 Disclaimer! Disclaimer! Disclaimer! The intersection of technology and science is less of an intersection than more of a braided stream splitting off and feeding back upon itself again and again. Along the banks of this stream, science makes discoveries that make technology possible. Oh, and technology makes tools that make new discoveries in science possible, leading to greater advancements in technology, better tools... And more science! We need more tech so we can use more tools so we can do more science! I mean, they couldn't exist without each other? I think that's it. You can never have a conflict between them because each only exists as a collaboration with the other. They help each other out. Precisely. So, while we always love technology, today we're going to dig in deeper on how it crosses over with This Week in Science! And Daily Tech News Show... Coming up next! This? The- Oh my gosh, what is this? This is... This week in the Daily Science and Tech News Show podcast! A mash-up of This Week in Science and the Daily Tech News Show! Okay! Tom, tell us about DTNS. What are you doing here? Who are you? What are you doing here? Your chocolate's in my peanut butter! Wait, your peanut butter's in my chocolate! Daily Tech News Show is what it says on the tin. It's a daily show about technology news. We try to help people understand the world of technology, make them the smartest in the room when other people are talking about technology by just kind of putting everything in context every day. And I do it with an amazing group of people, including my co-host, Sarah Lane! Hello, Sarah Lane! Hello, everybody! Hello, tech people. Hello, science people. We are all one. That's true. That's true. And our producer, Roger Chang. Hi, Roger. Hello, all. Hello, Roger. Meet Twiss. Greetings, Twiss. I know two of them. I've talked to the third remotely. Only one gets the best. So, Kiki, we have explained DTNS. What the heck is Twiss? Twiss is a weekly science talk show, variety show. We bring the weekly science news. We talk. We introduce it. We discuss it. We come up with questions. We like to inspire curiosity in people. And, you know, even though we maybe don't have as many water cooler conversations anymore, we want to make you the most interesting person at that cocktail party or water cooler when people can start hanging out again. So, wait a minute. If you listen to Daily Tech News Show and This Week in Science, you will dominate cocktail parties. Absolutely. You will always have something intelligent and amazing to talk about. People will be like, what? What are these things that you know? It'll be amazing. But we've come together for this episode. My co-hosts here. I've got my co-hosts here. Yes, Justin. Right there. Where are you? Say hi, Justin. Hi, Justin. I'm broadcasting from a central European time in the great state of Denmark. That's fantastic. Thank you for joining us in the middle of your night. Blair. Heyo. Heyo. How's it going? That's good. Blair is our animal zoologist host. Justin is our opinionologist. I'm the doctor. Perfect. We like to split it up. We've come together with DTNS. Why? Why have we done this? Well, there's an intersection of science and technology. I listened to This Week in Science and I think, oh, that's a really interesting aspect of a story that we did on DTNS. Or that could have been a story. Or I'm just hearing about the fact that when I scream out of joy, it means I have an evolutionary advantage. I learn a lot from twists and I thought, man, we do cross over from time to time. So I wanted to see if maybe we could bring those powers together for even better understanding. The powers for understanding the world around us and hopefully having a really good time bringing science and technology, peanut butter and chocolate together. Right? You've crossed over. I've gotten to be on DTNS. Blair's been on DTNS. Justin, you've been on DTNS, yes? No. Not yet? No. See, and Sarah has yet to be on twists. So these are things that we still need to work out. But Roger and Tom, you've been on twists. Yeah, yeah. We've done these individual crossovers. So now we have the Hollywood Square's Brady Bunch of Science and Technology. We're trying to build our own. We're getting there. We've almost won bingo. Just a few, just a few little. Close. Little checks left. Yeah. I know. We've got to get there. All right, Tom, let's tell people where they can find us on our regular shows and let's dive in. Let's make this show go. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So we're going to talk about the intersection of technology and science. We're going to do some philosophical musing, talk about some stories, do some trivia. But if you like what you hear and you want more technology, you can find us at dailytechnewshow.com. And you can find twists at twists.org. All right. What are we starting with? We're going to start with a question from Josh. We got a bunch of emails, both shows did, suggesting things to talk about. We're going to talk about a lot of them on the show. But Josh in particular asked, when did science and technology become two separate things? In the 80s, they used to be covered mostly together. But in the last decade, technology has mostly come to mean things coming from some of the big names in the game. When did CRISPR become science? While a real estate company like WeWork, where tech work is done, become a tech company. Oh, well, I would argue that WeWork is not a tech company. I think people working in the tech sector used WeWork as a co-working space. I mean, there are many, but it was a very popular one around the world. And, you know, some of them are really fancy and everything. But I mean, there's nothing really tech about it except that a lot of people working in tech would hang out there or drop the name or do a lot of travel and hang out at WeWorks. But I get your point, Josh. And it's funny because I do think science and technology are very intrinsically entwined. Yes, exactly. In fact, I mean, I can almost think of there are not that many technology stories that I don't also think, well, that is science. You know, it's just a kind of science. And there's probably a little bit more vice versa than ever on the science side because there's so much technology involved. It does sort of bother me, though. You know, when you get a dropdown menu where you're trying to, I don't know, define yourself or your show or just pick a category. And it's like, blah, blah, blah, entertainment, music, science and technology. So is the two together. And I sometimes want, I want a little bit more detail on each because both of those things can be many different things. It's there. There's such huge categories that I feel like we need a lot more subcategories to make it make sense. I think the shift notably happened, like where you there was a definite segmentation is when technology became a business concern as well. We're making money. And the economic aspect suddenly thrust what used to be collectively kind of the science tech, you know, biology, life sciences. They grouped them all together was now its own thing because a lot more people cared about this particular aspect because it involved dollars and cents as opposed to science, which is very important for a lot of things. But for the average newspaper, it might have been considered an esoteric piece that you would read along with the sports pages. But when it came to like things like where do I put my investment, you know, which company should I buy a, you know, ABC or D product from, you know, that's a technology thing. Probably, but you know, I would say somewhere in probably the latter half of the 90s, you would you start to see that shift, at least for me. Yeah. And I think that's it. Companies like Google came out of computer science research projects. They were it was it was science at a point developing an algorithm. What is what is this thing? How do we explain it and creating the knowledge around a search algorithm? That was the computer science aspect. And then they took it rolled it out into a company. And that is something that happens much more often nowadays where the research, the science, the development of that knowledge then gets turned into application. How can we take the science of CRISPR, this aspect of microbial biology, this thing that is just naturally happening in bacteria and turn it into a probably multi billion dollar technology that's going to be used by researchers around the world for decades to come and probably turned into even new technologies. It's so it's so interesting you say that because one of the upcoming fields is biotech, right? What used to be life sciences biology research, you know, what my sister used to do, which was microbiology is now becoming a business. And so now you got to segment it out because again people want to know where do I invest? Is this something that's going to make or make me or make my company or perhaps make my city or state if the government invests in it, you know, a return? And so I mean it's weird as soon as you put a dollar symbol on something, how you perceive it shifts dramatically. It's when it becomes a product, right? It's when as soon as there's a science delivers a product to get separated out and because we're talking