Speaker 1: Welcome to Tech Stuff, a production from I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: And how the tech are you? Y'all? It's time for
Speaker 1: the tech news for January thirty one, twenty twenty three.
Speaker 1: Saying goodbye to January already, And first off, this week
Speaker 1: is actually a really big one for several tech companies
Speaker 1: because it's when they report their earnings for the previous quarter.
Speaker 1: Uh Snap has their call today. By the time you
Speaker 1: hear this episode, that news may already be out there,
Speaker 1: but at the time I'm recording this, it hasn't yet happened.
Speaker 1: Meta has their earnings called tomorrow. Everyone's gonna really pay
Speaker 1: a lot of attention to that. And then Thursday is
Speaker 1: what I like to call a triple a day, and
Speaker 1: by that I mean Amazon, Apple, and Alphabet all have
Speaker 1: their earnings call this Thursday. There's always increased scrutiny into
Speaker 1: these companies around the earnings calls, and I admit that
Speaker 1: can get a little frustrating if you're really just interested
Speaker 1: in the tech, But honestly, it's a really good indicator
Speaker 1: of how these companies are doing, like how the overall
Speaker 1: tech economy is doing, and what we can expect going
Speaker 1: forward because of that, so if investors are unhappy with
Speaker 1: the results, he can see stock prices take a hit
Speaker 1: that in turn can affect a company's plans moving forward.
Speaker 1: For example, Meta has been under some serious fire from
Speaker 1: investors for a while now because of some obstacles that
Speaker 1: the company has faced as far as getting you know,
Speaker 1: more people on the platforms and increasing engagement. Also, Zuckerberg's
Speaker 1: continued commitment to building out the metaverse hasn't won him
Speaker 1: a lot of fans in the investor community. Will probably
Speaker 1: also get a feel for how digital ad spending is
Speaker 1: going across the tech industry because a lot of these
Speaker 1: big tech companies that's where they really depend upon, you know,
Speaker 1: for the revenue, Like Alphabet, you know, the parent company
Speaker 1: for Google, and Meta both really depend on advertising for
Speaker 1: the vast majority of the revenue they generate. Of course,
Speaker 1: these are also companies that have recently engaged in massive layoffs,
Speaker 1: which we'll talk about a bit more in this episode.
Speaker 1: And layoffs, obviously they have a terrible impact on the
Speaker 1: people who are directly affected. Uh, but the investment world
Speaker 1: often reacts positively because I mean it means the company
Speaker 1: has reduced its costs by eliminating workforce, which is a
Speaker 1: pretty clinical way to say. A lot of people found
Speaker 1: themselves without jobs. So it doesn't mean that a slim
Speaker 1: down company is going to perform better, but at least
Speaker 1: in the short term, you end up seeing a bigger
Speaker 1: return on investment because costs drop. And once again I
Speaker 1: get all sour on the concept of capitalism. Now, don't
Speaker 1: get me wrong, I don't have a better alternative up
Speaker 1: my sleeve, so I'm just complaining about something I can't change.
Speaker 1: It just it really feels gross to me to have
Speaker 1: a system where investors are encouraged when people are losing
Speaker 1: their jobs. But that's enough commentary from me. I'm sure
Speaker 1: on Thursday, I'll talk a little bit more about what happened,
Speaker 1: at least during Meta's call, but it probably won't be
Speaker 1: until next week before I can talk about Amazon, Apple,
Speaker 1: and Alphabet. Now, one thing I imagine Apple execs will
Speaker 1: not be addressing on Thursday is how the United States
Speaker 1: National Labor Relations Board or in l r B, has
Speaker 1: accused the company of engaging in practices meant to discourage
Speaker 1: employees from organizing and unionizing. In fact, the n l
Speaker 1: r B says that various official Apple rules quote tend
Speaker 1: to interfere with restraint or coerce employees end quote from organizing.
Speaker 1: This was reported in Bloomberg and y'all. This is not great,
Speaker 1: but it's also not a surprise because tech companies in general,
Speaker 1: and big tech companies in particular, have a pretty well
Speaker 1: documented history of forming policies intended to protect the company
Speaker 1: above the rights of the employees. You hear it all
Speaker 1: the time. That comes in the form of arbitration agreements.
Speaker 1: This is where employees have to agree to settle issues
Speaker 1: within the company by going through like HR as opposed
Speaker 1: to going outside the company to resolve sometimes really serious
Speaker 1: problems like things like sexual harassment or cases of discrimination.
