November 23, 2019 • 34 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):
Hey, everybody, it's me Josh, and for this week's s
Y s K Selects, I've chosen an episode from two
thousand and ten. Have all the good ideas been discovered? Uh?
It's an interesting one and in a strange way, it
ties into the planned Obsolescence episode we released recently, even
though it was recorded almost ten years before. And I
(00:21):
want to make a note it's possible that the listener
male person who wrote in in this episode actually predicted
the coming of the wildly popular site. Damn you auto
correct proved me wrong at any rate. Enjoy this episode.
Welcome to Stuff You Should Know, a production of My
(00:42):
Heart Radios How Stuff Works. Hey, and welcome to the podcast.
I'm Josh Clark. With me as always is Charles W.
Chuck Bryant. And that makes the stuff you should know.
That's right, Yes it is not. They're imitators. I wonder
how many times I've said that that makes the stuff
(01:03):
you should know. No, that's 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.
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 proud. Okay, well, do you
(01:26):
think maybe we could get some cake around here or something?
Shrimp cocktail? No, I'm allergic to shrimp now, remember I know,
but I still like to throw it out there. Actually,
I had a shrimp wanton the other day and nothing happened. Really,
I ate a wanton with shrimp and nothing happened. So
it's just like tiny little bits of shrimp. And I
(01:46):
don't know. Either that or I'm getting stronger. Maybe so
superhuman you might say, trans human speaking of human Yes, um, Chuck.
There is a recent study that came out in part
from one of our universities here in the city, Emory
right down the street, great school. There's been this problem
(02:07):
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 as bashing and cutting tools. So
we figured that out. Okay, you can take a rock
(02:28):
that's technology. That's not horse, that's technology. Yes, okay, you
can take this rock and you can use it to
open 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 two million years the end
of the Lower Paleolithic period before we figured out that
(02:50):
we could actually attach to handles to these things. And
tournament how long it took? Yes, And this is baffled scientists, like,
how could it possibly have taken can two million years
to go from using your hand to attaching a stick?
You know, this doesn't make any sense. So, um, well
they were dumb back then. Well a dumb is close
(03:14):
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, which allowed us to go, hey,
let's put a handle on this. And after we did that,
(03:36):
we moved out of Africa and started colonizing the rest
of the world. So that's they've pinpointed 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 old rent all time. Shoot, did I ruin it?
It's okay. Um. So we go from can't figure out
(03:57):
how to attach a handle to a sharp rock? Okay,
a 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 since the Industrial Revolution, our ability to innovate,
to grasp new ideas, to understand the world around us,
(04:20):
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 understand how everything works, and
there's really just figuring out how to dot the eyes
and cross the teas right right. There was actually a
(04:43):
guy who famously said in guy named Charles Buell. 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, basically like you
should go ahead and shut down the patent office. He
(05:03):
clearly had never considered the snuggy 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 then I think things happen.
(05:25):
People come along innovators, and then they reach new heights
and they go, oh, well, we didn't know that, and
we there are new ideas, right. It's it's almost 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 silly. It's just ask him to be made
(05:46):
a fool of yeah, or for people to maybe people
do that on purpose, to go the innovators and to
say no, yeah, right, using reverse psychology exactly, that's how
innovation works. Yeah, you might as well just give up
reverse psychology drive innovation. There are people though, that say
that technological that real technological innovation has been stalled for
(06:09):
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 marketing.
These these guys, Cedric Lagare and Eric Virdo, we're both
(06:31):
with scheme of business school. Um basically say, smartphones. Yes,
they seem incredibly new and cutting edge, but really they're
just the packaging of several already extant technologies into a
really sharp looking handheld device. But that'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
(06:53):
before the late nineties and before the eighties, let's say,
with computers, but especially the tech boom of the tele
com boom of the late nineties, like this stuff wasn't around.
