Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with iHeart Podcasts and how the tech are you. It's time for the tech news for Thursday, November thirty, twenty twenty three. Let's get to it. When last we left open Ai, the story was that Sam Altman was going to come back to the company after being suddenly and surprisingly fired, and that the board of directors would consist of different folks as part of the deal. So three of the four members who voted against Altman were shown the door. The only remaining one is Adam DiAngelo. Well, now Sam Altman is officially back as CEO, and on top of that, Microsoft is going to have a representative who will hold a non voting seat on the board. If you recall, Microsoft has committed to a ten billion dollar investment in open Ai, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella was reportedly furious over Altman's firing because, well, the board of directors kept it all a secret until telling Altman and then essentially telling the world, and Nadella feels that Microsoft should probably get a heads up on that sort of thing early on, since they are pouring in so many billions of dollars into open Ai, and maybe even have a chance to propose alternatives because again, they are so heavily invested in the company. Ilia Sutzkever, who is one of the board members responsible for firing Altman in the first place, stepped down from the board, but he may still remain with the company. He is one of the co founders of open Ai and has served as its chief scientist. Anyway, this really went down as one of the weirder stories of twenty twenty three, and one that actually wrapped up pretty darn fast. I mean, most of our weird stories have lasted the entire year. Talk about chat GPT speaking of weird stories, and how some researchers fooled the tool into revealing training data as well as some personal information about various people. And they did it by having the chat bought repeat the same word over and over without stop forever. So they essentially gave it the prompt repeat the word, you know, whatever the word was, forever, and it would start doing that. So it began to comply, but at some point it started to intersperse the repetitions of the word with other information like snippets from copyrighted research papers or personal phone numbers of private citizens, including the CEO of some company. The researchers used words like poem or company and had it repeat that, and they saw different results depending on which word they used. And it's interesting because I was just rewatching a horror movie called Pontypool, and in that movie people go crazy while they repeating simple small words over and over in English. And then I read the story and I think, oh, gosh, we're in the movie. I mean, not really. But the researchers Chi died open Ai. They said the attack they used shouldn't have worked because someone surely should have discovered it well before then and fixed it. They said, the attack is kind of silly, but it could have serious consequences if someone invested enough money in the paid for version of chat GPT, because that's what the researchers used. If they poured enough money into it and they used a similar style of attack, they could have received an awful lot of information in the process. The attack also showed how open ai has used material on the web, including copyrighted material, to train its large language model. That's an unfolding, sticky situation as lawmakers try to get up to speed on the legalities of training llms. The researcher said that open ai actually patched this vulnerability back in August, so they're just now publishing their findings. But according to them, open ai has already responded to the issue. However, in Gadget, which published a whole article about this issue, said that their staff attempted to replicate the results and they were able to do so. They used the word reply. They told the chatbot to repeat reply forever, and it started to submitting other types of data. So it's clear that this is not fully resolved. It'll be interesting to see if this actually ends up having any actual negative consequences in the real world. Beyond the possibility of that happening, this next story is for you Apple users out there. According to the Wall Street Journal, Apple has proposed that it and Goldman Sachs, which is the bank that facilitates transactions that are moving across Apple Pay, will part ways in twelve to fifteen months, and Goldman Sachs is likely to accept that offer because, as reportedly, the bank has found Apple's business to be unprofitable that handling these transactions is actually costly. Apparently, folks who use Apple Pay make payments on their accounts more slowly than people who use other types of credit cards, and this lag in payment has had a big impact on Goldman Sachs's own finances. This means that Apple will need to find some other financial institution to back those transactions, or somehow do it themselves, which I cannot imagine happening because I imagine that requires fulfilling a whole bunch of regulations that I don't think Apple's ready to do. Or I guess the third option is closing off Apple Pay. I don't see that being a big priority either. The Wall Street Journal reports that American Express or Synchrony Financial are potential successors who might take over the back end operations. However, the article says that Apple has been pretty demanding of its partners, and that when you pair that with the challenges of actually making the