Podcasts about internally

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! 

- Tough loss to The Storm - How Josh Hannay is going? - Internally things are going well - Starting to set up next season - Where do they need to improve? - Facing the Sea Eagles and former Titan Kieran Foran this Sunday Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

"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.

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

If you're a high achiever in a prestigious job that is making you feel burnt out, disillusioned, or disconnected…But you can't walk away because you don't know what you'd do next…You're probably making one of these 5 career mistakes. And it's making you feel stuck where you are and confused about your next step.This week's podcast episode is all about Mistake #4: Not finding the “handshake” between your superpowers and a high-value problem.Overcoming Mistakes #1-3 got you: ✅ Clear about what you want✅ In touch with your unique superpowers✅ Able to find flow and fulfillment every day at work, not just at the big milestonesThese things make your career INTERNALLY fulfilling.Overcoming Mistake #4 makes sure your next step can: ✅ Support your lifestyle✅ Achieve your financial goals✅ Give you economic stabilityThis makes your career EXTERNALLY successful.Building the career you actually want is all about marrying your deepest, most wishful aspirations with the unrelenting rigors of practical reality – without trading off on either.This podcast series gives you a great start.But what gets you over the finish line is rigorous thought partnership. You need to be meeting regularly with an expert who can:✅ Deep dive into YOUR specific career✅ Apply the exact tools and frameworks best suited to your situation✅ Bring thousands of hours of pattern recognition to cut through the noise and tell you the answerIf you're ready to get clear and confident about your next career step, book a Free Career Audit, and let's build the plan for making your next step a smashing success: https://poojavcoaching.com/contact And email me anytime with thoughts, feedback, and topics you'd like to see covered on the podcast! ⁠⁠pooja@poojavcoaching.com⁠⁠

