FLOSS Weekly 694 Transcript

Doc Searls (00:00:00):
This is FLOSS Weekly I'm Doc Searls, this week, Jonathan Bennett and I talk again for the second time return trip to Dave Taht, who gives us so many things to talk about and think about the future space. Barford bloat latency, um, new protocols for space and, and long latencies that you can't avoid because the speed of light isn't fast enough is all kinds of stuff in this show. It's one of the most entertaining shows I think we've ever had, and that is coming up next

VO (00:00:35):
Podcasts you love from people you trust. This is TWIT.

Doc Searls (00:00:44):
This is FLOSS Weekly episode 694 recorded Wednesday, August 17th, 2022, Icky Latency and the Dawn of IQI, this episode of FLOSS Weekly is brought to you by ITPro TV are you're looking to break into the world of IT. Get the introduction you need with ITPro TV, visit itpro.tv/twit for an additional 30% off all consumer subscriptions for the lifetime of your active subscription. When you use code TWIT 30 at checkout out. And by I R L an original podcast from Mozilla I R L is a show for people who build AI and people who develop tech policies hosted by Bridget Todd. This season of I R L looks at AI in real life search for I R L in your podcast player. Hello, again, I'm Doc Searls, good, whatever time or day it is, wherever you are in the world. This is FLOSS Weekly. And I am joined this week by Jonathan Bennett himself. We should appear for those of you not visually impaired. There he is. Hey doc, in his,

Jonathan Bennett (00:01:57):
How you doing

Doc Searls (00:01:58):
In his LA? Still in Oklahoma. And

Jonathan Bennett (00:02:02):
Especially we, we were talking just before the show I've got, I've got two little kids and, uh, makes traveling kind of a challenge. I pretty much just stay here until they get a little bigger <laugh>, but it's okay. I like it. Yeah.

Doc Searls (00:02:14):
And then, then if you get to be like mine, you just send them off. <laugh>

Jonathan Bennett (00:02:19):
One of these days, like,

Doc Searls (00:02:20):
Like bear Cubs, you know, you seem to be done. You could feed yourself to go somewhere else. <laugh> love you very much right. Home. Um, <laugh> exactly. Yeah. Since my kids are long grown and gone and reproducing themselves, I'm, I'm, uh, I'm in Santa Barbara. Now. This is my actual office, um, which I visit every once in a while. I'm not in Indiana. I'm not in New York. I'm not in the road. I'm actually home with, with a bunch of things behind me that I don't use, but make good props <laugh> anyway. Uh, so, um, our, our guest today is, uh, is Dave Taht, who is one of the reasons that your internet runs faster <laugh> and, and not just faster, but in better ways. Cuz speed is not the only, uh, only point of it. Either Dave he's on a boat, which is cool. And you're so

Dave Taht (00:03:11):
Glad to be back.

Doc Searls (00:03:13):
Yeah. Great. So yeah, it is great to be back Dave's Dave's now a veteran of the show. Has he been on twice as many times as he was before? So, so Dave, tell us, um, tell us what, why speed is a head trip. Everybody's advertising speed. You know, I've got, I've got a gigabyte down here, but up is still only like 30, but that's not the whole thing. Yeah. So let's start there.

Dave Taht (00:03:38):
I've been doing that. That riff now for a long time. Bandwidth is not speed. Sending a 7 47 full of tapes is sometimes faster than actually dribbling it out. So it's latency, it's latency. It's the latency stupid. There's a wonderful paper on it. How fast she individually, ah, start ran again, steady packets over milliseconds. Each individual frame takes 16 milliseconds to transmit for a video conferencing in order to have a good interactive experience. That's what you need. You don't need megabits per second. You need kilobits per millisecond. So I've been trying to shift the conversation now for last 12 years to say, can we please get steady low latency packets per millisecond and all these other wonderful applications that we do, gaming and video conferencing. Uh, won't begin to work a lot better if we just focus on that.

Doc Searls (00:04:38):
So how I know from talking to some of your cohort and some conversations we've had together that not everybody calls it the same thing. Yeah. Some talk about round trip, some talk latency, talk some, talk, something else. We talked buffer bloat last time. I know you're tired of the topic at this point, but is still new to most people. Um, is there hope of having a lexicon that everybody agrees to or is, is speed too much of a AI? I know what that is.

Dave Taht (00:05:07):
Well, getting something, everyone to agree to something is, uh, you know, doc, what would, let me, let me try a couple new words out on you. Um, uh, most recently app both apple and speed test.net started calling, uh, reaching for responsiveness. Does, does responsiveness means something to you more than speed? Does that work on you and how

Doc Searls (00:05:28):
It it does it does biologically. Um, <laugh> but I'm not sure. I'm not sure it means something. Are you there

Dave Taht (00:05:36):
Are you're there. Yeah. Yeah. Um, so you'll see. One of the things I'm really happy at this happened in the last year is, uh, speed test.net has come out with a new test, which incorporates a responsiveness metric. Uh, and if you run that test, now I could do this on the shot. I could do myself in if you like with this, but if you run a speed test now, um, it'll come up with metrics for download and upload that show you. Yeah, go ahead. Do yourself in. So you do yourself in not me, um, while I'm talking and it measures the responsiveness while you're using the network. And that's the important one, not how fast you can ping when you're not using the network, but when you're actually using a network, how fast can you steer? So it goes back to this new phrase that, uh, we're trying to standardize on as responsiveness.

Dave Taht (00:06:28):
I'm gonna keep talking well that's happening. Um, the, the funny thing is, is that Apple's approach to doing it. They developed a new test called network quality. It's embedded in all the O iOS and OSX things. And what they do is that they've created an interpretation of round trip time called rounds per minute. So how fast can you move back and forth in a minute is a good measure. Everyone knows that 3000 RPM is faster than six th than, than 300 RPM. And 10,000 RPM is really good. The H thing is SP test had roughly the same idea, but they actually just return are reporting round trip time. So bigger numbers on this particular test are worse for speed test and Apple's test bigger numbers are better. Uh, so just trying to communicate in some term that people understand like decibels, of course, Hey, let's turn this to the audio show. How many people understand that decibels are orders of magnitude? I'm just curious.

Doc Searls (00:07:32):
I, I think the math people understand, but, but even with decibels, I mean, I used to work in broadcasting and, um, I know what, how many, what a microvolt or millivolt per meter is. And it kind of, it tells me that's a signal strength, but if you tell me it's 11 DB, it tells me less actually. So yeah. You know, at least instinctively, what is that? I a millivolt, I understand a decibel applies to too many other contexts, so I'm not really sure something relative gets thrown in there.

Dave Taht (00:08:01):
Yeah. So what would you prefer round trips per minute as a measure responsiveness or a really big number for round trip time?

