57: Smorgasbord of Pronunciation


00:00:00   So do we have any topics tonight?

00:00:02   Not really.

00:00:03   We have a little bit of follow-up and then honestly I have no clue what the rest of the

00:00:06   show is going to bring.

00:00:07   So it's going to be a little wild.

00:00:09   Wacky wild Casey.

00:00:10   Let's see what happens now.

00:00:14   So we should probably do some follow-up, starting with computer science, Jon.

00:00:18   Yeah, this is a little bit of follow-up on the software, the complexity of software and

00:00:24   computing and all that other stuff.

00:00:26   Lots of follow-up on that in all sorts of different directions.

00:00:28   a few themes I noticed in the feedback. One theme was a lot of people who either are involved

00:00:34   in academia or feel some connection to it, and what they wanted to talk about was sort

00:00:39   of field versus field, their field versus someone else's field, whatever their field

00:00:43   may be, physics, chemistry, engineering, computer science, math. I don't know if they misunderstood

00:00:50   the discussion as if it was computer science versus other fields, but that sure is the

00:00:54   discussion they wanted to have. And it reminded me of this quote again from, you know, as

00:00:59   the original place I see all quotes apparently is Usenet SIGs. And this one is "Computer

00:01:04   science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." I have a link to it

00:01:09   we can put in the show notes, I forget where the origin is, but the little hash on the

00:01:13   URL is disputed. So maybe it's disputed where that quote comes from. But anyway, that I

00:01:17   think gets to the heart of why we weren't talking about fields, computer science versus

00:01:21   any other field, because computer science is not about computers. We were talking about

00:01:26   software, and computer science is tangentially about software, but not really. But anyway,

00:01:33   those are different discussions to have about which field is superior to or a subset of

00:01:40   some other field, but that's definitely not what we were talking about. The other one

00:01:42   is people still want to talk about job difficulty. Like, my job is harder than your job, you're

00:01:47   saying your job is the hardest job in the world, so on and so forth. I thought I made

00:01:50   they clear in the last show, but apparently not clear enough to not have people come in

00:01:54   and say, "Whatever I do for a living is harder than what you do for a living," or

00:01:57   "You think what you do for a living is hard because you do it," and so on and so

00:02:01   forth. That's also definitely not what we were talking about.

00:02:04   One person sent in something about programming and complexity and the things we were talking

00:02:09   about in the last show, which is from one of MIT's courses on the structure and interpretation

00:02:15   of computer programs. What is it? S-I-C-P?

00:02:19   the one.

00:02:20   I think that's the name of the book, the book that they teach off. But anyway, MIT has lots

00:02:24   of video lectures, and they said from minute nine to about 10 minutes and 45 seconds in

00:02:29   this recording, the professor talks about a lot of the same things. He doesn't make

00:02:32   the same argument I was making, but touches on a lot of the same points that I was using

00:02:36   to support my argument. And it's a fun video to watch if you just want to watch an MIT

00:02:40   professor teach for a while. So we'll have that link in the show notes as well. And it's

00:02:44   only a minute and 45 seconds. You don't have to watch the whole thing. Just scrub forward

00:02:47   to minute nine. And then Casey, you put something in here from a listener email?

00:02:55   I think that was Marco, actually. You talk about software complexity?

00:02:58   All right, so this wonderful feedback we got from a guy named John, @purplepilot on Twitter.

00:03:04   I love that his name is John, by the way. So he says, "The fundamental mistake here,

00:03:08   of course, is that woodpeckers do not pick wooden houses. They pick trees—trees are

00:03:12   arguably the most complex things in existence, by the way—to get food, store food, and

00:03:17   to nest. Dead wood, i.e. that which has been felled and chemically treated, is of no use

00:03:22   or interest to woodpeckers. So a wooden civilization would be secure from woodpeckers, but probably

00:03:27   vulnerable to woodworm or death watch beetles or termites."

00:03:31   So I'm pretty sure, Jon, if you ever get tired of doing the show, we can replace you.

00:03:37   With another Jon.

00:03:39   With another guy named Jon who made that comment.

00:03:43   It would have been much better if he pretended he was serious, because towards the end it's

00:03:46   that he was joking. That kind of ruins the joke.

00:03:48   I'm not sure he was. You honestly think he was joking? I assumed he was not.

00:03:54   "Woodworm, Deathwatch, Beatles, and Termites" puts it over the top.

00:03:57   Are you joking when you criticize things? That's not criticizing us. I mean, that

00:04:02   person knows. That was a knowing email. I don't know. Anyway, so we have a backup

00:04:10   John. And thank goodness he is named John, because

00:04:15   Otherwise I would have been totally confused.

00:04:17   Totally.

00:04:18   All right, so what's awesome these days, Marco?

00:04:21   This week we're sponsored once again by a return sponsor from a while ago, RAMObjects.

00:04:26   So you might remember a long time ago we told you about RAMObjects Oxygen, which is a cross-platform

00:04:31   language that it was based on Pascal and it would let you compile for Mac, iOS, Android,

00:04:38   Windows, or even Windows Phone.

00:04:40   RAMObjects has a new language now.

00:04:43   similar kind of deal, but it's actually based on the C# language. Is it C#, Casey?

00:04:48   Casey Muckerman No, it is not C#.

00:04:50   Jonathon Smith C Tic Tac Toe Board?

00:04:52   Casey Muckerman It is C#.

00:04:52   Jonathon Smith C hash?

00:04:52   Casey Muckerman Oh, you know that's it. That's it. It's C

00:04:54   Tic Tac Toe Board. No, it is C#, you big jerk.

00:04:57   Jonathon Smith Okay, so there's a REM object C#,

00:04:59   and it has a lot of the same advantages, in fact, probably all the same advantages as Oxygen. So this

00:05:05   So this is really cool. It brings C# as a native language to Cocoa. So it's 100% C#

00:05:13   that you're writing, and you're writing it against 100% Cocoa. It's very, very cool.

00:05:18   So Casey, they asked you to take a look at it. What did you think?

00:05:21   Right, so I took a look at it very, very briefly, but I did take a look at it, and I did try

00:05:26   it, and I built the world's simplest Hello World-style iOS app by writing C# using REM

00:05:32   objects and it was really weird but I definitely liked it. Basically what they do is they let

00:05:40   you write in C# but just like you said Marco you're writing against the Cocoa Touch framework

00:05:46   and so rather than using the .NET framework which is I believe Zamarin's approach which

00:05:52   is more we're going to abstract away Cocoa behind the .NET framework that you're probably

00:05:57   familiar with. This is a little closer to the metal, so to speak, in that you're writing

00:06:02   C# but you're writing it against straight up UIKit, for example. And they even went

00:06:09   to the point of extending the C# language such that you can use the Objective-C style

00:06:16   method names or message names. So I wrote code where I made an alert view, and so my

00:06:24   My code for those of you who write C# is var view = new UIAlertView space with title paren

00:06:31   quote hi paren space message etc etc etc.

00:06:35   So it's really kind of weird but very cool that they've extended C# in order to allow

00:06:41   you to write directly against Cocoa and Cocoa Touch.

00:06:44   The advantage there being that you're really just putting a thin veneer on top of it and

00:06:49   And you're not relying on a whole different framework sitting between you and Apple's

00:06:55   framework.

00:06:56   So it's very cool, very clever, and very interesting.

00:06:58   And the way they have you write code is by writing it in Visual Studio, which I would

00:07:02   argue is the best IDE in the world.

00:07:05   And then you run an application on either your Mac or a Mac in the office or a Mac in

00:07:11   the cloud.

00:07:12   And it basically compiles the binary, dumps it onto that Mac, and lets you run your app

00:07:17   either in the simulator or on a device or whatever. It's actually very straightforward,

00:07:21   very easy to set up. It works really well. And I liked it. I can definitely see how this

00:07:27   could make some really cool stuff without having to rely on somebody else's glue in

00:07:31   between really. I mean, you are, but it's the thinnest, lightest glue in the world.

00:07:37   So if you're interested in getting your own thin layer of light glue and writing native

00:07:42   Cocoa applications with the C# language,

00:07:45   go to remobjects.com, remobjects.com/cs,

00:07:50   and you can see RemObjects C# for yourself.

00:07:52   They have a bunch of cool videos here,

00:07:54   you can see, get more information

00:07:56   than my mediocre performance in this ad read here.

00:07:59   You can actually get more information,

00:08:01   you can see the kind of code Casey was writing,

00:08:03   all right here, these great videos, remobjects.com/cs.

00:08:07   Thank you so much to RemObjects for sponsoring my show.

00:08:10   I gotta give them credit,

00:08:11   is a really cool thing to even attempt to do. And from everything I've heard, they do

00:08:17   a really good job of it. So thanks a lot, RAM objects.

00:08:19   >> Yeah, and I should also point out that one of the things they say in their FAQ is,

00:08:26   you know, hey, what with the .NET framework being gone, what about cool stuff like link?

00:08:32   And so what they've done is they've taken a lot of the link extension methods and --

00:08:36   >> I thought it was pronounced "link."

00:08:38   Yes, maybe if your surname is Armand.

00:08:42   But anyway, they basically ported

00:08:46   some of the more frequently used parts of Lync

00:08:49   into their platform.

00:08:51   So that's a really smart call and really, really awesome

00:08:55   to have that tool in your tool chest.

00:08:57   - Cool, thanks a lot.

00:09:00   - They canned the iPad 2.

00:09:02   - Finally.

00:09:03   - Yeah, how long was that on sale?

00:09:05   - Forever.

00:09:06   released in what, 2011, what like February 2011? So it made it three years, three full

00:09:13   years of being on sale brand new.

00:09:15   Now that is crazy talk.

00:09:18   The amazing thing is it only had one price drop.

00:09:20   Yeah, like I wonder if they had inventory they were trying to clear, they just like

00:09:24   made way too many of them because you could see how Apple wanted to get away from 30-pin

00:09:29   everywhere. There was this lone, I guess the iPad Classic still too, but like lone real

00:09:34   product lurching along with 30-pin. We talked in past shows about why they would still want

00:09:38   to be selling the 2 and how it made sense for education and all these other things.

00:09:42   They just want the lowest price possible, but also might want the big screen and don't care

00:09:45   about retina and so on and so forth. But it just seemed like it, but it just went on for just so

00:09:50   long. And the thing is they're replacing the iPad 2 not with like the next model up, but with two

00:09:56   models up. That's how old it is. That it's like they can't even bring themselves to replace the

00:10:01   that bad too with the 3 or just continue with the replacing it with the 4.

00:10:04   Well, they probably don't want to admit that the 3 existed.

00:10:06   I have the 3. I like the 3.

00:10:09   Ah, it's not that bad. I agree. I have—well, actually,

00:10:11   Aaron's using it now, and it's really not that bad.

00:10:14   It's great. I mean, I really like the 3. The 3 is the one brief moment where Apple

00:10:19   decided to—the thing they wouldn't move, the thing they wouldn't budge on was battery life,

00:10:25   and so they made the thing thicker. And I wish they would do that with phones and laptops.

00:10:30   - Well, we'll see.

00:10:32   Laptops I wouldn't hold my breath on.

00:10:34   Phones, I still hold out hope that

00:10:37   if there is a bigger iPhone this year,

00:10:38   and I think there will be,

00:10:40   that that might also come with a,

00:10:42   I was on the talk show a while back

00:10:44   and I mentioned this to Gruber that like,

00:10:46   I feel like if they do a big phone

00:10:48   that might give them permission,

00:10:50   if they keep a small one in the lineup,

00:10:51   the small one can be the one

00:10:53   that keeps getting smaller and thinner,

00:10:55   and the bigger one can have a little bit more permission

00:10:58   to be a little bit thicker

00:10:59   and therefore have not only a bigger battery

00:11:01   but a nicer camera sensor,

00:11:02   'cause the camera sensor is really limited

00:11:03   very hard by thickness.

00:11:05   There's so much more you could do with quality

00:11:08   and image quality and things like

00:11:10   optical image stabilization and better focus,

00:11:12   possibly even a slight zoom capability

00:11:15   if you could get a little more depth on the phone.

00:11:18   So I would love if they,

00:11:20   obviously Apple's never gonna make that their only model,

00:11:23   but if they have a bigger iPhone that,

00:11:26   they'll keep the small one around

00:11:27   for the nice marketing shots

00:11:29   people who want super thin, super small, but then they can have this bigger one for people

00:11:32   who want the better camera and bigger battery.

00:11:35   When I was listening to that episode, I felt like reminding you and reaching the podcast

00:11:39   that the iPod Touch, my thing, has a camera that is not flush with the back. It sticks

00:11:44   out. So that's kind of what happens. If they just keep going thinner, they're like, "Well,

00:11:47   you can't go too thin because we got to have the camera." It's like, "Screw the camera.

00:11:50   We're going thinner. The camera will poke out. Deal with it."

00:11:53   I'm kind of surprised that they're still selling the iPod Touch.

00:11:56   Tell me about it.

00:12:01   It seems like it doesn't sell that well, and they don't care that much about it.

00:12:05   It's a kid's device, though.

00:12:06   It's like a "my first iOS device," because you can buy it for your kid, you don't have

00:12:09   to worry about cell phone stuff, they can still play their iOS games.

00:12:12   I think kids want them, based on talking to my children's friends and my little cousins

00:12:17   and stuff, if they can have an iPhone, which is of course what they really want.

00:12:20   But if they're too young for an iPhone, an iPod Touch is the thing that they want.

00:12:25   They aspired to have an iPhone when they're a cool teenager in high school or whatever,

00:12:29   but if they can't have that now, an iPod Touch is the next best thing.

00:12:32   You don't think the iPad Mini has filled that role?

00:12:36   Not among the kids that I've seen.

00:12:37   I don't think, I haven't even seen an iPad Mini in the wild amongst the young kids yet.

00:12:44   Maybe, I think that might be too big to give a kid or maybe, I don't know, too expensive,

00:12:49   too breakable.

00:12:50   iPod Touches are much cheaper.

00:12:52   It would be nice if they revised it every once in a while, but what can you do?

00:12:55   Yeah, I agree with you though, Jon.

00:12:58   My sister-in-law who was in high school, for the longest time until she somewhat recently

00:13:04   got an Android phone when I wasn't paying attention, she was using an iPod Touch in

00:13:09   addition to either a flip phone or one of those phones with the slide out so you can

00:13:14   type on a full QWERTY keyboard.

00:13:16   Well, anyway, so she was using her iPod Touch as her kind of smartphone.

00:13:21   let me rephrase, let me start this over. She was John Syracuse and had an ancient non-smartphone

00:13:26   and then used her iPod Touch for doing smart things. And she loved it. And the way she

00:13:33   spoke about it, it struck me as though that was a normal thing amongst her peer group

00:13:36   if they didn't already have iPhones or Android phones or whatever.

00:13:39   Jared: Yeah, and for the big phone that we think is coming this year, I'm pretty sure

00:13:47   that they're going to be like, "We don't need to make it thicker. We get all this extra area,"

00:13:51   because they will. They'll get a bigger battery because the phone is bigger length and width-wise,

00:13:55   and they won't make it thicker or higher. So I would imagine it'll be the same thickness

00:14:01   as the 5. And I think they're not above having the camera stick out a little bit like it does

00:14:07   in the iPod Touch or perhaps even more, because I think unless they change the whole design to

00:14:11   to be designed around this, I think that Apple absolutely does not want to bulge. All of

00:14:16   the Android phones that you see out there, or even the Nokia ones, when they want a bigger

00:14:23   camera, they're like, "We will smoothly raise up some kind of lump," or it'll be like a

00:14:27   lump with little ramps on the side, or some kind of organic bulge-type shape. And Apple

00:14:34   could come up with a rounded bulging design, kind of like the E-Mate, if people remember

00:14:39   would that look like or even the toilet bowl iMacs or any of those things.

00:14:43   It's not out of the realm of possibility that you go with something curved.

00:14:46   In fact, every time I think of an iPhone 6, I think of something that's curved and tapered

00:14:49   on the edges.

00:14:50   But that's just, you know, yes, I actually have dreams about the shape of the iPhone

00:14:53   6.

00:14:54   That is not a prediction.

00:14:57   That's just when I wake up having a dream where I saw the iPhone 6, it was curved.

00:15:02   Anyway, whatever.

00:15:03   You don't even buy iPhones, though.

00:15:04   Why are you dreaming about it?

00:15:05   I have dreams about it.

00:15:07   Who knows?

00:15:08   You can't control what you dream about.

00:15:09   Hey wait, so is this the year for an iPhone for you?

00:15:12   Oh, I don't know.

00:15:13   But can I take a bet on no?

00:15:16   Yeah, stranger things have happened.

00:15:19   But if they stick with the current design trends, that means flat, and if they're going

00:15:22   to have the camera stick out, it will be a completely flat surface with a cylinder that

00:15:25   sticks out from it.

00:15:26   And really, that's not that bad.

00:15:28   I mean, I guess if it sticks out too much, you can get hung up on stuff.

00:15:30   But especially since so many people put cases on them anyway, all that does is make the

00:15:34   camera flush with the case or close to being flush with the case.

00:15:37   and that's actually not that bad,

00:15:39   and maybe it would help hold the case in place

00:15:41   to keep it from sliding, I don't know.

00:15:43   I think Apple has options there.

00:15:45   I think that, I hope the bigger one has better battery life

00:15:50   just because the battery's bigger,

00:15:51   but then of course it'll also have a bigger screen

00:15:52   and all that stuff, but yeah,

00:15:55   what you're thinking of, Marco, of like,

00:15:56   and you can actually make the big one thicker

00:15:58   because we have the small one to fill it.

00:15:59   That, that all gets back to what you were talking about

00:16:01   with John on the talk show.

00:16:03   They can have two phones, they can have one,

00:16:05   can—every possibility has a good argument for it would be something that Apple would do. You know,

00:16:10   none of them can you just rule out and say, "Well, Apple would never do that," because all of them

00:16:13   have really good reasons behind them. So it's just—we just have to wait and see.

00:16:16   Tom: So I have a somewhat related question. One of the things that bothers me about a caseless

00:16:24   iPhone is a probably all-in-my-head fear that I'm going to scratch the lens of the camera.

00:16:33   And I wonder if the current research or—I guess they're actually not even researching—they're

00:16:41   building a plant to handle sapphire, is that correct?

00:16:43   - It's already sapphire on the current phone. And that's not the lens of the phone,

00:16:48   that's just the clear thing that covers the lens of the phone. So if you've got a scratch on that,

00:16:54   I'm not even sure optically whether that would show up in your pictures, but even if it would,

00:16:59   That's not like that that part of the phone assembly does not bend the light as far as I know it is purely there to protect the lens that does bend the light so I'd imagine they could replace it for you reasonably inexpensively.

00:17:10   Well and also optically because of where it is in the optical path. It would have to be a really bad scratch to show any kind of flaws in your photos.

00:17:19   Because if you think about it, like if you hold something very close to your eye and

00:17:23   you're focusing on something very far away, you know, it's like holding up a fishing

00:17:26   line an inch in front of your eye and focusing on something 10 feet away.

00:17:30   Like, you're not going to see that fishing line, or you're going to barely see it.

00:17:34   So it has to be a pretty large problem on that surface to be visible in the photos.

00:17:40   So what I'm driving at, though, so whatever it is, be it a lens or otherwise, that's

00:17:44   the outermost piece of the camera assembly,

00:17:49   would it make sense,

00:17:50   and I don't know anything about photography,

00:17:52   but would it make sense for that to be like Sapphire

00:17:53   or something very, very hard,

00:17:55   so that if they hypothetically had a bulge

00:17:57   for this camera assembly,

00:17:59   that maybe some of the marketing spiel could be,

00:18:01   oh, don't worry, Casey Liss,

00:18:03   this won't scratch because it's Sapphire,

00:18:05   and so don't worry your pretty little face,

00:18:08   you're gonna be all right.

00:18:09   - But it already is Sapphire.

00:18:11   - So it is Sapphire now?

00:18:12   - Yeah, on the 5S.

00:18:14   I thought that, so wait, what is,

00:18:16   I thought the Sapphire was for the Touch ID.

00:18:18   - Is it both?

00:18:19   It's definitely for the camera.

00:18:20   The Touch ID home buttons, I think it might also be,

00:18:23   and that's, I assume with the Sapphire plant

00:18:25   they're building, you know, a lot of people

00:18:26   have speculated that they might be going

00:18:28   for an entire Sapphire-covered screen

00:18:30   to replace that glass.

00:18:32   I have doubts about whether they can make enough of it

00:18:35   to make that happen this year.

00:18:37   I'm guessing probably not, because that's,

00:18:40   like, if you think about the amount of iPhones

00:18:42   are made every year, that's a lot of sapphire. And what we heard when the iPhone 5S first

00:18:50   came out, when it was pretty supply constrained, I believe the prevailing wisdom on that was

00:18:55   that it was related to touch ID supplies. And if that's the case, then you can bet

00:19:02   that there's only so much involved in touch ID, the sapphire might have been the limitation.

00:19:08   And real-time follow-up for me from me, it is indeed on both the home button and the

00:19:13   iSight camera as per their website.

00:19:16   If Touch ID is going to go on all their devices, then they're going to need way more Sapphire.

00:19:21   And so you don't need something like, "Oh, they're going to cover the screens with Sapphire."

00:19:24   You just need to say, "Oh, well Touch ID will spread from...

00:19:27   It won't just be on the high-end phones anymore.

00:19:28   It'll be on all sorts of things, iPads, the mid-range phones, and so you're going to need

00:19:32   a lot more Sapphire just for that."

00:19:34   So that makes sense.

00:19:35   Right.

00:19:36   you can look at what they did last fall with the product line between iPhone and iPad,

00:19:42   and the A7 and pretty much every benefit of the iPhone 5s went into both iPads as well,

00:19:50   except Touch ID. I don't know if the M7 made it in, but that's less relevant than

00:19:54   an iPad. But Touch ID was an obvious thing they left out there, and it was kind of questionable

00:19:59   why they left it out, and I think supply constraints make a lot of sense for that. And yeah, certainly

00:20:04   John, I agree that if they're bulking up Sapphire production, it really could just be for more

00:20:09   touch ID sensors.

00:20:10   I don't think Sapphire would make that great of a screen covering either, because it's

00:20:15   not just hardness that you're after, like scratch resistance. Like Gorilla Glass has

00:20:18   — you see the little demos where they're like bended and show that it withstands bending

00:20:22   and is strong in other ways besides just being scratch resistant. And I'm not sure if Sapphire

00:20:27   has the same durability characteristics as Gorilla Glass and might be more fragile. I

00:20:35   don't know. It's someone who knows better about the relative material abilities of Sapphire

00:20:42   and Gorilla Glass, I'd say. But it's definitely a different thing. So I wouldn't just say,

00:20:45   "Well, they say it's better and they say it's harder. Therefore, we should cover the whole

00:20:48   screen in it." Maybe not.

00:20:50   Maybe this will finally be the year of the rollable flexible phone.

00:20:54   Who could the flexible phone? Did LG have the flexible phone? Did you see that one?

00:20:58   Someone actually made one? We had curved phones.

00:21:01   No, yeah, all right. So it's curved, and they show it like in the little demo video, they

00:21:04   show it sitting on a table, and it curves up like a little, you know, it's like concave,

00:21:08   and a finger comes down and presses it, and so it goes from curved to be flat against

00:21:11   the table. Like that's more or less how much flex it has. I think it was LG, I don't remember

00:21:15   which. But anyway, that amount of flex makes me wonder what the point is. It also makes

00:21:20   me wonder, how much can you flex? You just want to grab it and go, if I keep flexing,

00:21:24   What happens? It's like those glass—you remember when those indestructible glasses

00:21:28   came out in the '80s where you could take the thing and wrap them around your fingers

00:21:32   and they would come back to shape, right? A flexible phone just invites some idiot to

00:21:35   try to see how far it's going to flex, and I guarantee you at a certain point it will

00:21:38   stop flexing and you'll be sad.

00:21:40   I wonder, too, this is one of those things that people always fantasize about, and there's

00:21:46   always some prototype flexible something or other at CES that no one ever makes after

00:21:50   that. And I wonder, what is the use case for that? What use is a slightly flexible phone

00:21:58   but that you can't fold in half and make a lot smaller?

00:22:01   Yeah, it's the incremental step. The idea of things that are flexible is like, they're

00:22:06   as durable as things that are flexible. They're as durable as, you know, you can't break

00:22:11   it. All you can do is bend it and it springs back to its original shape. So it's a durability

00:22:15   type thing. And a little bit of flex is maybe a step along the way to extremely flexible

00:22:20   The thing is called the LG Flex.

00:22:21   If you Google for it, you find pictures of it.

00:22:24   - Oh, what a clever name.

00:22:25   - Well, it is LG, what do you expect?

00:22:26   (laughing)

00:22:28   - All right, we are also sponsored this week

00:22:30   by a new sponsor to us, as far as I know,

00:22:33   but a very, very old sponsor to podcasts.

00:22:36   It's our friends at Smile.

00:22:38   Now, you've probably heard of at least one Smile,

00:22:42   formerly Smile Software, at least one Smile product.

00:22:46   And I use a lot myself, actually.

00:22:48   So this week we're gonna talk to you about TextExpander.

00:22:52   If you've ever heard of podcast,

00:22:53   you already know what this does,

00:22:54   but just in case, we're gonna tell you anyway,

00:22:56   so it's really cool.

00:22:57   TextExpander saves you time and effort

00:23:00   by expanding short abbreviations

00:23:01   into frequently used text and pictures.

00:23:04   So they tell you all sorts of stuff it can do.

00:23:07   So they say, for example,

00:23:09   you can do your email signature,

00:23:11   you can automatically type a couple of characters,

00:23:14   say like EMS or something,

00:23:15   and that'll expand into your entire email signature.

00:23:18   You can have standard responses to emails or whatever.

00:23:22   And you can even define form fields within those responses.

00:23:25   So you can say like, all right,

00:23:26   when I type in X, Y, Z or whatever,

00:23:28   fill in my default response,

00:23:29   but then there's like these form fields

00:23:31   and you can like tab into them and type someone's name

00:23:34   or type like a reason or something like that.

00:23:36   Like you can customize each one

00:23:38   based on how you define the thing.

00:23:40   So it's a very, very powerful tool to take tech shortcuts

00:23:44   and expand them into whatever the heck you want.

00:23:47   This is one of those tools that like our friends

00:23:49   Merlin and Brett Terpstra, they love these kind of tools

00:23:51   because you can customize the crap out of this.

00:23:54   Like you can do so much with this kind of thing.

00:23:58   So you can create snippets from Apple scripts

00:24:00   and Shell scripts.

00:24:02   You can sync your snippets via Dropbox.

00:24:04   You can use them on multiple devices.

00:24:05   There's even TextExpander Touch on iOS.

00:24:09   So normally TextExpander is a Mac product.

00:24:10   There's even the iOS version and it works as an API

00:24:14   other apps can integrate. And over 45 apps on iOS 7 so far have integrated TextExpander

00:24:20   support. So when you're typing into one of their text fields, you can use your shared

00:24:24   snippets and it all works. Really, really great. Dropbox Sync, awesome. So go to Smilesoftware.com/ATP

00:24:34   to learn more about this. It's hard to really cram into this ad read everything TextExpander

00:24:41   can do. Think of it as expand keyboard shortcuts into predefined things, but with so much power

00:24:47   behind that and so many options and so many ways you can do that, that it's really quite

00:24:51   incredible. And this is one of the reasons why I've never heard a text-dependent ad read

00:24:55   on anyone else's show that was shorter than like 15 minutes long. But go check it out.

00:25:01   Smilesoftware.com/ATP. Also, if it helps, Smile is just run by really, really good people.

00:25:08   been around forever making Mac and iOS software. Really, they make good stuff and they're

00:25:13   good people. So check them out. Smilesoftware.com/ATP. Thanks a lot for sponsoring our show.

00:25:19   The Tireless Chat Room has done a research for us and found a link that has information

00:25:23   about sapphire versus Gorilla Glass. Apparently, sapphire is 1.6 times heavier and Gorilla

00:25:28   Glass can take 2.5 times more pressure than sapphire can. And there's other things as

00:25:33   well about light transmission and how much energy it takes to manufacture it and other

00:25:39   things. So anyway, it's a different material. A lot of the stats given in this—this is

00:25:42   an interview with someone from Grilly Glass, so obviously they're going to tell you all

00:25:45   the things that are horrible about sapphire. Like, you know, how much energy it takes to

00:25:49   manufacture it and how much it costs, all those things you could change, but the materials,

00:25:53   attributes of it might be more difficult to change. So yeah, maybe don't look for a sapphire

00:25:57   screen on the iPhone 6, but definitely look for Sapphire camera covers and touch ID thingies.

00:26:04   Touch ID thingies. Is that a technical term? Touch ID surfaces?

00:26:09   I just closed the tab. There is, I think, an official term for it, but that's all right.

00:26:14   What else is going on? Do we want to talk about this book that came out about how Apple

00:26:19   is haunted by the ghost of Steve Jobs? I really don't have much to say about it, but I felt

00:26:23   like we should at least briefly recognize it, and it sounds like everyone that I know

00:26:28   that's read it says it's pretty bad.

00:26:30   Jared: See, that's the problem. Everyone thinks they should recognize it. Everyone

00:26:33   thinks they have to comment on it, and I recognize by going on this rant I'm commenting on

00:26:37   it and therefore being a hypocrite, but let me get through this. The fact is, you can

00:26:41   say anything you want about anything. Like, the whole point of this book is to get mentioned

00:26:46   and become a controversy and get discussed so that everyone goes out and reads it. That's

00:26:52   whole point. And by lending credence to what is clearly, from almost all of the reviews,

00:26:58   what is clearly a pretty terrible book based upon a presupposed argument that really is

00:27:03   not supported at all in the book and by the facts, it just seems like this is a cheap

00:27:12   trick to get attention and to get book sales. And we're all falling into it by talking

00:27:16   about it, and by linking to the book, and by even taking it as credible, by even the

00:27:22   suggestion that we need to defend ourselves or to defend our position, or that Apple needed

00:27:27   to respond to it, or anything like that. Like, why does anyone even need to be talking about

00:27:31   this?

00:27:32   Well, I mean, the circles we travel in, there are a couple different strains that are working

00:27:36   against this. One is that any book that ends up being critical of Apple—if you read mostly

00:27:40   Apple-centric sites, people who are Apple fans are going to say, "This book that says

00:27:44   bad things about Apple is wrong because, let me tell you why all the things they say are

00:27:47   wrong, because I like Apple and I think Apple is good and they're saying Apple is bad

00:27:50   and they're going to fight.

00:27:51   So you expect to see that type of feedback.

00:27:55   The other thing is that so few people have any access at all to Apple, so the content

00:27:59   of the book is sure to be filled with like, you know, the example I wrote to make fun

00:28:04   of was like, "We found Tim Cook's childhood typing teacher," because that's the only

00:28:08   person you can get access to.

00:28:10   You can't talk to the people who know anything.

00:28:12   You have to talk to people who left Apple years and years ago or who were fired and

00:28:18   are disgruntled.

00:28:19   You just don't have access to the real things.

00:28:21   You have second and third-hand information, and the first-hand stuff you have is just

00:28:24   barely relevant.

00:28:25   So it could be argued that even if there was a case to be made that Apple is a haunted

00:28:30   empire and there's all these problems or whatever, you wouldn't have access to enough

00:28:36   people or facts to actually support your case.

00:28:40   And that's why when people read this they say, "Okay, the whole story is that Apple

00:28:43   has big problems, and that story…"

00:28:47   People assume this author, Yukari Kane, went in with that premise ahead of time, like,

00:28:53   "I'm going to write a book about why Apple's doomed and started from that premise and just

00:28:56   found supporting stuff for it," but couldn't find enough supporting facts.

00:29:01   It could be that she went in just trying to write a story about it, and the few supporting

00:29:07   fact she found, so that's the only theme I can sort of tease out of all this information, mostly from

00:29:11   second and third hand information, and I need something that's like dramatic, and the two things

00:29:17   you can have are dramatic are like, you know, the Steve Jobs 2 era story, which is Apple rising from

00:29:22   the ashes. That's one kind of dramatic. And once they've risen from the ashes, the only other

00:29:26   dramatic story left is watching them fall. So I don't know, like everyone who says, who is

00:29:32   familiar with the author before reading the book, says that she was a good reporter and did a lot of

00:29:36   of good stories. So I'm not entirely willing to go full cynical and say she was writing

00:29:41   like a hatchet job and just trying to gin up controversy. It could be that this is where

00:29:48   the scant facts that she had led her, but it just doesn't sound like it's a very—I

00:29:52   didn't read it so I can't say it—but it just doesn't sound like it's a very

00:29:54   well-supported argument within the book. And also every single time I see her name, which

00:29:59   is "Yukari Kane," which I have to stare at every time I say it, what I read in my

00:30:03   head as Weyland Yutani, but neither one of you knows what that is. And Weyland Yutani

00:30:07   is not spelled in any way like Yukari Kane, but my eyes transpose the Y and the K and

00:30:12   I get Weyland Yutani. So anyway, that's all I have to say about that book, I think.

00:30:16   Well, I feel like there's two things that I want to pick on here. One is that you say,

00:30:21   "Well, she's a reporter." That doesn't mean anything. Reporters span the spectrum.

00:30:30   if she—I don't know anything about it—but even if she's been a reporter for a long

00:30:33   time.

00:30:34   But people said her reporting was good. Like, her stories were good. Like, they weren't

00:30:36   trashy stories. They look like they're well-researched stories and insightful and so on. Again, I'm

00:30:41   going from what other people said because I don't remember seeing her byline anywhere,

00:30:44   so I don't know.

00:30:45   I mean, if you've ever—and this comes up frequently in the tech domain, I would

00:30:49   imagine—if you ever read a story, like in the New York Times, about technology, and

00:30:55   you see, like, these are legitimate journalists supposedly writing about this, and then you

00:30:59   see 60% of it as wrong or bad or misleading or somehow poorly done.

00:31:08   With this, the fact that she's a reporter doesn't really mean anything. To me, reporters,

00:31:13   while they are good ones, the average is pretty bad. Especially these days, the average is,

00:31:18   I'd say, really bad. So just being a reporter alone, even if you've done it for a long time,

00:31:22   and even if some people think you're a good reporter, that doesn't necessarily mean you're

00:31:26   qualified to write a book about a tech company, especially one as secretive and controversial

00:31:31   as this. Second of all, who cares if it's a book? If this was published as a series

00:31:36   of blog posts that all ended with, "Well, by the way, Steve Jobs' ghost is looking

00:31:40   over them and they're doomed." If this was a blog and every post was trying to cram

00:31:46   badly supported facts into a predefined narrative and not doing a very good job of even doing

00:31:52   that, would we give any credibility to it? Would we even be talking about it? And the

00:31:58   answer is probably no. Now, we are talking about this because it's a book, because

00:32:02   culturally we put value on books. We say, "Oh, well, a book is a big deal," because

00:32:08   they had to spend months on it and some publisher had to pick it up and everything. But the

00:32:14   fact is books are just as bad as everything else. And there's tons of horrible books

00:32:18   being published all the time. The publisher published this book because they knew it would

00:32:22   sell. They did their job properly in this case. They knew this book would sell. They

00:32:26   didn't care whether it's going to be good or accurate. They don't need to care about

00:32:30   that. All they need to care about is will this book sell? And pretty clearly, they bet

00:32:35   correctly on that. That doesn't mean it's good and that doesn't mean that anybody

00:32:38   needs to talk about it. It certainly doesn't mean that the burden is on us to somehow prove

00:32:44   to the world that this book is stupid or that we need to ignore it. The fact is, books are

00:32:52   just as fallible as everything else and have roughly the same quality average as everything

00:32:56   else. I think the jury's still out though on the theme of the book, like ignoring the content of

00:33:01   the book and how well the theme is supported. This is the right time for a book about how Apple may

00:33:05   be in decline, right? Because we don't know if it's in decline yet. It's too soon to say,

00:33:09   everyone's still waiting on, you know, whatever Apple's going to do next or whatever. So if you're

00:33:12   going to write a book about how Apple's decline, you better do it before they come out with

00:33:17   whatever big whiz-bang thing that could go gangbusters. And you also say, Apple never

00:33:22   comes out with something or they come out with a brand new product and bet the whole company on

00:33:25   it, it's a flop. If you then write a book about Apple's decline, you have to wait longer. You have

00:33:29   to wait for the postmortem because you don't seem like you're insightful, right? So a book about how

00:33:33   just based on the title, if you just pitched Haunted Empire, Apple after Steve Jobs,

00:33:38   you could pitch that to a publisher. This is the right time for that book. It just doesn't appear

00:33:42   to be a good book based around that title, right? But that is, like you said, the publisher is going

00:33:46   going to say, "Yes, we would love a book like that. We would love a good book like

00:33:49   that, but if we can't get a good book like that, we'll take whatever book we can get,

00:33:52   because now is the time for that book." And if Apple does go down the tubes, like, people

00:33:57   are going to be citing this book, it's like, "See, everyone said that book was terrible,

00:34:00   but she saw it coming, and maybe she didn't see it coming." It just doesn't seem like

00:34:04   if you make an argument and you don't support it well, and you're sort of self-contradictory

00:34:08   and get a bunch of things wrong and don't have good access, even if your theme turns

00:34:11   out to be right later, I don't think you get credit for correctly predicting anything.

00:34:14   And I think the jury is out, and we are all waiting to see what Apple does next.

00:34:18   So this is definitely the time for this apparently very bad book.

00:34:23   One of the things that I've wondered about myself after hearing all the hubbub about

00:34:28   this book is, am I capable—and actually, are we capable—of being critical of Apple?

00:34:35   And perhaps I'm just filling in the blanks to make my argument with myself sound okay

00:34:41   and end the way I want it to.

00:34:42   But I feel like the three of us have been fairly critical of Apple.

00:34:46   We've lamented their services division pretty much since the show started.

00:34:52   We've been complaining, or I believe we complained about how little storage is in the devices,

00:34:56   how little storage you get in their services.

00:34:59   So I don't think that any of us are incapable of being upset with Apple or disagreeing with

00:35:05   Apple.

00:35:06   But I don't know, it's something I worry about.

00:35:10   That I don't want to be just a shill.

00:35:12   if I am a shill for Apple, I want to at least know it, admit it to myself, and then admit

00:35:17   it to everyone that listens. And I don't think we're there yet.

00:35:21   JE: Worrying about whether I'm capable of being critical of something is not something

00:35:24   that keeps me going. When Marco before mentioned about journalists and how the average is pretty

00:35:31   low and they get things wrong, I was reminded of that—was it Time magazine? It was something

00:35:38   like the Times of London or something, and then the story was reprinted in Time. But

00:35:41   Anyway, the whole big deal was like—

00:35:42   Look at the Johnny Ive thing.

00:35:44   Yeah.

00:35:45   Finally, we have access to an interview with Johnny Ive, which he—it's true.

00:35:50   He so rarely does interviews, and he decides to do an interview, not because it was a product

00:35:54   introduction or anything, but it's like, "Hey, here's Johnny Ive.

00:35:57   You want to talk to him?"

00:35:58   And then you read the interview, and A, it's clear that the person doing the interview

00:36:02   doesn't really understand Apple, Johnny Ive, or technology, which is a shame because

00:36:05   it's kind of like the Walter Isaacson situation, but writ small.

00:36:08   Do you have any opinions on that, John?

00:36:11   Yeah, I mean, that's speaking of this haunted empire book.

00:36:15   Like I've just been ignoring it because I knew it was gonna be no good and like I don't

00:36:18   I'm unlike the Walter Isaacson's book.

00:36:20   I don't have to read it because it's not like this is the one person who had special exclusive

00:36:24   access to someone who's now dead.

00:36:25   That is not the case with haunted empire.

00:36:27   But anyway, this Johnny Ive interview is like the person who did the interview read the

00:36:32   Leander what's his last name?

00:36:34   Anyway, his Johnny Ive book also suffers from not having a ton of access, but he did the legwork,

00:36:42   and he got as much access as he could to his people as close as Johnny Ive as he could. And

00:36:46   there was a lot of new and good information in there. Even if you could tell, it's like,

00:36:49   boy, he really didn't get as much time as I'm sure he would have wanted with Johnny Ive himself

00:36:54   and with Apple. But what can you do? But the Johnny Ive book, I would recommend reading,

00:36:57   even if you can totally tell that it suffers from a lack of access. But that's not the author's

00:37:01   fault. But the interviewer read that book, summarized it third grade book report style,

00:37:06   and then asked Johnny Ive three dumb questions and wrote his answers. And that's their super

00:37:10   exclusive interview. It's like, seriously? I mean, maybe if you haven't read that book,

00:37:15   you might think, "Oh, this is some new information here." It's all just from the book. Like,

00:37:19   I don't know if he got it from Johnny Ive himself, but he's just summarizing the book. And then the

00:37:22   questions he asked Johnny Ive were just like the same questions he's answered a million times.

00:37:26   And it just wasn't interesting. It was such a squandered opportunity. Not squandered, again,

00:37:30   in the same way that Walter Isaacson squandered it because Johnny Ive isn't dead and because he's done

00:37:34   other interviews and so on and so forth and he was not designated as the one, you know, person who's

00:37:39   going to write the definitive autobiography of Johnny Ive, but boy that was a bummer of an

00:37:44   interview. Well, I love that the one thing that they grilled Johnny Ive on was "What do you do

00:37:52   with your old iPhones?" Who cares? What do you think is going to happen? The hermetically sealed

00:37:57   operating system, whatever the hell that means. I think he was trying to get it like that

00:38:00   you can't change the batteries or they're built in obsolescence.

00:38:03   Jared "Seth" Johnson Oh, they actually said planned obsolescence.

00:38:05   John "Seth" Johnson Yeah, like, you know, the connectors that

00:38:09   are always changing. I made a tweet about it. I'm like, I just bought this 30 pin connector

00:38:14   barely a decade ago and now you're going to change it on me? Like, you've got to be kidding me.

00:38:18   It's clear that he just didn't understand the market. He's like Googled for people angry at

00:38:22   Apple and found like non-replaceable batteries, people complained about lightning connector,

00:38:26   And it's like those are not the thing seriously of all the things that Apple has done that are very Apple like that piss people off

00:38:32   Changing from a 30 pin connector to lightning after like a decade and a half or however the hell long the 30 pin connector was

00:38:38   Around that is not one of the Apple things to do like that's not one of the they do lots of things like that

00:38:42   Soldering the RAM sealing in the batteries, but they've had two connectors in the entire lifetime this thing

00:38:47   seriously

00:38:49   That article was super disappointing and that's an example of someone wrote a good post about this

00:38:54   I wish I could find it where they were like

00:38:56   Trying to be nice.

00:38:57   They're like, "Look, publications out there, when Apple gives you exclusive access to one

00:39:02   of their employees, don't send dunces to interview them."

00:39:05   Like is it so hard to find somebody who knows something about Apple to send them to?

00:39:10   Like how do these people get picked?

00:39:11   And the person in the article is like trying to take pains to say, "I'm not saying you

00:39:14   should have sent me or like my friends, but like seriously, you have these opportunities.

00:39:19   It can't be that hard to find somebody who knows something who is also a competent interviewer

00:39:23   and send them.

00:39:24   it always—why is it always people who have no idea what they're talking about?

00:39:28   Well, maybe the answer is because—maybe Apple agrees to do these kinds of interviews

00:39:35   knowing that the questions are not going to really be anything real or difficult, like

00:39:39   knowing that it's going to be a complete BS interview. Maybe Apple wouldn't agree

00:39:45   to a published interview from you because they would know that you'd actually ask

00:39:49   good questions that would be difficult.

00:39:52   But old style Apple PR would try to pick the person, but these days they seem to pick the

00:39:56   publication.

00:39:58   I don't think they picked this guy to interview.

00:40:00   I think they offered up Johnny Ive to the publication, and the publication picked the

00:40:03   reporter.

00:40:05   These people who they send the dunces, they're worse because they're trying to press Johnny

00:40:09   Ive on things that are no longer controversies or never really were about replaceable batteries

00:40:15   is not hot in the news now.

00:40:16   That's not what you want to lean on Johnny Ive about is your tough questions or her medically

00:40:20   sealed operating system.

00:40:21   He doesn't even know what he's getting at, but past controversies are things that aren't

00:40:27   relevant.

00:40:29   Having Johnny, I have to try to parse those questions and deflect.

00:40:34   That's a waste of his time.

00:40:35   I don't think Apple would choose that either.

00:40:36   It's not like they're just getting softballs.

00:40:38   These guys are coming in like, "I'm going to be tough," and asking the tough questions,

00:40:40   but the tough questions are nonsensical.

00:40:42   Johnny's like, "I think I understand what you're getting at, but didn't we—that controversy—you

00:40:46   want to talk to me about Antennagate?

00:40:48   What are we talking about here?"

00:40:49   He didn't ask about Antennagate, but it's the same type of thing.

00:40:53   It's as if they sent some cub reporter to lean on Johnny Ivey about Antennagate.

00:40:57   That would be about as useful and as insightful as the interview that they did.

00:41:02   Yeah, the interview was not that impressive to me at all.

00:41:05   I was disappointed.

00:41:07   But let it be known, news publications of the world, that if you need someone to interview

00:41:11   an Apple employee, John Syracuse is available.

00:41:13   You just have to pay for his flight.

00:41:15   I'm a terrible interviewer, but I'll at least know what I'm talking about.

00:41:18   (laughing)

00:41:20   Oh goodness.

00:41:21   - We are also sponsored this week

00:41:23   by our friends at Squarespace,

00:41:25   the all-in-one platform that makes it fast and easy,

00:41:28   Mike Hurley, to create your own professional website

00:41:30   or online portfolio.

00:41:32   For a free trial and 10% off,

00:41:34   go to squarespace.com and use offer code critical.

00:41:37   Squarespace is constantly improving their platform

00:41:40   with new features, new designs, and even better support.

00:41:44   They have beautiful designs to start with

00:41:46   and all the style options you need

00:41:47   to create a unique website for you or your business.

00:41:50   They have over 20 highly customizable templates

00:41:53   for you to choose from,

00:41:54   and these templates have won numerous awards

00:41:56   from prestigious institutions,

00:41:58   and editing these is incredibly easy.

00:42:00   You can do code injection all the way up to

00:42:03   full GUI type editing.

00:42:05   You have tons of power here, it's really, really great.

00:42:08   Also, every one of these themes comes

00:42:10   with a responsive design.

00:42:11   So your site looks, it looks like your site on mobile,

00:42:15   all the way up to a giant 30 inch monitor if you have one.

00:42:18   Really, it looks the same everywhere, nice,

00:42:20   or rather it has the same theme everywhere.

00:42:22   It looks in the same style everywhere,

00:42:24   so it's not just like one generic mobile theme,

00:42:26   they apply to everything.

00:42:27   Really, really great system they have here,

00:42:29   fully responsive.

00:42:31   In case you have any problems with this,

00:42:32   or if you need any help with this,

00:42:34   they have over 70 employees working full time

00:42:36   in their support department right here in New York City.

00:42:39   They work 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

00:42:41   And even they have won numerous awards.

00:42:44   All of this at Squarespace starts at just $8 a month,

00:42:46   and that includes a free domain

00:42:48   if you sign up for a whole year up front.

00:42:50   So you can start a free trial today.

00:42:51   This is a real free trial, no credit card required.

00:42:54   You can literally just start a free trial.

00:42:56   You don't have to think about worrying about canceling it

00:42:59   before they bill you or anything like that.

00:43:01   No credit card required just to get your free trial.

00:43:03   Go start today.

00:43:04   Squarespace.com, use offer code critical.

00:43:07   Thanks a lot to Squarespace

00:43:08   for sponsoring our show once again.

00:43:10   - You gave me time to find the article.

00:43:13   was Jeff Carlson, who in the title of his post was "Why do big magazines hire hacks

00:43:16   for big tech stories?" So I put that, we'll put that in the show notes and the link to

00:43:20   the actual interview and a link to Leander Cuny's "Johnny Ive" book, which like I

00:43:25   said, suffers from a lack of access, but I would still recommend people reading because

00:43:28   there are, there is information that was new to me in that book.

00:43:31   All right, so Sony released some virtual reality headset thing.

00:43:37   Incorrect. They didn't release anything.

00:43:40   announced. You can tell how much I care about video games and know about this topic.

00:43:45   Yeah, well, did you see this at all in your isolation bubble, Marco? Your jury duty isolation

00:43:50   bubble?

00:43:51   No, I think I saw one tweet talking about it, but it's at lunch during my very quick

00:43:56   time, but unfortunately during my quick time at lunch I have to actually eat lunch, and

00:44:00   so there's actually not a lot of time to browse the internet that much. So yeah, all I saw

00:44:05   always that they are apparently making one or working on one. And I thought it was funny

00:44:10   because it seems like VR headsets are being worked on roughly every three to five years

00:44:16   by somebody new, and they never seem to really get anywhere. I know there's the Oculus Rift,

00:44:22   is that the other one? I know that one, that was getting some traction, but...

00:44:26   This is coming to a head though, because like, it's not, this is not a regular cycle type

00:44:30   thing. This is more like, there's been people who have dabbled before and there was like

00:44:34   the first brief feints in this direction in the '90s with these terrible things that

00:44:38   you'd see at video arcades and parties. But it went away for a long time because we just

00:44:42   learned that stuff doesn't work. And Oculus has been bringing it back in a big way. And

00:44:49   the rumors of Sony doing it were also bringing it back. It's like, well, Oculus is this—I

00:44:54   think they were a Kickstarter originally. It's like, they're doing this thing and

00:44:57   it seems really cool, but who knows what's really there? And then John Carmack went to

00:45:01   to work for Oculus and left id Software and that was a big deal. It's like, oh my god,

00:45:04   well if he's going there, he's no dummy. He's not going to be like joining up in this company

00:45:08   that really has no, they must have something. And people have tried it. They've tried the

00:45:12   dev kits. They've said it's interesting and impressive. They have the second version of

00:45:15   the dev kit, which is way better than the first. And when a technology actually looks

00:45:18   like it's getting going, that's what you get. Like the first one is like, there's something

00:45:22   there, but this isn't great. And the second one is way better. And then the rumors of

00:45:25   Sony doing it, it's like, okay, well if Sony's looking at it, this isn't just a crazy research

00:45:28   product. Because Sony wants to sell things to use with your PlayStation. They don't want some weird

00:45:33   thing that's not practical in the real world. So at GDC, I haven't read a lot about the story yet.

00:45:39   I've mostly only read the headlines, but I know the highlights. At GDC, the Game Developers

00:45:42   Conference, Sony announced that they're going to have some kind of headset thing, and they showed

00:45:48   their history. They've been working on this thing for years and years, and they show all the various

00:45:51   old prototypes. And this is not a shipping product yet. There's no pricing or availability, I don't

00:45:55   think, but they have announced their intention to have a shipping product. So now I think that's

00:45:59   now you kind of have a quorum. It's like Oculus was going to ship their thing anyway, and like,

00:46:03   it's the real deal as far as people are concerned. People are actually playing games in it,

00:46:07   whether it would be amazing or fun or a revolution in gaming or not, it was going to be a real

00:46:12   product. But once Sony does it, it's like, okay, this is real, real. Like, I mean, the Kinect,

00:46:15   for all you may say, that's like useless for games or silly or only fun for certain things.

00:46:22   Microsoft shipped it. They shipped the Kinect, they revised it, they made it better, they shipped the Kinect 2, it's part of Xbox One.

00:46:27   It is a real thing that's out there in the mass market, and it seems like VR is very soon going to be a real thing that's out there in the mass market.

00:46:33   And we'll see if it's more successful than the Kinect has been.

00:46:37   But I think this topic is fascinating, mostly because of the technology problems that are involved in doing VR.

00:46:45   And I've been reading about it for several years with Michael Abrash, who now works at

00:46:50   Valve, who's also been working on the same problem.

00:46:53   And he is a previous development partner of John Carmack.

00:46:56   They worked together on Quake, I believe, and maybe something before that as well.

00:47:00   And there are tons of problems with VR.

00:47:02   Because you think of it as like you put this thing on your head, and it's like a screen

00:47:06   close to your face, and it shows what you would see in a first-person shooter, and you're

00:47:09   done, right?

00:47:10   And that is so far from the truth, because if that's what it was, we would have had

00:47:14   it years ago. That doesn't work for tons and tons of reasons. So I put a huge number of links here

00:47:19   in the show notes. We'll try to put them up in roughly chronological order. Marco, if you don't

00:47:24   have anything to read during jury duty, I challenge you to get through even just the links in this

00:47:28   article that I put here because they're extremely tactical and in-depth. And by the time you're done

00:47:32   reading it, you'll be like, "Man, I don't want to implement the VR headset because that sounds

00:47:35   really hard." The problems are just so different when you have screens right up close to your face

00:47:41   and when the movement of your head has to affect the changes in view.

00:47:46   Because any sort of disconnect there, it just totally breaks the illusion.

00:47:50   Because when you turn your head, you better be looking to your side.

00:47:53   You can't have it catch up later. I mean, talk about motion sickness.

00:47:56   It's very difficult to even do simple things with screens that are shoved in your head.

00:48:02   And of course, it has to be two different screens because your right eye sees

00:48:04   something different than your left eye. So I think this is a real thing.

00:48:08   I would really love to try something like this, but I have not had an opportunity to try it.

00:48:12   But if Sony comes out with one, I will probably buy a PlayStation 4 and buy one of these crazy

00:48:18   things and sit in my living room looking like a crazy person with something on my head,

00:48:21   just to see what this is like. You have to take a picture of that.

00:48:26   Please. We'll get in touch with Tina. I'm not worried about it. Did you have a virtual

00:48:30   boy when those were a thing? I'm genuinely asking. That's not the same as VR. That was stationary,

00:48:35   but no, I didn't. Did anybody have a virtual boy?

00:48:37   Well, I didn't know if that was during the era in which you could have bought it for

00:48:41   yourself or anything like that.

00:48:43   I forget if you're just a little old or very old.

00:48:46   And I wouldn't have bought that for myself either.

00:48:47   You could always tell that one was a dud.

00:48:50   I just remember, and this is a true story, when I was a kid, I want to say this was like,

00:48:55   I don't know, my 10th birthday or something like that.

00:48:57   This was early 90s.

00:48:59   We were living, gosh, we were either living in Illinois or in Austin, Texas.

00:49:05   And I somehow convinced my parents to go to this like virtual reality arcade and I put

00:49:09   a link in the chat, we'll put it in the show notes, and it was like this god-awful

00:49:13   early 90s VR where you would like hold something, I think it was like a first-person shooter

00:49:19   sort of thing, where you hold something and you had this like-

00:49:21   Was there a pterodactyl?

00:49:22   I don't remember, but um-

00:49:24   There couldn't have been that many of these things.

00:49:26   Because it was like the same like VR demo that was in all like the little science centers

00:49:30   and everything in like 1993.

00:49:32   Yeah, and so I had a birthday party there where we basically played like a

00:49:37   Not bloody deathmatch game against each other and I remember, you know, I'm not a big guy

00:49:43   but I remember trying to put this

00:49:45   Massive helmet on my head and barely being able to lift my damn neck because the thing weighed like 20 pounds and oh my gosh

00:49:53   It was so rudimentary and so awful, but at the time I thought it was amazing

00:49:58   I couldn't believe my eyes and I couldn't believe what I was doing. It was incredible.

00:50:03   What those things always felt like and the reason they sucked and went away very quickly

00:50:06   is they felt like you were using your head. It felt like you don't have someone who's like

00:50:10   disabled in a wheelchair in some way and they can't use their limbs. So they have lots of

00:50:14   controls for their head because they do have neck control where you can hit a button with the side

00:50:18   of your head. It feels like you're using your head to operate the controls of a first person shooter.

00:50:23   It does not feel like you are looking around in a virtual world because the lag was so horrendous

00:50:28   They would just be like it would be like, you know, you'd be sending sending instructions via telegram to

00:50:33   Another room who would then move the mouse on your first-person shooter

00:50:38   and of course the resolution was low and the frame rate was terrible, but if

00:50:41   Some of the if you read all these articles or the technical challenges

00:50:44   Some of them are actually interesting because they're related to television challenges as well

00:50:47   Like they're using obviously LCD screens in front of your eyeballs because you're not gonna put CRT's there

00:50:51   Although it'd be really cool in a steampunk kind of way.

00:50:54   And LCDs, what we mostly do with them

00:50:57   on our displays and our desks is they display an image.

00:51:00   And they're lit up all the time, essentially.

00:51:02   And you change the image, and the pixels change from one

00:51:04   thing to another.

00:51:05   But during the time in between the image is changing,

00:51:08   the old image is there the whole time,

00:51:10   and then it switches to the new image.

00:51:12   And that turns out to be very terrible for things

00:51:14   where you're turning your head.

00:51:16   But you start turning your head, and say the refresh rate is

00:51:18   like 60 frames a second, for 1/60 of a second, the picture hasn't changed yet.

00:51:23   You started moving your head. Your head is moving, but the picture is not changing.

00:51:26   And that's not the way it works in the real world. As soon as you start moving your head,

00:51:28   what you see in front of you changes. And it's actually bad for the image to sort of be there all the time.

00:51:33   And so one of the ways they've been combating this is with low persistence images,

00:51:38   where they will blink the image onto the screen for the smallest time possible,

00:51:42   then have the screen be black for most of that 60th of a second,

00:51:46   and then blink the next image, and blink the next image.

00:51:47   And you would say, "Wouldn't that be worse?

00:51:48   Wouldn't that be like flashing and blinking and gross?"

00:51:51   But that's how CRTs work.

00:51:53   They'd have an electron beam scanning up and down, and it does it so fast you can't

00:51:57   see the scanning, but it turns out that makes a big difference.

00:52:00   They're doing that in LCD televisions now as well, trying to get rid of the soap opera

00:52:04   effect and not have that motion blur and everything to say, "Let's strobe the backlight really

00:52:07   fast so it's black in between frames."

00:52:10   Because it's not that it's unnatural if the image is there.

00:52:13   It's just different technologies.

00:52:14   We're just used to CRTs and movie projectors where it shows one image and then there's

00:52:17   blanking interval and then it shows another one. With LCDs, televisions, and with these VR headsets,

00:52:23   it turns out to be better for perception to show an image, really bright image, one frame of it

00:52:29   really quickly for a tiny amount of time, make the screen black until the next image is ready,

00:52:33   and show the next image. And that turns out to be better because the way our visual system works is

00:52:37   not, like you read all these articles, it is not like, "Oh, it's like a camera that records what's

00:52:41   in front of us and sends the picture to our brain." Our visual system is all screwed up,

00:52:45   and lots of stuff happens in the brain and it is not as straightforward as you think it is

00:52:49   so you have to do all these hacks and tricks to work with the quirks of our visual system

00:52:54   to make something that doesn't make people sick, that feels realistic and that feels immersive

00:52:57   and that's what Oculus is doing, that's what people are excited about, it's like they're

00:53:00   actually starting to get those hacks right. I mean once they're figured out people in hindsight will

00:53:05   be like "oh you just got to do x, y, and z" but we're figuring it out now. When I think about this

00:53:10   I worry a little bit about Sony like the oculus guys have great. You know if John Carmack we're working on crowd

00:53:16   They're they're doing it right and Sony you're like

00:53:18   Maybe Sony just wants to be kind of in the me too Club and they're just gonna take two screens and slapped in front of

00:53:22   It our eyeballs and it's gonna not gonna take advantage of all the stuff that oculus knows

00:53:25   And that would be a bummer

00:53:28   And I think oculus is scared of that too as you would think oculus would be scared that so many things gonna be great

00:53:32   But one of the stories on polygon I read today

00:53:34   I agreed with I think was by Ben Kucher was saying that

00:53:37   Oculus wants the Sony VR thing to be awesome too because they don't want the Sony VR thing to come out everyone to try it

00:53:42   It to suck and then everyone to go oh VR sucks and then oculus comes out and they're like now we're ignoring you because we all

00:53:48   Know the VR sucks now like oculus wants VR to be a real thing and so Sony's thinking it up would be bad

00:53:54   But so far it seems like Sony they've been you know researching for a really long time

00:53:58   That they are not dummies

00:54:00   They're not just taking two

00:54:02   You know to PSP or to PlayStation Vita screens shoving in front of our eyeballs and calling it a day there

00:54:07   They look like they're doing the hard work as well. No no no they're putting trinitrons in front of your eyeballs

00:54:11   I'm calling it a day. That would be cool

00:54:13   It would also solve the persistence problems low persistence screen images yeah nice and easy

00:54:19   See problem solved you're welcome might cause a few other problems though like you know neck pain

00:54:24   That was one of the points they made at the Sony one is Sony highlighted the fact that their headset does not rest on

00:54:30   your nose or like, doesn't rest on your nose or maybe they even said also on your forehead

00:54:35   like because that's one of the fatiguing things if you want to put this, I mean they're not

00:54:38   that heavy but they're heavy enough, they're heavier than glasses for you know and if they

00:54:41   rest on your nose and you use them for a while it'll make like your neck and your, the bridge

00:54:45   of your nose hurt after a while and so the Sony one uses kind of like a sort of a ring

00:54:50   around your head kind of like a visor type cap and then it hangs the picture, the screens

00:54:54   down in front of your eyes so it shows that they are thinking about the practical real

00:54:58   real world problems. Oh, and also they're open on the bottom so they don't fog up inside

00:55:01   if you get all sweaty.

00:55:03   Cool.

00:55:05   This is probably the opposite of cool, but I would be excited to try it. To answer the

00:55:09   question in the chatroom, like I said, no, I have not tried the Oculus Rift, any version.

00:55:12   I haven't tried this on anyone either. I would be willing to try either one of those things

00:55:15   when I get a chance.

00:55:17   Okay. Anything else going on?

00:55:19   I wish there was other stuff going on.

00:55:22   This was actually a slow week.

00:55:24   I put the GitHub hubbub in there.

00:55:26   That's a valid title too.

00:55:29   - I do not know enough about that to comment on.

00:55:32   - Yeah, see, that's the thing.

00:55:33   I've tried to read up as much as I can on it,

00:55:36   but I just feel like there's no facts

00:55:39   in the press at the moment,

00:55:42   if you could, or the blogosphere or whatever.

00:55:45   And so I don't think it would be appropriate

00:55:47   to comment on the particular situation.

00:55:50   and speaking of things that—controversial things we could go down, or maybe not controversial,

00:55:55   it's a poor choice of words, but speaking of things I'm not sure I want to touch because

00:55:58   it's going to piss off the world no matter how eloquently we handle it, it's, you know,

00:56:01   whether or not men in our field treat women poorly. I think the answer is yes,

00:56:08   and I think it's terrible, but I don't know if I really want to go down that path.

00:56:12   John: Well, I don't think there's anything about the specific case that—it's not like we need to

00:56:16   go in depth about the details of it. But the larger issue, I think, is worth discussing.

00:56:21   If we don't take the opportunity to discuss this issue when something happens related to it,

00:56:27   basically in our little circles of the blogs and Twitter feeds that we read,

00:56:31   then we're just never going to talk about it. If it remains one of those things that everyone's

00:56:36   uncomfortable with and we just never say anything about, and we just want to ignore it until it goes

00:56:40   away or blows over or don't want to follow it, then I feel like things won't get better.

00:56:46   I think it's worth us discussing in general, if not in this specific case.

00:56:50   I'll say one thing about this specific case, and then we can talk about the general issue if you

00:56:55   guys aren't still too afraid. In this specific case, when something like this comes up,

00:57:02   there's always the, "Well, all we've got is one person's side," or "We've got the other person's

00:57:09   side," or it's one person's word against another, or people pick sides and websites in one way

00:57:15   One website is on this side, and one website is on that side, and the whole website starts

00:57:19   fighting with each other, and people fight in the comments and stuff like that.

00:57:23   And even without knowing any of the details, though, one of the things that comes up in

00:57:28   a lot of cases, including one that I'm not going to bring up, but that everyone should

00:57:30   know what I'm referring to, that people like to take the rules that apply in Marco's jury

00:57:36   duty and apply them to life and say, "Well, if there's any reasonable doubt, we can't

00:57:40   convict."

00:57:41   You know what I mean?

00:57:42   It has to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

00:57:44   So innocent until proven guilty, that's how we must think about these things always.

00:57:51   And that's true in the law, because there's consequences in law, like you go to jail.

00:57:54   So for criminal cases, the bar is high because we don't want to send people to jail when

00:58:00   they didn't do it, like we're trying to avoid.

00:58:03   But just having an opinion, your opinion doesn't send anyone to jail.

00:58:07   And so I think we should be more free to have an opinion based on, you know, just whatever

00:58:14   other criteria we think are reasonable because we're not saying we're sure. We're not saying

00:58:17   this person should go to jail or whatever. We're just saying, like, if I had to put money on it,

00:58:21   like, if you think about that, we put the Vegas odds of, you know, what this is. And when I see

00:58:25   a story like this and I see all the hate going back and forth, the Vegas odds on—in this type

00:58:32   of situation where a woman feels wronged by an employer, the Vegas odds are she was wronged by

00:58:38   an employer because it happens all the time. Like, if I had to put money on it, I would say the money

00:58:43   is on that the woman telling her first-person account of having a bad experience at work

00:58:48   is telling the truth. Because that's almost always how it is. And it doesn't mean like,

00:58:51   "Oh, that's why you should just convict them all." That's not the criteria you can use to actually

00:58:54   convict someone or to say with certain someone, "GitHub is bad" or good or whatever. But if I

00:58:59   had to put money on it, that's what I would put money on. And people are even afraid to make that

00:59:03   assertion because they're like, "Well, you don't know, and you just got one side." All that is true,

00:59:07   but I think it's fine to kind of like get a feel for how you think things are going to turn out.

00:59:13   because you're not saying for sure, you're not condemning anybody, you're not pointing a finger at some specific person at GitHub and saying they're a bad person,

00:59:19   you're just saying, "From a distance, I feel like when this thing comes out, and all the laundry is finally aired, and if it does go to court or whatever,

00:59:27   that when the truth finally comes out and everyone kind of agrees by consensus of what the truth is, what will come out is that the woman was wronged."

00:59:34   Because it just happens so often that that's the safe bet.

00:59:37   And the fact that we can't even say that without saying, "Well, you're just prejudice against

00:59:42   GitHub now, and you're condemning them without a fair trial, blah, blah, blah."

00:59:47   It doesn't seem like that's just another stopgap against, "If you say anything, you need to

00:59:52   have 100% proof, otherwise you're a bad person, and it's just he said versus she said, and

00:59:57   we shouldn't discuss it at all."

00:59:59   So that bothers me about all these types of cases, because I think it's okay to have a

01:00:05   reasonable, like, expectation of how it might turn out, because you're not, you know,

01:00:09   you're not making any decisions and you're not saying anything with certainty. But anyway,

01:00:13   that's how I feel about this specific issue in this specific case.

01:00:17   Yeah, and it's—you're right in saying that we should talk about it. I think the

01:00:21   thing that scares me is I want to handle it delicately, and given that our audience, all

01:00:29   of who/whom I love very dearly tends to be a bunch of pedants, and God forbid I make

01:00:35   one mis—God forbid I say one thing incorrectly.

01:00:39   Isn't it pedant?

01:00:40   Didn't we figure that out?

01:00:41   There you go.

01:00:42   Who—what do you mean, "figured it out"?

01:00:44   Who started the pedant thing?

01:00:45   It sounds like a grouperism.

01:00:46   I think it is.

01:00:47   We gotta stop it.

01:00:48   Everyone knows it's pedant.

01:00:49   Yeah.

01:00:50   Well, either way.

01:00:51   There is no better word to mispronounce in the English language than that.

01:00:55   Yep, so, perfect.

01:00:56   Anyway, so I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about it.

01:00:58   I just want to make sure that I, if not all of us, handle it delicately, and I'm a little

01:01:04   scared that I won't.

01:01:06   But you shouldn't be, because people who condemn people who are misspeaking—everyone

01:01:10   misspeaks.

01:01:11   We do it all the time.

01:01:12   And if you misspeak on a sensitive subject, it's no more intentional than when you misspeak

01:01:16   saying someone's name or saying the name of a product or technology, just because the

01:01:21   topic becomes so incredibly charged that you're worried if you accidentally say the wrong

01:01:25   word that people from one side or the other are going to condemn you.

01:01:28   And they shouldn't.

01:01:29   We all make honest mistakes, we all misspeak, it happens, like, it's how you react to

01:01:33   that.

01:01:34   Like, because it is a charge issue, you may suddenly get all defensive or whatever, and

01:01:36   that's, you know, where you wouldn't get all defensive if you misspoke about, like,

01:01:39   the price of a product or something on a podcast.

01:01:42   Sure.

01:01:43   But no, it's interesting because I—so take my company, for example.

01:01:50   We have, I don't know, maybe 10 developers, I would say, roughly.

01:01:56   And of all of them, we have one young lady that is a tester and is part of our same group

01:02:07   in the org chart, but I don't believe we have any developers. And that's really,

01:02:12   it's really not a good thing, and it really bums me out. And I don't think it's deliberate

01:02:17   on any of our parts. We're a fairly progressive company. I think we would certainly love to

01:02:22   have more women developers. I mean, being 50/50 or whatever the planetary ratio is,

01:02:28   60/40 or whatever, would be awesome. But as it turns out, our particular group is almost

01:02:34   exclusively a bunch of dudes. And I wish that wasn't the case. And I have not worked with

01:02:39   very many women developers in my entire career, which is around about 10 years now. And I

01:02:46   I don't like it. It's no good. But it's, I mean, even in school, I barely saw any women engineers.

01:02:54   And I don't know why that is. I don't know if it's a social or societal thing, or at least in America, but I wish that wasn't the case.

01:03:04   And so the things that, what is it, Jean McDonald that is doing AppCamp? I totally got that wrong. Do you know what I'm talking about?

01:03:13   AppCamp for girls, right?

01:03:14   Okay, okay. I did get that right. Like I think that's awesome. And I'm really stoked and

01:03:19   hopeful that that really makes a difference, and I think it will. I don't know, like Marco,

01:03:24   have you worked with a lot of women?

01:03:25   As developers, I think the number might be zero. I went to school with a few, although

01:03:31   the ratio there was pretty terrible as well. Yeah, I'm thinking back, I'm pretty sure

01:03:37   I've never worked with a female developer. And that's, I mean, that's, you know, this

01:03:40   This is one of the reasons why I don't usually talk about

01:03:45   controversies like this that always seem to come up

01:03:49   in our tech world recently is because I completely agree

01:03:53   that it is a problem, but I really don't know how to fix it.

01:03:56   I'm gonna just try to do my best to be conscientious

01:04:01   in the decisions I make in the limited capacity I can.

01:04:06   I've never even been in a position

01:04:08   where I was able to hire somebody.

01:04:10   I've never made a hiring decision before.

01:04:12   Even at Tumblr, I wasn't allowed to make hiring decisions.

01:04:15   So I think that's one of the areas, obviously,

01:04:19   where you could focus a lot on that is hiring,

01:04:22   and then if you're a boss over any people,

01:04:24   if you're a supervisor, then that's relevant there as well.

01:04:28   I've never been in this position,

01:04:29   so I really don't know the issue that well,

01:04:33   or I don't know really what it would take to fix it.

01:04:36   I do agree, Casey, that I have been in a position

01:04:40   where I was at least able to look over

01:04:44   and help interview applicants for jobs before.

01:04:48   And thinking back, I don't think there was even ever a case

01:04:52   where a woman even applied to the point

01:04:56   where I was even able to see her resume

01:04:57   or interview her to a position.

01:04:59   But my sample size there is very, very small.

01:05:01   I was only involved in a handful of those kind of things.

01:05:05   But there's definitely problems in our industry

01:05:09   with both the hiring of women and then the treatment

01:05:12   of them once they get hired and the treatment of women in,

01:05:15   I mean, and this is not limited to the tech industry.

01:05:18   This is a problem culturally, worldwide in most places,

01:05:23   which is really terrible, but I don't know how to solve

01:05:27   that problem besides the limited bit I can do from where I am

01:05:31   as far as I know, which is when things like AppCam

01:05:35   for girls come around, I can try to support those things

01:05:38   And if I'm ever given a chance to make a hiring decision,

01:05:42   then to ignore gender when I make that decision.

01:05:44   Besides that, I don't really know what else I can do.

01:05:49   And if there are major things I could do,

01:05:52   I'd love to hear about that.

01:05:55   When App Chem for Girls came out, it got a lot of support

01:05:57   because I think a lot of people didn't know what to do.

01:06:00   And that was something that was very clear.

01:06:01   Like this could help.

01:06:03   In a small way, this could help.

01:06:05   So let's support that and supporting that could help.

01:06:09   I would like to have more opportunities

01:06:11   from people who know more about this

01:06:12   and who are better suited to even know

01:06:16   how to address these kind of things,

01:06:17   which I'm admittedly not.

01:06:20   I would love to know what else,

01:06:23   men who are programmers like us,

01:06:27   what else we can do to address this?

01:06:30   How else can we help?

01:06:32   - Here's something I've heard from people

01:06:33   have worked with a lot of women and have been like, "Well, I work with women, and everything

01:06:42   seems to be fine here, and I don't see any problems." And the idea there is if you are

01:06:51   a nice person and if you hang out with other nice people, if someone is being a jerk somewhere,

01:06:57   you might not see that because there's the whole culture of women trying to keep their heads down

01:07:02   and not make a big fuss about these things. And so, it could very well be that you are working

01:07:06   in a company with a bunch of women who you treat perfectly fine, but who nevertheless get terrible

01:07:11   treatment from others and just don't say anything about it. And you're not aware of that because

01:07:14   they don't say anything about it. It doesn't apply to any of us. Well, I mean, I suppose it could

01:07:17   apply to me, but for you two who are not working with a lot of women, that's not going to come up.

01:07:22   But when I think about things we can do, it's like, even if you're not in this situation,

01:07:27   if you just read enough about it to know what the pathologies are, to know, like, yes, it is possible

01:07:32   for you, a nice person, to be working alongside women who are being terribly treated and you

01:07:36   not know it because they don't feel confident in confiding in you because they don't complain

01:07:40   about it. And so like you don't even, this is like, oh, well, you could support women who have

01:07:44   these problems or whatever. It's like, you can't support them if you don't know what's happening.

01:07:47   So that's like step one, be aware of what you might not even know. Like you might not even know

01:07:51   that these things are happening. And this is not, by the way, when I think about the GitHub thing,

01:07:54   this is a specific case with a possible gender slant, but jerky bosses are everywhere. And those

01:08:00   those I have experienced. And jerky bosses can be jerks. They tend to be jerks to everybody.

01:08:06   And it's a similar type of situation where maybe someone is getting sort of harassed

01:08:10   or emotionally abused by their boss, by their boss's spouse, by anybody else. Regardless

01:08:14   of what gender they are, people have terrible bosses and terrible work relationships. And

01:08:19   some people hide it because they feel like, I mean, men and women who like, if someone

01:08:23   is treating them very badly at a job and they don't want to say anything because it looks

01:08:26   like they're weak or they don't feel like they don't have a way out, and you may be

01:08:29   working alongside them and not even know it. That's another reason I believe these things,

01:08:33   because toxic work relationships between superior and subordinate work relationships that are toxic

01:08:40   are just everywhere. And I have experienced those, and I've seen them firsthand, secondhand,

01:08:44   and heard about them from others. They're worse when gender is involved, but even if gender is

01:08:49   not involved, it happens so much. The anti-pattern of give somebody a little bit of power and have

01:08:57   them have any sort of imbalance and they start abusing that power and taking it out on the

01:09:00   people below them and just so many bad things happen in companies because of that. And if

01:09:06   you're not aware of it, because if it's not happening to you, you might not see it. And

01:09:10   so that I think would be like the first step that any of us could take is be aware that

01:09:14   this could be a thing that's happening even if you're not part of it. And I don't know

01:09:17   what you do about that. But I guess I guess being aware is the first step. And the second

01:09:21   one is, you know, supporting people or any situations, again, regardless of gender or

01:09:25   And I guess the third is, don't work for companies like that.

01:09:29   Like, don't start a company like that, don't be a company like that, don't be a boss like that,

01:09:33   but also don't work for companies like that.

01:09:35   Because the problem is when, like, even if all these things are true about GitHub,

01:09:39   I'm sure there's lots of good people who work there, and they like working at GitHub,

01:09:43   and maybe some of them are even tangentially aware of this thing, but it's like,

01:09:46   "But I like my job, and I don't want to realize that I work for a bunch of jerks.

01:09:50   If I quit, would that change it?

01:09:53   Do we collectively all go up and say we know somebody's being a jerk to somebody else

01:09:57   and they should fix it?

01:09:59   Silence is the worst thing that could happen here, because people just kind of keep their

01:10:02   head down and try not to think about it, and it doesn't really affect them, and maybe

01:10:05   it's not as bad as it seems to be.

01:10:07   And that's the worst thing that could happen.

01:10:08   That just maintains the status quo, and the status quo is crappy for a lot of people.

01:10:13   Do you work with a lot of women developers currently?

01:10:15   I do, surprisingly.

01:10:16   Most of my past jobs have—well, the first startup I worked at, I was the only programmer,

01:10:22   and I was male, so there you go there.

01:10:23   But the graphic designers were female, and then we hired another programmer who was female.

01:10:27   So I guess pretty good ratios there.

01:10:29   A couple of my other jobs have been more lopsided, where you expect it was either zero women

01:10:34   programmers, like one.

01:10:35   My current job, I don't think it's 50/50, but there's a lot of female programmers.

01:10:43   And the reason I brought this up about not knowing is, as far as I'm aware, they're

01:10:49   treated well.

01:10:50   But that doesn't mean there's something bad not happening that I don't know about,

01:10:53   and I'm constantly aware of that.

01:10:54   And even we all find ourselves—anyone who's our age—we'll find ourselves accidentally

01:11:00   doing or saying something sexist because essentially that's how we were raised.

01:11:03   That's the culture that we were raised in, and it's a struggle every day to try to

01:11:07   untrain yourself from these terrible things that were, you know, these expectations and

01:11:11   biases that we have. But no, our hiring definitely seems to not discriminate based on anything.

01:11:19   And female developers, as far as I'm concerned, as far as it seems to be all my coworkers concerned,

01:11:24   are not treated any differently than any other developer. But there could be bad things happening

01:11:30   somewhere that I don't know about. I really hope not. I haven't seen any of it, but I worry about

01:11:35   it sometimes. Because I read all... I mean, maybe it's like going to WebMD and finding out everything

01:11:40   cancer. You read all these stories, you're like, "Maybe that's happening in my company."

01:11:43   And like I said, I have been at companies where bosses have been jerks, like all, you know,

01:11:46   gender not involved at all, but just terrible, terrible situations between people and groups

01:11:51   of people. And I also don't see that in my current job, but I'm always looking for it.

01:11:56   Yeah, it's a very tough thing. And I'm sitting here thinking to myself, you know, let's suppose

01:12:02   that I start working with a female developer, and let's suppose she gets crapped on by either

01:12:08   a peer or a boss, and I don't think that that's technically justified. And when I

01:12:13   say technically, like, her code isn't good enough or something like that. And I think

01:12:16   that that's incorrect, that her code is fine. Like, do I have the cajones to say dude

01:12:22   or…

01:12:23   Cajones?

01:12:24   Oh, this is just a smorgasbord of pronunciation to that. Go ahead.

01:12:27   That was intentional that time.

01:12:29   I'm sure.

01:12:30   The pedantic whatever before was…

01:12:31   Allow it.

01:12:32   No, that one was intentional. The other one was not.

01:12:33   I love also that we're using a word for testicles while talking about sexist problems.

01:12:38   That's so true.

01:12:40   Well, he was saying if he had the—yes, I know.

01:12:42   Anyway, go ahead.

01:12:43   No, that's a fair point.

01:12:44   But yeah, you know what I mean?

01:12:45   Like, what I have the gumption to say, "Dude or lady or whoever, boss person," is, "You

01:12:52   know, that's not cool.

01:12:53   That's not right."

01:12:54   I don't know that I would, and I'm not proud of that.

01:12:56   I'm not saying that because I'm excited about it.

01:12:58   I just—I don't know.

01:12:59   I'm very non-confrontational.

01:13:00   confrontational. That's another thing that keeps people from saying anything, because they're like,

01:13:04   but by doing that, it's like, you know, am I infantilizing them by making it sound like they

01:13:12   can't defend themselves and coming to their rescue, which is also a sexist thing. And so,

01:13:15   well-meaning people are paralyzed by the fear that they're going to do something wrong. And

01:13:19   sometimes they would have done something wrong, but doing nothing is almost worse. So you need

01:13:24   leeway on all sides. Everyone involved has to give everyone leeway. You have to understand that if

01:13:28   If you did something like that and really what you did was insulting and the person

01:13:32   didn't like it, judging yourself by your motivations, but other people by their actions,

01:13:40   they would see your action and condemn you for it, but you would judge yourself much

01:13:44   better because your motivations were pure.

01:13:46   So you need understanding all around to make the situation go better, not to condemn people

01:13:51   who are trying to do the right thing, but merely to explain to them what they could

01:13:56   have done differently or whatever but not say like that person is Casey's now

01:13:59   my enemy because he you know he spoke up and made it seem like I can't speak for

01:14:03   myself made the problem worse they should explain that to you that you know

01:14:06   what you did made me feel like I can't stand up for myself and diminished me in

01:14:09   the eyes of my peers but not say Casey is now my enemy and I'm gonna hate him

01:14:13   because it's clear that what you were trying to do was helping like that's

01:14:15   that but that goes around in circles like just look at some of the comments

01:14:19   threads and these things that just goes around and around and around and like a

01:14:22   a lot of times it's people who are on the same side fighting with each other about how best to help each other.

01:14:27   And that's one of the reasons why I don't usually join these discussions.

01:14:33   Because I have enough people sniping me from every possible angle with everything I write.

01:14:39   The last thing I need is to enter a discussion on a topic where it is so hot-button and there's...

01:14:45   And you're right, even in a discussion trying to defend women or condemn sexism, even in

01:14:57   a discussion like that, it's so easy to find flaws in that that themselves are sexist

01:15:06   or have some other problem.

01:15:07   And if you enter this extremely contentious discussion, you are taking a big risk, especially

01:15:17   if you're somebody like me who a lot of people love to hate.

01:15:22   And so to me it's not worth the risk of entering a discussion where I am so intimidated

01:15:28   to add anything to the discussion, and I also don't really think I have much constructive

01:15:32   to add.

01:15:34   And so there's not a whole lot of upside there for me, and there's a whole lot of downside,

01:15:39   because not only am I probably not really going to help anybody, but I'm also probably

01:15:45   going to make myself look unintentionally terrible.

01:15:48   Well, I'm not saying you have to write about anything you don't want to write about, but

01:15:51   one of the reasons you're probably going to unintentionally look terrible is because,

01:15:55   like I said, we all have these gender biases that are in us, and they are going to come

01:16:00   out unintentionally in what you write, and people are going to call you on it, and that's not going

01:16:04   to feel good, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong. It's difficult to react to it in

01:16:09   the right way, which again may be a reason you just choose not to write about it, which is a

01:16:12   perfectly valid choice. But sometimes I feel like at a certain point, if everybody does that, if

01:16:17   everybody's like, "Well, I know I have many internal biases, and if I try to speak about it in any way,

01:16:22   those biases will come out and people will call me on it and I'll feel bad, and I'll have difficulty

01:16:26   reacting in a nice way, therefore I'll say nothing." If everybody did that, that just continues

01:16:29   the status quo and like nothing gets better ever. And so like some people kind of have to

01:16:34   a) fall on your sword to just you know be willing to if that's something you feel like you want to

01:16:38   do and the second thing is by doing that by trying to say anything like we're trying to now

01:16:43   and inevitably like getting things wrong and revealing our own biases part of the process

01:16:52   of people yelling at you about that is making you more aware of them and working on them so that the

01:16:56   next time you don't make the same mistakes and you kind of like like you would hope that you

01:16:58   You would hope that you'd be improving yourself,

01:17:00   like you would be beating down your biases.

01:17:03   And I think even though I tend not to participate

01:17:04   in these things, I don't tweet about them really,

01:17:06   I don't participate in the comment sections,

01:17:08   but I read a ton of them.

01:17:09   And I think even just reading them

01:17:11   has made me much more aware of the things that I do

01:17:14   or think or say, or don't do or think or say,

01:17:17   that are making the situation worse

01:17:20   or that are upholding a corrupt system,

01:17:23   consciously or otherwise.

01:17:24   Like just by reading about them,

01:17:26   basically reading other people getting getting attacked from the things that they say like I'm not a participant but I'm seeing it happen and

01:17:31   What I'm coming away with is I might have said that same thing and I would have been just as wrong and I agree with this

01:17:36   person and I have to think about why that's the case and like I

01:17:39   That's I think that's a growing experience

01:17:41   I think that's one thing I get out of this that might be good is like

01:17:44   Exposure to this the masses being exposed to this even though the masses are not participating just like the few people who are yelling each

01:17:50   they're participating. Being exposed to this debate online, even in the terrible form that

01:17:56   it exists online, will hopefully help everyone who reads it to sort of move along the path towards

01:18:02   whatever they think their goal is. I guess it may be able to make the terrible people more terrible,

01:18:05   too, but I feel like in general it's going to help matters.

01:18:10   You know, something that Marco said a minute ago kind of struck me. You said you're intimidated

01:18:18   to join the discussion." And I think that was a verbatim quote, but if not, it was a spirit.

01:18:22   And I feel the same way, completely. But I can't help but sit here and think, "Well,

01:18:28   what kind of a wuss am I where I'm intimidated to join the discussion? I can't imagine how

01:18:34   intimidated I would be to be the recipient of this kind of BS treatment." You know? And I'm—I

01:18:40   completely agree. Like, I'm a little uncomfortable about talking about this because I don't want to

01:18:45   to come across as a sexist pig, and I fear that I may. And yet, at the same time, I'm

01:18:53   getting so worked up over what is really an innocuous conversation in the grand scheme

01:18:57   of things, I cannot fathom how uncomfortable I would be if my boss treated me like crap

01:19:01   simply because I'm a dude. I don't even want to think about it. It must be terrible.

01:19:08   All right. Good talk.

01:19:11   Thanks a lot to our three sponsors this week.

01:19:14   Can we end this at all in any better way than that?

01:19:17   I guess not. Alright, thanks a lot to our three sponsors this week

01:19:21   RAMObjects C#, SMILE, and Squarespace

01:19:25   and we will see you next week.

01:19:30   Now the show is over, they didn't even mean to begin

01:19:34   Cause it was accidental, oh it was accidental

01:19:39   John didn't do any research, Margo and Casey wouldn't let him,

01:19:45   'Cause it was accidental, it was accidental.

01:19:50   And you can find the show notes at ATP.FM

01:19:55   And if you're into Twitter, you can follow them

01:20:00   C-A-S-E-Y-L-I-S-S, so that's Casey Liss M-A-R-C-O-A-R-M

01:20:07   Auntie Marco Arment S-I-R-A-C

01:20:13   USA, Syracuse, it's accidental (accidental)

01:20:19   They didn't mean too accidental (accidental)

01:20:25   Tech podcast so long

01:20:30   So John, we can dodge this question if you want, but you had said, you know, you, you

01:20:34   saw some of your own wrongs in some of the things you read. Are there any examples you're

01:20:39   willing to share? Because I'm trying to think of, I know I think of things wrongly in many

01:20:46   ways, but I can't think of a specific example of where I know I'm wrong about something

01:20:49   or, or where I've read something lately and been like, Ooh, yeah, I've probably done that

01:20:54   Are there any examples you can think of where you've had that kind of reaction that you're

01:20:58   willing to share?

01:20:59   Well, the easy one is terminology.

01:21:01   All the words that we grew up using that are, "Oh, it's political correctness."

01:21:05   No, they're insulting.

01:21:06   They're insulting to use those anti-homosexual slurs that we all said when we were kids when

01:21:13   we didn't even know what that meant.

01:21:15   And you will see people defending their ability to say that.

01:21:19   But I don't mean it that way, because they grew up saying it, right?

01:21:21   like, that's one of those things that once you learn how offensive it is, your reaction shouldn't

01:21:26   be like to double down and be like, "Nope, I'm going to keep saying it because I know I'm not

01:21:30   homophobic and I don't mean it that way, therefore I'm going to keep saying it." That's not a mature

01:21:35   and appropriate response. And the same applies to women. I mean, I wonder if anyone will call you

01:21:40   out for referring to the woman who you work with as "young lady" because that's insulting because

01:21:44   it's implying she's, you know, inferior or like whatever. You know what I mean? Like—

01:21:48   Oh, God, I didn't even think of it. See, here it is. That's a perfect example, because I'm trying

01:21:53   to think of what in my screwed up brain is the least offensive and most innocent terminology

01:22:00   possible. Right. And it's just because what we were conditioned to do growing up, and that's not

01:22:05   an excuse. It's just an explanation. And so, the idea is to become aware of these things that we do

01:22:10   just out of habit and how they position the people who are on the receiving end of them. And seeing

01:22:16   other people called on it may make you think, "I say that a lot too, don't I? And I should

01:22:21   think of it as something else that I could substitute for that." And a lot of this you'll

01:22:26   see online is people like, "Oh, that's the political correctness police and these certain

01:22:29   words that you can't say," or whatever. And obviously you can take anything too extreme

01:22:33   and become ridiculous and call everybody "Gyno-Americans" instead of "women" because

01:22:37   "women" is insulting because it has "men" in the name. Obviously, you can go crazy with that.

01:22:44   Whatever people say like automatically because their parents said it because they said it when they were saying kids some people will just

01:22:50   Defend that to the death and they'll be like, nope. I gotta be able to say that forever

01:22:53   I'm I know how I mean it. I'm nice person. I'm not mean to women whatever

01:22:59   therefore you trying to make me not say that is impairing my freedom and it's political correctness gone awry and it's like

01:23:06   You know, that's that's not a fight worth having that is you're on the wrong side of that

01:23:12   It doesn't matter how you mean it.

01:23:16   You're working in a larger context here.

01:23:19   If everybody calls the women of the office "girls," and you just do that instinctively,

01:23:23   and you don't mean it in a bad way because you really like them, the thing is it has

01:23:26   an unconscious effect on you.

01:23:28   Because if you constantly refer to them as girls, even though if you think you don't

01:23:31   mean it, it will shape the way you think about them.

01:23:34   They are younger, they are children, but the men of the office run things, and the girls

01:23:38   in the office are just…

01:23:40   will shape your thinking just by saying the words, right? And so it's worth actually making

01:23:45   a concerted effort to change the way you speak about it, because it will change the way you

01:23:49   think about it. Not because someone's making you, not because they're taking away your freedom,

01:23:52   or because of political correctness. It's just basic self-improvement. I could think of many

01:23:58   more examples, and you can keep going out into farther and farther reaches with not just gender

01:24:03   issues, but homosexuality, and race, and everything else, everything that is some difference between

01:24:08   us like you can chase all these things down and inevitably in all of us there's something we're

01:24:13   doing that we could do better that is hurting these marginalized groups so what was the what

01:24:18   would you say was the proper term that I should have used women fair enough that's a fair answer

01:24:24   I don't know I for some reason I feel like but you shouldn't feel bad like you shouldn't it's not we

01:24:29   know you didn't mean anything by it but like this is one of those cases where it's yeah yeah the

01:24:33   macro just comes out of your head and like it's and the fact that you were second-guessing yourself

01:24:38   like that's how you get into the panic like oh what am I supposed to say because you're just

01:24:41   you know the pet you're ingrained you're used to saying something else so it takes actual concerted

01:24:44   effort to stop saying one thing and say something different and you're going to slip up and like you

01:24:49   just but it's like that's not a reason just to double down and say well I'm never going to try

01:24:53   to change myself at all I'm just going to always say the same thing forever and if you try to stop

01:24:56   stop me, you're bad."

01:24:57   I mean, that's what I think makes it so hard is because people who mean perfectly

01:25:04   well can so easily say something or think of something in a way that really isn't,

01:25:11   you know, perfectly fine or neutral as you intend it to be. You know? Like when I wrote

01:25:19   my review of Vesper, I used the word "balls" all over the place. It takes balls to do blah,

01:25:24   blah, blah, blah. And I got a few comments from people. Most of the comments I got on

01:25:31   the article were about, you know, "Of course I would write this because this is John Gruber's

01:25:36   app," and, you know, "Of course, Apple people all look out for each other. All you

01:25:39   got to do is write an app and you can charge $5 and if you're John Gruber, that's fine

01:25:43   for him." You know, that was most of my feedback, which of course is easy to disregard. But

01:25:48   I got, I think, one or two comments about how the word "balls" was kind of unintentionally

01:25:57   sexist because, like, that's "Well, only men have balls," you know? And it, that

01:26:02   made me think, and it, I didn't at the time think that it was worth rewriting the whole

01:26:08   article and let's not use the word "balls," but it definitely made me stop using it like

01:26:15   that in the future.

01:26:16   Well, see, when you say "unintentionally sexist," it's unintentional in that sexism and gender

01:26:21   relations were not in your mind when you wrote it, and of course it's a common saying that

01:26:24   we all know that we've probably been using all our lives, right? But that term, you're

01:26:29   not responsible for the sexism in that term, but the person who first came up with that

01:26:32   term, you could be damn sure that sexism was 100% part of that. They're trying to say,

01:26:36   "Men are tough, men are brave, men do things that are brave, so it takes balls." This organ

01:26:42   in males' bodies that women don't have, that really has nothing to do with toughness at all,

01:26:46   but nevertheless it's, you know, well men have it and women don't and women are wimpy,

01:26:50   that like it is a hundred percent a sexist term, but it's so ingrained in the culture that at a

01:26:54   certain point it just loses all that sexism and just becomes part of the background noise. But

01:26:58   that part of that background noise is, yes, it takes balls to whatever. And you see women co-opting

01:27:04   it and saying that they have balls and it just becomes a generic term or whatever, but what I

01:27:07   always think about that as like, "All right, so I didn't mean it that way, but it totally

01:27:12   does mean that. And does it hurt me to use a different term?" And it's the same analysis

01:27:17   you went through. It's like, "Maybe I'm not going to go back and rewrite the thing, but

01:27:23   like in the future, now maybe you'll think twice about it." Again, just participating

01:27:30   in these things. If your thing had comments on it, I'd saw people with those comments,

01:27:32   that would have gone into my head when I find myself having to say that. Like, you know,

01:27:37   it will make you think, "Well, it's no skin off my back to use a different term. There's plenty

01:27:41   of other clichés and analogies and words that I could use that mean the same thing.

01:27:46   Why don't I not use the one that is demeaning to women or excludes them from the realm of having

01:27:54   bravery?" You know what I mean? Right. And, you know, I think going back to my earlier question

01:27:58   of not really knowing what I really could do. I think that kind of stuff is a big part

01:28:03   of it. The kind of thing everybody can do is just the everyday basics of vocabulary

01:28:08   and perception and assumptions that we can get called out on occasionally and then question

01:28:13   and then edit ourselves to think about that in the future. To be like, "You know, actually,

01:28:20   that is unnecessarily exclusive or has unnecessary baggage and I could use this alternative instead

01:28:25   better. That, I think, is something that everybody can do. And unfortunately, these are the kind

01:28:31   of things that usually, day to day, most people won't get called out on things like this.

01:28:35   Well, the thing is, you're not going to call the people out on it now, but your grandchildren will

01:28:41   call those same people out on it. Because it's like now when we look back at TV shows from the

01:28:44   '50s, or even Mad Men. You just look at it like, "Oh, look how sexist they were." That's exactly

01:28:50   how we're going to look to people 50 years from now. It doesn't change. The amount of

01:28:54   sexism that we have to come back from is so massive that for millennia people are going

01:28:58   to look back three or four or five generations and go, "Oh, look how sexist they were." Like,

01:29:02   you can make a show about it. You know, Mad Men is part of Mad Men is seeing,

01:29:05   "Boy, can you believe we were ever like that? That was so long ago." Well, they're going to

01:29:08   say exactly the same things about us. And since we can't do that, since from our perspective,

01:29:13   you saying it takes balls, it's like, that's not in the front of your mind when you're doing it.

01:29:17   And no one else, almost no one else reading it had a thought in their head about like,

01:29:21   "Oh, that's a sexist thing to say." But in reality, it is. And 60, 70 years from now,

01:29:25   someone goes back and reads that blog post, "Look how casually sexist this guy was."

01:29:29   And optimistically speaking, they'll say that, right? And it's just a difference of perspective.

01:29:37   It takes time for that to be conditioned out of people. We need to stop saying it,

01:29:42   stop saying these things, make it unacceptable to say them amongst our friends. All the terrible

01:29:46   things that I and my friends said when we were little boys, we are stuck living with that.

01:29:50   that. Like, we have to work to get that out of our brains, but hopefully our children

01:29:54   will not do those things. They'll do different things that are bad, and, you know, we hope

01:29:59   that we're making progress. And I think we are, because if you always look back 50,

01:30:02   100, 200 years, like, people seem to get more terrible, more sort of like, just unevolved

01:30:10   and sexist and racist. Like, that's how it should be. As we go back in time, people

01:30:14   should look more and more terrible in terms of their practices. The enlightened bit is

01:30:18   realizing we are exactly—going to look exactly the same to people multiple generations from now.

01:30:24   And so, you know, just try to do the best you can. Try to go as far forward as you possibly can.

01:30:29   In fact, if you're not farther forward than most people that you're living with,

01:30:31   you're probably doing something wrong. >> JOSHUA GORDON: You're bordering right

01:30:35   on the fine line of politics, and that's scary. >> JEREMY SCAHILL-WILKINSON Right. That we won't

01:30:41   talk about. This is fine. >> MIKE FALWELL I think politics,

01:30:45   there's plenty of people on both sides of that. Whereas sexism—the reason we see this coming up

01:30:50   on the web and everything is, historically, there's just been so little voice to this.

01:30:55   It's just been in the background, and no one talks about it. And it's like, "Well, everything's

01:31:00   sexist, so what? You can do about it." Now I think more people speaking up and getting support from

01:31:06   other people, this is becoming more—it still amazes me when some company will—someone in

01:31:12   in their PR department will issue some terrible sexist statement. It's like, "Don't you read

01:31:15   the internet?" Even if you are a terrible sexist person, if your job is PR, don't you understand

01:31:20   that this is a thing? There's so little self-awareness. The worst offenders are the least

01:31:25   self-aware. I hope that increased communication of the internet and everything is spreading

01:31:32   awareness of this and improving matters across the board at an accelerated rate.

01:31:39   you guys weren't watching movies in the 80s and stuff like do you remember the movie working girl I

01:31:43   Know that it exists. I've never seen it. It was like Melanie Griffith and maybe Harrison Ford

01:31:49   I don't know. I'm getting this all wrong

01:31:50   But anyway, like they'd have these female empowerment movies in the 80s, but if you go back and watch them now

01:31:54   It's like this was the female empowerment movie. This is terrible. This is terribly sexist and it's just like

01:31:58   Insulting to women but it was like you go girl do some aerobics

01:32:02   You can have a job and wear a suit too and like and that was progress back then but like

01:32:07   You know, it's not even that long ago and you look at it now, it's like, you know, and I was feeling that like

01:32:12   because those type of movies were not subject to sort of the

01:32:17   you know

01:32:19   The feedback from the masses in real time in large volume like it was movie studios and they'd send it out to you know

01:32:24   Like it just we weren't all there to participate. So it seems like we couldn't we couldn't do sort of like the the the right

01:32:30   compile run

01:32:32   debug iterate whatever cycle you know what I mean like it that cycle is so much faster now with us

01:32:37   yelling a thing yelling at each other in real time about every little thing and even though that whole cycle seems silly and annoying and

01:32:43   Just like people want to ignore it or whatever. I think that cycle either the fact that the iteration is faster is

01:32:48   increasing the rate of improvement

01:32:51   All right good talk

01:32:54   That is a good talk. You know in yeah, I kind of I know you meant that genuinely

01:32:59   And I kind of regret hitting the brakes a little bit earlier

01:33:02   them. But it's just a field of landmines. And I don't know.

01:33:10   You should feel happy that—not happy, but you should be both disappointed and relieved

01:33:14   that I'm assuming—when I look at my Twitter followers, like the thing where you can look

01:33:19   at your analytics, what percentage of your Twitter followers are female, and almost none

01:33:24   of my Twitter followers are female.

01:33:25   Oh yeah, mine's like 96% men or something like that. I'm actually looking right now.

01:33:30   And I wonder about the listeners to this show.

01:33:33   Like, what their ratio—are their ratios similar to our follower counts?

01:33:39   What kind of feedback email do we get?

01:33:41   Are 50% of the people listening to this show women, but 90% of the feedback we get is from

01:33:45   men?

01:33:46   That seems unlikely, too.

01:33:47   So, yeah, that's another—that's a symptom.

01:33:51   The symptom of all the problems we just described.

01:33:53   I don't know.

01:33:55   Hopefully we won't get too much flak, but I would love to get some really good feedback

01:34:00   about it.

01:34:02   [ Silence ]