Speaker 1: So the company is compelling employees to to sign an
Speaker 1: agreement that says you won't go to, say, a law firm,
Speaker 1: in order to pursue your case. You have to go
Speaker 1: through the company. There's also the case of being compelled
Speaker 1: to sign non disclosure agreements, which frequently do way more
Speaker 1: to restrict an employee's freedom than anything else. Anyway, Apple
Speaker 1: is not unique to the situation. It's not like they're
Speaker 1: the bad guy and the only one doing this, but
Speaker 1: it is currently facing these accusations from the n l
Speaker 1: r B, and there are a couple of options the
Speaker 1: company could take. One is that Apple could settle with
Speaker 1: the n l r B, presumably that settlement would require
Speaker 1: a commitment to change these various rules and policies, or
Speaker 1: Apple could end up facing a formal complaint from the
Speaker 1: n l RB. I'd say this is another recent example
Speaker 1: of how we're seeing a shift in philosophy when it
Speaker 1: comes to big companies and employee rights here in the
Speaker 1: United States, although whether this ultimately results in massive changes
Speaker 1: throughout business remains to be seen. I'm somewhat pessimistic simply
Speaker 1: because for a very long time, companies essentially had the
Speaker 1: advantage in this area, and it's very hard to kind
Speaker 1: of fight that sort of inertia. While we wait for
Speaker 1: Alphabet's earnings call, we actually have a couple of Google
Speaker 1: stories to talk about out so again a reminder, Alphabet
Speaker 1: is the big umbrella company that is parent to Google
Speaker 1: and YouTube and all that. Anyway, Google recently sent out
Speaker 1: an email to Google THI customers alerting them of a
Speaker 1: data breach now, Google Fi, in case you're not aware,
Speaker 1: is Google's cellular service company, so it's like a telecommunication service,
Speaker 1: and Google piggybacks on top of other companies infrastructure to
Speaker 1: provide these services, so it's not like Google has its
Speaker 1: own cell towers out there. Instead, they essentially are leasing
Speaker 1: that from another company, companies like T Mobile, which had
Speaker 1: its own data breach recently, and it is possible that
Speaker 1: this data breach for Google Fi is a direct result
Speaker 1: of the T Mobile breach, but we don't have confirmation
Speaker 1: on that. According to Google, hackers access to database that
Speaker 1: included information on customers, but the info was limited to
Speaker 1: stuff like phone numbers, account status so whether they're active
Speaker 1: or inactive, simcards, serial numbers, and details about the service
Speaker 1: plan that each customer subscribed to. Now, what was not
Speaker 1: included were names and other personal information. Also, Google says
Speaker 1: no passwords or payment data or text message content was
Speaker 1: included in the data, so that's good. At least. Google
Speaker 1: did warn customers to be on the lookout for phishing scams,
Speaker 1: which the company stressed is a good idea anyway, but
Speaker 1: it's particularly good when you have a data breach like this,
Speaker 1: And according to tech Crunch, at least one Google THI
Speaker 1: customer has reported being the victim of SIM swapping. That's
Speaker 1: when a hacker hijacks a SIM card to take control
Speaker 1: of a phone number, and that allows them to send
Speaker 1: and receive phone calls as if they were that phone,
Speaker 1: and as well as as be able to access voicemail,
Speaker 1: which is a big old yikes. Speaking of Google, as
Speaker 1: I mentioned earlier, the company recently laid off some employees
Speaker 1: like it has plans to lay off twelve thousand total,
Speaker 1: and one of those employees was christ In max o
Speaker 1: Um or max co. I apologize christ and I do
Speaker 1: not know how to pronounce your last name, and that's
Speaker 1: my fault. But Kristen joined Google back in two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight and had served as the company's head of
Speaker 1: mental health and well being, and apparently her team was
Speaker 1: hit significantly by these layoffs. And I think that sends
Speaker 1: a pretty bleak message to Google employees who remain at Google,
Speaker 1: because I imagine hearing that the mental health and well
Speaker 1: being department has been largely cleared out. It's not great
Speaker 1: news when you start thinking about what that implies, because
Speaker 1: it suggests that Google does not view mental health and
Speaker 1: well being of its employees as a critical component for
Speaker 1: its business. And that's just not a good sign. I've
Speaker 1: worked for companies where I ultimately felt like the employees
Speaker 1: were unappreciated or taken advantage of, and it is the worst, right,
Speaker 1: even if you love what you do, if you feel
Speaker 1: like you're working for an organization that doesn't have an
Speaker 1: appreciation for its own employees, that's demoralizing and that could
Speaker 1: be enough to convince someone to leave, even if they
Speaker 1: love their work. Trust me, I know, because I did
Speaker 1: that anyway. According to Insider, uh, some employees hit by
Speaker 1: the layoffs received kind of a terse impersonal email that
Speaker 1: essentially just told them that they no longer have a
Speaker 1: role at the company and that and at least some
Speaker 1: of the cases, a few employees said their managers didn't
Speaker 1: even know that this had happened, which suggests that the
Speaker 1: managers weren't consulted before these layoffs started to roll across
Speaker 1: the company. So the impression I get from the article
Speaker 1: in Insider says that you know that these layoffs may
Speaker 1: have lacked forethought and consideration. Now, maybe I'm reading too
Speaker 1: much into it, but that's what it says to me.
