Podcasts about internally

Betrayal Overcompensation: From Image Management to Authentic Recovery After betrayal, one of the most difficult questions is often: How do I know what is real? Sometimes betrayal is accompanied by withdrawal. A partner becomes distant, disconnected, less affectionate, or emotionally unavailable. But sometimes the opposite happens. The person who is hiding sexual behaviors may become more helpful, attentive, productive, religious, generous, or involved. They may work harder around the house, become the “great” parent, serve others, or go out of their way to demonstrate that they are a good spouse. In this episode of the Human Intimacy Podcast, Dr. Kevin Skinner and MaryAnn Michaelis explore this other side of betrayal withdrawal—a pattern they call betrayal overcompensation. Betrayal overcompensation can occur when shame, secrecy, and fear of rejection lead someone to compensate for what they are hiding by emphasizing the parts of themselves they believe others will value. Underneath the behavior may be an unspoken fear: If you really knew what I was doing—or who I really am—you might reject me. Why This Can Be So Confusing for the Betrayed Partner Discovery can cause a betrayed partner to question not only the betrayal, but their entire perception of the relationship. I thought we were doing well. You were helping me. You looked me in the eyes. Everyone thought you were a wonderful spouse. How did I not know? And after discovery, even positive behavior can become difficult to trust. If someone appeared loving and responsible while hiding important parts of their life, the betrayed partner may understandably wonder whether new positive behaviors are genuine or simply another form of image management. The question becomes: If I couldn't tell before, how am I supposed to know now? From Performance to Congruence Recovery requires more than doing good things. The deeper work is becoming congruent—allowing what is happening internally to increasingly match what is being presented externally. That involves the ability to acknowledge: What I hid How I deceived How shame influenced my behavior When I was seeking approval or protecting an image How my behavior affected my partner Who I genuinely want to become The episode identifies humility, transparency, accountability, and authenticity as important signs of this deeper shift. Instead of asking, Do other people think I'm doing well?, recovery begins asking: Am I living with integrity even when nobody is watching or praising me? Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Change One of the most important distinctions in this conversation is between extrinsic change and intrinsic change. Extrinsic change depends heavily on outside influences—approval, praise, recognition, avoiding rejection, or maintaining a particular image. Intrinsic change comes from within: This is the person I want to become. Support, therapy, groups, sponsors, and accountability can still be essential. But their purpose isn't simply to provide another audience from whom to receive validation. Healthy support provides places where people can stop hiding, become known, develop genuine connection, and practice honesty. As recovery deepens, a person can become increasingly capable of remaining steady even when their partner is hurting, angry, questioning, or struggling. Instead of collapsing into shame or demanding recognition for their progress, they can stay present with their partner's pain. Betrayed Partners Can Overcompensate Too Betrayal overcompensation isn't necessarily limited to the person who acted out. Betrayed partners may also feel tremendous pressure to make everything appear okay. The house needs to look perfect. The family needs to look intact. Other people can't know what is happening. Everything needs to appear normal—even when internally, nothing feels normal. That can create another form of incongruence: tremendous pain on the inside while presenting an image of stability on the outside. Giving this experience language can help betrayed partners recognize what is happening and begin moving out of isolation and toward authentic support and healing. The Goal Isn't Looking Better. It's Becoming More Authentic. Betrayal withdrawal and betrayal overcompensation can look very different, but both can emerge when shame, fear, and secrecy interfere with genuine connection. Lasting change requires something deeper than appearances. It requires becoming increasingly: Known rather than hidden. Connected rather than isolated. Accountable rather than defensive. Internally motivated rather than dependent on external validation. You cannot change what you don't understand. Giving these experiences language can provide an important first step toward understanding what has happened—and identifying a healthier path forward. Resources Mentioned in This Episode Brené Brown Her work on shame, vulnerability, and perfectionism is referenced in the discussion of presenting a polished exterior while attempting to hide what is happening internally. Anna Lembke — Dopamine Nation Referenced during the discussion of external validation, compensatory behaviors, and the difference between outward recognition and internally motivated change. Dr. Kevin Skinner — Treating Sexual Addiction Dr. Skinner discusses the Recovery Capital Scale and the importance of meaningful support, accountability, groups, sponsors, and connection in sustained recovery. Human Intimacy Podcast — Betrayal Withdrawal Listen to the companion episode exploring the other side of this dynamic: emotional and relational withdrawal associated with betrayal and hidden sexual behavior. Intimacy Repair Method Assessments, resources, therapist training, and intensive programs designed to help individuals and couples better understand betrayal, healing, recovery, and relational repair. Human Intimacy Additional podcasts, education, and relationship resources. We Want to Hear From You Have you experienced betrayal overcompensation? Did your partner appear especially attentive, helpful, successful, spiritual, or put together while important behaviors remained hidden? Or, as a betrayed partner, did you find yourself trying to convince the outside world that everything was okay when it wasn't? Giving these experiences language helps us better understand the complicated dynamics surrounding betrayal. We'd love to hear your experience. info@humanintimacy.com  

Old Testament Book of Amos Key Verses Amos 3:1-2 - Hear this word that Yahweh has spoken against you, children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up out of the land of Egypt, saying: "You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth. Therefore I will punish you for all of your sins." Amos 8:11 - Behold, the days come," says the Lord Yahweh, "that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of Yahweh. They will wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east; they will run back and forth to seek the word of Yahweh, and will not find it. Summary Amos preached 760 - 753 BC, first to the surrounding nations, and then to Israel in the North It was a time of national optimism in Israel, business and national boundaries were expanding. Internally however, greed and injustice were rife and people were growing hard towards God's discipline. Amos, visualizes the coming judgement of God and tries to mobilize the nation towards repentance.

We are excited to have Anthropic share their latest AI x Finance work at AI Engineer New York, coming up in 2 weeks!In case you've been under a rock, here's a non-exhaustive list of what Anthropic has been shipping since closing the largest fundraise of all time in May at $47B ARR:* June: Launched Claude Tag and Sonnet 5 and Fable 5* July: Opus 5, /checkup. crossed $65B ARR* Last month: Fable/Mythos 5.1, and EFS (upcoming pod)* IPO target $2T, end 2026 ARR estimated $100B* Cowork/chat merged before did* Claude Mods* Dario endorses the same Pacing the Frontier message cosigned by all labs* Last week: Opus 5.5, Plugins portal, Cloud Sessions/Claude Projects* Today: Sonnet 5.5!Today's episode should catch you up, with Thariq Shihipar, the explainer-king of Anthropic, who we last caught up on Fable launch day with The Field Guide to Fable:The Future of Mutable SoftwarePay special attention to Claude Mods (especially the cheatsheet):In general this is also the inverse of the other viral tweet from Thariq:Cloud Brain, Local HandsAnd give a try to Claude Projects:The “hands” terminology is not just an analogy for the local/cloud paradigm that is being built up at frontier coding agent companies like Cognition, but is ALSO particularly relevant to the safety systems discussions that we'll be discussing with Anthropic in an upcoming episode as they prepare to pace to frontier with responsible AI deployment.For those who want Thariq's writing tips we teased at the start of the pod, watch the full video here:From the rapid rise of Claude Code to a future where agents can rewrite their own harnesses, collaborate across teams, and operate across cloud and local environments, the way we build software is changing extraordinarily fast. In this episode, Anthropic's Thariq Shihipar joins swyx and Vibhu to unpack how power users are actually working with Claude Code today, why prompting remains a high-skill discipline, and where Anthropic thinks the agent harness is headed next.We go deep on Claude Code's evolving interface: Ask User Question and elicitation, artifacts as persistent generative interfaces, Claude Tag for multiplayer agent workflows, Projects, model effort, implementation notes, and the new Claude Mods system for customizing the harness itself. Thariq explains why Claude.md may eventually disappear, why the smartest model could also become the cheapest model for many tasks, and why mutable software could become a new paradigm for how applications are built and customized.The conversation then turns to agent security and Anthropic's “Pacing the Frontier” argument. Thariq walks through recent incidents where agents discovered unexpected ways to communicate, exploit infrastructure, reverse-engineer benchmark scorers, and chain vulnerabilities together. We discuss sandboxing, prompt injection, autonomous agents, interpretability, constitutional classifiers, probes, fallbacks, Auto Mode, and why securing increasingly capable agents may become one of the defining engineering problems of the next few years.We discuss:* Why agentic coding went from controversial to the default in less than a year* Why prompting is still one of the highest-leverage skills for working with Claude Code* How expert users build a mental model of Claude and what it can reliably one-shot* Why discovering your “unknown unknowns” matters more as agents become more capable* Artifacts as persistent, generative interfaces between humans and agents* How Claude could split into a cloud-based “brain,” local or remote “hands,” and dynamic interfaces* Claude Tag, Projects, and multiplayer agents and how collaborative agent workflows could evolve* Why spending more time on the initial prompt can dramatically reduce wasted agent work* When to use low, medium, high, or max effort for different engineering tasks* Why frontier models may eventually outperform smaller models on both intelligence and token efficiency* Why implementation notes can expose decisions the model considered but chose not to make* Why Claude.md may eventually disappear — and why starting without one can sometimes be better* Claude Mods: customizing the execution loop, UI, subagents, routing, and behavior of Claude Code* Model routers, forked agents, and supervisor agents that automatically improve agent workflows* Why Claude Mods may be an early preview of “mutable software”* The bitter lesson of harness engineering and why agent architectures go out of date so quickly* How Claude Tag is becoming an organizational harness for multiplayer work* Why giving agents access to company data creates an enormous new security surface* The Exploit-Bench incident where agents discovered ways to communicate and collaborate* Why agents hacked Hugging Face for scorer code rather than benchmark answers* How agents chained sandbox and infrastructure vulnerabilities in unexpected ways* Why increasingly capable agents make traditional security assumptions harder to maintain* The argument behind Anthropic's “Pacing the Frontier” proposal* Why software engineers are increasingly doing two jobs: engineering and keeping up with AI* Constitutional classifiers, probes, and fallbacks and what interpretability looks like in production* How Auto Mode checks whether an agent's actions actually match the user's permissions* Why Thariq can see serious AI risks while still having a relatively low p(doom)Thariq Shihipar* X: https://x.com/trq212* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/thariqshihiparTimestamps00:00:00 Introduction00:04:12 Ask User Question and the Future of Agent Interfaces00:08:29 Artifacts, Projects, and Multiplayer Agents00:15:37 Prompting as the Core Claude Code Skill00:21:52 Context, Effort, and Smarter Model Usage00:28:10 Is Claude.md Going Away?00:32:49 Claude Mods: Customizing the Claude Code Harness00:36:35 Model Routing and the Rise of Mutable Software00:44:40 The Bitter Lesson of Harness Engineering00:50:49 Claude Tag as an Organizational Harness00:55:59 Pacing the Frontier and Autonomous Agent Security00:58:22 Agents Hack Hugging Face for the Scorer01:05:34 What Happens When Agents Need More Compute?01:10:32 AI Coding Is Changing Faster Than Engineers Can Keep Up01:17:17 Probes, Fallbacks, Interpretability, and Auto Mode01:28:32 AI Risk, p(doom), and Closing ThoughtsTranscriptIntroduction: Life at Anthropic and the Pace of ChangeSwyx [00:00:00]: We're here in the studio with our friend Thariq from Anthropic, and I guess generally the Claude Code, I-- there's, there's so much, merging of boundaries and you've been so on top of everything since you joined Anthropic. You have been early to Claude Code itself, but then also, and you've told that story in other podcasts, and you've also been talking about seeing like an agent. Most recently you did the top AIE World Tour talk, Field Guide to Fable, which obviously you guys launched Fable, so that was-- that's cheating. And mostly you most recently also launching Claude Tag, and we're also gonna be talking about Pacing the Frontier. There's a lot going on in Anthropic. I guess top of the question is, what's it like being at Anthropic when there's so much going on?Thariq Shihipar [00:00:48]: I think that It is, like. I think you can get whiplash sometimes. I think, like, going. When I joined Anthropic, I joined because of Claude Code. Like Claude Code had just come out and I was like, “This is so good.” And Opus 4 to me was like just, I could not imagine, like, how good it was? And that was, like, a real moment for me. But I was, like, trying to convince, like, my startup friends to use agentic coding, and they're like, “Oh, no, like, our engineers don't think it's good enough,” or something. And I was like, “That's insane.” and now you, like, fast-forward, 12 months, less, and, like, it's just like, yeah, the default way that everyone codes, right? And I think that, like, just having to go from, like, selling it to, like, now, teaching people how to be. make the most use of it and be more efficient and things like that is just like a big, like big change. And, yeah, I think, like, it's just hard to stay on top of everything as a human? Like, I think things happen so fast and likeSwyx [00:01:51]: You just throw more agents at it.Thariq Shihipar [00:01:52]: Yeah, like that's like the agentic stuff scales much better than the, like, human stuff where it's like, oh, like, there are three things happening right now and, like, they're all emergencies and, like, how do you, like, respond to it? Yeah.Teaching People to Use Claude CodeVibhu [00:02:05]: What do you split your time on? You do a lot of technical writing, engineering work.Thariq Shihipar [00:02:10]: Yeah, so I think that, like, when I joined the Claude Code team, I wanted to teach people how to use Claude Code and I think that, like, that has been something that, like, I thought, like, maybe I would spend a little bit of time on it or, like, I'd, like, do. I was spending some time on the agent SDK first, and I wasn't exactly sure, like, how the bitter lesson would go, when it comes to, like, harnesses, right? Like, I think sometimes we were like, “Oh, like, what's after Claude Code?”? And so initially I was like, I just wanna teach people how to use Claude Code and make it easier to use Claude Code. And I think that has just, like, as the harnesses have gotten better and better, that's like the dominant problem now is, like, how do you use the agents, right? Like, it's like such a high skill expression thing. So I do that and then I do engineering work. I give talks, but I think, like, when I'm doing engineering work, my goal is to take that feedback that we get from users and also, like, then be able to talk about, like, hey, how to use Claude Code to do engineering. So there's like a good loop there. Yeah.Swyx [00:03:07]: Yeah. I'll-- For listeners, we'll attach, the talk that you did with Sarah for the Dev Writers, meetupThariq Shihipar [00:03:13]: Oh, yeahSwyx [00:03:13]: Which we talked a little bit about, well, first you do the work and then you talk about the work.Thariq Shihipar [00:03:16]: Right.Swyx [00:03:16]: Something like that.Thariq Shihipar [00:03:17]: Yeah.Swyx [00:03:17]: It's sow and reap orThariq Shihipar [00:03:19]: Yeah, reap and. Sow and reap.Swyx [00:03:21]: Something like that. Something like that. Yeah, so, and then just to preview a little bit, we are gonna talk about the evolution of the harness. It has come a long way from just being a CLI. We're gonna talk about, Claude Mods, which is starting to leak today, because you couldn't keep it secret.Thariq Shihipar [00:03:36]: Yeah. yeah.Swyx [00:03:39]: Yeah, there's, there's a lot, there. I think you started off with, like, adding ask user question tool, which people love and hate.Thariq Shihipar [00:03:48]: Yeah.Swyx [00:03:48]: Like, I thought it was, like, very innovative, and then now I have, like, my own version. You have your Interview Me version.Thariq Shihipar [00:03:55]: Yeah.Swyx [00:03:56]: And, yeah, everyone just has, like, their own stuff. And, like, it no longer matters ‘cause now you're supposed to, write prompts that create other prompts and loops and all these things.Ask User Question and Human-Agent InteractionThariq Shihipar [00:04:05]: Sure, yeah.Swyx [00:04:06]: So what's the state of the art, today? Like, what are people. what are you, like, telling people to do today?Thariq Shihipar [00:04:12]: Yeah, ask user question was the first time that the model was good at elicitation. I think this was, like, an emergent behavior that I, like, wanted to see if the models could do. I have, like a human-computer interaction background, so I, like, did that in undergrad and grad school. And so this was like. I think it's like human-agent interaction to me, like, trying to figure out, like, how can the agent communicate with you and extract, the requirements, right? I think that, like, one of the things about, like, that's difficult as Claude Code has gone broader and broader is that everyone has, like, their own way of using it, and it's very hard to, like, change the default behavior. So for example, like, if someone asks Claude Code to do something,Thariq Shihipar [00:04:59]: Sometimes they just want them to do the work, ‘cause they're, like, maybe a very good prompter, and sometimes they want. like, are not good at prompting? And you need. like, the agent needs to, like, clarify? And so that's, like, a good split. Like, and the ask you the question tool like, splits along that side where, like, are-- do you feel like you're good enough to instruct the agent as it is, or is the agent able to, like. does the agent need to, like, pull out more requirements and, like, collaborate with you more and really understand your preferences?Thariq Shihipar [00:05:27]: I, on the whole, believe that pretty much everyone is more on the latter than the former, that they, like, have more ambiguity and they know less than they want, than they, like, think they know about the problem. but, like, it's like a interface design problem to make that easy? And so, like, if you're designing a problem, like, or if you're going through a problem, like, things like what's the schema or, like, what's the call stack and things like that are really important. like, the details in the design are important. Ideally, you want to figure out some of these, like, hard problems ahead of time before starting implementation. And yeah, that's why they call, like, unknowns, right? And so I think that this will forever be, like, a skill in agentic coding is, like, figuring out your unknowns. So, like, because even if the model is, like, super intelligent- It, like, needs to know what you want? And, like, you have preferences. like, you need to like, pull the, pull that out. and so that's, like, I think how I'm, what I'm pushing. the question then is, like, how does the agent interact with you? And I think that has been HTML, has been, like, the big way of doing that. And we've recently added artifacts, right? And artifacts, I think we've done a bad job of, like, or, like, I've done a bad job of, like, explaining how to use them fully. We have a lot of property capabilities. They have a database associated with them? And so every artifact can store and write persistent data. They can, like, feed back into Claude? And so, like, one thing that, like, people are not doing yet that I'm trying to, like, encourage is, like, this idea of a dashboard artifact. So you have, like, Claude working on a project long-term. Maybe it's like a kanban or something. it can store that kanban data in its database. Multiple Claudes can access that data via, like, the artifact MCP, and, like, that artifact can, like, talk to those Claudes as well. And so, like, the. We're building the primitives for you to be able to have this, like, generative interface via artifacts that will, like, let you surface more of that rich detail from the agents. And I think that, like, almost everything with agents right now is, like, this problem of, like, you think what you want, but you don't really know what you want, and, like, the agents need a lot of detail, and collaborating with them in the loop is really important. And so artifacts are, like, the, like, way that we're trying to evolve there. But there's a lot of work to do because it's so much more complicated than, like, a multiple-choice question? there's a lot more, like, detail in terms of, like, diagrams and code snippets and schemas or, like, whatever it is for that problem. But, like, artifacts is, like, the mo-more AGI-pilled way of, like, doing ask user question. So yeah.Artifacts as the Interface to the HarnessSwyx [00:08:15]: I think one thing that's unclear to me about these, the artifact stuff is, like, what feedback should go in through the artifact and what feedback should go through a Claude, a chat? Because the more AGI-pilled one is to just feed everything to the Claude.Thariq Shihipar [00:08:29]: I think the more AGI-pilled one is to go through the artifact. Like, and I think that, like, we imagine in the limit, I think that artifacts will be your interface into the harness? You can, like, comment on this, like, live, like, document of your plan, of the work. you can see maybe, like, multiple agents and different agents are doing this, and that artifact is built for the current work that you're doing, right? And so, like, each one has, like, slightly different. I think we're still, like, getting there from, like, an infrastructure perspective. But yeah, I think, like, on-the-fly interface for your harness is probably where things are headed.Vibhu [00:09:03]: Is there a version of it that's an abstraction from CLI or chat and you. Because right now, a lot of it is, okay, you're interfacing with Claude Code, you're having HTML given back for a mockup. It's pretty rich. There's diagrams. Artifacts are ways to connect these together. Why not just do everything that way?Separating Brain, Hands, and Surface UIThariq Shihipar [00:09:22]: Then it becomes, like, separating out, like, where is the inference happening? Where is the intelligence happening? Where is the work happening? like, I think this is like, difference between, like, or, like, some of the distinction between local and cloud, right? And so, I think right now, if you use Claude Code, it's, like, local and, like, you can spin off remote control, for example, to get some cloud behavior, or you can spin off Claude Code in the cloud, right? We're moving towards a place where instead of Claudes, like, you message a local Claude, it starts a session locally and it executes, to more like you have a Claude that you message that's in the cloud that's running. it can run, like, local, or, like, cloud sessions. This is how Claude Tag works. But, like, over time, we'll add, like, local hands as well. And so, like, local hands will be the ability for that agent to access your computer if it's online, and be able to, like, work there. And so it can spin off many different subagents. It can, like, commu- those subagents can communicate with each other, and that's where the artifact comes in to display all of that work. So you can imagine, like, the. You're separating out these things. So there's, like, the surface UI display that's an artifact and hosted somewhere and has a database and everything. There is the inference intelligence, right, that's happening on the cloud, and you don't have to worry about shutting off your computer or whatever, right? and then there's the, like, hands. Like, and it can be local, it can be in, like, a remote sandbox or wherever you need your work to be done. That's like unpackaging, like, the Claude Code experience right now where, like, right now it all happens in one place, right? So.Multiplayer Agents, Claude Tag, and ProjectsVibhu [00:11:00]: How do you see, like, the multiplayer side of that? So say teams want to work in this way. Right now it's very individual, but how do you see the future of multiplayer? Like, right now, I guess there's Claude Tag, which is a version, but.Thariq Shihipar [00:11:12]: We're launching projects. And so projects is the, like, this abstraction that's like Claude Tag, but on our Claude products, right? So you can message it and, like, it will do the Claude Tag-like stuff, like spinning off subagents. So We think with multiplayer. Like, Claude Tag is, like, a little bit more native multiplayer because it's just, like, in your Slack and the permissions are all figured out and stuff like that. But I do think multiplayer is, like, an important part of the story and, like, that will need to get tied together more. Like, you can imagine how complicated it gets when you're like, oh, you have hands, but now you have other hands in other people's computers too, and, like, you need to, like, permission them or, like, you have, like, your MCP and someone else's MCP, and how do you figure out how to use them, right? It gets, like, quite complicated. And Claude Tag does a good job of, like, sanding down all of these issues, right? So that, like, when you have, yeah, Google Docs, how does it access Google Docs, right? Like, it accesses through the shared Claude MCP, or it can access through your local credentials as well if it doesn't have access. But yeah, I think Claude Tag is our multiplayer, product, and it's really useful for these, like, things that are inherently multiplayer. Like, okay, like on-call, for example, incidents are inherently multiplayer. You want to tag Claude, you want multiple people to log in, you want it to be able to find context. I think whenever I'm, like, working on something and I want, like, privacy or security or, like, I want other people to review it's really nice to, like. I'll have a channel per project and I'll, like, at legal, for example, be like, “Hey, like, I want to ship this. Can you, like.” Like, here's. Like Claude knows everything, just chat with it. And that way legal gets precise answers, on like what exactly is shipping into the code, and I don't need to be in the loop, right? So I think like multiplayer is getting like more and more like, yeah, everyone can participate with Claude. I think Claude Tag is like that product and like projects will start off single player and will like, expand.Swyx [00:13:14]: I think there's a question about like maybe dual questions about identity and the unit of isolation.Identity, Permissions, and IsolationThariq Shihipar [00:13:20]: Yeah.Swyx [00:13:20]: Claude Tag, you specifically chose to make it its own identityThariq Shihipar [00:13:26]: Yes.Swyx [00:13:26]: Which is like, a controversial choice. There's, there's other ways to do it.Thariq Shihipar [00:13:30]: Yeah.Swyx [00:13:30]: Claude Projects probably it sounds like, if it's anything like ChatGPT Projects, it is, the isolation is that artifacts, that cloud instance, everyone's collaborating on this. It'll. It sounds like, it should be like if you're, if you're collaborating with legal on a thing, like that channel should be a project, right? Like it's not yetThariq Shihipar [00:13:50]: Yes.Swyx [00:13:50]: But it. that's the natural next step.Thariq Shihipar [00:13:53]: Yeah, like I think in Claude Tag, it's effectively. Like Claude Tag, you have to do your own arrangement. And so Claude Tag, yeah, each channel is like you can name it as you want, and I nameSwyx [00:14:04]: Yeah.Thariq Shihipar [00:14:04]: Like each featureSwyx [00:14:06]: Yeah.Thariq Shihipar [00:14:07]: As a channel.Swyx [00:14:07]: And, but I think like there is some trans- like it's unclear when there is transference, because let's say it is. if you have a coworkerThariq Shihipar [00:14:14]: Yeah.Swyx [00:14:14]: Who is tagging on all these things, yes, there is transferThariq Shihipar [00:14:16]: Yeah.Swyx [00:14:16]: Because it's the same person. but with Claude, it's unclear if it's like necessarily like, well, no, you don't know any of. you don't know about the other stuff. You should only use this stuff.Thariq Shihipar [00:14:25]: It's like the tip of the iceberg meme, right, where you can like. This is what we spend so much time onSwyx [00:14:31]: Yeah.Thariq Shihipar [00:14:31]: Is like there is like infinite surface area of like, okay, you want Claudes to. Not infinite, but like there's like surface area, a lot of like, surface area to figure out of like permissions and visibility and like how can you let Claude operate as well as you can, as safely as you can? And obviously, this is very important to us because like security for our code base is very important. And so we've put a lot of time into this. Yeah, there's so many like edge cases you can figure out where it's like, oh, like, yeah, this Claude in this channel has different permissions, but it can message another channel, and can't it exfiltrate data that way? Or like can you like. What if it uses your MCP and then messages someone else? Like there's like so much, and we've like really put a lot of work into sanding it down.Swyx [00:15:14]: Yeah. Lots of work. okay. Fable?Fable and the Meta-Skill of PromptingVibhu [00:15:18]: Fable, you wrote two good articles. you've written many good articlesThariq Shihipar [00:15:22]: Yeah.Vibhu [00:15:22]: But on, Field Guide to Fable, Building Claude Code. I'm curious from what you've seen, is there any common patterns that you see in like top users at Anthropic externally? Like what are best practices for getting the most out of Claude Code?Thariq Shihipar [00:15:37]: The like meta skill I say is like prompting is like very important? And like that. Like I think this is like not trivial to say because I think a lot of people are like, “Oh, prompting doesn't matter. It's just like I can just say a sentence and Claude will do it.” And I think prompting is really this like, this. It's like public speaking, like, or writing or something, and for a specific audience, and that audience is Claude. And you need to like build a mental model of Claude and how it thinks and how it works, right? And so that's like the most important skill in working with Claude Code is like having this mental model, right, of Claude and like what it can do well, what it can one-shot, what it can't. And so many people when you see prompting, they're just like, they're short prompts, but they have such a good mental model of Claude and of like the code base and things like that like it's effortless? But it's like high skill ceiling. So like that work of like, spending a lot of time prompting and building mental models of how, and intuition for how the agents work is really important. And then I think like the next thing is like the unknown stuff we talked about earlier, where it's like being able to find out like your, what you don't know or what you haven't written down, learning about like different things. I think as Claude can do more and more things, the likelihood of you doing something out of distribution for you and like you have low domain knowledge on is very high? And the more you can like learn the vocabulary to be able to prompt Claude, it becomes really important. And so like I think the most important unknowns are the unknown unknowns, where you're like, I just like don't even know that this exists, right? Yeah, exactly. I think that's like a illustration of like the map and the territory, right, where you're like, “Okay, this is my prompt,” and the territory is like the actual like work that the agent needs to do, right? And if you are like very precise, you can give more precise things, right? So like for example, in design, I'm not very precise. I'm not a designer, so I say like, “Give me like eight different mock-ups.” But if I was a designer, maybe I'd be like, “Oh, hey, here are some reference sites.” Like, “I want this type of font and this type of like look to it, and here's like a few different components to like visualize. Here's a Figma MC board to bring in,” like. And so you can just be so much more precise with that language. And if you're not a designer, you just need to like try and learn the language or learn the unknown unknowns. And this is true of like everything, I think. Like the more, like you can work with Claude to learn like how things work, the better your prompting will be. I think another good example of this is like game design, like where a lot of people are like, “Oh, like I can vibe code a game now.” And they're like, “It's not fun.” And like it's just like the thing about game design is like every one of these choices has like a lot ofTaste, Domain Knowledge, and Learning the VocabularySwyx [00:18:25]: Variations.Thariq Shihipar [00:18:25]: A lot of like craft to them. So it's like, oh, okay, like when you're making a flying game, the feel of the plane and the like, way it responds to your controls has a lot of like. Like, a game designer would spend like days on that. Do? and likeSwyx [00:18:44]: To me, that's what taste is, right?Swyx [00:18:45]: Like it is like from the possible space of one thousand mathematically valid answersThariq Shihipar [00:18:49]: Yeah.Swyx [00:18:49]: Here's the one that is the humans will like.Thariq Shihipar [00:18:51]: Yes. Yeah.Thariq Shihipar [00:18:52]: I think with taste, I'm like torn on this word ‘cause I think you're right, but everyone has different definitions, and it sounds kind, sounds like low skill or like elitist almost, where you're like, oh, like there are certain people with taste?Swyx [00:19:06]: It's like taste is what I call taste.Thariq Shihipar [00:19:07]: Yeah, exactly.Swyx [00:19:08]: And it's like these guys don't have taste.Thariq Shihipar [00:19:09]: Yeah, exactly. Oh, like an engineer doesn't have taste. Like I, the like founder, have taste.Thariq Shihipar [00:19:14]: ? And I think that's not true. Like I think like the engineers have a lot of taste for these particular like problems? And I think everyone has taste for particular problems. I think like Jason Liu, like say like in order to, yeah, have taste, you have to eat?Thariq Shihipar [00:19:32]: And I really like that, where it's like, okay, you have to like do a lot of things. You have to like iterate and figure out what you want, what you like, and, like build that like domainSwyx [00:19:41]: YesThariq Shihipar [00:19:41]: Domain vocabulary. And then when you're prompting, you're like synthesizing all of that for a product.Swyx [00:19:46]: Isn't it annoying when someone else says it better than you?Swyx [00:19:48]: It's just like, f**k, I have to quote this guy forever.Vibhu [00:19:51]: Having to quote Jason Liu forever.Vibhu [00:19:53]: He's gonna love this.Thariq Shihipar [00:19:55]: So I get prompts, more than that.Vibhu [00:19:57]: And sometimes it's not even that. Sometimes it's just intuitive, right? Like you don't realize you even want something till a model puts it out, and you're like, “Oh, this just feels immediately better,” right?Voice Prompting and Information DensityThariq Shihipar [00:20:07]: Yeah, exactly.Swyx [00:20:09]: One thing I go back and forth on is I feel like the way I prompt half the time, let's say I use voice.Swyx [00:20:16]: Did I say voice? Other people have voice. that is the opposite. That is just like me rambling for like two minutes Pressing down the function key and then let go, and then like hopefully it figures it out. And oftentimes it does.Thariq Shihipar [00:20:26]: Yeah.Swyx [00:20:26]: But it's not as thoughtful as like a structured prompt with like Well-run communication as though it's a PRD or a memo. Is that in line with how people do this? There's like bimodal prompting where there's some prompts where you spend a lot of time upfront and other prompts you just dash it off?Thariq Shihipar [00:20:43]: I don't think the voice is necessarily low. Like I think it's like more like how much information is in the prompt. like the model can. Like you can and like add some sentencesSwyx [00:20:53]: RightThariq Shihipar [00:20:53]: And be like, “Oh, like I changed my mind,” like in the middle of the prompt, and it will be able to follow that perfectly? So I think the like actual format of the text is less important, but then like the ability to. Like how much information is in it, right? And I think for voice, a lot of times, going back to like human-agent interaction and like for a lot of people, it's just way easier to talk than to like type? and I. If that gets more information out of you, like that's better.Vibhu [00:21:21]: At some level, it feels like just giving the model as much contextThariq Shihipar [00:21:24]: YesVibhu [00:21:24]: Over prompting before you kick off is a best practice. I don't know. A lot of the times, like when I was first trying out Fable, I spend a solid 30 minutes like really crafting a long prompt. This, I think, is a response of models running for longer and longer, right? It's still a little difficult to nudge them as they're in like, in the loop, but I just like intuitively spend more time kicking off that first prompt and working with it a lot.Spend More Upfront, Iterate LessThariq Shihipar [00:21:52]: My personal opinion is that if I was a software engineer, if I was like, just running my own startup, for example, I think I would mostly fit, stick to a max 20x? like maybe verification and so code review are like separate things. But I think like what I see a lot of times is people hit rate limits when they're doing this like, oh, like it did a lot of work and you're like, “Oh, I don't like this.” Like, “Can you like undo this and redo it?” And then you're like iterating on this like thing that the model could have done if you had like spent more upfront time or given it better context? And instead it's like you're like, “Nope, don't like that design. Try this.” Or like, “You messed this up,” or something like that. And then that just eats up so much more of like, your usage. And so that's like, I think maybe like a key like tip both for like efficiency as well, right? And yeah, I think like context, and not just like context on like what the goal is good, right? Like are you building a prototype or is it like a production thing? Like where can you spend compute or when, where can you not spend compute? Like I think you have to give the model permission or like not permission to do things sometimes where, like it doesn't know intuitively how much you want to spend on this task, right? And you can use effort for this. So I did-- I'm working on a blog post about that where it's like, if you want. For like we see that effort scales with the complexity of the task. So for security, effort gets like way more results. Like high effort versus like low effort gets, like changes the evals a lot. But for software engineering, it doesn't change it a huge amount because effort is mostly spent on the verification and the like edge case testing and things like that. And so like being able to like give the model that guidance of like, “Hey, this problem is something that I think I want you to spend a lot of time verifying and edge case testing,”?Effort, Model Choice, and VerificationVibhu [00:23:43]: How about model in the mix? So, there's Opus and Fable with effort.Thariq Shihipar [00:23:47]: Yeah.Vibhu [00:23:48]: There's also Haiku in there.Thariq Shihipar [00:23:49]: Yeah. It's not quite true yet, but it's very close where I think the frontier models will be Pareto dominant over like almost everything. like maybe. And sometimes I think Opus might be Pareto dominant. Do? Like I think depending on like how things, like shake out if it's like a newer version of Opus. But I think that like increasingly it's just going to be like the smart model is going to be able to like do the simple task for less tokens than the like the other models because of verification. With verification, in the limit, your model doesn't need to verify, right? If it's a perfect model, it just does the work once and it's like, okay, like you, I did it? And increasingly with Fable, I'm like, I'm like, “Dude, you don't need to spin up Chromium and screenshot all of these things.” Like I see it. Like you did it, right? And so a lot of the. At higher effort, you spend more of those tokens verifying. But if you're working on simpler problems, and a lot of software engineering is like well, like in Fable, like low and medium stability, it can spend less tokens verifying. And as the models get smarter and smarter, they will just be able to like, “All right, done.”? Like, I can run the lint for sanity's sake, but, like, I, like, know it lints? Like, you don't even need to do that. And that will be so much more token efficient than, like, the smaller models. Yeah.Swyx [00:25:15]: Is there a good, practice on our side that we can use to see if we're using too much effort? Like, I freakingThariq Shihipar [00:25:23]: YeahSwyx [00:25:23]: Hate wasting time on that stuff.Thariq Shihipar [00:25:24]: Yeah. I know what you mean. I think, like, so in this blog post, my rough distribution is, like, code review and security should be, like, high or max and, like, software engineeringSwyx [00:25:37]: You said recommend mix settings per domain.Thariq Shihipar [00:25:37]: Yeah. I think, like, if you're doing, like, UI or something like that, like low and medium, I think is you're building, like, an API and you want to make sure, like, you cover enough edge cases? And so I think building, like I said, that mental model of, like, how things work across these distributions is, like, yeah, part of the job.Implementation Notes and Decision LogsVibhu [00:25:56]: This is more intuition-driven or eval? Because I'm guessing this would change as you go.Swyx [00:26:00]: He has evals.Thariq Shihipar [00:26:01]: Yeah. So what I did in the blog post is I go over all of the terminal bench evals. So there are, like, 70 problems and I'm show that, like, okay, like, in the security problems it does more. and then I also, like, look at some of the transcripts just in terms of, like, how-- what does it answer, what does it forget or something. And a lot of times, this is another prompting tip I have, is, like, asking it to make decision notes or implementation notes because, in every eval problem that it faces, it thinks about the correct solution, and decides not to do it. it's like, oh, like, here is the answer. What if I did this? And then it's like, oh, probably not? and then keeps going. And this is, like, the majority of the failures, at, like, a higher max level. It's very rare that the model just doesn't know how to do something. If you just have these implementation notes, then you can review and you can be like, “Oh, I want you to do this thing that you didn't do.” The models are getting better at surfacing that overall. Like, I see in the transcripts of Fable 5.1, like, when it does this output, it will call out its decision-making as well. but making this more explicit in the harness is better. And now we're, allowing ways of you modifying the harness so you can, like, add someVibhu [00:27:23]: Ooh.Thariq Shihipar [00:27:24]: Calculate with there. Yeah.Swyx [00:27:25]: Yeah. So I do wanna call out two things that you mentioned that I think exist outside of prompting. One is like, let's, let's call it the prompt that is so important that it shouldn't be in a prompt. It is in Claude.md or Agents.mdThariq Shihipar [00:27:38]: YeahSwyx [00:27:38]: Which is like goals, right? Like your situation, your goals, the things that you want, the thing. and then second of all is the decision log or the experiment log or whatever log of traces that you might want to survive the current session to do those things. Those are, like, externalities that there's no standard. There's no-- It's not like skills. It's not like MCP. There's no standard. It's, it's just like it's a markdown file. first of all, is that right? Is Claude.md going away? You have a documented dislike of, Agents.md, but you're gonna do it?Claude.md, Agents.md, and Model-Specific InstructionsThariq Shihipar [00:28:10]: Yeah. Okay. So Agents.md, yeah, like, we're, we're gonna do it. I think it's just, like, different models are very different from each other? But I realize that it's, like, such a pain to, like, maintain different ones? And yeah, like, as the models get better and better, the floor of how they accomplish the simpler task is better. And so I do think in the limit, Claude.md goes away, and maybe not even, like, that far. Like, I think, like, I think that right now it might be better to start a new project without a Claude.md.Swyx [00:28:44]: Yes.Thariq Shihipar [00:28:44]: I think that, like, maybe if you see very repeated failure modes, you add them to your Claude.md. The really tough thing is that this changes per model. And so, like, if you've added a bunch of failure modes or, like evenSwyx [00:28:57]: So you need Fable MD, you need Opus MD.Thariq Shihipar [00:28:59]: Or well, even Fable 5.1 versus Fable 5.Swyx [00:29:03]: Yeah.Thariq Shihipar [00:29:03]: Like, it is annoying. Like, I'm not like,Swyx [00:29:05]: YeahThariq Shihipar [00:29:05]: Like, we don't, like, do this on purpose? It's just, like, how the models work, right? And so, like, maybe, like, Fable 5 had this, like, failure mode that Fable 5.1 doesn't. And if you keep this context, this running log of a bunch of different failure modes, they will probably over constrain Claude? And so this is like. we just added evals plugins for skills.Swyx [00:29:28]: Yeah.Thariq Shihipar [00:29:29]: And so now you can eval if a skill is better. I think Daisy on our team did this. And so, yeah, this is like we're trying to work on this. We know it's, like, you still have to spend tokens on it and, like, it's not, it's not perfect, but it's, like, we're trying to help out with this problem.Swyx [00:29:44]: And so, and as far as prompting goes, the one tip I wanna offer is, something I have told people a lot is sufficiently advanced prompting is indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced executive communication. So I've referred to-- This is an executive comms workshop from Heavybit that is the best I've ever seen in my career. And they teach this thing called the SCQA model. Just Google it. It's a, it's a thing. Like, people have done prompting for decades. It's just called executive communication. It's like when one person has to communicate to thousands of people down the org chart, this is what you do. so situation, complication, question and answer, is how you write the memo. but obviously sometimes you don't have the answer, but you can at least list out the SC and Q, and then they have some examples in there. So just leaving breadcrumbs for people if they want to explore.Underrated Prompting Patterns and ELI5Vibhu [00:30:31]: Before we move on, I wanna ask you, any other underrated tips, ways people could get a lot of value from Claude Code that they're not using?Thariq Shihipar [00:30:41]: Yeah, I think a lot of them are in the, this unknowns, like, doc. Like, I give a bunch of example prompts, like, using it for brainstorming, using it to quiz you after. we added this, like, explain it like I'm five skill which is a very short prompt. And it doesn't even say explain it like I'm five. It's like the key word of this prompt is big pictures, few words. like, that's like the main thing. And it is shockingly good? Like, you, like, I think I tweeted about this and it's like /eli5, and, like, you can install it as a plug-in. But yeah, it's, like, way better at just cutting through the BS and being like, yeah, exactly right here. So the diagrams are, like, quite clear. I think one of the things that is true with artifacts is, like, they put too much text in and people are not reading the artifacts? And so, like, this simplifies it a lot more. And, yeah, this came out of, like, just people at Anthropic, like, going through very complicated incidents and being like, “What is happening?”? So, this one I think is great, yeah.Swyx [00:31:47]: My version of this is the, it's like test your understanding. Give you a few choices and then, like, if you get it wrong, you have a mismatch between what you think is happening versus what's happening.Thariq Shihipar [00:31:58]: Yeah. I think this is one of those things that everyone loves talking about, and then very few people really do. Like, I thinkSwyx [00:32:05]: Really helpful.Thariq Shihipar [00:32:07]: Yeah. But most people just don't want to get quizzed about something? Unfortunately, I think this is one of the, like, things that we need to, like.Swyx [00:32:16]: What's the opposite of ask you the question or ask you the question before the thing?Thariq Shihipar [00:32:19]: Yeah.Swyx [00:32:19]: This is after the thing.Thariq Shihipar [00:32:20]: Exactly. Yeah.Vibhu [00:32:21]: It's a good way to stay grounded of, like, do you even know what you're doing, right? The worst case is when people send you slop and they haven't understood what they're asking for or what the output is, and it's like, “Dude, I don't wanna read this. Do you even know what it is?” So, you make it a rule for yourself that before you send stuff, you should at least know what's implemented.Claude Mods: Customizing the HarnessThariq Shihipar [00:32:41]: Yes, but so you could make this a mod and you could build your own mod to, like, make sure you test it. So yeah, you can do that.Swyx [00:32:49]: All right. Let's get right into it. What is Claude Mod, and what is this diagram showing?Thariq Shihipar [00:32:54]: Yeah. Okay, so Claude Mods is you can customize the entire Claude Code harness, and we're going to. If you have requests, we will, like, let you, like, please let us know. We'll add more and more. This works for CLI, it works for desktop. maybe it will work for Claude Tag in the future. I don't know. Like, we're trying to make this very extensible. You can see this reference sheet. I don't want people to get overwhelmed by it? At a high level, you can customize both the execution of the harness, and the UI of the harness. And so, like, you say on that Tetris example from Boris, that's like customizing the UI, right? Like showing, like, Tetris in the game.Thariq Shihipar [00:33:35]: But, like, let's say that you wanted to do this thing where you had. you tested your assumptions or, like, tested your understanding after every project, right? What you would do is you would ask Claude to make this plug-in. It would spin a classifier after every prompt. And so, like, at the end of each turn, you would spin off a sub-agent or, like, a forked agent. A forked agent is, like, maintains the prompt cache, right? So it's like a, like one of those unintuitive things where you can fork and do, like, a little request, and it'll be very cheap because the entire prompt cache is, like, done. And so you can be like, “Has this task been completed?” likeSwyx [00:34:18]: This is how you do BTW and all those.Thariq Shihipar [00:34:20]: Yeah. The underlying forked agent, yes. But so you can, in the f-fork sub-agent, you can say, like, “Has this task been completed? If so, return true.” And then in your hook, or in your, like, plug-in mod, or sorry, like, in the sub-agent probably, you would say, like, “If true, give me a quiz.” give me questions and answers, and then, like, in a JSON format, and then you'd parse it, and then you display above the prompt input, this list of questions, right? And so this is something that's, like, slightly token-intensive because, like, you have to do it after every end of the assistant turn. But it's, like, a lightweight classification, and then you can, like, get this quiz, and then you'll see, like, Claude will always do it for you. You don't need to remember to do it. There are lots of these, like, tips that we've talked about, right, where it's like, oh, implementation notes. You can also add a tool for implementation notes now. And so, like, this tool that I'm adding is, like, register, like, I think assumption is what I'm calling it, but, like, maybe I'll change it around. And this is a mod. And so, like, you give it a register assumption tool, and then it will keep a list. It'll. Every time it does it'll keep a, like, add to the list, and then at the end it will display those assumptions? Another mod I'm working on is a model router. And so, like, internal, like, Claude model routing, right? So it's. This is, I want to say the reason we don't do model routing by default is, like, it's a hard problem? And likeForked Agents, Assumption Tracking, and Model RoutingSwyx [00:35:51]: You will get it wrong.Thariq Shihipar [00:35:52]: Yeah, you, like, yeah, you will, like, accidentally use, like, Fable for a hard problem or Sonnet forSwyx [00:35:57]: Yeah, if you have auto approve, but you don't have auto mode.Thariq Shihipar [00:36:01]: Well, you will have auto. Like, you don't have, like, auto routing or something.Vibhu [00:36:04]: You don't have auto mode for model picker.Thariq Shihipar [00:36:06]: Yeah, exactly. SoVibhu [00:36:07]: I'm getting the rough question of, like, how much do you open this up and how much do people have to think about this? Like, when you talk about prompt caching and building a router, it seems like you could easily build a mod that routes per query, and I'm just killing my plan very fast, right? I guess my question is more so, like, what is, like, a product talk like this look like, right? Who is it for? Is it for power users? Is it everyone should be able to go throughSwyx [00:36:33]: Oh, definitely power users, right?Thariq Shihipar [00:36:35]: Yeah, I think it is power users, but, like, the nature of Claude Code is that so many people are power users? Because it's easy to share things, like you can. Like, one person can make a good model router thing that doesn't break prompt cache all the time, and then you can, like, compose them. Another cool thing about the plug-ins is that they can hook into and compose with each other. And so I have, like, a mod that will, like, create a mode selector at the top, and any plug-ins can register to be a mode. And so, like, the auto router can be a mode, right? Or, like, you can have a mode that's, like, artifact mode, where it's like it primarily talks to you in artifacts. like, you can toggle between plan mode? And so, like, you can create more and more of these modes. But the ability to create modes is in it itself a mod? And so there's a lot of richness here, but we do want to make it fairly easy. We want to be-- make it so that you can just, like, install someone else's. You can ta-- you can chat with Claude and, we'll, like, make sure that it understands the nuances of things like prompt caching and stuff, so it can, like, warn you. This is, like, not extremely complicated behavior for Claude, I think, but we should have just a good skill on how to make mods. and yeah, we'll see how we go. But I do think that this is, like, a preview of, like, mutable software, and, like, how, like, generative software, just like you can customize safely. If enabled, you could customize any piece of software. And I think that more and more apps ideally do something like this?Power Users, Modes, and Mutable SoftwareSwyx [00:38:13]: And by the way, you, we have, you have another cool tweet about how, there's the infinite money button, which is like make your SaaS, consumable by agents. I think mutable software is interesting and, other people have also tried to do it. I think the hurdle comes when you can do everything, then people, users get, tend to get confused. So usually the stuff that works is just like one opinionated flow. This is in the side of less opinionation. It's just like, well, more power to power users. And I think probably unlocked by AI, where, like, you can just prompt for whatever the thing is.Thariq Shihipar [00:38:47]: Yeah, or there can be a skill that gives the opinions?Mods vs. Hooks vs. ArtifactsSwyx [00:38:50]: Yeah.Thariq Shihipar [00:38:50]: And then, yeah.Swyx [00:38:51]: So knowing a little bit about, like, TypeScript and build systems and all these things, the closest-- I'm very curious that the team who worked on this, if, I don't know how close you were to them, if they drew any inspiration from build systems like Babel, Webpack, all these, like, old school things. Because it sounds very similar, like the plug-in ecosystem of those things where they can compose with each other.Thariq Shihipar [00:39:11]: Yeah, I'm not deep in the technical details, but I do know it was a collaboration with someone on the Bun team and someone on the Claude Code team.Swyx [00:39:17]: Yeah, it's a build system mecca.Thariq Shihipar [00:39:19]: Yeah. Exactly. It's, it's very exciting. But yeah, like, agents can just do this very complicated like, extensibility into your software now. And so, yeah, like, another reason to, like. If you run a startup, like, you can just prompt Claude and be like, “Hey, like, could we make an extension system? Like, what would that look like?”?Swyx [00:39:37]: Yeah.Swyx [00:39:38]: And I just really wonder, like, you had hooks in the past and plug-ins, all these things. So what specifically will mods be able to do that those things could not do?Thariq Shihipar [00:39:47]: Internally, we were originally calling this function hooks. And so, like, that's, like, gives you a little bit of an idea where, like, hooks register a, like an event to happen and then, like, a script to call. And this inside of the, like, TypeScript runtime is running things. And so, like, you get some benefits of just, like, it has a bunch of things in the Scope with, like, for example, like how many turns is in this conversation, right? Like, how many tokens have been used? Like, et cetera. Like, what are the messages? Things like that. So it has a bunch of messages that can be used. And then it's just, like, a lot more hooks. So we have, like, or a lot of, lot more, like, things you can register on. And then you can do because of the. because it's all happening in process, you can, spawn sub-agents, with four contests and contexts and stuff. And, like, that will return. You can parse the results of those. You can use structured output to like, return them. and then you can modify the UI, which you can never do in hooks. So, yeah.Swyx [00:40:50]: Yeah. Yeah. So modify UI, this is why you showed the Tetris example. Does it also ex-extend to artifacts? I assume it does.Thariq Shihipar [00:40:57]: You-- Like, artifacts are like a different way of customizing it. like, you can definitely. One of the mods I'm working on is, like, this dashboard mod, which will, like, prompt Claude to maintain a dashboard, that's an artifact. But they're like, slightly orthogonal, or not orthogonal. They compose with each other in different ways. Like, mods are, like, a little bit more, like, in your Claude Code harness, changing the agent loop? And, like, the UI is, like, an added benefit. and then artifacts are just like you want to, see things at a high level, very inter- highly interactive. like, the affordances can be a lot bigger than, like a TUI or even in our desktop.Next Steps, Supervisors, and Persistent GuidanceVibhu [00:41:40]: I'm guessing you'll have a good blog post on the differences, because right now you can also, make a loop that outputs to an artifact that's an interactive dashboard, but you can also do it with a mod. There's just some thinking about making a hacking on a harness when we don't know much about the harness, right?Thariq Shihipar [00:42:00]: Well, something I'm excited about with mods is, like, there's so much things with Claude Code that you just have to remember? You're like, “Oh, like, let me do this, and then let me call the dashboard skill that does the loop,” and things like that. And, or like, “Let me test my assumptions afterwards.” And I think, like, if you do all of these things using these little classifiers and stuff, and you're like, “These are the things I care about. This is what I want to do,” you can, like. You don't have to remember as much. One more, like, mod I'm working on is a next steps mod thatSwyx [00:42:28]: I have-- I was gonna say, I have a next step skill. I always run next steps.Thariq Shihipar [00:42:32]: And does it have access to your skills? Like, this is one of those things where I'm like.Swyx [00:42:37]: I think so.Thariq Shihipar [00:42:38]: Okay. Yeah, probablyVibhu [00:42:39]: Do skills need specific access toThariq Shihipar [00:42:41]: Well, I think there'sSwyx [00:42:41]: Don't they always haveThariq Shihipar [00:42:42]: I think there's, like, specific prompting, I guess, to, like, know your skills. Like I think Claude forgets them sometimes throughout, like, the thing. But anyways, the idea of, like, yeah, next steps that also are like, “Oh, hey, this has happened. Use the explain skill to explain to you what happened because this seems, like, quite complex,”? Or, like, yeah, “Use your unknown skill. It looks like you are, like, asking the model to, like, iterate on these small changes. It seems like you could prompt better.” like, “What if you did this?” Right? So, I think, yeah, like spending more compute there. Yeah.Swyx [00:43:20]: And it should always come out as multiple choice. we have, I haveVibhu [00:43:23]: We have his skill.Swyx [00:43:24]: My next step skill is like this.Thariq Shihipar [00:43:26]: Okay, perfect. Yeah.Swyx [00:43:27]: You can steal it.Thariq Shihipar [00:43:28]: Yeah.Swyx [00:43:29]: Like, but like, for me, it's all-- I think models really always need to be reminded, what are you trying to do here?Thariq Shihipar [00:43:35]: Yeah.Swyx [00:43:35]: Look at the whole transcript and go like, oh, was this original goal? Did your solution solve it? Were you lazy? If you're lazy, maybe there's a reason. Maybe you needed approval from me. Maybe you needed, there's two things you wanna suggest. So it's, it's a little bit like the modification of the ask user question or interview me skill. so it's next steps.Thariq Shihipar [00:43:55]: Yeah, exactly. And again, the benefit of doing it with mods is you can do it as a fork sub-agent, and so it doesn't remain in the context afterwards. So you have this, like, idea of like, okay, the model is doing its execution and you have this almost like supervisor, like, that is like making sure that you can do like the next steps well. So yeah.Swyx [00:44:15]: Yes. I do have two panels and like I often try to have a supervisor thing, keep the high-level context and then the implementationThariq Shihipar [00:44:21]: YeahSwyx [00:44:22]: Detail in another agent.Vibhu [00:44:23]: I feel like a lot of this abstracts away as models change? The, like, half an hour ago you said bitter lesson of harness engineeringThe Bitter Lesson of Harness EngineeringThariq Shihipar [00:44:31]: YeahVibhu [00:44:31]: And we're on the other extreme right now, I feel.Swyx [00:44:33]: Well, so yeah, exactly. If everything's customizable, what is Claude Code, right?Thariq Shihipar [00:44:37]: Yeah.Swyx [00:44:37]: And which I talked to you about last night.Thariq Shihipar [00:44:40]: Yeah, I think that this is. I think the bitter lesson is unintuitive? In terms of like. Also, like we're misusing a little bit of the bitter lesson here where it's like, it's more about like scaling and compute and stuff. But like, I think there is something where it's just like. I think I use it as an approximation here to say that harnesses go out of date very quickly? And like how, but how they change is unintuitive? And so like the big obvious example is like from chat to like agents where you had to give them entirely new tools, right? But like, I think this new version of like, oh, it can modify its own harness, right? This is like, an own harness loop is like a way of using its capabilities, right? Or like it can build an artifact. And like, I think the way I think about it is like the models have more and more intelligence, and they're like so much more intelligent now than like the average software engineering task. Like, you look at the like terminal bench ones and they're like solve like the Jacobian conjecture. Not really, but like, it's like they're, they're quite complex. Like, I would not have been able to do this really as a software engineer.Swyx [00:45:42]: And you said TB4 or TB2?Thariq Shihipar [00:45:43]: TB3. TB3.Swyx [00:45:44]: TB3.Thariq Shihipar [00:45:44]: Yeah. They're quite complex, but the goal is still to deliver user value, right? And like you said, there's like this infinite space of things to do. And so the ways like you spend compute are to keep the user in the loop and make sure that like you're getting to the right decision in the end of the day and like the right output. And artifacts and mods are this way of like spending that intelligence. and I think that's like, yeah, the next step. And so, yeah, I think Claude Code is like, has the core things of agent loop which are, have gotten more complicated. It's like, it needs a sandbox to operate safely. It needs auto mode to like make sure like the permissionsVibhu [00:46:21]: Approvals.Thariq Shihipar [00:46:21]: Yeah, approvals. it needs computer use and MCPs and like all of these like ways of accessing your data, and it needs web search and web fetch. And like, so the-- as the models can do more and more, the core harness has to be like quite complex and very secure. But then like how you interact with it can change quite a lot.Vibhu [00:46:42]: What other harness engineering best practices have you, from the Claude Code team itself? I feel like, there was a phase of plan mode, which is not as used. We now have auto mode. at a point you cut the majority of the system prompt, you got rid of examples. What other best practices are there for harness engineering?Core Harness Primitives and Managed AgentsThariq Shihipar [00:47:02]: I think there is like a forking path where at some point, eventually, yes, the model will just be able to like vibe code the exact version of Claude Code, even describing all this complexity that I've talked about, right? Like auto mode and computer use and stuff. Eventually, the models will just be able to do that in one shot. But I think they can one shot simpler harnesses? And so like, I think some people. Sometimes you don't need this full, like if you don't need computer use or like all this like more complicated stuff. I think before we, you had to use things like the agent SDK, which was like Claude Code wrapped, in order to like. And I would, like suggest people do that because there was so much complexity into building a harness. And now as that's got more abstracted, we have like, Claude managed agents, which lets you have that complexity, but still like, right, like a very bare bones like harness that's scoped to your task. Yeah, I think there's like this barbell effect where like for like very complex, for like coding task and like these like complex things, you should use our harness. And then for like a lot of like simpler or like, more domain-specific things, you can build your own harness because Claude has gotten better at building harnesses, and we have these harness primitives like managed agents. So yeah.Swyx [00:48:18]: Yeah. Is there a general progression? Let's say chapter one was ultra code dynamic workflows, then chapter two was cloud mods. Where is this going?Swyx [00:48:29]: Where you're, you're, you can customize the thing on demand.Thariq Shihipar [00:48:36]: Yeah. I do think that like this evolution of projects and like artifacts and splitting out like brain and hands and, surfaces is like where things are going more. And like, I think it's like not all quite there. partially it's like a, it's just like more token expensive? And like, I think likeProjects, Local Hands, and Cloud-to-Local HandoffsSwyx [00:48:59]: Why would projects be more token expensive? I understand mods would be slightly more token expensive. No, not something I'm worried about.Thariq Shihipar [00:49:06]: Yeah.Swyx [00:49:06]: But whatThariq Shihipar [00:49:07]: You're asking Claude to do. It's like creating loops. Like you're asking Claude to do more work for you. And so like it's managing the sub-agents and reviewing it, versus where you would be doing that work normally. And so that's like gonna be a little bit more intensive, like. Outputting to an artifact is gonna be a little bit more token-intensive than, like, outputting normally. I don't think it's too much more, but like, it's like combining all of these together well, like I think we're, we're still working on like local hands and things like that, I think is like, yeah, where things are headed, yeah.Swyx [00:49:37]: Yeah. Claude and local is, handoff is very interesting. I was thinking about this as reverse cloud remote.Thariq Shihipar [00:49:44]: Yeah.Swyx [00:49:45]: Because it's like remote, it's you're handing off to cloud, but here the cloud is handing off to local, right?Thariq Shihipar [00:49:49]: Yeah, exactly. Yeah, remote control is also another way of doing it. And I do want to say this is like how I think about it and like what the things that I'm most excited about this, but like there are, just like lots of different ways to work with Claude. Like some people use remote control a lot, some people use Claude Code on the web a lot. Obviously, like at Anthropic, we use Claude Tag a lot, and like what's great about Claude Tag is we set up all this stuff for our own execution. And I do think if you're an enterprise, that's still the best way to go. but if you're like an individual, Projects is this way of like, getting some of that like niceness of Tag, which has like that like supervising agent and yeah, adding artifacts and stuff, but like without having that whole like admin setup. And so there will be many ways to use Claude, I think. I think it's probably not just one like single.Claude Tag as an Organizational HarnessSwyx [00:50:36]: You had the multiplayer thing here. Let's, let's just check in on Claude Tag. it's been about two-plus months. Lots of, public, adoption and trying it out.Thariq Shihipar [00:50:45]: Yeah.Swyx [00:50:45]: What's new? What's, what have you found since the launch?Thariq Shihipar [00:50:49]: Like, Claude Tag is how we useSwyx [00:50:51]: It's like 80% of your

