Anthropic is (almost) Not a Supply Chain Risk - DTNS 5342

[music] >> This is the Daily Tech News for Friday, August 28th, 2026. We tell you what you need to know, give you the important context, and help each other understand. >> Today, Anthropic is now one step closer to not being a supply chain risk in the US, but it's not out of the woods yet. >> No, it is not. We'll talk about that. I'm Jason Howell. >> I'm Huynh-Thu Dao. >> Let's start with what you need to know with the big story. All right, so let's set the scene a little bit. Give you a little refresher, cuz it's been a little while. We This is a story we've talked about a lot in the past, but just to kind of bring you up to date. Back in March, the US Department of Defense designated Anthropic a supply chain risk, you may remember, which means that it threatens, or so they say, US national security. Anthropic wanted Department of Defense to agree not to use its products, like Claude, for fully autonomous weapons or domestic mass surveillance. They said, "No, we don't want it used for that." The first is not yet possible, and the second is already illegal, but the Department of Defense didn't want limits on the contract that might constrict it um further than the law, let's say. So, the Department was concerned that Anthropic might actually degrade its products and endanger military missions. Well, snap forward to now, and US District uh Judge Rita Lynn found that the Department of Defense violated the First Amendment uh the First Amendment by des- designating Anthropic a supply chain risk, quote, "based on a desire to make a public example." Those were her words. Out of the company. The judge called it unlawful retaliation. Retaliation. Uh Judge Lynn wrote that the decision was not founded on an articulable basis. That's a word that I just never use, so I appreciate Judge Lynn for putting it into my vocabulary. Uh said, quote, "Defendants claim that because of Anthropic's increasingly hostile manner through the press and its criticism of the Department of War's views on AI use, defendants cannot trust Anthropic to ensure the integrity of its models. Neither the Constitution nor the federal statute invoked by defendants allows them to impose sweeping penalties based principally on Anthropic's critique of the administration's views." End quote. Judge Lynn also determined that Anthropic was denied due process. That would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment because the decision was arbitrary and capricious. Among the evidence uh Judge Lynn relied on was the government's continued use of Anthropic products and collaboration on the with those models roll out. The judge also determined that Anthropic undisputedly lacks any backdoor access to its technology, allaying uh concerns that Anthropic might be able to, you know, degrade the product at will and on a whim and endanger military missions as a result. So, the Department of Defense used two designations of supply chain risk, and this case was just about one of them. So, this is really important to note. This is not the end of the story. The other designation is being contested currently in a court in DC. This was in California. Um in that one, Anthropic is also arguing the Department of Defense did not follow proper federal uh procurement law when making the designation. Anthropic will still be designated a supply chain risk until that other case is resolved. So, that's a lot of background kind of keep you up to date, and I think uh you know uh a lot of people are especially you know people who were critics of this happening to Anthropic looking at like the potential you know what it says about influence over models at least here in the US and and would other you know companies be under the same kind of um you know this the same approach in the eyes of the law. This is one step forward but it's not an entire like they haven't moved beyond it yet. There's still more to be said on this story. >> Yeah I do think it's interesting. I will just put my cards on the table. I'm very as limited as my legal knowledge is this seems to make sense to me that companies do I mean I don't know all the laws but of course like we've had many cases where companies do corporations in and of themselves do have first amendment rights usually that has to do with political spending and other things like religious expression but I mean of course you know them as a as a corporation stating that we wouldn't want to do this or we wouldn't want to do that with their own products does seem to fit. So that's just it seems like the right tack at least from that perspective and I do like I do like the idea of the articulable basis. It feels like you got to be able to tell us why y'all. >> Yes exactly. >> Yeah