 This 10th year of Daily Tech News show is made possible by its listeners, thanks to all of you, including Dustin Campbell, Tim Deputy, Brandon Brooks, and brand new patrons Hector and Jacob. On this episode of DTNS, Mike Johnson, CISO at Rivian explains the difference between secure by default and secure by design, plus Apple pays for a study to promote end-to-end encryption and hashtags come to threads. This is the Daily Tech News for Friday, December 8th, 2023 in Los Angeles. I'm Tom Merritt. And from Studio Secret Bunker for One More Week, I'm Sarah Lane. Drawing the top tech stories. From Cleveland, I'm Len Peralta. And on the show's producer, Roger Chang. Joining us, the CISO of Rivian and host on the CISO series podcast, Mike Johnson, welcome back. Thank you, Tom. Glad to be here. Good to have you, man. We have got a packed show, so let's get right into it with the quick hits. The UK's Competition and Markets Authority has started asking interested parties if they think Microsoft's investment in open AI is essentially the same as a merger. In other words, does Microsoft have de facto control of open AI? Once the CMA receives comments, it will decide whether to open an investigation. The USFTC is also making preliminary inquiries into Microsoft's open AI investment to determine whether a formal review is necessary as well. Apple's plans to diversify its supply chain are starting to show progress. Nikkei Asia's sources say that Apple's working with China's BYD to move some of its iPad assembly to Vietnam. Wall Street Journal sources say Foxconn will open an iPhone plant in southern India in April, will expand iPhone production in an existing plant in Chennai, and has more new plants in development. India's Tata Group apparently just bought a large iPhone manufacturing plant in India, and Bloomberg reports that Tata wants to take on more Apple business. Apple reportedly wants to make 50 to 60 million iPhones in India per year by 2026 at the latest, possibly a year earlier than that. If they reach that goal, that'd be around 25% of all iPhone production moving to India. For Ronix, reports that the latest release of systems for Linux can generate a full-screen error message, sort of like the dreaded slash beloved Windows blue screen of death. It will be used to log errors, and in situations where Linux fails to boot, it'll generate a QR code as part of the error message that then you can then scan to get more information on what exactly is going on. It's still an experimental feature, but should it stick, it would make it into distros next year. Well, Google continues to dominate the AI news cycle after the introduction of Gemini, but not always in a positive way. Google published a video called Hands On with Gemini, Interacting with Multimodal AI, and it demonstrated interacting with the model with text and voice using images and text for input and output. And Gemini did generate all the responses in the video, just not all at the same time. The video was edited to get rid of stops down and corrections in the process, which end up in the edit, making the model look like it works a little faster and more accurately than it did. Okay, that's the bad news. Google also continued to release new products. Project Tailwind has been renamed Notebook LM. That's now available in the US and starting to take advantage of Gemini Pro. And finally, there's a project inside Google that sounds both awesome and terrifying, depending on how they use it. CNBC saw documents about Project Elman named after the biographer that can take photos and smartphone data to create a chatbot that can answer questions about you. Don't I already know the answer? It knows you better than you know yourself. I suppose. Yesterday we had an update about why some Google Drive users had lost files. Google had acknowledged it was related to the use of Google Drive's desktop app, and the company posted a fix that involves entering a debugging mode, restoring files from backups. There's also a way to do somewhat the same thing from the command line. But Google also locked a thread replying to the fix while some people were in that thread saying, uh, that doesn't work. And I want my files back. Hard to tell if it's user. Speaking of threads. Yeah, speaking of. Okay, so threads. We're talking about threads from Meta. Threads the Instagram fraternal twin. Started rolling out tags on the platform system-wide after testing the feature in Australia for about a month. Now I'm not calling them hashtags, although tags work pretty similarly to hashtags, but also a little bit differently. So in a thread's post, let's say I, you know, start a new post. I say what I want to say. I still can select the pound symbol to indicate that I'm going to add a tag. That's sort of a, you know, sort of a hotkey option, but I can only add one tag per post. So let's say I'm talking about the weather in Sonoma County, California, and I say tag frost type thing. That's my tag. That's, you know, I have to, I have to choose my tag wisely. That single tag can also have multiple words though. It can also include spaces. So it could be a sentence. It can also use special characters. Then it shows up as a clickable link within threads post to steer. Let's say you, Tom, who might be interested in my frost post and other posts about frost. So you can discover other users using that same tag. Head of Threads and Instagram, Adam Massari says only having a single tag was by design. They wanted to choose, you know, give people basically not give them choices to minimize engagement hacking. That's their words. And also tags