November 17, 2010 • 32 mins
It's no secret that human beings have an obsession with innovation -- but has our species already found every good idea? As Josh and Chuck break down the continuing search for the next great idea, they touch on everything from hand tools to cancer cures.
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Brought to you by the reinvented two thousand twelve Camray.
It's ready. Are you welcome to Stuff You Should Know?
From House Stuff Works dot Com. Hey, and welcome to
the podcast. I'm Josh Clark with me as always as
Charles W. Chuck Bryant. And that makes the stuff you
(00:22):
should know. That's right, Yes, it is not other imitators.
I wonder how many times I've said that that makes
the stuff you should know. No, the just the whole spiel,
the whole opening. Hey, you welcome to the podcast. Well
you've said it about two hundred and seventy. Sometimes I think,
luckily we have them all saved and we could count
we do. I don't know if it's lucky, though, Chuck,
(00:43):
that's a lot of shows, dude, we should do something
special for three hundred. That's like, that's a lot of shows.
It is that makes me probably Okay, Well, do you
think maybe we could get some cake around here or something?
Shrimp cocktail the love of Pete. No, I'm allergic to
shrimp now, I remember, I know, But to let a
throat out there. Actually, I had a shrimp wanton the
(01:04):
other day and nothing happened. I had a wanton with
shrimp and nothing happened. So it was just like tiny
little bits of shrimp. And I don't know either that
or I'm getting stronger. Maybe so superhuman, you might say
trans human speaking of human um, chuck. There is a
recent study that came out in part from one of
(01:26):
our universities here in the city, Emory, right down the street,
Great School. There's been this problem that's been plaguing researchers
for a really long time, and that is at the
beginning of the Lower Paleolithic period, which is about two
points seven million years ago, we started using sharp rocks
(01:47):
as bashing and cutting tools. So we figured that out. Okay,
you can take a rock, that's technology. That's not horse,
that's technology. Yes, okay, you can take this rock and
you can use it to when a coconut or the
head of someone who's wrong. Do you using an implement
to complete attack? Well, specifically sharp rocks? Okay? It took
(02:10):
two million years the end of the Lower Paleolithic period
before we figured out that we could actually attach handles
to these things. And tournament how long it took? Yes,
And this is baffled scientists, like, how could it possibly
have taken two million years to go from using your
hand to attaching a stick. You know, this doesn't make
(02:33):
any sense. So, um, well they were dumb back then.
Well a dumb is close to it. They would literally
were lacking the region of the brain needed. Apparently, according
to this new study, Um, they they basically we developed
a region in the right hemisphere, specifically the supra marginal gyrus,
(02:56):
which allowed us to go, hey, let's put a hand
on this. And after we did that, we moved out
of Africa and started colonizing the rest of the world.
So that's they've been pointed the region of the brain
that is specific to innovation, too specific to um stone toolmaking. Okay,
I thought you meant innovation in general. No, like that's
where your ideas come from. No, give me a second,
(03:17):
old ramp all shoot, did every rue it? It's okay? Um.
So we go from I can't figure out how to
attach a handle to a sharp rocky two million years
we figured that out, We leave Africa, and we start
colonizing the rest of the world, and all of a
sudden things start entering light speed, right, And it seems
like over the last couple hundred years, you know, especially
(03:39):
since the Industrial Revolution, our ability to innovate, to grasp
new ideas, to understand the world around us has just
been hitting this hyper speed, and a lot of people
wonder if we've reached a point where all the ideas,
all the good ones at least, have already been discovered,
all the we under stand how everything works, and there's
(04:03):
really just figuring out how to dot the eyes and
cross the teas right right. There was actually a guy
who famously said in guy named Charles Buell. I love
this quote. He was, He was the commissioner of the
Patents Office. That's attributed to him, I should say, but
he said something like everything that can be invented has
already been invented. And he said this in a memo,
(04:25):
basically saying like you should go ahead and shut down
the patent office. He clearly had never considered the Snuggie
Josh or anything that's been invented since. So here's what
I'm gonna say. I'm gonna go ahead and give you
my summation early on, Okay, is that I think people
think at various times in history that they've plateaued, and
(04:49):
then I think things happen. People come along innovators and
then they reached new heights and they go, oh, well,
we didn't know that, and we there are new ideas, right.
It's it's on most umb. It almost displays a shameful
lack of historic awareness to say we've reached the end
of all of our good ideas. It's just it's just
(05:11):
asking to be made a fool of, yeah, or for
people to maybe people do that on purpose, to go
the innovators and say, oh, yeah, right, using reverse psychology,
you know that's how innovation works. Yeah, you might as
well just give up. Reverse psychology drives innovation. There are
people though, that say that technological that real technological innovation
(05:33):
has been stalled for quite a while. Yes, after the
nineties computer revolution, everything else since then has kind of
been like, uh, packaging it and better looking cases and
sleeker designs, and it's all like design oriented it is,
or marketing oriented. These these guys Cedric Lagare and Eric Virdo,
(05:57):
we're both with scheme of business school. Um basically say, smartphones, Yes,
they seem incredibly new and cutting in, but really they're
just the packaging of several already extant technologies into a
really sharp looking handheld device, but there's still a new idea.
I would argue it is still a new idea. But
I think what their point is is saying, like, but
(06:19):
before the late nineties and before the eighties, let's say,
with computers, but especially the tech boom of the telecom
boom of the late nineties, Like this stuff wasn't around, Like,
it's not true innovation rights, it's kind of repurposing and
what you were saying, like the cosmetic changes to a computer. Um.
One of the reasons why they they believe that this
(06:41):
is going on is because we've come to a point
in the computer revolution. I think, chuck, where, Um, it's
not you can still make tons of cash just by
changing the casing of a CPU. Yeah, there's like no
money in innovation basically, is what I got from this
one article is that innovation costs more than it's worth
(07:04):
when you can just repackage what you've got in a
sleeker design and people buy it up. Exactly. Um, these
two authors of this article, UM predict that we're gonna
have two trends that will drive innovation. I guess currently right, yes,
that consolidation where basically like especially with I think they're
talking just about computers. Yeah, because they're saying the big
(07:27):
hardware firms are going to all consolidate all of the
smaller hardware firms to where they'll just basically be like
the Big three or five, and that will leave it
to the software firms to compete and innovate, so we'll
see more innovation in the software side rather than the
hardware side. And they're also saying that, um, the green
boom is going to drive innovation that makes sense, like
(07:49):
coming up with sustainable packages or sustainable solutions. Yeah, totally.
One of the other things I pointed out thought was
interesting was the they said they said the tes uh
they call it the tech refresh cycle is too small
right now. So what's happening is they'll say, Um, you
like your CD, well you're gonna love the the Super
(08:11):
Audio CD or Blu Ray. Do you like your DVD.
