Tech News: Meta Gets Connect-ed

get to it. Today, Meta will hold its Connect conference, and folks are expecting that Mark Zuckerberg will give an update as to the whole journey to the Metaverse thing, and part of that will be unveiling of the high end VR a gear that has been called Project Cambria internally anyway, we expect it will probably be called something else when it's released. The going bet now as it's going to be the Quest pro By the time you hear this, you might very well know that already, because

I'm recording this before the conference happens. I'm not sure what features this new VR device is going to have, but the guess is that it's going to have higher resolution experiences. It's gonna incorporate eye tracking that can go from interesting to creepy real quick, and it might have some other mixed reality features built into it, as in, like, hey, you've got augmented reality and my virtual reality. Hey you got virtual reality and my augmented reality? Say that kind

of thing. Anyway, we don't know the details, we don't know how expensive this thing is going to be. But since Meta not too long ago hiked the price of the two quest two models, there's a base model in a slightly better model, those prices went up by a hundred dollars each. They currently cost three and four nine, respectively. And my guess is that Project Cambria will be fairly expensive. Considering that Meta has had a really bad year this year, I can't imagine and that they're going to try and

sell this at a massive loss. The company has been dealing with scandals, it's seen a decline in its user base. It's been trying in largely failing, to fight off TikTok's appeal to younger users. It's been reeling from Apple's move to give iOS users the ability to cut off app tracking, which is really hurt their advertising model. Uh. It's seen at stock price go down over the year by more than sixty percent, like more than a hundred dollars per share.

And I'm sure there are a lot of folks over at Meta who feel the company really needs a win, so maybe that's what we'll get later today. The conference begins at one pm Eastern. As I'm recording this, it's about an hour away, so I'm sure I'll have a

lot more to talk about on Thursday's episode. The New York Times published an article titled quote, Skepticism, Confusion, Frustration inside Mark Zuckerberg's Metaverse struggles end quote, and this piece had some light on how folks inside the company are frustrated and confused by Zuckerberg's push toward all things metaverse. The Times quotes several folks, many of them unnamed because they didn't want to put their jobs at risk, which

is totally understandable. One investor that the Times quoted was a guy named Matthew Ball, who I think rightfully pointed out that while Zuckerberg is focusing on the metaverse, the problems that Meta is facing right now are not necessarily directly metaverse related. Apart from the fact that the company is investing billions into something that's still many years away. I think the Ball's point is that Zuckerberg is failing to address the real world problems that Meta has encountered

this year. Which means not only is Zuckerberg looking at something that doesn't fix the issues that the company currently faces, those issues are also getting worse because the attention is on this metaverse stuff. The piece also rewards the several employees and Meta are frustrated with Zuckerberg changing his mind about projects and rapidly demanding changes. They say that the

most important project is m MH, which is make Mark happy. Obviously, this whole approach disrupts processes and makes them really failed to make a lot of progress. The piece also mentions that Zuckerberg has been urging Meta teams to hold virtual meetings within the company's Horizon Workrooms app and that was a huge inconvenience for a lot of employees because they had not purchased a VR headset or had one set up, so it sent lots of folks scrambling in order to

catch up. Also, by the way, just on a side note, yuck. I mean, if if my boss told me that I needed to buy a four hundred or five dollar piece of equipment just so that I could attend work meetings, I'd be pretty angry about that. Hopefully those employees will get reimbursed for having to purchase VR equipment just to attend meetings or something. The Times piece also says that and Helnal poll of Meta of one thousand employees revealed that less than sixty of them felt they really understood

the company's metaverse strategy. So still more than half say they understand it, but like more than say I don't really get it now the very least I would think that reveals a problem with internal communications. It's very hard to be a trailblazer if the folks on your team don't understand where they're trying to go to. Again, maybe the conference later today will indicate that the company has addressed some of these issues. Will have to wait and see,

or you won't. You probably have already heard about it. Let's pop on over to YouTube next. The platform is making yet another change when it comes to users and their accounts. YouTube sent out emails to YouTube account holders and released an announcement that says the platform will soon switch to at name style handles, much like other social platforms like Twitter. So users who will have a channel, they'll be able to secure a unique handle that applies

across the platform. So this handle feature will allow users to mention others and stuff like video titles and comments. So let's say you decided to do a YouTube video about how awesome I am. You could tag me in the title of your video, and I would be aware that it existed, and because you're appealing to my ego, I would likely promote that video because I want people

