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 a lot of all things tech. And it's time
Speaker 1: for the tech news for Tuesday, November one. And yes,
Speaker 1: it's that time again. No, I don't mean the holidays,
Speaker 1: I mean it's time for Jack Dorsey, Twitter co founder,
Speaker 1: to step down as CEO of Twitter again. Dorsey co
Speaker 1: founded Twitter all the way back in two thousand and
Speaker 1: six with Biz Stone, Evan Williams, and Noah Glass. He
Speaker 1: served as the CEO from two thousand six to two
Speaker 1: thousand eight. Then he stepped aside for fellow co founder
Speaker 1: Evan Williams to take over, and instead Dorsey assumed the
Speaker 1: role of Chairman of the Board of Directors. Williams would
Speaker 1: then step down after two years as CEO, and then
Speaker 1: Dick Costolo, who was the former CEO of the company,
Speaker 1: assumed the role of CEO, and when Costolo stepped down
Speaker 1: in two thousand fifteen, Jack Dorsey returned as CEO. So
Speaker 1: like Grover Cleveland, Dorsey served two nonconsecutive terms. Anyway, he
Speaker 1: has resigned and says it's time for Twitter to move
Speaker 1: away from its founders, and now the former c t
Speaker 1: O of Twitter, parag Agri Wall, has become the new CEO.
Speaker 1: For years, Dorsey has faced criticism because he also serves
Speaker 1: as the head of Square, that is, the the online
Speaker 1: payment processing company famous for producing the smartphone and tablet
Speaker 1: peripherals that create a point of sale for small businesses.
Speaker 1: Investors were concerned that his attention was too divided between
Speaker 1: these different businesses, and Twitter has stalled out when it
Speaker 1: comes to user growth. So it was on a steady
Speaker 1: path of growth up through two thousand and fourteen, but
Speaker 1: after that the growth began to slow down and even
Speaker 1: level off. In fact, by the first quarter of two
Speaker 1: thousand nineteen, Twitter announced it would no longer share its
Speaker 1: monthly active user account. They had three different months in
Speaker 1: a row in which the user number was on the
Speaker 1: decline rather than growth, and yeah, reporting on monthly users
Speaker 1: would make the company look stagnant and it would probably
Speaker 1: worry investors and invite comparisons to other social networks like Facebook.
Speaker 1: So there have been investors calling for Dorsey's resignation. For
Speaker 1: a while. They've wanted to see Twitter shift into a
Speaker 1: higher gear and get into growth mode again. So is
Speaker 1: that actually possible. I honestly don't know. I suppose anything
Speaker 1: is possible, but it would mean having to find a
Speaker 1: way to make Twitter relevant for younger users. Twitter excuse
Speaker 1: older for social networks. Nearly its user base is between
Speaker 1: the ages of twenty five and thirty five. The second
Speaker 1: largest demographic group is aged between thirty five and forty nine,
Speaker 1: so like more than half of Twitter's users are over
Speaker 1: the age of anyway. At least some investors have expressed
Speaker 1: approval of Dorsey's resident Nation, but they've also said they
Speaker 1: were hoping to see someone from outside Twitter take control
Speaker 1: rather than promotion from Insight, And of course it was
Speaker 1: promoted from Insight, so we'll have to see what happens. Today,
Speaker 1: Twitter announced that it had updated its privacy and security
Speaker 1: policy to extend additional protection towards quote unquote private media.
Speaker 1: Twitter already will take action against users who publish other
Speaker 1: people's private information without those people's consent, like you know,
Speaker 1: a person's address or their phone number, or a picture
Speaker 1: of their I D or you know, any kind of
Speaker 1: other personal information. Now that protection also extends towards media
Speaker 1: of private individuals without the permission from those individuals. So
Speaker 1: if you snap a photo of that jerk face who
Speaker 1: lives across the street without said jerk faces permission, and
Speaker 1: then you share that photo to Twitter, you would technically
Speaker 1: be violating this policy. Now, to be clear, Twitter hasn't
Speaker 1: employed an army of reviewers or a ton of AI
Speaker 1: bots to scour all the tweets and look for media
Speaker 1: and then seek out the people in that media to
Speaker 1: find out if they gave permission for that to be
Speaker 1: shared or not. This is instead a reactive policy. So
Speaker 1: if I go on Twitter and I see that that
Speaker 1: jerk face who lives across the street has posted a
Speaker 1: photo of me and I didn't give my permission, I
Speaker 1: can contact Twitter and I can say hey, I didn't
Speaker 1: say jerk face could do that, and Twitter will then
Speaker 1: remove the tweet. Maybe because the policy actually does not
Speaker 1: apply to quote media featuring blick figures or individuals when
Speaker 1: media and accompanying tweet text are shared in the public
Speaker 1: interest or add value to public discourse. End quote. Now,
Speaker 1: I don't think I actually quite qualify as a public figure.
