed. Also, it's interesting to see

385
00:23:37,960 --> 00:23:41,480
Speaker 1: a partnership between a South Korean tech company and a

386
00:23:41,520 --> 00:23:45,960
Speaker 1: Detroit based auto manufacturer. Speaking of GM, the company is

387
00:23:46,000 --> 00:23:51,040
Speaker 1: also phasing out its Chevy Bolt EV and EUV models

388
00:23:51,280 --> 00:23:55,040
Speaker 1: this year. This is a blow to the affordable EV market,

389
00:23:55,080 --> 00:23:57,359
Speaker 1: as the Bolt was one of the least expensive electric

390
00:23:57,480 --> 00:24:00,960
Speaker 1: vehicles available to consumers here in the United States. But

391
00:24:01,080 --> 00:24:03,919
Speaker 1: the Bolt is built on top of technology that no

392
00:24:04,000 --> 00:24:07,920
Speaker 1: longer competes with more recent innovations, and it doesn't look

393
00:24:07,960 --> 00:24:10,679
Speaker 1: like Chevy has a replacement in mind for the Bolt,

394
00:24:11,040 --> 00:24:13,280
Speaker 1: at least nothing that's meant to take out that spot

395
00:24:13,480 --> 00:24:16,560
Speaker 1: in the market, the affordable EV market. Rather, the company

396
00:24:16,880 --> 00:24:20,680
Speaker 1: is focusing more on vehicles like electric trucks and electric

397
00:24:20,840 --> 00:24:24,760
Speaker 1: SUVs because that seems to be what customers want, so

398
00:24:25,080 --> 00:24:29,760
Speaker 1: fare thee well Chevy Bolt. Chinese company net Ease, which

399
00:24:29,920 --> 00:24:34,440
Speaker 1: had served as the Chinese distributor for Blizzard Games until

400
00:24:34,640 --> 00:24:38,560
Speaker 1: early this year, is now suing Blizzard for around forty

401
00:24:38,560 --> 00:24:42,600
Speaker 1: four million dollars. So here's the rundown. Net Ease and

402
00:24:42,640 --> 00:24:46,479
Speaker 1: Blizzard were in negotiations to renew the licensing deal between

403
00:24:46,520 --> 00:24:49,520
Speaker 1: the two of them, but the companies failed to come

404
00:24:49,560 --> 00:24:53,720
Speaker 1: to agreeable terms, so Blizzard opted to just leave net

405
00:24:53,720 --> 00:24:56,680
Speaker 1: E's behind, and in the process, Blizzard shut down their

406
00:24:56,720 --> 00:24:59,720
Speaker 1: servers in China, which meant players in China could no

407
00:24:59,720 --> 00:25:04,800
Speaker 1: longer access their Blizzard games. Neties says that Blizzard failed

408
00:25:04,840 --> 00:25:08,720
Speaker 1: to make good on several contractual obligations, including a failure

409
00:25:08,760 --> 00:25:12,240
Speaker 1: to bring certain announced games to market or to issue

410
00:25:12,280 --> 00:25:15,679
Speaker 1: refunds to Chinese players. Blizzard, for its part, says the

411
00:25:15,680 --> 00:25:18,639
Speaker 1: company has yet to be served with any legal papers

412
00:25:18,680 --> 00:25:21,560
Speaker 1: regarding a lawsuit, So they're saying Netties is saying they're

413
00:25:21,600 --> 00:25:25,480
Speaker 1: suing us, but we haven't received a lawsuit. Also, Blizzard

414
00:25:25,600 --> 00:25:29,159
Speaker 1: still is not running games in China because the company

415
00:25:29,160 --> 00:25:33,480
Speaker 1: hasn't found a replacement for Nettie's and Chinese law mandates

416
00:25:33,920 --> 00:25:37,480
Speaker 1: that game companies from outside the country have to work

417
00:25:37,600 --> 00:25:40,399
Speaker 1: through a Chinese company in order to sell games and

418
00:25:40,440 --> 00:25:45,480
Speaker 1: services to citizens within China. Once upon a time, scalpers

419
00:25:45,520 --> 00:25:49,400
Speaker 1: looking to sell PlayStation five consoles and insane markups were

420
00:25:49,440 --> 00:25:52,439
Speaker 1: sitting pretty because there was a shortage of inventory. That

421
00:25:52,560 --> 00:25:55,240
Speaker 1: meant that someone who wanted a PS five had very

422
00:25:55,280 --> 00:25:57,960
Speaker 1: few options open to them. If they missed out on

423
00:25:58,000 --> 00:26:00,399
Speaker 1: a chance to scoop up one of just a few

424
00:26:00,520 --> 00:26:03,840
Speaker 1: units that became available on any given day, they were

425
00:26:03,880 --> 00:26:07,080
Speaker 1: back to waiting for the next one, or they would

426
00:26:07,119 --> 00:26:09,480
Speaker 1: have to give it to the temptation to buy one

427
00:26:09,640 --> 00:26:13,439
Speaker 1: from a scalper at a crazy inflated price. But now

428
00:26:13,720 --> 00:26:18,160
Speaker 1: Sony has produced more consoles, plus a lot of households

429
00:26:18,200 --> 00:26:21,720
Speaker 1: that really wanted one now have one. And that means

430
00:26:22,080 --> 00:26:25,240
Speaker 1: that today's scalpers are starting to find out they're just

431
00:26:25,280 --> 00:26:27,600
Speaker 1: playing out of luck, and at times some of them

432
00:26:27,640 --> 00:26:31,680
Speaker 1: have been reduced to selling consoles for less than retail price.