Speaker 1: And again that could really hurt the company in the
Speaker 1: long run if it turns out that some of these
Speaker 1: layoffs were for people that really they needed in order
Speaker 1: to keep certain projects going and to ensure success. But again,
Speaker 1: I don't know how I would go about telling twelve
Speaker 1: thousand people they don't work for me anymore, because I
Speaker 1: think singing telegrams would get too expensive. All right, We've
Speaker 1: got a lot more news to cover before we get
Speaker 1: to that. Let's take a quick break. Okay, we're back,
Speaker 1: and I got a little bit more Google news. One
Speaker 1: person who had some words of warning for Google is
Speaker 1: Paul Butchit or book Hite. I don't know how to
Speaker 1: say his last name either. I'm I'm batting a thousand
Speaker 1: when it comes to names today, y'all. But anyway, Paul
Speaker 1: as I will call him lead development on Gmail, so's
Speaker 1: he's credited as the person who created Gmail. And he
Speaker 1: predicts that chat gpt will completely we're a place Google
Speaker 1: search within a year or two, as people start to
Speaker 1: lean on chat gpt to get their questions answered. Instead
Speaker 1: of going to search for the right length and then
Speaker 1: searching for their answer there, they'll just ask the question
Speaker 1: to chat gpt. They'll get the answer and then they'll
Speaker 1: just skip Google entirely, and this in turn will destroy
Speaker 1: Google because Google depends so heavily on ads that are
Speaker 1: served within search results. Paul points out that even if
Speaker 1: Google deploys its own AI tool, which we know that
Speaker 1: Google has been developing, that's not a secret. The company
Speaker 1: has been very uh forthright on that, saying yes, they're
Speaker 1: working on AI, but it's not something that they're ready
Speaker 1: to release yet because it could be potentially harmful. Well,
Speaker 1: Paul says, the effect would still be the same if
Speaker 1: Google launches its own version of this, because again, it
Speaker 1: bypasses search, which means it bypasses where you would normally
Speaker 1: serve up ads. But y'all, I want to just point
Speaker 1: out that it would do way more than just that.
Speaker 1: It would hurt way more than just Google, because think
Speaker 1: about what shows up in search results in the first place.
Speaker 1: It's it's a list of links to external websites. That's
Speaker 1: where all this data lives. Right when you're asking a
Speaker 1: question from Google, the data lives on these websites, and
Speaker 1: you know, the goal is to have you click on
Speaker 1: the links so that you visit the website, and then
Speaker 1: chances are that website is generating revenue from ad results too.
Speaker 1: But if chat GPT disrupts web search to that extent,
Speaker 1: it's not just gonna hit Google. It's going to hit
Speaker 1: all the sites that Google links out to, and that
Speaker 1: you know chat GPT is drawing information from these sites
Speaker 1: because it's not like chat gpt just magically knows the
Speaker 1: answers to questions. It's pulling data from sources in a
Speaker 1: way that's not entirely or even particularly transparent. So we
Speaker 1: don't actually know where chat gpt is pulling data from
Speaker 1: in any given moment. But think about it's for just
Speaker 1: a moment. If search essentially dies, then how do websites
Speaker 1: attract users to their sites? Now? Subsites are kind of
Speaker 1: like landing pages. Folks might bookmark them, they might go
Speaker 1: to them regularly and not rely on search. Right, you
Speaker 1: might have certain news sites that you go to on
Speaker 1: a regular basis. Those cases, you know, they get a
Speaker 1: lot of traffic that's coming in just from folks jumping
Speaker 1: straight to the website. But a lot of sites depend
Speaker 1: heavily on traffic from search engines. People are searching for
Speaker 1: specific terms, they come up with responses, they go to
Speaker 1: those websites, and that's where most of the traffic coming
Speaker 1: to those websites comes from, the search engines. So if
Speaker 1: the search engine goes down, that traffic disappears. Then eventually
Speaker 1: these sites start to go out of business because no
Speaker 1: one's visiting them, so they're not getting any ad revenue,
Speaker 1: so they you know, it costs money to keep those
Speaker 1: sites up. It's eventually just gonna die. Now, ultimately that
Speaker 1: means that the information sources that chat GPT depends upon
Speaker 1: will start dying off, and that would mean that the
Speaker 1: tool would become less reliable or maybe more biased, depending
Speaker 1: upon what sites are sticking around. So, in other words,
Speaker 1: I don't think a future where chat GPT takes over
Speaker 1: for search is bad just for Google. I think it's
Speaker 1: bad for everyone, including chat GPT, in the long run.
