 I also, we can talk about this in the post, but I cannot, well, anyway, we'll talk about it in the post. It's just silly Gmail filter stuff. It's not working as expected. Ah, okay. Well, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations, you found us. Mm-hmm. Happy Monday. Hello. What is up with your bad selves? Or your good selves? Or your ethically, impartially, and valuated selves? It's been Saturday night because I missed this and now we're rewatching old real world episodes on YouTube. Like, which seasons? The only good ones, the first five seasons. See, now this is why I end up telling you your references are old, because you're watching old television. Like, when they started doing... Are you gonna start making references to Puck now? Yeah, whatever happened to that guy? He rode off into the sunset. Literally, took his bike and he rolled over to the sunset. So you know this, because you just watched it. I was raised by 120 minutes, well, at least through. It was funny, so, you know, Justin, Tom, and my favorite entertainer, Cardi B, was the musical guest on Saturday. Which I, you know, I never watch it on Saturday nights because it's too late, but I watch it on Sunday. So yesterday, I was like, Mom, we could watch this. You probably don't know who that is. She goes, I know who Cardi B is. Oh, okay. Okay. All right. I'm not sure how or why, but great. I think Cardi B has hit the mainstream, then, that's what that means. Cardi B is big time. Big time. Number one, GQ feature with the lead being that she is a presidential history nerd could not have endeared me more to Cardi B. Have you centered the contender game yet, or is that still in the word? I've read this on stream and I've been doing podcasts ever since. Otherwise, I just need a connect. I need to get a contender game to Cardi B. All right. I'm going more Cardi B news to follow after the show. I promise. And possibly eating popcorn in theater controversy. All right. Here we go. Daily Tech News Show ain't powered by anybody else, but you find out more. Head to dailytechnewshow.com slash support. This is the Daily Tech News for Monday, April 9th, 2018 from DTNS headquarters in Los Angeles. I'm Tom Merritt. And from Studio Feline, I'm Sarah Lane. From Oakland, California, I'm Justin Robert Young. And joining us our producer, Roger Chang. Hello from a warm East end of the San Fernando Valley. Some people say, why don't you let Roger introduce himself? I feel like it's giving him the courtesy as a hardworking producer to do the intro for him. Absolutely. It's like when you get and featuring Wesley Snipes as himself at the end of it. That's why I like to think of Roger as a feature. The marquee name of the show. No, no, no. No, Wesley Snipes. Oh, right. Wait, no, I pay my taxes. He's the tax pay on Wesley Snipes. Is that weird? Yeah. All right. No shade of Wesley Snipes. He's a great actor. But we're here to talk about techs news. Techs news, techs news, techs news, and something like that. Let's start with a few things you should know. This is something you could text on. Apple announced it, but once again, sell red versions of its products with a portion of the proceeds going to the Global Fund HIV AIDS Grants. Red products will include the iPhone 8 and 8 Plus, an Apple Watch classic buckle, Beats Solo 3 wireless headphones, the iPod Touch, and a smart cover for iPad. Meanwhile, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, deactivated his Facebook account telling followers, it had, quote, brought me more negatives than positives, end quote. We will preview Mark Zuckerberg's week of congressional appearances later in the show. HP announced a tablet running Chrome OS called the Chromebook X2. A 12.3 inch tablet comes with a keyboard cover and stylus for $599, has four gigabytes of RAM, 32 gigabytes of storage, two USB-C ports, a micro SD card slot, and they claim 10 and a half hours of battery life. HP says it should come out sometime in June. All right, let's talk a little more about what Uber's doing with bicycles. Uber said Monday it is agreed to buy Dockless Bike Sharing Service Jump, which offers service in San Francisco and Washington. Bike sharing is very popular and successful in China and other parts of Southeast Asia, but is yet to catch on widely in the United States. Certain cities it seems to have done very well and New York City is one of them. There are quite a few bike sharing kiosks around where I live here in Los Angeles, but yeah, it's not quite the same. It really depends on where you are. What you wanna know what has dotted the landscape out here in the Bay Area lately are scooters. Oh, the bird scooter. Bird scooters all over here too, yeah. Like, I can't imagine ever wanting to be on a scooter, let alone to pay for the privilege, but holy moly, if they're not on every corner, just freestanding and I guess that's what this is. Jump is Dockless. So that's probably the biggest difference is that it's not in these clusters like you've seen throughout the country. This is just, you ride a bike, you leave a bike, that's it. Yeah, they lock up and use an app to unlock them. This is like way old news for people in other parts of the world. They're like, really, you're just getting this? Like, come on, catch up, US. But it's also interesting that Uber would be the one to try to pioneer it here because they already have a partnership