WEBVTT - It's Just a Matter of (Anti)trust

0:00:04.480 --> 0:00:12.399
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there,

0:00:12.400 --> 0:00:15.920
<v Speaker 1>and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host Jonathan Strickland,

0:00:15.960 --> 0:00:19.160
<v Speaker 1>dominant executive producer with iHeart Podcasts and how the tech

0:00:19.239 --> 0:00:21.279
<v Speaker 1>are you. It's time for the tech news for the

0:00:21.320 --> 0:00:25.520
<v Speaker 1>week ending on August nine, twenty twenty four, and this

0:00:25.640 --> 0:00:30.040
<v Speaker 1>week Google got some bad news. A US judge has

0:00:30.120 --> 0:00:34.280
<v Speaker 1>ruled that Google has violated antitrust laws by spending let's

0:00:34.280 --> 0:00:38.920
<v Speaker 1>see says here, truckloads of cash in an effort to

0:00:39.040 --> 0:00:44.440
<v Speaker 1>establish its search engine dominance in the global market. Google

0:00:44.520 --> 0:00:49.519
<v Speaker 1>has invested billions of dollars forging partnerships with various other

0:00:49.560 --> 0:00:52.960
<v Speaker 1>companies like Apple, to make the Google Search Engine the

0:00:53.080 --> 0:00:58.080
<v Speaker 1>default search tool on numerous devices and apps and sites.

0:00:58.560 --> 0:01:03.320
<v Speaker 1>This in turn, gave Google a near monopoly on search advertising.

0:01:03.560 --> 0:01:06.679
<v Speaker 1>According to the US government, this means that Google could

0:01:06.720 --> 0:01:10.880
<v Speaker 1>pretty much set whatever rules it liked without fear of competition.

0:01:11.200 --> 0:01:14.320
<v Speaker 1>The ruling means that now the US government can pursue

0:01:14.360 --> 0:01:18.360
<v Speaker 1>another case in an effort to rectify this situation. So

0:01:18.640 --> 0:01:22.240
<v Speaker 1>this case just said, yes, Google is guilty of having

0:01:22.319 --> 0:01:25.000
<v Speaker 1>done this thing. The next one will be this is

0:01:25.040 --> 0:01:27.400
<v Speaker 1>what we're going to do about it? But how do

0:01:27.440 --> 0:01:32.319
<v Speaker 1>you solve a problem like Google. That's a darn good question.

0:01:32.440 --> 0:01:35.200
<v Speaker 1>I guess you could google it. But one possibility is

0:01:35.240 --> 0:01:38.479
<v Speaker 1>that the government could look to break Google or its

0:01:38.560 --> 0:01:43.680
<v Speaker 1>parent company Alphabet into smaller entities. Now that's something that

0:01:43.760 --> 0:01:46.880
<v Speaker 1>hasn't really been done in the United States in many years.

0:01:47.160 --> 0:01:50.280
<v Speaker 1>But even if it does turn out to be the focus,

0:01:50.520 --> 0:01:53.280
<v Speaker 1>it will likely be a long time before anything like

0:01:53.360 --> 0:01:57.160
<v Speaker 1>that happens on a substantial level. The legal process is

0:01:57.360 --> 0:02:01.480
<v Speaker 1>likely to stretch on for more years, and there's every

0:02:01.520 --> 0:02:04.600
<v Speaker 1>reason to suspect that this case will eventually make its

0:02:04.640 --> 0:02:07.600
<v Speaker 1>way up the appeals process, possibly all the way to

0:02:07.640 --> 0:02:10.520
<v Speaker 1>the US Supreme Court at some point. So this story

0:02:10.639 --> 0:02:13.400
<v Speaker 1>is far from over now. For one thing, there's going

0:02:13.440 --> 0:02:17.200
<v Speaker 1>to be a ripple of massive consequences following this initial

0:02:17.280 --> 0:02:21.240
<v Speaker 1>Google ruling. One massive deal that is likely at risk

0:02:21.560 --> 0:02:25.760
<v Speaker 1>is Google's agreement with the aforementioned Apple. Apple has Google

0:02:25.880 --> 0:02:29.200
<v Speaker 1>as its default search engine on iOS devices, and in return,

0:02:29.639 --> 0:02:35.959
<v Speaker 1>Google bays Apple a cool twenty billion dollars every year.

0:02:36.680 --> 0:02:39.440
<v Speaker 1>That's more than a third of what Google makes as

0:02:39.480 --> 0:02:42.480
<v Speaker 1>a result of having it set as the default search

0:02:42.639 --> 0:02:46.360
<v Speaker 1>for all of these devices. So Apple could see a

0:02:46.520 --> 0:02:49.880
<v Speaker 1>drop of up to six percent on its annual profits.