Speaker 1: I'm not nearly notable enough to qualify for that status.
Speaker 1: But it does mean that if the jerk face who
Speaker 1: lives across the street from me is I don't know
Speaker 1: Justin Bieber, and and I snap a photo of him
Speaker 1: and I share it. You know, you could argue that
Speaker 1: since Biber is a public figure, that's still fair game,
Speaker 1: you know, the price of fame. And just because I'm
Speaker 1: a bad singer and built baby, Baby Baby while I'm
Speaker 1: walking my dog, you know, and then I get the
Speaker 1: restraining order. What a jerk face. Once upon a time
Speaker 1: there was no Alphabet company and Google was just Google.
Speaker 1: And in this magical time, Google had an official motto,
Speaker 1: and that motto was don't be evil. And I think
Speaker 1: that's a pretty good motto to have, particularly when your
Speaker 1: business depends so heavily upon knowing everything you could possibly
Speaker 1: know about people who use your search engine. Because, as
Speaker 1: I and lots of other people have said many many times,
Speaker 1: Google's business is not search, it's advertising. And pairing advertising
Speaker 1: with knowledge about the customer makes advertisements way more effective.
Speaker 1: That means they're more valuable, and that means Google can
Speaker 1: make way more money from selling them. And being the
Speaker 1: dominant player in the search engine world means Google has
Speaker 1: no shortage of revenue generators out there. That is people
Speaker 1: using Google Search anyway. Don't be evil. It's a good motto. Well,
Speaker 1: three former Google employees have brought a lawsuit against the
Speaker 1: company for breach of contract. The employees, all three of
Speaker 1: whom were fired on the same day, say that Google
Speaker 1: failed to live up to its own code of conduct,
Speaker 1: as spelled out an employee agree mints see in twenty fifteen,
Speaker 1: when Google formed Alphabet as a parent company, it also
Speaker 1: dropped the don't be evil motto. You know that was strange,
Speaker 1: wasn't it. But that phrase still exists in the employee agreements,
Speaker 1: which says, in part, quote remember don't be evil, and
Speaker 1: if you see something that you think isn't right, speak
Speaker 1: up end quote. Well, these three employees, Sophie Waldman, Paul Duke,
Speaker 1: and Rebecca Rivers, say they were fired after they spoke
Speaker 1: out against Google the company while uh IT was signing
Speaker 1: a contract with the Customs and Border Protection in the
Speaker 1: United States in order to provide cloud computing services to
Speaker 1: that institution. Now, this was during Trump's presidency, at the
Speaker 1: height of xenophobic propaganda that painted immigrants legal and non
Speaker 1: legal alike with a fearful and racist brush. Not to
Speaker 1: mention the department was separating and caging families at the time.
Speaker 1: The three employees were all fired on November twenty five,
Speaker 1: two nineteen. Google's explanation was that the employees were leaking
Speaker 1: confidential information and we're nosing around internal Google systems that
Speaker 1: was outside their scope of work. The former employees they
Speaker 1: they deny this, and they also state that they were
Speaker 1: fired after they circulated a petition among other Google employees
Speaker 1: asking them to show their disapproval for this cloud services contract.
Speaker 1: I'll keep an eye on this lawsuit as it moves
Speaker 1: through the court system to see how it all pans out,
Speaker 1: though if it does go beyond a settlement, I'll be
Speaker 1: really surprised. Last week, various news outlets reported that an
Speaker 1: internal survey at Facebook revealed that a significant number of
Speaker 1: Facebook staff are losing confidence in the company's leadership, with
Speaker 1: fewer than half of respondents indicating that they intend to
Speaker 1: stay with the company. That being said, I would argue
Speaker 1: the survey is really more of a way to send
Speaker 1: a message to upper management and executive management. It not
Speaker 1: necessarily an indicator that we're going to see like more
Speaker 1: than half of Facebook employees just turn in their two
Speaker 1: weeks notice anytime soon. I don't expect that to happen.
Speaker 1: The same survey indicated that most employees like their direct managers,
Speaker 1: so they like the people who are directly over them.
Speaker 1: That seems to say that it really is an issue
Speaker 1: with the executive management level as the source for employee concerns.
