 probably audio listeners don't appreciate that. I'm sorry. Whistling into the mic. Whistling in the dark. Yeah, you know, with just a little, this actually is not a bad shot. Just needs a little love. Put a little love in your shot. Don't know who sings that. Put a little love in your heart. I can't remember now. Oh, that would be Dolly Parton. How did I not remember that? It's because I've heard so many covers of it. Yeah, I did not know that was the original. Yeah. 1993. Like Aretha Franklin or something? Like, there was definitely a radio. Jackie DeShanon. See, this goes back to the Google excerpts thing. The Google excerpt says Song by Dolly Parton. But no, that's not the put a little love in your heart that we're talking about. It's the 1969 Jackie DeShanon. That is not useful. Roger, are you taking us live? Yeah, I took us live two minutes ago. Oh, I didn't hear it. We're live. I said, I'm going live. He said, okay. Oh, we're live. I thought Sarah said, I'm going to I'll be right back. That's why I said, okay. Okay, that's fine. That's fine. I'm glad we're live. That also happened. I don't know. I can't remember one minute to the next anymore. It doesn't matter. We're old. Oh, you know what? I just want the early bird special. The potted meat. Potted meat. I mean, what that means. I've never had it served in the pot. Is it just a product is usually just means that it's a bunch of meat that was put into a little can. It's like tinned tinned meat, but not quite spam, which is so it's mushy easy to spread on a cracker. Like pate, at least if I'm thinking of the right thing. We have one minute. One minute warning. Ooh, I ate a leftover sandwich from my Super Bowl sandwich party. Yeah, yesterday. And I'm not sure it it made it through that. Not sure it aged well. Okay. I mean, it was in the fridge, but it's still. Yeah. Don't waste it. No, that's me. That's where I've fallen into trouble. I hate wasting food. So even if it's four days, like four day old Chinese food, Chinese food, I'll eat it. I know Eileen yells at me all the time about that. She doesn't. She's the opposite. Shouldn't eat leftovers at all. It's like when she eats a leftover, I'm shocked. I'm like, Oh my God, you're eating leftovers. The only thing I remember. All right. It's one 30. All right. All right. Here we go. Daily Tech News show is powered by you and you with a bunch of other people, but we definitely need you to find out more. Head to dailytechnewshow.com slash support. Do it now. This is the Daily Tech News for Monday, February 5th, 2018 from DTNS headquarters in Los Angeles. I'm Tom Merritt. And from Studio Feline 2.0. I'm Sarah Lane. 2.0, you say. It's in beta. It's in beta, but it's getting there. Moving things around. Looking good. Gonna push out an update soon. Yeah. Veronica Beaumont had to cancel at the last minute because she's at work and someone scheduled a meeting, to be honest. I mean, that's really what happened. So we'll get Veronica back next week. But our producer, Roger Chang, is here because I scheduled him to do this. Yes. I am always here. Yeah. Yes. I put it on his calendar. Let's start with a few tech things you should know. Opening statements in the trial between Uber and Waymo began today. Testimony in the trial is expected to last two weeks. Waymo accuses Uber of benefiting from autonomous car trade secrets taken by former employee Anthony Lewandowski. Waymo lawyer Charles Beerhovens said we're bringing the case because Uber is our technology to win this race at all costs. Uber is cheating, he said. Oh my gosh. Samsung electronics chairman J.Y. Lee has been released from prison after an appeal. Lee was sentenced to five years for perjury, embezzlement, and bribery. It was all part of the whole scandal around the president in South Korea last year. Lee's prison term was reduced to two and a half years, and he was given four years probation as well as a suspended sentence. Chip company Ampere, run by former Intel president Renee James, is out of stealth mode and introduced its first chip. It's a custom core ARM 8A 64-bit server operating at up to 3.3 gigahertz with a one terabyte of memory and a power envelope of 125 watts. No pricing info yet, but Ampere says its chip will offer unsurpassed price and performance exceeding all high performance competition. Yeah, more ARM stuff and a former Intel person getting into the game to boot. Interesting. Now, here are some more top stories. Broadcom has increased the amount of stock it will offer per share of Qualcomm and kept the cash offer exactly the same as last time and what it calls its best and final offer. Now, we all know. Yeah, I know, right? Qualcomm is like, we don't want to buy the car. We were just cutting through the parking lot on our way to the liquor store and Broadcom's like, no, come on, come on. And it's not even like buying a car. They're trying to buy Qualcomm, which starts to get the metaphor really weird. But Qualcomm rejected the previous bid, suffice to say, it doesn't really want to sell. But Broadcom made a compelling offer and now the board has a fiduciary duty to consider this new offer and it's a pretty sweet one. If Qualcomm were to accept the offer, though, it could cause problems for Broadcom's pending acquisition of NXP because the NXP shareholders are now saying you undervalued NXP. If you're going to offer Qualcomm all that, you should offer it us more too. You know, these stories are always funny to me because on the surface, you're like, if a company doesn't want to get sold to another company, don't they just say no? You know, if they've got a good enough reason, but it's all about the board and also you've got, you know, if somebody has a certain amount of shares, you have to listen to them. So it's like this hostile takeover stuff where the company is like, no, no, no, you've undervalued us. We won't do it, but we might. Yeah. Well, because they want to avoid a minority shareholder lawsuit is one of the things. It's not the only thing, but it's one of the things to give you an example. So if Qualcomm just said, we don't care how good the offer is, we're turning it down, a bunch of Qualcomm shareholders may be like, hey, we