0:02:49.960 --> 0:02:54.040
<v Speaker 1>Because that twenty billion wouldn't be coming in anymore. That's

0:02:54.160 --> 0:02:58.040
<v Speaker 1>not likely to make Apple investors very happy. According to Reuter's,

0:02:58.200 --> 0:03:03.480
<v Speaker 1>analysts expect Apple to FastTrack adopting AI powered search tools,

0:03:03.600 --> 0:03:06.639
<v Speaker 1>and was likely already doing this before the decision was

0:03:06.680 --> 0:03:10.079
<v Speaker 1>even handed down. One thing that isn't likely to happen

0:03:10.280 --> 0:03:13.880
<v Speaker 1>is Apple switching to Microsoft Bing. According to Eddie Q,

0:03:14.520 --> 0:03:18.360
<v Speaker 1>Apple's senior VP of Services, quote, I don't believe there's

0:03:18.360 --> 0:03:21.320
<v Speaker 1>a price in the world that Microsoft could offer us.

0:03:21.639 --> 0:03:24.119
<v Speaker 1>They offered to give us Bing for free, they could

0:03:24.160 --> 0:03:27.400
<v Speaker 1>give us the whole company end quote. So I think

0:03:27.480 --> 0:03:30.560
<v Speaker 1>that suggests Apple's likely going to stick around with Google

0:03:30.680 --> 0:03:34.480
<v Speaker 1>even without the twenty billion dollar deal, at least until

0:03:34.520 --> 0:03:38.120
<v Speaker 1>the company's ready to switch to some AI powered search solution.

0:03:38.880 --> 0:03:42.600
<v Speaker 1>Over at Ours Technica, there's an article titled Google and

0:03:42.720 --> 0:03:47.480
<v Speaker 1>Meta ignored their own rules in secret teen targeting ad deals.

0:03:47.760 --> 0:03:50.400
<v Speaker 1>The piece, in turn cites the Financial Times. In fact,

0:03:50.400 --> 0:03:53.280
<v Speaker 1>I think the article originally appeared in the Financial Times,

0:03:53.560 --> 0:03:57.480
<v Speaker 1>and it reports on documents showing that Meta and Google

0:03:57.560 --> 0:04:00.720
<v Speaker 1>partnered on a project in which Google he helped Meta

0:04:00.720 --> 0:04:05.480
<v Speaker 1>design a marketing campaign aimed at teens on YouTube. The

0:04:05.560 --> 0:04:10.560
<v Speaker 1>campaign promoted Meta's Instagram app and features. The documents apparently

0:04:10.640 --> 0:04:13.960
<v Speaker 1>lay out something that violates Google's own rules. Namely, the

0:04:14.080 --> 0:04:18.440
<v Speaker 1>campaign was at least indirectly targeting users who were under

0:04:18.480 --> 0:04:21.760
<v Speaker 1>the age of eighteen. Now Google has pledged to not

0:04:22.200 --> 0:04:26.280
<v Speaker 1>target such users with specific advertising. If you are under

0:04:26.320 --> 0:04:28.480
<v Speaker 1>the age of eighteen, you are not supposed to receive

0:04:28.520 --> 0:04:32.680
<v Speaker 1>personalized targeted ads from Google platforms, So this is a

0:04:32.680 --> 0:04:36.480
<v Speaker 1>problem now. According to Ours Technica, the campaign began late

0:04:36.560 --> 0:04:39.479
<v Speaker 1>last year. Meta was in a tight spot because research

0:04:39.600 --> 0:04:42.320
<v Speaker 1>was showing that the company was having problems attracting young

0:04:42.360 --> 0:04:45.720
<v Speaker 1>folks to its various platforms. Google was looking to make

0:04:45.760 --> 0:04:48.160
<v Speaker 1>a lot more ad cash. So these were two great

0:04:48.200 --> 0:04:52.000
<v Speaker 1>tastes that go great together. I guess The Financial Times

0:04:52.440 --> 0:04:57.240
<v Speaker 1>investigated this. The two companies ran a pilot campaign in

0:04:57.320 --> 0:05:00.640
<v Speaker 1>Canada and then later began to roll out a similar

0:05:00.720 --> 0:05:04.200
<v Speaker 1>campaign in the United States, and when The Financial Times

0:05:04.279 --> 0:05:07.799
<v Speaker 1>contacted Google about the story, Google said it would investigate

0:05:07.800 --> 0:05:11.400
<v Speaker 1>the matter and then subsequently shut the project down, while

0:05:11.400 --> 0:05:16.120
<v Speaker 1>simultaneously not actually admitting fault. So the workaround for Google

0:05:16.320 --> 0:05:21.200
<v Speaker 1>was that this campaign was technically targeting unknown accounts as

0:05:21.200 --> 0:05:24.960
<v Speaker 1>an accounts where the age of the user wasn't actually recorded.

