Podcast appearances and mentions of lawrence livermore lab

Episode notes: Lawrence Livermore National Lab is preparing for El Capitan, the National Nuclear Security Administration's first exascale supercomputer.

Hometown Radio 02/14/23 5p: Dr. Michael Marinak from Lawrence Livermore Lab discusses recent breakthroughs in nuclear fusion

Skeptics joke that nuclear fusion is the energy source of the future … and always will be. But when the Biden White House made a big announcement about the progress of fusion research last week, even diehard skeptics surely took note. My guest on this episode of Faster, Please! — The Podcast is Arthur Turrell, plasma physicist and author of 2021's excellent and must-read The Star Builders: Nuclear Fusion and the Race to Power the Planet.In This Episode* The consequences of fusion's latest breakthrough (1:06)* Where does fusion go from here? (3:55)* The best path forward for fusion (8:14)* The importance of fusion for an energy-abundant future (13:13)* Will star power take us to the stars? (24:09)Below is an edited transcript of our conversation.The consequences of fusion's latest breakthroughJames Pethokoukis: On December 14, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm announced that researchers at Lawrence Livermore had succeeded in generating a net-energy-gain fusion reaction. Just how consequential is this?Arthur Turrell: Jim, I would say that we're witnessing a moment of history, really. Controlling the power source of stars, I think, is the greatest technological challenge humanity has ever undertaken. If you look back at human history, there are different stages where we've unlocked different types of energy sources. You can think about unlocking wood. You can think about when humans started to use coal, which packs in more energy than wood. You can think about nuclear fission, which has even more energy than coal. A lot more, because it's a nuclear technology instead of a chemical one. And then you can think about this moment when we have the first proof of concept of using fusion for energy. And of course, fusion unlocks huge amounts of energy: 10 million times, kilogram for kilogram, as compared to coal.There are two main approaches to fusion as I understand it. This was what they call inertial confinement, and then there's magnetic confinement. Does it make a difference, as far as where this technology goes, that it was inertial confinement versus magnetic?It's absolutely a huge scientific achievement. The level of precision and the level of innovation and invention that the researchers at Lawrence Livermore have had to deploy to get here is just an astonishing feat on its own, even if we weren't talking about how this could eventually change the supply of energy.Does it get us anywhere? I think the honest answer is we don't know. We, today, don't know what version of fusion, what way of doing fusion is going to ultimately be the one that is the most economical and the most useful for society. But what I think this result will do is have a huge psychological effect because throughout fusion's history, researchers have said, “Hey, I'd really like to, you know, build a reactor, a prototype reactor.” And funders have quite reasonably said, “We don't even know if the principle works. Go off and show us that it can produce, in principle, more energy out than is put in.” And of course, fusion research has been trying to do that since the 1950s. Now we finally and absolutely have proof of that. I think that it's going to crowd in innovation, interest, and investment in all types of fusion because even though this approach got to that milestone first, it doesn't necessarily mean that this is going be the most economical or the best in the long run.Where does fusion go from here?I think it's Benjamin Franklin who gets the credit, at least that's what I learned in third grade, for discovering electricity in the 1700s. We didn't get the first electric motor until the 1820s, and we really didn't get factories electrifying their factory floors really until the first decades of the 20th century. So this could be an amazing discovery, but it could be a long time just based on how fast it takes advances to be modified and diffuse into an economy. It could be quite some time, if ever, before this actually gets plugged into a grid.Right. Traditionally, these new energy sources take a long time to come onstream. One of my favorite facts, and I have to double check that I've got the year right here, but I think the first solar cell was working in 1883. And only now in the last few years has solar energy become commercially viable in terms of cost. These things take a long time, or they have historically. And here's the really important point. It's never about the amount of time. It's about the amount of investment and political will that we put behind it.If our elected representatives choose to really push this and put lots of funding behind it, and the private sector decides that it's really going to push this, things will move much faster. Correspondingly, if we don't put lots of investment behind it, things will move more slowly. But you are absolutely right when you say that there is a gap here between what we've seen — which is an astonishing experiment, but only scientific feasibility — and what you'd have to have for fusion energy to be on the grid — which is solving some of the engineering and economics challenges that stand in the way between this one-off experiment and doing this repeatedly and economically at scale.For decades, there was very little in the news about fusion research. And since 2019, there have been some big stories about the advances happening in government labs and about the work in the private sector. It seemed like there was already a lot of excitement before this advancement. I can't believe this won't generate even more interest.Absolutely. I think this has been building for quite a long time. It's very tempting to say not much has happened in fusion. But I think if you look back over the decades, there have been improvements. They've been quite steady, and they've probably been coming at the rate you would expect with the level of investment and dedicated resources it's had. But the improvements have been arriving quite steadily. And looking at the history of this particular experiment, the National Ignition Facility, when they've got improvements since 2012 when they really started this type of campaign, the improvements have resulted in a five- or six-times increase in the release of energy. Back in 2019 when the book I wrote about this came out, I sort of said, “Well, they're not actually that many improvements away, so if they can carry on the same trajectory, they're going to crack it at some point.” And last August in 2021, they got to 70 percent, which at the time was a world record as well. And it's kind of like, because fusion scales nonlinearly, especially in this type of doing fusion, this laser fusion, actually they're almost there and it's just a matter of time until they crack it. So I think it's been building for a while. And the huge successes, because things have just happened to have gotten close now after all of this time in both magnetic confinement fusion and in inertial or laser-based fusion, mean that has really stimulated the private sector as well. The whole thing is starting to build on its momentum. And I think that now this is going to cause the wave to crash over and we're going to see efforts to turn this into a power source be completely electrified by this news.The best path forward for fusionIf what happened at Lawrence Livermore Lab does not present an obvious path to commercialization, what else is going on that seems more obvious? We differentiated between magnetic and inertial confinement fusion. Other people will point to deuterium-tritium fusion versus aneutronic fusion. Where is the most likely path, and does it come from government, from the private sector, that will lead us to a commercial reactor?Of course, it's hard to know exactly, but we can certainly make some sensible guesses based on what we know today. To answer the second part about deuterium-tritium fusion or aneutronic fusion, just so your listeners are aware, these are about different types of fuel that we're putting into fusion reactions. So the first kind, deuterium-tritium, those are just special types of hydrogen. Frankly, all of the really serious attempts to do fusion today using these because they require much, much less extreme conditions than the other types of fusion reaction, though people get very excited about the type of fusion that doesn't produce any neutrons, aneutronic fusion, because it has less radioactivity. But it's much, much harder to do.Would it be a better power source? Some people have said that with deuterium-tritium fusion, you would still need some sort of boiler. You'd be using a steam turbine, just like you would if it was coal. While aneutronic actually creates electricity itself.In principle, yes. People haven't really demonstrated that principle in practice. But yeah, that's why people are excited about it, because every time you change energy from one type to another you lose some of the useful energy and you just have a more direct setup with the aneutronic fusion. But I think that's some way away. In terms of what's practical for the next steps to getting to an energy source, there are paths using both this inertial approach and using the magnetic approach.Some of the private-sector companies are using this magnetic confinement approach. I think Commonwealth Fusion Systems, that's what they do.That's right. And Tokamak Energy as well. There are pros and cons of both different approaches. In terms of the kind of approach that the National Ignition Facility is taking, there are some big technological gaps in terms of something that looks more like a power source. This was a single shot of a laser on a single experiment. If it was to be anywhere close to being a useful power source, they would have to do probably 10 shots on that laser a second. And instead of a gain of 1.5, so instead of getting 1.5 units of energy out for every unit of energy you put in, you'd have to probably get at least 30 units of energy out than you put in. Now, as I say, this thing scales nonlinearly, which means that you might get there faster than you think. But it's still a big technological gap.And even if you solve all of that, of course you've then got to do what you said. Ultimately, we're extracting the heat energy and we're using it to turn water into steam, and we're powering a turbine. Now, what some of the people who are working on this magnetic confinement approach would say is that even if they haven't got to net energy gain yet, they have created a lot of gross energy. So they have generated about 30 times more gross energy than NIF produced in output energy in a single experiment. And they would say that some of the steps further down the line are a bit easier to achieve on magnetic confinement fusion. But honestly, I don't think we really know yet. And because we don't know, it's a good thing that we have both public and private sector exploring a range of different options here.How seriously should I take anybody who gives me a date? How confident should I take any of these predictions at this point?Well, that does depend, Jim. Was it the president of the United States who said this to you? Because I feel like he's got some control over it. I think the first question to ask when anyone says that is, at what level of investment? Because that's the thing that's going to make the difference. If we stop all funding to fusion tomorrow, if people decide to do that, then it's going to take forever. But equally, if President Biden says it's going to take 10 years, and he makes a commitment to put in the money that could potentially make that happen, then I'd take it a bit more seriously. I think 10 years is a very tight time scale. But as I've probably mentioned before we saw in the pandemic how even untested technologies can be deployed at great speeds, faster than anyone could have imagined, where there is the political will and the societal need and the money to make it happen.The importance of fusion for an energy-abundant futureWhy is this an interesting source of energy?Nuclear fusion, it's interesting scientifically because every time you go outside on a sunny day, those rays you're feeling on your face from the sun are generated by nuclear fusion. So this is literally the reaction that lights up the universe. It's the reaction that created a lot of the elements that we are made out of, particularly bigger elements. And it was right there at the start of the universe as well, creating some of those fundamental building blocks of life. So it's an extraordinary reaction, and it's amazing to start to be able to control it. But there are practical reasons, even if you don't care about the science at all, to get excited about nuclear fusion as well.It's potentially a very safe source of energy. There's just no chance of meltdown. It's not a chain reaction. If you turn off the laser or you turn off the magnets, the whole thing just stops. So it's hard to start, easy to stop. It also, as far as we can tell, isn't going to produce any long-lived radioactive waste. It will produce some from the reactor chamber itself, so not as a byproduct of the fuel, unlike fission. Maybe the reactor chamber at the end of the plant's life might be rated low-level radioactive for about 100 years as opposed to the potentially thousands of years in fission. So that's another advantage. I should say, though, that fission is an amazing power source and we should be doing a lot more with it. And actually, if you look at the data, it's very safe. But some people don't like it, regardless. It's difficult to get it built. And then the other thing is that renewables are fantastic as well. They work today. They're never going to run out in any practical sense. But they do have this problem that they need to use a lot of land area or a lot of sea area to generate relatively small amounts of energy. I think you've always got pros and cons of these different energy sources.You would need batteries, too, right? Because of the intermittency, potentially, you would need a lot of batteries. Big batteries.Potentially you would need batteries too. Are batteries a bigger technological challenge than getting fusion working on the grid? I don't know. I'm probably a bit more relaxed about the batteries thing. Intermittency can be a problem with them, but also land is such a premium for other things — for food, for people to live — that I think that ultimately might be the bigger issue. And also people don't want to have these things built. They get blocked often. Whereas fusion and fission potentially — definitely in the case of fission, but almost certainly with fusion as well — the actual land area for the amount of energy generated is very, very attractive. So that's another reason. And finally, the fuel for nuclear fusion isn't going to run out anytime soon. There's enough of it on the planet to keep everyone on Earth…The fuel for the kind of fusion we're talking about, deuterium-tritium, where does that fuel come from?They're both special types of hydrogen. Ignore these quite wacky names. They're kind of special, rare types of hydrogen. But the thing is, they're not that rare. Deuterium is one of the ingredients, and about five grams of every bathtub of seawater is deuterium. So there's just absolutely phenomenal amounts of it in the sea. And chemically, it's exactly the same as normal hydrogen. So if we extract it, it doesn't really matter. It's not going to change anything, the fact that we're using it up. And then the other ingredient is a bit more tricky. It's something called tritium. It's very, very weakly radioactive. It's only harmful if you were to ingest it. But the problem is it decays over time into other things, so there's not very much of it around at any one time. But you can create it, and you can create it from another element called lithium.Lithium is very common in the Earth both in ore and in seawater, and there's plenty of that to go around as well. Although of course, it does have some other uses, for example in batteries. So between those two, that's how you do it. Now there are problems: how do we turn the lithium into tritium, that needs to be solved on the kind of engineering side. But in principle, we've got enough fuel for thousands, if not millions, of years of energy for everyone on the planet to have the same level of consumption as people in the US, which you might be surprised to hear is quite high.So this was net energy gain: more energy out than put in. But then you talk about wall plug energy gain in your book. Is that the next big step?You know what, it kind of depends on where we want to focus our efforts, actually. There are a few ways we could go right now. For the benefit of your listeners, in this experiment, what they're measuring is the energy in, the energy that was carried by those laser beams to the target, and the energy that came out of that target from fusion reactions. Now, to actually power up and create those laser beams took a lot more energy. While about three megajoules of energy came out of the target, it took 400 megajoules to actually charge up the batteries, or the capacitor banks that they're called, to actually create those laser beams that had the two megajoules of energy. Wall-plug efficiency would be generating more energy than this entire system, so more than the 400 megajoules and more than the entire facility.The thing to say about the National Ignition facility is it was built to do ignition. It was built to do the scientific bit. They never cared about the fact that their lasers are horribly inefficient, because they knew that wasn't really what they were aiming for. What I suspect they will do on this machine, which is really built for optimizing what happens at the target end, is to try and up the gain as much as they can. Perhaps to a factor of four or five times rather than one-and-a-half times as they've done here, which is probably about the limit of this particular machine.But in the long run, of course, we've got to generate more energy than the facility as a whole. And that means probably going up to gains of at least 30 times. And eventually, if you're doing this form of fusion in a power plant, you'd use way more efficient lasers. This thing was designed 20-plus years ago and the laser efficiency is below 1 percent. There are lasers around today that can fire much faster and which have a 25 percent efficiency. And they're still not quite there in terms of energy terms. But with a bit more technological tweaking, maybe they could be. There are lots of ways to get over this wall-plug efficiency issue in the future. We haven't optimized for that. That is a good next challenge. But there are other parts of the problem that you could work on too.When you look at what government is doing, what some of these private sector companies are doing, what ultimately is the path that you get most excited by and you're like, “I don't know for sure, but this could be it.” This is not investment advice!No, it's absolutely not. It really depends on what kind of a commitment… Assuming things carry on in much the way they did yesterday and the day before, which is not a given, of course, I think probably the most promising path is a big magnetic confinement fusion device called ITER, which is currently being built in the south of France. And ITER is very expensive and on a very big scale but will probably show net energy gain using the magnetic approach. We'll start to test out some of the engineering issues around a prototype power plant. Now, it is not a prototype power plant, but it will start to look at least some of those engineering challenges. I think one possible path for fusion could be ITER gets finished, they're successful in testing out net energy gain and showing it can work in the magnetic way, which I think they almost certainly will (previous experiments with magnetic confinement have got very close), and they'll test out some of the engineering things. And then the private sector could come in at that point and say, “If you're doing it on that scale, it's going to be really expensive and we're going to have really low learning rates” — the smaller you can make a technology, the faster you learn how to make it even cheaper. That could be the time when the private sector really comes in and says, “We can do it for you. We can make them smaller and cheaper, and therefore, we can make the learning rate higher, making this technology more effective.” But that's just one scenario. There are lots of other ones. If the US government, and maybe other nations too, decided to really, really push the laser-based approach, then maybe that could be the one where we see the most progress towards a prototype power plant.Do you think some of these existing private sector companies, like Commonwealth Fusion Systems, I think another one is TAE Technologies, do you see them as legitimate players?Absolutely. Some of them are working on really interesting approaches. And like I say, because we don't know what works, I think it makes a huge amount of sense to let entrepreneurs and innovators just see what sticks to the wall. A lot of them aren't going to get there, because a lot of the designs won't work or they'll have to pivot to slightly different designs. And that's absolutely fine. The ones that are looking at fusion reactions that aren't deuterium and tritium, I am more skeptical of, personally, because that reaction just takes so much more energy to get going. Obviously never say never. The one that I'm probably most excited about, on paper anyway, is Commonwealth Fusion Systems. What the public laboratories have done is build up this huge body of knowledge about what does work. And no one is anywhere near as far ahead as the public laboratories in the UK and the US and the international collaboration ones. They're really the only people who've gotten anywhere close to doing this, because they're the only ones who've actually run with real fusion fuel for a start. Or at least they were until about two years ago. The thing that's quite nice about Commonwealth Fusion Systems is they're really building on tried and tested tokamak technology, but then they're saying, “Hey, the thing that really makes this work is having really powerful magnetic fields. So if we could just find a way to dramatically improve that part of the technology, we could make this dramatically smaller and dramatically easier as well.” I like that approach because they're really just doing this one change. And they've got some really promising technology to do it as well. Some of the advances they've made in superconductors are really exciting and probably stand alone as inventions.Will star power take us to the stars?Finally, we talked about the use case for fusion. It seems to me that there would be a strong use case, as you just mentioned, right here on Earth. But also in space, where we're going to need energy. I haven't really heard much of that mentioned in all the excitement about fusion, but I've thought about it, and I bet you have too.I certainly have. Just for the benefit of people listening, once you are wanting to explore space — and I think it's part of the human psyche to want to explore unknown frontiers, so I think we want to do that; I think most people would take that as a given — if you want to go beyond the very local area, like the Moon and Mars, it's very difficult to do it with conventional rocket technology, because essentially you have to carry the fuel with you. Imagine if you are trying to have a wood-fired interstellar rocket: The amount of wood you have to carry with you is just going to make life much more difficult. It's going to be difficult to get into orbit and then to actually get the thrust you need.Now, one of the great things about nuclear fusion is that it is the most high-energy-density, so amount of energy per kilogram, reaction that we have access to on Earth. It's the highest energy fuel stuff that we can possibly imagine, and it is basically the only one that is going to be able to do this longer-distance travel, because it can get us up to the speeds that we need to actually make some real progress across space. As I like to say, star power is literally the only energy source that can take us to the stars. So we should be doing it for that reason as well. Absolutely. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