Jonathan Bennett (00:08:10):
Um, well obviously you don't want a big number for round trip time, but I I've kind of, I know the game. Uh <laugh>

Dave Taht (00:08:19):
Yeah, I can. How do you, I, the advantage maker <laugh>

Jonathan Bennett (00:08:24):
Yeah. It's, it's tough. It's a difficult concept to kind of get your head around when you're first, first looking at it. Um, there's the advantage to responsiveness in milliseconds? Cuz you can say that's how long you have to wait for that webpage to even start loading and people kind of can wrap their head around that.

Dave Taht (00:08:42):
Okay. Well maybe we need to find yet another new term, you know,

Jonathan Bennett (00:08:46):
<laugh> UN

Dave Taht (00:08:48):
You know, UN horribleness, interactiveness. Um, the me metaverse capable how's that, that metaverse

Doc Searls (00:08:55):
How about usefulness or, or, you know, I mean utility or oh, certain utility utility index, you know, your, your, your, your, you know, your gigabyte, uh, your gig speed, um, home, home service is actually has a, a utility index of two because it's full of latency and, and yeah. Other things measured across time fiber

Dave Taht (00:09:21):
And the wifi has its little access point buried in that basement. So like you have like an internet quality index, like we have an air quality index.

Doc Searls (00:09:29):
Um, yeah. That's cool IQ. IQI that's good.

Dave Taht (00:09:33):
<laugh> yeah.

Jonathan Bennett (00:09:34):
Or you just use the, uh, the Google maps the way, you know, when you're navigating, you look at your map, see, this road is green. This road is green. Oh, this road is red. That means there's congestion there. Just map out the internet and have certain links red for congestion. Yeah.

Dave Taht (00:09:49):
Try, try, try not to use the internet from your bathroom. You can map out your house that way, you know, and we actually do do that with wifi. Some really great mapping utilities. It'll show you where your wifi is poor. And I'm certainly one of the people that put an access point in the bathroom, cuz

Doc Searls (00:10:04):
<laugh> <laugh> of course, quality time,

Dave Taht (00:10:11):
Get all my tweeting.

Doc Searls (00:10:13):
What do you call that? A boat what's the, the, uh, the heads called the head, the hit. Yeah, the hits <laugh>

Dave Taht (00:10:19):
We're not going there today.

Doc Searls (00:10:21):
That's a head trick when you, when you're hopefully not a joke when you're using the faster wifi in your, in your, in your Lou <laugh> so do we yeah. Changing the conversation. I, I, I like that because the, the promotional conversation is all about speed. So maybe we can, you know, what's our back channel say, what do they say in IQI? I like IQI RPM is already used. They've got one thing on my car. This says RPM. Right. But, um, well it's

Dave Taht (00:10:53):
A good analogy though. You, you, well, actually, you know, when you have high RPM, you're going really fast and you need to change gears. Um, so you've been

Doc Searls (00:11:02):
Trying how icky yeah. Less icky is good. I like icky

Dave Taht (00:11:06):
<laugh> yeah. Less icky. That's cool. Um, but your, your, uh, chatter guy is very, you know, that 5 59 responsiveness is very poor. You know, it is possible with modern technologies to get to over 3000, um, and on fiber and on really high speed links, uh, wired, you can get to 10,000 plus, and that would be a metaverse compatible level of IQI. We have a really, really long way to go, um, to, uh, get to where we had the responsiveness that I wanted to put into the internet. IQI whatever you wanna call it. If we could just agree that speed is not everything that bandwidth is not everything. Just get that far. I can then safely retire.

Doc Searls (00:11:50):
<laugh> I, I'm not sure it'll ever be safe, Dave, but <laugh>,

Dave Taht (00:11:56):
<laugh> gotta go fishing

Doc Searls (00:12:00):
Problems are self replacing almost entirely.

Dave Taht (00:12:04):
Uh, it feels like that. Yeah. Takes all over again. <laugh> so go ahead, go with first. I can put responsiveness and buffer blow down for a while. I had a couple other cool things we could talk about though. Um, what was your next big question for me today?

Jonathan Bennett (00:12:21):
I actually wanted to ask you about 1986. So there there's

Dave Taht (00:12:25):
Wait. 1986, the day, the year of the internet died. Hold on, was a song about that?

Jonathan Bennett (00:12:29):
The, the internet died. Yeah. I'm actually writing about it. I, I am finally putting together that buffer blow article on hacky day and, uh, doing some, some reading into this. And so, you know, 1986, the internet, the, the network link between Berkeley labs and Berkeley U died. And, uh, there's this maybe apocryphal story that apparently the, somebody had to reboot the internet by shipping data tapes through the mail. And I'm, I've been trying to figure out where that comes from and I've heard you tell it what, what is up with that? What happened in 86?

Dave Taht (00:13:01):
All right. I, that piece of folklore is my piece of it's not fiction per se, but it was my interpretation of what happened during them, from my perspective. And I also dug into it some more and I got the real story recently. So I'd like to correct what I've been saying. Um, for many years as a good story. Um, I personally, and many other people did have to basically reboot the internet by tapes. We waited for the next release of sun OS 4.3 in change. And suddenly our, our links started working again. It was down for hours at a time swapping pack at one packet, every 10 minutes, it was awful. But anyway, recently I found van Jacobson describing exactly what happened, and I gave you a wonderful, uh, interview he had on it, um, that I hope you use in your, in your thing.

Dave Taht (00:13:52):
Um, I would love it. If you could play a segment of, of what he had to say there, the thing was, um, in his version of the world, they, they were getting complaints from all over the world about why the internet was down. Uh, you know, people were sending in self-addressed letters and calling because nothing else was working and they didn't understand. And after several months of work, they realized how could stepping down a 10 megabit link to 56 KBIs have ever worked with the design of TCP. And they then created the four fundamental algorithms that we have in TCP today, slow start, ingestion, avoidance, and so forth. Um, and the beauty of it was is that once they came up with the answer, they communicated the answer over the internet to the other four at the time makers of TCP, they all scratched their set head and said, yep, that's the right thing and shipped it. And then over the course of the next year, the internet got massively better, but they had to talk to figure out the problem, collaborate over the internet, talk to the makers at TCP and ship the, when they came up with a solution that went out in about a month for the whole internet. Much better.

Jonathan Bennett (00:15:10):
Yeah. So in, in reading about this, and we're gonna, we're gonna talk about buffer bullet for just a minute, and then we'll go someplace else, cuz I think we're all sick of it and we just want it to work. So when they fixed this, one of the things that they were trying to do is they were trying to keep the buffers on the network full of traffic that was actually going to get where it was supposed to go and do what it was supposed to do. Is that fair to say? So what was happening is there was, there was so much traffic being bounced back and forth that wasn't making it to the end. It was timing out and every time it timed out, it would send yet another attempt. And it was just, it was clogging up with all these attempts that never, ever got to where they were supposed to go to. And so when they, when they wrote the, you know, the responsiveness algorithms for TCP, I said, look, we, we need to keep the buffers full, but we wanna make sure that those full buffers are actually going to get that traffic where they're supposed to go. Is that fair?