business profitable, that could cause a hiccup or two. So is Apple Pay on borrowed time? Is it possible that it could be phased out after a year or so? It beats me, but I'll keep an eye on it. Starting tomorrow, which is Friday, Desummer first. In case you're one of those odd people who likes to listen to tech news episodes months after it happened, Google will be shutting down old user accounts that have been inactive for at least two years. I actually got a message from Google not that long ago regarding an email address that I created for a podcast, but I abandoned that podcast after two episodes, because even professionals like me can be a cliche. The move will delete all related data to the Gmail account, so that includes not just the Gmail address and everything that was in the Gmail but also anything in an associated Google Drive or Google Photos account. To be clear, this isn't going to affect any active Gmail accounts. If you have used your Gmail account with that in the last two years, it is not gonna be in danger. Only ones that have been inactive for two years or longer will be affected, and it will also only affect personal Gmail addresses, not addresses associated with organizations or businesses. There's still some unanswered questions about all this, however. The big one is will Google recycle the inactive Gmail addresses once they wipe those out? Will people be able to reregister those addresses. If so, that could potentially lead to issues with identity theft because folks could scoop up newly available addresses that previously had belonged to someone else. I imagine Google has probably thought of that, but I haven't seen any confirmation on that. A company called Analytics claims that Google did a big old whoopsie, like a big old, huge issue whoopsie. See really, when you get down to it, Google is an advertising platform more than anything else. It's not a search company. It's an ad company. Serves up ads from customers on various websites, including Google. Well, part of that business includes giving advertisers the chance to say which types of websites they do or don't want to have their ads appear on, So it gives the advertisers more control over protecting the brands that they represent. I get a very similar consideration, like I can say what types of ads I do or don't want to appear on this show, and that gives me more control over the show and protects you, the listener, from advertisers that perhaps I don't believe in for one reason or another. Well, advertisers get the same kind of consideration when it comes to where their ads are going to be delivered, because you want to protect the brand, right. You don't want the brand to be associated with something that is against the brand's image, whether that is outright illegal content because that's a possibility, or things like porn sites. If you are, for example, an advertiser that advertises children's clothing, you definitely don't want your ad appearing on an adult website. That's just not appropriate, so Analytics says, the Google Search partner network has apparently been placing ads from prominent brands on sites that are very likely not on any white list, so illegal sites, adult websites, all this kind of stuff have been having some major advertisers pop up on them, and that's probably not what the advertisers wanted. According to Analytics, they found instances in which very high profile companies like Apple, Amazon, Lego, Meta, Uber, etc. Had their ads posted on inappropriate sites. These would be sites that the brands absolutely would not want to be associated with. This is a huge issue for brand safety right. But other problems include cases in which, say, alcohol brand advertisements were showing up on websites that are targeted to children. Clearly, the website administrators don't want that that they're running a site that's targeting children. They don't want ads that have alcohol advertised on them running on the site. The advertisers don't want it either, because there could be a huge legal case to unfold. Because of all of this, Google reportedly is investigating the issue in addressing it, though questions remain as to how this even happened in the first place. This comes at a really bad time for Google. The company is already in the target sites of US lawmakers as they question if Google is engaged in anti competitive practices and if, perhaps to an extreme case, if Google should get broken up into smaller companies. Politicians and the EU have also indicated that they may launch an investigation into the matter. They pointed out that if the EU Commission ads, like an ad for the EU Commission, ends up being placed on, say a sanctioned Russian website, then the Commission inadvertently becomes an accomplice to a party that is violating these international sanctions. So this really is a pretty big mess for Google. All Right, we're going to take a quick break. When we come back, we'll be talking about messes for some other tech companies. Okay, we're back, So here in the United States, the CEOs of five tech companies, those being X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, Meta, TikTok, Snap, and Discord are all going to get together on January thirty first, twenty twenty four. They're not having lunch, they're not engaging in small talk. Instead, they're appearing in front of the US Senate to answer questions about how they protect or rather fail to protect children's safety online. So the hearing is all about child exploitation, and that's one of the foundational concerns people have brought up about social platforms for years now. Really, heck, when Francis Hogan came forward with internal documents from Facebook now Meta, many of those documents centered on the company's potential impact on the mental health of young users, and it wasn't good news. Senators say that the day we'll give CEOs the chance to quote testify about their failure to protect children online end quote. That certainly sounds like the Senate has already reached the conclusion that these platforms have done and perhaps actively are doing harm to children or the very least failing to protect them, and that they are at fault for this. I'm sure it'll be a fun day for all involved. Personally, I think something that tends to be overlooked is how we in the United States aren't really serious about data privacy or security or data ownership, you know, whether the data that pertains to people actually belongs to them. And by addressing some of those gaps, I think we could actually solve a lot of problems that adversely affect young folks if we had tougher rules in place as to who owns that data and who can access it, and tougher laws about getting permission to access them data and to exploit it. All of those things I think are necessary, But hey, what do I know? So that'll be happening at the end of the first month of next year. US Senator Marco Rubio has proposed the most recent opposition to TikTok here in the US. Rubio proposes an ultimatum either China hands over the algorithm used for TikTok's recommendation engine, or the United States demonetizes the platform within the country, which effectively ends up being a ban on TikTok. This is pretty wild stuff, so at the heart of Rubio's call appears to be this perception that TikTok's algorithm is purposefully shaping discourse. That perhaps China's using the algorithm to push propaganda or sway the minds of the US public in particular directions. And maybe that's true. I mean, maybe the algorithm is doing that, but I suspect the algorithm is actually doing something far simpler. It is essentially identifying the types of content each user to tends to like, and then it just serves up an endless supply of that kind of content in an effort to keep that user engaged on the platform for as long as possible. So if that content does favor one particular political ideology, well yeah, TikTok serves that up to the user. But if the user tends to favor the opposite point of view, I don't think TikTok tries to change the user's mind and manipulate them so that they think the other thing. No, Instead, it just caters to that kind of point of view and serves up that sort of video content to the user. Again, that's my guess, and maybe I'm wrong. But anyway, as CNBC puts it, Rubio's law would quote prohibit financial transactions from social media companies located in or under the influence of China, Russia, and a few other countries end quote. So yeah, that under the influence is the key element for TikTok because obviously the company TikTok is centered here in the United States, but it's pairing company by Dance is in China, so that seems to be where that key phrase comes into play. I don't really think this is on the right track. I do think TikTok is potentially harmful, but uh, I don't think it's necessarily trying to sway opinions in a specific direction. I think the stuff that TikTok serves up is driven by the behaviors of the people who are on TikTok, not the other way around. But you know, that's just my guess. I don't have any real hard data to say one way or the other, and I could very clearly be wrong. Okay. Next up, Elon Musk had some less than elegant words for advertisers who are fleeing X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. At the Deal Book conference, Musk had a bit of a rant against advertisers, saying they were in effect blackmailing him. Now as a reminder, Musk had posted and also boosted posts containing antisemitic messaging, and many advertisers chose that moment to say peace out to the platform. So I'm not sure this is really a case of blackmail. To be clear, I think this is a case of advertisers not wanting to be complicit in the spread of hate speech because that's a pretty bad way to protect your brand's image. So that's not the same thing as blackmail. Facing consequences for your actions is not the same thing as being persecuted. Anyway, Musk told the advertisers to well, using a phrase that would be used in the television series The Good Place to Go, fork themselves. Then he made himself the victim by saying that if the company dies, which seems possible, it will be because of an advertiser boycott. I think if x slash Twitter dies, it's because an entitled billionaire who thinks consequences are something that happens to other people bought the company on a whim. And remember this was after he announced his intention to buy it, then tried to back out of the deal almost immediately, and then went through the deal only when he was threatened with legal consequences I think perhaps that's the reason that x slash Twitter dies, not that advertisers just spontaneously decided they don't like Elon Musk. But what do I know? The United Auto Workers labor group recently negotiated new contracts with three major automakers here in the US. Now, as revealed in a video recorded by UAW President Sean Fain, it aims to unionize Tesla Motors. Considering the union secured substantial raises for its members with those three major