Podcast appearances and mentions of ben right

The experience of reading Saint Isaac the Syrian is something like being caught up in a vortex; not a linear explanation of the spiritual life or spiritual practices, but rather being drawn by the Holy Spirit that blows wherever It wills. It is not as though Isaac's thought lacks cohesiveness, but rather he presents the life of faith and life in Christ to us as an artist painting with broad strokes. This is especially true in the first six homilies that speak of the discipline of virtue. Isaac seems to be more concerned about our breathing the same air as the Saints. He wants us to be swept up by our desire for God and in our gratitude for His love and mercy. Our life is not simply following a series of teachings or a moral code, but rather embodying very life of Christ. We are to love and console others as we have been loved and consoled by the Lord. If our spiritual disciplines do not remove the impediments to our capacity to be loved and to love others, then they are sorely lacking.  In every way, our lives should be a reflection of Christ and the manner that we walk along the path of our lives should be reflective of His mindset and desire. In other words, we should desire to do the will of God and to love Him above all things, including our own lives. We are to die to self and sin and have a willingness to trust in the Providence of God that leads our hearts to desire to take up the cross daily and follow him. We begin to see affliction as something that not only shapes are virtue and deepens our faith, but that is a participation in the reality of redemption. We are drawn into something that is Divine and Saint Isaac would not have us make it something common. The Cross will always be a stumbling block when gazed upon or experienced on a purely natural level. But for those who have faith, we begin to see and experience the sweetness of God's love and intimacy with him precisely through affliction. Isaac would have us know that joy in all of its fullness. --- Text of chat during the group: 00:10:51 Catherine Opie: Hi there, where are we in the text? 00:12:03 Lori Hatala: pg 122 Cover a sinner... 00:13:10 Catherine Opie: Reacted to "pg 122 Cover a sinne..." with

In this hour, Adam Crowley and Dorin Dickerson debate over who would be the better QB between this current player and this former player currently. Also, would it be a good idea to trade WR George Pickens? And Ray Fittipaldo from The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette comes on The Fan Hotline. March 12, 2025, 8:00 Hour

Peter van Hardenberg talks about Industrialists vs. Academics, Ink&Switch's evolution over time, the Hollywood Model, internal lab infrastructure, and more! Peter is the lab director and CEO of Ink&Switch, a private, creator oriented, computing research lab.  References Ink&Switch (and their many publications) The Hollywood Model in R&D Idea Machines Episode with Adam Wiggins Paul Erdós Transcript Peter Van Hardenberg [00:01:21] Ben: Today I have the pleasure of speaking with Peter van Hardenbergh. Peter is the lab director and CEO of Inkin switch. Private creator oriented, competing research lab. I talked to Adam Wiggins, one of inkind switches founders, [00:01:35] way back in episode number four. It's amazing to see the progress they've made as an organization. They've built up an incredible community of fellow travelers and consistently released research reports that gesture at possibilities for competing that are orthogonal to the current hype cycles. Peter frequently destroys my complacency with his ability to step outside the way that research has normally done and ask, how should we be operating, given our constraints and goals. I hope you enjoy my conversation with Peter. Would you break down your distinction between academics and industrialists [00:02:08] Peter: Okay. Academics are people whose incentive structure is connected to the institutional rewards of the publishing industry, right? You, you publish papers. And you get tenure and like, it's a, it's, it's not so cynical or reductive, but like fundamentally the time cycles are long, right? Like you have to finish work according to when, you know, submission deadlines for a conference are, you know, you're [00:02:35] working on something now. You might come back to it next quarter or next year or in five years, right? Whereas when you're in industry, you're connected to users, you're connected to people at the end of the day who need to touch and hold and use the thing. And you know, you have to get money from them to keep going. And so you have a very different perspective on like time and money and space and what's possible. And the real challenge in terms of connecting these two, you know, I didn't invent the idea of pace layers, right? They, they operate at different pace layers. Academia is often intergenerational, right? Whereas industry is like, you have to make enough money every quarter. To keep the bank account from going below zero or everybody goes home, [00:03:17] Ben: Right. Did. Was it Stuart Brand who invented pace [00:03:22] Peter: believe it was Stewart Brand. Pace layers. Yeah. [00:03:25] Ben: That actually I, I'd never put these two them together, but the, the idea I, I, I think about impedance mismatches between [00:03:35] organizations a lot. And that really sort of like clicks with pace layers Exactly. Right. Where it's like [00:03:39] Peter: Yeah, absolutely. And, and I think in a big way what we're doing at, Ink& Switch on some level is trying to provide like synchro mesh between academia and industry, right? Because they, the academics are moving on a time scale and with an ambition that's hard for industry to match, right? But also, Academics. Often I think in computer science are like, have a shortage of good understanding about what the real problems people are facing in the world today are. They're not disinterested. [00:04:07] Ben: just computer [00:04:08] Peter: Those communication channels don't exist cuz they don't speak the same language, they don't use the same terminology, they don't go to the same conferences, they don't read the same publications. Right. [00:04:18] Ben: Yeah. [00:04:18] Peter: so vice versa, you know, we find things in industry that are problems and then it's like you go read the papers and talk to some scientists. I was like, oh dang. Like. We know how to solve this. It's just nobody's built it. [00:04:31] Ben: Yeah. [00:04:32] Peter: Or more accurately it would be to say [00:04:35] there's a pretty good hunch here about something that might work, and maybe we can connect the two ends of this together. [00:04:42] Ben: Yeah. Often, I, I think of it as someone, someone has, it is a quote unquote solved problem, but there are a lot of quote unquote, implementation details and those implementation details require a year of work. [00:04:56] Peter: yeah, a year or many years? Or an entire startup, or a whole career or two? Yeah. And, and speaking of, Ink&Switch, I don't know if we've ever talked about, so a switch has been around for more than half a decade, right? [00:05:14] Peter: Yeah, seven or eight years now, I think I could probably get the exact number, but yeah, about that. [00:05:19] Ben: And. I think I don't have a good idea in my head over that time. What, what has changed about in, can switches, conception of itself and like how you do things. Like what is, what are some of the biggest things that have have changed over that time?[00:05:35] [00:05:35] Peter: So I think a lot of it could be summarized as professionalization. But I, I'll give a little brief history and can switch began because the. You know, original members of the lab wanted to do a startup that was Adam James and Orion, but they recognized that they didn't, they weren't happy with computing and where computers were, and they knew that they wanted to make something that would be a tool that would help people who were solving the world's problems work better. That's kinda a vague one, but You know, they were like, well, we're not physicists, we're not social scientists. You know, we can't solve climate change or radicalization directly, or you know, the journalism crisis or whatever, but maybe we can build tools, right? We know how to make software tools. Let's build tools for the people who are solving the problems. Because right now a lot of those systems they rely on are getting like steadily worse every day. And I think they still are like the move to the cloud disempowerment of the individual, like, you [00:06:35] know, surveillance technology, distraction technology. And Tristan Harris is out there now. Like hammering on some of these points. But there's just a lot of things that are like slow and fragile and bad and not fun to work with and lose your, you know, lose your work product. You know, [00:06:51] Ben: Yeah, software as a service more generally. [00:06:54] Peter: Yeah. And like, there's definitely advantages. It's not like, you know, people are rational actors, but something was lost. And so the idea was well go do a bit of research, figure out what the shape of the company is, and then just start a company and, you know, get it all solved and move on. And I think the biggest difference, at least, you know, aside from scale and like actual knowledge is just kind of the dawning realization at some point that like there won't really be an end state to this problem. Like this isn't a thing that's transitional where you kind of come in and you do some research for a bit, and then we figure out the answer and like fold up the card table and move on to the next thing. It's like, oh no, this, this thing's gotta stick around because these problems aren't gonna [00:07:35] go away. And when we get through this round of problems, we already see what the next round are. And that's probably gonna go on for longer than any of us will be working. And so the vision now, at least from my perspective as the current lab director, is much more like, how can I get this thing to a place where it can sustain for 10 years, for 50 years, however long it takes, and you know, to become a place that. Has a culture that can sustain, you know, grow and change as new people come in. But that can sustain operations indefinitely. [00:08:07] Ben: Yeah. And, and so to circle back to the. The, the jumping off point for this, which is sort of since, since it began, what have been some of the biggest changes of how you operate? How you, or just like the, the model more generally or, or things that you were [00:08:30] Peter: Yeah, so the beginning was very informal, but, so maybe I'll skip over the first like [00:08:35] little period where it was just sort of like, Finding our footing. But around the time when I joined, we were just four or five people. And we did one project, all of us together at a time, and we just sort of like, someone would write a proposal for what we should do next, and then we would argue about like whether it was the right next thing. And, you know, eventually we would pick a thing and then we would go and do that project and we would bring in some contractors and we called it the Hollywood model. We still call it the Hollywood model. Because it was sort of structured like a movie production. We would bring in, you know, to our little core team, we'd bring in a couple specialists, you know, the equivalent of a director of photography or like a, you know, a casting director or whatever, and you bring in the people that you need to accomplish the task. Oh, we don't know how to do Bluetooth on the web. Okay. Find a Bluetooth person. Oh, there's a bunch of crypto stuff, cryptography stuff. Just be clear on this upcoming project, we better find somebody who knows, you know, the ins and outs of like, which cryptography algorithms to use or [00:09:35] what, how to build stuff in C Sharp for Windows platform or Surface, whatever the, the project was over time. You know, we got pretty good at that and I think one of the biggest changes, sort of after we kind of figured out how to actually do work was the realization that. Writing about the work not only gave us a lot of leverage in terms of our sort of visibility in the community and our ability to attract talent, but also the more we put into the writing, the more we learned about the research and that the process of, you know, we would do something and then write a little internal report and then move on. But the process of taking the work that we do, And making it legible to the outside world and explaining why we did it and what it means and how it fits into the bigger picture. That actually like being very diligent and thorough in documenting all of that greatly increases our own understanding of what we did.[00:10:35] And that was like a really pleasant and interesting surprise. I think one of my sort of concerns as lab director is that we got really good at that and we write all these like, Obscenely long essays that people claim to read. You know, hacker News comments on extensively without reading. But I think a lot about, you know, I always worry about the orthodoxy of doing the same thing too much and whether we're sort of falling into patterns, so we're always tinkering with new kind of project systems or new ways of working or new kinds of collaborations. And so yeah, that's ongoing. But this, this. The key elements of our system are we bring together a team that has both longer term people with domain contexts about the research, any required specialists who understand like interesting or important technical aspects of the work. And then we have a specific set of goals to accomplish [00:11:35] with a very strict time box. And then when it's done, we write and we put it down. And I think this avoids number of the real pitfalls in more open-ended research. It has its own shortcomings, right? But one of the big pitfalls that avoids is the kind of like meandering off and losing sight of what you're doing. And you can get great results from that in kind of a general research context. But we're very much an industrial research context. We're trying to connect real problems to specific directions to solve them. And so the time box kind of creates the fear of death. You're like, well, I don't wanna run outta time and not have anything to show for it. So you really get focused on trying to deliver things. Now sometimes that's at the cost, like the breadth or ambition of a solution to a particular thing, but I think it helps us really keep moving forward. [00:12:21] Ben: Yeah, and, and you no longer have everybody in the lab working on the same projects, right. [00:12:28] Peter: Yeah. So today, at any given time, The sort of population of the lab fluctuates between sort of [00:12:35] like eight and 15 people, depending on, you know, whether we have a bunch of projects in full swing or you know, how you count contractors. But we usually, at the moment we have sort of three tracks of research that we're doing. And those are local first software Programmable Inc. And Malleable software. [00:12:54] Ben: Nice. And so I, I actually have questions both about the, the write-ups that you do and the Hollywood model and so on, on the Hollywood model. Do you think that I, I, and this is like, do you think that the, the Hollywood model working in, in a. Industrial Research lab is particular to software in the sense that I feel like the software industry, people change jobs fairly frequently. Contracting is really common. Contractors are fairly fluid and. [00:13:32] Peter: You mean in terms of being able to staff and source people?[00:13:35] [00:13:35] Ben: Yeah, and people take, like, take these long sabbaticals, right? Where it's like, it's not uncommon in the software industry for someone to, to take six months between jobs. [00:13:45] Peter: I think it's very hard for me to generalize about the properties of other fields, so I want to try and be cautious in my evaluation here. What I would say is that, I think the general principle of having a smaller core of longer term people who think and gain a lot of context about a problem and pairing them up with people who have fresh ideas and relevant expertise, does not require you to have any particular industry structure. Right. There are lots of ways of solving this problem. Go to a research, another research organization and write a paper with someone from [00:14:35] an adjacent field. If you're in academia, right? If you're in a company, you can do a partnership you know, hire, you know, I think a lot of fields of science have much longer cycles, right? If you're doing material science, you know, takes a long time to build test apparatus and to formulate chemistries. Like [00:14:52] Ben: Yeah. [00:14:52] Peter: someone for several years, right? Like, That's fine. Get a detach detachment from another part of the company and bring someone as a secondment. Like I think that the general principle though, of putting together a mixture of longer and shorter term people with the right set of skills, yes, we solve it a particular way in our domain. But I don't think that that's software u unique to software. [00:15:17] Ben: Would, would it be overreaching to map that onto professors and postdocs and grad students where you have the professor who is the, the person who's been working on the, the program for a long time has all the context and then you have postdocs and grad students [00:15:35] coming through the lab. [00:15:38] Peter: Again, I need to be thoughtful about. How I evaluate fields that I'm less experienced with, but both my parents went through grad school and I've certainly gotten to know a number of academics. My sense of the relationship between professors and or sort of PhD, yeah, I guess professors and their PhD students, is that it's much more likely that the PhD students are given sort of a piece of the professor's vision to execute. [00:16:08] Ben: Yeah. [00:16:09] Peter: And that that is more about scaling the research interests of the professor. And I don't mean this in like a negative way but I think it's quite different [00:16:21] Ben: different. [00:16:22] Peter: than like how DARPA works or how I can switch works with our research tracks in that it's, I it's a bit more prescriptive and it's a bit more of like a mentor-mentee kind of relationship as [00:16:33] Ben: Yeah. More training.[00:16:35] [00:16:35] Peter: Yeah. And you know, that's, that's great. I mean, postdocs are a little different again, but I think, I think that's different than say how DARPA works or like other institutional research groups. [00:16:49] Ben: Yeah. Okay. I, I wanted to see how, how far I could stretch the, stretch [00:16:55] Peter: in academia there's famous stories about Adosh who would. Turn up on your doorstep you know, with a suitcase and a bottle of amphetamines and say, my, my brain is open, or something to that effect. And then you'd co-author a paper and pay his room and board until you found someone else to send him to.   I think that's closer in the sense that, right, like, here's this like, great problem solver with a lot of like domain skills and he would parachute into a place where someone was working on something interesting and help them make a breakthrough with it. [00:17:25] Ben: Yeah. I think the, the thing that I want to figure out, just, you know, long, longer term is how to. Make those [00:17:35] short term collaborations happen when with, with like, I, I I think it's like, like there's some, there's some coy intention like in, in the sense of like Robert Kos around like organizational boundaries when you have people coming in and doing things in a temporary sense. [00:17:55] Peter: Yeah, academia is actually pretty good at this, right? With like paper co-authors. I mean, again, this is like the, the pace layers thing. When you have a whole bunch of people organized in an industry and a company around a particular outcome, You tend to have like very specific goals and commitments and you're, you're trying to execute against those and it's much harder to get that kind of like more fluid movement between domains. [00:18:18] Ben: Yeah, and [00:18:21] Peter: That's why I left working in companies, right? Cause like I have run engineering processes and built products and teams and it's like someone comes to me with a really good idea and I'm like, oh, it's potentially very interesting, but like, [00:18:33] Ben: but We [00:18:34] Peter: We got [00:18:35] customers who have outages who are gonna leave if we don't fix the thing, we've got users falling out of our funnel. Cause we don't do basic stuff like you just, you really have a lot of work to do to make the thing go [00:18:49] Ben: Yeah. [00:18:49] Peter: business. And you know, my experience of research labs within businesses is that they're almost universally unsuccessful. There are exceptions, but I think they're more coincidental than, than designed. [00:19:03] Ben: Yeah. And I, I think less and less successful over time is, is my observation that. [00:19:11] Peter: Interesting. [00:19:12] Ben: Yeah, there's a, there's a great paper that I will send you called like, what is the name? Oh, the the Changing Structure of American Innovation by She Aurora. I actually did a podcast with him because I like the paper so much. that that I, I think, yeah, exactly. And so going back to your, your amazing [00:19:35] write-ups, you all have clearly invested quite a chunk of, of time and resources into some amount of like internal infrastructure for making those really good. And I wanted to get a sense of like, how do you decide when it's worth investing in internal infrastructure for a lab? [00:19:58] Peter: Ooh. Ah, that's a fun question. Least at In and Switch. It's always been like sort of demand driven. I wish I could claim to be more strategic about it, but like we had all these essays, they were actually all hand coded HTML at one point. You know, real, real indie cred there. But it was a real pain when you needed to fix something or change something. Cause you had to go and, you know, edit all this H T M L. So at some point we were doing a smaller project and I built like a Hugo Templating thing [00:20:35] just to do some lab notes and I faked it. And I guess this is actually a, maybe a somewhat common thing, which is you do one in a one-off way. And then if it's promising, you invest more in it. [00:20:46] Ben: Yeah. [00:20:46] Peter: And it ended up being a bigger project to build a full-on. I mean, it's not really a cms, it's sort of a cms, it's a, it's a templating system that produces static HT m l. It's what all our essays come out of. But there's also a lot of work in a big investment in just like design and styling. And frankly, I think that one of the things that in can switch apart from other. People who do similar work in the space is that we really put a lot of work into the presentation of our work. You know, going beyond, like we write very carefully, but we also care a lot about like, picking good colors, making sure that text hyphenates well, that it, you know, that the the screencast has the right dimensions and, you know, all that little detail work and. It's expensive [00:21:35] in time and money to do, but I think it's, I think the results speak for themselves. I think it's worth it. [00:21:47] Ben: Yeah. I, and I mean, if, if the ultimate goal is to influence what people do and what they think, which I suspect is, is at least some amount of the goal then communicating it. [00:22:00] Peter: It's much easier to change somebody's mind than to build an entire company. [00:22:05] Ben: Yes. Well, [00:22:06] Peter: you wanna, if you wanna max, it depends. Well, you don't have to change everybody's mind, right? Like changing an individual person's mind might be impossible. But if you can put the right ideas out there in the right way to make them legible, then you'll change the right. Hopefully you'll change somebody's mind and it will be the right somebody. [00:22:23] Ben: yeah. No, that is, that is definitely true. And another thing that I am. Always obscenely obsessed, exceedingly impressed by that. In Switch. [00:22:35] Does is your sort of thoughtfulness around how you structure your community and sort of tap into it. Would you be willing to sort of like, walk me through how you think about that and like how you have sort of the, the different layers of, of kind of involvement? [00:22:53] Peter: Okay. I mean, sort of the, maybe I'll work from, from the inside out cuz that's sort of the history of it. So in the beginning there was just sort of the people who started the lab. And over time they recruited me and, and Mark Mcg again and you know, some of our other folk to come and, and sign on for this crazy thing. And we started working with these wonderful, like contractors off and on and and so the initial sort of group was quite small and quite insular and we didn't publish anything. And what we found was that. Once we started, you know, just that alone, the act of bringing people in and working with them started to create the beginning of a [00:23:35] community because people would come into a project with us, they'd infect us with some of their ideas, we'd infect them with some of ours. And so you started to have this little bit of shared context with your past collaborators. And because we have this mix of like longer term people who stick with the lab and other people who come and go, You start to start to build up this, this pool of people who you share ideas and language with. And over time we started publishing our work and we began having what we call workshops where we just invite people to come and talk about their work at Ink and Switch. And by at, I mean like now it's on a discord. Back in the day it was a Skype or a Zoom call or whatever. And the rule back then in the early days was like, if you want to come to the talk. You have to have given a talk or have worked at the lab. And so it was like very good signal to noise ratio in attendance cuz the only people who would be on the zoom call would be [00:24:35] people who you knew were grappling with those problems. For real, no looky lose, no, no audience, right? And over time it just, there were too many really good, interesting people who are doing the work. To fit in all those workshops and actually scheduling workshops is quite tiring and takes a lot of energy. And so over time we sort of started to expand this community a little further. And sort of now our principle is you know, if you're doing the work, you're welcome to come to the workshops. And we invite some people to do workshops sometimes, but that's now we have this sort of like small private chat group of like really interesting folk. And it's not open to the public generally because again, we, I don't want to have an audience, right? I want it to practitioner's space. And so over time, those people have been really influential on us as well. And having that little inner [00:25:35] circle, and it's a few hundred people now of people who, you know, like if you have a question to ask about something tricky. There's probably somebody in there who has tried it, but more significantly, like the answer will come from somebody who has tried it, not from somebody who will call you an idiot for trying or who will, right, like you, you avoid all the, don't read the comments problems because the sort of like, if anybody was like that, I would probably ask them to leave, but we've been fortunate that we haven't had any of that kind of stuff in the community. I will say though, I think I struggle a lot because I think. It's hard to be both exclusive and inclusive. Right, but exclusive community deliberately in the sense that I want it to be a practitioner's space and one where people can be wrong and it's not too performative, like there's not investors watching or your, your user base or whatever. [00:26:32] Ben: Yeah. [00:26:32] Peter: at the same time, [00:26:33] Ben: strangers. [00:26:34] Peter: [00:26:35] inclusive space where we have people who are earlier in their career or. From non-traditional backgrounds, you know, either academically or culturally or so on and so forth. And it takes constant work to be like networking out and meeting new people and like inviting them into this space. So it's always an area to, to keep working on. At some point, I think we will want to open the aperture further, but yeah, it's, it's, it's a delicate thing to build a community. [00:27:07] Ben: Yeah, I mean the, the, frankly, the reason I'm asking is because I'm trying to figure out the same things and you have done it better than basically anybody else that I've seen. This is, this is maybe getting too down into the weeds. But why did you decide that discourse or discord was the right tool for it? And the, the reason that I ask is that I personally hate sort of [00:27:35] streaming walls of texts, and I find it very hard to, to seriously discuss ideas in, in that format. [00:27:43] Peter: Yeah, I think async, I mean, I'm an old school like mailing list guy. On some level I think it's just a pragmatic thing. We use Discord for our internal like day-to-day operations like. Hey, did you see the pr? You know, oh, we gotta call in an hour with so-and-so, whatever. And then we had a bunch of people in that community and then, you know, we started having the workshops and inviting more people. So we created a space in that same discord where. You know, people didn't have to get pinged when we had a lab call and we didn't want 'em turning up on the zoom anyway. And so it wasn't so much like a deliberate decision to be that space. I think there's a huge opportunity to do better and you know, frankly, what's there is [00:28:35] not as designed or as deliberate as I would like. It's more consequence of Organic growth over time and just like continuing to do a little bit here and there than like sort of an optimum outcome. And it could, there, there's a lot of opportunity to do better. Like we should have newsletters, there should be more, you know, artifacts of past conversations with better organizations. But like all of that stuff takes time and energy. And we are about a small little research lab. So many people you know, [00:29:06] Ben: I, I absolutely hear you on that. I think the, the, the tension that I, I see is that people, I think like texting, like sort of stream of texts. Slack and, and discord type things. And, and so there's, there's the question of like, what can you get people to do versus like, what creates the, the right conversation environment?[00:29:35] And, and maybe that's just like a matter of curation and like standard setting. [00:29:42] Peter: Yeah, I don't know. We've had our, our rabbit trails and like derailed conversations over the years, but I think, you know, if you had a forum, nobody would go there. [00:29:51] Ben: Yeah. [00:29:52] Peter: like, and you could do a mailing list, but I don't know, maybe we could do a mailing list. That would be a nice a nice form, I think. But people have to get something out of a community to put things into it and you know, you have to make, if you want to have a forum or, or an asynchronous posting place, you know, the thing is people are already in Discord or slack. [00:30:12] Ben: exactly. [00:30:13] Peter: something else, you have to push against the stream. Now, actually, maybe one interesting anecdote is I did experiment for a while with, like, discord has sort of a forum post feature. They added a while back [00:30:25] Ben: Oh [00:30:25] Peter: added it. Nobody used it. So eventually I, I turned it off again. Maybe, maybe it just needs revisiting, but it surprised me that it wasn't adopted, I guess is what [00:30:35] I would say. [00:30:36] Ben: Yeah. I mean, I think it, I think the problem is it takes more work. It's very easy to just dash off a thought. [00:30:45] Peter: Yeah, but I think if you have the right community, then. Those thoughts are likely to have been considered and the people who reply will speak from knowledge [00:30:55] Ben: Yeah. [00:30:56] Peter: and then it's not so bad, right? [00:30:59] Ben: it's [00:30:59] Peter: The problem is with Hacker News or whatever where like, or Reddit or any of these open communities like you, you know, the person who's most likely to reply is not the person who's most helpful to apply. [00:31:11] Ben: Yeah, exactly. Yeah, that makes, that makes a lot of sense. And sort of switching tracks yet again, how so one, remind me how long your, your projects are, like how long, how big are the, is the time box. [00:31:28] Peter: the implementation phase for a standard income switch Hollywood project, which I can now call them standard, I think, cuz we've done like, [00:31:35] Ooh, let me look. 25 or so over the years. Let's see, what's my project count number at? I have a little. Tracker. Yeah, I think it's 25 today. So we've done about 20 some non-trivial number of these 10 to 12 weeks of implementation is sort of the core of the project, and the idea is that when you hit that start date, at the beginning of that, you should have the team assembled. You should know what you're building, you should know why you're building it, and you should know what done looks like. Now it's research, so inevitably. You know, you get two weeks in and then you take a hard left and like, you know, but that, that we write what's called the brief upfront, which is like, what is the research question we are trying to answer by funding this work and how do we think this project will answer it? Now, your actual implementation might change, or you might discover targets of opportunity along the way. But the idea is that by like having a, a narrow time box, like a, a team [00:32:35] that has a clear understanding of what you're trying to accomplish. And like the right set of people on board who already have all the like necessary skills. You can execute really hard for like that 10 to 12 weeks and get quite far in that time. Now, that's not the whole project though. There's usually a month or two upfront of what we call pre-infusion, kind of coming from the espresso idea that like you make better espresso if you take a little time at low pressure first to get ready with the shot, and so we'll do. You know, and duration varies here, but there's a period before that where we're making technical choices. Are we building this for the web or is this going on iPad? Are we gonna do this with rust and web assembly, or is this type script is this, are we buying Microsoft Surface tablets for this as we're like the ink behavior, right? So all those decisions we try and make up front. So when you hit the execution phase, you're ready to go. Do we need, what kind of designer do we want to include in this project? And who's available, you know? All of that stuff. We [00:33:35] try and square away before we get to the execution phase. [00:33:38] Ben: right. [00:33:38] Peter: when the end of the execution phase, it's like we try to be very strict with like last day pencils down and try to also reserve like the last week or two for like polish and cleanup and sort of getting things. So it's really two to two and a half, sometimes three months is like actually the time you have to do the work. And then after that, essays can take between like two months and a year or two. To produce finally. But we try to have a dr. We try to have a good first draft within a month after the end of the project. And again, this isn't a process that's like probably not optimal, but basically someone on the team winds up being the lead writer and we should be more deliberate about that. But usually the project lead for a given project ends up being the essay writer. And they write a first draft with input and collaboration from the rest of the group. And then people around [00:34:35] the lab read it and go, this doesn't make any sense at all. Like, what? What do you do? And you know, to, to varying degrees. And then it's sort of okay, right? Once you've got that kind of feedback, then you go back and you restructured and go, oh, I need to explain this part more. You know, oh, these findings don't actually cover the stuff that other people at the lab thought was interesting from the work or whatever. And then that goes through, you know, an increasing sort of, you know, standard of writing stuff, right? You send it out to some more people and then you send it to a bigger group. And you know, we send it to people who are in the field that whose input we respect. And then we take their edits and we debate which ones to take. And then eventually it goes in the HTML template. And then there's a long process of like hiring an external copy editor and building nice quality figures and re-recording all your crappy screencasts to be like, Really crisp with nice lighting and good, you know, pacing and, you know, then finally at the end of all of that, we publish. [00:35:33] Ben: Nice. And [00:35:35] how did you settle on the, the 10 to 12 weeks as the right size, time box? [00:35:42] Peter: Oh, it's it's it's, it's clearly rationally optimal. [00:35:46] Ben: Ah, of course, [00:35:47] Peter: No, I'm kidding. It's totally just, it became a habit. I mean, I think. Like I, I can give an intuitive argument and we've, we've experimented a bit. You know, two weeks is not long enough to really get into anything, [00:36:02] Ben: right. [00:36:02] Peter: and the year is too long. There's too much, too much opportunity to get lost along the way. There's no, you go too long with no real deadline pressure. It's very easy to kind of wander off into the woods. And bear in mind that like the total project duration is really more like six months, right? And so where we kind of landed is also that we often have like grad students or you know, people who are between other contracts or things. It's much easier to get people for three months than for eight months. And if I feel like [00:36:35] just intuitively, if I, if someone came to you with an eight month project, I'd be, I'm almost positive that I would be able to split it into two, three month projects and we'd be able to like find a good break point somewhere in the middle. And then write about that and do another one. And it's like, this is sort of a like bigger or smaller than a bread box argument, but like, you know, a month is too little and six months feels too long. So two to four months feels about right. In terms of letting you really get into, yeah, you can really get into the meat of a problem. You can try a few different approaches. You can pick your favorite and then spend a bit of time like analyzing it and like working out the kinks. And then you can like write it up. [00:37:17] Ben: Thanks. [00:37:18] Peter: But you know, there have been things that are not, that haven't fit in that, and we're doing some stuff right now that has, you know, we've had a, like six month long pre-infusion going this year already on some ink stuff. So it's not a universal rule, but like that's the, that's the [00:37:33] Ben: Yeah. No, I [00:37:35] appreciate that intuition [00:37:36] Peter: and I think it also, it ties into being software again, right? Like again, if you have to go and weld things and like [00:37:43] Ben: yeah, exactly. [00:37:44] Peter: You know, [00:37:44] Ben: let let some bacteria grow. [00:37:46] Peter: or like, you know, the, it's very much a domain specific answer. [00:37:51] Ben: Yeah. Something that I wish people talked about more was like, like characteristic time scales of different domains. And I, I think that's software, I mean, software is obviously shorter, but it'd be interesting to, to sort of dig down and be like, okay, like what, what actually is it? So the, the, the last question I'd love to ask is, To what extent does everybody in the lab know what's, what everybody else is working on? Like. [00:38:23] Peter: So we use two tools for that. We could do a better job of this. Every Monday the whole lab gets together for half an hour only. [00:38:35] And basically says what they're doing. Like, what are you up to this week? Oh, we're trying to like, you know, figure out what's going on with that you know, stylist shaped problem we were talking about at the last demo, or, oh, we're, you know, we're in essay writing mode. We've got a, we're hoping to get the first draft done this week, or, you know, just whatever high level kind of objectives the team has. And then I was asked the question like, well, Do you expect to have anything for show and tell on Friday and every week on Friday we have show and tell or every other week. Talk a bit more about that and at show and tell. It's like whatever you've got that you want input on or just a deadline for you can share. Made some benchmark showing that this code is now a hundred times faster. Great. Like bring it to show and tell. Got that like tricky you know, user interaction, running real smooth. Bring it to show and tell, built a whole new prototype of a new kind of [00:39:35] like notetaking app. Awesome. Like come and see. And different folks and different projects have taken different approaches to this. What has been most effective, I'm told by a bunch of people in their opinion now is like, kind of approaching it. Like a little mini conference talk. I personally actually air more on the side of like a more casual and informal thing. And, and those can be good too. Just from like a personal alignment like getting things done. Perspective. What I've heard from people doing research who want to get useful feedback is that when they go in having sort of like rehearsed how to explain what they're doing, then how to show what they've done and then what kind of feedback they want. That not only do they get really good feedback, but also that process of making sure that the demo you're gonna do will actually run smoothly and be legible to the rest of the group [00:40:35] forces you. Again, just like the writing, it forces you to think about what you're doing and why you made certain choices and think about which ones people are gonna find dubious and tell them to either ignore that cuz it was a stand-in or let's talk about that cuz it's interesting. And like that, that that little cycle is really good. And that tends to be, people often come every two weeks for that [00:40:59] Ben: Yeah. [00:41:01] Peter: within when they're in active sort of mode. And so not always, but like two weeks feels about like the right cadence to, to have something. And sometimes people will come and say like, I got nothing this week. Like, let's do it next week. It's fine. And the other thing we do with that time is we alternate what we call zoom outs because they're on Zoom and I have no, no sense of humor I guess. But they're based on, they're based on the old you and your research hamming paper with where the idea is that like, at least for a little while, every week [00:41:35] we all get together and talk about something. Bigger picture that's not tied to any of our individual projects. Sometimes we read a paper together, sometimes we talk about like an interesting project somebody saw, you know, in the world. Sometimes it's skills sharing. Sometimes it's you know, just like, here's how I make coffee or something, right? Like, You know, just anything that is bigger picture or out of the day-to-day philosophical stuff. We've read Illich and, and Ursula Franklin. People love. [00:42:10] Ben: I like that a lot. And I, I think one thing that, that didn't, that, that I'm still wondering about is like, On, on sort of a technical level are, are there things that some peop some parts of the lab that are working on that other parts of the lab don't get, like they, they know, oh, like this person's working on [00:42:35] inks, but they kind of have no idea how inks actually work? Or is it something where like everybody in the lab can have a fairly detailed technical discussion with, with anybody else [00:42:45] Peter: Oh no. I mean, okay, so there are interesting interdependencies. So some projects will consume the output of past projects or build on past projects. And that's interesting cuz it can create almost like a. Industry style production dependencies where like one team wants to go be doing some research. The local first people are trying to work on a project. Somebody else is using auto merge and they have bugs and it's like, oh but again, this is why we have those Monday sort of like conversations. Right? But I think the teams are all quite independent. Like they have their own GitHub repositories. They make their own technology decisions. They use different programming languages. They, they build on different stacks, right? Like the Ink team is often building for iPad because that's the only place we can compile like [00:43:35] ink rendering code to get low enough latency to get the experiences we want. We've given up on the browser, we can't do it, but like, The local first group for various reasons has abandoned electron and all of these like run times and mostly just build stuff for the web now because it actually works and you spend all, spend way less calories trying to make the damn thing go if you don't have to fight xcode and all that kind of stuff. And again, so it really varies, but, and people choose different things at different times, but no, it's not like we are doing code review for each other or like. Getting into the guts. It's much more high level. Like, you know, why did you make that, you know, what is your programming model for this canvas you're working on? How does you know, how does this thing relate to that thing? Why is, you know, why does that layout horizontally? It feels hard to, to parse the way you've shown that to, you know, whatever. [00:44:30] Ben: Okay, cool. That, that makes sense. I just, I, the, the, the reason I ask [00:44:35] is I am just always thinking about how how related do projects inside of a single organization need to be for, like, is, is there sort of like an optimum amount of relatedness? [00:44:50] Peter: I view them all as the aspects of the same thing, and I think that that's, that's an important. Thing we didn't talk about. The goal of income switch is to give rise to a new kind of computing that is more user-centric, that's more productive, that's more creative in like a very raw sense that we want people to be able to think better thoughts, to produce better ideas, to make better art, and that computers can help them with that in ways that they aren't and in fact are [00:45:21] Ben: Yeah. [00:45:25] Peter: whether you're working on ink, Or local first software or malleable software media canvases or whatever domain you are working in. It [00:45:35] is the same thing. It is an ingredient. It is an aspect, it is a dimension of one problem. And so some, in some sense, all of this adds together to make something, whether it's one thing or a hundred things, whether it takes five years or 50 years, you know, that's, we're all going to the same place together. But on many different paths and at different speeds and with different confidence, right? And so in the small, the these things can be totally unrelated, but in the large, they all are part of one mission. And so when you say, how do you bring these things under one roof, when should they be under different roofs? It's like, well, when someone comes to me with a project idea, I ask, do we need this to get to where we're going? [00:46:23] Ben: Yeah, [00:46:24] Peter: And if we don't need it, then we probably don't have time to work on it because there's so much to do. And you know, there's a certain openness to experimentation and, [00:46:35] and uncertainty there. But that, that's the rubric that I use as the lab director is this, is this on the critical path of the revolution?  

A conversation with Tim Hwang about historical simulations, the interaction of policy and science, analogies between research ecosystems and the economy, and so much more.  Topics Historical Simulations Macroscience Macro-metrics for science Long science The interaction between science and policy Creative destruction in research “Regulation” for scientific markets Indicators for the health of a field or science as a whole “Metabolism of Science” Science rotation programs Clock speeds of Regulation vs Clock Speeds of Technology References Macroscience Substack Ada Palmer's Papal Simulation Think Tank Tycoon Universal Paperclips (Paperclip maximizer html game) Pitt Rivers Museum   Transcript [00:02:02] Ben: Wait, so tell me more about the historical LARP that you're doing. Oh, [00:02:07] Tim: yeah. So this comes from like something I've been thinking about for a really long time, which is You know in high school, I did model UN and model Congress, and you know, I really I actually, this is still on my to do list is to like look into the back history of like what it was in American history, where we're like, this is going to become an extracurricular, we're going to model the UN, like it has all the vibe of like, after World War II, the UN is a new thing, we got to teach kids about international institutions. Anyways, like, it started as a joke where I was telling my [00:02:35] friend, like, we should have, like, model administrative agency. You know, you should, like, kids should do, like, model EPA. Like, we're gonna do a rulemaking. Kids need to submit. And, like, you know, there'll be Chevron deference and you can challenge the rule. And, like, to do that whole thing. Anyways, it kind of led me down this idea that, like, our, our notion of simulation, particularly for institutions, is, like, Interestingly narrow, right? And particularly when it comes to historical simulation, where like, well we have civil war reenactors, they're kind of like a weird dying breed, but they're there, right? But we don't have like other types of historical reenactments, but like, it might be really valuable and interesting to create communities around that. And so like I was saying before we started recording, is I really want to do one that's a simulation of the Cuban Missile Crisis. But like a serious, like you would like a historical reenactment, right? Yeah. Yeah. It's like everybody would really know their characters. You know, if you're McNamara, you really know what your motivations are and your background. And literally a dream would be a weekend simulation where you have three teams. One would be the Kennedy administration. The other would be, you know, Khrushchev [00:03:35] and the Presidium. And the final one would be the, the Cuban government. Yeah. And to really just blow by blow, simulate that entire thing. You know, the players would attempt to not blow up the world, would be the idea. [00:03:46] Ben: I guess that's actually the thing to poke, in contrast to Civil War reenactment. Sure, like you know how [00:03:51] Tim: that's gonna end. Right, [00:03:52] Ben: and it, I think it, that's the difference maybe between, in my head, a simulation and a reenactment, where I could imagine a simulation going [00:04:01] Tim: differently. Sure, right. [00:04:03] Ben: Right, and, and maybe like, is the goal to make sure the same thing happened that did happen, or is the goal to like, act? faithfully to [00:04:14] Tim: the character as possible. Yeah, I think that's right, and I think both are interesting and valuable, right? But I think one of the things I'm really interested in is, you know, I want to simulate all the characters, but like, I think one of the most interesting things reading, like, the historical record is just, like, operating under deep uncertainty about what's even going on, right? Like, for a period of time, the American [00:04:35] government is not even sure what's going on in Cuba, and, like, you know, this whole question of, like, well, do we preemptively bomb Cuba? Do we, we don't even know if the, like, the warheads on the island are active. And I think I would want to create, like, similar uncertainty, because I think that's where, like, that's where the strategic vision comes in, right? That, like, you have the full pressure of, like, Maybe there's bombs on the island. Maybe there's not even bombs on the island, right? And kind of like creating that dynamic. And so I think simulation is where there's a lot, but I think Even reenactment for some of these things is sort of interesting. Like, that we talk a lot about, like, oh, the Cuban Missile Crisis. Or like, the other joke I had was like, we should do the Manhattan Project, but the Manhattan Project as, like, historical reenactment, right? And it's kind of like, you know, we have these, like, very, like off the cuff or kind of, like, stereotype visions of how these historical events occur. And they're very stylized. Yeah, exactly, right. And so the benefit of a reenactment that is really in detail Yeah. is like, oh yeah, there's this one weird moment. You know, like that, that ends up being really revealing historical examples. And so even if [00:05:35] you can't change the outcome, I think there's also a lot of value in just doing the exercise. Yeah. Yeah. The, the thought of [00:05:40] Ben: in order to drive towards this outcome that I know. Actually happened I wouldn't as the character have needed to do X. That's right That's like weird nuanced unintuitive thing, [00:05:50] Tim: right? Right and there's something I think about even building into the game Right, which is at the very beginning the Russians team can make the decision on whether or not they've even actually deployed weapons into the cube at all, yeah, right and so like I love that kind of outcome right which is basically like And I think that's great because like, a lot of this happens on the background of like, we know the history. Yeah. Right? And so I think like, having the team, the US team put under some pressure of uncertainty. Yeah. About like, oh yeah, they could have made the decision at the very beginning of this game that this is all a bluff. Doesn't mean anything. Like it's potentially really interesting and powerful, so. [00:06:22] Ben: One precedent I know for this completely different historical era, but there's a historian, Ada Palmer, who runs [00:06:30] Tim: a simulation of a people election in her class every year. That's so good. [00:06:35] And [00:06:36] Ben: it's, there, you know, like, it is not a simulation. [00:06:40] Tim: Or, [00:06:41] Ben: sorry, excuse me, it is not a reenactment. In the sense that the outcome is indeterminate. [00:06:47] Tim: Like, the students [00:06:48] Ben: can determine the outcome. But... What tends to happen is like structural factors emerge in the sense that there's always a war. Huh. The question is who's on which sides of the war? Right, right. And what do the outcomes of the war actually entail? That's right. Who [00:07:05] Tim: dies? Yeah, yeah. And I [00:07:07] Ben: find that that's it's sort of Gets at the heart of the, the great [00:07:12] Tim: man theory versus the structural forces theory. That's right. Yeah. Like how much can these like structural forces actually be changed? Yeah. And I think that's one of the most interesting parts of the design that I'm thinking about right now is kind of like, what are the things that you want to randomize to impose different types of like structural factors that could have been in that event? Right? Yeah. So like one of the really big parts of the debate at XCOM in the [00:07:35] early phases of the Cuban Missile Crisis is You know, McNamara, who's like, right, he runs the Department of Defense at the time. His point is basically like, look, whether or not you have bombs in Cuba or you have bombs like in Russia, the situation has not changed from a military standpoint. Like you can fire an ICBM. It has exactly the same implications for the U. S. And so his, his basically his argument in the opening phases of the Cuban Missile Crisis is. Yeah. Which is actually pretty interesting, right? Because that's true. But like, Kennedy can't just go to the American people and say, well, we've already had missiles pointed at us. Some more missiles off, you know, the coast of Florida is not going to make a difference. Yeah. And so like that deep politics, and particularly the politics of the Kennedy administration being seen as like weak on communism. Yeah. Is like a huge pressure on all the activity that's going on. And so it's almost kind of interesting thinking about the Cuban Missile Crisis, not as like You know us about to blow up the world because of a truly strategic situation but more because of like the local politics make it so difficult to create like You know situations where both sides can back down [00:08:35] successfully. Basically. Yeah [00:08:36] Ben: The the one other thing that my mind goes to actually to your point about it model UN in schools. Huh, right is Okay, what if? You use this as a pilot, and then you get people to do these [00:08:49] Tim: simulations at [00:08:50] Ben: scale. Huh. And that's actually how we start doing historical counterfactuals. Huh. Where you look at, okay, you know, a thousand schools all did a simulation of the Cuban Missile Crisis. In those, you know, 700 of them blew [00:09:05] Tim: up the world. Right, right. [00:09:07] Ben: And it's, it actually, I think it's, That's the closest [00:09:10] Tim: thing you can get to like running the tape again. Yeah. I think that's right. And yeah, so I think it's, I think it's a really underused medium in a lot of ways. And I think particularly as like you know, we just talk, talk like pedagogically, like it's interesting that like, it seems to me that there was a moment in American pedagogical history where like, this is a good way of teaching kids. Like, different types of institutions. And like, but it [00:09:35] hasn't really matured since that point, right? Of course, we live in all sorts of interesting institutions now. And, and under all sorts of different systems that we might really want to simulate. Yeah. And so, yeah, this kind of, at least a whole idea that there's lots of things you could teach if you, we like kind of opened up this way of kind of like, Thinking about kind of like educating for about institutions. Right? So [00:09:54] Ben: that is so cool. Yeah, I'm going to completely, [00:09:59] Tim: Change. Sure. Of course. [00:10:01] Ben: So I guess. And the answer could be no, but is, is there connections between this and your sort of newly launched macroscience [00:10:10] Tim: project? There is and there isn't. Yeah, you know, I think like the whole bid of macroscience which is this project that I'm doing as part of my IFP fellowship. Yeah. Is really the notion that like, okay, we have all these sort of like interesting results that have come out of metascience. That kind of give us like, kind of like the beginnings of a shape of like, okay, this is how science might work and how we might like get progress to happen. And you know, we've got [00:10:35] like a bunch of really compelling hypotheses. Yeah. And I guess my bit has been like, I kind of look at that and I squint and I'm like, we're, we're actually like kind of in the early days of like macro econ, but for science, right? Which is like, okay, well now we have some sense of like the dynamics of how the science thing works. What are the levers that we can start, like, pushing and pulling, and like, what are the dials we could be turning up and turning down? And, and, you know, I think there is this kind of transition that happens in macro econ, which is like, we have these interesting results and hypotheses, but there's almost another... Generation of work that needs to happen into being like, oh, you know, we're gonna have this thing called the interest rate Yeah, and then we have all these ways of manipulating the money supply and like this is a good way of managing like this economy Yeah, right and and I think that's what I'm chasing after with this kind of like sub stack but hopefully the idea is to build it up into like a more coherent kind of framework of ideas about like How do we make science policy work in a way that's better than just like more science now quicker, please? Yeah, right, which is I think we're like [00:11:35] we're very much at at the moment. Yeah, and in particular I'm really interested in the idea of chasing after science almost as like a Dynamic system, right? Which is that like the policy levers that you have You would want to, you know, tune up and tune down, strategically, at certain times, right? And just like the way we think about managing the economy, right? Where you're like, you don't want the economy to overheat. You don't want it to be moving too slow either, right? Like, I am interested in kind of like, those types of dynamics that need to be managed in science writ large. And so that's, that's kind of the intuition of the project. [00:12:04] Ben: Cool. I guess, like, looking at macro, how did we even decide, macro econ, [00:12:14] Tim: how did we even decide that the things that we're measuring are the right things to measure? Right? Like, [00:12:21] Ben: isn't it, it's like kind of a historical contingency that, you know, it's like we care about GDP [00:12:27] Tim: and the interest rate. Yeah. I think that's right. I mean in, in some ways there's a triumph of like. It's a normative triumph, [00:12:35] right, I think is the argument. And you know, I think a lot of people, you hear this argument, and it'll be like, And all econ is made up. But like, I don't actually think that like, that's the direction I'm moving in. It's like, it's true. Like, a lot of the things that we selected are arguably arbitrary. Yeah. Right, like we said, okay, we really value GDP because it's like a very imperfect but rough measure of like the economy, right? Yeah. Or like, oh, we focus on, you know, the money supply, right? And I think there's kind of two interesting things that come out of that. One of them is like, There's this normative question of like, okay, what are the building blocks that we think can really shift the financial economy writ large, right, of which money supply makes sense, right? But then the other one I think which is so interesting is like, there's a need to actually build all these institutions. that actually give you the lever to pull in the first place, right? Like, without a federal reserve, it becomes really hard to do monetary policy. Right. Right? Like, without a notion of, like, fiscal policy, it's really hard to do, like, Keynesian as, like, demand side stuff. Right. Right? And so, like, I think there's another project, which is a [00:13:35] political project, to say... Okay, can we do better than just grants? Like, can we think about this in a more, like, holistic way than simply we give money to the researchers to work on certain types of problems. And so this kind of leads to some of the stuff that I think we've talked about in the past, which is like, you know, so I'm obsessed right now with like, can we influence the time horizon of scientific institutions? Like, imagine for a moment we had a dial where we're like, On average, scientists are going to be thinking about a research agenda which is 10 years from now versus next quarter. Right. Like, and I think like there's, there's benefits and deficits to both of those settings. Yeah. But man, if I don't hope that we have a, a, a government system that allows us to kind of dial that up and dial that down as we need it. Right. Yeah. The, the, [00:14:16] Ben: perhaps, quite like, I guess a question of like where the analogy like holds and breaks down. That I, that I wonder about is, When you're talking about the interest rate for the economy, it kind of makes sense to say [00:14:35] what is the time horizon that we want financial institutions to be thinking on. That's like roughly what the interest rate is for, but it, and maybe this is, this is like, I'm too, [00:14:49] Tim: my note, like I'm too close to the macro, [00:14:51] Ben: but thinking about. The fact that you really want people doing science on like a whole spectrum of timescales. And, and like, this is a ill phrased question, [00:15:06] Tim: but like, I'm just trying to wrap my mind around it. Are you saying basically like, do uniform metrics make sense? Yeah, exactly. For [00:15:12] Ben: like timescale, I guess maybe it's just. is an aggregate thing. [00:15:16] Tim: Is that? That's right. Yeah, I think that's, that's, that's a good critique. And I think, like, again, I think there's definitely ways of taking the metaphor too far. Yeah. But I think one of the things I would say back to that is It's fine to imagine that we might not necessarily have an interest rate for all of science, right? So, like, you could imagine saying, [00:15:35] okay, for grants above a certain size, like, we want to incentivize certain types of activity. For grants below a certain size, we want different types of activity. Right, another way of slicing it is for this class of institutions, we want them to be thinking on these timescales versus those timescales. Yeah. The final one I've been thinking about is another way of slicing it is, let's abstract away institutions and just think about what is the flow of all the experiments that are occurring in a society? Yeah. And are there ways of manipulating, like, the relative timescales there, right? And that's almost like, kind of like a supply based way of looking at it, which is... All science is doing is producing experiments, which is like true macro, right? Like, I'm just like, it's almost offensively simplistic. And then I'm just saying like, okay, well then like, yeah, what are the tools that we have to actually influence that? Yeah, and I think there's lots of things you could think of. Yeah, in my mind. Yeah, absolutely. What are some, what are some that are your thinking of? Yeah, so I think like the two that I've been playing around with right now, one of them is like the idea of like, changing the flow of grants into the system. So, one of the things I wrote about in Microscience just the past week was to think [00:16:35] about, like sort of what I call long science, right? And so the notion here is that, like, if you look across the scientific economy, there's kind of this rough, like, correlation between size of grant and length of grant. Right, where so basically what it means is that like long science is synonymous with big science, right? You're gonna do a big ambitious project. Cool. You need lots and lots and lots of money Yeah and so my kind of like piece just briefly kind of argues like but we have these sort of interesting examples like the You know Like framing a heart study which are basically like low expense taking place over a long period of time and you're like We don't really have a whole lot of grants that have that Yeah. Right? And so the idea is like, could we encourage that? Like imagine if we could just increase the flow of those types of grants, that means we could incentivize more experiments that take place like at low cost over long term. Yeah. Right? Like, you know, and this kind of gets this sort of interesting question is like, okay, so what's the GDP here? Right? Like, or is that a good way of cracking some of the critical problems that we need to crack right now? Right? Yeah. And it's kind of where the normative part gets into [00:17:35] it is like, okay. So. You know, one way of looking at this is the national interest, right? We say, okay, well, we really want to win on AI. We really want to win on, like, bioengineering, right? Are there problems in that space where, like, really long term, really low cost is actually the kind of activity we want to be encouraging? The answer might be no, but I think, like, it's useful for us to have, like, that. Color in our palette of things that we could be doing Yeah. In like shaping the, the dynamics of science. Yeah. Yeah. [00:18:01] Ben: I, I mean, one of the things that I feel like is missing from the the meta science discussion Mm-Hmm. is, is even just, what are those colors? Mm-Hmm. like what, what are the, the different and almost parameters of [00:18:16] Tim: of research. Yeah. Right, right, right. And I think, I don't know, one of the things I've been thinking about, which I'm thinking about writing about at some point, right, is like this, this view is, this view is gonna piss people off in some ways, because where it ultimately goes is this idea that, like, like, the scientist or [00:18:35] science Is like a system that's subject to the government, or subject to a policy maker, or a strategist. Which like, it obviously is, right? But like, I think we have worked very hard to believe that like, The scientific market is its own independent thing, And like, that touching or messing with it is like, a not, not a thing you should do, right? But we already are. True, that's kind of my point of view, yeah exactly. I think we're in some ways like, yeah I know I've been reading a lot about Keynes, I mean it is sort of interesting that it does mirror... Like this kind of like Great Depression era economic thinking, where you're basically like the market takes care of itself, like don't intervene. In fact, intervening is like the worst possible thing you could do because you're only going to make this worse. And look, I think there's like definitely examples of like kind of like command economy science that like don't work. Yes. But like, you know, like I think most mature people who work in economics would say there's some room for like at least like Guiding the system. Right. And like keeping it like in balance is like [00:19:35] a thing that should be attempted and I think it's kind of like the, the, the argument that I'm making here. Yeah. Yeah. I [00:19:41] Ben: mean, I think that's, [00:19:42] Tim: that's like the meta meta thing. Right. Right. Is even [00:19:46] Ben: what, what level of intervention, like, like what are the ways in which you can like usefully intervene and which, and what are the things that are, that are foolish and kind of. crEate the, the, [00:20:01] Tim: Command economy. That's right. Yeah, exactly. Right. Right. And I think like, I think the way through is, is maybe in the way that I'm talking about, right? Which is like, you can imagine lots of bad things happen when you attempt to pick winners, right? Like maybe the policymaker whoever we want to think of that as like, is it the NSF or NIH or whatever? Like, you know, sitting, sitting in their government bureaucracy, right? Like, are they well positioned to make a choice about who's going to be the right solution to a problem? Maybe yes, maybe no. I think we can have a debate about that, right? But I think there's a totally reasonable position, which is they're not in it, so they're not well positioned to make that call. Yeah. [00:20:35] Right? But, are they well positioned to maybe say, like, if we gave them a dial that was like, we want researchers to be thinking about this time horizon versus that time horizon? Like, that's a control that they actually may be well positioned to inform on. Yeah. As an outsider, right? Yeah. Yeah. And some of this I think, like, I don't know, like, the piece I'm working on right now, which will be coming out probably Tuesday or Wednesday, is you know, some of this is also like encouraging creative destruction, right? Which is like, I'm really intrigued by the idea that like academic fields can get so big that they become they impede progress. Yes. Right? And so this is actually a form of like, I like, it's effectively an intellectual antitrust. Yeah. Where you're basically like, Basically, like the, the role of the scientific regulator is to basically say these fields have gotten so big that they are actively reducing our ability to have good dynamism in the marketplace of ideas. And in this case, we will, we will announce new grant policies that attempt to break this up. And I actually think that like, that is pretty spicy for a funder to do. But like actually maybe part of their role and maybe we should normalize that [00:21:35] being part of their role. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. [00:21:37] Ben: I I'm imagining a world where There are, where this, like, sort of the macro science is as divisive as [00:21:47] Tim: macroeconomics. [00:21:48] Ben: Right? Because you have, you have your like, your, your like, hardcore free market people. Yeah. Zero government intervention. Yeah, that's right. No antitrust. No like, you know, like abolish the Fed. Right, right. All of that. Yeah, yeah. And I look forward to the day. When there's there's people who are doing the same thing for research. [00:22:06] Tim: Yeah, that's right. Yeah. Yeah when I think that's actually I mean I thought part of a lot of meta science stuff I think is this kind of like interesting tension, which is that like look politically a lot of those people in the space are Pro free market, you know, like they're they're they're liberals in the little L sense. Yeah, like at the same time Like it is true that kind of like laissez faire science Has failed because we have all these examples of like progress slowing down Right? Like, I don't know. Like, I think [00:22:35] that there is actually this interesting tension, which is like, to what degree are we okay with intervening in science to get better outcomes? Yeah. Right? Yeah. Well, as, [00:22:43] Ben: as I, I might put on my hat and say, Yeah, yeah. Maybe, maybe this is, this is me saying true as a fair science has never been tried. Huh, right. Right? Like, that, that, that may be kind of my position. Huh. But anyways, I... And I would argue that, you know, since 1945, we have been, we haven't had laissez faire [00:23:03] Tim: science. Oh, interesting. [00:23:04] Ben: Huh. Right. And so I'm, yeah, I mean, it's like, this is in [00:23:09] Tim: the same way that I think [00:23:11] Ben: a very hard job for macroeconomics is to say, well, like, do we need [00:23:15] Tim: more or less intervention? Yeah. Yeah. [00:23:17] Ben: What is the case there? I think it's the same thing where. You know, a large amount of science funding does come from the government, and the government is opinionated about what sorts of things [00:23:30] Tim: it funds. Yeah, right. Right. And you [00:23:33] Ben: can go really deep into that. [00:23:35] So, so I [00:23:35] Tim: would. Yeah, that's actually interesting. That flips it. It's basically like the current state of science. is right now over regulated, is what you'd say, right? Or, or [00:23:44] Ben: badly regulated. Huh, sure. That is the argument I would say, very concretely, is that it's badly regulated. And, you know, I might almost argue that it is... It's both over and underregulated in the sense that, well, this is, this is my, my whole theory, but like, I think that there, we need like some pockets where it's like much less regulated. Yeah. Right. Where you're, and then some pockets where you're really sort of going to be like, no. You don't get to sort of tune this to whatever your, your project, your program is. Yeah, right, right. You're gonna be working with like [00:24:19] Tim: these people to do this thing. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, and I think there actually is interesting analogies in like the, the kind of like economic regulation, economic governance world. Yeah. Where like the notion is markets generally work well, like it's a great tool. Yeah. Like let it run. [00:24:35] Right. But basically that there are certain failure states that actually require outside intervention. And I think what's kind of interesting in thinking about in like a macro scientific, if you will, context is like, what are those failure states for science? Like, and you could imagine a policy rule, which is the policymaker says, we don't intervene until we see the following signals emerging in a field or in a region. Right. And like, okay, that's, that's the trigger, right? Like we're now in recession mode, you know, like there's enough quarters of this problem of like more papers, but less results. You know, now we have to take action, right? Oh, that's cool. Yeah, yeah. That would be, that would be very interesting. And I think that's like, that's good, because I think like, we end up having to think about like, you know, and again, this is I think why this is a really exciting time, is like MetaScience has produced these really interesting results. Now we're in the mode of like, okay, well, you know, on that policymaker dashboard, Yeah. Right, like what's the meter that we're checking out to basically be like, Are we doing well? Are we doing poorly? Is this going well? Or is this going poorly? Right, like, I think that becomes the next question to like, make this something practicable Yeah. For, for [00:25:35] actual like, Right. Yeah. Yeah. One of my frustrations [00:25:38] Ben: with meta science [00:25:39] Tim: is that it, I [00:25:41] Ben: think is under theorized in the sense that people generally are doing these studies where they look at whatever data they can get. Huh. Right. As opposed to what data should we be looking at? What, what should we be looking for? Yeah. Right. Right. And so, so I would really like to have it sort of be flipped and say, okay, like this At least ideally what we would want to measure maybe there's like imperfect maybe then we find proxies for that Yeah, as opposed to just saying well, like here's what we can measure. It's a proxy for [00:26:17] Tim: okay. That's right, right Yeah, exactly. And I think a part of this is also like I mean, I think it is like Widening the Overton window, which I think like the meta science community has done a good job of is like trying to widen The Overton window of what funders are willing to do. Yeah. Or like what various existing incumbent actors are willing to [00:26:35] do. Because I think one way of getting that data is to run like interesting experiments in this space. Right? Like I think one of the things I'm really obsessed with right now is like, okay, imagine if you could change the overhead rate that universities charge on a national basis. Yeah. Right? Like, what's that do to the flow of money through science? And is that like one dial that's actually like On the shelf, right? Like, we actually have the ability to influence that if we wanted to. Like, is that something we should be running experiments against and seeing what the results are? Yeah, yeah. [00:27:00] Ben: Another would be earmarking. Like, how much money is actually earmarked [00:27:05] Tim: for different things. That's right, yeah, yeah. Like, how easy it is to move money around. That's right, yeah. I heard actually a wild story yesterday about, do you know this whole thing, what's his name? It's apparently a very wealthy donor. That has convinced the state of Washington's legislature to the UW CS department. it's like, it's written into law that there's a flow of money that goes directly to the CS department. I don't think CS departments need more money. I [00:27:35] know, I know, but it's like, this is a really, really kind of interesting, like, outcome. Yeah. Which is like a very clear case of basically just like... Direct subsidy to like, not, not just like a particular topic, but like a particular department, which I think is like interesting experiment. I don't like, I don't know what's been happening there, but yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Natural, natural experiment. [00:27:50] Ben: Totally. Has anybody written down, I assume the answer is no, but it would be very interesting if someone actually wrote down a list of sort of just all the things you [00:28:00] Tim: could possibly [00:28:00] Ben: want to pay attention to, right? Like, I mean, like. Speaking of CS, it'd be very interesting to see, like, okay, like, what fraction of the people who, like, get PhDs in an area, stay in this area, right? Like, going back to the, the [00:28:15] Tim: health of a field or something, right? Yeah, yeah. I think that's right. I, yeah. And I think that those, those types of indicators are interesting. And then I think also, I mean, in the spirit of like it being a dynamic system. Like, so a few years back I read this great bio by Sebastian Malaby called The Man Who Knew, which is, it's a bio of Alan Greenspan. So if you want to ever read, like, 800 pages about [00:28:35] Alan Greenspan, book for you. It's very good. But one of the most interesting parts about it is that, like, there's a battle when Alan Greenspan becomes head of the Fed, where basically he's, like, extremely old school. Like, what he wants to do is he literally wants to look at, like, Reams of data from like the steel industry. Yeah, because that's kind of got his start And he basically is at war with a bunch of kind of like career People at the Fed who much more rely on like statistical models for predicting the economy And I think what's really interesting is that like for a period of time actually Alan Greenspan has the edge Because he's able to realize really early on that like there's It's just changes actually in like the metabolism of the economy that mean that what it means to raise the interest rate or lower the interest rate has like very different effects than it did like 20 years ago before it got started. Yeah. And I think that's actually something that I'm also really quite interested in science is basically like When we say science, people often imagine, like, this kind of, like, amorphous blob. But, like, I think the metabolism is changing all the [00:29:35] time. And so, like, what we mean by science now means very different from, like, what we mean by science, like, even, like, 10 to 20 years ago. Yes. And, like, it also means that all of our tactics need to keep up with that change, right? And so, one of the things I'm interested in to your question about, like, has anyone compiled this list of, like, science health? Or the health of science, right? It's maybe the right way of thinking about it. is that, like, those indicators may mean very different things at different points in time, right? And so part of it is trying to understand, like, yeah, what is the state of the, what is the state of this economy of science that we're talking about? Yeah. You're kind of preaching [00:30:07] Ben: to the, to the choir. In the sense that I'm, I'm always, I'm frustrated with the level of nuance that I feel like many people who are discussing, like, science, quote, making air quotes, science and research, are, are talking about in the sense that. They very often have not actually like gone in and been part of the system. Huh, right. And I'm, I'm open to the fact that [00:30:35] you [00:30:35] Tim: don't need to have got like [00:30:36] Ben: done, been like a professional researcher to have an opinion [00:30:41] Tim: or, or come up with ideas about it. [00:30:43] Ben: Yeah. But at the same time, I feel like [00:30:46] Tim: there's, yeah, like, like, do you, do you think about that tension at all? Yeah. I think it's actually incredibly valuable. Like, I think So I think of like Death and Life of Great American Cities, right? Which is like, the, the, the really, one of the really, there's a lot of interesting things about that book. But like, one of the most interesting things is sort of the notion that like, you had a whole cabal of urban planners that had this like very specific vision about how to get cities to work right and it just turns out that like if you like are living in soho at a particular time and you like walk along the street and you like take a look at what's going on like there's always really actually super valuable things to know about yeah that like are only available because you're like at that like ultra ultra ultra ultra micro level and i do think that there's actually some potential value in there like one of the things i would love to be able to set up, like, in the community of MetaScience or whatever you want to call it, right, [00:31:35] is the idea that, like, yeah, you, you could afford to do, like, very short tours of duty, where it's, like, literally, you're just, like, spending a day in a lab, right, and, like, to have a bunch of people go through that, I think, is, like, really, really helpful and so I think, like, thinking about, like, what the rotation program for that looks like, I think would be cool, like, you, you should, you should do, like, a six month stint at the NSF just to see what it looks like. Cause I think that kind of stuff is just like, you know, well, A, I'm selfish, like I would want that, but I also think that like, it would also allow the community to like, I think be, be thinking about this in a much more applied way. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. [00:32:08] Ben: I think it's the, the meta question there for, for everything, right? Is how much in the weeds, like, like what am I trying to say? The. It is possible both to be like two in the weeds. Yeah, right and then also like too high level Yeah, that's right. And in almost like what what is the the right amount or like? Who, who should [00:32:31] Tim: be talking to whom in that? That's right. Yeah, I mean, it's like what you were saying earlier that like the [00:32:35] success of macro science will be whether or not it's as controversial as macroeconomics. It's like, I actually hope that that's the case. It's like people being like, this is all wrong. You're approaching it like from a too high level, too abstract of a level. Yeah. I mean, I think the other benefit of doing this outside of like the level of insight is I think one of the projects that I think I have is like We need to, we need to be like defeating meta science, like a love of meta science aesthetics versus like actual like meta science, right? Like then I think like a lot of people in meta science love science. That's why they're excited to not talk about the specific science, but like science in general. But like, I think that intuition also leads us to like have very romantic ideas of like what science is and how science should look and what kinds of science that we want. Yeah. Right. The mission is progress. The mission isn't science. And so I think, like, we have to be a lot more functional. And again, I think, like, the benefit of these types of, like, rotations, like, Oh, you just are in a lab for a month. Yeah. It's like, I mean, you get a lot more of a sense of, like, Oh, okay, this is, this is what it [00:33:35] looks like. Yeah. Yeah. I'd like to do the same thing for manufacturing. Huh. Right. [00:33:39] Ben: Right. It's like, like, and I want, I want everybody to be rotating, right? Huh. Like, in the sense of, like, okay, like, have the scientists go and be, like, in a manufacturing lab. That's right. [00:33:47] Tim: Yeah. [00:33:48] Ben: And be like, okay, like, look. Like, you need to be thinking about getting this thing to work in, like, this giant, like, flow pipe instead of a [00:33:54] Tim: test tube. That's right, right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, [00:33:57] Ben: unfortunately, the problem is that we can't all spend our time, like, if everybody was rotating through all the [00:34:03] Tim: things they need to rotate, we'd never get anything done. Yeah, exactly. [00:34:06] Ben: ANd that's, that's, that's kind of [00:34:08] Tim: the problem. Well, and to bring it all the way back, I mean, I think you started this question on macroscience in the context of transitioning away from all of this like weird Cuban Missile Crisis simulation stuff. Like, I do think one way of thinking about this is like, okay, well, if we can't literally send you into a lab, right? Like the question is like, what are good simulations to give people good intuitions about the dynamics in the space? Yeah. And I think that's, that's potentially quite interesting. Yeah. Normalized weekend long simulation. That's right. Like I love the idea of basically [00:34:35] like like you, you get to reenact the publication of a prominent scientific paper. It's like kind of a funny idea. It's just like, you know, yeah. Or, or, or even trying to [00:34:44] Ben: get research funded, right? Like, it's like, okay, like you have this idea, you want yeah. [00:34:55] Tim: I mean, yeah, this is actually a project, I mean, I've been talking to Zach Graves about this, it's like, I really want to do one which is a game that we're calling Think Tank Tycoon, which is basically like, it's a, it's a, the idea would be for it to be a strategy board game that simulates what it's like to run a research center. But I think like to broaden that idea somewhat like it's kind of interesting to think about the idea of like model NSF Yeah, where you're like you you're in you're in the hot seat you get to decide how to do granting Yeah, you know give a grant [00:35:22] Ben: a stupid thing. Yeah, some some some congressperson's gonna come banging [00:35:26] Tim: on your door Yeah, like simulating those dynamics actually might be really really helpful Yeah I mean in the very least even if it's not like a one for one simulation of the real world just to get like some [00:35:35] common intuitions about like The pressures that are operating here. I [00:35:38] Ben: think you're, the bigger point is that simulations are maybe underrated [00:35:42] Tim: as a teaching tool. I think so, yeah. Do you remember the the paperclip maximizer? Huh. The HTML game? Yeah, yeah. [00:35:48] Ben: I'm, I'm kind of obsessed with it. Huh. Because, it, you've, like, somehow the human brain, like, really quickly, with just, like, you know, some numbers on the screen. Huh. Like, just like numbers that you can change. Right, right. And some, like, back end. Dynamic system, where it's like, okay, like based on these numbers, like here are the dynamics of the [00:36:07] Tim: system, and it'll give you an update. [00:36:09] Ben: Like, you start to really get an intuition for, for system dynamics. Yeah. And so, I, I, I want to see more just like plain HTML, like basically like spreadsheet [00:36:20] Tim: backend games. Right, right, like the most lo fi possible. Yeah, I think so. Yeah. Yeah, I think it's helpful. I mean, I think, again, particularly in a world where you're thinking about, like, let's simulate these types of, like, weird new grant structures that we might try out, right? Like, you know, we've got a bunch [00:36:35] of hypotheses. It's kind of really expensive and difficult to try to get experiments done, right? Like, does a simulation with a couple people who are well informed give us some, at least, inclinations of, like, where it might go or, like, what are the unintentional consequences thereof? Yeah. [00:36:51] Ben: Disciplines besides the military that uses simulations [00:36:56] Tim: successfully. Not really. And I think what's kind of interesting is that like, I think it had a vogue that like has kind of dissipated. Yeah, I think like the notion of like a a game being the way you kind of do like understanding of a strategic situation, I think like. Has kind of disappeared, right? But like, I think a lot of it was driven, like, RAND actually had a huge influence, not just on the military. But like, there's a bunch of corporate games, right? That were like, kind of invented in the same period. Yeah. That are like, you determine how much your steel production is, right? And was like, used to teach MBAs. But yeah, I think it's, it's been like, relatively limited. Hm. [00:37:35] Yeah. It, yeah. Hm. [00:37:38] Ben: So. Other things. Huh. Like, just to, [00:37:41] Tim: to shift together. Sure, sure, go ahead. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I guess another [00:37:44] Ben: thing that we haven't really talked about, but actually sort of plays into all of this, is thinking about better [00:37:50] Tim: ways of regulating technology. [00:37:52] Ben: I know that you've done a lot of thinking about that, and maybe this is another thing to simulate. [00:38:00] Tim: Yeah, it's a model OSTP. But [00:38:04] Ben: it's maybe a thing where, this is actually like a prime example where the particulars really matter, right? Where you can't just regulate. quote unquote technology. Yeah. Right. And it's like, there's, there's some technologies that you want to regulate very, very closely and very tightly and others that you want to regulate very [00:38:21] Tim: loosely. Yeah, I think that's right. And I think that's actually, you know, I think it is tied to the kind of like macro scientific project, if you will. Right. Which is that I think we have often a notion of like science regulation being like. [00:38:35] literally the government comes in and is like, here are the kind of constraints that we want to put on the system. Right. And there's obviously like lots of different ways of doing that. And I think there's lots of contexts in which that's like appropriate. But I think for a lot of technologies that we confront right now, the change is so rapid that the obvious question always becomes, no matter what emerging technology talking about is like, how does your clock speed of regulation actually keep up with like the clock speed of technology? And the answer is frequently like. It doesn't, right? And like you run into these kind of like absurd situations where you're like, well, we have this thing, it's already out of date by the time it goes into force, everybody kind of creates some like notional compliance with that rule. Yeah. And like, in terms of improving, I don't know, safety outcomes, for instance, it like has not actually improved safety outcomes. And I think in that case, right, and I think I could actually make an argument that like, the problem is becoming more difficult with time. Right? Like, if you really believe that the pace of technological change is faster than it used to be, then it is possible that, like, there was a point at which, like, government was operating, and it could actually keep [00:39:35] pace effectively, or, like, a body like Congress could actually keep pace with society, or with technology successfully, to, like, make sure that it was conformant with, sort of, like, societal interests. Do you think that was [00:39:46] Ben: actually ever the case, or was it that we didn't, we just didn't [00:39:50] Tim: have as many regulations? I would say it was sort of twofold, right? Like, I think one of them was you had, at least, let's just talk about Congress, right? It's really hard to talk about, like, government as a whole, right? Like, I think, like, Congress was both better advised and was a more efficient institution, right? Which means it moved faster than it does today. Simultaneously, I also feel like for a couple reasons we can speculate on, right? Like, science, or in the very least, technology. Right, like move slower than it does today. Right, right. And so like actually what has happened is that both both dynamics have caused problems, right? Which is that like the organs of government are moving slower at the same time as science is moving faster And like I think we've passed some inflection [00:40:35] point now where like it seems really hard to craft You know, let's take the AI case like a sensible framework that would apply You know, in, in LLMs where like, I don't know, like I was doing a little recap of like recent interoperability research and I like took a step back and I was like, Oh, all these papers are from May, 2023. And I was like, these are all big results. This is all a big deal. Right. It's like very, very fast. Yeah. So that's kind of what I would say to that. Yeah. I don't know. Do you feel differently? You feel like Congress has never been able to keep up? Yeah. [00:41:04] Ben: Well, I. I wonder, I guess I'm almost, I'm, I'm perhaps an outlier in that I am skeptical of the claim that technology overall has sped up significantly, or the pace of technological change, the pace of software change, certainly. Sure. Right. And it's like maybe software as a, as a fraction of technology has spread up, sped up. And maybe like, this is, this is a thing where like to the point of, of regulations needing to, to. Go into particulars, [00:41:35] right? Mm-Hmm. . Right, right. Like tuning the regulation to the characteristic timescale of whatever talk [00:41:40] Tim: technology we're talking about. Mm-Hmm. , right? [00:41:42] Ben: But I don't know, but like, I feel like outside of software, if anything, technology, the pace of technological change [00:41:52] Tim: has slowed down. Mm hmm. Right. Right. Yeah. [00:41:55] Ben: This is me putting on my [00:41:57] Tim: stagnationist bias. And would, given the argument that I just made, would you say that that means that it should actually be easier than ever to regulate technology? Yeah, I get targets moving slower, right? Like, yeah, [00:42:12] Ben: yeah. Or it's the technology moving slowly because of the forms of [00:42:14] Tim: the regulator. I guess, yeah, there's like compounding variables. [00:42:16] Ben: Yeah, the easiest base case of regulating technology is saying, like, no, you can't have [00:42:20] Tim: any. Huh, right, right, right. Like, it can't change. Right, that's easy to regulate. Yeah, right, right. That's very easy to regulate. I buy that, I buy that. It's very easy to regulate well. Huh, right, right. I think that's [00:42:27] Ben: That's the question. It's like, what do we want to lock in and what don't we [00:42:31] Tim: want to lock in? Yeah, I think that's right and I think, you [00:42:35] know I guess what that moves me towards is like, I think some people, you know, will conclude the argument I'm making by saying, and so regulations are obsolete, right? Or like, oh, so we shouldn't regulate or like, let the companies take care of it. And I'm like, I think so, like, I think that that's, that's not the conclusion that I go to, right? Like part of it is like. Well, no, that just means we need, we need better ways of like regulating these systems, right? And I think they, they basically require government to kind of think about sort of like moving to different parts of the chain that they might've touched in the past. Yeah. So like, I don't know, we, Caleb and I over at IFP, we just submitted this RFI to DARPA. In part they, they were thinking about like how does DARPA play a role in dealing with like ethical considerations around emerging technologies. Yep. But the deeper point that we were making in our submission. was simply that like maybe actually science has changed in a way where like DARPA can't be the or it's harder for DARPA to be the originator of all these technologies. Yeah. So they're, they're almost, they're, they're placing the, the, the ecosystem, the [00:43:35] metabolism of technology has changed, which requires them to rethink like how they want to influence the system. Yeah. Right. And it may be more influence at the point of like. Things getting out to market, then it is things like, you know, basic research in the lab or something like that. Right. At least for some classes of technology where like a lot of it's happening in private industry, like AI. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. [00:43:55] Ben: No, I, I, I think the, the concept of, of like the metabolism of, of science and technology is like really powerful. I think in some sense it is, I'm not sure if you would, how would you map that to the idea of there being a [00:44:11] Tim: research ecosystem, right? Right. Is it, is it that there's like [00:44:17] Ben: the metabolic, this is, this is incredibly abstract. Okay. Like, is it like, I guess if you're looking at the metabolism, does, does the metabolism sort of say, we're going to ignore institutions for now and the metabolism is literally just the flow [00:44:34] Tim: of [00:44:35] like ideas and, and, and outcomes and then maybe like the ecosystem is [00:44:41] Ben: like, okay, then we like. Sort of add another layer and say there are institutions [00:44:46] Tim: that are sure interacting with this sort of like, yeah, I think like the metabolism view or, you know, you might even think about it as like a supply chain view, right? To move it away from, like, just kind of gesturing at bio for no reason, right? Is I think what's powerful about it is that, you know, particularly in foundation land, which I'm most familiar with. There's a notion of like we're going to field build and what that means is we're going to name a field and then researchers Are going to be under this tent that we call this field and then the field will exist Yeah, and then the proper critique of a lot of that stuff is like researchers are smart They just like go where the money is and they're like you want to call up like I can pretend to be nanotech for a Few years to get your money Like, that's no problem. I can do that. And so there's kind of a notion that, like, if you take the economy of science as, like, institutions at the very beginning, you actually miss the bigger [00:45:35] picture. Yes. Right? And so the metabolism view is more powerful because you literally think about, like, the movement of, like, an idea to an experiment to a practical technology to, like, something that's out in the world. Yeah. And then we basically say, how do we influence those incentives before we start talking about, like, oh, we announced some new policy that people just, like... Cosmetically align their agendas to yeah, and like if you really want to shape science It's actually maybe arguably less about like the institution and more about like Yeah, the individual. Yeah, exactly. Like I run a lab. What are my motivations? Right? And I think this is like, again, it's like micro macro, right? It's basically if we can understand that, then are there things that we could do to influence at that micro level? Yeah, right. Which is I think actually where a lot of Macro econ has moved. Right. Which is like, how do we influence like the individual firm's decisions Yeah. To get the overall aggregate change that we want in the economy. Yeah. And I think that's, that's potentially a better way of approaching it. Right. A thing that I desperately [00:46:30] Ben: want now is Uhhuh a. I'm not sure what they're, they're [00:46:35] actually called. Like the, you know, like the metal, like, like, like the [00:46:37] Tim: prep cycle. Yeah, exactly. Like, like, like the giant diagram of, of like metabolism, [00:46:43] Ben: right. I want that for, for research. Yeah, that would be incredible. Yeah. If, if only, I mean, one, I want to have it on [00:46:50] Tim: my wall and to, to just get across the idea that. [00:46:56] Ben: It is like, it's not you know, basic research, applied [00:47:01] Tim: research. Yeah, totally. Right, right, right. When it goes to like, and what I like about kind of metabolism as a way of thinking about it is that we can start thinking about like, okay, what's, what's the uptake for certain types of inputs, right? We're like, okay, you know like one, one example is like, okay, well, we want results in a field to become more searchable. Well what's really, if you want to frame that in metabolism terms, is like, what, you know, what are the carbs that go into the system that, like, the enzymes or the yeast can take up, and it's like, access to the proper results, right, and like, I think that there's, there's a nice way of flipping in it [00:47:35] that, like, starts to think about these things as, like, inputs, versus things that we do, again, because, like, we like the aesthetics of it, like, we like the aesthetics of being able to find research results instantaneously, but, like, the focus should be on, Like, okay, well, because it helps to drive, like, the next big idea that we think will be beneficial to me later on. Or like, even being [00:47:53] Ben: the question, like, is the actual blocker to the thing that you want to see, the thing that you think it is? Right. I've run into far more people than I can count who say, like, you know, we want more awesome technology in the world, therefore we are going to be working on Insert tool here that actually isn't addressing, at least my, [00:48:18] Tim: my view of why those things aren't happening. Yeah, right, right. And I think, I mean, again, like, part of the idea is we think about these as, like, frameworks for thinking about different situations in science. Yeah. Like, I actually do believe that there are certain fields because of, like, ideologically how they're set up, institutionally how [00:48:35] they're set up, funding wise how they're set up. that do resemble the block diagram you were talking about earlier, which is like, yeah, there actually is the, the basic research, like we can put, that's where the basic research happens. You could like point at a building, right? And you're like, that's where the, you know, commercialization happens. We pointed at another building, right? But I just happen to think that most science doesn't look like that. Right. And we might ask the question then, like, do we want it to resemble more of like the metabolism state than the block diagram state? Right. Like both are good. Yeah, I mean, I would [00:49:07] Ben: argue that putting them in different buildings is exactly what's causing [00:49:10] Tim: all the problems. Sure, right, exactly, yeah, yeah. Yeah. But then, again, like, then, then I think, again, this is why I think, like, the, the macro view is so powerful, at least to me, personally, is, like, we can ask the question, for what problems? Yeah. Right? Like, are there, are there situations where, like, that, that, like, very blocky way of doing it serves certain needs and certain demands? Yeah. And it's like, it's possible, like, one more argument I can make for you is, like, Progress might be [00:49:35] slower, but it's a lot more controllable. So if you are in the, you know, if you think national security is one of the most important things, you're willing to make those trade offs. But I think we just should be making those trade offs, like, much more consciously than we do. And [00:49:49] Ben: that's where politics, in the term, in the sense of, A compromise between people who have different priorities on something can actually come in where we can say, okay, like we're going to trade off, we're going to say like, okay, we're going to increase like national security a little bit, like in, in like this area to, in compromise with being able to like unblock this. [00:50:11] Tim: That's right. Yeah. And I think this is the benefit of like, you know, when I say lever, I literally mean lever, right. Which is basically like, we're in a period of time where we need this. Yeah. Right? We're willing to trade progress for security. Yeah. Okay, we're not in a period where we need this. Like, take the, take, ramp it down. Right? Like, we want science to have less of this, this kind of structure. Yeah. That's something we need to, like, have fine tuned controls over. Right? Yeah. And to be thinking about in, like, a, a comparative sense, [00:50:35] so. And, [00:50:36] Ben: to, to go [00:50:36] Tim: back to the metabolism example. Yeah, yeah. I'm really thinking about it. Yeah, yeah. [00:50:39] Ben: Is there an equivalent of macro for metabolism in the sense that like I'm thinking about like, like, is it someone's like blood, like, you know, they're like blood glucose level, [00:50:52] Tim: like obesity, right? Yeah, right. Kind of like our macro indicators for metabolism. Yeah, that's right. Right? Or like how you feel in the morning. That's right. Yeah, exactly. I'm less well versed in kind of like bio and medical, but I'm sure there is, right? Like, I mean, there is the same kind of like. Well, I study the cell. Well, I study, you know, like organisms, right? Like at different scales, which we're studying this stuff. Yeah. What's kind of interesting in the medical cases, like You know, it's like, do we have a Hippocratic, like oath for like our treatment of the science person, right? It's just like, first do no harm to the science person, you know? [00:51:32] Ben: Yeah, I mean, I wonder about that with like, [00:51:35] with research. Mm hmm. Is there, should we have more heuristics about how we're [00:51:42] Tim: Yeah, I mean, especially because I think, like, norms are so strong, right? Like, I do think that, like, one of the interesting things, this is one of the arguments I was making in the long science piece. It's like, well, in addition to funding certain types of experiments, if you proliferate the number of opportunities for these low scale projects to operate over a long period of time, there's actually a bunch of like norms that might be really good that they might foster in the scientific community. Right. Which is like you learn, like scientists learn the art of how to plan a project for 30 years. That's super important. Right. Regardless of the research results. That may be something that we want to put out into the open so there's more like your median scientist has more of those skills Yeah, right, like that's another reason that you might want to kind of like percolate this kind of behavior in the system Yeah, and so there's kind of like these emanating effects from like even one offs that I think are important to keep in mind [00:52:33] Ben: That's actually another [00:52:35] I think used for simulations. Yeah I'm just thinking like, well, it's very hard to get a tight feedback loop, right, about like whether you manage, you planned a project for 30 years [00:52:47] Tim: well, right, [00:52:48] Ben: right. But perhaps there's a better way of sort of simulating [00:52:51] Tim: that planning process. Yeah. Well, and I would love to, I mean, again, to the question that you had earlier about like what are the metrics here, right? Like I think for a lot of science metrics that we may end up on, they may have these interesting and really curious properties like we have for inflation rate. Right. We're like, the strange thing about inflation is that we, we kind of don't like, we have hypotheses for how it happens, but like, part of it is just like the psychology of the market. Yeah. Right. Like you anticipate prices will be higher next quarter. Inflation happens if enough people believe that. And part of what the Fed is doing is like, they're obviously making money harder to get to, but they're also like play acting, right? They're like. You know, trust me guys, we will continue to put pressure on the economy until you feel differently about this. And I think there's going to be some things in science that are worth [00:53:35] measuring that are like that, which is like researcher perceptions of the future state of the science economy are like things that we want to be able to influence in the space. And so one of the things that we do when we try to influence like the long termism or the short termism of science It's like, there's lots of kind of like material things we do, but ultimately the idea is like, what does that researcher in the lab think is going to happen, right? Do they think that, you know, grant funding is going to become a lot less available in the next six months or a lot more available in the next six months? Like influencing those might have huge repercussions on what happens in science. And like, yeah, like that's a tool that policymakers should have access to. Yeah. Yeah. [00:54:11] Ben: And the parallels between the. The how beliefs affect the economy, [00:54:18] Tim: and how beliefs [00:54:19] Ben: affect science, I think may also be a [00:54:21] Tim: little bit underrated. Yeah. In the sense that, [00:54:24] Ben: I, I feel like some people think that It's a fairly deterministic system where it's like, ah, yes, this idea's time has come. And like once, once all the things that are in place, like [00:54:35] once, once all, then, then it will happen. And like, [00:54:38] Tim: that is, that's like how it works. [00:54:40] Ben: Which I, I mean, I have, I wish there was more evidence to my point or to disagree with me. But like, I, I think that's, that's really not how it works. And I'm like very often. a field or, or like an idea will, like a technology will happen because people think that it's time for that technology to happen. Right. Right. Yeah. Obviously, obviously that isn't always the case. Right. Yeah. Yeah. There's, there's, there's hype [00:55:06] Tim: cycles. And I think you want, like, eventually, like. You know, if I have my druthers, right, like macro science should have like it's Chicago school, right? Which is basically like the idea arrives exactly when it should arrive. Scientists will discover it on exactly their time. And like your only role as a regulator is to ensure the stability of scientific institutions. I think actually that that is a, that's not a position I agree with, but you can craft a totally, Reasonable, coherent, coherent governance framework that's based around that concept, right? Yes. Yeah. I think [00:55:35] like [00:55:35] Ben: you'll, yes. I, I, I think like that's actually the criteria for success of meta science as a field uhhuh, because like once there's schools , then, then, then it will have made it, [00:55:46] Tim: because [00:55:47] Ben: there aren't schools right now. Mm-Hmm. , like, I, I feel , I almost feel I, I, I now want there to b