Speaker 1: So that's something to think about. I don't know that
Speaker 1: there's any way to avoid it, but I definitely see
Speaker 1: it as being a bad thing like that would require
Speaker 1: some careful work in order to either avoid or fix
Speaker 1: that problem. Okay, now let me paint a scenario for you.
Speaker 1: This is a new story. Let's say that you're you
Speaker 1: are an AI company that specializes in creating synthetic human voices,
Speaker 1: including voices that could sound really close or maybe even
Speaker 1: identical to the voices of specific people, Like you could
Speaker 1: replicate a voice like famous people, and you've got this
Speaker 1: tool that can learn how to reproduce the sound and
Speaker 1: vocal quality of a real, specific human beings voice. Now
Speaker 1: would it shock you to learn that some people on
Speaker 1: the Internet would use this kind of tool to do
Speaker 1: awful things? Oh? You wouldn't. Oh I So you've been
Speaker 1: on the internet before, you already you realize this would
Speaker 1: be a problem, right the gate right, Like, yeah, of
Speaker 1: course it's obvious. Well, that means you're ahead of eleven Labs.
Speaker 1: That's a company that makes a voice synthesis tool and
Speaker 1: launched a beta for its AI generated voice tool, and
Speaker 1: then even more recently than that has announced that it
Speaker 1: had detected a quote increased number of voice clothing misuse
Speaker 1: cases end quote. So this is all reported in Vice,
Speaker 1: which has a very long art call detailing how members
Speaker 1: of four chan had enrolled in this beta and then
Speaker 1: use the tools to create synthesized AI replications of voices
Speaker 1: belonging to folks like the actress Emma Watson or podcaster
Speaker 1: Joe Rogan and others. And then, and I'm sure this
Speaker 1: is gonna shock you, they use these synthetic voices to
Speaker 1: make them say all sorts of truly awful stuff. I'm
Speaker 1: talking like homophobic and transphobic comments, racial slurs, violent threats,
Speaker 1: all sorts of stuff like that. Again, this is only
Speaker 1: shocking for someone who maybe was born yesterday, but for
Speaker 1: anyone who actually is aware that four chan is a thing,
Speaker 1: this is not surprising even a little bit. And considering
Speaker 1: we've already seen plenty of people use deep faked technology
Speaker 1: to create content without the consent of the folks who
Speaker 1: were replicated in those videos, you can only imagine the
Speaker 1: sort of stuff we could see in the future. And
Speaker 1: I think I'm gonna need to do a full episode
Speaker 1: about this problem. I probably want to talk with someone
Speaker 1: who has either experienced this kind a violation of their
Speaker 1: identity themselves, or someone who has worked closely with people
Speaker 1: who have experienced it, because I honestly think it's really
Speaker 1: important to realize the the extent of the harm this
Speaker 1: abuse causes. Uh, And I wanted to come from a
Speaker 1: genuine place, so I'll probably be on the lookout see
Speaker 1: if I can find someone who would be willing to
Speaker 1: talk about that, because it's a really despicable practice too,
Speaker 1: to replicate someone without their consent. It is a true violation. Anyway,
Speaker 1: eleven Labs has chosen to lock down the beta and
Speaker 1: revisit their approach to safeguards, which he has a good idea.
Speaker 1: It sounds like they're going to require identification verification before
Speaker 1: you're allowed to replicate a specific voice, and to to
Speaker 1: show that you have the consent to do that. I
Speaker 1: think that's the bare minimum you you can do. And
Speaker 1: obviously you have to keep the tool underlock and key.
Speaker 1: You can't just release it because otherwise people would just
Speaker 1: exploit it. So interesting story, Uh, disturbing look at the future.
Speaker 1: But we knew this was coming, I mean because deep
Speaker 1: fakes have been a thing for a while now. The
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal reports that despite US export restrictions that
Speaker 1: should prevent certain Chinese companies and organizations from being able
Speaker 1: to purchase stuff like cutting edge computer chips, the China
Speaker 1: Academy of Engineering Physics seems to be able to do
Speaker 1: that without any real problem. Uh. This is one of
Speaker 1: the organizations that the United States has already put on
Speaker 1: a blacklist for semi conductor companies and chip manufacturers. In fact,
Speaker 1: the US has told companies like Nvidia and Intel expressly
Speaker 1: do not sell hardware to the China Academy of Engineering
Speaker 1: Physics because the organization's work includes work in nuclear weapons research.