0:05:25.240 --> 0:05:27.960
<v Speaker 1>So that's how Google could say we aren't targeting people

0:05:28.000 --> 0:05:30.120
<v Speaker 1>under the age of eighteen, at least we're not doing

0:05:30.200 --> 0:05:32.880
<v Speaker 1>it knowingly because we have no idea how old these

0:05:33.000 --> 0:05:35.800
<v Speaker 1>users are. But it seems like the users were actually

0:05:35.839 --> 0:05:41.520
<v Speaker 1>skewing young. That yes, technically there was a field for

0:05:41.600 --> 0:05:45.760
<v Speaker 1>a user's age and that field was blank, but in

0:05:45.800 --> 0:05:48.960
<v Speaker 1>reality you could easily conclude how old the users were,

0:05:49.160 --> 0:05:52.400
<v Speaker 1>or reasonably at least conclude how old the users were,

0:05:52.720 --> 0:05:56.240
<v Speaker 1>and that they were skewing young as an under the

0:05:56.279 --> 0:05:59.560
<v Speaker 1>age of eighteen, so you could say, like maybe this

0:05:59.640 --> 0:06:04.080
<v Speaker 1>was Google argument like ah, yeah, you know, it's plausible deniability, right,

0:06:04.200 --> 0:06:06.960
<v Speaker 1>we don't know how old they are, so as a loophole.

0:06:07.279 --> 0:06:09.520
<v Speaker 1>To learn more about the story, I would recommend checking

0:06:09.520 --> 0:06:12.679
<v Speaker 1>out the article in Ours Technica or The Financial Times.

0:06:13.160 --> 0:06:17.440
<v Speaker 1>Google's also facing some trouble in Russia, where Internet monitoring

0:06:17.520 --> 0:06:21.320
<v Speaker 1>companies detected a mass outage of YouTube this week. So

0:06:21.480 --> 0:06:26.960
<v Speaker 1>according to one such company called Sboi dot RF, many

0:06:27.120 --> 0:06:31.400
<v Speaker 1>Russian citizens reported being unable to access YouTube unless they

0:06:31.440 --> 0:06:35.000
<v Speaker 1>first made use of a VPN or virtual private network.

0:06:35.320 --> 0:06:38.320
<v Speaker 1>Google representatives have said that the interruptions in service have

0:06:38.480 --> 0:06:41.679
<v Speaker 1>not come from the company, whereas a lot of Russian

0:06:41.760 --> 0:06:45.600
<v Speaker 1>media says that it's it's YouTube's fault. The Russian government

0:06:45.680 --> 0:06:49.120
<v Speaker 1>has become increasingly hostile toward YouTube for what it claims

0:06:49.200 --> 0:06:53.760
<v Speaker 1>is a determined stance against Russian legislation. It wasn't long

0:06:53.800 --> 0:06:57.760
<v Speaker 1>ago when an information policy representative in Russia warned that

0:06:57.800 --> 0:07:00.680
<v Speaker 1>YouTube could face a reduction in transmissions of up to

0:07:00.760 --> 0:07:04.239
<v Speaker 1>seventy percent because of the company's refusal to allow certain

0:07:04.279 --> 0:07:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Russian state backed channels from posting to the site. So

0:07:08.200 --> 0:07:10.640
<v Speaker 1>I don't have proof that this is a case where

0:07:10.640 --> 0:07:15.760
<v Speaker 1>the Russian government has purposefully throttled YouTube traffic in Russia,

0:07:15.800 --> 0:07:19.920
<v Speaker 1>but it at least seems like that's a plausible reason

0:07:20.240 --> 0:07:26.440
<v Speaker 1>for the outages. Not confirmed, just plausible. The Global Alliance

0:07:26.480 --> 0:07:32.160
<v Speaker 1>for Responsible Media or GARM. GARM has shut down after

0:07:32.200 --> 0:07:36.160
<v Speaker 1>being served an antitrust lawsuit from x formerly known as Twitter.

0:07:36.480 --> 0:07:39.560
<v Speaker 1>So this group was spun off of the World Federation

0:07:39.680 --> 0:07:43.240
<v Speaker 1>of Advertisers and its purpose was to protect the interests

0:07:43.280 --> 0:07:47.440
<v Speaker 1>of member advertising companies and the primary focus was to

0:07:47.480 --> 0:07:50.680
<v Speaker 1>make certain that ads on platforms weren't going to be

0:07:50.720 --> 0:07:55.280
<v Speaker 1>served next to objectionable material, you know, like advertisers don't

0:07:55.360 --> 0:07:57.880
<v Speaker 1>like it if their ad is showing up next to

0:07:57.920 --> 0:08:01.480
<v Speaker 1>someone who's making hate comments, you know, or something along

0:08:01.480 --> 0:08:05.600
<v Speaker 1>those lines. X alleges that GARM told its members to

0:08:05.720 --> 0:08:09.280
<v Speaker 1>not advertise on X due to the platform's policies, and

0:08:09.840 --> 0:08:14.680
<v Speaker 1>it saw these policies as being increasingly hostile toward the platform.

