Welcome to Tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey thereon 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 sixteenth, twenty twenty three. First up, over in the EU, TikTok is protesting its designation as a gatekeeper. So this relates to the EU's Digital Markets Act. That act establishes this designation of gatekeeper for companies that meet several criteria and if they do meet those criteria and the EU determines their gatekeepers, it means these companies have obligations to comply with a specific set of rules and restrictions that the EU created for these very powerful companies. So first up, what is a gatekeeper? Well, it's any company that serves as a gateway between consumers and businesses through core platform services. TikTok in this case, would be a core platform service. But okay, beyond that, the companies that merit the designation gatekeeper have to be really important players that hold significant power in their respective markets. So think about companies that have effectively a stranglehold on some specific element of the digital world. Google web search would be a clear contender, right, Facebook or Meta really would have a lot in social networks. So to continue to be considered to be a gatekeeper, there are some actual financial results that are important too. A company has to have a turnover of at least eight billion dollars for the last three financial years or have an average market capitalization of at least seventy nine point five billion dollars in the last financial year. The reason for these numbers like seventy nine point five is because obviously in the EU, this is all in euro not in dollars. The company us to also provide services to at least three member states within the EU, so if it's only operating in one, it cannot be considered a gatekeeper. If it is not making those kind of financial returns, then it can't be a gatekeeper. It also must be in an entrenched and durable position. Now that means that these companies are really well established. They're not likely to get displaced by a competitor anytime in the foreseeable future. Now, to be clear, the EU is not actually saying that TikTok is the gatekeeper here. That's one of those core services, not the gatekeeper itself. Instead its parent company bye Dance is what the EU has identified as a gatekeeper. So TikTok is saying, oh, contrier, Monefrayer, we're largely independent of Byteedance. We don't have that much to do with them. We operate very much independently of Byteedance, and when you take that into consideration, we don't qualify as a gatekeeper. So that means we shouldn't have to comply with the rules that gatekeepers have to follow. See these rules include lots of stuff. One example is that a gatekeeper has to be able to give users access to the data that they are generating through using the platform. So if a user says, hey, I want to have access to all the data you have on me based upon how I'm using your product, they have to do that. That's just one example. So clearly, any company that has gatekeeper status is going to have to put in a lot of work to comply with these rules, and furthermore, complying with those rules will also likely have a big impact on how these companies can do business in the EU in the first place. Right, those rules might end up saying that things that are normal business practices for these companies are no longer viable, and suddenly you have this very lucrative form of revenue generation cut off from you. So it's understandable that TikTok would want to find a get out of Digital Markets Act free card. Interestingly, Meta has also challenged its status as a gatekeeper. Considering how frequently Zuckerberg has bragged about, you know, having billions of users, it seems weird and difficult to argue that Meta somehow doesn't qualify for gatekeeper status, but they're trying anyway. I'm not sure they're going to find much success with that route. But the other companies that have been designated gatekeepers include Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Apple. So the deadline for these companies to submit a challenge to the classification is let me see, let me look here today. Actually today's the last, so we'll see if the EU reconsiders. I suspect that's not going to be the case, but we'll see. Meanwhile, here in the United States, Judge von Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Section two thirty protections cannot be used as a blanket force field defense. So as a reminder, Section two thirty states that an Internet platform cannot be treated as a publisher and then held responsible for the content that users are posting to that platform. So, for example, if someone posts a video on YouTube that is slandering an innocent person, YouTube is not responsible for that video. They're not responsible for the crime of slander. Section two thirty would protect them from that. There are some limitations to section two thirty, so things can get a little bit fuzzy. Like you know, if a platform shows that it has not tried to reasonably respond to issues from the recreated by users, then it can lose some of the elements of section two thirty protection. But this particular ruling takes a totally different perspective on the problem. So at the heart of the decision isn't the content that's posted to a platform. Instead, it's actually directed at the platform's design and operation. So the argument is if the platform's design is faulty and allows for the posting and the proliferation of illegal content on the platform that is