Dave Taht (00:16:05):
Reasonably fair. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. We didn't have a lot of buffering that either. Um, it's four

Jonathan Bennett (00:16:10):
Buckets. Well, so you're, <laugh>, that's, that's where buffer blow comes in. Right? So when you've got, you know, eight K or 16 K of buffers, that's eight packets. And so when they, when they wrote these algorithms, they essentially said, we, we expect about eight packets worth of buffering to exist in the gateway. And you know, nowadays you can buy 32 megs or, you know, 128 megs or 512 megs or gigs even of this real fast buffer memory and put it into your, your switch and your router and your gateway. And suddenly instead of having eight packets worth of buffering, you've got 8,000 packets worth of buffering. And uh, if you're sitting at the end of that queue, you sit there for a long time and that's, that is buffer bloat. It's, it's sitting at the back of a buffer queue that's way too big and TCP wasn't ever designed to, to deal with that

Dave Taht (00:17:05):
At that point. And moving forward yes. Is you have to communicate with a lot more than just four manufacturers in order to fix this particular problem.

Jonathan Bennett (00:17:14):
Yes. Uh,

Dave Taht (00:17:15):
And we have worked really hard on, on fixing this end to end. There's a protocol called BBR, uh, which does more of the right things, um, that is increasing deployment. Um, but, uh, the answer even then, um, after they published their wonderful paper, uh, congestion of avoidance and control, you should not be allowed to drink and drive the internet without having read that paper. Um,

Jonathan Bennett (00:17:40):
<laugh>

Dave Taht (00:17:42):
Uh, once they published that there was over a thousand, maybe a 16,000 follow up for some of the things they didn't manage to cover. Um, and principle among those was still the need to do some level of fair cuing and active cue management to manage any given size of buffer. You know, if you have say you had an eight packet buffer, if you have seven packets for one flow, one, two packets for another flow and one packet for, uh, three flows, what's the right answer. Well, arguably you should drop packets from the fattest flow and that's what AQM and fair cuing techniques do. And we bought all this wonderfully wonderful, expensive memory with all these incredibly powerful CPUs. And we forgot to put in those two fundamental algorithms along are many of our bottleneck links, you know, over the last decade, we've really largely succeeded in quantity, billions of actually putting smarter ways of managing more memory into our B our buffer blooded links. And it certainly is my hope that everybody will turn on algorithms such as FQ co and cake on those bottlenecks. And we will have better internets, but we can't solve it over a weekend. <laugh> need your help go forth and turn on these things. <laugh>

Jonathan Bennett (00:19:00):
Yeah, no, there's, there's some interesting places that buffer blow shows up. And, uh, I'm wondering if maybe, uh, some new challenges for this. So I, again, I kind of, I play some inside baseball I'm on some of the, uh, mailing list that Dave is on talking about this. And one of the places that, that buffer blow gets talked about a lot is the Starlink network. And I, I really have to think about this. There there's a, a really big challenge on how to manage networks. Uh, in fact, there's even a question of what is T C I P gonna look like when you start talking about beyond planetary scale, you know, when you are, when your actual speed of light round trip times go into the seconds or the minutes, uh, that kind kind of puts you in a different ball game, doesn't it?

Dave Taht (00:19:46):
Absolutely. It's something so much of a Le it's a, you know, that's a whole show on itself. Um, once you get past about two seconds, most of our concepts of how TCP and the internet should work, have to get replaced with another concept called store and forward. Um, you have to find a Rhonda boot point, for example, and near earth orbit, throw your data up there, have it scheduled and then shipped to the moon. And then an acknowledgement will come back from that and or the, or Mars. Um, so there's a whole set of other protocols that are partially deployed called the bundle protocol, uh, the D uh, delay, tolerant networking. And I would so love it that now that the space program back on the track, um, that we mm-hmm, <affirmative> actually work on implementations of, Hey, how are we going to use this new concept? How are we gonna talk to the moon? How are we gonna send email to our daughter on Europa? You know, um, you can go start working on that now. Um,

Jonathan Bennett (00:20:48):
Yeah, yeah, no, it's, it's real interesting to think about it. I'm I, I spent some time thinking about this. I'm trying to imagine, like, what is, what is the internet itself even going to look like when you try to connect the earth and to, to be a little more speculative out in the future, the earth and Mars, right? Like in a few more couple decades, that's potentially gonna be a thing and not only TCP, but HTML and a whole bunch of different protocols just aren't necessarily gonna make sense for that, you know, a 10 minute delay in your link. And I think it's real fascinating.

Dave Taht (00:21:23):
Yeah. I look forward to that to be able to wash that from my Walker, uh, or my <laugh> product, whatever thing <laugh>, um, there's a really foundational book for me. It came out the same year that snow crash came out. Um, it's called fire upon the deep, and I thought that that was gonna be the architecture for how we would expand the solar system. He basically designed it around the concept of net news, which hopefully some of your listeners have heard of, but it was Storen forward. You sent a message. It was shared upon, uh, for everybody and replicated out there for everybody. And because bandwidth was cheap, but latency was paramount. Everybody got a copy of everything, and that may be how we end up. Uh, we may end up reverting back in time to more net news like architecture, uh, and regardless it's one of the best books ever written in the nineties. I wish more people would read it. <laugh>

Doc Searls (00:22:20):
We'll have to

Jonathan Bennett (00:22:20):
Put that. What was the name of that again? That does sound real interesting.

Dave Taht (00:22:23):
Fire upon the deep you had it. Someone had it on the screen just now. Great book.

Jonathan Bennett (00:22:27):
I will, I will have to check that out. Let us sound that, that sound really great. I think we know why doc disappeared there for a second. He apparently ran a speed test.

Doc Searls (00:22:35):
<laugh> know. I, I, yeah. And the speed test. Well, I that's, when I had a connection, I actually lost the connection for a while there, you know, Jonathan was speaking and froze. I don't, I don't know what happened. Um, and I have, you know,

Dave Taht (00:22:50):
Go ahead.

Doc Searls (00:22:50):
It looks, looks good now. I mean, my loaded upload is 2024 milliseconds. So, um, seems to be working now. <laugh> now is close enough to now for us to work. So I have a follow up, I'll have a follow up on that. Uh, after I let everybody know that this episode of Flo Weekly is brought to you by it pro TV, get the best possible it training to accelerate your it career from it. Pro TV, whose entertainers make learning, engaging, and fun on your own schedule with their virtual labs and practice tests, you'll always be supported and prepared for your exams. You can binge episodes in 20 to 30 minute increments. They have more than 5,800 hours of it training. That's always up to date with the most current content, which is important in a fast paced world. Learn when and where you want on a desktop, apple TV, Roku, or hit the road with your tablet or mobile device.