Like it's not true innovation. It's it's kind of repurposing, right,
And what you were saying, like the cosmetic changes to
a computer. Um. One of the reasons why they believe
(07:15):
that this 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
(07:38):
worth 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
(08:01):
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 row than the
hardware side, right. And they're also saying that, um, the
green boom is going to drive innovation. That makes sense,
(08:23):
like coming up with sustainable packages. Are sustainable solutions? Yeah, totally.
One of the other things they pointed out thought was
interesting was the they said they said the tech 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
(08:45):
Audio CD or Blu ray. You like your DVD, You're
gonna love Blu Ray. But guess what's coming up after
blue 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 buying it,
(09:06):
so it's not worth as much money, which means that
nobody's putting any effort into it and money into it.
So innovations. 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 money going toward innovation.
(09:28):
But rather than the the onus being put on consumers
not buying blue rays out 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 subsidized by
the United States government, which he says is actually attacks
(09:51):
in a way because it's not being subsidized. Sort of
a reach, you could definitely, Yeah, I think a lot
of these guy's points are a reach. 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, these people who are in
(10:12):
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. And
(10:33):
I think that that's wrong. 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
(10:54):
you made is that these people in the garage, the
true innovators. They don't care if they have two pennies
to rub the other, right, 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 Snuggy. Sure, the guy who invented the snugg
he wasn't in his garage and just wanted to kind
(11:15):
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 because when you introduce money,
there's now, um something to lose, and people are less
(11:37):
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, stuff pholps had
(12:08):
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 be
a bank that you could go and partner, you know,
(12:29):
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 correct
in that sense. And I also kind of resented that
(12:50):
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 skimalt 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 talk about one from
the National Institutes of Health where the government says, hey,
(13:14):
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 ni H what's it called
the New Innovator Award Director's New Innovator Award. This is
(13:35):
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 of the way. Yes, But now
(13:56):
that and I H owns you for the rest of
your career probably. So 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 these I think
(14:20):
these people are younger than us by the way they
are 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. It is basically
(14:40):
one 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
a microscope, UM, then what you have to basically try
(15:03):
to engineer the cell, you know, time after time after time,
and basically program it to do what you want it
to do. What de Carlo is coming up with is
a way to use UM 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,
(15:26):
it attracts 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,
(15:47):
one of the other winners was Hu Huang, And you
came up with, uh, basically, I'm gonna break this down easy.
Instead of saying, let me come up with a 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
(16:09):
in this track, essentially curing cancer. And he's doing this,
actually I don't know. She's doing this um through uh
nano material called graphine that is just one atom thick. Yes,
graphing is like the super clearly not of this world material.
It's literally a carbon atom thick. That's it. So, but
(16:32):
it is a biological sensor to tell you when cells
aren't doing the things they should be doing. So did
you know a graham of this stuff's flattened covers a
football field? Am, 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? Oh,
(16:54):
let me let me try my hand at this. So
basically what you do is you, um, 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,
(17:15):
by the way these biological markers are, we found are
correlated with the growth of cancer, the origin 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
(17:37):
would be able to detect it and be like who right,
We'd be like, oh crap, you have cancer, and we'd
cure it right then. Wow. Yeah, that's awesome. Yeah, And
that's a good way to approach a cure for cancer.
If you asked me, did I explain that? Well? I
think so, I think. And the last winner this year
was Jin Hi Lee and Jin is trying to debug
(17:58):
the brain circuit useing. You know, we have the Wonder Machine,
which is our favorite thing in the world. Fm r I,
which measures UH measures measures blood and oxygen levels 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
(18:21):
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 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
(18:43):
say anything though, and it doesn't it doesn't implicate well
it's it's not it's showing Okay, well there's more oxygen
in this region, right. What this is, um, What what
genuine Lee is looking at is, um, how what specifically
on the new ronal level is being activated? Right? And
(19:03):
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 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 opti genetics
(19:26):
for a while. We should get this person in here.
This is probably as closest forever going to come down
to do it. Uh. Well, it's a great idea though,
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.
(19:47):
No excellent point the n I 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 didn't personally find them. You're like, these guys
should get the that and I found them. Um. There
are very good ideas out there, right, But there is
a debate that's raging in science UM about whether these
(20:15):
ideas like optogenetics or um, you know, 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
(20:36):
basically the question is, um are are are there any
more major discoveries for us to make or are these
really just basically 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? Well,
as you said we were, I did, and then we
started researching this, and I'm like, I wonder, I think
(20:59):
I still do believe that UM. But within that though,
there's so much that it's to me a little bit
like splitting hairs. 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. Sure, and an idea necessarily kind of
(21:19):
UM invention leads Yeah, it leads to an invention. It's
something we we've created. Like technology, let's talk about discovery, right,
(21:48):
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 is that possible?
And can we figure everything out? Well, that's the big question.
(22:10):
Is there there's a UM there's Like I said, there's
a lot of debate about whether or not we'll 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. So there's a guy
who's a physicist. His name is um Russell Standard, and
(22:32):
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 longer make discoveries,
(22:53):
not because we've understood everything or figured everything out, but
because we've reached the limits of what is noble for
the mean brain. Sure, but even that look at that
that part of the right hemisphere that developed and allowed
us to put the acts handle on, Right, who's to
say that our brain won't, that we won't reach that
(23:14):
point where we can't know anything any longer or I
can't know everything? And then 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, because
(23:37):
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
(23:57):
human life and consciousness in the subjectivity of what goes
on inside a person's head. You're never going to 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, I guess I I agree with you. Um,
(24:17):
there's this aspect of the universe that Kant called the
new Amenon new Amenon. Okay, that was specifically tailored from
my 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.
(24:41):
Everything we know and understand is subjective. And this is
where subjectivism is is based. That basically we can never
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 a different There's an extreme version of it
(25:01):
called so solipsism, right, yes, and solipsism is the the um,
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
(25:22):
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
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 lot to say
about it because we've covered it, but it definitely is
(25:43):
along the same line. So you think, well, yeah, there's
a there's an interpretation of quantum mechanics that basically says, um,
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
(26:04):
know exists in our reality for sure, is what we're observing.
So everything else, like what's going on out there in
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 also that we say all this not just
to you know, rock out to Floyd, but um, because
(26:26):
this is this is what science is up against. This
isn't just jibberish. This isn't just philosophical jibberish. As much
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,
(26:47):
Stephen Hawking, you might have heard of him, and another
dude name Leonard load Loader. Now is how I'm going
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 going to 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
(27:09):
more like what they call, quote a family of interconnected theories,
which describe your reality under very specific conditions. And this
is 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
(27:31):
to explain everything. That's the theory of everything. It's one
theory that explains everything, right, Like that surfer guy exactly,
Garrett Leacy. I think it's a long time ago 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. Right.
(27:54):
But the thing that really scares a physicist, that will
scare any physicist is this sports. 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
(28:16):
have formed to be true, are those even true? Or
are or the conclusions we're reaching just based on years
of thought compiled that may not have been true to
begin with. So I mean like we arrive at reality
by consensus. Yeah, but is that consensus was that even
accurate along the way? Not necessarily. It's been showing time
(28:37):
and time again that it's hasn't been accurate through these
um the Five Revolutions, as VM Ramashchandra and puts them.
Bernicus 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
(29:00):
actually are driven by desires that we can't control and
aren't really aware of d NA, which 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 favorites.
And then um, the Fifth Revolution, the neuroscience revolution, that
(29:21):
we're all everything, are all of our understanding of movements
and and experiences are nothing but um neuronal transmissions 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
(29:43):
possible historically speaking to say, well we thought that before
and we didn't. And what revolution is next? 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.
(30:05):
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 we're from blue Rays to Turns and at the
end of the day, Josh and Chuck say, we are
not out of new ideas. Canna speak for you, go ahead,
We are 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,
(30:29):
there are new ideas, and here's one. Not give me
the cash exactly. If you want to learn more about
innovation and new ideas, 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
(30:50):
cool stuff too. Agreed. Uh. You can type all those
words into the handy search bar at how stuff works
dot com, which means it's time for a sner mail. Yes, Josh,
I'm gonna follow this very heavy podcast with the opposite
an email for him. Okay, this is from our thirteen
(31:12):
year old fan Peyton in California. Well, hello, I'm sending
this from my eye touch while laying in bed. I'm
supposed to be asleep, so anyway, I just started 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
(31:33):
got on the year. So I'm gonna start listening to you. Um, actually,
I'm saying Peyton is a girl. Peyton maybe a boy?
You never know? Oh? Really, yeah, it's in dragyn this right, Yeah,
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,
(31:56):
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
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.
We're getting old, I guess so. I most definitely enjoyed
the podcast on the OCTOPI and stuff. I thought it
(32:19):
was OCTOPI. 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
I've already spelled, right, 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 inc you can select rons, but it feels
(32:40):
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, you sinned and you're like, can
you please make sure you take the sofa out of
the oven when you get home when you meant to say, um, sturgeon,
let's say, surgeon is so far I would surgeon, Okay,
(33:04):
take the surgeon out of the oven? Which is I
think so much better. I wish you would have planned this.
It's okay, buddy. Anyway, it can make for a lot
of fun. So that's my new idea. Okay, And that's um.
Lots of love from Peyton age thirteen and Cali. Thanks
a lot, Peyton, age thirteen and Callie 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
(33:27):
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. Wrap it up in an email
and send it to Stuff podcast at how stuff works
dot com. Stuff you Should Know is a production of
(33:53):
iHeart Radio's How Stuff Works. For more podcasts for my
heart Radio is at the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Hey, everybody, it's me Josh, and for this week's s
Y s K Selects, I've chosen an episode from two
thousand and ten. Have all the good ideas been discovered? Uh?
It's an interesting one and in a strange way, it
ties into the planned Obsolescence episode we released recently, even
though it was recorded almost ten years before. And I
(00:21):
want to make a note it's possible that the listener
male person who wrote in in this episode actually predicted
the coming of the wildly popular site. Damn you auto
correct proved me wrong at any rate. Enjoy this episode.
Welcome to Stuff You Should Know, a production of My
(00:42):
Heart Radios How Stuff Works. Hey, and welcome to the podcast.
I'm Josh Clark. With me as always is Charles W.
Chuck Bryant. And that makes the stuff you should know.
That's right, Yes it is not. They're imitators. I wonder
how many times I've said that that makes the stuff
(01:03):
you should know. No, that's 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.
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 proud. Okay, well, do you
(01:26):
think maybe we could get some cake around here or something?
Shrimp cocktail? No, I'm allergic to shrimp now, remember I know,
but I still like to throw it out there. Actually,
I had a shrimp wanton the other day and nothing happened. Really,
I ate a wanton with shrimp and nothing happened. So
it's just like tiny little bits of shrimp. And I
(01:46):
don't know. Either that or I'm getting stronger. Maybe so
superhuman you might say, trans human speaking of human Yes, um, Chuck.
There is a recent study that came out in part
from one of our universities here in the city, Emory
right down the street, great school. There's been this problem
(02:07):
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 as bashing and cutting tools. So
we figured that out. Okay, you can take a rock
(02:28):
that's technology. That's not horse, that's technology. Yes, okay, you
can take this rock and you can use it to
open 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 two million years the end
of the Lower Paleolithic period before we figured out that
(02:50):
we could actually attach to handles to these things. And
tournament how long it took? Yes, And this is baffled scientists, like,
how could it possibly have taken can two million years
to go from using your hand to attaching a stick?