You're gonna love Blu Ray. But guess what's coming up
after Blu Ray. It's gonna be like Super Blue Ray.
It's happening so fast. People aren't abandoning their current systems.
They're just like, you know what, I'm gonna hold on
because I don't want to be the guy stuck with
the laser disc player in a couple of years, so
all of a sudden, the same thing happens. No one's
(08:31):
buying it, so it's not worth a much money, which
means that nobody's putting any effort into it and money
into it. So innovation sees right. And there's a guy,
um named Edmund Phelps who's a professor of political economy
at Columbia University, right, and he's basically kind of saying
the same thing. He's saying that, Um, there's not enough
(08:52):
money going toward innovation. But rather than the the onus
being put on consumers not buying blue rays of fear
of looking like laser disc jerks, Um, it's actually government
and big business that's not pouring money into small innovators. Yeah,
he said, that's the innovation is the only thing not
(09:12):
subsidized by the United States government, which he says is
actually attacks in a way because it's not being subsidized. Reach.
You could definitely, Yeah, I think a lot of these
guy's points are reached. But um, what he's suggesting is
if the government isn't pouring money into big business so
that they can pour money into I guess small venture firms. Um,
(09:37):
these people who are in their garages aren't going to
take you know, risks, They're not going to innovate. There's
no incentive. Right. I disagree with this. I dispute this
because he's saying, like the people who do work in
their garages and you know, are the Steve Jobs and
Bill Gates in the seventies, that they were driven by
this lust for money exactly. And I think that's wrong.
(10:00):
I think that people innovate first and foremost to get
this idea out of their head and birth into reality. Right.
I'm glad you said this because I completely agreed. Regardless
of what you think of the Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg didn't
invent Facebook to make gobs of money. He invented to
make real friends. Yeah, to to innovate. And that's what
that's my point that you made is that these people
(10:21):
in the garage, the true innovators. They don't care if
they have two pennies to rub together. They're still gonna
be trying to innovate and make a name for themselves
and come up with something awesome. Right. And now there
are people out there who are trying to innovate for
you know, the riches sure. The guy who invented the
snugg he wasn't in his garage and just wanted to
(10:41):
kind of get this out or else I'm never gonna sleep. Yeah,
that's the people that are looking for the next get
rich quick thing. But I think you can also make
a point that, um, when you introduce money to innovation,
it leads to actual stagnation. Um, because when you introduce money,
there's now uh something to lose, and people are less
(11:03):
willing to take risks, and risk is one of the
driving the willingness to take risk is one of the
driving forces of innovation. You know. Yeah, well, I Phelps
had a good idea, uh and this will never happen,
of course, because it's a good idea to create the
first national Bank of innovation all capitalized capitalized not all caps,
but each word is capitalized. He should do it all
in all caps with exclamation points. But basically, it would
(11:26):
be a bank that you could go and partner, you know,
as a startup company and partner with his bank for
financing and you know, get I would guess some sort
of low interest loans to spur innovation. Right. That was
a great idea, So it is. It is a good
idea and this does happen in the real world, and
the government does pour money into innovation. He's not exactly
(11:49):
correct in that sense. And I also kind of resented
that he placed big business in between you know, people
in their garage innovating and you know, government subsidies that
we have to have big business give them the money
and then skim a little off the top and give
it to this guy in the garage. He's drawing broad
strokes here. For sure. There are government programs, and we'll
(12:11):
talk about one from the National Institutes of Health where
the government says, hey, you have a really good idea,
Mr or MS research scientists, and we're gonna give you
enough money to survive for three years. Yeah, because the
deal is you can always get grants if you know,
you put together a nice package. But this program with
the n i H what's it called the New Innovator Award,
(12:34):
Director's New Innovator Award. This is uh intended for people
who have such a good idea, but it's so new
that they don't have the data to write a grant
where people would say, like, it looks like you're onto
something here, So they're sort of throwing money at stuff.
That's like, you know, you're the dude in the garage
and we believe in this idea. Go see what you
can find out, right, and we're keeping big business out
(12:56):
of the way. Yes, but now that and I h
owns you for the rest of your career. Yeah, So
let's talk about UM. There's three people at U c
l A That got these grants recently and they're up
to some kind of some interesting one could say innovative stuff, right.
They have some good ideas, hugely innovative about how to
UM approach problems, like the professor Dino di Carlo. All
(13:21):
these I think these people are younger than us. By
the way, UM Dino de Carlo is working on ways
to basically apply heat or pressure or chemicals to very
specific sites in cells using nanoparticles and magnets, which is tough,
sounds like a winning idea to me. Is basically one
(13:42):
of the big problems we have with UM getting cells,
engineering cells to do specific things, like UM, I don't know,
attack other cells for fun. Like if tell me that
wouldn't be like a big Christmas gift this year, if
you could like make cells fight with one another under
the microscope, UM then what you have to basically try
(14:05):
to engineer the cell, you know, time after time after time,
and basically program it to do what you want it
to do. What Di Carlo is coming up with is
a way to use very tiny magnets and even tinier
nano particles that can basically you, my brain is so small.
When you move the magnet with a joystick, it attracts
(14:29):
the nano particles in a certain direction or whatever, and
you can have the nano particles apply heat or pressure
or a specific chemical to a specific site on a
cell and direct it to go attack another cell for
your pleasure. That's awesome, your amusement. So one point five
mill goes to uh de Carlo and for a good reason.
And for a good reason. The other winner, one of
the other winners, was Hugh Wang, and you came up
(14:53):
with basically, I'm gonna break this down easy. Instead of saying,
let me come up with cure for cancer, hu Wang said,
let me come up with a way to detect cancer
so early, like way earlier than we've ever detected it before,
that we can stop in his track essentially curing cancer.
And he's doing this, actually I don't know, she's doing
(15:17):
this um through uh nano material called graphine that is
just one atom thick. Yes, graphine is like the super
clearly not of this world material. It's literally a carbon
atom thick. That's it. So, but it is a biological
sensor to tell you when cells aren't doing the things
(15:39):
that should be doing. So did you know a graham
of this stuff? It's flattened covers a football field. Wow,
it's ultra light. That is thin, my friend, it's one
atom thin. So one point five mail to hu Wang, Right, well,
did you explain how? Let me let me try my
hand at this. So basically what you do is you um,
(16:00):
you put a graphine conductor transistor UM in a cell
and when these biological markers right say his stones or
something like that, start to accumulate, they're attracted to the graphing.