with Jump in San Francisco where it's part of the Uber app. So it makes sense for them to just kind of formalize that and say, you know what? We wanna branch out to be your transportation solution need whatever way it is, whether it's bikes, cars, I don't know where they go from there, but they've gone the enterprise route, right? With buying auto and doing freight, doing Uber Eats and other delivery type systems. So now it makes sense to branch out in this other direction, I guess. The Wall Street Journal reports PayPal is rolling out FDIC insurance and debit cards and direct deposit to select customers in partnership with small banks. Now PayPal does not have a banking license in the US so partnerships like this allow the company to avoid FDIC regulations on deposit insurance and Visa and MasterCard rules on card insurance. PayPal COO Bill Reddy told the Wall Street Journal that the new services are targeted at people without bank accounts. PayPal also announced a new deal letting its users link their PayPal accounts with Kenya's P Mesa mobile payment system. It's M-Pesa actually. M-Pesa is local in the Kenyan area although they are expanding in other places in Africa but this would say, hey, you can use your M-Pesa account outside of our normal M-Pesa regions by having a PayPal account and linking them up. And so that expands it to other places. And likewise, I think what PayPal's saying here is like, we don't want all the trouble of being a bank so we partnered with some banks. So what is interesting here is that PayPal seems to have distanced themselves with one of their biggest criticisms from several years ago, which was that they were, your money was insecure with them because they could freeze it and in some cases take it without much recourse and they did not have a great reputation for customer service in those situations. This is, I think, them taking a step forward beyond that criticism by saying, hey, look, you don't need a bank, if you don't have a bank account, you technically have your bank account with this small bank but we will be basically the front for that. Like you will be dealing with thoughts in terms of our web services, which is really interesting. Yeah, they're basically linking your PayPal account to a small bank account is what it sounds like. I don't know, this is an interesting movement forward. I know some people were kind of look at it as PayPal being shady and try to evade regulation by not just getting a bank license. Well, but also, hey, look, it gives business to these small banks so someone's getting paid. Yeah, Leap Motion announced Project North Star, which will use its hand tracking technology in an augmented reality platform. The headset design for the platform should cost, according to Leap Motion, less than $100 at scale. The platform's hardware and software will be released under an open source license next week. So this is Leap Motion saying, we just want people to be using our software places because we think that'll rising tide lift all boats allow us to sell more Leap Motion sensors to people. Yeah, okay, so Leap Motion, right? Not Magic Leap, which I think some people might- Good point. ...go to. That would be a much bigger story if Magic Leap had not only introduced a headset, but also one that was that cheap. Look, there's a lot of players right now in that field. I think having a cheaper option for VR and AR equipment is good so people can understand and develop on top of it because as somebody who was a fairly early adopter to VR and I had a Google Glass and stuff like that, I've been very much interested in the AR space. What we have now is a lot of cheaper components and a lot of smart people, but not a tremendous amount of killer app hooking of like, this is why you need this thing, specifically when it's so good on the phone. Like, why do I need to put something on my head if all the cool gimmicks I can do on the phone? Hands-free. Yeah, but then what do you need that's hand-free? Well, okay, you're saying all of the good use cases are on the phone because that's what's most popular and what most people have, so none of them are hands-free. It's a little chicken-the-egg problem. Well, no, I'm just saying that right now, we don't have it. I think we'll get there and I think that cheaper equipment that brings this kind of functionality to you with a hands-free solution will be some of the steps to get us there. Yeah, we were also talking last week about, you know, some of the nicest VR solutions, you know, $800 plus, you know, without certain peripherals that you would actually need, you know, something that is, you know, $100 that might be not as great of quality, maybe not as comfortable, that sort of thing. To get more people used to it and adopt it on, you know, at greater scale, that sounds like a better way to get everybody used to it to me than to say, well, you know, there are these super fancy, you know, headsets that are, you know, the best of the bundle. But they're priced so high that most of us just go like, hmm, I mean, maybe if somebody has one at their house, I might like try it on. And that's for virtual reality. For augmented reality, you really can't buy anything unless you want to claim to be a developer for HoloLens and that's expensive too, so yeah. I'll be interested to see, one of the issues here is, Leap Motion does hand tracking and