Podcasts about in it

We all know how important marketing and staying relevant are to our business. What we talk about in this episode is your alignment with your marketing. What's going to work for you can be very different from what works for someone else. Jumping on the bandwagon of the latest trend could have the opposite effect on your audience. The key is playing to your strengths.Join me today to talk about your marketing alignment.  In this episode, you will learn:

Hey Yall! REMINDER

Bsession 088 Artist: Shintaro.D @dj-shintaro-d | INIT | JP Genre: Electronic/House Duration: 61:56 Released: 29/07/21 Recorded: Tokyo, JP

Josh preaches from Luke 18:1-8 The Parable of the Persistent Widow. This is part of our year long series in Luke, God's Story — You're In It!

01:20 - The Superpower of Sociotechnical System (STS) Design: Considering the Social AND the Technical. The social side matters. * Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity by Michael C. Jackson (https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Systems-Thinking-Management-Complexity/dp/1119118379) * Open Systems * Mechanical * Animate * Social * Ecological * On Purposeful Systems: An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Individual and Social Behavior as a System of Purposeful Events (https://www.amazon.com/Purposeful-Systems-Interdisciplinary-Analysis-Individual/dp/0202307980/ref=sr_1_3?crid=IJR9EM3K73NE&dchild=1&keywords=on+purposeful+systems&qid=1625847353&sprefix=on+purposeful+systems%2Cstripbooks%2C157&sr=8-3) 09:14 - The Origins of Sociotechnical Systems * Taylorism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_management) * Trond Hjorteland: Sociotechnical Systems Design for the “Digital Coal Mines”* (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sociotechnical-systems-design-digital-coal-mines-trond-hjorteland/) * Norwegian Industrial Democracy Program (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-232X.1970.tb00505.x) 18:42 - Design From Above vs Self-Organization * Participative Design * Idealized Design * Solving Problems is not Systems Thinking 29:39 - Systemic Change and Open Systems * Organizationally Closed but Structurally Open * Getting Out of the Machine Age and Into Systems Thinking (The Information Age) * The Basis for the Viable System Model / Stafford Beer // Javier Livas (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaLHocBdG3A) * What is Cybernetics? Conference by Stafford Beer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ6orMfmorg) * Jean Yang: Developer Experience: Stuck Between Abstraction and a Hard Place? (https://www.akitasoftware.com/blog-posts/developer-experience-stuck-between-abstraction-and-a-hard-place) * The Embodiment and Hermeneutic Relations 37:47 - The Fourth Industrial Revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Industrial_Revolution) * 4 Historical Stages in the Development of Work * Mechanization * Automation * Centralization * Computerization * Ironies of Automation by Lisanne Bainbridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironies_of_Automation) * Ten challenges for making automation a "team player" in joint human-agent activity (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1363742) * Jessica Kerr - Principles of Collaborative Automation (https://vimeo.com/369277964) Reflections: Jessica: “You are capable of taking in stuff that you didn't know you see.” – Trond Trond: In physics we do our best to remove the people and close it as much as possible. In IT it's opposite; We work in a completely open system where the human part is essential. Rein: What we call human error is actually a human's inability to cope with complexity. We need to get better at managing complexity; not controlling it. This episode was brought to you by @therubyrep (https://twitter.com/therubyrep) of DevReps, LLC (http://www.devreps.com/). To pledge your support and to join our awesome Slack community, visit patreon.com/greaterthancode (https://www.patreon.com/greaterthancode) To make a one-time donation so that we can continue to bring you more content and transcripts like this, please do so at paypal.me/devreps (https://www.paypal.me/devreps). You will also get an invitation to our Slack community this way as well. Transcript: REIN: Welcome to Episode 242 of Greater Than Code. I'm here with my friend, Jessica Kerr. JESSICA: Thanks, Rein and I'm excited because today we are here with Trond Hjorteland. Trond is an IT architect aspiring sociotechnical systems designer from the consulting firm Scienta.no—that's no as in the country code for Norway, not no as in no science. Trond has many years of experience with large, complex, business critical systems as a developer and an architect on middleware and backend applications so he's super interested in service orientation, domain driven design—went like that one—event driven architectures and of course, sociotechnical systems, which is our topic today! These happen in industries across the world like telecom, media, TV, government. Trond's mantra is, “Great products emerge from collaborative sensemaking and design.” I concur. Trond, welcome to Greater Than Code! TROND: Thank you for having me. It's fun being here. JESSICA: Trond, as a Northern European, I know our usual question about superpowers makes you nervous. So let me change it up a little bit: what is your superpower of sociotechnical system design? TROND: Oh, that's a good one. I'm glad you turned it over because we are from the land of the Jante, as you may have heard of, where people are not supposed to be anything better than anybody else. So being a superhero, that's not something that we are accustomed to now, so to speak. So the topic there, sociotechnical system, what makes you a superhero by having that perspective? I think it's in the name, really. Do you actually join the social and the technical aspects of things, whatever you do? But my focus is mainly in organizations and in relation to a person, or a team cooperating, designing IT solutions, and stuff like that, that you have to consider both the social and the technical and I find that we have too much – I have definitely done that. Focused too much on the technical aspects and not ignoring the social aspects, but at least when we are designing stuff we frequently get too attached to the technical aspects. So I think we need that balance. JESSICA: Yeah. TROND: So I guess, that is my superpower I get from that. JESSICA: When we do software design, we think we're designing software, which we think is made of technical code and infrastructure, and that software is made by people and for people and imagine that. Social side matters. TROND: Yeah, and I must say that since Agile in the early 2000s, the focus on the user has been increasing. I think that's better covered than it used to be, but I still think we miss out on we part that we create software and that is that humans actually create software. We often talk about the customer, for example. I guess, many of your listeners are creating such a system that actually the customers are using, like there's an end user somewhere. But frequently, there's also internal users of that system that you create like backend users, or there's a wide range of others stakeholders as well and – [overtalk] JESSICA: Internal users of customer facing systems? TROND: For example, yes. Like back office, for example. I'm working for our fairly large telecom operation and of course, their main goal is getting and keeping the end users, paying customers, but it's also a lot of stuff going on in the backend, in the back office like supporting customer service support, there is delivery of equipment to the users, there's shipment, there is maintenance, all that stuff, there's assurance of it. So there's a lot of stuff going on in that domain that we rarely think of when we create their IT systems, I find at least. JESSICA: But when we're making our software systems, we're building the company, we're building the next version of this company, and that includes how well can people in the back office do their jobs. TROND: Exactly. JESSICA: And us, like we're also creating the next version of software that we need to change and maintain and keep running and respond to problems in. I like to think about the developer interface. TROND: Exactly, and that is actually, there's an area where the wider sociotechnical term has popped up probably more frequently than before. It's actually that, because we think of the inter policies we need and organize the teams around for example, services are sometimes necessary and stuff like that. JESSICA: Inter policies, you said. TROND: Yeah, the inter policies offices go into this stuff. So we are looking into that stuff. We are getting knowledge on how to do that, but I find we still are not seeing the whole picture, though. Yes, that is important to get the teams right because you want them to not interact too much but enough so we want – [overtalk] JESSICA: Oh yeah, I love it that the book says, “Collaboration is not the goal! Collaboration is expensive and it's a negative to need to do it, but sometimes you need to.” TROND: Yeah, exactly. So that'd be a backstory there. So the main system, I think and the idea is that you have a system consisting of parts and what sociotechnical systems focus a lot about is the social system. There is a social system and that social system, those parts are us as developers and those parts are stakeholders of course, our users and then you get into this idea of an open system. I think it was Bertanlanffy who coined that, or looked into that. JESSICA: Bertanlanffy open systems. TROND: Open system, yeah. JESSICA: Fair warning to readers, all of us have been reading this book, Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity by Michael C. Jackson and we may name drop a few systems thinking historical figures. TROND: Yes, and Bertanlanffy is one of those early ones. I think he actually developed some of the idea before the war, but I think he wrote the book after—I'm not sure, 1950s, or something—on general system thinking. It's General Systems Theory and he was also looking into this open system thing and I think this is also something that for example, Russell Ackoff took to heart. So he had to find four type of systems. He said there was a mechanical system, like people would think of when they hear system, like it's a technical thing. Like a machine, for example, your car is a system. But then they also added, there was something more that's another type of system, which is animal system, which is basically us. We consist of parts, but we have a purpose that is different from us than a car that makes us different. And then you take a lot of those parts and combine them, then you've got a social system. The interesting thing with the social system is that that system in of its own have a purpose, but also, the parts have a purpose. That's the thing which is different from the other thing. For an animal system, your parts don't have a purpose. Your heart doesn't really have a purpose; it's not giving a purpose. It doesn't have an end goal, so to speak that. There's nothing in – [overtalk] JESSICA: No, it has a purpose within the larger system. TROND: Yeah. JESSICA: But it doesn't have self-actualization. TROND: It's not purposeful. That's probably the word that I – [overtalk] JESSICA: Your heart isn't sitting there thinking, going beat, beat, beat. It does that, but it's not thinking it. TROND: No, exactly. [laughter] TROND: So I think actually Ackoff and I think there was a book called On Purposeful Systems, which I recommend. It's really a dense book. The Jackson book, it's long, but it's quite verbose so it's readable. Like the On Purposeful Systems is designed to be short and concise so it's basically just a list of bullet points almost. It's just a really hard read. But they get into the difference between a purposeful system and a goal-seeking system. Your heart will be goal-seeking. It has something to achieve, but it doesn't have a purpose in a sense. So that's the thing, which is then you as a person and you as a part of a social system and that's where I think the interesting thing comes in and that's where we're sociotechnical system really takes this on board is that in a social system, you have a set of individuals and you also have technical aspects of those system as well so that's the sociotechnical thing. JESSICA: Now you mentioned Ackoff said four kinds of systems. TROND: Yeah. H: Mechanical, animal, social? TROND: And then there's ecological. JESSICA: And then ecological, thanks. TROND: Yeah. So the ecological one is that where every parts have a purpose like us, but the whole doesn't have a purpose on its own. Like the human kind is not purposeful and we should be probably. [laughs] For example, with climate change and all that, but we are not. Not necessarily. REIN: This actually relates a little bit to the origins of sociotechnical systems because it came about as a way to improve workplace democracy and if you look at the history of management theory, if you look at Taylorism, which was the dominant theory at the time, the whole point of Taylorism is to take purposefulness away from the workers. So the manager decides on the tasks, the manager decides how the tasks are done—there's one right way to do the tasks—and the worker just does those actions. Basically turning the worker into a machine. So Taylorism was effectively a way to take a social system, affirm a company, and try to turn it into an animate system where the managers had purpose and the workers just fulfilled a purpose. TROND: Exactly. REIN: And sociotechnical system said, “What if we give the power of purposefulness back to the workers?” Let them choose the task, let them choose the way they do their tasks. TROND: Exactly, and this is an interesting theme because at the same time, as Taylor was developing his ideas, there were other people having similar ideas, like sociotechnical, but we never heard of them a late like Mary Parker Follett, for example. She was living at the same time, writing stuff at the same time, but the industry wasn't interested in listening to her because it didn't fit their machine model. She was a contrary to that and this was the same thing that sociotechnical system designers, or researchers, to put it more correctly, also experienced, for example, in a post-war England, in the coal mines. JESSICA: Oh yeah, tell us about the coal mines. TROND: Yeah, because that's where the whole sociotechnical system theory was defined, or was first coined what was there. There was a set of researchers from the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations, which actually came about like an offshoot of the Tavistock Clinic, which was working actually with people struggling from the war after the Second World War. JESSICA: Was that in Norway? TROND: No, that was exactly in England, that was in London. Tavistock is in London. JESSICA: Oh! TROND: Yeah. So it was an offshoot of that because there were researchers there that had the knowledge that there was something specific about the groups. There was somebody called Bion and there was a Kurt Lewin, which I think Jessica, you probably have heard of. JESSICA: Is that Kurt Lewin? TROND: Yes, that's the one. Absolutely. JESSICA: Yeah. He was a psychologist. TROND: Yeah. So he was for example, our main character of the sociotechnical movement in England in the post-war was Eric Trist and he was working closely with Lewin, or Lewin as you Americans call him. They were inspired by the human relations movement, if you like so they saw they had to look into how the people interact. So they observed the miners in England. There was a couple of mines where they had introduced some new technology called the longwall where they actually tried to industrialize the mining. They have gone from autonomous groups into more industrialized, like – [overtalk] JESSICA: Taylorism? TROND: Yes, they had gone all Taylorism, correct. JESSICA: “Your purpose is to be a pair of hands that does this.” TROND: Exactly, and then they had shifts. So one shift was doing one thing, then other shift was doing the second thing and that's how they were doing the other thing. So they were separating people. They had to have been working in groups before, then they were separated to industrialize like efficiently out of each part. JESSICA: Or to grouplike tasks with each other so that you only have one set of people to do a single thing. TROND: Yeah. So one group was preparing and blowing and breaking out the coal, somebody was pushing it out to the conveyors, and somebody else was moving into the instrument, or the machinery to the next place. This is what's the three partnership shifts were like. What they noticed then is that they didn't get the efficiency that they expected from this and also, people were leaving. People really didn't like this way of working; there was a lot of absenteeism and there were a lot of crows and uproar and it didn't go well, this new technology which they had too high hopes for. So then Trist and a couple of others like Bamford observed something that happened in one of the mines that people actually, some of them self-organized and went back to the previous way of working in autonomous teams plus using this new technology. They self-organized in order to actually to be able to work in this alignment, but this was the first time that I saw this type of action that they actually created their own semi-autonomous teams as they called them. JESSICA: So there was some technology that was introduced and when they tried to make it about the technology and get people to use it the way they thought it would be most efficient, it was not effective. TROND: Not effective? JESSICA: But yet the people working in teams were able to use the technology. TROND: Yeah. Actually, so this is the interesting part is when you have complex systems then you can have self-organization happening there and these workers, they were so frustrated. They're like, “Okay. Let's take matters in our own hands, let's create groups where we can actually work together.” So they created these autonomous groups and this was something that Eric Trist and Ken Bamford observed. So they saw that when they did that, the absenteeism and the quality of work-life increased a lot and also, productivity increased a lot. There were a few mines observed that did this and they compared to other mines that didn't and the numbers were quite convincing. So you should think “Oh, this would use them,” everybody would start using this approach. No, they didn't. Of course, management, the leadership didn't want this. They were afraid of losing the power so they worked against it. So just after a few research attempts, there wasn't any leverage there and actually, they increased the industrialization with a next level of invention was created that made it even worse so it grinded to a halt. Sociotechnical was a definer, but it didn't have the good fertile ground to grow. So that's when they came to my native land, to Norway. JESSICA: Ah. TROND: Yeah. So Fred Emery was one of those who worked with Trist and Bramforth a lot back then and also traced himself, actually came to Norway as almost like a governmental project. There was a Norwegian Industrial Democracy Program, I think it was called, it was actually established by – [overtalk] JESSICA: There was a Norwegian Industrial Democracy Program. That is so not American. TROND: [laughs] Exactly. So that probably only happen in Norway, I suppose and there were a lot of reasons for that. One of them is, especially as that we struggled with the industry after the war, because we were just invaded by Germany and was under rule so we had nothing to build. So they got support from America, for example, to rebuild after the war, but also, Norwegians are the specific type of persons, if you like. They don't like to be ruled over. So the high industrial stuff didn't go down well with the workers even worse than in England, but not in mines because we don't have any mines so just like creating nails, or like paper mills. Also, the same thing happened as I said, in England, that people were not happy with the way these things were going. But the problem is in Norway that this was covering all the mines, not just a few mines here and there. This was going all the way up to the – the workers unions were collaborating with the employers unions. So they were actually coming together. This project was established by these two in collaboration and actually, the government was also coming and so, there were three parts to this initiative. And then the Tavistock was called in to help them with this project, or the program to call it. So then it started off your experiments in Norway and then I went more – in England, they observed mostly, like the Tavistock, and in Norway, they actually started designing these type of systems, political systems, they're autonomous work groups and all that. They did live experiments and the like so there was action research as a way of – [overtalk] JESSICA: Oh, action research. TROND: Yeah, where you actually do research on the ground. This was also from Kurt Lewin, I believe. So I know they did a lot of research there and got similar results as in England. But also, this went a bit further than Norway. This actually went into the law, how to do this. So like work participation, for example and there was also this work design thing that came out of it. It's like workers have some demands that goes above just a livable wage. They want the type of job that meant something, where they were supposed to grow, they were supposed to learn on the job, they were supposed to – there were a lot of stuff that they wanted and that was added to actually the law. So this is part of Norwegian law today, what came out of that research. JESSICA: You mentioned that in Norway, they started doing design and yet there's the implication that it's design of self-organizing teams. Is that conflict? Like, design from above versus self-organization. TROND: Yes, it did and that is also something that I discovered in Norway so well-observed, Jessica. This is actually what happened in Norway. So the researchers saw that they were struggling to getting this accepted properly by the workers, then I saw okay, they have to get the workers involved. Then they started with this, what they call participative design. The workers were pulled in to design the work they worked on, or to do together with the researchers, but the researchers were still regarded as experts still. So there was a divide between the researches and the workers, but the workers weren't given a lot of freewill to design how they wanted this to work themselves. One of the latest experiments, I think the workers weren't getting the full freedom to design and I think it was the aluminum industry. I think they were creating a new factory and the workers weren't part of designing how they should work in that factory, this new factory. They saw that they couldn't just come in and “This is how it works in the mines in England, this is how we're going to do it.” That didn't work in Norway. REIN: And one of the things that they've found was that these systems were more adaptable than Taylorism. So there was one of these programs in textile mills in India that had been organized according to scientific management AKA Taylorism. And what they found, one of the problems was that if any perturbation happened, any unexpected event, they stopped working. They couldn't adapt and when they switched to these self-organizing teams, they became better at adaptation, but they also just got more production and higher quality. So it was just a win all around. You're not trading off here, it turns out. JESSICA: You can say we need resilience because of incidents. But in fact, that resilience also gives you a lot of flexibility that you didn't know you needed. TROND: Exactly. You are capable of taking in stuff that you couldn't foresee like anything that happens because the people on the ground who know this best and actually have all the information they need are actually able to adapt. Lots better then to have a structure like a wild process, I think. REIN: One of the principles of resilience engineering is that accidents are normal work. Accidents happen as a result of normal work, which means that normal work has all of the same characteristics. Normal work requires adaptation. Normal work requires balancing trade-offs competing goals. That's all normal work. It just, we see it in incidents because incidents shine a light on what happened. TROND: I think there was an American called Pasmore who coined this really well. He said, “STS design was intended tended to produce a win-win-win-win. Human beings were more committed, technology operated closer to the potential and the organization performed better overall while adapting more readily to changes in its environment.” This has pretty much coining what STS is all about. REIN: Yeah. I'm always on the lookout because they're rare for these solutions that are just strictly better in a particular space. Where you're not making trade-offs, where you get to have it all, that's almost unheard of. JESSICA: It's almost unheard of and yet I feel like we could do a lot of more of it. Who was it who talks about dissolving the problem? REIN: Ackoff. TROND: That's Ackoff, yeah. JESSICA: Yeah, that's Ackoff in Idealized Design. TROND: Where he said – [overtalk] REIN: He said, “The best way to solve a problem is to redesign the system that contains it so that the problem no longer exists.” TROND: Yeah, exactly. JESSICA: And in software, what are some examples of that that we have a lot? Like, the examples where we dissolve coordination problems by saying the same team is responsible for deployment? REIN: I've seen problem architectures be dissolved by a change in the product. It turns out that a better way to do it for users also makes possible a better architecture and so you can stop solving that hard problem that was really expensive. JESSICA: Oh, right. So the example of item potency of complete order buttons: if you move the idea generation to the client, that problem just goes away. TROND: Yeah, and I have to say another example is if you have two teams that work well together. [chuckles] You have to communicate more. Okay, but that doesn't help because that's not where our problem is. If you redesign the teams, for example, then if they – instead of having fun on the backend teams, if you redesign, you have no verticals, then you haven't solved the problem. You have resolved it. It is gone because they are together now in one thing. So I think there is a lot of examples of this, but it is a mindset because people tend to say, if there is something problem, they want to analyze it as it is and then figure out how to fix the parts and then – [overtalk] JESSICA: Yeah, this is our obsession with solving problems! TROND: Yes. JESSICA: Solving problems is not systems thinking. TROND: No, it's not. Exactly. JESSICA: Solving problems is reactive. It feels productive. It can be heroic. Whereas, the much more subtle and often wider scope of removing the problem, which often falls into the social system. When you change the social system, you can resolve technical problems so that they don't exist. That's a lot more congressive and challenging and slower. TROND: It is and that is probably where STS has struggled. It didn't struggle as much, but that is also here compared to the rest of the world. They said because you have to fight – there is a system already in place and that system is honed in on solving problems as you were saying. JESSICA: That whole line management wants to solve the problem by telling them what workers want to do and it's more important that their solution work, then that a solution work. TROND: Yes, exactly and also, because they are put in a system where that's normal. That is common sense to them. So I often come back to that [inaudible] quote is that I get [inaudible], or something like that is that because a person in a company, he's just a small – In this large company, I'm just a small little tiny piece of it; there's no chance in anyhow that I can change it. JESSICA: Yeah. So as developers, one reason that we focus on technical dilutions and technical design is because we have some control over that. TROND: Yes. JESSICA: We don't feel control over the social system, which is because you can never control a social system; you can only influence it. TROND: So what I try to do in an organization is that I try to find a, change agents around in the organization so I get a broader picture not only understanding it, but also record broader set of attacks, if you like it—I'm not just calling it attacks, but you get my gist—so you can create a more profound change not just a little bit here, a little bit though. Because when you change as society, if we solve problems, we focus on the parts and we focus on the parts, we are not going to fix the hole. That is something that Ackoff was very adamant about and he's probably correct. You can optimize – [overtalk] JESSICA: Wait. Who, what? I didn't understand. TROND: Ackoff. JESSICA: Ackoff, that was that. TROND: So if you optimize every part, you don't necessarily make the system better, but he said, “Thank God, you usually do. You don't make it worse.” [laughs] REIN: Yeah. He uses the example of if you want to make a car, so you take the best engine and the best transmission, and you take all of the best parts and what do you have? You don't have a car. You don't have the best car. You don't even have a car because the parts don't fit together. It's entirely possible to make every part better and to make the system worse and you also sometimes need to make a part worse to make the system better. TROND: And that is fascinating. I think that is absolutely fascinating that you have to do that. I have seen that just recently, for example, in our organization, we have one team that is really good at Agile. They have nailed it almost, this team. But the rest of the organization are not as high level and good at Agile and the organization is not thrilled to be Agile in a sense because it's an old project-oriented organization so it is industrialized in a sense. Then you have one team that want to do STS; they want to be an Agile super team. But when they don't fit with the rest, they actually make the rest worse. So actually, in order to make it the whole better, you can't have this local optimizations, you have to see the whole and then you figure out how to make the whole better based on the part, not the other one. JESSICA: Yeah. Because well, one that self-organizing Agile team can't do that properly without having an impact on the rest of the organization. TROND: Exactly. JESSICA: And when the rest of the organization moves much more slowly, you need a team in there that's slower. And I see this happen. I see Agile teams moving too fast that the business isn't ready to accept that many changes so quickly. So we need a slower – they don't think of it this way, but what they do is they add people. They add people and that slows everything down so you have a system that's twice as expensive in order to go slower. That's my theory. TROND: The fascinating thing, though—and this is where the systems idea comes in—is that if you have this team that really honed this, that they have nailed the whole thing exactly, they're moving as fast as they can and all that. But the rest of it, they'll say it's not, then you have to interact the rest of organization, for example. So they have been bottlenecked everywhere they look. So what they end up doing is that they pull in work, more work than they necessarily can pull through because they have to. Unless they just have to sit waiting. Nobody feels – [overtalk] JESSICA: And then you have nowhere to fucking progress. TROND: Exactly. So then you make it worse – [overtalk] JESSICA: Then you couldn't get anything done. TROND: Exactly! So even a well-working team would actually break in the end because of this. REIN: And we've organized organizations around part maximization. Every way of organizing your business we know of is anti-systemic because they're all about part optimization. Ours is a list of parts and can you imagine going to a director and saying, “Listen, to make this company better, we need to reduce your scope. We need to reduce your budget. We need to reduce your staff. TROND: Yeah. [laughs] That is a hard sell. It is almost impossible. So where I've seen it work—no, I haven't seen that many. But where I've seen that work, you have to have some systemic change coming all the way from the top, basically. Somebody has to come in and say, “Okay, this is going to be painful, but we have to change. The whole thing has to change,” and very few companies want to do that because that's high risk. Why would you do that? So they shook along doing that minor problem-solving here and there and try to fix the things, but they are not getting the systemic change that they probably need. JESSICA: Yeah, and this is one of the reasons why startups wind up eating the lunch of bigger companies; because startups aren't starting from a place that's wrong for what they're now doing. TROND: Exactly. They are free to do it. They have all the freedom that we want the STS team to have. The autonomous sociotechnical systems teams, those are startups. So ideally, you're consisting a lot of startups. REIN: And this gets back to this idea of open systems and the idea of organizationally closed, but structurally open. TROND: Yeah. REIN: It comes from [inaudible] and this idea is that an organization, which is the idea of the organization—IBM as an organization is the idea of IBM, it's not any particular people. IBM stays IBM, but it has to reproduce its structure and they can reproduce its structure in ways that change, build new structure, different structure, but IBM is still IBM. But organizations aren't static and actually, they have to reproduce themselves to adapt and one of the things that I think makes startups better here is that their ability to change their structure as they produce it, they have much more agility. Whereas, a larger organization with much more structure, it's hard to just take the structure and just move it all over here. TROND: Exactly. JESSICA: It's all the other pieces of the system fit with the current system. TROND: Yeah. You have to share every part in order to move. JESSICA: Right. REIN: And also, the identity of a startup is somewhat fluid. Startups can pivot. Can you imagine IBM switching to a car company, or something? TROND: I was thinking exactly the same; you only see pivots in small organizations. Pivots are not normal in large organizations. That will be a no-go. Even if you come and suggested it, “I hear there's a lot of money in being an entrepreneur.” I wouldn't because that would risk everything I have for something that is hypothetical. I wouldn't do that. REIN: Startups, with every part of them, their employees can turn over a 100%, they can get a new CEO, they can get new investors. JESSICA: All at a much faster time scale. TROND: Also, going back to Ackoff, he's saying that we need to go get out of the machine age. Like he said, we have been in the machine age since the Renaissance, we have to get out of that and this is what system thinking is. It's a new age as they call it. Somebody calls it the information age, for example and it's a similar things. But we need to start thinking differently; how to solve problems. The machine has to go, at least for social systems. The machine is still going to be there. We are going to work with machines. We're going to create machines. So machines – [overtalk] JESSICA: We use machines, but our systems are bigger than that. TROND: Yes. JESSICA: Systems are interesting than any machine and when we try build systems as machines, we really limit ourselves. TROND: So I think that is also one of the – I don't know if it's a specific principle for following STS that says that man shouldn't be an extension of the machine, he should be a part of machine. He should be using the machine. He should be like an extension of the machine. JESSICA: Wait. That the man being an extension of machine, the machine should be an extension of man? TROND: Yeah. JESSICA: Right. [inaudible] have a really good tool, you feel that? TROND: Mm hm. REIN: This actually shows up in joint cognitive systems, which shares a lot with sociotechnical systems, as this idea that there are some tools through which you perceive the world that augment you and there are other tools that represent the world. Some tools inside you and you use them to interact with the world, you interact with the world using them to augment your abilities, and there are other tools that you have just a box here that represents the world and you interact with the box and your understanding of the world is constrained by what the box gives you. These are two completely different forms of toolmaking and what Stafford Beer, I think it might say is that there are tools that augment your variety, that augment your ability to manage complexity, and there are tools that reduce complexity, there are tools that attenuate complexity. JESSICA: Jean Yang was talking about this the other day with respect to developer tools. There are tools like Heroku that reduce complexity for you. You just deploy the thing, just deploy it and internally, Heroku is dealing with a lot of complexity in order to give you that abstraction. And then there are other tools, like Honeycomb, that expose complexity and help you deal with the complexity inherent in your system. TROND: Yeah. Just to go back so I get this quote right is that the individual is treated as a complimentary to machine rather than an extension of it. JESSICA: Wait, what is treating this complimentary to machine? TROND: The individual. JESSICA: The individual. TROND: The person, yeah. Because that is what you see in machine shops and those are also what happened in England when they called mining work again, even more industrialized, people are just an extension of the machine. JESSICA: We don't work like that. TROND: Yeah. I feel like that sometimes, I must admit, that I'm part of the machine. That I'm just a cog in the machine and we are not well-equipped to be cogs in machines, I think. Though, we should be. REIN: Joint cognitive systems call this the embodiment relation where the artifact is transparent and it's a part of the operator rather than the application so you can view the world through it but it doesn't restrict you. And then the other side is the hermeneutic relation. So hermeneutics is like biblical hermeneutics is about the interpretation of the Bible. So the hermeneutic relation is where the artifact interprets the world for you and then you view the artifact. So like for example, most of the tools we use to respond to incidents, logs are hermeneutic artifacts. They present their interpretation of the world and we interact with that interpretation. What I think of as making a distinction between old school metrics and observability, is observability is more of an embodiment relationship. Observability lets you ask whatever question you want; you're not restricted to what you specifically remember to log, or to count. TROND: Exactly. And this is now you're getting into the area where I think actually STS – now we have talked about a lot about STS in the industrial context here, but I think it's not less, maybe even more relevant now because especially when we're moving into the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution where the machines have taken over more and more. Like, for example, AI, or machine learning, or whatever. Because then the machine has taken more and more control over our lives. So I think we need this more than even before because the machines before were simple in comparison and they were not designed by somebody in the same sense that for example, AI, or machine learning was actually developed. I wouldn't say AI because it's still an algorithm underneath, but it does have some learning in it and we don't know what the consequences of that is, as I said. So I think it's even more relevant now than it was before. JESSICA: Yeah. TROND: [chuckles] I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Fourth Industrial Revolution, or see, that is. JESSICA: Or hear something about it. You want to define it to our listeners? TROND: Somebody called it this hyperphysical systems. JESSICA: Hyperphysical? TROND: Yes, somebody called it hyperphysical systems. I'm not sure if you want to go too much into that, to be honest, but. So the Fourth Industrial Revolution is basically about the continuous automation of manufacturing and industrial practices using smart technology, machine-to-machine communication, internet of things, machine learning improves communication and self-monitoring and all that stuff. We see the hint of it, that something is coming and that is that different type of industry than what we currently are in. I think the Industrial 4.0 was probably coined in Germany somewhere. So there's a definition that something is coming out of that that is going to put the humans even more on the sideline and I think for us working in I, we see some of this already. The general public, maybe don't at the same level. REIN: So this reminds me of this other idea from cognitive systems that there are four stages, historical stages, in the development of work. There's mechanization, which replaces human muscle power with mechanical power and we think of that as starting with the original industrial revolution, but it's actually much older than that with agriculture, for example. Then there's automation, there's a centralization, and then there's computerization. Centralization has happened on a shorter time span and computerization has happened at a very short time span relative to mechanization. So one of the challenges is that we got really good at mechanization because we've been doing it since 500 BC. We're relatively less good at centering cognition in the work. The whole point of mechanization and automation was to take cognition out of the work and realizing you have to put it back in, it's becoming much more conspicuous that people have to think to do their work. TROND: Yeah. JESSICA: Because we're putting more and more of the work into the machine and yet in much software system, many software systems especially like customer facing systems, we need that software to not just be part of the machine, to not do the same thing constantly on a timescale of weeks and months. We need it to evolve, to participate in our cognition as we participate in the larger economy. TROND: Yeah. REIN: And one of the ironies of this automation—this comes from Bainbridge's 1983 paper—is that when you automate a task, you don't get rid of a task. You make a new task, which is managing the automation, and this task is quite different from the task you were doing before and you have no experience with it. You may not even have training with it. So automation doesn't get rid of work; automation mutates work into a new unexpected form. JESSICA: Right. One of the ironies of automation is that now you have created that management at the automation and you think, “Oh, we have more automation. We can pay the workers less.” Wrong. You could pay the workers more. Now collectively, the automation plus the engineers who are managing it are able to do a lot more, but you didn't save money. You added a capability, but you did not save money. REIN: Yeah, and part of that is what you can automate are the things we know how to automate, which are the mechanical tasks and what's left when you automate all of the mechanical tasks are the ones that require thinking. TROND: And that's where we're moving into now, probably that's what the Fourth Industrial Revolution is. We try and automate this stuff that probably shouldn't be automated. Maybe, I don't know. JESSICA: Or it shouldn't be automated in a way that we can't change. TROND: No, exactly. REIN: This is why I'm not buying stock in AI ops companies because I don't think we figured out how to automate decision-making yet. JESSICA: I don't think we want to automate decision-making. We want to augment. TROND: Yeah, probably. So we're back to that same idea that the STS said we should be complimentary to machine, not an extension of it. JESSICA: Yes. That's probably a good place to wrap up? TROND: Yeah. REIN: Yeah. There's actually a paper by the way, Ten Challenges in Making Automation A Team Player. JESSICA: [laughs] Or you can watch my talk on collaborative automation. TROND: Yeah. JESSICA: Do you want to do reflections? REIN: Sure. JESSICA: I have a short reflection. One quote that I wrote down that you said, Trond in the middle of something was “You are capable of taking in stuff that you didn't know you see,” and that speaks to, if you don't know you see it, you can't automate the seeing of it. Humans are really good at the everything else of what is going on. This is our human superpower compared to any software that we can design and that's why I am big on this embodiment relation. Don't love the word, but I do love tools that make it easier for me to make and implement decisions that give me superpowers and then allow me to combine that with my ability to take input from the social system and incorporate that. TROND: I can give it a little bit of an anecdote. My background is not IT. I come from physics—astrophysics, to be specific—and what we were drilled in physics is that you should take the person out of the system. You should close the system as much as possible. Somebody said you have to take a human out of it if you want observe. Physics is you have no environment, you have no people, there's nothing in it so it's completely closed, but we work and here, it's complete opposite. I work in a completely open system where the human part is essential. JESSICA: We are not subject to the second law of thermodynamics. TROND: No, we are not. That is highly restricted for a closed system. We are not. So the idea of open system is something that I think we all need to take on board and we are the best one to deal with those open systems. We do it all the time, every day, just walking with a complex open system. I mean, everything. JESSICA: Eating. TROND: Eating, yeah. REIN: And actually, one of the forms, or the ways that openness was thought of is informational openness. Literally about it. JESSICA: That's [inaudible] take in information. TROND: Yeah. Entropy. JESSICA: Yeah. TROND: Yeah, exactly. And we are capable of controlling that variance, we are the masters of that. Humans, so let's take advantage of that. That's our superpower as humans. REIN: Okay, I can go. So we've been talking a little bit about how the cognitive demands of work are changing and one of the things that's happening is that work is becoming higher tempo. Decisions have to be made more quickly and higher criticality. Computers are really good at making a million mistakes a second. So if you look at something like the Knight Capital incident; a small bug can lose your company half a billion dollars in an instant. So I think what we're seeing is that this complexity, if you combine that with the idea of requisite variety, the complexity of work is exploding and what we call human error is actually a human's inability to cope with complexity. I think if we want to get human error under control, what we have to get better at is managing complexity, not controlling it – [overtalk] JESSICA: And not by we and by we don't mean you, the human get better at this! This system needs to support the humans in managing additional complexity. REIN: Yeah. We need to realize that the nature of work has changed, that it presents these new challenges, and that we need to build systems that support people because work has never been this difficult. JESSICA: Both, social and technical systems. TROND: No, exactly. Just to bring it back to where we started with the coal miners in England. Working there was hard, it was life-threatening; people died in the mines. So you can imagine this must be terrible, but it was a quite closed system, to be honest, compared to what we have. That environment is fairly closed. It isn't predictable at the same size, but we are working in an environment that is completely open. It's turbulent, even. So we need to focus on the human aspect of things. We can't just treat things that machines does work. JESSICA: Thank you for coming to this episode of Greater Than Code. TROND: Yeah, happy to be here. Really fun. It was a fun discussion. REIN: So that about does it for this episode of Greater Than Code. Thank you so much for listening wherever you are. If you want to spend more time with this awesome community, if you donate even $1 to our Patreon, you can come to us on Slack and you can hang out with all of us and it is a lot of fun. Special Guest: Trond Hjorteland.

Welcome back to another episode of your favourite LFC podcast, Kop End Fracas, powered by Touchline Media Group. In this weeks episode your host Krish is joined by Ellis, Anik and Peter to discuss all things happening with Liverpool Football Club. This week the cast discussed: - The Reds first preseason performances - Jordan Henderson's Contract Situation - Transfer update And much more! Be sure to follow us on Twitter to keep up to date with all the latest LFC and KEF news - @KopEndFracas Love what you hear? Want more Kop End Fracas content? Then gain exclusive content and perks by subscribing to our Patreon, today! - patreon.com/kopendfracas Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For so long I would eat things just because I enjoyed the way they tasted. I paid ZERO attention to what was IN IT, what it was doing to my body. Your health is so important, not just mental and emotional which I know we talk a lot about here on Bacon Radio, but also physical. there is direct correlation to your mood, your level of energy, confidence... so pay attention to what you put in your body. Check out today's episode for some quick tips on things to avoid... --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lifebaconmegan/support

We return to our series in Luke God's Story: You're In It. This week's bible reading is from Luke 17:1-10.

All feelings are good feelings, but… (yeah, there's a ‘but')... how many of us find that hard to live by? Like we'd just prefer if things felt ‘easy' and ‘happy' and ‘calm' all the time…? If you're ready for a feelings talk because you've been IN IT lately or you're wanting to get real… today's mixtape of an episode is for YOU. I'm bringing together some of my fave voices from the pod -- Asha and Alexx -- who also happen to be Faculty in our Badass Academy (it's like Hogwarts… but for the magic of being your real self, and… not transphobic). You'll hear us talking about anxiety, mindfulness, remembering your magic, and what to do when you're feeling super down…!  ALSO, EXTRA FUN NEWS: The Badass Academy Membership + Mentorship Circles are now open for early bird applications! Learn more + join us at: badassgirls.me/academy We'd love to have you come hang with us next year!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Find show notes and links from the episode at badassgirls.me/podcast/63!

Our serialized analysis of Yeezus continues with “I'm In It.” After being rejected by an ex-girlfriend, Yeezus uses his celebrity status and escapes into a world of sex to mend his bruised ego. He conflates his political ambitions with sexual dominance before the song's final verse reveals that Yeezus is reaching his breaking point. Limited Season 8 merchandise is available at shop.dissectpodcast.com. Follow @dissectpodcast on Twitter and Instagram. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome back to the How To Be Awesome At Everything Podcast! In this episode is our very first guest in our summer series- Lindsay's friend Jenny. She literally radiates happiness.  Like all of us, Jenny has real life sadness and struggles that happen but she manages it so incredibly, Lindsay is getting into her mindset behind it.   How do you stay happy and in a positive headspace when life is complicated or people suck or you're dealing with sadness? How do you stay happy when your kids are wild or not listening or your husband is complaining or you are dealing with conflict or with someone who isn't reciprocating your kindness?   Even when faced with conflict or tough situations, Jenny is always in a good mindset.  And her positivity is contagious.  You can't not smile and be happy when you're around her because her happiness is so genuine and deep, it radiates.  So, she's the PERFECT PERSON for today's podcast all about BEING HAPPY!  Please welcome… Jenny Pelton. Here are the questions that Lindsay asks Jenny! -DAILY LIFE How did you come to have the “be happy” mantra? How do you stay positive when the weight of cooking and cleaning and kids seems like so much? -OFF DAYS Is there anything you do when you are off and not super positive or happy to get in a better state of mind? Im very aware of other peoples energy - Do you ever have days when you sort of stay to yourself and regroup? -LIFE HARDSHIPS Just a reminder that we all have life struggles and sadness… even if all of that is not shared publicly. Do you have any tips for staying positive and happy, even when dealing with sad life moments that you've learned through the years? -NEGATIVE PEOPLE Question from IG: How do you deal when your kindness is not reciprocated? You are SO NICE- but you're not that sort of nice to where you get pushed around.  You're strong and direct- but in the absolutely NICEST way possible.  How do you balance this? Any tips for dealing with conflict and coming out in a good headspace? And how do you not let it phase you? -HAVING FULLLLLL, HAPPY DAYS How do you have happy and full days with the kids but also get your emails done and the house picked up and everyone fed? You get it ALL DONE, and have great LIFE experiences everyday … and you are present and not stressed during it.  Sometimes when I'm doing things I love with my kids… I'm not really actually IN IT because I have stuff to do at the same time… how do you get it done and have so many experiences too- and are fully present and happy during them?? CHEERS!!! TO BEING HAPPY!!!

Damian Hall is one of the best ultra endurance athletes in the UK. He has represented Great Britain at the trail world championships, holds 7 records or Fastest Known Times (FKTs) and he has competed in the Sahara Desert and the Arctic. All this in less than a decade-long running career. Damian recently wrote a book called In It for the Long Run, which depicts his 2020 Pennine Way record attempt and details of his midlife crisis. In today's conversation, Damian shares about his most recent Wainwright Coast to Coast FKT and the hallucinations caused by hyponatremia (decreased sodium concentrations due to over hydration). We also talk about the lessons learned in ultra running that apply to life. In this episode we also talk about: How to prepare for days of running What drives someone to run for hundreds of miles How to know when you're ready... for anything in life Links & Resources from the Show: Follow Damian on Instagram Learn more from his website SR training plans for advanced runners Check out Damian's book! Thank you Elemental Labs! A big thanks to Elemental Labs for their support of this episode! They make electrolyte drinks for athletes and low-carb folks with no sugar, artificial ingredients, or colors. Elemental Labs' products have some of the highest sodium concentrations that you can find. Anybody who runs a lot knows that sodium, as well as other electrolytes like magnesium and potassium, are essential to our performance and how we feel throughout the day. The citrus flavor has quickly become my favorite. I'm drinking one a day now to help me get enough fluids in our dry Colorado air. It's tasty and delicious and I find that I'm not peeing every 45 minutes throughout the day, which might be an indication I wasn't eating enough sodium. There's now mounting evidence that higher sodium intake levels are not unhealthy – and athletes need substantially more than your typical sedentary person. Of course, ask your doctor if you're worried. But for those athletes running outside in the heat, an electrolyte replacement makes a lot of sense. They just released their first new flavor of 2021, their most requested flavor, watermelon salt. So check out Elemental Labs to try their new flavor and get your hydration optimized. 

The Name of God is my inheritance. You live by symbols. You have made up names for everything you see. Each one becomes a separate entity, identified by its own name. By this you carve it out of unity. By this you designate its special attributes, and set it off from other things by emphasizing space surrounding it. This space you lay between all things to which you give a different name; all happenings in terms of place and time; all bodies which are greeted by a name. This space you see as setting off all things from one another is the means by which the world's perception is achieved. You see something where nothing is, and see as well nothing where there is unity; a space between all things, between all things and you. Thus do you think that you have given life in separation. By this split you think you are established as a unity which functions with an independent will. What are these names by which the world becomes a series of discrete events, of things ununified, of bodies kept apart and holding bits of mind as separate awarenesses? You gave these names to them, establishing perception as you wished to have perception be. The nameless things were given names, and thus reality was given them as well. For what is named is given meaning and will then be seen as meaningful; a cause of true effect, with consequence inherent in itself. This is the way reality is made by partial vision, purposefully set against the given truth. Its enemy is wholeness. It conceives of little things and looks upon them. And a lack of space, a sense of unity or vision that sees differently, become the threats which it must overcome, conflict with and deny. Yet does this other vision still remain a natural direction for the mind to channel its perception. It is hard to teach the mind a thousand alien names, and thousands more. Yet you believe this is what learning means; its one essential goal by which communication is achieved, and concepts can be meaningfully shared. This is the sum of the inheritance the world bestows. And everyone who learns to think that it is so accepts the signs and symbols that assert the world is real. It is for this they stand. They leave no doubt that what is named is there. It can be seen, as is anticipated. What denies that it is true is but illusion, for it is the ultimate reality. To question it is madness; to accept its presence is the proof of sanity. Such is the teaching of the world. It is a phase of learning everyone who comes must go through. But the sooner he perceives on what it rests, how questionable are its premises, how doubtful its results, the sooner does he question its effects. Learning that stops with what the world would teach stops short of meaning. In its proper place, it serves but as a starting point from which another kind of learning can begin, a new perception can be gained, and all the arbitrary names the world bestows can be withdrawn as they are raised to doubt. Think not you made the world. Illusions, yes! But what is true in earth and Heaven is beyond your naming. When you call upon a brother, it is to his body that you make appeal. His true Identity is hidden from you by what you believe he really is. His body makes response to what you call him, for his mind consents to take the name you give him as his own. And thus his unity is twice denied, for you perceive him separate from you, and he accepts this separate name as his. It would indeed be strange if you were asked to go beyond all symbols of the world, forgetting them forever; yet were asked to take a teaching function. You have need to use the symbols of the world a while. But be you not deceived by them as well. They do not stand for anything at all, and in your practicing it is this thought that will release you from them. They become but means by which you can communicate in ways the world can understand, but which you recognize is not the unity where true communication can be found. Thus what you need are intervals each day in which the learning of the world becomes a transitory phase; a prison house from which you go into the sunlight and forget the darkness. Here you understand the Word, the Name Which God has given you; the one Identity Which all things share; the one acknowledgment of what is true. And then step back to darkness, not because you think it real, but only to proclaim its unreality in terms which still have meaning in the world that darkness rules. Use all the little names and symbols which delineate the world of darkness. Yet accept them not as your reality. The Holy Spirit uses all of them, but He does not forget creation has one Name, one Meaning, and a single Source Which unifies all things within Itself. Use all the names the world bestows on them but for convenience, yet do not forget they share the Name of God along with you. God has no name. And yet His Name becomes the final lesson that all things are one, and at this lesson does all learning end. All names are unified; all space is filled with truth's reflection. Every gap is closed, and separation healed. The Name of God is the inheritance He gave to those who chose the teaching of the world to take the place of Heaven. In our practicing, our purpose is to let our minds accept what God has given as the answer to the pitiful inheritance you made as fitting tribute to the Son He loves. No one can fail who seeks the meaning of the Name of God. Experience must come to supplement the Word. But first you must accept the Name for all reality, and realize the many names you gave its aspects have distorted what you see, but have not interfered with truth at all. One Name we bring into our practicing. One Name we use to unify our sight. And though we use a different name for each awareness of an aspect of God's Son, we understand that they have but one Name, Which He has given them. It is this Name we use in practicing. And through Its use, all foolish separations disappear which kept us blind. And we are given strength to see beyond them. Now our sight is blessed with blessings we can give as we receive. Father, our Name is Yours. In It we are united with all living things, and You Who are their one Creator. What we made and call by many different names is but a shadow we have tried to cast across Your Own Reality. And we are glad and thankful we were wrong. All our mistakes we give to You, that we may be absolved from all effects our errors seemed to have. And we accept the truth You give, in place of every one of them. Your Name is our salvation and escape from what we made. Your Name unites us in the oneness which is our inheritance and peace. Amen.- Jesus Christ in A Course in Miracles, Lesson 184

"Alam mo ate, minsan, mas masarap magkwento sa mga random na tao. Yung hindi mo talaga kilala kasi alam mong hindi ka huhusgahan, yung pakikinggan ka lang talaga. Try mo." #DearMORInit

שלום וברוכים הבאים לפודקאסט מספר 412 של רברס עם פלטפורמה. התאריך היום הוא ה-13 ביוני 2021, - הייתי אומר שזה תאריך קצת היסטורי: ככל הנראה היום הוקמה איזושהי ממשלה, אנחנו לא יודעים האם היא תחזיק מעמד, אבל ההצבעה הייתה ממש היום ואנחנו במתח לקראת מה שהולך להיות [מחשש שמספר הממשלות יעקוף את מספר הפרקים של רברסים?].היום אנחנו מקליטים פודקאסט עם ינון מחברת Via - תיכף תציג את עצמך - ויש לנו גם אורח מיוחד היום: כמחליף לאורי יש לנו היום את יונתן מחברת Outbrain - היי יונתן!שלום וברוך הבא - יונתן עובד ב-Outbrain כבר כך-וכך שנים וגם התארח בעבר בפרקים שלנו, אבל זה כבר ממש ממש היסטוריה עתיקה [נגיד 328 The tension between Agility and Ownership או Final Class 23: IDEs או 131 uijet או 088 Final Class 2 ... יש עוד].אז קודם כל - כיוון ש-412 זה Precondition Failed - כולם יודעים, נכון? לא הייתי צריך לבדוק את זה לפני השידור, ממש לא, זכרתי בע”פ . . . - אז יונתן, בוא וספר לנו על ה-Precondition שלך. או מי אתה, במילים אחרות . . . (יונתן) אז קודם כל - אני מאזין ותיק של רברסים, אני חושב שכשהגעתי ל-Outbrain לפני 10 שנים, אחת הסיבות הייתה הפודקאסט.הגעתי כמהנדס Backend, ובחמש השנים האחרונות אני מוביל ב-Outbrain את הפיתוח.(רן) “מוביל ב-Outbrain את הפיתוח” זו הדרך שלך להצטנע ולהגיד שאתה מנהל הפיתוח?(יונתן) מנהל הפיתוח . . .(רן) יפה, טוב - פיתוח ב-Outbrain זו קבוצה גדולה, יש לך הרבה עבודה, ותודה שבאת(יונתן) בשמחה.(רן) אז ינון מחברת Via, והיום אנחנו הולכים לדבר על הנושא של Serverless - אבל מזויות אחרות, זויות שעדיין לא כיסינו.לפני שנכנס ככה לנושא - ספר לנו קצת על עצמך.(ינון) אז אהלן, אני ינון, נעים מאוד.אני נמצא ב-Via משהו כמו שלוש שנים וקצת.סתם כרקע - דיברנו על Precondition - הגעתי ל-Via מחברת Ravello לפני כן - למי שלא מכיר, Ravello תומכת די גדולה ברברסים וככה גם התוודעתי גם לפודקאסט, וככה הגעתי אליך, רן . . .אספר קצת על Via, אני חושב שהם התארחו כבר בפודקסט [אכן - 360 Via] אבל עוד פעם, אולי מזוית אישית שלי, אני תמיד אוהב לספר לכולם צ'יזבט על Via . . .(רן) אז, דרך אגב, אירחנו איש מוצר, אז זה היה פחות טכנולוגי - והיום אנחנו הולכים להיות הרבה יותר טכנולוגיים.(ינון) מעולה - זו ההקדמה שאני עושה.למעשה, Via ככה התחילה . . . אני מספר תמיד צ'יזבט כזה, שאף אחד לא אישר או הכחיש במסדרונות של Via.לפי הסיפור, ה-CTO וה-Founder שלנו, אורן, הסתובב יום אחד ברחוב אלנבי וניסה לתפוס מונית שירות לכיוון תל אביב, לכיוון האוניברסיטה - ולמעשה גילה שזה די מסובך, בתקופה ההיא.לפני 7-8 שנים, משהו כזה, לתפוס מונית שירות זה לא כזה קל - צריך למצוא, ולאן להגיע, ואיך לעלות עליה ומה עושים איתה, ואיך שעולים צריך לשלם את הכסף הזה וזה נורא מסובך . . .ומה שעלה לו בראש זה ש”וואלה, זה רעיון מגניב הדבר הזה, זה סוג של בלגן מזרח-תיכוני כזה מגניב”, של מי שהיה כבר בתוך התחבורה הציבורית - ומצד שני, איזה כיף היה אם הייתה איזו אפליקציה או משהו שהיה מאפשר לפחות להזמין מונית, להגיע איתה מאיפה שאתה רוצה לאן שאתה רוצה, שאומרת לך איך להגיע, מה לעשות, זה היה משלם בשבילך . . . מרגיש כמו חלום.אז הוא הלך והגשים אותו, וככה Via התחילה את חייה - בניו-יורק . . .משם התגלגלנו להרבה מאוד מקומות אחרים - התחלנו כשירות סוג-של-Consumer ומשם הלאה זה התגלגל לשירותים שונים של Pre-booking ו-Paratransit.היום אנחנו מתעסקים גם ברכבים כמו School Bus, כלומר - כל מערך שירות האוטובוסים של עיריית ניו-יורק, כך שבעצם אנחנו יכולים לעשות המון המון דברים.ואת כל זה אנחנו בונים בעצם מעל Stack טכנולוגי אחד ויחיד, שכמו שרן קודם רמז - רובו ככולו נעשה מעל Serverless.(רן) כן, אז מיד ניכנס לסיפור הזה . . . דרך אגב, אני מניח שהרבה מהמאזינים מכירים את Via, וגם היו הרצאות של עובדים שלכם בעבר בכנסים - יש שם ערבוב מעניין של טכנולוגיה, אלגוריתמיקה, Data Science ודברים אחרים - וכמובן גם סיפור מוצרי.יכול להיות שמי ששומע את ה-Pitch שלך אומר “אה! זה Uber!” או אחרים - אבל זה לא . . . הפעם לא ניכנס לזה, כי אנחנו לא עושים פרק על מוצר. יש הבדלים, אבל לא ניכנס אליהם [וכמו כן - 360 Via].ועכשיו - בוא ניכנס לטכנולוגיה: אז אחד הדברים המעניינים ב-Via זה שה-Stack הטכנולוגי כולו, או רובו, רץ מעל פלטפורמת Serverless.אז בוא ספר לנו - איך בנוי ה-Stack שלכם?(ינון) אז בוא נתחיל אולי גם כן היסטורית -אז היסטורית, Via, כמובן, כמו כל חברת היי-טק ישראלית טובה, סטארטאפ ישראלי, התחילה עם Monolith, שלשמחתינו או לצערינו קיים עד היום, אותו Monolith מפורסם שנקרא “Via Server”, שם מאוד מקורי . . . ואותו Via Server רץ במקור על הרבה מכונות EC2 באמאזון - די סטנדרטי, כמו שאתה מצפה, הרבה לפני Kubernetes .מה שגילינו זה שככל שמתפתחים, והזכרתי קודם מקומות ש-Via התפתחה - בעצם ה-Stack עצמו התחיל להיות נורא-נורא יקר . . .מצד אחד, היינו נתקלים בהרבה מאוד בעיות של Scale-up - זאת אומרת שהיה צריך לעשות הרבה Scale-up ולהגדיל את ה-Monolith הזה כדי לתמוך ב-Traffic שכל הזמן גדל, ומצד שני, אם היינו משאירים אותו ב-Scale מאוד גבוה, אז AWS היו מאוד נהנים ו-Via פחות . . . מה גם שב-Via מסתכלים גם על צורת השימוש, בעיקר במקור אבל גם היום - יש תקופות שיש בהן Peak, אפשר לחשוב על זה גם בתל אביב, אנחנו מפעילים גם את שירות Bubble, אז אפשר לחשוב שבשעות הבוקר, בערך מ-07:00 עד 09:30 - מי שמנסה לתפוס Bubble יודע שזה לא פשוט, הרכבים מאוד מאוד עמוסים, ואתם בעצם מפציצים את השרתים שלנו . . . ואותו הדבר קורה בשעות הערב.מצד שני - מי שמנסה לתפוס Bubble בסביבות השעה 12:00, אז החיים שלו מאוד קלים, הוא מוצא אותו מאוד מאוד מהר - וזה פשוט כי יש פחות ביקוש, יש פחות אנשים שרוצים להגיד אל ומ-העבודה.(רן) אבל נשמע שאתם יודעים מה הולכות להיות שעות העומס . . . למה לא פשוט לעשות Scale-up ו-Scale-Down, כשאפילו יש לך חמש דקות לעשות Warm-up לשרתים, אם אתם יודעים מראש . . . ?(ינון) מעולה - אז ככה אמרנו גם אנחנו . . . “מעולה! החיים קלים - אנחנו יודעים לעשות warm-up ו-Scale-Down”הבעיה היא שבשביל זה צריך קצת לחזות ולהבין מה באמת יהיה ה-Traffic - ובכל פעם צריך כמו בפיתוח - לשים באפרים (Buffers) . . .“כמה יהיה מחר בדיוק? אז יהיו מחר 1,000 נוסעים? אז בוא נשים 10 שרתים, או 15 שרתים . . . “ואז למחרת קמים בבוקר - ויש גשם, וגשם זה מכה . . . אז פתאום ה-1,000 נוסעים הופכים ל-2,000 . . . ואם מסתכלים על עיר ב-Scale של ניו-יורק, שהיא עיר מן הסתם הרבה יותר גדולה, אז שם זה הופך מ-10,000 נוסעים ל-100,000 פתאום . . . במכה אחת פתאום כולם מפציצים.אז אם אין גשם - נהדר, זה אומר שמישהו צריך ב-06:00 בבוקר לשים לב ולהגיד “וואו, כדאי שנגדיל עוד יותר את השרתים” - ואתם יכולים לדמיין כמה פעמים מישהו פספס, או פספס לכמה שעות, פספס את ההערכה שלו, ובמקום 100 שרתים הוסיף רק 50 - והפסדנו.(רן) אני מבין את הנקודה הכואבת - זה לקום ב-06:00 בבוקר . . . זאת אומרת, אם זו הייתה חברה שפעילה בצהריים, אז לאף אחד אולי לא היה אכפת, ולא הייתם מגיעים ל-Serverless, אבל לקום ב-06:00 בבוקר זה כבר סיפור . . . (ינון) זו סיבה ממש מעולה לעבור למשהו אחר . . . הבעיה השנייה היא שגם אחרי כשהיינו מעלים את ה-50 שרתים - מישהו גם היה צריך לזכור להוריד את זה אחר כך . . . זה לא תמיד כזה קליל של “נרים עכשיו ואחר כך נזכור”, כי שוכחים, ולמחרת לא . . . והחשבון AWS נראה פתאום לא להיט.אז חפשנו פתרון שיאפשר לנו לעשות גם את ה-Scaling האוטומטי.מצד אחד אתה אומר “אחלה, אז יש פתרונות יותר מודרניים” . . . Kubernetes הגיע בשלב יותר מאוחר, אבל גם לפני כן היו פתרונות של Auto-Scaling Groups ב-AWS, אפשר היה להרים גם איתם.הבעיה היא שכשמסתכלים על זה רגע - אז Monolith שכזה, אמנם כתוב ב-Python, שזה עולה יחסית מהר - ועדיין עד שהוא עולה ועושה את ה-Init שלו, ומוריד . . . אפשר לחשוב קצת על מה ש-Via עושה, אז צריך להוריד את את המפות, צריך להוריד קונפיגורציות, צריך להכין כל מיני דברים . . . וזמן ה-Warm-up והבנייה של ה-Container הוא לא קצר - זה יכול לקחת גם דקות, תלוי כמובן בגודל ה-Traffic ובגודל הדברים שצריך להעלות - וזה כמובן די כואב.לעשות Scale-Up שמסתמך רק על ה-Auto-Scaling הזה מראש זה לא מספיק מהר, ויש תקופה לא מספיק קצרה שמפסידים.מפסידים כסף, מפסידים תנועה - וגם יש שירות ממש לא מוצלח למשתמש שמנסה לנסוע.וזו הסיבה שהתחלנו לחפש דברים אחרים.(רן) אבל זמן טעינה כזה - בטח יבוא יונתן תיכף ויטען - “רגע! אבל אתם לא Monolith! יש Microservices!” . . . אז למה ה-Monolith צרך לטעון את כל המפות של כל העולם ואת כל שאר הדברים? נכון, זה כבד - אבל יש לזה גם פתרונות אחרים, לא רק Serverless . . .(ינון) מעולה - זה השלב שבאמת הסתכלנו - ותודה יונתן על השאלה . . . - הסתכלנו ואמרנו “אוקיי, פתרון אחד זה באמת להגיד יופי, בוא נבנה את זה עם כל מיני Microservices”למעשה, אפשר להסתכל על זה ולהגיד שזה הפתרון שבחרנו - השאלה רק עכשיו היא רק מה ה-Transport שלו, מה ה-Pipeline שבאמצעותו אנחנו בעצם מרימים את אותו הדבר.אופציה אחת הייתה להגיד “אוקיי, נכתוב את הקוד באוסף של שרתים קטנים, ב-Python . . .”, ואגב - בחלק מהדברים זה מה שעשינויש מקומות שבהם . . . Via לא דוגמאטית ואומרת “Serverless is the only way”, זה לא הדרך הנכונה שלנו להסתכל על זה.אנחנו אומרים שבמקומות שבהם אפשר לעשות את זה בצורה קלה דווקא שלא על ידי להרים Service שלם וכבד מעל Kubernetes אלא להסתכל על יתרונות של דברים אחרים, זה היה המקום שבו הסתכלנו על Serverless.אם מסתכלים רק על למה בחרנו ללכת עם Serverless בחלקים ספציפיים, אז בעצם שמנו לעצמנו כמה נקודות מעניינות - אמרנו שאנחנו רוצים כמה שפחות התערבות של DevOps, כי DevOps זה דבר יקר וזה דבר מסובך - לא רק מצד האנשים אלא גם עצם הזמן שמושקע ב-DevOps, בלהרים סביבות ולסדר אותן - מאוד יקר.גם בסביבה מאוד מוצלחת כמו Kubernetes, שבאמת יש לה הרבה יתרונות - עדיין יש הרבה מאוד קונפיגורציה שצריך לעשותצריך להבין מהם הפרמטרים שבעזרתם אנחנו קובעים Scale-up ו-Scale-Down ו-Scale-In - ובעצם לקנפג (Configure) את השרת, לעשות Fine-tuning כל הזמן, כדי להגיע בעצם לתוצאות שהיינו רוצים להגיע אליהן.אז גם בסביבה של Microservices קלאסית כזאת, שבה יש Containers ו-Pods, רוב עבודת הקונפיגורציה הזאת היא עלינו, אחריות שלנו . . . (רן) אני חושב שיש חוק, כלל שימור האנרגיה בטכנולוגיה: עבודה לא נעלמת - היא משנה צורה . . . אם לפני כן היית צריך לחווט כבלים, אז היום אתה צריך לקנפג VPCs, ואם לפני כן היית צריך לקנפג איזושהי מכונה, אז היום אתה צריך לייצר איזשהו Script או לעשות איזושהי קונפיגורציה ב-Terraform או כל כלי אחר . . .ההתמחות משתנה, אבל העבודה לא נעלמת(יונתן) אמרתם שאתם לא דוגמאטיים, זאת אומרת - אתם לא אומרים שזו הדרך היחידה. יש דברים שבהם אתם כן משתמשים עדיין ב . . . ה-Monolith עדיין משחק תפקיד? ה-Microservices עדיין באיזור? או שזה . . .(ינון) קודם כל, ה-Monolith עדיין קיים - לא בכל Deployment ולא בכל מקום, אבל עדיין קיים בלב של חלק מה-Deployment שלנו.ויש לנו עדיין כמה מה-Services האחרים, שהם Microservices סטנדרטיים, עם Containers, חלק כתובים ב-Java, חלקם ב-Python, ועדיין קיימים כ-microServices קלאסיים, Docker Containers בתוך Kubernetes.בעיקר במקומות שבהם יש צריכת זכרון מאוד גבוה - אנחנו צריכים להוריד . . . לצורך העניין להחזיק את המפה - מפה, מן הסתם, זה אובייקט שלוקח הרבה מאוד זכרון, ושם דווקא יוצא לנו יותר נוח להחזיק אותה למשל בתוך Container.כך שיש לנו גם Kubernetes stacks שלמים.עם זאת, במקומות שבהם זו לוגיקה או שהוא “Container Glue” - וזה, אגב, הרבה ממה ש-Via עושה . . .תחשבו, לצורך העניין, על נהגים שמסתובבים בעיר ומדווחים לנו מיקום - הם צריכים כל הזמן לדווח איפה הם נמצאים ולקבל הוראות - זה משהו שלא מצריך הרבה זכרוןמה שהוא באמת מצריך זה את היכולת לעשות Scale-up ו-Scale-In, לפי כמות הנהגים שמסתובבים כרגע בכביש.אז במקום, בעצם, להרים Containers שיודעים לטפל בדבר הזה, גילינו שהרבה יותר קל לנו להרים “micro-micro-micro-Containers”, או “Nano-Containers” כאלה - שזה, בתכל'ס, Lambda . . . אז זה בדיוק מה שזה עושה.(יונתן) אז זה Use-case של, נגיד, לקבל את המיקומים של הנהגים ולכתוב אותם איפשהו, אני מניח? יש Use-cases אחרים, נניח אם אני רוצה להזמין מונית, זה גם . . .(ינון) גם זה על Serverless, לגמרי. גם זה ירוץ Serverless.בעצם תגיע בקשה, לאיזושהי Lambda, שיושבת, לצורך העניין, מאחורי או ALB או איזשהו API Gateway.היא מחוברת ישירות לתוך ה-Lambda - ומשם, למעשה, יכולה לרוץ “שרשרת של Lambda-ות” . . .הגיעה בקשה - מזהה מי הנוסע - משם זה רץ למוקד ההזמנות שלנו, שזה בעצם המוקד “שמדבר” מול הרכבים - תבוצע הזמנה - זה יעבור לאיזושהי Lambda שיודעת לנהל תשלומים, מן הסתם צריך לבדוק שאתה גם רשאי לעלות על הנסיעה . . . זה גם יעבור משם לאיזשהו מקום שהנהג מקבל בו את ההוראותמשם זה יפנה לשירות המיפוי - שזה, להזכיר לכם, Container - נגיד לו “נא לייצר לנהג מסלול חדש”, שיוביל אתכם לאיסוף של אותו נוסע.ובסופו של דבר זה יתורגם כהוראות בחזרה לנהג - והנהג מקבל הוראה וימשיך לשדר לנו את אותם דיווחים, שאנחנו קוראים להם Heartbeat, בשם המקורי . . .וזה יגיע חזרה, בעצם, למערכות שלנו, וימשיך את אותו Flow שהזכרתי קודם.(רן) בוא נדבר רגע על כסף, כלכלה . . . קודם הזכרת שהיו Instances של EC2, והייתם צריך לעשות Scale-up ואז אולי שכחתם לעשות להם Scale-Down וזה עולה כסף וכו' . . . לי יצא לעבוד Serverless, בסטארטאפ הרבה יותר קטן מ-Via, וזה גם היה לפני כמה שנים, לפני חמש שנים או משהו כזה, ואז היה ברור ש-Serverless זה יקר . . . זאת אומרת - יש יתרונות בצד של האופרציה, יש מודל תפעולי, יש מודל תכנותי שהוא בריא, את כל הדברים האלה מאוד מאוד אהבתי - אבל דבר אחד היה ברור: שזה הולך להיות מאוד יקר כשנעשה Scale-up.אם אין כלום באוויר, אז נכון, זה לא עולה - אם לא קוראים לפונקציה שלך, אז עץ שנופל ביער ואף לא שומע אותו אז הוא לא באמת נופל . . . אז זה ברור שיותר קל מאשר לתחזק Container של EC2.אבל ברגע שיש Traffic משמעותי, והפונקציה כל הזמן נקראית, אז היה ברור, לפחות אז, שזה גם הולך להיות הרבה-הרבה-יותר יקר מאשר לתחזק Microservice משלך.איך נראית הכלכלה של זה היום?(ינון) אז בוא נספר לכם את זה ככה . . . נתחיל דווקא מסיפור ואז ניכנס לאט לאט לכיוון הזה.בעצם, בתחילת משבר הקורונה [הסיבוב הראשון . . .], אתם יכולים לדמיין מה הייתה ההשפעה של זה על שירותי ההסעה . . . במכה אחת, בוקר אחד, בתוך שבוע פחות או יותר, עברנו ממאות אלפי נוסעים בניו-יורק לבערך עשרה.אף אחד לא נסע, אף אחד לא זז - וזה היה בכל העולם, לא רק בניו-יורק.מצד שני, אם מסתכלים רגע עכשיו על הכלכלה, או על מה שעלה כסף - במכה אחת כל ה-Lambda-ות שלנו ירדו לאפס, הפסקנו לשלם עליהן לחלוטין,ולעומת זאת כל אותם Containers - שנשארו ב-Monolith וכל מיני כאלה - השאירו שם לא מעט דולרים, שהמשיכו לזרום ישירות לכיסים של מיסטר בזוס . . . [קצת אמפטיה, לאיש יש חללית לבנות].כך שלפחות ברמת ה-Scale-Up / Scale-In, יש לזה כלכלה שהיא סופר-מוצלחת - אנחנו לא צריכים להשאיר בשום שלב “ספיירים” כדי להתמודד עם עומס “למקרה ש…"אפשר לדבר על Warn-ups, אבל לא משאיריםומצד שני, גם בזמן שהיא באוויר והיא כן עושה את הפעילות, אנחנו רואים שזמן העיבוד בפועל, שבו ה-Lambda בעצם עובדת, הוא מאוד נמוך - בעיקר כי כי משתמשים בקריאות א-סינכרוניות.אם עובדים בצורה שהיא יותר א-סינכרונית - כלומר, קריאות שמגיעות עוברות . . . משקיעות את רוב הזמן שלהן במעבר בין Lambda-ות בתוך תורים, ואין בו קריאות סינכרוניות החוצה - פתאום הזמן שבעצם ה-Lambda רצה הוא מאוד מאוד קטן [קצר].ספציפית, אגב - לפני כמה חודשים AWS החליפו את צורת ה-Billing שלהם ממינימום של 100 מילי-שניות למינימום של 1 מילי-שנייה ל-Lambda, וזה שיפר משמעותית את העלות שלהן, בעיקר של Lambda-ות קצרות, שזה הרבה ממה שאנחנו עושים.(רן) הבנתי - זאת אומרת שאם, לדוגמא, ה-Lambda-ות . . . נגיד, אני אתאר איזשהו Flow של -Lambda שקוראת ל--Lambda וכו' - אם כל אחת מהן מחכה לשניה בצורה סינכרונית, אז אתה משלם את החשבון של כולן, אם היא בדרך; אבל אם זה קורה בצורה א-סינכרונית, במעבר דרך SQS או כל מכניזם אחר - אז אתה משלם רק על זמן העיבוד המינימלי. בסדר, אני מבין . . .(יונתן) גם מה שמעניין פה, רן, זה שיש קשר ישיר בין ה-Business - שזה ה-Traffic שאתם מקבלים - לבין העלות, מה שעם Services יותר קשה לעשות את הקשר הזה.הוא חי כל הזמן, גם אם הוא לא יקבל Traffic, גם אם אתה לא “מקבל כסף”.(ינון) בדיוק - בערים של Via, יש ערים שלמות שבהן אין לך שירות בשעות מסויימות של היוםגם השירות ב-Bubble, לצורך העניין, הוא רק בשעות היום, הוא נגמר סביב 22:00-23:00 בלילה [אפילו קצת יותר].תחשוב שכל הלילה יש איזשהו שרת פעיל, וכן צריך לענות תשובות לשאלות: אם איזשהו נוסע פותח אפליקציה של Bubble ב-02:00 לפנות בוקר, אנחנו ניתן לו תשובה שאין כרגע שירות - אבל בשביל זה צריך שיהיה איזשהו שרת באוויר . . .אז ככל שנעביר יותר מהדברים האלה ל-Serverless, אם מישהו יבקש בקשה אז הוא יקבל, אבל אם לא - אז אין צורך בכלל להרים את ה-Service.(רן) אז אתה אומר שבגלל שאתם מאופיינים באלסטיות מאוד גדולה - אולי קורונה זו דוגמא קיצונית, אבל עדיין ביום-יום יש אלסטיות - יש סופי-שבוע, יש שעות שונות במהלך היום, יש חגים . . . בכל אופן, יש אלסטיות בצורה יחסית משמעותית - זה עושה את המודל של Serverless ליותר משתלם אצלכם.אני תוהה - אני לא יודע אם יש בכלל את התשובה, אבל אני תוהה - האם למישהו עם Workload יחסית מאוזן לאורך היממה, האם גם לו זה הולך להשתלם?(ינון) זו תמיד שאלה של מה באמת ה-Workload שלך - וכמה באמת ממה שאתה עושה הוא באמת Broken-down ל-Microservices עד הסוף.למה אני מתכוון? לצורך העניין, אם מסתכלים לרגע על אותו שירות של Via, אז מצד אחד מה שבאמת לוקח המון מהקריאות ומה-Traffic אלו אותם Hearbeat-ים של הנהגים - זה משהו שאנחנו יודעים עליו שהוא מאוד מאוד כבד מבחינת כמות הקריאות שנעשות ומבחינת זמן העיבוד שרץ שם בפנים - גם אם העיבוד עצמו הוא מאוד קצר.אז אם יש לך איזשהו שירות שבו את מחזיק את ה-Heartbeats האלה יחד עם עוד שירות ביחד, בעצם אתה עושה פה Coupling מאוד חזק של של שרת אחד יחד לשתי שכבות יחד.בעולם של Serverless, נורא קל לעשות את ה-Breakdown הזה ממש ל-”Nano-Services” - זה Service שאולי אין לו בכלל זכות חיים משל עצמו, אבל לעשות Scale-up של חתיכה קטנה מתוך ה-Service זה נורא קל.(רן) אוקיי, כן, בסדר - זה היה השיקול הכלכלי. עכשיו, בוא נסתכל על השיקול המתודולוגי.אני אשאל את זה ככה - האם המפתחים שלכם ניהיו יותר טובים, כי הם עובדים Stateless? הם נהיו יותר טובים כי הם נאלצים לרוץ תחת Constraints כאלה של פונקציות Lambda? או במילים אחרות - איך אתה רואה שמתודולוגיה כזאת משפיעה על צורת הפיתוח, איכות הפיתוח, איכות הקוד וכו'?(ינון) אז יש לזה כמה תשובות . . .מצד אחד, כן - המפתחים, בלית ברירה, צריכים לחשוב על עולם שבוא אין זכרון מרכזי, אין שיתוף בין . . . השיתוף היחידי בין Containers הוא בעצם משהו חיצוני, כך שזה גורם לאנשים לחשוב כמה שיותר על איך מחזיקים State ומה עושים איתו.באמת עלינו עם הרבה כיוונים ופתרונות לזה, שגם חלקם, אגב, זה שיקולים כלכליים גם כן . . . לצורך העניין, גילינו שעבודה עם Databases שהם יותר Serverless באופי שלהם, כמו DynamoDB, יוצא לנו הרבה יותר זול - וגם נוח מבחינת Burst-ים של Traffic - מאשר להשתמש ב-Database שהוא “MySQL-כזה”, ושיותר קשה לו לעשות Scale-up.ו-Dynamo, לצורך העניין, הוא גם “אם לא השתמשת - לא שילמת”, אז אם לא קראת אז לא קרה כלום - ולעומת זאת ב-MySQL, גם בגרסאות מוצלחות כמו Aurora, אתה משלם כל עוד ה-Instance למעלה, לא יעזור כלום.בנוסף לכך, גילינו שיש הרבה דרכים גם לשפר את הקריאה מה-Database - אנחנו עובדים כמובן גם עם איזשהו ElastiCache או עם איזשהו S3 כ-Cache מקומי, שעוזר לנו להתמודד בעצם עם Burst-ים של “פתאום אלפי Lambda-ות מנסים לתקוף את ה-Database” [הסרט הבא של Netflix?].ו-Dynamo, לצורך העניין, מתמודד עם זה די יפה, בשביל זה הוא בנוי.כש-Aurora, שהוא Database די מוצלח, קצת פחות נהנה מכזה Burst של Traffic.יש כמה פתרונות ל-AWS, שעובדים ויודעים לפתור את הבעיה הזו - חלק מהם זה אנחנו בנינו בעצמנו לצורך העניין - הרמנו Cache ב-Redis מעל הדבר הזה, בעזרת ElastiCache.אופציה אחרת זה שיש לשים Proxy לפני ה-Database - ובעצם לעשות Connection Pooling לפני ה-Database עצמו.זה באמת מאפשר לנו להריץ, שוב, הרבה Load עם הרבה מאוד Spikiness . . .(רן) בוא רגע נתעכב על הסיטואציה הזאת של Connection Pooling - אני חייב להגיב שגם אני נכוותי מזה . . . ממש אותה סיטואציה שאתה מתאר: פונקציות Lambda, עם Aurora ו-MySQL מאחור - ואלפי פונקציות Lambda שמנסות להתחבר אל ה-Database . . . עכשיו - אם כל האלפים הללו היו בסך הכל Thread-ים בתוך אותו Process, אז יש Connection Pooling ולפי . . . נניח שאתה מחליט שה-Database מרשה שיהיו 300 Connections, אז 300 Thread-ים ידברו עם ה-Database, והאחרים יחכו בתור.אבל פה - Lambda לא יודעת “לחכות בתור” . . . . אז הן מתחילות להיכשל . . .(ינון) ה-Lambda-ות הן באמת יצור קצת אנוכי בקטע הזה - הן לא כל כך “מסתכלות מסביב”ובאמת יש שני פתרונות שאנחנו גילינו והשתמשנו בהם - אחד מהם זה פתרון Built-in של AWS, יש להם Proxy שנועד לפתור בדיוק את הבעיות האלה.בעצם שמים . . . תחשוב על זה כעל סוג של מכונה ששמים לפני ה-EC2, בעצם EC2 לפני ה-Database.ה-Lambda מתחברת למכונה הזאת - והמכונה עצמה מחזיקה Connection Pool - והיא אומרת ל-Lambda “אוקיי, חכי שנייה, אני אתפוס אותך על ה-Connection Pool הבא”.וזה מתנהג, בעצם, מבחינת התפיסה, מאוד דומה למה שהזכרת קודם - בתוך Monolith שכזה . . . זה מאפשר להשתמש בעצם ב-Aurora [מחייב רפרנס ל-The Robots of Dawn . . . .](יונתן) דרך אגב, אתה יודע, רק כדי להשלים את התמונה ואת המוטיבציה - זה לא רק שהן מפגיזות את ה-Database וחלקן נכשלות, אלה למה בכלל מייצרים Connection Pool? כדי לחסוך את זמן יצירת ה-Connection, שב-DCP זה זמן יקר - אבל Lambda לא יכולה לעשות את זה . . . Lambda חייבת בכל פעם לייצר את ה-Connection מחדשואז אתה משלם שוב על Latency - וגם דולרים בסופו של דבר . . .וזו רק דוגמא אחת של Connection Pool - אני חושב שכל Local Cache . . . .כל מה שב-Microservices אתה יכול להשתמש ב-Local Cache, פה אתה בבעיה, אתה צריך פתרונות אחרים.(ינון) נכון . . . אז יש כמה דרכים . . . שוב, כשנתקלנו בבעיה דומה, אגב במקום שבו ה-Database היה Read-Mostly, הפתרון היה בעצם להשתמש ב-ElastiCache כסוג-של-Cache מעל ה-Database.אפשרנו להכריז את ה-Database עצמו כהרבה יותר קטן - ומה שצריך זה Lambda ש”פעם ב” . . . פעם בזמן ה-Refresh-הרלוונטי הייתה פשוט מרפרשת (Refresh) את ה-Cache.די פשוט - לקרוא מה-Database, לדחוף ל-Cache . . . בעצם לעבוד ישירות מול ה-ElastiCache.עלו על כמה פתרונות בדרך, אגב - יש פתרון שנקרא EFS, שבעצם מאפשר להחזיק File System, כשה-Lambda-ות בעצם חולקות, ויש גישה שהיא הרבה יותר קלה, לא צריך להחזיק Connection אלה פשוט זה ניגש ישירות ל-Data.וגם כשהוא באותו Proxy, באמת זה שימושי כדי להחזיק DCP Connection פתוח מול ה-Database ואז רק צריך ליצור Connection קטן מול “הדברצ'יק” הזה.(רן) לפעמים קורה שאתה כן רוצה לשלוט על Server . . . זאת אומרת: אנחנו מדברים על Serverless, ואתה רץ בתוך איזשהו Container. אבל וואלה - לפעמים אתה רוצה לקבוע את כמות הזכרון, לשחק ב-TCP Stack, לעשות כל מיני אופטימיזציות על File Descriptors וכו' . . . מה אתה עושה כשאתה מגיע למצב כזה? מה אתה עושה כשאתה מרגיש שאתה כבר “מגרד את תקרת הזכוכית” בתוך ה-Lambda שלכם?(ינון) קודם כל, אני אשאל אותך - למה? מה המניע?כי בדרך אצלנו, At the end of the day, the business is not that . . . אנחנו לא מתעסקים בלהתעסק עם הקרביים של איזשהו קובץ . . . אם אין ברירה אז אין ברירה, אבל לא מצאנו, עד עכשיו, שום מקום שבו היה צורך בזה.כלומר, העדפנו את הקלות של ה-No-Ops, כשכל מה שצריך לקבוע ב-Lambda זה את כמות הזיכרון שלה - והיא רצה.אני כמובן מגזים, ואפשר לקבוע עוד כמה דברים - האם היא רצה בתוך vPC או מחוץ ל-vPC, יש Security Groups וכו' - אבל בגדול, ברגע שקבעת אותם Once אז גמרנו, ואין מה להתעסק עם זה כמעט.לפי כמות הזכרון בעצם אתה קובע את ה . . . לא את הזכרון אלא את ה-Performance הכללי של ה-Lambda.בגדול, כשאני חושב על זה - כשאתה קובע את הזכרון אתה קובע כמה Lambda-ות רצות על Container אחד של AWSוככל שרצות פחות Lambda-ות, כלומר תופסות יותר זיכרון ורצות פחות Lambda-ות על ה-Container - אז יש לך יותר משאבים בתוך ה-Container: גם CPU, גם Network card - וזו בעצם השליטה שיש לך.בסך הכל - גילינו שכשקצת משחקים עם הזכרון אז זה ממש מעל ומעבר למה שאנחנו צריכים מבחינת השליטה שיש שלנו בתוך ה-Server.לדברים שהם ממש Fine grained - אני מסכים, Lambda לא מתאימה.בשביל זה בדיוק אנחנו הולכים למקומות אחרים כמו Containers ו-Pods.(יונתן) אם מסתכלים קצת אחורה, אז פעם היו “מפלצות כאלה” - היה WebSphere ו-JBOSS ואפילו Tomcat . . . אתה היית כותב את הקוד שלך, עושה לו איזשהו . . . היו קוראים לזה WAR ו-EAR וכל מיני קללות . . . ועושה לזה Deploy בתוך איזשהו Container.וכשהגיעו ה-Microservices זה די הלך לכיוון אחר . . . במקום להיות “אורח” בתוך איזשהו Run-time שמישהו אחר מתחזק, והוא מאוד גדול ומורכב ומוטת השליטה שלך היא קטנה, אתה ניהיה בעל בית של ה . . . אם אתה רץ ב-Python אז אתה ניהיה הבעל-בית של ה-Process של ה-Python של ה-JVM - ובאיזשהו אופן ה-Serverless קצת מחזיר אותך אחורה, לפחות “אחורה” מבחינת האופנה . . . אתה עדיין ניהיה אורח בתוך איזשהו Run-time שמישהו אחר מחזיק ומקנפג (Configure) - איך אתה פה עם “הרטרו” הזה? . . .(ינון) אני מת על הרטרו הזה, כי מי שמחזיק ומקפנג את ה-Server הענק הזה זה לא אני . . . זה התותחים ב-AWS, שיודעים בדיוק מה רוצים - והם די טובים בעולם הזה . . . בגלל זה אני חי עם זה בשלום.אם אני הייתי צריך לתחזק את ה-JBOSS הזה או את ה-WebSphere הזה, אז כנראה שלא היינו מדברים היום . . .מכיוון ש-AWS עושים את זה ואנחנו . . . בסופו של דבר הם באמת יודעים בדיוק מה הם עושים והם טובים בזה, אז אני חי עם זה די בשלום..אני אמנם נתון לחסדיהם, וזה נשמע קצת פטאליסטי, אבל at the end of the day, אם יש מישהו שטוב להיות בידיים שלו זה כנראה החבר'ה ב-AWS שעושים עבודה די טובה.ומה שאני מרוויח מזה באמת זה שאני לא צריך להתעסק יותר עם קונפיגורציות מסובכות, אני בסך הכל I Deploy my code, it works - וזה די הסיפור.בטח כאשר אנחנו מרגישים . . . זאת אומרת, AWS הם מאוד פתוחים מבחינת האימפלמנטציה (Implementation) שלהם ומה שהם מוכנים לספר, ברמה כזאת שהם מאפשרים לך להריץ Any Run-time you want, bring your own Run-time . . . אם אתה רוצה ממש להריץ קוד Fortran מעל Lambda אז No problem, you can do it [ברצינות…] כך שזה אמנם סגור מצד אחד - אבל יש לזה הרבה פתיחות מהצד השני.(יונתן) ואני מניח שאם אתה באמת רוצה להיות בעל הבית של ה-Process, אתה תעשה Microservice שיפתור את הבעיה, אם אתה צריך לקנפג (Configure) את הלא-יודע-כמה Descriptors שאתה צריך . . .(ינון) בדיוק, ואגב - גם שם, זה קצת שונה, אבל במובן מסויים אתה Hosted בתוך Kubernetes . . כלומר - יש לך יותר שליטה על ה-Process, אתה שולט באמת על ה-Run-time, יש לך את ה-Pod . . .מצד שני, יש לך עדיין איזשהו “בעל-בית” שאומר לך “שמע, אתה לא בדיוק עושה את מה שאתה . . . אני עדיין בעל הבית פה”.(יונתן) נכון.(רן) אתם עדיין “Python-Shop”? או ש . . .(ינון) עדיין Python-Shop . . .(רן) זאת אומרת - ברמת העיקרון, Lambda מאפשר לך, אפילו יותר בקלות, לגוון בשפות היעד - אבל זו הזדמנות שעוד לא לקחתם.(ינון) נכון - חוץ מהעובדה שבעצם מה שבאמת משפיע, ואפשר לדבר גם על זה קצת, זה Cold-Start . . . מסתכלים רגע על מתי Lambda עולה, אז כש-Lambda מרימה את עצמה, היא צריכה לעשות הרבה קונפיגורציות ו-Setup.ובעצם העלאת Run-time של Python זה ה-Run-time, אולי חוץ מ-Node, הכי מהיר שיש.משמעותית, לצורך העניין, יותר מהיר מאשר לעלות Lambda של Javaוגם כאלה, אגב, יש לנו כמה, מסיבות הסטוריות - ובאמת רואים שה-Run-time של Java, עד שהוא עולה . . . הוא כבד.מצד שני, אם משתמשים ב-Lambda, אחד מהחסרונות - שהוא גם יתרון, במובן מסויים - הוא שה-Lambda Run-time הוא Single-threaded, או לפחות Single-Core - אין שם באמת תמיכה מלאה ב-Multi-threading, שרצים במקביל.אפשר להסתכל על כמה Processes בתוך Lambda, אבל לא Multi-thread - מה שמייתר, לצורך העניין, את הצורך להשתמש ב-asyncio או בכל מני Thread-ים מסובכים ב-Javaוגם הסתכלנו קצת בעבר על Go-lang - שפה כזו מודרנית ומגניבה [חכה לבאמפרס הבא . . . ]אז לכתוב בה Containers זה די מגניב, אבל לכתוב אותה בתוך Lambda זה די מיותר . . . זאת אומרת - אי אפשר להרוויח שם בכלל מכל ה-asyncio שיושב בתוך Go, כל ה-Async Functions(רן) כן . . . טכנית זה אפשרי, רק שאתה לא מרוויח(ינון) בדיוק - זה עדיין Single-threaded אז זה סינכרוני לחלוטין.(רן) איך נראית חווית המפתח? זאת אומרת - מה קורה אם פתאום ה-Production איטי, או פתאום דברים אובדים, או פתאום . . . לא יודע, בקשה מקבלת Time-out או דברים כאלה? איך מדבגים (Debug) תהליך? איך עושים Tracing? . . איך מדבגים פונקציות Lambda שמפוזרות, אני לא יודע כמה . . . כמה יש לכם?(ינון) יש לנו, בפעם האחרונה שספרתי - כמה אלפים טובים של פונקציות.(יונתן) . . . בטח אתה מתחיל להתגעגע ל-Monolith, שיכולת לשים Break-point ולראות בדיוק מה קורה . . .(ינון) . . . בדיוק, זו אכן שחוויה שהיא . . . At first daunting . . . כשמסתכלים על זה בפעם הראשונה, אני זוכר שאני הסתכלתי על זה ואמרתי “אוקיי, מה אני עושה?” . . . אני פותח את CloudWatch ומנסה לחפור בלוגים . . .לא חווייה מאוד מעניינת, לא כיפית כל כך.ובאמת, אחד הדברים ש-Lambda מחייב זה Clear observability - אז יש כלים פנימיים של AWS - לצורך העניין X-Ray, ש-AWS מאוד דוחפיםכלי חביב כזה, שעוזר בעצם לעשות Distributed Tracing.הבעיה העיקרית עם X-Ray זה שצריך לעבוד בשביל לגרום לזה לעבוד . . . כלומר, חלק מהעבודה היא גם להכניס בעצם יכולת של Tracing בפנים . . .(רן) . . . אינסטרומנטציה (Instrumentation)(ינון) . . אינסטרומנטציה שכזאת, בדיוק . . .ואנחנו העדפנו כלי שעושה את אינסטרומנטציה בשבילנוחפרנו קצת מסביב והתלבשנו בסוף על Epsagonלמי שלא מכיר את Epsagon - כלי מעניין מאוד, שבעצם, עם מעט מאוד עבודה, מאפשר להיכנס ולעשות Tracing של כל ה-Lambda-ות שלנו יחד ולחבר אותן ביחד.הוא משתמש בספרייה שנקראת Jaeger כדי לעשות בעצם Distributed Tracing, זו ספריית open-source די מוכרת, פשוט המימוש שלהם די מוצלח.בעצם, זה מאפשר לנו לראות קריאות שמתחילות ב-Lambda אחת ונגמרות ב-Lambda אחרת, בקצה ה-stack, דרך כל ה-Lambda-ות האחרות.גם מבחינת Tracing שלהן, גם מבחינת ה-Payloads שעברו בתוך ה-Lambda-ות - מבחוץ פנימה, דרך ה-SQS-ים השונים, קריאות ל-Database וכן הלאה.בעצם, זה מאפשר גם לראות את הלוגים - וגם לראות Performance: כמה כל קריאה לקחה, בפנים.(רן) אבל מההיכרות שלי עם Jaeger - הוא מצויין כשמדובר על gRPC או HTTP - כל הדברים הסינכרוניים, אבל דברים א-סינכרוניים, למשל המעבר ב-SQS או מעבר ב-Kafka - שם אתה צריך כבר להמציא בעצמך פתרון . . . אז הם עטפו לכם את זה?(ינון) הם עטפו את כל העסק, הם טיפלו בזה מאוד יפה - אפשר לראות ממש את הקריאות ל-SQS ואת המעבר החוצה, את הקריאה החוצה מתוכו.בעצם הכניסו לא מעט מה-Tracing . . . הרחיבו Jaeger לתוך ה-Tracing שלהם - על זה אולי יהיה מעניין לעשות פרק אחר . . .אבל אנחנו כן משתמשים ב-Epsagon ורואים Observability מלא, End-to-End.המקומות היחידים שבהם זה נשבר הם מקומות שבהם לא הוספנו איזה ארבע שורות לתוך ה-Serverless Framework, שבאמצעותו אנחנו עושים Deploy ל-Lambda-ות, ששם בעצם אנחנו לא עושים את ה-Automatic wrapping שלהם - ושם באמת רואים מתי זה נשבר וכמה זה קשה.ובמקומות כאלה שאנחנו מזהים, זה מאוד פשוט להוסיף Tracing אוטומטי שכזה - זה ממש כמה שורות, להוסיף מודול קטן ב-Node וזה הופ! עושה Tracing אוטומטי ובעצם מאפשר לנו Observability מלא ממש של הכל.(רן) אוקיי, אז זה Tracing ב-Production - אבל איך נראית חוויית הפיתוח? אני עכשיו צריך לכתוב איזשהו Service חדש, או פונקציה חדשה - מה, אני פשוט פורש את זה לענן ורואה מה קורה, או שיש איזשהו משהו מקומי?(ינון) . . . That's pretty much itיש כמובן דברים בסיסיים - אם כותבים ב-Python אז Unit Testing זה דבר די סטנדרטי, שאנחנו מן הסתם חייבים לכתוב, זה אפילו סוג-של-תחליף-Complier, בלאית ברירה.יש קצת Linting וכאלה - אבל למי שלא מכיר את Python, ואני מניח שיש מעט מאוד כאלה, יודע שבלי איזה Unit Test אחד או שניים כדי לראות שהקוד באוויר אתה מאוד בקלות פורש איזו שטות . . . אפשר להריץ Unit Testing בשביל לעשות Local Debugging פשוטבדרך כלל, מה שאנחנו עושים זה פשוט פורשים את זה ישירות לענן מהסביבת Dev, מריצים אוסף של קריאות HTTP ל-Lambda-ות כדי לראות שזה עובד, PostPlan עובד שעות נוספות . . .כן יש פה כמה אופציות להריץ לוקאלית, זאת אומרת - גם ל-AWS יש אופציה להריץ סוג-של Local Lambda Server, “להרים את Lambda מקומית”להגיד שזה מאוד נוח? זה לא . . . זה לא להיט, וגילינו שהרבה יותר קל ונוח לנו לפרוש ישירות ל-Dev Environment ולהריץ הכל משם.(רן) זאת אומרת שיש לכם איזשהו עותק של סביבת ה-Production . . . זאת אומרת, להריץ את הפונקציה שלך זה . . השאלה היא האם היא תלויה בפונקציות אחרות? בתורים אחרים? ב-Databases אחרים? שם הדברים יותר מתחילים להסתבך.אז בעצם, את כל זה אתם עושים ישר בענן? לא על תחנה מקומית?(ינון) נכון.אפשר להסתכל על זה בעצם כעל סוג של Sandbox, שמכיל את ה-Lambda-ות שיש לנו בעולם.בעצם, אנחנו פורשים את הקוד ישירות לשם ובודקים אחד מול השני.מן הסתם, כל Lambda היא באחריות של איזשהו צוות, כל אוסף Lambda-ות או כל Service, בעצם - זה לא רק Lambda, אנחנו מסתכלים על אוסף של X [כמה] Lambda-ות כעל Service מסויים, שיש לו איזושהי מטרה.אנחנו בעצם פורשים את השירותים השונים אל תוך הענן ועושים . . . משתמשים ב-Convention כדי להגיע משירות לשירות ולעשות את כל ה-Wiring בין ה-Lambda-ות השונות.(יונתן) במובן מסוים, גם ב-microServices, החל מ-Scale מסויים, אתה בבעיה די דומה . . .זאת אומרת - כשיש לך כבר כמה מאות אתה כבר לא מרים את כולם על ה-Laptop, וגם פה תלוי ב-Cloud שלך, בעצם.(רן) מסכים ב-100% . . .אני חושב שהבעיה, או האתגר, של שירותים מבוססי-דאטה זה לשחזר איזושהי סביבת Production, כלומר - אם אתה רוצה איזשהו Copy של סביבת ה-Production, עם הדאטה של Production, אבל בלי להזיק ל-Production, וגם לא לשלם את העלות של Production.לפעמים, ה-Databases הם ענקיים, ואתה לא באמת רוצה עותק מלא - אז תיקח את ה-Sub-set של הדאטה, שהוא בדיוק מה שאתה צריך אבל לא יותר מזה - וגם לא תזיק ל-Production - זה אתגר לא פשוט לכל מי שמתעסק עם כמויות גדולות של דאטה, בלי קשר ל-Lambda או לא Lambda.כמה זמן אתה ב-Via?(ינון) שלוש שנים . . .(רן) אוקיי . . . כשהגעת, כבר הייתם בעולם ה-Serverless?(ינון) זו בדיוק הייתה ההתחלה, בשלב שבו הסתכלנו על זה בפעם הראשונה.(רן) אני אגיד לך למה אני שואל - אני מנסה לדמיין מפתח ותיק, מפתח מנוסה אחר, שעכשיו נכנס ל-Via. האם אתה מוצא, נגיד כשאתה מסתכל על מפתחים שגוייסו בזמן האחרון, ואני לא מדבר על צעירים שבחיים לא כתבו קוד אלא על כאלה שכבר . . . אתה יודע, “שועלי קרבות” . . .(יונתן) הפילו את ה-Production כבר כמה פעמים . . .(רן) כן . . . האם אתה רואה שהם, אתה יודע - הם מסתכלים על כל עולם ה-Serverless הזה, ועכשיו צריכים לכתוב איזושהי פונקציה חדשה - האם אתה רואה שהם נלחמים ביצר הטבעי שלהם, או שזה פשוט בא להם בטבעיות, והם “משילים מעליהם” איזשהו משקל כבד שהם נשאו עד עכשיו על הכתפיים ופורחים סביבת ה-Serverless?(ינון) אז הייתי אומר שהם די פורחים . . . זאת אומרת, יש תמיד את המעבר המסוחרר הראשון הזה שאומר, כמו שהזכרת קודם: “רגע, אין לי Connection Pool”, “אין לי פה . . . אני צריך להבין רגע איך זה מגיע, אני פורש את זה כבר לענן? מה קרה לי? זה קצת מוקדם?”.אז באמת יש את הכמה ימים האלה של “רגע-רגע, איך אני עושה פה דברים?”אבל באמת זה לוקח ממש מעט זמן.ב-Via, אתה בדרך כלל מתחיל לכתוב קוד תוך פחות משבועייםכלומר - צריך להרים איזושהי סביבה מקומית, צריך לראות שהכל עובד, שהכל מותקן והכל בסדר - ואז טיפה ללמוד את העולם, גם של Via וגם את עולם של Serverless.אבל תוך באמת פחות משבועיים הוא מקבל משימה ואוקיי - פורש בפעם הראשונה ובפעם השנייה ומשם בעצם זה מגיע ל-Production די מהר.(יונתן) יש גם, אני מניח, יתרון שאולי ה-Scope של הקוד שאתה צריך להכיר כדי לעשות שינוי הוא, כנראה, יותר קטן - זאת אומר, הוא כנראה תלוי בעוד הרבה דברים אחרים, אבל כבר מראש צמצמו לך אותו לסט מסויים של פונקציות או של Services . . . (ינון) כן, אז יותר קל, כנראה, לפרק ל-microServices קטנים, כי העלות של להרים microService היא כמעט כלום.לא צריך פה לפרוש איזה Pod חדש או לייצר משהו חדש - זה “אוקיי, מעתיקים את ה-Serverless.yml”, שזה yml פשוט שרק מגדיר את ה-Service עצמו, יש בו ממש-ממש כלום הגדרות.ומשם פורשים Service חדש מאוד-מאוד בקלות, מה שמאפשר לנו בעצם להריץ הרבה מאוד microServicesרק אצלי בקבוצה יש בין 80 ל-100 microServices ו… And Growing . . . (יונתן) יש איזו אופטימיזציה ש-AWS נותנים, נניח שהם מזהים Lambda-ות שקוראות אחת לשנייה בצורה . . . באופן תדיר, ובעצם להוריד את ה-Network ביניהן ושהן תרוצנה In-process?(ינון) רעיון מדליק . . . אבל לא שאני מכיר . . . מה שאנחנו עושים הרבה באמת זה שאם יש לנו הרבה מקומות שבהם אנחנו קוראים לאותו קוד שוב ושוב ושוב, אנחנו פשוט אורזים אותו כ-Packages.כלומר, במקום לארוז אותו כ-Lambda נפרדת, אנחנו אורזים את זה ב-Package כזה, ואז משתמשים בו, ב-Re-use, במקומות שונים.(רן) שזה, ”בשפת Lambda”, זה ספרייה, נכון? זאת אומרת, יש מגבלה על גודל הפונקציה, אז בשביל זה AWS מציעים Packages, שזה כמו Library . . . (ינון) לא . . . ל-Lambda עצמו, Built-in, יש את מה שנקרא Layers . . .עם Layers, ב-AWS בעצם מאפשרים לך להרים, בהגדרות של AWS, ממש “שכבות” כאלה של Lambda, שמאפשרות לפרוש כחלק מה-Lambda, כאשר ה-Lambda עצמה נפרשת לתוך ה-Container.רעיון די מדליק - אנחנו לא משתמשים בו הרבה . . . אנחנו משתמשים ממש ב-Node Packages בשביל לארוז מחדש את ה-Packages אצלנו, מכמה סיבות.ל-Layers היו כל מיני מגבלות טכניות - היה אפשר רק 5 Layers, ואם אתה צריך את השישית אז אתה כבר נתקע.יש עניין ש-Cold start לא מתחיל מחדש את ה-Layer תמיד . . . כך שהשליטה שלך היא לא מספיק חזקה שם.הרגשנו יותר בנוח לעבוד עם Node Packages, עם גרסאות מסודרות, כשכל Lambda תדע מתי היא מתקדמת לגירסא הבאה . . .(רן) רגע, אמרת Node Packages? אנחנו לא ב-Python? . . . (ינון) סליחה . . . Python . . . אתה צודק, 100% . . .(רן) כמעט תפסנו אותך . . . (ינון) כמעט תפסתם אותי . . . אגב - יש לנו Lambda-ות גם ב-Node, כתבנו כמה Lambda-ות ב-JavaScriptיש צוותים שהעדיפו לעבוד ב-JavaScriptלא הרבה . . . זה עובד, אגב, טוב ממש כמו Python, אם כי אני חובב Python יותר מאשר Node, ולכן אצלי בצוות עובדים בעיקר ב-Python.(רן) כן . . . דרך אגב, יונתן אולי נתייחס לשאלה שלך - שאלת האם כשיש פונקציות שקוראות אחת לשנייה באופן תכוף, האם אפשר לעשות כזאת אופטימיזציה, אבל אז, זאת אומרת . . (א) זה רעיון טובאבל כנראה שבמקרה של ינון זה לא יעזור, כי הם עושים את הכל א-סינכרוני ושמים את הכל ב-Queue, אז בכל מקרה צריך לשלוח ל-Queue . . . (יונתן) Wix בדיוק נתנו הרצאה לא מזמן, על ה-Vision שלהם בעולם ה-Serverless, והם נתנו את הדוגמא הזאת.[לפני חודש - Beyond Serverless and DevOps, Aviran Mordo]זאת אומרת - את ההזדמנות לאופטימיזציה הזאתאז שווה ל . . .(רן) אז מה - גם ה-Queue נמצא בתוך ה-Host?(יונתן) אני לא יודע, אני חושב שזה היה . . .צריך לשאול את אבירן, זה היה יותר “תכנונים עתידיים”, כמו שאני הבנתי . . .(רן) הבנתיטוב, ינון, שמע - מרתק . . . אז אנחנו ממש, ככה, לקראת סיום - תן כמה “מילים סוגרות”, אני בטוח שאתם מגייסים . . .(ינון) כמובן . . . אנחנו בהחלט - כמו, כנראה, כל חברה אחרת בארץ - אבל בטח, אצלנו מגייסים.אנחנו מגייסים, אגב, בכל מיני מקומות בארץ - גם בתל אביב, גם בירושליםואנחנו גם די עובדים, כזה, From anywhere - אז אנחנו מאוד נשמח, אם מעניין אתכם.וכן - העולם של Serverless הוא מרתק בעיני, הוא מאוד שינה לי את החשיבה, מרגע שהגעתי ל-Via, ומאפשר לי באמת לעשות כמה דברים מאוד מאוד מהר ובקלות.ושוב - אנחנו באמת, אם נסכם את זה - אנחנו לא דוגמאטיים בעניין.אנחנו מאוד מאוד מאמינים ב-Serverless כאחת מהטכנולוגיות שעוזרות לנו לקדם את המוצראבל, אתה יודע: מה שעובד - עובד . . . If it works, don't break it . . . (רן) טוב, אחלה - אז תודה רבה, היה מעניין, ונתראה.תודה רן, תודה יונתן.כנס רברסים 2021: נפתחה הקריאה להגשות!הקובץ נמצא כאן, האזנה נעימה ותודה רבה לעופר פורר על התמלול

Josh preaches from Luke 16:10-13 continuing our year long series in Luke — God's Story: You're In It!   10 “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. 11 So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? 12 And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else's property, who will give you property of your own? 13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”

We revisit the seminal distros that shaped Linux's past. Find out if these classics still hold up. Plus the outrageous bounty on a beloved Linux desktop app. Special Guest: Gary Kramlich.

Graeme preaches from Luke 15. This is part of our year long series in Luke — God's Story: You're In It! 

- Report: Apple Retail Relaxing Mask Requirement in Some Areas - DoJ Shrouded Info Requests with Volume - Apple: Breadth of DoJ Info Request Made Nature of Requests Tough to Spot - Apple Put Limits on Requests After Volumes Tied to Leak Requests - Report: DoJ Also Requested Info on Trump Lawyer from Apple - DoJ Moving from “In It” to “Getting to the Bottom of It” - House Antitrust Subcommittee Introduces Five Bills Targeting Big Tech - Report: Japan to Launch Antitrust Investigation Against Apple and Google - Spoiler Alert: Next Round of iPhones Shows Up in EEC Database - Apple Gages Interest in Future, In-Person WWDC - MacRumors: Full-Size HomePod Finally Sells Out on Apple Site - Apple Tower Theatre Store Opens in DTLA on 24 June - Catch “The Enlightenment of Steve Jobs” - Season Five of the Podcast Business Movers from Wondery in Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, or in the Wondery App - Fundrise - The future of real estate investing. Learn more at Fundrise.com/macosken - Power what we do next for as little as $1 a month. Join the Mac OS Ken Test Kitchen at Patreon at Patreon.com/macosken - Send me an email: info@macosken.com or call (716)780-4080!

In Utah Cabin Murders two intruders terrorize and kill a family in there vacation cabin. In It's just a Game teenage girl summons a cult trying to awaken an ancient witch . In Hunting Evil a man opens a paranormal investigation company to find the Demon that took his family --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Your annual doctor visit isn't enough to prevent disease and cancer. You have the power to protect your health with the right conversations.Daily health and lifestyle choices are the key to cancer prevention and early detection. But what choices?In this episode, Dr. Tabatha has an important discussion with Dr. Valena Wright about what women really need to know to prevent female cancers.  In It's Time You Knew, board certified women's cancer surgeon, Valena Wright, MD, offers simple and straightforward tools to help you listen to your body and take control of your health. Achieve your best health and prevent cancer with lifestyle habits you can easily adopt right now.You'll learn:True stories of women who experienced symptoms, diagnosis, and the path they took to cancer recovery.The types of testing that your doctor may not have considered but could save your life.Healthy habits to adopt to improve your health and decrease your cancer risk, including the role of weight, diet, sleep, and exercise play.Valena Wright, MD is a women's wellness expert and board certified gynecologic oncologist at Beth Israel Lahey Health and Hospital in Boston, MA with over 25 years of experience. She is a member of The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Society of Gynecologic Oncology, and The American College of Surgeons, and was previously President of the New England Association of Gynecologic Oncology. Valena completed her medical training at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia as well as postgraduate training at Brigham and Women's Hospital, an affiliated Harvard teaching hospital. She has been recognized numerous times by Castle Connolly Regional Top Doctors List, Boston Magazine, North Shore Magazine, and as an Exceptional Women in Medicine. She teaches as an Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor of OB/GYN at Boston University School of Medicine. When her sister, Debbie, passed away from Stage IC ovarian cancer, it strengthened Valena's medical philosophies to encourage proactive cancer prevention in women to hopefully avoid a cancer diagnosis altogether. A dual US and Canadian citizen, Valena is an empty nester and mother of three who lives in Charlestown, MA. Her Website:  https://valenawrightmd.com/Her Book: It's Time You KnewThe Functional Gynecologist's Guide to Balancing your Hormones:https://drtabatha.synduit.com/sueb0001Work with Dr. Tabatha One-On-One: https://www.drtabatha.com/Dr. Tabatha's FB: https://www.facebook.com/DrTabathaDr. Tabatha's IG: https://www.instagram.com/dr_tabatha/Dr. Tabatha's YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheFunctionalGynecologist

Tim Kay and Family (one of our Partners In Mission) joins us all the way from Central Russia. Tim preaches from Luke 14:15-23 The Wedding Feast as part of our year long series in Luke "God's Story: You're In It!"

Good Monday morning!  after record heat the cool weather has moved back inIt's chilly degrees 41 degrees this morning in Moscow 48 in Boise and the Treasure Valley.  And a cool 46  in Poky a bit cooler 44 in IF. CDA 45…. We will have warmer temps later in the week.Front-month corn futures open this morning up 21 cents, Jul 21 Corn futures open at $6.82. | The wheat futures markets open with double-digit gains over the weekend. CBT SRW rallied 10 to 11 cents on Friday. KC wheat futures open 10 to 12 cents higher. Over in Burley look at the huge gains: | Burley | - Soft White Wheat | 6.13 | up 22 | - Hard Red Winter | 6.15 | up 12 | - Hard Red Spring | 7.11 | up 33 | - Barley | 9.50 | up 25 | - Hard White | 6.29 | up 4 | Fat cattle futures open the session 45 cents lower. June fats open a nickel higher on Friday. Cash sales open at $120 in TX. The bulk of this week's cash business is at $119-$120. Feeder cattle futures fell back $2.25 to $3.02 on Friday. The CME Feeder Cattle Index is 15 cents higher at $136.65.Milk prices open up strong at $17.30 per hundredweight, and after a month on the rise has leveled off.Sugar stands at 17 cents per pound, down a percentage point.Heating oil is at 55.74 and climbing…Up 3-bucks from last week.I'm seeing lots of swathers across the state and All grades of Alfalfa hay remain steady to strong.  Demand  moderate because we finally have fresh on the market…but rain this week could slow things downTimothy going up to $200 a ton…Supreme going for 180 per tonPremium           170                Good              130      That's it for the Monday market report…You can check out the market prices on the Idaho Farm Bureau web page… for the voice of Idaho Agriculture, I'm Jake Putnam

The World Tour returns to Global DJ Broadcast, and on this occasion we feature highlights of Markus Schulz's recent open to close solo set at Barcode in New Jersey.   Tracklist:   Markus Schulz (Recorded Live from Barcode in New Jersey - May 15th 2021) 01. Township Rebellion - Moses 02. Estiva - Metamorphoses 03. Pete Lazonby - Sacred Cycles (Adam Beyer, Bart Skils & Layton Giordani Renaissance Remix) 04. Energy 52 - Cafe del Mar (Tale of Us Renaissance Remix) 05. Tinlicker vs. Robert Miles - Children 06. Ilija Djokovic - Atom 07. CamelPhat & Jake Bugg - Be Someone (Cristoph Remix) 08. B.B.E. - Seven Days and One Week (Yotto Remix) 09. Cristoph - Hawkins 10. Nicole Moudaber & Victor Calderone - The Journey Begins 11. Dave Sinner - Into the Void 12. Alan Fitzpatrick - Trance, Init? 13. Alan Fitzpatrick vs. Nadia Ali - Paranoize Rapture (Markus Schulz Mashup) 14. Cosmic Gate & Diana Miro - Blame 15. Cristoph - Alone 16. Frankyeffe - Crazy Man 2.0 17. Pig&Dan - Pushing On (Markus Schulz Afterdark Reconstruction) 18. Beico & Mt93 - Let There Be Dark (Markus Schulz Afterdark Reconstruction) 19. Arkham Knights & Jam El Mar - Wake Up 20. Alan Fitzpatrick - For an Endless Night (Jel Ford Remix) 21. Viper - Titty Twister (Jam El Mar Remix) 22. Alessandro Spaiani - All Around 23. Slusnik Luna & Genix vs. Lifelike & Kris Menace & MEDUZA - Discopolis Sun (Markus Schulz Mashup) 24. Tiesto - The Business (Markus Schulz Remix)  

Josh continues our series in Luke — God's Story: You're In It. Preaching from the passage in Luke 13:34-35. 

On this episode of The Claville Report, we are introducing a new segment entitled, "What's in It?" It's a series where we dive into pieces of public policy, court decisions, and legal cases to better understand the intricacies of these complex and impactful words and how they control our lives. Listen as we take a deep dive into the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020. We discuss the major provisions of the bill's impact, and whether it is a good policy. Join us on The Claville Report as we discuss, "What's In It?: The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act." See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

You are Always on the path.... Even when you are rolling over Sh**... ruining lives... yours and others... bouncing from job to job doing things that you absolutely can't stand....  That is part of the path.. .It's not one that we are easily able to say is part of the path when we are "In It"...  But most when they evolve beyond those fear based beliefs ... Can easily say that it was all part of getting them back to THEM... To the one who has always been there.. Loving and waiting for them to return... That is YOUR HEART.. YOUR SOUL... always there ...  Knowing that in the humans journey... We must go out and find all of who we are NOT... so that we can know fully and without a doubt that the heart calling us has always home... From this place the judgement and fear are limited and no longer a need to "ruin" or self sabotage everything ... lol .. It is fuel used to propel a human even further up the scale of consciousness and positive emotion... More and more in line with who and what you came here to be. Much Love Pat MORE FOR YOU!! ▶️FREE: Journaling and Scripting INTRO Mini Master Class !!! https://www.likeattractslikeevolution.com/join-journaling-and-scripting ▶️Expand Your Consciousness/Transform Your Life | Book A 1:1 Mentorship Session https://linktr.ee/likeattractslike ▶️Support the podcast through Patreon : ) THANK YOU !! to all who do !! I am so grateful https://www.patreon.com/user?u=22969209 LISTEN TO THE PODCAST HERE ALSO! YOU TUBE ~ https://www.youtube.com/c/LikeAttract... INSTAGRAM ~ https://www.instagram.com/likeattract... SPOTIFY ~ https://open.spotify.com/show/2ecaCOS..     #spiritualawakening #lawofattraction #love #motivation #spirituality #consciousness #believe #success #mindset #lightworker #abundance #inspiration #gratitude #universe #loa #awakening #affirm 


As many of you know, May is mental health awareness month.  I've done a couple of episodes on this topic this month and I wanted to squeak one more in.  My guest today, Sean Van Horn is a fellow struggler.  And I say that with the most reverence and affection I can.  He's an outstanding athlete.  He came up in the cycling world and eventually got into ultrarunning and skiing.  He's an all around mountain endurance guy.  Last year he completed Nolan's 14, which for me is pretty much the pinnacle.  Even though he's a great athlete, he struggles with mental health and an eating disorder.  When I reached out to him to be on the show, he was a little unsure because he is right in the thick of his struggles right now and is left without any real concrete answers.  He is IN IT.  I thought it would be interesting to have a guest on the show that hasn't exactly come out on the other side yet.  He's an outstanding athlete and has what's seemingly a great life.  But he still struggles, as many do.  This episode doesn't provide a ton of answers on what's working and keeping him healthy.  He's still trying different methods and modalities to try and figure this thing out.   I really admire his brutal honesty and bravery to come on and talk.   SUPPORT: Athletic Brewing // 20% Promo code is MCROBERTSA20 On Pace Wellness // Mention this podcast for a 10% discount Xoskin // 20% Promo code is BTC Original Music by @the.pro.guey Life is short, DO BIG THINGS! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/big-things-crewing/support

Amy continues our series in Luke — God's Story: You're In It. Preaching from Luke 9:18-27 Peter declares that Jesus is the Messiah. 

On Pentecost Sunday Graeme continues our series in Luke — God's Story: You're In It. Preaching from Luke 10:17-24 Sending of the Seventy-Two. 

Welcome to our 100th Episode and 10th Book Review! Another amazing book that I highly recommend! As I like to do, I'm going to quote the parts I found the most interesting and the most relevant! Book focus: People that build companies with $50,000 a year, no "special" skills, and have

Graeme continues our series in Luke — God's Story: You're In It. Preaching from Luke 9:1-6 Jesus sends out the 12. 

Delve heats up, Init comes home to Delve? --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/talking-in-stations/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/talking-in-stations/support

NHE host Scott Murphy chats to writer/director John Berardo about his debut feature “Init!ation.” A college campus slasher with a 90s throwback feel and a feminist twist. In the interview (the interview begins at 2:10) John tells us about how his college experiences informed the story of the feature and how he fought to have […]

Josh preaches from Luke 8:40-56, Jesus raises a dead girl and heals a sick woman. This is the continuation of our year long series in Luke: God's Story — You're In It! 

It’s time to release what God put in you. In “It’s Always Been In You,” Pastor Steven Furtick of Elevation Church shows us that, no matter the season, God has already prepared us for it.

On Today’s Episode of the Punch Out:Biden’s Family Plan: What’s In It? Is It Enough? Will It Even Happen?

In this short video, Jayme and Cecil teach us about init only setters in C# 9. Useful LinksInit Only SettersWhat’s new in C# 9.NET Videos

She borrowed her brother's car and hooked up IN IT.

Graeme preaches from Luke 8:22-25. This is part of our year long series in Luke: God's Story: You're In It! 

Day 5 Intention: Today bring to Me THE SOULS OF THOSE WHO HAVE SEPARATED THEMSELVES FROM MY CHURCH,* and immerse them in the ocean of My mercy. During My bitter Passion they tore at My Body and Heart, that is, My Church. As they return to unity with the Church, My wounds heal and in this way they alleviate My Passion.Jesus told Luisa,“My child,  after I gave everything, I wanted this lance to open a shelter for all souls inside this  Heart of Mine.  Opened, It will  cry out to all, continuously:  Come into Me if you want to be saved.  In this  Heart you will find sanctity  and you will make yourselves saints; you will find relief in afflictions, strength in weakness, peace in  doubts, company in abandonments.  O souls who love Me, if you really want to love Me, come  to dwell in this Heart forever.  Here you will find true love in order to love Me, and ardent flames for you to be burned and consumed completely in love.  Everything is centered in this Heart:  here  are the Sacraments, here my Church, here the life of my  Church  and the life of  all souls.  In It  I also feel the profanations made against my Church, the plots of the enemies, the arrows they send, and my  oppressed children – there is no offense which my  Heart does not feel.  Therefore, my  child, may your life be in this Heart defend Me, repair Me, bring Me everyone into It.”-  The 24 Hours of the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ by Lusia PiccarretaThe Divine Mercy Chaplet (Step by step)Luisa Piccarreta Official Websitehttps://en.luisapiccarretaofficial.org/Buddy Comfort - vocals and guitar from the album, "Brother Sun, Sister Moon", http://www.buddycomfort.com, words and music by Donovan Leitch.For more information: drussell777@icloud.com Support the show (https://www.paypal.me/magi777)

All links and images for this episode can be found on CISO Series https://cisoseries.com/we-recommend-a-know-the-right-people-certification/ There are so many fantastic certifications out there for security professionals. But we've found the one certification that will really help you land the right job really quickly, is to provide proof that you know some people at our company who can vouch for you. Remember, we are a business that operates on trust, not giving people their first chances in cybersecurity. This episode is hosted by me, David Spark (@dspark), producer of CISO Series and Mike Johnson. Our guest this week is Jesse Whaley, CISO, Amtrak Thanks to our podcast sponsor, Adaptive Shield Adaptive Shield ensures companies gain control over their SaaS app security and prevents the misconfigurations and vulnerabilities that could lead to a leak or breach. Adaptive Shield connects to any app, continuously monitors all configurations, provides a complete picture of the company's SaaS estate, and enables quick remediation of any potential threats. In this week's episode Why is everybody talking about this now? Should cybersecurity professionals fight back rather than block and tackle? former US government cyber security chief Chris Krebs, has called on law enforcement and others to fight back against ransomware attackers. Krebs, suggested posting private information of the hackers, with malicious intent, AKA doxxing. "Hacking back" is dangerous as it's hard to determine the attacker, and you're essentially taking the law into your own hands, but Chris Krebs is recommending this, seeing that ransomware is the biggest threat. Dan Lohrmann of Security Mentor shared this article from the Financial Times and it drove a lot of debate. We've heard this before, but from someone like Chris Krebs, that's astonishing. What level of fighting back should people be comfortable with? Are we having communication issues? "I push back [on vendors] because I want depth and context from first contact," said John Keenan, director of Information Security, at Memorial Hospital at Gulfport. In this post on LinkedIn he said he's annoyed with vendors' generic first outreach and when he declines their response is "Well, I had to give it a shot". If they want a real connection, include "What's In It for Me". A generic response of "I think you'll really like what we've got to show," does not qualify. Let's talk about who has ever received a first (or heck any) contact that did have depth and context and could clearly articulate the "what's in it for you" message. "What's Worse?!" This week's challenge is from Nir Rothenberg, CISO, Rapyd. How have you actually pulled this off? Hiring in cybersecurity is a bear. As we've discussed before on this show, there's actually plenty of supply and demand in cybersecurity, yet jobs are not getting filled, possibly because of unreasonable requirements. Let's talk about what percentage of all the ideal skills people are willing to accept in a new hire, and situations where someone was hired who didn't possess that must have-skill for the job. ? And also let's look at the most effective training or mentoring technique used to get employees to adopt those skills. Hey you’re a CISO. What’s your take? On Twitter, Alyssa Miller AKA @alyssaM_InfoSec asked: "You're the CISO, rank the priority of the following list from a security perspective and explain your reasons: A. A well-defined vulnerability management program B. A reliable configuration management database/Asset Inventory C. A comprehensive metrics and reporting practice. A slight majority voted BAC or asset management, vulnerability management, then metrics. But there was plenty of disagreement. Let's look at that.        

S01E66 - Brace yourself for a big nostalgia trip featuring stories of INIT's old days and little baby Pando in his first steps commanding fleets. Sister Bliss is the leader of INIT and has quite some memories which he shares with us on this episode of FC Chat.

Phelan Kane is a force of nature – when he recently signed up for the Max Certified Trainer program, I got a chance to see him in teacher-action, and also got a sense of his writing and presentation styles. Wow! Adept at everything from cogent DSP explanations to crazy Max DSP external development, he blew me away with all of the stuff that he could pull off. Then the interview – and I find out about his prior work in the studio. A-maz-ing! I had no idea about his background as a studio rat, but he was In It – right up until Napster kneecapped the whole industry. Speaking with someone that has such serious teaching experience (15+ years), massive studio experience, his own personal music exploration and a complete obsession with synths – well, you can imagine how that was going to go. We got along like old friends, and I was just consistently knocked out over the stories he was able to tell. Check out the interview, and check out Phelan’s teaching over at Music HackSpace: https://musichackspace.org/whatson_list/list/?tribe-bar-search=Phelan Enjoy! Transcription available at http://www.darwingrosse.com/AMT/transcript-0351.html

Passing Covid-19 to Find Out What's In It; Will Xavier Becerra Be Confirmed for HHS? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Fusebox #166 “Algorithmia” 24:58 – You Tubed, Your Daily Algorithm, Ad Tracker Woes, Social Media Insects Object! What's In It for Us? Sleight Of Hand Mailing List, Milo Gets Packages, Like Our Crappy App? Like It Or Not It's In Your Feed, Great Old Italian Prog-Rock (Fusioon and Nova), Rudy G Tries To Slip Out […]

For today’s episode, Tyrell and Daphne welcome Dr. Breea Willingham, an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at State University of New York, Plattsburgh. During the conversation, Dr. Willingham provides insight into her journey from journalist to academic (36:30) and shares her motivation for studying criminal justice and Black women’s experiences with incarceration (46:45). They also have a conversation about Black women’s unique pathways to and issues in the criminal justice system (51:31), their experiences in prison and rejoining the community (1:01:12), the obstacles they face with community reintegration (1:06:07), and the impact of maternal versus paternal incarceration on children (1:08:45). They close the interview by discussing Dr. Willingham’s upcoming projects (1:16:33).  Other Topics Include:  00:30 - Catch up with Ty and Daphne 9:10 - BhD “Oh Lawd” News 33:45 - Introduction of Today’s Topic  1:21:45-  Ty and Daphne Reflect on the Interview  Resources: BhD Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/bhdpodcast  Dr. Willingham’s Twitter - @DrBWillingham Dr. Willingham Faculty Website - https://www.plattsburgh.edu/academics/schools/arts-sciences/criminal-justice/faculty/willingham-breea.html   Fact Check: Will Georgia Bill Make it a Crime to Give Food and Drinks to Voters? - https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-will-georgia-bill-make-it-crime-give-food-drinks-voters-1573917 The Senate Passed a $1.9 Trillion COVID-19 Relief Bill. Here's What's In It -  https://time.com/5944774/whats-in-covid-19-relief-bill-senate/  Six Charged in Connection with a $3 Million Paycheck Protection Program Fraud Scheme - https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/six-charged-connection-3-million-paycheck-protection-program-fraud-scheme  Dr. Seuss Books Are Pulled, and a ‘Cancel Culture’ Controversy Erupts - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/04/books/dr-seuss-books.html  Evanston reparations vote by city council scheduled for March 22 - https://abc7chicago.com/reparations-in-evanston-reparation-illinois-news/10396917/  Dutch inventor develops 'COVID Scream Test' - https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/dutch-inventor-develops-covid-scream-test/509-11cf6c3f-c475-4b89-90aa-469b2ccac099 

Included in this episode: 1. The Senate Passed a $1.9 Trillion COVID-19 Relief Bill. Here’s What’s In It 2. The Core Message of Meghan and Harry’s Oprah Interview: Racism Drove Us From the Royal Family 3. Column: My Father Wrote 'Strange Fruit.' The Capitol Rioters Had a Lot in Common With Lynch Mobs That Inspired That Song 4. The Pandemic Has Spurred a Return to Low-Cost Fitness Activities 5. Why This Insurance Company’s Employees Say it’s Been One of the Best Places to Work During the Pandemic 6. Review: The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run Is a Ludicrous Undersea Delight .

In IT, tech moves fast making the “use it or lose it” mentality a big reality. Learn how to ensure your team's skills are up-to-date and current in this week's episode.

Kyle catches up with his college mentor, and much-more-famous-than-him political science professor at Fordham University/author/podcast host/MSNBC commentator (among other things), Dr. Christina Greer! They chat about being OG Stacey Abrams stans, that Tina Turner musical, how the NYC Mayoral Race might play out, and most importantly, if Dr. Greer will ever follow Kyle on Twitter.... (and much more!)Follow Dr. Greer on Twitter! @Dr_CMGreer Check out Dr. Greer's book, Black Ethnics: Race, Immigration, and the Pursuit of the American Dream (Oxford University Press, 2013). ISBN: 9780199989317 (Support local, Black-owned bookstores!)Listen to Dr. Greer on FAQ NYCListen to Dr. Greer on What's In It for Us?Walk Me Through It was created by and is hosted, edited and produced by Kyle Kilkenny. Follow Kyle on Twitter, Instagram, & TikTok @kylejkilkenny!New episodes every 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month!If you have a question, comment, topic or guest request for the show, email Kyle at kylejkilkenny@gmail.com.To support the show and to keep it ad-free, visit buymeacoffee.com/kylejkilkenny. Supporters will be listed in the episode description!Co-Produced by Patrick Johnson.Our Creative Consultant is Chris Dollesin.Music: VHS Dreams by Shane Ivers - https://www.silvermansound.comSpecial Thanks:Christina Greer-- for helping me find my voice (and for sharing hers here)Audg & Victoria-- for buying me a slice and always being supportive friends!My parents, Kerry & Ken-- for giving me life and some podcast equipmentAll of you-- for listening!Support the show (https://www.buymeacoffee.com/kylejkilkenny)