about like from maybe from the 80s but cars was science technology. I mean like every like radio was a TV's were these breakers but they didn't keep talking about the science but behind how your TV works. That stopped immediately after the thing was invented and then they were like maybe one day science will invent colors. So I think we separate it's I think it's always separated I think it comes together for these brief moments. When I when I saw I heard this question. The first thing I thought about was when we invented the first stone tool. Well, not us, you know, it was like three years ago. I remember. And then and then and that may actually there's a whole thing there where like that might actually be why we're bipedal. That might actually be why we got big brains is because we started messing with this tool and manipulating and wanting to set it down so you can't climb a tree if you got your favorite stone tool. And then if you're if you're making stone tools you need to use both the hands together so you're not going to hold your weight with it. So a lot of human evolution may have actually started with a piece of tech first. But then it was a million years. So before we changed that stone tool. And then that stone tool that big advanced stone tool stuck with us for two million years before somebody thought of changing it. Could you imagine being the beta user for two million years. It took a really long time. Oh man. We're still testing our brains. This is Google. I mean, over a million years is it really a beta test or is it just a slow evolution of a it's a Google beta test. It's a Google beta. Yeah. People talk about these these phones handheld devices as being crafted to fit the human hand. Now humans humans have been crafted around a handheld tool since we started being upright. Like we've had a handheld tool in our hand throughout all of before human current modern human evolution. Millions of years. Yeah. What do you got there Tom. Yeah, just one of my original stone tools that I was trying out. We've been lugging those around for three million years. So this is not this is not some strange new thing that happened where we're going to pick up this device that we carry in our hands all the time. We've always done this. This is always how humans have been on the planet. I feel like when I think about this intersection, I think about science being the story that we might have figured something out. We've got evidence that something is happening where we're we tried something out in a lab and we think we can make it work. And when we cover those on Daily Tech News show, it's usually like and if they can make it work, this is what you'll be able to do with it. Right. Technology is the application of like, OK, when like you were saying Justin, it's a product. When can I get it in my hands? What can I do something with it? And science is what makes technology possible. It's almost a subset really. Well, yeah, science is that that one. Astralopithecus or whatever. It's throwing that's throwing an apple at a mastodon. That didn't work well. And then, hey, maybe a stick, a small stick. Yeah, that didn't do anything. And then eventually got around to a stone that hit it. And, you know, like, I'll give that an effect. Let's concentrate on the rocks and see if we can find the right size that we can both throw and take out whatever it is. Right. And then once that I think once the they was like, OK, now we're starting to we have what's going to be a stone. We're going to throw it. Here's how we're going to throw it. Here's the size and weight it should be. Oh, the perfecting of that is that's what I usually think of as technology. Once it takes off and becomes people are innovating on it and making it better and improving, making these little improvements stepwise to make the best version of thing that you throw at something. Whatever it is, that's sort of my vision of techno with what technology is until science comes up with a whole other thing. And then technology. Because of the iteration of technology, then science is able to do more. So it's this feedback loop also science creates technologies technologies enable science and they drive each other. Right. Because you make the science that makes the phone possible and then the phone starts to be used in research, which then makes other things possible and rounded round it goes. And to carry Justin's metaphor even farther. Once everybody's got a hand axe, suddenly it's still technology, but nobody thinks of it that way. It's just common. Right. It's just a thing. Nobody's impressed that you have an actual hand axe a million years ago because it's been around for a million years. They're going to be around for another million. Humans, by the way, did massively innovate the smaller versions of the tools. We are the ones who were like, hey, that's a great idea. Let's make it smaller. That's when we took over stone toolmaking. We did the same thing in my little female pockets. But we just made them all smaller and smaller so we could do more delicate work. I like that. But yeah, it doesn't fit to make my pocket. I want one. I want one I can put on my wrist and carry around with me and then go do some scraping of tendons later. Absolutely no change in our desire as humans. I do wonder about though, the way that science feeds into technology and technology feeding into science. Is there ever, we run into issues every once in a while with the challenges to how technology is implemented, how people use it. We run into issues where the science isn't moving fast enough to be able to keep up with the pace of the information that people want. And then there's also the ethics around how you do the science and also the technology. We're talking about so many ethical issues in technology stuff today. So it's not just happy, happy, joy, joy. I think there's also a lot of challenges in how the two work together moving forward as well. Yeah. And I think that is one of the things technology looks for more often maybe than in the past is help us understand the effect of this technology because it's having effects faster and at a wider level than it used to. And especially the social sciences and economic sciences are being pushed more than ever before to look at the effects that technology has. Well, and if I can just if I can say something about the premise of this question for a second. I think that this kind of speaks to the humans urge to categorize things which I talk about a lot but ultimately that's what this is about right is that we better understand things when we can see what things are similar categorize them put them into nice little boxes but they don't always fit. And so, when science and technology have expanded so much over the last however many decades, because of the improvement of all of it, mostly technology that helps us get science right that then helps us get more technology that back and forth. The breadth of knowledge available out there has caused us to have to find these delineations to better understand the world, which again they're never going to be perfect. There's a there's a story that I might call a science story and you might call a tech story and there's going to be And that's something that on Daily Tech news show we talk about all the time, you know there are stories where we're like this is such a cool story but is it tech enough for this show, particular show and of course it depends on the day you know there's certain days where it's like, yeah it fits it kind of flows with the other stuff that we're talking about. Other days we go, it's science, it's not totally tech, and that is often a really gray area. And we have a portion of the show that we sort of dedicate to stories like that where it's like, it's, it's more science than tech but it's cool and we're going to do it. And, and that's great. But, but yeah, it's a, it's a, it's a question that does come up pretty often. Yeah. I'm thinking though that this will kind of Josh's question in our conversation here can kind of take us into the next segment of the game of the game of the show. This is game show that we have going on. You've revealed the truth. This show is just one big game. One big game. It is. Yes. I have a game that I want to play with everybody. Have you ever heard of the game never have I ever. Of course. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I'm going to change it a little bit and we're going to play never would I ever. And I want you to think about some of these questions that this the driving force of technology and science are making possible and bringing into it seems like sci-fi but it's not so much sci-fi it's becoming real and some of the questions that the listeners address to us in their suggestions kind of bring up. There were a lot of overlaps between a lot of questions and a lot of suggestions and so here's questions for you. I want you to tell the audience whether or not you would do this thing. And then if we get into the why or the why not and maybe we can change each other's minds. Maybe just maybe I want to hear people's arguments. Let's debate. Would you there's a story out this week on a monkey human chimera embryos that have been created. Would you ever create a monkey human chimera. Would you mix human and monkey cells. Maybe. Yeah. One level. Just to prove that I can do it. I mean like hey look what I did. But I mean chimeras generally don't live very long. So I mean it if you're asking me what attitude they don't know. Not if you don't help them. I mean if you're if you're asking you if I create a human monkey hybrid creature like one that's birthed and like you know alive. I would be different than just dealing with the cells. For example if I was doing some sort of gene sequencing and then I decided to let me see what some recess monkey genes over here might do. I mean for me I think I think I'm OK with that it's then taking it beyond that like where you want to create an organism that you know is in the homeostasis and and the rest of it and it's alive and it's doing all its things. That's a little more creepy. I think I think you first. I was just going to say I think that usually when we do cut when we talk about chimeras you picture this crazy sci-fi thing. But really it's like but what if you had the lungs of a monkey. Which fine. I mean we put we put pig arteries in our body all the time. Right. So to a certain extent if this is going to help the medical field it doesn't really bother me at all. I mean I mean they have glow in the dark fish. I mean it's not like they were naturally found in the wild that way. Oh but you don't know. I think some of them are right. That's how they bioengineered like aquarium. In the deep blue sea. OK so Blair this actually this is actually the question that I was going to ask what you were just describing because in the nature.com article that was describing you know the research advancement that had happened and the fact that you know we've got these chimera embryos that are living not for very long but longer than they had in the past and the fact that scientists are a little split on whether or not this is a good idea and and and where it's really going. My question was OK. Well if it's about being able to create organs that could be transplanted into humans to help a human survive or even an animal really but let's go with humans for now. Great. Well why would a hybrid be better than just me having a monkey lung from a monkey embryo. You know what. Why does that get stronger. Well the idea is that if you have a hybrid for example. I mean I remember yeah 15 years ago they were kicking around the idea of doing pig human and mirrors because then the pig could grow whatever your liver and they are doing that too. And they are. The idea of course is when you do an animal to human transplant there's always a high risk of organ rejection to your body because it's like dude you're trying to attach something to me that doesn't belong here. So so more of the human cells in there means possibly more that it takes. Yeah you could grow a lung that is possibly you know an orders of magnitude more compatible with the person then if you just try to take it out of a run of the middle. Okay. Okay then my question is flipped. Where where does the animal make this stronger. Well I got that. I got that because if you don't have them there at all then you've got a human you're taking the organ from and that they need to be. Yeah right there. There may be deceased and it gets weird from there. Maybe hopefully animal. No that's it. You have a body farm of other humans then we were in a whole different sci-fi. Got it. Yes I think I've seen a few movies about this. Island or whatever. Never ended well. Tom do you have an opinion. I mean would I know because I probably just wouldn't take I'm just not very good at that. What would I want someone else to do it. May I go I go with the maybe of I think this is important for research but it's certainly a situation that has to have a lot of guidelines and discussion and people looking over each shoulder accountability and all that sort of thing but yeah I don't think it's I don't think it's something that is is wrong to pursue at all. Yeah I agree I think this research is fantastic I would if I could create a camera I would be that scientist I'd be like put these things together and I want to know I want to know answers to evolutionary questions about human brains and where they came from what genes in the ape family are responsible with that changed or didn't change what RNA is responsible what proteins like I would I would want to know those evolutionary questions and so I think from a research standpoint it's fantastic from a potential to create organs the pig human chimeras that stuff it's so valuable and I I look forward to the day that it happens. No we get the planet of the apes and then you'll be sorry. I think this is actually comes a little bit to the question we were asked before about the ethics of it at some point it seems like science gets to start the technology of actually doing this reliably so far into the future we think that we don't have to really worry or think too much about the ethical thing. So if that all falls on tech at some point and science is like oh yeah we're just an idea when we had it. We weren't actually going to do anything with it. Facebook's new winged monkeys. I'm not so cool with that. I don't know. Yeah I don't know. I honestly think every science and tech person should take ethics courses before they are allowed to get into business of anything. I don't know. Maybe everybody should. And you need to pass those courses. You just can't take it and drop it two weeks later. No. That would be very ethical. Next question would you or wouldn't you inject yourself with nanoparticles. Only if they've been thoroughly vetted on someone else. You don't want to be the beta tester. OK. Interesting. Yeah because we got Dan and Javon both asked about this. The idea of injecting nanoparticles in our body and to me it's no different than injecting any other particle in our body which is has it been tested. Has it been thoroughly vetted. Am I doing it for a good reason. You know is it going to is it going to cure my cancer. And it's been clinically tried to be relatively safe. Then sure is it like I don't know what it will do. We haven't tried it before. No. Then you're not injecting those nanoparticles in me. Not at all. Yeah I think loyal twist listeners will know that I plan on living over 200 years and this is exactly how is as soon as medical advances exist. And have been through clinical trials. I want it. I want it immediately. Give me the nanoparticles. What do you want to do though. Do you just want to take space take up space or like turn you into a tree. They're very small. I mean if you want to be a long lived organism you either jellyfish or sequoia. What kind of nanoparticles would you like. Is it just microplastics. Like I don't need any more of those. But if it's like yeah if it's going to if it's going to put my bloodstream. Yeah. Maybe I'm on our side if it's going to fix stuff. Yeah. But if this is going to go up into connected somewhere into my dendrites and now I can understand any language and I now know what the squirrels are talking about. That might be fun. I might be interested in seeing what everything is talking about. Yeah there's a sci fi story and I'm blanking on the name of the author right now but there are nanoparticles that you ingest and they incorporate into your brain to create something of a neural net that allows you to connect to the internet with your brain so that you can then be one with the information of the universe. That sounds terrible. Yeah. The questions of your brain being hacked and all this you know it brings up all. It's like a YouTube live stream all the time. I'm just I'm just worried about connectivity like it's it's good. You know it's always going to go out it's going to freeze. I'm going to be waiting for an answer for like 20 minutes because the network. Can you imagine you're like we're going to kill a trivia tonight and you're like crap I'm offline. I got no connection here. The stream of consciousness is bow guarding all my bandwidth. There's a stream of consciousness is buffering. And you get used to the constant connection that you can't do anything without a connection. So as soon as you go online you're like how how do I how do I boil water again. I don't remember. I don't know. Yeah. But there needs to be definitely that continued research and clinical trials. Don't just inject nanoparticles. Although I know there are some DIY bio people out there who will just inject nanoparticles and and other things because that's what they're doing. Yeah we will. I think the whole thing is what is the function what is the thing that you want it to do if are we talking about this versus getting chemotherapy this versus getting a surgery. Are we talking about this is a cosmetic appeal or a you know I need enough of a reason to do anything but I mean people will radiate their bodies with poison to fight cancer. Okay so we know there's a point error. Yes. We all would probably say that's fine that's a good solution to whatever I'm up against but just casually probably not. Yeah. Take a shot nanoparticle shot. All right next question. Would you clone a mammoth. Yes. Yes. That's it's everyone but Blair setup question wasn't it was for those of you. I feel attacked. It wasn't me. I promise I didn't sneak this one in. Thank you Jeremy Fath for that donation