could have gotten really rich if you'd accepted that offer. You have a duty to make us rich. So we're suing you now. So they have to have a reason why they're going to decline it that would hold up to scrutiny. And this offer is a pretty sweet one. So it'll be interesting to see if they're able to hold the line. What's your take on how this will shake out your guess? Say that again. You broke up a little bit there. Oh, sorry. What's your take on how this will shake out if you had to guess? I feel like Qualcomm is likely to turn it down. I feel like if Qualcomm has any way they can turn it down, they will. They don't want to be part of Broadcom. Broadcom made a compelling offer though, so I won't be shocked if Qualcomm accepts it. I will be surprised though. I expect this to be turned down again. Intel showed off its new AR glasses to the Verges Dieter Bonn. They actually put together a really nice video. The glasses called Vaunt look just like normal eyeglasses for the most part. The electronics inside are contained into two modules built into the stems of the glasses displaying information in your peripheral vision using Bluetooth to connect to a phone. Vaunt works by reflecting the image from a low powered laser off the lens and onto your red where it interacts with voice or gestures. Yeah, so this is kind of a different take. It's different than what Magically wants to do in its technology. It's a little more limited. Its effect is more similar to what Google Glass does, but with a different way of presenting it so that it looks good not just on the shop floor. It looks good everywhere. You just look like you're wearing a pair of glasses. They even made sure that the components that they have in the stems are towards the front so that you still get a flexible stem when you're putting it around your head and it feels normal. Dieter Bonn from the Verge who wrote this article seemed impressed by them. I guess you got to look at him back in December. There was a lot of emphasis in the review on these glasses don't look weird. They look normal. You don't feel like they're too invasive for you. Other people don't think like you're secretly recording them because it's like they're way more simple than some of the offerings beforehand. That might be what makes the next glasses stick is not doing too much, not being too invasive and not walking around with a billboard saying I'm wearing smart glasses. Yeah, and they don't have buttons. I think that was one of the keys. Yeah, you either they said they're working on head tilt gestures which I think is interesting. So I could imagine a bunch of people walking down the road and they just got regular looking glasses off. Yeah, they're all like no skip. But they also voice activated. So it's kind of like wearing a Google Home on your face, right? You just talk to it and it will do whatever you need it to do. And there's even they were talking about context sensitive appearances like you could set it where if you're out and about and you look at a restaurant automatically information about that restaurant would show up if you look at a theater automatically movie times show up so that you don't have to do anything. It's just kind of aware of what kind of information you need and it pops it up. And I guess as I understand it the way that it's it has to read your retina in a certain way. So you have to look at a certain angle for anything to show up anyway. So if you wanted to just wear these as sunglasses or eyeglasses that's also an option too. So it's not just like this crazy thing you're wearing all the time. Yeah, let's talk a little bit about reading your retina because it's not scanning you. And that's another point that he made in this article is that it's a very low power laser. So yes, laser shooting in your eye doesn't sound good unless you've paid for Lasik. But this is the kind of laser that they can't do much of anything. And it's being reflected. So it's it's bouncing off of the glass into your eye, which is why it's able to do what Sarah is talking about where it can go away and not get in the way of your vision. And again, we get only Dieter Bohn's word to take on this article, but he said it did work really well, except that sometimes I thought I should look down to see the information and it would go away because it was trying to get out of his way. Yeah, this is the sort of thing it's like without trying it myself, you know, I can't be like, this is a great idea or this is a terrible idea. You know, I thought Google Glass was really cool. I didn't have a pair. I thought that they looked kind of silly. But you know, there was some magic to be, you know, once you wear them, you're like, oh, okay, I could see where this would work. So, you know, maybe less is more sort of in the sense of like tech, tech clothing, right? You don't want it to be too different than like what your fashion and your sort of everyday thing already is. And this is the logical step, right? So, it looks normal. That's a big deal. And even if it can't do as much, you'll start using it. And that's actually what you need for products to evolve is a user base. So, if you can get a user base and people are like, yeah, okay, it's kind of silly, but it's cool. That was the smartphone at the beginning that were tablets at the beginning. They were kind of cool. They didn't do everything you wanted. And as more and more people use them, they develop them to be capable of doing more and more. And when you're wearing something, there's probably such a thing as just too much, right? Something like contextual Yelp reviews. When I'm looking at a restaurant is like, yeah, I would want that, you know, because I'm going to be looking it up anyway. But, yeah, like touching your glasses to take photos, you know, going about your day, it's like cool, but most people probably won't use that. And so, it seems weird. I want it customizable. I want to have the reviews or not depending on my preference. I want it customizable where I can have four square reviews instead of Yelp reviews, right? That's all down the line. I think these are really interesting. And as we mentioned previously on the show, Intel looking