You know, this doesn't make any sense. So, um, well
they were dumb back then. Well a dumb is close
(03:14):
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, which allowed us to go, hey,
let's put a handle on this. And after we did that,
(03:36):
we moved out of Africa and started colonizing the rest
of the world. So that's they've pinpointed 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 old rent all time. Shoot, did I ruin it?
It's okay. Um. So we go from can't figure out
(03:57):
how to attach a handle to a sharp rock? Okay,
a 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 since the Industrial Revolution, our ability to innovate,
to grasp new ideas, to understand the world around us,
(04:20):
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 understand how everything works, and
there's really just figuring out how to dot the eyes
and cross the teas right right. There was actually a
(04:43):
guy who famously said in guy named Charles Buell. 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, basically like you
should go ahead and shut down the patent office. He
(05:03):
clearly had never considered the snuggy 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 then I think things happen.
(05:25):
People come along innovators, and then they reach new heights
and they go, oh, well, we didn't know that, and
we there are new ideas, right. It's it's almost 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 silly. It's just ask him to be made
(05:46):
a fool of yeah, or for people to maybe people
do that on purpose, to go the innovators and to
say no, yeah, right, using reverse psychology exactly, that's how
innovation works. Yeah, you might as well just give up
reverse psychology drive innovation. There are people though, that say
that technological that real technological innovation has been stalled for
(06:09):
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 marketing.
These these guys, Cedric Lagare and Eric Virdo, we're both
(06:31):
with scheme of business school. Um basically say, smartphones. Yes,
they seem incredibly new and cutting edge, but really they're
just the packaging of several already extant technologies into a
really sharp looking handheld device. But that'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
(06:53):
before the late nineties and before the eighties, let's say,
with computers, but especially the tech boom of the tele
com boom of the late nineties, like this stuff wasn't around.
Like it's not true innovation. It's it's kind of repurposing, right,
And what you were saying, like the cosmetic changes to
a computer. Um. One of the reasons why they believe
(07:15):
that this 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
(07:38):
worth 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
(08:01):
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 row than the
hardware side, right. And they're also saying that, um, the
green boom is going to drive innovation. That makes sense,
(08:23):
like coming up with sustainable packages. Are sustainable solutions? Yeah, totally.
One of the other things they pointed out thought was
interesting was the they said they said the tech 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
(08:45):
Audio CD or Blu ray. You like your DVD, You're
gonna love Blu Ray. But guess what's coming up after
blue 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 buying it,
(09:06):
so it's not worth as much money, which means that
nobody's putting any effort into it and money into it.
So innovations. 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 money going toward innovation.
(09:28):
But rather than the the onus being put on consumers
not buying blue rays out 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 subsidized by
the United States government, which he says is actually attacks
(09:51):
in a way because it's not being subsidized. Sort of
a reach, you could definitely, Yeah, I think a lot
of these guy's points are a reach. 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, these people who are in
(10:12):
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. And
(10:33):
I think that that's wrong. 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
(10:54):
you made is that these people in the garage, the
true innovators. They don't care if they have two pennies
to rub the other, right, 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 Snuggy. Sure, the guy who invented the snugg
he wasn't in his garage and just wanted to kind
(11:15):
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 because when you introduce money,
there's now, um something to lose, and people are less
(11:37):
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, stuff pholps had
(12:08):
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 be
a bank that you could go and partner, you know,
(12:29):
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 correct
in that sense. And I also kind of resented that
(12:50):
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 skimalt 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 talk about one from
the National Institutes of Health where the government says, hey,
(13:14):
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 ni H what's it called
the New Innovator Award Director's New Innovator Award. This is
(13:35):
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 of the way. Yes, But now
(13:56):
that and I H owns you for the rest of
your career probably. So 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 these I think
(14:20):
these people are younger than us by the way they
are 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. It is basically
(14:40):
one 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
a microscope, UM, then what you have to basically try
(15:03):
to engineer the cell, you know, time after time after time,
and basically program it to do what you want it
to do. What de Carlo is coming up with is
a way to use UM 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,
(15:26):
it attracts 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,
(15:47):
one of the other winners was Hu Huang, And you
came up with, uh, basically, I'm gonna break this down easy.
