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. How the tech are you. We're gonna start
Speaker 1: off today's news episode with a little story about digital surveillance.
Speaker 1: Georgetown Laws Center on Privacy and Technology reports that the
Speaker 1: Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency or ICE, has been engaged
Speaker 1: in widespread digital surveillance despite the fact that the agency
Speaker 1: isn't supposed to do that now. Essentially, ICE has been
Speaker 1: using a loophole, so instead of conducting digital surveillance on
Speaker 1: US residents itself, the agency has actually just been purchasing
Speaker 1: massive amounts of data through various data brokers and other
Speaker 1: private companies as well as public utilities. Now, according to
Speaker 1: the researchers, ICE has accumulated nearly three quarters of all
Speaker 1: adult residents who have a driver's license in the US
Speaker 1: three quarters of photos. That is, of those driver's licenses.
Speaker 1: The agency purchases information from utility companies, and that gives
Speaker 1: ICE the ability to detect when someone moves by seeing
Speaker 1: when someone activates service at a new address. ICE is
Speaker 1: part of the Department of Homeland Security, and the researchers
Speaker 1: are arguing that the agency lacks proper congressional oversight. The
Speaker 1: researchers have made a few recommendations to address this incredible
Speaker 1: amount of digital surveillance, ranging from more thorough oversight of
Speaker 1: the agency to reforming immigration law. Personally, I think this
Speaker 1: really points to a need to create comprehensive laws about
Speaker 1: who can sell data to whom and under what circumstances,
Speaker 1: because as it stands right now, there's no need to
Speaker 1: be some sort of skullduggery oriented agency. You don't have
Speaker 1: to be you know, Mission impossible or anything in order
Speaker 1: to spy on people. These agencies just purchased the information
Speaker 1: they need from various sources, and through that they get
Speaker 1: an incredibly detailed dossier on anyone they like. I mean,
Speaker 1: our ability to analyze data has reached a point where
Speaker 1: if you just have the information, you can sift through
Speaker 1: it and put together a really comprehensive picture of who
Speaker 1: someone is and where they've been. Big Brother has been
Speaker 1: distributed and democratized. Yikes. In other news on how US
Speaker 1: departments are using technology, the Pentagon recently held a demonstration
Speaker 1: via its Joint Counter Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office. I
Speaker 1: had to be really careful about reading that. It's kind
Speaker 1: of a mouthful, But in this demonstrate, Shan vendor teams
Speaker 1: used high powered microwave transmitters to bring down drones. So
Speaker 1: the department has been assessing the possibility of using high
Speaker 1: powered microwave beams to bring down hostile drones. We're talking
Speaker 1: military grade drones here, not your average little quad copters.
Speaker 1: And this was the third set of demonstrations, all intended
Speaker 1: to give the agency the information needed to determine capability
Speaker 1: gaps like where do they need to make improvements, and
Speaker 1: to focus on developing the next generation of anti drone weaponry.
Speaker 1: The vendors had to demonstrate their respective technologies effectiveness, which
Speaker 1: included everything from threat detection to tracking too bringing down
Speaker 1: targeted drones, sometimes two at a time. So this is
Speaker 1: still very much in development, and while similar weapons may
Speaker 1: already be deployed, what we're really looking at is the
Speaker 1: refinement process intended to develop more effective anti drone defense systems.
Speaker 1: There have been a few people who have suggested that
Speaker 1: Elon Musk's quest to purchase Twitter has had at least
Speaker 1: something to do with his own tendency to post things
Speaker 1: that the United States securities and Exchange Commission or SEC,
Speaker 1: has objected to not that buying Twitter is going to
Speaker 1: change that at all, but whether that factored into his
Speaker 1: decision to purchase the company or not. The SEC is
Speaker 1: once again investigating Musk with relation to Twitter. This time,
Speaker 1: it's because Musk was late in submitting a form indicating
Speaker 1: his intent to purchase more than five percent of Twitter's shares.
Speaker 1: He ended up purchasing a little more than nine percent.
Speaker 1: That's something that investors are supposed to do when they
Speaker 1: plan to make that substantial and investment in a company,
Speaker 1: is to file that with the SEC. Musk apparently filed
Speaker 1: the form at least ten days after he was supposed to, and,
Speaker 1: according to the SEC, by not reporting the intended purchase
Speaker 1: in a timely manner, Musk was able to buy that
Speaker 1: stock essentially at a discount, potentially amounting to as much
Speaker 1: as a hundred forty three million dollars. How Well, if
Speaker 1: Musk had followed the proper protocol and submitted the form properly,
Speaker 1: that submission would be public information, which means investors would
Speaker 1: have seen that Musk was going to buy more than
Speaker 1: nine of Twitter's stocks, and that in turn could have
Speaker 1: been enough to drive up the share price, which would
Speaker 1: have increased the wealth of current shareholders or encouraged more
Speaker 1: people to buy into Twitter stock ahead of that actual purchase.
Speaker 1: And one shareholder has now filed a lawsuit against Musk,
Speaker 1: essentially arguing that by filing late, Musk robbed shareholders of
Speaker 1: potential wealth. The SEC could also seek its own lawsuit
Speaker 1: against Musk, but neither the shareholder lawsuit or a potential
Speaker 1: SEC lawsuit would likely have any real impact on the
Speaker 1: planned acquisition, which still requires shareholder and regulatory approval before
Speaker 1: it can go through. Let's start talking about Meta. There
Speaker 1: are a couple of stories to to cover now. The
Speaker 1: owner of Facebook, that being Meta, is looking to make
Speaker 1: some cutbacks to its Reality Labs division, which is the
Speaker 1: hardware centric part of Meta that develops mixed reality hardware. Apparently,
Speaker 1: at an internal meeting, leaders told employees to expect upcoming
Speaker 1: changes to be announced within a week or so, with
Speaker 1: those announcements being specific cutbacks. And this is a pretty
Speaker 1: dramatic turnaround from where we were in the fall of back.
Speaker 1: Then that's when Zuckerberg spoke at length about how the
Speaker 1: company was putting an intense focus on developing all things metaverse.
Speaker 1: I mean that's when they changed the company name from
Speaker 1: Facebook to Meta and the development includes making immersive hardware
Speaker 1: that will give people the chance to experience the metaverse.
Speaker 1: But you see, this dedicated focus on the metaverse comes
Speaker 1: at a massive cost. And if you skip ahead a
Speaker 1: few months to earlier this year, we learned that Facebook
Speaker 1: had experienced a drop in active users. That news shocked investors,
Speaker 1: who I guess clutched their pearls whenever certain numbers go
Speaker 1: down instead of up, and I might be getting increasingly
Speaker 1: grouchy about how the stock market works. Anyway, there was
Speaker 1: a drop in confidence from the investor community, and Meta
Speaker 1: reps said that the company would be cutting costs to
Speaker 1: reduce the negative impact on shareholders. Subsequently, news broke that
Speaker 1: the company was slowing down on hiring for mid to
Speaker 1: senior level positions within the company in general. And now
Speaker 1: we hear that they're going to be cutbacks that will
Speaker 1: put some of these reality labs projects on old at
Speaker 1: least for a while. Some might end up being shelved permanently.
Speaker 1: We do not yet know which of those projects are
Speaker 1: going to be impacted. We had previously heard that the
Speaker 1: division was working on four new headsets to aiming at
Speaker 1: a more premium space in the market, which really means
Speaker 1: you know, more features and more expensive, and too meant
Speaker 1: for a more of an entry level space in the market.
Speaker 1: Still expensive, but you know less. So not sure if
Speaker 1: any of those four are going to be impacted by
Speaker 1: these cutbacks or if this is actually going to affect
Speaker 1: projects that are further down the pipeline. Meta reps said
Speaker 1: there are no current plans for employee layoffs at this time,
Speaker 1: so that's good. I mean, I don't like Meta, but
Speaker 1: I really hate seeing people lose their jobs. In an
Speaker 1: earlier tech News episode, I talked about how Facebook relied
Speaker 1: on third party staffing services to hire content moderators in
Speaker 1: places like Africa. Now, one former employee is bringing a
Speaker 1: lawsuit against both Meta and one of those third party companies,
Speaker 1: a tech outsourcing firm called Sama, which is based out
Speaker 1: of San Francisco. This former employee argues that he was
Speaker 1: hired under false pretenses because he says he was never
Speaker 1: told that he would be working for Facebook and that
Speaker 1: he would be doing content moderation when he interviewed for
Speaker 1: the position. He relocated from South Africa to Kenya in
Speaker 1: order to take this job and then discovered what it
Speaker 1: was that he was meant to do. His lawsuit claims
Speaker 1: that this practice is a violation of Kenya's anti human
Speaker 1: trafficking laws. So the headlines about this all naturally say
Speaker 1: that Facebook is being sued for engaging in human trafficking.