Speaker 1: This isn't that big of a surprise, considering how Facebook
Speaker 1: has been in the center of some really ugly stories
Speaker 1: over the last several years in general, and the last
Speaker 1: few months in particular, positive responses indicating confidence in leadership
Speaker 1: were down to so more than half of those surveyed
Speaker 1: indicated a lack of confidence in leadership. Um, that's not great,
Speaker 1: and I guess I should say that, you know, we're
Speaker 1: really talking about the company Meta, not Facebook. But old
Speaker 1: habits are hard to break. I will frequently refer to
Speaker 1: Facebook the company, um, you know, as Facebook, as opposed
Speaker 1: to Meta. Anyway, as more outlets cover this story this week,
Speaker 1: including you know, tech stuff, I imagine that executives at
Speaker 1: Facebook are paying a little bit more attention to that survey. Now.
Speaker 1: I don't know that they actually want to change anything
Speaker 1: at the company. I mean, they probably want to change
Speaker 1: how they word the questions in the survey so that
Speaker 1: they get better responses. It might be a little cynical.
Speaker 1: Speaking of Facebook slash Meta, the company in May of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty acquired animated gift depository Giffee for a cool
Speaker 1: three hundred fifteen million dollars and that appeared to be
Speaker 1: that that is until a UK antitrust regulation organization stepped
Speaker 1: in that says that Meta will have to now sell
Speaker 1: off Giffee. After all, they will have to get rid
Speaker 1: of it. The regulators say that Meta buying up Giffee
Speaker 1: gives Facebook or rather you know, Meta slash Facebook and
Speaker 1: avantage over other social media platforms that also use Giffe,
Speaker 1: like TikTok and stuff like that, and that it would
Speaker 1: simultaneously remove a potential Facebook competitor from the market. This
Speaker 1: would be in the ads space. So essentially, what they're
Speaker 1: saying is that Giffe and Facebook could potentially court the
Speaker 1: same advertisers. But if Facebook buys Giffe like it did,
Speaker 1: then that means there's a reduction of choice for those advertisers.
Speaker 1: They can't choose to go with Facebook or Giffy because
Speaker 1: Facebook gobbled up Giffe, thus a loss in competition. It's
Speaker 1: interesting that a UK based regulatory body could enforce an
Speaker 1: acquisition reversal on two US based companies, but in fact
Speaker 1: it does have that authority. The regulators have jurisdiction over
Speaker 1: acquisitions that represent at least a control of a market
Speaker 1: within the UK, so unless Facebook decides to not operate
Speaker 1: in the UK, it does fall into this category. The
Speaker 1: regulators actually say that Meta and Giffee together would control
Speaker 1: a whopping eight of the animated gift market in the UK.
Speaker 1: That puts it well over the metric needed for this
Speaker 1: regulation body to step in. So it looks like the
Speaker 1: tide is really beginning to turn against big tech in
Speaker 1: a meaningful way. Meta representatives unsurprisingly released a statement saying
Speaker 1: they disagree with this decision, which I mean, of course
Speaker 1: they do, and that they are considering all options, including
Speaker 1: appealing this decision. They also said that the regulators were
Speaker 1: sending a message to entrepreneurs that quote, do not build
Speaker 1: new companies because you will not be able to sell
Speaker 1: them end quote. Personally, I actually think that's okay. I mean,
Speaker 1: I get the business plan for like of all startups
Speaker 1: isn't to create a sustainable business. That's not the plan
Speaker 1: for most of them. No, the plan is to become
Speaker 1: attractive enough for some other bigger company to come along
Speaker 1: and acquire you for oodles of cash, and you cash out.
Speaker 1: But I'm not sure that's actually a very healthy approach
Speaker 1: to business in the long runs. So I realized this
Speaker 1: might mean we might see fewer unicorns, but based on
Speaker 1: how gross a lot of your unicorns turned out to be,
Speaker 1: I'm personally fine with that. Okay, we have some more
Speaker 1: news stories to cover, but before we get to that,
Speaker 1: let's take a quick break. We're back rolling. Stone Magazine
Speaker 1: reports that an FBI document has revealed that the FBI
Speaker 1: can easily access a person's WhatsApp or Apple Eye message
Speaker 1: history as long as the or activity I should say,
Speaker 1: as long as the bureau first secure as an appropriate
Speaker 1: subpoena or warrant. That has a little bit of a
Speaker 1: shocking revelation because both services help the fact that their
Speaker 1: communications are aren't fully encrypted end to end. So the
Speaker 1: idea here is that only the people in that conversation
Speaker 1: should be able to read the messages in the other party,
Speaker 1: including Meta in the case of WhatsApp or Apple in
Speaker 1: the case of Eye, message would not be able to
Speaker 1: read those messages. That's the whole point, right, So, unless
Speaker 1: you get hold of one of the communicators devices, it
Speaker 1: should be impossible or at the very least incredibly difficult,
Speaker 1: to see what messages are being sent back and forth.