Doc Searls (00:23:49):
One reviewer says best website to study it and cybersecurity related courses. I like the part where they make a few courses free for a weekend. They're featuring a free live webinar, all things cybersecurity with Ben Fink on Thursday, August 18th at 2:00 PM Eastern standard time. And you can check out past webinars on demand. New it. Training episodes are added daily. Today. You can step into the blooming cloud world with it pro TVs, AWS cloud practitioner training. This course provides everything you need to pass your certification exam and get you on your way to a career in the cloud. You can register at, go.it pro.tv/aws cloud practitioner. And don't forget about your it team checkout and it pro TV business plan for your team today. So visit it pro.tv/TWiTfor an additional 30% off all consumer subscriptions for the lifetime of your active subscription. When you use code TWI 30, that's it pro.tv/twit and use code TWiT 30 for an additional 30% off the lifetime of your active subscription, it pro TV build or expand your it career and enjoy the journey. So Dave, we were on sound. Yeah. So Dave's plate is, is, is guitar <laugh> which, which, which can sound like

Dave Taht (00:25:31):
During the commercials, you know, you turn the commercial off, you practice for a little while and then you go back

Doc Searls (00:25:36):
<laugh> well, not all of, not all our, our, our listeners of viewers get the commercials. So that's that also further confuses thing. Um, so we were talking about the, the future when we're dealing with the latency of the speed of light, 186,000 miles a second, um, uh, is a long time when you're dealing in, in, in space. So, um, so I'm wondering what happens to now. I mean already, I mean, it's, it's really just interesting and, and that's just interesting to me because human perception is, is act, actually lags everything. When two people are talking to each other, there's, there's a lag time in that there's latency in the way we understand things. We, we don't have buffers in the, in the, in the, uh, in the technical sense, we have a short term memory, which purposely decays, um, within about seven seconds. So all this left is meaning, right? If, if I say something and you understand what I said, you can't repeat it verbatim, but you know what I was talking about, right. That's how we, we work. And I'm wondering how that changes. If, if you've thought much about that. I mean, you sourced that book earlier. Um,

Dave Taht (00:26:50):
Yeah, but, well, I've a lot, a lot of books over time. Um, in part, what we're living in today is an apparition from how humanity has always worked. It used to write a letter like a stamp and wait for days or months to get a response, never knowing if it had ever been received. People used to go on sailing trips for two years, they'd be married and they'd come back to, uh, nine month old kid. Uh, you know, they, uh, I, I, I think that maybe our, we are living in a fast paced environment that may well be temp that certainly will be temporary and change as humanity was into space. Uh, and it'll be just another fundamental sea sea change in how we think can work. Um, and maybe a good one. I, for me, I, I I'm, I'm, I'm back to living on my boat primarily is only one piece of technology on this boat, my laptop, and my star lake terminal that is actually older than 1972.

Dave Taht (00:27:51):
And I really love this kind of slow pace in life. You know, I read books, um, and I take notes and I play music, and these are all things that don't require that tremendous interactivity, the problem that we have, and it's also generational is the use of language. You know, when I was a kid, I used to say, are you up for that? And kids today say, are you down for that? <laugh> now, why the hell did this change? I don't know. You know, and when I was a kid you wanna hook up, did not mean what it means today. Um, yeah, so we have this,

Doc Searls (00:28:31):
Yeah.

Dave Taht (00:28:32):
Need to have a shared language, a shared commonality that will somehow continue moving forward. Even with this taste of technology that we have now, uh, it may well be that, um, I have this perpetual nightmare of waking up, uh, for the white, you you're familiar with the Y uh, 36 and Y 38 problem, the clocks roll over and the association collapses. So someone's gonna pull me out with my head in the jar, right. They'll pull me out and they'll send emo, emo JCE at me, you know, all these little pictures, uh, explaining, Hey, do we have a problem? Uh, tomorrow our clocks fall over and we don't have source code to any of our devices to do this. And I'll sit there trying to translate these pictures going by. And that's only, you know, a few years ahead from now, um, you know, looking back, I mean, how do, how old is your, your kid now? Do you communicate well? Do you still use words the same way?

Doc Searls (00:29:30):
Oh yeah. No. Well we, well, I have, we have four very verbal kids, so we all communicate really well. Um, we, I, I have four extroverts <laugh> in just to my wife and I in the family. So, so that works out, but I, you know, they range from age 52 down to 26. So then we have two generations of kids in the family and, and the, the 20, well, 25 actually is 25 still, but maybe 26, a couple months. But he considers himself way, uh, out, out of, he's not he's, he doesn't even wanna be called a millennial because the next generation coming up is so radically different and he deals with them, right. He knows that he's an elder to those people. And, and he is a completely different frame of reference in, in many ways, the way he uses his phone, the way he, you know, he is involved in recruitment for business.

Doc Searls (00:30:19):
And so that's, that's a big part of how do you speak to people? But I was thinking of, um, uh, of, of what space was, I mean, you're in a boat, the original outer space was the horizon on the ocean. <laugh> right. You know, when, when humans invented boats and they went out, they went over the horizon, what was out there. Right. And we went there and we found stuff. Uh it's it's it. And talk about latency, you know, they might not come back. You know, that was the, you know, I mean, the, if you, I think today, if we, if aviation or, uh, cruises had the mortality rate, that clipper ships, that tall ships had 300 years ago, nobody would go on one because it was like a one in 20 pay for it. Yeah. I mean, it's, it's, it's, you know, it's pretty, it's pretty crazy.

Doc Searls (00:31:19):
So, so I mean, I, but a question I have in a way is that I sort of feel like life is quarantined here on this planet. You know, that, and I I'm, I'm actually thinking of how, um, William Shatner, you know, captain Kirk at age 80, whatever he is now, or maybe it's 90, you know, goes up as a guest of, of, uh, Jeff Bezos and comes back and says, it's deaf. <laugh>, you know, I looked out there and it's all blackness and void and nothingness. Oh my God. You know, and, and that's a, I, and I wonder about that because there's, um, this may be way off topic, but there's latency involved in this as well. 15% of the Earth's crust is, is limestone or something like it, lake Dolemite, that was all living matter. At one point, the summit of Mount Everest is Marine limestone.

Doc Searls (00:32:13):
Um, that used to be in what's now the Indian ocean before, you know, it, it was opened up by, um, something breaking off Madagascar and crashing into Asia and making the Himalayas. And, and there is nothing of that on Mars. There's nothing of that on any of the other planets. We know death has nothing live, has been there to provide us with the raw materials. We need to make more life. We have to bring it with us. Um, and that seems like a very, very tall order. Um, you know, we're, we are not built for that. Our machines are, we have some machines on Mars that are doing a great job. They're our eyes and ears. You know, we're talking through a machine right now. These are our eyes and ears, and we're not physically present with each other. So I'm wondering whether the fantasy of human activity in, in the extraterrestrial way is actually kind of doomed until we become another species. You thought about that. Wow.