can be reported if a tag is, you know, it seems, you know, wrong or, you know, it falls under a variety of categories that, you know, could be considered abusive or just, you know, not threads appropriate. With one tag per post limit, you do have to know who you're reaching. And I use the frost example as sort of a silly one, but Tech Crunch's Sarah Perez notes there, you know, let's say you wanted to talk about the basketball game last night. You know, that's, that's, you know, where Twitter used to shine and maybe still does in certain circles. But if you're on threads, there is NBA thread all one word NBA threads two words NBA just no thread at all. Those are all separate tags. You kind of got to choose where your audience is. So I guess my question to you, Mike is what do you what do you think about the idea of making a hashtag now a tag at least what it is on a thread, something that you really have to think about and choose wisely. I think that is an interesting outcome is you have to pause and consider what really is the the one description that I would have for this text that I've put out in the world that will get people's attention versus, you know, five thread five tags and maybe getting more attention that way. I think it's an interesting turn. I'm not a threads user myself, but it could actually drive more engagement to the platform and really continue to help set it apart from others. I think it certainly makes the platform seem cleaner. Go ahead, Tom. Oh, yeah. I guess it does make the platform seem cleaner and hashtags are something that I have a rocky relationship with. In fact, David Spark actually quotes me in a book he wrote about social media years ago saying you don't need to use hashtags anymore. The search on Twitter got really good because hashtags started if you don't remember as a hack. You put the pound symbol before it because it was easy to find it in Twitter search because Twitter search was very word specific and it was kind of hard to find anything otherwise. The search improved and I was like, well, we don't really need to use hashtags, but people never stopped. And in fact, they have multiplied to the point where now, Sarah, we were talking about this earlier today on TikTok, like it's a jungle of hashtags at the end of every post, right? Yeah, I mean, back in the day back back in my day of Twitter, yeah, the hashtag emerged as just sort of something that this is attributed to Chris Messina, who is a former Google engineer way back in the day. But this was not something that Twitter wanted people to use. It just turned into something that people thought was so useful that it became part of what you might tweet. But then it became sort of like a hashtag, I love my dog hashtag funny hashtag. Hi, hashtag, just kidding. You know, where you're like, what, what, what, I don't know what we're doing anymore. Like, none of those things were actually clickable links that are at all attributable to the original post. And that made me insane. But at the same time, it's like, you really can't fault people for having fun with a tool that they are given threads is obviously saying, we want it to be a tool. That's what we want it to be, you know, and so we're just we're going to cramp down on this, whether it helps us internally or just sets us apart from all that others like hashtag viral hashtag, you know, boxer dogs, which are actually hashtags that I look at fairly often and and then say this is a bunch of garbage that I didn't actually know that I should have been looking at and didn't even want in the first place. So, yeah, it's, it's an interesting, it's an interesting format. I think it's going to change some behavior for folks who are enthusiastic about an X alternative. Not everybody is some people are and some of those people are on threads. I think that this is an interesting way to say, let's reimagine this a little bit. By the way, threads doesn't have a trending section, you know, if you really want to compare it to X right now. If you tap on a tag that somebody else has posted that you're interested in, you might see other popular tags you can add, you know, as sort of, you know, on your watch list. So it's working a little bit the same way, but also a little bit different. And if you're in Europe and you're like, wait a minute, when do I get this threads thing? Threads updated its website with a countdown timer that expires on December 14th. This appears to be tied to the launch of threads in Europe because Europeans can now search the word ticket in Instagram and get a digital invitation to threads as well as a launch time. Now that launch time isn't always December 14th, it varies by country, so you might want to go and check it out for yourself. Meanwhile, Apple funded a report written independently by MIT professor Stuart Madnick about the increasing frequency of cyber attacks. Madnick said that more ransomware attacks were reported in the first nine months of 2023 than in all of 2022. 