not covered by section two thirty, So it's not that the platform is responsible for publishing the material, but that its measures to prevent abuse are not sufficient, and therefore that's a design flaw and that is not covered or protected by Section two thirty. So let me give an example. Let's say a platform creates an AI powered tool that is meant to detect instances of illegal material posted to the platform, but this tool fails to work reliably and some stuff gets past the tool. Well, Judge Rogers's ruling says that the platform cannot hide behind Section two thirty to protect themselves because the root of the complaint is that the tool meant to protect against the illegal material doesn't work. It's not about the publication of the material. It's about this tool that's meant to prevent that stuff, So it's all about contextualization. The ruling means that this huge lawsuit that thirty states in the US have brought against social networking companies can actually continue to the discovery phase. So it doesn't mean that this particular lawsuit is going to turn out one way versus another. That's still to be determined in the courts. It just means that the lawsuit can proceed to the next stage in the court system. And it also means the extent of protections offered by Section two thirty have boundaries. They're not endless. It is an important precedent, and it's one that's short to concern a lot of big tech companies out in the space. Meanwhile, our march toward being engulfed in AI generated content continues. Google is experimenting with several AI powered features over on YouTube. One of them will take a tune that you hum into a microphone and then use that to generate a full music track for you. Another tool has been rolled out to a small test group of creators that is called dream Track, and this tool lets the creator create a prompt to generate a thirty second piece of music in the style of one of nine musical artists. So why only nine? Well, Google is trying to do this in a respectable and responsible way and is working with artists on this tool. So each one represented in the tool worked with Google and gave their permission for this to actually work. So you can't just use this tool to copy any artist out there. It has to be someone who has given their express permission for the tool to be able to do this. And what it can do is it can take a pretty generic prompt you might say, like make me a song about driving fast along a coastal highway, and it will take that prompt and then it will do everything from generating the music to actually writing lyrics, to creating vocals that sound like the artist you selected, and produce the whole thing for you now. According to The Verge, YouTube plans to roll out this feature specifically as a way to augment YouTube shorts. That's YouTube's take on stuff like TikTok videos and reels and that kind of thing. Google's Deep Mind project provides the horsepower in the background through an AI generation model that's called Leria, And unlike with a lot of other generative AI applications, I don't feel that icky about this one. I like that Google reached out to actual artists first to get their buy in on this. I like that it's limited in its application, it's not like designed to just write music. And I also like that, you know, it's it's going to give creators a chance to do things like make a backing track for their video without having to you know, take up music or potentially, you know, try and lift someone else's work and hope they don't get a copyright strike. I like that as well, so I think this is a reasonable use of generative AI, at least so far. On a related note, Google has also introduced an audio watermark for AI generated audio tracks. It's called synth id, and while it's an audio watermark, it isn't audible, or rather, it shouldn't be detectable, in Google's words, by human ears. So theoretically, we puny humans won't be able to tell that it's there. But if you were to PLoP the track into some audio editing software, you should be able to find the audio watermark somewhere in the track. It's supposed to be true even if someone runs the AI generated audio through compression, or they change the speed of the track, or even if they put in other audio, like if they mix it with something else. It is not bulletproof. Google reps say that if someone had enough determination and they pushed image manipulation far enough, they could off uskate the watermark. But as we feel our way toward how we can best make use of generative AI so that we can enjoy its benefits without also having to endure massively negative consequences, stuff like this technology can help us get to that destination. All right, we're gonna take a quick break. When we come back, I've got some more news items to talk about we're back. So imagine that you're in a ransomware game and you and your fellow hackers have targeted a business and you get into that business of systems, and you steal a whole bunch of data, and then you tell the target, Hey, I've got your data. If you do not pay out a ransom, we're going to share this information with the rest of the world. And then let's say that you are not satisfied at how quickly or your target's moving. Your target hasn't responded fast enough, so you could go ahead and release all the information, but then you're not going to get anything from your victim, right, It's just going to be like, well, we did it and we released information, but we didn't get any money for our efforts. How do you get your target to pay up? Well, how