Speaker 1: But the FBI document calls these two services both quote
Speaker 1: the most popular encrypted messaging apps end quote while also
Speaker 1: simultaneously being quote the most permissive end quote. So does
Speaker 1: that mean the FBI is magically able to unlock the encryption, Well,
Speaker 1: it turns out the answer to that is no. But
Speaker 1: what the FBI can do is pretty easily monitor activity
Speaker 1: to see stuff like who is communicating with whom at
Speaker 1: what time, under what circumstances, in what locations. So, in
Speaker 1: other words, this document really lays out how the FBI
Speaker 1: can collect and track meta data about the people who
Speaker 1: are communicating with each other. Sure, the content of the
Speaker 1: messages remains unknown, but with other dots that are out there,
Speaker 1: the FBI can start to build a case against people.
Speaker 1: For example, let's say that the FBI looks and sees
Speaker 1: that you've had some communication with someone they've labeled as
Speaker 1: a person of interest for something like they're this person
Speaker 1: has been targeted for an investigation, and they see that
Speaker 1: that person has been in contact with you through one
Speaker 1: of these apps. They could also see if you have
Speaker 1: any other people of interest listed in your contacts. So,
Speaker 1: in other words, they could say, all right, well, we
Speaker 1: know that you have been in contact with this person
Speaker 1: that we're targeting. Let's see if you're also talking with
Speaker 1: anyone else who's on our lists. Or they can also
Speaker 1: see if the person you're talking with has any other
Speaker 1: people of interest in their own contacts, and they and
Speaker 1: start building out networks of context in this way. And
Speaker 1: you can probably imagine at least a few cases in
Speaker 1: which this could become a really troubling issue. For example,
Speaker 1: let's say that you are an investigative journalist and you
Speaker 1: rely upon contacts who are embedded in various sensitive organizations
Speaker 1: like government offices, maybe the FBI itself. Well, the FBI
Speaker 1: could snoop on your communications, and even without seeing what
Speaker 1: it is your sending, could at least see to whom
Speaker 1: you are sending information that could lead to a whistleblower
Speaker 1: being exposed. The Rolling Stone received the FBI document from
Speaker 1: an organization called Property of the People, which filed a
Speaker 1: Freedom of Information Act request, and it's all aimed to
Speaker 1: publicize this practice. And make people aware of how even
Speaker 1: encrypted messaging services may be less safe than you might think,
Speaker 1: particularly if they are pretty willing to work with law
Speaker 1: enforcement on these kinds of requests for metadata. And now
Speaker 1: here's an update to the Amazon union issue in Bessemer
Speaker 1: at Alabama. So in case you don't remember that story,
Speaker 1: workers at an Amazon warehouse in Alabama held a vote
Speaker 1: on whether or not they should unionize this past April.
Speaker 1: That vote ultimately ended up being against unionization, but organizers
Speaker 1: accused Amazon of engaging in illegal misconduct leading up to
Speaker 1: the vote, and there were allegations of intimidating workers and
Speaker 1: spreading misinformation about unions. Uh, the National Labor Relations Board
Speaker 1: has now ruled that the workers can hold a new
Speaker 1: union election. Amazon representatives have expressed disappointment in the ruling.
Speaker 1: Allegedly the company went to all this trouble to discourage
Speaker 1: voting and make it more difficult, and even installing an
Speaker 1: illegal drop box and more. It really does seem to
Speaker 1: be a real kick in the teeth for all that
Speaker 1: hard work to just go to waste. And again I
Speaker 1: say allegedly, because you know, I don't want to get
Speaker 1: in trouble here. Also, it's worth noting that Amazon has
Speaker 1: a very high turnover rate with its employees. Many Amazon
Speaker 1: employees don't stay with the company for a very long
Speaker 1: time because the work is pretty brutal, at least in
Speaker 1: the warehouses and fulfillment centers. As such, it can be
Speaker 1: difficult to organize people because the folks you're talking to
Speaker 1: today might not be the same folks that you're calling
Speaker 1: in to vote next week. That's being I'm exaggerating a
Speaker 1: little bit, but you get my my meaning right, Like,
Speaker 1: it's hard to get any kind of movement going when
Speaker 1: the population is in such flux. Here's a different follow up.