98% of business and government groups work in some capacity with a company that's been affected by an attack within the last year. 2.6 billion personal records were breached in 2021 and 2022, and one in four people have had their health records exposed in the first nine months of this year. The report recommends limiting data collection to only what you need, so there's less for the attackers to take, and using end-to-end encryption when sharing data so that no one else can see what you're sharing except the person you want to see it. Now, obviously, Apple has been in a years-long debate with governments about end-to-end encryption. They're in one with the UK right now, so it shouldn't be a surprise that it funded something that has a conclusion like this. But Mike, I'm curious how you feel about this report. What's interesting about it is I think it exposes some of the nuance of Apple's stance. I think it's very clear that if the data isn't available to anyone, just the sender and the receiver, that protects that data, but that doesn't work for all types of data. It's great for messages, for emails, but it does have challenges with other data that we need to operate on. Imagine that if you're collecting records of sales and you want to be able to add up receipts. If that data is encrypted and it's not available to the platform, you can't even do the math. You can't even do that. But if it is something that's truly meant to be secret between one individual and another, then that actually makes a whole lot of sense. You can encrypt that end-to-end. There's never any need for anyone in the middle to see it. But even with messages, you still have a little bit of a challenge in that people also want spam filtering. They want to make sure that nobody sends me a malicious message. If the platform itself can't actually see that, if the contents are truly end-to-end encrypted, there's less ability to do that kind of filtering. I think it's Apple on the one hand trying to say, messages are really important to us and that's what we're going to really kind of go die on that hill. But at the same time, not really talking about the other aspects, not talking about some of these data breaches where business records where one business actually needs to be able to exchange information about their customers with another. That's the relationship. That's a product that the customers of both of these companies want. But if that's encrypted data, then they're not able to deliver that service. But Apple's its own ecosystem. It's self-contained. If I'm hearing you right, you're not against end-to-end encryption. You're just saying it is appropriate for certain things, but it's not a cure-all. And I think that's what gets lost a lot in this conversation is it is view-dissecure-all, but it actually doesn't work in many situations. I think it's a case of using end-to-end encryption when you can, when it makes sense. It's actually a great control. And if you've got an encrypted blob of data when you're a company that you've got an encrypted blob of data, that's actually something that you can worry less about. You don't have to spend as much effort in securing that. But on the other hand, if it's data that must be collected and stored in clear text, must be processed, you really have to step up to protect that. You've got to own that responsibility to secure that data. Yeah. And there are other ways of doing that, right? That's the thing to let people know who are like, well, wait a minute. Yeah, you need those business records, but you're just going to leave my information out there? No. The idea is to come up with other ways to defend against attacks. And really, I think the point of Professor Madnick here, who's been working in this industry since 1972, like he's not somebody who just popped out of nowhere, is that we are seeing more attempts to breach your security than ever. So it is more important than ever to figure out how to defend it. And I think that's something that we're going to continue to see. I mean, as more and more of what we do as humans is at the base just data. And it's moved around. It's operated on. Again, we want to communicate on threads. That's data that needs to be passed around. And we're more and more online. We're more and more using devices that are computers under the covers. Unfortunately, I think it's going to continue to get worse before it gets better. I guess when you put it that way, we've increased the surface area for the attack tremendously in the past 10 to 15 years. So it shouldn't be a shock that there are more attacks when there's more opportunities. Yeah, I think it'd be interesting to look at almost percentages of if you go back, rewind 20 years ago, 10 years ago, there were certainly data breaches back then. What percentage of data was exposed then versus what is exposed now? My guess is percentage wise, we've actually gotten better. But the amount of data that's online, that surface area, which is really a great way of thinking about it, just increases and continues to do so. Yeah. Well, I'm trying to keep my own personal surface area from growing during the holidays because one of the things we do is eat a lot of delicious food at this time of year. However, my top five this week is not going to help. It is all about kitchen tech. If you like me are planning on cooking some stuff over the next several weeks, you're going to want to check this out. There's some great gift ideas in here as well. It's our top five. It's available on our YouTube channel where you get Android faithful episodes of this show. All kinds of great technology stuff at youtube.com slash daily tech news show. Go check it out. Well, as the report from Apple we just mentioned indicates security attacks are rising and digital infrastructure to personal data to beyond. We would like to keep these things secure, but having layers of security won't matter much if they're not used correctly. Mike is of course a chief information security officer a CISO. You have to deal with these issues as part of your job every day. A key concept that you suggested we talk about is something people may or may not have heard of secure by default versus secure by design. Can you