about you tell the authorities that they failed to disclose a data breach, because that's what the Alpha ransomware group did to a company called Meridian Link. So the hacker group alerted the US Securities in Exchange Commission, or SEC that they had hit Meridian Link with a ransomware attack, but Meridian Link failed to disclose this attack, and not too long ago, the SEC pasted a rule that says companies have four days to report ransomware attacks that represent a significant breach. So this was literally the hackers taddling on their victim in an effort to pressure Meridian Link to cough up the ransom. Never Mind that the hackers might have been a bit premature to do this because those rules, while they have been drafted, don't actually go into effect until December fifteenth, so there is no legal obligation yet for Meridian Link to have revealed this. Plus, Meridian Link could argue that the breach doesn't actually amount to being significant in the first place, so that it wouldn't have you know, triggered the rules even if they had been in effect at the time. But I just thought it was interesting that the thieves are snitching on the victims to the authorities. It's pretty crazy. Tesla and worker unions in Sweden are in a pretty big fight right now. So in Sweden, the labor market is really different from other parts of the world. You know, a lot of countries have things like minimum wage requirements and working hours requirements, but in Sweden these decisions come down to worker groups. So essentially unions and the various employers in Sweden. So the two parties come together and they negotiate the terms until both sides are satisfied, and then that's those are the rules. But Tesla hasn't been doing that. The company has refused to come to the table to negotiate with Swedish workers, and so several different groups representing different types of jobs have all decided they aren't going to work with Tesla anymore. So that includes like dock workers who will stop unloading Tesla cargo in Swedish ports, So Tesla might ship stuff to Sweden, but no one's going to be unloading those ships. Electricians will not work on Tesla charging stations in Sweden. Cleaning staff will stop showing up to clean showrooms. Several unions have expressed solidarity, extending the protests beyond the first circle of employees affected by Tesla's refusal to negoiate. The company is facing increasing resistance in Sweden. Things are just going to get worse unless Tesla makes motions to actually negotiate with unions. Even the Swedish post office is going to stop delivering mail to Tesla addresses starting next week. So elon Musk in the past has shown great disdain for unions and for worker organization in general. So I can't say that Tesla's failure to engage in this process has surprised me. But it will still surprise me if that remains the case, because I don't get the impression that Tesla's really in a position where they can just write off an entire country. In space news, SpaceX has received approval from the Federal Aviation Administration here in America to perform a second test flight of the Starship Super heavy lifting vehicle, which, as I record this is currently scheduled for tomorrow, November seventeenth. Earlier this year, back in April, SpaceX attempted a test launch of this vehicle and it did not go well. About four minutes into the test launched, the Starship burst into flame, and then it's self destructed. The failure caused a great deal of damage to the surrounding area, including one case where debris from the explosion apparently hit a vehicle here on the ground. An investigation followed and the FAA created a pretty long list of issues that SpaceX would have to address before the FAA would grant permission to conduct another test. But apparently all of that is now reconciled, and if tomorrow's test goes as planned, the starship should lift off, it should fly for around ninety minutes, and then eventually it should descend vertically into the Pacific Ocean. So we'll have to keep our eyes out to see if that in fact happens. In New York City, the company Joby Aviation held a demonstration of its electrical Vertical takeoff and Landing Aircraft or EV tall as six propellers, it kind of looks like an oversized remote control drone, like just big enough for you to ride in, and the fact that it has six propellers, whereas most consumer drones have four. But this is an example of an electric flying taxi concept that's been around in New York for a while, and primarily the focus has been on transporting people from locations like say downtown Manhattan to an airport and or vice versa, from an airport to say downtown Manhattan. And this is a trip that if you were taking by ground transportation, it might take you an hour or sometimes longer to get there, but by air it could take you less than ten minutes. New York's Mayor Eric Adams was present for this demonstration, which saw a job ev tall vehicle lift off the ground and fly around the area. The plan is to have Jobey Aviation cleared for commercial operation by twenty twenty five, but the company still has to meet a few more FAA requirements before it can earn a license to operate in New York City. Joby Aviation is just one company that's actually competing for this potential future. There are others that are also looking to take that spot in New York. Now, I'm not gonna lie. I do think it's neat, but I'm I'm not entirely convinced it actually meets a real need. I mean, sure, getting to the airport more easily and quickly is great, but