0:08:15.320 --> 0:08:19.000
<v Speaker 1>GARM staffers received an email that essentially said the organization

0:08:19.120 --> 0:08:21.120
<v Speaker 1>was folding because it didn't have enough money to both

0:08:21.160 --> 0:08:24.440
<v Speaker 1>carry out its goals and defend itself from this lawsuit.

0:08:24.880 --> 0:08:28.400
<v Speaker 1>I think most folks assume the lawsuit doesn't actually have

0:08:28.560 --> 0:08:32.520
<v Speaker 1>that much merit to it, because boycotting isn't against the law.

0:08:32.800 --> 0:08:34.920
<v Speaker 1>That's not breaking the law. It's not against the law

0:08:34.960 --> 0:08:38.679
<v Speaker 1>to build associations either. These things are generally protected by

0:08:38.679 --> 0:08:41.480
<v Speaker 1>constitutional amendments, you know, the right to free speech and

0:08:41.520 --> 0:08:44.400
<v Speaker 1>the right to free assembly. But then it could be

0:08:44.880 --> 0:08:48.800
<v Speaker 1>that Musk is using the law not because he's seeking justice,

0:08:48.840 --> 0:08:52.040
<v Speaker 1>but rather to persecute those he finds to be vexum

0:08:52.120 --> 0:08:56.480
<v Speaker 1>because lawsuits are expensive at any rate. Musk has continued

0:08:56.520 --> 0:08:58.920
<v Speaker 1>to make statements that I think most ad companies would

0:08:58.920 --> 0:09:02.240
<v Speaker 1>at least find con so I'm not expecting ad dollars

0:09:02.240 --> 0:09:05.640
<v Speaker 1>to flood the corporate coffers now that GARM has disbanded.

0:09:05.840 --> 0:09:09.559
<v Speaker 1>And GARM wasn't the only company targeted by a Musk

0:09:09.720 --> 0:09:12.760
<v Speaker 1>lawsuit in recent days. He also brought a case against

0:09:12.800 --> 0:09:17.120
<v Speaker 1>open ai and it's CEO, Sam Altman. So this lawsuit

0:09:17.240 --> 0:09:20.839
<v Speaker 1>argues that open ai has put profit above public good,

0:09:21.040 --> 0:09:24.520
<v Speaker 1>which you know, I actually don't disagree. I think open

0:09:24.559 --> 0:09:27.920
<v Speaker 1>ai has put profit above public good, but I don't

0:09:27.960 --> 0:09:30.960
<v Speaker 1>know where the legal issue is In all of that.

0:09:31.640 --> 0:09:35.480
<v Speaker 1>Musk seeks to nullify open AI's partnership with Microsoft. That's

0:09:35.520 --> 0:09:39.480
<v Speaker 1>a partnership that has seen the giant Microsoft invest thirteen

0:09:39.720 --> 0:09:43.120
<v Speaker 1>billion dollars into open Ai. This could also be seen

0:09:43.200 --> 0:09:46.480
<v Speaker 1>as an effort to just outright destroy open ai, which,

0:09:46.480 --> 0:09:49.280
<v Speaker 1>according to some analysts, is on track to lose around

0:09:49.280 --> 0:09:52.280
<v Speaker 1>five billion dollars this year as revenues haven't come close

0:09:52.320 --> 0:09:55.120
<v Speaker 1>to covering the costs of operation. Plus we have to

0:09:55.120 --> 0:09:59.240
<v Speaker 1>remember Musk does have his own competing AI company that's

0:09:59.280 --> 0:10:03.000
<v Speaker 1>in the process of ramping up x dot ai, So

0:10:03.559 --> 0:10:06.640
<v Speaker 1>there's that too. This lawsuit, by the way, mirrors one

0:10:06.640 --> 0:10:09.840
<v Speaker 1>that Musk brought against open ai earlier. This year. But

0:10:10.040 --> 0:10:13.800
<v Speaker 1>in that case, Musk dropped the lawsuit one day before

0:10:13.840 --> 0:10:16.600
<v Speaker 1>a judge was to hear a motion to dismiss that

0:10:16.679 --> 0:10:19.960
<v Speaker 1>was brought against the lawsuit by open Ai. I suspect

0:10:19.960 --> 0:10:22.120
<v Speaker 1>we're going to get another motion to dismiss in this

0:10:22.200 --> 0:10:24.880
<v Speaker 1>case because I don't think the details have really changed

0:10:25.040 --> 0:10:28.200
<v Speaker 1>since the last time this came around. And that includes

0:10:28.240 --> 0:10:31.839
<v Speaker 1>a record of messages that Elon Musk himself sent back

0:10:31.880 --> 0:10:34.800
<v Speaker 1>when he was still part of Open Ai that showed

0:10:34.800 --> 0:10:37.880
<v Speaker 1>his own desire to focus on profitability. Of course, in

0:10:38.000 --> 0:10:40.880
<v Speaker 1>Musk's version of this plan, the profitability would have served

0:10:40.920 --> 0:10:44.079
<v Speaker 1>the interests of his company, Tesla. Maybe that's the real

0:10:44.120 --> 0:10:47.400
<v Speaker 1>sticking point here. Okay, we've got more tech news to

0:10:47.400 --> 0:10:49.439
<v Speaker 1>cover before we get to all that. Let's take a

0:10:49.520 --> 0:11:01.920
<v Speaker 1>quick break, and you know, there are a lot of

0:11:01.960 --> 0:11:05.360
<v Speaker 1>stories about antitrust issues and technology this week. So over

0:11:05.400 --> 0:11:08.920
<v Speaker 1>in the UK, the concern there is about Amazon and

0:11:09.000 --> 0:11:13.920
<v Speaker 1>the company's four billion dollar partnership with AI startup firm Anthropic.

