Podcasts about Cis

Comencem hora parlant del Festival de Sant Sebasti

Programa completo de La brújula desde Málaga con toda la actualidad informativa marcada por el cierre de filas del PSOE con Sánchez, la aprobación del uso de las lenguas cooficiales en el Congreso, la conversación entre Feijóo y Page, los resultados del CIS donde da como ganador al PSOE, las previsiones y advertencias de la AIREF, la imputación a los canteranos del Madrid. 

Los españoles tardan de media 8 días en conseguir una cita con su médico de cabecera, según el Barómetro del CIS

Episode 1236: Hairy And Scary

Today, Mary Idzior of the Center for International Services (CIS) takes us through their Top 10 Tips for international students to take advantage of the resources that CIS offers. If you had questions about CIS but haven't wanted to ask, this episode is for you!

This week, we scope out the swinging 70s, through a key member of the "Doomsday Defense" of the Dallas Cowboys. Living the high life of fame, and fortune, all while business ventures fall apart, and he does enough cocaine to cover a South American mountain top. Even though he denies it for years, he eventually tells his secrets, after his life truly spins out of control!!Have your sister beat up your bullies, find your inner "Waterboy" & unleash your rage, do enough cocaine with "Hollywood" Henderson to kill a herd of elephants with "Beautiful" Harvey Martin!!Check us out, every Tuesday!We will continue to bring you the biggest idiots in sports history!! Hosted by James Pietragallo & Jimmie Whisman Donate at... patreon.com/crimeinsports or with paypal.com using our email: crimeinsports@gmail.com Get all the CIS & STM merch at crimeinsports.threadless.com Go to shutupandgivememurder.com for all things CIS & STM!! Contact us on... twitter.com/crimeinsports crimeinsports@gmail.com facebook.com/Crimeinsports instagram.com/smalltownmurderSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Episode 1235: Jet Lagged

Episode 1234: Trust Nothing

Episode 1233: Busted

El Partido Popular ha solicitado a la Junta Electoral Central que abra expediente sancionador al presidente del CIS por los 'trackings' del 23J. Es decir, por los datos que analizan la evolución de la intención del voto.En el informativo 24 horas de RNE, José Félix Tezanos, presidente del Centro de Investigaciones Socilógicas (CIS), asegura que "ni los partidos ni el Gobierno tuvieron acceso a la encuesta porque no se terminó hasta el 2 de agosto". Tezanos cree que el PP "no tiene a nadie que les orienten y piensan que todo en sociología es cuestión de cañonazos". El presidente del CIS también ha hablado de la encuesta postelectoral que está apunto de publicarse: "Tiene una muestra de 1.000 entrevistas y en ella se especifica por qué se vota y los que no votan por qué no lo hacen". Además, José Félix Tezanos se pregunta en qué artículo se prohíbe la amnistía: "Son debates absurdos"Escuchar audio

Episode 1232: Way Of The Blade

This week, we look at a man who broke records for speed, and innovated ways to go faster, by helping invent engine components. He is one of the most respected drag racers in history. He also apparently liked the company of young boys. A little too much. He was repeatedly arrested for awful things, and let go with slaps on the wrist. The things he has been accused of as bad as they could be, but he's somehow welcome back into his sport.Have a seriously wild background, have no fear of driving 250 mph, and have sick desires that should make you the pariah of racing, but somehow don't with Gene "The Snowman" Snow!!Check us out, every Tuesday!We will continue to bring you the biggest idiots in sports history!! Hosted by James Pietragallo & Jimmie Whisman Donate at... patreon.com/crimeinsports or with paypal.com using our email: crimeinsports@gmail.com Get all the CIS & STM merch at crimeinsports.threadless.com Go to shutupandgivememurder.com for all things CIS & STM!! Contact us on... twitter.com/crimeinsports crimeinsports@gmail.com facebook.com/Crimeinsports instagram.com/smalltownmurderSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Episode 1231: Blood And Bone

It's a Myelopathy Matters Exclusive! Iwan and Ben are joined by Myelopathy.org researcher Irina Sangeorzan, to hear about the new Core Information Set. This forms part of a wider project called Shared DCM, and funded by the Evelyn Trust, to help people affected with DCM take a more active role in the decision making around their care. As Iwan likes to say, “Knowledge is Power”. The use of a CIS in this manner is a first for healthcare. We hear why it was needed, how it was formed and what it hopes to achieve.

Episode 1230: Preach

This week, we fight our way through the story of a man, who came from at least 4 generations of boxers, who all seem to to have problems, outside of the ring. Between him, and his brothers, it's an avalanche of crime, and legal proceedings. But our guy has them all beat by committing one of the most hideous crimes, ever. He may seriously be the worst person we've ever covered!Start boxing at age 3, be a walking police blotter, along with your brothers, and deny your unspeakable crime, even though there's all the evidence in the world with Davey Hilton Jr!!Check us out, every Tuesday!We will continue to bring you the biggest idiots in sports history!! Hosted by James Pietragallo & Jimmie Whisman Donate at... patreon.com/crimeinsports or with paypal.com using our email: crimeinsports@gmail.com Get all the CIS & STM merch at crimeinsports.threadless.com Go to shutupandgivememurder.com for all things CIS & STM!! Contact us on... twitter.com/crimeinsports crimeinsports@gmail.com facebook.com/Crimeinsports instagram.com/smalltownmurderSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Episode 1229: Hairy Situation

Episode 1228: Ban The ADL

Sean O'Connor is the Director of Engineering at Datadog. Datadog is the essential monitoring and security platform for cloud applications. Sean discusses his transition from an individual contributor to management and shares why he chose Datadog, emphasizing the appeal of high-scale problems and the real business nature of the company. They delve into the importance of performance management and observability and cover the cultural and technical challenges Sean faces in managing a diverse, geographically spread team, and discuss the transition at Datadog from a decentralized model to more centralized platforms, the corresponding changes in both technical strategies and people management, and what excites him about Datadog's future, including the integration of security offerings into developers' daily experiences, and the evolution of Kubernetes and internal build and release tooling. __ Datadog (https://www.datadoghq.com/) Follow Datadog on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/company/datadog/), Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/datadoghq/), Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/user/DatadogHQ), or Twitter (https://twitter.com/datadoghq). Follow Sean O'Connor on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/seanoc/) or Twitter (https://twitter.com/theSeanOC). Visit his website at seanoc.com (https://seanoc.com/). Follow thoughtbot on Twitter (https://twitter.com/thoughtbot) or LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/company/150727/). Become a Sponsor (https://thoughtbot.com/sponsorship) of Giant Robots! Transcript: VICTORIA: This is the Giant Robots Smashing Into Other Giant Robots Podcast, where we explore the design, development, and business of great products. I'm your host, Victoria Guido. WILL: And I'm your other host, Will Larry. And with us today is Sean O'Connor. He is the Director of Engineering at Datadog. Datadog is the essential monitoring and security platform for cloud applications. Sean, thank you for joining us. SEAN: Hi, thanks for having me on. VICTORIA: Yeah, I'm super excited to get to talking with you about everything cloud, and DevOps, and engineering. But why don't we first start with just a conversation about what's going on in your life? Is there any exciting personal moment coming up for you soon? SEAN: Yeah, my wife and I are expecting our first kiddo in the next few weeks, so getting us prepared for that as we can and trying to get as much sleep as we can. [laughs] WILL: Get as much sleep as you can now, so...[laughs] I have a question around that. When you first found out that you're going to be a dad, what was your feeling? Because I remember the feeling that I had; it was a mixed reaction of just everything. So, I just wanted to see what was your reaction whenever you found out that you're going to be a dad for the first time. SEAN: Yeah, I was pretty excited. My wife and I had been kind of trying for this for a little while. We're both kind of at the older end for new parents in our late 30s. So, yeah, excited but definitely, I don't know, maybe a certain amount of, I don't know about fear but, you know, maybe just concerned with change and how different life will be, but mostly excitement and happiness. [laughs] WILL: Yeah, I remember the excitement and happiness. But I also remember, like, wait, I don't know exactly what to do in this situation. And what about the situations that I have no idea about and things like that? So, I will tell you, kids are resilient. You're going to do great as a dad. [laughter] SEAN: Yep. Yeah, definitely; I think I feel much more comfortable about the idea of being a parent now than I may have been in my 20s. But yeah, definitely, the idea of being responsible for and raising a whole other human is intimidating. [laughs] VICTORIA: I think the fact that you're worried about it is a good sign [laughs], right? SEAN: I hope so. [laughs] VICTORIA: Like, you understand that it's difficult. You're going to be a great parent just by the fact that you understand it's difficult and there's a lot of work ahead. So, I think I'm really excited for you. And I'm glad we get to talk to you at this point because probably when the episode comes out, you'll be able to listen to it with your new baby in hand. So... WILL: Good. Excited for it. [laughs] VICTORIA: Yeah, love that. Well, great. Well, why don't you tell me a little bit more about your other background, your professional background? What brought you to the role you're into today? SEAN: Yeah. Well, like we mentioned in the beginning; currently, I'm a Director of Engineering at Datadog. I run our computing cloud team. It's responsible for all of our Kubernetes infrastructure, as well as kind of all the tooling for dealing with the cloud providers that we run on and as well as kind of [inaudible 02:54] crypto infrastructure. Within Datadog, I've always been in management roles though I've kind of bounced around. I've been here for about five and a half years. So, before this, I was running a data store infrastructure team. Before that, when I first came in, I was running the APM product team, kind of bounced around between product and infra. And that's kind of, I guess, been a lot of the story of much of my career is wearing lots of different hats and kind of bouncing around between kind of infrastructure-focused roles and product-focused roles. So, before this, I was running the back-end engineering and DevOps teams at Bitly. So, I was there for about five and a half years, started there originally as a software engineer. And before that, a lot of early-stage startups and consulting doing whatever needed doing, and getting to learn about lots of different kind of industries and domains, which is always fun. [laughs] VICTORIA: That's great. So, you had that broad range of experience coming from all different areas of operations in my mind, which is, like, security and infrastructure, and now working your way into a management position. What was the challenge for you in making that switch from being such a strong individual contributor into an effective manager? SEAN: Sure. You know, I think certainly there is a lot of kind of the classic challenges of learning to let go but still staying involved, right? You know, as a manager, if you're working on critical path tasks hands-on yourself, that's probably not a good sign. [laughs] On the other hand, if you come, like, completely divorced from what your team is doing, especially as, like, a team lead level kind of manager, you know, that's not great either. So, figuring that balancing act definitely was a bit tricky for me. Similarly, I think time management and learning to accept that, especially as you get into, like, further steps along in your career that, like, you know, it's not even a question of keeping all the balls in the air, but more figuring out, like, what balls are made out of rubber and which ones are made out of glass, and maybe keeping those ones in the air. [laughs] So, just a lot of those kind of, like, you know, prioritization and figuring out, like, what the right level of involvement and context is, is definitely the eternal learning, I think, for me. [laughs] WILL: I remember whenever I was looking to change jobs, kind of my mindset was I wanted to work at thoughtbot more because of the values. And I wanted to learn and challenge myself and things like that. And it was so much more, but those were some of the main items that I wanted to experience in my next job. So, when you changed, and you went from Bitly to Datadog, what was that thing that made you say, I want to join Datadog? SEAN: Yeah, that was definitely an interesting job search and transition. So, at that point in time, I was living in New York. I was looking to stay in New York. So, I was kind of talking to a bunch of different companies. Both from personal experience and from talking to some friends, I wasn't super interested in looking at, like, working at mostly, like, the super big, you know, Google, Amazon, Meta type of companies. But also, having done, like, super early stage, you know, like, seed, series A type of companies, having played that game, I wasn't in a place in my life to do that either. [laughs] So, I was looking kind of in between that space. So, this would have been in 2018. So, I was talking to a lot of, like, series A and series B-type companies. And most of them were, like, real businesses. [laughs] Like, they may not be profitable yet, but, like, they had a very clear idea of how they would get there and, like, what that would look like. And so, that was pleasant compared to some past points in my career. But a lot of them, you know, I was effectively doing, like, automation of human processes, which is important. It has value. But it means that, like, realistically, this company will never have more than 50 servers. And when I worked at Bitly, I did have a taste for kind of working in those high-scale, high-availability type environments. So, Datadog initially was appealing because it kind of checked all those boxes of, you know, very high-scale problems, high availability needs, a very real business. [laughs] This is before Datadog had gone public. And then, as I started to talk to them and got to know them, I also really liked a lot of kind of the culture and all the people I interacted with. So, it became a very clear choice very quickly as that process moved along. VICTORIA: Yeah, a very real business. Datadog is one of the Gartner's Magic leaders for APM and observability in the industry. And I understand you're also one of the larger SaaS solutions running Kubernetes, right? SEAN: Yep. Yeah, at this point. Five years ago, that story was maybe a little bit different. [laughs] But yeah, no, no, we definitely have a pretty substantial Kubernetes suite that we run everything on top of. And we get the blessings and curses of we get some really cool problems to work on, but there's also a lot of problems that we come across that when we talk to kind of peers in the industry about kind of how they're trying to solve them, they don't have answers yet either. [laughs] So, we get to kind of figure out a lot of that kind of early discovery games. [laughs] VICTORIA: Yeah. I like how exciting and growing this industry is around kind of your compute and monitoring the performance of your applications. I wonder if you could kind of speak to our audience a little bit, who may not have a big technical background, about just why it's important to think about performance management and observability early on in your application. SEAN: There can be a few pieces there. One of the bigger ones, I think, is thinking about that kind of early and getting used to working with that kind of tooling early in a project or a product. I think it has an analogous effect to, like, thinking about, like, compounding interest in, like, a savings account or investing or something like that. In that, by having those tools available early on and having that visibility available early on, you can really both initially get a lot of value and just kind of understanding kind of what's happening with your system and very quickly troubleshoot problems and make sure things are running efficiently. But then that can help get to a place where you get to that, like, flywheel effect as you're kind of building your product of, as you're able to solve things quickly, that means you have more time to invest in other parts of the product, and so on and so forth. So, yeah, it's one of those things where kind of the earlier you can get started on that, the more that benefit gets amplified over time. And thankfully, with Datadog and other offerings like that now, you can get started with that relatively quickly, right? You're not having to necessarily make the choice of, like, oh, can I justify spending a week, a month, whatever, setting up all my own infrastructure for this, as opposed to, you know, plugging in a credit card and getting going right away? And not necessarily starting with everything from day zero but getting started with something and then being able to build on that definitely can be a worthwhile trade-off. [laughs] VICTORIA: That makes sense. And I'm curious your perspective, Will, as a developer on our Lift Off team, which is really about the services around that time when you want to start taking it really seriously. Like, you've built an app [laughs]. You know it's a viable product, and there's a market for it. And just, like, how you think about observability when you're doing your app building. WILL: The approach I really take is, like, what is the end goal? I'm currently on a project right now that we came in later than normal. We're trying to work through that. SEAN: I haven't come from, you know, that kind of consulting and professional services and support kind of place. I'm curious about, like, what, if any, differences or experiences do you have, like, in that context of, like, how do you use your observability tools or, like, what value they have as opposed to maybe more, like, straight product development? VICTORIA: Right. So, we recently partnered with, you know, our platform engineering team worked with the Lift Off team to create a product from scratch. And we built in observability tools with Prometheus, and Grafana, and Sentry so that the developers could instrument their app and build metrics around the performance in the way they expected the application to work so that when it goes live and meets real users, they're confident their users are able to actually use the app with a general acceptable level of latency and other things that are really key to the functionality of the app. And so, I think that the interesting part was, with the founders who don't have a background in IT operations or application monitoring and performance, it sort of makes sense. But it's still maybe a stretch to really see the full value of that, especially when you're just trying to get the app out the door. SEAN: Nice. VICTORIA: [chuckles] That's my answer. What kind of challenges do you have in your role managing this large team in a very competitive company, running a ton of Kubernetes clusters? [laughs] What's your challenges in your director of engineering role there? SEAN: You know, it's definitely a mix of kind of, like, technical or strategic challenges there, as well as people challenges. On the technical and strategic side, the interesting thing for our team right now is we're in the middle of a very interesting transition. Still, today, the teams at Datadog work in very much a 'You build it, you run it' kind of model, right? So, teams working on user-facing features in addition to, like, you know, designing those features and writing the code for that, they're responsible for deploying that code, offering the services that code runs within, being on call for that, so on and so forth. And until relatively recently, that ownership was very intense to the point where some teams maybe even had their own build and release processes. They were running their own data stores. And, like, that was very valuable for much of our history because that let those teams to be very agile and not have to worry about, like, convincing the entire company to change if they needed to make some kind of change. But as we've grown and as, you know, we've kind of taken on a lot more complexity in our environment from, you know, running across more providers, running across more regions, taking on more of regulatory concerns, to kind of the viability of running everything entirely [inaudible 12:13] for those product teams, it has become much harder. [laughs] You start to see a transition where previously the infrastructure teams were much more acting as subject matter experts and consultants to, now, we're increasingly offering more centralized platforms and offerings that can offload a lot of that kind of complexity and the stuff that isn't the core of what the other product-focused teams are trying to do. And so, as we go through that change, it means internally, a lot of our teams, and how we think about our roles, and how we go about doing our work, changes from, like, a very, you know, traditional reliability type one on one consultation and advising type role to effectively internal product development and internal platform development. So, that's a pretty big both mindset and practice shift. [laughs] So, that's one that we're kind of evolving our way through. And, of course, as what happens to kind of things, like, you still have to do all the old stuff while you're doing the new thing. [laughs] You don't get to just stop and just do the new thing. So, that's been an interesting kind of journey and one that we're always kind of figuring out as we go. That is a lot of kind of what I focus on. You know, people wise, you know, we have an interesting aim of...There's about 40 people in my org. They are spread across EMEA and North America with kind of, let's say, hubs in New York and Paris. So, with that, you know, you have a pretty significant time zone difference and some non-trivial cultural differences. [laughs] And so, you know, making sure that everybody is still able to kind of work efficiently, and communicate effectively, and collaborate effectively, while still working within all those constraints is always an ongoing challenge. [laughs] WILL: Yeah, you mentioned the different cultures, the different types of employees you have, and everyone is not the same. And there's so many cultures, so many...whatever people are going through, you as a leader, how do you navigate through that? Like, how do you constantly challenge yourself to be a better leader, knowing that not everyone can be managed the same way, that there's just so much diversity, probably even in your company among your employees? SEAN: I think a lot of it starts from a place of listening and paying attention to kind of just see where people are happy, where they feel like they have unmet needs. As an example, I moved from that last kind of data store-focused team to this computing cloud team last November. And so, as part of that move, probably for the first two or three months that I was in the role, I wasn't particularly driving much in the way of changes or setting much of a vision beyond what the team already had, just because as the new person coming in, it's usually kind of hard to have a lot of credibility and/or even just have the idea of, like, you know, like you're saying, like, what different people are looking for, or what they need, how they will respond best. I just spend a lot of time just talking to people, getting to know the team, building those relationships, getting to know those people, getting to know those groups. And then, from there, figuring out, you know, both where the kind of the high priority areas where change or investment is needed. But then also figuring out, yeah, kind of based on all that, what's the right way to go about that with the different groups? Because yeah, it's definitely isn't a one size fits all solution. But for me, it's always kind of starting from a place of listening and understanding and using that to develop, I guess, empathy for the people involved and understanding their perspectives and then figuring it out from there. I imagine–I don't know, but I imagine thoughtbot's a pretty distributed company. How do you all kind of think about some of those challenges of just navigating people coming from very different contexts? WILL: Yeah, I was going to ask Victoria that because Victoria is one of the leaders of our team here at thoughtbot. So, Victoria, what are your thoughts on it? VICTORIA: I have also one of the most distributed teams at thoughtbot because we do offer 24/7 support to some clients. And we cover time zones from the Pacific through West Africa. So, we just try to create a lot of opportunities for people to engage, whether it's remotely, especially offering a lot of virtual engagement and social engagement remotely. But then also, offering some in-person, whether it's a company in-person event, or encouraging people to engage with their local community and trying to find conferences, meetups, events that are relevant to us as a business, and a great opportunity for them to go and get some in-person interaction. So, I think then encouraging them to bring those ideas back. And, of course, thoughtbot is known for having just incredible remote async communication happening all the time. It's actually almost a little oppressive to keep up with, to be honest, [laughs] but I love it. There's just a lot of...there's GitHub issues. There's Slack communications. There's, like, open messages. And people are really encouraged to contribute to the conversation and bring up any idea and any problem they're having, and actively add to and modify our company policies and procedures so that we can do the best work with each other and know how to work with each other, and to put out the best products. I think that's key to having that conversation, especially for a company that's as big as Datadog and has so many clients, and has become such a leader in this metrics area. Being able to listen within your company and to your clients is probably going to set you up for success for any, like, tech leadership role [laughs]. I'm curious, what are you most excited about now that you've been in the role for a little while? You've heard from a lot of people within the company. Can you share anything in your direction in the next six months or a year that you're super excited about? SEAN: So, there's usually kind of probably two sides to that question of kind of, like, from a product and business standpoint and from an internal infrastructure standpoint, given that's where my day-to-day focus is. You know, on the product side, one thing that's been definitely interesting to watch in my time at Datadog is we really made the transition from kind of, like, a point solution type product to much more of a platform. For context, when I joined Datadog, I think logs had just gone GA, and APM was in beta, I think. So, we were just starting to figure out, like, how we expand beyond the initial infrastructure metrics product. And, obviously, at this point, now we have a whole, you know, suite of offerings. And so, kind of the opportunities that come with that, as far as both different spaces that we can jump into, and kind of the value that we can provide by having all those different capabilities play together really nicely, is exciting and is cool. Like, you know, one of the things that definitely lit an interesting light bulb for me was talking to some of the folks working on our newer security offerings and them talking about how, obviously, you want to meet, you know, your normal requirements in that space, so being able to provide the visibility that, you know, security teams are looking for there. But also, figuring out how we integrate that information into your developers' everyday experience so that they can have more ownership over that aspect of the systems that they're building and make everybody's job easier and more efficient, right? Instead of having, you know, the nightmare spreadsheet whenever a CVE comes out and having some poor TPM chase half the company to get their libraries updated, you know, being able to make that visible in the product where people are doing their work every day, you know, things like that are always kind of exciting opportunities. On the internal side, we're starting to think about, like, what the next major evolution of our kind of Kubernetes and kind of internal build and release tooling looks like. Today, a lot of kind of how teams interact with our Kubernetes infrastructure is still pretty raw. Like, they're working directly with specific Kubernetes clusters, and they are exposed to all the individual Kubernetes primitives, which is very powerful, but it's also a pretty steep learning curve. [laughs] And for a lot of teams, it ends up meaning that there's lots of, you know, knobs that they have to know what they do. But at the end of the day, like, they're not getting a lot of benefit from that, right? There's more just opportunity for them to accidentally put themselves in a bad place. So, we're starting to figure out, like, higher level abstractions and offerings to simplify how all that for teams look like. So, we're still a bit early days in working through that, but it's exciting to figure out, like, how we can still give teams kind of the flexibility and the power that they need but make those experiences much easier and not have to have them become Kubernetes experts just to deploy a simple process. And, yes, so there's some lots of fun challenges in there. [laughs] Mid-Roll Ad: When starting a new project, we understand that you want to make the right choices in technology, features, and investment but that you don't have all year to do extended research. In just a few weeks, thoughtbot's Discovery Sprints deliver a user-centered product journey, a clickable prototype or Proof of Concept, and key market insights from focused user research. We'll help you to identify the primary user flow, decide which framework should be used to bring it to life, and set a firm estimate on future development efforts. Maximize impact and minimize risk with a validated roadmap for your new product. Get started at: tbot.io/sprint. WILL: I have a question around your experience. So, you've been a developer around 20 years. What has been your experience over that 20 years or about of the growth in this market? Because I can only imagine what the market was, you know, in the early 2000s versus right now because I still remember...I still have nightmares of dial-up, dial tone tu-tu-tu. No one could call you, stuff like that. So, what has been your experience, just seeing the market grow from where you started? SEAN: Sure, yeah. I think probably a lot of the biggest pieces of it are just seeing the extent to which...I want to say it was Cory Doctorow, but I'm not sure who actually originally coined the idea, but the idea that, you know, software is eating the world, right? Like, eventually, to some degree, every company becomes a software company because software ends up becoming involved in pretty much everything that we as a society do. So, definitely seeing the progression of that, I think, over that time period has been striking, you know, especially when I was working in more consulting contexts and working more in companies and industries where like, you know, the tech isn't really the focus but just how much that, you know, from an engineering standpoint, relatively basic software can fundamentally transform those businesses and those industries has definitely been striking. And then, you know, I think from a more individual perspective, seeing as, you know, our tools become more sophisticated and easier to access, just seeing how much of a mixed bag that has become [laughs]. And just kind of the flavor of, like, you know, as more people have more powerful tools, that can be very enabling and gives voice to many people. But it also means that the ability of an individual or a small group to abuse those tools in ways that we're maybe not fully ready to deal with as a society has been interesting to see how that's played out. VICTORIA: Yeah. I think you bring up some really great points there. And it reminds me of one of my favorite quotes is that, like, the future is here—it's just not evenly distributed. [laughs] And so, in some communities that I go to, everyone knows what Kubernetes is; everyone knows what DevOps is. It's kind of, like, old news. [laughs] And then, some people are still just like, "What?" [laughs]. It's interesting to think about that and think about the implications on your last point about just how dangerous the supply chain is in building software and how some of these abstractions and some of these things that just make it so easy to build applications can also introduce a good amount of risk into your product and into your business, right? So, I wonder if you can tell me a little bit more about your perspective on security and DevSecOps and what founders might be thinking about to protect their IP and their client's data in their product. SEAN: That one is interesting and tricky in that, like, we're in a little bit of, like, things are better and worse than they ever have been before [laughs], right? Like, there is a certain level of, I think, baseline knowledge and competency that I think company leaders really just have to have now, part of, like, kind of table stakes, which can definitely be challenging, and that, like, that probably was much less, if even the case, you know, 10-20 years ago in a lot of businesses. As an example, right? Like, obviously, like if it's a tech-focused company, like, that can be a thing. But, like, if you're running a plumbing business with a dozen trucks, let's say, like, 20 years ago, you probably didn't have to think that much about data privacy and data security. But, like, now you're almost certainly using some kind of electronic system to kind of manage all your customer records, and your job scheduling, and all that kind of stuff. So, like, now, that is something that's a primary concern for your business. On the flip side of that, I think there is much better resources, and tools, and practices available out there. I forget the name of the tool now. But I remember recently, I was working with a company on the ISO long string of numbers certifications that you tend to want to do when you're handling certain types of data. There was a tool they were able to work with that basically made it super easy for them to, like, gather all the evidence for that and whatnot, in a way where, like, you know, in the past, you probably just had to hire a compliance person to know what you had to do and how to present that. But now, you could just sign up for a SaaS product. And, like, obviously, it can't just do it for you. Like, it's about making your policies. But it still gave you enough support where if you're, like, bootstrapping a company, like, yeah, you probably don't need to hire a specialist to [inaudible 25:08], which is a huge deal. You know, similarly, a lot of things come much safer by default. When you think about, like, the security on something like an iPhone, or an iPad, or an Android device, like, just out of the box, that's light-years ahead of whatever Windows PC you were going to buy ten years ago. [laughs] And so, that kind of gives you a much better starting place. But some interesting challenges that come with that, right? And that we do now, literally, every person on the planet is walking around with microphones and cameras and all kinds of sensors on them. It's an interesting balance, I think. Similarly, I'm curious how you all think about kind of talking with your clients and your customers about this because I'm sure you all have a non-trivial amount of education to do there. [laughs] VICTORIA: Yeah, definitely. And I think a lot of it comes in when we have clients who are very early founders, and they don't have a CTO or a technical side of their business, and advising them on exactly what you laid out. Like, here's the baseline. Like, here's where you want to start from. We generally use the CIS controls, this internet for internet security. It puts out a really great tool set, too, for some things you were mentioning earlier. Let's figure out how to report and how to identify all of the things that we're supposed to be doing. It could be overwhelming. It's a lot. Like, in my past role as VP of Operations at Pluribus Digital, I was responsible for helping our team continue to meet our...we had three different ISO long number certifications [laughs]. We did a CMMI as well, which has come up a few times in my career. And they give you about a couple of hundreds of controls that you're supposed to meet. It's in very kind of, like, legalese that you have to understand. And that's a pretty big gap to solve for someone who doesn't have the technical experience to start. Like, what you were saying, too, that it's more dangerous and more safer than it has been before. So, if we make choices for those types of clients in very safe, trusted platforms, then they're going to be set up for success and not have to worry about those details as much. And we kind of go forward with confidence that if they are going to have to come up against compliance requirements or local state regulations, which are also...there's more of those every day, and a lot of liability you can face as a founder, especially if you're dealing with, like, health or financial data, in the state of California, for example. [laughs] It puts you at a really big amount of liability that I don't think we've really seen the impact of how bad it can be and will be coming out in the next couple of years now that that law has passed. But that's kind of the approach that we like to think. It's like, you know, there's a minimum we can do that will mitigate a lot of this risk [laughs], so let's do that. Let's do the basics and start off on the right foot here. SEAN: Yeah, no, that makes sense. Yeah, it's definitely something I've come to appreciate, especially doing work in regulated spaces is, when you do reach the point where you do need to have some kind of subject matter expert involved, whether it's somebody in-house or a consultant or an advisor, I've definitely learned that usually, like, the better ones are going to talk to you in terms of, like, what are the risk trade-offs you're making here? And what are the principles that all these detailed controls or guidelines are looking to get at? As opposed to just, like, walking you through the box-checking exercise. In my experience, a really good lawyer or somebody who will talk to you about risk versus just saying whether or not you can do something. [laughs] It has a very similar feeling in my experience. VICTORIA: Yeah, it's a lot about risk. And someone's got to be able to make those trade-off decisions, and it can be really tough, but it's doable. And I think it shouldn't scare people away. And there's lots of people, lots of ways to do it also, which is exciting. So, I think it's a good space to be in and to see it growing and pay attention to. [laughs] It's fun for me to be in a different place where we're given the opportunity to kind of educate or bring people along in a security journey versus having it be a top-down executive-level decision that we need to meet this particular security standard, and that's the way it's going to be. [laughs] Yeah, so that I appreciate. Is there anything that really surprised you in your conversations with Datadog or with other companies around these types of services for, like, platform engineering and observability? Is there anything that surprised you in the discovery process with potential clients for your products? SEAN: I think one of the biggest surprises, or maybe not a surprise but an interesting thing is, to what extent, you know, for us, I don't know if this is still the case, but I think in many places, like, we're probably more often competing against nothing than a competing product. And by that, I mean, especially as you look at some of our more sophisticated products like APM, or profiling, it's not so much that somebody has an existing tool that we're looking to replace; it's much more than this is just not a thing they do today. [laughs] And so, that leads to a very interestingly different conversation that I think, you know, relates to some of what we were saying with security where, you know, I think a non-trivial part of what our sales and technical enablement folks do is effectively education for our customers and potential customers of why they might want to use tools like this, and what kind of value they could get from them. The other one that's been interesting is to see how different customers' attitudes around tools like this have evolved as they've gone through their own migration to the cloud journeys, right? We definitely