the capacity of these aircraft is pretty limited, so I don't actually see it making a significant impact on larger issues like traffic, even traffic to the airports. I mean, it's a very small percentage of people who are going to be able to take advantage of this, at least unless you've got like maybe a huge fleet of these things. And then you have the issue of well where are they taking off and landing? Where are you storing these things? Like you know, there are other issues that come up. If you're like, well we've got a big enough fleet to make an impact on traffic, well, then you have other problems you have to solve. I still think it's cool. I just I'm not convinced that it really solves a problem. I've got a couple of article recommendations for yall before I sign off today. First up is Will Saddleberg's article for Android Police. It is titled Android Isn't Cool with teenagers. That's a big problem. So Saddleberg points out how, particularly here in the United States, younger folks prefer iOS devices to Android, and that's really bad news for Google because you know, young folks who love Apple tend to grow up to be adults who love Apple, and then Google is left seeing an entire generation moving or not even adopting Android devices. Plus, Settleberg touches on the whole crazy status symbol thing here in the US in iPhones, particularly with I message, where if there's like a group message going on and one person has a green bubble of text instead of blue, that person is then ostracized or ridiculed because they aren't cool enough to have an iPhone, which is super lame. I think personally like I would just I would roll my eyes at that kind of stuff. But then I also understand, like that's kind of how kids operate. I was always oblivious to that sort of thing. I was never aware enough to pick up on the fact that I was being ostracized. I'm sure I was. I just did notice. But like when I was growing up, it was all things like designer clothes or whatever, or certain labels. Certain brand labels were big and others were considered garbage. And I never figured that out and I turned out. I mean, I'm okay anyway. The other article I have to recommend is John Broadkin's piece for Ours Technica. It is titled Cable Lobby and Ted Cruz are Disappointed as FCC band's digital discrimination. Broadkin does a really good job breaking down the actual issue and the various perspectives. It's not clear cut, Like I wouldn't say it's super clear cut from any perspective. I would also say a lot of perspectives are selectively ignoring certain things in order to make a point, which is disingenuous, I would argue. But anyway, the article does a really good job at breaking all that down. Okay, that's it. I hope you are all well, and I'll 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 thereon 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 sixteenth, twenty twenty three. First up, over in the EU, TikTok is protesting its designation as a gatekeeper. So this relates to the EU's Digital Markets Act. That act establishes this designation of gatekeeper for companies that meet several criteria and if they do meet those criteria and the EU determines their gatekeepers, it means these companies have obligations to comply with a specific set of rules and restrictions that the EU created for these very powerful companies. So first up, what is a gatekeeper? Well, it's any company that serves as a gateway between consumers and businesses through core platform services. TikTok in this case, would be a core platform service. But okay, beyond that, the companies that merit the designation gatekeeper have to be really important players that hold significant power in their respective markets. So think about companies that have effectively a stranglehold on some specific element of the digital world. Google web search would be a clear contender, right, Facebook or Meta really would have a lot in social networks. So to continue to be considered to be a gatekeeper, there are some actual financial results that are important too. A company has to have a turnover of at least eight billion dollars for the last three financial years or have an average market capitalization of at least seventy nine point five billion dollars in the last financial year. The reason for these numbers like seventy nine point five is because obviously in the EU, this is all in euro not in dollars. The company us to also provide services to at least three member states within the EU, so if it's only operating in one, it cannot be considered a gatekeeper. If it is not making those kind of financial returns, then it can't be a gatekeeper. It also must be in an entrenched and durable position. Now that means that these companies are really well established. They're not likely to get displaced by a competitor anytime in the foreseeable future. Now, to be clear, the EU is not actually saying that TikTok is the gatekeeper here. That's one of those core services, not the gatekeeper itself. Instead its parent company bye Dance is what the EU has identified as a gatekeeper. So TikTok is saying, oh, contrier, Monefrayer, we're largely independent of Byteedance. We don't have that much to do with them. We operate very much independently of Byteedance, and when you take that into consideration, we don't qualify as a gatekeeper. So that means we shouldn't have to comply with the rules that gatekeepers have to follow. See these rules include lots of stuff. One example is that a gatekeeper has to be able to give users access to the data that they