Instead of saying, let me come up with a 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
(16:09):
in this track, essentially curing cancer. And he's doing this,
actually I don't know. She's doing this um through uh
nano material called graphine that is just one atom thick. Yes,
graphing is like the super clearly not of this world material.
It's literally a carbon atom thick. That's it. So, but
(16:32):
it is a biological sensor to tell you when cells
aren't doing the things they should be doing. So did
you know a graham of this stuff's flattened covers a
football field? Am, 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? Oh,
(16:54):
let me let me try my hand at this. So
basically what you do is you, um, 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,
(17:15):
by the way these biological markers are, we found are
correlated with the growth of cancer, the origin 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
(17:37):
would be able to detect it and be like who right,
We'd be like, oh crap, you have cancer, and we'd
cure it right then. Wow. Yeah, that's awesome. Yeah, And
that's a good way to approach a cure for cancer.
If you asked me, did I explain that? Well? I
think so, I think. And the last winner this year
was Jin Hi Lee and Jin is trying to debug
(17:58):
the brain circuit useing. You know, we have the Wonder Machine,
which is our favorite thing in the world. Fm r I,
which measures UH measures measures blood and oxygen levels 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
(18:21):
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 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
(18:43):
say anything though, and it doesn't it doesn't implicate well
it's it's not it's showing Okay, well there's more oxygen
in this region, right. What this is, um, What what
genuine Lee is looking at is, um, how what specifically
on the new ronal level is being activated? Right? And
(19:03):
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 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 opti genetics
(19:26):
for a while. We should get this person in here.
This is probably as closest forever going to come down
to do it. Uh. Well, it's a great idea though,
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.
(19:47):
No excellent point the n I 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 didn't personally find them. You're like, these guys
should get the that and I found them. Um. There
are very good ideas out there, right, But there is
a debate that's raging in science UM about whether these
(20:15):
ideas like optogenetics or um, you know, 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
(20:36):
basically the question is, um are are are there any
more major discoveries for us to make or are these
really just basically 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? Well,
as you said we were, I did, and then we
started researching this, and I'm like, I wonder, I think
(20:59):
I still do believe that UM. But within that though,
there's so much that it's to me a little bit
like splitting hairs. 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. Sure, and an idea necessarily kind of
(21:19):
UM invention leads Yeah, it leads to an invention. It's
something we we've created. Like technology, let's talk about discovery, right,
(21:48):
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 is that possible?
And can we figure everything out? Well, that's the big question.
(22:10):
Is there there's a UM there's Like I said, there's
a lot of debate about whether or not we'll 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. So there's a guy
who's a physicist. His name is um Russell Standard, and
(22:32):
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 longer make discoveries,
(22:53):
not because we've understood everything or figured everything out, but
because we've reached the limits of what is noble for
the mean brain. Sure, but even that look at that
that part of the right hemisphere that developed and allowed
us to put the acts handle on, Right, who's to
say that our brain won't, that we won't reach that
(23:14):
point where we can't know anything any longer or I
can't know everything? And then 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, because
(23:37):
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
(23:57):
human life and consciousness in the subjectivity of what goes
on inside a person's head. You're never going to 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, I guess I I agree with you. Um,
(24:17):
there's this aspect of the universe that Kant called the
new Amenon new Amenon. Okay, that was specifically tailored from
my 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.
(24:41):
Everything we know and understand is subjective. And this is
where subjectivism is is based. That basically we can never
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 a different There's an extreme version of it
(25:01):
called so solipsism, right, yes, and solipsism is the the um,
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
(25:22):
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
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 lot to say
about it because we've covered it, but it definitely is
(25:43):
along the same line. So you think, well, yeah, there's
a there's an interpretation of quantum mechanics that basically says, um,
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
(26:04):
know exists in our reality for sure, is what we're observing.
So everything else, like what's going on out there in
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 also that we say all this not just
to you know, rock out to Floyd, but um, because
(26:26):
this is this is what science is up against. This
isn't just jibberish. This isn't just philosophical jibberish. As much
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,
(26:47):
Stephen Hawking, you might have heard of him, and another
dude name Leonard load Loader. Now is how I'm going
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 going to 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
(27:09):
more like what they call, quote a family of interconnected theories,
which describe your reality under very specific conditions. And this
is 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
(27:31):
to explain everything. That's the theory of everything. It's one
theory that explains everything, right, Like that surfer guy exactly,
Garrett Leacy. I think it's a long time ago 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. Right.
(27:54):
But the thing that really scares a physicist, that will
scare any physicist is this sports. 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
(28:16):
have formed to be true, are those even true? Or
are or the conclusions we're reaching just based on years
of thought compiled that may not have been true to
begin with. So I mean like we arrive at reality
by consensus. Yeah, but is that consensus was that even
accurate along the way? Not necessarily. It's been showing time
(28:37):
and time again that it's hasn't been accurate through these
um the Five Revolutions, as VM Ramashchandra and puts them.
Bernicus 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
(29:00):
actually are driven by desires that we can't control and
aren't really aware of d NA, which 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 favorites.
And then um, the Fifth Revolution, the neuroscience revolution, that
(29:21):
we're all everything, are all of our understanding of movements
and and experiences are nothing but um neuronal transmissions 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
(29:43):
possible historically speaking to say, well we thought that before
and we didn't. And what revolution is next? 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.
(30:05):
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 we're from blue Rays to Turns and at the
end of the day, Josh and Chuck say, we are
not out of new ideas. Canna speak for you, go ahead,
We are 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,
(30:29):
there are new ideas, and here's one. Not give me
the cash exactly. If you want to learn more about
innovation and new ideas, 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
(30:50):
cool stuff too. Agreed. Uh. You can type all those
words into the handy search bar at how stuff works
dot com, which means it's time for a sner mail. Yes, Josh,
I'm gonna follow this very heavy podcast with the opposite
an email for him. Okay, this is from our thirteen
(31:12):
year old fan Peyton in California. Well, hello, I'm sending
this from my eye touch while laying in bed. I'm
supposed to be asleep, so anyway, I just started 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
(31:33):
got on the year. So I'm gonna start listening to you. Um, actually,
I'm saying Peyton is a girl. Peyton maybe a boy?
You never know? Oh? Really, yeah, it's in dragyn this right, Yeah,
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,
(31:56):
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
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.
We're getting old, I guess so. I most definitely enjoyed
the podcast on the OCTOPI and stuff. I thought it
(32:19):
was OCTOPI. 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
I've already spelled, right, 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 inc you can select rons, but it feels
(32:40):
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, you sinned and you're like, can
you please make sure you take the sofa out of
the oven when you get home when you meant to say, um, sturgeon,
let's say, surgeon is so far I would surgeon, Okay,
(33:04):
take the surgeon out of the oven? Which is I
think so much better. I wish you would have planned this.
It's okay, buddy. Anyway, it can make for a lot
of fun. So that's my new idea. Okay, And that's um.
Lots of love from Peyton age thirteen and Cali. Thanks
a lot, Peyton, age thirteen and Callie 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
(33:27):
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. Wrap it up in an email
and send it to Stuff podcast at how stuff works
dot com. Stuff you Should Know is a production of
(33:53):
iHeart Radio's How Stuff Works. For more podcasts for my
heart Radio is at the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Stuff You Should Know News
Hosts And Creators
Chuck Bryant
Josh Clark
Show Links
AboutOrder Our BookStoreSYSK ArmyRSSPopular Podcasts
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!