Speaker 1: I have talked a few times about state sponsored malware
Speaker 1: on iOS devices, you know, turning things like iPhones into
Speaker 1: surveillance machines. Uh. Notably, I've talked about the malware from
Speaker 1: the Israeli backed in s O group. Now, Apple says
Speaker 1: that the company will send noifications to users who own
Speaker 1: iOS devices that have been compromised by such state backed malware.
Speaker 1: Apple will send notifications via I message to affected users.
Speaker 1: They also send out emails. There will be other notifications
Speaker 1: as well. It's expected that not very many people will
Speaker 1: actually receive these notifications because state sponsored attacks are usually
Speaker 1: really targeted and precise. You know, they have specific people
Speaker 1: in mind that they go after, rather than casting a
Speaker 1: wide net like a lot of hackers. They make malware
Speaker 1: and the whole intent is to infect as many devices
Speaker 1: as you possibly can, So you're taking a broad approach.
Speaker 1: That's not the case with state sponsored attacks. They're usually
Speaker 1: looking at specific people and saying, we want to compromise
Speaker 1: their device so we can find out what they're up to. So,
Speaker 1: in other words, unless you are a diplomat or an
Speaker 1: international journalist or an activist or you know, politician, maybe
Speaker 1: like the head of some big company, you probably haven't
Speaker 1: been targeted and you won't get one of these messages probably,
Speaker 1: you know, just just keep a lookout on those iOS notifications.
Speaker 1: An I T company called land Sweeper surveyed Windows based
Speaker 1: devices that were running on various networks. You know, you
Speaker 1: can get a lot of data about what machines are
Speaker 1: actually using your network that doesn't involve anything about the
Speaker 1: people behind the machines, Like you can see what sort
Speaker 1: of operating system was being used by that machine that
Speaker 1: accessed your network. So they did this in an effort
Speaker 1: to kind of see how many machines out there. How
Speaker 1: many PCs are running the most recent version of Windows,
Speaker 1: which is of course Windows eleven. It launched last month. Now,
Speaker 1: according to the firm, an easily point to one percent.
Speaker 1: That's zero point to one percent of PC users are
Speaker 1: running the newest operating system a month after its release.
Speaker 1: That is shockingly low. That's even fewer folks running the
Speaker 1: Windows eleven than are currently running Windows XP. Windows XP
Speaker 1: hasn't been supported by Microsoft since like two thousand and twelve,
Speaker 1: I think maybe even earlier than that, and yet it's
Speaker 1: still commands more than three and a half percent of
Speaker 1: all PCs on these same networks. That is really shocking. Uh,
Speaker 1: The survey should really be a matter of concern not
Speaker 1: just a Microsoft, which clearly the company has a vested
Speaker 1: interest in seeing their products get widespread adoption, but it
Speaker 1: also should be a big concern to I T professionals
Speaker 1: in general. On various networks, a significant number of machines
Speaker 1: are running on end of life versions of Windows. That is,
Speaker 1: versions of Windows that Microsoft no longer supports, like XP
Speaker 1: and Windows seven. Those are no longer getting support updates.
Speaker 1: That means that for any of the exploits that have
Speaker 1: popped up since Microsoft ended support, and any future exploits
Speaker 1: there's no real chance to rescue there. Right, these machines
Speaker 1: are going to be vulnerable to that kind of exploitation.
Speaker 1: So this is why it's a good idea to try
Speaker 1: and stay up to date with operating systems whenever possible.
Speaker 1: That being said, I do have a couple of caveats
Speaker 1: to this. Generally, I suggest that you balance out the
Speaker 1: need to be up to date with the latest versions
Speaker 1: of operating systems with waiting a short while once updates
Speaker 1: come out to make sure that they don't break stuff,
Speaker 1: because sometimes an update will break things, and depending on
Speaker 1: what it breaks, it might be something important. Right. However,
Speaker 1: there's a caveat to that caveat, which is that in
Speaker 1: the case of urgent security updates. Let's say that there
Speaker 1: was a a critical vulnerability found within an operating system
Speaker 1: and a patch is sent out, I think then it
Speaker 1: is a good idea to update as soon as you
Speaker 1: have access to that that patch, because vulnerabilities are serious
Speaker 1: things like you do not want your device to get compromised. However,
Speaker 1: Windows eleven it has not had widespread adoption, even though
Speaker 1: like a lot of tech people love to jump on
Speaker 1: the latest thing. Windows does not appear to be one
Speaker 1: of those things. Uh. One reason for that might be
Speaker 1: that Windows eleven also has some relatively hefty resource requirements,
Speaker 1: so your computer needs to be, you know, a fairly
Speaker 1: recent machine to run Windows eleven effectively. So for some
Speaker 1: folks it's just not practical to upgrade to the latest
Speaker 1: OS because you know, you don't want your operating system
Speaker 1: eating up all your computer's resources, leaving nothing for anything else. Um.