Speaker 1: So if that ban is in place, how is this
Speaker 1: organization acquiring the chips? But largely through resellers in China.
Speaker 1: You have other entities in China buying up these these
Speaker 1: components and then reselling those two organizations like the China
Speaker 1: Academy of Engineering Physics. It is very hard. It's almost
Speaker 1: impossible to prevent all sophisticated chips from being shipped to
Speaker 1: China because some of these components were clearly originally part
Speaker 1: of like a larger system, like like a PC or
Speaker 1: a gaming rig. The Wall Street General reports that the
Speaker 1: chips in question are typically a couple of years old,
Speaker 1: so they aren't the most powerful, most recent ones on
Speaker 1: the market. It's hard to imagine how companies can make
Speaker 1: certain that all retailers that they work with comply with
Speaker 1: these rules, none of them are shipping to China. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: China has to purchase these chips because it lacks the
Speaker 1: manufacturing facilities to make the most sophisticated processors, particularly at scale.
Speaker 1: China lags behind everybody else by a few generations, and
Speaker 1: so these black lists do slow down China's military use
Speaker 1: of such technology. But the article really does point out
Speaker 1: how hard it is to enforce a total ban. Okay,
Speaker 1: I've got a few more tech stories I want to
Speaker 1: talk about. Before I get to that, Let's take another
Speaker 1: quick break. We're backed. Tech Dirt has an informative piece
Speaker 1: by Mike Masnick about how a paralegal named Katherine Twoson
Speaker 1: is pulling at the threads holding together Joshua Browner's story
Speaker 1: and image. So Browner, in case you don't know, is
Speaker 1: the CEO of a company called Do Not Pay. I
Speaker 1: have mentioned Do Not Pay a few times already this year.
Speaker 1: Uh It's best known for being an AI focused company
Speaker 1: that aims to use artificial intelligence to help people do
Speaker 1: stuff ranging from canceling subscription services that they're not using
Speaker 1: anymore to fighting parking tickets and other legal related work. Well,
Speaker 1: Twoson decided to put some of Do Not Pays services
Speaker 1: to the test. She reported that her attempts to have
Speaker 1: the AI generate certain legal documents were largely a failure.
Speaker 1: That in one case, it was pretty much like the
Speaker 1: service was just kind of filling in the blanks on
Speaker 1: a form letter kind of approach, and that in another
Speaker 1: she put uh in for a more complicated legal document
Speaker 1: and received a response that it would take a few
Speaker 1: hours to process. She's suggests that maybe that indicates that
Speaker 1: there is little to know AI involvement in that process
Speaker 1: at all, That if it were a computer generated you
Speaker 1: wouldn't expect it to be something that takes a long time,
Speaker 1: and that perhaps it means that there are actual humans
Speaker 1: putting together those kind of requests, or at least having
Speaker 1: a heavy involvement in editing an AI generated piece. In
Speaker 1: other words, that it seems to indicate the AI is
Speaker 1: not quite as sophisticated and effective as the company might
Speaker 1: otherwise indicate. She has also investigated some of Browder's claims,
Speaker 1: including one where he tweeted he would buy up ten
Speaker 1: dollars of medical debt for every retweet and follow that
Speaker 1: This particular tweet message got Tuson suspected the Browner had
Speaker 1: not followed through on that promise at that point. Browder
Speaker 1: then produced a receipt showing a five hundred dollar donation,
Speaker 1: which bought up around fifty grand of medical debt because
Speaker 1: debt is sold for pennies on the dollar. But Twoson
Speaker 1: found this receipt somewhat suspicious and hypothesized that Browder had
Speaker 1: not made the donation when he claimed he did. He
Speaker 1: claimed he had made it back in early December last year,
Speaker 1: but Twoson looked closer at the receipt and saw that
Speaker 1: the date on the receipt and that was next to
Speaker 1: the line item failed to be on the exact same
Speaker 1: line horizontally across the receipt. She said, oh, it's it's misaligned.
Speaker 1: She even did her own donation to buy up medical
Speaker 1: debt and showed that her receipt everything was in perfect alignment,
Speaker 1: but his receipt showed a little misalignment, which suggested the
Speaker 1: possibility of a photoshop job to change the date. And
Speaker 1: then Tuson decided to look into it further by actually
Speaker 1: contacting the organization that sold the medical debt in the
Speaker 1: first place, and found that Browner's purchase happened four minutes
Speaker 1: after she brought into question his follow through. So she says, hey,
Speaker 1: whatever happened to this guarantee? Four minutes later? He apparently
Speaker 1: makes this purchase and then subsequently says, yeah, I did
Speaker 1: it way back in December. So this piece really paints
Speaker 1: Browder in a critical light, suggesting that he is leaning
Speaker 1: perhaps a little too hard on publicity stunts and hype.
