Techtopia with Chitra Ragavan

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Email | RSS

https://media.blubrry.com/techtopiawithchitraragavan/ins.blubrry.com/techtopiawithchitraragavan/Techtopia_4_RD1.mp3Podcast: Play in new window | DownloadSubscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Email | RSS There’s a global semiconductor chip shortage brought on by the massive supply chain disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. And it’s hurting U.S. industries in a big way. President Joe Biden recently signed an executive order to try to help industries ranging from medical supplies to electric vehicles, that have been affected by this shortage. But will it solve the problem? If not, what does the U.S. government need to do to resolve the chip crisis? That’s the focus of our conversation today. Read the Transcript Download the PDF Chitra Ragavan: The semiconductor chip shortage, what’s causing it, why it matters, and what we need to do about it. That’s the focus of our conversation today. Hello, everyone. I’m Chitra Ragavan, and this is Techtopia. Joining me is John Neuffer. He’s President and CEO of the Washington, D.C.-based Semiconductor Industry Association. Neuffer is responsible for setting and leading the public policy agenda and serves as the primary advocate for maintaining U.S. leadership in semiconductor design, manufacturing, and research. John, welcome to Techtopia. John Neuffer: Hi, Chitra. Great to be here. Chitra Ragavan: I think we all have this vague understanding that all electronics are getting smaller and more portable, but I don’t think we have a grasp of just how small and portable the underlying semiconductor chips are. For the lay audience, can you explain in simple terms what semiconductor chips are and how they’ve evolved over the decades in their size, and scope and scale of applications and importance? John Neuffer: Well, most semiconductors are made from silicon, and silicon comes from sand, and people don’t realize it. Silicon is actually the second most abundant element in the earth’s crust, only after oxygen. Why are they called semiconductors and not just conductors, and that’s because they conduct electricity sometimes, and sometimes they don’t. In that regard, there’s kind of three types of materials. There’s materials that conduct electricity like metal, there’s materials that are insulators, they don’t conduct electricity that’s like glass, and there’s semiconductors, and they can do both. John Neuffer: Whether they can conduct or insulate is controlled by the use of electric fields, and that’s how you create your transistors, your on and off switches. That’s essentially what a semiconductor is. There’s actually very little kind of general knowledge of what these things are and really kind of how powerful they are. Chitra Ragavan: You’ve been in this industry for a long time. What’s the thing that surprised you the most when you first started learning about chips and what’s the thing that surprises you most now? John Neuffer: It’s an awesome technology. In the last 60 years, there’s just been an amazing pace of innovation. It’s probably the most innovative industry in the world. The chips, the transistors on the chips have gotten amazingly small. Chip manufacturers are now manipulating materials at atomic levels to make these transistors so small. John Neuffer: The most packed chips now, the highest-end chip has 54 billion transistors on one chip. That’s 54 billion on/off switches on one chip, and that’s basically the size of a quarter. The other thing that’s really happened is that chips have gotten amazingly cheap. If space travel had come down in price, as much as transistors have, the Apollo 11 mission, which cost $350 million in 1969 dollars, and put Neil Armstrong on the moon, well, that would have cost as much as a latte, and so that has driven computing power to just soaring heights, Chitra. Some of the world’s best computers in 1985 would take four and a half hours to process what the best chips now can process in one second, so it’s just been amazing pace of innovation. I think that’s a defining feature of the semiconductor industry. Chitra Ragavan: That’s absolutely incredible. Do you have like a favorite chip story that sort of encapsulates where we are today with this evolution? John Neuffer: Well, I don’t know if I have a favorite story, but I think it’s kind of amazing what chips have brought to our lives. Because of this innovation, because of the power of the chip and the miniaturization of the chip, we have computers as wristwatches now. We have tiny pacemakers in hearts that can communicate with patients and doctors. We have cellphones with five cameras, so it just … Chips are ubiquitous. John Neuffer: They’re in medical imaging devices, they control electric grids, they power navigation systems for our planes, they provide the guts of 5G communications. Semiconductors are really the greatest innovation of the past century. Without chips, you simply don’t have an Information Age. Without chips, we simply don’t have AI, IoT, quantum computing. Everything that’s kind of important for our future is being driven by innovation in the chip sector. Chitra Ragavan: Now, everything about the size and what you can pack into a chip has been sort of predicated or even predicted by something called Moore’s law. Can you sort of describe what Moore’s law is and whether it still holds true and why it matters in this context? John Neuffer: Yeah. Moore’s law basically postulates that … It was devised by Gordon Moore over 50 years ago, to one of the founders of Intel, and he said, “Listen, we should be able to double the number of transistors on a chip every couple of years.” And for the last 50 years, about every 10 or 15 years, there’s predictions that Moore’s law will reach physical limits and we’re just not going to be able to keep that pace up. Every time there’s these dire warnings that we won’t be able to keep the pace up, keep miniaturizing the transistors, keep driving, which has been the chief driving force for semiconductor innovation, there’s breakthroughs, and Moore’s law has marched forward. I will say though, that we are now, as an industry, really facing some physical

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Email | RSS

https://media.blubrry.com/whenitmattered/ins.blubrry.com/whenitmattered/Techtopia_3_RD2.mp3Podcast: Play in new window | DownloadSubscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Email | RSS What’s causing Bitcoin mania and massive investments in cryptocurrency by institutional investors? Perianne Boring, Founder and President of the Chamber of Digital Commerce, explains the economic and geo-political forces at play. Read the Transcript Download the PDF Chitra Ragavan: Well, Bitcoin mania is sweeping the world. Investors, big and small, have propelled the cryptocurrency to record highs, rallying more than 400% over the past year, with one Bitcoin worth more than $50,000. That’s per coin as of this taping. Although with the volatility of Bitcoin, that price could dramatically plummet in an instant, but that hasn’t deterred either mom-and-pop or institutional investors with some of the titans of finance getting in the game. Here in Washington, the Chamber of Digital Commerce is helping to promote the acceptance and use of digital assets and blockchain-based technologies and serving as a bridge between the industry, investors, policymakers, and regulatory agencies. Chitra Ragavan: Joining me now to get us up to speed on all the news and developments in DC and beyond is the Chamber’s founder and president, Perianne Boring. She’s been named America’s Top 50 Women in Tech by Forbes. In 2016, Boring was named 10 Most Influential People in Blockchain by the premier crypto trade publication, CoinDesk. Prior to forming the chamber, Perianne was a television host and anchor of an international finance program that aired in more than 100 countries to more than 650 million viewers. She began her career as a legislative assistant in the US House of Representatives, advising on finance, economics, tax and healthcare policy. Perianne, welcome to Techtopia. Perianne Boring: Hey, Chitra. It’s so good to be here. Thanks for having me. Chitra Ragavan: $50,000 a coin, did you ever think you would see the day? Perianne Boring: It’s quite interesting. I’ve been following Bitcoin since 2010 or 11, really early days. So when I first started becoming interested in this technology and asset class, it was trading at $13, and to now look at $50,000, that is a pretty dramatic change. However, I still think we are just at the very beginning of that S-curve, adoption curve. So I still think it’s undervalued and it’s in the long run going to continue to increase in price. Chitra Ragavan: How high do you think it’s going to go? Perianne Boring: Well, there’s a lot of different investment advisors who are trying to value Bitcoin and value what its price will be over time. If you look at a stock-to-flow model, PlanB, who’s an anonymous investment analyst on Twitter. In the stock-to-flow model, he has it up to $1 million in Bitcoin. Now that’s in the long run. So we’re looking at eight to 10 years. We represent at the chamber 25 to 30 investment firms who are investing in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. And so we’ve seen a range of valuations. At the lower end, 150,000 this year, all the way at the higher end to 400. So Guggenheim has the highest at about $400,000 a coin. So if you want, I can dig into how they’re getting to those numbers, but there’s a lot of groups and investors who are expecting significant growth over the next several months. Chitra Ragavan: Yeah. And tell us a little bit about how they are coming to these numbers. Are they looking at the number of investors getting in the game, the volume of funds that are pouring into it? What’s the secret sauce? Perianne Boring: Okay. So there’s a couple major factors that go into Bitcoin’s supply and demand and price. So, Bitcoin is a network. So how do investors value a network? You look at its growth. So what makes a network valuable is the more people that use it. You can apply this to other technologies like the iPhone, to personal computers, to the adoption of the internet. And one way that you can measure the growth of a network is looking at how long it takes to go from 0% adoption to 10% adoption. Then the same amount of time it takes to go from zero to 10% adoption is about the same amount of time it takes to go from 10 to 90% adoption. This model has played true for so many different technologies like the iPhone, like the internet itself, like personal computers. And I also believe you’ll see a very similar adoption curve for cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin in particular. Perianne Boring: So Bitcoin, in 2019 was at about 15% adoption. There was a study that was published by Forbes that about 15% percent of Americans owned some form of cryptocurrencies. So we’re at year 12 of Bitcoin, and if we were at 15%… I think that was published in either 20… I think it was actually 2019, that study was published. So we can expect if we were at 15% adoption around 2019, 2020, we can expect to be at about 90% percent adoption around eight or nine years from now. So that’s what I mean by we’re still at the bottom of that S-curve. We’re still at the very bottom of adoption. We still have a long way to go until this is widely accepted and used by your average consumer. Chitra Ragavan: Do you remember when you first became interested in cryptocurrency and when you started to believe in the movement and how it’s shaped your own trajectory in life and career? Perianne Boring: Oh yeah. So, just so you can understand my own personal ethos, I was a student of economics at the University of Florida during the 2008 financial crisis. And I grew up in Florida, actually I was born in Texas, but raised in Florida and my entire family, all my community, everybody I’ve ever known, was from Central Florida. And the 2008 financial crisis was essentially the housing bubble bursting. And that was essentially the State of Florida, because Florida

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Email | RSS

https://media.blubrry.com/whenitmattered/ins.blubrry.com/whenitmattered/Techtopia_2_RD2.mp3Podcast: Play in new window | DownloadSubscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Email | RSS How did technology fuel the explosive birth and growth of the nationalistic extremist movements fueled by former President Donald Trump? How does it compare to the proliferation of foreign terrorist threats? And how can the U.S. government wield technology to combat domestic radicalization? Anne Speckhard, Director of the International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism has interviewed hundreds of terrorists all over the world and offers her expert perspectives. Read the Transcript Download the PDF Chitra Ragavan: The January 6th attacks on the US Capitol by violent supporters of former president, Donald Trump, were a shocking coming out party of sorts for technology enabled and deeply radicalized domestic terrorist groups in the United States. And they sent an unmistakable message to American democracy. Chitra Ragavan: Hello everyone, I’m Chitra Ragavan. And this is Techtopia. On this podcast, we take a look at the addictive and inexorable forces of technology that are transforming people, society and humanity. I’m joined now by Anne Speckhard. She’s director of the International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism. Speckhard has interviewed hundreds of terrorists around the world and has provided expert consultation to the US, European and other governments, as well as the US Department of Defense regarding programs for prevention and rehabilitation of individuals that are committed to political violence and militant jihad. Speckhard has worked extensively with social media platforms, such as Facebook, to create and disseminate counter radicalization messaging against ISIS and other foreign terrorist groups. Anne, welcome to Techtopia. Anne Speckhard: Oh, thank you, Chitra. I’m so glad to be here with you. Chitra Ragavan: As an expert on radicalization, when you saw what was happening on January 6th, both outside and inside the US Capitol, what were your first thoughts? Anne Speckhard: My thoughts were what had been predicted was happening because I’m part of a number of groups that were monitoring and trying to diffuse violence from groups, such as this, before it happened. And, to me, it had been predicted and I was watching it play out. Chitra Ragavan: And over the past months and years, what were some of the things that you are seeing? I know your focus has been predominantly of radicalization of foreign terrorist groups, such as ISIS. But I’m assuming you probably were seeing similar things unfold here in the United States. Anne Speckhard: Definitely. We were seeing groups forming on the internet or forming in real life as well. And what I would say we were really seeing is that online behavior and online threats were moving into real life, which is exactly what we saw with ISIS. That there was a huge amount of propaganda, and incitement. And that we watched people get wrapped up in it. And some of them, oftentimes, they went dark because they would transfer over to telegram. And then, you would see them do something. So, what was happening and being observed on their Facebook or Twitter profile would later translate into real life behavior. Anne Speckhard: But we should say that there were huge groups of people who were responding to this ISIS’ online propaganda that never did anything. Chitra Ragavan: Interesting. So, what do you think was the trigger? What happened? Anne Speckhard: Well, I would definitely say that President Trump incited this mob and he had been inciting them all along with what pundits are now referring to as the “big lie” of telling them that the election was stolen, and that they must stand up for democracy. And these are people, I mean, there are a whole array of people, they’re not a monolith. But these are people that already believe that white rights are being stolen, they’re disenfranchised, they’re upset. And if they’re a conspiracy theorist and QAnon, they believe that Trump is going to stand up to evil powers of the world. Chitra Ragavan: And having interviewed hundreds of foreign terrorists around the world, often in some very hostile countries and conditions, you’ve seen the evolution of these young people, especially getting radicalized, but others as well. What have been some of the things you’ve seen in that pattern of evolution that may apply in this case? Well, we’re definitely seeing similarities in that as a person begins to align themselves, and find their identity with a group that they start to fuse their identity with the group and they narrow their focus. So, they only consume materials from that group. So, with the far right or white supremacists, QAnon, we’re seeing that they no longer believe real news. And that they’re in their own reality that is fed to them I’m sorry to say, in some cases, by the president himself. And also, from news sources that are in agreement with this type of thinking, that the election was stolen, that it was justifiable to move to violence. Or that, in the case of QAnon, that there’s this horrible conspiracy and that only Trump can save the people. Chitra Ragavan: And I saw an interesting quote today in The Washington Post from representative Jim Heinz, a Democrat from Connecticut. And he said in the interview that, “The threats are real, but will not stop the transfer of power.” And then he said, “We’re not talking about a 90 person ISIS cell. We’re talking mainly about a bunch of yahoos who yes, are very dangerous, people could wind up dead, but there’s no danger that they’re going to overthrow the United States government.” The comparison that these are not like the 90-person ISIS cell, and they’re a bunch of yahoos, given what you’ve seen with the radicalization of ISIS and what you saw the other day, would you agree with that? Or would you parse it in some way? Anne Speckhard: I would definitely parse that. And, first of all, I would say ISIS doesn’t have any hope of overthrowing the US government

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Email | RSS

https://media.blubrry.com/techtopiawithchitraragavan/ins.blubrry.com/techtopiawithchitraragavan/Techtopia_1_RD2.mp3Podcast: Play in new window | DownloadSubscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Email | RSS How did technology fuel the conspiracy theories that resulted in the unprecedented sacking of the U.S. Capitol on January 6th by violent Donald Trump supporters? Joseph Coohill, professor of modern world history and host of the popular Professor Buzzkill History Podcast offers perspectives on how this event compares to others in history and its implications for American democracy.  