Surviving Conventional Wisdom
Can you hear me now?
Speaker 2:I mean, I'm just yeah. No. We're good.
Speaker 1:We're good. We we we got ourselves. Yeah. I'd you know, it's fine because we just we were, people were discussing their favorite podcasts on Hacker News over the weekend and some said that there was an oxide friends. But, like but I'm pretty sure that they're, like, moving away from Twitter spaces.
Speaker 1:And I'm like, no. No. We just complain about it all the time. What I do sorry. And that's, like, a reasonable inference, but we no.
Speaker 1:No. We're not. We're not moving away from it. We're we're here.
Speaker 2:Yeah. I mean, I gotta say, I mean, we've been doing this a minute, and I I love it. I love the the pipeline of, like
Speaker 1:We gotta get the pipeline.
Speaker 2:From from, I mean, obviously, we get we get the complaint, but we get the pipeline of Monday night to eventually YouTube, and then eventually podcast. It's great.
Speaker 1:It's great. No. It is great. Actually, getting it out as podcast is fun. So that's been that that has been, it's been great.
Speaker 1:And, we are now, begin as especially that are wondering, like, hey. Like, how can we, like, join in and talk about Oxide? It's like, well, you can join our Twitter space. So we may dear listeners, we may get a little weird. We may have some folks that we are some partners join us.
Speaker 1:We're excited for that. So look for that in the next couple weeks. I think it's gonna be fun. So I am we'd, we were originally gonna talk supply chain with Kate. Kate couldn't make it tonight, so she we're gonna do that in 2 weeks.
Speaker 1:It's gonna be a lot of fun. But so, tonight, we are or this afternoon, evening, wherever you are. I I have to say, Adam, I I am unreasonably excited for this. So
Speaker 2:good. Good. Good. Good. Because I only have, like, 1 or 2 pieces of, conventional wisdom.
Speaker 3:So I'm
Speaker 4:looking forward to
Speaker 2:seeing your litany of them.
Speaker 1:I've got so many. I and I don't know And I so this is a, mags.eth, a, the person that that that I have followed, and she posed the question of what's a a piece of common, catchy advice that sounds right, but you think is I have to say this just I I have an avalanche of these that occurred to me when she phrased this. So I I'm really excited to get into some of these. Should should we start with the one that that I co tweeted? Is that fair, Adam?
Speaker 1:Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's a good one. Sorry.
Speaker 1:So the, so the the one that I started with and, again, I think there are a bunch of these. I've tried to come up with things that, like, I believed at one time because they sound so plausible. And one that just sounds incredibly plausible is you should dual source everything, which seems reasonable. In fact, I think, like, I myself believe this up until, like, not that long ago. I think I don't even know.
Speaker 1:But I I definitely don't believe this now. I think that this is actually very, very wrong now. And, there were plenty of people who are like, what are you talking about? And let me put an asterisk on this With with the supply chain crunch that exists out there, you people are having to do whatever you need to do to get the things that you need. So I'm not, like, not casting judgment on anyone who's seeking second sources for things.
Speaker 1:But the I I think that there's this idea that for any component in a system, you should be able to you that you will get your best price if you have an alternate source to go to. And the reason I think that that's wrong is it discounts the relationship that you build with your partners. And what would I discovered when we were at a company that, did that believed ardently in dual sourcing absolutely everything is that we were always at the back of everyone's line. That that that we didn't build really it was really hard for us to build really meaningful relationships. Those relationships were strictly transactional, and they were constantly the the the way we got things was effectively by threatening them, by saying, you know, if you don't provide this to me, I've got this this other vendor who and they will provide it to me.
Speaker 1:And, people don't like that. You know? It's just not something that people wanna, like, that that's not something that they actually want to partner with.
Speaker 2:Yeah. I mean, it says the whole tenor of the relationship value the thing you produce any more than any other thing.
Speaker 1:That's right. And I got, like, I got 2 other folks, 3 other I got a line of other people that can replace you. So, you know, if you if you don't please me, I'm gonna it's just like it it it just feels, it it is and it's a big way adversarial. And then when something goes wrong and, you know, you need someone to actually like, you know, a a partner to really help you through a tough situation, they're gonna be like, well, you know, why?
Speaker 2:Yeah. Why don't you go to your lower
Speaker 1:price then? Right.
Speaker 2:Or whatever. Right? They're Totally. Or so equivalent.
Speaker 1:They're so equivalent tips. If if you if you value your precious equivalent so much. So we I mean and it's certainly at Oxide, we we took a very, very different and very deliberate approach of, we don't want to actually have second sources on everything. What we wanna do is make really conscious decisions and really invest in people and invest in relationships and go really, really deep. And because we wanna be we believe in and, actually and I don't know, Adam, if you kind of agree with this number of questions we have of differentiating between vendors and partners.
Speaker 1:And a vendor is someone that we don't have a relationship with who is kind of I mean, you know, and kind of shipping is kind of the I mean, with shipping, we don't actually have, like, a a real shipping true partner. Right? We kind of you know, we use FedEx, we use UPS, and we use pirate ship. Have you used pirate ship at all, Adam?
Speaker 2:No. I haven't.
Speaker 1:If if we're
Speaker 2:this is a shipping desert? They're
Speaker 1:called pirate ship. But they're they're amazing. I this is something that Rick turned us on to. Steve, I hope I'm not I'm not divulging any kind of, like, a trade secret. The fact that we're using they're using I mean, pirate ship, I think, is right.
Speaker 1:I you know, the way I'm describing it now, it sounds like I'm making it up, but I don't think I am. But
Speaker 3:It really does sound like you're making it up. But it is every time I ship with FedEx and UPS, there's a couple of oxide folks that are just like, why are you not using Pirate Ship? So, no. We do we do use it, and, apparently, it gets you a a heavy discount on a very commoditized experience.
Speaker 1:And so that's the closest thing we've actually got to a relationship there, but that's not like a that is a transaction for us. We're just trying to ship this thing. It's a transaction. So that we treat as a vendor. But for anything that is a a component that we are building out of, we treat that as a or we wanna treat that as a partnership.
Speaker 1:We wanna go deep. And because we and there are a bunch of reasons for that. 1, we and the and this serve us well in the supply chain crunch. You really do need to be working together with the your comp with your component providers in a true partnership. I mean, to give you a super concrete example of that, we, our fan provider is San Yodenke, and we had a sup like everybody, supply problems with with fan providers.
Speaker 1:Fans are a an absolute mess from a supply chain perspective. All fans. And the problem is not the fans. It's actually some of the components in the fans. And because we got such a good relationship with them, they were willing to, like, hey.
Speaker 1:Let's take this thing apart, and maybe we can work together to solve it. So we help them solve their supply chain problem. I don't know how to do it when you got keyed into this, but we
Speaker 2:Yeah. No idea. I heard I heard about us acquiring this component and sort of injecting it into their manufacturing process. Again, because we because of the strength of that relationship, and that's not the kind of thing that they would do for someone who's just looking for
Speaker 1:the No. It definitely not. And
Speaker 3:I think
Speaker 1:Well, yeah.
Speaker 3:And and also to be clear, like, they want they want nothing to do with people crawling their balls. And I don't mean San Diego in particular. I'm talking about, like, any component manufacturer. The last thing they want is customers crawling their supply chain and being, like, oh, the lead time is x number of weeks, like, why? Tell me which one of your sub suppliers is the problem so I can go beat on their door.
Speaker 3:So, like, first of all, that is just not a path available to most, in general. And it was only because, you know, I think we've we've we've built a good trusted relationship with them that they were willing to entertain, like, okay. If you wanna try and go second source, you know, certain things, to help us solve our supply chain problem, we're willing to to to contemplate that. And, obviously, the outcome means instead of facing down, year plus lead times on things, being able to navigate a tough supply chain situation to be able to get, you know, much much better availability. Certainly punching well above the weight of a of a start up.
Speaker 1:Absolutely. And that has been I think we we've seen that up, down, and all around. I I just have not Steve, I don't think we've regretted once. I think we have always felt that the strength of the relationship has bought us more than than dual sourcing would have bought us. It feels like it's it has been the right but it it's it's still this kinda conventional wisdom to the point that people would definitely, like, disagree with it about dual sourcing.
Speaker 1:So,
Speaker 2:you know, thinking back to Fishworks, Brian, where we were building the storage product, do you think that hurt us some? Because I feel like we were and correct me if I'm wrong, had dual source on a bunch of the disk drives we were using. If we had a bunch of problems with the disk drives we were using, And to some degree, some, you know, the some procurement or the some supply chain folks, I think, kept us at arms length from some of these vendors because they didn't want to undermine their ability to apply price.
Speaker 1:For sure. For sure. For sure. And I mean, it it is, it does tell you something about the Sydney industry that we've already done an entire Twitter space on the firmware that caused us so much for these on the the the Seagate Barracuda Right? And the and we should have gone all in Hitachi.
Speaker 1:Sun should have gone gone in all in Hitachi. Like, there was night and day difference between each GSD drives and c get drives. Even though they're effectively the same price and they're offering but at that time, they're in and indeed, like, that cast a long shadow. That's why our our for our NVMe drives, it's WD that is providing the NVMe drives and that and that's HGST's legacy, but that is effectively, you know, HGST, a couple of companies down the down the road because of the strength of that relationship. And, yeah, Adam, I totally agree with you.
Speaker 1:Because we were not getting, I think, very we're not getting very good treatment from those folks, certainly from Seagate. And so it didn't really buy us very much in the end to to have that be dual sourced.
Speaker 2:Yeah. And you can see how, like, this happens at bigger companies where procurement takes over and and their FBO or whatever is to get the lowest price, not to build the closest engineering relationship. So as these things get segmented between different organizations, you kinda lose some of that kinda that lose sight of that
Speaker 1:Yeah. And I think you you lose sight of that kind of that some of that shared responsibility, which is also really important to us where we want and certainly the way we view the product that we're making is that we take a shared responsibility with our customer success, and we want our partners to have that same sense. And you're not gonna get that by trying to play what everyone off one another. You're just not. You're gonna get that by going deep on folks.
Speaker 1:And it's amazing also, like, how a kind of classic this view is apparently. Because we talked to our partners, they're like, oh my god. It is such a breath of hard time to hear You're like, okay. What are does everyone just abuse you all the time? It's like, yes.
Speaker 1:Pretty much. I mean, that's like that's it. So
Speaker 2:Well, I and then I don't know. The chaser on that is, like, can you imagine needing to maintain dual sources on a lot of these things? I mean, I mean, just like to imagine Intel support in addition to AMD support would would be extraordinary.
Speaker 1:Absolutely. And it would
Speaker 2:I mean, which is to even suggest it would be possible, which is.
Speaker 1:No. No. It it absolutely. And then, like, you and just like the Seagate Hitachi thing, where it's like your problems on one of these things. Like, now what does that mean?
Speaker 1:Like, are you gonna like, what you should do is, like, actually digit, but you've you've got this kind of the the this, you know, this kind of false idol of dual sources. You can't do the thing you should do, which is digit when it doesn't when one of them doesn't work. So yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah. And then and then up the stack, you know, folks, I think it it it inhibits folks from innovating because they, they say, you know, I, if I, if I have a, a vendor that's promising me or showing me something differentiated, I can't adopt it unless I find someone else doing something similar and which is the antithesis of innovation. Totally. So it can, it can, it can, it can limit how organizations adopt new technologies. You know, if they're if they, you know, have this obstacle of doing sort of doing Yeah.
Speaker 1:I mean and and I mean, a concrete example of that is Intel Tafino. Right? Which what our switch silicon, we're really excited about Tufino because of it it's got first class support for p 4. I mean, Barefoot was really one the company that was leading the charge on p 4. And so it's funny.
Speaker 1:You talk to Barefoot. This is true when you talk to the Intel. It's true when you talk to the Semtech, which is I I I've been a partner up and down for us, but around connectivity. You know, we end up being a breath of fresh air for them because we are doing the thing that they actually want everyone to do. Like, it it Intel Tufino doesn't wanna be just used to get a price break on Broadcom.
Speaker 1:That's actually not how they wanna be used. They were like, hey. We've done this stuff that's really interesting, but, you know, can people please build on this innovation? And, you know, you end up getting a much stronger relationship by actually doing that. So we're pro.
Speaker 1:Put rings on fingers, people.
Speaker 5:That's right.
Speaker 1:Break the cycle of bigamy. Alright. Adam, do do do you have,
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I got one. And, I'm gonna I'm gonna I don't have a pithy, encapsulation of it, but I want you to tell me first if this feels like conventional wisdom before I disagree with it.
Speaker 2:Okay. And and I think it's and I've heard this from lots of sources, something along the lines of I could decide what people were doing if I were in charge. Or if I was in charge, you know, I could have the the way I want it to be, it could be the way it is. So let me pause there. Does that sound like conventional wisdom?
Speaker 1:Okay. So give me a couple more sentences. So the
Speaker 2:so like for in particular, like, I I I've spoken with many software engineers or folks on my team who imagine becoming a manager and then the things that they want done or the way that they think it should be being something that they can snap their fingers and make happen. And that people will kinda
Speaker 1:fall in the sky
Speaker 2:around around their vision. Mhmm. And I know I'm I'm I'm describing this in increasingly implausible ways. But I think that this is something I've that that certainly folks who have not experienced it feel like should be true. Like, this is this is how management works.
Speaker 1:I think there are many misconceptions about how management works, including that management involves telling other people what to do. I think that there are that that is like, oh, no problem. Like, I will I can tell people what to do. It's like, well, you can try that. That
Speaker 2:Yeah. And and that might work, like, the first or the second or the third time. But it it, it just runs out of gas incredibly quickly and you have, like, basically no leash. So if you're wrong at all, then you've completely lost everyone's confidence. And that, like, I think that people don't recognize that that servant management is, is kind of the standard that like people have ideas and opinions and expectations, and you're serving those, like, and maybe you're guiding folks and and pointing them the right direction and hopefully helping them make sound decisions.
Speaker 2:But, it's really about assembling the team and pointing them the right direction rather than standing at the front and and making everyone follow-up.
Speaker 1:Absolutely. Command and control does not work in I think it and it it I guess it depends on what degree creativity is involved in in endeavor, but the more creativity is involved or ingenuity innovation, the less command and control works.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah. No. Absolutely. Especially as you get to problems where where they can't kind of fit in one person's brand that, you need to enable that and and come in and control just to squashes that rather than, you know, encouraging it.
Speaker 1:Yes. Yeah. So no. I got that. I think it is a bit of commit for wisdom.
Speaker 1:I think people I think they underestimate. Hey. You definitely see this, I have to say, in the, what's what's what's a non patronizing, nonpertuitive way to phrase this? It's when the children are running companies, Adam. When the children are running
Speaker 2:companies. Yeah. No. No. I I'm not gonna disagree.
Speaker 1:I mean, like, look. I I I I don't wanna disparage anyone early in their career because I was early in my career once too. We all were. But when you have someone who is super early in their career, like, it's their first kind of job and they are leading a team or, god forbid, leading a company, it there are people who are wise beyond their years who who learn very quickly how to lead, but I would say many of those folks try to do command and control in a way that does not work. And, yeah, it's, the the results are predictable, I would say.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And in fact, I I've heard folks, I mean, in a related kind of piece of wisdom in early startups suggesting that sort of fewer opinions are are important. And I I I I get it in one sense through, like, kinda staying focused or whatever.
Speaker 1:Somehow, I think that that that is always uttered by the person whose opinion is gonna stay in the vote.
Speaker 2:Yeah. No. That sounds right. But I I think, this idea of, like, you know, we don't wanna be distracted. We don't wanna you know, focus is important.
Speaker 2:That's true. But, but, you know, there's there's obviously a a bunch of myopia that comes with that kind of perspective. Yeah. Anyway
Speaker 1:Adam, do you see why we're having this conversation that we need fewer opinions around here? You know whose opinions I'm maybe talking about?
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Can you guess? Yeah. Whose opinions when I say fewer opinions, whose opinions do they get yeah. No. I bet.
Speaker 1:I I, I think it's I mean, it all goes to, you know, that it's tough to get that because you you need to get stoke that intrinsic motivation. You need to, I I think also that you can run into a trap, a kind of a false sense of consensus too of needing to because you don't need to get consensus for everything, but you also you have to avoid this command and control trap, which just does not work very well on the limit. It's hard.
Speaker 2:Yeah. It's hard. Yeah. No. For sure.
Speaker 2:With Yeah. Finding that balance between focus and, but but still kind of considering relevant opinions, but then driving to con you know, sufficient consensus and moving on. Yeah. It's tricky to find that.
Speaker 1:It is. And it just leadership is hard. Management is hard, which leads me to a myth. I know, Steve, you're here. I wanna give you I I I wanna get you in on a myth as well, but leads me to wanted to to, one that is a one that we have heard quite a bit that I adamantly disagree with.
Speaker 1:Well or I think it's much more nuanced in this, which is hardware is hard.
Speaker 2:Yeah. I should've seen that one.
Speaker 1:Oh, you should see that one.
Speaker 2:That yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And and it's certainly one that I mean, whatever. Sounds right.
Speaker 2:Right. Because it's, like, right there
Speaker 1:Well, it's also, like, it's it's it's right there in the name. Also, like, what what are you gonna take the other side? This is hardware's easy? Plenty hard. Yeah.
Speaker 1:I mean, hardware's definitely hard. But so is management as we just described, so is leadership, so is software, by the way, so is hiring, so are sales, so is marketing. Like, it's all fucking hard.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:So can we stop saying hardware is hard, please?
Speaker 3:Yeah. It's not especially hard.
Speaker 1:It's just that it's it's like anything that's hard. You just need to that you it's it's hard, but you just need to go to work. And you what I think I hate, and, Steve, I know what drives you nuts too, is when but maybe VCs use hardware as hard as an excuse to not actually do the heavy intellectual lifting of figuring out what the the real work. Yep.
Speaker 2:Seriously, it's like, oh, do you only invest in easy things? No. Is that is that your investment thesis?
Speaker 1:It's kinda easy. That is like, yes. That is our investment thesis. Why? How do you things that
Speaker 2:Have you seen the Yeah.
Speaker 1:It's things that are easy plus Adam Neumann. That's our entire investment thesis. Are you unaware? I'm sorry. The sorry.
Speaker 1:I I I you know, I was gonna try to get to this entire Twitter space without mentioning that.
Speaker 3:Little too early for
Speaker 1:Yeah. Exactly. Then
Speaker 3:How do we That's gonna derail you.
Speaker 1:You have seen this, I trust. Yes. Alright. Going to be. Yes.
Speaker 1:I have. And then
Speaker 2:Although, I got to in a weird way, which was through, like, an Elizabeth Holmes subtweet where I just needed to, like, you know, pull up that thread to figure
Speaker 1:out that a weird no. You got at it at
Speaker 3:Was this was this Elizabeth Holmes behind the tree rubbing her hands? Yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You got it. You got it.
Speaker 1:Oh my god. Die doctor Pepper just came out my nose. That is I have not seen this tweet. That is absolutely hilarious. Yes.
Speaker 1:That's the right way to come to it. Absolutely. Alright. So hardware is hard. I disagree with that one.
Speaker 1:Steve, you do you have one?
Speaker 3:Yeah. And and these are kind of 2 of them that are pretty similar, but, the one that that always kinda bugged me a bit was just the the uniform move fast and break Yeah. And, like, I think it not not not that, that velocity and urgency are not important, but, there's an important, like, direction is also important. Quality is also important. And, I think, you know, we witnessed this, failure mode firsthand when, cloud computing company we were at was acquired by a very large global multinational company.
Speaker 3:And, when we got there, they basically gave us the directive of, like, let's go 10 x this business in, you know, 6 months. And and by that, I mean, you know, go build out data centers all over the globe, and, our our disposition was like, you know, that that would be fast in in some dimensions. But there's a and and and things will certainly break, and, and but, you know, I think this is a good opportunity for us to all take a deep breath and think about the right foundation for what we're gonna go build on. And
Speaker 1:Literally, by the time you finish that sentence, the room has already updated. You're like, hello? Anybody? Okay. Alright.
Speaker 1:Totally. And
Speaker 3:so, like, they we would affect I don't know if it was affectionate, but we would kinda give them the moniker of all gas pedal, no steering wheel. And the what what they told us when we protested a bit, just saying, like, hey. You know, I think it would make sense just just because we're gonna go build out this, you know, let's get a blueprint. We'll go build off of this in each one of the regions. And they kinda, like, hushed us, just said, we prefer to change the tires while driving down the highway, which, again, I think
Speaker 1:Have you I mean, if you break Adam, presumably, have you heard this before? I mean, I heard this so many times. I don't know if I heard it for the first time there. I def No. Oh, god.
Speaker 1:I heard it.
Speaker 2:I I no. But but all gas pedal, no steering wheel, I had not heard until today, and now this is the second Well,
Speaker 1:all gas pedal, no steering wheel is definitely was was was I think our more pithy way of phrasing. That I'm not sure I'm not sure that they were into that characterization. But they, like, we No. We didn't. We changed the tire while the truck is moving.
Speaker 1:We heard that one a lot. They're different variants. And you're like, do you want me to walk you I have you I mean, does that
Speaker 2:Like, logistically.
Speaker 1:Like, logistically. Waste. Like Can you just drop me a picture? Who has the jack in this and, like, how does this work exactly?
Speaker 2:And how do they survive? Or is that a answer the question?
Speaker 3:The only way this works is if the car if the truck is being towed because it is broken down, and you're changing, like, the front wheel. Like, this is there's no good outcomes here in the limit. And again, it's, you know, I think move fast and break things, changing the truck tire while driving down the highway, dual source fenders. I think there is a commonality amongst these, which is, like, short term things. Yes.
Speaker 3:Like, short term gains that have major long term pain. And it it is that one certainly did because, you know, issues that we had found at small scale, we we got to experience at very large scale much faster than anyone should have. And, yeah. That that that one we learned a lot of lessons in those in those 3 weeks.
Speaker 1:We we learned a lot of lessons. We did. And and I think but I I think you're right in terms of is that it is this I think there's also this kind of velocity theater that I it's important that I am perceived as moving quickly even if it's like, what if this is the wrong thing to do? Like, what what if you're and I mean, I think that the the part of the problem is that that gets like, oh, are you saying that we should analyze every decision in a crippling fashion? It's like, no.
Speaker 1:I think that's a false dichotomy. Like, can we I I I think it's possible to actually move a little bit more deliberately and still move with urgency.
Speaker 2:This is like the products versus, I mean, this is like the, like bugs versus features
Speaker 1:Totally.
Speaker 2:Or tech debt versus features kind of false dichotomy of of, like, just I know customers ask for features, and they don't necessarily see the tech debt, but, you know, there's a healthy balance here, and it's not through
Speaker 1:Well, or actually so I'm just a pick of that. Even that the idea of tech debt. You I mean, because when you got tech debt, it's like, look. We are acknowledging that we made a hasty decision in the past. And now we need to spend the, you know, the longer amount of time to clean up that hasty decision.
Speaker 1:It's like, well, what if we actually just made the right decision to begin I mean, to, like, radical ideas. Like, no. No. No. We would much rather make the wrong decision quickly and then quickly pay down the tech debt to undo the wrong decision.
Speaker 1:It's like, okay. Alright. I I I could I need to up my dosage of crazy bills and, you know, maybe maybe it is my opinion that needs be thrown out of the boat. It's so I yeah. I I definitely think that that's a, something that and again, it's like I I don't think that we want it's not an excuse for kind of analysis paralysis.
Speaker 1:Like, we we definitely need to to to actually move with urgency. I also feel like bias for action is another one. I mean, and now we're just going through the Uber Leadership Principles. But I I I think that's one that you gotta be just, like, super careful with. Because it's one of those things that sound like bias for action.
Speaker 1:Like, yeah, I'm biased for action. And but bias for action, Steve, is kind of another variant of what you're saying. It's like yes. Okay. But we action is very important, and we do not wanna be again, we don't wanna be paralyzed, but, boy, it would be nice if we could just take half a beat and just make sure that we're taking the right step forward.
Speaker 1:And then also acknowledge if we if we take the wrong step forward that we can actually back up. I mean, this is something I do like from Amazon that most decisions are reversible. I do think a lot of decisions are reversible, but some are definitely not.
Speaker 3:Disagree and commit.
Speaker 1:Just stop. Okay. I I'm really sorry. I I should not have even opened that Pandora's box. I I we're we're we are, you know, t minus 4 seconds is super pumped in this.
Speaker 1:Okay. I got another one. So I I think I actually don't even know which one to pick next. I'm gonna go with, hire fast, fire fast is one that I that I think I might have even believed at some point, but is I think is absolutely wrong.
Speaker 2:That that that's a great one, Brian. I mean, so it it that is a great false common wisdom. That is a a aphorism that we hear all the time that is so demonstrably false. And I assume you're saying this because, like, I mean, first of all, go ahead hire fast if you can, but, like, that's fucking hard. And then second, I've never seen anyone fire
Speaker 1:never seen anyone fire fast. What I've never seen anyone fire fast. And even when the I I mean, I should put a qualifier on there. There have been people that done things that are so bad I have seem to be quickly fired. But, generally, that's not the general case.
Speaker 1:I mean, generally, they're not the case is not you're tossing out dead coworkers. And, generally, people are like, oh, let's give they they they were a bad fit there, but let's move them over here. Let's try this. So I totally agree with you.
Speaker 2:Yeah. And and firing fast. I mean, it it is such a it it would if people were able to do it, have such a weird effect on the team.
Speaker 1:Oh my goodness. You usually when
Speaker 2:usually when you're, like, when you're firing
Speaker 1:someone,
Speaker 2:you gotta wanna make it like you want most people to either say, I don't care because or that makes sense. Right? Like, that's the that's the full gamut of reaction that you ideally want from
Speaker 1:the team.
Speaker 2:And if you're firing fast, it's like, well, does that mean I'm next?
Speaker 1:Like, who's next? Like, what's going on? And, by the way, do you know who thinks they're next? Always. Always.
Speaker 1:The Top performers. Always. It is the that that you have terminated someone who's a total turkey and was a major problem. But, like, they're a major problem that was maybe in a way that other people didn't necessarily see, and it is always your top performers that think they're next. And it's, like, hard to explain, like, no.
Speaker 1:No. No. You're no. No. Trust me.
Speaker 1:No. No. No. You're no you're nowhere close to next. But they're like, oh, so there is a list.
Speaker 1:Okay. But someone else is next. Right. No. No.
Speaker 1:No. Wait a minute. Hold on. Let me rephrase that. It's just really hard not to get to a culture of fear.
Speaker 2:I feel like it's the human resources variant of dual source everything. Dual source everything, including your employees. Yes. That's right. Yes.
Speaker 2:It's like it's adversarial. People are generic.
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 2:They're commodities.
Speaker 1:And so and the other reason that I think the other kind of side of this is the other time I've seen this used is when you've got someone coming in that people have got some objections to, and they're like, no. No. Don't worry. If they don't work out, we'll fire them. At the and so I I feel like the the hire fast is almost as dangerous as the fire fast.
Speaker 1:And I've seen because the the the fire fast, like, we never actually fire fast, but we do end up hiring fast. And you're like, okay. Now I've got this person who's like we who is, like, we've had a bit also, I've also found, by the way, nobody wants to postmortem a bad hire.
Speaker 2:Yeah. I mean, it's like it's like move fast and break things too. Right? It's used as a justification to blow through all the all the red lights and all the stop signs, with no no one considering what happened after it's all a mess.
Speaker 1:Right. And you and then, like, when you finally if you especially if you have a an employee who needs to be terminated, which is really, you know, drastic, basically. You can't work here. And they and, you know, especially in some ways, if there's consensus that this person needs to go, by the time you get them out, people are just like, gosh. I'm gonna move on in my life.
Speaker 1:Like, nobody wants to sit down and be like, okay. Just remind me, like, as I recall, in our meeting talking about this person, you were strongly advocating that we would fire them quickly. It's like no one people just wanna move on. And it so, yeah, I think that one is a hire fast, fire fast. I I do not believe in, and I just never wanna hear it.
Speaker 1:I I I so that's a that's a big one for me.
Speaker 3:That's a very good one.
Speaker 6:I mean, there there is an argument to be made for utilizing the probation period for its intended purpose, which is, like, making it making it clear that, you know, there is this window of time in which we are still figuring things out.
Speaker 1:Okay. So I'm a take the other side of that.
Speaker 6:And I'm I'm I'm I'm just I'm saying this because, like, if you have a coworker that you have reservations about, it is important to talk to your manager about it prior to the probationary period expiring and not shortly thereafter because, you know, depending on your local jurisdiction, probationary periods do, have, like, some backing in law, and have some backing in in, like, workers' rights.
Speaker 1:Yeah. So I so I'm gonna I'm gonna push back on that.
Speaker 6:So so, I I mean, it depends on your definition of fast. 6 months still is fast to me, but I've been in my current job for a very
Speaker 1:long time. Well, so so I know I just don't like probationary periods because of the message that it sends to new hires. I mean, I remember when I mean, Sun had a formalized probationary period. And they're like, look. We're obligated to tell you about this probationary period, which I didn't really, like, learn about till after I had arrived.
Speaker 1:And, I mean, we California is an at will state like most states in the US. Like, you can be terminated anytime for any reason anyway. So it's like the the the idea of a probationary period is only serves to instill your top performers, I think, with fear. And I think if you've got reservations about a new hire, like, get conviction. Well, how can you get conviction before you make that decision?
Speaker 1:And I think it so another another, this this may be very I've we're we're definitely going from hot take to hot take here. I do think this is I I can't even believe I'm saying this, but I think that it is worth approaching new additions to a team like the way VCs approach investment. In that, one of the things about the way VCs approach investment is they need to get a 100% conviction. And if they get to 98%, they don't invest. And I think if you've got reservations about someone, what are the things that you can do short of hiring them to address that reservation?
Speaker 1:What's the follow-up conversation that you can have? What's the what are the things that you can go do to at least have this conversation before this person arrives? Like, hey. Here's the reservations we have. Can you help us mitigate these reservations?
Speaker 1:Or how can we work together to mitigate them?
Speaker 2:I agreed with the one caveat of, like, also being careful not to poison
Speaker 1:that relationship.
Speaker 2:I know that sounds I know that sounds I know that sounds awkward.
Speaker 1:Oh, absolutely.
Speaker 2:I think that, you know, like, having them do additional work or or or even being candid of, like, we have reservations about you. Like, please, you know, sing for your supper. You know, you if you get to yes, you you need it to be on terms that, set them up for success.
Speaker 1:Totally. So yeah. And I I hear what you're saying, but I, I'm just a big I I think that it's it's then you also have this now this kind of this strange transition in work. We definitely see this in academia where you go from no job security to absolute job security. And, I I mean, does anyone think that's a good system?
Speaker 1:I mean, I think that it's like,
Speaker 6:Yeah. I mean, I I this is this advice is definitely coming from the point of view of labor laws within Australia where we are not at a at real. Right. And that that means that the probation period is also written into law, and I had you do have a little bit more leeway during that period as to what you can do as opposed to after that period when the amount of evidence you need to accumulate goes up substantially. So, you know, I think that that may not apply in in, US labor markets.
Speaker 1:No. That's a good point. Certainly, your local labor market is definitely very this is not legal advice even though Adam loves to dispense both legal, financial, and tax advice, my understanding.
Speaker 2:Just to be clear, this is not true. This is not true. This man does not represent me.
Speaker 1:Okay. So speaking of legal advice, there is something that we've had that is very iconoclastic that I don't know that there is, like, an aphorism around this, but it may be there no one feels there needs to be one because what we've done is so iconoclastic there. Oxide has worked with, over the course of our existence, 4 different law firms on different, like, tasks.
Speaker 2:I'm like no. I was like, I I of this, I was not aware. But on different tasks makes more
Speaker 1:sense. So we've got, like
Speaker 3:so are you are you laying this out to then propose that you are debunking this conventional wisdom to at least have 4 law firms?
Speaker 1:Yeah. I no. I feel the conventional wisdom should be that we should have at least 4 law firms. So start minimum 4. Minimum 4, I would say.
Speaker 1:Like, if you don't have, the no. But I think that actually when you so I I do think and maybe this is this, isn't conventional wisdom but should be that when you are engaging.
Speaker 3:Because because we make sure that we quad source our
Speaker 1:Because advice. Right. Right. We're good.
Speaker 2:Because right.
Speaker 3:That's right.
Speaker 2:We want it to be an
Speaker 1:Dual sourcing, I got I got major problems with. Quad sourcing, you got my attention. That's the that's interesting. That's that's the way
Speaker 6:to do
Speaker 1:it. No. I feel that be because we for to be clear on different tasks, not adversarial. But we've got we've engaged different different folks, different professionals on different tasks that I think has been again, you know what? Maybe this is I mean, this will become conventional wisdom after but, but it's not now.
Speaker 3:I'm so sorry. That that NDA was not intended for you.
Speaker 1:You just
Speaker 3:disregard it. That's for
Speaker 1:that's for other law firms. I'm sorry. Did we sure. I thought you said it would we're in an open relationship. We thought you were cool with it.
Speaker 1:Okay. Apparently not. Alright. Moving right along.
Speaker 6:I mean, you you must have at least 2 if you have any immigration law.
Speaker 1:Well, we did. That is so yeah. That's we've got a, we've got a lawyer who a firm that specializes in immigration. She's terrific, by the way, if you need a recommendation for Jen. We got immigration, labor, venture debt, and general counsel.
Speaker 1:Those are the those are kind of the the the 4. But, now that I'm saying it, it sounds actually totally bonkers, Ethan.
Speaker 2:And and and not, patents, which is another place where we often
Speaker 1:That's on my list.
Speaker 2:Get a a special
Speaker 1:That's a good segue to on my list. I to what degree do people accept that start ups should not have patents, Adam?
Speaker 2:0.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:I think that, like, peep people think that start ups should happen.
Speaker 1:Okay. Good. Well, that's conventionalism. They definitely shouldn't. That's conventionalism.
Speaker 1:That that definitely qualifies. I mean, right? We we did that is not
Speaker 2:a Yeah. No. I think that qualifies, and I think investors, are maybe laggards in this regard and and see see it's like that's the way you protect. That's the way you have and shall and will protect the thing that is valuable about your company.
Speaker 1:You know, I kinda feel that entrepreneurs are more likely to patent things than investors are to ask about patent portfolio.
Speaker 2:Interesting. Yeah. They that that well, maybe. Because because they're also kind of demonstrating the value of their company and kinda getting that attaboy from the US Patent.
Speaker 1:Yes. Yes. They are seeking validation from the US Patent Office, and investors don't actually care about that validation. And we the and then the like, what you're actually getting out of it is, it is questionable, to say the least. So, yeah, I think that that is a it's definitely something that sounds good that I disagree with.
Speaker 1:Patenting your idea is generally not a good idea, actually, I think.
Speaker 2:Yeah. I mean, like, so we have 0 patent applications. Is that right for Oktop?
Speaker 3:I think
Speaker 1:we got 0. Yeah. I think it's right. Yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah. It's pretty low number.
Speaker 1:Pretty low number.
Speaker 2:Yeah. And and or at least how about even if it, isn't the right thing to do, it it certainly doesn't afford you a lot of protections that you might think otherwise or or rather if you're going to pursue some patent, you really gotta think through why you're doing that. Yes. Right. Like, is it to get like, because the plaque on the wall obviously means extremely little, when it comes to defending your IP against some Megalacorp, well, you've already lost
Speaker 1:because you're not gonna you're not
Speaker 2:gonna put your series c directly to the lawyers. Like, you're not gonna give them $30,000,000 or whatever. So, so just like that's that's not the reason. So why are you doing it?
Speaker 1:Why are you doing it? That's actually a very good so that's a good way of thinking about it. Why do you feel you need to patent this? What does that mean? Because it doesn't actually increase the value of your company.
Speaker 1:No. And that's I I I think that and you can argue to the degree that it did at one point, but lots of things have changed, not least that with the John Roberts court, has really changed a lot of patent law. And, that there's we're a long way from where we were 10, 15, 20 years ago.
Speaker 2:Yeah. You're right on. I think it's a great one.
Speaker 1:I got another one for you. Measure everything.
Speaker 2:That's a good one. That's a that is that is a that's some great conventional wisdom. Next slide. Yeah. Exactly.
Speaker 1:Yes. Yes. And alright. Next slide. I will take no I will take no questions on this slide.
Speaker 4:That's right.
Speaker 1:Okay. But you obviously agree, Adam, that it doesn't actually make sense. You know, I'm I'm
Speaker 2:I'm sort of, like, I, one of my favorite things that I learned, maybe this is maybe you want to debunk this, common, common wisdom, but is, you get what you measure. So that's my only, I love that concept of like the notion of measurement actually affects one's behavior. Right. Which I really staunchly believe in. So you can try to disabuse me of that one, but, but measure everything does sort of, sound grid, and have, you know, outcomes that are
Speaker 1:that that kind of suck.
Speaker 2:Right? And and that that collide with the the you get what you measure. Because if you start measuring everything, then people will start optimizing for things that are very strange.
Speaker 1:That's exactly it. And I and just to be clear, I do not believe it measure nothing. Right? I mean, it's like I want to start it clear that it but I think it and I think, actually, Adam, that you're phrasing it very concisely because because people will change their behavior based on what you measure. And that is all the more reason to be really, really selective about what you measure.
Speaker 1:Like, when you measure something in an organization, it's extraordinarily powerful, and you've gotta use that power really wisely. And if you start measuring things that you don't want people to optimize for, you run the risk of people optimizing for them anyway. And that can be
Speaker 3:Number number of commits.
Speaker 1:Oh my god.
Speaker 3:Number of sorry.
Speaker 1:No. Absolutely. No. You're right. I mean, I it's it's it's number of commits.
Speaker 1:If if you if you wanna measure based on number number of tickets, if you wanna measure based on days in the office, if you wanna I mean, when you start to measure especially the the these things that that are ultimately human behavior, creativity, and so on, you I mean, things get really gnarly really quickly.
Speaker 2:So so this doesn't measure everything, but I don't remember this. But in in the early days of OpenSolaris, they obviously had some measurement goal of how many licenses for OpenSolaris, the distro, had gone out. So I don't know if you remember this, but what they decided was that each download allowed the person to put it on 10 different systems. There you go. So they just took took the number of downloads and multiplied by 10.
Speaker 1:Done and done. That's that's right. Okay. So you mentioned MBOs. So MBO management by objective.
Speaker 1:I OKR objectives and key results. I think that these are kind of these are things that also sound really good that are slippery. You gotta be careful. Goals are good, and it's really good to have goals, but you need to be careful when you start to overly quantify this stuff because
Speaker 3:That's right. So this is gonna take us way off topic, but it just reminded me of said former employer who, mandated that employees could take no longer than 15 minute breaks and, like, a digital LED would start when one person left their cubicle. And so the thing that when when we were there in person at this very large took note of is because one of our colleagues who was traveling with us was a smoker, is that they had set the area in which you could smoke, about a 7 and a half minute dead sprint away from the office buildings. Problem solved. And so so do you like, the folks in the office that were smokers had to literally run, like, a 7 and a half minute mile to just hammer a heater and then run a 7 and a half minute mile.
Speaker 1:Or or just, like, eat cigarettes at their desk. Why can't they just do that? I mean
Speaker 3:that's right. And so, yeah, that was that was measuring everything.
Speaker 1:Yeah. You need to be off And
Speaker 3:it lowered their insurance bill.
Speaker 1:There you go. Right. I I I I've got a, another one that is obviously something that we don't believe in it oxide, but is is one that's out there, DeepStealth.
Speaker 2:This is don't don't don't tell me what you're doing until you're ready to make
Speaker 6:a big difference. Is this is this common, though, now?
Speaker 1:This is I feel like
Speaker 6:building in public is the is the, like, default now, particularly with so many people building buzz over time because they recognize that there's value in building a following before you do a release. I feel like this is no longer common catchy advice.
Speaker 1:I think that that is fair. I think that that is, but there are definitely companies that still do it for sure. There are still companies that are that that believe in deep stealth and that they are I but I agree to you and that, like, the the zeitgeist on this is changing in part because it's wrong. I can't think about it. I mean, this is not a deep thought.
Speaker 1:Well, I
Speaker 2:I I actually because, like, the folks that are making noise we notice and the folks that are, adhering to deep stealth, we don't. But, anyway, I I agree that it may be shifting, but I think there are still a lot of folks who believe in deep stuff.
Speaker 1:Yes. And I think that that, you know, there are a bunch of problems with it. I think, one is that you are especially if you've got if you've got a really big important idea I mean, I I don't even remember who said it, but, like, people are concerned that someone's gonna steal your idea. To the contrary, you're gonna need to advocate for your idea over and over and over and over again because it's a big idea. It's a big important idea.
Speaker 1:And, like, get started on that early, that advocacy early because it's gonna take a long, long time.
Speaker 2:No. I I've always felt that if your idea is so simple and so facile that merely hearing it would enable this this swath of competition that I don't think it's
Speaker 5:that good of an idea.
Speaker 1:Yes. Or it's an obvious idea.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:And with different kind of start I mean, obviously, there are startups that engage in, at some level, obvious ideas, that are, where there's, like, a clear product market fit, and they are simply trying to outrace one another. But, actually, did that
Speaker 3:You mean, like, a platform for apartment rentals?
Speaker 1:Exactly. This is I I'm really trying to get us back to flow, and I wanna never leave. I really want us to $350,000,000 from the same firm that told us that oxide was the largest seed they had heard of in the history of Silicon Valley. Sorry. We're here.
Speaker 3:And, you know, I mean, while we're here, the the apartment rentals, the first block to be rented on the platform happened to also be owned by Adam.
Speaker 1:I take this. Like
Speaker 2:Well, that's weird. Yeah.
Speaker 3:Paid for maybe by the proceeds of a former endeavor that ended well.
Speaker 1:Sorry. It's just amazing. That's, you
Speaker 2:know, now I understand where you guys have been all day.
Speaker 1:You know, not like 2 hours ago. Maybe it's more like 3 hours ago when Steve was shaming me for listening to a VC podcast over the weekend. And meanwhile, he was just, like, mainlining flows. They they they they they the flow investment. So yeah.
Speaker 1:No. I think Steve's officially lapsed. It is well, no. It's what is actually frustrating from from the same VC from this talking about let's build. You know?
Speaker 1:I mean, I think it is frustrating when you got an, you know I actually really I have to say admire you know, we had Seth and Ian on a couple weeks ago and watching a bunch of the hard tech VCs. You know, VCs generally don't criticize one another's investments, but that's not true today. And I actually admire the fact there are a couple of hard tech VCs that were calling a 16 c out for this. Steve, I think you were describing this as, like, this would fail as a Silicon Valley plot line, but the you would fire the writers.
Speaker 3:The writers the writers would be, like, sorry, guys. You've taken it way Yeah.
Speaker 1:Like, that's This is this is like this.
Speaker 3:Even for satire,
Speaker 1:this is this is too much exactly. I'm satire has to be believable at some level. So another one kinda related to that maybe a little bit. I I think that first mover advantage is a little bit of a I I I don't know. 1st mover advantage, I got mixed feelings about.
Speaker 1:There are a lot of companies that are the first movers in the space that don't end up ultimately end up enduring.
Speaker 3:Well, then we're gonna have to talk about fast follower as well. Oh, yes. The other the other side of that.
Speaker 1:Okay. Yeah. So elaborate on that, Steve.
Speaker 3:Well, no. Just in contrast to first mover advantage, there I think there's a pretty conventional wisdom to this notion of being a fast follower, improving upon that pioneer's work. I mean, this is certainly something Dell did, in the nineties. And, that and and maybe maybe it is less conventional wisdom today, and maybe it's because I came up at Dell that that felt more like, a, you know, kind of take a look at market entrance and then, improve upon that and then build a bigger business. But as I talk through it and think about it, maybe there are fewer examples of that.
Speaker 3:Maybe maybe that is not conventional. Maybe that is the unconventional path.
Speaker 2:Jason, are you trying to get in?
Speaker 7:Well, I just when you start out the 1st mover, it reminded me back of my days at, I guess, it's like at at Sprint, where in on the on the wireless side in Sprint PCS before it was that in, their whole thing was first to market, you know, in the kind of in parentheses, at all costs.
Speaker 1:Yeah. At all cost. Do we mean at all cost on that placard?
Speaker 7:Well, they mean they're you know, like, for example, I think, think, like, when 3 g, you know, was the big hype, you know, they made the first 3 g phone call, which was, like, you know, between, like, some test things. It's and, you know, as I'm there, you know, I'm young, but even there, I'm like, you know, to me, at least, it seemed like you're first to good enough is probably better than just first to market because, you know, no one really cares. I mean, like, even in their press releases, like, in the 2000, you would see you know, they'd always put in, you know, Sprint was the first all fiber optic long distance network. It's like the 2000 who cares? No.
Speaker 7:You talk to someone, who cares? No one. No one remembers. No one you know, because at that point, you know, the whole thing kind of been you know, just wasn't a differentiator. And yeah.
Speaker 7:And so yeah. So that that first market.
Speaker 1:Well yeah. And I think, actually, Jason, you pointed out and also another interesting kind of fallacy. I think it it people get kinda inside baseball with the way they kind of evaluate themselves like their peers, whether that is, like, capital raised or that all these kind of metrics that are not ultimately, like, happy customers. And, you know, the the most successful companies really focus on, like, the customers. As you're saying, like, hey.
Speaker 1:I don't know if the like, if the con the customer actually doesn't care who, like, wins this race. They care about who's actually gonna ultimately provide them the service. Oh, yeah.
Speaker 7:And and Sprint definitely didn't care about the customer. I mean, that was the thing again as a, you know, young guy just starting up. It's like, okay. You know, the you know, one of the big things they kept on talking about was your churn. You know?
Speaker 7:So they would have a lot of turnover in customers because the service was terrible. And, you know, to me yeah. And their thing was, oh, but we're still, you know, net add, you know, every quarter. You know, this is, like, in the early 2000. You know?
Speaker 7:So there's still, you know, adding more and more people. It's like, yeah. But at some point, it's gonna stop. You know? Yeah.
Speaker 7:You've got nothing with your churn. You know? It doesn't take a PhD to see what's gonna happen, which is exactly what happened.
Speaker 1:And so Well, so I think this is an important I I do think that there's this idea that, like, customer service is kind of a cost center and that happy customer that growth is more important than happy customers. And but the most enduring companies actually leave happy customers in their wake. It's this seems like an obvious thing to say. I don't know. Maybe this is an unconventional wisdom, but I do feel there's so many companies out there that actually have a terrible customer experience and that but but they're and they're they don't care necessarily.
Speaker 1:They're kind of on to the next, and it doesn't work in the long term. Hey. Another one I wondered about, and maybe this is not even conventional wisdom at this point. Fake it till you make it. Is that officially dead?
Speaker 1:Can we maybe we don't need the
Speaker 2:I mean, I I know it has still that sort of Ted Talk y ring of truthiness to it, right, where you could say it to someone and and they they might sort of agree automatically. I know that we've we've talked about that in at least 2 other spaces.
Speaker 3:I thought I thought we were off flow. Can we
Speaker 2:Oh, I should've seen it coming. You got there first, Steve.
Speaker 1:The the well, and I think that but I I I also think that this social media has made the fake it part of it a little bit. Has made it worse. Right? And when you when you have the kind of the, you know, the the Ryan Preslos of the world, who are, you know, are kind of allowed to say whatever they want on social media. And they portray this picture of a company that end with as we know with private companies, I mean, you you they you you can say what you want and people in fact, they do say what they want.
Speaker 1:And they create this mythos of success in order to try to create success. And so I think people do still believe it, unfortunately. And it really does not work, I don't think. Not in the long term.
Speaker 2:Yeah. I mean, better make it quick.
Speaker 1:Yeah. The seriously. The the build the flip if you're gonna fake it till you make it. Yeah. Seriously.
Speaker 2:I got one more in this sort of zeitgeist of of VCs. One thing I've heard from a bunch of VCs is, like, you know, hire smart people and figure it out from first principles. And and I it just so understates or undervalues experience or people having, you know, you don't wanna be beholden to the status quo, but then it also is sort of almost, like anti intellectual or or anti learning or, you know, valuing things that have come before. There's a balance here, and I think it's just another pithy way of describing, you know, something in in a in a way that's way too simple where first principles aren't going to serve you well.
Speaker 1:I think you're right. And I think this idea that, like, you should you should be in a start up as, like, your first job in your career. You should start it. Do you wanna start a company? You should start a company when you're 23.
Speaker 1:It's like, actually, if you wanna start a company, you should seriously consider getting a lot of experience in a particular domain that's interesting to you and then go start a company. I I think it's a bit of a fallacy that you can't I mean, so I I actually think and, you know, I don't know to what degree it's conventionalism or not, but the the fact that you, you know, you can't start a company if you have a family, for example, if you have kids. I mean, I feel that the you know, and, Steve, you and I have joked that, you know, if we were running a VC fund, like, the thesis would be people with kids, because I I think that you get so much wisdom that when you get that much deeper in your career that there's so many mistakes that you don't make. It just goes to your, you know, your lawyer that move fast and break things. But there are so many mistakes that you don't make only because you've already made them.
Speaker 1:I mean, that's I think there's so many mistakes that we apparently I certainly there's so many mistakes that I have to apparently make on my own that I have not been able to learn the easy way on so many things.
Speaker 2:That's hard to learn from the easy way. I don't know. Like, it feels like, you really learn them learn them the hard way, and it they're indelible lessons.
Speaker 1:Okay. So I do think this gets to another one that I have, which is around listening to advice, which is kind of ironic because more or less been dispensing advice this whole hour. But I do feel that you have to be very careful when you listen to advice from something that worked or from someone who in other words, when success teaches you nothing, I feel. And it is certainly and we oh god. Back in the day, we had a board member who was at Cisco, front until, like, mid 2000.
Speaker 1:Like, left Cisco before the before things busted out. And I swear in his mind, the reason Cisco lost whatever 90% of its value was because he had left Cisco. I mean, he just had this idea that, like, I created the dotcom boom, and when I departed Cisco, everything fell apart. And even though, like, that is obviously false, that's a narrative that was very clearly deep in his head. And I feel that, like, when people succeed, they attribute it to all sorts of random ass things.
Speaker 1:And it just doesn't they're not required to be very introspective. And I think people take advice then from people that have putatively succeeded. It's like, no. No. Like, that advice you're taking has nothing to do like, that company was successful, but it had nothing to do with why this person thought they were successful.
Speaker 1:And I think I
Speaker 2:mean, when when when I was describing this to someone, this is years ago, and they pointed me at cargo cults, It all kind of clicked into place where, you know, you have these folks who watch, watch a thing happen, don't necessarily understand why it happened, but are happy to attribute it to to whatever it was they thought was important, independent of where they joined in the journey and the relevance of the thing that they are happy to attribute it to. But I agree. So it is very challenging to discern indelible lessons from success. And as opposed to failure, as as as you've alluded to, much easier to discern lessons from failure.
Speaker 1:Because you have to. I mean, you you have to be like, what the just happened? Like, I thought that we were and you I think I feel you have to take it apart. Because and I also feel like you have this when you've got company I mean, certainly I mean, Steve, God, you've seen us on the go to market side so many times where, a where growing a sales organization quickly worked because a product had product market fit. Growing that sales organization did not create that product market fit.
Speaker 1:And, you know, you you can end up, mistaking conflating correlation with causation. And then you build out a large sales and sales team, a large go to market team when you don't have a market fit and the company dies.
Speaker 3:Yeah. You have a playbook that you go rinse and repeat everywhere, when that actually wasn't what caused the success at the time. And yeah. I mean, I had sorry. I wanted to chime in on the whole, kids and and the like.
Speaker 3:I was busy looking up, mythos, the pronunciation of that, just because
Speaker 1:Oh, come on. Don't do this to me. I'm so sorry. I'm
Speaker 6:so sorry.
Speaker 1:I'm so sorry. Hey. Is this?
Speaker 3:Well, actually, you'll be you'll be happy to know that there are multiple recommended pronunciations online. Mythos does appear to be the the more common of them,
Speaker 1:but,
Speaker 3:I have not yet found a mythos. It's probably out there. Sorry. I've derailed this once again. So You
Speaker 1:you know, I would say this is my personal midyear, but I'm still not convinced on pronouncing that correctly.
Speaker 3:But, yeah. I I I think it's more, just I mean, yes. Like, having kids certainly gives you a full dose of failure, and so that is helpful to learn from, and just just experience in general. I mean, successes, failures, I think what we were talking about just folks that are starting companies that have been through the highs and lows of, of the hard times of building companies, it it can be helpful when you you hit what is inevitably gonna be the ups and the downs. Kids will certainly prepare you well for that.
Speaker 3:Plenty of downs.
Speaker 8:Hi. I just wanted to chime in and say, there's actually a word for what what were what you were talking about earlier where someone who, someone who has had success and they speak to that success and, you know, it may or may not actually be related to what they did. There's a term for that, and it's called survivorship bias.
Speaker 1:Totally. Absolutely. Yes. Yes. Yeah.
Speaker 1:That's exactly it. And the they people had they I mean, I do love, obviously, the image of the of of the the the plane World War 2 returning and, yes, drawing the wrong
Speaker 8:Exactly.
Speaker 1:Totally.
Speaker 6:Yeah. And The the list of cognitive biases page on Wikipedia is a very good grab at home to fall down if you haven't already.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I'm gonna go follow that down that hole right now. I know there's a couple other folks, joined us. Did did you wanna give us your, do you have ones in mind of things that sound good but are actually or I like this kinda like this TED Talk way of phrasing this, Adam. I I in part because before I did talk to the
Speaker 2:bus. Yeah. Well, that's how I feel.
Speaker 1:I got so trolled by Gladwell on this return to work thing, I gotta say.
Speaker 9:I didn't see it.
Speaker 1:No. I didn't see it. God. I mean, Gladwell already drives me nuts because he says things that aren't sound plausible, but it's we take apart, it's like, it turns out that's actually not true. But it just sounds good, but it's actually not true.
Speaker 1:But the he just had this this thing about how people are acting irresponsibly by not returning to the back to the physical office, and that leaders were acting irresponsibly by not forcing them back to the office. And it's like, are you kidding me? That's so weird. It's very weird. It's it's it was anyway.
Speaker 1:But, yeah, you got me on. So yeah. Anyway, sorry. A couple other folks have have, joined. You wanna give us your, your thoughts?
Speaker 5:I will. So I've done that now.
Speaker 1:Do you feel better? Oh, yeah. Did you shout while I'm muted? That that that can be very productive. There's another op ed he wrote earlier about how good it is to not work in an office.
Speaker 1:It's like Oh my. I know. It's fun. I know. Well, there you go.
Speaker 1:That's it. That's it. Well, yeah, can we get back to, a less aggravating topic like, you know? So BCH, you, you joined us.
Speaker 9:Oh, sure. Actually, sort of a back a back to what you're characterizing is, people with children, but more along the lines of you have to go to battle to become battle hardened. So whether you whether you say that's with children or whatever, but, and I came to that, someone impressed that upon me actually with, version control. I was working on a project that was still on CVS. They're hemming and hawing whether or not to go to Mercurial or Git or whatever.
Speaker 9:And a lot of people, of course, like to crap on CVS for reasons. But the other thing is that it's it's a known entity and, you stuck with it. And the and the the leader's point was that you don't become battle hardened without going to battle. CVS has been there. We're not in a race to get off of it.
Speaker 9:We'll do it, but, it's it's it's not that bad. So I extrapolate the battle hardening and battle to other places now, not not necessarily in support of CVS just for the record.
Speaker 1:I believe that the that that the Gen Zers describe this as Lindy. I believe this would make CVS Lindy if I think we're it properly. But, you know, I'm probably not. No. White Clark?
Speaker 2:I can't help you out. You're on your own. I mean, sorry sorry to let you drop on the floor on that stage dive, but I I can't even let you fall.
Speaker 1:Right. It just turns out like it was an empty it was just an empty
Speaker 2:Totally empty. Exactly.
Speaker 1:And I really need medical attention right now. No. The Linde effect, also known as Linde's law, does exist. It's been pretty trendy to say that. Basically, the the the the existence of something the existence of something tells you something about its future longevity to the point of of CBS.
Speaker 1:The fact that CBS has existed so long tells you that it will continue to
Speaker 5:exist. It feels like though the Linde effect is something Mark and Platt would like to talk to you about.
Speaker 1:Oh, god. Okay. Hoisted by my tart. Fine. Yeah.
Speaker 1:That's fine. I do we're moving right around.
Speaker 5:It's exactly the kind of thing
Speaker 3:that, like, he would love to
Speaker 5:talk about it at length, and also there'll be, like, a hundred counterexamples. The curiously didn't make it into the text. Like
Speaker 1:I didn't no. You're right. The the the pigs are walking on their hind feet. Josh, I'm embarrassed for myself. So thank you very much for for keeping us grounded.
Speaker 1:Exactly.
Speaker 5:Why that's why I'm here.
Speaker 2:That's right. That's
Speaker 1:okay. I got I think I got one more on my list. We're we're definitely getting, through it all here. 1 blitzscaling. I hate this term.
Speaker 2:Yeah. And this is Reid Hoffman's term. Right?
Speaker 1:Reid Hoffman's term. Yeah. Yeah. I and I I mean, I don't know. I I mean, I kinda get what they're getting at, but this idea is that you are that that you the way you build a company is by building a company.
Speaker 1:Like, you you're trying to basically build the company as fast as possible. And I I I think that that makes sense. I don't know. I, you know, I I I I try to qualify. I'd
Speaker 2:Well, I, you know, I I I I think it's a lovely visual. Right? It's it's this idea of, like, of overrunning your supply lines. Like, building like, growing faster than is sustainable as a way of of chasing this this this goal, this business objective that's on the horizon. I think the irony is you still hear this in lots of places, but but Greylock, where where where we, I think, pioneered this, has definitely moved away from it.
Speaker 2:And it rec recognized the problems with it.
Speaker 1:I would love a book on companies associated with philosophies that have moved away from that exact philosophy, but are still associated with it.
Speaker 2:Like Agile?
Speaker 1:Like Agile? Like Zappos and Holocracy? Yeah. Did you get trolled by this over the weekend? I'm so sorry.
Speaker 2:I I I saw you getting trolled by it, but I I
Speaker 5:have too many obligations to
Speaker 2:get trolled myself. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1:I I I so admire you seeing me drowning and breathing in water and simply walking on into it. That that is saving yourself. It does. It's
Speaker 2:a block for 24 hours.
Speaker 1:I wish all I knew is that button. Exactly. Averting your child's eyes as I just, like, slowly tripped under the waves, breathing in whole accuracy.
Speaker 2:What's wrong with that man, daddy? Nothing. Move on.
Speaker 1:Nothing. But that looks like don't we know him? We do not know. You've never seen him before in your life. Keep going.
Speaker 1:Keep going. Oh my god.
Speaker 5:I feel like stack ranking is one of those things.
Speaker 1:Oh, stack ranking is another good one. That's a good one that But
Speaker 5:the the idea the idea that you there are simply people that you always must
Speaker 1:fire. Well, I'm like stack oh, okay. That okay. Then you're getting into a good one. This is gonna get Steve's stand up and Adam probably yours too.
Speaker 1:The idea that that we are like a sports team. We're not a family, we're a sports team.
Speaker 2:I thought we were a rock band.
Speaker 1:Well, no. We're a rock band that oxide, Josh. But I that's that that Josh, you know, that's what we used to say on the inside voice. We actually don't tell everyone else that we're rocking. No.
Speaker 1:No. The the but if you this idea this is like, Brian, what's his name? My Coinbase guy. Am I blanking on the Coinbase guy? They're big on this.
Speaker 1:Like, where, I got I guess I'm I'm half of this is away. Half a step away from the politics. It's more of a question than that. But the
Speaker 5:The the mission focused guy?
Speaker 1:Mission focused guy, who but there there's this idea that, like, we are a sports team. And I feel that this don't you feel like people talking about this? Adam, this is not trolling you the way it trolls
Speaker 2:me? Talk talk more about how
Speaker 1:it trolls you. I I I feel some trolling coming on. Okay. You exactly. I could I could I could feel a troll coming on.
Speaker 1:No. The this idea that, like, we are going to act as if we are sports team. Netflix did this. This kinda goes into, like, this fire fast idea that, like, we are this kinda creme de la creme sports team professional sports team. And I just feel like it drives me nuts because it's people who don't know anything about professional sports in a lot of ways.
Speaker 5:We're working we're working within the salary cap rules, and we're gonna we're gonna we're gonna trade with other teams in the same league that we're in.
Speaker 1:Right. Exactly. And it's it it they're all I think people are very, they kinda pick and choose from from that analogy. But, Josh, your stack ranking one is and I so I think stack ranking is is something from, like, 1 to whatever n.
Speaker 5:And then I'm gonna push the bottom 10% into the bay.
Speaker 1:So I think that it's like, no. No. I'm not gonna push the bottom 10 of the bag. But I think then you won't once you rank them all, you're like, oh, wait a minute. Why wouldn't I push the bottom 10% of the bag?
Speaker 1:Like, it's like the the very you know, it's like, wait a minute. Yeah. Actually, why why why do they have
Speaker 3:these I
Speaker 5:did the I did the rankings. You guys are literally last in the list. That's that's not that's not good.
Speaker 1:That's not good. Exactly. And I think that that and I Josh, this is a good a very good point too about, like, the I think companies have moved away from this, but this whole idea of taking the you know, you can take your bottom performers and and remove them, which is rank and yank is what was called at Intel.
Speaker 5:How do you like, the idea that you can even measure performance is this echo of, like, the worst kind of Taylorism, which is another thing that I feel like, people have been into and then less into over time, perhaps. Management science as a specific discipline. Like
Speaker 1:Yes. And I think that Taylorism has very little applicability to creative endeavors is part of the problem with and, read the the Josh, have you have you read the Sloan book on that on, it's like, Winslow Taylor, I think, in the one best thing, the one best way. What is it? It's really interesting. Do you so do you know anything about Taylor, Adam?
Speaker 1:No. Okay. So this guy was he he
Speaker 5:He was a stand up fella.
Speaker 1:Joshua looked up to him. He so what this is kind of back in the day. I wanna say that he, you know, lives at kind of the turn of the century, so late 19th or early 20th century. And he, was big on in manufacturing. I'm gonna go measure how long it takes to do everything.
Speaker 1:And then it's like, okay. I have measured, you know, it takes, you know, 8 seconds to take the cog from the stack and put it to the stack. So I take 8 seconds. You know, I I I kinda divide 60 seconds by 8, and then I kinda basically, I'm gonna multiply this out, and here are how many 100 you should do in a day. And as a and I think you can argue I don't know why, Josh, I'm taking the the side for for the Quinto Taylor.
Speaker 1:It Hold on. Exactly. But I think that you can argue that he's coming along at a time when we are moving from kind of a craft economy to an industrial economy. And some of these measurements made sense, but it's definitely taken to an argument taken to an extreme in in even this kind of wrote work, but then definitely taken to an extreme when you get into any kind of creative endeavor where it does not make sense to measure the amount of time it take. You know, measure I'm gonna measure the amount of time it takes to fix a bug, and this is that I'm gonna multiply it through.
Speaker 1:And there you go. That's how many bugs you should fix a day. It's like, yeah. It's not gonna work. So I think that, yeah, the the the rank and yank does not work.
Speaker 1:I would like to think that fewer organizations are doing this, but I don't know. I can't tell.
Speaker 2:It it may be changing rapidly as as the economy creates pressures to to yank.
Speaker 1:Yes. Oh, god. The whole, like, the Zuck Google thing of, like, their problem is employee laziness. Do you see that? I did see that.
Speaker 1:I wasn't I wasn't so distracted to not be trolled by that. I mean, come on. I mean, that
Speaker 5:is If they would just move the widget from bin a to bin b in 7 seconds instead of 8, then, you know, I think, we'd all be happier.
Speaker 1:I also feel like I feel that we may I may talk to more Meta employees than Zuck does. It's like morale is not high, your company, by the way. I mean, you you you have a morale problem. And the way this this is maybe not the way to solve this morale problem. Could we When
Speaker 3:when the when the post was written from his hoverboard in Lake Tahoe? Is
Speaker 5:that true? Could we not fire our way out of this morale problem? There you go. Keep firing.
Speaker 1:Keep keep firing. Absolutely. Well, they they they did hire, like, 41,000 people over the last 3 years or some outrageous number. Was like, that's a lot of people for that's okay. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Like, who made that decision? And I don't think it's your, your employees that made that decision. Drew
Speaker 4:I'm gonna take a moment to make a point at the worst possible time after the talk about Zuck, but, you know, there's been talk of, like, a tax downturn coming in and surviving the 2,001 crash and all that. It had me thinking about what is different. And I think one of the things that is different that relates back to the fake it till you make it and to the deep stealth is that we've sort of, like, left an era where we were pretty sure what we were doing wasn't totally legal, but we were just gonna digitize someone else's business and let them sue us later. I think the deep stealth really played into the sort of, like, you know, let's get bought before, before we get sued out of existence kind of thing. I'm curious what other people who lived through the, the nineties nineties think about that.
Speaker 3:Let's get bought before we get kapot. Exactly.
Speaker 1:Wait. Is that actually a thing? Was that a was that a thing that people said? Did we say that in that day? Yeah.
Speaker 1:That's interesting. I don't know that to what degree I mean so okay. Let me ask you this. Do you think that companies were shadier in 2000 than they were in 2021?
Speaker 4:For the most part, yes. I think we have sort of concentration of evil in some very large companies but I think, the you know first, or maybe it's the last 90% of the distribution was pretty much fake companies in the nineties.
Speaker 2:This is a really interesting premise. Right?
Speaker 5:Because How many companies recently have been started like in the last 5 years where the whole business model is essentially like violating the law and hard to be kept, Like, moving into new markets to ignore expressly ignore existing regulation. I mean, Airbnb, Uber, all of the like, all of these businesses that are effectively attempting to shirk, if not labor law, then many other laws as as fast as they can until they can I don't know what the second step is, but, like, you know, the certainly, the first step was not, super legitimate?
Speaker 1:Hey, Josh. Did the did
Speaker 5:the maker Nandi. There was just we didn't know what we're gonna do to make any money. Like
Speaker 1:So I think it okay. Obviously, it depends on one's experience. And I worked for a company that was basically not shady. I'm broadly. I mean, some had other problems, it was not shady in the late nineties to 2000.
Speaker 1:I think there's no comparison. I think that it is we are oh, did Drew drop? Drew drew me a bluff. The we I think companies are way shadier now. But maybe, I mean, the whole web 3 thing.
Speaker 1:We've got a whole, like, sector that's built on. Right?
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah. No. Right? I mean, and I think back then you had more sort of manipulation of numbers.
Speaker 2:This is, this is arbitrary, and kind of fabrication, but now you have sure. Web 3 and, and lots of crypto shenanigans, but you also have like more explicit, like monetization of people's privacy or of people's data and people's telemetry, that, that feels, like shadier in ways that are much more exploitative.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 5:I mean, ring ring was bought by Amazon. Right? But they were a company to begin with. And their whole thing was, like, let's create the machine from Batman or something that shouldn't exist, the one with the cameras pointed at literally everything.
Speaker 1:Josh, do do you own a Roomba? Do
Speaker 5:I that's a fake and clean it thing? No. Of course not. Good lord. Why would I allow the robots into the house?
Speaker 1:I know. Yeah. Exactly.
Speaker 5:It just it seems like it's asking for trouble. It can move around on its own, Brian.
Speaker 1:There is no no no Amazon connected firmware allowed in your house.
Speaker 5:I think I think it is just hilarious that they've bought the the vacuum cleaner company because it can map people's houses. I think that's, but also completely on brand.
Speaker 1:It is very on brand. For the for the for
Speaker 5:the company that already has all of the surveillance that exists, what could we possibly have bought next?
Speaker 2:Yeah. And and One Medical. I mean, those those 2 just if I mean, as a as a previous customer of 1 medical and our current Roomba or owner, I'm starting to look at the Roomba a little more shiftly as it like delivers my medication.
Speaker 5:At the front door, we can see inside because of vacuum cleaners, and then we can see all of the internal cans that we've taken. So
Speaker 1:I inferred that Drew was dropped by spaces. Drew, I'm sorry if you're catching this on the recording. He has he is no longer here. Has replied to the tweet saying, fake it until you make it, colon, exactly what spaces is doing. So I think I we do we do apologize.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Sorry, Drew. That is and maybe on that note, I don't know. Are are there others that we I I think we this has been a pretty good roundup, I feel, of,
Speaker 2:Yeah. We have to bring the list, Brian. That was great.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Well, I I've apparently, this this was in me. I had to get I had to get a lot of stuff out. So I'm I'm glad to get it out there. And I'm hardware is hard, but so is everything else.
Speaker 1:So, like, your relationships are more important than than second sourcing things. Deep stuff is waste of time. 1st mover advantage doesn't necessarily exist. Forget blitz scaling. What else we got?
Speaker 1:And have more lockers.
Speaker 5:Did we do nobody got fired for buying IBM or whatever? We do that one?
Speaker 1:I mean, not to that one, but that's maybe that's a good one to close off. Yeah. No one got fired buying IBM. I feel that the, the the the current the example
Speaker 5:The the the comments are intonable and insufferable.
Speaker 2:Like, you
Speaker 1:know? Yes. But I'm not sure that how much that that's a that's a myth. I mean, I think I do feel that, like, it people don't generally get I mean, they they when you make safe choices, it doesn't feel like it's risky. So, it does feel like a safe choice at the moment.
Speaker 2:But
Speaker 1:alright. Well, this has been, this has been fun. Adam Adam, Steve, Josh, others, thanks for, thanks for joining us with your contributions. We are gonna have a, a good week. So next week, we are talking about we're gonna have, Eric and Tom and a bunch of engineers here to talk about bringing up the backplane, the cable backplane and oxide, and talking, signal integrity.
Speaker 2:So, it's gonna be great one. I'm really looking forward to it. It's gonna
Speaker 1:be awesome. It's gonna be awesome. And, we we are gonna go, to the analog that that exists beneath. This is the really the the truly scary part of the system is that these systems are not actually digital. Digital's a lie.
Speaker 1:We're gonna get into the the why of digital talking with the high speed background, which is gonna be a lot of fun. And then, week after, we're gonna have Kate talking supply chain. So it's also gonna be sweet, terrific. Kate's gonna be educating us on on how to manage supply chain, how to deal with the supply chain during supply crunch. So it should be a lot of fun.
Creators and Guests