And these, by the way these biological markers are, we
found are correlated with the growth of cancer, the origin
(16:22):
of cancer. That's where they're starting. UM. And when some
of these markers like are attracted to the graphing, they
create an electrical charge that we can sense. And the
graphine is so thin but so highly conductive that um
with just a couple of these molecules attaching to the graphing.
We would be able to detect it and be like,
oh right, we'd be like, oh crap, you have cancer
(16:47):
and we'd cure it right then. Wow, Yeah, that's awesome. Yeah,
and it's a good way to approach a cure for cancer.
If you asked me, did I explain that? Well? I
think so. I think the last winner this year was
Jen Hill Lee and Jin is trying to debug the
brain circuit using you know, we have the Wonder Machine,
which is our favorite thing in the world fm R I,
which measures uh measures. It measures blood and oxygen levels
(17:10):
in the brain, so it tells you these areas light
up there called bold signals blood and oxygen level dependent.
They light up to correspond a certain brain right, And
we've talked about this before, like you're seeing that there's
more oxygen that's going to that part of the brain.
So we've assumed this is the basis of the f
m R I. If it has more oxygen being delivered
(17:31):
to it, that must mean that that region of the
brain is active. When you show somebody a picture of
you know, their kid, like being carried away into a
van that you know that's the fear region right there. Um.
That doesn't really say anything though, and it doesn't. It
doesn't also implicate well it's it's not it's showing. Okay,
well there's more oxygen in this region, right? What this is, um?
(17:55):
What what genuine Lee is looking at is um how
or what specifically on the neuronal level is being activated? Right?
And he's using opt to genetics, So it's going to
be called the O F M R I. And that's
beyond even what we thought was the wonder machine. So
this is the super duper wonder machine. Basically, he's using
(18:17):
light to allow genetically specified neurons to be activated. Right.
Do you know, um, are one of our listeners that
Emory has been harping on us doing one on opt
to genetics for a while. We should get this person
in here. This is probably his closest forever gonna come
out and it uh, well it's a great idea though
(18:37):
obviously because Jin Young Lee won one of the Innovator
Awards as well. Yes, and they give these out every year,
so they clearly believe that we're not out of good ideas.
No excellent point choke h no, and we're not out
of good ideas. So yes, Chuck, we we you pick
those out. You found those guys all right, Well I
(18:58):
didn't personally find them. You're like, these guys should get
the UM. There are very good ideas out there, right,
But there is a debate that's raging in science UM
about whether these ideas like optogenetics or um, you know,
(19:21):
using graphine or nanoparticles to cure detect cancer. UM, are
these variations on a theme? Are they applying cosmetic changes
to a computer rather than really creating new parts to it? Right?
And basically the question is, um, are are are there
(19:43):
any more major discoveries for us to make or are
these really just basically at Remember I've always said like
we we have the pieces on the table, now we
just have to put it together. Is that the point
that we're at? UM said we were, I did, and
then we started researching this, and I'm like, I wonder,
I think I still do believe that. UM. But within
(20:03):
that though, there's so much that it's to me a
little bit like splitting hair. Well, but you're absolutely right,
especially when you throw in the word discovered, right, Discovery
indicates something that's already out there. We just figure it
out or stumble upon it and an idea necessarily kind
of UM invention leads, Yeah, it leads to an invention.
(20:24):
It's something we we've created, like technology. So let's talk
about discovery, right. We have a lot of UM problems
that are still facing us and how we understand the universe,
like human consciousness. How do brain cells create our understanding
of the world, like what we see as reality? How
(20:46):
is that possible? And can we figure everything out? Well,
that's the big question. Is there there's a UM there's
Like I said, there's a lot of debate about whether
or not we will ever be able to figure everything out,
or if the human brain just simply isn't UM programmed
to understand the world? Uh fully, you know, will will.
(21:09):
There's a guy who's a physicist. His name is um
Russell Standard, and he's written this book called The End
of Discovery, and basically he's saying he says that we're
in quote a transient age of human development, right where
we're past the point where we figured out you can
put a handle on a rock and make it an ax.
But we're right before the point where we can no
(21:33):
longer make discoveries. Not because we've understood everything or figured
everything out. But because we've reached the limits of what
is noble for the human brain. But even that, look
at that, that part of the the right hemisphere that
developed and allowed us to put the axe handle on, right,
who's to say that our brain won't that we won't
(21:55):
reach that point where we can't know anything any longer,
or I can't know everything? And in uh, we evolve
even further and all of a sudden we're even better
at um understanding our world. Right, But will we end
up eventually coming to a point where humans understand everything
and there is no more discovery to make I say no,
(22:17):
because he he points out in here and this is
I think very valid from the Midnight century, the nineteenth century.
I'm sorry they said that. A lot of people in
science said, you know, we've kind of debunked religion and
philosophy and all these things with scientific discovery. But he
points out, and I agree that even if you figure
out all the problems of science, which will never happen,
there's still human life and consciousness in the subjectivity of
(22:42):
what goes on inside a person's head. You're never gonna
solve that's not solvable, right, that's what I argue. That's subjectivism. Yeah,
before I think I believe in that there, well, they're
the whole the I guess I I agree with you. Um,
there's this aspect of the universe that Kant called the
new Amenon, new amenon that was specifically tailored from my
(23:07):
thick time. But basically the new aminon is the thing
itself right where um it has. It's just the objective.
It's the objective universe, and we don't interact with that.
Everything we know and understand is subjective, and this is
where subjectivism is is based that basically we can never
(23:29):
fully know anything or and we certainly won't ever know
everything because one thing that will always be elusive is
what you see. My reality is different than your reality exactly,
and there's different. There's an extreme version of it called
so solipsism, right, yes, and solipsism is the the um
(23:49):
this extreme version of subjectivism that basically says, um, we
everything is so subjective that I can't fully verify that
you exist. The only thing I know that exists is
my reality, but all of you may be made up.
I may be totally completely out of my mind and
actually in a padded cell right now and none of
(24:11):
you are really real Well, that's sort of touches on
the whole quantum mechanics thing, right, don't you think Please? Well,
I mean, I don't have a whole to say about
it because we've covered it, but it definitely is along
the same line. So I think, well, yeah, there's a
there's an interpretation of quantum mechanics that basically says, um,
(24:31):
everything we know about the universe we know through observation,
and but once you observe it, it it changes. That's part
of it. And when when we observe, we we gain information, right,
but we can't observe everything at once, So all we
know exists in our reality for sure, is what we're observing.
So everything else, like what's going on out there in
(24:52):
the office right now, doesn't exist because we're not there
to observe it. Mind blowing. Once again, it is mind blowing,
but it all So we say all this not just
to you know, rock out to Floyd, but um, because
this is this is what science is up against. This
isn't just jibberish. This isn't just philosophical jibberish, as much
(25:12):
as science would like it to be. There is a
true problem with the fact that subjectivity, not objectivity, is
how we interact with our universe, even though science is
based it's supposed to be based exclusively on objectivity. Right. Well, uh,
Stephen Hawking, you might have heard of him and another
dude named Leonard load Loader. Now is how I'm going
(25:36):
to pronounce that there's a silent m in there somewhere.
They have a new book called The Grand Design, and
they are now saying that I think scientists used to
say we're gonna find the theory of everything. Now they're saying,
you know what, We're probably not going to find the
theory of everything, but it's probably gonna be more like
what they call, quote a family of interconnected theories which
describe your reality under very specific conditions. And this is
(25:58):
kind of huge for Stephen Hawking because he's long been
a big supporter of the theory of everything, which takes
the standard model of physics, includes gravity, which has always
been elusive, and then marries it with quantum mechanics to
explain everything. That's the theory of everything. It's one theory
that explains everything, right, like that surfer guy exactly, Garrett Leci.
(26:20):
I think it's damn it was. And you know it's
going to be years before he's shown to be correct
or incorrect. But Hawking saying it's probably not going to
be the case. There's going to there's too many different
variables that don't fit together. But the thing that really
scares a physicist, that will scare any physicist, is this sports.
(26:42):
Those are those models that we've come up with. Are
they how the universe actually works? Or how we look
at the universe and see how it works? You see
what I'm saying. There's that subjectivism again. It can't be
whipped well. And all the things that we've said over
the years that we have formed to be true, are
those even true? Or are are the conclusions we're reaching
(27:04):
just based on years of thought compiled that may not
have been true to begin with. So I like we
arrive at reality by consensus. Yeah, but is that consensus?
Was that even accurate along the way? Not necessarily. It's
been shown time and time again that it's it hasn't
been accurate through these um the five revolutions, as VM
(27:25):
Ramaschandra and puts them. Arnicus Copernicus was the first one
who said that Earth is not the center of the universe,
Darwinism dark very good. Chuck Darwin's says like, hey, we're
actually just a bunch of apes DNA Freud Freud Freud
saying like we we actually are driven by desires that
we can't control and aren't really aware of DNA, which
(27:47):
is saying I think James Watson, who found DNA along
with Francis Crick, said quote, there are only molecules, everything
else is sociologist. I love that quote, man, It's one
of my favorite. And then um, the Fifth Revolution, the
neuroscience revolution, that we're all everything, are all of our
understanding movements and and experiences are nothing but um neuronal transmissions,
(28:10):
electrochemical impulses. Right, so there's not even sociology that even
is just based on firing neurons. Right, That's that's where
we're at right now. That's why I say, I think
we have everything on the table, just haven't put it together.
But it's entirely possible historically speaking, to say, well we
thought that before and we didn't. And what revolution is next?
(28:32):
Will that will the next revolution get us over the
wall of subjectivism or will that be the wall that
we always run into? This is a good one, and well,
I was worried about this one. It came out pretty
good in it. I think, so, yeah, don't you like
it when we like pat ourselves in the back of
the end of the show, I think this one deserves it.
Man well, so from Blue Rays to Carons And at
(28:56):
the end of the day, Josh and Chuck say, we
are not out of new ideas. Can I speak for you?
Go ahead, We're not out of new ideas. And just
when you think you're out of new ideas, just when
you think of plateaued comes up you wang along to
say no, no, no, no, there are new ideas and
here's one you know not give me the cash exactly.
If you want to learn more about innovation and new ideas,
(29:19):
we have tons of stuff all over the site. Just
type in innovation, type in discovery. I'm sure that'll bring
up a ton of stuff. Um, and type in neurons.
That will bring up some pretty cool stuff too. Agreed. Uh,
you can type all those words into the handy search
bar how stuff works dot com, which means it's time
(29:40):
for a listener mail. Yes, Josh, I'm gonna follow this
very heavy podcast with the opposite an email for him Okay,
this is from our thirteen year old fan Payton in California. Well, hello,
I'm sending us from my eye touch while laying in bed.
I'm supposed to be asleep, so anyway, I just started
(30:03):
listening to your podcast after my friend Claire. Yes, that's
the Claire from California whose email you read on the air,
who thinks Jerry looks like Tina f A. Uh. Claire
is his his Peyton's friend. So she said, oh, you
got in the year, so i'letna starting listening to you. Um. Actually,
I'm saying Peyton is a girl, Peten maybe a boy.
You never know? Oh really, yeah, it's indragynus right, yeah,
(30:25):
ambivalent at least. Uh. Claire posted on her Facebook page
that I said, listen to the most recent podcast because
you guys read her letter or something. I thought it
was so cool. Claire and I are really good friends. Anyways,
I love this podcast. Gosh, I feel so boring because
I keep saying podcast. Is there like another word for that?
Jared laughed at that. Anyways, I definitely she does that
(30:49):
thing like the kids do now where they put like
eight s at the end of a word. Have you
seen that yeah, I don't get that. I don't either, original,
I guess. So. I most definitely enjoyed the podcast on
the Octopi and stuff I thought was Octopie. I thought
it was informational and funny. By the way, this email
doesn't make any sense. It's because my eye touch is
dumb and auto correct words that have already spelled right
(31:10):
ERG moving on your iPhone does that too? And mind
does that? What's this? An email written with one of
those pens that has like four different color ink you
can select rons that it feels like. But the reason
I brought that up is I have an idea to
start a website called my ipop my iPhone spelled what
dot com Because you ever look at some of them
(31:32):
you sinned and you're like, can you please make sure
you take the sofa out of the oven when you
get them when you meant to say, um sturgeon, let's
say surgeon is so far I would surgeon, okay, take
the surgeon out of the oven? Which is I think
so much better. I wish you would have planned this anyway.
It can make for a lot of fun. So that's
(31:52):
my new idea. And that's some lots of love from Peyton,
aged thirteen and Cali thanks a lot of patent age
thirteen and a boy or girl. We're not exactly sure,
but either way, we appreciate you taking the time to
write in. And if you have a movie that Chuck
and I have not seen, you assume we haven't seen
that you think we should see, best movie, best overlooked
movie of all time. We're always looking for good suggestions.
(32:16):
Wrap it up in an email and send it to
Stuff podcast at how stuff works dot com. For more
on this and thousands of other topics, visit how stuff
works dot com. The how stuff Works dot Com i
phone app is coming soon. Get access to our content
in a new way, articles, videos, and more all on
the go. Check out the latest podcasts and blog post
(32:39):
and see what we're saying on Facebook and Twitter. Coming
soon to iTunes. Brought to you by the reinvented two
thousand twelve camera. It's ready, are you
Brought to you by the reinvented two thousand twelve Camray.
It's ready. Are you welcome to Stuff You Should Know?
From House Stuff Works dot Com. Hey, and welcome to
the podcast. I'm Josh Clark with me as always as
Charles W. Chuck Bryant. And that makes the stuff you
(00:22):
should know. That's right, Yes, it is not other imitators.
I wonder how many times I've said that that makes
the stuff you should know. No, the just the whole spiel,
the whole opening. Hey, you welcome to the podcast. Well
you've said it about two hundred and seventy. Sometimes I think,
luckily we have them all saved and we could count
we do. I don't know if it's lucky, though, Chuck,
(00:43):
that's a lot of shows, dude, we should do something
special for three hundred. That's like, that's a lot of shows.
It is that makes me probably Okay, Well, do you
think maybe we could get some cake around here or something?
Shrimp cocktail the love of Pete. No, I'm allergic to
shrimp now, I remember, I know, But to let a
throat out there. Actually, I had a shrimp wanton the
(01:04):
other day and nothing happened. I had a wanton with
shrimp and nothing happened. So it was just like tiny
little bits of shrimp. And I don't know either that
or I'm getting stronger. Maybe so superhuman, you might say
trans human speaking of human um, chuck. There is a
recent study that came out in part from one of
(01:26):
our universities here in the city, Emory, right down the street,
Great School. There's been this problem that's been plaguing researchers
for a really long time, and that is at the
beginning of the Lower Paleolithic period, which is about two
points seven million years ago, we started using sharp rocks
(01:47):
as bashing and cutting tools. So we figured that out. Okay,
you can take a rock, that's technology. That's not horse,
that's technology. Yes, okay, you can take this rock and
you can use it to when a coconut or the
head of someone who's wrong. Do you using an implement
to complete attack? Well, specifically sharp rocks? Okay? It took
(02:10):
two million years the end of the Lower Paleolithic period
before we figured out that we could actually attach handles
to these things. And tournament how long it took? Yes,
And this is baffled scientists, like, how could it possibly
have taken two million years to go from using your
hand to attaching a stick. You know, this doesn't make
(02:33):
any sense. So, um, well they were dumb back then.
Well a dumb is close to it. They would literally
were lacking the region of the brain needed. Apparently, according
to this new study, Um, they they basically we developed
a region in the right hemisphere, specifically the supra marginal gyrus,
(02:56):
which allowed us to go, hey, let's put a hand
on this. And after we did that, we moved out
of Africa and started colonizing the rest of the world.
So that's they've been pointed the region of the brain
that is specific to innovation, too specific to um stone toolmaking. Okay,
I thought you meant innovation in general. No, like that's
where your ideas come from. No, give me a second,
(03:17):
old ramp all shoot, did every rue it? It's okay? Um.
So we go from I can't figure out how to
attach a handle to a sharp rocky two million years
we figured that out, We leave Africa, and we start
colonizing the rest of the world, and all of a
sudden things start entering light speed, right, And it seems
like over the last couple hundred years, you know, especially
(03:39):
since the Industrial Revolution, our ability to innovate, to grasp
new ideas, to understand the world around us has just
been hitting this hyper speed, and a lot of people
wonder if we've reached a point where all the ideas,
all the good ones at least, have already been discovered,
all the we under stand how everything works, and there's
(04:03):
really just figuring out how to dot the eyes and
cross the teas right right. There was actually a guy
who famously said in guy named Charles Buell. I love
this quote. He was, He was the commissioner of the
Patents Office. That's attributed to him, I should say, but
he said something like everything that can be invented has
already been invented. And he said this in a memo,
(04:25):
basically saying like you should go ahead and shut down
the patent office. He clearly had never considered the Snuggie
Josh or anything that's been invented since. So here's what
I'm gonna say. I'm gonna go ahead and give you
my summation early on, Okay, is that I think people
think at various times in history that they've plateaued, and
(04:49):
then I think things happen. People come along innovators and
then they reached new heights and they go, oh, well,
we didn't know that, and we there are new ideas, right.
It's it's on most umb. It almost displays a shameful
lack of historic awareness to say we've reached the end
of all of our good ideas. It's just it's just
(05:11):
asking to be made a fool of, yeah, or for
people to maybe people do that on purpose, to go
the innovators and say, oh, yeah, right, using reverse psychology,
you know that's how innovation works. Yeah, you might as
well just give up. Reverse psychology drives innovation. There are
people though, that say that technological that real technological innovation
(05:33):
has been stalled for quite a while. Yes, after the
nineties computer revolution, everything else since then has kind of
been like, uh, packaging it and better looking cases and
sleeker designs, and it's all like design oriented it is,
or marketing oriented. These these guys Cedric Lagare and Eric Virdo,
(05:57):
we're both with scheme of business school. Um basically say, smartphones, Yes,
they seem incredibly new and cutting in, but really they're
just the packaging of several already extant technologies into a
really sharp looking handheld device, but there's still a new idea.
I would argue it is still a new idea. But
I think what their point is is saying, like, but
(06:19):
before the late nineties and before the eighties, let's say,
with computers, but especially the tech boom of the telecom
boom of the late nineties, Like this stuff wasn't around, Like,
it's not true innovation rights, it's kind of repurposing and
what you were saying, like the cosmetic changes to a computer. Um.
One of the reasons why they they believe that this
(06:41):
is going on is because we've come to a point
in the computer revolution. I think, chuck, where, Um, it's
not you can still make tons of cash just by
changing the casing of a CPU. Yeah, there's like no
money in innovation basically, is what I got from this
one article is that innovation costs more than it's worth
(07:04):
when you can just repackage what you've got in a
sleeker design and people buy it up. Exactly. Um, these
two authors of this article, UM predict that we're gonna
have two trends that will drive innovation. I guess currently right, yes,
that consolidation where basically like especially with I think they're
talking just about computers. Yeah, because they're saying the big
(07:27):
hardware firms are going to all consolidate all of the
smaller hardware firms to where they'll just basically be like
the Big three or five, and that will leave it
to the software firms to compete and innovate, so we'll
see more innovation in the software side rather than the
hardware side. And they're also saying that, um, the green
boom is going to drive innovation that makes sense, like
(07:49):
coming up with sustainable packages or sustainable solutions. Yeah, totally.
One of the other things I pointed out thought was
interesting was the they said they said the tes uh
they call it the tech refresh cycle is too small
right now. So what's happening is they'll say, Um, you
like your CD, well you're gonna love the the Super
(08:11):
Audio CD or Blu Ray. Do you like your DVD.
You're gonna love Blu Ray. But guess what's coming up
after Blu Ray. It's gonna be like Super Blue Ray.
It's happening so fast. People aren't abandoning their current systems.
They're just like, you know what, I'm gonna hold on
because I don't want to be the guy stuck with
the laser disc player in a couple of years, so
all of a sudden, the same thing happens. No one's
(08:31):
buying it, so it's not worth a much money, which
means that nobody's putting any effort into it and money
into it. So innovation sees right. And there's a guy,
um named Edmund Phelps who's a professor of political economy
at Columbia University, right, and he's basically kind of saying
the same thing. He's saying that, Um, there's not enough
(08:52):
money going toward innovation. But rather than the the onus
being put on consumers not buying blue rays of fear
of looking like laser disc jerks, Um, it's actually government
and big business that's not pouring money into small innovators. Yeah,
he said, that's the innovation is the only thing not
(09:12):
subsidized by the United States government, which he says is
actually attacks in a way because it's not being subsidized. Reach.
You could definitely, Yeah, I think a lot of these
guy's points are reached. But um, what he's suggesting is
if the government isn't pouring money into big business so
that they can pour money into I guess small venture firms. Um,
(09:37):
these people who are in their garages aren't going to
take you know, risks, They're not going to innovate. There's
no incentive. Right. I disagree with this. I dispute this
because he's saying, like the people who do work in
their garages and you know, are the Steve Jobs and
Bill Gates in the seventies, that they were driven by
this lust for money exactly. And I think that's wrong.
(10:00):
I think that people innovate first and foremost to get
this idea out of their head and birth into reality. Right.
I'm glad you said this because I completely agreed. Regardless
of what you think of the Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg didn't
invent Facebook to make gobs of money. He invented to
make real friends. Yeah, to to innovate. And that's what
that's my point that you made is that these people
(10:21):
in the garage, the true innovators. They don't care if
they have two pennies to rub together. They're still gonna
be trying to innovate and make a name for themselves
and come up with something awesome. Right. And now there
are people out there who are trying to innovate for
you know, the riches sure. The guy who invented the
snugg he wasn't in his garage and just wanted to
(10:41):
kind of get this out or else I'm never gonna sleep. Yeah,
that's the people that are looking for the next get
rich quick thing. But I think you can also make
a point that, um, when you introduce money to innovation,
it leads to actual stagnation. Um, because when you introduce money,
there's now uh something to lose, and people are less
(11:03):
willing to take risks, and risk is one of the
driving the willingness to take risk is one of the
driving forces of innovation. You know. Yeah, well, I Phelps
had a good idea, uh and this will never happen,
of course, because it's a good idea to create the
first national Bank of innovation all capitalized capitalized not all caps,
but each word is capitalized. He should do it all
in all caps with exclamation points. But basically, it would
(11:26):
be a bank that you could go and partner, you know,
as a startup company and partner with his bank for
financing and you know, get I would guess some sort
of low interest loans to spur innovation. Right. That was
a great idea, So it is. It is a good
idea and this does happen in the real world, and
the government does pour money into innovation. He's not exactly
(11:49):
correct in that sense. And I also kind of resented
that he placed big business in between you know, people
in their garage innovating and you know, government subsidies that
we have to have big business give them the money
and then skim a little off the top and give
it to this guy in the garage. He's drawing broad
strokes here. For sure. There are government programs, and we'll
(12:11):
talk about one from the National Institutes of Health where
the government says, hey, you have a really good idea,
Mr or MS research scientists, and we're gonna give you
enough money to survive for three years. Yeah, because the
deal is you can always get grants if you know,
you put together a nice package. But this program with
the n i H what's it called the New Innovator Award,
(12:34):
Director's New Innovator Award. This is uh intended for people
who have such a good idea, but it's so new
that they don't have the data to write a grant
where people would say, like, it looks like you're onto
something here, So they're sort of throwing money at stuff.
That's like, you know, you're the dude in the garage
and we believe in this idea. Go see what you
can find out, right, and we're keeping big business out
(12:56):
of the way. Yes, but now that and I h
owns you for the rest of your career. Yeah, So
let's talk about UM. There's three people at U c
l A That got these grants recently and they're up
to some kind of some interesting one could say innovative stuff, right.
They have some good ideas, hugely innovative about how to
UM approach problems, like the professor Dino di Carlo. All
(13:21):
these I think these people are younger than us. By
the way, UM Dino de Carlo is working on ways
to basically apply heat or pressure or chemicals to very
specific sites in cells using nanoparticles and magnets, which is tough,
sounds like a winning idea to me. Is basically one
(13:42):
of the big problems we have with UM getting cells,
engineering cells to do specific things, like UM, I don't know,
attack other cells for fun. Like if tell me that
wouldn't be like a big Christmas gift this year, if
you could like make cells fight with one another under
the microscope, UM then what you have to basically try
(14:05):
to engineer the cell, you know, time after time after time,
and basically program it to do what you want it
to do. What Di Carlo is coming up with is
a way to use very tiny magnets and even tinier
nano particles that can basically you, my brain is so small.
When you move the magnet with a joystick, it attracts
(14:29):
the nano particles in a certain direction or whatever, and
you can have the nano particles apply heat or pressure
or a specific chemical to a specific site on a
cell and direct it to go attack another cell for
your pleasure. That's awesome, your amusement. So one point five
mill goes to uh de Carlo and for a good reason.
And for a good reason. The other winner, one of
the other winners, was Hugh Wang, and you came up
(14:53):
with basically, I'm gonna break this down easy. Instead of saying,
let me come up with cure for cancer, hu Wang said,
let me come up with a way to detect cancer
so early, like way earlier than we've ever detected it before,
that we can stop in his track essentially curing cancer.
And he's doing this, actually I don't know, she's doing
(15:17):
this um through uh nano material called graphine that is
just one atom thick. Yes, graphine is like the super
clearly not of this world material. It's literally a carbon
atom thick. That's it. So, but it is a biological
sensor to tell you when cells aren't doing the things
(15:39):
that should be doing. So did you know a graham
of this stuff? It's flattened covers a football field. Wow,
it's ultra light. That is thin, my friend, it's one
atom thin. So one point five mail to hu Wang, Right, well,
did you explain how? Let me let me try my
hand at this. So basically what you do is you um,
(16:00):
you put a graphine conductor transistor UM in a cell
and when these biological markers right say his stones or
something like that, start to accumulate, they're attracted to the graphing.
And these, by the way these biological markers are, we
found are correlated with the growth of cancer, the origin
(16:22):
of cancer. That's where they're starting. UM. And when some
of these markers like are attracted to the graphing, they
create an electrical charge that we can sense. And the
graphine is so thin but so highly conductive that um
with just a couple of these molecules attaching to the graphing.
We would be able to detect it and be like,
oh right, we'd be like, oh crap, you have cancer
(16:47):
and we'd cure it right then. Wow, Yeah, that's awesome. Yeah,
and it's a good way to approach a cure for cancer.
If you asked me, did I explain that? Well? I
think so. I think the last winner this year was
Jen Hill Lee and Jin is trying to debug the
brain circuit using you know, we have the Wonder Machine,
which is our favorite thing in the world fm R I,
which measures uh measures. It measures blood and oxygen levels
(17:10):
in the brain, so it tells you these areas light
up there called bold signals blood and oxygen level dependent.
They light up to correspond a certain brain right, And
we've talked about this before, like you're seeing that there's
more oxygen that's going to that part of the brain.
So we've assumed this is the basis of the f
m R I. If it has more oxygen being delivered
(17:31):
to it, that must mean that that region of the
brain is active. When you show somebody a picture of
you know, their kid, like being carried away into a
van that you know that's the fear region right there. Um.
That doesn't really say anything though, and it doesn't. It
doesn't also implicate well it's it's not it's showing. Okay,
well there's more oxygen in this region, right? What this is, um?
(17:55):
What what genuine Lee is looking at is um how
or what specifically on the neuronal level is being activated? Right?
And he's using opt to genetics, So it's going to
be called the O F M R I. And that's
beyond even what we thought was the wonder machine. So
this is the super duper wonder machine. Basically, he's using
(18:17):
light to allow genetically specified neurons to be activated. Right.
Do you know, um, are one of our listeners that
Emory has been harping on us doing one on opt
to genetics for a while. We should get this person
in here. This is probably his closest forever gonna come
out and it uh, well it's a great idea though
(18:37):
obviously because Jin Young Lee won one of the Innovator
Awards as well. Yes, and they give these out every year,
so they clearly believe that we're not out of good ideas.
No excellent point choke h no, and we're not out
of good ideas. So yes, Chuck, we we you pick
those out. You found those guys all right, Well I
(18:58):
didn't personally find them. You're like, these guys should get
the UM. There are very good ideas out there, right,
But there is a debate that's raging in science UM
about whether these ideas like optogenetics or um, you know,
(19:21):
using graphine or nanoparticles to cure detect cancer. UM, are
these variations on a theme? Are they applying cosmetic changes
to a computer rather than really creating new parts to it? Right?
And basically the question is, um, are are are there
(19:43):
any more major discoveries for us to make or are
these really just basically at Remember I've always said like
we we have the pieces on the table, now we
just have to put it together. Is that the point
that we're at? UM said we were, I did, and
then we started researching this, and I'm like, I wonder,
I think I still do believe that. UM. But within
(20:03):
that though, there's so much that it's to me a
little bit like splitting hair. Well, but you're absolutely right,
especially when you throw in the word discovered, right, Discovery
indicates something that's already out there. We just figure it
out or stumble upon it and an idea necessarily kind
of UM invention leads, Yeah, it leads to an invention.
(20:24):
It's something we we've created, like technology. So let's talk
about discovery, right. We have a lot of UM problems
that are still facing us and how we understand the universe,
like human consciousness. How do brain cells create our understanding
of the world, like what we see as reality? How
(20:46):
is that possible? And can we figure everything out? Well,
that's the big question. Is there there's a UM there's
Like I said, there's a lot of debate about whether
or not we will ever be able to figure everything out,
or if the human brain just simply isn't UM programmed
to understand the world? Uh fully, you know, will will.
(21:09):
There's a guy who's a physicist. His name is um
Russell Standard, and he's written this book called The End
of Discovery, and basically he's saying he says that we're
in quote a transient age of human development, right where
we're past the point where we figured out you can
put a handle on a rock and make it an ax.
But we're right before the point where we can no
(21:33):
longer make discoveries. Not because we've understood everything or figured
everything out. But because we've reached the limits of what
is noble for the human brain. But even that, look
at that, that part of the the right hemisphere that
developed and allowed us to put the axe handle on, right,
who's to say that our brain won't that we won't
(21:55):
reach that point where we can't know anything any longer,
or I can't know everything? And in uh, we evolve
even further and all of a sudden we're even better
at um understanding our world. Right, But will we end
up eventually coming to a point where humans understand everything
and there is no more discovery to make I say no,
(22:17):
because he he points out in here and this is
I think very valid from the Midnight century, the nineteenth century.
I'm sorry they said that. A lot of people in
science said, you know, we've kind of debunked religion and
philosophy and all these things with scientific discovery. But he
points out, and I agree that even if you figure
out all the problems of science, which will never happen,
there's still human life and consciousness in the subjectivity of
(22:42):
what goes on inside a person's head. You're never gonna
solve that's not solvable, right, that's what I argue. That's subjectivism. Yeah,
before I think I believe in that there, well, they're
the whole the I guess I I agree with you. Um,
there's this aspect of the universe that Kant called the
new Amenon, new amenon that was specifically tailored from my
(23:07):
thick time. But basically the new aminon is the thing
itself right where um it has. It's just the objective.
It's the objective universe, and we don't interact with that.
Everything we know and understand is subjective, and this is
where subjectivism is is based that basically we can never
(23:29):
fully know anything or and we certainly won't ever know
everything because one thing that will always be elusive is
what you see. My reality is different than your reality exactly,
and there's different. There's an extreme version of it called
so solipsism, right, yes, and solipsism is the the um
(23:49):
this extreme version of subjectivism that basically says, um, we
everything is so subjective that I can't fully verify that
you exist. The only thing I know that exists is
my reality, but all of you may be made up.
I may be totally completely out of my mind and
actually in a padded cell right now and none of
(24:11):
you are really real Well, that's sort of touches on
the whole quantum mechanics thing, right, don't you think Please? Well,
I mean, I don't have a whole to say about
it because we've covered it, but it definitely is along
the same line. So I think, well, yeah, there's a
there's an interpretation of quantum mechanics that basically says, um,
(24:31):
everything we know about the universe we know through observation,
and but once you observe it, it it changes. That's part
of it. And when when we observe, we we gain information, right,
but we can't observe everything at once, So all we
know exists in our reality for sure, is what we're observing.
So everything else, like what's going on out there in
(24:52):
the office right now, doesn't exist because we're not there
to observe it. Mind blowing. Once again, it is mind blowing,
but it all So we say all this not just
to you know, rock out to Floyd, but um, because
this is this is what science is up against. This
isn't just jibberish. This isn't just philosophical jibberish, as much
(25:12):
as science would like it to be. There is a
true problem with the fact that subjectivity, not objectivity, is
how we interact with our universe, even though science is
based it's supposed to be based exclusively on objectivity. Right. Well, uh,
Stephen Hawking, you might have heard of him and another
dude named Leonard load Loader. Now is how I'm going
(25:36):
to pronounce that there's a silent m in there somewhere.
They have a new book called The Grand Design, and
they are now saying that I think scientists used to
say we're gonna find the theory of everything. Now they're saying,
you know what, We're probably not going to find the
theory of everything, but it's probably gonna be more like
what they call, quote a family of interconnected theories which
describe your reality under very specific conditions. And this is
(25:58):
kind of huge for Stephen Hawking because he's long been
a big supporter of the theory of everything, which takes
the standard model of physics, includes gravity, which has always
been elusive, and then marries it with quantum mechanics to
explain everything. That's the theory of everything. It's one theory
that explains everything, right, like that surfer guy exactly, Garrett Leci.
(26:20):
I think it's damn it was. And you know it's
going to be years before he's shown to be correct
or incorrect. But Hawking saying it's probably not going to
be the case. There's going to there's too many different
variables that don't fit together. But the thing that really
scares a physicist, that will scare any physicist, is this sports.
(26:42):
Those are those models that we've come up with. Are
they how the universe actually works? Or how we look
at the universe and see how it works? You see
what I'm saying. There's that subjectivism again. It can't be
whipped well. And all the things that we've said over
the years that we have formed to be true, are
those even true? Or are are the conclusions we're reaching
(27:04):
just based on years of thought compiled that may not
have been true to begin with. So I like we
arrive at reality by consensus. Yeah, but is that consensus?
Was that even accurate along the way? Not necessarily. It's
been shown time and time again that it's it hasn't
been accurate through these um the five revolutions, as VM
(27:25):
Ramaschandra and puts them. Arnicus Copernicus was the first one
who said that Earth is not the center of the universe,
Darwinism dark very good. Chuck Darwin's says like, hey, we're
actually just a bunch of apes DNA Freud Freud Freud
saying like we we actually are driven by desires that
we can't control and aren't really aware of DNA, which
(27:47):
is saying I think James Watson, who found DNA along
with Francis Crick, said quote, there are only molecules, everything
else is sociologist. I love that quote, man, It's one
of my favorite. And then um, the Fifth Revolution, the
neuroscience revolution, that we're all everything, are all of our
understanding movements and and experiences are nothing but um neuronal transmissions,
(28:10):
electrochemical impulses. Right, so there's not even sociology that even
is just based on firing neurons. Right, That's that's where
we're at right now. That's why I say, I think
we have everything on the table, just haven't put it together.
But it's entirely possible historically speaking, to say, well we
thought that before and we didn't. And what revolution is next?
(28:32):
Will that will the next revolution get us over the
wall of subjectivism or will that be the wall that
we always run into? This is a good one, and well,
I was worried about this one. It came out pretty
good in it. I think, so, yeah, don't you like
it when we like pat ourselves in the back of
the end of the show, I think this one deserves it.
Man well, so from Blue Rays to Carons And at
(28:56):
the end of the day, Josh and Chuck say, we
are not out of new ideas. Can I speak for you?
Go ahead, We're not out of new ideas. And just
when you think you're out of new ideas, just when
you think of plateaued comes up you wang along to
say no, no, no, no, there are new ideas and
here's one you know not give me the cash exactly.
If you want to learn more about innovation and new ideas,
(29:19):
we have tons of stuff all over the site. Just
type in innovation, type in discovery. I'm sure that'll bring
up a ton of stuff. Um, and type in neurons.
That will bring up some pretty cool stuff too. Agreed. Uh,
you can type all those words into the handy search
bar how stuff works dot com, which means it's time
(29:40):
for a listener mail. Yes, Josh, I'm gonna follow this
very heavy podcast with the opposite an email for him Okay,
this is from our thirteen year old fan Payton in California. Well, hello,
I'm sending us from my eye touch while laying in bed.
I'm supposed to be asleep, so anyway, I just started
(30:03):
listening to your podcast after my friend Claire. Yes, that's
the Claire from California whose email you read on the air,
who thinks Jerry looks like Tina f A. Uh. Claire
is his his Peyton's friend. So she said, oh, you
got in the year, so i'letna starting listening to you. Um. Actually,
I'm saying Peyton is a girl, Peten maybe a boy.
You never know? Oh really, yeah, it's indragynus right, yeah,
(30:25):
ambivalent at least. Uh. Claire posted on her Facebook page
that I said, listen to the most recent podcast because
you guys read her letter or something. I thought it
was so cool. Claire and I are really good friends. Anyways,
I love this podcast. Gosh, I feel so boring because
I keep saying podcast. Is there like another word for that?
Jared laughed at that. Anyways, I definitely she does that
(30:49):
thing like the kids do now where they put like
eight s at the end of a word. Have you
seen that yeah, I don't get that. I don't either, original,
I guess. So. I most definitely enjoyed the podcast on
the Octopi and stuff I thought was Octopie. I thought
it was informational and funny. By the way, this email
doesn't make any sense. It's because my eye touch is
dumb and auto correct words that have already spelled right
(31:10):
ERG moving on your iPhone does that too? And mind
does that? What's this? An email written with one of
those pens that has like four different color ink you
can select rons that it feels like. But the reason
I brought that up is I have an idea to
start a website called my ipop my iPhone spelled what
dot com Because you ever look at some of them
(31:32):
you sinned and you're like, can you please make sure
you take the sofa out of the oven when you
get them when you meant to say, um sturgeon, let's
say surgeon is so far I would surgeon, okay, take
the surgeon out of the oven? Which is I think
so much better. I wish you would have planned this anyway.
It can make for a lot of fun. So that's
(31:52):
my new idea. And that's some lots of love from Peyton,
aged thirteen and Cali thanks a lot of patent age
thirteen and a boy or girl. We're not exactly sure,
but either way, we appreciate you taking the time to
write in. And if you have a movie that Chuck
and I have not seen, you assume we haven't seen
that you think we should see, best movie, best overlooked
movie of all time. We're always looking for good suggestions.
(32:16):
Wrap it up in an email and send it to
Stuff podcast at how stuff works dot com. For more
on this and thousands of other topics, visit how stuff
works dot com. The how stuff Works dot Com i
phone app is coming soon. Get access to our content
in a new way, articles, videos, and more all on
the go. Check out the latest podcasts and blog post
(32:39):
and see what we're saying on Facebook and Twitter. Coming
soon to iTunes. Brought to you by the reinvented two
thousand twelve camera. It's ready, are you
Stuff You Should Know News
Hosts And Creators
Josh Clark
Chuck Bryant
Show Links
Order Our BookRSSStoreSYSK ArmyAboutPopular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Death, Sex & Money
Anna Sale explores the big questions and hard choices that are often left out of polite conversation.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.