In addition to facing the Medicare home health and hospice moratorium, New York home care providers have been grappling with the federal government's scrutiny of its Medicaid personal care program. The state defended the program appropriately, including pointing out that some of its data was off the mark, noted Al Cardillo, president and CEO of the Home Care Association of New York State. It's important not to paint the whole program with a broad brush of fraud and abuse when it might be an administrative problem, he pointed out. New York's Medicaid personal care program has a lot of anti-fraud protections, and the state actually rolled out Electronic Visit Verification before the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services took it to a national scale, commented Mordechai Wolhendler, founder and CEO of GlattHealth. One of the reasons the Medicaid personal care program has attracted so much national attention is it consumes most of the nation's Medicaid personal care dollars, Cardillo said. And now most of the program is the Consumer-Directed Personal Care Program (CDPAP), which allows the consumer to choose their caregiver who can be a family member. Internally, CDPAP has been dealing with a major transformation, moving more than 600 fiscal intermediaries to one. The lesson from this fraught experience is that stakeholders and the state are in it together, Wolhendler said. Follow us on social media: X: @McKHomeCare Facebook: McKnight's Home Care LinkedIn: McKnight's Home Care Instagram: mcknights_homecare Follow Home Care Association of New York on social media: X: @HCANYS Facebook: Home Care Association of New York State LinkedIn: HCANYS - Home Care Association of New York State Instagram: hcanys Follow GlattHealth on social media: LinkedIn: GlattHealth Consulting Group Show contributors:McKnight's Home Care Editor Liza Berger; Al Cardillo, president and CEO of the Home Care Association of New York State; and Mordechai Wolhendler, founder and CEO of GlattHealth, a New York-based consulting group     Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Take the 2026 AI Engineering Survey and get >$2k in credits and AIE WF tickets!This was recorded before Railway suffered a major GCP outage on May 19, despite being a multi-AZ, multi-zone mesh ring, with HA fiber interconnects between their Metal GCP AWS, because workload discoverability was unintentionally still tied to GCP. All has been resolved with a post-mortem.Railway did not start as an AI infrastructure company.It was founded in 2020 years before agents became the default way people thought about deploying software. Jake Cooper, formerly at Bloomberg and Uber, started Railway with a simple obsession: the activation energy to ship something to production should be near zero. Push code, get a URL, iterate. No Docker files, no Kubernetes manifests, no Ansible scripts stacked on Ansible scripts.For years, this was a slow grind. Railway spent its first 18 months hand-acquiring its first 100 users with Jake personally greeting every Discord signup on a second monitor.Today, Railway has raised $124m and is growing very fast. A 35-person team supports 3 million users, adding roughly 100,000 signups a week. Their bare metal data centers have a 3-month payback period vs. renting in the cloud, with 70% margins funding aggressive cloud bursting when needed. The servers they own have actually appreciated in value as RAM prices have climbed basically meaning the value of their hardware now exceeds the capital they've raised.From rebuilding Railway's network overlay over a weekend to moving the vast majority of workloads onto its own bare metal data centers, Jake Cooper is trying to build a new cloud for an agent-native world. In this episode, Railway's founder and “conductor” joins swyx and Alessio to unpack why the next era of software infrastructure is not just “Heroku but newer,” what agents need that humans did not, and why the old deployment loop of Git, PRs, CI/CD, and static cloud resources may be heading for a rewrite.We go deep on Railway's infrastructure stack: own-metal data centers, three-month cloud payback periods, cloud bursting, data center debt, Railpack, Nixpacks, Temporal, feature flags, Central Station, content-addressable filesystems, agent-safe production forks, and why the CLI may become more important than the canvas in an agent world. Jake also shares the founder journey behind Railway, how the company survived losing $500K/month, why it now serves millions of users with only 35 people, and why he believes the pull request is dying.We discuss:* How Railway went from a slow six-year grind to adding 100,000 users a week* How Railway thinks about agents as the next dominant software species* Why agents need version control, observability, compute, storage, and orchestration at 1000x scale* The economics of Railway's own-metal data centers and three-month payback* How Railway uses cloud bursting while scaling its own infrastructure* Why data center debt can be a better tool than venture debt for infra startups* Central Station, Railway's internal system for clustering customer feedback and incidents* Why responsible disclosure and over-communication matter for platforms* Why feature flags, progressive rollouts, and shadow traffic are essential for agents* Temporal's strengths, pain points, and why workflows matter for agents* Railpack, Nixpacks, Nix, and lazy-loaded content-addressable filesystems* Why “cattle, not pets” may change if you can clone the pets* Why Railway is building a new cloud from scratch instead of copying hyperscalers* The solo founder path, focus, writing, and how Jake thinks about company buildingRailway:* Website: https://railway.com/* X: https://x.com/RailwayJake Cooper:* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/thejakecooper/* X: https://x.com/JustJakeTimestamps00:00:00 Introduction: What Is Railway?00:02:07 Jake's Path to Railway00:06:13 Railway's Six-Year Growth Story00:08:52 Rebuilding the Business After the Free Tier00:11:17 Agents as the Next Software Platform00:13:29 Railway's Infrastructure Philosophy00:15:42 Bare Metal, Cloud Economics, and the Compute Crunch00:17:22 Cloud Bursting and Five-Cloud Networking00:20:20 Data Center Debt and Infra Financing00:23:31 Data Centers in Space00:25:24 What Agents Need From Infrastructure00:28:24 CLIs, Canvas, and Agent-Native UX00:35:15 Central Station, Incidents, and Responsible Disclosure00:40:30 Safe Rollouts, SRE Agents, and Production Forks00:45:00 AI SRE, Specs, Code, and Tests00:48:24 Self-Replicating Infrastructure and the New Serverless00:53:18 Heroku, Temporal, and Workflow Engines01:04:07 Railpack, Nixpacks, and Lazy-Loaded Filesystems01:06:01 Coding Agents, Token Spend, and Roadmap Acceleration01:10:56 The Pull Request Is Dying01:12:28 Feature Flags and the Agent-Era SDLC01:16:15 Cattle, Pets, and Cloning Machines01:19:29 Solo Founder Lessons01:24:12 Focus, GPUs, and Building a New Cloud01:28:20 Closing ThoughtsTranscriptAlessio [00:00:00]: Hey, everyone. Welcome to the Latent Space Podcast. This is Alessio, founder of Kernel Labs, and I'm joined by Swyx, editor of Latent Space.Swyx [00:00:10]: Hey, hey, hey. Today we're in the studio with Jake Cooper of Railway.Alessio [00:00:14]: Conductor of Railway.Swyx [00:00:15]: Conductor at Railway. Yeah.Alessio [00:00:16]: Choo-choo.Swyx [00:00:17]: Do you actually have that anywhere, like on your business card?Jake [00:00:20]: We call some of our volunteer moderators conductors. I don't have a business card. We're not that big yet. At some point I will. I got handed a nice business card from the Supermicro folks, and I was like, “Damn, this is pretty official.”Swyx [00:00:30]: Business cards are coming back.Jake [00:00:32]: They're cool. They're hip. The conductor thing is good. We're trying to figure out what we want to call each other internally. Some people think it's super cringe and say, “You don't need a name for people internally.” Some people want to call each other something. We still don't have a really good one.Jake [00:00:55]: We've got New Railcrews, Trainiacs. Nothing has stuck yet.Swyx [00:01:00]: I like Trainiac. Trainiac sounds good. Railwayians. For those who don't know, what is Railway? Let's give people a crisp definition up front.Jake [00:01:09]: Railway is the easiest way to ship anything. You go to the canvas, or you talk with Claude, and you say, “Deploy a Postgres instance, deploy my GitHub repository, run this code,” and you're off to the races.Swyx [00:01:22]: You've got a nice animation on the landing page.Jake [00:01:24]: Thank you. None of my work, by the way. They don't let me touch the design stuff anymore.Jake [00:01:25]: We want to make it trivially easy not just to deploy things, but to evolve applications over time. Most tooling right now stacks entropy on top of entropy: Docker, Kubernetes, Ansible scripts, and all these other things. If we can version all of your software and keep track of all the changes, then we can make it trivial to clone environments, fork into a parallel universe, get copies of production data, get copies of any services, make changes, validate them, and collapse them back in without reproducing everything across a staging environment.The Railway Origin Story: From Uber Systems to a New CloudSwyx [00:02:07]: I was looking at your background: Bloomberg, Uber. Nothing immediately stands out as, “This guy is going to found the next great platform as a service.” What prepared you for Railway?Jake [00:02:21]: It was curiosity to keep going deeper. I started out on front-end stuff, working on Wolfram Mathematica and porting it over. Then I briefly moved to Bloomberg, then toward Uber and distributed systems, taking the Jump Bikes systems and moving them to a distributed system built on top of Cadence, the pre-Temporal Temporal.Swyx [00:02:44]: Which, by the way, I'm happy to talk about, pros and cons.Jake [00:02:48]: Totally.Swyx [00:02:51]: But let's do the Railway story.Jake [00:02:52]: It has been a continual step of wanting an experience. Whether it's walking up to a bike, unlocking it, and having it work frictionlessly, or something else, the depth required to make that happen follows from the experience. A lot of the work I do, and a lot of the team does, is in service of that experience. We fundamentally don't care how deep we have to go. We will swim to the bottom of the swimming pool to get the experience.Jake [00:03:17]: I don't have a physics PhD. I did an EECS degree. It has always been about figuring out the next step: how do we get there? That's what led to starting Railway for that experience and then moving all the way to bare metal data centers. I was adding patches to the kernel this week to get the experience there because I can see how much better it can be.Swyx [00:03:49]: Other patches to the Linux kernel this week?Jake [00:03:51]: Yeah. Not upstream. Our fork.Swyx [00:03:52]: That's a flex. Railpack? No, this is different. This is the OS on top of Railpack?Jake [00:03:57]: No, this is an actual kernel patch. It's always literally: what do we have to do to get that experience? Then figure it out. Anything is figureoutable.Swyx [00:04:10]: Would you send the patch upstream, or does it not fit other use cases?Jake [00:04:13]: Maybe. We have to work out the experience internally. It has to do with the storage layer we're building for some of the agentic stuff. Maybe it'll be useful upstream, but it's deeply useful for us internally.Open Source, Forks, and Non-Deterministic VersioningSwyx [00:04:29]: You mentioned open source before. How do you think about starting from open source, and then coding agents letting you do a lot more from forks of it?Jake [00:04:38]: GitHub's original sin is that it's almost a series of broken pointers. You have this thing, then you clone it, and now you've lost the whole upstream. How do we make it trivial for people to modify really small pieces of it?Jake [00:04:51]: We think of Git in a discrete sense: I've either made a change and merged upstream, or I haven't. What would it look like if it were percentage-based, a little more non-deterministic, or a stream of changes that users traverse as a percentage rolled out in general and then rolled all the way up?Jake [00:05:13]: We have the open-source kickback program and let you deploy templates because we want to make it trivial for people to version these shards over time. It solves a large problem around authentication, authorization, and security. NPM has a way to define, “Don't take any new packages.” The ideal end state is that you roll out progressively to users with the minimum impact zone and continue rolling up. JPMorgan should probably be the last one on the patch line, for all our sakes, because our money and livelihoods are there.Jake [00:05:53]: It's okay if Johnny Vibe Coder gets a broken patch because there's so much entropy in the system that the rubber has to meet the road at some point. You have to test at varying levels.The Long Grind: First Users, Free Tier, and Making the Business WorkSwyx [00:06:13]: I wanted to pull up this glorious chart, which is your usage or number of daily signups?Jake [00:06:22]: Daily signups, I think.Swyx [00:06:24]: You started six years ago. It was a slow grind, and now you're on a rocket ship. You say, “Don't doubt your fight and don't quit.” Maybe pick out certain points that were key inflections for the company.Jake [00:06:40]: At the start, it's about getting your first 100 users, hell or high water. We had a website and a support link. The support link was the Discord channel. I had notifications on with two monitors: the monitor I was working on and the other monitor with Discord. If anybody came in, I was immediately like, “Hey, how's it going?” It was rare, so getting those first 100 users to come back was the start.Jake [00:07:14]: Then you build a consultancy factory because users want all these things. You have to go back to the board and ask, “What is the actual product offering I want to build on top of this?”Jake [00:07:28]: VCs want charts that always go up and to the right, but in reality you don't necessarily want charts that look like that. For us, there have been periods of expansion where we add features to test use cases, and periods of compaction where we ask, “If the experience we have is good, how do we make it significantly better?” Maybe we strip out features that don't fit our ICP anymore.Jake [00:07:57]: The boom from 2022 to 2023 came from the free tier. Everybody under the sun was using it.Swyx [00:08:09]: A lot of Reddit bots and Discord bots.Jake [00:08:12]: And crypto miners. When you build an open product on the internet where anybody can sign up, the internet is a horrible place with so many things. You go through periods of asking, “How do I reach as many people as possible?” Then, “How do I fit the exact use case for the people who really matter and are really excited about this specific thing?”Jake [00:08:39]: Then there was a two-year period of making the actual business work. During the free-tier era, we were losing about half a million dollars a month.Swyx [00:08:59]: On a $20 million bank account.Jake [00:09:02]: On a $20 million bank account with maybe $50,000 a month in revenue. That's a horrible business. I don't know how anybody invested. But you have to go through it and say, “We have an experience people love, but the business has to work.”Jake [00:09:17]: There are two schools of thought. You can run the horrible business all the way up with bad margins, or you can go back and make it work. We've always wanted a super lean team. We're 35 people right now. It's very small.Swyx [00:09:36]: Supporting three million already?Jake [00:09:38]: Yeah. We're adding 100,000 users a week right now, so it's growing fast. We don't want to add headcount for the sake of headcount or throw bodies at problems. We want to build systems. It's hard to build systems during expansion because you're adding things to the system because people are asking for them or things are breaking.Jake [00:10:00]: We had to cut off the free users for a little while, rebuild the business, and make sure it worked. We want to reach as many people as possible because software is important. It's become difficult to create things in the physical world, so it's important to make it easy for people to build in the virtual world and have access to creation. But there are legs to that journey.Jake [00:10:30]: You can see divots in the charts. If you follow between 2025 and 2026, it's either summer or winter. People go on holiday with family.Swyx [00:10:50]: It affects that much?Jake [00:10:51]: Yeah. It's kind of B2C and kind of B2B. People are shipping constantly, then they stop. Our activation curve now shows more people activating on weekdays because we have more business users, so it smooths out over time.Agents as the New Interface to DeploymentSwyx [00:11:17]: Was there a point where you started prioritizing AI development or agent development?Jake [00:11:24]: We've prioritized agentic as a top-of-funnel thing. Over the last six months, we've deeply prioritized agentic as a mechanism to build and deploy things because we believe the curve is so steep and that is how people will build and deploy software.Jake [00:11:42]: It almost fundamentally doesn't matter whether this is dot-com or not because we're all on the internet anyway. If agents are going to deploy a bunch of things and we hit an inference wall at some point, we'll fix those problems. The dominant species over the next 10 years is that we've moved from assembly to C to C++ to JavaScript to words. You're going to need to close that loop.Swyx [00:12:13]: When you say this is dot-com, did you mean buying the domain, or the general case?Jake [00:12:17]: I mean the dot-com era, when companies had a huge run-up because people understood the internet was important. Then they hit bottlenecks, fundamental laws of physics, math didn't work, and everybody came back down to earth. But it didn't matter because the internet became so impactful. If you operate on a long enough time horizon, you should build these things anyway because you can see where it's going.Jake [00:12:45]: That's where I think a lot of agent stuff is. You get to a point where you're running thousands of agents in parallel. What is the inference cost? What is the compute cost? How do you make that efficient? How do you coordinate all this? We have issues coordinating humans; we don't even have good tooling for that. Now we have to figure out how to get agents to coordinate, safely version changes, and know when to raise their hand for someone to intervene. Otherwise it becomes an interrupt factory.Railway's Infrastructure Thesis: Network, Compute, Storage, and MetalSwyx [00:13:19]: Let's go right into the technical side. What are the core infrastructure or architectural beliefs of Railway that allow you to do what you do?Jake [00:13:29]: The primitives matter a lot for us. We need network, compute, storage, and orchestration around it. You need control over a lot of those things. We've talked a lot about how we don't really use Kubernetes because we want higher-order control to place workloads in very specific places.Jake [00:13:48]: The reason is that you have to be very efficient with agents: memory reuse and all these other things, or you're going to massively blow up your cost structure. Being able to rack and stack your own servers and build your own metal unlocks performance and cost. Experiences where you're running 1,000 agents in parallel are not massively cost prohibitive.Jake [00:14:13]: Token use and compute use are blowing up. Over time, those things have to get a lot more efficient. You can get a lot of margin to make those experiences solid by building your own metal. That's all in service of offering a differentiated experience to as many people as humanly possible.Swyx [00:14:51]: You have a data center in Singapore.Jake [00:14:53]: Yeah. We have two in every other region now. In Singapore, we're adding a second one in Q3.Swyx [00:14:58]: What's it like? I've never built a data center. Do you go to Equinix and say, “I want some slots?”Jake [00:15:05]: Yeah. Equinix. You basically go and say, “I want power and I want a cage.” They say, “Great, here's what it's going to be.” You rent the cage for a period of time, fill it with racks and servers, and hook up internet to it. That's all the pieces.Swyx [00:15:36]: Then you handle everything else.Jake [00:15:37]: You handle everything else.Swyx [00:15:39]: What's the math versus clouds doing it for you?Jake [00:15:43]: If we rented in the cloud, our payback period when we go to metal is about three months.Swyx [00:15:50]: Which is crazy.Jake [00:15:51]: It's nuts. That's four years of depreciated hardware. You're going to see a lot of this compute crunch because hyperscalers are buying up a lot of stuff. We're working directly with OEMs, resellers, and people building these machines: Supermicro, Dell, and others.Jake [00:16:11]: Upstream, there's a bunch of supply pressure. When we raised our last round, between deploying capital for servers and now, the amount of money we've raised is less than the amount of money we have in the bank plus the value of the servers because the servers have appreciated as RAM has gone up. It's nuts how valuable hardware has become.Jake [00:16:50]: If you look at hyperscalers, they deployed around $80 billion of capital expenditures this year, and next year will be more. That's a massive infrastructure build-out. You look at that and think it's crazy that they're spending way more than the Manhattan Project. But if every person is going to run dozens or hundreds of agents in parallel, you have no conceptual idea how much compute is required to make that experience happen, even if you're deeply efficient and sharing resources. And that doesn't even count inference.Swyx [00:17:22]: How do you plan the build-out? The growth chart is so vertical. Are you usually at 100% utilization as soon as racks are live? How far ahead are you planning?Jake [00:17:33]: We still maintain cloud presence for bursting. We work with AWS, GCP, and a few other clouds. We can rent, and then the moment we get space or power, we compact those workloads off the cloud. We started on the clouds, then built a system to migrate to our own metal. There's nothing that says you can't continually do that again, and that's exactly what we do. We never want to be compute constrained.Jake [00:18:09]: At the start of the year, we actually became compute constrained because one upstream provider wasn't able to give us quota at the rate we needed, and the hardware was slower. I spent a weekend rebuilding our entire network overlay so we could straddle five clouds: Oracle, AWS, ourselves, GCP, and one other one. We can do more than that now.Jake [00:18:38]: We got into a spot where we were trying to pack instances tight because we couldn't get enough compute. That led to a few reliability issues, which are now past us. I made a tweet pointing out that it's becoming harder and harder to acquire compute at the rate these models need to acquire compute. We got bit by it.Swyx [00:19:15]: How do you think about pricing knowing you might not have your own metal available at all times? Are you pricing assuming you need extra margin if you end up going into the cloud?Jake [00:19:26]: Because we've built out our metal data centers, our margins on metal are around 70%. We can deeply subsidize the cloud business if we want to scale at a reasonable rate. We have a few levers: metal, which makes the margins; cloud burst; debt to buy servers; and venture capital. It's an interesting operational problem: how much cash do we have, how much should we raise, how quickly can we deploy it, and can we scale revenue as quickly as we scale compute?Jake [00:20:05]: If we continue making it trivially easy for people to build and deploy, then the faster we close that loop and the more operationally excellent we are with capital, the faster the business can scale. It's almost a straight linear deployment rate.Financing Infrastructure: Hardware Debt, VC, and Operational LeverageSwyx [00:20:20]: I think infra startups raising debt is a tool people don't utilize enough or know enough about. What can you tell us about that? Is it secured against your CPUs?Jake [00:20:32]: It's secured against our hardware.Swyx [00:20:37]: What rates do you get? Who are the lenders?Jake [00:20:39]: We pay prime plus a spread, and we can refinance any of the debt as rates go down. The terms are pretty good. The unfortunate thing is that Twitter has no nuance, so people say, “Venture debt bad.” But as with all things, there are specific tools and areas where you can be deliberate instead of using one tool as a hammer. Venture capital is not the hammer for everything. You have to explore and figure out what works.Swyx [00:21:12]: VC is usually the most expensive financing you can get.Jake [00:21:15]: Yeah. I also think people think about VC incorrectly from a capital-raising perspective. Most people think, “How do I raise as much money as possible from whoever is probably the best I can get at that time?” That's close to right, but what we've tried to do is figure out what unfair advantage we can buy with that equity.Jake [00:21:34]: It's the most expensive equity you're going to give away at that point in time, assuming the company keeps getting better. How do you use it to work with someone stellar who complements you? In the seed stage, I had never started a company. Ray Tonsing had good advice, and I could text him all the time. He was really fast. Awesome.Jake [00:22:01]: Then with John and Erica at Unusual, they said, “You roughly know what you're doing building a product. We'll mostly leave you alone and be available for advice.” Amazing. Then we got to Series A and the business was an operational tire fire because we didn't know how to scale a business. Work with Erica, and Jordan is over at Redpoint, so bonus.Jake [00:22:28]: Now we've raised from TQ and FPV as we're moving into enterprises. Every step of the way, we've asked: who can we partner with at this specific time to unlock the next section of the journey? I don't know enterprise sales. As an engineer, I can eyeball what features we might need, and we have wonderful people internally who can help. But you want boardroom dynamics where everyone is aligned and asking, “How do we win this?” instead of bickering about strategy.Data Centers in Space and the Physics of ComputeSwyx [00:23:31]: You had a tweet about data centers in space. Why no data centers in space?Jake [00:23:37]: It's not “no data centers in space.” My hot take is that I think it is solvable. I've just never seen anybody solve it.Swyx [00:23:49]: You said, “How are you going to dissipate that much heat in a vacuum?” You're making a physics claim.Jake [00:23:55]: I haven't seen anybody prove how you're going to dissipate that much heat in a vacuum. It doesn't mean it's not possible. It just means nobody has brought it up yet.Swyx [00:24:05]: Astrophage.Jake [00:24:06]: I don't know what that is.Swyx [00:24:07]: The Martian thing. Okay, you're very logical.Jake [00:24:09]: It could work. A lot of people are putting the cart before the horse. They say, “We're going to put data centers in space.” Okay, but how? “We have time to figure it out.” It's like in The Martian where they ask how they're going to intercept something and say, “We'll figure it out.”Swyx [00:24:36]: Making a bet on human invention is weird because you blind trust that it can be solved. But with physics, there are first-principles bounds you can put on it. Maybe not. Maybe you're asking to travel time or break a fundamental thermodynamic law.Jake [00:24:57]: I don't know how VCs do this either. How do you know what's not possible and a grift versus what's possible but sounds completely insane? “We're going to put data centers in space.” Coin flip as to which it is, and I guess you'll know in 10 years. That's one cycle.What Agents Need: Versioning, Observability, and 1,000x ScaleSwyx [00:25:23]: Moving back to agents. The branching, fast spin-up, and orchestration you do feels like pre-work that happened to be exactly what agents want. What do agents want differently than humans?Jake [00:25:37]: They want the ability to version things. It's not that different; it materializes slightly differently. Agents want a way to test changes incrementally. Engineers have feature flags. Is there a reason agents can't use feature flags? I don't think so.Jake [00:25:54]: They want version control. Can we use Git or not Git? That one is up in the air. I think something outside Git will emerge for how we version these things over time. They need observability. You need to query what happened, when it happened, which steps failed, traces, logs, metrics, and all the rest. They need network, compute, and storage. They need to write files, save files, iterate on files, and snapshot file systems.Jake [00:26:25]: A lot of what humans needed is in line with what agents need. Branching and forking are not different; we're just moving 1,000 times quicker. It can look like you need something massively different, but what you need is something massively better than what existed. You need orchestration massively better than Kubernetes. You need networking probably better than Envoy. It goes all the way down the stack.Jake [00:26:55]: If the workload profile doesn't change so much as it gets massively compressed because you need thousands of these things, what assumptions change? etcd is going to melt. You need to replace it with something. You can go all the way down the stack and say, “That part has to change, that part has to change, and that part has to change.”Jake [00:27:19]: The interesting thing about the super-exponential curve is that you have to build systems where you can rip out those parts at any time because a new bottleneck might emerge. You get good at parallel agents, and a different part of the system breaks. So it's similar to what humans needed, but at 1,000x scale.Jake [00:27:55]: How do you do code review in the age of agents?Swyx [00:28:00]: You throw more agents at it.Jake [00:28:01]: You don't. But then who reviews for CVEs and all these other things?Swyx [00:28:07]: More agents.Jake [00:28:08]: And that's how we hit the inference wall. You can continually throw agents at the problem, but I think there's a limit to the number of agents you can throw at a problem.CLI, Agent Handles, and Closing the LoopSwyx [00:28:24]: You already had a CLI before it was cool. How is the shape of what you're exposing changing, if at all?Jake [00:28:28]: CLIs have always been cool. The CLI changes because we think about how to give Claude, Codex, ChatGPT, or any model a handhold.Jake [00:28:50]: A CLI is a single command: deploy, get logs, and so on. Things that were prohibitively annoying to humans are not annoying to agents. They're nice. If I handed you a CLI with 40 arguments and 600 flags, you'd think, “I'm never going to use all of this.” But if you hand it to an agent, it says, “This is excellent. I have so many handles to work with.”Jake [00:29:24]: If you're going to expose things to agents that way, you want as many handles as possible where they can get information, query dynamic information, and close the loop quickly. Most problems right now are about how to close the loop as quickly as possible. Where does the agent get stuck, and how can you remove that?Jake [00:29:49]: Telemetry is important. If you can tell where the agent gets stuck from the CLI and say, “12% of people deviate from the happy path because of this, and now I add this argument and drive it down to 2%,” you massively increase the rate of loop closure.Jake [00:30:03]: That's how we think about not just the CLI, but every point in the dashboard. It's a user journey: I hear about Railway. I get something deployed. I get my first green build or aha moment. I see an endpoint, logs, whatever. Then I iterate. The iteration loop is indefinite. The user wants to deploy a new thing, a Postgres instance, change code, and keep iterating.Jake [00:30:36]: If you focus on the iteration loops and what's blocking them from closing quickly, one thing we say internally is: you never want to be waiting on compute anymore. You always want to be waiting on intelligence. If you're waiting on compute, there's a bottleneck that needs to be destroyed because eventually that bottleneck becomes so large that another workflow emerges to change it.Jake [00:31:04]: We've built a product where you push code, build it, and so on. But I fundamentally believe the push-pull loop is going away. We'll get to a point where you make a small change in production, that change is versioned across your infrastructure, you're working alongside copy-on-write versions of your database and infrastructure, and then you merge it in and it's instantaneously live. That's the holy grail of loops. The push-pull-rebuild thing is a point of friction that we're removing entirely.Canvas as Output: Dashboards, Context Anchors, and HyperstructuresSwyx [00:31:43]: It's incredibly fast. If anyone hasn't tried it, that fast feedback is great. My hot take is that Railway was famous for its canvas, which visualizes your infrastructure and lets you manipulate it visually. But that was for humans. For the next phase of growth, Railway CLI is more important than canvas.Jake [00:32:05]: The canvas is funny because