0:11:14.320 --> 0:11:19.400
<v Speaker 1>The Competition in Markets Authority or CMA is probing if

0:11:19.440 --> 0:11:23.000
<v Speaker 1>this partnership will potentially further entrench Amazon in the realm

0:11:23.040 --> 0:11:26.800
<v Speaker 1>of cloud computing. So essentially, the fear is that Amazon

0:11:27.000 --> 0:11:30.240
<v Speaker 1>dominates the cloud compute space, and that people who are

0:11:30.240 --> 0:11:33.520
<v Speaker 1>developing AI models may feel they have no option other

0:11:33.640 --> 0:11:37.360
<v Speaker 1>than to rely on Amazon for computational power needs. So

0:11:37.400 --> 0:11:40.800
<v Speaker 1>the CMA is looking into the possibility that this partnership

0:11:40.840 --> 0:11:45.559
<v Speaker 1>between Amazon and Anthropic would really qualify more as a merger.

0:11:46.080 --> 0:11:48.560
<v Speaker 1>Maybe not a merger in the formal sense of two

0:11:48.640 --> 0:11:52.880
<v Speaker 1>companies actually merging into a single entity, but a business

0:11:53.040 --> 0:11:57.640
<v Speaker 1>process that ultimately results in an outcome that is similar

0:11:57.840 --> 0:12:01.880
<v Speaker 1>to that of a merger. Now, that particular investigation is

0:12:01.920 --> 0:12:04.720
<v Speaker 1>still ongoing, so this is not a foregone conclusion. The

0:12:04.800 --> 0:12:09.560
<v Speaker 1>CMA says it expects to probe this matter until October fourth,

0:12:09.760 --> 0:12:12.400
<v Speaker 1>at which point the CMA will then announce whether there's

0:12:12.520 --> 0:12:17.720
<v Speaker 1>enough concern to block this deal, or maybe they'll say no, no,

0:12:18.040 --> 0:12:21.440
<v Speaker 1>there's nothing here that rises to the level to make

0:12:21.480 --> 0:12:25.160
<v Speaker 1>it a merger situation. Or maybe it is a merger situation,

0:12:25.600 --> 0:12:29.160
<v Speaker 1>but it doesn't have enough red flags to make us

0:12:29.200 --> 0:12:32.439
<v Speaker 1>block it in the first place. So it's still entirely

0:12:32.559 --> 0:12:36.120
<v Speaker 1>possible that the CMA will allow this deal to continue

0:12:36.160 --> 0:12:40.240
<v Speaker 1>without impeding it in any way. However, the CMA can

0:12:40.280 --> 0:12:43.520
<v Speaker 1>be pretty darn strict with tech companies, and I don't

0:12:43.559 --> 0:12:46.320
<v Speaker 1>necessarily think that's always a bad thing, but I have

0:12:46.400 --> 0:12:49.920
<v Speaker 1>no clue which way they're going to decide this matter.

0:12:50.200 --> 0:12:51.960
<v Speaker 1>If you'd like to read up on it, I highly

0:12:51.960 --> 0:12:56.480
<v Speaker 1>recommend Ashley Bellinger's article in Ours Technica this titled Amazon

0:12:56.559 --> 0:13:01.920
<v Speaker 1>defends four billion dollar anthropic aideal from UK monopoly concerns.

0:13:02.559 --> 0:13:06.200
<v Speaker 1>Reuter's reports that open ai co founder John Shulman has

0:13:06.280 --> 0:13:09.960
<v Speaker 1>left that company and has now joined the aforementioned anthropic.