really appreciate that. So long time twist listeners will know that we have an ongoing debate on twists about whether or not mammoths should be cloned and reanimated so here's the question. Would you ever clone an endangered species that's still alive ie the red footed ferret that was that it was recently cloned for conservation purposes. Would you ever clone something like a mammoth which has been long dead but bring it back. Would you ever clone a person. Which one of those any of them. So like we do we have to so we have to answer. So for endangered species. Yes although I did there are concerns of low genetic diversity. Like you know if you were quick on the yes to the mammoth I noticed I was going to go on the mammoth is a very special case for me. Because as far as I understand mammoths fit it for two reasons one because of the end of the ice age to because of people over hunting them. So if there was a way to bring back something that we kind of knocked off the planet because we got you know we got super excited about you know hunting elephants. That's kind of cool humans. I don't know I mean that would actually have to be up to the person you're trying to clone if they wanted that or not. Like if it was me if it was me. I don't know I don't think the world needs another me but if it was someone else and like they lost a sibling or something but you had enough enough of their cells to the clone them. I mean I think maybe that decision should be left up to them. I don't know what John Hogan did in the chat room bringing back Neanderthal. I didn't think of it as bringing back a currently alive person but like a lot like a distant cousin of the Neanderthal or Denisovans bring him back. Well that would be similar to cloning a mammoth. That would be that kind of a question recently. But what about a living person would you clone a living person. I mean it gets weird right because OK let's say you know Rogers alive and well and we clone Roger. Well then it's a Roger baby. So it's not like we just have two Rogers. They're like carbon copies of each other. It's like it the whole thing would take a long time to if for some reason you wanted a replica. You know there you got you got 40 years we got to deal with here. There's all the external stimulus right that create a person. It's not just the gene set. I've thought about that in regards to cloning pets where I thought like oh you know my I loved our dog Django. She was the best. She's been mentioned on twist before and I thought I thought about would I clone that dog. And I'm like no because it wouldn't be Django. It would be a dog very much like her in many respects but it wouldn't have her experiences and and and even with a dog. There are experiences that shape their personalities much more so with a human I would think. Yeah I think animals humans there are genetic aspects to personality but there is definitely and we talk about it all the time Blair. Nature versus nurture where it that environmental factor is huge. Yeah. Yeah. It's I mean if you want to take like the very the very far out non emotional look. If you're looking just at populations and conservation and the successive species. You don't clone humans because there's too many of us. So that's out the window. But then if you're going to take the resources to clone a species and it's resources I mean you know money and and manpower but I also mean the niche the space the the space to keep them the food they will be eating and the fact that they have to be eaten by something. If you want to take that space and put something in it. It makes way more sense to put something in that space that currently has an established niche rather than something that does not. And so I think that's that's where the whole mammoth argument always comes up and the the situation like the Blackfooted Fair they are currently there's only about 250 of them but they currently are in the wild. They have a habitat. They have a prey. They have competitors. And so it would be very easy and good for the environment to put them back in there. But with mammoths you have to disrupt a lot of things to make a space for them in an ecosystem. Yeah you have to create mammoth perk. Yeah but that also might then build out its own biome. I mean like we talked about with reintroducing the beaver or the the gray wolf. It creates this whole other ecosystem around it that can actually build a more diverse bio biodeversity in the area. But that's something that was just gone. And this is something that is going to displace. That's nothing. Yes but those mammoths will displace species that currently are alive and potentially push them to extinction. Any cloned extinct species is essentially an invasive species isn't it? Yeah. Well so is actually technically if you start to look at it everything's about to be an invasive species with global warming. Because every creature has to change its territories at different rates. They're all going to move together. It's not going to be like ready? One degree kind of three, one, two, all right let's move. They're going to go piecemeal. Everything's going to overlap. But we didn't directly, we may have caused that to happen but we didn't do it directly. Right. Like actually putting an animal into a place. Two wrongs don't make a right Justin. That's all. Oh no but at some point I'm saying that at some point the rules don't really apply to what's nature. What's the natural state of any region or area? How it's been for the last you know 20,000 years. It's not going to count in 100 years. I just want my senozoic park. You can't have Jurassic Park but you can probably. That's senozoic. Yeah you could have like a couple of mammoths. No mastodons. Maybe some cyber tooth cats. Maybe a woolly rhino. Maybe three. What about the giant flas? I love giant flas. I love one of those. Giant ground sloths. I love that. How would you know? If they were alive they could be very mean. Well that doesn't mean I don't love them. Blair only doesn't love animals if they attack her or if they don't want to exist. So. Fair. Yes. I think this is a fascinating conversation because I mean 20 years ago, before Dolly, before the first cloned animal, the first cloned sheep, this was such a sci-fi conversation and I don't think that science and tech and that people were having the conversation at the level that we're having. I mean we're pretty high level folks but you know people weren't having this kind of a conversation about cloning. It was oh my god upsetting the universe and suddenly we're like talking about the nuance about when and where and how. We cloned those ferrets so I guess that's okay. What else should we do? Yeah. Yeah. All right. My last question is very techy. Would you get a neural prosthetic? Would you get Elon Musk's chip in your head? Would you get? So this is the prosthetic that can interpret your brain signals. Your nerve signals, right? Right. Yeah. Well, I mean I think if you could regain functionality that you had lost with a hand or a leg or an eye or an ear, I would think yes. I absolutely would. Anyone else? I mean it depends like if it's safe and there's no weird like downside like someone being able to control your motor functions. Your arm is no longer your arm. That would be kind of weird. Definitely need multi-factor authentication. Yes. But I mean even if you weren't replacing something that was like a lost limb or something and it could give you the ability to remotely drive your car, maybe. That'd be kind of cool. That's where it gets less obvious to me. It's like okay where should the line be drawn? Or should there be? Yeah. I mean, you could be allowed to control anything with your brain that we can let you control. I mean, the argument of course being how is that any different than you using your smartphone and your hand doing the same commands to to remotely activate your automobile or your bank account. It's just a little bit of middleman of an appendage and the device. Yeah. Sorry. Go ahead. Yeah. I was just reiterating what he was saying too. A lot of the sexiness of that is kind of gone when you can just do a voice command out loud and make a thing happen. Yeah. I mean you could almost think of if you're holding a smartphone and you're doing something remotely. It's an extension of your arm. Because what if it was just under your skin? You know, I mean it's clearly it isn't. You could sort of think of it that way. I'm all for this. Yeah. I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, it had a had a bum shoulder at the end of last year and it's better now, but it took a while. And you know, during that time when I was feeling sorry for myself, I was like, what if it just never gets better? You know, because you don't know if it's, you know, when you're really in a lot of pain and you're, and you're injured and anything that anyone could have, you could have knocked on my door in a weird suit and been like, where? It's like we're a little bit in the writer's room. You know, like from 20, 30, 50 years ago, we're in sitting in the writers room. I think we should be able to control like screens by moving a hand. Now, I think it'd be better if we said a word because people just going to think we're waving like a mad person. Yeah, but then we're talking to ourselves. That's