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. It's time for the
Speaker 1: tech news for Thursday, August four, twenty twenty two. And
Speaker 1: first I thought I should follow up with the story
Speaker 1: that I talked about a little bit on Tuesday, namely
Speaker 1: that Apple has recently filed an emergency motion with a
Speaker 1: court in East Texas arguing that it's human rights have
Speaker 1: been violated in Columbia. And if you didn't hear that story,
Speaker 1: you're pricing what the heck. So let's give a quick
Speaker 1: overview of what is going on. So, Apple's products that
Speaker 1: use five G make use of patented technology, and Ericsson
Speaker 1: is the company that owns those patents. Apple doesn't want
Speaker 1: to pay the licensing fees for the as patents from Ericson,
Speaker 1: so it stopped. Ericson has reached out to several countries
Speaker 1: asking the court systems of those countries to ban the
Speaker 1: sale of any five G Apple products because those products
Speaker 1: are infringing upon Ericson's patents. And it worked in Columbia.
Speaker 1: So Apple filed an emergency motion about that, and then
Speaker 1: a Texas judge said, look, just because you don't like
Speaker 1: what's happening doesn't make this an emergency. You've got a
Speaker 1: court date coming up, We're you're supposed to hash this
Speaker 1: out with ericson. Just wait until the court date and
Speaker 1: don't pull these shenanigans again. It's not an emergency if
Speaker 1: you just want to have an earlier court hearing. Then
Speaker 1: Apple filed another emergency motion, this time alleging that it's
Speaker 1: human rights have been violated under the Universal Declaration of
Speaker 1: Human Rights. Anyway, the bit I didn't talk about on
Speaker 1: Tuesday was has been I hadn't even heard about yet,
Speaker 1: is that this really is a bigger picture thing. It's
Speaker 1: not just this one thing that that is absurd just
Speaker 1: on the face of it. We have to look at
Speaker 1: how absurd everything is. And according to Apple, Ericsson is
Speaker 1: demanding a higher licensing fee for these five G technologies
Speaker 1: than they should, that the price tag is exorbitant, it's predatory,
Speaker 1: and that Apple doesn't want to deal with that, and
Speaker 1: that was why Apple was going to take this whole
Speaker 1: matter to court to hash it out, to determine if
Speaker 1: those licensing fees were too high see Apple argues that
Speaker 1: the five G patents that Ericson holds should be grouped
Speaker 1: under fair, reasonably and non discriminatory or FRAND terms f
Speaker 1: r A and d FRAND as a concept that's usually
Speaker 1: brought up in anti competitive disputes. The argument is that
Speaker 1: some patents are so important for general tech applications that
Speaker 1: the holder of the patent should be compelled to license
Speaker 1: them fairly to other parties, and refusing to do so
Speaker 1: is akin to holding a monopoly over that technology. So
Speaker 1: Apple is saying Ericsson is asking for way too much money,
Speaker 1: which is why they originally asked to settle that dispute
Speaker 1: in court. But then so so they go and do that,
Speaker 1: right they get They get a court date which is
Speaker 1: for several months from now, It's like at the end
Speaker 1: of this year. But in the meantime, while that court
Speaker 1: date is off in the distance, Ericson then stepped up
Speaker 1: the pressure by getting Apple's stuff banned from sale in Columbia.
Speaker 1: Ericson kind of did a blanket approach, and Columbia said, okay,
Speaker 1: so it actually happened in Columbia. I don't think it
Speaker 1: happened anywhere else. So In other words, what Apple is
Speaker 1: saying is that Ericsson has overstepped, rather than waiting for
Speaker 1: the court case to actually find out if in fact
Speaker 1: the licensing fees are egregiously high or if they are fair. Further,
Speaker 1: Apple is implying that Ericson knew that the court was
Speaker 1: going to find that the fees are too high and
Speaker 1: then decided to throw this Hill Mary pass to get
Speaker 1: countries to ban the sale of Apple five G products. Uh,
Speaker 1: and that this was a sign that Ericson was trying
Speaker 1: to out muscle Apple, like to say, hey, if you
Speaker 1: don't pay our licensing fees, you're not selling anything at all,
Speaker 1: and that's gonna hurt your bottom line way more than
Speaker 1: paying us what we're asking for. So Apple filed the
Speaker 1: emergency motion in an attempt to get that original court
Speaker 1: date moved up so that this could be resolved faster.
Speaker 1: And the courts resent that because the courts say, this
Speaker 1: is an emergency. That's not what emergency emotions are for.
