 This 10th year of Daily Tech News show is made possible by you, the listeners, thanks to every single one of you, including Reid Fishler, Larry Bailey, Michelle Serju, and Lewis Butler. On this episode of DTNS, Gene X. Huang tells us what it's like to have your Twitter handle taken away by Twitter, aka X. Plus, be careful showing strangers in your public posts and why we're all wrong about the effect of social media on politics. This is the Daily Tech News for Friday, July 28th, 2023 in Los Angeles. I'm Tom Merritt. And from Studio Sonoma, I'm Sarah Lane. Drawing the top tech stories. In Cleveland, I'm Len Peralta. And I'm the show's producer, Roger Cheng. And joining us, co-founder and photographer at Orange Photography, Gene X. Huang, thank you for joining us. Yeah, it's my pleasure. This is my first time on the show. Yes, it's good to have you. We were put in touch by a mutual pinball connection. Ron Richards, host of Android Faithful. So appreciate him for putting us in touch as well. Yep. I actually knew Sarah from before as well, so... That's right. I mentioned that you all are... Gene and I, we were kind of part of that, well, you know, early Web 2 wave in SF and cross paths many times. Indeed. All right. Well, let us start with the quick hits. Apple's App Store wants developers to explain why their apps use certain Apple APIs before submitting them for review. Examples include things like file timestamps, system boot times, disk space, active keyboards, user defaults, and others. Those and other API categories will be classified as required reason APIs on the Apple developer website, which will make devs explain why they're using them going forward. This is designed to crack down on a technique called fingerprinting that tracks users across different apps and websites. At least that's what Apple is saying this is for. Starting this fall, iOS 17, TVOS 17, watchOS 10, and MacOS Sonoma developers will be notified about this update. Then starting next spring, non-valid submissions will be rejected. In a blog post Friday, Google announced a new vision language action model called the Robotics Transformer 2 or RT2. It's designed to let robots understand everyday tasks like throwing out trash by training on information and images from the internet. So instead of explaining how to throw out the trash, you just show them the video. The company says RT2 nearly doubled the robot's performance on previously unseen scenarios and can also use rudimentary reasoning to respond to user commands. Metis Twitter clone threads saw more than 100 million users sign up in its first five days. That was significant, but has since lost more than half its engagement. Some people say, well, that's the end of threads. Well, maybe, maybe not. Metis CEO Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged this in an internal company town hall, adding that retention of users is difficult and on threads was better than executives had expected, though it was not perfect. Zuckerberg also said he expects retention to grow as new features arrive like a desktop version. That's what I want of the site and search functionality as well. US chipmaker AMD says it will invest $400 million in India over the next five years and will build its largest design center in Bengaluru, adding 3000 new engineering roles there by 2028. Speaking of AMD, it also announced that the Asus ROG StripScar 17 X3D gaming laptop will come with AMD's 7,945 HX3D laptop chip. Don't try to remember that. Just remember it's AMD's first mobile processor with 3D vCash. At 144 megabytes, that's more cash than AMD's desktops X3D chips. As you might expect, it comes with the usual promises of performance increases, but they seem definitely believable. The Asus StripScar 17 X3D laptop will be available August 22nd. We don't have a price yet. Intel posted better than expected quarterly earnings and including a return to profitability after two quarters of losses. So, you know, good news there. PC sales over the last year, in general, not just Intel's sales, have taken a dive in part because consumers had bought so many PCs during the pandemic, but things appear to be correcting in the market overall. The previous two quarters saw PC shipment declines of over 30%, but the quarter ending in June of this year only dropped 11.5%, so it's still a drop, but less of a drop. As a result, Intel forecasted better margins for its third quarter, expecting PC shipments to continue to rebound in the second half of the year. So, a good Intel report, or at least not bad, Intel report. Well, what do you say, Sarah? Let's talk politics. Why not? I mean, everyone loves to talk about that, right? Yeah, but this is kind of something that affects us all in some way. Social networks often get blamed as that root cause of political polarization, or at least a big one. And even the reason why the candidate that you voted for, or at least the candidate you were rooting for, didn't end up getting elected. Now, this isn't unlike how you might've felt for years if you watched 24-hour cable news networks, or you knew the one network that you didn't agree with and had narratives that you didn't agree with. So, a little bit more of the same, but social networking works a little bit differently. The US 2020 Facebook and Instagram election study attempted to figure out whether this was all true. What was true about it anyway? The study cooperated with Metta to get access to data that wouldn't otherwise be available. So, it's not necessarily a Metta study, but Metta saying, we're cooperating. We're going to give you the data that you need to come out with your own findings. The first four papers from the study have now been published. So, Tom, what did it say? Yeah, here are some of the findings. I'm going to run through these and think about whether any of these throw you off or you're like, no, that's exactly what I thought. There is significant ideological segregation in what news you see based on what you believe from pages and groups, more than just your general contacts. And in fact, conservative people or people who identify as conservative see more political news links than liberal identifying people. However, only 3% of all news on Facebook is political and 0.2%, 0.2% of all news on Facebook is flagged as false. Algorithms are extremely influential, but popular proposals to change algorithms don't seem like they would change political attitudes. For example, using chronological versus algorithmic feet. A lot of times people say, if we change it to chronological, it wouldn't inflame people as much. Well, chronological feeds caused user activity to drop by 20% and move to other platforms. So, you didn't cut down on social media use. You just drove people over to TikTok and other places. Removing reshares is another thing people have said. What if you limit the amount of times you can share stuff with people? That reduced exposure to both trustworthy and untrustworthy political content. So, people just became less well informed and chronological feeds increased untrustworthy sources on Facebook. So, you saw more untrustworthy stuff if you went chronological only. Neither removing the reshares or using chronological feeds significantly changed anybody's polarization or political attitudes. And reducing exposure to like-minded content. In other words, getting you out of your bubble, seeing things that aren't just more of what you think. Over three months, they did that. Didn't have an effect on political attitudes. Getting people out of their bubbles didn't really change them. Keep in mind, they went for people who are very entrenched with their beliefs. They didn't go with people who were like, I don't know what I am. They didn't go for people in the middle. They went for people who had intense beliefs to begin with. And Brendan Nye of Dartmouth University participated in all four papers and said, these findings do not mean that there is no reason to be concerned about social media in general or Facebook in particular. There are many other concerns we could have about the way social media platforms could contribute to extremism. Even though exposure to content from like-minded sources did not seem to make people more polarized in the study we conducted. Gene, I'm curious if any of these surprised you? I don't think it surprised me too much. It seems like people are kind of... I don't know if this is just a nowadays thing or maybe it always was, but it does seem like people are pretty much one or the other. And it doesn't seem like people really get persuaded. Seeing the same type of information, it was a little interesting they're saying it doesn't make people less or more entrenched on either side. But I feel like we're basically screwed, right? Yeah, removing reshares doesn't work, chronological doesn't work. We don't know what works, right? Yeah, I do like chronological personally. You are chronological. Yes. Me too. Oh my gosh. That was my first takeaway. Well, my first takeaway was, well, we already knew that you can't change someone's mind if they want to believe what they want to believe. I mean, sometimes you can. It's very hard to do that, especially when it comes to politics. But it didn't make it worse either, right? It didn't entrench them either more. It didn't work either way. Right, it was just kind of like people believe what they want to believe inherently. But when it came to the chronological feeds, I was like, hmm, well, why would that be? Because every time that I am given an option, and I'm not always, depending on the social network, but if I am given an option of a for you feed versus a following feed, I'm talking about X now. But, you know, Facebook allows me to do that as well. And so do some of the new Twitter clones or Twitter alternatives. You know, I always go, yeah, chronological always, because I just, I want to follow who I want to follow and I want to see things in real time. And I want to see them in a certain order. You know, I don't want all this stuff, you know, surfacing for me from four days ago. Even if I like that thing, I sometimes look at the timestamp and I'm like, ah, you know, I'm just confused by this. It makes me feel like I'm being manipulated. So it's always something that I choose not to do if given that option. But the idea that chronological feeds created more bounce out from, you know, as far as the study goes, from a social network, that was really interesting to me. And I was like, well, why would that be? And maybe it's because it feels like an echo chamber. You know, maybe, you know, a lot of people think, you know, I want to just like hear from someone new or, you know, laugh based on somebody's post or something that's a little bit different than the same old same. And I can see that part of that too. Mr. Furobaz is saying exposure to many different people and different walks of life is what I think would cause people to change their minds. The study indicates that no, it doesn't. It doesn't break people out of their bubbles. It doesn't make them more extreme to see the same people more often either. And to your point, Sarah, I think the thing with chronological feed, in my opinion, my theory on it anyway, is those algorithms, we all say we don't want them. And maybe we say we don't want them because of this. They work. They're more interesting to read. That's why these companies do them because your chronological feed may or may not have the most interesting stuff at the time, right? Because it's just in the order it was posted. And it's not like people are always posting the most interesting stuff. Whereas the algorithm is going like, I'm pretty sure I know what's going to keep you reading. So that's my guess as to why people bounced when they went chronological is they just got bored faster. Yeah, I agree. That's kind of when I look at it chronological, I'm just following the people that I'm interested in when I get through their updates. I'm like, okay, I'm done. But it makes sense that the companies want to keep you on because that's how it's going to get paid, right? So there's different goals for what people are using. I like bouncing in and out and seeing what I need. But I did notice on threads when it first came out, you're just seeing all this random stuff. And then if your friends commented on it, you would see something from somebody you didn't follow. And that's kind of useful at the beginning of a new network, because you might not know who else to follow. And so it was somewhat useful there. But you also are like, why am I seeing all this random stuff that I don't even want to see? Yeah, I agree. Well, a man named Mark Hill wrote an article for Wired called, they didn't ask to go viral posting on social media without consent is immoral. The subhead reads, it's typical to ask friends to share pictures of them. Yet people don't extend this courtesy to strangers either because they think nothing of it, or they need to go viral at all costs. Kind of sums it up, but it's worth a read, especially if you've not always thought about why you saw somebody, I don't know, being made fun of on TikTok and think, oh gosh, you know, what did they think about it? This is kind of what this article is addressing. Hill notes that we would not go out into the streets and stir up a mob against a random person. So why are we so comfortable with doing it on line? Yeah, so let's talk about why is that? And what is the line between taking a picture in public and targeting strangers? And Jean, you being a photographer know a lot about people giving consent to have, you know, their image or a video of their likeness be part of a project. So where do you stand on, you know, seeing somebody who may show up online where they probably did not give consent and may not be happy about it? Yeah, there's there's a thing and I think it's the Fourth Amendment. A lot of photographers know about this, which is like reasonable right to privacy. And it's something for a lot of especially if you're a street photographer where you're going to be just shooting out on the street. And so I don't I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know the exact thing. But the part of that is like, if you're just out in public, that you don't really have a reasonable expectation of privacy, because you're walking down the street or whatever. So things like that are fair. Then there was like some part of it, which is let's say somebody's in their apartment, which you can see from the street. That's not considered, you know, that fair game basically, because they're in their home. And even though, especially here in Champions, I can see a lot of people's into their apartments and they can probably see into mine. But that you shouldn't be able to that's that's protected because you're in your home or in some private, you know, location. So I think that that makes sense. I know there's that account influencers in the wild that kind of shows people doing influential things that are just kind of looks kind of dumb or whatever. And I think, you know, if they're out in public doing it, that seems fair. But that's not necessarily something I would do because especially with what I do for a living. So I would not feel comfortable doing that. But if I'm at an event or something that has hired me and they have a lot of times they'll have something that says by entering this event, you agree to have your image and likeness, you know, used. Sure. Most people never pay attention to that. But, you know, I'm doing my job. And I know they've already covered it through those kind of terms. So I'm okay with that in those contexts. But obviously, that's different than what we're talking about here. Yeah, there's there's a difference to between what's legal and what's ethical, right? I may have the right to take a video of a stranger. There was an example in this this wired article about giving a woman a bouquet without telling her why or getting her permission and then and then walking away and saying, Oh, I made her day and the woman objecting later, like you made me look sad and I'm not sad. I didn't want you okay. I don't appreciate this. It's not illegal to do that. But, you know, there's an ethical line of like a contextual thing that she took issue with afterwards. Exactly. Yeah. Of like, I think that happens a lot. Yeah. Yeah, maybe it's not fair to do that. Like, how do you negotiate that line? Yeah, I mean, I think that's a challenge because obviously, in that case, the person giving the flowers was probably trying to make show that they're like a nice person or something. And then, but actually, what they were doing was the opposite. And the person was portrayed in a way that they, you know, they thought was not actually what was going on. So I think that kind of stuff is not good. And you see that a lot, you know, if you're on Instagram, scrolling through and you'll see things, I've seen a lot of weird things like that where someone, you know, hugs some random people or whatever. And it seems like they're just more trying to create content and get their own attention. And if you're using people in that manner, it's not like you said, it's not illegal. But it's like not not cool, basically. Yeah. I mean, you don't have to exercise every right you have all the time. Right. Back in the TV days, I used to go out to what we called man on the street interviews for anybody who's not familiar. It's like, you're like, walking around on the street and with a microphone and being like, Hey, stranger, want to answer this question for me? That kind of thing. And we would always have to get, you know, somebody to sign a release form, because they might get put on TV. Maybe they wouldn't even end up on TV, but they might. And it was a big deal. If you didn't do it, it was a problem. Well, a lot of Instagram people aren't doing that or anything like that. I can think of this account that I follow called the dogist on Instagram. It's one of my favorite things because it's all about dogs. But the guy, he's real nice, you know, and the whole the whole shtick is that he sort of runs up on somebody is like, Hey, can I take some pictures of your dog? Tell me a little bit more about your dog. And the person's always like, Oh, sure. Let me tell you about my dog. And I always think I wonder how many people go like, Whoa, no, not good timing or I'm weirded out by this or no, don't take photos of my dog kind of thing. And those never end up on the account. And so I have to assume that, you know, you know, the people that are running the count are are doing the right thing. And, you know, it's pretty popular account. But there are very loose rules about things like this. And yeah, you get the situations like the woman who got the bouquet who's like, I went viral for like a really dumb and not even correct reason. And that wasn't cool. You know, and where are my rights now? Yeah, it may not be against the law, but it doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it cool. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Well, folks, you know what I like to do when I get angry about people doing unethical things? I count to five. In fact, I do it so often that I've made an entire series about it called Tom's Top Five, where I break down the top five things you need to know about technology. This week's episode covers the top five home computer flops of the 1980s. And I just had someone on Twitter confirm to me that the number one they had when it was new, and they believe it belongs at number one. So if you'd like to find out what we think the top five home computer flops of the 1980s are, did you own one of them? Let us know. You can find out at youtube.com slash daily tech news show. That's our YouTube youtube.com slash daily tech news show. Earlier this week, we mentioned that Twitter had taken over the at X account as it continues its slow rebrand to be called X. Gene was the person who previously had the X account. And I know you've talked about this quite a bit this week, Gene. But let's start at the beginning. How did you end up with at X in the first place? Yeah. So I guess it was 2007 when Twitter was starting up back in those days, whenever there was a new service of any sort, you know, you kind of wanted to log on and get your username. So, you know, after Friendster and MySpace and all that, you know, you're like, Oh, got to get your username on whatever is new. So a lot of us people, a lot of my friends were in tech like Sarah was mentioning earlier. And so, you know, they, we would hear about things like paths and all these things. And we're like, Oh, yeah, let's sign up, get your, get your username on it. And so it did the same thing on Twitter. And I originally got gene G any X, which is kind of like what I use a lot for usernames on, on things, if I can get it. And then we found out, I think it was at K, our friend Kevin, he told us, Oh, you can get a single letters. And so we were like, Oh, we should do that because I think it was like 160 character limits. So even if you're responding to like, you know, five other people that you like lost half your, you know, back then at least, you know, you couldn't say much. So we were like, Oh, let's do it. So, you know, I think it was at a, at C, at J, at K, at T, and myself, we all got single letter names. And there might have been some others that I'm missing, but those were like our local San Francisco friends that all were like, let's, let's get single letter names. And so that's how that happened. It feels sad when you tell that story that, that you're now no longer part of that single letter club anymore. Yeah, yeah, it is a little sad that, you know, things change, whatever, it's just kind of, you know, it's one less thing I have to worry about in my life. I think a lot of people are wondering why you are so calm about this. I know a lot of people are like, if that was me, I would have done, you know, whatever, outrage, blah, blah, blah, blah, but you seem pretty sanguine about it. I mean, I knew that it was a potential thing to happen, right? Because Elon was posting a lot of stuff about X, you know, like previously. And so I was like, well, that's like, you know, and people are like, Oh, you're going to get a lot of money or this and that out of it. And I was like, well, let's think this out, you know, just to myself, I'm like, how are the potential ways this is going to play out? And of course, there's the, oh, you can, they'll be really generous. And I was like, that doesn't seem that realistic. And then I was like, you know, they probably have the right to just take it somewhere in the term of the service, which I never read back in 2007. I don't know if people have read those at all anyways. So it's kind of like, you know, likely they're going to take it. That's probably the likely outcome. So I was kind of like, you know, resigned to that beforehand. I didn't really, you know, yeah, and I didn't really plan. I mean, I planned in some ways, like I made the account private. It was just getting too much noise. Like it got a lot of noise. Like a lot of us had problems with that just being a single letter. Sure. You get a lot. Right. X and a like a was the worst. I felt bad for him because, you know, everybody's tweeting like, I'm going, I'm at a bar or I'm at a We even single name people say, yeah, I wish I never did this. Ryan Block was at Ryan getting all of Ryan Seacrest. Yeah. I remember that. Okay. So, so, so, Jean, when I, when I first read the story, I think it was Monday, or at least it, you know, came across my desk. I was like, I know that the user at X, you know, who knows what's going to go on with that user. I'm like, I know who that is. Yeah. Gosh, you know, like what is going on? And then just because there's a lot of misinformation, particularly on Twitter or X, I don't even feel like I should call it X yet, whatever. In general, you know, there were sort of like, oh, you know, I heard that he asked for a million dollars and Twitter said no. And I'm going to go ahead and guess that that never happened. But did the company, did the company reach out to you and say, hey, listen, you know, even if they didn't offer you money, like here's what's going to happen. And, you know, we appreciate you being, you know, part of the community since 2007. Yeah, I mean, yeah, when it happened, when that when the actual account thing happened, that was in the form of an email. I think it was Monday night, I can't remember. But, you know, just, it was from like support at Twitter.com just kind of a, you know, it has a case ID built into the subject line and everything. And it said, you know, essentially, this is the property of X. And, you know, as such, we, to thank you for, you know, being a loyal user, we will trans, you know, transfer over the account to a new account that's available. You know, they temporarily made it the long name. And then they also said I could get some merch and take a tour and meet with them. Are you going to take the tour? I didn't, I don't think so. I've been there before, but then I was talking to someone else and I was like, well, because one of the things I just decided, like today and yesterday was, oh, maybe, you know, because I don't need, I mean, if I got something for it, that would be a nice perk, but I don't need anything necessarily. And then I was like, well, what can I do that maybe turn it around, make it something more positive? And so I asked people, I was like, hey, if you want, you can donate to this charity that I really like locally. And so I was thinking maybe if I do go on the tour, meet with them, you know how everything's better when you talk to people in person versus, you know, just typing things out. So I was thinking maybe I'll do that and just say, hey, listen, whatever gets raised in this like next month, could you guys match it or something? Because a lot of companies have those kind of programs. So I don't know if Twitter has that. Yeah, that's a great idea. You know, kind of put the ball in their court to do the right thing. What's the charity that you want to benefit with this? It's called First Exposures. It's a group that mentors you through photography here, and I'm a mentor in that program or a part-time mentor. And I've also been on the board there. And so it's a really great program that I've been a part of for a long time. So I was kind of hoping that maybe we can get either, even just getting some of the attention to them, that, you know, that might help a little bit. And then if we can raise a little bit of money for them, that'd be fantastic. Yeah, no, that's a great idea. And like you say, talking in person, you have maybe a better chance of getting something like that to happen. So if people follow you on Twitter, they have to, that's the name they gave you, huh? With the one, two, three, four, five. But I kind of like it because it's just bizarre. See, I figured that you chose that. And I was like, I don't totally know what he means, but I like it. It seems clever, like going up a hill and back down or something. Yeah, no, they did offer to transition to another account, but I was kind of like, let's just leave that account as it is. It's almost like as a placeholder of what happened. It still has the X and then all the rest. So, but beforehand, I did actually kind of thinking this could happen. I set up like another account kind of just in case. That's just a very secret, very small account that I just kind of used just to follow things. Kind of recreated some of the lists I used because I did use the lists in Twitter a lot because when I travel, it's nice to, if I'm going, I'm in Vegas a lot for work. And I have a list that's just like the Twitter things of Vegas so I can keep up with restaurant openings or what's going on at specific places I like to go, the local film community there. So I kind of recreated those so that when I do travel, I have ways of following specific information that I like. And that was one of the things I used Twitter for a lot. Oh, yeah. No, that's smart. Do you feel positive that you'll continue to use Twitter that it'll still remain useful? I mean, I'm still using it now. I've been kind of trending down on my usage and tweeting, but I don't know if that's just getting older and being like, I don't need to share everything like I used to. When people ask for some like, yeah, they're looking for like, hey, do you have screen grabs of old? And I just went to Wayback Machine and clicked around and I'm like, man, I was tweeting some very mundane things for a lot of the time. But I mean, I felt like that's kind of how we use Twitter back then, especially. Oh, yeah. First year of Twitter was, I mean, most of my stuff is nonsensical and or like DM fails. Yeah. Yeah, we're just, you know, we're just just really, you know, here's what I'm doing, everybody, where I would just be like, oh, cringe. Don't ever say things like that, Sarah. But hey, you know, it was a different time. Yeah, absolutely. Well, before we wrap up the show, we should check in with Len Peralta, who has been illustrating our conversation today. Len, what have you drawn for us today? You know, this week has been sort of a mournful week with the, in my estimation, the loss of Twitter. And over the past year, I've drawn a lot of Twitter art as we've gone through this collective, you know, journey. Hopefully, this will be my last Twitter image. I'm calling this Twitter's ex-mit. Oh, no. And it's, yeah, it's a, you know, I know much better artists have done other variations of this, but I thought this is, this might be the end. And it is the end. It's certainly the end of the bird, right? They've said that. Exactly. I mean, at least there's a lily or not. That is a lily. Okay. Why? Coming out of the, you know, the phoenix rising, so to speak. Oh, that could be something. Yes. Well, if you are a Twitter fan or even a fan of ex who, whatever, you can get this image at my online store at LenPeraltaStore.com. You can also get this, if you're a Patreon, go to my Patreon account, patreon.com.com. And back me at the DTNS Lover level, and it is right there for you. You can hang it up in your, in your cubicle, however you'd like to memorialize Twitter slash ex. Excellent. Well, good stuff is always Len. And thanks so much, Gene X. Wong, for being with us today. You did mention the charity that you're involved with, firstexposures.org. You also are co-founder of Orange Photography. But on the socials, where can people find out what you're doing lately? You don't have to talk about your secret Twitter account, but yeah, in general. Mostly, I guess, I'm bad about posting on most of them, but I'm at G-E-N-E-X on Instagram. And that's the one I use the most. I'm using message on a bit, and I don't remember the username there, but it's got a G-E-N-E-X in it as well. So, those are probably the best places right now. Excellent. Patrons, stick around. We've got more to talk about with Gene. It's Friday. And so Roger put together a game of who am I? Find out which of us can figure out the mystery person before the final clue is given. We'll just slowly reveal clues and see if people can figure out who it is. It's who am I on the Friday fun, good day internet. Stick around. I was real bad on the GDI trivia show last Friday. So, you know, let's everybody root for me. But just a reminder, you can catch the show. This show, DTNS, is live Monday through Friday at 4 p.m. Eastern, 200 UTC. You can find out more at dailytechnewshow.com slash live. We'll be back on Monday with a wonderful guest, a mystery guest, if you will. Have a great weekend. This week's episodes of Daily Tech New Show were created by the following people, host producer and writer Tom Merritt, host producer and writer Sarah Lane, executive producer and booker Roger Chang, producer, writer and co-hosts Megan Moroney and Rob Dunwood, video producer and Twitch producer Joe Coons, technical producer Anthony Lemos, Spanish language host, writer and producer Dan Campos, science correspondent Dr. Nicky Ackermans, social media producer and moderator Zoe Deterding. Our mods, Beatmaster, W. Scottus 1, BioCal, Captain Gippert, Steve Guadirama, Paul Reese, Matthew J. Stevens, a.k.a. Gadget Virtuoso and J.D. Galloway. Modern video hosting by Dan Christensen. Music and Art provided by Martin Bell, Dan Looters, Mustafa A, A-Cast, and Live Art and Art provided by Len Peralta. A-Cast adds support from Tatiana Matias, Patreon support from Tom McNeil. Contributors for this week's shows included Justin Robert Young, Charlotte Henry and Patrick Norton. Our guests this week were Huan Tui Dao and Gene X. Huang. And thanks to all our patrons who make the show possible.