Speaker 1: We've been hearing these kinds of of thoughts about Browner
Speaker 1: for a while now, particularly in the wake of his
Speaker 1: offer to pay a million dollars to a lawyer who
Speaker 1: would use do not pays AI to argue a case
Speaker 1: before the U. S. Supreme Court. So I guess the
Speaker 1: lesson here is to rely on critical thinking and investigation
Speaker 1: like Tucson did, and do your best to try and
Speaker 1: hear through the hype. Speaking of hype, Mercedes Benz announced
Speaker 1: last week that the company will introduce a level three
Speaker 1: autonomous driving feature in vehicles here in the United States
Speaker 1: later this year. So the various levels of autonomous driving
Speaker 1: come out of the Society of Automotive Engineers that kind
Speaker 1: of defined the levels. They identified six levels from zero
Speaker 1: to five. So a level zero vehicle essentially has no
Speaker 1: autonomous features and is strictly manual. A Level five vehicle
Speaker 1: would be totally autonomous and would probably even lack manual
Speaker 1: trolls entirely. It would just be computer controlled and automated
Speaker 1: in every situation. Levels one and two include driver assist functions,
Speaker 1: but ultimately a human is driving the vehicle. Even if
Speaker 1: their feet can be off the pedals or they're not
Speaker 1: actively steering, they are technically still driving. They're considered the driver.
Speaker 1: A level two vehicle can provide steering and break and
Speaker 1: acceleration support, but again ultimately a humans doing the driving.
Speaker 1: And it's this is the level that stuff like Tesla's
Speaker 1: autopilot and even its full self driving features fall into
Speaker 1: their level two. Once you hit level three, then you
Speaker 1: say the vehicle is doing the driving when the autonomous
Speaker 1: mode is active, even if someone is sitting in the
Speaker 1: driver's seat. The vehicles doing the driving as long as
Speaker 1: the mode is in operation. Now, a level three does
Speaker 1: have a feature where the autonomous mode may request to
Speaker 1: hand off control to a human driver, so you do
Speaker 1: still need some one in that driver's seat who is
Speaker 1: ready at any time to take over control of the vehicle.
Speaker 1: That is one of the features of a level three.
Speaker 1: Level three. At even a level four autonomous vehicle can
Speaker 1: only operate in autonomous mode under specific conditions, so it's
Speaker 1: not in every scenario. So conditions typically include things like weather, right,
Speaker 1: so if the vehicle is in really foggy weather or
Speaker 1: it's really storming, maybe you can't engage autonomous mode under
Speaker 1: those conditions. Or it could include things like geo fencing.
Speaker 1: In other words, the vehicle is only going to operate
Speaker 1: in autonomous mode within a certain driving range, and outside
Speaker 1: of that it has to be manually driven. So in
Speaker 1: this specific case, the system is only going to be
Speaker 1: available to customers in Nevada here in the US because
Speaker 1: that's where it's legal, and other states have not created
Speaker 1: laws that uh that that match with this yet, so
Speaker 1: it will not operate outside of Nevada. And it's gonna
Speaker 1: include sensors as well that will ensure that the driver
Speaker 1: doesn't obstruct their face from view of the road, so
Speaker 1: you can't like hold a magazine up or a book
Speaker 1: or something like that and block your face. If you do,
Speaker 1: then the car detects that and then switches back to
Speaker 1: human controlled mode. So it it does still have some
Speaker 1: uh some big limitations on it, which makes sense, right,
Speaker 1: you want to have it there for emergencies and for
Speaker 1: safety's sake. But very interesting to see a level three
Speaker 1: vehicle coming onto roads in the United States, even if
Speaker 1: it's just in Nevada. Blows, the hardware store company has
Speaker 1: innovated a theft prevention system that they're calling Project Unlock
Speaker 1: that I think is actually kind of nifty. So theft
Speaker 1: is a big problem for stores in general like Lows
Speaker 1: and organized theft is cited as a real cost for
Speaker 1: stores like Lows for retail companies, and you have to
Speaker 1: figure out a way to prevent theft, but you also
Speaker 1: want to avoid frustrating customers. So in other words, like
Speaker 1: locking everything away in special lockers where you have to
Speaker 1: go and hunt down a customer service rep to come
Speaker 1: in and unlock a case so that you can buy
Speaker 1: your your power drill or whatever it is. That's not
Speaker 1: a great customer experience. So what Lows has done is
Speaker 1: they've made special use of r F I D chips
Speaker 1: that keep the tool inert until they are activated at
Speaker 1: a point of sale. So the way this works is,
Speaker 1: let's say you go and you pick up a box
Speaker 1: it's got a drill and an electric drill. You bring
Speaker 1: the box to a cash register, they scan the barcode
Speaker 1: on the box, You pay for your purchase, and at