Speaker 1: That was my big issue with Windows when it first
Speaker 1: came out way way back when I was one of
Speaker 1: those grouchy kids who was, you know, grousing about the
Speaker 1: fact that we were moving away from MS DOSS to Windows.
Speaker 1: Because the Windows operating system required so much uh, computational resources,
Speaker 1: which was granted, a fraction of what you would have
Speaker 1: in a even a even a modest smartphone would be
Speaker 1: better than the computer I had back then. But because
Speaker 1: the operating system was requiring so much processing power, it
Speaker 1: limited what you could actually run on the machine. And
Speaker 1: I thought that was ridiculous at the time. I still
Speaker 1: think it's ridiculous now, but it's just the way of
Speaker 1: the world. So anyway, that's one reason why a lot
Speaker 1: of people haven't upgraded the Windows eleven is just that
Speaker 1: it's not ideal for whatever machine they're running on. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: we're still in a supply chain nightmare and a semiconductor
Speaker 1: chip shortage on top of that. That's you know, part
Speaker 1: of the supply chain issue, and getting a new computer
Speaker 1: isn't necessarily easy, nor is it cheap because you know,
Speaker 1: we've seen those prices start to go up because of
Speaker 1: these the supply chain issues. So there are a lot
Speaker 1: of legit reasons why people my be holding back on
Speaker 1: adopting Windows eleven. It's really seen as the kind of
Speaker 1: operating system that is coming out with new machines, and
Speaker 1: there's just not as big of a market for new
Speaker 1: machines right now because of all those reasons. So this
Speaker 1: could be a problem that sticks around a little bit
Speaker 1: and has little to nothing to do with the actual
Speaker 1: quality of the operating system itself. It's a very frustrating
Speaker 1: problem to have, I'm sure for Microsoft. Here in the US,
Speaker 1: lawmakers are introducing, or rather reintroducing legislation that aims to
Speaker 1: make it illegal for people to use automated bots to
Speaker 1: buy up retail goods. That issue is the fact that
Speaker 1: when certain products are on the verge of exploding and
Speaker 1: popularity or demand, some folks who have a lot of
Speaker 1: money will use bots to buy up all the available products,
Speaker 1: and then they might sell them off at marked up
Speaker 1: prices on like auction sites. I always think this might
Speaker 1: be a thing that happens with Treasure Truck. Maybe it's
Speaker 1: just me. I sometimes get notifications from Amazon about Treasure
Speaker 1: Truck stuff, and occasionally I'll check it out of curiosity,
Speaker 1: And almost always when I check it, it turns out
Speaker 1: that whatever the thing was, I mean, even if I
Speaker 1: click on it, as soon as I get that text message,
Speaker 1: it says it's out of stock, which either means there's
Speaker 1: an incredibly small amount of stock that's being on offer,
Speaker 1: or maybe I'm getting the message too late, or perhaps
Speaker 1: people are using bots to buy those things up before
Speaker 1: other folks get a chance to. But you really see
Speaker 1: this with stuff like video game consoles. This is one
Speaker 1: of the many reasons why it's hard to get hold
Speaker 1: of something like a PlayStation five right now. It also
Speaker 1: is a big issue with graphics cards, even though we've
Speaker 1: seen bitcoin miners move away from graphics cards, because even
Speaker 1: the most powerful graphics cards now don't have the oo
Speaker 1: needed to do bitcoin mining. Even though that has stopped
Speaker 1: being as big of an issue, we still see graphics
Speaker 1: cards getting bought up faster than people can even you know,
Speaker 1: keep them in stock. So this proposed legislation has the
Speaker 1: cute nickname of Stopping Grench Bots Act. For those who
Speaker 1: are unaware. The Grench as a character from a Dr.
Speaker 1: Seuss book, and he famously invades a small town to
Speaker 1: steal all the Christmas presents on Christmas Eve. Anyway, lawmakers
Speaker 1: previously introduced this proposal back in twenty nineteen, but it
Speaker 1: didn't go very far. It kind of stalled out. But
Speaker 1: that was before the pandemic and before all the supply
Speaker 1: chain issues that I've been alluding to throughout this episode.
