

        <cite>Bryce</cite>
      <time>0:00</time>
      <p>
          There&#39;s   an   episode   of   the   TV   show   Future   Mama   where   um   the   protagonists   discovered   that   cats   are   actually   aliens,   conquering   aliens   that   have   come   from   another   planet,   and   conquered   humanity   into   caring   for   them.
      </p>

        <cite>Conor</cite>
      <time>0:25</time>
      <p>
          Welcome   to   ABSP   the   podcast   episode   31,   recorded   on   June   5th,   2021.   My   name   is   Connor,   and   today   with   my   co-host   Rides,   we   continue   part   three   of   the   four-part   conversation   with   Chamberrug   and   Patricia   comments.   On   today&#39;s   episode,   we   talk   about   strategic   decision   making,   have   this   degree,   and   so   much   more.   If   you   haven&#39;t   listened   to   parts   one   and   two,   they   will   be   linked   in   the   show   notes,   and   I   highly   recommend   you   listen   to   those   ones   first,   as   this   is   a   continuation   of   that   conversation.
      </p>

        <cite>Chandler Carruth</cite>
      <time>0:53</time>
      <p>
          I&#39;m   just   curious,   should   we   try   and   get   back   to   just   keep   going   with   the   subject?
      </p>

        <cite>Patricia Aas</cite>
      <time>1:00</time>
      <p>
          Mr.   Cruz.   Okay.
      </p>

        <cite>Chandler Carruth</cite>
      <time>1:02</time>
      <p>
          Yes.
      </p>

        <cite>Patricia Aas</cite>
      <time>1:07</time>
      <p>
          So   one   of   the   points   here   is   not   overcoming   resistance   to   a   directional   change.
      </p>

        <cite>Bryce</cite>
      <time>1:14</time>
      <p>
          Yeah.
      </p>

        <cite>Patricia Aas</cite>
      <time>1:14</time>
      <p>
          What   does   that   mean?   Like   can   you   give   put   that   in   example,   explain   how   you   would   go   about   that?
      </p>

        <cite>Chandler Carruth</cite>
      <time>1:21</time>
      <p>
          Yeah,   I   mean,   I   think   this   is   so   so   first   off,   let&#39;s   let&#39;s   let&#39;s   make   sure   we   we   understand   what   we&#39;re   talking   about.   We&#39;re   talking   about   times   when   there&#39;s   you   know   there&#39;s   there&#39;s   a   uh   strategic   decision   or   a   directional   decision   um   that   needs   to   happen,   and   you   have   uh   you&#39;re   suggesting   and   you   are   proposing   a   particular   direction,   and   that   is   not   the   direction   taken,   right?   And   you   still   need   to,   like   you   need   to,   like   we&#39;re   we&#39;re   in   the   kind   of   disagree   and   commit   phase,   but   it&#39;s   not   about   like   doing   a   single   thing.   It&#39;s   about   like   a   very   large   scale   directional   shift.   And   and   I&#39;ve   seen   this   a   couple   of   times,   and   I&#39;ve   I&#39;ve   I&#39;ve   had   this   happen   to   me   a   couple   of   times.   Um   so   the   particular   like   one   of   the   particular   sharp   examples   here   is   there&#39;s   uh   uh   there&#39;s   a   technology   that   I   I   I   do   not   personally   kind   of   like.   It   doesn&#39;t   seem   elegant   to   me.   Um   and   uh   it&#39;s   call   it   it&#39;s   called   uh   uh   thin   LTO.   Um   this   is   uh   a   variation   of   link   time   optimization   uh   developed   by   uh   Teresa   Jackson   and   and   David   Lee   and   a   bunch   of   other   people   at   Google.   Um   and   personally   I   don&#39;t   like   the   way   it   works.   Um   I   it   it   it   seems   like   a   messy   workaround,   and   so   I   advocated   really   hard   that   we   should   actually   invest   in   understanding   why   but   but   the   goal   of   it   is   to   make   link   time   optimization   scalable   enough   to   use   broadly   on   very,   very   large   C   applications,   uh   huge   C   applications.   Um   uh   LTO   normally,   as   it   normally   is,   just   doesn&#39;t   scale   very   well.   And   so   you   can&#39;t   use   it   for   these   applications,   and   thin   LTO   scales   very   well.   I   had   argued   that   we   should   actually   try   and   tackle   the   underlying   scaling   issues   of   LTO   rather   than   taking   the   thin   LTO   approach.   Um   I   thought   it   was   much   more   clean.   I   think   there&#39;s   a   lot   of   of   really   exciting   untapped   potential   in   that   space.   Uh   basically   every   link   time   optimizing   compiler   uh   that   we   had   access   to,   which   was   basically   one   and   a   half   LLVMs   and   some   some   uh   early   stage   work   in   GCC   at   the   time,   was   single-threaded,   right,   and   built   around   linked   lists,   and   so   so   like   has   the   worst   cache   locality   you   can   imagine.   Um   and   and   so   it   doesn&#39;t   scale   well,   which   is   kind   of   unsurprising.   And   I   was   like,   we   need   to   fix   those   problems   before   we   try   and   kind   of   change   the   fundamental   model   to   make   it   scale.   Um   uh   but   Teresa   had   Teresa   and   David   had   a   great   uh   idea   for   how   to   change   the   fundamental   model,   and   it   didn&#39;t   require   changing   all   of   the   internals   of   the   compiler,   it   didn&#39;t   require   you   know   making   things   you   know   multi-threaded   and   efficient   and   all   this   stuff,   and   it   still   scales.   Um   and   uh   the   decision   was   to   basically   go   with   their   approach.   Uh   it   was   it   was   uh   and   at   the   time   I   really   disagreed   with   this.   I   I   thought   this   was   just   just   the   wrong   thing   to   do.   Um   uh   and   it   was   it   was   kind   of   hard   because   right,   like   I   had   to   I   had   to   help   them   out.   I   was   bringing   up   LLVM   uh   at   Google,   having   brought   up   Clang   as   the   front   end,   I   was   bringing   up   kind   of   the   LLVM   back   end   for   actual   compilation,   and   they   were   working   on   thin   LTL   and   needed   needed   my   support   in   LLVM.   Um   and   and   that   was   hard   for   me.   Uh   uh   I   struggled   at   first.   Uh   and   and   largely   I   I   think   finally   we   we   got   to   a   much   better   place   where   I   found   ways   that   I   could   kind   of   contribute   to   to   enabling   them   um   rather   than   kind   of   getting   in   their   way.   But   it   was   difficult.   Um   and   the   funny   thing   is   that   like   in   retrospect,   right,   like   if   if   if   today   me   got   past   me   and   Teresa   and   David   Lee&#39;s   uh   uh   kind   of   different   proposals,   I   would   absolutely   pick   the   NLTO.   Um   so   as   much   as   it&#39;s   less   elegant,   it&#39;s   also   dramatically   less   risky.   And   at   the   time   I   felt   like   I   I   really   didn&#39;t   see   this   risk   that   was   associated   with   the   direction   I   was   pushing   for.   Uh   but   in   retrospect,   it   actually   makes   a   lot   more   sense   why   we   ended   up   going   that   direction.   I   think   it   was   the   right   call,   even   though   uh   uh   personally   it   felt   really   like,   oh,   this   is   this   is   a   good   technology.   And   it   also   worked.   And   for   me,   the   biggest   part   of   this   kind   of   disagreeing   committing   at   the   strategic   level   was   uh,   you   know,   I   I   had   a   loud   voice   in   the   LVM   community,   and   it   was   important   to   actually   acknowledge   like   this   is   working.   I   had   to   do   that   very   loudly,   and   so   you   know,   making   sure   like   Teresa   could   get   up   on   a   panel   to   talk   about   LTO.   Um   so   I   got   invited   to   a   panel,   I   was   like,   we   should   probably   also   bring   Teresa   up   because   like   you   know,   I   advocated   for   a   different   strategy   of   LTO,   and   hers   is   the   one   that   actually   got   built.   So   maybe   we   should   not   Right,   like   and   and   doing   that   is   you   know,   it&#39;s   it   can   feel   bad,   but   that&#39;s   that&#39;s   the   important   part   of   of   kind   of   disagreeing   committing   at   a   strategic   level,   is   that   you   actually   have   to   own   you   actually   have   to   own   the   strategy   at   the   end   of   it,   and   because   it&#39;s   a   strategic   thing,   right,   it&#39;s   not   just   like   you&#39;re   going   to   let   the   patch   go   in,   right?   You   you   have   to   contribute   to   the   new   strategy.   Right?   You   have   to   help   debug   things,   you   have   to   help   with   the   planning,   you   have   to   like   figure   out   how   the   piece   of   you   know   LVM   that   I&#39;m   working   on   can   actually   call   like   work   with   the   thin   LTO   strategy,   how   to   integrate   this   stuff,   and   and   kind   of   you   have   to   pull   yourself   on   board   with   that,   uh,   even   if   it   feels   like   the   wrong   strategy.
      </p>

        <cite>Patricia Aas</cite>
      <time>6:55</time>
      <p>
          But   your   your   your   negativity   towards   the   concept   probably   spread   the   people   around   you   as   well.   Because   we   are   we   are   we   you   know   we   are   uh   tribal   in   in   in   how   we   work,   we   are   in   our   groups   in   a   and   oh   of   course   uh   so   did   that   cause   any   friction   by   when   you   were   trying   to   to   I&#39;m   sure,   I&#39;m   sure   it   did.
      </p>

        <cite>Chandler Carruth</cite>
      <time>7:20</time>
      <p>
          And   and   like   I   can   remember   specific   places   where   it   did,   but   because   there   were   people   who   who   really   thought   I   was   right   and   I   should   have   been   able   to   make   this   decision.   Um   and   one   of   the   interesting   things,   and   again,   this   this   is   a   great   observation,   right?   Because   when   you   when   you   when   you   want   to   actually   overcome   this   kind   of   uh   uh   uh   having   a   direction   that   you   don&#39;t   agree   with   being   decided   on,   um   you   actually   have   to   undo   that   negativity.   You   can&#39;t   you   can&#39;t   prevent   it.   Like   there&#39;s   there&#39;s   no   hope,   right?   People   are   going   to,   as   you   said,   this   is   this   is   a   natural   thing.   But   you   have   to   figure   out   how   do   you   undo   that.   Uh   and   and   one   of   the   ways   that   you   undo   that,   for   example,   is   is   by   going   and   doing   the   work,   right?   Do   the   do   the   do   the   groundwork,   the   dirty   grungy   work,   to   actually   help   out   the   direction   you   didn&#39;t   want.   And   and   let   people   see   that,   right?   Because   that   helps   people   then   understand   that,   like,   oh,   okay.
      </p>

        <cite>Patricia Aas</cite>
      <time>8:12</time>
      <p>
          If   Chandler,   if   Chandler&#39;s   okay   with   it,   then   I   guess   it&#39;s   okay.
      </p>

        <cite>Chandler Carruth</cite>
      <time>8:17</time>
      <p>
          Right?   Like   And   you   have   to   be   an   active   participant   in   kind   of   undoing   it.
      </p>

        <cite>Patricia Aas</cite>
      <time>8:21</time>
      <p>
          Yeah,   because   there   are   there   will   be   people   who   will   feel   an   intense   loyalty   to   you,   and   and   so   therefore,   yeah.
      </p>

        <cite>Chandler Carruth</cite>
      <time>8:28</time>
      <p>
          I   I   have   to   Yeah.   I   also   want   to   be   clear,   I   don&#39;t   think   I   handled   this   this   particular   case   perfectly.   Part   of   why   I&#39;m   bringing   this   one   up   is   that   this   one   is   probably   the   one   of   the   rougher   cases.   Um   and   uh   it   you   know   I   think   I   think   there&#39;s   still   uh   kind   of   uh   ruffled   feathers,   and   and   it   still   is   difficult   for   people   who   are   on   different   sides   of   this   to   kind   of   work   effectively,   and   we   all   lose   as   a   consequence,   right?   Like   that&#39;s   not   a   good   outcome.
      </p>

        <cite>Patricia Aas</cite>
      <time>8:55</time>
      <p>
          Is   there   a   way   that   you   could   have   handled   it   differently   that   could   have   maybe   given   a   better   result?
      </p>

        <cite>Chandler Carruth</cite>
      <time>9:00</time>
      <p>
          I   should   have   been   much   more   vocal   earlier.   Um   so   that   there   was   a   lot   of   lag   time   between   kind   of   the   decision   getting   made   and   when   I   was   able   to   kind   of   you   know   do   some   of   this   legwork   to   support   it.   Um   and   I   think   that   really   uh   amplified   a   lot   of   the   problems.   Um   and   what   would   have   been   better   would   have   been   to   have   kind   of   very   immediate   like   decision   made   and   immediately   show   signs   of   like   helping   implement   the   new   the   new   decision.
      </p>

        <cite>Patricia Aas</cite>
      <time>9:30</time>
      <p>
          Um   but   and   for   me,   like   when   I   I   read   these   things,   it   seems   it   seems   like   an   upward   thing   towards   management   that   I   have   to   get   on   board   with   this   thing   uh   because   the   decision   has   been   made   and   and   you   know,   so   that   the   management   or   whoever&#39;s   above   me   will   see   that   I&#39;m   a   team   player.   But   and   and   that   doesn&#39;t   resound   much   with   me.   But   but   what   you&#39;re   saying   is   more   that   I   need   to   show   these   people   who   are   loyal   to   me   and   who   respect   me   that   you   know   I&#39;m   okay   with   this   and   we   should   be   okay   with   this   together,   and   we   should,   you   know,   yeah,   that   makes   much   more   sense   to   me.
      </p>

        <cite>Chandler Carruth</cite>
      <time>10:06</time>
      <p>
          And   it&#39;s   it&#39;s   wild   the   Offexus   has   like   this   this   you   know   uh   that   delay,   which   I   I   I   still   really   regret   to   this   day.   Um   uh   right   it   hurt   team   morale,   right?   It   it   caused   you   know   parts   of   the   team   to   drift   apart,   right?   How   many   missed   opportunities   were   there   because   we   let   this   friction   and   I   say   we   let   because   that   is   part   of   this,   right?   We   let   this   friction   develop.   Um   and   and   it&#39;s   gotta   be   a   lot,   and   that&#39;s   that&#39;s   you   know,   it&#39;s   it&#39;s   a   regret.
      </p>

        <cite>Conor</cite>
      <time>10:35</time>
      <p>
          There&#39;s   a   a   part   of   my   soul   is   sad   that   I&#39;m   bringing   this   up,   but   uh   it   is   a   good   leadership   principle.   There&#39;s   so   there&#39;s   at   Amazon,   there&#39;s   these   14   LPs,   which   stands   for   leadership   principles,   and   uh   Amazon   is   famous   for   you   know   um   really   promoting   these   across   culture   and   whatnot.   And   one   of   them   is   disagree   and   commit.   And   it&#39;s   actually   it&#39;s   actually   a   pretty   good   one.   Some   of   them   I   don&#39;t   I   don&#39;t   agree   with   all   14   of   them,   but   this   one   it&#39;s   basically   like   there&#39;s   gonna   be   times   where   there&#39;s   different   uh   directions   that   you   can   go,   either   technically   or   strategically.   And   you   know,   uh   they&#39;re   really   big   on   data-driven   design   and   and   stuff   like   that   at   Amazon.   But   at   a   certain   point,   a   decision   has   to   be   made,   and   basically   the   LP   talks   about   how   once   that   decision   is   made,   uh   you   you   can   say,   you   know,   I   don&#39;t   agree   with   this   decision.   I   think   it&#39;s,   you   know,   I   prefer   this   one,   but   we&#39;re   going   with   this   one.   And   once   that   decision   is   made,   um,   like   it&#39;s   supposed   to   be   like   everyone&#39;s   everyone&#39;s   on   board   with   it,   commits   to   it,   and   they&#39;re   gonna   make   that   successful   and   work.   And   and   there&#39;s   an   opportunity   to   sort   of   state   that   like   I   don&#39;t   agree   with   this   final   decision.   Uh   but   once   that&#39;s   that   decision   is   made,   it&#39;s   it&#39;s   time   to   you   know   go   forward.   And   um   yeah,   it&#39;s   I   don&#39;t   know   how   easy   that   is   to   do.   And   it&#39;s   it&#39;s   definitely   not   easy,   but   like   having   that   as   an   LP   at   a   company,   like   as   as   a   sort   of   a   tenant,   like   I   definitely   have   worked   at   companies   where   those   disagreements   happen   and   then   they   just   sort   of   like   they   just   linger,   and   um   it&#39;s   not   even   clear   like   uh   you   know   how   do   we   come   to   the   decision.   And   so   they   just   sort   of   it   goes   on   and   on   and   on,   and   um   it&#39;s   it&#39;s   I   I   think   it&#39;s   a   great   sort   of   tenet   to   have   that   like   you   know,   there&#39;s   inevitably   at   any   company   there&#39;s   gonna   be   disagreements,   but   at   a   certain   point   you   just   gotta   pull   the   trigger   and   um   you   everyone&#39;s   gotta   contribute   to   that   that   direction   at   that   point.   And   uh,   you   know,   maybe   two   a   year   down   the   road   you&#39;ll   figure   out   it   wasn&#39;t   the   right   decision,   and   you   can   reassess   at   that   point.   But   you   know,   for   that   year   when   you&#39;re   getting   to   that   point,   it   doesn&#39;t   help   to   sort   of   like   have   only   50%   of   the   team   that   believes   that   that   was   the   right   decision   to   be   really   uh   you   know   all   cylinders   ahead   on   it   and   and   uh   or   or   have   50%   not   all   cylinders   ahead.   That   you   know,   that&#39;s   not   helpful.   Uh   you   you&#39;re   gonna   get   to   you&#39;re   gonna   realize   the   decision   was   the   wrong   one   if   it   was   the   wrong   one   faster,   if   everyone   is   just   helping   out.
      </p>

        <cite>Chandler Carruth</cite>
      <time>12:48</time>
      <p>
          Um   I   want   to   be   very   clear   about   something.   I   I   having   the   tenant   is   important,   but   taking   it   back   to   Patricia,   right,   the   the   questions   like   like   for   interviewing   someone   in   a   leadership   role,   the   the   particular   key   thing   here   is   that   people   in   this   role   need   to   really   show   that   they   are   operating   by   that   tenant.   And   that&#39;s   even   more   important   than   the   tenant   itself.   We   we   have   the   tenant   at   Google,   and   it   still   happens   because   whenever   there&#39;s   a   leader   that   isn&#39;t   showing   they&#39;re   going   to   live   by   this   tenant,   it   starts   to   cause   like   like   it   it   starts   that   entrenchment   and   that   that   bad.
      </p>

        <cite>Patricia Aas</cite>
      <time>13:26</time>
      <p>
          I   I   I   think   we   uh   I   think   it&#39;s   a   lot   about   the   human   condition.   We   are   often   very   proud   people,   and   we   also   have   lots   of   loyalty,   and   and   having   these   things   will   make   it   difficult   to   say,   okay,   I   lost,   and   also   I&#39;m   not   only   okay   with   losing,   but   I&#39;m   enthusiastically   on   board   with   you.
      </p>

        <cite>Chandler Carruth</cite>
      <time>13:46</time>
      <p>
          Yeah,   yeah,   it&#39;s   really   hard   to   do.   That&#39;s   a   great   way   of   putting   it,   yeah.   Um   so   some   some   techniques   that   I&#39;ve   come   up   that   I&#39;ve   I&#39;ve   been   trying   to   practice   to   help   me   overcome   that   human   reluctance,   uh,   is   is   to   change   the   the   kind   of   frame   of   mind   of   what   I   what   I   what   my   goal   is.   Uh   there&#39;s   there&#39;s   uh   the   like   I&#39;m   not   a   huge   usually   a   huge   fan   of   corporate   trainings,   right?   Sometimes   they&#39;re   they&#39;re   real   they&#39;re   real   they&#39;re   real   questionable.   But   there&#39;s   one   corporate   training   that   I   really   love.   Um   even   though   most   of   it&#39;s   garbage,   it   has   this   this   one   catchphrase   that   I   I   keep   coming   back   to,   which   is   uh   uh   you   know,   what   do   you   really,   really   want?   And   then   they   clarify   No   no   no   what   is   the   one   thing   that   you   really   want?   Like   you   must   choose   one   thing   and   focus   on   that.   And   when   you   apply   that   here,   the   interesting   thing   you   get   to   is   that   what   you   really   want   is   a   decision.   Not   your   decision,   but   a   decision.   And   so   by   focusing   on   the   fact   that   you&#39;ve   made   a   decision,   you&#39;re   making   progress,   you   basically   channel   your   enthusiasm   for   progress   as   proxy   for   the   enthusiasm   of   the   decision   you   don&#39;t   particularly   like.   Right?   And   this   this   kind   of   lets   you   get   yourself   enthusiastic   and   then   apply   it   to   something   that   you&#39;re   not   super   enthusiastic   about   because   of   the.
      </p>

        <cite>Patricia Aas</cite>
      <time>15:10</time>
      <p>
          Okay,   so   get   a   proxy.   Yeah.
      </p>

        <cite>Chandler Carruth</cite>
      <time>15:12</time>
      <p>
          Yeah.   And   it&#39;s   all   about   picking,   well,   what   do   you   really   want?   Do   you   want   your   decision   or   do   you   want   to   have   a   decision?   Because   you   can&#39;t   always   have   both.   So   you   have   to   pick   which   one   you   care   about   most.   Once   you   do   that,   it&#39;s   much   easier   to   be   enthusiastic   about   not   having   your   decision.   Because   that&#39;s   not   what   you&#39;re   enthusiastic   about.   You&#39;re   enthusiastic   about   making   it   through   the   decision,   getting   the   decision,   making   people   start   moving   in   some   direction,   right?   Um   and   and   this   for   me   was   really   helpful   in   part   because   I   noticed   something   uh   and   and   a   manager   of   mine,   you   know,   years   and   years   ago   told   me   this,   and   I   didn&#39;t   I   didn&#39;t   get   it.   It   didn&#39;t   make   sense   at   the   time.   But   he   pointed   out   that   it   is   much   cheaper   in   so   many   cases   to   let   people   make   the   decision   they   want   to   make   than   to   convince   them   to   make   the   decision   you   think   is   right.   Um   and   then   to   your   point,   Connor,   eventually,   if   it   is   wrong,   they&#39;ll   find   they&#39;ll   figure   it   out.   It   can   be   so   much   cheaper   to   let   people   make   a   bad   decision   and   then   learn   how   what   the   right   decision   is   than   to   try   and   prevent   them   from   making   a   mistake   or   trying   to   avoid   the   wrong   decision.   Just   just   make   the   bad   decision.   It&#39;ll   be   totally   fine.   We&#39;ll   figure   it   out   later.   Um   and   that   can   be   so   much   lower   cost,   um,   especially   at   larger   scales.
      </p>

        <cite>Patricia Aas</cite>
      <time>16:34</time>
      <p>
          I   I   yeah.   I   have   a   baby   example   from   when   I   was   like   a   super   junior.   Um   I   I   was   at   uh   Opera   and   we   uh   we   were   working   on   the   desktop   browser,   and   we   had   uh   uh   this   guy   who   was   basically   I   don&#39;t   know,   he   I   I   I   guess   in   in   in   retrospect   I   would   say   he   was   like   sort   of   like   a   creative   genius,   but   he   was   also   a   coder,   and   and   so   he   he   had   created   all   sorts   of   things,   and   so   uh   basically   a   lot   of   what   was   opera   was   basically   his   brainchild.   Um   and   so   um   and   then   he   comes   and   he   was   like   he   has   this   brilliant   idea   in   his   like   his   opinion,   brilliant,   and   all   of   these   people   that   you   know   worked   with   him   for   a   long   time,   they   you   know   he   was   like   a   superhero,   they   were   like,   This   is   brilliant,   and   and   I   thought   it   was   dumb.   I   was   like,   no,   nobody&#39;s   this   is   silly.   Like,   are   we   gonna   do   this?   This   is   a   really   silly   thing,   and   I   was   so   wrong.   I   was   like   the   wrongest   in   the   entire   world.   Because   what   he   I   don&#39;t   know   if   anyone   remembers,   but   way   back   when,   in   the   early   2000s,   when   you   opened   a   tab,   it   was   white.   There   was   nothing   there,   it   was   just   a   white   rectangle   in   your   face.   And   his   idea   was   let&#39;s   put   like   big   icons   and   things   there   for   your   favorite   websites.   And   he   called   it   a   speed   dial,   and   it   would   have   like   the   nine,   like   a   speed   dial,   and   he   would   even   connect   it   to   see   if   you   tap   the   right   like   number,   it   would   open   that,   but   you   could   also   click   on   them,   and   so   you   had   like   a   three   by   three   matrix   where   you   could   put   in   all   of   your   favorite   websites   with   like   a   picture   and   everything.   And   so   when   you   opened   a   new   tab,   you   would   see   the   speed   dial,   and   you   could   just   click   on   where   you   wanted   to   go.   I   was   like,   this   is   silly,   this   is   stupid.   It&#39;s   like   if   I   was   I   was   I   was   so   wrong.   I   was   I   was   absolutely   completely   terribly   wrong   about   this   entire   thing.   And   and   and   for   me   personally,   this   was   huge   for   me   because   and   it&#39;s   colored   like   my   entire   thinking   for   the   rest   of   my   career.   Because   I   I   learned   that   I   can   be   fundamentally   completely   wrong   about   something   and   have   no   idea.   Like   and   because   I   think   we   have   this   tendency   to   believe   in   ourselves.   Like,   I   you   know,   I   think   this   is   dumb,   and   I   will   all   data   I   will   find   will   reaffirm   my   position,   and   I   would   kind   of   hold   on   to   it   no   matter   what   happens.   But   actually   sitting   down   and   and   like   accepting   the   fact   that   this   was   brilliant   and   and   it   has   been   copied   by   all   browsers   ever   since.   You   know,   it&#39;s   like   15   years   later,   this   is   what   you   do.   Um   but   but   so   so   it   was   brilliant.   Uh   but   having   that   gave   me   the   the   the   I   don&#39;t   I   I   don&#39;t   I   won&#39;t   call   it   humility   because   it&#39;s   not   humility,   it&#39;s   it&#39;s   a   healthy   um   skepticism   to   to   my   own   like   uh   opinion   and   a   willingness   just   to   like   be   wrong,   yeah,   and   and   like   and   see   that   like   good   things   can   happen   even   when   you&#39;re   wrong.   Yeah,   and   just   like   okay,   so   this   is   what   I   think.   I   might   be   wrong,   like   there   might   be   like   a   fundamental   flaw   here   where   I&#39;m   just   totally   wrong,   and   if   I   am,   that&#39;s   okay.   And   and   that&#39;s   like   a   superpower.   If   you   if   you   can   actually   go   walk   into   a   room   and   be   convinced   by   someone   else,   and   on   like   really   truly   convinced   that   I   think   that   what   you   said   was   right   and   what   I   said   was   wrong,   that   that   can   build   like   mountains.   Like   it&#39;s   it&#39;s   you   it&#39;s   massive.   And   it&#39;s   such   a   small   thing.
      </p>

        <cite>Chandler Carruth</cite>
      <time>20:31</time>
      <p>
          I   mean,   I   I   do   this,   I   I   I   freely   admit   I   struggle   with   this.   That&#39;s   why   I   cheat.   I   cheat   by   focusing   on   on   uh   you   know   progress   over.
      </p>

        <cite>Patricia Aas</cite>
      <time>20:40</time>
      <p>
          Yeah,   but   I   I   think   that&#39;s   a   good   one   because   I   think   that&#39;s   something   that   you   know   you   can   do   because   it   I   it   hurts   to   be   wrong,   it   sucks   to   be   wrong.
      </p>

        <cite>Chandler Carruth</cite>
      <time>20:48</time>
      <p>
          It   really   does.
      </p>

        <cite>Conor</cite>
      <time>20:51</time>
      <p>
          It&#39;s   interesting   this   is   coming   up   because   literally   just   on   the   last   episode,   Bryce   remarked   the   exact   same   thing   that   his   telltale   sign   of   um   really   bright   folks   is   the   ability   to   like   once   they&#39;ve   realized   that   they&#39;re   wrong,   just   to   like   unabashedly   like   change   180   degrees   and   start   90   degrees   and   start   walking   that   direction   as   if   like   they   never   at   any   point   previously   thought   otherwise.   Like   they&#39;d   oh,   I&#39;m   wrong?   Okay.   That&#39;s   fine.   Yeah,   yeah.   And   yeah,   something   something   you   were   saying   earlier,   and   this   sort   of   goes   to   the   your   example,   Patricia,   is   I   I&#39;m   not   I   actually   don&#39;t   think   this   is   an   Amazon   thing,   but   I&#39;ve   learned   it   in   Amazon.   They   have   this   policy   of   like   one-way   and   two-way   door   to   decisions,   and   that   like   if   it&#39;s   a   two-way   door   decision,   meaning   that   you   can   go   enter   and   then   leave,   um,   those   are   the   ones   where   it&#39;s   a   lot   easier   to   just   like   you   know   disagree   and   commit.   And   we&#39;ll   find   out,   and   that&#39;s   the   thing   is   like   designing   that   sort   of   nine   three   by   three   icon,   if   it&#39;s   a   terrible   idea   at   the   end   of   the   day,   you   just   you   just   trash   it,   sure   there&#39;s   a   sunk   cost   there,   but   like   there&#39;s   there&#39;s   very,   very   little   cost   to   like   reversing   that.   And   there&#39;s   certain   decisions   where   it&#39;s   one   way.   If   you&#39;re   gonna   make   this   big   change,   and   those   are   the   ones   that   you   really   have   to   spend   a   ton   of   time   up   front,   you   know,   figuring   out   is   this   The   direction   of   the   Chandler,   you&#39;re   saying   maybe   not   even   that   one.
      </p>

        <cite>Chandler Carruth</cite>
      <time>22:03</time>
      <p>
          No,   no,   no.   Like   I   think   I   think   that&#39;s   that&#39;s   that&#39;s   actually   a   critical   flaw.   The   goal   shouldn&#39;t   be   to   spend   a   ton   of   time   up   front   figuring   out   the   right   decision   when   you   have   a   one-way   decision.   The   goal   should   be   to   engineer   the   door   to   open   the   other   direction.   Yeah.
      </p>

        <cite>Bryce</cite>
      <time>22:17</time>
      <p>
          The   goal   should   be   like   what   one   one-way   decisions   are   never   good.   Um   like   what   one   of   what   the   the   classical   example   of   this   is   standard   C.   Like   the   one   of   the   big   problems   that   Standard   C   has   is   that   pretty   much   all   of   our   decisions   are   one-way   decisions.   And   we   would   have   a   lot   less   stress   if   uh   if   we   could   find   ways   to   have   that   not   be   the   case.
      </p>

        <cite>Chandler Carruth</cite>
      <time>22:40</time>
      <p>
          Uh   this   is   something   that   that   I   see   in   API   design   all   the   time.   A   lot   of   people   feel   like   you   know,   an   API   is   a   one-way   decision,   because   once   you   publish   it,   you   have   to   support   it   forever.   And   and   so   so   then   a   bunch   of   people   invest   incredible   amounts   of   time   trying   to   do   good   API   design   and   to   avoid   mistakes.   And   and   my   perspective   has   really   been   warped   here   to   a   different   thing   where   it&#39;s   like,   I   mean,   sure,   invest   some   amount   of   time   there,   but   you   almost   want   to   time   box   that   very   sharply,   and   instead   invest   all   the   rest   of   the   time   in   getting   out   of   the   mistakes   that   you   will   inevitably   make.   Um   because   one   of   these   things   is   is   has   a   different   scaling   function   on   it   than   the   other   one.   Right?   If   you   if   you   invest   a   bunch   of   time   making   a   good   decision,   that&#39;s   one   way,   great.   But   the   next   one   right?   Like,   it   doesn&#39;t   none   of   that   investment   pays   off   for   the   next   decision   you   have   to   make.   Right?   Whereas   if   you   invest   a   bunch   of   time   making   the   door   two   ways,   all   of   that   time   you   invest   pays   off   every   time   you   get   the   decision   where   that   door   applies.   Um   and   so   it&#39;s   it&#39;s   a   tremendously   better   scaling   function.   And   so   you   time   box   the   non-scaling   investment,   right?   And   put   all   of   the   rest   of   the   energy   into   changing   the   problem   space.
      </p>

        <cite>Conor</cite>
      <time>23:54</time>
      <p>
          That&#39;s   a   great   point.   It&#39;s   it&#39;s   just   it&#39;s   basically   like   from   finance   or   business,   it&#39;s   fixed   versus   variable   costs.   Like   you   do   the   two-way   door   and   it&#39;s   variable,   and   then   that   just   distributes   over   every   single   decision   you   make   in   the   future.   Yeah.   Actually,   that&#39;s   a   it&#39;s   a   great   meta   point.   Like   Amazon,   you   should   update   your   book.   Update   update   your   stuff.
      </p>

        <cite>Chandler Carruth</cite>
      <time>24:10</time>
      <p>
          Uh   but   there&#39;s   another   kind   of   other   subtle   problem   here,   uh,   which   is   the   time   spent   before   a   decision   is   made   is   the   most   expensive   time.   So   one   of   the   interesting   things   about   spending   your   engineering   time   on   the   doors   instead   of   on   the   decisions   is   that   you   make   the   decision   more   rapidly.   Right?   So   you   time   box   your   investment   in   the   decision,   you   make   the   decision   rapidly,   and   that   that   has   its   own   value,   right?   And   you&#39;re   not   paying   for   an   unmade   decision   the   entire   time   you&#39;re   investing   in   doing   the   door.   You&#39;re   just   making   bad   decisions.
      </p>

        <cite>Patricia Aas</cite>
      <time>24:44</time>
      <p>
          So   can   I   can   I   take   us   down   from   metaphor   to   concrete?   Like   what   is   a   door?
      </p>

        <cite>Chandler Carruth</cite>
      <time>24:49</time>
      <p>
          Yeah,   absolutely.
      </p>

        <cite>Patricia Aas</cite>
      <time>24:50</time>
      <p>
          Here.
      </p>

        <cite>Chandler Carruth</cite>
      <time>24:50</time>
      <p>
          So   so   classic   example.   Yeah.   Let&#39;s   take   APIs.   I   think   C   APIs   are   a   great   example   here,   right?   We   can   we   can   try   to   do   good   API   design,   but   the   thing   we   actually   want   to   invest   most   of   our   time   in   is   the   ability   to   change   the   API   when   we   get   it   wrong.   And   so   we   build   refactoring   tools,   and   then   we   build   large-scale   refactoring   tools,   and   then   we   build   systems   for   running   large-scale   refactorings   across   a   monolithic   code   base   or   across   all   of   the   shards   of   your   sharded   code   base,   and   you   and   then   you   tune   that   system   so   that   you   can   run   them   more   rapidly   and   at   lower   cost.   For   example,   at   Google,   one   of   our   big   costs   is   we&#39;re   lucky   we   have   a   uh   a   monolithic   repository   that   we   can   handle,   but   we   we   have   to   do   code   review.   And   so   when   we   maybe   we&#39;re   making   10,000   refactoring   changes,   how   do   you   code   review   those?   So   we&#39;ve   actually   built   tools   and   infrastructure   to   smooth   the   code   review   cost   and   to   bring   that   cost   down,   build   tools   to   smooth   the   testing   cost   of   rolling   out   these   changes,   right?   And   what   we&#39;re   doing   is   we&#39;re   because   because   you   you   almost   never   have   true   one-way   doors.   What   you   do   is   you   have   uh   a   differential   cost   function   based   on   the   direction,   right?   That   it   costs   us   so   much   money   or   time   to   go   in,   and   it   costs   us,   you   know,   so   like   this   massive   multiplier   if   we   ever   want   to   go   back   out.   What   you&#39;re   actually   trying   to   do   is   we&#39;re   trying   to   drive   that   cost   down   over   time.   And   we&#39;ve   we   very   specifically   just   attacked   the   economic   problem   of   replacing   an   API   when   we   discover   a   mistake.   And   every   time   we   make   that   cost   lower,   right,   this   makes   the   kind   of   uh   risk   of   each   API   decision   lower.   Because   we&#39;re   like,   well,   maybe   we&#39;re   wrong.   And   so   we   can   still   apply   some   time-boxed   amount   of   like   it&#39;s   there&#39;s   still   a   differential   here.   It&#39;s   not   it&#39;s   not   free,   right?   But   now   we   can   have   a   much   more   rational   time   box   around   like,   well,   we&#39;ve   we&#39;ve   we&#39;ve   consulted   the   experts,   we&#39;ve   thought   about   the   consequences   of   this   API   design,   to   the   best   of   our   ability,   it&#39;s   going   to   like   we   think   this   is   a   good   one,   let&#39;s   try   it   out.   And   if   it   doesn&#39;t   work,   we&#39;ll   replace   it,   right?   And   even   for   a   particular   API,   we   like   you   can   you   can   turtle   this   all   the   way   down,   right?   So   for   a   particular   API,   past   a   certain   point,   rather   than   trying   to   theorize   about   how   the   programmers   will   will   f   will   react   to   this   API   and   how   readable   or   not   readable   it   will   be,   if   we&#39;re   particularly   uncertain,   we&#39;ll   actually   invest   in   being   able   to   roll   back   that   particular   API   uh   API.   So   we&#39;ll   have   you   know   uh   an   allow   list   early   on   for   who   gets   to   use   it   so   that   we   can   avoid   it   you   know   being   everyone   on   day   one,   right?   And   we   can   kind   of   have   some   beta   testers   and   get   some   rounds   of   feedback.   Um   we   may   put   special   things   into   the   API   just   to   make   it   easier   to   change   if   we   discover   we&#39;re   wrong.   Um   and   again,   it&#39;s   and   and   the   whole   thing   here   is   just   about   decreasing   the   differential   cost   so   that   so   that   we   can   make   the   decision   and   not   worry   about   it,   and   then   learn   and   then   make   a   new   decision   when   when   we   get   new   information.
      </p>

        <cite>Conor</cite>
      <time>27:43</time>
      <p>
          Thanks   for   listening.   We   hope   you   enjoyed.   Stay   tuned   for   part   four,   our   final   part   of   this   conversation,   and   have   a   great   day.
      </p>