"If you are looking for perfection, you will never try anything new." "Their ownership is crucial because they are outstanding at implementing it." "Longevity matters. There is a very direct correlation to trust." "If it does not work, it is a risk that I take along with you." "Your job is not to impress me. Your role is to do the best for the organisation."   Nikhilesh Kalra is President of SSP Co., Ltd., a 260-year-old Japanese healthcare company now part of Opella. SSP is best known through its portfolio of branded over-the-counter medicines, including EVE, a market-leading pain-relief brand, as well as products for allergies and colds. The company began as a family business, later became publicly listed and progressively focused its portfolio on consumer healthcare before becoming wholly owned by multinational groups. Kalra built his career in multinational healthcare businesses and worked across several Asian markets and the United Kingdom. He was serving in a Sanofi role in India when he was asked to lead SSP in Japan in 2022. He subsequently guided the organisation through the carve-out of Sanofi's consumer healthcare business into the independent Opella group. His leadership experience in Japan centres on modernising a deeply established company without discarding its history, increasing risk appetite while protecting pharmaceutical quality, and bridging local stakeholder expectations with global business priorities.   Nikhilesh Kalra arrived in Japan knowing that the country would be different, but not fully appreciating how deeply those differences would shape leadership. He had spent his career in multinational companies where junior employees were encouraged to speak up, debate was visible and success was usually framed in terms of outcomes. At SSP, he entered a 260-year-old Japanese organisation operating in healthcare, where hierarchy, quality, continuity and stakeholder alignment were woven into the operating system. His first important lesson was that formal meetings reveal only a fraction of the decision process. In an industry association meeting, agenda items passed with almost no visible debate. The real conversation had occurred beforehand through one-to-one stakeholder management. Inside SSP, he encountered meetings to prepare for meetings, and sometimes additional meetings before those. The purpose was not simply bureaucracy; the Japan team wanted to appear externally as one aligned entity. Kalra worked to reduce unnecessary internal preparation while preserving the consensus-building needed for confident execution. The largest surprise was the extent of risk aversion. Kalra came to see it not as simple timidity, but as the product of a society built around predictable service and exceptionally high quality. In pharmaceuticals, some risks must never be compromised. Yet the same perfectionist mindset can spread into areas where experimentation is essential, including digital transformation, enterprise systems and commercial processes. Organisations may retain outdated infrastructure and manual Excel-based work because changing it feels riskier than tolerating the hidden cost of inefficiency. Kalra therefore distinguishes between critical quality risk and controllable business experimentation. His challenge to employees is not merely whether they completed the process, but what they improved compared with the previous year. He asks teams to examine proposals privately, return with their collective view and explain why they support or reject them. This method respects the reluctance to disagree openly with the president while creating a genuine window for debate. Teams may reject the original idea, or propose a midpoint. Kalra often accepts the midpoint because ownership produces exceptional Japanese implementation: stakeholders are aligned, details are resolved and execution becomes disciplined. Trust was essential because employees initially saw him as someone sent from headquarters who might prioritise global demands over the Japanese business. Kalra created proof that he was on their side by fighting to retain the SSP name rather than replacing it with the multinational parent's name. The 260-year legacy mattered to employees, customers and regulators. By defending it at global level, he demonstrated respect for what generations of people had built and established that local decisions would be made according to what was right for Japan. He also relied heavily on a trusted leadership team able to disagree with him. Without strong Japanese proficiency, psychological safety among direct reports became vital. Kalra openly acknowledges that his own view may be right only part of the time. Leaders who understand customers, employees and local systems must be able to explain what he is missing. This same safety is necessary for risk-taking: when a new initiative fails, the individual who tried it should not be punished. The leader must explicitly share the risk and then walk the talk when the result is imperfect. Early commercial successes helped build the organisation's risk muscle. SSP took its first price increase in roughly 30 years after the COVID-era supply shock. Employees with prior experience showed colleagues how to proceed step by step, the company persuaded retailers and the initiative succeeded. Each successful controlled risk made the next one easier. Similarly, the supply chain team shifted from automatically satisfying every customer request to proposing alternatives that protected the customer's concern while improving SSP's economics and efficiency. Kalra believes culture cannot be replaced wholesale. It can be evolved team by team, person by person, with different functions moving at different speeds. Change agents are needed across the organisation so the entire company is not constrained by its slowest group. For expatriate leaders, his advice is to listen, be patient, create psychological safety and educate headquarters about the real consequences of rapid change. Rather than simply resisting a global request, the Japan leader should offer a data-based roadmap showing how the change can be assessed, recommended and implemented responsibly. His regret is not learning more Japanese. Language would have enabled more unscripted conversations at the gemba—with factory employees, sales representatives and frontline staff—and provided richer insight into whether strategy had reached execution. His broader leadership lesson is equally direct: people are not there to impress the president. Their job is to create value for the organisation and its real internal or external customers. The leader's role is to connect silos, protect thoughtful experimentation, maintain trust through consistent behaviour and help a traditional organisation evolve without losing the strengths that made it endure. Q&A Summary What makes leadership in Japan unique? Leadership in Japan requires understanding that visible meetings often confirm rather than create decisions. Debate commonly occurs through one-to-one stakeholder conversations, nemawashi and internal alignment before the formal session. Kalra found that disagreement with a senior leader may be silent because direct refusal can feel disrespectful. He therefore gives teams time to discuss proposals privately and return with an aligned answer. This approach respects hierarchy while creating space for authentic disagreement. Japan's emphasis on quality, continuity and collective reputation also means the leader must consider customers, regulators, employees and long-established relationships before forcing change. Why do global executives struggle? Global executives struggle when they interpret slow alignment as obstruction or assume that a direct headquarters mandate should immediately become local action. They may arrive under pressure to improve profitability and attempt dramatic changes before understanding the supply chain, customer expectations or regulatory consequences. Kalra advises leaders to educate global stakeholders with data and explain the risk of moving too quickly. Simply saying no makes the Japan organisation appear resistant. A better response is a roadmap: assess the issue, make a recommendation, identify the steps and then implement the change in a way that protects the business. Is Japan truly risk-averse? Kalra sees Japanese risk aversion as rooted in perfection, predictability and responsibility. In medicines, exceptionally high quality is non-negotiable. The problem arises when the same standard is applied to every internal process, digital tool or commercial experiment. Organisations may avoid replacing obsolete systems because change seems dangerous, even while manual work creates hidden costs. Kalra separates unacceptable product risk from manageable experimentation. He builds confidence through small proof points, experienced change agents, rigorous discussion of anticipated risks and a commitment that employees will not be penalised for well-considered initiatives that do not succeed. What leadership style actually works? The leadership style that works for Kalra combines listening, patience, local advocacy and shared accountability. He does not demand an immediate answer in the room. He asks teams to examine the issue, challenge it and return with their view. He is willing to accept a midpoint because commitment to an owned solution can matter more than theoretical perfection. Trust also requires proving that the leader serves the Japanese business rather than merely transmitting headquarters instructions. Defending the SSP name was a powerful example. Internally, he depends on psychological safety so senior colleagues can tell him when his interpretation is incomplete or wrong. How can technology help? Technology can reduce the hidden inefficiency created by old systems, manual spreadsheets and repetitive processes, but adoption requires a different risk conversation. SSP is experimenting with AI for content creation, advertising and data analytics, where speed, cost and insight can improve substantially. Kalra sees AI as a major future force and believes companies that use it well will outperform. At the same time, technology cannot be treated as a purely technical project. Leaders must clarify which risks are acceptable, involve the people affected, build confidence through pilots and ensure that modernisation improves outcomes rather than simply replacing one process with another. Does language proficiency matter? Kalra considers his limited Japanese one of his main regrets. More language ability would have enabled unscripted conversations beyond the leadership team, particularly with factory workers, sales representatives and frontline employees. Those gemba conversations help a president test whether strategy has reached execution: whether people have heard about a change, understand the reason and know what to do next. Language also reduces dependence on intermediaries and provides deeper insight into systems and employee sentiment. Such contact should be transparent, however, so direct reports understand that the leader is learning about the organisation rather than checking up on them. What's the ultimate leadership lesson? Kalra's ultimate lesson is that leadership is not about being impressed by activity or having employees perform for the boss. The organisation and its customers are the true focus. Leaders must listen, connect people across silos and judge success by improved outcomes rather than process completion alone. They must also protect trust, which can be lost very quickly through inconsistent behaviour. A leader should take collective responsibility for thoughtful risks, build change agents throughout the company and evolve culture at a realistic pace. In Japan, patience and stakeholder alignment are not alternatives to progress; they are often the conditions that make durable progress possible.   Author Credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have also been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー). In addition to his books, Greg publishes daily blogs on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, offering practical insights on leadership, communication, and Japanese business culture. He is also the host of six weekly podcasts, including The Leadership Japan Series, The Sales Japan Series, The Presentations Japan Series, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews. On YouTube, he produces three weekly shows — The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews — which have become leading resources for executives seeking strategies for success in Japan.

Experience isn't what happens to you. It's what you learn to see that others miss.Returning guest Nicole Malcolm joins Jay Doran for another conversation on the Culture Matters Podcast, continuing a relationship that goes back to the earliest days of Culture Matters. Since her previous appearance in Episode 835, a lot has changed. Affinity Land Services has continued to grow, The Vault has become a place for education and community, her children have taken increasingly important roles in the family business, and Nicole herself has continued evolving as a founder and leader.At the center of the conversation is a lesson many founders eventually have to confront: the business that got you here may need to operate differently to get you where you want to go next.Nicole shares that Affinity Land Services has roughly tripled its business over the last three years. But that growth did not simply come from selling more. Internally, the company needed greater structure. What had once been a relatively flat organization needed clearer leadership, processes, responsibilities, and a chain of command capable of supporting a larger company.Structure, Nicole learned, does not have to remove the humanity from a business. Done correctly, it can actually protect it.That philosophy extends to The Vault, a nearly 2,000-square-foot learning and event space created to provide additional value to clients and the community. From continuing education and seminars to company meetings, events, and charitable initiatives, The Vault represents Nicole's desire to do something different in an industry where differentiation matters.But some of Nicole's greatest leadership lessons have come from inside her own family.As her children became more involved in the company, Nicole had to confront something difficult for many founders and parents: control. She had built the company. She knew how she wanted things done. Yet growth required recognizing that the next generation could bring different ideas, capabilities, perspectives, and energy to what she created.Sometimes your children may even know how to do something better than you do.Learning to step back has not meant caring less about the company. It has meant trusting more.Nicole and Jay also explore empathy as a leadership responsibility. Nicole wants employees and customers to feel like people, not numbers. She believes leaders should know what is happening in the lives of the people around them, create opportunities to connect outside of work, listen, ask questions, and remember what it felt like to be an employee themselves.That philosophy was shaped in part by watching her own mother lead. Nicole remembers a woman who became respected, relatable, and compassionate, and whose former employees still speak about her with admiration years later. Today, Nicole sees many of those same principles influencing the culture she is building with her own family.In this episode, Jay and Nicole discuss:• The evolution of Affinity Land Services since Nicole's last appearance• Why The Vault was created and how it provides value beyond title services• Differentiating yourself in a crowded industry• Giving back through business and community• How Nicole's leadership has changed over 15+ years• Why rapid growth requires greater organizational structure• How Affinity's business has roughly tripled over the last three years• Leading with empathy without sacrificing accountability• Why employees should never feel like numbers• The challenge of relinquishing control in a family business• Allowing the next generation to bring new ideas into something you built• Learning to trust your children as leaders• Why founders cannot control every circumstance or outcome• Faith, gratitude, and moving forward despite fear• Building trust with new employees• Creating connection outside the workplace• Lessons Nicole learned watching her mother lead• How AI and technology are changing opportunities for the next generation• Why customers remember how you make them feel long after closing• Supporting small and family-owned businesses• Endurance, perseverance, and staying the course when entrepreneurship feels lonelyOne of Nicole's biggest personal shifts has been accepting what she can and cannot control. Growth brought more employees, more responsibility, more opportunities, and naturally, more things to worry about. Through reflection and guidance, she began recognizing that she could give everything within her control without carrying responsibility for everything outside of it.That realization allowed her to relax without disengaging.Faith has played an important role in that process. For Nicole, faith means stepping forward without always seeing exactly where the next step will land. When fear begins taking over, she turns toward gratitude and continues moving.Her word for 2026, looking back on the year, would be growth. That growth is visible in the business, but it is also visible in Nicole herself as a founder, mother, employer, and leader.And when asked what she would tell another founder trying to build both a business and a family, her message is simple:Don't give up. Have endurance. Stay the course.There will be days when you do not feel like moving forward. There will be seasons when entrepreneurship feels incredibly lonely. There will be moments when the company requires you to change, trust other people, relinquish control, and become a different leader than the one who originally built it.Those moments do not necessarily mean something is going wrong.Sometimes they are evidence that you are growing.Stay the course. Build the structure. Trust your people. Give more than you take. And create something your family can continue building long after you.

Limitations on subcontracting and work share rules decide whether your 8(a), SDVOSB, or woman-owned small business can actually win the government contracts you have access to. In this episode, Ryan Atencio breaks down why Tribal 8(a)s can pull $100 million non-protestable DOD sole source awards while a regular set-aside caps out around $4.5 million, and he lays out the exact 50/50 labor split most small businesses get wrong. If you have the set-aside advantage but not the capacity to perform, this is the compliance workaround you need. Why Tribal 8(a) is the "easy button" the DOD uses to push out $50M to $100M construction projects fast with no protest risk How the sole source ceiling really works: up to $100M for Tribal 8(a) versus roughly $4.5M for SDVOSB and woman-owned set-asides The 50% direct labor work share rule for services (and why construction only requires 15%) Why "pay to play" 8(a) partnerships mean giving away 49% to 50% of your labor and profit The "internally balancing profit" workaround that keeps you compliant while a sub does 80% of the work EPISODE CHAPTERS: 0:00 - Mindy AI research assistant intro and podcast welcome 0:50 - Tribal 8(a) sole source and $100M DOD contracts 1:55 - Work share rules and finding a subcontractor partner 3:20 - Direct labor requirements and the 50% split 4:30 - Pay to play 8(a) partnerships and W-2 employees 6:00 - Why giving away 49% is a bad deal 6:50 - Services versus construction work share percentages 7:55 - Internally balancing profit compliance workaround 8:50 - Splitting labor 50-50 while keeping profit uneven Mindy gives you the federal opportunities, agency signals, recompete intel, and pursuit briefs that tell you not just what contracts exist, but which ones to chase and how to win them. Sign up for free Daily Alerts and get opportunities delivered to your inbox before the day starts.

Support the show to get full episodes, full archive, and join the Discord community. The Transmitter is an online publication that aims to deliver useful information, insights and tools to build bridges across neuroscience and advance research. Visit thetransmitter.org to explore the latest neuroscience news and perspectives, written by journalists and scientists. Read more about our partnership. Sign up for Brain Inspired email alerts to be notified every time a new Brain Inspired episode is released. To explore more neuroscience news and perspectives, visit thetransmitter.org. Daniel Levenstein started his NeuroAI and Dynamics Lab at Yale University about a year ago. We briefly discuss what it's like to transition from a postdoc to a principle investigator, i.e. head of the lab. But most mostly we discuss his work and ideas. Dan studies spontaneous neural activity during sleep, specially in brain areas like hippocampus and cortex, and how this internally generated spontaneous activity is related to learning and memory and navigation. Really, he used to study those processes directly through experimental brain recording datasets. These days he builds and studies models of those processes, using AI models and seeing how their dynamics and functions match what we see in brains. Levenstein Lab Social: @dlevenstein.bsky.social Related papers On the Role of Theory and Modeling in Neuroscience The problem-ladenness of theory Sequential predictive learning is a unifying theory for hippocampal representation and replay 0:00 - Intro 9:12 - Neuro-AI 18:23 - Experiment vs theory 20:36 - Ground vs active state neuron activity 25:38 - Beginning a lab 31:34 - Sleep and Internally generated activity 40:02 - Spiking neural networks 52:13 - Naturalistic neuro-AI 59:52 - Cognitive maps, world models 1:04:16 - Weasel words and motifs 1:08:17 - Transformers and brains 1:18:53 - AI vs biology 1:24:32 - Neuroscience theory

Trust is not one element of a successful sale. Trust is the foundation supporting every other part of the sales process. A customer may like your product, appreciate your expertise and even agree that your price is reasonable. However, when they begin to doubt your reliability, judgement or integrity, the opportunity can disappear very quickly. This is particularly important when selling financial services, consulting, technology or any solution where the customer must accept uncertainty and place something valuable in the salesperson's hands. A small error can create a much larger question: "If they cannot manage this simple detail, can I trust them with the important work?" Salespeople make mistakes. The decisive issue is whether they recognise the damage, adapt their approach and deliberately rebuild the buyer's confidence. Why is trust so important in sales? Trust allows the customer to believe that the salesperson will keep promises, protect their interests and respond responsibly when something goes wrong. Without it, even a strong proposal becomes difficult to accept. Most purchases involve some degree of risk. The buyer cannot know with absolute certainty whether the product will perform, the project will finish on time or the promised support will actually appear. The salesperson therefore becomes part of the product. Their accuracy, preparation, consistency and behaviour give the buyer clues about what working with the company will be like after the contract is signed. This is especially true in professional services, financial advice and business-to-business sales. The customer may be placing money, confidential information, organisational credibility or career reputation at risk. A minor mistake does not always destroy the opportunity. However, an unexplained mistake can cause the customer to question everything else the salesperson says. Do now: Treat every meeting detail, follow-up promise and factual claim as evidence the buyer will use to judge your overall reliability. How can a small sales mistake damage credibility? A seemingly minor error can damage credibility when it contradicts the image of competence and attention to detail that the salesperson is trying to create. Imagine inviting a potential client to your office and then sending them the wrong building address. The client arrives, discovers that your company is not located there and must search for the correct location. The practical inconvenience may only involve ten or fifteen minutes. The psychological damage can be much larger. If the conversation involves investing the client's money, managing a critical project or advising senior management, the customer may reasonably wonder whether the same carelessness could affect something more significant. This is how buyers think. They rarely judge an error in isolation. They use the visible mistake to predict future behaviour. A salesperson may think, "It was only a typo." The buyer may think, "What else will they get wrong?" Do now: When an error conflicts with the competence you are selling, address the larger concern—not merely the inconvenience it caused. Is an apology enough to restore trust? An apology is necessary, but it is rarely sufficient when the mistake has caused the customer to question the salesperson's competence or judgement. Saying "I'm sorry" acknowledges the problem. It does not explain why it happened, whether it reflects a wider pattern or why the customer should continue believing in you. The salesperson must close that credibility gap. A useful recovery contains four elements: A clear acknowledgement of the error A credible explanation without making excuses Evidence that the problem is unusual rather than normal A practical reason the customer can still trust the salesperson and the company The explanation should be concise and authentic. A long, defensive speech can make the situation worse. However, trying to brush past the incident and continue with the standard presentation can leave the customer mentally stuck on the unresolved doubt. The buyer needs help making sense of the mistake before they can properly listen to the rest of the proposal. Do now: Apologise, explain, reassure and provide evidence. Do not expect the word "sorry" to perform all four jobs. How should a salesperson rebuild trust during the meeting? After a credibility-damaging mistake, the salesperson should adapt the meeting and deliberately front-load evidence of reliability, experience and organisational strength. This is not the moment to deliver the same canned sales presentation used in every other meeting. The salesperson should briefly explain the mistake and then transition into the strongest reasons the customer should trust the company. These might include its history, regulatory standing, client base, specialised expertise, service standards, financial stability or documented results. A corporate brochure should not simply be handed over at the end with the suggestion that the customer read it later. The salesperson should guide the buyer through the most relevant sections and connect those points directly to the concern that has arisen. For example: "I recognise that today's address error was not a good demonstration of our standards. Let me show you how our client work is checked and managed, because reliability is central to what we do." That is honest, direct and useful. Do now: Change the presentation to match the trust problem. Lead with proof instead of continuing as though nothing happened. Can the office environment affect a buyer's trust? Yes. The office location, physical environment and way the company presents itself can influence how customers judge its stability and credibility. Many legitimate, successful companies operate from serviced offices, coworking spaces or executive floors. Flexible premises are now common among startups, consulting firms, international businesses and companies adopting hybrid work. The problem is not necessarily the office arrangement. The problem is the unexplained gap between what the customer expected and what they encountered. When someone is considering investing money or appointing a long-term adviser, they may ask: How large is this company? How permanent is it? Will it still be here in five years? The salesperson should anticipate these questions. A sensible explanation might be that the company deliberately maintains a flexible office structure to control overheads and offer clients more competitive fees. That explanation can convert a possible weakness into a rational business choice. Silence leaves the buyer to invent an explanation, and buyers rarely invent the most flattering one. Do now: Identify anything about your premises, company size or operating model that could create doubt and explain it before the buyer reaches a negative conclusion. Why is attacking a competitor risky in sales? Criticising a competitor can weaken trust when the salesperson's own history, conduct or credibility appears inconsistent with the criticism. Suppose a salesperson says that a competitor's fees are unfair. That may sound like useful differentiation—until the buyer learns that the salesperson worked for that competitor for many years. The customer may then ask an uncomfortable but logical question: "Were you comfortable charging those allegedly unfair fees when you worked there?" Simply attacking the previous employer does not resolve the contradiction. It may make the salesperson appear opportunistic or disloyal. A stronger explanation would distinguish personal values from company policy. The salesperson could say they disagreed with the old fee structure, tried to serve clients fairly within the system and eventually chose to join a firm whose philosophy better matched their own. That creates a credible narrative linking past experience with the present position. Competitive selling should focus on meaningful differences, not insults. Buyers are more persuaded by evidence of better value than by complaints about another company. Do now: Explain your company's philosophy, structure and advantages without relying on unsupported attacks against competitors. Conclusion: Trust recovery must be deliberate Every salesperson makes mistakes. Meetings are forgotten, messages contain errors and important details sometimes get missed. The existence of the mistake is not always fatal. The failure to respond intelligently often is. When trust takes a blow, salespeople must stop operating on autopilot. They must think on their feet, recognise the customer's unspoken concern and alter the conversation to address it. That means apologising properly, explaining the error, presenting evidence of credibility and connecting the company's strengths to the buyer's specific doubts. Do not hide the mistake. Do not minimise it. Do not rush past it in the hope that the customer will forget. The customer may never mention the trust issue directly. They may remain polite, accept the brochure and finish the meeting normally. Internally, however, they may have already removed you from consideration. Trust can take years to establish and only a moment to damage. When that moment arrives, recovery must become the salesperson's first priority. Author bio Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" in 2018 and 2021 and received the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award in 2012. As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver leadership, communication, sales and presentation programmes globally, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including three best-sellers—Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery and Japan Presentations Mastery—along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His books have also been published in Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう) and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー). Greg publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook and X and hosts six weekly podcasts. On YouTube, he produces The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery and Japan's Top Business Interviews for executives and professionals seeking practical strategies for succeeding in Japan.

"You can't tell them to stop smoking if you have a cigarette in your mouth." "I think it's all about communication." "You need to expose them, but don't throw them into the lion's cage." "First, learn Japanese." "Trust and communication. You cannot govern by emails or rules. You need to talk. You need to explain."     Frederic Delsaux is Representative Director of PTS Japan, a project management and consulting company supporting foreign and domestic organisations with construction, audiovisual, infrastructure and IT projects in Japan, as well as managed services after project completion. His connection with Japan stretches back to his university years in France, where he specialised in the Japanese economy. Attracted by Japan's economic importance and its reputation for automobiles, electronics and manufacturing, he arrived in Japan around the end of 1989 and beginning of the 1990s, just as the bubble economy was beginning to collapse. His career in Japan began far removed from project management. He initially managed a French restaurant, where the necessity of communicating with Japanese customers and colleagues pushed him to learn Japanese. He later joined an import-export trading company before representing a French telecommunications hardware company in Japan. After the local branch manager suddenly departed, Delsaux was offered responsibility for the operation and effectively moved into leadership almost overnight. His telecommunications work brought him into contact with PTS during the early stages of its Japan operation. After seven to eight years with the telecommunications company, he joined PTS, initially in technical sales for telephony, before moving through sales and director-level responsibilities. He has now spent more than two decades with PTS. In April 2020, as COVID-19 was beginning to reshape business globally, the Japanese management team completed a management buyout from the UK parent organisation. PTS Japan became part of a Japanese-owned group while retaining the established PTS brand. Delsaux's career consequently spans technical sales, client management, organisational leadership, business ownership and the challenge of adapting global project-management practices to Japanese business realities.   Frederic Delsaux's leadership career in Japan demonstrates how credibility, communication and cultural adaptability can matter more than hierarchy alone. Having lived and worked in Japan since around the beginning of the 1990s, he has experienced the country through the collapse of the bubble economy, the Lehman shock, COVID-19, labour shortages and major changes in Japanese attitudes towards lifetime employment. PTS Japan specialises in project management across construction, audiovisual, infrastructure and IT projects. The business also provides managed services after projects are completed. Following a management buyout in April 2020, the Japanese operation became locally owned, while continuing to use the established PTS brand. Delsaux's route into leadership was unconventional. After studying the Japanese economy in France, he came to Japan and managed a French restaurant. Japanese was essential because the people around him did not speak French or English. He subsequently moved into trading and telecommunications. When a branch manager suddenly departed, he was offered leadership of the Japanese operation almost overnight. Speaking Japanese helped him gain trust among local employees, establishing an early lesson that language proficiency can carry cultural and leadership significance far beyond simple translation. At PTS, credibility came partly from experience and client relationships. Engineers and consultants knew that Delsaux understood the commercial environment and could communicate with decision-makers. His leadership philosophy nevertheless extends beyond expertise. As technology becomes more complex, leaders cannot be the deepest technical expert in every discipline. Instead, managers add value through communication, problem solving, risk reduction and helping technical specialists successfully navigate client relationships. That is particularly important because engineers increasingly need to operate directly in front of customers. Delsaux believes technical professionals should be progressively exposed to these situations rather than simply thrown into them. Supported experience builds confidence until the individual can communicate solutions independently. Trust is equally central. His analogy is memorable: a leader cannot tell employees to stop smoking while holding a cigarette. Leaders need to bring value to conversations with their people. Questions cannot simply be ignored, and employees need access to managers when problems occur. Externally, Delsaux stresses the importance of presenting a unified team to customers. Internal colleagues should not blame one another in front of clients. Trust can be quickly destroyed if different functions appear divided. Japan adds another layer. Consensus, communication and careful explanation matter. International methodologies cannot simply be imported without localisation. Leaders need to understand both the project and the people receiving the message. For executives arriving in Japan, Delsaux's first recommendation is straightforward: learn Japanese. The language also opens a door to understanding the culture. Beyond language, leaders need the right team, careful hiring decisions, regular contact with customers and an appreciation of the institutional knowledge already present inside the organisation. Ultimately, Delsaux reduces leadership to two closely connected concepts: trust and communication. Rules and emails cannot replace dialogue. Leaders need to talk, explain, listen and understand the challenges facing their people. Q&A Summary What makes leadership in Japan unique? Leadership in Japan requires unusually careful attention to communication, relationships and context. Delsaux's experience suggests that technically correct solutions are not sufficient on their own. International methodologies and global standards still need to be translated into a form that makes sense to Japanese clients and employees. Consensus is important, but the deeper issue is ensuring people understand what is happening and why. PTS therefore places substantial emphasis on sharing project information not merely with the immediate project team but more broadly across the organisation. Leadership also requires sensitivity to the customer relationships that Japanese employees may have spent years developing. What initially appears to an incoming foreign executive as unnecessary resistance may actually reflect employees protecting an important client relationship. Why do global executives struggle? Executives arriving from overseas can assume that practices which work at headquarters should transfer directly to Japan. The danger is judging local structures before understanding why they exist. Delsaux emphasises the importance of having the right team, while the broader discussion highlights the need to investigate why local employees work in a particular way before attempting sweeping changes. Language can compound the problem. An executive who cannot communicate in Japanese may become dependent on whichever employees speak English, regardless of their seniority or depth of business knowledge. Direct contact with a wider range of Japanese employees and customers provides a much richer understanding of the business. Is Japan truly risk-averse? The interview presents a more nuanced picture than simply describing Japan as risk-averse. Japanese clients often prefer people they already know because continuity reduces uncertainty. An existing project manager with deep institutional knowledge may therefore be preferred to a technically stronger replacement who does not know the customer. Delsaux sees this as a balance. Companies need institutional knowledge, technical competence and resource availability simultaneously. Waiting for a familiar individual may be impossible when project schedules are tight. The leadership task is therefore not simply to overcome uncertainty avoidance. It is to explain why a new approach or resource can still protect delivery quality and client interests. What leadership style actually works? Delsaux defines leadership around trust and communication. Credibility matters. Leaders need to contribute something of value when employees approach them. His smoking analogy captures the principle of role modelling: leaders cannot demand behaviour they are unwilling to demonstrate themselves. Accessibility also matters. Employees should not feel that questions will be ignored simply because they are inconvenient or unrealistic. Internally, Delsaux stresses unity. Disagreements can occur, but different teams should not attack or blame one another in front of the customer. Clients who entrust multiple services to one company expect a unified answer. How can technology help? Technology serves two leadership purposes at PTS. First, project managers and consultants must remain current because new technologies continually affect project delivery. Global designs also need localisation for Japan because products, standards, availability and infrastructure can differ. Second, technology creates development opportunities for employees. Repetitive work can become boring, particularly in a tight labour market where skilled people have many alternatives. New technologies give engineers and consultants something new to learn and help keep their work challenging. Technology therefore has value not only as a project tool but also as an employee-development and retention mechanism. Does language proficiency matter? For Delsaux, it matters considerably. His first advice to an incoming foreign leader is simply: "First, learn Japanese." His own Japanese developed out of necessity while working in restaurants where neither French nor English could be relied upon. He believes making the effort to learn Japanese earns respect from employees and strengthens relationships, even when team members already speak English. Language learning also provides access to culture. Delsaux particularly values people who are not merely bilingual but bicultural because they can understand how managers in different countries interpret the same situation differently. Even with strong Japanese ability, he sometimes brings a Japanese colleague to important meetings. This reduces misunderstanding and can also demonstrate respect towards a Japanese-speaking client. What's the ultimate leadership lesson? Delsaux's answer is remarkably concise: trust and communication. Leadership cannot be exercised effectively through rules and email alone. Leaders need to talk to people, explain decisions, respond to questions and understand the challenges their staff are facing. The labour market makes this increasingly important. Employees who feel overworked, underdeveloped or bored now have alternatives. The old assumption that employees will remain indefinitely has weakened substantially. Leadership therefore depends on creating an environment in which people can learn, contribute, communicate and trust the people managing them. Technical competence remains important, but communication determines whether that expertise can be successfully translated into employee engagement and client confidence. Author Credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have also been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー). In addition to his books, Greg publishes daily blogs on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, offering practical insights on leadership, communication, and Japanese business culture. He is also the host of six weekly podcasts, including The Leadership Japan Series, The Sales Japan Series, The Presentations Japan Series, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews. On YouTube, he produces three weekly shows — The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews — which have become leading resources for executives seeking strategies for success in Japan.

Deanne Kelleher, founder and principal of KAOS Group, a business operations and systems consultancy that helps successful business owners and leaders build documented, transferable systems so their business can run without everything depending on them.Through her Organize, Optimize, Profit methodology, Deanne helps companies capture what is really happening inside the business, standardise what works, and create the operational clarity needed to scale, franchise, or position for sale.Now, Deanne's journey of rebuilding KAOS Group after injury, loss, divorce, and a serious health crisis demonstrates what it really means to create infrastructure that supports both the business and the person leading it.And while publishing her book Organize. Optimize. Profit. Transforming Workflows and being featured in Costco Connection, she is helping more leaders understand that strong processes do not constrain people, they empower them.Here's where to find more:Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/deannekelleher/ Instagram https://www.instagram.com/kaosgroup_workflowexperts KAOS Group https://kaosgroup.com/olm/________________________________________________Welcome to The Unforget Yourself Show where we use the power of woo and the proof of science to help you identify your blind spots, and get over your own bullshit so that you can do the fucking thing you ACTUALLY want to do!We're Mark and Katie, the founders of Unforget Yourself and the creators of the Unforget Yourself System and on this podcast, we're here to share REAL conversations about what goes on inside the heart and minds of those brave and crazy enough to start their own business. From the accidental entrepreneur to the laser-focused CEO, we find out how they got to where they are today, not by hearing the go-to story of their success, but talking about how we all have our own BS to deal with and it's through facing ourselves that we find a way to do the fucking thing.Along the way, we hope to show you that YOU are the most important asset in your business (and your life - duh!). Being a business owner is tough! With vulnerability and humor, we get to the real story behind their success and show you that you're not alone._____________________Find all our links to all the things like the socials, how to work with us and how to apply to be on the podcast here:https://linktr.ee/unforgetyourself

Support the show

(London Insight Meditation)

Adam Bossom • Matthew 8:1–8:4 • Xchange

(London Insight Meditation)

Sometimes pushing forward looks like going faster. And sometimes it looks like recording a podcast from bed. In Episode 155 of Pushing Forward with Alycia, Alycia Anderson welcomes her husband, Marty Anderson, back to the microphone for one of their most personal conversations yet. Over the past several months, Alycia and Marty have found themselves navigating an unexpected medical journey that has included multiple hospitalizations, a bowel obstruction, a uterine embolization and the placement of a nephrostomy tube to protect Alycia's functioning kidney while her body heals. But this episode is not simply a medical update. It is a conversation about aging with disability, something Alycia and Marty are discovering requires continuously getting reacquainted with bodies that change over time. Both are wheelchair users. Both live with different disabilities. And after nearly fifteen years of marriage, the couple is experiencing one of those seasons when the vows “in sickness and in health” become very real. When the Body Changes the Plan Alycia has spent a lifetime adapting. Born with a congenital disability, she describes herself in the episode as a “science project that's gone right.” From the outside, people may simply see a wheelchair user. Internally, however, her anatomy and health are far more complex. Now, aging, disability and perimenopause are colliding in ways she could not have predicted. The physical challenges have also introduced something emotionally difficult for a lifelong achiever: being forced to slow down. Alycia admits that one of her greatest fears has not simply been the medical uncertainty. It has been losing momentum. After an incredibly successful Disability Pride Month, nine events, the company's first live webinar and Alycia's Pitch Perfect competition win at Disability:IN, suddenly the body demanded something completely different. Rest. Running a Business When Life Says Stop Being self employed might seem like it would make dealing with illness easier. Alycia and Marty explain why the opposite can be true. There is no traditional medical leave. No department waiting to absorb the workload. No manager to tell that you will be unavailable for the month. When one partner becomes sick, the other is balancing caregiving, household responsibilities, client needs and the business itself. It has forced Marty into an even larger role while simultaneously asking Alycia to release control over work she deeply cares about. And for a self described Type A personality, that surrender has not come easily. When Both Partners Have Disabilities One of the most compelling parts of the conversation explores a question people have asked Alycia and Marty throughout their relationship: How will two disabled people take care of each other? Their answer is beautifully simple. They adapt. When Alycia became unable to transfer as easily after her hospitalization, Marty drew from years of disability experience and ordered a transfer board. They modified routines. They used equipment differently. They accepted home healthcare. They figured it out together. And while their disabilities can create additional logistical complications, Alycia says they also create something extraordinarily valuable within their relationship: understanding. Marty does not need an explanation of what it feels like when the body suddenly stops cooperating. Alycia does not need to translate disability for him. That shared understanding creates an intimacy rooted in lived experience. “I Don't Have to Be the Strongest Person in the Room Every Day” Perhaps the most vulnerable moment comes when Marty asks Alycia what this season is teaching her. She does not manufacture an inspirational answer. Instead, she admits that she does not know yet. She is still inside it. But she is beginning to understand something important. It is okay to rest. It is okay to say she is too tired. It is okay to receive help. And it is okay not to be the strongest person in the room every single day. For someone whose career has been built around resilience, achievement and pushing forward, that may be one of the biggest adaptations of all. Love as an Accessibility Tool There is also a love story woven quietly through this episode. Alycia talks about lying in bed while recovering, looking over at Marty and feeling safe. She describes this medical season as a reminder of the depth their marriage has developed over time. Not because everything has been easy. Because it has not. But because when things become difficult, they know how to turn toward one another. Their marriage becomes another form of adaptation. Another form of access. Another reminder that independence does not have to mean doing everything alone. Episode Themes ♿ The Things Disability Keeps Teaching Us ♿ Aging with disability and adapting as bodies and needs change ❤️ Disabled love and marriage through unexpected medical challenges

315 - She Was Internally Decapitated. 98% Don't Survive. Here's How Angie Breaux Rebuilt Her Real Estate Empire From a Hospital Bed In April 2022, real estate investor Angie Breaux was on the verge of closing a 120-home rental portfolio, sitting on a $200,000 stake in a cannabis facility, and building toward becoming the first millionaire in her family. Then a single car accident internally decapitated her, a survivable event in only two percent of cases. Most people who live through it never walk again. Angie not only walked again, but she also picked up her phone from a hospital bed, still wheelchair bound, and closed a real estate deal. This episode is the full story behind that moment. Angie walks through what it actually felt like to lose everything she had built while she was in a medically induced coma, the four-year recovery that included multiple surgeries on both arms and her eye, and the mindset shift that let her start over completely from zero. She gets specific about the financial reality no one warns you about after a catastrophic injury, what it took to trust her business partners after they closed the 120-door deal without her, and the exact moment she decided to get back into real estate investing after four years away from it. This is a conversation about identity, loss, and what it really means to rebuild. If you have ever lost something you spent years building, whether it was a business, your health, or your sense of who you are, this episode is for you. Angie's story proves that starting over is not the same as starting from nothing, and that the comeback can be even bigger than the version of success you originally planned. Anyone facing a setback that feels too big to come back from needs to hear this one. 5 Powerful Takeaways How Angie closed a real estate deal from a hospital bed while still wheelchair bound, and what that moment taught her about momentum Why she refuses to blame her former business partners for closing their 120-unit deal without her, and the mindset behind that decision The financial reality of surviving a catastrophic injury that no one prepares you for, from medical costs to four years without income What actually pushed her back into real estate investing after a four-year gap, and why March 2026 became her turning point Her simple daily gratitude practice for anyone rebuilding after a major loss, and why she still uses it even on the hardest days 00:00 Warning And Welcome 01:20 Badassery Bestowment Rejection 04:54 Meet Angie Breaux 07:06 Rebuilding Real Estate Again 09:28 Cancun Origin Story 11:23 Life Before The Crash 14:38 The April 2022 Accident 16:46 Internal Decapitation Explained 17:59 Coma Surgeries And Recovery 20:06 Losing The 120 Doors 21:06 Closing A Deal From Hospital 22:27 Dealmaker Turning Point 24:46 Goals Speaking And Support 27:29 Courage Challenge Gratitude 29:47 Badass Q And A 39:54 Redefining Success And Farewell About the Guest Angie Breaux is a real estate investor who built her business from scratch in Mississippi starting in 2019, expanding into two states and closing in on a 120-home rental portfolio with two business partners by 2022. In April of that year, a car accident left her internally decapitated, a survivable injury for only two percent of the people it happens to. She spent four to five weeks in a coma, endured multiple complex surgeries on both arms and her right eye, and was told she would never drive again. Two months before this recording, she passed her driver's test. Angie is now rebuilding her real estate investment business, pursuing flips and rentals, and working toward public speaking so she can share her story with others navigating catastrophic loss. Resources & Websites Mentioned Never Split the Difference by Chris Voss Mic Drop Club (women's speaking and workshop community) Dealmaker conference Connect With Jen Josey To learn more about Jen Josey, visit https://www.therealjenjosey.com/ If you enjoy Jen's Witty Shirts, shop the whole collection at https://www.shopwittygoods.com/   New episodes drop every Monday Morning at 6am EST. See you next time.

Why can a capable ADHD professional know exactly what needs to be done—and still find it incredibly difficult to begin? In this conversation, Cathy Rashidian speaks with Brendan Mahan, MEd, MS, author of Overcoming the Wall of Awful, about the emotional barriers that can build around work we have struggled with before. A report, email, decision or difficult conversation may look straightforward from the outside. Internally, that task may be carrying frustration, uncertainty, shame, fear of failure or memories of previous struggles. In this episode, we explore: What can be hiding inside a seemingly simple task such as sending an email How repeated struggles contribute to the Wall of Awful Why caring deeply about the outcome can sometimes make beginning harder The difference between activating under pressure and performing well under pressure How urgency, anxiety, frustration and anger can become a damaging way to smash through the wall What it means to put a door in the wall or climb it How skills, resources and expectations affect workplace performance What leaders often miss when they move straight into problem-solving Questions to ask yourself when you are staring at your own Wall of Awful Brendan Mahan is an internationally recognized ADHD and executive-function expert, host of the ADHD Essentials Podcast and author of Overcoming the Wall of Awful.

Doist CTO Gonzalo Silva says AI is reshaping software development, but success depends on restraint rather than rapid feature expansion. Instead of chasing every AI capability, Doist prioritizes “subtraction over addition,” removing features that fail to deliver lasting value despite development investment. After experimenting with nearly 20 AI concepts, the company found success with Ramble, an AI-powered voice task capture feature, while remaining model-agnostic through rigorous testing and evaluations.  Internally, developers use a variety of AI coding tools rather than standardizing on one platform, while Doist OS—a companywide AI assistant with nearly 100 shared skills—helps employees across all functions work more effectively. Silva also outlined Doist's approach to AI-powered automations, separating AI-driven workflow generation from deterministic execution to improve reliability and reduce token costs. Throughout its AI strategy, the company emphasizes purposeful features, privacy, transparency, and continuous improvement, ensuring AI enhances user productivity without compromising product quality or trust. Learn more from The New Stack around developer productivity:  Developer Productivity in 2025: More AI, but Mixed Results Optimizing for Developer Productivity Creates a Winning DevEx Join our community of newsletter subscribers to stay on top of the news and at the top of your game. 

The internal investigation by Victoria's Secret's parent company, L Brands, was launched after the resurfacing of longstanding ties between billionaire founder Les Wexner and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. In July 2019 the board retained outside counsel to determine what role, if any, Epstein had within the company—despite L Brands stating that Epstein was “never employed by nor served as an authorized representative of the company.”The inquiry aimed to clarify whether Epstein's influence extended beyond his position as Wexner's personal money manager, including allegations that he posed as a talent scout for Victoria's Secret and might have leveraged access to young models. Former employees and journalists raised concerns that Epstein misrepresented his role, and that red flags from the 1990s went unaddressed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Matt Kilgroe — President & CEO, Cyndeo Wealth Partners Matt Kilgroe shares how Cyndeo Wealth Partners grew from a newly launched $1.2B RIA to a $3.5B enterprise, and why the next challenge isn't independence, but building a firm capable of reaching $25B.  In Summary Five years after launching Cyndeo Wealth Partners from UBS, Matt Kilgroe returns to the podcast to discuss what happens after independence. Rather than focusing on the transition itself, Louis and Matt explore the next phase of growth: scaling an advisory business, attracting talent, developing niche expertise, taking on outside capital, and building an enterprise designed to last. Along the way, Matt shares how Cyndeo expanded from $1.2B to $3.5B, why serving professional athletes required a different business model, and what led the firm to partner with Rise Growth Partners as it looks toward a $25B future.  The Storyline For many advisors, independence is viewed as the finish line. For Matt Kilgroe, it became the starting point. When Cyndeo Wealth Partners launched in 2020, the goal wasn't simply to leave the wirehouse behind. It was to build a business with the flexibility to grow in ways that simply weren't possible before. Five years later, that vision has evolved into something much larger. Cyndeo has nearly tripled in size, expanded its niche serving professional athletes and entertainers, recruited advisors, added specialized operational talent, and recently welcomed Rise Growth Partners as a minority investor to help accelerate its next phase of growth. The conversation explores what changes when firm leaders stop thinking like advisors managing successful practices and begin thinking like CEOs building enduring enterprises. The discussion spans succession planning, capital strategy, recruiting, organizational design, and the mindset required to scale from billions to tens of billions—all while remaining focused on clients and culture.  Topics Covered Building an enterprise beyond independence Scaling from $1.2B to $3.5B in assets Organic growth versus recruiting Serving professional athletes and entertainers Why fiduciary independence matters for niche client segments Building operational infrastructure for growth Partnering with Dynasty Financial Partners Minority capital and Rise Growth Partners Succession planning and employee ownership Thinking from $3.5B to $25B > Download a transcript of this episode… Listen and Learn Highlights for Advisors What did Matt learn after transitioning nearly 98% of his clients? (06:20) Why client relationships—not firm logos—proved to be the firm's greatest asset during one of the most challenging transitions imaginable. How did Cyndeo nearly triple in size in five years? (16:10) Matt discusses the combination of niche specialization, disciplined organic growth, recruiting, and operational investment that fueled the firm's expansion. Why has Cyndeo become a destination for professional athletes? (17:15) The conversation explores how deep industry expertise, fiduciary flexibility, and specialized service created a business that would have been difficult to build inside a wirehouse. Why bring on a minority capital partner when the business was already thriving? (24:15) Matt explains why succession planning, future recruiting, and long-term enterprise growth made outside capital the right decision. How should advisors think about ownership versus compensation? (35:40) A candid discussion about enterprise value, equity, and why many advisors underestimate the long-term economics of ownership. What does it actually take to scale toward $25B? (42:20) From hiring executive talent to expanding geographically, Matt shares how he's thinking about the next chapter of Cyndeo's evolution. Key Takeaways Independence creates opportunities that extend well beyond higher payouts, including enterprise value, recruiting flexibility, and ownership. Scaling a business requires investing in operational leadership, not just adding advisors. Specialized client niches demand expertise that goes well beyond investment management. Outside capital can accelerate growth when it's aligned with long-term strategy rather than an exit. Building an enduring enterprise requires thinking differently about succession, talent, governance, and equity. https://youtu.be/WRYJd9Lkt7o Quotable Moments “Don't rent your practice. Own it.” “You can't work in those niches and not be a fiduciary.” “We're not done.” “The road from $3B to $25B is going to really compound on your equity.”  FAQs Why did Cyndeo decide to take on a minority capital partner? To support its next phase of growth, strengthen succession planning, recruit additional talent, and benefit from the experience of leaders who have successfully scaled wealth management businesses before. How did Cyndeo grow from $1.2B to $3.5B? Through a combination of consistent organic growth, specialized client niches, advisor recruiting, and investments in operational infrastructure. Why is serving professional athletes or other niche client segments different from serving traditional wealth clients? Niche client segments often face unique financial decisions involving private investments, business opportunities, and career transitions that require specialized knowledge and a fiduciary framework. What advantages did independence create that weren't available inside a wirehouse? Matt points to greater flexibility around private investments, the ability to build specialized client experiences, reward employees with equity, and create an enterprise with lasting value. How should advisors think about building versus joining an independent firm? The discussion highlights the tradeoffs between creating your own firm and joining an established independent enterprise, emphasizing that ownership and long-term equity often matter more than headline payouts. What does Matt believe is required to build a $25B firm? A willingness to invest beyond advisors alone, adding executive leadership, expanding geographically, recruiting strategically, and maintaining a long-term enterprise mindset. To support its next phase of growth, strengthen succession planning, recruit additional talent, and benefit from the experience of leaders who have successfully scaled wealth management businesses before. Through a combination of consistent organic growth, specialized client niches, advisor recruiting, and investments in operational infrastructure. Niche client segments often face unique financial decisions involving private investments, business opportunities, and career transitions that require specialized knowledge and a fiduciary framework. Matt points to greater flexibility around private investments, the ability to build specialized client experiences, reward employees with equity, and create an enterprise with lasting value. The discussion highlights the tradeoffs between creating your own firm and joining an established independent enterprise, emphasizing that ownership and long-term equity often matter more than headline payouts. A willingness to invest beyond advisors alone, adding executive leadership, expanding geographically, recruiting strategically, and maintaining a long-term enterprise mindset. Related Resources Article: Your Practice Isn't Worth What You ThinkMost advisors misjudge their business's value, not because of the number, but because of the framework. Learn what really drives enterprise value. Rise and Reinvent: Joe Duran on Building and Rebuilding World-Class FirmsHe's built and rebuilt some of the industry's most successful firms and now he's helping others do the same. In this episode, Joe Duran, the founder of Rise Growth Partners, shares lessons from building, selling, and starting again, and how staying curious and adaptable fuels lasting success. Matt KilgroePresident/CEO Prior to launching Cyndeo Wealth Partners in 2020, Matt ran advisory teams at Merrill Lynch and UBS Financial for 29 years. Providing guidance, counsel, and strategy for families the firm serves is Matt's passion. In addition to his role as an advisor, Matt works in a leadership capacity for Cyndeo while also helping with business development. Matt has been recognized by Barron's as a Top 1000 or Top 1200 Advisor consistently since 2009. In 2020 Forbes named him to their “Best-In-State Wealth Advisor” list. A graduate of Eckerd College, Matt has served on the Board of Trustees at his alma mater since 2012. His three children are his pride and joy. Daughter Carrington owns Sunstate Yoga studio in St. Petersburg, son Kent is a financial advisor with Cyndeo, and daughter Jillian recently graduated Florida State University. An athlete in college, Matt continues to enjoy staying in shape, playing basketball, and bike riding. NOTE: The views and opinions expressed by the guests on this podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Diamond Consultants. Neither Diamond Consultants nor the guests on this podcast are compensated in any way for their participation. View the transcript of this episode… True Alignment: Advising Business Owners on Wealth, Significance, and Value A conversation with Jason Diamond, Nick Hubert and Taylor Gentry – Founding Partners at Panoramic Capital Partners. Jason Diamond: Welcome to the latest episode of our podcast series for financial advisors. Today’s episode is True Alignment: Advising Business Owners on Wealth, Significance, and Value. It’s a conversation with Nick Hubert and Taylor Gentry, Founding Partners, Panoramic Capital Partners. I’m Jason Diamond and this is the Diamond Podcast for Financial Advisors. Mindy Diamond: At Diamond Consultants, we help elite advisors identify the right environment for their businesses to thrive, whether that’s at a wirehouse, boutique, or independent firm. With nearly three decades of experience, we’ve guided thousands of advisors and represented more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets transitioned. And each year, one in four advisors managing a billion dollars or more who change firms are our clients. Our process is education-driven and based on building relationships, starting as your strategic partner well before you’re even thinking of a move. To schedule a confidential conversation, call us at 908-879-1002. Wondering why advisors change firms and where they’re headed? Are transition deals going up or down? Those very questions and more inspired us to create our annual advisor transition report. It’s the award-winning, data-driven resource designed for advisors that connects the dots between the motivations around movement and the firm’s appetite for top talent. Arm yourself with the knowledge you need to make smart decisions. Download your copy at diamond-consultants.com/transitionreport. Jason Diamond: Advisory firms that work with business owner clients typically operate through a fairly traditional wealth management lens. The business may be the source of the wealth, but the advice itself often centers around investments, planning, and asset allocation, yet Panoramic Capital Partners approaches that equation differently. Nick Hubert and Taylor Gentry are the founding partners of the roughly $450 million RIA, serving about 150 families with a seven-person team. And while they come from very different professional backgrounds, Nick with more of a relationship and storytelling orientation, Taylor from the analytical and private equity side, they’ve built the firm around a shared philosophy tied to what they call personal significance, personal wealth, and personal value. A big part of that philosophy, or the north star as they put it, is applying some of the same accountability and long-term thinking frameworks commonly seen in private equity to the advisory relationship itself, not in a transactional sense, but in helping clients think more intentionally about decision-making, alignment, and outcomes over long periods of time. As a result, our conversation delves deeply into the private equity world, reframing how clients and advisors should consider this important tool as both a growth mechanism and a strategic part of their client’s plans. We talk about how that perspective also shapes not only how they think about serving business owners specifically, but also the role private equity should play in wealth management. Then we take a view of their long runway and how they and other younger advisors might see things differently about building firms today and why clarity of vision may matter more than sheer scale in the years ahead, and much, much more. It’s a narrative that is refreshing and informative, so let’s get to it. Taylor, Nick, thank you so much for joining. Walk us through your background. What brought you to the world of wealth management? Nick, let’s start with you. Nick Hubert: Sure. I think I got my first taste of the industry actually in a sophomore year of college internship, or I interned at Morgan Stanley here in Oregon. I studied finance and accounting at University of Oregon, and so I had this affinity for finance and markets and had that privilege of having that internship. So I had it early on in my career. Ultimately ended up setting my sights on doing investment banking and going that route and did that for a short period of time. Ended up not going very long due to a medical reason, so you don’t have to be that sorry for me. And ultimately started my career in business consulting before pretty quickly realizing that I want to get back to finance, back to investing these things that just felt like core competencies and that thing that you keep coming back to when you’re alone in the middle of the night thinking about stuff, it was always that. Just had this desire to work with smaller units than large corporations, which is great for wealth where you get to work with families and small businesses. And so it was just a natural alignment that took me back full-time to the space in 2016. Jason Diamond: I like the framing it through the size of the unit you’re working with and having more of an impact on the family. Taylor, what about you? Taylor Gentry: I’m a little more circuitous, if you will. Spent a couple of years in investment banking, so you can be sorry for me. Nick and I met in undergrad at the University of Oregon, had the opportunity to work in this investment group together where we were investing a portion of the university’s endowment. And like Nick, interned in wealth management and kind of walked away from it going, “Boy, that’s boring. I don’t really like that.” And so moved to New York, cut my teeth in banking for a couple years and we were working… So an investment bank for context, helping companies raise debt, raise equity, and with mergers and acquisitions, we’re working with huge companies. So the Mattels of the world, the largest toy company in the world. Like Nick, realized, “Hey, I’m going to work with smaller companies that we can get our arms around a little bit better and be more helpful with and have a bigger impact on.” So spent about 10 years with a private equity firm in the western half of the US and we invested in companies in what’s referred to as the lower middle market. So companies doing 50 to 300 million of revenue. And we would invest in those companies, grow those businesses and then look to sell them. Awesome experience, learned a ton, got a bunch of experience around how to invest in companies, how to grow businesses. Then had the opportunity to step into the CFO seat of a couple of different operating companies during that time. It was just a great learning ground, but also to see a whole bunch of different situations. Nick and I have always invested in things together. We’ve worked on things together and we’ve always wanted to work together full time. And a few years ago, the stars really just aligned to say, “Hey, what would it look like to create a differentiated offering in the wealth space where we can blend my background on companies, transactions, how to draw on scale and all those pieces and really marry that with the wealth management piece?” And Nick will get into that further, but it’s just a really unique way to partner with families and companies that are smaller which can have a really high impact experience with those families and really move them through their life journey, if you will. Jason Diamond: Yeah, there’s a lot to unpack there and we’ll get to some of the elements of how you run the business today. First of all, you can’t fool me by using a toy company as your example to make investment banking more interesting. I’m just kidding. Actually, my real takeaway there is you have a skillset that is incredibly relevant in the current wealth management ecosystem, especially in the model you’re currently in. So let’s talk about that a little. Tell us about your current chapter, which is Panoramic Capital Partners. Who do you serve? What types of clients? Give me some perspective on size as well. Nick Hubert: I'm going to take this first. Taylor can do the PE background side and give you a bunch of numbers. I’ll give you the story and see if we can piece it together that way. Jason Diamond: I get the impression you guys use that line a lot. Nick Hubert: Oh, no, that’s the first time. How’d it land? Jason, I spent eight years at our prior firm with our third founding partner, Andrew, and he was at that firm for 30 years. And so we’ve got this core DNA that we’ve always carried of serving high net worth families in a very holistic and deep planning-based capacity, which I think a lot of modern firms say that. And so that’s not necessarily that different, but it is a DNA that carries through. When we got struck with this vision of launching Panoramic and what inspired us to build the firm, it was as, Taylor outlined, around this idea of how do we partner with entrepreneurs and business owners more holistically across their entire entrepreneurial journey, not just around the exit as is so often where the gravity of the conversation sits. And so our firm vision and inspiration was all around that. And since launching in May of 2024, it has been about how do we bring that vision to life with a different business model. And to your point, there’s a bunch to unpack there, but that is ultimately the founding vision of what we are trying to build here overall and what inspires us every day to say, how do we, as Taylor mentioned, bring the combination of skillsets to bear in a way that allows us to be a better partner along the entirety of the journey as opposed to just towards the end when assets traditionally show up, so to speak? So that’s a story from a vision perspective. Taylor, I don’t know what you want to add to that. Taylor Gentry: As Nick outlined, it’s the ability to work with folks throughout the lifecycle. So in private equity, you invest in a company, you work with that management team for three to seven years and then you sell the business and move on to the next project or deal. And really, it’s the deal mechanic that is the value creation. Whereas, with what we are building here, we have the opportunity to really step along the journey with folks when they are in the early phases building what we talk about as the middle phase of allocating, and we’ll talk about this further, and then really the third phase of stewarding capital along the way. And it’s a life cycle or entrepreneurial journey that we’re able to be hand in hand with folks over decades opposed to measured in three to five year spans. Jason Diamond: So it sounds, and you’ve both kind of touched on this now, your different backgrounds, you view as very much a positive because it gives you, Taylor, the more in the weeds analytical perspective. Nick, you’re probably more the storyteller. Do you find that to be a benefit when you’re running your firm every day? And are there instances when it’s a negative? Is there ever a time when you say, Taylor, just maybe more for you, not coming from this world, you don’t speak the same language? Nick Hubert: Do you want me to drop off the call so Taylor can be honest and he can give you the scoop and then he can jump off and I’ll give you the scoop? Taylor Gentry: Jason, we talk about that a lot, honestly. I think it is atypical for someone with my background to step into the wealth space maybe more so. And we leverage that because we have the ability to work with folks on how do you drive value in the company, how do you set the business up for a potential sale exit or transition internally? But this business, historically, we’ve talked about it as almost like two tracks. You have Taylor on the quote unquote business consulting or the business work track and you have Nick on a wealth management track. It’s really not the case. And really, the power is the ability for these two pieces to come together and there isn’t a conversation we have with clients where those two perspectives and backgrounds or contexts aren’t married into one to create really truly holistic advice. And so Nick will probably tell you otherwise, but I haven’t seen an area yet where our two backgrounds has been a negative. It’s actually been immensely positive. And then on top of it, in terms of kind of building out the firm, Nick is more of a traction visionary and I’m more of the traction implementer. What’s amazing about it from our perspective is the partnership we have allows us to, A, recognize that, B, name it, and then C, leverage it in terms of being able to dole out duties and maximize our success together. Jason Diamond: Nick, anything you’d add? Nick Hubert: I think that’s all right. I mean, Jason, your question was from an operational perspective. I think a lot of Taylor’s view is from a client perspective, which is spot on that the overlap of that is really helpful for clients and I think what allows it to be a different experience for them. Internally, operationally, I think that where you could see friction there amongst partners with differences, and I think you do see that, and at the same time, Google was the one who did team research 15 years ago where they put out what you really want, is similarity and vision and differences in skillset when building a team. And so I think we’ve been intentional about that and it’s been really helpful for… Taylor and I functionally met in a quasi-professional setting back in 2011 and developed a friendship quickly, so we’ve got that deep level of friendship that underpins all of it. And same with Andrew and our time working together. So part of it is there’s just such a strength of relationship amongst us that we give space for each other’s differences and look for those as assets as opposed to negatives, but in some sense, beauty in the eye of the beholder as is the case with anything. Jason Diamond: Yep. I appreciate you adding that context. I’ll be honest that when I first encountered your firm, my reaction was your core value prop of serving business owners is not all that differentiated. And then I learned more about the way in which you serve business owners. Can you talk about that? Because a lot of advisors in general, but then I think more specifically, a lot of RIAs would say, “We service primarily business owners.” Tell me how do you do it in a way that’s different and meaningful? Nick Hubert: I’ll take a first stab at that and then Taylor can maybe add on with specific stories. The wealth space is an awesome business and it’s a place where it’s very difficult to differentiate. And so we think a lot about that through the lens of how do we grow this business well for the long period of time to create opportunities for clients and employees. And so we spent a lot of time thinking about that, not only for the sake of differentiation, but also how do we actually just continue to add value to clients? Because if we add value in a different way, growth will take care of itself. I’d say one way of cutting that is we revisit the mission is through this idea of, okay, if I want to be a partner along the journey, it’s about more than a single transaction, more than a single exit, whatever that might be, or a series of transactions as wealth is often created over a series of transactions. It’s this idea of how do we focus on wealth creation and driving business value as the engine of wealth creation for entrepreneurs and what we call personal significance, which is the life of the entrepreneur. And so there’s a next click down framing of our framework that we work through that lens. I think the most important piece for us has been how do we build a business model that actually brings that to life and that’s the trick because we can say that, and if we basically still just operate out of an AUM-based or an asset advisory fee-based business, the reality is my incentive is still towards getting assets out of the entrepreneurial environment, so to speak, into a place that I can manage them, which may or may not be the best thing for the entrepreneur based on where they are at. And so our current work continues to be around how do we build that business model. So layering in different ways of engaging, whether it’s a retainer fee or some other way of engaging so we can start earlier when assets aren’t there and actually encourage the entrepreneur, “No, keep reinvesting in your business. It’s your highest rate of return right now and it’s where the investment needs to go.” I don’t want to have a conflict in giving that advice. And so I think step two here has been building that business model from an actual engagement perspective to enable us to enact the vision. And then I think the third piece is how do we then build tools that are different than just evaluating pre-exit planning, and as is so often, the toolkit, but actually saying, okay, what are the value drivers of a business? And this is probably where Taylor has a lot more to add because it’s 101 of the PE model, but how do we take the mission and vision of an entrepreneur, what we call north stars, translate those into value drivers, ensure those tie to strategic initiatives in the business, ensure it ties to reporting, and ultimately, how capital is allocated between the business and other investments? So then that’s our toolkit that we continue to build out to deploy the mission through our business model with tools that back it up. So that’s how we frame it right now. Taylor, we can share stories about how that’s come to fruition to create different outcomes. Jason Diamond: Taylor, I’d love to hear that. Let me just add maybe my understanding, because this is what helped me, I think, to really understand how you defer, and Nick and Taylor, correct me if I’m wrong, it sounds like the typical advisor thinks about an entrepreneur, a business owner relationship as the next liquidity event in most cases. And you take the viewpoint that it’s a journey, in some instances, 30 years in the making. It’s not even about liquidity event might come that’s beside the point. Is that a fair summary? Taylor Gentry: Yeah. We talk about it as a growing business is a healthy business, a business that is creating incremental value and adding to the multiple in terms of how the business is valued in the marketplace is a healthy business. And so whether you are going to sell that business or retain that business into perpetuity, let’s make a really valuable business and grow a very healthy business. And that’s what we do with clients. Nick laid out the north star framework. And so how do we actually go about engaging with folks on a practical level? It does start with the north star framework. It’s got five steps to it as Nick outlined in terms of defining the north star, where we’re going, what we’re trying to do and that’s across those three pillars, personal significance, personal wealth and business value. And that personal significance has to be held at that same level. Otherwise, we find folks that are mid 50s, their business is crazy valuable, they’ve got a lot of dollars, but their family life isn’t where they want it to be because they didn’t take care of that along the way. So we lay out a place map that says, “Hey, these are the north stars that we are aligning on and coming back to every month when we work with these owners.” We then push that into, okay, what are we trying to do on the business side of the equation? Let’s lay out what is going to drive the value of the business from a multiple and enterprise value perspective. We push that into a set of strategic initiatives that is tactical, who owns what, when’s it getting done, and are we red, yellow or green on it? We then build out the performance reporting package with folks. And so that is a monthly reporting package that says what happened last month and what operational data are we looking at to be able to improve the business month over month and get a good feedback loop going into the company. And then the last piece is around capital allocation that Nick mentioned where if the business generates a million dollars, where’s that capital going? I think there’s a lot in there and it’s really deep, but if you zoom all the way back out, it’s take a private equity style playbook where private equity firms come and invest in a company. And what do they do after close? They put in place good financial reporting, good operational reporting, and then hold the team accountable to that reporting and those results on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis. And so this is not rocket science or something that’s never been seen before. It’s just most business owners that have never experienced this private equity world don’t have access to it and don’t know how to go about doing it. It’s a relatively long process to get that installed with companies and with teams to really dig in and understand it, but it’s building out those packages to be able to say, “Okay, what happened last month? What changes do we need to make and what are we doing from a initiative perspective to drive the business forward?” So to Nick’s point, it was previously, this was all about liquidity planning or from a wealth management perspective, it’s about the exit. This is about how do we make a more valuable business along the way, and that’s going to be good for the entrepreneur as they move through the journey. Nick Hubert: When we were around the dinner table, the proverbial dinner table creating the vision of this firm, it was around this idea of the silver tsunami and everything that everybody reads in the headlines of this massive wave of transition, this generational transition of business ownership that we could help facilitate. So we launched with that thesis in some sense. In addition to this broader journey perspective, we have gotten to this place by following the market and listening to what entrepreneurs actually want through the big unlock was honestly in a deal process with one of our clients where we realized, “This is a great deal. This person’s going to put a ton of money in their pockets, secure their future,” and it’s completely the wrong outcome for the entrepreneur because it’s thinking all about the deal, not thinking about what this person didn’t want was an exit. They wanted a different relationship with their business, and that required, what do you actually want out of life, that personal significance piece? And it required, “Hey, if we can actually create a layer of team members and reporting that allows you to manage this like a board chair would do as opposed to a highly engaged CEO. That’s actually what you want. You don’t want out of this business. You want to still have this be a huge rock in your life.” And so we’ve ran through that door, said no to the deal with them and have been building the infrastructure around this, and that was the unlock and aha moment for us. There’s something bigger here and that’s what then inspired, in some sense, the broader build out of the toolkit, but I think puts more meat on the bone of actually saying no to a deal, which is not the classic wealth manager outcome to get to a way better outcome for the client and is ultimately still an awesome client for us as a firm and somebody that we can go build with for the next 20 years. I think just telling it through the lens of a story that’s different than what’s normal, so to speak, is a way to frame that up. Jason Diamond: It’s such a hyper focus on a fairly long-term and honestly nebulous potential outcome. You don’t have certainty. That, I think, is why most advisors would prefer the near-term liquidity. I mean, it’s not a secret, right? You can bill on assets, firms are incentivizing it and it’s a pretty direct recipe to net new asset growth, but it’s certainly a refreshing point of view. It resonates with me. I’m wondering if it’s resonated with clients and prospects. I guess what I’m asking is, do they feel that this is something different than the typical wealth management experience for this type of client? Nick Hubert: Yeah, Taylor, tell that story of the guy who said, “I’ve had this, but I felt alone.” I think that story of partnership, you tell pretty well. Taylor Gentry: Yeah. Jason, it was actually that same client, he had a investment banker, a wealth manager, attorney, and a CPA. CPA said, “The deal’s terrible, you shouldn’t do the deal.” Investment bankers obviously incentivized to do the deal. And so he’s saying, “You should do the deal.” That’s how he gets paid. He had a wealth manager who was silent and he had an attorney who just pushing paperwork. Jason Diamond: It’s like the start of a bad joke. Taylor Gentry: Yeah. No, seriously, it’s pretty remarkable. It’s like this guy did what he was supposed to do. He put the team of resources around himself. He got professionals in the seat. It’s that no one could connect the dots of all four of those people because they have the seat of those four people. And so it’s really resonated because there’s an ability to see a bigger picture and connect these dots and say, “Okay, this investment banker is saying X because of A, B and C.” And the CPA is saying it’s a bad deal and that it’s not a market deal. It’s 100% a market deal. This deal is right down the fairway in terms of what the market should value your company at and they just don’t understand how the transaction mechanics should work. And so it’s worked really well from that perspective of being able to be the quarterback or centralized point or personal CFO for folks in understanding where interests lie and also being able to think about what they are pursuing in a bit of a different lens. I think the second piece on that is where does it resonate for folks? I think that there is a gap in the marketplace that we are still working to close, and that gap is that business owners do not know what this monthly reporting package looks like. They do not know what really good reporting on their business looks like in terms of they have always run their… You’ve got a business owner. They’ve run their business for 10 or 20 years. They have a pulse on the business from their gut feel. That does not mean that the business has been optimized, is ready to go to the next level or is ready for a transaction and go through a transaction because they have not done the work on the backend to understand the moving pieces of the business at a granular level. This recording package, we oftentimes get this confusion around, well, I’ve got a temporary CFO or a controller or X, Y, Z. That is very different than what we’re talking about. Well, that is all accounting, close the books, have clean numbers. What we’re talking about is how do I marry operational data in the business, number of units ships, number of jobs completed, time on job, operational data to the financials in the business so I can then go make adjustments operationally on how to improve the business and continue taking steps forward. Jason Diamond: It’s very clear. Nick, anything you’d want to add to that? Nick Hubert: I’d say it’s easy to still cut that from a deal lens and say, look, when an investment partner comes to evaluate a business to sit in their seat for a moment, they’re going to look at the replicability of what that leader has done without that leader still in the seat. And if so many businesses are still reliant on that person and this gets talked about as processes, reporting systems, that ultimately results in a discount to the value of the business because although it can be viewed… For the leader, it’s like, it’s that control thing that entrepreneurs deal with. It’s what made them good. It’s what got you there. And so that transition is really hard. And that’s important from a deal lens because that does a direct impact to value. And to widen out the scope beyond the deal and to think about the entrepreneur’s life, this goes back to the dynamic that a lot of times entrepreneurs look for the exits because they’ve built something that it’s now owning them and what they’ve built is not resulting in the life that they want. And so how can we use this system to actually change that relationship, as I mentioned earlier, with the business so that they can run it more like an executive might and get out of the knife fight, so to speak, that often is how this can feel for a lot of folks, even for pretty large businesses. It can just feel like you’re a firefighter, you’re in a knife fight, whatever you want to use for that terminology. I think it’s as much about creating a different life outcome and different relationship and owning and leading a business as it is in driving deal value. Jason Diamond: Taylor, maybe I’ll ask this of you. Forgive the question, but private equity, I think in our space, has a little bit of a negative stigma at the moment. I don’t think that’s true across the board. I think people appreciate generally the need for capital and there are certainly benefits of private equity. But I’ll say as a whole, advisors are, let’s say, suspicious of private equity. You ever get that pushback? Does anybody ever view your experience or the way you position the story as a negative? Taylor Gentry: I think most people that we talk to don’t know what private equity is. They may have seen it in the headlines. They may have some sort of connotation around it. They won’t come out and say that they don’t like it. They don’t know why they don’t like it. The average American business owner, they don’t know what it is or what it means. So yes, you do have to fight that because of the headline piece around private equity, bad actor ABC, and that’s what gets the headlines. I think what private equity is really good at is taking a business that is not optimized or not running on systems and processes that it can run on. Again, it's not rocket science is not crazy hard. It’s just the private equity world has created ways to install systems and process that improve the value of the business by way of providing visibility to financials and operations in a way that the owner previously didn’t have. And so for us, we view it not by any means as the end all be all or the answer. There are clients we’ve worked with that have taken private equity capital and grown successfully, executed on some acquisitions and then exited again. There are clients that have evaluated those transactions and said, “Hey, not for me.” We are actually fairly agnostic to it. What we really spend a lot of our time on is what are we solving for? What’s the end game? How do we use this private equity transaction to get to where we’re trying to go and is it what we want at the end of the day? Because the reality is, if you’re going to stay on and run that business with private equity investment in, there’s a higher expectation on what you need to do Monday morning than when you owned it yourself and it was a little bit of your personal piggy bank too. Jason Diamond: I love it because you bring it back to the north star concept. Taylor Gentry: Yes, that’s exactly right. It’s what are we solving for and what game are we playing to be able to get to where we ultimately want to go? And for, as Nick mentioned that client that turned down the deal, it was a private equity investment. We got very clear with that, “Hey, here are going to be the expectations. You will have a monthly financial reporting call. You’re going to have quarterly board meetings.” These are things that need to happen in this business to be able to upgrade the management and cadence in this company. You don’t have to do it all tomorrow, but that is how you make a more valuable company, is installing some of these systems, process and cadence. And so we’re working with him now on doing that, just in a private context instead of in the private equity backed environment. Nick Hubert: I think there are three things embedded in this. I’d say number one, to Taylor’s point, this is a massive black box, in some ways by design. Wall Street’s had not a great reputation for a very long time of putting things behind the paywall, so to speak. And so we think a lot about our job as empowerment and education. Jason Diamond: Education, yep. Nick Hubert: Yeah. And so part of it is just, number one, how do we just demystify this thing and name things and take away the go to or bad? Because it can be that, but it should not be that from a core basis. That’s number one. Number two, a lot of entrepreneurs feel like they cannot get access to this ability to professionalize or level up or whatever these things are without bringing on that investment partner. And so part of our motivation is how do we actually bring this skillset in without needing to bring on an investment partner because oftentimes, that investment partner comes when you’re done, and so you don’t actually get to experience it. That’s number two. Number three is, Jason, part of your point earlier was like there’s still a trap here of potentially being able to get motivated primarily by the exit. And so again, that gets back to our business model, making sure our price Racing is right, all that good stuff. And it’s also the reality that a lot of businesses, if you just look at a very broad scope of American businesses, a lot of them don’t have value in the marketplace in a massively material way and/or won’t exit in a traditional way. And so the wealth creation journey then becomes much more of a conversation of, how do we manage the balance between investing in the company and distributing out of the company to invest elsewhere because we should actually be creating investment assets along the way because when you get to the exit, there’s no better power position at the moment of exit than already having financial security to some degree and giving you choice in the right deal, not the highest and best deal because you need to fill the piggy bank for retirement. Jason Diamond: I just want to be sure to ask because you did mention a couple times your pricing structure. How have you set it up so that you can be more agnostic about this as opposed to the typical… You want to talk about it for a minute? Nick Hubert: As it’s structured now, it starts with a retainer earlier on where we are working… As Taylor mentioned, we are going deep in the operational build of the business. We will do that on a monthly retainer. We’re engaging consistently. As assets get built up and if assets get built up, we start to chew that retainer down as assets go up. I think what we are ideally trying to figure out, and still honestly have not figured out yet, is how do we get to parity so that we don’t create an… I want to be able to work agnostically with a client to say- Jason Diamond: Yeah, I love it. Nick Hubert: … regardless of how I’m engaging with you, that’s the goal. So I’d say we haven’t cracked the code on exactly what that is yet, but mechanically, we’ve got the levers to pull to say how we price and move that retainer down is basically allowing to keep it at par, so to speak, for the client and allowing us to say, “I’m here to engage in making the best wealth creation outcome for you along the way, whether that’s investing in the business or investing outside the business.” Jason Diamond: I think that’s the right recipe. I agree. The levers can be fine-tuned, but to me, that’s the model you want to create where you can credibly look your prospects and clients in the eyes and tell them, “Our job is to serve you in the best way… We’re sitting on the same side of the table as you.” I want to turn this inward for a second. The home cooking concept. M&A, within the RIA independent space, is obviously a hot topic. Have you thought about it? Do you think it’s a critical part of a potential growth trajectory of a healthy, independent firm? I’m curious your perspective. I feel you, Taylor in particular, probably have a unique lens on this coming from the world you came from. Taylor Gentry: Yeah, Jason, I think if Nick and I wanted to put as much money as we possibly could in our pockets as fast as humanly possible. It’s a pretty easy recipe. It’s go get some private equity capital backer, roll up a few RIAs, get to a few billion of AUM and then sell it to the next private equity firm or roll it to the next private equity firm, do that a few times. We’d all make plenty of money and go on our way. We’ve been really intentional on this front, and again, I talk about this is what we want to do for the next 30 plus years. And really being intentional around building a business that has that enduring nature to it, decided to take private equity capital on, you are on a shot clock to some degree. Yes, you’re trying to build a best business, all of those pieces. You get cadence. You get capital. There’s a ton of value there, but you are on a shot clock that is not a shot clock we’re trying to get on at this stage. I’d say we opportunistically are looking at acquisitions. So we think about it, and Nick and I talk about it all the time, how much of our time should we be spending on acquisitions? And we think of it as 80/20 or even 90/10, 80% or 90% organic growth-focused, 10 to 20% acquisitions-focused. And so we’re actively evaluating those consistently and see deals on a monthly basis that we look at and evaluate, but it’s less of the focus today than it could be down the road. Jason Diamond: And Nick, do you think of that when you guys talk? Do you guys call that your true north? Do you think the same way you coach your clients and prospects to say, “For right now, it wouldn’t be the right move for us to take private equity capital and to do this acquisition rollup strategy because A, B and C are more important for us”? Nick Hubert: Yes. I think if we take our life north star for Taylor. I’m speaking for Taylor, but we’re close and so we share this of… To Taylor’s point, the life outcome of scaling that quickly with that type of capital backing is likely to create a life that I don’t actually want that’s not good for me, not good for my family, and honestly, not good for our clients at this point. And so that overrides in this case, even though the wealth, north star might say, “Hey, absolutely do that.” At some point something has to win. And so that is true. At the business side, as the north star is motivated by this mission of the entire entrepreneur journey, the worst thing I could do is shortcut my ability to be on that journey for a long period of time. One of our friends in this space says, “The best thing I can do for my clients is still be in the seat 30 years from now because I’ve lived a good life that enables that.” And I think that’s spot on for us, is everything, it’s so easy in today’s world to be consumed by short-termism and we are intentional in ensuring that we don’t succumb to that. While still recognizing to your point, I mean, you’re in this all day, Jason, right? There’s a massive opportunity in front of us to be thoughtful about how acquisitions fit into this. And I think we want to be open to that in a way that ensures we just don’t lose the core of the goodness of what we’re trying to build. Jason Diamond: I think that’s the right answer. The only wrong answer in my mind is we’re not open to this or we’re closed to it. To not at least be opportunistically aware of the dynamics in the market, I think is naive. But also, I’ll be honest, Nick, when I think about the concept of the north star, I have a hard time imagining, because we use a similar concept when we counsel advisors. What is your true north or your north star and your best business life, whatever you want to call it? To me, it does include absolutely the personal piece. I think it’s hard to define it only on the economic verticals because, I mean, I think about this for a transitioning advisor. Almost never is the conversation about crunch the spreadsheet and get us the biggest check possible. It’s, yeah, sure, transition capital is important, but it’s let’s also, we want a better work life and we want freedom to market and blah, blah, blah. To me, I think it’s a completely fair way. You two are looking at it at least for now and I assume you reserve the right to revise that opinion down the line. Nick Hubert: I think acquiring for size and scale is as often the headline is, yeah, we’re not into that at this point because I think… And yet, hey, if the right acquisition with the right people came along in that, we’d be extremely excited and would move very quickly to execute on that. So it’s a little bit of a both hand. Taylor Gentry: Yeah. Jason, I think it goes without saying, but my background on having done a bunch of transactions of businesses like this, it’s a natural fit for us to have this as a lever. And so we are looking at deals. We just haven’t prioritized it as the top priority. Jason Diamond: I think also where you are, 2024 was the launch of the business. It’s pretty common to see, all right, let’s nail this, let’s get our feet under us, client service model and then we’ll start to think about that down the line. A couple other things I want to ask you about running an independent firm. This is a pretty glowingly positive review, I think, of your ability to service clients, your ability to grow and to build and run the business that you want. Has there been anything negative that you haven’t enjoyed about running and operating this business, other than working with each other, of course? Nick Hubert: No, I was going to say, I’m like, can we get Taylor off the call again? Taylor Gentry: Jason, maybe I’ll take a first cut at it. I think for both Nick and I, it’s just the administrative components of running an independent business that we don’t enjoy candidly. I don’t think many people would. That said, you come full circle and it is a pretty glowingly positive review of running an independent business because we get to run it in the way that we see fit. And oh, by the way, we use the same things that we use with our clients. So the value drivers we’ve talked about, we have a value drivers worksheet. We refresh it every six months. Nick, Andrew, and I get together every six months and we’re 18 months into this thing and we’ve already got this cadence and system to it, if you will. So I personally really enjoy the running the business piece of it from a macro perspective. Yeah, I’m responsible for running our fee billing and running the math on all that and getting that done, for example. Jason Diamond: I think that’s actually a very thoughtful answer. And I appreciate you saying I enjoy running… I feel the same way, by the way. There’s some elements of running a business that I think are immensely fun. I think it gets painted with this brush of, “Ugh, running the business is the hassle and I want to work in the business.” Agreed, nobody likes invoicing and accounts receivable for the most part, but Nick, what are your thoughts on this? Nick Hubert: Yeah, I think mine is different a little bit coming from a different background where it’s easier for me to sit with the rose-colored glasses of the joy of the freedom that we have in this model. At the same time, when I’m counseling folks who are talking with folks or mentoring folks, younger people who are thinking about, “Okay, I want to go start my own thing,” I’m like, “Hey, it’s like I’m the same way. I want to look in the mirror and think I’m the boss or I’m one of the bosses and we get to go build this.” Then the reality is, at the end of the day, if there was something that you didn’t want to do that had to get done and you didn’t do it, you got to look in the mirror and be like, “Well, you’re the boss, you didn’t do it.” It’s the both sides of the coin that I think a positive, negative cut is one way to look at that because it can feel that way sometimes. And the reality is every job has 20 to 30% of it that you just don’t enjoy doing, and that’s totally true. Jason Diamond: It’s why they call it work. That’s why they pay you. Nick Hubert: They’d be pretty quick to point out that I’m the one of the partnership group that they’re going to have to chase for a smaller administrative item because, yeah, I honestly, just similarly speaking, don’t enjoy that. I want to go talk to clients. I want to go focus on building what we’re building. In finance speaks, it is a higher beta to just the all encompassing realities of running a business that is really hard to underscore without being in the seat. And yeah, there’s definitely 20 to 30% of that I would love to wave a magic wand and say, I don’t have to do anymore. Jason Diamond: Yeah, I appreciate that. Nick Hubert: You can’t have one without the other. It’s both sides. Jason Diamond: I think it’s getting easier and I think it’s getting more offloadable and some of it probably gets more… In some ways, more offloadable as you scale, but then you get a new set of problems, probably two, because you’re dealing with bigger… It’s a never ending. I think most business owners would agree with that. And you said it well, you take the good with the bad and overwhelmingly, most people we speak with in the independent space feel as you do, which is, are there things I would prefer to offload or that I would prefer not to do? Of course, but that’s almost just the price you pay for the freedom and for doing all the things you want to do. Two more questions that I want to be sure to ask about where this has been a great episode. One is AI. Need to know your thoughts. Is this coming for our jobs? Do you think your firm is positioned to capture either asset flows or also just to leverage this technology and use it to serve clients better? Just give me your thoughts. Nick Hubert: I think, in some sense, it would be irresponsible as people this early in our entrepreneurial journey and thinking about how do we optimize what we do for clients to not be engaging with AI in some way, shape or form, at least in an evaluative posture. So we are actively, in a bunch of different ways, whether it’s buy it off the shelf or build it, continuing to find ways to think about, not only how do we drive efficiency, because there’s an obvious surface level dynamic of if I can save time and spend more time with clients, that is a go to thing objectively. And there’s this deeper dynamic of if it can amplify what… Actually, back to your prior question, if it can amplify what I’m best at and enjoy and reduce what I don’t enjoy, that’s a massive win. And I think we’re on the surface of seeing that. That’s the opportunity we are motivated by that and pursuing that. And at the same time, I would say an operational principle that really is important to us, and you can almost call it a north star within the business is client security can never be put at risk for the sake of our own growth, our own efficiency, or anything else. There’s, I think, still a question mark as to how we think about trusting this. And so we are very cautious as we think about we will never try to move so quickly on any technology, whether it’s AI or otherwise that we risk our clients in some way, shape or form, because the reality is we are also in a context where AI is, when pulled, one of the least popular things happening in the world today for the average American. And so there’s no kudos here for being a leader. Jason Diamond: I totally agree. The first mover advantage here is slim to none. Nick Hubert: Yeah, you don’t want to be the one sticking your neck out on this in our industry. And yet there still objectively has a potential to be better for the clients. Navigating that I think is messy. Taylor Gentry: I think the only thing I’d add, which is pretty short, is the use of these tools has the ability to create a better deliverable for clients on a more consistent basis. And marrying that with exactly what Nick just outlined around the risk is really the magic piece here. And so I think, to the extent we can get it implemented effectively with the security, but also with, this is going to result in a lot better outcome for clients across the board, that’s a pretty attractive objective to go after and it’s pretty exciting to be in the industry with that now on the forefront in terms of ability to improve that experience over time. Jason Diamond: Yeah. No, that’s a good color to add. I want to end here with a potential HR violation, but you’ll forgive me. I’m not going to ask about age, but you are clearly both relatively young advisors. And this is a hot button issue in our industry, the idea that there are not a lot of talented, young next gen advisors at a time when a lot of gen one or older advisors are retiring out of the business. So what would you say… I think one of you made the comment earlier, it’s not necessarily the coolest industry to go into at 23 years old right out of school. I think more commonly people go into sales and trading, investment banking or some of the other finance verticals. What would you say to younger folks interested in wealth? And maybe I’d ask also, do you have any thoughts on how we solve this next gen talent crisis? And if you’re both secretly 90 years old, you can just do it. Taylor Gentry: You talking my internal age or my actual age? Jason Diamond: Why don’t you go first? Nick Hubert: Yeah, go ahead, Taylor. Taylor Gentry: I think there’s two threads here. The first is it’s not a sexy industry to go into and not as sexy as an investment banking, private equity shtick, if you will. I think from my perspective, it’s really important what you’re working on. The ability to be in a firm like what we are building with the diversity of work that is available is a little bit like the world’s your oyster and we’re designing it with that in mind. For Nick and I, the ability to work on many different situations throughout the day and throughout the week is actually why this business is so attractive and interesting and why we want to do it for 30 years. And so we’re building with that context. And so, in some ways, it’s almost like a plug for younger advisors, the ability to work in a firm like what we’re building where you’ve got this diversity of work that is not just trading stocks and bonds or just spreadsheeting or just financial planning. This is a much broader expression and experience than what I would call “traditional” wealth management. So I think that’s the key on that front. Then, on the talent development side of the equation, if you will, this AI thing is going to be a big question mark. And what I mean by that is there is significant training that will be required in, call it traditional wealth management or the firm we’re building with regard to folks’ ability to actually learn when you can plug it into AI and get an answer that you don’t have to critically question or think through. And so there’s going to be a significant learning curve for folks that we’re going to have to continue to train and educate on in order to produce talent that can be long-term sustainable and beneficial for clients more writ large. Jason Diamond: Nick. Nick Hubert: Well, first and foremost, we haven’t given our third partner enough here of time. I think we have a tremendous benefit of having a multi-generational team at the partnership level where he’s in his mid to late 50s and can bring that additional experience to bear and as is necessary, and as is important because investing is an experienced business and a lot of clients want that. And so the power of that matters. I think that actually speaks to firms being willing to think of partnership at that level that partnership is not reserved for just once you’ve been there for a long time. So I think it’s getting at like, how do you share ownership earlier, do it in a way that is actually giving people a stake in the outcome and allowing that elevation to happen. I think that’s number one. Number two, honestly, the existence of people like you and your team and that your family has built over the years, Jason, is awesome. And because of the ability for you to help people navigate and see how easy it is to actually run this business and build this business in some sense… And that’s in the broader spectrum of having seen. We work with so many different types of companies. We sometimes say our business is so much easier to run and it has come so far with technology and with people like you who are providers to us to allow it to be easier for us so to speak. That’s a big deal. I think that should be talked about more that there is a massive… What that allows is more time to, as Taylor mentioned, build what you actually want because you can outsource the compliance piece in a major way that allows you to not spend as much time on that as you used to. So I don’t think that gets talked about enough. And I think if you just zoom out and view this in the perspective of post-2020, there was this massive movement of entrepreneurship through acquisitions and people looking at this idea of how do I get the life I want by way of not having to be on a two-year clock to go to the next job to the next job. Have something that I can have a long-term impact on where I get to build something and have employees. This is the perfect space for that because it’s such an awesome business where you get to work so intimately with people and clients and their life outcomes. They’re, again, relatively speaking, easier businesses to run relative to what’s out there. I’m just baffled by the fact that it is not seen a larger wave of younger people coming out of these more “traditional” paths and seeing this as an awesome place when they’re willing to go buy an HVAC company. This is so much easier than that. So honestly, I think

Find out your unique sensitivity profile and your current stress levels. Take the HSP Stress Test here: https://trueinnerfreedom.com/hsp-stress-test/  Are you feeling exhausted, overwhelmed, or emotionally reactive—even when you're trying to slow down and take care of yourself? As a highly sensitive person, modern life constantly bombards your nervous system with stimulation, pressure, and emotional input. The problem is that many of the things we turn to for relief—scrolling, entertainment, staying busy, even certain foods—can actually add more activation instead of helping us recover. Over time, this hidden accumulation of stress can leave you feeling chronically overwhelmed without understanding why. Understand why highly sensitive people accumulate emotional and nervous system "heat" more easily than others. Discover how modern life quietly pulls you away from true restoration and keeps your system stuck in activation. Learn simple, practical ways to cool, nourish, and rebalance your nervous system so you can feel calmer, steadier, and more like yourself again.   Listen now to discover how small, nourishing shifts can help your sensitive nervous system recover from overload and return to a state of calm, balance, and resilience.   Todd Smith, founder of True Inner Freedom Dreaming of a stress-free, balanced life? Visit https://trueinnerfreedom.com/ and take the HSP Stress Test. Gain clarity on your sensitivity and stress triggers, and book a free 30-minute introductory conversation to explore what's going on for you and see if working together 1:1 might be a fit. Are you a highly sensitive person (HSP) or someone who identifies as hypersensitive or neurodivergent? This podcast is dedicated to helping highly sensitive people (HSPs) navigate overwhelm and stress by using The Work of Byron Katie—a powerful method for questioning stressful thoughts and finding true inner freedom. We dive deep into stress management strategies, coping with stress, and stress relief methods specifically tailored for HSPs. Learn how to manage emotions, especially negative ones, and explore effective stress reduction techniques that go beyond the surface to address the root causes of anxiety and pressure. Whether you're interested in learning how to lower stress, handle stress and pressure, or reduce stress through practical techniques, we provide insights and support based on The Work of Byron Katie. Discover how this transformative approach can help you decrease stress, find inner peace, and create balance in your life. Join us to learn about various coping strategies for stress, all designed to support HSPs in their journey toward emotional well-being.

Changing became less scary than staying the same. - Ben Hutton  Ascending to leadership as the second generation of a successful family-founded company is no small feat. Very few thriving, closely held family businesses survive the transition to the next generation—let alone continue on a strong growth trajectory. Ben Hutton did exactly that. He stepped into the role of CEO at Hutton Construction. To the outside world, it looked like a picture-perfect success story. Internally, Ben was quietly suffering. One night at 3 a.m., he sent his father a raw, honest email laying out all the challenges and internal turmoil he was facing. That single message changed the trajectory of the company. Ben refused to simply follow the status quo. Instead, he authentically articulated what needed to change so he could lead in a way that played to his unique strengths and abilities. It was difficult. There was doubt. There was friction. But that honesty and courage set the stage for the transformational journey that turned Hutton Construction into The Hutton Companies—the organization Ben proudly leads today.  This is his account of how they became the Hutton companies.

Michel Roger of Accenture joins us to discuss how AI, autonomy, robotics, and data governance are reshaping logistics, workforce skills, and supply chain leadership.Download the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠episode transcript⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠===== This week, we, together with Michel Roger of Accenture explore the future of logistics, from agentic AI and physical robotics to connected workforce models and real-time digital twins. Come join us to learn how companies can scale AI beyond pilots, reshape warehouse operations, strengthen multi-tier visibility, and prepare talent for a more autonomous, exception-driven supply chain. ===== Guest: Michel Roger, Global SAP Supply Chain Leader, AccentureThroughout his career, Michel has specialized in designing, implementing and deploying SAP solutions for Supply Chain processes for global clients in North America, Latin America and Europe. He has worked mostly for Consumer Goods and Life Sciences clients. Internally to Accenture, he is responsible for developing Supply Chain & Operations capabilities of 5,000+ people specialized around SAP solutions covering planning, distribution, and manufacturing processes. Host 1: Richard Howells⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Richard Howells⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ has been working in the Supply Chain Management and Manufacturing space for over 30 years. He is responsible for driving the thought leadership and awareness of SAP's ERP, Finance, and Supply Chain solutions and is an active writer, podcaster, and thought leader on the topics of supply chain, Industry 4.0, digitization, and sustainability.Host 2: Oyku Ilgar, SAP  Oyku Ilgar is a marketer and thought leader specializing in SAP's digital supply chain and ERP solutions since 2017. As a marketer, blogger, and podcaster, she creates engaging content that highlights innovative SAP technologies and explores key topics including business trends, AI, Industry 4.0, and sustainability.   She holds dual bachelor's degrees in Finance & Accounting and English Translation, along with a master's degree in Business Administration and Foreign Trade, specializing in marketing. With her background in digital transformation, Oyku communicates technology trends and industry insights to help professionals navigate the evolving business landscape.  ===== Show Links:AccentureSupply Chain Management:  ⁠⁠⁠SAP Supply Chain Management⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠SAP Insights: Supply Chain⁠⁠⁠       Follow Us on Social Media : Michel Roger: LinkedIn Richard Howells: ⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠, Oyku Ilgar: ⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠      SAP Digital Supply Chain: ⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠    Please give us a like, share, and subscribe to stay up-to-date on future episodes! 

"I'm here to be part of the team." "The longer you are somewhere, the more you realise you know nothing." "If your intention is positive, people will support you." "We want to be an international company in Japan." "It really starts by asking what is my impact? What can I do?" Jasper Westerink is the CEO of Philips Japan and a Dutch executive whose career has been shaped by international leadership, adaptability, and a deep commitment to learning from local cultures. After completing university in the Netherlands, where he studied marketing, management, and business, he joined Philips with the initial idea of building a career in the Netherlands. Instead, an early opportunity to work in Thailand opened the door to a global career that would take him and his family across Thailand, South Africa, the United Kingdom, Greece, Indonesia, South Africa again, and ultimately Japan. Over many years with Philips, Westerink built a broad leadership perspective across emerging markets, developed markets, complex organisations, and highly diverse cultural environments. His Japan assignment brought together his global Philips experience, his interest in Japanese culture, and the company's need to connect Japan more closely with global Philips capabilities. In Japan, he has focused on trust-building, engagement, accountability, recognition, and helping Japanese teams share their world-class ideas more confidently with the global organisation. Jasper Westerink's leadership story in Japan begins with a global career that gave him both confidence and humility. As CEO of Philips Japan, he arrived not as someone assuming he already understood the market, but as a guest who needed to listen, observe, and learn. Having worked across Thailand, South Africa, the United Kingdom, Greece, Indonesia, and other markets, he brought a rare breadth of experience to Japan. Yet his most important leadership insight is that the more time one spends in a country, the more one realises how much remains beneath the surface. Japan struck Westerink as extraordinarily organised, harmonious, and safe. He noticed this first in daily life, from the punctuality of trains to the quiet consideration shown by people in public spaces. These visible behaviours pointed to deeper cultural systems. In business, he observed a strong preference for harmony, pre-alignment, and consensus. Unlike more confrontational management cultures, where executives may debate passionately in the room and make decisions on the spot, Japan often relies on nemawashi, informal pre-discussion, careful preparation, and the quiet work that happens before the formal meeting. By the time a decision reaches the table, much of the ringi-sho-style alignment has already occurred. For a foreign CEO, this can feel slow or even passive at first. Westerink admits that he likes visible passion and energetic debate, but he came to understand that Japanese passion often sits below the surface. It may not appear in a formal meeting, yet it emerges in trusted settings, peer groups, customer discussions, informal conversations, and carefully structured opportunities to contribute. One of his strongest methods for drawing out ideas is friendly peer competition. Philips Japan encourages doctors, physicians, and internal teams to share ideas around quality, AI, better patient outcomes, reduced workload, and operational improvement. Rather than making innovation a top-down CEO initiative, Westerink has found that peer recognition, team-based contribution, and "Made in Japan" pride help unlock ideas. Japanese employees may be modest, but many of their solutions are globally competitive. His job is to create safe structures that make it easier for them to speak up. Trust-building has been central. Westerink made it clear from the beginning that he was not above the team, but part of it. He visited teams at different levels, spent time with people outside the office, joined informal social and sports activities, asked questions, listened carefully, and showed genuine curiosity about how work was done. He also recognised his own physical presence and high-energy style. As a very tall foreign CEO with a serious face when concentrating, he learned to smile more, keep appropriate distance, use humour, and turn his height into an icebreaker rather than a barrier. His leadership philosophy also centres on accountability. Using the Japanese concept of jiseki, or starting with oneself, he encourages people to ask, "What can I do? What did I do wrong? What can I improve?" In a culture where fear of failure and loss of face can be strong, he tries to create an environment where mistakes are not hidden but owned, discussed, and learned from. Ultimately, Westerink's Japan leadership lesson is not about importing a foreign management model. It is about combining Philips' global culture with Japanese strengths and his own leadership character. He wants Philips Japan to remain deeply Japanese while also becoming more confident internationally. That balance — respect for local culture, openness to global standards, and the courage to ask better questions — defines his approach. Q&A Summary What makes leadership in Japan unique? Leadership in Japan is unique because much of the real work happens before the meeting. Westerink observes that Japanese business culture places a high value on harmony, preparation, respect, and careful pre-alignment. In many Western or international contexts, management meetings can be lively, direct, and even confrontational. People interrupt, challenge, debate, show visible passion, and make decisions in the room. In Japan, the formal meeting is often the final stage of a longer process. Nemawashi, consensus-building, and quiet coordination help protect relationships and reduce open conflict. This does not mean people lack passion. It means passion is expressed differently, often in smaller groups, trusted settings, or after the formal meeting has ended. Why do global executives struggle? Global executives often struggle because they misread the absence of visible debate as a lack of engagement. Westerink initially missed the open passion he had seen in other markets. He had to learn that Japanese colleagues may be deeply committed but less likely to challenge publicly until trust has been built. Foreign executives can also underestimate the importance of timing, silence, hierarchy, and indirect communication. They may become impatient when progress appears slow, not realising that a great deal is happening behind the scenes. Japan requires leaders to develop patience, curiosity, and the ability to read context rather than relying only on explicit statements. Is Japan truly risk-averse? Japan is often described as risk-averse, but Westerink's experience suggests a more nuanced picture. The issue is not that Japanese people lack ideas or ambition. Rather, there is strong uncertainty avoidance around failure, loss of face, and public mistakes. People want to deliver perfect work, and that can slow action when speed and learning are required. Westerink addresses this by making failure discussable. He calls out mistakes, but not to punish people. Instead, he asks what can be learned, what will be done differently, and whether others can benefit from the lesson. This reframes risk from personal embarrassment into collective improvement. What leadership style actually works? The leadership style that works in Japan is humble, consistent, curious, and relationship-based. Westerink emphasises that he is a guest in Japan and part of the team. He asks many questions, visits people where the work happens, joins informal activities, and spends time with employees outside formal meetings. He also leads by example. If budgets are tight, he stays in the same type of hotel as others. If the company expects people to be accountable, he models accountability himself. He also adapts recognition to the culture. Instead of always singling out one heroic individual, he recognises the importance of team contribution, because public individual praise can sometimes create discomfort in Japan. How can technology help? Technology helps when it is connected to real clinical, operational, and customer value. Philips Japan works in health technology, including advanced medical equipment such as MRI systems. Westerink describes initiatives where doctors and physicians submit research on how to improve procedures, increase accuracy, reduce workload, and create better outcomes. Internally, Philips Japan also invites teams to explore AI, quality improvement, billing processes, service efficiency, and better patient outcomes. This reflects a form of decision intelligence: using data, expertise, frontline insight, and structured evaluation to improve decisions. In health care, technologies such as AI, digital twins, and advanced imaging can only create value when leaders understand the clinical reality, the customer's challenge, and the human workflow around the technology. Does language proficiency matter? Language matters, but Westerink's experience shows that leadership in Japan is not only about speaking Japanese. He uses translators when needed, allows questions in Japanese, and encourages teams to prepare and present in English when appropriate for an international company. The key is not linguistic perfection, but communication design.  Leaders must create channels where people can speak safely, ask questions, and contribute. Westerink sometimes asks for critical questions and waits until the team provides them. At first, this was uncomfortable. Over time, people learned that constructive challenge was expected and welcome. What's the ultimate leadership lesson?The ultimate lesson is that positive intent, humility, and connection matter most. Westerink advises new leaders in Japan to find trusted people who will tell them when things are going well and when their behaviour may not be landing as intended. They should be transparent about why they are in Japan, what they hope to contribute, and what they hope to learn. They should connect with people through work, food, informal time, customer visits, and genuine curiosity. His advice is simple but profound: the longer leaders are in a place, the more they realise they know nothing. That mindset keeps them learning. Author Credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results.He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have also been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー). In addition to his books, Greg publishes daily blogs on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, offering practical insights on leadership, communication, and Japanese business culture. He is also the host of six weekly podcasts, including The Leadership Japan Series, The Sales Japan Series, The Presentations Japan Series, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews. On YouTube, he produces three weekly shows — The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews — which have become leading resources for executives seeking strategies for success in Japan.

Vivek Raghunathan, SVP of Engineering @ Snowflake, joins the Engineering Leadership Community Podcast to discuss all things AI – most importantly, how Snowflake is utilizing AI internally to iterate faster with smaller, focused teams. Vivek shares how AI and lower coding costs ultimately help Snowflake implement tighter feedback loops between customer & eng teams to speed up product development rollout and how Snowflake empowers their orgs to upskill when it comes to AI. Jerry & Vivek also break down what quality leadership looks like across the board and the role of AI in shaping today's eng leaders.   ABOUT VIVEK RAGHUNATHAN Vivek Raghunathan is Snowflake's SVP of Engineering. Before joining Snowflake, Vivek co-founded Neeva, one of the first AI-native search engines for consumers, which was acquired by Snowflake in 2023. Prior to that, he spent more than a decade at Google, where he led YouTube monetization and helped launch Google Now.   ABOUT SNOWFLAKE Snowflake is the data and AI platform that many of the world's largest organizations rely on to power their most critical operations. Whether a bank is approving a loan, a retailer is optimizing its supply chain, or a hospital is bringing together patient data, Snowflake helps organizations unify data, apply AI, and make faster, more informed decisions. Today, over 13,900 companies rely on Snowflake to turn their data into business value, with enterprise-grade security, governance, and scale built-in.   SHOW NOTES: Where Snowflake is on their AI adoption journey (0:57) Using AI to help eng orgs meet maximum velocity (3:04) Defining traits of engineers who successfully leverage agentic tools (5:55) The benefit of cross collaborative skillsets for eng leaders (8:53) How AI is helping orgs test infrastructure rewrites effectively & less expensively (10:09) Discovering AI patterns @ Snowflake (11:44) Why Snowflake gives teams a week off to learn the necessary AI tools (16:37) Compressing the product dev cycle with the help of AI (18:28) Simplify eng teams / encourage fluidity of roles (19:49) Vivek's perspective on leveraging AI to best support customer needs (22:45) Building control planes to support enterprises (24:30) Methods for consolidating data / making it accessible to the entire org (27:18) How AI shapes what a quality leader looks like (30:39) The role of empathy in leadership (33:49) Rapid fire questions (35:08)   This episode wouldn't have been possible without the help of our incredible production team: Patrick Gallagher - Producer & Co-Host Jerry Li - Co-Host Noah Olberding - Associate Producer, Audio & Video Editor https://www.linkedin.com/in/noah-olberding/ Dan Overheim - Audio Engineer, Dan's also an avid 3D printer - https://www.bnd3d.com/ Ellie Coggins Angus - Copywriter, Check out her other work at https://elliecoggins.com/about/ Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

RecFest 2026 was my fourth year going, and Jamie Leonard and the team knocked it out of the park once again. Taking a recruitment conference and mashing it together with a summer festival is no small task — but thousands of talent acquisition and employer brand people in a field at Knebworth showed that it just works.This year I went to find out what's on the minds of TA and EB people right now — and, more importantly, what they're doing about it — so I could share it here.Here's how the day unfolded, plus my own takes along the way.Doing AI vs Doing AI properly — complianceBefore I'd even got through the gates, I bumped into a few people I know and had the kind of catch-up where you spend the first few minutes trying to work out when you last saw each other. I asked one of them, someone who talks to senior people leaders every day, what crops up the most in conversations.Their answer, unprompted: AI — but specifically AI compliance. They told me about someone who was asked to AI themselves, and their own team, out of a job. And another situation where a CEO decided to “pick up AI” alongside people leadership and everything else — needless to say, it became a big addition to their to-do list, and it came with unexpected challenges.AI is moving from just talking about it to actually doing something about it. There's doing AI, and then there's doing AI properly. Get the compliance piece wrong, and it can create more problems than it solves. And don't expect AI to be a silver bullet - like with anything, for it work well you need to put the time and effort into it.Talent Acquisition and AI in 2026This year I wanted to spend more time at the talks than wandering the stands and chatting in the field — although I did plenty of that too. My first stop was Hung Lee (Recruiting Brainfood) on the Inspire Stage, taking us through what we need to know about TA and AI in 2026.Hung covered a lot of ground, but here were some of my takeaways:The pyramid is becoming a diamond. The traditional org shape — a big base of employees, fewer managers, fewer leaders still — is shifting. With fewer people doing the delivery work, and AI doing the heavy lifting underneath - that changes what the remaining humans need to be capable of. If you're going to have fewer people around AI, those people — managers and leaders included — need to understand both AI and people properly. There's no room left for a leader who only understands one half of that equation.Everyone's data is training data now. Hung shared a photo of a woman in India filming herself doing everyday tasks — chopping a mango, iPhone strapped to her head — paid specifically so that footage can be fed into AI models. Wow. What happens to the people doing that kind of task-based work once the model has learned what it needs from them?Recruiting is starting to look like executive search. Individual hires matter more because AI multiplies what one person can now produce, and recruiting capacity is shrinking because more of the process can be automated. That should free recruiters up for the genuinely human parts — mapping the market, building relationships with hiring managers, succession planning — rather than replacing them.“TA Plus” and proximity to value. If the transactional tasks get automated, the job becomes about adding value beyond the task: real relationships with the business, real understanding of what it's trying to achieve, not just working from the brief a hiring manager hands you. My comparison: it's like a football agent who can tell you exactly what value their player has delivered for the club, not just that they filled a squad slot.The future of early careers: the missing middle?Next up was a panel on early careers hiring — “The Missing Middle: Why cutting early careers today creates tomorrow's talent crisis.”The argument: AI is now capable of doing a lot of the entry-level tasks that used to be how people learned the ropes, which makes it tempting for organisations to cut early careers hiring significantly, or altogether. But that just pushes the problem further down the line. Early careers talent brings the fresh thinking, the comfort with new technology, the innovation a business needs to keep evolving.When your senior leaders are thinking short-term, ask them what will the impact on the business be in two to five years' time? Will leaving a hole of talent in the middle of the business make them more, or less, competitive?Something else from the panel was a great piece of advice wrapped up in a story - an intern who, within weeks of starting, built something that generated $100,000 for the business. That kind of story moves people far more than a slide of data ever will — exactly the kind of proof point employer brand teams should be capturing and telling, not sitting on.ROI matters, of course — but storytelling and relationship-building are what actually position the importance and impact of early careers talent internally.Working in employer branding in-house? You're the orchestrator, not the ownerOver on the EVP stage, James Ellis and Audra Knight brought some big energy about employer branding in-house. Treat employer brand as a business tool, not a TA tool or an internal engagement nice-to-have — if you can use it to solve an actual business problem, you become far more relevant in the room.There was a brutal little exercise thrown out to the audience: use ChatGPT to look at your website and ask it to pull out the key messages. Now do the same for your competitors and see the difference. The results will likely tell you that differentiation is lacking more than it should be in employer branding.There was a comforting message for EBers. Often, employer branding comes down to one person or a small team. As an employer brand person, you don't have the authority to tell the whole business what its story is — you're the orchestrator, not the owner. This really resonated with me - the job is surfacing the knowledge and experience that's already sitting inside teams and giving it a shape. That's also, not coincidentally, exactly the point I keep making about content: it's not a bolt-on to a business strategy, it's the front end of it.Culture and EVP: the Mars bar analogy“Insight to Impact with Great Place to Work: Building an Authentic EVP Rooted in Culture Data,” with Claire Knights (Chief Growth Officer, Great Place to Work) and Vicki Saunders (Founding Director, The EVP Consultancy), was a really interesting session on the foundations of authentic EVPs.It was interesting to see that Great Place to Work doesn't just see themselves as an accreditation body handing out badges — it's a data company. And the analogy Vicki used is that of a Mars bar: the ingredients, the bar itself, the wrapper, the tasting, and the reviews. You can have the glossiest wrapper in the industry, but if there's no substance in the bar, people find out fast — and increasingly, so does AI. In a world where LLMs are shaping how candidates form opinions about employers, generic marketing language with no proof points behind it just won't land.Interrogate your data, find your proof points, and look at the long-term pattern rather than a single good year. That's what makes an EVP true rather than a campaign — and the payoff has multiple benefits. Internally, people believe it because they can see it's real, which kills cynicism. Externally, the wrong people self-select out before they apply, and the right people arrive with fewer surprises when they join. Conversations between the talksThe conversations flowed from the tents to in between the agenda, and here are some of the things we talked about in the July sunshine.On the agency model. A properly interesting conversation about whether agencies still need to be the size they used to be, or whether a leaner model — bringing in the right specialist at the right moment — is actually the better way to work now. AI and monetisation: If AI makes things quicker does that mean agencies should charge less? Yes, and no - it depends. But AI in the hands of someone who doesn't know a specialism produces something generic, but AI in the hands of someone who really knows their craft produces something sharper. That's a big case for partners with real knowledge working alongside in-house teams.On the science of storytelling. A great conversation about understanding how people actually react to content, rather than just what they say they think about it — looking at the physical, almost instinctive response to a piece of video versus the polite feedback you get when you ask someone's opinion of it afterwards. It's a good reminder that there's real craft and science behind storytelling that works. Even when plenty of it can be done in-house, it's worth investing in content production experts, while also building your in-house capability - both help each other.On employee-generated video. A conversation about the real barrier many in-house teams face with video — it's rarely desire, it's headspace, resource, time and capability. In-house teams who decide to “do video” often only realise what it actually takes once they start doing it themselves. That's important for internal learning, and it shows that software which helps employees generate their own content really helps — but so does having the bandwidth to manage the process. Using partners in the right way can make all the difference.On hiring for storytelling. I chatted to a global brand who'd hired for a senior storytelling role a few months back — and what's interesting is that the role sits in comms, not TA. So it's not just a TA thing — storytelling is something that covers multiple touch points in a business, and therefore brings value in multiple places. Building the business case is about looking at the true strategic impact and ROI to the business. Companies are full of stories, so it's genuinely great to see it being taken seriously, and I hope more follow suit. I'll be picking this up in a future podcast episode.TA as a strategic partner? Amazon shows how it's doneAmazon took the Inspire Stage to talk about moving TA from vacancy filler to strategic business partner — it's great to see this shift actually happening, and it's not just conference talk. The question they left the audience with was a great mic-drop moment: If your business removed the TA function entirely, what would it lose beyond the ability to hire?If you're struggling to answer that, it's worth taking a proper look at how TA can genuinely help the business.It was great to see a panel of people actually making this happen — especially from a company like Amazon. The answer keeps coming back to the same place: have a deep understanding of what the business actually needs, and build relationships with stakeholders across it. You can't just ask TA questions — you have to ask business questions.AI is smart, humans are geniusThis session took aim at the traditional recruitment processes as ways to spot the people who are actually going to help a business grow through thinking differently and dealing with unknowns. As AI takes over the more “logical” parts of the process there's a danger of making things too logical. Tom Stevenson - Founder & CEO at Pynea made the case for assessing people against a future problem instead of asking questions with a clean, Google-able or LLM-able answer. Open-ended questions are harder to fake and harder for AI to answer generically on someone's behalf — which gives you a good read on how someone thinks.My take: Hung and Tom's point about CVs — that they capture a record of achievement but not the trait or mindset behind it — connects straight back to content. If you're creating opinion-led, story-led content that genuinely shows what it's like to work somewhere and who succeeds there, you're doing some of that assessment work before a candidate even applies. People self-select in — or, just as usefully, self-select out.Closing out at the EVP stageThe last session of the day? I went back to the EVP tent. A hot field, music getting louder outside, drinks flowing, and a speaker who said she was nervous but didn't show it once she got going. Nicola Plenderleith - Head of Talent Acquisition at Leyton - was great. She gave practical, take-it-away-and-do-it-Monday advice, and her core point was simple: your EVP isn't the polished version you've built, it's whether that promise actually shows up at every touchpoint someone experiences — from the first conversation with a hiring manager, to whether your career site would still be recognisably you with the logo covered up, to the rejection emails you send out. Go back and reread your own rejection emails. Do they sound like boilerplate, or do they sound like you? That was a genuinely good way to close the day.The Lean Guide to Employer ContentI'd brought a few copies of my recently published book: The Lean Guide to Employer Content along with me for the day, and it was great getting it into people's hands and talking about the why and what of it. The response was a valuable reaffirmation for writing the book.If you're in talent acquisition or employer branding and want a framework to build self-sustainable content creation in-house then you can find out more here. Why I love going to events like RecFestThe big takeaway for me is that it's worth going to events like this. It's a rare chance to meet multiple people in one place, and to take your team along so they can learn from others too. And it's just as important to have some good conversations and a few drinks in the sun — it might not feel like work, but stepping back and actually enjoying yourself is exactly what sends you back to work with energy and focus.If you see me at an event, pop over and say hi. ChrisHost, Employer Content MarketingFounder, Content Marketing Pod Ltd Get full access to Employer Content Marketing at www.employercontent.marketing/subscribe

The Learning Leader Show with Ryan Hawk www.LearningLeader.com Book - The Price of Becoming -- www.LearningLeader.com/Becoming This is brought to you by Insight Global. If you need to hire one person, hire a team of people, or transform your business through Talent or Technical Services, Insight Global's team of 30,000 people around the world has the hustle and grit to deliver. My guest: Andy Stumpf is a retired Navy SEAL who spent 17 years on active duty, including assignments with one of the most elite special operations units in the U.S. military. He's a New York Times bestselling author. His newest book is Drownproof: Eight Life Lessons to Keep Your Head Above Water. Key Learnings "What you allow in your presence is your standard." It doesn't matter what your corporate ethos is. It doesn't matter what's tattooed on the wall behind you. If your actions don't align with your speech, it means nothing. Speech is debatable. Actions have impact. You can control almost nothing in your life, but you can control the boundaries you set and your willingness to maintain them. There's a difference between a SEAL and a team guy. A SEAL is there for the title and the individual journey. A team guy is there for the mission and the team. They wear the same uniform. From the outside, you can't tell them apart. Internally, everyone knows. Andy would rather have a group of team guys than a group of SEALs. Your ability to accomplish unbelievable things is 100% aligned with what group of people you bring into your organization. You'll get fooled in the interview process. People wear masks. That's just how it works. The reps come after. Set up consistent feedback. Bi-annual after-action reviews on performance and how they're showing up as a person. 80/20 the interview. Talk 20%. Make them talk 80%. The more they speak, the harder it is to keep the mask on. Let people go faster, not slower. It's way easier to solve this problem six months in than six years in, when they've already catastrophically impacted the culture. Drown-proofing is not an exercise in being drown-proof. It's an exercise in self-control. You bob up and down in a pool for an hour with your hands tied behind your back and your feet bound. If you panic, you sink. If you stay calm and control your breathing, you can do it indefinitely. The test occurs in the water, but it has almost nothing to do with the water itself. The world is chaotic. That doesn't mean you have to be. When everything around you is going sideways, walk yourself back. What can I actually control? My breathing. My self-talk. My priorities. My next move. The circle of influence vs. the circle of concern. Draw a line down the middle of a legal pad. On the left, write everything you're worried about, working on, occupied by. That column will be huge. On the right, write what you actually have direct control over. You'll only be able to write one thing: yourself. The most effective leadership tool is mentorship. Andy's mentor Dave Hall gave him "just the perfect amount of rope to hang myself, and then maybe he'd help me get it around my neck just a little bit." Dave would let him fall short, then crush him, then sit there and facilitate what he needed to fill the gap. A high standard is a finely sharpened blade. It can cut in both directions. Andy's mentor, Dave Hall, ultimately died by suicide. One reason Andy believes it happened is Dave couldn't hold himself to the same standard anymore, and it destroyed him. Have grace for yourself. Not every goal is worth your life. Focus on post-traumatic growth, not post-traumatic stress. Trauma doesn't have to destroy you. If you take the time and energy to work your way through it, it can turn you into a better version of yourself. Motivation can be outsourced. Discipline cannot. Motivation is like the tide. It comes in and out. Discipline is doing the things you need to do regardless of how you feel. Win the micro-battles, not the war, in one fell swoop. If you try to attack 10 bad habits overnight, you'll fail. Pick one for a week. Build momentum. Stack days. You win the war via the micro-battles. If you don't think of yourself as a leader, you'll never step into a leadership void. You'll tell yourself you're not the person. Not qualified. Not capable. Stop treating leadership like the DMV. You don't show up at the window and challenge the test with no preparation. You crawl, walk, run. You practice. Every interaction is either a micro-deposit or a micro-withdrawal of leadership capital. Sustained high performers master the basics. They make no attempt to be flashy. They make no attempt to gain 50 yards at a time. They'll do one yard 50 times in a row. If they see a real opportunity with managed risk, they'll go big. Otherwise, one yard. Over and over. Andy's champagne moment a year from now: being there with the people he loves. "Would you rather have all the things you think you want in life and enjoy them by yourself? Or be surrounded by people who truly love you for who you are? I'm taking the latter every time." Reflection Questions What are you allowing in your presence right now that contradicts the standard you say you hold? What's the cost of letting it continue? If you drew the line down the legal pad today, what would be in your concern column that shouldn't be? Where is your energy going to things you cannot control? More Learning #234: Jocko Willink - Why Discipline Equals Freedom #363: Admiral William McRaven - The Bin Laden Raid, Saving Captain Phillips, & Leadership Lessons for Life #633: General Stanley McChrystal - On Standard: Choices That Define a Life Podcast Chapters 00:00 The Price of Becoming - Pre-Order Now!  01:13 Meet Andy Stumpf  02:45 "What You Allow in Your Presence Is Your Standard"  04:30 What You Walk Past in Your Personal Life  05:59 Why He Wanted to Be a Navy SEAL at 11 Years Old  08:54 The Difference Between a SEAL and a Team Guy  11:38 How to Hire Team Guys, Not SEALs  16:34 The Story Behind Drownproof  18:23 What Drownproofing Actually Is  22:09 The Real Lesson Is Self-Control  25:55 Getting Shot in Iraq  30:38 Two Years of Rehab and the Return to Combat  33:58 Learning to Be a SEAL from Dave Hall  37:31 High Standards Are a Double-Edged Sword  40:05 Post-Traumatic Growth, Not Just Post-Traumatic Stress  42:45 Motivation Can Be Outsourced. Discipline Cannot.  47:20 Win Small Battles, Not the War Overnight  48:33 If You Don't See Yourself as a Leader, You Never Will  51:29 How to Practice Leadership Every Day  54:15 Getting Tricked Into Writing the Book  55:48 The Joe Rogan Blurb on the Front Cover  57:38 What the Best Leaders Have in Common  59:03 The Champagne Question: Being With the People You Love  01:03:53 EOPC

What's Stopping You Reaching Success? You know there's something you need to do. A conversation. A decision. A project. A change. And yet... you don't do it. We often call it procrastination or self-sabotage, but what if that's not what's really happening? In this Five Minute Quickie, I explore what might actually be stopping us from moving forward, why change can feel uncomfortable even when we know it's right, and how unconscious resistance may be behind many of the fears, doubts and limiting beliefs that keep us stuck. This isn't about forcing yourself to do more. It's about understanding what's really going on underneath. In this episode: Why we resist change even when we want it The hidden cost of limiting beliefs How fear disguises itself as procrastination Why overthinking keeps us stuck The one emotion that may sit underneath it all A preview of the deeper dive to come Questions to consider: What are you currently avoiding? What would happen if you embraced the change instead? What would life feel like without that resistance? The deeper dive is coming next, where we'll explore what's really driving this unconscious resistance and how to move through it. Please share: https://personaldevelopmentunplugged.com/fmq-535-whats-stopping-you-reaching-success Remember if you want to see the video, go here: https://youtu.be/4U14pVlGWAA Shine Brightly

Most agency owners will tell you accountability is something they value, but fewer will realize they’re often the biggest obstacle to it. In this episode, Chip and Gini offer suggestions for how to stop being the bottleneck at your agency. Chip tells of his own recent experience where he missed putting out a newsletter after an emergency root canal. Even with Jen repeatedly pinging him, the decision of whether to get something done rested with him. Most employees won’t push back hard because they know who signs the paychecks. The exceptions are rare, and you can’t build your accountability system around them. Gini’s structural fix has been making “less founder dependence” an explicit OKR, tracked at every leadership meeting. When the goal shows up red on a dashboard, the visibility creates its own pressure. Chip thinks it's less about any specific single system. AI has helped him stop some procrastination, but it’s also added new projects he’d never have attempted before. His takeaway is that you need to figure out what works for your specific wiring, and not rely on someone else’s approach. For external accountability, peers, coaches, and organizations like YPO or Vistage can help, particularly for big-picture questions you wouldn’t bring to your team. But formal advisory boards are another story. Both Chip and Gini are skeptical, since even paid corporate directors with legal obligations frequently fail at the oversight function. For owner-led agencies, the complexity almost never justifies the benefit. Key takeaways Chip Griffin: “The reality is that I have told many employees over the years, ‘You need to hold me accountable for this or that.’ 95% of them won’t because they know you sign the paycheck.” Gini Dietrich: “I need people to say, ‘I need this from you. You’re the bottleneck. Here’s why, and here are the consequences.’ So then I can decide, okay, well, it’s not that big of a deal, or shoot, we don’t want that. Let’s get this done.” Chip Griffin: “You need to develop systems and processes and approaches that get you to that accountability. And what works for me may not work for Gini, and may not work for you.” Gini Dietrich: “In the Spin Sucks community, there’s a group of people that they’re each other’s accountability partners. I think they meet every two weeks, and they hold each other accountable. You can certainly have a coach, like what you do. You can join a membership organization like a YPO or a Vistage or something like that.” Related Five words every agency owner needs to understand Accountability as an agency leader Who holds you accountable when you're the boss? View Transcript The following is a computer-generated transcript. Please listen to the audio to confirm accuracy. Chip Griffin: Hello, and welcome to another episode of the Agency Leadership Podcast. I’m Chip Griffin. Gini Dietrich: And I’m Gini Dietrich. Chip Griffin: And Gini, I, I need some accountability. Gini Dietrich: Okay. I’d be happy to hold you accountable. That’ll actually be fun for me. Chip Griffin: It is very difficult as a business owner to, to be truly accountable, and just before we started, I was relaying how I failed to get out a newsletter last week because I was, I was tied up catching up after an emergency root canal, and so I did not get a newsletter out, and there was nobody there yelling at me to tell me that I needed… Well, actually I take that back. Jen- Gini Dietrich: I was gonna say, I’m sure Jen, I think Jen holds you accountable … Chip Griffin: Jen asked me like 400 times, “Are we actually gonna get a newsletter out today? Are you gonna send me something? Will we have something?” Gini Dietrich: I’m sure that that’s true. Chip Griffin: But, it just, it really underscores that, that as the owner, ultimately you make the decisions, and it is very difficult to have proper accountability for what you do or what you don’t do. Gini Dietrich: Yeah. It’s super hard. You know, it’s funny because we talk internally all the time about how I’m the bottleneck. And people are like, “I really need you to review this,” but there’s also six direct reports, and I’m, and six people, different people saying, “I really need you to review this.” Things get bottlenecked. I just thought, “Ugh, I’ve got my own priorities as well.” So it’s a real challenge, and even when you have, to your point, even when you have people saying, “I need this, I need this, I need this,” you ultimately make the decision on what’s the priority and whether or not it gets done. Chip Griffin: Yeah. And it’s, you know, I, think a lot of times we’ll have employees and we’ll ask, them to hold us accountable, and sometimes that works, but most of the time it doesn’t. Gini Dietrich: Yeah. Right. Chip Griffin: The, reality is that I have told many employees over the years, “You need to hold me accountable for this or that.” 95% of them won’t because they know you sign the paycheck. Gini Dietrich: Right. Yes. Chip Griffin: I have been blessed to occasionally have some in that 5% who were persistent and, they would, they would come camp out in my office and say, “You told me you would get me this answer by this time. I need it.” But that’s a very, very small percentage of the people that, that I have worked with at least, and I suspect that most owners have worked with. Gini Dietrich: Yeah. I think there’s, I think it’s twofold. I think there is an opportunity for your team to manage up, and by doing that, I think exactly you’re, what you’re saying, like camp out in your office. Or I have one person on my leadership team who is phenomenal at coming to her one-to-one with everything she needs me to make a decision on. And if it’s a document that she needs me to review, she provides me the highlights, and she says, “These are the two areas I need you to, review, and I need it as soon as we hang up.” And then she gives me 15 or 20 minutes back at the end of the meeting so that I can review those things. And then if I don’t, like I’m the asshole, sorry, the jerk that didn’t do it because she gave me the time back and I did something else. So like she does a phenomenal job of managing up, and that’s how she does it. But I think you’re right that it has, it comes with, I think it comes with experience, I think it comes with other leadership roles that they’ve played, like all of the- and some confidence, you know, to be able to say to the owner or the person who signs the check, “Hey, you gotta focus on this.” Chip Griffin: Yeah. And, I think even though you know it, it may not be as effective as you would like it to be to have your employees holding you accountable, you still need to create a culture in which- Yes … it’s possible to do that- Yes … where, they are encouraged to do that, because that will at least provide some degree of accountability for your actions and follow through. Certainly more so than if you scare people off, if you make people, if you kinda flick people away and say, “No, no”- Yep … “stop bothering me about this.” Yep. If you do that, it’s gonna be really difficult to get any kind of sense of accountability with your team and, it really does help you to have that. We complain all the time about, you know, clients who are on our back about this or that, but it does help us to make sure that things get done. And, so as long as it’s not overbearing, there is a benefit to that. Internally, we often have challenges with that, particularly for things related to our own business as opposed to for clients or for prospects. But we need to try to, as best as possible, create that culture where everybody is willing to step up and say, “Hey, this needs to be done. You are the blocker.” And, if you don’t, if they don’t call you out on it, things are probably gonna slip through the cracks. Gini Dietrich: Yeah, for sure. And, I find that I reprioritize based on what I think is the most pressing, right? And for me, what might be pressing may not be the same as it might be for somebody else on the team. So I need people to say, “Listen, I know that you’ve got this and this and this, but I, this is, this will, is what will happen if I don’t get this from you by this date.” And then I can go, “Okay, let me look at everything and kind of rejigger based on, those kinds of things.” So I, like from an owner’s perspective, I need people to say, “I need this from you. You’re the bottleneck. Here’s why, and here’s what it, here are the consequences.” So then I can decide, okay, well, it’s not that big of a deal, or shoot, we don’t want that. Let’s get this done. Chip Griffin: Well, and, part of the accountability function for you as the, boss/owner is to identify, you know, where you are, where you need to be the bottleneck and where you don’t. Right. Right? If, you- Right. Part of this comes down to- Yes … reducing the amount of things that you need to be held- Gini Dietrich: Yep … Chip Griffin: accountable for. And- Yep … you know, we’ve talked in the past about the importance of delegation and, trusting your team and giving them more responsibility, but that is very closely related to the accountability question. So if you are either micromanaging or you are overpromising and saying, “Yeah, I can get to that tomorrow,” when you know you can’t get to it tomorrow, you need to, to- Gini Dietrich: You think you can because you think you have 36 hours in the day instead of 24. Chip Griffin: Fair. Fair. But you need to get better at, estimating how long it’s really gonna take to do things so that you’re in a position where the commitments that you are making, particularly to your team or to others, you can uphold. And so there is something realistic to hold you accountable for. Because if you say, “Look, well, I, you know, I can move this skyscraper tomorrow,” and you know you can’t, it’s hard to truly hold you accountable for it, right? Because- Sure … it was never gonna happen anyway. Gini Dietrich: Right. Chip Griffin: And so you need to be in a position where the things that you promise are, truly legitimately things that you can be held accountable for afterwards. Gini Dietrich: Tell you what we started doing this year, and it has worked extraordinarily well for me. And I know that not everybody wants to function this way, but this is how– this is one way that you could do it. We do objectives and key results, so OKRs. We– That’s the process that we follow internally. And one of the things we said at the beginning of this year is, “If we wanna reach our goals, one of our OKRs has to be less founder dependence.” And so as part of that, everything that’s in my brain has to come out. So we have to understand how Gini does work, how Gini delivers, like, how she has new business meetings, and the questions she asks, and how she does discovery calls. From that all the way through how she delivers, you know, keynotes to how she delivers content, to how she even produces content. And when she produces that content, what does the team need to do to be able to, like, all of the things, right? And so that has been front and center for the whole year and well, half of the year right now, but it will be for the rest of the year as well, is how are we depending less and less and less on Gini, the founder? And that’s through process, it’s through standard operating procedures, it’s through things that are written down. I do video tutorials, all sorts of things, so that by the end of the year, I’m less the bottleneck and more focused on the things that I need to be focused on as the leader of the organization. And because it’s an OKR, it’s in every single leadership team meeting. It’s up there in bright red because we haven’t met it yet, and we can see exactly where we’re scoring against it. And as somebody who likes to have green instead of red, I’m like, “Okay, let’s get this done.” So it works extraordinarily well for me. But, you know, there are other ways I think that you can think about how to let people hold you accountable in that same kind of way that work for you or your brain. Chip Griffin: Well, I, think you’ve really highlighted the key thing here, which is that, that you need to come up with a system that works for you. You are- Yes you are ultimately- Yes … the owner. You are the, most difficult person to hold accountable within your organization in all likelihood, and so you need to develop systems and processes and approaches that get you to that accountability. And, what works for me, will not work for Gini, will not work for you. You know, we all have different styles, different motivators. You know, for you it’s the, red versus green that everybody can see, and, you know, so that sort of, that follows sort of what I would call the name-and-shame approach, to accountability. Gini Dietrich: Yeah. It works. Chip Griffin: And that can work. You know, there are people who have the, you know, the simple discipline that if they’ve got a list, they’re just committed to getting through that list. Yep, yep. And there are some people who that, just seeing that unchecked item on the list is enough. And, certainly at a minimum it’s helpful for you to be tracking all the things that you are accountable for that you need to do so that, you know, you and perhaps your team can see, you know, what’s, outstanding. And, if you don’t have that, it’s really hard to be accountable, right? So you need to, have, in my view, no matter what your style is, some sort of a tracker so that you know what it is. Whether that’s a note card like I use for my daily stuff that’s the most important that needs to be done. I have a task manager for longer term stuff. You know, you might have a project management system. Maybe you’ve got a whiteboard. I don’t really care. Everybody kind of needs their system to make sure that they’re at least doing some basic level of tracking of the things that they need to be accountable for, otherwise your odds of success are, very, very low. Gini Dietrich: Yeah. I totally agree with that. And I would say on the flip side, you know, getting the work complete, honestly and truly, and I know we’ve talked about AI to death, but I don’t know how I did my job without AI. Like, I look back on the last three or four years and I’m like, I don’t know how I did my job without it. Because it has stopped that procrastination that I have where I’ll get it done, but it will be the very last minute before the deadline, literally. And it, it has stopped that really bad habit of mine, because what I’ll do at the end of the day is I’ll say, “Okay, these are the three things I need to accomplish tomorrow,” and I will open those projects in Claude Cowork and I’ll say to it, “Here’s the project I need, here’s one project I need to complete tomorrow. Please break it down into bite-sized chunks.” And I do that with the three projects, with the three things I need to accomplish the next day, and I let it work overnight and do that for me. And then I get up the next morning, and it’s, there’s a list of like, “You have to do this first, then this, then this, then this.” And it’s significantly easier than me sitting here going, “Okay, if I start this, it’s gonna take me four hours, and I don’t have a four-hour block.” So it, it breaks it down into 15 or 30-minute chunks for me so that I can get through it. And I do that every single day before I shut my computer down. Chip Griffin: Yeah, I mean, and, again, that, that works for you. For me, you know, AI has, has certainly helped in some areas. It’s made it worse in other areas because, you know, it allows me to, play with a lot of different ideas that, that I might- Gini Dietrich: Yeah, there’s that too. Sure Chip Griffin: … so, I’ve added more to my plate while I’m also becoming more efficient and effective at some of the things that were already there. So it, you know, for me, it probably comes out in the wash. Certainly there’s a lot of things that I, don’t procrastinate on in, in the same way that I used to. I think about a presentation I gave earlier today that I actually put notes together on a week ago because I was using AI, and I just- Gini Dietrich: Amazing Chip Griffin: I took a few minutes to just kind of stream of consciousness- Yeah … share some thoughts with Claude, and then it gave me an outline, so I actually had something ready to cook a week ago on that, that, you know, normally I would’ve been sitting down 15 minutes before the presentation- Gini Dietrich: Right. Yes. Chip Griffin: … and, starting to make some notes about, you know, what I might talk about. So it was, it was A, not last minute, and B, you know, Claude helped me find some things that I might have overlooked. It helped me to organize them into a more logical fashion. And so, you know, in 20 minutes of prep a week ago, I got farther than I would have in the same 20 minutes before the presentation today, which would have been my old style. At the same time, I’ve got a whole bunch of different projects that I’m playing with Claude with that I probably would never even have attempted, so net plus there- Gini Dietrich: Same. Yeah. Fair. Yes. Same   Chip Griffin: but also it gets in the way of- … of some of the, basic daily stuff. So, you know, it’s a, it’s, a mixed bag. But, I think the important thing here is just trying to figure out what works for you, what works for your team, having conversations with them, because it’s, most of us are not very good at being, you know, fully self-accountable. We need some sort of forcing mechanism, and part of that is helping your team to understand how, can they best hold you accountable? Is it that red versus green on the screen? Is it by camping out with you in your office? Is it by using those one-to-ones to, to be the mechanism that gets thing- things done? What is it that will help you get your team in particular what they need? But not all of it can be done internally, right? So sometimes it’s helpful to have some sort of external accountability force. Gini Dietrich: Yep. Yep. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, there are everything from, I, you know, in the Spin Sucks community, there’s a group of people that they’re their, each other’s accountability partners. I don’t know how well that works, but they meet, you know, on every, I think they meet every two weeks, and they hold each other accountable. You can certainly have a coach, like what you do. You can join a membership organization like a YPO or a Vistage or something like that. There are lots of opportunities, I think, for you to have accountability partners outside of work as well, outside of your office to help you with those things too. Chip Griffin: Yeah, I think having some sort of a, an external partner or partners, you know, whether that’s peers, whether that’s paid advisors, whatever, it certainly can help because, you know, I, think back to, you know, we used to have folks who, cleaned our house, and we would always clean up before they got here because you didn’t want them to see how messy you really were in real life. And, you know, and, this was, you know, really useful to us when we had little kids and, you know- Yeah … the house was, messy. Yep. But, you know, we would tidy it up quite a bit before the cleaners would come in for their, weekly cleaning. Mm. And so that, that was effectively the accountability for us not to let the whole place just, you know, go to hell- Yeah … in a hand basket. Gini Dietrich: Sure. Chip Griffin: And I think the same thing can happen whether it is, you know, a peer or, you know, your company attorney or accountant or a coach or whomever. There’s… You just don’t want to, let people see things deteriorating, and so there’s, a, value to having those typically in addition to whatever mechanisms you have internally, right? ‘Cause it, this works better for the big picture stuff. If you’re- Yeah … particularly if you’re, you know- Right … sitting with peers- Right … or something like that- Yeah … they’re not gonna help you with the accountability for the day-to-day tasks, but they can help you for the big picture stuff. Like, you know, I’m, I need to think about, you know, shifting my, my focus for the business, or I need to, think about our service offerings or those kinds of things. Gini Dietrich: I need to fill a pipeline. I need a new business process. All of those things, yeah. Chip Griffin: Right. Because some of these things may be things you don’t even wanna discuss with your team, right? Yeah. You know, particularly if it’s, you know, reshaping the business or something like that. That may be scary for a lot of your team to, to contemplate. Sure. They may not have the right skillsets to help you navigate that, and so having other people that can hold you accountable so that, you know, when you’re doing your every other week call or monthly call or whatever you might do with a peer, you, know, you have something to update them on, and it’s not just like, “Yep, pretty much the same as last month.I don’t really have anything new to report here.” Gini Dietrich: There we go. Nothing else. Yeah, right. Chip Griffin: You know, so, there, there is real benefit to having those, you know, external mechanisms in, some fashion to do that same naming and shaming that we talked about before, to, hold you accountable. Gini Dietrich: Yeah, for sure. Chip Griffin: Now, there’s, there are always the people that I talk to who are like, “Okay, well, we need an advisory board or maybe a proper board or those kinds of things, a more formal accountability structure.” I’ll be honest, I think in general, those do not work for- Gini Dietrich: Yeah, I agree with that … Chip Griffin: for most, small agencies. Yeah. Frankly, it doesn’t work for most big agencies either. Gini Dietrich: Yeah, I totally agree with that. Chip Griffin: I, I’m candidly skeptical of boards even for huge organizations in many cases because having participated in and around many of them over the years, the vast majority are not as independent as they are made to be. And, so therefore, they don’t necessarily serve the function that you would expect them to. And we see this all the time when there are, you know, big company scandals around CEOs and boards not providing proper oversight. So I, think even, in those cases where directors are paid and they have, you know, actual legal responsibilities, they often fall down on their accountability roles. I think really hard for most small agencies- Yeah … uh, to do that. I, I totally agree with that. Certainly, advisory boards I think are- Yeah. I mean, there’s a little bit of the name and shame in that, right? You know, if you have to, update them on certain things. But, even then, I, think that works better in one-on-one type relationships as opposed to an advisory board. And a proper board just adds complexity to your business that- Gini Dietrich: That you don’t need … Chip Griffin: that probably is not necessary and- Gini Dietrich: Yeah, absolutely not … Chip Griffin: And if you’re gonna create a proper board, by all means, talk to a lawyer and an accountant before you do it because there are other issues that pop up as soon as you start adding those structures in. Gini Dietrich: Yeah, I totally agree with that 100%. Chip Griffin: But I think the, you know, really the, bottom line here is that, you know, for your business to succeed, you do need to be held accountable in some fashion for your actions. It’s really hard to do it yourself, so you need to try to find whatever tools will work best to get you as close to that as possible. Understanding that at the end of the day, it is still your business. If you want to let something drop, if you want to ignore something- Gini Dietrich: You can … Chip Griffin: you can. Yep. Right? So, there does have to be- Yeah, absolutely … some degree of, sense of- Yep … sense of, of self-accountability, but you need tools to help you get there better because left only to your own devices, I, know for me at least, I, would let a lot of things slide. Not just the weekly newsletter. Gini Dietrich: Sure, yep. Well, the weekly newsletter will get out. It’ll just be late. Chip Griffin: It’ll get out. Maybe next week. Gini Dietrich: Okay. Chip Griffin: Maybe this week. Who knows? But- Gini Dietrich: That’s true … Chip Griffin: we get it out as often as, we can. We’re a small operation, you know? And I am definitely, definitely the roadblock on the weekly newsletter. Jen always has her part. I love it. She’s al- The weekly roundup is always on time. Gini Dietrich: Yep. Chip Griffin: The rest of it, kinda hit or miss. Gini Dietrich: I understand. Chip Griffin: So with that, we will wrap up this episode of, the Agency Leadership Podcast. Maybe it’ll be in this week’s newsletter, maybe it’ll be in next week’s newsletter. I don’t know. It’ll be in a newsletter at some point. And before it goes in the newsletter, it’s on the website, so you can always find it there. Anyway, on that note, we’ll wrap this one up. I’m Chip Griffin. Gini Dietrich: I’m Gini Dietrich. Chip Griffin: And it depends.

Brian Dunseth joined DJ & PK to talk about the World Cup and what the United State Men's National Team has accomplished to this point.

2 Corinthians 11 (1) What happens Horizontally - how we treat others (2) What happens Internally - what we place value in (3) What happens Vertically – where our help comes from

There is a difference between being productive and being aligned.For a long time, I thought my problem was focus. But eventually I realized the real issue was that I had too many open directions at the same time. The agency was growing, the education business existed, the podcast existed, new ideas kept appearing, and externally everything still looked successful. Internally, though, I felt creatively scattered.This conversation explores business coaching, creative alignment, founder growth, entrepreneurship, personal branding, focus, business evolution, and why clarity becomes one of the most valuable things ambitious people can invest in. We talk about hiring coaches during different seasons of business, why some conversations change your direction completely, and how I finally realized what I actually want to build long term.Links to Connect:Media & speaking: ⁠⁠https://kadysandel.com⁠⁠My skincare branding studio: ⁠⁠https://aventivestudio.com⁠⁠For designers: ⁠⁠https://aventiveacademy.com/profit⁠⁠Instagram: ⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/kadysandel/⁠

Debenhams was once one of the biggest names on the British high street. Founded in 1778, it collapsed into administration before being rescued in 2024 and rebuilt as a digital-only marketplace. Now, under chief executive Dan Finley, Debenhams Group is back to growth after reporting a £350 million loss in the year to February 2025. Finley argues the business is now one of the biggest turnarounds in recent UK retail history, with the Debenhams brand generating £654 million in annual revenue and a marketplace model built around 25,000 brands across fashion, home and beauty.But his biggest fight is not just with the legacy of the high street. It is with China's fast fashion giants. Shein and Temu have disrupted the UK market, and Finley says the brands in his group — Boohoo and PrettyLittleThing among them, once the original online fashion disruptors — have taken a hit. He admits they have had a tough time but says the fightback is under way, with the group dusting itself off and competing again. The challenge is compounded by the de minimis tax exemption, which allows low-value parcels to enter the UK without import duties. Finley says this gives Chinese platforms a structural cost advantage over British retailers, which pay UK taxes, employ British workers and comply with domestic safety regulation. The government has committed to closing the loophole by 2029, but Finley wants action within 12 months, pointing to the United States, which moved in six months, and the EU, which begins rolling out changes from July.There is also pressure closer to home. Frasers Group, controlled by Mike Ashley, owns close to 30 per cent of Debenhams Group and recently blocked the formal company name change from Boohoo to Debenhams Group. Finley says the business already operates as Debenhams Group in practice, trades under the stock market ticker "DEBS", and remains focused on delivering value for all shareholders. His own incentive plan is tied to a dramatic target: taking the share price from around 23p to £3, an 18-fold increase sustained over two years, creating more than £4 billion in shareholder value. Finley calls it a big challenge, but says he is determined to get there.The next stage of the turnaround is built around AI and agentic commerce. Debenhams has struck a partnership with Meta and is preparing for a future where consumers shop through platforms such as ChatGPT and Perplexity. Internally, AI is being used to scale marketing content from a single photo shoot into millions of personalised assets, while a partnership with Multiverse will deliver more than 100 AI apprenticeships for staff. Finley describes AI as a "snakes and ladders moment" for both companies and individuals.What is not coming back is the department store. Finley rules out a return to physical retail and says Debenhams' future is entirely digital. His ambition is for the brand to become "to retail what Spotify is to music": a curated marketplace where shoppers can discover thousands of brands in one place.Presenter: Will Bain Producer: Olie D'Albertanson Editor: Henry Jones00:00 Will and Sean intro pod 02:00 Dan Finley on the Debenhams turnaround 13:57 Frasers/Mike Ashley standoff 17:19 18x share price target 18:26 De minimis loophole benefitting Shein/Temu. 21:15 Fast fashion fight-back & influencer growth 27:50 AI and agentic commerce push 33:13 No return to physical stores

With Nick Hubert and Taylor Gentry—Founding Partners, Panoramic Capital Partners Jason Diamond speaks with Nick Hubert and Taylor Gentry of Panoramic Capital Partners about helping business owners align personal significance, wealth, and business value through a long-term advisory framework. In Summary Many advisors who work with business owners focus on managing wealth after it is created. Nick Hubert and Taylor Gentry argue that the greater opportunity is helping clients create, preserve, and align value long before a liquidity event occurs. In their conversation with Jason Diamond, the founders of Panoramic Capital Partners discuss how concepts borrowed from private equity – including accountability, reporting, capital allocation, and long-term planning – can help advisors become more valuable partners to entrepreneurs. The result is a different framework for advising business owners: one that places personal significance, personal wealth, and business value on equal footing and measures success over decades rather than by transactions. The Storyline Most business owners spend years aligning their companies around a mission, strategy, and long-term objective. Far fewer spend the same amount of time aligning their business, wealth, and personal lives around a common destination. Nick Hubert and Taylor Gentry believe that true alignment begins when business owners stop viewing those decisions separately. As founding partners of Panoramic Capital Partners, they have built a firm designed to engage earlier in the entrepreneurial journey. Their framework centers on helping business owners define a “north star” that balances three interconnected dimensions: personal significance, personal wealth, and business value. The conversation explores how that framework evolved from Taylor's experience in private equity and Nick's background in consulting and wealth management. Rather than viewing private equity solely as a source of capital or a transaction event, they examine what advisors can learn from the systems, reporting structures, and accountability mechanisms that private equity firms use to create value over time. Jason and his guests discuss why many business owners struggle to connect financial, operational, and personal objectives; how advisors can serve as a true personal CFO; and why alignment often matters more than maximizing the next transaction. The discussion also turns inward, examining how the same principles influence Panoramic's own growth decisions, their views on acquisitions and private equity investment within RIAs, and what the industry must do to attract the next generation of advisory talent.   > Download a transcript of this episode… Listen and Learn Highlights for Advisors Why do many business-owner relationships begin too late? (13:10)Nick explains why focusing primarily on liquidity events can create misaligned incentives and why advisors may add greater value by engaging earlier in the wealth-creation process. What does Panoramic mean by a “north star” framework? (16:40)Taylor outlines the firm's approach to aligning personal significance, personal wealth, and business value into a unified planning and decision-making framework. How can advisors apply private equity thinking without becoming private equity investors? (18:11)Taylor describes how institutional reporting, accountability, and value-creation systems can help business owners improve outcomes regardless of whether a transaction ever occurs. Why did one client walk away from a successful deal? (19:45)Nick shares the story of a business owner who discovered that selling the company would solve the wrong problem and why redefining success led to a better outcome. Is private equity misunderstood by many business owners? (26:26)The conversation explores how private equity often functions as a “black box” and why advisors can help clients evaluate opportunities more objectively. How does Panoramic structure its pricing to reduce conflicts of interest? (30:52)Nick discusses the firm's effort to align compensation with client outcomes rather than asset gathering alone. Should RIAs pursue acquisitions and private equity capital? (32:20)Taylor and Nick explain how they evaluate growth opportunities through the same long-term framework they use with clients. What role will AI play in the future of advisory firms? (40:14)The discussion focuses on balancing efficiency gains and enhanced client experiences with the responsibility to protect client trust and security. Topics Covered Business-owner advisory models Personal significance, wealth, and value Entrepreneurial wealth creation Private equity frameworks Business value growth strategies Capital allocation decisions RIA business building Advisor compensation alignment Artificial intelligence in wealth management Next generation advisor talent Key Takeaways Many advisors focus on the liquidity event, while business owners often need guidance throughout the entire value-creation journey. The most effective business planning frameworks connect personal goals, financial objectives, and enterprise value rather than treating them separately. Private equity's greatest contribution may not be capital itself, but the systems and accountability structures used to create long-term value. Business owners frequently pursue an exit when the underlying issue is a misaligned relationship with their business, rather than a desire to stop owning it. Advisor compensation models influence behavior, making alignment between pricing and client outcomes increasingly important. Growth through acquisitions can be valuable, but only when it supports a firm's broader vision and long-term objectives. AI has the potential to improve advisor efficiency and client outcomes, but trust and security remain the non-negotiable constraints. https://youtu.be/_Fhic8CxtCs Quotable Moments “Growing businesses create value. The transaction is not the value creation event. The business itself is.” “The reality is that many entrepreneurs don't want an exit. They want a different relationship with their business.” “Private equity is often treated like a black box. Most people don't actually know what it is or how it works.” “The best thing I can do for my clients is still be in the seat 30 years from now.” FAQs How can advisors create more value for business-owner clients? Nick Hubert and Taylor Gentry argue that advisors can create greater value by engaging earlier in the entrepreneurial journey. Rather than focusing primarily on investments or eventual liquidity events, they discuss helping clients align business strategy, capital allocation, personal goals, and long-term wealth creation. How does Panoramic Capital Partners work with business owners differently from a traditional wealth management firm? Rather than focusing primarily on investments or eventual liquidity events, Panoramic seeks to partner with entrepreneurs throughout the business ownership journey. Their approach incorporates business strategy, value creation, capital allocation, and long-term planning alongside traditional wealth management services. What is the “North Star” framework discussed in the episode? The North Star framework serves as the foundation for Panoramic's advisory process. It helps business owners define long-term objectives across their personal lives, financial goals, and businesses, creating a shared reference point for major decisions over time. How can advisors apply private equity principles without working in private equity? The discussion highlights how advisors can borrow many of the operational disciplines commonly used by private equity firms – including reporting systems, accountability structures, performance measurement, and strategic planning – to help clients create value regardless of whether a transaction ever takes place. Why do some business owners choose not to sell their companies? According to Nick and Taylor, many entrepreneurs discover that they do not actually want an exit. Instead, they want a different relationship with their business. In some cases, improving management systems, leadership structures, and operational accountability can achieve that goal without a sale. What are the advisors' views on AI in wealth management? They see AI as a potentially powerful tool for improving efficiency and enhancing client deliverables, while emphasizing that client trust, data security, and responsible implementation remain more important than being first to adopt new technologies. Nick Hubert and Taylor Gentry argue that advisors can create greater value by engaging earlier in the entrepreneurial journey. Rather than focusing primarily on investments or eventual liquidity events, they discuss helping clients align business strategy, capital allocation, personal goals, and long-term wealth creation. Rather than focusing primarily on investments or eventual liquidity events, Panoramic seeks to partner with entrepreneurs throughout the business ownership journey. Their approach incorporates business strategy, value creation, capital allocation, and long-term planning alongside traditional wealth management services. The North Star framework serves as the foundation for Panoramic's advisory process. It helps business owners define long-term objectives across their personal lives, financial goals, and businesses, creating a shared reference point for major decisions over time. The discussion highlights how advisors can borrow many of the operational disciplines commonly used by private equity firms – including reporting systems, accountability structures, performance measurement, and strategic planning – to help clients create value regardless of whether a transaction ever takes place. According to Nick and Taylor, many entrepreneurs discover that they do not actually want an exit. Instead, they want a different relationship with their business. In some cases, improving management systems, leadership structures, and operational accountability can achieve that goal without a sale. They see AI as a potentially powerful tool for improving efficiency and enhancing client deliverables, while emphasizing that client trust, data security, and responsible implementation remain more important than being first to adopt new technologies. Related Resources Finding the Shortest Path to Excellence Can Be a Game Changer for AdvisorsDoing everything you can to deliver better service, drive growth, and achieve your goals faster can result in extraordinary benefits. Why So Many Successful Advisors Feel StuckThey've built thriving businesses. Strong production. Loyal clients. Growing teams. So why do so many successful advisors quietly wonder, “Why doesn't this feel as good as I expected?” This episode tackles the psychology of success and what comes after it. Top Tips for Setting Your Business Up for Success Years Before a MoveEven if a move is years away—or just a possibility—it's never too soon to start preparing. These insights will help you position your business and team for success, whenever the time is right. Guest Bios Nick Hubert is a Founding Partner at Panoramic Capital Partners, where he works with business owners, founders, and families on the integration of personal wealth and business decisions. His focus is on the moments where the two sides converge, growth, capital, liquidity, and long-term planning, and helping clients see the full picture in one coherent strategy. Nick began his career in investment banking in New York and management consulting in Seattle before moving into wealth management in 2016. He has also helped lead several commercial real estate development projects, giving him a hands-on understanding of how to build and maximize value in private investments. A native of Portland, Oregon, Nick lives there with his wife, Kaitlin. Outside of work, he’s usually backcountry skiing in the Cascades, cycling, or trail running across the Pacific Northwest. Taylor Gentry is a Founding Partner at Panoramic Capital Partners, where he works with business owners, executives, and families whose wealth is tied to illiquid assets, operating companies, real estate, and private investments. His role is to translate business performance into clear financial decisions and pressure-test those decisions before they become expensive or irreversible. Before Panoramic, Taylor spent his career in investment banking and private equity, and served as CFO at several operating companies. That blend of advisory and operating experience shapes how he approaches the work: focused on fundamentals, tradeoffs, and execution. At Panoramic, Taylor acts as a Personal CFO for clients, connecting business performance, personal balance sheet, and long-term planning into one coherent strategy. An Oregon native and University of Oregon graduate, Taylor lives in Missoula, Montana with his wife, son, and daughter.s NOTE: The views and opinions expressed by the guests on this podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Diamond Consultants. Neither Diamond Consultants nor the guests on this podcast are compensated in any way for their participation. View the transcript of this episode… True Alignment: Advising Business Owners on Wealth, Significance, and Value A conversation with Jason Diamond, Nick Hubert and Taylor Gentry – Founding Partners at Panoramic Capital Partners. Jason Diamond: Welcome to the latest episode of our podcast series for financial advisors. Today’s episode is True Alignment: Advising Business Owners on Wealth, Significance, and Value. It’s a conversation with Nick Hubert and Taylor Gentry, Founding Partners, Panoramic Capital Partners. I’m Jason Diamond and this is the Diamond Podcast for Financial Advisors. Mindy Diamond: At Diamond Consultants, we help elite advisors identify the right environment for their businesses to thrive, whether that’s at a wirehouse, boutique, or independent firm. With nearly three decades of experience, we’ve guided thousands of advisors and represented more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets transitioned. And each year, one in four advisors managing a billion dollars or more who change firms are our clients. Our process is education-driven and based on building relationships, starting as your strategic partner well before you’re even thinking of a move. To schedule a confidential conversation, call us at 908-879-1002. Wondering why advisors change firms and where they’re headed? Are transition deals going up or down? Those very questions and more inspired us to create our annual advisor transition report. It’s the award-winning, data-driven resource designed for advisors that connects the dots between the motivations around movement and the firm’s appetite for top talent. Arm yourself with the knowledge you need to make smart decisions. Download your copy at diamond-consultants.com/transitionreport. Jason Diamond: Advisory firms that work with business owner clients typically operate through a fairly traditional wealth management lens. The business may be the source of the wealth, but the advice itself often centers around investments, planning, and asset allocation, yet Panoramic Capital Partners approaches that equation differently. Nick Hubert and Taylor Gentry are the founding partners of the roughly $450 million RIA, serving about 150 families with a seven-person team. And while they come from very different professional backgrounds, Nick with more of a relationship and storytelling orientation, Taylor from the analytical and private equity side, they’ve built the firm around a shared philosophy tied to what they call personal significance, personal wealth, and personal value. A big part of that philosophy, or the north star as they put it, is applying some of the same accountability and long-term thinking frameworks commonly seen in private equity to the advisory relationship itself, not in a transactional sense, but in helping clients think more intentionally about decision-making, alignment, and outcomes over long periods of time. As a result, our conversation delves deeply into the private equity world, reframing how clients and advisors should consider this important tool as both a growth mechanism and a strategic part of their client’s plans. We talk about how that perspective also shapes not only how they think about serving business owners specifically, but also the role private equity should play in wealth management. Then we take a view of their long runway and how they and other younger advisors might see things differently about building firms today and why clarity of vision may matter more than sheer scale in the years ahead, and much, much more. It’s a narrative that is refreshing and informative, so let’s get to it. Taylor, Nick, thank you so much for joining. Walk us through your background. What brought you to the world of wealth management? Nick, let’s start with you. Nick Hubert: Sure. I think I got my first taste of the industry actually in a sophomore year of college internship, or I interned at Morgan Stanley here in Oregon. I studied finance and accounting at University of Oregon, and so I had this affinity for finance and markets and had that privilege of having that internship. So I had it early on in my career. Ultimately ended up setting my sights on doing investment banking and going that route and did that for a short period of time. Ended up not going very long due to a medical reason, so you don’t have to be that sorry for me. And ultimately started my career in business consulting before pretty quickly realizing that I want to get back to finance, back to investing these things that just felt like core competencies and that thing that you keep coming back to when you’re alone in the middle of the night thinking about stuff, it was always that. Just had this desire to work with smaller units than large corporations, which is great for wealth where you get to work with families and small businesses. And so it was just a natural alignment that took me back full-time to the space in 2016. Jason Diamond: I like the framing it through the size of the unit you’re working with and having more of an impact on the family. Taylor, what about you? Taylor Gentry: I’m a little more circuitous, if you will. Spent a couple of years in investment banking, so you can be sorry for me. Nick and I met in undergrad at the University of Oregon, had the opportunity to work in this investment group together where we were investing a portion of the university’s endowment. And like Nick, interned in wealth management and kind of walked away from it going, “Boy, that’s boring. I don’t really like that.” And so moved to New York, cut my teeth in banking for a couple years and we were working… So an investment bank for context, helping companies raise debt, raise equity, and with mergers and acquisitions, we’re working with huge companies. So the Mattels of the world, the largest toy company in the world. Like Nick, realized, “Hey, I’m going to work with smaller companies that we can get our arms around a little bit better and be more helpful with and have a bigger impact on.” So spent about 10 years with a private equity firm in the western half of the US and we invested in companies in what’s referred to as the lower middle market. So companies doing 50 to 300 million of revenue. And we would invest in those companies, grow those businesses and then look to sell them. Awesome experience, learned a ton, got a bunch of experience around how to invest in companies, how to grow businesses. Then had the opportunity to step into the CFO seat of a couple of different operating companies during that time. It was just a great learning ground, but also to see a whole bunch of different situations. Nick and I have always invested in things together. We’ve worked on things together and we’ve always wanted to work together full time. And a few years ago, the stars really just aligned to say, “Hey, what would it look like to create a differentiated offering in the wealth space where we can blend my background on companies, transactions, how to draw on scale and all those pieces and really marry that with the wealth management piece?” And Nick will get into that further, but it’s just a really unique way to partner with families and companies that are smaller which can have a really high impact experience with those families and really move them through their life journey, if you will. Jason Diamond: Yeah, there’s a lot to unpack there and we’ll get to some of the elements of how you run the business today. First of all, you can’t fool me by using a toy company as your example to make investment banking more interesting. I’m just kidding. Actually, my real takeaway there is you have a skillset that is incredibly relevant in the current wealth management ecosystem, especially in the model you’re currently in. So let’s talk about that a little. Tell us about your current chapter, which is Panoramic Capital Partners. Who do you serve? What types of clients? Give me some perspective on size as well. Nick Hubert: I'm going to take this first. Taylor can do the PE background side and give you a bunch of numbers. I’ll give you the story and see if we can piece it together that way. Jason Diamond: I get the impression you guys use that line a lot. Nick Hubert: Oh, no, that’s the first time. How’d it land? Jason, I spent eight years at our prior firm with our third founding partner, Andrew, and he was at that firm for 30 years. And so we’ve got this core DNA that we’ve always carried of serving high net worth families in a very holistic and deep planning-based capacity, which I think a lot of modern firms say that. And so that’s not necessarily that different, but it is a DNA that carries through. When we got struck with this vision of launching Panoramic and what inspired us to build the firm, it was as, Taylor outlined, around this idea of how do we partner with entrepreneurs and business owners more holistically across their entire entrepreneurial journey, not just around the exit as is so often where the gravity of the conversation sits. And so our firm vision and inspiration was all around that. And since launching in May of 2024, it has been about how do we bring that vision to life with a different business model. And to your point, there’s a bunch to unpack there, but that is ultimately the founding vision of what we are trying to build here overall and what inspires us every day to say, how do we, as Taylor mentioned, bring the combination of skillsets to bear in a way that allows us to be a better partner along the entirety of the journey as opposed to just towards the end when assets traditionally show up, so to speak? So that’s a story from a vision perspective. Taylor, I don’t know what you want to add to that. Taylor Gentry: As Nick outlined, it’s the ability to work with folks throughout the lifecycle. So in private equity, you invest in a company, you work with that management team for three to seven years and then you sell the business and move on to the next project or deal. And really, it’s the deal mechanic that is the value creation. Whereas, with what we are building here, we have the opportunity to really step along the journey with folks when they are in the early phases building what we talk about as the middle phase of allocating, and we’ll talk about this further, and then really the third phase of stewarding capital along the way. And it’s a life cycle or entrepreneurial journey that we’re able to be hand in hand with folks over decades opposed to measured in three to five year spans. Jason Diamond: So it sounds, and you’ve both kind of touched on this now, your different backgrounds, you view as very much a positive because it gives you, Taylor, the more in the weeds analytical perspective. Nick, you’re probably more the storyteller. Do you find that to be a benefit when you’re running your firm every day? And are there instances when it’s a negative? Is there ever a time when you say, Taylor, just maybe more for you, not coming from this world, you don’t speak the same language? Nick Hubert: Do you want me to drop off the call so Taylor can be honest and he can give you the scoop and then he can jump off and I’ll give you the scoop? Taylor Gentry: Jason, we talk about that a lot, honestly. I think it is atypical for someone with my background to step into the wealth space maybe more so. And we leverage that because we have the ability to work with folks on how do you drive value in the company, how do you set the business up for a potential sale exit or transition internally? But this business, historically, we’ve talked about it as almost like two tracks. You have Taylor on the quote unquote business consulting or the business work track and you have Nick on a wealth management track. It’s really not the case. And really, the power is the ability for these two pieces to come together and there isn’t a conversation we have with clients where those two perspectives and backgrounds or contexts aren’t married into one to create really truly holistic advice. And so Nick will probably tell you otherwise, but I haven’t seen an area yet where our two backgrounds has been a negative. It’s actually been immensely positive. And then on top of it, in terms of kind of building out the firm, Nick is more of a traction visionary and I’m more of the traction implementer. What’s amazing about it from our perspective is the partnership we have allows us to, A, recognize that, B, name it, and then C, leverage it in terms of being able to dole out duties and maximize our success together. Jason Diamond: Nick, anything you’d add? Nick Hubert: I think that’s all right. I mean, Jason, your question was from an operational perspective. I think a lot of Taylor’s view is from a client perspective, which is spot on that the overlap of that is really helpful for clients and I think what allows it to be a different experience for them. Internally, operationally, I think that where you could see friction there amongst partners with differences, and I think you do see that, and at the same time, Google was the one who did team research 15 years ago where they put out what you really want, is similarity and vision and differences in skillset when building a team. And so I think we’ve been intentional about that and it’s been really helpful for… Taylor and I functionally met in a quasi-professional setting back in 2011 and developed a friendship quickly, so we’ve got that deep level of friendship that underpins all of it. And same with Andrew and our time working together. So part of it is there’s just such a strength of relationship amongst us that we give space for each other’s differences and look for those as assets as opposed to negatives, but in some sense, beauty in the eye of the beholder as is the case with anything. Jason Diamond: Yep. I appreciate you adding that context. I’ll be honest that when I first encountered your firm, my reaction was your core value prop of serving business owners is not all that differentiated. And then I learned more about the way in which you serve business owners. Can you talk about that? Because a lot of advisors in general, but then I think more specifically, a lot of RIAs would say, “We service primarily business owners.” Tell me how do you do it in a way that’s different and meaningful? Nick Hubert: I’ll take a first stab at that and then Taylor can maybe add on with specific stories. The wealth space is an awesome business and it’s a place where it’s very difficult to differentiate. And so we think a lot about that through the lens of how do we grow this business well for the long period of time to create opportunities for clients and employees. And so we spent a lot of time thinking about that, not only for the sake of differentiation, but also how do we actually just continue to add value to clients? Because if we add value in a different way, growth will take care of itself. I’d say one way of cutting that is we revisit the mission is through this idea of, okay, if I want to be a partner along the journey, it’s about more than a single transaction, more than a single exit, whatever that might be, or a series of transactions as wealth is often created over a series of transactions. It’s this idea of how do we focus on wealth creation and driving business value as the engine of wealth creation for entrepreneurs and what we call personal significance, which is the life of the entrepreneur. And so there’s a next click down framing of our framework that we work through that lens. I think the most important piece for us has been how do we build a business model that actually brings that to life and that’s the trick because we can say that, and if we basically still just operate out of an AUM-based or an asset advisory fee-based business, the reality is my incentive is still towards getting assets out of the entrepreneurial environment, so to speak, into a place that I can manage them, which may or may not be the best thing for the entrepreneur based on where they are at. And so our current work continues to be around how do we build that business model. So layering in different ways of engaging, whether it’s a retainer fee or some other way of engaging so we can start earlier when assets aren’t there and actually encourage the entrepreneur, “No, keep reinvesting in your business. It’s your highest rate of return right now and it’s where the investment needs to go.” I don’t want to have a conflict in giving that advice. And so I think step two here has been building that business model from an actual engagement perspective to enable us to enact the vision. And then I think the third piece is how do we then build tools that are different than just evaluating pre-exit planning, and as is so often, the toolkit, but actually saying, okay, what are the value drivers of a business? And this is probably where Taylor has a lot more to add because it’s 101 of the PE model, but how do we take the mission and vision of an entrepreneur, what we call north stars, translate those into value drivers, ensure those tie to strategic initiatives in the business, ensure it ties to reporting, and ultimately, how capital is allocated between the business and other investments? So then that’s our toolkit that we continue to build out to deploy the mission through our business model with tools that back it up. So that’s how we frame it right now. Taylor, we can share stories about how that’s come to fruition to create different outcomes. Jason Diamond: Taylor, I’d love to hear that. Let me just add maybe my understanding, because this is what helped me, I think, to really understand how you defer, and Nick and Taylor, correct me if I’m wrong, it sounds like the typical advisor thinks about an entrepreneur, a business owner relationship as the next liquidity event in most cases. And you take the viewpoint that it’s a journey, in some instances, 30 years in the making. It’s not even about liquidity event might come that’s beside the point. Is that a fair summary? Taylor Gentry: Yeah. We talk about it as a growing business is a healthy business, a business that is creating incremental value and adding to the multiple in terms of how the business is valued in the marketplace is a healthy business. And so whether you are going to sell that business or retain that business into perpetuity, let’s make a really valuable business and grow a very healthy business. And that’s what we do with clients. Nick laid out the north star framework. And so how do we actually go about engaging with folks on a practical level? It does start with the north star framework. It’s got five steps to it as Nick outlined in terms of defining the north star, where we’re going, what we’re trying to do and that’s across those three pillars, personal significance, personal wealth and business value. And that personal significance has to be held at that same level. Otherwise, we find folks that are mid 50s, their business is crazy valuable, they’ve got a lot of dollars, but their family life isn’t where they want it to be because they didn’t take care of that along the way. So we lay out a place map that says, “Hey, these are the north stars that we are aligning on and coming back to every month when we work with these owners.” We then push that into, okay, what are we trying to do on the business side of the equation? Let’s lay out what is going to drive the value of the business from a multiple and enterprise value perspective. We push that into a set of strategic initiatives that is tactical, who owns what, when’s it getting done, and are we red, yellow or green on it? We then build out the performance reporting package with folks. And so that is a monthly reporting package that says what happened last month and what operational data are we looking at to be able to improve the business month over month and get a good feedback loop going into the company. And then the last piece is around capital allocation that Nick mentioned where if the business generates a million dollars, where’s that capital going? I think there’s a lot in there and it’s really deep, but if you zoom all the way back out, it’s take a private equity style playbook where private equity firms come and invest in a company. And what do they do after close? They put in place good financial reporting, good operational reporting, and then hold the team accountable to that reporting and those results on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis. And so this is not rocket science or something that’s never been seen before. It’s just most business owners that have never experienced this private equity world don’t have access to it and don’t know how to go about doing it. It’s a relatively long process to get that installed with companies and with teams to really dig in and understand it, but it’s building out those packages to be able to say, “Okay, what happened last month? What changes do we need to make and what are we doing from a initiative perspective to drive the business forward?” So to Nick’s point, it was previously, this was all about liquidity planning or from a wealth management perspective, it’s about the exit. This is about how do we make a more valuable business along the way, and that’s going to be good for the entrepreneur as they move through the journey. Nick Hubert: When we were around the dinner table, the proverbial dinner table creating the vision of this firm, it was around this idea of the silver tsunami and everything that everybody reads in the headlines of this massive wave of transition, this generational transition of business ownership that we could help facilitate. So we launched with that thesis in some sense. In addition to this broader journey perspective, we have gotten to this place by following the market and listening to what entrepreneurs actually want through the big unlock was honestly in a deal process with one of our clients where we realized, “This is a great deal. This person’s going to put a ton of money in their pockets, secure their future,” and it’s completely the wrong outcome for the entrepreneur because it’s thinking all about the deal, not thinking about what this person didn’t want was an exit. They wanted a different relationship with their business, and that required, what do you actually want out of life, that personal significance piece? And it required, “Hey, if we can actually create a layer of team members and reporting that allows you to manage this like a board chair would do as opposed to a highly engaged CEO. That’s actually what you want. You don’t want out of this business. You want to still have this be a huge rock in your life.” And so we’ve ran through that door, said no to the deal with them and have been building the infrastructure around this, and that was the unlock and aha moment for us. There’s something bigger here and that’s what then inspired, in some sense, the broader build out of the toolkit, but I think puts more meat on the bone of actually saying no to a deal, which is not the classic wealth manager outcome to get to a way better outcome for the client and is ultimately still an awesome client for us as a firm and somebody that we can go build with for the next 20 years. I think just telling it through the lens of a story that’s different than what’s normal, so to speak, is a way to frame that up. Jason Diamond: It’s such a hyper focus on a fairly long-term and honestly nebulous potential outcome. You don’t have certainty. That, I think, is why most advisors would prefer the near-term liquidity. I mean, it’s not a secret, right? You can bill on assets, firms are incentivizing it and it’s a pretty direct recipe to net new asset growth, but it’s certainly a refreshing point of view. It resonates with me. I’m wondering if it’s resonated with clients and prospects. I guess what I’m asking is, do they feel that this is something different than the typical wealth management experience for this type of client? Nick Hubert: Yeah, Taylor, tell that story of the guy who said, “I’ve had this, but I felt alone.” I think that story of partnership, you tell pretty well. Taylor Gentry: Yeah. Jason, it was actually that same client, he had a investment banker, a wealth manager, attorney, and a CPA. CPA said, “The deal’s terrible, you shouldn’t do the deal.” Investment bankers obviously incentivized to do the deal. And so he’s saying, “You should do the deal.” That’s how he gets paid. He had a wealth manager who was silent and he had an attorney who just pushing paperwork. Jason Diamond: It’s like the start of a bad joke. Taylor Gentry: Yeah. No, seriously, it’s pretty remarkable. It’s like this guy did what he was supposed to do. He put the team of resources around himself. He got professionals in the seat. It’s that no one could connect the dots of all four of those people because they have the seat of those four people. And so it’s really resonated because there’s an ability to see a bigger picture and connect these dots and say, “Okay, this investment banker is saying X because of A, B and C.” And the CPA is saying it’s a bad deal and that it’s not a market deal. It’s 100% a market deal. This deal is right down the fairway in terms of what the market should value your company at and they just don’t understand how the transaction mechanics should work. And so it’s worked really well from that perspective of being able to be the quarterback or centralized point or personal CFO for folks in understanding where interests lie and also being able to think about what they are pursuing in a bit of a different lens. I think the second piece on that is where does it resonate for folks? I think that there is a gap in the marketplace that we are still working to close, and that gap is that business owners do not know what this monthly reporting package looks like. They do not know what really good reporting on their business looks like in terms of they have always run their… You’ve got a business owner. They’ve run their business for 10 or 20 years. They have a pulse on the business from their gut feel. That does not mean that the business has been optimized, is ready to go to the next level or is ready for a transaction and go through a transaction because they have not done the work on the backend to understand the moving pieces of the business at a granular level. This recording package, we oftentimes get this confusion around, well, I’ve got a temporary CFO or a controller or X, Y, Z. That is very different than what we’re talking about. Well, that is all accounting, close the books, have clean numbers. What we’re talking about is how do I marry operational data in the business, number of units ships, number of jobs completed, time on job, operational data to the financials in the business so I can then go make adjustments operationally on how to improve the business and continue taking steps forward. Jason Diamond: It’s very clear. Nick, anything you’d want to add to that? Nick Hubert: I’d say it’s easy to still cut that from a deal lens and say, look, when an investment partner comes to evaluate a business to sit in their seat for a moment, they’re going to look at the replicability of what that leader has done without that leader still in the seat. And if so many businesses are still reliant on that person and this gets talked about as processes, reporting systems, that ultimately results in a discount to the value of the business because although it can be viewed… For the leader, it’s like, it’s that control thing that entrepreneurs deal with. It’s what made them good. It’s what got you there. And so that transition is really hard. And that’s important from a deal lens because that does a direct impact to value. And to widen out the scope beyond the deal and to think about the entrepreneur’s life, this goes back to the dynamic that a lot of times entrepreneurs look for the exits because they’ve built something that it’s now owning them and what they’ve built is not resulting in the life that they want. And so how can we use this system to actually change that relationship, as I mentioned earlier, with the business so that they can run it more like an executive might and get out of the knife fight, so to speak, that often is how this can feel for a lot of folks, even for pretty large businesses. It can just feel like you’re a firefighter, you’re in a knife fight, whatever you want to use for that terminology. I think it’s as much about creating a different life outcome and different relationship and owning and leading a business as it is in driving deal value. Jason Diamond: Taylor, maybe I’ll ask this of you. Forgive the question, but private equity, I think in our space, has a little bit of a negative stigma at the moment. I don’t think that’s true across the board. I think people appreciate generally the need for capital and there are certainly benefits of private equity. But I’ll say as a whole, advisors are, let’s say, suspicious of private equity. You ever get that pushback? Does anybody ever view your experience or the way you position the story as a negative? Taylor Gentry: I think most people that we talk to don’t know what private equity is. They may have seen it in the headlines. They may have some sort of connotation around it. They won’t come out and say that they don’t like it. They don’t know why they don’t like it. The average American business owner, they don’t know what it is or what it means. So yes, you do have to fight that because of the headline piece around private equity, bad actor ABC, and that’s what gets the headlines. I think what private equity is really good at is taking a business that is not optimized or not running on systems and processes that it can run on. Again, it's not rocket science is not crazy hard. It’s just the private equity world has created ways to install systems and process that improve the value of the business by way of providing visibility to financials and operations in a way that the owner previously didn’t have. And so for us, we view it not by any means as the end all be all or the answer. There are clients we’ve worked with that have taken private equity capital and grown successfully, executed on some acquisitions and then exited again. There are clients that have evaluated those transactions and said, “Hey, not for me.” We are actually fairly agnostic to it. What we really spend a lot of our time on is what are we solving for? What’s the end game? How do we use this private equity transaction to get to where we’re trying to go and is it what we want at the end of the day? Because the reality is, if you’re going to stay on and run that business with private equity investment in, there’s a higher expectation on what you need to do Monday morning than when you owned it yourself and it was a little bit of your personal piggy bank too. Jason Diamond: I love it because you bring it back to the north star concept. Taylor Gentry: Yes, that’s exactly right. It’s what are we solving for and what game are we playing to be able to get to where we ultimately want to go? And for, as Nick mentioned that client that turned down the deal, it was a private equity investment. We got very clear with that, “Hey, here are going to be the expectations. You will have a monthly financial reporting call. You’re going to have quarterly board meetings.” These are things that need to happen in this business to be able to upgrade the management and cadence in this company. You don’t have to do it all tomorrow, but that is how you make a more valuable company, is installing some of these systems, process and cadence. And so we’re working with him now on doing that, just in a private context instead of in the private equity backed environment. Nick Hubert: I think there are three things embedded in this. I’d say number one, to Taylor’s point, this is a massive black box, in some ways by design. Wall Street’s had not a great reputation for a very long time of putting things behind the paywall, so to speak. And so we think a lot about our job as empowerment and education. Jason Diamond: Education, yep. Nick Hubert: Yeah. And so part of it is just, number one, how do we just demystify this thing and name things and take away the go to or bad? Because it can be that, but it should not be that from a core basis. That’s number one. Number two, a lot of entrepreneurs feel like they cannot get access to this ability to professionalize or level up or whatever these things are without bringing on that investment partner. And so part of our motivation is how do we actually bring this skillset in without needing to bring on an investment partner because oftentimes, that investment partner comes when you’re done, and so you don’t actually get to experience it. That’s number two. Number three is, Jason, part of your point earlier was like there’s still a trap here of potentially being able to get motivated primarily by the exit. And so again, that gets back to our business model, making sure our price Racing is right, all that good stuff. And it’s also the reality that a lot of businesses, if you just look at a very broad scope of American businesses, a lot of them don’t have value in the marketplace in a massively material way and/or won’t exit in a traditional way. And so the wealth creation journey then becomes much more of a conversation of, how do we manage the balance between investing in the company and distributing out of the company to invest elsewhere because we should actually be creating investment assets along the way because when you get to the exit, there’s no better power position at the moment of exit than already having financial security to some degree and giving you choice in the right deal, not the highest and best deal because you need to fill the piggy bank for retirement. Jason Diamond: I just want to be sure to ask because you did mention a couple times your pricing structure. How have you set it up so that you can be more agnostic about this as opposed to the typical… You want to talk about it for a minute? Nick Hubert: As it’s structured now, it starts with a retainer earlier on where we are working… As Taylor mentioned, we are going deep in the operational build of the business. We will do that on a monthly retainer. We’re engaging consistently. As assets get built up and if assets get built up, we start to chew that retainer down as assets go up. I think what we are ideally trying to figure out, and still honestly have not figured out yet, is how do we get to parity so that we don’t create an… I want to be able to work agnostically with a client to say- Jason Diamond: Yeah, I love it. Nick Hubert: … regardless of how I’m engaging with you, that’s the goal. So I’d say we haven’t cracked the code on exactly what that is yet, but mechanically, we’ve got the levers to pull to say how we price and move that retainer down is basically allowing to keep it at par, so to speak, for the client and allowing us to say, “I’m here to engage in making the best wealth creation outcome for you along the way, whether that’s investing in the business or investing outside the business.” Jason Diamond: I think that’s the right recipe. I agree. The levers can be fine-tuned, but to me, that’s the model you want to create where you can credibly look your prospects and clients in the eyes and tell them, “Our job is to serve you in the best way… We’re sitting on the same side of the table as you.” I want to turn this inward for a second. The home cooking concept. M&A, within the RIA independent space, is obviously a hot topic. Have you thought about it? Do you think it’s a critical part of a potential growth trajectory of a healthy, independent firm? I’m curious your perspective. I feel you, Taylor in particular, probably have a unique lens on this coming from the world you came from. Taylor Gentry: Yeah, Jason, I think if Nick and I wanted to put as much money as we possibly could in our pockets as fast as humanly possible. It’s a pretty easy recipe. It’s go get some private equity capital backer, roll up a few RIAs, get to a few billion of AUM and then sell it to the next private equity firm or roll it to the next private equity firm, do that a few times. We’d all make plenty of money and go on our way. We’ve been really intentional on this front, and again, I talk about this is what we want to do for the next 30 plus years. And really being intentional around building a business that has that enduring nature to it, decided to take private equity capital on, you are on a shot clock to some degree. Yes, you’re trying to build a best business, all of those pieces. You get cadence. You get capital. There’s a ton of value there, but you are on a shot clock that is not a shot clock we’re trying to get on at this stage. I’d say we opportunistically are looking at acquisitions. So we think about it, and Nick and I talk about it all the time, how much of our time should we be spending on acquisitions? And we think of it as 80/20 or even 90/10, 80% or 90% organic growth-focused, 10 to 20% acquisitions-focused. And so we’re actively evaluating those consistently and see deals on a monthly basis that we look at and evaluate, but it’s less of the focus today than it could be down the road. Jason Diamond: And Nick, do you think of that when you guys talk? Do you guys call that your true north? Do you think the same way you coach your clients and prospects to say, “For right now, it wouldn’t be the right move for us to take private equity capital and to do this acquisition rollup strategy because A, B and C are more important for us”? Nick Hubert: Yes. I think if we take our life north star for Taylor. I’m speaking for Taylor, but we’re close and so we share this of… To Taylor’s point, the life outcome of scaling that quickly with that type of capital backing is likely to create a life that I don’t actually want that’s not good for me, not good for my family, and honestly, not good for our clients at this point. And so that overrides in this case, even though the wealth, north star might say, “Hey, absolutely do that.” At some point something has to win. And so that is true. At the business side, as the north star is motivated by this mission of the entire entrepreneur journey, the worst thing I could do is shortcut my ability to be on that journey for a long period of time. One of our friends in this space says, “The best thing I can do for my clients is still be in the seat 30 years from now because I’ve lived a good life that enables that.” And I think that’s spot on for us, is everything, it’s so easy in today’s world to be consumed by short-termism and we are intentional in ensuring that we don’t succumb to that. While still recognizing to your point, I mean, you’re in this all day, Jason, right? There’s a massive opportunity in front of us to be thoughtful about how acquisitions fit into this. And I think we want to be open to that in a way that ensures we just don’t lose the core of the goodness of what we’re trying to build. Jason Diamond: I think that’s the right answer. The only wrong answer in my mind is we’re not open to this or we’re closed to it. To not at least be opportunistically aware of the dynamics in the market, I think is naive. But also, I’ll be honest, Nick, when I think about the concept of the north star, I have a hard time imagining, because we use a similar concept when we counsel advisors. What is your true north or your north star and your best business life, whatever you want to call it? To me, it does include absolutely the personal piece. I think it’s hard to define it only on the economic verticals because, I mean, I think about this for a transitioning advisor. Almost never is the conversation about crunch the spreadsheet and get us the biggest check possible. It’s, yeah, sure, transition capital is important, but it’s let’s also, we want a better work life and we want freedom to market and blah, blah, blah. To me, I think it’s a completely fair way. You two are looking at it at least for now and I assume you reserve the right to revise that opinion down the line. Nick Hubert: I think acquiring for size and scale is as often the headline is, yeah, we’re not into that at this point because I think… And yet, hey, if the right acquisition with the right people came along in that, we’d be extremely excited and would move very quickly to execute on that. So it’s a little bit of a both hand. Taylor Gentry: Yeah. Jason, I think it goes without saying, but my background on having done a bunch of transactions of businesses like this, it’s a natural fit for us to have this as a lever. And so we are looking at deals. We just haven’t prioritized it as the top priority. Jason Diamond: I think also where you are, 2024 was the launch of the business. It’s pretty common to see, all right, let’s nail this, let’s get our feet under us, client service model and then we’ll start to think about that down the line. A couple other things I want to ask you about running an independent firm. This is a pretty glowingly positive review, I think, of your ability to service clients, your ability to grow and to build and run the business that you want. Has there been anything negative that you haven’t enjoyed about running and operating this business, other than working with each other, of course? Nick Hubert: No, I was going to say, I’m like, can we get Taylor off the call again? Taylor Gentry: Jason, maybe I’ll take a first cut at it. I think for both Nick and I, it’s just the administrative components of running an independent business that we don’t enjoy candidly. I don’t think many people would. That said, you come full circle and it is a pretty glowingly positive review of running an independent business because we get to run it in the way that we see fit. And oh, by the way, we use the same things that we use with our clients. So the value drivers we’ve talked about, we have a value drivers worksheet. We refresh it every six months. Nick, Andrew, and I get together every six months and we’re 18 months into this thing and we’ve already got this cadence and system to it, if you will. So I personally really enjoy the running the business piece of it from a macro perspective. Yeah, I’m responsible for running our fee billing and running the math on all that and getting that done, for example. Jason Diamond: I think that’s actually a very thoughtful answer. And I appreciate you saying I enjoy running… I feel the same way, by the way. There’s some elements of running a business that I think are immensely fun. I think it gets painted with this brush of, “Ugh, running the business is the hassle and I want to work in the business.” Agreed, nobody likes invoicing and accounts receivable for the most part, but Nick, what are your thoughts on this? Nick Hubert: Yeah, I think mine is different a little bit coming from a different background where it’s easier for me to sit with the rose-colored glasses of the joy of the freedom that we have in this model. At the same time, when I’m counseling folks who are talking with folks or mentoring folks, younger people who are thinking about, “Okay, I want to go start my own thing,” I’m like, “Hey, it’s like I’m the same way. I want to look in the mirror and think I’m the boss or I’m one of the bosses and we get to go build this.” Then the reality is, at the end of the day, if there was something that you didn’t want to do that had to get done and you didn’t do it, you got to look in the mirror and be like, “Well, you’re the boss, you didn’t do it.” It’s the both sides of the coin that I think a positive, negative cut is one way to look at that because it can feel that way sometimes. And the reality is every job has 20 to 30% of it that you just don’t enjoy doing, and that’s totally true. Jason Diamond: It’s why they call it work. That’s why they pay you. Nick Hubert: They’d be pretty quick to point out that I’m the one of the partnership group that they’re going to have to chase for a smaller administrative item because, yeah, I honestly, just similarly speaking, don’t enjoy that. I want to go talk to clients. I want to go focus on building what we’re building. In finance speaks, it is a higher beta to just the all encompassing realities of running a business that is really hard to underscore without being in the seat. And yeah, there’s definitely 20 to 30% of that I would love to wave a magic wand and say, I don’t have to do anymore. Jason Diamond: Yeah, I appreciate that. Nick Hubert: You can’t have one without the other. It’s both sides. Jason Diamond: I think it’s getting easier and I think it’s getting more offloadable and some of it probably gets more… In some ways, more offloadable as you scale, but then you get a new set of problems, probably two, because you’re dealing with bigger… It’s a never ending. I think most business owners would agree with that. And you said it well, you take the good with the bad and overwhelmingly, most people we speak with in the independent space feel as you do, which is, are there things I would prefer to offload or that I would prefer not to do? Of course, but that’s almost just the price you pay for the freedom and for doing all the things you want to do. Two more questions that I want to be sure to ask about where this has been a great episode. One is AI. Need to know your thoughts. Is this coming for our jobs? Do you think your firm is positioned to capture either asset flows or also just to leverage this technology and use it to serve clients better? Just give me your thoughts. Nick Hubert: I think, in some sense, it would be irresponsible as people this early in our entrepreneurial journey and thinking about how do we optimize what we do for clients to not be engaging with AI in some way, shape or form, at least in an evaluative posture. So we are actively, in a bunch of different ways, whether it’s buy it off the shelf or build it, continuing to find ways to think about, not only how do we drive efficiency, because there’s an obvious surface level dynamic of if I can save time and spend more time with clients, that is a go to thing objectively. And there’s this deeper dynamic of if it can amplify what… Actually, back to your prior question, if it can amplify what I’m best at and enjoy and reduce what I don’t enjoy, that’s a massive win. And I think we’re on the surface of seeing that. That’s the opportunity we are motivated by that and pursuing that. And at the same time, I would say an operational principle that really is important to us, and you can almost call it a north star within the business is client security can never be put at risk for the sake of our own growth, our own efficiency, or anything else. There’s, I think, still a question mark as to how we think about trusting this. And so we are very cautious as we think about we will never try to move so quickly on any technology, whether it’s AI or otherwise that we risk our clients in some way, shape or form, because the reality is we are also in a context where AI is, when pulled, one of the least popular things happening in the world today for the average American. And so there’s no kudos here for being a leader. Jason Diamond: I totally agree. The first mover advantage here is slim to none. Nick Hubert: Yeah, you don’t want to be the one sticking your neck out on this in our industry. And yet there still objectively has a potential to be better for the clients. Navigating that I think is messy. Taylor Gentry: I think the only thing I’d add, which is pretty short, is the use of these tools has the ability to create a better deliverable for clients on a more consistent basis. And marrying that with exactly what Nick just outlined around the risk is really the magic piece here. And so I think, to the extent we can get it implemented effectively with the security, but also with, this is going to result in a lot better outcome for clients across the board, that’s a pretty attractive objective to go after and it’s pretty exciting to be in the industry with that now on the forefront in terms of ability to improve that experience over time. Jason Diamond: Yeah. No, that’s a good color to add. I want to end here with a potential HR violation, but you’ll forgive me. I’m not going to ask about age, but you are clearly both relatively young advisors. And this is a hot button issue in our industry, the idea that there are not a lot of talented, young next gen advisors at a time when a lot of gen one or older advisors are retiring out of the business. So what would you say… I think one of you made the comment earlier, it’s not necessarily the coolest industry to go into at 23 years old right out of school. I think more commonly people go into sales and trading, investment banking or some of the other finance verticals. What would you say to younger folks interested in wealth? And maybe I’d ask also, do you have any thoughts on how we solve this next gen talent crisis? And if you’re both secretly 90 years old, you can just do it. Taylor Gentry: You talking my internal age or my actual age? Jason Diamond: Why don’t you go first? Nick Hubert: Yeah, go ahead, Taylor. Taylor Gentry: I think there’s two threads here. The first is it’s not a sexy industry to go into and not as sexy as an investment banking, private equity shtick, if you will. I think from my perspective, it’s really important what you’re working on. The ability to be in a firm like what we are building with the diversity of work that is available is a little bit like the world’s your oyster and we’re designing

This Open Source Startup Podcast episode has our co-hosts Robby and Tim in conversation with Zohar Einy the Co-Founder of agentic SDLC platform Port.They have a few open source projects including ocean which allows third-party systems to integrate with their developer portal.Port is positioning itself as the infrastructure layer for the agentic era, evolving the traditional internal developer portal into what its founders describe as a “system of record for agents.” The company believes the future belongs not to vertical point solutions, but to flexible platforms that organizations control themselves, enabling anyone, from developers to non-technical employees, to become builders. Rooted in the founders' experience of overwhelming developer workflows and ticket volumes, Port aims to centralize engineering context while making both humans and AI agents more self-sufficient. Their hybrid approach combines openness and commercial software, with public roadmaps, community contributions, and open-source integrations helping customers extend the platform while maintaining governance and control.The conversation also explored how AI is reshaping engineering organizations. Port is focused on creating the infrastructure around agents rather than building the agents themselves, providing visibility, permissions, governance, and a unified “context lake” for agent activity. As companies deploy increasing numbers of coding, security, SRE, and product agents, leaders need a control plane to understand what agents are doing and ensure they operate safely. The team is already seeing customers use Port to automate large portions of engineering support workflows, and they believe enterprises are adopting AI-driven workflows as quickly as, or faster than, mid-market companies. Internally, this pace of change requires constant adaptation, particularly across go-to-market teams, where education and flexibility have become more important than rigid playbooks.

This is an excerpt from my podcast This Week in Geopolitics. I record new episodes every Monday so give me a follow if you would like to see more!

The new AIEWF website is live! CFPs close in 2 days and we will run our first New Engineer Orientation this weekend, get your tickets booked ASAP as they -will- sell out. Take the AI Engineering Survey and get >$2k in credits and free AIE WF tickets!One of the central tensions in the agents industry is that even while there are major decacorn agent labs like Sierra, Decagon, Notion and Cursor being built up, it is also true that it has never been easier to DIY agents, with a plethora of agent frameworks like LangGraph and Pydantic and Flue, and managed agents from Anthropic and Gemini and Amazon. There has been a wave of companies building their own background agents from Shopify to Stripe to Paradigm to Razorpay, and even Cognition's friends Ramp have built their own coding agent with other friend Modal.You'd think Cognition might feel a bit threatened, but they're not - even after all this, they were way oversubscribed for the $1B Series D they just announced:Walden Yan, coiner of context engineering and Chief Product Officer/Cofounder of Cognition, invited OpenInspect's Cole Murray to talk about why the Devin is in the Details.Full conversation live on the pod today: In retrospect, async agents were the most AGI pilled bet you could make in 2024 - the models weren't good enough yet to vibecode, and people didn't trust AI enough to let it rip, nobody (including early Cognition) was sure about the form factors. Now it is obvious:* The first wave of AI coding tools made the developer faster but remain heavily in the loop. Copilor and Cursor's tab autocomplete are prime examples However, the workflow was still heavily centered around and bottlenecked by the developer's local workflow: a developer in an IDE, watching the model, accepting or rejecting changes, and pushing code one interaction at a time.* The second wave was local agents: Claude Code, Windsurf, Cursor's agents pane: first one and increasingly many terminals all running concurrently.* The current Age of Async Agents points to a different future focused more on agent orchestration which drives end-to-end development.According to previous guest Steve Yegge, there are finer-grained 8 levels to agent adoption, but we have collapsed it into three.As Cursor's Michael Truell put it in The third era of AI software development:Cursor is no longer primarily about writing code. It is about helping developers build the factory that creates their software. This factory is made up of fleets of agents that they interact with as teammates: providing initial direction, equipping them with the tools to work independently, and reviewing their work.The agent should not sit solely inside the developer's flow. It should be setup to work in the background so that you can give it a task, a repo, a machine, a shell, a browser, tests, memory, and review loops to go do the work somewhere else.In less than a year, the sentiment has shifted from avoiding multi-agent systems:to suggesting approaches that actually work:From coining “context engineering” to building the infrastructure behind Devin's 7x PR growth and jump from 16% to 80% of commits across Cognition repos, Walden Yan has had a front-row seat to the background-agent shift. In this episode, Cognition co-founder and CPO Walden Yan joins swyx alongside Cole Murray, creator of OpenInspect, to unpack why everyone is building their own Devin, what changed after the December 2025 model inflection, and why “spec to pull request” is now becoming a real production workflow.We go deep on the architecture of background agents: harness-in-the-box vs out-of-the-box, why Devin separates the “brain” from the machine, why repo setup is still one of the hardest problems, why Docker is not always enough, and how full VMs, snapshots, scoped secrets, GitHub bots, Slack integrations, and video-based testing all fit together. Walden and Cole also dig into memory, MCP limitations, multi-agent orchestration, AI code review, SRE auto-triage, PMs shipping code from Slack, Windsurf 2.0, hybrid frontier/sub-frontier systems, and the real failure mode of uncontrolled vibe coding: your codebase regressing to your worst engineer.And as agents eat software… and software eats the world… you can draw the conclusion on what is next:We discuss:* Why the engineering world is waking up to background agents and cloud agents* The December 2025 model inflection that made spec-to-PR workflows practical* Devin's 7x merged PR growth and rise from 16% to 80% of commits* Why Cole built OpenInspect as an open-source background-agent system* The economics of $20/seat agent products and why monetization is tricky* What Cognition actually sells beyond Devin: infra, onboarding, integrations, and adoption* Harness in the box vs out of the box, and why architecture matters* Why Devin separates the brain from the machine for security and permissions* Repo setup, scoped secrets, Docker Compose, and agent-ready dev environments* Why full VMs matter when agents need to run real applications and test them* Android, macOS, Windows, nested virtualization, and machine-specific agent work* Why testing is much harder than “computer use”* Screenshots, video verification, and the “I know it works” merge moment* GitHub UX, Devin Review, AI reviewers, and agents responding to PR comments* Why MCP alone is not enough for first-class Slack and enterprise integrations* Memory, Knowledge, skills, Claude.md, and why retrieval is still unsolved* Devin's auto-generated memories and the challenge of memory pruning* Always-on agents as permanent PMs for issues, tickets, and product areas* Sub-agents, meta-Devin management, and what multi-agent systems actually add* Why pure auto-merge vibe coding breaks down after about two weeks* AI code smells, lint rules, reward hacking, and Semgrep for agent-written code* GitAI, inline context, and preserving the “why” behind code changes* Local testing, mock servers, older codebases, and preparing companies for agents* Windsurf 2.0 and the handoff between local foreground agents and cloud background agents* SRE auto-triage, support workflows, and agents as first responders* PMs, marketing, and non-engineers creating pull requests from Slack* AI agent budgets, $1k-$5k per engineer spend, and hybrid frontier/sub-frontier systems* The rise of autonomous coding factories and who Cognition is hiringWalden Yan* X: https://x.com/walden_yan* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/waldenyan/Cole Murray* X: https://x.com/_colemurray* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/colemurray/* OpenInspect / Background Agents: https://github.com/ColeMurray/background-agentsTimestamps00:00:00 Introduction00:00:43 Why Everyone Is Building Their Own Devin00:01:57 Devin's 2025 Ramp: 7x PR Growth and 80% of Commits00:03:49 OpenInspect and the Rise of Open-Source Background Agents00:07:59 What Cognition Actually Sells Beyond Devin00:09:56 Background Agent Architecture: Harness In vs Out of the Box00:12:08 Separating the Brain from the Machine00:14:07 Repo Setup, Secrets, Docker, and Full VMs00:19:13 Why Testing Is Harder Than Computer Use00:22:40 Video Verification and the “I Know It Works” Merge Moment00:23:19 GitHub UX, Devin Review, and AI Code Review00:25:42 MCP, Slack, and Enterprise Agent Integrations00:28:59 Memory, Knowledge, and Always-On Agents00:36:16 Sub-Agents, Multi-Agent Orchestration, and Meta-Devin00:43:55 Vibe Coding, Auto-Merge, and Codebase Decay00:48:38 Agent Infra, VPCs, Cloud Providers, and Fast VM Restore00:52:25 AI Code Smells, Reward Hacking, and Code Review Systems00:56:10 Making Codebases Agent-Ready00:58:30 Windsurf 2.0 and the Local-to-Cloud Agent Handoff01:01:15 SRE Auto-Triage, PMs Shipping Code, and Agent Use Cases01:04:32 Agent Budgets, Hybrid Models, and Autonomous Coding Factories01:06:51 Hiring at Cognition and OpenInspect Consulting01:07:45 OutroTranscriptIntroduction: Walden Yan, Cole Murray, and Context EngineeringSwyx [00:00:00]: All right, we're in the studio with Walden Yan, co-founder of Cognition, CPO.Walden [00:00:08]: Happy to be here.Swyx [00:00:09]: Which is a cool title. And coiner of context engineering.Walden [00:00:15]: Although I think there are many people who'd used the terms in various ways beforehand, but I did find that people, both internally and externally, enjoyed the upgrade from prompt engineering or model wrapping into maybe a more thoughtful way to build agents.Swyx [00:00:33]: For those who haven't caught up on that, I have on screen the Don't Build Multi-Agents post, which you should go read on and we might refer to, and Cole Murray, who created OpenInspect.Cole [00:00:43]: Great to be here.Swyx [00:00:43]: So let's talk about it. Everyone is building their own Devins. What's going on?The December Shift: From Handholding Models to Autonomous PRsCole [00:00:51]: So I think the engineering world is waking up to this idea of background agents, cloud agents, whatever you'd like to call it. And I think we saw a shift around the December timeframe of 2025, where the models Opus 4.5 and GPT 5.2, they reached a capability where we moved away from handholding the model and being able to actually more or less autonomously drive the model. And what I mean by that is that we could pretty much go from a specification to a completed pull request, assuming the spec was good enough, with very little friction. And that paradigm alone, I think, changed a lot of how we interact with agents, and opened this world where background agents became more practical.Swyx [00:01:41]: I think for Cole, everyone experienced this in December, but I feel like there was just this increasing ramp, right? There was this moment which was, I think, Sonnet 3.7, where, You guys rewrote Devin in one night or something. So describe 2025 or how it felt from your side.Walden [00:02:01]: In retrospect, we always thought it was ramping up, but then even now, over the last three, four months from today, it's been ramping up even faster. So it's almost funny to be talking about how, big of a leap Sonnet 3.7 was, and honestly, a lot of it was stripping out parts of Devin that were no longer needed with that jump in of intelligence. But I also just think that a lot of the recent leaps, especially, you look at, models like Opus and the latest GPT models, they are reaching levels of autonomy where people are actually finding that they actually can just be hands-off. And people who were once debating, “Oh, do I need to be in the weeds with my model in the IDE? Can I just completely move it off into the cloud?” That's a more serious conversation, and we've seen that in all of our growth charts. Internally there's this funny graph where our usage has, of PRs, our merged PRs, has grown 7X since I forget what it was called.Swyx [00:02:57]: I think Dev, maybe tweeted that. Yes.Walden [00:03:01]: it grew like 7X over, the last, I think it was, two months, three months, something like that. And then you see our engineering headcount growth. It's, gone up by, 10% or something.Swyx [00:03:11]: We were, we were afraid To release this. So this is Devin commit percentages on all Devin repos, was 16% in January and now 80% in March.Walden [00:03:25]: It's a big shift right now. And so it makes sense that a lot of people are now thinking about, buying Devin, but also maybe, trying to build their own and there's Lots of I have a lot of fun building Devin, so I can see why other people would want to build their own cloud agents as well. Matt, well, maybe it's good to hear, what initially inspired you to try to build OpenInspect?OpenInspect: Ramp, Cloud Agents, and Open SourceCole [00:03:49]: OpenInspect came about, through primarily my clients observing how they were using tools like Claude, OpenAI's Codex at the time, and seeing some of the friction that they were having with it. Primarily the Claude was being used through Slack, and a big issue they ran into was that the sessions that were launched were specific to whoever called it via Slack. And so if a PM was the one who invoked the session and they would then go to pass context to engineering can't see the session. And that in itself was a deal breaker because the PM, “Hey, engineering, can you jump in?” But there's nothing to jump in on unless they're copy-pasting out or the single response that came back. And so seeing some of these problems, I had built a similar architecture internally, just to experiment with, test out different ideas as this trend of moving off of localhost was starting to become, And as Ramp released their blog post, I had a lot of the pieces for this already in place, and just thought it would be funny to, see what Claude could do just purely from the blog post. And on my X account, there's actually a thread of where I live tweeted, going through thisCole [00:05:14]: comparing GPT and Claude as both of them are going through it.Swyx [00:05:17]: On the announcement thing or something else?Cole [00:05:19]: right after it got released. We can put it in the show notes. Yeah, it was helpful that I had already knew how to verify the system. I knew what I was looking for. I think Ramp did a great job of really illustrating, the technical aspects of how to build something. It was much more than just like, “Hey, we built a great system.” It was, “And here's how you can build it too.” And so, I resonated a lot with that, just with the problems that I was already seeing, and I thought that, looking around, I didn't really see anything in the open source community that, met this type of system. I think there's a lot that run, in localhost like Superset, Conductor, and many others.But nothing that was actually running in the cloud. And so, I built it, and I thought it was interesting to just open source it and allow anyone to then have a foundation that they can mix and match on top of.The Business of Background Agents: Open Source vs. DevinSwyx [00:06:16]: So literally after Devin was launched was, there was OpenDevin Which became All Hands. I don't know if you tried that orWalden [00:06:22]: I was going to say, one of the things that interested me a lot with OpenInspect was, you didn't try to go make it then something you monetize. There are a lot of, I think, these open source projects would then go and really try to, raise VSwyx [00:06:36]: That's why no OpenDevin. Yeah.Walden [00:06:38]: yeah, and how did you think about that? I thought that was very interesting.Cole [00:06:44]: I thought, and just what I had seen across my clients, was that having a background agent system is going to become a critical infrastructure within their company. And so because of that, I think that I wanted to open source it so that they could fork it and put in whatever customization they wanted. To that question though, I get asked all, “Oh, are you going to raise? Are you going to turn this into a service?”Walden [00:07:08]: I'm sure you've gotten offers.Cole [00:07:09]: but primarily I don't want to do that for a few reasons. One, I think that I don't want to compete for, $20 a seat. I think that is just a really difficult business. I think it's very easy to copy the main pieces of it. Again, I built this fairly quickly. And I think because you are not owning, I guess, the entire stack, it's hard to monetize. You have money being made at the sandbox layer with Daytona, E2b, many other players. You have money being made at the model layer. And you sit in this weird in-between gray area where what are you actually selling? You're selling, I guess, the infrastructure. You're selling, the integrations maybe.Swyx [00:07:55]: let's ask the guy. What are you What are you selling?Walden [00:07:59]: Well, yeah, there's multiple layers to this in practice, and actually it's funny you mentioned the infrastructure, ‘cause when we got started building Devin as well, we had to go figure out how to make the infrastructure as well because,Swyx [00:08:10]: You had to build this two years before everyone else,?Swyx [00:08:15]: Including, the model sideWalden [00:08:17]: It was not, it was not very polished at the start, when we just built it off of raw VMs from cloud providers like EC2, the boot up time was so slow, I think, And especially then, turning off the machines, saving them, and then to be able to bring them back up again when the, when you want Devin to wake up again later. It would just be out cold for like 10 minutes because that's just how long these systems took. They were not built for this repeated down and up usage. And so we actually had to go do all of that. And as a result now, one thing we offer when we go and sell Devin to people is, you don't have to worry about all the compute side of things. We'll make it work. We'll make it work in your cloud if you want it to. But aside from the product, and I want to go into the agents and the tuning of the intelligence part later, but I think a big part of what we do at Cognition as well is to just make sure that your company learns and uses and adopts these coding agents. ‘Cause I think for especially the largest enterprises in the world, you find that there is a lot of people who want to move over to using AI for their day-to-day workloads. But because of the way projects are planned, because, not everyone is literate in using AI in these ways, having a team of engineers who can actually go in and onboard you, set up all the integrations you need, the automations you need to really get to that level of, leverage with AI, is super helpful. And so We do that. We show thought partners to the customers that we work with as well.Swyx [00:09:56]: So let's talk about, architectural stuff. I think that's always, that is something that was the topic of conversation between the two of you. Is this, the mental model that you want to start with or something else? I'll just leave the floor open to you guys.Agent Architecture: Harness in the Box vs. Out of the BoxCole [00:10:11]: I think, maybe we can start here as just a general what are the pieces of a background agent system. And then maybe we can go into some of the nuances of, Decisions that you can make.Swyx [00:10:22]: But I guess I also Like, what, maybe what Walden is saying is the agent is like in this open code box, I guess. Right? This is infra, and then there's, that's the agent. And you had this discussion about whether you put the agent in here or in Out externally. Can you tease that out?Cole [00:10:39]: In a background agent systems, you have a decision to make of where the agent is actually going to run. This is typically described as the harness in the box or out of the box. With running the agent in the box, you're making some trade-offs by doing that. The negative trade-off you're making is primarily security. Because the agent is running in that box, unless you otherwise design it, all of your secrets need to go into that box as well. And given the nature of AI, it can be unpredictable, and you could very easily end up accidentally exfilling your secrets, or other unintended behavior. Now, the out of the box is the idea that we are going to have the actual agent running not directly in the sandbox, and we will have, quote-unquote, the brain of the agent running in some type of worker, control plane. That sandbox then is going to serve as the hands where the brain is basically operating and making tool calls into that environment to manipulate it. I guess other trade-off that you're making between the two systems is that, in my opinion, running it out of the box is much more complex because, you have state that has to be managed, whereas if you're running it in the box, all of the state of that agent is actually in the box, and yes, it's you could persist it elsewhere, but it's all localized and you have less concerns to worry about.Walden [00:12:08]: I think a lot of that, what you mentioned, is why we actually from the start built Devin to what we called separate the brain from the machine. The other thing that this allows you to do is reuse any existing infrastructure you have for dev boxes Perhaps. And so you don't have to worry as much about making a new type of dev box that has all the dependencies the brain needs, as you mentioned, the secrets the brain needs as well. One thing that we've seen some customers run into is, you have a GitHub app and you want Devin, your agent, whatever, be able to interact with GitHub through this application, but then you have different users with different actual permissions. If they are all interacting through the same GitHub app and there's no actual, separation between the system that decides, what it does and the actual secrets on the machine, then you run into an issue where, okay, it's hard to do the separation. But in practice, with Devin, it's much easier because we just say whatever you put on the machine, that is, the scope of basically what the user is free to do, what the agent is free to do. So only put the most scoped secrets on that machine, and then the brain is fully not accessible from the machine. So you don't have to worry about messing with the, any of the most secure parts of the brain if the user is free to do whatever they want with the machine.Swyx [00:13:31]: I was going to just bring, I have this, chart from OpenAI, where I don't know if this is, in the box, out of the box. That is something that they do use to describe it. And then also recently Anthropic did, managed agentsSwyx [00:13:44]: Which is, this is their thing. I don't know. It's all, it's all variations of the same pattern, right?Cole [00:13:49]: So this would be out of the box.Swyx [00:13:51]: Which, is preferable for them because it's less work?Cole [00:13:56]: I would say it's more work.Swyx [00:13:58]: It's more work?Cole [00:13:58]: But it, in my opinion, it is the better architecture of the two. It's just, you're taking on a bit of complexity by doing that.Repo Setup, Docker, and VM-Based Development EnvironmentsWalden [00:14:07]: One thing I've not seen a lot of other players do well is how do you manage what's actually on the box? And this can be complex for many reasons. Let's say you have a big repository that's changing and updating a lot with changing dependencies. How do you make sure that the working environment of the agent actually stays up to date, has all the credentials it needs to, let's say, run the app and test it, and all the things you want your autonomousSwyx [00:14:34]: So a repo setup.Walden [00:14:35]: Exactly. So in, internally At Cognition, we call this repo setup.Cole [00:14:39]: The hardest part ofWalden [00:14:40]: It's been a perennial problem since the start of the company, of how do we help people get this set up? Because not everyone just has, working cloud environments working out of the box. And do you find this to be a common problem withSwyx [00:14:53]: How do you solve it?Walden [00:14:53]: Your clients?Cole [00:14:54]: This is a very common problem, and through my consulting, this is a lot of what I help teams do. A lot of teams don't really have great developer environment setups, if any. A lot of the times it's, “Go talk to Bob and get the secrets,” and that obviously doesn't work when the agent needs to actually set this up. And so a lot of that, most teams are using Docker Compose or some type of microservices. And so for theSwyx [00:15:19]: Even in prod?Cole [00:15:20]: Not in prod. With the OpenInspect, you are using this primarily to interact, and make code changes. There is other use cases, but you can hook, whether through CLI, MCPs, other tools, you can then hook that into your production systems primarily for, SRE type use cases. But you are not, necessarily, trying to test your prod internal microservice through the system.Walden [00:15:48]: And you mentioned Docker Compose. I think one direction we saw some of our friends take early on was, using Docker containers as the level of abstraction for their models. There's lots of reasons, I think, why Docker containers are not great. One thing is, Docker container's not really a true security boundary, for one. But the other is, if you are running real applications, a lot of times those applications use Docker, and then you have to think about Docker in Docker, which is, really weird. And so I think part of, the really hard challenge of getting VMs to work, why did we do that? Well, it was because we realized that you actually needed, full VMs to be able to do these types of things. And especially nowadays where there's actually value in running the application and clicking around and sending you screen recordings of these things. The value just, keeps adding on top of that. But it is a decision I see people run into when they try to build their own systems, is, “Oh, do we, in addition to this, do we put the agent in the machine or out of the machine? Do we use Docker? Do we use something else?” What do you recommend people nowadays?Cole [00:16:57]: I think Docker is a good solution for maybe not running the agent, but running your infrastructure, because that is more or less the same setup your engineers are probably already using. If they're not, then I don't know what they're using. But they're probably already using Docker Compose.Swyx [00:17:14]: I've always had a small candle for web containers. I don't know if you guys have tried them before.Swyx [00:17:19]: To me, they were, supposed to be like Docker Light.Cole [00:17:22]: Is it?Swyx [00:17:22]: I don't know.Cole [00:17:22]: No, I haven't tried it. But yeah, I think any environment that you've set up that is a good experience for your developer naturally lends itself to being easy to set up for the agent. And once you figure out that local developer story, you've more or less solved the agent in a sandbox, environment setup. OpenInspect does have hooks as well, where you can, run a setup SH script that will pre-install everything. You can then pre-snapshot that build so it starts instantly, and then there is a second hook to actually then, restore the state of the sandbox when it comes back. And so you can already have all of those microservices running and basically get the same experience that you would on your machine within the sandbox.Testing Agents: Computer Use, Screenshots, and Real App WorkflowsWalden [00:18:08]: Another thing that we've been thinking a lot about is like Different VM service offerings. Have you had customers where they needed like macOS specific VMs or like Windows specificWalden [00:18:20]: VMs?Walden [00:18:22]: There are like many technologies in the world that only work on specific types of machines, right? If you're building a.NET application that has to run on Windows or like, maybe more commonly if you want to build iOS or macOS Does that workSwyx [00:18:32]: Does Commission supportSwyx [00:18:33]: Choices like that?Walden [00:18:35]: The fundamental architecture we do, because we do the separation, it does support, but the actual work in progress is happening right now on these. Another thing that we've actually recently added support now for, it's in beta, is doing Android development. To do that, we needed to support, I think, nested virtualization within our machines because the VM itself is like a, is a virtualized Firecracker instance, and then you had to then run another Android emulator inside. And there's like weird performance issues that like, it, which is why it's like still in beta. We have to think through these problems, but it unlocks a lot for anyone who wants to do Android development.Swyx [00:19:13]: I was trying to find like a reference video for the testing thing. I couldn't find it, but I think you worked on the testing, capability. Why call it testing and not like computer use or I don't know, it's, what's the general Category of problem?Walden [00:19:26]: I think that when people think about the ability of an AI to run your app and test it, I think they actually over-index on the computer use part of it because computer use in my mind is the literal, okay, you want what button you want to click. Can you emit the right coordinates to go click that button? I think testing is actually a really interesting likeWalden [00:19:48]: Problem-solving, challenge for these AIs because if you wanted to do arbitrary testing, imagine you make a change that spans the frontend and the backend, maybe, even some other like even more deeply nested service. To actually test that change, we have to reason through what-- how do you first run these applications to orchestrate with each other with the right version of the code? Then, okay, how do I trigger the feature or how do I make the thing actually happen? And this can get arbitrarily hard, maybe you have to be an admin. Maybe a certain thing has to be feature flagged on. Maybe, you have to like run two sessions and then send us a very specific word into one of them to trigger a specific behavior. And figuring out how do you do that requires a lot of code base context, requires, a lot of orchestration that we've specifically done. And in some cases, we found that you actually, no one frontier model can actually do this full end-to-end task itself.Walden [00:20:42]: We've seen cases where we actually had to orchestrate different frontier models together to solve this problem together. That is where we spend most of our time when we think about this testing problem, not so much the computer use part. Computer use for what it's worth has gotten a lot better with recent models and it's made that part of the job certainly easier.Swyx [00:20:58]: Especially with like even 4.7, that they released yesterday, apparently like way better in terms of the vision stuff, which is going to be encompassing computer use.Walden [00:21:08]: Having evals for all these as well is something that like takes a while to build up. And having the evals be right is tricky as well. Do you ever see like, clients who are building their own agents have to start standing up evals to make sure things don't regress?Swyx [00:21:25]: Not so much evals in the traditional sense, but specific to the testing part that has just gone in. I just added support for screenshots And in theory you can also do video. I need to put in a plugin to do that. But they do show up natively, and it was a very heavily requested feature, especially after Cursor's recording came out. I think that was very enlightening for everyone of like, “Oh, this is a very good feature to actually have.”, I think with Devin you guys have had this for a while.Swyx [00:21:57]: Oh, yeah. See how screenshots work. Yeah, I don't know if there's anything, super and not obvious. It's like once what feature to build, you can just prompt it and it Will mostly work.Walden [00:22:09]: I think to Walden's point, though, the computer use is a subset of the larger testing problem, and I think that's very specific to the code base that you're working and it's not something that, out of the box that you could just solve it. The-- you do need the code base context to actually know how to test it. And I think in the case of a background agent system, you fortunately do have that code base locally that what is changing and could then inspect it and use that to drive the model.Swyx [00:22:40]: For those who haven't seen it before, this is an example of how it works. You, after the PR is done, you click testing approved, and then it sends you back a video. What I really like is that it labels, It's very small here, but it actually labels what it's testing. And then it-- and then you actually see the cursor and everything. So I don't know, yeah, the engineering in this, just Whatever you want to show. ‘cause this is like, this is one of those like, oh, few of the AGI moments, right? ‘cause Once I look at this, I actually don't I wish I can just merge inside Of Slack instead of going to GitHub ‘cause I don't need to see the code. I know it works.Walden [00:23:19]: Maybe a new feature in Cursor. Yeah, the annotations at the bottom was also a big difference for me when I, when I added those.Swyx [00:23:27]: It's just like, what am I looking at? What are you trying to demonstrate?Walden [00:23:30]: Exactly. There's a surprisingly long tail of small details that ends up making a big difference for this end metric of like how fast do you actually merge the code in. One experience that we spent a lot of time tuning early on was what is the right experience on GitHub for these tools. Because I think, most tools out there when you build the agent, you'll think about, oh, it'll create the PR for you. We try to take that a step further and say, “Oh, what if we actually made sure you could interact Devin, with direct Devin directly on GitHub?” And so we made sure that you can comment on GitHub, and Devin would actually receive those comments and address them back. But there's actually quite a bit of tuning you have to do here because you can imagine that actually like-We recently have Devin Review, for example. Devin Review will post comments on his own PR And then Devin has to then goGitHub Workflows: Devin Review, Comments, and PR AutomationSwyx [00:24:23]: He answers his own comments, which is Really loopy. So like, yeah, I like that it just updates here that it's, that I have commented But usually it's just me saying like, “Hey, merged, fix any merge conflicts.”Walden [00:24:37]: The, so when Devin fixes his own comments, you might be scared that, oh, maybe I'll infinite loop. But we've put a lot of work into making sure it doesn't, both by making sure that the comments are high signal, but also that the agent is thoughtful about what comments it immediately goes and tries to fix, and what comments it's like, “Wait a second, I think you're wrong.” Actually, that's one of my favorite moments is when Devin tells me that I'm wrong, when I try to get it to do something different. But tuning that behavior, actually makes a big difference in terms of how useful the actual GitHub experience is.Cole [00:25:06]: I think to touch on that as well, I think having the AI reviewer integrated into the system is a critical part of this background system. OpenInspect does have that. It has a GitHub code reviewer that you can control the prompt. It does do comments as well. It doesn't do them automatically yet. The capability is there, but it's not fully used.Swyx [00:25:27]: So you have to ask for it?Cole [00:25:28]: you do, yeah. You can tag it on GitHub, and then whatever you named your, GitHub bot, it will then follow up on it. It will then, if you have merge conflicts or whatever you have asked it to resolve, it will then resolve it, but it doesn't do it automatically yet.Integrations: Slack, MCP, and First-Party Agent InterfacesWalden [00:25:42]: Well, I'm curious, what is, the most common thing that people end up requesting, that they still need on top of OpenInspect when you help them go implement it?Cole [00:25:52]: I think a lot of it comes down to actually integrating it into the company. It's one thing to have the background agent system set up, but if it isn't actually integrated into your larger ecosystem, it isn't that useful. It is useful to be able to kick off sessions, but what we really want to be able to do is hook it into all of our other systems, whether that is the production database with read-only credentials, the logs, a Confluence or internal knowledge-based system. I think that is where I see the huge leap for companies, and that can be a challenge for companies as well who are maybe not familiar with exactly how to approach it, especially if they're in environments that have more compliance type things where, access control can be pretty big and how do you deliberately think about these problems, I find to be, one of the problems that comes with a system like this.Walden [00:26:46]: The thing we found is So, MCPs, obviously it has been like this, really big explosion of, oh, you can go, integrate it with all these different things. But to actually get the integration right and the and get the right experience, oftentimes we found that we had to go build our own ad hoc things. I think Slack is a great example of this. You could give your agent a Slack MCP and okay, it can post messages back to you on Slack. But we actually use Devin like a coworker in Slack, and that's how it's been built from the ground up. But to do that, you actually need to, support webhooks that come back, right? And then Devin has to respond in a natural way and then hopefully don't spam your threads too much and annoy the people in your company. So you got to tune that experience just right. Especially when there's a lot of back and forths, we find that we actually have to go beyond the simple MCP integrations in these places.Swyx [00:27:39]: I just pulled up the MCP marketplace. I know this is a Fair amount of work. Is the answer to eventually take first party control of all the top MCPs? Is that theWalden [00:27:48]: I would love a world where you could have something that's more expressive than MCP. That, goes both ways, not just a set of tools, but a proper system that interacts back and lets it Have the right experience with all these interfaces.Swyx [00:28:03]: So there actually is sampling in the MCP spec, but nobody Uses it, right?Walden [00:28:07]: And so I think that's the other part is, actually we found that when the MCP spec starts to get too complicated, it starts to lose its original promise of Being like a simple one-step connect. Now then we have to go figure out how to support all these different variations of things and It starts to look a lot like just building the first party integrations in a lot of these cases now.Cole [00:28:29]: I think it matters, too, how critical it is to your company, right? If this is something that nearly every session is going through, it probably makes sense to own it so that you can make optimizations on top of it Versus just whatever is off the shelf.Swyx [00:28:43]: Awesome. Other than MCPs, what else, sorry, well, I don't know if that's Narrowing in too much on, integrations. But what else? What other elements of building OpenInspect or Devin that you guys really sink on?Memory and Knowledge: What Agents Should RememberCole [00:28:59]: I think, a problem that comes up very frequently is this idea of memories or knowledge base.Swyx [00:29:05]: Oh, boy. How do you solve it?Cole [00:29:08]: so not solved yet, is the short answer.Cole [00:29:11]: it's something, there's a open issue for it, someone asking about it.Swyx [00:29:16]: There's, I, D Wiki hasn't indexed anything about memory yet.Cole [00:29:20]: how I'm seeing it solved across my clients is primarily through skills. I find that skills can be a good gap within that or updating Claude MD, but I think memory as a whole is a pretty unsolved problem, and it is why I've been hesitant to add it. I think there is parts of memory and that can be addressed, but I think as a whole it's a very difficult retrieval problem.Swyx [00:29:44]: Oh my God. RAMP didn't write anything about memory? I see zero search results.Walden [00:29:50]: No. Memory can be quite tricky to get right because it's the retrieval, but also the generation of the memories that can be really tricky. You don't want it to just like Remember very specific details.Swyx [00:29:59]: Walk us through the Devin memory journey because I know there's been a journey.Walden [00:30:03]: the first version of memory that like stuck around for a while was A system we have called Knowledge. And the idea was we wanted it to pick up things over time and not need the user to be proactive about teaching Devin things. So, okay, any time you remind Devin, “Wait, no, that's not quite the way you're supposed to use Git”Like, we actually want Devin to say, “Hey, do you want me to actually just remember this for the future?” And for you to just basically quickly approve or reject and for it to build up over time. ‘Cause I find that, 95%, I think, or some crazy stat like that of the memories that Devin has are all through these auto-generated things. Very few people actually just want to sit down and write big docs on Here's how you're supposed to work with the technology, et cetera. The generation and the retrieval has been something that we've been trying to tune a lot over the years. Generation, you don't want it to remember something like, if you asked one time to like, “Oh, please open as a draft PR,” you don't want to be like, “Oh, everyone forever now should get their PRs as draft PRs.” But you do want some, conveyor. Maybe you want to say like, “Oh, Cole generally likes, things to be created as draft PRs.” Same with retrieval, if you have thousands of these memories, how do you actually make sure they're retrieved at the right time? And that can be quite tricky to do right without exploding the context with a bunch of useful yeah, useless information. Surprising amount of just, eval work to just make sure that, memory is, remains a reliable system as new models come and go.Cole [00:31:31]: Do you have anything that you could share on, memory pruning? And like the temporal aspect of memory?Swyx [00:31:36]: Deleting and forgetting?Walden [00:31:39]: The, today, the, So the things they could do is it could edit memories. And so if your memory used to say like, “Oh, Cole likes to open everything as like a draft PR,” then you can imagine, “No, don't do that.” And then it'll say, “Oh, do you want me to update the memory to be Cole now want everything as, open PRs?” I think that at the same time we don't know if this is going to be the final version of the system. Whatever we have here will probably, translate into the new system that we'll be coming up with. But I think one big difference between two years ago and today is these agents are really good at using anything that resembles a file system natively. And so part of us are, is thinking, “Oh, should we rebuild memories to feel more like a file system that we let the agent navigate on its own?” That's been an interesting exploration. Also similar ideas in the scale space.Swyx [00:32:35]: I am pulling up OpenClaude's memory thing right now. So memory, OpenClaude has like this like daily memory journal thing, right? And you can I mean, that is a file system you can grep through and is a source of truth. I don't know if it's the best. It's probably super noisy, but at least, if you lose something you can discover it or you can apply some, forgetting algorithm to, more ancient memories that don't get recalled again or something. I don't know.Walden [00:33:01]: One thing we've been trying to do to push the boundaries of how you use agents at your company is letting an agent basically have a very similar file, a memory.md or something, and just like be your permanent PM for a specific set of issues maybe. So we have like some Slack channels internally, maybe a Slack channel dedicated to, a specific product like DeepWiki maybe. And you can imagine that, or you want a Devin that never stops, it's just always awake, but it has this like memory dock that it can just maintain for itself about, okay, what are like the number one priorities of what we have to fix and prioritize? Who is responsible for some upcoming work? Maybe they'll even Devin will even tag you on some recurring basis. And so it's been an interesting move to see, okay, how can we actually use Devin for more than just engineering? Can we actually upstream above the engineering process and maybe it's just Devin creating tickets, which then maybe some humans do, but then maybe other Devins do.Swyx [00:34:00]: One of my more fun automations is go research competitors and just suggest stuff to me on a weekly basis. That's the automation. I can't find it right now, but basically it just like, “Look at competitors and suggest things.” “And here are three things that you've suggested that I don't want any more of,” and you just stick that in the prompts. But like I wish actually So for like when I, for example, when I reject a PR, I wish that it updated memory so that I can then just not have to go up, go back and update the scheduled, sync, but anyway, feature request.Walden [00:34:31]: what? We might change it soon. I guess OpenInspect, in the time you've been around, has there been anything you tried to implement but then you had to like undo and like do a different way?OpenInspect Architecture: Webhooks, Control Planes, and Agent StateCole [00:34:41]: Nothing yet, but something that is on my mind. The initial way that I built it was that each of the integrations lives as its own package. And so you have The Slack bot, which is what's handling the webhooks, and then is basically interacting with the control plane. As I'm seeing the system starting to be more integrated, specifically with the GitHub bot integration, I'm considering bringing that all into the central control plane because especially now I want to start, And a request that I'm getting is the ability to monitor, the actual, pull requests being merged, as well as just tracking ofSwyx [00:35:19]: What do I have open?Cole [00:35:21]: What do I have open? How many of these are getting merged? How many comments are showing up? To just understand the health of the system. And so in the case of a GitHub app, you only have one webhook. And so then it's a question of do I put that webhook in that GitHub bot package? That's weird. It doesn't really make sense to live there because that package is more for like the code reviewer. Or do I like centralize it? So that's something that's on my mind of, making that decision. I think the other one we touched on earlier is the harness in the box versus out of the box. I think long term the architecture will eventually come back out of the box. Some of the newer tools that I've added are calling back into the control plane so that you don't have the secrets in the sandbox. And so I think long term I probably will pull the actual, agent out of the box, but I think for now it's fine.Subagents and Multi-Agent Systems: When Parallelism Helps or HurtsSwyx [00:36:16]: Just, a quick question on pulling the agent out of the box. I'm One thing I'm very bullish on this year is agents calling other agents or spawning sub-agents or Whatever you want to call it. Does that make it harder or easier? I can't tell. Because if the harness is in the box, you can just spin up more boxes. If the harness is outside the box, then you're, it's less easy because you are, you have a unicorn pet of a, of a harness that's, living outside the box.Cole [00:36:45]: In theory it would be the same way, right? Whether, one agent has launched many, sub-sessions within it, OpenInspect, for example, can launch sub-sessions and actually create other environments and then monitor them. In the case where it is out of the box, that would basically just be an additional session that's running. And so that session is also running outside of the box. It's running in your worker plane, wherever you're running this. And then you really just have to think about how does your top level agent then interact with it. I do think it can be more complex, just ‘cause again, you have now a more difficult architecture. But I think if you figured it out once, it's probably fine.Swyx [00:37:26]: Well, then I'm just, throwing it open to you in terms of, I call this like meta Devin management. Which is like the, Devin's calling Devins or Devin scheduling Devins or querying trajectories or anything like that. What have you built or unshipped, anything?Cole [00:37:46]: I think one of the surprising things we've seen is that a lot of the ways that, these, separate agents work with each other, and you want them to, parallelize their work, has still mostly followed the same manager sub-agents regime. And a lot of people I think are excited about this world where you have swarms of agents that, talk with each other all over the place. We've actually given Devin an MCP so they can just go arbitrarily message other Devins And create new Devins, et cetera. But I guess, it somehow creates, a really chaotic world in that sense. And so we've still found that most practical use on a day-to-day basis has been one single Devin.Cole [00:38:33]: Figuring out how to segregate the work and get, have other Devins work on it in, a relatively isolated sense, each with their own boxes Not sharing machines, so there's, a very little room for conflict is the regime that you have to create today.Swyx [00:38:50]: I'll call out, the experiments from Cursor, right? This is Wilson Lin's work on Single agent to multi-agent, and you're obviously famously on the side of don't build multi-agent. But they went through the whole thing, only to arrive at, this Which is exactly what Devin has, I think.Cole [00:39:08]: I think there will be a revision to that post at some point AboutSwyx [00:39:12]: Tell us about itCole [00:39:12]: I think multi-agents were very much not at all possible a year ago. You do see more multi-agent experiments today, but you can argue, are they really multi-agents, or are they just just, tool calls,? There are people who, will create sub-agents to go look for XYZ file, XYZ implementation. Has really nice context management benefits because all of the tool calls and tokens that it spends then get collapsed back to just the answer for the main agent. There's a lot of benefits to doing this. We basically have Devin do this with Deep Bookie, make a call out to Deep Bookie, give you back the results, but that feels like a tool call,? It's not like these, two collaborators actually talking back with each, back and forth with each other. But I think the thing that gives me the most bullishness that multi-agents might actually be possible is actually what I said earlier about Devin will actually sometimes tell me I'm wrong and push back, and I think that demonstrates a level of maturity and communication today that makes a multi-agent world possible. One, can two agents who have seen different information come back to each other and actually figure out who is right, what is the correct implementation? They're not just, yes men. Claude, I guess is like, used to just say, what is it? “You're right,” or,Swyx [00:40:25]: “You're absolutely right.”Cole [00:40:26]: “You're absolutely right.” Yeah.Swyx [00:40:28]: The Have you seen, did you seeCole [00:40:29]: The age is overSwyx [00:40:30]: The Codex app troll in Topic? This is the Codex app. Inside of Settings, there's a little, there's a little Easter egg, right? So if you go to, the Themes or Appearance, right? There's all these, color codes, and the top is absolutely, and it's the Topic's colors. Which is such a troll. Anyway.Model Behavior: Pushback, Adversarial Prompts, and Agent SkepticismCole [00:40:53]: I love that Easter egg. Did you discover that yourself?Swyx [00:40:54]: No, it was, someone was, tweeting about it And I was like, I was like, “Is this true?” Because, sometimes people just tweet stuff to, get a rise out of you. But yeah, there you go, in Topic colors.Cole [00:41:06]: Yeah. So yeah, we're out of this regime where, it just says you're absolutely right, and they can have real conversations and real back and forths.Swyx [00:41:13]: You can prompt it as well to be more adversarial or whatever. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, that, I mean, to me, that is more intelligence, right? That is not just something that's, a dumb tool, it's actually pushing back on you I think. Yeah.Cole [00:41:24]: when you mentioned, of course, the blog posts. There was one blog they had where they fed a swarm of agents together and built a browser.Swyx [00:41:34]: That was I think that was the one.Cole [00:41:36]: You can have, likeSwyx [00:41:37]: I think it's the same oneCole [00:41:37]: Creation of it. We found a surprising success of, don't do a swarm or anything, just have one Devin, it does its own context management. Just let it keep running for a while and give it some crazy tasks. I think we asked it to, rebuild, a Windows OS system. And it managed to do it just like, going on for long enough. It'sSwyx [00:41:55]: Was this Andrew's thing?Cole [00:41:58]: there were lots of demos that we ended up not posting, ‘cause at some point we'd just be posting way too much a bunch of, Demos. But I love that because it shows that I think the multi-agent thing still has, a bit of exciting sexiness to it, which is maybe still beyond still, the actual delta it adds to the capabilities of these systems. But it's absolutely the future. I think we're heading in that direction and we can see the progress being made there already.Swyx [00:42:25]: If I were to, make one super minor pushback because I don't feel that confident about it yetCole [00:42:33]: Go for itSwyx [00:42:33]: But I've had Ryan Lopopolo from OpenAI on the pod And he's a super slop cannon, right? Oh my God, that's my coding agent being done. I downloaded this, Peon Ping. I don't know if you guys have heard this. It takes like-, sound packs from popular games like, Command and Conquer and Warcraft, and then it plays it whenever it's done. And so it's like, “Work,” or whatever, “At your command,” or something. Anyway, what I got from the Cursor code base and from Ryan's thing was that there's a slop cannon approach where you try to loosen the single agent's, bottleneck, and I feel like that is, probably an, a very important thing to try to figure out. I don't think anyone's, really solved it. Because then you just have more reviewer slop on top of the agent slop To try to wrangle it all. Ryan will probably very strongly object that I say that he hasn't solved it, but he thinks he's He thinks he's completely solved it. But I think it's still I think it's, very important, ‘cause, that is a bottleneck, right? I feel Devin is slow sometimes Because I'm like, well, yeah, this is very readable and very sensible, but also it is slower than it could be if I just, I want a button to just say, “Just ramp this up 1,000 next parallel, in parallel and just, see what happens,”? And I don't know if that's, feasible at some point in the future.Code Review, Entropy, and AI SlopWalden [00:43:55]: I And we've also run experiments internally where we've basically tried to build entire products, true products that we knew we would eventually ship, but for now, let's try to see if we can do it just by purely, vibe coding on top of each other, auto merge, no code review at all. And then there's this benchmark of how many weeks can you go onto this for Before you say, “We have the trashiest code base.”Walden [00:44:18]: “Let's actually rewrite it from scratch.”Swyx [00:44:19]: Start a new factory, yeah. What'd you find?Walden [00:44:21]: I think we found that the state-of-the-art in December was you can probably, run this for about two weeks. By the end of those two weeks, you'd find that, hey, you want to, change the color of a button. Well, it turns out this button is implemented in, 10 different places, and they, have All these different variations, and oh, you forgot one of them, and actually it's a slightly different color in one spot. And you're like, “Okay, this is too much to work with. Let's actually try to do code review at the same time.” And make sure that we're on top of our software, actually cleaning it up a bit And making sure it's done in a scalable way.Cole [00:44:54]: I think building on that, the idea of, you don't have to look at code, I think is generally a bad idea. And the meme that I have for thatWalden [00:45:03]: What timeline, all right, is Do you think that statement will be true on?Cole [00:45:06]: I think probably for a while it'll be true that you should continue to look at your code. A problem that I see a lot of teams run into that I work with who are embracing AI native, AI first coding, is The meme that I have is that your code base regresses to your worst engineer, because that engineer who is, very gung-ho about AI and is not auditing their code, their pattern starts cementing into the code, and now the AI is referencing their patterns. And so now their if/else block that, is 20 if/elses back and forth, the AI is seeing that as the pattern of how things are done and starts to then exponentially grow this slop. And I find to your point, a pretty good approach to that is having scheduled cleanup, whether by humans or through systems, that are looking for duplication. They then address that. You'll end up with like 12 helpers for how to format a date. And you need to address that, because otherwise it will continue to sprawl.Swyx [00:46:09]: Within balance, I think it's fine to have some duplication, and then sometimes To have garbage collection, right? Yeah. The What I've been, talking about with a lot of engineering leaders is that you want to be very strict about the boundaries between modules, and it's your job as an architect, as a CTO, whatever, to say like, “Okay, here's the hard contract between you guys and you guys. Whatever you do inside this black box is your business. You do whatever. But between these guys, let's be, really damn clear, and any movement must be signed off by a human or me,” or. Then, and like that's that. I don't know if you have any other modifications or advice.Walden [00:46:44]: Well, I guess generally on the topic of, where humans can be useful, I found that ‘cause, some of these, really deep infra problems, sometimes just having a human that just has, really deep expertise can make a big difference. I've actually seen this come into play when actually building agents. So we've had a few friends now, try building their own coding agents, and I think one same problem that I recurringly heard a lot of them run into was this problem of like, “Oh, Grep is really slow on our agents' machines.” And so a lot of them, I assume because they're using AI and they themselves don't have, super deep infra background knowledge, say, “Okay, we're going to go build our own custom Grep index. It's going to be really fast,” and use that as a way around this problem. When we ran into this problem About like, maybe like a year and a half ago when we were, in the early days of building Devin, we obviously didn't have AI then. We just asked our, how to, how to do this. You can just swap out a new Grep index, so.Infrastructure Details: Grep, File Systems, and SandboxesSwyx [00:47:45]: What do you mean you hand-coded Devin? What?Walden [00:47:48]: It's like, can you believe we hand-wrote this code? And we had, our infra people who are really amazing, they were looking into it and they're like, “Oh, what? We realized that actually the root cause of this problem is actually super simple, but like fine-grain detail,” which is that a lot of these virtual machines actually underlying them don't use real file systems. They use these, network file systems where things are actually cached over the network actually in S3. So when you're Grepping, you're actually making network calls Every time you're doing these things, and that's why Grep is extremely slow on these machines. And so again, goes back to, what is all of the crazy infra work that we had to do to actually get these machines working. If you try to do this yourself, there are tons of small details like this, and so we had to eventually go swap out that network file system. ButSwyx [00:48:35]: I think there's a write-up about it, right? Silas did one about the virtual file system.Walden [00:48:38]: Oh, that was a whole other thing. TheSwyx [00:48:39]: Oh, that's a different thingWalden [00:48:40]: The BlockDev file storage formatSwyx [00:48:42]: I'll bring it upWalden [00:48:42]: Which is, a file system format that we built so that the VMs could be spun up and down very quickly. Basically, the intuition behind this is-Imagine you have, a terabyte of disk, and your agent only, wrote, a hundred lines of code on top of that disk. How long does it, say, take to, save and re-bring up that disk? And most systems, because you're not optimizing for this case, it's just, on the order of a terabyte of work because you have to Save all of that and bring it back up. In our system, we try to build a file system that incrementally builds on top of each other. So every time you save and bring the machine back up, you're only doing work that is proportional to effectively the diff in the file system. And so this, shaves off a lot of time in the boot-up process of Devin. I think we This is actually now outdated. We have a newer system inside of Devin. But yeah, there's a lot of tiny details you have to get right here to actually get the day-to-day experience of Devin to be good.Swyx [00:49:39]: It's, not technically agents, but it is agent infra, and when you sell an agent as a company, you sell agent plus agent infra.Walden [00:49:46]: At least the way we do it be And the other The nice thing about having the agent infra being done together is, you We get to deploy Devin in whatever environment we want now. We don't need to wait for some underlying infra provider to also go and support VPC or on-prem or FedGovCloud, for instance. So we can actually go and figure out, okay, since we own the infrastructure, how can we get that set up for you?Cloud Providers: Modal, Daytona, and Enterprise SandboxesSwyx [00:50:12]: Whereas you're Cloudflare dependent.Cole [00:50:15]: so Cloudflare runs the control plane. The sandboxes, Modal is supported. A contributor just added Daytona. E2B is on the roadmap, and I think there's an abstraction in place that if any contributor wants to add a new provider, they can add that in.Walden [00:50:32]: Well, what are, How are the customers you work with Do they generally try to then go set up a contract with another one of these third-party providers? Do they try to do the VMs in-house?Cole [00:50:44]: most of them I see using Modal. I think Modal has a greatWalden [00:50:48]: Shout out Modal.Swyx [00:50:48]: Shout out Modal.Cole [00:50:50]: I think Modal has a great offering. It captures all of the sandbox pieces you need, snapshots being a pretty big piece of that, and given that they also offer GPUs, I think it's a pretty nice offering as a whole.Swyx [00:51:04]: no debate there.Walden [00:51:07]: Modal is great, especially, I think their container offering is, the most natural, and so especially if you are willing to, forego, the full VM requirements Modal is, a really vast place you can spin something up on.Swyx [00:51:20]: Is there a point So Modal's very Python, and I feel like most workload, has really shifted to JavaScript. I don't know if you guys Get the same feeling. So, okay, when I started Landspace and IE and all these things, I was like 50/50 Python and JS, right? That's roughly. I think that's wrong now. I think JS has won. I don't know if you guys Like, I Maybe I'm overstating it, and maybe for cognition, there's, C# and Java and what have you. But for, new greenfield apps, do you feel that Do you get that sense? Does it matter?Cole [00:51:52]: I think that most of the libraries that I see in this space are Python native first, especially in theCole [00:51:58]: Observability space. That said, I think that there is a pretty big appeal of having your entire system in one language. Especially when you have both your frontend and backend communicating, you can have one central type Which is very nice.Swyx [00:52:11]: That's my case against Modal, which is Then you have to run JS. You can run JS inside Modal. It's just, one extra step That, isn't native to the runtime. I don't know ifWalden [00:52:22]: I don't knowSwyx [00:52:23]: Reviews. Do you have numbers? I don't know.Walden [00:52:25]: the one thing I don't like about Python is whenever AI, whenever it writes Python, it always does, the weirdest patterns, andSwyx [00:52:32]: Oh, because it's, mixing two and three or what?Walden [00:52:34]: I think it's something mixing two and three, yeah. The I don't know if you see this. It always tries to do, has attribute on objects as likeCole [00:52:41]: Oh, my God.Walden [00:52:41]: But it's like But that you shouldn't be doing that. It should error if there wasSwyx [00:52:45]: Because it's training on library code?Cole [00:52:47]: I think it's more of, likeCole [00:52:48]: From what I've seen, it's more of, a reward hacking mechanism where it doesn't want to basicallyWalden [00:52:54]: It'll never error.Cole [00:52:54]: It doesn't want the code to fail. And so it Even when it knows it has the attribute, it'll call getattr on a, and for a lot of my clients who have moved towards more autonomous coding, we've put that in as a lint rule That if you do getattr, your pull request is going to fail.Slop Signatures: Comments, Backwards Compatibility, and TypesSwyx [00:53:12]: Ooh, this is a fun topic. Can you tell me more about this? What else is a sign of AI coding that you have to put guards in?Walden [00:53:21]: So we were talking just before this about Opus 4.7. One of the things this new model likes to do is it writes lots of comments. Not like, it'll, comment every line, but it'll write, paragraph, PRDs, on top of every function. But I will say, to its credit, these aren't slop, descriptions like they were before. “Oh, here's what this function does.” It's like, “Oh, here's actually the r

This episode is part journalism, part therapy, part "girl WHAT?!" Today's guest, Melanie Marshall, is a former BBC foreign journalist turned filmmaker, speaker, and coach who has reported from some of the most intense places on earth. And somehow… despite seeing humanity at its messiest, she still believes people are mostly good.  Some of the things you'll hear: -The wildly unexpected way radicalized followers of Osama Bin Laden welcomed her into an interview shortly after his death -What actually creates human connection when people disagree on literally everything -Why she repeatedly ignored her boss's instructions, chased stories anyway, and somehow ended up with life-changing moments… and a goat -Stories that prove women across the world are a lot more alike than we think, even in radically different circumstances -The time she got smacked repeatedly with a feather duster by a man, plus the moment she relied on her single greatest survival skill to get herself out of danger Melanie tells stories the way your funniest friend would if your funniest friend also casually wandered through war zones, political unrest, and deeply human moments while carrying BBC equipment. It's equal parts hilarious, eye-opening, uncomfortable, hopeful, and "HOW IS THIS A REAL STORY?" energy. How you can use Human Connection to drive change | Melanie Marshall | TEDx LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/melanie-marshall-237a641/   Substack: https://imrama.substack.com/ Website:http://melaniemarshall.com Book Erin to speak Ready to modernize your culture, liberate your leadership, and differentiate your business without sounding like every other company on LinkedIn? Bring Erin Hatzikostas in to show your team how authenticity can become an actual strategic advantage, not just another corporate buzzword. Book Erin to Speak If you'd like quick tangible tips and practical corporate career advice to level up your authentic leadership, download the 10 simple "plays" to stop selling out and start standing out at https://bauthenticinc.mykajabi.com/freebie   If you like jammin' with us on the podcast, b sure to join us for more fun and inspiration!   - Follow Erin on LinkedIn or Instagram    - Take our simple, fun and insightful"What's your workplace superhero name?"quiz - Unleash your Authentic Superpower with Erin's book,"You Do You (ish)"  -Throw out half the playbook and start competing in a league of your own. Check out Erin's book, The 50% Rule.    -Work with Us -Or just buy some fun, authentic, kick-ars merch here To connect with Erin and/or Nicole, email: hello@bauthenticinc.com  DISCLAIMER: This episode is not explicit, though contains mild swearing that may be unsustainable for younger audiences. Tweetable Comments  "She impacted me, she impacted my friend, she impacted all of these people with her goodness and her fiery spirit. She lived." "If you think about the different stages that you get to in your career and  when you reach a new one, you realize, 'oh, they're all people'" "I am grateful that I have let myself be impacted so much by the people I have met because I feel a gift and a responsibility to let what I have learned from them go forward." "I am not the lady in a sheet. I am the boss." "The story wasn't over. It wasn't easy, but it wasn't over. And that's where I get hope."   Note: This transcript has been edited and condensed for clarity, readability, and length.  In this episode of Because Work Doesn't Have to Suck, Erin sits down with former BBC foreign journalist Melanie Marshall to talk about leadership, courage, connection, resilience, and why she still believes humanity is fundamentally good after reporting from some of the world's most dangerous places. From interviewing extremists in Pakistan to reporting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and the Philippines, Melanie shares unforgettable stories about human connection, optimism, fear, and what really helps people survive difficult moments.          Why Melanie Marshall Still Believes in Humanity     Erin: You've seen some of the worst parts of the world, yet your message is still rooted in hope and optimism. That feels almost impossible right now.     Melanie: I know optimism gets eye rolls these days. But what I've learned traveling the world is this: if you let it, the world will humble you. It'll break your heart. But it also teaches you that people are far more complicated, funny, resilient, and loving than headlines make them seem.     I've spent years in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Gaza. Even in places under terrible oppression, people still laugh. They still flirt. They still joke. They still find joy behind closed doors. Human beings don't stop being human just because circumstances become horrific.     That's where my optimism comes from. The story is hard, but it's not over.          Meeting Followers of Osama Bin Laden     Erin: Tell us about the experience you had just after Osama Bin Laden was killed.     Melanie: We went to Pakistan shortly after his death because I wanted audiences to understand something important: Bin Laden wasn't just a man. He represented a movement.     We arranged to meet with radicalized followers of his in Karachi. I was nervous. Deeply nervous. Externally, I looked calm. Internally, I was thinking, "Am I completely insane for doing this?"     As we drove up, I heard children playing. We were meeting at a school.     That immediately lowered my fear level because they had intentionally chosen a setting they knew would make us feel safer. Then we walked in and the welcoming committee was wearing USA baseball caps.     These were people whose ideology I completely rejected, but they were trying to communicate something human: "You're safe here."     That moment changed how I think about connection. Even in situations where people fundamentally disagree, humans still look for ways to create understanding.          "Be As Normal As Possible"     Melanie: One phrase I've used throughout my career is: "Be as normal as possible."     I used it walking into Taliban prisons. I used it in war zones. And honestly, it applies to corporate life too.     If you're about to walk into a terrifying meeting with a VP or ask for a raise, don't pressure yourself to be perfectly poised or fearless. It's not a normal situation.     Just be as normal as possible. A little awkwardness is fine.          The Currency Everyone Wants     Melanie: I met a young woman in Gaza who created art sculptures out of sand because that was the only material available to her.     What she wanted most wasn't pity. She wanted to be seen.     I told her her work reminded me of art I'd seen in California. That mattered to her because it acknowledged she belonged in the same conversation as artists everywhere else in the world.     Erin: I always say everyone has a currency. Usually it's much smaller and simpler than we think.     Melanie: Exactly. Most people just want acknowledgment, respect, or connection.          The Woman Who Changed Her Life     Melanie: One of the people who impacted me most was a woman named Ghada in Mosul, Iraq.     She was funny, independent, ambitious, and full of life. We instantly connected. We joked about men, talked about work, laughed constantly.     She was also exactly the kind of woman extremists hated: outspoken, educated, joyful, politically active.     At one point she escaped Mosul, but she went back because she didn't want to leave her father behind.     ISIS killed her.     What stays with me is that even while living under horrific conditions, she remained hopeful. Loving. Funny. Fully alive.     That changed me forever.          Why Connection Matters More Than Status     Melanie: I've interviewed celebrities, billionaires, world leaders, and people no one has ever heard of.     The people who changed me most were usually the latter.     Connection matters more than status. Once you really sit down with someone, the hierarchy starts disappearing. They're just people.     And I think we forget that constantly.          The Feather Duster Incident     Melanie: I once visited an extremely conservative shrine near the Iranian border where modesty rules were intensely enforced.     I was trying to manage my reporting team while also wearing a chador that kept slipping off my head. Every time even the tiniest strand of hair showed, a man would smack me with a feather duster.     Eventually I was furious. Absolutely furious.     And then a group of women saw what was happening.     They didn't confront the man directly. Instead, they surrounded me, fixed my chador, sat me down, and pulled out snacks.     That moment stuck with me forever.     Women see each other. They protect each other. Sometimes survival looks like forming a circle around someone and handing them food.          Bravery Isn't What People Think     Erin: People constantly describe you as brave.     Melanie: I honestly don't think I'm brave. I think I'm good at functioning during chaos.     There's a difference.     I've run from airstrikes in Ukraine. I've dropped to the ground while bullets flew overhead in Libya. I assure you: I was not standing there heroically.     Most people aren't fearless. They simply have a purpose bigger than their fear.     Families survive war zones because protecting their children matters more than panic. I kept reporting because I believed it mattered to connect people with the truth of what was happening.     Purpose propels you forward.          The Story Wasn't Over     Melanie: After covering devastating typhoon damage in the Philippines, I left feeling overwhelmed with guilt because I could leave and everyone else had to stay behind.     Years later, I stayed in touch with the local drivers and families we worked with there. I watched their children graduate school. I watched them rebuild their lives.     That experience taught me something important: the story wasn't over just because I left during the worst part.     We do this in our own lives too. We assume difficult moments are final chapters when they're often just hard middle sections.          Bucking the Norm in Afghanistan     Melanie: I once fought hard to report from one of the most remote regions of Afghanistan because I wanted to document what childbirth looked like in the most dangerous place in the world to give birth.     My bosses kept trying to convince us not to go.     We went anyway.     The journey was brutal. Multiple flat tires. Dangerous mountain roads. A clinic fire in the middle of the night. At one point villagers handed my bra around after rescuing our belongings from the fire, which became an entire cultural misunderstanding on its own.     Eventually, a woman arrived at the clinic to give birth. Her baby died, but she survived, and she was relieved simply to have lived.     That story changed how people understood maternal healthcare in Afghanistan because we insisted on going all the way to where the story actually lived.     Sometimes bucking the norm simply means refusing to stop halfway.          Final Thoughts on Hope     Melanie: The world can be heartbreaking. Truly heartbreaking.     But everywhere I've gone, I've also found humor, generosity, resilience, love, and connection.     That's why I still believe in people.     The story is difficult. But it isn't finished yet.

What would you say makes something satisfying for you? How do you recognise that you're satisfied? It's not always easy to answer those questions. It's something I've explored a lot over the past few years, both personally and in conversations with others who feel caught in a tug-of-war between doing what they feel they ought to do and what actually brings them an intrinsic sense of satisfaction. If you're trying to make creativity part of your life in some way, it can be difficult to balance sustainability and intrinsic satisfaction. We may hand it over to external measures and signals, such as numbers, praise, and money. Because they're easier to measure, we often associate satisfaction with outcomes and goals. But if our actions are only motivated by those kinds of extrinsic metrics, especially when they're personally pretty meaningless, we can end up feeling disconnected from what we're doing. One of the things I've really enjoyed in my work with people is helping peel back the layers of story that can build up like a fog and identifying their own unique signals of satisfaction shining through it. When we recognise these things, we can develop greater confidence in our creative voice and follow a more meaningful pathway through our projects and lives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6uaYjKFVKU Satisfaction in the process What brings you satisfaction in the process? What brings you glimmers of connection along the way? When you've enjoyed the journey towards an outcome in the past, what made it meaningful for you? Maybe it was working alongside other people and feeling a sense of camaraderie. Perhaps it was figuring things out, solving problems, or seeing things come together that you couldn't have foreseen before you started. Satisfaction with the response What brings you satisfaction in the response? What kinds of responses give you a sense that your effort was worthwhile? Maybe it's when you realise someone gets it. Perhaps it's feeling seen and appreciated for the care you've put into something. Maybe it's when people tell others about it, or it might be receiving some form of reward or recognition. I always remember someone coming up to me after I played a gig to an almost empty room, saying they had almost decided not to come, but were really glad they did. They said, “There's nowhere else in the world I would rather have been this evening.” That stuck with me. Of course, it's nice to play to bigger crowds. But moments like that changed how I think about satisfaction. Some of my favourite memories come from small shows that might look like failures on paper but felt deeply meaningful once I moved beyond judging everything by numbers and vanity metrics. Satisfaction with the impact What brings you satisfaction in the impact? When you see something you've done making ripples in the world around you, what gives you a sense of satisfaction? Maybe it's seeing people follow your example and pay something forward. Perhaps it's seeing someone change in some way because of your effort. Or maybe it's simply knowing that your work brings more curiosity, laughter, appreciation, understanding, or joy into the world. I find it deeply meaningful when I hear from people about how my music has helped them. Knowing that a song has helped someone through a challenging time in their life feels very satisfying. It can’t be forced, though. Part of that satisfaction comes from the surprise of receiving messages from people, which is why I choose to keep the doorways for communication open. Satisfaction with the result When the endeavour is complete, what gives you that feeling of satisfaction? Maybe it's the money. Perhaps it's holding the finished thing in your hand. Maybe it's seeing it out there in the world. Or finally being able to let go and move on. Knowing it's done, it's complete, it exists. How do you know when you're satisfied? What does it feel like in your body? Between The External and Internal Locus of Evaluation The psychologist Carl Rogers drew a distinction between an external locus of evaluation and an internal locus of evaluation. An external locus might mean waiting for applause, approval, or recognition before allowing yourself to feel satisfied. An internal locus is more about trusting your own felt sense of meaning and alignment, even if nobody else fully gets or appreciates it. When we rely exclusively on external evaluation, we can become trapped in the tug-of-war between what we genuinely connect with and what others validate. We end up waiting for permission to feel satisfied. We might also avoid speaking up about things people don’t want to hear, and shrink back from doing things we anticipate will be criticised, even when they are important to our deeper values and principles. An internal locus helps us stay connected to satisfaction on our own terms. It reminds us that even if the ideal response never comes, there may still be good reasons to feel deeply satisfied with what we've done. Internally oriented satisfaction taps into the felt sense that we've done the right thing, even if others disagree. At the start of a project or endeavour, it can help to ask: Why does this matter to me, regardless of how others respond to it? Much of this can't be forced or manipulated. But it helps to become more aware of the small, slow things that give us intrinsic satisfaction, because it then becomes much easier to recognise them when they appear. It also helps us filter opportunities and invitations. We begin to recognise whether something genuinely aligns with what we find satisfying, or whether it's mostly a vanity metric or a hollow signifier of success. And from there, we can start making more informed decisions about what's actually worth saying yes to. Does any of this feel alive for you right now? Drop me a message of book a Pick The Lock call if you would find it useful to explore with someone else.

4. HEADLINE: International Scandals and Israel-Ukraine Tensions GUEST: Jonathan Schanzer SUMMARY:Reports suggest Qatar influenced ICC prosecutor Karim Khan to target Israeli leaders while helping suppress misconduct allegations against him. Simultaneously, Ukraine accuses Israel of purchasing stolen grain from occupied territories. Internally, Israeli politics are shifting as Yair Lapid and Naftali Bennett unite to challenge Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's leadership.1900

SCHEDULE OF THE JOHN BATCHELOR SHOW, 4-28-26.1900 BOSPHORUS1. HEADLINE: Kevin Warsh's Nomination to the Federal Reserve GUEST: Elizabeth Peek SUMMARY: Elizabeth Peek discusses Kevin Warsh's nomination as Federal Reserve Chair, characterizing him as an inflation hawk who intends to revamp the Fed's communication and narrow its mandate. Warsh aims to shrink the $7 trillion balance sheet and divorce the institution from political influence to ensure long-term monetary stability.2. HEADLINE: New York City's E-bike Enforcement Controversy GUEST: Elizabeth Peek SUMMARY: Elizabeth Peek criticizes NYC's decision to replace criminal summonses with civil penalties for e-bike violations. She argues this "virtue signaling" protects undocumented immigrants from deportation at the expense of pedestrian safety. Unregistered, fast-moving bikes frequently ignore traffic rules, and civil penalties are difficult to enforce against those without fixed abodes.3. HEADLINE: The UAE's Strategic Exit from the OPEC Cartel GUEST: Jonathan Schanzer SUMMARY:Jonathan Schanzer explains that the UAE is leaving OPEC to increase oil production, signaling a major rift with Saudi Arabia. This move aims to aid global prices and support Donald Trump's economic agenda. Meanwhile, Iran attempts to link the Straits of Hormuz crisis with Israeli-Lebanese ceasefire negotiations to complicate diplomacy.4. HEADLINE: International Scandals and Israel-Ukraine Tensions GUEST: Jonathan Schanzer SUMMARY:Reports suggest Qatar influenced ICC prosecutor Karim Khan to target Israeli leaders while helping suppress misconduct allegations against him. Simultaneously, Ukraine accuses Israel of purchasing stolen grain from occupied territories. Internally, Israeli politics are shifting as Yair Lapid and Naftali Bennett unite to challenge Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's leadership.5. HEADLINE: The Global Impact of the Iranian Energy Conflict GUEST: Mary Kissel SUMMARY: Mary Kisselhighlights a fertilizer crisis caused by the war in Iran, which threatens global food security, particularly in Africa. She views the UAE's OPEC exit as part of a fundamental regional reshaping. Kissel asserts that the U.S. must maintain the political will to secure waterways and address Iran's nuclear program.6. HEADLINE: Navigating the Rodriguez Transition in Venezuela GUEST: Mary Kissel SUMMARY: Delcy Rodriguez, Venezuela's provisional president, is traveling to project stability and attract energy investment. While she aims to present herself as a cooperative figurehead, her future depends on U.S. demands for democracy. Opposition leader Maria Corina Machado continues to draw massive support and plans to return to Venezuela by year's end.7. HEADLINE: German Economic Stagnation and Strategic Critiques GUEST: Judy Dempsey SUMMARY:Friedrich Merz describes Germany as "humiliated" by Iran due to a lack of clear U.S. strategy. Germany faces its fourth year of stagnant growth and a severe demographic crunch with record-low births. While Merz remains an Atlanticist, he critiques the Trump administration's transactional approach and lack of a strategic exit plan.8. HEADLINE: The Decline of Viktor Orbán and Hungary's Pivot GUEST: Judy Dempsey SUMMARY:Hungary's business elite are moving away from Viktor Orbán as Peter Magyar gains popularity by campaigning against systemic corruption. Magyar focuses on delivering tangible public services like healthcare and infrastructure. Orbán's defeat represents a significant blow to Europe's far-right, including Germany's AfD party.9. HEADLINE: Keir Starmer's Leadership Amidst the Mandelson Scandal GUEST: Joseph SternbergSUMMARY: Joseph Sternberg examines UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer's instability following the Mandelsonaffair, a bureaucratic scandal involving improper diplomatic nominations. Despite being under pressure, Starmer likely remains in office because the Labor Party lacks a plausible replacement. The scandal's complexity makes it difficult for ordinary voters to comprehend fully.10. HEADLINE: Kevin Warsh's Vision for a Smaller Federal Reserve GUEST: Joseph Sternberg SUMMARY:Joseph Sternberg describes Kevin Warsh as a policymaker who believes the Fed should "stick to its knitting" by focusing strictly on price stability. Warsh intends to shrink the Fed's balance sheet to reduce its political intrusiveness and scale back "forward guidance". This approach aims to defend the central bank's long-term independence.11. HEADLINE: Historical Precedents for Modern Maritime Chokepoints GUEST: Ziyuan (Emily) WangSUMMARY: Emily Wang explains how the 1936 Montreux Convention established Turkey as a durable gatekeeper for the Turkish Straits, offering lessons for modern conflicts. The treaty balanced the shared tacit interests of opposing powers like Britain and Russia. Its success highlights the importance of legally binding frameworks in managing strategic waterways.12. HEADLINE: Managing Risks in Global Maritime Chokepoints GUEST: Ziyuan (Emily) Wang SUMMARY:Emily Wang analyzes the current threats in the Straits of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb, noting that risk perception and insurance markets are as vital as physical security. She argues that long-term stability requires quantifying tacit interests and maintaining a strong navy to ensure credible gunboat diplomacy against revisionist powers.13. HEADLINE: Pakistan's Emerging Role as a Neutral Diplomatic Site GUEST: Sadanand Dhume SUMMARY:Sadanand Dhume discusses Pakistan's surprising role as a mediator between the U.S. and Iran, facilitated by its unique geography and ties to China. Field Marshal Asim Munir leads this effort. A successful resolution could weaken the pernicious ideology of Islamism, reverberating positively throughout the broader Muslim world.14. HEADLINE: Ideological Barriers in Pakistan's Foreign Policy GUEST: Sadanand Dhume SUMMARY:Sadanand Dhume explores Pakistan's deep-rooted hostility toward Israel, which persists despite regional shifts toward normalization. While India views Pakistan's mediation role with envy, Pakistan's military leadership, under Field Marshal Munir, maintains power behind a civilian facade to insulate itself from economic discontent and governance pressures.15. HEADLINE: Al-Qaeda's Massive Military Offensive in Mali GUEST: Caleb Weiss and Bill RoggioSUMMARY: Caleb Weiss and Bill Roggio report on an unprecedented offensive by JNIM, al-Qaeda's West Africanbranch, which has blockaded Mali's capital and seized key military bases. The Malian state and Russian forces are in retreat, leaving behind significant equipment. This operation signals a major failure in intelligence and coordination.16. HEADLINE: The Blueprint for Al-Qaeda's Transnational Expansion GUEST: Caleb Weiss and Bill RoggioSUMMARY: This offensive serves as a blueprint for al-Qaeda to target other Sahalian states like Burkina Faso and Niger. Alarmingly, Ukrainian-supplied drones used by Tuareg rebels have inadvertently aided al-Qaeda's efforts. Bill Roggio emphasizes that al-Qaeda and the Islamic State continue to fight for global dominance across multiple continents.

I had the honor of speaking with Maaike Knoester for an interview on the 5 Star Assistant Podcast to discuss my 20-year career as an Executive Assistant, my book The Leader Assistant, and the journey of producing over 360 episodes of my own podcast.In this conversation we talk about challenging misconceptions about our profession. The greatest misunderstanding is that EAs are merely "one-trick ponies" focused on scheduling and expenses. In reality, we are strategic partners who see the whole picture for our executives. Internally, the biggest barrier I see is a lack of confidence, often stemming from attaching personal worth to job performance.To combat burnout and build a sustainable career, I emphasize two core principles:Detach your worth from your work. Your value as a person is separate from your job performance.Set clear boundaries. I made it a point with my current executive to log off on the weekends because you cannot truly help others long-term if you don't take care of yourself.Finally, when it comes to being busy, I see "multitasking" not as doing two things at once, but as the critical skill of prioritizing and context switching effectively between diverse responsibilities.Thank you, Maaike, for the opportunity to be on your show, and for asking such great questions!Show notes -> leaderassistant.com/373--It's the last day of the offsite and it was exactly what the team needed. The CEO pulls you aside to say, “Thank you. This was next level.”Your secret? You used Offsite. They handled the venues, negotiations, and logistics – so you could focus on shaping the experience.Sound too good to be true? It's actually within reach. (And it can even save you money.)See how at leaderassistant.com/offsite. --Are you ready to level up? Enroll in The Leader Assistant Academy at leaderassistant.com/academy to embrace the Leader Assistant frameworks used by thousands of assistants.More from The Leader Assistant...Book, Audiobook, and Workbook -> leaderassistantbook.comThe Leader Assistant Academy -> leaderassistantbook.com/academy Premium Membership -> leaderassistant.com/membershipEvents -> leaderassistantlive.comFree Community -> leaderassistant.com/community

STREAMING MAKING OF THE JOHN BATCHELOR SHOW, FEATURING BILL ROGGIO AND JANATYN SAYEH, 4-20-26.  1688 PERSIA GULFThe Levant and Eurasia are currently gripped by what analysts describe as the "fog of peace," a state where a ceasefire is technically in place but characterized by profound distrust and a lack of transparency. While the conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran originally centered on Iran's nuclear weapons program, the focus has shifted toward an intractable struggle over the Strait of Hormuz.The Strait has become a primary flashpoint of "open/closed" chaos, likened to a "Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd" hunting season metaphor. The US has established a naval blockade, recently using a destroyer's main gun to disable the engine room of an Iranian cargo ship that attempted to run the blockade. Iran counters this by creating confusion, such as firing on an Indian tanker that reportedly had clearance from the IRGC to pass, a tactic designed to make international shipping reconsider the route entirely.Diplomatically, the situation is stalled. Planned talks in Islamabad between US representatives and the Islamic Republicare not moving forward. This deadlock is exacerbated by a structural shift in Iranian leadership. Following the assassination of the Supreme Leader and other top officials, decision-making has fallen to a five-man council of dedicated revolutionaries. These individuals, often categorized as "hardliners" rather than "pragmatists," view compromise under pressure as a sign of weakness and are wary of suffering the same fate as Muammar Gaddafi. This new leadership is believed to be radical and intractable, with many members rising from the younger, hardcore ranks of the regime.Internally, the regime is employing brutal measures to maintain control. There are chilling reports that Iran has developed aerosol fentanyl — a chemical weapon capable of killing large populations — and may have experimentally used it against domestic protesters as early as 2022. The regime's fear of internal unrest is further evidenced by the deployment of checkpoints staffed by non-Iranian proxies to suppress a population demoralized by economic exasperation and a perceived lack of external backing. Precursors for these chemical experiments are reportedly provided by China.The geopolitical timeline appears to favor Tehran. Iranian leaders believe they can "run out the clock" on the Trumpadministration. The US faces significant domestic constraints, including low presidential poll numbers and the impending 2026 midterm elections, which could return the House of Representatives to Democratic control and trigger a return to the "age of impeachment." Additionally, Russia and China have strategic incentives to keep the Islamic Republic afloat, viewing the conflict as a test of whether their partner can withstand prolonged US and Israeli military pressure. Consequently, the "fog of peace" remains thick, with both sides acting on distrust rather than a genuine path toward a treaty.

Internal Unrest and Chemical WMD Threats: Iran is attempting to incorporate its proxies into diplomatic deals with Washington. Internally, the regime faces unrest in Baluch majority areas and economic grievances. There are alarming reports that the regime has developed aerosolized fentanyl, a chemical weapon intended to suppress domestic protesters with lethal force. Jonathan Sayeh (4)1621

SCHEDULE THE JOHN BATCHELOR SHOW, 4-20-26.1689 ARABIAN PENINSULAThe Fog of Peace and the Strait of Hormuz: The US and Iran are currently in a "fog of peace," where a ceasefire is complicated by a US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Tensions escalated after the US seized an Iranian cargo ship attempting to run the blockade. Negotiations in Islamabad face a massive diplomatic chasm regarding nuclear and missile programs. Bill Roggio (1)The Persistence of Iranian Proxies: Iran has not "turned off" proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas, despite ongoing ceasefire talks. Bill Roggio argues that assassinating leaders is ineffective, as Hezbollah maintains significant power and a plurality in the Lebanese parliament. These groups continue to operate independently to provoke Israel and the surrounding neighborhood. Bill Roggio (2)Navigating Iran's Fractured Leadership: Iran's leadership is currently a faceless structure of five major figures, following the supreme leader's absence. This complicates diplomacy because no single person has decisive say. The regime remains paranoid about appearing weak and is unlikely to make concessions on its nuclear or ballistic missile programs. Jonathan Sayeh (3)Internal Unrest and Chemical WMD Threats: Iran is attempting to incorporate its proxies into diplomatic deals with Washington. Internally, the regime faces unrest in Baluch majority areas and economic grievances. There are alarming reports that the regime has developed aerosolized fentanyl, a chemical weapon intended to suppress domestic protesters with lethal force. Jonathan Sayeh (4)Memorial Day and Iran's Economic Ruin: Israel observes Memorial Day for 27,000 fallen soldiers amid a seven-sided war. In Iran, the economy is collapsing as the IRGC takes control. Despite heavy bombing, the IRGC has reportedly reawakened its missile arsenal to 70% capacity, utilizing underground storage to protect launchers from past Israeli and US strikes. Malcolm Hoenlein (5)Global Terror Cells and the Isaac Accords: Iranian-backed terror cells were discovered in Azerbaijan, the UAE, and Europe targeting synagogues and government facilities. Meanwhile, the "Isaac Accords" between Israel and Argentina, led by Javier Milei, seek to deepen ties in Latin America. Additionally, Turkey is proposing new rail links to bypass strategic maritime choke points. Malcolm Hoenlein (6)The Anti-American Shift in South Korea: South Korea's administration is described as an illegitimate, pro-North Korean regime. President Lee Jae-myung has allegedly bribed North Korea and moved to disarm South Koreansoldiers. Experts suggest the US should utilize UN Central Command to restore legitimate leadership and prevent the alliance from further deteriorating. Morse Tan (7)Defense Partnerships in Southeast Asia: The US and Indonesia have formed a major defense partnership, providing a critical counterweight to Chinese influence. Indonesia is seeking private capital for high-tech and extractive projects. Security remains a concern as Chinese drones have been found in Indonesian waters and fishing fleets frequently violate maritime boundaries. Charles Ortell (8)Toughening the Non-Proliferation Treaty: Henry Sokolski argues the NPT needs updating to deny states the "right" to make nuclear fuel. He highlights that the Bushehr reactor contains spent fuel rods capable of producing 200 plutonium bombs. He recommends that Saudi Arabia or other Gulf states pay to return this dangerous material to Russia. Henry Sokolski (9)Weaponizing Space and the Golden Dome: The IRGC used a commercial satellite to target US bases, resulting in an attack in Kuwait. The Pentagon is struggling with jamming and shutter control issues regarding commercial systems like Starlink. Oversight is requested for the "Golden Dome" defense program due to its high costs and limited information sharing. Henry Sokolski (10)Election Fraud and Global Progressivism: Peru faces a crisis over alleged electoral fraud following irregularities in the presidential count. In Barcelona, a "Global Progressivism" meeting led by Pedro Sanchez gathered leftist leaders to counter the "global right." Critics argue these leftist movements are increasingly intertwined with organized crime and drug trafficking. Alejandro Peña Esclusa and Ernesto Araújo (11)The Rise of Flavio Bolsonaro and Venezuela's Fate: Flavio Bolsonaro is leading polls in Brazil, representing a hope for clean governance against Lula's corruption-prone administration. Meanwhile, the Venezuelan regime has halted compliance with political reforms, making it dangerous for Maria Corina Machado to return. Brazil remains the "big one" for the region's political balance. Alejandro Peña Esclusa and Ernesto Araújo (12)The Restrictive Ceasefire in Lebanon: A new ceasefire in Lebanon is highly restrictive, limiting Israeli self-defense to "imminent" or "ongoing" attacks. President Trump reportedly strong-armed Israel into this stand-down to facilitate maritime negotiations with Iran. Consequently, Hezbollah is expected to use this period to regenerate its forces and rebuild its infrastructure. David Daoud (13)Hezbollah's Victory Narrative and Bint Jbeil: Hezbollah continues to attack Israeli convoys and refuses to surrender its arsenal, claiming the ceasefire as a victory. The town of Bint Jbeil remains a critical symbolic and military prize for the group. The Lebanese government shows no determination to disarm Hezbollah or enforce sovereignty in the southern region. David Daoud (14)The Blockade of the Strait of Hormuz: The Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed as a standoff persists between the US blockade and Iranian vessels. While Iran has the patience for a long conflict, the US is pressured by midterm elections and oil prices. Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia, are increasingly hawkish, urging the US to finish the job. Edmund Fitton Brown (15)Iran's Agile Diplomacy and the Five Files: Iran is "moving the goalposts" by linking the Lebanon ceasefire to maritime negotiations. Success requires progress on five files: the Strait, nuclear program, ballistic missiles, proxies, and human rights. Some Gulf autocracies may prefer a weakened Iran over a successful democratic regime change that could threaten their own prestige. Edmund Fitton Brown (16)

3. Guest: Jeremy Zakis. Jeremy Zakisanalyzes recent developments in cricket, starting with English player Ollie Pope'spublic defense of his team's "internally devastated" reaction to their Ashes loss. More significantly, Zakis reports on a critical global shortage of cricket ballslinked to geopolitical instability in the Middle East. Because the essential tanning and hardening process is centralized there, supply chains from Asia have been disrupted,. This has forced English teams to ration balls, receiving only 50% of their usual quota. Zakis warns that this crisis could eventually impact the Australian season, highlighting modern manufacturing vulnerabilities,. (3)