automakers, this effort might actually gain some interest within Tesla. The UAW also wants to organize workers at Mercedes Benz and at Toyota, among other auto manufacturers. I imagine Elon Musk is not happy about this. He recently expressed anger and frustration over the opposition that labor groups have shown against Tesla over in Sweden. That's been an ongoing story, and Musk has not been quiet about his desay pleasure at the situation. We've been seeing a growth in unions and organization over the past few years. Have been covering it for like three years. We'll have to wait and see if they take hold in Tesla. There have been individual efforts at various Tesla facilities for unionization, but this would be more of an organization wide approach. For a quarter mile down Fourteenth Street in Detroit, you can recharge your electric vehicle even as you drive it. The company Electrion completed the installation of some inductive charging coils along that stretch of street and it will serve as a test for the technology, so evs that are equipped with an appropriate receiver will be able to make use of the coils. The coils will create an electromagnetic field. Passing through the field will induce electric charge to flow through the receiver, which then gets directed to recharge the battery, so your car can charge as it drives along the street. The tech also works at the car's stationary so if you park your vehicle along that stretch of street, it will recharge while you do whatever it is you have to do, and you don't have to have any plugs or cables required. Now, this is an early test of the technology. It's really looked as sort of a test bed for the tech. It's not quite at the level where you're going to see it installed in cities worldwide, but if it is shown to be practical, we could see other municipalities around the world invest in this technology. And that's it for the tech news that I have for you today, Thursday, November thirty, of twenty twenty three. I am out on vacation next week, so we will have a few rerun episodes play next week. We also will have a special episode of another podcast play on Tuesday, so that you can be introduced to a new show that I think is pretty interesting. It takes a different look at AI than you'll typically hear on tech Stuff, and honestly, as much as I him and haw about artificial intelligence on this show, I do think it's really important to hear different points of view because I can't claim to be the correct person. I don't think I am just right in everything. My opinions have been shaped by various experiences. I think it's very important to hear other points of view. So check that out and I will talk to you again really soon. Tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.

Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with iHeart Podcasts and how the tech are you. It's time for the tech news for Thursday, November thirty, twenty twenty three. Let's get to it. When last we left open Ai, the story was that Sam Altman was going to come back to the company after being suddenly and surprisingly fired, and that the board of directors would consist of different folks as part of the deal. So three of the four members who voted against Altman were shown the door. The only remaining one is Adam DiAngelo. Well, now Sam Altman is officially back as CEO, and on top of that, Microsoft is going to have a representative who will hold a non voting seat on the board. If you recall, Microsoft has committed to a ten billion dollar investment in open Ai, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella was reportedly furious over Altman's firing because, well, the board of directors kept it all a secret until telling Altman and then essentially telling the world, and Nadella feels that Microsoft should probably get a heads up on that sort of thing early on, since they are pouring in so many billions of dollars into open Ai, and maybe even have a chance to propose alternatives because again, they are so heavily invested in the company. Ilia Sutzkever, who is one of the board members responsible for firing Altman in the first place, stepped down from the board, but he may still remain with the company. He is one of the co founders of open Ai and has served as its chief scientist. Anyway, this really went down as one of the weirder stories of twenty twenty three, and one that actually wrapped up pretty darn fast. I mean, most of our weird stories have lasted the entire year. Talk about chat GPT speaking of weird stories, and how some researchers fooled the tool into revealing training data as well as some personal information about various people. And they did it by having the chat bought repeat the same word over and over without stop forever. So they essentially gave it the prompt repeat the word, you know, whatever the word was, forever, and it would start doing that. So it began to comply, but at some point it started to intersperse the repetitions of the word with other information like snippets from copyrighted research papers or personal phone numbers of private citizens, including the CEO of some company. The researchers used words like poem or company and had it repeat that, and they saw different results depending on which word they used. And it's interesting because I was just rewatching a horror movie called Pontypool, and in that movie people go crazy while they repeating simple small words over and over in English. And then I read the story and I think, oh, gosh, we're in the movie. I