it does hand tracking really well, better than most of the hand tracking out there for VR or AR, but it doesn't do room tracking. So you're gonna have to have another solution for that. I'm curious if that price stays at $100 once you add the competent room tracking in, but we'll see. More than 20 child advocacy consumer and privacy groups filed a complaint with the FTC accusing YouTube of violating the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. YouTube's term says it's not for use by children younger than 13 in compliance with the law, but the complaint states that content on the site is clearly targeted at younger kids. YouTube has a kids' version of its service meant for use by children, which is not an issue. Yeah, I think that's gonna confuse some people, right? There's YouTube kids, that's a separate thing. What this complaint about is YouTube the site, right? And YouTube the app, but think about just plain old YouTube is full of stuff for kids. And this complaint says, sure, they can put it in the terms that someone under 13 isn't supposed to use it, but then they have all this content that appeals to kids under 13. So I wonder, is the issue that they should be sorting that into YouTube for kids? And then what is that lie? Or they should be providing the tools in regular YouTube to allow parents to control things and they should not collect data. That's the big one is about collection of data because you're limited what data you can collect for children under 13. And they're saying kids are going and they're maybe using their parents' account, but they're watching stuff and a profile gets built on them, even if it isn't technically under a child's profile. And that's not okay. Man, I'm very curious to see if there's anything beyond a wrap of the knuckles from the FTC because this is a very, very, very tough nut to crack. Snapchat's redesign has been controversial to say the least. And now the company is rolling back a main feature at least to some users giving back a tab that shows stories in reverse chronological order instead of the redesign's algorithmically sorted feet. The company had seen daily active user growth sag from 17% to under three per quarter after the launch of Facebook's Snapchat clone Instagram stories. So Snapchat was kind of doing what Instagram was doing better, but didn't really work out the same way. Snapchat saw growth improve after starting to roll out the algorithm-powered redesign in Q4 2017. The redesign has been a bit of a, well, you know what? Begins with cluster? Something like that, yes, exactly. Not everybody hates it, but a lot of very loyal, dedicated users were vocal about the fact that they didn't like it. And a lot of those people had followers and that stuff matters. I am of the mind that all of these services and they don't care what I think and they won't listen to me, they always offer two options. You want the algorithmically sorted feed? Great, that works for some people. Your favorite people kind of always rise to the top. The people that you care about the most supposedly will be at the top. But if you use Snapchat in the way that, oh, I don't know, I use Twitter, it's kind of based on like, well, who just posted most recently? It's not so much who are my favorite people. A lot of it has to do with, well, where are you? What are you doing right this second? Oh, I get it. If the filter is based in my neighborhood, you might be near me. So a lot of that is very timestamp sensitive to me. And I think that Snapchat is realizing that it is not the same as the Instagram behemoth. Even though they're obviously compared a lot and Snapchat is trying to keep its market share in the wake of Instagram stealing a lot of its design. But I don't know, I haven't seen it, nothing has ruled back for me. Yeah, and Snap hasn't commented about this. So we don't know, they may just be doing this for certain people, it may be a test. Ultimately, they may, I'm not saying they will, they may give you what you want. This may be a test to see like, oh, okay. So we'll give people the option, we'll let them pick. That would be perfect, I agree with you. I totally agree. I think Snap is in trouble. Instagram Stories is a better product than Snap right now. And they took a complicated design that they were using as a feature, not a bug, because it was for the kids and it got, they kept the olds out because they couldn't realize what they were doing with it. And they made it more complicated and less useful. And that is a major, major problem for them. Folks, if you wanna get all the tech headlines each day in about five minutes, be sure to subscribe to Daily Tech Headlines available on the Amazon Echo, Google Home, and the Anchor app. And of course, as a podcast that you can put into a podcatcher, I hear these podcasts are kind of hot these days. You might try it out at DailyTechHeadlines.com. All right, you may have noticed a distinct lack of Facebook is there. It's all here. We haven't lost it. I'm sorry, there's lots of it. First of all, Facebook suspended two data analytics companies, Cube U and Aggregate IQ. Cube U is accused of selling the data to commercial marketing clients in violation of terms. It was collecting it under an academic guise, very similar to what Alexander Kogan, Professor Kogan was doing when he sold it to Cambridge Analytica. And Aggregate IQ was suspended