- Sup, you beautiful bastards?
Welcome back to "The Philip DeFranco Show."
Buckle up, make sure you hit that Like button.
Otherwise, it will punch you in the throat
and let's just jump into the news.
Adriana Chechik was actually
way more injured than previously believed.
We talked on Monday about her injury at TwitchCon.
She was doing what seems to be some fun foam jousting.
She wins, she jumps and she reportedly breaks her back.
You see her just laying there, obviously in pain.
She tweets that she's gonna have to have surgery
to get a metal rod for support and notably,
she was just one of several people
that got injured at this thing.
But now we know even more because Adriana tweeted
late last night, "Surgery went well, five and a half hours.
More fusions than expected.
Bones completely crushed and nerve damage to my bladder.
Hopefully I'll be able to pee again in the near future.
Had some bleeding around the bone but overall, doing good."
And adding she's gonna have
to have a brace on for a long time.
So with her recovery now started,
one of the biggest questions is who's gonna fuckin' pay?
You have people pointing the finger at Lenovo,
Intel, the venue, Twitch itself
or possibly a sharing of fault.
Also regarding whether she or other people have a case,
I think something that's incredibly important
is a number of attorneys are now saying yes,
she probably does have a case.
With creators and injury lawyers like AttorneyTom
over on YouTube saying even if this person signed a waiver,
that would not protect the parties responsible
from negligence and saying that the foam pit here
is "the definition of negligent design."
And hey, when it comes to the United States,
I'm not a fan of how overly litigious our country can be
but this seems pretty fuckin' straightforward to me.
Isn't it the bare minimum expectation
that if you're going to have a thing where people,
the intended thing is for people to fall,
that a design would be used to absorb the fall,
ideally in a way that doesn't result in broken bones?
But yeah, we'll see what happens.
And then tax the cow farts and while you're at it,
tax their burps as well.
That is apparently what they're gonna be doing
in New Zealand where the country is trying to combat
climate change, promising to go carbon neutral by 2050.
To do so, they've been looking closely at their greenhouse
gas emissions and they found in a study from 2019
that 88.4% of methane emissions came from livestock
and 65% of that number just came from cattle digestion,
cow farts. (fart splatters)
So the Prime Minister has proposed taxing farmers
for the emissions their livestock produce,
saying "The proposal would see New Zealand farmers
lead the world in reducing emissions, delivering
a competitive advantage and enhancing our export brand."
And the key thing here is this would be the first tax
on livestock emissions in the world.
Though the EU and the United States
have made plans to lower greenhouse
gas missions within the farming industry,
though not related to livestock specifically.
Now New Zealand is home to about 10 million cows
and farmers so far are less than satisfied with the idea
of paying extra for the flatulence of their cattle
and while the taxation rate starting in 2025
has not been released yet, according to the government,
if it goes through, farmers could see a loss
of 5% of total profit and output.
With at least one farmer responding,
"If they apply this price, you're going to find people
who think it's just too much for them
and it's hampering their ability to have a decent life."
Also as far as why the fuck are you going to tax cow farts?
What are you gonna do with that money?
Is it going to cow butt plugs to stop the farts?
That's not how that works I don't think, but I don't know.
Rather the Prime Minister said the money
would go towards research and new technology
and the reduction of farming greenhouse gas emissions.
But as far as if this will be passed,
if it will be effective, what the reaction will be,
we're gonna have to wait to see.
And then you may be going through a midlife crisis
right now even if you haven't reached your midlife.
Let me explain.
So reportedly, according to a new paper
from the National Bureau of Economic Research,
people in their 40s and 50s in rich countries
are prone to rise in suicidal thoughts,
job stress, depression and alcohol dependence,
which looking back actually makes a lot of sense
because when I was in school,
adults would always tell me I seemed mature for my age.
But apparently according to this study,
when you reach the maximum level of work stress,
it is around 45 years old.
But we're also seeing reports that the midlife crisis
is happening earlier in life in part due to the pandemic
and the super fun thing about all of this
is it's an indiscriminate shotgun blast.
Probably you shouldn't talk about
firearms with a depression story
but reportedly major indicators of mental duress
peaked in midlife regardless of income, nationality,
gender or whether or not people had kids.