Speaker 1: That's not an emergency. Yes, you know there's this ongoing
Speaker 1: dispute between these parties, but that doesn't meet the standard
Speaker 1: necessary for it to be an emergency. So the courts
Speaker 1: have so far declined to acquiesce to Apple's requests, and
Speaker 1: I feel like that extra context was needed because my
Speaker 1: report on Tuesday, I feel like that was really harsh
Speaker 1: against Apple specifically. Honestly, I don't feel like there are
Speaker 1: really any good guys in this one. I feel like
Speaker 1: Ericsson's movements were not great. I feel like Apple's movements
Speaker 1: were also not great. So I'm not willing to say
Speaker 1: one party is definitively the bully and the other ones
Speaker 1: definitively the victim, but rather to say like, no one
Speaker 1: here has behaved particularly well, except perhaps for the judge
Speaker 1: who keeps telling folks to stop putting up nonsense in
Speaker 1: their courtroom. Now it looks like we're in another big
Speaker 1: real estate bubble burst situation, which probably is something you
Speaker 1: didn't expect me to talk about on a Tech Stuff episode.
Speaker 1: But in this case we should actually call it a
Speaker 1: fake estate situation instead of real estate situation. Also, I
Speaker 1: should add I totally stole fake estate from a sub
Speaker 1: creddit at some point that's not mine. I wish it were.
Speaker 1: I wish I had thought of fake estate instead of
Speaker 1: estate now. Anyway, the the virtual real estate I'm talking
Speaker 1: about is stuff that's related to the metaverse. So last year,
Speaker 1: specifically around November, when Facebook changed its name to Meta Metaverse,
Speaker 1: hype was really on the rise. It was skyrocketing, and
Speaker 1: we saw a lot of ridiculous land rush like behavior,
Speaker 1: some of it ranging around stuff like n f T s,
Speaker 1: which really had peaked earlier, but still we're a big
Speaker 1: topic of conversation, and also to things like cryptocurrency. And
Speaker 1: then we saw people purchasing virtual plots of land on
Speaker 1: something that doesn't actually exist yet. By that's something, I
Speaker 1: really mean a fully realized metaverse. The virtual blocks of
Speaker 1: land can exist on actual platforms, meaning there may be
Speaker 1: servers out there that host the virtual landscape that people
Speaker 1: are purchasing. I'm not suggesting that the the virtual plots
Speaker 1: don't exist at all, that it's just an idea and
Speaker 1: not you know, on a server somewhere, but you can't
Speaker 1: really use them for anything other than kind of acting
Speaker 1: like a placeholder, at least not as far as the
Speaker 1: metaverse is concerned, because there is no metaverse yet. According
Speaker 1: to the Information the Journal of the Information, prices for
Speaker 1: virtual lots have dropped by eighty percent over just six months. Now.
Speaker 1: There are several different ways we can look at this.
Speaker 1: One would be to engage in schaden freuda. If you
Speaker 1: happen to be someone who does not care about virtual
Speaker 1: land grabs, you didn't participate, you have no stake in that,
Speaker 1: and you saw people going bonkers over it, maybe you're
Speaker 1: feeling kind of pleased with yourself and a little happy
Speaker 1: at their you know, misfortune as they see the investment
Speaker 1: they make dropped by. Another reaction is to feel a
Speaker 1: little sympathy for people who are swept up in the
Speaker 1: excitement of the metaverse through no fault of their own. Really,
Speaker 1: I mean, there was so much hype. I mean, they
Speaker 1: didn't lacked the use of critical thinking, so I guess
Speaker 1: you could argue that was some what their fault. But
Speaker 1: when you are in a hype cycle, it can be
Speaker 1: hard to see reality. And some folks just got carried away,
Speaker 1: and my heart does go out to those And then,
Speaker 1: of course there's a range of other reactions you could have.
Speaker 1: I personally find myself going back and forth between being
Speaker 1: snarky schadenfreuderman and being kind of feeling a lot of
Speaker 1: compassion for the people who were hit by this. And
Speaker 1: we've seen a lot of related markets take a few
Speaker 1: hits this year, right, n f T s were kind
Speaker 1: of the canary in the coal mine, because even before
Speaker 1: we got to the whole meta stuff, people were already
Speaker 1: starting to lash back against n f T s. I
Speaker 1: feel like n f T S came too hard, too quickly,
Speaker 1: at too many different people, and the reaction was rejection,
Speaker 1: especially in places like the video game community. That was
Speaker 1: that was kind of a litmus test for how certain
Speaker 1: population would reject the n f T value proposition. I
Speaker 1: think there was a really enthusiastic investor community around n
Speaker 1: f t s, but a lot of the rest of
Speaker 1: the world just said, Yo, this is kind of stupid.
Speaker 1: And now, to be clear, I am not saying n
Speaker 1: f T s are inherently stupid. I think there can
Speaker 1: be legit uses for n f T s. However, I
Speaker 1: will say I think n f T speculation is stupid.
Speaker 1: I think that treating it like a commodity is stupid.
Speaker 1: I don't think ultimately that's the right way to use
Speaker 1: n f t s, but that was the way that
Speaker 1: that got the spotlight, and we saw such ridiculous examples
Speaker 1: of it, and to this day it's still happening. It's
Speaker 1: just happening on a smaller community. Right, we also saw
Speaker 1: cryptocurrency values tank and then virtual real estate prices tank.
Speaker 1: And we've seen this play out in grand scale with Meta. Right.
Speaker 1: If you look at Meta and you look at how
Speaker 1: Meta has to communicate it's approach to developing a metaverse,
Speaker 1: that's kind of, again an early example of the difficulties
Speaker 1: that are across the entire landscape. You know, Zuckerberg actually
Speaker 1: tried to get ahead of that fairly early on. He
Speaker 1: cautioned investors that the creation of a fleshed out metaverse
Speaker 1: was going to take many years and a ton of investment,
Speaker 1: billions upon billions of dollars of investment. But I think
Speaker 1: shareholders get antsy when they just start to see how
Speaker 1: big the costs and losses are out of the reality
Speaker 1: labs division at Meta. Now does that mean does all
Speaker 1: this mean that virtual real estate is dead in the water,
Speaker 1: that we're not going to hear about ever? Again? No,
Speaker 1: I don't think so. I think what we're seeing is,
Speaker 1: you know, what someone might call a market correction, or
Speaker 1: that we've seen the hype peak and now we're on
Speaker 1: the downside slope of the hype cycle. But eventually, I
Speaker 1: think we're gonna see things level out and then climb
Speaker 1: at a more sustainable rate. It seems pretty clear that
Speaker 1: we are going to get something that we might call
Speaker 1: a metaverse. We might get several some things that we
Speaker 1: call metaversees, and that real estate is going to matter
Speaker 1: when those somethings emerge, right, because if people are actually
Speaker 1: going to these metaverses to interact with one another, having
Speaker 1: a a position, a stance within that virtual space will
Speaker 1: be really important because otherwise you will miss out on
Speaker 1: any kind of interaction you could have there. So if
Speaker 1: you're a business, then yeah, I guess it does make
Speaker 1: sense to think about this. I just don't think it
Speaker 1: made sense to pour enormous amounts of money in an
Speaker 1: unproven and and not ready market so quickly. Uh So,
Speaker 1: I figured it will take a little bit longer before
Speaker 1: things start to look stable enough to support a robust
Speaker 1: virtual real estate market, but we will get there, I'll so.
Speaker 1: As for me, I'm just gonna live in a real
Speaker 1: world hut somewhere, just the real world, not the virtual world,
Speaker 1: and I will remain blissfully ignorant of all the virtual
Speaker 1: mansions and sky palaces and underwater villain layers and whatever
Speaker 1: else folks might make in the metaverse. Y'all have fun. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's not for me, alright. One thing that is for
Speaker 1: me are several more news stories. But before we get
Speaker 1: to those, let's take a quick break. All fifty states
Speaker 1: attorneys general here in the US, so the attorneys general
Speaker 1: for each of our fifty states. It's a confusing thing
Speaker 1: to even have to say. They have all united to
Speaker 1: fight a common enemy robo calls, specifically, in this case,
Speaker 1: robo calls coming from foreign numbers. So a few years
Speaker 1: ago we saw a real movement to curtail robo calls
Speaker 1: and spam calls within the United States. The government would
Speaker 1: require carriers to incorporate tools designed to detect and prevent
Speaker 1: these kinds of calls, to create databases to help UH
Speaker 1: cut back on robot calls and spam calls. And those
Speaker 1: requirements first applied to the major carriers because they held
Speaker 1: the bulk of the responsibility. They also had the most
Speaker 1: capability to respond quickly, and then the smaller carriers were
Speaker 1: given a bit more time to comply. They were still
Speaker 1: expected to comply, they just didn't have to do so
Speaker 1: at the same speed as the major telecommunications companies, and
Speaker 1: now this new push is to task what are called
Speaker 1: gateway carriers. These are telecommunications companies that field calls from
Speaker 1: outside the country, so foreign calls that are coming into
Speaker 1: the United States, and they are tasked with the the
Speaker 1: responsibility of determining whether or not the calls are legal.