it's a mechanism to show changes over time. You're right that previously we used it a lot as an input. Moving forward, its goal is more like an output. You would go to the canvas, make changes, see them, and watch your infrastructure evolve. Now agents have access to the CLI and can make those changes. So the canvas becomes an output: what information does the human need at this moment to make suitable decisions about control requests? Do I approve this or not?Jake [00:32:57]: It also has to be an anchor for your context, a port in the storm. Think of it like layers in a file system. You start with a project, then drill down into services, then into a function or code, because you want to represent the entire thing not just in your head, but in the canvas. Other people can share that representation, think on the same wavelength, and move quickly.Jake [00:33:33]: A lot of organizations get in trouble as they scale because all the context lives in someone's head. “How does this microservice work?” “I have no idea; go ask this person.” Then you have whole categories of products built around context discovery. A lot of that melts away if you have a solid hierarchy and can infinitely nest services, code, context, and everything else all the way down. That's what lets you build these structures over time.Jake [00:34:18]: It's also what lets us build what I've called hyperstructures: things that are way bigger. You look at the Golden Gate Bridge and ask, “How did we build that?” There's a meme that we lost the technology. To some extent, yes, because the coordination that built those things evolved and changed. We lost some of the art of building structure as we jammed everything into Slack.Swyx [00:34:52]: But you jam everything in Discord.Jake [00:34:53]: Same point. It doesn't matter. It's message passing and interrupts, message passing and interrupts.Swyx [00:35:00]: So you're arguing there should be something better and more structured than Slack?Jake [00:35:04]: Yeah. For sure. I think Slack is awful, and Discord is awful too.Central Station: Context Routing, Support, and Incident ClustersSwyx [00:35:09]: This is the equivalent of my mom test. What have you done that has your solution to this?Jake [00:35:15]: Internally, we've built a tool called Central Station that aggregates all the context from our users. Every piece of feedback, every customer support item, everything gets aggregated into clusters. If an incident is brewing, we can determine how many users are affected and break off a discussion based on that.Jake [00:35:40]: That is more helpful than long-running channels where you're trying to decide which channel to put something in. If you can dynamically aggregate information and dynamically route it to the right person based on context, it works better. We know internally that these four people are close to networking. If we see a networking thing, we can drill it down to those four people. If it's with this part, we can look at the commits. This is no longer a manual process internally.Jake [00:36:13]: If you go to station or help.railway.com, that's why we built it. We wanted to scale with a massive amount of leverage by aggregating feedback.Swyx [00:36:27]: This is built in-house?Jake [00:36:28]: Yep.Swyx [00:36:29]: I remember helping out on this one with Angelo in 2023. You scale a lot with a very small team.Jake [00:36:38]: Yeah. We're about 10 times bigger now.Swyx [00:36:40]: You have your full developer code here? Very cool.Jake [00:36:44]: If you go to railway.com/stats, we expose this as a pub-sub-able thing. It's all real-time metrics. There's a way to get it as JSON somewhere if you care.Jake [00:37:01]: We're big on trying to build everything in public and talk about what we're working on. We've had issues in the past, and we'll say, “Here's how we're fixing these things.” We've gotten compliments and flak for incident reports. We're always trying to make them better and talk with people.Incidents, Disclosure, and Progressive RolloutsSwyx [00:37:20]: You had a big one recently. I liked that it was scoped to 3,000. You presumably used Central Station. Talk through what happened and how you address it internally as a team.Jake [00:37:38]: Internally, this one really sucked. It had to do with an upstream provider that didn't do the behavior it said it documented, which is unfortunate given they wrote the RFC for how the behavior should work. We rolled those things out, and Central Station caught it initially when a couple users said caches weren't invalidating. We turned it off immediately.Jake [00:38:03]: When you roll out to a large user base of three million people, you get a lot of disparate behaviors. We tested in staging and had tests, but we hit an edge case. We've hardened those systems, and now we can make that better. But it was a tough one.Swyx [00:38:39]: I always wonder how private disclosure is supposed to work if people find an issue. Are they supposed to contact you first? When you run a platform, these things will happen. What channels should people pursue to quietly resolve it before it becomes a bigger incident?Jake [00:38:59]: There's responsible disclosure. We err on the side of over-disclosing and letting you know something is wrong versus having your provider gaslight you. We've erred on sharing those things more publicly, even if they impact a small subset of users. That's a decision we've made internally. We have four values. One is honor. The honorable thing is to notify people to the widest degree at which they may have been affected or there was an issue, and then confront it head-on: why did it happen, what can we do better?Swyx [00:39:45]: Not the whole user base. That's because of incremental rollouts and other things?Jake [00:39:50]: Yeah. Progressive rollouts.Swyx [00:39:54]: That should be the norm at all large platforms.Jake [00:39:58]: It should. A variety of companies do this. There's the quote that Meta runs 10,000 different versions of Meta. To our earlier point about agents, they need the same thing. They need shadow traffic and all these other things. We've built so much ceremony around production being sacred that we need to make it trivially easy to test different behaviors in a safe environment. Then you can make mistakes in a safe environment.Safe AI SRE: Customer Agents, Forked Environments, and Production ParityAlessio [00:40:30]: Do you see a world where these things get automatically caught, not necessarily by your agent, but by your customer's agent? The cache invalidation issue seems easy to check if you know to look for it.Jake [00:40:44]: It's hard because to determine it, we almost need to hook into your observability infrastructure. That's why we have the template loop on the platform: so you can roll things out progressively. You can roll out to Johnny Vibe Coder initially, or push a shard that someone consumes at their own leisure. Or you can roll it out over weeks: 0.1% of people, 1% of people, early adopters, then all the way up. That's the non-deterministic version control we talked about earlier.Jake [00:41:30]: I believe that's where most things should go, because most companies end up building staged rollout systems in-house. It's the same thing built again and again at every company. There's a massive opportunity to consolidate developer debt.Alessio [00:41:45]: You should have a free tier. Model providers give free tokens if you let them use the data. You could give free compute if someone is the number-one shard that goes out and lets you plug into their observability.Jake [00:41:55]: We do that. That's why we talked about the impact on 3,000 people. We start with lower-impact people. Larger companies on the platform are last to receive those rollouts so they have a version of the platform that's deeply stable.Alessio [00:42:16]: I have three services, so I'm sure I get the first rollout. You can nuke my thing at any time. There are all these SRE agent companies. Observability people also want agents that fix upstream problems. You have your own agent in the canvas now. How do you see that playing out?Jake [00:42:39]: It's the stacking entropy problem. If you don't have primitives to make iteration in production safe, it becomes difficult. If you're an observability provider saying, “Here's the fix to this error,” assume 80% are good and make sense. But in the last 20% long tail of complex issues, if you let somebody stamp it, you create an opportunity for an incident.Jake [00:43:08]: That's why forked environments are important. People have staging, but it always drifts from production. You need primitives, workflows, and experience built first-party on the platform so you can fork any service at any point in time.Jake [00:43:33]: I think of the canvas as a sheet of transparency paper. The agent is a little guy you push up into the canvas. It should say, “I need to copy that service and that service so I can test these two things.” It gets a read-only copy of production. Anything that's PII gets marked as a transform when we clone the database, create a copy-on-write version, or read from it. Then the agent makes changes and asks, “Does this actually work?” as close to production as possible.Jake [00:44:22]: That's how close you have to be, or you get massive drift. The system becomes unstable. You see this with massive systems built on Docker for local, Kubernetes for production, and a specific thing for something else. That complexity slows developers and becomes unstable at scale, making it hard to iterate. We want to compress that way down and say, “As close to prod as possible is where we want to be.”From AISRE Skeptic to Agent BelieverSwyx [00:45:00]: I was texting Erica for questions, and she says you were originally not a believer in AISRE. Have you come around on it?Jake [00:45:10]: I flipped, but I'm still not a believer in AISRE if you don't have the primitives to make it safe. If you unleash AISRE on production infrastructure without safe primitives for copying volumes and making sure things are fine, it's going to nuke your production database. It's not a matter of if, but when. I'm a big believer in making those loops safe.Jake [00:45:33]: I was a deep AI skeptic until 2023. In 2024, I thought, “Maybe I can roughly make this thing do it.” In 2025, I thought, “Now I can hold this.” Over winter break, everybody came back saying, “It's almost impossible to hold this.”Swyx [00:46:01]: Did you see this on the Claude docs? CloudBot? OpenCloud?Jake [00:46:06]: It's gotten to a point where it's harder to hold it wrong than to hold it right. There's a scene in Avengers where Vision picks up Thor's hammer and says it's terribly well-balanced. It self-balances and works well. I'm a deep believer at this point that this will be the dominant species: assembly, C, C++, JavaScript, words.Swyx [00:46:35]: It feels like a big jump.Jake [00:46:37]: It is. But it's not like you abandon CPU-based discrete logic and move straight to fuzzy logic. You need both. Your skills should call code or applications or some static structure. You can use skills to distill what the procedure should be or how the code should act.Jake [00:47:02]: I'm coming to a thesis: you need three points. You need a clear spec defining the system, the code, and the tests. When you say it out loud, if you've been in engineering long enough, you're like, “Of course. That's an RFC, tests, and code.” But they all matter. Having them together lets them reinforce each other: the spec and tests match, but the code doesn't, so reconcile it. Or the tests and code match but the spec doesn't, so reconcile that. That's the iteration loop.Jake [00:47:41]: That's why you're seeing people talk about software factories, docs, and reconciliation. Some of that is architectural astronomy if you don't implement it, but that loop is where most things will end up.Swyx [00:48:07]: For listeners, we've been talking about this on the pod for three years: the holy trinity of specs and tests. Itamar Friedman from Qodo is the reference if people want to look it up.Self-Modifying Infrastructure and the End of Push-Pull-RebuildSwyx [00:48:18]: One thing I want to mention on the OpenCloud idea is self-modification. I don't know how Railway would support it, but I have my OpenClaw, and I just tell it it has the Railway CLI and can do whatever. In theory, whatever capabilities or new infra it needs, it can call the Railway CLI, provision it, and add it to itself. The agent can modify its own infra.Jake [00:48:45]: It's nuts. I have a loop set up where you put the Railway CLI on top of something that runs on Railway. You're authenticated as whatever the current box is, and you can make any changes to it. Then you call Railway deploy, and it deploys itself.Jake [00:49:04]: It's like: “I need to spin up this instance of this environment. I already exist in this environment. Excellent, I have access to a Postgres instance now.” That's where we want to go with agentic, self-replicating infrastructure. That's your loop: iterate in production. You continue making changes. If it works, merge it upstream. If it doesn't, throw it away.Jake [00:49:37]: How do you make throwaway copies trivial to spin up and super cheap? The era of “I have an AWS instance with four vCPU and 16 gigs of RAM” is going to get destroyed. If you do that for agents, you need a thousand of those machines. It's prohibitively expensive compared with what we've spent a ton of time figuring out: the atomic unit of deploy, whether you call it isolates, sandboxes, or something else. Only pay for what you use, spin up instantaneously, and close the loop as quickly as possible.Jake [00:50:15]: If the system can self-replicate safely and say, “This is my environment, I'm making these changes,” it can come back with, “Does this look good? This is a new state of infrastructure given this prompt. I think I've solved it.” Then you go back and say, “Actually, it looks different.” It does the loop again. Then you say, “Cool. Apply.”Swyx [00:50:38]: That's retroactively obvious, which is the most useful kind. Any other comments on agent deployment on Railway?Jake [00:50:51]: It's getting better every day. I'm on X or Twitter. You can always yell at me about the parts not working as well as they should, because plenty of things should work way better.The New Serverless: Stateful, Long-Running, Pay-for-What-You-Use LinuxSwyx [00:51:04]: At this stage, when people want massively or embarrassingly parallel compute, they usually talk serverless. I feel like there's a new serverless compared to the previous five years of serverless. You're in that new bucket. Do you have comparisons or philosophical differences you want to call out?Jake [00:51:31]: It's somewhere in between. It's the ability to run stateful, long-running workflows or executions.Swyx [00:51:42]: Vercel has Fluid Compute, Cloudflare has some container thing, Google has App Runner and others.Jake [00:51:55]: That's where everything is roughly going, and it's why we've been working on this for six years. We believe users need access to a computer: a box that speaks Linux. They need to deploy what they want. Other systems change the surface area of what you can build. For us, users need a computer and need to deploy anything they truly want. That's why we've focused on the primitives: network, compute, storage. If we give you those and expose them so you can run things indefinitely, that's where we believe it's going.Jake [00:52:43]: Twitter has no nuance, so everyone says “servers” or “serverless.” It's always somewhere in the middle: I want to run it for a long time, but I don't want to provision the resource statically or pay for things I'm not using. That's been our thesis from day one: pay only for what you use, run it indefinitely, and it is full Linux.Swyx [00:53:12]: That's why I like the naming of Fluid. It's fluid. Flexible.Heroku, Focus, and Carrying the Torch Without Becoming the PastSwyx [00:53:18]: Another milestone is the Heroku official deprecation. You're one of the presumptive new Herokus. “New Heroku” has been a category for as long as I've been in developer tooling. It's finally happening. What was that like? Any behind-the-scenes of, “This is the moment”?Jake [00:53:42]: You have people where you're like, “You were running stuff on here? You, as this company?” It's crazy that names you would know are running on it and now coming to us saying, “We want to move a lot of this off.”Swyx [00:54:00]: Any behind-the-scenes on why Salesforce let Heroku stagnate?Jake [00:54:05]: I can only guess. It's hard when it's not your business. Salesforce's business is to build a great CRM. That's their focus. Then you acquire a compute business as an offshoot. A lot of early Meta people talk about focus. Boz has a write-up about how in the early days of Meta they had no money, so they were forced to focus. Then they turned on the money tree and had no reason not to split their focus.Jake [00:54:52]: But that dilutes your product. You get offshoots where you ask, “Is this the focus of the business?” If it's not core, it languishes. A lot of companies get in trouble when they split focus because they're fighting a multi-front war, not just externally but internally for alignment. Where are we going? What are we doing? What is our purpose?Jake [00:55:24]: If you're Salesforce-built and mission-driven, you want to work on Salesforce. Heroku is off to the side. It's not core to the business. Getting resources, budget, focus, and alignment internally becomes hard. It was a matter of time.Swyx [00:56:06]: Kudos for them to call it out instead of leaving it unknown.Jake [00:56:12]: Their release was a little odd. They called it out, but they didn't say they were shutting it down. Behind the scenes, I think they issued messages to people saying they should close accounts and that they were going to deprecate and remove things over time.Jake [00:56:30]: It's crazy because some of my first deployment experiences were on Heroku. You start with dragging things into an FTP server, then you try to get a deploy working, and then it's Heroku. It was the on-ramp for us. But the wheel turns. New things emerge. We're happy to carry the torch for a lot of that. But we don't want to be the new Heroku. We want to be the way people build and deploy software, and ultimately the way people monetize software over time.Swyx [00:57:19]: It's still a big crown to be the new Heroku. There are 50 companies that fought for that.Jake [00:57:23]: Everybody is holding some portion of it. We're happy to support people and companies. The platform works differently. The game loop is similar, but we've been dogmatic about where these things are going: primitives, agents, fan-out. Some things fit; some workflows need to change. We have an approximation of Heroku pipelines with the environment system. It's exciting. We've got a ton of people we can support, and it's growing a lot.Temporal, Workflow Engines, and State MachinesSwyx [00:58:12]: I have one more technical question about Temporal. I've sold my shares. You're a power user and one of our earliest customers. I met you through Temporal. You built on Temporal. You have complaints. This may be the most neutral and informed conversation anyone will hear about Temporal without someone working at the company.Jake [00:58:39]: That's fair. I've used Temporal for almost 10 years because of Cadence at Uber.Swyx [00:58:52]: Give people a sense of what Cadence was at Uber.Jake [00:58:57]: Cadence was the precursor to Temporal. It powers trip actions, rides, when you rent a Jump bike or scooter or car. You're running workflows for a period of time and saying, “This ride will run indefinitely until it finishes.” You attach information: you paused in this zone, so add this charge to the bill. When you end the trip, the workflow is done. That experience was powered by Cadence at the time.Swyx [00:59:34]: I used to say it's like programming the entire user journey top-down as one function.Jake [00:59:39]: It's a powerful idea and important. It's also important for the next phase of the agentic journey. You want an agent to do a specific task, be complete or incomplete on that task, and move on to the next thing. You need a way to manage workflows dynamically.Jake [00:59:59]: Temporal was always great in theory, and great when you got it working the way you wanted in production. But it required you to model the entire journey in your head. If you didn't, you could cause issues where replaying the state of the workflow causes non-determinism.Swyx [01:00:25]: Because it works on deterministic workflow history.Jake [01:00:28]: Exactly. I describe it as a jet engine. If you know how to operate it and run it, it's great. But you can't hand it to people trying to build complicated things if they don't have the whole state in their head.Jake [01:00:48]: We run our whole deployment pipeline on top of it. That's a reasonably complicated workflow: pre-commit hooks, signaling, queuing, and all the rest. We ran into the same thing at Uber. As you express a large workflow, it gets more complicated, with more states in the state machine that you have to map back to the workflow.Swyx [01:01:15]: It's a lot of ifs.Jake [01:01:16]: Exactly. At Uber, we built a system for doing the state machine and testing it. We've started to build some of those things here because it's grown heavily. It's not quite love-hate. When it works well, it works super well. But if someone who doesn't have full context puts something into the system that invalidates state or causes non-determinism, or spins off a ton of activities, you have to keep track of underlying SRE knobs like activity slots. Those should scale with memory, vCPU, and so on. It becomes a bear to scale.Swyx [01:02:10]: You need a capable sysadmin running things behind the scenes. If you moved off, what would you do?Jake [01:02:19]: We'd build our own workflow engine. We have a few internally that we've worked on.Swyx [01:02:27]: This is one of those classes of things you typically wouldn't vibe code, but I'm wondering if you can.Jake [01:02:33]: I still don't think you should vibe code it. You still want to run decent tests to make sure it works.Swyx [01:02:39]: Timo didn't invent that from scratch either. There are libraries you can run. On top of that, it's just a state machine that you have to map out. Ultimately, you define the instructions you want and run them through a state machine.Jake [01:03:00]: It's very doable. Workflow stuff is interesting. Restate is doing neat stuff here.Swyx [01:03:10]: You're tied into JavaScript. Are you a JavaScript maxi?Jake [01:03:13]: Internally, we have TypeScript, Rust, and Go. We don't add more languages. Actually, we have a little C because we write BPF code and hooks. But those are the languages.Swyx [01:03:28]: Is this for sidecars?Jake [01:03:32]: No. It's for the networking stack, volumes, and things like that. We use TypeScript a lot because it powers the dashboard, but we're moving a lot of workflow stuff off the dashboard stack and into the infrastructure stack.Railpack, Nixpacks, and Content-Addressable FilesystemsSwyx [01:04:00]: Cool. Any other technical infrastructure stuff? Railpacks?Jake [01:04:07]: We built an engine for determining dependencies based on source code. It's called Railpack. We built the first version, Nixpacks, on top of Nix, and then we moved.Swyx [01:04:17]: People have been trying to get me to adopt Nix and NixOS for four years. Is it ever going to be a thing?Jake [01:04:23]: I don't know. We're excited about it, but it has pain points. Think of it as a stack of versioned binaries at specific slices in time. If you want version X and version Y, you bloat the package space, which blows up image size and makes real-world workloads difficult.Swyx [01:04:53]: But you content-address it and cache it. In theory, there are optimizations.Jake [01:05:00]: In theory, yes. But with a large enough user base and disparate enough machines, you run into a problem Meta described in the XFAAS paper, their internal serverless system. It becomes difficult at scale unless you break out specific runtimes.Jake [01:05:24]: We didn't want to do that because we wanted to truly allow you to deploy anything. That was our initial thing with Nix. But we've moved toward interesting work around content-addressable file systems that can lazy-load anything from any point and page it into memory.Swyx [01:05:48]: Amazing.Jake [01:05:49]: The future is very bright. It's crazy, and it's going to be nuts.Coding Agent Spend, Roadmaps, and Token ROISwyx [01:05:54]: Founder journey stuff?Alessio [01:05:56]: Your cloud usage: you tweeted you're going to spend $300K this month?Jake [01:06:01]: I think we got to $200K.Alessio [01:06:02]: Coding agents?Jake [01:06:03]: Yeah.Swyx [01:06:04]: Across the company?Alessio [01:06:05]: You only have 35 people, so I'm sure they're not all spending $10K a month. What's the distribution?Jake [01:06:10]: I think I'm at about $25K. We have power users all the way down. We came back from winter break, and I basically said, “If you're writing code by hand, you're doing this wrong.” The tools are good enough now that you can move extremely quickly. There are issues and pain points, but you should be reviewing the code you are writing instead of writing it by hand.Jake [01:06:40]: Architectural patterns matter more now than ever, but you shouldn't spend your time generating code you would write. If you know how to write it, ask the agent to write it and reconcile it until it looks like you would have written it yourself.Jake [01:06:58]: People misconstrue my propensity to push people toward agents as connected to our growth and some reliability bumps. They're not necessarily related. The tools are good enough to move extremely quickly and build things way larger than you could before.Jake [01:07:19]: To the earlier point about cooling data centers in space: I don't know. But with software, you can ask, “How would I build block storage from scratch? How would I do these things?” I have ideas because I have history and have read papers. Let me work them out and build massive test benches with thousands of tests, because those are now free to author. If you're not using AI systems to speed-run your roadmap and reconcile your existing system onto the future, you're missing a large point of what's happening.Alessio [01:08:12]: What's the path to spending $3 million a month? Is it bound by ideas and things customers can absorb?Jake [01:08:19]: For most companies, it's bound by deployment at this point. That's why we've seen a massive boom in users and companies, from Fortune 50s down, asking how to get developers to move faster. You'll probably hit your CFO before any technical limits because they'll look at the eye-watering amount of money spent on tokens. Inference costs have to come down, but we're inference constrained now. There will be price discovery around what makes sense for an org to adopt.Jake [01:09:06]: I think you'll end up with the F1 driver concept. If someone is really adept at these things, it makes sense to put them in a $3 million car. If they're not, it probably doesn't make sense. You'll take a few people and say, “You can drive the F1 car. We need to go in this direction. Figure out if it works and prototype it.”Jake [01:09:33]: We've done some of that and vastly accelerated our roadmap. We thought we'd ship something in a few years; now we can probably ship it in a few months because we validated it and don't have to build it incrementally. We can skip steps and move toward our vision.Alessio [01:09:58]: A lot of people are realizing the roadmap doesn't always have a business impact, so they say tokens are too expensive. But if your roadmap were built to make more money by the time you built it, you'd have token pricing for it, the same way you do with sales. You'd spend a billion dollars on sales if you knew you would get $2 billion of revenue.Jake [01:10:19]: Exactly. A naive way to measure this is the percentage of tokens that end up in production. If you can measure impact because those tokens end up in production, that's awesome. But the burden of proof will rise. Internally, we have a growing number of pull requests that haven't merged. The question becomes: how do you get this into production? It's about how quickly you can build and deploy software, which is exciting because that's our whole thing.The SDLC Shift: Prompt Requests, Feature Flags, and Safe RolloutsSwyx [01:10:56]: The SDLC is changing. One thesis is that the pull request is dying. It's going to be the prompt request. Beyond that, code review is also kind of dying if you have all the other systems in place. What else is changing about the SDLC?Jake [01:11:19]: The AISRE and the tools to make it happen. AISRE is pie-in-the-sky aspirational. What does it take to get an AISRE? What tools do you need to build?Swyx [01:11:32]: You should expose your tooling to customers at some point. The Central Station command center.Jake [01:11:39]: We have it for template maintainers. Template maintainers can deploy and maintain templates, and they get feedback. We're going to expose those things incrementally.Swyx [01:11:51]: Clustering around incidents. Everyone has a version of that, but I don't think anyone has solved it.Jake [01:11:56]: I won't say we've solved it internally, but it's gotten so good that we can see incidents forming pretty quickly. At some point, those will be things either someone else builds or we build. We've always built things purpose-built for us. If it makes sense to make it useful for users, monetize it, or turn that loop into a profit center instead of a cost center, we want to do that.Jake [01:12:28]: Pull request is definitely dying.Swyx [01:12:29]: Do you do first-party feature flagging and incremental rollout stuff?Jake [01:12:34]: We have a feature-flagging engine we built internally and will eventually roll out.Swyx [01:12:38]: I don't see it as a user. How come you didn't give us what you have?Jake [01:12:43]: We have to beta test it. We care a lot about the quality of the things. There's plenty we've used internally that doesn't make it all the way through the journey because it fails. It works for one service but not multiple services. We'd have to build it for multiple services and know that if we released it, we'd rebuild it again and again. Some things are worth that, but many inform the roadmap.Jake [01:13:18]: We don't want to dilute the experience by saying, “This works, but only for this service,” unless it's a core initiative. Over the next few months, we'll roll out things that work for a single service, then multiple services, then multiple services across the environment. You have to be deliberate. Otherwise you create broken disparate experiences and support load because people ask how to use the feature.Jake [01:13:52]: It's the earlier expansion and compaction pattern. You expand the company to get features, then compact and smooth them out so the experience is stellar. You told me in the hallway, “It's gotten so much better.” Internally we're saying, “This part really sucks. We need to make it significantly better.”Swyx [01:14:11]: I can attest to that over the last three years watching you build Railway. For listeners, feature flagging is a huge part of Uber culture. So much so that they have too many feature flags and another thing to remove feature flags. Facebook has Gatekeeper. Agents are going to need this. It's fundamental to incremental rollouts. OpenAI acquired Statsig. GPT-5 is routing and flagging through different models.Jake [01:14:56]: It's super important. If the software development lifecycle is going to change because we're doing things 1,000 times faster and 1,000 times more concurrently, what becomes important at scale?Jake [01:15:16]: Before I started Railway, I built a feature-flagging product and tried to sell it. It was an easier version of LaunchDarkly. I ran into a problem: anyone small enough to adopt your technology doesn't care about feature flags, and anyone large enough to need feature flags needs so much scale that you have to build out all the infrastructure. I scrapped it.Jake [01:15:42]: But what is old is new again. Companies are trying to move quickly, but you can't YOLO a vibe-coded thing straight into production. You need to say, “Here's my blast radius, my impact, and I want to shadow it for these users.” Feature flags. You're going to need the tools larger companies built to maintain their structures. Everything gets compressed by 1,000x so everybody can build those structures quickly.Jake [01:16:07]: That's exactly where we are: compressing the software development lifecycle, then expanding it and adding more new things.Cattle, Pets, and Clonable InfrastructureSwyx [01:16:15]: Another term that comes to mind for newer developers is “cattle, not pets.” People treat production like a pet. It has a name. You baby it and keep it alive. With cattle, you can mass farm, roll out, portion parts out, and kill them.Jake [01:16:37]: I think that might change. You can move toward having pets as long as you have a cloning machine for your pets.Swyx [01:16:52]: Yeah.Jake [01:16:52]: If you can snapshot every single thing at every frame, it doesn't matter if something gets obliterated because you have a snapshot of it. The things we've built right now are designed to block changes from the hermetically sealed DevOps line. You have to write a Dockerfile because you nee