explain what the difference is here? These are two concepts that companies use or should be using as they're thinking about the security of their product. Be that a online service, be that a light bulb. All of these when you're designing a thing, you have to consider what are the ways that that thing is going to be used. And secure by design is an approach of when you are early in your product stage of, you know, okay, well, I want to build a light bulb. What does that light bulb need to do? Okay, it needs to create light. It's going to consume electricity. But it's also going to have a sensor in it to detect if someone is in the room. And then that's going to tie into automation to turn on the light when someone enters and turn it off when someone leaves. You also need to think about, well, there's actually data that's being collected here and how am I going to secure that data? How am I going to process that data in a secure manner? And if you're building that in from the beginning, you're designing that along with all of the other features, thinking of security as a necessary feature, you're then going to find yourself in a situation of shipping a secure product. Going to be something that you're not having to try and come back and bolt it on later. And that's really difficult when it's a light bulb, when it's something that's been shipped out into the world. And how do you update that? I mean, if it is an online service, you can adjust the code and fix your problem. And so secure by default, it's a concept that's been around for a while, but we've seen CISA start to really push this. And we're also starting to see the FTC, the FCC, several other U.S. regulatory agencies pushing the idea that companies need to be more responsible for the security of their products. So secure by design is one aspect. Secure by default is what happens after you ship the thing. Can that light bulb, if a vulnerability is discovered, be updated with an over-the-air update? Or is it just forever vulnerable? Are there things that you have to do to secure that light bulb? Or is it out of the box in its most secure state? Or are you expected to go and buy a light bulb firewall that is going to then protect your light bulb? Make it secure by default. Right. Are you going to have to go and pay more money? And if you're having to pay more for it, that's not secure by default. So really those two concepts, you can think of pre-the-thing shipping and post-the-thing shipping. Both of them together really set up companies, consumers, with more secure products. When you bring... Go ahead, Tom. No, no, no. Go ahead. When you bring political aspects into this, do you find... My pessimistic mind always goes to, oh, well, a marketing team is just going to make something sound secure by design when maybe it's already secure by default. Do you see that in your work? Well, so the reality is you need both. Like if it's just one or just the other, it's going to either have problems right out of the gate, or it's going to be issues that show up with usage over time. And when you have the regulatory agencies, what they're pushing is really both. It's really the combination of the two. The FCC, they've proposed a... What do they call it? The U.S. Cyber Trust Mark. It's a voluntary thing. But the idea is that producers of consumer technology would actually label that on their product. And that would include essentially third-party testing, third-party validation of both the thing was designed securely and it can actually operate in a secure manner and it's secure out of the box. So I'm hoping to see more adoption of things like that where the communication to the consumers is very clear. Because right now it's almost impossible to tell. You don't really know. You kind of have to go on reputation and just time. But the idea of actually having some labels that consumers can look at things on a shelf and say, oh, that one actually has this mark on it. I'm going to pick that one. All the features are the same, but this one has been attested to be secure. I'm going to make that decision. Yeah. And it sounds like you want manufacturers to be doing both secure by design and secure by default. You don't want them to choose. Correct. Does secure by design make it easier to implement secure by default? Yes, very much so. And that, again, imagine the light bulb of it's really difficult to come back later and read and update the light bulb in the field if you never designed the light bulb to be updateable in the field. That's where it comes to the design is saying, well, we know that we're going to find vulnerabilities with this product over time. Firmware update. Let's make sure that this light bulb can be, yes, updated. Exactly. And when without that capability, you can't actually really have a secure by default concept because you can't update it. It's just forever vulnerable. Yeah. And secure by default also, if I'm understanding it right, should mean that the user themselves should have to take as little action as possible to keep this thing secure, right? Yeah. A good example, I'm sure plenty of folks remember back in the day where you would go and buy a wireless router and the passwords were the same on all of them. It was just in the user manual that there was a million of those printed. It was exactly the same. And if you wanted to secure that device, you had to go change the password. A lot of people didn't do that because they didn't even know they needed to. But now if you go and buy a wireless router, the password is generated specifically for that device. It is unique in the world. And