to know how awesome I am. Now, I'm not saying you should do this, by the way, Specifically, don't do this with me because my social reach is pathetically small because I'm almost never on social these days, so it won't do you any good. But if you try it with folks who have a large, active following, I don't know. Maybe it could work. Maybe you just irritate them. You

just don't know. Anyway, the apt feature can be useful for community engagement, though it can also be irritating as heck if it's misused, but that is the way of things. I find this change interesting but because back when Google Plus was still a thing, Google was really pushing to require everyone to use their real legal name across Google platforms,

and that included Google Plus and YouTube. So this motivation for this push came from a relatively good place, like it wasn't just that they wanted to force you to use your real name. The idea was that if you hold people accountable by making them use their real names, then they're going to be more careful about the stuff they say online and you would see a big decrease

in stuff like abuse and trolling. But it was very clear that the company had not considered a lot of other issues that come along with forcing people to use their real names. Here's a relatively benign example. There are a lot of popular YouTube personalities who are known by a sort of stage name or a handle, and if you forced them to change to their real name, that kind of messes with branding. It also poses as a

potential privacy and security risk. Anyway, YouTube, throughout their history has really followed a rocky course when it comes to how we identify users and channels on the site. They've gone back and forth between being able to use handles being able to use real names. Um, and these new handles aren't actually going to rename anything. Instead, in theory, it will make it easier to interact with other users

on the platform because you can tag them. Securing handles looks like it's going to be a first come, first served approach. Once it opens up. But YouTube is also going to reach out to some channels in advance to give them the opportunity to secure their handle before the general public can rush in and grab them up. Which makes sense. You don't want, uh, someone rushing in to grab Jack septic I before Sean gets a chance to

do it. I call him Sean even though I've never talked to him and he doesn't know who I am. But anyway, that's an example, right, You wouldn't want someone to to do the equivalent of website squatting or U r L squatting on these handles. So those channels are going to get the first chance to do it. UH don't know what the criteria is going to be for that. I assume it's going to be like the check marked folks first and then maybe opened up to others after that.

We'll have to see. This past weekend was twitch Con, which was an in person convention relating to Twitch streamers and their fan bases. I got a couple of different things to say about this. One is that Twitch has been in the hot seat of criticism from creators recently, primarily because of the company's revenue strategy. There have been a lot of times where streamers have criticized Twitch for

lots of different things. For example, for uh somewhat vague and uneven application of content standards, where some people say it appears that certain folks get a past for publishing content that other folks get reprimanded for. That's one example. But the one that has been and in the focus more recently has to do with revenue split. So until very recently, Twitch had a revenue split for almost all

Twitch streamers. That was that means that streamers would get fifty of revenue coming from subscriptions and Twitch would get the rest. There are other ways that Twitch makes revenue from these things, and that streamers make revenue from these things as well, but that's really kind of the focus. Now. Certain streamers who were kind of viewed as top performers and thus likely to attract more people to joining Twitch,

they got a special treatment. They got a seventy thirty split, so Twitch would only take thirty percent of their revenue and the streamer would get to keep seventy. But that was like this small elite group, and that's actually much closer to the kind of revenue new split strategies we see in other online platforms. But late last month, Twitch said that any remaining seventy streamers out there will also get switched to a fifty fifty arrangement once they earn

one thousand dollars as a threshold. And for those elite streamers, that's going to be a big setback. Going from a take to take is tough, and while we have yet to see how this is all going to play out, it's safe to say there are some Twitch streamers upset

with this change. Now, maybe they'll try and offset it by incorporating more advertising in their streams, because if you have more ads, then you generate more revenues, so you can make up for the fact that you are getting a smaller cut of the revenue you generate by putting in more ads. But if you put in more ads, then you might push away Twitch viewers. They might get fed up with how many ads there are compared to

the amount of content they're getting. But anyway, let's talk about twitch Con, particularly because the big story coming out of twitch Con isn't about twitches policies had to do with some really unfortunate injuries that were incurred by let's call them enthusiastic streamers who leapt into a a foam pit, that is, a pit that had foam blocks, like the kind of blocks he would use for packing material, right, those dark like charcoal gray foam blocks, that kind of

thing um And that pit proved to be far too shallow, and since this was all done in a venue with concrete floor, and then that some folks got hurt, a few of them seriously injured. One of those was streamer Adriana Chichick, who, after landing in the pit, said she was unable to get up and she ultimately got some medical attention, and she has since said that she broke her back in two places and is going to undergo surgery to insert a metal rod into her spine to