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.

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.

Walking With Jesus Internally

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.

Kirk Miller spent five years as a plumber who hated every day of it.He was in shape. He had the body. He looked like he had it together. Internally, he was miserable.In 2010, he won the Men's Health cover model competition and used that moment as the proof he needed to jump. He quit with five hours of personal training booked, no car, and a borrowed work van to get around Coventry. As long as he could pay his bills, eat, and keep a roof over his head, he was going.Twenty years later, Kirk runs Built To Last, a six-pillar performance coaching system used by founders, CEOs, and high-net-worth entrepreneurs who want to stop treating their health as an afterthought and start building it as a competitive advantage.In this episode of Screw It Just DO It, Kirk and Alex unpack why the systems that worked in your twenties will not carry you through building a business, why willpower is not a strategy, and what two decades of coaching high performers has taught Kirk about the real cost of founders ignoring their health.Key Takeaways:- Why most founders are using outdated health systems built for a life they no longer live- The three non-negotiables to schedule every week before anything else- Why your state drives your decisions and what that costs you in business- The difference between emotional confidence and the confidence tied to your bank balance- What the most emotionally content and consistently wealthy entrepreneurs Kirk coaches all have in common

Oh hai. I feel like I haven't done a write-up in a minute. Um…how's everyone doing? Oh me?--I'm Living The Dream–see how my joking tone and desperate chuckle convey the opposite? That's comedy, baybeeee.  Quick, I don't want to accidentally reveal anything Too Real™ l about myself–pivot to more questions. How was [your] weekend? Let's engage in Obligatory Weather Conversation. Try to avoid mentioning climate change–it bums people out. Water Cooler Show? Oh, I haven't seen it–too many streaming services, amirite? Internally workshop a joke about subscription services on necessary-to-live things, realize we're probably six months from that, trash it. Awkward Silence. Eh, close enough. It's been about 90 seconds. Sick, we did it. We have Officially Caught Up, Corporate Office Call Style. We Should Probably Get Started.  So…what is this?, you may be asking yourself. You guys talk about the list of episode topics being ever-expanding, and yet you're treading back into Weezer discourse? First of all, that episode was released years ago, thank you Long Time Listener, but the answer is no, this is different. This mini-series is here to learn more about the folks behind what is arguably one of the most interesting and unique bands of that generation. “Interesting and unique?” you ask yourself, unable to hold back your skepticism. “The meme band where people rickroll that one guitar solo into social media videos?” Again, you're asking the hard-hitting questions, I enjoy that about you, Listener. Thank you for coming to this meeting prepared unlike the rest of these simpletons. Yes, the meme band. Because behind the meme band is a Human** (**cannot actually confirm he is a human, he could be an alien or several small animals stacked comically in a trenchcoat, I would not be surprised) who approaches creative endeavors like they are a science experiment and mundane tasks like they are trapped in an opera. I don't want to give too big of a peek behind the curtain, but this band's history and discography are full of strange choices that have kept your hosts up at night (both figuratively and literally) and after having too many conversations about it over the years, we cannot continue to keep this to ourselves and must share the things we've learned with you, Listener. So. We hope you enjoy the first part of our presentation.  Anyway with that, the meeting's over, I'll email out any takeaways or action items, unless I forget, in which case you weren't going to read it anyway, let's be so incredibly for real. Please review our presentation and come to the next meeting with any questions or notes. (or send ‘em to our social media, we can address them there.) Enjoy whatever time period feels appropriate to place here. Hang up call. Turn off face. Disassociate until the next one. 

With nationalization signed and Mosaddegh in office, Britain cuts off Iran’s oil exports and moves warships into the Gulf. Secret documents expose decades of political interference, American mediation fails, and Iran finds itself in a standoff it cannot easily win. Listen to part one of Nationalization here. Episode sources Follow us on Instagram, TikTok or X (Twitter). Support this show on Patreon. Episode Summary With nationalization passed, Britain’s response came not at the negotiating table but on the water. Warships moved toward Abadan as London made clear it had no intention of accepting the law as final. Internally, the British pushed the Shah to appoint Sayyed Zia (a familiar face from the 1921 coup) as prime minister, hoping to steer Iran back toward compromise. In the confirmation hearing, right-wing deputy, Jamal Emami, rose to mock Mosaddegh: “If Mosaddegh thought everyone else was failing, why not run the government himself?” The chamber fell silent. Then, Mosaddegh accepted. Seventy-nine deputies voted for him and afterwards the Majlis unanimously passed his follow-up nationalization legislation, establishing the National Iranian Oil Company and setting terms for auditing Anglo-Iranian’s books. On May 1st, 1951, the Shah signed it into law. Britain responded with an embargo. Anglo-Iranian’s general manager ordered tankers to leave Abadan empty rather than submit to Iranian oversight. The refinery ground to a halt. America offered a mediator instead, Averell Harriman, carrying a letter from Truman himself. He spent ten days shuttling proposals between Tehran and the British. Every formula preserved some foreign role in managing Iranian oil. Mosaddegh rejected them all, warmly and completely. When Iranian delegations moved into Anglo-Iranian’s offices, they found files being burned in a fireplace … but not quickly enough. What remained revealed decades of quiet interference: deputies bought, ministers managed, newspapers paid to undermine the National Front, a Radio Department official recruited as an asset. Mosaddegh released everything. In Washington, Truman’s National Security Council heard the warnings plainly. The refinery was shutting down. British warships were already positioned off Abadan. Intelligence suggested an invasion was being considered. The Western alliance and Iran’s future hung in the balance. The world was now deciding whether to let Iran’s nationalization stand … or crush it. Music Roberto Prado – Hidden Thread Mark Fabian – Super Secret Spy FableForte – Reminiscence Christoffer Moe Ditlevsen – Missing Memories Francesco D Andrea – Tempus Fugit Cjbeards – Heart of the Wicked The post Book Three – Ep.6: Nationalization (2) appeared first on The Lion and The Sun Podcast.

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.

Would you like access to our advanced agency training for FREE? https://www.agencymastery360.com/training How can you build an agency that outlasts your involvement in it? And what happens to your identity when you finally make that shift? Over the course of 22 years, today's featured guest grew a one-person freelance operation into a full-service digital agency doing eight figures and then sold it. In this conversation, he'll unpack the real lessons from that journey: the painful transitions between operator, manager, and architect, the hiring decision that finally unlocked his ability to step back from the work he loved, and why the question isn't just who you need on your team — it's who you need to become. Dave Benton is the founder and former CEO of Metajive, a full-service digital agency specializing in complex digital products and platforms. With over two decades of experience, Dave built his agency from freelance beginnings into an eight-figure business, eventually leading to a successful exit. Today, Dave is focused on innovation, particularly in AI, and how agencies must evolve structurally to remain competitive in a rapidly shifting landscape. In this episode, we'll discuss: Operator to owner evolution Recurring revenue as a growth lever AI as an operational requirement, not a competitive advantage Subscribe Apple | Spotify | iHeart Radio Sponsors and Resources E2M Solutions: Today's episode of the Smart Agency Masterclass is sponsored by E2M Solutions, a web design and development agency that has provided white-label services for the past 10 years to agencies all over the world. Check out e2msolutions.com/smartagency and get 10% off for the first three months of service. Toggl: Most agencies are losing 15–30% of their profit every year: lack of time tracking, messy manual timesheets, scope creep, untracked revisions, and all those "quick" client requests that never get billed. Toggl has created a fast, interactive way to uncover exactly where your margins are leaking. Start your investigation now at toggl.com/smartagency and use the code SMARTAGENCY10 at checkout for a 10% off annual plans. When Freelancing Becomes a Business Building an agency wasn't a single decision for Dave. It was an evolution that happened only after making several key decisions. It took him nearly eight years before the business truly felt like a company, not just a collection of projects and contractors. This delay wasn't due to lack of opportunity, but rather the absence of structural clarity. Like many founders, he initially relied on freelancers and partnerships to extend capacity. It wasn't until he introduced stability, through a small team and operational support, that the business began to compound. His experience reinforces a critical principle: agencies don't become scalable when revenue increases, but when structure stabilizes. The key mistake many founders make at this stage is avoiding the discomfort of responsibility. Hiring a team introduces fixed obligations in a variable revenue model, which forces a shift in thinking. The Founder Evolution Problem (Operator → Architect) Dave candidly describes this transition as "slow and painful," largely because he attempted to skip stages, trying to build a leadership team before the business could support it. This misalignment is common. Founders hear advice like "hire great people" or "get the right people on the bus," but apply it prematurely. Without the revenue, clarity, or systems to support those hires, it leads to inefficiency and frustration. The business must earn the right to complexity. Dave also dealt with the challenge of redefining his identity within the agency. He deeply identified as a creative director, which made delegation difficult because of his personal attachment to the work. This is the hidden bottleneck in most agencies: the founder's self-concept. The breakthrough came when he hired an exceptional executive creative director, someone good enough to replace him at a level he respected. This evolution required letting go of control, redefining his role, and shifting focus from output to system design. That transition, from doing the work to building the machine, is where real scale begins. Recurring Revenue and Stability as a Growth Multiplier Another critical unlock Dave shares is the role of recurring revenue in accelerating growth. His agency's trajectory changed significantly when they secured a long-term relationship with a major enterprise client, embedding a dedicated team within that organization. This shift introduced predictability, which is often underestimated in agency growth. Project-based revenue creates constant volatility, forcing founders to stay involved in sales and delivery. Recurring revenue, on the other hand, creates operational breathing room, allowing leadership to focus on systems, talent, and long-term strategy. Stability reduces decision fatigue, smooths cash flow, and enables more strategic hiring. Without it, agencies remain reactive. With it, they can become intentional. AI Is the New Baseline Both Jason and Dave challenge the common narrative that AI is a competitive edge. Instead, they position it as a requirement, similar to the shift from traditional to digital agencies years ago. Dave shares several striking data points: a growing percentage of B2B buying journeys now begin with AI-driven platforms, and a majority of deals are effectively decided before human interaction even begins. This changes the game entirely. If your agency isn't visible or credible within these AI ecosystems, you're excluded before the sales process starts. Internally, AI adoption requires structural integration and must go beyond tools. Dave's agency is experimenting with agents across functions, from development to QA to leadership coaching. The goal isn't efficiency alone, but capability expansion: turning team members into orchestrators rather than executors. However, this transition introduces a leadership challenge. Founders must balance urgency with stability, pushing teams to adopt AI without creating fear around job security. The agencies that succeed will be those that reframe AI as an amplifier of talent, not a replacement for it. Building an AI-Enabled Organization (Not Just Using AI) Many founders are using AI to enhance their own performance, but failing to distribute that capability across the organization. This creates a bottleneck, where the founder becomes even more central, not less. Dave is actively working to avoid this by equipping every department with tailored AI tools and training. Developers, designers, and producers each have different use cases, and the goal is to elevate the entire system, not just individual output. This aligns with a broader shift in agency structure: from teams of executors to teams of orchestrators. The future agency isn't defined by how many people it employs, but by how effectively those people leverage systems and automation to produce outcomes. The long-term implication is that agencies that fail to operationalize AI will face margin compression and reduced competitiveness. Those that integrate it deeply will unlock new levels of scale without proportional increases in headcount. Do You Want to Transform Your Agency from a Liability to an Asset? Looking to dig deeper into your agency's potential? Check out our Agency Blueprint. Designed for agency owners like you, our Agency Blueprint helps you uncover growth opportunities, tackle obstacles, and craft a customized blueprint for your agency's success.

This episode is a behind-the-scenes look at what it actually took to lead my Conscious Women in Business event. From the moment I said yes and paid the deposit, everything started moving. Not just externally. Internally. I was tested in ways I didn't expect. My control, my trust, my leadership, my capacity to hold uncertainty. Ticket sales didn't go how I thought they would. I had to let go of forcing outcomes. I had to keep showing up without needing immediate validation. And days before the event, I got sick. Like really sick which only amplified everything that was already there. The doubt. The pressure. The responsibility of holding a room at the level I knew I was meant to. But none of it was random. It was all refining me. In this episode, I'm walking you through: What actually happens after you say yes to something bigger The internal shifts required to hold a higher-level space The moments that will shake your certainty and why they matter What the launch process revealed about control, trust, and leadership And how this entire experience changed the way I see my business moving forward This is the part people don't talk about. The part where your business stops letting you operate at your current level and starts asking you to become someone who can actually hold what you say you want.

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

Oh WOW, this one hits different for sure. In this episode, there are many ah-ha moments as Betsy outlines three signs to watch for when your partner promises change. Is it performance change, or real transformation? This podcast will leave you with the clarity you have been craving. You may even want to take notes during this one! Transcript:  Welcome to The Art of Living Big, where we explore how to live intentionally and with more joy. I’m Betsy Pake, your host, master, coach, and creator of the Navigate Method. Here to help you listen in to your true desires, elevate your standards, and live life to the fullest. Now, let’s go live big. Hi everyone. Welcome to the show today. Our trip to Belize has been finalized, so if you heard me on last week’s episode, talk about this retreat that I’m doing the Reimagined Life in Belize this July. It’s the 23rd to the 27th, please join me. There is a link, on my website. In the header bar if you go to live, and I’m posting about it every day on Instagram. I think we got, we opened yesterday afternoon and we’ve already got a really great group of women coming, so I am so excited. I’m like thrilled. This is gonna be just really so much fun. And we had our first live coffee here in Atlanta, and that was so fun to see everybody. I was planning on going to California in May, and I was gonna do one of these in May, and then my trip got changed. But we are still looking at all of these and, and trying to plan. Times to go. And also, and also why is the airlines, the flights are so expensive ’cause of gas. It’s so exhausting. I remember years ago when I took that trip to Iceland, I flew from Atlanta to London and it literally was like. 30,000 delta points, what would translates to like 500 bucks. Now it’s like 1500 bucks. , It’s just so sad. And so to kind of circle back to Belize, I know that if you come to Belize, I know that it is a challenge and I’m gonna show up for you. There’s still, I think, one spot left, maybe not by the time you hear this, but maybe, , for the VIP swag bags, so, you know, get in there and who knows it. Maybe all the early people that get in right away will get a swag bag like that. So we’re working on all that stuff in the background here too. So today though, what I really wanted to talk about was this thing that I have posted about online. And it’s something that people ask me about all the time. It is something that many women have seen me post about. And so when they have seen that particular post is when they decide to investigate working with me. And then they go through the whole program. And then when it happens to them, I think they’re like, oh my God, what? What is this? And I’ll tell you, it. It is a really, really hard thing when you have been working so hard and fighting for your marriage and not feeling as if you are heard to then get to the heart wrenching decision that you can no longer stay intact as a human in this relationship. To then decide to leave, to ultimately save yourself, and then to have your partner go, Hey, I’m gonna do the work. And so I wanna talk about that moment because it is something that I have a lot of thoughts about. And also, even as I go to talk about it, I wanna preface, and this is something I say inside my program all the time. Is that there is no right answer here. It’s just about what’s right for you and honestly, what’s right for you today may not be the same thing that’s right for you six months from now, , or two years from now, and you’re allowed to move through things and change your mind and lean into hope and get your bearings and make a decision. Like all of those things are really, really valid. And so even as I say all this, I just wanna say there’s no right decision, and I am certainly not coming here telling you what to do because if I knew what to do, then I would be, I don’t know, sucking on a pina colada somewhere in, in the deep Caribbean. But my point is that if I knew what to do. Then that would have made my whole journey easier. I was in indecision too. So I understand deeply this place, and I think that this place of indecision has value. I know that sounds so crazy, but I think there’s something to learn in every single part of our lives. And so I wanna talk about this and I wanna talk about this specific moment where you get to the place where you decide you wanna leave. So first of all, I wanna talk about. What is historically what I have seen and what I have experienced in my own life experience of what happens before you get to this moment. Now, I believe you can choose to believe differently, but I believe that women will stay long after it has fizzled out for them because they want to have. A partner, . They wanna have a partnership. They wanna have a life that they had hoped and dreamed about. , When women get married, we want this vision. We, have an idea of what partnership will be, what it’ll be like to possibly raise kids with that person. What our vacations will be like and how we’ll make joint decisions and what all of those components of building a life with somebody actually entail. And when those things are never realized, I truly believe women. I’m using a lot of blanket statements here. I get that. So if you’re a man listening, this can go both ways. , I work with women, whether they’re married to a man or a woman. So I’m just talking from a woman’s perspective here. I believe that women will just try to make things work and they will try. If the vision that they had doesn’t work, they’ll try to adapt to a new vision. I don’t believe that it’s that women only want their way or the highway. I really believe it’s that they’re trying to navigate, well, what does this mean? And when there’s communication issues or when hard decisions are being avoided, or when they as human beings aren’t being seen and met. It becomes this really confusing swirl of, I don’t know what to picture from here, because this isn’t, not only not what I imagined, but it’s also not clear what it is. And I think that moment for a lot of women is where the indecision and the circular thinking about it sets in. Because they can’t make a decision to stay or go when they don’t fully understand what they have. Some moments he meets them where they’re at some moments he doesn’t he’ll, ask for what they’ll need and he’ll say that he’s going to do it and then never does. So that confusion starts to really set in. And so, , the men in my comments sometimes get really angry with this particular post. Because of their own experience with it. But I believe that when you get to this moment where the woman says she’s gonna leave, there is a whole lifetime of work and exhaustion and pleading and trying and adapting that happens before they ever get to that place. And so when they get to that place. It is really a moment where they’re throwing their hands up and saying , I don’t know what else to do from here. And I believe it is a moment where their life force energy is rising up and saying, I will not be lost in this. I cannot be lost in this. And I think the women that really get to the place where they are grasping for their own air in this. And so now here you are. You have been through it trying to get him to hear you and step up and do things differently and become a partner. Even if it’s not the partnership you had in mind. You are willing to adapt and to discover and to create something different, but you never get any clarity or any communication. To tell you what this is, and now you’re taking your one last big deep breath of air before you feel like you just will drown and you say, I can’t do this anymore. I’ve decided that this marriage no longer works for me anymore. And what I see so often in my program is, there’s a moment he maybe takes a beat, maybe he gets mad, maybe he just ignores you. But what I have found in the program is that there is always a pause of some sort, and then it sort of settles. And as it settles, he begins to understand that his experience is about to change. And when that awareness happens, when he recognizes that you are no longer willing. To just keep doing things the way that you had been. Then he wants to show up differently. He wants to talk. He wants to go to therapy. He’s reading the books. He’s saying all the things. Maybe he’s even crying, which you haven’t seen maybe in years. He’s asking you what is it that you need, and he’s telling you that he’s willing to do it. , He will do anything. He’s telling you I am changing. Like it’s been three days. And he’s like, I am changing. , I’m looking at this book, I’m reading this, listening to this podcast. I’m whatever. He’s just telling you to give him a chance.. And so what I wanna talk about today is what, that is what happens inside you when that happens, and how to tell the difference between. Real change and , the same kind of pattern, maybe showing up a little bit differently. And I think most importantly, how do you hold onto what you know to be true without turning into a shell of yourself trying to do it right? Because I think that’s the trap, right? Like in order to protect yourself and your clarity, you think, okay, well I’ve got. Get hard, like I’ve got a armor up here. And so you think that you, need to stop feeling stuff because it is a shell shock. It’s like you got whiplash from it. And so what I wanna talk about is how to move through that whiplash and finding where it is that you really need to go. So I wanna talk about what is actually happening. Inside your body when this change happens, right? When he says this is gonna happen, and when he says, I’m already changing, I’m already doing the work. And maybe he’s learning some words, right? He’s learning some new vocabulary words that make it sound like hopeful and that maybe it’s true and. So that version of him, , that’s showing up. Now, this engaged version, the one who wants you to know, the one who wants to listen, right? And the one who wants you to know he’s changing that version, is the version that you have likely been asking for years, maybe decades, , depending on how long you’ve been doing this. And your nervous system does not know what to do with this. So when I say nervous system, if you’re newer here or not, in my circle in my world, our nervous system, what do we see? What do we hear? What do we smell? What do we like? These are all the ways that my nervous system takes in information and inside my body it’s how I’m processing what’s happening. So I’ve got like cognitively what I’m thinking about it, , Ooh, this sounds like everything but what’s happening inside my nervous system. So your body remembers. Every single time that you begged him to, listen, right? Every conversation where you tried to explain yourself or, , felt defeated and, cried about it every moment that you made yourself smaller. And when I say smaller, I mean like where you realized that asking for something. Was met with avoidance and so you learned to not ask, but instead to just internally turn inward and just get tiny so that the relationship could keep working. And every time that you told yourself, , maybe it’ll change maybe after the holidays or , maybe we can work on this after the kids’ graduation, or once this project at work settles down, or whatever it is. And now you have gone come to this painstaking decision and now he’s here doing the thing. So , , it scrambles you, right? Internally? Of course it does, because one part of you, the part that was holding on for years is going like, oh my God. He’s finally, he finally gets it. He finally sees me. And then there’s this other part of you that, finally was able to stop holding on it. Like grasping for air is going. , Wait, I, just put this down like I finally made a decision and put this down. And you are caught between those two things. And this is like your whole history colliding and, dealing with this new present reality. And honestly, it feels terrible. It feels terrible, and I don’t think that. The person, the partner who is all of the sudden showing up recognizes how terrible it is. I don’t know how they could, , because if they had been ignoring you for so long, then how could they just suddenly understand? And if they truly understood, then they would know how terrible it felt and they would stop asking you to do something that you’d finally decided to do. So. The question , that I want you to sit with in this whole thing is like, why? Why? Why is it now? Why now? Because the things that you are leaving over have been there for a long time. You’ve been saying them, you’ve been asking him to change or her to change. You’ve been signaling it right? In a lot of different ways. So why are they showing up now? And there’s a version of this that I think can be true, absolutely can be true, which is like they finally heard you, they finally get how severe this is, and that is possible. , There’s the version where maybe they finally did it, understood it, or there’s a version where they finally felt consequences to what they were doing. And those are different sides of the stick because when someone changes because they heard you, that’s change coming from them seeing you. When someone changes because they heard you, that’s change coming from them seeing you. When someone changes because they felt consequences. That’s change coming from them feeling the loss of what you provide. And you have to be honest with yourself about which one this is, because one of them is a response to fear and one of them is real change that you can actually work with. One of them deserves hope and one of ’em is the same pattern, running in a different way. A response to fear lasts until the fear goes away, which, happens the moment you decide to stay or they feel safe enough that you’re going to stay, that you’re not going to leave. And so when you think about this, you have to get honest with yourself about what is he actually responding to. Is he responding to you like the whole you, the, you that maybe he hasn’t really. Paused to look at in years? Or is he responding to the possibility of losing his life as he knows it? And those look the same from the outside, right? The words are the same. The going to the podcast and going to the therapy and finally getting a coach and doing all that. All of that looks the same, but they’re coming from completely different places and they go in completely different directions. So. I wanna talk about how to actually tell the difference, but I also wanna, interject this thought too as I’ve been talking. You know, when we think about values, like what’s important to me, what’s important to me about a relationship, what’s important to me about a friendship, what’s important to me about work, what’s important to me about any of the number of things that I do in the world? Those are my values. Now, if I had a, friend, even a coworker that came to me and said, what you are doing is really upsetting me, I would pause and I would say, help me understand because I don’t wanna upset you. Now, if it was a partner, absolutely I would stop everything that is in my value system. I would be like, wait, what? That’s not how I’m gonna move forward. And if your partner didn’t do that, that’s a difference in values. And a difference in values is a whole lot different than we just like different things for dinner. This is like. How we actually operate and how we experience the world is different. Okay, so now how can you tell if this is like a real change? So I’m gonna give you a couple things to watch for, not to analyze him. I don’t want you putting him or her on trial. I just wanna give you something to look at when your nervous system gets this overload and you are like, I don’t know what to think. Okay, so number one is that real change is actually slow. Real change is slow. , If inside two weeks he has become a totally different man, like that is not change. That is the performance of change. Performance of change is really fast. Real change in a human being, especially around patterns that are decades old, don’t happen in two days or two weeks. It doesn’t even happen in a month. It happens over a long time, and it has a lot of, I’m gonna say like reflection or ugly, messy parts. Right. There’s like, this is what I want to accomplish. This is what I’m trying to figure out. I’m trying to understand myself and why I do this. Oh my gosh, did I do it again? Tell me how that felt to you. This is what I’m thinking about. This is what I’m afraid of, like there are backslides, there’s discomfort on their side about who they used to be. Like they get a, a realization. Of the pain that their behavior has caused. Right now, so many women in my program say, but I get it. Like his family was, you know, he had the, it’s okay, you can understand it, and his behavior can still cause real harm. And if he thinks he’s changed in two days, because you said you’re gonna leave, that is performance change. And so if what you’re seeing is super. Smooth, , super polished. I want you to pay attention to that. Okay. So real transformation with a person that’s really wrestling with their behavior. And, and, and potentially being embarrassed of themselves, of getting it wrong. Like that person is showing up much differently than someone that’s like, Hey, I’m doing the work. I know I’m a Apex man. Or whatever the, the bro podcast say. Okay. So number two is, and this one is, this one’s tricky. Okay. But number two is that real change isn’t about you. It’s not about you. It when he is doing the changing to accommodate you, to make you happy, to get you to notice how he’s doing things. If every gesture is aimed at you right when he’s doing it, to get you to change your mind. When every single thing is about how he’s going to be different for you, that likely isn’t change. It’s just a more, I’m gonna, I’m gonna say like sophisticated reason or sophisticated version maybe of making you responsible for him. Right. Now you are responsible for his behavior instead of him being responsible for his behavior. Real change when someone actually is doing the work, it includes them going and getting themselves help. That has nothing to do with you, right? It’s not a. It’s not you guys sitting down and just talking about stuff. It’s him working on his own stuff, his own shame, his own patterns. Just like you have likely done, right? This is why you’re listening to this show, stuff that has its own separate life outside of your marriage, because if the entire project of him changing is happening because of you, then it’s all aimed at you and the minute you are not there, or the minute. That project stops then it’s not his, it’s yours, and then you are still carrying it. But just in a different way. Just in a different way. And I have often thought when I hear the stories and my own lived experience, like if you really understood what you’ve done, you wouldn’t be asking me to do anything different than what I’m doing. Okay? So number three is that real change doesn’t pressure you. In your decision. Right. Just what I just said. This is, this one is, big and I think sometimes confusing, right? Real change looks like him saying like, oh my God, I’m getting it. And I understand why you have decided what you’ve decided. And I’m gonna go do this work because it’s mine and I’m gonna do it. Whether you stay or don’t stay. And I am so sorry. And maybe someday we will meet again and you’ll meet a different version of me performed. Change looks like him saying, you know, look at, I’m trying, look at, I brought out the garbage. I did all this stuff for us. Right? Please don’t. And they’re like, please give me a chance. You owe me a chance. The kids need you to give me a chance, right? I don’t wanna live without you. I don’t wanna do this without you. And on one of those aspects, , there’s this person that you decided to do your life with, that you want to be with, and the other one is treating your decision. Like something he’s in charge of that he gets to decide what you do and you’ll feel the difference in your body. You know you’re gonna feel it. One of them leaves you feeling more spacious. I always say , if you can feel your chest expanding, that’s likely the direction you wanna go if you feel yourself constricting. That’s a lot of really good information and so. , Even if you listen to those three things that I said and you’re like, okay, he fails all of those, I can see clearly that this is a, you know, it’s fear. It’s not real change yet. All the things you are still gonna feel like you wanna stay. It’s totally normal. It is not like a sign. You’re making the wrong decision. It’s just a sign that you’re human. So it doesn’t mean that you’re making a right decision. It doesn’t mean you’re making a wrong decision. It just means that you are a human being who loved someone for a really long time. , You built a life with this person. You possibly had children with this person. You shared pets and history, and maybe inside jokes or a house. You know, you both love the holidays the way you do them. Maybe you have coffee with them in the morning. Maybe there’s parts of him that you’re like, he can be a good friend. And the pull is that part of you doesn’t wanna lose that world. And that part of you isn’t bad. It’s not weak, it’s not wrong. It is just the part of you that knows how to love. Then you don’t wanna get rid of that part of you. You just don’t want that part of you to be the one making the decisions. When the pull comes, I, want you to do something. I want you to stop and let it speak. You know, Elizabeth Gilbert has this really good line in her book, big Magic about Fear. And how it can be in the car with you, but it can’t be the driver. It can’t operate the radio. It has to sit in the backseat. Will you decide? So don’t argue with it. Don’t try to put it down. Just put it in the backseat and let it say whatever it is he wants to say. It’s gonna say things like, I love him. It’s gonna say things like, but what about the kids? What about if this is a wrong decision? Or I’m scared, I don’t wanna go through this. What if he can change? What if I don’t know who I am without him? Let it, let it say all of that, and then when you get in a really settled place that you have worked so hard to get to, you get to answer that. And whatever way is a right for you. , I’ve talked about my own journey here. I, I decided, I, I got the bravery. I mean, it took me a long time to get the words to say I’m gonna leave, and he said, I’m gonna work on it. And I leaned into hope, and I think that’s so important. And I stayed for a few more years until I had the wisdom to see that the change in my experience , wasn’t real. It wasn’t the way that I wanted to move forward, and so I finally had the wisdom to leave and to not turn back and to just keep going down the path that was right for me because you can still love him and leave, like you can still get to the place where you are just like, I can’t continue to live in a container. Where I feel like this all the time, loving him and staying are two different decisions. And I know that sounds really confusing and if that doesn’t feel right to you, that’s okay. I think we can love someone, who is the, parent to our kids. Somebody who we have experienced a lot of life with and not love who we are in the relationship with them. So I wanted to talk with you about how to get through this without like, turning into a shell of yourself really. So here is something that I see women do when their husband start fighting for the marriage after they decided to leave, is that they just go kind of cold. Like they, they don’t even know what to do. They kind of get like frozen, you know? They get distant or they armor up and they don’t know what’s real and what’s not. And I totally get that because I think the pull can be really, really strong to be, to keep going the path you had decided, which was painstaking to come to, and the pull of being afraid you’re making a wrong decision, but you don’t have to just turn. Into a shell of yourself in order to make any decision. The, feeling of being frozen is, just a, sign that you’re afraid. That’s all. It’s not a sign that you’re unclear. It’s not a sign that maybe you were wrong about your decision. It’s just a sign that you’ve got fear. So I think. That if you are in this right now, I want you to know that I know it’s hard and I know you’re freaking exhausted. I know it feels like you can’t really find any solid ground anywhere, and I know that there is a part of you that’s wondering if you should just go back. If you should, just give it one more try. Lean into hope and just see what happens, and I would never tell you what to do, but my job is to help you hear yourself. And so I want you to do that. I want you to know what you already know before any of this started. That’s how you ended up at this decision. It didn’t come from nowhere. And you can give yourself the space of seeing if the change is real or if it’s performance, and you get to decide that you don’t wanna go through that as well. Both options are fair because it’s up to you, it’s your life and you get to keep what you know. Nobody can take that from you, not his fear, not his change, not his pleading, not even your own pull back and forth. You get to keep the clarity of what you know, and I think that is how you live a big life, not by getting cold. And not by winning an argument, but by staying with yourself, even though every single thing is gonna try to pull you out of it. I love you so much. I will see you guys next week. Thanks for joining me on The Art of Living Big. I hope today’s episode sparked something within you, maybe pushed you to dream a little bit bigger and live a little larger. Don’t forget to subscribe. Leave us a review and share this podcast with someone you know who might need a little inspiration today. You can find me over on Instagram at Betsy Pake and on my YouTube channel. Remember, the world is vast. Your potential is endless, and your life, it’s yours to shape. Until next time, keep reaching, keep exploring, and keep living big.