Speaker 1: that point the point of sale system sends a signal
Speaker 1: to the specific r F I D chip that's inside
Speaker 1: your drill, and it's tied to the bar code that's
Speaker 1: on the box, and then the tool activates. So without
Speaker 1: this step, the tool will not work. You can charge
Speaker 1: up the battery, you can plug it in, it won't
Speaker 1: work because it is inactive until you have gone through
Speaker 1: the point of sale. So the idea here is only
Speaker 1: legitimate purchases will be active in anything else that was
Speaker 1: just say, lifted off the store shelf will be a
Speaker 1: big old paper weight without that activation. Now, I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna say that this approach is full proof, because nothing
Speaker 1: ever is. Hackers will likely figure out a way to
Speaker 1: replicate the activation eventually, but you know, it might be
Speaker 1: enough of a hassle. It might be a high enough
Speaker 1: barrier to take a serious chunk out of organized theft
Speaker 1: at stores that use Project Unlock. Also, you know how
Speaker 1: they say never read the comments. While the article where
Speaker 1: I was reading about this was on Fox Business, and
Speaker 1: I gotta say take that advice, because I did read
Speaker 1: some of the comments and I wish I had not
Speaker 1: h There was one person who had suggested that this
Speaker 1: could be a way for tool companies to create a
Speaker 1: tools as a service subscription fee. In other words, if
Speaker 1: you don't pay a yearly fee, then they could turn
Speaker 1: off your power tools, which would be really tricky to
Speaker 1: do because you have to be within range of an
Speaker 1: r F I D transmitter that is specifically going to
Speaker 1: uh connect with the the chip that's in your tool,
Speaker 1: and you'd have to have it be specific because you
Speaker 1: can't just do a blanket de activation. If someone had
Speaker 1: enrolled in that subscription service, then you would have to
Speaker 1: have it where their tools would not be affected, and
Speaker 1: it would mean you would have to send people out
Speaker 1: into the real world with transmitters zapping neighborhoods and rural
Speaker 1: homes and all this kind of stuff to de activate tools.
Speaker 1: It's just not a practical thing. So it's not something
Speaker 1: that I think would ever actually happen. I understand the concern, Like,
Speaker 1: if you think, oh, there's a chip in this that
Speaker 1: could theoretically turn my tool into an inert piece of
Speaker 1: plastic and metal, obviously that would be concerning, But that's
Speaker 1: just not how this technology would work in the real world.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg reports that Sony is cutting back on producing VR
Speaker 1: two headsets for the latest PlayStation due to low preorder figures,
Speaker 1: so pre sales have been slow for the VR two headsets,
Speaker 1: so apparently there's so much lower than the company anticipated
Speaker 1: they're scaling back on production in anticipation of very slow sales.
Speaker 1: Part of this could be due to the fact that
Speaker 1: people in general are just being a bit more cautious
Speaker 1: with their money than they have in recent years due
Speaker 1: to economic factors, So in other words, it may have
Speaker 1: nothing to do with the perception of VR. It may
Speaker 1: have more to do with people just being careful about
Speaker 1: their spending. However, another part could be an indication that
Speaker 1: VR is still occupying a fairly niche market, and you
Speaker 1: could think of that as being really bad news for
Speaker 1: stuff like the Metaverse, let alone an other VR A
Speaker 1: R or x R gear. Moving forward, according to Berg,
Speaker 1: it sounds like Sony is cutting back by half for
Speaker 1: the launch quarter, which again is later this year. So
Speaker 1: originally they had planned to produce around two million units
Speaker 1: for that first quarter at launch, but now it sounds
Speaker 1: like it's going to be a million units. And further,
Speaker 1: Sony expects to only sell around one point five million
Speaker 1: headsets between the launch and March of next year. Now,
Speaker 1: I think it's still too early to say that VR
Speaker 1: is sinking, or even just saying that VR is just
Speaker 1: treading water. I think what we need to do is
Speaker 1: see if when the economy starts to recover, if people
Speaker 1: start to move more on VR hardware, and then we
Speaker 1: can get a better idea. Part of what we need
Speaker 1: are more developers to create really compelling VR experiences. But
Speaker 1: that becomes like a chicken and egg problem because if
Speaker 1: you're a developer, you only want to pour your money
Speaker 1: and effort and energy and time into producing something that's
Speaker 1: going to have a return on investment, and if there
Speaker 1: aren't enough people out there who own VR headsets, it
Speaker 1: doesn't make sense to make that investment because you'll never
Speaker 1: make your money back, right, It's just a money losing experience.