0:13:10.200 --> 0:13:13.319
<v Speaker 1>He posted x that quote, this choice stems from my

0:13:13.480 --> 0:13:16.520
<v Speaker 1>desire to deepen my focus on AI alignment and to

0:13:16.559 --> 0:13:19.160
<v Speaker 1>start a new chapter of my career where I can

0:13:19.200 --> 0:13:24.000
<v Speaker 1>return to hands on technical work end quote. Shulman is

0:13:24.080 --> 0:13:29.679
<v Speaker 1>one of several influential key people at open ai who

0:13:29.760 --> 0:13:33.360
<v Speaker 1>either has recently stepped away from that company or they've

0:13:33.360 --> 0:13:37.160
<v Speaker 1>had their role changed significantly in the recent past. Now,

0:13:37.200 --> 0:13:40.120
<v Speaker 1>could this be an indicator that open ai is actually

0:13:40.280 --> 0:13:43.959
<v Speaker 1>in some trouble? Is it possible the company expanded too

0:13:44.000 --> 0:13:48.679
<v Speaker 1>quickly and cannot sustain itself, or is this just coincidence

0:13:48.720 --> 0:13:50.480
<v Speaker 1>and just a sign that once you reach a certain

0:13:50.559 --> 0:13:53.360
<v Speaker 1>level within an organization, you could pretty much take any

0:13:53.400 --> 0:13:56.000
<v Speaker 1>giggy like beats me. It could be any of those

0:13:56.120 --> 0:13:58.760
<v Speaker 1>or something else. Entirely. I know that with all the

0:13:58.800 --> 0:14:01.880
<v Speaker 1>other open ai news, it becomes tempting to say, oh,

0:14:01.960 --> 0:14:06.000
<v Speaker 1>open ai is starting the long process of circling the drain.

0:14:06.360 --> 0:14:09.160
<v Speaker 1>I think it's way too early to say something like that,

0:14:09.320 --> 0:14:12.840
<v Speaker 1>but I also admittedly am not an expert on those matters.

0:14:13.280 --> 0:14:18.600
<v Speaker 1>The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or CFTC, has ruled

0:14:18.600 --> 0:14:22.920
<v Speaker 1>that the bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange FTX must pay twelve point

0:14:23.080 --> 0:14:26.560
<v Speaker 1>seven billion dollars in relief to former customers. Now, that

0:14:26.680 --> 0:14:29.560
<v Speaker 1>might actually sound like old news to you, because earlier

0:14:29.600 --> 0:14:34.280
<v Speaker 1>this year, ftx's CEO, slash Fires sale guru John J.

0:14:34.560 --> 0:14:38.280
<v Speaker 1>Ray the Third, had already assured various stakeholders that he

0:14:38.360 --> 0:14:41.640
<v Speaker 1>was able to claw back all the money that had

0:14:41.680 --> 0:14:45.680
<v Speaker 1>been lost in the FTX blowout. I guess, but this

0:14:45.880 --> 0:14:49.160
<v Speaker 1>new development should really make former FTX customers feel a

0:14:49.200 --> 0:14:53.080
<v Speaker 1>little better, because it represents a US agency guaranteeing that

0:14:53.120 --> 0:14:57.800
<v Speaker 1>those who were directly affected by ftx's spectacular implosion will

0:14:57.920 --> 0:15:01.480
<v Speaker 1>be compensated before any of the money goes to pay

0:15:01.480 --> 0:15:05.040
<v Speaker 1>off anything else. Since there is an ongoing lawsuit against

0:15:05.120 --> 0:15:08.120
<v Speaker 1>FTX that's from the US government. This is a good

0:15:08.120 --> 0:15:11.920
<v Speaker 1>thing for those folks, because the lawsuit could potentially mean

0:15:12.000 --> 0:15:14.920
<v Speaker 1>that it'll have to dip into ftx's assets to pay

0:15:14.920 --> 0:15:19.600
<v Speaker 1>off fines and whatnot. But the decision from the CFTC

0:15:19.840 --> 0:15:23.080
<v Speaker 1>says that they can't touch any of the money that's

0:15:23.160 --> 0:15:26.360
<v Speaker 1>meant to go back to paying the FTX customers. That

0:15:26.360 --> 0:15:29.000
<v Speaker 1>that money is for those customers and they're going to

0:15:29.040 --> 0:15:32.080
<v Speaker 1>receive their compensation. There's still some hurdles to clear, of course.

0:15:32.520 --> 0:15:34.600
<v Speaker 1>There are some folks who feel they should actually be

0:15:34.640 --> 0:15:38.400
<v Speaker 1>paid based on the current value of crypto as opposed

0:15:38.440 --> 0:15:41.920
<v Speaker 1>to where that value was in November twenty twenty two

0:15:42.040 --> 0:15:45.280
<v Speaker 1>when everything went pear shaped. So yeah, not over yet,

0:15:45.440 --> 0:15:48.800
<v Speaker 1>but still good news for folks who thought they might

0:15:48.840 --> 0:15:53.040
<v Speaker 1>have lost everything when FTX went belly up. Now let's

0:15:53.160 --> 0:15:55.680
<v Speaker 1>wrap this up with some space news, and it's really

0:15:55.760 --> 0:15:59.360
<v Speaker 1>bad news for Boeing anyway. That company is already fighting

0:15:59.400 --> 0:16:02.360
<v Speaker 1>a public perception war on multiple fronts at this point.