for its involvement with Cambridge Analytica. Facebook said, oh, you were working with them. You didn't disclose that. They're in violation of our terms. So because you were working with them, you're now in violation of our terms, so you're suspended as well. Facebook is also going to do something I feel is a little late in the game, but I'm very glad they're doing it, partnering with nonprofit foundations to actually study the effect of social media on elections. Researchers will receive anonymized data from Facebook and Facebook itself will have no approval over the research. They're just providing the academic data to verified academics that wanna use it for academic purposes in a peer-reviewed situation to say, hey, what actually happened with social media use in the elections? Cause then you can actually begin to fix it based on what you see actually happens. But the big one is Zuckerberg goes to Washington. The US House Energy and Commerce Committee released written testimony, prepared statement in its essence from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Monday. We won't read the whole thing, but he says things like, it's clear now we didn't do enough to prevent these tools from being used for harm. That goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections and hate speech as well as developers and data privacy. So he's covering all the bases. He added a little later on it was my mistake and I'm sorry, he's taking personal responsibility for it. Facebook plans to start alerting users whose data may have been harvested by Professor Cogan and shared with Cambridge Analytica. So you might be on the lookout for that. You may be among the 87 million believed to maybe have been shared. And Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is meeting privately with some US lawmakers Monday in advance of his public testimony before some of those very same lawmakers in Congress Tuesday. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is meeting before the joint hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee and Judiciary Committee Tuesday at 2.15 p.m. Eastern and at a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing Wednesday at 10 a.m. Eastern. Now, for the pregame analysis of what Mr. Zuckerberg will face, Justin, these things are largely theater. What kind of theatrical interplay can we expect? Well, where do we wanna start? Do we wanna start with the written statement? Okay, yeah, what do we have to parse there? All right, so the written statement basically breaks down like this. There is the apology, there is the we did not do enough and then there is the, let me explain these things from our perspective and what we are going to do about it, specifically with Cambridge Analytica and Russian interference in the 2016 election. He then extrapolates forward what their solutions hope to do and specifically when they hope to get them done. It is no surprise when he's talking to a political body that the two issues here are the most political. They are specifically in reference to the 2016 election and how things have kind of blown up since then. With Cambridge Analytica, that's probably the most technical side of it in which he is probably going to talk on a level that a lot of people watching won't necessarily understand. There's references to tightening of APIs which your average political reporter probably won't have any idea what that means. But effectively it is we already fixed this as they've said before. We are now going to try to police our fix better and we will continue to restrict apps going forward and have a better mind toward the consequences of these things when we make these rulings and enforcing these rulings. This is probably the biggest dog that doesn't bark because if what is unsaid is why these rules that they made went fairly unenforced or that they're just now realizing, oh wait, us saying that you shouldn't use it and taking Cambridge Analytica's word for them certifying this is their word in Zuckerberg's public statement, certifying that the data had been deleted was not enough according to their own, to Zuckerberg's own admittance now that they are submitting Cambridge Analytica to a forensic audit. And keep in mind too, the biggest problem was that they were able to collect it on people who were friends. That isn't even allowed. Like nobody can do that anymore. That's just not, so they fixed the biggest problem back in 2015. Facebook's in a really difficult position here because really what people are angry with them is for being Facebook. And because this is connected to the 2016 election, so what kind of bombs are likely to be lobbed at them on that front? And that's the thing. Why don't they police this? Why didn't they put on their sheriff's hat and go shoot the outlaw? Because would that affect ad spend positively or ad spend negatively? And ultimately, I think that was something that was, you know, and now as Zuckerberg is admitting, although he's not saying this, I am drawing, I'm coloring in this undershade here, that that's the reason why, that they are now stepping things up and they are making these decisions because that was a positive thing for people spending money on Facebook is having more targeted stuff, whether or not it was allowed or disallowed. Although in his statement, he says, they thought that sharing was positive for helping