Speaker 1: In fact, that's why I clicked on the story to
Speaker 1: read up on what was going on. Now, I don't
Speaker 1: know the particulars of this law in question, However, I
Speaker 1: have to assume the fact at the former employee allegedly
Speaker 1: had no idea who his employer was going to be
Speaker 1: or what his actual position was going to be while
Speaker 1: he relocated to another country has to factor into it.
Speaker 1: In addition, the former employee claims he was fired after
Speaker 1: he tried to organize other employees, so there are also
Speaker 1: charges of union busting wrapped up in this too. Now,
Speaker 1: on top of all that, the man says that exposure
Speaker 1: to truly horrifying material, which ranged from child abuse to
Speaker 1: videos of executions, has left him traumatized and impacted his
Speaker 1: physical and mental health. Now, y'all, I can tell you
Speaker 1: I could never be a content moderator on Facebook. Just
Speaker 1: my exposure to the normal news is enough to cause
Speaker 1: me mental distress, and that's the same stuff that everybody
Speaker 1: else is seeing all the time. Anyway, Meta reps have
Speaker 1: claimed that the company takes employee welfare seriously and holds
Speaker 1: their third party staffing service is accountable for providing fair pay,
Speaker 1: benefits and support, something that the lawsuit UH argues with,
Speaker 1: and SAMA that third party staffing service, for its part,
Speaker 1: denies that it engaged in any anti union behavior. So
Speaker 1: I'll have to see where the story goes from here. Okay,
Speaker 1: we've got some more news stories coming up, but first
Speaker 1: let's take a quick break. Last year, the state of
Speaker 1: Texas passed a law called HB twin Team, which would
Speaker 1: give Texans the right to sue social media platforms that
Speaker 1: have fifty million or more active monthly users if those
Speaker 1: users believe that they got a ban from those platforms
Speaker 1: due to their political views. So, in other words, if
Speaker 1: they think that they've been banned from a service because
Speaker 1: of their political views, they can sue the company within
Speaker 1: the state of Texas, UH if they are residents of Texas.
Speaker 1: That is, the law also forbids social networks from cutting
Speaker 1: off access to people in Texas in order to sidestep
Speaker 1: this issue, which y'all that is absolutely wild. Uh. It's
Speaker 1: left a lot of folks saying, where does Texas get
Speaker 1: off litigating how a business in another state conducts itself,
Speaker 1: Like if the business is incorporated, saying California, why gives
Speaker 1: Texas the authority to prevent that company from not providing
Speaker 1: service to Texas? Anyway. A federal judge previously passed an
Speaker 1: injunction against HB twenty, preventing it from going into effect
Speaker 1: until further judgment determined whether or not the law is
Speaker 1: you know, legal, and the Fifth U. S. Circuit Court
Speaker 1: of Appeals has now overturned that injunction and HB twenty
Speaker 1: is now in effect in Texas. I suspect this is
Speaker 1: just another stop on the journey to bringing this law
Speaker 1: ahead of the Supreme Court. But then, considering the current
Speaker 1: makeup of the U. S. Supreme Court, I can't confidently
Speaker 1: say that they will find the law to be unconstitutional,
Speaker 1: even though it appears to be pretty unconstitutional. The federal
Speaker 1: judge who passed the injunction had pointed out that passing
Speaker 1: the law infringed upon the freedom of speech for the
Speaker 1: actual social media platforms that these platforms have the right
Speaker 1: to establish codes of conduct and then they have the
Speaker 1: right to enforce those codes of conduct, and any state
Speaker 1: coming in to say no, you can't do that is
Speaker 1: akin to censorship, which you know is ironic because Texas
Speaker 1: was positioning its law as being anti censorship, but in
Speaker 1: fact Texas was engaging in censorship against the social platforms
Speaker 1: in order to do this. Anyway, HB twenty is just
Speaker 1: a terrible law, full stop. It's a terrible law. On
Speaker 1: top of that, one of the judges in the the
Speaker 1: Circuit Court of Appeals referred to Twitter as an Internet provider,
Speaker 1: which is just playing wrong, Like you can't get more wrong.
Speaker 1: Twitter provides a service that's on the Internet, but it's
Speaker 1: not an Internet provider. It's not providing Internet service. I
Speaker 1: swear Texas is like the upside down in Stranger Things.
Speaker 1: And I say that as a resident of Georgia, a
Speaker 1: state that has its own share of totally backwards legislation. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I can't wait to see where the story goes in
Speaker 1: the future, and my heart goes out to all the
Speaker 1: folks in Texas who opposed this kind of stuff. I
Speaker 1: understand how hard it can be to live in a
Speaker 1: state where leaders make bad decisions that reflect poorly on you,
Speaker 1: and you had nothing to do with it. Over in Europe,
Speaker 1: we're seeing another example of how leaders, in an effort
Speaker 1: to fight something that's truly hideous, in this case UH
Speaker 1: images and video of child sexual abuse use, they are
Speaker 1: pursuing rules that will have massive, unintended consequences and a
Speaker 1: negative impact. So the EU has proposed founding a new
Speaker 1: division to fight child abuse material online, as well as
Speaker 1: required tech companies to quote, detect, report, block and remove
Speaker 1: end quote such material from their platforms. On the surface,
Speaker 1: that all sounds fairly you know, reasonable right to detect, report, block,
Speaker 1: and remove child abuse material. And obviously this material is
Speaker 1: incredibly harmful and reporting it would be absolutely key in
Speaker 1: order to track down the people responsible and to stop
Speaker 1: them from abusing children. But it's the detect part that
Speaker 1: could be particularly disruptive and dangerous for lots of reasons.
Speaker 1: You see, for any platform that allows private messaging between
Speaker 1: people on that platform, if that platform is ordered to
Speaker 1: dete hecked this kind of material, well, to do that,
Speaker 1: it would have to scan messages that were being sent
Speaker 1: between individuals on the platform to see if any of
Speaker 1: that material was included in those messages. These could be
Speaker 1: messages that people presumably come on as being private and secure.
Speaker 1: It would also mean that end to end encryption would
Speaker 1: be pretty much impossible or rendered meaningless. A solid end
Speaker 1: to end encryption service would be created in such a
Speaker 1: way that no one other than the parties communicating would
Speaker 1: be able to see the contents of that communication. That
Speaker 1: includes the communications platform itself. So in other words, if
Speaker 1: company A allows true end to end encryption, company A
Speaker 1: has no way of knowing what is being sent over
Speaker 1: those messages. It cannot access those messages, it cannot scan them.
Speaker 1: So the only way to get around this is to
Speaker 1: do was called client side scanning. That means you would
Speaker 1: actually have to scan the material on the end devices
Speaker 1: once the material has been decrypted. So that would mean
Speaker 1: all users in the EU would have various companies scanning
Speaker 1: their personal devices for signs of this kind of material.
Speaker 1: Apple had actually proposed doing this and then put the
Speaker 1: plans on hold after receiving some pushback from civil rights activists,
Speaker 1: and those activists have argued that this kind of surveillance
Speaker 1: is really dangerous. It removes all privacy. Now, there is
Speaker 1: no denying that child abuse is horrible and it needs
Speaker 1: to be stopped and prevented. But researchers are suggesting that
Speaker 1: it might be better to use other methodologies rather than
Speaker 1: stripping away the possibility of true d end encryption, which
Speaker 1: promotes human rights, and that those methodologies can be things
Speaker 1: like analyzing metadata in order to detect criminal behavior and
Speaker 1: to stop it. Obviously, this is one of those really
Speaker 1: emotionally charged topics. It is hard to tackle. There are
Speaker 1: no easy solutions, and it is very clear that a
Speaker 1: solution is desperately needed, so it is a difficult situation
Speaker 1: to kind of suss out. A couple of weeks ago,
Speaker 1: we talked about how Netflix had a very rough call
Speaker 1: with investors as the company reported its first net loss
Speaker 1: and subscribers ever, and once again, you know, if numbers
Speaker 1: go the wrong way, the stock market goes bananas. Anyway,
Speaker 1: apart from this being another example of how reactionary things
Speaker 1: are in the investment world, it pushed Netflix to talk
Speaker 1: about the ways the company intends to drive up revenue
Speaker 1: and reduce costs in the future. Two of those ways
Speaker 1: involved clamping down on the practice of password sharing, and
Speaker 1: the other was to introduce ads. Two create different tiers
Speaker 1: of subscriptions now. The company says we might see both
Speaker 1: of these practices begin by the end of this year,
Speaker 1: and we have an idea of how this is probably
Speaker 1: going to play out. For one thing, Netflix has been
Speaker 1: experimenting with a model in a few countries in which
Speaker 1: households can pay a little bit extra in their monthly
Speaker 1: subscriptions and in return, they are authorized to share their
Speaker 1: password with at least a person outside of their household.