correct for the damage. The foam pit was part of an American Gladiator's type attraction. It was sponsored by Lenovo and Intel, and it was subsequently shut down after numerous injuries. And on a personal note, I just want to say, I hope the various folks who got injured in that pit have a swift recovery. And to all those websites out there that used animated gifts to show the moments where folks got injured. Gross next time, just make it a playable video. I did not want to actually see

people get hurt. Um that kind of stinks, And I really hope that the hurt people get well soon. That's obviously the most important part. All right, speaking of advertising, we're gonna take a quick break. When we come back, we've got some more news items. You know. I've talked a lot on this show about how remote work has really changed things for employees, how they are reluctant to

go back to working in the office, which is totally understandable. Like, if you are able to do your job effectively at home, there are a lot of good reasons to do it that way. Right, you're not driving all the time or otherwise commuting, you know, you you can really be efficient, and you can stay in the comfort of your home. You can help look after your family. There are a lot of good reasons. But I've also talked about how some companies and managers are not crazy about remote work,

partly because it makes it harder to monitor employees. It's weird because, like every study you see about this kind of stuff shows how that approach demoralizes employees, which ultimately means you hurt the bottom line. Employees don't do as good a job if they're not happy. And yet we still see this happening like like it's it's like a teacher having to watch over a classroom to make sure no one's cheating during a pop quiz. You don't feel great if you feel like your boss is treating you

like a misbehaving child. Anyway, there's one recent story that really caught my eye that kind of turned things around on a company that was doing the sort of thing. A Florida based company called chett To hired a remote telemarketer. This telemarketer was based in the Netherlands. Now, according to a subsequent lawsuit that the telemarketer brought against chet Do, the company managers ordered him to activate his webcam and to keep it on throughout the entirety of his work day.

They also demanded that he screen share his screen the entire time, and the telemarketer politely declined to acquiesce to the company's request, and chatt To then fired this telemarketer. So then he sued the company, And like I said, this guy is based in the Netherlands. So a Dutch court took up the case, and y'all, we don't treat things like privacy that seriously here in the United States, but they sure as heck do in Europe and the

Netherlands in particular. So the court found that the company was being unreasonable and that the company demands on the employee were quote in conflict with the respect for the privacy of the workers end quote which it would be very hard to agree to argue against. Rather, and that that the company far overstepped the boundaries that an employer has when it comes to its employees. So this Dutch

court found in favor of the telemarketer. They said this was a case of unfair dismissal, and as a result, the court has ordered Chett to to pay the telemarketers court costs, to pay his back wages, to pay a fine of fifty thou dollars, and it has to drop the non compete clause from the telemarketers employment agreement. And whether any of this happens or not, I don't know.

Chetto did not show up for the court case. Again, I'm not shocked, but I imagine this will at least make companies a little less eager to hire telemarketers in the Netherlands right or teleworkers in general. As well as other places that are like in the EU, for example, where you have governed moments and regulatory agencies that take stuff like privacy seriously. And uh, honestly, I think that the requirement of having the webcam turned on was unreasonable

from the get go. I think it's unreasonable for any company to demand that, at least as a general rule. I think it's unreasonable. So hopefully we see stories like this that convinced companies not to follow those kinds of tactics. Uh, it might take a while for that to really filter through to all the different companies in the United States, because again, we're in a country that does not traditionally value or protect privacy to any great extent. Yesterday, CNN

decided to sunset its Vault project. So this was an n f T initiative that CNN launched last year, and and the news company was minting n f T s that were tied to real world events and headline So the pitch that CNN gave to investors was that you could purchase an n f T and own a piece of history. You could own a headline, a moment of

newsworthy activity, which I find absolutely laughable. I find it ludicrous because really, what you end up owning is a digital token that at least in theory, represents this thing. But it's just a digital token. It's a token that can be traded or sold on a digital marketplace. But it's not like you actually own a moment, like like, let's say there's a moment where celebrity, a totally disked celebrity be at a public event or whatever, and you're like, done,