“Presence is what remains when you strip away all the noise, all the excess.” In this episode, Nick speaks with Dre Baldwin about his journey from basketball to internet entrepreneurship, emphasizing mindset, self-awareness, and overcoming challenges. Listen in to discover how his experiences shaped his approach to self-mastery and success. What to listen for: Dre Baldwin’s basketball career and transition to entrepreneurship The importance of mindset and self-awareness in success Lessons learned from sports and their application to business The role of discipline and resilience in overcoming challenges Strategies for personal growth and self-mastery “You can have all the right skills, desire, motivation, and resources, but if you’re in the wrong vehicle, you will not get to where you want to get to.” Knowing where we want to go is incredibly important to continuing on the right path Sometimes our “right path” is only really just a leg of the journey, and discernment is important to keep on that path or not This also urges us to consider what we really want and to look at the “vehicle” we're in, honestly and without bias or interpretation. “To get to the actual issue, you really have to find out who’s the person behind the issue. Who’s the person behind the problem?” Looking deeper than the surface at our “why” with our goals and pursuits is critical This speaks to ourselves as well as the people we interact with and work with Getting to know a person, or ourselves, deeper ties in wants, hopes, dreams, motivations, and understanding the person behind the problem helps us understand context. About Dre Baldwin Dre built Work On Your Game® to turn disciplined execution into dominance. A 4x TEDx speaker and 43-time author, Dre played pro basketball for 9 years. Today, he helps experts and entrepreneurs install mindset, systems, and strategy to scale from six to seven figures with presence and power. http://DreAllDay.com http://LinkedIn.com/in/DreAllDay http://Instagram.com/DreBaldwin https://www.workonyourgame.com/ Resources: Check out other similar episodes: The Greatness Inside Of You Like A Superstar Athlete With Darlene Santore How To Not Rush Through The Trauma Storm With David Kitchens Interested in starting your own podcast or need help with one you already have? https://themindsetandselfmasteryshow.com/podcasting-services/ Learn more about our host, Nick McGowan. Thank you for listening! Please subscribe on iTunes and give us a 5-Star review! https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-mindset-and-self-mastery-show/id1604262089 Listen to other episodes here: https://themindsetandselfmasteryshow.com/ Watch Clips and highlights: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCk1tCM7KTe3hrq_-UAa6GHA Guest Inquiries right here: podcasts@themindsetandselfmasteryshow.com Your Friends at “The Mindset & Self-Mastery Show” Click Here To View The Episode Transcript Nick McGowan (00:00.206)Hello and welcome to the Mindset and Self-Mastery Show. I’m your host, Nick McGowan. Today on the show, we have Dre Baldwin. Dre, what’s going on, man? How are you doing? Dre Baldwin (00:11.005)I’m doing great, Nick. How about yourself? Nick McGowan (00:13.004)I’m good. I’m good. I’m stoked that you’re here. I think it’s gonna be a really good conversation. I told you right up front, I missed the memo for the suit. I’m sorry. But I appreciate you showing up and looking how you are. One of the things that stood out to me when you were your team member reached out about you being on the show was your history in basketball. And being able to tie that into the work that you’re doing now, and how your pursuit of your own version of self mastery has really flexed through every single bit of this. So I know there’s a lot of stuff that we’re gonna get into, but that’s one of the main things that really stood out to me. So I’m excited that you’re here. I always like to get things started though with telling us what’s one thing that most people don’t know about you. It’s a little odd or bizarre and what do you do for a living? Dre Baldwin (00:59.369)One thing that’s a little out of bizarre. once went out on a date with a woman who turned out to be a man and What do I do for a living is I hope I get to give context to that. But anyway, what do I do for a living is We have high level professionals with structured execution if I put it in the one statement Nick McGowan (01:12.75)Yeah. Nick McGowan (01:20.218)Cool. I appreciate that. I’m still chuckling a little bit like who in their right mind wouldn’t give you the platform to like follow up on that? Because the first thing I want to make sure is that you’re not saying it in a really hateful way. I assume that’s not the case. And based on what I know of you, that doesn’t seem to be the case. But again, who in their right mind be like, Nope, we’re leaving that they’re just gonna fucking cliffhanger. So go on, tell us the story. Dre Baldwin (01:27.622)You Dre Baldwin (01:46.739)So this is about, I was about 19, 18, 19 years of age. So we are both from the Philadelphia area. And every year in the summertime in Philadelphia, there’s this event called the Greek Picnic. I don’t know if you knew about it. So the Greek Picnic is all these fraternity and sorority organizations, usually the black fraternity sororities, they all have this big event down at, I think it’s the Belmont Plateau in Philadelphia. Then that’s during the day, the picnics during the day. Then at night, everybody goes to this place called South Street. Nick McGowan (02:10.392)Mm-hmm. Dre Baldwin (02:16.553)And South Street is a place in Philly where everybody just goes and walks. So was kind of like Times Square in Manhattan, the Strip in Vegas, Ocean Drive in Miami Beach. You have South Street in Philadelphia. So I did not pledge in college, but every year, even since I was in high school, we would always go to South Street and 90 degree picnic because everybody’s out there. It’s kind of like New Year’s Eve, Times Square. Everybody’s out there. It’s hard to drive, but there’s so many girls out there. You go out there just to talk to girls. So we go out there and talk to girls and I meet this girl. She was interested in me. I’m interested back. So we exchange phone numbers and all of that. And she lived all the way down there near South Street. I lived up in the upper Northwest part of the city. I go and see her. didn’t actually go on. It technically wasn’t a date. We didn’t go anywhere. I just went to her house. We were basically sitting on the steps talking, but we sat there and talked for an hour or two. She had a roommate. Her roommate came by. She went, goes into the house and another guy while I’m sitting there talking to her, another guy comes up. He goes in to see the roommate. So anyway, we have the conversation, whatever I leave. And a couple of days later, I’m talking to this girl on the phone and I think she noticed my naivete. And she said to me, Dre, I want to let you know something. She said, I’m a pre-op transsexual. I didn’t even quite know what that meant. And I was like, what does that mean? I did know, but I didn’t know. So I had her spell it out. And she said, no, I’m guy, I’m not as endowed as you, but I haven’t had the operation yet. And I just didn’t know. My vision was not. tuned enough to have noticed this when it was all happening. And then I was thinking, I was like, well, what about that guy who came by while we were sitting on your steps, who went in the house to see your roommate? Because a roommate was the same thing. Also preop transsexuals. said, well, yeah, he knew the deal. So I guess he thought I knew the deal. I didn’t know the deal. So this was my learning of finding out what the situation was. So that’s the story there. That was 19 years of age. I’m 44 now. Nick McGowan (04:04.396)Man. Yeah, how old are you? All right, cool, I’m 41. So back then, that you really had an opportunity to be a fucking asshole about it. There’s a lot of people, especially in the Philadelphia area, that would have been so pushed away from that, even gotten violent, and really become hateful with it. And a lot of it was normal back then. There was just hatred of other people and just… just bullshit and especially with guys from the area, we would just be douchebags to each other. And then if something like that happened, like your boys could be after you because of it or whatever. So what a cool thing for you to not be a complete fucking asshole about it. Only for years later to understand like that is, that’s gotta be a big, big life transition for people and to not even think about it from their perspective. Like that’s awesome that she said, this is what’s going on. This is where I’m at. That took a lot of courage to even say that and a lot of courage to step out, you know. Dre Baldwin (05:10.899)Yeah. I guess so, because I think she could tell that I didn’t know. So I think most of the time back then, because we would go to South Street all the time and you would see these cross dressing men walking around. And what would happen is men would drive by in cars and I say those are men and laugh and joke and all that and just drive by. And but you could tell even from across the street, like that’s a man. She had it done well enough that I didn’t know. And I had a couple of my boys with me when I met the girl. None of them said anything. So Nick McGowan (05:25.464)Mm-hmm. Dre Baldwin (05:43.294)They didn’t know. And when I told them, they made jokes about it at the, weren’t around the girl. They made jokes about it with me. I didn’t, I just didn’t even notice. But back then with us, it would be like, okay, you could tell that’s a man. We just keep going. But I think they knew the woman or the man dressed as a woman, whatever you want to call this. They would talk to men who knew the deal. And that was just, they were just cool with it. Like that guy who walked into the house while I was there, I guess he just knew. I just didn’t know. And back then it wasn’t even a thing that we were thinking about, not the way it is now. We weren’t thinking about it in that way. Now it’s much more open. But back then for me, it was something I had never come across. Nick McGowan (06:21.452)I always find it interesting how people choose to answer this question and like what the thing is like I even said before we hit record like just don’t tell me your favorite colors purple or something like that so I always appreciate when people bring something up because there’s some some reason for that like that must have shaped you in some sort of way so even if it’s a subconscious thing that yeah it shaped me but you know I really think about it too too much in this context of this conversation as we talk about that how has that actually shaped you And way that you look at not only people and their choices, but yourself and how it’s kind of folded within your life. Dre Baldwin (06:57.577)Hmm. It’s an interesting question. I never thought about it like that. I always looked at it like a, it’s like a funny thing to me. That’s the reason why I bring it up. Yeah. The other thing, other thing I thought about was I once was in a hot dog eating contest. I think this is a little bit more depth. So that’s why I went with that one. But for me, I never, I never really think about it except when I’m bringing it up, like, Hey, this is, appearances can be deceiving. And nowadays it’s kind of come full circle because now no LGBTQ is a big thing. But in this is what Nick McGowan (07:02.99)Snapple fact sort of thing, Nick McGowan (07:11.279)Hahaha Dre Baldwin (07:26.665)19, this is like 2000 around 2000 2001. It wasn’t a big thing. We knew it existed, but it was way in the shadows. Then as opposed to how it is now. I don’t know how it has affected me subconsciously. I’ve been stopped approaching girls. I kept doing that. So I don’t know. I can’t answer that question. Nick McGowan (07:43.534)Yeah, I appreciate. I appreciate the honest answer. You know, like even it might be something where like down the road you realize, maybe it shaped me this way. And it’s also, it doesn’t have to, you know, that might be one of those things where like, made you kind of look a little differently at things. I find it interesting how some people like your boys, your friends would talk shit or say whatever. And maybe some of those maybe didn’t understand exactly what was going on, but we’re trying to fit within the system of things and like, let’s have these conversations. So I always think this stuff can shape us in some sort of way, because it was just a little different or abnormal or whatever. Sometimes the meaningless things in life are the things that can mean a lot to us or the like random happenstances of things. But it’s funny pointing out like, even with South Street and how South Street is like Times Square. I’ve never thought about that, but I lived on Fitzwater for a little while. like right off of South Street for a while. Yeah, I was actually explaining to my partner recently. I was like, when we go to Philly, we’ll have to go to South Street. South Street is like a long street where you walk in their stores. She was like, that sounds like a normal fucking street. Like, but it’s more than that, you know, so I’m going to use the Times Square thing. But that’s cool. Yeah, exactly. Some people don’t know the ocean drive thing, but like, I get that. Man, so I appreciate bringing that up with Dre Baldwin (08:40.499)Yeah, that’s right there. Dre Baldwin (08:56.809)Alright, four O’s in draft. Yeah. Nick McGowan (09:09.782)the path that you’re on now and the business that you’re on, I think one thing that we could easily skip past is that you spent, what was it, nine, 10 years playing professional basketball? Nick McGowan (09:22.925)So I have never been a professional athlete. I remember wanting to be a professional, a couple different things, you know, as a kid, just like people are like, I want to be a rock star, I want to be this, I want to be that. There’s a level of discipline. There’s a level of belief in yourself, confidence, and like fucking around and finding out to be able to execute on stuff like that. Even if you didn’t get into the NBA or if you were the fucking, I don’t know, you turned into Kevin Durant or whatever, like there’s a lot that you actually went through to figure out. what is it that I want out of life? And you started to do that early on, but you’re not doing it at this point. So I’m interested in how that shaped you. like, tell us a bit about the journey and how that actually led into what you’re doing today. Dre Baldwin (10:04.905)Great question. So it started with, let’s just go back to childhood, always in the sports. And I was playing, one of the first lessons I learned was getting into the proper vehicle. So I was playing baseball for several years. And I realized by the time I got to about right before high school, and this is because when you first played baseball as a kid, you had T ball, you just hit the ball off the tee. Then you have a pitching machine. You know the pitching machine where the ball goes to the same spot every time. I got pretty good at the pitching machine baseball, but then when we had to play against real live people throwing the ball, I couldn’t hit the ball. I probably had a little bit of fear of the ball. So I was never good at hitting and my fielding wasn’t even that great either. So I realized, okay, I’m not going to go too far in baseball. No matter how hard I try at this, I just don’t have the natural inclination, but I was still into sports. So then I moved over to basketball and I started off not good, but I could feel myself getting better at basketball and I stuck with it. And eventually came to what you mentioned. The thing is, later on, looking back, that’s when I realized this principle that I tell people about all the time nowadays is called the right vehicle. So you can have all the right skills, desire, motivation, and resources, but if you’re in the wrong vehicle, you will not get to where you want to get to. And for some people, the right vehicle is playing baseball. For some, it’s basketball. For some, it’s not sports at all. For some, it’s analyzing sports. You can be a podcaster or a YouTuber. For some people, it’s not being in the sports realm. It’s doing something different. Not everybody can do everything even if you put the same amount of effort in. So that’s the first principle I got from sports. Looking back, I didn’t realize that when I was 13, but I realized it later. Then moving on, barely playing in high school, played one year, sat the bench. My going to college, I went to a Division III college. So anyone who doesn’t know sports, the guys you see on TV, that’s Division I. That’s football, basketball, that’s Division I. Division II is right under that and Division III is down in the basement. And the players in Division 3 don’t usually think they’re going to make it pro. A lot of them will say they think they will, but they don’t really believe it because I’ve always been a believer in it. You want to know what somebody believes, that’s what they do. Don’t listen to what they say. And coming out of a Division 3 school, nobody’s calling you to go play pro, most players, even if you were pretty good because you’re playing against other guys who are not pro caliber. So when I got out of college, nobody was calling me. I had to go to these events called exposure camps. You ever heard of those? Know what they are? Nick McGowan (12:18.701)Yeah. Nick McGowan (12:25.942)No, but I would assume it’s like a talent sort of thing where scouts get together and see what you can do. Yeah, cool. Dre Baldwin (12:30.621)Yeah, casting call, a job fair for athletes. And it’s rough because you got 200 guys who all think they should be playing pro, all trying to prove themselves at the same time. And that’d cool if we were playing golf or tennis, but basketball is a team sport. So you’re playing on the same team with five other guys who all think they should be playing pro too. So everybody’s trying to show off. So it’s not the normal type of basketball. It’s not like everyone’s playing selfless basketball because they’re all trying to show off. I went to several of those over the course of my career, but Nick McGowan (12:49.474)Yeah. Dre Baldwin (12:58.727)The first one I went to led to me getting on and getting my first opportunity playing basketball. And in that experience, it was really about investing yourself. Let me tell you how I ended up at that event. So I’m from Philadelphia. The event was in Orlando, Florida. And this is the summer of 2005, graduated college in 2004. The event was not free. You pay $250 to go to the event. I reached out to the event organizers about a month ahead of time and asked them, would it be OK if I pay the event fee? in cash at the door because I did not have a credit card or a bank account at the time. So I had to pay them in cash. They said, yes, you can pay in cash at this time. I’m working at a gym called Valley Total Fitness. I don’t know if you remember them. They’re out of business now, not because of me. I made a lot of sales and at Valley that the commission checks came on a certain Friday every month. I had I didn’t even have to work that day. I had to negotiate with my boss to get the weekend off because the event was Saturday and Sunday. Nick McGowan (13:37.775)yeah. yeah. Yeah. Dre Baldwin (13:55.038)I’m in Philly. We’re going to drive me and a couple of college teammates who are also ambitious. We’re going to rent a car in Philly and drive to Orlando. That’s a 19 hour drive. For those who don’t know the geography, I had to go to my job though first and wait for the DHL truck to come because the DHL guy brought the commission checks. I needed that commission check because I had to go around the corner to the Chinese store and cash it. So I had to cash to pay that $250 at the door. That was my last $250 at this time. I’m living in my parents’ house. I’m working at Valley Total Fitness. have a college degree, but I don’t have anything going on. I spent that 250 at the door and I had to do something over that two day camp to get my first opportunity. So that was really about investing in yourself and really putting your back against the ball. And then you got to perform when it matters. That camp is only two days. It’s not like you have a month to prove yourself. It’s two days. And I played pretty well there. Got my first job. That was 2005. Moving on, fast forwarding in this story, there that Nick McGowan (14:42.498)Yeah. Dre Baldwin (14:51.751)basketball career wasn’t some smooth up into the right process. There’s a lot of people here, professional athlete. Now you’re an entrepreneur. So they think, okay, well, I guess it was easy for you once you got on in sports. But no, there were many times that, how do I better explain it? When there are people in acting, let’s say in the movies, you have your Leonardo DiCaprio’s or Scarlett Johansson’s, they get $50 million to do a movie Will Smith. And no, they don’t do a movie for a year or two. They’re okay. Most actors and actresses careers don’t go that Nick McGowan (15:18.509)Mm-hmm. Dre Baldwin (15:21.159)Most actors and actresses in between movies, what are they doing? All right, they’re bartending, they’re working at Starbucks and they’re bagging groceries. They don’t know if they’re gonna get another job. They are going from casting call to casting call, hoping to get an opportunity to get on. And in sports is the same way. Not every athlete is LeBron James or Lamar Jackson. A lot of athletes are on the fringes, meaning you have a job then you don’t. You’re waiting for your agent to call. You have to stay in shape just in case the call comes, if the call comes. Nick McGowan (15:24.664)Part-time job. Yeah. Thank Nick McGowan (15:34.755)Yeah. Dre Baldwin (15:49.546)Then when it comes, you don’t know how long you’re going to be there because you may face the squeeze on the roster and you’re the one who gets squeezed, not because you can’t play, but because it’s just a numbers game. So a lot of times in my career, even playing overseas, it can be like that. So there are a lot of times in between jobs over the course of my career, I played on a different team every year. I never played in the same team twice in a row or twice total. Every year was a different team, every year, a different country because in between job and in between jobs, didn’t know where the next job was coming or if the next job was coming. Nick McGowan (15:58.05)Yeah. Dre Baldwin (16:18.569)There are times where I had to go get a job because there was no job. So the last time I had it, I went and got two more jobs in between the start of my career. My last job was in 2007. I signed in Montenegro 2008. Haven’t didn’t work a quote unquote regular job after that. That was because I was on this new thing called YouTube. And that’s where I started to build my brand. And that’s where I realized about 2009, 2010, I was putting basketball video content on the internet. That’s when I realized. What I’m doing here on the internet is gonna be bigger than what I’m doing on the basketball court. Even though my content was basketball, it was the internet that was amplifying my name. So if I go to the mall right now today in Miami and somebody recognizes me, it’s not because I played in Slovakia for six months. It’s because I was on YouTube for 10 years making that basketball content. That’s where people know me from, is from YouTube. And I knew back then, I said, this internet thing is gonna be bigger for me than anything I’m doing on the court. And I was right about that. Nick McGowan (17:00.983)Hehehe. Dre Baldwin (17:15.625)At that time, I finished reading this book called The Four Hour Workweek by Tim Ferriss, I’m you’re familiar with. And in that book, Tim was talking about how you can take an idea and start putting on internet and make money from it. I followed his advice and I started selling $5 training programs to basketball players. That’s where I knew my future was in internet entrepreneurship, or entrepreneurship powered by the internet, let’s put it that way. Harking back a little bit in the story, about 2002. I people can keep up with this timeline. know I’m jumping a lot here. About 2002, I got introduced to a business opportunity. It turned out to be network marketing. I did not build a career in network marketing, but I went to some meetings. And I’m forever grateful for the meetings that I went to and the dabbling that I did in network marketing, because it teaches you a lot about entrepreneurship. It teaches you a lot about how to make money other than a traditional nine to five job, which is what my parents had. That’s all I knew until then. And also you learn a lot about people when you’re… trying to sell them into a network marketing opportunity. So you want to know about yourself too. And as a great sales crash course. in there, two things I got from that. Number one, well, three things. Number one is the entrepreneurship. Number two is that they mentioned these books. They would say personal development, personal development. You got to do the personal development. And they would just mention the names of these authors who I’d never heard of. They would say Tony Robinson, Jim Rohn, and Brian Tracy, and Napoleon Hill. And I’m like, who? I never heard any of these people. Nick McGowan (18:17.442)Yeah. Nick McGowan (18:29.475)Mm-hmm. Dre Baldwin (18:39.475)But I remembered the names. I couldn’t afford the books. They were selling them right outside the hotel room. I couldn’t afford them. But I remember the names. So I went on eBay. So again, those of you old enough, eBay before Amazon was the place you went to eBay to buy stuff. Went on eBay and I bought two pirated copies of two books that I could remember. One of them was called Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill. And I bought that book. It showed me that there is a way that you could intentionally alter your conscious thoughts that would alter your behavior and thus alter your outcomes. And he was right. Nick McGowan (18:51.47)the Dre Baldwin (19:08.839)And other book I bought was called Rich Dad Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki. And that book told me, there’s another way that you can actually be an adult and make money other than what I saw the adults around me doing. And the reason why I was so inclined to look at what Mr. Kiyosaki was saying is because my parents showed up every day, did their jobs. They never bragged about it. They never announced it. They did their work every day. The reason I am Nick McGowan (19:19.255)Okay. Dre Baldwin (19:35.038)what people will call a disciplined person to this day is because the example that I had at home from my parents. At the same time, the adults around me talked about work as a necessary evil. It wasn’t, get to go to work. It was, have to go to work. They talked about their jobs as if it was a somewhat negative thing, good because it paid the bills, but negative because they didn’t really like it. And they didn’t really like the people they had to deal with. And I was looking at them thinking, okay, well, I graduated from college. I guess I got to go do maybe a little bit better version of what they’re doing. Nick McGowan (19:45.42)Mm-hmm. Dre Baldwin (20:03.431)But when I read Kiyosaki, he said, there’s another way to do it. And anybody who’s read the book knows he’s juxtaposing his real dad who had a great education, went and got a job and his friends, best friends, dad, the rich dad. He was the one who dropped out of school, but was a business owner. He owned assets and he made money. He seemed happy about going to work. Whereas his poor dad, his real dad got kicked out of the system when he got too old and too expensive for the system. So that put me onto that. And that I got all that from network marketing. Anyway, combined that with Tim Ferriss. seven, eight years later, combined that with the internet, combined that with social media and basketball, that’s where I started to build what became my company, which was helping basketball players at first, and it transitioned into where we are today. Let me jump again in the story. 