going to look crazy. We know it'd be even better. What if we had a little plug that you check, you know, we're kind of trying to create the way that we live in this mythical, supernatural future. But, well, because, because I actually would prefer to be able to just think something at a voice assistant than say it, because sometimes it doesn't really understand me, which I guess could be true of reading my brain as well. But especially when I'm out and about on a walk, I don't want to have to say it in front of other people that are around, you know, walking around too. It would be nicer if I could just keep it to myself. But that doesn't make good TV, right? It's like, oh, that's not TV. But that also means you have, you don't have the chaos of inner conversations that are taking place here where for no reason, I only thought about a snack. It didn't mean to open the fridge. Now it's closed again, but now the cupboard's open. And now the TV's on because remember that show? And then we talked something about radio and it turned on all of a sudden. I didn't mean to do that. I can't shut it off. Your hand doesn't wildly fly up every time you think about throwing a ball, right? There's different ways of controlling it. Stop saying that. Actually, the worst is kind of like implant to implant communication where you're just like, I'm talking to Sarah, but instead of using an I am client or anything, I'm just using, you know, thinking about it. And then you have that like, like deviation of the inner monologue that somehow just bleeds through. And, you know, suddenly Sarah's, you know, like learning why I hate the, you know, the checkout. Or much, or much, much more personal. Yeah. No, I mean, boy, if, uh, if your brain is being shared with me, it's like really specific about which folder, which sharing. Some people already lack the filter, right? In a conversation. I don't share my computer with people. I am not sharing my brain with people. Permissions are very important when sharing your brain. I wanted to throw in this too. Cause John, uh, who's, who suggested this topic was talking about Star Trek, Voyager and biological processors. It's one thing to say, would you like your brain to control something? Would you like brains that are processors to be in your devices? Like, like biological. Yeah. Yeah. Like a biological processor. I mean, it's very interesting. My slime mold phone. Yes. Yeah. So they've, they've been creating with the basic biological computers, like DNA based. DNA computing is a thing. And one of the things they found is a great at parallel tasks, but they're really slow, right? Compared to a digital computer. So instead of counting things out in milliseconds or nanoseconds, you're talking minutes, hours, days, months. Um, but they're really good at parallel processing stuff. So it's really just finding a data set that is most applicable to that kind of processing power. I think it would be great. I mean, you know, I, you know, the whole, going back to Voyager, there's that whole episode where the gel pack, neural packs get a cold or like a flu or something. They're all sick and the, the half the ship's down. Um, I mean, do you, I mean, when you have that, do you have to worry about things like, Oh, I got a vaccinate. Like when you talk about any virus and vaccinating your computer, you know, you're actually injecting something into it. It's kind of cool. I mean, you know, the idea being that the human brain or a biological brain can do feats that we haven't yet been able to replicate, uh, using a binary digital machine. But right. That would be kind of cool. I think my only question would be, would they be robust? Like, would you be able to have something portable? I dropped my phone on the floor and as long as I have a screen protector, still works. Like with my computer, if I had a biological computer, suddenly have a concussion. Maybe. Yeah, I mean, we have good meat suits to carry our processor around, you know, like, but they do get concussions. Sometimes let's us down. I mean, when you take your meat suit and throw it off a cliff, you're bound to potentially have some issues. I mean, you got to be careful. Yeah. I mean, it's just a material, right? It's easy to think like, Oh, it's DNA. It's going to have, it's going to be fragile. It's like, it's everything technology can be fragile. You just, you have to, you have to harden it. You have to figure out how to protect it. You don't want your DNA to get a literal virus. I love the idea though of being able to communicate with other biological entities through information. So there's a group, backyard, backyard brains that's been developing these experimental kits for classrooms and for kids to be able to basically plug your nervous system into all sorts of things and control devices. And they showed that you can, you can use your arm and your electric signals of your, of your arm to stimulate mimosa plants to close their leaves or Venus fly trap, fly traps to close and to, you can, you can actually use human physical, electrochemical stimuli and transmit it to a plant to force them to do things. So is there a back, the feedback from that? Can we learn the signals that plants are giving their electrochemical conversations to be able to understand what they're talking about? We talk about communication in dolphins or gorillas or other intelligent animals. But what about communication in plants and can we learn that on a basic data level, which I think would be really interesting. Grow the tomatoes round. I mean, it'd be kind of interesting. I mean, it would be sort of like Aquaman except instead of talking to the fishes, you're just talking to your crops. Talking to your crops. Oh, are you fighting off pests right now? Poison Ivy. Oh, are you fine? Poison Ivy. Poison Ivy. Poison Ivy. Exactly. Super villain. She's a villain to some here or to others. Yes. But as long as the corn is sweet and it pops in the microwave, that's okay. All right. We have one more listener suggested topic. Kiki, should we get on to that? Yeah, let's do it. Okay, so Sandy had, had written in about NFTs and blockchain and power consumption. And I would like us to talk about that from the perspective of responsible science communication, responsible technology reporting. I've held off reporting a lot of the claims of blockchain energy use because it was a lot of claims. And sometimes not always, but sometimes even some false comparisons. But we don't have a lot of science. There's a little bit, but we don't have a lot about what's actually happening, what the actual impacts are. Recently, there was a peer reviewed journal article in nature communications that we talked about on DTNS that actually did some looking at like, okay, how much power does this use? What effect does it have? I'd like to see more of that work done on it. And I thought we could all talk about our various lines of where we say like, oh wait, that's, that's not worth talking about because that's that one's close enough that we could talk about it a little or that's that's solid. That's something that we can really, we can really dig into and we won't be misleading people because it's got real, you know, either real technology or real science behind it. Yeah, so for the NFTs, I mean generally, I'm steering clear of those on twist, but we have talked about the blockchain and the energy consumption. We have had those stories many years ago that we learned for a while as to how much, how much energy is being used, but there is that, that question of how does it compare? Like, where does it really truly stack up? And I think this is one of the hardest questions to really parse and answer for. Being able to understand how any industry impacts at all of its levels environmentally, what energy uses, where does the energy come from? How is it being implemented? I mean, I think with technology, we do know, like Google servers, Facebook servers, all these things use so much energy and then, you know, my computer right now is and the screen that I'm using every house is using more and more power as a result of these technologies being online. Well, that's we're using less individually. Yeah, yeah, because we have more power efficient devices, right? The refrigerator, I was talking about this, like, I think it's the refrigerator and your house lights, if you've done the switch over to the LEDs or just some more modern efficient light bulbs, you're using less electricity than, than you were without them, right? You're using like less than half. One of the most expensive appliances in the household used to be the 30 40 watt light bulb. It's almost nothing compared to what it used to be. So we're the more efficient, the more we keep pushing for solar to also be part of the equation, the less we're actually going to need to be generating per individual. The other side is, of course, there's a lot more of us and we have a lot of the world that's still just entering. Server farms, these server farms very often are being placed because renewable, sustainable energy is, is dominant. So, I mean, I know Google and Facebook have server farms that are out in the dals out, out the Columbia River because there's amazing water and wind power out there and they're taking advantage of that free energy