Speaker 1: So this this allows them for the case where someone
Speaker 1: who is not living under the same roof is able
Speaker 1: to access the service, so you pay a little bit
Speaker 1: more per month and you get a kind of adjunct
Speaker 1: household member who just happens to live outside the house.
Speaker 1: As for advertisements, the general belief is that Netflix would
Speaker 1: do something similar to what we've seen other platforms do
Speaker 1: in the past, which is that they offer a less
Speaker 1: expensive subscription model for folks who opt to have ads
Speaker 1: included in their service, and those who don't want ads
Speaker 1: will just have to pay a little bit more per
Speaker 1: month for a premium service. Whether this will address the
Speaker 1: issue of subscriber loss remains to be seen. Okay, I've
Speaker 1: got a couple more stories to go through before we
Speaker 1: get to those, let's take another quick break. One service
Speaker 1: that did not have Netflix's problems was Disney Plus. The
Speaker 1: mouse House reported that nearly eight million people joined as
Speaker 1: new subscribers to Disney Plus over the first quarter of
Speaker 1: twenty two, which was better than anticipated. This makes Disney
Speaker 1: Plus a leading company when it comes to growth. Keep
Speaker 1: in mind, like there are other services that are bigger,
Speaker 1: they're just not growing at the same rate as Disney
Speaker 1: Plus growth. Like again, this is why I think growth
Speaker 1: is a bad metric for success, because you could be
Speaker 1: growing really fast, but the reason for that might be
Speaker 1: that you're pretty small. So if you have two people
Speaker 1: on your service and then six more people sign up,
Speaker 1: you know that if you if you convert that over
Speaker 1: to percentages, looks really impressive, but when you look at
Speaker 1: the actual numbers, maybe not so much. Anyway, despite the
Speaker 1: fact that Disney Plus is growing very fast, faster than
Speaker 1: services like Hbo Max, the division is losing lots of money.
Speaker 1: In fact, it's losing money faster than it was before. This,
Speaker 1: by the way, is again one of the things that
Speaker 1: really puzzles me about business. It convinces me that all
Speaker 1: money is fake and we're all just playing pretend until
Speaker 1: it all falls apart. But yeah, Disney Plus is growing
Speaker 1: super fast and pulling in more money per subscriber on average,
Speaker 1: but it's also losing money faster because the cost of
Speaker 1: producing exclusive content for the platform is really high. We've
Speaker 1: seen this with other services as well. Netflix, in particular
Speaker 1: streaming platforms attracts subscribers primarily by securing exclusive content. Sometimes
Speaker 1: that is involved by signing deals with specific studios so
Speaker 1: that you have the exclusive right to stream that studio's content.
Speaker 1: In other cases, it involves funding productions directly, and this
Speaker 1: stuff is expensive you. Disney is reportedly considering introducing an
Speaker 1: ad supported subscription tier to Disney Plus in the future,
Speaker 1: similar to what Netflix is considering. Yesterday, Google kicked off
Speaker 1: its annual Io event. That's the one in which the
Speaker 1: company reveals new products and invites developers to become familiar
Speaker 1: with various platforms so that those developers can create stuff
Speaker 1: that can work on those platforms. Like this is where
Speaker 1: developers learn about increased features and and upcoming operating system updates,
Speaker 1: that kind of stuff. Now, I've attended one io event
Speaker 1: that was the year that they brought in Flight of
Speaker 1: the con Chords to play the after party. But I
Speaker 1: didn't know who Fly the Concords were at the time,
Speaker 1: and now I kick myself because if I had known,
Speaker 1: I would have been at the whole set instead of
Speaker 1: just at the tail end of it. Anyway, none of
Speaker 1: that matters. Let's talk about some of the stuff that
Speaker 1: Google showed off this year. So it teased the Pixel seven.
Speaker 1: This is going to be the next generation of the
Speaker 1: Pixel line of smartphones, the Android phones. The company plans
Speaker 1: to release a Pixel seven and a Pixel seven Pro,
Speaker 1: which is in line with what it's done over the
Speaker 1: last couple of years. Both of those phones will sport
Speaker 1: Google Tensor chips, but that's about all the information that
Speaker 1: the company was willing to part with at this stage.