2015, I’m looking at the end of the road. Okay, I’m going to get out of basketball. What am I going to do next? So at this point, I was starting to make these mindset videos where basketball players who are watching me, my material was all basketball for about the first five years, 2005 to 2010. The players started asking me about mindset because they saw I was putting out videos every single day before that was a normal thing to do. Nowadays, that’s normal. But back then it wasn’t normal. So they’re like, why are you going to the gym every day to work out? Sometimes because I would tell them where I who I was. Division three, Kyle is playing overseas right now. I’m unemployed. You don’t even know if you get another job, Jerry. Why do you keep working out? How do you keep yourself motivated? Or you got cut from your high school team three times like me. Nick McGowan (21:10.968)Mm-hmm. Dre Baldwin (21:28.753)How did you keep going when you got cut and there was no right at the end of the tunnel? And I started talking about things like discipline and confidence and mental toughness and being prepared and how you had to take negative situations and use them as fuel for positive action. And I called it the weekly motivation. And what happened is a bunch of people who didn’t play basketball started finding me there. That’s when I knew, okay, I can take this aspect of what I’m doing and I can serve people outside of the realm of sports, even when I don’t play anymore. Because I knew that if I stopped playing basketball every day and putting these videos out, my $5 products are going to stop selling. I could read the writing on the wall. I saw how it worked. I could tell you that 15 years ago. People are now realizing it now on TikTok, but I knew that back then. So that’s how I knew what I was going to do next. I need to take this mindset stuff, and I’m noticing people who don’t play basketball need it. And that’s what became what I do today. So that was 2015, and now here we are. So let me stop my story so you can get back to ask some questions. Nick McGowan (22:04.782)you Nick McGowan (22:28.078)Like a true professional, ladies and gentlemen, somebody who’s been on many podcasts. I always look for what are the main components of these things. And one of the biggest things that I have learned from being specifically on this show and running this show for four plus years is if you don’t have awareness, you can’t do anything. You just can’t. If you’re not aware of something, you can’t do anything with something you’re not aware of. And a lot of people will push their awareness off like the people that hate their jobs, you know, I got to go to my job. It’s got to pay for things. There can be a level of awareness to go, but wait a minute, fucking time out. If I don’t like this, why don’t I do something else? You and I experienced similar things where people just bitching complain and just fond of bitching complain. Then they belly up to the bar at the end of the week and drink through the weekend and then bitching complain throughout the week and just rinse and repeat instead of going, hold on timeout. Let me do something different. you had a lot of different iterations and things that led you to something else. Like looking back, you probably would have thought way back in the day, I’m gonna be a professional ball player and make millions of dollars. This is how my life is gonna go. Cause you’re on that path and you’re really pushing for it. Even to go spend your last $250 all the way in Orlando, which 19 hours is if you’re fucking moving. Dre Baldwin (23:48.723)So, Nick McGowan (23:49.408)Most people will take like a day and they’ll have to stop, but you and a couple of friends like taking turns asleep and I’ve done that drive before I get it. There’s a lot of different things that could have really pushed you off the path, but you kept going with the path. And that’s what I like to be able to break apart of like, actually kept you going with that? Because you’re aware enough to go, hmm, well. I don’t know if I’m going to get another job doing this, but I’m seeing that I’m having these conversations and I want to talk about these things. Even like with you to say the new thing, YouTube back then, it gets wild to think that, I don’t know, we weren’t super young when YouTube was new, but geez, we really were. And you were early to it, you know? I talked to people about social media at times where I’m like, I had a social media marketing company in 2013 and I was fucking late. Dre Baldwin (24:31.303)this early 20s. Nick McGowan (24:43.508)seven years late and other people now that keep pushing these things, they’re still doing the same thing over and over and over instead of actually saying what’s actually working. What do I want? What do I want to do with this sort of stuff? And I’d love that you actually, you saw a positive in the network marketing. There are a lot of people that shit on MLMs and network marketing because they’ve had bad experiences or they’ve had friends that have tried to push everything on them or wrap fucking things around their stomachs or. tell them they can make money with a light switch or whatever. But you learn a lot through that. And I think that’s a big thing that taking those steps that are risky at times, like think back to the 250, that was a risk. But you were like, fuck it, I wanna go play ball. I’ll drive all the way down there. There are a lot of people in Philly that didn’t wanna do that. They wouldn’t have done it. They wouldn’t have even cashed that check or rented the car. or gotten into the vehicle to drive down there, let alone all the other things that you did. So you had all these little steps that you had to take. There were all these little risks pieces. So how did you tie that into not only what you’re talking about mindset wise, but specifically for yourself? Like what are you able to look back to and go, man, I was really good at this thing. Like you pointed out discipline, because your parents got up, their shoes on, got to work, did their thing, took care of their kids and moved along in life. That’s great, but that’s just one. Dre Baldwin (26:04.835)Mm-hmm. Bye. Nick McGowan (26:07.95)piece of the recipe. What are the other pieces for you that have really helped you figure out this is what works for me and what I can share with other people. Dre Baldwin (26:16.413)Great question. I’m glad you contextualize it that way because it reminds me of something else. So first thing I’ll say, 2013 you had a social media marketing company. I’m sure you were doing well. That was a good business to be in in 2013. Yeah, I can imagine. So speaking of a couple of things, my parents and Napoleon Hill. So Napoleon Hill and Think and Grow Rich talks about this concept of transmutation. Nick McGowan (26:26.702)It was, but we were still late. Yeah. Dre Baldwin (26:39.273)And transmutation is about how you take, it’s the law of conservation of energy. states, energy is neither created nor destroyed, merely changes forms and moves from one object to another. So my parents were traditional, basically it was called them nine to five years. My mom’s in education. My dad worked basically construction as a day job. He was a musician by night. That was his passion, but he didn’t do it full time. This was before, you know, social media. If he was around now, he was my age now, he’d probably have his own brand. Couldn’t do it in 1985, right? So. Nick McGowan (27:07.182)short. Dre Baldwin (27:08.999)So when I graduated from college, again, division three college, my parents don’t know a ton about sports. My dad’s a big sports fan, so they knew some. They don’t know anything about overseas basketball, but they know division three from division one. I come home from college and they say, what are you gonna do now with your degree? I say, I’m gonna be a professional basketball player. Now mind you, I have no prospects. I have no offers. I have no contracts on the table. My mom’s an educator. So her biggest thing was both of my kids are gonna go to college and get a degree because neither of my parents had their degrees when my sister and I got our degrees. My sister became a college professor just to give you a some comparison and my mom’s an educator, very good educator at that. So I say, I’m going to be a basketball player with no prospects. My mom can’t believe it because I sacrificed all this, her talking, I sacrificed all this for you to get your degree and get your education. And now you say you’re to be a basketball player. It was kind of like I was throwing it all away because again, if it would be one thing, if the New York Knicks were offering me a contract, I wasn’t getting offered anything. So she’s like, well, how are you going to do it? She started asking me. questions that any logical person would answer and there were no answers to the questions. And she essentially was saying, hey, if you don’t have any answers to these questions, well, you need to go, you’re living under our roof. You’re an adult now. You’re still eating food. You’re using the electricity. You need to go get a job. And she was right. Nothing she said was wrong. It wasn’t even highly critical. was just, she was holding a mirror up to me and my dad basically co-signed everything that she was saying. Now that even though she wasn’t wrong, the mirror being held up to me angered me. Not that she said anything specifically that bothered me or that my dad said anything specifically. was just the reality was the reality. So the reality became one of my oppositions. And I’ll tie this in in a moment. The other thing was in college, I didn’t even play my senior year because my junior year after my sophomore year, my junior year, the coach who recruited me got fired. New coach comes in and anybody knows anything about college sports. When a new coach comes into a program, they clean house. The same way that when a new CEO joins a company, some of upper management, middle management gets flushed out, not because you’re not good, but because they want to bring in their own people. I ended up out of the program. So my senior year, I was in school, fully eligible, fully healthy, didn’t play basketball. And this is at a division three school. So again, it’s not like I’m looking at future NBA players when I’m watching games. And that bothered me because in my mind, I knew I was better than the players who were on the team. But at the same time, Nick McGowan (29:11.512)Yeah. Nick McGowan (29:24.188)He Dre Baldwin (29:31.53)I’m objective enough to look at myself. can step outside of myself and look at myself and say, OK, well, you think you’re better than them. But let’s look at the reality. Here they are playing. Here you are not playing. And again, this is the Vision 3 school. So how can you prove you’re better than them? Your eligibility is up. This is before name, image, and likeness. Eligibility is up. They’re on the team. You’re not. How can you prove this? Well, the good thing about back then, there’s no YouTube. There’s only one level to go after college in sports. And that’s the pros. Nick McGowan (29:48.248)Mm-hmm. Dre Baldwin (29:59.422)That story that I told you about how I made it pro and the things I was doing once I made a pro was not just off of talent. It wasn’t just off of intellect or strategy. It was the transmutation of the, if you want to call it disappointment, sadness, anger, embarrassment, frustration of those situations. That was the gas in the tank. I needed to prove for posterity sake that my career was not going to be ended by this coach and no, none of these players are going to be able to say that they outdid me. And also Nick McGowan (30:12.163)you Dre Baldwin (30:28.017)my parents, I wasn’t angry at them. They didn’t do anything wrong. They didn’t stop me. But the fact that they held up the mirror, they were the messenger. You know, sometimes you sometimes you to kill the messenger. I didn’t kill my parents, but they were the messenger. And I took it out on I didn’t I wasn’t angry at them personally. But I took that energy from both of those situations. And that was no the gas in the tank to get me from Philadelphia to Orlando. That’s a good metaphor right there. That’s right. So that’s that was a big part of what I did. I don’t even remember what your question was. Nick McGowan (30:37.07)Sure. Nick McGowan (30:51.154)Literally. Nick McGowan (30:57.646)It’s all good. Sometimes that’s the best. You’re like, I’m riffing in this direction. Because like you’d said, this this reminds you of some other things, you know, I think it’s interesting how, look, there are different conversations that have been had in so many circles, everybody’s had this sort of conversation, don’t let people shit on your dreams, don’t let people tell you not to blah, blah, blah. And I think a lot of that conversation misses the fucking mark in a big way, because there’s no context to it. Like your mom is an educator. seems to be a logical person asking you logical questions. You interpret it in some sort of way where part of it was like, see it, but fuck you. But I also see what you’re saying. And I’m gonna go this route and I’m gonna go do this thing. And then there are specifically people that are like, no, you don’t wanna do that. This is gonna happen and it’s all gonna be terrible. Cause their fear and all that sort of stuff. There’s a level of discernment that you can sometimes not have the ability to have. because you trust those people so much. And that’s where I think some of the conversation is like, don’t let your family shit out of your dreams, blah, blah. Yes, and still give more to it. If somebody’s trying to love on you and they have their own things, it’s on us to not interpret it in such a way, but it can be really hard when you go, it’s my mom, it’s my whoever, it’s this person. But some of those things will also move us in a beautiful direction. Like I think back to high school and bring this up at different times. Where do you remember being in like 11th grade with like, we’re going to sit you down. We’re going to talk about what college you want to go to, what things you want to do. So next year we can start ramping and doing all these things. Well, when I sat down with the counselor, she was like, all right, well, you’re a musician and an art kid. Like I was one of those kids that if I didn’t want to be in class, I’d be like, I got a project. They’d be like, fuck off. And I’d go and live in the art room. And this counselor was literally like, well, we can get you into music school or art school, but you’re probably not going to make any money. So what do you want to do? And I checked out. I was like, well, don’t want to fucking be here and talk to you because you just told me I’m going to be a starving artist. So fuck that. I ended up getting into a multi-level marketing company like six months later and you learn so much from that shit. And there’s things that I think some people learn manipulation. Other people learn how to actually be better versions in themselves. And some people use it as stepping stone and all that. Like you and I both did that where we didn’t do network marketing forever. Nick McGowan (33:23.936)It was a stepping stone that opened up a whole new world. But then later on in life, you start to see how systems work and how different pieces and components work with things. But you made all these different choices without letting people affect the way that you went about them while still taking some of the consideration of it. And I’m pointing it out in that sort of way, because as I said to you, even off air, the idea is for people to get something from this where they go, huh, maybe I need to think about this a little differently. And somebody roughly our age or even in their late thirties or early fifties or whatever, you’ve been through enough of a career and have enough of a body of work in a sense where then you can look back and you can see patterns of things. What do I like? What do I not like? What do I actually want? Those are really fucking tough questions for people to ask because then they go, well, what if I don’t want my family? What if I don’t want this job that I’ve been here for 25 years? Or what if I want to do something totally different? Dre Baldwin (34:13.513)Hmm. Nick McGowan (34:22.688)And there’s a balance to that. Like, there are people that are like, fuck it, I was a lawyer one day and next thing you know, I’m painting and that’s it. There’s context there. There’s many conversations they’ve had in their own head. So what does that look like with the work that you do now, specifically with different people that are progressing through their life and having those conversations or maybe shying even away from those conversations within themselves? Dre Baldwin (34:48.969)It’s a great question because a lot of times these days, mostly working with professionals, entrepreneurs, high performers, these people usually come to you with a high performer level surface level issue, usually based around money and or the things they need to do to make money, more marketing, better clients, transitioning, quitting my job, starting a business, et cetera. So to get to the actual issue, that is an issue. Yes, they do want to make more money. Yes, they do need better clients and they want to sell this course or whatever it is they’re doing. But to get to the actual issue, you really have to find out who’s the person behind the issue. Who’s the person behind the problem? And noticing their patterns, noticing their mental blocks. Sometimes the mental block is they can’t see themselves charging more money. Sometimes the mental block is I know who pays me the most money. That’s the top 20 % of my clientele, but the bottom 80 % for me to drop them, they’re going to think I’m a jerk. They’re going to think I don’t value them. They may not like me. Nick McGowan (35:35.48)Yeah. Dre Baldwin (35:47.758)They just don’t have the heart to do it. Not drop them, but pass them off to somebody who’s less senior than you and your company. Sometimes that’s the challenge for people. Sometimes the challenge is just moving themselves to do the things that need to be done, the grunt work. And there is no business, no career that does not have grunt work. A lot of people think that there is one, there isn’t one. There is some type of work you have to do no matter what you do for a Sometimes it’s moving themselves to be able to do that. Sometimes when I’m working with people, sometimes it’s professionals, but there’s a personal issue. I’m not spending as much time with my kids as I want to. My wife is not initiating sex as often as she needs to. A single man who just wants to talk to more girls, but he keeps second guessing himself and hesitating and him and in hauling when he sees a girl on the train and by the time he approaches her, the energy is gone because he waited too long. So it’s sometimes just it’s not sometimes, but all the time finding out who the person is. And once we get to that part and we get through the layers of the surface level stuff that they’ve gotten so used to telling people and we get to the personal stuff. And that’s when we can start to make the change because even though that personal stuff, the stuff that people see in the mirror, it’s hard to sell because you can’t count it, measure it, you can’t see it. That’s the main thing most people need. But almost nobody shows up saying, this is what I want. They show up saying, I want the thing on the surface, the thing I can count, measure and check the box for. But the only way to get those resolved is we got to get to who the person is. So you have to show them this, but you got to give them that. So the metaphor I like to use is feeding medicine to a dog. Nick McGowan (36:55.48)Mm-hmm. Nick McGowan (37:01.24)the Dre Baldwin (37:16.963)You they don’t really need the peanut butter, but they say they want the peanut butter, but you got to hide the medicine inside of it. So you got to get them to understand. Yes, I can help you with the surface level issue. Now that they believe that what we’re going to get to without me even having to say it explicitly, Nick, is we have to figure out who is the person you see in the mirror, because until this person changes, you’re never going to be willing to confidently say that number in the middle of a meeting to get the price that you want for this project. You keep charging about our you need to be charged about the project. Nick McGowan (37:34.838)Mm-hmm. Dre Baldwin (37:44.424)Now you’re accepting $200 an hour. You need to be charging them 100K for the project for six months, but you’re not willing to say that number. So until we fix how you see yourself, I can say the number for you. I can go get the deal, but you can’t get it. You have to say the number. So we got to deal with that part. Not all this other, all these other things are just details is we got to get to who you see in the mirror because who you see in the mirror leads to how you carry yourself energetically. 85 % of communication is nonverbal. So Whatever you see in the mirror is how you carry yourself. Other people pick up on that non-verbally. They respond to it non-verbally. That leads to them saying yes or no for reasons that have nothing to do with what you actually said and nothing to do what they actually said. So whatever reason they gave you is not the real reason. And whatever you think is the reason is not the real reason. But that is the main conversation. Most people don’t understand that. So my job is helping people understand that and understand when you get the non-verbal part right, what you say verbally doesn’t really matter that much. Nick McGowan (38:29.166)You Dre Baldwin (38:41.915)One thing you learn in sales, you can’t say the right thing to the wrong person. You can’t say the wrong thing to the right person. When the energy is right, it doesn’t matter. But most people are so stuck in their heads, especially high performance, because high performance is usually really smart. They have a lot of information, a lot of knowledge. They read a ton of books. They’ve written books. It’s hard to get them to get past the intellectual level to the energetic level. But that’s where everything is happening. Nick McGowan (38:45.912)Yeah. Nick McGowan (38:49.624)Yeah. Nick McGowan (39:05.353)I’m so glad that you got to this point of the energetic level. There are the things that were, yeah, we want the surface thing because we need the surface thing. Just like we want to sell things because really we want to do these other things. Some people, it’s a thing where, I want to sell more because I want a second home or I want a beach house or whatever. That’s an issue in and of itself. If it’s like, I just want to do this to buy this thing where I’m not going to go down that path, but… The reason why I bring that up is I think there are times where we can look at things and say, want this because other people want me to want it. The system of the world tells me I should have this. Like showing up to a meeting in this bad ass car, like if you have a broken down car or something that actually makes sense for you to have, and you enjoy having a 2009 Accord or whatever it is, that shouldn’t dictate the type of level of service that you have. But people will think that they have to put on this facade and the charade. because they’re afraid to be themselves when in most times, as you know, most people don’t know who themselves are. They don’t know who it is that they really want to be or what they want to do. The energetic part of it is so huge, especially in sales. I mean, you and I could shoot the shit on sales forever. I think about the people that I’ve trained over the course of time where they just have such a hard time not reading a script because they can’t embody it. They can’t embody the framework of how to have the conversation to ultimately level the person and fucking just see if you can help. Cause if he can’t get off the phone, if you can, beautiful, continue the conversation. But the bullshitting is not going to help either one of you. But people will go, well, I have to do this. And we do it mostly to ourselves. Like if you think about how many people talk shit to themselves, like, geez, if that was a friend or somebody outside, you would have a restraining order, you know, like you’d be fearing for your life. So getting to that level is really difficult for a lot of people, even the people that do a lot of the work, because it’s asking them to shake the boundaries and the foundation of themselves. And that can be really uncomfortable, especially for high performers that are like, I’ve been doing this at such a high level. Now you’re asking me to go backward. Now we’re asking you to actually adjust the foundation so you go forward from there. I mean, I really appreciate you being on today. Appreciate the wisdom and the insight. Nick McGowan (41:28.056)For those people that are on their path towards self-mastery, be it somebody who’s a performer or somebody who’s an athlete or somebody who’s just really trying to figure out how do they fit within their own little piece of the world, what’s your advice for them on their path towards self-mastery? Dre Baldwin (41:43.546)Biggest thing is for people to get more fully present with themselves. Everybody’s heard the term being fully present. What presence is, is not something that you learn, is not something you add on, is not something you develop. Presence already exists. Presence is what remains when you strip away all the noise, all the excess. So anything that’s coming from your smartphone is noise. Text messages, emails, notifications, any app you can get on, all of it is noise. It’s an added on. It didn’t come with you standard equipment when you were born. Nick McGowan (42:04.078)You Dre Baldwin (42:12.829)Your thoughts about the future is noise because you’re time traveling into the future that didn’t happen. You’re reminiscing on the past is noise because you’re time traveling into the past that already happened. You thinking about something that’s not happening where you are right now in the moment where your feet are is noise because you are not in the place that you are. You’re not grounded in the current moment. Presence is what’s left when you strip away all that excess. The challenge for many people is that presence bothers them because they’re left with the only thing they don’t want to deal with, which is themselves. When you strip everything away, all that’s left is just you dealing with you. And that’s uncomfortable for people. And interestingly enough, a lot of high performers are uncomfortable with themselves. So what we do is we keep adding on more noise. You can listen to another podcast. You can read another book. You can watch another YouTube video. You can go gather more information. You can go give out more information. That all keeps your mind stimulated and occupied so you don’t have to deal with yourself. When you get used to dealing with yourself, you calm down that, as they say, the monkey mind. This is what they talk about in mindfulness or yoga or any type of meditation when you get comfortable being with yourself your signal Internally that you project externally gets ten times stronger and you actually get better results The challenge is you had to deal with the withdrawal symptoms of turning all that stimulus off Doesn’t mean you can’t stimulate doesn’t mean you don’t read talk do your work But you have to be able to turn it off and control it instead of it controlling you the world that we’re in now today Nick these devices have trained us to be controlled. We’re not in control anymore. We’re being controlled. We have to still have a device. I still got a phone. I got two phones on my desk and an iPad and a computer, but I control them. They don’t control me. Exactly. So the thing is you have to learn to control them and turn them off when you want to not be pulled in by the dopamine rush. I think that’s the biggest thing in the world we’re in today, especially for the highly intelligent high performers. Nick McGowan (43:41.806)Mm-hmm. Nick McGowan (44:04.216)Yeah, and that could be fun. Literally in those moments like where you know, like I think about myself at times. I’m an iPad kid in a way. Like I have my video games that I play and I’ll veg out and I kind of work through them are primarily like 2K games, know, NBA and NFL and stuff. But there are times where I can feel like, I’ve just been doing this for a bit. And it’s an actual lift to put the fucking thing down to step up. move out of the energy of watching TV, even if you’re like, look, I’m gonna give myself an hour or two to just veg and whatever. When you feel it, that’s one of those moments where it’s like you have an opportunity to do something with it, because you are really present and you’re aware of yourself enough to go, all right, motherfucker, get up, get out of here, go do something else. That is one of those moments that people that have a hard time sitting with themselves miss those because you don’t see them more often. But when you see it, You can’t not see it. Like I joke about self-awareness at times. Like the more aware you become, the fucking more aware you become. And the more aware you become, the more aware you become. Like you can’t get away from it. And it can be really tough, but I appreciate the work that you’re doing. There’s a lot when people say like, you know, you want to be mindful. Like I hear from times different, different people listening. They’re like, you can’t just mindset your way through life. Like I get it. Listen to the fucking conversations. That’s not what we talk about. It’s not about just. forcing yourself to do a thing that either one of us are saying. It’s about actually taking this and figuring out how does it work into my life? And how do I think about things a little differently? And what do you want to do from there? So Dre, I appreciate you being on today. This has been awesome. I’m sure we could just sit here and just keep talking about things, but it is almost top of the art. Before I let you go, where can people find you and where can they connect with you? Dre Baldwin (45:51.997)They can just go to work on your game.com work on your game.com and anything you need will be found there. Nick McGowan (45:58.262)Awesome. Again, man, I appreciate your time today. Thank you very much. Dre Baldwin (46:01.321)Thanks for having me on Nick, appreciate the conversation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCcqCo4KTqk

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)

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.

Would you like access to our advanced agency training for FREE? https://www.agencymastery360.com/training Are you struggling to scale your agency or are you unknowingly the thing holding it back? At what point does your growth stop being a systems problem and start becoming a leadership one? Today's guest shares what it to break through those ceilings. After scaling quickly off the back of a strong network, he made the critical decision to systemize everything before growth turned him into the bottleneck. By leveraging documentation in a smart, intentional way, he built a foundation that allowed the agency to grow without everything running through him. In this conversation, he unpacks the realities of working with enterprise clients, the often uncomfortable shift from operator to CEO, and why—despite all the noise, AI is actually increasing the need for human judgment, taste, and leadership, not replacing it. Ted Harrison is the CEO and founder of Neuemotion, a fast-growing B2B creative agency working with enterprise brands. Before launching his agency, he spent seven years at Twitter (later X), where he led advertiser production, helping global brands create better-performing content at scale. After navigating the chaos of a major corporate transition, Ted left to build an agency where he could control decisions, scale creative impact, and architect a business on his own terms. In this episode, we'll discuss: Avoiding the trap of confusing early traction with a scalable model Leveraging documentation early Enterprise clients as a double-edged sword Subscribe Apple | Spotify | iHeart Radio Sponsors and Resources E2M Solutions: Today's episode of the Smart Agency Masterclass is sponsored by E2M Solutions, a web design and development agency that has provided white-label services for the past 10 years to agencies all over the world. Check out e2msolutions.com/smartagency and get 10% off for the first three months of service. Toggl: Most agencies are losing 15–30% of their profit every year: lack of time tracking, messy manual timesheets, scope creep, untracked revisions, and all those "quick" client requests that never get billed. Toggl has created a fast, interactive way to uncover exactly where your margins are leaking. Start your investigation now at toggl.com/smartagency and use the code SMARTAGENCY10 at checkout for a 10% off annual plans. The Hidden Trap of Scaling Expertise Leaving Twitter a year after the acquisition ultimately created opportunities for Ted's newly founded agency. Many had left long before him, had already found new jobs, and proved to be valuable contacts for potential clients. Ted tapped into this powerful network, and the access to enterprise clients helped him build momentum and fast growth. However, that same advantage creates a structural risk: those clients don't initially trust the agency, they trust you. This is where most founders get stuck. They confuse early traction with a scalable model. In reality, they've just extended their personal brand into a slightly larger container. The real challenge is transferring trust. If you don't systemize your thinking, your decision-making, and your taste, every new client reinforces dependency. The agency grows, but so does the founder's involvement. And eventually, growth slows, not because of demand, but because of capacity. Documentation as a Scaling Weapon (Not a Nice-to-Have) Luckily for Ted, by the time he started the agency, he already understood the importance of documenting processes, which has helped him greatly as he initiates his transition out of operations. Instead of relying on shadowing, tribal knowledge, or ad hoc training, Ted documented his thinking through a book, internal frameworks, and structured onboarding. Every new team member consumes that context upfront. This does two things most agencies miss: First, it compresses onboarding time. Instead of months of "figuring it out," team members immediately understand how decisions get made. Second, it creates consistency without rigidity. The team isn't copying Ted, but they're operating from the same mental model. This is the difference between delegation and true scale. Without documentation, you're forced to stay involved because no one else "thinks like you." With it, you create a system where people can make aligned decisions independently, while still bringing their own perspective. The Operator → CEO Shift Is Uncomfortable (But Necessary) Ted is currently in the most dangerous phase for any founder: the transition from doing to leading. At ~20–30 employees, the cracks start to show. You can't be in every decision. You can't touch every client. And you can't be the quality control layer anymore. This is where many founders regress. They step back in when things break. They reinsert themselves into delivery. They become the "fixer" again. But that behavior reinforces the very bottleneck they're trying to escape. The real shift is identity, not activity. As an operator, your value comes from execution. As a CEO, your value comes from clarity, structure, and direction. If you don't make that shift intentionally, the agency will stall right at the point where it should scale. AI Is Not Replacing Agencies, It's Exposing Them At his agency, Ted's team is using AI in two ways. At the client level, they're mostly building agents, using it to clean up audio and video, and using its output as a starting point. Internally, they have their own "TedGPT", which has proven to be a great tool to scale knowledge. When it comes to how his enterprise clients are using it, Ted has seen that rather than replacing agencies with AI, they're hiring agencies to fix what AI broke. Why is this? Because AI lacks taste, context, and lived experience. It can generate and optimize. But it can't decide what matters. That's where agencies still win, if they position correctly. The real risk for agencies is doing work that AI can replace. Low-level execution, undifferentiated production, and generic output are already commoditized. Enterprise Clients Are a Double-Edged Sword Something Ted wishes he'd known before working with enterprise clients is that it introduces a level of complexity most founders underestimate. Long payment terms. Free pitch work. Endless stakeholder input. Constant shifting priorities. It's both harder and structurally different. Like most founders who have worked with enterprise clients, Ted eventually realized that the bigger the client, the more operational friction you inherit. That doesn't mean you shouldn't work with them, but it does meanyou need to build systems that protect your agency from them. Without strong positioning, pricing discipline, and process control, enterprise clients will consume your team, and your margins. Do You Want to Transform Your Agency from a Liability to an Asset? Looking to dig deeper into your agency's potential? Check out our Agency Blueprint. Designed for agency owners like you, our Agency Blueprint helps you uncover growth opportunities, tackle obstacles, and craft a customized blueprint for your agency's success.

Suspect arrested after allegedly throwing a Molotov cocktail at Sam Altman’s home, France government plans shift from Windows to Linux, Dutch regulators approve Tesla's FSD on public roads. MP3 Please SUBSCRIBE HERE for free or get DTNS Live ad-free. A special thanks to all our supporters–without you, none of this would be possible. If youContinue reading "Major Banks Start Testing Claude Mythos Internally -DTH"

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)

6. Cline explores the decline of the Minoans on Crete and the Mycenaeanson mainland Greece. Both civilizations are categorized as failures that were internally fragile despite impressive architectural achievements like the Lion Gate. Overextension through massive construction projects and internal uprisings during periods of drought likely contributed to their demise. By the 11th century BC, these societies had vanished, though some cultural elements persisted through a permeable membrane into the Iron Age. Cline also discusses how Homer's epics, written centuries later, cautiously reflect this transition from the Bronze Age "Wanax" kings to the Iron Age "Basileus" leaders. (6)