Dave Taht (00:33:13):
Yes. Go for it. Um,

Dave Taht (00:33:16):
That's really, really profound. Um, I'm gonna reminisce briefly. I was at the, um, spaceship one, anybody remembers spaceship one, the space program was in disarray. The Columbia was not had just blown up. Nobody was flying anything. And, uh, they ran an X prize for the first private spacecraft to crash, to crack the Carmen line twice in three days. And the X prize almost failed until Bert Rotan, um, built what was called spaceship one. And they had a bunch of test flights, nobody cared, but then they announced they were gonna try to crack the Carmen line twice in three days in September of 2004, I think it was. And they asked for all bunch of volunteers to come. I'm gonna get, this is gonna be a long, longer story than I wanted it to be, but something I wanted people to remember. Um, I was a space Nu just like everyone else.

Dave Taht (00:34:16):
And I was working as a VP of something or other for somebody I forget who called up all my friends and said, they need some volunteers to help park cars and punch tickets to wash the first spacecraft built by human hands since whatever crack the Carmen line, who wants to go. And we got about 30 other people, uh, to go down there. And also, uh, a whole bunch of people from the universe, kids from the university of Illinois, commande a school bus and came down to help bunch tickets and park cars. And there was 5,000 of us camped out in the desert on the first day, uh, all night long talking Herbie Hancock was playing piano. It was one of the biggest, beautiful, most beautiful memories of my life. Anyway, we try to get to this point, the, uh, I forget the pilot's name. They launched the first spaceship, one flight.

Dave Taht (00:35:07):
It dropped from the plane. The engine lit and went roaring off into space. And at about T plus 75 seconds, they were displaying stuff simultaneously on its screen down for us to see. And they had a telescope on it as well. The video on the screen kept started to go out and you could see that he was in a spin that was getting worse and worse and worse. And ultimately the video on the ground cracked out. And for all those 5,000 people on the ground who believe in science and technology and human ingenuity thinkers clenched as one, because we all believed how to believe in that moment in magic, then that the force of human will, would go and help save that pilot from disintegrating in space. And you'll see this on the video, but for about 30 seconds there, nobody breathed until he pulled out of that spin and made it down.

Dave Taht (00:36:14):
So my meta answer to your question doc, is that I think that the human will is Adom. And if we need to go and make our own life on other planets, that's what we're going to do. Maybe we'll have robots planning it, but maybe our species will no longer look like what we do. Maybe we'll chop we'll consider legs to be a, uh, say I'm more of an asteroid exploration. I think legs are kind of like a room form, appendix, you know, you'll chop them off at birth. If you're gonna live in space, they're dangerous too much mu sleep, but Ture weights, too much oxygen. You don't need those. Um, so I'm, if I, I, if I could go to sleep and wake up again in 50 years, yeah. Our species may have changed being recognizable, but I think our fundamental humanity will be the same.

Jonathan Bennett (00:37:05):
Wow. Well, <laugh>, I'm, I'm down to follow up on that and I'm not exactly sure how to do it. I was gonna talk about another speed test and y'all are all off talking about the future of humanity here. <laugh> well,

Dave Taht (00:37:19):
I could encourage people to play back what I just said. Well, watching what happened at T plus 75, I still see that, um, every time there and I still remember all the people not breathing <laugh> oh, there pivotal moment in history of space, like, okay, lemme go back to buffer bloat

Jonathan Bennett (00:37:42):
<laugh> so maybe this will give you a little, a little hope for the future of humanity. There's yet another speed test that has a buffer boat, PLA buffer bloat test built into it. That's fast.com. If you seen the Steve, uh, if you hit the advanced it'll show you the loaded and unloaded latencies.

Dave Taht (00:37:58):
Well, how are you doing the day on your network? Are you still half speed test? I half, uh, Starling, have something else

Jonathan Bennett (00:38:06):
<laugh> we could, we could talk about that. If you want to. I've actually got Starling bolted onto the top of my minivan so that I can have decent internet in the middle of Kansas, 75 miles an hour. <laugh>

Dave Taht (00:38:16):
So, by the way, you just ran that speed test. And I did see a bit of lag between your lips and what you were saying. So it's entirely possible. You worked your connection a little bit.

Jonathan Bennett (00:38:26):
That's possible. Um, so when I, when I ran it here on my connection, I did it while you and doc were talking and, uh, I show six milliseconds unloaded 11 milliseconds loaded, and then it tops out at 960 mega per second. Again, though, I kind of cheat. I am, my router is an X 86 box and it runs the CA it's either cake or FQ codel. Uh, last time you were on, you talked me into it. So I got it set up and I must say it does help with the Buffalo look problem a lot.

Dave Taht (00:38:56):
Oh, the big problem that I've really had is trying to get people to understand the statistics behind it. Um, I just worked really hard as a big company in the Ws market called micro tick, and they now all have cake and FCO available and it became insanely popular on day one. It was a little buggy on day one. The thing was is that mic tick. Didn't give you any ability to see the statistics. And I like to show people that by the way, a packet drop once in a while really helps. Um, and, uh, so if you could pull up the statistics on your router and show to me that you've actually had some fair queuing happening or whatever the command is really simple, TC space, minus space, Q disk show. Um, the other nice thing about Microtech is that pretty much all of it, their products, you can also reflash to OpenWrt. So if you're fed up with, or you're want to get a great, uh, an older one other products and keep maintaining it for a while, I know one company has got a couple thousand Microtech stuff is no longer supported by them. So they re flashed everything with OpenWrt and they expect to keep those things running for years, uh, from that day. So I'm glad you're using it in day in and day out. You'll notice ever go to a coffee shop yet since, since COVID have you been to a coffee shop?

Jonathan Bennett (00:40:11):
Yeah, a few times.

Dave Taht (00:40:13):
Um, Starbucks has FCO and cake too, but most other ones don't so go run a fast.com test there and watch all everyone's heads pop up from their laptops. <laugh>

Jonathan Bennett (00:40:24):
<laugh> sounds like a business opportunity. Go do that, that, uh, some little mom and pop chain and then say, Hey, I could fix this for you. <laugh>

Dave Taht (00:40:32):
Yeah. Nice network. You have there shame if something happened to it. <laugh>

Jonathan Bennett (00:40:38):
<laugh> oh, goodness, goodness, Dave. And I would get into way too much trouble if we ever got together in person. I, I just, I can tell <laugh> sounds

Dave Taht (00:40:48):
A good idea.

Jonathan Bennett (00:40:50):
Yeah. Yeah. Good and dangerous. So, so what's next

Dave Taht (00:40:56):
That's that's basic. I had two things I did wanna talk about today that were really important that went by. Sure. They're not exactly the three of them. Actually. I wanna stick on a Fs topic. Um, but I'm gonna build into weirdly, um, and black hat is really one of really great conference. I didn't have a chance to go this year. Um, but two really marvelously weird and wonderful things came out of this. This year's black hat, uh, John Deere, uh, fi someone finally managed to hack into their operating system. And guess what?