Speaker 1: If the calls are not legal, then they should be blocked.
Speaker 1: Josh Stein, the Attorney General for North Carolina and one
Speaker 1: of the leaders of this effort, said that the team
Speaker 1: plans to hold phone companies responsible for allowing a legal
Speaker 1: traffic to pass over US phone signals. And you might
Speaker 1: wonder how all this is going to be managed, And
Speaker 1: I don't know, but I am in favor of having
Speaker 1: fewer fishing and spam calls hit my phone, So I
Speaker 1: hope whatever plan is put into place works. SpaceX says
Speaker 1: that it's next generation of Startling satellites, which the company
Speaker 1: uses to provide Internet service to satellite customers, will be
Speaker 1: quote invisible to the naked eye when at their standard
Speaker 1: operational altitude end quote. This move is in response to
Speaker 1: the global astronomy community, which has grown concerned that huge
Speaker 1: networks of small satellites will block views of the Cosmos
Speaker 1: and interfere with terrestrial observations of the universe. And I
Speaker 1: think this is Startling getting ahead of any regulations that
Speaker 1: would otherwise force the company to change how it does business.
Speaker 1: As to how Starlink has achieved this all, I don't
Speaker 1: have any details. If I had to guess, I would
Speaker 1: say that this next generation of Startling satellites are going
Speaker 1: to be a little bit smaller and may be placed
Speaker 1: in a slightly higher orbit than earlier satellites, and that's
Speaker 1: how they are quote unquote invisible to the naked eye.
Speaker 1: According to UK supply chain management company Fleet Assist, electric
Speaker 1: vehicles on average are twenty two percent less expensive to
Speaker 1: service compared to similar internal combustion engine vehicles. The firm
Speaker 1: says that some factors that likely contribute to this lower
Speaker 1: cost of maintenance are things like electric vehicles have fewer
Speaker 1: moving components, so there's less stuff that wears down through
Speaker 1: normal use. On average, it takes thirty three percent less
Speaker 1: time to repair or maintain e vs than I sees
Speaker 1: for comparable jobs, so that means labor costs are also
Speaker 1: down and e V parts are frequently less expensive than
Speaker 1: I see parts. Again because the design tends to be
Speaker 1: simpler with fewer moving parts. However, Fleet Assist warrens that
Speaker 1: we might not see this go on forever, right, We
Speaker 1: might not see that EVY expenses are lower than I
Speaker 1: see expenses at the garage, because there's a thought that
Speaker 1: garages are going to increase their prices in order to
Speaker 1: maintain profitability. Like the garage is not going to say, well,
Speaker 1: cost less for us to do the work, so I
Speaker 1: guess we'll just make less money. They might say it
Speaker 1: costs less for us to do the works, less charge more,
Speaker 1: so we can make more money. So while EVIS would
Speaker 1: continue to be easier to work on compared to I
Speaker 1: c ES, the advantage from a cost to consumer perspective
Speaker 1: might dwindle over time. Streaming digitally has asked an interesting question,
Speaker 1: what happened to HBO max original movies that just plane disappeared?
Speaker 1: The piece mentions several Warner Brothers films that were on
Speaker 1: HBO Max but aren't there anymore. And HBO is part
Speaker 1: of Warner Media, which now in turn is owned by
Speaker 1: Discover and just in the interest of full disclosure, once
Speaker 1: upon a time, Discover was my corporate overlord. This was
Speaker 1: several years ago, however, and all of this has led
Speaker 1: to speculation that Discover is planning on making some big
Speaker 1: changes to its streaming strategy, which we should hear more
Speaker 1: about today. The company is going to hold its earnings
Speaker 1: call for Q two two. Analysts expect that we should
Speaker 1: hear at least something about a new unified streaming service.
Speaker 1: Maybe Discovery Plus will lump in HBO Max underneath it
Speaker 1: and it'll appear as a tab. There's also an expectation
Speaker 1: that we're going to see a massive change in production
Speaker 1: that anything that would overlap between HBO and Discover that
Speaker 1: is like you know, reality television and stuff that's going
Speaker 1: to be smoothed out so that Discover becomes kind of
Speaker 1: the reality TV side and HBO becomes the more fictional side.