Speaker 1: So that's part of the problem is that like a
Speaker 1: lot of people say I don't want VR because there's
Speaker 1: nothing on VR that I want to do, and meanwhile
Speaker 1: developers are saying, well, we don't want to make anything
Speaker 1: for VR because no one owns a VR headset. And
Speaker 1: I'm being I'm using exaggerations here. Obviously there are people
Speaker 1: who own them, but very few in the grand scheme
Speaker 1: of things. So that's really where we are right now.
Speaker 1: It's a it's a problem that's been this way for
Speaker 1: a few years. Uh. I personally don't really care for VR,
Speaker 1: but that's because I get real rpy when I put
Speaker 1: on a headset, Like within a few minutes, I start
Speaker 1: to not feel so good. But I would still like
Speaker 1: to see the technology evolve. I think that it has
Speaker 1: a really interesting place, but that's not going to happen
Speaker 1: unless the money is there. Finally, it seems like every
Speaker 1: year we wait to see if E three is going
Speaker 1: to be done for reals. Uh. And it is scheduled
Speaker 1: to take place in June this year after not happening
Speaker 1: last year. But it sounds like it's gonna be a
Speaker 1: pretty rough go for E three. And that's because, according
Speaker 1: to I g N, Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony are all
Speaker 1: reportedly skipping the event and instead opting to hold their
Speaker 1: own events individually whenever they feel like it instead. Now,
Speaker 1: this should not come as a big surprise because we've
Speaker 1: seen these companies do similar things before. I mean, Sony
Speaker 1: and Nintendo in particular have skipped E three in the past.
Speaker 1: Sony hasn't been involved in E three since two thousand nineteen,
Speaker 1: and Nintendo instead chooses to hold Nintendo Direct events in
Speaker 1: its own uh online events throughout the year. So it's
Speaker 1: a pretty tough blow when the companies that are behind
Speaker 1: the major gaming platforms all choose to skip a video
Speaker 1: game conference, particularly when the three companies also own video
Speaker 1: game developers and publishers. So if the the developers and
Speaker 1: publishers they own also skip E three, that's huge. Now,
Speaker 1: it doesn't necessarily mean E three is really most sincerely dead,
Speaker 1: because there are other video game developers and publishers that
Speaker 1: are not owned by Sony or Nintendo or Microsoft, and
Speaker 1: they might still attend, but it does make the event
Speaker 1: a tougher sell, both to industry professionals, to the media,
Speaker 1: and to the general public. So we'll have to keep
Speaker 1: our eyes open see how things go. Uh you know.
Speaker 1: E three has had to pull the plug a couple
Speaker 1: of times in the past. It may very well be
Speaker 1: that we're we're at the end of the line for
Speaker 1: E three, at least as as a trade show. It
Speaker 1: may become more of a fan experience, although it has
Speaker 1: not been doing particularly well in that regard, at least
Speaker 1: from the actual perspective. Of a fan, like, it's frustrating
Speaker 1: to go to E three as a fan. It is
Speaker 1: not as much fun as you think it might be
Speaker 1: because you're spending the vast majority of your time waiting
Speaker 1: in a line to play a game for five minutes.
Speaker 1: So not the best experience for a fan. So we'll
Speaker 1: have to see if E three makes some massive changes
Speaker 1: to kind of forge a future for the event. Otherwise,
Speaker 1: I think we we may finally be getting to the end.
Speaker 1: Of course, people have been saying that for like more
Speaker 1: than a decade, so maybe it'll be like Moore's long,
Speaker 1: it'll just stick around beyond comprehension. Okay, that's it for
Speaker 1: this episode of tech Stuff. Hope you are well. If
Speaker 1: you would like to reach out to be and let
Speaker 1: me know of something I should cover in a future episode,
Speaker 1: please do so. You can do that on Twitter. The
Speaker 1: handle for the show is tech Stuff h s W.
Speaker 1: Or you can download the I Heart Radio app. It's
Speaker 1: free to download, it's free to use. It's got a
Speaker 1: little search toolbar built right into it. You type text
Speaker 1: stuff in there, it'll take you to the tech Stuff
Speaker 1: page in the app, and there you'll find a little
Speaker 1: microphone icon if you click on that you can leave
Speaker 1: a voice message up to thirty seconds in length. Let
Speaker 1: me know what you would like to hear in the future,
Speaker 1: and I'll talk to you again really soon. Yeah. Text
Speaker 1: Stuff is an I heart Radio production. For more podcasts
Speaker 1: from my heart Radio, visit the i heart Radio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.