you can plug in that thing and you don't actually have to go and take some action to secure the device first. It is secure by default in that respect. Yeah. And not that you can't tweak it or anything. Oh, absolutely. Change it to whatever. Yeah, yeah. These are good things for people to know about and good things for people to think about. When they're making things, of course, as we're talking about, but also when you're shopping, when you're looking at things and look for those marks, if and when they become available. And until then, you know, ask around and, and, and you use the resources of the DTS audience and the, and the CISO series audience and others out there to kind of get an idea of like who's doing this. Well, who's been audited and stuff like that. Thank you so much for discussing with this with us. I think it's great for people to understand this even outside of the security industry. And frankly, that's why I wanted to bring it up is I, we think about it a lot in the security industry. I think consumers should think about it more, more than they should in the past. And they should hold their, the companies that they buy products from, they should hold them accountable. You deserve a secure product. Yeah, absolutely. All right. Let's see what people are saying. Email bag. Yeah. So we've been talking about Gemini a lot on DTNS this week and got a couple of emails about it. Damon writes, with the recent addition of Gemini, we now have a handful of choices. I'm wondering how they'll be used. Will we the public treat them the way that we use browsers? Some people will prefer chat GPT, some Gemini. Will we find out that some are better at some tasks than others? Maybe we'll use one model for science, another for daily living. Maybe the individual models won't make a difference and it'll just be baked into the things that we use and we don't worry about who created it. Are we in the early stages of the AI model wars? Will there be winners and losers? How do you guys think this will end? Oh, this is so interesting. We are so early in this. It's hard to tell. It is. Is it browsers where there's just, you know, different feature sets and they're all doing the same thing. It's just a matter of taste. Are they more like cameras where like, Oh, well, a DSLR is very different than a point and shoot, which is very different than the one built in your phone. Or I actually like Damon's idea that maybe they just kind of get baked into stuff and we're not sure. We're not even, we don't even know who's behind it. Right. I don't know. I don't know which one's going to win. Yeah. I mean, you look at some benchmark stuff and take Gemini's benchmarks that the company released this week where, you know, depending on who you are, you either say, Well, this is really impressive. Or, Oh, they're still playing catch up. But it's like, Well, what are we doing? Are we solving a Rubik's cube right now? Or are we planning a trip across country? It's like these, these, you know, these various models aren't necessarily better or worse. I think that they're going to blend together a lot more. And I like the comparison to browsers, even though that's obviously different. But, you know, language models are being bundled into browsers and will continue to be. It's like, Yeah, I mean, I don't know. I usually use Chrome, but I use Firefox for certain things. And I got it. And then I test things, you know, here and there on other stuff. It's like, it's not a one and done type of solution. I usually use chat gpt. But occasionally I'll ask Bard or go to Bing even, even though it's chat gpt. Mike, do you have a sense of where you think this might be going? I think we're very much early days, right? But where we're headed, I think is there's going to be different models for different outputs. Sarah, I like your point of, are we solving a Rubik's cube or are we planning a trip across the country? You know, the same tool isn't going to be great at both. Chat gpt is terrible at math. It can't add numbers right now, which is, you think it'd be able to, but that's not the concept of what it's built for. And frankly, I think they'd be wasting time trying to make it solve math, like make it solve other problems and recognize that other tools can be used for different things. I think the comparison that I think we're more under is Android versus iOS. They're both great. A lot of people have a lot of passion for one or the other, but at the end of the day, they're just operating systems. And I don't know that we need to have winners and losers here. If we recognize that they're going to be solving certain problems and terrible at others, then that's fine. Yeah, I wonder if they just end up being services, you know, things that are just sort of in more like AWS, right? We don't know which apps are using AWS most of the time. We just know that the app works. Maybe it ends up being more like that. That's interesting to think about. Thank you, Damon. Robert in London also wrote in about Gemini playing catch up asking, could it be that the model is perfectly fine and does compete? But that also means it will do lots of things that could result in reputational damage. There are lots of articles around chat GPT in the weird or dangerous things that it outputs. Isn't that why Microsoft is happy to have it as a separate entity that can take all the flack? Google doesn't have the ability, so it needs to be more careful. Perhaps someone got access to the demo and did something that Google didn't expect. And that caused them to pull the release and shift it to next year so they can address it rather than have a bunch of media around. Bard lets you do insert horrific thing. I'm not sure that that's why Microsoft is separate from open AI. There's a whole history there, but it certainly is a happy side effect for them sometimes. And I do think that that is one of the reasons that Google has been very conservative in releasing these things, Robert, is that they don't want any more of these stories that they can possibly avoid, right? Mike's nodding his head. Yeah, I think that a lot of folks are being very careful about AI right now, and I think that makes a lot of sense. It can really give unexpected outcomes. I remember years ago, the story about Microsoft had put a chat bot on Twitter, then all of a sudden started talking about how great Nazis were. It was a proponent of Nazis. It always goes there, doesn't it? Obviously, you don't want that. That's a very bad outcome. And so I think going a little bit slow right now makes sense from that respect. But I also think there's an opportunity for a second mover advantage here, because open AI really got the leap on everyone. Maybe you take a little bit longer to leapfrog them rather than simply catch up. Which is for a company like Google, that's a delicate dance, right? It's like you don't want to be the company that is attributed to a bad chat GPT competitor. You also don't want people who kind of don't know what's going on behind the scenes to say, oh, well, they just drop the ball and how sad for Google. They were blindsided. It's like, I don't think Google has been blindsided. I think Google is being very careful about the rollout. In a world of literally one billion armchair quarterbacks, you really want to get your story straight. Well, Len Peralta has been busy illustrating today's episode as he does on Fridays. Len, what have you drawn for us today? You know, I chose the Secure by Design, Secure by Default route here. I think they're kind of the same thing if you really think about it. I mean, I don't know, maybe there is a little bit of a difference. But I channeled my inner myth buster today and came up with this image. I don't know if you're myth busters fans out there. You kind of sort of remember they used to do these whole tiny builds and these drawings and stuff like that. And that's what kind of this is. This is sort of a design of a prototype of some built-in security for something. I'm not really sure exactly what it is. But you do know, yes, that it is hacker proof. It's impenetrable and unhackable, possibly with an invisible field. It will bounce bullets and bombs and hackers will just give up. Mike, he's drawn the dream. Yes, I am definitely when I'm going to buy a copy of that because that is amazing. Oh, thank you so much. And if you are one of my backers of Patreon, you can just get this. Patreon.com forward slash Len. You back me at the DTS lover level. You get it immediately or you go the old fashioned route like Mike and go to my online store. Len for all the store.com where I am currently taking orders for holiday cards. So come and get it. Come and get this and come and get a holiday card for yourself as well. Fantastic. Fantastic work from you, Len. Also, Mike Johnson, such a pleasure to have you on the show today. Let folks know where they can keep up with the rest of your work. Again, thank you for having me. A few places to find me. One is on the CISO series where I am co-host of the CISO series podcast. You can also find me on LinkedIn. I've been a little bit quiet recently, but that's going to change soon. So you can find me on LinkedIn as well. And if you'd like to keep in touch, that's a great way to find me. Intriguing. I'm going to keep an eye on LinkedIn now. That's fantastic. The show does not end here if you are a patron though. If you're one of the free listeners, we thank you for listening and have a good rest of your day. Patrons, stick around for the extended show, Good Day Internet. We're going to play Tech Riddle of the Sphinx. Can you deduce the correct answer along with us? Oh, boy. Just a reminder, you can, because I'm always bad at these Friday quizzes, but you know, you never know, maybe I'll pull out today. Reminder, you can catch our show, DTNS is live Monday through Friday at 4pm Eastern 2100 UTC. Find out more at DailyTechNewShow.com slash live. We hope you have a wonderful weekend. We're back on Monday talking about replacements for male chimps, tiny litter with Rich Trafalino. This week's episodes of DailyTechNewShow are created by the following people, host producer and writer Tom Merritt, host producer and writer Sarah Lane, executive producer and Booker Roger Chang, producer, writer and co-host Rob Dunwood, video producer and Twitch producer Joe Koons, technical producer Anthony Lemos, Spanish language host, writer and producer Dan Campos. Science correspondent Dr. Nicky Ackerman, social media producer and moderator Zoe Dutterding. Our mods, Beatmaster, W. Scottus1, BioCow, Captain Kipper, Steve Godorama, Paul Reese, Matthew J. Stevens, a.k.a. Gadget Virtuoso, and J.D. Galloway. Modded video hosting by Dan Christensen. Music and art provided by Martin Bell, Dan Looters, Mustafa A., Acast and Len Peralta. Live art performed by Len Peralta. Acast adds support from Tatiana Matias. Patreon support from Tom McNeil. Contributors for this week's shows include Aya Zaktar, Scott Johnson and Justin Robert Young. Our guest this week was Mike Johnson. And thanks to all the patrons who make the show possible. This show is part of the Frog Pants Network. Get more at FrogPants.com. Time and Club hopes you have enjoyed this program.