Speaker 1: So it could be that some reality series that are
Speaker 1: under HBO go bye bye. Also, it sounds like we're
Speaker 1: going to move away from producing expensive content just for
Speaker 1: streaming platforms. One big example of that is the film
Speaker 1: bat Girl. It was supposed to be released to HBO Max,
Speaker 1: It was in post production. It has now been shelved
Speaker 1: probably forever at least indefinitely, and the reason for that
Speaker 1: is David Zaslov, the CEO of Discover, doesn't feel like
Speaker 1: the reward of streaming this content is worth the expense
Speaker 1: of producing it. This is expensive stuff, and if you're
Speaker 1: gonna make expensive stuff, you should darn well be releasing
Speaker 1: it to theaters and getting money there. So I think
Speaker 1: this is a case where Zaslov said, Yeah, it's not
Speaker 1: worth pouring more money into bat Girl to fix it
Speaker 1: because it had been testing poorly reportedly. Uh, let's just
Speaker 1: not worry about it. Let's cut it as a loss.
Speaker 1: There's also a general feel that Zaslov is going to
Speaker 1: be holding some layoffs later on down the road and
Speaker 1: and kind of whittled down the organization. Uh. I know that.
Speaker 1: I've seen a lot speculation on that. I'm kind of
Speaker 1: curious to see what happens. There's a lot of HBO
Speaker 1: content I actually really like, and I'm kind of worried
Speaker 1: about whether or not such stuff will continue to be produced.
Speaker 1: A lot of it ends up being produced for the
Speaker 1: cable channel as well as the streaming service, so we'll
Speaker 1: have to see. Zaslovs a cable guy. That's where he
Speaker 1: comes from, and that's where he's done the bulk of
Speaker 1: his leadership so maybe I don't know. I don't know
Speaker 1: how to predict. I do worry about some of the
Speaker 1: smaller UH departments and companies that Warner Media owns, and
Speaker 1: whether or not those are long for this world. I
Speaker 1: suspect we might see some of those gets sold off
Speaker 1: in the months to come. Well, I've got a couple
Speaker 1: more stories that I want to talk about, but before
Speaker 1: we get to those, let's take another quick break. Chinese
Speaker 1: mega company Tencent wants to increase its steak in game
Speaker 1: developer UBI Soft or you be soft, whichever pronunciation you prefer.
Speaker 1: I'll probably go back and forth between the two, because
Speaker 1: I'm a mercurial imp. Now. I did a couple of
Speaker 1: episodes about ubi soft last year. I kind of detailed
Speaker 1: the history of the company as well as how it
Speaker 1: recently had to go through our reckoning due to allegations
Speaker 1: of a corporate culture where harassment and worse had been
Speaker 1: tolerated for years, really really ugly stuff. The company has
Speaker 1: kept a fairly low profile since then, with a lot
Speaker 1: of layoffs and and firings of people who were associated
Speaker 1: with that scandal. Anyway, they are now looking at ten
Speaker 1: Cent coming in and buying up more of the company. Now.
Speaker 1: Tencent already owns about five percent of ubi Soft and
Speaker 1: reportedly wants to increase its steak in ownership so that
Speaker 1: it becomes the largest single shareholder in the company. Ten
Speaker 1: Cent also has a stake in a lot of different companies,
Speaker 1: and particularly in video games, and reportedly one reason for
Speaker 1: this move to increase its hold on Ubisoft is that
Speaker 1: ten Cent wants to focus more of its resources on
Speaker 1: global markets, and one potential reason for that is that
Speaker 1: within China there's been a bit of a crackdown on
Speaker 1: the video game industry, with the Chinese government taking the
Speaker 1: stance that games can potentially be harmful and thus should
Speaker 1: be regulated. So that might explain why ten Cent is
Speaker 1: wanting to take this this extra steak. No telling yet
Speaker 1: if this is going to happen. The family that Ownscent
Speaker 1: of Ubisoft would have to agree to sell it, so
Speaker 1: we'll have to see if that happens, but maybe Tincent
Speaker 1: will make an offer that they can't refuse. We'll have
Speaker 1: to see. Finally, one of the scary realities of the
Speaker 1: oncoming quantum computing era is that the encryption methods we
Speaker 1: rely upon today will at some point become useless now,
Speaker 1: for this to happen, you first have to design to
Speaker 1: write algorithm for a sufficiently powerful quantum system. But if
Speaker 1: you were able to do that using quantum computing, you
Speaker 1: could break standard encryption so quickly that it would be trivial.