So that's all the information.
But the main thing I want you to take away from this story,
motherfucker, if you're feeling any of the stuff
I'm talking about right now, you're not weird
or some fuckin' random outlier, you are human.
You're not alone in this, people are experiencing it.
Just talk it out and that's something for everyone
but I also especially want to talk to guys here.
I feel like,
and maybe it's just because of certain algorithms,
it's very easy to fall down this hole of thinking like men,
the only thing that's expected of them
is to provide and no one fucking cares about them
and that can be a very easy thing to buy into.
But how many of us that feel like that actually try and
fuckin' communicate those feelings to another human being?
It ends up being this self-fulfilling prophecy
of like I need to suffer in silence and endure
and then be also angry that I'm doing that
and I'm not saying that for some of you,
that the people around you don't care.
If that's the case, you just need new people.
But at the very least, try to talk to someone.
You may be shocked how much
some of the people around you care.
And then the kids are not all right.
A panel of medical experts just recommended
for the first time that doctors screen children
as young as eight years old for anxiety.
The panel is called the US Preventative Services Task Force
and it issued this guidance as part of the official
final recommendations for mental health screening
and a key thing here, in that final version,
the group also reaffirmed its position that primary care
providers should also screen children as young as 12 years
old for depression and it shouldn't be surprising.
The ongoing mental health crisis among young Americans
is a serious epidemic and it's only getting worse.
According to the CDC,
around 5.8 million children have been diagnosed with anxiety
and about 2.7 million have been diagnosed with depression.
But the thing is the real numbers are very likely higher
because there are many kids who have likely been missed
in these figures and they're also from before the pandemic.
Like that was its own horror show,
especially on young people but according
to a March study from the HHS, from 2016 to 2020,
the number of kids three to 17 diagnosed with anxiety
rose by 29% and depression by 27% and unsurprising,
especially given the last story we talked about,
that same panel just last month also recommended
for the first time that all adults 65 and under
be screened for anxiety as well.
Though notably here, those recommendations
for adults have not yet been finalized.
But back to the kids because while experts have applauded
this formalization of the recommendation for them,
a number are pointing out flaws like first of all,
even if pediatricians opt to follow this guidance,
experts note that the screening tools
don't actually provide a diagnosis but only
indicate if a child may need additional care.
Which, a key thing here,
is where we run into some trouble because right now,
there is a massive nationwide shortage of mental
health professionals who are trained to help these kids.
So we're gonna have to wait to see
if the industry changes to meet this new demand.
Though I think it's an important demand to take seriously.
Having an idea of a kid's mental health,
a battle that they're going to face their whole lives.
You do that at an early enough age,
that's gonna help a ton of people.
If I was given the tools when I was a kid
that I didn't really get until I was like 32,
I can't even fully comprehend the quality
of life changes I would've experienced along the way.
into your eyes and he's gonna make you pay for it
is the weirdest way I could bring up
the Meta Quest Pro and the future of VR and mixed reality.
When it comes to VR,
there's been this debate of is it this random
side thing or is it genuinely the future?
I've used some of the higher end VR stuff for gaming.
I also have something kind of more casual,
which was the Quest 2.
I've used it to play some games during the pandemic.
Me and a few guys would get together
and watch like a horror movie every week.
There's this one program that
has you in a virtual movie theater.
But there is this belief that this could be also not only
the future of gaming but also socialization and work
and that's largely where the mixed VR comes in
and so with that, Meta just announced the Quest Pro.
It's got a new processor, a new screen,
the design's different.
It also has inward-facing cameras
for eye and face tracking as well
as a color video feed for mixed reality.
With the idea for that being hey,
you could sit down at your desk at home,
you put on this thing and maybe you can see
your laptop screen in front of you,
definitely your keyboard and then
everything else perhaps is maybe VR.
So instead of needing real world extra monitors,
all of a sudden you're moving stuff in virtual reality,
you got 17,000 screens and then with a swipe of your hand,
all of them go away and you're at a meeting
or you're at a table with the other writers
or editors or whatever the fuck your job is.
There was even an announcement that Microsoft
partnered with Meta to bring Teams, Office,
Windows and Xbox to VR and all this notably happening
before Apple announces their rumored VR-AR device in 2023.
Also on that note,
I gotta give some props to the interviewer
at The Verge that talked to Zuckerberg around this.
He asked this question to Zuckerberg
that was essentially like "Do you find it strange
or like kinda random that Apple kneecapped your ad business
right before you guys dove into this new space together?"
And initially Zuckerberg gives
the PR answer of like "There's no way to know."
But then (laughs).
- It's certainly plausible that
they kind of see this competition in the future
and want to hinder us.
I do think that,
I think one thing that's been pretty clear
is that their motives in doing the things that they're doing
are not as altruistic as they claim them to be.
I'm sure that they believe at some level
in the things that they're doing and think
that they're good for their customers.
But it can't just be a coincidence
that it also aligns very well with their strategy.
- But ultimately as far as is this
specific device the future, I don't know.
The interviewer even mentions to Zuck they tried the device,
the mixed reality, their keyboard was fuzzy,
which isn't a great thing to hear.
I tested some of the mixed VR on the Quest 2
and that was a little clunky.
The price tag is obviously a massive jump.
I think Quest 2 is $399, this is coming in at around 1500.
Though Zuckerberg in the interview talked about
the hundreds of millions of people that buy a new PC
every year, so they're kinda seeing it in that price point,
which I think could make sense except for one fact.
Even with this being the Pro,
the battery life is actually worse than the Quest 2,
clocking in at just one to two hours.
Though I guess the pushback there would be
you could just keep it wired while you're at your desk.
So will I try this out?
Yes, but that's because the price point
for me specifically isn't intimidating.
But I'm not everyone and I'm in a position where I get to
try it out and then convey my opinion to you, so we'll see.
I'm of two minds when we talk about mixed reality and work.
there's part of my brain that loves it because
while I love most of the things about work from home,
I do actually miss seeing people in-person
and having in-person conversations.
Zoom or any kind of thing like that is a subpar experience
where you can't get that eye-to-eye connection.
Your eyes are usually like darting
from webcam to screen, webcam to screen.
But also the idea of wearing this
fuckin' headset all day seems horrible.
I don't know, time will tell
and Zuckerberg and Meta have made a massive bet
which either is gonna play out for them
or be absolutely fucking devastating.
But when only the olds are using your social media service
and all these new companies like TikTok are eating
your lunch, yeah, it makes sense why you'd try and pivot.
And then if you're a gig worker or you use gig workers,
everything might be about to change for you
because yesterday the Labor Department
announced a proposed rule that would pave the way
for millions of workers to be classified as employees
instead of independent contractors
and if the rule gets approved, it would grant
sweeping Federal protections like minimum wage,
overtime and healthcare benefits to tons of people.
We're talking ride share, delivery drivers
to janitors and construction workers
and specifically what this proposal would do
is basically create a test to determine
whether certain workers should be classified as employees
or contractors based on a series of factors.
This includes things like how much control
and autonomy a worker has over how they do their job
and the opportunities they're given to make more money,
such as offering new services.
Notably, this new rule would also reverse another
put in place by Trump that made it easier for gig companies
to classify workers as independent contractors.
With Biden's rule effectively lowering the bar
for who could be classified as an employee
which if it goes through, I mean that's absolutely massive.
That'd be one of the biggest shifts in Federal
labor laws in my lifetime for millions of Americans
and it also has the potential to seriously
disrupt the companies that they work for.
Because this has been a raging debate for years now.
You've had industry leaders like Uber and Lyft
repeatedly arguing that being a contractor
gives people more flexibility and that the model
is flexible among their workers and claiming
that if they had to treat their drivers as employees,
it would completely fuck them,
saying they wouldn't be able to pay their drivers,
the costs would get too high,
with some officials estimating that the cost
of labor could rise as much as 20 to 30%.
But on the other side of this,
you have many labor activists and experts arguing
that the only reason those labor costs would go up so much
is because these companies are exploiting their workers
and denying them protections to reduce their own costs
while also at the same time paying hundreds of millions of
dollars that they could use to pay those workers to instead
lobby against legislation that would make them employees
and while all these workers, they're not a monolith, right?
They all have different opinions,
many have complained about long hours or regular pay changes
to the apps that affect their livelihood without their say
and beyond that, some experts have also said
there's nothing about full employment that would
prevent these companies from still giving workers
similar flexibility and also beyond that debate,
there are a lot of criticisms around the current system
that results in worker misclassification.
With the National Employment Law Project,
a pro-worker think tank estimating that as many
as 30% of workers may be wrongly categorized as independent.
Which hey, this is one way
to get the government on their side.
Not only does that lower the pay that workers get,
it also costs states billions of dollars in tax revenue
where they just told the government,
"There's oil in them hills."
So you have many applauding this proposed rule
but also the likes of Lyft and Uber
kind of downplaying the proposal,
expressing optimism that it wouldn't exactly
undermine the gig economy model and claiming hey,
this is basically just to restore
an Obama-era rule that didn't reclassify drivers.
But the market so far has apparently felt otherwise
because gig economy stocks plummeted following this news,
with Lyft and Uber both seeing drops of more than 10%,
though some have recouped some of their losses
as of recording and as far as what happens next,
it has to go through the regulatory process,
which includes a 45-day period for public comment
and notably, even if it does go into effect,
it will likely be subject to legal challenges.
And then governments are corrupt,
it's just a question of how corrupt
and when it comes to the United States,
it turns out at least 20%,
at least if we try to quantify it in this specific way.
Because that percentage
is the big takeaway from The Wall Street Journal,
which obtained financial disclosure forms
for around 12,000 Federal officials between 2016 and 2021
and they found that more than one in five senior officials
or over 2600 officials across 50 agencies
disclosed investments in companies
while those same companies were lobbying their agencies.
We've got FDA officials owning banned food and drug stocks,
SEC officials owning banned financial stocks,
EPA officials owning oil and gas stocks,
all the way down the list
and to look at a very specific case,
officials in the Pentagon's Office of the Secretary
reported collectively owning between 1.2 million
and 3.4 million of stock in aerospace
and defense companies on average each year.
We also know that over 1800 officials owned
or traded stocks from Meta, Google, Apple or Amazon
just as the government had ramped up scrutiny of big tech
and if you're wondering how could this happen?
Are there not rules here, Phil?
Well the answer is yes but sometimes
when agencies discover a conflict of interest,
they simply waived the rules,
with The Journal finding that in most instances
that had identified, ethics officials certified
that the employees had complied with the rules
which have several exemptions that allow officials to
actually hold stock that conflicts with their agency's work
and when ethics officials do see a potential violation,
they refer to their agency's Inspector General,
who then refer to the Justice Department
if they find evidence of wrongdoing.
But a Journal review found that
Inspector Generals rarely investigated conflicts
and when something is referred to the the DOJ,
prosecutors usually decline to open an investigation.
Now on one hand, and it's an incredibly
fucking shitty thing to say but it is true,
this isn't exactly news because we already knew that lots
of high level people were intimately tied to the industries.
Just to look one administration back,
Trump's cabinet was notoriously full
of fossil fuel lobbyists, Goldman Sachs executives,
defense contractors, you know,
people who know how to drain that swamp
and I guess replace it with their own swamp.
But also understand it wasn't just
like a Trump Administration thing.
I think that was just kinda the most blatant example.
But on the other hand,
this is still incredibly important news.
Just because it's known fuckery doesn't make it not fuckery
and it puts numbers which
are incredibly concerning numbers behind that
either generally vague feeling or very specific
feeling towards like a a Nancy Pelosi type
and it shows us that shit's fucked up.
Despite all the smoke and mirrors,
you have a ruling class that doesn't give a fuck
about what would be appropriate and understand,
these numbers are probably optimistic.
That is ultimately where that story and today's show ends.
Thank you being a part of my daily dive
in the news and maybe even being a part
of that conversation in the comments down below.
If you need more news, although who fuckin' needs more news?
This is your daily dose of poison
but if you need more, you can click or tap right there.
Hey, as always, my name's Philip DeFranco,
you've just been filled in.
I love your faces and I'll see you tomorrow.