Speaker 1: Google also announced the Pixel six A, which is meant
Speaker 1: to be a more budget friendly version of the Pixel
Speaker 1: six smartphone. It'll be slightly smaller, might lack a few
Speaker 1: other features. Uh, it will retail for four dollars, and
Speaker 1: one thing that the Pixel six A will not have
Speaker 1: is a headphone jack. Google has gone back and forth
Speaker 1: when it comes to including a physical headphone jack, and
Speaker 1: has even taken some potshots at Apple for having abandoned
Speaker 1: the headphone Jack in the past, but it looks like
Speaker 1: Google is doing the same thing, at least with the
Speaker 1: six A. Maybe that's because of another announcement that the
Speaker 1: company made, which is that the Pixel Buds Pro Earbuds,
Speaker 1: a a two dollar set of earbuds with noise cancelation
Speaker 1: and advanced microphones to allow for calls with a minimum
Speaker 1: of interference, are coming out this year. At long last,
Speaker 1: Google also unveiled the Pixel Watch, which will incorporate fitbit technology.
Speaker 1: That fitbit connection is critical because it means Google can
Speaker 1: rely upon tried and tested technology rather than developing everything
Speaker 1: from scratch. The company said it would be available in
Speaker 1: the fall, and it would be sold at a premium price,
Speaker 1: which probably means if you have to ask, you can't
Speaker 1: afford it, So I guess no Pixel Uch for me. Then.
Speaker 1: Google also showed off a prototype of some smart glasses
Speaker 1: that would be able to display translations in real time,
Speaker 1: meaning if you had two people and each of them
Speaker 1: had a pair of these glasses, they could have a
Speaker 1: conversation with one another even if neither of them spoke
Speaker 1: the other person's language, which is pretty cool. Uh, there's
Speaker 1: no telling if this prototype will ever become an actual product,
Speaker 1: but it is a nice demonstration of how augmented reality
Speaker 1: technology could have some real world applications outside of gimmicky stuff.
Speaker 1: The io event continues today, but usually we see all
Speaker 1: the big reveals on day one. But if anything huge
Speaker 1: gets announced today, I'll be sure to cover it in
Speaker 1: an episode next week. Finally, Bethesda, the video game studio
Speaker 1: and publisher, tweeted that upcoming video game titles Redfall and
Speaker 1: Starfield will not be coming out this year. The company
Speaker 1: has chosen to postpone the publication these games until the
Speaker 1: first half of three, citing the need to quote ensure
Speaker 1: that you received the best, most polished versions end quote.
Speaker 1: Bethesda first announced Starfield at e three way back in
Speaker 1: calling it a an all new i P, so not
Speaker 1: a continuation of any of the franchises Bethesda is known for,
Speaker 1: you know, stuff like Fallout and Skyrim or Elder Scrolls.
Speaker 1: I should say, and that this game puts players in
Speaker 1: the role of space explorers. Uh, there's not a whole
Speaker 1: lot more detail available about Starfield. There's a bit, but
Speaker 1: you know it's it's largely mysterious since it's a brand
Speaker 1: new I P. Red Fall is actually an arcane Studios title.
Speaker 1: Bethesda is the publisher, not the developer in this case,
Speaker 1: and it's a first person shooter game similar to titles
Speaker 1: like Left for Dead, in which players can assume one
Speaker 1: of four playable characters and up to four people can
Speaker 1: play cooperatively in a session x app. Instead of fighting
Speaker 1: off zombie hordes like you do and Left for Dead,
Speaker 1: where you're you know you're fighting off endless waves of
Speaker 1: zombies on your way to a safe zone, the Red
Speaker 1: Fall game is going to be about fighting off vampiric
Speaker 1: hordes as you presumably try to make your way to safety.
Speaker 1: I'm told there's more to it than that, and I'm
Speaker 1: being a bit snarky. It's my reaction is mostly based
Speaker 1: off of a teaser video about Red Fall that I
Speaker 1: saw a couple of years ago, where I thought, ah,
Speaker 1: it's Left for Dead, but with vampires. So I'm sure
Speaker 1: it's more complicated and sophisticated than that. So my apologies.
Speaker 1: It was just my initial reaction. And that's it for
Speaker 1: the Tech News for today. That's Thursday May twelve, two
Speaker 1: thousand twenty two. Hope all of you are well. If
Speaker 1: you have suggestions for topics I should cover in future
Speaker 1: episodes of tech Stuff, Please leave me a note on Twitter.
Speaker 1: The handle for the show is text Stuff. Hs W
Speaker 1: definitely used the the tech show handle because I don't
Speaker 1: check my own Twitter anymore. And I will talk to
Speaker 1: you again really soon. Y tech Stuff is an I
Speaker 1: 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.