Il mio libro "Capire il tempo e lo spazio": https://amzn.to/2UYMToT Il mio libro "A cavallo di un protone": https://amzn.to/2LIkz5x In questo video scopriamo la verità sulla notizia del 13 dicembre del Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), che ha annunciato una svolta storica nella ricerca della fusione nucleare e di aver ottenuto più energia dalla fusione nucleare di quella con cui si è scatenata la reazione nucleare. Oggi facciamo chiarezza su due punti e vi fornisco anche un dato che quasi tutti occultano, ma che è fondamentale per capire la notizia. Il canale YouTube di Pepite: https://www.youtube.com/c/NuggetsofScience La web di Pepite: www.pepitediscienza.it Credit: Cover image by James Wickboldt/LLNL Per approfondire il tema della fusione con i laser: https://www.llnl.gov/news/national-ignition-facility-achieves-fusion-ignition

Join Brother Mark Schroeder as he is interviewed by guest host Darleen Pryds. Mark explores the priority of living in community, in peace and mutual understanding while being passionate for justice and nonviolence advocacy. For a video version of this episode, see: https://youtu.be/9oKMNktEKJI   From Brother Mark's interview: “As a Franciscan, early on, I was active in nonviolent demonstrations, many times ending up in jail. That's beyond the way I was raised and the way I operated when I was a kid. But through that, I really realized the importance of standing up for what you believe, the importance of taking risks. I would've never dreamt of that. And my whole spiritual quest is always, I believe God invites everybody. God invited me into each of these situations so I could learn and grow and see how I handled each one, based on nonviolence.”   “The first time I was ever arrested was Lawrence Livermore lab, which is outside of Oakland, where the nuclear weapons and other weaponry are being developed. It was a Good Friday celebration up there, and that was the first time I ever risked arrest and ended up, ironically, … in the Japanese concentration camps in Livermore. They still exist, but they still had the buildings and that's where we were, a gigantic number of people. And so I've always been involved with nuclear weapons, the abolition of them. I still am.”   “One has to always be aware of oneself, what's going on. And with that, the only way I can teach about being a Christian is you have be active. Do actions that promote justice and peace and non-violence. When I'm outta whack, then it's not gonna work. So that's why I continue to do the best I can to stay focused.”   “I believe anybody that lives in the United States is an addict. It comes in different forms. But if you live in our consumer culture there's addictions, compulsions. So I do my best to stay on top of that. I'm in a 12-step group.”   “Fraternity is the most important thing we have. I wanted that always in religious life, … I've grown to realize that I live with people, I choose to live with people. I choose to interact with them daily. … It can be hard sometimes because of different personalities and I'm sure it's hard for some other friar to live with me, but in reality, it's just the joy. … With it [fraternity], I don't have really a care in the world. It's really a spiritual blessing for me to live in community.”   “Prayer together is important, but prayer has to be enlivening, not just rote and not just cuz we have to do it. Prayer is important together because it's a countercultural way of relating to each other. Communication is really important. ... Since I've been guardian, we've been meeting every Wednesday at four o'clock and a person can verbalize whatever they wanna say. They don't have to talk about feelings if they're not in the mood. I use mutual invitation and that's where one person starts and then that person picks the next person. … The guys tell me that it's really made us a community and continues to. So there's that kind of communication. Also, the friar lifestyle, having meals together is important. … I encourage every friar to have a spiritual director and or therapist if that's needed. And I always tell 'em price is no object, but to be in religious life, you can't be making decisions on your own. You have to really keep discerning God's will not your will.  And the fruit of that for me, is happier, healthier guys living together.”   For a full transcript, please include episode number and email: fslfpodcast@fslf.org.   References:   “Jesuits in California”: https://www.jesuitswest.org/about-us/the-jesuits/   Discernment: There are many spiritual traditions of discernment; here is a video introduction to Ignatian (Jesuit) discernment: https://www.ignatianspirituality.com/what-is-ignatian-spirituality/the-ignatian-way/what-is-discernment/ - here are some Franciscan discernment resources: https://osfphila.org/discernment-franciscan-style/   Franciscan Province of St Barbara: https://sbfranciscans.org/   Fraternity: a Franciscan perspective on fraternitas in a broader social context; also as related to Pope Francis' writing in Fratelli Tutti: https://sacredheartfla.org/2022/05/13/fraternitas-friar-reflections-the-fifth-week-of-easter/   Social Justice involvements: Franciscans for Justice: https://www.franciscansforjustice.org/ Nevada Desert Experience: http://nevadadesertexperience.org/ Example of Good Friday Protest at Lawrence Livermore Lab: https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/04/25/18678001.php https://www.santabarbaramission.org/