I need to own that. I need to own the moment where Harry Styles spit on Crisp Pine or whatever it was, And so you buy an n f T that represents that headline. You don't actually own anything other than a token. Anyway, None of that stopped people from buying n f t s because, as we have established another episodes, n f t s, especially early on, we're really seen as a potential cash grab, both for the markets that were minting n f t s and for

the people who were buying them. It was like a speculative market, and you can think of it as like a long shot bet. You might think, all right, well, each individual n f T is not that expensive, maybe it's twenty bucks or something for the cheap ones that's not terrible. And if it turns out that this one is gonna end up being a seven digit item on a marketplace, then I'm gonna make a huge profit from a small investment. Of course, I'm gonna be tempted to

do that. But since those days, obviously the crypto market has taken a real dive across multiple blockchains. We have seen cryptocurrencies and an n f T values plummet and uh. More and more people have expressed skeptic skepticism or just outright dismissal of n f T s, and some folks who were invested in the vault are now talking about talking with lawyers potentially bringing lawsuits against CNN and accusing the company of pulling the rug out from investors a

so called rug poll. So rug pull is when someone sets up a project and gets investors involved in the project and then subsequently cancels the project and then runs off with the cash. That's a rug pole right where you've set up the scheme where you can convince a lot of people to pour money in early on, and

then you take the money and run. Well. CNN has said that's not the case, and it's planning to compensate investors by paying out the purchase price of n f T s that investors were holding as captured on October six. So if you bought an n f T like a year ago, you don't get the value of the n f T that you paid for at the point of purchase. You you get whatever it was worth on October six

of this year. So CNN estimates that means folks are going to recapture around twenty of what they invested in because, as I mentioned earlier, crypto had a really bad time of it this year, and the value of stuff like n f T s has taken a nose dive. It also gets worse. Marketplaces have processing fees, so if you want to extract your money from an investment on these marketplaces, you have to pay a processing fee in in as

part of that. Well, the marketplace that CNN used was connected to the Flow blockchain, and the Flow blockchain has a four dollar processing fee for transactions. So let's say you bought one n f T from CNN. Let's say it was a twenty n f T. We You're only gonna get of that value back, right, That's all you're

gonna get. So one fifth of what you paid and you paid twenty bucks, well, one fifth means you would get four dollars back, but you also have to pay a processing fee if you want to withdraw your money from the marketplace. That processing fee is also four dollars, which means you get nothing. You get no money back because of the reduction in the purchase price and that

processing fee on top of it. This is another reason why lots of critics of n f T s pointed in f T s as being dangerous and not a good investment, because on top of everything else, you've got these processing fees that eat into any profit you might make, and you are not guaranteed by any stretch of the imagination, to make a profit in the first place. So it may mean that you get even less back out if you decide that you don't want to be invested in

the market anymore. Last week, six robotics companies, including Boston Dynamics, signed a pledge stating that these companies are not going to develop robots that can harm humans, and the company has also urged other robotics companies to follow suit. And there's been a lot of talk about robotics and how

they could be put to military use. A lot of early ones, including at Boston Dynamics, were talked about as sort of a load bearing device that could help carry heavier equipment in the field for military, so kind of like a mule that it would be carrying this stuff. Not necessarily weaponized itself, but it might carry weapons that you know, other soldiers can can take off of it

and use. But there's also been conversations about weaponized platforms, whether paired with a human operator who works remotely to actually fire the weapons, or even and autonomous system that would have stuff like image recognition capabilities that would be capable of engaging in combat. So you could have a combat ready weaponized robotics platform. And that thought is really scary, particularly because we know that computer vision isn't even close

to perfect. You know, we've seen so many stories of computer systems misidentifying people or having a bias against specific populations because the computer models themselves are faulty. We've seen that over and over again. Now imagine such an imperfect system armed with a gun, so that not only is this a deadly weapon, it's one that could misidentify targets. Uh, it could identify something as a target that's not a

target at all, and that leads to tragedy. Also, there's a fear that if you have robot soldiers that is what it really amounts to, that you would be less reluctant to engage in combat because obviously you're not putting people your people in harm's way, you're using equipment. So there's a fear that this could lead to increased aggression

around the world. It's a very sobering idea. So these companies stressed that their robotic platforms it have significant positive use cases, like they could really help contribute to lots of human endeavors. But if robotics companies agree to weaponize their platforms, that will in turn undermine any efforts to make robots for peaceful applications because it erodes trust and

it encourages fear. So people will be less likely to invest in robotics companies that could be making stuff that could really make positive changes in peaceful ways because there are these other companies that are making kill bots. Essentially, I'm really on the same page as these companies. I think that this is the responsible thing to do. I think it's the right thing to do. But whether we see this spread throughout the entire robotics industry or not,