Read the Transcript Download the PDF Chitra Ragavan: How did technology help fuel the spread and reach of conspiracies that resulted in the unprecedented sacking of the US Capitol on January 6th, by violent supporters of President Donald Trump? And how does this event compare to others in history? Chitra Ragavan: Hello everyone. I’m Chitra Ragavan and this is Techtopia. On this podcast, we take a look at the addictive and inexorable forces of technology that are transforming people, society and humanity. Joining me now is the historian, Joseph Coohill. He’s the producer and host of the popular Professor Buzzkill History Podcast, which addresses misconceptions and misunderstandings in history. Professor Coohill earned his doctorate in history from the University of Oxford in 1998 and has taught at universities in Britain and the United States. Joe, welcome to Techtopia. Joseph Coohill: Well thank you for having me on the show and I love the idea of Techtopia. It’s a great podcast. Chitra Ragavan: Thank you. When you watched that riotous mob sacking the US Capitol last week, with your knowledge of modern world history, what were the first thoughts that came to your mind? Joseph Coohill: Well, it followed very similar patterns to other sorts of mobs that flock together and act together based on essentially very, very shallow and already discredited information. It was mob mentality. Most of the people who were there didn’t know much beyond the idea that, “Oh, I believe Trump and Trump believes this.” They weren’t necessarily deep QAnon encyclopedic people, but, and that’s very, very common. It’s much easier to stir up emotions and have people rush to physically attack some place than it is to say, “Oh, okay, let’s sit down and have a discussion about this.” So it looked to me an awful lot, like as the media has portrayed it, as the Reichstag and various other things. And a lot of people stormed the Berlin Wall in 1989, for instance, who weren’t necessarily anti-East Germany. They were just, it was a big mob and they wanted to get their sledgehammers out and did so. So it’s a very, very common thing in history, unfortunately, but it’s one of these things we constantly have to contend with. Chitra Ragavan: Were you surprised that it actually happened here in America? Joseph Coohill: Well, yes and no. Yes, because I would have thought, given that there had been so many protests in 2020 and that the police presence and the military presence around the BLM protests in 2020 had been so strong and there had been some rings around Lincoln Monument and rings of national guards being around the Capitol, that that would have been taken care of beforehand. So I’m not surprised that it happened here. I am surprised that it was that there was a kind of incompetent response by the security forces, if you will, not to be ready for it. Chitra Ragavan: There were people there from many different groups, many different beliefs, many different, who believed in a lot of different conspiracies. And before we kind of delve into that, I know you like to make this clarification between conspiracies, conspiracy theories, conspiracy mongering. What’s that clarification? Joseph Coohill: Well, yeah, I think this is a real problem because after all, a conspiracy is just a group of two or more people who get together and decide to do something and not tell anyone else about it. They do it in secret. In fact, the word conspiracy comes from two Latin words, con and spire, which means to breathe together. So they are literally very much in sync, right? And there have been conspiracies in the past. Julius Caesar’s assassins were obviously conspired. There were conspiracy to murder Lincoln and there’ve been other conspiracies. Joseph Coohill: But what we mean when we talk about conspiracy theories and the fact that most of these conspiracy theories are untrue and causes all these problems is the tendency of lots of people to, what I call, conspiracy monger. They want to understand something that they can understand, and it becomes much easier to apply a template of, “Oh, it’s all the Jews” or “It’s all the deep state,” or “It’s the Russians,” back in the Cold War, that are doing all these things and planning all these things. That’s a much simpler explanation than trying to figure out what’s going on. And then it only spins out from there. So people to jump to conclusions about all kinds of things without even thinking about the evidence at all. So there are conspiracies, Watergate was a conspiracy, right? But not every government action is a conspiracy, even though conspiracy theorists and conspiracy mongers jump to that conclusion. Chitra Ragavan: When you look at some of these beliefs, from QAnon and other groups, some of it is so extreme and yet President Trump was able to tap into that extreme views. What helped him do it so successfully, would you say? Joseph Coohill: It seems to me, just by watching it in the news, one, he does tend to believe, does have a sort of paranoid streak to him. But two, it’s very obvious and it’s became more obvious to him over the 2016 Republican primary and the election that whipping up all these things like the War on Christmas, which has never existed, was extremely popular, and people flock to that sort of stuff. So he definitely realized and realizes that this is a way to gain supporters. Joseph Coohill: