Podcasts about nick thanks

Nonprofit news for June.  Independent Sector Releases Survey On Nonprofit Trust  Independent Sector has released its third annual survey on trust within the nonprofit and civil society sector. The findings show that nonprofits still benefit from strong public trust (56% of respondents say they trust nonprofits), making NPOs among the few social institutions that the majority of the public trust, along with small businesses and community members. However, the sector saw a statistically significant decrease of 3% in trust compared to 2020. The survey also found that education and financial wellbeing drive nonprofit trust, that purpose-driven integrity is essential, and that Gen Z is increasingly skeptical of the nonprofit sector. The survey fielded answers from 3,015 Americans and had a margin of error of +/- 2%. Read more ➝   Summary   233 mass shootings have happened so far in 2022: nonprofit | The Hill  Rising gas prices affect delivery operations for nonprofits | KSHB 41 Kansas City News Inflation impacts nonprofit's ability to feed thousands of kids over the summer | CBS 46 News  Small Nonprofits Shouldn't Be Subjected to the Same Payroll Tax as Amazon and ExxonMobil | The Chronicle of Philanthropy  Nonprofit helps formerly incarcerated firefighters get jobs | WesternSlopeNow           Rought Transcript [00:00:00] George: This week on the nonprofit news feed for gosh, June 6th, June 6th, the week of June 6th, we were talking about some of the information coming out of the independent sector on a survey, a non-profit trust, as well as some other headlines related to themes that we've been covering Nick. How's it going? [00:00:18] Nick: It's gone. Good, George. [00:00:20] George: Doing all right. Just, I had a wedding last weekend of an in-law's fun. Hadn't been to a wedding for awhile. So good time to celebrate. Hopefully nobody got COVID. [00:00:31] Nick: That's good. TIS the site TIS the season for weddings. [00:00:36] George: Yeah. weddings. weddings, and funerals. They go on, no matter what I'll say that. [00:00:41] Nick: That is true. But bring us back to the nonprofit news. We'll start off with our first story, which comes from independent sector. Independent sector has released its third annual survey on trust within the non-profit and civil society sector. And the findings show that while nonprofits still benefit from strong. [00:01:02] Trust where 56% of respondents say they still trust non-profits. This is actually a decrease of 3% in overall trust in nonprofits compared to 2020, there are a couple other really interesting findings within the report. One is that nonprofits were the strongest institution when it comes to public trust, beating. [00:01:27] Legacy institutions like government, the media substantially that being said, there's a couple of interests. Nuances and the data and the survey found that education and financial wellbeing drove non-profit trust. In fact, education level was the prime determinant more than any other demographic determinant of trust in non-profit organizations. [00:01:53] They also found that gen Z is increasingly skeptical of the nonprofit sector, not having a negative. uh, perspective per se. But not having a positive one either. So the jury is still out on them when it comes to building that trust in non-profits as a social institution. But George, what were your takeaways from these really interesting and important survivors? [00:02:19] George: yeah, just to start, I always try to find and understand the sample size. In this case, it is a U S general population of 3000 with a margin of error of plus or minus 2%. So any number you hear it's like give or take a couple points. So that's just important to put in mind. I think the differences based on age range, And rising generation being a touch more skeptical is in line, uh, overall positive in terms of this report that I look for is just look, we're talking about people's trust across businesses, government, media, and nonprofits, these four major pillars of information in our society and nonprofits continue to be at the top of it. [00:03:05] Overall trust erosion, just seemingly undercutting everybody. However, nonprofits just play this incredible role with regard to communicating valuable information at a time of mistrust. And so I, you know, I always like seeing that in terms of nonprofits being up there, but the overall number, I believe slipped 3% for nonprofits, right. [00:03:28] Nick: It did. Yeah. The overall number. Crease 3%. However, it was still high at 56%. And the only other social institution that was rated that high in the survey were small businesses and just local communities and community of members. So in terms of our social institutions, nonprofits are still the highest, but yes did slip 3%. [00:03:55] George: I'd say the other piece that I pulled out here is the biggest differentiating demographics. Characteristic is college non-college so more highly educated individuals in this particular survey, uh, were, uh, at a higher likelihood to be trusting the social impact sector, nonprofits and philanthropy. [00:04:17] Nick: That's an interesting one to me. And I think it goes. I think it's interesting because a lot of nonprofits, particularly those that focus on social welfare, uh, might be helping folks in poverty or who may not have had the ratty opportunity to go to higher education. So maybe an interesting dichotomy between. [00:04:44] The folks who might be funding contributing, running, and building non-profits versus beneficiaries uh, potential beneficiaries of those services. And of course that's a broad oversimplification, but to me that was, that was somewhat. George, what do you make of gen Z being more skeptical of nonprofits as an institution? [00:05:07] The, the actual data show that they were more trusting of, uh, crowdfunding, uh, type campaigns and a little bit more enthusiastic about, uh, about donating, for example, to those games. [00:05:22] George: Part of me is not surprised. Ultimately, rising generations tend to have higher levels of skepticism of institutions that pre-existed, that are run disproportionately sometimes by the other generation. And just, it's like a natural curve of what goes. The rise in, in crowdfunding and crowdfunding philanthropy is it's a personal frustration of mine because I don't believe it is the most intelligent way to distribute funds for a public. [00:05:49] Good. I think it's the most popular, I think it's the most social, I think it is near term, gratifying, longterm, even potentially destabilize. To say here's how philanthropy should be done. Where as a massive crowd, smarter than an individual who studies a topic, there are times when the crowd is far smarter, but there are other times when, you know, maybe an organization that has got 10 employees doesn't need $45 million in the span of four days. [00:06:20] Maybe that's a thing that you have to sort of balance. And I think, you know, it's a pendulum, it's a pendulum of a philanthropy that all, uh, Obviously, uh, come and go. And maybe the rising generation pro you know, like coming up, we'll be like, wait a minute. We've seen this show too many times. And the only person who wins in crowdfunding consistently as a crowdfunding platform. [00:06:41] Okay. [00:06:42] Nick: That's fair. I guess in turn, gen Z's are, are skeptical. You are, and we are skeptical of gen Z, uh, over simplification again, but. [00:06:53] George: Yeah, I mean, you also saw this in a macro around crypto, and obviously I've not shied away from being a fan of crypto philanthropy. However, it does also make that crowdfunding a lot easier. I cannot go understated the fact that millions and millions of dollars were sent to the Ukraine without the permission of the guiding powers that be to do so. [00:07:16] And that's, it feels very gratifying in the most. And you know, who who's to say how, you know, 80 plus million is, is being, being used. And it was something that when you take away the middle people, institutions and controlling bodies in place, like you just get money to where you think it needs to go, and it will have different types of second order effects both positive and negative. [00:07:46] Nick: Yeah, I think that's, I think that's that's fair. Agree. All right, we'll move on to our next story. And this comes from the hill and is a little bit more sobering. And the hill reports that data from the gun violence archive, which is a nonprofit has supported 233 mass shootings that have taken place so far this year in the United States. [00:08:11] And this data comes amid the fallout. Several devastating shootings in New York, Texas, Oklahoma. And just with seems like, uh, increasing temperature in the country when it comes to, uh, gun violence. But what struck me about this? Wasn't so much the gun violence as. As terrible as it is not something I'm surprised about sadly, but that the most definitive source on this is actually coming from a nonprofit and the gun violence archive is the go-to source for news organizations and researchers, uh, trying to assess. [00:08:53] Gun violence and mass shootings in particular in the United States. So really interesting that a nonprofit is stepping up here and filling that void, uh, to provide the public with really vital information that for a long time, The government, for example, was barred from studying you know, government agencies were barred from studying the health effects of gun violence. [00:09:15] So there was very, oh yeah, this is famously. That rule was lifted only within the past couple of years. But the CDC, I think it's, the CDC wanted to do a research on gun violence and Congress specifically for beta in the allocation of. So there's kind of a dearth of national data on gun violence and mass shootings. [00:09:43] And the data is all over the place. But it seems that this nonprofit is really kind of DFR Tate of a source of truth on this. [00:09:51] George: Yeah. I think getting back to definitely check this out. Gun violence, archive.org. I'm embarrassed. I had never seen this nonprofit, but it's a great model for showing how you can use data, information and honesty to hold up the mirror to society and say, this is what the numbers tell us about what's going on. [00:10:14] This isn't. I mean, as much as you can say, it's like, it's not an agenda here. It's just your, your numbers. You're not doing well by any measure of what's going on here. And the question is, is this, this, you know, what is, what is tolerant? You know, there's twenty twenty one, six hundred and ninety two mass shootings. [00:10:34] Is that tolerant of a society. I mean, it was tolerant then it was tolerant in 2020 with 610. Mass shootings. It was tolerant by our society in 2019, with 417 mass shootings. At what point, I wonder because the amount of mass shootings per year, it's some sort of threshold. And this organization seems to be asking that direct question by holding the numbers up, uh, as well as other total incidents of guns and other pieces, but the mass shootings. [00:11:10] Uh, particularly of importance because we made assault rifles legal in this country after having them be illegal throughout the nineties. And we simply let the clock expire on that permission. And now I know they're debating slowly, whether or not that might change, but I think one take a look at gun violence, archive.org, to take a look at how your organization responds to your own cause and your backyard, not just gun violence, but how might data be used in this. [00:11:37] way? [00:11:38] To effect change and to hold up that social mirror. [00:11:41] Nick: Absolutely George, that's a great analysis and I have a little bit more. And formation on the law. I was talking about there's a 19 66, 19 96 rule that passed through Congress, uh, called the Dickey amendment, which barred the CDC and other government research organizations from using funds to quote, to advocate or promote gun control, which was widely seen as essentially prohibiting any study of gun violence. [00:12:08] Or gun sales, what have you at the federal level, uh, but, uh, here's to have been repealed in 2019. But, uh, the article goes on to quote that there is a decade gap of, uh, data there that needs to be filled in. So like you said, this, this nonprofits doing tremendous, tremendous public service. [00:12:32] All right, I'll take us into our next story. And this comes from at KSHB 41, Kansas city news, and I'm going to package it with, uh, the next story from CBS 46 news. And these two articles about rising gas prices affecting delivery operations for nonprofits and similarly. Inflation impacting nonprofits ability to feed thousands of kids over the summer. [00:13:01] So we have two local stories here. One is a nonprofit, uh, you know, the price of gasoline is affecting their ability, uh, to, to move, uh, goods around and their operations. And uh, this other story. Inflation, uh, which we've talked about on this podcast, really impacting food banks and other, uh, services providing nonprofits. [00:13:23] But, uh, George, do we see this abating anytime soon? Is this going to be a problem for the long-term? Do we think how, how should we think about this kind of a macro economic, or even just a macro level? [00:13:39] George: So one of the reasons I brought up the articles that I did, I mean, there's so many of these articles about inflation. We talked about it on here, but the shift in the summer is that the school food programs that disproportionately feed a tremendous amount of food, insecure young people in this country through public schools. [00:13:57] Goes away during the summer. And so there's going to be a different level of food insecurity, hitting families across the country. This summer, while gas continues to rise and food prices continue to clearly hit new inflation highs and the cost of, uh, and the cost of food to feed, uh, is going, you know, that that need, that has to be met and it's disproportionate during the summer. [00:14:21] So these ones should program. Uh, or something that I was just looking at. And so if your organization is in and around it, I think messaging the urgency associated with a shift that, that could maybe help with fundraising or improving the narrative. [00:14:36] Nick: Absolutely. I agree. Those programs serve such a vital importance for our school students. And. The summer is hard for a lot of families that don't have not only the those food programs, but even then have to consider things like childcare or paying for camp or whatever it may be. Puts a lot of, a lot of burden on, on folks. [00:15:00] So that's a great thing to flag. All right, our next article, George, I know this is one, uh, that you're a topic you're passionate about and you're passionate about it because you, in fact wrote this article and the title is small. Non-profits, shouldn't be subjected to the same payroll's hacks as Amazon and Exxon mobile written by you in the Chronicle of philanthropy. [00:15:26] Do you want to tell us a little bit about what you. [00:15:30] George: I'm just going to admit, I know this is just shameless. It's shameless for me to bring my own article into our own newsfeed. However, this has been on my mind for probably a couple of years of how effectively the same payroll tax, right? When you pay an employee. That sort of percentage of payroll tax that goes to state and federal, which, you. [00:15:50] know, 10 to 14% give or take is the same rate that a Facebook exec, sorry, Mehta, exac, or somebody at Exxon or somebody at any other size organization is paying the same percentage rate instead of something like, and maybe you're like, oh, that makes sense. [00:16:06] It's a flat thing. Except if you look at our income tax, it's a progressive tax. The percent that a billionaire has to pay is more. On paper, at least than somebody making minimum wage yet at the point of sale at the point of the moment where the nonprofit or the fortune 100 company is paying the person, that's the same percentage rate. [00:16:31] And so I'm suggesting here a policy where in nonprofits that. Our smaller frankly, uh, that are smaller for effectively. I'm calling about a quarter million charities that are operating with less than a hundred employees and less than 5 million in annual revenue. Basically for, you know, a few billion dollars could essentially we could remove the payroll tax. [00:16:56] They're giving them an extra 10%, uh, operating to either raise wages, to hire people, to serve the communities that they already do. And, and by the way, they are, you know, 5 0 1 C3. So they are doing public good. Uh, and I put the cap on that in terms of the Cypress medical thing is because I don't think a nonprofit with like 10,000 employees is the same. [00:17:18] Type of situation that a smaller under 100 person nonprofit is. And yeah, it's a, it's a it's part thought experiment, but also part super freaking practical that literally for a cost of 3.7 billion I'd calculated, which could easily be made up with a progressive tax that we're in up a touch more for organizations like Amazon. [00:17:44] To pay cause they can't get around those taxes the same way they can on income tax on, on their, on their corporate taxes. They can't get away from the fact that they need to pay humans to do work. And that's where a percent is taken out. It'd be pretty easy to move up half a point for organizations that are operating over a billion dollars because they're dodging their freaking taxes. [00:18:05] Anyway. Anyway, this is a window into how. I get with social impact. [00:18:12] Nick: We love geekiness onto this podcast. And George I'd hesitate to guess that listeners who've made it this far into the podcast are just as geeky. So I think we are in good company, but I wish I had, I wish I had a room. I [00:18:27] Uh, we'll look at the data. We'll see many people make it this far. I wish I had a room to, to get you in someone to talk to someone in a suit in a, in a nice office in DC, because I think they need to hear. [00:18:41] George: Well, I'm not going to give up on this idea. I don't know where to go next. I did get a quote from the independent sector, uh, that, you know, they, they do think it's you know, potentially plausible and they, they said there is, uh, some type of, you know, precedent for this type of tax. But. We'll say, I don't know where to go with it next, but I tend not to let things drop, so I'll keep pushing this. [00:19:04] And if anybody listening just wants to take this and run with it, please go, go do it. I'll give you the research. Cause I should be doing my real job instead of trying to push something like this, [00:19:18] Nick: It's for the public. Good. And speaking of public. Good. How about a feel, good story from our favorite. [00:19:26] George: please. [00:19:28] Nick: All right. This story comes from a Western slope now.com not entirely sure, but it is about a nonprofit that's helping, helping formerly incarcerated firefighters get jobs. So it's, well-known that, especially out west, including in California, Oregon, and Washington states have relied on incarcerated men and women. [00:19:52] Wildfires. And that's all, that's a whole other conversation. But they are often trained to perform here at grueling work while earning just a few dollars, sometimes as little as $2 a day. However, there is a nonprofit group with some foundation backing. That's trying to help those firefighters turn their in carceral rated job into a real job. [00:20:19] Upon, uh, their release. So it's helping folks get the, uh, the certifications they need. Cause they already have the real-world training. I've already been doing it. They basically already are firefighters. But helping incarcerated folks, uh, turn what they learned during, during prison into a career. [00:20:38] And I think that's really tremendous. It helps, uh, reintegrate firefighters into, or formerly incarcerated folks. Newly firefighters into our communities. It helps them, uh, serve a public good and public benefit. And we interview when the individuals who participated. And he was saying that he felt that he had something to give back to society and was really proud to be able to serve in that capacity. [00:21:02] So this is a really innovation, innovative program, I think. And I'm for any kind of program that helps formerly incarcerated folks reintegrate into society, uh, because. It reduces recidivism and it has a whole host of other social benefits, but cool to see. [00:21:20] George: That's a really great quote in here from a a person. Uh, incarcerated and Brandon Smith says when you're incarcerated, you have this stigma of being a public nuisance. Being a firefighter, provided an opportunity for me to give back to community and give myself a sense of pride. It was something I wanted to continue as a way of giving back to the community once I came home. [00:21:44] But they noted that after his sentence was completed in 2014, it really wasn't clear how to essentially become a firefighter, even though he was. Already trained in that. And so the certificate cations that he received while incarcerated didn't count and he, uh, and he couldn't even apply for some positions do the criminal records. [00:22:05] So this is a great nonprofit. And by the way, you know, speaking to somebody who's in California, like we need firefighters very, very much so also across the Midwest, because it's going to be a very tough fire season. So hats off to these folks. All right, Nick. Thank you. [00:22:22] Nick: Thanks, arch.

Nonprofit news: In Wake Of Uvalde School Shooting, Gun Rights Advocacy Groups Fill Void Left By NRA   On May 24 a gunman opened fire at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas killing 19 students, two teachers, and wounding 17 others. The horrific shooting has rekindled the decades-long debate in the United States between gun control and gun rights advocates. Within economically developed countries, the United States by far outnumbers other countries in terms of both gun ownership and gun deaths per capita. Among gun rights advocacy groups, however, the infighting and reputationally-damaged NRA has provided an opportunity for other organizations (many tax-exempt) to fill the void, according to reporting from The Washington Post. The National Association for Gun Rights, a 501(c)4 group that often criticizes the NRA for being too compromising, saw revenue increase to $15 million, up from $6 million in 2019. Other gun rights groups have seen similar increases in revenue and capacity. Read more ➝ Summary Nonprofit Begins Tracking Anti-Asian Hate Crimes in the Midwest | NBC Chicago Nonprofits Fighting Gender Violence Have Struggled Since Losing Buffetts' Funding. They Urgently Need More Support. | The Chronicle of Philanthropy Coloradans asked to take water conservation pledge | 9News.com KUSA Tax breaks aren't prime reason for high-net-worth philanthropy, study finds | CNBC  Nonprofit keeps taps Memorial Day tradition alive | Military | kdhnews.com | The Killeen Daily Herald   Rough Transcript:   [00:00:00] George: This week on the nonprofit news feed we have got in the wake of the Uvalde, the school shooting information about how gun rights advocacy is actually increasing for some nonprofits and a number of other summary articles. Following coming after, uh, this Memorial day weekend, NEC. [00:00:21] Nick: It's going good, George. We have a lot to cover this week. Of course, the first story we're going to talk about is. Uh, around what happened in your Uvalde and better conversations about gun rights and gun control advocacy groups. So last week on May 24th government opened fire the Robb elementary school in , Texas killing 19 students to teachers. [00:00:46] And wounding 17 others. And this terrific shooting has rekindled a decades long debate in the United States between gun control and gun rights advocates. Uh, now within economically developed countries, the United States by far outnumbers others in terms of both gun ownership and gun deaths per capita. [00:01:06] Um, but along the debate about how to solve. You have gun rights, advocacy groups on one side and gun control advocacy groups on the other. Uh, we wanted to highlight an article from the Washington post, which is talking about a little bit of the landscape change on the side of the gun rights advocacy groups. [00:01:30] We've talked about those on this podcast before how the NRA has suffered from lots of infighting and legal challenges. As a whole has seen its reputation damage quite significantly over the past couple of years. Um, but as the Washington post points out, a lot of other tax exempt organizations now seem to be filling the void, um, and potentially taking the lead on the gun rights. [00:01:59] Side of the issue here. The national association for gun rights is a 5 0 1 C4 group that often criticizes the NRA for being too compromising saw revenue increase to 15 million up from just 6 million in 2019 on the article sites that lots of other gun rights groups have seen similar increases in revenue and capacity. [00:02:25] So the takeaway here is that what was. Very consolidated. Uh, landscape in terms of advocacy with one go-to group is now splintering and other groups are taking the place, uh, and serving the role once filled by the NRA. But George, this comes as the NRA held its annual conference in Texas, just three days after the shooting. [00:02:51] Um, this conference was on last Friday and it's a fraught moment in the United States. And, um, You know, personally, I think that that gun control and gun safety needs to be acted upon and legislative upon. And unfortunately that were happened, but interesting, nonetheless, to see the landscape on the gun rights side, change in pretty significant. [00:03:12] George: Yeah, it's sort of inevitable the thought that tamping down the NRAS ability to sort of fundraise and operate effectively to assume that that would stop. The progress of guns in this country. And it's unbelievable power in terms of putting money into politics is, is errand, right? It is. It's sort of targeting your energy at the, the wrong enemy because like a hydro, when you cut off its head to more show up in its place, inevitably the source of the money is not going away. [00:03:51] The amount of guns purchased after an event like this inevitably increases, and that simply puts more money in the hands of manufacturers, which then finds its way inevitably into any functioning non-profit willing to carry the flag of, of gun rights over human. And so, you know, in a moment like this, there's a, you know, a rare opportunity to get the country's attention and to focus on something. [00:04:18] I am having a hard time finding faith in Congress that immediately chose the bold action of going on vacation and leadership that has just polar polar views. Interesting narratives that I've seen coming out here are, is around the fact that we actually had a ban on assault. Right. Had a band. And if you look at the number of mass shootings prior to 2004, when it went out of the fact where he was put into place in 1994, by president than bill Clinton, the number of mass shootings go up. [00:04:52] The question that is just hard to reconcile is why, you know, 18 year olds or frankly anyone needs access to high capacity, uh, firearms, if not to kill it. It makes zero sense other than to line the pockets of [00:05:08] these manufacturers under this like misconceived notion of the right to bear arms and it's absurd extent, you know, why, why draw the line of dissolves? Shouldn't we all have, uh, you know, explosives, why am I put on Dara's watchlist? If I buy a extreme amounts of. It's because you have intent to do harm to large amounts of people. [00:05:32] There are potential solutions being talked about that that could work. And you mentioned the sort of larger fact of how America has more guns than other countries. You said, uh, a lot more though, you know, and I think it's important to note that our, our guns, our guns per a hundred people are 120 guns per people. [00:05:52] The next closest is Candace at 34 guns for people. You know that there are more guns than there are people here. Um, and somehow we continue to purchase more. And then that inevitably leads to gun murders per a hundred thousand, which is 30 times worse than Australia's. And a number of times worse than Canada's we're at 3.4 deaths per and Canada is at 0.6. [00:06:14] So, you know, I think what needs to happen differently this time than the last time we had a tragedy. This magnitude, which was Sally and, you know, Sandy hook, December of 2012 is a reasonable step forward. It's easy to respond extreme to extreme, but I think you, what I'm saying, you, I think. Progressive legislators advocates. [00:06:43] Non-profits people speaking to this need to couch, the anger and rage and focus on small wins, which feels just painful to say, but small wins and steps toward reasonable controls on. Anywhere that you can gain this, and I'm not going to list the number of policies out there, but there are areas where Americans all can agree and should agree. [00:07:08] So I think I'm, I'm being a sort of moderate in my expectation, uh, and also analyzing some Google trends and seeing. That so far, we actually haven't hit the overall searches search volume that we saw about a decade ago. Um, in 2013, far from it, in terms of Google trends, searches for gun control as a topic. [00:07:30] So I haven't seen it take off as high as it probably needs to, to actually move the needle. And again, Congress going on a brave vacation. During this time, uh, is going to slow any potential policy. So the question is for, for how long can the state in the media narrative and hopefully not get taken over also by a counter narrative, which is going to be incredibly attractive to take, which is why the sheriff overseeing this, uh, this, this tragedy chose to wait for. [00:08:06] Over 15 minutes to take action. And that's, that's not the point. The point is there's an 18 year old who needed medical help and instead he got help from a local gun store. [00:08:17] Nick: I definitely agree with you. I think to your point for too long folks on the side of the policy debate about wanting stricter gun control have propped up the NRA as this kind of buggy man. But the truth of the matter is. Is ideological divide in this country. And there are a lot of people who repeatedly vote in candidates who are. [00:08:45] Pro gun. And that, that ideological messaging on the right is, is extreme. And I think it's beyond just money and lobbyist. It's a genuine ideological, perhaps demagogues, but it's an ideological difference. And I think that for folks who are looking for solutions need to understand that it's not just countering dark money and politics, it's actually. [00:09:09] Changing minds and having those debates and meeting people where they're at to your point about small wins. Um, but something, something we'll continue to watch. And unfortunately I'm not super hopeful as well, but that being said, um, you have to try and, and we'll keep trying. And this year we have a chance to try again. [00:09:33] So, uh, something, a story and a narrative will continue to be. [00:09:37] All right, shifting gears a little bit. I can take us into the summary. This one comes from NBC in Chicago, and it's about a nonprofit beginning to track anti Asian hate crimes in the Midwest. So over the course of the pandemic, uh, organizations that track statistics of, um, Uh, hate crimes against Asian Americans have seen in over 300% increase. [00:10:03] And this particular organization that Asian American foundation is setting up a program to track hate crimes and AAPI violence while providing legal and other support to victims. Um, To build trust, um, and break down barriers with communities, particularly immigrant communities or non native English speaking communities, um, to, to help these folks feel supported in a time where unfortunately, they're seeing a surge in violence against them. [00:10:33] And I live in New York and there's been really tragically high profile, um, hate crimes against. Asian folks in the New York city area. So there's just something that's, that's very close to us. And I know a lot of here, all of us here at Holwell. So, um, just awesome. Worked from a nonprofit, stepping up to fill that dough, that void when it comes to data and reporting, and that is hugely important when it comes to creating policy decisions and other sorts of interventions to address such violence. [00:11:05] George: Yeah, I think it's important that. Sir, not the qualitative, but the quantitative on this one, trying to document and get the data of what's going on. So you can really understand the scope of the problem. There's one thing to say, one-off events and like it's easy then for the public to say, oh yeah, but that's just like one lone actor as opposed to the larger incidents going up. [00:11:28] So yeah, I like this. [00:11:30] Nick: Okay. All right. Our next story is interesting one, and this comes from the Chronicle of falling anthropy and it talks about how the buffets, um, have stopped funding programs that support women and girls, particularly in the United States. So this article talks about, um, the foundation, um, the, the Novo foundation. [00:11:55] Uh, quote unquote stunned the nonprofit world by announced thing at the height of the pandemic, that it was halting funding for critical programs, focused on women and girls. And the article goes on to talk with some of the, uh, uh, grant recipient organizations that have been on the receipt had been on the receiving end of such funding, seeing it suddenly dry off. [00:12:17] And, uh, the, the, the TLDR of this article is. When it comes to corporate philanthropy, single similarly split second decisions can have really lasting and unfortunate ramifications. And, uh, the article kind of goes on to talk about the need for organizations to diversify funding, which is of course easier said than done. [00:12:40] Um, but George, what's your take on this? [00:12:42] George: No, we covered the Nova foundation out and shift, and this is just the second order or logical next order effect of that, where, you know, the Nova foundation accounted for or reported 96% of funding for that type of work. And it's. It's it's unfortunate because it does then a cliff and raises questions about, you know, was this? [00:13:04] you know, especially if they're trying to turn long-term impact, it's hard to do when your funding can drive overnight. [00:13:09] So, you know, we'll call for much more responsible philanthropy and just, just a warning for anyone who's funding relies heavily 70%, 50% more on one story. [00:13:19] Nick: All right. Our next story comes from nine news.com K USA. And it's about Coloradans being asked to take a water conservation pledge. This is kind of a cool one. It's called the water 22 pledge, and it includes 22 ways for every Coloradan to save 22 gallons of water every day. And according to this nifty infographic, um, Each Colorado and saves 22 gallons per day. [00:13:49] That's 8,000 gallons per year, or approximately 48 billion gallons per year for the statewide. So, uh, this of course addressing the, some, uh, climate concerns around, uh, drought and lack of, uh, clean water, um, and, and really, really dangerously low water levels out there. Um, so, uh, I love it. I love this, this kind of educational approach to addressing environmental impacts. [00:14:19] And of course it takes much more than that, but the fact that this is just one kind of component of that I think is really cool and something we're going to need a hell of a lot more of as we start and continue to tackle the climate crisis. [00:14:33] George: Yeah. I like stories like these sort of, non-profits stepping up for water crises, which are absolutely going to happen across the west Midwest. This. Based on what they're reporting. I think those, those points are incredibly important, but the practical environmental scientist. That I once potentially wanted to be in, in college, uh, has to also point to the fact that in terms of water consumption, agricultural water use is 89% of Colorado state wide usage. [00:15:07] So, you know, the, the individuals, you know, cutting back certainly helps, but I think there's also a lot of room for improved farming practices and, uh, smart irrigation systems that can save quite a bit more if we're just being. Logical about it. So, you know, I, I see stories like this. I'm excited about citizens getting in there, but I hope it doesn't stop there. [00:15:28] And also, you know, allocates for more intelligent, more intelligent ways to save. [00:15:33] Nick: Absolutely. Our next story is from CNBC and it says the tax breaks. Aren't the prime reason for high net worth philanthropy or. So the study conducted by BNI, BNY Mellon wealth management asserts that in fact, tax benefits are not the primary reason that people donate to charity, um, including, um, hyper wealthy people. [00:16:03] Um, and the top reasons for charitable giving include they're donated to a special cause they wanted to see impact they, or they want to give back or increase their legacy. Um, so. Maybe the folks who are a little bit too cynical about, uh, charitable giving. So take a look at this and, and of course, you know, there's exceptions well, um, but it restores your faith a little bit, and it talks about interestingly and perhaps more importantly trends amongst younger people, millennials and gen Z while still building up. [00:16:37] For, as you talk a lot about the greatest wealth transfer in history is about to come our way, um, increasing trends in terms of young people, uh, donating and caring about, uh, social. [00:16:49] George: Yeah, quoting here. The younger generations are more charitably inclined and they care more about impact and nearly three quarters of high net worth millennials and eight and 10. Gen X-ers investors have a charitable giving strategy according to this report. And I think it's important to note that the, the rising generation and the rising generation of frankly, a million multi-millionaires seem to have that type of lens and probably parked under the effective philanthropy, uh, effective philanthropy, effective altruist type of mantra, where they, you know, the care of where the dollars go in terms of trackable impact into causes and issues that serve a greater. [00:17:28] Systemic solution. I would say, uh, also, you know, notably people like, um, one of the youngest, uh, new billionaires out there in crypto sandbank, then freed is also said to be making money so that he can spend money aggressively, uh, in, um, in his work. And it's a good trend to be aware of as some, you know, one large donor can, can make a, quite, quite a difference, especially as how. [00:17:57] Craft your, your narratives and communications to your general audience, because inevitably there are probably a power law dynamic of 1% of that audience has 99% of the wealth. [00:18:08] Nick: Definitely that's a great analysis and something, I guess we'll see, play out over time, but toward time out, I feel good story to finish. [00:18:18] George: Um, [00:18:19] Nick: All right. This comes from KTH news.com, Kilian daily Herald, and it's about a nonprofit keeping them Memorial day, traditional Latifah playing taps. The Mecca Ts multi educational cross-cultural arts of central Texas is a nonprofit organization dedicated to educating and spreading the awareness of cultural music and dance gathered to play taps. [00:18:46] Veterans grades and honor of their service and sacrifice this Memorial day. And it talks about Mecca Tech's leader and retired us army criminal, Daniel , who was 90, who began this year's remembrance at the grave of his friend. Um, another former board member of this nonprofit retired Sergeant first class Jose land does. [00:19:07] So, uh, music can be an important and valuable way to serve. That part of our life journey and, uh, recognizing, um, friends fallen and war celebrating life morning life and just overall expression. Um, he's like, it's really important to me and I know to a lot of other people, and this is great to see a nonprofit, uh, using it to pay their respects this Memorial day. [00:19:38] George: Beautiful way to remember people that have given the ultimate sacrifice for the freedoms that we enjoy. And so yes, to, to the veterans and to the people that are remembering Memorial day, uh, it's much appreciated and like to see non-profits involved in, in keeping these types of traditions alive. Thanks, Nick. [00:19:59] Nick: Thanks, George.  

FreeBSD 13.1 is released, Unix command line conventions over time, Branching for NetBSD 10, Microbhyve, Own your Calendar and Contacts with OpenBSD, the PSARC case for ZFS, and more NOTES This episode of BSDNow is brought to you by Tarsnap (https://www.tarsnap.com/bsdnow) and the BSDNow Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/bsdnow) Headlines FreeBSD 13.1 Release is available (https://www.freebsd.org/releases/13.1R/announce/) Unix command line conventions over time (https://blog.liw.fi/posts/2022/05/07/unix-cli/) News Roundup Branching for NetBSD 10 (https://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2022/05/02/msg042278.html) Microbyhve (https://github.com/cbsd/microbhyve) Own Your Calendar & Contacts With OpenBSD, Baïkal, and FOSS Android (https://baak6.com/baikal-openbsd-fossdroid/) Twenty years ago today, Jeff filed the PSARC case for the ZFS filesystem (https://twitter.com/mmusante/status/1518947283626246145?t=tzR6KeMx2mhjJfeoOqrHIw&s=03) Tarsnap This weeks episode of BSDNow was sponsored by our friends at Tarsnap, the only secure online backup you can trust your data to. Even paranoids need backups. Feedback/Questions Scott - FreeBSD and supercomputing (https://github.com/BSDNow/bsdnow.tv/blob/master/episodes/456/feedback/Scott%20-%20FreeBSD%20and%20supercomputing.md) Nick - Thanks and some shout outs (https://github.com/BSDNow/bsdnow.tv/blob/master/episodes/456/feedback/Nick%20-%20Thanks%20and%20some%20shout%20outs.md) Send questions, comments, show ideas/topics, or stories you want mentioned on the show to feedback@bsdnow.tv (mailto:feedback@bsdnow.tv) ***

Earlier this week, my colleague Adam Mastroianni published an essay on what he called "cultural oligopoly." An increasingly smaller number of artists create an increasingly larger percentage of what we watch, read, and listen to. Mastroianni presents data showing that through the year 2000 only about twenty-five percent of a single year's highest grossing movies were spinoffs, franchises, or sequels. Now it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 75%. He has similar data for hit TV shows, books, and music. Why is this happening?My guest today is Nick Seaver, who is a cultural anthropologist at Tufts University. And for the last decade or so, Nick has studied the social processes underlying the creation of music recommender systems, which form the algorithmic basis for companies like Spotify and Pandora. I've admired Nick's work for a long time. And as an anthropologist, he is interested not necessarily in the nitty gritty details of how these algorithms are constructed, but rather in who is constructing them and what these people believe they are doing when they make decisions about how the algorithms ought to work.The core of Nick's work centers around taste, and how these companies and their algorithms subtly shape not only what we consume, but what we like. When Nick started this line of work in the early 2010s, it really wasn't clear how big of an impact these recommender systems would have on our society. Now, his expertise gives an evermore incisive look at the central themes of many large societal conversations around the content we consume and our everyday digital existence. But I came into this conversation with Mastroianni's question at the top of my mind, and I think Nick's research can give a crucial insight, at least into one piece of the puzzle.One of Nick's papers relates an ethnographic study of music recommender system engineers. In the interest of protecting the identity of his informants, he gives the company a fictional name, but it bears conspicuous resemblance to Spotify. As a naive observer, one might think that the way these engineers think about their audience is in terms of demography: this kind of person likes this kind of music. If they can figure out the kind of person you are, they can recommend music that you'll probably like. But that turns out not to be the dimension of largest variance.Instead, Nick introduces the concept of “avidity.” Essentially, how much effort is a listener willing to put in to find new music? This turns out to be the first distinction that these engineers make between listeners. And it forms a pyramid. On the bottom you have what one of his informants called the “musically indifferent.” This makes up the majority of listeners. Their ideal listening experience is “lean-back.” They want to press play, then leave the whole thing alone. It is a passive listening experience — no skipping songs, no wondering what other tracks might be on the album. From there, it goes from “casual” and “engaged” listeners to the top of the pyramid, which is “musical savant.” These are “lean-in” listeners who are taking an active role in discovering new and different kinds of music.“The challenge,” Nick writes, “is that all of these listeners wanted different things out of a recommender system.” Quoting one of his informants, codename Peter, he says: “in any of these four sectors, it's a different ball game in how you want to engage them.” As Nick summarizes it: “what worked for one group might fail for another.”Nick continues here: "as Peter explained to me, lean-back listeners represented the bulk of the potential market for music recommendation in spite of their relatively low status in the pyramid. There were more of them. They were more in need of the kind of assistance recommenders could offer and successfully capturing them could make 'the big bucks' for a company."Nick relates the slightly more forthcoming perspective of another engineer, codename Oliver: "it's hard to recommend shitty music to people who want shitty music," he said, expressing the burden of a music recommendation developer caught between two competing evaluative schemes: his own idea about what makes good music and what he recognizes as the proper criteria for evaluating a recommender system.In the course of our conversation, Nick and I cover not only his studies of music recommender systems, but also his more recent studies taking an anthropological approach to attention. We tend to think of attention as this highly individualized process. For example, of gazing into the screen of your phone or turning your head to identify the source of an unexpected noise. But attention is also a social and cultural process. We attend collectively to certain stories, certain memes, certain ideas. What exactly the connection is between these two forms of attention is not obvious. And Nick's current line of work is an attempt to draw it out.But the larger theme here is that music recommender systems are one battle in the larger war for our collective attention. What Spotify, Netflix, and Twitter all have in common is that their success is proportional to the extent to which they can dominate our attention. This is known in Silicon Valley as the idea of "persuasive technology." And one way to begin to understand the origins of cultural oligopolies starts with Nick's observation about avidity. The vast majority of listeners or viewers tend to go with the default option with which they're presented. Another way of putting it is that their preferred mode is habitual autopilot.While recommender systems make up just one part of this content ecosystem. This principle remains stable across its many different layers. The more we go with our habitual default options, the more control these platforms have over us. The more we rely on these companies to define our tastes for us, the more homogenous our tastes will become.Nick's forthcoming book is “Computing Taste.” It comes out in December 2022. Keep an eye out for it. And if you enjoy this episode, you can subscribe to my Substack newsletter at againsthabit.com or leave a five star review on iTunes.Thank you for listening. Here is Nick Seaver.Cody: One of your current areas of interest is attention. And while I think this is a topic that is a pillar of how we understand our own modern lives and definitely has a long history of study in fields like psychology, it's not really something that anthropologists have covered as much in a direct way. So I'm curious to get your current perspective on why people talk about attention so much, what this word might really mean, and what an anthropological take on it might show us.[00:07:46] Nick: Yeah. My interest in attention stemmed from the earlier work that I did, sort of my PhD dissertation project and first book, which was about the developers of music recommender systems. And one of the things you realize if you, you know, study recommender systems at all, is that people are really interested in attention.They're interested in ways that you measure — how you measure if someone is listening to some music, what they like on the basis of their listening habits, your interest in trying to encourage them to listen more, to do all this stuff with their attention. And that was going to lurking in the background for me for a long time.So when I had a chance to design a new seminar to teach at Tufts for our anthropology undergraduates I thought, you know, okay, I want to learn more about attention and try to find stuff about it. So I proposed a course, which I called "how to pay attention," uh, which was a little bit of a click baity title. We don't really do attention hacks or anything. And it was a chance for me to read really broadly across media studies about across history, across psychology, cognitive science, uh, and some anthropology art history and so on to think about like, what is this thing? Like, what's this, this concept that seems so important for the way that people describe anything in the world now.And as an anthropologist, I was, uh, struck by that because, you know, when you find a concept that does so much work for people, it's — I would argue it's hard to find one that is doing more work in the present moment than attention — you know you've got something culturally rich. But a lot of the ways we talk about attention in public, the kind of popular discourse around attention is very narrow. It's very individualizing. It's very sort of a thing that happens in individual brains.So the line I like to give, uh, is that, you know, the question is: what would it look like to take an anthropological approach to attention? Well, it would look like putting attention in a social context and in a cultural context.And my thumbnail definitions of those are, you know, society is this sort of world of relationships and roles in which people live. It's where you have bosses and spouses and professors and students and pets and doctors and sheriffs and all these other kinds of roles that people occupy. And we clearly pay attention within those social structures, right? We pay attention to the same things as each other. If I'm sitting in a classroom with students, they're paying attention to me and each other in certain ways that are governed by our social roles and relationships. And we also pay attention in a cultural context, which means we pay attention in a world where we value certain things, sort of arbitrarily where we make associations between certain kinds of entities and other entities.So we might say, oh, let's, you know, focus our attention over here. And we talk about our attention as though it's a kind of lens or an optical instrument, or we'll talk about attention as being like a filter, right? We have information overload because there's not enough filtering happening between information and the world in our heads.So these are all cultural phenomenon. There's nothing intrinsically attention-like about them. And to my mind studying how people make sense of attention in the present moment in these cultural contexts, uh, is just a fascinating question. So that's the sort of how I got into it and where I think an anthropological approach is different from the sort of stereotypical psychological approach.Not that all psychologists are like this, um, but you know, the stereotypical psychology approach would be, let's do experiments with reaction times and individual people, you know, in a lab setting. And that's not really what I'm interested in. I'm really interested in the fact that people talk about attention all the time and they use it to explain all sorts of things and they think that it's really important.[00:11:12] Cody: There's definitely a trope in psychology that whatever you are studying. Whether it's memory or visual search or whatever it is, you can kind of at always some point just boil it down to, you know, some explanation: Oh, well this is what the person is attending to. This is, this is what their attention is focused on. But it's not actually — it's often kind of just a hand-waving way of, of saying, oh, well, yeah, it's what they're concentrating on without having, having any specific idea of what that really means. So I'm kind of curious what, what does putting the idea of attention in a social and cultural context — what do you think we've misunderstood about attention by individualizing and overlooking those social and cultural contexts?[00:12:01] Nick: I would say one thing is to note that there are lots of folks working in the sort of intersection of philosophy and cognitive science who are very interested in that kind of circularity of, uh, of explanation that you just described. Right. That are like: wait a minute, what does attention mean then? One of the ones that I am familiar with her work — Carolyn Dicey Jennings is one such philosopher who works in close collaboration with cognitive scientists and is sort of interested in offering a philosophically rigorous account of attention that isn't just like the thing that you point to when you've given up on giving explanations.But one reason I love reading and cognitive science around this is that you've started to realize that it seems really obvious what attention is. And of course, the famous line that everyone has to quote in all of their articles and books seems to be from William James, the godfather of American psychology who says everyone knows what attention is.And then gives you the sort of basic definition of, you know, it's when you, uh, focus on something and sort of don't focus on other things. But of course, when you push on attention, it's not really clear what it is. And it's sort of a grab bag concept that pulls together all sorts of stuff, right? It includes your ability to focus for a long time or so your sort of endurance. It includes vigilance, right? It includes the sheer sort of, uh, arousal state. Like if you're really sleepy, you're maybe not as attentive. It also includes that basic filtering capacity, the ability to, you know, in a crowded room, to listen to the person who's talking to me, instead of hearing all of the other stuff that's happening. There's all these things that you may not necessarily want to, or need to combine into a single concept.But there's not really internal coherence there. But while that's sort of a problem for psychologists, they right. They say we want to be studying one thing. We don't want to be accidentally mixing a bunch of different references. It's really normal in a cultural context, right? For any given symbol, say attention as a symbol here, to mean lots of different things and to be specifically a way to sort of draw together a bunch of different discourses in one place.So to my mind, that got me thinking, well, you know, attention just is a cultural phenomenon, just like as a defined thing. Like the fact that we think of, uh, you know, a first grader's ability to sit in their chair in the classroom for a long time, we think of that as being the same thing as my ability to, you know, listen to you and not just have my mind wander off to some other thing, while we're talking — those don't have to be the same as each other. And yet we think of them as being totally connected to each other.Another example I like to give often to talk about the sort of various layers at which attention works — in the way that, you know, in sort of common usage — has to do with Donald Trump, which is not the most fun example but there was a lot of attentional discourse around Trump, which ranged from when he was elected this sense of like, oh, you know, the press was not paying attention to the right people. This was a surprise to some people because there was not collective attention to the right parts of society. There was not an awareness that was happening.So there's an attention that's not an individual's attention, right? That's like everybody's attention. But what is that? That's not the same thing as what happens in the brain.All of those things tangled together through this weirdo concept that nobody seems to really question. We really take it for granted as like an obvious, important thing.[00:15:10] Cody: You mentioned in one of your papers, this metaphor that I'm really interested in. And it's that the way we usually talk about attention is in terms of "paying" attention, which is based in an economic metaphor. and certainly I hear a lot of people talking about like, "okay, well your most valuable asset is your time. No, no, no. Actually wait, that's just the convention. Really, your most valuable asset is your attention, which is kind of this cycle, psychological function of time." But anyway, that's kind of how we normally talk about attention, but you propose this idea that actually the sort of verb there should be "doing" attention as in some sort of action forward notion of what it means to attend.So can you say a little bit more about what that means?[00:16:00] Nick: Clearly the economic metaphor is in many ways the dominant attentional metaphor at the moment. Of course, there's a sense of paying attention. And there's also this idea that we live in an attention economy, right. And the classic explanation for what that means is from Herbert Simon, who is a sort of cognitive scientist, political scientist, economist, et cetera, working in the sort of late post-war period in the United States where he says, you know, you might say we live in an information economy. But that's not really true because we have tons of information. Information is not scarce, but information consumes attention. And therefore attention is the scarce resource. And if economics is the study of how to allocate scarce resources, that means that attention is the thing that is being economized.That's not an argument we have to agree with necessarily, but that's the sort of groundwork for thinking about how attention itself might be an economic kind of thing and how it's become really, really natural I think for lots of people across all sorts of political orientations and disciplinary affiliations to think of their attention as being really like naturally economic, right? We might question all sorts of applications of economic logics to other domains, but attention is a hard nut to crack. It really feels like, you know, sure, we don't like this way that people like try to economize every last part of our lives, but attention isn't that just, you know, you have a limited amount of it. You have a limited amount of time. What else can you, can you have? And so I think one of the things you're pointing to in your, in your question, is this history in the social sciences have a real skepticism around the role of money in society.So the classic spot for this is Georg Simmel, the sociologist writing around the turn of the 20th century, who gives what my PhD advisor used to call the money as acid hypothesis, which was this argument that when you introduce sort of money and, and, you know, uh, assigning prices to things into domains where it didn't exist before, it tends to reduce everything to the monetary as like a lowest common denominator. Right?You start to think of everything in terms of how much it's worth. And that feels not great in a lot of domains. It allows some people to do some things very strategically. Um, but generally we, we take that as a sort of sad, sad thing that money has to sort of dissolve some of the richness of social interaction.Um, and it becomes sort of the, you know, the basis for everything. It's the source of the phrase, you know, time is money, right? This idea of time is money. That's why it's important. But when you're pointing at is now we've got a kind of shift in the way that that discourse happens, right? It's not really the case that time is money. It's more, that money lets you buy time. And some people are suggesting that the basic thing, the sort of most fundamental value thing is your time or maybe your attention.And that is so interesting to me because now we've got the attention as acid hypothesis, which is that attention and this sort of an accountant, any kind of social life in terms of how much attention we're paying to what, um, it becomes the, the framework in which basically anything, uh, can be, can be expressed — in an almost, it feels more fundamental than money to some people, right? It feels more essential. If money is an arbitrary and position, attention is just the real thing.And as anthropologist, my interest is not so much in deciding whether that's true or not. But in cataloging and noting the way that that works, the way that people talk about it, because it's something that's pretty emergent at the moment. But it's not quite obvious to folks like what, what it's going to mean. Like what's going to happen, as people take this more and more seriously.[00:19:32] Cody: So, as you alluded to at the beginning, attention is kind of this big, big topic that we all understand is this governing force in our lives. We're not really sure what it is in either a colloquial sense or a professional academic sense. But it's definitely, whatever it is, it's critical to whatever we're doing over here in psychology.And you began to understand that through your research in music recommender systems. And that has been your main area of study for the past 10 years or so the kind of recommender systems and algorithms used by platforms like Spotify and Pandora and all that sort of stuff. So you've done a series of in-depth ethnographic studies, which will come together in your book, Computing Taste, which I'm really looking forward to reading when it's out this December. Um, but I want to get into some of that material now.[00:20:28] Nick: Sure.[00:20:29] Cody: So one of my favorite papers of yours is called "Seeing Like an Infrastructure: avidity and difference in algorithmic recommendation." So can you tell me a little bit about this concept of avidity and how it plays out in the way engineers think about musical recommenders systems.[00:20:48] Nick: So that piece, seeing like an infrastructure, came about — it's going to be partly in this book, but the basic gist of it was this: I wanted to know how the people building recommender systems for music in particular thought about their users. This is sort of basic stuff. But it's very important, right?The way you build your technology, uh, is going to be shaped by the people that you think use it. Um, a side question that sort of rose to great public prominence during the time that I was working on this project, you know, over the past, like you said, 10 or 12 years was the question of diversity within these fields.So it is, you know, a well-known problem, certainly by now, um, that there is a lot of demographic homogeneity in tech companies and among the people who build these software systems. And many people suggest that the shortcomings are some of the shortcomings of these systems, um, or, you know, biased outputs, some of the racist outcomes we get from some machine learning systems, maybe directly traceable to that lack of diversity on the teams of the people who, who build them.Uh, so aside question here for me was how did the people building these systems understand diversity, uh, because there's more than one way to think about what diversity means and what kind of effect it might have on the technologies that you build. So one of the things I realized was that when people talked about music listeners, as you know, developers of recommender systems, they were very well aware that the people who used a recommender system were not really like the people who built the recommender system.And that's a kind of realization that doesn't always happen. It's been the subject of critique in lots of domains. Some people call the absence of that the iMethodology, which is what we use to say, you know, someone builds a system because it meets their own needs and they assume that they are, uh, like their users.So you get this class of startup ideas, you know, like, um, laundry delivery, uh, which is because, you know, you've got a bunch of dudes who have just graduated from college and they don't want to do their own laundry, and they're trying to solve their own problems, right. This kind of sector and, uh, style of development.But the people working on music recommendation seems pretty aware, uh, that they, they're not like the people who are using this. So the question then is in how — and well, the main thing that people would talk about when they talked about how they were different from their users and in how their users might be different from each other was what I ended up calling avidity, which is sort of my term, um, for a collection of ideas that you could sum up basically as how into music are people, right?How, how avidly do they seek out new music? How much do they care about music? How much should they want to listen to music? You know, how much work do they want to put into, uh, finding things to listen to and a recommender system, as you might guess, uh, is generally, uh, geared, especially these days toward less avid listeners, right? They're intended for people who don't really want to put that much effort into deciding what to listen to. If you knew what you wanted to listen to, you would not need an algorithmic recommendation.But on the other hand, the people who worked in these companies, they generally were very, very enthusiastic about music. And so when they were building recommender systems, they understood themselves as having to build those for someone that was not like them, which poses this question: how do you know what your users are like then? If they're not like you, what are you going to do?And so in short, the argument and the pieces that they come to understand their users primarily through the infrastructures that they build. So they learn things about their users, through the data collection apparatus or through the infrastructure that they create. An infrastructure is designed to capture things like how much you listen, at where you click, you know, the frequency of your listening to certain artists and so on. And in that data collection, what's most obvious? Avidity.How much you listen, how much clicking you do, because here's a database that's, you know, full of click events, listening events and so on. And so I argue in that piece that avidity is both a kind of cultural theory about how people are different from each other, but also something that's very closely tied to the specific infrastructure that they work on.So they want to try to be rational. They want to try to be objective. They don't want to try to build from their own personal experience. They're aware of that shortcoming. But the solution for that is in this sort of circular solution of using the actual data collection infrastructure that they've been building on. So they kind of reinforce this vision of avidity at the center, in the place of, you know, other kinds of variety that some of their critics might care about such as, uh, demographic homogeneity and so on.[00:25:22] Cody: Yeah, so that to me is such a fascinating insight. It's like, okay, if you're someone who doesn't have any preconceptions about what this might be like, you might come in and think, okay, well, if I were going to segment people up to recommend music to them, I would look for demographic qualities. I might look for things that I think would correspond to interest in certain genres, all of that, all of that sort of thing. But, based off of what you're saying, this dominant way of understanding people is through the amount of effort they're willing to put in to find something that they do not already know about.And you give an account from one of your informants who says they kind of have this pyramid : at the bottom is the musically indifferent than you have casual and engaged listeners and then musical savant at the top. And then in each of these four sectors, you have a totally different way of how you're trying to engage them and what it might mean to have a successful recommendation for them. And that to me just seems, uh, like a very interesting way of conceptualizing what it means to, to be engaged with music and to understand the different kinds of, of ways in which people are listening to a combination of what they like and what they might potentially like.[00:26:43] Nick: Yeah, absolutely. I think that, uh, maybe one thing that will help put us in some context is to think a bit about the history of algorithmic recommendation. Because you might think, yeah, like you said, that, uh, the first place you would go to sort of segment listeners to music would be demography because that's of course in the dominant mode of, of segmenting audiences for music, uh, ever since, you know, the origin of the recorded music industry. It's been a very, very dominant frame in the production of certain genres, you know, radio stations, stores, labels, charts, all the rest of it.There's a bunch of rich history of essentially race, uh, in the categorizing of, of music. And I'm talking here specifically at the United States, but you have similar dynamics globally. Um, but a very central sort of point of concern within the overall recommender systems world — and this includes things beyond music — is that using demographic categories for personalization is bad, right? That it's biased at best, that it's racist at worst. And that what recommender systems do — and this is an argument people are making in this field from its very origins in the mid 1990s — is provide a way for people to sort of escape from the bounds of demographic profiling. So it's very important to people in this field that they don't use demography, uh, the sort of recommender systems as the anti demographic thing are — it's a trope that's through, you know, it exists all the way through this, through this field from, from back then until, until the present.Um, what's striking about it, of course, is that, uh, in a world where people have race and they have gender and they have class. Those features do emerge in sort of proxy form in the data, right? So you, it is not always hard to guess someone's demographic qualities, uh, from what they listen to. You know, it's not deterministic relationship, but there's certainly a correlation there.So it is possible for demographics to re-emerge in this data, right. For them to think, oh, you know, they, these look like sort of feminine listening habits and so on. Um, there's a lot of work in, in, in how those categories emerge and how they can shift around over time. Um, but it's very important that people are working in this field that they don't take demography into account.In part because they're worried about doing what they describe as racial profiling. But even if that would be a sensible way to start, right — to think, well, there is certainly a racial pattern in production of music and, and listening patterns. They really hold that off limits intentionally.[00:29:11] Cody: One of the things that I've heard you talk about before in other podcasts interviews is that your job as an anthropologist is not simply to infiltrate these companies and collect secret facts about how the algorithms work. Your job is something closer to trying to describe the cultural processes, underlying their creation and figure out how the people who build these recommender systems understand what it is they're doing.So as you say, the more detailed you get on describing the algorithm itself, the more transient data information is. for example, how Facebook is, is weighting one aspect of the newsfeed on any given day — that could change tomorrow, but the underlying cultural and social constructs are more stable and in a way more fundamental to what it means for our society in our, in a larger sense.So I kind of want to bring in another paper that you've written in this sort of line, which is "Captivating Algorithms: recommender systems as traps" in which you compare the way Silicon valley engineers talk about their products and anthropological studies of literal animal traps. And so most tellingly, you have this quote, which I love, it's from a paper from near 1900 by an anthropologist named Otis Mason, I believe, which reads: the trap itself is an invention in which are embodied most careful studies in animal mentation and habits. The hunter must know for each species it's food it's likes and dislikes its weaknesses and foibles. A trap in this connection is an ambuscade, a temptation, irresistible, allurement. It is a strategy."So he's describing how the people he's studied think" about trapping animals. And in a sense, uh, you know, you're saying that you're leveraging the animal's own psychology against itself.Your point in this paper is that this is essentially the same language, or at least a very similar language, to what many people use in describing the quote "persuasive technologies" being built today. So can you expand on that idea a little bit and say what the anthropologist's perspective on studying these kinds of technologies looks like?[00:31:29] Nick: I love that line from, from Mason. I think it's very rich, uh, in helping us think about what we might be doing with technology from an anthropological point of view. Like I've been talking about one of the central concerns I have is how the people building these systems think about the, the, their users, uh, and one of the common things that they do then when they talk about what they're, what they're up to, is they talk about trying to capture them, right.They try to talk about capturing their attention, to bring attention back in. They talk about capturing market share. There's all of these captivation metaphors. And of course they don't literally mean that they're trying to, you know, cat trap you in a box or drop you in a hole through a layer of leaves or something like that.But one of the things that anthropologists get to do, which is fun and I think useful, uh, is draw broader comparisons in the people that we are talking to and talking about than they draw, to sort of put things in comparison, across cultural contexts. And so comparing these, you know, machine learning systems that are imagined to be high tech, the reason for the high valuation of all of these big tech companies, uh, thinking about them, not as being some brand new thing, that's never been seen before and requires a whole new theory of technology to understand, but thinking of them as being part of a continuum of technologies, that includes digging a hole in the ground and putting some sharp sticks in it. That I find really, uh, enticing, because it's going to help us think about these systems as just technologies, right? They're ordinary in a lot of ways, despite some of their weird qualities. So the basic argument of the traps paper is that we have this anthropology of trapping that suggests, okay, well, what is a trap? It's a weird kind of technology that really foregrounds, uh, the psychological, uh, involvement of the entities that's trying to trap, right? A mouse trap doesn't work. If the mouse doesn't do what it's supposed to do, uh, in the same way that your, you know, iPhone won't work, if you don't use the iPhone in the way you're supposed to. And this is in some ways a now classic argument within science and technology studies that you really have to configure a user for a technology in order for technology to work. There's no such thing as a technology that just works in isolation from a context of use. And so reminding ourselves of that fact, uh, is really handy in this domain because there's a lot of work on algorithms and AI that falls prey to this idea that, you know, oh, they're brand new, we never used to, we didn't want to go to technologies as being, you know, really determining of our situations and of advancing according to their own, their own logics before, but now it's true. Now algorithms are truly autonomous. And that's not really true, right. There are people who work on them who build them, who changed them over time. And they're doing that with a model of prey in mind.So I'm drawing on a little bit of an expansion of that anthropology of trapping tradition by an anthropologist named Alfred Gell, who has a very famous article in anthropology, where he talks about artwork as being a kind of trap. Also a similar, you know, the idea of like a good, a good work of art is going to produce a psychological effect on its viewers.But it's going to do that using technical means, right? So, and, uh, really intricately carved statue could cause someone to sort of stand still and look at it. And we don't want to forget that that statue, in addition to being quote unquote, art, uh, is also technology, right? It's also an artifact that's been created by people using tools.And it is in some sense, a tool in its own right for producing an effect in a viewer. And so I like to use this anthropology of trapping literature to think a little bit more expansively about questions that have really been coming up lately around ethics and persuasion in digital media. So we have documentaries, organizations, and so on, like I'm thinking "The Social Dilemma" from the center for humane technology is the sort of most prominent one, that suggests that, you know, Facebook is like a slot machine. It is trying to get you addicted to it and is trying to produce bad effects in your mind. YouTube is doing this as well.They're incentivizing people to make outrageous content because they're trying to maximize the amount of time that people spend on their sites. Now, these are all stories about digital technology that really fairly explicitly figure them as trap-like in the sense that I've been describing . Facebook is designed to make you do things against your will, uh, which are also against your best interest. So they have the trick you using them. And so we see that kind of trap metaphor out in the wild there, um, in critiques that people will make of these systems. So it was really striking to me to see that in both critiques, but also just in the self descriptions of people working in this space.It was not weird for people working in music in particular to say: yeah, of course, I want to get people addicted to listening to music. And it maybe didn't even seem that bad. But is it really bad if you listen to more music than you used to listen to, is that worthy of being called an addiction? Is that really a problem?But thinking about trapping in this sort of broad anthropological way, I hope, um, steps us back from this binary question. You know, are these things harmful? Are they coercive or not? And into a gray or a space where we say, you know, sort of all technologies have a bit of persuasion and coercion mixed into them.They all sort of demand certain things of their users, but they can't really demand them entirely. And so if we step back, we can start to think of, um, technologies as existing, within a broader field of psychological effects of people trying to get other people to do what they want them to do. And it sort of field of persuasion, um, where we don't have to say, okay, well, you know what the problem is, recommender systems is they really, you know, deny you agency, which they can't. They can't ultimately deny you agency entirely. But they do depend on you playing a certain role in relation to them.[00:37:22] Cody: Cody here. Thanks for listening to the show. I'd love to get your thoughts on this episode. One of the challenges, as you might imagine, as a writer and podcast producer, is that it's hard to get direct feedback from your readers and listeners, what they like or don't like what's working well or needs to be rethought.You can tell a little bit about this from metrics like views or downloads, but it isn't very nuanced. So I've created an avenue for getting that kind of feedback: a listener survey available with every podcast episode. If you have feedback on what you found most interesting or what you thought could be improved, I'd love to hear it.You can find the link in the show notes or at survey.Againsthabit.com. That's survey.againsthabit.com. Now back to the show.What do you think the role of habits are in everything that we're talking about here? Because it seems largely that the psychology that engineers are relying on when they're building their products, when they're thinking about persuasive technologies, when they're trying to trap a user, it's largely the psychology of habits and habit formation.So I don't know. What do you, what do you make of that? And, you know, what's what does that sort of suggest to you about how we should think about these technologies and the way they're exploiting our habitual psychology?[00:38:47] Nick: That's a very nice connection. There is a historian of science named Henry Cowell who is working on some of this history of the psychology of habit in relation to attention , which might be interesting. But from my point of view, in sort of anthropology side of things, when I think of habit, I think of what we often talk about in the social sciences as a, as habitus, which sounds a fancy way of saying the sort of collection of habits that you acquire as part of becoming an inculturated person.So as you grow up, you learn a bunch of habitual things. It's not the sort of small-scale habits of like, you know, self-help books where they say, oh, if you remember to, uh, you know, put your toothbrush out in a certain spot in the morning, it'll trigger you to brush your teeth on time, but rather it's something broader than that, right? Which is that we have a bunch of tendencies in the ways that we behave in the ways that we respond to the outside world and the way we use our bodies that are those, those are all solidified in us over time. And so if you ever have the experience of culture shock of going to a place where people don't have quite the same habits as you do, it becomes very obvious that what seems totally natural and comfortable and regular to you, it doesn't seem that way to, to other people.And so technologies are part of that broader field of habits or habitus in that a lot of the kind of habits that we have are sort of organized around technological implements, right? So very explicitly people working in this field, um, folks like Nir Eyal who's book, Hooked, is plainly about this, about how companies can learn to sort of incite habits and their users, they suggest that, you know, what, what you want to do, if you want your company to become really successful is you want to make users use it habitually. Something like, you know, users will open up Facebook, um, before they've even consciously thought about what they're doing. And I'm sure plenty of people have had the same experience of, you know, being on Twitter or on Facebook, closing the window on their browser, opening a new window on their browser and going immediately back to that website before realizing, wait, what am I doing?That kind of unthinking habitual behavior is where that intersection of persuasion and coercion sort of happens. Right. If someone's making me do that, um, that's probably not quite what I want. It takes place within the sort of broader field of overall habits. And arguably, and this is something that people in the social sciences have argued for a while now, your taste is also part of this, right? So you learn to like certain things. It's very easy for people to learn, to, you know, uh, to dislike a style of music, for instance, such that when it comes on the radio, you'll turn the radio off immediately and be like, that's horrible. You know, I can't imagine that anyone else would like this, but of course other people do like it. Which just gives lie to the idea that there's something objective going on under there.But technology and recommender systems in particular and the way that I try to think about them in my book and through my, uh, articles, uh, I want to try to think about recommender systems as really occupying that in-between space between technology and taste, or as you know, the title of my book, computing and taste. Cause we often talk about those domains as though they're really separate from each other, right? Computers are rational, they're quantitative, they're logical. Whereas taste is subjective. It's individual, it's expressive, it's inexpressible through numbers. Those two ideas, you know, we think of them as being really opposed. There's no accounting for taste and so on.And yet they come together in recommender systems, uh, in a way that some people fault because they think that you shouldn't do that. You shouldn't cross the streams from these two, these two different domains. Um, but which I think of as not being that weird, if we think of taste as being a sort of set of habits as being part of this kind of, you know, apparatus through which we live our lives, and we think of technology as also being part of this broader scene of habits and habituation, right? Technologies are not, uh, separate from, from the human world. Computers did not invent themselves and they do not program themselves. So actually all of this is getting played with together, uh, in a way that's not that weird if you think about it. Now, it may be done in ways that we don't like, and it may have effects that we don't want. But it's important. It was important for me to try to give an anthropological account of recommenders systems that didn't start from the premise that, oh, this is impossible. Like you can't do this. Everybody knows that human expression and feeling cannot be worked on through the computer. Because it's pretty clear that it can be worked on through the computer. What's not clear is what that means for how we understand computers and for how we understand taste.[00:43:24] Cody: Okay. Here is an easy question then. What is your theory of taste?[00:43:32] Nick: Ooh. Okay. This is a fun question. So my theory of taste, I have to start with the, with the, the sort of default social science theory of taste. The default social science theory of taste is what we would call the homology thesis, which is that there is a homology or a sort of structural similarity between class and taste. So fancy people like fancy things and less fancy people like less fancy things. If you like the opera, or if you like country music that tells me something about who you are. That's the sort of canonical, a social scientific argument.And in that case taste is really not the thing that most people think it is where it's like, oh, this is just my personal preferences. It's actually something that sort of determined by your social status. Now that's a fairly vulgar account of that theory, but I think it's fairly widely shared among lots of people that taste is effectively arbitrary. And at the end of the day, it really just reflects your sort of social position, maybe also, you know, your race. But certainly essentially like how fancy you are in a sort of class based system.My thinking on taste is largely informed by a tradition in sociology that is usually called the pragmatics of taste, which suggests that sure, maybe that happens, that homology thing. But the problem with that homology thesis is that it doesn't tell you how or why fancy people come to like fancy things or why people in any social group come to acquire the tastes that are associated with that group. And so what these folks do, um, usually through fairly rich ethnographic observation, which is maybe why I like them, um, is they try to describe all of the conditions by which people come to acquire taste. And so they have these studies of, you know, uh, opera fans. There's a book by Claudio Benzecry about how opera fans learn to become opera fans, um, or how, you know, people who listen to, uh, vinyl records set up their little listening stations in their home. There's a lot of stuff that people do to try to, uh, instrument their taste, to, to orchestrate encounters with music in particular.And so I'm really invested in that idea of taste as something that you do rather than something that you just sort of have. Uh, and as something that's very much entangled with technology, a favorite example of mine is, you know, we have a sense of what it means to have taste right now, right? What music do you pick on Spotify or something like that. But if we go back, you know, 50 years, uh, what it meant to have tasted in music might have to do with what radio stations you listen to, uh, what records you bought at the record store records. You know, they're all the same shape. They're all the same color. Basically the more or less cost the same so when you're picking among them all you're doing is expressing yourself, right? You're just making a cultural claim. But what it meant to have tasted that moment was really entangled with technologies, the radio, the LP. Go back a hundred years before that you don't have recorded music. So can anyone have a taste in music then? Certainly not in the way we can now. At the very least taste would mean something different. And so I'm really interested in the idea that what tastes even is is totally entangled with these techniques by which we come to acquire and encounter, uh, cultural objects.So that is a very long-winded way of saying that I think of taste as being this kind of emergent thing that people do in particular settings with particular tools. And one of the tools that they use nowadays is recommender systems.[00:46:47] Cody: One of the things I'm interested in along this line is whether or not our tastes are becoming more monolithic. So my colleague, Adam Mastroianni has a recent essay on this. He puts together these data showing that through the year 2000, about 25% of a year's highest grossing movies were spinoffs, franchises, or sequels. But now, uh, closer to 2020, it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 75%. And he has similar data for TV shows, books, and music as well.So what role do you think recommender systems might be playing in this and in particular, are platforms like Spotify, Netflix, and the like funneling us into these kind of genre enclaves, where they find it legitimately difficult to point us towards something that is at the same time, both new and something that we'll like. What do you make of that, and is that a function of recommender systems as you've come to understand them?[00:47:51] Nick: Well, it's a great question because you're pointing out that the basic tension at the heart of recommender systems . Which is that they're about helping people find a music that they don't know about yet. So there's an assumption that you're, that you like more than, you know. but they're based on this idea that you won't like everything, right?So it has something to do with what you are already know. There's this tension between the constraints, profiling someone and saying, okay, what do you like? And that idea that what you might do with that profiling is broaden people's horizons. And that's a real tension. It's something that I think a lot of critics don't appreciate, that there is a commitment to broadening horizons in this field. Whether or not they achieve them is another question.But that's something that people in the field are really concerned with and trying to figure out: wait a minute, we're sort of pigeonholing people, but we don't want to pigeon hole them. We want to help them. And forever, we've always been saying that recommender systems are about, you know, like, like we were talking about earlier about, you know, cracking you out of a given categories to help you find new things. Or they used to say, you know, 20 years ago that recommender systems would help you go down the "long tail." They would help you find more obscure things that you would never find otherwise, because there were too many things, you just wouldn't have a way to know about these less popular objects.Of course, now we have a lot of concern — this is not a new concern — but the continuing concern about monoculture, about a kind of similarity. And algorithms have emerged as one of the kinds of entities we might blame for why that is, of course, because you know, oh, you like that, you want more like that. There's this kind of valorization of the similar in recommender systems that maybe seems like a cause for this problem more globally.I think it's certainly part of an overall apparatus of cultural production, which is very risk averse now. So one of the things you see in this context of, you know, every movie occurring within the Marvel cinematic universe or whatever. I think you can't really say a recommender system did that. Because certainly a recommender system didn't get to decide what was happening there. But you do have, you know, industries that are organized around trying to maximize their, their successes, and clearly are finding, you know, success, uh, in doing what they're doing and doing what, uh, Mastroianni calls that oligopoly of production.So I think one thing that points us to is the importance of looking at the overall system, you know, recommender systems are a more and more prominent part of cultural circulation now, but they're not everything. And so we don't want to say, oh, it was the algorithm. So it points us to that. But it also points us to this other really interesting, like philosophical question, is you mentioned this idea of genre enclaves, which is a lovely way to put what other people would describe as like filter bubbles. And one funny thing about recommender systems is that if I know enough to recognize a filter bubble, to put you into one, to recognize similarities, such that I can put you there, that means that I have enough data, if I'm a recommender system, to take you out of it. I know what similar is. That means that I know what different is also. And so within that very same system, in theory, I should be able to use the recommender system in a different way, not to give you exactly the same thing, but rather to very on-purpose, um, give you something else to give you something that is different. That's already entailed in the idea that I know enough to put you in a filter bubble in the first place.So in some sense, the, the problem may not be with the technology itself, but with this particular style of implementation, right. We could be implementing recommender systems that more aggressively are about spreading people away from the similar, and that's something you would do with more or less the same system you have now just tuned in a, in a slightly different way.Why is it not tuned in a different way? Well, that's not an algorithm thing, right? That's a business decision. Uh, the algorithm could go either way. It doesn't really care.[00:51:34] Cody: That seems like it comes back to the distinction that your engineering interviewee was talking about where you have the pyramid, with the sort of least engaged, they want to, as he says, lean back, put the music on and then just not really have to do anything to have to make any decisions, find new stuff, skip songs.And then you have the lean in musical savant and more engaged listeners. And clearly the vast majority of listeners and our viewers are going to be in that bottom chunk of the pyramid. And you have the highest probability of reaching the largest number of people by catering to that listener or viewer as your default option, rather than saying, oh, I'm going to try and shape the musical tastes of the youth in a way that exposes them to the meritorious histories of, of jazz and the, you know, unexpected sides of hip hop and all that sort of stuff. So it seems to me like that's a big current in all that's happening here.[00:52:38] Nick: Yeah, I would say one of the sort of stories that emerges over the course of my whole book is this transformation of music recommendation from the sort of first contemporary recommender system named as such in the mid 1990s, um, to the present. Where in the beginning, those early recommender systems were designed around the idea that the user was a really enthusiastic or avid listener, right? You were like really into music. You were going to put in some effort, you were going to open up a recommender system and try to use it specifically to find new stuff, right? You are almost by definition, a kind of crate digger, uh, in that context. Cause it was like more work to use a recommender system than to just turn on the radio. So you already had a way to not put a lot of effort. And uh, so you were in. You know, contemporary industry terms would, would put it, uh, you were a lean forward listener, right? You were someone who was sort of, uh, enthusiastically pursuing a new music.And then over time, since then, just what you described has happened, right? This sort of default assumption of what a user for these systems should be like, um, became something different, right? It became this lean-back listener. It became this person who like, eh, they might not even listen to music at all. So we need to find some way to, you know, entice them into doing it. And a recommended system was maybe a way of doing that. So you open up your Spotify or whatever, and you see, as long as you see something that you're like, sure, I'll listen to that. Then that would catch that person who otherwise may not listen at all. And that's a big change and it comes along alongside a change in data practices, to sort of loop back to this, uh, seeing like an infrastructure question, because those early recommender systems, what data did they have? They had data that you proactively gave them about what you liked, right? You would have to go in and explicitly rate artists, or if it was movies, uh, you know, you know, five stars on Netflix or whatever. And over time, those explicit ratings really get mostly replaced by what they would call implicit ratings. So the idea that listening to a song means that you like it a little bit. You listen to it a lot that becomes more of a sign that you like it. And this is the kind of logic we're very familiar with now in this sort of big data moment, right? This is what big data is all about. This idea that these behavioral traces are, uh, more real. They're easier for people to do. I don't have to explicitly rate something you to sort of know on the basis of what I'm doing. Or you think, you know, uh, what I like, and you might suggest that's a better account of what I like, you know. I might go on Netflix and, you know, give five stars to all of the fancy, classy people movies, but I never watched them. And if you kept recommending them to me, I wouldn't really use Netflix as much, but what I really want is, you know, 1990s action movies. And if you saw what I actually watched, you would know that that's a common argument that they'll make. So we have that transition in sort of three different things at the same time. The change in the kind of data that's available to recommender systems, right? This sort of like trace data of user behavior. We have this change in the economics of, uh, the online media industry right where everything's sort of become streaming and it's not, you know, Netflix used to be a DVD rental company, and then now it becomes something else, right, where they want you to spend more time on it. And that will feed back into getting more data. And then the third thing that comes around is this changing how we know things are, how the people building these systems, know things about their users, which are all entangled together in this sort of emergence of, uh, sort of modern data collection apparatus. And they're all mutually reinforcing cycles.So that's a really big change, I think in the way those, those systems work. And if people are looking for ways out of it, I think that one way that an anthropology of this can be useful is to really foreground and describe what exactly the situation is that we're in.And so one thing I tend to argue is that if we want to get out of some of this really aggressive data collection situation, which happens obviously in domains beyond music and in many other domains where it's much more significant. One thing we might want to think about then is how to intervene in these imaginations of users, right? In the vision of the user, as someone who doesn't really want to get involved, who we sort of tricked into listening, and therefore we have to capture as much data about them as possible because they're not going to give the data to us on purpose. If we change that model, if we change the way that we think about people, then I think that's a key part of the overall edifice of data collection and why data is seen as so valuable now.[00:57:08] Cody: I see that as, as tying into what we were talking about earlier with the model of the individual that the engineers are using is based off of basically the psychology of habits. And so data are most valuable in understanding how to exploit habitual systems and how to essentially, to go back to your metaphor use products as traps for habits and attention, whatever attention may be.And so it seems like part of what you're saying or another, a rephrasing of, of what you're saying an implication may be, is that the more we're able to put in to achieve that higher effort level of avidity, to engage more in a direct and meaningful and thoughtful way with whatever content we're consuming, the less we rely on habit, the less we can be exploited by an understanding of what we habitually do. And the more we can kind of be liberated from the cycle of collect data, exploit it, go further down the rabbit hole of social media and digital content consuming our attention and our lifestyles.[00:58:31] Nick: Yeah. And I think just to like loop back to what we talked about earlier this is one reason why I think having a kind of cultural understanding of the logics behind these systems and how people think is really useful, because a lot of the critiques of these systems we've seen now are couched in the sort of same habits science, behaviorist framework as the systems they're criticizing. So people who say, oh, you know, Facebook's a slot machine or whatever really believe that the best way to model human behavior is still that same behaviorist habit model, that same, you know, press a lever, give you a treat, rat in a cage kind of model. And I think that that model is really constraining in what kinds of futures we can imagine for what humans are going to do. And it really limits us to a certain narrow set of technical interventions. And so by trying to name that by trying to step back and say, what is this, what is this model of the human that's involved in these systems? I want to try, and this is something I'm trying to do with in my newer work on attention, to think about the sort of arbitrariness of those models, and how, if we want to imagine different futures, we might need to think about some of these foundational assumptions differently as well. I'm not sure that we're going to lever press our way out of a sort of behaviorist hellscape that we find ourselves in now.[00:59:54] Cody: Nick. It's been a great pleasure to talk, and I appreciate your perspective on all these things. I could probably go on asking you questions about this space of topics for the next two hours, but you've been really generous with your time. So thanks for taking the time to talk.[01:00:09] Nick: Thanks so much. It was a pleasure.[01:00:11] Cody: That was my conversation with Nick Seaver.I hope you enjoyed it. One of the topics that we didn't get around to is the connection between avidity and anthropological field work itself. It's a topic I know Nick has thought about in his work on attention, and it is also one of the things that I personally most admire about anthropology.My own field, psychology suffers from a historical lack of attention dedicated toward Western people. We study American college students. We assume that whatever we find there will apply to the rest of the world. The field has started to correct this in recent years, but I believe it's an assumption that's built into the psychological worldview in ways that are important and difficult to eradicate.But the premise of the field of anthropology, starting with historical figures like Tylor and Malinowski, is that attending to what other people are up to is actually a lot of work. It's not just enough to be vaguely interested in what other people are doing, especially far away people, but you actively have to search out the best possible vantage from which to observe and make sense of their behavior. To me, that's an application of this basic idea of attention as effort.So in this case, avidity — the amount of effort we're willing to put into acquire new information or seek new experiences — is not only crucial when it comes to the kind of content we consume, but crucial to our ability to understand people with different perspectives.This nods toward one of the foundations of our polarized society. We tend to be, especially as Americans, intuitive psychologists. We assume that the minds of people far away from us mostly look like the minds of people who are in our immediate vicinity. Then we're shocked to find that people who don't occupy our same cultural milieu think in a way that's totally foreign to us.Maybe we need to operate less in our default mode as intuitive psychologists and instead explore what it might mean to operate as intuitive anthropologists.I'd love to know what you thought of this episode. If you want to give me some feedback, you can go to survey.againsthabit.com. If you'd like to subscribe to my Substack newsletter for more content, you can go straight to againsthabit.com.This episode was edited and produced by Emily Chen. I'm Cody Kommers, and thanks for listening to Against Habit. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit codykommers.substack.com/subscribe

Marlo: So don’t you hate this? Nic, here’s my card. Nick: Thanks for your business Marlo: card. Yeah, that’s exactly how it works, isn’t it? That’s right. I can’t tell you how many boxes of business cards I have it at my office. And I’m always, you know, it’s the new year, right? And I’m […] The post Your Digital Business Card Popl appeared first on The Tech Ranch.

Droves of workers are retiring early or taking a break from work as they change career paths. It's become known as The Great Resignation. On this episode, we'll highlight some of the key takeaways of a recent Forbes article and explore a lot of the impacts on retirement planning from across different age groups in the wake of this massive workplace shift that's underway. Forbes Article: https://bit.ly/3JtbbeQ Helpful Information: PFG Website: https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/ Contact: 813-286-7776 Email: info@pfgprivatewealth.com Disclaimer: PFG Private Wealth Management, LLC is a registered investment adviser. All statements and opinions expressed are based upon information considered reliable although it should not be relied upon as such. Any statements or opinions are subject to change without notice. Information presented is for educational purposes only and does not intend to make an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of any specific securities, investments, or investment strategies. Investment involve risk and, unless otherwise stated, are not guaranteed. Information expressed does not take into account your specific situation or objectives and is not intended as recommendations appropriate for any individual. Listeners are encouraged to seek advice from a qualified tax, legal, or investment adviser to determine whether any information presented may be suitable for their specific situation. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Transcript of Today's Show: For a full transcript of today's show, visit the blog related to this episode at https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/podcast/ ----more---- Mark: Hey everybody, welcome in to the podcast. Thanks for tuning in to another edition of Retirement Planning Redefined with John and Nick, as we talk investing, finance, and retirement. And we are going to discuss the Great Resignation on this podcast. And if you're not familiar with that, well, that's been all the mass exodus of people leaving work over the last three to four to five months. And we've got some interesting key takeaways here to talk a little bit about this. Droves of workers retiring early, or taking a break as they consider this career path, that's been called now the Great Resignation, and there's a Forbes article, we'll probably take a link and put that in the show notes as well. But guys, what's going on? How you doing Nick?   Nick: Good, good. Staying busy, kind of getting rocking and rolling to start off the new year. So, you know, I think a month or two ago we had hoped that maybe it'd be a little less chaotic from the standpoint of the whole pandemic thing, but I think everybody's just kind of plugging away and recovering from the holidays.   Mark: Yeah, definitely. John, how you doing my friend?   John: I'm good. I'm good. Doing good.   Mark: Yeah. Nothing, nothing too crazy going on. Into the new year all right?   John: Yeah. Yeah, it was quiet. So just hung out with family locally here and in Tampa area. So it was just a nice little break and like Nick said kind of excited to be back to doing some work here and the holidays it's always nice, but at the same time, I'm kind of ready to get back at it.   Mark: Yeah, exactly. So have you guys heard this term, the Great Resignation, are you guys a little bit aware of this and what's your thoughts? We'll get into it here, some data here in just a second, but just have curious if you've heard it or not.   Nick: Yeah, I definitely have. I think it's interesting. I think depending upon who you talk to, their interpretation of it is a little bit different, but in my mind it's really, it's kind of, to kind of think about it from the perspective as almost like a real estate market, there's a buyer's market and there's a seller's market. And I think that really what's happened is not all, but many companies have been slow to kind of improve wages and pay and benefits and things like that and so this has kind of put things into kind of the worker's hands a little bit more and given them a little bit of leverage from the perspective of competitiveness from a company standpoint. And that obviously, that doesn't deal with the people that are in between or are waiting to kind of figure out what they want to do with their whole life, that sort of thing, but more specifically, the people changing jobs and how difficult it's been for employers to keep employees.   Mark: Yeah. I mean, it's definitely all over the map and John, we're going to talk a little bit about it from the different age groups, but for the most part, we're going to look at it as it affects retirees and pre-retirees, but have you seen some of this stuff? Are you familiar with it?   John: Not necessarily the term itself, but yeah, we've seen a lot of this with our own clients that are basically doing some job changes or just outright, just retiring early which I know we're going to get into. But yeah, we're seeing quite a bit of this. And then we see it when we're trying to personally and work wise trying to get service work done. It feels like-   Mark: Big time.   John: Feels like no one's working anymore. My local Dunkin' Donuts here, I can't go in to get a coffee because they don't have enough workers, so everything's drive through. But it just [crosstalk 00:03:23] seen across the board.   Mark: And that's part of it. Yeah. And that's part of it. So a lot of times, I think, when we think about this what's happened in the pandemic, we automatically go to the lower paying scale jobs, the fast food type jobs, and that's definitely a big piece, but for an example, 4.2 million people quit their job in October of 2021. So just a couple of months ago and there's been a lot of other people quitting. So there's been, I think somewhere now around six, six and a half million, I think over the last four to four and a half months. And it's not just the lower end stuff. And of course it's also unknown how long these people will stay out of work. Some of it could be retirees or pre-retirees that are just like, you know what, I'm not going back.   Mark: I'll use my brother as an example, he's 63 and he's like, as long as they keep me working from home, I'm going to stay. But the minute they tell me, I have to go back to the office. I think I'm going to pull the trigger and retire early, even though his plan calls for him to wait till 60, his full retirement age, which I think is 66 and seven months or something like that. So let's talk about it from that's kind of standpoint, guys.   Mark: I've got three takeaway categories here, or actually four. I'm going to kind of give you guys the headline and let you guys roll from there a little bit on this. Okay. So we'll dive into it, hit it however you'd like, not just the lower income scale, but also the upper end, or people just closer to retirement things that you might be seeing or hearing. So number one, if you are going to step away early, taking a break from Social Security, whether it's short term, long term or whatever, don't sell short that, the impact that, that can have to your long term benefits.   Nick: So, depending upon how long you are out of work, it's important to keep into consideration that when you're not earning an income, you're not building up your Social Security credits and so that's something that can impact you down the line. And I've actually had this come up a little bit lately where people don't quite grasp the impact, the positive impact of Social Security, or how much, or how important it is to their overall plan. So it is a big deal and you want to make sure you still have your 10 year minimum work history. It's important to remember that, really the benefit that you receive is a cumulative kind of record of your highest 35 years of income.   Mark: Right.   Nick: So every year that you have a higher year than a previous year, adjusted for inflation, that's going to knock out the other years and you really kind of help bump that benefit up.   Mark: Right. And if you're stepping away in your fifties because of this Great Resignation type of thing here, that's some prime earning years. So that's where I say you could be putting a big dent in that.   Nick: Yeah, absolutely. And realistically it always does kind of go back to the whole plan concept of that we really try to harp on people about, is we have had some people retire early because we have had a bull market for the last 10 years and they've done a good job with saving and those sorts of things, but we kind of verified it through the planning, the whole retire really early on a whim or not really looking at it from an analytical standpoint can definitely be pretty, pretty dangerous.   Mark: Yeah, for sure. So you definitely want to make sure that if you are stepping away from Social Security, you're looking at what it could do to your long term strategy, six months, a year, retiring early, whatever the case might be. Just make sure you're strategizing that with your advisor.   Mark: John, talk to me a little bit about takeaway number two, the 401k isn't a rainy day fund, is kind of the category I had. Because over the last two years, and even the last six months, there's some pretty interesting stats about what people are doing with their 401ks.   John: Yeah, yeah, for sure. I mean, during COVID 2020, there was some ability to actually access for 401k funds or retirement funds without any penalty.   Mark: Right.   John: And not even have to do a loan and that's gone away. So now, not that... Fortunately for our clients, and I think we do a great job educating them, we haven't really seen too much of this where clients are taking out 401k loans. But I have had conversations with some individuals that have done that. And it's just kind of like, "Hey, how much can I pull from my fund? I did this, what are the impacts of it?" So it's just important to fall back to the plan. And we do a... One of our biggest recommendation's to make sure that people have an emergency fund and whether it's three to six months or a year of emergency savings, because, as you know the pandemic hit in 2020 and no one saw that coming and you just don't know what's going to happen in the future. So it's important to have an emergency fund to help out in certain situations like this, so you avoid pulling from the 401k loan because you really want to let those assets grow for your retirement and not access it for rainy day funds- [crosstalk 00:08:10].   Mark: Kind of a stop gap.   John: .... on things like that.   Mark: Yeah, yeah, yeah. What's some negative impacts of doing that though, John? I think one of the things people get lost on is just the compounding of it over time, right?   John: Yeah. So you take out 40 grand out of it, basically, especially, let's say you did that in 2020, let's say you took out $40,000 there, you just lost the compounding over the next year and a half, two years of which has been really excellent in reality [crosstalk 00:08:33] with what the market's done. So not... You're just not losing that $40,000, you're losing what that $40,000 could have grown to, which is the importance of having, again, the rainy day fund, so you can let that money in there, let that money grow for you and earn and work for you.   Mark: Yeah.   John: And then nevermind then you're paying money back into it that are after tax dollar. So there's a lot that goes into it that you really need to evaluate it. Sometimes it's you have to because you have nothing else to pull from.   Mark: Right.   John: But it's always important to plan and make sure that you... This is the last resort.   Mark: I hear a lot of advisors say taking that loan against it is usually the later, like if it's kind of like the last in the line, if you really need it, okay, here's where we can go. But let's try not to. Just simply from a multitude of reasons, especially with the resignation, right? If you take a loan against your 401k and you leave the job, you have to pay that back. Correct?   John: Yeah. That's a great point that you bring up. Most companies will give you 30 days to pay it back. So example, you take out that $40,000 and all of a sudden it's, "Hey, we're downsizing," and you get a pink slip, and not only you got, now you all of a sudden you got to pay 40 grand back to your 401k within, a 30 day period, maybe 60 day period. And if you do not pay it back, you're going to be paying taxes and penalty on that, on those dollars.   Mark: Pretty stiff. Yeah.   John: Yeah.   Mark: Yeah. So that's another takeaway for that. And Nick, let's stick with the 401k for a minute for the next one. If you are in this kind of nomad thing where you're jumping out of one job, you're waiting a bit, maybe going into another, looking for a better option for yourself, seeing who's hiring, whatever the scenario is, take that 401k with you, right? Don't just leave it back behind at the old place.   Nick: Yeah. It can be, realistically the more accounts people have, the more places, the more often things are overlooked, not checked up on, not taken care of, so we definitely are fans of consolidating. Whether it's rolling it into the plan at your new employer or rolling it into an IRA where you can control the assets yourself or work with an advisor to manage them for you. Just like so many other things, it's one of the things that former or past employer 401k plans are oftentimes one of the most overlooked and non-adjusted things that we've seen people kind of not take care of.   Mark: Yeah.   Nick: And then they lose a lot of long term money on it because of that.   Mark: Well, you got to think about the vested portion too. Right? So if it's, let's say you're 50 or something like that, and you're pondering this, make sure you under... that you're getting the fully vested part before you jump on. There are some people that could say, well, all right, maybe I'd better stick this out a little longer or whatever the case is.   Nick: Yeah, absolutely. There are some people that... It's much more common for people to move from one employer to the next these days. Especially in certain industries where they can be almost more of a tech role or consultant role, things like that. And sometimes, because of that, their employer has put in a decent amount of money, so an employee's contributions are always vested, it's always their money, but they could have substantial employer matching that vests over three to five years. Or some other sorts of benefits, even if it's not exactly the 401k, but maybe there's a stock plan that has vesting. It's important to take those things into consideration because we've seen people leave tens of thousands of dollars on the table.   Mark: Right.   Nick: Not realizing that it was a factor they should have taken into consideration before they switched employers.   Mark: Yeah. Don't leave that behind. Right? So definitely take it with you, whether you're rolling it from the old one into the new one. And if you do it properly, it's not going to, it's not an issue, right, Nick? So if you've got it in the old one and you roll it to the new one, you just go through the proper channels and there's no taxable event and so on and so forth. Same thing if you move it to an IRA, correct?   Nick: Correct. Yeah. The goal is always to make sure that it's rollover, it's not taken as a lump sum distribution-   Mark: To yourself.   Nick: Yeah. So you always want to make sure that when the rollover happens, it gets paid directly to the new custodian. So it's not written out to you. It's written to the new custodian, whether that's a Fidelity or a Vanguard or whoever it may be, it's paid directly to them, the funds go over and that avoids there being any sort of tax liability or penalty if somebody's under the age of 59 and a half.   Mark: All right. So let's go to the fourth takeaway here, guys. I'll let you both kind of jump in and out on this. John, I'll start with you. It seems like this whole resignation thing is kind of tailor made for those early retirement dreamers. Kind of go back to my brother's conversation there about, Well, if they... I'll retire a couple years early, if they make me go back to the office kind of thing, but I'll work from home." So it's enticing for sure, but point out some challenges to just ponder if you are retiring early, ahead of what you originally planned, you guys kind of divide up a few of these, if you would, but John go ahead and start with a couple of bullet points to think about.   John: Yeah. One of the things that I think about is qualifying for Social Security. The earliest you can draw Social Security is age 62. So, if you're retiring at let's just call 57, you got a decent gap of where you can't take any Social Security. So you really have to evaluate are there any other income sources coming in like a pension or maybe some real estate income or whatever it might be. And then if there isn't, is your nest egg able to sustain your plans. [crosstalk 00:14:06].   Mark: Five years, yeah.   John: Yeah. Is it able to work if you're using your nest egg to basically live off of for that period of time. So those are one of the things. And then you always want to of look at as one, we've had situations where one spouse might retire early and the other one's still work and they say, "Hey, we could live off of just one income for the time being. And if we need any extra money, we have the nest egg that we can pull from as needed." So that would be a big one to really look at.   John: Another one that we come across quite often is healthcare coverage. I'd say one of the main reasons that people don't retire. From our standpoint, what we see is really healthcare. So they wait till they're 65, so they can draw on Medicare. And prior to that, they just kind of look at the cost of going to the Marketplace and say, you know what, this is probably a little too rich for my blood, so [crosstalk 00:14:55] kind of hold off.   Mark: And if you use your example of 57, I mean, you're talking eight years, what are you doing in that gap? Right.   John: Yeah. And we've seen everyone's situations different in what their premium is, but I've seen some premiums for individual at that age at $10-11,000 per year. Nevermind, the coverage isn't as good. So that's [crosstalk 00:15:12]-   Mark: And that's not per person too. Right. So if you and the spouse.   John: Yeah, yeah. Yep. That's per person.   Mark: Can your retirement accounts handle that for that setup that we just talked about or whatever the case might be and then realizing that that's also, that your retirement is now going to be longer, right, because you've retired early, so it's the kind of great multiplier. So those things just kind of compound and go up from there. Nick, do you agree with that and what's some things you see?   Nick: Yeah. For sure. It's definitely a slippery slope when you start to factor in. We've got some clients who work for large employers, their total health premiums for the households can run $2-3,000 a year for both of them. So when you go and you take... You go from $2-3000 for both of you while you're working to somewhere between $8-20,000 a year before Medicare age, it can be pretty substantial. And oftentimes, for many people, there's going to be a price increase, even when they're on Medicare from if you were working for a company that was a larger employer and had pretty inexpensive health benefits. So that makes a huge, huge difference.   Nick: And one way that some people have managed things from that perspective are with some of the Marketplace options out there will kind of connect people with specialists that can help on the medical insurance side of things. And you may be able to take money from taxable accounts that don't have large gains to put your income lower so that you don't pay as much, but in reality, to be frank, usually the only people that can do that are ones that have saved substantial amount of money into a non-qualified account, which usually means they have a lot of money. So, it's less of an issue. So really looking at that, looking at the different types of accounts, when you create your withdrawal rate, and figuring out, hey, how can we keep your income taxes low, not a only for a short period of time when you're in retirement, but kind of building flexibility throughout your retirement, where you're not just letting this tax bomb grow, or you're not using all of your Roth money first or leaving it all for the end.   Nick: It's usually kind of a bit of a balance. So we harp on it a lot, but this is really where there's so many factors and things like this. That this is where kind of software and the tech tools that we have today really help us tailor make a plan, come up with a really good income and liquidation strategy, help us figure out what kind of gaps are we going to have between the time that you retire and when things like Social Security are going to kick in to help supplement the income, and then when Medicare's going to kick in to help reduce expenses. So, it's definitely a puzzle and fortunately we enjoy putting the pieces together.   Mark: Right. Well, look, if you're on the fence, well, if you already did the resigned and walked away, hopefully you had a plan in place, but if you're not, if you're among some of those folks that are still considering, I've heard some interesting stats that they think that's going to happen. Again, early on the first half of 2022, make sure you're talking with an advisor about all the different things that could happen if you do step away early. Most people, hopefully do, but sometimes you just get frustrated or whatever the case is. And a lot of it does have to do with this kind of going back to work, staying working from home, it got good to us, we really kind of, in some ways, very much so enjoy being able to work from home, in other ways we kind of missed the camaraderie. So there's a lot of different things to just kind of take into account before you pull the Great Resignation.   Mark: And with that, we're going to wrap it up this week. We're going to knock out an email question here real fast. Whichever one of you guys want to tackle this, but we've got one from Rebecca who said, "Guys, every six months or so I tell myself, I need to start saving more for retirement and I pretend like I'm going to get serious and actually do it. But then I can't stay motivated to increase my savings. I'm putting a decent amount in the 401k and I have a pretty nice balance there, but it feels like I could be doing more. It's the beginning of the year, I want to be more motivated. How do I do it?"   John: This comes up quite a bit. And I'd say the easiest way to save is probably the 401k, because it's done through payroll and you really, once you start saving in to it, you really don't miss the money coming out into it and you can always adjust it. And we've had some people where they say, "Hey, I'm putting enough into my 401k, what else should I do?" And the first step is just really just setting up an account and you can start with as little as $25 a month, or $50 a month, but once that account's open, it's much easier just to say, hey, let me up this. So I would say the first step is look at the 401k and if you don't want to continue contributing to that, just open up an account somewhere with your advisor or on your own and just set it up monthly, and then you can always adjust it as needed.   Mark: Yeah. Or maybe a Roth, right? If she wants to look at a tax, something more tax efficient. So...   John: Yep.   Mark: That's another way to look at it. But yeah, I think if you automate it and you just put it in play, Rebecca, that should hopefully get you... You just, if you don't see it and you don't think about it and it's just happening in the background, then that's the beauty of it, so then you don't have to worry about necessarily getting motivated. But another way might be to sit down with a professional and start getting some advice. It doesn't matter really on your age, the sooner, the better. So if you got questions, need some help, reach out to John and Nick, go to the website, pfgprivatewealth.com. That's pfgprivatewealth.com.   Mark: Don't forget to subscribe to the podcast on whatever platform you like to use, Apple, Google, Spotify, iHeart, Stitcher, just type in Retirement Planning Redefined, or again, just find it all at their website, pfgprivatewealth.com. If you got questions, need some help, John and Nick are here for you.   Mark: Guys, thanks for hanging out. I appreciate it. Talking to me about the Great Resignation and we'll talk about it in a couple of weeks here, we'll see what's going on.   Nick: Thanks, Mark   John: Thanks.   Mark: I appreciate your time as always. Guys, thanks for hanging out with me. We'll see you next time here on the podcast, with John and Nick, this is Retirement Planning Redefined.

About NickNick Heudecker leads market strategy and competitive intelligence at Cribl, the observability pipeline company. Prior to Cribl, Nick spent eight years as an industry analyst at Gartner, covering data and analytics. Before that, he led engineering and product teams at multiple startups, with a bias towards open source software and adoption, and served as a cryptologist in the US Navy. Join Corey and Nick as they discuss the differences between observability and monitoring, why organizations struggle to get value from observability data, why observability requires new data management approaches, how observability pipelines are creating opportunities for SRE and SecOps teams, the balance between budgets and insight, why goats are the world's best mammal, and more.Links: Cribl: https://cribl.io/ Cribl Community: https://cribl.io/community Twitter: https://twitter.com/nheudecker Try Cribl hosted solution: https://cribl.cloud 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 Thinkst. This is going to take a minute to explain, so bear with me. I linked against an early version of their tool, canarytokens.org in the very early days of my newsletter, and what it does is relatively simple and straightforward. It winds up embedding credentials, files, that sort of thing in various parts of your environment, wherever you want to; it gives you fake AWS API credentials, for example. And the only thing that these things do is alert you whenever someone attempts to use those things. It's an awesome approach. I've used something similar for years. Check them out. But wait, there's more. They also have an enterprise option that you should be very much aware of canary.tools. You can take a look at this, but what it does is it provides an enterprise approach to drive these things throughout your entire environment. You can get a physical device that hangs out on your network and impersonates whatever you want to. When it gets Nmap scanned, or someone attempts to log into it, or access files on it, you get instant alerts. It's awesome. If you don't do something like this, you're likely to find out that you've gotten breached, the hard way. Take a look at this. It's one of those few things that I look at and say, “Wow, that is an amazing idea. I love it.” That's canarytokens.org and canary.tools. The first one is free. The second one is enterprise-y. Take a look. I'm a big fan of this. More from them in the coming weeks.Corey: This episode is sponsored in part by our friends at Jellyfish. So, you're sitting in front of your office chair, bleary eyed, parked in front of a powerpoint and—oh my sweet feathery Jesus its the night before the board meeting, because of course it is! As you slot that crappy screenshot of traffic light colored excel tables into your deck, or sift through endless spreadsheets looking for just the right data set, have you ever wondered, why is it that sales and marketing get all this shiny, awesome analytics and inside tools? Whereas, engineering basically gets left with the dregs. Well, the founders of Jellyfish certainly did. That's why they created the Jellyfish Engineering Management Platform, but don't you dare call it JEMP! Designed to make it simple to analyze your engineering organization, Jellyfish ingests signals from your tech stack. Including JIRA, Git, and collaborative tools. Yes, depressing to think of those things as your tech stack but this is 2021. They use that to create a model that accurately reflects just how the breakdown of engineering work aligns with your wider business objectives. In other words, it translates from code into spreadsheet. When you have to explain what you're doing from an engineering perspective to people whose primary IDE is Microsoft Powerpoint, consider Jellyfish. Thats Jellyfish.co and tell them Corey sent you! Watch for the wince, thats my favorite part.Corey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud. I'm Corey Quinn. This promoted episode is a bit fun because I'm joined by someone that I have a fair bit in common with. Sure, I moonlight sometimes as an analyst because I don't really seem to know what that means, and he spent significant amounts of time as a VP analyst at Gartner. But more importantly than that, a lot of the reason that I am the way that I am is that I spent almost a decade growing up in Maine, and in Maine, there's not a lot to do other than sit inside for the nine months of winter every year and develop personality problems.You've already seen what that looks like with me. Please welcome Nick Heudecker, who presumably will disprove that, but maybe not. He is currently a senior director of market strategy and competitive intelligence at Cribl. Nick, thanks for joining me.Nick: Thanks for having me. Excited to be here.Corey: So, let's start at the very beginning. I like playing with people's titles, and you certainly have a lofty one. ‘competitive intelligence' feels an awful lot like jeopardy. What am I missing?Nick: Well, I'm basically an internal analyst at the company. So, I spend a lot of time looking at the broader market, seeing what trends are happening out there; looking at what kind of thought leadership content that I can create to help people discover Cribl, get interested in the products and services that we offer. So, I'm mostly—you mentioned my time in Maine. I was a cryptologist in the Navy and I spent almost all of my time focused on what the bad guys do. And in this job, I focus on what our potential competitors do in the market. So, I'm very externally focused. Does that help? Does that explain it?Corey: No, it absolutely does. I mean, you folks have been sponsoring our nonsense for which we thank you, but the biggest problem that I have with telling the story of Cribl was that originally—initially it was, from my perspective, “What is this hokey nonsense?” And then I learned and got an answer and then finish the sentence with, “And where can I buy it?” Because it seems that the big competitive threat that you have is something crappy that some rando sysadmin has cobbled together. And I say that as the rando sysadmin, who has cobbled a lot of things like that together. And it's awful. I wasn't aware you folks had direct competitors.Nick: Today we don't. There's a couple that it might be emerging a little bit, but in general, no, it's mostly us, and that's what I analyze every day. Are there other emerging companies in the space? Are there open-source projects? But you're right, most of the things that we compete against are DIY today. Absolutely.Corey: In your previous role, which you were at for a very long time in tech terms—which in a lot of other cases is, “Okay, that doesn't seem that long,” but seven and a half years is a respectable stint at a company. And you were at Gartner doing a number of analyst-like activities. Let's start at the beginning because I assure you, I'm asking this purely for the audience and not because I don't know the answer myself, but what exactly is the purpose of an analyst firm, of which Gartner is the most broadly known and, follow up, why do companies care what Gartner thinks?Nick: Yeah. It's a good question, one that I answer a lot. So, what is the purpose of an analyst firm? The purpose of an analyst firm is to get impartial information about something, whether that is supply chain technology, big data tech, human resource management technologies. And it's often difficult if you're an end-user and you're interested in say, acquiring a new piece of technology, what really works well, what doesn't.And so the analyst firm because in the course of a given year, I would talk to nearly a thousand companies and both end-users and vendors as well as investors about what they're doing, what challenges they're having, and I would distill that down into 30-minute conversations with everyone else. And so we provided impartial information in aggregate to people who just wanted to help. And that's the purpose of an analyst firm. Your second question, why do people care? Well, I didn't get paid by vendors.I got paid by the company that I worked for, and so I got to be Tron; I fought for the users. And because I talk to so many different companies in different geographies, in different industries, and I share that information with my colleagues, they shared with me, we had a very robust understanding of what's actually happening in any technology market. And that's uncommon kind of insight to really have in any kind of industry. So, that's the purpose and that's why people care.Corey: It's easy from the engineering perspective that I used to inhabit to make fun of it. It's oh, it's purely justification when you're making a big decision, so if it goes sideways—because find me a technology project that doesn't eventually go sideways—I want to be able to make sure that I'm not the one that catches heat for it because Gartner said it was good. They have an amazing credibility story going on there, and I used to have that very dismissive perspective. But the more I started talking to folks who are Gartner customers themselves and some of the analyst-style things that I do with a variety of different companies, it's turned into, “No, no. They're after insight.”Because it turns out, from my perspective at least, the more that you are focused on building a product that solves a problem, you sort of lose touch with the broader market because the only people you're really talking to are either in your space or have already acknowledged and been right there and become your customer and have been jaded to see things from your point of view. Getting a more objective viewpoint from an impartial third party does have value.Nick: Absolutely. And I want you to succeed, I want you to be successful, I want to carry on a relationship with all the clients that I would speak with, and so one of the fun things I would always ask is, “Why are you asking me this question now?” Sometimes it would come in, they'd be very innocuous;, “Compare these databases,” or, “Compare these cloud services.” “Well, why are you asking?” And that's when you get to, kind of like, the psychology of it.“Oh, we just hired a new CIO and he or she hates vendor X, so we have to get rid of it.” “Well, all right. Let's figure out how we solve this problem for you.” And so it wasn't always just technology comparisons. Technology is easy, you write a check and you hope for the best.But when you're dealing with large teams and maybe a globally distributed company, it really comes down to culture, and personality, and all the harder factors. And so it was always—those were always the most fun and certainly the most challenging conversations to have.Corey: One challenge that I find in this space is—in my narrow niche of the world where I focus on AWS bills, where things are extraordinarily yes or no, black or white, binary choices—that I talked to companies, like during the pandemic, and they were super happy that, “Oh, yeah. Our infrastructure has auto-scaling and it works super well.” And I look at the bill and the spend graph over time is so flat you could basically play a game of pool on top of it. And I don't believe that I'm talking to people who are lying to me. I truly don't believe that people make that decision, but what they believe versus what is evidenced in reality are not necessarily congruent. How do you disambiguate from the stories that people want to tell about themselves? And what they're actually doing?Nick: You have to unpack it. I think you have to ask a series of questions to figure out what their motivation is. Who else is on the call, as well? I would sometimes drop into a phone call and there would be a dozen people on the line. Those inquiry calls would go the worst because everyone wants to stake a claim, everyone wants to be heard, no one's going to be honest with you or with anyone else on the call.So, you typically need to have a pretty personal conversation about what does this person want to accomplish, what does the company want to accomplish, and what are the factors that are pushing against what those things are? It's like a novel, right? You have a character, the character wants to achieve something, and there are multiple obstacles in that person's way. And so by act five, ideally everything wraps up and it's perfect. And so my job is to get the character out of the tree that is on fire and onto the beach where the person can relax.So, you have to unpack a lot of different questions and answers to figure out, well, are they telling me what their boss wants to hear or are they really looking for help? Sometimes you're successful, sometimes you're not. Not everyone does want to be open and honest. In other cases, you would have a team show up to a call with maybe a junior engineer and they really just want you to tell them that the junior engineer's architecture is not a good idea. And so you do a lot of couples therapy as well. I don't know if this is really answering the question for you, but there are no easy answers. And people are defensive, they have biases, companies overall are risk-averse. I think you know this.Corey: Oh, yeah.Nick: And so it can be difficult to get to the bottom of what their real motivation is.Corey: My approach has always been that if you want serious data, you go talk to Gartner. If you want [anec-data 00:09:48] and some understanding, well, maybe we can have that conversation, but they're empowering different decisions at different levels, and that's fine. To be clear, I do not consider Gartner to be a competitor to what I do in any respect. It turns out that I am not very good at drawing charts in varying shades of blue and positioning things just so with repeatable methodology, and they're not particularly good at having cartoon animals as their mascot that they put into ridiculous situations. We each have our portion of the universe, and that's working out reasonably well.Nick: Well, and there's also something to unpack there as well because I would say that people look at Gartner and they think they have a lot of data. To a certain degree they do, but a lot of it is not quantifiable data. If you look at a firm like IDC, they specialize in—like, they are a data house; that is what they do. And so their view of the world and how they advise their clients is different. So, even within analyst firms, there is differentiation in what approach they take, how consultative they might be with their clients, one versus another. So, there certainly are differences that you could find the more exposure you get into the industry.Corey: For a while, I've been making a recurring joke that Route 53—Amazon's managed DNS service—is in fact a database. And then at some point, I saw a post on Reddit where someone said, “Yeah, I see the joke and it's great, but why should I actually not do this?” At which point I had to jump in and say, “Okay, look. Jokes are all well and good, but as soon as people start taking me seriously, it's very much time to come clean.” Because I think that's the only ethical and responsible thing to do in this ecosystem.Similarly, there was another great joke once upon a time. It was an April Fool's Day prank, and Google put out a paper about this thing they called MapReduce. Hilarious prank that Yahoo fell for hook, line, and sinker, and wound up building Hadoop out of it and we're still paying the price for that, years later. You have a bit of a reputation from your time at Gartner as being—and I quote—“The man who killed Hadoop.” What happened there? What's the story? And I appreciate your finally making clear to the rest of us that it was, in fact, a joke. What happened there?Nick: Well, one of the pieces of research that Gartner puts out every year is this thing called a Hype Cycle. And we've all seen it, it looks like a roller coaster in profile; big mountain goes up really high and then comes down steeply, drops into a valley, and then—Corey: ‘the trough of disillusionment,' as I recall.Nick: Yes, my favorite. And then plateaus out. And one of the profiles on that curve was Hadoop distributions. And after years of taking inquiry calls, and writing documents, and speaking with everybody about what they were doing, we realized that this really isn't taking off like everyone thinks it is. Cluster sizes weren't getting bigger, people were having a lot of challenges with the complexity, people couldn't find skills to run it themselves if they wanted to.And then the cloud providers came in and said, “Well, we'll make a lot of this really simple for you, and we'll get rid of HDFS,” which is—was a good idea, but it didn't really scale well. I think that the challenge of having to acquire computers with compute storage and memory again, and again, and again, and again, just was not sustainable for the majority of enterprises. And so we flagged it as this will be obsolete before plateau. And at that point, we got a lot of hate mail, but it just seemed like the right decision to make, right? Once again, we're Tron; we fight for the users.And that seemed like the right advice and direction to provide to the end-users. And so didn't make a lot of friends, but I think I was long-term right about what happened in the Hadoop space. Certainly, some fragments of it are left over and we're still seeing—you know, Spark is going strong, there's a lot of Hive still around, but Hadoop as this amalgamation of open-source projects, I think is effectively dead.Corey: I sure hope you're right. I think it has a long tail like most things that are there. Legacy is the condescending engineering term for ‘it makes money.' You were at Gartner for almost eight years and then you left to go work at Cribl. What triggered that? What was it that made you decide, “This is great. I've been here a long time. I've obviously made it work for me. I'm going to go work at a startup that apparently, even though it recently raised a $200 million funding round”—congratulations on that, by the way—“It still apparently can't afford to buy a vowel in its name.” That's C-R-I-B-L because, of course, it is. Maybe another consonant, while you're shopping. But okay, great. It's oddly spelled, it is hard to explain in some cases, to folks who are not already feeling pain in that space. What was it that made you decide to sit up and, “All right, this is where I want to be?”Nick: Well, I met the co-founders when I was an analyst. They were working at Splunk and oddly enough—this is going to be an interesting transition compared to the previous thing we talked about—they were working on Hunk, which was, let's use HDFS to store Splunk data. Made a lot of sense, right? It could be much more cost-effective than high-cost infrastructure for Splunk. And so they told me about this; I was interested.And so I met the co-founders and then I reconnected with them after they left and formed Cribl. And I thought the story was really cool because where they're sitting is between sources and destinations of observability data. And they were solving a problem that all of my customers had, but they couldn't resolve. They would try and build it themselves. They would look at—Kafka was a popular choice, but that had some challenges for observability data—works fantastically well for application data.And they were just—had a very pragmatic view of the world that they were inhabiting and the problem that they were looking to solve. And it looked kind of like a no-brainer of a problem to solve. But when you double-click on it, when you really look down and say, “All right, what are the challenges with doing this?” They're really insurmountable for a lot of organizations. So, even though they may try and take a DIY approach, they often run into trouble after just a few weeks because of all the protocols you have to support, all the different data formats, and all the destinations, and role-based access control, and everything else that goes along with it.And so I really liked the team. I thought the product inhabited a unique space in the market—we've already talked about the lack of competitors in the space—and I just felt like the company was on a rocket ship—or is a rocket ship—that basically had unbounded success potential. And so when the opportunity arose to join the team and do a lot of the things I like doing as an analyst—examining the market, talking to people looking at competitive aspects—I jumped at it.Corey: It's nice when you see those opportunities that show up in front of you, and the stars sort of align. It's like, this is not just something that I'm excited about and enthused about, but hey, they can use me. I can add something to where they're going and help them get there better, faster, sooner, et cetera, et cetera.Nick: When you're an analyst, you look at dozens of companies a month and I'd never seen an opportunity that looked like that. Everything kind of looked the same. There's a bunch of data integration companies, there's a bunch of companies with Spark and things like that, but this company was unique; the product was unique, and no one was really recognizing the opportunity. So, it was just a great set of things that all happen at the same time.Corey: It's always fun to see stars align like that. So—Nick: Yeah.Corey: —help me understand in a way that can be articulated to folks who don't have 15 years of grumpy sysadmin experience under their belts, what does Cribl do?Nick: So, Cribl does a couple of things. Our flagship product is called LogStream, and the easiest way to describe that is as an abstraction between sources and destinations of data. And that doesn't sound very interesting, but if you, from your sysadmin background, you're always dealing with events, logs, now there's traces, metrics are also hanging around—Corey: Oh, and of course, the time is never synchronized with anything either, so it's sort of a giant whodunit, mystery, where half the eyewitnesses lie.Nick: Well, there's that. There's a lot of data silos. If you got an agent deployed on a system, it's only going to talk to one destination platform. And you repeat this, maybe a dozen times per server, and you might have 100,000 or 200,000 servers, with all of these different agents running on it, each one locked into one destination. So, you might want to be able to mix and match that data; you can't. You're locked in.One of the things LogStream does is it lets you do that exact mixing and matching. Another thing that this product does, that LogStream does, is it gives you ability to manage that data. And then what I mean by that is, you may want to reduce how much stuff you're sending into a given platform because maybe that platform charges you by your daily ingest rates or some other kind of event-based charges. And so not all that data is valuable, so why pay to store it if it's not going to be valuable? Just dump it or reduce the amount of volume that you've got in that payload, like a Windows XML log.And so that's another aspect that it allows you to do, better management of that stuff. You can redact sensitive fields, you can enrich the data with maybe, say, GeoIPs so you know what kind of data privacy laws you fall under and so on. And so, the story has always been, land the data in your destination platform first, then do all those things. Well, of course, because that's how they charge you; they charge you based on daily ingest. And so now the story is, make those decisions upfront in one place without having to spread this logic all over, and then send the data where you want it to go.So, that's really, that's the core product today, LogStream. We call ourselves an observability pipeline for observability data. The other thing we've got going on is this project called AppScope, and I think this is pretty cool. AppScope is a black box instrumentation tool that basically resides between the application runtime and the kernel and any shared libraries. And so it provides—without you having to go back and instrument code—it instruments the application for you based on every call that it makes and then can send that data through something like LogStream or to another destination.So, you don't have to go back and say, “Well, I'm going to try and find the source code for this 30-year old c++ application.” I can simply run AppScope against the process, and find out exactly what that application is doing for me, and then relay that information to some other destination.Corey: This episode is sponsored in part by Liquibase. If you're anything like me, you've screwed up the database part of a deployment so severely that you've been banned from touching every anything that remotely sounds like SQL, at at least three different companies. We've mostly got code deployments solved for, but when it comes to databases we basically rely on desperate hope, with a roll back plan of keeping our resumes up to date. It doesn't have to be that way. Meet Liquibase. It is both an open source project and a commercial offering. Liquibase lets you track, modify, and automate database schema changes across almost any database, with guardrails to ensure you'll still have a company left after you deploy the change. No matter where your database lives, Liquibase can help you solve your database deployment issues. Check them out today at liquibase.com. Offer does not apply to Route 53.Corey: I have to ask because I love what you're doing, don't get me wrong. The counterargument that always comes up in this type of conversation is, “Who in their right mind looks at the state of the industry today and says, ‘You know what we need? That's right; another observability tool.'” what differentiates what you folks are building from a lot of the existing names in the space? And to be clear, a lot of the existing names in the space are treating observability simply as hipster monitoring. I'm not entirely sure they're wrong, but that's a different fight for a different time.Nick: Yeah. I'm happy to come back and talk about that aspect of it, too. What's different about what we're doing is we don't care where the data goes. We don't have a dog in that fight. We want you to have better control over where it goes and what kind of shape it's in when it gets there.And so I'll give an example. One of our customers wanted to deploy a new SIEM—Security Information Event Management—tool. But they didn't want to have to deploy a couple hundred-thousand new agents to go along with it. They already had the data coming in from another agent, they just couldn't get the data to it. So, they use LogStream to send that data to their new desired platform.Worked great. They were able to go from zero to a brand new platform in just a couple days, versus fighting with rolling out agents and having to update them. Did they conflict with existing agents? How much performance did it impact on the servers, and so on? So, we don't care about the destination. We like everybody. We're agnostic when it comes to where that data goes. And—Corey: Oh, it's not about the destination. It's about the journey. Everyone's been saying it, but you've turned it into a product.Nick: It's very spiritual. So, we [laugh] send, we send your observability data on a spiritual [laugh] journey to its destination, and we can do quite a bit with it on the way.Corey: So, you said you offered to go back as well and visit the, “Oh, it's monitoring, but we're going to call it observability because otherwise we get yelled out on Twitter by Charity Majors.” How do you view that?Nick: Monitoring is the things you already know. Right? You know what questions you want to ask, you get an alert if something goes out of bounds or something goes from green to red. Think about monitoring as a data warehouse. You shape your data, you get it all in just the right condition so you can ask the same question over and over again, over different time domains.That's how I think about monitoring. It's prepackaged, you know exactly what you want to do with it. Observability is more like a data lake. I have no idea what I'm going to do with this stuff. I think there's going to be some signals in here that I can use, and I'm going to go explore that data.So, if monitoring is your known knowns, observability is your unknown unknowns. So, an ideal observability solution gives you an opportunity to discover what those are. Once you discover them. Great. Now, you can talk about how to get them into your monitoring system. So, for me, it's kind of a process of discovery.Corey: Which makes an awful lot of sense. The problem I've always had with the monitoring approach is it falls into this terrible pattern of enumerate the badness. In other words, “Imagine all the ways that this system can fail,” and then build an alerting that lets you know when any of those things happen. And what happens next is inevitable to anyone who's ever dealt with the tricksy devils known as computers, and what happens, of course, is that they find new ways to fail and you generally get to add to the list of things to check for, usually at two o'clock in the morning.Nick: On a Sunday.Corey: Oh, absolutely. It almost doesn't matter when. The real problem is when these things happen, it's, “What day, actually, is it?” And you have to check the calendar to figure out because your third time that week being woken up in the dead of night. It's like an infant but less than endearing.So, that has been the old school approach, and there's unfortunately still an awful lot of, we'll just call it nonsense, in the industry that still does exactly the same thing, except now they call it observability because—hearkening back to earlier in our conversation—there's a certain point in the Gartner Hype Cycle that we are all existing within. What's the deal with that?Nick: Well, I think that there are a lot of entrenched interests in the monitoring space. And so I think you always see this when a new term comes around. Vendors will say, “All right, well, there's a lot of confusion about this. Let me back-fit my product into this term so that I can continue to look like I'm on the leading edge and I'm not going to put any of my revenues in jeopardy.” I know, that's a cynical view, but I've seen it over and over again.And I think that's unfortunate because there's a real opportunity to have a better understanding of your systems, to better understand what's happening in all the containers you're deploying and not tearing down the way that you should, to better understand what's happening in distributed systems. And it's going to be a real missed opportunity if that is what happens. If we just call this ‘Monitoring 2.0' it's going to leave a lot of unrealized potential in the market.Corey: The big problem that I've seen in a lot of different areas is—I'll be direct—consolidation where you have a company that starts to do a thing—and that's great—and then they start doing other things that are tied to it. And in turn, they start, I guess, gathering everything in the ecosystem. If you break down observability into various constituent parts, I—know, I know, the pillars thing is going to upset people; ignore that for now—and if you have an offering that's weak in a particular area, okay, instead of building it organically into the product, or saying, “Yeah, that's not what we do,” there's an instinct to acquire a company or build that functionality out. And it turns out that we're building what feels the lot to me like the SaaS equivalent of multifunction printers: they can print, they can scan, they can fax, and none of those three very well, so it winds up with something that dissatisfies everyone, rather than a best-of-breed solution that has a very clear and narrow starting and stopping point. How do you view that?Nick: Well, what you've described is a compromise, right? A compromise is everyone can work and no one's happy. And I think that's the advantage of where LogStream comes in. The reality is best-of-breed. Most enterprises today have 30 or more different monitoring tools—call them observability tools if you want to—and you will never pry those tools from the dead hands of those sysadmins, DevOps engineers, SREs, et cetera.They all integrate those tools into how they work and their processes. So, we're living in a best-of-breed world. It's like that in data and analytics—my former beat—and it's like that in monitoring and observability. People really gravitate towards the tools they like, they gravitate towards the tools their friends are using. And so you need a way to be able to mix and match that stuff.And just because I want to stay [laugh] on message, that's really where the LogStream story kind of blends in because we do that; we allow you to mix and match all those different pieces.Corey: Joke's on you. I use Nagios and I have no friends. I'm not convinced those two things are entirely unrelated, but here we are. So here's, I guess, the big burning question that a lot of folks—certainly not me, but other undefined folks, ‘lots of people are saying'—so you built something interesting that actually works. I want to be clear on this.I have spoken to customers of yours. They swear by it instead of swearing at it, which happens with other companies. Awesome. You have traction, you're moving forward, things are going great. Here's $200 million is the next part of that story, and on some level, my immediate reaction—which does need updating, let's be clear here—is like, all right.I'm trying to build a product. I can see how I could spend a few million bucks. “Well, what can you do with I don't know, 100 times that?” My easy answer is, “Something monstrous.” I don't believe that is the case here. What is the growth plan? What are you doing that makes having that kind of a war chest a useful and valuable thing to have?Nick: Well, if you speak with the co-founders—and they've been open about this—we view ourselves as a generational company. We're not just building one product. We've been thinking about, how do we deliver on observability as this idea of discovery? What does that take? And it doesn't mean that we're going to be less agnostic to other destinations, we still think there's an incredible amount of value there and that's not going away, but we think there's maybe an interim step that we build out, potentially this idea of an observability data lake where you can explore these environments.Certainly, there's other types of options in the space today. Most of them are SQL-based, which is interesting because the audience that uses monitoring and observability tools couldn't care less about SQL right? They want search, they want regex, and so you've got to have the right tool for that audience. And so we're thinking about what that looks like going forward. We're doubling down on people.Surprisingly, this is a very—like anything else in software, it is people-intensive. And so certainly those are other aspects that we're exploring with the recent investment, but definitely, multiproduct company is our future and continued expansion.Corey: Expansion is always a fun one. It's the idea of, great, are you looking at going deeper into the areas you're already active within, or is it more of a, “Ah, so we've solved the, effectively, log routing problem. That's great. Let's solve other problems, too.” Or is it more of a, I guess, a doubling down and focusing on what's working? And again, that probably sounds judgmental in a way I don't intend it to at all. I just have a hard time contextualizing that level of scale coming from a small company perspective the way that I do.Nick: Yeah. Our plan is to focus more intently on the areas that we're in. We have a huge basis of experience there. We don't want to be all things to all people; that dilutes the message down to nothing, so we want to be very specific in the audiences we talk to, the problems we're trying to solve, and how we try to solve them.Corey: The problem I've always found with a lot of the acquisition, growth thrashing of—let me call it what I think it is: companies in decline trying to strain relevancy, it feels almost like a, “We don't see a growth strategy. So, we're going to try and acquire everything that hold still long enough, at some level, trying to add more revenue to the pile, but also thrashing in the sense of, okay. They're going to teach us how to do things in creative, awesome ways,” but it never works out that way. When you have a 50,000 person company acquiring a 200 person company, invariably the bigger culture is going to dominate. And I don't understand why that mistake seems to continually happen again, and again, and again.And people think I'm effectively alluding to—or whenever the spoken word version of subtweeting is—a particular company or a particular acquisition. I'm absolutely not, there are probably 50 different companies listening right now who thinks, “Oh, God. He's talking about us.” It's the common repeating trend. What is that?Nick: It's hard to say. In some cases, these acquisitions might just be talent. “We need to know how to do X. They know how to do X. Let's do it.” They may have very unique niche technology or software that another company thinks they can more broadly apply.Also, some of these big companies, these may not be board-level or CEO-level decisions. A business unit might decide, “Oh, I like what that company is doing. I'm going to go acquire it.” And so it looks like MegaCorp bought TinyCorp, but it's really, this tiny business unit within MegaCorp bought tiny company. The reality is often different from what it looks like on the outside.So, that's one way. Another is, you know, if they're going to teach us to be more effective with tech or something like that, you're never going to beat culture. You're never going to be the existing culture. If it's 50,000, against 200, obviously we know who wins there. And so I don't know if that's realistic.I don't know if the big companies are genuine when they say that, but it could just be the messaging that they use to make people happy and hopefully retain as many of those new employees for as long as they can. Does that make sense?Corey: No, it makes perfect sense. It's the right answer. It does articulate what is happening there, and I think I keep falling prey to the same failure. And it's hard. It's pernicious, but companies are not monolithic entities.There's no one person at all of these companies each who is making these giant unilateral decisions. It's always some product manager or some particular person who has a vision and a strategy in the department. It is not something that the company board is agreeing on every little decision that gets made. They're distributed entities in many respects.Nick: Absolutely. And that's only getting more pervasive as companies get larger [laugh] through acquisition. So, you're going to see more and more of that, and so it's going to look like we're going to put one label on it, one brand. Often, I think internally, that's the exact opposite of what actually happened, how that decision got made.Corey: Nick, I want to thank you for taking so much time to speak with me about what you're up to over there, how your path has shaped, how you view the world, and also what Cribl does these days. If people want to learn more about what you're up to, how you think about the world, or even possibly going to work at Cribl which, having spoken to a number of people over there, I would endorse it. How do they find you?Nick: Best place to find us is by joining our community: cribl.io/community, and Cribl is spelled C-R-I-B-L. You can certainly reach out there, we've got about 2300 people in our community Slack, so it's a great group. You can also reach out to me on Twitter, I'm @nheudecker, N-H-E-U-D-E-C-K-E-R. Tell me what you thought of the episode; love to hear it. And then beyond that, you can also sign up for our free cloud tier at cribl.cloud. It's a pretty generous one terabyte a day processing, so you can start to send data in and send it wherever you'd like to be.Corey: To be clear, this free as in beer, not free as an AWS free tier?Nick: This is free as in beer.Corey: Excellent. Excellent.Nick: I think I'm getting that right. I think it's free as in beer. And the other thing you can try is our hosted solution on AWS, fully managed cloud at cribl.cloud, we offer a free one terabyte per day processing, so you can start to send data into that environment and send it wherever you'd like to go, in whatever shape that data needs to be in when it gets there.Corey: And we will, of course, put links to that in the [show notes 00:35:21]. Thank you so much for your time today. I really appreciate it.Nick: No, thank you for having me. This was a lot of fun.Corey: Nick Heudecker, senior director, market strategy and competitive intelligence at Cribl. 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 a comment explaining that the only real reason a startup should raise a $200 million funding round is to pay that month's AWS bill.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.

Today's Twitter Spaces Interview is with Nick Tennant of Precision Extraction runs of one of the largest cannabis extraction consulting firms and can connect you with a marijuana expert, cannabis expert, medical marijuana expert, or manufacturing contact if you're a MMJ business looking to grow.https://precisionextraction.com/Rob: Nick has a huge operation going in terms of its influence in helping companies that are trying to get into the extraction space so they can create marijuana products with a consistent amount of dosing and is really doing a lot in the space for marijuana, making it more easy for companies that want to jump in to do so with a certain level of expertise and experience. Nick: Thanks for having me. It's a pleasure to be here. Rob: I think one of the most interesting areas that people outside of blockchain had been requesting an interview on or some sort of a primer on has been marijuana. I was telling you before the show that there's a lot of overlap, like VC funds that are in blockchain are also heavily. A lot of times. Medical marijuana here in Southern California, like getting either distribution or processing or manufacturing. How did you come into first blockchain and then marijuana in terms of as a career. Nick: Sure. So I've been in blockchain since 2016, and I guess you would kind of characterize me always as a technology enthusiast, right? Like any sort of disruptive technology I've always gravitate towards. And I just try to understand. As much as I can about why it's disruptive, why the technology is going to change the future state of the world and kind of run through scenarios in my head about, if this, then this and how will this progress and proceed. And what's the, the likely paths and the likely outcomes. And I think when you run through. That thought process, it leads you to understand the future state of the world. And blockchain was one of those things that obviously, with Bitcoin back then with the financial system set up the way that it is, and we can go into all that long-winded conversation of course, there, but just really saw the future state of the world being integrated with blockchain and being integrated with decentralized technologies and, and Independent currency, right? Like this parallel monetary system that's being built next to this old system that has many flaws of course, and live through the, the 2017 boom, watch the Ethereum go from seven bucks all the way up to, 1400 or thereabouts and all the way back down and made some good trades and bad trades. And the whole time I was still running.our company in the cannabis space. And so trying to. Follow both paths. We went, obviously went into the crypto winter there 2018, 2019, but I was still building everything in the cannabis space. And I'm not full time in crypto I'm full-time in cannabis, but still follow the technology, invest in and really have my ear to the ground and what's happening. Rob: You're so right. Like there's a lot of carryover in both spaces where you've seen a huge shift. I worked in private equity for about a year. And the guy that actually led my tech department went to go work for canopy and he kind of helped usher. Some huge investments into marijuana right. About the same time that a lot of blockchain projects were scaling. And I wonder from your point of view, it seems like during the early stages of blockchain, you had, people that were coming in as a hobbyist or the seriousness, wasn't quite there, sands a few projects here and there. And then the perception, at least in Southern California, that like with marijuana, That the seriousness wasn't quite there, like real scientists wouldn't get into it. And then as the legalization came and bigger and bigger scientists and influencers and celebrities got in like the series. Started to make a real shift. Did you see that shift in your own life, like interacting with other kinds of marijuana companies and scaling things? Yeah, Nick: definitely. I mean, I think that there's a parallel path here because what you have to understand is that they both came from a taboo sort of social interpretation, right? Like blockchain or Bitcoin being used on silk road, cannabis being an illicit drug. Right. They both have. The social interpretations of being taboo or negative or, or whatever it was. And so naturally the paths were somewhat similar, at least from like a socioeconomic economic perspective and the way that people interpreted them. So really, in the early days of cannabis, You were worried how far you could stick your arm out because it might get chopped off. And I think that a lot of the same held true in the early days of blockchain, right? I mean like the Mt. Gox hack and all these crazy things that happen. But as the infrastructure started developing. #cannabis #MMJ #marijuana

https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/3xzenb/IAJ_NickMartowski_032921.mp3 Stewart: What to do about equities in insurance company portfolios, that’s the topic of the day. My name is Stewart Foley. This is The Insurance AUM Journal Podcast. We’re joined by Nick Martowski, CIO of Mag Mutual. Welcome, Nick. Nick: Thanks very much for having me, Stewart. Pleasure to be here. And just a […]

Last week we covered the basics of the traditional IRA and today we will shift our focus to the Roth IRA. John and Nick will once again explain the basics to this investment vehicle. We will also compare and contrast the Roth IRA to the traditional IRA.Helpful Information:PFG Website: https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/Contact: 813-286-7776Email: info@pfgprivatewealth.comFor a transcript of today's show, visit the blog related to this episode at https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/podcast/Transcript of Today's Show:----more----Speaker 1: Hey everybody. Welcome back in to Retirement Planning Redefined. Thanks for tuning into the podcast. We appreciate it. Maybe you've received this podcast through the team's newsletters or email blast. Or maybe you found us online on various different podcast outlets like Apple or Google or Spotify. Either way we appreciate your time. And we're going to spend a few minutes with John and Nick talking some more about IRAs. And this go round we're going to spend some time on the Roths. But first guys, what's going on? How are you?John: I'm good. So my one year old is sleeping through the night very well, so I feel like a new man.Speaker 1: That goes a long way that's for sure. Well kudos on that. And Nick, how you doing, buddy?Nick: I'm pretty good. My 15 year old dog is not sleeping through the night.I'm okay.Speaker 1: Yeah, getting up there. I've got a 13 year old dog and she's a pistol. I got a 22 year old daughter and I can't tell which one's a bigger pain in the butt, the dog or the daughter. But they're both doing pretty well. The kid's actually graduating from nuclear engineering school. Actually I get to go see her Friday, and she's now a petty officer. She ranked up in the Navy. So we're all proud of her.Nick: Congrats.Speaker 1: Yeah, I appreciate that. I'll tell you what, let's not talk about babies, dogs or the Navy for just a minute. Let's talk about the Roth IRAs as I mentioned. So if you happened to catch the last podcast, we wanted to go through and talk about IRAs, about the vehicle. And we spent some time on the traditional side. So guys, do me a favor first, let's just do a recap, a little bit, of the traditional IRA before we switch over to the Roth so people have some context on that.Nick: So one of the biggest benefits for any sort of IRA account are some of the tax benefits. But one of the things that we wanted to remind everybody of, and this helps with IRA accounts, but also just really any investment account. Sometimes the feedback we've gotten is it's helpful for people to think about the different types of accounts in three phases of taxation. There's as the money goes in, is it taxed, is it not taxed. As the money grows, is it taxed, is it not taxed. And then when it comes out so that you can use it, is it taxed or not taxed. So for traditional IRA, you know the first one, as it goes in, in the last session we talked a little bit about it. Most of the time for most people it's not going to be taxed. But there will be some rules on when that's after tax money, it's going to grow tax deferred. So you're not going to get 1099 on it each year as it grows. And then when it comes out, it's going to be ordinary income tax.Nick: And then for the Roth IRA, which is what we're going to get into today, it is money that's already been taxed is going to go in. It's going to grow tax deferred. So [inaudible 00:02:43] 1099s, and then on the backside it's tax free. That's the comparison as you go through.Speaker 1: Okay. Since you brought it up, let's go ahead and just jump right into it. So John, give us a few things to think about on the Roth side. He already mentioned the tax deferred part. What are some other limitations and things of that nature we talked about like with the traditional, some numbers or some things we need to know?John: Yeah, so like the traditional IRA, the contributions are based off of earned income. So again, that does not count real estate state income, any interest, income like that, but earned income. And as far as the limits go, if you're below 50, [inaudible 00:03:20] 6,000. Anyone above 50 can do 1,000 catch-up, which gives you a 7,000 total. And just to again reiterate some mistakes we've seen where you can only contribute 7,000 between the two of you. You can't contribute 7,000 each. Okay, so 7,000 total.John: And something that some people aren't aware of is that even if, let's say one spouse is not working and is staying home for whatever reason. They are eligible to make a spousal contribution to an IRA, whether that's Roth or traditional, which is a nice feature because that does come up quite a bit. So to talk about the contributions of a Roth, we gave the example of traditional IRA as far as making a pre tax contribution. As Nick mentioned, the Roth is after tax dollars. So example of that, 100,000 of income for somebody, they make a $5,000 contribution to a Roth, their taxable income stays at 100,000 in that given year. So there's no tax benefit up front with the Roth IRA versus a traditional IRA, you could have a tax savings up front when you make the contribution if it's deductible.Nick: So from an eligibility standpoint, for a single person, somebody that makes under 122,000 can make a full contribution. If their income is between 122,000 and 137,000, there is a partial that can be made. If their income is over 137,000, they are not able to make a contribution to a Roth IRA. For married filing jointly, if their income is below 193,000, they can make contributions for both of them and their spouse. If the income is between 193 and 203,000, it's a partial. And if the household or the married filing jointly income is above or greater than 203,000, then they are not eligible to make the contribution.Speaker 1: Gotcha. Okay. All right, so we've covered some of the contributions, some of the eligibility you mentioned already in the tax deferred growth part. What about access? Did we cover some things there?John: So one thing the eligibility and it's becoming more popular now with Roth 401k. So if you're not eligible to make a Roth IRA contribution, one thing to do is check with your employer and see if they offer a Roth 401k, which actually has no income limits for you to be able to participate in it, which is a nice [inaudible 00:05:37]Speaker 1: Okay, that's good to know. Yeah, absolutely. All right, that's a Roth 401k. Maybe we'll do another show about that another time. What about the access side, anything there? Is it the same 59 and a half, all that kind of stuff?John: So rules are fairly similar, where you as far as access getting to the account, there is the 59 and a half rule. And if you do draw early there's a 10% penalty on your earnings. And I stress earnings on that, because with a Roth IRA and I say this, consult with your tax preparer, tax advisor, we don't give tax advice. But with a Roth IRA, you can actually access what we call cost basis prior to 59 and a half without any penalty. I've seen a couple of people do it where basically let's say if you've put in 30,000 into your Roth in your account at 50. So 20,000 earnings, 30,000 is what you've put in, which is considered your cost basis. You can pull that 30,000 out without paying a penalty. It's just you have to keep very good records of your contribution amounts. And if you do pull it out, you have to work with your tax preparer to go ahead and let the IRS know that you pulled out a portion of your tax basis. And that's would avoid any type of a penalty on that.Speaker 1: All right, so we've covered several things on the Roth side, so the access, the eligibility, contributions, all that good kind of stuff. So let's just get into the fact that it's been hugely popular. It's been a very hot button issue for the last really couple of years. Obviously one of the reasons, we mentioned earlier that it's tax deferred. Really, the taxes are low, right? We're in a historically low tax rate. So one of the reasons that a Roth might be a good place to go, or a Roth conversion I guess I should say, is because of the tax thing. So what are some other reasons why the Roth is just really popular?Nick: You pointed to one of the biggest reasons from the standpoint of we are in historical low tax brackets. And one of the things that we talk about with clients and it really became evident towards the end of 2019 is, the thing that might be the quote unquote best strategy today, it may not be the best strategy five years down the road, 10 years down the road. So for most of the clients that we meet with, they're substantially overweight on pre-tax money and maybe only recently have started to build up Roth money. And we think it's really important to have balance and to have options in retirement. Your ability to be able to pivot and adjust to law changes, rule changes, market conditions, etc. are really important. And then part of that is not having to be forced to take out a required minimum distribution on a Roth helps you maintain that balance and maintain the nest egg, those tax free [inaudible 00:08:18] roles help give you flexibility and balance, the ability to be able to pass on funds to beneficiaries, Roth dollars.Nick: Especially if you have... Maybe your kids are high-income, you've done a good job planning. We go through the numbers, we built the plan and there's a pretty high probability that you're going to be passing on money to the kids. The rub, money is usually much better to plan or to pass down, because of the fact that it will be tax-free to them as well. So the ability to really create flexibility in your planning and strategies is one of the reasons that we think the Roths are a really important piece of the pie.John: Just to jump in. One thing, just backtracking to accessing it tax-free. Just a couple of rules with it is you have to be above 59 and a half. And you actually have to have had a Roth IRA account for at least five years. So an example would be, let's say I open one up at age 60. I'm above 59 and a half. The person cannot actually withdraw tax free until basically 65. So I have to wait five years and that's from the first Roth I ever started up. So one thing that we typically will work with clients is if they're eligible, we might just go ahead and start a Roth IRA just to start that five year window.Speaker 1: Okay. All right. That's good. Yeah. Good information to know on that. Now with the beneficiary thing and passing things along, is the change in the SECURE act, does that make a difference in the Roth as well? Is there anything there that would pertain to people if they're thinking about it that they should definitely be checking with you guys on before doing a conversion or something like that?John: Yeah, so I believe we're doing a four part session to this. We're going to talk about conversions, but yeah, that makes conversions a little more appealing where you have to pull the money out over a 10 year period now. Where basically at least if you have to pull it over 10 years, there's actually no tax hit. So as your IRA gets bigger, if you're pulling out of a $1 million IRA over a 10 year period, that's going to really affect your tax rate. If it was all Roth money, it would have no bearing on your taxes.Speaker 1: Gotcha. Okay. All right. Yeah, and we are going to continue on with this conversation on a future podcast about which one might be right for you and all those good kinds of things. Nick, anything else that we may have overlooked in there we need to throw in?Nick: No, I just can't really say it enough from the standpoint of building in flexibility is key. Most of the people that listen to the podcasts are going to have pretax money, but if they don't have any Roth money then just getting started can be really important to build that up. Because even if they're within a few years of retirement, just remember that we're still planning for 30, 40 years down the road. Having money that compounds over a long period of time and then has tax free withdrawals on the backside is a pretty significant leverage point and benefit.Speaker 1: Okay, one final question I'm going to ask you guys is you sometimes hear people say, if I'm still working, can I contribute or should I contribute to both kinds, the traditional or the Roth? What do you say when someone asks that type of question? Should someone do both the traditional for the tax reasons and then the Roth for the non-tax? What's your answer?John: We'll answer that in the next session.Speaker 1: Nicely done. Look at him teeing that up. There you go, folks. All right, I'll tell you what. We will take care of that on the next session and that way you have a reason to come back. A cliffhanger if you will. So if you've got questions about the Roth IRA, make sure you talk with your advisor about that. If you're not working with an advisor, you certainly should be. Reach out to John and Nick and give them a call at PFG Private Wealth. And you can reach them at 813-286-7776. That's the number to dial. 813-286-7776 here in the Tampa Bay area or go to their website, check them out online at pfgprivatewealth.com. That is pfgprivatewealth.com. Don't forget to subscribe to the podcast so you can get those next episodes as they come out. Nick, John, thanks for your time this week.Speaker 1: I hope everybody has a great week and you guys enjoy yourself and continue to get some good sleep while that baby's resting, all right?John: Hopefully it continues. I think it will.Speaker 1: Yeah, there you go. Nick, appreciate your time, buddy. Take care.Nick: Thanks. Have a good one.Speaker 1: We'll see you next time here on Retirement Planning Redefined with the guys from PFG Private Wealth, John and Nick.

We cover the basics on the traditional IRA. John and Nick will break down what this investment vehicle is for and how it may be able to benefit you.Helpful Information:PFG Website: https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/Contact: 813-286-7776Email: info@pfgprivatewealth.comFor a transcript of today's show, visit the blog related to this episode at https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/podcast/Transcript of Today's Show:----more----Speaker 1: Hey everybody, welcome into this edition of Retirement Planning Redefined with John and Nick here with me, talking about investing finance and retirement. From their office, their PFG Private Wealth in Tampa Bay guys, what's going on? How are you this week, John?John: I'm good. How are you doing?Speaker 1: I'm hanging in there. Amidst the goofiness of the world, I'm doing all right. How about you, Nick? You doing okay?Nick: Yep, yep. Pretty good. We finished up the retirement classes that we teach recently, so just meeting with a lot of people after that class.Speaker 1: Okay. Those went pretty well?Nick: Yeah. Yeah, always good. Always fun.Speaker 1: Okay, well, very good. Listen, I got a little bit of a kind of a class idea for us to run through here. I wanted to talk this week about IRAs, really just an IRA 101, if you will, and then we'll follow it up with our next podcast coming up after this one. We'll follow up with the Roth side of the coin. Let's jump into here just a little bit and talk about this and get rocking and rolling. Just do us a favor. Just assume that we don't all have the same knowledge base. What is an IRA? Give us just a quick 101 on that.John: So yeah, good question. Especially with a tax season coming up, because I know a lot of people when they're doing their taxes, and whether it's TurboTax or working with an accountant, at the end of it it says you might want contribute to an IRA and maybe save some taxes this year. Or maybe get [inaudible 00:01:22] taxable income down the road. But you brought this topic up. So when I raise an individual retirement account on the personal side, a lot of people have their employer sponsored plans, but the IRA is for the individual. Really, there's a lot of tax benefits to it to provide for saving for retirement. One of the biggest questions that Nick and I get, or I guess assumptions, is that most people think an IRA is an actual investment, and it's really not. I explain it as imagine a tax shell, a tax shell you can invest in a lot of different things, and you have some tax benefits within the shell.Speaker 1: Okay. So it's like a turtle shell, if you want to look out that way. It's a wrapper really, right? So it's what your Snicker bar comes in. It's the wrapper. Then inside there you can put all sorts of different stuff. So who can contribute to IRAs?John: Well, there's two main types, and Nick will jump into that. But there's your traditional IRA and then a Roth IRA.Speaker 1: Okay.Nick: From the standpoint of how those break down, how those work, we're going to focus on traditional IRAs today. The number one determination on whether or not you can contribute to an IRA is if there is earned income in the household. So if it's a single person household, they have to have earned income. That does not include pension income, social security income, rental income. It's earned income. You receive some sort of wage for doing a job. So that's the first rule. You can contribute for 2019 and for 2020 essentially, if you're under 50, you can contribute $6,000. If you're over 50, you can take part in what's called a catch-up, which is an additional $1,000 for a total of $7,000.Nick: So as an example, let say that it's a two-person household. One person is working, one person is not, and the person that's working has a least $14,000 of income. Then as long as they satisfy a couple other rules that we'll talk about, they can make a contribution for themself for the $7,000 and for the spouse for the $7,000. So earned income doesn't have to be for both people. It has to be for one, and then the amount ties in the amount of earned income.Speaker 1: Oh, okay.John: One thing to jump into that, and I've seen some people, not our clients, but others, make some mistakes where they think that, we talked about the two different kinds, traditional and Roth, where they think they can make, let's say, $7,000 into one and $7,000 in the other. It's actually $7,000 total between the two of them.Speaker 1: Oh, that's a good point. Yeah. So, okay, so those are good to know. Whenever you're talking about just the contribution, the base set up of them. So let's stick with the traditional IRA and talk about it. What are some key things to think about like as an investment vehicle, as a machine here? These are pre-taxed, right?Nick: Yeah. When we talk about, and this is where the confusion really sets in for many people, when we talk about traditional IRAs, we really like to have conversations with people to make sure that they understand that there can be both a tax deductible or pretax traditional IRA, and there can be non-deductible traditional IRAs. So the logistics are dependent upon, really, a couple of different things whether or not they're active in an employer's plan. Then there are income limits that will determine whether or not somebody can participate in the tax deductible side of a traditional IRA. So that can be a little confusing. We usually have people consult with their tax prepare or and/or their software so that they can fully understand.Nick: But part of the reason that we bring that up is a real-world scenario is, what [inaudible 00:05:17] this client, worked at a company for 10 years, and she contributed to the 401k on a pretax basis. She left the company, rolled her 401k into a rollover IRA, and she's no longer working, but her spouse is working and wants to make IRA contributions for them. But he has a plan at work and makes too much money. They might have to do a non-deductible IRA. So usually what we will tell them to do is to open a second IRA, and when they make the contribution, they're going to account for it on their taxes as they made it. They're not going to deduct it. So we try not to commingle those dollars together. So a nondeductible IRA, we would like you to be separate from a rollover IRA. Otherwise, they have to keep track of the cost basis and their tax basis on nondeductible proportion commingled, and we're really just [inaudible 00:06:16] nightmare.John: Yeah, that's never fun to try and keep track of and never easy. One thing with with the pretax, just give an example of what that means is, let's say someone's taxable income in a given year is $100,000, and doing their taxes, it says, you might want to make a deductible contribution to an IRA. If they were to put $5,000 into the IRA, their taxable income for that given year would be $95,000. So that's where people look at the pretax as a benefit versus a nondeductible. That same example, $100,000 of income, you put $5,000 into a nondeductible IRA, your taxable income stays at that $100,000.Speaker 1: Okay. So what are the factors that determine if it's deductible or not?Nick: The answer is that it's fairly complicated. The first factor is, if we talk about an individual, they're going to look at do you have a plan at work that you're able to contribute to? So that's the first test. The second test is an income test. The tricky part with the income test is that there is a test for your income, and then there's also tests for household income. So usually we revert to the charts and advisors. We work together with the tax preparers to help make sure that we're in compliance with all of the rules. It should be much less complicated than it actually is. But it's really, honestly, a pain. I will say that if you do not have a plan at work that you can contribute to, your ability to contribute in [inaudible 00:07:56] to an IRA, a traditional IRA is much easier.Speaker 1: Okay. Gotcha. All right. So if that's some of the determining factors in there, what are some other important things for us to take away from a traditional IRA standpoint?John: Yeah, one of the biggest benefits to investing in an IRA versus, let's say, outside of it, is and if the account grows tax-deferred. So let's say you had money outside of an IRA and you get some growth on it, I say typically, because nothing's ever absolute. But you can really get it [inaudible 00:08:28] every single year and the gains and the dividends and things like that. Within the IRA shell, going back to that, it just continues to grow tax-deferred. So really help the compounding growth of it.Speaker 1: Okay. So when we're talking about some of these important pieces and the different things with the traditional, what are some other, I know a lot of times we know that it's the 59 and a half, right? All that kind of stuff. Give us some other things to think about just so that we're aware of the gist of it. Now, there was some changes to the Secure Act, which also makes them some of these numbers a little bit different now. The 59 and a half is still there, but now it's gone from 70 and a half to 72, right?John: Yeah. With good things like tax deferral and pre-tax, we do have some nice rules that the IRS/government basically hands down to us. One of them is as far as access to the account, you cannot fully access the account without any penalties until 59 and a half. After you're 59 and a half, you do get access to your account. If you access it before that, there is a 10% penalty on top of a whatever you draw. So that's basically deter to pull out early. There are some special circumstances as far as pulling out before 59 and a half, which could be any type of hardships financially, health wise, and also first time home purchases. We get that quite a bit sometimes where people say, I'm looking to buy a house and I want to go ahead and pull out of my IRA. Can I do so and avoid the penalty? The answer is yes, up to $10,000.John: Some of the changes with the Secure Act where they used to be after 70 and a half, you can no longer contribute to an IRA, even if you have earned income. That's actually gone, which is a nice feature when we're doing planning for clients above 70 and a half, where we can now make a deductible contribution to an IRA, where before we couldn't. Nick's the expert in RMD, so he can jump in and take that.Nick: One of the biggest things to keep in mind from the standpoint of traditional IRAs are that they do have required minimum distributions. The good thing is that those required minimum distributions are now required at age 72 versus 70 and a half. So that makes things a little bit easier for people. And again, that's kind of a big differentiator from the standpoint of a Roth IRA does not have an RMD, a traditional IRA does have an RMD.Speaker 1: Right, and with the RMDs, it's money that basically the government says, we're tired of waiting. Where's our tax revenue? Is there any basic things there just to think about when we're thinking about having to pull this out? Is there a figure attached to it?Nick: I would say we try to give people an idea, because sometimes there's uncertainty on any sort of concept of how much they have to take out. But on average it's about 3.6% in the first year. I would say though, that probably one of the biggest, or I should say one of the most misunderstood portions about it are that the RMD amount that has to come out, it's based on the prior years and balance of all of the pretax accounts. So you may have multiple accounts, you don't have to take an RMD out of each account. You just need to make sure that you take out the amount that is due, and you have the ability to be able to pick which account you want to take that out of, which really, at first thought that can seem more complicated. But if you're working with somebody it helps increase the ability to strategize and ladder your investments and use a bucket strategy where you can use short-term, mid-term, long-term strategies on your money, and have a little bit more flexibility on which account you're going to take money out of when.John: To jump on that, we went through that paycheck series when we talked about having a long-term bucket, and in some strategies that's where by being able to choose what IRA you draw from, you can just let that long-term bucket just continue to build up and not worrying about pulling out of it.Speaker 1: Gotcha. Okay. All right. So that gives us a good rundown, I think, through the traditional side of it, and gives us some basic class, if you will, on what these are. Of course, as the guys mentioned, they teach classes all the time. So if there's things you want to learn more about the IRA, the traditional IRA, and how you might be able to be using it or better using it as part of an investment vehicle, then always reach out to the team and have a conversation about that specifically. Because again, we just covered some basics and general things that apply to just about everybody here. But when you want to see how it works for your situation specifically, you always have to have those conversations one-on-one. So reach out to them, let them know if you want to chat about the traditional IRA, or how you can better use the vehicle, or change, or whatever it is that you're looking to do.Speaker 1: (813) 286-7776 is the number you call to have a conversation with them. You simply let them know that you want to come in. They'll get you scheduled and set up for a time that works well for you. That's (813) 286-7776. They are financial advisors at PFG Private Wealth in the Tampa Bay area. Make sure you subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Google, Spotify, iHeart, Stitcher, whatever platform of choice you like to use. You can simply download the app onto your smartphone and search Retirement Planning Redefined on the app for the podcast. Or you could just simply go to their website at pfgprivatewealth.com. That's pfgprivatewealth.com. Guys, thanks for spending a few minutes with me this week talking about IRAs. So let's, next podcast, talk about the Roth side. We'll flip over to the cousins, okay?John: One more thing I want to mention before we go is withdrawing from the accounts of, let's say someone goes to retire above 59 and a half, and it's time to really start using this money as income. So it's just important to understand that whatever amount that you withdraw out of the IRA, assuming everything was pre-tax that went into it, it adds to your taxable income. So for example, if someone's pulling $50,000 out of their IRA, their taxable income goes up by $50,000 in a given year. So we just want to point that out, because as people are putting money into it, we sometimes do get questions of, when I take it out am I actually taxed on this, the answer is yes, if it was pretax put into it.Speaker 1: Gotcha. Okay. Yeah, great point. Thanks for bringing that up as well. So I appreciate that. And again, folks, the nice thing about a podcast is you can always pause it, and you can always rewind it, replay it. If you're learning, trying to learn something useful, or get a new nugget of information here, that's a great thing about it. That's also why subscribing is fantastic. You can hear new episodes that come out, as well as go back and check on something that you were thinking about, and that way when you come to have that conversation, you can say, listen, I want to understand more about how withdrawals with my traditional IRA is going to affect me, or whatever your question might be. So again, guys, thanks for your time this week. I'll let you get back to work and we'll talk again soon.John: Thanks.Nick: Thanks.Speaker 1: We'll catch you next time here, folks, on the podcast. Again, go subscribe. We'd appreciate it on Retirement Planning Redefined with John and Nick from PFG Private Wealth.

A lot of XR technologies started from projects in the military sector, including AR. Today’s guest Nick Cherukuri is working to bring what he’s learned from years working in tech for the defense department, and is bringing it all to enterprise — and eventually, consumers — with his line of AR glasses. Alan: Hey, everyone, it’s Alan Smithson here today. We’re speaking with Nick Cherukuri, founder of ThirdEye, about their all-in-one AR glasses hardware and software solution for enterprise in logistics, manufacturing, and engineering and how these tools are revolutionizing how we work. All coming up next on the XR for Business Podcast. Welcome to the show, Nick. Nick: Thanks, Alan. Glad to be on. Alan: I’m really excited. You guys have a really original and awesome looking pair of glasses for the enterprise. Walk us through your X2 glasses and how are people using them? What makes them stand out from the competition? What’s the form factor? Just walk us through your solution. Nick: Definitely. So just to provide some background about ThirdEye, while we may be a relatively new name in the commercial space, we have over 20 years of experience developing this technology for the United States Department of Defense. So that’s our origin story. And as you may know, the military, a lot of the technologies we use today have evolved from there, so for example, the Internet, GPS, even Siri for your iPhone originally came from SRI, which is right down the road from us in Princeton, developed there and Apple bought it off them. So the military has been a great incubator for these advanced technologies. And augmented reality, it’s definitely considered the next major tech platform. So we’ve been developing a lot of AR hardware and software applications for the military. And a few– a couple of years ago, we decided to take some of our technical know-how, our leading engineers — we have state-of-the-art labs here in Princeton, New Jersey — and we decided to develop a commercial product. So we spun off into ThirdEye and we created– just this year, we– earlier this year, we released our X2 mixed reality glasses. So there’s just some high-level overview of the X2. We wanted to really address the customer concerns. We felt this was an optimal time to get into the commercial market. So we feel it’s too early for the consumer market right now, but the commercial AR market is definitely something that we are seeing a lot of traction happening. So we wanted to develop a pair of glasses that really hit some of their needs. And some of the needs we heard were the glasses had to be entirely hands-free. For example, many workers, they have safety requirements, where they cannot have any wired packs. So you can’t have a wired processing pack or a wired battery pack. It needs to be all hands-free, compacted to one pair of glasses. So that was perhaps the most critical use case that we heard, that this is– you had to develop the glasses in a way that’s entirely hands-free. So we made our X2 glasses entirely hands-free at about nine ounces form factor. So it’s something that can be worn for a lengthy period of time. Another use case that we listened to was, it has to be attachable to a hardhat. So the glasses could be as advanced as you want, but if it can’t attach to a hardhat, or to a bumpcap, and meet some basic ANSI industrial certifications — ANSI Z87 — then it can’t be used in these industrial settings. So that’s something that we definitely incorporated into our glasses, to be attachable to a hardhat, and to a bumpcap. Our glasses are Android-based, so it’s really easy to make access for upgrading to Android 9 soon, so we

A lot of XR technologies started from projects in the military sector, including AR. Today’s guest Nick Cherukuri is working to bring what he’s learned from years working in tech for the defense department, and is bringing it all to enterprise — and eventually, consumers — with his line of AR glasses. Alan: Hey, everyone, it’s Alan Smithson here today. We’re speaking with Nick Cherukuri, founder of ThirdEye, about their all-in-one AR glasses hardware and software solution for enterprise in logistics, manufacturing, and engineering and how these tools are revolutionizing how we work. All coming up next on the XR for Business Podcast. Welcome to the show, Nick. Nick: Thanks, Alan. Glad to be on. Alan: I’m really excited. You guys have a really original and awesome looking pair of glasses for the enterprise. Walk us through your X2 glasses and how are people using them? What makes them stand out from the competition? What’s the form factor? Just walk us through your solution. Nick: Definitely. So just to provide some background about ThirdEye, while we may be a relatively new name in the commercial space, we have over 20 years of experience developing this technology for the United States Department of Defense. So that’s our origin story. And as you may know, the military, a lot of the technologies we use today have evolved from there, so for example, the Internet, GPS, even Siri for your iPhone originally came from SRI, which is right down the road from us in Princeton, developed there and Apple bought it off them. So the military has been a great incubator for these advanced technologies. And augmented reality, it’s definitely considered the next major tech platform. So we’ve been developing a lot of AR hardware and software applications for the military. And a few– a couple of years ago, we decided to take some of our technical know-how, our leading engineers — we have state-of-the-art labs here in Princeton, New Jersey — and we decided to develop a commercial product. So we spun off into ThirdEye and we created– just this year, we– earlier this year, we released our X2 mixed reality glasses. So there’s just some high-level overview of the X2. We wanted to really address the customer concerns. We felt this was an optimal time to get into the commercial market. So we feel it’s too early for the consumer market right now, but the commercial AR market is definitely something that we are seeing a lot of traction happening. So we wanted to develop a pair of glasses that really hit some of their needs. And some of the needs we heard were the glasses had to be entirely hands-free. For example, many workers, they have safety requirements, where they cannot have any wired packs. So you can’t have a wired processing pack or a wired battery pack. It needs to be all hands-free, compacted to one pair of glasses. So that was perhaps the most critical use case that we heard, that this is– you had to develop the glasses in a way that’s entirely hands-free. So we made our X2 glasses entirely hands-free at about nine ounces form factor. So it’s something that can be worn for a lengthy period of time. Another use case that we listened to was, it has to be attachable to a hardhat. So the glasses could be as advanced as you want, but if it can’t attach to a hardhat, or to a bumpcap, and meet some basic ANSI industrial certifications — ANSI Z87 — then it can’t be used in these industrial settings. So that’s something that we definitely incorporated into our glasses, to be attachable to a hardhat, and to a bumpcap. Our glasses are Android-based, so it’s really easy to make access for upgrading to Android 9 soon, so we

Happy birthday, Nick! 生日快乐，Nick。 Thanks! You remember it's my birthday! 谢谢你记得我生日！ Yeah. I'm good with birthdays. You know, I'm also a Cancer. 对啊。我很会记生日的。而且，你知道吗，我也是巨蟹座。 So, two Cancers. That explains why we hit it off right away and work so well together. 啊，我们两都是巨蟹座。怪不得我们很投缘、而且配合得这么好。 But I've also heard people say that you don't necessarily get along with those who share the same zodiac as you. I'm glad that's not the case in our situation. 但是我也听说同样星座的人不一定合得来。还好我们不是这种情况。 Me too. To be honest, you don't strike me as a Cancer. And to the same extent, I don't even think I'm that representative of a Cancer either. 就是。老...