almost free energy to be able to power their needs. And then we know that this is happening also in China and other places like the blockchain servers. Yeah, there's a Microsoft is doing data servers off the coast of Scotland that are wave powered and even water cooled. There's a lot of good experiments happening there. So, when I see this thing that's like, you know, blockchain uses as much power as Denmark, I'm like, well, I bet you could say that about a lot of things. There's a little cherry picking going on. Totally. It's not that I don't believe that the blockchain is using a lot of energy. I know it is, but how much really, and one of the pieces of research that I'm hoping someone's doing and I can't wait to see is what is the financial industry not on the blockchain do, right? Because there's a lot of servers and there's a lot of buildings and telecommunications and people in offices that are causing transfers of money right now. It takes three days to get this really ancient network to get money around. How much power does that whole system use versus if we did it all on the blockchain? And if it turns out that the blockchain is worse, then okay, that's good to know. It's like, all right, then we're not saving power there. Some of it is the argument isn't directly a little tangentially related to the blockchain, but it's like when you're mining cryptocurrency, the argument goes and I'm not arguing one way or another. You are processing or you are literally processing in the argument for nothing. You're creating a token, especially if it's not like a well-known Bitcoin or something. It's like a new cryptocurrency. So the argument is that should we be doing that at all? And oftentimes the argument kind of what we've done here is we've devolved it into a simple it's using a lot of energy or it's not and it should be more about are there smarter ways to go about doing this instead of having what we have right now like server farms to crunch away. Every time you make an adjustment, the blockchain ledger needs to be updated. If it needs to be updated in multiple places, then all those places are going to require... I think where you're going to this is there's different ways of doing blockchain mining. There's proof of work and proof of stake and a lot of people say proof of work uses a lot more energy than proof of stake. So proof of stake is preferable. And that's a part of the conversation too. Is there a more power efficient way to process these things? And I think that is also an important conversation. We've hit on a bunch of them. Is your blockchain running on renewable power? Well then the amount of energy it's using isn't as much of a concern as it is if it's on polluting power. Is your blockchain doing proof of work or proof of stake? One's going to use less power. So that's good too. You're right. It's not a simple answer and there are a lot of different ways to approach the problem. Sarah, do you remember we did green energy that show years ago talking about... Green tech today. Green tech today, yes. Do you see there being a change in the conversation around technology and power? Do you think there's been in the last 10 years any kind of evolution there? Well, when you talk about power as... When you say something like green tech, it's like saving the earth, sustainability, lots of buzz words. Some people kind of go, I don't really care about that. Well, you care about it if it costs you less. And I think that's where a lot of people have gotten hooked to, okay, alternative energy or new energy that can either create wealth or back away from the cost of things that we've all gotten used to. Everybody loves that. And I think that the kind of you know, I don't want to call it hippie-dippy because I think green technology is really important, but the connotations that some people have about the future of energy and being able to harvest it more responsibly and more intelligently, a lot of people have come around to that whereas in the past it was maybe thought of as a lot more fringe. Yeah. I really hope that moving forward, especially where we are with climate change, carbon carbon emissions and the increasing global temperature and everything that's happening, I hope that technologists who are applying the sciences to these to blockchain to anything really, like even the phone in your hands. Where are you sourcing your materials? Can you cradle to grave all of the resources that are needed to create the thing that you're creating? Can you take account for all of the resources and assets that are needed? Yeah. It needs to be part of that consideration, right? Yeah, that's absolutely the biggest piece in this question that I think is not being asked is when you talk about environmental impact, this is one piece. This is just one very small piece of your environmental impact. Sure, you can say that Bitcoin is terrible for the environment because it takes a bunch of energy, but there are other things out there that have other impacts on our environment that aren't as well quantified or modified. And I think the problem is that we need to find a way to assess the monetary impact on our environment more completely. And that's where, first of all, not all energy is created equal, but then did you cut down a forest to build this warehouse that you have these servers in? What is the whole comprehensive environmental impact of that thing that you're asking about? And that's why I'm really wanting somebody to compare that current banking industry to running the industry on a blockchain because what I don't want to happen is blockchain bad, shut it down and then we end up using more power and wasting more power because we're using this old-fashioned version that we're all used to so we just grandfathered it in when it's like, well, as bad as it was it may have used less power than that. And I'm not saying that is true. We may look at it and go, oh no, blockchain bad. You were right. But let's find out. This is very much like the healthcare debate. How are you going to pay for it? Well, the first thing is you have this whole insurance industry in the middle taking profit. Oh, so you're going to put people out of work. Wait a second. I thought we were talking about the cost. It'll shift quick. You try to attack banking in any way. Part of it is there's so many it comes in so many directions. It's the resources you use. It's the monetary impact of certain businesses that do and do not. The thing is there's going to be winners and losers in everything. The goal is to make it so that there are more winners and losers in any kind of strategy that you work out. That's how it goes for everything. When we moved away from horses to internal combustion engines there were a lot of people who had stables that suddenly I have no more customers. No one is bringing in their horse for me to feed and take care of it until they take it out again. I can't see any of my buggy whips anymore. I'm a little concerned though about worrying about finding out what the economic impact of any of this is. Oh, I'm sorry. What if it comes out the other way? What if the math comes out? Actually the math actually works out we're all going to have a really good short-term economic boost if we all stick with horses or whatever it is or if we tear down all the trees in the Amazon we're going to have a net profit to the plant that overcomes the short-term profit. Well, I mean it might not like the answer if we just put things in terms of money. There are answers but there are also interpretations of an answer. One answer you could give would be like for people who are making money logging the forest. Yeah. Let me just raise the entire Amazon. I'm going to make mint. But for people whose welfare derives from the Amazon being a standing forest that impacts them adversely. If you talk about the cities they're next to that now I have to deal with a bunch of smoke and haze every day because they're no more standing forest. I mean, like I said there's going to be winners and losers and the goal is that of both. So who's doing the survey? Who's doing the accounting? Who's saying that for the greater good of the rest of the planet I'm sorry Brazil. I'm sorry interior not forest. Listen they're just giving the good awards to Costa Rica they're like Costa Rica you're doing amazing we love you. I realize that your straw men are very afraid of this question but I'd actually really like to know what the answer is before I assume what the negative problems would be. Yeah. We are going to move away from energy, the environment NFTs who even needs those things anyway whatever that's just money laundering but we have questions to ask each other we have some trivia yes a little trivia is anybody ready for a little friendly competition? Yeah. Do we want to encourage our chat rooms to help or do we want them to be quiet? I want the chat rooms to instant message me with all of the correct answers. Well then I should have redone my questions. I'm just going to second what Justin says just assume I'm doing a call a call home for help every question yes. But we have we're going to alternate science and tech I've got questions that Blair helped me put together Justin and Roger has questions that he and the DTNS news team put together so are you ready to rumble? Indeed indeed and really the answers to these questions will be of interest to everyone and you'll learn something so really everybody's going to win everybody wins Let the Twiz guys just give them a few seconds to assess that before you give them the answer chat room. I am very very fearful of the tech questions. I'm so scared Justin. Explain what an NFT is oh no Which jumpers do you switch on a motherboard in order you know simple stuff Red, black, yellow NFT stands for national football teams Oh It's the Washington nickname Right okay I have my first question What organ has been adapted by green tree frogs to help them hear in the noisy tropical jungle environment is it A. their skin B. the tongue C. the lungs D. the stomach Which organ has been adapted by green tree frogs to help them hear I can picture the story I mean I have a guess Lungs, stomach Lung or skin Sarah which is your guess I was going to say skin Skin for me Daily tech news show has unanimously said skin Vinyl answer I didn't know it was supposed to be multiple choice Justin I hope you know this I know Blair knows it I thought it's between C and D This is from a story All of the questions are from stories on the show I remember you talking about this story I remember where I was I was folding my laundry when you did the story I can't remember what the answer is But the problem was the picture that we put up didn't go with the story So there's big bubble I don't know if that's the thing that was actually Yeah so they showed the throat expanding Yes We were doing go for a deal breathing in the picture I should do with it No so I put C I stuck with lung But I don't think it's right The answer is C the lungs Should have known I figured something to do with the air The inflation of the lungs changes the way that the ears that the tympanum of the ears of the frog vibrate and so it makes it easier for them here to hear the calls of their loved ones over the noise of the jungle It's tightly tuned when they inhale There's nature's timpanies Yes I hear you Alright Roger Mine isn't a multiple choice answer I did all multiple choice for you guys Alright This should be pretty simple Known as the father of the World Wide Web You talking about Al Gore? Hey Al Gore No I know who the guy is Or is it the guy who owns the dump trucks No He made multiple choices He made not a nickel off of it Tom can give you multiple choices I'm gonna say What is it Tim Berners-Lee Tim Berners-Lee Did I get it right? Yes Yeah, so Kiki's are our team captain I'm just kidding I was like Tim Berners-Lee, Vint Cerf I've met Vint Cerf, wasn't Vint Cerf Tim Berners-Lee I was gonna throw Vint Cerf, Bill Gates and Al Gore It has multiple choice options You didn't need them Okay, next question Which of the following Is not Known to be represented by the mathematical Astronomy of the ancient Greek Antikythera mechanism A. Lunar eclipses B. Movement of Neptune C. The Olympiad cycle D. Years and seasons Well that would be the movement of Neptune You're right Yeah, because they didn't know about Neptune back in the day of the Antikythera Good job, five planets Five planets though, Mercury Venus Mars and Jupiter and the Sun and the Moon and other stars It was very complicated But yeah, you got it right Good job No Neptune Hey I got all bees I see all those bees in that chat room Good job, Tim This one isn't too esoteric This electronic instrument is played without physical contact Often used when music and sound effects are needed for an eerie situation Oh yeah, that's my favorite Theremin Oh, you got it I want to buy like theremin Those are fun Oh my gosh The mRNA based vaccines used by Pfizer and Moderna work by A. Altering your DNA B. Infecting you with dead virus C. Using your cellular machinery D. Entering the cell nucleus C That is correct All of the others are myths that have been perpetuated by people who don't like vaccines The mRNA based vaccines by Pfizer and Moderna just stimulate your body to make antibodies to get your immune system to go Who doesn't want to be stimulated? In this case, do shoot the messenger into your shoulder I like your joke Here's another softball Another name for expressing data size in the base 2 numeral system Oh no Say it again I don't think saying it again will help there We can say it again We can say it slower Louder You got it You win You win I thought it was other than Bynan He said in the base 2 Not except for Oh my goodness My brain worked That was really good The largest single creature on earth is A. An aspen growth B. A slime mold C. A blue whale D. A blue whale A blue whale D. A fungus A I think it's a fungus I think it's the aspen growth It's the one where If it's not the fungus, it's the aspen growth It's a fungus It's a honey mushroom in the mallar forest in eastern central Oregon It is the largest single organism that's connected all underneath the ground However, it is only the aspen grove is the close second It's the source of all the honey mushroom sauce I'm sorry I lost it for everyone And the honey badgers I already have one too Here's a sciency one for you What theory of physics must clocks aboard the GPS satellites to maintain accuracy I don't see my co-host saying so I'm going to say general relativity Yeah, you got it That's your point for general So some small tidbits of information orbiting because of the GPS satellites orbit the earth and above the earth their clocks tick a little faster by 45 microseconds a day So if they're not adjusted they'll be off by 38 microseconds every day and it's very important because those microseconds can mean yards and if you let it drift any longer miles away from your actual point Then that's not good for GPS No You can actually see in the global information system databases some very old plotting that was done compared to where things are now You can have that exact sort of scenario take place where you have people have plotted streams and now they're yards they're yards off of where they had initially plotted them The curse of time dilation In our twitch chat people are saying it's not fair, she's a doctor she cheated by studying her whole life and being smart Oh Studying What good does that do anybody Alright y'all, what happens when a sea slug's head is cut off The head grows a body The head and body die The body buds baby slugs The body grows a head I would say the body grows a head What do you guys think? I remember this story and the real answer is all of the click baby headlines get it wrong That's true Maybe the head grows another body I think that's right That makes more sense I will defer to these two The answer is The head grows a body Yay We just had to talk through it Which is kind of crazy because it's a pretty complex organism and it doesn't just regrow It regrows its heart It regrows everything It finds its soul You would If you cut off a sea slug's head Where does its soul go? Well the best part is they didn't cut it off or the scientists didn't cut it off the sea slugs severed it off They cut off their own heads It was a personal choice It was a lifestyle choice Wait is that how they reproduce they just cut the heads off No actually they reproduce by stabbing each other in the face with their phallus actually They don't use their eye stalks in any sort of reproductive manner No Not after they've been stabbed In 1952 Grace Hopper developed this important concept in computer programming that led to the creation of the modern computer programming language What did Oh my gosh I don't know I don't know this one at all Grace Hopper Programming I'll go with the punch cards Is it the Pascal Alright I've got multiple choices for you Sounds like a type of candy you would eat Yeah let's hear the multiple choices Multiple choices Is it a Compiling B C Cursive logic Just coding Did she make coding? No I'll go with the logic The one that said logic Cursive logic This sounds old I need to learn this What did Grace Hopper do She created the concept of a compiler Which is essentially A compiler when you program They make a programming language That makes it as easy Or easier To write instructions to a computer The thing is a computer uses What they call machine language Which is really unintelligual to most people And then the next step above that Is what they call assembly Which is a lot of memory Memory locations and data That's supposed to go into it If you've ever done it outside of a C64 It's very complex It can be very confusing What you're on Computer languages are designed to solve that By taking Relatively Normal sounding phrases Like initiate Or int library To bring up a library Or print hello Or echo on And what a compiler does Is takes those and then directs it To a memory map Into a form that the machine And it's originally called linking And the compiler is the program that does The linking takes all those phrases that you type out It's why when you compile a program If you just leave it in the source code It could be kind of big, but once you compile it It should be a bit smaller Yeah, so you don't have to write out Zero one zero zero zero one zero zero You just say like move this here And call it a day Paul Sampson is saying hello world, Shirley Shirley Well you still win There's that All right I'm glad, thank you for that I learned something that was very good Which of the following is not An official scientific term Muon Shmoo Sonic hedgehog Zelda Shmoo No no no, I know Sonic hedgehog is Muon I know what a muon is Unless it's a trick question Maybe it's Zelda I think it's Zelda It is Zelda Good job Yeah, I tried to throw us off with two video games I've heard of Shmoo before Okay, all right I have two even though I don't remember What it is anymore A Shmoo is involved in yeast Reproduction I could have sworn it was tickling The back of my brain that I'd heard Connection, but I guess not No, that's why I threw that in there What our listeners want to know And definitely I know already So I'm just asking for them What is a Sonic hedgehog? It's a protein, right? Yeah, it's a protein and there's also a gene That underlies it So geneticists just got It was around the time that the video game came out Is it the gene that makes the protein? Is that what Sonic hedgehog? Yeah, it's the gene that makes the protein Geneticists really liked the video game So Geeky geneticists Named their gene after a video game Isn't it one of the reasons that they've come up With a like a list of rules for naming now? Like No, I'm serious, I think there's like A convention on naming because they're like We can't let people keep calling stuff Sonic hedgehog You can't just make things video games Then suddenly there is a Zelda That's no fun Well, there was a Zelda before I like the pop cultural references In the sciences It makes things easier to remember If Sonic hedgehog was called something else I would never think of it Ever again Or maybe you would know this So how's the scoring? Like team, twiz, wins by one? We all win We all win So what is Oh, I just want to ask you this Real quick question, Geeky What is the name Of the spikes on the stegosaurus's tail? Phil Sam Jeff Jeff? Is it Jeff? No I don't know It's thagomizer It's based on a Gary Larson Strip known as The far side of the galaxy He did one where they had cavemen Showing like a depict Like doing a little Talk on the stegosaurus And he's talking about the stegosaurus Tail about how you should avoid it And we're calling it the thagomizer In respect to the late great Thag, whatever Who got smushed by the tail Far side was one of the great Far side My ten year old Kai is getting into the far side Right now That was an amazing exhibit At the California Academy of Sciences When I was growing up Far side How old were you I was in college When I saw that Maybe earlier I've been there so many times Before they redid it It's all a blur They had the fish tank The circular fish tank Remember when they had the great white in it And it just swam Around and around and around The great white was being affected By the tank and it kept swimming The other way Opposite the rotation of the tank And it found out It's because the tank was all metal It was throwing off the sharks Magnetic sense Oh, that's annoying So many things Great whites don't do so well In captivity for so many reasons I think there was one additional question Which we'll just put it out there To the chat room To people watching Can anybody order The host's birthdays By month and date Not year Oh A is Blair B, Justin C, Kiki, Tom, Sarah, Roger Can you Put them In the correct order By age By month and date You're flipping through a calendar What order would you see our birthdays Who has the Who's birthday comes first There's three on that calendar right behind you Is this appealing To people who Think they're good at zodiac Picking people's signs What are we doing This is January, February, March, April Who comes in January, then Who's next People have to use Google, Facebook or whatever Figure out our birthdays and then arrange it in Correct Chronological within Inviting identity Seems really easy And then send us Birthday presents What was your first pet's name This is about presents people No my birthday presents Who's got a birthday coming up That's what this is We all do really Yeah We didn't get one last year So we really gotta make up for it I would like a banana split sundae With real hot fudge I would like a taco party No one's taking a crack at this In our chat rooms Because that one's too hard Let's do it by age All right I'll throw one to the chat room Without searching on Google or Wikipedia or anything What is the largest dolphin species I know I know that one That's my favorite animal The feral cat What, no No Largest dolphin species No, not yet Bottle nose is one guess I know I will send somebody's socks You got it Delva You see Zadkins and Ethan Cain Both said killer whale first Killer whale Did you guys hear about this We did this the story A little over a year ago now Where Orcas were attacking fishing boats And pretty much any boat That was the size they could manage They would be heading out to the Fishing territories In the south of France And turning them around They would beat into them Until the boat was heading back And then they'd leave it alone And they hit a bunch of boats And they could actually track this pod Because it continued to push boats back to shore All the way up the coast To get a fishing boat in France They're protesting to tell you to go home They were And then recently Some people report seeing them in the Suez Canal Yeah That's how that boat got stuck Right It was the killer whales Blame the killer whales I mean Whether they're transients or residents You just keep your distance Okay, I think Is that it? Did we do it? We made it all the way through This was really fun Yeah, this was super fun Thank you so much Thank you all for being here Thanks everybody for watching and listening And hanging out in the chat And if you want to find more Tech news, head to dailytechnewshow.com Woo And if you need more science news In your life, you can head to twis.org We will be there Scienceing it up every week Woo-hoo-hoo And you know, I'd love to know What people thought about this About this show I'd love to get feedback Yeah, did you like it? Please, let us know On whatever method works for you Feedback at dailytechnewshow.com Is our email address And we might want to do this again If you liked it And thanks everyone Who sent in ideas for stories We should talk about it Set us on a nice little path Of discovery and conversation Really appreciate your interaction there Indeed Indeed, okay We might want to do it again We're going to end the show So that we can finish this one And hope to do another one In the future Last words from everyone Blair, what would you like to say? This was really fun I will throw something out To the Twitterverse Ever would you never I don't remember what we called it But about science topics I would love to hear Who actually would go to Mars And why or why not Because this is a science And tech conversation And I think that It's nuanced and interesting So I would love Yeah, I would love to hear People if they would like to go to Mars Or not and why And you can tag us in that Good question Justin, what are your last words? I don't The typical last word of you being I cannot be said on the air So I reserve it for that occasion When it really becomes that Now this is really fun I'd love to do it again as well This is a very nice fun casual I need to watch the show more Because there's always something In your show that I've been searching For that I've missed There was a very recent episode Where you're talking about Outdoor projectors That they don't exist yet That once you really designed it for a long throw Because I've been trying to find One that you could actually Mount on top of a school bus And drive around And then actually ideally One that would be a periscope So that would figure out how to take a small room Mount it to a periscope And be able to throw an image On anywhere the wall Is handy to be able to Anyway I'll put you in contact with Marshall, Justin That's good, yeah There's always something on your show That's a special interest When I've been listening Your turn I'll keep it brief I will not be going to Mars Just don't even invite me I will not go I'm gonna stay here on earth Where we have plenty of things to solve Thank you very much But have fun when you go And tell me all about it Just whoever wants to go I want you to enjoy your trip Mars person And we'll We'll have implants in our brains And we'll just be able to talk to each other Anyway, so it'll be great But yeah, real quick, this was really fun I think so much of This Week in Science And Daily Tech news show We can learn a lot from each other And we do And let's keep the romance alive Absolutely Roger, what do you have to say? This is a lot of fun It's a great way to spend a Saturday afternoon I will say that I learned a bunch about Slugs And Giant fungus Compared to a stand of trees That are all the same organism But really, it's fun Because science and technology Are really just two sides of the same coin And it's beneficial to really understand both In order to get a better appreciation Of both Excellent, excellent Kiki, our work here is done Good job Daily Tech news show will be back Monday with Tim Stevens And I assume Twists will be back next Wednesday, right? It absolutely will 8 p.m. Pacific time It's all in your head Until then Should we do that again? Until then, remember It's all in your head