About MartinMartin Casado is a general partner at the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz where he focuses on enterprise investing. He was previously the cofounder and chief technology officer at Nicira, which was acquired by VMware for $1.26 billion in 2012. While at VMware, Martin was a fellow, and served as senior vice president and general manager of the Networking and Security Business Unit, which he scaled to a $600 million run-rate business by the time he left VMware in 2016.Martin started his career at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory where he worked on large-scale simulations for the Department of Defense before moving over to work with the intelligence community on networking and cybersecurity. These experiences inspired his work at Stanford where he created the software-defined networking (SDN) movement, leading to a new paradigm of network virtualization. While at Stanford he also cofounded Illuminics Systems, an IP analytics company, which was acquired by Quova Inc. in 2006.For his work, Martin was awarded both the ACM Grace Murray Hopper award and the NEC C&C award, and he's an inductee of the Lawrence Livermore Lab's Entrepreneur's Hall of Fame. He holds both a PhD and Masters degree in Computer Science from Stanford University.Martin serves on the board of ActionIQ, Ambient.ai, Astranis, dbt Labs, Fivetran, Imply, Isovalent, Kong, Material Security, Netlify, Orbit, Pindrop Security, Preset, RapidAPI, Rasa, Tackle, Tecton, and Yubico.Links: Yet Another Infra Group Discord Server: https://discord.gg/f3xnJzwbeQ “The Cost of Cloud, a Trillion Dollar Paradox” - https://a16z.com/2021/05/27/cost-of-cloud-paradox-market-cap-cloud-lifecycle-scale-growth-repatriation-optimization/ TranscriptAnnouncer: Hello, and welcome to Screaming in the Cloud with your host, Chief Cloud Economist at The Duckbill Group, Corey Quinn. This weekly show features conversations with people doing interesting work in the world of cloud, thoughtful commentary on the state of the technical world, and ridiculous titles for which Corey refuses to apologize. This is Screaming in the Cloud.Corey: This episode is sponsored in part by Honeycomb. When production is running slow, it's hard to know where problems originate. Is it your application code, users, or the underlying systems? I've got five bucks on DNS, personally. Why scroll through endless dashboards while dealing with alert floods, going from tool to tool to tool that you employ, guessing at which puzzle pieces matter? Context switching and tool sprawl are slowly killing both your team and your business. You should care more about one of those than the other; which one is up to you. Drop the separate pillars and enter a world of getting one unified understanding of the one thing driving your business: production. With Honeycomb, you guess less and know more. Try it for free at honeycomb.io/screaminginthecloud. Observability: it's more than just hipster monitoring.Corey: This episode is sponsored in part by our friends at Sysdig. Sysdig secures your cloud from source to run. They believe, as do I, that DevOps and security are inextricably linked. If you wanna learn more about how they view this, check out their blog, it's definitely worth the read. To learn more about how they are absolutely getting it right from where I sit, visit Sysdig.com and tell them that I sent you. That's S Y S D I G.com. And my thanks to them for their continued support of this ridiculous nonsense.Corey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud. I'm Corey Quinn. I'm joined today by someone who has taken a slightly different approach to being—well, we'll call it cloud skepticism here. Martin Casado is a general partner at Andreessen Horowitz and has been on my radar starting a while back, based upon a piece that he wrote focusing on the costs of cloud and how repatriation is going to grow. You wrote that in conjunction with your colleague, Sarah Wang. Martin, thank you so much for joining me. What got you onto that path?Martin: So, I want to be very clear, just to start with is, I think cloud is the biggest innovation that we've seen in infrastructure, probably ever. It's a core part of the industry. I think it's very important, I think every company's going to be using cloud, so I'm very pro-cloud. I just think the nature of how you use clouds is shifting. And that was the focus.Corey: When you first put out your article in conjunction with your colleague as well, like, I saw it and I have to say that this was the first time I'd really come across any of your work previously. And I have my own biases that I started from, so my opening position on reading it was this is just some jerk who's trying to say something controversial and edgy to get attention. That's my frickin job. Excuse me, sir. And who is this clown?So, I started digging, and what I found really changed my perspective because as mentioned at the start of the show, you are a general partner at Andreessen Horowitz, which means you are a VC. You are definitionally almost the archetype of a VC in that sense. And to me, being a venture capitalist means the most interesting thing about you is that you write a large check consisting of someone else's money. And that's never been particularly interesting.Martin: [laugh].Corey: You kind of cut against that grain and that narrative. You have a master's and a PhD in computer science from Stanford; you started your career at one of the national labs—Laurence Livermore, if memory serves—you wound up starting a business, Nicira, if I'm pronouncing that correctly—Martin: Yeah, yeah, yeah.Corey: That you then sold to VMware in 2012, back at a time when that was a noble outcome, rather than a state of failure because VMware is not exactly what it once was. You ran a $600 million a year business while you were there. Basically, the list of boards that you're on is lengthy enough and notable enough that it sounds almost like you're professionally bored, so I don't—Martin: [laugh].Corey: So, looking at this, it's okay, this is someone who actually knows what he is talking about, not just, “Well, I talked to three people in pitch meetings and I now think I know what is going on in this broader industry.” You pay attention, and you're connected, disturbingly well, to what's going on, to the point where if you see something, it is almost certainly rooted in something that is happening. And it's a big enough market that I don't think any one person can keep their finger on the pulse of everything. So, that's when I started really digging into it, paying attention, and more or less took a lot of what you wrote as there are some theses in here that I want to prove or disprove. And I spent a fair bit of time basically threatening, swindling, and bribing people with infinite cups of coffee in order to start figuring out what is going on.And I am begrudgingly left with no better conclusion than you have a series of points in here that are very challenging to disprove. So, where do you stand today, now that, I guess, the whole rise and fall of the hype around your article on cloud repatriation—which yes, yes, we'll put a link to it in the show notes if people want to go there—but you've talked about this in a lot of different contexts. Having had the conversations that you've had, and I'm sure some very salty arguments with people who have a certain vested interest in you being wrong, do you wind up continuing to stand by the baseline positions that you've laid out, or have they evolved into something more nuanced?Martin: So yeah, I definitely want to point out, so this was work done with Sarah Wang was also at Andreessen Horowitz; she's also a GP. She actually did the majority of the analysis and she's way smarter than I am. [laugh]. And so, I'm just very—feel very lucky to work with her on this. And I want to make sure she gets due credit on this.So, let's talk about the furor. So like, I actually thought that this was kind of interesting and it started a good discussion, but instead, like, [laugh] the amount of, like, response pieces and, like, angry emails I got, and [laugh] like, I mean it just—and I kind of thought to myself, like, “Why are people so upset?” I think there's three reasons. I'm going to go through them very quickly because they're interesting.So, the first one is, like, you're right, like, I'm a VC. I think people see a VC and they're like, oh, lack of credibility, lack of accountability, [laugh], you know, doesn't know what they're doing, broad pattern matcher. And, like, I will say, like, I did not necessarily write this as a VC; I wrote this as somebody that's, like, listen, my PhD is an infrastructure; my company was an infrastructure. It's all data center stuff. I had a $600 million a year data center business that sold infrastructure into data centers. I've worked with all of the above. Like, I've worked with Amazon, I've—Corey: So, you sold three Cisco switches?Martin: [laugh]. That's right.Corey: I remember those days. Those were awesome, but not inexpensive.Martin: [laugh]. That's right. Yeah, so like, you know, I had 15 years. It's kind of a culmination of that experience. So, that was one; I just think that people see VC and they have a reaction.The second one is, I think people still have the first cloud wars fresh in their memories and so they just don't know how to think outside of that. So, a lot of the rebuttals were first cloud war rebuttals. Like, “Well, but internal IT is slow and you can't have the expertise.” But like, they just don't apply to the new world, right? Like, listen, if you're Cloudflare, to say that you can't run, like, a large operation is just silly. If you went to Cloudflare and you're like, “Listen, you can't run your own infrastructure,” like, they'd take out your sucker and pat you on the head. [laugh].Corey: And not for nothing, if you try to run what they're doing on other cloud providers from a pure bandwidth perspective, you don't have a company anymore, regardless of how well funded you are. It's a never-full money pit that just sucks all of the money. And I've talked to a number of very early idea stage companies that aren't really founded yet about trying to do things like CDN-style work or streaming video, and a lot of those questions start off with well, we did some back-of-the-envelope math around AWS data transfer pricing, and if our numbers are right, when we scale, we'll be spending $65,000 on data transfer every minute. What did we get wrong?And it's like, “Oh, yeah, you realize that one thing is per hour not per minute, so slight difference there. But no, you're basically correct. Don't do it.” And yeah, no one pays retail price at that volume, but they're not going to give you a 99.999% discount on these things, so come up with a better plan. Cloudflare's business will not work on AWS, full stop.Martin: Yep, yep. So, I legitimately know, basically, household name public companies that are software companies that anybody listening to this knows the name of these companies, who have product lines who have 0% margins because they're [laugh] basically, like, for every dollar they make, they pay a dollar to Amazon. Like, this is a very real thing, right? And if you go to these companies, these are software infrastructure companies; they've got very talented teams, they know how to build, like, infrastructure. To tell them that like, “Well, you know, you can't build your own infrastructure,” or something is, I mean, it's like telling, like, an expert in the business, they can't do what they do; this is what they do. So, I just think that part of the furor, part of the uproar, was like, I just think people were stuck in this cloud war 1.0 mindset.I think the third thing is, listen, we've got an oligopoly, and they employ a bunch of people, and they've convinced a bunch of people they're right, and it's always hard to change that. And I also think there's just a knee-jerk reaction to these big macro shifts. And it was the same thing we did to software-defined networking. You know, like, my grad school work was trying to change networking to go from hardware to software. I remember giving a talk at Cisco, and I was, like, this kind of like a naive grad student, and they literally yelled at me out of the room. They're like, it'll never work.Corey: They tried to burn you as a witch, as I recall.Martin: [laugh]. And so, your specific question is, like, have our views evolved? But the first one is, I think that this macro downturn really kind of makes the problem more acute. And so, I think the problem is very, very real. And so, I think the question is, “Okay, so what happens?”So, let's say if you're building a new software company, and you have a choice of using, like, one of the Big Three public clouds, but it impacts your margins so much that it depresses your share price, what do you do? And I think that we thought a lot more about what the answers there are. And the ones that I think that we're seeing is, some actually are; companies are building their own infrastructure. Like, very famously MosaicML is building their own infrastructure. Fly.io, -building their own infrastructure.Mighty—you know, Suhail's company—building his own infrastructure. Cloudflare has their own infrastructure. So, I think if you're an infrastructure provider, a very reasonable thing to do is to build your own infrastructure. If you're not a core infrastructure provider, you're not; you can still use somebody's infrastructure that's built at a better cost point.So, for example, if I'm looking at a CDN tier, I'm going to use Fly.io, right? I mean, it's like, it's way cheaper, the multi-region is way better, and so, like, I do think that we're seeing, like, almost verticalized clouds getting built out that address this price point and, like, these new use cases. And I think this is going to start happening more and more now. And we're going to see basically almost the delamination of the cloud into these verticalized clouds.Corey: I think there's also a question of scale, where if you're starting out in the evening tonight, to—I want to build, I don't know Excel as a service or something. Great. You're pretty silly if you're not going to start off with a cloud provider, just because you can get instant access to resources, and if your product catches on, you scale out without having to ever go back and build it as quote-unquote “Enterprise grade,” as opposed to having building it on cheap servers or Raspberry Pis or something floating around. By the time that costs hit a certain point—and what that point is going to depend on your stage of company and lifecycle—you're remiss if you don't at least do an analysis on is this the path we want to continue on for the service that we're offering?And to be clear, the answer to this is almost entirely going to be bounded by the context of your business. I don't believe that companies as a general rule, make ill-reasoned decisions. I think that when we see a decision a company makes, by and large, there's context or constraints that we don't see that inform that. I know, it's fun to dunk on some of the large companies' seemingly inscrutable decisions, but I will say, having had the privilege to talk to an awful lot of execs in an awful lot of places—particularly on this show—I don't find myself encountering a whole lot of people in those roles who I come away with thinking that they're a few fries short of a Happy Meal. They generally are very well reasoned in why they do what they do. It's just a question of where we think the future is going on some level.Martin: Yep. So, I think that's absolutely right. So, to be a little bit more clear on what I think is happening with the cloud, which is I think every company that gets created in tech is going to use the cloud for something, right? They'll use it for development, the website, test, et cetera. And many will have everything in the cloud, right?So, the cloud is here to stay, it's going to continue to grow, it's a very important piece of the ecosystem, it's very important piece of IT. I'm very, very pro cloud; there's a lot of value. But the one area that's under pressure is if your product is SaaS if your product is selling Software as a Service, so then your product is basically infrastructure, now you've got a product cost model that includes the infrastructure itself, right? And if you reduce that, that's going to increase your margin. And so, every company that's doing that should ask the question, like, A, is the Big Three the right one for me?Maybe a verticalized cloud—like for example, whatever Fly or Mosaic or whatever is better because the cost is better. And I know how to, you know, write software and run these things, so I'll use that. They'll make that decision or maybe they'll build their own infrastructure. And I think we're going to see that decision happening more and more, exactly because now software is being offered as a service and they can do that. And I just want to make the point, just because I think it's so important, that the clouds did exactly this to the hardware providers. So, I just want to tell a quick story, just because for me, it's just so interesting. So—Corey: No, please, I was only really paying attention to this market from 2016 or so. There was a lot of the early days that I was using as a customer, but I wasn't paying attention to the overall industry trends. Please, storytime. This is how I learned things. I hang out with smart people and I come away a little bit smarter than when I started.Martin: [laugh]. This is, like, literally my fa—this is why this is one of my favorite topics is what I'm about to tell you, which is, so the clouds have always had this argument, right? The big clouds, three clouds, they're like, “Listen, why would you build your own cloud? Because, like, you don't have the expertise, and it's hard and you don't have economies of scale.” Right?And the answer is you wouldn't unless it impacts your share price, right? If it impacts your share price, then of course you would because it makes economic sense. So, the clouds had that exact same dilemma in 2005, right? So, in 2005, Google and Amazon and Microsoft, they looked at their COGS, they looked like, “Okay, I'm offering a cloud. If I look at the COGS, who am I paying?”And it turns out, there was a bunch of hardware providers that had 30% margins or 70% margins. They're like, “Why am I paying Cisco these big margins? Why am I paying Dell these big margins?” Right? So, they had the exact same dilemma.And all of the arguments that they use now applied then, right? So, the exact same arguments, for example, “AWS, you know nothing about hardware. Why would you build hardware? You don't have the expertise. These guys sell to everybody in the world, you don't have the economies of scale.”So, all of the same arguments applied to them. And yet… and yes because it was part of COGS] that it impacted the share price, they can make the economic argument to actually build hardware teams and build chips. And so, they verticalized, right? And so, it just turns out if the infrastructure becomes parts of COGS, it makes sense to optimize that infrastructure. And I would say, the Big Three's foray into OEMs and hardware is a much, much, much bigger leap than an infrastructure company foraying into building their own infrastructure.Corey: There's a certain startup cost inherent to all these things. And the small version of that we had in every company that we started in a pre-cloud era: renting virtual computers from vendors was a thing, but it was still fraught and challenging and things that we use, then, like, GoGrid no longer exist, for good reason. But the alternative was, “Great, I'm going to start building and seeing if this thing has any traction.” Well, you need to go lease a rack somewhere and buy servers from Dell, and they're going to do the fast expedited option, which means only six short weeks until they show up in the data center and then gets sent away because they weren't expecting to receive them. And you wind up with this entire universe of hell between cross-connects and all the rest.And that's before you can ever get anything in front of customers or users to see what happens. Now, it's a swipe of a credit card away and your evening's experiments round up to 25 cents. That was significant. Having to make these significant tens of thousands of dollars of investment just to launch is no longer true. And I feel like that was a great equalizer in some respects.Martin: Yeah, I think that—Corey: And that cost has been borne by the astonishing level of investment that the cloud providers themselves have made. And that basically means that we don't have to. But it does come at a cost.Martin: I think it's also worth pointing out that it's much easier to stand up your own infrastructure now than it has been in the past, too. And so, I think that there's a gradient here, right? So, if you're building a SaaS app, [laugh] you would be crazy not to use the cloud, you just be absolutely insane, right? Like, what do you know about core infrastructure? You know, what do you know about building a back-end? Like, what do you know about operating these things? Go focus on your SaaS app.Corey: The calluses I used to have from crimping my own Ethernet patch cables in data centers have faded by now. I don't want them to come back. Yeah, we used to know how to do these things. Now, most people in most companies do not have that baseline of experience, for excellent reasons. And I wouldn't wish that on the current generation of engineers, except for the ones I dislike.Martin: However, that is if you're building an application. Almost all of my investments are people that are building infrastructure. [laugh]. They're already doing these hardcore backend things; that's what they do: they sell infrastructure. Would you think, like, someone, like, at Databricks doesn't understand how to run infr—of course it does. I mean, like, or Snowflake or whatever, right?And so, this is a gradient. On the extreme app end, you shouldn't be thinking about infrastructure; just use the cloud. Somewhere in the middle, maybe you start on the cloud, maybe you don't. As you get closer to being a cloud service, of course you're going to build your own infrastructure.Like, for example—listen, I mean, I've been mentioning Fly; I just think it's a great example. I mean, Fly is a next-generation CDN, that you can run compute on, where they build their own infrastructure—it's a great developer experience—and they would just be silly. Like, they couldn't even make the cost model work if they did it on the cloud. So clearly, there's a gradient here, and I just think that you would be remiss and probably negligent if you're selling software not to have this conversation, or at least do the analysis.Corey: This episode is sponsored in part by our friend EnterpriseDB. EnterpriseDB has been powering enterprise applications with PostgreSQL for 15 years. And now EnterpriseDB has you covered wherever you deploy PostgreSQL on-premises, private cloud, and they just announced a fully-managed service on AWS and Azure called BigAnimal, all one word. Don't leave managing your database to your cloud vendor because they're too busy launching another half-dozen managed databases to focus on any one of them that they didn't build themselves. Instead, work with the experts over at EnterpriseDB. They can save you time and money, they can even help you migrate legacy applications—including Oracle—to the cloud. To learn more, try BigAnimal for free. Go to biganimal.com/snark, and tell them Corey sent you.Corey: I think there's also a philosophical shift, where a lot of the customers that I talk to about their AWS bills want to believe something that is often not true. And what they want to believe is that their AWS bill is a function of how many customers they have.Martin: Oh yeah.Corey: In practice, it is much more closely correlated with how many engineers they've hired. And it sounds like a joke, except that it's not. The challenge that you have when you choose to build in a data center is that you have bounds around your growth because there are capacity concerns. You are going to run out of power, cooling, and space to wind up having additional servers installed. In cloud, you have an unbounded growth problem.S3 is infinite storage, and the reason I'm comfortable saying that is that they can add hard drives faster than you can fill them. For all effective purposes, it is infinite amounts of storage. There is no forcing function that forces you to get rid of things. You spin up an instance, the natural state of it in a data center as a virtual machine or a virtual instance, is that it's going to stop working two to three years left on maintain when a raccoon hauls it off into the woods to make a nest or whatever the hell raccoons do. In cloud, you will retire before that instance does is it gets migrated to different underlying hosts, continuing to cost you however many cents per hour every hour until the earth crashes into the sun, or Amazon goes bankrupt.That is the trade-off you're making. There is no forcing function. And it's only money, which is a weird thing to say, but the failure mode of turning something off mistakenly that takes things down, well that's disastrous to your brand and your company. Just leaving it up, well, it's only money. It's never a top-of-mind priority, so it continues to build and continues to build and continues to build until you're really forced to reckon with a much larger problem.It is a form of technical debt, where you've kicked the can down the road until you can no longer kick that can. Then your options are either go ahead and fix it or go back and talk to you folks, and it's time for more money.Martin: Yeah. Or talk to you. [laugh].Corey: There is that.Martin: No seriously, I think everybody should, honestly. I think this is a board-level concern for every compa—I sit on a lot of boards; I see this. And this has organically become a board-level concern. I think it should become a conscious board-level concern of, you know, cloud costs, impact COGS. Any software company has it; it always becomes an issue, and so it should be treated as a first-class problem.And if you're not thinking through your options—and I think by the way, your company is a great option—but if you're not thinking to the options, then you're almost fiduciarily negligent. I think the vast, vast majority of people and vast majority of companies are going to stay on the cloud and just do some basic cost controls and some just basic hygiene and they're fine and, like, this doesn't touch them. But there are a set of companies, particularly those that sell infrastructure, where they may have to get more aggressive. And that ecosystem is now very vibrant, and there's a lot of shifts in it, and I think it's the most exciting place [laugh] in all of IT, like, personally in the industry.Corey: One question I have for you is where do you draw the line around infrastructure companies. I tend to have an evolving view of it myself, where things that are hard and difficult do not become harder with time. It used to require a deep-level engineer with a week to kill to wind up compiling and building a web server. Now, it is evolved and evolved and evolved; it is check a box on a webpage somewhere and you're serving a static website. Managed databases, I used to think, were something that were higher up the stack and not infrastructure. Today, I'd call them pretty clearly infrastructure.Things seem to be continually, I guess, a slipping beneath the waves to borrow an iceberg analogy. And it's only the stuff that you can see that is interesting and differentiated, on some level. I don't know where the industry is going at all, but I continue to think of infrastructure companies as being increasingly broad.Martin: Yeah, yeah, yeah. This is my favorite question. [laugh]. I'm so glad you asked. [laugh].Corey: This was not planned to be clear.Martin: No, no, no. Listen, I am such an infrastructure maximalist. And I've changed my opinion on this so much in the last three years. So, it used to be the case—and infrastructure has a long history of, like, calling the end of infrastructure. Like, every decade has been the end of infrastructure. It's like, you build the primitives and then everything else becomes an app problem, you know?Like, you build a cloud, and then we're done, you know? You build the PC and then we're done. And so, they are even very famous talks where people talk about the end of systems when we've be built everything right then. And I've totally changed my view. So, here's my current view.My current view is, infrastructure is the only, really, differentiation in systems, in all IT, in all software. It's just infrastructure. And the app layer is very important for the business, but the app layer always sits on infrastructure. And the differentiations in app is provided by the infrastructure. And so, the start of value is basically infrastructure.And the design space is so huge, so huge, right? I mean, we've moved from, like, PCs to cloud to data. Now, the cloud is decoupling and moving to the CDN tier. I mean, like, the front-end developers are building stuff in the browser. Like, there's just so much stuff to do that I think the value is always going to accrue to infrastructure.So, in my view, anybody that's improving the app accuracy or performance or correctness with technology is an infrastructure company, right? And the more of that you do, [laugh] the more infrastructure you are. And I think, you know, in 30 years, you and I are going to be old, and we're going to go back on this podcast. We're going to talk and there's going to be a whole bunch of infrastructure companies that are being created that have accrued a lot of value. I'm going to say one more thing, which is so—okay, this is a sneak preview for the people listening to this that nobody else has heard before.So Sarah, and I are back at it again, and—the brilliant Sarah, who did the first piece—and we're doing another study. And the study is if you look at public companies and you look at ones that are app companies versus infrastructure companies, where does the value accrue? And there's way, way more app companies; there's a ton of app companies, but it turns out that infrastructure companies have higher multiples and accrue more value. And that's actually a counter-narrative because people think that the business is the apps, but it just turns out that's where the differentiation is. So, I'm just an infra maximalist. I think you could be an infra person your entire career and it's the place to be. [laugh].Corey: And this is the real value that I see of looking at AWS bills. And our narrative is oh, we come in and we fix the horrifying AWS bill. And the naive pass is, “Oh, you cut the bill and make it lower?” Not always. Our primary focus has been on understanding it because you get a phone-number-looking bill from AWS. Great, you look at it, what's driving the cost? Storage.Okay, great. That doesn't mean anything to the company. They want to know what teams are doing this. What's it going to cost for them to add another thousand monthly active users? What is the increase in cost? How do they wind up identifying their bottlenecks? How do they track and assign portions of their COGS to different aspects of their service? How do they trace the flow of capital for their organization as they're serving their customers?And understanding the bill and knowing what to optimize and what not to becomes increasingly strategic business concern.Martin: Yeah.Corey: That's the fun part. That's the stuff I don't see that software has a good way of answering, just because there's no way to use an API to gain that kind of business context. When I started this place, I thought I was going to be building software. It turns out, there's so many conversations that have to happen as a part of this that cannot be replicated by software. I mean, honestly, my biggest competitor for all this stuff is Microsoft Excel because people want to try and do it themselves internally. And sometimes they do a great job, sometimes they don't, but it's understanding their drivers behind their cost. And I think that is what was often getting lost because the cloud obscures an awful lot of that.Martin: Yeah. I think even just summarize this whole thing pretty quickly, which is, like, I do think that organically, like, cloud cost has become a board-level issue. And I think that the shift that founders and execs should make is to just, like, treat it like a first-class problem upfront. So, what does that mean? Minimally, it means understanding how these things break down—A, to your point—B, there's a number of tools that actually help with onboarding of this stuff. Like, Vantage is one that I'm a fan of; it just provides some visibility.And then the third one is if you're selling Software as a Service, that's your core product or software, and particularly it's a infrastructure, if you don't actually do the analysis on, like, how this impacts your share price for different cloud costs, if you don't do that analysis, I would say your fiduciarily negligent, just because the impact would be so high, especially in this market. And so, I think, listen, these three things are pretty straightforward and I think anybody listening to this should consider them if you're running a company, or you're an executive company.Corey: Let's be clear, this is also the kind of problem that when you're sitting there trying to come up with an idea for a business that you can put on slide decks and then present to people like you, these sounds like the paradise of problems to have. Like, “Wow, we're successful and our business is so complex and scaled out that we don't know where exactly a lot of these cost drivers are coming from.” It's, “Yeah, that sounds amazing.” Like, I remember those early days, back when all I was able to do and spend time on and energy on was just down to the idea of, ohh, I'm getting business cards. That's awesome. That means I've made it as a business person.Spoiler: it did not. Having an aggressive Twitter presence, that's what made me as a business person. But then there's this next step and this next step and this next step and this next step, and eventually, you look around and realize just how overwrought everything you've built is and how untangling it just becomes a bit of a challenge and a hell of a mess. Now, the good part is at that point of success, you can bring people in, like, a CFO and a finance team who can do some deep-level analysis to help identify what COGS is—or in some cases, have some founders, explain what COGS is to you—and understand those structures and how you think about that. But it always feels like it's a trailing problem, not an early problem that people focus on.Martin: I'll tell you the reason. The reason is because this is a very new phenomenon that it's part of COGS. It's literally five years new. And so, we're just catching up. Even now, this discussion isn't what it was when we first wrote the post.Like, now people are pretty educated on, like, “Oh yeah, like, this is really an issue. Oh, yeah. It contributes to COGS. Oh, yeah. Like, our stock price gets hit.” Like, it's so funny to watch, like, the industry mature in real-time. And I think, like, going forward, it's just going to be obvious that this is a board-level issue; it's going to be obvious this is, like, a first-class consideration. But I agree with you. It's like, listen, like, the industry wasn't ready for it because we didn't have public companies. A lot of public companies, like, this is a real issue. I mean really we're talking about the last five, seven years.Corey: It really is neat, just in real time watching how you come up with something that sounds borderline heretical, and in a relatively short period of time, becomes accepted as a large-scale problem, and now it's now it is fallen off of the hype train into, “Yeah, this is something to be aware of.” And people's attention spans have already jumped to the next level and next generation of problem. It feels like this used to take way longer for these cycles, and now everything is so rapid that I almost worry that between the time we're recording this and the time that it publishes in a few weeks, what is going to have happened that makes this conversation irrelevant? I didn't used to have to think like that. Now, I do.Martin: Yeah, yeah, yeah, for sure. Well, just a couple of things. I want to talk about, like, one of the reasons that accelerated this, and then when I think is going forward. So, one of the reasons this was accelerated was just the macro downturn. Like, when we wrote the post, you could make the argument that nobody cares about margins because it's all about growth, right?And so, like—and even then, it still saved a bunch of money, but like, a lot of people were like, “Listen, the only thing that matters is growth.” Now, that's absolutely not the case if you look at public market valuations. I mean, people really care about free cash flow, they really care about profitability, and they really care about margins. And so, it's just really forced the issue. And it also, like, you know, made kind of what we were saying very, very clear.I would say, you know, as far as shifts that are going, I think one of the biggest shifts is for every back-end developer, there's, like, a hundred front-end developers. It's just crazy. And those front-end developers—Corey: A third of a DevOps engineer.Martin: [laugh]. True. I think those front-end developers are getting, like, better tools to build complete apps, right? Like, totally complete apps, right? Like they've got great JavaScript frameworks that coming out all the time.And so, you could argue that actually a secular technology change—which is that developers are now rebuilding apps as kind of front-end applications—is going to pull compute away from the clouds anyways, right? Like if instead of, like, the app being some back-end thing running in AWS, but instead is a front-end thing, you know, running in a browser at the CDN tier, while you're still using the Big Three clouds, it's being used in a very different way. And we may have to think about it again differently. Now, this, again, is a five-year going forward problem, but I do feel like there are big shifts that are even changing the way that we currently think about cloud now. And we'll see.Corey: And if those providers don't keep up and start matching those paradigms, there's going to be an intermediary shim layer of companies that wind up converting their resources and infrastructure into things that suit this new dynamic, and effectively, they're going to become the next version of, I don't know, Level 3, one of those big underlying infrastructure companies that most people have never heard of or have to think about because they're not doing anything that's perceived as interesting.Martin: Yeah, I agree. And I honestly think this is why Cloudflare and Cloudflare work is very interesting. This is why Fly is very interesting. It's a set of companies that are, like, “Hey, listen, like, workloads are moving to the front-end and, you know, you need compute closer to the user and multi-region is really important, et cetera.” So, even as we speak, we're seeing kind of shifts to the way the cloud is moving, which is just exciting. This is why it's, like, listen, infrastructure is everything. And, like, you and I like if we live to be 200, we can do [laugh] a great infrastructure work every year.Corey: I'm terrified, on some level, that I'll still be doing the exact same type of thing in 20 years.Martin: [laugh].Corey: I like solving different problems as we go. I really want to thank you for spending so much time talking to me today. If people want to learn more about what you're up to, slash beg you for other people's money or whatnot, where's the best place for them to find you?Martin: You know, we've got this amazing infrastructure Discord channel. [laugh].Corey: Really? I did not know that.Martin: I love it. It's, like, the best. Yeah, my favorite thing to do is drink coffee and talk about infrastructure. And like, I posted this on Twitter and we've got, like, 600 people. And it's just the best thing. So, that's honestly the best way to have these discussions. Maybe can you put, like, the link in, like, the show notes?Corey: Oh, absolutely. It is already there in the show notes. Check the show notes. Feel free to join the infrastructure Discord. I will be there waiting for you.Martin: Yeah, yeah, yeah. That'll be fantastic.Corey: Thank you so much for being so generous with your time. I appreciate it.Martin: This was great. Likewise, Corey. You're always a class act and I really appreciate that about you.Corey: I do my best. Martin Casado, general partner at Andreessen Horowitz. I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn, and this is Screaming in the Cloud. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, whereas if you've hated this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice along with an angry comment telling me that I got it completely wrong and what check you wrote makes you the most interesting.Announcer: The content here is for informational purposes only and should not be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice, or be used to evaluate any investment or security and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. For more details, please see a16z.com/disclosures.Corey: If your AWS bill keeps rising and your blood pressure is doing the same, then you need The Duckbill Group. We help companies fix their AWS bill by making it smaller and less horrifying. The Duckbill Group works for you, not AWS. We tailor recommendations to your business and we get to the point. Visit duckbillgroup.com to get started.Announcer: This has been a HumblePod production. Stay humble.

On this week's annotated deep dive, The Cultists present Steven Lisberger's cult classic ‘TRON' (1982). The story of a “scruffy” programmer (Jeff Bridges), who gets sucked into the glowing gridlocked world of The Computer, where avatars who remain devoted to their “users” are forced by the evil “master control program” to fight for their lives in gladiatorial combat, is, on the surface, your standard 80s action pitch—albeit with a shiny, future flair. And yet, what is often taken for granted is just how spectacular Tron's physical production and lasting industry impact was. From filming in actual nuclear research facilities and utter black box voids, to employing old school stage magician styles of optical illusion, to pioneering the computer's place in cinema at a time when no one else wanted to touch it, Tron stands alone as a remnant of a bizarre intersection of time and technique. A dazzling combination of practical lighting hacks, computer graphics, layered exposures, and backlit animation, no other film looks like Tron (and given how hard it was to make, it's likely that nothing else ever will). Deep Dives include: The “expert systems” revival and the thaw of the first AI winter; the Lawrence Livermore Lab locations; the benefits and drawbacks of shooting in 65mm; the trouble with lightcycles; the “neats” and “scruffies” of A.I. development; Dumont's forgotten TV network namesake origin; and Alan's ‘Day the Earth Stood Still' (1951) not-so-hidden killer robot reference. Episode Safeword(s): “off the grid”