mean, not really. But the researchers Chi died open Ai. They said the attack they used shouldn't have worked because someone surely should have discovered it well before then and fixed it. They said, the attack is kind of silly, but it could have serious consequences if someone invested enough money in the paid for version of chat GPT, because that's what the researchers used. If they poured enough money into it and they used a similar style of attack, they could have received an awful lot of information in the process. The attack also showed how open ai has used material on the web, including copyrighted material, to train its large language model. That's an unfolding, sticky situation as lawmakers try to get up to speed on the legalities of training llms. The researcher said that open ai actually patched this vulnerability back in August, so they're just now publishing their findings. But according to them, open ai has already responded to the issue. However, in Gadget, which published a whole article about this issue, said that their staff attempted to replicate the results and they were able to do so. They used the word reply. They told the chatbot to repeat reply forever, and it started to submitting other types of data. So it's clear that this is not fully resolved. It'll be interesting to see if this actually ends up having any actual negative consequences in the real world. Beyond the possibility of that happening, this next story is for you Apple users out there. According to the Wall Street Journal, Apple has proposed that it and Goldman Sachs, which is the bank that facilitates transactions that are moving across Apple Pay, will part ways in twelve to fifteen months, and Goldman Sachs is likely to accept that offer because, as reportedly, the bank has found Apple's business to be unprofitable that handling these transactions is actually costly. Apparently, folks who use Apple Pay make payments on their accounts more slowly than people who use other types of credit cards, and this lag in payment has had a big impact on Goldman Sachs's own finances. This means that Apple will need to find some other financial institution to back those transactions, or somehow do it themselves, which I cannot imagine happening because I imagine that requires fulfilling a whole bunch of regulations that I don't think Apple's ready to do. Or I guess the third option is closing off Apple Pay. I don't see that being a big priority either. The Wall Street Journal reports that American Express or Synchrony Financial are potential successors who might take over the back end operations. However, the article says that Apple has been pretty demanding of its partners, and that when you pair that with the challenges of actually making the business profitable, that could cause a hiccup or two. So is Apple Pay on borrowed time? Is it possible that it could be phased out after a year or so? It beats me, but I'll keep an eye on it. Starting tomorrow, which is Friday, Desummer first. In case you're one of those odd people who likes to listen to tech news episodes months after it happened, Google will be shutting down old user accounts that have been inactive for at least two years. I actually got a message from Google not that long ago regarding an email address that I created for a podcast, but I abandoned that podcast after two episodes, because even professionals like me can be a cliche. The move will delete all related data to the Gmail account, so that includes not just the Gmail address and everything that was in the Gmail but also anything in an associated Google Drive or Google Photos account. To be clear, this isn't going to affect any active Gmail accounts. If you have used your Gmail account with that in the last two years, it is not gonna be in danger. Only ones that have been inactive for two years or longer will be affected, and it will also only affect personal Gmail addresses, not addresses associated with organizations or businesses. There's still some unanswered questions about all this, however. The big one is will Google recycle the inactive Gmail addresses once they wipe those out? Will people be able to reregister those addresses. If so, that could potentially lead to issues with identity theft because folks could scoop up newly available addresses that previously had belonged to someone else. I imagine Google has probably thought of that, but I haven't seen any confirmation on that. A company called Analytics claims that Google did a big old whoopsie, like a big old, huge issue whoopsie. See really, when you get down to it, Google is an advertising platform more than anything else. It's not a search company. It's an ad company. Serves up ads from customers on various websites, including Google. Well, part of that business includes giving advertisers the chance to say which types of websites they do or don't want to have their ads appear on, So it gives the advertisers more control over protecting the brands that they represent. I get a very similar consideration, like I can say what types of ads I do or don't want to appear on this show, and that gives me more control over the show and protects you, the listener, from advertisers that perhaps I don't believe in for one reason or another. Well, advertisers get the same kind of consideration when it comes to where their ads are going to be delivered, because you want to protect the brand, right. You don't want the brand to be associated with something that is against the brand's image, whether that is outright illegal content because that's a possibility, or things like porn sites. If you are, for example, an advertiser that advertises children's clothing, you definitely don't want your ad appearing on an adult website. That's just not appropriate, so Analytics says, the Google Search partner network has apparently been placing ads from prominent brands on sites that are very likely not on any white list, so illegal sites, adult websites, all this kind of stuff have been having some major advertisers pop up on them, and that's probably not what the advertisers wanted. According to Analytics, they found instances in which very high profile companies like Apple, Amazon, Lego, Meta, Uber, etc. Had their ads posted on inappropriate sites. These would be sites that the brands absolutely would not want to be associated with. This is a huge issue for brand safety right. But other problems include cases in which, say, alcohol brand advertisements were showing up on websites that are targeted to children. Clearly, the website administrators don't want that that they're running a site that's targeting children. They don't want ads that have alcohol advertised on them running on the site. The advertisers don't want it either, because there could be a huge legal case to unfold. Because of all of this, Google reportedly is investigating the issue in addressing it, though questions remain as to how this even happened in the first place. This comes at a really bad time for Google. The company is already in the target sites of US lawmakers as they question if Google is engaged in anti competitive practices and if, perhaps to an extreme case, if Google should get broken up into smaller companies. Politicians and the EU have also indicated that they may launch an investigation into the matter. They pointed out that if the EU Commission ads, like an ad for the EU Commission, ends up being placed on, say a sanctioned Russian website, then the Commission inadvertently becomes an accomplice to a party that is violating these international sanctions. So this really is a pretty big mess for Google. All Right, we're going to take a quick break. When we come back, we'll be talking about messes for some other tech companies. Okay, we're back, So here in the United States, the CEOs of five tech companies, those being X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, Meta, TikTok, Snap, and Discord are all going to get together on January thirty first, twenty twenty four. They're not having lunch, they're not engaging in small talk. Instead, they're appearing in front of the US Senate to answer questions about how they protect or rather fail to protect children's safety online. So the hearing is all about child exploitation, and that's one of the foundational concerns people have brought up about social platforms for years now. Really, heck, when Francis Hogan came forward with internal documents from Facebook now Meta, many of those documents centered on the company's potential impact on the mental health of young users, and it wasn't good news. Senators say that the day we'll give CEOs the chance to quote testify about their failure to protect children online end quote. That certainly sounds like the Senate has already reached the conclusion that these platforms have done and perhaps actively are doing harm to children or the very least failing to protect them, and that they are at fault for this. I'm sure it'll be a fun day for all involved. Personally, I think something that tends to be overlooked is how we in the United States aren't really serious about data privacy or security or data ownership, you know, whether the data that pertains to people actually belongs to them. And by addressing some of those gaps, I think we could actually solve a lot of problems that adversely affect young folks if we had tougher rules in place as to who owns that data and who can access it, and tougher laws about getting permission to access them data and to exploit it. All of those things I think are necessary, But hey, what do I know? So that'll be happening at the end of the first month of next year. US Senator Marco Rubio has proposed the most recent opposition to TikTok here in the US. Rubio proposes an ultimatum either China hands over the algorithm used for TikTok's recommendation engine, or the United States demonetizes the platform within the country, which effectively ends up being a ban on TikTok. This is pretty wild stuff, so at the heart of Rubio's call appears to be this perception that TikTok's algorithm is purposefully shaping discourse. That perhaps China's using the algorithm to push propaganda or sway the minds of the US public in particular directions. And maybe that's true. I mean, maybe the algorithm is doing that, but I suspect the algorithm is actually doing something far simpler. It is essentially identifying the types of content each user to tends to like, and then it just serves up an endless supply of that kind of content in an effort to keep that user engaged on the platform for as long as possible. So if that content does favor one particular political ideology, well yeah, TikTok serves that up to the user. But if the user tends to favor the opposite point of view, I don't think TikTok tries to change the user's mind and manipulate them so that they think the other thing. No, Instead, it just caters to that kind of point of view and serves up that sort of video content to the user. Again, that's my guess, and maybe I'm wrong. But anyway, as CNBC puts it, Rubio's law would quote prohibit financial transactions from social media companies located in or under the influence of China, Russia, and a few other countries end quote. So yeah, that under the influence is the key element for TikTok because obviously the company TikTok is centered here in the United States, but it's pairing company by Dance is in China, so that seems to be where that key phrase comes into play. I don't really think this is on the right track. I do think TikTok is potentially harmful, but uh, I don't think it's necessarily trying to sway opinions in a specific direction. I think the stuff that TikTok serves up is driven by the behaviors of the people who are on TikTok, not the other way around. But you know, that's just my guess. I don't have any real hard data to say one way or the other, and I could very clearly be wrong. Okay. Next up, Elon Musk had some less than elegant words for advertisers who are fleeing X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. At the Deal Book conference, Musk had a bit of a rant against advertisers, saying they were in effect blackmailing him. Now as a reminder, Musk had posted and also boosted posts containing antisemitic messaging, and many advertisers chose that moment to say peace out to the platform. So I'm not sure this is really a case of blackmail. To be clear, I think this is a case of advertisers not wanting to be complicit in the spread of hate speech because that's a pretty bad way to protect your brand's image. So that's not the same thing as blackmail. Facing consequences for your actions is not the same thing as being persecuted. Anyway, Musk told the advertisers to well, using a phrase that would be used in the television series The Good Place to Go, fork themselves. Then he made himself the victim by saying that if the company dies, which seems possible, it will be because of an advertiser boycott. I think if x slash Twitter dies, it's because an entitled billionaire who thinks consequences are something that happens to other people bought the company on a whim. And remember this was after he announced his intention to buy it, then tried to back out of the deal almost immediately, and then went through the deal only when he was threatened with legal consequences I think perhaps that's the reason that x slash Twitter dies, not that advertisers just spontaneously decided they don't like Elon Musk. But what do I know? The United Auto Workers labor group recently negotiated new contracts with three major automakers here in the US. Now, as revealed in a video recorded by UAW President Sean Fain, it aims to unionize Tesla Motors. Considering the union secured substantial raises for its members with those three major automakers, this effort might actually gain some interest within Tesla. The UAW also wants to organize workers at Mercedes Benz and at Toyota, among other auto manufacturers. I imagine Elon Musk is not happy about this. He recently expressed anger and frustration over the opposition that labor groups have shown against Tesla over in Sweden. That's been an ongoing story, and Musk has not been quiet about his desay pleasure at the situation. We've been seeing a growth in unions and organization over the past few years. Have been covering it for like three years. We'll have to wait and see if they take hold in Tesla. There have been individual efforts at various Tesla facilities for unionization, but this would be more of an organization wide approach. For a quarter mile down Fourteenth Street in Detroit, you can recharge your electric vehicle even as you drive it. The company Electrion completed the installation of some inductive charging coils along that stretch of street and it will serve as a test for the technology, so evs that are equipped with an appropriate receiver will be able to make use of the coils. The coils will create an electromagnetic field. Passing through the field will induce electric charge to flow through the receiver, which then gets directed to recharge the battery, so your car can charge as it drives along the street. The tech also works at the car's stationary so if you park your vehicle along that stretch of street, it will recharge while you do whatever it is you have to do, and you don't have to have any plugs or cables required. Now, this is an early test of the technology. It's really looked as sort of a test bed for the tech. It's not quite at the level where you're going to see it installed in cities worldwide, but if it is shown to be practical, we could see other municipalities around the world invest in this technology. And that's it for the tech news that I have for you today, Thursday, November thirty, of twenty twenty three. I am out on vacation next week, so we will have a few rerun episodes play next week. We also will have a special episode of another podcast play on Tuesday, so that you can be introduced to a new show that I think is pretty interesting. It takes a different look at AI than you'll typically hear on tech Stuff, and honestly, as much as I him and haw about artificial intelligence on this show, I do think it's really important to hear different points of view because I can't claim to be the correct person. I don't think I am just right in everything. My opinions have been shaped by various experiences. I think it's very important to hear other points of view. So check that out and I will talk to you again really soon. Tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.