for investors that can help them get these out into the sales channel. Intel wants to make money off this. They want to sell the hardware parts, but they're not a go-to-market company. They even say that in this article, they want someone to help them with that part of this. Apple and Cisco are partnering with Alliance to offer cyber insurance to companies that use Cisco ransomware defense and certain Apple devices. So, Apple and Cisco, if you remember, partner up on engineering. Apple has been doing a lot to make their way into the enterprise more and more. And this is a very compelling way to do that as well, to say, if you use our Macs, iPads, et cetera, and Cisco's ransomware defense on those Macs, iPads, et cetera, we'll give you a really good deal on cyber insurance. You might get a low deductible. You might get no deductible. And they're offering support in case of an attack. And I think for some businesses that aren't as conversant with this sort of thing, but worried about things like ransomware, think in hospitals, right? That's a big enterprise, but they aren't a tech-focused enterprise. They use tech and they need help with that. This kind of insurance might be pretty compelling. Aeon is going to provide security evaluation and support as well. So, this will be Alliance offering the insurance, Apple and Cisco backing it if you use their stuff, and then Aeon's sort of the front facing that comes in and implements it. I mean, if this is like an add-on service, for example, because it's tax season, it's like TurboTax, we'll do that, right? Well, dear taxes, but then if you want to pay for like auditing insurance, like that's also bundled in, like you're probably fine. We want to make sure that you don't get in trouble. But if you do, it's sort of like an added, you can sleep at night knowing that you're covered by us. Are there any other companies that are doing this in a comparable way to selling to enterprises specifically? Well, I don't know. Yes, this is a big new area is selling cybersecurity insurance. A lot of people think there's going to be a booming market. What I found interesting on the consumer side is if you recall last April, there was a company and I think it was, what was it? International, I can't find the name now. It was international insurance companies started offering cybersecurity insurance to consumers so that you personally could get a little bit of protection. So yes, I mean, it shouldn't be surprising, right? As there are attacks more and more often, it makes sense that you will in fact see insurance companies come in and say, hey, there's a significant amount of damage being done in an area. Our job is to help people secure themselves and feel comfortable that they will be okay if they get attacked. So we should provide insurance in that area and that seems to be what they're doing here. It's almost like our subscription discussion from last week where it's like, well, one time, security software and option, maybe the subscription model, you pay a little bit and just make sure you're always going to be okay and you're going to have the latest tools to defend yourself from stuff like this is it's advantageous. Yeah, it's AIG. That was the company, I just found it, that last April announced they would offer products that offer consumers safeguards against hackers and cyber criminals who might steal personal data called family cyber edge, includes public relations and legal services, as well as at-home assessment of family electronic devices. I love the public relation. It's like, buy our product, you won't get hacked, but if you do, AIG is just... AIG is just offering consumers insurance. They're not providing cybersecurity. They're just saying, we'll help evaluate you just like any insurance company wants to keep you healthy and keep you safe so we don't have to pay out, but we're not providing a product. Whereas Apple and Cisco are like, we're going to give you the products that we say are super safe. And then the way they would say it is, and we're so sure of it that we're going to provide you insurance as long as you pay a little bit of money to help protect you in the case of the unthinkable. It's like a money-back guarantee, but you're paying. You're paying. Pixel Visual Core, Google's first custom imaging chip that shows pictures in HDR quality, has been enabled for more than just the camera app and will now be available on third-party apps, starting with WhatsApp, Instagram, and Snapchat. And then photo apps, as you might assume, would be... There are a lot of them that would be able to take advantage. The update will switch on Pixel Visual Core and is rolling out over the next few days. Yeah. What's up, Instagram? I'm sure there's a belief to a bunch of people who are like, this is so cool. Why don't you enable it? What's up? Instagram and Snapchat got early access to it. That's why they're the launch partners. But yeah, now any developer can take advantage of it. And it was only available in the camera app. You could use it. It was there, but it was the weirdest thing. They didn't announce this as part of the Pixel announcement. They announced it a couple weeks after they announced the Pixel. Then they only put it in the camera app. And then they announced that it would be available for third-party devs and put it into beta, but only limited partners. Now it's finally all out there. And it's a pretty cool thing because it saves you battery life. Yeah. I mean, I'm not sure what the reasoning was behind. I mean, I guess it just wasn't ready, so they didn't want to come out all splashy until people were already like, oh, the Pixel 2 is a cool phone anyway. Oh, and then there's this other thing that's going to be enabled eventually. But yeah, I mean, anything that gives me the experience of all the cool things about a camera app and a third-party app is just better. This would not explain leaving it out of the launch, but one could make an argument that Google wanted you to use the Google Photos app and use the Google Android camera. And so they limited who else could use it so that your best pictures that were the easiest on your battery came from within Android. I always