Martin Casado and Sonal Chokshi explore what makes a great VP of Engineering at startups! You’ll hear how successful VPEs are evaluated, the ideal experience and success criteria. You’ll hear rapid-fire responses covering how to scale yourself, KPIs, the ideal VPE hiring time for startups, and what VPEs should definitely NOT do. MARTIN CASADO, GENERAL PARTNER @ ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ He was previously cofounder and CTOr at Nicira (acquired by VMware for $1.26 billion). At VMware, Martin was SVP & GM of the Networking and Security Business Unit (which he scaled to a $600 million run-rate). Martin’s early career was at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory working on large-scale simulations for the Department of Defense, networking, and cybersecurity. He holds both a PhD and Masters degree in Computer Science from Stanford University, where he created the software-defined networking (SDN) movement and cofounded Illuminics Systems (acquired by Quova). He’s been awarded both the ACM Grace Murray Hopper award and the NEC C&C award, and he’s an inductee of the Lawrence Livermore Lab’s Entrepreneur’s Hall of Fame. Martin serves on the board of: ActionIQ, Astranis, DeepMap, Imply, Kong, Pindrop Security, RapidAPI, SigOpt, and Yubico. “In my experience over a number of engineering leaders is whether or not they're a good engineer is totally orthogonal to the actual role. And in fact, someone that's deeply passionate about a particular architecture technology or approach can be very damaging because you have a power asymmetry in the team.” - Martin Casado SONAL CHOKSHI, EDITOR IN CHIEF @ ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ AKA "a16z" Sonal built and oversees all of Andreessen Horowitz’s editorial operations, including showrunning and hosting the a16z Podcast, leading production of the a16z Crypto Canon; and more. Prior to a16z Sonal was a Senior Editor at Wired. Prior to that, Sonal was responsible for content and community at Xerox PARC. Before moving back to California from NYC, Sonal was doing graduate work in developmental and cognitive psychology at Columbia University's school of education and worked as a researcher "ethnographer" on NSF grants around teacher professional development and early numeracy. She studied English and Psychology at UCLA. SHOWNOTES Hiring misconceptions & Why VPs of Engineering are so valuable (4:21) Ideal experience and success criteria for a Startup VPE (8:45) Does a VPE need to be a good engineer? (10:56) Two key areas VPEs are evaluated (13:01) How to balance product and engineering as a VPE (17:34) The hard issue of managing people (19:54) Why engineering analytics and conscious decisions are important to building great engineering orgs (22:24) Good KPIs and how to scale yourself as a VPE (24:19) When is the right time to become a VPE at a startup? (26:25) What a VPE should NOT do (27:44) What is a CTO’s role and how do you work with them as a VPE? (31:00) Takeaways (32:0) LINKS a16z Podcast ANNOUNCEMENT The ELC Summit has arrived! This is our annual conference to celebrate and inspire great leadership in engineering. Head to ELCSUMMIT.COM for more details! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/engineeringleadership/message

The blood-brain-barrier (BBB) is a special structure in the body that helps to protect the brain from unwanted toxins and germs. Unfortunately, this barrier can also make it extremely difficult for therapeutics to reach their intended target within brain. Lawrence Livermore Lab scientists describe how combining experimental techniques with computational methods, making use of some of the fastest supercomputers in the world, can speed up the process of optimizing therapeutics to cross the BBB. Series: "Lawrence Livermore National Lab Science on Saturday" [Science] [Show ID: 34467]

The blood-brain-barrier (BBB) is a special structure in the body that helps to protect the brain from unwanted toxins and germs. Unfortunately, this barrier can also make it extremely difficult for therapeutics to reach their intended target within brain. Lawrence Livermore Lab scientists describe how combining experimental techniques with computational methods, making use of some of the fastest supercomputers in the world, can speed up the process of optimizing therapeutics to cross the BBB. Series: "Lawrence Livermore National Lab Science on Saturday" [Science] [Show ID: 34467]

The blood-brain-barrier (BBB) is a special structure in the body that helps to protect the brain from unwanted toxins and germs. Unfortunately, this barrier can also make it extremely difficult for therapeutics to reach their intended target within brain. Lawrence Livermore Lab scientists describe how combining experimental techniques with computational methods, making use of some of the fastest supercomputers in the world, can speed up the process of optimizing therapeutics to cross the BBB. Series: "Lawrence Livermore National Lab Science on Saturday" [Science] [Show ID: 34467]

The blood-brain-barrier (BBB) is a special structure in the body that helps to protect the brain from unwanted toxins and germs. Unfortunately, this barrier can also make it extremely difficult for therapeutics to reach their intended target within brain. Lawrence Livermore Lab scientists describe how combining experimental techniques with computational methods, making use of some of the fastest supercomputers in the world, can speed up the process of optimizing therapeutics to cross the BBB. Series: "Lawrence Livermore National Lab Science on Saturday" [Science] [Show ID: 34467]

The blood-brain-barrier (BBB) is a special structure in the body that helps to protect the brain from unwanted toxins and germs. Unfortunately, this barrier can also make it extremely difficult for therapeutics to reach their intended target within brain. Lawrence Livermore Lab scientists describe how combining experimental techniques with computational methods, making use of some of the fastest supercomputers in the world, can speed up the process of optimizing therapeutics to cross the BBB. Series: "Lawrence Livermore National Lab Science on Saturday" [Science] [Show ID: 34467]

The blood-brain-barrier (BBB) is a special structure in the body that helps to protect the brain from unwanted toxins and germs. Unfortunately, this barrier can also make it extremely difficult for therapeutics to reach their intended target within brain. Lawrence Livermore Lab scientists describe how combining experimental techniques with computational methods, making use of some of the fastest supercomputers in the world, can speed up the process of optimizing therapeutics to cross the BBB. Series: "Lawrence Livermore National Lab Science on Saturday" [Science] [Show ID: 34467]

Nuclear weapons – their design, engineering, chances for implementation – that’s the topic we explore with Jay Coghlan, Executive Director of Nukewatch NM. Jay goes over the division of responsibility for nuclear weapons of mass destruction between Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Sandia Laboratory, and California’s Lawrence Livermore Lab. He then rips into Department of Energy for the lies and “theatre” surrounding claims of a “more-than-halfway-completed” so-called “clean-up” of LANL that ignores the vast majority of radioactive contamination… and ultimately is funding the new nuclear arms race. New Chris Busby website – www.chris.busby.exposed – tells the truth about this tireless British scientist. Chris is creating serious questions in the UK and beyond about the health effects of ionizing radiation and exposure to Uranium Weapons. And be sure to check out the Nuclear Hotseat interview with Chris Busby from Episode #333, November 7, 2017. Kevin Hester is a lifelong veteran of the eco-wars, with a fierceching, unflin attention to climate change and issues of human extinction. He currently produces and hosts the podcast Nature Bats Last, where he talks the difficult talk about the abrupt and exponential nature of global warming and the ultimate threat to human survival. But in this short interview (scroll down), we hear a different side of Kevin, about his life on a tiny New Zealand island and the real sense of community that sustains him. He’s been a staunch supporter of Nuclear Hotseat since our earliest days, and if you want to learn more about this important international activist, here’s a link to our interview on Nuclear Hotseat #233 from December 8, 2015. https://waihekeradio.org.nz/podcast/rakino-island/https://waihekeradio.org.nz/podcast/rakino-island/?fbclid=IwAR1Bxah9Ja8zONJ8H_1ws8qM1ZIOhyiN7H-On3LOLwPimv7eay9-PU_O6CIhttps://waihekeradio.org.nz/podcast/rakino-island/?fbclid=IwAR1Bxah9Ja8zONJ8H_1ws8qM1ZIOhyiN7H-On3LOLwPimv7eay9-PU_O6CI http://nuclearhotseat.com/

Bill Goldstein has always been attracted to a challenge. From his days in high school striving to understand theoretical physics problems, to his current work as the director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, (LLNL), Bill is a magnet for tough problems. But the problems that he faces at LLNL today aren’t just theoretical. They are very real and account for the safety of the nation and of the world. See, LLNL isn’t just any old testing lab; LLNL is responsible for securing and maintaining the U.S.’s nuclear arsenal. The most pressing challenge Bill and LLNL face today is maintaining the safety and utility of the nuclear stockpile. But there’s a catch. They can’t ever actually touch or test the weapons. “These are tremendously complicated devices. They are evolving continually over time. They have radioactive materials in them. They have chemically active materials in them. They are changing every day. They've been aging since 1992. And the challenge of being able to ensure that they remain safe and reliable is what drives a great deal of the science at the laboratory, including our need for ever-increasing power of computing without being able to do the tests in real life. It's essential that we need to be able to simulate the behavior of nuclear weapons with the highest possible fidelity and the most accurate possible physics and chemistry. And we need bigger computers than we have today in order to do that.” So how do you determine if something is safe and secure without tests? You collect data and use computer simulations to predict the state of the devices. Not exactly the most foolproof plan back in the 90s, but as technology has advanced, so have Bill and LLNL’s simulations. With the stockpile secure, LLNL’s mission has become much broader: to apply cutting edge science and technology to enhance national and international security. On this episode, Chad and Bill discuss some of these other areas of focus at the lab, and dive deep into how data and computer modeling is helping solve some of the massive challenges facing humanity today. — Mission Daily and all of our podcasts are created with love by our team at Mission.org. We own and operate a network of podcasts, and brand story studio designed to accelerate learning. Our clients include companies like Salesforce, Twilio, and Katerra who work with us because we produce results. To learn more and get our case studies, check out Mission.org/Studios. If you’re tired of media and news that promotes fear, uncertainty, and doubt and want an antidote, you’ll want to subscribe to our daily newsletter at Mission.org. When you do, you’ll receive a mission-driven newsletter every morning that will help you start your day off right!

Cancer becomes highly dangerous when it spreads from its original site to a different vital organ. These secondary tumors called metastases are what kill most patients. Despite hundreds of years of research, it is not understood why, where, and how cancer spreads to organs like the brain. Lawrence Livermore Lab scientist describes how they bring together cancer biology, 3D printing and material science, to understand and hopefully prevent metastases in the future. Series: "Lawrence Livermore National Lab Science on Saturday" [Health and Medicine] [Science] [Show ID: 34466]

Cancer becomes highly dangerous when it spreads from its original site to a different vital organ. These secondary tumors called metastases are what kill most patients. Despite hundreds of years of research, it is not understood why, where, and how cancer spreads to organs like the brain. Lawrence Livermore Lab scientist describes how they bring together cancer biology, 3D printing and material science, to understand and hopefully prevent metastases in the future. Series: "Lawrence Livermore National Lab Science on Saturday" [Health and Medicine] [Science] [Show ID: 34466]

Cancer becomes highly dangerous when it spreads from its original site to a different vital organ. These secondary tumors called metastases are what kill most patients. Despite hundreds of years of research, it is not understood why, where, and how cancer spreads to organs like the brain. Lawrence Livermore Lab scientist describes how they bring together cancer biology, 3D printing and material science, to understand and hopefully prevent metastases in the future. Series: "Lawrence Livermore National Lab Science on Saturday" [Health and Medicine] [Science] [Show ID: 34466]

Cancer becomes highly dangerous when it spreads from its original site to a different vital organ. These secondary tumors called metastases are what kill most patients. Despite hundreds of years of research, it is not understood why, where, and how cancer spreads to organs like the brain. Lawrence Livermore Lab scientist describes how they bring together cancer biology, 3D printing and material science, to understand and hopefully prevent metastases in the future. Series: "Lawrence Livermore National Lab Science on Saturday" [Health and Medicine] [Science] [Show ID: 34466]

Cancer becomes highly dangerous when it spreads from its original site to a different vital organ. These secondary tumors called metastases are what kill most patients. Despite hundreds of years of research, it is not understood why, where, and how cancer spreads to organs like the brain. Lawrence Livermore Lab scientist describes how they bring together cancer biology, 3D printing and material science, to understand and hopefully prevent metastases in the future. Series: "Lawrence Livermore National Lab Science on Saturday" [Health and Medicine] [Science] [Show ID: 34466]

Cancer becomes highly dangerous when it spreads from its original site to a different vital organ. These secondary tumors called metastases are what kill most patients. Despite hundreds of years of research, it is not understood why, where, and how cancer spreads to organs like the brain. Lawrence Livermore Lab scientist describes how they bring together cancer biology, 3D printing and material science, to understand and hopefully prevent metastases in the future. Series: "Lawrence Livermore National Lab Science on Saturday" [Health and Medicine] [Science] [Show ID: 34466]