Podcasts about Fairchild Semiconductor

Gerald "Jerry" Lawson (1940–2011) was an American electronic engineer and video game pioneer best known for leading the development of the first commercially available interchangeable video game cartridge system. As the head of engineering and hardware at Fairchild Semiconductor, Lawson played a key role in creating the Fairchild Channel Fconsole in 1976, which introduced the concept of swappable game cartridges, a revolutionary innovation that shaped the gaming industry. Born on December 1, 1940, in Brooklyn, New York, Lawson developed an early passion for electronics, repairing televisions and building his own radio station as a child. He pursued a career in engineering, eventually joining Fairchild, where he helped advance microprocessor technology in gaming. Beyond his work at Fairchild, Lawson founded VideoSoft, one of the first Black-owned video game development companies, which created software for the Atari 2600. His contributions to gaming technology laid the groundwork for modern home consoles, influencing giants like Nintendo, Sega, and PlayStation.

Today host Jack Russo is joined by guest Jack Balletto for a deep dive into the roots and unique culture that shaped Silicon Valley. The conversation explores the region's evolution from its early military contracts to its role as a tech hub. Balletto reflects on the influential figures like Bob Noyce and Gordon Moore, whose work at Fairchild Semiconductor and Intel laid the groundwork for modern computing. They discuss how Silicon Valley's openness to new ideas, rapid execution, and the absence of restrictive non-compete agreements allowed talent to flourish and innovation to thrive. The episode also touches on how early tech companies like Atari and Apple played pivotal roles in transforming high-tech ideas into consumer products. Through engaging stories, Jack Russo and Jack Balletto provide insight into the collaborative and fast-paced spirit that has defined the Valley's growth and continued influence.   Jack Russo Managing Partner Jrusso@computerlaw.com www.computerlaw.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/jackrusso "Every Entrepreneur Imagines a Better World"®️  

La serie sobre los "8 traidores de Silicon Valley" revela cómo la búsqueda de libertad y mejores oportunidades dio origen a una revolución tecnológica. Desde la invención del transistor en los Laboratorios Bell hasta la fundación de Fairchild Semiconductor, vimos cómo los conflictos con William Shockley impulsaron la creación de empresas pioneras. Los "Fairchildren", al fundar compañías como Intel, transformaron la industria de los semiconductores y establecieron la cultura de innovación que caracteriza a Silicon Valley. Esta historia demuestra que, a menudo, la disrupción y el progreso nacen de la inconformidad y el coraje de quienes se atreven a cambiar las reglas. //Enlaces https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l9sdxWvoZWziqB52tedPtKWSpD61xVw71GHXWIHLqoE/edit?usp=sharing Para los que podéis o queréis apoyar al podcast, para un café, cerveza o palomitas, lo podéis hacer via PayPal PayPal : israeledison20@hotmail.com https://www.paypal.me/Tarkkan2007?locale.x=es_ES Y si lo queréis hacer por Bizum 677553983 GRACIAS ¡TOTALES! //Donde encontrarnos Apple Podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/es/podcast/applelianos-podcast/id993909563 Ivoox https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-applelianos-podcast_sq_f1170563_1.html ( (https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-applelianos-podcast_sq_f1170563_1.html ) https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-applelianos-podcast_sq_f1170563_1.html ) Canal Youtube https://www.youtube.com/c/ApplelianosApplelianos/featured Grupo Telegram (enlace de invitación) https://t.me/+LXYwsaAgDWtmMjNk Correo electrónico applelianos@gmail.com Mi Shop Amazon https://amzn.to/30sYcbB X https://x.com/ApplelianosPod

El episodio 3 del podcast analiza el legado de Fairchild Semiconductor y el impacto que tuvieron sus ex-empleados, conocidos como los "Fairchildren". Estos ingenieros y técnicos, que en su mayoría abandonaron Fairchild para fundar sus propias empresas, desempeñaron un papel crucial en la creación y expansión de Silicon Valley. Bob Noyce y Gordon Moore fundaron Intel, mientras que otros como Jean Hoerni, Eugene Kleiner y Jay Last crearon compañías como Amelco y Teledyne. Intel, en particular, revolucionó la industria de los semiconductores con la invención del microprocesador. El episodio destaca cómo estos pioneros sentaron las bases para la industria tecnológica moderna. Para los que podéis o queréis apoyar al podcast, para un café, cerveza o palomitas, lo podéis hacer via PayPal PayPal : israeledison20@hotmail.com https://www.paypal.me/Tarkkan2007?locale.x=es_ES Y si lo queréis hacer por Bizum 677553983 GRACIAS ¡TOTALES! //Donde encontrarnos Grupo Telegram (enlace de invitación) https://t.me/+LXYwsaAgDWtmMjNk Apple Podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/es/podcast/applelianos-podcast/id993909563 Ivoox https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-applelianos-podcast_sq_f1170563_1.html ( (https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-applelianos-podcast_sq_f1170563_1.html ) https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-applelianos-podcast_sq_f1170563_1.html ) Canal Youtube https://www.youtube.com/c/ApplelianosApplelianos/featured Correo electrónico applelianos@gmail.com Mi Shop Amazon https://amzn.to/30sYcbB X https://x.com/ApplelianosPod

El episodio 2 del podcast narra la historia de los "ocho traidores de Silicon Valley", quienes, desilusionados por la gestión autoritaria y errática de William Shockley, decidieron abandonar su empresa en 1957. Estos ocho ingenieros, liderados por William Shockley fundaron Fairchild Semiconductor con el respaldo del inversor Sherman Fairchild, convirtiéndose en pioneros de la industria de semiconductores. Fairchild fue clave en la fabricación de transistores para la industria militar y espacial, y con la invención del circuito integrado por Noyce y Kilby, la empresa revolucionó la electrónica. Este avance sentó las bases de la era digital moderna. Para los que podéis o queréis apoyar al podcast, para un café, cerveza o palomitas, lo podéis hacer via PayPal PayPal : israeledison20@hotmail.com https://www.paypal.me/Tarkkan2007?locale.x=es_ES Y si lo queréis hacer por Bizum 677553983 GRACIAS ¡TOTALES! //Donde encontrarnos Grupo Telegram (enlace de invitación) https://t.me/+LXYwsaAgDWtmMjNk Apple Podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/es/podcast/applelianos-podcast/id993909563 Ivoox https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-applelianos-podcast_sq_f1170563_1.html ( (https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-applelianos-podcast_sq_f1170563_1.html ) https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-applelianos-podcast_sq_f1170563_1.html ) Canal Youtube https://www.youtube.com/c/ApplelianosApplelianos/featured Correo electrónico applelianos@gmail.com Mi Shop Amazon https://amzn.to/30sYcbB X https://x.com/ApplelianosPod

Today we are joined by top physicist and inventor of the microprocessor & touch screen, Federico Faggin, for an intriguing conversation into the nature of reality. Federico once had a materialistic scientific perspective on consciousness and reality until one day a spontaneous spiritual awakening changed his perspective forever.  In this episode he shares that very experience and how it has shaped his current view on reality. With this deeper knowing, he spent decades researching reality, today he shares his findings. He reveals why computers can never be conscious, who we are our essence, what carries on after death, and our unbreakable connection to something larger than ourselves. He also discusses the very real force of love that underlies all things, the secret to spiritual growth, and why humans can never be replaced by artificial intelligence. Seed:  Go to https://seed.com/knowthyself and use code 25KNOWTHYSELF for 25% off your first month of Seed LMNT: https://www.DrinkLMNT.com/KnowThyself Get a FREE Sample pack with any order André's Book Recommendations: https://www.knowthyself.one/books ___________ 0:00 Intro 2:55 His Spontaneous Spiritual Awakening 15:03 Defining Consciousness: Classical vs Quantum View 23:00 Can computers be Conscious? 28:20 How Truth Transcends Theory 33:24 Seed: Save 25% off your first month 34:38 Idealism vs Monad Theory  37:00 Our Deepest Desire: To Know Ourselves  39:33 Satiety vs Soul  44:55 Individuality & What Carries Over After Death 48:00 We Are All Part of One Whole 54:15 How Emotion & Meaning Impacts Reality 1:02:29 LMNT Electrolytes: Get a FREE Sample pack with any order 1:04:02 Suffering as a Catalyst for Growth 1:09:54 Taking Responsibility for Our Lives & Spiritual Growth  1:16:14 The Very Real Force of Love 1:22:47 Where Physics & Spirituality Meet 1:27:58 Distinguishing Free Will & Unconscious Habits 1:35:10 Reincarnation & NDEs Explained  1:37:51 How Much We Currently Understand about Reality 1:43:30 Shifting From the Mind to the Heart  1:45:27 Facing the Future of Artificial Intelligence 1:50:40 Collective Consciousness & Evil vs Good 1:56:00 Competition vs Collaboration  1:59:58 Are Aliens Real? 2:02:30 Conclusion ___________ Federico Faggin is a physicist, inventor, and entrepreneur. Born, raised, and educated in Italy, he immigrated to the US in 1968. He is credited with designing the world's first commercial microprocessor, the Intel 4004 in 1971, and he went on to invent dozens of other integrated circuits. Before that, in 1968 while working at Fairchild Semiconductor, he created a technology that made possible dynamic memories, non-volatile memories, image sensors, and the microprocessor. Faggin started several successful high-tech companies (Zilog, Cygnet Technologies, and Synaptics) that introduced significant products and technologies, including the touchpad and touchscreen that revolutionized the way we communicate with our personal devices. Among the honors Faggin has received are the 2009 National Medal of Technology and Innovation from President Obama and the 2014 Enrico Fermi Prize. Through the Federico and Elvia Faggin Foundation, Faggin now supports research programs at US universities and research institutes to advance the understanding of consciousness through theoretical and experimental research. Newest Book “Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature": https://a.co/d/bjZ56gH Website: https://www.federicofaggin.com/ ___________ Know Thyself Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/knowthyself/ Website: https://www.knowthyself.one Clips Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJ4wglCWTJeWQC0exBalgKg Listen to all episodes on Audio:  Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4FSiemtvZrWesGtO2MqTZ4?si=d389c8dee8fa4026 Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/know-thyself/id1633725927 André Duqum Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/andreduqum/

Most recently, Federico Faggin founded the “Federico and Elvia Faggin Foundation” to support the scientific study of consciousness. But his path to the study of consciousness was preceded by his contributions to some of the key technologies in the computing world. In 1968, Dr. Faggin moved to Palo Alto, California, to work at Fairchild Semiconductor, … Continue reading "Federico Faggin: the Physics of Consciousness"

Ron Whittier Interview Introduction Intel Corporation was founded in 1968 by Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, who left Fairchild Semiconductor to start their own company. In the early years from 1970 to 1978, Intel went through major inflection points that helped transform it from a startup to an industry leader. Ron Whittier, who joined Intel in 1970 as an engineering manager, played a key role in navigating many of these pivotal moments. This included instilling the pioneering "Intel Culture" driven by Andy Grove, expanding into new product lines like microprocessors, raising funds through Intel's first public offering in 1972, and then rapidly scaling up design and manufacturing capabilities. From 1978 to 2000, Intel experienced explosive growth riding the PC revolution and the emergence of the world-wide web. Ron helped the company successfully navigate through additional inflection points like improving manufacturing processes under Craig Barrett's leadership, the famous decision to exit the DRAM business to focus on microprocessors, developing major marketing campaigns like "Intel Inside", transitioning to being a sole microprocessor supplier, and forming new groups like the Intel Architecture Labs and Intel Capital. Through recognizing and deftly navigating these many inflection points, Ron and Intel's leadership team transformed the company into a global technology powerhouse. We talked about   How did Intel balance looking for outside ideas and developing things internally? When you listen to historians talk about the history of Intel, what are they missing or not getting 100% correct? What words do you want to say to the next generation of Intel employees and entrepreneurs out there? Did you ever look at the other companies in Silicon Valley and think that their businesses were being run in ways that you wished to model? And much more…

Railway tycoon Leland Stanford lived in Santa Clara Valley and founded Stanford University in 1891. Another prominent Stanford University figure, Frederick Terman. invested heavily in businesses that would base themselves in the area and employ talented young people. One such business was the original start-up, an electrical company started in a garage by Stanford alumni William Hewlett and David Packard, Hewlett-Packard. The beginning of Silicon Valley as an epicenter of innovation began in 1955 with the arrival of the Shockley Semiconductors Laboratory. Another revolutionary point was reached in 1968 when Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore left Fairchild Semiconductor to form Intel.

In episode 1163 of the Arete Coach Podcast, titled "Framing Leadership: A Photographer's Lens on Executive Coaching," host Severin Sorensen engages in a profound conversation with David Kinnear. As an experienced executive coach, Vistage Chair, and CEO of DBK Associates, Kinnear brings a unique blend of leadership acumen and creative insight. His three decades in the semiconductor industry with Toshiba and Fairchild Semiconductor have provided a solid foundation for his coaching career. The episode explores Kinnear's seamless transition from a corporate environment to the realm of executive coaching, emphasizing his commitment to lifelong learning and leadership development. His coaching methodology is enriched by his experiences in engineering, management, and business development, underscoring the synergy between technical knowledge and human skills. An intriguing aspect of the podcast is the discussion around Kinnear's passion for photography, delving into how this creative pursuit intersects with his coaching practice. The conversation also touches on the role of AI in coaching, active listening, and the importance of detaching from outcomes. Kinnear's quotes reflect his practical wisdom and dedication to empowering leaders, resonating with the theme of creating a better world through effective leadership. In our conversation we learn David is an avid photographer and we talk about photography and the advent of AI visualization tools he uses, and his thoughts on AI imagery and creativity. A couple of quotes that jumped out at me in the interview from David were his comments: "If I'm going to claim that I'm a coach, then I better go get some training." Or, "I realized that I can't own the outcome either of coaching or consulting." And, "The universe is indifferent. It's not trying to kill me, and it's not trying to help me. And his mantra of "Creating a better world one leader at a time." The Arete Coach Podcast seeks to explore the art and science of executive coaching. You can find out more about this podcast at aretecoach.io. This episode was produced on December 20, 2023. Copyright © 2023 by Arete Coach™ LLC. All rights reserved.

Intel and AMD have a common history, but each company has gone its own way in chip design. Why are Intel chips and AMD chips not compatible? And is there one type of chip that's better than all the rest? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I'll bet that you didn't know that the original concept for what became the Apple Thunderbolt interface involved optical communication. Well, in this fascinating podcast with Dr. Mader, you will learn that intriguing backstory and much more.  Mader also provides a helpful introduction to silicon photonics technology and applications. Importantly, OpenLight's business model is designed to allow them to become an Arm-like IP provider for silicon photonics. “We're the first open siliconics platform that has the lasers and amplifiers integrated on the chip,” explains Mader. With the OpenLight Process Design Kit (PDK), customers can integrate InP lasers and amplifiers directly into their silicon IC designs at Tower Semiconductor. While the silicon can be  employed to guide, modulate, and detect light, you need the InP to amplify. OpenLight literally brings the silicon and the InP together with molecular bonding. While silicon photonic is already making inroads in a number of important applications, Mader is “excited about the long tail of applications” enabled by OpenLight and their customers. In addition, Mader recounts his rich technology background that includes developing a patent while interning at Apple, being involved in an early Amazon commercial product, directing engineering at a startup that was inquired by Intel, and his family connections to the legendary Fairchild Semiconductor and our podcast's name inspiration, Gordon Moore. So, listen in for other interesting tidbits from this discussion with Mader, including these technical insights:  -A clear description of a silicon photonics system -What makes a quality integrated laser? -How amplitude modulation (AM) and phase modulation (PM) are employed is laser systems  

Le géant des processeurs Intel est endeuillé par la mort de Gordon Moore, cofondateur et emblématique dirigeant de l'entreprise de 1975 à 1987, survenue le 24 mars à l'âge de 94 ans. Si vous êtes familier de l'actualité des processeurs, la "loi" de Moore ne vous est sans doute pas inconnue. En effet, c'est Gordon Moore lui-même qui, par l'observation des évolutions technologiques, a théorisé le doublement des performances des microprocesseurs. Cette loi, qui prévoyait à l'origine une période de dix ans, stipule que la puissance des processeurs doublerait tous les deux ans, et bien que limitée par des obstacles techniques et la physique, elle reste toujours d'actualité. Petit retour vers le passé. Gordon Moore était l'un des pionniers du monde des semi-conducteurs, ayant travaillé pour William Shockley, l'un des inventeurs des transistors, ainsi que pour Fairchild Semiconductor, une entreprise qui a essaimé ses talents dans le reste du pays. D'ailleurs, Intel est directement issu de Fairchild Semiconductor, et grâce à la contribution de Moore, l'entreprise a connu un grand succès et est devenue un géant dans le monde des circuits intégrés. Pour Intel, Gordon Moore est devenu un mythe, à tel point que la direction du groupe a donné son nom en 2022 au nouveau campus de ses usines dans l'Oregon, aux États-Unis. Chaque année depuis plus de deux décennies, la fin de la loi de Moore est annoncée. Pourtant, en 2023, la production de masse de puces en 3 nm sera lancée et les performances continuent de progresser à un rythme toujours soutenu, bien que moindre comparé aux années précédentes. Lorsqu'Intel a été fondé, la taille des circuits s'exprimait en dizaines de micromètres. Et lorsque Gordon Moore a quitté la direction de l'entreprise en 1987, l'industrie venait tout juste d'entrer dans l'ère nanométrique, avec des puces gravées en 800 nm. Aujourd'hui, on grave en 3 nm, soit 266X plus fin en 36 ans. Après que la loi de Moore se soit ancrée dans les esprits, une autre loi est née : celle du coût de production énoncé par Arthur Rock, un investisseur dans les semi-conducteurs de la première heure qui avait misé sur des entreprises telles qu'Intel ou Apple. Sa loi stipule que le coût des usines de fabrication de semi-conducteurs double tous les quatre ans, et en effet, les coûts des usines s'envolent. Le futur site allemand d'Intel de Magdebourg devrait coûter aux alentours de 30 milliards de dollars, et si l'inflation actuelle pousse les prix à la hausse, c'est surtout l'incroyable complexité et technicité des procédés qui sont en cause. Pour les puces les plus avancées, la production repose aujourd'hui sur des machines de pointe, notamment celles du Hollandais ASML, et qui se négocient 180 millions d'euro l'unité. Le PDG actuel d'ASML, Martin van den Brink, expliquait en septembre que « techniquement, sortir la prochaine génération de puces est faisable [mais] si le coût des machines continue d'augmenter, cela sera tout bonnement infaisable économiquement » fin de citation. À voir si la théorie d'Arthur Rock ne finira pas par prendre le pas sur la loi Moore, même si jusqu'à aujourd'hui, Moore a toujours eu raison. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Le géant des processeurs Intel est endeuillé par la mort de Gordon Moore, cofondateur et emblématique dirigeant de l'entreprise de 1975 à 1987, survenue le 24 mars à l'âge de 94 ans. Si vous êtes familier de l'actualité des processeurs, la "loi" de Moore ne vous est sans doute pas inconnue. En effet, c'est Gordon Moore lui-même qui, par l'observation des évolutions technologiques, a théorisé le doublement des performances des microprocesseurs. Cette loi, qui prévoyait à l'origine une période de dix ans, stipule que la puissance des processeurs doublerait tous les deux ans, et bien que limitée par des obstacles techniques et la physique, elle reste toujours d'actualité.Petit retour vers le passé. Gordon Moore était l'un des pionniers du monde des semi-conducteurs, ayant travaillé pour William Shockley, l'un des inventeurs des transistors, ainsi que pour Fairchild Semiconductor, une entreprise qui a essaimé ses talents dans le reste du pays. D'ailleurs, Intel est directement issu de Fairchild Semiconductor, et grâce à la contribution de Moore, l'entreprise a connu un grand succès et est devenue un géant dans le monde des circuits intégrés. Pour Intel, Gordon Moore est devenu un mythe, à tel point que la direction du groupe a donné son nom en 2022 au nouveau campus de ses usines dans l'Oregon, aux États-Unis.Chaque année depuis plus de deux décennies, la fin de la loi de Moore est annoncée. Pourtant, en 2023, la production de masse de puces en 3 nm sera lancée et les performances continuent de progresser à un rythme toujours soutenu, bien que moindre comparé aux années précédentes. Lorsqu'Intel a été fondé, la taille des circuits s'exprimait en dizaines de micromètres. Et lorsque Gordon Moore a quitté la direction de l'entreprise en 1987, l'industrie venait tout juste d'entrer dans l'ère nanométrique, avec des puces gravées en 800 nm. Aujourd'hui, on grave en 3 nm, soit 266X plus fin en 36 ans.Après que la loi de Moore se soit ancrée dans les esprits, une autre loi est née : celle du coût de production énoncé par Arthur Rock, un investisseur dans les semi-conducteurs de la première heure qui avait misé sur des entreprises telles qu'Intel ou Apple. Sa loi stipule que le coût des usines de fabrication de semi-conducteurs double tous les quatre ans, et en effet, les coûts des usines s'envolent. Le futur site allemand d'Intel de Magdebourg devrait coûter aux alentours de 30 milliards de dollars, et si l'inflation actuelle pousse les prix à la hausse, c'est surtout l'incroyable complexité et technicité des procédés qui sont en cause. Pour les puces les plus avancées, la production repose aujourd'hui sur des machines de pointe, notamment celles du Hollandais ASML, et qui se négocient 180 millions d'euro l'unité. Le PDG actuel d'ASML, Martin van den Brink, expliquait en septembre que « techniquement, sortir la prochaine génération de puces est faisable [mais] si le coût des machines continue d'augmenter, cela sera tout bonnement infaisable économiquement » fin de citation. À voir si la théorie d'Arthur Rock ne finira pas par prendre le pas sur la loi Moore, même si jusqu'à aujourd'hui, Moore a toujours eu raison. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

India Policy Watch: Those Mind GamesInsights on issues relevant to India— RSJRegular readers might have noticed the absence of posts analysing the political economy and politics in general in our editions of late. This isn't intentional. There's not much to write about. There is a strange sense of stasis all around. Every move, every act is a chronicle of a future foretold. This inertness stems from a complete absence of ferment in the political landscape. The external factors that could impact politics, like the economy or national security, appear stable. And those directly in the fray have to contend with a political juggernaut backed by a fawning media that takes no prisoners. It is a complete mismatch. So, what can one write about except rallies, speeches and opinion pollsInto this state of ennui, this week walked the Court of chief judicial magistrate HH Verma, Surat. Here's the Mint reporting on this:“The Surat District Court sentenced Congress MP Rahul Gandhi to two years of imprisonment in the criminal defamation case filed against him over his alleged 'Modi surname' remark. The Congress leader was later granted bail by the court.The court of Chief Judicial Magistrate HH Varma, which held Gandhi guilty under Indian Penal Code sections 499 and 500, also granted him bail and suspended the sentence for 30 days to allow him to appeal in a higher court, the Congress leader's lawyer Babu Mangukiya said.The case was filed against Rahul Gandhi for his alleged “how come all the thieves have Modi as the common surname?" remarks on a complaint lodged by BJP MLA and former Gujarat minister Purnesh Modi. The Lok Sabha MP from Wayanad made the alleged remarks while addressing a rally at Kolar in Karnataka ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.”In a remarkable feat of speed and agility, the Lok Sabha Secretariat disqualified Rahul Gandhi as a member of Lok Sabha the next day. As the Hindustan Times reported:“Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has been disqualified as a member of Lok Sabha a day after the Surat court convicted him for two years in a defamation case. However, he was granted a 30-day bail in the case to allow him appeal in a higher court. The Lok Sabha secretariat said in a notification that he has been disqualified from the day of the conviction under the Constitution's Article 102(1)(e) read with Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act.As a next step, the Wayanad MP will have to appeal to the higher court seeking a stay on the conviction, in order to prevent the disqualification and the Congress said it will follow the procedure to move to a higher court.”Look, there's a tired old way of looking at all of this. And that's what the discourse has been about this over the past few days. The opposition reminds us how there's an undeclared emergency at this moment in India. Dissent is being suppressed, the slightest criticism of the PM or his party is seen as an affront to the nation, and the state machinery is fairly quick in settling scores on those not falling in line. There is also the eternal optimism of a certain section of the commentariat that suggests that Rahul Gandhi has rattled the BJP with his Bharat Jodo yatra. And this is the response to keep him in check. I'm sure there is an alternate universe where this is all true. But none among us is turning into Michelle Yeoh anytime soon to enter that multiverse. As I have mentioned earlier, there's still space for the opposition, as the response to the yatra shows. But Rahul Gandhi neither has the enterprise nor the ideas to turn that into electoral success. On the other hand, the BJP and its supporters initially argued that a sitting MP cannot make disrespectful remarks about the PM. Apparently, it is not done, especially when the PM is feted the world over for his leadership. Soon old videos popped up that showed we have a hoary tradition of calling our past PMs names. I'm old enough to remember the memorable rhyming metre of ‘gali gali mein shor hai, Rajiv Gandhi chor hai' that rented the air in 1989 when I first followed a general election in my life. The tack changed. So, now you have the charge that Rahul Gandhi was denigrating an entire OBC community with that statement and triggering possible social unrest. This is a failure to understand syllogism 101. Even if one were to accept the dubious statement that ‘all thieves have Modi surnames', it doesn't follow that ‘all with Modi surnames are thieves'. The more nuanced lot is taking the line that it is the courts that are letting the law take its own course, and we shouldn't read anything more into this. It is possible this is true, but we might again be talking of the multiverse here. Leaving that aside, we now have WhatsApp experts who look for a masterstroke in every decision of the ruling party now suggesting that this is a convoluted plan to give Rahul Gandhi a convenient leg up to be the face of the opposition in 2024 and then decimate him in the elections. If only there were a Nobel prize for politics… Beyond the noise, I see three overlapping patterns here, two of which have been strengthening over the past few years and one that is new.First, there's that interesting paradox of narrative domination that is at play here. The paradox is the more you start dominating the narrative and the media, the greater your anxiety about a single truth bomb bringing down your carefully constructed image. This is why there's only a one-way ride to ever greater control of media and opposition voices. Once your ears get used to the perfect melody of your own symphony, the slightest variation seems terribly jarring. And so you overreact reflexively to the slightest provocation because, to your ears, it sounds big. Two things follow from here. Your reaction tends to get disproportionately bigger and harsher. And you create a chilling effect that shuts more people up further. This is all been in play in the last few years. The way to look at the Rahul Gandhi episode is to confirm the anxiety of narrative dominance and also to send out a message if there was any more needed, that no one can get away with direct criticism any more. This isn't a new phenomenon in India, but the speed and the reach of social media make it a kind of dominance that will be difficult to upend, unlike in the past. Second, there's always a desire to test how far charisma can stretch the ‘reality distortion field' it creates among the collective who have subscribed to it. This is an ongoing natural process of those who have a hold on their ‘people' to see how much more of a break from convention can they (the people) rationalise in their unqualified belief in the leader. It is a useful test of the relevance of charisma, and quite interestingly, the only way to build more charisma is to put it to test with more outrageous claims on people. The more you can get away with, the more your charisma. To quote Weber on charisma:“Charisma knows only inner determination and inner restraint. The holder of charisma seizes the task that is adequate for him and demands obedience and a following by virtue of his mission. His success determines whether he finds them. His charismatic claim breaks down if his mission is not recognised by those to whom he feels he has been sent. If they recognise him, he is their master – so long as he knows how to maintain their recognition through ‘proving' himself. But he does not derive his ‘right' from their will, in the manner of an election. Rather the reverse holds: it is the duty of those to whom he addresses his mission to recognise him as their charismatically qualified leader.”   This business of ‘proving' himself becomes more difficult the longer you continue in office. Because there will be some dissatisfaction among your people on what goals you aren't achieving. Some of this is evident in how a vocal minority (with Subramanium Swamy as some kind of a patron saint) seems to be disgruntled and pushing for more wins in the ideological and cultural wars. Lastly, I sense there's a deliberate desire to take certain actions that will be picked up by western media who will bemoan the loss of liberal values in India. This will be a useful rallying point to build a narrative about how there's still an anti-India global left that's making a last attempt to sabotage a rising India. There's nothing to suggest anyone is really worrying about a rising India till we hit some threshold of a middle-income economy with the accompanying economic and political heft. But who cares to test such grand conspiracy theories? It sounds right, and it fits the narrative that our greatest enemies are our own people who are in opposition and who, for power, will derail India. It looks like a winning narrative to me in the run-up to the elections. Also, I can see that there's a desire to bring a raft of such 'western liberal' values and set them up in a false confrontation with ‘civilisational' values of India. And then use the inevitable electoral victory in 2024 to claim that the people of India have spoken and we don't need the west to judge us using their discredited liberal values. We have our long dharmic history, and we will judge ourselves on its parameters. I have written about this point in the past using the examples of others who have tried to search for this civilisational counterpoint to western enlightenment, including Aurobindo, Kosambi, Vivekananda and Hazari Prasad Dwivedi. All of them ended up with some kind of ecclesiastical or spiritual quest instead of a tangible values doctrine that could guide political, economic or social actions. I don't think those who speak in such civilisational terms today have dived as deep as these scholars of the past have. Atleast I haven't come across that kind of modern scholarship. My sense is their motivation is to continue to discredit western liberal thought for either political gains or to seek a kind of revanchist utopia with its foundations built on caste. In a way, I expect more of this desire to have an ideological battle in the run-up to 2024 and then claim a moral victory on the back of the electoral victory. I'm not sure this kind of false showdown has ever led to anything good as the experience of the 20th century or that of Turkey, Russia or China of late has shown. But there's an appeal among the ideologically driven to go down that path. To pit the past against the future and hope we will discover the glory in the past to build a future that is better and different from the past. That we will be able to rise over this and get the best of the past and dream up a future that's uniquely our own. This looks good on paper, but it gets muddied when put into action, as history has shown us over and over again. I will leave you with Kafka's parable from Hannah Arendt's 1961 book of essays, Between Past and Future:“Kafka's parable reads as follows:He has two antagonists: the first presses him from behind, from the origin. The second blocks the road ahead. He gives battle to both. To be sure, the first supports him in his fight with the second, for he wants to push him forward, and in the same way the second supports him in his fight with the first, since he drives him back. But it is only theoretically so. For it is not only the two antagonists who are there, but he himself as well, and who really knows his intentions? His dream, though, is that some time in an unguarded moment – and this would require a night darker than any night has ever been yet – he will jump out of the fighting line and be promoted, on account of his experience in fighting, to the position of umpire over his antagonists in their fight with each other.”That jumping out of the line happens only in dreams.    PolicyWTF: Fretting Over FreightsThis section looks at egregious public policies. Policies that make you go: WTF, Did that really happen?— Pranay KotasthaneThe difference in the economic trajectories of southern and northern India is an endless fountain. Every person has a different causal story to explain how this economic divergence came into being. As you would expect, some narratives are more popular than others. Some South Indian exceptionalists claim that higher investments in education and health explain the difference. Some of them seek refuge in vague arguments about cultural superiority. The opposing side, in turn, blames repeated invasions and colonial policies such as the zamindari system.It's tough to test some of these arguments. Some of them are biased intuitions masquerading as reasons. For some serious analytical work on this topic, I recommend this underrated book, The Paradox of India's North–South Divide, by Samuel Paul and Kala Sridhar. We had earlier discussed insights from this book in edition #148.Among the reasons for the divergence is a policyWTF that makes a cameo appearance in policy conversations: the Freight Equalisation Scheme (FES). Introduced at the height of its socialist fantasies in 1956, FES was a union government policy for pursuing 'balanced industrial development' (Jan Tinbergen says hello). Under this policy, the government subsidised long-distance transport of key inputs such as iron, fertilizers, cement, and steel in the hope that companies in all states would access these inputs at the same costs. The story goes that FES was detrimental to the resource-rich eastern states of Bihar, MP, Odisha, and West Bengal. These states' manufacturing output in the early years of independence was higher than that of Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, and Punjab. But FES nullified their comparative advantage over time and contributed to the economic divergence.Like other intuitions, this narrative, although compelling, needs a lot more evidence. I, for one, was biased against this explanation. I did not believe that a policy equalising freight transportation could have significant downstream effects that persist over time. And so, I have long been in search of studies that put the FES under the microscope. A recent paper Manufacturing Underdevelopment: India's Freight Equalization Scheme, and the Long-run Effects of Distortions on the Geography of Production, by John Firth and Ernest Liu, is one such analysis that helps put FES into perspective. I summarise and annotate their findings below.One, the study finds that the negative effect of FES exists for real. It did dampen the manufacturing prospects of resource-rich regions. The authors write:We find evidence consistent with these claims: FES achieved exactly the opposite of its purported goal, exacerbating inequality between western India and the resource-rich east. Specifically, we show that FES led industries using the equalized iron and steel to move farther from the bases of raw materials production in eastern India.Two, as a hat-tip to Hayek's warning against centralised design and price manipulation, the authors find evidence that FES had significant unintended consequences for downstream industries.even small geographic distortions in input prices can help one region to nose ahead of another and exploit this advantage to steal industrial activity. Over the long term, this can result in substantial effects on the geographic distribution of production.Three, the consequences of distortionary policies like FES are not immediately visible and hence might lead policymakers to underestimate the negative effects.Our results show that the transition under FES was gradual. Even though the policy had little effect over its first 10 to 15 years, it led to steady movements of iron and steel using industries out of eastern India, and significant overall effects by the time FES reached its culmination in 1990.Four, the repeal of FES in 1991 and complete abolition in 2001 had the opposite effect. Industries again went back to the resource-rich states, albeit this reversal was modulated by pre-existing input-output linkages that were built in the FES era.We find in the case of FES, though, that repealing the policy led industry to move back toward the sources of iron and steel just as quickly as it left. Indeed, the results on implementation and repeal also complement one another, with the alignment between these results building confidence that, in both cases, the distortions related to FES cause industries to move across space in the manner described.So, FES should be filed in the folder "Govenments are not omniscient". This experience should make us pause when governments make grand designs to interfere in markets. Good intentions are no guarantee for good policies.Global Policy Watch: Dil Maange More than MooreInsights on global policy issues relevant to India— Pranay KotasthaneGordon Moore, the co-founder of Fairchild Semiconductor and Intel, died this week. His eponymous prediction, once a footnote in engineering textbooks, has now become commonplace. More so today, as semiconductors have become a test bed for industrial policy and a front for geopolitical confrontation between China and the US. So, let's discuss some less-known concepts about Moore's Law.Moore's Law is actually an observation, a conjecture that has stayed true over the last 50 years. Gordon Moore, writing for the magazine Electronics in 1965, claimed that the number of transistors in the chips that Fairchild was making seemed to double every two years. He made this prediction when an IC contained 64 transistors. A testament to his foresight, an Apple A14 chip today has 134 million transistors per square millimetre.There are several versions restating this prediction. More transistors per IC implies that the cost of implementing a functionality halves roughly every two years. That's the reason that the retail prices of electronic products fall rapidly even as newer products become faster and better.Another variant of Moore's prediction has come to be known as Rock's Law. It states that the capital cost of a semiconductor chip fabrication plant doubles every four years, limiting the progression of Moore's law.That Moore's prediction became a law is a testimony to human ingenuity and decentralised innovation. For decades, it has served as a pole star for the semiconductor industry. The "law" became a benchmark that focused efforts of the entire fraternity.Several obituaries of Moore's Law have been written before. But every single time, it was defied, not just by technological improvements but also by economics. The comparative-advantage-based specialisation starting in the late 1980s was crucial for keeping Moore's Law alive. Companies kept becoming exceptionally excellent in one specific segment of the IC supply chain, leaving other parts to a different set of companies. The vertically integrated design model faded away in favour of a fabless-foundry-assembly model, unleashing unmatched creativity. This happened not because of some anti-trust regulation to break vertical integration but evolved organically as a result of market-based incentives. I wish people understood this aspect of Moore's Law better. It's not just about technological progress.I often wonder if this ethos of Moore's Law can be transported to other spheres. In recent times, Sam Altman of OpenAI makes a similar case:The best way to increase societal wealth is to decrease the cost of goods, from food to video games. Technology will rapidly drive that decline in many categories. Consider the example of semiconductors and Moore's Law: for decades, chips became twice as powerful for the same price about every two years... In the last couple of decades, costs in the US for TVs, computers, and entertainment have dropped. But other costs have risen significantly, most notably those for housing, healthcare, and higher education. Redistribution of wealth alone won't work if these costs continue to soar...“Moore's Law for everything” should be the rallying cry of a generation whose members can't afford what they want. It sounds utopian, but it's something technology can deliver (and in some cases already has). Imagine a world where, for decades, everything–housing, education, food, clothing, etc.–became half as expensive every two years.Moore's prediction was enabled by a combination of technological and economic factors. Can it become a guiding light for other fields? We hope so. Yeh Dil Maange More than Moore.HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters* [Podcast] On Persuasion: Yascha Mounk with Martin Wolf on the Crisis of Democratic Capitalism.* [Book] Fabless: The Transformation of the Semiconductor Industry by Daniel Nenni is a good book to understand the industry. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit publicpolicy.substack.com

This blogpost has been updated since original release to add more links and references.The ChatGPT Plugins announcement today could be viewed as the launch of ChatGPT's “App Store”, a moment as significant as when Apple opened its App Store for the iPhone in 2008 or when Facebook let developers loose on its Open Graph in 2010. With a dozen lines of simple JSON and a mostly-english prompt to help ChatGPT understand what the plugin does, developers will be able to add extensions to ChatGPT to get information and trigger actions in the real world. OpenAI itself launched with some killer first party plugins for: * Browsing the web, * writing AND executing Python code (in an effortlessly multimodal way), * retrieving embedded documents from external datastores,* as well as 11 launch partner plugins from Expedia to Milo to Zapier.My recap thread was well received:But the thing that broke my brain was that ChatGPT's Python Interpreter plugin can run nontrivial code - users can upload video files and ask ChatGPT to edit it, meaning it now has gone beyond mere chat to offer a substantial compute platform with storage, memory and file upload/download. I immediately started my first AI Twitter Space to process this historical moment with Alessio and friends of the pod live. OpenAI's Logan (see Episode 1 from *last month*…) suggested that you might be able to link ChatGPT up with Zapier triggers to do arbitrary tasks! and then Flo Crivello, who just launched his AI Assistant startup Lindy, joined us to discuss the builder perspective.Tune in on this EMERGENCY EPISODE of Latent Space to hear developers ask and debate all the issues spilling out from the ChatGPT Plugins launch - and let us know in the comments if you want more/have further questions!SPECIAL NOTE: I was caught up in the hype and was far more negative on Replit than I initially intended as I tried to figure out this new ChatGPT programming paradigm. I regret this. Replit is extremely innovative and well positioned to help you develop and host ChatGPT plugins, and of course Amjad is already on top of it:Mea culpa.Timestamps* [00:00:38] First Reactions to ChatGPT Plugins* [00:07:53] Q&A: Keeping up with AI* [00:10:39] Q&A: ChatGPT Intepreter changes Programming* [00:12:27] Q&A: ChatGPT for Education* [00:15:21] Q&A: GPT4 Sketch to Website Demo* [00:16:32] Q&A: AI Competition and Human Jobs* [00:18:44] ChatGPT Plugins as App Store* [00:34:40] Google vs ChatGPT* [00:36:04] Nader Dabit on Selling His GPT App* [00:43:16] Q&A: ChatGPT Waitlist and Voice* [00:45:26] LangChain with Human in the Loop* [00:46:58] Google vs Microsoft vs Apple* [00:51:43] ChatGPT Plugin Ideas* [00:53:49] Not an app store?* [00:55:24] LangChain and the Future of AI* [01:00:48] Q&A: ChatGPT Bots and Cronjobs* [01:04:43] Logan Joins Us!* [01:07:14] Q&A: Plugins Rollout* [01:08:26] Q&A: Plugins Discovery* [01:10:00] Q&A: OpenAI vs BingChat* [01:11:03] Q&A: App Store Monetization* [01:14:45] Q&A: ChatGPT Plugins API* [01:17:17] Q&A: Python Interpreter* [01:19:58] The History of App Stores and Marketplaces* [01:22:40] LindyAI's Flo Crivello Joins Us* [01:29:42] AI Safety* [01:31:07] Multimodal GPT4* [01:32:10] Designing AI-safe APIs* [01:34:39] Flo's Closing CommentsTranscript[00:00:00] Hello and welcome to the Latent Space Emergency episode. This is our first ever where chatty PT just dropped a plugin ecosystem today, or at least they demoed their plugins. It's still on the wait list, but it is the app store moment for ai. And we did an emergency two hour space with Logan from OpenAI and Flo Coveo from Lin AI and a bunch of our friends.[00:00:28] And if you ever wanted to listen to what it's like to hear developers process in real time when a new launch happens, this is it. Enjoy,[00:00:38] First Reactions to ChatGPT Plugins[00:00:38] I assume everyone has read the blog post. For me the, the big s**t was do you see Greg Brockman's tweet about FFMPEG? I did not. I should check it out. It is amazing. Okay, so. So ChatGPT can generate Python code. We knew this, this is not new, and they can now run the code that it generates.[00:00:58] This is not new. I mean this is like, this is good. It's not like surprising. It's, it's fine. It can run FFMPEG code. You can upload a file, ask it to edit the video file, and it can process the video file and then it can give you the link to download the video file. So it's a general purpose compute platform.[00:01:22] Wow. Did they show how to do this? Agents? I just, I just, I just pinned it. I just, it did I, did I turn into this space? I dunno how to use it. Yeah, it's, it's showing up there. Okay. It can run like is. Is, is, is my And by, by the way hi to people. I, I don't know how to run spaces. I, I not something I normally do.[00:01:42] But You wanna say something? Please request. But yeah, reactions have a look at this video because it run, it generates and runs video editing code. You can upload any arbitrary file. It seems to have good enough compute and memory and file storage. This is not chat anymore, man. I don't know what the hell this is.[00:02:01] What, what is this?[00:02:02] Well, progress has been all faster than I expected. . That's all I can, I, I, I don't know how to respond. . Yeah. It's pretty wild. I wonder, I wonder, I'm wondering how, how this will affect, like opening up the app store different from, let's say Apple App Store when it opened up. Because there are a lot of, of big companies just building stuff already and how like a small developer will be able to, to build something that's not already there.[00:02:31] I dunno. It will be interesting. So one thing that's really nice, have you seen the installation process for the plugins? It's right at the bottom of the blog post and you have to play the video to kind of see it, but literally anybody can write your own plugin. It's a small little json file. It's, it's literally like 10 lines of code.[00:02:49] It's 10 nights of, you described what your plugin does in English, you given an open API spec. That's it. That, that's, that's the plugin. It's amazing. You can distribute your plugin. This is, this is, this is easier than extensions manifest v3, which nobody knows how to use. This is English.[00:03:15] You write English . So, so, yeah. I mean I think, I think I think there'll be a lot of people trying to develop for this if they can get access, which you know, everybody's on a wait list. I, I've, I've signed up to 200 wait lists this week. . I wonder if, if it'll be different if you, if you sign up as a, as a developer or as the chat user.[00:03:35] Hopefully it doesn't matter, right? Use different emails and sign up to both. Let's, let's just see, in fact, use t to generate like, plausible sounding reasons for why you want to build whatever. Cause they don.[00:03:47] But yeah, I mean, how do you compete? I, I don't know, man. You know, it, it's really OpenAI is definitely a partnership strategy to do what they do here which means they're essentially picking favorites. So if you're a competitor of Expedia Kayak Open Table Wolf from Zapier, you're a s**t out of luck, kind of, you know?[00:04:06] Cause these are presumptive winners of their spaces. Right. And it'll happen in too many industries, probably. Right. I was thinking about maybe summarization or, or I don't know, YouTube video summarization, but there seems to be some application of that already on the examples that you shared. Yeah, yeah, yeah.[00:04:26] They have shared that, but I think there's always room to improve the experience. It's just, you know It's interesting which platform, like sort of platform strategy, right? Like if you write an OpenAI chat plugin, you instantly gain access to a hundred million users, right? All of them can instantly use your thing.[00:04:47] Whereas if you are a standalone app or company, good luck trying to able to use OpenAI through you. There's just no point. So you much rather just be on OpenAI platform and promote there. The the fortunate thing is they don't have some kind of like popularity ranking yet. Actually, someone should go open, someone should do register, like OpenAI plugins list.com or something where like everyone can like submit their own opening app plugins and like upload them, review them cuz this like, this is not a complete app store without reviews and a rating system and a reputation system and probably monetization opening app probably doesn't care about that.[00:05:26] But I mean, I can go start that right now. F**k. I can go start it right now.[00:05:34] Yeah, it'll, it'll take a while, right? Like this is the, like the basic version of the, of the app evolving. But this is a pretty basic version. Yeah. The basic version can browse the web, it can write, write an execute code. It can retrieve you know, we can retrieve data from documents, right? So all the documents search just died.[00:06:02] There's like five of these in Y Combinator right now. Oh.[00:06:08] Examples. Pretty crazy how, how they use the FFMPEG library or, I dunno if I'm saying that correctly, but right in there. You don't need to, to write code to,[00:06:27] it's crazy. Dunno. Yeah. Any reactions? Please, please, you know, open space. Anyone can request a speaker. Oh, Ash, come on in. Ash. I have to add you a speaker. Yeah, we're, we're just reacting here. I just, I, I needed a place to talk and I'm in Japan and I don't have anyone else to talk to, so I need, I, I I just want to share this moment.[00:06:46] I think it's a special moment in history. This is the biggest new app source since ever. Yeah. Hey, Shawn. I think plugin is already taken. . Oh man. Someone, someone bought it already. Yep. , of course. Right? Of course. , what are your reactions? What how are you feeling? What's what are you seeing out there?[00:07:07] Just crowdsource all the tweeting. Yeah, man, it's, it's been wild. I mean, I get out of there to like five minutes and then anything drops, you know, , I think productivity today will be like zero. If I, if I still, like, I quit my job you know, a few weeks ago but I would not be working today. There, there's no point.[00:07:26] There's nothing else. There's nothing else that's important, like, nothing's going on. Like this is the only story. Yep. . I wonder if you have any, any frameworks or anyone that's listening any frameworks on, on how you're handling all of this new, new stuff. Like every single day if something new comes up and, or you can like get the, the wait list invitations to, to use the new products.[00:07:52] Q&A: Keeping up with AI[00:07:52] Like, for example, today I just got the, the one from GIK cli and I was just playing around with that. And then suddenly I started to see all of the, these Twitter threads with announcements. It's getting crazy just to follow up with, with the stuff. And every day something new comes up and started. I was starting to feel a lot of formal, you know, like, h how do you keep up with all of these?[00:08:12] Or how do you focus? Does anyone have any, any good frameworks for that? Well, feel free to respond. Also, we, we have some more room if anyone wants to share your feelings. This is a, this is a safe space to share your feelings because. We all dunno how to react right now. I don't know. I just, I, I, I have a few notifications on for OpenAI employees and people that I do that I think do good recaps.[00:08:37] So in other words, find the people who are high signal and who do a lot of gathering of other people's stuff for, and then just subscribe to those people and trust that that is 90% of it and forget the 10%[00:08:57] Alright. And Sean probably, I have, I have another question. So I can't really figure out like what's left for us to do, you know, without AI tools. Like what, what is we learn next? You know, there's no learning some coding stuff, because you can only do that. You know, we can't do arts, we can't do poetry.[00:09:17] Farming[00:09:17] bakery, probably making things with your hands. Enjoying the sun.[00:09:23] Do you guys think this should be regulated? Like you don't go more than like the speed is going? I don't know. I dunno. There's, there's no point. Like if, like, if you regulate OpenAI, then someone else will come along. The secret is out now that you can't do this, and at most you'll slow things down by 10 years.[00:09:44] You called the secret. This is the end. . Yeah. Yeah. I, I don't know. Secret is out. China's trying to do it right, so I don't know if people have seen, but like China was, was fairly strict on crypto, which is probably good for them. And now they're, they're also trying to clamp down on AI stuff, which is funny because oa like they're, you know, the m i t of of China Ihu, I was actually doing like producing like really good bilingual models.[00:10:10] But yeah, they, they seem to be locking this down, so we'll see. We'll see. Right? Like you know, in, in, in sort of the, the free world there, there's open innovation that may be unsafe. OpenAI, try to be safe. You know, there, there's a big part of the blog post that was talk, talking about red team meeting and all that.[00:10:24] I'm sure every one of us skipped it. I skipped it. And then and then we just care about capabilities and now that, you know, every time people have their minds opened, like, I did not know Ron. EG in chat.[00:10:38] Q&A: ChatGPT Intepreter changes Programming[00:10:38] Now that I know my conception of what a REPL is, or literate programming or what a notebook is, is completely blown outta the water, right?[00:10:44] Like there's no like this, this is a new form factor for me. So not now that I know that I won't be innovating on that or trying to, to shape this into something that I can use because I want to use this, and this is, this is clearly better. Does, does this ha have to do with, with the, like AI as backend?[00:11:00] Yeah. Ideas that have been, yeah. You know, GP as backend. So, so apparently I had a few friends reach out to those guys and they're not doing that because it's not mature enough. Like it works for a simple demo. So, so for, for those who don't know ScaleAI did a hackathon I think two months ago just before I did mine.[00:11:18] And the winner on the hackathon was, was something called GPT is all you need for backend. And they actually what in register? DBC is backend.com. But as far as I can tell, they're not gonna start a company based on that because if you even push a little bit, it falls apart, right? So GPT3 wasn't good enough for that.[00:11:36] Maybe GPT4 is maybe GPT5, but then it'll still be super slow and super expensive. Like you don't want to run, you know, a large language model on every API request. So I don't know. I think it'll be good for scaffolding. I think it'll be good for re type use cases. Like, Hey, I need to edit this video on an ad hoc basis.[00:11:53] I don't, I don't want to learn FFMPEG. I don't need to now, because I can just talk to ChatGPT. That makes sense. But if you want a reliable, scalable backend you probably don't want to use it on a large language model, but that's okay because language model can probably help you write it rather than run it.[00:12:13] Hey, Lessio. Hey guys. Oh yeah. Hey guys. What's up? Hey, yeah, we're, we're just, there's no structure. Just drop your reactions. Let's go. Awesome. Awesome, awesome guys.[00:12:26] Q&A: ChatGPT for Education[00:12:26] What do you think what if Shawn, what do you think if you could use you know AI and the education field, like, you know, like personal attribution system for students?[00:12:35] What's the thought automation education or attribution edu edu education. Yeah. That is the holy grail. This is called the Blooms two Sigma problem. Like the, the, the, one of the big issues of education is we have to teach to the slowest person in the class. And, and, you know, I'm a beneficiary of, of a gifted education system where they take out you know, nominally high IQ people and put them in a separate class.[00:12:56] And, and yeah, we did, we did do better. What if we can personalize every student's experience there's, there's some educational theory. This is called Bloom's two Sigma problem. Where the results will be better. I think that we are closer, but like, I still hope that we're pretty far , which sounds like a negative, like why do I want to deny education to students?[00:13:18] Because if we are there, then we will have achieved theory of mind for ai. The AI has a very good model, is able to develop a representation of who you are, is able to develop theories that the test who you are in, in a short amount of time. And I, it's a very dangerous path to, to go down. So I want, I want us to go slowly rather than fast on, on the education front.[00:13:41] Does that make sense? Yeah, definitely. It makes a lot sense and yeah, definitely. I think personally the education for each student and making it turn the best way would be great. And what do you think how about like, first of all, I'm, I'm having very curious, curious question, you know, like we are having, this week was full of launches, so how you guys are keeping up with if we're not, this is, I created the space though cuz I cannot handle it.[00:14:05] Today, today was my breaking point. I was like I don't know what's happening anymore. Yeah, like every single day I'm just in constant anxiety that like everything I assumed about the world is gonna be thrown up. Like I don't know how to handle it. This is a therapy session, so feel free to express.[00:14:21] Definitely. It's, it's been a very overwhelming feeling for everyone of us like that. I think, you know, like past two weeks and like the industry was definitely a lot, lot of ones we are definitely open for, you know, to discuss more about it. Thanks a lot for this space. Sean. Yeah. Appreciate. Yeah. Va one more thing.[00:14:39] So I think that the most constrained version of education use cases is language teaching. So there are a few language teachers out there speak I think is one of them that is an OpenAI partner. And they're also part of the chat GPT plugin release. , but there are also other language tutor platforms.[00:14:57] You can certainly have your news. There was one that was released maybe like four or five months ago that you can try to see what the experience is like. And you can, you can tell when the teacher has no idea who you are and it breaks the illusion that you're speaking to another human. So I, I just, you can experience that today and, and decipher yourself if we're ready for that.[00:15:14] I hope that we're not ready and it seems like we're not ready. Yeah, definitely, definitely. Thanks a lot for sharing. And guys, what do you think?[00:15:19] Q&A: GPT4 Sketch to Website Demo[00:15:19] Like I, in the launch of four we have show that we could, you know, generate apps and web apps just from you know, like a single simple sketch, you know different tent.[00:15:30] Just start from sketch. So what do you think like how, how it would be impacting the industry? It's all because it's not just like that, that sketch was very, was a very shitty sketch. Right. It was just like drawn on a piece of paper. But if you combine that with the multimodal, like it was that they had another part of that demo where they had a screenshot of the discord the opening eye discord and you're mm-hmm.[00:15:57] and they put it in and it, it like read the entire screen to you and if you can read the entire screen, you can code the entire . Screen. So it's over like[00:16:12] It's definitely, I think interaction, interaction designers, you know, like people who like, think design function still have some time. Yeah. I, I just, I just, I just tried the same thing, you know on bar today and it was like much more better than GPT3 so definitely it's you know, things are really changing.[00:16:30] Q&A: AI Competition and Human Jobs[00:16:30] Great forward. I'm, I'm really worried what we wanna do, you know? Do you think the competition will like stable everything? Like what competition? Anthropic. Well, like Google, Google won't race, I don't think. Google Race, like Google the fight. The one that, the one that launched the W links list of blog posts.[00:16:50] That, that Google.[00:16:55] Well, no, not, not the list. Not the list. Competitions will come. . I have a question. I mean I mean my fear is many of the jobs that are going away, whether it is developer and designers, because I mean, I think GPT four is very capable. So how to deal with it. I mean, it's going to replace, I mean, many of the jobs, that's for sure.[00:17:16] Yeah. It's okay. We'll find new jobs or we'll, we'll not need jobs anymore. We should, we should also, Start universal basic income. That's, that, that is something I, I do believe, yeah, I think the, the main change is going from the web of like, syntax to like the web of Symantec. So if your job is valuable because, you know, a unique syntax or like, you know, how to transform things from like words to syntax, I think that will be a lot less useful going forward.[00:17:45] But the Symantec piece is still important. So a lot of product work, it's not just writing CSS and HTML and like the backend for it. It's a lot more than that. So I just thinking about how do you change your skills to do that. But yeah, even the sketch, you know, you gotta like, you gotta draw the sketch and to draw the sketch, you gotta know where the button should go.[00:18:06] You know, you have, you know, incorrect with it. Yeah. I'm just processing this as I, I just read the whole thing as well. And Yeah, I mean, it's been a wild wild couple of weeks and it's gotten me thinking that maybe all our role was over the past couple years was we were just middlemen to talk to computers, right?[00:18:27] So we're sitting in between, it's over man PMs or business folks or whoever wanna build a product. And then as a software developer, you're just a middle manish talking to the machine and it seems like. N LP is the way forward and, oh, yeah. Yeah. It's, it's been it's been, it's been a while.[00:18:42] ChatGPT Plugins as App Store[00:18:42] Couple of weeks. It's, I feel like we all just have to move either move upstream or, or find other jobs. You just gotta move upstream, either toward product directly. Cuz right now the plugin is yeah, is, is just you know, it's still a very sanitized UI that is controlled by OpenAI. But imagine them opening up the ui portion as well.[00:19:03] So you no longer need to have a siloed product that needs to integrate. ChatGPT instead you can bring your product directly into into ChatGPT, I don't think exactly. I think that would be probably the next next logical move after this, and I'm sure they're already thinking about that.[00:19:22] So that's a great, I don't know if this is, it's wild. What are you guys think? Yeah. Yeah. Like, so before you came up, right, I was, I was talking about this like ChatGPT has at least a hundred million users. Why would you bring people to your platform rather than write a plugin for ChatGPT and use their platform?[00:19:39] It's an open question now. Zapier just launched their integration. OpenAI and OpenAI just launched their integration of Zapier. Which one is gonna be more interesting? Probably OpenAI.[00:19:50] Totally a hundred percent . this is the app store of wow, our century of our decade. Like, I don't know, maybe century. I, I think the thing with ster though, if you think about it, like how many native apps do you download every week, every month versus like how many web things you use. So I think it's all about whether or not long-term opening eyes incentivize to keep broadening the things you can do within the plugin space.[00:20:17] And I think the lab, you know, as this technology gets more widespread, they're gonna have a lot more pressure from regulators, safety, blah, blah, blah. So I'm really curious to see you know, all, all the, all the government stuff that they'll, they'll have a congressional on this in six months and by then it will be completely irrelevant.[00:20:34] It's like that beside that time, they, they, they called it the GameStop guy after he made like 20 million on GameStop. And he just, you know, he was like, yeah, you know, followed the rules, made a bunch of money for those who don't know, unless you're our co-host. On the, we were supposed to drop an episode today, which I was supposed to work on, and then Chatty Phi dropped this thing, and now I, I can't think about anything else.[00:20:59] So this, this is my excuse for not, for for not working on the podcast today. . I know it's funny, we have like three, four recorded ones and spend last week, like GP four came out and we're like, okay, everybody's talking about this is irrelevant. What else? Anything else? Like, but I'm really excited about the, I, I feel like the first, the first use case for this, and I think he tweeted it about it too, is like, before if you had to do like data reformatting and stuff like that, it was really hard to do programmatically.[00:21:32] You know, like you didn't have an natural language interface and now you have it. And before if you had to integrate things together, like you could explain it very easily, but you couldn't like, put the APIs together and now they kind of remove all that part. So I'm excited to see what this looks like.[00:21:48] For commercial use cases, you know, you could see like, is there gonna be like a collaborative ChatGPT where like you're gonna have two, three people in the same conversation working on things. I think there's a lot of ui things that will improve. And so as we have lining from OpenAI for a second, almost pulled them up, but I'm sure you cannot talk about it[00:22:07] But yeah, it'll be interesting to see. Yes, sir. We're extremely excited. Extremely excited. I, I don't, if you, I don't know what else I'm, I'm like, so as far as I can tell there's the, there's hacker and Twitter. I haven't looked at Reddit yet, but I'm sure there's a bunch of reactions on Reddit.[00:22:23] I'm sure there's the OpenAI discord that we can also check out. I got locked out of the discord at some point, but yeah, anyone, anyone else like see news, demos, tweets the whole point of this is that it's live, so please feel free to share on comments or anything like that. But yeah. Yeah, the, the craziest thing I saw was the Mitchell from Hash.[00:22:44] We tweeted about Yes. How the integrations actually work and you just write a open APIs back and then just use natural language to describe what it's supposed to do. And then their model does everything. I wonder if they're using the off-the-shelf model or they have like a fine tune model to actually run integrations.[00:23:02] I wonder, I don't think they'll ever say it. Knowing them, probably they would just use the base one cuz they want, like, I think opening eyes kind of wants a God model, right? There's no point. It's not intellectually interesting to do small models, but like, like it's trivial. Yeah. Yeah. It's, this is a minor optimization problem as far as the, the long arc of history and the, the point is to build a gi safe agi and I, I do think this is kind of safe, right?[00:23:33] Like, . One of the criticisms that people were saying on hacks was that this is very closed. Like it's, it is an app store. At any point opening, I can randomly decide to close this like they did for Codex, and then they change their minds. Whereas if you use something like Alan Chain, it is more open and something that at the same time, like clearly this is a better integration path than long-chain.[00:23:56] Like, I much rather write this kind of plugin than a long-chain plugin. So they, they've managed to, I mean, they know how to ship man, like they're an AI research lab, but they also know how to ship product. Mm-hmm. . Yeah. I, I'm curious to see what the pricing models gonna look like. Also, I mean, if I'm writing the plugin, this is great because I don't even have to take care of the compute, you know, like, I just plug it in, then they actually run everything for me.[00:24:26] Yeah, but how, how it'll be monetized. I mean if the is giving their plugin know Expedia, I mean, people will not go to their website. Yeah. I don't, I mean, yeah. I have no idea that they, I don't think they said also don't super care . Yeah. It's because in the, in the app store, it's transaction driven.[00:24:46] But on Channel G, you're just paying a flat fee every month. So like, you can't really do revenue share on a flat fee. And I don't think that we use like, the Spotify model, but it's like a why not the amount of times? No, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Why not , you have Spotify. I just, Spotify model works. Cause swyx has power, right?[00:25:05] Opening has power. Same thing. They have all the audience. Yeah. But every, every every song is like the same value. Like if you listen to song actor to song y. , like, you're gonna make the same money. Like if I'm calling the API to, for like the meme generator or if I'm calling the API for the, you know, business summary thing, they're probably gonna cost the firm things, you know, so it's kind of hard to model up for OpenAI to say, Hey, okay, we're charging, we're going from 20 to 35 bucks a month.[00:25:36] But then like, how do you actually do royalties on a per model basis? Like how do people decide what royalties to negotiate? This probably needs to be a flat fee, but I dunno. Or put your credit card it OpenAI and then every time you wanna use a plugin, you pay for it separately. Uvp, usage based pricing all the way, and then you just get at the end of every month.[00:25:58] Exactly the, the only question mark is like, how much does OpenAI value the training they on and like how much they wanna subsidize the usage. Canada they have, they have promised to not use any of our usage data for training. So, oh, but the, I think like the plugins, it's a, it's a different thing.[00:26:16] It's like, like how you could, you could easily see how are like requests usually structure for like these things, you know, like, are people searching? So how are people searching for flights and stuff like that. I don't know. I haven't read the terms for like the actual plugin, you know, so. Well if anyone has please come up to speak cuz we're all processing this live.[00:26:37] This is the therapy session. Yeah, go ahead. One thing I see is basically you have to change the plugin I mean, to ask anything or even if you did browsing, right? I mean I see. I mean, they are becoming directly competitor to Microsoft also, I think, because now a user can actually just see, I mean, instead of being chat or Google, I mean they, they just.[00:27:04] Basically select the browsing plugin and basically get all the updated data. And other thing I see is basically you have to change the plugins. Like if you want to use the Expedia data, I don't know how it'll fit with the browsing plugin or you can select multiple plugins. But yeah, it is interesting.[00:27:23] I mean, if we get access, yeah, there is no actual browsing plugin. The browsing is a new model. So just like you can select GT three, GT 3 45, GT four, there's a new model now that says browsing alpha. So you, you can use CHATT in browsing mode and then you can use it in plugins mode, which which is a different model again.[00:27:45] So the, the plug browsing don't cross over.[00:27:51] Oh, that's interesting. And how do you see, I mean, in this whole descending, they are becoming competitive to Microsoft or how they're playing it out. I mean, Bing is just by the way, like, yeah, this, this killed the bing wait list. Cuz you don't need to wait for Bing. You can just use the browser mode open of Chatt.[00:28:11] How does it compete? It competes for sure. I don't think Microsoft cares. I don't think OpenAI cares. This is one of those things where like, you know, they are the two, two friends, you know, and they're clearly winning, so who cares? I don't like, I don't imagine it takes any of their mental bandwidth at all.[00:28:29] Yeah. The main thing is Google is Yeah, the main, like how is Google competing? Well let's see. Right. Bard is out there. I haven't got us yet, but could be interesting. Again, like it doesn't seem like they have the shipping capacity or velocity of Open I Microsoft and. That is probably going to bite them eventually because there's already been a big brain drain.[00:28:53] Something like four researchers, four, the top Google Brain researchers left Google Brain for OpenAI in January. And you know, those are the ones that I know about. And I, I imagine there's, there's quite a bit of brain, brain drain and firing going on at Google, so who knows.[00:29:08] All right, well, any other topics, concerns? Hyperventilation, if you just wanna scream I can turn down the volume and you can just, ah, for like five minutes. , that was literally, I was like, I, I need to like scream and just, ah, because what is going on?[00:29:29] I said that I'm filling out the form right now for the Oh, yeah. Okay. So wait list. So use use chat t to fill out that form. Right. And then, and then use a fake, use a different email and fill out the form a different way. This maximizes . I'm going to ask GT for what plugin do I want to build or, right, right.[00:29:51] Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. I, we can brainstorm. My plugins can live. Yeah. I think that will be a fun exercise. Like the, the main thing that breaks my brain is just this, this whole ability to run code, right? Like this is a new notebook, a new ripple. Mm-hmm. It, it looks like it has storage and it has memory.[00:30:08] Probably it has GPUs. That, I mean, can we run Lama inside GP?[00:30:19] I don't know if that's a, a model within a model. I think for me, most of the things come to like, you know, if I have my own personal assistant, what I want the assistant to do. I think like travel is like the first thing that comes to mind. Like, if I could use pt Yeah. Expedia, plug in with my calendar.[00:30:39] Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But it needs to like know where I, where I'm supposed to be going to, you know, like if I just add a calendar that's like I'm going to, you know, room this week. Yeah. And then like can automatically both send my calendar and say, okay, these are like, or like the times that you like to travel, I know that you don't like ops and yada yada, yada.[00:31:00] That's one thing that I've always, we had this thesis at my peers firm about personalized consumer. There's so many website like, . I go to a lot of basketball games and every time I open Ticketmaster or whatever, it always shows me that she's a seat. And like, I'm not gonna see, that's not what I, that's not the tickets I wanna buy, you know?[00:31:18] But doesn't matter how many tickets I buy, never remembers that. So I think a way to say, to see, take all the information in and suggest, Hey, I saw that there's actually a price drop for the specific seats that you want, not for like any seats. You know, I think that would be a, a very good use case. So I've been a personal entertainment assistant for like, travel like going to shows, going to games.[00:31:41] That would be cool. That's what I'll submit on the wait list. Then we'll see if anybody cares. Right. Did you see get Lindy? Yeah. Yeah. At the, maybe you wanna recap, get Lindy for people. I'm gonna pin it up on the. . Yeah. So basically and this is like the kind of like a assistant lend the ai, right?[00:32:03] Yeah. Lend the ai it's on the board right now. Yeah. For those who can see it through the space. Yeah. Yeah. Actually at the AI Thinkers meet up the, the other day, you can basically like create all kind of like personal workflows and you, it kind of looks like integrations like zier, but it's actually just natural language.[00:32:24] So you can pop this thing up on your desktop and say, trying to hire 10 software engineers. So go on LinkedIn and plan 10 software engineers. The next step, draft a, an email that says, I'm the CEO of this company and I'm trying to hire for my team. If you wanna talk. Then the next step is like, send emails to all these people and it's gonna use people data labs or something else that they use on the backend to get the emails.[00:32:50] Then it actually sends the emails and. This is just gonna run in the background as if it was like you actually doing it. It's pretty neat that you don't have to write the actual integrations. Like it just uses natural language so you're not bound by what they build. Like theoretically anything you wanna integrate with, you can just explain to it how it works and it's gonna figure out how to do it.[00:33:12] So there's a wait list now. Flow didn't give us any papers just because we were at the meetup, so I'm also waiting to get access to it, but it looks really, really good. Yeah, so generative AI's top use case is generating wait lists, right? Like we we're, we are, so we have never had such an easy way to generate a lot of wait lists.[00:33:30] A lot of signup for witness. Oh my God. So much interest. So much product market fit. But also you know, one thing that you, you raising this point? I think, I think, I think by the way, I also pin this up. Mindy can support complex roles like no meetings on Fridays, all one-on-ones on Monday. , I like my meetings back to back within five minutes.[00:33:47] Five minutes in between. So it's just arbitrary rules that you could not program in a normal assistant type environment without a large language model. Which is kind of exactly what you want when you're booking your travel, right? Like, hey, I only like aisle seats unless it's it's a flight that is less than one hour that I don't care, right?[00:34:02] Mm-hmm. . So stuff like that I think is, is super interesting. And but also like not a common use case. Like how many times do you travel a year? Like, you know, five, right? Like more than that, but yes, I think for, yeah, a lot of times it's not a, it's not like a super widespread thing, especially if you don't do it or work.[00:34:21] If it's infrequent, you want high value and then if it's, if it's frequents, you can do low value, right? Like that, that's the sort of binary tradeoff, like the Uber is sort of frequent and low value. Airbnb is high value in frequent there's something of that nature. . So like, you want, you want sort of inspections of that sort.[00:34:37] Google vs ChatGPT[00:34:37] But the other thing that you brought to my attention was, and, and has room for Google to do something is do you notice that OpenAI plugins, none of them are Google because they're not friends. So Open BT will probably never have first party access to Google Calendar, probably never your Gmail and probably whatever, you know, Google copies, OpenAI again.[00:35:04] They will do, Hey, we have all your docs.[00:35:10] Yeah, I, I, I'm interested in that because I don't know if you remember, but like in the first iPhone, like YouTube came, like pre-installed on the homepage and then I forgot when, but one of the early ioss, they removed it. So now obviously Google's not a friend. Who's gonna be a friend in the future, who's not gonna be like, do we all have to hail our AI overlords?[00:35:33] Yeah. To get access to the, the only plugin system. Yeah. The only winners are brown CEOs. Think you're fine. Alright. But yeah, yeah. I just invited nada. C my old boss. Hi. You can't lurk. I, I want, I want to hear from you. And but, but also, you know, yeah, I, I think the Google point is actually novel.[00:35:50] I'll probably write something about that. Yeah. I mean, I'll have to write something about this today. So please feed me things to write.[00:36:01] Nader Dabit on Selling His GPT App[00:36:01] Oh, there we go. Hey, what's up man? What are you think. I know it's like, not entirely your space, but like you're, you're all about the future, right? I mean I did build and sell an AI company about a month ago, . I did the wait, what travel app was built on GP T three Tweeted about You sold it? Yeah.[00:36:21] It was getting like a hundred thousand visitors a day, like 60 to 80,000 unique a day. And then I, whoa. Yeah, I sold it like within about 24 hours. I tweeted out that it was for sale. I had like 30 or 40 people in my inbox. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Okay. I need, so like, but you're right. This isn't my, my man like domain of expertise.[00:36:41] It's fine. You make, you may just a thousand dollars on the side. It's, it's cool. Wait, wait. So I saw you tweet your original thing, which was, Hey you know, GP three can plan your travel. I don't know what happened since then. Can you, can you fill the rest of. Yeah. Yeah. So I mean I was basically, you know, I travel a lot for work.[00:36:55] I, I do travel like once a month and, you know, but I'm also very resource constrained on my time. So I usually like to spend like one day sightseeing. So what I typically do is I go a trip advisor and then I kind of like, you know, Google around and like look at all these things and it usually takes me about an hour to figure out like what I wanna do on my day or two off to go, like sighting.[00:37:14] And then I realized GPT3, you know, you can just literally ask and, and say, okay, within X number of. Like, I'm gonna be in this city, I want to have an iter itinerary. You know, you can give all these different parameters and it gives back a really good response. This was before GPT, even three and a half or four was out.[00:37:30] So I just built like a nice UI on top. Then, like I mapped over the results and, and was linking to, you know, the the Google searches for these different items and, and kind of made it into a nice user interface and, you know, just built it out and tweeted it out. And it, it just got a lot of traction and attention.[00:37:48] Like I said, I had around a hundred thousand visitors a day, like right off the bat, 60,000 uniques like per day. So it was getting a shitload of of traction and. I don't have a lot of free time to kind of like, maintain or build something like that out. So it was costing me money, but I wasn't monetizing it.[00:38:06] So the way that I was thinking to monetize it would be to use affiliate links and stuff like that. So I could either, you know, spend time figuring out a way to monetize it or just try to make, flip it and just make some money. So I decided to sell it and that was kind of it. I just sent a tweet out and kind of said, this is for sale, who wants it?[00:38:25] And I had I had so much inbound from that that I had to delete the tweet within about two hours cuz I was just unable to keep up with all the people that were coming in. And I filled it out a couple of offers and I, I found the person with the most money that could close within the shortest amount of time and just took it.[00:38:44] Well done. Well done. Nice. Awesome. I need a, I need a, I need an applause button right here. . Okay. So with that context your thoughts on today, what you seeing? There's Expedia there, but. Comment on travel or not travel, whatever you want. . Yeah, I'm still reading up on the, the chat plugins actually.[00:39:01] And I was hoping to kind of chime into this to learn a little more about how they work. I'm here on the the page. I've had API access from fairly early on. I signed up and I've been you using it a lot. I'm trying to find some different ways to integrate AI and machine learning into the blockchain space.[00:39:20] There's a lot of stuff around civil resistance that I think are gonna be, you know, pretty interesting use cases for us. It's obviously not like a, a a type of use case that is gonna be useful to, to the general public maybe, but yeah, I'm still, actually still trying to understand how these plugins work.[00:39:35] So what have you seen the developer documentation, which developer documentation at the bottom? Yes. That's where I'm, I'm check, I'm reading through as of now, I see the examples, which are pretty cool. Yeah. Yeah. So my, my quote the, the quote I put on Hacker News was, this is OpenAI leveraging chat, GPT to write OpenAI op open API to extend OpenAI chat.[00:39:58] GPT. I'm confused, but it sounds sick, but yeah, I mean, so open api, you know, not to be confused is OpenAI is randomly the perfect spec for OpenAI to navigate because it, you know, is somewhat plain English. And then you just supply a description for model. You described a off method. So they actually provided a link to a repo where you can see some examples.[00:40:20] The examples are not very, not very flesh out. But you can do, like, bear off, I assume you can do whatever, whatever kind of off you like then you just provide like logo url, legal info url. It's not, it's not, it's not that much. This is 10 times better than Chrome manifest.[00:40:37] Like manifest v3. Yeah, I mean, I'm reading through some of these examples and a lot of them are in Python. I wish they would've more JavaScript stuff, but I would say 10 times would be kind of an understatement if I'm understanding how some of this stuff is gonna work. English is all you need, man.[00:40:53] English is all you need.[00:40:57] Well, so, so, and then I think in buried in the video is sort of the Ethan experience, right? Which is where you specify. So if you're, if you're first party congrats, you know, you're, you're inside of the the chatt ui, but if you're third party, you can just host your Js o file anywhere. It's literally a JSON file on an API spec, right?[00:41:15] You hosted Jason file anywhere. And then you just like plug it into their their, their text field here and then they, they validate a little bit and it's installed. So there is a third party app store on day one. Yeah, that open table plugin example is pretty sick. Yeah. So like yeah, I I What would you want as a developer that's missing?[00:41:41] I think that we're like in the golden age of of being a developer and I don't know if it's gonna go downhill quickly or if it's gonna go like, get better quickly or this is like the, the end of all of it. like, is OpenAI just gonna be where like we do everything like nothing else is like gonna exist.[00:42:00] I think that Okay. You know what I, I know that's not the answer for sure. I'm just kind of joking, but I think it will, this is obviously shut down a lot of companies. This is the app store moment, right? For like, just like, I mean, you and I remember the iPhone app store moment. Some people dropped everything to write apps and they made it big and some, a lot of people did not.[00:42:20] But the people who were earlier rather than later probably benefited from understanding the platform. Like imagine, imagine you, like, you know, you, you are a big React native person for a long while. Like imagine if you had the chance to drop everything and be one of the first developers on a new app store.[00:42:35] Like that's pretty huge. Yeah, a hundred percent. But I'm wondering like the, the type of mode that you'll be able to build with some of this stuff, because it seems like that OpenAI AI will just continue adding more and more features directly into the platform. But I think like for very like, Proprietary type of stuff.[00:42:54] It might make more sense, but like if you, if you want to build like an app for the general public it just seems like they'll end up integrating something like directly within their platform for a lot of different ideas like, such as this travel app that I sold. I have a feeling like they'll have a way better version of that built directly into their platform sometime soon.[00:43:13] Q&A: ChatGPT Waitlist and Voice[00:43:13] Hey, hey guys. Can I ask just to get a quick update does anyone here have access to it yet? Like is it, is it open? Cause I signed up for the wait list, but I haven't seen anything yet. Yeah, no, it's just, it's just wait list where just like 90% of the stuff that people launch, you know, she has a few, she has a few videos and demos, but yeah, it's just a wait list.[00:43:31] Who knows? I mean, thanks. Opening OpenAI Pretty has been pretty good about getting people off wait list, right? Like a lot of people got off the GT four API wait list, like the day after they launched. Mm-hmm. . This one, I feel like they're quite fully baked, like it's. I wouldn't be surprised if they started dropping tomorrow.[00:43:50] So we'll see. But like you can start developing your, your third party plugins today, because there's examples. The docs are like two paragraphs, but that's all I need really . So, so I've been, I've been working and, and I've been following a lot of projects where people are, the one thing I don't see with ChatGPT is like, why are they have, we have Whisper, we have the APIs for ChatGPT.[00:44:13] It's like, why are we not at the point where we're talking to this thing and it's talking back to us? Like, I don't know how we haven't, nobody's wrapped their head around that yet, but it's like, it seems to me like, don't you wanna be like, Hey computer build me an app that does X and it says okay and builds it for you and talks back to you.[00:44:29] Like, I just, it's like, I don't know. That'll be the first probably plugin that I try to work on, but it's just driving me a little nuts. That's all interesting. I like the voice interfaces because sometimes it gets really long, like some of the prompts get really long. They're like, I don't wanna talk that long.[00:44:46] Yeah, yeah. Yeah. I was so, so I was doing, I was messing with the system prompt, basically get it to be like, Hey look, I'm gonna be talking to you. So keep it condensed. I think like the ideal interface would be like, for like, talking to, it would be like putting that at like the system level, but also, you know, being able to type as well as speak to it is just something that I'm, I'm trying to work on.[00:45:08] And I think with Plug, you know, if we could do that with plugins, I'd be huge. Cuz I know there's already a, like a Chrome extension that allows you to talk to it. Or, or I guess you could do it natively as well, but, you know, native stuff on like iPhone and Android is not too good.[00:45:24] LangChain with Human in the Loop[00:45:24] Hey, you, you mentioned that. Hi, by the way. You mentioned the hey way of, of talking to or having way the AI talking to you as a user. So just today there was a new release to of LangChain. I know it's kind of, not really the plugin, but this is the closest thing probably. And they edit a Ask Human tool.[00:45:46] So now the model can ask you a question if it's not sure. About something[00:45:55] to share. Share what? Go ahead. So, so the ask you if it's during its chain of thought, when it's not sure. To an example. Right, right. Oh, I would love that. Yeah. Probably not gonna do that. It's too confident. Yeah, I, I've seen a little bit about. LangChain, but I haven't used it yet. Has anyone here it?[00:46:15] Oh, it's all about it.[00:46:19] I did, I did. I built the LangChain on UI too. It's pretty nice. I mean, especially when it first came out, the, the trolling, it was like so rudimentary. But it's nice to be able to change things together. I think the agent part is pretty interesting. I haven't used it myself because I didn't need it.[00:46:34] But yeah, there's a, a very big community. See, see, light chain was very smart, right? Like they picked out the open source angle first, and then the others like dust or did the closed source angle. Now they have indirect competition with ChatGPT, but Langchain still has that. It's open source, extensible, like you own your agent.[00:46:55] Google vs Microsoft vs Apple[00:46:55] Them doing business deals with OpenAI in, in closed doors, right? Like, so pretty smart, like strategic position. All things considered.[00:47:05] It's a little, isn't it? It's like a little funny to me. That, you know, it's like goo because Google just came out with Bard, right. And I don't know if you guys have messed with Bard at all, but it's at least to me another wait list. Oh, okay. Yeah. I mean, to me it was a little underwhelming. I mean, I'm, I don't know if you've seen like the same, yeah, if you've seen like the screenshots going around, like it seems like, you know, someone tweeted it was like in, in guys in a boardroom or whoever's in a boardroom just being like, s**t.[00:47:30] Like, we need to you know, we lost our first mover advantage here. But it's just kind of funny to me that like, I guess now Microsoft's gonna have like an app store, right? Like just after everything, you know, Microsoft dominated in the nineties and stuff, and then it was Apple, apple, apple. But it's just kind of funny to me that it's gonna be, I guess Microsoft now, right?[00:47:49] Bard feels like Bing does to Google. Totally. Yeah. A hundred percent. I agree with you a hundred percent. All the turntables, right?[00:47:57] Yeah. So for, for those of you who might have missed the earlier discussion the one thing that OpenAI or Microsoft will not do is integrate with your Google calendar. So, the one saving grace that Google probably has it, it probably owns your workspace, right? Like most of us have Google accounts, Gmail accounts.[00:48:14] When we work, we log into Gmail and Google, again, use Google Docs spreadsheets. So if Bard is smart, they will take advantage of that. And then slowly watch as everyone moves to Microsoft Office.[00:48:31] I think Apple should do a partnership with the OpenAI and basically Microsoft. Cause Google has huge advantage of Android. So basically having OpenAI on the, I, I mean, it would I mean having the partnership with OpenAI would make, I mean, very useful on I devices if they, I mean, Siri is really bad and if they integrate with I, I mean they've win the world I think.[00:49:00] So it would be huge, beneficial to Apple and basically the Microsoft also if they integrate together because Microsoft doesn't have any of the devices and most people, I, most ordinary people use the devices iPhone or phone and . So it would be huge advantage. And for the 10, basically Apple I, I'm very curious to see what Apple ships next.[00:49:24] You know, everyone's shipping AI stuff and then Apple was like, Hey, look at our AR glasses. . Yeah, but I mean, ar ar with, with the, with the 3D models that are, that are coming out cuz isn't it mid journeys working on like a three, like their lab, I know is, is building a 3d generative model. And I think that sort of stuff with, with AR is very, oh, is that, is that public?[00:49:45] How did, how did you know that? I don't know if it's public. I, I saw a tweet about it I don't know, like a week ago. It is a semi, semi open secret in San Francisco, but I, I don't know if it's public. Yeah, I think I, I saw them, it was some context of they were talking about text to video and they were like, well we're, we're doing our like 3D modeling first.[00:50:02] So, I mean, my assumption is, and I, I don't work in the space yet, unless anyone's hiring please, I'm looking for work. But it seems to me like Apple. Seems to have their head on straight and like it might be that if they're gonna release these ar like mixed reality ar vr glasses, like, you know, the mo the thing that makes the most sense to me is like getting with generative AI graffiti modeling.[00:50:24] It's like, you know, it would be cool to go to like a coffee house or a bar. And then, you know, when you see like the graffiti in the bathroom when people write sometimes funny stuff, sometimes, like the worst stuff you've ever read in your life and you're like, what is going on when this person's going to the bathroom where they have this much hate?[00:50:38] But it's like, it would be cool to have a component of that, you know, like in the metaverse, so to speak, right? Like, so you put on your AR glasses and it's like, oh cool, I can see like a bulletin board here that exists in the fizzled. But it's also in the, you know, it's like augmented, right? That's just, to me it seems to be like the logical next step.[00:50:57] Interesting. Well, we'll, we'll see that when that happens. I recently got a Quest Pro quest to my, and yeah, my parents love it. And any tech, any type that my parents like, I think has a real crossover appeal. You know, the thing that you, your conversation had gimme an idea for winners of every app store in the early days, like Facebook has an app store, apple had an app store, you know, the winners of an app, store games like what we need Yep.[00:51:24] Is a multi-player. Like everyone logging into chat, BT and then playing a multiplayer game line. Mpc. MPCs are gonna text you on your. , that would be kind of cool.[00:51:40] ChatGPT Plugin Ideas[00:51:40] Actually. I was thinking, I don't, I don't know if it's gonna be game games at first though. Like, it seems like games always push the envelope with tech.[00:51:47] Well, it's like pornography and games, right? But like, I don't know, I was talking to like, you, you mentioned your parents and like you know, I was talking to my mom about this stuff and I was like, you know, I'm seeing stuff that are just demos of just like, Hey, take a picture of your fridge and it'll tell you like, here's what you can make.[00:52:01] Or you know, even like talking to it and just being like, Hey, here's what I ate today. You know, what's my, how many calories I ate today? Or, you know, what's my diet plan? Just things like that. And that's why I brought up the talking to it just with na using natural language and then having it, being able to talk back to you.[00:52:17] I'm surpri I'm like really surprised that they haven't implemented that yet. Cuz it seems to me like that's a use case that a lot of people would use it for, you know? Or if you could just like, you know, call it on a phone if you built like a Twilio back in, into it or something. Like I just don't, it, it boggles my mind why they haven't.[00:52:35] Put that feature in yet? . Yeah. Yeah. I really don't think it's gonna be too long before you're, you're sitting there at work and you get a text or call on your phone from an nbc, Hey, our village is burning down. You need to come over here and help . Do, do you guys think there's gonna be different silos?[00:52:55] Like you know, with Bard coming out and you know, people implementing GP T three and four now, I guess, into all their apps, but do you think they'll be like, chat GP p chat, GP, PT will have their store and then Google will have their store? Do you think it'll be like, there's gonna be a clear Victor here and then, you know, it'll be like, okay, Google's apps or, you know, Google Docs or whatever is like part of chat GP t's plugins, right.[00:53:20] Yeah, it is gonna be like crypto. Everybody's just gonna be fighting for the top. You're gonna have the couple of dominant people, but then you're gonna have all the, the small guys who go up and down and Yeah, I I, I feel like it's gonna be pretty similar to, to how crypto was. So we're gonna have some slur juices is what you're telling me.[00:53:41] Yeah, boy. Nice, nice. I dig it.[00:53:46] Not an app store?[00:53:46] So may maybe we aren't, tell me what you guys think about this, cuz maybe we aren't thinking about this right? Because maybe this is not an app store. Cuz typically in an app store you'll go ahead and choose which plugins you want installed, like on a phone or whatever have you.[00:54:02] But the path forward seems like all the plugins are like omnipresent. I, I don't know why Google isn't shitting their, shitting their pants right now. Cuz basically you check like openly I could just force all. The big companies to write plugins and then just be a single search box for everything. So imagine if you wanna like fly somewhere or you wanna book a hotel you, we have the Expedia and booking.com.[00:54:29] Both of those plugins summoned up and it shows you both the results. And then you can click through on whichever ones you want. And then, yeah, you charge 'em based on click throughs. Like I, I think like we're, maybe we're just getting tripped over by the fact that you have to choose a plugin right now and only interact with that single plugin.[00:54:49] But I think I think the smart move forward would probably be just to have all of them omnipresent and then have this like n l p higher layer up there to summon the right plugin when need be. What, what do you guys think about that? Yeah, so, so that's like the LangChain thing. That's what I haven't used LangChain yet, but it sounds like that's, from what I was reading with LangChain, it sounds like that's kind of is how I thought that worked.[00:55:12] But I don't know, can someone here like enlighten me? I, I don't know if it, how, how LangChain works.[00:55:21] LangChain and the Future of AI[00:55:21] Yeah. I don't know how LangChain works either, but I think it's gonna be a two-way street. Everybody's gonna be making plug-ins with chat GP p t and everybody's gonna be making chat GP plug-ins for other services as well. I think there's gonna be a whole bunch of people about to make a bunch of Jira plugins and stuff like that, so I think it's kind of gonna be a, a two-way street.[00:55:45] I dunno, is anyone else, like, this is super exciting to me. I haven't been this excited about like, the internet since like, probably like the, like the web 1.0 days. Like I, I, I hate, I'm so . Yeah. Like, I hate web two. Like, this is cool. I'm glad that like spaces exist, but I hate Web 2.0, like Web 3.0. I'm about, and like, I, I consider this part of Web 3.0.[00:56:04] But it's exciting, right? Like, this is cool. Like I, I'm really, you know, I'm stoked about, about the progress that's being, like, the joke is like, you know, every day in, in AI is like, it's like way longer, right? It's like we're telescoping very quickly. Yeah, I mean, one of the things, telescope and updating.[00:56:23] Yeah. You know, I, I would say I noticed towards, maybe like three years ago when I was working at aws, it just seemed like for, for about five or or so years, everything was very stagnant and there just wasn't a lot of exciting things that were happening. Everyone was like, if you remember, all the Devrel advocates were like all creating like tutorials around creating your own CMS and your blog, and you saw like that exact same tutorial given by like hundreds of people over the course of a few years because there just wasn't any cool s**t that was happening.[00:56:52] And then I think when crypto and, and blockchain stuff like that kind of caught my attention. Caught my attention, and I'm still excited by that, that stuff. And then this seems to be just almost like when, if you were like around when the iPhone was coming out and actually realized how important it was, I think everyone now is, is seeing this and they're all like realizing how important it is.[00:57:13] And it's cool to be like part of this moment as a software engineer. Yeah, I'm, yeah, go ahead. Oh, sorry. I was gonna say, like, I'm, I'm excited for you, I'm sure you guys saw the alpaca stuff, right? And I know that they're doing D D M C A stuff, but essentially someone's gonna train one of these models and it's gonna, you know, you're gonna be able to run this stuff offline.[00:57:35] And just like the way to, if, if you have access to like I forget which one of the EAC accelerate people was talking about it, but it was like wharf in the flask. It's like you've gotten the machine offline. So if you don't need internet access to access, like, the entirety of human knowledge, whatever's in the data set up until 2021 or whatever, and you don't need internet access, like that's gonna revolutionize everything.[00:57:57] Like, that's insane to think about[00:57:59] Yeah. Oh, well we won't speculating You can run in Inside Chat runs Python. Oh, really? Is that, is that happening? I mean, it has a file system and it has file storage and CPU at memory. Yeah.[00:58:20] is turtles all the way down. Turtles all the way down, man.[00:58:23] The, I, I think the plugin system, if people can get to run their own models like the LAMA ones and the same structure for plugins, you can see like going back to the Metaverse thing like a and snow crash where people built their own like demons. You know, it's like I got the demonn that like kicks people out of the club, the, the black sun.[00:58:43] But you can see in real life it's like I have a bunch of plugins that only I have, you know, and I use them to make myself more productive, use them to make myself, you know, look like I'm working when I'm not working and I'm like responding to my emails and stuff like that. But I think like, The OpenAI releasing this today makes it so much easier to start it because you don't have to worry about any of the infrastructure.[00:59:07] You just build the plugin and then they run everything and you get the best model possible. But I think none line, you know, I would love to walk around with my own, you know, raspberry pie or whatever of my wrist, kind of like I'm fall out and say, Hey, I wanna do this, I wanna do that. I don't know, I don't think we're that far away, so I'm excited to, to keep building.[00:59:28] Shoot, the, the technology exists where you could make that now, but it'd be a little awkward to have

We've talked about the history of microchips, transistors, and other chip makers. Today we're going to talk about Intel in a little more detail.  Intel is short for Integrated Electronics. They were founded in 1968 by Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore. Noyce was an Iowa kid who went off to MIT to get a PhD in physics in 1953. He went off to join the Shockley Semiconductor Lab to join up with William Shockley who'd developed the transistor as a means of bringing a solid-state alternative to vacuum tubes in computers and amplifiers. Shockley became erratic after he won the Nobel Prize and 8 of the researchers left, now known as the “traitorous eight.”  Between them came over 60 companies, including Intel - but first they went on to create a new company called Fairchild Semiconductor where Noyce invented the monolithic integrated circuit in 1959, or a single chip that contains multiple transistors.  After 10 years at Fairchild, Noyce joined up with coworker and fellow traitor Gordon Moore. Moore had gotten his PhD in chemistry from Caltech and had made an observation while at Fairchild that the number of transistors, resistors, diodes, or capacitors in an integrated circuit was doubling every year and so coined Moore's Law, that it would continue to to do so. They wanted to make semiconductor memory cheaper and more practical. They needed money to continue their research. Arthur Rock had helped them find a home at Fairchild when they left Shockley and helped them raise $2.5 million in backing in a couple of days.  The first day of the company, Andy Grove joined them from Fairchild. He'd fled the Hungarian revolution in the 50s and gotten a PhD in chemical engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. Then came Leslie Vadász, another Hungarian emigrant. Funding and money coming in from sales allowed them to hire some of the best in the business. People like Ted Hoff , Federico Faggin, and Stan Mazor. That first year they released 64-bit static random-access memory in the 3101 chip, doubling what was on the market as well as the 3301 read-only memory chip, and the 1101. Then DRAM, or dynamic random-access memory in the 1103 in 1970, which became the bestselling chip within the first couple of years. Armed with a lineup of chips and an explosion of companies that wanted to buy the chips, they went public within 2 years of being founded. 1971 saw Dov Frohman develop erasable programmable read-only memory, or EPROM, while working on a different problem. This meant they could reprogram chips using ultraviolet light and electricity. In 1971 they also created the Intel 4004 chip, which was started in 1969 when a calculator manufacturer out of Japan ask them to develop 12 different chips. Instead they made one that could do all of the tasks of the 12, outperforming the ENIAC from 1946 and so the era of the microprocessor was born. And instead of taking up a basement at a university lab, it took up an eight of an inch by a sixth of an inch to hold a whopping 2,300 transistors. The chip didn't contribute a ton to the bottom line of the company, but they'd built the first true microprocessor, which would eventually be what they were known for. Instead they were making DRAM chips. But then came the 8008 in 1972, ushering in an 8-bit CPU. The memory chips were being used by other companies developing their own processors but they knew how and the Computer Terminal Corporation was looking to develop what was a trend for a hot minute, called programmable terminals. And given the doubling of speeds those gave way to microcomputers within just a few years. The Intel 8080 was a 2 MHz chip that became the basis of the Altair 8800, SOL-20, and IMSAI 8080. By then Motorola, Zilog, and MOS Technology were hot on their heals releasing the Z80 and 6802 processors. But Gary Kildall wrote CP/M, one of the first operating systems, initially for the 8080 prior to porting it to other chips. Sales had been good and Intel had been growing. By 1979 they saw the future was in chips and opened a new office in Haifa, Israiel, where they designed the 8088, which clocked in at 4.77 MHz. IBM chose this chip to be used in the original IBM Personal Computer. IBM was going to use an 8-bit chip, but the team at Microsoft talked them into going with the 16-bit 8088 and thus created the foundation of what would become the Wintel or Intel architecture, or x86, which would dominate the personal computer market for the next 40 years. One reason IBM trusted Intel is that they had proven to be innovators. They had effectively invented the integrated circuit, then the microprocessor, then coined Moore's Law, and by 1980 had built a 15,000 person company capable of shipping product in large quantities. They were intentional about culture, looking for openness, distributed decision making, and trading off bureaucracy for figuring out cool stuff. That IBM decision to use that Intel chip is one of the most impactful in the entire history of personal computers. Based on Microsoft DOS and then Windows being able to run on the architecture, nearly every laptop and desktop would run on that original 8088/86 architecture. Based on the standards, Intel and Microsoft would both market that their products ran not only on those IBM PCs but also on any PC using the same architecture and so IBM's hold on the computing world would slowly wither. On the back of all these chips, revenue shot past $1 billion for the first time in 1983. IBM bought 12 percent of the company in 1982 and thus gave them the Big Blue seal of approval, something important event today. And the hits kept on coming with the 286 to 486 chips coming along during the 1980s. Intel brought the 80286 to market and it was used in the IBM PC AT in 1984. This new chip brought new ways to manage addresses, the first that could do memory management, and the first Intel chip where we saw protected mode so we could get virtual memory and multi-tasking.  All of this was made possible with over a hundred thousand transistors. At the time the original Mac used a Motorola 68000 but the sales were sluggish while they flourished at IBM and slowly we saw the rise of the companies cloning the IBM architecture, like Compaq. Still using those Intel chips.  Jerry Sanders had actually left Fairchild a little before Noyce and Moore to found AMD and ended up cloning the instructions in the 80286, after entering into a technology exchange agreement with Intel. This led to AMD making the chips at volume and selling them on the open market. AMD would go on to fast-follow Intel for decades. The 80386 would go on to simply be known as the Intel 386, with over 275,000 transistors. It was launched in 1985, but we didn't see a lot of companies use them until the early 1990s. The 486 came in 1989. Now we were up to a million transistors as well as a math coprocessor. We were 50 times faster than the 4004 that had come out less than 20 years earlier.  I don't want to take anything away from the phenomenal run of research and development at Intel during this time but the chips and cores and amazing developments were on autopilot. The 80s also saw them invest half a billion in reinvigorating their manufacturing plants. With quality manufacturing allowing for a new era of printing chips, the 90s were just as good to Intel. I like to think of this as the Pentium decade with the first Pentium in 1993. 32-bit here we come. Revenues jumped 50 percent that year closing in on $9 billion. Intel had been running an advertising campaign around Intel Inside. This represented a shift from the IBM PC to the Intel. The Pentium Pro came in 1995 and we'd crossed 5 million transistors in each chip. And the brand equity was rising fast. More importantly, so was revenue. 1996 saw revenues pass $20 billion. The personal computer was showing up in homes and on desks across the world and most had Intel Inside - in fact we'd gone from Intel inside to Pentium Inside. 1997 brought us the Pentium II with over 7 million transistors, the Xeon came in 1998 for servers, and 1999 Pentium III. By 2000 they introduced the first gigahertz processor at Intel and they announced the next generation after Pentium: Itanium, finally moving the world to the 64 bit processor.  As processor speeds slowed they were able to bring multi-core processors and massive parallelism out of the hallowed halls of research and to the desktop computer in 2005. 2006 saw Intel go from just Windows to the Mac. And we got 45 nanometer logic technology in 2006 using hafnium-based high-k for transistor gates represented a shift from the silicon-gated transistors of the 60s and allowed them to move to hundreds of millions of transistors packed into a single chip. i3, i5, i7, an on. The chips now have over a couple hundred million transistors per core with 8 cores on a chip potentially putting us over 1.7 or 1.8 transistors per chip. Microsoft, IBM, Apple, and so many others went through huge growth and sales jumps then retreated dealing with how to run a company of the size they suddenly became. This led each to invest heavily into ending a lost decade effectively with R&D - like when IBM built the S/360 or Apple developed the iMac and then iPod. Intel's strategy had been research and development. Build amazing products and they sold. Bigger, faster, better. The focus had been on power. But mobile devices were starting to take the market by storm. And the ARM chip was more popular on those because with a reduced set of instructions they could use less power and be a bit more versatile.  Intel coined Moore's Law. They know that if they don't find ways to pack more and more transistors into smaller and smaller spaces then someone else will. And while they haven't been huge in the RISC-based System on a Chip space, they do continue to release new products and look for the right product-market fit. Just like they did when they went from more DRAM and SRAM to producing the types of chips that made them into a powerhouse. And on the back of a steadily rising revenue stream that's now over $77 billion they seem poised to be able to whether any storm. Not only on the back of R&D but also some of the best manufacturing in the industry.  Chips today are so powerful and small and contain the whole computer from the era of those Pentiums. Just as that 4004 chip contained a whole ENIAC. This gives us a nearly limitless canvas to design software. Machine learning on a SoC expands the reach of what that software can process. Technology is moving so fast in part because of the amazing work done at places like Intel, AMD, and ARM. Maybe that positronic brain that Asimov promised us isn't as far off as it seems. But then, I thought that in the 90s as well so I guess we'll see.        

Margaret O'Mara, Scott and Dorothy Bullitt Chair of American history and professor at the University of Washington, leads the conversation on big tech and global order.   CASA: Welcome to today's session of the Winter/Spring 2023 CFR Academic Webinar Series. I'm Maria Casa, director of the National Program and Outreach at CFR. Thank you all for joining us. Today's discussion is on the record, and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/Academic, if you would like to share it with your colleagues or classmates. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have Margaret O'Mara with us to discuss big tech and global order. Dr. O'Mara is the Scott and Dorothy Bullitt Chair of American history and professor at the University of Washington. She writes and teaches about the growth of the high-tech economy, the history of American politics, and the connections between the two. Dr. O'Mara is an Organization of American Historians distinguished lecturer and has received the University of Washington Distinguished Teaching Award for Innovation with Technology. Previously, she served as a fellow with the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, the American Council of Learned Societies, and the National Forum on the Future of Liberal Education. From 1993 to 1997, Dr. O'Mara served in the Clinton administration as an economic and social policy aide in the White House and in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. She is the author of several books and an editor of the Politics and Society in Modern America series at Princeton University Press. Welcome, Margaret. Thank you very much for speaking with us today. O'MARA: Thank you so much, Maria, and thank you all for being here today. I'm setting my supercomputer on my wrist timer so I—to time my talk to you, and which is very apropos and it's really—it's great to be here. I have a few slides I wanted to share as I talk through, and I thought that since we had some really interesting meaty present tense readings from Foreign Affairs as background for this conversation as well as the recent review essay that I wrote last year, I thought I would set the scene a little more with a little more history and how we got to now and thinking in broad terms about how the technology industry relates to geopolitics and the global order as this very distinctive set of very powerful companies now. So I will share accordingly, and, Maria, I hope that this is showing up on your screen as it should. So I knew I—today I needed to, of course, talk—open with something in the news, this—the current—the ongoing questions around what has—what was in the sky and what is being shot down in addition to a Chinese spy balloon, which is really kind of getting to a question that's at the center of all of my work. I write at the intersection of economic history and political history and I do that because I'm interested in questions of power. Who has power? What do they value? This is the kind of the question of the U.S.-China—the operative question of the U.S.-China rivalry and the—and concern about China, what are the values, what are the—and Chinese technology and Chinese technology companies, particularly consumer-facing ones. And this is also an operative question about the extraordinary concentration of wealth and power in a few large platform companies that are based on the West Coast of the United States—(laughs)—a couple in my town of Seattle where I am right now talking to you, and others in Silicon Valley. It's very interesting when one does a Google image search to find a publicly available image and puts in Silicon Valley the images that come up are either the title cards of the HBO television comedy, which I was tempted to add, but the—really, the iconic shot of the valley as place is the Apple headquarters—the Spaceship, as it's called in Cupertino—that opened a few years ago in the middle of suburbia. And this is—you know, the questions of concentrated power in the Q&A among the background readings, you know, this was noted by several of the experts consulted about what is the threat of big tech geopolitically and concentrated power, whether that's good, bad, if that's an advantage geopolitically or not. It was something that many of those folks brought up as did the other readings as well. And this question of power—who has power and taking power—has been an animating question of the modern technology industry and there's an irony in this that if you think about the ideological granddaddy of Apple itself is the Whole Earth Catalog, which I—and this is—I quote from this in the opening to my review essay that was part of the background readings and I just thought I would pop this up in full for us to think about. This is Stewart Brand. This is the first issue of the Whole Earth Catalog. The full issue is digitized at the Internet Archive as are so many other wonderful artifacts and primary source materials about this world, and this is right here on the—you know, you turn—open the cover and here is the purpose: “We are as gods and might as well get used to it. So far, remotely done power and glory as via government, big business, formal education, and church has succeeded to the point where gross obscure actual gains. In response to this dilemma and to these gains a realm of intimate personal power is developing—power of the individual to conduct his own education, find his own inspiration, shape his own environment, and share his adventure with whoever is interested. Tools that aid this process are sought and promoted by the Whole Earth Catalog.” The audience of the Whole Earth Catalog was not a bunch of techies, per se. It was back to the landers, people who were going and founding communes and the catalog was—you know, which was more a piece of art than it was an actual shopping guide, had all sorts of things from books by Buckminster Fuller to camp stoves and to the occasional Hewlett Packard scientific calculator, making this kind of statement that these tools could actually be used for empowerment of the individual because, of course, the world of 1968 is one in which computers and AI are in the hands of the establishment. We see this playing out in multiple scales including Hollywood films like Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, which, of course, follows, what, four years earlier Dr. Strangelove, which was also a satiric commentary on concentrated power of the military industrial complex, and computers were, indeed, things that were used by large government agencies, by the Pentagon, by Fortune 50 companies. And so the countercultural computer or personal computer movement is very much about individual power and taking this away from the global order, so to speak. This is the taking—using these tools as a way to connect people at the individual level, put a computer on every desk, connect everyone via computer networks to one another, and that is how the future will be changed. That is how the inequities of the world would be remedied. The notion of ultimate connectivity as a positive good was not something that originated with Facebook but, indeed, has much, much deeper origins and that's worth thinking about as we consider where we are in 2023 and where things are going from there. It's also worth thinking about the way in which global—the global order and particularly national security and government spending has played a role—an instrumental role—in the growth of the technology industry as it is. Take, for example, the original venture-backed startup, Fairchild Semiconductor, which is legendary as really starting the silicon semiconductor industry in the valley. It is the—it puts the silicon in the valley, and the eight co-founders known as the Traitorous Eight because they all quit en masse their previous job at Shockley Semiconductor working for William Shockley, the co-inventor of the transistor, and they went off and did something that one does not—did not do in 1957 very often, which was start your own company. This was something that you did if you were weird and you couldn't work for people. That's what one old timer told me, reflecting back on this moment. But they, indeed, started their own company, found outside financing and in this group contains Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, the two co-founders of Intel, as well as Gene Kleiner, co-founder of Kleiner Perkins, the venture capital firm. This is really the—you know, the original—where it all began, and yes, this is a story of free-market entrepreneurialism but it also is a story of the national security state. This is a—Fairchild is founded at a moment when most of the business in the Santa Clara Valley of California, later known as Silicon Valley, was defense related. This is where the jobs were. This is the business they were doing, by and large. There was not a significant commercial market for their products. A month after they're incorporated—in September '57 is when Fairchild incorporates itself. October 1957 Sputnik goes into orbit. The consequent wave of space spending is really what is the literal rocket ship that gets Silicon Valley's chip business going. The integrated circuits made by Fairchild and other chip makers in the valley go into the Apollo guidance system. NASA is buying these chips at a time that there is not a commercial market for them and that enables these companies to scale up production to create a commodity that can be delivered to the enterprise. And so by the time you get to the 1970s you are not talking about defense contractors in any way. These are companies that are putting their chips in cars and in other—all sorts of one time mechanical equipment is becoming transistorized. And Intel is Intel, still one of the most important and consequential—globally consequential tech companies around at the center of the action in the CHIPS Act of last year, not to mention others. But this longer history and this intertwining with the military industrial complex and with broader geopolitics—because, of course, the space program and the Apollo program was a Cold War effort. It was about beating the Soviets to the moon, not just doing it because we could. But that really kind of dissipates and fades from collective memory in the Valley and beyond with the rise of these entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, Bill Gates, young, new-time CEOs that are presenting a very, very different face of business and really being consciously apolitical, presenting themselves as something so far apart from Washington, D.C. And this notion of tech, big or little, being something separate from government and governance is perpetuated by leaders of both parties, not just Ronald Reagan but also by Democrats of a younger generation that in the early 1980s there was a brief moment in which lawmakers like Tim Wirth and Gary Hart were referred to as Atari Democrats because they were so bullish on high-tech industries as the United States' economic future. And the way in which politicians and lawmakers from the 1980s forward talked about tech was very much in the same key as that of people like Steve Jobs, which is that this is a revolutionary—the tools have been taken from the establishment, and this is something that is apart from politics, that transcends the old global order and is a new one. And, in fact, in the speech in May 1988 in Moscow at the end of his presidency Ronald Reagan delivers a—you know, really frames the post-Cold War future as one in which the microchip is the revolutionary instrument of freedom: “Standing here before a mural of your revolution”—and a very large bust of Lenin—“I talk about a very different revolution that is taking place right now. Its effects are peaceful but they will fundamentally alter our world, and it is—the tiny silicon chip is the agent of that, no bigger than a fingerprint.” This is really remarkable, if we sit back and take a deep breath and think about it, and particularly thinking about what happens after that. What happens after that are decades in which, again, leaders of both parties in the United States and world leaders elsewhere are framing the internet and understanding the internet as this tool for freedom and liberation, a tool that will advance democracy. Bill Clinton, towards the end of his presidency, famously kind of said, effectively, that I'm not worried about China because the internet is going to bring—you know, internet is going to make it very hard to have anything but democracy. And this notion of a post-Cold War and beyond the end of history and tech and big tech being central to that that, in fact, aided the rise of big tech. That was a rationale for a light regulatory hand in the United States, allowing these companies to grow and flourish and so big, indeed, they have become. But I want to end on a note just thinking about the—you know, why this history is important, why this connective tissue between past and present actually does matter. It isn't just that, oh, this is nice to know. This is useful. Lawrence Preston Gise was the second—sorry, the first deputy administrator of DARPA in 1958, created in the wake of the Sputnik—post-Sputnik panic, originally called ARPA, now DARPA. He later ran the entire Western Division of the Atomic Energy Commission—Los Alamos, Livermore, et cetera. Longtime government public servant. In his retirement he retired to his farm in west Texas and his young grandson came and lived with him every summer. And his grandson throughout his life has talked about how—what a profound influence his grandfather was on him, showing him how to be a self-sufficient rancher, how to wrangle cattle and to build a barbed wire fence. But the grandson—you know, what the grandson didn't mention that much because it wasn't really relevant to his personal experience was who his grandfather was and what he had done. But when that grandson, Jeff Bezos—a few years ago when there was—when Google employees were writing their open letter to CEO Sundar Pichai saying, we are not in the defense business. We are—we don't like the fact that you are doing work with the Pentagon, and pressuring Google successfully and other companies to get out of doing work with the Pentagon, Bezos reflected, no, I think we're—I think this is our patriotic duty to do work—do this kind of work. And as I listened to him say that on a stage in an interview I thought, ah, that's his grandfather talking because this little boy, of course, was Jeff Bezos, the grandfather of Lawrence Preston Gise, and those—that connective tissue—familial connective tissue as well as corporate and political connective tissue, I think, is very relevant to what we have before us today. So I'll leave it there. Thanks. CASA: Thank you, Margaret, for that very interesting introduction. Let's open up to questions. (Gives queuing instructions.) While our participants are gathering their thoughts would you start us off by providing a few examples of emerging technologies that are affecting higher education? O'MARA: Yeah. Well, we've had a very interesting last three years in which the debate over online learning versus in-person learning very quickly was not necessarily resolved. We did this mass real-time experiment, and I think it made—put into sharp relief the way in which different technologies are shaping the way that higher education institutions are working and this question of who's controlling the—who controls the platforms and how we mediate what learning we do. Even though I now teach in person again almost everything that I do in terms of assignments and communication is through electronic learning management systems. The one we use at UW is Canvas. But, of course, there are these broader questions—ethical questions and substantive questions—about how our AI-enabled technologies including, notably, the star of the moment, ChatGPT, going to change the way in which—it's mostly been around how are students going to cheat more effectively. But I think it also has these bigger questions about how you learn and where knowledge, where the human—where the human is necessary. My take on it is, aside from the kind of feeling pretty confident in my having such arcane prompts for my midterm essay questions and research projects that ChatGPT, I think, would have a very hard time doing a good job with it but although I'm looking forward to many a form letter being filled by that technology in the future, I think that there is a—you know, this has a history, too. The concern about the robot overlords is a very deep one. It extends from—you know, predates the digital age, and the anxiety about whether computers are becoming too powerful. Of course, this question of artificial intelligence or augmented intelligence kind of is the computer augmenting what a human can do rather than replacing what a human can do or pretending to have the nuance and the complexity that a human might be able to convey. I think there's, you know, these bigger questions and I'm sure—I imagine there are going to be some other questions about AI. Really, you know, this is a—I think this is a very good learning moment, quite frankly, to think more—you know, one of the things I teach about a lot is kind of the information that is on the internet and who's created it and how it is architected and how it is findable and how those platforms have been developed over time. And what ChatGPT and other AIs like them are doing is they're scraping this extraordinary bounteous ocean of information and it is as good as the—it's as good as its source, right. So whatever you're able to do with it you have—your source materials are going to determine it. So if there is bias in the sources, if there is inaccuracy in the sources, there is—that will be replicated. It cannot be—you know, I think what it is is it's a really good rough draft, first draft, for then someone with tacit knowledge and understanding to come into, and I like to think of digital tools as ones that reveal where things that only people can do that cannot be replicated, that this—where human knowledge cannot be, where a machine still—even though a machine is informed by things that humans do and now does it at remarkable speed and scale it still is—there is—we are able to identify where humanity makes a difference. And then my one last caution is I do—you know, the one thing you can't do with these new—any of these new technologies is do them well really fast, and the rush to it is a little anxiety inducing. CASA: Thank you. Our first question is from Michael Leong from the—he's a graduate student at the University of Arizona. Michael, would you like to unmute and ask your question? Q: Yeah. Hi, Dr. O'Mara. Hi, Ms. Casa. Sorry for any background noise. I just had a, like, general question about your thoughts on the role big tech plays in geopolitics. Specifically, we've seen with SpaceX and Starlink especially with what's going on in Ukraine and how much support that has been provided to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and potentially holding that over—(inaudible)—forces. So, basically, do we expect to see private companies having more leverage over geopolitical events? And how can we go forward with that? O'MARA: Yeah. That's a really—that's a really great question. And you know, I think that there's—it's interesting because the way—there's always been public-private partnerships in American state building and American geopolitics, and that's something—it's worth kind of just noting that. Like, from the very beginning the United States has used private entities as instruments of policy, as parastatal entities, whether it be through, you know, land grants and transcontinental railroad building in the nineteenth century all the way through to Starlink and Ukraine because, of course, the Pentagon is involved, too—you know, that SpaceX is in a very—is a significant government contractor as ones before it. I think that where there's a really interesting departure from the norm is that what we've seen, particularly in the last, you know, the last forty years but in this sort of post-Cold War moment has been and particularly in the last ten to fifteen years a real push by the Pentagon to go to commercial enterprises for technology and kind of a different model of contracting and, I should say, more broadly, national security agencies. And this is something, you know, a real—including the push under—when Ash Carter was in charge of DOD to really go to Silicon Valley and say, you guys have the best technology and a lot of it is commercial, and we need to update our systems and our software and do this. But I think that the SpaceX partnership is one piece of that. But there has been a real—you know, as the government has, perhaps, not gotten smaller but done less than it used to do and there's been more privatization, there have been—there's been a vacuum left that private companies have stepped into and I think Ian Bremmer's piece was really—made some really important points in this regard that there are things that these platform companies are doing that the state used to do or states used to do and that does give them an inordinate amount of power. You know, and these companies are structurally—often a lot of the control over these companies is in the hands of very, very few, including an inordinate unusual amount of founder power, and Silicon Valley, although there's plenty of political opinionating coming out of there now, which is really a departure from the norm, this kind of partisan statements of such—you know, declarations of the—of recent years are something that really didn't—you didn't see very much before. These are not folks who are—you know, their expertise lies in other domains. So that's where my concern—some concern lies where you have these parastatal actors that are becoming, effectively, states and head of states then and they are not, indeed, speaking for—you know, they're not sovereign powers in the same way and they are speaking for themselves and speaking from their own knowledge base rather than a broader sense of—you know, they're not speaking for the public. That's not their job. CASA: Our next question is from Michael Raisinghani from Texas Woman's University. Michael, if you could unmute. Q: Thank you, Ms. Casa and Dr. O'Mara. A very insightful discussion. Thank you for that. I just thought maybe if you could maybe offer some clarity around the generative AI, whether it's ChatGPT or Wordtune or any of this in terms of the future. If you look, let's say, five, ten years ahead, if that's not too long, what would your thoughts be in this OpenAI playground? O'MARA: Mmm hmm. Well, with the first—with the caveat that the first rule of history is that you can't predict the future—(laughs)—and (it's true ?); we are historians, we like to look backwards rather than forwards—I will then wade into the waters of prediction, or at least what I think the implications are. I mean, one thing about ChatGPT as a product, for example, which has been really—I mean, what a—kudos for a sort of fabulous rollout and marketing and all of a sudden kind of jumping into our public consciousness and being able to release what they did in part because it wasn't a research arm of a very large company where things are more being kept closer because they might be used for that company's purposes. Google, for example, kind of, you know, has very in short order followed on with the reveal of what they have but they kind of were beaten to the punch by OpenAI because OpenAI wasn't—you know, it was a different sort of company, a different sort of enterprise. You know, a lot of it are things that are already out there in the world. If we've, you know, made an airline reservation and had a back and forth with a chatbot, like, that's—that's an example of some of that that's already out in the world. If you're working on a Google doc and doing what absolutely drives me bonkers, which is that Google's kind of completing my sentences for me, but that predictive text, those—you know, many things that we are—that consumers are already interacting with and that enterprises are using are components of this and this is just kind of bringing it together. I think that we should be very cautious about the potential of and the accuracy of and the revolutionary nature of ChatGPT or any of these whether it be Bard or Ernie or, you know, name your perspective chatbot. It is what it is. Again, it's coming from the—it's got the source material it has, it's working with, which is not—you know, this is not human intelligence. This is kind of compilation and doing it very rapidly and remarkably and in a way that presents with, you know, literacy. So I'm not—you know, does very cool stuff. But where the future goes, I mean, clearly, look, these company—the big platform companies have a lot of money and they have a great deal of motivation and need to be there for the next big thing and, you know, if we dial back eighteen months ago there were many in tech who were saying crypto and Web3 was the next big thing and that did not—has not played out as some might have hoped. But there is a real desire for, you know, not being left behind. Again, this is where my worry is for the next five years. If this is driven by market pressures to kind of be the—have the best search, have the best—embed this technology in your products at scale that is going to come with a lot of hazards. It is going to replicate the algorithmic bias, the problems with—extant problems with the internet. I worry when I see Google saying publicly, we are going to move quickly on this and it may not be perfect but we're going to move quickly when Google itself has been grappling with and called out on its kind of looking the other way with some of the real ethical dilemmas and the exclusions and biases that are inherent in some of the incredibly powerful LLMs—the models that they are creating. So that's my concern. This is a genie that is—you know, letting this genie out of the bottle and letting it become a mass consumer product, and if—you know, OpenAI, to its credit, if you go to ChatGPT's website it has a lot of disclaimers first about this is not the full story, effectively, and in the Microsoft rollout of their embedding the technology in Bing last week Microsoft leaders, as well as Sam Altman of OpenAI, were kind of—their talking points were very careful to say this is not everything. But it does present—it's very alluring and I think we're going to see it in a lot more places. Is it going to change everything? I think everyone's waiting for, like, another internet to change everything and I don't know if—I don't know. The jury's out. I don't know. CASA: Thank you. Our next question is a written one. It comes from Denis Fred Simon, clinical professor of global business and technology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He asked, technology developments have brought to the surface the evolving tension between the drive for security with the desire for privacy. The U.S. represents one model while China represents another model. How do societies resolve this tension and is there some preferred equilibrium point? O'MARA: That is a—that's the billion-dollar question and it's—I think it's a relevant one that goes way back. (Laughs.) I mean, there are many moments in the kind of evolution of all of these technologies where the question of who should know what and what's allowable. If we go back to 1994 and the controversy over the Clipper chip, which was NSA wanting to build a backdoor into commercially available software, and that was something that the industry squashed because it would, among other things, have made it very difficult for a company like Microsoft to sell their products in China or other places if you had a—knew that the U.S. national security agencies were going to have a window into it. And, of course, that all comes roaring back in 2013 with Snowden's revelations that, indeed, the NSA was using social media platforms and other commercial platforms—consumer-facing platforms—to gather data on individuals. You know, what is the perfect balance? I mean, this is—I wish I had this nice answer. (Laughs.) I would probably have a really nice second career consulting and advising. But I think there is a—what is clear is that part of what has enabled the American technology industry to do what it has done and to generate companies that have produced, whether you think the transformations on balance are good or bad, transformative products, right. So everything we're using to facilitate this conversation that all of us are having right now is coming from that font. And democratic capitalism was really critical to that and having a free—mostly free flow of information and not having large-scale censorship. I mean, the postscript to the Clipper chip—you know, Clipper chip controversy is two years later the Telecom Act of 1996, which was, on the one hand, designed to ensure the economic growth of what were then very small industries in the internet sector and not—and prevent the telecoms from ruling it all but also were—you know, this was a kind of making a call about, OK, in terms when it comes to the speech on the internet we are going to let the companies regulate that and not be penalized for private—when private companies decide that they want to take someone down, which is really what Section 230 is. It's not about free speech in a constitutional sense. It's about the right of a company to censor or to moderate content. It's often the opposite of the way that it's kind of understood or interpreted or spun in some ways. But it is clear that the institutions of—that encourage free movement of people and capital have been—are pretty critical in fueling innovation writ large or the development and the deployment and scaling of new technologies, particularly digital technologies. But I think you can see that playing out in other things, too. So that has been, I think, a real tension and a real—there's a market dimension to this, not just in terms of an ethical dimension or political dimension that there does need to be some kind of unfettered ability of people to build companies and to grow them in certain ways. But it's a fine balance. I mean, this sort of, like, when does regulation—when does it—when do you need to have the state come in and in what dimension and which state. And this goes back to that core question of like, OK, the powerful entities, what are their values? What are they fighting for? Who are they fighting for? I don't know. I'm not giving you a terribly good answer because I think it's a really central question to which many have grappled for that answer for a very long time. CASA: Thank you. Our next question comes from Ahmuan Williams, a graduate student at the University of Oklahoma. Ahmuan? Q: Thank you. Hi. I'm wondering about ChatGPT, about the regulation side of that. It seems like it's Microsoft that has kind of invested itself into ChatGPT. Microsoft had before gotten the Pentagon contract just a few years back. So it's kind of a two-part question. So, first of all, how does that—what does that say about government's interest in artificial intelligence and what can be done? I know the Council of Foreign Relations also reported that the Council of Europe is actually planning an AI convention to figure out how, you know, a framework of some type of AI convention in terms of treaties will work out. But what should we be worried about when it comes to government and the use of AI in political advertisements and campaigns, about, basically, them flooding opinions with, you know, one candidate's ideas and, therefore, them being able to win because they're manipulating our opinions? So what would you say would be kind of a regulation scheme that might come out of these type—new flourishing AI devices? O'MARA: Mmm hmm. Mmm hmm. That's a good question. I think there's sort of different layers to it. I mean, I see that, you know, the Pentagon contract—the JEDI contract—being awarded to Microsoft, much to Amazon's distress—(laughs)—and litigious distress, is a kind of a separate stream from its decision to invest 10 billion (dollars) in OpenAI. I think that's a commercial decision. I think that's a recognition that Microsoft research was not producing the—you know, Microsoft didn't have something in house that was comparable. Microsoft saw an opportunity to at last do a—you know, knock Google off of its dominant pedestal in search and make Bing the kind of long—kind of a punch line—no longer a punch line but actually something that was a product that people would actively seek out and not just use because it was preinstalled on their Microsoft devices. That is—so I see that as a market decision kind of separate from. The bigger AI question, the question of AI frameworks, yes, and this, again, has a longer history and, you know, I kind of liken AI to the Pacific Ocean. It's an enormous category that contains multitudes. Like, it's—you know, we can—oftentimes when we talk about AI or the AI that we see and we experience, it's machine learning. And part of why we have such extraordinary advances in machine learning in the last decade has—because of the harvesting of individual data on these platforms that we as individuals use, whether it be Google or Meta or others, that that has just put so much out there that now these companies can create something that—you know, that the state of the art has accelerated vastly. Government often is playing catch up, not just in tech but just in business regulation, generally. The other—you know, another example of this in the United States cases with the—in the late nineteenth century, early twentieth century, with what were then new high-tech tech-driven industries of railroads and oil and steel that grew to enormous size and then government regulators played catch up and created the institutions that to this day are the regulators like the FTC created in 1913. Like, you know, that's—of that vintage. So, I think that it depends on—when it comes to—the question about electoral politics, which I think is less about government entities—this is about entities, people and organizations that want to be in charge of government or governments—that is, you know, AI—new technologies of all kinds that incorporate ever more sophisticated kind of, essentially, disinformation, that—information that presents as real and it is not. The increased volume of that and the scale of that and the sophistication of that and the undetectability of it does create a real challenge to free and fair elections and also to preventing, in the American context, international and foreign intervention in and manipulation of elections but true in every context. That is, you know, getting good information before voters and allowing bad actors to exploit existing prejudices or misassumptions. That is an existing problem that probably will be accelerated by it. I think there's—there's a strong case to be made, at least in the U.S. context, for much stronger regulation of campaign advertising that extends to the internet in a much more stricter form. In that domain there's—I think we have pretty good evidence that that has not been—you know, having that back end has made the existing restrictions on other types of campaign speech and other media kind of made them moot because you can just go on a social platform and do other things. So there's—you know, this is—I think the other thing that compromises this is the rapidly changing nature of the technology and the digital—and the global reach of these digital technologies that extends any other product made—you know, any other kind of product. It just is borderless that—in a kind of overwhelming way. That doesn't mean government should give up. But I think there's a sort of supranational level of frameworks, and then there are all sorts of subnational kind of domain-specific frameworks that could occur to do something as a countervailing force or at least slow the role of developers and companies in moving forward in these products. CASA: Thank you. Our next question is a written one. It comes from Prashant Hosur, assistant professor of humanities and social sciences at Clarkson University. He asks, how do you—or she. I'm sorry. I'm not sure. How do you think big tech is likely to affect conventional wisdom around issues of great power rivalry and power transitions? O'MARA: Hmm. I don't—well, I think there are a—these are always—these definitions are always being redefined and who the great powers are and what gives them power is always being reshuffled and—but, of course, markets and economic resources and wealth and—are implicated in this for millennia. I think that tech companies do have this—American tech companies and the tech platforms, which I should preface this by saying, you know, none of the companies we're talking about now are going to rule forever. Maybe that just goes without—it's worth just note, you know, this is—we will have the rise and fall. Every firm will be a dinosaur. Detroit was the most innovative city in the world a hundred and ten years ago. There's still a lot of innovation and great stuff coming out of Detroit, but if you—if I queried anyone here and said, what's the capital of innovation I don't know if you would say Detroit. But back in the heyday of the American auto industry it was, and I think it's a good reminder. We aren't always going to be talking about this place in northern California and north Seattle in this way. But what we have right now are these companies that their products, unlike the products of Henry Ford or General Motors, are ones that are—go across borders with—you know, the same product goes across borders seamlessly and effortlessly, unlike an automobile where a—to sell in a certain country you have to meet that country's fuel standards and, you know, safety standards, et cetera, et cetera. You have a different model for a different market. Instead, here, you know, a Facebook goes where it goes, Google goes where it goes, YouTube goes where it goes, and that has been kind of extraordinary in terms of internationalizing politics, political trends. I think what we've seen globally is very—you know, the role of the internet in that has been extraordinary, both for good and for ill, in the last fifteen years. And then the kind of—the immense—the great deal of power that they have in the many different domains and, again, Ian Bremmer also observed this kind of the—all the different things they do and that is something that is different from twenty-five years ago where you now have companies that are based on the West Coast of the United States with products designed by a small group of people from a kind of narrow, homogenous band of experience who are doing things like transforming taxis and hotels and, I mean, you name it, kind of going everywhere in a way that in the day of the—you know, the first Macintosh, which was like this cool thing on your desk, that was—yes, it was a transformative product. It was a big deal and Silicon Valley was—became a household word and a phrase in the 1980s and the dot.com era, too. That was—you know, everyone's getting online with their AOL discs they got in the mail. But what's happened in the twenty-first century is at a scale and—a global scale and an influence across many different domains, and politics, this very deliberate kind of we are a platform for politics that has really reshaped the global order in ways that are quite profound. This is not to say that everything has to do with big tech is at the root of everything. But let's put it in context and let's, you know—and also recognize that these are not companies that were designed to do this stuff. They've been wildly successful what they set out to do and they have a high-growth tech-driven model that is designed to move fast and, yes, indeed, it breaks things and that has—you know, that has been—they are driven by quarterly earnings. They are driven by other things, as they should be. They are for-profit companies, many of them publicly traded. But the—but because, I think, in part they have been presenting themselves as, you know, we're change the world, we're not evil, we're something different, we're a kinder, gentler capitalism, there has been so much hope hung on them as the answer for a lot of things, and that is not—kind of giving states and state power something of the past to get its act together that instead states need to step up. CASA: Our next question is from Alex Grigor. He's a PhD candidate from University of Cambridge. Alex? Q: Hello. Yes. Thank you. Can you hear me? O'MARA: Yes. CASA: Yes. Q: Yeah. Hi. Thank you, Ms. O'Mara. Very insightful and, in fact, a lot of these questions are very good as well. So they've touched upon a lot of what I was going to ask and so I'll narrow it down slightly. My research is looking at cyber warfare and sort of international conflict particularly between the U.S. and China but beyond, and I was wondering—you started with the sort of military industrial complex and industry sort of breaking away from that. Do you see attempts, perhaps, because of China and the—that the technology industry and the military are so closely entwined that there's an attempt by the U.S. and, indeed, other countries. You see increase in defense spending in Japan and Germany. But it seems to be specifically focused, according to my research, on the technologies that are coming out of that, looking to reengage that sort of relationship. They might get that a little bit by regulation. Perhaps the current downsizing of technology companies is an opportunity for governments to finally be able to recruit some good computer scientists that they haven't been able to—(laughs)—(inaudible). Perhaps it's ASML and semiconductor sort of things. Do you see that as part of the tension a conscious attempt at moving towards reintegrating a lot of these technologies back into government? O'MARA: Yeah. I think we're at a really interesting moment. I mean, one thing that's—you know, that's important to note about the U.S. defense industry is it never went away from the tech sector. It just kind of went underground. Lockheed, the major defense contractor, now Lockheed Martin, was the biggest numerical employer in the valley through the end of the Cold War through the end of the 1980s. So well into the commercial PC era and—but very—you know, kind of most of what was going on there was top secret stuff. So no one was on the cover of Forbes magazine trumpeting what they've done. And there has been—but there has been a real renewed push, particularly with the kind of—to get made in Silicon Valley or, you know, made in the commercial sector software being deployed for military use and national security use and, of course, this is very—completely bound up in the questions of cyber warfare and these existing commercial networks, and commercial platforms and products are ones that are being used and deployed by state actors and nonstate actors as tools for cyber terrorism and cyber warfare. So, yes, I think it's just going to get tighter and closer and the great—you know, the stark reality of American politics, particularly in the twentieth and into the twenty-first centuries, is the one place that the U.S. is willing to spend lots of money in the discretionary budget is on defense and the one place where kind of it creates a rationale for this unfettered—largely, unfettered spending or spending with kind of a willingness to spend a lot of money on things that don't have an immediately measurable or commercializable outcome is in national security writ large. That's why the U.S. spent so much money on the space program and created this incredible opportunity for these young companies making chips that only—making this device that only—only they were making the things that the space program needed, and this willingness to fail and the willingness to waste money, quite frankly. And so now we're entering into this sort of fresh—this interesting—you know, the geopolitical competition with China between the U.S. has this two dimensions in a way and the very—my kind of blunt way of thinking about it it's kind of like the Soviet Union and Japan all wrapped up in one, Japan meaning the competition in the 1980s with Japan, which stimulated a great deal of energy among—led by Silicon Valley chip makers for the U.S. to do something to help them compete and one of those outcomes was SEMATECH, the consortium to develop advanced semiconductor technology, whose funding—it was important but its funding was a fraction of the wave of money that just was authorized through last year's legislation, the CHIPS Act as well as Inflation Reduction Act and others. So I'm seeing, you know, this kind of turn to hardware and military hardware and that a lot of the commercial—the government subsidized or incentivized commercial development of green technology and advanced semiconductor, particularly in military but other semiconductor technology and bringing semiconductor manufacturing home to the United States, that is—even those dimensions that are nonmilitary, that are civilian, it's kind of like the Apollo program. That was a civilian program but it was done for these broader geopolitical goals to advance the economic strength and, hence, the broader geopolitical strength of the United States against a competitor that was seen as quite dangerous. So that's my way of saying you're right, that this is where this is all going and so I think that's why this sort of having a healthy sense of this long-term relationship is healthy. It's healthy for the private sector to recognize the government's always been there. So it isn't though you had some innovative secret that the government is going to take away by being involved. And to also think about what are the broader goals that—you know, who is benefiting from them and what is the purpose and recognize often that, you know, many of the advanced technologies we have in the United States are thanks to U.S. military funding for R&D back in the day. CASA: Our next question is written. It's from Damian Odunze, who is an assistant professor at Delta State University. Regarding cybersecurity, do you think tech companies should take greater responsibility since they develop the hardware and software packages? Can the government mandate them, for instance, to have inbuilt security systems? O'MARA: Hmm. Yeah. I think—look, with great power comes great responsibility is a useful reminder for the people at the top of these companies that for—that are so remarkably powerful at the moment and because their platforms are so ubiquitous. There are—you see, for example, Microsoft has really—is a—I think what they've done in terms of partnering with the White House and its occupants and being—kind of acting as a NSA first alert system of sorts and kind of being open about that I think that's been good for them from a public relations perspective, and also—but I think it also reflects this acknowledgement of that responsibility and that it also is bad for their business if these systems are exploited. Yeah, I think that, again, regulation is something that—you know, it's like saying Voldemort in Silicon Valley. Like, some people are, like, oh, regulation, you know. But there's really—there can be a really generative and important role that regulation can play, and the current industry has grown up in such a lightly-regulated fashion you just kind of get used to having all that freedom, and when it comes to cybersecurity and to these issues of national security importance and sort of global importance and importance to the users of the products and the companies that make them there's, I think, a mutual interest in having some sort of rules of the road and that—and I think any company that's operating at a certain scale is—understands that it's in their market interest to be—you know, not to be a renegade, that they are working with. But I think having—you know, there can be a willingness to work with but they're—having a knowledge and an understanding and a respect for your government partners, your state partners, whether they be U.S. or non-U.S. or supranational is really critically important and sometimes tech folks are a little too, like, oh, politics, they don't know what they're doing, you know. We know better. And I think there needs to be a little more mutual exchange of information and some more—yes, some more technical people being able to be successfully recruited into government would probably be a help, too, so there's—on both sides of the table you have technically savvy people who really understand the inner workings of how this stuff is made and don't have simplistic answers of like, oh, we'll just take all the China-made technology out of it. You're, like, well, there's—like, it's kind of deep in the system. You know, so having technologists in the conversation at all points is important. CASA: Thank you. I think we have time for one more question. We'll take that from Louis Esparza, assistant professor at California State University in Los Angeles. Q: Hi. Thank you for your very interesting talk. So I'm coming at this from the social movements literature and I'm coming into this conversation because I'm interested in the censorship and influence of big tech that you seem to be, you know, more literate in. So my question is do you think that this—the recent trends with big tech and collaboration with federal agencies is a rupture with the origin story of the 1960s that you talked about in your talk or do you think it's a continuity of it? O'MARA: Yeah. That's a great way to put it. The answer is, is it both? Well, it's something of a rupture. I mean, look, this—you know, you have this—you have an industry that grows up as intensely—you know, that those that are writing and reading the Whole Earth Catalog in 1968 the military industrial complex is all around them. It is paying for their education sort of effectively or paying for the facilities where they're going to college at Berkeley or Stanford or name your research university—University of Washington. It is the available jobs to them. It is paying for the computers that they learn to code on and that they're doing their work on. It is everywhere and it is—and when you are kind of rebelling against that establishment, when you see that establishment is waging war in Vietnam as being a power—not a power for good but a power for evil or for a malevolent—a government you don't trust whose power, whose motivations you don't trust, then you—you know, you want to really push back against that and that is very much what the personal computer movement that then becomes an industry is. That's why all those people who were sitting around in the 1970s in Xerox Palo Alto Research Center—Xerox Park—just spitballing ideas, they just did not want to have anything to do with military technology. So that's still there, and then that—and that ethos also suffused other actors in, you know, American government and culture in the 1980s forward, the sort of anti-government sentiment, and the concerns about concentrated power continue to animate all of this. And the great irony is that has enabled the growth of these private companies to the power of states. (Laughs.) So it's kind of both of those things are happening and I think, in some ways, wanting to completely revolutionize the whole system was something that was not quite possible to do, although many—it is extraordinary how much it has done. CASA: Margaret, thank you very much for this fascinating discussion and to all of you for your questions and comments. I hope you will follow Margaret on Twitter at @margaretomara. Our next Academic Webinar will take place on Wednesday, March 1, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Chris Li, director of research of the Asia Pacific Initiative and fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, will lead a conversation on U.S. strategy in East Asia. In the meantime, I encourage you to learn about CFR's paid internships for students and fellowships for professors at CFR.org/Careers. Follow at @CFR_Academic on Twitter and visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. Thank you again for joining us today. We look forward to you tuning in for our webinar on March 1. Bye. (END)  

Edward Glaeser is the chair of the Harvard department of economics, and the author of the best books and papers about cities (including Survival of the City and Triumph of the City).He explains why:* Cities are resilient to terrorism, remote work, & pandemics,* Silicon Valley may collapse but the Sunbelt will prosper, * Opioids show UBI is not a solution to AI* & much more!Watch on YouTube. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any other podcast platform. Read the full transcript here.Follow me on Twitter for updates on future episodes.If you enjoy this episode, I would be super grateful if you shared it. Post it on Twitter, send it to your friends & group chats, and throw it up wherever else people might find it. Can't exaggerate how much it helps a small podcast like mine.A huge thanks to Graham Bessellieu for editing this podcast and Mia Aiyana for producing its transcript.Timestamps(0:00:00) - Mars, Terrorism, & Capitals (0:06:32) - Decline, Population Collapse, & Young Men (0:14:44) - Urban Education (0:18:35) - Georgism, Robert Moses, & Too Much Democracy? (0:25:29) - Opioids, Automation, & UBI (0:29:57) - Remote Work, Taxation, & Metaverse (0:42:29) - Past & Future of Silicon Valley (0:48:56) - Housing Reform (0:52:32) - Europe's Stagnation, Mumbai's Safety, & Climate ChangeTranscriptMars, Terrorism, & CapitalsDwarkesh Patel 0:00:00Okay, today, I have the pleasure of speaking with Professor Edward Glaeser, who is the chair of the Harvard Department of Economics, and author of some of the best books and papers about cities. Professor Glazer, thanks for coming on The Lunar Society.Edward Glaeser 0:00:25Oh, thank you so much for having me on! Especially given that The Lunar Society pays homage to one of my favorite moments in urban innovation in Birmingham during the 18th century.Dwarkesh Patel 0:00:26Oh wow, I didn't even catch that theme, but that's a great title. My first question is, What advice would you give to Elon Musk about building the first cities on Mars?Edward Glaeser 0:00:35[laughs] That's a great question. I think that demand for urbanism in Mars is going to be relatively limited. Cities are always shaped by the transportation costs that are dominant in the era in which they're created. That both determines the micro-shape of the city and determines its macro future. So cities on Mars are, of course, going to be limited by the likely prohibitive cost of traveling back and forth to the mother planet. But we also have to understand what cars people are going to be using on Mars. I assume these are all going to be Teslas, and everyone is going to be driving around in some appropriate Tesla on Mars. So it's going to be a very car-oriented living experience. I think the best strategy would be to create a fairly flexible plan, much like the 1811 grid plan in New York, that allows entrepreneurs to change land use over time and put a few bets on what's necessary for infrastructure and then just let the city evolve organically. Usually, the best way is to put more trust in individual initiative than central planning–– at least in terms of micromanaging what goes where. Dwarkesh Patel 0:01:58Gotcha. Now, since 9/11, many terrorist groups have obviously intended to cause harm to cities. But by and large, at least in Western countries, they haven't managed to kill off thousands of people like they were able to do during 9/11. What explains this? Do you think cities are just more resilient to these kinds of attacks than we would have otherwise thought? Or are the terrorists just not being creative enough?Edward Glaeser 0:02:20I don't know. There's also the question of what the objectives are. Even for the 9/11 terrorists, their end game was not to kill urbanites in America. It was to effect change in Saudi Arabia or in the Middle East more generally. We've also protected our cities better. If you think about it, two things go on simultaneously when you collect economic activity in one place in terms of defense: one of which is they become targets–– and of course, that's what we saw on 9/11; it's hard to think of a symbol that's clearer than those twin towers. But at the same time, they're also a defensible space. The origin of the urban agglomeration and use for cities and towns was the fact that they could be walled settlements. Those walls that brought together people collectively for defense are the ultimate reason why these towns came about. The walls provided protection.I think the same thing has been playing out with cities over the past 20 years. Just as New York was a target, it was also a place where post-2001, the city ramped up its anti-terrorism efforts. They put together a massive group as London had previously done. The cameras that implemented congestion pricing in London were the same cameras that used against the Irish terrorists. So both effects went on. I think we've been fortunate and that we've shown the strength of cities in terms of protecting themselves.Dwarkesh Patel 0:03:52If you look throughout ancient world history, there are so many examples of empires that are basically synonymous with their capital cities (ex. Rome or Athens, or Sparta). But today, you would never think of America as the ‘Washingtonian Empire.' What is the explanation for why the capital city has become much less salient in terms of the overall nation? Is there a Coasian answer here?Edward Glaeser 0:04:20There are specific things that went on with English offshoot colonies where in many cases, because they recognized the tendency of the capital city to attract lots of excess goodies that had been taken from elsewhere in the country, they located the capital city in a remote place. It's actually part of the story of the Hamilton musical in The Room Where it Happens. Part of the deal was about moving the capital of the US to a relatively remote Virginia location rather than having it be in Philadelphia, New York. That was partially to reflect the fact that the South needed to be protected against all of the extra assets going to New York and Philadelphia.So, whether or not this is Canberra or Ottawa, you see all of these English offshoot places without their capitals in the big metropoles. Whereas traditionally, what's happened in these places that have been around for centuries, is that even if the capital didn't start off as the largest city, it became the largest city because centuries of French leaders thought their business was to take wealth from elsewhere in France and make Paris great. I think the French Empire was as synonymous with Paris as most of those ancient empires were with their capital city. I guess the question I could throw back to you is, what are places where this is not true? Moscow, St. Peter's, and Beijing are examples. Do we think that Beijing is less synonymous with China than the Roman Empire is with Rome? Maybe a little–– possibly just because China is so big and Beijing is a relatively small share of the overall population of China. But it's more so certainly than Washington, D.C. is with the U.S. Decline, Population Collapse, & Young MenDwarkesh Patel 0:06:32That's a really interesting answer. Once a city goes through a period of decline (maybe an important industry moved out, or maybe it's had a sequence of bad governance), are you inclined to bet that there will be some sort of renewal, or do you think that things will continue to get worse? In other words, are you a momentum trader, or are you a reversion to the mean trader when it comes to cities?Edward Glaeser 0:06:54I can tell you different answers for different outcomes. For housing prices, I can tell you exactly what we know statistically about this, which is at higher frequencies, let's say one year, housing prices show wickedly large levels of momentum. For five years or more, they show very significant levels of mean reversion. It's a short-term cycle in housing prices followed by decline. Population just shows enormous persistence on the downside. So what happens is you typically will have an economic shock. Detroit used to be the most productive place on the planet in 1950, but a bunch of shocks occurred in transportation technology which made it no longer such a great place to make cars for the world. It takes a century for the city to respond in terms of its population because the housing is sticky. The housing remains there. So between the 50s and 60s, the population declines a little bit, and prices drop. They drop sufficiently far that you're not going to build a lot of new housing, but people are going to still stay in the houses. They're not going to become vacant. So, the people are still there because the houses are still there. During the 60s to 70s, the population drops a  little bit further and prices kind of stay constant, but still it's not enough to build new housing. So the declines are incredibly persistent, and growth is less so. So on the boom side, you have a boom over a 10-year period that's likely to mean revert and it's not nearly as persistent because it doesn't have this sticky housing element to it. In terms of GDP per capita, it's much more of a random walk there in terms of the straight income stuff. It's the population that's really persistent, which is, in fact, the reality of a persistent economy.Dwarkesh Patel 0:08:44Interesting. Why don't Americans move as much as they used to a century ago? So you have a paper from 2018 titled Jobs in the Heartland, where you talk about how there's increasing divergence between the unemployment rates between different parts of America. Why don't Americans just move to places where there are better economic circumstances? Edward Glaeser 0:09:04I want to highlight one point here, which is that you said “unemployment rate”, and I want to replace that with non-employment rate. That's partially what we're seeing now. It looks like America's labor force couldn't be better in terms of the low levels of unemployment, but what's happened over the last 50 years is there has been a very large rise in the share of prime-age men who are not in the labor force. So they've stopped looking for work, and those guys are miserable. It's not that those guys are somehow rather productive and happy,–– this is a very bad outcome for prime-age men. I'm separating men from women, not to say that the female labor markets aren't just as important, just as fascinating, just as critical. But labor force participation means something different for many women than it does for men. There are many women who are not in the labor force who are doing things that are enormously productive socially, like caring for their children and caring for their families.I wish it were symmetric across the genders. It just isn't true. I mean, there just are very few men not in the labor force who are doing anything much other than watching television. It's just a very different thing. So yes, there are big differences in the non-employment rate. There are some parts of America where, for much of the past decade, one in four prime-age men have been jobless. It's an enormous gap. The question is, why don't they get out?I think the answer is really twofold: one of which is the nature of how housing markets have frozen up. Historically, the differences in housing costs in the US weren't that huge across places. Most parts of America had some kind of affordable housing, and it was relatively easy to put up. At the dawn of the 20th century, these were kit helms sold by Sears and Roebuck that sprung up by the thousand. You bought the kit from Sears and Roebuck, and you just built it yourself. After World War II, it was mass-produced homes in places like Levittown.For most of the last 50 years, in places like coastal California or the East Coast, building has just become far more difficult. With the decline of mass-produced housing, it's become far more expensive, and it becomes harder and harder for relatively low-income people to find opportunities in places that have high levels of income, and high levels of opportunity. That's partially why there's not just a general decline in mobility, there's a decline in directed mobility for the poor. Historically, poor people moved from poor areas to rich areas. That's pretty much stopped. In part, that's because rich areas just have very, very expensive housing. The other thing is the rising importance of the informal safety net.So if you think about most particularly prime-aged men, they're not receiving significant handouts from the government except if they're on disability. But they will typically have some form of income, some form of housing that's being provided for them by someone other than themselves. A third of them are living in their parent's homes. That informal safety net is usually very place dependent. Let's say you're living in Eastern Kentucky; it's not like your parents were going to buy you a condo in San Francisco. You can still have your own bedroom, but you can't go anywhere else and still get that level of support. And so that's, I think, another reason why we're increasingly stuck in place.The third you mentioned, is that a third of the non-employed population of young men or is that a third of all young men? Non-employed is a third of non-employed prime aged men. So that's 25 to 54. There are a lot of 45 year olds who are living on their parents' couches or in their old bedroom. It's a fairly remarkable thing.Dwarkesh Patel 0:12:49Now, we'll get to housing in just a second, but first, I want to ask you: If the fertility trends in East Asia and many other places continue, what will the impact on cities be if the average age gets much older and the possible eventuality of depopulation?Edward Glaeser 0:12:53That's a really interesting question.The basic age fact on cities is that within the bracket of the sort of high-income or middle-income, for prime-aged parents, cities tend to be relatively bad for them. Once you're in the sort of high end of the upper middle class, the distrust of our public school systems, merited or not, means that that group tends to leave. You have plenty of parents with kids who are lower income, and then you have groups who are part of a demographic barbell that like cities. So this is partially about people who don't feel like they need the extra space and partially because if they're young, they're looking to find prospective mates of various forms.Cities are good for that. Urban proximity works well in the dating market. And they've got time on their hands to enjoy the tremendous amenities and consumption advantages that cities have. For older people, it's less about finding a mate typically, but the urban consumption amenity still has value. The ability to go to museums, the ability to go to concerts, and those sorts of activities continue to draw people in.Going forward, I would have continued to expect the barbell dimension to persist until we actually get around to solving our urban schools and declining population levels. If anything, I would have thought that COVID skews you a bit younger because older people are more anxious and remember that cities can also bring pandemics. They remember that it can be a nice thing to have a suburban home if you have to shelter in place. So that might lead some people who would have otherwise relocated to a dense urban core to move out, to stay out.Urban EducationDwarkesh Patel 0:14:44You just mentioned urban schools, and I'm curious because you've written about how urban schools are one of the reasons people who have children might not want to stay in cities. I'm curious why it's the case that American cities have some of the best colleges in the world, but for some reason, their K-to-12 is significantly worse, or it can be worse than the K-to-12 in other parts of the country. Why is it that the colleges are much better in cities, but K to 12 is worse? Edward Glaeser 0:15:19So it's interesting. It's not as if, I don't think there's ever been an Englishman who felt like they had to leave London to get better schools for the kids, or a Frenchman who thought they needed to leave Paris. It's not like there's something that's intrinsic to cities, but I've always thought it's a reflection of the fact that instead of allowing all of the competition and entrepreneurship that thrives in cities and that makes cities great, in the case of K to 12 public education, that's vanished.And your example of colleges is exactly right. I'm in this industry; I'm a participant in this industry and let me tell you, this industry is pretty competitive. Whether or not we're competing for the best students, at our level we go through an annual exercise of trying to make sure we get Ph.D. students to come to our program instead of our competitors, whether it's by hiring faculty members or attracting undergraduates, we occupy a highly competitive industry where we are constantly aware of what we need to do to make ourselves better. It doesn't mean that we're great along every dimension, but at least we're trying. K through 12 education has a local monopoly.So it's like you take the great urban food, leisure and hospitality, and food industries, and instead of having in New York City by a hyper-competitive world where you constantly have entry, you say, “You know what? We're going to have one publicly managed canteen and it's going to provide all the food in New York City and we're not going to allow any competitors or the competitors are going to have to pay a totally different thing.” That canteen is probably going to serve pretty crappy food. That's in some sense what happens when you have a large-scale public monopoly that replaces private competition.Dwarkesh Patel 0:16:50But isn't that also true of rural schools? Why are urban schools often worse? Edward Glaeser 0:17:46There's much more competition in suburban schools. So in terms of the suburban schools, typically there are lots of suburbs, and people are competing amongst them. The other thing that's actually important is (I don't want to over exaggerate this, but I think it is something that we need to think a little bit about) the role of public sector unions and particularly teachers unions in these cases. In the case of a suburban school district, the teachers union is no more empowered on the management side than they would be in the private sector.Dwarkesh Patel 0:17:30So in a normal private sector, you've got a large company, you've got a union, and they're arguing with each other. It's a level playing field. It's all kind of reasonable. I'm not saying management has done awful things, and that unions have done foolish things. I'm not saying that either are perfect, but it's kind of well-matched. It's matched that way in the suburbs as well. You've got highly empowered parents who are highly focused on their kids and they're not dominated.It's not like the teachers union dominates elections in Westchester County. Whereas if you go into a big city school district, you have two things going on. One of which is the teachers tend to be highly involved politically and quite capable of influencing management essentially, because they are an electoral force to be reckoned with, not just by the direct votes, but also with their campaign spending. On top of this, you're talking about a larger group of disparate parents, many of whom have lots of challenges to face and it becomes much harder for them to organize effectively on the other side. So for those reasons, big urban schools can do great things and many individual teachers can be fantastic, but it's an ongoing challenge. Georgism, Robert Moses, & Too Much Democracy?Dwarkesh Patel 0:18:35What is your opinion on Georgism? Do cities need a land value tax? Would it be better if all the other taxes are replaced by one?Edward Glaeser 0:18:41Okay. So Henry George, I don't know any economist who doesn't think that a land value tax is an attractive idea. The basic idea is we're going to tax land rather than taxing real estate values. And you would probably implement this in practice by evaluating the real estate and then subtracting the cost of construction, (at least for anything that was built up, meaning you'd form some value of the structures and you just subtract it).The attractive thing from most of our perspectives is it doesn't create the same disincentive to build that a real estate tax does. Real estate tax says, “Oh, you know what? I might want to keep this thing as a parking lot for a couple of years so I don't have to pay taxes on it.”If it were a land value tax, you're going to pay the same tax, whether or not it's a parking lot or whether or not you're going to put a high rise on it, so you might as well put the high rise on it and we could use the space. So I think by and large, that's a perfectly sensible idea. I'd like to see more places using land value taxes or using land value taxes in exchange for property taxes.Where George got it wrong is the idea that a land value tax is going to solve all the problems of society or all the problems of cities. That is ludicrously not true.One could make an argument that in those places that just have a property tax, you could replace it with a land value tax with little loss, but at the national level, it's not a particularly progressive tax in lots of ways. It would be hard to figure out how to fund all the things you want to fund, especially since there are lots of things that we do that are not very land intensive. I think George was imagining a world in which pretty much all value-creating enterprises had a lot of land engaged. So it's a good idea, yes. A panacea, no. Dwarkesh Patel 0:20:20No, that's a good point. I mean, Google's offices in San Francisco are probably generating more value than you would surmise just from the quantity of land they have there. Do American cities need more great builders like Robert Moses?Edward Glaeser 0:20:36Robert Caro's The Power Broker is one of the great biographies of the past 100 years, unquestionably. The only biography that I think is clearly better is Robert Caro's biography of Lyndon Baines Johnson, right? I mean, it's Caro is truly amazing. That being said, I would not exactly call it a fair and balanced view of Robert. I mean, it is true that Robert Moses was high handed, and it is true that there are things that he did that were terrible, that you never want to do again. But on the other hand, the man got stuff built. I mean, I think of myself as a child growing up in New York City, and whether or not it was the public pool that I swam in or the parks that I played in, or the roads that I traveled on, they were all delivered by Robert Moses. There's got to be a middle ground, which is, no, we're not going to run roughshod over the neighborhood as Robert Moses did, but we're still going to build stuff. We're still going to deliver new infrastructure and we're not going to do it for 10 times more than every other country in the world does it.Dwarkesh Patel 0:21:37We're actually going to have sensible procurement policies that bring in things at a reasonable cost, and I think we need to balance a little bit back towards Robert Moses in order to have slightly more empowered builders who actually are able to deliver American cities the infrastructure they need at an affordable cost. Dwarkesh Patel 0:21:57Do we have too much democracy at the local level? You wrote a paper in 2017 titled The Political Economy of Transportation Investments and one of the points you make there is that the local costs are much more salient to people for new construction than the public benefits, and the benefits to newcomers would be. Does that mean we have too much federalism? Should we just have far less power at the city level and not universally? There are lots of good things that local control does.Edward Glaeser 0:22:25I do think we have too much local ability to say no to new housing projects. So that's a particular case that I'm focused on. I think it's exactly right that the near neighbors to a project internalize all of the extra noise and perhaps extra traffic that they're going to have due to this project. They probably overestimate it because they are engaging in a bit of status quo bias and they think the present is great and can't imagine any change.By contrast, none of the people who would benefit from the new project are able to vote. All of the families that would love to move into this neighborhood are being zoned out by the insiders who get a say. I think the goal is to make sure that we have more ability to speak for outsiders. Cities at their best, are places where outsiders can find opportunities. That's part of what's so great about them. It's a tragic thing that we make that so hard. Now I'm not sure exactly that I'm claiming that I want less democracy, but I do want more limitations on how much regulations localities can do. So I think there are certain limitations on local power that I think are fine.I would prefer to call this not a limitation on local democracy, but an increase in the protection of individual rights or the individual rights of landowners to do what they want with their land. Which in effect, is a limit on democracy. But the Bill of Rights is a limit on democracy! The Bill of Rights says that they don't care if 51% of your voters want to take away your right to free assembly. They're not allowed to do that. So in some sense, what I'm just arguing for is more property owners' rights so that they can actually allow more housing in their building.In terms of transportation projects, it's a little bit dicier because here the builder is the government itself. I think the question is you want everyone to have a voice. You don't want every neighborhood to have a veto over every potential housing project or potential transportation project. So you need something that is done more at the state level with representation from the locality, but without the localities getting the ultimate sayDwarkesh Patel 0:24:33I wonder if that paper implies that I should be shorting highly educated areas, at least in terms of real estate. One of the things you mentioned in the paper was that highly educated areas that had much higher opposition were able to foment much more opposition. Edward Glaeser  0:24:49Okay. So here's the real estate strategy, which I have heard that actually there are buyers who do this. You take an area that has historically been very pro-housing. So it's got lots of housing, and it's affordable right now because supply is good. But lots of educated people have moved in. Which means that going forward, they're going to build much less, which means that going forward, they're likely to become much more expensive. So you should, in fact, buy options on that stuff rather than shorting it. You should short if you have a security that is related to the population level in that community. You should short that because the population growth is going to go down, but the prices are likely to go up. Opioids, Automation, & UBIDwarkesh Patel 0:25:29So you wrote a paper last year on the opioid epidemic. One of the points that you made there was that the opioid epidemic could be explained just by the demand side stuff about social isolation and joblessness. I wonder how this analysis makes you think about mass-scale automation in the future. What impact do you think that would have? Assume it's paired with universal basic income or something like that. Do you think it would cause a tremendous increase in opioid abuse?Edward Glaeser 0:26:03I would have phrased it slightly differently–– which is as opposed to the work of two amazing economists, Anne Case and Angus Deaton, who really emphasized the role of deaths of despair; we are much more focused on the supply side. WIth the demand side, meaning just the way that we handled the distribution of large-scale pain relieving medicines, we tell a story where every 30 to 50 years, someone comes up with the same sort of idea, which is we know that human beings love opioids in different forms. We also know they're highly addicted and lead to a terrible cycle. So all of a sudden comes along this innovator says, you know what? I've got a new opioid and it's safe. You don't have to worry about getting addicted to this one. It's magical.It won't work. 100 years ago, that thing was called heroin. 200 years ago, that thing was called morphine. 300 years ago, that thing was called Meldonium. We have these new drugs which have come in, and they've never been safe. But in our case, it was OxyContin and the magic of the time relief was supposed to make it safe, and it wasn't safe.Dwarkesh Patel 0:27:30There's a lot of great work that just shows that the patterns of opioid use was related to the places that just had a lot of pain 30 years ago. Those places came with a lot of tendency to prescribe various things for pain. So when opioids came in, when OxyContin came in, those were the places that got addicted most. Now it's also true that there are links between these economic issues. There are links with joblessness, and I basically do believe that things that create joblessness are pretty terrible and are actually much worse than income inequality. I push back against the universal basic income advocates who I think are basically engaging in a materialist fallacy of thinking that a human being's life is shaped by their take home pay or their unearned pay. I think for most people, a job is much more than that. A job is a sense of purpose. A job is a sense of social connection. When you look at human misery and opioid use, you look at the difference between high-income earners, mid-income earners. There are differences, but they're small. You then look at the difference between low-income earners and the jobless, then unhappiness spikes enormously, misery spikes enormously, family breakups spike enormously. So things like universal basic income, which the negative income tax experimented on in the 1970s, are the closest thing we have for its large-scale experiments in this area, which had very large effects on joblessness by just giving people money. They feel quite dangerous to me because they feel like they're going to play into rising joblessness in America, which feels like a path for its misery. I want to just quickly deviate and some of the UBI advocates have brought together UBI in the US and UBI in the developing world. So UBI in the developing world, basically means that you give poor farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa fairly modest amounts of money. This is a totally sensible strategy.These people are not about to live life permanently not working. They're darn poor. It's very efficient relative to other ways of giving.  I am in no sense pushing back on UBI with modest amounts of money in the poorest parts of the world. By all means, it's been deemed to be effective. It's just a very different thing if you're saying I'm going to give $100 to a poor Congolese farmer, or I'm going to give $10,000 to a long-term jobless person in Eastern Kentucky. You're not buying a PS5 for $100 in Congo.Remote Work, Taxation, & MetaverseDwarkesh Patel 0:29:57I want to ask you about remote work. You write in The Survival of the City, that improvements in information technology can lead to more demand for face-to-face contact because FaceTime complements time spent communicating electronically. I'm curious, what distinguishes situations where FaceTime substitutes for in-person contact from situations where it complements FaceTime complements virtual contact?Edward Glaeser 0:30:25So there's not a universal rule on this. I wrote a paper based on this in the 1990s about face-to-face contact complements or substitutes for electronic contacts. It was really based on a lot of anxiety in the 1970s that the information technology of their day, the fax machine, the personal computer was going to make face-to-face contact in the cities that enable that contact obsolete. That discussion has reappeared amazingly in the past two and a half years because of Zoom, and all of those questions still resonate. I think in the short run, typically these things are substitutes.Typically you don't necessarily need to meet some person who's your long-term contact. You can actually just telephone them, or you can connect with them electronically. In the long run, they seem to be much more likely to be complements, in part because these technologies change our world. The story that I tell over the last 40 years is that, yes, there were some face-to-face contacts that were made unnecessary because of electronic interactions. But it's not just that cities did well over the past 40 years–– business travel went through the roof over the past 40 years. You'd think that that would have been made unnecessary by all these electronic interactions, but I think what just happened was that these new technologies and globalization created a more interconnected world, a world in which knowledge was more important, and we become smart by interacting with people face-to-face. This world became more knowledge and information intensive and more complicated, and as things get more complicated, it's easier for ideas to get lost in translation. So we have these wonderful cues for communicating comprehension or confusion that are lost when we're not in the same room with one another. So I think over the longer time, they tend to complements, and over the shorter term, they tend to be substitutes.One of the things I think was helpful in my earlier work on this was looking at the history of information technology innovations. I think probably the first one is the book. It's hard to imagine an innovation that did more to flatten distance. Now you can read stuff that people are saying hundreds of miles away. Yet there's not a shred of evidence that the book led to less urbanization in Europe or to less connection. It helped create a totally different world in which people were passionate about ideas and wanted to talk to each other. They wanted to talk to each other about their books.Flash forward 350 years when we have the telephone. Telephones started being used more in cities, and they were used mostly by people who were going to meet face-to-face. There's no evidence that this has created a decline in the demand for face-to-face contact or a decline in the demand for cities. So I think if we look at Zoom, which unquestionably has allowed a certain amount of long-distance contact, that's very, very useful. In the short run, it certainly poses a threat to urban office markets. My guess is in the long run; it's probably going to be likely to be neutral at worst for face-to-face contact in the cities that enable that contact. Dwarkesh Patel 0:33:37I think that my podcast has been a great example for me about this. I mean, right now we're talking virtually. So maybe, in a way it's substituted, and perhaps I would have interviewed in person without the podcast. However, in another way, I've also met so many people that I've interviewed on the podcast or who have just connected with me because of the podcast in person. The amount of in-person interactions I've had because of a virtual podcast is a great anecdote to what you're talking about, so that makes total sense.Edward Glaeser 0:34:05Absolutely.Dwarkesh Patel 0:34:06Why do even the best software engineers in India or in Europe make so much less when they're working remotely from those locations than remote engineers working in America make? I mean, why don't employers just pay them more until the price discrepancy goes away?Edward Glaeser 0:34:23That's interesting. I don't fully know the answer to that question. I would suspect some of it just has to do with the nature of supply and demand. There are some things that are just very hard to be done remotely. Either because you have very precise informational needs that you have that are easier to communicate to people who are nearby or the person who's nearby has evolved in ways in terms of their mind that they actually know exactly what you want and they have exactly the product that you need. So even though the remote call center worker and the local one may be totally equivalent on raw programming talent, you may still end up in equilibrium and be willing to pay a lot more to the local one just because, right?So there's a slightly differentiated skill the local one has, and look, there's just a lot of competition for the remote ones, so the price is going to be pretty low. There's not that much supply of the one guy who's down the hall and knows exactly what you're looking for. So that guy gets much higher wages, just because he can offer you something that no one else can exactly reproduce.Dwarkesh Patel 0:35:27Let me clarify my question. Even remote engineers in America will make more than remote engineers in Europe or in India. If somebody is working remotely but he just happens to live in the US, is that just because they can communicate in English in the same way? Edward Glaeser 0:35:54I would take the same stance. I would say that they're likely to have just skills that are somewhat idiosyncratic and are valued in the US context.Dwarkesh Patel 0:35:56Are you optimistic about the ability of the metaverse and VR to be able to better puncture whatever makes in-person contact so valuable?Edward Glaeser 0:36:19No, I do not think the metaverse is going to change very much. I do think that there will be a lot of hours spent on various forms of gaming over the next 20 years, but I don't think it ultimately poses much of a threat to real-world interactions. In some sense, we saw this with the teenage world over the last three years. We saw a lot of America spend an awful lot of time, 15, 16-year-olds, 17-year-olds, gaming and connecting entirely virtually during the whole time of the pandemic lockdowns.Every single person that I've seen in that cohort, when you allowed them to interact with real members of their group live, leaped at the opportunity. They leaped at the opportunity of meeting and actually hanging out with real people until three o'clock in the morning and arguing over whatever it is–– whether or not it's football or Kant. I think particularly for the young, living life live just beats the alternative.Dwarkesh Patel 0:37:05That sounds like a very Harvard scenario, having to argue over football or Kant, those two topics. [laughs] Are you predicting lower taxes over the coming decades in places like California and New York, specifically because of how remote work sets a sort of maximum bar of how much you can tax highly productive people before they will just leave? Edward Glaeser 0:37:29This is a great question. It's a central issue of our day. Here's how I think about it. In part, it's why I wrote my recent book, Survival of the City. It's because I was worried about this. Two things happened simultaneously. One, as you correctly say, Zoom has made it easier to connect anywhere. I don't think that Zoom is going to cause our tech startup currently in Silicon Valley to say, oh, you know what? We're just going to go home to our Orange County suburban homes and never meet live again. I think that's a low-probability event.But what seems to be a perfectly high probability event is saying, “Oh, we can Zoom with our VCs, we can Zoom with our lawyers. Why don't we just relocate to Austin, Texas, not pay taxes, or relocate to Boulder, Colorado, so we can have beautiful scenery, or relocate to Honolulu so we can surf?” That seems like we've made the ability for smart people to relocate much easier, even if they're going to keep on seeing each other in the office three or four days a week. That collides with this very fervent desire to deal with festering social inequities at the local level. Be this limited upward mobility for poorer people, be this high housing costs, be this the rise of mass incarceration and police brutality towards particularly minority groups. There's this progressive urge which runs up against the fact that the rich guys can run away.If your model, which says, “Oh, the local governments are going to realize the rich guys can run away, so they will seamlessly lower tax rates in order to make sure that they attract those people,” that's running up against the fact that there's a whole lot of energy on the progressive side, which says, “No! Massachusetts just passed a millionaire's tax. For the first time ever, we have the possibility to have a progressive tax, which feels extraordinarily dangerous given this time period.”I think we may need to see a bunch of errors in this area before we start getting things right. We went through a lot of pain in the 1970s as cities first tried to deal with their progressive goals and rich people and companies ran away, and it wasn't until the 1980s that people started realizing this was the path to local bankruptcy and that we had real city limits on what the locality could do.Dwarkesh Patel 0:39:44You cited research on the survival of the city, which said that firms like Microsoft were much less willing to hire new people once they went online because of the pandemic. What do you make of the theory that this is similar to when industrialization first hit and we hadn't figured out exactly how to make the most use of it to be most productive, but over the long run, somebody will do to remote work what Henry Ford did to the factory floor and in fact, just make it much more effective and efficient than in-person contact just because we'll have better ways of interacting with people through remote work, since we'll have better systems?Dwarkesh Patel 0:40:17It's entirely possible. I never like betting against the ingenuity of humanity. On the other hand, you need a lot of technology to override 5 million years of evolution. We have evolved to be an in-person species, not just because we're productive and learn a lot face-to-face, but also because we just like it. A world of hyper-efficient remote work where you basically are puttering around your apartment doing things very quickly and getting things done, doesn't sound particularly joyful to me.Workplaces are not just places of productivity; they're also places of pleasure, particularly at the high end. Remember in 2019 and earlier, Google, and Yahoo, the companies that should have had the biggest capacity to do remote stuff, weren't sending their workers home; they were building these paradises for high-skilled workers, stuffed with foosball tables and free snacks and whatever else they had in these giant campuses in the Google lex. So they were certainly betting on the power of face-to-face and creativity rather than on the ability of remote work to make everything work. I think the most reasonable view, let's say that of Nick Bloom of Stanford, is that for those types of workers, 20% of your week being hybrid, maybe 40%, seems quite possible.That seems like a thing, particularly for workers who have families who really value that degree of flexibility. But fully remote, I guess that's a pretty niche thing. There's some jobs like call center workers where you could imagine it being the norm, but in part, that's just because it's just hard to learn the same amount remotely that you do face-to-face. This came out both in the earlier Bloom study on remote call center workers in China and on more recent work by Natalia Emmanuel and Emma Harrington. Both studies found the same thing, which is in these call centers, are plenty productive when they're remote, but the probability of being promoted drops by 50%.The entrepreneur may make it very efficient to do things in the short run remotely, but they're going to turn off this tendency that we have to be able to learn things from people around us, which is just much harder to duplicate remotely.Past & Future of Silicon ValleyDwarkesh Patel 0:42:29Now, I'm curious why Silicon Valley became the hub of technology. You wrote a paper in 2018 about where pioneer and non-pioneer firms locate. So, I was hoping you had insight on this. Does it stand for it? Is it where Fairchild Semiconductor is located? What is the explanation?Edward Glaeser 0:42:48So, we take it as being earlier. It is Stanford. I traced through this, I think in Triumph. Yeah, it was a company called Federal Telegraph Company that was founded by a guy called Cyril Frank Elwell, who was a radio pioneer, and he was tapped by his teacher to head this radio company. The story was, as I remember it, there'd been this local genius in San Francisco who had attracted all these investors and was going to do this wireless telegraphy company. Then he died in a freak carriage accident.These investors wanted to find someone else, and they went to Stanford's nearby factory and asked, who should we hire? It was this guy Elwell who founded Federal Telegraph. Federal Telegraph then licensed, I think Danish technology which was originally the Poulsen Telegraph Company. They then hired some fairly bright people like Lee DeForest and they did incredibly well in World War I off of federal Navy contracts, off of Navy contracts. They then did things like providing jobs for people like the young Fred Terman, whose father was a Stanford scientist. Now, Fred Terman then plays an outsized role in this story because he goes to MIT, studies engineering there, and then comes back to become Dean of Stanford's engineering program.He really played an outsized role in setting up the Stanford Industrial Park which attracting Fairchild Semiconductor. Then there's this sort of random thing about how the Fairchild Semiconductor attracts these people and then repels them because you have this brilliant guy Shockley, right? He's both brilliant and sort of personally abhorrent and manages to attract brilliant people and then repel all of them. So they all end up dispersing themselves into different companies, and they create this incredibly creative ecosystem that is the heart of Silicon Valley.In its day, it had this combination of really smart people and really entrepreneurial ethos, which just made it very, very healthy. I think the thing that many of us worry about is that Silicon Valley more recently, feels much more like it's a one-industry town, which is dangerous. It feels more like it's a bunch of industrial behemoths rather than a bunch of smart and scrappy startups. That's a recipe that feels much more like Detroit in the 1950s than it does like Silicon Valley in the 1960s.Dwarkesh Patel 0:45:52Speaking of startups, what does your study of cities imply about where tech startups should locate and what kind of organization in person or otherwise they should have? I think there's a lot to like about in person, certainly. Relying too much on remote feels quite dangerous if you're a scrappy startup. But I like a lot the Sunbelt smart cities.I sort of have a two-factor model of economic growth, which is it's about education, and it's about having governments that are pro-business. If you think about sort of the US, there's a lot of heterogeneity in this. If you think about the US versus other countries, it's heterogeneity. So the US has historically been better at being pro-business than, let's say, the Northern European social democracies, but the Northern European social democracies are great on the education front.So places like Sweden and the Netherlands, and Germany are also very successful places because they have enough education to counter the fact that they may not necessarily be as pro-business as the US is. Within the US, you also have this balance, whereas places like Massachusetts, and California are certainly much less pro-business, but they're pretty well-educated. Other parts of the country may be more pro-business, but they're less so. The real secret sauce is finding those places that are both highly educated and pro-business.So those are places like Charlotte and Austin and even Atlanta, places in the Sun Belt that have attracted lots of skilled people. They've done very, very well during COVID. I mean, Austin, by most dimensions, is the superstar of the COVID era in terms of just attracting people. So I think you had to wait for the real estate prices to come down a bit in Austin, but those are the places that I would be looking at. Dwarkesh Patel 0:47:46I don't know if you know, but I live in Austin, actually.Edward Glaeser 0:47:50I did not know that. [laughs]Dwarkesh Patel 0:47:54Well, actually, I'm surprised about what you said about education because you write in the paper, “general knowledge measured as average years of schooling is not a strong determinant of the survival of a pioneer firm, but relatedness of knowledge between past and present activities is.” So I'm surprised that you think education is a strong determinant for pioneer firms.Edward Glaeser 0:48:15No, I'm a big human capital determinist. So I tend to believe that individuals, cities, and nations rise and fall based on their skill levels. Certainly, if you look over the last 40 or 50 years, skills are very predictive of which cities (particularly colder cities) manage to do well versus poorly. If you ask yourself why Detroit and Seattle look different, more than 50% of Seattle's adults have college degrees, and maybe 14, 15% of Detroit's adults do.That's just a huge, huge gap. Certainly, when we think about your punitive startup, you're going to be looking for talent, right? You're going to be looking to hire talent, and having lots of educated people around you is going to be helpful for that.Housing ReformDwarkesh Patel 0:48:56Let's talk about housing. Houston has basically very little to no zoning. Why is it not more of interesting today? Nobody goes to Houston for tourism.Edward Glaeser 0:49:07I have. [laughs] I have, in fact, gone to Houston for tourism. Although part of it, I admit, was to look at the housing and to go to the woodlands and look at that. Interesting has a lot to do with age in this country. So the more that a city has… Boston is good for tourism just because it's been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed all that much. So it has this sort of historical thing. Houston's a new place, not just in the sense that the chronological age is lower but also in the sense that it's just grown so much, and it's dominated by new stuff, right?That new stuff tends to be more homogenous. It tends to have less history on it. I think those are things that make new cities typically less interesting than older cities. As witnessed by the fact that Rome, Jerusalem, London, are great tourist capitals of the world because they've just accreted all this interesting stuff over the millennium. So I think that's part of it. I'm not sure that if we look at more highly zoned new cities, we're so confident that they're all that more interesting.I don't want to be particularly disparaging any one city. So I'm not going to choose that, but there's actually a bunch that's pretty interesting in Houston, and I'm not sure that I would say that it's any less interesting than any comparably aged city in the country.Dwarkesh Patel 0:50:35Yeah. I'm visiting Houston later this month. I asked my friend there, should I stay here longer? I mean, is there anything interesting to do here? And then he responds, “Well, it's the fourth biggest city in the country, so no.”Dwarkesh Patel 0:50:47Many people, including many economists, have said that we should drastically increase US population through immigration to a figure like 1 billion. Do you think that our cities could accommodate that? We have the infrastructure, and I mean, let's say we reformed housing over a decade or so. Could we accommodate such a large influx of people? Edward Glaeser 0:51:24A billion people in a decade? I love the vision. Basically, in my heart, I'm an open borders person, right? I mean, it's a moral thing. I don't really like the idea that I get to enjoy the privileges of being an American and think that I'm going to deny that opportunity to anyone else. So I love this vision. A billion people over 10 years is an unimaginably large amount of people over a relatively short period of time. I'd love to give it a shot. I mean, it's certainly not as if there's any long-term reason why you couldn't do it.I mean, goodness knows we've got more than enough space in this country. It would be exciting to do that. But it would require a lot of reform in the housing space and require a fair amount of reform in the infrastructure space as well to be able to do this at some kind of large scale affordability.Dwarkesh Patel 0:52:05What does the evidence show about public libraries? Do they matter?Dwarkesh Patel 0:52:09My friend Eric Kleinberg has written a great book about… I think it's called Palaces for the People about all the different functions that libraries have played. I've never seen anything statistically or systematically about this, but you're not going to get a scholar to speak against books. It's not a possible thing.Europe's Stagnation, Mumbai's Safety, & Climate Change Dwarkesh Patel 0:52:32Why do European cities seem so much more similar to what they look like decades or even centuries ago than American cities, even American cities that are old, obviously not as old as European cities, but they seem to change much more over time. Edward Glaeser 0:52:46Lower population growth, much tougher zoning, much tougher historic preservation. All three of these things are going on. So it's very difficult to build in European cities. There's a lot of attention to caring about history. It's often part of the nationalist narrative. You often have huge amounts of national dollars going to preserve local stuff and relatively lower levels of population growth.An extreme example of this is Warsaw, where central Warsaw is completely destroyed during World War II, and they built it up to look exactly like it looked before the bombing. So this is a national choice, which is unlikely that we would necessarily make here in the US. Dwarkesh Patel 0:53:27Yeah. I was in Mumbai earlier this year, and I visited Dharavi, which is the biggest slum in Asia. And it's a pretty safe place for a slum. Why are slums in different countries? Why do they often have different levels of how safe they are? What is the reason?Edward Glaeser 0:53:45I, too, have been in Dharavi and felt perfectly safe. It's like walking around Belgravia and London in terms of it. I think my model of Dharavi is the same model as Jane Jacobs's model of Greenwich Village in 1960, which is this is just a well-functioning community.People have eyes on the street. If you're a stranger in these areas, they're going to be looking at you, and it's a community that just functions. There are lots of low-income communities throughout the world that have this. It requires a certain amount of permanence. So if the community is too much in flux, it becomes hard to enforce these norms and hard to enforce these sort of community rules. It's really helpful if there aren't either a massive number of guns floating around or an unbelievably lucrative narcotics trade, which is in the area. Those are both things that make things incredibly hard. Furthermore, US drug policy has partially been responsible for creating violence in some of the poor parts of Latin American cities.Dwarkesh Patel 0:54:43Maybe you don't play video games enough to know the answer to this question. But I'm curious, is there any video game, any strategic video game like Civilization or Europa that you feel does a good job representing the economics of cities? Edward Glaeser 0:55:07No, I will say that when I was in graduate school, I spent a few hours playing something called Sim City. I did think that was very fun. But I'm not going to claim that I think that it got it right. That was probably my largest engagement with city-building video games.Dwarkesh Patel 0:55:12What would you say we understand least about how cities work? Edward Glaeser 0:55:18I'm going to say the largest unsolved problem in cities is what the heck we're going to do about climate change and the cities of the developing world. This is the thing I do not feel like I have any answer for in terms of how it is that we're going to stop Manila or Mumbai from being leveled by some water-related climate event that we haven't yet foreseen.We think that we're going to spend tens of billions of dollars to protect New York and Miami, and that's going to happen; but the thing I don't understand and something we really need to need to invest in terms of knowledge creation is what are we going to do with the low-lying cities of the developing world to make them safe. Dwarkesh Patel 0:55:54Okay. Your most recent book is Survival of the City. And before that Triumph of the City, both of which I highly recommend to readers. Professor Glaeser, thank you so much for coming on the podcast. This was very interesting.Edward Glaeser 0:56:05I enjoyed this a lot. Thank you so much for having me on. I had a great deal of fun. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.dwarkeshpatel.com

The podcast opens up with Matt giving background about him and his company before talking about opportunities he sees in the IoT industry. Matt and Ryan then discuss sectors that heavily adopt IoT and the growth of IoT in the smart home space. They wrap up the episode with a high-level conversation around protocols in the industry and what companies need to consider when beginning their adoption journey.Matt Johnson serves as President and CEO of Silicon Labs, a leader in secure, intelligent wireless technology for a more connected world. Before becoming CEO, Matt led the company's Internet of Things (IoT) business unit through a period of accelerating growth and industry leadership. Silicon Labs is now solely focused on technology solutions to enable smart, connected devices, transforming industries, growing economies, and improving lives and our environment. Before joining Silicon Labs, Matt held leadership positions at NXP, Freescale, and Fairchild Semiconductor. Matt is dedicated to strong company culture, innovative product development, and operational excellence. He holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering Technology from the University of Maine and has completed executive programs at Harvard Business School and Stanford University. Matt currently serves on the boards of Dell Children's Medical Center Foundation, the Global Semiconductor Alliance, and the Semiconductor Industry Association.

Texas has long been a home for the semiconductor industry. I guess it started with a little company named Texas Instruments, but today in the Austin area, we have Samsung, NXP, Micron, AMD, and Intel, But, this growth doesn't happen in a vacuum, it takes a lot of people doing a lot of work. So today, we're going to take a deeper look into this part of our ecosystem and try to better understand where Austin's semiconductor industry is coming from and where it's going. SEMI is the international organization representing semiconductor manufacturers and joining us today is David Anderson. At the time of this recording, David was President, SEMI Americas. His responsibilities covered all programs in the region. But more importantly he managed and nurtured relationships with SEMI as well as with local association and constituents in industry, government, and academia. David came to SEMI with a lot of experience, having held positions at Fairchild Semiconductor, National Semiconductor, the Semiconductor Industry Suppliers Association, and SEMATECH, where he helped launch their global initiative. David has moved onto a new position at NY Creates, and we wish him well. Podcast Production Services by EveryWord Media Our music is “Tech Talk” by Kevin MacLeod. Licen

Shayne Hughes is president of Learning as Leadership, a culture change and leadership development firm serving the private and public sectors. His expertise in creating cultures of open communication and collaboration has led to substantial improvements in organizational and personal performance for such clients as Fairchild Semiconductor, NASA, Sandia National Laboratories, Shell Oil, and Capital One, among others. He is also experienced in the complex dynamics of family businesses. Shayne has taught leadership at the University of California Berkeley's Haas School of Business, the University of Michigan's Executive MBA Program, and the University of Virginia's Darden School of Business. He is a frequent keynote speaker at many conferences and corporate retreats.

One of my first jobs out of college was ripping Banyan VINES out of a company and replacing it with LAN Manager. Banyan VINES was a network operating system for Unix systems. It came along in 1984. This was a time when minicomputers running Unix were running at most every University and when Unix offered far more features that the alternatives. Sharing files was as old as the Internet. Telnet was created in 1969. FTP came along in 1971. SMB in 1983. Networking computers together had evolved from just the ARPANET to local protocols like ALOHAnet, which inspired Bob Metcalfe to start work on the PARC Universal Packet protocol with David Boggs, which evolved into the Xerox Network Systems, or XNS, suite of networking protocols that were developed to network the Xerox Alto. Along the way the two of them co-invented Ethernet. But there were developments happening in various locations in silos. For example, TCP was more of an ARPANET then NSFNET project so wasn't used for computers on their own networks to communicate yet. Data General was founded in 1968 when Edson de Castro, the project manager for the PDP-8 at Digital Equipment Corporation, grew frustrated that the PDP wasn't evolving fast enough. He, Henry Burkhardt, and Richard Sogge of Digital would be joined by Herbert Richman, who did sales for Fairchild Semiconductor. They were proud of the PDP-8. It was a beautiful machine. But they wanted to go even further. And they didn't feel like they could do so at Digital. A few computers later, Within a year, they shipped the next generation machine, which they called the Nova. They released more computers but then came the explosion of computers that was the personal computing market. Microcomputers showed up in offices around the world and on multiple desks. And it didn't take long before people started wondering if it wouldn't be faster to run a cable between computers than it was to save a file to a floppy and get on an elevator. By the 1970s, Data General had been writing software for customers, mostly for the rising tide of UNIX System V implementations. But just giving customers a TCP/IP stack or an application that could open a socket over an X.25 network, which was later replaced with Frame Relay networks run by phone systems and for legacy support on those X.25 was streamed over TCP/IP. Some of the people from those projects at Data General saw an opportunity to build a company that focused on a common need, moving files back and forth between the microcomputers that were also being connected to these networks. David Mahoney was a manager at Data General who saw what customers were asking for. And he saw an increasing under of those microcomputers needed a few common services to connect to. So he left to form Banyan Systems in 1983, bringing Anand Jagannathan and Larry Floryan with him. They built Banyan VINES (Virtual Integrated NEtwork Service) in 1984, releasing version 1. Their client software could run on DOS and connect to X.25, Token Ring (which IBM introduced in 1984), or the Ethernet networks Bob Metcalfe from Xerox and then 3Com was a proponent of. After all, much of their work resembled the Xerox Network Systems protocols, which Metcalfe had helped develop. They used a 32-bit address. They developed an Address Resolution Protocol (or ARP) and Routing Table Protocol (RTP) that used tables on a server. And they created a file services application, print services application, and directory service they called StreetTalk. To help, they brought in Jim Allchin, who eventually did much of the heavy lifting. It was similar enough to TCP/IP, but different. Yet as TCP/IP became the standard, they added that at a cost. The whole thing came in at $17,000 and ran on less bandwidth than other services, and so they won a few contracts with the US State Deparment, US Marine Corps, and other government agencies. Many embassies used 300 baud phone lines with older modems and the new VINES service allowed them to do file sharing, print sharing, and even instant messaging throughout the late 80s and early 90s. The Marine Corp used it during the Gulf War and in an early form of a buying tornado, they went public in 1992, raising $28 million through NASDAQ. They grew to 410 employees and peaked at around $75 million in sales, spread across 7000 customers. They'd grown through word of mouth and other companies with strong marketing and sales arms were waiting in the wings. Novel was founded in 1983 in Utah and they developed the IPX network protocol. Netware would eventually become one of the most dominant network operating systems for Windows 3 and then Windows 95 computers. Yet, with incumbents like Banyan VINES and Novel Netware, this is another one of those times when Microsoft saw an opening for something better and just willed it into existence. And the story is similar to that of dozens of other companies including Novell, Lotus, VisiCalc, Netscape, Digital Research, and the list goes on and on and on. This kept happening because of a number of reasons. The field of computing had been comprised of former academics, many of whom weren't aggressive in business. Microsoft ended up owning the operating system and so had selling power when it came to cornering adjacent markets because they could provide the cleanest possible user experience. People seemed to underestimate Microsoft until it was too late. Inertia. Oh, and Microsoft could outspend on top talent and offer them the biggest impact for their work. Whatever the motivators, Microsoft won in nearly every nook and cranny in the IT field that they pursued for decades. The damaging part for Banyan was when they teamed up with IBM to ship LAN Manager, which ultimately shipped under the name of each company. Microsoft ended up recruiting Jim Allchin away and with network interface cards falling below $1,000 it became clear that the local area network was really just in its infancy. He inherited LAN Manager and then NT from Dave Cutler and the next thing we knew, Windows NT Server was born, complete with file services, print services, and a domain, which wasn't a fully qualified domain name until the release of Active Directory. Microsoft added Windsock in 1993 and released their own protocols. They supported protocols like IPX/SPX and DECnet but slowly moved customers to their own protocols. Banyan released the last version of Banyan VINES, 7.0, in 1997. StreetTalk eventually became an NT to LDAP bridge before being cancelled in the end. The dot com bubble was firmly here, though, so all was not lost. They changed their name in 1999 to ePresence, shifting their focus to identity management and security, officially pulling out of the VINES market. But the dot com bubble burst, so they were acquired in 2003 by Unisys. There were other companies in different networking niches along the way. Phil Karn wrote KA9Q NOS to connect CP/M and then DOS to TCP/IP in 1985. He wrote it on a Xerox 820, but by then Xerox was putting Zilog chips in computers and running CP/M, seemingly with little of the flair the Alto could have had. But with KA9Q NOS any of the personal computers on the market could get on the Internet and that software helped host many a commercial dialup connection and would go on to be used for years in small embedded devices that needed IP connectivity. Those turned out to be markets overtaken by Banyan who was overtaken by Novel, who was overtaken by Microsoft when they added WinSock. There are a few things to take away from this journey. The first is that when IBM and Microsoft team up to develop a competing product, it's time to pivot when there's plenty of money left in the bank. The second is that there was an era of closed systems that was short lived when vendors wanted to increasingly embrace open standards. Open standards like TCP/IP. We also want to keep our most talented team in place. Jim Allchin was responsible for those initial Windows Server implementations. Then SQL Server. He was the kind of person who's a game changer on a team. We also don't want to pivot to the new hotness because it's the new hotness. Customers pay vendors to solve problems. Putting an e in front of the name of a company seemed really cool in 1998. But surveying customers and thinking more deeply about problems they face - that's where magic can happen. Provided we have the right talent to make it happen.

News JWST: Le prime foto e allineamento degli specchiCygnus NG-17 [Link] I supporter di questo episodio Grazie a Gianpietro F., Lorenzo M., Davide C. per il supporto. Rubriche Le storie di Nonno Apollo: Fairchild Semiconductor e il computer Apollo Link della settimana Immagini restaurate di John Glenn all'interno di Friendship 7 [Link]Verso Marte in letargo [Link]La ISS e le crisi politiche [Link] AstronauticAgenda Versione a griglia, Google Calendar e Timeline La puntata su YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaebPUW21UY Sigle e musiche di accompagnamento Sigla iniziale: Discov2 di eslade (https://www.jamendo.com/track/467466/discov2)Sigla finale: Prometheus di ANtarticbreeze (https://www.jamendo.com/track/1229086/prometheus)

Intro.(1:40) - Start of interview.(2:17) - Margaret's "origin story". She grew up in Little Rock, Arkansas. She graduated from college (history major) the year that Bill Clinton ran for President. She took a job in the Bill/Gore '92 campaign. That led to her work in the Clinton White House. It shaped her understanding of how politics and power works. She later went to graduate school to study presidential politics. Her path to studying technology came from President Dwight Eisenhower (involving the domestic economic effects of the cold war). She later worked in VP Gore's office, but not on the technology policy side, rather in empowerment zones, community and regional economic development. "It's very strange to have lived through the history that you're writing about." "The politics of the 1990s is critically important in understanding how we get to the now of the business landscape, globally and in the tech sector in particular."(8:54) - On why she decided to write her book “The Code: Silicon Valley and the Remaking of America.” "This is the book I wish existed in 1999 when I was in graduate school to explain [Silicon Valley], [it's an] explanatory handbook."(12:53) - On the role of the government in supporting the development of Silicon Valley, the "military-industrial-complex", the collective vs the individual, reality v. myth. "[Silicon Valley] is a truly distinctive American story." "What the U.S. has done, particularly since the 1940s when the technology flywheel began, is to enlarge the government in a stealthy way." "The government helped to build the computer, hardware and software industries but giving space for entrepreneurs to be entrepreneurial." "The government threw a lot of money in Silicon Valley's direction, and then got out of the way." "Government contracts were a huge and critical piece of the book of business of technology companies [in the early days], that's the launchpad that threw them into the stratosphere."(18:59) - On the origin story of the "Traitorous Eight", Fairchild Semiconductor, the birth of the semiconductor industry, "Defection Capital" (term coined by Tom Wolfe), Arthur Rock, and venture capital.(28:01) - On Silicon Valley's rise vis-a-vis other regions such as Massachusetts, ("geography was destiny" as told by Anna Lee Saxenian, in her book Regional Advantage, highlighting the organizational/management contrasts between the two regions). "The Bay Area is full of transplants, from the U.S. and around the world." "Immigration policy is part of the secret of Silicon Valley." The  roles of Lockheed Martin and HP in Silicon Valley ("HP did so much to set the tone of Silicon Valley's business culture, in a very deliberate contrast to places like Boston." "Management by walking around, or by wandering around" - rather than sitting around in an office.") "The idea of meritocracy in Silicon Valley comes from that era - it was the place where smart boys who didn't have family wealth or connections came, and they were able to build amazing careers, and in some cases significant fortunes." "Now that openness is not quite as easy."(33:56) - Margaret's take on the use of dual-class share structures by Silicon Valley founders on an historical perspective. "The return of Steve Jobs to Apple [after being fired] cemented the founder narrative, the belief that the "brilliant guys" get displaced [by investors or others] result in companies loosing their innovation." "When hardware got displaced by software, engineering became the product and having extraordinary talent at the top became the priority and a market advantage." The political environment and abundant capital has also played a critical role in setting these terms.(44:05) - Her article "The Secret of Building the Next Silicon Valley" (Wired, Jan 2022). "The next generation of high-tech places will come from investments in people, as well as in technology." "Silicon Valley is no longer merely a place in northern California, it is a global network, a business sensibility, a cultural shorthand, a political hack." "One commonality is that it is not about technology, it's about the people seizing opportunities [such as Fred Terman]." "It's also about an investment in higher education. In the case of UC Berkeley, Californian students were paying $50 per semester in the 60s to study elite level engineering (it was accessible and cheap). It was an escalator of upper mobility [although at the time it was mostly white men.]" "Steve Jobs went to a public school in Silicon Valley in the late 60s that had a computer lab [Steve Jobs' dad did not graduate high school]."(49:00) - On the rise of U.S. regional hubs ("the geography of tech"), and the geopolitical tensions with China.(55:37) - Margaret's favorite books:In the Shadow of the Poorhouse, by Michael B. Katz (1986)The Power Broker, by Robert Caro (1974)(57:44) - Who were your mentors, and what did you learn from them?Michael B. Katz (her graduate advisor).Bosses in the Clinton Administration.(59:22) - Quotes that she thinks of often, or lives her life by: "The days are long, the years are short."(59:33) - An unusual habit or an absurd thing that she loves: watching TikToks with her daughters.(1:00:36) - The living person she most admires? Her students at UW. Having their college careers upended by the pandemic is no treat. She admires their resiliency. She's bullish on GenZ.Margaret O'Mara is the Howard & Frances Keller Endowed Professor of History at the University of Washington. She writes and teaches about the growth of the high-tech economy, the history of U.S. politics, and the connections between the two.You can follow Margaret at the following links:Twitter @margaretomaraLinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/margaretomara/Instagram @margaretomaraWebsite https://www.margaretomara.com__ You can follow Evan on social media at:Twitter @evanepsteinLinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/epsteinevan/ Substack https://evanepstein.substack.com/Music/Soundtrack (found via Free Music Archive): Seeing The Future by Dexter Britain is licensed under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

Angie Balfour is the Chief People Officer at Weave, a Utah company that just went public last week. She has worked in HR really since high school (more on that in a minute) and before becoming an executive at Weave, she worked as the head of Human Resources at Instagram, a Human Resources Business Partner at Facebook, and before that she worked all over the world for a company called Fairchild Semiconductor in all aspects of their HR, talent and leadership management. Today I'm asking Angie some of the questions that she's helped me with the most over the years when it comes to HR, everything from how to hire well to how to manage teams effectively, how to intentionally invite more diversity, and how to treat others well who go through a health crisis. Angie also shares with me what she's learned personally in her pursuit of success in her career, and what she learned from battling two types of cancer 5 years ago. Angie has been one of my dearest friends for years, the type of person who I call with advice and ALWAYS hang up feeling a thousand times better, more empowered and inspired, and I am certain she'll leave you feeling the same way today too.   Today's episode is brought to you by Troomi Wireless. Get the safe phone that grows with your kids. Go to troomi.com and enter code bf50 to get 50% off a Troomi phone.  This week's episode is also sponsored by Better Help. Join over one million people who have taken charge of their mental health. Go to betterhelp.com/mintarrow and get 10% off your first month of counseling.   Time Stamps: [01:13] - What led Angie Balfour to be interested in HR? Hint: This involves a high school crush, a competition, and an encouraging stranger. [03:52] - Angie says she took on assignments no one wanted to do in the HR space and this helped move her towards an executive role. [06:18] - Angie explains that she originally turned down the opportunity to Facebook. What changed her mind? [09:09] - When she was young, Angie says her parents were very encouraging towards her taking ownership of her life. [11:56] - Angie points out her HR tips for defining the role and reimagining how new hires fit in a business. [14:45] - Why does Angie suggest paying attention to problem solving questions and on-boarding relationships in HR strategies? [16:51] - What is the “new-employee-lense” that businesses can leverage for their operations? [19:11] - Listen to Angie share a moment of learning how to better communicate with her team members. [20:46] - Angie talks about taking feedback and hiring people who are “smarter” than yourself. [22:27] - A good team focuses on identifying the needs together rather than clashing within the team. [24:50] - Listen to Angie speak about how her job responded after she received her cancer diagnosis. [27:14] - When someone is going through something hard, Angie suggests to support that person in the way that works for them. [28:48] - What did Angie learn about vulnerability during her cancer journey? [30:32] - Angie uses her cancer experience to give insight and offer a listening ear to others going through a similar journey. [33:32] - Angie shares what she felt in the moment that Weave went public. [36:30] - What is Angie's goal for her life and career? [39:01] - Angie talks about her journey to be more fit, and how she is staying excited for the future. [40:48] - Listen to these tips for stepping up diversity strategies. Angie gets candid about the learning process of diversity in business. [43:42] - Angie shares her thoughts on creating supportive atmospheres for diversity. [45:14] - Reflecting on life experiences, Angie discusses the idea of having privilege and opening opportunities for others. [47:14] - Angie says we can all make a difference wherever we are. [49:23] - Angie congratulates Corrine on her work with Mint Arrow Messages so far.   Supporting Resources: Angie Balfour LinkedIn Facebook

Subscribe to the podcast!  https://podfollow.com/everythingeverywhere/ In 1965, the director of research at Fairchild Semiconductor, Gordon Moore, made a prediction about the future of semiconductors. He said that over the next ten years, the number of transistors on an integrated circuit would double every two years. His prediction didn't just hold true for the next 10 years, but it has held true for almost 60 years, and it had driven the global computer industry.  Learn more about Moore's Law and why computers keep getting better, on this episode of Everything Everywhere Daily. Visit Scottevest.com! -------------------------------- Associate Producers: Peter Bennett & Thor Thomsen   Become a supporter on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/everythingeverywhere   Discord Server: https://discord.gg/UkRUJFh   Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/everythingeverywhere/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/everywheretrip Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/EEDailyPodcast/ Website: https://everything-everywhere.com/everything-everywhere-daily-podcast/

Oxide and Friends Twitter Space: September 27th, 2021The Books in the BoxWe've been holding a Twitter Space weekly on Mondays at 5p for about an hour. Even though it's not (yet?) a feature of Twitter Spaces, we have been recording them all; here is the recording for our Twitter Space for September 27th, 2021.In addition to Bryan Cantrill and Adam Leventhal, speakers on September 27th included Tom Lyon, Dan Cross, Antranig Vartanian Simeon Miteff Matt Campbell, Jeremy Tanner, Joshua Clulow, Ian, Tim Burnham, and Nathaniel Reindl. (Did we miss your name and/or get it wrong? Drop a PR!)Some of the topics we hit on, in the order that we hit them: Not recommended :-(  Dave Hitz and Pat Walsh (2008) How to Castrate a Bull book Peter Thiel (2014) Zero to One book [@2:45](https://youtu.be/zrZAHO89XGk?t=165) David Jacques Gerber (2015) The Inventor's Dilemma: The Remarkable Life of H. Joseph Gerber book [@7:21](https://youtu.be/zrZAHO89XGk?t=441) Sidney Dekker (2011) Drift into Failure: From Hunting Broken Components to Understanding Complex Systems book [@13:08](https://youtu.be/zrZAHO89XGk?t=788) Robert Buderi (1996) The Invention that Changed the World: The Story of Radar from War to Peace book MIT Rad Lab Series info Nuclear Magnetic Resonance wiki Richard Rhodes (1995) Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb book Michael Riordan and Lillian Hoddeson (1997) Crystal Fire: The Birth of the Information Age book Craig Canine (1995) Dream Reaper: The Story of an Old-Fashioned Inventor in the High-Tech, High-Stakes World of Modern Agriculture book David Fisher and Marshall Fisher (1996) Tube: The Invention of Television book Michael Hiltzik (2015) Big Science: Ernest Lawrence and the Invention that Launched the Military-Industrial Complex book [@18:05](https://youtu.be/zrZAHO89XGk?t=1085) Ben Rich and Leo Janos (1994) Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed book Network Software Environment Lockheed SR-71 on display at the Sea, Air and Space Museum in NYC. [@26:52](https://youtu.be/zrZAHO89XGk?t=1612) Brian Dear (2017) The Friendly Orange Glow: The Untold Story of the Rise of Cyberculture book [@30:15](https://youtu.be/zrZAHO89XGk?t=1815) Randall Stross (1993) Steve Jobs and the NeXT Big Thing book [@32:21](https://youtu.be/zrZAHO89XGk?t=1941) Christophe Lécuyer and David C. Brock (2010) Makers of the Microchip: A Documentary History of Fairchild Semiconductor book [@33:06](https://youtu.be/zrZAHO89XGk?t=1986) Lamont Wood (2012) Datapoint: The Lost Story of the Texans Who Invented the Personal Computer Revolution book Charles Kenney (1992) Riding the Runaway Horse: The Rise and Decline of Wang Laboratories bookTom's tweet [@34:06](https://youtu.be/zrZAHO89XGk?t=2046) Bryan's Lost Box of Books! Edgar H. Schein et al (2003) DEC is Dead, Long Live DEC: The Lasting Legacy of Digital Equipment Corporation book [@36:56](https://youtu.be/zrZAHO89XGk?t=2216) Alan Payne (2021) Built to Fail: The Inside Story of Blockbuster's Inevitable Bust bookVideotape format war wiki Hackers (1995) movie. Watch the trailer ~2mins Steven Levy (1984) Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution book [@42:32](https://youtu.be/zrZAHO89XGk?t=2552) Paul Halmos (1985) I Want to be a Mathematician: An Automathography book Paul Hoffman (1998) The Man Who Loved Only Numbers about Paul Erdős book 1981 text adventure game for the Apple II by Sierra On-Line, “Softporn Adventure” (wiki) [@49:16](https://youtu.be/zrZAHO89XGk?t=2956) Douglas Engelbart The Mother of All Demos wikiJohn Markoff (2005) What the Dormouse Said: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry book Katie Hafner and Matthew Lyon (1998) Where Wizards Stay Up Late book 1972 Computer Networks: The Heralds of Resource Sharing documentary ~26mins (wiki) included big names like Corbató, Licklider and Bob Kahn. Gordon Moore (1965) Cramming more components onto integrated circuits paper and Moore's Law wiki [@52:37](https://youtu.be/zrZAHO89XGk?t=3157) Physicists, mathematicians, number theory, proofs  Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem 1993 wiki Simon Singh (1997) Fermat's Last Theorem book Ronald Calinger (2015) Leonhard Euler: Mathematical Genius in the Enlightenment purports to be the first full-scale “comprehensive and authoritative” biography [@1:00:12](https://youtu.be/zrZAHO89XGk?t=3612) Robert X. Cringely (1992) Accidental Empires: How the Boys of Silicon Valley Make Their Millions, Battle Foreign Competition, and Still Can't Get a Date book Jerry Kaplan (1996) Startup: A Silicon Valley Adventure book Brian Kernighan (2019) UNIX: A History and a Memoir book [@1:03:03](https://youtu.be/zrZAHO89XGk?t=3783) Douglas Coupland (1995) Microserfs book Douglas Coupland (1991) Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture book Fry's Electronics wiki [@1:06:49](https://youtu.be/zrZAHO89XGk?t=4009) Michael A. Hiltzik (1999) Dealers of Lightning: Xerox PARC and the Dawn of the Computer Age book Albert Cory (pen name for Bob Purvy) (2021) Inventing the Future bookXerox Star wiki [@1:11:20](https://youtu.be/zrZAHO89XGk?t=4280) Corporate espionage, VMWare and Parallels, Cadence v. Avanti wiki, Cisco and Huawei (article) If we got something wrong or missed something, please file a PR! Our next Twitter space will likely be on Monday at 5p Pacific Time; stay tuned to our Twitter feeds for details. We'd love to have you join us, as we always love to hear from new speakers!

A version of this essay is published by swarajya.com at https://swarajyamag.com/world/chinas-clampdown-on-national-technology-champions-xis-new-industrial-statism-triumphalist-hubris-and-art-of-ju-jitsu The world has been baffled by China’s sudden clampdown on its very successful, and giant, companies such as e-payments company Ant Financial, ride-hailing firm Didi Chuxing, food-delivery firm Meituan, and several online education firms. Given the opacity of the Chinese communist party, commentators can only imagine what the reasons might be. Writing in Nikkei Asia, Richard McGregor suggested that “Xi’s tech crackdown preserves socialism with Chinese characteristics”. On the website unherd.com, Marshall Auerback suggested that “The West can learn from China”. The Economist’s current cover story is titled, “China’s attack on tech”. There is a plethora of other views on the topic, and it is worth exploring why this happened, and what we might take away, especially from an Indian point of view.It seems to me that there are at least three plausible scenarios, and any of them may be in play, and maybe all three at once:Industrial policy, directing where investment and funding will goTriumphalist hubris, because of how successful China has been latelyA cosmic form of ju-jitsu, using the very strengths of the West against itIndustrial policyIt may well be that China has decided (as in the Made in China 2025 plan) that there are certain technologies that have an outsize impact on the future, and they have decided to focus their attention therein. For example, Quantum Computing, Biotechnology, Materials Science, along with specific applications of AI and Machine Learning (a recent report suggests that China has overtaken the US in the citations of their papers in AI).Such a direction would not be particularly surprising. A much-cited article by C K Prahalad (“The Core Competence of the Corporation”, Harvard Business Review, 1990) made a comparison between GTE and NEC, and concluded that the latter handily defeated the former by concentrating on the crucial technology of the then-future, semiconductors. Others, for instance Scott Adams (cartoonists often have surprisingly sage perspectives), have suggested that China’s management model is engineering-driven and is thus focused, ruthless and unaffected by the legal hair-splitting that bedevils many other countries, including India. Thus, industrial policy could well be a sensible way of dealing with the uncertainties of the future. Japan’s MITI tried to guide industry in the 1980s and 1990s with mixed results, but China’s mandarins may well believe they have a better handle on reading the tea leaves. There is the other side of the picture, which is quite relevant to India as well. What is considered the ‘tech industry’ in the US these days consists of a number of behemoths in what is loosely referred to as Silicon Valley, although several of them, such as Microsoft and Amazon are actually in Seattle. The usual suspects include, apart from the above, Google parent Alphabet, Facebook and Apple. In a sense, the Chinese are asking a very good question: what exactly is high-tech about these companies? It is true that they are extremely successful financially, in fact spewing out oodles of cash, and some are valued in trillions of dollars, but exactly what is their innovation? Take Apple, for instance. Yes, it is true that the iPhone, which debuted a decade ago, was revolutionary, but what have they designed lately? Not to be dismissive, but Facebook and Google do ‘surveillance capitalism’, basically selling their users to advertisers. Amazon and Microsoft are soaring on the basis of their cloud-computing infrastructure. But one could argue that they are merely milking their innovations of a decade ago, and don’t have much of a recent product line that creates a ‘moat’ for them, or in MBA-speak, a ‘blue ocean’. The same question can be asked of India’s lionized unicorns, of which here is a partial list as per the Economic Times a few days ago. Exactly what earth-shaking and life-changing innovations do they bring to the table? Yes, if they have managed to build big, loyal customer bases, sure, that can be of value. But just copying and indigenizing business models successful elsewhere is not exactly setting the stage for world-beating companies.To put it bluntly, the Chinese may be calculating that Silicon Valley’s best brains are now engaged in minutely tweaking algorithms to capture the attention span of customers, and are not thinking of solving the world’s problems. For instance, Silicon Valley engineers have been notably less than successful in addressing climate change or even the Wuhanvirus/Covid-19 pandemic. The Chinese may have a point, and India’s policy makers should take note. There has long been disquiet about India’s very successful IT services companies based on the fact that they have, nevertheless, left little by way of a technology legacy the way early Silicon Valley pioneers such as Hewlett Packard and Fairchild Semiconductor did. Triumphalist hubrisChina has good reason to believe they have won. They have, for all practical purposes, created a new world order dominated by them. Just think of what they have done lately in terms of riding roughshod over the world. Nobody would dare to demand reparations from them for what could be construed as the crime against humanity of 4 million dead from the virus that arose in their country (and could well be something they designed in a lab). Similarly, they have captured the South China Sea, used their debt-trap diplomacy to extort their way to strategic assets, and cavalierly sent up rockets that might fall on anybody’s head. One could also make a cogent argument that they were able to harness their media and social media assets to defenestrate an American president they didn’t like. Not to mention the pandemic narrative that, for long, completely exonerated them from any blame. I wouldn’t blame them for quietly celebrating a little, or for believing they have cracked the puzzle of how to, if not make friends, at least influence people and get them to do anything they want. In this context, they have also infiltrated institution after institution, insinuated their cadres into positions where they could capture data or inventions from others, often illegally.Maybe they believe that they know so much about us that they, in effect, have incriminating evidence on us that they can use to intimidate us into doing their bidding. One example is the big super-apps from China: Tencent and Ant Financial, which have evolved into efficient ways of vacuuming up data from and about consumers. Unlike the American model of stand-alone apps that know a great deal about individuals, the super-apps offer a walled garden that has everything from payment to mutual funds to loans to travel agencies. These apps know so much about Chinese people that the government, using it,  is able to create the infamous social credit score for all residents. There have been overseas ventures as well. It is rumored that Chinese-branded smartphones and surveillance cameras may well be capturing and transmitting data to their servers back home. There is also the story of the African Union, whose building was constructed by China. It is said that every day at 5pm, all the confidential conversations in the building were transmitted back to China.There is also the sinister story of the Chinese gene company BGI group. According to a Reuter’s story (“China’s gene giant harvests data from millions of pregnant women”) their prenatal tests were “developed in collaboration with the country’s military” and they are using them to “collect data from millions of women for sweeping research on the traits of populations”. Perfect information, one could imagine, for well-targeted biological weapons.It may well be that the Chinese have decided they know enough from snooping; they don’t really need the super-apps any more, and so they are cut loose. In their triumphalist fantasies, there is nothing that prevents them from reclaiming their (mythical) ‘Middle Kingdom’ status, the center of the Universe.The art of ju-jitsuThe very strengths of the West are being deployed against it by the Chinese, who also believe that their model of “capitalism with Chinese characteristics” ie. the private sector is ultimately subservient to the State, is the right model for the rest of the world, rather than the buccaneer capitalism exemplified by the US. That anyway is CCP dogma, and it appears that they are proving it too.Consider the (erstwhile strengths of the West, especially the US, that China has usurped:Manufacturing: hollowed out, and China owns the supply chain nowInnovation and R&D: now confined to tweaking social media applications. China also sends it bright students to learn at the best US universities and then bring the knowledge back home with themEducation: while ‘woke’ dogma and the cancel culture are dumbing-down US students, China is deprecating its own online education companies because it doesn’t want rote learning and exam hell, but problem-solving skills and creativity/innovation in its children and college students. Finance: Wall Street has been able to crush competitors in the past (for instance, they did something to Japan, I am not sure exactly what, to bring its meteoric rise to a halt), but now they are hand in glove with China. The Wall Street Journal wrote a year ago that “China has one powerful friend left in the US: Wall Street”Marketing: the narrative building that China does is world-class, and it has bought its way into media (for instance, it is alleged by nationalinterest.com that the WSJ got $6 million and the Washington Post $4.6 million from China). The obvious biases in social media and in mainstream media (apparently including science and medicine journals The Lancet and Nature) support this perspectiveCapitalism: Investors have made much money in the tech runup in the US, but they also lost a lot when China decided to make a policy change. According to the WSJ, “Investors lost hundreds of billions in July”, which means that the very ideas of capitalism are being deprecated in plain sight by China.A case can be made that it is not any longer a single point attack by China, but “unrestricted warfare” as in the infamous book by two Chinese colonels. They are single-mindedly on the warpath, and they intend to do anything, I mean anything, to win. The skirmish over the technology companies should be seen in that light. From an Indian point of view, it would be foolish to surmise that China has actually won: the much better lesson would be to take the good part of their industrial policy and to figure out how India can leverage the exodus of investors and funds from Chinese firms to create long-term competitive advantage. 1600 words, 13 Aug 2021 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit rajeevsrinivasan.substack.com

Investors have pumped capital into emerging markets since the beginning of civilization. Egyptians explored basic mathematics and used their findings to build larger structures and even granaries to allow merchants to store food and serve larger and larger cities. Greek philosophers expanded on those learnings and applied math to learn the orbits of planets, the size of the moon, and the size of the earth. Their merchants used the astrolabe to expand trade routes. They studied engineering and so learned how to leverage the six simple machines to automate human effort, developing mills and cranes to construct even larger buildings. The Romans developed modern plumbing and aqueducts and gave us concrete and arches and radiant heating and bound books and the postal system.  Some of these discoveries were state sponsored; others from wealthy financiers. Many an early investment was into trade routes, which fueled humanities ability to understand the world beyond their little piece of it and improve the flow of knowledge and mix found knowledge from culture to culture.  As we covered in the episode on clockworks and the series on science through the ages, many a scientific breakthrough was funded by religion as a means of wowing the people. And then autocrats and families who'd made their wealth from those trade routes. Over the centuries of civilizations we got institutions who could help finance industry.  Banks loan money using an interest rate that matches the risk of their investment. It's illegal, going back to the Bible to overcharge on interest. That's called usury, something the Romans realized during their own cycles of too many goods driving down costs and too few fueling inflation. And yet, innovation is an engine of economic growth - and so needs to be nurtured.  The rise of capitalism meant more and more research was done privately and so needed to be funded. And the rise of intellectual property as a good. Yet banks have never embraced startups.  The early days of the British Royal Academy were filled with researchers from the elite. They could self-fund their research and the more doing research, the more discoveries we made as a society. Early American inventors tinkered in their spare time as well. But the pace of innovation has advanced because of financiers as much as the hard work and long hours. Companies like DuPont helped fuel the rise of plastics with dedicated research teams. Railroads were built by raising funds. Trade grew. Markets grew. And people like JP Morgan knew those markets when they invested in new fields and were able to grow wealth and inspire new generations of investors. And emerging industries ended up dominating the places that merchants once held in the public financial markets.  Going back to the Venetians, public markets have required regulation. As banking became more a necessity for scalable societies it too required regulation - especially after the Great Depression. And yet we needed new companies willing to take risks to keep innovation moving ahead., as we do today And so the emergence of the modern venture capital market came in those years with a few people willing to take on the risk of investing in the future. John Hay “Jock” Whitney was an old money type who also started a firm. We might think of it more as a family office these days but he had acquired 15% in Technicolor and then went on to get more professional and invest. Jock's partner in the adventure was fellow Delta Kappa Epsilon from out at the University of Texas chapter, Benno Schmidt. Schmidt coined the term venture capital and they helped pivot Spencer Chemicals from a musicians plant to fertilizer - they're both nitrates, right? They helped bring us Minute Maid. and more recently have been in and out of Herbalife, Joe's Crab Shack, Igloo coolers, and many others. But again it was mostly Whitney money and while we tend to think of venture capital funds as having more than one investor funding new and enterprising companies.  And one of those venture capitalists stands out above the rest. Georges Doriot moved to the United States from France to get his MBA from Harvard. He became a professor at Harvard and a shrewd business mind led to him being tapped as the Director of the Military Planning Division for the Quartermaster General. He would be promoted to brigadier general following a number of massive successes in the research and development as part of the pre-World War II military industrial academic buildup.  After the war Doriot created the American Research and Development Corporation or ARDC with the former president of MIT, Karl Compton, and engineer-turned Senator Ralph Flanders - all of them wrote books about finance, banking, and innovation. They proved that the R&D for innovation could be capitalized to great return. The best example of their success was Digital Equipment Corporation, who they invested $70,000 in in 1957 and turned that into over $350 million in 1968 when DEC went public, netting over 100% a year of return. Unlike Whitney, ARDC took outside money and so Doriot became known as the first true venture capitalist. Those post-war years led to a level of patriotism we arguably haven't seen since. John D. Rockefeller had inherited a fortune from his father, who built Standard Oil. To oversimplify, that company was broken up into a variety of companies including what we now think of as Exxon, Mobil, Amoco, and Chevron. But the family was one of the wealthiest in the world and the five brothers who survived John Jr built an investment firm they called the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. We might think of the fund as a social good investment fund these days. Following the war in 1951, John D Rockefeller Jr endowed the fund with $58 million and in 1956, deep in the Cold War, the fund president Nelson Rockefeller financed a study and hired Henry Kissinger to dig into the challenges of the United States. And then came Sputnik in 1957 and a failed run for the presidency of the United States by Nelson in 1960.  Meanwhile, the fund was helping do a lot of good but also helping to research companies Venrock would capitalize. The family had been investing since the 30s but Laurance Rockefeller had setup Venrock, a mashup of venture and Rockefeller. In Venrock, the five brothers, their sister, MIT's Ted Walkowicz, and Harper Woodward banded together to sprinkle funding into now over 400 companies that include Apple, Intel, PGP, CheckPoint, 3Com, DoubleClick and the list goes on. Over 125 public companies have come out of the fund today with an unimaginable amount of progress pushing the world forward. The government was still doing a lot of basic research in those post-war years that led to standards and patents and pushing innovation forward in private industry. ARDC caught the attention of a number of other people who had money they needed to put to work. Some were family offices increasingly willing to make aggressive investments. Some were started by ARDC alumni such as Charlie Waite and Bill Elfers who with Dan Gregory founded Greylock Partners. Greylock has invested in everyone from Red Hat to Staples to LinkedIn to Workday to Palo Alto Networks to Drobo to Facebook to Zipcar to Nextdoor to OpenDNS to Redfin to ServiceNow to Airbnb to Groupon to Tumblr to Zenprise to Dropbox to IFTTT to Instagram to Firebase to Wandera to Sumo Logic to Okta to Arista to Wealthfront to Domo to Lookout to SmartThings to Docker to Medium to GoFundMe to Discord to Houseparty to Roblox to Figma. Going on 800 investments just since the 90s they are arguably one of the greatest venture capital firms of all time.  Other firms came out of pure security analyst work. Hayden, Stone, & Co was co-founded by another MIT grad, Charles Hayden, who made his name mining copper to help wire up the world in what he expected to be an increasingly electrified world. Stone was a Wall Street tycoon and the two of them founded a firm that employed Joe Kennedy, the family patriarch, Frank Zarb, a Chairman of the NASDAQ and they gave us one of the great venture capitalists to fund technology companies, Arthur Rock.  Rock has often been portrayed as the bad guy in Steve Jobs movies but was the one who helped the “Traitorous 8” leave Shockley Semiconductor and after their dad (who had an account at Hayden Stone) mentioned they needed funding, got serial entrepreneur Sherman Fairchild to fund Fairchild Semiconductor. He developed tech for the Apollo missions, flashes, spy satellite photography - but that semiconductor business grew to 12,000 people and was a bedrock of forming what we now call Silicon Valley. Rock ended up moving to the area and investing. Parlaying success in an investment in Fairchild to invest in Intel when Moore and Noyce left Fairchild to co-found it.  Venture Capital firms raise money from institutional investors that we call limited partners and invest that money. After moving to San Francisco, Rock setup Davis and Rock, got some limited partners, including friends from his time at Harvard and invested in 15 companies, including Teledyne and Scientific Data Systems, which got acquired by Xerox, taking their $257,000 investment to a $4.6 million dollar valuation in 1970 and got him on the board of Xerox. He dialed for dollars for Intel and raised another $2.5 million in a couple of hours, and became the first chair of their board. He made all of his LPs a lot of money. One of those Intel employees who became a millionaire retired young. Mike Markulla invested some of his money and Rock put in $57,000 - growing it to $14 million and went on to launch or invest in companies and make billions of dollars in the process.  Another firm that came out of the Fairchild Semiconductor days was Kleiner Perkins. They started in 1972, by founding partners Eugene Kleiner, Tom Perkins, Frank Caufield, and Brook Byers. Kleiner was the leader of those Traitorous 8 who left William Shockley and founded Fairchild Semiconductor. He later hooked up with former HP head of Research and Development and yet another MIT and Harvard grad, Bill Perkins. Perkins would help Corning, Philips, Compaq, and Genentech - serving on boards and helping them grow.  Caufield came out of West Point and got his MBA from Harvard as well. He'd go on to work with Quantum, AOL, Wyse, Verifone, Time Warner, and others.  Byers came to the firm shortly after getting his MBA from Stanford and started four biotech companies that were incubated at Kleiner Perkins - netting the firm over $8 Billion dollars. And they taught future generations of venture capitalists. People like John Doerr - who was a great seller at Intel but by 1980 graduated into venture capital bringing in deals with Sun, Netscape, Amazon, Intuit, Macromedia, and one of the best gambles of all time - Google. And his reward is a net worth of over $11 billion dollars. But more importantly to help drive innovation and shape the world we live in today.  Kleiner Perkins was the first to move into Sand Hill Road. From there, they've invested in nearly a thousand companies that include pretty much every household name in technology. From there, we got the rise of the dot coms and sky-high rent, on par with Manhattan. Why? Because dozens of venture capital firms opened offices on that road, including Lightspeed, Highland, Blackstone, Accel-KKR, Silver Lake, Redpoint, Sequoia, and Andreesen Horowitz. Sequoia also started in the 70s, by Don Valentine and then acquired by Doug Leone and Michael Moritz in the 90s. Valentine did sales for Raytheon before joining National Semiconductor, which had been founded by a few Sperry Rand traitors and brought in some execs from Fairchild. They were venture backed and his background in sales helped propel some of their earlier investments in Apple, Atari, Electronic Arts, LSI, Cisco, and Oracle to success. And that allowed them to invest in a thousand other companies including Yahoo!, PayPal, GitHub, Nvidia, Instagram, Google, YouTube, Zoom, and many others.  So far, most of the firms have been in the US. But venture capital is a global trend.  Masayoshi Son founded Softbank in 1981 to sell software and then published some magazines and grew the circulation to the point that they were Japan's largest technology publisher by the end of the 80s and then went public in 1994. They bought Ziff Davis publishing, COMDEX, and seeing so much technology and the money in technology, Son inked a deal with Yahoo! to create Yahoo! Japan. They pumped $20 million into Alibaba in 2000 and by 2014 that investment was worth $60 billion. In that time they became more aggressive with where they put their money to work. They bought Vodafone Japan, took over competitors, and then the big one - they bought Sprint, which they merged with T-Mobile and now own a quarter of the combined companies. An important aspect of venture capital and private equity is multiple expansion. The market capitalization of Sprint more than doubled with shares shooting up over 10%. They bought Arm Limited, the semiconductor company that designs the chips in so many a modern phone, IoT device, tablet and even computer now. As with other financial firms, not all investments can go great. SoftBank pumped nearly $5 billion into WeWork. Wag failed. 2020 saw many in staff reductions. They had to sell tens of billions in assets  to weather the pandemic. And yet with some high profile losses, they sold ARM for a huge profit, Coupang went public and investors in their Vision Funds are seeing phenomenal returns across over 200 companies in the portfolios. Most of the venture capitalists we mentioned so far invested as early as possible and stuck with the company until an exit - be it an IPO, acquisition, or even a move into private equity. Most got a seat on the board in exchange for not only their seed capital, or the money to take products to market, but also their advice. In many a company the advice was worth more than the funding. For example, Randy Komisar, now at Kleiner Perkins, famously recommended TiVo sell monthly subscriptions, the growth hack they needed to get profitable. As the venture capital industry grew and more and more money was being pumped into fueling innovation, different accredited and institutional investors emerged to have different tolerances for risk and different skills to bring to the table. Someone who built an enterprise SaaS company and sold within three years might be better served to invest in and advise another company doing the same thing. Just as someone who had spent 20 years running companies that were at later stages and taking them to IPO was better at advising later stage startups who maybe weren't startups any more. Here's a fairly common startup story. After finishing a book on Lisp, Paul Graham decides to found a company with Robert Morris. That was Viaweb in 1995 and one of the earliest SaaS startups that hosted online stores - similar to a Shopify today. Viaweb had an investor named Julian Weber, who invested $10,000 in exchange for 10% of the company. Weber gave them invaluable advice and they were acquired by Yahoo! for about $50 million in stock in 1998, becoming the Yahoo Store.  Here's where the story gets different. 2005 and Graham decides to start doing seed funding for startups, following the model that Weber had established with Viaweb. He and Viaweb co-founders Robert Morris (the guy that wrote the Morris worm) and Trevor Blackwell start Y Combinator, along with Jessica Livingston. They put in $200,000 to invest in companies and with successful investments grew to a few dozen companies a year. They're different because they pick a lot of technical founders (like themselves) and help the founders find product market fit, finish their solutions, and launch. And doing so helped them bring us Airbnb, Doordash, Reddit, Stripe, Dropbox and countless others. Notice that many of these firms have funded the same companies. This is because multiple funds investing in the same company helps distribute risk. But also because in an era where we've put everything from cars to education to healthcare to innovation on an assembly line, we have an assembly line in companies. We have thousands of angel investors, or humans who put capital to work by investing in companies they find through friends, family, and now portals that connect angels with companies.  We also have incubators, a trend that began in the late 50s in New York when Jo Mancuso opened a warehouse up for small tenants after buying a warehouse to help the town of Batavia. The Batavia Industrial Center provided office supplies, equipment, secretaries, a line of credit, and most importantly advice on building a business. They had made plenty of money on chicken coops and though that maybe helping companies start was a lot like incubating chickens and so incubators were born.  Others started incubating. The concept expanded from local entrepreneurs helping other entrepreneurs and now cities, think tanks, companies, and even universities, offer incubation in their walls. Keep in mind many a University owns a lot of patents developed there and plenty of companies have sprung up to commercialize the intellectual property incubated there. Seeing that and how technology companies needed to move faster we got  accelerators like Techstars, founded by David Cohen, Brad Feld, David Brown, and Jared Polis in 2006 out of Boulder, Colorado. They have worked with over 2,500 companies and run a couple of dozen programs. Some of the companies fail by the end of their cohort and yet many like Outreach and Sendgrid grow and become great organizations or get acquired. The line between incubator and accelerator can be pretty slim today. Many of the earlier companies mentioned are now the more mature venture capital firms. Many have moved to a focus on later stage companies with YC and Techstars investing earlier. They attend the demos of companies being accelerated and invest. And the fact that founding companies and innovating is now on an assembly line, the companies that invest in an A round of funding, which might come after an accelerator, will look to exit in a B round, C round, etc. Or may elect to continue their risk all the way to an acquisition or IPO.  And we have a bevy of investing companies focusing on the much later stages. We have private equity firms and family offices that look to outright own, expand, and either harvest dividends from or sell an asset, or company. We have traditional institutional lenders who provide capital but also invest in companies. We have hedge funds who hedge puts and calls or other derivatives on a variety of asset classes. Each has their sweet spot even if most will opportunistically invest in diverse assets. Think of the investments made as horizons. The Angel investor might have their shares acquired in order to clean up the cap table, or who owns which parts of a company, in later rounds. This simplifies the shareholder structure as the company is taking on larger institutional investors to sprint towards and IPO or an acquisition. People like Arthur Rock, Tommy Davis, Tom Perkins, Eugene Kleiner, Doerr, Masayoshi Son, and so many other has proven that they could pick winners. Or did they prove they could help build winners? Let's remember that investing knowledge and operating experience were as valuable as their capital. Especially when the investments were adjacent to other successes they'd found. Venture capitalists invested more than $10 billion in 1997. $600 million of that found its way to early-stage startups. But most went to preparing a startup with a product to take it to mass market. Today we pump more money than ever into R&D - and our tax systems support doing so more than ever. And so more than ever, venture money plays a critical role in the life cycle of innovation. Or does venture money play a critical role in the commercialization of innovation? Seed accelerators, startup studios, venture builders, public incubators, venture capital firms, hedge funds, banks - they'd all have a different answer. And they should. Few would stick with an investment like Digital Equipment for as long as ARDC did. And yet few provide over 100% annualized returns like they did.  As we said in the beginning of this episode, wealthy patrons from Pharaohs to governments to industrialists to now venture capitalists have long helped to propel innovation, technology, trade, and intellectual property. We often focus on the technology itself in computing - but without the money the innovation either wouldn't have been developed or if developed wouldn't have made it to the mass market and so wouldn't have had an impact into our productivity or quality of life.  The knowledge that comes with those who provide the money can be seen with irreverence. Taking an innovation to market means market-ing. And sales. Most generations see the previous generations as almost comedic, as we can see in the HBO show Silicon Valley when the cookie cutter industrialized approach goes too far. We can also end up with founders who learn to sell to investors rather than raising capital in the best way possible, selling to paying customers. But there's wisdom from previous generations when offered and taken appropriately. A coachable founder with a vision that matches the coaching and a great product that can scale is the best investment that can be made. Because that's where innovation can change the world.

This episode features an interview with Katherine Edenbach, CFO of Emburse, a billion dollar platform for business expenses and vendor payments. Katherine has an impressive career of over 20 years in accounting and finance.  Before coming to Emburse, she was CFO of Certify, Inc., VP of finance at CashStar and served in various senior accounting and finance roles at Fairchild Semiconductor and WEX, Inc. On this episode, Katherine talks about the latest in fraud trends, the renewed importance of cash management amid the pandemic, and how accurate data leads to better decision making.Quotes“The CFO is no longer just managing finance and accounting. Really, it's taking that next step up and understanding how the numbers pull together and how you're going to drive strategy. Because obviously if you had bad data coming in, you could have a bad decision coming out. So it's important to understand accounting and finance, but the CFO also needs to have that strategic mindset.” “We are definitely a data-driven company.  We have a significant amount of both structured data and raw data. And we've been working really hard to pull that data into more of a usable format. That means making that data consistent and easily accessible. Because inconsistent raw data could be interpreted incorrectly. Using new data analytics tools is helping us drive visibility into spend patterns and identify areas for improvement.”“Automating controls takes the onus off the finance team to sometimes be the bad guy or the enforcer. When you have the controls built into your systems already, there's no interpretation. It's the system that's enforcing the controls and people aren't getting involved at all.”SponsorThe Invisible Vault is powered by the team at Kyriba, the global leader in cloud treasury and finance solutions, empowering CFOs and their teams to transform how they activate liquidity as a dynamic, real-time vehicle for growth and value creation. To learn more visit www.kyriba.comFind Katherine on LinkedInFollow Bob on Twitter

Oxide and Friends Twitter Space: May 31, 2021Silicon CowboysWe've been holding a Twitter Space weekly on Mondays at 5p for about an hour. In addition to Bryan Cantrill and Adam Leventhal, speakers included Steve Tuck, Tom Lyon, Dan Cross, and others. The recording is here.(Did we miss your name and/or get it wrong? Drop a PR!)Some of the topics we hit on, in the order that we hit them: Silicon Cowboys documentary Open by Rod Canion Portable before Compaq, Silent 700 Osborne Effect PBS Silicon Valley documentary IBM's role in Compaq history 80's Ads: John Cleese, Charlie Chaplin Compaq and iPhone? Decline and Acquisition Something Ventured documentary PRs welcome! [@1:25](https://youtu.be/faY7kWHQuNE?t=85) Bryan: Have you listened to the Reply All episode “Is the Facebook Microphone On?”The truth is actually scarier, Facebook doesn't need the mic to be on … to read your mind.Silicon Cowboys[@2:46](https://youtu.be/faY7kWHQuNE?t=166) The 2016 documentary “Silicon Cowboys” follows the rise of the Compaq computer company. (IMDb) (Watch the trailer ~3mins)I was trying to watch “Halt and Catch Fire” with my kid … and there's a lot of spontaneous sex breaking out…Fastest to one billion in revenue… fastest to Fortune 500… a meteoric riseOpen by Canion[@7:05](https://youtu.be/faY7kWHQuNE?t=425) The 2013 book “Open” by Rod Canion (cofounder and CEO of Compaq): “How Compaq Ended IBM's PC Domination and Helped Invent Modern Computing.”[@10:02](https://youtu.be/faY7kWHQuNE?t=602) Steve: Ben Rosen was the venture capitalist who wrote the first check to Compaq, really got them off the ground. On the board for 20 years.Their timing was right. The way they did the company was right. And they executed really really well.To go from zero to 50 thousand units, of almost anything, in the time span they did, is incredible.[@14:40](https://youtu.be/faY7kWHQuNE?t=880) Tom: The thing that really put them on the map was having the portable when nobody else did. And being 100% compatible.Those portables were barely luggable, they were huge!Back in a time when there was no network. Being able to pick up your computer and take it to a place, was your network.[@16:47](https://youtu.be/faY7kWHQuNE?t=1007) Steve: A big catalyst for their success was the channel. People were able to pick it up and go, they didn't need special training.[@19:25](https://youtu.be/faY7kWHQuNE?t=1165) Dad used to bring home the luggable so I could play Space Invaders, and he would work on spreadsheets.Portable before Compaq[@20:49](https://youtu.be/faY7kWHQuNE?t=1249) There were portable solutions before Compaq, but for timesharing.You had the T.I. Silent 700, in the 70's, you could tote that home and plug it into the modem.Osborne Effect[@22:41](https://youtu.be/faY7kWHQuNE?t=1361) Tom: They killed their company with the famous Osborne EffectBryan and Steve (clearly excited): What was the Osborne Effect!? Tom: Pre-announcing the next machine.Telling customers: man, if you love the Osborne 1, just wait till the Osborne 2… So they did Bryan: Something I found surprising about the history of Compaq was the different organizational approach that they had.Early on, before even thinking about what to go do, they were talking about the kind of company they wanted to build.PBS Silicon Valley[@26:14](https://youtu.be/faY7kWHQuNE?t=1574) The 2013 PBS documentary “Silicon Valley” tells the story of Fairchild Semiconductor. (Watch chapter one ~17mins)[@28:14](https://youtu.be/faY7kWHQuNE?t=1694) We ask people, when they apply to Oxide, when they've been most unhappy in their careers. And it all boils down to people not feeling listened to, not having agency.IBM's role[@29:41](https://youtu.be/faY7kWHQuNE?t=1781) How much of Compaq's success is just pure mis-execution from IBM? IBM inadvertently creates this pseudo open architecture, and makes exactly the wrong move in trying to reproprietarize it with the PS/2 and Micro Channel architecture; which is an absolute disaster.In many ways the story of Compaq is as much the story of the failed PS/2.It was such a mis-execution to do this analysis on the market and say: we need to grab our existing customers and lock them in, before they slip through our fingers, and in doing so, just hasten their departure. And Compaq was in the right spot to pick up the pieces.MCA (Micro Channel architecture), ISA, EISA[@33:22](https://youtu.be/faY7kWHQuNE?t=2002) We were ripping out a bunch of ISA and EISA drivers..I am a sacrificial sheep, I can't possibly go. You are a sacrificial lamb.The machines themselves are anemic, if you want any functionality you go to a third party.. There were magazines filled with advice on which sound-generating card you should buy.IBM PC XT – Hercules graphics card[@37:00](https://youtu.be/faY7kWHQuNE?t=2220) Driver for Token Ring.PCI – SBus – VME – VLB – AGP[@40:20](https://youtu.be/faY7kWHQuNE?t=2420) Speaking of Intel, a big part of the Compaq story is what happens with the 386.IBM clearly thought Intel would never give some clone manufacturer the first rights to the 386.They went from fast follower to innovator.OS/2 supported both 16 bit (for the 286) and 32 bit.[@42:07](https://youtu.be/faY7kWHQuNE?t=2527) One of the headwinds working against IBM was that all the software companies wanted to see more competition in hardware vendors; they wanted to see the clones become real companies.Certainly Microsoft aided the rise of Compaq, no question. Compaq turned Microsoft into a real believer.80's Ads[@43:11](https://youtu.be/faY7kWHQuNE?t=2591) I loved the 80's ads.John Cleese: Compaq Portable vs a Fish ~2minsCleese: I suppose the fish could give you a mega-bite! (laughs hysterically)Cleese: The Compaq Portable 2 however can run all IBM's most popular software, 30% faster than IBM can! (dryly) HA HA HABryan: Absolutely no joke, I knew Charlie Chaplin first through the IBM PC ads. I didn't even know they were making a reference!IBM Charlie Chaplin ads compilation ~9mins. (Aside: these are new to me. For me it painted the computers as accessible/approachable, something anyone could do; even a clumsy Mr. Bean character)You guys need to stop mocking the Chaplin ads. They were marketing gold and as a 5 year old watching bunny rabbit ear TV seeing those ads in the middle of Scooby Doo, I was begging my parents for an IBM PC Adam: My parents got a free Mac Plus when they opened a bank account! I know it's crazy anachronistic.Adam: In '86 we had a Commodore 64 and then upgraded to a Mac Plus. Bryan: That's a big upgrade! Adam: It was incredible.MacPaint – ImageWriter II – Dot matrix printing – The Print ShopWith the banner program, you could print “Happy Birthday”, and probably other messages, but it never came up..Compaq and iPhone?[@50:59](https://youtu.be/faY7kWHQuNE?t=3059) Book and documentary ask: What if Compaq had made the iPhone?I think it cheapens the whole thing. No one should feel an obligation to claim their role in history by connecting themselves to the iPhone. The iPhone is not the pinnacle of human history.Just take your wins, and there are many of them. But, the time that they were dominant, that's the story.Decline and Acquisition[@53:24](https://youtu.be/faY7kWHQuNE?t=3204) The movie ends when Canion is fired, by Rosen, which is pretty amazing.To be fair, DEC killed DEC.Tandem ComputersI feel like the later history of Compaq is this sugar high of sales continuing to spike, but then ultimately it's the ruin of the company. The company ceased to be an innovator.Compaq is acquired by Hewlett-PackardCompaq systems, at this point, were very expensive. And this was part of the controversy of Rod getting run out, was not wanting to go down market.[@59:51](https://youtu.be/faY7kWHQuNE?t=3591) Speaking of HPE (Hewlett Packard Enterprise) and Compaq, they just relocated their headquarters to Huston.I feel like HP hasn't been a Silicon Valley company in a long long time.This was like the animals walking upright, where Compaq became a lot like IBM in a lot of their sales tactics.Something Ventured[@1:02:41](https://youtu.be/faY7kWHQuNE?t=3761) The 2011 documentary “Something Ventured” investigates the emergence of American venture capitalism. (Watch the trailer ~2mins) (Watch the documentary ~85mins)Tandem ComputersA 7 million dollar iceberg sitting in the datacenter, this Tandem. They were so reliant on it, they had another shrink wrapped just sitting on the datacenter floor, in the event that the first one ever went out.Jimmy Treybig is a super interesting character. Very iconoclastic engineer.I didn't realize that Tandem made KP. If it weren't for Tandem, Kleiner Perkins wouldn't have risen as a VC firm. They went all-in on Tandem, and Tandem had an outsized result.Our next Twitter space will be on Monday at 5p Pacific Time. Join us; we always love to hear from new speakers!

The Agenda

On February 1975, a group of 20 Indigenous activists from the American Indian Movement and the Coalition for Navajo liberation took over the Fairchild Semiconductor plant in Shiprock, Navajo Nation. As Dr. Lisa Nakamura describes, Fairchild chose to insource from the Navajo Nation due to cheap labor, tax benefits, and Federal monies. After eight days and failed negotiations, Fairchild announced it would close and leave the Navajo Nation. This had a lasting impact in the Navajo community. In this episode I talk a long term Shiprock community member. He was a band member of XIT. His name is “Chili” Yazzie Chili Yazzie discusses the events leading up to the takeover, why it occurred, and the impacts of takeover from the perspective of a community member. The incident provides insight into how Navajo workers played a role in the digital industry as chip manufacturers, as well as activists confronted exploitation, and how the community reacted to the incident. Chili Yazzie details the sentiment of Navajo community and provides some lessons to consider when organizing in Indigenous communities. The opening song is titled “Reservation of Education” and the closing song is titled "At Peace". Both songs are by the band XIT.. I will also include a link to Dr. Lisa Nakamura's article about the racialization of the Navajo women who worked at the factory. I suggest checking it out. Thank you to Chili Yazzie, thank you for listening. This is the Wósdéé podcast. Dr. Lisa Nakamura article: warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/c…enous-circuits.pdf

Today we're going to talk through the history of the Data General Nova. Digital Equipment was founded in 1957 and released a game changing computer, the PDP-8, in 1965. We covered Digital in a previous episode, but to understand the Data General Nova, you kinda' need to understand the PDP. It was a fully transistorized computer and it was revolutionary in the sense that it brought interactive computing to the masses. Based in part on research from work done for MIT in the TX-0 era, the PDP made computing more accessible to companies that couldn't spend millions on computers and it was easier to program - and the PDP-1 could be obtained for less than a hundred thousand dollars. You could use a screen, type commands on a keyboard for the first time and it would actually output to screen rather than reading teletypes or punch cards. That interactivity unlocked so much. The PDP began the minicomputer revolution. The first real computer game Spacewar! Was played on it and the adoption increased. The computers got faster. They could do as much as large mainframes. The thousands of transistors were faster and less error-prone than the old tubes. In fact, those transistors signaled that the third generation of computers was upon us. And people who liked the PDP were life-long converts. Fanatical even. The PDP evolved until 1965 when the PDP-8 was released. This is where Edson de Castro comes in, acting as the project manager for the PDP-8 development at Digital. 3 years later, he, Henry Burkhardt, and Richard Sogge of Digital would be joined by Herbert Richman a sales person from Fairchild Semiconductor. They were proud of the PDP-8. It was a beautiful machine. But they wanted to go even further. And they didn't feel like they could do so at Digital. They would build a less expensive minicomputer that opened up even more markets. They saw new circuit board manufacturing techniques, new automation techniques, new reasons to abandon the 12-bit CPU techniques. Edson had wanted to build a PDP with all of this and the ability to use 8 bit, 16 bit, or 32 bit architectures, but it got shut down at Digital. So they got two rounds of venture capital at $400,000 each and struck out on their own. They wanted the computer to fit into a 19-inch rack mount. That choice would basically make the 19 inch rack the standard from then on. They wanted the machines to be 16-bit, moving past the 8 or 12 bit computers common in mini-computing at the time. They used an accumulator-based architecture, which is to say that there was a CPU that had a register that stored the results of various bits of code. This way you weren't writing the results of all the maths into memory and then sending it right back to the CPU. Suddenly, you could do infinitely more math! Having someone from Fairchild really unlocked a lot of knowledge about what was happening in the integrated circuit market. They were able to get the price down into the thousands, not tens of thousands. You could actually buy a computer for less than 4 thousand dollars. The Nova would ship in 1969 and be an instant success with a lot of organizations. Especially smaller science labs like one at the University of Texas that was their first real paying cusotmer. Within 6 months they sold 100 units and within the first few years, they were over $100 million in sales. They were seeking into Digital's profits. No one would have invested in Digital had they tried to compete head-on with IBM. Digital had become the leader in the minicomputer market, effectively owning the category. But Nova posed a threat. Until they decided to get into a horse race with Digital and release the SuperNOVA to compete with the PDP-11. They used space age designs. They were great computers. But Digital was moving faster. And Data General started to have production and supply chain problems, which led to law suits and angry customers. Never good. By 1977 Digital came out with the VAX line, setting the standard to 32-bit. Data General was late to that party and honestly, after being a market leader in low-cost computing they started to slip. By the end of the 70s microchips and personal computers would basically kill minicomputers and while transitioning from minicomputers to servers, Data General never made quite the same inroads that Digital Equipment did. Data General would end up with their own DOS, like everyone their own UNIX System V variant, one of the first portable computers, but by the mid-80s, IBM showed up on the market and Data General would make databases and a number of other areas to justify what was becoming a server market. In fact, the eventual home for Data General would be to get acquired by EMC and become CLaRiiON under the EMC imprint. It was an amazing rise. Hardware that often looked like it came straight out of Buck Rogers. Beautiful engineering. But you just can't compete on price and stay in business forever. Especially when you're competing with your former bosses who have much much deeper pockets. EMC benefited from a lot of these types of acquisitions over the years, to become a colossus by the end of the 2010s. We can thank Data General and specifically the space age nova, for helping set many standards we use today. We can thank them for helping democratize computing in general. And if you're a heavy user of EMC appliances, you can probably thank them for plenty of underlying bits of what you do even through to today. But the minicomputer market required companies to make their own chips in that era and that was destroyed by the dominance of Intel in the microchip industry. It's too bad. So many good ideas. But the costs to keep up turned out to be too much for them, as with many other vendors. One way to think about this story. You can pick up on new manufacturing and design techniques and compete with some pretty large players, especially on price. But when the realities of scaling an operation come you can't stumble or customer confidence will erode and there's a chance you won't get to compete for deals again in the future. But try telling that to your growing sales team. I hear people say you have to outgrow the growth rate of your category. You don't. But you do have to do what you say you will and deliver. And when changes in the industry come, you can't be all over the place. A cohesive strategy will help you whether the storm. So thank you for tuning into this episode of the History of Computing Podcast. We are so lucky you chose to join us and we hope to see you next time! Have a great day!

The Microchip Welcome to the History of Computing Podcast, where we explore the history of information technology. Because understanding the past prepares us for the innovations of the future! Todays episode is on the history of the microchip, or microprocessor. This was a hard episode, because it was the culmination of so many technologies. You don't know where to stop telling the story - and you find yourself writing a chronological story in reverse chronological order. But few advancements have impacted humanity the way the introduction of the microprocessor has. Given that most technological advances are a convergence of otherwise disparate technologies, we'll start the story of the microchip with the obvious choice: the light bulb. Thomas Edison first demonstrated the carbon filament light bulb in 1879. William Joseph Hammer, an inventor working with Edison, then noted that if he added another electrode to a heated filament bulb that it would glow around the positive pole in the vacuum of the bulb and blacken the wire and the bulb around the negative pole. 25 years later, John Ambrose Fleming demonstrated that if that extra electrode is made more positive than the filament the current flows through the vacuum and that the current could only flow from the filament to the electrode and not the other direction. This converted AC signals to DC and represented a boolean gate. In the 1904 Fleming was granted Great Britain's patent number 24850 for the vacuum tube, ushering in the era of electronics. Over the next few decades, researchers continued to work with these tubes. Eccles and Jordan invented the flip-flop circuit at London's City and Guilds Technical College in 1918, receiving a patent for what they called the Eccles-Jordan Trigger Circuit in 1920. Now, English mathematician George Boole back in the earlier part of the 1800s had developed Boolean algebra. Here he created a system where logical statements could be made in mathematical terms. Those could then be performed using math on the symbols. Only a 0 or a 1 could be used. It took awhile, John Vincent Atanasoff and grad student Clifford Berry harnessed the circuits in the Atanasoff-Berry computer in 1938 at Iowa State University and using Boolean algebra, successfully solved linear equations but never finished the device due to World War II, when a number of other technological advancements happened, including the development of the ENIAC by John Mauchly and J Presper Eckert from the University of Pennsylvania, funded by the US Army Ordinance Corps, starting in 1943. By the time it was taken out of operation, the ENIAC had 20,000 of these tubes. Each digit in an algorithm required 36 tubes. Ten digit numbers could be multiplied at 357 per second, showing the first true use of a computer. John Von Neumann was the first to actually use the ENIAC when they used one million punch cards to run the computations that helped propel the development of the hydrogen bomb at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The creators would leave the University and found the Eckert-Mauchly Computer Corporation. Out of that later would come the Univac and the ancestor of todays Unisys Corporation. These early computers used vacuum tubes to replace gears that were in previous counting machines and represented the First Generation. But the tubes for the flip-flop circuits were expensive and had to be replaced way too often. The second generation of computers used transistors instead of vacuum tubes for logic circuits. The integrated circuit is basically a wire set into silicon or germanium that can be set to on or off based on the properties of the material. These replaced vacuum tubes in computers to provide the foundation of the boolean logic. You know, the zeros and ones that computers are famous for. As with most modern technologies the integrated circuit owes its origin to a number of different technologies that came before it was able to be useful in computers. This includes the three primary components of the circuit: the transistor, resistor, and capacitor. The silicon that chips are so famous for was actually discovered by Swedish chemist Jöns Jacob Berzelius in 1824. He heated potassium chips in a silica container and washed away the residue and viola - an element! The transistor is a semiconducting device that has three connections that amplify data. One is the source, which is connected to the negative terminal on a battery. The second is the drain, and is a positive terminal that, when touched to the gate (the third connection), the transistor allows electricity through. Transistors then acts as an on/off switch. The fact they can be on or off is the foundation for Boolean logic in modern computing. The resistor controls the flow of electricity and is used to control the levels and terminate lines. An integrated circuit is also built using silicon but you print the pattern into the circuit using lithography rather than painstakingly putting little wires where they need to go like radio operators did with the Cats Whisker all those years ago. The idea of the transistor goes back to the mid-30s when William Shockley took the idea of a cat's wicker, or fine wire touching a galena crystal. The radio operator moved the wire to different parts of the crystal to pick up different radio signals. Solid state physics was born when Shockley, who first studied at Cal Tech and then got his PhD in Physics, started working on a way to make these useable in every day electronics. After a decade in the trenches, Bell gave him John Bardeen and Walter Brattain who successfully finished the invention in 1947. Shockley went on to design a new and better transistor, known as a bipolar transistor and helped move us from vacuum tubes, which were bulky and needed a lot of power, to first gernanium, which they used initially and then to silicon. Shockley got a Nobel Prize in physics for his work and was able to recruit a team of extremely talented young PhDs to help work on new semiconductor devices. He became increasingly frustrated with Bell and took a leave of absence. Shockley moved back to his hometown of Palo Alto, California and started a new company called the Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory. He had some ideas that were way before his time and wasn't exactly easy to work with. He pushed the chip industry forward but in the process spawned a mass exodus of employees that went to Fairchild in 1957. He called them the “Traitorous 8” to create what would be Fairchild Semiconductors. The alumni of Shockley Labs ended up spawning 65 companies over the next 20 years that laid foundation of the microchip industry to this day, including Intel. . If he were easier to work with, we might not have had the innovation that we've seen if not for Shockley's abbrasiveness! All of these silicon chip makers being in a small area of California then led to that area getting the Silicon Valley moniker, given all the chip makers located there. At this point, people were starting to experiment with computers using transistors instead of vacuum tubes. The University of Manchester created the Transistor Computer in 1953. The first fully transistorized computer came in 1955 with the Harwell CADET, MIT started work on the TX-0 in 1956, and the THOR guidance computer for ICBMs came in 1957. But the IBM 608 was the first commercial all-transistor solid-state computer. The RCA 501, Philco Transac S-1000, and IBM 7070 took us through the age of transistors which continued to get smaller and more compact. At this point, we were really just replacing tubes with transistors. But the integrated circuit would bring us into the third generation of computers. The integrated circuit is an electronic device that has all of the functional blocks put on the same piece of silicon. So the transistor, or multiple transistors, is printed into one block. Jack Kilby of Texas Instruments patented the first miniaturized electronic circuit in 1959, which used germanium and external wires and was really more of a hybrid integrated Circuit. Later in 1959, Robert Noyce of Fairchild Semiconductor invented the first truly monolithic integrated circuit, which he received a patent for. While doing so independently, they are considered the creators of the integrated circuit. The third generation of computers was from 1964 to 1971, and saw the introduction of metal-oxide-silicon and printing circuits with photolithography. In 1965 Gordon Moore, also of Fairchild at the time, observed that the number of transistors, resistors, diodes, capacitors, and other components that could be shoved into a chip was doubling about every year and published an article with this observation in Electronics Magazine, forecasting what's now known as Moore's Law. The integrated circuit gave us the DEC PDP and later the IBM S/360 series of computers, making computers smaller, and brought us into a world where we could write code in COBOL and FORTRAN. A microprocessor is one type of integrated circuit. They're also used in audio amplifiers, analog integrated circuits, clocks, interfaces, etc. But in the early 60s, the Minuteman missal program and the US Navy contracts were practically the only ones using these chips, at this point numbering in the hundreds, bringing us into the world of the MSI, or medium-scale integration chip. Moore and Noyce left Fairchild and founded NM Electronics in 1968, later renaming the company to Intel, short for Integrated Electronics. Federico Faggin came over in 1970 to lead the MCS-4 family of chips. These along with other chips that were economical to produce started to result in chips finding their way into various consumer products. In fact, the MCS-4 chips, which split RAM , ROM, CPU, and I/O, were designed for the Nippon Calculating Machine Corporation and Intel bought the rights back, announcing the chip in Electronic News with an article called “Announcing A New Era In Integrated Electronics.” Together, they built the Intel 4004, the first microprocessor that fit on a single chip. They buried the contacts in multiple layers and introduced 2-phase clocks. Silicon oxide was used to layer integrated circuits onto a single chip. Here, the microprocessor, or CPU, splits the arithmetic and logic unit, or ALU, the bus, the clock, the control unit, and registers up so each can do what they're good at, but live on the same chip. The 1st generation of the microprocessor was from 1971, when these 4-bit chips were mostly used in guidance systems. This boosted the speed by five times. The forming of Intel and the introduction of the 4004 chip can be seen as one of the primary events that propelled us into the evolution of the microprocessor and the fourth generation of computers, which lasted from 1972 to 2010. The Intel 4004 had 2,300 transistors. The Intel 4040 came in 1974, giving us 3,000 transistors. It was still a 4-bit data bus but jumped to 12-bit ROM. The architecture was also from Faggin but the design was carried out by Tom Innes. We were firmly in the era of LSI, or Large Scale Integration chips. These chips were also used in the Busicom calculator, and even in the first pinball game controlled by a microprocessor. But getting a true computer to fit on a chip, or a modern CPU, remained an elusive goal. Texas Instruments ran an ad in Electronics with a caption that the 8008 was a “CPU on a Chip” and attempted to patent the chip, but couldn't make it work. Faggin went to Intel and they did actually make it work, giving us the first 8-bit microprocessor. It was then redesigned in 1972 as the 8080. A year later, the chip was fabricated and then put on the market in 1972. Intel made the R&D money back in 5 months and sparked the idea for Ed Roberts to build The Altair 8800. Motorola and Zilog brought competition in the 6900 and Z-80, which was used in the Tandy TRS-80, one of the first mass produced computers. N-MOSs transistors on chips allowed for new and faster paths and MOS Technology soon joined the fray with the 6501 and 6502 chips in 1975. The 6502 ended up being the chip used in the Apple I, Apple II, NES, Atari 2600, BBC Micro, Commodore PET and Commodore VIC-20. The MOS 6510 variant was then used in the Commodore 64. The 8086 was released in 1978 with 3,000 transistors and marked the transition to Intel's x86 line of chips, setting what would become the standard in future chips. But the IBM wasn't the only place you could find chips. The Motorola 68000 was used in the Sun-1 from Sun Microsystems, the HP 9000, the DEC VAXstation, the Comodore Amiga, the Apple Lisa, the Sinclair QL, the Sega Genesis, and the Mac. The chips were also used in the first HP LaserJet and the Apple LaserWriter and used in a number of embedded systems for years to come. As we rounded the corner into the 80s it was clear that the computer revolution was upon us. A number of computer companies were looking to do more than what they could do with he existing Intel, MOS, and Motorola chips. And ARPA was pushing the boundaries yet again. Carver Mead of Caltech and Lynn Conway of Xerox PARC saw the density of transistors in chips starting to plateau. So with DARPA funding they went out looking for ways to push the world into the VLSI era, or Very Large Scale Integration. The VLSI project resulted in the concept of fabless design houses, such as Broadcom, 32-bit graphics, BSD Unix, and RISC processors, or Reduced Instruction Set Computer Processor. Out of the RISC work done at UC Berkely came a number of new options for chips as well. One of these designers, Acorn Computers evaluated a number of chips and decided to develop their own, using VLSI Technology, a company founded by more Fairchild Semiconductor alumni) to manufacture the chip in their foundry. Sophie Wilson, then Roger, worked on an instruction set for the RISC. Out of this came the Acorn RISC Machine, or ARM chip. Over 100 billion ARM processors have been produced, well over 10 for every human on the planet. You know that fancy new A13 that Apple announced. It uses a licensed ARM core. Another chip that came out of the RISC family was the SUN Sparc. Sun being short for Stanford University Network, co-founder Andy Bchtolsheim, they were close to the action and released the SPARC in 1986. I still have a SPARC 20 I use for this and that at home. Not that SPARC has gone anywhere. They're just made by Oracle now. The Intel 80386 chip was a 32 bit microprocessor released in 1985. The first chip had 275,000 transistors, taking plenty of pages from the lessons learned in the VLSI projects. Compaq built a machine on it, but really the IBM PC/AT made it an accepted standard, although this was the beginning of the end of IBMs hold on the burgeoning computer industry. And AMD, yet another company founded by Fairchild defectors, created the Am386 in 1991, ending Intel's nearly 5 year monopoly on the PC clone industry and ending an era where AMD was a second source of Intel parts but instead was competing with Intel directly. We can thank AMD's aggressive competition with Intel for helping to keep the CPU industry going along Moore's law! At this point transistors were only 1.5 microns in size. Much, much smaller than a cats whisker. The Intel 80486 came in 1989 and again tracking against Moore's Law we hit the first 1 million transistor chip. Remember how Compaq helped end IBM's hold on the PC market? When the Intel 486 came along they went with AMD. This chip was also important because we got L1 caches, meaning that chips didn't need to send instructions to other parts of the motherboard but could do caching internally. From then on, the L1 and later L2 caches would be listed on all chips. We'd finally broken 100MHz! Motorola released the 68050 in 1990, hitting 1.2 Million transistors, and giving Apple the chip that would define the Quadra and also that L1 cache. The DEC Alpha came along in 1992, also a RISC chip, but really kicking off the 64-bit era. While the most technically advanced chip of the day, it never took off and after DEC was acquired by Compaq and Compaq by HP, the IP for the Alpha was sold to Intel in 2001, with the PC industry having just decided they could have all their money. But back to the 90s, ‘cause life was better back when grunge was new. At this point, hobbyists knew what the CPU was but most normal people didn't. The concept that there was a whole Univac on one of these never occurred to most people. But then came the Pentium. Turns out that giving a chip a name and some marketing dollars not only made Intel a household name but solidified their hold on the chip market for decades to come. While the Intel Inside campaign started in 1991, after the Pentium was released in 1993, the case of most computers would have a sticker that said Intel Inside. Intel really one upped everyone. The first Pentium, the P5 or 586 or 80501 had 3.1 million transistors that were 16.7 micrometers. Computers kept getting smaller and cheaper and faster. Apple answered by moving to the PowerPC chip from IBM, which owed much of its design to the RISC. Exactly 10 years after the famous 1984 Super Bowl Commercial, Apple was using a CPU from IBM. Another advance came in 1996 when IBM developed the Power4 chip and gave the world multi-core processors, or a CPU that had multiple CPU cores inside the CPU. Once parallel processing caught up to being able to have processes that consumed the resources on all those cores, we saw Intel's Pentium D, and AMD's Athlon 64 x2 released in May 2005 bringing multi-core architecture to the consumer. This led to even more parallel processing and an explosion in the number of cores helped us continue on with Moore's Law. There are now custom chips that reach into the thousands of cores today, although most laptops have maybe 4 cores in them. Setting multi-core architectures aside for a moment, back to Y2K when Justin Timberlake was still a part of NSYNC. Then came the Pentium Pro, Pentium II, Celeron, Pentium III, Xeon, Pentium M, Xeon LV, Pentium 4. On the IBM/Apple side, we got the G3 with 6.3 million transistors, G4 with 10.5 million transistors, and the G5 with 58 million transistors and 1,131 feet of copper interconnects, running at 3GHz in 2002 - so much copper that NSYNC broke up that year. The Pentium 4 that year ran at 2.4 GHz and sported 50 million transistors. This is about 1 transistor per dollar made off Star Trek: Nemesis in 2002. I guess Attack of the Clones was better because it grossed over 300 Million that year. Remember how we broke the million transistor mark in 1989? In 2005, Intel started testing Montecito with certain customers. The Titanium-2 64-bit CPU with 1.72 billion transistors, shattering the billion mark and hitting a billion two years earlier than projected. Apple CEO Steve Jobs announced Apple would be moving to the Intel processor that year. NeXTSTEP had been happy as a clam on Intel, SPARC or HP RISC so given the rapid advancements from Intel, this seemed like a safe bet and allowed Apple to tell directors in IT departments “see, we play nice now.” And the innovations kept flowing for the next decade and a half. We packed more transistors in, more cache, cleaner clean rooms, faster bus speeds, with Intel owning the computer CPU market and AMD slowly growing from the ashes of Acorn computer into the power-house that AMD cores are today, when embedded in other chips designs. I'd say not much interesting has happened, but it's ALL interesting, except the numbers just sound stupid they're so big. And we had more advances along the way of course, but it started to feel like we were just miniaturizing more and more, allowing us to do much more advanced computing in general. The fifth generation of computing is all about technologies that we today consider advanced. Artificial Intelligence, Parallel Computing, Very High Level Computer Languages, the migration away from desktops to laptops and even smaller devices like smartphones. ULSI, or Ultra Large Scale Integration chips not only tells us that chip designers really have no creativity outside of chip architecture, but also means millions up to tens of billions of transistors on silicon. At the time of this recording, the AMD Epic Rome is the single chip package with the most transistors, at 32 billion. Silicon is the seventh most abundant element in the universe and the second most in the crust of the planet earth. Given that there's more chips than people by a huge percentage, we're lucky we don't have to worry about running out any time soon! We skipped RAM in this episode. But it kinda' deserves its own, since RAM is still following Moore's Law, while the CPU is kinda' lagging again. Maybe it's time for our friends at DARPA to get the kids from Berkley working at VERYUltra Large Scale chips or VULSIs! Or they could sign on to sponsor this podcast! And now I'm going to go take a VERYUltra Large Scale nap. Gentle listeners I hope you can do that as well. Unless you're driving while listening to this. Don't nap while driving. But do have a lovely day. Thank you for listening to yet another episode of the History of Computing Podcast. We're so lucky to have you!

Retired agent Russell Atkinson served with the FBI for 25 years. He specialized in investigating high-technology and intellectual property crimes in Silicon Valley and served as a legal adviser. In this episode of FBI Retired Case File Review, Russell Atkinson reviews the first trade secret theft investigation and prosecution in California under the federal Economic Espionage Act of 1996. The case centered on the theft of radiological device technology and encrypted materials by David Kern, the former employee of a Silicon Valley tech firm. David Kern pleaded guilty to one count of trade secret theft. He was sentenced to a year and a day in federal prison. After retiring from the FBI, Russ Atkinson, practiced law and also worked for many high-tech firms in the computer industry including IBM, Fairchild Semiconductor, and AOL. Now retired, he spends time writing crime fiction and is the author of eight mystery novels. His book, Fatal Dose is a fictionalized account of the theft and misuse of X-ray technology inspired by this case. He warns that after reading Fatal Dose you’ll never look at an X-ray machine the same way. You can learn more about Russell Atkinson and his books at his Cliff Knowles Mysteries website. Join my Reader Team to get the FBI Reading Resource - Books about the FBI, written by FBI agents, the 20 clichés about the FBI Reality Checklist, and keep up to date on the FBI in books, TV, and movies via my monthly email. Join here.   Jerri Williams, a retired FBI agent, author and podcaster, attempts to relive her glory days by writing and blogging about the FBI and hosting FBI Retired Case File Review, a true crime/history podcast. Her new book FBI Myths and Misconceptions: A Manual for Armchair Detectives is available wherever books are sold. 

In this episode we had Jim Dickie, Partner at Sales Mastery discuss latest trends in B2B Sales and Marketing. About Jim: Jim Dickie is a Co-Founder of CSO Insights and Research Fellow for Sales Mastery; an independent research firm that focuses on profiling case study examples of how firms in the B2B marketplace are leveraging sales process, CRM, AI and knowledge to optimize revenue performance. Jim has over 30 years of sales and marketing management experience. Jim began his career with IBM and Sterling Software and then went on to launch two successful software companies. Jim then went on to co-found CSO Insights, which was acquired by Miller Heiman Group. Jim is also a contributing editor for CRM Magazine, CustomerThink, Top Sales World, and a contributing author for the Harvard Business Review. He has served as an advisor to Baylor Center for Professional Selling, William Patterson University’s Russ Berry Institute for Professional Selling, and is a lecturer at the University of Georgia’s Terry College of Business and the University of Colorado’s Leeds School of Business. Over the past twenty years, Jim’s teams have surveyed over a thousand sales transformation initiatives. Their research has become the benchmark for understanding how the role of sales is evolving, the challenges that are impacting sales performance, and most importantly what companies are doing to address those issues. Having worked with clients spanning multiple industries, including such firms as 3M, ADP, Cisco Systems, Corning, Direct Energy, Fairchild Semiconductor, Federal Express, IBM, Accenture, VISA, Xilinx, McKesson, Unocal, as well as many small to midsize enterprises, Jim has a broad perspective into sales transformation in the B2B world. Top ten takeaways from the episode: “A key question to ask in B2B Sales today is- What’s the next generation of solutions to optimize sales through better solutions.” “I spend part of my time looking for answer and the other part of my time sharing answers!” “One of the major trends we are seeing (because people have access to better data) is that marketing and sales is trying to be all things to all people.“ “We see people spend a lot of time identifying what their ideal prospect looks like.” “We have to start thinking about things from our prospect’s perspective. A personalized message should talk about how you can help someone do their job better. Everyone makes a decision based on personal payback.” “We spend a lot of time doing an analysis to understand who we want to engage with. But we forget to identify how we can help other people do something better.” “We have to earn the right to engage people as Sales and Marketing people today.” “A lot of companies do sales cycle reviews to understand why they lost a deal. But how often do they ask themselves, ‘what did you do to lose the deal’?” “If Customer Support people are not part of a prospecting campaign or part of the marketing campaign, there will always be a disconnect.” “When we did our study, the number one thing people were focused on is AI for lead generation.” About the podcast Sunny Side Up is a series of 15-minute podcasts. Leaders and innovators share what they’ve learned in the B2B tech sector on topics related to marketing, product management, sales, and leadership.

Before tech, there were orchards in the “Valley of Heart’s Delight.” Federal funding for Cold War research changes everything, and the semiconductor industry brings silicon to the Valley. The Traitorous Eight create Fairchild Semiconductor. And the weather here is “perfect.” Guests: Daniel Swain, Steve Blank, Margaret O’Mara, Leslie Berlin.

Today's episode is with Shayne Hughes and we talk about Ego. He believes that ego is single-handedly working sabotage our businesses every day. His expertise in creating cultures of open communication and collaboration has lead to substantial improvements in organizational and personal performance for such clients as Fairchild Semiconductor, NASA, Sandia National Laboratories, Shell Oil, and Encore Capital. He is also experienced in the complex dynamics of family businesses. Shayne and I discuss his new book Ego Free Leadership and ways to end the unconscious habits that can hijack businesses. I love the unique style this book is structured as it’s told from “two lively first-person perspectives.” The stories, all true, are woven quite effectively to help illustrate each of the authors’ points. If you’re looking to break some bad and unconscious leadership habits, it's definitely a book you should check out!Resources Mentioned In The Episode:Thought Leader Academy: https://www.thoughtleaderprogram.com/courses/thoughtleaderacademyWebsite: http://www.egofreeleadership.com/Ego Free Leadership: Ending the Unconscious Habits that Hijack Your Business: https://www.amazon.com/Ego-Free-Leadership-Unconscious-Business/dp/1626343799/ See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Retired agent Russell Atkinson served with the FBI for 25 years. He specialized in investigating high-technology crimes in Silicon Valley. Atkinson also worked on several kidnapping cases and has arrested murderers and drug dealers. In this episode of FBI Retired Case File Review, Russell Atkinson reviews the case of Charles Geschke, a wealthy Silicon Valley businessman kidnapped at gunpoint and held for four days before being rescued. After retiring from the FBI, Russ Atkinson, with degrees in mathematics and law, practiced law and also worked for many high-tech firms in the computer industry including IBM, Fairchild Semiconductor, and AOL. Now retired, he spends time writing crime fiction and is the author of eight mystery novels. His book Held For Ransom, is a fictionalized account of the kidnapping of a wealthy Silicon Valley executive inspired by the Geschke case. You can learn more about Russell Atkinson and his books at his website Cliff Knowles Mysteries. 

Dennis Hess from the School of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering at Georgia Tech joins the podcast to talk about the early days of the semiconductor industry. We discuss the birth of Fairchild Semiconductor, the so-called "traitorous eight," and their groundbreaking process innovations that still underlie integrated circuit manufacturing.Show details: • Hosted by Michael Filler (@michaelfiller) • Edited by Andrew Cannon (@andrewhcannon) • Recorded on January 31, 2017 • Show notes are available at http://www.fillerlab.com/nanovation/archive/28 • Submit feedback at http://www.fillerlab.com/nanovation/feedback

Dennis Hess from the School of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering at Georgia Tech joins the podcast to talk about the early days of the semiconductor industry. We discuss the birth of Fairchild Semiconductor, the so-called "traitorous eight," and their groundbreaking process innovations that still underlie integrated circuit manufacturing.Show details: • Hosted by Michael Filler (@michaelfiller) • Edited by Andrew Cannon (@andrewhcannon) • Recorded on January 31, 2017 • Show notes are available at http://www.fillerlab.com/nanovation/archive/28 • Submit feedback at http://www.fillerlab.com/nanovation/feedback

Densen Cao, PhD, is founder and CEO of the CAO Group, Inc. in West Jordon/UT and engages in research, development, manufacturing, marketing and sales of products in Medical, Dental, Veterinary, Forensic, and LED lighting. Since year 2000, Dr. Cao has lead the company organically grown into a global company and has created many innovative technologies and products in engaged fields to serve its global customers. Dr. Cao is the inventor of more than 160 issued and pending patents and published more than 20 technical papers.   Dr. Cao came to United States in 1986 from China to pursue PhD degree at University of Utah. Before founding the CAO Group, Inc. in year 2000, Dr. Cao worked as Coordinator of Materials Science at Clinical Research Associated (CRA, now as CR Foundation) and Staff Engineer at Fairchild Semiconductor.   Dr. Cao holds PhD and MS degrees in Materials Science and Engineering from University of Utah and MS and BS degrees in Electronic Engineering from Jilin University of China.   The notable technologies developed by Dr. Cao include LED dental curing lights, modern diode lasers, 360 degree beam LED lighting sources, LED forensic lights, and medicament delivery strips. Each of these technologies has made significant impact on the industry and is described below. Dr. Cao invented LED dental curing light in year 2000 and introduced the first LED curing light to the market in 2001 with a distribution partner.  The key patent is US patent 6,331,111 which teaches fundamental methods to build an LED curing light. There are more than 30 patents issued to Dr. Cao for LED curing light to cover all features of LED curing lights. LED curing light invented by Dr. Cao has been adopted by dentistry and become a standard tool in daily practice. As today, nearly all the LED curing light manufacturers licensed the technology from Dr. Cao. The technology is estimated to save more than $6K each year for each dentist in addition to providing better care for the patients.   Dr. Cao invented 360 degree beam LED light bulbs in 2002 and setup an instrumental structure to build an efficient, 360 degree beam LED bulb to replace traditional incandescent light bulb. Dr. Cao introduced the first 360 degree beam LED to the market in 2006. The key patents are 6,465,961; 6,634,770; and 6,746,885. The structure invented by Dr. Cao is essential to use LEDs to replace traditional incandescent and HID lamps. These teachings are adopted by LED lighting industry worldwide. As known, LED light bulbs will save up to 70% of energy comparing incandescent light source. LED light bulb is a $25 billion industry as today.   Dr. Cao invented modern diode laser systems in year 2003 with features of cartridge fiber management, disposable tips, touch screen control, wireless footswitch, battery operation, and etc. The first product was introduced to the dental market in 2003 with a distribution partner. The key patents are 7,485,116; 8,337,097; 8,834,457; 8,961,040; 8,967,883.  These technologies enable the wide adoption of diode lasers in medical, dental, and veterinary fields to provide much desired patient/client care and become standards for modern diode laser products. The diode laser applications in dental, medical, and veterinary fields are more than $100 million industry as now and growing from year to year.   Dr. Cao invented the LED forensic lights in 2004. The key patents are 6,954,270; 7,252,678; and 7,267,457. The technology enables the investigators to collect evidence timely and efficiently. The products have been widely used in policy community and featured in CSI TV shows. The products have helped to solve many cases worldwide. Notable cases are Taiwan President shooting, JonBenet Ramsey, Lacy Peterson, Kobe Brian, O.J Simpson, and etc. The same principal has been used to oral cancer detection in the dentistry.   Dr. Cao and his colleagues invented advanced medicament delivery strip to deliver different medicaments to teeth surface in 2006. The technology features a flexible substrate and gelatin compound to enable patients to do the applications at anytime and anywhere. The technology was first applied to teeth whitening. The strip technology will be used for fluoride treatment, desensitizing, topical anesthetic, periodontal treatment, caries prevention, tooth remineralization, and any possible medicament delivery to oral environment.   Dr. Cao continues to work in solving critical issues in the dental and medical fields including methods to eliminate first and secondary caries, reversible cement for better bonding and de-bonding of prosthetics including orthodontic brackets, sterile endo process for 100% successful endo, better prosthetic materials for long term clinical success, advanced laser surgical procedures, laser cancer treatment, and etc. with a goal to make practitioners’ daily job Easier, Faster, and Better.   caogroup.com caomedical.com caolighting.com

What I learned from reading The Intel Trinity: How Robert Noyce, Gordon Moore, and Andy Grove Built the World's Most Important Company by Michael Malone.If you want to listen to the full episode you’ll need to upgrade to the Misfit feed. You will get access to every full episode. These episodes are available nowhere else.As a bonus you will also get lifetime access to my notebook that contains key insights from over 285 podcasts and lectures on entrepreneurship.The Misfit Feed has no ads, no intro music, no interviews, no fluff. Just ideas from some of the greatest entrepreneurial minds in history. Upgrade now.

Chris and Euro look at the history of Intel, its predecessor Fairchild Semiconductor, and the talented people behind how the microprocessor revolution got started. They also speculate on what life would be like without them. Show Notes: Podfather - Robert Noyce and the Rise of Silicon Valley (2009) Fairchild Briefing on Integrated Circuits Wikipedia - Intel Email: forkbombpodcast@gmail.com Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/forkbombpodcast/ Twitter: @forkbombpodcast https://twitter.com/forkbombpodcast Or leave us a message in the comments section below!

To learn more about Butterflies of Wisdom visit http://butterfliesofwisdom.weebly.com/. Be sure to FOLLOW this program https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wins-women-of-wisdom/id1060801905. To find out how Win walk and about Ekso go to http://www.bridgingbionics.org/, or email Amanda Boxtel at amanda@bridgingbionics.org.   On Butterflies of Wisdom today, Best-Selling Author, Win Kelly Charles and Juan Carlos Gill welcomes Michael Sage Hider. Michael obtained a BS degree in Metallurgical Engineering from the University of Cincinnati, an MA degree in Philosophy from the University of Toledo, and a Juris Doctor degree from Santa Clara University. He also pursued studies at Ohio State University, San Jose State University, and Stanford University. As a United States Air Force Officer, he conducted hypervelocity impact studies at Eglin Air Force Base and was involved in underground nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site. After being honorably discharged from the Air Force, he took employment with Fairchild Semiconductor as a silicon crystal growing engineer. Hider then moved to employment with Lockheed Missiles and Space Co. as an aerospace engineer developing heat-resistant materials for Trident submarine missile reentry bodies. While at Lockheed he coauthored a widely accepted technical paper entitled The Protection of Beryllium in a Salt-Moist Environment. Hider left engineering for a career in law. He was a trial attorney for eleven years in Merced County California, where he then ran for and was elected Superior Court Judge. During his several terms as Presiding Judge, he presided over a Master Calendar that included civil, criminal, probate, and juvenile cases. After seventeen years, he retired from the Merced County Superior Court Bench and moved to Southern California. However, as he is fond of saying, “his body rejected retirement.” He now sits on the Riverside County Superior Court Bench, working three days per week as a Mandatory Settlement Conference Judge. In 2010, the Southwest Riverside County Bar Association selected him as Judicial Officer of the Year. Hider has taught courses in science, philosophy, and/or law at Merced Community College, Chapman College, and the University of San Francisco Master’s Program. He and his wife, Eileen, have four children, two daughters-in-law, a son-in-law, and the nine most wonderful grandchildren anyone could possibly have! To learn more about Michael visit http://michaelhider.tateauthor.com/. To learn more about Win Kelly Charles visit https://wincharles.wix.com/win-charles. Please send feedback to Win by email her atwinwwow@gmail.com, or go to http://survey.libsyn.com/winwisdom and http://survey.libsyn.com/thebutterfly. To be on the show please fill out the intake at http://bit.ly/1MLJSLG. To look at our sponsorships go to http://www.educents.com/daily-deals#wwow. To learn about the magic of Siri go to https://www.udemy.com/writing-a-book-using-siri/?utm_campaign=email&utm_source=sendgrid.com&utm_medium=email. If you want to donate Butterflies of Wisdom, please send a PayPal donation to aspenrosearts@gmail.com. Please send a check in the mail so 100% goes to Bridging Bionics Foundation.    In the Memo section have people write: In honor of Win Charles.    Send to:  Bridging Bionics Foundation  PO Box 3767 Basalt, CO 81621  

On this hour of Modern Notion Daily, we have two guests: Arnold Thackray and David Brock. Thackray, Brock, and Rachel Jones co-wrote Moore’s Law: The Life of Gordon Moore, Silicon Valley’s Quiet Revolutionary (Basic Books, May 2015). Gordon Moore worked at Fairchild Semiconductor in the 1960s, where he came up with Moore’s Law. He went on…

In this episode Scott and I discuss VideoCart #4 Spitfire!, we also talk about aircraft in general, go on a tangent trying to find where the last license holder for the Channel F went (Zircon International) and other shenaningans :)Link to the episode here                                                              Video SupplementalLinksManfred Von RichthofenMax ImmelmanJoe Foss - Americas ACE of ACES

Main topic: The VideoBrain Family Computer.  Special guest host Jeff Salzman (Vintage Volts)!   Links Mentioned in the Show:   News EasyFlash 3 - http://skoe.de/easyflash, http://go4retro.com/products/easyflash TRS-80 MISE - http://home.comcast.net/~bartlett.p/MISE/ Kfest - http://www.kansasfest.org/ VCF Midwest - http://starbase.globalpc.net/eccc/, https://www.facebook.com/events/257907004391707/ A2CLOUD - http://appleii.ivanx.com/prnumber6/category/a2cloud/ A2SERVER - http://appleii.ivanx.com/a2server/ ProTERM is now officially free - http://lostclassics.apple2.info/announcements/19/proterm-a2/ ADTPro - http://adtpro.sourceforge.net/ Raspple II - http://appleii.ivanx.com/rasppleii/ Apple II Pi - http://schmenk.is-a-geek.com/wordpress/   Intro Jeff Salzman RetroChallenge 2014 Summer Challenge - http://www.wickensonline.co.uk/retrochallenge-2012sc/   Bumper Clip of VideoBrain from Today Show in 1978 with Jane Pauley - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmxrtUuZa-4   Tech Specs Fairchild F8 Microprocessor - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_F8 Fairchild Semiconductor Website - http://www.fairchildsemi.com/ Fairchild Semiconductor on WikiPedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Semiconductor Fairchild Channel F System - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Channel_F APL Programming Language on WikiPedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APL_(programming_language) “A Programming Language” Book on Amazon by Kenneth Iverson - http://www.amazon.com/dp/0471430145/?tag=flodaypod-20   Emulation Multi-Emulator Super System (MESS) - http://www.mess.org/ FPGA Implementation of the VideoBrain - kevtris on YouTube -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac49BKNNlCo   Current Web Sites Bill Loguidice, Armchair Arcade - http://www.armchairarcade.com/neo/taxonomy/term/1135 AtariProtos.com - http://www.atariprotos.com/othersystems/videobrain/videobrain.htm Article from Interface Age - http://bit.ly/1rBJMvi November 1978 Popular Science ad for the VideoBrain - http://bit.ly/1nzsTMU VideoBrain video on YouTube (Glankonian) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4GgAMdWN4Q The Old Computer Museum - http://oldcomputermuseum.com/videobrain.html Yahoo group - https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/channel_f_and_videobrain/info VideoBrain info at orphanedgames.com - http://www.orphanedgames.com/videobrain/ The Old Computer.com ROM’s - http://www.theoldcomputer.com/roms/index.php?folder=VideoBrain/Family-Computer-101 VideoBrain Unwrapped by Kevin Horton -  http://blog.kevtris.org/blogfiles/videobrain/videobrain_unwrapped.txt Sean Riddle’s VideoBrain Info - http://www.seanriddle.com/videobrain.html   References Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videobrain “Stan Veit’s History of the Personal Computer” by Stan Veit on Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/dp/1566640237/?tag=flodaypod-20   Closing Throwback Network - http://www.throwbacknetwork.net Vintage Volts Website (Jeff Salzman) - http://vintagevolts.com/

Why do some people say Fairchild Semiconductor went through a period of mismanagement? Who were the Hogan's Heroes? What is Fairchild doing today? Learn more about your ad-choices at https://news.iheart.com/podcast-advertisers

How was Fairchild Semiconductor started? Who were the Fairchildren? Why were the founders called the traitorous eight? Learn more about your ad-choices at https://news.iheart.com/podcast-advertisers

  Fiveofthebest.podomatic.com     The Munich air disaster occurred on 6 February 1958, when British European AirwaysFlight 609 crashed on its third attempt to take off from a slush-covered runway atMunich-Riem Airport in Munich, West Germany. On board the plane was theManchester United football team, nicknamed the "Busby Babes", along with a number of supporters and journalists.[1] Twenty of the 44 people on board the aircraft died in the crash     The new wing design was extremely thin, with a thickness-to-chord ratio of only 3.36% and an aspect ratio of 2.45. The wing's leading-edges were so thin (0.016 in/0.41 mm) and sharp that they presented a hazard to ground crews, and protective guards had to be installed during ground operations. The safety record of the F-104 Starfighter became high-profile news, especially in Germany, in the mid-1960s. In West Germany it came to be nicknamed Witwenmacher ("The Widowmaker"). Some operators lost a large proportion of their aircraft through accidents, although the accident rate varied widely depending on the user and operating conditions; the German Air Force lost about 30% of aircraft in accidents over its operating career,[38] and Canada lost over 50% of its F-104s.[39] The Spanish Air Force, however, lost none.[40][41] 15,000 metres (49,000 ft) in 131.1 seconds 20,000 metres (66,000 ft) in 222.99 seconds 25,000 metres (82,000 ft) in 266.03 seconds             Zenith engineer, Eugene Polley created the "Flash-matic" the first wireless TV remote in 1955. The Flash-matic operated by means of four photocells, one in each corner of the TV screen. The viewer used a directional flashlight to activate the four control functions, which turned the picture and sound on and off, and turned the channel tuner dial clockwise and counter-clockwise.           By definition the integrated circuit aka microchip is a set of interconnected electronic components such as transistors and resistors, that are etched or imprinted on a onto a tiny chip of a semiconducting material, such as silicon or germanium. Jack Kilby, an engineer with a background in ceramic-based silk screen circuit boards and transistor-based hearing aids, started working for Texas Instrumentsin 1958. A year earlier, research engineer Robert Noyce had co-founded the Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation. From 1958 to 1959, both electrical engineers were working on an answer to the same dilemma: how to make more of less. jack kilby's first integrated curcuit         The traitorous eight are eight men who left Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory in 1957, due to a conflict withWilliam Shockley, to form Fairchild Semiconductor.      Fairchild Bill   robert noyce   15 min video about traitorous eight http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLNh4UY5ohw     In 1958 and 1961, the American Air Force lost nuclear weapons over the skies of South and North Carolina, respectively, raining potential apocalypse on the folks below. In both incidents, complete catastrophe was avoided thanks to that ever-potent combination of foresight and unmitigated dumb luck. And in the former incident, the bomb fell square on some unsuspecting children's playhouse.     Unlike the 1958 mishap, the Goldsboro crash could have had dire consequences for the Tar Heel State. As the bombs' deactivator Dr. Jack Revelle later admitted, "How close was it to exploding? My opinion is damn close.            In 1957, a B-36 accidentally salvoed a hydrogen bomb though it's bay doors while on approach to Kirtland AFB. The core was installed but didn't detonate, the conventional explosives did set off, scattering radioactive debris over a large swath of scrub land. In the early 90's the area was still restricted due to radiation concerns.

Audio File:  Download MP3Transcript: An Interview with Shellye Archambeau CEO, MetricStream Date: September 5, 2008 NCWIT Interview with Shellye Archambeau BIO: As the CEO of MetricStream, Shellye Archambeau is responsible for running all facets of the business. Ms. Archambeau has a proven executive management track record and over 20 years of experience driving sales growth in the technology industry. Prior to joining MetricStream, Ms. Archambeau was Chief Marketing Officer and Executive Vice President of Sales for Loudcloud, Inc. [renamed Opsware], responsible for all global sales and marketing activities. At Loudcloud she led the transformation into an enterprise-focused company while growing sales 50 percent year over year. Previously, she served as Chief Marketing Officer of NorthPoint Communications, where she led the design and implementation of all sales and marketing strategies. Ms. Archambeau also served as president of Blockbuster, Inc.'s e-commerce division and was recognized by Internet World as one of the Top 25 "Click and Mortar" executives in the country in June of 2000. Ms. Archambeau spent the prior 15 years at IBM, holding several domestic and international executive positions. Ms. Archambeau is an author and sought-after speaker on the topics of compliance, marketing, and leadership. She has been featured or quoted in numerous business publications including BusinessWeek, InformationWeek and the San Jose Business Journal. She is co-author of Marketing That Works and she guest lectures at The Wharton School West and the Stanford Graduate School of Business. Ms. Archambeau currently serves on the board of directors for Arbitron, Inc.[NYSE: ARB] and The Forum for Women Entrepreneurs and Executives. She is also a member of the Trustees Council of Penn Women at the University of Pennsylvania and the Information Technology Senior Management Forum. She earned a B.S. degree at the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School of Business. Larry Nelson: This is Larry Nelson with w3w3.com. And we are fortunate to be right here in the headquarters of the National Center for Women in Information Technology. We are so excited about this particular series, because it is really targeting young people and trying to get them more interested in getting involved with IT and how exciting it is. But most of all, on the entrepreneurial side. So Lucy Sanders, who is the CEO and founder of NCWIT, as we call it, for all of our friends. Lucy... Lucy Sanders: Well thanks Larry. We are excited about this series, as well. With me is NCWIT Board Director, Lee Kennedy from Tricalyx. She is a serial entrepreneur. And we are speaking today with Shelley Archambeau, who is the CEO of MetricStream, which is an incredibly cool company. Very timely in today's regulatory and quality environment. Shelley, welcome. Shellye Archambeau: Thank you. Glad to be here. Lucy: Why don't you tell us a little bit about MetricStream? You do a lot. You have software, you have services, and you have training. Tell us a bit about what you do. Shellye: Absolutely. What we do is to provide solutions to companies to help them ensure they can comply effectively with rules, regulations, and mandates that are out there in the marketplace. So whether that is Sarbanes‑Oxley or that are FDA regulations or ISO 9000 processes, any time they basically need a solution to ensure that they comply with the regulations so they can reduce their corporate risk, as well as get the visibility to be able to manage that risk and apply appropriate resources as needed. That is where MetricStream comes in. So we have customers in the FDA space, everything from Subways, which I'm sure a lot of people have eaten at, to pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer. We also run a high technology space, with companies like Fairchild Semiconductor, Hitachi America, and etcetera. So, we work with companies of all sizes to help them comply by providing the full software services total solution. Lucy: Well, we are excited. I must make a plug about Pfizer. Pfizer is an investment partner for NCWIT. Larry: Oh, right. Shellye: All right. Lucy: They help us by funding our K‑12 Alliance. We love Pfizer. Shellye: Excellent. Well, we do too. Lucy: We can have a Pfizer love fest. Larry: There we go. Lucy: Yeah, I love them. One of the things that I noticed too, while I'm looking at your website, was that MetricStream just won an award, the Stevie Award. Shellye: Yes. Lucy: And that is, I think, is that focused on your portal that uses an innovative use of open source? Shellye: Yes, absolutely. We won first place for Compliance Online. Compliance Online is a web portal where we bring together all of the different information about compliance: rules, regulations, best practices, training, and etcetera. To make it easy for compliance professionals to find out and learn what's new, where the areas of focus, where the areas of risk, get updates on how companies are best handling the management of different issues and regulations, etcetera. And we're pleased that in just a very short time, and we just launched this basically the beginning of last year, we have become the number one compliance portal. Lucy: Wow. Shellye: We are leveraging a unique model, where we basically have experts from around the world that provide training to those that need it. And we create an environment in which professionals can come and ask each other questions, interact, etcetera. As well as do vertical search, meaning when they want to find information on FDA CFR part 11, they can do a search on that and just get that, versus getting something that may have the same part number, like a widget on a car if you do a broader search. So all of those things are actually bringing a significant value. And we were recognized, as you said, as a Stevie Award, which is basically an international business award. Larry: Fantastic. Shelleye: As the number one player in that particular category. Lucy: Well, I'm sure you use a lot of technology with that. And certainly you're Compliance Online Portal is one such. And by the way, congratulations. I read you got to go to a great gala to get the award. Lucy: I was hoping I could come carry your bags. Our first question for you really does, in fact, relate to technology and how you first got interested in technology and also, as you look out onto the horizon, which technologies you see as being very important in the future. Shellye: Certainly. So first, interest. It was really college. And now I'm going to date myself, because I went to school in the early '80s. That was around the time frame that Apple Computers and all those things were starting to come out, and really seeing just the changing horizon out there. So, I went to Wharton and focused on business marketing. But where I really put my focus was doing all that in the area of technology. I thought this was really how we could change the world. Again, you're 18, 19, 20 years old and you believe you could do all that, so I did. But I wanted to get into this space. It was hot. It was new. It really looked like there was a lot of leverage that could happen by getting involved. And it hasn't let me down. I've spent over 20 years now in the technology space, and it's just amazing how fast technology continues to change. Harnessing the power is just an exciting, exciting area to be in. Lucy: So Shelley, when you think about the series we're doing, it's all about different, fabulous entrepreneurs and what they've done. So we love to find out, why did you decide to be an entrepreneur? And what is it about it that really makes you tick? Shellye: You know, it's interesting because I actually started my career not as an entrepreneur, per se. I joined IBM. You can't get much bigger than that in terms of a conglomerate to join. [laughs] But I joined IBM with the objective of wanting to run a company, so I might as well try to run IBM. I spent a good number of years doing that, running different divisions and operations both domestic as well as overseas. But the piece that I was missing in all of that was that the higher I got in the company, the farther removed I felt from the market and what was really happening. You spend more focus trying to get things done within the company. With that, I said let me take what I've learned ‑ all the technology focus, I had lots of opportunities to go and fix divisions, build new divisions, get them growing, et cetera ‑ let me take that and apply that to smaller companies. Because now I want to have more of an impact, if you will, on a business. So becoming an entrepreneur to me was really taking a set of skills and trying to get out there and just have an impact. When you think about all that we're learning in our careers and all the skill sets that we're building, that's really what we're trying to do. Whether you're trying to do that against a company or against a technology or against a social issue, et cetera, we're all just trying to make an impact with what it is that we're doing. I don't think there's any better way to make an impact than to be an entrepreneur. You're bringing a new idea, a new concept, a new way to approach technology. All of those things you can do as an entrepreneur and really have an impact on the market space that you're targeting. Lucy: Along the way you have a fascinating career path coming through a large corporation like IBM and then starting your own company. Who influenced you along this path? Do you have role models or mentors that you remember? What kinds of influences shaped you? Shellye: It's interesting. I think one of the things that shaped me in the beginning is that I've always been a planner. I knew, as I said, that I wanted to run a business. I didn't have, really, a view of being an entrepreneur when I first came out of school. Going to Wharton, everything was pretty much focused on big companies, et cetera, and that's what I did. But as I started to progress and see what kind of changes people could make by being an entrepreneur, and then getting connected with people in this space. You talk about mentors. One of my mentors and advisers is Mark Leslie. Mark Leslie built Veritas, which was just acquired about a year and a half ago by Symantec. He took a company from start to four billion dollars in market cap. Seeing what can be done is just amazing. I'm a big believer in mentors and advisers in general. You didn't quite ask me this question, but let me just frame it a little bit. One of the tidbits that I like to offer people is that as you're moving forward in your career, try to adopt mentors. And I say adopt, meaning look for people who are doing things you want to do, or things you think you might be interested in, and just spend some time. Try to reach out, talk to them, ask them for advice, etcetera. There is so much to be learned. And it was really in doing that kind of thing that enabled me to develop a set of really strong relationships that helped me shape what I wanted to do with my career. I still reach out and grasp for mentors and advisors and ideas, because there is so much going on in the world. There is no way you can experience it all yourself. So the best way to try to get broader perspectives is try to leverage other people's experiences, which is really what mentoring is all about. Larry: I haven't had this type of corporate experience, like being with IBM. So, going from IBM to now being a real, full‑fledged entrepreneur, along the way I am sure there's been a bit of course correction and other challenges. If you were to pull something out, what would be the biggest challenge that you had to either try to overcome, or maybe you didn't overcome it, you just had to learn to live with it? Shellye: Gosh, probably the biggest challenge I'd almost put as two things, and I'll answer two ways. In the corporate world, it was all about rightsizing, downsizing, whatever word you want to use. It doesn't matter how many times you do it, that is just a hard thing to do. You are obviously trying to get the business models right, but you're also impacting individuals very specifically. So that is something that is hard to do. Have I done it? Absolutely. Can I do it? Yes. But that doesn't mean that that is something I enjoy. What we've tried to do, when taking that experience and coming to build MetricStream, is try to ensure that we're growing at the right pace and path with the business growth and momentum. So to try to avoid having to go through that kind of activity as you grow. On the entrepreneur side, as to what has been the toughest, it's really...Gosh, we've put two companies together. Part of MetricStream's growth, we actually merged with another company three years back. And that was probably one of the toughest things. Because now you're trying to a business that you've got, investors that you've got, match it and marry it with another company that has its own set of investors, their own original business plan. And make it work both from a financial standpoint, from a structural standpoint, as well as from a market standpoint. So, I would say merging MetricStream three years ago was probably one of the hardest things that I've done, because it touched on every aspect of running and operating a business. Lucy: So Shelley, you had some great advice earlier about role models and mentors. If you were sitting here today with a young person, what advice would you have to them about entrepreneurship? And what advice would you give them? Shellye: Well, first would be only do what you're really passionate about. I mean, this is hard work. Being an entrepreneur is not showing up at nine o'clock in the morning and leaving at five, and being able to put all of the stuff behind you. Being an entrepreneur is totally encompassing, because nothing happens unless you make it happen. If you work for a big company, if you don't show up for work, there is already an engine. There are people doing other pieces, people pitch in, things will still happen and still work. When you're an entrepreneur, if you don't show up, things don't happen. Because you don't have all of that infrastructure and things in place. So if you're going to work hard, make sure you are doing something that you are really passionate about. So that when you have the good times, which you will, you can celebrate and enjoy. But when you have the bad times and the struggles, you still want to persevere. And you do because you are really passionate about what it is that you are doing. As an entrepreneur, the ups can be almost euphoric. But the downs can have you second guessing everything that you are doing. It's important to do something that you love, so you can power through all those cycles that you go through. So that's number one. Do something that you are passionate about. Second would be, create an informal network of advisers. I touched on this, in terms of mentors and things. There are a million people out there who have done what you are getting ready to do. Maybe not in the same industry, maybe not with the exact same model, but in terms of creating a business, finding customers, creating a business model that works, getting investors and funding, etcetera. All those things have been done by others, so create a network of advisers to help support you in that overall process. And then lastly, test your ideas before you just launch into it. You know, make sure that there is a good niche that you're targeting. So testing ideas, either with others like these advisers I talked about or just with people on the streets, to see what kind of feedback you get about your concept and what you're doing. And then get launched into it. Do something that you're passionate about, number one. Two, make sure you create this informal network of advisers. And three, make sure you test your ideas before you jump into it. Lucy: That's all really great advice. I'm really resonating to the testing of the ideas, because it's only then that you test it with your advisers and they love you, they're going to give you the hard news. It's great.. Larry: Now we have to listen. Lucy: Well, you know, they're giving you all the input that you need. Shellye: You know it's true. And it's interesting, because a lot of people come up with great ideas for the product, whether that product is software or it is hardware, or it's a cool widget, whatever it might be. The hard part is, how do you get that product to market? Hundreds and thousands of new businesses and new ideas are created every day. The ones, however, that make it, are not always the ones that actually have the best product. This will be the ones that end up with the best business plan and marketing strategy to get it to market. So, and I'll put a little plug, I hope you don't mind, but I'll put a little plug in there for a minute because I actually co‑authored a book on Marketing That Works. That is all about how to use different techniques and capabilities and structure and discipline to make all that work. Really, that is where to spend the time to make sure that you can be successful. Lucy: Well Larry, I think just as a side note, that's another interview for you. Larry: There we go. Lucy: You need to go look at the book. Larry is an author, as well. Larry: We'll put that up on the blog. Lucy: Yeah. Shellye: Oh, Okay. Great. Lucy: You have great insight and advice. What other personal characteristics have given you an advantage as an entrepreneur? Shellye: You know it's interesting, in terms of reflecting on that. A couple things. One is, I'm a pretty good leader. And when I say a good leader, I think of leader as people who operate in a way that people want to follow them. Making sure you provide the vision, the strategy, the direction, and just stay two inches ahead of everybody. So that you are pushing out the boulders and blockades, etcetera, so that everyone else can be successful in what it is they are getting ready to do. I think leadership is an important characteristic, and one that has definitely helped me. The other is being a listener. And this one's a little different, because people don't always think about this. But it's really being a listener. To make sure that as you come out with your product or your set of solutions, that you don't fall so much in love with your product. When I say in love, it's very much like falling in love with a person. When you fall in love with someone initially, you are almost blinded to everything else. All you see is all of their positives, all their best traits, etcetera. You tend to diminish and not focus on maybe some of the negative traits, etcetera. Well it's easy to fall in love with your product. So that you're not really listening to what the market is telling you so that you can make that product better in what you are doing. So listening has been another key piece to all of this. I mentioned earlier that I'm a planner, and I think that has helped. I absolutely have been able to bring both to my own personal career. A game plan for what I want to do, so what do I need to be able to get there? And making sure I put those things into place. And frankly, once I've gotten here, the other thing that's an advantage is being a woman. There are so few female entrepreneurs running companies in different places, as a percentage. When people do meet you, they tend to remember you, which actually helps your company because they then can associate it with what it is that you do, etcetera. So I actually think that's an advantage. The last would be, I like to win. I like to set objectives. I like to work with teams to go make it happen and win. That's what this is all about. As you build a company, an organization, it is how do you make sure your product fits the market needs? It's making sure that you're building a team and leading it to be able to deliver on those overall needs. And putting a plan in place that will be successful and then making sure you win if you're getting out there and competing. Speaker: Wonderful. Lucy: That's great advice. So Shelley you've had such a wonderful career. You're running a company now. How do you bring balance to your personal and professional life? Shellye: That's interesting. I think about balance and I tell people I think balance is a misnomer. Balance to me means you spend equal energy, time, hours, whatever it is in one area as well as another area at all times, right? That's balance. I don't have balance. What I have is integration. So I think of this more work‑life integration. I've got a fabulous husband. We celebrate 23 years in August. Lucy: Wow. Shellye: And two kids, which, however knock on wood, are turning out really well. But I've been able to do that because number one I work in partnership with my husband so we view each other as a team in terms of how we execute. But number two I've been able to leverage. I'm going to use technology to actually make it all work. My son, as an example, my son played in a basketball championship when he was in high school, which was last year. And they actually made it to the States. When I was in home and in town I didn't miss a game. Now how did I do that? I did that because of the Blackberry and a cell phone. It doesn't mean I was in the stands... I couldn't focus every second on every game. There were times when I was actually plugging away on email, there were times I had to step out and take a call but you know what? I was there. Without technology I couldn't have been there all those times and making sure that things are happening the way they need to happen. So I think integrating the two in a way where you can physically be where you want to be and yet insure that things are getting done that need to get done really makes a difference. It's very hard I think to actually shut out and say, "Okay, from this time to this time I do X. And from this time to this time I do Y. And never the two shall meet." That doesn't work for me. It works for me to integrate the two and to be available. For part of my career I actually commuted. So for three years I left home Monday mornings and I came home Thursday night if I was lucky but usually it was Friday night. And my kids were at school at the time. So the deal I had with them was, "Listen, when you want to talk to me or reach out to me you just call me. Just call my cell." And folks that I worked with knew that when my cell phone rang if it was my kids I was going to answer it. Now it didn't mean I stayed on the phone. I'd answer it and say, "I'm doing this do you need me to step out or can I call you back?" And you know what? 95% of the time I could call them back. But that just knowing that they could reach me meant that I was still there, right? There was no difference if I was at work three miles away versus being three thousand miles away in terms of what was happening. And me taking those phone calls? That didn't impact my ability to execute on the overall job. So when I say integration if it's both kinds of things, figure out how you can make it work together so that you can be available in both sides of your life. Lucy: Well, and we asked this question. I won't say it's a trick question but we all agree with you. We are a fan of integration and blending. I personally think this word 'balance' does us a disservice. And one reason why we really wanted to ask the question is because we want young people to know that there are ways to blend these types of very aggressive and time consuming jobs with having a rewarding personal life. So... Shellye: That's right. Now listen, can I add a couple more things to that? Lucy: Absolutely. Shellye: Because what happens to a lot of young people especially is they put themselves in a trap. And when I say "they put themselves in a trap" meaning my biggest advice to people, which has helped my husband and I, is you need to get help. And I don't mean a psychiatrist. Shellye: When I say, "You need to get help" meaning those things that really aren't as important to you whether it's cutting the grass, whether its' cleaning your house whatever it happens to be for you and your husband, get somebody else to do that. So the people say to me, "Damn it, how can you afford all that?" Especially when you get started, and the whole bit. My answer is to plan it in. When my husband and I got married, I knew that I wanted to have kids right away and so did he. I'm right out of college just starting and the whole bit. Well, we bought a house that was a small, little house that was a fairly decent commute in terms of overall distance. But we did that because I spent more on childcare and help than we did on our mortgage. And we did that so that it would work and we wouldn't be pulling our hair out to be able to get it done. Now, that takes discipline. Everybody else you want to take and say, "OK, let me get the best and biggest house I can get for what I'm spending." We looked at it and said, "Oh no. I want to consider childcare and support and mortgage as one big hunk." Now, what can that be? And now we've got to divide it up between the two. But plan for it. What tends to happen is we come out of school, we work for awhile, we get married, we get the house, we get the cars. Next thing we know, our fixed expense is so high that we don't have the tangible or flexible dollars to be able to go get the help that we need to enable us to better balance. Because I will tell you, it is impossible to do it all without any help and still retain your sanity and your health and all those things. You've got to figure it out. Start financially with, "OK, what can I do". Then work from there. It makes a huge difference. Lucy: Well, I know you can't retain your rotator cuffs either if you try to do it all. That's great advice. One last question for you. You've achieved a lot in your career. I want to also tell listeners that, although you didn't mention it, we know from reading your bio that you also have a big heart. You're involved with a lot of non‑profits ‑ the Forum for Women Entrepreneurs and Executives, you're also involved at Penn. What's next for you? You've done so much and you have so much time ahead of you. What's next for you and your company? Shellye: Well, the immediate next is to build a great company and metric strength, and to indeed have an impact on the whole marketplace of how large and small companies comply with the rules and regulations and mandates. So first, next, is absolutely to build a great company. The follow on to that is that I want to continue to do things that have an impact. Whether it is an impact in business, in terms of driving and building and growing another company, or it's on the social entrepreneurial side in terms of looking at ways to have an impact and take some of the skills and capabilities that I've built to go do that. I'm not sure yet which that will be. What I can tell you is that if you flash forward five or ten years, I still absolutely expect to be out there and creating an impact in both the business world as well as in the non‑profit space. Because you're right, that is an important thing to me. I know that I have not achieved everything that I've achieved because of me, because of Shelley Archambeau. I've been able to do it as a result of a lot of good support, advice, and path paving that was done in front of me. And I want to make sure that I'm helping to do that for others.. Larry: Well Shelley, based on the experience and the lessons you learned going from IBM to trying to figure out how to apply these lessons you were learning at IBM to a smaller company, you've done a magnificent job. Of course, a couple of words that really pop out in my mind is being a good leader, a good planner, a good listener, and really liking to win. Shellye: Right. Lucy: Yeah, go! Larry: With a team. With a team, of course. Lucy: And she's an author. Larry: And she's an author. "Marketing That Works". Lucy: Yes. Larry: What a title. I like that. Lucy: We'd love to help you advertise your book. Shellye: Well thank you. I definitely appreciate the help. Larry: We'll do that for sure. This is Larry Nelson here at NCWIT. I'll tell you, this is another exciting interview. I don't know how you and the board line up all of these wonderful people, but I'm just happy to be a part of it. You'll be able to hear this and other interviews at ncwit.org, that's after the www of course. Lucy: Yes, of course. Larry: I just don't like to say it with ours. We have the podcast, and so.... Lucy: Yeah, too many w's. Larry: Yeah, www.w3w3.com. All right, thank you for joining us Shelley. Lucy: Thank you Shelley. Shellye: You're quite welcome. Thank you all. Lucy: We appreciate it. Shellye: Okay. Bye bye. Series: Entrepreneurial HeroesInterviewee: Shellye Archambeau Interview Summary: Shellye Archambeau offers three great pieces of advice for entrepreneurs: only do what you're passionate about, create an informal network of advisers, and test your ideas before you launch. Release Date: September 5, 2008Interview Subject: Shelley ArchambeauInterviewer(s): Lucy Sanders, Larry Nelson