Speaker 1: So another way to think about this is that at
Speaker 1: some point these systems will be powerful enough and have
Speaker 1: the correct algorithm necessary to create the equivalent of a
Speaker 1: skeleton key that can unlock every luck in existence, and
Speaker 1: there will be no more secrets or something. So knowing this,
Speaker 1: computer scientists for years now have been working on developing
Speaker 1: new encryption systems that, in theory, would foil quantum systems.
Speaker 1: So this is like the next generation of encryption. To
Speaker 1: keep systems safe even in an era of quantum computing,
Speaker 1: this means it requires a totally different approach than the
Speaker 1: way a lot of encryption works right now. And one
Speaker 1: of those approaches, called psych s i k E, which
Speaker 1: by the way, is short for super singular isogeny key encapsulation,
Speaker 1: was looking pretty promising. The U s Department of Commerce
Speaker 1: has a National Institute of Standards and Technology. That's the
Speaker 1: that's the entity in the United States that UH that
Speaker 1: credits standards in tech. They held a competition, and the
Speaker 1: competition had the goal of creating the next generation encryption
Speaker 1: schemes capable of holding off quantum superiority and PSYCH and
Speaker 1: made it through several stages of the competition. It was
Speaker 1: doing really well, and then some researchers, using a perfectly
Speaker 1: ordinary standard computer with a single processing core, found a
Speaker 1: weakness in psych's algorithm design. Now I am not going
Speaker 1: to pretend that I understand what happened and as sure
Speaker 1: as heck, and not going to try and describe it
Speaker 1: because I would just muck it all up. But I
Speaker 1: will say that using a mathematical approach, the researchers were
Speaker 1: able to predict and then retrieve encryption keys from the algorithm.
Speaker 1: So this would be like getting hold of any key
Speaker 1: coming out of this system and being able to make
Speaker 1: an instant copy of it. Uh, at least for that
Speaker 1: particular encryption method, So it is not secure. The PSYCH
Speaker 1: creators said they were surprised by the researchers approach. This
Speaker 1: was something they hadn't anticipated, so they were kind of
Speaker 1: surprised to learn about the weakness of their design. They
Speaker 1: hadn't looked at it from that perspective. And I think
Speaker 1: of this kind of like if you were to build
Speaker 1: something that has really strong strength against compression, really strong strength,
Speaker 1: real well spoken there, Jonathan, anyway that you could compress
Speaker 1: it and this thing would hold up really well. But
Speaker 1: someone ends up coming after your your structure using a
Speaker 1: shearing motion, and it turns out your structure is not
Speaker 1: secure against shearing. Yeah, it was really strong against compression,
Speaker 1: but not strong against this other kind of attack, and
Speaker 1: the whole thing crumbles. That's kind of what we saw here.
Speaker 1: I think of this as actually a great story. It's
Speaker 1: one of the illustrates the making robust solutions is hard
Speaker 1: to do, and that we need to put them to
Speaker 1: the test or else we find ourselves dependent upon a
Speaker 1: flawed system that's sooner or later someone's going to figure
Speaker 1: out how to exploit. So it's better that we find
Speaker 1: out something isn't going to work early on, rather than
Speaker 1: not figure that out, implement it, and then find out
Speaker 1: the hard way later, especially when you think that if
Speaker 1: someone is really clever and they exploit a system, they
Speaker 1: might not let anyone know about that until things have
Speaker 1: really reached a catastrophic point. So this was a good thing.
Speaker 1: It does, however, illustrate the challenges we face moving forward
Speaker 1: in the quantum era. And that's it for today's episode.
Speaker 1: Hope you're having a great day a great week. If
Speaker 1: you have suggestions for future topics, reach out me. One
Speaker 1: way to do that is to download the I Heart
Speaker 1: Radio app. It's free to download. Just navigate over to
Speaker 1: the tech stuff part. There's a little microphone nicon there
Speaker 1: you can click on that leave me a voice message
Speaker 1: up to thirty seconds in length. The other way to
Speaker 1: get in touch with me is on Twitter. The handle
Speaker 1: we use is text stuff hs W and I'll talk
Speaker 1: to you again really soon y. Text Stuff is an
Speaker 1: I heart Radio production. For more podcasts from I Heart Radio,
Speaker 1: visit the i Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
Speaker 1: you listen to your favorite shows.