Podcasts about hollywood model

LaBossiere Podcast: Read the notes at at podcastnotes.org. Don't forget to subscribe for free to our newsletter, the top 10 ideas of the week, every Monday --------- Keith Rabois is a Managing Partner at Khosla Ventures and the CEO of OpenStore, which acquires small direct-to-consumer businesses. Keith co-founded Opendoor and led the first institutional investments in DoorDash and Affirm. He has early stakes in YouTube, Palantir, Lyft, Airbnb, Eventbrite, and Wish, and also led investments in Faire, Ramp, Trade Republic, and Stripe. He's regarded as one of the greatest early stage investors.Keith began his career in the industry as a senior executive at PayPal and subsequently served in influential roles at LinkedIn and as chief operating officer of Square. As a board member, Keith guided Yelp and Xoom from inception to IPO, and served on the board of Reddit from 2012-2018.0:00 - Intro1:56 - Great Founders and the Bottleneck to Innovation4:35 - Vertical Integration6:24 - The Hollywood Model of Startups7:41 - The “Why Now?” in Company-Building9:50 - Multi-Product Companies10:58 - Iteration and Pivots12:52 - Picking Co-Founders14:51 - Identifying Mispriced Talent17:20 - Attracting Talent20:57 - Assessing Talent24:02 - Doing References25:56 - Closing Hires28:28 - Thinking 6 Months Ahead31:36 - How Long Should You Interview For?33:28 - Creating a Monopoly on Talent35:44 - Raising Capital37:40 - Screening Investors41:21 - Building a Board44:11 - Triaging and Identifying Problems47:59 - Writing vs Editing and Consistent Voice49:34 - Creating Transparency50:50 - Barrels and Ammunition54:55 - Task-Relevant Maturity56:40 - On Delegating59:21 - Measuring Inputs vs Outputs1:02:58 - Underrated Metrics1:05:22 - What Should More People Be Thinking About?

LaBossiere Podcast Key Takeaways  World-class founders are the scarce resource: Every investor is chasing after the 5-10-15 founders a year that have a non-zero probability of rearranging the planet to their willYou either have a superpower, or you don't; you need to be in the top 1% on some dimension or you have no chance of creating the next Nvidia Identify a crack in the world where things are volatile or in transition, and build solutions that address those opportunistic gaps  How to attract talent: Embrace and foster strong cultural principles that can differentiate your company from other companies – and be sure that those principles are authentic The framework for understanding when to promote comes down to whether an employee's growth rate is outpacing the growth of the company  Knowing how much capital to raise: Identify the two or three inflection points that will make the startup successful, then work backward from those and calculate the capital needed to reach each of them The biggest mistake that founders make is that they don't do reference checks on investors Most MBA-esque wisdom is bad: People default to hiring because they want to manage people; new teams get created but nothing new gets done – this creates complacency and makes it challenging to tell the good employees from the bad onesThe job of the CEO is to clarify and simplify the company's initiatives, then strategically allocate resources against those goals – all done in the interest of ensuring a consistent voice It is the CEO's responsibility to disseminate as much high-signal information as possible so that everybody has the same context; doing this increases the probability that more people will naturally arrive at the correct decision Making the decision and deciding that you are going to be successful is more important than the option value of waiting Focus on inputs not outputs: People within your organization won't take sufficient risks if the perception is that results are the only thing that matters Challenge yourself: “You either want to write something worth reading, or do something worth writing about.” – Ben Franklin Read the full notes @ podcastnotes.orgKeith Rabois is a Managing Partner at Khosla Ventures and the CEO of OpenStore, which acquires small direct-to-consumer businesses. Keith co-founded Opendoor and led the first institutional investments in DoorDash and Affirm. He has early stakes in YouTube, Palantir, Lyft, Airbnb, Eventbrite, and Wish, and also led investments in Faire, Ramp, Trade Republic, and Stripe. He's regarded as one of the greatest early stage investors.Keith began his career in the industry as a senior executive at PayPal and subsequently served in influential roles at LinkedIn and as chief operating officer of Square. As a board member, Keith guided Yelp and Xoom from inception to IPO, and served on the board of Reddit from 2012-2018.0:00 - Intro1:56 - Great Founders and the Bottleneck to Innovation4:35 - Vertical Integration6:24 - The Hollywood Model of Startups7:41 - The “Why Now?” in Company-Building9:50 - Multi-Product Companies10:58 - Iteration and Pivots12:52 - Picking Co-Founders14:51 - Identifying Mispriced Talent17:20 - Attracting Talent20:57 - Assessing Talent24:02 - Doing References25:56 - Closing Hires28:28 - Thinking 6 Months Ahead31:36 - How Long Should You Interview For?33:28 - Creating a Monopoly on Talent35:44 - Raising Capital37:40 - Screening Investors41:21 - Building a Board44:11 - Triaging and Identifying Problems47:59 - Writing vs Editing and Consistent Voice49:34 - Creating Transparency50:50 - Barrels and Ammunition54:55 - Task-Relevant Maturity56:40 - On Delegating59:21 - Measuring Inputs vs Outputs1:02:58 - Underrated Metrics1:05:22 - What Should More People Be Thinking About?

Keith Rabois is a Managing Partner at Khosla Ventures and the CEO of OpenStore, which acquires small direct-to-consumer businesses. Keith co-founded Opendoor and led the first institutional investments in DoorDash and Affirm. He has early stakes in YouTube, Palantir, Lyft, Airbnb, Eventbrite, and Wish, and also led investments in Faire, Ramp, Trade Republic, and Stripe. He's regarded as one of the greatest early stage investors.Keith began his career in the industry as a senior executive at PayPal and subsequently served in influential roles at LinkedIn and as chief operating officer of Square. As a board member, Keith guided Yelp and Xoom from inception to IPO, and served on the board of Reddit from 2012-2018.0:00 - Intro1:56 - Great Founders and the Bottleneck to Innovation4:35 - Vertical Integration6:24 - The Hollywood Model of Startups7:41 - The “Why Now?” in Company-Building9:50 - Multi-Product Companies10:58 - Iteration and Pivots12:52 - Picking Co-Founders14:51 - Identifying Mispriced Talent17:20 - Attracting Talent20:57 - Assessing Talent24:02 - Doing References25:56 - Closing Hires28:28 - Thinking 6 Months Ahead31:36 - How Long Should You Interview For?33:28 - Creating a Monopoly on Talent35:44 - Raising Capital37:40 - Screening Investors41:21 - Building a Board44:11 - Triaging and Identifying Problems47:59 - Writing vs Editing and Consistent Voice49:34 - Creating Transparency50:50 - Barrels and Ammunition54:55 - Task-Relevant Maturity56:40 - On Delegating59:21 - Measuring Inputs vs Outputs1:02:58 - Underrated Metrics1:05:22 - What Should More People Be Thinking About?

Ask anyone about organizational silos and they're bound to tell you they're bad. When we run Tension and Practice exercises with clients, “We work in silos” often shows up as Tension No. 1 holding a team back. Yet like a month to a flame, we keep gravitating toward them, building walls that are higher and more insurmountable than ever before. What gives? In this episode of At Work with The Ready, Rodney Evans and Sam Spurlin dive into the bottomless ball pit that is organizational silos, exploring why we think they'll solve all our problems, how they're actually sabotaging organizations from being effective, and why trying to build bridges between them (rather than designing something new from the ground up) is one of the worst things we can do. Sign up for the March 19th Principled Disagreement workshop. Want to bring a Principled Disagreement session to your team? Contact Richard (richard@theready.com) and Tanisi (tanisi@theready.com). Mentioned references: "Ready for Anything structure episode": BNW Ep. 23 "Hollywood Model episode": FoHR Miniseries, Ep. 1 The Ready's Tension & Practice Cards "the previous episode": AWWTR Ep. 4 value stream mapping Spotify chapters and guilds video Sam promised "IDM consent-based governance": BNW Ep. 43 "movies and studios" "retro": BNW Ep. 10 with Jordan Husney We're on LinkedIn! Follow Rodney, Sam and The Ready for more org design nerdery and join the conversation around episodes after they air. Looking for some help with your own transformation? Visit theready.com Want future of work insights and experiments you can try delivered to your inbox twice a month? Sign up for our newsletter. We want to hear from you. Send your thoughts and feedback to podcast@theready.com. Read the book that started it all at bravenewwork.com.