Former Steelers' QB Ben Roethlisberger made some comments on his podcast about Sunday's game that might actually make sense.

About a month ago, Ben Roethlisberger spoke publicly about how he felt being the QB for Kendrick Green's first year as a center. Now that Kendrick Green has been traded by the Steelers, should we reflect on Ben's words differently?

On today's episode of NFL Total Access The Podcast I am joined by Adam Rank and first things first, we take a look at recent comments made by Big Ben about Lamar Jackson and whether Roethlisberger is right or not. As the draft approaches, we also analyze what the Jets should do with the 13th overall pick and discuss the win projection totals for the Jets, Raiders, Packers, and Saints. In addition, we take a closer look at the Carolina Panthers and their countdown to the draft, discussing who they will and should take at the number one spot. Can the Panthers contend for an NFC South division title? We examine the team's chances and assess their overall prospects for the upcoming season. Finally, we wrap up the podcast with a special segment called "NFL Hall of Fans," where Panthers fans sound off on their favorite ever players and memories.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On today's episode of NFL Total Access The Podcast I am joined by Adam Rank and first things first, we take a look at recent comments made by Big Ben about Lamar Jackson and whether Roethlisberger is right or not. As the draft approaches, we also analyze what the Jets should do with the 13th overall pick and discuss the win projection totals for the Jets, Raiders, Packers, and Saints. In addition, we take a closer look at the Carolina Panthers and their countdown to the draft, discussing who they will and should take at the number one spot. Can the Panthers contend for an NFC South division title? We examine the team's chances and assess their overall prospects for the upcoming season. Finally, we wrap up the podcast with a special segment called "NFL Hall of Fans," where Panthers fans sound off on their favorite ever players and memories.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On today's episode of NFL Total Access The Podcast I am joined by Adam Rank and first things first, we take a look at recent comments made by Big Ben about Lamar Jackson and whether Roethlisberger is right or not. As the draft approaches, we also analyze what the Jets should do with the 13th overall pick and discuss the win projection totals for the Jets, Raiders, Packers, and Saints. In addition, we take a closer look at the Carolina Panthers and their countdown to the draft, discussing who they will and should take at the number one spot. Can the Panthers contend for an NFC South division title? We examine the team's chances and assess their overall prospects for the upcoming season. Finally, we wrap up the podcast with a special segment called "NFL Hall of Fans," where Panthers fans sound off on their favorite ever players and memories.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Are You an Amateur Negotiator? Join Ben from Innovate Podcast and Darren A. Smith with their talk on how to become an effective negotiator. Learn useful tools like the squaredance for negotiating and disregard bad practices like running to PowerPoint first. Read on to discover the basics of effective negotiation that you can start using today. You Can Read the Full Transcript Below: Darren A. Smith: What else could we do? What could I explore? What do you want from me? Could we talk about a contract that's 50 years long? No, we can't, Darren. Alright, what about one's five years long maybe? Okay. Could we talk about improving the quality, and reducing the packaging? Could we work together on blah, blah, blah? There're a million things we could talk about. Now. None of them might bridge the gap between a 10-pound case and an eight-pound case. But let's try. Ben: Welcome to the Innovate Podcast, a show where we discuss, dissect, and attempt to rebuild the world of product and category within consumer goods. Today I'm delighted to be joined by Darren a Smith a veteran of the grocery industry with over 3o years of experience, I think working either for retailers or advising manufacturers and brands. Darren and I briefly crossed paths as buyers and category managers at Sainsbury back in the very early naughts, which we may discuss in a moment. But Darren, welcome to the Innovate Podcast. Delighted you can join us. How are you? How are you today? Negotiating is a key business skill   Darren A. Smith: Hey, Ben. I'm good. We're in process of moving house, not today, but in the next couple of weeks, so I am struggling with that process. There's a reason it's stressful. Ben: So yeah, you just thought you'd add another huge seismic life event onto the already kind of generational economic challenges that we're facing. Darren A. Smith: That's absolutely true. I think we just squeezed in for the interest rates went through the roof. Ben: Right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's not a joking matter actually. Yeah. Okay, cool. Good. So, Darren, just for the benefit of the listeners, I guess a natural place to start would just be to introduce yourself, talk through your kind of background from Sainsbury through to now and just talk about what you're focusing on with your current business MBM, if that's okay. Darren A. Smith: Of course. So I started Sainsbury in 1990 and at that point, I was the assistant. Now that's the important part. I was the assistant cottage cheese buyer. I wasn't even the real one. I didn't even know what cottage cheese was at the rightful age of 19. So that's where I started. Then I took on various buying roles for the next 13 years. My last real job was looking after the fruit team for Sainsbury, where I decided that actually I wanted to go and see if I could do something by myself, set up MBM, and ever since we've worked on soft skills training. Ben: Okay, awesome. Darren A. Smith: For the last past 20 years now. Ben: So soft skills training, I guess that could be quite broad. It's clearly focused on people. What are kind of the key areas that you focus on in terms of developing skills? Darren A. Smith: The key ones that people want are how do I get the most out of my time — time management. How do I get the most out of my people — people management, leadership skills, and how do I get the most out of my deals, particularly in the industry that you and I are in? So it's negotiation predominantly. It's time management and it's people management skills. They're the three. There are a number of other soft skills. The bit I really like is Jack Ma, recently the chairman of Alibaba said that with the progress of AI, soft skills is the only way forward. Love it. Ben: Right. Awesome. Darren A. Smith: Which is great. So we can try and process data really quickly and be analysts, but ultimately it's about how you and I interact about the teams we build and about how we lead people is the future.

About BenBen Whaley is a staff software engineer at Chime. Ben is co-author of the UNIX and Linux System Administration Handbook, the de facto standard text on Linux administration, and is the author of two educational videos: Linux Web Operations and Linux System Administration. He is an AWS Community Hero since 2014. Ben has held Red Hat Certified Engineer (RHCE) and Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP) certifications. He earned a B.S. in Computer Science from Univ. of Colorado, Boulder.Links Referenced: Chime Financial: https://www.chime.com/ alternat.cloud: https://alternat.cloud Twitter: https://twitter.com/iamthewhaley LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/benwhaley/ TranscriptAnnouncer: Hello, and welcome to Screaming in the Cloud with your host, Chief Cloud Economist at The Duckbill Group, Corey Quinn. This weekly show features conversations with people doing interesting work in the world of cloud, thoughtful commentary on the state of the technical world, and ridiculous titles for which Corey refuses to apologize. This is Screaming in the Cloud.Corey: Forget everything you know about SSH and try Tailscale. Imagine if you didn't need to manage PKI or rotate SSH keys every time someone leaves. That'd be pretty sweet, wouldn't it? With Tailscale SSH, you can do exactly that. Tailscale gives each server and user device a node key to connect to its VPN, and it uses the same node key to authorize and authenticate SSH.Basically you're SSHing the same way you manage access to your app. What's the benefit here? Built-in key rotation, permissions as code, connectivity between any two devices, reduce latency, and there's a lot more, but there's a time limit here. You can also ask users to reauthenticate for that extra bit of security. Sounds expensive?Nope, I wish it were. Tailscale is completely free for personal use on up to 20 devices. To learn more, visit snark.cloud/tailscale. Again, that's snark.cloud/tailscaleCorey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud. I'm Corey Quinn and this is an episode unlike any other that has yet been released on this august podcast. Let's begin by introducing my first-time guest somehow because apparently an invitation got lost in the mail somewhere. Ben Whaley is a staff software engineer at Chime Financial and has been an AWS Community Hero since Andy Jassy was basically in diapers, to my level of understanding. Ben, welcome to the show.Ben: Corey, so good to be here. Thanks for having me on.Corey: I'm embarrassed that you haven't been on the show before. You're one of those people that slipped through the cracks and somehow I was very bad at following up slash hounding you into finally agreeing to be here. But you certainly waited until you had something auspicious to talk about.Ben: Well, you know, I'm the one that really should be embarrassed here. You did extend the invitation and I guess I just didn't feel like I had something to drop. But I think today we have something that will interest most of the listeners without a doubt.Corey: So, folks who have listened to this podcast before, or read my newsletter, or follow me on Twitter, or have shared an elevator with me, or at any point have passed me on the street, have heard me complain about the Managed NAT Gateway and it's egregious data processing fee of four-and-a-half cents per gigabyte. And I have complained about this for small customers because they're in the free tier; why is this thing charging them 32 bucks a month? And I have complained about this on behalf of large customers who are paying the GDP of the nation of Belize in data processing fees as they wind up shoving very large workloads to and fro, which is I think part of the prerequisite requirements for having a data warehouse. And you are no different than the rest of these people who have those challenges, with the singular exception that you have done something about it, and what you have done is so, in retrospect, blindingly obvious that I am embarrassed the rest of us never thought of it.Ben: It's interesting because when you are doing engineering, it's often the simplest solution that is the best. I've seen this repeatedly. And it's a little surprising that it didn't come up before, but I think it's in some way, just a matter of timing. But what we came up with—and is this the right time to get into it, do you want to just kind of name the solution, here?Corey: Oh, by all means. I'm not going to steal your thunder. Please, tell us what you have wrought.Ben: We're calling it AlterNAT and it's an alternative solution to a high-availability NAT solution. As everybody knows, NAT Gateway is sort of the default choice; it certainly is what AWS pushes everybody towards. But there is, in fact, a legacy solution: NAT instances. These were around long before NAT Gateway made an appearance. And like I said they're considered legacy, but with the help of lots of modern AWS innovations and technologies like Lambdas and auto-scaling groups with max instance lifetimes and the latest generation of networking improved or enhanced instances, it turns out that we can maybe not quite get as effective as a NAT Gateway, but we can save a lot of money and skip those data processing charges entirely by having a NAT instance solution with a failover NAT Gateway, which I think is kind of the key point behind the solution. So, are you interested in diving into the technical details?Corey: That is very much the missing piece right there. You're right. What we used to use was NAT instances. That was the thing that we used because we didn't really have another option. And they had an interface in the public subnet where they lived and an interface hanging out in the private subnet, and they had to be configured to wind up passing traffic to and fro.Well, okay, that's great and all but isn't that kind of brittle and dangerous? I basically have a single instance as a single point of failure and these are the days early on when individual instances did not have the level of availability and durability they do now. Yeah, it's kind of awful, but here you go. I mean, the most galling part of the Managed NAT Gateway service is not that it's expensive; it's that it's expensive, but also incredibly good at what it does. You don't have to think about this whole problem anymore, and as of recently, it also supports ipv4 to ipv6 translation as well.It's not that the service is bad. It's that the service is stonkingly expensive, particularly at scale. And everything that we've seen before is either oh, run your own NAT instances or bend your knee and pays your money. And a number of folks have come up with different options where this is ridiculous. Just go ahead and run your own NAT instances.Yeah, but what happens when I have to take it down for maintenance or replace it? It's like, well, I guess you're not going to the internet today. This has the, in hindsight, obvious solution, well, we just—we run the Managed NAT Gateway because the 32 bucks a year in instance-hour charges don't actually matter at any point of scale when you're doing this, but you wind up using that for day in, day out traffic, and the failover mode is simply you'll use the expensive Managed NAT Gateway until the instance is healthy again and then automatically change the route table back and forth.Ben: Yep. That's exactly it. So, the auto-scaling NAT instance solution has been around for a long time well, before even NAT Gateway was released. You could have NAT instances in an auto-scaling group where the size of the group was one, and if the NAT instance failed, it would just replace itself. But this left a period in which you'd have no internet connectivity during that, you know, when the NAT instance was swapped out.So, the solution here is that when auto-scaling terminates an instance, it fails over the route table to a standby NAT Gateway, rerouting the traffic. So, there's never a point at which there's no internet connectivity, right? The NAT instance is running, processing traffic, gets terminated after a certain period of time, configurable, 14 days, 30 days, whatever makes sense for your security strategy could be never, right? You could choose that you want to have your own maintenance window in which to do it.Corey: And let's face it, this thing is more or less sitting there as a network traffic router, for lack of a better term. There is no need to ever log into the thing and make changes to it until and unless there's a vulnerability that you can exploit via somehow just talking to the TCP stack when nothing's actually listening on the host.Ben: You know, you can run your own AMI that has been pared down to almost nothing, and that instance doesn't do much. It's using just a Linux kernel to sit on two networks and pass traffic back and forth. It has a translation table that kind of keeps track of the state of connections and so you don't need to have any service running. To manage the system, we have SSM so you can use Session Manager to log in, but frankly, you can just disable that. You almost never even need to get a shell. And that is, in fact, an option we have in the solution is to disable SSM entirely.Corey: One of the things I love about this approach is that it is turnkey. You throw this thing in there and it's good to go. And in the event that the instance becomes unhealthy, great, it fails traffic over to the Managed NAT Gateway while it terminates the old node and replaces it with a healthy one and then fails traffic back. Now, I do need to ask, what is the story of network connections during that failover and failback scenario?Ben: Right, that's the primary drawback, I would say, of the solution is that any established TCP connections that are on the NAT instance at the time of a route change will be lost. So, say you have—Corey: TCP now terminates on the floor.Ben: Pretty much. The connections are dropped. If you have an open SSH connection from a host in the private network to a host on the internet and the instance fails over to the NAT Gateway, the NAT Gateway doesn't have the translation table that the NAT instance had. And not to mention, the public IP address also changes because you have an Elastic IP assigned to the NAT instance, a different Elastic IP assigned to the NAT Gateway, and so because that upstream IP is different, the remote host is, like, tracking the wrong IP. So, those connections, they're going to be lost.So, there are some use cases where this may not be suitable. We do have some ideas on how you might mitigate that, for example, with the use of a maintenance window to schedule the replacement, replaced less often so it doesn't have to affect your workflow as much, but frankly, for many use cases, my belief is that it's actually fine. In our use case at Chime, we found that it's completely fine and we didn't actually experience any errors or failures. But there might be some use cases that are more sensitive or less resilient to failure in the first place.Corey: I would also point out that a lot of how software is going to behave is going to be a reflection of the era in which it was moved to cloud. Back in the early days of EC2, you had no real sense of reliability around any individual instance, so everything was written in a very defensive manner. These days, with instances automatically being able to flow among different hardware so we don't get instance interrupt notifications the way we once did on a semi-constant basis, it more or less has become what presents is bulletproof, so a lot of people are writing software that's a bit more brittle. But it's always been a best practice that when a connection fails okay, what happens at failure? Do you just give up and throw your hands in the air and shriek for help or do you attempt to retry a few times, ideally backing off exponentially?In this scenario, those retries will work. So, it's a question of how well have you built your software. Okay, let's say that you made the worst decisions imaginable, and okay, if that connection dies, the entire workload dies. Okay, you have the option to refactor it to be a little bit better behaved, or alternately, you can keep paying the Manage NAT Gateway tax of four-and-a-half cents per gigabyte in perpetuity forever. I'm not going to tell you what decision to make, but I know which one I'm making.Ben: Yeah, exactly. The cost savings potential of it far outweighs the potential maintenance troubles, I guess, that you could encounter. But the fact is, if you're relying on Managed NAT Gateway and paying the price for doing so, it's not as if there's no chance for connection failure. NAT Gateway could also fail. I will admit that I think it's an extremely robust and resilient solution. I've been really impressed with it, especially so after having worked on this project, but it doesn't mean it can't fail.And beyond that, upstream of the NAT Gateway, something could in fact go wrong. Like, internet connections are unreliable, kind of by design. So, if your system is not resilient to connection failures, like, there's a problem to solve there anyway; you're kind of relying on hope. So, it's a kind of a forcing function in some ways to build architectural best practices, in my view.Corey: I can't stress enough that I have zero problem with the capabilities and the stability of the Managed NAT Gateway solution. My complaints about it start and stop entirely with the price. Back when you first showed me the blog post that is releasing at the same time as this podcast—and you can visit that at alternat.cloud—you sent me an early draft of this and what I loved the most was that your math was off because of a not complete understanding of the gloriousness that is just how egregious the NAT Gateway charges are.Your initial analysis said, “All right, if you're throwing half a terabyte out to the internet, this has the potential of cutting the bill by”—I think it was $10,000 or something like that. It's, “Oh no, no. It has the potential to cut the bill by an entire twenty-two-and-a-half thousand dollars.” Because this processing fee does not replace any egress fees whatsoever. It's purely additive. If you forget to have a free S3 Gateway endpoint in a private subnet, every time you put something into or take something out of S3, you're paying four-and-a-half cents per gigabyte on that, despite the fact there's no internet transitory work, it's not crossing availability zones. It is simply a four-and-a-half cent fee to retrieve something that has only cost you—at most—2.3 cents per month to store in the first place. Flip that switch, that becomes completely free.Ben: Yeah. I'm not embarrassed at all to talk about the lack of education I had around this topic. The fact is I'm an engineer primarily and I came across the cost stuff because it kind of seemed like a problem that needed to be solved within my organization. And if you don't mind, I might just linger on this point and kind of think back a few months. I looked at the AWS bill and I saw this egregious ‘EC2 Other' category. It was taking up the majority of our bill. Like, the single biggest line item was EC2 Other. And I was like, “What could this be?”Corey: I want to wind up flagging that just because that bears repeating because I often get people pushing back of, “Well, how bad—it's one Managed NAT Gateway. How much could it possibly cost? $10?” No, it is the majority of your monthly bill. I cannot stress that enough.And that's not because the people who work there are doing anything that they should not be doing or didn't understand all the nuances of this. It's because for the security posture that is required for what you do—you are at Chime Financial, let's be clear here—putting everything in public subnets was not really a possibility for you folks.Ben: Yeah. And not only that but there are plenty of services that have to be on private subnets. For example, AWS Glue services must run in private VPC subnets if you want them to be able to talk to other systems in your VPC; like, they cannot live in public subnet. So essentially, if you want to talk to the internet from those jobs, you're forced into some kind of NAT solution. So, I dug into the EC2 Other category and I started trying to figure out what was going on there.There's no way—natively—to look at what traffic is transiting the NAT Gateway. There's not an interface that shows you what's going on, what's the biggest talkers over that network. Instead, you have to have flow logs enabled and have to parse those flow logs. So, I dug into that.Corey: Well, you're missing a step first because in a lot of environments, people have more than one of these things, so you get to first do the scavenger hunt of, okay, I have a whole bunch of Managed NAT Gateways and first I need to go diving into CloudWatch metrics and figure out which are the heavy talkers. Is usually one or two followed by a whole bunch of small stuff, but not always, so figuring out which VPC you're even talking about is a necessary prerequisite.Ben: Yeah, exactly. The data around it is almost missing entirely. Once you come to the conclusion that it is a particular NAT Gateway—like, that's a set of problems to solve on its own—but first, you have to go to the flow logs, you have to figure out what are the biggest upstream IPs that it's talking to. Once you have the IP, it still isn't apparent what that host is. In our case, we had all sorts of outside parties that we were talking to a lot and it's a matter of sorting by volume and figuring out well, this IP, what is the reverse IP? Who is potentially the host there?I actually had some wrong answers at first. I set up VPC endpoints to S3 and DynamoDB and SQS because those were some top talkers and that was a nice way to gain some security and some resilience and save some money. And then I found, well, Datadog; that's another top talker for us, so I ended up creating a nice private link to Datadog, which they offer for free, by the way, which is more than I can say for some other vendors. But then I found some outside parties, there wasn't a nice private link solution available to us, and yet, it was by far the largest volume. So, that's what kind of started me down this track is analyzing the NAT Gateway myself by looking at VPC flow logs. Like, it's shocking that there isn't a better way to find that traffic.Corey: It's worse than that because VPC flow logs tell you where the traffic is going and in what volumes, sure, on an IP address and port basis, but okay, now you have a Kubernetes cluster that spans two availability zones. Okay, great. What is actually passing through that? So, you have one big application that just seems awfully chatty, you have multiple workloads running on the thing. What's the expensive thing talking back and forth? The only way that you can reliably get the answer to that I found is to talk to people about what those workloads are actually doing, and failing that you're going code spelunking.Ben: Yep. You're exactly right about that. In our case, it ended up being apparent because we have a set of subnets where only one particular project runs. And when I saw the source IP, I could immediately figure that part out. But if it's a K8s cluster in the private subnets, yeah, how are you going to find it out? You're going to have to ask everybody that has workloads running there.Corey: And we're talking about in some cases, millions of dollars a month. Yeah, it starts to feel a little bit predatory as far as how it's priced and the amount of work you have to put in to track this stuff down. I've done this a handful of times myself, and it's always painful unless you discover something pretty early on, like, oh, it's talking to S3 because that's pretty obvious when you see that. It's, yeah, flip switch and this entire engagement just paid for itself a hundred times over. Now, let's see what else we can discover.That is always one of those fun moments because, first, customers are super grateful to learn that, oh, my God, I flipped that switch. And I'm saving a whole bunch of money. Because it starts with gratitude. “Thank you so much. This is great.” And it doesn't take a whole lot of time for that to alchemize into anger of, “Wait. You mean, I've been being ridden like a pony for this long and no one bothered to mention that if I click a button, this whole thing just goes away?”And when you mention this to your AWS account team, like, they're solicitous, but they either have to present as, “I didn't know that existed either,” which is not a good look, or, “Yeah, you caught us,” which is worse. There's no positive story on this. It just feels like a tax on not knowing trivia about AWS. I think that's what really winds me up about it so much.Ben: Yeah, I think you're right on about that as well. My misunderstanding about the NAT pricing was data processing is additive to data transfer. I expected when I replaced NAT Gateway with NAT instance, that I would be substituting data transfer costs for NAT Gateway costs, NAT Gateway data processing costs. But in fact, NAT Gateway incurs both data processing and data transfer. NAT instances only incur data transfer costs. And so, this is a big difference between the two solutions.Not only that, but if you're in the same region, if you're egressing out of your say us-east-1 region and talking to another hosted service also within us-east-1—never leaving the AWS network—you don't actually even incur data transfer costs. So, if you're using a NAT Gateway, you're paying data processing.Corey: To be clear you do, but it is cross-AZ in most cases billed at one penny egressing, and on the other side, that hosted service generally pays one penny ingressing as well. Don't feel bad about that one. That was extraordinarily unclear and the only reason I know the answer to that is that I got tired of getting stonewalled by people that later turned out didn't know the answer, so I ran a series of experiments designed explicitly to find this out.Ben: Right. As opposed to the five cents to nine cents that is data transfer to the internet. Which, add that to data processing on a NAT Gateway and you're paying between thirteen-and-a-half cents to nine-and-a-half cents for every gigabyte egressed. And this is a phenomenal cost. And at any kind of volume, if you're doing terabytes to petabytes, this becomes a significant portion of your bill. And this is why people hate the NAT Gateway so much.Corey: I am going to short-circuit an angry comment I can already see coming on this where people are going to say, “Well, yes. But it's a multi-petabyte scale. Nobody's paying on-demand retail price.” And they're right. Most people who are transmitting that kind of data, have a specific discount rate applied to what they're doing that varies depending upon usage and use case.Sure, great. But I'm more concerned with the people who are sitting around dreaming up ideas for a company where I want to wind up doing some sort of streaming service. I talked to one of those companies very early on in my tenure as a consultant around the billing piece and they wanted me to check their napkin math because they thought that at their numbers when they wound up scaling up, if their projections were right, that they were going to be spending $65,000 a minute, and what did they not understand? And the answer was, well, you didn't understand this other thing, so it's going to be more than that, but no, you're directionally correct. So, that idea that started off on a napkin, of course, they didn't build it on top of AWS; they went elsewhere.And last time I checked, they'd raised well over a quarter-billion dollars in funding. So, that's a business that AWS would love to have on a variety of different levels, but they're never going to even be considered because by the time someone is at scale, they either have built this somewhere else or they went broke trying.Ben: Yep, absolutely. And we might just make the point there that while you can get discounts on data transfer, you really can't—or it's very rare—to get discounts on data processing for the NAT Gateway. So, any kind of savings you can get on data transfer would apply to a NAT instance solution, you know, saving you four-and-a-half cents per gigabyte inbound and outbound over the NAT Gateway equivalent solution. So, you're paying a lot for the benefit of a fully-managed service there. Very robust, nicely engineered fully-managed service as we've already acknowledged, but an extremely expensive solution for what it is, which is really just a proxy in the end. It doesn't add any value to you.Corey: The only way to make that more expensive would be to route it through something like Splunk or whatnot. And Splunk does an awful lot for what they charge per gigabyte, but it just feels like it's rent-seeking in some of the worst ways possible. And what I love about this is that you've solved the problem in a way that is open-source, you have already released it in Terraform code. I think one of the first to-dos on this for someone is going to be, okay now also make it CloudFormation and also make it CDK so you can drop it in however you want.And anyone can use this. I think the biggest mistake people might make in glancing at this is well, I'm looking at the hourly charge for the NAT Gateways and that's 32-and-a-half bucks a month and the instances that you recommend are hundreds of dollars a month for the big network-optimized stuff. Yeah, if you care about the hourly rate of either of those two things, this is not for you. That is not the problem that it solves. If you're an independent learner annoyed about the $30 charge you got for a Managed NAT Gateway, don't do this. This will only add to your billing concerns.Where it really shines is once you're at, I would say probably about ten terabytes a month, give or take, in Managed NAT Gateway data processing is where it starts to consider this. The breakeven is around six or so but there is value to not having to think about things. Once you get to that level of spend, though it's worth devoting a little bit of infrastructure time to something like this.Ben: Yeah, that's effectively correct. The total cost of running the solution, like, all-in, there's eight Elastic IPs, four NAT Gateways, if you're—say you're four zones; could be less if you're in fewer zones—like, n NAT Gateways, n NAT instances, depending on how many zones you're in, and I think that's about it. And I said right in the documentation, if any of those baseline fees are a material number for your use case, then this is probably not the right solution. Because we're talking about saving thousands of dollars. Any of these small numbers for NAT Gateway hourly costs, NAT instance hourly costs, that shouldn't be a factor, basically.Corey: Yeah, it's like when I used to worry about costing my customers a few tens of dollars in Cost Explorer or CloudWatch or request fees against S3 for their Cost and Usage Reports. It's yeah, that does actually have a cost, there's no real way around it, but look at the savings they're realizing by going through that. Yeah, they're not going to come back and complaining about their five-figure consulting engagement costing an additional $25 in AWS charges and then lowering it by a third. So, there's definitely a difference as far as how those things tend to be perceived. But it's easy to miss the big stuff when chasing after the little stuff like that.This is part of the problem I have with an awful lot of cost tooling out there. They completely ignore cost components like this and focus only on the things that are easy to query via API, of, oh, we're going to cost-optimize your Kubernetes cluster when they think about compute and RAM. And, okay, that's great, but you're completely ignoring all the data transfer because there's still no great way to get at that programmatically. And it really is missing the forest for the trees.Ben: I think this is key to any cost reduction project or program that you're undertaking. When you look at a bill, look for the biggest spend items first and work your way down from there, just because of the impact you can have. And that's exactly what I did in this project. I saw that ‘EC2 Other' slash NAT Gateway was the big item and I started brainstorming ways that we could go about addressing that. And now I have my next targets in mind now that we've reduced this cost to effectively… nothing, extremely low compared to what it was, we have other new line items on our bill that we can start optimizing. But in any cost project, start with the big things.Corey: You have come a long way around to answer a question I get asked a lot, which is, “How do I become a cloud economist?” And my answer is, you don't. It's something that happens to you. And it appears to be happening to you, too. My favorite part about the solution that you built, incidentally, is that it is being released under the auspices of your employer, Chime Financial, which is immune to being acquired by Amazon just to kill this thing and shut it up.Because Amazon already has something shitty called Chime. They don't need to wind up launching something else or acquiring something else and ruining it because they have a Slack competitor of sorts called Amazon Chime. There's no way they could acquire you [unintelligible 00:27:45] going to get lost in the hallways.Ben: Well, I have confidence that Chime will be a good steward of the project. Chime's goal and mission as a company is to help everyone achieve financial peace of mind and we take that really seriously. We even apply it to ourselves and that was kind of the impetus behind developing this in the first place. You mentioned earlier we have Terraform support already and you're exactly right. I'd love to have CDK, CloudFormation, Pulumi supports, and other kinds of contributions are more than welcome from the community.So, if anybody feels like participating, if they see a feature that's missing, let's make this project the best that it can be. I suspect we can save many companies, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. And this really feels like the right direction to go in.Corey: This is easily a multi-billion dollar savings opportunity, globally.Ben: That's huge. I would be flabbergasted if that was the outcome of this.Corey: The hardest part is reaching these people and getting them on board with the idea of handling this. And again, I think there's a lot of opportunity for the project to evolve in the sense of different settings depending upon risk tolerance. I can easily see a scenario where in the event of a disruption to the NAT instance, it fails over to the Managed NAT Gateway, but fail back becomes manual so you don't have a flapping route table back and forth or a [hold 00:29:05] downtime or something like that. Because again, in that scenario, the failure mode is just well, you're paying four-and-a-half cents per gigabyte for a while until you wind up figuring out what's going on as opposed to the failure mode of you wind up disrupting connections on an ongoing basis, and for some workloads, that's not tenable. This is absolutely, for the common case, the right path forward.Ben: Absolutely. I think it's an enterprise-grade solution and the more knobs and dials that we add to tweak to make it more robust or adaptable to different kinds of use cases, the best outcome here would actually be that the entire solution becomes irrelevant because AWS fixes the NAT Gateway pricing. If that happens, I will consider the project a great success.Corey: I will be doing backflips like you wouldn't believe. I would sing their praises day in, day out. I'm not saying reduce it to nothing, even. I'm not saying it adds no value. I would change the way that it's priced because honestly, the fact that I can run an EC2 instance and be charged $0 on a per-gigabyte basis, yeah, I would pay a premium on an hourly charge based upon traffic volumes, but don't meter per gigabyte. That's where it breaks down.Ben: Absolutely. And why is it additive to data transfer, also? Like, I remember first starting to use VPC when it was launched and reading about the NAT instance requirement and thinking, “Wait a minute. I have to pay this extra management and hourly fee just so my private hosts could reach the internet? That seems kind of janky.”And Amazon established a norm here because Azure and GCP both have their own equivalent of this now. This is a business choice. This is not a technical choice. They could just run this under the hood and not charge anybody for it or build in the cost and it wouldn't be this thing we have to think about.Corey: I almost hate to say it, but Oracle Cloud does, for free.Ben: Do they?Corey: It can be done. This is a business decision. It is not a technical capability issue where well, it does incur cost to run these things. I understand that and I'm not asking for things for free. I very rarely say that this is overpriced when I'm talking about AWS billing issues. I'm talking about it being unpredictable, I'm talking about it being impossible to see in advance, but the fact that it costs too much money is rarely my complaint. In this case, it costs too much money. Make it cost less.Ben: If I'm not mistaken. GCPs equivalent solution is the exact same price. It's also four-and-a-half cents per gigabyte. So, that shows you that there's business games being played here. Like, Amazon could get ahead and do right by the customer by dropping this to a much more reasonable price.Corey: I really want to thank you both for taking the time to speak with me and building this glorious, glorious thing. Where can we find it? And where can we find you?Ben: alternat.cloud is going to be the place to visit. It's on Chime's GitHub, which will be released by the time this podcast comes out. As for me, if you want to connect, I'm on Twitter. @iamthewhaley is my handle. And of course, I'm on LinkedIn.Corey: Links to all of that will be in the podcast notes. Ben, thank you so much for your time and your hard work.Ben: This was fun. Thanks, Corey.Corey: Ben Whaley, staff software engineer at Chime Financial, and AWS Community Hero. I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn and this is Screaming in the Cloud. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, whereas if you've hated this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice along with an angry rant of a comment that I will charge you not only four-and-a-half cents per word to read, but four-and-a-half cents to reply because I am experimenting myself with being a rent-seeking schmuck.Corey: If your AWS bill keeps rising and your blood pressure is doing the same, then you need The Duckbill Group. We help companies fix their AWS bill by making it smaller and less horrifying. The Duckbill Group works for you, not AWS. We tailor recommendations to your business and we get to the point. Visit duckbillgroup.com to get started.Announcer: This has been a HumblePod production. Stay humble.

Luke Ball, part of Collingwood's coaching panel, joins the show after the club appointed Craig McRae as its next senior coach. Corbin & Ben discuss Ross Lyon's withdrawal from the Carlton coaching race and preview the week 2 Finals.

Luke Ball, part of Collingwood's coaching panel, joins the show after the club appointed Craig McRae as its next senior coach. Corbin & Ben discuss Ross Lyon's withdrawal from the Carlton coaching race and preview the week 2 Finals.

Show notes:Links:Snohomish Centennial trailIndie Hackers AMAIntro CRMFull transcript:Starr:All right. Welcome back. Welcome back, everybody. So we took a little break. We're going to have her hot vax summer, but that-Josh:Hot vax summer.Starr:It turns out that was the mirage. It turns out that was a mirage.Josh:Well, it did reach 112 degrees in Portland. So it was hot.Starr:There you go. Yeah. The summer never existed. It was just an illusion caused by our overwhelming thirst for lots of things.Josh:Mirage.Ben:Well, there were a couple of weeks there that I thought, "Yeah. This is going to work out. And then Delta.Starr:Yeah. It was a couple of nice weeks, wouldn't it?Ben:Yeah. It was. It was.Starr:Except for the panic about, "Oh, crap. I need to learn how to deal with people again."Josh:Wouldn't it be wonderful when we can just look back on those two weeks and just remember those last good two weeks?Ben:Yeah. Went 112 in Portland. That's pretty bad. It got to 116 in my garage.Starr:Yeah.Ben:It's pretty warm.Josh:Yeah. That's like melt some things if you're not careful.Ben:I did not know this until well, at the beginning of the pandemic, that there was actually a special class of freezer called the garage freezer because at the beginning of the pandemic I wanted to have a freezer in my garage. I'm like, "Okay. I'm just going to go to Home Depot and buy a freezer." Oh, no, no, no, no. You can't just buy a freezer to put in your garage. You have to have a garage freezer to put it in your garage. So we have a garage freezer and even with 116 in the garage, the stuff stayed frozen. So I guess it actually works.Josh:Nice. Yeah. My freezer survived as well.Starr:I mean, not having a garage freezer in your garage is almost as bad as wearing white after labor day, or is it before labor day? I forget.Josh:I don't know. I never wear white.Starr:I just don't wear white.Josh:Yeah.Starr:Yeah.Starr:Stains too easily.Josh:I just always dress like I'm going to a funeral.Starr:All right. So today's going to be a little bit of a short episode. So we should probably get to the content.Ben:I thought we were already in the content.Starr:I know our reader.Josh:Yeah. It might be short. I don't know.Starr:Oh, we are?Josh:Our podcasts tend to have a mind of their own.Ben:That's true.Starr:Well, that's true. But we've got this Ask Me Anything schedule.Josh:Oh, yeah.Starr:20 minutes from now.Josh:Well, the great thing about asynchronous ask me anything is that they're asynchronous so you can post them even while you're on a podcast and answer the questions whenever you want.Starr:Yeah. Maybe you can, but my brain does not work that way.Josh:Oh, I've got it all queued up.Starr:I've got a one track mind.Josh:It's just a button press. We're locked and loaded.Starr:Oh, you're like Kramer. You've got the button.Josh:No. I'm ready to go.Starr:Sell sell sell!Josh:So yeah. At 10:30, we're recording this podcast. It's 10:08 right now. Pacific. And we're going to be doing an ask me anything AMA on the indie hackers forums.Starr:Yes. And it's a last minute affair as of 20 minutes ago. I didn't have an indie hackers invite code. We're running around scrambling.Josh:Yeah.Starr:Yeah. Ben wanted to try a new podcast recording software, and I'm just like, "No. I can't handle this amount of change in my life right now."Josh:We need to title this episode, live from the indie hackers backstage, by the way.Josh:[crosstalk]Starr:Oh, yeah. I don't know if you like a live album.Josh:Yeah.Starr:Okay.Josh:We're doing it live.Starr:Well, so Ben suggested, when you talk about one work thing and one vacation thing we did. And I guess, I'll start because I didn't actually have a vacation. I just got sick a lot, which I didn't get COVID, but there was some sort of bug that was going around and I got it and I was out for a couple of weeks. And so I guess that was my vacation. I don't know. I just played a lot of Diablo III.Josh:That's cool.Starr:Yeah.Ben:We got our worst vacations in Diablo III.Josh:Yeah. We got away for a few days. We went to this lake up north of Spokane in Washington and just five nights or something. But on the trip there, we're looking at our friends who were already up there, sent us the fire map of Washington. And we are traveling, literally our destination is in the middle of six fires.Starr:Oh no.Josh:We're like, "Should we be turning around?" I don't know. But it turned out all right. We breathe too much smoke the first couple of days, but it cleared up and-Starr:Yeah. After the first couple of days you hardly notice it.Josh:I only got a minor headache.Starr:Your nerves just die. The nerves in your lungs.Josh:Yeah.Ben:It's okay. We have good health insurance.Josh:I'm an ex smoker. So I'll just tack it on, it's just like adding a couple of days.Ben:It's like getting that upgrade package when you're buying a $30,000 car. And it's like, "What's another thousand dollars?Josh:Yeah. I've already got the risk.Ben:Yeah. I stayed closer to home. I read a bunch of books and I got out for a nice bike ride, went to the Snohomish Centennial trail. So it starts in Snohomish and it goes up through Arlington and it's rails to trail conversion. So there used to be railroad tracks there, but now it's a paved trail. And the thing that's neat though, they have a bunch of trail heads and a few of them have the recreations of the old train stations. So it's like, you can act like you're getting on board that train and actually getting on-Josh:Oh, that's nice. Really nice.Ben:Yeah.Josh:That's cool.Ben:That's a lot of fun. Let's see, a work thing that I did. It's a blur.Josh:Yeah.Ben:I probably migrated something somewhere at some point. And back-filled something-Josh:You were busy.Ben:Yeah.Josh:Yeah. You did a lot.Ben:Yeah. I can't remember what I did.Starr:Yeah. I mean, there's a lot of things, right? We're working with that sales consultancy, what is it? Intro CRM people?Ben:Yeah. Did do that.Starr:Have you done some outreach? You got some replies even?Ben:Yeah. Yeah. It's been kind of a mixed bag. So I've gotten some replies, but also the outbound stuff has not really been all that productive. So I'm questioning my life choices at this point.Starr:Have you had any overt hostility though?Ben:No overt hostility.Starr:Oh, you're not pushing hard enough then. You want your OH metric to be at least 10%. At least 10%, you want death threats.Ben:I will take that under advisement.Starr:Okay. That's how you know you're really-Josh:Really selling it.Starr:Yeah. I would say coffee's for closers, but you don't drink coffee. So there you go. Oh, cool. On my end, I don't know. We published our first batch of Honeybadger intelligence reports and I don't know. Loyal listeners might remember from last time, I mean, if you don't remember how loyal are you and how much should I even trust you, but yeah. You might remember that we were working on these things. Basically, they are quarterly reports for a certain programming language where if you kind of need to keep an eye on, I don't know. Front-end JavaScript, but you don't want to just inhale the feed of news that's constantly coming out, you can just look at this beautiful quarterly report. And we are publishing them quarterly now on our blog. And the first batch went out three weeks late, maybe a month late, I don't know. I didn't give myself enough time to get them ready for publication. And then I got sick for two weeks and just could barely crawl to the computer. So I'm sorry. I'll do better next time.Josh:If that's you're going to say, if you don't want to inhale the whatever weekly newsfeed, you can inhale it once a month or once a quarter. Just all.Starr:Well, no. We're not just collating everything together.Starr:[crosstalk].Starr:We're concatenating together.Josh:It's like a curation of curation.Starr:Yeah. We're not just a pending three months worth of Hacker News together. We're going in and applying some real intelligence to it. We have real domain experts.Josh:Editorial.Starr:Curating.Josh:Occasionally?Starr:Yes. Providing you the choicest morsels.Josh:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Ben:Hand crafted morsels of information.Starr:Yeah. Maybe I should be doing these outreach emails.Ben:Yeah. I think so.Ben:I've got the wrong person writing this stuff.Starr:Yeah. They'd be like, "Are these people even professionals?"Josh:Well, that should be obvious from our website.Starr:Yes.Josh:I'll let you decide which way that goes.Ben:Wow. I've been sitting here while you're talking, thinking, what did I do? I'm like, "This is not good. If I can't remember doing anything useful for the past three months, that's probably a sign that I'm doing the wrong things."Starr:I mean, it could just be, you did a lot, Ben. I can remember things you've done. Can we got set up in a new compliance automated thing?Ben:Oh, yeah. Then the compliance-Starr:Yeah. An automated compliance thing. So you don't have to juggle all that stuff manually.Ben:Yeah. We got our SOC 2 type two report done. So we're legit now. We're officially doing the things that we said we would do.Starr:We're enterprise.Ben:Yeah. Full on enterprise.Josh:That's amazing.Ben:Yeah. And it wasn't a particularly painful process. I mean, it wasn't pleasant, but yeah. We survived.Starr:My favorite part of that was that, so as part of this automated security, your automated SOC 2 compliance stuff, all of the employees I guess, have to do mandatory security training once a year now. And it's this automated quiz where you have to read something and then it asks you questions. So it was a really weird big business moment, where I just felt, okay. I'm watching this training video. It should have 50s music in the background of it. And I hate to admit that I got stuck on the first question for 10 minutes. For 10 minutes. Because it was an easy question, but it was one of those things where it's like, "What's the correct answer? Choose one or more." And the correct answer was all of them. But for some reason, I had selected them all with my keyboard and that wasn't good enough. I had to click on them to show I really meant it because hackers generally use keyboards. So they're not really trustworthy devices.Starr:Yeah.Josh:Starr it was like a JavaScript bug.Starr:So eventually, I literally tried every combination. Eventually, I was just like, "Okay. I'm just going to try the first one again," and it worked. So there you are. There you are.Ben:I can't believe you're giving away the answers to our security questions on the podcast. That's a breach of security.Starr:Yeah. I mean, I think our security questions have some security vulnerabilities if, you can manually brute force them. You have four binary options. That's what? Four factorial combinations? You can knock that out in an hour.Ben:Starr is hacking the mainframe.Starr:I am hacking the planet.Josh:That's how Starr passed the security test.Starr:Yeah. That's also how I got such a great score on the SAT, by the way. You just take it, I don't know. 128 factorial times and then you just brute force it.Josh:Nice. How long did that take you?Starr:I don't know. I still haven't graduated from high school.Josh:I sort of graduated from high school.Starr:Well, you can tell you've been away for a while. Because I just have all this bullshit that I've saved up for you all, and it's just all coming out now.Ben:So I was surprised to learn. I don't know why this surprised me, but it surprised me nonetheless, when we had our all hands meeting recently that we have three Honeybadger employees that have children starting kindergarten this year.Starr:Oh, my God. Yes.Ben:That's pretty wild.Starr:It's pretty terrifying. It's pretty terrifying. I'm glad that I live in Seattle. You guys don't. Josh and Kevin don't, but I mean, you all live in fairly reasonable places where governors aren't banning masks in school.Josh:Yeah.Ben:As they themselves are going to get advanced treatments for their COVID infections. Yeah.Starr:Oh, yeah. Yeah. It's okay. We love you Texas. We just don't love your governor.Ben:Speaking of Texas. So this random tidbit I saw the other day, Austin, Texas of course, you know the housing market has been crazy. As far as prices go over the past several months, people have been overbidding regularly on how to just be able to-Josh:Oh, I read that.Josh:A hundred grand?Ben:Yeah. So Austin, Texas.Josh:That's what I'm asking.Ben:A hundred grand over asking price. So you have a $400,000 list price, but you actually got to pay $500,000 to get the house. That's crazy.Starr:That is wild.Josh:Yeah.Starr:Yeah. I had to drop off my car at the mechanic to get its normal service and I was walking by, and this was this morning and there's this kind of older condo building. It's not great looking or anything. And it's two bedroom condo, 900 square feet is now selling for the same price that I bought my single-family house with big yard and everything three blocks away. And that was five or six years ago? Six years ago?Ben:Crazy stuff.Starr:It's bizarre. Totally. I don't know. It's the sort of thing like it feels kind of gross even. Just because I was able to scrape together a down payment for a house, suddenly I get, I don't know. A hundred grand a year extra just in appreciation.Josh:You just hit a jackpot.Starr:Yeah. But it's just like, okay. I literally did nothing to deserve that. And meanwhile, people who could use that or I mean, I could use it, but I'm not in dire straits. I don't know. It's just like, "Wow, this whole system is just kind of backwards and weird."Ben:Yeah. It's to the point I'm getting unsolicited offers to buy my house, right?Starr:Oh, me too.Ben:I'm getting these letters in the mail like, "Hi, I'm Bob and my wife is Alice and we'd like to buy your house." And I'm like looking at the letters, "Is this is really an automated thing or do they really write this by the hand?"Starr:I've had people call me on the phone, in person.Ben:They called you?Starr:Yeah. They called me. Three houses on my block have been demolished in the past two months, three older houses, one of them was just really messed up. But two of them were these small houses on big lots. And essentially what happened is a developer bought almost every house on the opposite side of the street from me and is now basically filling up the lots with as many units as they can. So I think they're going to end up with like 18 units out of these five or six houses, which is fine. I guess. I don't mind density and everything, but it's just so wild because it's like, "Oh, it finally caught up with us." Because for a long time we were just over the edge where things were nice, we were just one block over from the nice stuff. And it finally caught up with us. So we're going to have to move now because we're not fancy enough for the neighborhood anymore.Josh:Yeah. Just cash out.Ben:Yeah. Move to Kansas.Starr:Yeah. I mean, that's the problem though. It's like, "Okay. Great." I get all this appreciation, but if I ever want to get a new house, it's like, "Okay. I've got to pay those new prices."Ben:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Josh:Yeah. We've looked at that too, or you could sell and rent for a few years and see if anything happens. That would probably be a gamble.Starr:That would be a really bad gamble I think. I mean, I don't know.Josh:Yeah.Starr:Yeah.Josh:Considering no markets decline anymore.Starr:I mean, they, they could decline, but you're trying to time it.Josh:Time the housing the market?Starr:Yeah.Starr:Maybe it'll decline, but yeah.Ben:This got me thinking, real estate agents, they want you to trade up, right? You buy your starter house and then you buy your bigger house and then eventually you downsize again because hey, why not have another transaction that a real estate agent can take a commission on, right? And it just got me thinking, why don't we have that for businesses? Why can't you trade up your business, right?Josh:Like trade it?Ben:Yeah. It's like, "Honeybadger, that's a nice little business. Why don't you trade it on up to a bigger business?Starr:So we sell Honeybadger and then by a larger business.Ben:Right. Right. Like that. Rolled into a down payment for a bigger business, yeah.Josh:Yeah.Starr:I'm not sure if you're very good at that.Josh:I love it.Starr:I don't know.Ben:Maybe this is a new marketing thing we can try. We can figure out new business models.Josh:Because we're getting trade-in program like the private equity firms.Ben:You're slapping the top of your business. You can fit so many customers in here.Josh:Might be our best bit yet.Ben:Well, I guess, we better get ready for our ask me anything session. Got a crack the knuckles and get ready to type.Starr:Crack the old knuckles.Josh:Almost time.Starr:All right. Okay. I will sign us off. All right. So this has been FounderQuest back from hot vax summer, back from vacation or being sick or whatever we call it these days. If you want to give us a review on Apple podcasts, whatever they call it, go for it. If you want to look up this AMA we're about to do on Indie Hackers, we recommend that and yeah. Otherwise, just stay cool, stay safe, and we will see you next week.Ben:Catch you later.Josh:See you.Starr:Bye.

About Ben KehoeBen Kehoe is a Cloud Robotics Research Scientist at iRobot and an AWS Serverless Hero. As a serverless practitioner, Ben focuses on enabling rapid, secure-by-design development of business value by using managed services and ephemeral compute (like FaaS). Ben also seeks to amplify voices from dev, ops, and security to help the community shape the evolution of serverless and event-driven designs.Twitter: @ben11kehoeMedium: ben11kehoeGitHub: benkehoeLinkedIn: ben11kehoeiRobot: www.irobot.comWatch this episode on YouTube: https://youtu.be/B0QChfAGvB0 This episode is sponsored by CBT Nuggets and Lumigo.TranscriptJeremy: Hi, everyone. I'm Jeremy Daly.Rebecca: And I'm Rebecca Marshburn.Jeremy: And this is Serverless Chats. And this is a momentous occasion on Serverless Chats because we are welcoming in Rebecca Marshburn as an official co-host of Serverless Chats.Rebecca: I'm pretty excited to be here. Thanks so much, Jeremy.Jeremy: So for those of you that have been listening for hopefully a long time, and we've done over 100 episodes. And I don't know, Rebecca, do I look tired? I feel tired.Rebecca: I've never seen you look tired.Jeremy: Okay. Well, I feel tired because we've done a lot of these episodes and we've published a new episode every single week for the last 107 weeks, I think at this point. And so what we're going to do is with you coming on as a new co-host, we're going to take a break over the summer. We're going to revamp. We're going to do some work. We're going to put together some great content. And then we're going to come back on, I think it's August 30th with a new episode and a whole new show. Again, it's going to be about serverless, but what we're thinking is ... And, Rebecca, I would love to hear your thoughts on this as I come at things from a very technical angle, because I'm an overly technical person, but there's so much more to serverless. There's so many other sides to it that I think that bringing in more perspectives and really being able to interview these guests and have a different perspective I think is going to be really helpful. I don't know what your thoughts are on that.Rebecca: Yeah. I love the tech side of things. I am not as deep in the technicalities of tech and I come at it I think from a way of loving the stories behind how people got there and perhaps who they worked with to get there, the ideas of collaboration and community because nothing happens in a vacuum and there's so much stuff happening and sharing knowledge and education and uplifting each other. And so I'm super excited to be here and super excited that one of the first episodes I get to work on with you is with Ben Kehoe because he's all about both the technicalities of tech, and also it's actually on his Twitter, a new compassionate tech values around humility, and inclusion, and cooperation, and learning, and being a mentor. So couldn't have a better guest to join you in the Serverless Chats community and being here for this.Jeremy: I totally agree. And I am looking forward to this. I'm excited. I do want the listeners to know we are testing in production, right? So we haven't run any unit tests, no integration tests. I mean, this is straight test in production.Rebecca: That's the best practice, right? Total best practice to test in production.Jeremy: Best practice. Right. Exactly.Rebecca: Straight to production, always test in production.Jeremy: Push code to the cloud. Here we go.Rebecca: Right away.Jeremy: Right. So if it's a little bit choppy, we'd love your feedback though. The listeners can be our observability tool and give us some feedback and we can ... And hopefully continue to make the show better. So speaking of Ben Kehoe, for those of you who don't know Ben Kehoe, I'm going to let him introduce himself, but I have always been a big fan of his. He was very, very early in the serverless space. I read all his blogs very early on. He was an early AWS Serverless Hero. So joining us today is Ben Kehoe. He is a cloud robotics research scientist at iRobot, as I said, an AWS Serverless Hero. Ben, welcome to the show.Ben: Thanks for having me. And I'm excited to be a guinea pig for this new exciting format.Rebecca: So many observability tools watching you be a guinea pig too. There's lots of layers to this.Jeremy: Amazing. All right. So Ben, why don't you tell the listeners for those that don't know you a little bit about yourself and what you do with serverless?Ben: Yeah. So I mean, as with all software, software is people, right? It's like Soylent Green. And so I'm really excited for this format being about the greater things that technology really involves in how we create it and set it up. And serverless is about removing the things that don't matter so that you can focus on the things that do matter.Jeremy: Right.Ben: So I've been interested in that since I learned about it. And at the time saw that I could build things without running servers, without needing to deal with the scaling of stuff. I've been working on that at iRobot for over five years now. As you said early on in serverless at the first serverless con organized by A Cloud Guru, now plural sites.Jeremy: Right.Ben: And yeah. And it's been really exciting to see it grow into the large-scale community that it is today and all of the ways in which community are built like this podcast.Jeremy: Right. Yeah. I love everything that you've done. I love the analogies you've used. I mean, you've always gone down this road of how do you explain serverless in a way to show really the adoption of it and how people can take that on. Serverless is a ladder. Some of these other things that you would ... I guess the analogies you use were always great and always helped me. And of course, I don't think we've ever really come to a good definition of serverless, but we're not talking about that today. But ...Ben: There isn't one.Jeremy: There isn't one, which is also a really good point. So yeah. So welcome to the show. And again, like I said, testing in production here. So, Rebecca, jump in when you have questions and we'll beat up Ben from both sides on this, but, really ...Rebecca: We're going to have Ben from both sides.Jeremy: There you go. We'll embrace him from both sides. There you go.Rebecca: Yeah. Yeah.Jeremy: So one of the things though that, Ben, you have also been very outspoken on which I absolutely love, because I'm in very much closely aligned on this topic here. But is about infrastructure as code. And so let's start just quickly. I mean, I think a lot of people know or I think people working in the cloud know what infrastructure as code is, but I also think there's a lot of people who don't. So let's just take a quick second, explain what infrastructure as code is and what we mean by that.Ben: Sure. To my mind, infrastructure as code is about having a definition of the state of your infrastructure that you want to see in the cloud. So rather than using operations directly to modify that state, you have a unified definition of some kind. I actually think infrastructure is now the wrong word with serverless. It used to be with servers, you could manage your fleet of servers separate from the software that you were deploying onto the servers. And so infrastructure being the structure below made sense. But now as your code is intimately entwined in the rest of your resources, I tend to think of resource graph definitions rather than infrastructure as code. It's a less convenient term, but I think it's worth understanding the distinction or the difference in perspective.Jeremy: Yeah. No, and I totally get that. I mean, I remember even early days of cloud when we were using the Chefs and the Puppets and things like that, that we were just deploying the actual infrastructure itself. And sometimes you deploy software as part of that, but it was supporting software. It was the stuff that ran in the runtime and some of those and some configurations, but yeah, but the application code that was a whole separate process, and now with serverless, it seems like you're deploying all those things at the same time.Ben: Yeah. There's no way to pick it apart.Jeremy: Right. Right.Rebecca: Ben, there's something that I've always really admired about you and that is how strongly you hold your opinions. You're fervent about them, but it's also because they're based on this thorough nature of investigation and debate and challenging different people and yourself to think about things in different ways. And I know that the rest of this episode is going to be full with a lot of opinions. And so before we even get there, I'm curious if you can share a little bit about how you end up arriving at these, right? And holding them so steady.Ben: It's a good question. Well, I hope that I'm not inflexible in these strong opinions that I hold. I mean, it's one of those strong opinions loosely held kind of things that new information can change how you think about things. But I do try and do as much thinking as possible so that there's less new information that I have to encounter to change an opinion.Rebecca: Yeah. Yeah.Ben: Yeah. I think I tend to try and think about how people ... But again, because it's always people. How people interact with the technology, how people behave, how organizations behave, and then how technology fits into that. Because sometimes we talk about technology in a vacuum and it's really not. Technology that works for one context doesn't work for another. I mean, a lot of my strong opinions are that there is no one right answer kind of a thing, or here's a framework for understanding how to think about this stuff. And then how that fits into a given person is just finding where they are in that more general space. Does that make sense? So it's less about finding out here's the one way to do things and more about finding what are the different options, how do you think about the different options that are out there.Rebecca: Yeah, totally makes sense. And I do want to compliment you. I do feel like you are very good at inviting new information in if people have it and then you're like, "Aha, I've already thought of that."Ben: I hope so. Yeah. I was going to say, there's always a balance between trying to think ahead so that when you discover something you're like, "Oh, that fits into what I thought." And the danger of that being that you're twisting the information to fit into your preexisting structures. I hope that I find a good balance there, but I don't have a principle way of determining that balance or knowing where you are in that it's good versus it's dangerous kind of spectrum.Jeremy: Right. So one of the opinions that you hold that I tend to agree with, I have some thoughts about some of the benefits, but I also really agree with the other piece of it. And this really has to do with the CDK and this idea of using CloudFormation or any sort of DSL, maybe Terraform, things like that, something that is more domain-specific, right? Or I guess declarative, right? As opposed to something that is imperative like the CDK. So just to get everybody on the same page here, what is the top reasons why you believe, or you think that DSL approach is better than that iterative approach or interpretive approach, I guess?Ben: Yeah. So I think we get caught up in the imperative versus declarative part of it. I do think that declarative has benefits that can be there, but the way that I think about it is with the CDK and infrastructure as code in general, I'm like mildly against imperative definitions of resources. And we can get into that part, but that's not my smallest objection to the CDK. I'm moderately against not being able to enforce deterministic builds. And the CDK program can do anything. Can use a random number generator and go out to the internet to go ask a question, right? It can do anything in that program and that means that you have no guarantees that what's coming out of it you're going to be able to repeat.So even if you check the source code in, you may not be able to go back to the same infrastructure that you had before. And you can if you're disciplined about it, but I like tools that help give you guardrails so that you don't have to be as disciplined. So that's my moderately against. My strongly against piece is I'm strongly against developer intent remaining client side. And this is not an inherent flaw in the CDK, is a choice that the CDK team has made to turn organizational dysfunction in AWS into ownership for their customers. And I don't think that's a good approach to take, but that's also fixable.So I think if we want to start with the imperative versus declarative thing, right? When I think about the developers expressing an intent, and I want that intent to flow entirely into the cloud so that developers can understand what's deployed in the cloud in terms of the things that they've written. The CDK takes this approach of flattening it down, flattening the richness of the program the developer has written into ... They think of it as assembly language. I think that is a misinterpretation of what's happening. The assembly language in the process is the imperative plan generated inside the CloudFormation engine that says, "Here's how I'm going to take this definition and turn it into an actual change in the cloud.Jeremy: Right.Ben: They're just translating between two definition formats in CDK scene. But it's a flattening process, it's a lossy process. So then when the developer goes to the Console or the API has to go say, "What's deployed here? What's going wrong? What do I need to fix?" None of it is framed in terms of the things that they wrote in their original language.Jeremy: Right.Ben: And I think that's the biggest problem, right? So drift detection is an important thing, right? What happened when someone went in through the Console? Went and tweaked some stuff to fix something, and now it's different from the definition that's in your source repository. And in CloudFormation, it can tell you that. But what I would want if I was running CDK is that it should produce another CDK program that represents the current state of the cloud with a meaningful file-level diff with my original program.Jeremy: Right. I'm just thinking this through, if I deploy something to CDK and I've got all these loops and they're generating functions and they're using some naming and all this kind of stuff, whatever, now it produces this output. And again, my naming of my functions might be some function that gets called to generate the names of the function. And so now I've got all of these functions named and I have to go in. There's no one-to-one map like you said, and I can imagine somebody who's not familiar with CloudFormation which is ultimately what CDK synthesizes and produces, if you're not familiar with what that output is and how that maps back to the constructs that you created, I can see that as being really difficult, especially for younger developers or developers who are just getting started in that.Ben: And the CDK really takes the attitude that it's going to hide those things from those developers rather than help them learn it. And so when they do have to dive into that, the CDK refers to it as an escape hatch.Jeremy: Yeah.Ben: And I think of escape hatches on submarines, where you go from being warm and dry and having air to breathe to being hundreds of feet below the sea, right? It's not the sort of thing you want to go through. Whereas some tools like Amplify talk about graduation. In Amplify they aim to help you understand the things that Amplify is doing for you, such that when you grow beyond what Amplify can provide you, you have the tools to do that, to take the thing that you built and then say, "Okay, I know enough now that I understand this and can add onto it in ways that Amplify can't help with."Jeremy: Right.Ben: Now, how successful they are in doing that is a separate question I think, but the attitude is there to say, "We're looking to help developers understand these things." Now the CDK could also if the CDK was a managed service, right? Would not need developers to understand those things. If you could take your program directly to the cloud and say, "Here's my program, go make this real." And when it made it real, you could interact with the cloud in an understanding where you could list your deployed constructs, right? That you can understand the program that you wrote when you're looking at the resources that are deployed all together in the cloud everywhere. That would be a thing where you don't need to learn CloudFormation.Jeremy: Right.Ben: Right? That's where you then end up in the imperative versus declarative part where, okay, there's some reasons that I think declarative is better. But the major thing is that disconnect that's currently built into the way that CDK works. And the reason that they're doing that is because CloudFormation is not moving fast enough, which is not always on the CloudFormation team. It's often on the service teams that aren't building the resources fast enough. And that's AWS's problem, AWS as an entire company, as an organization. And this one team is saying, "Well, we can fix that by doing all this client side."What that means is that the customers are then responsible for all the things that are happening on the client side. The reason that they can go fast is because the CDK team doesn't have ownership of it, which just means the ownership is being pushed on customers, right? The CDK deploys Lambda functions into your account that they don't tell you about that you're now responsible for. Right? Both the security and operations of. If there are security updates that the CDK team has to push out, you have to take action to update those things, right? That's ownership that's being pushed onto the customer to fix a lack of ACM certificate management, right?Jeremy: Right. Right.Ben: That is ACM not building the thing that's needed. And so AWS says, "Okay, great. We'll just make that the customer's problem."Jeremy: Right.Ben: And I don't agree with that approach.Rebecca: So I'm sure as an AWS Hero you certainly have pretty good, strong, open communication channels with a lot of different team members across teams. And I certainly know that they're listening to you and are at least hearing you, I should say, and watching you and they know how you feel about this. And so I'm curious how some of those conversations have gone. And some teams as compared to others at AWS are really, really good about opening their roadmap or at least saying, "Hey, we hear this, and here's our path to a solution or a success." And I'm curious if there's any light you can shed on whether or not those conversations have been fruitful in terms of actually being able to get somewhere in terms of customer and AWS terms, right? Customer obsession first.Ben: Yeah. Well, customer obsession can mean two things, right? Customer obsession can mean giving the customer what they want or it can mean giving the customer what they need and different AWS teams' approach fall differently on that scale. The reason that many of those things are not available in CloudFormation is that those teams are ... It could be under-resourced. They could have a larger majority of customer that want new features rather than infrastructure as code support. Because as much as we all like infrastructure as code, there are many, many organizations out there that are not there yet. And with the CDK in particular, I'm a relatively lone voice out there saying, "I don't think this ownership that's being pushed onto the customer is a good thing." And there are lots of developers who are eating up CDK saying, "I don't care."That's not something that's in their worry. And because the CDK has been enormously successful, right? It's fixing these problems that exists. And I don't begrudge them trying to fix those problems. I think it's a question of do those developers who are grabbing onto those things and taking them understand the full total cost of ownership that the CDK is bringing with it. And if they don't understand it, I think AWS has a responsibility to understand it and work with it to help those customers either understand it and deal with it, right? Which is where the CDK takes this approach, "Well, if you do get Ops, it's all fine." And that's somewhat true, but also many developers who can use the CDK do not control their CI/CD process. So there's all sorts of ways in which ... Yeah, so I think every team is trying to do the best that they can, right?They're all working hard and they all have ... Are pulled in many different directions by customers. And most of them are making, I think, the right choices given their incentives, right? Given what their customers are asking for. I think not all of them balance where customers ... meeting customers where they are versus leading them where they should, like where they need to go as well as I would like. But I think ... I had a conclusion to that. Oh, but I think that's always a debate as to where that balance is. And then the other thing when I talk about the CDK, that my ideal audience there is less AWS itself and more AWS customers ...Rebecca: Sure.Ben: ... to understand what they're getting into and therefore to demand better of AWS. Which is in general, I think, the approach that I take with AWS, is complaining about AWS in public, because I do have the ability to go to teams and say, "Hey, I want this thing," right? There are plenty of teams where I could just email them and say, "Hey, this feature could be nice", but I put it on Twitter because other people can see that and say, "Oh, that's something that I want or I don't think that's helpful," right? "I don't care about that," or, "I think it's the wrong thing to ask for," right? All of those things are better when it's not just me saying I think this is a good thing for AWS, but it being a conversation among the community differently.Rebecca: Yeah. I think in the spirit too of trying to publicize types of what might be best next for customers, you said total cost of ownership. Even though it might seem silly to ask this, I think oftentimes we say the words total cost of ownership, but there's actually many dimensions to total cost of ownership or TCO, right? And so I think it would be great if you could enumerate what you think of as total cost of ownership, because there might be dimensions along that matrices, matrix, that people haven't considered when they're actually thinking about total cost of ownership. They're like, "Yeah, yeah, I got it. Some Ops and some security stuff I have to do and some patches," but they might only be thinking of five dimensions when you're like, "Actually the framework is probably 10 to 12 to 14." And so if you could outline that a bit, what you mean when you think of a holistic total cost of ownership, I think that could be super helpful.Ben: I'm bad at enumeration. So I would miss out on dimensions that are obvious if I was attempting to do that. But I think a way that I can, I think effectively answer that question is to talk about some of the ways in which we misunderstand TCO. So I think it's important when working in an organization to think about the organization as a whole, not just your perspective and that your team's perspective in it. And so when you're working for the lowest TCO it's not what's the lowest cost of ownership for my team if that's pushing a larger burden onto another team. Now if it's reducing the burden on your team and only increasing the burden on another team a little bit, that can be a lower total cost of ownership overall. But it's also something that then feeds into things like political capital, right?Is that increased ownership that you're handing to that team something that they're going to be happy with, something that's not going to cause other problems down the line, right? Those are the sorts of things that fit into that calculus because it's not just about what ... Moving away from that topic for a second. I think about when we talk about how does this increase our velocity, right? There's the piece of, "Okay, well, if I can deploy to production faster, right? My feedback loop is faster and I can move faster." Right? But the other part of that equation is how many different threads can you be operating on and how long are those threads in time? So when you're trying to ship a feature, if you can ship it and then never look at it again, that means you have increased bandwidth in the future to take on other features to develop other new features.And so even if you think about, "It's going to take me longer to finish this particular feature," but then there's no maintenance for that feature, that can be a lower cost of ownership in time than, "I can ship it 50% faster, but then I'm going to periodically have to revisit it and that's going to disrupt my ability to ship other things," right? So this is where I had conversations recently about increasing use of Step Functions, right? And being able to replace Lambda functions with Step Functions express workflows because you never have to go back to those Lambdas and update dependencies in them because dependent bot has told you that you need to or a version of Python is getting deprecated, right? All of those things, just if you have your Amazon States Language however it's been defined, right?Once it's in there, you never have to touch it again if nothing else changes and that means, okay, great, that piece is now out of your work stream forever unless it needs to change. And that means that you have more bandwidth for future things, which serverless is about in general, right? Of say, "Okay, I don't have to deal with this scaling problems here. So those scaling things. Once I have an auto-scaling group, I don't have to go back and tweak it later." And so the same thing happens at the feature level if you build it in ways that allow you to do that. And so I think that's one of the places where when we focus on, okay, how fast is this getting me into production, it's okay, but how often do you have to revisit it ...Jeremy: Right. And so ... So you mentioned a couple of things in there, and not only in that question, but in the previous questions as you were talking about the CDK in general, and I am 100% behind you on this idea of deterministic builds because I want to know exactly what's being deployed. I want to be able to audit that and map that back. And you can audit, I mean, you could run CDK synth and then audit the CloudFormation and test against certain things. But if you are changing stuff, right? Then you have to understand not only the CDK but also the CloudFormation that it actually generates. But in terms of solving problems, some of the things that the CDK does really, really well, and this is something where I've always had this issue with just trying to use raw CloudFormation or Serverless Framework or SAM or any of these things is the fact that there's a lot of boilerplate that you often have to do.There's ways that companies want to do something specifically. I basically probably always need 1,400 lines of CloudFormation. And for every project I do, it's probably close to the same, and then add a little bit more to actually make it adaptive for my product. And so one thing that I love about the CDK is constructs. And I love this idea of being able to package these best practices for your company or these compliance requirements, excuse me, compliance requirements for your company, whatever it is, be able to package these and just hand them to developers. And so I'm just curious on your thoughts on that because that seems like a really good move in the right direction, but without the deterministic builds, without some of these other problems that you talked about, is there another solution to that that would be more declarative?Ben: Yeah. In theory, if the CDK was able to produce an artifact that represented all of the non-deterministic dependencies that it had, right? That allowed you to then store that artifacts as you'd come back and put that into the program and say, "I'm going to get out the same thing," but because the CDK doesn't control upstream of it, the code that the developers are writing, there isn't a way to do that. Right? So on the abstraction front, the constructs are super useful, right? CloudFormation now has modules which allow you to say, "Here's a template and I'm going to represent this as a CloudFormation type itself," right? So instead of saying that I need X different things, I'm going to say, "I packaged that all up here. It is as a type."Now, currently, modules can only be playing CloudFormation templates and there's a lot of constraints in what you can express inside a CloudFormation template. And I think the answer for me is ... What I want to see is more richness in the CloudFormation language, right? One of the things that people do in the CDK that's really helpful is say, "I need a copy of this in every AZ."Jeremy: Right.Ben: Right? There's so much boilerplate in server-based things. And CloudFormation can't do that, right? But if you imagine that it had a map function that allowed you to say, "For every AZ, stamp me out a copy of this little bit." And then that the CDK constructs allowed to translate. Instead of it doing all this generation only down to the L one piece, instead being able to say, "I'm going to translate this into more rich CloudFormation templates so that the CloudFormation template was as advanced as possible."Right? Then it could do things like say, "Oh, I know we need to do this in every AZ, I'm going to use this map function in the CloudFormation template rather than just stamping it out." Right? And so I think that's possible. Now, modules should also be able to be defined as CDK programs. Right? You should be able to register a construct as a CloudFormation tag.Jeremy: It would be pretty cool.Ben: There's no reason you shouldn't be able to. Yeah. Because I think the declarative versus imperative thing is, again, not the most important piece, it's how do we move ... It's shifting right in this case, right? That how do you shift what's happening with the developer further into the process of deployment so that more of their context is present? And so one of the things that the CDK does that's hard to replicate is have non-local effects. And this is both convenient and I think of code smell often.So you can pass a bucket resource from another stack into a piece of code in your CDK program that's creating a different stack and you say, "Oh great, I've got this Lambda function, it needs permissions to that bucket. So add permissions." And it's possible for the CDK programs to either be adding the permissions onto the IAM role of that function, or non-locally adding to that bucket's resource policy, which is weird, right? That you can be creating a stack and the thing that you do to that stack or resource or whatever is not happening there, it's happening elsewhere. I don't think that's a great approach, but it's certainly convenient to be able to do it in a lot of situations.Now, that's not representable within a module. A module is a contained piece of functionality that can't touch anything else. So things like SAM where you can add events onto a function that can go and create ... You create the API events on different functions and then SAM aggregates them and creates an API gateway for you. Right? If AWS serverless function was a module, it couldn't do that because you'd have these in different places and you couldn't aggregate something between all of them and put them in the top-level thing, right?This is what CloudFormation macros enable, but they don't have a... There's no proper interface to them, right? They don't define, "This is what I'm doing. This is the kind of resources I can create." There's none of that that would help you understand them. So they're infinitely flexible, but then also maybe less principled for that reason. So I think there are ways to evolve, but it's investment in the CloudFormation language that allows us to shift that burden from being a flattening inside client-side code from the developer and shifting it to be able to be represented in the cloud.Jeremy: Right. Yeah. And I think from that standpoint too if we go back to the solving people's problems standpoint, that everything you explained there, they're loaded with nuances, it's loaded with gotchas, right? Like, "Oh, you can't do this, you can't do that." So that's just why I think the CDK is so popular because it's like you can do so much with it so quickly and it's very, very fast. And I think that trade-off, people are just willing to make it.Ben: Yes. And that's where they're willing to make it, do they fully understand the consequences of it? Then does AWS communicate those consequences well? Before I get into that question of, okay, you're a developer that's brand new to AWS and you've been tasked with standing up some Kubernetes cluster and you're like, "Great. I can use a CDK to do this." Something is malfunctioning. You're also tasked with the operations and something is malfunctioning. You go in through the Console and maybe figure out all the things that are out there are new to you because they're hidden inside L3 constructs, right?You're two levels down from where you were defining what you want, and then you find out what's wrong and you have no idea how to turn that into a change in your CDK program. So instead of going back and doing the thing that infrastructure as code is for, which is tweaking your program to go fix the problem, you go and you tweak it in the Console ...Jeremy: Right. Which you should never do.Ben: ... and you fix it that way. Right. Well, and that's the thing that I struggle with, with the CDK is how does the CDK help the developer who's in that situation? And I don't think they have a good story around that. Now, I don't know. I haven't talked with enough junior developers who are using the CDK about how often they get into that situation. Right? But I always say client-side code is not a replacement for a managed service because when it's client-side code, you still own the result.Jeremy: Right.Ben: If a particular CDK construct was a managed service in AWS, then all of the resources that would be created underneath AWS's problem to make work. And the interface that the developer has is the only level of ownership that they have. Fargate is this. Because you could do all the things that Fargate does with a CDK construct, right? Set up EC2, do all the things, and represent it as something that looks like Fargate in your CDK program. But every time your EC2 fleet is unhealthy that's your problem. With Fargate, that's AWS's problem. If we didn't have Fargate, that's essentially what CDK would be trying to do for ECS.And I think we all recognize that Fargate is very necessary and helpful in that case, right? And I just want that for all the things, right? Whenever I have an abstraction, if it's an abstraction that I understand, then I should have a way of zooming into it while not having to switch languages, right? So that's where you shouldn't dump me out the CloudFormation to understand what you're doing. You should help me understand the low-level things in the same language. And if it's not something that I need to understand, it should be a managed service. It shouldn't be a bunch of stuff that I still own that I haven't looked at.Jeremy: Makes sense. Got a question, Rebecca? Because I was waiting for you to jump in.Rebecca: No, but I was going to make a joke, but then the joke passed, and then I was like, "But should I still make it?" I was going to be like, "Yeah, but does the CDK let you test in production?" But that was a 32nd ago joke and then I was really wrestling with whether or not I should tell it, but I told it anyway, hopefully, someone gets a laugh.Ben: Yeah. I mean, there's the thing that Charity Majors says, right? Which is that everybody tests in production. Some people are lucky enough to have a development environment in production. No, sorry. I said that the wrong way. It's everybody has a test environment. Some people are lucky enough that it's not in production.Rebecca: Yeah. Swap that. Reverse it. Yeah.Ben: Yeah.Jeremy: All right. So speaking of talking to developers and getting feedback from them, so I actually put a question out on Twitter a couple of weeks ago and got a lot of really interesting reactions. And essentially I asked, "What do you love or hate about infrastructure as code?" And there were a lot of really interesting things here. I don't know, maybe it might be fun to go through a couple of these and get your thoughts on them. So this is probably not a great one to start with, but I thought it was interesting because this I think represents the frustration that a lot of us feel. And it was basically that they love that automation minimizes future work, right? But they hate that it makes life harder over time. And that pretty much every approach to infrastructure in, sorry, yeah, infrastructure in code at the present is flawed, right? So really there are no good solutions right now.Ben: Yeah. CloudFormation is still a pain to learn and deal with. If you're operating in certain IDEs, you can get tab completion.Jeremy: Right.Ben: If you go to CDK you get tab completion, which is, I think probably most of the value that developers want out of it and then the abstraction, and then all the other fancy things it does like pipelines, which again, should be a managed service. I do think that person is absolutely right to complain about how difficult it is. That there are many ways that it could be better. One of the things that I think about when I'm using tools is it's not inherently bad for a tool to have some friction to use it.Jeremy: Right.Ben: And this goes to another infrastructure as code tool that goes even further than the CDK and says, "You can define your Lambda code in line with your infrastructure definition." So this is fine with me. And there's some other ... I think Punchcard also lets you do some of this. Basically extracts out the bits of your code that you say, "This is a custom thing that glues together two things I'm defining in here and I'll make that a Lambda function for you." And for me, that is too little friction to defining a Lambda function.Because when I define a Lambda function, just going back to that bringing in ownership, every time I add a Lambda function, that's something that I own, that's something that I have to maintain, that I'm responsible for, that can go wrong. So if I'm thinking about, "Well, I could have API Gateway direct into DynamoDB, but it'd be nice if I could change some of these fields. And so I'm just going to drop in a little sprinkle of code, three lines of code in between here to do some transformation that I want." That is all of sudden an entire Lambda function you've brought into your infrastructure.Jeremy: Right. That's a good point.Ben: And so I want a little bit of friction to do that, to make me think about it, to make me say, "Oh, yeah, downstream of this decision that I am making, there are consequences that I would not otherwise think about if I'm just trying to accomplish the problem," right? Because I think developers, humans, in general, tend to be a bit shortsighted when you have a goal especially, and you're being pressured to complete that goal and you're like, "Okay, well I can complete it." The consequences for later are always a secondary concern.And so you can change your incentives in that moment to say, "Okay, well, this is going to guide me to say, "Ah, I don't really need this Lambda function in here. Then I'm better off in the long term while accomplishing that goal in the short term." So I do think that there is a place for tools making things difficult. That's not to say that the amount of difficult that infrastructure as code is today is at all reasonable, but I do think it's worth thinking about, right?I'd rather take on the pain of creating an ASL definition by hand for express workflow than the easier thing of writing Lambda code. Because I know the long-term consequences of that. Now, if that could be flipped where it was harder to write something that took more ownership, it'd be just easy to do, right? You'd always do the right thing. But I think it's always worth saying, "Can I do the harder thing now to pay off to pay off later?"Jeremy: And I always call those shortcuts "tomorrow-Jeremy's" problem. That's how I like to look at those.Ben: Yeah. Yes.Jeremy: And the funny thing about that too is I remember right when EventBridge came out and there was no CloudFormation support for a long time, which was super frustrating. But Serverless Framework, for example, implemented a custom resource in order to do that. And I remember looking at a clean stack and being like, "Why are there two Lambda functions there that I have no idea?" I'm like, "I didn't publish ..." I honestly thought my account was compromised that somebody had published a Lambda function in there because I'm like, "I didn't do that." And then it took me a while to realize, I'm like, "Oh, this is what this is." But if it is that easy to just create little transform functions here and there, I can imagine there being thousands of those in your account without anybody knowing that they even exist.Ben: Now, don't get me wrong. I would love to have the ability to drop in little transforms that did not involve Lambda functions. So in other words, I mean, the thing that VTL does for API Gateway, REST APIs but without it being VTL and being ... Because that's hard and then also restricted in what you can do, right? It's not, "Oh, I can drop in arbitrary code in here." But enough to say, "Oh, I want to flip ... These fields should go from a key-value mapping to a list of key-value, right? In the way that it addresses inconsistent with how tags are defined across services, those kinds of things. Right? And you could drop that in any service, but once you've defined it, there's no maintenance for you, right?You're writing JavaScript. It's not actually a JavaScript engine underneath or something. It's just getting translated into some big multi-tenant fancy thing. And I have a hypothesis that that should be possible. You should be able to do it where you could even do it in the parsing of JSON, being able to do transforms without ever having to have the whole object in memory. And if we could get that then, "Oh, sure. Now I have sprinkled all over the place all of these little transforms." Now there's a little bit of overhead if the transform is defined correctly or not, right? But once it is, then it just works. And having all those little transforms everywhere is then fine, right? And that incentive to make it harder it doesn't need to be there because it's not bringing ownership with it.Rebecca: Yeah. It's almost like taking the idea of tomorrow-Jeremy's problem and actually switching it to say tomorrow-Jeremy's celebration where tomorrow-Jeremy gets to look back at past-Jeremy and be like, "Nice. Thank you for making that decision past-Jeremy." Because I think we often do look at it in terms of tomorrow-Jeremy will think of this, we'll solve this problem rather than how do we approach it by saying, how do I make tomorrow-Jeremy thankful for it today-Jeremy? And that's a simple language, linguistic switch, but a hard switch to actually make decisions based on.Ben: Yeah. I don't think tomorrow-Ben is ever thankful for today-Ben. I think it's tomorrow-Ben is thankful for yesterday-Ben setting up the incentives correctly so that today-Ben will do the right thing for tomorrow-Ben. Right? When I think about people, I think it's easier to convince people to accept a change in their incentives than to convince them to fight against their incentives sustainably.Jeremy: Right. And I think developers and I'm guilty of this too, I mean, we make decisions based off of expediency. We want to get things done fast. And when you get stuck on that problem you're like, "You know what? I'm not going to figure it out. I'm just going to write a loop or I'm going to do whatever I can do just to make it work." Another if statement here, "Isn't going to hurt anybody." All right. So let's move to ... Sorry, go ahead.Ben: We shouldn't feel bad about that.Jeremy: You're right.Ben: I was going to say, we shouldn't feel bad about that. That's where I don't want tomorrow-Ben to have to be thankful for today-Ben, because that's the implication there is that today-Ben is fighting against his incentives to do good things for tomorrow-Ben. And if I don't need to have to get to that point where just the right path is the easiest path, right? Which means putting friction in the right places than today-Ben ... It's never a question of whether today-Ben is doing something that's worth being thankful for. It's just doing the job, right?Jeremy: Right. No, that makes sense. All right. I got another question here, I think falls under the category of service discovery, which I know is another topic that you love. So this person said, "I love IaC, but hate the fuzzy boundaries where certain software awkwardly fall. So like Istio and Prometheus and cert-manager. That they can be considered part of the infrastructure, but then it's awkward to deploy them when something like Terraform due to circular dependencies relating to K8s and things like that."So, I mean, I know that we don't have to get into the actual details of that, but I think that is an important aspect of infrastructure as code where best practices sometimes are deploy a stack that has your permanent resources and then deploy a stack that maybe has your more femoral or the ones that are going to be changing, the more mutable ones, maybe your Lambda functions and some of those sort of things. If you're using Terraform or you're using some of these other services as well, you do have that really awkward mix where you're trying to use outputs from one stack into another stack and trying to do all that. And really, I mean, there are some good tools that help with it, but I mean just overall thoughts on that.Ben: Well, we certainly need to demand better of AWS services when they design new things that they need to be designed so that infrastructure as code will work. So this is the S3 bucket notification problem. A very long time ago, S3 decided that they were going to put bucket notifications as part of the S3 bucket. Well, CloudFormation at that point decided that they were going to put bucket notifications as part of the bucket resource. And S3 decided that they were going to check permissions when the notification configuration is defined so that you have to have the permissions before you create the configuration.This creates a circular dependency when you're hooking it up to anything in CloudFormation because the dependency depends on the resource policy on an SNS topic, and SQS queue or a Lambda function depends on the bucket name if you're letting CloudFormation name the bucket, which is the best practice. Then bucket name has to exist, which means the resource has to have been created. But the notification depends on the thing that's notifying, which doesn't have the names and the resource policy doesn't exist so it all fails. And this is solved in a couple of different ways. One of which is name your bucket explicitly, again, not a good practice. Another is what SAM does, which says, "The Lambda function will say I will allow all S3 buckets to invoke me."So it has a star permission in it's resource policy. So then the notification will work. None of which is good or there's custom resources that get created, right? Now, if those resources have been designed with infrastructure as code as part of the process, then it would have been obvious, "Oh, you end up with a circular pendency. We need to split out bucket notifications as a separate resource." And not enough teams are doing this. Often they're constrained by the API that they develop first ...Jeremy: That's a good point.Ben: ... they come up with the API, which often makes sense for a Console experience that they desire. So this is where API Gateway has this whole thing where you create all the routes and the resources and the methods and everything, right? And then you say, "Great, deploy." And in the Console you only need one mutable working copy of that at a time, but it means that you can't create two deployments or update two stages in parallel through infrastructure as code and API Gateway because they both talk to this mutable working copy state and would overwrite each other.And if infrastructure as code had been on their list would have been, "Oh, if you have a definition of your API, you should be able to go straight to the deployment," right? And so trying to push that upstream, which to me is more important than infrastructure as code support at launch, but people are often like, "Oh, I want CloudFormation support at launch." But that often means that they get no feedback from customers on the design and therefore make it bad. KMS asymmetric keys should have been a different resource type so that you can easily tell which key types are in your template.Jeremy: Good point. Yeah.Ben: Right? So that you can use things like CloudFormation Guard more easily on those. Sure, you can control the properties or whatever, but you should be able to think in terms of, "I have a symmetric key or an asymmetric key in here." And they're treated completely separately because you use them completely differently, right? They don't get used to the same place.Jeremy: Yeah. And it's funny that you mentioned the lacking support at launch because that was another complaint. That was quite prevalent in this thread here, was people complaining that they don't get that CloudFormation support right away. But I think you made a very good point where they do build the APIs first. And that's another thing. I don't know which question asked me or which one of these mentioned it, but there was a lot of anger over the fact that you go to the API docs or you go to the docs for AWS and it focuses on the Console and it focuses on the CLI and then it gives you the API stuff and very little mention of CloudFormation at all. And usually, you have to go to a whole separate set of docs to find the CloudFormation. And it really doesn't tie all the concepts together, right? So you get just a block of JSON or of YAML and you're like, "Am I supposed to know what everything does here?"Ben: Yeah. I assume that's data-driven. Right? And we exist in this bubble where everybody loves infrastructure as code.Jeremy: True.Ben: And that AWS has many more customers who set things up using Console, people who learn by doing it first through the Console. I assume that's true, if it's not, then the AWS has somehow gotten on the extremely wrong track. But I imagine that's how they find that they get the right engagement. Now maybe the CDK will change some of this, right? Maybe the amount of interest that is generating, we'll get it to the point where blogs get written with CDK programs being written there. I think that presents different problems about what that CDK program might hide from when you're learning about a service. But yeah, it's definitely not ... I wrote a blog for AWS and my first draft had it as CloudFormation and then we changed it to the Console. Right? And ...Jeremy: That must have hurt. Did you die a little inside when that happened?Ben: I mean, no, because they're definitely our users, right? That's the way in which they interact with data, with us and they should be able to learn from that, their company, right? Because again, developers are often not fully in control of this process.Jeremy: Right. That's a good point.Ben: And so they may not be able to say, "I want to update this through CloudFormation," right? Either because their organization says it or just because their team doesn't work that way. And I think AWS gets requests to prevent people from using the Console, but also to force people to use the Console. I know that at least one of them is possible in IAM. I don't remember which, because I've never encountered it, but I think it's possible to make people use the Console. I'm not sure, but I know that there are companies who want both, right? There are companies who say, "We don't want to let people use the API. We want to force them to use the Console." There are companies who say, "We don't want people using the Console at all. We want to force them to use the APIs."Jeremy: Interesting.Ben: Yeah. There's a lot of AWS customers, right? And there's every possible variety of organization and AWS should be serving all of them, right? They're all customers. And certainly, I want AWS to be leading the ones that are earlier in their cloud journey and on the serverless ladder to getting further but you can't leave them behind, I think it's important.Jeremy: So that people argument and those different levels and coming in at a different, I guess, level or comfortability with APIs versus infrastructure as code and so forth. There was another question or another comment on this that said, "I love the idea of committing everything that makes my solution to text and resurrect an entire solution out of nothing other than an account key. Loved the ability to compare versions and unit tests, every bit of my solution, and not having to remember that one weird setting if you're using the Console. But hate that it makes some people believe that any coder is now an infrastructure wizard."And I think this is a good point, right? And I don't 100% agree with it, but I think it's a good point that it basically ... Back to your point about creating these little transformations in Pulumi, you could do a lot of damage, I mean, good or bad, right? When you are using these tools. What are your thoughts on that? I mean, is this something where ... And again, the CDK makes it so easy for people to write these constructs pretty quickly and spin up tons of infrastructure without a lot of guard rails to protect them.Ben: So I think if we tweak the statement slightly, I think there's truth there, which isn't about the self-perception but about what they need to be. Right? That I think this is more about serverless than about infrastructure as code. Infrastructure as code is just saying that you can define it. Right? I think it's more about the resources that are in a particular definition that require that. My former colleague, Aaron Camera says, "Serverless means every developer is an architect" because you're not in that situation where the code you write goes onto something, you write the whole thing. Right?And so you do need to have those ... You do need to be an infrastructure wizard whether you're given the tools to do that and the education to do that, right? Not always, like if you're lucky. And the self-perception is again an even different thing, right? Especially if coders think that there's nothing to be learned ... If programmers, software developers, think that there's nothing to be learned from the folks who traditionally define the infrastructure, which is Ops, right? They think, "Those people have nothing to teach me because now I can do all the things that they did." Well, you can create the things that they created and it does not mean that you're as good at it ...Jeremy: Or responsible for monitoring it too. Right.Ben: ... and have the ... Right. The monitoring, the experience of saying these are the things that will come back to bite you that are obvious, right? This is how much ownership you're getting into. There's very much a long-standing problem there of devaluing Ops as a function and as a career. And for my money when I look at serverless, I think serverless is also making the software development easier because there's so much less software you need to write. You need to write less software that deals with the hard parts of these architectures, the scaling, the distributed computing problems.You still have this, your big computing problems, but you're considering them functionally rather than coding things that address them, right? And so I see a lot of operations folks who come into serverless learn or learn a new programming language or just upscale, right? They're writing Python scripts to control stuff and then they learn more about Python to be able to do software development in it. And then they bring all of that Ops experience and expertise into it and look at something and say, "Oh, I'd much rather have step functions here than something where I'm running code for it because I know how much my script break and those kinds of things when an API changes or ... I have to update it or whatever it is."And I think that's something that Tom McLaughlin talks about having come from an outside ground into serverless. And so I think there's definitely a challenge there in both directions, right? That Ops needs to learn more about software development to be more engaged in that process. Software development does need to learn much more about infrastructure and is also at this risk of approaching it from, "I know the syntax, but not the semantics, sort of thing." Right? We can create ...Jeremy: Just because I can doesn't mean I should.Ben: ... an infrastructure. Yeah.Rebecca: So Ben, as we're looping around this conversation and coming back to this idea that software is people and that really software should enable you to focus on the things that do matter. I'm wondering if you can perhaps think of, as pristine as possible, an example of when you saw this working, maybe it was while you've been at iRobot or a project that you worked on your own outside of that, but this moment where you saw software really working as it should, and that how it enabled you or your team to focus on the things that matter. If there's a concrete example that you can give when you see it working really well and what that looks like.Ben: Yeah. I mean, iRobot is a great example of this having been the company without need for software that scaled to consumer electronics volumes, right? Roomba volumes. And needing to build a IOT cloud application to run connected Roombas and being able to do that without having to gain that expertise. So without having to build a team that could deal with auto-scaling fleets of servers, all of those things was able to build up completely serverlessly. And so skip an entire level of organizational expertise, because that's just not necessary to accomplish those tasks anymore.Rebecca: It sounds quite nice.Ben: It's really great.Jeremy: Well, I have one more question here that I think could probably end up ... We could talk about for another hour. So I will only throw it out there and maybe you can give me a quick answer on this, but I actually had another Twitter thread on this not too long ago that addressed this very, very problem. And this is the idea of the feedback cycle on these infrastructure as code tools where oftentimes to deploy infrastructure changes, I mean, it just takes time. In many cases things can run in parallel, but as you said, there's race conditions and things like that, that sometimes things have to be ... They just have to be synchronous. So is this something where there are ways where you see in the future these mutations to your infrastructure or things like that potentially happening faster to get a better feedback cycle, or do you think that's just something that we're going to have to deal with for a while?Ben: Yeah, I think it's definitely a very extensive topic. I think there's a few things. One is that the deployment cycle needs to get shortened. And part of that I think is splitting dev deployments from prod deployments. In prod it's okay for it to take 30 seconds, right? Or a minute or however long because that's at the end of a CI/CD pipeline, right? There's other things that are happening as part of that. Now, you don't want that to be hours or whatever it is. Right? But it's okay for that to be proper and to fully manage exactly what's going on in a principled manner.When you're doing for development, it would be okay to, for example, change the Lambda code without going through CloudFormation to change the Lambda code, right? And this is what an architect does, is there's a notion of a dirty deploy which just packages up. Now, if your resource graph has changed, you do need to deploy again. Right? But if the only thing that's changing is your code, sure, you can go and say, "Update function code," on that Lambda directly and that's faster.But calling it a dirty deploy is I think important because that is not something that you want to do in prod, right? You don't want there to be drift between what the infrastructure as code service understands, but then you go further than that and imagine there's no reason that you actually have to do this whole zip file process. You could be R sinking the code directly, or you could be operating over SSH on the code remotely, right? There's many different ways in which the loop from I have a change in my Lambda code to that Lambda having that change could be even shorter than that, right?And for me, that's what it's really about. I don't think that local mocking is the answer. You and Brian Rue were talking about this recently. I mean, I agree with both of you. So I think about it as I want unit tests of my business logic, but my business logic doesn't deal with AWS services. So I want to unit test something that says, "Okay, I'm performing this change in something and that's entirely within my custom code." Right? It's not touching other services. It doesn't mean that I actually need adapters, right? I could be dealing with the native formats that I'm getting back from a given service, but I'm not actually making calls out of the code. I'm mocking out, "Well, here's what the response would look like."And so I think that's definitely necessary in the unit testing sense of saying, "Is my business logic correct? I can do that locally. But then is the wiring all correct?" Is something that should only happen in the cloud. There's no reason to mock API gateway into Lambda locally in my mind. You should just be dealing with the Lambda side of it in your local unit tests rather than trying to set up this multiple thing. Another part of the story is, okay, so these deploys have to happen faster, right? And then how do we help set up those end-to-end test and give you observability into it? Right? X-Ray helps, but until X-Ray can sort through all the services that you might use in the serverless architecture, can deal with how does it work in my Lambda function when it's batching from Kinesis or SQS into my function?So multiple traces are now being handled by one invocation, right? These are problems that aren't solved yet. Until we get that kind of inspection, it's going to be hard for us to feel as good about cloud development. And again, this is where I feel sometimes there's more friction there, but there's bigger payoff. Is one of those things where again, fighting against your incentives which is not the place that you want to be.Jeremy: I'm going to stop you before you disagree with me anymore. No, just kidding! So, Rebecca, you have any final thoughts or questions for Ben?Rebecca: No. I just want to say to both of you and to everyone listening that I hope your today self is celebrating your yesterday-self right now.Jeremy: Perfect. Well, Ben, thank you so much for joining us and being a guinea pig as we said on this new format that we are trying. Excellent guinea pig. Excellent.Rebecca: An excellent human too but also great guinea pig.Jeremy: Right. Right. Pretty much so. So if people want to find out more about you, read some of the stuff you're doing and working on, how do they do that?Ben: I'm on Twitter. That's the primary place. I'm on LinkedIn, I don't post much there. And then I write articles that show up on Medium.Rebecca: And just so everyone knows your Twitter handle I'll say it out loud too. It's @ben11kehoe, K-E-H-O-E, ben11kehoe.Jeremy: Right. Perfect. All right. Well, we will put all that in the show notes and hopefully people will like this new format. And again, we'd love your feedback on this, things that you'd like us to do in the future, any ideas you have. And of course, make sure you reach out to Ben. He's an amazing resource for serverless. So again, thank you for everything you do, and thank you for being on the show.Ben: Yeah. Thanks so much for having me. This was great.Rebecca: Good to see you. Thank you.

Mike Isaacson: Da j00z! [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOsLizards wearing human clothesHinduism's secret codesThese are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genesWarfare keeps the nation cleanWhiteness is an AIDS vaccineThese are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocideMuslim's rampant femicideShooting suspects named Sam HydeHiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the copsSecret service, special opsThey protect us, not sweatshopsThese are nazi lies Mike: At the core of nazi lies is antisemitism. Since the Second World War it has disguised itself in many guises–Rothschilds, Soros, Bildebergs, lizard people. At its core is an all-powerful entity controlling the masses and aiming to destroy the nation through the corruption of culture and politics, which remains at the heart of fascist conspiracy theory. One of the ur-texts of Jew hatred in the 21st century is David Duke's book “Jewish Supremacism,” which makes the claim that not only do Jews control the world, but that our religion teaches us to do so. Today, we're joined by Ben Siegel who has his master's in Religion, the Hebrew Bible, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies from the Claremont School of Theology. (Wow, that's a mouthful.) Welcome to The Nazi Lies Podcast, Ben. Ben Siegel: Thanks for having me Mike. I'm grateful for the opportunity to trash a Jew hater's biblical scholarship. Mike: [laughs] Very good. Okay, so before we get into Duke's book, let's talk a bit about how Judaism works, because it's very unlike Christianity. Can you give us a rundown of how Jewish law and Jewish morality works? Ben: Sure. I'll do my best. Now the Jewish legal system, known in Hebrew as halakha, is a comprehensive framework that informs the behaviors of religious, and also frequently secular, Jews. It takes as its starting point the written text, the Torah, the biblical books of Genesis through Deuteronomy, from which it derives 613 mitzvot, meaning laws or commandments, as authoritative God-given instruction on how to live an observant Jewish life. So from those texts, considered the written Torah, what's called the oral Torah is derived. This comprises successive centuries worth of interpretation of the written Torah by rabbis. The earliest of these is the Mishnah, which was compiled early in the second century of the common era, and the Gemara, rabbinical commentary on the Mishnah that was put together between the second and fifth centuries CE. These commentaries were collected to produce the Talmud. Now one in the Galilee region of Israel between 300 and 350 CE, known as the Jerusalem Talmud, and the second far more extensive Talmud compiled in Babylon in about 450 to 500 CE. This is the Babylonian Talmud. This is the one that people tend to cite most. It's really these long, extensive discourses weighing legal arguments on virtually every topic that was relevant to Jews during these periods, from personal and communal religious devotion to economic regulations to laws concerning marriage, dietary restrictions, relations with non-Jews; you name it. Now the Talmud is upheld to this day by most Jewish communities across the world as the basis for living an appropriate Jewish life in accordance with halakha and in accordance with God's will and vision for the world. Halakha informs Jewish ethics to a great deal as much as it undergirds legal and political concerns–a concern for ethical treatment of one's community and one's neighbors, stemming from the collective memory of slavery in Egypt, an ethics of solidarity, really, righteousness, compassion, and justice, in effect. Mike: Okay, so Duke takes aim at our self-description as the chosen people. This is commonly misinterpreted. What does it mean when the Jews say we are the chosen people? Ben: As the old saying goes, “How odd of God to choose the Jews.” So there's this notion that God selected the Israelites for a particular theological mission, to live according to His laws, and to be a light unto nations, inspiring other people through their example. But there's also this idea that the Jews chose God. That Abraham and his descendents embraced monotheism through a special and unique relationship with the deity. Chosenness in this sense isn't indicative of inherent ethnic or racial superiority, as Duke argues. I'd feel safe saying he's projecting his own white supremacist views onto the Jews here. Mike: You don't say. Ben: [laughs] Yeah, I do.  Mike: Okay, so another thing that David Duke derides is our holidays. Specifically, he describes Purim and Pesach as a celebration of the slaughter of gentiles, which I find absolutely laughable. Do you want to clear that one up? Ben: This would absolutely be hilarious if it weren't so malicious. Pesach celebrates the liberation of the Israelite people from slavery and oppression in Egypt. Recalling the ten plagues during the seder does recognize the suffering inflicted upon the Egyptians to make this happen. But this isn't a joyful moment. It's typically somber. The recitation of each plague is followed by dripping a drop of wine from our cups onto our plates to signify how we ourselves are diminished by the Egyptians' suffering. There's also a similarly warped misinterpretation of Purim going on here, where we celebrate the prevention of genocide against us. So in the Purim story, Haman had ordered the Jews put to death. The Megillah Esther makes it clear that the 70,000+ Persians killed at the end of the book are those sent by Haman to slaughter the Jews. And the Jews were only able to defend themselves because king Ahasuerus gives them permission to pick up swords. And to be frank, Mike, defense against genocide seems to a pretty legitimate cause for merrymaking.  Mike: Yeah, no, for sure. It's a really fun holiday if you've ever celebrated it, you know. It's a lot of dress up… I've heard it described as basically a combination of Halloween and New Years all wrapped into one. It's really fun.  Ben: Sure, if you like to drink and scream, Purim is the holiday for you. Mike: There you go. [laughs] Okay, so now let's get into the nitty gritty. So, David Duke cites a whole bunch of scriptures to make the Jews out to be haters of all things goyishe, or non-Jewish, with scriptural references that appear to justify unscrupulous behavior towards them. First of all, before we get into that, what does the word “goy” mean? Ben: Well it would be prudent to acknowledge that the term “goy” changes meaning slightly over time. In the biblical text, it means nation or people, not nation in the modern sense of Westphalian nation-states, but more as a homogenous ethnic identity. The Israelites were recognized as a goy here. Most notably, Exodus 19 where God promises Abraham that he will make his people “goy gadol,” a great people, Exodus 19:6. As we enter into the rabbinic period, where the Jews in the diaspora are negotiating Jewish identity as a minority population, goy predominantly takes on the meaning of non-Jew as a distinguishing marker. This interpretation of “goy” has persisted to this day, and is perhaps the most commonly recognized usage of the term. I have seen discussions among antisemites who misinterpret it as meaning “cattle,” based on connotations in Talmudic texts. But these texts offer a strict binary worldview where “Jew” is seen as akin to human, whereas non-Jews are aligned with animals. I think it's important to make the distinction that this framework is a legal one not necessarily a political one. Post exilic diaspora Jews did not have the kind of social power needed to foster political programs that affected the disenfranchisement of other groups typically associated with rhetorics of dehumanization.  Mike: Okay, so kind of on that point, Duke points to a number of decontextualized passages from Jewish scripture which describe gentiles in various negative ways: barbarians, animals, animal-fuckers. And I've got a few passages here which I've provided to you in advance. So there's Gemara Kiddushin 68a, Yebamoth (and correct me on any of these pronunciations) Yebamoth 98a, Baba Mezia 114a-b, Abodah Zarah 22a-b, and Baba Mezia 108b. Can you give us a little exegesis? Ben: I'd be happy to, but first I want to talk about how Duke sourced these texts. There's been some commentary on him plagiarizing Kevin McDonald who is an evolutionary psychologist working out of Cal State University-Long Beach. He uses the same arguments and the citations. But it also appears that Duke took many of the translations of these texts from a book by Elizabeth Dilling, who was a far-right political activist in the 1930s, noted antisemite, who went to Nazi Germany and spoke very highly of what she saw there. So with these translations that he's using, I think it's important that we take it with an enormous grain of salt, first of all. Mike: Right. Ben: But also the thing I've noticed most about non-Jews who rage against the Talmud is that they haven't read the damn thing. And frankly, I haven't read all of it either. It's an enormous body of text. And in that body of text there are, you know, rabbis disagreeing with each other. So one view may be held, and the exact opposite view is going to be upheld a line down. Just worth noting for when we're looking at these texts that are obviously cherry-picked. Mike: Right. Ben: The first one you mentioned, Kiddushin 68a, it's from a tractate that deals with rules pertaining to marriage and engagement laws. Now what Duke says about this is the Talmud denotes gentiles as animals. So here it's forbidding the betrothal of an Israelite to a Canaanite maidservant. One thing, there's no Canaanites in third century Persia at this time, so this is purely a hypothetical situation. But it's really this legal justification for not marrying non-Jews because of the potential for them to influence a Jew's worship in a negative way, so that they won't follow halakha. And there's definitely a discussion here of identifying them as like an animal, but it's not a similar dehumanization that we see in typical nazi rhetoric of like “Jews are cockroaches” or “Jews are vermin.” It's like, here is this category of thing that is not us, and we cannot mix with that. Does that make sense? Mike Yeah, I guess. Does the issue of her being a maidservant matter in a subordinate position to the person?  Ben: Some rabbis argue yes; some rabbis argue no. But really it's more that who she is, based on this identity, is making the betrothal ineffective. It's not considered valid. Mike: Okay, so like– Ben: Yeah. Mike: Go ahead. Ben: No, go right ahead. Mike: Okay, yeah continuing right along, let's go to Yebamoth 98a? Ben: Yeah, Yebamoth deals with rules of yibbum. This is what's commonly known as levarite marriage, where the brother of a man who died without children is permitted and encouraged to marry the widow. What Duke has this translated as is that all gentile children are animals. It doesn't say anything of the sort here. It's saying that the children of gentiles don't have a father. They don't have a patrilege. Like the offspring of a male gentile is considered no more related to him than the offspring of donkeys or horses. It's just a way of saying that the rabbis don't care who the kid's dad is. It's like, they couldn't be bothered. Mike: I see. Ben: They're not interested in the patrilege of non-Jews. They're really more concerned with Jewish family ties. Mike: Okay, so moving along, there's two passages from Baba Metzia, one is 114a-b and one is 108b. Ben: Mmhmm. Baba Metzia discusses civil matters. That is property, law of usury, other issues such as lost property and damages done to it. So the issue here is again, categorizing– Duke takes issue with the categorizing of goyim as non-human. And again, it comes down to the same thing. It's less that they are not recognized as human, and more that it is an issue of ritual purity because they don't adhere to the same religious standards. Therefore, they necessarily can't contaminate certain Jewish sacred spaces. Mike: That's probably– Ben: And– Mike: Go ahead. Ben: Yeah, sorry go ahead. Mike: I was gonna say, it's probably also worth noting that like many Jews, I would venture even to say most Jews, probably don't follow a lot of these laws. [laughs] Ben: Yeah, many of them aren't even aware of them. You know, you can spend your entire life studying these texts and maybe come across it once. You know, there are thousands of these tractates. Mike: And last in this category was Abodah Zarah 22a-b. Ben: Mmhmm. [laughs] This one's funny. Duke says gentiles prefer sex with cows. What the text is actually saying is that the animal of a Jew is more appealing to gentiles than their own wives. [laughs] So, I don't know if this intentionally, you know, throwing some shade gentiles and their own marriage relations, but it seems more in keeping with a concern that's held by the Talmudic sages of how do you ensure that an animal that you are sacrificing is ritually pure. That means it has no blemishes; it is handicapped in any way; but very importantly, that it has not had any sexual relations with anybody. So Abodah Zarah, literally meaning “foreign worship” or “strange service,” it deals with how to live with people who don't adhere to the same religious convictions. And the concern of beastiality is kind of a big, overarching theme in this text to the point that there are many discussions of concern about whether or not you can purchase a sacrificial animal from a goy. Some rabbis say no; some say yes. Interestingly enough, there is one narrative in the text, where a goy named Dama– The rabbis go to him, and purchase a red heifer which is like a really big omen in the bible. It's like huge. That's like primo sacrifice. And he is upheld as a righteous goy and as someone who would never shtup his cow. So what's really interesting here is that you've got these two different voices in the text that are both preserved as authoritative. One, there is the concern that the goy will engage in beastiality. The other is this one goy Dama who is upheld as an example of righteousness in regards to being able to buy, you know, a sacrificial animal for him. Of course, Duke isn't going to look at this text because it doesn't serve his overall purpose as vilifying the Jewish people as anti-goy. Mike: And before we continue, I want to inform our listeners that shtup is a Yiddish word for “having sex with.” Ben: Yeah, literally it means “push,” but yeah, it means sex. Mike: Alright so, Duke also makes the claim that there are different laws that Jews follow when it comes to dealing with the goyim. So he specifically points to Gittin 57a, Abadoh Zarah 67b, Sanhendrin 52b, Sanhedrin 105a-b and 106a-b. Can you explain what's going on in those passages? Ben: Sure, so my understanding of his gripe with Gittin 57a is what is the punishment for Jesus in the next world, saying that he will be boiled in excrement. He's going to be punished in boiling poop, and that anyone who mocks the word of the sages will be sentenced to boiling excrement. This was his sin, as he mocked the words of the sages. And the Gemara comments come and see the difference between these sinners of Israel and the prophets of the nations of the world as Balaam, who was a prophet, wished Israel harm whereas Jesus the Nazarene, who was a Jewish sinner, sought their wellbeing. So there is this, kind of– There's some antagonism towards Jesus in the text because of its function as– Jesus's function and Christianity's function as a counter-claim to the inheritance of Abraham and of Isaac and Jacob. So there's some theological competition going on here. Mike: And what about Abodah Zarah 67b? Ben: Mmhmm. “The halakha from the case of gentiles that require purging. Vessels that gentiles used for cooking that the Torah requires that one purge through fire and ritually purify before they may be used by Jews.” You know, he seems to be indicating that– Duke seems to be indicating that the text is saying that goyim are dirty. But this isn't an argument for, like, hygienic cleaning. The ancient Israelites and Talmudic sages didn't have a germ theory of disease. What they're talking about is purifying these vessels for religious purposes, specifically. They have to be rededicated for their sacred use because they may have come in contact with forbidden food, with non-kosher food. Mike: Right, so this is about the laws of kashrut, right? Ben: Yeah, precisely. And again this is Abodah Zarah which is all about how do we do our religion properly with all of these other influences around us. Mike: Right, okay so Sanhendrin 52b. Ben: Yeah, this is another Jesus one. So Duke says that the person being punished in this text is Jesus, and he sees this as an anti-Jesus text. But the text doesn't mention Jesus whatsoever. It's a general rule for capital punishment by strangulation which is outlined in Leviticus. So this is one of your big nazi lies. He doesn't mention– They don't mention Jesus here. Mike: Is this one of the ones where he mentions Balaam or something? Ben: I believe so. Mike: Okay, can you talk about who Balaam is, because Duke misidentifies him as Jesus. Ben: Yeah he does that a lot. So in the book of Numbers, Balaam is a prophetic figure, identified in the text as a false prophet, who goes to send a curse against the Israelite people, and he is himself cursed for it and put to death. So he's kind of like this figure of those who would seek the destruction the Jewish people. He's a big bad. Mike: Right, and since he's in the book of Numbers which is the Torah, right? Ben: Yeah. Mike: Yeah, I mean, that would mean that this is, like, well before Jesus's time, right? Ben: Absolutely. Mike: Like there's no way this would have been Jesus. Ben: For sure. Granted, there are certain Christian interpreters of the text who see Hebrew bible references to Jesus throughout. Mike: Right. Ben: So they kind of see Jesus as foreshadowed in so much. Mike: Alright so, moving on, Sanhendrin 105a-b? Ben: So this one's interesting because it says that Balaam was a diviner by using his penis. [both laugh] And he's one who engaged in beastiality with his donkey. So what Duke takes to be a condemnation of Jesus, because he's misidentified Jesus with Balaam, is really kind of like textbook Talmudic condemnation of a big bad goy. Now here's a guy who sought the destruction of the Jewish people. In the book of Numbers he's got this talking donkey who prevents him– who tries to stop him from going forward with his mission. And we know that he was bad because, according to the Talmud, he had sex with his donkey. There's this major preoccupation with bestiality in the Talmud, and it is weird as hell. But it's there, and we've got to deal with it. [laughs] Mike: Okay, and Sanhendrin 106a-b. Ben: Again, this one's not about Jesus, but rather about Balaam who has been misidentified with Jesus. I think this is– this kind of misidentification is just indicative of Duke not doing his homework. My understanding is that he took these from Dilling, and he never fact-checked to see if, you know, this is what the text says or this is what the text identifies. You know, this is bad scholarship on his part which is probably to be expected from this guy who defrauded his own his own white supremacist organization and has a fake degree. Mike: Right, and he even says in the book that he's not doing anything original, that it's just collected from other sources. Ben: Right. Mike: Well, since we're on the subject of Jesus, we may as well go with the rest of the passages that I have here. So Sanhendrin 90a. I'm kind of skipping around here. Ben: Yeah this one's all about prohibition against idol worship. And you said this one is Jesus-related? Mike: That's what he said, yeah. About Christianity and Jesus, yeah. Ben: I don't find much to do with Jesus in this text. Jesus isn't mentioned in this one. It's primarily about idol worship and people who prophesize with regards to it. Maybe he's trying to say that, like, the preoccupation with idol worship is a condemnation of Christianity, but I'm just not seeing where he's getting Jesus out of this. Mike: Okay then, on that same subject Shabbat 116a. Ben: Yeah, holy books in Babylonian temples. Now is this the one where he says a goy can't read the text? Mike: It might be, yeah. Or a Christian can't read the text. Ben: Yeah, oh no, this is a really particular one. Again this one is just– There's a lot of rhetorical violence against those who do the religion improperly or don't treat the sacred texts as they should. You know, these are practices and artifacts that are very important to the Jewish people, so they hold them in very high regard. Mike: So I guess moving along, Duke refers to a number of passages in the Bible that he takes to mean that Jews are preoccupied with racial integrity. (Projection much?) He points specifically to Sanhendrin 59a, Deuteronomy 7:2-6, Ezra 9:1-2 and 9:12, Leviticus 20:24, and Nehemiah 13:3. So what do these passages say and what do they actually mean? Ben: With Sanhedrin 59a, which Sanhedrin primarily deals with criminal law, it says that “A gentile who engages in Torah study is liable to receive the death penalty. As it is stated: ‘Moses commanded us a law, an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob.'” This is from Deuteronomy 33:4. “Indicating that it is an inheritance for us, and not for them.” So there is one sage, a rabbi Yokhanon who is arguing that goyim who study Torah, you know, they're liable to be put to death. You know, they expose themselves to capital punishment. He's arguing this because they view the Torah with such high esteem; it is their most sacred text. They want to preserve it. Now this text is followed a line or two down by a counterargument. It says, “You have therefore learned that even a gentile who engages Torah study is considered like a high priest.” So you've got one argument saying that a goy who studies Torah is liable to be put to death, and another that says that they have an incredible status, that studying Torah gives them very high regard. But this again is one of those instances where Duke does not consider that might undermine his central thesis that Jews are bad, are always bad, and will always be bad. Mike: Okay, so what about the Deuteronomy passages? Ben: Deuteronomy is fascinating. We could do a whole discussion of that book in and of itself because it is–Deuteronomy in Greek means “second law”–but it is kind of a later law code that is arguably the result of a very kind of reactionary sect of Israelite theology that does not see coexistence with people who don't worship YHWH as possible. And rhetorically, what they are saying is when the Israelites get to the promised land, they are to commit genocide against the peoples of the land. Don't intermarry with them because that could lead to apostasy, that could lead to illicit worship. You know, their daughters will lead you to serve other gods. The sense here is that Israel is a holy people, God has chosen them to be special unto him, and if they allow this foreign influence to affect them, that will be undermined. Mike: Okay, and what about the Ezra text? Ezra 9:1-2 and 9:12. Ben: Yeah, there's some scholarship to indicate that Ezra and Nehemiah represent one scholarly tradition. So after the Babylonian empire was defeated by the Persian empire, the Persians allowed the community of Israelites that had been taken into exile, the golah community, to return to the land, to rebuild the temple, and to reestablish rule. So one of the concerns of the returning community is this very specific idea that the reason they were exiled in the first place is because God is punishing them for worshipping other gods. And that sense also undergirds the theology of the book of Deuteronomy. So their solution is that, to prevent that from ever happening again, they have to divorce from the non-Israelite wives that they had married that might lead them into temptation. Now this is the view of the returning community, not the community that had stayed in the land of Israel during that time. So these would have been the intelligentsia, the priestly class, the aristocracy, skilled laborers, so it's not a normative view, but it kind of becomes normative because it becomes the dominant voice of the text, if that makes any sense. But they are saying that for the sake not just of religious purity but also to establish power for themselves, you know, the returning community has a claim to power in the land, not just because they have, you know, they have a connection to it where they are before the exile, but they are supported by the Persian imperial power. They're making this new claim of identity and religiosity to assert that power. Mike: Okay and what about Leviticus 20:24? Ben: “You shall inherit their land” (“Them” being the Canaanites.) “that I will give unto you to possess it, a land that flows with milk and honey. I am the Lord your God that separated you from other people.” So this is God telling the Israelites that they will be given the promised land because God has chosen them, has separated them. The word “kodesh,” to be holy, also means separate. So it's really a theological category, not an ethnic one. You know, the Israelites are separate from these people and are given the land because of their adherence to the covenant at Sinai, not because they are of a particular ethnic or racial background. Mike: Okay, so we talked a little bit about kind of the somewhat genocidal tendencies I guess. And so David Duke talks about massacres perpetrated by Jews in the bible. He points to Deuteronomy 20:10-18, Isaiah 34:2-3. and Joshua 6:21 and 10:28-41. And when I mentioned Joshua to you, you kind of rolled your eyes at it. Ben: Yeah. Mike: So I guess let's start with Joshua then. Ben: Yeah, I do. Good. Joshua's a fascinating text. Scholars pretty much agree that it has no, or little to no, basis in historical fact. You know, one of these is that, these texts Joshua 6:21, is the destruction of the city of Jericho which according to archeological records happened several hundred years prior to when this narrative is supposed to have taken place. But what's being discussed here in 21 is the devotion of the city to the Lord, the destruction of every living thing in it. So, you know, this is absolutely a genocidal text. It's a purification of the land by the sword and by flame. So typically in war in the ancient near east, you could take slaves, you could take cattle as war booty. But what is being done here is the destruction of all of that, saying that everything belongs to God, and as such it must be destroyed and sacrificed unto him. But it's also seen as a kind of justice because here are these, for lack of a better word, pagans who stand in the way of the Israelite mission, and who may also tempt the Israelites to turn away from the path of God. So it's absolutely this violent, theologically motivated holy war, genocidal slaughter, maintained in the text. And I do think it's important to wrestle with these notions. You know, whether or not it actually happened, it's still– It's there, and it informs a great deal of thinking. It informed the colonization of the New World, whereby settlers from Europe saw themselves as Israelites and the indigenous people here as Canaanites. Robert Allen Warrior is an indigenous scholar who's done a lot of work on this. But then, the Joshua narrative also informed many of the early Zionists, and they saw themselves as, as Rachel Haverlock called the Joshua generation. Like, Ben Gurion assembled a number of different people to do bible studies on the book of Joshua. It is a text of settler colonialism and can be used to justify that kind of political programme. Mike: Okay so back to Deutero– Ben: If that's what you're trying to do, Joshua is a good place to pull from. Mike: Okay so back to Deuteronomy, 20:10-18. What's being said in there? Ben: “When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open its gates, all the people shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage in battle, lay siege to the city.” And the ban, or kherem, is in effect there. So destroy, destroy, destroy, and leave nothing because everything is for God. It's the same scenario– In this instance, the people in the land are given the opportunity to surrender, otherwise they are subject to the sword. It's very similar to the kind of warfare described in other texts from the ancient near east, whether they're Assyrian or Babylonian. So it's not uncommon to see this kind of siege warfare described, and it's not necessarily unique to the Israelite people. Mike: Right, I mean, yeah, I mean that was one of the things that happened to the Israelite people, at least in engaging the Romans, right? Ben: Yeah, precisely. Mike: Okay, what about Isaiah 34:2-3? Ben: This one's interesting because it's not actually a narrative of slaughter. It's a prophetic oracle delivered against the people of Edom, the Edomites, for betraying the Israelites to the Babylonians and assisting in their imperial endeavors. It's saying that, you know, you will be destroyed. You know, the corpses of your people will lay in the street. So it's not an actual thing that happened. It's part of a type of prophetic literature called oracles against the nations where the prophet of a particular book will condemn a specific people on God's behalf. Keep in mind that the prophets aren't really seen as their own agents. They're the agents of God; they speak God's word. So God through Isaiah is saying, here's what's going to happen to you because of your betrayal. Mike:  Okay, so this next part is probably going to need a trigger warning or something. So there's some really strange passages that he cites about rape and virginity that I honestly haven't looked at because by the time I got to these passages I was just tired of him being wrong every time I checked the passages he cited. So he cites Kethuboth 11b, Sanhedrin 55b and 69a-b, Yebamoth 57b, 58a, and 60b. So let's start with Kethuboth. Ben: Right, yeah, so here he's– The issue is Bath Sheeba, when she gave birth to Solomon, whether or not she was six years old, or whether or not she was an earlier age. It's not saying that six-year-olds are appropriate– or that six is an appropriate age for sexual relations with a girl. It's arguing at what age a child can conceive. Like when is conception possible? And it's saying that because Bath Sheeba gave birth to Solomon when she was six, it's somewhere around that time. Yeah, this whole discourse is really gnarly.  Mike: Okay, so what about Sanhendrin 55b? Ben: So here it's about a girl who is three years and one day whose father has arranged for her to be married, and betrothal is through intercourse. It's concerning the legal status of the intercourse with her, if it's like full-fledged sex. Really here the text is examining forbidden sexual acts that cause ritual impurity and calamity. And prior to this specific quotation is a broader context of unwitting beastiality, like beastiality that you didn't know you did. It's not justifying sex with minors; it says that the act renders the man ritually impure and liable to be put to death. Lucky for the child, I guess lucky, is that they're exempt from execution because they're a minor. Small condolence I guess. Mike: Okay so it's basically saying the opposite of what David Duke said. Ben: Yeah. Mike: Okay, what about 69a-b? Ben: I mean, this is probably a discussion of the legal ramifications of this act. Mike: Yeah this is actually, this says exactly what you were talking about earlier. So “A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's brother cohabitated with her, she becomes his.” Blah blah blah. Ben: Yeah, because it's Yebamoth– It's Yebamoth, right? Mike: No this is Sanhendrin. Ben: Oh Sanhendrin. So this is, yeah, criminal law. So this is the liability of criminal punishment, but also these rabbis debated everything. What is the likelihood that a three-year-old is going to be married to someone who then dies and then has to be– Again they have the option to be married to their brother so that the dead brother's lineage doesn't end. They're really negotiating, like, every possible eventuality that might happen just in case. You know, all of these are hypothetical situations. And, you know, they're gross. Some of them are just really fucked up. Mike: [laughs] Yeah Jews like to talk about a lot of weird hypotheticals. Alright so now onto the Yebamoth one. So 57b. Ben: Yeah, Yebamoth 57b. This one I've got, “A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired by marriage in coition.” So yeah, the sex act is technically allowed. It's not condoning it. But because three-year-old girls cannot become pregnant, it's still technically forbidden because it's a waste of seed in non-procreative sex. So it's saying that she can't conceive via sexual intercourse, so it's really forbidden because sex in this worldview is not for pleasure; it's purely for procreation. So if you are wasting sperm engaging in this sex act, it's a bad thing. Not going to lie, this one's fucked up. Mike: Yeah, what about 58a? Ben: Um, doesn't say anything about minors. Mike: Really? Ben: Just, yeah, I didn't see anything about minors in this one. Mike: What about rape? Ben: Most likely. Let me just take a closer look. Mike: Or virginity or something? Ben: Yeah, do you have a quote on this one? Mike: Not sure. I mean, I don't have quotes on any of these because again I stopped looking at them. Ben: Yeah, and a lot of it is just like– It's kind of he said, she said. I don't know. I don't take David Duke's reading of these in good faith, and I don't think we can. Mike: This is a weird passage. There's something about “Through betrothal alone a woman is not entitled to eat.” This is so strange. Ben: I mean I would lie if I said that I understood the majority of Talmudic literature. Mike: Right. Ben: You know, people can spend seven years reading this entire work all the way through. The law of tamurah. Mike: Yeah, and, I mean, even– David Duke doesn't even necessarily quote these passages. He just references them. And I guess, like you said, he probably pulls them from other sources without reading them. Ben: Yeah, I– With this, I can't even tell, like, what he's arguing. Like, what is the– What issue is he taking here? Mike: Yeah, I would suggest that our listeners read this passage and try to figure out what the fuck David Duke has a problem with. Ben: Yeah exactly. Yeah [sarcastically] read David Duke's book. You'll have fun. Mike: Yeah, no don't read David Duke's book, but you can read the Talmud, that's pretty good. Ben: Spend seven years reading the whole thing. You can do it, a daf a day. Mike: Alright, do you have any notes on Yebamoth 60b? Ben: So this is where the Gemara cites another ruling related to who is considered a virgin. And it's not condoning sex with a three-year-old. It says that in the event of that happening, she remains a virgin because her hymen grows back. Like if it's through a sex act with an adult man or if her hymen is ruptured by wood. You know, she's still considered a virgin because it grows back. I don't know if that's medically true. Mike: Yeah, I was– Ben: Sounds like bullshit, but the issue here is virginity as it relates to being able to determine paternity in the long run. Mike: Okay, alright, so Judaism has changed a lot since these texts were written. So what can we say about the ethos of Judaism now as it relates to these texts? Ben: Right, obviously most Jews aren't concerned with the majority of the issues we've addressed here today. You know, they don't spend a lot of time thinking about beastiality, thank goodness. But I think if there is a single Jewish ethos, it's an affirmation of being the people of Israel, literally meaning “to wrestle with God,” Yis-ra-el. Engagement in argument over Torah are so central to our people's identity that even secular atheist Jews still contend with these issues. So as many different types of Jews as there are and how many different ways they approach the text, there still profoundly, proudly participating in a longstanding tradition that's engaging with and arguing with the tradition. I think that's the modern Jewish ethos, and it's much the same as the ancient but adapted to the current context: How do we live a good life?  Mike: Word, well Ben Siegel, thank you so much for coming on The Nazi Lies Podcast and taking the time to do the tedious work of debunking David fucking Duke. [both laugh] You can catch Ben on Twitter and Facebook at Anarcho-Judaism. Ben: Mike it has been an absolute pleasure. Thank you for having me. [Theme song]

Show notes:Links:Write for usMaybeJosh Pigford Flu dataFull transcript:Ben:And today we don't have Starr, because Starr is on vacation this week, fireside chat.Josh:I will be on vacation next week, and the week after.Ben:Nice.Josh:I don't know if you saw, I extended my vacation.Ben:I didn't see this.Josh:Yeah. So, surprise!Ben:Two weeks back to back. That's a record.Josh:Yeah. I decided I'm feeling it and I don't think a week is going to be enough. So just thought I'd go for it.Ben:Yeah, I get that. I get that. It's funny, I was looking... We started this vacation calendar, recently, since we are looking at transitioning away from Basecamp, where our vacation calendar was, we are now putting a vacation calendar in Google calendar, because we use G Suite for all of our stuff. And I set up this vacation calendar, and I noticed that Starr put one on there, and then Josh put on a vacation and then Kevin put on a vacation. And then, Ben Findley, just week after week after week, it's like everybody's taking a vacation. I was like, all right, so I put myself on vacation.Josh:Yeah, you got to put yourself in there. Yeah.Ben:I did. Yeah. I added myself yesterday, for the week after Ben Findley's vacation.Josh:I don't know if you went and... I went in and just put a bunch of vacations for the rest of the year for-Ben:I saw that.Josh:... myself. Yeah.Ben:That's awesome.Josh:I mean, they might change, but I figured, if I at least put them in there, that'll force me to think about it and decide. Because that's been an ongoing problem, I always wait too long and then, finally, take the vacation when I just desperately need it, and I want to avoid that cycle, like we're supposed to be. This is supposed to be sustainable.Ben:This is a calm company. It means, lots of vacations.Josh:Yeah. We should be calm if we're running a calm company.Ben:I like that idea of putting on these dates tentatively and just planning on it. I might try that.Josh:Yeah. You should just plan them out. Also, yeah, I put our traditionally long winter vacation on there too, which I think is currently the last two weeks of December and the first week of January, which we can always move that around or sometimes we do the Hack week or whatever.Ben:Yeah. I've come to cherish that tradition. I like having that-Josh:It's nice.Ben:Knowing that's going to be downtime. You know?Josh:Yeah.Ben:I mean-Josh:I like the first week of the year off is kind of... there's something about that, where you don't have to go back to work the day after New Year's or whatever. That feels really nice.Ben:I mean, in reality, we're still on call. So if something broke, were going to work, but, yeah, it is nice not having that expectation of showing up and doing actual productive stuff.Josh:Yeah. Yeah. It's the low bandwidth mode.Ben:Yeah. It's also this past winter when we did that, I used that to just experiment with some stuff, work-related stuff like Elasticsearch and whatever, so that's kind of fun. It's a tinkering... even if we don't do an official Hack Week, it's still a good time to do some tinkering and get some of those creative juices going.Josh:Read some books on computer science or something like that, get excited about it again.Ben:Well, going through the SOC 2 compliance thing, the type two for the first time audit, one of the things that I came across that was new was this continuing education tracking thing. So the auditor wants evidence that we're actually doing continuing education for our employees. We always do conferences and stuff, but 2020 was a bad year for conferences, and we've never really tracked continuing education. We just like, "Yeah, let's do this conference," or whatever, and it's kind of ad hoc. And now it's like, "Oh, we need to track this, it's a good idea to plan something." So yeah, digging out those old computer science books or taking a course or doing a conference. Got to do it.Josh:Which is, well, you got to do it, but it's also, to me, that's one of my favorite things to do. I really like learning, so even in my spare time, that's what I like to do.Ben:Same.Josh:So I realized even with, yeah, my perfect workweek is a couple of hours maximum a day of doing the day-to-day things that you have to do, and then spend the rest of the day reading or learning something or working on improving your skills.Ben:Yep. Yeah. I to-Josh:That's what makes me happy.Ben:I don't try to do that every day, I like the idea, but I try to do that on Fridays. Friday to me is like the decompression day, I'm cruising into the weekend now. And so I try to put aside all the normal stuff and just something kind of interesting. Before we got on this morning, I was playing with some Docker stuff, not that we use Docker, but maybe we will someday, and just fiddling with it. You know?Josh:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Ben:I think it's kind of fun.Josh:Yeah. Yeah. I like that.Ben:Until we get one of those customer requests that come in, I'm like, "Oh, I have to do some actual work now." And so, love our customers, but sometimes they can be kind of inconvenient, legitimate complaints about things need to be fixed.Josh:Or when there's an ops emergency, and so I drop everything and fix it. You had some of that going on this week. I know.Ben:But with both you and Starr got to experience those ops emergencies. It was actually a funny, so Starr, is on vacation, but the Starr was still on call for part of that time.Josh:The first night. Yeah. Because she had scheduled me to take over, was it yesterday? Whatever day it was-Ben:But in the morning.Josh:... but it was the night before. Yeah. It was like-Ben:Yeah, so I imagine in the future she might schedule you to swap a bit earlier, but-Josh:Yeah. I feel bad, because she said that, I guess, they had to get up early for a road trip and it's like 2:00 AM or something, or actually it was like 4:00 AM, I think, by the time the alerts died down.Ben:Yeah. The bad part was that there wasn't really anything to do. There was this spike in memory usage on our Redis Cluster, but it resolved itself, but only after sending some alerts saying, "Hey, somebody better pay attention to this," because that's a critical part of our infrastructure.Josh:Well, I mean, that's happened to me a few times. I mean, that's usually my on-call experience to be honest, and if it's worse than that, there's a good chance I'm waking you up anyways. But I mean, that's part of... You have a system well-architected, at least to the point, where if there is something, it does usually resolve itself, but still you need someone to sit up with it and babysit it until it does, just to make sure. And I mean, it would be totally unfair that you're the one who builds the system and also has to babysit it all the time, so our on call schedule is like a babysitter rotation.Ben:Yeah. Yeah. It's funny that you mentioned that, because I was looking at this vacation schedule, it's like, "Oh, when should I take vacation?" So I went and looked at the PagerDuty rotation to try and schedule my vacation away from my rotation on PagerDuty, so I didn't have to swap. And PagerDuty has changed their UI a little bit since the last time I looked at it, and I logged in and it's like, "When are you on call next?" And it says, "You're always on call." Because I'm the-Josh:Because you're level one.Ben:I'm the backup schedule. Yeah.Josh:I know, and that's a problem. I've been thinking about that, so you're not the only one worried about that, but, yeah.Ben:It was just kind of funny. I mean, it hasn't been a quality of life issue for a long time, because we've had so few problems, but still I am that backup. If it goes, what is it, more than half an hour or something, then I get woken up. But it was just kind of funny to see, you're always on call.Josh:Yeah, right. Yeah. Well, I mean, I'd say that's the major downside of our business is just the nature of that. And also just the nature of expertise. I feel like when I leave, it's much harder on the team, solving a lot of the customer support issues that come up related to our libraries and things. And I mean, that's part of the reason we've wanted to bring more people in the business, but then you end up with more people in the business, and then you're tied to a management role that you can't leave too. So there's trade-offs there.Ben:Yes. It's the struggle of all the bootstrap SaaS operators that are small like us, how do I get time away when I'm the solo founder? Or maybe it just two co-founders, how do we take a break? Justin has talked about this with their customer support for Transistor. They felt like they were always just having to stay on top of that, and they could never take a break. And so, they hired someone to help out with that. And having Kevin around has really helped spread the rotation out, and he's taken up a lot of the ops stuff and gotten familiar with it. So-Josh:Yeah. He's taken an interest in it, which is good.Ben:Yeah. It's been great for me.Josh:Yeah.Ben:Yeah. It's a hard problem to solve, because, I mean, yeah, you could add people, but then you got to pay those people, and so your profitability takes a hit, so it's a balance.Josh:Yeah. And I mean, I think, I don't know about you, I prefer to stay small. I don't think... I've moved past the idea of I want to have a company with tons of employees or whatever. I think that actually would make... I wouldn't be as happy with that situation, probably, as with our current situation, with a few employees and small team. We probably spend a lot more time trying to solve these problems than larger companies do, because they just throw people at it. But yeah, I feel like-Ben:That just introduces a different set of problems, right?Josh:It does.Ben:You really just have to pick which set of problems you want. Do you want to be tied to the business? Or do you want to deal with the layers of management and the people problems that come with not being tied, personally, to the business?Josh:Yeah. So, yeah-Ben:Yeah.Josh:I don't know, over time though, I think I tend towards wanting to spend less time on the business or at least, when I say, on the business, I mean, less time on those things that I just have to be doing and don't want to be doing. I want to try to always be doing the things I want to be doing. And yeah. I mean, I know just general management stuff does not fall into that bucket of what I want to be doing.Ben:It's not your dream in life to be a manager.Josh:Nope. It's not even my dream in life to be traveling the world 200 days a year or something, and preaching the gospel or something.Ben:Yeah. I've thought about that recently too. Looking at companies that get really big, whether they take a bunch of money or not regardless, but they turn into tens and then hundreds of employees. And I think about what would that be to be a CEO of that kind of company? And I'm just like, I just don't know that I would really enjoy that. There would be a certain set of excitement, yes, no doubt, about having that kind of business.Ben:I can think of right now about Tobi at Shopify, because I remember when Tobi started at Shopify, and watch that grow. And just thinking about, it's got to be pretty fun and in some ways to be Tobi, to be on top of this organization and doing these cool things and seeing the impact that you're making. And they've gone public, there's a whole lot of cool stuff there, but there's also a lot of annoying stuff there. That come along with those cool things. And it's like, ah, I think I'm happy where I am. I don't think I need to be the CEO of Shopify or something that size to have that fulfillment in my career right now.Josh:Yeah. I mean, I'm sure that you find new ways to guard your time and it just becomes even more, that's why no one can reach the CEO, usually. But, I mean, it's all... Yeah. It just puts you in an even more critical position. The pressure and responsibility must still be pretty, it just must be massive. But-Ben:It must be.Josh:Yeah. I guess, I don't really know, because I've never been in that position. I'm just guessing.Ben:Right, right. And life phases might change somethings and maybe when the kids are grown and gone, maybe you'll feel like, ah, I want a new challenge, something bigger. I think you see that a lot with founders, like us, who build something, sell it. And they're like, "Huh, let me try a bigger swing. Let me try..." Like Josh is doing right now, he did it did Baremetrics, he sold that, and now he's building out Maybe, and I think he's definitely thinking bigger scope kind of stuff.Josh:It looks like it. Yeah.Ben:Or you can just go buy a ranch somewhere and just chill, right?Josh:Right. Well, I think it's kind of... I mean, yeah, those aren't unsimilar to me. I mean, I think the big point is or the major thing is, if you're financially set and you can, again, do whatever you want to do, then, yeah, go do it. But again, even, say, if we sold the business and didn't have to work another day in our lives, we could just go buy that ranch and just kick back on it. If I decided to go and start another company, I wouldn't want to start a company that is going to demand my time and involvement, like most companies do.Josh:I'd probably try to go start another Honeybadger or something, maybe, you could go larger scale, but something that solves for those problems. Yeah, and I don't know what that looks like, but I feel like some companies of the future are kind of like... The ones that GitLab, that take a more open source approach. I don't know exactly what being in charge of GitLab is like, but I'm sure it's not a walk in the park either, but experimenting with new ways to spread responsibility around. Yeah.Ben:Yeah. And maybe the answer is, that's a scenario where you do have to take a bunch of money, so you can get those employees to make that lift, right?Josh:Yeah.Ben:Yeah. I think if we sold Honeybadger and we did something new, I think it has to be different in some dimension or otherwise, why did you sell?Josh:Yeah. It would have to be.Ben:And so maybe it's a different audience. Maybe it's a different size. Maybe it's venture backed versus doing it from scratch. I think it would have to be different in some significant way for it to be interesting enough to actually do versus just spending the rest of my retirement tinkering or whatever.Josh:Yeah. Yeah. I guess, getting to that critical point with employees is the thing that's hard, going from what we have, which is kind of like where we're so small that we have things we have to still be here for, but we can just disconnect whenever we want to, for the most part, like take a week off if we want to, and just do customer support or be on call. But jumping from that to the point where, say, you have 50 employees or something and you're the CEO, and you can just be like, "Okay, everyone, I'm going to be gone for a week, carry on." Which I think you can do when you have other people managing people.Josh:But in between that, there's a very... it's like if you're growing out your hair, there's that weird, you know, the annoying stage where your hair, just like you hate it. And it's like, it just doesn't work. And you're... Yeah, it just seems like that exists when you're trying to grow a business where it's hard with 10 people, all 10 of those people are looking to you for leadership on a regular basis. And you're still connected to the major centers of the business.Ben:Yeah. Yeah. That's interesting. I hadn't really thought of it that way, and that makes total sense to me. There's those growing pains that you would get going from one phase to another.Josh:And I guess, I'm not sure, having been doing what we're doing as long as we have, I'm not convinced that I want to go through that pain that I know is there to get to that stage where I know that we probably would be in another... we'd be back in the position where we could probably have more freedom, or hire a CEO then to just run the business, which people do.Ben:Well, I mean, I wonder, so two thoughts that I have. I wonder, if you're a venture back startup, if you start from scratch with a bunch of money in the war chest, do you avoid some of those growing pains? Because you can just, right out of the gate, hire a bunch of people, right?Josh:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Ben:So I wonder that, and then the follow on-Josh:Good thought.Ben:Yeah, I have no idea. And the follow on thought is, well, like in our situation, we've been around for a long time, we have profitable business, we're great, what if we take on an investment now, and then that gives us that money to hire a bunch of people? To help you accelerate through that growing pain phase, right?Josh:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Ben:If you had one or two people here and there that's painful, but if you add 10 or 20 people, I don't know, maybe that's a different kind of pain, but maybe it's a better kind of pain. Because it's like ripping the band-aid off, because you did all done at once.Josh:Yeah. No, that's a good point. Yeah. That's something that I hadn't factored in, in that line of thinking. So, yeah, I think he could be right, that that is a common use of funding and capital investment and all that.Ben:Yeah. I would be open to that idea, if we had figured out the sales machine. If we could say, "Oh, we can deploy X amount of people, and we know that X amount of revenue would come in, because we'd be doing these Y activities."Josh:Totally.Ben:But we haven't quite got there yet. We have a really strong inbound, but we don't really have an outbound or we don't have a process even for dealing with inbound sales, because everything right now is hands-off, right?Josh:It's not scalable. Yeah. Yeah. So, we're doing this to ourselves, to some extent, just in our own lack of knowledge or experience in those areas, but that's part of the learning process. So-Ben:Yeah, you're right.Josh:... we are... I think it's smart though, to be focusing on those areas now, to open up those possibilities in the future. So that if we change our minds and realize that we could scale the business to a point where we can, again, have the same thing that we have now only potentially better because we don't have those, even the small responsibilities, that drag us back in, on a regular basis.Ben:Yeah, yeah. We're still choosing to grow slow and to keep it pretty calm, keep that calm company.Josh:Yeah. That's the point of calm-Ben:Right. If we take it big chunk of money, we could hire the VP of Marketing, the VP of sales, the VP of engineering, right? And then we could-Josh:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Ben:... presumably step back once we got these people set on the, here's the goal, now get it, right?Josh:Yeah.Ben:But, yeah, that would be a less calm company, for sure.Josh:Yeah.Ben:At least for a while.Josh:Yep. And even if that's to the extent that that's possible, yeah, I don't know, I mean, you still have to build the idea of the calm company into that business. Otherwise, you'll just end up with 30 to 50 people that are chaotic and-Ben:Right. Yeah.Josh:... calling you all the time or emailing you. Yeah. So I guess I'll revise my statement, it's like, I'm not willing to grind it out to get to the next level. If that's what it comes down to, I'm happy, let's just stay where we are for... I'm fine, we run the business as an asset and try to build the lifestyle aspect of it more than anything else. But if we can find a way to scale the business and then maybe invest in it so that we can accelerate the jump, or a hair faster, so to speak.Ben:I like that.Josh:I'm terrible at metaphors. I feel like this one might actually be working, but Starr's the metaphor person. So I feel like I'm really on... I'm going to risky position right now.Ben:Better stop while you're ahead, right?Josh:Yeah.Josh:No more metaphors for the rest of the day.Ben:I think that the hair growth thing works, just have to take care of not to offend all of our bald listeners, you know?Josh:Right. Yeah. So I went to a Starbucks this week and did some work inside of it-Ben:Whoa.Josh:... without a mask.Ben:Wow. That's brave.Josh:I still did the distancing stuff just because it seems smart. I wasn't hugging everyone, but, yeah, they've got it all posted, it's like, if you're vaccinated, the mask is optional. Plus I was drinking a beverage, so... But yeah, I had a Zoom session at the Starbucks, and it was a novel experience.Ben:Very nice. Yeah. I went to a Target this week for the first time in a long time, and yeah, I just put my mask on out of habit. It's like, get out of the car, put the mask on, go in the store, right?Josh:Yeah.Ben:And I'm walking around and I don't know, maybe a quarter of the people there didn't have masks, it's like, oh yeah, it's not required anymore, really. I'm vaccinated. I'm like, huh, cool. And I'll just get a long my way, but it's like, I have to get used to this new reality of not having to wear a mask.Josh:That not everyone... Yeah. Although I still suspect that a large portion of the people that are going to take them off or aren't going to wear them are the people that were always not wearing them.Ben:Yeah. Although I will say, if I were still doing mass transit every day, like I used to do, I would definitely be still wearing a mask, if it was any time cold or flu season-Josh:Oh yeah.Ben:I'm not going back to that prehistoric animal way of not covering myself during germy season.Josh:Well, there's that flu statistics that I guess have been coming in from the CDC, since the season is coming to an end 2020, 2021 or whatever, and it seems the whole social distancing. Masking situation, hand-washing really drastically improved that situation. I don't know, I forget what the numbers were, but it was ridiculous.Ben:Yeah, it's dropped like 99% or something crazy.Josh:Yeah.Ben:Yeah.Josh:Something like that.Ben:It's nuts.Josh:Which is-Ben:It's awesome.Josh:... wild. Give it a little time for the data to get worked out, I guess, because just seems prudent. But I mean, either way, it seems like it's a massive thing.Ben:Yeah. I would definitely need to normalize mask wearing during germs, no doubt.Josh:Yeah. Yep. I'm cool with never getting sick again.Ben:Totally. Well, and on that note, this fall kids will actually be going to school, and it'll be an exciting adventure. All those, snot nosed punks running around getting each other sick again.Josh:Yeah. That'll be the real test. That's just going to knock us out. Yeah. Yeah. My daughter's, Tatum's starting kindergarten in the fall.Ben:Wow.Josh:And that'll be her... We did preschool at home. So yeah, that's going to be wild.Ben:First school experience, huh?Josh:Yes.Ben:Yeah, that's-Josh:I'm entering a new stage. I feel like, a new phase.Ben:Yeah. It's bittersweet. You're like, oh, that's so exciting. And it's like, oh.Josh:Yeah.Ben:Yeah, yeah. I remember those days with fondness.Josh:What's also going to be weird, because it's going to force me to start interacting with other parents in the community, which I think that's my biggest thing right now is like, oh, no, I-Ben:You better watch out, next thing you know, you'll be the president of the PTSA. You'll be organizing bake sales, and-Josh:Yeah, we're definitely going to be the... I think we'll be the weird parents, in our area, anyway.Ben:It's funny. I've noticed this, this arc, your first kid goes into kindergarten and you're so into PTA and PTSA. You're like, "I'm going to take care of all the things. I'm going to volunteer in the classroom." And you're really engaged and involved and it's so good. And then over time you start to back off a bit. It's like, "Oh, I don't really need to do all the things, there are other people that help," you know?Josh:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Ben:And then by the time they get to the tail end and they get close to graduation from high school, you're just like, "I don't even care what they're doing anymore. Educate yourself, kid. You figure it out."Josh:Right. Yeah, yeah. I mean I had to basically educate myself, so you can.Ben:Yeah, yeah. Totally. It's funny seeing the new wave of parents come in every year to the PTA, and then all of a sudden they go out, again, as the new wave comes in.Josh:And you having been there for a while, that sounds kind of like, oh no metaphors. Like if you go to a gym regularly and every New Year's, like the first two weeks of January, that's what it sounds to me.Ben:Yep. Yeah. Totally. Yeah.Josh:Because everyone comes in and is just super dedicated, and then over the next couple of weeks, it's just, they all filter out again and you're back to the same 10 people in the afternoon or whatever.Ben:Right. Yeah. And all the regulars get annoyed because of it. They're like, "Oh, all these people crammed in one place."Josh:Yeah. All this exuberance is just... Yeah.Ben:Yeah. So gym, that's a open question for me right now. So I still have a gym membership. I haven't canceled it, but I haven't been since the beginning of the pandemic. And even though I'm a 100% vaccinated, and I'm feeling invincible, still, the gym is one place I'm like, I don't know. I still feel kind of uncomfortable at that. Still trying to decide whether or not I'm going to keep that membership, because I really enjoy going, but I don't know, I don't really want to wear a mask while I'm exercising, that just sucks.Josh:Yeah, that was mine too, I just didn't... Yeah.Ben:Yeah. And wiping down everything, I'm not a super sweaty person, so I'm not the kind of person that really needs to wipe down the equipment as soon as I'm done with it, because it's like, I just touch it. I didn't have a bath on it. And so I'm just... I don't know. I don't even know if they have a kitchen cleaning procedure that you have to do now, because, again, I haven't been to the gym, but I don't know. It's tough.Josh:I haven't been to the gym, because I got my home gym in 2019, the end of 2019, and so it's been that long. But I do sweat and I was used to just wiping down the equipment in between, it's not that bad. Especially if you... you can even carry a towel with you if you want, but most gyms have the whatever clothes-Ben:Yeah. Wipes.Josh:... and spray bottles and stuff. It's not the end of the world, but the mask thing, yeah, the idea of working out in a mask does not appeal to me. Even though it could be a plus for some people, like the people that are training for high altitudes and stuff. Some people wear the mask on the treadmills and I'm sure those people are like, "Sweet, that's just extra challenge."Ben:Right, yeah.Josh:Yeah.Ben:So I'm still doing the home stuff and it's just not as-Josh:You should-Ben:... awesome.Josh:... give it a try.Ben:Yeah. I guess I should. I should call them and say, "Hey, what's the deal down there?"Josh:I mean, I figure from what has been reported, the vaccines are very effective.Ben:Yeah, totally.Josh:And I mean, I understand the hesitancy, give it some time, obviously, that's prudent, the wait and see approach is completely valid. But after that, I mean, if you're immune, you're immune. So at some point you have to start-Ben:Living again.Josh:Yeah. Getting back out there, putting yourself back out there. But I mean, it's not a bad thing to be cautious, so I understand.Ben:Yeah. Just get back in the habit, I guess.Josh:Yeah. And I mean, to be fair, I'm also not at the gym with a bunch of people spitting in my face. So just to be clear, I'm giving this advice from my bunker.Ben:Yeah. You've got the sweet home gym set up. I'm jealous.Josh:Yeah. Actually, I've reduced my routine a little bit lately, and I've actually been doing more yoga and flexibility things, because I always go really hard with the weightlifting, and I'm not getting any younger. And so injuries are more frequent, and so I've been doing two days, two days a week right now just to keep up the major lifts and stuff, but kind of taking a little bit of a break.Ben:Have you done any of the Apple Fitness stuff?Josh:Yeah, I did one of the yoga sessions on it, when I was just... because I did yoga last year, when I had some injury stuff, and it was good, and I should have just kept doing it. And so, that's why I tried when I first started getting back into it this year, and it was really good. It was a little intense though for a beginner like me. So I've been doing this more beginner training, learning the actual postures and stuff. But then my plan is just to use the Apple Fitness stuff after that, because they seem like they have a lot of good just general-Ben:Yeah. I really like the Apple Fitness stuff. I've done some of the yoga. I didn't do the 30 minute stuff. I did the 10 minutes stuff, because I'm a super beginner, and so I did the really easy yoga, which was great for me. And I've done their high intensity stuff, which was pretty good. I'm not really an aerobics kind of person. I run and I ride, I figure I get enough aerobics that way. But when it was raining and cold and stuff, I just did the high intensity stuff, and that was pretty cool. I really liked that. And I've done their cycling, which is okay, but it's geared, at least the ones that I did, were geared towards being on a indoor cycling machine where you can adjust the intensity easily and stuff.Ben:I'm not, I'm on my own bike on a trainer, where the wheel is propped up and it's on that little roller. And so a lot of the instructions in the thing were, "Okay, let's dial up the resistance." And it's like, "Well, okay, I don't have that good of a setup here. I can't just dial up the resistance." So I had to alter it a bit, but it was still nice.Josh:You got to get your weighted boots on.Ben:I mean, but they do have trainers like mine that actually do have remote control, and so you can do that, but I don't have one. But anyway, I really enjoyed them. The fitness things are cool, and they're set into 30, 20, 10 minute intervals. And so you can like, "Oh, what kind of workout do I want today?" Yeah, I really like it.Josh:Yeah. I like the high intensity stuff for cardio a lot. And otherwise , yeah, I don't know, I could get into running, I think, but I really like walking, so I'll go for super long walks. But again, time is sometimes a factor that... sometimes I'll even just go for the afternoon and just start walking and end up back home at dinner time or something like that. I like that, but I've never been like going out too much. I've gone through a few running phases, but it never really stuck. So I like the high intensity stuff, because as far as I understand, it gives you some of the same benefits without having to run for an hour or something.Ben:Yeah, yeah.Josh:Yeah.Ben:I too love long walks.Josh:Yep. I think that's a great way to spend some of your just general workweek. That's the good alternative to sitting and grinding away at the desk-Ben:No doubt.Josh:... for eight hours a day or whatever. This morning I was wrestling with my kids and stuff. And I was picking them up individually and lifting them up and then throwing them on the bed. And then I was like, "Okay, now I have to go, I have to go back to work." And they're like, "No, no. We just, we want one more." So I was like, "Okay, I've got one more." So I picked them both up, one in each arm. And I do, basically, a lateral raise with them. And as I do this, I don't know what they weigh, but Tatum's over 50 pounds, and of course they're unbalanced, but my entire upper body, just like... I hadn't done any stretching or anything, so my entire upper body just cracks all over, and Caitlin, she's like, "Are you okay?" Apparently it was like, she was concerned for me. So, yeah, I realize, man, it's not the good old days anymore.Ben:You're getting up there in years.Josh:Not that out there, but at the age where you start to notice these things, right?Ben:Yeah.Josh:But I'm not past the point of trying.Ben:So did you do anything this week? I didn't do a whole lot actually. Well, I mean, I did responding to those urgent issues-Josh:Like working, you mean?Ben:Yeah.Josh:I did not get a whole lot of work done this week no. Yeah, no, you're good. I figure, yeah, I mean, again, yeah, I'm ready for a break, so I've been trying my best, but-Ben:You're coasting into that vacation.Josh:Yeah, it's been a struggle.Ben:That's awesome.Josh:But I mean, I think, we need to learn not to feel bad about that. Having a "unproductive" week. And I mean, if I'm... Yeah, honestly, I did things this week, it just wasn't as much work things. Dealt with things at home, read some books, that sort of stuff, that's still being productive, right?Ben:Totally. Yeah.Josh:Yeah.Ben:Yeah.I thought a lot about our project that we mentioned last week on the podcast about working together with Kevin on, I had spent a fair amount of time thinking about that. And that's one of the things that you can do on those long walks, it can still be working.Josh:Thinking.Ben:Thinking.Josh:Yeah, thinking is totally work.Ben:Thinking is totally work, so I did a lot of thinking this week, and responding to urgent stuff, but also, nearly, nearly done on the compliance thing. I think I have 11 out of 150 evidence requests left to complete. So-Josh:Wow.Ben:... yeah, it's almost there. Next week, I'll be actually talking to the auditors and-Josh:Awesome.Ben:Yeah. It's almost done. That's nice.Josh:And you've got ideas for making it easier next year.Ben:Yep. Yeah.Josh:Yeah.Ben:So, yeah, just plugging away.Josh:So I guess we're cruising.Ben:Yeah, no worries. Well, I guess we can wrap it.Josh:Yeah, wrap it.Ben:They're getting a good one. This has been FounderQuest. We're still coming at you mostly every week, and we really enjoy it. And if you enjoy it, hope you give us a review at iTunes or wherever you can review podcasts, because I never do that, so I have no idea. But if you're into that, please do, and, yeah, check out Honeybadger, of course, because we love having more customers. And I guess we'll see y'all next time.Josh:Catch you later.

Show notes:Links:TwistHook RelayBen Orenstein TupleWrite for HoneybadgerFull transcript:Starr:So Ben is joining us today from his car. It's bringing back fun memories. I recorded, I think the voiceover for our very first demo video in my car.Ben:Oh yeah? Nice. So as you may recall, I have a two story building that I lease one of the rooms, and the downstairs is a wine tasting room. Well with the pandemic, the company that had the wine tasting room, they closed shop. They stopped leasing, because who's going to go to a wine tasting room during a pandemic, right? Well they're leasing the space to a new tenant that's going to take that space. Apparently hey, we're getting back, things are reopening, let's taste wine again, but the new tenant wants to have a new door put in. So I got to the office today and they're like, "Yeah, we're putting in a new door." And then I'm like, "Cool." Didn't even think much of it. But then a few minutes later, there's all this drilling going on. I'm like, "Oh, I think probably the car is a better place to record today."Josh:Well at least you'll have some new friends soon.Ben:True, true.Starr:Yeah. Well I'm glad you made it, at least. And so what's up? I missed a week of the podcast and you guys invested our entire Honeybadger savings account into Bitcoin.Josh:Yeah.Starr:And I'm not sure that was the most prudent investment decision, y'all. I just wanted to say that.Ben:Yeah, the timing could have been better.Josh:Yeah, we really pulled a Roam Research on that one.Starr:Oh yeah. What do you mean by that?Josh:They invest in Bitcoin, apparently.Starr:Oh, they do? Okay.Ben:Of course they do.Starr:Of course. It's just a dip. You're supposed to buy the dips, Josh. It's just what, like a 30% dip? 40% dip?Josh:I wasn't watching it, but I read that it had recovered pretty quickly too.Starr:Oh. I have no idea. I didn't even follow it.Josh:As it does.Starr:I don't even follow it.Josh:Yeah. I just read random people's opinions.Starr:There you go.Josh:I forget where we left it last week, but I just wanted to state for record that I think I mentioned I made some accidental money in Bitcoin back when I was learning about block chain technology, but I have not bought any Bitcoin since, nor do I intend to, and I do not really view it as an investment asset.Starr:This is not investment advice.Josh:I just need to state my opinions for the future so I can look back on them with regret. If I don't say what I actually think, I'm never going to have anything to regret.Starr:There you go.Josh:I'm just going to commit.Starr:So you've decided to die on this no intrinsic value hill.Josh:Right. I'll let you know if I change my mind.Starr:Okay, that's fine. That's fine. Yeah, I don't really check. Last week y'all did the interview with Mike, right?Josh:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Josh:Yeah, it was a good conversation.Starr:Yeah. I don't really pay attention to it, except occasionally I'll look at the chart. It's the same with GameStop. Occasionally I'll look at the GameStop chart and then just see what wild stuff people are saying about it. Yeah.Ben:Yeah, GameStop was hovering at about 150 for a while, but now it's up to like 170-ish, 180. Something like that. Yeah. I peek at it every now... it's on my watch list when I log into my brokerage account, so I just see it. I'm like, "Oh, okay. Cool." And then I move on and check out my real actual stock portfolio.Starr:Oh yeah, yeah. I'm not going to buy it. It's like a TV show for me.Ben:Yeah, totally.Josh:Yeah. To be fair, I really don't have much of an opinion either way. I still don't understand it, so I don't know. I just feel like I probably shouldn't be buying it.Starr:That's really good advice. I don't understand anything though, so what am I supposed to do, Josh? Huh? Huh?Josh:Yeah.Ben:Just buy the index fund.Starr:Yeah. I don't even understand that.Josh:I don't understand that either though, if you really think about it.Ben:That's actually, there was a good thread or so on Twitter. I don't know if it was this week or last week, but basically the idea was if you feel really confident in your own ability, in your own business, given that, you're probably spending most of your time in that business, right? We spend most of our creative time in Honeybadger because that's where we feel the most potential is. So you're investing basically all of your personal capital in this one business. How do you diversify that risk? Or do you diversify the risk? Do you double down? Maybe do you take investment to diversify, and so you buy out? Let someone do a secondary and so you take some cash off the table? If you did that, then where would you put the money? Do you just go, "Okay, I'm going to go buy Bitcoin. I'm going to go buy an index fund," or whatever. And if you do that, is that a better use of your money than having just kept the equity and just plowing more time into your business? Right?Josh:Yeah.Ben:It's an interesting thought exercise. It's like, "Hm." The whole investment mindset of your business is interesting to me.Josh:Yeah. Yeah, that was interesting. I think I saw that conversation, or maybe I saw a similar conversation where they were talking about even just 401Ks and for founders who are already fairly... have at least made it in whatever sense that means. Is it the best financial move to keep maxing out your 401K versus investing in your ability to generate revenue in your business?Starr:So a little bit of real talk here. If you are a founder who's made it, maxing out your 401K isn't really a blip on your financial radar.Josh:It's not a big... yeah. That was kind of the same thought I had. It's not like you're putting 50% of your income into it.Starr:Yeah. What is it, like 20 grand? Something like that?Josh:Yeah.Starr:It's a good chunk of change, but still. It's not like...Josh:Yeah. I don't know.Starr:Yeah, that's interesting. I think I'm just going to go all in on Pogs. I think they're due for a comeback. I think that's going to be how I diversify.Josh:But I think it's probably a good move to invest in yourself if you have the ability to build businesses. That definitely seems like a good investment, in any case. Probably still have a 401K. I tend to do everything, except Bitcoin.Ben:A 401K is a nice backstop. Just keep stocking money away, and later it will be there, hopefully. But in the meantime, really, really spend your time and your energy on making your business even more profitable. Speaking of making your business more profitable, so this past week or two weeks, I've been working on our SOC 2 type two audit, so I'm doing the evidence collection.Starr:Oh yeah?Ben:So that in this case means I take a bunch of screenshots of settings, like the AWS console and G-suite console to show yeah, we have users, and yes, we have login restrictions, et cetera. All the 150 different things that you're supposed to check off the list when you do the audit. And as I've been going through this process taking all these screenshots, honestly it's getting a bit tedious, and it's surprisingly time consuming. And so I'm like, "You know, there are services for this sort of thing. Let me check them out." And so in the past three days, I've had conversations with Vanta, Secureframe, and Drata. These are three providers that what they do is they provide almost SOC 2 in a box. Basically they help you connect all of your systems and get the evidence that you need for an auditor in a more automated fashion. So for example, they'll plug into your AWS account and they'll pull out information about your security groups, your application firewall, your AIM, all the access permissions, all that kind of stuff, and pack that up into a nice little format that the auditor can then look at and like, "Yeah, they're good on all these different requirements." So you don't have to take screenshots of security groups.Ben:And I hadn't really looked at them before because I was like, "I don't know if I just want to spend that kind of money," but actually sitting back and looking at it, looking at the time that I'm spending on this and the amount of time I'm paying our auditors to audit all these screenshots that I'm taking, actually I think it would be cheaper to go with one of these services, because your audit is a bit more streamlined because the auditor knows how that data is going to come in and it's an easy format to digest, et cetera. But the thing is that after having gone through some of the sales pitches from these vendors, I'm thinking I really wish I would have started with these back the first time, because I think it would have been much easier just from the get go. So I think I've been doing the SOC compliance on hard mode, unfortunately, but lessons learned.Starr:With my experience, that just seems to be how projects are. You do it one time and you don't really know what you're doing, and you just push your way through it, and then eventually you figure out how to do it better and easier and all that. Because when something is new to you, you don't know what you can safely ignore. You know?Josh:Mm-hmm (affirmative). Yeah. Well plus you're pumping up the value of FounderQuest.Starr:Oh, that's true. We got a lot of content out of that.Ben:That's true.Starr:At least $100 worth.Josh:That's useful knowledge. Yeah.Ben:Yeah, so I think the short version is if you are interested in doing SOC2 compliance and you have no idea what you're doing, talk to these vendors first and maybe just start with them. They will help you, because they have customer success people like SaaS does. They have people on staff who are there to help you have success with their product. And if you don't get compliant, then you're going to stop using their product, so they're going to help you try and get there. And it's still pricey. It's still going to be five figures a year, but it will definitely save you some time and maybe even save you some money.Josh:Nice.Ben:Yeah. So next year, our audit should just be smooth as silk.Starr:Just butter.Josh:Love it.Starr:So if we-Josh:What are you going to do with all that extra free time?Ben:I made an executive decision.Starr:Oh really? What's that?Ben:Yes. The executive decision is we're going to have more teamwork at Honeybadger.Starr:That's ironic.Josh:Instead of what? What we have now, which is anarchy?Ben:We pretty much do have anarchy, I think. We are coordinated, we do make our plans, and we do have things we want to get done, but yeah, we are very independent at Honeybadger. We work independently. You might even say we're kind of siloed. We go off in the corner and do our own thing for most of the time. And I was chatting with Kevin about this, and I think we're going to try an experiment. So I think we're going to try to actually work together.Starr:Kevin is our developer.Starr:Yeah, so you all are going to be developing features together. Are you going to pair program? Are you going to use Tuple?Ben:Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Slow down there.Starr:Are you going to mob program?Ben:Pair programming, that's maybe too advanced for us, I think. Maybe actually we'll chat in Slack a little bit here and there and maybe have a Zoom call.Josh:Yeah, so you're talking about you're both going to work on the same project at the same time.Ben:Right. Right.Josh:Mostly independently, but coordinating.Ben:Right. Yeah.Josh:Yeah. Yeah, I don't know. I think that still can fit into our anarchy model.Starr:Yeah. It still seems a little bit independent.Josh:It's more like mutual aid or something.Starr:There you go. We should make a conference talk about mutual aid development.Josh:Right.Starr:That would go over well.Ben:Using NATO as a model for your development process. Yeah, so we'll see how it goes. I'm looking forward to it. I think I've been feeling a little lonely. I don't know if it's the right word, but maybe just off doing my own thing. I was like, "Oh, I think it will be nice to have some collaboration, some coordination." Maybe we'll even get to a level of synergies.Starr:Synergies.Starr:That's a blast from the past.Josh:Yeah, I think it's a good idea.Ben:Yeah, so more to come on that. We'll keep you posted. It's a bigger project. May not have results for a couple months. Don't really want to spill the beans on what it is right now. Competitive information. Don't want to leak it to all of our competitors.Starr:I like that. I like that. It's going to keep people on the hook for the next episodes.Josh:Totally.Ben:But yeah. That was my week.Josh:Yeah. Well my week, I took some time off, had some family stuff going on, so I was not very productive this week, but what I did work on was I've been working on this little guide for Hook Relay. I'd love to get the marketing machine, the fly wheel going on that at least, so we can be moving that along with everything else. And so yeah, working on some content and such.Starr:What is Hook Relay?Josh:Well you tell us what Hook Relay is, Ben. It's your baby.Ben:It's my baby. Yeah. So Hook Relay is a tool for managing web hooks. So you can record web hooks as they go out. In our case, to Honeybadger, we send a lot of web hooks, and so we built Hook Relay to help track all that web hook action. So we logged as pay loads that can go and diagnose issues that are happening, or maybe replay them as necessary, and of course it also handles inbound web hooks. So if you were handling, let's say, a post pay load request from GitHub about some activity that happens in your GitHub account, you handle that web hook and we can give you a place to store that, and then you can replay that, send it, forward it onto somewhere if you want, or just store it.Josh:Yeah. I think one of my favorite things about Hook Relay is just the visibility that it gives us into what's happening with the hooks, because otherwise we never had a dashboard. I guess we could have built one internally to see what the activity was and what's failing, what's actually... what requests are... because you're connecting to thousands of different people's random domain URLs, basically. It's really nice even for debugging and things like troubleshooting to be able to see what's going on, in addition to all the other cool things that it gives you out of the box.Starr:So you might say it's even like turnkey reliability and visibility for web hooks. For all your web hook needs.Ben:Yeah. Yeah, we modeled it on Stripes web hooks because we loved-Starr:I'm holding up a box up. I'm holding the TurboLinks box up and gesturing at it with my hand.Ben:Vanna White style.Josh:We should do our own channel, do our own infomercials.Ben:Yeah, I really wanted experience of Stripe. If you set up web hooks in Stripe, you can go and you can see all the web hooks they've sent you. You can see the pay loads, you can see whether they were successfully delivered or not, and I wanted that experience for our own web hooks, and also I thought it would be cool if developers could just have that without having to build the infrastructure. And so if you're building an app that send a bunch of web hooks on behalf of your customers, well now you can give your customers visibility into that web hook activity without having to build that tracking yourself.Josh:Yeah. That's pretty cool. So basically this content guide I'm working on is how to build web hooks into your application, including all the reliability and stuff that Hook Relay gives you for free. And the idea is that if that's what you're doing and you just want to save some time, Hook Relay will be a large chunk of that. You've just got to sign up. So I think it will be useful to everyone, even if they don't become a customer. If you're going to build your own back end and handle all the retries, build dashboards, and all that. But if you want it all turnkey, then Hook Relay is a big chunk of that work just done of you.Starr:So is this live? So can people go and sign up now?Ben:Yeah.Josh:Hook Relay, yes. It is.Josh:Hookrelay.dev.Ben:Yeah. In fact, we have enough customers now that it's actually paying for itself.Starr:What?Ben:Yes. So sweet.Josh:It's wild. That's wild.Starr:That's amazing.Ben:So Josh, is your guide going to have... are you going to dive deep into the architecture of here's how you build a whole web hook system, and so we're going to show you all the stuff behind the curtain so you can build your own? And then, "Oh, by the way, if you want it just done for you, here it is." Or are you going to just keep it more high level?Josh:I'm starting more high level. Yeah, I was planning on it being more high level. More like a high level architecture thing, or specification. Like these are the parts that you'll need to build, but you're going to have to solve some things, because it's not going to be specific to one system. It's not going to be like, "This is how you build web hooks for Ruby and Sidekick, or if you're going serverless." It will have suggestions on stacks or technologies to use for the back end, for instance, but yeah. I was thinking of leaving that to the user to figure out, but just showing the things you need to think about that a lot of people don't think about until they encounter the problems that might arise, like retrying and all the error handling that you add later, and validation for security reasons and things.Ben:Yeah. Yeah.Starr:This is giving me flashbacks to a whole two or three year process after we first launched.Josh:Yeah.Starr:It was just like, "Oh, crap. There's an edge case here that we didn't think of because we're not used to doing web hooks at this scale." And that just went on for like three years.Josh:Yeah. And it's nice having the two products because Hook Relay came out of Honeybadger and it's basically part of our web hook system. This is basically just documenting Honeybadger's web hook system for other people who might want to replicate that or whatever.Ben:Totally. I think that will be cool. A great piece of content, a great piece of SEO juice. And if you did decide to go deep into the technical side, like if you explain the entire infrastructure that we're building, that would actually be kind of cool too because you could maintain your technical documentation for the system internally and use it as a piece of content for marketing.Josh:That could be cool. Yeah. That's not a bad idea. Yeah, I was thinking just because I want to get something out there. I'm thinking it will help with both, having a resource for people who are already on the site to see this is basically how you will implement this. It's kind of like an implementation guide, really. But then also SEO. It should help get us in more search results.Ben:Yeah.Josh:And I also want to credit Ben Orenstein and and Tuple. They have a great pair programming guide which was an inspiration for this idea. I just really liked the format that they used, and I just think it's a great idea if you have a product that's highly targeted or focused on one specific thing and doing it really well. I think it's maybe even a great alternative to a blog, for instance. You can get some of the same benefits of having a blog, but without actually having to create a blog with a lot of different variety of topics and things.Ben:Speaking of the blog, I was talking to Harris, our sales guru, about our blog strategy, and I said, "Yeah, it's basically like a flypaper strategy. We want it to attract developers that come and see the content and they love it and they're like, 'Oh, let me check out this Honeybadger thing.'" Not particularly novel, but I like the flypaper idea.Starr:That's a good metaphor. And also for a long time, I poo-pooed SEO because in my mind, SEO was very scammy. I don't know. I learned about SEO in the days of link farming and all that, and I just didn't want to be involved in that. So I'm just like, "We're just going to put out good content and that will be enough." And it is, yes, but also I've looked at some metrics since then that make it clear that the majority of good things that happen because of our blog actually are people entering through search queries. That really outweighs people sharing articles and doing stuff like that, which I guess is obvious that it would be that way, but my own bias against search just made me not see that for a while. So maybe trying to pick some possible low hanging fruit. We've tried to make our site search engine friendly, but we having really done any explicit SEO type activities.Josh:Yeah. I went through recently through our documentation and just tweaked just small things on a bunch of pages, like headlines and some of the meta tags and stuff, but mostly headlines and content on page was what I was focusing on. And I wasn't using any particular tool to measure before and after results, but it does seem like it bumped us up in some of the results for people searching for more general terms like Ruby error tracking, for example, which are typically pretty competitive terms. But I think we rank pretty well for some of those terms these days. I think we've been around enough and we're one of the options that come up. So it does seem like if you already target the terms, it actually does what they say it does, which is good to know. You've just got to pay attention to it.Ben:So the moral of story is there is some value in SEO.Starr:I guess so.Josh:Yeah. Well and I think documentation sites. Your documentation, I think it's a great place to optimize SEO because a lot of times, especially for those... maybe not for the long tail searches. A blog is great for that, like what you were talking about with the flypaper, Ben. But for people who are actually searching for what you do, I think a lot of times documentation pops up first in a lot of cases when I'm searching for things, so don't overlook it like we did.Starr:Yeah. Well this week, I guess the main thing I did was I got our authors lined up for the next quarter of intelligence briefings. So if you haven't been playing along at home, we're having some intelligence briefings created. Basically everything that's going on in a certain language community for the quarter, and this grew out of Josh's need because he's basically in charge of our client libraries. And we have libraries in a variety of languages, so keeping up with those languages and what's going on is a real pain in the ass, so we were going to make these guides originally for him, but then also we were like, "This would be really great content to publish."Starr:And I've already got this system with authors who want to write about programming languages, and so let's see if we can make some authors make these summaries. And so far, yeah, I'm pretty happy. We had four or five of them created, and we're not publishing them because they were for a previous quarter, and this is just a trial run to see if the results are okay, and I think they were. I think the results were pretty good. We go some feedback from you two, and I updated my process and updated the template that all the authors are using, and so we should be getting round two done. I'm setting the deadline a week after the end of the quarter. My hope is if they get them to me then, then I'll have a week to get them up on our blog or wherever, and then they won't be too out of date by the time people see them.Josh:Yeah. That's cool. I'm excited to see the next batch. My favorite thing from the reports were the ones where they wrote some original content summarizing things or sections or whatever. That was super useful because there's a little bit of a story element to it that's specific to the quarter or whatever that you don't really get from just... if you just aggregate everything, all the weekly newsletters and what happened on Reddit and what happened on Twitter. If you just dump that all in a document, it's a bit of overload, so it's nice to have the summary the story of what the community was interested in.Starr:Oh yeah. Definitely.Josh:Here are some articles that they talked about.Starr:That's the whole idea, is to have somebody who knows the community explain to you what's going on, as opposed to... if I wanted a bunch of links, I could just write a little script to scrape links from places.Josh:Yeah.Starr:And it wouldn't be very useful. What's useful is having people who know the environment being like, "Hey, this is what's going on. This is why it's important." And yeah, so that's going to be something I guess I need to look for explicitly when I get this round of things of reports back.Josh:Start calling them secret agents or something instead of authors.Starr:Oh yeah.Josh:Or detectives.Starr:Operatives. Yeah. Assets.Josh:As our detective service investigators.Ben:I think having that analysis of why this news is important or why these things are important that they've collected is really handy, because the links are great. Like you said, I could just write a script to collect them, but having someone with that context in the community saying, "Okay, and it's important because, and this is why you should pay attention," I think that's really helpful to someone who's maybe not as deep into that every day.Starr:Oh yeah.Josh:Yeah. And also knowing what to surface, because there was one report that it really seemed to just dump every single link or article that was discussed or was in a newsletter or whatever, and I think it's more helpful if it's on a quarterly level, if you know what is actually the important things that you really want to know about.Starr:Yeah, that's true. I just made a note for myself to go back and explicitly just mention that to people, because I realized I didn't put it in the instructions anywhere. I put like, "Here's where a description of the content goes," but I didn't really put what I want inside that description, I realized.Josh:Yeah.Starr:So I'm going to do that.Ben:We're iterating in real time here.Starr:Oh yeah, yeah. This is where the work gets done.Josh:Yeah. Well and pretty soon, we'll have hopefully some good examples that we can show future authors, or detectives, or whatever we're calling them.Starr:Oh, definitely. Definitely. I'm going to call them authors because they're already in the blog system as authors and it just seems like-Josh:Agents?Starr:I don't know. I've got to be able to talk to these people with a straight face.Ben:You could call them research specialists, but then you might have to pay them more.Starr:There you go.Josh:Research. Yeah. Yeah.Starr:I don't know. I think I'm paying pretty well. Honestly, I think I'm paying pretty well for looking at... I don't know. How many weeks is a quarter? 12? 12 weeks of newsletters and just telling me what's going on. I think I'm paying pretty well.Josh:Yeah. You don't need to talk to them with a straight face though. You need to talk to them with sunglasses on, smoking a cigarette in a diner.Starr:Oh that's right. Yeah.Josh:Or a dive bar somewhere.Starr:Those people aren't smiling. Those people aren't smiling. Oh, that's right. I can do that. I just realized that it's two weeks since my second vaccine, so I'm ready to go out and recruit secret agents.Josh:Ready to party.Starr:Yeah. I'm very anxious talking with people in public now, but that's not a topic for this conversation.Josh:Yeah. We'll ease back into it.Starr:Oh yeah. Yeah, we're going to have dinner with my sister in law on Saturday, and I'm just like, "Okay Starr, you can do this. You can do this."Josh:Cool.Starr:Yeah, and I guess the other thing that we did this week is we are doing a trial run of Twist as a replacement for Basecamp messages, the message board on Basecamp. And yeah, so basically the long and short of it is the whole Basecamp BS just left a bad taste in my mouth in particular. I think you all's a little bit, or maybe you're neutral. I don't care. That sounded really harsh.Ben:You can be honest with us. We can take it.Starr:No, I didn't mean to sound that harsh. I just mean I'm not trying to put my opinions onto you, is what I'm saying. I just felt gross using Basecamp. Also if I'm being honest, I never really enjoyed Basecamp as a product. It's got a couple things that just really rubbed me the wrong way.Josh:We were having some vague conversations in the past. We have posed do we really want to keep this part of what we're using Basecamp for? And we were already using a subset of it, so yeah. It wasn't totally out of the blue.Starr:Yeah. And we were using maybe 20% of Basecamp, just the message boards feature.Josh:And the check ins, which apparently we all disliked.Starr:And the check ins, which nobody liked but we all kept using for some reason. Ben is like, "Can I turn off the check ins?" And I'm like, "I thought you were the only reason we were doing the check ins, it's because I thought you liked them."Ben:I think I was the only reason we were doing the check ins.Josh:It's because... yeah.Ben:Yeah, because I remember when I started it I was like, "Yeah, I really don't know what's going on," because back to that siloed, independent, off in the corner thing, I was like, "It would be nice to know what people are doing." But yeah, lately I've been like, "This is just a drag." So I'm like, "Would anybody be upset if this went away?" And everyone is like, "Please take it away."Josh:Everyone is just passively aggressively answering them.Ben:Everyone hated it.Josh:It wasn't that bad, but-Ben:I get it.Josh:Kevin used them too, but yeah.Ben:So I finally gave everyone permission to tell me that it was not okay, and now we no longer do it.Starr:There you go. And we're just like, "While we're at it, just ditch Basecamp." So yeah, so we've been trying a new system called Twist. Twist is, essential it's... I don't know, it's like threaded discussions. I figured this out on my own. I'm very proud of myself. So you have lots of threads, and you twist them together to make yarn or something or some sort of textile, so I bet you that's why it's called Twist.Josh:Beautiful sweater.Starr:Yeah. A beautiful sweater. The tapestry that is Honeybadger. And so far, I've really been enjoying it. I find the UI to be a lot better. There was one bug that we found that I reported, so hopefully that will get fixed. It doesn't really bother me that much. Yeah, it's amazing sometimes how the UI of an application can just be like, "Oh, ah. I'm having to parse less information just to do my task."Josh:It's much nicer.Starr:Yeah.Ben:It does feel like a lot less friction for our use case.Josh:Yeah. Well we talked about that, just the structure. The way that you structure conversation and organization things in a management tool like that makes a big difference. In Basecamp, we would create Basecamps for whatever. They call them Basecamps, right? They're the projects.Starr:They're like projects. I don't know.Josh:We'd create different ones, different projects for each project, but then there's five of us, so we'd basically just add everyone to every single project that is in there. But all the conversation is siloed off in each project, and with Twist, it's just much more of a fluid... it uses what, like channels? But yeah, it just seems like it's all together. It's kind of like a combination of Slack and a threaded message board or something, to me.Starr:Yeah, or like Slack and email or something.Josh:Slack and email. Yeah. It's a nice combo.Starr:Yeah. It has inbox, which I like, where it shows you any unread messages, and so you can just easily just go and scan through them, and it's all in the same page. It's a single page application, so you don't have to click out to a completely new page and then come back to the inbox and do all that. Basecamp had a similar feature, but it's like a timeline and it had a line down the middle of the screen and then branches coming off of either side of it. And for some reason, I started using the inbox in Twist and it was just like, "Oh, this is so much better." For some reason I think having things on different sides of the screen just doubled the amount of background processing my brain had to do to put it all together. And yeah, so I don't know. I do like it. Also, it's got mark down. It's got mark down.Josh:The mark down editor is so nice. It reminds me a lot of just using GitHub, the editor on GitHub, with the mark down mode and preview. And you can drag and drop images into the... I don't know if you knew that, into the mark down editor, like you can on GitHub, and it automatically inserts the image tag and uploads it for you.Starr:Yeah, it's all really slick. So I don't know. I imagine in maybe another... I've got vacation next week, so maybe after that we'll get together and compare notes. But I don't know, it seems like people like it so far.Josh:Yeah.Ben:Yeah, it's been good. It's interesting-Josh:If I had to decide today, it's a keeper for me.Ben:Yeah, I would go ahead and switch.Starr:Oh yeah, me too.Ben:It's interesting to me, you alluded to this, Starr, as you were talking about comparing it to your products and how they approach... it's interesting to me the UI, even if it's the same kind of functionality, how much different takes on the user experience can make a different experience for the user. How it just feels different. Like, "Oh yeah, it's basically doing the same thing, but it just feels better for whatever. My mentality or our business." Fill in the blank there, but I thought about that many times. Honeybadger versus competitors. It's like, "Yeah, they're doing basically the same thing, but we do have differences in how we approach the UI and different use patterns that we think are more emphasized by our UI versus the others." And sometimes it's just a matter of personal preference. It's like, "Oh, this just feels better to me." One night I tried Python before I tried Ruby, and Python is like, "Oh, that's interesting," but then Ruby really clicked my brain. It's like, "Oh, it just feels better." And I'm sure other people have the opposite experience, but I don't know. It's weird to me and fun to think about the human part of these products. Josh:Yeah. And it's surprising, the strong opinions that people pick up just based on those experience things when they're basically the same, if they're doing the same thing. Some people, they either love it or hate it based on that.Starr:Yeah, that's true. Maybe it all goes back to whatever business apps you used in childhood. It's just whatever your mom made you for lunch, you're always going to love that.Josh:Yeah. It's like a nurture thing, nature versus nurture. You were exposed to these apps when you were young, and so it's just what you're drawn to.Starr:Yeah. I remember putting my little friend's contact details into Lotus Notes.Josh:Right. I had to program Lotus Notes.Ben:I got my first dev job because I knew Lotus Notes.Starr:Oh, nice.Josh:Lotus Notes was an important precedent at the time, I think.Starr:Yeah.Ben:Yeah. Yeah. It was the bomb. You could do some pretty serious stuff.Starr:Yeah. I kept having these jobs that weren't technically dev jobs, but ended up being dev jobs just because I knew how to write V basic macros for Excel. I'm sure a lot of people had that experience.Josh:The thing I remember doing in Lotus Notes was setting it up to ingest email from the outside world into whatever, the system. And thinking about it now, that project I've done over and over and over since then.Starr:It's Basecamp.Josh:And I'm still doing that project.Starr:It's Basecamp all over again. Oh no.Ben:If only there was a service that took in emails for you, and then you could just bring them into your app data.Josh:Yeah. I bet in 20 years, we'll be writing programs to accept email.Ben:Process emails, yeah.Josh:Yeah.Starr:Yeah. When is this stuff going away? Technology changes all the time. When is email going away? They've been killing it for years. It's like fricking Rasputin. When is it going away?Ben:It's the cockroach of protocols.Starr:There you go.Josh:After the singularity, they'll still have to have a way to import it directly into your consciousness, and yeah, I don't know.Starr:Yeah. I hope the spam filtering is really good then.Starr:All right, well it was great talking with y'all.Ben:Likewise.Starr:Yeah. So this has been FounderQuest. Go to the Apple podcast and review us if you want. If you're interested in writing for us, we are always looking for fresh, new talent. Young authors looking to make their mark on the world of technical blog posts for SAS companies. And yeah, just go to our blog and look for the write for us page. I don't currently have any openings, but who knows? People flake out. So if you're interested in writing these reports for us too, get in touch. These quarterly intelligence briefings, if you want to be an agent for our intelligence service. All right, so I'll see y'all later.

Show notes:Links:Mike MondragonCRDTShip of TheseusExceptional CreaturesShiba Inu Full Transcript:Ben:I'm just gonna dive on in there. I'm so eager. I'm so excited. It's actually weird because Starr is the one that typically starts us off. Josh:Yeah. I thought we were just going to start with our just general banter, and then not introduce the guest until 30 minutes later.Ben:By the way.Josh:It is also our tradition.Ben:Yeah. Well we're getting better at this thing.Josh:Where we say, "Oh, by the way, if Starr doesn't sound like Starr..."Ben:Right, yes. Today Starr doesn't sound like Starr because today's star is Mike Mondragon instead. Welcome Mike.Josh:Hey Mike.Mike:Hey.Ben:Mike is a long time friend of the show, and friend of the founders. Actually, Mike, how long have we known each other? It's been at least 10, maybe 15 years?Mike:Probably 2007 Seattle RB.Ben:Okay.Josh:Yeah. I was going to say you two have known each other much longer than I've even known Ben.Ben:Yeah.Josh:So you go back.Ben:Way back.Mike:Yep.Josh:Yeah.Ben:Yeah.Josh:Because I think Ben and I met in 2009.Ben:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Josh:Or something.Mike:Okay.Ben:Yeah, Mike and I have been hanging out for a long time.Mike:Yeah.Ben:We've known each other through many, many different jobs, and contracts, and so on. It's been awesome.Josh:Yeah, Mike, I feel like I've heard your name since... Yeah, for the last, at least, 10 years just working with Ben. You've always been in the background. And we've realized this is the first time we've actually met face to face, which is crazy. But it's great to... Yeah.Mike:Yeah.Josh:... have a face to put with the little... What is it, a cat avatar? Is a cat in your avatar? You've had that avatar for a really long time I feel like.Mike:Yeah, that's Wallace.Josh:Okay.Mike:So I'm Mond on GitHub and Twitter, and that cat avatar is our tuxedo cat, Wallace. And he is geriatric now. Hopefully he'll live another year. And if you remember in that era of Ruby, all of the Japanese Rubyists had cat icons. And so that was... I don't know. That's why Wallace is my icon.Josh:Yeah. Nice.Ben:So, so do Wallace and Goripav know each other?Mike:No, no, they don't. They're like best friends, right? They had to have met at Seattle RB.Ben:Yeah. Internet friends.Mike:Internet friends, yeah.Ben:Yeah. So, Mike is old school Ruby, way back, way back, yeah. But the other funny thing about the old Rubyists, all those Japanese Rubyists, I remember from RubyConf Denver... Was that 2007? Somewhere around there. I remember going to that and there were mats and a bunch of friends were sitting up at the front, and they all had these miniature laptops. I've never seen laptops so small. I don't know what they were, nine inch screens or something crazy.Mike:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Ben:I was like, "How do you even type on that thing?" But it's a thing. So I guess... I don't know. I haven't been to Japan.Mike:There are laptops that you could only get in Japan and they flash them with some sort of Linux probably.Ben:Yeah. Yeah.Mike:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Josh:Okay. I wonder how long it took them to compile C on there.Mike:Yeah. So, about the orbit with the founders. So, I think I'd put it in my notes that I... And I consider myself a sliver of a Honeybadger in that I did have a conversation with Ben about joining the company. And then in 2017, I did do a little contracting with you guys, which is ironic in that... So we're probably going to talk about cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin. So the Bitcoin protocol is, essentially, on a four-year timer. And in 2017 was the last time that we were building up to, I guess, an explosive end to that cycle. And I had just been working at Salesforce at Desk.com, And I left because of Bitcoin. And then this year, four years later, I, again, just left Salesforce, but I just left from Heroku. And I didn't leave so much because of Bitcoin, I just got a better opportunity, and I'm a principal engineer at Okta, and I'm in the developer experience working on SDKs, primarily, the Golang SDK.Mike:So I think one of the things that they were happy about was that I had experience carrying the pager, and knowing what that's like, and they wanted to have an experienced engineer that would have empathy for the engineers to main the SDK. So I'm really excited to be here, because I'm not going to be carrying the pager, and it is the fun programming. What I imagine, listening to the founders, about the kind of fun programming that you guys get to do, working with different languages and whatnot. So, obviously right now, I'm starting out with Golang. We don't have a Ruby SDK, because OmniAuth provider is the thing that most people use. But, there's also PHP, and some Java, so I'm just looking forward to being able to do a bunch of different languages.Josh:Yeah. That's awesome. Yeah. We don't know anything about SDK teams, Honeybadger. But yeah, it sounds like we have very similar jobs at the moment. So that's cool. We'll have to trade tips at some point. Yeah.Ben:Yeah, I'm excited that you're there, because I'm definitely going to hit you up on the SAML stuff, because SAML's a pain in the tuchus yeah, I'm sure you'll have some insights from your time there.Mike:Well, that was how I was even open-minded to talking to Okta, was the recruiter had contacted me and I think actually it was the recruiter... I don't know the structure of how this works, but a lot of companies have a prospecting recruiter. And I think that a veteran oriented prospecting recruiter contacted me. And so being a veteran, I'll usually entertain those cold calls. And so then when I was at Desk, I wrote... So Desk was a big Rails monolith. I wrote a microservice to break some of the SSO off of the monolith itself. And in writing the API documentation that was on desk.com, I actually used Okta as one of the examples as a SSO identity provider using SAML. So yeah, I have had a little bit of experience from the outside of Okta with SAML. And so maybe I'll have more experience here to answer your questions.Ben:Yeah. We'll have to have you back and we can just do a whole hour on that. It's a fun world.Josh:After we do an hour on SDKs.Ben:Yeah, and your code that you wrote for us still lives on in Honeybadger.Josh:Yeah. Was it the webpack? That was some of the work, right?Ben:Some of it, yeah.Mike:Yep.Josh:Yeah.Ben:And some GitHub integration work.Josh:And the integrations, yeah.Mike:Yeah, well if I remember correctly with the GitHub integration, I did do some GitHub integration, and it tickled your enthusiasm, Ben, and then I think you went in and like refactored that a little bit.Ben:Well, if you have a monolith like Redo that's been around for as long as ours has, things don't... It's like, what was that Theseus' ship, it's goes around the world but you replace things as it goes, and it's never the same app, right?Mike:Yeah, that's the thing, we had discussed this in the prelude around just software engineering in general and how hard it is to maintain a monolith, especially as a company grows and as developers come rolling into a project, you get all of these... Over time you get engineers with different goals, different techniques, different styles of touching your code base, to the point that it becomes very hard to maintain a project. And I think, I don't know if we're going to talk about Heroku at all, but I think that Heroku suffers from a little bit of that, where there's very few original Heroku that are involved in the runtime at least. And I just came from being on the runtime in the control plane. And, definitely, the code base there is... There's maybe one or two people that are still around that have touched that code base from the beginning.Ben:Yeah, let's dive into that, because that's fascinating to me. I know that there's been chatter on Twitter recently that people feel that Heroku is stagnated. That they haven't really brought a lot of innovative stuff to market recently. I remember, actually a funny story, I'm going to tell it myself. I can't remember what year this was, it were way... I don't know, I don't know, early 2000s. I was sitting as part of a focus group, and I can't reveal a lot of information because secrecy and stuff. But anyway, I was part of this focus group and I was asked as part of this group, what as a developer working on Ruby applications and Rails applications, what I thought about this new thing called Heroku. And had it explained to me, "Oh, you just get push", and "Blah, blah, blah", and I poo-pooed the idea. I was like, "Nah, I'm not interested", because I already know how to deploy stuff. I've got Mongrel, I got a DVS.Josh:Say Mongrel.Ben:I know how to use SEP, why do I need this? Like Math, never going to catch on. And so don't follow me for investing advice.Mike:Yeah, totally.Josh:I got my Linodes.Mike:Yeah. Or even back then, I wrote all of my own chef, so I got my own recipes I can-Ben:Right, exactly.Mike:... bare metal at will.Ben:Exactly. So, what do you think, you've been at Heroku, you've seen this process of people having to maintain this code base over a long period of time. What are some tips for people who might be a little earlier on the process? Looking down the road, what do you suggest people think about for having a more maintainable application?Mike:That's interesting. I really think that there is not one size fits all, and actually some of the things that are specific to Heroku, and actually to desk.com when I was there previously, that some of the issues actually stem from Salesforce culture and the way that Salesforce manages its businesses. And so, I guess the thing that I've always liked about Rails, specifically, is that the conventions that are used in Rails, you can drop an experienced Rails developer pretty much into any Rails app and they're going to know the basic conventions. And that saves you so much time to ramping up and bringing your experience into a project. Whereas when you get into bespoke software, then you run into well what were the architectural design patterns 10 years ago compared to now? How much drift has there been in libraries and the language, depending.Mike:And so that is... I don't... That's a very hard question to nail down in a specific way. I would just say in spit balling this, conventions are very important, I would say. So as long as you have a conventions using a framework, then I think that you'll get to go a long ways. However, if you start to use a framework, then you get the everything is a nail and I'm going to use my hammer framework on that. Which is its own thing that I've seen in Ruby, where if you start a project with Rails, I don't think everybody realizes this, but you are essentially going to be doing a type of software development that is in the mindset of Basecamp, right? And if you have an app that is not quite like Basecamp, and then you start to try to extending Rails to do something different, then you're going to start running into issues. And I think that... It makes me sad when I hear people talk poorly about Rails, because oftentimes people are just pushing it into a direction that it's not built to do. Whether they're, like in the old days, like monkey-patching libraries, or whatnot.Ben:Yeah, I think we saw that with the rise of Elixir and Phoenix, right? José just got frustrated with wanting to do some real time stuff. And that really wasn't the wheelhouse for Rails, right? And so he went and built Elixir and Phoenix, and built on top of that. And that became a better hammer for that particular nail than Rails, right? So now if you come into a new project and you're like, "Well, I'm going to do a lot of highly concurrent stuff", well, okay, maybe Rails isn't the best solution. Maybe you should go look at Elixir and Phoenix instead.Mike:Yeah. Yeah. So, with Heroku, I just want to say that it was so awesome to work at Heroku, and the day that I got a job offer to work there, it was like... I still, if I'm having a bad day, I still think about that, and the... I've never used hard drugs, but I would think that somebody that was cocaine high, that's probably what I was feeling when I got the offer from Heroku. I started using Heroku in 2009, and it has a story within our community, it's highly respected. And so I just want to say that I still think very highly of Heroku, and if I was to be doing just a throwaway project, and I just want to write some code and do git push main, or git push Heroku main, then I would definitely do that.Mike:And we were... And I'm not very experienced with the other kinds of competitors right now. I think, like you pointed him out, is it Vercel and Render?Ben:Render. Mm-hmm (affirmative).Mike:Yeah. So I can't really speak to them. I can really just speak to Heroku and some of the very specific things that go on there. I think one of the issues that Heroku suffers from is not the technology itself, but just the Salesforce environment. Because at Salesforce, everything eventually has to be blue, right? And so, Heroku, I don't think they ever could really figure out the right thing to do with Heroku. As well as, the other thing about enterprise software is that if I'm selling Salesforce service cloud or whatever, I'm selling, essentially, I'm selling seats of software licenses. And there's no big margin in selling Compute, because if I'm buying Compute, I expect to be using that.Mike:And so, as a salesperson, I'm not incented to sell Heroku that much because there's just not margins for me in the incentive structure that they have at sales within Salesforce. So I think that's the biggest thing that Heroku has going against it, is that it's living in a Salesforce environment. And as, I guess, a owner of Salesforce being that I have Salesforce stock, I would hope that they would maximize their profits and actually sell Heroku. Who knows, maybe a bunch of developers get together and actually buy the brand and spin that off. That would be the best thing, because I think that Salesforce would probably realize a lot more value out of Heroku just by doing that, even if there's some sort of profit sharing, and then not have to deal with all the other things.Ben:Yeah, that's really interesting. Yeah. The thing about billing, and then selling per user, versus the compute- That's definitely a different world. It's a totally different mindset. And I think Josh that we have now been given a directive step. We should acquire Heroku as part of Honeybadger.Josh:I was going to say, maybe we can acquire it with all of our Doge profits in five or 10 years from now.Mike:Well, yeah. Somebody spin a Heroku coin, a ERC20 token on Ethereum and get everybody to dump their Ethereum into this token.Josh:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Mike:Get that pot of money together. And then that is the Heroku Foundation. Yeah, exactly.Josh:Okay, yeah.Mike:The Heroku Foundation that buys the Heroku brand. I know that we're laughing about it, but actually this is what is possible today. And, I was telling Ben... Well, let me just say a couple of things about the FounderQuest and how it relates to me, is I've been listening to FounderQuest from the first episode, and I'm an only child, and I like to listen to podcasts. So I'll be on my afternoon walk, and I'll be hearing you guys talk, and I'm having this conversation along with you guys listening to the podcasts.Mike:And so, I think, in January, you guys were talking about, or maybe Ben was talking about, $30,000 Bitcoin, and you guys just had your yucks and laughs about it. And it actually made me think critically about this, because I've been involved with Bitcoin since about 2012, and it's like, "Do I have a tinfoil hat on?" Or what do I think? And so, I'm not joking about this, listening to you guys actually has helped me concretely come up with how I feel about this. And first off, I think, I'm bullish on technology. And this is the first epiphany that I had, is all of us have had a career close to Linux, close to Ruby, building backend services, close to virtualization and orchestration. Fortunately, that's been my interest, and fortunately that's been where our industry has gone. And so, when Bitcoin came out, as technologists, all you ever hear, if you don't know anything about Bitcoin, you just hear currency. And you're thinking internet money, you're not thinking about this as a technologist.Mike:And so that was the thing. I wish that Bitcoin had been talked about as a platform, or a framework.Josh:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Mike:And not even called it coin. Because that confuses the issue-Josh:The whole coin thing, just... Yeah.Mike:Yeah, totally. And mining the metaphors-Josh:That alone.Mike:... just totally throws everything off. Because we are talking, we're laughing about it, but this is really possible today. We could come up with a Foundation to buy Heroku with a cryptocurrency, and it would... Yeah. So that's one thing that Ben helped me realize in my thinking around Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. And I think I'm just bullish on technology. And so to me, again, across our career, there's been so much change. And why would we look at Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies any differently than any other kind of technology? Even a hundred dollar bill with all the holograms on it, that is a kind of financial technology. And so we're just talking about a digital technology, we're not talking about coins I guess.Josh:That's the appeal, a lot of the Altcoins, right? They give everyone a way to invest in those companies, whereas before you would have to... Whatever, be an accredited investor or something to be able to get involved. Is that part of the appeal? I'm probably showing what I know about crypto, which is very little, but I'm excited to... Yeah, maybe you can...Mike:Yeah. Yeah, so I feel like these projects are... I'm not a VC, and I'm not an insider, but from what I can see from afar, in Silicon Valley there's a close group of people that have access to all of these ideas. And there's Angel clubs, and VC clubs, and whatnot, that are funding these startups. And to me, I feel like these crypto projects are the same kind of thing, except for they're just available to the public. And so, I think if I was speaking to another technologist that was interested in cryptocurrencies, is you probably need to get your hands on some of the technology in order to get experience with it.Mike:And so if that means you figure out how to maybe mine some coin on your laptop, or whatever, or you actually pay for it, you should at least have some in your possession, and at least learn about the custodial part of it. Also, there's different software libraries now to actually do programming against it, and platforms, I believe. So that'd be another way to at least tickle your curiosity, is by actually touching the technology and not thinking about the value. So yeah.Ben:Yeah. That, to me, that's one of the most interesting things about the whole coin thing. My younger son is really interested in the crypto space, in the coin and in the other parts of a distributed ledger, and what does that mean, and how does that work? And before I heard about NFTs, he was talking about NFTs. And so it's really interesting to me to see this coming from him. Just yesterday, we had a conversation about CRDTs, right? Because we're talking about how do you merge transactions that are happening in distributed fashion? Right? I was like, "Oh yeah", and it's so weird to have my teenage sons' world colliding with my world in this way.Josh:Yeah.Ben:But it's a lot of fun. And I've got to say, Mike, I got to give you back some credit, talking about the whole coin thing. As you've heard, we're pretty coin skeptical here at Honeybadger, the Founders, but you made a comment in our pre-show conversation. And maybe you didn't make this explicitly, but maybe it's just a way that I heard it. But I think... Well what I heard was, and maybe you actually said this, was basically think about this like an index fund, right? You put dollar cost to averaging, right? You put some money into coin, you put a little bit, it's not going to be your whole portfolio, right? But you don't treat it like a gamble, and you just treat it like an investment, like you would other things that may appreciate in value. And of course you may not.Ben:And so, as a result, I decided, "Okay, I can do that. I can put a little bit of my portfolio into coins". So just this week, and this is the funny part, just this week-Josh:I'm just finding this out now, by the way.Ben:Yeah, yeah. Josh is like... I told my wife about this last night and she was like, "What's Josh going to say?" "Like, I don't know". So anyway, just this week I put a little bit of money into Bitcoin and Ethereum. And that was... When did Elon do his thing about Bitcoin? Was that Thursday morning?Josh:Oh yeah.Ben:I bought, two hours before Elon did his thing, and Bitcoin lost 15% of its value.Mike:That's awesome.Ben:I'm like, "It's okay. It's okay, I'm just putting-Josh:Yeah, you don't sell, it doesn't matter.Mike:What was your emotion? What was your emotion?Ben:Yeah, totally. Yeah. In fact, my first buy, I used Coinbase. And Coinbase was like, "Oh, do you want to do this periodically?" I'm like, "Yes, I do. Every month". Boom.Mike:Oh.Ben:I went ahead and set that up like so, yeah.Mike:Oh, I did not know you could do that.Ben:I'm in it to win it, man.Mike:You should get a hardware wallet. That's the next thing, is you need to learn how to handle your own custody, so-Josh:Right, yeah. You got to... Yeah.Mike:Not leave it on the exchange. Interesting.Josh:Get those hard drives.Mike:Yeah.Josh:Yeah. Ben's a veteran indexer though. So you can handle some dips. Some volatility.Ben:Yeah. Yeah.Josh:I actually, I did make some money off of Bitcoin back in the day, and probably if I would've just held onto it, I would've made a lot more, of course.Mike:Same.Josh:So I accidentally... Back, I don't know when this was, it was maybe five years ago or something, when Bitcoin was going through one of its first early hype cycles, and I was like, "I'll check it". I was learning about it, of course. And so I went and bought some and I think I ran a blockchain Elixir app that someone made, to see how the transactions work and stuff. Read some books on Bitcoin. But I bought some Bitcoin, I can't remember how much, but just left it. I think this was after Coinbase had launched, I'm pretty sure I bought it through Coinbase. But yeah, I just left it, and then that was when it was in the first huge push of Bitcoin where it went up to 20,000 or something. And I remembered that I had it, and I went and looked and oh yeah, I made five grand or something. I put hardly anything into it initially. So I forget what I actually bought with that money. I just sold it and it's like cool, free money.Mike:So you just sold it this year? Or you sold it...Josh:No, I sold it back-Mike:In 17?Josh:I think I sold it at 20... Yeah, this would have been at 17 that I actually sold it, probably.Mike:Did you report it on your taxes, your capital gains?Josh:I did, yes. Yeah, I did.Ben:That's the benefit of having an accountant, because your accountant reminds you, "You know what? You did have some Bitcoin transactions, you should probably look at those".Josh:Can I say on here that I actually put some of it through a Bitcoin tumbler though, just to see how those work?Mike:Yeah, I mean...Josh:And that was a very small amount of money, but I didn't actually report that on my taxes. Because I think I actually forgot where it was or something.Ben:You'll have to explain what a Bitcoin tumbler is.Josh:So a Bitcoin tumbler... Well, I'll try, and then maybe Mike might explain it better, but a Bitcoin tumbler is basically how you anonymize your Bitcoin transaction. If you have some Bitcoin and you want to buy some drugs on the dark web or something, you go and you send your Bitcoin to this tumbler, and then it distributes it to a bunch of random Bitcoin addresses that it gives you. And then you have those addresses, and they're anonymized, because they've been sent through a bunch of peoples' wallets, or something like that.Mike:Yep. That's basically it.Ben:So it's basically money laundering.Josh:Yeah, it's laundering.Mike:Yeah. But if your privacy... I mean, okay-Josh:Yeah, no, I get it. Yeah. I mean, yeah. Because part of the appeal of Bitcoin is some people are just like, "Oh yeah, good money, credit card transactions are so... The governments are recording them and stuff, the NSA probably has a database of them". So Bitcoin is anonymous, but it's not. It's not anonymous. And yeah. So that's why people do this, right?Mike:Yeah. Well that, to me, that's if you want to... So the value of Bitcoin, if you want to get bullish on the value of Bitcoin, the traditional outlook is yeah, the silk road was going on and there's all this illegal stuff going on. Therefore it must be bad. But actually, to me, that's the thing, you know it's good if there's illicit stuff going on, because what's the number one currency that's used right now for illicit transactions? It's dirty US dollar bills. And if you're a drug dealer in central South America, you are collecting, dollar bills United States. You're paying some sort of transport probably at 10, 15% cost to get those dollars back to wherever you're going to hold them. And so, if you're using Bitcoin, you're probably not going to pay that fee. So, to me, it's like okay, that actually proves, at least in my mind, that there is value. That it's being used, right?Josh:Yeah. And you also, you don't want to see... Some people are fanatics about cash going away, even just because as more people move to digital transactions, whether it's just through, whatever, traditional networks, or through crypto. People are using less and less cash. And I feel like, whatever... Like Richard Stallman, he pays for everything in cash though, because he thinks that cash is going to go away someday. And that's a problem for privacy, because you do want a way to pay for things in private in some cases.Mike:Yep. I agree.Josh:Yeah.Ben:My only real beef with Bitcoin, well, aside from the whole requiring power plants just to do a transaction, is that there is Badger coin. This company that is named Honeybadger, it's all about Bitcoin. And they have these ATM's in Canada, and we constantly get support requests from people.Mike:Oh really?Josh:Is this the reason that we've been so down on cryptocurrencies in the past?Ben:I think so.Josh:Because ever since the beginning, since people started making coins, Badger coin came out and then it's been our primary exposure to be honest.Ben:It has been, yeah.Josh:Throughout the past... I don't know how many years it's been. Has it been six-Ben:Yeah, six-Josh:... to eight years?Ben:Yeah, something like that. It's been nuts.Josh:I'd say.Mike:You should send them an invoice, and they actually-Ben:Yeah, so what happens is they had these kiosks where you can buy Bitcoin, right? You put your real money in, and you get your fake money out, right? And the name on the top of the kiosk is Honeybadger. So, someone puts in some money, real money, and they don't get their fake money, then all of a sudden they're upset, right?Mike:Yeah.Ben:And so they... For whatever reason, it doesn't go through, right, I don't know how this works, I've never bought Bitcoin at a kiosk. But so, they're like, "Okay, Honeybadger". And so they Google Honeybadger, and the first result for Honeybadger is us. And so they're like, "Oh, here's a phone number I can call". And they call us. And they're like, "Where's my Bitcoin?" That's like, "Uh, I really can't help you with that".Josh:They do.Ben:"You stole my Bitcoin". It's like, "No, that's not us".Josh:Something just occurred to me. I wonder how many of them are just confused over the fact that Bitcoin transactions can take a while to arrive now, right? It's not always instantaneous, where it used to be a lot faster, but now I know that it can take a while to clear. So I wonder how many of those people are emailing us in the span... Maybe that's why they eventually always go away and we don't hear from them again. Maybe it's not that they're getting help, but it's just that their Bitcoins are arriving. Yeah. I have a feeling that there's some sort of... I'm guessing these are mostly regular normies using, and interacting with this very highly technical product and experience, and even if you're walking up to a kiosk, but there's still a highly technical aspect of it that, like you said Mike, people are thinking coin, they're thinking... The way this maps to their brain is it's like dollar bills. So they're looking at it like an ATM. Yep.Mike:Yeah. When it comes to cryptocurrency and the technology, I don't want to have to think about custody, or any of that other kinds of stuff. It'll be successful when it just is happening, I'm not thinking about it. They're already... In some... I don't know all of the different mobile devices, but I do carry out an iPhone. And so, the wallet on iPhone is pretty seamless now, right? And so I'm not thinking about how that technology is working. I had to associate an Amex with it originally, right? But once I've done that, then all I do is click my button to pay. And there you go. And so I do think that the cryptocurrency technology has a long way to go towards that, because if normal people, the non nerds, have to think about it, then it's not going to be useful. Because in the end-Josh:Yeah.Mike:... humans use tools, right? And so, whatever the tool is, they're going to use it especially if it's easy and it makes their life easier.Ben:So what I really want to know, Mike, is what are your feelings about Dogecoin? Are you bullish on Doge?Mike:Well, I'll answer that, but I wanted to come back to the bit about the NFT, and just talking about the possibilities with technology. And I think that you guys could profit from this.Ben:I like where it's going.Mike:You'll have to do some more research. But I think what you could do... See, I love the origin story of Honeybadger. And maybe not everybody knows about the Honeybadger meme from what is... When was this, two thousand...Ben:2012? 2011?Mike:Yeah, okay. So not everybody... Yeah, bot everybody knows about the meme. I guess, just go Google-Ben:I can link it in the show notes.Josh:It's long dead. This meme is long dead.Mike:Is it? Well it's still awesome. I still love it.Josh:It is.Mike:So, there's so many facets of this that I love. The first one is that... Can I name names on competitors-Ben:Of course.Mike:... in the origins? Okay. So the first one was is that Airbrake, an exception reporting service, was doing a poor job with their customer service. And you guys were like, "We're working on this project, we need exception reporting. It's not working". It's like, "Well, can we just take their library, and build our own backend?" Right? And to me, that is beautiful. And in thinking about this episode, in Heroku, the same opportunity lies for an aspiring developer out there where you could just take the Heroku CLI and point it at your own false backend until you figure out all of the API calls that happen. And I don't know, you have that backed by Kubernetes, or whatever orchestration framework is...Mike:There is the possibility that you could do the same Honeybadger story with Airbrake SDK, as there is with the Heroku CLI. So that's the first thing I love about the Honeybadger story, and the fact the name goes along with the fact that Airbrake had poor customer support, and you guys just were like, "F it, we're going to build our own exception reporting service". Now, in the modern context with NFTs is... I have old man experience with the NFTs in that GIFs, or GIFs, and JPEGs, this is BS that people are gouging for profit. However, the technology of the NFT... This is the thing that I think is beautiful, is that... And I'm not sure which of the NFTs does this, but there is the possibility that you could be the originator of a digital object, and then you sell that digital object. And then as that digital object is traded, then you, as the, I guess, the original creator, you can get a percentage of the sales for the lifetime of that digital asset.Ben:Yeah.Mike:And, I'm not sure which of the NFTs allows that, but that is one of the things, that's one of the value propositions in NFT. So what I was thinking is if you guys did an NFT on the shaw of the original Honeybadger Ruby SDK check-in, that this could be the thing that you guys have an experiment with, is you have real skin in the game, you're playing with the technology and see if that works. And, let me know if you do that, because I might try to buy it. So, we'll see.Josh:Well, we've already got a buyer, why wouldn't we?Mike:Yeah, so..Ben:Indeed, yeah.Josh:See I was thinking maybe you could own various errors or something in Honeybadger.Mike:Yeah, I mean... Whatever digital signature you want to... Whatever you want to sign, and then assign value to.Josh:Yeah, we could NFT our Exceptional Creatures.Mike:Yeah.Josh:Have you seen that, Mike? Have you seen that project?Mike:Yep, yep.Josh:Okay.Mike:I'm well aware of that. Yep.Ben:Yeah. I'm thinking what about open source maintainers, right? Let's say you have this project and someone really wants a particular feature, right? Or they're really happy about a particular feature that you've already done, right? You can sell them that shaw, that commit, that put it into name, right?Mike:Yeah, totally.Ben:You are the proud owner of this feature. Thank you.Mike:Yeah, totally. Yeah, I was hoping that I would come with some ideas. I hope someday in the future that I run into somebody and it's like, "Oh, we heard that podcasts were where ideas were free ideas that were worth a lot of money were thrown about. And I did this project, and now I'm retired. Thank you, Mike". Honeybadgers.Josh:Wait, so Ben are you saying that, so as a committer, so say I commit something to Rails, submit a PR, so then I own that PR once it's merged and it would be like I could sell that then to someone? Is that along the lines of what you're saying?Ben:No, I'm thinking the owner of the project. So, if you commit something to Rails, and you're really excited about it, and you for some reason want to have a trophy of that commit-Josh:Right.Ben:... on a plaque on the wall, right? Then the Rails core group could sell you that token.Josh:Okay. Gotcha.Ben:That trophy, that certificate, like, "Yep. This is your thing. Commissioned by..." It's like naming a star, right?Josh:Yeah.Ben:You buy the rights to a star, and it's fake stuff, right? We're naming stars. But that's the same idea.Josh:Yeah. So you could use that same idea to incentivize open-source contribution. So if you make the PR to Rails and it gets merged, you get this NFT for the PR merge, which you could then actually profit for if it was... Say it was, I don't know, turbo links or something, whatever. Years later, when it's a huge thing and everyone in Rails is using it, maybe Mike's going to come along and be like, "Hey, I'll buy... I want to own the PR for turbo links".Ben:Right.Josh:Yeah. And of course then, you, as the owner, would also profit from any sale between parties later on too. You'd get that little percentage.Mike:Yeah. Well, so when somebody comes up with committer coin, just remember me, I want to airdrop of some committer coin.Josh:We have a name. We've got a name for it. Commit coin.Ben:I've got a new weekend project ahead of me.Mike:Yeah.Josh:Cool. Well, that helps me understand NFTs.Ben:Yeah, I really like the idea of being able to sell ownership rights to a digital asset. That I think a good idea. I don't know that the current implementation that we see on the news is a great implementation of that idea. Buying the rights for a copy of a JPEG, it feels kind of sketchy to me. But maybe there's some sort of, I don't know, PDF document that has some sort of value for some reason. And you can give that, sell that to someone. And to me, it's not so much about the profit, or the transaction, it's the ownership. You can say I am the owner of this thing. Yeah, there can be copies all over the place, but I'm the person that has the ownership, quote unquote, of this thing.Josh:Yeah, yeah. But then you've got to define value Ben. What is value? Okay, so, what makes a PDF more valuable than a JPEG?Mike:Yeah. Yeah. Bring this back to Dogecoin, and value propositions, and whatnot. What is valuable? When you're talking about the value of a JPEG, this reminded me of a conversation I was having with my son. He's 10 years old and he wanted some money to buy, I don't know what it was, and old man voice came out of me and it's like, "That's BS. I don't think that's valuable". And he looked at me and he was like, "It's valuable to me". And it's like, "Oh, you just put a dagger in my heart. I'm killing your dream". And one person's value may not be another person's value. So, on the Dogecoin, that's interesting. Dogecoin is very interesting to me, because I feel like I'm in a quantum state with a Dogecoin where it is a joke, but at the same time it apparently it has value.Mike:And I don't know where I stand on that threshold. I know how to trade Dogecoin. And I know the behavior of Dogecoin, and the behaviors, from a trading standpoint, has changed substantially in the last six months. Before it was a pump and dump kind of thing. Well, actually, you know what? When Dogecoin was first created, its purpose was highlighted by the community. People in podcast land don't realize this, but I'm wearing a 2017 Dogecoin shirt from when the Dogecoin community sponsored the number 98 NASCAR. And the thing of the community was like, "Oh, we have all this money, and we're just being altruistic and we're giving it away". And so they were exercising their belief with this currency, right?Mike:And from then, till now, there was a bit of a cycle to Dogecoin where you could, if you acquired Dogecoin for say under a hundred Satoshis, this is the Dogecoin BTC pair, that was actually a good buy. Just wait for the next pump when somebody does something, and Dogecoin goes over 200, or 300 Satoshis, and then you dump it. And that's basically what I did on this in the last six months. I had a small bag of Dogecoin waiting for the next pump and dump. And I actually did that, but it kept on getting pumped, and then it would stabilize. And then now we're at the point where apparently Elon Musk and Mark Cuban are saying that there's value to it.Mike:And to me, I actually put a lot of credence to that, because these are two public persons that they cannot... If they're pumping things in the public domain, then they have risk, right? And so you can't be those two people, and be pumping, and not run the risk of the FTC of the United States government coming in and saying, "Hey, why were you doing this?" So there's the, I guess for me, a small bit of a guarantee that maybe there is something to Dogecoin.Josh:Yeah. See, the way I think, when you first started you were saying it is a joke, but you're in this dual state, and my initial or immediate thought was it is a joke, but this is the internet, and the internet loves to make silly things real.Mike:Yeah, yeah.Josh:Especially these days.Ben:Yeah. It's pretty funny for all those people that made a bunch of money on GameStop, right? Yeah.Mike:Yeah. Well that's the thing, is in Dogecoin, Doge is, of itself, from a meme from the same time period as Honeybadger, right? The Iba Shinu doggie, right? So, the other thing I don't understand, or the thing that I understand but I don't know how to quantify it for myself, is that, to me... So there's no pre-mine on Dogecoin. There's no one person that owns a lot of Dogecoin from the beginning. Whereas if we're talking about Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin, the founder, or one of the founders of Ethereum, they pre-mined Ethereum, and there's a ton of Ethereum that's owned by the founders. Whereas you compare that to, say, Litecoin, Charlie Lee cloned Bitcoin and created Litecoin. He sold all of his Litecoin. I believed in him when he said he's sold it all. He's a software engineer, just like us. He was Director of Engineering at Coinbase.Mike:He doesn't seem like he's wearing tinfoil hat out there, doing conspiracies. So when he says that he sold his coin in 2017, all of his Litecoin, I totally believe that. Yet today, he is the chairperson of the Litecoin foundation. And so, to me... I actually do have, I placed some value in the benevolence of Litecoin and Dogecoin, because there's not any one person that actually controls it. I guess Charlie Lee, he probably has a stronger voice than most. But he doesn't control the levers.Josh:Not financially.Mike:Yeah.Josh:Yeah.Mike:Yeah. And so then with Dogecoin... So Dogecoin, it'll be awesome if it gets above a dollar, but the structure of Dogecoin will be such as they cannot maintain that.Josh:Right.Mike:Because it's an inflation-Josh:There's no cap, right?Mike:Right.Josh:Yeah.Mike:It's inflation. And so, I don't know the number, I think it's a million Dogecoin are minted every day. So, 10 years from now, if Dogecoin is worth a dollar still, then that means Bitcoin will be worth a lot more than that. So I guess that'd be awesome if Dogecoin stays a dollar. However, the point I'm trying to make is actually there is value in having an inflationary currency, especially if we're talking about living in the structure of our current financial... The way that our current financial markets work, where there is an inflation.Mike:And so if I want to be transacting with a digital currency, I don't want to have to be, say, like having an Argentina kind of moment where my one Dogecoin is worth $5 American today, and then maybe only $3 American a week from now. So to me, I think there is value in Dogecoin in that it's inflationary, and that it will not be as susceptible to speculation bubbles as other currencies. And so, I don't know if that answers your questions on the value of Dogecoin, but those are a couple of reasons why I think that Dogecoin is valuable. Now, am I going to be holding a big bag of Dogecoin in 2022? Probably not. Just to be honest.Ben:We're all about honesty at Honeybadger. I love the episodes where we have to have a disclaimer, this is not financial advice. Please consult competent professionals before investing, et cetera, et cetera. Mike, it has been a delight to have you with us. We appreciate your counterbalance to our coin pessimism that we have amongst the Honeybadger fan base.Josh:Yeah, I think we needed this.Ben:Yeah.Josh:We really needed this.Ben:We really did.Josh:So thank you.Ben:It's been good.Mike:Yeah. Oh, I got one more idea out there. Hopefully, somebody can run with this, is I've been trying to get motivated to do some experimentation with the Bitcoin lightning network. We didn't really talk about these a layer two solutions for scaling, but I think that there is a lot of potential in coming up with an interesting project that lays within the Litecoin* network, it has its value in and of itself, but there's a secondary value of being a note on the Litecoin* network where if there's transactions going through your node, let's say, I don't know how you'd instrument this, but let's say that Honeybadger actually was... That you guys were taking your payments across your own lightning node, then all of the transactions that are going across the lightning network, you're getting a small fee, right? So I think that there's the possibility of a micropayments kind of play there, like for instance, paying by the exception. I mean, literally-*Editor's note from Mike - "in my excitement talking about the Lighting Network I slipped and said Litecoin a couple of times between Lightning Network. Lightning Network is a layer 2 protocol that is primarily intended for scaling Bitcoin and that was what I meant. However, Lightning can be implemented to run on top of Litecoin and Ethereum."Josh:That has come up that has come up in the past, I think at one point.Mike:You can't do micro payments on a credit card.Josh:Yeah.Mike:Right? But you can do micropayments on lightening network. And I'm not selling you guys on this, but I'm saying that there's going to be some nerd out there that it's like, "Oh my God micropayments are here, I can do micropayments on lighting network". And then they're going to do well on that product, but then they're also going to do well on the commission that they're earning on payments going through their node.Josh:This could be used for usage base software as a service billing model.Ben:Totally. And then you get the skim off the top, just like a good affiliate does.Mike:Yes.Ben:I love it.Mike:Yes.Ben:I love it. All right. All right, Mike, we're going to have to do some scheming together. Well, any final words, any parting words besides go by all the Dogecoin that you can?Mike:Yeah. Don't put all your money into the cryptocurrencies. Yeah.Josh:Seems like good advice.Ben:Be smart

Show notes:Links:Threads.comBlueyVogmaskTwistIt’s a Southern ThingIf I had a front porchFull transcript:Josh:How y'all doing?Ben:I'm doing.Starr:Yeah, about the same.Ben:I've been riding my scooter to work all week.Starr:Oh, how's that?Ben:It's a lot of fun. Got a little electric kick scooter and top speed about 25 miles per hour. I was concerned about it being able to get up the hill that I have to go back up on my way home. It does drag a bit on that hill. I only got a single motor. Guess I should have gone with the dual motor. Otherwise it's fun. It's nice to be out in nature, I guess, air quotes, because you're still on the road and you're still a victim of cars and stuff. Being able to see the sun coming up over the hills and down to the valley and while you're just feeling the wind on your face, it's all good.Josh:It sounds nice.Ben:Yeah.Starr:Yeah, sounds awesome. I don't know. It seems terrifying to me, but I'm sure it's a lot of fun.Ben:It helped that I have done a lot of bike riding on roads for the past several years, so I'm already comfortable with the idea of mixing it up with cars and weaving in and out of traffic and realizing that people aren't going to see me and things like that. I think if I had just gone from driving a car straight to riding a scooter in the bike lane, that would be a little more terrifying.Starr:Yeah, that makes sense.Josh:Next you're going to have to upgrade to one of the electric skateboards or a Onewheel or something, just remove the handle bars.Ben:Right, right, right. Get one of those Onewheel things.Josh:This is leading up to-Ben:Totally.Starr:We're just working up to hoverboards. I mean I commute to my backyard office, so maybe I should get a zip-line or something from the main house.Ben:I like that, yeah.Starr:... then I could be extreme.Josh:We want a zip-line at our place out into the forest.Starr:That would be fun.Ben:You could do a zip-line from your deck to the sandbox, send the kids out to play.Josh:The kids would love it. Well, I was thinking more for myself though. Screw the kids. They don't need a zip-line.Starr:There you go. That's actually not a bad idea. We're going to get-Josh:That would be cool though.Starr:... a deck in the fall.Josh:Oh, nice.Starr:I had thought it would be fun to put a fireman pole on one side or something so kids could slide down it. It's raised up a little bit but not that much. It's like a kid's sliding size.Ben:That would be totally awesome. That would-Josh:We have been loving our new deck that we have had for a month and a half or something now. It's a new deck. If you have a really old, rickety deck, a new one is a big upgrade. Also ours is a little bit larger, too, so it's like a bigger house almost.Starr:Oh, that's great. We don't even have a deck it's just like a little stairway.Josh:I think you're going to like it, Starr.Starr:I think so, too. I know, deck life. It's going to be covered. I was just like-Josh:It's just the small things.Starr:I know. All I want is to be able to go out on a nice evening or something and sit and drink a cup of tea and be outside.Ben:And think about all-Josh:I was going to say, where do you drink the sweet tea in the summer if you don't have a front porch?Starr:Yeah, that's the main problem with houses up here in the Northwest is there's not real front porches. We have one that's like a weird nod at a front porch. It's like somebody maybe had seen a front porch once when they were... They were like, "Oh, maybe I'll try and do that from memory," without really knowing what it's supposed to be like.Josh:Some of the ones in Portland have them, but they're boxed in usually, and they're the older houses-Josh:... like the old Craftsmans or whatever.Starr:The stately grand dames.Josh:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Ben:Well, here in Kirkland we're destroying all those old houses and putting in-Starr:Thank God.Ben:... townhouses.Josh:Hell, yeah.Ben:I drove by one this morning. This morning was the first morning since I got my scooter that I actually didn't ride the scooter because it was raining and the ground was wet. I was like, "Ah, I don't want to deal with that this morning." So I just drove. I drove past this house that... Well, yesterday it was a house. Today, it's a pile of sticks because they sold the lot, and they're going to split it into probably, I don't know, four lots and put in some townhouses. It's always a sad thing, but people got to have a place to live.Starr:Yeah, it's a shame. They tore down a house on my block, too, except it was a condemned house. It looked like a gingerbread fairy house that you'd find on just a random stroll in the woods where you'd go inside and you'd find just a delicious meal laid out on the table just waiting for you. So I'm a little sad it's gone just for, I guess, the storytelling aspects, the mythology of it. I guess it's probably best not to just have a condemned structure hanging out.Josh:I still do feel like Ida's is missing out with your telling of that story. I feel a little sad for you all.Starr:I know. I know.Ben:You're totally missing the threat possibility there. Like, "Don't misbehave or I'll send you over to the gingerbread house."Starr:Oh my god, yeah. Yeah, lots of great ways to traumatize my child.Ben:Speaking of traumatizing children, I was going through Twitter the other day, and the Washington State Department of Health had a tweet. I don't remember what the tweet was, but they had a GIF embedded in it. It was Stimpy from Ren & Stimpy as a scene from the show. I was like, "That's from the Department of Health? My generation is now in charge."Starr:With the Twitter account at least.Ben:We're now putting in-Josh:Yeah, exactly.Ben:That was the weirdest... It's like, "I'm an adult." That was a weird, weird experience.Josh:It is kind of strange when the people in charge start looking more and more like you until you realize they're just like-Ben:They're just little kids, just like I am.Josh:Then you wonder why the hell they're in charge.Starr:I'm getting like Paul Ryan listening to a Rage Against the Machine vibe from this.Josh:That's what I'd be playing if I was in charge of the Department of Health's-Starr:There we go.Josh:... Twitter account.Starr:I think this week has all been a little bit... I don't know. We're all maybe a little bit having a hard time focusing. I know I have a little bit just. It seems like that happens every spring as soon as the weather gets nice and it stops being nice, then it gets nice and it stops being nice. You're waiting by the door with your kayak. You just got to get the jump on it before everybody else gets to the lake.Josh:Yeah, I think that's a big part of it. Also allergies have been kicking in lately.Starr:Oh my god, yeah.Josh:I was really on top of it this year, but then I ran out of my Zyrtec or whatever. It was on the list to replenish the supply or whatever, but I procrastinated and missed a few days. That's a huge mistake.Starr:Oh, yeah.Josh:That was this week. Now I switched to Claritin, so we'll see how... That's the big news of my week.Starr:Oh my gosh. I'm getting vaccinated later today, my second dose.Josh:Nice.Starr:Yeah.Josh:Congrats.Starr:I think I'm still going to keep wearing the KN95 respirators outside, though, just for the allergies.Josh:It's probably a good call.Ben:I was helping a neighbor with some yard work and doing a bunch of weeding and had the weed whacker out, and there's just dirt flying everywhere. I'm like, "Man, I should really wear a mask." Like, how ironic. I've got like, I don't know, a thousand masks in my house, and I'm not wearing one as I'm doing all this dusty stuff.Josh:That's a good thing to do.Starr:Oh, this is reminding me, I need to stock up before fire season.Ben:A few years ago when we had the really bad fire season, we got some Vogmasks. This was before the world knew that you were supposed to wear masks. Vogmasks are fantastic. They're a fabric mask that have the filtering stuff on the inside and highly recommend. I'll put a link in the show notes.Starr:Cool.Ben:Good stuff. When the pandemic hit, of course, they were out of stock immediately because everybody and their brother wanted one, but they've been back in stock. They're nice masks. They're really nice.Starr:Well, one thing that we have been doing is casually just checking out alternatives to Basecamp for our internal company's message board. I don't know. I feel like we're just perusing the alternatives. Honestly, it's been a little bit difficult finding just a system out there that's just a simple thread and message board without a million complex adjustments for running a forum that has thousands of people. Somebody on Twitter yesterday recommended Threads. I don't know. I think we're currently evaluating that one but no decisions yet.Josh:Is that like Twitter threads? You just-Starr:Oh, yeah, just Twitter threads.Josh:We do all of our communicating but just public threads.Starr:No, we're just going to use Twitter stories. We're just going to take some pics of ourselves in different-Josh:If we're trying to go to the opposite direction of Basecamp, we could just... Well, I guess this is like Basecamp, just do all of our communication via thought leadership.Starr:There you go.Ben:What if we did all of internal communication via TikTok?Starr:Okay, I'm getting this. I'm on board with this. We're just going to be influencers. Whoever's the most influential is going to-Josh:You know what? If our employees don't like it, too bad. You're getting a Twitter account, and it's getting verified.Starr:Yeah, they can interpret our really random TikTok video and try and figure out what it means. That's how they'll discover our disapproval.Ben:On the Basecamp thing, though, it was interesting as I was looking at it this week and realizing that the only thing that we use in Basecamp is messages along with the files. We sometimes attach files to our messages.Josh:Or email forwards.Ben:Yeah, occasionally we do an email forward. But we don't-Starr:Usually we do calendars, but we also have Google calendar.Ben:And Slack.Josh:And Notion.Ben:And notion. So we don't do to-dos. We don't do hill charts. We don't really use the project management side of the project management software that we're using. As I was looking at alternatives this week, I looked at monday.com and ClickUp and, I don't know, a few different ones. They're all these project management things. It's like, well, we don't really manage projects. We do that via chat or via a Zoom call every once in a while or via Notion. We don't use a project management tool for that. So it's like, yeah, all we really need are threads, conversations.Starr:It's the sort of thing where you could just do it in email, but it's nice having that archival ability, the ability to go back and check things out and not have it dependent on, "Oh, maybe I deleted that message by accident or whatever."Josh:Well, you could do it in Slack, but then you end up with the weird history aspect of it, and you'd have to have some sort of... You have to create a channel for it with the rules so it doesn't end up being just a chat. You have to say, "The rule of this channel is every message is a thread or a post or whatever."Starr:You kind of have to do it manually.Josh:Yeah.Ben:I did look at Twist. That was pretty cool, pretty close, but it also has chat. It's like, "well, I don't want a second chat since we already use Slack." We're not going to ditch Slack.Starr:Basecamp has chat, too.Ben:Right, and we don't use that. I guess you could use Twist. Twist is pretty nice.Starr:I think we need threaded messages, we need everything to be archived, and we need some way to see what people have been writing on lately, see what the latest activity is. That's basically it. I don't even use notifications. I get them, but I don't really... Usually by the time I see them... That's not my process. I don't look at my notifications and be like, "Oh, I'd better check this out." I check out the messages at a set set time basically.Ben:Then, like you said, the forum software, like the discourse, and it's just way, way too much. It's like, "Yeah, we get it." We just need a message board. We don't need all the dials and knobs. It's totally a dials and knobs application. I saw it in the settings, and I was like, "Whoa, okay. I'm just going to back away slowly."Starr:It could be fun, I don't know, if we want to be passive aggressive, we could shadow ban people. We could just do all sorts of fun things.Ben:But I suppose we don't have the hard requirements supporting BBCode.Starr:Isn't that a negative requirement? Supporting BBCode, I think that's a detriment. But we do have a chance to maybe, I don't know, maybe... One thing that I've always really... This really annoyed me about Basecamp is that it doesn't support Markdown, and everything we use supports Markdown, so everything I have is in Markdown. So if I write something in my personal notes, it's going to be in Markdown. If I want to transfer that to Basecamp, I got to manually format it, which is just like, "What am I? What is this? Who do you think I am?"Josh:That's my number one gripe with Basecamp, like the editor, is just a WYSIWYG editor that... I constantly... even just when I'm writing and I want to make a list and I just type a dash like I normally... in most things these days, and it just doesn't do anything in Basecamp. Then I remember, "Oh, I have to get my mouse and click on the bullet." It's a huge hassle.Ben:I can imagine your quality of life being dramatically affected by that.Josh:Yeah.Starr:You know we're developers when we're complaining about things like that.Josh:This is why I'm wearing wrist braces.Starr:Or dual wrist braces.Ben:I totally get what you're saying. I want to be able to type star, space, stuff, stuff, stuff and I get a list. Yeah, totally.Starr:It looks like threads.com, it does support Markdown, which is nice. I don't know. I haven't really played around with it a ton. Some aspects of its design, I'm not super happy. I wish the column widths were a little wider and stuff, but also I don't like certain aspects of Basecamp's design. So it's kind of a toss up for me.Ben:I did an export of our Basecamp content, and I got to say their export is fantastic. They give you an HTML page that links to a bunch of other pages per topic or project or team, whatever they call it, and the files are there. It's really well done. So I think if anyone's looking for inspiration on doing exports in their app, they should totally look at Basecamp. They nailed it. It's actually usable. You get this zip file. You open it up and bam, you can just browse through all your stuff.Starr:That's pretty great. I guess I should declare, I think maybe I started this casual looking for alternatives just because I've seen a lot of stuff online about people are angry at Basecamp. It's like, I'm not really angry at them. Well, this isn't really the point. I'm sad and disappointed in them. But also a lot of the reason why I think they have had our business and they had my business, I've stored personal stuff in a personal Basecamp account, it's just because they're trustworthy. That feeling of trustworthiness has gone down a few pegs for me.Starr:Also, I just kind of felt gross logging in there. If you haven't been keeping up with this, part of the deal is they were making fun of people's names and stuff. I don't know. Are they making fun of my name? I've got a weird name. Are they going through my stuff making fun of it? I know they have access to pretty much everything that I put into Basecamp. I don't know. Even if they're not doing that now, are they going to do that in the future? Because it seems like they're going in that direction. I don't know. It seems like they're shutting down people trying to hold them internally accountable for that sort of thing. I don't know. It's just like a gross feeling. I'm just sad about the whole thing.Josh:I personally I kind of doubt that that's like... I got the feeling that the list was more of an artifact from the past, and it had stuck around for too long. I didn't get the feeling that they're condoning that sort of activity really, but I get what you're saying. Also for me, a big factor of it, it's not even just that I'm mad at them or something, they did lose 30% of their company, and they're supporting two products now, one of which is a major infrastructure product but basically is like email. So they have operation overhead and stuff. They did just lose 30% of their company including their, what, head of strategy but basically head of product. So I just wonder, where is the product going from here? It was already, I felt, a little bit stagnating. I don't know. I think they've been working on the next version of it is what I heard. I don't know. It just seems like there are questions about just the stability from that nature, too.Ben:I'm probably in a third place from you two and I probably care the least. I'm like, "Eh, it's a message board. They can make fun of my name." Okay. I had that happen when I was 10. People do that. It's like, "Oh, get on." I have a hard time getting up the energy to care, I guess.Starr:Don't mistake me. I'm not like up in arms about it. This is more like a passive viewing. It's like, "Oh, I got to go on Basecamp and check my things. Uh, I just feel kind of crummy about it." This is-Ben:It's one of those friction things in your life you just don't need. Yeah, absolutely.Starr:Yeah, yeah.Josh:Absolutely.Starr:I'm like, this is a message board. Like, should I be having to deal with this just to go check some messages? It's ridiculous.Josh:I think all of us are really just talking these are passing thoughts we have using the product in light of the drama of the past few weeks.Starr:If we end up staying on it, I'm not going to be super upset. I'll probably get over it. I don't know. It just seems like it might be nice to try something different especially if we can get that sweet Markdown.Ben:I've been surprised that there are so few products that are just about this one use case of the simple messages. I expected there to be tons of things to try and no.Starr:Of course, in our company Notion, there's now a design document-Ben:Of course.Starr:... for a simple-Josh:Because we're going to build our own.Ben:We're going to build our own, of course. What does any good tech team do when they're frustrated with the 20 solutions on the market? They build solution number 21.Starr:Of course.Ben:Maybe we'll build that. The code name for that project is Budgie. I named it Budgie because I went to do the Google search, I'm like, "What's a communicative type of animal? What's a social animal?" I can't remember the search I did, but the first thing that got turned up was like, the most social birds. I don't know. So there's this list of birds, and budgie was the number one bird. So I'm like, "Okay, cool." Then I was like, "Well, what kind of domains are available?" Because of course when you start a project, you have to buy the domain. Before you do anything else, you got to buy that domain. Surprisingly, and perhaps not surprisingly in retrospect, every variant of budgie is taken, of course, budgie.com but also budgie.app and budgieapp.com. I'm like, "Wow. How many...?" And they're all for sale. None of them are actual products. They're all parked, and they're for sale. I'm like, so a bunch of people have had this idea about what's a social animal. I guess budgies are really popular for pets, and so they're looking for the ad opportunities with people looking for, "How do I take care of my budgie?" Anyway, just kind of a diversion.Starr:That's interesting. The first thing that pops into mind when I heard that... I like the name. It's a cute name. There's this really good Australian kids' cartoon called Bluey, and there's an episode where they find a little budgie that's injured, and it dies. So the kids have to come to terms with that. I don't know. It's just like, "Little budgie died."Josh:Bluey is one of the best cartoons ever, by the way.Starr:Yeah, Bluey. Oh, I'm glad you like it, too.Josh:It's so good.Starr:It's super good. It's super good. Basically the whole cartoon is just these kids... They're dogs but they're kids. They're just making up games to play with each other. How it works is the kids watching the show see it and that makes them want to play that game, too. So it's just not dumb TV. It gets them doing stuff outside of the TV, which is kind of nice.Josh:That's a really good analysis of the show. I hadn't thought about that aspect of it, but come to think of it, my kids totally imitate them.Starr:Oh, yeah.Josh:Climbing all over us.Starr:I now have to play every game in that show, and I've got to know them by name and what the rules are.Josh:One of the things we like about it is just they really got the sibling dynamic down. It is like our kids to a tee. It's pretty funny. Now that I think about it, maybe it's like our kids have now become the characters in the show.Ben:It's a good thing I watch the Simpsons.Josh:Oh, no. Actually we do watch the Simpsons.Starr:Is the Simpsons still on?Josh:It's on Disney+.Starr:Oh my gosh.Ben:Yeah, it is still a thing.Josh:They're still making it, too, right?Ben:Mm-hmm (affirmative), yeah.Starr:Wow. I don't know. I don't even know about that.Josh:We don't watch much of the Simpsons with them yet, a three and four-year-old.Josh:I don't know if I'm quite ready for a couple little Bart and Lisas.Ben:You put that off as long as you can. Well, I actually did a little bit of work this week. I was working on something, I don't know what. I noticed one of the tests was running kind of long like it was just stuck. I don't usually watch tests. I don't usually run the tests actually. I just let our CICB run the tests. I don't even worry about it. But this morning for some reason, I don't know, I was working on something, and I happened to be running the tests. I noticed one of the tests was just stuck. Like, that's weird. So I did a little investigation.Ben:It turns out that a number of our tests do some domain name server resolution because, for webhooks, when someone puts in their webhook, we want to verify that the destination is not like a private thing. They're not trying to fetch our EC2 credentials and stuff like that. So it does some checks like, is this is a private IP address? Does this domain name actually resolve, blah, blah, blah? Also for our uptime checks. Obviously, people are putting in domains for that, too. It turns out that, I don't know, maybe it was my machine, maybe it was the internet being dumb, whatever, but the domain name resolution was what was holding up the test. This happens, as you can imagine, in a variety of ways in our tests. This one test that I was running, which was only, I don't know, seven or eight tests, it was taking a minute or two minutes to run. Then I fixed this so that it stopped doing the domain name resolution, and it took two seconds.Josh:Wow.Ben:So a slight improvement to our test suite there. A quality of life improvement.Josh:Did you benchmark overall? Because that's got to be a huge improvement if it's doing that everywhere.Ben:Well, it's not doing that everywhere. I did do a push, so I have to go and check and see what GitHub... see if it dropped that time.Josh:Well, it might have been whatever was wrong with your DNS resolution in the first place that was causing it to be extra slow. Would it be faster if DNS was fast?Ben:Yeah, it could have been. I actually did some tests on my laptop at the time. I'm like, "Is my DNS resolution slow?" No.Josh:So it's-Ben:The test... I don't know what the deal was.Josh:It was just resolving a bunch of actual URLs in the test.Ben:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Josh:Yeah, that's bad. So nice work. You reminded me that I did some work this week, too.Ben:OhJosh:Very important work, I must say. I added a yak to our Slack bot to where-Josh:... if you mention the word "yak" when you're interacting with the Slack bot now it will return... You should do it in Slack, just whatever Badger bot. Say Badger bot yak me, it-Starr:Okay, I'm doing it.Josh:Okay, do it.Starr:Oh, sorry. It was the wrong channel. Hold on.Josh:You got to do it in general, I think.Starr:Come on Badger bot. Oh my god. It's a little text space yak.Josh:Yeah.Starr:Awesome.Josh:This came about because earlier this week I was just passively mentioning in chat that I'm just yak shaving. My entire life is yak shaving. That just got us talking about, why don't we have some representation of that in our chat, in our Slack? Obviously, I had to stop everything I was doing and build that right away. Of course, there were some escaping issues that came up as a result of that, so obviously I had to deploy a few hot fixes.Ben:The whole episode amuses me. I love it. I would do exactly the same thing. But also what amuses me is that we already have, as part of Slack, GIPHY, and you could just dump a picture of a yak in there. But you're like, "No, that's good enough. I must have an ASCII yak.Josh:It's got to be an ASCII yak, yeah.Ben:This is great. I love technology.Josh:I kind of miss Hubot where it would just automatically... if you just mention it. Maybe I should change our Slack bot so that it does that. So if you say "yak," a wild yak appears. By the way, that's what the text at the bottom of the ASCII yak says, a wild yak appears. I just wish it would pop up if someone just mentions it in a chat, like if they're talking about it just because-Josh:It's listening to everything, right?Starr:That would be fine.Ben:We used to have Hubot, and every time you said "ship," it would show the ship-Josh:The ship, the squirrel. But I definitely would like... annoying at times, but overall I'd say it was worth it.Ben:Totally worth it.Starr:Yeah, definitely. I do remember sometimes where things were on fire, and it's just popping up funny GIFs, and it's like, "Not now. Not now Hubot, not now.Ben:Sit in the corner. Should have had that command. Like, "Go away for a while."Josh:Or just make it a separate... Maybe we should just make this a separate bot that you don't have to have any ops channel. Maybe this'll be our next product.Starr:Oh, there you go. It's like when you mention yak, it turns into an Oregon trail-type hunting scene, and you have to shoot the very slow pixel at it.Josh:Mm-hmm (affirmative). I do love this aspect of our business of being... I assume it's like a side effect of being small. I don't know. I'm sure large teams also do this, I didn't spend a day on this, but spend a day just doing something completely useless. I like that we can do that-Ben:Yes, it is.Josh:... and the total lack of responsibility, to be honest.Starr:Is there a total lack of responsibility? I don't know. I don't know.Ben:I think you could argue that there is a total lack of responsibility.Josh:Maybe relatively.Starr:Maybe.Josh:I think we're speaking relatively.Starr:Relatively? Well, there's responsibility to customers. I don't know. Do they count? Nah.Ben:Speaking of being a small company, just because of a recent acquisition of one of our competitors, I had gone to look at what some of our other competitors, what status they were, and I was just blown away with how many employees our competitors have. It's really amazing.Starr:What are they doing with all those people? Are they paying...? Do they have a professional volleyball team or something?Josh:Not in the past year.Starr:Well, they play over Zoom.Josh:It's a professional pong league now.Starr:There you go.Ben:We have five employees. The competitor that has the closest number of employees comes in at a hefty 71. Then the largest number that I found was 147 employees. That's impressive.Josh:With the competitor, the first one that you mentioned with the 70 something employees, and I assume over $100 million in funding, were they the ones that were recently bragging on Twitter about how much more usage they have than everyone else?Ben:I don't know because I don't remember seeing that bragging.Josh:They were. It was kind of funny. Yeah, you would probably be the major player.Starr:That's something I definitely learned throughout the course of running this business is that a company that has tens or, I don't know, hundreds of, did you say $100 million, that's a lot-Josh:It's a lot.Starr:... of funding can do more work than three people even if those three people are very, very good. It's-Ben:That's right.Starr:They can do more work, and that's all right. We're just going to have our little garden patch over here. It doesn't matter if ConAgra is a mile down the road. They can do their thing. We can do our thing.Ben:As long as they don't let their seeds blow into our farmland, right?Starr:Oh, yeah, definitely. Let me just ask you a question. When it comes to buying your strawberries for your traditional summer strawberry shortcake, are you going to go to that wonderfully, just delightful artisanal farm down the road, or are you just going to slide over to ConAgra and, I don't know, get some of their strawberry-shaped objects?Ben:I got to say, I love roadside fruit stands. Those are the best. When cherry season happens here in Washington, going and grabbing a whole mess of cherries from some random person that's propped on the side of a road, I mean it's awesome.Starr:My favorite ones are the ones have no... if you stop and think about it... I used to live in Arkansas. One time I was walking by and there was this roadside fruit stand just with oranges. It was like, "Hold up. Hold up. Oranges don't grow in Arkansas. What is this?" I don't know if he just went to Costco and just got a bunch of oranges or maybe he did the Cannonball Run from Florida straight up-Josh:Road trip.Starr:... and was selling oranges all the way up. There was some explaining to do.Ben:I didn't realize until I was saying it, but it really does sound ridiculous that you're going to go and get some fruit items from some random person on the side of the road. But I love roadside fruit stands. They're great.Starr:Oh, yeah.Josh:I don't know. In this day and age probably, yeah.Josh:Maybe things should be more like that. Maybe that would solve some problems.Ben:Well, coming back to the front porch thing, do you know that country song, If the World Had a Front Porch?"Starr:No, I don't.Ben:Definitely have to link it up in the show notes. It's all about if the world had a front porch like we did back then, then things would be different. People would be more friendly. We'd be chatting with our neighbors. Things would just be overall good.Starr:Yeah, totally.Josh:We'd all know each other.Starr:Is that true? Is that true?Ben:I got to say, I grew up in the Deep South. I did not have a front porch and none of my friends had a front porch because we all lived in the same neighborhood and all the houses were the same, but we were all still pretty friendly-Starr:Oh, there you go.Ben:... even though we didn't have front porches.Starr:Well, I had a front porch and people were assholes, so I think the correlation between front porches and nice people is weak.Ben:The song If I had a front porchJosh:.Isn't it more like a metaphor? I don't know.Starr:You could say the internet's the world's front porch and look how great that's worked out.Josh:If you just build a front porch-Starr:I'm sure it's a nice song. I don't mean to make fun of the song. I'm sure it's a good song.Josh:You build a front porch that the entire population of the world could fit on, just see how that goes. That's what we-Starr:It's like, "Oh, shit. We deforested the Amazon to get the wood for this."Ben:We should name our little message board product Front Porch.Starr:Front porch, ah, that's nice. You could have add-ons to that. Like for upgrades, you could get the rocking chair or the whittling knife.Ben:Yeah, and the sweet tea-Starr:The sweet tea, yeah.Ben:... or the mint julep.Starr:Can I ask you a question? Was sweet tea a thing when you were a kid?Ben:Yes.Starr:Do people refer to it as like, "Oo, sweet tea," as a saying?Ben:No.Starr:Okay, that-Ben:They'd just refer to is as tea.Starr:Okay, thank you.Ben:There was no other tea. It was just that.Josh:But it was sweet.Ben:Yeah, it was sweet, of course.Starr:Yeah, of course. It's-Ben:That's the only tea that existed. None of this Earl Grey hot business, no, no, no.Starr:I just noticed, I don't know, around 2007 everybody started talking about sweet tea. It's like, "What? What's this?" Ben:Yeah, totally. It's a Southern Thing, on YouTube, their channel, is pretty funny. They go into the sweet tea thing quite a bit. If you want some additional context, do some research on that whole aspect. You can go and watch that YouTube channel. I'll have to link it up in the show notes.Starr:Yeah, I'll check that out. Well, would you gentlemen like to wrap it up? I think I've got to start... I'm going to be Southern here. I'm fixing to get ready to think about going to my vaccine appointment.Ben:Jeet yet? You know that joke? Have you heard that?Starr:I haven't heard that joke. What?Ben:It's like, oh man, two southern guys, one's like, "Jeet yet?"Starr:Ah, did you eat yet? Okay, yeah.Ben:"No. Y'want to?"Starr:I haven't been back in a while.Josh:Did you eat yet?Starr:I haven't been back in a while.Ben:Oh, good times. Sometimes I miss the South but not during the summer.Starr:One of my favorite words, I think it might be a local Arkansas word, is tump. It's a verb, tump. It's the action of tipping something over and dumping out its contents. The perfect use case is a wheelbarrow. Like, you tump out the wheelbarrow. I'm sorry. Tump out the wheelbarrow.Ben:Totally.Josh:I am learning so much on this episode, by the way-Starr:There you go.Josh:... about the South.Josh:It's great. I'm learning more about-Josh:This is your second vaccine appointment, right?Starr:Yeah, it's the second one.Josh:Second and final. Well, for now.Starr:So I'm ready for it to hit me. I'm like, "Bring the storm.Josh:Yes, it hit me.Starr:Bring it on."Josh:Mine was like a 48-hour ordeal, but back to normal now. I feel great.Starr:That's good. You got your super powers.Josh:Yeah.Ben:Well, good luck with that.Starr:Thank you. Maybe one day we'll be able to have a conclave in person again, although I might need the support of a therapist or something because just like... I mean I like y'all, but I don't know if I'm over the droplets yet.Ben:You can still wear masks.Starr:Okay, that's good. Thank God, okay. All right, I will talk to y'all later.

Ben: Hana, you just told me that one way to help with listening and practicing and understanding idioms is through American television dramas. Right? So, TV shows.Hana: Yes.Ben: Yeah. While you were learning English, what are some shows you watched? Something I wanna tell my students they can watch.Hana: My favorite all time is the TV drama called Friends.Ben: Oh, yeah! Yeah.Hana: Have yous seen it before?Ben: Friends is super popular in the U.S. Yeah, yeah.Hana: It is, yes. I mean, first of all, I just love the story.Ben: Okay.Hana: Other than just learning English, it's second purpose, I guess. There was an Italian or there is a character who is playboy and he used to say like, "How you doin'?" Yeah? And, it's interesting is, first, I watched the drama with my first language subtitled.Ben: Oh, right.Hana: Yeah.Ben: So you're watching in English with your language in the subtitles?Hana: Yes.Ben: Okay.Hana: So that I can understand the main concept first.Ben: Right.Hana: And then, gradually, I changed to English subtitles.Ben: Oh, okay. That's a great idea! So, first, to understand the meaning of what's being said, subtitles. Then, to maybe watch it again a second time or even a third time to understand exactly how the English is used in context of the show.Hana: True, yeah.Ben: Okay, that's a great strategy.Hana: That way you can enjoy just watching the movies or dramas and that way you can spend a lot more time, rather than just trying to study English.Ben: Right, so it's more ... a way to enjoy learning English and studying.Hana: Yes.Ben: Actually, you know ... You said Friends, right?Hana: Yep, yep.Ben: So I think Friends is on ... It's so popular, right? And it's all over the internet. I believe it's on YouTube, you can watch it on YouTube and Netflix.Hana: Netflix, yeah.Ben: Yeah, Netflix. One thing that's great about YouTube, I think, is that they have a closed captioning or a subtitling option, so if you can't exactly catch what they're saying while you're listening the first time, you can put the subtitles on like you said.Hana: Yeah, yeah, exactly.Ben: That's a great-Hana: And there are so many websites that shows the transcripts of the ...Ben: That's true. You can read the scripts from the show to follow along, as well.Hana: Mm-hmm (affirmative).Ben: That's great. So you said you watch Friends, right?Hana: I do.Ben: Are there any others that you've heard of? Friends, I know is popular. Many people know Friends.Hana: Full House.Ben: Full House, yeah!Hana: Full House, yes.Ben: Okay, you know they recently did a revamp, a newer version it.Hana: Yeah, they did. Yeah, I haven't seen it yet but, yeah, it's good. Good, good.Ben: I haven't either. Well, you recommend either Friends or Full House.Hana: One of my friends, he liked a drama called Prison Break.Ben: Oh, that's on Netflix, as well.Hana: Have you ever heard it? Yeah.Ben: Yeah, I have.Hana: He watched like 60 hours or more than that and I asked him, "How's it going? Is it good?" He did understand without subtitles, which is good. And so, I asked him, "So you can speak English now, yeah? Can you use those phrases from the drama?" And he said, "Actually, not." I said, "Why?" It's because the words that they use from the drama. There's a bombing or escaping or something that's not daily life conversations, so that way Friends or Full House that people in daily life.Ben: That's daily English. Yeah, daily life English.Hana: Yeah, so I found it easier to use.Ben: Okay, so you recommend-Hana: Yeah, yeah.Ben: Okay, yeah. That's great. Thank you so much. I think my students would love to watch that kind of drama and learn daily-Hana: Daily, yes.Ben: ... actual phrases you can use. Thanks so much for the tips. Thanks, Hana.Hana: You're welcome.

Ben: Hana, you just told me that one way to help with listening and practicing and understanding idioms is through American television dramas. Right? So, TV shows.Hana: Yes.Ben: Yeah. While you were learning English, what are some shows you watched? Something I wanna tell my students they can watch.Hana: My favorite all time is the TV drama called Friends.Ben: Oh, yeah! Yeah.Hana: Have yous seen it before?Ben: Friends is super popular in the U.S. Yeah, yeah.Hana: It is, yes. I mean, first of all, I just love the story.Ben: Okay.Hana: Other than just learning English, it's second purpose, I guess. There was an Italian or there is a character who is playboy and he used to say like, "How you doin'?" Yeah? And, it's interesting is, first, I watched the drama with my first language subtitled.Ben: Oh, right.Hana: Yeah.Ben: So you're watching in English with your language in the subtitles?Hana: Yes.Ben: Okay.Hana: So that I can understand the main concept first.Ben: Right.Hana: And then, gradually, I changed to English subtitles.Ben: Oh, okay. That's a great idea! So, first, to understand the meaning of what's being said, subtitles. Then, to maybe watch it again a second time or even a third time to understand exactly how the English is used in context of the show.Hana: True, yeah.Ben: Okay, that's a great strategy.Hana: That way you can enjoy just watching the movies or dramas and that way you can spend a lot more time, rather than just trying to study English.Ben: Right, so it's more ... a way to enjoy learning English and studying.Hana: Yes.Ben: Actually, you know ... You said Friends, right?Hana: Yep, yep.Ben: So I think Friends is on ... It's so popular, right? And it's all over the internet. I believe it's on YouTube, you can watch it on YouTube and Netflix.Hana: Netflix, yeah.Ben: Yeah, Netflix. One thing that's great about YouTube, I think, is that they have a closed captioning or a subtitling option, so if you can't exactly catch what they're saying while you're listening the first time, you can put the subtitles on like you said.Hana: Yeah, yeah, exactly.Ben: That's a great-Hana: And there are so many websites that shows the transcripts of the ...Ben: That's true. You can read the scripts from the show to follow along, as well.Hana: Mm-hmm (affirmative).Ben: That's great. So you said you watch Friends, right?Hana: I do.Ben: Are there any others that you've heard of? Friends, I know is popular. Many people know Friends.Hana: Full House.Ben: Full House, yeah!Hana: Full House, yes.Ben: Okay, you know they recently did a revamp, a newer version it.Hana: Yeah, they did. Yeah, I haven't seen it yet but, yeah, it's good. Good, good.Ben: I haven't either. Well, you recommend either Friends or Full House.Hana: One of my friends, he liked a drama called Prison Break.Ben: Oh, that's on Netflix, as well.Hana: Have you ever heard it? Yeah.Ben: Yeah, I have.Hana: He watched like 60 hours or more than that and I asked him, "How's it going? Is it good?" He did understand without subtitles, which is good. And so, I asked him, "So you can speak English now, yeah? Can you use those phrases from the drama?" And he said, "Actually, not." I said, "Why?" It's because the words that they use from the drama. There's a bombing or escaping or something that's not daily life conversations, so that way Friends or Full House that people in daily life.Ben: That's daily English. Yeah, daily life English.Hana: Yeah, so I found it easier to use.Ben: Okay, so you recommend-Hana: Yeah, yeah.Ben: Okay, yeah. That's great. Thank you so much. I think my students would love to watch that kind of drama and learn daily-Hana: Daily, yes.Ben: ... actual phrases you can use. Thanks so much for the tips. Thanks, Hana.Hana: You're welcome.

Ben: Hana, you just told me that one way to help with listening and practicing and understanding idioms is through American television dramas. Right? So, TV shows.Hana: Yes.Ben: Yeah. While you were learning English, what are some shows you watched? Something I wanna tell my students they can watch.Hana: My favorite all time is the TV drama called Friends.Ben: Oh, yeah! Yeah.Hana: Have yous seen it before?Ben: Friends is super popular in the U.S. Yeah, yeah.Hana: It is, yes. I mean, first of all, I just love the story.Ben: Okay.Hana: Other than just learning English, it's second purpose, I guess. There was an Italian or there is a character who is playboy and he used to say like, "How you doin'?" Yeah? And, it's interesting is, first, I watched the drama with my first language subtitled.Ben: Oh, right.Hana: Yeah.Ben: So you're watching in English with your language in the subtitles?Hana: Yes.Ben: Okay.Hana: So that I can understand the main concept first.Ben: Right.Hana: And then, gradually, I changed to English subtitles.Ben: Oh, okay. That's a great idea! So, first, to understand the meaning of what's being said, subtitles. Then, to maybe watch it again a second time or even a third time to understand exactly how the English is used in context of the show.Hana: True, yeah.Ben: Okay, that's a great strategy.Hana: That way you can enjoy just watching the movies or dramas and that way you can spend a lot more time, rather than just trying to study English.Ben: Right, so it's more ... a way to enjoy learning English and studying.Hana: Yes.Ben: Actually, you know ... You said Friends, right?Hana: Yep, yep.Ben: So I think Friends is on ... It's so popular, right? And it's all over the internet. I believe it's on YouTube, you can watch it on YouTube and Netflix.Hana: Netflix, yeah.Ben: Yeah, Netflix. One thing that's great about YouTube, I think, is that they have a closed captioning or a subtitling option, so if you can't exactly catch what they're saying while you're listening the first time, you can put the subtitles on like you said.Hana: Yeah, yeah, exactly.Ben: That's a great-Hana: And there are so many websites that shows the transcripts of the ...Ben: That's true. You can read the scripts from the show to follow along, as well.Hana: Mm-hmm (affirmative).Ben: That's great. So you said you watch Friends, right?Hana: I do.Ben: Are there any others that you've heard of? Friends, I know is popular. Many people know Friends.Hana: Full House.Ben: Full House, yeah!Hana: Full House, yes.Ben: Okay, you know they recently did a revamp, a newer version it.Hana: Yeah, they did. Yeah, I haven't seen it yet but, yeah, it's good. Good, good.Ben: I haven't either. Well, you recommend either Friends or Full House.Hana: One of my friends, he liked a drama called Prison Break.Ben: Oh, that's on Netflix, as well.Hana: Have you ever heard it? Yeah.Ben: Yeah, I have.Hana: He watched like 60 hours or more than that and I asked him, "How's it going? Is it good?" He did understand without subtitles, which is good. And so, I asked him, "So you can speak English now, yeah? Can you use those phrases from the drama?" And he said, "Actually, not." I said, "Why?" It's because the words that they use from the drama. There's a bombing or escaping or something that's not daily life conversations, so that way Friends or Full House that people in daily life.Ben: That's daily English. Yeah, daily life English.Hana: Yeah, so I found it easier to use.Ben: Okay, so you recommend-Hana: Yeah, yeah.Ben: Okay, yeah. That's great. Thank you so much. I think my students would love to watch that kind of drama and learn daily-Hana: Daily, yes.Ben: ... actual phrases you can use. Thanks so much for the tips. Thanks, Hana.Hana: You're welcome.

This conversation covers: The advantages of using a distributed data storage model. How Storj is creating new revenue models for open-source projects, and how the open-source community is responding. The business and engineering reasons why users decide to opt for cloud-native, according to Ben. Viewing cloud-native as a journey, instead of a destination — and some of the top mistakes that people tend to make on the journey. Ben also talks about the top pitfalls people make with storage and management. Why businesses are often caught off guard with high storage costs, and how Storj is working to make it easier for customers.  Avoiding vendor lock-in with storage. Advice for people who are just getting started on their cloud journey. The person who should be responsible for making a cloud journey successful. Links: Storj Labs: https://storj.io/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/golubbe GitHub: https://github.com/golubbe TranscriptEmily: Hi everyone. I'm Emily Omier, your host, and my day job is helping companies position themselves in the cloud-native ecosystem so that their product's value is obvious to end-users. I started this podcast because organizations embark on the cloud naive journey for business reasons, but in general, the industry doesn't talk about them. Instead, we talk a lot about technical reasons. I'm hoping that with this podcast, we focus more on the business goals and business motivations that lead organizations to adopt cloud-native and Kubernetes. I hope you'll join me.Emily: Welcome to The Business of Cloud Native, my name is Emily Omier. I'm your host, and today I'm chatting with Ben Golub. Ben, thank you so much for joining us.Ben: Oh, Thank you for having me.Emily: And I always like to just start off with having you introduce yourself. So, not only where you work and what your job title is, but what you actually spend your day doing.Ben: [laughs]. Okay. I'm Ben Golub. I'm currently the executive chair and CEO of Storj Labs, which is a decentralized storage service. We kind of like to think of it as the Airbnb of disk drives, But probably most of the people on your podcast who, if they're familiar with the, sort of, cloud-native space would have known me as the former CEO of Docker from when it was released up until a few years ago. But yeah, I tend to spend my days doing a lot of stuff, in addition to family and dealing with COVID, running startups. This is now my seventh startup, fourth is a CEO.Emily: Tell me a little bit, like, you know, when you stumble into your home office—just kidding—nobody is going to the office, I know. But when you start your day, what sort of tasks are on your todo list? So, what do you actually spend your time doing?Ben: Sure. We've got a great team of people who are running a decentralized storage company. But of course, we are decentralized in more ways than one. We are 45 people spread across 15 different countries, trying to build a network that provides enterprise-grade storage on disk drives that we don't own, that are spread across 85 different countries. So, there's a lot of coordination, a lot of making sure that everybody has the context to do the right thing, and that we stay focused on doing the right thing for our users, doing the right thing for our suppliers, doing the right thing for each other, as well.Emily: One of the reasons I thought it'd be really interesting to talk with you is that I know your goal is to, sort of, revolutionize some of the business models related to managing storage. Can you talk about that a little bit more?Ben: Sure. Sure. I mean, obviously, there's been a big trend over the past several years towards the Cloud in general, and a big part of the [laughs] Cloud is storage. Actually, AWS started with S3, and it's a $90 billion market that's growing. The world's going to create enough data this year to fill a stack of CD-ROMs, to the orbit of Mars and back. And yet prices haven't come down, really, in about five years, and the whole market is controlled by essentially three players, Microsoft, Google, in the largest, Amazon, who also happen to be three of the five largest companies on the planet. And we think that data is so critical to everything that we do that we want to make sure that it doesn't stay centralized in the hands of a few, but that we, sort of, create a more, sort of, democratic—if you will—way of handling data that also addresses some of the serious privacy, data mining, and security concerns that happen when all the data is held by only a few people.Emily: With this, I'm sure you've heard about digital vegans. So, people who try to avoid all of the big tech giants—Ben: Right, right.Emily: Does this make it possible to do that?Ben: Well, so we're more of a back end. So, we're a service that people who produce-consumer-facing services use. But absolutely, if somebody—and we actually have people who want to create a more secure way of providing data backup, more secure way of enabling data communications, video sharing, all these sorts of things, and they can use us and service those [laughs] digital vegans, if you will.Emily: So, if I'm creating a SaaS product for digital vegans, I would go with you?Ben: I would hope you'd consider us, yeah. And by the way, I mean, also people who have mainstream applications use us as well. I mean, so we have people who are working with us who may have sensitive medical data on people, or people who are doing advanced research into areas like COVID, and they're using us partially because we're more secure and more private, but also because we are less likely to be hacked. And also because frankly faster, cheaper, more resilient.Emily: I was just going to ask, what are the advantages of distributed storage?Ben: Yeah. We benefit from all the same things that the move towards cloud-native in general benefits from, right? When you take workloads, and you take data, and you spread them across large numbers of devices that are operated independently, you get more resilience, you get more security, you can get better performance because things are closer to the edge. And all of these are benefits that are, sort of, inherent to doing things in a decentralized way as opposed to a centralized way. And then, quite frankly we're cheaper. I mean, because of the economics and doing this this way, we can price anywhere from a half to a third of what the large cloud providers offer, and do so profitably for ourselves.Emily: You also offer some new revenue models for open-source projects. Can you talk about that a little bit more?Ben: Sure, I mean, obviously I come from an open-source background, and one of the big stories of open-source for the past several years is the challenges for open-source companies in monetizing, and in particular, in a cloud world, a large number of open-source companies are now facing the situation where their products, completely legally but nonetheless, not in a fiscally sustainable way, are run by the large cloud companies and essentially given away as a loss leader. So, that a large cloud company might take a great product from Mongo or Redis, or Elastic, and run it essentially for free, give it away for free, not pay Mongo, Elastic, or Redis. And the cloud companies monetize that by charging customers for compute, and storage, and bandwidth. But unfortunately, the people who've done all the work to build this great product don't have the opportunity to share in the monetization. And it makes it really very hard to adopt a SaaS model for the cloud companies, which for many of them is really the best way that they would normally have for monetizing their efforts. So, what we have done is we've launched a program that basically turns it on its head and says, “Hey, if you are an open-source project, and you integrate with us in a way that your users send data to us, we'll share the revenue back with you. And as more of your users share more data with us, we'll send more money back to you.” And we think that that's the way it should be. If people are building great open-source projects that generate usage and revolutionize computing, they should be rewarded as well.Emily: How important is this to the open-source community? How challenging is it to find a way to support an open-source project?Ben: It's critical. I mean, if you look at the most—I'd start by saying two-thirds of all cloud workloads are open-source, and yet in the $180 billion cloud market, less than $5 billion [unintelligible] going back to the open-source projects that have built these things. And it's not easy to build an open-source project, and it takes resources. And even if you have a large community, you have developers who have families, or [laughs] need to eat, right? And so, as an open-source company, what you really want to be able to do is become self-sustaining. And while having contributions is great, ultimately, if open-source projects don't become self-sustaining, they die. Emily: A question just, sort of, about the open-source ethos: I mean, how does the community about open-source feel about this? It is obvious developers have to eat just like everybody else, and it seems like it should be obvious that they should also be rewarded when they have a project that's successful. But sometimes you hear that not everybody is comfortable with open-source being monetized in any way. It's like a dirty word.Ben: Yeah. I mean, I think [unintelligible] some people who object to open-source being monetized, and that tends to be a fringe, but I think there's a larger percentage that don't like the notion that you have to come up with a more restrictive license in order to monetize. And I think unfortunately a lot of open-source companies have felt the need to adopt more restrictive licenses in order to prevent their product being taken and used as a loss leader by the large cloud companies. And I guess our view is, “Hey, what the world doesn't need is a different kind of license. It needs a different kind of cloud.” And that's, and that's what we've been doing. And I think our approach has, frankly, gotten a lot of enthusiasm and support because it feels fair. It's not, it's not trying to block people from doing what they want to do with open-source and saying, “This usage is good, this is bad.” It's just saying, “Hey, here's a new viable model for monetizing open-source that is fair to the open-source companies.”Emily: So, does Storj just manage storage? Or, where's the compute coming from?Ben: It's a good question. And so, generally speaking, the compute can either be done on-premise, it can be done at the end. And we're, sort of, working with both kinds. We ourselves don't offer a compute service, but because the world is getting more decentralized, and because, frankly, the rise of cloud-native approaches, people are able to have the compute and the storage happening in different places.Emily: How challenging is it to work with storage, and how similar of an experience is it to working with something like AWS for an end-user? I just want to get my app up.Ben: Sure, sure. If you have an S3 compatible application, we're also S3 compatible. So, if you've written your application to run on AWS S3, or frankly, these days most people use the S3 API for Google and Microsoft as well, it's really not a big effort to transition. You change a few lines of code, and suddenly, the data is being stored in one place versus the other. We also have native libraries in a lot of different languages and bindings, so for people who want to take full advantage of everything that we have to offer, it's a little bit more work, but for the most part, our aim is to say, “You don't have to change the way that you do storage in order to get a much better way of doing storage.”Emily: So, let me ask a couple questions just related to the topic of our podcast, the business of cloud-native. What do you think are the reasons that end users decide to go for cloud-native?Ben: Oh, I think there are huge advantages across the board. There are certainly a lot of infrastructural advantages: the fact that you can scale much more quickly, the fact that you can operate much more efficiently, the fact that you are able to be far more resilient, these are all benefits that seemed to come with adopting more cloud-native approaches on the infrastructure side if you will. But for many users, the bigger advantages come from running your applications in a more cloud-native way. Rather than having a big monolithic application that's tied tightly to a big monolithic piece of hardware, and both are hard to change, and both are at risk, if you write applications composed of smaller pieces that can be modified quickly and independently by small teams and scale independently, that's just a much more scalable, faster way to build, frankly, better applications. You couldn't have a Zoom, or a Facebook, or Google search, or any of these massive-scale, rapidly changing applications being written in the traditional way.Emily: Those sound kind of like engineering reasons for cloud-native. What about business reasons?Ben: Right. So, the business reasons [unintelligible], sort of, come alongside. I mean, so when you're able to write applications faster, modify them faster, adapt to a changing environment faster, do it with fewer people, all of those end up having real big business benefits. Being able to scale flexibly, these give huge economic benefits, but I think the economic benefits on the infrastructure side are probably outweighed by the business flexibility: the fact that you can build things quickly and modify them quickly, and react quickly to changing environment, that's [unintelligible]. Obviously, again, you use Zoom as an example. There's this two-week period, back in March, where suddenly almost every classroom and every business started using Zoom, and Zoom was able to scale rapidly, adapt rapidly, and suddenly support that. And that's because it was done in a more—in a cloud-native way.Emily: I mean, it's interesting, one of the tensions that I've seen in this space is that some people like to talk a lot about cost benefits. So, we're going to move to cloud-native because it's cheap, we're going to reduce costs. And then there's other people that say, well, this isn't really a cost story. It's a flexibility and agility, a speed story.Ben: Yeah, yeah. And I think the answer is it can be both. What I always say, though, is cloud-native is not really a destination, it's a journey. And how far we go along with that path, and whether you emphasize the operational side versus—or the infrastructural side versus the development side, it sort of depends on who you are, and what your application is, and how much it needs to scale. And it's absolutely the case that for many companies and applications if they try to look like Google from day one, they're going to fail. And they don't need to because it's—the way you build an application that's going to be servicing hundreds of million people is different than the way you build an application, there's going to be servicing 50,000 people.Emily: What do you see is that some of the biggest misconceptions or mistakes that people make on this journey?Ben: So, I think one is clearly that they knew it as an all or nothing proposition, and they don't think about why they're going on the journey. I think a second mistake that they often make is that they underestimate the organizational change that it takes to build things in the cloud-native way. And obviously, the people, and how they work together, and how you organize, is as big transition for many people as the tech stack that you'd use. And I think the third is that they don't take full advantage of what it takes to move a traditional application to run it in a cloud-native infrastructure. And you can get a lot of benefits, frankly, just by containerizing or Docker-izing a traditional app and moving it online.Emily: What about specifically related to storage and data management? What do you think are some misconceptions or pitfalls?Ben: Right. So, I think that the challenge that many people have when they deal with storage is that they don't think about the data at rest. They don't think about the security issues that are inherent in having data that can be attacked in a single place, or needs to be retrieved from a single place. And part of why we built Storj, frankly, is a belief that if you take data and you encrypt it, and you break it up into pieces, and you distribute those pieces, you actually are doing things in a much better way that's inherent, that you're not dependent on any one data center being up, or any one administrator doing their job correctly, or any password being strong. By reducing the susceptibility to single points of failure, you can create an environment that's more secure, much faster, much more reliable. And that's math. And it gets kind of shocking to see that people who make the journey to cloud-native, while they're changing lots of other aspects of their infrastructure and their applications, repeating the same mistakes that people have been making for 30 years in terms of data access, security, and distribution.Emily: Do you think that that is partially a skills gap?Ben: It may be a skills gap, but it's also, frankly, there's been a dearth of viable other options. And I think that—we frequently when I'm talking with customers, they all say, “Hey, we've been thinking about being decentralized for a while, but it just has been too difficult to do.” Or there have been decentralized options, but they're, sort of, toys. And so, what we've aimed to do is create a decentralized storage solution that is enterprise-grade, is S3 compatible, so it's easy to adopt, but that brings all the benefits of decentralization.Emily: I'm also just curious because of the sort of organizational changes that need to happen. I mean, everybody, particularly in a large organization, is going to have these super-specific areas of expertise, and to a certain extent, you have to bring them all together.Ben: You do. Right. You do have to. And so I'm a big believer in you pick pilot projects that you do with a small team, and you get some wins, and nothing helps evangelize change better than wins. And it's hard to get people to change if they don't see success, and a better world at the end of the tunnel. And so, what we've tried to do, and what I think people doing in the cloud-native journey often do, is you say, “Let's take a small low-risk application or small, low-risk dataset, handle it in a different way, and show the world that it can be done better,” right? Or, “Show our organization that it can be better.” And then build up not only muscle memory around how you do this, but you build up natural advocates in the organization.Emily: Going back to this idea of costs, you mentioned that Storj can reduce costs substantially. Do you think a lot of organizations are surprised at how much cloud storage costs?Ben: Yes. And unfortunately, it's a surprise that comes over time. I mean, you… I think the typical story if you get started with Cloud. And there's not a lot of large upfront costs when your usage is low. So, yeah, so you start with somebody pulling out their credit card and building their pilot project, and just charging themselves directly to charging themselves directly to—you know, charging their Amazon, or their Google, or their Microsoft directly to their credit card, then they move to paying through a centralized organization. But then as they grow, suddenly, this thing that seemed really low price becomes very, very expensive, and they feel trapped. And data, in particular, has this—in some ways, it grows a lot faster than compute. Because, generally speaking, you're keeping around the data that you've created. So, you have this base of data that grows so slowly that you're creating more data every day, but you're also storing all the data that you've had in the past. So, it grows a lot more exponentially than compute, often. And because data at rest is somewhat expensive to move around, people often find themselves regretting their decisions a few months into the project, if they're stuck with one centralized provider. And the providers make it very difficult and expensive to move data out.Emily: What advice would you have to somebody who's at that stage, at the just getting started, whipping out my credit card stage? What do you do to avoid that sinking feeling in your stomach five months from now?Ben: Right. I mean, I guess what I would say is that don't make yourself dependent on any one provider or any one person. And that's because things have gotten so much more compatible, and that's on the storage side by the things that we do, on the compute side by the use of containers and Docker. You don't need to lock yourself in, as long as you're thoughtful at the outset.Emily: And who's the right person to be thinking about these things?Ben: That's a good question. So, you know, I'd like to say the individual developer, except developers for the most part, they have something that they want to build, [laughs] they want to get it built as fast as possible and they don't want to worry about infrastructure. But I really think it's probably that set of people that we call DevOps people that really should be thinking about this, to be thinking not only how can we enable people to build and deploy and secure faster, but how can we build and secure and deploy in a way that doesn't make us dependent on centralized services?Emily: Do you have other pieces of advice for somebody setting out on the “Cloud journey,” in quotes, too basically avoid the feeling, midway through, that they messed up.Ben: So, I think that part of it is being thoughtful about how you set off on this cloud journey. I mean, know where you want to end up, I think this [unintelligible]. You want to set off on a journey across the country, it's good to know that you want to end up in Oregon versus you want to end up in Utah, or Arizona. [unintelligible] from east to west, and making sure your whole organization has a view of where you want to get. And then along the way, you can say, “You know what? Let's course-correct.” But if you are going down on the cloud journey because you want to save money, you want to have flexibility, you don't want to be locked in, you want to be able to move stuff to the edge, then thinking really seriously about whether your approach towards the Cloud is helping you achieve those ends. And, again, my view is that if you are going off on a journey to the Cloud, and you are locking yourself into a large provider that is highly centralized, you're probably not going to achieve those aims in the long run.Emily: And then again, who is the persona who needs to be thinking this? And ultimately, whose responsibility is it to make a cloud journey successful?Ben: So, I think that generally speaking, a cloud journey past these initial pilots where I think pilots are often, it's a small team that are proving that things can be done in a cloud-native way, they should do whatever it takes to prove that something can be done, and get some successes. But then I think that the head of engineering, the Vice President of Operations, the person who's heading up DevOps should be thoughtful, and should be thinking about where the organization is going, from that initial pilot into developing the long-term strategy.Emily: Anything else that you'd like to add?Ben: Well, these are a lot of really good questions, so I appreciate all your questions and the topic in general. I guess I would just add, maybe my own personal bias, that data is important. The cloud is important, but data is really important. And as, you know, look at the world creating enough data this year to fill a stack of CD-ROMs, to the orbit of Mars and back, some of that is cat videos, but also buried in there is probably the cure to COVID, and the cure for cancer, and a new form of energy. And so, making it possible for people to create, and store, and retrieve, and use data in a way that's cost-effective, where they don't have to throw out data, that is secure and private, that's a really noble goal. And that's a really important thing, I think, for all of us to embrace.Emily: Just a couple of final questions. The first one, I just like to ask everybody, what is your favorite can't-live-without software engineering tool?Ben: Honestly, I think that collaboration tools, writ large, are important. And whether that's things like GitHub, or things like video conferencing, or things like shared meeting spaces, it's really the tools enable groups of people to work together that I think are the most important.Emily: Where can people connect with you or follow you?Ben: Oh, so I'm on Twitter, @golubbe, G-O-L-U-B-B-E. And that's probably the best place to initially reach out to me, but then I [blog], and I'm on GitHub as well. I'm not that great [unintelligible].Emily: Well, thank you so much for joining us. This was a great conversation.Ben: Oh, thank you, Emily. I had a great conversation as well.Emily: Thanks for listening. I hope you've learned just a little bit more about The Business of Cloud Native. If you'd like to connect with me or learn more about my positioning services, look me up on LinkedIn: I'm Emily Omier—that's O-M-I-E-R—or visit my website which is emilyomier.com. Thank you, and until next time.Announcer: This has been a HumblePod production. Stay humble.

In this episode, we are Frankly Speaking with the co-authors of Our Happy Divorce, Nikki and Ben.   Nikki knows how being supported by a strong, loving family can influence the way a person navigates life, love, marriage, and motherhood. Having grown up as a member of the iconic San Francisco 49ers football family, she was thrown into the limelight at a young age. The values her family instilled in her have helped shape who she is today, and she continues to live by them.coparents Ben intimately understands the detriment divorce can cause in the lives of children. The example of his parents’ divorce instilled in him a deep commitment "to do" better by his own kids. Ben is an investor, board member, philanthropist, golfer, and sports enthusiast. But above all, he is a dedicated father and family man who understands the importance of putting his ego aside and his children first. IT  WAS  NOT  PERFECT ... Nikki and Ben define their own personal story with us and discuss what happy looks like today. Inspired by their son, they developed ways to co-parent, step-parent with an emphasis on putting the children first. As they say, “If we can do it, anyone can do it”. As Catherine says, "DIVORCE does not mess your kids up, it is how both parents BEHAVE before, during, and after divorce that can mess your children up." There is a different way to get Divorced. Let’s talk about it… Getting to the “Happy” … We chat about cleaning up the wreckage of the past and forgiveness. How can we stop pointing the finger at our spouse and get honest with ourselves? Do not fool yourself, your children know what is going on. Open discussions about financial settlements and joint custody. Using the Divorce Process to redefine what your life, your finances, and relationship will be like post-divorce. Co-Parenting and Step-parenting survival tips during the pandemic. Want to learn more about Our Happy Divorce? Visit their website at https://ourhappydivorce.com/ Whether you are thinking of divorce/separation, are in the midst of a divorce, or embarking on your new life after divorce, this episode has something to help you. If you have questions for us or a topic you’d like us to cover, contact us at hello@mydivorcesolution.com or visit MyDivorceSolution.com ----more---- Karen Chellew: Welcome to We Chat Divorce. Hello, I'm Karen Chellew, legal liaison, here with Catherine Shanahan, CDFA. We're the co-founders of My Divorce Solution. We're a company whose mission is to change the way people get divorced by providing a different approach, financial clarity, and an online course to help couples develop a transparent plan that will optimize the outcome of their divorce. Karen Chellew: Each podcast we sit down with professionals who provide insight and frank discussion on real people, real situations, and real divorce. Today we welcome Nikki and Ben, co-authors of Our Happy Divorce: How Ending Our Marriage Brought Us Together. That's fantastic. Co-founders Ben Heldfond and Nikki DeBartolo understand that no divorce is ever easy, especially for those involved. Karen Chellew: After nearly a decade together the couple decided to split, and inspired by their son, Asher, to find ways to happily navigate a divorce. Ben and Nikki created Our Happy Divorce, a service empowering and inspiring people to think differently about divorce, co-parenting, stepparenting, and what it means to put kids first. Nikki and Ben describe themselves as ordinary people who have accomplished something extraordinary. They have sidestepped a lot of the booby traps that make most divorces acrimonious. Nikki and Ben say, "If we can do it, you can do it." Thank you. Ben: No truer words have ever been spoken. Karen Chellew: I love that. So first and foremost, I want to say thank you for the beautiful gift you sent of your book, your bookmark. It was awesome. Beautiful gift. And for people who receive that, it's just so inspiring just to open the box and feel the book, so you guys have done a great job. Catherine Shanahan: Aren't you supposed to send that over to me, Karen? Karen Chellew: What, the chocolate? Catherine Shanahan: Yeah. Where'd that go, Karen? Karen Chellew: Everything but the chocolate's on its way. Ben: Everything. Catherine Shanahan: I'll give you my address so I can get one of those. Ben: There you go. That's a deal. We'll get that off to you. Karen Chellew: Oh, that's good. So a service inspiring people to think a different way about divorce. How do you do that? Ben: Well, I think we do it through our story. All this book is is our experience. We're not lawyers, we're not therapists. We just happen to figure out a way to have an acrimonious divorce. We didn't have a roadmap. Collaborative divorce was sort of in the beginning stages, but you know, it was just the two of us. We say if we can do it, anybody can do it because we are two Type A personalities who somehow came to a point of putting the past behind us and not making anybody a villain, and putting our son first. And then everything sort of fell into place. Nikki: Right. It wasn't perfect in the beginning. I think people need to realize that, that we went through some rocky months. Ben: Right. Catherine Shanahan: Yeah, yeah. So that's a really good point, Nikki. Let's talk about that a little bit because if you read anything I write, or if you ever talk to me, or if anyone has gone through our process, they'll hear me say not once, but probably a thousand times because I am a stepmom. I have been divorced and I have raised five children in a blended family, so I am a firm believer that divorce does not mess your kids up. It's how the parents behave before divorce, during divorce, and after divorce that can mess your children up. Catherine Shanahan: However, you call your company or your book The Happy Divorce and I think everybody has to define happy. What is happy, and that can mean something different to everyone, and that's okay. Nikki: Right. Catherine Shanahan: So happy for somebody could be that... as a stepmom I can remember, happy for me sometimes was that my stepchildren went home on Sunday night, and that's okay. Nikki: That's okay. Catherine Shanahan: Because it's exhausting, right? Ben: Yeah, yeah. Nikki: That's totally normal. Ben: Yeah, and Nikki said it took time. I think if you had asked us 13 years ago what happy meant, what our definition of a happy divorce was, it would have been that we could just be in the same room together. Catherine Shanahan: Exactly. Nikki: Or at like an event together or a birthday party together. Ben: And not make everybody feel uncomfortable, but most importantly our son. Catherine Shanahan: Right. Ben: So even today, we know people who have happy divorces, they might not be to the extreme that Nikki and mine are, or they might be better, it's just that you put the kids first. You don't hand the kids the emotional bill to pay for something that they had absolutely no choice in. Catherine Shanahan: Exactly. I think your son said it so cute, and he is... Asher, right? Nikki: Yes. Karen Chellew: Adorable. Catherine Shanahan: Oh, my God. He is so cute. I watched your video clip and he said, "You know, I always wanted siblings. Well, maybe not so much." Ben: After it came, right, yeah. Nikki: And he was like, "Oh, can't they go back?" No. Catherine Shanahan: Yeah, yeah. I thought that was so cute, and it's so true. So his happy was, "I got them." Well, maybe today I don't want them. Ben: Right. Catherine Shanahan: You know, it was so cute, it kind of ties it all up. And so in divorce we say that with our couples when we're negotiating a settlement where we're going through their financial portrait with them, which it's kids and your finances. So what would your happy be? Is your happy keeping the house? Is your happy having the retirement monies? Is your happy having your children three days a week? Every other weekend so you can have your career? Define what your happy is. So I love the title of your book, and it's okay to define that, and to define your co-parenting, because your co-parenting is not the same as my co-parenting. Nikki: No. It's different for everybody. Karen Chellew: And it's okay. Nikki: Yeah. Catherine Shanahan: So how did you come to your happy, the two of you? Nikki: Well... I think it took less work on my part than it did on his. Karen Chellew: Oh, why is that? Nikki: I sort of set out thinking, "How am I going to do this?" My parents are still married after 52 years, so I kind of had the mindset of, "Okay, what am I going to do to make my son's life as close to the way I grew up as possible, but being divorced?" So that was always something that was in my head, and it was sort of ingrained to try to figure out a way to make him... have what I had growing up and not feel slighted. Ben: Yeah. Nikki: [crosstalk 00:07:40] not so much. Ben: And I on the other hand grew up in the complete opposite household of a family of parents who didn't have a happy divorce. So part of it was ingrained in me, being a child of the '80s, well, actually I was born in early '70s, but parents were divorced in the '80s. It was the way it was, right? People got divorced, and it wasn't, "How are we going to get along? How are we going to co-parent?" It's like, "We're going to go to war. I'm going to get my lawyer. You're going to get yours and it's going to be battle." Ben: I also was in a completely different place in my life emotionally. I wasn't a very happy person when I left our marriage. For me, that manifest itself at pointing the finger at Nikki. It was all her fault. It was all her... you know, if only she hadn't done this. If only she should have done... you know. And 'shoulding' all over myself. That's S-H-O-U-L-D, not the other one. Ben: But you know, and then what it took was a realization or clarity to find out what my part was in the relationship. So in order to get to happy, I had to, we had to clean up the wreckage of the past, and we had to get honest about what our part is and understand that it takes two to make a relationship, it takes two to ruin a relationship. Ben: And just like our happy divorce it works that way too. Now it takes four to make it, because we're both remarried. In our book, it doesn't go into what happened, who did what, who didn't do what, because at the end of the day, what we realize is all that stuff doesn't matter. What matters is that we both came to a place of forgiveness, but also admitted what we had done wrong. Karen Chellew: How did you come to a place of forgiveness? What started turning the tide from the anger and resentment, or whatever the negative emotions were? What happened on both of your parts to just start to turn that tide a little bit. Ben: Well, yeah, for me, again, Nikki wasn't as scorned I guess you could say, which is weird for her. Nikki: That's really weird for me. Ben: But you know, I left the house- Nikki: You [crosstalk 00:09:54] the one out for blood. Ben: Right, exactly. I left the house in a way that I look back and I almost cringe, a very dramatic way. I took off my ring. I put it on the bathroom counter with a picture of us torn out and I left. Nikki: Very dramatic. Ben: Very dramatic. Nikki: Like something I would have done. Ben: And I went and I did my research, and I looked for the best shark lawyer, the one who had all the biggest cases in Tampa. Definitely did my research. I called him and explained to him what I wanted, and I wanted to destroy Nikki, and I wanted to embarrass her, and I wanted to show our son what a fraud she was, at least how I saw her. Ben: So he took a very hefty retainer from me, and then he wrote up a manual on how we were going to go about doing what I wanted to accomplish. And I didn't read it for a little bit, and it was in my backpack that I carry everywhere, and I was on a plane back from LA to Tampa, and I pulled it out and I decided to read it. I got two pages into it, and this thing was like 30 pages long. Nikki: That's probably the same thing he gives everybody else. Ben: Right, just different boiler plate. Nikki: Names are just changed. Ben: Exactly. And then all of a sudden I had a moment of clarity, and I saw for the first time in a long time that if I went down this path, continuing to read this War and Peace destruction manual what it was going to lead to, because I knew where it was going to lead to, because I had been down that road. I had been part of my parents divorce down the road. Ben: Or I could try to find a different way and a different path. So I called Nikki when I landed and I said, "I need some time. I need some space." Because I knew I couldn't deal with the divorce in the head space I was in. Karen Chellew: Right. Ben: And probably Nikki too. We weren't ready to start talking about the end until we cleared up the past and found our part. So I called the lawyer and said, "I'm going to find a different way, if you could send back the balance of the retainer," and conveniently there wasn't much left. But it was the best money I ever spent. So then I started working with somebody that I knew, and just went through and found out what my in the relationship was, and my part in the ending of the relationship. And realized about halfway through that I wouldn't want to be married to me either at that time. Ben: I was not in a good place. I was not the father I thought I was, but more importantly I wasn't the husband I thought I was. So then I called Nikki to coffee, and she probably had no idea why I was calling her. Nikki: No. Because I kind of knew this was going on with him, so I mean- Ben: She knew. It was that black sedan that was following me everywhere. Nikki: And I knew that this was the mindset he was in. And I just knew I hadn't gotten to that place. I mean, yes, I was angry and I was sad and I was upset, but I wasn't in the place that he was at. Where I sort of was like, "Let's just get this over with. Let's just fix this... fix it to a point where it's just done." To me, I went at this a totally different way. Nikki: I did hire a lawyer, but it was kind of more like, "What do I do? Here's this divorce, what am I going to do with this?" So mine wasn't, "Let's attack him and let's kill him." Ben: Well, your hardest thing also was that you said it too, it was a, "Fix it." Nikki's a fixer. She wants to get in there and fix everything and not call her a control freak, but control freak. Nikki: I am a control freak. 100% Catherine Shanahan: Were you living together at the time or were you separated in different homes? Nikki: We were in different homes, but not really. At that time- Ben: Somewhere in between there... I was staying in a hotel for about six months, and then I'd come home and- Nikki: Did you really stay in a hotel for six months? Ben: Six months. The biggest most exciting time of my life during that time was when they released a new movie on the On Demand thing at the hotel. Catherine Shanahan: Oh yeah. Yeah, yeah. Ben: Because I'd watched them all. And then I eventually got a place. So we weren't officially divorced yet when I had my own place, but it was when we told our son. He forced our hand to tell him because... Why don't you tell the story about us thinking we were getting over on him. Nikki: Oh yeah. So Ben would come over every morning before Asher would go to school. And you know, he would make sure he was there before he woke up. One morning- Catherine Shanahan: How old was he at the time? Ben: Four? Karen Chellew: Yeah? Ben: Four. Yeah. Nikki: So he comes in my room. Ben is already there. And he looks at me and says, "Hey mom, where did Daddy sleep last night?" And I always thought I did a really good job of messing up the bed thinking like, "Oh, okay." Ben: Yeah. Nikki: And I was like, "What do you mean? Right here." And he's like, "Where did Daddy sleep last night?" And I was like, "Oh, boy. This kid is way smarter than we're giving him credit for, so we need to do something, and it's time for us to sit him down as best we can with someone that young and just say, "Hey, this is what's happening. We love you." That's probably the hardest thing I've ever had to do in my life. Ben: Oh yeah. It was hard. But we framed it in a way and were open with him. If anything from our experience, again, not lawyers, not therapists, but through my experience with my parents, my experience with my son and our divorce is the idea that kids are resilient and they'll get over it, or they don't see things... is nonsense. It is absolute nonsense and I can say that from experience on both sides of it, right? "Oh, our kids will get over it. They're resilient. They don't know what's going on." Here a four-year-old who knew- Nikki: Exactly what was going on. Ben: Right. Playing Inspector Clouseau. Knew that I hadn't slept there because my bed wasn't made, my pillows weren't ruffled or whatever he did. So that's another message we try to get across is that, "Don't fool yourself." To me, and staying on my soapbox too much here, but to me, that's justification for behaviors." Karen Chellew: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Nikki: And too, to this day he still claims that he saw boxes, which we never let a box- Ben: At least we thought we didn't. Nikki: But he still says he saw boxes. Catherine Shanahan: You know, I think sometimes even if he didn't see boxes, he probably heard you talk about boxes. Nikki: Right. And in his head, he's like, "Oh yeah." Catherine Shanahan: You can probably remember talking about something in your childhood, but you don't really remember going to Disney World when you were two, but you remember seeing pictures that you went to Disney World when you were two. Nikki: Right. Catherine Shanahan: So you think you remember you were in Disney World when you were two, right? Ben: Yeah. Nikki: It's true. Catherine Shanahan: I'm sure he heard about that or saw that. So he's a smart kid. Like I said, I feel like I know him a little bit from watching the video. Nikki: Yes. Ben: Yeah, he wraps up the book too. He's got a chapter at the end of the book that just puts a bow on it perfectly, because our happy... Your answer, "How does your happy look?" We didn't know it was going to be happy at the time, but you know, I called her to coffee after I'd done this work on myself. The first thing I told her was I was sorry, that I'd done some work myself and I realized that it's no one's fault, it's not her fault, it's not my fault. We equal parts of this and I'm sorry for my part. Ben: I went through some of the things. I wasn't a very good husband. I ignored you, I didn't... blah, blah, blah, blah. I'm not going to apologize again, I already did that. Karen Chellew: Yeah. Ben: You're only getting it once. Catherine Shanahan: Yeah, she's sitting here smiling and she's like [crosstalk 00:17:45]. Ben: She loves it. And so we went through it and then she apologized to me, which was- Nikki: Which was probably the first and only time I've ever apologized. Catherine Shanahan: And you're lucky because we have this recorded [crosstalk 00:17:59]- Ben: Yeah. Catherine Shanahan: You can both listen on repeat. Nikki: Yeah. Ben: And then from that moment on it didn't just all of a sudden become happy, but there was room to move, because then we both genuinely accept each other's apologies, and we told each other we loved each other, and that we committed at that meeting to putting our son first with every decision we made. So our happy looked like not what was in Nikki's bank account or Nikki's family's bank account or what I thought I deserved. Our happy was what was best for our son. Nikki: Right. Catherine Shanahan: Yeah. So you know we like to get real with everyone, and a lot of our viewers come from a wide range, and we deal with a lot of affluent people, but we also deal with people who aren't affluent, or they don't know that they're affluent. Ben: Right. Catherine Shanahan: We do a lot of budgeting and we hone in on financials with everyone. And as a CDFA, I sit down and Karen does a lot of the budgeting with our clients, pre-divorce and post-divorce. So we listen to your story and it sounds great. You afforded him the ability to go through the mucky waters of what he needed to figure out for himself, which is a luxury, because he had that time to do that. Catherine Shanahan: And you blamed her in the beginning and you had all that anger, and you went and hired the bulldog, which oh, my God, we hear so many times people go and hire the bulldog, and only 10% of divorce cases need whatever everybody wants to refer to as the bulldog, and Karen loves to jump in and really get the definition of what a bulldog actually means, because you don't really need a bulldog. But anyway, that's a whole other podcast. Catherine Shanahan: But what did you do with your finances, because a lot of people who have money there, they can't access it during that time. How do you stay in a hotel room if you can't get the money? Did you two have your separate bank accounts, because people can't be happy if they can't get their financials, right? So if somebody out there wants to have a happy divorce, they come to us. Catherine Shanahan: So for example, for us we start with your finances. So we can afford them that time to work through the financials so they don't run to attorneys. You don't need two attorneys gathering your financial data. It's the same data you're collecting. You're paying thousands and thousands... We save people hundreds of thousands of dollars because why are you paying them to gather the same information and go through the packet of information you were asked to gather. Ben: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Nikki: Right. Catherine Shanahan: Why would you both have to do that. So we do that so that they can work through their stuff, right? Ben: Yeah. Catherine Shanahan: So during that time- Ben: I think what's important at least is yes from my experience, and also from this process of writing this book with Nikki and talking with people, it doesn't matter if there are a thousand dollars in the bank or there's a hundred million dollars in the bank, you know for the most part, because what it comes down to is financial insecurity. Ben: And what I think the problem with divorce and why sometimes it goes sideways is because it deals with two of the biggest trigger buttons, I could use a different word, but trigger buttons of our human condition and that's romance and finance, and both those speak directly to ego, right? Catherine Shanahan: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Ben: And so our financial settlement was the same as our custody agreement is that we try to as much as possible take ego out of it, and to try to put Asher first. So when it came time to discussing finances, it was, "Okay, what's best for Asher?" Nikki or myself had to make sacrifices, or give more or take less or whatever it was, but it was... Look, it wasn't simple, right? It was easier though when we looked at it through a pair of glasses of what's best for Asher, and you take the ego out of it as much as possible. Nikki: Right. I mean, I think too for him it was about his life. Ben: Right. Nikki: And the way we wanted him to be raised. We wanted him to be raised at both houses as basically as much the same- Ben: As possible. Nikki: Even with rules. With four parents, there's a lot of rules too. Ben: Right. Well, there's a lot of communication. Nikki: Right. Ben: The other thing we did, which... We both had lawyers, so I don't want to say that we did this willy nilly. But we did what's called collaborative and it wasn't- Nikki: We did through. Ben: We did. Nikki: We sort of brought it to our lawyers and said, "Hey, this is what we think we want to do." Ben: Right. So what we've tried, and agreed to try is, "Let's figure out what we can do on our own, and let's go through it with this pair of glasses that we now have of what's best for Asher, try to take ego out of it and see where we go." Nikki: And I think for us too, I mean, I guess couples... One of his biggest things with me was, "Do you have a problem with joint custody of our son?" And obviously if he was not a good guy or had some sort of issues that would be a different story, but I mean obviously I had no problem with that. So that was one of the first things that kind of softened him a little bit. Ben: That was the first question I asked was, "Do you have any problem with doing 50/50 everything with our son from the left shoe to the right shoe?" Nikki: Right. Ben: And she said, "Of course not. You're his dad." So I said with the other stuff we can work it out. And so then we started with that foundation, and then we were on the same page with that. Then we went to some other things like the businesses that we had together. Nikki had a jewelry company that she had started that I owned half of. I had a record label that I had started with her sister, which is kind of weird, but you know, so it wasn't necessarily about how much each one was worth at the time or the balance sheet of the jewelry company versus the record label. Nikki: It was things that he could have been like, "Oh, I'm going to get her because I want my half of that." Ben: Yeah, and I had no desire to be in the jewelry business. But if I was looking at it- Nikki: Why should you be? Ben: Yeah, right. Right, but if I'd been looking at it from a scorned ego standpoint, I was like, "I'm going to take the jewelry business because I know how much it means to her." Nikki: Right. Catherine Shanahan: Well I think it's really great that because you work through... Well, let me back up first. It's because I always say two people, you come together and you get married, it takes two people to get married, and it takes two people to get divorced, you know? Ben: Yup. Catherine Shanahan: And none of it has to do with your children. So you took the time to heal first, and then you made the important decision, so Karen, you know and you can pick up from this, the process that we developed because we're both divorced before we started... We saw how people got divorced, and when I went through my divorce eight years ago I just thought, "Hell, people have to get divorced different. This is just ridiculous." Ben: Yeah. Catherine Shanahan: The way we work is you do your financials first, and then you take your agreement, and we do a lot of negotiated agreements, and when we get to them take this to your attorney, pretty much what you're saying and have them draw up this agreement. You don't need them to talk to each other to tell you what you should do for yourselves, right? Nikki: Yup. Ben: Right. Karen Chellew: You just need to know what you want, and they don't necessarily spend a lot of time helping you figure that out. Catherine Shanahan: And you don't need a judge how to set up visitation for your lifestyle and your child. Ben: Control your own destiny. Nikki: I do all our calendar, well, because I'm that person. Catherine Shanahan: Yeah. Ben: Literally, she prints out... We used to- Nikki: I still use paper. Ben: In the beginning we used to meet at the same coffee shop, the same table, with Nikki's calendars, which are legendary, you know, not an iPhone calendar, not a computer, like the actual calendar printed out and we'd go through the month and you know, "What days are you traveling?" And I'd tell her- Catherine Shanahan: I love that. Ben: And we would do the schedule. And then over time this is sort of how the evolution of our divorce happened. Then now, she just does it. I entrust in her, not that I didn't entrust in her before, well maybe not. Catherine Shanahan: But it works. Ben: But it works. But now she does it, and it's in our shared calendar with Asher. Nikki: He knows where he is. He knows where to go. Ben: And it's 15 days, and if- Nikki: Sports is on there. Anything. Everything's on that calendar. Dinners, everybody can see it. Ben: But the thing that we went to too is again, we tried to see where we agreed or what we could do by ourselves and ended up doing the whole thing, and hashing out the whole settlement over many coffee meetings. It didn't just happen at that one coffee, but same table, same coffee shop, and then we handed it to the lawyers. Catherine Shanahan: I love that. Ben: We said, "Add your 'whereas' and run on sentences and you can get it as [crosstalk 00:27:06] as possible, so you can get paid $450 an hour for somebody to then reread it to try to find a way out of that run-on." Anyways... no offense. Karen Chellew: So I'm going to observe here that during all of those coffee shop meetings and all of those different interactions that the end result that you redefined your relationship as parents of Asher, and as your future. So I think that is fantastic, and I think that's what we try to help our client understand that use the divorce the process, and use that time to redefine what you're going to be like post-divorce, because your kids need to be able to depend on that and rely on that. Karen Chellew: And it's a very important time, and the time you spend fighting and arguing with each other, the less time you spend on creating that new relationship. So I think that's key what you did. Ben: Nobody's ever been happy or survived feeding their kids poison hoping the other one dies. Karen Chellew: Right. Ben: I think that happens a lot in divorces is that... And again, one beautiful thing about this process is when I left that house I was angry, I was going to go to war, I was going to go down the same path as my parents had gone done. But now I realize my parents didn't sit around the table when they got divorced and premeditate how they were going to not get along and how they were going to get us in the middle of that and all that awkwardness, it was just they were so blinded by the things we talked about earlier, the romance, the finance, and egos were hurt so they were blind to it. Ben: I was blind to it. When I left that house and I hired the lawyer and I wasn't talking to Nikki, I wasn't purposely sitting there going, "Hm, how am I going to screw up my kid?" But it's hard. It's hard on them. It was hard on me growing up. Catherine Shanahan: Yeah, well you know, nobody gets married thinking they're going to get divorced. Nikki: No. Ben: No. Catherine Shanahan: And you know, truth be told, myself included, there are times that you sit back and you say you wish your kid didn't have to go between one home and the other. Ben: And he does too. Catherine Shanahan: Nobody wants their child to do that or spend half their Christmas. Then you have more children and you don't want them to have to leave their siblings and all of that. It's not an easy process, and you can't be normal and wonder, "Is my child okay?" Even though they're happy and healthy. We know they are. I mean, my children are thriving, and I'm happy for them. They're doing so well. Catherine Shanahan: I'm remarried. I got married in June. I feel like I have the love of my life and I'm so blessed, and my children love him, so all of that, but we do wonder sometimes. But I think that's okay, and I think that's part of just being healthy human beings. But sometimes, you know, we deal with so many people's emotions they can't see past that. Catherine Shanahan: I think what your son has learned most importantly is the respect, and the reason why you let Nikki take over this whole calendar issue is because you respect her, and she respects you and that's why she does it. For your son to learn how a couple can respect each other is probably the best gift, because that's the best love you can give a partner. Ben: Yeah. Catherine Shanahan: Because you can't fully love someone if you don't respect them. Ben: And you brought up just a good point about co-parents too. And our spouses currently are... Just the other thing, I'm sure you see clients and people who are divorced miserable, but remarried and happy, and yet they still have this hatred towards the other one, and it's just like if you could just take a step back and realize that if you hadn't gotten divorced, and you hadn't gone down that, you wouldn't have met the other person. Ben: And our spouses, Chad and Nadia, there's no question who we were meant to be with. Nikki and Chad, I still... I'm like, "She never looked at me that way. She never grabbed my hand like that." It's like I never think, "What if." And then on the flip side, Nadia- Nikki: It's the same way though. I tell her too. I look at her sometimes and I'm like, "I couldn't be married to him," but she just smiles and loves him. Ben: She loves me, the unconditional love, which means you love the good and the bad just as much. And then Asher gets to see this, and he gets to see healthy relationships, and he gets to see that even though his parents are divorced, and this is the most sobering part about it. A couple years ago we were on a fishing trip and out of nowhere he said, "This divorce is hard on me." And this is like three years ago. Ben: I felt like saying, "You little SOB. You have no idea what a bad divorce is or how hard divorce is." And then it hit me. Even as good as Nikki and I have it, and I don't think... Maybe it could get better if we lived together, but besides that- Nikki: No, it would definitely not get better if we lived together. Karen Chellew: He doesn't know that. He doesn't know that. Ben: So but just the idea of being displaced every couple days, and even though we live seven houses down, I've seen him go, "Oh, I forgot my math book at Mom's. I've got to go down and get it." Nikki: But he even says too, sometimes he'll look at me and go, "You and Dad get along so well. Sometimes I don't understand why you're not married anymore." And I'm like, "We get along really well right now. We were meant to be best friends. We weren't meant to be husband and wife." I go, "You were meant to be here, so that's why we..." 100%. Karen Chellew: That's beautiful. Ben: Yeah, so a lot of kids read Dr. Seuss books as a kid, he was always an animal junkie, so we would read him animal encyclopedias, and he knew every single animal, where they came from, where they lived. And we always knew that we wanted to take him to Africa on a safari. But with the shots and everything... So if anything was going to send our divorce south, and it was if one of the other ones had taken Asher to Africa without the other one. Ben: So this past summer, Nikki and Asher and I went to Africa, just the three of us together on a safari. Nikki: I didn't feed him to any animals. Ben: And I didn't die. There were no lion accidents. Nikki: No accidents. Ben: But it was a great opportunity for our son. Nikki: Yes. Ben: Our spouses, when we told them- Nikki: I mean, we asked them if they wanted. Ben: Right. Nikki: It was this open invitation trip. Ben: But her husband just has this small responsibility of being a sheriff of Hillsborough County, and my wife was raising our two sons and starting a practice of her own, so it just wasn't possible. Nikki: Raising your what? Ben: What? Nikki: Your two sons. Ben: Oh, no, two kids. Well, two sons and daughter. But she has two young kids at home, it just wasn't possible for them to go, but the response, and this is where it really just comes full circle, wasn't, "Are you crazy that you think it's okay for you to go to Africa in the middle of the bush with your ex-wife? Are you nuts?" It was, "Asher will love that. What a great opportunity he has to go to Africa with his parents, and have that experience." Nikki: And day two of our trip he looked at me and he said, "Thank you so much. This is the best trip I could have ever gone on." Karen Chellew: That's awesome. That's awesome. Catherine Shanahan: That's really rare. There's not very many... I don't know anyone... That's really rare and really special. Ben: Yeah, and again- Nikki: And I mean, there are people that still think we're crazy. Ben: Right. And it didn't happen overnight. Nikki: Our families thought we were crazy in the beginning. Ben: I still think they might. Nikki: I think they might too. Ben: But the important thing is, I think we started this conversation with this, and that it didn't happen overnight. Nikki: Right. Ben: And a small example of that is when Nikki married Chad, Nikki called me and said, "I don't think that I feel comfortable with inviting you to the wedding. It's because I don't want people to worry about how Ben's feeling, take away from 'this is my day.'" And I was, "Completely understandable." It wasn't ready. It wasn't the right time. It wasn't about me. It was about Nikki and her day and her second day, her and Chad. Ben: And she's right, all the guests saying, "Oh, the ex-husband's here? This is weird." But again, fast forward about three or four years later, I get married and Nikki and Chad and her whole family are at my wedding, and not like, "Gotcha," like, "Hey, you didn't invite me to yours, I'm going to show everybody I'm a bigger person." Sorry- Nikki: There's something in my ear. Ben: My phone is... So that she came to my wedding. So it's been progress, not perfection. Nikki: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Ben: But it's been progress and it's getting there, and it didn't happen overnight. We've been doing this for 13 years. Catherine Shanahan: That's awesome. Karen Chellew: Yeah. Ben: It's just become more natural. Catherine Shanahan: Yeah, that's really good. Karen Chellew: That is great. So let's pivot to the topic of the day because I think a lot of people will benefit from your perspective on the pandemic and COVID and parenting children through... or co-parenting children who are traveling back and forth, and a lot of what we're hearing is, "I don't know if my son or my daughter or my children are safe at the other parent's house because they're not sheltering in place and they're not making sure everything's taken care of." So we're hearing a lot of that. Karen Chellew: And everybody's just cooped up together, so what can you offer the parents and the kids going through this right now to offer some kind of support? Nikki: I think for us, I mean, obviously we have it a little differently than most divorced couples, but I think in the beginning we sort of sat down and had a conversation, an open conversation. We weren't going to keep anything from Asher. We wanted him to know what was going on in the world, but we were on the same page about what Asher was... You know, in the beginning it was kind of a little bit slower process, "Oh, they can do this. They can do this. They can't do this." Then all of a sudden it was like, "No, you can't do anything." Nikki: So I think it took both of us to try to explain to him too in the beginning like, "Listen, you really can't leave the house. You're not going anywhere. You can get in your car and you can go for a drive, but you can't stop anywhere. You can't talk to your friends. You can't see your friends. You can't do anything." And I think the same went for the two of us. We kind of said, "Listen, what's going on at your house? Where are you going to go? Where am I going?" We kind of got on the same page where we were like, "You have to shut it down." Nikki: I mean, other than the fact that my husband has to go to work, he even tries to shut it down where he goes into work, goes in his office, he sees all of about two people when he goes into work, and that's it, because he doesn't have a choice. Ben: Right. Nikki: But we just decided in the beginning, "Let's shut this down." And so Asher's obviously homeschooled now, or whatever that's called, virtual school, whatever. Ben: It's the new homeschool, yeah. Nikki: That kind of even made a decision too that the days Asher is at Ben and Nadia's house, he comes over to our house by 9:30 in the morning to start school, unless he's got a Zoom class that starts before that, and he does all of his schoolwork at our house until he's done, because- Ben: Otherwise it'd be mayhem with the two young... his brothers and sisters going into- Nikki: Them trying to do their school, and then him trying, you know, conflicts. All they want to do, when he's there they just want to be with him. Ben: Right. Catherine Shanahan: What's the age different? Ben: Four and seven, so- Nikki: And Asher's 16. Ben: Yeah, so [crosstalk 00:39:14]. The other thing is that I think that the way we handle this pandemic and sort of a microcosm of how we handle life in our divorce. We had a conversation. We both agreed upon the rules at both houses that we were going to social distance, we were going to be responsible, we were going to shelter in place. We were going to do all the same things at both houses. And once we did that, all of a sudden, now our sphere of quarantine has widened. Ben: That's why Nikki and I are sitting next to each other right now and not because- Nikki: Because we quarantined together. I see the kids almost every day. Ben: Right. We can go down to her house because Asher's been going back and forth, being the outbreak monkey, so if it was going to be in one house, it was going to be in the other house anyway. Nikki: We're all getting it. If it's in one house, we're all getting it. Catherine Shanahan: What do you do, Ben, if Nadia doesn't agree with Nikki? Ben: About... Catherine Shanahan: Parenting, rules, or where you go? Ben: I think one of the greatest things about Nadia and Chad is we all co-parent together. Nadia's a therapist specializing in kids, so she brings a different perspective. She doesn't try to step on Nikki's shoes. She disagrees with some things we do with Asher, but she says it, and I'm sure Chad does too. She says it, and they say it, but at the end of the day, we're his parents. At the end of the day, we're going to make the ultimate decision, but for the most part, since it's evolved, the four of us usually sit down on the big ticket items. Ben: Nikki and I have different parenting styles. Nadia and I have different parenting styles. Nikki: Chad and I have different parenting styles. Ben: Right, and Nikki and I would have different parenting styles whether we were married or divorced. So it's just about finding the- Nikki: Some sort of common ground with all of us. Ben: Picking your battles. I learned to pick my battles with her. It's not worth the... Catherine Shanahan: Yeah. Ben: So the COVID thing, we ran out of paper towels for just a small example, but you know, I called Nikki, I knew that she probably had 25 cases, and even if she didn't I knew that she would give us one. Nikki: I did give you some. Ben: That's just the way- Catherine Shanahan: Are you hoarding? Ben: She's always been. There is no difference. She's- Nikki: I do not hoard toilet paper. I don't understand the toilet paper thing. I barely have enough toilet paper in the house. Ben: She's been preparing for this thing for what, 45 years? Karen Chellew: So you didn't say, "Asher, when you're at mom's house, just grab toilet paper, throw it in your bag and just run out"? Ben: No, and I go over there and I got caught robbing her pantry. Nikki: Yes, for snacks. And then if you notice my hair is pink. It is not normally pink. This has been a quarantine thing. And his daughter is convinced that her hair is going to be pink too, so I tried once, her hair's darker than mine, so didn't work. So now I've just instead of asking for permission, I'm like, "Okay, well I'm dyeing your daughter's hair pink." Ben: Yeah, I found out after I got home from work yesterday. This is, again, what our life is like today. It truly is. You talk about the byline on the book, but it's also the other one we talk about is finding a different kind of love. That's what we've done over the past 14 years, or however long it's been. I love this woman. I've always loved this woman. I think we kind of got confused with being in love and love. But luckily enough we never lost... We might have lost it for a little bit there, but we got back to it. Ben: Then it's evolved into this thing, you know, that is beyond us, beyond our wildest imagination. Again, if we can do it, and this might sound like French or Latin to some of your listeners right now, it's real, but it was a process. Karen Chellew: That's awesome. Ben: You know, if you're starting out, I don't know what you tell your clients, but take small steps, and that's what we had to do in the beginning is get the small wins, get the softball game where there wasn't an awkward feeling or event at your kid's school where you didn't walk away feeling awkward. That's a win. Nikki: Yup. Ben: That's a small win, and then the wins start piling up. Before you know it you're in Africa and no one's dying. Catherine Shanahan: I love that. We tell our clients you know, "You do not have to tell your children that their mom's an alcoholic, or their dad's an idiot. If they're an idiot or an alcoholic they'll see it for themselves." Ben: Right. Nikki: They will. Catherine Shanahan: Just be the dad or the mom that you want to be because that's what they're going [crosstalk 00:44:09]. Ben: Love that. Catherine Shanahan: Like I said it brings tears to my eyes. Literally I had chills when I watched your video because, you know, I do what I do and Karen can speak for herself, but I know that she does it also, but we do what we do because we're advocates for the children of the parents that we helped, and we've helped over 400 couples already. One day I'm hoping that the children of the parents will stand up and say, "Those women helped my parents divorce a better way," you know? Catherine Shanahan: We don't need attorneys fighting for parents to set a parenting schedule or to help divide assets. That's what you have professionals to do. So we're doing what we're doing to help people divorce a better way. We just need the attorneys to tie it up and put the 'as is' or 'as set forth' or whatever those words are. We don't really care. We just want them to have financial clarity and to help them to set up a co-parenting plan that works for their family. Catherine Shanahan: I'm like Nikki, I like to write paper agendas and put stickers on everything and all that stuff. Nikki: Me too. I love it. Catherine Shanahan: That's how I like it too. Nikki: I just won't get rid of it. Catherine Shanahan: I love hearing your story because I think that's how it should be. Ben: Yeah. Catherine Shanahan: I hope you can come to our Mrs2Me Summit and maybe speak and talk to our attendees. Ben: Oh, we'd love to because that's why we wrote the book. It's not... This is truly an altruism. Nobody wants to spill their... And in the book we talk about our shortcomings. We talk about our failures. We're imperfect, but what we have is real and just for it to be inspirational. We're so happy to do this thing, and then run into people like you guys and others who... Ben: We kind of kept our head down. As silly as it sounds, when we got divorced there was no Facebook or Instagram. There's Myspace, but not a lot of divorced, co-parenting- Catherine Shanahan: Myspace, is that even around? Karen Chellew: I don't remember that. Ben: Right, so we didn't have support groups online to go to. Then even writing the book, it took us four years to write this book because we'd get in a fight, this was my idea and I was- Nikki: [crosstalk 00:46:16] say, "No, I'm not doing your book." Ben: I'm not doing your effing book, blah, blah, blah. Nikki: Yeah. Ben: So then all of a sudden we get the book out and we're starting to do some research, and we see this huge community online. It's not like, "Oh, no, we just launched a book and there's so many other..." It was like, "This is great." Nikki: Like, "This is awesome." Catherine Shanahan: Yeah. Ben: Because these people have the same goal as us and it's to let people know- Nikki: There's a different way. Ben: There's a different way going into it. Not even after they're divorced and it's yucky and all that, but I think I went into it thinking if I get divorced, it's War of the Roses. It's on. This is the only way to go. Nikki: That's the only kind of divorce I ever knew though. Catherine Shanahan: I tell people, "No." They come to us sometimes when they've been the process and we're like, "Oh, my gosh, I wish you would have came here first because you just wait..." I mean, they spent 20, 40,000, and they come with bags of papers. They don't even know what they have. I look at Karen, because the legal process to me is such a crock sometimes. It's not logical thinking, and as a financial I'm like, "What?" So she's like, "It's the process. This is the process." Look at her, she's laughing because I get so annoyed that people spend money for that. Catherine Shanahan: So we're digital. We work nationally, so I just crack up at the process. So I just wish people come here first because it would save them so much angst. It starts couples fighting when they don't even have to fight. Ben: Right. Catherine Shanahan: I said, "Oh, my God," because they get served this nasty language and they say, "Oh, my God, he's going after this," or, "She's going after this." And the couple will say, "I didn't mean that. I didn't mean to do that." So now a war began where the person didn't even mean it. Catherine Shanahan: So when you said you got to work out your stuff first, I was like, "Thank God he came to his senses," because he didn't really want to attack you, but that's how it would have started because like you said, Nikki said, "Yeah, he probably sends that to everybody." That's exactly what that attorney does. And unfortunately they have to send it like that because that's the process. I'm glad you [crosstalk 00:48:28]. Ben: For us, at least for me it was really thin ice. I think that that's the thing is one misstep... I don't know if you guys saw The Marriage Story, but that is a perfect example of one... If she just maybe read that letter in that first meeting, it might have turned out the way it seemed like the movie had ended. And for me, if I hadn't just had that moment of clarity right then or pull it out at the particular time, whatever it was and whenever it happened, who knows, but it's in the beginning, it's just so... It's a powder keg. Ben: To go to people who are aligned with a better outcome will help you, guide you down that path of the right way. We didn't have that, but luckily we got there. Karen Chellew: Kudos. Ben: Someone tell that woman, Scarlet Johansson, "Read the letter." Nikki: Yeah. Catherine Shanahan: Yes, yes. Karen Chellew: Well you guys are great, and I think one of my takeaways from today is first and foremost have the conversation. Try to have as many conversations as you can as rugged as they are, but also what I've noticed from hearing you today is whenever something happens today or yesterday that kind of is a trigger, I see that you assign it to that person, not to your relationship that broke apart years ago. And I think a lot of couples haven't developed the ability to do that whenever the other person does something that's irritating or that creates that trigger, "That's why I divorced him. I hate him. He's a terrible person blah, blah, blah." Karen Chellew: But I see you just saying, "That's Ben." or, "That's Nikki." And we're different and you move on. I think that's key in the ongoing relationship. Nikki: Give it a day [crosstalk 00:50:23] we'll come back to that. Ben: Yeah, I mean, I think Nikki [crosstalk 00:50:26] the same thing is that some of the same buttons that I pushed when we married, I still pushes. She still pushes the same. Like you said about parenting, our parenting skills would be different, our styles would be different if we were divorced or married, same as the personality. Nikki: Right. Ben: But it's a lot easier to accept Nikki today being her best friend than it is being her husband. But it's still, I'll also give it a day when she tells me she's not doing the effing book. I'll let her Italian hot head cool off a little bit. Nikki: Cool off for a minute. Ben: Then I'll come back. Catherine Shanahan: I'll take your roll of paper towels and I'll go home and talk to her tomorrow. Ben: Exactly. Karen Chellew: I love that. Well, thank you both for being with us today and to our listeners, the book is Our Happy Divorce. And your website is ourhappydivorce.com. You're on Instagram. You're on Facebook I believe as well. Ben: Facebook, Twitter, everything @ourhappydivorce. Yeah. Karen Chellew: All right. We're happy to meet you. Nikki: Nice to meet you. Karen Chellew: And we hope to see you soon at Mrs2Me. We'll talk with you a little bit more about that. Nikki: Thank you. Karen Chellew: Thank you again. Have a nice and safe and healthy day. Ben: Yeah, thank you. And thank you for everything you guys do. Thank you. Karen Chellew: Thank you. Have a great day. Bye. Ben: All right, thank you guys so much, and let us know about that whatever... the summit or whatever- Karen Chellew: Yeah, we will. We'll reach out to you. Ben: However you want to use us to help spread the message because it sounds like we're very much aligned. Karen Chellew: Great. Yeah, we'll stay in touch. Ben: Okay. Thank you guys. Karen Chellew: Bye. Catherine Shanahan: Be well. Bye.  

How does an aggressively-minded property management company grow quickly? Leads. But it’s impossible for property managers to pursue the blue ocean of 70% self-managed landlords. There's no way to contact them. Until now.  Today, I am talking to Ben Atkin of DoorsUp, a lead generation service for property management entrepreneurs. You’ll Learn... [02:30] Ben’s Background: Grew up surrounded by real estate, property management, and software.  [03:09] 50-unit Student Housing Apartment Complex: Managing students is difficult; Ben moved on to something less stressful and more lucrative.  [03:40] Bootstrap to the Core: Partnered with Coldwell Banker Premier and started property management company from scratch. [04:10] Daily Pre-occupation: How do you grow doors? How do you increase the number of units under management?  [04:41] Database: How do you identify people who own rental property? Where do they hangout? How do you contact them?  [05:03] DoorsUp Prototype: Every person in market who owns rental properties and their contact information to track interactions and engagement. [06:20] Secret Sauce: DoorsUp gets information and people ready to sign-up.  [07:37] Grow Doors: Use DoorsUp to pick an area to pursue to contact owners and acquire more properties to manage. [14:20] Future for DoorsUp: Going to NARPM to add service areas.  [16:27] FAQ: Does this have all the data that I can find myself? Data is concise, filtered, and updated regularly to make your marketing more efficient and cost-effective.  [21:14] Bogged Down and Overwhelmed: Grew too fast and doesn’t want to be a property manager!  [22:15] My Thesis: Property management has a serious marketing problem. People cannot find a sustainable way to grow doors.  Tweetables Bootstrap to the Core: Zero clients, zero connections, zero revenue, and zero Website.  We have a lot of data. Mining and handling data is our expertise. We’re marketing strategy agnostic. Property management has a serious marketing problem. Resources Ben Atkin's Personal Email DoorsUp Ben Atkin on LinkedIn Google Street View Grant Cardone National Association of Residential Property Managers (NARPM) Business Network International (BNI) Cole Realty Resource SmartZip  REDX  DoorGrowClub Facebook Group DoorGrowLive DoorGrow on YouTube DoorGrow Website Score Quiz Transcript Jason: Welcome, DoorGrow hackers to the DoorGrow Show. If you are a property management entrepreneur that wants to add doors, make a difference, increase revenue, help others, impact lives, and you are interested in growing your business and life, and you are open to doing things a bit differently, then you are a DoorGrow hacker. DoorGrow hackers love the opportunities, daily variety, unique challenges, and freedom that property management brings. Many in real estate think you’re crazy for doing it, you think they’re crazy for not, because you realize that property management is the ultimate high-trust gateway to real estate deals, relationships, and residual income. At DoorGrow, we are on a mission to transform property management businesses and their owners. We want to transform the industry, eliminate the BS, build awareness, change perception, expand the market, and help the best property management entrepreneurs win. I’m your host, property management growth expert, Jason Hull, the founder and CEO of DoorGrow. Now, let’s get into the show. Today, I'm hanging out with Ben Atkin from a new startup, it sounds like, called DoorsUp. Ben, welcome. Ben: Thanks, Jason. It's a pleasure to be on the show. I'm just going to go ahead and say this and geek out out of the way. I've watched literally every single one of your podcast and I can jive so much with that intro. It seems like it's changed a little bit in the last. Did I notice that? You changed that intro to include a couple more things recently? Jason: I have made some subtle changes, yes. Ben: Subtle changes, okay. I love that. I'm really excited to be on this show. I'm just stoked to be here. Jason: Let's get into your background. You've got this startup called DoorsUp, which in my understanding is a lead gen service for property management entrepreneurs, so they can get more owners which sounds very in alignment with what we do to optimize companies so they can handle those leads, so they can effectively, organically, create that business. Tell us how did you get into this space? Give us some background on Ben. Who the heck are you? Ben: Yeah. It's a long long road. I'm a second generation real estate person as well as second generation software developer and software person. My dad has a real estate company, was a real estate developer. The most inopportune time to be a real estate developer in 2006-2007. I grew up surrounded by real estates, surrounded by property management, and also surrounded by software. Anyway, I got my start in actually having experiences in property management in college. I was managing a 50-unit student housing apartment complex. If anybody is familiar with student housing, they know that that is just a difficult job to manage students. 50 units is about 250 leases in student housing. I was looking for something a little bit more lucrative and a little less stressful. I found an opportunity in my local market with a Coldwell Banker property management franchise or Coldwell Banker Premier, partnered with that franchise, and started with a property management company from scratch. Zero clients, zero connections, zero revenue, and zero website—nothing; we just started from the ground. Jason: Bootstrap. Ben: Bootstrap. Yeah, absolute to the core. I have very little experience in property management at that time even though I did my best at pretending that I did. That was our major problem was how do you grow doors? How do you increase the number of units under management? That was my preoccupation daily because I wasn't being paid. You talk about bootstrap, I was living on savings trying to grow a property management company. That was my challenge. That was my problem. I remember speaking to my broker at this franchise. I waited at his office for about an hour. I was brainstorming with him. I said, "How do you identify people who own rental property? Where do they hangout?" It's not like there's this big database of everybody who owns rental property and a way to contact them. That's really was the impetus for what we developed and what we started to pursue. I leveraged a little bit of my connection with my dad and my brothers who were software engineers, I have a software engineering background a little bit, and we built the prototype of DoorsUp, which is exactly that. It's a database of every person in your market virtually who owns rental properties. A way to get their phone number, mailing address, and a way to track their interactions with them as you pursue them to engage with the property management services. Jason: I love it. It sounds like this is almost the equivalent of somebody doing all the manual work to go and find an owner occupied list, then start trying to direct mail to them, and doing all this so manually which works, which can work great to help them grow their business. But it’s a long game. People will try it once and feel like, "I did a mailer, I didn't get anything." But then I hear people that have played this game and they’ll say, "I have clients walk in all the time." They're holding a postcard they did 10 years ago and saying, "Hey, I'm ready, so sign up." Explain how this works. Where are you getting the information? Let's start there. Ben: Sure. I'm going to mention that it's a little bit part of our secret sauce. I don't know if I consider ourselves a big data company. That's kind of a word that people on software throw around to make themselves sound cool, in my opinion. But we have a lot of data. Hundreds of sources, public sources, that's really our expertise is in managing and handling data to be able to target these types of people. Like what you mentioned, let me just make this quick point, mailing to absentee owners is, in some ways, inefficient. How many second home owners who aren't interested in property management are you mailing to? In a market like mine where it's a lot of retirees and it's almost a vacation area, that would be completely ineffective because you'd sent out a thousand mailers and 700 of those would go to people who really have no interest or their daughters' living in that home or whatever. I'm just going to make that point that what we're doing is quite a bit more targeted, and hopefully, should save on expenses, marketing wise and other things. Jason: Explain how somebody could utilize the system growth in their business. Ben: It's a web based application. The first thing that a user would see as they login is they would see a map and filters on the side. They can pick an area that they like to pursue in trying to acquire more properties to manage. Let's say, they've got a neighborhood that they really love, they draw a box on the map, and then they add a couple more filters. Maybe they want to manage only properties that are the 2000s and newer properties, so they don't have to deal with maintenance issues. They hit filter parcels. They'll just see a whole bunch of pins drop on the map, hundreds of pins of rental properties that are algorithms, are big data approach as identified as rental properties. Not just as absentees parcels, but as rental properties. It's really rigorous in deciding what we display as rentals. That's the first step. They filter, they find the rental properties, they can view the properties from the street with Google Street View through our application. It's very easy to see if the property's run down. They can actually look at it from the satellite imagery. They click on the owners name and they click the lookup button. Our system does a whole bunch of secret sauce magic in the background, gives you a phone number, and the accurate mailing address of the owner. As well as information about if they own other rentals. That type of information that they can then pursue that person and try to engage them into a conversation about their property management services. That's the simplest way to explain it. Jason: They sign up for your service, they markout their geographic area, they get some pintabs, they can street view the property, then your system will crawl the magical interweb, pull in phone numbers, email addresses, or mailing address. Then the next step for them would basically, probably be to do some sort of a direct mail campaign, cold calling. Ben: Yeah. We're agnostic to whatever marketing strategy they want to take. We provide the information, we provide the data. They can be as creative as they need to in order to pursue that market. Call, mail, we don't have email addresses, that would be something that they get them on the phone and ask for an email address. Then start them in their sales funnel. A great way to distribute their content, things that you've helped them create, or others who've helped them create, or even knocking on people's doors. That sounds ridiculous in my mind; it sounds ridiculously inefficient. But if you knew that someone had 10 rental properties and those rentals properties were exactly what you wanted to manage, you can see exactly where the homeowner or where the landlord lives or where the rental owner lives, it might be worth dropping off some fudge at the doorstep of their home. That sounds ridiculous, but that's actually something that one of our [...] has done in the past. It's very differentiating as opposed to just this search engine optimization, pay-per-click strategy. It's a little bit closer to a human connection. Jason: Oh, yeah. Realtors still knock doors. Realtors still do this. Property managers have probably really tried to avoid doing that. I've got a client who's in commercial property management. One of the ways he would get clients is he would go bring a candle to their place. "I'm old fashioned here, so here's this candle." He would give a gift, a little gift. The secret is, he'll buy these at the dollar store. This isn't like an expensive thing. But some people are showing up with, I don't know, a bottle of wine or something. It's a dollar of candle and it probably meant something, it felt like something warm to them. I think it's all about connection.  Obviously, if they were really aggressive, they’ve listened to Grant Cardone's 10X, they're like gunho. They wanted to create some business. They just need the opportunities. They go into the system. They may have done a multichannel approach. They're like, "This is my dream list right here. I'm going to call them. I'm going to send them some material. I'm going to nail them on a regular basis. I'm going to go knock on their door." They will get the business. Ben: Here's the thing, like I said, we're marketing strategy agnostic. People are already doing wonderful things to get more doors. They're doing great things. They're setting up landlords seminars, they've got great content, they're trying to push them to these distribution channels, but one of the things that we can provide is a way to reach more and more people. As part of your mailer, send out an invitation to your seminar. It fits really well into the things that people are already doing. If you've got a digital marketing strategy, get somebody on the phone, and say, "We would love to just send you an information in an email about what we do." Just enroll them in an email nurturing campaign that you've already developed, that you've already got going. It seems like organic traffic is a little bit harder to get in our industry for the smaller guys and for some of the companies that are just starting out. They've got to put a little bit of effort into it to start getting those doors, getting the traction that they've got. Jason: Yeah. If we've got roughly 70% that are self-managing in the industry, there's tons of blue ocean. This just helps you to see where the fish are. If you can see them, you can go hunt. It's time. Love the idea. I think this is such a nice match-up between DoorGrow and what you do. I'll be really curious to give feedback to some of our clients on some of the strategies that we teach them if they have these opportunities that they can go after. It's really going to be cool. Ben, what’s sort of the future for DoorsUp? Ben: Yeah, good question. Like you mentioned in the beginning, we're very recently coming out of stealth mode or development mode. We launched just short of a month and a half ago. We’re constrained geographically right now where we can service. Having just barely launched, we are currently servicing customers in Utah and Nevada. I live in Utah, I live right in between Las Vegas and South Lake City, which are two large markets that we wanted to initially, prove the concept of the product and establish a customer base. We are going to be in NARPM, at the NARPM convention conference in October in Arizona. Is that right? It's in Arizona. Jason: Yeah. My assistant schedules it all for me. I just do what she tells me to do. I'll be there. Ben: We'll be there and that's where we hope to add, geographically, another service area. We're going to be growing that way, kind of state by state as we go. That will be determined by the traction we're able to get in different states that we're able to start servicing. If we can grab a couple of customers in one state, that would be enticing enough for us to go through that state and start servicing that area. There's an advantage for our customers right now. They're alone in these sea of data. They're the only people using it. That's a huge competitive advantage right now for the people using it, to be some of the first ones that are using it. As much as we're just coming out of beta and the user interface is not as polished as it should be or could be, but there's a huge advantage for those that are early customers that are starting to use the system and see some results. Jason: What are some of the most common questions that people are asking you about this? I would imagine one question that comes to mind is, "Does this have all the data that I can go find myself?" Or is it missing that? Ben: Right, good question. Essentially, people ask that question. They have a little bit of misunderstanding about what we do. That was an instinct that you had right at the beginning of our conversation is, it's similar to what people are doing which is they're going out sourcing their own data, sending out mail, or sending out stuff like that. That's a very rudimentary version of what we do. The answer to that question is, I guess, the data is so concise, so aggressively filtered, that makes your marketing very efficient, and enables you to do certain things that you never would have time or money to do otherwise. Now, campaign is being an excellent example. The sales cycle for property management is so long. We're not selling toothbrushes. If you ask somebody, "Hey, you want to buy this toothbrush?" They can say, "Yes," and it's done; the sale is done and the service is done. Property management has such a long sales cycle where you get somebody on the phone and you say, "I would love to manage your units." And they say, "Well, it's got a 12-18 month lease on it. I'm not interested unless it's vacant. 12 months from now, call me." I'm being able to keep track on that and being able to keep track of how many times you've mailed to somebody is another really important part of that process. It's integrated into the system right now. People are able to track their leads, they're able to keep track of how many times they've mailed to somebody, keep notes on phone calls that they've had. The other aspect of that is that the data updates. I don't know if you've ever spoken to somebody who has actually tried to implement a long-term mail campaign, but the data, six months out, has changed. People buy properties, they sell property. How do they correlate whether they've mailed to somebody already? Whether they've called somebody already? How do they just track that change over time to be able to spend their time with one person long enough for them to close them given that property management has such a long sales cycle? That's part of the advantage of using a system like ours to do your prospecting and data sourcing. We keep it up to date. The data is updated monthly. The phone numbers, you click the lookup button and it does lookup immediately right then. Very, very fresh data which you're not going to be able to find yourself. Who has time for that anyway? You're going to be managing 200 properties and you're going to be spending time in a big Excel spreadsheet trying to correlate [...]. Absolutely not. I saw as a huge way to be much more effective and to really spend my money where it's going to make the most effect, given that I knew that people have multiple units, and they were units I wanted to manage. I can pursue the market that I want rather than shotgunning a mail campaign or something out in the world and seeing if I got anything I wanted. Jason: Tell us a little bit about some of the early adopters. What sort of experience have they had? Is there a case study or an example you can share with us? Ben: I'll start with myself. I was the first case study. If we go back to that origin story of DoorsUp, I asked my broker, "Where do I find these people?" He said, "I have no idea. No one has any idea." We developed this raw prototype of the system. I got this report. It's so embarrassing to even look at now, it’s this ugly Excel spreadsheet, but it was our prototype. It was the name, phone number, and address of every person in my market who owned rental property. How many rentals they owned, the value of their portfolio, and the addresses of all of their rentals. It was ridiculous to me. To me, it felt like magic. I got straight down and called through that list. After wasting three months getting four or five units, in two months, we were managing about 45 units. I was just bogged down. It was crazy. We grew too fast. I discovered that I didn't want to be a property manager, so I went into software. Jason: Yeah. A lot of people were like, "Why don't you do it, Jason?" I'm like, "Then I can't help everybody else do well." Then, I'll be competing with everybody. I don't think anybody wants that. You're no longer doing that, but you had a really rapid growth initially. I love creating that problem for clients, by the way. I love when they come to me and they're like, "Man, my biggest problem is adding doors and getting doors." Then I say, "Great. Let's get you to problem number two which is how you deal with the growth. Now, you've got doors coming in and you're in pain because you have so much growth." I love creating that problem. Well, anything else they should know about this? If not, how can they get in touch? How can they find out more about DoorsUp? Ben: Yeah. I guess, I'll end with this thought, this is kind of the thesis behind DoorsUp. This is why we got into this space and try to solve this problem. My thesis is, essentially, that property management has a serious marketing problem. I listen to your show a lot and I feel like I didn't steal that idea from you—I sure hope I didn't—but you've taught me a lot about that, but I experienced that myself. People cannot find a sustainable, reliable way, to grow their door count. Profitability aside, that's important. That's very, very important, but top line revenue growth is the thing that we are focusing on helping people to. We don't have, in our industry, any sort of enabling data or service or company like other industries do. For example, if somebody in property management really wanted to spend all day everyday prospecting, if they wanted to do Grant Cardone 10X, they want to not talk to seven new landlords a week, they want to talk to 75 new landlords a week. How would they do that? They would go to Rotary Club and hope that a landlord was there. They would go to BNI, Business Network International, and hope that a landlord is there. Or they'll take a realtor to lunch and pray that he'll give him a referral. How does an aggressively-minded property management company grow quickly? They just need these leads. Whereas in real estate sales, real estate sales and other industries, we've got Cole Realty Resource, we've got SmartZip, we've got the REDX. We've got all these prospecting tools. Property management industry just does not have that, which has made it impossible for property managers to pursue this blue ocean, 70% of self-managed landlords. There's no way for them to contact them. They have no visibility into that market. Just from a very macro perspective, that's what we're trying to provide the industry. To be able to turn the focus from just closing hand razors, people who go on Google and raise their hands and say, "We want your service," to be able to aggressively pursue that market instead of just waiting for leads to come to them. That's what we see. That's my thesis is that there's a problem in property management that they need this data and we can provide it. We're still proving and testing that thesis. But we're very excited to get out there and be able to offer that to people. We've seen some success. If people want to contact me, there are plenty of ways on our website. You can go ahead and email me. My personal email address is ben.r.atkin@gmail.com. That's probably the easiest way to reach out to me personally. Though, I'm also tuned in on the website if you chat with us. It'll be an actual person who answers that. If you're in Utah and Nevada, go online, signup for a free trial. We’d love to have you start using the system. We do a two-week, 30 lead, free trial. Other than that, just reach out to me. I'd love to chat about it, and jive about property management, and see if we can help this industry grow from the 30% penetration to 40% or 50% or 60%. I see there needs to be some sort of change in order to be able to do that. Jason: Cool. Ben, where are you based out of? Ben: I'm in St. George, Utah. Just an hour North of Las Vegas, Nevada. Jason: Got it. I know where it is. I was born in Utah. Alright. We'll connect, I think that I have a lot of clients are at the point where they're ready to be able to leverage their service like this. I think a lot of property managers are not. I think a lot of them really are just not ready to leverage something like this, unfortunately. If that's the case, reach out to DoorGrow. Then they'll see if you're ready. "You're ready. You have the bandwidth to do these kind of things and grow your business. Let's get you connected to DoorsUp." I look forward to watching what you guys do, seeing the progress, and growth of your company. Ben: Thanks, it's a pleasure. Jason: Thanks for coming in this show. Ben: Hopefully, we'll see you at NARPM. Anybody else, hopefully, we'll see in there. Thanks! Jason: Alright. Very cool. If you are a property management entrepreneur, and you are wanting to grow your business, and you want to grow without SEO, without pay-per-click, without content marketing, without social media marketing, without uncomfortable videos, without pay-per-lead services, and they're having phenomenal growth, they're easily adding in a year 100 doors to their business, they're adding $100,000 in revenue to their business annually and you want to do that, maybe you're one of these companies that, right now, is losing more doors than you're getting on right now because it's difficult to try to outpace the market when doors are selling off because the market's good with marketing then reach out to DoorGrow. Let's optimize your business, let's get you ready to use a service like this, and some other strategies, and tactics that we have, that can help you grow your business. Check us out at doorgrow.com. We would love to help you out. We want, like what I say in the intro, we want to impact this industry, and we're excited to find like-minded entrepreneurs like Ben and others that are helping to make this industry great. I think it has massive potential. I believe that property management industry can be as big as the real estate industry; I think it has the potential to really grow here in the US. Let's make that happen, everybody. Make sure, if you're a property management entrepreneur, you join our Facebook group doorgrowclub.com. Get inside the community. Connect with us. This is a group for property management business owners. Get with your tribe. Connect with us, and we'll probably see you in person at some of these NARPM events because I'm hitting as many as I can lately. Hopefully, I'll be connecting with you guys in person and inside the DoorGrow Club. Thanks everybody for tuning in to DoorGrow Show. Until next time, to our mutual growth. Bye, everyone.  

The Achieve Wealth Podcast Host: James Guest: Ben Label Title : Underwriting Phoenix with Ben Leybovich   James:  Hey, welcome audience to Achieve Wealth Podcast. This is where we look at operators around the countries and learn from them. And I really appreciate you being here just because you have thousand and one things to do somewhere else. But listening to us or listening to me on this podcast gives me great pleasure to be with you all. So today I have a very nice guest and I would say a well-known guest in the bigger pockets and outside of bigger pockets community as well. Today we have Ben Label, which is from Phoenix; hey, Ben, thanks for coming.   Ben: How are you? It's a pleasure to be with you. I do a lot of these podcasts, but I have fun every time.   James: Yeah, that's awesome. Yeah, we want to go a bit more into detail, so I'm sure you've gone into a great line in other podcasts as well, but there are a few things that we look for. I mean, I'm an operator. We would like to go into a lot more details, into the numbers and the strategies and all that just because we want to learn and my audience want to learn and we listen to podcasts to learn, right? Because everybody's spending the time to listen to each one of those podcasts and there are thousands of those out there but I think it's important that we learn from each other. Right? So, Ben has been almost investing in multifamily residential real estate for over a decade and he has been on numerous times featured in Bigger Pockets Podcast. I've been following him since the very early days when I started in single family and I've learned a lot of things from Bigger Pockets.   He has been featured on like three different episodes in Bigger Pockets, he is also the creator of Cashflow of Freedom University and author of House Hacking. He and his partner, Sam Grooms, has been a buying deals in Phoenix market. I think they close on 98 units and recently you close on 130 units, is that right? Ben: 117, it's 117, last week we purchased.   James: 117. Okay. So why don't you tell us about yourself to our audience on aspects that I've missed out about introducing you?   Ben: Well, thank you again for inviting me, I appreciate it; I like doing these things. Who doesn't like to talk about themselves, especially when you were so good-looking like me and I guess most often do, it's fantastic, right? Sam is like, not showing up for this, he knows how it's going to go. I don't know, my story has been very kind of public, through Bigger Pockets and elsewhere. Folks, you know, my website, justaskBenwhy.com, my stories are all over that website.   I basically was informed that I have a medical condition called multiple sclerosis when I was in college. I'm a professional fiddle player, but I wasn't able to do that because it's kind of hard to do that when your hands don't work like they're supposed to. So it was a kind of a long path toward discovering some way of making money that wasn't reliant upon my physiology to the extent that music would have been. And I kind of,  through zigging and zagging through this rationale, I ended up eventually in real estate. I bought a few single families first, figured out that I didn't like it, went onto small multifamily, syndicate larger apartments today, with my partner Sam Grooms in Phoenix. And that's kind of my story.   James: Yeah. Hey, thanks Ben. So I remember you, were in Ohio and you moved to Phoenix, what is the reason for that transition?   Ben: Well, there are many reasons. Like everything in life, I think there are synergies that need to take place in order for things to really work and gel and work properly. For one thing, I'm 43 years old, I was 40 years old at the time we relocated. My mentor, who is no longer with me, once upon a time told me, whatever you're going to do, do it by the age of 40. If you don't do it by the age of 40, you're not going to do it in your life. It's a lot easier to keep the ball rolling that's already going than it is to start the ball rolling at the age of 40, midlife basically.   So that was one kind of driving force is that I felt like Ohio wasn't the place where I want it to be but you know, the driving force for that timing happening the way that it did was really, I was cognizant of my age and I just wanted to offer myself and my family a good opportunity, [05:42inaudible] start in a better world. That's one thing.   The second thing is I wanted better weather, I wanted blue skies, palm trees; I wanted low property taxes, I wanted a good business environment, I wanted a lot of growth. If I never see snow in my life is going to be too soon, I'm completely done with snow. I wanted educational opportunities for my children that I simply wasn't able to attain where we were in Ohio. All of those things, just kind of synergize together and we moved so far, everything's working out absolutely beautifully. My kids are having fabulous educational opportunities and my wife has been a very successful Real estate agent; she makes a lot of money. I am syndicating buildings that it's not something I could do in Ohio just because I wouldn't allow myself when we talk about the underwriting, we can touch on why I wouldn't do it in Ohio or Midwest in general. And then, my job as a function of sitting down by my pool and working my way through some spreadsheets and making some offers and my life is a beautiful thing right now. So that's how and why we ended up in Phoenix.   James: Yeah. Let's talk about markets in a short while. So once you moved to Phoenix, I think you met Sam here and you guys started a partnership, right? So my first question is, why do you want to partner up? And second is, how did you choose the partner or how did you choose Sam and what are the skills that you guys see that was complimenting?   Ben: Sure. Well, first of all, the reason I wanted to be in Phoenix is because I want to be in a growth market. We buy only in Phoenix because it is a very, very serious growth market and I happen to be very bullish on it and see quite a bit of runway still. Now, for instance, we took a look at Texas because Texas, everybody likes Texas, but Texas was a market that started recovering like 12 years ago so it is a very seasoned recovery at this point. There are other places, Phoenix among them that is a younger cycle still. So I feel because of that and a lot of other, be it income growth, rent growth, occupancies, a lot of other metrics are just looking better to me in Phoenix than in a lot of other markets so that's why in Phoenix.   The way we met is I was putting a deal together that didn't materialize, it fell apart, but Sam was going to be one of the investors as a limited partner in that deal. It was also a red D and after the fact, after the thing fell apart. Well, actually before the thing fell apart, he called my attention to the fact that I had a mistake in my underwriting. It wasn't a very serious mistake, but it was an oversight on my part and like nobody finds mistakes in my underwriting. So I'm like, who the hell is this guy and how is it that you know? So I started looking into him and the thing about him was he took the offering memorandum and he milked the spreadsheets to reverse engineer my offering memorandum and he found an inconsistency that I had missed. And I was just like, wow! So we had lunch and when that deal didn't materialize, the two of us just kind of got together.   He's a CPA with SCC reporting background, so he obviously has a lot of strengths that are complementary and scalable, complementary to mine. He didn't have operational experience, but he had a lot of bookkeeping and accounting and paperwork wise, corporate level, institutional level experience. And he's obviously a very strong underwriter because spreadsheets are like his bloodline. So that worked and that's why it worked. And the main reason that works, because I like him a lot and I trust him. I don't have to worry about him stabbing you in the back. I would be amazed that ever happened and I don't believe it, he's just a good person. So that's how that worked and that's why we're in Phoenix, kind of the high level, tips of the trees; we like the market and that's why we're together because we have a very complimentary skill set. James: Good. Good. So let's go down into a little more details into the deals that you guys do. So you have told me why Phoenix. So at a high level, Phoenix did go through a huge upswing and the downswing when on the previous market cycle of market correction in 2008, so aren't you worried about that? [10:41inaudible] I think you froze.   Ben: Yeah, we froze up a little.   James: Okay, go ahead. Yeah, I can edit that out. So did you hear my question?   Ben:  You're freezing up again. Yeah.   James: Okay. So nothing now it's good. So my question is, Phoenix did go through a huge downturn, it was a huge swing in 2008 so aren't you worried about Phoenix going through that again?   Ben: You're freezing up, James. Breaking up real bad.   James:  I'm not sure what's happening. Is it good?   Ben: It's good now.   James: Okay. Let's see.   Ben: No, freezing up again.  Wow!   James: Really?   Ben: Okay, you're back now.  Okay, let's try it again.   James: So let's go into the details of the market. Phoenix went through a huge downturn during the last 2008 crash, the real estate and the economy crashed so aren't you worried about that?   Ben: No because Phoenix today is a different market from Phoenix 10 years ago. So Phoenix 10 years ago was very heavily reliant on construction. A lot of the GDP in the state and Phoenix, in particular, was all about construction. Construction is like 10% of our economy today. We have a very diversified economy, meaning; tech, banking, health-care are the three kinds of big industries, they're very well diversified. So additionally, the population growth that we experienced in Phoenix prior to the last cycle was all driven by a snowbird housing. There was a lot of housing being built for people from the Midwest, from Canada. Well, what happens when the economy crashes is these people lose nothing but just dropping the bag and making themselves scarce so we had a lot of foreclosures because of that. The dynamics are completely different now because of the population growth, while we still have people coming in, snowbirds, but we have a lot more true retirement. So this isn't a second home, it's actually the first home for a lot of people that are relocating here. We also still have snowbirds, but by and large, our population growth is driven by economic growth. We're located in a place where you have California over here, Texas over there and Mexico over here, top 20 economies in the world and we're within a day's drive so it's a good place to be in terms of commerce and trade and all of that. And then there are little things like, listen, 20 years ago the HVAC units couldn't even keep up with 115-degree weather and today it's just really a non-issue at all can so life in Phoenix has become more comfortable.   The infrastructure is very new because the whole place is new. The property taxes are extremely low as compared to the Midwest or Texas. The regulatory environment is very friendly to business and as California experiences what it experiences, we are certainly benefiting with x coming out of California and we are one of the places that they're going, Seattle being another one, Texas being another one, but they're definitely coming here. So the economy is very much more diversified than it was prior to the last crash. So that's kind of the big picture view of why would answer no, I'm not, I mean, I'm always concerned. People ask me, what are you afraid of? I'm afraid of everything but you have to be logical about how you kind of respond to things and look at facts. And the facts are that nationwide, last I read, average apartment rent stands at $1,470 per month; in Phoenix, we're at 1070. Maricopa county, which encompasses all of Phoenix and surrounding MSA is the number one growth county in the entire country.   Phoenix is the number two growth city in the entire country. We now have a population of 5 million so we're number five largest city in the country. And with the proper regulatory environment, the low taxes on property, all of those things, insurance costs are lower because we don't have hurricanes, we don't have fires, we don't have all the nonsense right? We don't have the freezing pipes in the middle of the winter, we don't have any of that stuff so there's a lot of positives. So the question people are asking is, hey, here's this growth market. Our rent growth in 2018 clipped at 8.2 %.   James: Wow! That's huge.   Ben: Well that's because we're 1070 and nationwide, you're at 1470. There's a 25% delta in the highest growth market in the country so you are asking yourself, why? Basically, you're saying, why would an average rent in like Cincinnati, Ohio cost more than it does in Phoenix, which has the good weather, all the growth and all of the income growth and all of the job growth and everything and the population growth? So that's why the investors are asking themselves, can Phoenix organically catch up to the national averages? Like forget surpassing the average, can we catch up to the national?   And if you say yes, it's because you see what's happening economically. If you say yes, then if you deploy your capital at five cap and you just sit on it until that process kind of happens on your basis, you're at six and a half gap three or four years later without having to do any value-ads. So this is why the cap rates are so compressed in Phoenix is because people are just making a play on the fact that Phoenix has undervalued. For the type of economic prowess that is currently taking place in Phoenix, it's just undervalued; rents are undervalued, property is expensive relative to the rents. But if you consider the prospects of rents going up, if you look at Marcus and Millichap, they're predicting this year at 6.2%; if you look at Colliers, they are over 7% so again, depending on who you look at. I think we're going to be closer to 7% just because we have such delta and because of what I am personally experiencing in this environment.   We just have a lot of upside, the ceiling is very high. Juxtapose this against Austin, which is stalling out at this point, it is a very seasoned market. The rent growth is stalling out, the vacancies are taking up, so now it's Texas, so can it continue being Texas for the next five years? For all I know, yes, but given the choice to be in a younger cycle such as Phoenix or to be in a seasoned cycle, but in a very strong location, historically that's proven itself, I don't know, that's where people kind of make their bed, I guess and make their beds. I like Phoenix, I'm bullish on Phoenix and I'm not even looking to any place else because if you can be in Phoenix, why would you look at anything else?   James: Yeah, that's exactly my point as well. I'm in Texas and I'd rather invest in my backyard even though it's competitive over here. But in your backyard, you have a lot of control. You can go and drive by and see it compared to somewhere else. I mean, real estate is so localized, it's important for you to know your own back yard. So coming back to the sub-market, how do you choose the sub-market, is there a specific preferring for sub-market compared to the deals itself?   Ben: I don't really worry about sub-markets because I don't buy buildings, I buy stories. So if there's a good story for a specific building, because all it is is that you are looking for a delta, the money is always in the delta. So if you can purchase the building here, but the story suggests that the building,  the future valuation is going to be recognized here, then that's the delta I am paying for, that's what I'm buying. I'm not actually buying the cash flow, I'm not a cash flow investor when I syndicate these things. Cash-flow is there as a pathway to generating wealth and generating equity but that's it. There are not cash flow investments because you can't drive the IRR on cash flow, it's discounted too much over time and you need the appreciation. The appreciation is in Delta and the delta is in the story.   So we bought a Kenyan 35 and that's half a mile away from a university, a Grand Canyon University that grew from 2000 students to 20,000 students in 10 years. Received public status Accreditation, is investing $1 billion into their campus, gentrifying everything around them, of course, as usually happens with the universities when they grow and they're going to be at 30,000 students within next five years. So I'm buying a building half a mile away, that's my story there. I buy another one over here that is in the middle of a huge redevelopment and rejuvenation by the city. The city is deploying a lot of capital. There's a lot of class A infrastructure coming in, both in terms of retail and office space and everything else. So I buy this class C building, it's surrounded by all this class A stuff. It's uniquely positioned to be able to compete with class A on finishing textures when I'm done remodeling, but at a much lower basis. So my rents don't have to be anywhere near where the class A rents are and so, it's a story, it's always a story.   What is happening economically that is going to give my building desirability that is uncommon at the basis that I will be at. So the sub-market itself doesn't really, I mean, yeah, I guess there are places you wouldn't want to go, but we wouldn't look in those places because nothing is happening in those places. The whole point of where we want to buy buildings is because things, good things are happening in that location, that's why we want to buy a building there, especially in this season cycle.   James: Yeah. So what you're saying is there are places that you wouldn't even look at it, right? It's basically a sniff test. Yeah, this area, I'm not looking at it.   Ben: Well, there's area and there's a building. I mean, I get these emails, 100 a week and the vast majority of them go into the trash before they're even opened. And of those open, vast majority go into the trash and that's got to do with age, quality, construction features because you can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. You can put a gold plated toilette in a pig, it's still a pig. Because of what it is, where it is, it's gonna attract the audience that it's going to attract, there's nothing you can do with it and I don't want those buildings like that.   I want the building, which inherently the bones of it are just something that's not coming through in a recognizable way, shape, and form for the marketplace. But if I put some money and energy into this asset, I can bring back what it already is. I'm not trying to take a pig and make it into a unicorn. I'm trying to make a unicorn that's been completely messed up and it looks like a pig, but it's a unicorn, it's not a pig. I just have to re-sculpt it, redo it, I have to clean it up, improve and then the market will see it for what it is, which is a unicorn. That's what I want and that's a function of both location and the asset itself.   James: Yeah, I mean, so I think what you're describing is what I would describe as building upside. So I look for deals where I know today I can go and just improve on it; either by capital or reducing expenses and just realize that upside that has been hidden inside that building and that's a lot of it in multifamily, right? And it just you're to find that kind of deals. It's hard to find that kind of deal, but that is the real deal, right? Compared to buy [24:23inaudible]    Ben: Right. Then it's a needle in a haystack. In fact, I mean, if you are not doubling, almost practically doubling your NOI in the first three years, you are not buying the right kind of building because that's what it takes in my experience is almost doubling the NOI in three years.   James: Yup. So let's go to underwriting. So where are you getting your deals, are you getting from brokers?   Ben: Brokers; they're off-market but they're brought to me by brokers. James:  So why do they come to you?   Ben: Because I close.   James:  Okay. No, there must be, I mean brokers do a lot of off-market but they look for qualified buyers, right? So especially people who have done deals with them so maybe...   Ben: Right, so that's why, and I mean, even if I didn't do a deal with this broker---I don't know, I don't want to drop names because I don't want to but the national brokers, one of them reached out to me yesterday because even before we closed last week on the last one, somehow everybody already knows that we're going to close on it. And so these guys started coming out of the woodwork. Well, this schmuck emails me, he calls me twice in a row, he says, Oh yeah, I got an off-market property for you. I said, okay, go ahead and email me the nondisclosure agreement, I will sign it and email me the stuff. Well, he emails this property to me; well another broker already showed it to me two months ago, not requiring any kind of nondisclosure.   It was a pig; it was the very thing that we're describing, the 'don't do'. It's the wrong shape, it's the wrong footprint, it's the wrong mechanical layout, it's the wrong age, it's the wrong location; It's the wrong everything. And these guys call you and they say, well, you know, you can get it for 75 per door. While I'm like, I would rather pay a hundred a door but get quality, that's going to be worth 180 when I'm done with it, rather than paying 75 per door because whatever money I put into it, it's still going to be worth 75,000 per door when I'm done because the market has decided this is a pig. It's worth 75 per door, that's it. There's nothing you're going to do to move that hurdle and so you get a lot of that.   But you also get some serious brokers. Like the biggest brokers in Phoenix is not national brokers, they are local, but they're the biggest by volume. They do the most deals in the apartment space and those guys bring me deals, they're deals, and they're not the only ones, other people do as well. We've tried to go after some deals with other brokers, we came really close. We weren't able to, for one reason or another, to execute those deals, somebody else got it or whatever. But sometimes brokers have deals and they're off-market deals. The question of, what's it gonna take to get those deals? I just don't have an answer. It's all about relationships and I'm going to have to convince somebody that you are worth having a conversation with and that you have a good chance of executing. Obviously, it gets easier immediately after the first deal closes, immediately.   James:  Just because of the credibility.  Let's say today a broker sends you an OM, right? So some random broker and he said it's a deal and you know it's not a pick, right? So, you know there's something more I need to do my secondary inspection here or my secondary underwriting here, right? So how would you go about underwriting the deal? Ben: Well, the first and most important thing in the underwriting process is to place after renovated rents because if you mess that up, everything else just doesn't matter. Where most of the money is, is knowing down to the dollar and the cents where those rents are going to be after you are done fixing the community and fixing the unit. So that's the first thing I do is like if it's well located, it's the correct year, it's the correct HVAC, it's the correct roof, it's the correct XYZ, which I can tell just by looking at this thing, it's in the correct sub-market, where I know I would want to be, the next step in the process is just to put it through the underwriting that begins with placing rent, understanding what the rents are going to be.   James: So how do you place rents? I mean, how do you do the rent comps?   Ben: So, for me, if a broker is sending me something like this, what is accompanying it is some kind of Yardi report or metrics or something; some kind of report on the sub-market, which is going to give me the comps. Now those reports aren't correct, they're probably within 20% margin correct. We are looking in the market that's trending seven, 8% per year, obviously, those metrics will be off. First of all, I know what the rents are in Phoenix, MSA for the class of asset I want to buy in, in the kind of location I want to buy in. To validate myself, I then look at that report. Now, the underwriting, for the most part, is an automated process because we kind of know what the OPEX is. There's really very little magic to how much it costs to run these buildings.   There are a lot of reports that study and track by the state, by the locality, by the city, what the operating costs are running and so we underwrite to the averages and we have our own trailing numbers, which we use in the underwriting. So we do massage those for every deal, depending on the size and the complexity of the mechanical and things like that. The R&M is going to vary and certain services are going to be required here they're not required there, contract services, things like that. But by and large, I know that on the operating side, I'm going to be somewhere between $4,200 per door and $4,600 per door. $4,600 per door is on a smaller asset, maybe 100, maybe 95; $4,200 per door is 120, 140 is going to tick up because now I need more payroll. And so you know what those dynamics look like. We can kind of, we're both, Sam and I, are starting with numbers filled in because we know where those ranges are and this is just for the first path, right? First time through. Now, if the first time through, I mean, like it takes me about...   James: Let me quickly interrupt you. So how many percents of operational income is that? [32:06 crosstalk] do you look at percentages as well?   Ben: Yeah, that's the beauty of Phoenix. You're talking about being under 40% on a stabilized basis.   James: Under 40? That's really good.   Ben: Between 35 and 40%. Well, this is the thing about Phoenix. I have to tell you; like I studied the operating costs all over the nation, I will tell you that in Texas it's over $6,000 per door because the property taxes are so high. In Cincinnati, Ohio, it's over $6,000 per door. Over there, it's for a different reason; it's all hilly, the buildings are all older, there are boilers involved, there are flat roofs involved, pipes freeze all the time and building sit at the bottom of where water flows and you just got RNM and contract nightmare.   In Phoenix, because property taxes are so low because the insurance is so low and because frankly a lot of things are easier in Phoenix because of the weather, it never snows, such things, the operating costs, If you look at the national reports that indicate per city, you will see that Phoenix is in the mid $4,000 per door. Now, as a relationship to the rent though, that's very low because even though Phoenix is lower than the national average, still when you're running at $4,500 plus or minus like we just purchased last week. So my underwriting for that asset is right around 45 $4,600 per door on the OPEX. But dude, we're running, let me calculate, we're running, which is 98 units at about $34,000 per month.   James: That's awesome.   Ben: $4,000 per month divided by 98 times 12. Yeah, 4163, under $4,200 per door, that's OPEX. Now obviously you're going to have cap acts that you are exchanging blinds fixed. It's not part of the scope is just part of the turn on each unit. But with my underwriting, 4,600, I really don't think we're going to need it. In fact, we can run a 117 unit on the same payroll that we run 98 unit. So theoretically that OPEX number, it should be closer to 4,000. So in terms of relationship to the top line, you've got very, very pleasant circumstance in Phoenix that you can't achieve in a lot of other places.   James: Yeah, I think your rent is high compared to the Texas market. I mean, forget about Austin, Austin is a different market, right? But if I look at my San Antonio deals, usually my expenses are 4,500 4,600 but my rents are also lower so I end up my expense ratios like almost 50%. But what you're describing to me in Phoenix, looks like mobile home parks expense ratio because I know there are mobile home parks expense ratios like around 35 to 40%. So if you can run at 40% that's a really good market because your income is high and your expenses are low.   Ben: I'm going to look at it right now.   James: Okay. That's really good numbers in terms of percentage relationship.   Ben: Yeah. So in the first year, I'm projecting 49%; second year, 39%; in the third year, 35%; and then it ticks up a little bit because I'm using a little more O&M as my remodel gets seasoned and it gets older, a little more money for turns, a little more money for O&M and those kinds of things. So, but yeah, we're staying underneath 40%.   James: That's very interesting. So is that what you're consistently seeing even on the broker O&Ms? Ben: The broker O&Ms are going to be even lower. The broker O&Ms on deals like this, come with like $3,900 of operating costs; 38, 39, which is unrealistic. If you go to the bank, trying to get financing on that, it's not possible. So for the bankers, you have to show underwriting in the mid four thousand, you just do. But I have to say that in Texas if you are showing 45, $4,600 per door, that's really good. [36:47inaudible] a lot higher than that.   James: Yeah. We have our own operation, we want to be integrated so we are able to run it much leaner.  And the question I have for you on the property taxes, how do you [37:05inaudible] property taxes in Phoenix? I mean do you have the same or do you increase a bait? Because I know in Texas   Ben: In Phoenix, there are regulations in place that were passed about three, four years ago. Whereby the municipality is not allowed to raise property taxes any more than 5% per year, this applies to the assessed value and the actual tax bill so it's regulation on the books. So the tax on the writing and Phoenix is the simplest thing ever because you don't have to guess, you don't have to take a basket of properties, you have to do nothing. You know you're not going to go up any more than 5% so in my underwriting I use 5% a year, which is the worst case scenario done. Now there are caveats if you are going to put another building on the property and trigger reassessment, that triggers all kinds of circus; we don't do that. I won't buy anything that requires me to move exterior walls, to do that kind of stuff.   James: So what are you saying is even though the property has changed, hand the maximum they can do is 5%, wow! It's awesome.   Ben: And this is what I'm telling you about the regulatory environment being conducive to doing business. They don't change the chase sales. And everybody says in Texas, oh, just buy the LLC, they will never know what you pay. They're not stupid, they're going to look at the loan. They're going to apply the LTV in reverse, they're gonna get what you paid and they're going to assess your taxes up to Wazoo. I mean, the glutens up there, it's laughable, it's hilarious. And Texas has always scared me because of that because I can't underwrite taxes. The same is true in the Midwest, the Indianapolis. I remember I'd paid an attorney, we were looking at a deal in Indianapolis. Well listen, it has in place property taxes of about $60,000 but if I were to follow the letter of the law, I was getting three times that much. Which obviously is going to penalize the building and obviously the broker wasn't showing that much increase.   So I paid an attorney to speak to an attorney. Even they can't tell you because yeah, they're not chasing sales, but they are going to take a basket of properties, like properties and like location, they're going to kind of synergize all of that data and they're going to increase everybody by the same amount. But who knows what kind of basket of properties it is, which properties make it into the basket, when were they sold? So the only thing you can do there is looking at trailing billings and back into the probable increases. But it's not scientific, over here, no more than 5%, boom. And so far that's exactly what has been 5% per year. James: That's awesome. I mean in Texas is just so crazy in terms of property taxes. You do not know what to underwrite. So I always underwrite to a hundred percent increase, just to be safe in terms of underwriting but it's also a problem because you can buy a deal, which is like 24 years, not changed hand and now you're at a hundred percent, which can be huge. And it's mismanaged expectations between buyer and seller because the seller is going to say, hey, this is what I'm running and buyer's going to say I've done completely different and it's just hard to do business, but that's very interesting on how they do it in Phoenix. So how do you underwrite like miscellaneous income in terms of after you take over?   Ben:  Well, the next step in the process. So once we put it through the underwriting and it looks good, Sam and I drive out to the property. We'll look at the property, we like it, we go home, we really dial in our underwriting; what do we think the rents are going to be? What do we think the expenses are going to be? If it still looks like it's a deal, the next thing that happens is we send it over to our property management company with 20,000 units under management and obviously all kinds of access to all kinds of trailing data that we don't have. So the ultimate decision on where the rents are going to be, where the OPEX is going to be, all old form of it that ultimately is all approved or okayed by them or adjusted whichever way they see fit.   The rubs, the utility income is a very simple proposition. I mean, I underwrite 90% recovery and sometimes we can do better, but I underwrite 90% recovery. Whether you do it, whatever methodology you use, a third-party or Rubs or whatever, RPM likes to use third party, but because of legal absolve, so to speak, they like to offset the risk in that way. And as of late, past few years, regulatorily, it has become more and more difficult but I shoot for 90% recovery of the properties, utility bills, and other income is just purely specific to the property. What I'll tell you on the other income is that when we're taking, I have to back into that conversation a little bit.   What different about Phoenix than it is about most other places including Texas, value-add means something very different here. Usually, when we do value-add, we're looking for a mismanaged department [quote-unquote]. Well, mismanaged usually manifest itself in vacancy. So a big part of our value-add is to put proper management infrastructure in place and to capitalize on that vacancy and to bring it from 12% 14% to 6% which is, according to the market, that's where you supposed to be, right? So you do what you gotta do to fill those units. The issue with Phoenix is that they can see, pretty well doesn't exist. It's such a high growth market and there's such a lack of demand of 800 to $1,000 units; there's just such a lag because you can't afford to build it. So there's such a lack of that demand that that asset class is basically full. Even like the most poorly run properties are operating at full occupancy.   James: So you're saying lack of supply, not lack of demand.   Ben: Yes, lack of supply, I'm sorry. There's a lack of demand and there's a lack of population growth, but there's a lack of supply. Specifically in that price 800 to 1200, because the basis of building it, will fall at $200-225 a square foot, you got to get higher rents than that. And so, for the huge section of the population that needs those 800 to 1200 rents, there is a lack of supply on that. So what is value-add? Well, value-add is $300 per door in this case. Well, let me walk you backward; we just closed on 117 units. The physical vacancy on an annualized basis in that sub-market is 2.6%. Now, can I underwrite that? No, I have to underwrite 6% plus economic vacancy.   But just speaking about the physical vacancy, I have to underwrite 6%. I am penalizing my underwrite because the seller is operating at 2.4. When we took over, there was zero vacancy. There's one down unit and zero vacancy.   James: What about the economy occupancy, how much do you underwrite that?   Ben:  I underwrite economic occupancy, 9%. Somewhere between nine and 10 but on this deal, I did 9% and so five to six of it is physical vacancy and three to four of it is, the rest of the economic vacancy. But what I'm saying is that if the building is operating at zero vacancy and the sub-market is operating a 2.6% vacancy and I am underwriting 6% vacancy, I am penalizing my underwriting 3.4% so I need the first amount of value-add just to compensate that so I can break even. And then I need a whole bunch more value-add so I can actually create the delta so we can create enough profit margin for the IRR to work. So what this ends up looking like as value-add in Phoenix is $300 per door.   James: How did you come up with $300 a door?   Ben: It's just what it takes, in order for me to back into the IRR to the partners that is going to be attractive for people to invest. What it seems to me, I need, and it seems to be across the board for every deal that we do, what it's requiring is $300 per door value-add. So we're buying these deals that have, talk about a unicorn, $300 per door on value-add; only because we don't have a vacancy.   In most places, like if you have physical vacancy of 10% that you can fill, then maybe you just throw some lipstick on the pig and make another $75 a door, paint the cabinets, do some resurface countertops, do something like that, get another $75 of value-add and you are good; your IRR works because there was vacancy in place that you are able to fill. We don't have any vacancy so we actually have to do the heavy lifting to recapture the loss to lease and to get the renovation bump and cumulatively what it's taking us is $300 per door. Anything less than that and we can't get the margins that we need.   James: So my understanding when you talk about $300 a door, I mean when I underwrite my deals, the $300 a door is basically just the rent but you are saying the $300...?   Ben: No, it's cumulative between LTL so about 175 of it. The reason the occupancies are zero is that obviously, the rents are too low.   James: Okay, got it.   Ben: You should never have zero occupancy. If you are staying with the market and you're pushing your rent, you should never have zero occupancy. So the fact that the occupancy is zero is because the rents are too low so on day one, we're walking in and we're raising rents at 150 to $175 on the renewals and the rest of it is a bump due to the renovation so cumulatively.   James: Okay, got it.   Ben: So you have their stated rent, then you have their actual rent roll, which there's a bunch of loss to lease between the rent roll that they're actually getting and their stated rent. Now we're coming in, we're saying no, no, our classic rent is going to be this right here. So now we're going from their LTL all the way to our classic brand. And then on top of it, we're saying, but after we remodel, there is another piece of it that gets tacked onto the end. Cumulatively, that entire process in Phoenix, MSA in Class C value-add property, in my experience, $300 per door plus or minus is what's required.   James: That's awesome. And what is the total IRR that you look at for?   Ben: I look to deliver to partners, something in the mid 14 to 15 if I hit 14% IRR on a 10 year hold and I always underwrite 10-year hold, I don't want to sit there for 10 years but especially because we're late in the cycle, I underwrite a 10 year hold. So on a five-year hold, it ends up somewhere around 17, 17 plus. And of course, if we can exit sooner, then those numbers get [49:52crosstalk]   James: So let's talk about once you close on the property, right? So yeah, you underwrite everything on the paper and it all looks good so now you close on the property, right? So now you have a task of pushing up that rent. So how do you go about pushing up that rent?   Ben: So I don't do it, my PM does it.   James: But you're going to hold the strategy to it, right? I mean, are you going to tell them how to write it?   Ben: Correct. So we had a meeting on the day after we closed at the property. We had a meeting, the meeting was the property manager that's on site, the regional and Sam and myself. And what we discussed is that because, in the next three months, there are only about three or four leases coming up for renewal each month on 117 unit property. Right now we don't have a classic rent. As leases come up, you can either stay in the unit as is and pay us our renovated pricing, but you're welcome to leave. And then we'll renovate the unit and somebody else will move in and pay the renovated pricing because the business plan calls for rent, so much renovated pricing to be entering to payroll each and every month. So because we don't have enough vacancy coming up, we're basically not renewing leases and we're not putting any in place. I mean, it's unreasonable to ask people to pay the rent as if the apartment has stainless steel and granite but I don't care if they leave, they're entitled to leave and they should leave. The fact of it is, is that they're probably not gonna find anything better to go anyhow. At the end of the day, as long as I'm getting the rent, I don't care if I remodeled it or not because as long as I'm getting my rent projections, I'm in good shape. But I am prepared for a certain number of people to be, I don't want to say forced out, but they're welcome to stay as long as they pay our rent.   James: Yeah. So you're renting is like 300 so there are two components to it. One is just a loss to lease even without renovation. And on top of it, there's a renovated you need so you can do two ways, right? One is you can just not renovate and just go halfway up there. But I think what you're saying is you write a business plan calling it.   Ben: We don't want to do that for one very specific reason. This has been the model over the past five years. The model is $4,500 of renovation buys you painted cabinets, refaced cabinets, resurface countertops, maybe upgraded appliances, not stainless steel, maybe black, some fixtures, some flooring, and some paint. That's what $4,500 buys you. We're spending $7,500 per door and that gets us, granite, it gets us 100 hung sinks, It gets us stainless steel appliances, it gets us nicer flooring, paint all the rest of that. So the reason we're doing that is not so much that we couldn't make our numbers work, it's driven by the cycle. We are late in the cycle and when the cycle changes, I want to have the best product in the sub-market at that price point.   When everybody starts taking on 'loss to lease' when everybody starts taking on concessions when everybody starts the race to the bottom, my thing is I'm paying for my staying power at that point, but I'm paying for it now, I'm doing the Rehab now. So we're accomplishing two things with that; number one obviously we're repositioning the property, we're repositioning the tenant base, we're creating a more manageable situation. And number two, the product that we ended up with three years down the road has a lot more staying power then another kind of product that wasn't as renovated.   James: Especially if you're going to fork out that much of money right now and make the deal work, you can always invest in that product right now as well.   Ben:  So these are syndicated deals so we collect the money up front. There's nothing worse than coming to your partners and saying, hey, we need $1,000 more. So we collect all the money up front and we deploy it right away and we re-positioned the property right away and 18 months down the road, we arrive at a situation where we start having an exit. Now our buyer may look very different 18 months down the road from the buyer three years from the buyer five years from the buyer seven years down the road. But we have a compelling story to tell at that point in time. We start working on that story right away, on day one. But yes, our renovations are good renovations; we replaced the cabinets, they're getting new kitchens, they're getting new bathrooms. These are seriously upgraded units when we're done with them. The pricing is phenomenal; we're getting stuff done for 7,500, $8,000 on the interior that other people are complaining costing them $13,000 to do and they're not wrong. It's one of the benefits of having a PM with 20,000 units on her mat and there's a pricing power that comes with that both in terms of subcontracting and in terms of materials, how they source their materials. We could work our IRR having deployed half the funds, just get lower rents but for less money, we could work it.  Then there's just the other piece of it, which is that three years from now when the market does cycle, potentially, what do I want to own at that point?   James:  You want to one of the best product   Ben: I want to own the best quality that people can buy for that amount of money.   James: Got It. Got It. So what do you do, I mean, we have a few more minutes to go, very quickly; what do you do in terms of asset management? Are there any systems that you put in to manage the assets?   Ben: Yes, we use IMS.   James: The IMS is on the investor side, I'm talking more about the property side. I'm looking at property performance.   Ben: They use Yardi. The PM uses Yardi and then we get reporting weekly from on site in terms of, it'll have things like to date collections, it'll have vacancies, it'll have remodeling information, like how many units were remodeled, how many units of pre-leased, how many units are leased, all that stuff. Vacancy; it'll have delinquency, it'll have a promise to pay all of that stuff. So it's a one-page report that kind of gives us a bird's eye view in the whole thing. And then once a month, at the end of the month, we get a packet this thick. I mean, I've never tried to print it off, but I'm sure it'd be this thick, from the PM and that includes everything; everything, trailing, everything.   James: Yeah. So one question that I ask all of my podcast guests is, what is the most valuable value-add that you see in your experience?   Ben: I think the finishing textures inside of the units. I think that people are willing to forgive you. And you know, we do things like upgrade laundry, little rooms we build out. We don't build a separate building, but like if our laundry room is this big and it only needs to be this big, we're going to put a wall here and make a gym over here and add and the laundry room over here, things like that we do. But people are willing to forgive you so much if you create an interior that looks good and functions well. I mean, I don't care what you do on the exterior, if the inside of the unit is not great, it's just going to be difficult to drive rents. Now, once the inside of the unit is great, there's a bunch of other things you need; you can't have an ugly looking laundry room, you can't have no amenities, you can't have a shitty looking office, it's a complete packaging thing.   But I don't know, I mean, I guess my perspective is different on it. I don't nickel and dime my renovations because I'll never get the rents because of what we talked about. I don't want a hodgepodge unit, like painted cabinets that are 30 years old and resurface countertops. I just don't want to be left standing holding that bag if I have to be in this property for another five or seven years, for example, I don't want to be holding that bag for that long. So I've never really gone through and said, okay, how much is the countertop worth? How much are new cabinets worth? Because we're doing all of it. I have my scope, I know what's included. And at this point is just the easiest thing because we dialed it in, we know where everything is coming from. The PM just orders everything, we know how much it costs. If this kitchen is a little bit bigger, it's got one more extra cabinet, well, pricing goes up by $135. It's not difficult at this point to know what the remodel is going to cost.   James: Yeah. So you primarily focus on all of it inside the interiors?   Ben: Yeah.   James: So a lot of people are trying to start in multifamily nowadays. I mean, multifamily is a buzzword right now, right? I mean, the economy is doing very well, everything is so good. What would you advise to a Newbie who's trying to get started in multifamily? That's a long sigh.   Ben: I don't know because the economy's doing really well, that means the competition is very stiff. The thing is, you really got to know what you're doing it, this isn't a good time for newbies because the economy is doing very well and it'll probably continue doing well at some point and they'll go down and it won't do so well. And the decisions you make today could hurt you tomorrow and if you are just starting out and you are a Newbie and you're looking at, I can't imagine how you do large multifamily and you haven't bought some four-plexes before and some six-plexes, having to internalized all that stuff, you're better off just investing money in somebody else's deal, honestly, I feel at this point, because the stakes are too high. I am buying at four and a half gap, you can't make money at four and a half cap, you can only lose money at four and a half cap, which is why I buy a needle in a haystack; a very specific asset. If you are a Newbie, what the hell do you know to be able to do anything of what I do?   James: Correct. Right. That's so many details in renovation, finding deals, underwriting deals so many skills involved, right? It's not like anybody can jump in and do it right now.   Ben: Which is why we have this conversation, which it should be attractive to more seasoned people, to people like us, people that already have that ball rolling and they're maybe trying to break out to the next level. So if you're talking to me about newbies, this isn't a conversation they should even listen to because half of it they will not understand.   James: They wouldn't understand. You have to do it to really appreciate it. At least you should have flipped one property. [1:02:17 crosstalk]   Ben: Listen, underwriting is expressing with numbers, a behavior of people and the interaction of people and property, that's all it is. If you've never dealt with a tenant once in your life, how do you know what those dynamics even look like?   James:  Correct. I've seen a lot of newbies right now immediately, they're buying 100 units, 200 units. I mean, yeah, the market is so good right now, you're relying on property management, there's a lot of wind on your back. Right? The appreciation itself carries you up, but that's not going to be happening all the time. Everybody is a champion of bull market. So yeah, we started in the single-family, we did so many single families. We learned through the hard way when contractor management, it's a skill by itself, right? The whole timeline management. So that's really good advice, Ben. And is there any other things that you want to share to our audience that you have never shared in any other podcasts?   Ben: Yes, I think I shared everything about me in every other podcast, I want my own podcast to share the rest of it. And I'm not sure what the hell I'm going to talk about on my podcast because I already said everything on everybody else's podcast.   James:  Yeah. We already listened to Ben in something else.   Ben: But it's going to be very, very high level and like, I'm not going to make those excuses. I'm like if you're a Newbie, you probably shouldn't listen to this because we're going to be talking about stuff that you have no idea about. A friend of mine who's no longer with me has always said to me, 'stumbling blocks and stepping stones look a lot alike from a distance'. So if you are a Newbie, what I am telling you is be really sure that you know the difference between a stumbling block and a stepping stone before you step. So many of you guys are stepping first and then figuring out if it was a stumbling block or a stepping stone and that could be a very painful process. So I don't know, education.   James: Education Yeah. Go through the hard work of going with smaller deals first, that's what I would say. Just learn the ropes, learned the whole thing, make sure that you can do it. Syndication, turning around properties is not for everybody, that's how I would say. I mean, there are a lot of people who can do it but start small and grow and learn the skills.   Ben: Yeah. I very much disagree with the gurus who say, hey, it's just as easy to buy a 100 as it is to buy 10. This is true; it is just as easy to buy 100 when you know what you are doing. But the way you get to know what you're doing is by having bought the fourplex and the six-plex and the 10 unit. I disagree; I think it's criminal advice to send people directly into large multifamily. Have this be your goal, be excited about it, be whatever. But you need to internalize the dynamics of the game. People act in ways that are going to shock you and the numbers reflect that, don't be stupid. Don't be going and saying things like, ah, okay, here's the income. Let's just use 10% from property management and 10% for vacancy. Those things,  get a little intelligent about what you're doing.   For instance, the conversation I have with people all the time, listen, in a $500 rental, if you have to replace a furnace, it costs you $2,500; in a $1,200 rental, if you have to replace the furnace, it also costs you $1,200 or a $2,400. As a percentage of the top line, you see how that's a totally different figure. That's because all of the expenses in real estate are dollars, they're not percentages. We back into percentages. So James and I know what our percentages are because we've studied the dollars and we backed into the percentages. So if we ever use a percentage, it represents a dollar. What you guys, newbies, do a lot is you take this rent and then you divvy it up percentage wise to this, this, this, this, this. That's just not how real estate works and that's how you get hurt.   James: Correct.   Ben: Simple things like that that amaze me, that people don't think about and don't know and they jump into this stuff because Marcus and Millichap says on the proforma, this is how much percentage you need to allocate to XYZ, that's just nuts.   James: Absolutely. Absolutely. So Ben, thanks for being here. Do you want to tell our audience how to reach you?   Ben: Yeah. You're not getting my personal phone number. You're not getting that, James can have it, but you can't. But you can email me at Ben@justaskBenwhy.com or you can just go to, justaskBenwhy.com and we'll look over my website. You can email me through the website as well if you'd like. But yeah, I have a couple of different email accounts for like serious people and then people like you, I'm not giving up those.   James: All right, thanks Ben for being..   Ben: To all the people that I offend, you know, I get on a podcast with one goal in mind; offend as many people as you can, Ben because like if this is your brand is what you do, so go for it. I think I offended a few people, didn't I?   James:  No, I think I like the real numbers, the real details because sometimes some gurus out there makes real estate and multifamily so easy. I mean people don't realize it, people are selling education as far right. So it's not that easy, there is a lot of science behind multifamily, there's a lot of hard work behind it. It takes a lot of experience looking at hundreds of underwriting numbers and trying to figure out, and of course, there's also another aspect of, now I already buy it, now I'm going through the whole real asset management stuff and they realize, oh, whatever and the road was completely different from what I'm doing asset management, right? So realizing that it takes a lot of experience as well. So it's a learnable trick, but there's also a lot of hard work involved in growing and doing the real stuff, that's what I see. So that's really good advice, Ben. So thanks for being on the show for my audience. Thanks for being here. As I said, you have a lot of things to do outside of listening to this podcast and I really appreciate you guys being here. We hope we really delivered value to you guys. That's the reason I'm doing this podcast, to give true value to listeners and learn as much as possible before dabbling into real estate and multifamily commercial real estate. Thanks. And I'll talk to you all soon.   Ben: Thank you.  

For millennia, mankind believed the earth was flat. Does the Bible support that view? Ben Spackman says yes.  We'll talk about a biblical world view, and how we've come around to believe the earth is round, rather than flat. https://youtu.be/6VVTy_9R8C8 Ben:  One of the examples I use that people generally agree with is--I did this at the FAIR Conference a couple of years ago. I said, "Okay, how many of you believe that the earth rotates around the sun?" Of course, every hand went up. I said, "Okay, I want you to understand very clearly that you believe and accept something fundamental about the universe that is contrary to scripture, flatly contrary to scripture, and is a philosophy of men invented through human reason and observation. Do any of you have a problem with that? It was a conference, so I didn't expect anyone to say anything. ... GT: Because in the Bible, clearly the sun rotated around the earth is what you're saying. Ben: Right. The sun and moon and stars were embedded in the solid dome overhead. They were certainly not spheres rotating. I mean even... GT:  How would Joseph Fielding Smith have answered that? Ben: He would have said that's absolutely false. GT:  What's false? Ben: That the Israelites ever believed that cosmology. GT:  They didn't believe in the firmament. They didn't believe in the flat earth.  They did believe that the sun rotated. Ben: They understood that the earth and planets rotate around the sun and anything else is just the false traditions of the apostate church. GT:  That seems like a very difficult position and I know he's dead, so he can't defend himself. But it seems very difficult to defend that point of view. Ben: Well, he was arguing from a very absolutist standpoint, where prophets simply can't do that, because if they are, they are not reliable as prophets. In some ways, he very much thought like a protestant, but in a Mormon context. In some ways, well, I don't want to go there too much. He's a very easy punching bag because he is dead, and because he left such a big paper trail and because he had views that were so, so far in certain directions, so absolute. And he's not the only one to have held them, but he was certainly the most influential and the loudest and the longest to hold them. And because he did leave this paper trail, the worst thing for a historian is to have nothing to analyze, right? Check out our conversation… Is it true that the Bible supports a flat earth?   Here are our previous conversations with Ben! 244: Did Man Evolve From Apes? 243: Did Joseph Fielding Smith Win the Evolution Battle? 242: Evolution & Bible: Irreconcilable Differences?

My Guest this week is Malcolm Handley, General Partner and Founder of Strong Atomics. The topic of this conversation is Fusion power - how it’s funded now, why we don’t have it yet, and how he’s working on making it a reality. We touch on funding long-term bets in general, incentives inside of venture capital, and more. Show Notes Strong Atomics Malcolm on Twitter (@malcolmredheron) Fusion Never Plot Fusion Z-Pinch Experiment. ARPA-e Alpha Program ITER - International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. NIF - National Ignition Facility ARPA-e Office of Fusion Energy Science Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air Transcript  [00:00:00] This podcast I talk to Malcolm Hanley about Fusion funding long-term bets incentives inside of venture capital and more Malcolm is the managing partner of strong atomics. Strong atomics is a venture capital firm that exists solely in a portfolio of fusion projects that have been selected based on their potential to create net positive energy and lead to plausible reactors before starting strong atomics. Malcolm was the first employee at the software company aside. I love talking to Malcolm because he's somewhat of a fanatic about making Fusion Energy reality. But at the same time he remains an intense pragmatist in some ways. He's even more pragmatic than I am. So here in the podcast. He thinks deeply about everything he does. So we go very deep on some topics. I hope you enjoy the conversation as much as I did.   Intro   Ben: Malcolm would you would you introduce yourself? Malcolm: Sure. So I'm Malcolm heavily. I found in strong [00:01:00] atomics after 17 years is software engineer because I. I was looking for the most important thing that I could work on and concluded that that was kind of change that was before democracy fell off the rails. And so it was the obvious most important thing. So my thesis is that climate change is a real problem and the. Typical ways that we are addressing it or insufficient, for example, even if you ignore the climate deniers most people seem to be of the opinion that we're on track that Renewables and storage for renewable energy are going to save the day and my fear as I looked into this more deeply is that this is not sufficient that we are in fact not on track and that we need to be looking at more possible ways of responding to [00:02:00] climate change. So I found an area nuclear fusion that is that it has the potential to help us solve climate change and that in my opinion is underinvested. So I started strong atomics to invest in those companies and to support them in other ways. And that's what I'm doing these days   What did founding strong atomics entail?   Ben: and he did a little bit more into what founding strong atomics and Tails. You can just snap your fingers and bring it into being Malcolm:  I almost did because it was extremely lucky but in general Silicon Valley has a pretty well worn model for how people start startups and I think even the people getting out of college actually no a surprising amount about how to start a company and when you look at Fusion companies getting started you realize just how much knowledge we take for granted in Silicon Valley. On the other hand as far as I can tell the way [00:03:00] that every VC fund get started in the way that everyone becomes a VC is unique. It was really one story for how you start a company and there are n stories for how funds get started. So in my case, I wasn't sure that I wanted to start a fund more precisely. It hadn't even occurred to me that I would start a fund. I was a software engineer and looking for what I could do about climate change. I'm just assuming that I was looking for a technical way to be involved with that. I was worried because my only technical skill is software engineering but I figured hey, but software you can do many things. There must be a way that a software engineer can help. So I made my way to The arpa-e Summit in DC at the beginning of 2016 and went around and talked to a whole lot of people if they're different boots about what they were doing and. My questions for myself was does what you're doing matter. My question for them was how might a software engineer help [00:04:00] and to a first approximation even at a wonderful conference like the arpa-e summit. I think you'd have to say mostly these things are not moving the needle mostly in my terminology. They don't matter and it really wasn't clear how a software engineer could help and then because I was curious because I'd read many things about. Companies claiming that they were working on fusion and they were closed and made an effort to hit every Fusion Booth. I could find and a one of those booths. I said, I'm a software engineer. What can I do and they said well the next time this guy comes to San Francisco, you should organize an audience and he'll give a talk and won't that be fun? So that guy is now one of my science advisors, but that was. The first part of my relationship there. So he came I organized the talk we had dinner beforehand and is like how close is fusion and he says well, it could be 10 years away, but it's actually [00:05:00] in infinite time away. And the problem is we're not funded. So then you say well how much money do you need and it turns out to be a few million dollars you say that's really really dumb here. I am in Silicon Valley my. The company I work for is sauna making collaboration software for task management just raised 50 million dollars in here. These people are credibly trying to save the world and they're short two million dollars. Maybe I can find some rich people who can put some money in the answer was yes, I could find a rich person who is willing to put some money in and Rich. By and large unless they're really excited about the company do not want to put money in directly. They don't want that kind of relationship. So you work through all the mechanics here and you run as you can convince people to put money in but you need to [00:06:00] grease the wheels by making a normal VC structure in this case. And then before, you know it you wind up as the managing partner of a one-person VC fund but single investor. And then you say well, I've had a surprising amount of impact doing this. What should I do? Do I keep looking for that technical way to be involved and my conclusion was there's really no contest here. I could go back to my quest of how how is the software engineer? Can I help climate change or look? I've already put four million dollars into Fusion four million dollars of other people's money, but companies have four million dollars that. Born kinda half without me and several of them are doing way better making way more progress than they would have without me. And now I have all these contacts in the fusion industry. I can build a team of advisers. I'm in all of these internal discussions about [00:07:00] what's coming next in federal funding programs, and I'm invited to conferences and that kind of thing and it was. So obvious that the way to keep making an impact on climate change was to keep doing what I was doing. So that ends with my now taking the steps towards being what I call a real VC. Someone who goes out and really raises the next Fund in a much more normal way with multiple LPS and a much more significant amount of money. Ben: Got it Malcolm: Ray's right now in the baby if you see they VVC or. Ben: So you invest in babies? Malcolm: No. No, I'm the baby. That's and Tina that raises a whole bunch of questions.   Why did you structure the venture as a vc firm?   Ben: So one is why did you decide to structure it as a VC fund instead of say a philanthropic organization if you just wanted to redirect money. Malcolm: The short answer is [00:08:00] because I can get my hands on way more money. If this is a for-profit Enterprise, so my all P was very generous and trusting and also very open-minded and part of the four million dollars that I mentioned before actually was a donation. It was a gift to the University of Washington to support Fusion research there because. That particular project that we wanted to support was still an academic project for the others. The companies were our for-profit companies and there's just no good case to say to someone who has money. You should give money to support these for-profit things in a way that gets you know profit if they actually work you can tap a lot more money if you offer people a profit motive. And I think you create a stronger chain of [00:09:00] incentives. They are encouraged to give more money. I am more encouraged to look after that money. I have a share of the profit with my fund if it ever makes a profit and and finally you get a more traditional control structure. I don't yet have. At an actual Equity stake in these companies because we did a convertible note or a y combinator safe, but I sit on the board of the companies. They all know that my investment will turn into voting equity in the future and it's just a much cleaner setup. So I think there were no downsides to doing it this way and a lot of upsets the bigger question, which I. Contemplated the beginning of all of this was even for for-profit money is a fund the right vehicle or other other [00:10:00] options that I should pursue. That's something that I spent a lot of time looking into it after creating the first fund what other options are there, right? (Alternate structures) So one approach is you say, well there are four or however many companies here. I like what they're doing, but they're. Really annoyingly small by Annoying. I mean they are inefficient in terms of how they spend their money and their potentially leaving Innovation on the table. So the companies that I've invested in are all about four people maybe six, but that kind of size and they have one or two main science people in each company those. Interacts with other scientists a few times a year a conferences those scientists at the conference's are of course not completely trust to love each other. They are all competitors working at different companies [00:11:00] each convinced that they're going to crush the other guys and that's the extent of their scientific collaboration unless they have a couple of academics universities that they're close to. And when I think about my background in software, I never worked in a team that small I had many more people that I could turn to for help whenever it was stuck. So one thing we looked at seriously was starting a company that would raise a bunch of money and buy these four or so companies. We would merge them all into one. This is called the Roll-Up. And we'd move everyone to one place. They would certainly have a much larger pool of collaborators. They would also have the union of all of their equipment right? So now when someone had a new idea for an approach to Fusion, they wanted to test instead of needing to contemplate leaving [00:12:00] their job starting a new company raising money buying. Or scrounging a whole lot of equipment and then yours later doing the experiment. They could practically go in on the weekend and do the experiment after validating their ideas with their co-workers. Right? I think there's a lot to recommend this and it was seductive enough that I went a long way down this path in the end of the the complexities killed. And made it seem like something that wasn't actually a good idea when you netted everything.   Complexities of Roll-Ups   Ben: Can you go into a little more detail about that? Yeah, which complexities and how did you decided it was not a good idea, Malcolm: right? So it's much harder to raise money for because you're doing something much less traditional as I guess that's not necessarily harder in some ways. If you come to the market with a radically new idea. You're so novel that you. [00:13:00] Breakthrough everyone's filters and maybe you have an easier time raising money seen it go both witness. Yeah, and my existing investors was not enthused about this. So I would have certainly had to work past some skepticism there on top of that you have to convince all of these companies to sell to you and that looks really hard. The CEO of one of the companies told me look I'm a lone cowboy. I think he said and made it very clear that he was used to executing independently and didn't want to be part of larger company. Potentially. I could have bought his independence by offering him enough money that he couldn't refuse but that's not really the way you want to build your team. Other companies were enthusiastic but it would getting [00:14:00] the majority of these benefits would have required people moving. Yeah people and companies and these companies have connections to universities. Of course, the people have families they have whole lives. It wasn't clear that people wanted to move. It really looked as if everyone was really excited about a roll up that happened where they lived. Yeah on top of that. These people are cordial to each other at conferences. And at least think they wanted to collaborate more but they're also pretty Fierce competitors. So you also had to believe that when these people were all brought into one company. They would actually collaborate rather than get into status contests and fights and that kind of thing. Not to mention all the more subtle ways in which they might fail to collaborate and it really big wake-up call for me was when the [00:15:00] two technical co-founders one of my companies started fighting these people had known each other for decades. They were best men at each other's weddings. They had chosen to found the company together. No asshole VC had bought two companies include them together and force them to work together. This was their choice. And it got to the point where still they could not work together. I went down I spent two days at the company watching the team Dynamic interviewing each person at the company one-on-one and made the recommendation that the company fire one of the founders. So you look at that and then you're like, well these people say they're happy to cooperate with everyone at these other companies to I really believe that so. Huge caution, I think yeah other people cautioned me that the [00:16:00] competitive factors would be reduced. So I had one guy who went through YC not doing Fusion just a regular software startup say look when we were doing way see we were in the same year as Dropbox and it was clear the Dropbox was crash. And if we had known that actually we were part of some big roll up and we were going to share and dropboxes success. We would not have worked as hard on our little company as we did wanting to match their success. Yeah. (Holding companies and how they worked) So eventually I looked at the third model the first model being the VC fund at the second model being the roll up. The third model was a holding company and this is meant to be a middle ground where we would have a company that would invest in the various Fusion companies that we wanted to support. They would not be combined. I [00:17:00] guess. I'm neglected to mention several of the other advantages that we would have gotten with the holding with the roll up in addition to a unified team of scientists. We would have had the pool of Hardware that I did mention right we would also been able to have other infrastructure teams. For example, we could have had a software team that worked on modeling or simulation software that all of the different Fusion teams could use so the idea with the holding company was we would still be able to centralize things that made sense centralist right things where you could benefit by sharing. But we would have these companies remaining as separate companies. They could raise money from other people if they wanted to or we couldn't provide the money when they needed it. They wouldn't have to move they would be independent companies. But the first thing that we would do is say a condition of taking money from us is [00:18:00] you will give all of your experimental data and enough. Of the conditions of your experiments to us so that we can run our own simulations using our own software right and match them against your experimental results. We would of course encourage them to use our modeling software as well. But that's harder to force. So the idea was software is something that really can be shared right? We would encourage them to share it and by having access to their. Their detailed data, we would be able to validate what they were doing and being much more informed investors than others so we could make better investment decisions. We could tell who was really succeeding and who might be struggling or failing so we couldn't make better investment decisions than other investors, which would help us. It would also help the companies [00:19:00] because our decision to investor to continue to invest would be a more credible signal of success or the value creation and they could use that to to shop it around to raise money from other people. So to the benefits there would be still internalizing some of the externalities while keeping people with their independence, but allowing resource sharing and better signal. For further support raise so much more flexible sharing sharing where it made sense and not where it didn't and then in an optional way later later on we might have said, well, it turns out that the number of our companies need the same physical equipment may be pulsed Power Equipment, which is a large part of the expense for these companies so we could have bought that. Set it up somewhere and then said you're welcome to come and do experiments on our facility and you could imagine that over time. They would decide that the [00:20:00] facility was valuable enough that someone from the company moved there. And then maybe they do all their new hiring their and the company's gradually co-locate but in a much more gradual much smoother way than. In the roll-up where we envision seeing a condition of this purchase is you move right having just talked up the the holding company's so much. Obviously I decided I didn't like that either because that's not what I'm doing one of the death blows for the holding company was doing a science review of the four companies that I've invested in so far. Plus several other approaches by this point I built a team of four science advisors. We put all of these seven or so approaches past the advisors for basic feedback is this thing actually a terrible [00:21:00] idea and we haven't realized yet or what are the challenges or is this an amazing thing that we should be backing and the feedback that we got was that one of them was? And should definitely be back right for a bunch of them. The feedback was waiting to see another one. Was it an even more precarious position because of execution problems to more that received favorable feedback did not and still do not have companies associated with them but feedback was positive enough that we. Pay people to work on them inside basically shall companies so that we own the IP if something comes to that but what did we not so sorry just to interrupt right now. They're in universities right now. They're dormant. They're dormant. Okay a common theme in Fusion is someone does some [00:22:00] work gets some promising results and then for one reason or another fails to get. Funding to continue that it sometimes the story is then the Republicans got into power and cut the funding or they got less funding than they wanted. So they bought worse equipment and they wanted and therefore they weren't able to achieve the conditions that they wanted but they still did the experiment because of the bad conditions that got bad results. So they definitely didn't get any more money from that a whole host of reasons. The promising work doesn't continue. Yeah, so in both of those cases there are promising results and no one is working on this got it.  Yeah another sad Fusion story. So so bunch of things came out of that science review, but what did not come out of it was oh yes here. We have a pool of for companies that are all [00:23:00] strong and deserve. And have enough overlap that that some sort of sharing model makes sense on top of that. It was becoming clear that even a holding company was sufficiently novel pitch as to make my life even more difficult for fundraising. Yeah, so it just. Didn't look like something that was worth taking that fundraising hit for given that the benefits for seeming to be more theoretical or in the future than then in the present     Alternate Structures   Ben: So with a VC fund to my understanding you are sitting on already given capital and your job is. To deploy it I'm going to use air quotes as [00:24:00] quickly as possible within a   certain limit of responsibility. Would you ever consider something where you do something there there these private Equity firms that will have a thesis and the look for companies that meet these a certain set of conditions and only then. Will they basically exert a call option on promised money and invest that and it seems like that's that's another structure that you could have gone with. Did you consider anything like that at all? Malcolm: Right edit your description of a VC fund and yes, we may I please one is you're not sitting on a pool of money that is in your bank account. Some of the money is in your bank account, but there's a distinction between the money that is committed and the money that is raised. [00:25:00] So you might say I want to have a VC fund that has 40 million dollars over its lifespan if you wait until you have raised. All 40 million then the deals that you'd identified at the beginning that you are using to support the raising of your fund will likely be gone. It can take a long time to raise even a moderately sized fund. Yeah, unless you're one of those individuals leading very Charmed lives where in weeks they raise their entire fun, but for the rest of us the fundraising process can be 6-12 months that kind of thing so, You have a first close where you've identified or where you have enough and money committed to justify saying this fund is definitely happening. Right [00:26:00] we're going to do this even then maybe your first clothes is 15 million dollars. You don't need all 15 million dollars to start making your Investments right now. So you have 15 million dollars. Right, but over the life of the fund you do Capital calls when your account is too low to keep doing what you're trying to do. Right? So the LPS get penalized heavily if they fail to produce the money that they have committed within a certain amount of time after you're calling it got it you could in principle call all the money at the beginning but you damage your friends metrics if you do that. Got it. Funds are. Graded through their internal rate of return and I remember exactly how this is calculated. (Internal Rate of Return (IRR) ) But part of that is how long you actually have the money. So if you got the money closer to when you're going to spend it or invest it, you look better got it. So that's the first edit. The [00:27:00] second edit is I wouldn't say my job is to deploy the money as quickly as possible. Mmm. My job is to deploy the money for the best results possible. I measure results in terms of some combination of profit to my investors and impact on the world. Right because they think Fusion is well aligned to do both. I think these prophets are pretty consistent. So I'm not trying to spend my money as quickly as I can. I'm trying to support a large enough portfolio of companies for as long as I can. Large portfolio of companies because they want to mitigate the risk. I want to include as many companies in the portfolio. So that promising ideas do not go unsupported. That's the impact and also so that the company that succeeds if when ultimately does is in my fund so [00:28:00] that my investors get a return got it and then I want to support them for as long as I can because the longer I'm supporting them. The larger return my investors get rather than that later value creation accruing to later investors. Got it. Also.  longer. I can support them the greater the chance that the company has of surviving for long enough and making enough progress that it can then raise from other investors investors who probably will know less about fusion and be less friendly to Fusion.   Why not start the Bell Labs of Fusion   Ben:  okay, there's there's a bunch of bunch of bookmarks. I want to put there the first thing is one more question about possible structures. So a problem that you brought up consistently is the  efficiency gains from having people all in the same place all sharing equipment all sharing code all sharing knowledge that. Does not happen [00:29:00] when you have a bunch of companies, why are you so focused on sort of starting with companies as or groups of people who have already formed companies as as the basic building blocks. So for example, you could imagine a world where you create  the Bell Labs a fusion where you literally just start from scratch. Hire people and put them all in the same place with a bunch of equipment and aren't working together without having to pull people  who have already demonstrated their willingness to go out on their own and start companies. Malcolm: Yeah, great question and the bell Labs diffusion is an analogy of it gets thrown around a fair amount including to describe what I was trying to do. Although I agree. It's slightly. I think there are two answers to that question. One is [00:30:00] by the point that I was really considering this. I already had invested in for companies. So partly the answer is path dependence got it and partly the answer. Is that by the time I was clearly seeing the problems with the rollout especially but also the holding company it was. It didn't seem as if just starting a company from scratch was really going to change that some people make the argument that actually the best plasma physicists aren't in companies at the moment. They are in Academia or National Labs because the best ones don't want to risk their reputation and a great job for a two-bit company that's going to have trouble. And therefore the if you could come along and create a credible [00:31:00] proposition of the legitimate company that will do well fundraising and prove that it will do well at fundraising by endowing it with a lot of money in the beginning you may then hire those people right? I know some people who are convinced that this is possible. You still have to deal. The asshole complex that is common with infusion. These people have had their entire careers which are long because they are all old or they're in PHD programs basically to become quite sure of the approach that they want to take for Fusion, right? So it was difficult to find a team of four. Experienced knowledgeable and open-minded advisors for my science board and not all of those people are able to be hired for any price. I think if you want to actually stock a [00:32:00] company with these people you need more people right and they all need to be able to be hired and you still need to convince them to move and you still need to convince them to work on each other's projects. So it I think it's an interesting idea. I have real concerned about the lack of competition that you would get about all the areas that I just mentioned and on top of that when I looked into the situation around the software sharing and the hardware sharing more closely. I became less convinced that this is actually available. What's that on the software side many people don't even believe that it's possible in a reasonable time frame to create simulation software that [00:33:00] can sufficiently accurately simulate the conditions used by a whole range of different approaches to Fusion at the moment. We. Many different pieces of software or yeah codes as the physics Community calls them that they're each validated and optimized for different conditions different temperatures different densities different physical geometries of the plasma that kind of thing. There are some people who believe that we can make software that spans a sufficiently large range of these parameters. As to be useful for a family of fusion approaches. There are even people who claim to be working on them right now. Yeah, and when you dig more deeply you discover, yeah, they're working on them, but they haven't accomplished as much of that unified solution [00:34:00] as they think they have is they say they have so you talk to other people who use these and they're like, yes. Yes, I think those people really have the. I think they might be the people who can do this. They're not there yet. So the notion of spinning up a team of software engineers and plasma physicists and numerical experts and so forth to try to do that came to seem like a bigger lift with much more dubious payback in the relevant time frame than I had initially thought similarly on the hardware side. It is really costly in many ways to reconfigure physical equipment for one experiment and then reconfigure it for another experiment is really bad when you have to move things between locations as well or move a team to a site and configure everything there and then do your experiments for a month, but [00:35:00] it's still bad even. All the people and all the equipment are in when se you get to the most consistent results. If you can leave everything set up and you want to be able to keep going on Saturday or keep going on Monday because you weren't quite done with those through experiments. So to what degree can you really share these results these certain not these results. She killed to what degree can you really share this equipment? Yeah, definitely to some degree to a large enough to agree to justify. Spinning up a whole company. I'm not convinced got it on top of that. If I were to start a company doing this, I would need to find a CEO build up a whole team that I don't have to build when I'm investing in other companies, right? Should I be that CEO of many people assumed that I showed her that I wanted to or something like that. I think it's a really hard sell for [00:36:00] investors that I'm the best person to run this company on the other hand. It wasn't actually clear who should do it. Incentives: How do you measure impact and incentivize yourself?   Ben:  Yeah, that makes that makes a lot of sense. I want to [00:37:00] go back to you're talking about incentives previously both that your incentives are to both have impact and make money for your shareholders. Yeah, I want to ask first. How do you measure impact for yourself in terms of your incentives you. I mentioned something along the lines of company's existing that would not otherwise exist. So like how it's pretty easy to know. Okay. I've like made this much money. It's a little harder to say. Okay, I've had this much impact. So  how do you personally measure that? Malcolm: Yeah, the clearest example of impact so far is another project called fuse annoyingly. Annoyingly the same name is spelt differently. So this is the fusion z-pinch experiment Fu [00:38:00] Ze at the University of Washington. And it's the group that we donated to (Fusion Z-Pinch Experiment. https://www.aa.washington.edu/research/ZaP) it is all four of the companies that have given money to so far are supported by our pennies Alpha program (ARPA-e Alpha Program:https://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=arpa-e-programs/alpha ) its Fusion program and all four of them got less money than. Rpe would have liked to have given them. So the time that I became involved with the fuse project they were behind schedule on their rpe milestones and we made them a donation that enabled them to hire an extra two people for the rest of the life of the project that enabled them to catch up with their milestones and become the. Most successful of the fusion programs that are P of fusion projects that are PE has [00:39:00] when I say most successful what I mean is they are hitting their Milestones they are getting very clean results. So there they have a simulation that says as they put more and more current through their plasma. They will get higher temperatures and higher densities basically. Better and better Fusion conditions and that at a certain point they will be making as much energy as they're putting in at a point beyond that they will actually be getting what we call reactor relevant game getting a large enough increase in energy through their Fusion that they could run a reactor off that this and the way we plot their progress is. We look at the increase in currents that they're putting through their pastor and check that they are getting results that match their theoretical results for them. It's especially clean because they have this theoretical concern this theoretical curve [00:40:00] and their experimental results keep falling very close to that curve. So it's a really nice story because the connection between the money that they got. From strong atomics and the people that they hired and the results that they were able to the progress they were able to make with those additional people and the scientific validity of what they were doing is clear at every step. Yeah. So so that's one way that I can see the impact of what I'm doing another way. That's more. Is by being involved in the field and trying to make sure that it all makes sense to me. I wind up having insights or coming to understandings the turn out to be helpful to everyone. So I spent a long time [00:41:00] wondering about the economics of fusion. Companies are understandably mainly focused on getting Fusion to work and they don't spend that much time thinking about the competitive energy Market that they're likely to be selling into 15 or 20 years from now and what that means for their product. I spend time thinking about that because I want to convince myself that the space matters enough to justify my time. So I went through the stock process. And came to the conclusion that the ways that the companies were calculating their cost of energy were wrong. They were assuming that the reactors would be operating more or less continuously and they would be able to sell all of the electricity that they made whereas the reality is likely to be that for five or hours or so every day. No one [00:42:00] will buy their electricity because wind and solar producing cheaper electricity. See, right. So the conclusion that I've come to is well so scratch that so the companies often conclude that they need to be demand following they need to make their reactors able to ramp up and down according to what the demand is right that has other problems because the reactors are so expensive to build and so cheap to run. That ramping your reactor down to follow the demand doesn't actually save you any money. And so it doesn't make the electricity any cheaper. So I worked through all of this and came to the conclusion, which I think most people in the fusion space agree with know that you actually need to have integrated thermal storage. Your reactor is producing typically hot molten salts. Anyway, right and rather than turning that into [00:43:00] electricity. You should store the bats of hot molten salt and then run the reactor continuously and ramp up and down the turbine that is used to go from hot molten salts to electricity interesting turbines are cheap. They have low fixed costs. So you can much more affordably ramp them up and down plus if you were going to be demand following you were already going to be ramping your turbine up and. All I'm saying is keep the turbine demand following right make the reactor smaller so that it can run continuously. Right which is the most efficient way to use a high Capital cost good and then have a buffer of molten salt. So that's the that's a kind of insight that have come to by working through the economics and overall the investment case for Fusion. That I hope will help all the companies not just the ones I'm [00:44:00] investing in.   Incentives for LPs   Ben:  so those are those are your incentives is that combination of impact  profit and you also have LPS because of the VC fund structure. Where do you see there? What are their incentives in terms of what they want to see out of this? All right out of your firm Malcolm: my current LP is anonymous and so there's a limit to what I can say about their incentives sure, but they care about climate change. They basically by into my argument that climate change is real and worth mitigating, right and. Fusion is a promising and underinvested potential mitigation.   Does the profit motive increase impact?   Ben:  And to go a [00:45:00] little farther into that this is just a comment about impact investing as a whole  so the question is could they get a better return? By tape putting that money into a this definitely putting you on the spot, but I think you could probably make an argument that they  might get a better return just on the money putting the money in some other investment vehicle. And so they probably  want to see that same impact that you want to see and. I guess the the thing that I'm interested in is  does having the profit motive actually increased impact and if so how Malcolm: regarding the potential for profit. When [00:46:00] I started doing this, I thought it was really a charity play. I guess more politely only in Impact play but set up in a for-profit structure so that if it happened to make a profit then the people who had enabled it to happen would be able to share in that profit right as I have. Looked at the space more closely and refined my argument or arguments in this area. I have come to believe that there's a meaningful potential for profit here. This is all hinges on what you think on the chance that you were saying for Fusion working. It's very clear that if you shouldnt Works in a way that is economically competitive. The company that gets there will be immensely valuable assuming that [00:47:00] it manages to retain and say p and that kind of thing. So I've taken stabs figuring out the valuation of one of these companies the error bars are huge. So I got numbers around 25 billion for my low-end valuation closer to a trillion for the high-end. It's really hard to say, but the numbers are big enough on the profit if it works side right that it really boils down to do I think it's going to work that is a hard thing to put numbers on but by investing in a portfolio of them you increase your chances.   Risk, Timescales, and Returns vs. Normal Firms   Ben: something I know from other VC firms is that. You have to they have to limit their risk. They don't make as risky Investments because of their LPS because they feel they have this financial duty [00:48:00] to return some amount to their LPS in a certain amount of time right? I do you worry about those same pressures. Have you figured out ways around them ways to extend those time scales. Malcolm: I don't think I'm going to be subject to the same pressures because anyone who gives me money is going to be expecting something very different. Yeah, so instead of being subject to those pressures. I think that the same psychology manifests for me as limiting my pool of investors. So it's a real problem. It just plays out differently. Got it. That's it. A few things are different for me because I'm pitching the fund differently a normal fund cannot look at a space and say it's really important that something works in this space, but [00:49:00] it's not clear which company might succeed because there's real science risk, right so normally. Normally the investors to Silicon Valley can decide that this company or these two companies should be the winner and they can all agree that they're going to put all their money in there and they can anoint a winner it will win because it's getting all the money shorter than major Scandal that does not work for in when investing in companies with a heavy science risk. That's why I think you need to invest in a portfolio of companies and a normal fun has trouble doing that because they are obliged by their investment thesis that their investors have signed off on to spread their money out across different different sectors. Okay. So again, that doesn't make life. Magically easy [00:50:00] for me. It means I need to find investors who are on board for doing something different specifically investors who are wealthy enough that they are diversifying their Investments by investing in other funds or Vehicles besides mine and are not expecting diversity from me. But having found those investors, I will then be in a much better position because I can concentrate. In one sector and really solve that or at least strongly supported   Is Money the limiting reagent on fusion?   Ben: got it that makes a lot of sense. I want to shift and talk about Fusion itself. Okay a little bit more. So I'm sure you've seen the the fusion never plot. I'll put a link up in the show notes. (Fusion Never Plot: http://benjaminreinhardt.com/fusion_never/) So the question is this plot makes it look like if you pour more money in it will go faster. Do you think that's actually the case or is [00:51:00] there something else limiting the rate at which  we achieve Fusion Malcolm:  if you have to leave the existing spending. Then adding money is a way to make it go faster. But a cheaper alternative is to spend your existing money more wisely the world's Fusion spending and America's Fusion spending to a first approximation all goes in to eat. The international thermonuclear experimental reactor this International collaboration in France. (ITER - International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. https://www.iter.org/proj/inafewlines) This thing came about because the next step for a fusion experiment in America and Russia was too expensive for either country to pursue independently, even though everyone's first inclination was surely to keep competing. So became a collaborative [00:52:00] Endeavor and. It's now a collaboration between many countries that things expected to suck up 20 billion or more and has a depressing schedule that ends with Fusion Energy on the grid and 2100. Okay, America puts on the order of a hundred fifty million a year into either directly and say 500 million a year. Into what are called either relevant projects domestic projects where you're trying to learn about something some problem that's relevant either but you're learning in a way that is smaller cheaper better controlled right than a 20 billion dollar massive building where everything is inevitably really complicated the. Other placed in America spends money is on [00:53:00] Neff the national ignition facility, which is really a weapons research facility that is occasionally disguised as an energy research facility. Another way that it's been described to me is the perfect energy research facility what these cynical people meant was it's too small to. (NIF - National Ignition Facility: https://lasers.llnl.gov/) Actually get to ignition or energy Break Even but it's big enough that the people working on it can tell themselves that it might get there. If only they work harder If Only They dedicate the rest of their career to this. So it has large numbers of people who really care about Fusion Energy much more than bombs working on. Because it's the best way that they can see meaning the best funded way that they can see to get there but they don't actually seem to believe that it's [00:54:00] going to get there. They just don't have any choice. So we spent a lot of money on these two programs and that funding would be more than adequate for forgetting to. If we spent it on anything more modern it is not controversial to say that these techniques these two facilities are the best Fusion approaches and experimental setups that we could come up with in the mid-80s the mid-90s when they were being designed that's a fact that's when they were being designed. They've had limited upgrades since but yeah, that's. That's the overall story. What is controversial is weather continuing to support them is the best move. There are people who believe that we need to keep putting money in there [00:55:00] because we're going to learn a lot if we keep doing that science or because if we don't put the money in there, then the money will get pulled and probably stand on bombs or something like that, but it won't come to fusion and so. Better bad money in a fusion than worse money somewhere else, right. My personal view is that eater is such a ridiculous energy project that it harms the entire Fusion field by forcing people to pay lip service. To the validity of its goals that we would be better off admitting that that thing is a travesty and that there are better ways to do Fusion, even if it meant losing the money now, I'm not certain about that. But that's the gamble I would take good news is we probably won't have to take that Gamble and it [00:56:00] looks as if the federal government is becoming much more open to to a yes and approach to funding. The mainstream approaches diffusion if and eater and a variety of projects for alternative approaches and more basic Research into things like tritium handling tritium breeding hardening materials to deal with high-energy neutrons. Lasting longer in the face of high-energy neutrons that kind of thing. So I think there's real momentum towards building a in inclusive program that can support everyone and that is of course the best much as I would take the gamble with killing eater and killing them if they do produce real scientific results, and and if we can have all these things that's a wonderful out.   Government Decision Making and Incentives   Ben:  on that note who ultimately [00:57:00] is the decision maker behind where government Fusion money is spent and what are their incentives? Malcolm: This is America. Is there ever one person who's the decision maker about some Ben: maybe not one person but is it is it Congress is it unelected officials in? Some department. Is it the executive branch? Do you have a sense? Is it some combination of all of them? Malcolm: The money flows through the department of energy a sub-department of the doughy is rpe, which has its 30 million dollar Fusion program and will hopefully have a new and larger Fusion program in the near future. (ARPA-e: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPA-E) There's also the office of Fusion science in an office of Fusion Energy and science ofes that funds a lot [00:58:00] of the mainstream Research into Fusion ( Office of Fusion Energy Science https://science.energy.gov/fes/ ) arpa-e is to my knowledge created by Congress and fairly independent of the doughy, but there's still feuding. I think without describing malice to anyone. It is a great Testament to many people's conviction and political skills that they were able to get America to fund niff and either more or less consistently over decades at a high cost and. Those people are highly invested in those projects continuing. I don't know whether that's because they genuinely believe that that's the best way to spend the money or fear that the money would disappear from Fusion completely [00:59:00] if it stopped or don't think that the Alternatives actually have any scientific credibility or. Are so now trapped by the arguments that they've been making strongly and successfully for decades, but for one reason or another or many reasons, they strongly believe that we need to continue to do these so there is a tension between people who want to fund the Alternatives and the people who want to fund the mainstream fusion   Who are the government decision makers?   Ben: and who are these people  do you have any sense of actually who they are? Like I'm not asking you to name names, but like what is their role? What is their nominal job title? Malcolm: I think it's a bunch of civil servants within the Dewey Congress has a role like cotton Congress gets to decide how much money to provide and that's often attached to a. About how that money will be spent right there have been [01:00:00] Congressional hearings on Fusion the covered either and whether we should continue to fund either it's a lot of different people.   What are the roles of Academia, Government, Industry, and Philanthropy?   Ben: Okay? Yeah.  I'm just really interested in dating you down until I like where we're the incentive structure is set up  along those lines in in your mind in sort of an ideal world. what do you see the ideal rolls of the the four Columns of Academia government private investment and philanthropy in making sort of an epic level project like Fusion. Yeah happen. Malcolm: There's a ton of room for government support on this. The federal government has National Labs that have the best computers the best software which is often classified the best testing sites many in many [01:01:00] ways. The only testing site. And lots and lots of experts the one thing that the federal government lacks is a drive to put Fusion Energy on the grid as quickly and as commercially successful as possible. I don't rule out that the federal government could develop that drive but. It seems like a long shot given that there's a lot of disagreement about climate change and energy policy and that kind of thing. So I think that the ideal would be that the federal government supports Fusion research with all of its resources Financial expertise modeling modeling software. Modelling hardware and testing facilities in partnership with Private Industry. So [01:02:00] that Private Industry is providing the drive to get things done. So I imagine a lot of research done at the federal government so that if the current crop of companies bottom out if it turns out that their techniques don't work. We have more Fusion research coming down the pipeline to support a later crop of companies, but we would have companies working closely with the federal government to try to build reactors getting assistance in all those ways from the federal government and providing the drive. The company's  would have this. Call of Fusion Energy on the grid that they would be working towards but they would get to use the federal government's resources for the areas that they're focusing on. There are also the areas that the companies are not focusing on areas that are largely common [01:03:00] to all companies and therefore no company views it as on their critical path to demonstrating reactor relevant gain, For example, for example tritium is toxic to humans and difficult to contain. It turns out even hydrogen is difficult to contain it leaks through metal surfaces, but we don't talk about this because hydrogen is. Astonishingly boring and section in small quantities. So we don't care that it leaks out of our containers we do care when tritium leaks out of containers because it's heavily regulated and toxic right? So any Fusion company that's handling Trillium is going to need a way to contain tritium with very low leak rates. Also, the world does not have very much true. You can't actually use tritium as a [01:04:00] fuel for Fusion. You have to breed tritium in your reactor from lithium. So the real inputs to the reactor if it is a deuterium tritium reactor will be do tarian and lithium and you'll be breeding tritium from lithium in your reactor. So we also need to study how we're going to breathe. The tritium right? We're making mathematical calculations about the tritium breeding rate how much tritium we will get out after doing Fusion relative to the amount of tritium. We had before doing fusion and these tritium breeding rates are close to 1 if they're below 1 or really not enough above one. We're screwed, right? So there's important work for academics. And the federal government to do to better understand trillion breathing rates [01:05:00] and what we can do to increase them and write how to make this work.   Companies aren't incentivized to look at things on critical path   Ben: Right and at the companies are not incentivised to look into that right now because they don't feel like it's on their critical path Malcolm: investors Pope maybe including myself have made it clear to these companies that. What they will reward the companies for is progress on the riskiest parts, right? This is valid you want to work on the Unruh Burning Down the biggest risks that you have, right and everyone perceives that the biggest risk is getting through Fusion conditions. Sorry. In many of these companies are already getting to Fusion conditions, but everyone perceives that the biggest risk is getting Fusion to work getting reactor relevant games from Fusion, right? So compared to that these risks are small and it's [01:06:00] valid to the further, right? If you're a single Company If you're looking from the perspective of a portfolio, which the federal government is best positioned to do which is. Going to be somewhat well position to do then your risks are different you're willing to say I have a portfolio of these companies. I don't care which one succeeds I'm doing what I'm doing, assuming one of them will succeed. Now. What can I do to D risk my entire portfolio, right? You look at it differently and then these problems start to seem critical. So with my second fund one of the things I want to be able to do. Is support academics or maybe for-profit companies that are working on this but the federal government isn't even better fit for this it is perfectly positioned to do this.   What does the ideal trajectory for Fusion look like?   Ben:  I think a good closing question is in your in your Ideal World.  would Innovation infusion come into being what would the path look [01:07:00] like? Imagine  Malcolm? King of the universe and we started with the world we have today what would happen Malcolm:  I think the federal government would do the  heavy lifting but it would rely on private companies to really provide the drive. It would the federal government would also support the longer term. Things that are critical but not the highest risks such as the tritium issues today - and perfect.   Why do so few people invest in fusion   Ben: there anything that I didn't ask that I should have asked about Malcolm: one question that comes up quite often is why so few people invest in Fusion? Yeah and why it is. That I'm the only one with the poor.   Ben: Yeah, if you could if it's there's a possible payoff of a trillion dollars, right? And that's  even if it takes 20 years  the AR are still pretty good. Malcolm: Yeah, the way I think of it [01:08:00] is there's a funnel where. It's like a company's fun offer acquiring customers. But in this case, it's an industry's funnel for acquiring investors and investors are falling out of this funnel at every stage. The first stage is of course, you have to believe in anthropogenic climate change, but we have lots of investors who believe in.   Why do you need to believe in climate change to fund fusion   Ben: quick question. Why why do you need to believe in that in order to want to fun fusion? Malcolm: Okay, that's a fair point. You don't have to but it's the easiest route. Okay. If you don't believe in climate change, then you have to believe purely infusions potential to provide energy that will be cheaper than fossil fuels, right. I believe a zoo that but it is a higher bar [01:09:00] than I believe the climate change is going to encourage people one way or another to put a premium on clean energy. Got up when I do my modeling. I'm not taking into account carbon taxes or renewable portfolio standards, but it's nevertheless easier to convince yourself to care about the whole thing. If you think that this is an important problem, right? Otherwise you could do it just because you think you can make a whole ton of money, but it is a high-risk way of making money, right? So one way or another let's say you decide you're interested in well. No, I think that's carry on with the. The funnel for a climate change. Yes. Yes, because there are a few more places that they can fall out and these places might apply to an ordinary profit seeking investors as well, but it's less clear. So you've decided you believe in anthropogenic climate change [01:10:00] and you'd like to see what you can do about it. Maybe you then narrow to focusing on energy. That's a pretty reasonable bad energy is something like 70% of our emissions  when you track everything back to the root. So perfectly reasonable Pace to focus within energy. There are lots of different ways that you might think you can do something about it. There's geothermal power. There's title power a long range of long tail a large range of long tail. Ways that you can make energy and a lot of people really get trapped in there or they decide they're going to look at the demand side of energy and think about how they can get people to drive less or insulate their buildings better or whatever. And in my opinion most of these people are basically getting stuck on [01:11:00] things that don't move the. Yeah, the don't add up to a complete solution. They are merely incrementally better. So when you look at things that might move the needle on energy, I think that the supply side is way more promising because the demand side is huge numbers of buildings cars people whose habits need to change on and on if you can change the supply side then. It doesn't matter as much if we are insulating our houses poorly driving too much that kind of thing. If we have enough energy we can doesn't matter we can make hydrocarbons. From the raw inputs and energy and we can continue to drive our cars and flat our planes and heat our cart heat our houses that have natural gas furnaces and that kind of thing. Ben: Well, if you have if you have absurd amounts of energy, you can just literally pull carbon out of the air and stick it in concrete   right? Malcolm: That's [01:12:00] the other thing. So, I believe that focusing on energy Supply is the right way to go because. With a distributed Grid or not. We have many fewer places that we make energy than where we consume energy and what you said, we're looking at significantly increased demand in the likely or certain case where we need to do atmospheric carbon capture and sequestration. It takes the energy it takes energy to suck the carbon out of the atmosphere and it takes probably. More energy to put it into a form where we can store it for a long time. Right? So I think you need to focus on the energy Supply even within that we have lots of ways of making clean energy that aren't scalable and there's a wonderful book called sustainable energy without the hot [01:13:00] air (Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air https://www.withouthotair.com/ ) that catalogs for the United. All the ways that they could make energy renewably and all the ways that they use energy and is more or less unable to make the numbers add up without throwing new clear in their got it nuclear or solar in the Sahara and then transfer transmitting the energy to to the UK. So that's it. You can probably make Renewables work. If you can start but the problem with Renewables is that well Renewables come in two forms that are the predictable forms like Hydra where we control when we release energy and then the variable Renewables like wind and solar where they make energy when Nature cases  for those. We need something to match the demand. That humans have for energy [01:14:00] with the supply that nature is offering and you can try to do that in some combination of three ways. You can over build your Renewables to the point where even on bad days or in Bad seasons, you're making enough energy. You can transmit your energy. You can overbuild you can space shift your energy. By building long distance transmission lines and you can time shifts your energy through storage. Right and it turns out that all three of these have real costs and challenges storage is an area where people get pretty excited. So this is the next point that people fall off. They say wind and solar are doing great. storage isn't solved yet, but gosh it's on these great cost curves and like I can totally see how storage is going to. A solved problem and then Renewables for work and I think there are two problems with that is that these one is [01:15:00] storage actually needs to get a lot cheaper. If you want to scale it to the point that we can use it for seasonal storage. Right? And we need a solution to the seasonal problem. There are places like California the. Vastly more Renewable Power sometimes if you're in the other times of year in California, it's by a factor of 10 or 12. Wow. Yeah, so it's not a day by day. It's Yeah by month and and that's critical because if you are cycling your storage daily just to to bridge between when the Sun's shining and when people need their power you get to monetize your story. Every day you get the entire capacity of your stories roughly right used 365 times a year for the 20 years that your plant is left. Right? If you're cycling it seasonally meaning once a year you get to sell 20 times [01:16:00] the capacity of your storage rather than 20 times 365 times the capacity of your storage. So your storage needs to be one 365th of the price. To hit that same price Target. Yeah. This is a really high bar for storage is economics. So the first problem with betting on storage is it needs to drop in price a lot to really solve the problem. The second problem is lots of people are investing in storage. So if you want your money to make a difference in terms of making you a profit or having an impact on the world. You need to out-compete all those other people working on wind and solar and storage.  you're going to play in that space and that leaves something like nuclear. There are compared to Fusion plenty of people investing in various nuclear fission approaches. So again, your company can make a difference your money can make a difference there. [01:17:00] But and it'll be a bigger difference than in wind and solar and storage but a small difference than Fusion. So say you get all the way to I think I want to invest in Fusion.  what you now encounter is an industry where everyone you talk to will tell you that their approach is definitely going to work unless they're being really nice and that everyone else is approach is definitely not going to work  so. Pretty understandable at that point to give up on the whole Space. So in this is the step before that you have to to get over the hurdle where Fusion is always 10 years way. It's been 10 years away for as long as most of us have been alive,  you have to decide that you even want to look at Fusion then you hit the problem where everyone says nasty things about everyone else to a first approximation if you spend a long enough time there you might find a company. The convinces you that they are different that all those other people are crazy [01:18:00] and they're worth investing in but I've talked about why investing in one company is a bad idea to invest in multiple companies. You have to find some advisors or just be Reckless enough that you can so you have to find. Enough advisors who are open-minded or you have to be sufficiently Reckless to just roll a dice on these companies or maybe just sufficiently Rich that you're going to roll the dice on these companies, but it's a real hurdle to find advisors who are experienced and credible and open-minded enough to support investing in a portfolio of these companies. Yes, even then, If you're a regular VC fund which you probably are if you have enough money to do this, right we have the problems that I mentioned earlier where your Charter is to invest in a diverse [01:19:00] set of companies and you can't put enough money in these companies to infusion to support a portfolio of companies. so that is the funnel  did ends with as far as I can tell just strong atomics coming out the end as the only fund supporting a portfolio of fusion companies. That's why in my opinion. There are not more people investing in Fusion in general along the way.   Outro I got a lot out of this conversation here are some of my top takeaways.  There are many ways of structuring organization that's trying to enable Innovations each with pros and cons that depend on the domain. You're looking at Malcolm realize that a VC fund is best for Fusion because of the low return from shared resources and the temperaments of people involved just because there's a lot of money going into a domain. It doesn't mean it's being spent well. I love the way that Malcolm thought very deeply about the incentives of everybody. He's dealing with and how to align them with his [01:20:00] vision of a fusion filled future. I hope you enjoyed that. It's like to reach out. You can find me on Twitter at been underscore Reinhardt. I deeply appreciate any feedback. Thank you.  