people in tragic circumstances and again, connecting families. And recently, very carefully, I think, made comments about how Facebook isn't worried about impressions, is sharing goes down, that's fine. So he's got a defense for that kind of stuff, I think. Here's where he's gonna get hit by Republican lawmakers. He says in his written statement, when Facebook was founded in 2007, we had this idea for social apps. He then says, in 2014, we tightened up what we've done with social apps. What are two major political events that happened between 2007 and 2014? Two presidential elections in which a Democrat was put into the White House and had a effective working relationship with Facebook that is not unlike many relationships that Facebook has with political campaigns where they embed an employee so they can help manage the ad spend that these political organizations have with the platform. The other thing, and I know we're running out of time here, is the Russian election interference. That is something that I think has probably more to do with the possible regulation going forward, as now they and even says that we're getting ahead of regulation by confirming everybody who wants to spend money in a political or influential way on our platform. This is meant to suss out whether or not this is anywhere from Russian state actors, any other political actors around the world, or just Macedonian click farms where they're just trying to get people to click on weird links. This is probably the biggest concession and step that they are going to tout as what is different between 2018 in the midterms and 2016 when obviously a lot of this blew up in their face. And the last thing I want to mention before we move on here, there's a great technology review.com article about whether the problem is data collection or the problem is the models created with data collection. The headline is a little bit click baity because it's saying it may be too late. Who cares if you stop the leaks? But the point of the article if you read it is that it's the psychological targeting that's the problem. And Facebook tightening up how it handles data really isn't going to change that. Models are being created all over the place by many people and we need to deal with that and how we conduct democracy and elections in the face of this intense psychological targeting. So we'll have that link in the show notes as well. Thanks to everybody who participates in our subreddit can submit stories and vote on them at dailytechnewshow.reddit.com. Thank you to everybody who helps keep that running smooth and check out our Facebook group, facebook.com slash groups slash Daily Tech News Show. Let's check in with Nate Langston now to see what's happening with phones in pools across the pond. Thanks guys, this week HTC got into hot water or really cold water actually after one of its ads was pulled from TVs in Britain after complaints that it showed its phones being used in a swimming pool despite instructions for the phone specifically warning against use in swimming pools. Plus social media has now been predicted to become the single biggest advertising market in Britain bigger than TV by 2020. That's not all of digital. That's specifically just social but we're not just advertising podcasts so there's much more besides this week at techpodcast.uk. Thank you Nate, let's check the mailbag. What are you the people saying Sarah? Well, we got quite a few emails about this and some discussion in our Slack as well but I'll read one from Erin. This is in reference to Tom and I saying does Facebook allow message deleting or not in Messenger? And Tom was saying it says that it doesn't and I was saying but I do it all the time for reasons that I don't have to go into. Erin says, I checked with a recipient of the message that I just deleted, she can still see it. So it looks like Facebook just pretends to delete the messages on the side of the person deleting it. The sender can't see them anymore but they don't actually go away. That's not really obvious in the UI. Erin, I agree with you and I actually feel quite foolish because this is something that, I'm sort of being dramatic here but if I were to say to Tom, let's say Tom and I were in an argument, this is hypothetical, right? Cause we never argue. And I said something and I was like, I wish I hadn't said that. And I delete it right away especially if I don't see his read received yet. In my mind, that message is gone. I have saved myself. Well, apparently that is not the case and it has nothing to do with whether or not Tom gets those messages sent to email which then I wouldn't have any control over. No, it's a fake delete that is not actually deleting it on the recipient side at all. I wouldn't call it a fake delete because it's always been clear to me that, hey, if I'm deleting it in this interface that doesn't mean I'm deleting it in someone else's cause that's the way email works. If I delete an email, I don't assume it got deleted from my sent box, right? I don't assume it got deleted on the other end. But that's the reason to text rather than email. I mean, I feel that the two mediums are completely different. Okay, so yes, and maybe I'm just naive and I have been thinking about this all wrong, but I feel as though if you can delete a message and it seems as though it has gone away, you should know recipients version