LaBossiere Podcast Delian Asparouhov is the co-founder, President and Chairman of Varda Space Industries, a company building spacecraft to manufacture materials in microgravity that are difficult or impossible to produce on Earth— starting with pharmaceuticals. He's also a Partner at Founders Fund. Previously, he was a principal at Khosla Ventures, head of growth at Teespring, and founder of a healthcare company called Nightingale. Delian is Bulgarian, attended MIT, and likes to ski and play soccer. 0:00 - Intro 3:14 - How Does Innovation Happen? 6:23 - Varda and the No Science Allowed Rule 7:52 - A Primer on Solid State Microgravity Manufacturing 18:25 - Space Industrialization, Trading Posts, and the Chinese and Portuguese Navies 21:13 - Economic Incentives and Future Business Models in Space 24:24 - SpaceX and The Costs of Mass to Orbit 27:45 - Demand for Space Manufacturing and Varda at Scale 33:44 - Manufacturing, Servicing, Machining, and Future Markets for Space 36:42 - Incubating Companies 40:33 - When Would Varda Have Been Started Otherwise? 42:19 - The Hollywood Model of Startups 45:20 - Future of Incubations 47:47 - Media's Role in Technology 50:39 - What Media Inspired Varda's Founding? 52:38 - Talent, Culture, and Cementing Company Trajectory 53:57 - Narratives and Talent Recruitment 55:28 - Traits Delian Looks for in Founders 57:38 - The ‘Why Now' When Investing 1:00:08 - Bring Non-Consensus and Right 1:02:53 - Is Varda Consensus Yet? 1:03:24 - Identifying Non-Consensus Opportunities 1:05:12 - Lessons from Founding and Investing 1:07:40 - What Skill Do You Wish You'd Developed Earlier? 1:10:11 - Immigrant Mentality 1:11:24 - Less Obvious Reasons for Success 1:12:55 - On Speed 1:14:23 - What Should More People Be Thinking About?

LaBossiere Podcast Delian Asparouhov is the co-founder, President and Chairman of Varda Space Industries, a company building spacecraft to manufacture materials in microgravity that are difficult or impossible to produce on Earth— starting with pharmaceuticals. He's also a Partner at Founders Fund. Previously, he was a principal at Khosla Ventures, head of growth at Teespring, and founder of a healthcare company called Nightingale. Delian is Bulgarian, attended MIT, and likes to ski and play soccer. 0:00 - Intro 3:14 - How Does Innovation Happen? 6:23 - Varda and the No Science Allowed Rule 7:52 - A Primer on Solid State Microgravity Manufacturing 18:25 - Space Industrialization, Trading Posts, and the Chinese and Portuguese Navies 21:13 - Economic Incentives and Future Business Models in Space 24:24 - SpaceX and The Costs of Mass to Orbit 27:45 - Demand for Space Manufacturing and Varda at Scale 33:44 - Manufacturing, Servicing, Machining, and Future Markets for Space 36:42 - Incubating Companies 40:33 - When Would Varda Have Been Started Otherwise? 42:19 - The Hollywood Model of Startups 45:20 - Future of Incubations 47:47 - Media's Role in Technology 50:39 - What Media Inspired Varda's Founding? 52:38 - Talent, Culture, and Cementing Company Trajectory 53:57 - Narratives and Talent Recruitment 55:28 - Traits Delian Looks for in Founders 57:38 - The ‘Why Now' When Investing 1:00:08 - Bring Non-Consensus and Right 1:02:53 - Is Varda Consensus Yet? 1:03:24 - Identifying Non-Consensus Opportunities 1:05:12 - Lessons from Founding and Investing 1:07:40 - What Skill Do You Wish You'd Developed Earlier? 1:10:11 - Immigrant Mentality 1:11:24 - Less Obvious Reasons for Success 1:12:55 - On Speed 1:14:23 - What Should More People Be Thinking About?

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

Delian Asparouhov is the co-founder, President and Chairman of Varda Space Industries, a company building spacecraft to manufacture materials in microgravity that are difficult or impossible to produce on Earth— starting with pharmaceuticals. He's also a Partner at Founders Fund. Previously, he was a principal at Khosla Ventures, head of growth at Teespring, and founder of a healthcare company called Nightingale. Delian is Bulgarian, attended MIT, and likes to ski and play soccer. 0:00 - Intro 3:14 - How Does Innovation Happen? 6:23 - Varda and the No Science Allowed Rule 7:52 - A Primer on Solid State Microgravity Manufacturing 18:25 - Space Industrialization, Trading Posts, and the Chinese and Portuguese Navies 21:13 - Economic Incentives and Future Business Models in Space 24:24 - SpaceX and The Costs of Mass to Orbit 27:45 - Demand for Space Manufacturing and Varda at Scale 33:44 - Manufacturing, Servicing, Machining, and Future Markets for Space 36:42 - Incubating Companies 40:33 - When Would Varda Have Been Started Otherwise? 42:19 - The Hollywood Model of Startups 45:20 - Future of Incubations 47:47 - Media's Role in Technology 50:39 - What Media Inspired Varda's Founding? 52:38 - Talent, Culture, and Cementing Company Trajectory 53:57 - Narratives and Talent Recruitment 55:28 - Traits Delian Looks for in Founders 57:38 - The ‘Why Now' When Investing 1:00:08 - Bring Non-Consensus and Right 1:02:53 - Is Varda Consensus Yet? 1:03:24 - Identifying Non-Consensus Opportunities 1:05:12 - Lessons from Founding and Investing 1:07:40 - What Skill Do You Wish You'd Developed Earlier? 1:10:11 - Immigrant Mentality 1:11:24 - Less Obvious Reasons for Success 1:12:55 - On Speed 1:14:23 - What Should More People Be Thinking About?

Peter Lawson is a seasoned entertainment industry professional who has collaborated with some of the biggest names in directing, producing, and acting. He worked with our very own Jenn Presser on the film "ALICE" starring Keke Palmer and Common. Lawson got his start with First Look Pictures, Miramax Films, and The Weinstein Company, and has worked on several high-profile films, including The Iron Lady, Killing Them Softly, Spotlight, and John Wick. Today, he runs his own production company called Steel Springs Pictures, with ALICE being the company's first film. The movie premiered at Sundance and was released by Roadside Attractions and Universal Pictures, and Lawson and Jenn could not be more proud. In this episode, the two reunite alongside Jess to discuss the challenges, frustrations, and joys of working in the entertainment industry today. — Peter's Career as a Producer — Strikes & Mergers — Working with A List Actors — Getting Films Made — The Lack of Mentorship & Risk Taking — Moving to Australia from Los Angeles — Film Festivals & Selling Projects — The Downfalls of the Hollywood Model of Selling Scripts — Budgets, Financing, Profits, and Costs — How Streaming Changed the Industry — Communicating with Agents/Managers — The Indie Film Space — The Best & The Worst of Working with Actors — Finding the Right Actors & The Right Scripts Episode Resources: Watch the Full Video here! Peter's IMDb Steel Springs Pictures Tipsy Casting 107: Casting Director's Relationships in the Industry: UK/London Representation - a Conversation with Elle Cairns of 42 ──────────────────────────── Stay Tuned with Tipsy Casting on IG Watch the Tipsy Casting YouTube Channel Follow Jessica & Follow Jenn Learn More About Jess & Jenn's Casting Journeys Get Casting Life Away Merch here! ⁠Visit the official Tipsy Casting Website and join our newsletter to stay up to date with all the Tipsy Casting news! ⁠ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tipsycastingpodcast/message

In dieser Woche habe ich ein besonderes Interview für Dich: Prema Gaia ist eine faszinierende Frau mit einer großen Vision und einer spannenden Geschichte. Sie ist einen langen Weg gegangen (im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes ;) ) und hat alles hinter sich gelassen, um zu sich zu finden, ihr höchstes Selbst zu leben und sich wirklich in Nähe und Verbundenheit auf andere Menschen einlassen zu können.

Jennifer Hoppe is an award-winning film and television writer based in Los Angeles. She has written for hit shows like Nurse Jackie, Damages, and Grace & Frankie. Hoppe is currently producing her own show for Apple TV+, a new series starring Patricia Arquette titled High Desert. In this episode, Hoppe shares candidly about her long and winding ascent to the top of a notoriously competitive industry. Her solo path hasn't been easy: She's been fired from nearly every traditional job she's ever held, flunked out of college, and battled years of drug and alcohol addiction. And yet here she is, more productive than ever and thriving as an independent. We delve into it all: Hoppe's best and worst work habits, how the pandemic has transformed television writing, and general tips on how to survive a lifetime of self-employment.

Seine Geschichte birgt wirklich Stoff für einen Film à la Hollywood: Model, Playboy, Entführung, seine zukünftige Frau war ihm nach Beendigung dieser schon örtlich nahe, mehrere schwere Unfälle, sein Vater stürzt mit Kleinflugzeug ab, die eigenen Mitarbeiter wollen ihn nicht, Klosterbesuch, persönliche Transformation und heute ist seine Hotelgruppe 'Upstalsboom' eine der beliebtesten Arbeitgeber nicht nur in der Hotellerie. Bodo Janssen hat seine Fehlern sowie Schicksalsschläge in positive Energie umgewandelt und lebt heute so, dass er glücklich ist. Und wenn man selbst glücklich ist, kann man auch andere glücklich machen. Wie er dies macht und welche Geschichte er seinen Enkeln später erzählen möchte - Gutes Hören bei einem Podcast mit besonders viel Tiefgang...

Check out this divine connection where Russ & Michelle Smith share their love story of how a former football player for the Air Force Academy meets the All American Girl!CamilleBattaglia.comHeavenlyHookups.com@HeavenlyHookup_s@Camille_Battaglia@GratefulHeirClothingGratefulHeir.com

When it comes to toys, Massachusetts doesn’t play games.  Nicole Estaphan recently had the opportunity to chat with Michael Slaughter of Bicycle Playing Cards. You likely have a deck of their cards at home or you certainly played with them. After all, they’ve bene around for more than 130 years.  Then, it's off to the Museum of Science where visitors will find a layout of several trains riding past recreations of Boston landmarks, this year the iconic Custom House joined the display. Nicole spoke with the model maker behind this year’s addition, Hollywood Model maker John Goodson, whose credits include blockbusters from Transformers to Disney’s Mandalorian.   This episode was produced by Nicole Estaphan, Ramen Cromwell, and Ellen Fleming. Ellen also edits the podcast. Chronicle's managing editor is Julie Mehegan and our Executive Producer is Nneka Nwosu Faison.  You can find us @Chronicle5 on all social media and of course nightly at 7:30 pm on WCVB-TV Channel 5 in Boston.   

In this episode of Build The Future, we talk with Gabriel Luna-Ostaseski, Founder and CRO of BrainTrust — the first user-controlled talent network that connects organizations with world-class tech talent.We talk about how Braintrust is building the future of work through their decentralized job marketplace, the token model they've built on, and how the future of this marketplace is owned by the users.Key Ideas & Questions[1:14] Tell me about the future you're building with Braintrust, what's the vision?[3:33] What does it mean for the network to be owned and operated by the talent?[4:43] How does this shift in a talent owned marketplace grow and evolve over the coming decades?[6:39] Because there are global demands of highly technical talent, what does the future of work look like for individuals operating that world?[8:00] How do we get everyone around the world upscaled and how do we think about this moving forward, if a lot of work is going to be project based and decentralized?[10:19] How do you see this evolving in a way where instead of pursuing traditional modes of higher education, people would go to the Braintrust Academy to learn the skills they need to immediately be valuable? Or to immediately have a job in the market?[11:21] How Braintrust will build camaraderie and teamwork, while using their company model. [12:56] How Braintrust is organically building teams within their group of multidisciplinary experts, where they bid and do projects as a group, not only as an individual consultant.[13:54] Description of the Hollywood Model of work and how it compares to what Braintrust is doing.[16:54] How Companies are beginning to understand the benefit of a highly flexible and autonomous workforce and answers the question on where there is still friction for companies that are slowly moving to adopt this model?[18:59] The types of soft skills needed in order to thrive in this future.[20:50] The biggest misconceptions about this mode of operating. [21:49] The components of the Blockchain Model that Braintrust currently uses.[24:48] Why it is important for each individual working with Braintrust to have governance rights and voting rights as well as having the one token one vote system. [25:59] The evolutionary process of Braintrust becoming a foundation.[26:53] How individuals will earn the trust tokens and be able to use them.[28:15] Why Braintrust decided to use this brand new type of business model.[29:40] What are some of the other facets that are really interesting to you or that you think you would like to see other entrepreneurs, go build?[31:05] Gabriel speculates on what categories might move into this decentralized model in the future.[32:46] How would you recommend someone get started in pursuing this independent solo entrepreneur kind of lifestyle? And how does braintrust fit into that?[33:17] What excites you the most about the future?To listen to more episodes and to stay connected, follow along at: https://www.buildthefuturepodcast.com/ https://twitter.com/camwiese Don’t forget to leave a review and subscribe.Have a great week and until next time, go build!

Hollywood Model and Actress Dare Taylor makes her premier in the Pews at the Alicia Lopez Pure Romance Studios. This inspiring and informative episode commences with Glenn rehearsing a recent experience backing off his general strategy during Mercury Retrograde, what happened when he “went off script” and why “everything is about sex”. Dare relates her rural upbringing in Minnesota, how her parents’ divorce affected her, seeing them remarry lots of others and how it may have resulted in her being 26 and single. The Coach reveals the #1 cause of divorce. Then we learn about Dare’s triumph as Miss Teen Minnesota, why she was homeless at that moment, what the people who tried to discourage her had in common, what her experience as a beauty pageant contestant was like and her take on pageants in general and their alleged exploitation of women, what being hit on by a church youth group leader did for her, what has happened to some kids in Christianity because of the “True Love Waits” movement, her early sexual encounters – all before a major storm stopped the show. Then we pick it up and discover how Dare went from Disney World to Hollywood and becoming a major Instagram Influencer, plus so much more! It ain’t going to be boring. Powerful and poignant adult content, insight, humor and spirituality. NSFW or children. A portion of all proceeds donated to combat human sex slave trafficking and genital mutilation.  

