Board

This bias towards storage size over compute size has a real impact in system architecture. It means that if you use scalable object stores, you might be able to use far less compute than you had anticipated. You might not even need to use distributed processing at all.

An alternate definition of Big Data is “when the cost of keeping data around is less than the cost of figuring out what to throw away.” I like this definition because it encapsulates why people end up with Big Data. It isn’t because they need it; they just haven’t bothered to delete it. If you think about many data lakes that organizations collect, they fit this bill entirely: giant, messy swamps where no one really knows what they hold or whether it is safe to clean them up.

Compute and storage are both present in the definition of edge computing, but they are very different in nature. Compute is nimble, and can be easily moved anywhere. Data is heavy, and moving it has a cost. Compute is unencumbered by regulations, and can happen anywhere. Data is protected, and has to be treated differently depending on the jurisdiction.

This paradigm goes very well with edge computing: since we are assuming there are fewer resources available, allowing potentially wasteful general purpose compute is less enticing. Constraining what the developers can do (through functions and massive multi-tenancy) allows for better utilization and resource packing.

For this reason, companies targeting the edge have so far focused most of their efforts on compute, like edge functions. But bringing compute to the edge only solves half the problem, especially if you’re making calls to a centralized database somewhere in a far away cluster. You end up with as much, or potentially more, latency than if you had just hosted all your compute in a traditional centralized cloud hosted location.

Perhaps the best piece of advice I ever got from Jeff Bezos was this: Invest in things that don't change. His example was that customers won't wake up one day and wish shipping was slower or the selection of goods poorer. So investing in logistics and warehousing was investing in things that don't change, and will continue to pay dividends for decades.

It is possible to be empowered to work how you want (Autonomy), to be leveraging your skills and expertise (Mastery), and to be proud of your role in a cause (Purpose / Why), and yet still dislike every day of your existence. More than contentment (ikigai), you need Joy.

One person at a time, can be all it takes, as in this serendipitous Slack exchange I had with WPGraphQL founder Jason Bahl:

Sinek sums up the answer: These companies Start with “Why.” Meaning: These organizations have clear, simple, compelling raison d’être, a reason for being, something they stand for, something they would never contravene with their actions, even if it hurts sales or profitability.

Having any two without the third creates a well-defined yet common trap. It’s instructive to understand the traps, because it can feel good to be in the trap

Trap: Skill + Need - JoyThis is classic burn-out. When you do the work all day, you feel drained and exhausted rather than energized (as you would if it were Flow = Skill + Joy). You do the work, because the company needs it done. You do the work, because you are undeniably great at it. Even though you hate doing it, you’d rather take it on yourself rather than foist it on others, whether because you want to “protect them from the drudgery8,” or because you believe they can’t do as good a job as you can, or because you can’t afford to hire someone. Because you create great results that the company needs, it doesn’t look like a problem—not to you, nor your team. But because you dislike it, you grow to resent it, and eventually you can’t face it, and you’re finished

Trap: Joy + Skill - NeedAt the intersection of Joy and Skill is “being in the zone,” a.k.a. Flow7. Wonderful! Unless you’re working on something the company doesn’t need done. Being in flow is intoxicating, and does “recharge the batteries,” but it’s unproductive.

Pink’s model; it is compatible. It adds the missing “Joy” component, while reinforcing “Mastery” with the label of “Skill.” It lacks “Autonomy,” however, perhaps because I created it with the founder in mind—a person who definitionally possesses autonomy, even to their detriment. “Need” is more tactical than “Purpose,” really about being useful.

Therefore, my recommendation is to identify that higher purpose, as described by “Start with Why” or ikigai, and fulfill your own part in that purpose at the center of the three circles.

Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on the grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood, etc., etc. It is humbug to pretend this is not a motive, and a strong one. Writers share this characteristic with scientists, artists, politicians, lawyers, soldiers, successful businessmen—in short, with the whole top crust of humanity. —George Orwell, Why I Write

“I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it.” —Vincent van Gogh

If there were a particular area of tech most similar to USHG, it’d be the rise in startups focusing on retention and increasing share of customer wallet. As customers become more cognizant of their options and switching costs go down, companies that provide the best service are able to better compete for customers and then absorb more of their spend.

As the cost of forming startups decreases and capital availability increases we see a proliferation of options for consumers in any given category. This market supply fragmentation provides users with more options–and shifts leverage in the market towards demand.

The world is becoming increasingly demand driven. Consumers have more and better choices. And have become far more informed and educated about their options too.

By having all these avenues to accommodate the career growth of its employees, groups like USHG and Back of the House have lower employee churn. This allows them to invest more in training their employees because they know they will be able to reap the benefits of their investment over a longer period of time. Long term, the amount invested in employees is dictated by the return captured by the company — similar to LTV/CAC and payback periods in the realm of user acquisition. These restaurant groups have found a better way to extend theirs.

While I wouldn’t go so far as to say it *wasn’t* possible to do a similar strategy before. I think there are many trends that point to why we will increasingly see more restaurant groups converge on this approach. There are macro tailwinds that USHG rode. And they are identical to many of the tailwinds hitting tech as well.

Finally as a note. Danny Meyer and the Union Square Hospitality Group are a good example of how we often discuss the first order cause of things, without understanding the structural systems shaping them. People reading Setting the Table often talk about being more customer focused. But they don’t understand that it’s not about trying harder. It’s about setting up a their business model to align with prioritizing customer service. And identifying spaces where that can happen.

Speiser’s portfolio includes companies like Pure Storage and Snowflake Computing. It’s worth noting that Snowflake not only IPO’d and is now at a market cap of over $60B but Speiser and Sutter Hill Ventures owned more than 20% of the company leading up to the IPO. When Pure Storage went public, Sutter Hill held more than 25%. Speiser may have the highest percentage of portfolio companies that have become multi-billion dollar companies—and that trend looks to continue with his newer companies.

We didn’t realize that launching Figma was heresy, a generational assault on top-down, siloed models of decision making and a challenge to the identity of many designers. While some immediately understood the potential of building design software in the browser, our vision elicited an immediate and negative reaction from others. Some even told us that if this was the future of design, they were changing careers.

Initially I didn’t understand the negative reactions to Figma’s closed beta launch. I only saw the obvious benefits: a single source of truth for files, cross platform support, and multiplayer editing. Now I understand that the power of the browser lies in the broader cultural change it delivers — and this change can be scary. The browser is natively multiplayer. It forces a mindset shift on access. It strips away the need for expensive hardware. And it pushes us to embrace working together, especially when we are blocked and our default might be to hide.

Feeling threatened by change is part of being human. It was only natural that moving what had previously been an offline, single-player experience into the browser would be a shock to many. The fears were sensible.

Figma’s vision is to make design accessible to all. If we succeed, putting Figma as a skill on a resume will be as absurd as highlighting Google Docs proficiency. T

Traditionally, databases weren't designed to run arbitrary business logic–we don't move the application code to the data. Instead, we move a subset of the data to the application server, by sending the database a query, effectively short declarative programs to get a subset of the entire data set.

We've tried to solve this with object-relational mapping (ORM) libraries, but often to no avail. [12]

Does it need to be that way? What if we moved the code closer to the data instead?

"Buying products that save developer time is no longer an argument you need to explain. People get it." — Executive, Developer Tools Startup

"In our sales conversation, we frame things in terms of productivity and developer time saved... You're comparing the cost of the product against engineering time saved." — Executive, Developer Tools Startup

"We're seeing lots of self-serve. Developers are getting more autonomy as buyers. Most of our sign-ups are via bottoms-up — people signing themselves up, after which our sales team eventually reaches out to them." — Executive, Developer Tools Startup

"The biggest trend right now is the move to serverless — functions as a service, hiding more complexity from developers. Serverless is a way for developers to just focus on stateless applications, to just focus on what they use most directly." — Executive, Application Infrastructure Startup