On October 16th, Gruff Rhys joined our broadcast of Eclectic Kettle. We abridged the interview for airtime, but here's the full version, along with a transcript. Remember, you can win tickets for Gruff's October 23rd show at The Chapel in San Francisco here. Enjoy! Thank you to Leslie Hampton at The Owl Magazine for co-ordinating this interview with us.Ben Ward: Hi everyone, this is Ben Ward of BFF.fm's Eclectic Kettle. You're listening to a special extra release that we're putting out this week, which is my full interview with Gruff Rhys. Lead singer of Super Furry Animals and currently on tour promoting his new album “Babelsberg”.He'll be playing here in San Francisco on October 23rd; this coming Tuesday. We played parts of this interview on Eclectic Kettle on October 16th. This is the fuller version where we discuss his tour, the recording of the album and the efforts that went into the product that really defines the sound. We reminisce about his previous appearance at The Chapel which he remembers well. We also discuss his recent more politically pointed songs about Brexit and the National Health Service in the UK, touching on his songwriting philosophy and motivations, and inevitably get a bit stuck in on Brexit as we despair.I want to say a huge thank you to Leslie Hampton, who's guest -DJ'd on Eclectic Kettle before with me. She's over at The Owl Magazine and was instrumental in helping us put this interview together. Check out theowlmag.com for their show previews and other coverage.Finally, BFF.fm has two pairs of tickets for Gruff's October 23rd show to give away. Check out BFF.fm for giveaway details. It's trivially easy for you to enter! I hope you enjoy the interview, I hope you enjoy his show. Remember, the album is Babelsberg it's out now.And you can listen to listen to more great community radio here from the heart of San Francisco at BFF.fm.[Sample of Oh Dear! by Gruff Rhys, from Babelsberg.][Phone ringing…]Gruff Rhys: Hello?Ben: Er hello, Gruff?Gruff: Hello!Ben: Hi! It's Ben Ward from BFF.fm here. Is now still a good time to talk?Gruff: Yes! Sorry, I completely forgot but it's great!Ben: Oh, good! [laughs]. I'm British, obviously, but I'm calling you from San Francisco. Because you're playing here on the 23rd, I think that's right.Gruff: Yeah, yeah. Ah, great!Ben: And you're in DC now?Gruff: Yeah, we're on the way to DC. We've just driven past Baltimore, and I'm sat in the van and we're headed down the road to Washington. And we were just discussing the Washington antique grid system.Ben: How long have you been on tour now? About a week over here?Gruff: Yeah, we've been in North America, but we did a couple of Canadian shows and we're just heading down the east coast, and then we're going to start to go west after tonight.It was particularly memorable at The Chapel. It was so much fun, people really got involved. I think there were quite a few people on stage by the end.Ben: Wonderful. I was looking at the dates and you've got the San Francisco show and then LA and then that's the end of the tour. Are you even thinking about that much at this point? Or do you just take every date as it comes?Gruff: No, it's very exciting to hit the west coast, and y'know the set will be… I can't wait to see how the set will have developed. We've been rehearsing some new material on the road and it's quite exciting and it's changing every night.Ben: Ah, that's great.Gruff: Yeah, we're looking forward to bringing it to The Chapel.Ben: Yeah, and you played The Chapel last time you played solo. The Super Furries were in town a couple of years ago. Actually, Super Furries played on my birthday two years ago, which I appreciate very much…Gruff: Oh wow! Amazing.Ben: That was a nice present for me. But you toured American Interior two years before that, also at The Chapel. Do you have particular memories of the venue?Gruff: Yeah, it was my favourite show of that tour. I started introducing historical re-enactments into my shows and I think that was the high point of that endeavour. It was particularly memorable at The Chapel. It was so much fun, people really got involved. I think there were quite a few people on stage by the end.Ben: Yes, there were the two people performing with …the puppet, I remember.Gruff: Yeah. They were taking the role of various historical characters from the 1790s.Ben: [laughs] Is there anything… because I guess you're only going to be in town for a day is there anything you're looking forward to seeing in San Francisco when you make it here?Gruff: Yeah, I usually, in the Mission, err, I'll be trying out probably lots of good galleries and stuff. [inaudible] is up there. And erm, I'll go see if they've got something on. And err, yeah, there's lots of interesting things in that area. I've never been to the LSD Museum, I might do that.Ben: I wanted to chat to you a little about the new record, which obviously is why you're here. I've listened to it a lot, I really love it. One of the things that really struck me is that you've got a very recognisable voice and songwriting style. Something I really admire is that each of your solo records over the years has a pretty unique vibe. They really seem to stand out from one-another. This one's been really widely praised for the string arrangements and evocative sounds of the 60s like Serge Gainsbourg, Scott Walker and Lee Hazlewood, all wrapped up in that production. Do you approach each project with an intention to find something that's so new and different?I'm worried about writing the same song over and over again. I want every album to have a distinct character. I try to find a way of keeping it new, for myself at least.Gruff: Um, yeah inevitably. It's something I, I want every album to have a distinct character. I suppose my ambition with this record is to try and make a whole album out of the same structured palette and try to stick to that, and try not to go off on too many tangents in a way. That's my downside in the studio; I get overexcited! By the end it was very disciplined… I mean… I suppose songwriting's quite a slow-moving medium. I'm worried about writing the same song over and over again. I try to find a way of keeping it new, for myself at least. It's not a particularly experimental record but I hope lyrically it engages a bit with the present day so there is some relevancy to exist today [laughs].Ben: Yeah. It has these darker, bleaker lyrical themes throughout it than have jumped out of your previous records. I was actually back home in the UK a few weeks ago and I caught a little of your interview on the BBC [BBC 6Music] with Mark Radcliffe.Gruff: Ah yeah…Ben: And he, um… You remarked there, talking a little bit about how he sort-of said it's a darker record. And you pointed out that actually with the arrangements — with the strings — it comes out sounding actually quite uplifting and optimistic.When you started, did you have any idea you wanted it to end up like that? Was it working with Stephen McNeff that revealed that to you? Did you have to be persuaded to go in that direction?Gruff: Yeah, I mean when I was recording it I didn't have… err… I just got a call from a producer called Ali Chant in Bristol, who I'd recorded with previously, he said “if I wanted to make any records, the studio's being knocked down in a few weeks”. So I'd played some of this material with Kliph and Steve who play on the record and the previous tour. Osian has played piano on my previous two albums now and I, we rehearsed a bunch of songs we'd been putting together and went into the studio for a few days and it was always my intention to add a certain amount of arrangement but, coincidentally I was working with a composer called Stephen McNeff. I was writing some lyrics for him for a different project and I sat in on one of the recording sessions which was incredible. So I immediately passed him on the files of the sounds I was working on.But anyway, because there was no studio pressure I just kinda pursued the record until it was finished rather than rush it. It took a couple of years.Ben: So it gave you space to explore that bigger sound?Gruff: Yeah. The songs are intimate, but they're pretty much live takes for the most part. I spent time on vocal, but not to an extreme. And then Stephen arranged the orchestral element and they played live to the previous recordings.Ben: Oh, interesting…Gruff: So, although there's a lot going on it was fairly simply recorded in a way and not particularly polished. There's still some damage there!Ben: That's really interesting because I was going to ask, erm, and this might not be much of a question now, but given that you're back on tour and you're not going to fit a 72 piece orchestra into The Chapel — although I would like to see that — whether there's been any change to the music or evolution of what you're doing scaling it back down to tour. Because you're touring with a band this time, right?Gruff: Yeah, it's the same band who played on the record. It's Kliph Scurlock on drums, Osian Gwynedd on piano, Steve Black on bass, and that's the core of the album and they've allowed this thing to remix. And I suppose the challenge with mixing the album was fitting a symphony orchestra into what are very intimate songs, intimately recorded songs. So we had to kinda tone down the scale of it. So, it sounds remarkably full. Osian's piano parts kind of fill the space to the point where we don't need any kinda “canned” orchestral stuff. And it's continuing to evolve. We're stretching out different bits.I've rarely been able to play my studio albums live immediately after recording them. But because of the live nature of the recording, [this one] really lends itself to playing live. There wasn't much studio trickery on this particular record, as opposed to my other records that have a lot of studio experiments.Ben: That makes sense. So do you feel that the live sound goes back to more resemble some of those original sessions or is this something altogether new?Gruff: No, they're very similar to the original sessions. I think we're going to try and release those early versions at some point in the future. They sound great and completely different.And now and again we're able to do some orchestral shows. We have the scores and whenever and orchestra is interested we can do an orchestral version.Ben: Right, because you played it in Manchester no long ago, right?Gruff: Yeah, we're done a version in Cardiff with the full symphonic orchestra and then we've played with some smaller orchestras in London and Manchester. We have the manuscripts now, so if anyone's got an orchestra, call us up! [laughs]Ben: [laughs] We'll put out the call.I wanted to ask you about a couple of other pieces of music you've put out fairly recently. One of the things that over your career and history with the Super Furries as well you've grown into writing songs with clearer and clearer social commentaries. I've been thinking a lot about Presidential Suite [from Super Furry Animals album “Rings Around The World”] recently, with Brett Kavanaugh and Ken Starr in the news. But in the last couple of years you've written I Love EU and recently you put out No Profit in Pain which strike me as being a step into writing songs with a really overt political message. Was there something that drew you into that specifically, or artists that inspired you to be more direct? Did that just happen?Gruff: Erm, with I Love EU, I just happened to write the song. I mean, it's a really bad play on words. But I felt there was a song there. Sometimes when you have a simple lyrical idea the song almost writes itself in a very short amount of time if you run with an idea. It's just one of those stupid songs that I was able to write in a few minutes and then… I kinda had no intention of writing it. Y'know, there's a lot of downsides to streaming services, obviously, but one of the more interesting aspects of it is that you're able to release music almost immediately. There was a referendum going on and very little engagement in the referendum from my peers, I think. Because it was a kind of referendum whose agenda was being set by conservative politicians and right wing politicians and understandably a lot of sane people didn't want to touch it! So I was also worried that there was very little engagement…I felt there was nobody making a cultural argument [for the EU].Ben: The thing I really appreciated about you recording that song… Because, I watched the referendum living over here in the US. I went and registered to vote, I voted in it, my constituency is back in Cambridge.Gruff: YeahBen: But, it was really brutal watching that happen from so far away and feeling even more disconnected from… y'know… trying to stand up for, y'know… standing up for the principal of being in Europe and for all of its… it has some flaws as an institution and so on and so on but…Gruff: Absolutely, yeahBen: …Actually being closer to our continental neighbours is actually a good thing. Watching the campaign, the thing which really upset me was you had all these voices who were anti-Europe and angry and active and then you had a whole load of voices that were just, sort of passive. And there were very few people standing up to actually say: “Europe is good.” It was this idea of “we should leave” or “we should just shrug our shoulders”. There were very few people saying let's actually be proactive about this.Gruff: Yeah. I felt there was nobody making a cultural argument and that the set tone by people leading the remain campaign was playing alone with the kind-of anti-European xenophobia to the point that the song seems almost confrontational to say something as daft as “I love EU!” [laughs] Pathetically confrontational. When I've sung it live I've been singing “I love EU …with caveats.”Ben: [laughs]Gruff: You know, everyone has different views on what the EU should be. It needs to be democratised. It could become a socialist EU, it depends on what scale your ambitions are. I've got a lot of time for the left-wing argument for leaving the EU but I don't think the tone or the terms of the referendum were set by the left. They were kind-of led by the hostile right-wing media, in a time of crisis in Europe. With a big crisis in movement of people from war-zones in the Middle East and northern Africa that were partly caused by European intervention in the first place.Ben: Yeah…Gruff: I kinda feel it's a really bad time to be leaving the EU.I don't think I'm a protest song writer in particular. I'm motivated by melody and rhythm and word-play.Ben: Yeah, I agree completely. With that song and with the NHS song, was it cathartic to put together those songs? Is it more motivated by trying to spread that message? Do you think of them as protest songs in that classical sense?Gruff: I mean, I don't think I'm a protest song writer in particular. I'm motivated by melody and rhythm and word-play. And occasionally politics affects my daily life and they'll creep into song.I was commissioned to write a song to celebrate the 75th [anniversary] of the NHS and, you know, it's had a profound impact on my life. It's a kind of commission request that would be impossible to turn down. Y'know, to not agree to help celebrate it would be… it wasn't an option for me. But having said that I only wanted to do it if a decent idea came of it. I played around with some ideas and something came quite naturally. So I was happy to do it and I thought the song was valid, in fact I think I would have written it anyway. It would have been slightly less explicit maybe but it felt justified… just some kind of justification of existing.Ben: Yeah…Gruff: But again I like these kind of flippant songs that I can release.Ben: In “No Profit in Pain”, I love the little set of lyrics that calls out Richard Branson and Virgin Health. Because there's something in… the lyrics jump with recognisable words so you're like “wait, what?”. But it's the fact you're referring to this nuanced and not very well known, not well publicised threat to the NHS with the shadow privatisation, and the fact that you managed to highlight that there in a lyrically playful way, I admire that a lot.Gruff: [laughs] Weirdly we've just passed an ambulance here in DC that's broken down. And it's been picked up by one of those — what do you call them pick-up trucks? — by a tow-truck. Kliph to my left is just commenting that I hope there's no-one in the ambulance. The sirens were still flashing…Ben: Oh…Gruff: I hope they're OK.Ben: Yeah. That's calamitous.I'm conscious that I don't want to take up too much more of your time but if I could just ask a couple more things just to sign off. Going back to Babelsberg, is there a particular favourite track on the album that you'd like us to play on the radio show on Tuesday night?Gruff: Yeah, I dunno… I haven't heard “Oh Dear!” on the radio. I'd be intrigued to hear what the third track “Oh Dear!” sounds like.Ben: All right. Would you be kind enough to introduce it?Gruff: OK. My name is Gruff, and I'm going to introduce you to this song from the LP “Babelsberg”. It's called “Oh Dear!”.Ben: That's great, thank you so much. It's been a real pleasure to talk to you.Gruff: Thank you.Ben: Thank you so much for taking the time.Gruff: No! Thank you.Ben: I wanted to… it means a lot to me. Super Furry Animals was the very first live show I ever went to in my life. I was sixteen. My Dad took me.Gruff: Oh wow. Wow.Ben: It would have been the Guerrilla tour at the Cambridge Corn Exchange. And, um, one it was a really good first show, but I feel like I owe a great deal of my love of music to you and your band.Gruff: Wow.Ben: So to get to talk to you is a real honour for me. So, thank you so much.Gruff: Ah, thank you very much. Ah, that's mind blowing. Thank you very much. And yeah, I love the Corn Exchange in Cambridge.Ben: Yeah. For a small city I saw so many good shows there growing up.Gruff: Yeah.Ben: It punched above its weight.Gruff: Yeah, I think we played there three or four times.Ben: Well, thank you again. I hope you have a great show in D.C.Gruff: Thank you.Ben: I will try to come and say hi when you're here in SF; try and catch you at the merch table.Gruff: Ah, thanks so much. I'll check out the show if it's on the internet. Amazing.Ben: Well, great to talk to you. Have a great day. Have a great show.Gruff: And you, ta. Thanks so much. OK, take care.Ben: Thank you, bye now.Gruff: Bye!Ben: That was Gruff Rhys in conversation with me, Ben Ward from BFF.fm's Eclectic Kettle. His record “Babelsberg” is out now, his show at The Chapel here in San Francisco is on October 23rd. You can check out BFF.fm to win one of two pairs of tickets that we're giving away for that show.Thank you again to Leslie Hampton at The Owl Magazine for helping set this up. And you can tune in to more episodes of Eclectic Kettle by swinging by BFF.fm/shows/eclectic-kettle to listen to the archives, or we're broadcasting live at 8pm every Tuesday night.Tune into BFF.fm, streaming online any time for great, local community music radio here from the heart of San Francisco. Thank you very much for listening, have a great day. Enjoying the show? Please support BFF.FM with a donation. Check out the full archives on the website.

Tracy Lee: @ladyleet | ladyleet.com Ben Lesh: @benlesh | medium.com/@benlesh Show Notes: 00:50 - What is This Dot? 03:26 - The RxJS 5.5.4 Release and Characterizing RxJS 05:14 - Observable 07:06 - Operators 09:52 - Learning RxJS 11:10 - Making RxJS Functional Programming Friendly 12:52 - Lettable Operators 15:14 - Pipeline Operators 21:33 - The Concept of Mappable 23:58 - Struggles While Learning RxJS 33:09 - Documentation 36:52 - Surprising Uses of Observables 40:27 - Weird Uses of RxJS 45:25 - Announcements: WHATWG to Include Observables and RxJS 6 Resources: this.media RxJS RX Workshop Ben Lesh: Hot vs Cold Observables learnrxjs.io RxMarbles Jewelbots Transcript: CHARLES: Hello everybody and welcome to The Frontside Podcast, Episode 91. My name is Charles Lowell, a developer here at The Frontside and your podcast host-in-training. Joining me today on the podcast is Elrick Ryan. Hello, Elrick. ELRICK: Hey, what's up? CHARLES: Not much. How are you doing? ELRICK: I'm great. Very excited to have these two folks on the podcast today. I feel like I know them… CHARLES: [Laughs] ELRICK: Very well, from Twitter. CHARLES: I feel like I know them well from Twitter, too. ELRICK: [Laughs] CHARLES: But I also feel like this is a fantastic company that is doing a lot of great stuff. ELRICK: Yup. CHARLES: Also not in Twitter. It should be pointed out. We have with us Tracy Lee and Ben Lesh from This Dot company. TRACY: Hey. CHARLES: So first of all, why don't we start, for those who don't know, what exactly is This Dot? What is it that you all do and what are you hoping to accomplish? TRACY: This Dot was created about a year ago. And it was founded by myself and Taras who work on it full-time. And we have amazing people like Ben, who's also one of our co-founders, and really amazing mentors. A lot of our friends, when they refer to what we actually do, they like to call it celebrity consulting. [Laughter] TRACY: Which I think is hilarious. But it's basically core contributors of different frameworks and libraries who work with us and lend their time to mentor and consult with different companies. So, I think the beautiful part about what we're trying to do is bring together the web. And we sort of do that as well not only through consulting and trying to help people succeed, but also through This Dot Media where it's basically a big playground of JavaScripting all the things. Ben and I do Modern Web podcast together. We do RX Workshop which is RxJS training together. And Ben also has a full-time job at Google. CHARLES: What do they got you doing over there at Google? BEN: Well, I work on a project called Alkali which is an internal platform as a service built on top of Angular. That's my day job. CHARLES: So, you've been actually involved in all the major front-end frameworks, right, at some point? BEN: Yeah, yes. I got my start with Angular 1 or AngularJS now, when I was working as a web developer in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania at a company called Aesynt which was formerly McKesson Automation. And then I was noticed by Netflix who was starting to do some Angular 1 work and they hired me to come help them. And then they decided to do Ember which is fine. And I worked on a large Ember app there. Then I worked on a couple of large React apps at Netflix. And now I'm at Google building Angular apps. CHARLES: Alright. BEN: Which is Angular 5 now, I believe. CHARLES: So, you've come the full circle. BEN: Yeah. Yeah, definitely. CHARLES: [Chuckles] I have to imagine Angular's changed a lot since you were working on it the first time. BEN: Yeah. It was completely rewritten. TRACY: I feel like Angular's the new Ember. CHARLES: Angular is the new Ember? TRACY: [Laughs] BEN: You think? TRACY: Angular is the new Ember and Vue is the new AngularJS, is basically. [Laughs] CHARLES: Okay. [Laughter] CHARLES: What's the new React then? BEN: Preact would be the React. CHARLES: Preact? Okay, or is Glimmer… BEN: [Laughs] I'm just… CHARLES: Is Glimmer the new React? BEN: Oh, sure. [Laughs] CHARLES: It's important to keep these things straight in your head. BEN: Yeah, yeah. CHARLES: Saves on confusion. TRACY: Which came first? [Chuckles] BEN: Too late. I'm already confused. CHARLES: So now, before the show you were saying that you had just, literally just released RxJS, was it 5.5.4? BEN: That's right. That's right. The patch release, yeah. CHARLES: Okay. Am I also correct in understanding that RxJS has kind of come to very front and center position in Angular? Like they've built large portions of framework around it? BEN: Yeah, it's the only dependency for Angular. It is being used in a lot of official space for Angular. For example, Angular Material's Data Table uses observables which are coming from RxJS. They've got reactive forms. The router makes use of Observable. So, the integration started kind of small which HTTPClient being written around Observable. And it's grown from there as people seem to be grabbing on and enjoying more the React programming side of things. So, it's definitely the one framework that's really embraced reactive programming outside of say, Cycle.js or something like that. CHARLES: Mmhmm. So, just to give a general background, how would you characterize RxJS? BEN: It's a library built around Observable. And Observable is a push-based primitive that gives you sets of events, really. CHARLES: Mmhmm. BEN: So, that's like Lodash for events would be a good way to put it. You can take anything that you can get pushed at you, which is pretty much value type you can imagine, and wrap it in an observable and have it pushed out of the observable. And from there, you have a set of things that you can combine. And you can concatenate them, you can filter them, you can transform them, you can combine them with other sets, and so on. So, you've got this ability to query and manipulate in a declarative way, events. CHARLES: Now, Observable is also… So, when Jay was on the podcast we were talking about Redux observable. But there was outside of the context of RxJS, it was just observables were this standalone entity. But I understand that they actually came from the RxJS project. That was the progenitor of observables even though there's talk of maybe making them part of the JavaScript spec. BEN: Yeah, that's right. That's right. So, RxJS as it stands is a reference implementation for what could land in JavaScript or what could even land in the DOM as far as an observable type. Observable itself is very primitive but RxJS has a lot of operators and optimizations and things written around Observable. That's the entire purpose of the library. CHARLES: Mmhmm. So, what kind of value-adds does it provide on top of Observable? If Observable was the primitive, what are the combinators, so to speak? BEN: Oh, right. So, similar to what Lodash would add on top of say, an iterable or arrays, you would have the same sorts of things and more inside of RxJS. So, you've got zip which you would maybe have seen in Lodash or different means of combines. Of course, map and ‘merge map' which is like a flattening sort of operation. You can concatenate them together. But you also have these time-based things. You can do debouncing or throttling of events as they're coming over in observable and you create a new observable of that. So, the value-add is the ability to compose these primitive actions. You can take on an observable and make a new observable. We call it operators. And you can use those operators to build pretty much anything you can imagine as far as an app would go. CHARLES: So, do you find that most of the time all of the operators are contained right there inside RxJS? Or if you're going to be doing reactive programming, one of your tasks is going to be defining your own operators? BEN: No, pretty much everything you'd need will be defined within RxJS. There's 60 operators or so. CHARLES: Whoa, that's a lot. BEN: It's unlikely that someone's going to come up with one. And in fact, I would say the majority of those, probably 75% of those, you can create from the other 25%. So, some of the much more primitive operators could be used… TRACY: Which is sort of what Ben did in this last release, RxJS 5…. I don't know remember when you introduced the lettable operators but you… BEN: Yeah, 5.5. TRACY: Implemented [inaudible] operators. BEN: Yeah, so a good portion of them I started implementing in terms of other operators. CHARLES: Right. So, what was that? I didn't quite catch that, Tracy. You said that, what was the operator that was introduced? TRACY: So, in one of the latest releases of RxJS, one of the more significant releases where pipeable operators were introduced, what Ben did was he went ahead and implemented a lot of operators that were currently in the library in terms of other operators, which was able to give way to reduce the size of the library from, I think it was what, 30KB bundled, gzipped, and minified, to about 30KB, which was about 60 to 70% of the operators. Right, Ben? BEN: Yeah. So, the size reduction was in part that there's a lot of factors that went into the size reduction. It would be kind of hard to pin it down to a specific operator. But I know that some of the operators like the individual operators themselves, by reimplementing reduce which is the same as doing as scan and then take last, implementing it in terms of that is going to reduce the size of it probably 90% of that one particular file. So, there's a variety of things like that that have already started and that we're going to continue to do. We didn't do it with every operator that we could have. Some operators are very, very common and consequently we want them to be as optimized as possible. For example, map. You can implement map in terms of ‘merge map' but it would be very slow to do so. It might be smaller but it would be slower. We don't want that. So, there are certain areas we're always going to try to keep fairly a hot path to optimize them as much as possible. But in other spots like reduce which is less common and isn't usually considered to be a performance bottleneck, we can cut some corners. Or ‘to array' or other things like that. CHARLES: Mmhmm. TRACY: And I think another really interesting thing is a lot of people when learning RxJS, they… it's funny because we just gave an RX Workshop course this past weekend and the people that were there just were like, “Oh, we've heard of RxJS. We think it's a cool new thing. We have no plans to implement it in real life but let's just play around with it and let me learn it.” I think as people are starting to learn RxJS, one of the things that gets them really overwhelmed is this whole idea that they're having to learn a completely new language on top of JavaScript or what operators to use. And one of our friends, Brian Troncone who is on the Learning Team, the RxJS Learning Team, he pulled up the top 15 operators that were most commonly searched on his site. And some of them were ‘switch map', ‘merge map', ‘fork join', merge, et cetera. So, you can sort of tell that even though the library has quite a few… it's funny because Ben, I think the last RX Workshop you were using pairs and you had never used it before. BEN: Yeah. TRACY: So, it's always amusing for me how many people can be on the core team but have never implemented RxJS… CHARLES: [Laughs] TRACY: A certain way. BEN: Right. Right, right, right. CHARLES: You had said one of the recent releases was about making it more friendly for functional programming. Is that a subject that we can explore? Because using observables is already pretty FP-like. BEN: What it was before is we had dot chaining. So, you would do ‘dot map' and then call a method and then you get an observable back. And then you'd say ‘dot merge' and then you'd call a method on that, and so on and so forth. Now what you have is kind of a Ramda JS style pipe function that just takes a comma-separated list of other functions that are going to act upon the observable. So, it reads pretty much the same with a little more ceremony around it I guess. But the upside is that you can develop your operators as just higher-order functions. CHARLES: Right. And you don't have to do any monkey-patching of prototypes. BEN: Exactly, exactly. CHARLES: Because actually, okay, I see. This is actually pretty exciting, I think. Because we actually ran into this problem when we were using Redux Observable where we wanted to use some operators that were used by some library but we had to basically make a pull request upstream, or fork the upstream library to include the operators so that we could use them in our application. It was really weird. BEN: Yeah. CHARLES: The reason was because it was extending the observable prototype. BEN: Yeah. And there's so many… and that's one way to add that, is you extend the observable prototype and then you override lift so you return the same type of observable everywhere. And there are so many things that lettable operators solved for us. For example… CHARLES: So, lettable operators. So, that's the word that Tracy used and you just used it. What are lettable operators? BEN: Well, I've been trying to say pipeable and get that going instead of lettable. But basically there's an operator on RxJS that's been there forever called let. And let is an operator and what you do is you give it a function. And the function gives you the source observable and you're expected to return a new observable. And the idea is that you can then write a function elsewhere that you can then compose in as though it were an operator, anywhere you want, along with your other dot-chained operators. And the realization I had a few months ago was, “Well, why don't we just make all operators like this?” And then we can use functional programming to compose them with like a reduce or whatever. And that's exactly what the lettable operators are. And that's why I started calling them lettable operators. And I kind of regret it now, because so many people are saying it and it confuses new people. Because what in the world does lettable even mean? CHARLES: Right. [Laughs] BEN: So, they are pipeable operators or functional operators. But the point is that you have a higher-order function that returns a function of a specific shape. And that function shape is, it's a function that receives an observable and returns an observable, and that's it. So, basically it's a function that transforms an observable into a new observable. That's all an operator. That's all an operator's ever been. It's just this is in a different flavor. CHARLES: Now, I'm curious. Why does it do an observable into an observable and not a stream item into an observable? Because when you're actually chaining these things together, like with a map or with a ‘flat map' or all these things, you're actually getting an individual item and then returning an observable. Well, I guess in this case of a map you're getting an item and returning an item. But like… BEN: Right, but that's not what the entire operation is. So, you've got an operation you're performing whenever you say, if you're to just even dot-chain it, you'd say ‘observable dot map'. And when you say ‘dot map', it returns a new observable. And then you say ‘dot filter' and it returns another new observable. CHARLES: Oh, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha. Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. BEN: So, this function just embodies that step. CHARLES: I see, I see. And isn't there some special… I feel like there's some proposal for some special JavaScript syntax to make this type of chaining? BEN: Yeah, yeah, the pipeline operator. CHARLES: Okay. BEN: I don't know. I think that's still at stage one. I don't know that it's got a lot of headway. My sources and friends that are in the TC39 seem to think that it doesn't have a lot of headway. But I really think it's important. Because if you look at… the problem is we're using a language where the most common use case is you have to build it, get the size as small as possible because you need to send it over the wire to the browser. And understandably, browsers don't want to implement every possible method they could on say, Array, right? CHARLES: Mmhmm, right. BEN: There's a proposal in for ‘flat map'. They could add zip to Array. They could add all sorts of interesting things to Array just by itself. And that's why Lodash exists, right? CHARLES: Right. BEN: Is because not everything is on Array. And then so, the onus is then put on the community to come up with these solutions and the community has to build libraries that have these constraints in size. And what stinks about that is then you have say, an older version of Lodash where you'd be like, “Okay, well it has 36 different functions in it and I'm only using 3 of them. And I have to ship them all to the browser.” CHARLES: Mmhmm. BEN: And that's not what you want. So, then we have these other solutions around tree-shaking and this and that. And the real thing is what you want is you want to be able to compose things left to right and you want to be able to have these functions that you can use on a particular type in an ad hoc way. And there's been two proposals to try to address this. One was the ‘function bind' operator, CHARLES: Mmhmm. BEN: Which is colon colon. And what that did is it said, “You can use this function as a method, as though it were a method on an object. And we'll make sure that the ‘this' inside that function comes from the instance that's on the left-hand side of colon colon.” CHARLES: Right. BEN: That had a bunch of other problems. Like there's some real debate I guess on how they would tie that down to a specific type. So, that kind of fell dead in the water even though it had made some traction. And then the pipeline operator is different. And then what it says is, “Okay, whatever is on the…” And what it looks like is a pipe and a greater than right next to each other. And whatever's on the left-hand side of that operand gets passed as the first argument to the function on the right-hand side of that operand. CHARLES: Mmhmm. BEN: And so, what that means is for the pipeable operators, instead of having to use a pipe method on observable, you can just say, “instance of observable, pipeline operator and an operator, and then pipeline operator, and then the Rx operator, and then pipeline operator and the Rx operator, and so on.” And it would just be built-in. And the reason I think that JavaScript really needs it is that means that libraries like Lodash can be written in terms of simple functions and shipped piece-meal to the browser exactly as you need them. And people would just use the pipeline operator to use them, instead of having to wrap something in a big object so you can dot-chain things together or come up with your own functional pipe thing like RxJS had to. CHARLES: Right. Because it seems it happens again and again, right? Lodash, RxJS, jQuery. You just see this pattern of chaining, which is, you know… BEN: Yeah, yeah. People want chaining. People want left to right composition. CHARLES: Mmhmm. BEN: And it's problematic in a world where you want to shake off as much unused garbage as possible. And the only way to get dot chaining is by augmenting a prototype. There's all sorts of weird problems that can come with that. And so, the functional programming approach is one method. But then people look at it and they say, “Ooh, yuck. I've got to wrap things in a function named pipe. Wouldn't it be nicer if there was just some syntax to do this?” And yeah, it would be nicer. But I have less control over that. CHARLES: Right. But the other alternative is to have right to left function composition. BEN: Right, yeah. CHARLES: But there's not any special syntax for that, either. BEN: Not very readable. CHARLES: Yeah. BEN: So, you just wrap everything. And the innermost call is the first one and then you wrap it in another function and you wrap that in another function, and so on. Yeah, that's not [inaudible]. But I will say that the pipe function itself is pretty simple. It's basically a function that takes a rest of arguments that are all functions. CHARLES: Mmhmm. BEN: And so, you have this array of functions and you just reduce over it and call them. Well, you return a function. So, it's a higher function. You return a function that takes an argument then you reduce over the functions that came in as arguments and you call each one of them with whatever result was from the previous. CHARLES: Right. Like Tracy mentioned in the pre-show, I'm an aspiring student of functional programming. So, would this be kind of like a monoid here where you're mashing all these functions together? Is your empty value? I'm just going to throw it out there. I don't know if it's true or not, but that's my conjecture. BEN: Yes. Technically, it's a monoid because it wouldn't work unless it was a monoid. Because monoids, I believe the category theory I think for monoid is that monoids can be concatenated because they definitely have an end. CHARLES: Right. BEN: So, you would not be able to reduce over all those functions and build something with that, like that, unless it was a monoid. So yeah, the fact that there's reduction involved is a cue that it's a monoid. CHARLES: Woohoo! Alright. [Laughter] CHARLES: Have you found yourself wanting to apply some of these more “rigorous” formalisms that you find out there in the development of RxJS or is that just really a secondary concern? BEN: It's a secondary concern. It's not something that I like. It's something I think about from time to time, when really, debating any kind of heavy issue, sometimes it's helpful. But when it comes to teaching anybody anything, honestly the Haskell-isms and category theory names, all they do is just confuse people. And if you tell somebody something is a functor, they're like, “What?” And if you just say it's mappable, they're like, “Oh, okay. I can map that.” CHARLES: [Laughs] Right, right. BEN: And then the purists would be like, “But they're not the same thing.” And I would be like, “But the world doesn't care. I'm sorry.” CHARLES: Yeah, yeah. I'm kind of experiencing this debate myself. I'm not quite sure which side I fall on, because on the one hand it is arbitrary. Functor is a weird name. But I wish the concept of mappable existed. It does, but I feel like it would be handy if people… because there's literally five things that are super handy, right? Like mappable, if we could have a name for monoid. But it's like, really, you just need to think in terms of these five constructs for 99% of the stuff that you do. And so, I always wonder, where does that line lie? And how… mappable, is that really more accessible than functor? Or is that only because I was exposed to the concept of mapping for 10 years before I ever heard the F word. BEN: Yes, and yes. I mean, that's… CHARLES: [Laughs] BEN: Things that are more accessible are usually more accessible because of some pre-given knowledge, right? What works in JavaScript probably isn't going to work in Haskell or Scala or something, right? CHARLES: Mmhmm. BEN: If someone's a Java developer, certain idioms might not make sense to them that come from the JavaScript world. CHARLES: Right. But if I was learning like a student, I would think mappable, I'd be thinking like, I would literally be thinking like Google Maps or something like that. I don't know. BEN: Right, right. I mean, look at C#. C#, a mapping function is always going to be called select, right, because that's C#. That's their idiom for the same thing. CHARLES: Select? BEN: Yeah. CHARLES: Really? BEN: Yeah, select. So, they'll… CHARLES: Which in Ruby is like find. BEN: Yeah. there's select and then, what's the other one, ‘select many' or something like that. [Chuckles] BEN: So, that's C#. CHARLES: Oh, like it's select from SQL. Okay. BEN: Yeah, I think that's kind of where it came from because people had link and then they had link to SQL and then they're like, well I want to do this with regular code, with just using some more… less nuanced expressions. So, I want to be able to do method calls and chain those together. And so, you end up with select functions. And I think that that exists even in Rx.NET, although I haven't used Rx.NET. CHARLES: Hmm, okay. ELRICK: So, I know you do a lot of training with Rx. What are some of the concepts that people struggle with initially? TRACY: I think when we're teaching RX Workshop, a lot of the people sort of… I'll even see senior level people struggle with explaining it, is the difference between observables and observers and then wrapping their head around the idea that, “Hey, observables are just functions in JavaScript.” So, they're always thinking observables are going to do something for you. Actually, it's not just in Angular but also in React, but whenever someone's having issues with their Rx applications, it's usually something that they're like nesting observables or they're not subscribing to something or they've sort of hot-messed themselves into a tangle. And I'm sure you've debugged a bunch of this stuff before. The first thing I always ask people is, “Have you subscribed?” Or maybe they're using an Angular… they're using pipes async but they're also calling ‘dot subscribe' on their observable. BEN: Yeah. So, like in Angular they'll do both. Yeah. There's that. I think that, yeah, that relates to the problem of people not understanding that observables are really just functions. I keep saying that over and over again and people really don't seem to take it to heart for whatever reason. [Chuckles] BEN: But you get an observable and when you're chaining all those operators together, you're making another observable or whatever, observables don't do anything until you subscribe to them. They do nothing. CHARLES: Shouldn't they be called like subscribable? BEN: Yes. [Chuckles] BEN: They probably should. But we do hand them an observer. So, you are observing something. But the point being is that they don't do anything at all until you subscribe to them. And in that regard, they're like functions, where functions don't do anything unless you call them. So, what ends up happening with an observable is you subscribe to it. You give it an observer, three callbacks which are then coerced into an observer. And it takes that observer and it hands it to the body of this observable definition and literally has an observer inside of there. And then you basically execute that function synchronously and do things, whatever those things are, to set up some sort of observation. Maybe you spin up a WebSocket and tie into some events on it and call next on the observer to get values out of your observable. The point being that if you subscribe to an observable twice, it's the same thing as calling a function twice. And for some reason, people have a hard time with that. They think, if I subscribe to the observable twice, I've only called the function once. CHARLES: I experienced this confusion. And I remember the first time that that… like, I was playing with observables and the first time I actually discovered that, that it was actually calling my… now what do you call the function that you pass to the constructor that actually does, that calls next or that gets passed the observer? TRACY: [Inaudible] BEN: I like to call it an initialization function or something. But the official name from the TC39 proposal is subscriber function. CHARLES: Subscriber function. So, like… BEN: Yeah. CHARLES: I definitely remember it was one of those [makes explosion sound] mind-blowing moments when I realized when I call my subscribe method, the entire observable got run from the very beginning. But my intuition was that this is an object. It's got some shared state, like it's this quasar that I'm now observing and I'm seeing the flashes of light coming off of it. But it's still the same object. You think of it as having yeah, not as a function. Okay. No one ever described it to me as just a function. But I think I can see it now. ELRICK: Yeah, me neither. CHARLES: But yeah, you think of it in the same way that most people think of objects, as like, “I have this object. I have a reference to it.” Let observable equal new observable. It's a single thing. It's a single identity. And so, that's the thing that I'm observing. It's not that I'm invoking this observable to observe things. And I think that's, yeah, that's a subtle nuance there. I wish I had taken y'all's course, I guess is what I'm saying. ELRICK: Yeah. BEN: Yeah. Well, I've done a few talks on it. CHARLES: [Laughs] BEN: I always try to tell people, “It's just a function. It's just a function.” I think what happens to a lot of people too is there's the fact that it's an object. But I think what it is, is people's familiarity with promises does this. Because promises are always multicast. They are always “hot”. And the reason for this is because they're eager. So, by the time you have a promise, whatever is producing value to the promise has already started. And that means that they're inherently a multicast. CHARLES: Right. BEN: So, people are used to that behavior of, I can ‘then' off of this promise and it always means one thing. And it's like, yeah, because the one thing has nothing to do with the promise. It wasn't [Chuckles] CHARLES: Right. BEN: This promise is just an interface for you to view something that happened in the past, where an observable is more low-level than that and more simple than that. It just states, “I'm a function that you call. I'm going to be able to do anything a function can do. And by the way, you're giving me an observer and I'm going to do some stuff with that too and notify you via this observer that you handed me.” Because of that you could take an observable and close over something that had already started. Say you had a WebSocket that was already running. You could create a new observable and just like any function, close over that, externally create a WebSocket. And then everyone that subscribes to that observable is tying an observer to that same WebSocket. Then you're multicast. Then you're “hot”. ELRICK: [Inaudible] CHARLES: Right. So, I was going to say that's the distinction that Jay was talking about. He was talking about we're going to just talk about… he said at the very beginning, “We're just going to talk about hot observable.” ELRICK: Yup. CHARLES: But even a hot observable is still theoretically evaluating every single time you subscribe. You're getting a new observable. You're evaluating that observable afresh each time. It just so happens that in the lexical scope of that observable subscriber function, there is this WebSocket? BEN: Yeah. So, it's the same thing. Imagine you wrote a function that when you called it created a new WebSocket and then… say, you wrote a new function that you gave an observer object to, right? An observer object has next, error, and complete. And in that function, when you called it, it created a new WebSocket and then it tied the ‘on message' and ‘on close' and whatever to your observer's next method and your observer's error message and so on. When you call that function, you would expect a new WebSocket to be created every single time. Now, let's just say alternately you create a WebSocket and then you write a new function that that function closes over that WebSocket. So, you reference the WebSocket that you externally created inside of your function. When you call that function, it's not going to create a new WebSocket every time. It's just closing over it, right? So, even though they both are basically doing the same thing, now the latter one of those two things is basically a hot observable and the former is a cold observable. Because one is multicast which is, “I'm sharing this one WebSocket with everybody,” and the other one is unicast which is, “I am going to create a new WebSocket for each person that calls me.” And that's the [inaudible] people have a hard time with. CHARLES: Right. But really, it's just a matter of scope. BEN: Yeah. The thing people have a hard time with, with observables, is not realizing that they're actually just functions. CHARLES: Yeah. I just think that maybe… see, when I hear things like multicast and unicast, that makes me think of shared state, whereas when you say it's just a matter of scope, well then I'm thinking more in terms of it being just a function. It just happens that this WebSocket was already [scoped]. BEN: Well, shared state is a matter of scope, right? CHARLES: Yes, it is. It is. Oh, sorry. Shared state associated with some object identity, right? BEN: Right. CHARLES: But again, again, it's just preconceptions, really. It's just me thinking that I've had to manage lists of listeners and have multicast observers and single-cast observers and having to manage those lists and call notify on all of them. And that's really not what's happening at all. BEN: Yeah. Well, I guess the real point is observables can have shared state or they could not have shared state. I think the most common version and the most composable version of them, they do not have any shared state. It's just one of those things where just like a function can have shared state or it could be pure, right? There's nothing wrong with either one of those two uses of a function. And there's nothing wrong with either one of those two uses of Observable. So, honest to god, that is the biggest stumbling block I think that I see people have. That and if I had to characterize it I would say fear and loathing over the number of operators. People are like… CHARLES: [Chuckles] BEN: And they really think because everyone's used to dealing with these frameworks where there's an idiomatic way to do everything, they think there's going to be an RxJS idiomatic way to do things. And that's just patently false. That's like saying there's an idiomatic way to use functions. There's not. Use it however it works. The end. It's not… CHARLES: Mmhmm, mmhmm. BEN: You don't have to use every operator in a specific way. You can use it however works for you and it's fine. ELRICK: I see that you guys are doing some fantastic work with your documentation. Was that part of RxJS 2.0 docs? TRACY: I was trying to inspire people to take on the docs initiative because I think when I was starting to learn RxJS I would get really frustrated with the docs. BEN: Yeah. TRACY: I think the docs are greatly documented but at the same time if you're not a senior developer who understands Rx already, then it's not really helpful. Because it provides more of a reference point that the guys can go back and look at, or girls. So anyways, after many attempts of trying to get somebody to lead the project I just decided to lead the project myself. [Laughter] TRACY: And try to get… the community is interesting because I think because the docs can be sometimes confusing… Brian Troncone created LearnRxJS.io. There's these other visualization projects like RxMarbles, RxViz, et cetera. And we just needed to stick everybody together. So, it's been a project that I think has been going on for the past two months or so. We have… it's just an Angular app so it's probably one of the most easiest projects to contribute to. I remember the first time I tried to contribute to the Ember docs. It literally took me an hour to sit there with a learning team, Ember Learning Team member and… actually, maybe it was two hours, just to figure out how the heck… like all the things I had to download to get my environment set up so that I could actually even contribute to the darn documentation. But with the Rx, the current RxJS docs right now is just an Angular app. You can pull it down. It's really easy. We even have people who are just working on accessibility, which is super cool, right? So, it's a very friendly place for beginners. BEN: I'm super pleased with all the people that have been working on that. Brian and everybody, especially on the accessibility front. Jen Luker [inaudible] came in and voluntarily… she's like the stopgap for all accessibility to make sure everything is accessible before we release. So, that's pretty exciting. TRACY: Yeah. ELRICK: Mmhmm. TRACY: So funny because when me and Jen started talking, she was talking about something and then I was like, “Oh my god, I'm so excited about the docs.” She's like, “I'm so excited, too! But I don't really know why I'm excited. But you're excited, so I'm excited. Why are you excited?” [Laughter] TRACY: I was like, “I don't know. But I'm excited, too!” [Chuckles] TRACY: And then all of a sudden we have accessibility. [Laughs] ELRICK: Mmhmm. Yeah, I saw some amazing screenshots. Has the new docs, have they been pushed up to the URL yet? TRACY: Nah, they are about to. We were… we want to do one more accessibility run-through before we publish it. And then we're going to document. We want to document the top 15 most viewed operators. But we should probably see that in the next two weeks or so, that the new docs will be… I mean, it'll say “Beta, beta, beta” all over everything. But actually also, some of our friends, [Dmitri] from [Valas] Software, he is working on the translation portion to make it really easy for people to translate the docs. CHARLES: Ah. TRACY: So, a lot of that came from the inspiration from the Vue.js docs. we're taking the versioning examples that Ember has done with their docs as inspiration to make sure that our versioning is really great. So, it's great that we can lend upon all the other amazing ideas in the industry. ELRICK: Oh, yeah. CHARLES: Yeah, it's fantastic. I can't wait to see them. ELRICK: Yeah, me neither. The screenshots look amazing. I was like, “Wow. These are some fabulous documentation that's going to be coming out.” I can't wait. TRACY: Yeah. Thank you. CHARLES: Setting the bar. ELRICK: Really high. [Laughter] CHARLES: Actually, I'm curious. Because observables are so low-level, is there some use of them that… what's the use of them that you found most surprising? Or, “Whoa, this was a crazy hack.” BEN: The weirdest use of observables, there's been quite a few odd ones. One of the ones that I did one time that is maybe in RxJS's wheelhouse, it was just that RxJS already existed. So, I didn't want to pull in another transducer library, was using RxJS as a transducer. Basically… in Netflix we had a situation where we had these huge, huge arrays of very large objects. And if you try to take something like that and then map it and then filter it and then map it and then filter it, we're using Array map and filter, what ends up happening is you create all sorts of intermediary arrays in-memory. And then garbage collection has to come through and clean that up. And that locks your thread. And over time, we were experiencing slowness with this app. And it would just build up until eventually it ground to a halt. And I used RxJS because it was an available tool there to wrap these arrays in an observable and then perform operations on them step-by-step, the same map, filter, and so on. But when you do that, it doesn't create intermediary arrays because it passes each value along step to step instead of producing an entire array and then doing another step and producing an entire array, and so on. So… CHARLES: So, will you just… BEN: It saved garbage collection and it increased the performance of the app. But that's just in an extreme case. I would never do that with just regular arrays. If anything, it was because it was huge, huge arrays of very large objects. CHARLES: So, you would create an observable our of the array and then just feed each element into the observable one at a time? BEN: Well, no. If you say ‘observable from' and you give it an array, that's basically what it does. CHARLES: Okay. BEN: It loops over the array and nexts those values out of the array synchronously. CHARLES: I see, I see. BEN: So, it's like having a for loop and then inside of that for loop saying, “Apply the map. Apply the filter,” whatever, to each value as they're going through. But when you look at it, if you had array map, filter, reduce, it's literally just taking the first step and saying ‘observable from' and wrapping that array and then the rest of it's still the same. CHARLES: Right. Yeah. No, that's really cool. BEN: That was a weirder use of it. I've heard tell of other things where people used observables to do audio synchronization, which is pretty interesting. Because you have to be very precise with audio synchronization. So, hooking into some of the Web Audio APIs and that sort of thing. That's pretty interesting. The WebSocket multiplexing is something I did at Netflix that's a little bit avant-garde for observable use because you essentially have an observable that is your WebSocket. And then you create another observable that closes over that observable and sends messages over the WebSocket for what you're subscribed to and not subscribed to. And it enables you to very easily retry connections and these sorts of things. I did a whole talk on that. That one's pretty weird. CHARLES: Yeah. Man, I [inaudible] to see that. BEN: But in the general use case, you click a button, you make an AJAX request, and then you get that back and maybe you make another AJAX request. Or like drag and drop and these sorts of things where you're coordinating multiple events together, is the general use case. The non-weird use case for RxJS. Tracy does weird stuff with RxJS though. [Laughter] CHARLES: Yeah, what's some weird uses of RxJS? TRACY: I think my favorite thing to do right now is to figure out how many different IoT-related things I can make work with RxJS. So, how many random things can I connect to an application using that? BEN: Tracy's projects are the best. They're so good. [Laughter] TRACY: Well, Ben and I created an application where you can take pictures of things using the Google Image API and it'll spit back a set of puns for you. So, you take a picture of a banana, it'll give you banana puns. Or you can talk to it using the speech recognition API. My latest thing is I really want to figure out how to… I haven't figured out if Bluetooth Low Energy is actually enabled on Google Home Minis. But I want to get my Google Home Mini to say ‘booty'. [Inaudible] [Laughter] CHARLES: RxJS to the rescue. [Laughter] BEN: Oh, there was, you remember Ng-Cruise. We did Ng-Cruise and on there, Alex Castillo brought… TRACY: Oh, that was so cool. BEN: All sorts of interesting… you could read your brain waves. Or there was another one that was, what is it, the Microsoft, that band put around your wrist that would sense what direction your arm was in and whether or not your hand was flexed. And people… TRACY: Yeah, so you could flip through things. BEN: Yeah. And people were using reactive programming with that to do things like grab a ball on the screen. Or you could concentrate on an image and see if it went blurry or not. ELRICK: Well, for like, Minority Report. BEN: Oh, yeah, yeah. Literally, watching a machine read your mind with observables. That was pretty cool. That's got to be the weirdest. TRACY: Yeah, or we had somebody play the piano while they were wearing one of the brainwave… it's called the OpenBCI project is what it is. And what you can do is you can actually get the instructions to 3D print out your own headset and then buy the technology that allows you to read brain waves. And so with that, it's like… I mean, it was really awesome to watch her play the piano and just see how her brain waves were going super crazy. But there's also these really cool… I don't know if you guys have heard of Jewelbots, but they're these programmable friendship bracelets that are just little Arduino devices that light up. I have two of them. I haven't even opened them. CHARLES: [Laughs] TRACY: I've been waiting to play with them with you. I don't know what we're going to do, but I just want to send you lights. Flashing lights. [Laughter] TRACY: Morse code ask you questions about RxJS while you're working. [Laughter] CHARLES: Yeah. Critical bug. Toot-toot-toot-too-too-too-too-toot-toot. [Laughter] CHARLES: RxJS Justice League. TRACY: That would actually be really fun. [Laughter] TRACY: That would be really fun. I actually really want to do that. But… CHARLES: I'm sure the next time we talk, you will have. TRACY: [Laughs] Yes. Yes, yes, yes, I know. I know. we'll do it soon. We just need to find some time while we're not going crazy with conferences and stuff like that. CHARLES: So, before we head out, is there any upcoming events, talks, releases, anything that we ought to be, we or the listeners, ought to be aware of? TRACY: Yeah, so one of the things is that Ben and I this weekend actually just recorded the latest version of RX Workshop. So, if you want to learn all about the latest, latest, newest new, you can go ahead and take that course. We go through a lot of different things like multiplex WebSockets, building an application. Everywhere from the fundamentals to the more real world implementations of RxJS. BEN: Yeah. Even in the fundamentals area, we've had friends of ours that are definitely seasoned Rx veterans come to the workshop. And most of them ask the most questions while talking about the fundamentals. Because I tend to dig into, either deep into the internals or into the why's and how's thing. Why and how things work. Even when it comes to how to subscribe to an observable. Deep detailed information about what happens if you don't provide an error handler and certain cases and how that's going to change in upcoming versions, and why that's changing in upcoming versions, and what the TC39's thoughts are on that, and so on and so forth. So, I try to get into some deeper stuff and we have a lot of fun. And we tend to be a little goofier at the workshops from time to time than we were in this podcast. Tracy and I get silly when we're together. TRACY: It's very true. [Laughter] TRACY: But I think also, soon I think there are people that are going to be championing an Observable proposal on what [inaudible]. So, aside from the TC39 Observable proposal that's currently still at stage one, I don't know Ben if you want to talk a little bit about that. BEN: Oh, yeah. So, I've been involved in conversations with folks from Netflix and Google as well, Chrome team and TC39 members, about getting the WHATWG, the ‘what wig', they're a standards body similar to W3C, to include observables as part of the DOM. The post has not been made yet. But the post is going to be made soon as long as everybody's okay with it. And what it boils down to is the idea of using observables as part of event targets. An event target is the API we're all familiar with for ‘add event listener', ‘remove event listener'. So, pretty much anywhere you'd see those methods, there might also someday be an on method that would return an observable of events. So, it's really, really interesting thing because it would bring at least the primitives of reactive programming to the browser. And at the very least it would provide maybe a nicer API for people to subscribe to events coming from different DOM elements. Because ‘add event listener' and ‘remove event listener' are a little unergonomic at times, right? CHARLES: Yeah. They're the worst. BEN: Yeah. CHARLES: That's a very polite way of putting it. BEN: [Chuckles] So, that's one thing that's coming down the pipe. Other things, RxJS 6 is in the works. We recently tied off 5.5 in a stable branch. And master is now our alpha that we're working on. So, there's going to be a lot of refactoring and changes there, trying to make the library smaller and smaller. And trying to eliminate some of the footprints that maybe people had in previous versions. So, moving things around so people aren't importing stuff that were meant to be implementation details, reducing the size of the library, trying to eliminate some bloat, that sort of thing. I'm pretty excited about that. But that's going to be in alpha ongoing for a while. And then hopefully we'll be able to move into beta mid first quarter next year. And then when that'll be out of beta, who knows? It all depends on how well people like the beta and the alpha, right? CHARLES: Alright. Well, so if folks do want to follow up with y'all either in regards to the course or to upcoming releases or any of the other great stuff that's coming along, how would they get in touch with y'all? TRACY: You can find me on Twitter @ladyleet. But Ben is @BenLesh. RX Workshop is RXWorkshop.com. I think in January we're going to be doing state of JavaScript under This Dot Media again. So, that's where all the core contributors of different frameworks and libraries come together. So, we'll definitely be giving a state of RxJS at that time. And next year also Contributor Days will be happening. So, if you go to ContributorDays.com you can see the previous RxJS Contributor Days and figure out how to get involved. So, we're always open and happy and willing to teach everybody. And again, if you want to get involved it doesn't matter whether you have little experience or lots of experience. We are always willing to show you how you can play. BEN: Yeah. You can always find us on Twitter. And don't forget that if you don't find Tracy or I on Twitter, you can always message Jay Phelps on Twitter. That's important. @_JayPhelps. Really. TRACY: Yeah. [Laughter] BEN: You'll find us. CHARLES: [Chuckles] Look for Jay in the show notes. [Laughter] CHARLES: Alright. Well, thank you so much for all the stuff that y'all do, code and otherwise. And thank you so much Ben, thank you so much Tracy, for coming on the show. BEN: Thank you. CHARLES: Bye Elrick and bye everybody. If you want to reach out to us, you can always get in touch with us at @TheFrontside or send us an email at contact@frontside.io. Alright everybody, we'll see you next week.