are generating through using the platform. So if a user says, hey, I want to have access to all the data you have on me based upon how I'm using your product, they have to do that. That's just one example. So clearly, any company that has gatekeeper status is going to have to put in a lot of work to comply with these rules, and furthermore, complying with those rules will also likely have a big impact on how these companies can do business in the EU in the first place. Right, those rules might end up saying that things that are normal business practices for these companies are no longer viable, and suddenly you have this very lucrative form of revenue generation cut off from you. So it's understandable that TikTok would want to find a get out of Digital Markets Act free card. Interestingly, Meta has also challenged its status as a gatekeeper. Considering how frequently Zuckerberg has bragged about, you know, having billions of users, it seems weird and difficult to argue that Meta somehow doesn't qualify for gatekeeper status, but they're trying anyway. I'm not sure they're going to find much success with that route. But the other companies that have been designated gatekeepers include Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Apple. So the deadline for these companies to submit a challenge to the classification is let me see, let me look here today. Actually today's the last, so we'll see if the EU reconsiders. I suspect that's not going to be the case, but we'll see. Meanwhile, here in the United States, Judge von Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Section two thirty protections cannot be used as a blanket force field defense. So as a reminder, Section two thirty states that an Internet platform cannot be treated as a publisher and then held responsible for the content that users are posting to that platform. So, for example, if someone posts a video on YouTube that is slandering an innocent person, YouTube is not responsible for that video. They're not responsible for the crime of slander. Section two thirty would protect them from that. There are some limitations to section two thirty, so things can get a little bit fuzzy. Like you know, if a platform shows that it has not tried to reasonably respond to issues from the recreated by users, then it can lose some of the elements of section two thirty protection. But this particular ruling takes a totally different perspective on the problem. So at the heart of the decision isn't the content that's posted to a platform. Instead, it's actually directed at the platform's design and operation. So the argument is if the platform's design is faulty and allows for the posting and the proliferation of illegal content on the platform that is not covered by section two thirty, So it's not that the platform is responsible for publishing the material, but that its measures to prevent abuse are not sufficient, and therefore that's a design flaw and that is not covered or protected by Section two thirty. So let me give an example. Let's say a platform creates an AI powered tool that is meant to detect instances of illegal material posted to the platform, but this tool fails to work reliably and some stuff gets past the tool. Well, Judge Rogers's ruling says that the platform cannot hide behind Section two thirty to protect themselves because the root of the complaint is that the tool meant to protect against the illegal material doesn't work. It's not about the publication of the material. It's about this tool that's meant to prevent that stuff, So it's all about contextualization. The ruling means that this huge lawsuit that thirty states in the US have brought against social networking companies can actually continue to the discovery phase. So it doesn't mean that this particular lawsuit is going to turn out one way versus another. That's still to be determined in the courts. It just means that the lawsuit can proceed to the next stage in the court system. And it also means the extent of protections offered by Section two thirty have boundaries. They're not endless. It is an important precedent, and it's one that's short to concern a lot of big tech companies out in the space. Meanwhile, our march toward being engulfed in AI generated content continues. Google is experimenting with several AI powered features over on YouTube. One of them will take a tune that you hum into a microphone and then use that to generate a full music track for you. Another tool has been rolled out to a small test group of creators that is called dream Track, and this tool lets the creator create a prompt to generate a thirty second piece of music in the style of one of nine musical artists. So why only nine? Well, Google is trying to do this in a respectable and responsible way and is working with artists on this tool. So each one represented in the tool worked with Google and gave their permission for this to actually work. So you can't just use this tool to copy any artist out there. It has to be someone who has given their express permission for the tool to be able to do this. And what it can do is it can take a pretty generic prompt you might say, like make me a song about driving fast along a coastal highway, and it will take that prompt and then it will do everything from generating the music to actually writing lyrics, to creating vocals that sound like the artist you selected, and produce the whole thing for you now. According to The Verge, YouTube plans to roll out this feature specifically as a way to augment YouTube shorts. That's