Jonathan Bennett (00:41:28):
Sick codes, friend of mine.

Dave Taht (00:41:30):
Yeah, well, you should have them on because you know, there's, there's three different conflated things here. These bastards that control the food production and the tractors for everybody in the world have been stealing. Lennox are ancient, obsolete, unpatched, buggy version of our stuff. They don't even have GPL policy. I get that outta my system and, and I'm really glad that they jail broke it so people can get in there and fix it and add new features. And that's the narrative that I'm trying to fight. Um, the other thing that came out in black hat was that someone finally cracked into Starlink and, uh, star lake was very officially, very welcoming of people that will wanna get in there, security, bugs, but that's the narrative you're allowed to break into our stuff so long as you are a responsible security thing there. And I wanna add a feature, um, uh, two different features.

Dave Taht (00:42:29):
Yeah, I wanna, they have a GPS chip on the bloody thing. You have the, they have the ability to provide perfect time to all their subscribers. And they've never enabled that feature for the subscribers and me. I wanna fix their bloody queue management. There's no pathway for me to get in there, aside from, you know, leveraging the security work that the people that did cracking it open to, to fix it for them. You know, I've got a history of, you know, ubiquity. We, we reverse engineered enough of ubiquity to put smart queues. They called it Cucu on that. And it became one of the most popular features, uh, similarly tic, uh, similarly, a bunch of other products. And since they won't listen to, to us, I wanna just do it. It let me in there kid. I had that last time. So I wanna escape the narrative that it's, that it's, you're in there helping us for to fix the security bugs.

Dave Taht (00:43:27):
It's like, no, we're in there to help you make a better product. The one that's more suitable for the use cases that we have. And, and unless we can somehow get the right to repair and embed it into more, um, law and technology, we're gonna keep having stupid restrictions placed on us by manufacturers that want us to use, you know, you will only use our toothbrush with your right hand and you must FLOSS three times up and down. You know, that level of enforcement of, of things that we buy, uh, it somehow needs to change.

Jonathan Bennett (00:44:04):
So I, I, I do wanna, I do wanna warn you, if you want to break into your satellite dish, you need to, uh, you need to turn it off <laugh> because in fact it may be too late. They, they had a, uh, uh, a security update that they were gonna push that was gonna blow one of the fuses internally and make that particular, uh, that particular attack a lot harder to pull off. I don't, I don't remember the details, whether it was gonna be entirely impossible or just yeah. Make it way more difficult.

Dave Taht (00:44:33):
Um, so here, here, go. Here I go again with the language, actually, I think it's still possible to glitch it. Um, but the word isn't attack, you know, the word is open. The word is unlock. Um, just like we have jail broke. I want jail broken, Starlink terminal, just like I have a jail broken phone. Um, and so the command over the language being used in this particular discussion is bothersome to me. I want a jail broken something. I wanna unlock something. And, um, hopefully we can win that, that war of the memes on that front. So my other two things.

Doc Searls (00:45:15):
Yeah. So, so Dave, you said you had three things to talk about. I want you to save the other two until after I let, after the, that right after that. But first I have to take this quick break to say this episode of FLOSS Weekly is brought to you by I R L an original podcast from Mozilla. Uh, IRL is a show for people who build AI and people who develop, uh, tech policies is hosted by Bridget Todd and the season. I L looks at AI in real life, uh, who can AI help, who can harm the show, features fascinating conversations with people who are working to build more trustworthy AI. For example, there's an episode about how our world is mapped with AI. The data that's missing from those maps tells us as much of a story as the maps themselves. You'll hear all about the people who are working to fill those gaps and take control of the data.

Doc Searls (00:46:06):
There's another episode about gig workers who depend on apps for their livelihood. Uh, that one looks at how they're pushing back against algorithms that control how much they get paid and seeking new ways to gain power over data, to create better working conditions for political junkies. There episodes about the role that AI plays when it comes to the spread of misinformation and hate speech around elections is a big concern for democracies around the world. Um, speaking personally, recently talking to somebody who just bought a, uh, a vacuum cleaner, I've actually repressed the name of the vacuum cleaner, except that except that, um, uh, Amazon just bought them and they don't want Amazon spying in their house. They wouldn't, they wouldn't get an other Amazon stuff. And now they're vacuum cleaner, might be naing onto dimensions of their house. So all those things are in play.

Doc Searls (00:46:56):
And, uh, there's a really great webcast for that. So search for I R L in your podcast player will also include a link in the show notes, my thanks to I R L for their support. So, Dave, you, you said before you, you had three topics you wanted to cover before the end of the show, which is about 10 minutes away. Um, yeah. And, uh, we, we covered the, the black hat thing with, with star link. Um, and, uh, and, and what that portends, uh, what are the other two, or do you wanna keep on that one for a little bit?

Dave Taht (00:47:27):
No, unless, unless you guys wanna talk to that one, some more I've spent most of the last year, trying to figure out ways of communicating better across the years and across the generations and geeks to lawyers and lawyers, to geeks dogs, to cats, cats, to dogs. Um, and what I've been working on mostly is trying to find a way of redirecting the 60 billion. The government's going to be spending on improving the internet as part of the NTI broadband programs. And they, uh, among other things, Starlink had put in a bid to deliver a hundred megabit, 20 megabit service, uh, for, and they got a billion dollar grant for it, which they just got pulled because they didn't quite, weren't quite able to deliver hundred gigabit service, a hundred mega ABI service. And this is where, like, here's a whole bunch of money to go do something that really is not what's does a better job for the consumer.

Dave Taht (00:48:22):
Uh, and I'm actually kind of glad that they didn't get the money. Maybe they'll focus on actual things that deliver stuff. But the core thing that I wanted to talk about was this wonderful piece, uh, about a fellow by the name of Jared mosh, um, who you go looking for him, uh, he just got $2.6 million grant to go drag out fiber to 600 homes in his community. He hit all the wonderful bells of community, this brilliant man, public spirited, very sharing community networks, all the things that combat our relationship with certain large cable companies. And he got UN unbelievably amazing amount of press, but nobody ran the numbers.

Dave Taht (00:49:09):
So I just wanna run the numbers real quick past your audiences. Nobody did. There's thousands upon thousands of comments on multiple blogs about this man's wonderful achievement. $2.6 million divided by 600 is about $4,300 per home. The run out fiber and, and no doubt that all those people's home values will improve. And, uh, I'm glad the federal government could do that. And those people will get fiber. I think fiber's a great thing, but if you then do the math and you say, well, I got 60 billion for another 640,000 people that could use fiber. You end up with a very different number. You end up with $2.6 trillion to run fiber at that kind of costs to 640,000 people. Um, that stuff was in the program. So the program itself is saying, well, okay, uh, here's all this money here's Hey, we got a billion back from the government because we're not gonna pay Starlink anything.