My Guest this week is Adam Wiggins, the cofounder of Ink & Switch — an independent industrial research lab working on digital tools for creativity and productivity.   The topic of the conversation is the future of product-focused R&D, the Hollywood Model of work in tech, Ink & Switch’s unique organizational structure, and whether it can be extended to other areas of research.   Links Adam Wiggins’ Home Page Adam on Twitter Ink & Switch's Home Page A presentation on Ink & Switch's Structure Sloan Review Article on Applying Hollywood Model to R&D (Paywalled)   Transcript   How the idea came about Ben:  How did you come up with this idea? Like wait what what originated that I'm just really interested in the thought process behind there Adam: sure, you know, I think me and my partner's we come out of the sort of the startup kind of school of thought on Innovation, I think. There's a lot of way to think about there's the more academic research minded approach to Innovation. There's made which get a bigger companies. So yeah, we come out of very much from the yeah. I don't know what you want to call it ad Jolene startup y combinator or whatever that you know mix of elements is which is really about build a thing really quickly get it in front of customers minimal viable product innovate, but at least my thinking is that the startup model has been so successful in the last let's say decade. Particularly with the kind of mass production of the startup that you get through groups like y combinator such that I feel like the problems the space of problems that can be solved with that kind of, you know group of 25 25 year old Founders spending three months to build a thing not say it's let's say saturated. Yeah to some degree in that maybe the more interesting problems are like bigger or longer in scope. And so then we thought about okay. Well, what's a what's a model that is more possible for going after bigger things. And that's when I kind of fell down the rabbit hole of researching these Industrial Research Labs. I know that you spent a lot of time on as well, you know, these big famous examples like Bell labs and Xerox Parc and arpa and so forth. And of course many other examples when we thought okay, well, You know, we're not at the we're not in a position to you know, be setting up a multimillion-dollar research arm of a government or commercial institution. But what can we do on a smaller scale with a small Grant and it's kind of a scrappy band and people and that's kind of what led us to the Incan switch approach.    The Thought Process Behind the Model Ben: can you go one step further where it's  you have the constraint that you can't do  a straight-up corporate research lab, but I think there are a lot of unique ideas in terms of a model that are sort of just unique and. In that like how did you cope that Lee idea that like, okay, we're going to like have our principles. We're going to pull in people temporarily. We're going to  build this network that that seems sort of to come out of the blue. So what was what was the thought process behind that? Adam: Well, maybe it came out of the constraint of do it with very little money. And so part of that is we're trying to work on a big problem. Hopefully and I can talk about that if you want, but the in terms of the the model that we're using we came at it from do it with very little money and that in turn leads to okay. Your big costs are usually sort of like office space and then the people right, but if we can do these really short term projects, we called the Hollywood model and I can explain about that if you want the basically we have like a four or six or eight week project. You can bring in some experts on a freelance basis and you don't necessarily need to commit to paying salary is over the longer term and you couple that with no office. We have an all distributed team. We're not asking people they don't need to pick up. Move somewhere to even temporarily to work on a project. Right? And so we what we can offer them as a lot of flexibility. And so the I think there's certain there's benefits for the people to participate in these projects join, but from the lab point of view again, it was we were embracing this constraint of do it really really cheap. Yeah and that basically boiled down to very short projects people on a freelance basis only no office and that that's kind of what what led us there, but I think there actually is a lot. Benefits to doing things that way there's some big downsides as well but there's some benefits as well. So the constraint led us to the model you might say got a desire to work on a big problem in the same with a longer time Horizon like you would for a you know, a classic R&D lab, but trying to do that with a lot less money. Let us to this kind of short-term project model. The Hollywood Model in Tech Ben:  There are three things that I want to take into from that the three things are going to be  how the Hollywood model works and sort of the difference between the Hollywood model in Tech versus in Hollywood  and then like those those pros and cons and then it feels like there's a tension between working on a really big long term projects via very short term sort of Sprint demos. So. So let's let's start with the Hollywood model because in Hollywood I like after after I learned about. You doing that I sort of dug into it and it's it seems like the Hollywood model Works partially because all of Hollywood is set up so that even the best people work on this temporary basis. Whereas in Tech, it feels like you sort of have to get people who are in very special life situations in order to get the best people. So like, how do you how do you juggle that? Adam: Yeah, yeah, that is those are really good point. Well just to I guess briefly explain. The Hollywood model is please the idea. There is I actually lived in Los Angeles for a time and have a lot of friends who are trying to break into that industry and got a little exposure to that. I don't pretend to be an expert but and you can read about this online as well, which is that most movies are made by forming a an entity usually an LLC for the duration of the movie Project. You know, I might be a year or two. Here's whatever the shooting time is and everyone from the director or the camera people the whole cast the entire crew are all hired as essentially short-term contractors for whatever the duration of time their services are needed. But even someone like director who's there throughout. It's essentially a one or two-year gig for him it yeah, and everyone's fired right things right expanded and it's and it's an interesting accounting model because it means the sort of earnings from the movie in the and how that connects to the studio. And then the way the studio is invest is almost more like maybe Venture Capital invest in startups to some degree. So that's that's my understanding of it. So we kind of borrowed this idea for saying okay part of what we like about this is you get a situation. Any given person and a cameraman a crew member a member of the cast doesn't isn't guaranteed some long-term employment. They don't sign on for an indefinite thing. They sign up for the duration of the project. Right and the end everyone leaves. But what you see is that the same directors tend to hire the same crew the same. You probably noticed this most dramatically in directors that bring the same actors on to the same onto their future films because if working with them before worked, why wouldn't you bring them back? Right and so it's but it's it inverts the model of instead of we're going to keep working together by default. It's more every time a project ends. We're all going to disperse but the things that work will kind of bring back together again and just inverting the model in a subtle way. I. Produces better teams over the long term. But yeah, you get this sort of loose network of people who work and collaborate together to have more of an independent contractor gig mindset and I think that was yeah it was inspired by that and like you said, can we bring that to kind of Technology Innovation?    How do you incentivize the hollywood model? Ben: Most people in Tech don't do that. So, how do you sort of generate? How do you get the best people to come along for that model? Adam: That was definitely a big unknown going into it and certainly could have been a showstopper. I was surprised to discover how many great people we were able to get on board maybe because we have an interesting Mission maybe because me and some of the other. Core people in the team have you know just good networks good career Capital. Yeah, but actually it's that more people are in between spaces and you might guess so quite a lot to work with us on projects. Certainly. There's just people who are straight. You know, they made freelancing or some kind of independent Contracting be their business, right so that those folks are to work with a lot of folks that do open source things, you know, we work a lot of people from the DAT Community, for example, a lot of folks there. They actually do make a livelihood through some degree of freelancing in this space. So that's an easy one. But more common I think is you think of that. Yeah full-time salaried software engineer or product design or what have you and they. You know, maybe they do a new job every few years, but they're expecting a full employment salary HR benefits, you know the lunch on campus and the you know, the massages and you know yoga classes and so I was worried that trying to you know compete to get Talent like that when all we have to offer these very short term projects would be difficult. But as it turned out a lot of people are in some kind of in-between space. We're really interesting. Project with an interesting team good sort of in between things maybe a palate cleanser in a lot of cases turned out to be quite interesting. So we got a lot of people who are you know, they're basically looking for their next full-time gig but then they see what we have to offer and they go oh, you know, that's actually quite interesting and they can keep looking for the next job while they're working with us or whatever. Yeah their Habits Like do this thing is like an in-between thing onto the way that are to their next. Employment or we have situations like, you know one person we were able to get on the team with someone who is on Parental. Leave from their startup and so basically wanted to be like getting the mental stimulation of a project but couldn't really go into the office due to needing to take care of an infant, right? Um, and so by working with us was able to get some nice in that case part-time work and some mental stimulation and a chance to build some skills in the short term in a way that was compatible with. Needing to be home to for childcare. So the a lot of cases like that. I think so it granted, you know people that are looking for full-time gigs. We can't give them the best offer in the world. But there's a surprising number of people that are willing to take a weird interesting kind of cool learning oriented project in between there. May be more conventional jobs. Building from scratch with the Hollywood Model? Ben: Yeah. Because one of the things that I'm constantly thinking about what I'm asking these questions is how do we have more things using the same model in the world? Because I think it's a really cool model that not many people are using and so it's like what like could there be a world where there are people who just go from like one to the other and then would be an interesting shift in the industry to be a little more gig oriented or Independent. Contractor oriented versus the sort of the full-time job expectation that folks have now. Yeah and another sort of difference between I think Hollywood and Tech is that Hollywood you're always sort of Reinventing things from scratch. Whereas in tech there is code and and things that sort of get passed on and built on top of . Do you do you run into any problems with that or is it just because like every every experiment is sort of its own its own thing. You don't you don't have that problem. Adam: Yeah, the building on what came before is obviously really important for a lot of our projects. We were pretty all over the place in terms of platforms. And that was on purpose we built a bunch. Projects on the iOS platform we bought built from on the Microsoft Surface platform. We've done in various different web Technologies, including electron and classic web apps and so in many cases there is not a direct, you know, even if we had written a library to do the thing we needed in the other thing. We actually couldn't bring that over in that kind of build it all from scratch each time or or the the mic slate of it. I think is part of what makes it creative or forced to rethink things and not just rely on the. Previous assumptions that said. You know for certain tracks to research you might call it a big one for us is this world of like CR DTS and essentially like getting a lot of the value of getting a lot of capabilities that you expect from cloud Solutions real time collaboration Google Docs style of being able to do that and more peer-to-peer or less centralized oriented environment. And so we in an earlier project. We built a library called Auto merge just in JavaScript and it was being plugged into our electron app and. And in future projects, we wanted to build on top of that and we have done a number of subsequent projects some of which were but obviously they needed to like use the JavaScript runtime in some ways. So if we were doing another electron project, yes, you can do that but that and then another case, you know, we wanted to go with tablet thing. All right. Well that limits us because we can't use that library in other places. And in one case is we chose to build for example in the Chrome OS platform because we can get a tablet there and partially because we already had this investment in kind of. Script ecosystem through these libraries. But yeah again that comes with comes with trade-offs to some degree. So so we're always trying to balance build on what we made before. But also we're really willing to kind of start over or do the blank canvas because we really feel like at this. Level of early Innovation. What matters is the learning and what lessons you learn from past projects and you could often rebuild things in a fraction of the time in some cases we have actually done that is rebuilt an entire project sort of like feature complete from what on a completely different platform. But if you can skip past all the false turns and you know Discovery process and to build what you where you ended up it's often something that can be done in just a tiny fraction of the time or cost Knowledge Transfer in the Ink&Switch Model Ben: Got it. And  do you have a way of transferring learning between  different groups of temporary people that things like would be one tricky piece. Adam: Absolutely. Well an important thing here is we do have core lab members both. We have some principal investigators who are people that are around long-term and are the people that drive our projects and their, you know, carry a lot of those learnings both the Practical ones, but also like culture. Cultural elements and then a lot of the folks we work with they'll come back to work for a future project. But yeah, absolutely every given project is a new combination of people some existing people in the lab. They carry forward some of those learnings and then some people who are new and so we've had to do we tried a variety of approaches to kind of. Do a mental download or crash course and you know, none of it's perfect. Right because so much knowledge. Is that even though we take a lot of time to do a big retrospective at the end of our projects try to write out both raw notes, but also like a summarize here's what we learn from this project even with that and sharing that information with new people so much of what you learn is like tacit knowledge. It's somehow, you know more in your gut than in your head. And so to some degree we do count on the people that are more standing numbers that go project project in some cases. We do have to relearn small lessons each time. And again that that somewhat is a you know, if you start over from scratch and you kind of start from the same premises then you often discover some of the same same learnings. I think that's okay as long as we get a little faster each. Each time and then yeah combine that with learning documents and I don't know for example, we're actually the point now we have enough projects under our belt. We actually have a deck that is like here's all our past projects and kind of a really quick crash course summary, at least here's what they're called and least when people reference. Oh, yeah. That's the way we did things on Project number five right was called this and you can be like at least have some context for that. And so short answer is we haven't solved the problem but here's some things that at least have helped with that. Yeah, and how many projects have you done in total? Yeah. Well depends on exactly how you count. But when it comes to what we consider the sort of the full list called formal projects, which is we spend some time kind of wandering around in a in a period of time to call pre-infusion named after the the espresso machine for the sort of record time. You put in the water to kind of warm up the grounds. So the version of that and once we have basically a process where once principal investigator finds a project with egg, I think there's a really promising area and we should fund this. Okay. Now we're going to go actually hire experts that are specific to this area. We're going to commit to doing this for again six weeks or eight weeks something on that order. There's a project brief we present basically present that to our board to basically give like a thumbs up thumbs down. I'm so if you count stuff that has been through that whole process we've now done 10 projects cool. That's over the course of about three years. Ink&Switch Speed vs. Startup Speed Ben: Yeah, that's that's really good compared to. Like I start up where you do one project and takes three years. Adam:  I need to maybe feels sometimes it feels slow to me. But honestly, we spend as much time trying to figure out what it is that we want to do as actually doing it and then suspend a really good bit of time again trying to retrospect pull out the learnings actually figure out. What did we learn? You know, we usually come out with strong feelings and strong Instinct for kind of this work. This didn't work. We'd like to continue this. There's more to research here. This is really promising. This was a dead end but actually takes quite a bit of time to really digest that and turn it into something and then kind of the context shift of okay. Now, let me reorient and switch gears to a new project is really a whole skill, too. To be doing such a rapid turnover, I think and I think we've gotten decent at it over the last few years, but I think you get a lot better if you wanted to keep at it. Ink&Switch's Mission and Reconciling Long Term Thinking with Short Term Projects Ben: Yeah. And I've actually like to step back real fast to the bookmark in terms of  a the big picture long-term thinking like what is in your mind the real Mission here and B. How do you square these? Like, how do you. Generate  a long-term result from a whole bunch of short term projects. Adam:  right. Yeah, really cool problem. Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah and one again, I don't pretend to have answers to we're still in the middle of this experiment will see if it actually actually works. Yeah, let me start by just briefly summarizing our our mission or a theme. I like to think of it a little bit right like typically these and these great examples of successful Industrial Research Labs, you know for Bell Labs or theme was this Universal connectivity that has Bell had this growing Communications Network and they wanted to like solve all the problems that had to do with trying to tie together an entire nation with Communications technology or Xerox Parc. Of course, they had this office of the future idea. It's. How many papers and copier what is it going to be? I think you need a theme that is pretty broad. But still you're not just doing a bunch of random stuff that people there, you know think it's cool or interesting new technologies. It's tied together in some way. So for us our theme or a research area is Computing for productivity and creativity. Sort of what the digital tools that let us do things like write or paint or do science or make art are going to look like in future and we were particularly drawn to this and. And our investors were drawn to this because so much of the brain power and money and general Innovation horsepower in Silicon Valley certainly the tech industry broadly and even to some degree in Academia computer interaction research and so on it really pointed what I would call consumer technology. Right, it does social media It's Entertainment. It's games. It's shopping. Yeah, and and that's really a phenomenon just the last five or ten years, right the successful smartphones the fact that sort of computing has become so ubiquitous and mass-market its health and fitness trackers yet wearable, and you know, that's all great, but. I think that the more inspiring uses the more interesting uses of computers for me personally. I things that are about creativity there about self-improvement there about productivity and when you look at what the state of I'm going to look like a spreadsheet, right if you look at Excel in 1995 and you compare that to Google Sheets in 2018 the kind of looks the same. Yep, you know, it's at a Google Sheets as real-time collaboration, which is great. Don't get me wrong. But basically the same kind of program, right? Yeah. And I think you can say that same thing for many different categories Photoshop or presentation software note-taking software that sort of thing. There's some Innovation to give me to go get me wrong, but it just feels very out of balance how much again of that Innovation horsepower of our industry broad. They could go into Super Side. So for us the theme is around all right. We look forward five or ten years to what we're using to be productive or created with computers. What does it look like and you know, the reality is desktop operating systems or more and more kind of advanced mode because that's not where apple or Microsoft revenue is anywhere. But at the same time I don't think it's you know, touch platform particularly, you know are built around phones and consumer Technologies and sort of the pro uses of them tend to be kind of attack on afterthought. And so it sort of feels like we're in a weird dead end which is like what are we going to be doing 10 years from now to yeah do a science paper or write a book or make a master thesis or write a film script? It's hard to picture and but actually picturing it is that's that's sort of our the job of our research here. Ben:  and  that is a really long term project because you sort of need to go  back down the mountain a little bit to figure out what the what the other mountain is. Adam: Absolutely. Yeah the local Maxima of some kind and so maybe you need to yeah be a little. Out of the out of the box and go away from basically make things worse before they get better. Aside on AI Enabled Creativity Tools Ben: Yeah, just aside on that. Have you been paying attention to any of the sort of like a I enabled creativity tools? This is just been on my mind because Neurosis is coming up and there's some people who have been doing some like pretty cool stuff in terms of like. Enhance creativity tools were like maybe you start typing and then it starts completing the sentence for you and and or like you sort of like draw like a green blob and it fills in a mountain and then you sort of like just adjust it. Have you been paying any attention to those tools at all? Adam: Yeah. Absolutely. Some of the follow sir pokes on Twitter that post really interesting things in that vein that hasn't been an area of research for us partially because maybe we're a little contrarian and we like to kind of look where. You are looking and I feel like Ai, and that kind of Realm of things is very well. Or I should say a lot of people are interested in that that said yeah, I think to me one of the most interesting cases with that is usually we talk about with like generative design or things like. Sot great Target Range Loop last year by an architect who basically uses various kind of solvers we plug in like here's the criteria we have for like a building face, you know, we need the window has to be under the, you know can't because of the material dimensions and the legal things and whatever it can't be here's the constraints on it. But here's what we want out of the design. You can plug that in and the computer will give you sort of every possible permutation. And so it's a pretty natural step to go from there to then having some kind of. Algorithm whether it be here a stick or something more learning oriented, which is then try to figure out from that superset of every possible design satisfies the constraint which of them are actually sort of the best in some sense or fit what we said that we like before where we use, you know, the client or the market or whatever it is you're looking for. So I think there's a lot of potential there as I think it was more of an assistive device. I get a little skeptical when it gets into the like let's get the computers to do our thinking for us. Yeah realm of things. I would say, you know, I think you see with the fit and of the sort of auto complete version of this, but but yeah, but then but then maybe I you know, I love that artisanal Craftsman, you know, some kind of unique vibe that humans bring to the table and so yeah tools as. Assisting us and helping us and working in tandem with us and I think yeah, there's one probably a lot of potential for a eye on that that said that's not an area where researching. Ben: Yeah. I just I wanted to make sure that was on your radar because like that's that's something that I pay a lot of attention to him very excited about. More Reconciling Long Term and Short Term Ben: Yeah, and so for the long-term Vision,  the thing that I always worry about in the modern world is that we are so focused on  what can you do in a couple months these little Sprint's that if there's a long-term thing you just wouldn't be able to get there with a bunch of little projects. So I'm really interested in like how you resolve that conflict. Adam: Yeah, well you could say it's one of the biggest Innovations in Innovation, which I know is the area your study medication to get into this iterative mindset this what he called agile whether you call it. Yeah, iterative that the idea of kind of breaking it down into small discrete steps rather than thinking in terms of like I don't know we're going to go to the moon and let's spend the decade doing that. But instead think of and I didn't even see that difference in something like the space program right the way that the modern. Space exploration stuff that's going on is much more in terms of these little ratcheting steps where one thing gets you the next rather than that one big Mega project. It's going to take a really long time the super high risk and super high beta so I in general. I think that's a really good sort of shift that's happened. But yes, it does come at the expense of sometimes there are jumps you can or need to make that are not necessarily smaller steps. And so I certainly don't propose to have the answer to that. But at least for what we're doing the way I think of it is, you know, starting with a pretty Grand Vision or a big Vision or a long time Horizon. If nothing else and trying to force yourself first and foremost into the bigger thinking right? But then going from there to okay, if that's you know, where we want to go. What is the first step in that direction? What is the thing that can give us learning that will help us get there and one of the metaphors I always love to use for I guess research in general or any kind of Discovery oriented process is the other Lewis and Clark expedition, you know, this was commissioned by the Thomas Jefferson was president at the time and it to me was really crazy to read about. Holly you know they hadn't explored the interior of the continent they believe there might still be willing - running around and actually one of the things Thomas Jefferson Wander from the he's like, I really loved a, you know get a while you're out there they just had no idea they knew that the Pacific Ocean was on the other side that had ships go around there. But other than that it was this dark interior to the continent, but they sat out you know that expedition set out with the goal of reaching the Pacific Ocean and find out. What's on the way right and they did they took their best guess of what they might encounter on the way and put together Provisions in the team to try to get there. But then the individual sort of you might wait, you might call the iterative decisions. They need to make along the way to be go up this mountain rage. And we divert this way to be cut across this River. Do we do we follow this for a while do we try to befriend these tribes people who run away etcetera. Those are the sort of the iterative steps for the important thing is keeping in mind that long-term strategic goal. Um and defining that goal in such a way that it doesn't say go west, you know, it's not a set of directions to get there because you can't know that you have to start with here's what our vision is. Let's connect the two coasts of this country and then we're going to take whatever whatever iterative steps seem to be most promising to lead us in that direction. Also realizing that sometimes the most iterative step leads us in a way even away from our goal. So hopefully that's what we're trying to do it in can switch is picking individual projects. We hope carve off a piece of the bigger thing that we think will increase our learning or build our Network or just somehow illuminate some part of the this problem that we want to we want to understand better again, what is the future of you know, productive and creative Computing and then hopefully over time those will add up in the trick is not to get lost for me. I think the trick is not to get too lost in. Detail of the project right? And that's where the Hollywood model is. So important because you got to end the project and step away to truly have perspective on it and to truly return to looking at the bigger thing and that's what you don't get in my experience working in a startup that has operations and customers and revenue that you know goals. He need to hit us according to those things which are absolutely you know, the right way to run a business but then. Keeping that that that bigger picture view and that longer term mindset is very difficult. If not impossible in that setting. So that's our approach. Anyways, see how about in longer term? Loops around Loops: The Explicitly Temporary Nature of the Whole Lab Ben:  and in terms of of your approach and ending things is it true that you're actually going to  at the end of a certain amount of time. You're going to step back and look reevaluate the whole. Is it like you're sort of doing like loops loops around Loops Adam:  indeed? Yes. So individual projects have this sort of you know, we'll end it and and step back and evaluate thing. And then yeah, the whole thing is basically, you know, we have a fixed Grant when that's how it's out and right and it's up to us to deliver invest to investors the learning you might call the intellectual property. We're not patenting things or whatever, but the. See protect the things that offer commercial potential and could potentially be funded as startups. Basically. Yeah, that's you know, that's that's what we'll do. And actually that will happen next year. Wow. And when that does happen will hopefully do you know will do the same process? Like you said that the the bigger loop on the smaller Loop which that we've done on the smaller Loops which is retrospect at the end write down everything we've learned and then we do go ahead and let the team. Part of that may be when you've done put all this hard work and getting a team together, but my experience is that if there's really some great opportunity there. You'll recall us it in some new form. What Comes out of the Lab? Ben:  I can see it's  going multiple ways. Where you. You ended and then you could either say  there's another five-year research thing in this or there's some number of sort of more traditional startups to come out of that to try to capture that value are those sort of the the two options. What what do you see as the possibilities that come out of this? Adam: Yeah, those are those are both pretty key outcomes and they're not mutually exclusive right so it could be that we say, all right, great, you know we generated sort of five interesting startup options one of them. You know an investor decided to pick that up and you know, maybe take a team that is based on some of the people in the lab that worked on that and those folks are going to go and essentially work on commercializing that or making a go to market around that but then some other set of people who were involved in things and want to come back to this. He's promising tracks research and we're going to take another grant that has another time duration, I think. The obviously money is your ultimately all of them in limiting factor it yeah in any organization, but but I like the time boxes. Well, I think we use again we use that for our short-term projects and and some degree. We used it for the lab overall. I think thinking that it's like that Star Trek, you know, what is it or three-year Mission our five-year Mission, whatever it is. It's something about the time box that kind of creates clarity. Yeah, maybe in some is and yeah, you might decide to do another time box another chunk of time. In other chapter actually investors do this as well. If you look at something like the way that Venture struck funds are structured they often have sort of multiple. Entities which are you know, it's fun one fun to fund three. Yeah, right and those different funds can have different kind of buy-ins by different partners. They have different companies in their portfolio, even though there is like a continuous. I don't know if you want to call a brand or culture or whatever the ties them all together and I think that approach of like having these natural chapter breaks time or money based chapter breaks in any work is like a really useful and valuable thing for. Productivity and I don't know making the most of the time. Human Timescales - 4-5 Years Ben:  I completely by that. I have this theory that human lives are kind of divided up in like these roughly five year chunks. We're like that's that's the amount of time that you can do the sort of the exact same thing for the most time and if you if you like if you don't have. You can reevaluate every five years but it's like you look at like school. It's like you really like maybe it's like five years plus or minus like to but beyond that it's really hard to like sustained. Intense and tension on the same thing. So that makes that makes a lot of sense   Adam: agree with that. I would actually throw out 4 years as a number which does I think Max match the school thing it also matches the vesting schedules are usually the original vesting schedule and most startups is a four-year window. And if I'm not mistaken, I think that is the median length of marriages think there's something around. Well, you know, maybe it's something around, you know, there's renewal in our work life is what we're talking about here. But there's also renewal in a personal life, right? And if you're yeah if your employee at a company. Maybe something around for years as a feels like the right Tour of Duty. No not say you can't take on another Tour of Duty and maybe with the new role or different responsibilities, but there's something about that that seems like a natural like you said sustained attention, and I think there's something to goes about as well as inventing. Or Reinventing yourself your own personal identity and maybe not connects to you. Marry. Someone for years goes by you're both new people. Maybe those two people aren't compatible anymore. Yeah. I don't know. Maybe that's figure that's reaching a little bit far. I mean the other yeah Investors, Grants, and Structuring Lab Financing to Align Incentives Ben: that makes a lot of sense and you mentioned investors a couple of times but then also that it's a grant so  how did you something something that I'm always interested in is sort of like how to. He's up. So the incentives are all aligned between the people like putting in the money the people doing the work and people setting the direction and so like how did you structure that? How did you think about sort of coming up with that structure? Adam: Yeah, I've used maybe investors and Grant sort of a little Loosely there again, the model we have is a little different. So when I you know went to pitch the private investors on what we were going to do with this, I basically said look. Me and my partner's we had been successful in the past producing commercial Innovations. We want to look now at something that's a little bigger a little longer term and wouldn't necessarily fit as cleanly into some of the existing funding models including things like the way that the academic research is funded and certainly Venture funding and so take a little gamble on us. Give us a pics. Amount of money a very small amount of money by some perspectives to deliver not profits, but rather to deliver again this kind of concept of learning intellectual property in the loose sense not in the legal sense, but in the sense of intellectual Capital, maybe might be another way to put it and more explicitly. Yeah spin out potential right but the but but no no commitment to make any of these things. It's just we've evaluated all of these opportunities. Here's what we think the most promising ones are and that includes both. Let's call it the validated findings. We think there's a promising opportunity here at technology. That's right to you know, serve serve some marketing users well, but also some things that we got negative findings on we said well look we think there's a really interesting Market of users to serve right here the technology that would be needed kind of isn't ready yet and still five years out or maybe the market is actually tough for an early not very good for sort of early adopter type products and so in some way that would be valuable to. There's as well to have this information on why actually is it is not wise to invest in a particular Market a particular product opportunity. So that was that was what we asked for and promised to deliver and obviously we're still in the middle of this experiment so I can't speak to the whether they're happy with the results. But at least that's the that's the deal that we set up.   Tension between Open Knowledge Sharing and Value Capture Ben:  I just I love the idea of investment not. Necessarily with a monetary return and it's like I wish there were more people who would think that way and. In terms  of incentives. There's also always the question about value capture. So you you do a really good job of putting out into the world just like all like the things that you're working on and so it's like you have all those the great articles and like the code. Do you  hold anything back specifically for for investors? So that because I mean it would make sense, right because you need to capture value at some point. So it's like there's there's got to be some Advantage. So like how do you think about that? Adam: Yeah. I don't have a great answer for you on that, you know, certainly again, you know, there's conventional conventional ideas there around yet Trade Secrets or patents or that sort of thing, but I kind of. Personally, I'm a little bit more of a believer in the maybe comes back to that tacit knowledge we talked about earlier, which is you can in a way. I feel like it's almost misleading to think that if you have the entire project is open source that somehow you have everything there is to know I feel like the code is more of an artifact or an output. Yeah of what you learn and the team of people that made that and the knowledge they have in their minds and and again in. To some degree in there. There are sort of hearts and souls. Yeah is actually what you would need to make that thing successful. Right? And I think a lot of Open Source people who work on open source for a living rely on that some degree, which is you can make a project that is useful and works well on its own but the person who made that and has all the knowledge about it. They have a they have a well of. They have a lot of the resources that are really valuable to the project. And so it's worth your while to for example go hire them. And so that's that's the that's the way I think that we think about in The Way We pitched it to investors. If I were to do this again, I might try to look for something a little more concrete than that a little more tangible than that. The other part of it that I think is. Pretty key. Is that the networking? Yeah, and so you could say okay. There's the knowledge of the people who worked on in their heads. It may be that that kind of ties together. But there's the knowledge we transferred directly by like here's a here's a document that tells you everything we learned about this area where we think the opportunities are but then it's also by the way, we had a bunch of people to work on this some of whom are now in some cases where we were pushing the envelope on a particular Niche e sub technology. We end up with people on the team who are in many cases of the world's experts or we're in touch with the few experts in the world on a particular topic and we have act we have that network access. And so if someone wants to go and make a company they have a very easy way to get in touch with those people not the really impossible for someone else to take that. Bundle of information or take even a code based on GitHub and pick through the contributors list try to figure out who worked on it and go contact them. You know, I think that's possible Right, but I think it's quite different. You would be the pretty substantial disadvantage. There's someone that actually had the worm Network and the existing working collaboration. Extending the Ink&Switch Model to Different Domains Ben: Yes, the I like that and in terms of using the model in different places. Have you thought about how well this applies to  other really big themes the things that you're working on our nice because it's primarily software like the capital costs are pretty low. You don't need like a lab or equipment. Do you think that there's a way to get it to work for maybe in biology or other places where  there's higher friction. Adam: Yeah, I think the fact that we are in essentially purely in the realm of the virtual is part of what makes the sort of low cost. By all remote team and not asking people to relocate that's what as part of what makes that possible. We do have some cost. We've certainly purchased it quite a bit of computing Hardware over the course of the of the course of the lab and ship those to whoever needs it. But that said, you know, we can do that. I think this model would best apply to something that was more in the realm of knowledge development and not in the realm of you have to get your hands physically on something. Whether that's a DNA sequencer or a hardware development or something of that nature, but on the other hand as certainly as cameras get a more of the quickest and high-speed internet connections get better and certainly we've learned a lot of little tricks over the time. I think we were talking about the start of the call there about. Our use of document cameras is basically screen screen sharing for tablets doesn't work great because you can't see what the users hands are doing. So we learned pretty quickly that you got to invest in document cameras or something like that in order to be able to kind of effectively demo to your teammates. One of the quick or as a kind of a sidebar but related to that is one of the learnings we had in making the distributed team thing work is you do have to get together in person periodically so we can to support early team Summits got it. Making Watercooler Talk and Serendipity  Work with a Distributed Team Ben:  I was actually literally just thinking about that because one of the things that I always hear about. Great research places like whether it's like Bell Labs or DARPA is sort of like the the water cooler talk or the fact that you can just sort of like walk down the hall and like really casually hop into someone's office. And that's the problem with distributed teams that I haven't seen anybody saw well, so so you just do that by bringing everybody together every once in a while. Do you think that generates enough? Adam: Yeah. I mean the to your right like. That problem is very big for us. And there's there's a number of benefits we get from the distributed team, but there's also a number of problems. We haven't solved and so I'm not sure how this would balance against the sort of the spending the same amount of money on a much shorter term thing where people could be more in person because that water cooler talk you get some of with a slack or whatever but. It's just not the same as being co-located. So yeah, the the one of the mitigating things we have that I think is works pretty well as about about quarterly or so. We got everyone together and it's actually kind of fun because because we don't have to go any place in particular. There's no central office. We try to pick a different city each time someplace that's creative and inspiring we tend to like interesting Bohemian Vibe, you know in some cases urban city Center's been in some cases more historic places or more in nature. Ideally someplace close to International Airport that it wouldn't fly into and for really a fraction. I mean offices are so expensive. Yeah, and so our fraction of the price of maintaining an office. Actually fly everyone to some pretty interesting place once a once a quarter and so for a week, we have like a really intense period where we're all together in the same physical space and we're working together. We're also getting the human bonds more that casual conversation and we tend to use that time for like a lot of design sketching and kind of informal hackathons are also some bigger picture. Let's talk about the some of the longer term things lift our gaze a little bit and that helps a lot. Again, it is not as is demonstrably not as good as being co-located all the time, but it gets you I don't know 30 to 40 percent of the way there for, you know a fraction of the cost. So yeah over the over the longer term again, I don't know how that would Stack Up Against. Collocated team, but that's one good thing to getting product review so far. Where to find out more Ben:  I see that we're coming up on time and I want to be very respectful of your time.  I'm going to make sure people know about the website and your Twitter. Is there anything else any other places online that people should learn more about and can switch to learn more about you and what you're working on. Adam: Ya know the the website and the Twitter is basically what we got right now. We've been really quiet in the beginning here not because you know, I'm a big believer in that, you know that science approach of Open Access and you know, it's about sharing what you've learned so that humanity and can build on each other's learnings that said it, you know, it's a lot of work to to package up your ideas, especially when they're weird and fringy like ours are in a way that's consumable to the outside world. So we're trying to do a lot more of that. All right now and I think you're starting to see that little bit to our to our Twitter account where in including publishing some of our back catalogue of internal memos and sketches and things which again very itchy things you got to be really into whatever the particular thing is to find find interest in our internal memo on something as well as taking more time to put together demo videos and longer articles that try to try to capture some of the things we've learned some of the philosophies that we have some of the technologies that were. So yeah, there's she spots a great Thinking About  Extending The Model Ben: So freaking cool.  the. That I'm doing is just putting together the ideas and  trying to almost make a more generic description of what you're doing so  say like, oh, what would this look like if it goes into biology or it goes into something? What would this look like for nanotech? could you do the distributed team  using University resources? Right? Like could you partner with a whole bunch of universities and  have someone in different places and they just like go in and use the lab when you need to I don't know like that's  one Bay action item based on learning about this is like oh, yeah. I think I think it could work. Adam: That sounds great. Well, if you figure something out, I'd love to hear about it. I will absolutely keep you in the loop. Ben: awesome. Cool. Well, I really appreciate this.  I'm just super excited because these new models and  I think that you're really onto something. so I really appreciate you  bringing me in and going into the nitty gritties. Adam: Well, thanks very much. Like I said, it's still an experiment will we get to see? But I feel like I feel like they're more Innovation models than just kind of start up. Corporate R&D lab and Academia. Yeah, and if you believe like I do that technology has the potential to be an enhancement for Humanity then you know Finding finding new ways to innovate and a new types of problems and you new shapes of problems potentially has a pretty high high leverage impact the world.  

Over the last 20 years, the way we work and collaborate has changed dramatically. The promises of a free agent nation from the early days of the internet have become a reality for freelancers and solo entrepreneurs around the planet. Effective teams still matter, though — maybe now more than ever. How those teams come... Listen to episode

The O’Reilly Design Podcast: Pricing design, charting your learning path, and working with friends.In this week’s Design Podcast, I sit down with Dan Mall, founder and director of Superfriendly. We talk about what skills designers should learn, pricing your work, and why getting to know yourself is just as important to becoming a great designer as learning the craft.Here are some highlights from our conversation: Working with friends I have a fairly non-traditional company, the design collaborative that I run. It's called SuperFriendly, and I'm the only full-time employee, but oftentimes the projects we do have multiple people on them. The business model is called the Hollywood Model if anybody wants to research it. Of course, I brand it and I call it the ‘Super Friend Model.’ Basically what that means is that for every project that SuperFriendly does, I bring together a team of people to work on those projects. Some of those are contractors, some of those are other shops, maybe design shops, or research shops. Sometimes it's moonlighters, you know—people who have full-time jobs who want to do something at night and on weekends. Depending on the project, as long as they're the right people, I try to make it work with wherever they're from or whatever they're also currently doing. It's kind of the way that Hollywood makes movies—a movie studio doesn't employ directors, or actors, but they bring those people together and they make a film together for a year. They all kind of go their separate ways after that. Designers should know how to... There's this debate that breaks out—on Twitter, or Facebook, or wherever designers are talking—every couple of months about whether designers should code, and people vehemently argue for both sides of this. I'm in the camp that says designers should “blank”—insert anything there, and the answer is probably yes because it's just to say, should you be getting better as a human and learning more things? Absolutely. There's no pain if you don't. If you don't learn to code, and you're a designer, that's okay, but I want to try to make the argument for why those things are actually beneficial to you as a designer. Some people see that as not part of a designer's job, but I see that as very much a part of a designer's job. That actually helps you, it helps your teams, it helps the products that you're building. The talk [I’ll give at the O’Reilly Design Conference in March] is really about how to manage this: should designers learn code, and then should they learn business, and then should they learn sales? Should they be strategists, should they learn Ruby on Rails, should they learn about the back end? The answer is yes if you can. If you can do that, absolutely, but how do you prioritize that stuff? In the talk, I'm going to be sharing some stories about stuff that I've learned along the way of doing projects as part of SuperFriendly teams, and how I've seen other people handle that. How do designers who code work differently than designers who don't code? Can both of them be equally as effective? I'm going to try to make a case for how coding, specifically, can help a designer's skill set, and how that could actually help influence a product, and product direction, and move even faster and more efficiently without losing quality. A lot of the talk is going to be centered around ways to prioritize this. Should you learn X code first, or should you learn HTML, or should you learn strategy, or should you learn Lean UX? How does that fit in—people are saying Agile is going to help, and people are saying Lean is going to help. How does all of that stuff fit in? Ideally, my goal for this talk is to help designers make sense of all these terms that are floating out there, and if they’re willing to learn, where they should start. Hopefully, I'll be able to shed some light on that. The value is not the craft learning. There are so many ways you can learn craft. There are all these great things that can let you learn how to code Ruby on Rails, or how to design, or learn flat design, or whatever. I think the tougher thing, the one that everybody experiences, and experiences in a different way, is that there's always some issue beneath that. For some people, it's self confidence, for some people, it's time management, for some people, it's feeling like a professional, for some people, it's imposter syndrome. Those are really the things that we work on. That's the thing that takes nine months to conquer or to work through. Learning a programming language, you can do that in 12 weeks. That's why there's all these boot camps out there that are fairly successful. It's really becoming a professional. Pricing design I wrote a book, Pricing Design, and the basic premise of the book is that people pay for things they really want. Not an unobvious concept, but sometimes we forget that when we're pricing in business. We think it needs to be so ‘businessy’—I’ve got to plug a bunch of numbers into a spreadsheet that does some fancy multiplication, and add some padding and accounts for this percentage, and subtract this thing, and then the discount thing, and then the magic number that gets output from the other side is a good qualified price. The truth is, it actually couldn't be further from the truth. As you described, pricing is emotional. We buy things because we want them. We buy things because we like them. We buy things that are logical and illogical. That's how people's minds work. Whether or not you're buying on behalf of a business or you're selling on behalf of a business, it's still people selling to people and people buying from people at the end of the day. There's a lot about pricing psychology. There's a lot about the way people think about money and value that I think we don't take advantage of as designers and developers and business owners. That's the basic premise of the book—just try to understand what you're selling and what your client wants to buy. I'll take web design as an example. A lot of web design agencies and shops and freelancers think they're selling websites. No one ever is selling a website. No one buys a website. Nobody wants to buy a website. They buy the thing that the website will do for them. The website is the thing that will let me sell this cool jewelry that I make. If I didn't have a website, I couldn't sell my jewelry effectively.

The O’Reilly Design Podcast: Pricing design, charting your learning path, and working with friends.In this week’s Design Podcast, I sit down with Dan Mall, founder and director of Superfriendly. We talk about what skills designers should learn, pricing your work, and why getting to know yourself is just as important to becoming a great designer as learning the craft.Here are some highlights from our conversation: Working with friends I have a fairly non-traditional company, the design collaborative that I run. It's called SuperFriendly, and I'm the only full-time employee, but oftentimes the projects we do have multiple people on them. The business model is called the Hollywood Model if anybody wants to research it. Of course, I brand it and I call it the ‘Super Friend Model.’ Basically what that means is that for every project that SuperFriendly does, I bring together a team of people to work on those projects. Some of those are contractors, some of those are other shops, maybe design shops, or research shops. Sometimes it's moonlighters, you know—people who have full-time jobs who want to do something at night and on weekends. Depending on the project, as long as they're the right people, I try to make it work with wherever they're from or whatever they're also currently doing. It's kind of the way that Hollywood makes movies—a movie studio doesn't employ directors, or actors, but they bring those people together and they make a film together for a year. They all kind of go their separate ways after that. Designers should know how to... There's this debate that breaks out—on Twitter, or Facebook, or wherever designers are talking—every couple of months about whether designers should code, and people vehemently argue for both sides of this. I'm in the camp that says designers should “blank”—insert anything there, and the answer is probably yes because it's just to say, should you be getting better as a human and learning more things? Absolutely. There's no pain if you don't. If you don't learn to code, and you're a designer, that's okay, but I want to try to make the argument for why those things are actually beneficial to you as a designer. Some people see that as not part of a designer's job, but I see that as very much a part of a designer's job. That actually helps you, it helps your teams, it helps the products that you're building. The talk [I’ll give at the O’Reilly Design Conference in March] is really about how to manage this: should designers learn code, and then should they learn business, and then should they learn sales? Should they be strategists, should they learn Ruby on Rails, should they learn about the back end? The answer is yes if you can. If you can do that, absolutely, but how do you prioritize that stuff? In the talk, I'm going to be sharing some stories about stuff that I've learned along the way of doing projects as part of SuperFriendly teams, and how I've seen other people handle that. How do designers who code work differently than designers who don't code? Can both of them be equally as effective? I'm going to try to make a case for how coding, specifically, can help a designer's skill set, and how that could actually help influence a product, and product direction, and move even faster and more efficiently without losing quality. A lot of the talk is going to be centered around ways to prioritize this. Should you learn X code first, or should you learn HTML, or should you learn strategy, or should you learn Lean UX? How does that fit in—people are saying Agile is going to help, and people are saying Lean is going to help. How does all of that stuff fit in? Ideally, my goal for this talk is to help designers make sense of all these terms that are floating out there, and if they’re willing to learn, where they should start. Hopefully, I'll be able to shed some light on that. The value is not the craft learning. There are so many ways you can learn craft. There are all these great things that can let you learn how to code Ruby on Rails, or how to design, or learn flat design, or whatever. I think the tougher thing, the one that everybody experiences, and experiences in a different way, is that there's always some issue beneath that. For some people, it's self confidence, for some people, it's time management, for some people, it's feeling like a professional, for some people, it's imposter syndrome. Those are really the things that we work on. That's the thing that takes nine months to conquer or to work through. Learning a programming language, you can do that in 12 weeks. That's why there's all these boot camps out there that are fairly successful. It's really becoming a professional. Pricing design I wrote a book, Pricing Design, and the basic premise of the book is that people pay for things they really want. Not an unobvious concept, but sometimes we forget that when we're pricing in business. We think it needs to be so ‘businessy’—I’ve got to plug a bunch of numbers into a spreadsheet that does some fancy multiplication, and add some padding and accounts for this percentage, and subtract this thing, and then the discount thing, and then the magic number that gets output from the other side is a good qualified price. The truth is, it actually couldn't be further from the truth. As you described, pricing is emotional. We buy things because we want them. We buy things because we like them. We buy things that are logical and illogical. That's how people's minds work. Whether or not you're buying on behalf of a business or you're selling on behalf of a business, it's still people selling to people and people buying from people at the end of the day. There's a lot about pricing psychology. There's a lot about the way people think about money and value that I think we don't take advantage of as designers and developers and business owners. That's the basic premise of the book—just try to understand what you're selling and what your client wants to buy. I'll take web design as an example. A lot of web design agencies and shops and freelancers think they're selling websites. No one ever is selling a website. No one buys a website. Nobody wants to buy a website. They buy the thing that the website will do for them. The website is the thing that will let me sell this cool jewelry that I make. If I didn't have a website, I couldn't sell my jewelry effectively.

Ich weiß. Viele Menschen machen sich Sorgen, dass ein paar Feiertage sie völlig aus der Bahn werfen. Prominentes Beispiel: Heiligabend. Erster Weihnachtstag. Zweiter Weihnachtstag. Und dann kommt da noch Silvester. Kaum ist Neujahr angebrochen, ist's hin mit der hart erarbeiteten Form? Wenn mir kurz vor solchen Festen eine Sache besonders am Herzen liegt, dann folgende: Bleib' entspannt. Genieß das Leben. Ein paar Mahlzeiten machen Dich nicht fett. So wie ein paar Mahlzeiten Dich nicht zum Hollywood-Model machen. Und mit der richtigen Strategie kannst Du auch an den Feiertagen dranbleiben, ohne dabei auf Genuss zu verzichten. Darum geht's in der heutigen Episode. SHOWNOTES: bit.ly/fmm0071 ALLE FOLGEN: marathonfitness.de/podcast ____________ Diese Fitness mit M.A.R.K. Folge wird präsentiert von Audible.de, wo Du über 150.000 Hörbücher findest. Ich habe seit vielen Jahren ein Audible Abo – und die meisten Bücher, die ich in den letzten Jahren gelesen habe, habe ich eigentlich gehört.  Hörbücher kosten manchmal 50 Euro und mehr. Im Audible Abo bekommst Du jedes Hörbuch für nur 9,95 Euro - auch, wenn es regulär 70 Euro kostet.   Es sei denn, Du bist Fitness mit M.A.R.K. Hörer - dann bezahlst Du nur 4,95 pro Monat, und zwar für die ersten 6 Monate. Gehe auf FMMBuch.de und sichere Dir den halben Preis für ein HALBES Jahr. Das Angebot gilt nur, wenn Du diesen Link klickst.

Today on Cause Talk Radio, Megan and Joe talk to Carol Cone (aka The Mother of Cause Marketing) about her new venture Carol Cone on Purpose! Carol has been a cause leader for decades and is set to disrupt the field once again with a new venture that combines partner collaboration with idea acceleration to take the field of purpose to new heights.  On the show, Carol, Megan and Joe discuss: The growth of purpose and Carol's launch of what she calls Carol Cone 4.0! Carol Cone on Purpose has two purpose engines: The Purpose Collaborative and The Idea Accelerator. How Carol is adopting the "Hollywood Model" to run her business. She also names some of the "Stars" she's working with. Is the big agency model for purpose broken? How can it be fixed? How The Idea Accelerator is aimed at finding, curating, sharing and funding the very best social enterprises. How Carol plans to continue contributing to the cause, sustainability and purpose community. Show Notes Carol's New Site: The Purpose Collaborative CauseTalk Radio Ep11: Carol Cone, "Mother of Cause Marketing," Talks Power of Purpose