YouTube's take on stuff like TikTok videos and reels and that kind of thing. Google's Deep Mind project provides the horsepower in the background through an AI generation model that's called Leria, And unlike with a lot of other generative AI applications, I don't feel that icky about this one. I like that Google reached out to actual artists first to get their buy in on this. I like that it's limited in its application, it's not like designed to just write music. And I also like that, you know, it's it's going to give creators a chance to do things like make a backing track for their video without having to you know, take up music or potentially, you know, try and lift someone else's work and hope they don't get a copyright strike. I like that as well, so I think this is a reasonable use of generative AI, at least so far. On a related note, Google has also introduced an audio watermark for AI generated audio tracks. It's called synth id, and while it's an audio watermark, it isn't audible, or rather, it shouldn't be detectable, in Google's words, by human ears. So theoretically, we puny humans won't be able to tell that it's there. But if you were to PLoP the track into some audio editing software, you should be able to find the audio watermark somewhere in the track. It's supposed to be true even if someone runs the AI generated audio through compression, or they change the speed of the track, or even if they put in other audio, like if they mix it with something else. It is not bulletproof. Google reps say that if someone had enough determination and they pushed image manipulation far enough, they could off uskate the watermark. But as we feel our way toward how we can best make use of generative AI so that we can enjoy its benefits without also having to endure massively negative consequences, stuff like this technology can help us get to that destination. All right, we're gonna take a quick break. When we come back, I've got some more news items to talk about we're back. So imagine that you're in a ransomware game and you and your fellow hackers have targeted a business and you get into that business of systems, and you steal a whole bunch of data, and then you tell the target, Hey, I've got your data. If you do not pay out a ransom, we're going to share this information with the rest of the world. And then let's say that you are not satisfied at how quickly or your target's moving. Your target hasn't responded fast enough, so you could go ahead and release all the information, but then you're not going to get anything from your victim, right, It's just going to be like, well, we did it and we released information, but we didn't get any money for our efforts. How do you get your target to pay up? Well, how about you tell the authorities that they failed to disclose a data breach, because that's what the Alpha ransomware group did to a company called Meridian Link. So the hacker group alerted the US Securities in Exchange Commission, or SEC that they had hit Meridian Link with a ransomware attack, but Meridian Link failed to disclose this attack, and not too long ago, the SEC pasted a rule that says companies have four days to report ransomware attacks that represent a significant breach. So this was literally the hackers taddling on their victim in an effort to pressure Meridian Link to cough up the ransom. Never Mind that the hackers might have been a bit premature to do this because those rules, while they have been drafted, don't actually go into effect until December fifteenth, so there is no legal obligation yet for Meridian Link to have revealed this. Plus, Meridian Link could argue that the breach doesn't actually amount to being significant in the first place, so that it wouldn't have you know, triggered the rules even if they had been in effect at the time. But I just thought it was interesting that the thieves are snitching on the victims to the authorities. It's pretty crazy. Tesla and worker unions in Sweden are in a pretty big fight right now. So in Sweden, the labor market is really different from other parts of the world. You know, a lot of countries have things like minimum wage requirements and working hours requirements, but in Sweden these decisions come down to worker groups. So essentially unions and the various employers in Sweden. So the two parties come together and they negotiate the terms until both sides are satisfied, and then that's those are the rules. But Tesla hasn't been doing that. The company has refused to come to the table to negotiate with Swedish workers, and so several different groups representing different types of jobs have all decided they aren't going to work with Tesla anymore. So that includes like dock workers who will stop unloading Tesla cargo in Swedish ports, So Tesla might ship stuff to Sweden, but no one's going to be unloading those ships. Electricians will not work on Tesla charging stations in Sweden. Cleaning staff will stop showing up to clean showrooms. Several unions have expressed solidarity, extending the protests beyond the first circle of employees affected by Tesla's refusal to negoiate. The company is facing increasing resistance in Sweden. Things are just going to get worse unless Tesla makes motions to actually negotiate with unions. Even the Swedish post office is going to stop delivering mail to Tesla addresses starting next week. So elon Musk in the past has shown great disdain for unions and for worker organization in general. So I can't say that Tesla's failure to engage in this process has surprised