Dave Taht (00:50:06):
And yet we can only run out fiber to 5% of all homes based on those kind of numbers. So I want people to think really hard, um, that maybe if we focus on other metrics and in delivering better server service sooner to all the people that won't be able to get fiber out of any government program for the next decade, um, that we might actually actually build a better network. And it's not just delivering Starlink to rural areas, but also all the wi uh, wireless ISPs that are using much cheaper technologies to give people better internet today. And that's kind of my, please do the math on what it would cost to do fiber everywhere, and either subsidize it to the full extent required or consider other technologies that will be a better win for all of all of Americans. So that's kind of like a political plug, do the math. All right, I'm done. Um, the other one I wanted to bring up, I could, and then we can go off on something else or you guys can comment on that one. You just do the math with me. You follow that part does 2.3 trillion, um, required do fiber everywhere,

Doc Searls (00:51:12):
Kind of I'm busy, like, you know, tapping into on the keyboard while listening and trying not to divide my attention too much while I'm sure, you know, production is doing the same thing. <laugh>

Dave Taht (00:51:24):
Just, just look at all the people cheering on jar ed for his work and, and, and, and building a better network for his community. I'm all in favor of that, but it's a lot of money, um, to do it that way. Um, the other thing on, on my list was this thing called the lotting it's in effect, and it goes back to fo, have you guys heard of that before?

Doc Searls (00:51:44):
Yeah. We put an L in it, but it's say yes. <laugh>.

Dave Taht (00:51:48):
How about, how about you, Jonathan? You know what the Waddington effect is? I, I would like to re reengage,

Doc Searls (00:51:53):
Oh, I see.

Jonathan Bennett (00:51:55):
I, I don't know what I, I may know the effect, but not under that name. So enlighten us, what is the Waddington effect? <laugh>

Dave Taht (00:52:02):
So in, in the free software community, we are big believers that everybody must have the most modern thing, and we must continually update. We must continually whatever. And the John Deere case, for example, shows that you could build something good enough and have it last in the field for a really long time with relatively zero problems. And the want to effect was noted in world war II. As that, if you had scheduled maintenance, if you kept saying, I'm going to update to Colonel 2.6 point 69, and then next quarter, I'm gonna update to the next one. You know, you have this peak of bugs that you get that gradually fade. And over time, if you stick with a stable release, if it's not broken, you don't need to fix it. You don't need to tear it apart. You don't need to make a bad change.

Dave Taht (00:52:47):
The only really huge reason you need to make a change is to, uh, um, give a new feature. And after a while, you know, there aren't a whole lot of new features people really, really need. So I've been really reflecting on fossilized FOSS, and then, you know, maybe we need to think about, like, we have Linux Nel releases that are presently stable for two years, and we have operating system releases that are stable for up to five years. And I look at how we've evolved airplane maintenance, this thing called RCM that fell out of the Waddington effect. And we are building airplanes that don't kill people. And maybe in terms of building better software, we need to start thinking about terms of decades. What we are going to be building is going to be flying in space or wherever 50 years from now. And what does it take to, to build something that won't crash and won't kill people. And that's been kind of a philosophical change for me, based on some of the recent work I did on fixing a bunch of regressions in the open w R T on wifi. Um, if we have that long term perspective, a lot of our talk today is about time, you know, uh, late what latency is required in order to know you've got something stable enough to ship in the space.

Jonathan Bennett (00:54:10):
Um, so this is something I think about a lot too, and I'm, I'm going to, uh, maybe put a different spin on this. So let's the Waddington effect is about among other things, uh, airplanes and how to avoid getting your, your airplane crews killed in war. So airplanes had existed for how many years, by the time that this was a thing. So the, the Wright brothers were, you know, very early, like what, 19 0 1, 19 0 3, some somewhere around there, uh, 40 years went by and the airplane industry finally kind of discovered this. And we are now another 80 years past that. So we're, we're at what 120 years, roughly 120 years of having working aircraft and air travel is now at the point to where it's, it's pretty safe, you know, statistically more safe than automobiles. We had computers for. Well, you could, you could make the argument that you've had computers for almost that long, but let's just say the internet you've had the internet since 1983, you know, January 1st, 1983.

Jonathan Bennett (00:55:20):
So we've had the internet for under 40 years. It's still kind of a new technology. And, uh, yeah, I think about that idea quite a bit, this idea of, of when will it really become stable and mature. And, uh, we've got some <laugh>, we've got quite a bit of time to keep working on it before we really get to the point to where we can say, okay, this is a stable industry. We've, we've kind of have a F a handle on this. Um, I guess all that to say computers and particularly putting computers on the internet where people can talk to them, uh, is, uh, is a, a pretty nascent thing. We're, we're still trying to figure out how that's supposed to work. And, you know, you look at, you look at bugs and, uh, even security vulnerabilities found in some of these age and operating systems, uh, that are still being found today by the people that care to look for them.

Jonathan Bennett (00:56:15):
I don't, I don't think we're there yet. Uh, you know, I mean, there, there are guys that are finding exploits in, uh, Nees games of all things, you know, there's this wonderful, uh, tool assessed, speed run demo of someone taking a super Nintendo game and finding an exploit to where they can run arbitrary code by pushing buttons on an SSEs controller. And, uh, you know, that, it's the craziest thing. We as humans, we have not been writing source code for long enough to be able to do it right. I don't know that we're ever gonna be able to get to that point. Um, but man, I don't know. I, I think there's always going to be a need for being able to do updates because code is kind of always gonna be broken in some way or another don't you think

Dave Taht (00:57:01):
I am deeply cynical. Um, but I think that we are possibly, you know, we are 30 odd years into, uh, the internet equivalent of the airplane development process. And so we can have some hope, um, that in 15 years or so, we will have got something that's close to future complete, uh, and largely not buggy and largely not with a, with security holes. That'd be a great goal to have. So, you know, by 2036, if we've truly resolved the Y 36 K problem, um, and we've got I P six deployed and we've learned, we've replaced our more dangerous things with rust. Um, and it may well be that'll enter an age of where we can apply techniques such as RCM to how we develop and deploy network computers. Um, it's a good goal to hang for. It does take all a lot, not all, a lot of the fun and excitement out of, out of networking. Um, but I would like a world that was safer in the future than it is today. And it's just, maybe it's a golden dream in the sky, but I think we have a lot to learn from how, uh, the airline industry evolved after the development of what's called RCM today. And if we could apply that to more of our software development processes formally, then we might, we might get there.

Jonathan Bennett (00:58:32):
Yep. We we've mentioned the, uh, the, the Y 36 Y 38 problem. Oh, at least one of those is the Unix time running out of, uh, 32 bit room. Isn't it? One of 32 bit times stamp rolls around to zero. Which one is that? And what's the other problem.

Dave Taht (00:58:47):
The other one's NTP. I forget one of them's 36, one's 38 NTP runs out. One, one point. That's the one I have a funny deal with Eric. Raymond is the, uh, this is shout out for Eric. Eric is recovering from stomach cancer. He's doing well. Uh, goodness. He is, uh, one of the, uh, uh, maintainers of NTP sec, which is a version of it. And he and I have a deal I've rented a whole bunch of IPV, four addresses from him, uh, until, uh, NTT NTP, time rolls over. And we figure that, uh, that resets everything. So we have our contract that terminates on the day that NTPs clock rolls over. So if civilization doesn't collapse, he gets his IP addresses back

Jonathan Bennett (00:59:37):
Is the ultimate in hedging, your bet.

Dave Taht (00:59:40):
Oh, that's great. I think she went a lot of contracts like that. Really. I was, I don't know about how scared about YT K U were, but I spent a lot of time in that last year or two really worried about it working in a lot of places, uh, for where it might have been a problem. Um, so worry about that now and just, just <laugh> sail, whatever. Um, but we have worried about that sufficiently and I'm hoping that by then, everything important that will roll over will roll over properly.

Doc Searls (01:00:14):
Well, guys, I hate to tell you, we are in fact out of time, um, or close enough that I have to just ask you the final. Um, we've already done the thing where we ask you, you know, what have we talked about? You actually numbered them. And I

Dave Taht (01:00:29):
Got a new answer to what editor do I use though?

Doc Searls (01:00:32):
Oh, good. That's that's the answer is, that's the question, you know, what's your, what's your scripting language today and your text editor today? What,

Dave Taht (01:00:40):
Um, the answer to the second, I've gone back to pencil and paper, it's really marked

Jonathan Bennett (01:00:46):
Focusing,

Dave Taht (01:00:47):
You know, it has this thing on the other side called an eraser and, uh, it works about power. Uh, it's tremendously useful in all cases. And, uh, and it doesn't cost anything really to use. So that's my first answer. And in terms of scripting language, you know, to your audience, um, I'm an old fart and I am trying desperately to find one or two languages that I can be fiercely productive in and safer and forward looking. Um, I recently tried rust. It's not a scripting language at all. And, um, I'm just not into that much BDSM. I'm sure

Doc Searls (01:01:26):
It must,

Dave Taht (01:01:29):
But I would like to be able to quickly express various ideas or something better than a she script. So there's anyone in the audience that can say, aha, I've got something better than Pearl without the indentations to Python. Thank you for all the suggestions, everybody. Um, go by the way. For my opinion, I, I looked at go recently and, uh, the generic support looked very promising. Um, and I, I, I have a native affinity for that particular kind of language. So I'm leaning that way as much as people are trying to, trying to get me to go into the rusty world. Thanks for your suggestions.

Doc Searls (01:02:10):
<laugh> the rusty world, the post rusty world. Oh my gosh. Then maybe, maybe that's the, the name for the show. So, Dave, thanks so much for, um, joining us on your boat there. Uh, I'd like to raise the flash to you two to <laugh> he's drinking the last of his coffee there, straining it through his bigger beard, three guys with face hair, for those of you that who could see, I would really, so thanks again, Dave.

Dave Taht (01:02:40):
Thank you. I asked

Doc Searls (01:02:41):
You we'll have you back in another six months when the future, uh, will, a lot of the future has gone by thanks. And maybe some of the,

Dave Taht (01:02:47):
I really would love, love it so much. If you could have Len Klein rock on.

Doc Searls (01:02:51):
Um, no, we want to, we want to good help us with that.

Dave Taht (01:02:54):
Yeah, that'd be great. You'd

Doc Searls (01:02:56):
Be great.

Dave Taht (01:02:56):
So, all right. Thanks for having me again. And I'll gladly stick around for the post, whatever you call it.

Doc Searls (01:03:02):
<laugh> okay. So Jonathan rock and roll show, huh?

Jonathan Bennett (01:03:07):
<laugh> oh yeah. Dave's, Dave's always fun to talk to. Uh, he just, just a blast. Um, we kind of covered everything didn't we, uh, from buffer bloat to post humanity, to <laugh> what comes next for software development, just all over the place,

Doc Searls (01:03:24):
Space, time latency in everything <laugh> the, the horizon and, and the ordinary stuff you need in order to make the world work. Like maybe a pencil and paper. Yeah, yeah, yeah,

Jonathan Bennett (01:03:38):
Absolutely. Some some,

Doc Searls (01:03:40):
Go ahead, go ahead.

Jonathan Bennett (01:03:42):
I was just gonna say some fun, some fun stuff there, some, some very forward future looking stuff that, you know, maybe isn't as far beyond the horizon, as we think. And, uh, some very practical stuff right today. I like it.

Doc Searls (01:03:57):
And, uh, uh, so I have to let everybody know that, uh, Pete Kaminski, uh, an old friend, um, and Jack of many, many, many trades, um, we'll be back next week and, and we're gonna break Jonathan's three straight weeks of co-hosting record. <laugh> <laugh> I think that, I, I think maybe Sean power is gonna guess that one. I I'm not I, to be sure. Anyway, uh, we're gonna have Pete on next week, uh, from his layer, I think is, is San Diego, but, uh, I know him mostly from the internet and, uh, but it's been a great show. It did a great show.

Jonathan Bennett (01:04:31):
Yeah. Can I, can I plug something real quick?

Doc Searls (01:04:34):
Well, please. I was, I, I jumped to the next week, cuz I'm always afraid of missing it and jumped over your that's. Alright, your, your plugs

Jonathan Bennett (01:04:41):
Rather, rather than my normal plugs, I've got a buddy that, uh, needs employment and, uh, he is, he's good with the Linux kernel. He's been doing Android work. He's a CC plus plus developer. He really gets open source and uh, you know, he's, he's looking for some kind of employment or contracting and, uh, he's getting a little desperate. So somebody wants a really competent CC plus plus programmer that understands the kernel. Uh, hit me up on, uh, maybe on Twitter, JP underscore Bennett or, uh, through the show, but let me know he is looking for something and that's what I'm gonna plug this week.

Doc Searls (01:05:16):
Oh, that's great. Good thing. I'd like to hear next week, whether that's something or you won't be on next week, but we'll like to hear anyway, <laugh> maybe in the, uh, on your weekend Lin show, if you can tell us what happened with the, with your Alder. So thanks everybody. Um, back next week with Pete Kaminski and, uh, as the guest and we will see you then

Speaker 5 (01:05:35):
The world is changing rapidly so rapidly. In fact that it's hard to keep up. That's why Micah Sergeant and I, Jason Howell talk with the people, Macon and breaking the tech news on tech news Weekly, every Thursday, they know these stories better than anyone. So why not get them to talk about it in their own words, subscribe to tech news Weekly, and you won't miss a beat every Thursday at TWiT TV.