like like literally like like in a like in a precise way tell us why. Um and it I don't know I just it is interesting cuz I I also thought about you know the imminent like I've always wondered how things like this relate right because obviously companies in general when we talk about things like this they have customers they have users but there is certain rights that a corporation has to their own you know products and and they can revoke you know access and all this kind of stuff when we talk about kind of like regular people. I've always wondered again because we are talking about the government where you know legally that obviously it's a different kind of customer a different kind of user, and how the law would allow for something like this because I know we always there's like the eminent domain, right? Where if the govern- under certain conditions, the government can I want to say take control of your property, but you know, like they're building a highway, so they need to take part of your backyard. And as I understand it, that also applies to not necessarily even real property, but can also like apply to abstract things like trademarks trademarks and patents. So, I always wonder you know, >> [sighs] >> I I guess like I I'm just so curious how this plays out, um especially with something like AI. I presume that this has take taken place for other kinds of products, but because, you know, this is the era of AI and Anthropic is such a huge company, and this is such a very interesting and singular case, yeah. How questions like that will will get answered, um but I don't know. What do you think, Jason? You know, >> Well, yeah, I mean, I think I'm I'm curious. I mean, granted, like I said, not out of the woods yet on this. I mean, I've always felt it was a little strange that the Department of Defense was was going down this road while at the same time still continuing to use very publicly in a lot of other ways Anthropic's products. It It never really made a whole lot of sense to me. It's kind of like, well, on one hand, it seems like you're very angry and you're very upset, and you want everybody to know it, and, you know, you've got these cases to prove it. But then on the other hand, you're like, "And it's okay, we still work with you because we really like these products or because they work over here." And I just I don't know. It kind of It kind of seemed to me to be a little discordant or or not very harmonic between. But again, like there's only so a certain level of knowledge that I have around how all of this works when you're talking about the Department of Defense. And, you know, I'm not a legal um scholar, just just like you said. I am curious to see what kind of precedent this and potentially another supportive ruling in DC potentially. We don't know how that's going to end up, but that might go in a completely different direction. But how what kind of precedent this sets for um for other AI companies and their own determinations around what their models can and cannot be used for when it comes to like military use and um you know, I think there's probably a bit of a um a bit of a what is the what is the word that I'm looking for? Um when uh when suddenly Oh, a chilling effect. That's the word. >> Oh, yeah. My My brain just totally went to sleep there. There is there is a bit of a chilling effect when something like this happens to a company like Anthropic and the other AI you know, companies might not be necessarily directly in the crosshairs for something like this, but they're definitely standing aside. They're definitely watching what's going on and potentially they're making decisions to adhere to their concerns of being the next one in that spot. Does something like this give them a little bit of extra freedom or extra relief from that chilling effect to make their kind of decisions in this regard a little more known or a little bit yeah, a little bit more carried out. >> Yeah, I wonder. >> That's what I'm curious about. >> No, yeah. I I I I am too and I I think it's a really good point to make that like the dis the discordant attitude that the government as a whole seems to be making. I mean, basically they're saying, "Well, we want to make sure that they don't because of their beliefs or their ideas about how their model should be used, we don't want them basically sabotaging us." Which feels like in and of itself would be a different kind of violation of some law if it happened to begin with. But by what you're saying at the same time, if they're continuing to work with them even though they feel like there's a risk given that nothing else has changed in the absence, they're still using Anthropic products. So, it feels like it does undermine the argument a little bit like you're still working with them right now. Do you not still feel that risk, you know, of them possibly undercutting or you know, putting military personnel at risk by you know, altering or again, sabotaging the models. I don't know. Like I I think that's a really good point though. That it does seem to be again, a little bit a little bit shaky, which is again, lovely articulable That's a lot of L's in that one. Articulable >> a word that's that's part of your vocabulary now officially? >> You're going to hear me saying articulable if I could say it. >> Yeah, I'm going to see if I can fit it in somewhere else in this show. [laughter] We'll see We'll see if we can throw articulable into our discussion in a few other ways. >> I love it. Well, you know >> [laughter] >> Well, you know what is really articulable? It is our gratitude towards y'all, the listener, for making this show DTNS possible. So, we want to take a little bit of time to thank Clifton Anderson, D Lacer, Brad, and Kevin Morgan. >> [music] >> All right, there's plenty more we need to articulate today. So, let's get to the briefs. >> [laughter] >> Well, Rockstar North co-studio head Rob Nelson told the New York Times that a GTA 6 run through the main story line and some optional side quests took him around 80 hours to complete. That is actually a quite significant increase over the 51-ish hours that Grand Theft Auto 5 took most people to complete, at least according to HowLongToBeat stats. Flow Games also reported that Nelson said recently that GTA 6 currently runs at 30 frames per second on the PS5 and Xbox Series X S. And that currently no decision has been made on a 60 FPS mode. And along with that little nugget, Rockstar released an extended video showing around 27 minutes of gameplay footage on YouTube. This follows the unauthorized leak of several clips showing gameplay and cinematics over the past week. GTA 6 will finally be available November 19th for $80. >> Are you Are you in line already mentally up here for for this game? >> [laughter] >> It's been a really long time since I played a Grand Theft Auto game. Uh, I am not as willfully destructive as most people, so I will be happy to try. >> of you. >> Right. >> [laughter] >> I don't I don't No, it's okay. I'm not I'm not very fun GTA player. I don't like to, you know, stack up cars into a ramp and, you know, see if I can hit a helicopter um on I while it's in flight, but I am very glad for everyone who is looking forward to it. And I actually think this is really interesting that I mean, now I'm I'm trying not to be mean and wondering whether Rob Nelson did it really take you 80 hours? Is that a you problem or is that >> That's a lot of time to put in a game. [laughter] As someone who doesn't play a lot of this style of game anymore, I couldn't even find half that if I wanted to >> Oh, man, I will not show you some of the play times that I have on some of my games on Steam. And again, that might be a me problem and skill issue, but I will say that if we take this at face value that there is, let's say, 80 hours worth of content, that does make me feel better cuz I think one thing that really stung me and maybe some other people when GTA 6 was announced was its price at $80. I believe GTA 5 was $60 when it released and that was what, 2023 {question mark}? But obviously, a lot has happened a lot is a lot has happened since 2023 and I I guess maybe it's naive to say that well, I guess I suppose things are for various reasons more expensive these days, but I suppose it >> 2013, not 2023. >> Oh, no, right. 2013, yeah. It's been a long time. >> it wasn't a couple of years ago. >> Sorry. 20 >> Yeah, 2013. >> That's the last number. That That second number is very important. Sorry. 20 I was like going to say like Yeah, sorry. 20 2013. >> like, wow, they turned the sucker around fast. >> no, no. Sorry. My bad. No, you're right. I'm sorry. 20 No, that's what I meant. My bad. 2013. Oh my gosh. Um, which is to say that of course, that's 13 years. It's a long time. Inflation and all that kind of stuff. Not an economist, but I will say that if we take it at face value that we're getting What's the math on that? Uh 60% more content assuming? >> Yeah. >> So that kind of drives a little bit and I again, this is kind of not official. This is some this is like someone playing through and them and themselves getting >> certainly not speed running. >> No. So I I suppose that if anything this seems like, "Hey, we know it's more expensive. We know you've waited a long time for this. But maybe, you know, we'll give you a full experience for the money. Uh I've never nearly even completed a Grand Theft Auto. I again, I'm not a very good driver, especially in video >> What What about the 30 FPS versus 60 FPS thing? It It kind of seems like in 2026 to be locked into 30 FPS or or maybe that's standard, especially like, you know, a lot of people I'm sure would opt for if you had to choose between the two better fidelity versus higher frame rate. So maybe there that's fine, but 30 FPS 2026 seems low to me, but I don't know. >> Yeah, I don't So this is this is again like obviously on a more So again, I'm not a great GTA player. So I'm just happy to survive and and not get not get caught. Uh but I would say I mean I would imagine that would be more of an issue for maybe more of a high twitchy kind of game like, you know, your Counter-Strikes, your like first-person shooters. I honestly don't know whether where where Grand Theft Auto falls in that. It does feel more like especially since it's more about experiential and spectacle, maybe 30 frames per second is fine. But yeah, I don't know. If you're a GTA fan and you want that 60 frames per second cuz you're just way better than me and you need that like high response like that high response, let us know. >> [laughter] >> Yeah. >> As I said, I'm not I'm only a tourist in whatever city Grand Theft Auto's going to be set in. I haven't really followed too long, but I'm sure people will be excited. >> Feedback. Feedback at dailytechnewsshow. >> [laughter] >> Let us know. Um kind of along the same tip actually, high high refresh rate anyways, Samsung showed off four new 2027 release Odyssey monitors at Gamescom. These are all aimed at gamers looking to push the envelope. So, I got a little bit of spec soup here, but you'll notice a little theme running through them. The 27-in IPS G6 definitely led the pack with the world's first 1,100 Hz refresh. 1,100 Hz. >> Yes. >> 1,100 Hz at 1080p, 600 Hz at 1440p, >> 600 Hz. Okay. >> Meanwhile, that's huge in and of itself with a 1-ms response time. That display is expected to ship globally in the second half of 2026. The G7 is a 42-in curved monitor, another first for that size with a 16:9 aspect ratio, 333 sorry, 330 Hz refresh at FHD and 165 Hz at 4K. Then you got the OLED G8, a 32-in 4K model with a lot of flexibility when it comes to refresh rate. It's switchable between 360 Hz 4K, 520 Hz at 1440p, and 680 Hz at 1080p. So, a lot of choice there. And then finally, the 49-in OLED G9 ultrawide, yet another world's first. There's like three three or four of these is like world's first. For its size, 5120 by 1440 resolution. So, you know, that's that's really stretched. 360 Hz or dual HD mode at 720 Hz. Specific availability and pricing is pretty much yet to be announced, but I'm guessing with the amount of first going on here, things are going to be pretty pricey. Um in gaming, here's what came to mind for me as a as a gamer once upon a time, but maybe not currently. >> Mhm. >> There must be a point where you pass the line where refresh rate is actually detectable by the human eye, right? And it's just numbers. >> Yeah. >> So So, what exactly is 1,100 hertz getting you? Because I guarantee you Maybe I don't guarantee. I'm highly suspicious that anyone could see the difference actually see the difference between 1,100 hertz and even half that, let alone probably less than that. >> I I agree I agree. Um and I know that again, just like FPS, like the the refresh rate of a monitor does help super super hardcore e-sports where you have like, you know, like where you have to make quick react with like your reflexes and your reaction time and your ability to kind of like pinpoint do things is very important. I agree with you. I I There's got to be a limit, and I I kind of as I under I I don't really understand very well, but I figured like somewhere around 300, 500 hertz, I don't really know. >> That's kind of what Yeah. >> It feel that already feels incredibly fast. It almost feels arbitrary. And again, like we're still human beings, and between our eyes and like the hand-eye coordination between, you know, like see something, brain, and then, you know, whatever, you know, clicky uh game pad or or keyboard, feels like there's got to be a human limit. And I >> But it's a bigger number. And some people, I guess that's that's that matters. But this is another one that I'd like to put out to people. Feedback@dailotechnewsshow.com. What would like Please set the scene for me. What exactly is an 1,100 hertz refresh good for exactly? I mean, gaming, you know, high twitch gaming and everything like that, sure, but like what do you get out of 1,100 that you couldn't already get out of 600 something or 300 something for that matter, you know? >> matter. And what kind of And what kind of game? I'm just so curious. Like I I know I'm I'm just I'm just What game? What What game I guess has that kind of like high sensitivity reaction? Like I I'm I'm saying they don't exist. I would just be curious like what what class because there's like a lot of different kind of e-sports and I feel like it's easy to say, "Ooh, for e-sports." And e-sports is a huge it's it's a thing now. It's a huge, you know, multi-million dollar uh you know, um professional sport now like across the different games. I would just really like to know. I Yeah, just just let us know which which games would this be good for. I I just need to know. >> Love to know. All right. Well, back to Anthropic. Anthropic has in positive news unveiled the model hardware standard, a model-agnostic interface that is designed to cut the time needed to connect AI agents with physical hardware, namely robotics, scientific, and manufacturing equipment. This would allow developers to bypass the need to build a custom integration for every machine they are writing for. Anthropic says early partners have cut hardware integration work from weeks or months down to hours or minutes because of MHS. It can also work through standard protocols including Anthropic's model context protocol. Now, MHS is beginning with a limited research preview, but the plan is to eventually open source it. Meta, on the other hand, is testing robots to carry out data center tasks like power cycling servers and receding components according to Wired. Meta is evaluating systems from Kinova, Watney Robotics, and ABB at sites How many B's did I say there? ABB? Yeah, okay. >> You've got them. >> [laughter] >> At sites in >> amount of B's. >> Did I articulate the correct amount of B's? >> Yeah. >> Uh okay, so sorry. Um they are evaluating systems from Kinova, Watney Robotics, and ABB at sites in Iowa and Ohio. Workers told Wired that this kind of automation could remove up to 80% of certain physical workloads. Currently, those robots still need plenty of our human help to operate effectively. >> Currently. Currently, they do, but so you're saying there's a chance. Um yeah, I I think I going back to Anthropic, I mean, model context protocol has been a huge success for Anthropic. They created it. It it definitely has become very quickly become a standard that many um in the industry have adopted and uh use regularly. It's one of those things that you're probably using and you don't realize you are cuz if you're using the standard tools nowadays with uh integrations and you know and plugins and all that kind of stuff, they're you know high likelihood they're using some form uh or they're tapping into uh MCP's uh advancements. So, you know, whether this um MHS is as straight as straightforward of a layer as MCP has been, um I'm super curious to to see that. I do think it's interesting calling it a standard before it's been adopted. Like I don't know. That was one question I had is like can you like announce something and say it's it's like is it automatically a standard because you announced it or is it a standard once more most people are using it enough that you can call it a standard cuz oh, it's a standard. Everybody uses it. You know what I mean? I guess that comes down to semantics maybe, but I think that's funny. >> Jason, I think of this as like their stan- their field of dreams. You know, if you if you design [laughter] it, the robots will come. I I did actually think cuz we're the Android people, this this is very much like how Android uh Google rather designs their hard- hardware abstraction layer because of course in Android we have lots of different kinds of devices and to be able to offer, you know, um developers great access to camera features like a full-featured camera and other things like Bluetooth and other hardware features, Android does have a hardware abstraction layer that that presents similarly a standard way of communicating with a, you know, certain set like a certain common set of, you know, hardware. In this case, it's like robotic uh I I assume like robotic arms and I don't know other machinery, but just like kind of like very generalized like common um mechanisms and then just uh able is able to create this layer that where all the kind of nitty-gritty of each individual uh hardware can be abstracted away or written by the manufacturer themselves and then from the from the more like I guess human model model I guess in in in Android world it would be human beings. In this case it would be models have a more like kind of the same interface to access a lot of different kinds of hardware. So I think this is neat. I do agree maybe they're just being aspirational which is I guess a good thing. You got to you got to dream it then be it. Um >> Speak it so everybody sees sees you as it. I don't know. Yeah. Interesting though. >> Yep. Well, another thing that is interesting is that we have plenty of wonderful things in the store and case and and actually in case I that was like a that's that's an unintentional pun because in case you need a case for your AirPods or AirPod Maxes, we actually have a DTNS case for you. It has the fabulous DTNS DTNS logo and because I know like we we want to we don't we don't want to make sure that other folks respect your podcast time. If you turn on the back of this case it does say do not disturb I'm listening to DTNS and not only that it is a handy case. It is made of TPU material so it is impact absorbing. So if you hear a world-shattering headline about I don't know enter wait, Nvidia possibly buying hugging face or something like that and you drop your AirPods they will be safe in this case wrapped you know wrapped up safely in your DTNS case. There's also a nice little carabiner for you to take your AirPods or AirPod Maxes with you wherever you go. And yeah, it's just again buying buying something like the AirPod case is a great gift but also a great way to support the show. >> Go check it out. I saw some fridge magnets. If you if you want Tom and actually a bunch of the DTNS crew as as drawn by Len Peralta on your fridge you can. They've got they've got really nice fridge fridge magnets. Go check it out. >> I'm very partial [snorts] to the Pure DTNS one. Um >> Very nice. >> [music] >> All right, we got some quick headlines that are just good to know. Might make you look smarter in the future. >> All right, well, Apple >> our job right. >> [laughter] >> Well, Apple TV is raising its subscription price again from $12.99 to $14.99 a month, making it 9- Oh, sorry. $1.99 a year. This is the fourth increase in 4 years. >> Hm, everything just keeps going up and up and up. >> Android 17 adds support for encrypted client hello. This is a new privacy standard standard that uh encrypts the domain name of every site you visit so your Wi-Fi network or your carrier can't see where you're browsing. Apps will have to opt in using a newer networking library before you get that protection. >> Well, South Korea is giving free AI chatbot access to all 52 million citizens, becoming the first G20 country to treat AI like a public utility. The beta launches in September. >> Interesting. I wonder if we'll see more of that. OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft, and more than 100 other organizations issued a warning that AI is making cyber attacks cheap enough that companies have only months to really get their defenses in a row to prepare for it. They pointed to a recent AI-generated exploit that happened against a US water system as sort of a preview for what's on the horizon. >> Hm. All right, well, Meta is closing a loophole that let people record with their smart glasses even after covering up the recording light. Now, the camera automatically shuts off the moment that light gets blocked mid-recording. >> Yeah, there were some protections for if you if it was uh blocked and you and it was already blocked and you started recording, it would not allow it. But, the loophole apparently was if you hit record and then you covered it while it was recording, it wouldn't automatically detect and stop and now it'll do that. >> That took a little too much effort for people to figure out. I'm so sorry. I mean, that's [laughter] gracious. Okay. >> People have their reasons, apparently. Um Blue Sky added a toggle that keeps your posts out of its discover feed. This is for people who'd rather post to their followers and not necessarily go viral by accident. It follows you to other apps as well that are built on the same um AT Proto protocol that Blue Sky uses. >> Awesome. And well, Nvidia shipped its first H200 chips to China under a new US licensing deal, but says it expects zero data center revenue from the country this quarter. CEO Jensen Huang said the demand is there. US exports export limits just cap what Nvidia's allowed to sell. >> Yes, indeed they do. And finally, Australian researchers strapped drug delivery gear to giant burrowing cockroaches so that they can crawl into disaster zones that humans can't actually reach and then inject vics uh you know, victims uh who are buried in the rubble, let's say, with essential medicine. In testing, they hit their target 100% of the time and delivered the drug successfully 90% of the time. So, I know it's it's easy to hate on the cockroaches, but in this case, don't hate on them. They're doing good work. >> That's awesome. Apparently, they're called paraborgs. I I don't >> Paraborgs. That sounds like a Saturday morning cartoon. >> It really does. >> If that even still exists, I don't know. A Netflix cartoon. [laughter] Hello. >> There you go. >> Uh we end every episode of DTNS with some shared perspectives. Today, Akamai wonders if blue light glasses might help fight jet lag. >> Yes, and if you're on audio yet again today, I am in the dark with my glasses preparing for a trip to Japan. So, this is very apt. Thank you, Akamai, for writing in. And they write, "Thank you for telling us about the Timeshifter app and the science behind it. I will definitely use it next time I go to Asia or Europe. Both Tom and the listener John on DTNS 5334 said they had trouble getting bright light without disturbing the people around them. I thought, why can't we come up with a personal device that shines blue light into our eyes?" I did a quick search and sure enough, there seems to be at least a few products in the market already. I have no idea how good they are. Um and just like as I guess as a note before we start that um just to say that uh this is a I I do think it's a good idea and and and we saw some examples and and they look interesting. They they're probably safe. So, I I know like the idea of shining light into your eyes probably probably probably goes against everything that your mom, your dad, and your teachers have been telling you for years about not looking into the light, but you should but these glasses are probably safe, but you should still ask your doctor to be sure that they don't damage your eyes. Um there is a paper that I believe Tom found for us that's that claims found on that basically they do have found that I found on the help So, your mi- So, your miles might vary and that the kind of the claims on on kind of blue light in not injecting because they're shine blue light emitting glasses. Uh mostly they were claims from the makers of these glasses, so your mileage might vary. They but they seem to be safe enough. Uh consult your doctor first. So. >> Mhm. Yeah, I would definitely consult your doctor on something like that. It does go against this the standard rule, right? Like >> Yeah, like um and and if you look at some of the examples online, so I we were chatting about this before, but I mean I I have like LED masks for my skin. I know we've talked about that in the show. Even just having an LED light adjacent to your eyes is very bright. You I I like to think I can see with it on, but honestly when you're having like these colored lights in your eyes, it makes things the details hard to see. So, I if you do do this, just sit down and hang it. Like, I guess don't move around too much. Do not try to operate heavy machinery. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Um but, yeah, it's a good idea. Um I was lucky in that both my husband and I are doing this, so we're turning the lights on at 1:00 a.m. Yes, we have to have the lights on at 1:00 a.m. Uh for a time shifter, but that's a really good point that maybe not everybody can turn the lights on late at night in the bedroom. >> I call it bedtime for you, isn't it? >> I think Oh my gosh, it is, isn't it? So, we'll see how it We'll see how it goes. Um >> Oh my goodness. All right. Good luck to you. >> But, uh thank you so much, Kome, for the feedback. Uh and also, I think this is just again a cool community thing that we've all been We've all been trying together uh time shifter. If you have any insights, questions, thoughts about a story, a weird thing that we're doing that makes the uh thumbnail of video of our videos very odd, uh we would still love to hear it. If you have any insight, email us feedback@dailynewsshow.com. >> And a big thanks again to to Kome for contributing to today's show. Thank you for being along for Daily Tech News Show. You can keep us in business. And hey, we'd love to be staying in business for a very, very long time. Just become a patron at patreon.com/dtns. This week's episodes of Daily Tech News Show were created by the following people: host, producer, writer Tom Merritt, host, writer [music] Jason Howell, co-host Sarah Lane, co-host Rob Dunwood, co-host Win Thu Dao, producer Anthony Lemos, producer Roger Chang, editor Hammond Chamberlain, editor Victor Bohnert, contributing producers Kevin Tetz, Noel Cow, and Brandon Richards, [music] science correspondent Dr. Nikki Ackerman, social media producer and moderator Zoe Dederich, our mods Beatmaster, W Scott is one, Bio Cow, Captain Kipper, Steve Guadarrama, Paul Reese, Matthew J. Stevens aka Gadget Virtuoso, [music] and JD Galloway, mod and video hosting by Dane Christiansen, music provided by Martin Bell and Dan Lueders, art by Len Peralta, Acast ad support from Ali Gallo, Patreon support from [music] Bobby Wagner. Our guest this week, Dr. Gary Tolbert, and thanks to all our patrons who make the show possible. >> The DTNS [music] family of podcasts. Helping each other understand. >> Diamond Club hopes you have enjoyed this program. >> [laughter]