me. But it will still surprise me if that remains the case, because I don't get the impression that Tesla's really in a position where they can just write off an entire country. In space news, SpaceX has received approval from the Federal Aviation Administration here in America to perform a second test flight of the Starship Super heavy lifting vehicle, which, as I record this is currently scheduled for tomorrow, November seventeenth. Earlier this year, back in April, SpaceX attempted a test launch of this vehicle and it did not go well. About four minutes into the test launched, the Starship burst into flame, and then it's self destructed. The failure caused a great deal of damage to the surrounding area, including one case where debris from the explosion apparently hit a vehicle here on the ground. An investigation followed and the FAA created a pretty long list of issues that SpaceX would have to address before the FAA would grant permission to conduct another test. But apparently all of that is now reconciled, and if tomorrow's test goes as planned, the starship should lift off, it should fly for around ninety minutes, and then eventually it should descend vertically into the Pacific Ocean. So we'll have to keep our eyes out to see if that in fact happens. In New York City, the company Joby Aviation held a demonstration of its electrical Vertical takeoff and Landing Aircraft or EV tall as six propellers, it kind of looks like an oversized remote control drone, like just big enough for you to ride in, and the fact that it has six propellers, whereas most consumer drones have four. But this is an example of an electric flying taxi concept that's been around in New York for a while, and primarily the focus has been on transporting people from locations like say downtown Manhattan to an airport and or vice versa, from an airport to say downtown Manhattan. And this is a trip that if you were taking by ground transportation, it might take you an hour or sometimes longer to get there, but by air it could take you less than ten minutes. New York's Mayor Eric Adams was present for this demonstration, which saw a job ev tall vehicle lift off the ground and fly around the area. The plan is to have Jobey Aviation cleared for commercial operation by twenty twenty five, but the company still has to meet a few more FAA requirements before it can earn a license to operate in New York City. Joby Aviation is just one company that's actually competing for this potential future. There are others that are also looking to take that spot in New York. Now, I'm not gonna lie. I do think it's neat, but I'm I'm not entirely convinced it actually meets a real need. I mean, sure, getting to the airport more easily and quickly is great, but the capacity of these aircraft is pretty limited, so I don't actually see it making a significant impact on larger issues like traffic, even traffic to the airports. I mean, it's a very small percentage of people who are going to be able to take advantage of this, at least unless you've got like maybe a huge fleet of these things. And then you have the issue of well where are they taking off and landing? Where are you storing these things? Like you know, there are other issues that come up. If you're like, well we've got a big enough fleet to make an impact on traffic, well, then you have other problems you have to solve. I still think it's cool. I just I'm not convinced that it really solves a problem. I've got a couple of article recommendations for yall before I sign off today. First up is Will Saddleberg's article for Android Police. It is titled Android Isn't Cool with teenagers. That's a big problem. So Saddleberg points out how, particularly here in the United States, younger folks prefer iOS devices to Android, and that's really bad news for Google because you know, young folks who love Apple tend to grow up to be adults who love Apple, and then Google is left seeing an entire generation moving or not even adopting Android devices. Plus, Settleberg touches on the whole crazy status symbol thing here in the US in iPhones, particularly with I message, where if there's like a group message going on and one person has a green bubble of text instead of blue, that person is then ostracized or ridiculed because they aren't cool enough to have an iPhone, which is super lame. I think personally like I would just I would roll my eyes at that kind of stuff. But then I also understand, like that's kind of how kids operate. I was always oblivious to that sort of thing. I was never aware enough to pick up on the fact that I was being ostracized. I'm sure I was. I just did notice. But like when I was growing up, it was all things like designer clothes or whatever, or certain labels. Certain brand labels were big and others were considered garbage. And I never figured that out and I turned out. I mean, I'm okay anyway. The other article I have to recommend is John Broadkin's piece for Ours Technica. It is titled Cable Lobby and Ted Cruz are Disappointed as FCC band's digital discrimination. Broadkin does a really good job breaking down the actual issue and the various perspectives. It's not clear cut, Like I wouldn't say it's super clear cut from any perspective. I would also say a lot of perspectives are selectively ignoring certain things in order to make a point, which is disingenuous, I would argue. But anyway, the article does a really good job at breaking all that down. Okay, that's it. I hope you are all well, and I'll 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.