Speaker 1: And perhaps this year it can get a little more
Speaker 1: traction as Americans struggled to engage in the rampant consumerism
Speaker 1: that marks the holiday season. All right, speaking of rampant consumerism,
Speaker 1: it's time for us to take a quick break for
Speaker 1: some ads. We will be back with a few more
Speaker 1: stories after this. We're back, Okay, just a few more
Speaker 1: stories to round out this episode for us. Of all,
Speaker 1: the car manufacturing company Nissan has announced plans to budget
Speaker 1: nearly seventeen point six billion dollars towards electrifying its fleet
Speaker 1: of vehicles, shifting more resources towards the design and production
Speaker 1: of electric vehicles in anticipation of more regions throughout the
Speaker 1: world passing e V mandates. You know, there are a
Speaker 1: lot of places like the UK that have said that
Speaker 1: by twenty thirty five, for example, no more internal combustion
Speaker 1: engine cars will be available for sale, no more new ones.
Speaker 1: That is, you can still sell older vehicles, but all
Speaker 1: new vehicles will have to be electric vehicles from that
Speaker 1: point forward. Uh. Nissan interestingly did not go so far
Speaker 1: as to make a commitment towards ending production of internal
Speaker 1: combustion engine vehicles, and in fact, there are a couple
Speaker 1: of Japanese companies manufacturing car manufacturing companies that have also
Speaker 1: not gone to that step. Um, perhaps hoping that that
Speaker 1: either the adoption of electric vehicles will be the aid,
Speaker 1: or that, you know, maybe it's just too expensive to
Speaker 1: shift operations to e V production. But whatever the reason,
Speaker 1: we're seeing a couple of companies kind of drag their
Speaker 1: feet on this, and Nissan appears to be one of them. Uh.
Speaker 1: The company said that it will be introducing twenty three
Speaker 1: new electric vehicles by and more than half of those
Speaker 1: will be fully electric. The rest will be hybrids of
Speaker 1: some sort. Right now, the company plans for electric vehicles
Speaker 1: to make up to its sales by twenty forty here
Speaker 1: in the United States. That's assuming, of course, that we
Speaker 1: don't see more states passing these similar kinds of mandates,
Speaker 1: or even a federal mandate that requires all new vehicles
Speaker 1: to be electric vehicles. In that case, that entire strategy
Speaker 1: will have to be rethought. Meanwhile, some BMW models are
Speaker 1: going to have fewer options than what would typically be
Speaker 1: offered because of that ding dang darn semi conductor chip
Speaker 1: shortage I was talking about. It has forced BMW to
Speaker 1: nix the touch screen that would typically be found in
Speaker 1: models like the BMW X five or the X six
Speaker 1: series or X seven or Z four series, as well
Speaker 1: as others. I think the BMW three and four both
Speaker 1: have models that have typically the touch screen as an
Speaker 1: option in the vehicle. Now they're not going to have that. Instead,
Speaker 1: they will have controls in the center console, kind of
Speaker 1: like older BMW models. They used a BMW system called
Speaker 1: I drive Controller and it was all built in the
Speaker 1: center console. It looks like these new cars are also
Speaker 1: going to go back to that older design. BMW has
Speaker 1: recognized that this is a step back and has announced
Speaker 1: that it will offer a five dollar credit on models
Speaker 1: that should have had a touch screen but will no
Speaker 1: longer have them. This has affected other stuff, but sides
Speaker 1: just an interface in the car. Uh there was a
Speaker 1: backup assistant feature that was part of the parking Assistant
Speaker 1: package that the Parking Assistant package is still going to
Speaker 1: be available in these vehicles, but the backup Assistant feature
Speaker 1: is no longer an option that would allow you to
Speaker 1: use a system that would automatically reverse the process of
Speaker 1: parking when you were backing out so that you could
Speaker 1: get out of things like super tight spaces or whatever.
Speaker 1: Now you're just gonna have to do it on your
Speaker 1: own again. And in South Korea, the National Police Agency
Speaker 1: is advocating for a new process that would require elderly
Speaker 1: drivers to apply for conditional driver's licenses before being allowed
Speaker 1: to drive. This process would include a joy ride in
Speaker 1: a virtual vehicle, so the idea is to use VR
Speaker 1: to test the elderly to make certain they can still
Speaker 1: operate a vehicle. Safely under normal conditions, both day driving
Speaker 1: and night driving. From why I understand the people who
Speaker 1: will apply I for this conditional license will have to
Speaker 1: wear a VR headset and they will go through a scenario,
Speaker 1: a series of scenarios three both in in day and
Speaker 1: in night that will introduce things like an incident that
Speaker 1: happens that you have to respond to common stuff like
Speaker 1: let's say someone cuts you off on the highway. Um,
Speaker 1: you would have to be able to respond safely and
Speaker 1: quickly to be able to avoid any kind of collision.
Speaker 1: That's the kind of thing that they're going to replicate
Speaker 1: or simulate with this VR system. So South Korea has
Speaker 1: an aging population and police are concerned about a rise
Speaker 1: in accident rates, in traffic accident rates that involved senior drivers.
Speaker 1: So this is an effort to try and identify potential
Speaker 1: issues before they become hazardous or deadly. The plan is
Speaker 1: to have this new process in place by twenty five.
Speaker 1: And finally, I have an update on the James web
Speaker 1: Space telescope story. So I mentioned last week that there
Speaker 1: was an accident that caused a vibration to move through
Speaker 1: the telescope. The telescope itself is a satellite telescope. It's
Speaker 1: an incredibly sensitive piece of machinery, very delicate. It's got
Speaker 1: lots of delicate moving parts. Uh. For example, it has
Speaker 1: this massive array of mirrors that will have to unfold
Speaker 1: in space that will end up reflecting electromagnetic waves towards
Speaker 1: the detector on the telescope. So if those actuators are damaged, well,
Speaker 1: then the telescope just won't work because you have to
Speaker 1: have those mirrors in the proper configuration in order for
Speaker 1: it to focus very weak signals so that we can
Speaker 1: study them. Well, the little incident meant that at the
Speaker 1: very least the telescope's launch would have to be delayed
Speaker 1: from December eighteen to quote no earlier than December twenty
Speaker 1: two end quote. Well, now NASA has conducted a thorough investigation.
Speaker 1: Engineers were looking for any signs of damage in the telescope.
Speaker 1: They reported that they found none. So NASA has now
Speaker 1: authorized the launch for December twenty second, seven twenty a
Speaker 1: m Eastern Standard time. So it seems like the very
Speaker 1: very long journey to launch is coming to an end
Speaker 1: after more than a decade. I mean, I've got a
Speaker 1: tattoo that is related to the James Webb Space Telescope,
Speaker 1: and I got that tattoo a few years ago. Soon
Speaker 1: after this happens, we'll have another long journey ahead of us,
Speaker 1: but this time it will be one marked in you know, miles,
Speaker 1: rather than in years. We're talking about the journey into
Speaker 1: space itself. The telescope will go into orbit and it
Speaker 1: will search for answers about how the earliest stars and
Speaker 1: galaxies took shape in our universe right at the very
Speaker 1: beginning of time, as well as it will help study
Speaker 1: exoplanets in our ongoing quest to find out if there
Speaker 1: are other planets in our neighborhood that could potentially harbor
Speaker 1: life on them. And by neighborhood, I mean like our galaxy,
Speaker 1: not our solar system. But that would be really cool,
Speaker 1: whether to you know, possibly study and search for actual
Speaker 1: life or just you know, kind of make plans for
Speaker 1: far off distant future travels that would take generations to complete. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I think it's pretty exciting. I really hope that the
Speaker 1: rest of the process goes without any more incidents. This
Speaker 1: telescope has been through a lot, and the only incident
Speaker 1: I wouldn't mind having more discussion about is the name
Speaker 1: of the telescope. But apart from that, like, there have
Speaker 1: been so many delays associated with this particular device that
Speaker 1: it would be really nice if we could get it
Speaker 1: up into space and have it operational, you know, within
Speaker 1: a few months. That's my hope. We'll have to see
Speaker 1: if it happens. And that is it for the news
Speaker 1: for Tuesday, November one. Just a heads up, we will
Speaker 1: not have a news episode on Thursday. We have another
Speaker 1: episode of Smart Talks with IBM publishing on Thursday. I
Speaker 1: think that might be the final one that publishes in
Speaker 1: tech Stuff, and after that it'll it'll just be me again,
Speaker 1: you know, just us. I hope you like that. If
Speaker 1: you have any suggestions for topics I should cover on
Speaker 1: future episodes of tech Stuff, whether it's a technology, a company,
Speaker 1: a trend in tech, anything tech related like that, shoot
Speaker 1: me a message on Twitter let me know. The handle
Speaker 1: for the show is text Stuff H s W and
Speaker 1: I'll talk to you again really soon. Tech Stuff is
Speaker 1: an I Heart Radio production. For more podcasts from my
Speaker 1: Heart Radio, visit the i Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite show.