I just don't know. Russian speaking hackers have managed to take down more than a dozen airport websites yesterday morning, including the site for my home airport, Atlanta's Hertsfield Jackson

Internet National Airport. Now, the hackers appear to be aligned with the Russian government, meaning their motivations appear to be based off what the Russian government is doing, but it's unknown whether or not they have any sort of state sponsor relationship with the government, and maybe that they're acting completely independently. In that case, they would be acting more

like anonymous does. It could be a loose group of hackers that choose their own targets and they don't have any actual connection with any authority, figure, or agency or anything like that. So no one's going so far as to say that Putin, for example, ordered hackers to take down airport web pages, and I'm guessing that that's not the case. I don't think Putin would have done that simply because it's not an effective way to really disrupt things.

In fact, the airport websites that were affected had no impact on actual travel whatsoever. Which isn't a surprise. I mean, I don't think I have ever pulled up the Atlanta Airports website. Instead, I rely upon whichever air carrier i'm using. I use their web page or their app. I don't go to the airport's web page itself. So this sounds like it was, you know, barely an inconvenience in some ways. Many of the sites were back up by late mornings.

That really shows that it wasn't a very effective attack. It's just a temporary disruption. The hackers reportedly used a di DOS, or distributed denial of service attack on these sites. Those tend to be fairly superficial sorts of attacks that can be effective, um, particularly if you have your website hosted on a service that doesn't have good di DOS protection on it. But it's it's a temporary effect. It's not like something more insidious like breaching a system. It's

nothing like that. It's just really shutting down on traffic to that website temporarily. So I'll be chatting more about de DOS attacks a little bit later this week. That's a preview. I've talked about them before, but I have an idea for a themed set of episodes, so that will be coming a little bit later. Also coming later will be another couple of news stories, but before we

get to that, let's take another quick break. Delta Airlines has pledged to invest sixty million dollars in startup job By Aviation, which is in the electric air taxi business. That's going a pretty far away. It's not really a business yet, but that's what they're developing. Is is electric air taxis. Delta also said that should the project hit certain milestones uh in in a certain amount of time, the company might up that investment as high as two

hund million dollars. Job has created an electric vehicle takeoff and landing vehicles that this v tall vehicles v t o L or e v O t L in this case, because they are electric. They look like really large drones, like like kind of like quad copter drones, but they're big enough to hold people and luggage in them. The model mentioned in Andrew Jay Hawkins article about this, which was published on The Verge can hold up to five people and the idea is to create a home to

airports service. But I maintain that's actually a misleading phrase because these e v O t L vehicles are gonna need a lot of clear space in order to land and take off from them. I mean they're still gonna be able to do this vertically, so not as much space as like an airplane would need, but essentially the same kind of space that a helicopter would need in

order to land and take off. So you know they're gonna need what what folks are calling to ports, these uh, these these small cleared areas where these vehicles can operate, very similar to helicopter takeoff pads. Right, it's gonna be the same sort of thing as that. It might be on the top of the building, it might be in an otherwise cleared area, but it can't just be anywhere. You're not going to see one of these things pull

up right outside your home. So it's not like you step out the front door, walk down the driveway and jump into one of these flying air taxis. That's not how it's gonna work. Instead, you're gonna have to head to the nearest vertiport two catch your ride to the airport. So I think calling it home to airport is misleading.

I just don't think that's a good way of describing this, because you do still have to go somewhere else, and depending upon the distribution of vertiports, it might not really be that effective of a way to reduce the amount of time it takes for you to get to an airport. Maybe it will. Also, we don't know how much it's gonna cost, We don't know where it's going to be available, though Los Angeles and New York are likely to be

the first cities to use these kind of things. Moreover than that, you know, we've we've got that sort of element that we have to factor with. But one that's even more important is that federal agencies have to create certifications and approval processes for these kinds of vehicles, and that has not happened yet. Right You're not going to have the f a A just allow unlicensed or uncertified electric vehicles to fly through airspace. That's not going to happen.