of this still there. You're deleting it for maybe a good reason, but if you're deleting it because you don't want them to see it and they supposedly have not seen it yet, you should know that they will still see it. It hasn't gone anywhere. Yeah, that's good to know. Also Joel, an 11 year UPS veteran, wrote that a lot of available jobs in his hometown of Reno, Nevada are in warehouses. We were talking about this citation in an article that there's a labor shortage in warehouses, even with robots. He says, yeah, I see robots in warehouses all the time, but they don't seem to replace jobs. He says, quote, while some jobs may be displaced by these in future robots, until the AI reaches a point where they can efficiently load and stack a trailer, drive a forklift, wrap pallets, fill a box and double check packing lists, there will be a need for humans in the warehouses. He thinks that the labor shortage may be caused because the jobs are, in his words, noisy, sometimes dirty and can be intense and turnover is extremely high. He also adds, until they return on investment and costs affecting this of replacing certain jobs with AI and robots, the constant growth will necessitate human labor for quite some time. Thank you, Joel, for sharing your insight with us. Thank you to Aaron Angel for the great emails and everybody else. And also thanks to Justin Robert Young. It's so nice to have you here on a Monday, twice in one week. This is great. Now I gotta look forward to the week of news as opposed to reviewing it, but everybody go ahead and check out my politics podcast, Politics, Politics, Politics. And I have a newsletter five days a week for free that gives you political insights every morning. It usually comes right around lunchtime on the East Coast, morning on the West Coast. You can get that at tinyletter.com slash Justin Robert Young. Again, tinyletter.com slash Justin Robert Young. For free! Folks, we dearly appreciate your support in whatever form it manifests. We have, at this point now, just a third of the way into the month, 10 fewer patrons than last month. And you know our goal is always to get at least one more patron than last month. So we just need 11 of you back in the pool to make up for the folks who are maybe having a little financial difficulty and had to tighten the belt a little bit. So you can do that just a dollar a month. That helps, patreon.com slash DTNS. And for those of you who want to help even more and wear it on your chest or hold it in your hand and drink delicious coffee from it, we got coffee mugs, hoodies, T-shirts, and more at dailytechnewshow.com slash store. Be among the elite by what now. And if you'd like to tell us about it, please do our email addresses feedback at dailytechnewshow.com. We are live Monday through Friday at 4.30 p.m. Eastern, 2030 UTC. Love to have everybody here with us live. Do it if you can. Find out more at dailytechnewshow.com slash live. Back tomorrow with Patrick Beja. Talk to you then. This show is part of the Frog Pants Network. Get more at frogpants.com. Club hopes you have enjoyed this program. Oh, my, my, my, my. Tight show. Tight show. Tight broadcast, everyone. Yeah. Good show, good show. Very good, very good. You guys met all the times. You ran along in some places, but short and others. All worked out. All worked out. Yeah. Hey, how about that? Beautiful job showing us yellow and red lights. Roger. Yellow, red, yellow, red. Well, what should we call it? Do you have a favorite title yet? Oh, I love this one, but I'm not sure how, if this should be a title, was Segway's away from Facebook. Yeah. That's a, I know what you mean. It's funny, but we didn't bring up Segway's. And if people don't already associate it. No, that was a Segway fan. Mr. Zuck goes to Washington. That's kind of the obvious one, right? How many other podcasts are going to be titled that though? Well, I mean, are you Megan and Jason, who always end up, we always end up titling things the same. Are you going to, are you going to get ahead of it though? Cause that might be the one tomorrow. Tomorrow. Okay. So you might be sharking them. Sure. I want to shark them. I want to jet them. Roger got crunchy crunch again. Crunchy crunch. Sacrifice a goat. Like there's a haunting in your connection. There is. That's a, that's a haunted connection. Should we go? Should we do Mr. Zuck goes to Washington? Mr. Zuck. All right. Okay. Help me. I'm just so tired. Yeah. This is, I call this. I'm not tired of Mark Zuckerberg, the man. No. I'm tired of him saying things like, this was all my fault and I'm very sorry. Also, I'm really sorry. Thank you. Also, I've changed things. Thank you. That helps no one. Am I still crunchy? Yeah, but it, you know, you're not actually. You know what it is. It's kind of like a Sbarro's in a mall after a while. You just don't want to see another one. I call it the Bosnia effect, which is much less nicer than a Sbarro effect. But when I was at NPR morning edition as an intern, I was shocked when one of the producers talked about like, oh, Bosnia again. And I was like, but this is an incredibly important story. And then I realized like, Oh right, but she has to deal with it every day 24 seven. Right? It's not that she doesn't think it's important. It was that it just, you just get tired of seeing the same things. It is why you wind up getting kind of gallows humor when you do in that kind of news, because once you just see this over and over and over again, it's hard to give it the proper context. Do you guys want? Sbarro is much nicer. You guys want the, the non tech angle hot take that I have. Oh yeah. What's the P three take? So let's not look at this. These, uh, uh, conversations as a dutiful public servants talking to a Titan of industry, but rather as has been tremendously rumor perspective primary candidates talking to another perspective. Even if he doesn't really, even if he's not serious, they see him that way. Well, they can make sure he's not serious. Yeah. It can make sure that he is saying things that would play poorly in a campaign ad that they might buy and run on Facebook. Uh, fully disclosed, fully disclosed. Uh, but I think look, there's a reason why people would be terrified of Mark Zuckerberg running for president and part of it is that even if he fully divests himself from the organization, he knows how to use that platform better than anybody else on the planet. And, you know, it's like, all right, well, let's say you're the best candidate or you're not. Now all of a sudden make you the best candidate who understands how television works, you know, back in the 50s and 60s. Radio works, you know, back before that, that is, that is a huge thing. And I think there is, I think this might get bloody for a couple reasons. Number one, it's really in news. And so everybody who's in Congress wants a grandstand so they can get their faces on the news, but also because again, this, we're not far away from, from the 20. The, well, I mean, forget whether Zuckerberg is even thought to be run a possible candidate. That's, that's already a factor, right? And then then add that back in. Yeah, it just multiplies things. Exactly. So that's, that's my, that's my non, that's my more Zuckerberg not kind of hot pig. I honestly, after reading a lot of the things he's written over the past month or so, I don't think his priority is running for a public office. I really don't. I think all the things we see, we have seen him do that look political are a hack where he said, I am now the CEO of a company that for good or ill, reigns over billions of people. And what a good leader does to understand what people want better is he goes out and he meets them. And so I'm going to use the political playbook to help me understand the audience and do a little PR with them and get them on my, you know, get them to like me more. I think that was what was in his head. I'm not saying there wasn't a little corner of his mind saying, and hey, if it goes well, who knows, it might leave some other opportunities for you, right? But I don't think that was his initial impulse. I think his impulse was, well, I need to be as popular as a popular elected official with the people who use Facebook. So let me do some of the things they do. You know, who knows how much you should pay attention to the Scuttlebutt, but some of the Scuttlebutt is that like, there are, there are machinations internally at Facebook that make him able to run for president without just giving up confidence, right? That he can run and drop out and then step back. Oh yeah. No, they, and those were explained again in one of those ways where it's like, that doesn't mean they didn't also do it so he could run for office. But it had to do with like lobbying the local city councils and things like that. So it covered running for office, but also participating in local politics, which Facebook absolutely has to do. With that, there is kind of Scuttlebutt around, you know, that, sure, there's always going to be really good reasons, but this is the real reason. I don't know if he does, if he wants to run now and I, I don't know what his political viability is now. You might wonder whether or not he would have been more aggressive about dealing with this stuff. If maybe there was part of, I would like to run calculus in his head, but look, whether or not he wants to, nobody else on that is going to be inside Mark Zuckerberg's head. And in politics, it is kill or be killed that if, you know, even if he is, if he is in any level of seriousness, in any plane of existence, ever thought about running for president, they are going to kneecap him because he is a very viable, he's a viable candidate if he runs. So what would, what would Zuckerberg being, being able to say, like, not pass that, but like be able to survive that? What would his survival look like after tomorrow? Like after he goes, what is it just like no one can get a beat on him other than like a couple of sound bites or like, because it seems like it's open season on him and it doesn't matter like he's already in everyone's. Oh yeah, he's going to get roasted. I mean, the big issue for him is going to be how do I remain a trustworthy figure, somebody that you believe can change things and how does Facebook remain a part of our humanity for, a part of our humanity's framework for good. And as people think about Facebook, they think about him. So any political viability going forward would be determined on how people think, okay, well, this doesn't really worry me all that much. Let's move on. I mean, don't you think it's perhaps like, you know, the horses left the barn on some of that already? No, I don't because I don't really think that a lot of the issues that we're talking about now people really care about. I think people really care about the 2016 election and they really care about Donald Trump and they really care about the fact that he's the president and I think that everything from this comes from there. So I don't think that people really care about how many people have their data, nor do I think that people really care about how malleable the public is via Facebook information. I think that they more care about their side winning. Actually, there's a principle that was played in the Snapchat story too, right? Which is that a small group of really hardcore high users of Snapchat didn't like not having chronological because they use it all the time. Whereas Snapchat benefited from using an algorithm because the more casual users need that algorithm so they don't miss things and they feel like they're getting a feed. So do you play to your heavy use really loud group or do you play to the broad base that's actually quiet and benefiting? It's the same thing here where there's a lot of people who are very loud and big users of social media who are saying how awful Facebook is but the majority of people don't really care and if they've heard of it they don't really understand or know why it's important. Guys, as much as I love talking about Facebook. Oh, and I know you do. I love it. I tried to bring in Snapchat. I tried to cut it for you. No, I actually find it all very interesting. No, of course. I wish that Facebook was not a daily story for us but it is. So it is. But no, I've got your friend and mine, Heather Frank coming over in just a few minutes and I have to get a couple things set up because we're going to do a podcast. If it doesn't suck then maybe we'll share it with some DTNS bosses and get a little interest going. Yeah, a little sample going. We don't really know what we're doing but we figure you've got to start somewhere. But I have to put together a couple of mics so if you don't mind I might bounce. All right. Well, I'm sorry we didn't get to talk about whether it is rude to eat popcorn when viewing the movie A Quiet Place. Oh, man. Number one. Well, please do talk about it. I will leave you with my opinion which is popcorn is why I go to movie theaters. Preach. So I'm eating my popcorn and popcorn is for shoveling. Some of it falls out of your mouth. Pick it up off your shirt. Shovel it back in. If it's loud. I'm sorry. You're going to get us all killed, Sarah. No. You know what? Hey, we're all dying anyway. They can get it. They had a problem. These popcorn Nazis. Whatever. It's funny because Tom wasn't the only what we were talking about seeing the movie over the weekend and how it was like so quiet. And I had a few other friends without me even asking them like was it like so quiet in there? They were like, it was just weird that I felt weird eating. Yeah. They made a big deal in a couple of stories about people on Twitter complaining about people eating. To me, it wasn't complaining. It was just like any noise you or anyone else made was 10 X. Right. You're like, are they going to get us? Oh, wait. It's only a movie. Well, I will be eating popcorn, but I also won't be seeing a quiet place because I don't like horror movies. So everybody wins. All right. Enjoy your quiet popcorn. Thank you very much. I will see you guys later. I would eat nachos and I would make sure that the nachos aren't soggy. So it has that extra crunch. Why would you do that? I kind of think that this is this is almost half marketing for stuff. No, you know, no, and I'm sure a quiet place doesn't mind it. Have you seen it yet? Either one of you? No. No, it is a weird effect because the movie is so quiet and because the movie builds up the idea that any amount of noise will cause creatures to come within seconds and just kill you. Yeah. That that you get, you get sensitized to it, right? And so some people, this is the Twitter application fact, right? Less than 1% of people actually were upset by someone making noise. They just thought it was funny and weird. But those few people who got actually upset went on Twitter and then you because Twitter is so vast, you can find six of them, right? That's a very small percentage of the populace, but you can find them and put them on a story and it makes a good clickbait story for every outlet out there. Auditory annoyances are also something that happens so often, but we don't talk a lot about how we kind of revealed how diverse people auditory preferences are. And it's not something that, it's not like there's a lot of services that cater to you hearing your world the way you want to, you know, like audio files have always kind of been there when it's coming to music, but in general, we've kind of gone the other way with we can sacrifice quality for speed and availability and stuff like that with the internet. And now we're in this place where now I think we're going the other way. Now we have the ability to have things sound better and be better and that's why you're getting this like this ASMR popularity and that's why I think for some people you're just now that we talk about everything, you're hearing things like, hey, in this really quiet movie a hole next to me was just munching on this popcorn as the a hole next to that dude popcorn because I'm eating it. I mean, I'm gonna eat my pop because it's mine. Alright, thanks everybody for listening, watching. Bye.