0:16:02.560 --> 0:16:05.280
<v Speaker 1>I mean, you've obviously got the seven thirty seven issues,

0:16:05.480 --> 0:16:07.400
<v Speaker 1>but you've also got the star Liner. We're going to

0:16:07.400 --> 0:16:09.880
<v Speaker 1>get to that in just a moment, but for right now,

0:16:09.960 --> 0:16:12.440
<v Speaker 1>I actually want to mention a report from NASA that

0:16:12.480 --> 0:16:17.360
<v Speaker 1>calls into question Boeing's quality control capabilities, particularly with regard

0:16:17.720 --> 0:16:23.320
<v Speaker 1>to the Exploration upper stage section of NASA's SLS launch vehicle.

0:16:23.640 --> 0:16:27.840
<v Speaker 1>So this is a piece of a much bigger project

0:16:27.920 --> 0:16:31.920
<v Speaker 1>that includes NASA's planned mission to return astronauts to the Moon.

0:16:32.280 --> 0:16:35.480
<v Speaker 1>But according to NASA's report, the agency found quote an

0:16:35.600 --> 0:16:39.920
<v Speaker 1>array of issues that could hinder SLS Block oneb's readiness

0:16:39.960 --> 0:16:46.080
<v Speaker 1>for Artemis four, including Boeing's inadequate quality management system, escalating

0:16:46.160 --> 0:16:50.560
<v Speaker 1>costs and schedules, and inadequate visibility into the Block one

0:16:50.640 --> 0:16:54.240
<v Speaker 1>bee's projected costs end quote. So, in other words, NASA

0:16:54.280 --> 0:16:57.160
<v Speaker 1>says Boeing is not doing a good job, they're going

0:16:57.200 --> 0:16:59.960
<v Speaker 1>way over budget, and they're not very transparent about either

0:17:00.120 --> 0:17:03.960
<v Speaker 1>of those things. Further, NASA llegends that Boeing's workforce has

0:17:04.040 --> 0:17:09.240
<v Speaker 1>quote insufficient aerospace production experience end quote. Again, according to

0:17:09.280 --> 0:17:13.119
<v Speaker 1>this report, it is this lack of experience that NASA

0:17:13.200 --> 0:17:16.160
<v Speaker 1>credits as being the cause of issues in quality control.

0:17:16.359 --> 0:17:19.800
<v Speaker 1>This is not good news. Now. To learn more about this,

0:17:19.960 --> 0:17:24.480
<v Speaker 1>I recommend Eric Berger's piece. A new report finds Boeing's

0:17:24.560 --> 0:17:27.760
<v Speaker 1>rockets are built with an unqualified workforce. You can find

0:17:27.760 --> 0:17:30.320
<v Speaker 1>that in ours technica. And of course we're not done

0:17:30.320 --> 0:17:33.240
<v Speaker 1>with Boeing woes just yet. So you may recall that

0:17:33.600 --> 0:17:38.320
<v Speaker 1>astronauts Sunny Williams and Butch Willmore piloted a Boeing Starliner

0:17:38.440 --> 0:17:42.159
<v Speaker 1>capsule to the International Space Station in early June of

0:17:42.200 --> 0:17:45.320
<v Speaker 1>twenty twenty four, and we're able to dock despite some

0:17:45.480 --> 0:17:49.520
<v Speaker 1>technical issues. One of those technical issues was a helium leak, which,

0:17:49.600 --> 0:17:53.880
<v Speaker 1>while concerning, wasn't a catastrophic event. Helium is not toxic,

0:17:53.920 --> 0:17:56.760
<v Speaker 1>it's not flammable. You can asphyxiate if that's all you

0:17:56.800 --> 0:18:00.280
<v Speaker 1>have to breathe, but otherwise it was seen as a

0:18:00.320 --> 0:18:04.280
<v Speaker 1>concern but not a mission critical issue. But another bigger

0:18:04.280 --> 0:18:06.679
<v Speaker 1>issue was that five of the twenty eight thrusters on

0:18:06.720 --> 0:18:10.560
<v Speaker 1>the space capsule became unresponsive on approach to the ISS,

0:18:10.880 --> 0:18:13.240
<v Speaker 1>and NASA and the astronauts had to do some troubleshooting

0:18:13.280 --> 0:18:16.400
<v Speaker 1>to get enough of those working again to proceed with docking,

0:18:16.520 --> 0:18:18.720
<v Speaker 1>which they were able to do. But since then NASA

0:18:18.800 --> 0:18:21.399
<v Speaker 1>has been working on ways to address the problems with

0:18:21.440 --> 0:18:24.639
<v Speaker 1>the star Liner so that these two astronauts can return

0:18:24.640 --> 0:18:27.560
<v Speaker 1>to Earth. So they were meant to stay aboard the

0:18:27.600 --> 0:18:30.280
<v Speaker 1>ISS for a little more than a week, but now

0:18:30.359 --> 0:18:32.960
<v Speaker 1>it's been more than two months and they're still there.

0:18:33.320 --> 0:18:36.800
<v Speaker 1>NASA has indicated that they might stay up there for

0:18:36.880 --> 0:18:40.080
<v Speaker 1>the rest of twenty twenty four, and the agency hasn't

0:18:40.119 --> 0:18:42.600
<v Speaker 1>ruled out the possibility that when they do come back,

0:18:42.960 --> 0:18:45.800
<v Speaker 1>it will not be aboard the star Liner but instead

0:18:45.920 --> 0:18:49.679
<v Speaker 1>a SpaceX Dragon capsule. Now those decisions have yet to

0:18:49.720 --> 0:18:53.800
<v Speaker 1>be made, nothing is official yet. Before the star Liner issue,

0:18:53.880 --> 0:18:57.199
<v Speaker 1>plans called for another Dragon Crew capsule to launch on

0:18:57.240 --> 0:18:59.800
<v Speaker 1>August eighteenth to go to the ISS, but that is

0:18:59.840 --> 0:19:03.679
<v Speaker 1>now been pushed back to September twenty fourth at the earliest.

0:19:04.200 --> 0:19:06.840
<v Speaker 1>So what would a change of plans look like If

0:19:06.920 --> 0:19:09.480
<v Speaker 1>NASA says, you know what, we don't feel comfortable putting

0:19:09.520 --> 0:19:12.400
<v Speaker 1>them aboard the star Liner, Well, if NASA does feel

0:19:12.400 --> 0:19:15.240
<v Speaker 1>the star Liner poses too great a risk, the likely

0:19:15.320 --> 0:19:17.919
<v Speaker 1>solution is to have the star Liner separate from the

0:19:17.960 --> 0:19:21.600
<v Speaker 1>ISS and return to Earth with no crew aboard the capsule.

0:19:21.920 --> 0:19:25.439
<v Speaker 1>A Dragon Crew capsule with just two astronauts aboard. It

0:19:25.480 --> 0:19:28.760
<v Speaker 1>would then join the ISS and relieve both the star

0:19:28.880 --> 0:19:32.360
<v Speaker 1>Liner crew and two other ISS crew members, but that

0:19:32.440 --> 0:19:36.080
<v Speaker 1>might not even happen. Until next year. So why would

0:19:36.080 --> 0:19:38.240
<v Speaker 1>there be such a long delay. Well, A big part

0:19:38.240 --> 0:19:41.960
<v Speaker 1>of that is that we actually aren't still really sure

0:19:42.000 --> 0:19:45.440
<v Speaker 1>about what went wrong with those thrusters. Engineers on Earth

0:19:45.480 --> 0:19:49.040
<v Speaker 1>tested an identical thruster and they found some problems. But

0:19:49.160 --> 0:19:52.119
<v Speaker 1>then subsequent tests on the star Liner that's in orbit

0:19:52.320 --> 0:19:56.399
<v Speaker 1>showed that its thrusters that had previously been unresponsive were

0:19:56.680 --> 0:20:00.000
<v Speaker 1>now working again, and potentially that means that the issue

0:20:00.240 --> 0:20:03.639
<v Speaker 1>that we're seen on Earth are different from the ones

0:20:03.680 --> 0:20:06.760
<v Speaker 1>that affected the star Liner in orbit. So there's a

0:20:06.840 --> 0:20:10.240
<v Speaker 1>lot we don't know, and figuring it out remains a

0:20:10.280 --> 0:20:13.200
<v Speaker 1>top priority. I mentioned a couple of articles worth reading

0:20:13.200 --> 0:20:15.760
<v Speaker 1>this week, but one more is Rebecca Jennings article on

0:20:15.880 --> 0:20:19.480
<v Speaker 1>vox dot com titled those Olympics AI ads feel bad

0:20:19.560 --> 0:20:23.200
<v Speaker 1>for a reason, and I highly recommend you check it out.

0:20:23.280 --> 0:20:26.280
<v Speaker 1>It really does a good job of talking about missing

0:20:26.280 --> 0:20:29.320
<v Speaker 1>the mark when it comes to trying to promote AI,

0:20:29.720 --> 0:20:32.359
<v Speaker 1>because it seems like it's promoting AI to do things

0:20:32.440 --> 0:20:35.240
<v Speaker 1>like take on emotional loads on our behalf so that

0:20:35.280 --> 0:20:38.120
<v Speaker 1>we can be I don't know, soulless consumers. Doesn't seem

0:20:38.119 --> 0:20:40.879
<v Speaker 1>that great to me. Highly recommend checking that out and

0:20:40.880 --> 0:20:43.320
<v Speaker 1>that's it for this week. I hope you are all

0:20:43.359 --> 0:20:53.120
<v Speaker 1>well and I'll talk to you again. Really So tech

0:20:53.160 --> 0:20:57.520
<v Speaker 1>Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio,

0:20:57.880 --> 0:21:01.600
<v Speaker 1>visit the iHeartRadio app, app podcasts, or wherever you listen

0:21:01.640 --> 0:21:02.719
<v Speaker 1>to your favorite shows.