look at those things and think it's usually a side effect that they don't mind, not a strategy. And I don't think their strategy would have been to leave people out of the camera or leave people out of this if there wasn't another engineering reason, like you said. Yeah, it probably just wasn't ready for prime time. But yeah, hey, Pixel 2, send us your photos. The Wall Street Journal noted that Apple is reporting a faster music subscriber growth rate in the US than Spotify, at least according to the information Wall Street Journal is able to glean. If the current rates continue, Apple Music will pass Spotify in the US sometime this summer. So I can't decide, Sarah, should I be shocked because, hey, Apple builds Apple Music into every iPhone or not? Yeah, I mean, I think the whole sort of like, people are using the app that's easiest for the Apple ecosystem, myself included, is like, okay, that makes sense. Spotify has also has huge international numbers. It was also here before Apple Music and is also not a US company. So there are a lot of reasons I'm like, oh, okay, it would make sense that Apple Music is gaining ground. Spotify still has more US subscribers than Apple Music. The fact that Apple Music is catching up is not like, if it was like overall worldwide numbers, I'd be like, interesting. But this just seems like a market where maybe Spotify is they've never really been, I don't know, that focused on the US market? I mean, there was a big deal when they finally arrived here. I remember years before they came. But when I think it's easy to misinterpret what you just said, even though what you just said, I think is absolutely right. They're not focused. It's not that they don't care about the US market. They care deeply about the US market. It's a huge music market, but it's not their only market. Right. And it wasn't their first either. It was an important market. I think, yeah, I mean, if the trend continues, and Apple Music gets bigger than Spotify as far as US numbers go, and it might be as soon as the summer, that's significant, right? Because then you have to be like, all right, well, these markets are, if you're really losing ground in a certain market, you have to pay attention to that. But Spotify's numbers are so much bigger than Apple Music's numbers right now. Overall. Overall. Yeah. And this is the unthinkable, right? I think a lot of people saw Apple Music come into this market and said, ah, that's interesting. They'll never be able to catch Spotify. There's so many other Google Play music or YouTube music or Deezer or Amazon or Amazon, you know, the list goes on and on and on. How can they ever distinguish themselves? And so now at the point, we got to the point where is it because they're built into the iPhone or, you know, is it beyond that? I mean, you can get Apple Music on Windows. You can get it on Android. Yeah. I mean, I think that the fact that Apple Music is like an app that's just sort of bundled into, you know, iOS, at least for me and certainly on iTunes is like so much it being Apple's proprietary option has that much to do with it? I wonder how many people are dual subscribers where they're like, I have Spotify because I love Spotify, but Apple Music is in something that I use. Maybe it's my watch, maybe it's a HomePod, maybe it's something else. And I feel like I kind of have to subscribe to it too, to get the best use of my device. I can't imagine how many people would be paying like $8 for both when they're really the same service. Yeah, there's like a exclusive album that might drop on one or the other and like you get it for a week. But I don't know anybody who's like, I want the same experience and pay double. Well, it's a different experience. That's my point, though, is like, oh, I've got Spotify, but I can't put my Spotify music in this part of iOS and this little Apple feature. Yeah. No, I mean, true. I would think for the most part someone would be like, well, I'll just choose the one that's best for me, not both. Folks, if you want to get all the tech headlines each day in about five minutes, be sure to subscribe to Daily Tech Headlines at DailyTechHeadlines.com. You can also get it on the Amazon Echo, the Google Home, and in the Anchor app. And let's look at our top stories. We got one other story we want to talk about, though. Former employees of Facebook and Google, as well as a few other companies, are creating the Center for Humane Technology. So these are folks that were early employees at Silicon Valley startups that are no longer at those startups and feel like what these companies do that they helped build is dangerous. They're focusing a lot on kids, but they're really talking about everyone. Tristan Harris, former Google ethicist, heads the group. They're doing anti-tech addiction lobbying, an ad campaign called The Truth About Tech that they want to run in 55,000 public schools in the US in cooperation with Common Sense Media. They're modeling it on anti-smoke campaigns, anti-smoking campaigns. Dangers highlighted include depression from heavy social media use. They also plan what they call a ledger of harms, which is to provide data on the health effects of different technologies and ways to make products healthier. They're focusing on four levels. They want to inspire more humane design. Instead of designing products to trick you into clicking so that you can monetize it, they want to encourage design that keeps people mentally healthy. They want to apply political pressure to do this. They want to create a cultural awakening a la the anti-smoking campaign. They want to engage employees at companies to say, hey, you should be pressuring your bosses to do what's right. What do you think of this, Sarah? Well, I was thinking about this earlier. It's very hard to compare something like internet usage and possible abuse or harmful usage with something like smoking. Everyone knows smoking is bad. Spread the word is bad. Then you have something that's alcohol or gambling where it's generally accepted, but we as a society have decided that if you're under 21, you have no business doing it because you won't be able to make good decisions. Even afterwards, there are behavioral triggers that would be cause for concern. What are the qualifiers for social media usage? It can't just really be time spent on a computer because that's not necessarily detrimental. It's more of what are you doing? What are the behaviors that you're doing over and over? Is it obsessive? Is it wasteful? It would be very hard for me to know how to argue what's good and bad because everybody's different. I think there's something that could be very good here or this could be a bunch of millionaires and billionaires because they cashed out early trying to busy themselves. I actually don't think it's that second, but it could inadvertently become that. My biggest problem, and you sort of touched on it just now with this website, is that it really doesn't have any stats. It doesn't cite any research. Actually, it has plenty of stats. YouTube automates millions of videos and this and that. The Center for Humane Technology, you can go to the website. It's at humanetech.com. It doesn't cite any studies. This is my biggest problem with these kinds of setups. I've talked about this with fake news, which is that it's not a problem. I absolutely believe, just given my anecdotal observations of friends and family and some of the psychological research out there, that this is a problem. What I see in humanetech.com, though, is the danger of going down the route of, we know it's a problem, so let's fight it, which ends up sometimes causing more harm than good if you don't determine what the actual problem is. So if you go to humanetech.com, they have a lot of stats about how many videos are out there, how many times people check social media a day. There's a lot of implicit and we all know that's bad, but there's not a lot of evidence of it's bad because of this. Maybe checking social media 105 times a day isn't bad if you're only checking certain types, and that's what we need to know because if you want to have this humane design, then you want to encourage people to design to push you to check that way, not the way that makes you feel bad because you're feeling like your life isn't as good as someone else's. And it's sort of like saying like, go outside and throw the ball around, get off the computer. It's like, well, that's not the answer for every kid. Everybody's different if we're talking about kids especially. What if you have a Twitter feed that's all like this day in history information, you're actually learning something. It's being on social media is not itself an issue. Like the company is saying, we're providing access to a lot of stuff that's going to fry your brain and now we're concerned. But yeah, what's the first step? Yeah. And I have hope that they'll go to the first step correctly, that this is so early and that's why they don't have a lot of research up yet because they did talk about this ledger of harms where they would cite research. They're supporting a bill from Senator Edward J. Markey that would commission research on technology's impact on children's health. I think if properly designed, that's excellent. That's exactly what you should do. Find out what the problem is. There's a bill in the California State Senate which would prohibit the use of digital bots without identification. I'm not sure that that seems like fixing a loose screw with a hammer possibly, but the upshot of this is when you know that eating bad will make you gain weight and make you unhealthy, telling you to ban food is not the answer. And fad diets are not the answer because they'll end up not really working and you'll just go back to eating all the bad food again. You need to figure out, okay, what's the balance of good food and my own psychological makeup that will help me eat better? And nutritionists haven't even figured that out yet. This is so brand new in technology that there's a lot of work to be done to find out, okay, what about social media use causes the depression? And what about it doesn't? And what can we do so that that impulse to check does not override the knowledge that it's bad? Just telling somebody something's bad is not going to make them stop doing it. Well, and it won't be bad in the same way for everybody, right? Like there are people who are predisposed to certain emotions or certain, you know, moods or whatever, that's not going to be just like a blanket thing for everyone. Being on the internet a lot is like not necessarily going to make you depressed. But again, there's like, there needs to be identified triggers like, yeah, this is a thing that happens to people and it's happening to you and it's bad. Yeah, if you use the internet, you're going to be stupid, you know, or depressed. It has to be, it's more nuanced. Yeah. And, and, and I think we all, I think raising the awareness of it is actually a big step. And maybe that's, that's their point right now is let's just people thinking about it so that when they pick up their phone, they think, well, wait a minute, why am I doing it right now? Do I really need to see something? Or is this going to drive me crazy? And, and having awareness about the actions you take sometimes is more than 50% of the battle in stopping it from being harmful for you. Yeah. Hey, thanks to everybody who participates in our subreddit. You can submit stories and vote on them at dailytechnewshow.reddit.com and facebook.com slash groups slash daily tech news show. Let's check in with Nate Langston from the UK's tech message podcast to find out what animals he's covering. I said animals. Thanks guys. This week we discussed facial recognition for cows. Yes, cows as in Moo. That's because an Irish company which developed a way to recognize and identify cows based on appearance in order to track things like food intake and behavior has taken investment from one of the US's biggest meat processes. And so the tech design for cows may begin to work for pigs, chickens and more. Learn more on this week's text message at techpodcast.uk. Facial recognition for cows. Love it. That's amazing. Too bad that it's Cargill. Not the author of Doctor Strange, but the meat processor that wants to do it. All right, let's check the mailbags here. Got an email from Frederick, the eBay engineer, as he describes himself, says, one point you didn't bring up regarding eBay's move to AdYen for processing payments is the fact that AdYen, from looking at their website anyway, prides themselves on being able to integrate with the most popular local payment methods worldwide like AllPay and WeChat Pay in China and pay by links in Poland to pick just two countries that they list on their site. These sorts of integrations might be more difficult with PayPal. Just Google PayPal. Can PayPal accept WeChat Pay? And you'll see what I mean. Having better local payment options would make it easier for eBay to enter these markets by making it easier for customers there to make purchases. Thank you, Frederick. That's good info. Appreciate it. Thanks, Frederick. Yeah, it makes perfect sense. And thank you, everyone, who supports this show. It's the beginning of the month where there's always a drop-off as patrons' algorithms kind of try to estimate who's credit card got declined and who's didn't and all of that sort of thing. So don't panic if you look at our page, but do keep your pledges up and do help us try to make our way towards a couple of goals. One is always having at least one more patron than the previous month, which last month we did times 29, which is amazing, but also to get us to the next goal. We don't want to just get this number back up to where it should be to have Sarah on the show and Sarah's not going away. It's fine. We want to get it 2,000 more so we can do the roundtable show more than once a month. Those roundtable shows are more substantive. You get more ideas. You get more understanding out of them. So if you are at all able to support us and you haven't already, check it out at patreon.com. slash dtns. Love your support. We also love your feedback. Our email address is feedback at dailytechnewshow.com. We are live Monday through Friday at 4 30 p.m. Eastern 2130 UTC at both alphagicradio.com and diamondclub.tv. And our website is dailytechnewshow.com. Back tomorrow with Brett Roundseville, aka Amtrucker. Talk to you then. This show is part of the Frog Pants Network. Get more at frogpants.com. I'm in the club. I hope you have enjoyed this program. Well, I missed Veronica, but that was a pretty good show. I thought so. I know. I'm always like, eh, you know, it's just me and Tom and Roger, of course, although Roger didn't see anything on this show. But yeah, it's good. I didn't see anything because I, like, noticed on a couple of them, I was like, oh, it's running along. If I say something, I'll make it longer. So I was like, ah, I bet it's. Well, because I'm always worried that it's like, it's not that we don't have stuff to say, but I'm like, is it going to be just a short show? But I was wondering if this one would be like 27 instead of 32, but it ended up being 32. So you, it's kind of funny because you guys are actually running long. You made it out right at the end. I think it's because we both were in that mindset. So we kind of just. Right. Yeah. Like, and one more thing. And then, you know, was that right? You're red tab, Roger. You know, everything about social media I remember from TV. TV will rot your brain. You're going to go blind. And that was another thing I was thinking about because I was trying to make comparisons, right? To talk about during our discussion. It's like, yeah. I mean, there was a time where it was like, if you watch too much TV, you're, you know, wasting away. Well, okay. So they, they actually touch on this on their site. Uh, they say, well, isn't this the same as everything else? And they say there are differences. It's social media is artificially intelligent. It's 24 seven. No other media redefined the terms of our social lives and self-esteem and it's personalized. Right. Yeah. Like I was like, where TV has been. TV covers two of those. It did define who you were based on the channels you were watching. Not the same though. Not at all the same. Well, the whole, you know, the TV thing was like, if you watch too much, that's too much passive activity, right? You're not engaging with the world enough. And like the internet doesn't really have that problem. Sure, you could watch like videos and that's technically passive, but it's more like you're being very interactive, but is it in a healthy interactivity? One of the things they mentioned on the site is that you'll be on YouTube and it'll autoplay the next video and you'll end up staying up too late because you can't stop. Well, you could see the same thing about a TV channel. It has all of the problems. They're saying, look, this is at a scale that we've never seen before. I think it is more personalized than television ever was. I think there is more social good. I think it is different, but you could say that every time. TV was worse than radio because it was different than radio because it had pictures. Well, I remember when the printing press came around and people were complaining that books and especially those pamphlet things were just going to be the end of society. Exactly. So you have to take that into account that everyone thinks that the next media revolution is different, that this time it's different. So I a little warning bell went off when I saw that part of their site, but also when you are an addict, you tend to defend your addiction and say, oh, everybody wants to pick on my favorite thing. You know, this is the thing, though. In many ways, I agree with them, but what I think they should be targeting is more of a critical media, kind of like how to basically parse the media in a more... That's a particular slice of it, but I think the biggest thing that they should target is overuse. I think there is overuse. I mean, you just see it. People walking down the street looking at their phone, running into stuff. I have friends and family who I'm trying to have a conversation with and they can't stop, right? And definitely there are studies that show it definitely causes an uptick and depression. That's early study stuff, though. So what we need to do is what Sarah and I were talking about, which is, okay, why is that? What is causing the depression? Because the other side is take away the phones. That's not the answer. It's figure out what actually what behaviors and what products and their interactions are causing the negative things and work against those while leaving more room for the positive things that we know social media can do. Social media can do a lot of positive things. We need to leave that in there, too. You mentioned being on the phone and people who can't stop. It's like, there have definitely been... Stop it. As if on cue. That was by mistake, but it was. But there have definitely been times where I'm sitting across from somebody at dinner, right? And it's like, depending on who that person is, we're either both looking at our phones. We're talking to each other, not looking at our phones because we have a connection that doesn't require that. But I've definitely had friends be like, Sarah, you're totally ignoring me and looking at your phone, it's making me uncomfortable. But depending on who the person is, sometimes I'm like, I'm a tech reporter. Give me a break. But it's like, okay, maybe I'm fine, but I'm negatively affecting somebody because my behavior is making them uncomfortable. It's like, that's something to take into consideration, even if no one's wrong. That's not a friendship destroyer necessarily, but it's not good. Well, some of this is creating the norms, right? And I love the dinner example is perfect because I feel like Eileen and I have a norm now, which is we sit down, we look at the menu. Once we've kind of said, what are you going to get? Okay, I think we're going to get this. There's a accepted period where we'll both look at our phones and just be like, oh, you know, let me just kill in some time, waiter comes back, we give our orders, takes the menus, and then we talk. Like it's just a pattern we have. And neither one of us feel like we're being ignored. And then there's a certain point after dessert, there's kind of like the after dinner checking, like, okay, now it's time, you can time to check your phone again. But we haven't, you know, that's just between the two of us. That's not a norm that necessarily works for everybody. So I think society has to come up with what are the accepted norms around this sort of thing. What if you just want to ignore someone and you look at your phone? Well, that's not part of the solution or the problem. That's just you using technology to ignore someone. I don't think that fits into the discussion. You know, people have all sorts of, I do think that like, if I could think of any time where I'm like, you know, I almost wish I didn't have my iPhone right now because it's a crutch is like, let's say you go to a party and you don't know everybody and you're kind of like, maybe a little social anxiety, it's like, those are the times where sometimes I'm like, bury yourself in your phone, which is not going to help me have fun at the party and not going to make me like, seem cool to anybody else at the party. Stop this. And, you know, those are the times where I'm like, you know what, this is something that like, I've recognized that I sometimes want to do just like that's my gut, you know, my gut move, but it's not really the right decision for me. I have close people in my life that look at their phones while they're watching television to the point that they will play videos while we're watching a show. And I have to say, please stop playing a video while we're watching another video because I can't hear the video that I'm watching while you're watching another video. I feel like that's like, come on, put it down. You're either watching this or you're, it's one thing to look up somebody on IMDB, right? Or look at Twitter if you're watching a live event like the Super Bowl. It's another thing to just be like surfing around, look at other things. That's just weird to be. Yeah. I was, when we were watching, when some of us were watching the Super Bowl last night, you know, it's like the, you know, live events are like, that's where Twitter really shines, at least for me. And, you know, I was all excited, you know, and I was like, you know, refresh, refresh, refresh, or if anything happens, you know, because I'm like, what's everyone else saying? I have to know, or I'm not having as much fun as I could be having, and even though there was a time where you just watched football and liked the commercials. I spent the Super Bowl text messaging with my mom, my brother, and my sister, my mom and sister in Southern Illinois, my brothers up in Wisconsin. It was so much fun. I didn't end up going on Twitter much because what I usually get from Twitter, I was getting from my family. So it was the most interesting situation of like, I watched the Super Bowl with my family basically over text message. And we were all just joking about stuff. And remember, and our dad, and he was a huge football fan and you know, things he would do on Sunday and during the Super Bowl, it was fantastic. And it's like that, that's what I want. That's why I want there to be good research, because that was a positive. That didn't make me feel sad. That made us all feel better and it brought us closer and we talked about, oh, we need to get together in person soon, right? So you don't want to lose that. And that was me using my device. That was me using my technology. You want to figure out like, okay, what are the bad behaviors so that we can guide people and say, if you find yourself doing this, that's going to lead you to feel worse about yourself, you know, try not to do that. And then you can ask companies like, hey, maybe design things so that doesn't encourage that. I just don't know how a lot of these, you know, it's like the New York Times article on this discussion, you know, mentioned something like, you know, Facebook's like, you know, now it's this ubiquitous way to, you know, give somebody a little, you know, just a little boost. I liked that. It's like, okay, well, is that too much? You know, does that kind of like throw us out of whack somehow? Facebook is not going to be like, you know what, we care about the kids, no more likes. So, well, it's like, how do you walk it back when we're so used to the way things work? But this is why you need to research it to be like, okay, liking things doesn't ruin people's lives. But this usage of liking or this implementation leads to it being bad. Could you please implement it this way? And if they're like, well, no, that'll hurt our money. Then you can start raising awareness of like, hey, this is a dangerous thing. If you're like, oh, you know turns out liking things isn't the problem. It's it's it's sharing things, right? That's why you do the research to find out, is it the liking or is it some other ancillary thing? Let's actually figure out the problem. All right, let's also figure out a title. Oh, I picked tech creators remorse because we were talking so much already uploading it. I liked bio cows tech yourself and you may wreck yourself or you may wreck yourself. Oh, tech yourself and is it and yeah, it's and take yourself and you may wreck. I get it. Okay. Any others that caught your eye? Fighting technology, but that was because I wrote it. And then I mean, W's put it in the suggestion by wrote for the YouTube feed. Glasshole part due due for the font and this one. Apple Cisco Alliance. Get it? Alliance because it's Alliance. That it? Yeah, that's what I picked. Those are the four. All right. Well, tech creators remorse is the one you picked is the one that's going up. I wonder if they're so remorseful they would give the money back, not to the company, but to other people who are afflicted by their terrible, terrible stir. I mean, you're joking, but these folks are putting their own money into this foundation. So the answer is kind of yes. But won't you be poor? No, I still have lots of stuff. Just use this money to, you know, go on vacations, but they're creating this foundation instead. So you're going to pick on somebody for that. I don't think these people are the best example of it. Take your vacations. This foundation is on the cruise ship. It's not though. Remember, we're talking about a real story here and people may not realize you're joking. I was being just full. Just full. Just full. Biocast said that my title picking was a dictator move or was it a veto? I like to think of it as a benevolent despotism. Well, it wasn't a veto because you were, you just, you know, yes, of course it's benevolent. What are you talking about? I wish only the best for all. Peace and prosperity. Give me my milkshake. What? Dow Jones suffered the biggest single day point drop in history. Is it back though? Did it bounce back yet? I heard it was just an early dip. Uh, yeah, I don't, well, it has bounced back some, but still a record, I guess. CNBC article I read said, uh, this is not a serious problem, but it is a psychological problem. What? The Dow losing points? The dip itself is not an indication of any, like, weakness in the economy, but the fact that there was a dip could make people think that it's worse than it is. Well, I mean, that's, you know, finance. I know, right? That's the whole reason that, you know, people try to like, you know, figure it out knowing that there are psychological reasons that people buy and sell things. Well, you know, the economy is based a lot on psychology, mostly in psychology. Everything is based on psychology because we're humans. For the water cycle. That's not based on psychology. Our perception of it is, or maybe how much we drink water is based on psychology. Maybe we drink more water than we're supposed to. I was for a while and I was going to the bathroom every hour. That's the things like, I know that supposedly, you know, if you start drinking a bunch of water and you're like, bathroom breaks though, it's kind of, you know, invasive, like you get used to it and it doesn't happen as often, but I've never found that to be true. Well, the whole like, there was that thing going around for years in debate class. You should drink eight gallons of water today or whatever it was. But that's apparently like, people are like, at best it's an oversimplification. It's probably not even true. Because it wasn't counting the fact that you get water in everything you eat practically. Well, one of the things I found out was, because my wife was on medication and her drinking so much water actually had a negative effect because it was diluting just flushing it out of her system. There you go. Yeah, you might want to cut back on the water. But she's like, I had to cut back on the soda and the caffeine, so I just switched to water. This is like, you can't win. Yeah, I think I was drinking not, you know, not so much water that was adverse, but I think I realized that I always had a glass of water next to me when I'm working. And I was like drinking a couple of pints of water in the middle of the day. I'm like, go to the bathroom. I'm like, I don't think I need that much water then. Like, I should probably cut back. Yeah, for a while. And see, and I find, you know, I don't dislike drinking water, but it's boring, you know? So I drink kombucha because it doesn't have a lot of sugar, but it tastes like something. But I drink it because I'm like trying to hydrate myself. I've got all the same one, and I switched over to LaCroix. The carbonated. Yeah, I think this says a lot about our personalities that I just drink water. Well, I like bubbly things because I have a bubbly personality, Tom. I generally drink water. I drink coffee in the morning. I drink water through most of the day, and then whiskey in the evening, or perhaps wine. Yeah, I mean, yeah, there are times where if someone comes over, I'm like, if it's the morning, I'm like, want some coffee? Got that. Always have that. Do you want water? And that's it. I drink juice in the morning. Here at my household because I just don't drink juice. And I don't, you know, kombucha is like that. So I drink a lot of juice. I drink a lot of juice in the morning. And then I drink a lot of water during the day, and then I drink my tears at night. That's why you're so youthful. All right, I forgot that I put that in my Scotch. Some of Roger's tears. All right, any last words to our amazing audience before I stop the stream? Thanks everybody for watching. Happy Monday, and have a wonderful week. See you tomorrow. See you tomorrow. Bye.