433
00:26:32,240 --> 00:26:35,400
Speaker 1: And I know it is a sad day when predatory

434
00:26:35,560 --> 00:26:38,560
Speaker 1: jerks are hoisted by their own petard. And it only

435
00:26:38,600 --> 00:26:41,880
Speaker 1: took a couple of years to get there. Finally, it's

436
00:26:41,920 --> 00:26:46,000
Speaker 1: an historic time for the Palo Alto Research Center aka

437
00:26:46,560 --> 00:26:52,560
Speaker 1: Park PARC. Back in nineteen seventy, Xerox founded Park as

438
00:26:52,600 --> 00:26:55,760
Speaker 1: an R and D lab, similar to famous tech labs

439
00:26:55,880 --> 00:27:00,600
Speaker 1: like Bell Laboratories. The researchers at Park ex faed and

440
00:27:00,680 --> 00:27:04,200
Speaker 1: invented new technologies, some of which would emerge to change

441
00:27:04,200 --> 00:27:08,639
Speaker 1: the world. For example, the GUY, or graphical user interface,

442
00:27:09,240 --> 00:27:14,000
Speaker 1: was really first implemented at Xerox Park. Then one day

443
00:27:14,040 --> 00:27:18,320
Speaker 1: an enterprising fellow named Steve Jobs went for a tour

444
00:27:18,880 --> 00:27:22,240
Speaker 1: of Park's facilities and saw a demonstration of the GUY,

445
00:27:22,920 --> 00:27:25,880
Speaker 1: also of the computer mouse, which wasn't invented at Park

446
00:27:26,200 --> 00:27:29,439
Speaker 1: but was heavily used there, and Steve Jobs got this

447
00:27:29,520 --> 00:27:34,240
Speaker 1: bright idea to offer up something similar in a personal computer,

448
00:27:34,440 --> 00:27:38,320
Speaker 1: and then we get the story of the Mac Well.

449
00:27:38,480 --> 00:27:42,600
Speaker 1: Xerox is now saying farewell to Park, and to be clear,

450
00:27:43,119 --> 00:27:46,439
Speaker 1: Parks spun off of Xerox to become an independent company

451
00:27:46,480 --> 00:27:49,639
Speaker 1: in two thousand and two, but Park's keys have now

452
00:27:49,720 --> 00:27:55,879
Speaker 1: been handed over to SRII International. That organization actually began

453
00:27:55,960 --> 00:27:59,840
Speaker 1: in nineteen forty six as part of Stanford University, though

454
00:27:59,840 --> 00:28:05,080
Speaker 1: the organization that would evolve into SRI International actually spun

455
00:28:05,080 --> 00:28:07,639
Speaker 1: off from Stanford in nineteen seventy, the same year that

456
00:28:07,760 --> 00:28:13,880
Speaker 1: Park was founded. Today, SRI International is a nonprofit scientific

457
00:28:13,960 --> 00:28:17,480
Speaker 1: research institute, so it sounds like a pretty great match

458
00:28:17,520 --> 00:28:23,000
Speaker 1: with Park. It'll be an organization dedicated to doing cutting

459
00:28:23,119 --> 00:28:27,600
Speaker 1: edge research in science and technology, potentially creating new products

460
00:28:27,600 --> 00:28:30,440
Speaker 1: along the way. Xerox is going to keep a preferred

461
00:28:30,480 --> 00:28:33,840
Speaker 1: research agreement with the newly merged organization, kind of like

462
00:28:33,880 --> 00:28:37,840
Speaker 1: a first rights sort of situation. It also will continue

463
00:28:37,880 --> 00:28:42,880
Speaker 1: to hold many of the patents that were secured by

464
00:28:42,960 --> 00:28:46,920
Speaker 1: Park prior to this handoff. But yeah, interesting times. I

465
00:28:46,920 --> 00:28:50,680
Speaker 1: should probably do a full episode about Xerox Park. Now

466
00:28:50,720 --> 00:28:54,040
Speaker 1: that this has happened, all right, that wraps up the

467
00:28:54,080 --> 00:28:58,560
Speaker 1: news for today, Tuesday, April twenty fifth, twenty twenty three.

468
00:28:58,760 --> 00:29:01,320
Speaker 1: I hope you are all well and I'll talk to

469
00:29:01,320 --> 00:29:11,920
Speaker 1: you again really soon. Tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production.

470
00:29:12,200 --> 00:29:17,240
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,

471
00:29:17,360 --> 00:29:19,360
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.