have a lot of customers that, I think, you know, 5, 10 years ago, when they were running entirely on-prem, using a SaaS product would have been a complete non-starter. But as they move into the cloud, both as they kind of generally get more comfortable with the idea of delegating some of these responsibilities, as well as they start to understand kind of, like, the complexity of the tooling required as their environment gets more complex, the value of a dedicated product like something like Datadog as opposed to, you know, what you kind of get out of the box with the cloud providers or what you might kind of build on your own has definitely been interesting. [laughs] VICTORIA: Is there a common point that you find companies get to where they're like, all right, now, I really need something? Can you say a little bit more about, like, what might be going on in the organization at that time? SEAN: You know, I think there could be a few different paths that companies take to it. Some of it, I think, can come from a place of...I think, especially for kind of larger enterprise customers making a transition like that, they tend to be taking a more holistic look at kind of their distinct practices and seeing what they want to change as they move into the cloud. And often, kind of finding an observability vendor is just kind of, like, part of the checklist there. [laughs] Not to dismiss it, but just, like, that seems to be certainly one path into it. I think for smaller customers, or maybe customers that are more, say, cloud-native, I think it can generally be a mix of either hitting a point where they're kind of done with the overhead of trying to maintain their own infrastructure of, like, trying to run their own ELK stack and, like, build all the tooling on top of that, and keeping that up and running, and the costs associated with that. Or, it's potentially seeing the sophistication of tooling that, like, a dedicated provider can afford to invest that realistically, you're never going to invest in on your own, right? Like, stuff like live profiling is deeply non-trivial to implement. [laughs] I think especially once people get some experience with a product like Datadog, they start thinking about, like, okay, how much value are we actually getting out of doing this on our own versus using a more off-the-shelf product? I don't know if we've been doing it post-COVID. But I remember pre-COVID...so Datadog has a huge presence at re:Invent and the other similar major cloud provider things. And I remember for a few years at re:Invent, you know, we obviously had, like, the giant 60x60 booth in the main expo floor, where we were giving demos and whatnot. But they also would have...AWS would do this, like, I think they call it the interactive hall where companies could have, like, more hands-on booths, and you had, like, a whole spectrum of stuff. And there were, like, some companies just had, like, random, like, RC car setups or Lego tables, just stuff like that. But we actually did a setup where there was a booth of, I think, like, six stations. People would step up, and they would race each other to solve a kind of faux incident using Datadog. The person who would solve it first would win a switch. I think we gave away a huge number of switches as part of that, which at first I was like, wow, that seems expensive. [laughs] But then later, you know, I was mostly working the main booth at that re:Invent. So by the, like, Wednesday and Thursday of re:Invent, I'd have people walking up to the main booth being like, "Hey, so I did the thing over at the Aria. And now I installed Datadog in prod last night, and I have questions." I was like, oh, okay. [laughs] So, I think just, like, the power of, like, getting that hands-on time, and using some of the tools, and understanding the difference there is what kind of gets a lot of people to kind of change their mind there. [laughs] VICTORIA: You'd get me with a switch right now. I kind of want one, but I don't want to buy one. SEAN: [laughs] WILL: Same. [laughs] VICTORIA: Because I know it'll take up all my time. SEAN: Uh-huh. That's fair. [laughs] VICTORIA: But I will try to win one at a conference for sure. I think that's true. And it makes sense that because your product is often going with clients that don't have these practices yet, that as soon as you give them exposure to it, you see what you can do with it, that becomes a very powerful selling tool. Like, this is the value of the product, right? [laughs] SEAN: Yeah, there is also something we see, and I think most of our kind of peers in the industry see is, very often, people come in initially looking for and using a single product, like, you know, infrastructure, metrics, or logs. And then, as they see that and see where that touches other parts of the product, their usage kind of grows and expands over time. I would obviously defer to our earnings calls for exact numbers. But generally speaking, more or less kind of half of our new business is usually expanded usage from existing customers as opposed to new customers coming in. So, I think there's also a lot of just kind of organic discovery and building of trust over time that happens there, which is interesting. VICTORIA: One of my favorite points to make, which is that SRE sounds very technical and, like, this really extreme thing. But to make it sound a little more easier, is that it is how you validate that the user experience is what you expect it to be. [laughs] I wonder if you have any other thoughts you want to add to that, just about, like, SRE and user experience and how that all connects for real business value. SEAN: I think a lot of places where, you know, we've both seen internally ourselves and with customers is, you know; obviously, different companies operate in different models and whatnot. Where people have seen success is where, you know, people with formal SRE titles or team names can kind of be coming in as just kind of another perspective on the various kind of things that teams are trying to drive towards. The places reliability is successfully integrated is when they can kind of make that connection that you were talking about. It's, like, obviously, everybody should go take their vitamins, but, like, what actual value is coming from this, right? Nobody wants to have outages, but, like, to do the work to invest in reliability, often, like, it can be hard to say, like, okay, what's the actual difference between before and after? Having people who can help draw those connections and help weigh those trade-offs, I think, can definitely be super helpful. But it is generally much more effective, I think, in my experience, when it does come from that perspective of, like, what value are we providing? What are we trading off as part of this? As opposed to just, well, you should do this because it's the right thing to do, kind of a moralistic perspective. [laughs] But, I don't know, how do you all kind of end up having that conversation with your customers and clients? VICTORIA: That's exactly it. That's the same. It's starting that conversation about, like, well, what happens when this experience fails, which designers don't necessarily think about? What's, like, the most important paths that you want a user to take through your application that we want to make sure works? And when you tie it all back there, I think then when the developers are understanding how to create those metrics and how to understand user behavior, that's when it becomes really powerful so that they're getting the feedback they need to do the right code, and to make the right changes. Versus just going purely on interviews [laughs] and not necessarily, like, understanding behavior within the app. I think that starts to make it clear. SEAN: Part of that, I think that's been an interesting experience for us is also just some of the conversation there around, like, almost the flip side of, when are you investing potentially too much in that, right? Because, like, especially after a certain point, the cost of additional gains grows exponentially, right? Each one of those nines gets more and more expensive. [laughs] And so, having the conversation of, like, do you actually need that level of reliability, or, like, is that...just like what you're saying. Like, you know, kind of giving some of that context and that pressure of, like, yeah, we can do that, but, like, this is what it's going to cost. Is that what you want to be spending your money on? Kind of things can also be an interesting part of that conversation. VICTORIA: That's a really good point that, you know, you can set goals that are too high [laughs] and not necessary. So, it does take a lot of just understanding about your data and your users to know what are acceptable levels of error. I think the other thing that you can think about, too, like, what could happen, and we've seen it happen with some startups, is that, like, something within the app is deeply broken, but you don't know. And you just think that you're not having user engagement, or that users are signing off, or, like, you know, not opening the app after the first day. So, if you don't have any way to really actively monitor it and you're not spending money on an active development team, you can have some method to just be confident that the app is working and to make your life less miserable [laughs] when you have a smaller team supporting, especially if you're trying to really minimize your overhead for running an application. SEAN: Yep. It's surprisingly hard to know when things are broken sometimes. [laughs] VICTORIA: Yes, and then extremely painful when you find out later [laughs] because that's when it's become a real problem, yeah. I wonder, are there any other questions you have for me or for Will? SEAN: How big of an organization is thoughtbot at this time? VICTORIA: Close to 75 people? We're, yeah, between the Americas and the [inaudible 38:31] region. So, that's where we're at right now, yeah. SEAN: Nice. At that size, like, and I guess it sounds like you're pretty heavily distributed, so maybe some of this doesn't happen as much, but, like, one of the things I definitely remember...so, when I joined Datadog, it was probably about 500 people. And I think we're just under 5,000 now. There are definitely some points where there were surprisingly, like, physical aspects to where it became a problem of just, like, where certain teams didn't fit into a room anymore. [laughs] Like, I had surprise in the changes in that, like, dynamic. I'm curious if you've all kind of run into any kind of, I don't know, similar interesting thresholds or changes as you've kind of grown and evolved. WILL: I will say this, we're about 100, I think, Victoria. VICTORIA: Oh, okay, we're 100 people. I think, you know, I've only been at thoughtbot for just over a year now. And my understanding of the history is that when we were growing before COVID, there's always been a very intentionality about growth. And there was never a goal to get to a huge size or to really grow beyond just, like, a steady, profitable growth. [laughs] So, when we were growing in person, there were new offices being stood up. So, we, you know, maybe started out of New York and Boston and grew to London. And then, there was Texas, and I think a few other ones that started. Then with COVID, the decision was made to go fully remote, and I think that's opened up a lot of opportunities for us. And from my understanding in the previous and the past, is that there's a big shift to be fully remote. It's been challenging, where I think a lot of people miss some of the in-person days, and I'm sure it's definitely lonely working remote all day by yourself. So, you have to really proactively find opportunities to see other people and to engage remotely. But I think also, we hire people from so many different places and so much different talent, and then, also, you know, better informs our products and creates a different, you know, energy within the company that I think is really fun and really exciting for us now. WILL: Yeah, I would agree with that because I think the team that I'm on has about 26 people on the Lift Off team. And we're constantly thinking of new ways to get everyone involved. But as a developer, me myself being remote, I love talking to people. So, I try to be proactive and, like, connect with the people I'm working with and say, "Hey, how can I help you with this?" Let's jump in this room and just work together, chat together, and stuff like that, so... And it has opened the door because the current project that I'm on, I would never have had an opportunity to be on. I think it's based in Utah, and I'm in South Florida. So, there's just no way if we weren't remote that I'd been a part of it. So... SEAN: Nice. And I can definitely appreciate that. I remember when we first started COVID lockdown; I think, at that point, Datadog was probably about...Datadog engineering was probably about 30% remote, so certainly a significant remote contingent but mixed. But my teams were pretty remote-heavy. So, in some ways, not a lot changed, right? Like, I think more people on my team were, like, who are all these other people in my house now instead of [laughs], I mean, just transition from being in an office to working from home. But I do remember maybe, like, about six months in, starting to feel, yeah, some of the loneliness and the separation of just, like, not being able to do, like, quarterly team meetups or stuff like that. So, it's definitely been an interesting transition. For context, at this point, we kind of have a hybrid setup. So, we still have a significant kind of full-time remote contingent, and then four people who are in office locations, people joining for about three days a week in office. So, it's definitely an interesting transition and an interesting new world. [laughs] VICTORIA: Yeah. And I'm curious how you find the tech scene in Denver versus New York or if you're engaging in the community in the same way since you moved. SEAN: There definitely is some weirdness since COVID started [laughs] broadly [inaudible 42:21]. So, I moved here in 2020. But I'd been coming out here a lot before that. I helped to build an office here with Bitly. So, I was probably coming out once a quarter for a bunch of years. So, one parallel that is finally similar is, like, in both places, it is a small world. It doesn't take that long for you to be in that community, in either of those communities and start running into the same people in different places. So, that's always been [inaudible 42:42] and especially in New York. New York is a city of what? 8, 9 million people? But once you're working in New York tech for a few years and you go into some meetups, you start running into the same people, and you have one or two degrees [inaudible 42:52] to a lot of people, surprisingly quickly. [laughs] So, that's similar. But Denver probably is interesting in that it's definitely transplant-heavy. I think Denver tends to check the box for, like, it was part of why Bitly opened an office here and, to a degree, Datadog as well. I think of like, you know, if you're trying to recruit people and you previously were mostly recruiting in, like, New York or Silicon Valley; if you're based in New York, and you're trying to recruit somebody from Silicon Valley, and part of why they're looking for a new gig is they're burned out on Silicon Valley, asking them to move to New York probably isn't all that attractive. [laughs] But Denver is different enough in that in terms of kind of being a smaller city, easier access to nature, a bunch of that kind of stuff, that a lot of times we were able to attract talent that was a much more appealing prospect. [laughs] You'll see an interesting mix of industries here. One of the bigger things here is there's a very large government and DOD presence here. I remember I went to DevOps Days Rockies, I think, a few years ago. There was a Birds of a Feather session on trying to apply DevOps principles in air-gapped networks. That was a very interesting conversation. [laughs] VICTORIA: That's interesting. I would not have thought Colorado would be a big hub for federal technology. But there you go, it's everywhere. WILL: Yeah. SEAN: Denver metro, I think, is actually the largest presence of federal offices outside of the D.C. metro. VICTORIA: That's interesting. Yeah, I'm used to trying to recruit people into D.C., and so, it's definitely not the good weather, [laughs], not a good argument in my favor. So, I just wanted to give you a final chance. Anything else you'd like to promote, Sean? SEAN: Generally, not super active on social things these days, but you can find whatever I have done at seanoc.com, S-E–A-N-O-C.com for the spelling. And otherwise, if you're interested in some engineering content and hearing about some of those kind of bleeding edge challenges that I was mentioning before, I would definitely check out the Datadog engineering blog. There's lots of kind of really interesting content there on both, you know, things we've learned from incidents and interesting projects that we're working on. There's all kinds of fun stuff there. VICTORIA: That makes me think I should have asked you more questions, Sean. [laughs] No, I think it was great. Thank you so much for joining us today. I'll definitely check all that stuff out. You can subscribe to the show and find notes along with a complete transcript for this episode at giantrobots.fm. If you have questions or comments, email us at hosts@giantrobots.fm. You can find me on Twitter @victori_ousg. WILL: And you can find me on Twitter @will23larry. This podcast is brought to you by thoughtbot and produced and edited by Mandy Moore. Thanks for listening. See you next time. ANNOUNCER: This podcast is brought to you by thoughtbot, your expert strategy, design, development, and product management partner. We bring digital products from idea to success and teach you how because we care. Learn more at thoughtbot.com. Special Guest: Sean O'Connor.

Episode 1227: Neocon Buffering

Communities in Schools works with children in 55 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools which have high percentages of low-income students. Host Pamela Escobar is joined by CIS president and CEO Men Tchaas Ari, Bryani Woods, who was a CIS student about eight years ago, and Jaliah Wilson, a CIS student who just graduated from high school.

This week, we go back in time to look into a man who was born in 1878! He played for the St Louis Cardinals, before they were called that. Famous for his strut, cockiness, and crazy things he did while drinking. Things like punching showgirls, and pulling guns on train conductors. He transitioned from baseball, into a film career that had him in some pretty wild circumstances. A wild guy, living an old timey wild life!!Hate your nickname, have your team refuse to play in the 2nd World Series ever, and punch anybody who doesn't like you, punching their girlfriend with "Turkey" Mike Donlin!!Check us out, every Tuesday!We will continue to bring you the biggest idiots in sports history!! Hosted by James Pietragallo & Jimmie Whisman Donate at... patreon.com/crimeinsports or with paypal.com using our email: crimeinsports@gmail.com Get all the CIS & STM merch at crimeinsports.threadless.com Go to shutupandgivememurder.com for all things CIS & STM!! Contact us on... twitter.com/crimeinsports crimeinsports@gmail.com facebook.com/Crimeinsports instagram.com/smalltownmurderSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Episode 1226: Don’t Tread On Me

Kelsey Hightower joins Corey on Screaming in the Cloud to discuss his reflections on how the tech industry is progressing. Kelsey describes what he's been getting out of retirement so far, and reflects on what he learned throughout his high-profile career - including why feature sprawl is such a driving force behind the complexity of the cloud environment and the tactics he used to create demos that are engaging for the audience. Corey and Kelsey also discuss the importance of remaining authentic throughout your career, and what it means to truly have an authentic voice in tech. About KelseyKelsey Hightower is a former Distinguished Engineer at Google Cloud, the co-chair of KubeCon, the world's premier Kubernetes conference, and an open source enthusiast. He's also the co-author of Kubernetes Up & Running: Dive into the Future of Infrastructure. Recently, Kelsey announced his retirement after a 25-year career in tech.Links Referenced:Twitter: https://twitter.com/kelseyhightower 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: Do you wish there were cheat codes for database optimization? Well, there are – no seriously. If you're using Postgres or MySQL on Amazon Aurora or RDS, OtterTune uses AI to automatically optimize your knobs and indexes and queries and other bits and bobs in databases. OtterTune applies optimal settings and recommendations in the background or surfaces them to you and allows you to do it. The best part is that there's no cost to try it. Get a free, thirty-day trial to take it for a test drive. Go to ottertune dot com to learn more. That's O-T-T-E-R-T-U-N-E dot com.Corey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud. I'm Corey Quinn. You know, there's a great story from the Bible or Torah—Old Testament, regardless—that I was always a big fan of where you wind up with the Israelites walking the desert for 40 years in order to figure out what comes next. And Moses led them but could never enter into what came next. Honestly, I feel like my entire life is sort of going to be that direction. Not the biblical aspects, but rather always wondering what's on the other side of a door that I can never cross, and that door is retirement. Today I'm having returning guest Kelsey Hightower, who is no longer at Google. In fact, is no longer working and has joined the ranks of the gloriously retired. Welcome back, and what's it like?Kelsey: I'm happy to be here. I think retirement is just like work in some ways: you have to learn how to do it. A lot of people have no practice in their adult life what to do with all of their time. We have small dabs in it, like, you get the weekend off, depending on what your work, but you never have enough time to kind of unwind and get into something else. So, I'm being honest with myself. It's going to be a learning curve, what to do with that much time.You're probably still going to do work, but it's going to be a different type of work than you're used to. And so, that's where I am. 30 days into this, I'm in that learning mode, I'm on-the-job training.Corey: What's harder than you expected?Kelsey: It's not the hard part because I think mentally I've been preparing for, like, the last ten years, being a minimalist, learning how to kind of live within my means, learn to appreciate things that are just not work-related or status symbols. And so, to me, it felt like a smooth transition because I started to value my time more than anything else, right? Just waking up the next day became valuable to me. Spending time in the moment, right, you go to these conferences, there's, like, 10,000 people, but you learn to value those one-on-one encounters, those one-off, kind of, let's just go grab lunch situations. So, to me, retirement just makes more room for that, right? I no longer have this calendar that is super full, so I think for me, it was a nice transition in terms of getting more of that valuable time back.Corey: It seems to me that you're in a similar position to the one that I find myself in where the job that you were doing and I still am is tied, more or less, to a sense of identity as opposed to a particular task or particular role that you fill. You were Kelsey Hightower. That was a complete sentence. People didn't necessarily need to hear the rest of what you were working on or what you were going to be talking about at a given conference or whatnot. So, it seemed, at least from the outside, that an awful lot of what you did was quite simply who you were. Do you feel that your sense of identity has changed?Kelsey: So, I think when you have that much influence, when you have that much reputation, the words you say travel further, they tend to come with a little bit more respect, and so when you're working with a team on new product, and you say, “Hey, I think we should change some things.” And when they hear those words coming from someone that they trust or has a name that is attached to reputation, you tend to be able to make a lot of impact with very few words. But what you also find is that no matter what you get involved in—configuration management, distributed systems, serverless, working with customers—it all is helped and aided by the reputation that you bring into that line of work. And so yes, who you are matters, but one thing that I think helped me, kind of greatly, people are paying attention maybe to the last eight years of my career: containers, Kubernetes, but my career stretches back to the converting COBOL into Python days; the dawn of DevOps, Puppet, Chef, and Ansible; the Golang appearance and every tool being rewritten from Ruby to Golang; the Docker era.And so, my identity has stayed with me throughout those transitions. And so, it was very easy for me to walk away from that thing because I've done it three or four times before in the past, so I know who I am. I've never had, like, a Twitter bio that said, “Company X. X person from company X.” I've learned long ago to just decouple who I am from my current employer because that is always subject to change.Corey: I was fortunate enough to not find myself in the public eye until I owned my own company. But I definitely remember times in my previous incarnations where I was, “Oh, today I'm working at this company,” and I believed—usually inaccurately—that this was it. This was where I really found my niche. And then surprise I'm not there anymore six months later for, either their decision, my decision, or mutual agreement. And I was always hesitant about hanging a shingle out that was tied too tightly to any one employer.Even now, I was little worried about doing it when I went independent, just because well, what if it doesn't work? Well, what if, on some level? I think that there's an authenticity that you can bring with you—and you certainly have—where, for a long time now, whenever you say something, I take it seriously, and a lot of people do. It's not that you're unassailably correct, but I've never known you to say something you did not authentically believe in. And that is an opinion that is very broadly shared in this industry. So, if nothing else, you definitely were a terrific object lesson in speaking the truth, as you saw it.Kelsey: I think what you describe is one way that, whether you're an engineer doing QA, working in the sales department, when you can be honest with the team you're working with, when you can be honest with the customers you're selling into when you can be honest with the community you're part of, that's where the authenticity gets built, right? Companies, sometimes on the surface, you believe that they just want you to walk the party line, you know, they give you the lines and you just read them verbatim and you're doing your part. To be honest, you can do that with the website. You can do that with a well-placed ad in the search queries.What people are actually looking for are real people with real experiences, sharing not just fact, but I think when you mix kind of fact and opinion, you get this level of authenticity that you can't get just by pure strategic marketing. And so, having that leverage, I remember back in the day, people used to say, “I'm going to do the right thing and if it gets me fired, then that's just the way it's going to be. I don't want to go around doing the wrong thing because I'm scared I'm going to lose my job.” You want to find yourself in that situation where doing the right thing, is also the best thing for the company, and that's very rare, so when I've either had that opportunity or I've tried to create that opportunity and move from there.Corey: It resonates and it shows. I have never had a lot of respect for people who effectively are saying one thing today and another thing the next week based upon which way they think that the winds are blowing. But there's also something to be said for being able and willing to publicly recant things you have said previously as technology evolves, as your perspective evolves and, in light of new information, I'm now going to change my perspective on something. I've done that already with multi-cloud, for example. I thought it was ridiculous when I heard about it. But there are also expressions of it that basically every company is using, including my own. And it's a nuanced area. Where I find it challenging is when you see a lot of these perspectives that people are espousing that just so happen to deeply align with where their paycheck comes from any given week. That doesn't ring quite as true to me.Kelsey: Yeah, most companies actually don't know how to deal with it either. And now there has been times at any number of companies where my authentic opinion that I put out there is against party line. And you get those emails from directors and VPs. Like, “Hey, I thought we all agree to think this way or to at least say this.” And that's where you have to kind of have that moment of clarity and say, “Listen, that is undeniably wrong. It's so wrong in fact that if you say this in public, whether a small setting or large setting, you are going to instantly lose credibility going forward for yourself. Forget the company for a moment. There's going to be a situation where you will no longer be effective in your job because all of your authenticity is now gone. And so, what I'm trying to do and tell you is don't do that. You're better off saying nothing.”But if you go out there, and you're telling what is obviously misinformation or isn't accurate, people are not dumb. They're going to see through it and you will be classified as a person not to listen to. And so, I think a lot of people struggle with that because they believe that enterprise's consensus should also be theirs.Corey: An argument that I made—we'll call it a prediction—four-and-a-half years ago, was that in five years, nobody would really care about Kubernetes. And people misunderstood that initially, and I've clarified since repeatedly that I'm not suggesting it's going away: “Oh, turns out that was just a ridiculous fever dream and we're all going back to running bare metal with our hands again,” but rather that it would slip below the surface-level of awareness. And I don't know that I got the timing quite right on that, I think it's going to depend on the company and the culture that you find yourself in. But increasingly, when there's an application to run, it's easy to ask someone just, “Oh, great. Where's the Kubernetes cluster live so we can throw this on there and just add it to the rest of the pile?”That is sort of what I was seeing. My intention with that was not purely just to be controversial, as much fun as that might be, but also to act as a bit of a warning, where I've known too many people who let their identities become inextricably tangled with the technology. But technologies rise and fall, and at some point—like, you talk about configuration management days; I learned to speak publicly as a traveling trainer for Puppet. I wrote part of SaltStack once upon a time. But it was clear that that was not the direction the industry was going, so it was time to find something else to focus on. And I fear for people who don't keep an awareness or their feet underneath them and pay attention to broader market trends.Kelsey: Yeah, I think whenever I was personally caught up in linking my identity to technology, like, “I'm a Rubyist,” right?“, I'm a Puppeteer,” and you wear those names proudly. But I remember just thinking to myself, like, “You have to take a step back. What's more important, you or the technology?” And at some point, I realized, like, it's me, that is more important, right? Like, my independent thinking on this, my independent experience with this is far more important than the success of this thing.But also, I think there's a component there. Like when you talked about Kubernetes, you know, maybe being less relevant in five years, there's two things there. One is the success of all infrastructure things equals irrelevancy. When flights don't crash, when bridges just work, you do not think about them. You just use them because they're so stable and they become very boring. That is the success criteria.Corey: Utilities. No one's wondering if the faucet's going to work when they turn it on in the morning.Kelsey: Yeah. So, you know, there's a couple of ways to look at your statement. One is, you believe Kubernetes is on the trajectory that it's going to stabilize itself and hit that success criteria, and then it will be irrelevant. Or there's another part of the irrelevancy where something else comes along and replaces that thing, right? I think Cloud Foundry and Mesos are two good examples of Kubernetes coming along and stealing all of the attention from that because those particular products never gained that mass adoption. Maybe they got to the stable part, but they never got to the mass adoption part. So, I think when it comes to infrastructure, it's going to be irrelevant. It's just what side of that [laugh] coin do you land on?Corey: It's similar to folks who used to have to work at a variety of different companies on very specific Linux kernel subsystems because everyone had to care because there were significant performance impacts. Time went on and now there's still a few of those people that very much need to care, but for the rest of us, it is below the level of things that we have to care about. For me, the signs of the unsustainability were, oh, you can run Kubernetes effectively in production? That's a minimum of a quarter-million dollars a year in comp or up in some cases. Not every company is going to be able to field a team of those people and still remain a going concern in business. Nor frankly, should they have to.Kelsey: I'm going to pull on that thread a little bit because it's about—we're hitting that ten-year mark of Kubernetes. So, when Kubernetes comes out, why were people drawn to it, right? Why did it even get the time of day to begin with? And I think Docker kind of opened Pandora's box there. This idea of Chef, Puppet, Ansible, ten thousand package managers, and honestly, that trajectory was going to continue forever and it was helping no one. It was literally people doing duplicate work depending on the operating system you're dealing with and we were wasting time copying bits to servers—literally—in a very glorified way.So, Docker comes along and gives us this nicer, better abstraction, but it has gaps. It has no orchestration. It's literally this thing where now we've unified the packaging situation, we've learned a lot from Red Hat, YUM, Debian, and the various package repo combinations out there and so we made this universal thing. Great. We also learned a little bit about orchestration through brute force, bash scripts, config management, you name it, and so we serialized that all into this thing we call Kubernetes.It's pretty simple on the surface, but it was probably never worthy of such fanfare, right? But I think a lot of people were relieved that now we finally commoditized this expertise that the Googles, the Facebooks of the world had, right, building these systems that can copy bits to other systems very fast. There you go. We've gotten that piece. But I think what the market actually wants is in the mobile space, if you want to ship software to 300 million people that you don't even know, you can do it with the app store.There's this appetite that the boring stuff should be easy. Let's Encrypt has made SSL certificates beyond easy. It's just so easy to do the right thing. And I think for this problem we call deployments—you know, shipping apps around—at some point we have to get to a point where that is just crazy easy. And it still isn't.So, I think some of the frustration people express ten years later, they're realizing that they're trying to recreate a Rube Goldberg machine with Kubernetes is the base element and we still haven't understood that this whole thing needs to simplify, not ten thousand new pieces so you can build your own adventure.Corey: It's the idea almost of what I'm seeing AWS go through, and to some extent, its large competitors. But building anything on top of AWS from scratch these days is still reminiscent of going to Home Depot—or any hardware store—and walking up and down the aisles and getting all the different components to piece together what you want. Sometimes just want to buy something from Target that's already assembled and you have to do all of that work. I'm not saying there isn't value to having a Home Depot down the street, but it's also not the panacea that solves for all use cases. An awful lot of customers just want to get the job done and I feel that if we cling too tightly to how things used to be, we lose it.Kelsey: I'm going to tell you, being in the cloud business for almost eight years, it's the customers that create this. Now, I'm not blaming the customer, but when you start dealing with thousands of customers with tons of money, you end up in a very different situation. You can have one customer willing to pay you a billion dollars a year and they will dictate things that apply to no one else. “We want this particular set of features that only we will use.” And for a billion bucks a year times ten years, it's probably worth from a business standpoint to add that feature.Now, do this times 500 customers, each major provider. What you end up with is a cloud console that is unbearable, right? Because they also want these things to be first-class citizens. There's always smaller companies trying to mimic larger peers in their segment that you just end up in that chaos machine of unbound features forever. I don't know how to stop it. Unless you really come out maybe more Apple style and you tell people, “This is the one and only true way to do things and if you don't like it, you have to go find an alternative.” The cloud business, I think, still deals with the, “If you have a large payment, we will build it.”Corey: I think that that is a perspective that is not appreciated until you've been in the position of watching how large enterprises really interact with each other. Because it's, “Well, what customer the world is asking for yet another way to run containers?” “Uh, this specific one and their constraints are valid.” Every time I think I've seen everything there is to see in the world of cloud, I just have to go talk to one more customer and I'm learning something new. It's inevitable.I just wish that there was a better way to explain some of this to newcomers, when they're looking at, “Oh, I'm going to learn how this cloud thing works. Oh, my stars, look at how many services there are.” And then they wind up getting lost with analysis paralysis, and every time they get started and ask someone for help, they're pushed in a completely different direction and you keep spinning your wheels getting told to start over time and time again when any of these things can be made to work. But getting there is often harder than it really should be.Kelsey: Yeah. I mean, I think a lot of people don't realize how far you can get with, like, three VMs, a load balancer, and Postgres. My guess is you can probably build pretty much any clone of any service we use today with at least 1 million customers. Most people never reached that level—I don't even want to say the word scale—but that blueprint is there and most people will probably be better served by that level of simplicity than trying to mimic the behaviors of large customers—or large companies—with these elaborate use cases. I don't think they understand the context there. A lot of that stuff is baggage. It's not [laugh] even, like, best-of-breed or great design. It's like happenstance from 20 years of trying to buy everything that's been sold to you.Corey: I agree with that idea wholeheartedly. I was surprising someone the other day when I said that if you were to give me a task of getting some random application up and running by tomorrow, I do a traditional three-tier architecture, some virtual machines, a load balancer, and a database service. And is that the way that all the cool kids are doing it today? Well, they're not talking about it, but mostly. But the point is, is that it's what I know, it's where my background is, and the thing you already know when you're trying to solve a new problem is incredibly helpful, rather than trying to learn everything along that new path that you're forging down. Is that architecture the best approach? No, but it's perfectly sufficient for an awful lot of stuff.Kelsey: Yeah. And so, I mean, look, I've benefited my whole career from people fantasizing about [laugh] infrastructure—Corey: [laugh].Kelsey: And the truth is that in 2023, this stuff is so powerful that you can do almost anything you want to do with the simplest architecture that's available to us. The three-tier architecture has actually gotten better over the years. I think people are forgotten: CPUs are faster, RAM is much bigger quantities, the networks are faster, right, these databases can store more data than ever. It's so good to learn the fundamentals, start there, and worst case, you have a sound architecture people can reason about, and then you can go jump into the deep end, once you learn how to swim.Corey: I think that people would be depressed to understand just how much the common case for the value that Kubernetes brings is, “Oh yeah, now we can lose a drive or a server and the application stays up.” It feels like it's a bit overkill for that one somewhat paltry use case, but that problem has been hounding companies for decades.Kelsey: Yeah, I think at some point, the whole ‘SSH is my only interface into these kinds of systems,' that's a little low level, that's a little bare bones, and there will probably be a feature now where we start to have this not Infrastructure as Code, not cloud where we put infrastructure behind APIs and you pay per use, but I think what Kubernetes hints at is a future where you have APIs that do something. Right now the APIs give you pieces so you can assemble things. In the future, the APIs will just do something, “Run this app. I need it to be available and here's my money budget, my security budget, and reliability budget.” And then that thing will say, “Okay, we know how to do that, and here's roughly what is going to cost.”And I think that's what people actually want because that's how requests actually come down from humans, right? We say, “We want this app or this game to be played by millions of people from Australia to New York.” And then for a person with experience, that means something. You kind of know what architecture you need for that, you know what pieces that need to go there. So, we're just moving into a realm where we're going to have APIs that do things all of a sudden.And so, Kubernetes is the warm-up to that era. And that's why I think that transition is a little rough because it leaks the pieces part, so where you can kind of build all the pieces that you want. But we know what's coming. Serverless also hints at this. But that's what people should be looking for: APIs that actually do something.Corey: This episode is sponsored in part by Panoptica.  Panoptica simplifies container deployment, monitoring, and security, protecting the entire application stack from build to runtime. Scalable across clusters and multi-cloud environments, Panoptica secures containers, serverless APIs, and Kubernetes with a unified view, reducing operational complexity and promoting collaboration by integrating with commonly used developer, SRE, and SecOps tools. Panoptica ensures compliance with regulatory mandates and CIS benchmarks for best practice conformity. Privacy teams can monitor API traffic and identify sensitive data, while identifying open-source components vulnerable to attacks that require patching. Proactively addressing security issues with Panoptica allows businesses to focus on mitigating critical risks and protecting their interests. Learn more about Panoptica today at panoptica.app.Corey: You started the show by talking about how your career began with translating COBOL into Python. I firmly believe someone starting their career today listening to this could absolutely find that by the time their career starts drawing to their own close, that Kubernetes is right in there as far as sounding like the deprecated thing that no one really talks about or thinks about anymore. And I hope so. I want the future to be brighter than the past. I want getting a business or getting software together in a way that helps people to not require the amount of, “First, spend six weeks at a boot camp,” or, “Learn how to write just enough code that you can wind up getting funding and then have it torn apart.”What's the drag-and-drop story? What's the describe the application to a robot and it builds it for you? I'm optimistic about the future of infrastructure, just because based upon its power to potentially make reliability and scale available to folks who have no idea of what's involved with that. That's kind of the point. That's the end game of having won this space.Kelsey: Well, you know what? Kubernetes is providing the metadata to make that possible, right? Like in the early days, people were writing one-off scripts or, you know, writing little for loops to get things in the right place. And then we get config management that kind of formalizes that, but it still had no metadata, right? You'd have things like Puppet report information.But in the world of, like, Kubernetes, or any cloud provider, now you get semantic meaning. “This app needs this volume with this much space with this much memory, I need three of these behind this load balancer with these protocols enabled.” There is now so much metadata about applications, their life cycles, and how they work that if you were to design a new system, you can actually use that data to craft a much better API that made a lot of this boilerplate the defaults. Oh, that's a web application. You do not need to specify all of this boilerplate. Now, we can give you much better nouns and verbs to describe what needs to happen.So, I think this is that transition as all the new people coming up, they're going to be dealing with semantic meaning to infrastructure, where we were dealing with, like, tribal knowledge and intuition, right? “Run this script, pipe it to this thing, and then this should happen. And if it doesn't, run the script again with this flag.” Versus, “Oh, here's the semantic meaning to a working system.” That's a game-changer.Corey: One other topic I wanted to ask you about—I've it's been on my list of things to bring up the next time I ran into you and then you went ahead and retired, making it harder to run into you. But a little while back, I was at a tech conference and someone gave a demo, and it didn't go as well as they had hoped. And a few of us were talking about it afterwards. We've all been speakers, we've all lived that life. Zero shade.But someone brought you up in particular—unprompted; your legend does precede you—and the phrase that they used was that Kelsey's demos were always picture-perfect. He was so lucky with how the demos worked out. And I just have to ask—because you don't strike me as someone who is not careful, particularly when all eyes are upon you—and real experts make things look easy, did you have demos periodically go wrong that the audience just didn't see going wrong along the way? Or did you just actually YOLO all of your demos and got super lucky every single time for the last eight years?Kelsey: There was a musician who said, “Hey, your demos are like jazz. You improvise the whole thing.” There's no script, there's no video. The way I look at the demo is, like, you got this instrument, the command prompt, and the web browser. You can do whatever you want with them.Now, I have working code. I wrote the code, I wrote the deployment scenarios, I delete it all and I put it all back. And so, I know how it's supposed to work from the ground up. And so, what that means is if anything goes wrong, I can improvise. I could go into fixing the code. I can go into doing a redeploy.And I'll give you one good example. The first time Kubernetes came out, there was this small meetup in San Francisco with just the core contributors, right? So, there is no community yet, there's no conference yet, just people hacking on Kubernetes. And so, we decided, we're going to have the first Kubernetes meetup. And everyone got, like, six, seven minutes, max. That's it. You got to move.And so, I was like, “Hey, I noticed that in the lineup, there is no ‘What is Kubernetes?' talk. We're just getting into these nuts and bolts and I don't think that's fair to the people that will be watching this for the first time.” And I said, “All right, Kelsey, you should give maybe an intro to what it is.” I was like, “You know what I'll do? I'm going to build a Kubernetes cluster from the ground up, starting with VMs on my laptop.”And I'm in it and I'm feeling confident. So, confidence is the part that makes it look good, right? Where you're confident in the commands you type. One thing I learned to do is just use your history, just hit the up arrow instead of trying to copy all these things out. So, you hit the up arrow, you find the right command and you talk through it and no one looks at what's happening. You're cycling through the history.Or you have multiple tabs where you know the next up arrow is the right history. So, you give yourself shortcuts. And so, I'm halfway through this demo. We got three minutes left, and it doesn't work. Like, VMware is doing something weird on my laptop and there's a guy calling me off stage, like, “Hey, that's it. Cut it now. You're done.”I'm like, “Oh, nope. Thou shalt not go out like this.” It's time to improvise. And so, I said, “Hey, who wants to see me finish this?” And now everyone is locked in. It's dead silent. And I blow the whole thing away. I bring up the VMs, I [pixie 00:28:20] boot, I installed the kubelet, I install Docker. And everyone's clapping. And it's up, it's going, and I say, “Now, if all of this works, we run this command and it should start running the app.” And I do kubectl apply-f and it comes up and the place goes crazy.And I had more to the demo. But you stop. You've gotten the point across, right? This is what Kubernetes is, here's how it works, and look how you do it from scratch. And I remember saying, “And that's the end of my presentation.” You need to know when to stop, you need to know when to pivot, and you need to have confidence that it's supposed to work, and if you've seen it work a couple of times, your confidence is unshaken.And when I walked off that stage, I remember someone from Red Hat was like—Clayton Coleman; that's his name—Clayton Coleman walked up to me and said, “You planned that. You planned it to fail just like that, so you can show people how to go from scratch all the way up. That was brilliant.” And I was like, “Sure. That's exactly what I did.”Corey: “Yeah, I meant to do that.” I like that approach. I found there's always things I have to plan for in demos. For example, I can never count on having solid WiFi from a conference hall. The show has to go on. It's, okay, the WiFi doesn't work. I've at one point had to give a talk where the projector just wasn't working to a bunch of students. So okay, close the laptop. We're turning this into a bunch of question-and-answer sessions, and it was one of the better talks I've ever given.But the alternative is getting stuck in how you think a talk absolutely needs to go. Now, keynotes are a little harder where everything has been scripted and choreographed and at that point, I've had multiple fallbacks for demos that I've had to switch between. And people never noticed I was doing it for that exact reason. But it takes work to look polished.Kelsey: I will tell you that the last Next keynote I gave was completely irresponsible. No dry runs, no rehearsals, no table reads, no speaker notes. And I think there were 30,000 people at that particular Next. And Diane Greene was still CEO, and I remember when marketing was like, “Yo, at least a backup recording.” I was like, “Nah, I don't have anything.”And that demo was extensive. I mean, I was building an app from scratch, starting with Postgres, adding the schema, building an app, deploying the app. And something went wrong halfway. And there's this joke that I came up with just to pass over the time, they gave me a new Chromebook to do the demo. And so, it's not mine, so none of the default settings were there, I was getting pop-ups all over the place.And I came up with this joke on the way to the conference. I was like, “You know what'd be cool? When I show off the serverless stuff, I would just copy the code from Stack Overflow. That'd be like a really cool joke to say this is what senior engineers do.” And I go to Stack Overflow and it's getting all of these pop-ups and my mouse couldn't highlight the text.So, I'm sitting there like a deer in headlights in front of all of these people and I'm looking down, and marketing is, like, “This is what… this is what we're talking about.” And so, I'm like, “Man do I have to end this thing here?” And I remember I kept trying, I kept trying, and came to me. Once the mouse finally got in there and I cleared up all the popups, I just came up with this joke. I said, “Good developers copy.” And I switched over to my terminal and I took the text from Stack Overflow and I said, “Great developers paste,” and the whole room start laughing.And I had them back. And we kept going and continued. And at the end, there was like this Google Assistant, and when it was finished, I said, “Thank you,” to the Google Assistant and it was talking back through the live system. And it said, “I got to admit, that was kind of dope.” So, I go to the back and Diane Greene walks back there—the CEO of Google Cloud—and she pats me on the shoulder. “Kelsey, that was dope.”But it was the thrill because I had as much thrill as the people watching it. So, in real-time, I was going through all these emotions. But I think people forget, the demo is supposed to convey something. The demo is supposed to tell some story. And I've seen people overdo their demos with way too much code, way too many commands, almost if they're trying to show off their expertise versus telling a story. And so, when I think about the demo, it has to complement the entire narrative. And so, sometimes you don't need as many commands, you don't need as much code. You can keep things simple and that gives you a lot more ins and outs in case something does go crazy.Corey: And I think the key takeaway here that so many people lose sight of is you have to know the material well enough that whatever happens, well, things don't always go the way I planned during the day, either, and talking through that is something that I think serves as a good example. It feels like a bit more of a challenge when you're trying to demo something that a company is trying to sell someone, “Oh, yeah, it didn't work. But that's okay.” But I'm still reminded by probably one of the best conference demo fails I've ever seen on video. One day, someone was attempting to do a talk that hit Amazon S3 and it didn't work.And the audience started shouting at him that yeah, S3 is down right now. Because that was the big day that S3 took a nap for four hours. It was one of those foundational things you'd should never stop to consider. Like, well, what if the internet doesn't work tomorrow when I'm doing my demo? That's a tough one to work around. But rough timing.Kelsey: [breathy sound]Corey: He nailed the rest of the talk, though. You keep going. That's the thing that people miss. They get stuck in the demo that isn't working, they expect the audience knows as much as they do about what's supposed to happen next. You're the one up there telling a story. People forget it's storytelling.Kelsey: Now, I will be remiss to say, I know that the demo gods have been on my side for, like, ten, maybe fifteen years solid. So, I retired from doing live demos. This is why I just don't do them anymore. I know I'm overdue as an understatement. But the thing I've learned though, is that what I found more impressive than the live demo is to be able to convey the same narratives through story alone. No slides. No demo. Nothing. But you can still make people feel where you would try to go with that live demo.And it's insanely hard, especially for technologies people have never seen before. But that's that new challenge that I kind of set up for myself. So, if you see me at a keynote and you've noticed why I've been choosing these fireside chats, it's mainly because I'm also trying to increase my ability to share narrative, technical concepts, but now in a new form. So, this new storytelling format through the fireside chat has been my substitute for the live demo, normally because I think sometimes, unless there's something really to show that people haven't seen before, the live demo isn't as powerful to me. Once the thing is kind of known… the live demo is kind of more of the same. So, I think they really work well when people literally have never seen the thing before, but outside of that, I think you can kind of move on to, like, real-life scenarios and narratives that help people understand the fundamentals and the philosophy behind the tech.Corey: An awful lot of tools and tech that we use on a day-to-day basis as well are thankfully optimized for the people using them and the ergonomics of going about your day. That is orthogonal, in my experience, to looking very impressive on stage. It's the rare company that can have a product that not only works well but also presents well. And that is something I don't tend to index on when I'm selecting a tool to do something with. So, it's always a question of how can I make this more visually entertaining? For while I got out of doing demos entirely, just because talking about things that have more staying power than a screenshot that is going to wind up being irrelevant the next week when they decide to redo the console for some service yet again.Kelsey: But you know what? That was my secret to doing software products and projects. When I was at CoreOS, we used to have these meetups we would used to do every two weeks or so. So, when we were building things like etcd, Fleet was a container management platform that came before Kubernetes, we would always run through them as a user, start install them, use them, and ask how does it feel? These command line flags, they don't feel right. This isn't a narrative you can present with the software alone.But once we could, then the meetups were that much more engaging. Like hey, have you ever tried to distribute configuration to, like, a thousand servers? It's insanely hard. Here's how you do with Puppet. But now I'm going to show you how you do with etcd. And then the narrative will kind of take care of itself because the tool was positioned behind what people would actually do with it versus what the tool could do by itself.Corey: I think that's the missing piece that most marketing doesn't seem to quite grasp is, they talk about the tool and how awesome it is, but that's why I love customer demos so much. They're showing us how they use a tool to solve a real-world problem. And honestly, from my snarky side of the world and the attendant perspective there, I can make an awful lot of fun about basically anything a company decides to show me, but put a customer on stage talking about how whatever they've built is solving a real-world problem for them, that's the point where I generally shut up and listen because I'm going to learn something about a real-world story. Because you don't generally get to tell customers to go on stage and just make up a story that makes us sound good, and have it come off with any sense of reality whatsoever. I haven't seen that one happen yet, but I'm sure it's out there somewhere.Kelsey: I don't know how many founders or people building companies listen in to your podcast, but this is right now, I think the number one problem that especially venture-backed startups have. They tend to have great technology—maybe it's based off some open-source project—with tons of users who just know how that tool works, it's just an ingredient into what they're already trying to do. But that isn't going to ever be your entire customer base. Soon, you'll deal with customers who don't understand the thing you have and they need more than technology, right? They need a product.And most of these companies struggle painting that picture. Here's what you can do with it. Or here's what you can't do now, but you will be able to do if you were to use this. And since they are missing that, a lot of these companies, they produce a lot of code, they ship a lot of open-source stuff, they raise a lot of capital, and then it just goes away, it fades out over time because they can bring on no newcomers. The people who need help the most, they don't have a narrative for them, and so therefore, they're just hoping that the people who have all the skills in the world, the early adopters, but unfortunately, those people are tend to be the ones that don't actually pay. They just kind of do it themselves. It's the people who need the most help.Corey: How do we monetize the bleeding edge of adoption? In many cases you don't. They become your community if you don't hug them to death first.Kelsey: Exactly.Corey: Ugh. None of this is easy. I really want to thank you for taking the time to catch up and talk about how you seen the remains of a career well spent, and now you're going off into that glorious sunset. But I have a sneaking suspicion you'll still be around. Where should people go if they want to follow up on what you're up to these days?Kelsey: Right now I still use… I'm going to keep calling it Twitter.Corey: I agree.Kelsey: I kind of use that for my real-time interactions. And I'm still attending conferences, doing fireside chats, and just meeting people on those conference floors. But that's what where I'll be for now. So yeah, I'll still be around, but maybe not as deep. And I'll be spending more time just doing normal life stuff, maybe less building software.Corey: And we will, of course, put a link to that in the show notes. Thank you so much for taking the time to catch up and share your reflections on how the industry is progressing.Kelsey: Awesome. Thanks for having me, Corey.Corey: Kelsey Hightower, now gloriously retired. 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 comment that you're going to type on stage as part of a conference talk, and then accidentally typo all over yourself while you're doing it.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.

Episode 1225: Cleveland Streamys

It was past Josh's bed time when this episode was recorded, so he let's Mark do all the talking. Mark shows off his Google Sheet skills by walking us through the CIS controls, specifically IG1. IG1 was mentioned at the White House Convening on K12 Cybersecurity a few weeks ago and we thought it was a good idea to delve into what that means and how to get started with implementation. Mark also talks about the CIS Workbook to help you rate your current security posted against CIS Controls. After completing the Workbook, you are presented with a report that gives you starting points for your weakest ratings. Here is a spreadsheet with IG1, IG2 and IG3. For the sake of this episode, we only focused on IG1. Listen here (and on all major podcast platforms). Join the K12TechPro.com Community. Buy our merch!!! SomethingCool.com Extreme Networks - Email dmayer@extremenetworks.com Fortinet - Email fortinetpodcast@fortinet.com Jupiter - Email Stuart at stuart.miles@jupitered.com Looking for a new SIS? Here is our general “demo” video: Jupiter Demo And learn more here: Jupiter Oh, and... Email us at k12techtalk@gmail.com Tweet us err X us @k12techtalkpod Visit our LinkedIn page HERE

Levi McCormick, Cloud Architect at Jamf, joins Corey on Screaming in the Cloud to discuss his work modernizing baseline cloud infrastructure and his experience being on the compliance side of cloud engineering. Levi explains how he works to ensure the different departments he collaborates with are all on the same page so that different definitions don't end up in miscommunications, and why he feels a sandbox environment is an important tool that leads to a successful production environment. Levi and Corey also explore the ethics behind the latest generative AI craze. About LeviLevi is an automation engineer, with a focus on scalable infrastructure and rapid development. He leverages deep understanding of DevOps culture and cloud technologies to build platforms that scale to millions of users. His passion lies in helping others learn to cloud better.Links Referenced: Jamf: https://www.jamf.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/levi_mccormick LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/levimccormick/ 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: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud. I'm Corey Quinn. A longtime friend and person has been a while since he's been on the show, Levi McCormick has been promoted or punished for his sins, depending upon how you want to slice that, and he is now the Director of Cloud Engineering at Jamf. Levi, welcome back.Levi: Thanks for having me, Corey.Corey: I have to imagine internally, you put that very pronounced F everywhere, and sometimes where it doesn't belong, like your IAMf policies and whatnot.Levi: It is fun to see how people like to interpret how to pronounce our name.Corey: So, it's been a while. What were you doing before? And how did you wind up stumbling your way into your current role?Levi: [laugh]. When we last spoke, I was a cloud architect here, diving into just our general practices and trying to shore up some of them. In between, I did a short stint as director of FedRAMP. We are pursuing some certifications in that area and I led, kind of, the engineering side of the compliance journey.Corey: That sounds fairly close to hell on earth from my particular point of view, just because I've dealt in the compliance side of cloud engineering before, and it sounds super interesting from a technical level until you realize just how much of it revolves around checking the boxes, and—at least in the era I did it—explaining things to auditors that I kind of didn't feel I should have to explain to an auditor, but there you have it. Has the state of that world improved since roughly 2015?Levi: I wouldn't say it has improved. While doing this, I did feel like I drove a time machine to work, you know, we're certifying VMs, rather than container-based architectures. There was a lot of education that had to happen from us to auditors, but once they understood what we were trying to do, I think they were kind of on board. But yeah, it was a [laugh] it was a journey.Corey: So, one of the things you do—in fact, the first line in your bio talking about it—is you modernize baseline cloud infrastructure provisioning. That means an awful lot of things depending upon who it is that's answering the question. What does that look like for you?Levi: For what we're doing right now, we're trying to take what was a cobbled-together part-time project for one engineer, we're trying to modernize that, turn it into as much self-service as we can. There's a lot of steps that happen along the way, like a new workload needs to be spun up, they decide if they need a new AWS account or not, we pivot around, like, what does the access profile look like, who needs to have access to it, which things does it need to connect to, and then you look at the billing side, compliance side, and you just say, you know, “Who needs to be informed about these things?” We apply tags to the accounts, we start looking at lower-level tagging, depending on if it's a shared workload account or if it's a completely dedicated account, and we're trying to wrap all of that in automation so that it can be as click-button as possible.Corey: Historically, I found that when companies try to do this, the first few attempts at it don't often go super well. We'll be polite and say their first attempts resemble something artisanal and handcrafted, which might not be ideal for this. And then in many cases, the overreaction becomes something that is very top-down, dictatorial almost, is the way I would frame that. And the problem people learn then is that, “Oh, everyone is going to route around us because they don't want to deal with us at all.” That doesn't quite seem like your jam from what I know of you and your approach to things. How do you wind up keeping the guardrails up without driving people to shadow IT their way around you?Levi: I always want to keep it in mind that even if it's not an option, I want to at least pretend like a given team could not use our service, right? I try to bring a service mentality to it, so we're talking Accounts as a Service. And then I just think about all of the things that they would have to solve if they didn't go through us, right? Like, are they managing their finances w—imagine they had to go in and negotiate some kind of pricing deal on their own, right, all of these things that come with being part of our organization, being part of our service offering. And then just making sure, like, those things are always easier than doing it on their own.Corey: How diverse would you say that the workloads are that are in your organization? I found that in many cases, you'll have a SaaS-style company where there's one primary workload that is usually bearing the name of the company, and that's the thing that they provide to everyone. And then you have the enterprise side of the world where they have 1500 or 2000 distinct application teams working on different things, and the only thing they really have in common is, well, that all gets billed to the same company, eventually.Levi: They are fairly diverse in how… they're currently created. We've gone through a few acquisitions, we've pulled a bunch of those into our ecosystem, if you will. So, not everything has been completely modernized or brought over to, you know, standards, if you will, if such a thing even exists in companies. You know [laugh], you may pretend that they do, but you're probably lying to yourself, right? But you know, there are varying platforms, we've got a whole laundry list of languages that are being used, we've got some containerized, some VM-based, some serverless workloads, so it's all over the place. But you nailed it. Like, you know, the majority of our footprint lives in maybe a handful of, you know, SaaS offerings.Corey: Right. It's sort of a fun challenge when you start taking a looser approach to these things because someone gets back from re:Invent, like, “Well, I went to the keynote and now I have my new shopping list of things I'm going to wind up deploying,” and ehh, that never goes well, having been that person in a previous life.Levi: Yeah. And you don't want to apply too strict of governance over these things, right? You want people to be able to play, you want them to be inspired and start looking at, like, what would be—what's something that's going to move the needle in terms of our cloud architecture or product offerings or whatever we have. So, we have sandbox accounts that are pretty much wide open, we've got some light governance over those, [laugh] moreso for billing than anything. And all of our internal tooling is available, you know, like if you're using containers or whatever, like, all of that stuff is in those sandbox accounts.And that's where our kind of service offering comes into play, right? Sandbox is still an account that we tried to vend, if you will, out of our service. So, people should be building in your sandbox environments just like they are in your production as much as possible. You know, it's a place where tools can get the tires kicked and smooth out bugs before you actually get into, you know, roadmap-impacting problems.Corey: One of the fun challenges you have is, as you said, the financial aspect of this. When you've got a couple of workloads that drive most things, you can reason about them fairly intelligently, but trying to predict the future—especially when you're dealing with multi-year contract agreements with large cloud providers—becomes a little bit of a guessing game, like, “Okay. Well, how much are we going to spend on generative AI over the next three years?” The problem with that is that if you listen to an awful lot of talking heads or executive types, like, “Oh, yeah, if we're spending $100 million a year, we're going to add another 50 on top of that, just in terms of generative AI.” And it's like, press X to doubt, just because it's… I appreciate that you're excited about these things and want to play with them, but let's make sure that there's some ‘there' there before signing contracts that are painful to alter.Levi: Yeah, it's a real struggle. And we have all of these new initiatives, things people are excited for. Meanwhile, we're bringing old architecture into a new platform, if you will, or a new footprint, so we have to constantly measure those against each other. We have a very active conversation with finance and with leadership every month, or even weekly, depending on the type of project and where that spend is coming from.Corey: One of the hard parts has always been, I think, trying to get people on the finance side of the world, the engineering side of the world, and the folks who are trying to predict what the business was going to do next, all speaking the same language. It just feels like it's too easy to wind up talking past each other if you're not careful.Levi: Yeah, it's really hard. Recently taken over the FinOps practice. It's been really important for me, for us to align on what our words mean, right? What are these definitions mean? How do we come to common consensus so that eventually the communication gets faster? But we can't talk past each other. We have to know what our words mean, we have to know what each person cares about in this conversation, or what does their end goal look like? What do they want out of the conversation? So, that's been—that's taken a significant amount of time.Corey: One of the problems I have is with the term FinOps as a whole, ignoring the fact entirely that it was an existing term of art within finance for decades; great, we're just going to sidestep past that whole mess—the problem you'll see is that it just seems like that it means something different to almost everyone who hears it. And it's sort of become a marketing term more so that it has an actual description of what people are doing. Just because some companies will have a quote-unquote, “FinOps team,” that is primarily going to be run by financial analysts. And others, “Well, we have one of those lying around, but it's mostly an engineering effort on our part.”And I've seen three or four different expressions as far as team composition goes and I'm not convinced any of them are right. But again, it's easy for me to sit here and say, “Oh, that's wrong,” without having an environment of my own to run. I just tend to look at what my clients do. And, “Well, I've seen a lot of things, and they all work poorly in different ways,” is not uplifting and helpful.Levi: Yeah. I try not to get too hung up on what it's called. This is the name that a lot of people inside the company have rallied around and as long as people are interested in saving money, cool, we'll call it FinOps, you know? I mean, DevOps is the same thing, right? In some companies, you're just a sysadmin with a higher pay, and in some companies, you're building extensive cloud architecture and pipelines.Corey: Honestly, for the whole DevOps side of the world, I maintain we're all systems administrators. The tools have changed, the methodologies have changed, the processes have changed, but the responsibility of ‘keep the site up' generally has not. But if you call yourself a sysadmin, you're just asking him to, “Please pay me less money in my next job.” No, thanks.Levi: Yeah. “Where's the Exchange Server for me to click on?” Right? That's the [laugh]—if you call yourself a sysadmin [crosstalk 00:11:34]—Corey: God. You're sending me back into twitching catatonia from my early days.Levi: Exactly [laugh].Corey: So, you've been paying attention to this whole generative AI hype monster. And I want to be clear, I say this as someone who finds the technology super neat and I'm optimistic about it, but holy God, it feels like people have just lost all sense. If that's you, my apologies in advance, but I'm still going to maintain the point.Levi: I've played with all the various toys out there. I'm very curious, you know? I think it's really fun to play with them, but to, like, make your entire business pivot on a dime and pursue it just seems ridiculous to me. I hate that the cryptocurrency space has pivoted so hard into it, you know? All the people that used to be shilling coins are now out there trying to cobble together a couple API calls and turn it into an AI, right?Corey: It feels like it's just a hype cycle that people are more okay with being a part of. Like, Andy Jassy, in the earnings call a couple of weeks ago saying that every Amazon team is working with generative AI. That's not great. That's terrifying. I've been playing with the toys as well and I've asked it things like, “Oh, spit out an IAM policy for me,” or, “Oh, great, what can I do to optimize my AWS bill?” And it winds up spitting out things that sound highly plausible, but they're also just flat-out wrong. And that, it feels like a lot of these spaces, it's not coming up with a plausible answer—that's the hard part—is coming up with the one that is correct. And that's what our jobs are built around.Levi: I've been trying to explain to a lot of people how, if you only have surface knowledge of the thing that it's telling you, it probably seems really accurate, but when you have deep knowledge on the topic that you're interacting with this thing, you're going to see all of the errors. I've been using GitHub's Copilot since the launch. You know, I was in one of the previews. And I love it. Like, it speeds up my development significantly.But there have been moments where I—you know, IAM policies are a great example. You know, I had it crank out a Lambda functions policy, and it was just frankly, wrong in a lot of places [laugh]. It didn't quite imagine new AWS services, but it was really [laugh] close. The API actions were—didn't exist. It just flat-out didn't exist.Corey: I love that. I've had some magic happen early on where it could intelligently query things against the AWS pricing API, but then I asked it the same thing a month later and it gave me something completely ridiculous. It's not deterministic, which is part of the entire problem with it, too. But it's also… it can help incredibly in some weird ways I didn't see coming. But it can also cause you to spend more time chasing that thing than just doing it yourself the first time.I found a great way to help it—you know, it helped me write blog posts with it. I tell it to write a blog post about a topic and give it some bullet points and say, “Write in my voice,” and everything it says I take issue with, so then I just copy that into a text editor and then mansplain-correct the robot for 20 minutes and, oh, now I've got a serviceable first draft.Levi: And how much time did you save [laugh] right? It is fun, you know?Corey: It does help because that's better for me at least and staring at an empty page of what am I going to write? It gets me past the writer's block problem.Levi: Oh, that's a great point, yeah. Just to get the ball rolling, right, once you—it's easier to correct something that's wrong, and you're almost are spite-driven at that point, right? Like, “Let me show this AI how wrong it was and I'll write the perfect blog post.” [laugh].Corey: It feels like the companies jumping on this, if you really dig into what we're talking about, it seems like they're all very excited about the possibility of we don't have to talk to customers anymore because the robots will all do that. And I don't think that's going to go the way you want to. We just have this minor hallucination problem. Yeah, that means that lies and tries to book customers to hotel destinations that don't exist. Think about this a little more. The failure mode here is just massive.Levi: It's scary, yeah. Like, without some kind of review process, I wouldn't ship that straight to my customers, right? I wouldn't put that in front of my customer and say, like, “This is”—I'm going to take this generative output and put it right in front of them. That scares me. I think as we get deeper into it, you know, maybe we'll see… I don't know, maybe we'll put some filters or review process, or maybe it'll get better. I mean, who was it that said, you know, “This is the worst it's ever going to be?” Right, it will only get better.Corey: Well, the counterargument to that is, it will get far worse when we start putting this in charge [unintelligible 00:16:08] safety-critical systems, which I'm sure it's just a matter of time because some of these boosters are just very, very convincing. It's just thinking, how could this possibly go the worst? Ehhh. It's not good.Levi: Yeah, well, I mean, we're talking impact versus quality, right? The quality will only ever get better. But you know, if we run before we walk, the impact can definitely get wider.Corey: From where I sit, I want to see this really excel within bounded problem spaces. The one I keep waiting for is the AWS bill because it's a vast space, yes, and it's complicated as all hell, but it is bounded. There are a finite—though large—number of things you can see in an AWS bill, and there are recommendations you can make based on top of that. But everything I've seen that plays in this space gets way overconfident far too quickly, misses a bunch of very obvious lines of inquiry. Ah, I'm skeptical.Then you pass that off to unbounded problem spaces like human creativity and that just turns into an absolute disaster. So, much of what I've been doing lately has been hamstrung by people rushing to put in safeguards to make sure it doesn't accidentally say something horrible that it's stripped out a lot of the fun and the whimsy and the sarcasm in the approach, of I—at one point, I could bully a number of these things into ranking US presidents by absorbency. That's getting harder to do now because, “Nope, that's not respectful and I'm not going to do it,” is basically where it draws the line.Levi: The one thing that I always struggle with is, like, how much of the models are trained on intellectual property or, when you distill it down, pure like human suffering, right? Like, this is somebody's art, they've worked hard, they've suffered for it, they put it out there in the world, and now it's just been pulled in and adopted by this tool that—you know, how many of the examples of, “Give me art in the style of,” right, and you just see hundreds and hundreds of pieces that I mean, frankly, are eerily identical to the style.Corey: Even down to the signature, in some cases. Yeah.Levi: Yeah, exactly. You know, and I think that we can't lose sight of that, right? Like, these tools are fun and you know, they're fun to play with, it's really interesting to explore what's possible, but we can't lose sight of the fact that there are ultimately people behind these things.Corey: This episode is sponsored in part by Panoptica.  Panoptica simplifies container deployment, monitoring, and security, protecting the entire application stack from build to runtime. Scalable across clusters and multi-cloud environments, Panoptica secures containers, serverless APIs, and Kubernetes with a unified view, reducing operational complexity and promoting collaboration by integrating with commonly used developer, SRE, and SecOps tools. Panoptica ensures compliance with regulatory mandates and CIS benchmarks for best practice conformity. Privacy teams can monitor API traffic and identify sensitive data, while identifying open-source components vulnerable to attacks that require patching. Proactively addressing security issues with Panoptica allows businesses to focus on mitigating critical risks and protecting their interests. Learn more about Panoptica today at panoptica.app.Corey: I think it matters, on some level, what the medium is. When I'm writing, I will still use turns of phrase from time to time that I first encountered when I was reading things in the 1990s. And that phrase stuck with me and became part of my lexicon. And I don't remember where I originally encountered some of these things; I just know I use those raises an awful lot. And that has become part and parcel of who and what I am.Which is also, I have no problem telling it to write a blog post in the style of Corey Quinn and then ripping a part of that out, but anything that's left in there, cool. I'm plagiarizing the thing that plagiarized from me and I find that to be one of those ethically just moments there. But written word is one thing depending on what exactly it's taking from you, but visual style for art, that's something else entirely.Levi: There's a real ethical issue here. These things can absorb far much more information than you ever could in your entire lifetime, right, so that you can only quote-unquote, you know, “Copy, borrow, steal,” from a handful of other people in your entire life, right? Whereas this thing could do hundreds or thousands of people per minute. I think that's where the calculus needs to be, right? How many people can we impact with this thing?Corey: This is also nothing new, where originally in the olden times, great, copyright wasn't really a thing because writing a book was a massive, massive undertaking. That was something that you'd have to do by hand, and then oh, you want a copy of the book? You'd have to have a scribe go and copy the thing. Well then, suddenly the printing press came along, and okay, that changes things a bit.And then we continue to evolve there to digital distribution where suddenly it's just bits on a disk that I can wind up throwing halfway around the internet. And when the marginal cost of copying something becomes effectively zero, what does that change? And now we're seeing, I think, another iteration in that ongoing question. It's a weird world and I don't know that we have the framework in place even now to think about that properly. Because every time we start to get a handle on it, off we go again. It feels like if they were doing be invented today, libraries would absolutely not be considered legal. And yet, here we are.Levi: Yeah, it's a great point. Humans just do not have the ethical framework in place for a lot of these things. You know, we saw it even with the days of Napster, right? It's just—like you said, it's another iteration on the same core problem. I [laugh] don't know how to solve it. I'm not a philosopher, right?Corey: Oh, yeah. Back in the Napster days, I was on that a fair bit in high school and college because I was broke, and oh, I wanted to listen to this song. Well, it came on an album with no other good songs on it because one-hit wonders were kind of my jam, and that album cost 15, 20 bucks, or I could grab the thing for free. There was no reasonable way to consume. Then they started selling individual tracks for 99 cents and I gorged myself for years on that stuff.And now it feels like streaming has taken over the world to the point where the only people who really lose on this are the artists themselves, and I don't love that outcome. How do we have a better tomorrow for all of this? I know we're a bit off-topic from you know, cloud management, but still, this is the sort of thing I think about when everything's running smoothly in a cloud environment.Levi: It's hard to get people to make good decisions when they're so close to the edge. And I think about when I was, you know, college-age scraping by on minimum wage or barely above minimum wage, you know, it was hard to convince me that, oh yeah, you shouldn't download an MP3 of that song; you should go buy the disc, or whatever. It was really hard to make that argument when my decision was buy an album or figure out where I'm going to, you know, get my lunch. So, I think, now that I'm in a much different place in my life, you know, these decisions are a lot easier to make in an ethical way because that doesn't impact my livelihood nearly as much. And I think that is where solutions will probably come out of. The more people doing better, the easier it is for them to make good decisions.Corey: I sure hope you're right, but something I found is that okay we made it easy for people to make good decisions. Like, “Nope, you've just made it easier for me to scale a bunch of terrible ones. I can make 300,000 more terrible decisions before breakfast time now. Thanks.” And, “No, that's not what I did that for.” Yet here we are. Have you been tracking lately what's been going on with the HashiCorp license change?Levi: Um, a little bit, we use—obviously use Terraform in the company and a couple other Hashi products, and it was kind of a wildfire of, you know, how does this impact us? We dove in and we realized that it doesn't, but it is concerning.Corey: You're not effectively wrapping Terraform and then using that as the basis for how you do MDM across your customer fleets.Levi: Yeah. You know, we're not deploying customers' written Terraform into their environments or something kind of wild like that. Yeah, it doesn't impact us. But it is… it is concerning to watch a company pivot from an open-source, community-based project to, “Oh, you can't do that anymore.” It doesn't impact a lot of people who use it day-to-day, but I'm really worried about just the goodwill that they've lit on fire.Corey: One of the problems, too, is that their entire write-up on this was so vague that it was—there is no way to get an actual… piece of is it aimed at us or is it not without very deep analysis, and hope that when it comes to court, you're going to have the same analysis as—that is sympathetic. It's, what is considered to be a competitor? At least historically, it was pretty obvious. Some of these databases, “Okay great. Am I wrapping their database technology and then selling it as a service? No? I'm pretty good.”But with HashiCorp, what they do is so vast in a few key areas that no one has the level of certainty. I was pretty freaking certain that I'm not shipping MongoDB with my own wrapper around it, but am I shipping something that looks like Terraform if I'm managing someone's environment for them? I don't know. Everything's thrown into question. And you're right. It's the goodwill that currently is being set on fire.Levi: Yeah, I think people had an impression of Hashi that they were one of the good guys. You know, the quote-unquote, “Good guys,” in the space, right? Mitchell Hashimoto is out there as a very prominent coder, he's an engineer at heart, he's in the community, pretty influential on Twitter, and I think people saw them as not one of the big, faceless corporations, so to see moves like this happen, it… I think it shook a lot of people's opinions of them and scared them.Corey: Oh, yeah. They've always been the good guys in this context. Mitch and Armon were fantastic folks. I'm sure they still are. I don't know if this is necessarily even coming from them. It's market forces, what are investors demanding? They see everyone is using Terraform. How does that compare to HashiCorp's market value?This is one of the inherent problems if I'm being direct, of the end-stages of capitalism, where it's, “Okay, we're delivering on a lot of value. How do we capture ever more of it and growing massively?” And I don't know. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think anyone's thrilled with this outcome. Because, let's be clear, it is not going to meaningfully juice their numbers at all. They're going to be setting up a lot of ill will against them in the industry, but I don't see the upside for them. I really don't.Levi: I haven't really done any of the analysis or looked for it, I should say. Have you seen anything about what this might actually impact any providers or anything? Because you're right, like, what kind of numbers are we actually talking about here?Corey: Right. Well, there are a few folks that have done things around this that people have named for me: Spacelift being one example, Pulumi being another, and both of them are saying, “Nope, this doesn't impact us because of X, Y, and Z.” Yeah, whether it does or doesn't, they're not going to sit there and say, “Well, I guess we don't have a company anymore. Oh, well.” And shut the whole thing down and just give their customers over to HashiCorp.Their own customers would be incensed if that happened and would not go to HashiCorp if that were to be the outcome. I think, on some level, they're setting the stage for the next evolution in what it takes to manage large-scale cloud environments effectively. I think basically, every customer I've ever dealt with on my side has been a Terraform shop. I finally decided to start learning the ins and outs of it myself a few weeks ago, and well, it feels like I should have just waited a couple more weeks and then it would have become irrelevant. Awesome. Which is a bit histrionic, but still, this is going to plant seeds for people to start meaningfully competing. I hope.Levi: Yeah, I hope so too. I have always awaited releases of Terraform Cloud with great anticipation. I generally don't like managing my Terraform back-ends, you know, I don't like managing the state files, so every time Terraform Cloud has some kind of release or something, I'm looking at it because I'm excited, oh finally, maybe this is the time I get to hand it off, right? Maybe I start to get to use their product. And it has never been a really compelling answer to the problems that I have.And I've always said, like, the [laugh] cloud journey would be Google's if they just released a managed Terraform [laugh] service. And this would be one way for them to prevent that from happening. Because Google doesn't even have an Infrastructure as Code competitor. Not really. I mean, I know they have their, what, Plans or their Projects or whatever they… their Infrastructure as Code language was, but—Corey: Isn't that what Stackdriver was supposed to be? What happened with that? It's been so long.Levi: No, that's a logging solution [laugh].Corey: That's the thing. It all runs together. Not it was their operations suite that was—Levi: There we go.Corey: —formerly Stackdriver. Yeah. Now, that does include some aspects—yeah. You're right, it's still hanging out in the observability space. This is the problem is all this stuff conflates and companies are terrible at naming and Google likes to deprecate things constantly. And yeah, but there is no real competitor. CloudFormation? Please. Get serious.Levi: Hey, you're talking to a member of the CloudFormation support group here. So, I'm still a huge fan [laugh].Corey: Emotional support group, more like it, it seems these days.Levi: It is.Corey: Oh, good. It got for loops recently. We've been asking for basically that to make them a lot less wordy only for, what, ten years?Levi: Yeah. I mean, my argument is that I'm operating at the account level, right? I need to deploy to 250, 300, 500 accounts. Show me how to do that with Terraform that isn't, you know, stab your eyes out with a fork.Corey: It can be done, but it requires an awful lot of setting things up first.Levi: Exactly.Corey: That's sort of a problem. Like yeah, once you have the first 500 going, the rest are just like butter. But that's a big step one is massive, and then step two becomes easy. Yeah… no, thank you.Levi: [laugh]. I'm going to stick with my StacksSets, thank you.Corey: [laugh]. I really want to thank you for taking the time to come back on and honestly kibitz about the state of the industry with me. If people want to learn more, where's the best place for them to find you?Levi: Well, I'm still active on the space normally known as—formerly known as Twitter. You can reach out to me there. DMs are open. I'm always willing to help people learn how to cloud better. Hopefully trying to make my presence known a little bit more on LinkedIn. If you happen to be over there, reach out.Corey: And we will, of course, put links to that in the [show notes 00:30:16]. Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me again. It's always a pleasure.Levi: Thanks, Corey. I always appreciate it.Corey: Levi McCormick, Director of Cloud Engineering at Jamf. 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, and along with an insulting comment that tells us that we completely missed the forest for the trees and that your programmfing is going to be far superior based upon generative AI.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.