And no company so far has had its its air taxi kind of vehicle receive any kind of certification from these agencies. So there's a lot of legal process to get through. It's not just technical, although there are other technical challenges to like how do you scale up production so that you meet demand If it turns out there's enough demand where this company is going to need to mass produce these vehicles. How does it do that? It's

very different from producing a single one. So there are a lot of unanswered questions, and there are a lot of things that have to fall into place before we ever see air taxis being used, um, you know, in a in an official consumer way. So Delta is pledging money into something that could eventually mature into a useful service. But we're still a good ways out from that because we have all these other steps that have to take

place first. CNBC reports that the Biden Labor Department has released a proposal today that could require regulators and courts to reclassify gig workers as employees. Right now, the going standard in the United States is to classify folks who work in the gig economy as independent contractors, and that

has pros and cons. On the workers side, one of the pros is that independent contractors have a lot more freedom to define their own hours, so they can hop on and hop off of work at a very flexibly at their own schedule. But on the flip side, employers can treat independent contractors very different from employees. They don't have to, for example, provide health benefits too independent contractors. So that's one of the big downsides for people who

work in the gig economy. They can be heavily exploited and receive very little protection in return. They might not get overtime pay, they might not be allowed to form a union. There are a lot of downsides from the employee side. So there's a possibility that in the future will see UH a federal level rule put into place where companies like door Dash and lift and Uber will not be able to classify their workers as independent contractors. They'll have to treat them as employees. That would be

a massive change to their business model. UH. It would likely mean we'd see prices go up for a lot of these services because the company's gonna pass that that cost on to us the end consumer. And honestly, we don't know how many of these would even just fold up and go away as opposed to trying to work within that system. UM. I think, ultimately, from a personal opinion standpoint, this is a good move. I really want to I always want to see more protections for the

people who are doing the work. I'm not as concerned for the people at the top who are benefiting from the exploitation of their workforce, not really losing sleep about their how much take home bay they get. At the end of the day, I really worry more about the

people who are actually doing all the labor. So I just don't know what happens if this rule goes into place, Like I don't know if those models hold up under those sets of rules, or if we'll actually see them all kind of collapse in on themselves because the only way they can exist as a business is through being

able to exploit the labor force the way it does. UH. If it turns out that's the way, I would argue that says that business is not a great one for us to support, because we shouldn't be exploiting people to that level. But I'm also in a position of privilege and I understand that, so you know, I'm not suggesting that my point of view is the right one or the only one or anything like that. It's just kind of how I come at things anyway. These are just

proposed sets of rules. Nothing has been enacted, nothing has been voted on, UH, and it may never come to that. But it is interesting that we're seeing movement on that front. Finally, I wanted to mention that artist Ashley Zelinski has created a gallery of art that is based on and inspired

by images taken by the James web Space Telescope. These include three dimensional physical sculptures, includes things like lasers that create different images within a foggy environment, and some exhibits that require visitors to to don a virtual reality headset in order to see virtual uh exhibits, all of which are again inspired by these images created by the James

Webb Space Telescope. And I just think that's really interesting idea. Uh. I think that that creates this super cool experience too kind of encounter the scientific data, but in a completely different context. Right, You're not looking at it as just a flat image. You're not looking at it as numbers on a chart, you're not looking at it as statistics. You're looking at it as an interpretation of that data. And I think that's a super cool idea. It's in New York City's O n X Studio, and so I'm

I have not seen it. I don't live in New York, so I'm not It's not convenient to me, but I would love to visit it because it just sounds like such a interesting approach to taking something that is more abstract and not as accessible for most of us and turning it into something that could have potentially a really emotional impact on you. Um. I just love these ideas

of artists taking inspiration from the scientific endeavors. Of course, I say that because I have a tattoo on my back that was part of an art project for NASA, so so I i I am a canvas for that kind of an art project. In fact, we shot a video of Forward Thinking where I was getting this hattoo as I was delivering the the episode on camera. So that's an experience I never thought I would have when I was a kid, but I got it, so that was kind of cool. Anyway, I just thought that it

was an interesting concept. If you are in New York City and you can go to O n X Studio and check this out, let me know what you think, because I'm curious. I would love it to be like a really awesome, impactful experience. Obviously, with art such a personal thing, one person might walk out saying my life has been changed forever, and the other person could walk out saying I could have done something else with those two hours of my time. It's very individual in that way,

but I am very curious about it. So that's how I went in this episode, was talking about that. If you have suggestions for topics I should cover in future episodes of tech Stuff, reach out. You can download the I Heart Radio app for navigate over to tech Stuff, use that microphone icon, leave a voice message up to thirty seconds in length, or reach out on Twitter. The handle for the show is tech Stuff hs W and I'll talk to you again, Release it y. Tech Stuff

is an I heart Radio production. For more podcasts from I Heart Radio, visit the i Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows