diff --git a/10 a11y mistakes to avoid_transcript.txt b/10 a11y mistakes to avoid_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..795544ba2dabaae0e969666b84f53c7d34175ea4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/10 a11y mistakes to avoid_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,393 @@
+**Emma Bostian:** What's up, party people? Long time no talk. Nick, how are you doing?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Oh, I'm good. Hoy-hoy.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Hoy-hoy! And today we're joined by my friend and co-worker Tryggvi. Would you like to introduce yourself, sir?
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Hi! My name is Tryggvi. Um... I work with Emma. \[laughter\] Yeah, I work at Spotify.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Everyone's gonna ask you either for a referral or for like dirt on me... So just close your DMs.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** And I have no control over the product roadmap at Spotify.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Fabulous! I'm so glad you can fix all the bugs from the general population. Super-excited that we're recording this episode; it's been a long time coming we've wanted to do this - actually, since last year - and I'm excited that we're talking about accessibility today. This is an evergreen topic, and it is an important topic, especially now -- well, I'd like to say "Now that we're in a new year", but it's March, and the year is like a third over, so... That's great.
+
+But today we're going to talk about ten accessibility mistakes to avoid in 2021. Hopefully you haven't been making these mistakes the first couple of months... But if you have, that's okay, we're here to help you out. And I'm excited that Tryggvi is here joining us, because Tryggvi - just give us a really quick rundown on the accessibility work you do at Spotify, because you're very much connected on that community.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Yeah, so I don't consider myself to be an accessibility expert by no means... But I kind of got into specializing a bit in web accessibility as a frontend engineer a couple of years ago. I saw the work that had been going on at Spotify when Shaun Bent, one of our co-workers, did some amazing work with putting a little dot underneath the Shuffle and Repeat icons, that kind of became a pretty famous example of nice little things you can do to improve accessibility... That made it clear if the button was on or not for people that have colorblindness \[unintelligible 00:04:18.10\]
+
+\[04:22\] And I just thought that was such a nice little gesture, and I started to looking into -- trying to learn a bit about voiceover and how the screen reader is working, and tried these things out on the desktop client we have... And it was really alarming how difficult it was to use. I guess that's what put me on the path to try to improve things on the desktop client and web player for us, and advocating for it internally, and just learning more and more along the way.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** That's great. I'm really happy that you could join us today. I say we just jump right in. Let's just talk about a few tips today for just making your applications usable by all people... Because at the end of the day, everyone should be able to accomplish the same tasks with your applications, regardless of their circumstance.
+
+So let's just jump in with number one, which is one that I have a lot of trouble not making this mistake... And that's using too much animation. I love animation. I like to make things pretty. But the reality of it is there are people in the world who prefer reduced motion, who -- I don't know... Yes, they prefer reduced motion, at the end of the day.
+
+Have y'all worked with this media query before, like prefers-reduced-motion? Nick, do you have any experience working with this one?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Very little. I really didn't even know that this was an accessibility concern until it was realized to me by going through the Apple iPhone settings, and knowing that there's ways to reduce motion in there... And I've seen people around me - my wife, for example, has reduced motion turned on on her phone, just because it kind of makes her a little bit seasick when she's pressing the Home button or swiping up and it's floating in and out... So that's what really turned me on to the idea that this is, because I really didn't know before that... And then I have seen this media query, but I can't say that I have used it too much.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Yeah, I feel the same way. I didn't really know that this was an issue, that people become dizzy; people with certain conditions or diseases can become dizzy if it's too much motion going on on the page. It makes total sense, but I had never thought about it until I kind of just learned about the media query. Now we try to use it. We recently added kind of like a scroll locked animation for the artist headers in the web player, and in the new desktop client that's coming up... And there we turned it off if you prefer reduced motion.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** It's funny, because I'll open pull requests for things, and Tryggvi will be like "You have to add this media query", and I'm like "Crap, you're right." I always forget. But I think we forget as well that animation is very disruptive, not only to people with disabilities where they prefer reduced motion, but for everyone. You need to be using your animations very intentionally, because it distracts your users. The general rule of thumb there is the further an element is moving across a plane, the slower the animation needs to be... Or the eye won't be able to track it.
+
+A good example of animation potentially that you wanna add is if you have a toast notification, like when you get a notification in the top-right of your screen - those are great. But again, some people just can't process it, it makes them feel sick, so it's important to add this "prefers reduced motion" media query.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** There's this really cool little snippet that I think Jen Simmons, if you know her, and some other people (I think) at Mozilla developed... You can turn off animations or make the duration really small if the user prefers reduced motion... Kind of like jump to the end of it. There's this GitHub repository called CSS Remedy, where there's this little script that you can drop into your client and it basically turns off transitions and animations under this media query, by just using importing, and stuff. Is there any place we can share stuff like this?
+
+**Emma Bostian:** \[08:22\] Why don't you throw it in the Slack channel?
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Okay, I will.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, throw it there, in the Slack channel. Also, all these resources will be linked in the show notes for anyone who is catching this when it is not live. Awesome. Yeah, so that's a big one.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I haven't looked at that, but I'm assuming - based on what you've said - that it's specifically keying in on animations as defined in your CSS. Maybe transitions, and things like that.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Correct. Exactly.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I know that this is not a great question, but is there a way to define what would be something that you want to reduce animation on? Emma, you mentioned if things are moving a lot, they have to slow down... So that's kind of an easy indicator, I think. But are there more subtle animations that you might want to really focus on when it comes to accessibility like this?
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I think it's really the ones that are moving location, right Tryggvi? If you have a slide-out navigation bar or a mobile nav, or if you have modals that animate in and out. I don't think changing the background color of a button is really going to impact accessibility... But then again, I'm not sure; maybe it does, and that's just me being uninformed about this. If I am wrong, please let me know; I would actually love to learn.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** But I would assume that the more motion, the more things are kind of like zooming in and out, and panning...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** ...that's probably like the worst \[unintelligible 00:09:39.11\] But I don't know.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Given the name of the media query, I'm not sure if it actually turn off all transitions or just geographic transitions, the ones that are physically moving. I'm not sure. Cool. So that's a big one that I definitely need to work on.
+
+Another one I find fascinating, because it is not just an accessibility mistake, but it is also a UX or user experience mistake... And this is not displaying related information at all stages of a checkout or a process. One example of this is if you're buying a flight. And I have made this mistake multiple times, and this is when I am paying absorbitant amounts of money, pre-Covid times when we could actually travel... And I check out and then I realize that I bought a flight for the wrong day. And that's because the web page did not list all of the flight details at every stage of checkout, or every stage of the form. This is terribly inaccessible for people with cognitive disabilities. So if you have someone with short-term memory loss, they won't be able to remember what they're doing, or the details of what they're trying to buy. I also have this issue. It's not just an accessibility issue, it's a UX issue, and it goes back to Jakob Nielsen's Ten Usability Heuristics. I'm gonna link that in the show notes as well. I highly recommend checking it out, because a lot of design issues are also accessibility issues.
+
+Yeah, have y'all ever gone through a process and realized how difficult it was to complete this task just because you couldn't remember what you were doing?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Oh, yeah.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Yeah, definitely. I feel like this is a part of accessibility that I overlook and I'm not an expert in. I feel like it's really natural when you get into web accessibility as an engineer, at least - you got straight to screen readers and ARIA attributes and labels and stuff like that, and they kind of look more cognitive disabilities, or just more like UX part of it. I feel like that's much harder for me to grasp and remember.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, same. The way that this mistake is written - it kind of made me think of a different use case, that is probably more UX-driven rather than accessibility-driven... And when you say "not displaying related information at all stages", I just immediately thought of logging into Google. Why make me put in my email address first and then my password on another page? It's a usability nightmare, especially on my phone, where I use a password manager. It prompts me to unlock with my face to fill in my email, and then I have to go to another page and do that whole thing again to put in my password.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** \[12:12\] You know what's funny? That also bothers me, but they, I believe, do that so that you're focused on one task at a time... But let's think about that for a second. You've got two input fields. Do you really need to reduce the cognitive load on a login screen? Because that's pretty normal.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Do you know what else is really bad in forms? If you're filling out a form on a website and you try to submit it and something was wrong, and the system just completely forgets everything you've put in, and you just have to fill the whole form out again, hoping that you included what was wrong... That's the worst.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Let me just say this right now - if you're building forms, if a user is filling it out, tell them in real time if there's an issue, so that it's not just validating on submit, it's validating in real-time. We should be doing client-side validation, as well as server-side. Additionally, if there are requirements needed for a specific form field - like if you have a password requirement for special characters or length, tell them. Why do you wait until they try to complete a task to give them that relevant information - I don't know. Don't do it.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** There's this super-cool thing, it's called UI Tenets and Traps. It's like a deck of cards that's super-well made. I'll share that in the Slack as well... And it includes concepts like this. I think the one I was just mentioning about, the form or the website forgetting what you've put in - they call it system amnesia. They just have these super-cool names for all these UX problems, UI Tenets and Traps... And they have really cool, real-world examples of these things in real products, from big companies. It's super-cool. I have one of these decks at home and I take a look at it every now and then.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** That's awesome. There's also a separate, I think, for crappy (and I'm being PG, crappy), like UX design that also definitely impacts accessibility. I don't know where it is, but it is fun to check once in a while.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Another piece related to this - I keep going back to UX, and specifically phone UX, since that seems to be where I'm filling out forms very often... It's not showing information about what you're expecting. One thing that I see when I'm filling out forms - you know, it's asking for my address, and when I get to the address field, my phone's just like "I know your address. Do you wanna just tap this piece above the keyboard and I'll throw it right in there?" But the form is actually doing an autocomplete on your address and then it tries to fill it out to like "I know that that's a real address, so I'll fill it out", and it doesn't square that circle of "Yeah, it's all filled out", but it didn't trigger the right blur on some component, that causes it to say that the form is now valid.
+
+So a UX thing is definitely make sure that your form works with autocomplete, because that's increasingly the easier way to do it, because my typing on my phone has definitely gotten a lot worse, with autocorrect and such.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, that's a good one. That also made me think of one... But this is actually gonna be like 15 accessibility mistakes, which is fine, because it's a wealth of knowledge here... One mistake I see web developers make is not adding the input type properly on different input devices. So if it's a telephone, please add "type as telephone." You know why? It's because when people are using mobile devices, which - guess what, they're the most common way to use the internet; if they're filing out a form with their phone number, it'll bring up the number keypad. Likewise, if you've got a password field, add that in there as the type. It's really useful for people.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** I think that's probably also what the browser are using to do that autocompletion when they save your information, right? If they know that's a telephone field, they can put your saved telephone number in that field, and stuff like that.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Oh...
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Yeah. I haven't had to design a lot of serious forms in my career, but I've heard it's really hard.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Forms are hard, although they seem the most simplistic. I think this is a good point, that like, hey, guess what, we're web developers and we should care about user experience, because a lot of our accessibility - about half of it, I would say, is design-focused... Or starts with design, let me say that; it starts at the design stage, and then the other half I feel like is up to us to implement.
+
+\[16:11\] But yeah, let's talk about one more tip before we take a quick break here... And this is gonna be not updating state. This is a big deal. Tryggvi, can you explain what this means?
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Yes. For example, you could take the Spotify Play button as an example. It's like a dual state button. You can also have buttons that are like three states. The Shuffle button on Spotify - it's off; you can shuffle the song -- sorry, the Repeat button. You can repeat the song, or you can repeat the whole playlist. So it's like a tri-state thing.
+
+So when you have those double states or triple states or even more states buttons, you wanna make sure that you update the ARIA label, whatever way you are indicating to the user what the button is going to do, so the screen reader can pick up the new function of the button.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Definitely. Yeah, I think not being explicit enough with our language is actually very harmful. Imagine you are a blind user and you're trying to use Spotify, and you focus on the Play button and all it says is "play" or "play button." It's like, okay, I know this is a Play button, but what's the state? If I click this, is it gonna pause the music? I can assume that they would hear the music, right? But think about a different situation where you get to a button that triggers an action and you have no idea what state it's currently in and what triggering that action is going to do to update that state. It's actually quite harmful.
+
+I forget -- there was a talk or a blog post somewhere that talks about how you should update the label or the ARIA label, but not both, because it can be really confusing for users cognitively. I'll look for that, and if I can find it, I'll put it in the show notes.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Yeah. We got an accessibility audit of our new test of client recently, and this is one of the things that came up, that the labels weren't being clear enough... So we have a bunch of Play buttons on Spotify. There's a lot of content on the page sometimes that you can play, and a bunch of those buttons would just say "play, play, play, play", but they wouldn't tell you what they were going to play... And in voiceover - and I'm not so familiar with NVDA or JAWS, the screen readers on Windows, but I think those also have functionality where you can jump between buttons, where you can see a list of all the buttons on the page... And it's not very useful if you see a bunch of buttons that just say "play". It would be nicer if they would say "play Water Under the Bridge by Foo Fighters", or something.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Right. Or "Pause Water Under the Bridge."
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Yeah. That's one thing we can improve on.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Right. And to this other point of not updating state - visibility is a big thing. So if you have a -- let's say you have an accordion element that users can toggle to drop down and to read more information... Updating that state to say "Oh, this is expanded" or "This is collapsed" is gonna be really important, this real-time information.
+
+Modal visibility is another one, and we're gonna talk about how to visually hide information in the next segment... But yeah, if you have something state-wise that will be changing, like the visibility status of a form, things like that, you need to make sure that you're updating it.
+
+Awesome. So those are our three to seven tips, depending on how you count them... We'll take a short break, but when we come back, we've got a plethora of tips to talk about.
+
+**Break:** \[19:28\]
+
+**Emma Bostian:** So in the last segment we talked about a lot of things, like updating state appropriately, and making sure that you're displaying information... But let's talk about another UX issue - or visual design issue, actually - that is truly an accessibility issue, and that is not having enough color contrast between your background and your foreground colors. Why is this an issue? Would one of you like to explain?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** You can't read it. It makes it very difficult to read.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, that's true... So that's it. That's it. Cool. Next tip. I'm kidding... \[laughter\] Color contrast is a huge issue, and if you're building - or designing and building - your own websites, you have to make sure that you're taking care to look at the color contrast, because sometimes to our eye it seems like something is contrast-accessible, but when you go look in the developer tools are not...
+
+I don't know if it's Firefox, or Chrome - which one has the color contrast in the DevTools... But I think it's both of them at this point. I would hope it's both. You can actually go inspect elements in the DOM and it'll tell you whether it's AA or AAA accessibility compliant with the W3C standards... And the W3C, if you don't know, is the World Wide Consortium...
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Yeah, I think that's both in Chrome and Firefox.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah. World Wide Web Consortium. There are a lot of acronyms in accessibility, which is ironic... But yeah, this is a big one I see all the time, and to be honest, I'm a huge culprit of this. I make this mistake all the time, and sometimes I make it intentionally for sites that I'm just building myself, because I think it looks prettier... But that is not a good justification, and you should not violate this because something looks pretty.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** I think Spotify has had problems with this, because it's been dark mode for so many years, and it's a little bit harder when you go dark mode to get this right, I think... And for the longest time, our Spotify green wasn't really AAA... I think it was AAA or AA accessible with white. So the green on white, which was so common in the client, wasn't actually that great.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Oh, no... That's a tough one, because that's like a brand color. You can't just change that.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Yeah. Do you remember -- it's been many years now, but I remember before I joined Spotify, when Spotify changed their green color to something else, and the whole internet was just outraged for like a week. Now that I see the old color, I can't believe it. It's puke green, honestly. That's what it reminds me of.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Oh, no... \[laughter\] Oh, gosh...
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Can I say that?
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Well, you know what - all major companies have color contrast issues. It's not a new issue; it's whether or not the company makes accessibility a priority.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** I think this is one example of a thing that makes it better for everyone. Have you ever been working out on your balcony, or out in the sun on your Mac? It's really hard to see on the screen.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I've tried.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** It's really hard.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** So I think having good color contrast helps when you're situationally-disabled...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** \[24:07\] Oh yeah, that's true. There are temporary disabilities, or situational disabilities. If you break your arm, that's a temporary disability, but it's still a disability, because you're using one hand to type. So accessibility doesn't have to be permanent, and it is not just about being blind or visually impaired. There are many different types of disabilities, and not all are permanent.
+
+Talking about blind users in particular, Tryggvi, can you explain a little bit what a screen reader is for those who don't know?
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Yeah. So a screen reader is a piece of assistive technology, which just means like software that can help people that are impaired in some way to use the computer. A screen reader is software that can read out the content of your screen out to you, in audio. So it's commonly used by people that have low vision, or people that are blind, so that they can use the web, and apps on their computer... And on Mac there's this built-in screen reader called Voiceover, and on Windows it's common to install third-party screen readers, either NVDA or JAWS.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** And it's important to note that people using screen readers are not just tabbing through your application; they actually use -- I think it's called the Virtual DOM, right? It's not just tabbing; they have hotkeys and quick keys to get around a web page. This is why using semantic HTML is so incredibly important. You should be using main tags, you should be using aside, you should be using headers, those things.
+
+There are regions of your webpage called landmark regions. Main is one of them, nav is one... And the reason you should use those and why those are so important is think about a table of contents in a book. If you need to quickly get to a chapter, you're gonna wanna go check what page it's on... When you use these landmark regions, people using screen readers can just click different keys. They don't have to tab through everything. They can click these keys and get to these different landmark regions.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, and the screen reader knows how to read -- it knows more information about what to say for those specific regions, too.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Yeah, exactly. The browsers have an API to build -- just like they build the DOM for the web page, they build an accessibility tree that's kind of similar to the DOM, and they give it to the screen reader software to navigate.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, that's awesome.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. Voiceover also exists on iPhones, and I'm sure that there's an Android equivalent as well, so it's just as important on mobile...
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Yeah \[unintelligible 00:26:33.03\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Before we break away from our mistake, which was about color and contrast, Mohammed does ask in the chat room - and it was something that I was curious about, too... He asks about light mode versus dark mode in all apps now... Do you think that that's a good thing accessibility-wise or usability-wise?
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I absolutely do. I know it's more overhead for the teams building it, but if you are starting at an application all day, it's going to strain your eyes. So if you're working on light mode all the time, it's going to be difficult potentially for some people to use your application. My personal opinion is it kind of depends on the app. What type of application is it? If it's a banking application, most likely users are not gonna be sitting there for hours scrolling. If it's a social media application, I think it's imperative that you add both, because likely those are time sucks, and the ethics of that. It's helpful. So I think the answer is "It depends", like everything else in this industry.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Let me ask a Spotify-specific question, and you can answer it or not... But I guess -- I'm gonna admit, I'm not a Spotify user. So does Spotify have a light mode and a dark mode? I know it has a dark mode. Does it have a light mode?
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** It doesn't have a light mode.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Okay.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Maybe it should.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** We don't control the product roadmap, Nick. We said that.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\] No, I'm not asking for a feature, I was just curious if you have that and it goes into it. The app I work on only has a light mode. I'd love for it to have a dark mode, because I sit in the dark a lot working on it...
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** We made Spotify pink and orange and whatever color, internally, just to mess around...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** There is no light mode right now.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[28:14\] Okay.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** I have a question for the chat here, and for anyone listening... This is an area for me of accessibility where I'm not sure where the problem should be solved. Is it in the app? Should each app adjust light and dark mode, and contrast, and inverted, and all that? Because a lot of the operating systems also have those accessibility features on phones, where you can invert the colors and you can do things... So I'm not sure how far to take this type of work when you're building a web application or not.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, definitely. And that kind of goes towards my question, which was if Spotify had a light mode and a dark mode, does that effectively double your design budget, having to manage both of those, or not? Obviously, you can't answer that, because you don't have it, which is fine...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Well, I was just gonna say that we have a design system, and the benefit of using that is that team can be responsible for developing a theme, and then our designers can just consume that theme. So is it really that much overhead? I don't know. If our process is a well-oiled machine, I don't think it should be.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, agreed. But going back to the accessibility options at like an OS level, being able to invert the contrast, or even go grayscale, I would very much assume that whatever is being run to change those colors and flip them probably greatly benefits from a high contrast between foreground and background text... And being able to switch what that is - it will still be readable in the inversion of that.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Yeah.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, sounds good. Speaking of things that are visual, let's talk about display: none. This is an issue I see all the time with web developers who need to visually hide an element, although it is still relevant. I've seen them add display: none, and this can actually be quite harmful. Do you all know why this is harmful and what we should be doing instead?
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** When you add display: none to an element, it's gonna be removed from an accessibility tree that the browser generates and gives to the screen readers, for example. So it effectively doesn't exist on the web page anymore in terms of screen reader software or screen reader users. So it won't be discoverable at all for those users.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** This could be super-harmful if you add display: none to your navigation. If you have a slide-out net bar and it's not visible on the page - blind users still need to be able to access this content... And if you're adding display: none, it removes it from the document tree. Instead, we should be setting visibility to none -- or what is it? It's like visibility: none; you can set z-index to like negative a zillion... There is a code snippet.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Yeah, I'll paste something here in the channel. This is the one we've used at Spotify, but there's a bunch of these little utility classes where you can visually hide something, but keep it around in the accessibility tree, so that screen readers can find it and focus it, stuff like that. People like to code-golf these classes, so it is probably not the \[unintelligible 00:31:17.10\] but this is the one we use.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** That's awesome.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, I like it.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** For those listening, I am turning that code snippet into a gist, and I'm going to be posting the link in our show notes, so you can all go steal the code to visually hide an element.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** When would you want to actually display: none? Is there a case where you'd want that?
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah. So for example if you have a modal. Let's say you've got like a login modal; if you're not actively trying to log in, I don't think anyone needs to know that that exists. That's not like a core navigational element. So that could be one. I don't know, I'm trying to think if there are any others, but I'm pretty sure that's the biggest one.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** So it's really when you don't want a user or a screen reader to know about it.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Correct.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It would effectively consider this gone.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** \[32:03\] Yeah, I'm trying to look at examples in our code. I can see for example we have an indicator when you're dragging and dropping things in the playlist, we have a little line that shows you where you're dragging and dropping. That one we use display: none on, I guess because it's not really that relevant for our screen reader users. We also use display: none in some of the ads, I see...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Oh, yeah. Cool.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** It's a judgment call, I guess, case by case.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah. Nice. Okay, let's move on to tip number six, which is a huge issue as well... Although, to be honest, I don't think it's as common as it used to be... Which is adding text as an image. If you've got an image of text and you're not adding an alt tag. First of all, you shouldn't be adding text as an image; definitely use fonts. I believe performance-wise it's better to actually just load in a specific font suite, because images are heavy... So yeah, text in images - you should be using alt tags in all of your images, unless they're not relevant. If they're just visual aids and they're not actually relevant to the content on the page, at that point you actually don't necessarily need an alt tag. Instead, you could just have aria-hidden="true" on that image, with a blank alt value... But yeah, you should always be having alt tags, especially if it is an image of text.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I always leave off alt tags on my rounded border images, for sure... \[laughter\] But one place you will not find a lot of alt tags is images on Twitter, which you can do. They do allow you to do that.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Yeah.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I make sure that I add alt tags to every image, although I have to say, it is hard to get alt tags correct... Like, what is the formula for adding an alt tag? It should be describing what's in the photo, not just a label for it, right?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, I think so. It's tough. I always struggle.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** There was a project adding alt attributes with machine learning, or something...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Oh, gosh...
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** There's some models that can say "Oh, there's a squirrel sitting on a bench" when it looks at a photo.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That will definitely never have any issues.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Definitely not.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** \[laughs\] Exactly.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** It'll be perfect, just like image cropping on Twitter.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Emma Bostian:** All these things are ethical issues, and we need to fix them as an industry... But that's a whole other -- we definitely should do an ethics of building applications episode. Maybe that will be my next episode, because it's definitely important.
+
+Cool. Let's talk about one more tip before we take one more break... Let's talk about redundant ARIA. I see this a lot with web developers who are very excited about accessibility... And honestly, I think it's a great mistake to make, because at least at that point you're trying... But it's adding redundant ARIA, too much ARIA, the wrong ARIA... ARIA is Accessible Rich Internet Applications, for those listening, and there are a series of attributes you add to your HTML elements to provide additional context to screen readers... But I see this all the time with adding an ARIA label on icons that have text that is visible in the UI. This is actually redundant.
+
+For example, if you have a question mark icon and your label is "Learn more" or "More information." If you have the words "More information" in your UI next to that icon, you don't need to be adding a label. You need to be adding a \[unintelligible 00:35:16.08\] to indicate "Hey, there's a relationship here. This text is visible in the UI." Yeah, that's a common mistake that I see made.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Yeah, I feel like it takes a while to get used to the ARIA labels. It's definitely taken me some time to learn how to effectively use them.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** And I still feel like I'm not really an expert on that. It's unfortunately complex... And I guess a big part of that is how backwards-compatible the web has to be. All of this had to be added on top of existing technologies, while mobile - Android and iOS - can \[unintelligible 00:35:51.22\] from the start. So it's unfortunately a bit harder on the web, especially with the ARIA labels and things.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** \[36:02\] One thing I see done all the time, especially on legacy apps, is adding a role... So I see \[unintelligible 00:36:06.11\] This is an example of redundant -- technically I think it's ARIA, but it's not prefaced by aria-... So adding a role used to be really important when we were doing layouts with tables, or if we were doing -- like, before semantic HTML elements came out, like nav, and footer maybe. You would see role=presentation a lot on table elements before Flexbox, before floats, all these things, we would have to use tables to lay out all our UI. \[unintelligible 00:36:34.21\] so that the screen reader wouldn't see a table and say "Oh, this is a table of information." It's like, "No, we're just using this for presentation or layout." But before nav was a semantic element, you would have to use a div or an unordered list, and you would set role=nav or navigation to let a screen reader know "Hey, this is a nav."
+
+So now that we have come across Flexbox and Grid and more semantic HTML, we don't need role as much. It is redundant, so just make sure you're using semantic versions of the tags.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Yeah, I feel like a lot of the work of making a website accessible comes down to the -- it's like supporting screen readers in a good way. That seems to be a lot of the issues; all the ARIA attributes and all that, trying to make the website make sense without any visual cues. And I feel like the key to that, to be able to know what to do there is becoming proficient in any one screen reader software, so that you can actually check your work... Like, "If I add this ARIA attribute, how is it gonna sound in the screen reader?" Learning basic navigation with a screen reader - probably most people are on Macs if they're web developers, so learning Voiceover, I can definitely recommend.
+
+There is a tutorial on the Mac on how to use a Voiceover that you can go through... But the one thing I cannot recommend enough is the Udacity course called "Web accessibility" that Google made, where a part of that course is actually going through Voiceover and learning to use it. That was key for me to understand -- you can answer more of your own questions about accessibility, and you can see the results, "Hey, would this make sense if I see it in the screen reader?"
+
+**Break:** \[38:20\]
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Alright, so we've talked a lot about excellent visual design, we've talked about making sure you've got appropriate ARIA types... But let's talk about using single-page application router libraries that don't work with screen readers. I'm gonna give this over to Tryggvi, because you have thoughts on this, and I do not... So please, sir, tell us more.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Right, yes. So this point is related to changes on the screen that are not announced to the screen reader. For example on Spotify, when you search, there's like an input box at the top, and as you search/as you type, in the background it's gonna load new search results. You don't need to press Enter, you don't need to perform any actions; it just happens automatically in the background. And we've got some feedback there that is really confusing, like -- you just don't know what's happening. They're typing, and then you press Enter, but that doesn't really do anything... They just have to navigate all of the text boxes into the results to realize that "Oh, okay, so it automatically searches for things that I was typing."
+
+This was one feedback we got from our recent accessibility audit. I actually was trying to address this this week. We got some recommendations from people, like we could announce that a search result has been submitted with a string like searching for Foo Fighters, or searching for this, when it's submitting and requesting a new result. But I actually went for just when you press Enter, it would focus the top result into that. So it's kind of like fake submitting the string. So you would type something, you press enter, and it just moves the focus to the top result, since we know it's already there. But it's just more like allowing people to naturally go out of search into the results. That was one thing. I hope that's clear.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Nice. Yeah. That was awesome.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, that's interesting. It's something that you wouldn't think about... Or you wouldn't initially think about. I wouldn't have thought about that, with autocomplete stuff... Like, how do you effectively make autocomplete like that work when you're not seeing the results visually pop in? It's very interesting.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Definitely. Awesome. Let's move on to tip nine. Tip nine is one, again, that's very common to me, and that is about focus and keyboard traps. Someone in the chat - and if you're not in the Slack channel, I highly recommend you go join us for a live chat... But they are talking about focus styling, and all the time I see removing WebKit outline on form elements... And we all know that glowing blue outline that browsers add by default to form elements is not sexy... But guess what? We're not here to be sexy. We're here to get stuff done.
+
+So if you're going to be removing that WebKit outline, you need to be providing an accessible alternative, and a good test that I always used to do is like "Alright, I should be able to turn away--" someone should be able to set focus in my UI somewhere, and if I turn around, I should be able to instantly know where my keyboard focus is. If you can't, that's a huge problem. But let's talk about keyboard traps and incorrect focus order. Tryggvi, I know you also have some good examples of this.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Oh, I could talk about this all day. This is a huge topic, and it's often one of the most painful parts. We had really big problems with this in the old test of client, navigating around in a playlist... Sometimes things that were buttons were just divs, so you couldn't actually focus to them... And when you'd right-click something where there's like a dot-dot-dot button you can go to that opens a context menu, kind of like when you right-click on your Mac and it opens a native menu - it would open the menu, but it wouldn't move you in there; there's no way to get into the menu. This is a big one, managing focus and helping you move around.
+
+A common one here is when you're popping up a modal, maybe it happens automatically, maybe it happens as a result of the user clicking something... The model pops up, but the focus is not moved into the modal. So if a screen reader user or somebody that uses the keyboard to navigate around, they're just kind of stuck in the page behind the modal, in some void, and they can't close the modal and they can't get to the modal. It's kind of obscuring the rest of the screen. That's one common one...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[44:09\] I have to ask, how do you fix that? Obviously, use buttons when things are supposed to be buttons, so that they are tabbable, too... But then do attributes like tab index play a role in that?
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Yeah, this is a big one, a complicated one. For the new tracklist we build for the new desktop client, we actually build a whole system to navigate around with a technique called rolling tab index. A tracklist is built in a way where you can go to it with one tab, but you can skip the whole list with one tab, but within the list you can navigate in a grid-like fashion, with the up, down, left and right arrow keys... And we need to orchestrate all of that in JavaScript, and it's kind of complicated, actually. We do that with moving the tab index around, and moving the focus.
+
+But you can skip out of the whole tracklist with one tab, so that you can go through the main sections of the applications quickly... Because a tracklist can be like 10,000 tracks; you don't wanna be stuck in there forever. You wanna be able to escape from it. So you can do stuff like that, you can build -- it's called Composite Widgets in the specs, where you can build these kind of grid elements or list elements that you can navigate with the arrow keys, and then jump out of easily... But that's really difficult; it's a lot of investment to do if you're not using the native input elements. \[unintelligible 00:45:35.25\] and the native dropdowns - they all have this, the keyboard navigations, but you can't style them, so people build their own... But then the keyboard support is often dropped.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah. My question for you is about Grid... Because if you're building a complex UI with CSS Grid, and at different media queries you've got blocks, like Grid areas shifting around your UI... How does that impact the tab order, and should you use the tab index to fix that, or do you know if it's built into Grid to be able to -- because if you're moving things visually in your UI, depending upon what size viewport you're working with, you're not changing its position in the DOM, and the tab index is going by DOM order, unless you explicitly set tab index. So how can we work with that?
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Yeah, as long as the element isn't removed from the DOM when you go between breakpoints, then you will stay on it. It might be somewhere else on the page, but... Yeah, this focus mentioning stuff becomes really tricky, because sometimes you remove content from the page when you go smaller, for example... Also, on Spotify for example, in the tracklist - you can remove tracks from a playlist. Let's say you're on a track - you're focused, and you remove it. We need to rescue the focus somehow. That's actually an outstanding problem we have now, that we haven't been able to solve in a really good way, where you're on something and it gets removed - where do we move the focus? We try to rescue it to maybe the closest element, or maybe go back to the root list... And this is also a virtually-scrolled list, so you could have something focused, and then you'd just scroll away a bunch, and it just gets removed from the DOM. What do we do then?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I would just recommend that you set an interval and then place the focus back in the top-left, whatever the element in the top-left is, \[unintelligible 00:47:23.24\] five seconds or something. That certainly won't upset anyone.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Yeah.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Not at all... Speaking of trolling our users, let's talk about live updates. How often have you seen -- and this is our last one, but I think it must be very annoying to people using screen readers... Unless you all have anything else on focus styling... It's just -- I'm trying to keep it somewhat succinct, because we could have a whole freakin' episode about focus states, to be honest...
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Yeah.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** \[47:56\] Cool, yeah. So live updates. Live updates are pertinent, relevant information that are time-sensitive... So if you have an error that's time-sensitive, or if you've got a toast notification that comes in, we need to alert visually-impaired and blind users that "Hey, there's something that requires your attention, time-sensitive, going on here..." But how do we do this in an accessible way that's not too abrasive to our users?
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** You can mark a section, like a div, to be a live region. I think it's called aria-live, the attribute there...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** ...and then it will mark it so that whenever it changes content, text content inside of that note, it will be announced to the screen reader.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** That would be good for stock markets or live sporting event updates. That's where you would use aria-live regions.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Can you have more than one?
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I don't know...
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Yeah, you can have more than one. And usually, you can make the toast a library too, so that when the toast shows up, you will kind of automatically be announced. But sometimes you also want these to be invisible... Maybe something obvious is happening on the screen... An example - on the Spotify desktop client you can download a playlist, and there's like an indicator that shows up, and it's obvious when it's done. We don't announce anything like "Download complete" in a text form, but we still want to do that to the screen reader. So we want to make a text announcement that's not visually there on the screen, but it's still announced to the screen reader.
+
+And Heydon made a really cool package on GitHub... I don't know if you know Heydon. He has an accessibility tool...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Pickering...
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Yeah.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** His Inclusive Components book from Smashing Magazine is excellent.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** It's really good, excellent, yeah. He has a package called On Demand Live Region on GitHub...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** They also have -- I forget what it's called, but they have assertion attributes that you can change for the use, where it's like "Oh, it's polite", so aria-live="polite" or aria-live="assertive", and that'll just change the priority of it. If it's assertive - which I think is a very nice word; I would have called it like aria-live="rude", or something like that..
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Rude...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah. It interrupts whatever else is going on in your application and it will announce. Polite will obviously wait until everything else is done... But yeah, use aria-live="assertive" sparingly, please...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I was just trying to think of how you would do something like Slack with that... You know, if you have your list of channels on the left, and you're in a hundred of them, and there's people actively chatting in 50 of them, don't be assertive about putting a little dot on each of those audibly...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Yeah...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** That could go wrong.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Yeah, I wonder if they do anything with that. I need to try to use Slack with a screen reader.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Oh, gosh... That sounds like my nightmare. That's like Dante's Inferno of nightmares... \[laughter\] Oh, goodness... Well, hey, we've covered a lot of really important things, and I think they're all actionable items that we can all adopt into our day to day work streams... Were there any things in here that surprised you in terms of common mistakes that you didn't know about?
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** \[51:04\] I feel like I want to learn more about where -- we were talking about the forms, and making sure you repeat yourself, and the information is there, and just making it so that you have to keep less in your head as a user... I don't know enough about those topics, I feel like. I wanna go learn more about that.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, I'll say I wanna dive deeper into live regions. I think that that's really interesting, and it's something that I haven't really considered. That can be very dependent on the types of applications that you're working on. You may not have something that would necessarily benefit from a live region.
+
+And then another thing I wanna look more into is what you were talking about, Tryggvi, with dynamically updating tab index, and keeping some kind of -- I don't know, I'm referring to it in my head as like a focus manager for that, and how you can improve your app's visibility with that.
+
+And then I think that one of the biggest takeaways for me is just what you said, Emma - disabilities don't have to be permanent, they can be temporary things... So it can affect everyone and anyone, and everyone benefits from accessibility, whether it's just a power user trying to quickly navigate with the keyboard, or all the way down the line... So it's really important to think about.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Oh, one quick thing I wanted to mention about live updates - I'm pretty sure live updates don't work on components that are unmounted and then get mounted. I think I had this issue -- Tryggvi, I don't know if you can attest to this or not, or correct me... But if you have an unmounted element, so an alert, and it's not mounted in your DOM and then you mount it, it's not going to announce its alerting unless it was already previously mounted and the state has changed.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** Right... I'm not sure, yeah...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I'm pretty sure I've run into this issue multiple times, so just be aware, if you're working with live regions - it's not gonna update/announce/alert your users if it's not mounted; it's only going to alert if it was mounted, and the state changes. Cool. That's my last fun fact.
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** So like the first time, yeah.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah. Nice. Well, I learned about single-page application router libraries, and things of that nature; I find that very interesting. So yeah, I really enjoyed this conversation, and I am looking forward to implementing these things in my workflow, and getting comments from Tryggvi on my next pull request that I need to stop adding so many animations.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Just focus on our feature request, please...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Ha! Focus... No, absolutely not. You can add it to the queue. In any case, that's all the time we have; sorry, we can't talk about your feature request, but I hope that you enjoyed this - ten accessibility mistakes to avoid in 2021 and forever... And make sure that you're checking Tryggvi out on Twitter; he does pot some high-quality memage, but also sometimes things about programming...
+
+**Tryggvi Gylfason:** I'm mostly just lurking...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** And send him all of your Spotify feature requests. And with that, thank you, and have a nice rest of your day.
diff --git a/1Password is all in on its web stack_transcript.txt b/1Password is all in on its web stack_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..789d4e7d0a6f8a66b792c7b00b0da647215e4847
--- /dev/null
+++ b/1Password is all in on its web stack_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,399 @@
+**Nick Nisi:** Hello, party people! Welcome to JS Party. I'm your host this week, Nick Nisi. Hoy-hoy. And with me, as somewhat regularly, always, is Amal. Amal, how's it going?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Hi, everybody! Happy to be here. Excited to learn about passwords.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Password...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Gotta get rid of a lot of password and passwords in general. It means I've gotta get rid of a lot of post-its in my house.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\] Send them my way. But to talk about passwords, and specifically a singular password, or one password, we have some members of the 1Password team here. First off, we have Mitch Cohen. Mitch, how's it going?
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** Hey! It's going awesome. Thanks, guys.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Welcome. We're excited to have you. And with us as well is Andrew Beyer. Andrew, how's it going?
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** Hey! I'm Andrew. I'm here to party.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** You've gotta tone that down, I'm sorry.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** Okay, I'm gonna tone it down. Gosh...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\] Despite the party in our name, we're very serious.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** I see, I see.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** No, we love to have a good time, and we're very excited to have a good time with you, talking about passwords... And specifically 1Password, and the product that you work on. It's a product that I have used, I think, since I got a Mac; probably in 2008. I don't know if the company has been around that long, but around that time... And it's been the holder of my deepest secrets for a long time, so I'm really excited to talk to you about 1Password and where we're going... And I guess we have to start it off with why you're here on a JS Party/JavaScript podcast, talking about 1Password... Which has traditionally been the Mac and iOS app that I know and love. So why are you here talking about it on a JS podcast?
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** \[04:21\] We made a new version of our app, which we do every once in a while... And when we do that, a lot of people wanna talk about it... And sometimes the reasons people wanna talk about it are different from why they wanted to talk about it the last time; I think that is the part that's the most relevant to your question.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Well actually, before we get into 1Password, can we just do little intros, Mitch and Andrew? What are your roles on the team, and what do you all do or not do?
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** Totally. So we're both kind of all hats; I've been at 1Password now for 7,5 years, back when it was just a handful of people; I knew them all by name. And I joined actually as customer support, and kind of had a whole mini-career at 1Password. I am now a product director, and I've been through the highs, the lows, the fun parts, the crazy parts... And I'm just so excited to be here to talk about yet another interesting chapter in the life of 1Password.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's so cool. People who come with a customer support background, they make the best engineers and product people... So you must be really good at your job, because you have that heavy user empathy.
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** Apparently. This story happens a lot, by the way. We have a ton of people who joined to do support, and then took on roles in the company, and that's actually true for Andrew Beyer as well.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** I'm Andrew Beyer, I've been here a 1Password almost five years... I actually come from a background -- I spent almost a decade in the United States Army, working on communication security, and some air and missile defense... And I joined 1Password for two reasons. One was I had been using the app; I've been using 1Password for like 13 years now, I think. 13-14 years. I kind of lost track at this point. So I really wanted to work at this company where I really did enjoy the product. It was super-useful to me when I was in the military - you know, you're deployed overseas, you have to use some public computer, and I couldn't install apps or anything, so I had my iPhone 3GS, or iPhone 4 or something, with the 1Password app running on it, and I would be able to get my password and actually use the internet.
+
+But I joined 1Password because I loved the product, and I was at the time looking for a remote job. I know now everybody just knows what remote work is like, but I wanted to do the digital nomad lifestyle, and I had gotten sick of not moving around in civilian life, so I was like "Oh, I'll join this company and I'll be able to travel the world", which didn't quite pan out the way I wanted, but working at 1Password has been really awesome.
+
+Currently, I am in charge of our browser experience engineering organization, so ultimately in charge of the browser extensions, everything about filling and saving on the web... So I get to run the teams that deal with all of the web developers out there who wanna make login forms and credit card forms differently... And then we're starting to expand some of that reach into our web client as well, so how you use 1Password as a web client.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Do you find that web developers are just finding fantastic ways to break your work?
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** Yeah, we used to joke around that there's only a couple "bad" web developers, and they just jump from company to company, and copy and paste their login forms, and put it somewhere else... But to be honest, you'd be surprised -- even in the five years I've been here, the web standard and web design and a lot of web technologies have gotten so much better... Nowadays there's HTML auto-fill attributes that help password manangers and help your browser understand more about your form... I'd be happy to teach a class or talk about that more, but I know that's not quite the reason why we came today, so...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[07:55\] So cool. Yeah, so before we get into some of the changes around 1Password, and you've made some exciting architecture changes, like moving to Electron, which is like a Chromium/Node kind of desktop app support system... I don't even know how I could describe Electron in a sentence. But before we get into that, can you explain to us a little bit about how 1Password works? What is it exactly, how is it secure, and how do you guys protect yourselves from data breaches? Because you're the company that has everybody's passwords; how does that even work in terms of your security management. If you could give us a little overview, that would be awesome.
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** Absolutely. So at its heart, 1Password is a password manager, and it's since grown to become kind of like an everything manager; like, anything you need to keep secret, you need to keep safe, you can put in 1Password and trust it will be safe there. In the past few years it's expanded to become actually sort of a collaborative version of that. So not only can you keep your secrets in there, you can also share them securely with other people who need access to them. That's been a major focus of us as we've sort of grown out the product.
+
+The thing that keeps it safe is something that's actually been in the news a lot lately, which is this concept of end-to-end encryption, where regardless of who we are, our relationship to you, we don't have access to the secrets you put in 1Password. We don't even have access to the security keys you would use to get access to those secrets. As long as that remains true, effectively you can't attack 1Password to be able to get access to the data that people keep in 1Password. We're very proud of that, and that's been fundamental to everything we've built for decades now, and it will be going forward as well.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That is so cool.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** Yeah. The story I like to tell is a lot of people assume -- you know, you go to 1Password and you sign up for an account, you're entering your password into this website and obviously 1Password has that, right? And that is where we years ago fully embraced web technologies, and with the advent of web cryptography and web crypto APIs, we can actually download you a little JavaScript client right there on the web when you create your account at sign-up; we never actually send that password across the internet, ever. It always stays on your device. We provision those crypto keys, they live on your device, and from there on throughout your 1Password journey, you're always using your secret key and your account password to do what we call secret key derivation, or two-key derivation, and we basically make the unlock keys for your account. I think that's one of the really cool aspects - we're so ingrained into the web, but you never have to send us any of your secrets. You only ever send us the encrypted blobs for the secrets that you hold on your side.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. So everything is always encrypted, going to the -- like, if you're using the family plan, or things like that, it's always encrypted and you have to decrypt it locally, whether that's with a client, or in the browser.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** Yeah, a hundred percent.
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** Yeah. When you mentioned the family plan - what's remarkable about that is you can have transactions between two family members where they're able to share with each other, but we have no insight into what they're sharing, and no ability to access it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Wow.
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** And it's kind of challenging to set up that environment, but we've figured it out several years ago, and honestly, it's industry-leading. Very few others can say that they have this kind of sharing system that's so secure.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Wow.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** Yeah. And it's all thanks to private-public key encryption. We basically provision these vaults, they all have separate keys, and then from there a family member from their own device can essentially ensure other family members have access. Along the entire way, essentially, it's encryption all the way down, which is really cool.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's super-cool. So is this architecture -- and the keys are unique by device, right? So even if I'm one person with two devices, I'm using different keys... How does that work, actually, if I'm using the same account across multiple devices?
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** The keys to unlock your account, or essentially what we call the master unlock key (easily named) is unique to you. It is unique to you and your accounts. So your account password and your secret key derives the master unlock key. And from there, it's just a whole host of other keys. So you'll have a key per vault, and those kind of things. They aren't unique to device; so when you have two different devices, you're using the same secret key and your same account password, and that's essentially how we ensure the end-to-end encryption there.
+
+\[12:25\] We do offer some authentication on top of that, so every device has a unique identifier, and we use that just for the server to know the devices out there that it can download the encrypted blobs of your 1Password items to... And we can do things like multi-factor authentication that way, where you're doing -- the base kind of authentication is all done through encryption, but if you wanna add on another layer, you can add on Yubikey or a time-based one-time password, and that's where that device UUID will -- on the server, it can perform that MFA. And really, the only protection that adds is if someone were to obtain your master unlock key, or your account password and secret key, they can't use that on a new device to download your encrypted information. So it does add kind of a different layer of making sure that nobody can add to or remove from your account, or download your account on new devices.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That is so cool. And I'm assuming this architecture pattern has probably replicated across other password managers, but 1Password were the first major player in this space, from my understanding...
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** I don't think any of it is fully replicated across anywhere else I've seen. We do document it, it's in our whitepaper, so people are free to take a look at the whole architecture... But we're really pioneering in so many areas here, especially over the past few years, with our sharing features. And honestly, where we'll be a year from now - and I know we're gonna get to that later - is even more exciting than what we're able to talk about now.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** That is one piece of advice, is if you aren't using 1Password and you're looking at other one password managers, you really do need to dig into the implementation details. Most people don't care about the implementation details on stuff... But when it's something where you're relying on it for your entire security of your life, you really do need to dig in and find out "How are they doing this?" Because obviously, the worst-case scenario is they're just some database running somewhere with all of your passwords in it in plain text, and then there's varying levels of security from there.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That makes a lot of sense. Honestly, we could talk about that one topic for the whole show... But we're kind of here to talk about stuff that's changing. So what's changing in 1Password? I think we kind of alluded to that a little bit with Electron... So can you tell us about what prompted that change, why Electron?
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** Sure. So we're releasing a new set of desktop apps; we're calling them 1Password 8, because the previous version was 7... And we did something that probably you should never do, but we did anyway, which is that we wrote all our apps from scratch, starting from the very foundation. We picked our tech stacks clean slate, we wrote all the logic, all the user interfaces, built all the features, and ended up to a point where we had something that was just way cooler and more performant and even more secure than what we had in the past... And when we were ready to share with the world, we announced it actually in early access. And the reason we did that was because when you are trying to recreate an app that's been around for over a decade, it's gonna take a while to make sure you've met every user workflow; even though you have really cool new workflows that you're excited about, you wanna make sure that users can install it and continue on with their work, because 1Password is so important to their lives. So that's exactly what we did - we sort of built our new tech stack into these apps and announced them for early access, and that's where a lot of the interest has been.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[15:48\] And to that end, what was it before? My experience has only ever been on Mac and iOS devices, but 1Password has existed on other platforms as well, like Windows and elsewhere. Were those all just separate native apps for the previous version?
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** They were a hodgepodge of different things. That's true about any sufficiently large piece of software - you end up with all sorts of bits and pieces built over the course of years, kind of connected together... But one issue was that they all felt very different. So the way I started to think about it was it almost felt like someone was making third-party fan clients for our services, even though we were the ones making them... And definitely that was something on our minds when we set out to build our new tech stack, and of course, our new design language, and the feature set that accompany that tech stack.
+
+But the other interesting thing about them is that they also all had web technologies in them, and we always have used web technologies heavily and pioneered them... So as Andrew already alluded to, we used web crypto very early on to power our web service and to make sharing possible over the web. But even on the desktop apps and mobile apps, we had web views, we had web-based integrations... And in fact, the most important part of our desktop app, which people interact with every day, has always been web-based, and very heavily so... And that of course is the browser extension.
+
+It's interesting to see people think of what we're doing as sort of like a move or a shift, when really it's just taking something we've always cared about deeply and continuing to use it in our product for the things that appeal to us about it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I can see that perspective though, because I -- definitely, when you say that, 90% of my interaction with 1Password is through the browser extensions, and command slash to open that up. I guess I just don't ever think about it as like "Well, it's really just this thing..." And I'm never really opening up 1Password proper, unless I'm doing more in-depth searching, or things like that. But usually, most of it is just straight through that web thing, and it's just -- when I thought about that, it never really came to my mind that that was my primary interaction with it.
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** And that's a great observation, because it's something we both noticed and heard ourselves, that people were saying "The part of 1Password that I actually use is the part in my web browser." That informed what we're doing with 1Password 8, first of all because we wanted to bring some of what made the browser experience so special sort of into the rest of our app... But we also want to move faster so that we can give you a reason to open that desktop app more often, because we think that is a great place to organize, to share, to understand your security... And if people are only opening it to troubleshoot - well, we have to do better there.
+
+One thing we're very excited about with 8 is actually making it so that you do interact with all of our service and our apps, not just the command backslash, as useful as it is. So that's really on our minds.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** How so? How would that change my usage of going to a site and wanting it to auto-populate? How would it bring in the desktop version?
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** One example is we actually have a new dashboard for our Watchtower service in the desktop app that shows you your security situation as a whole, which is something we didn't have before, and now you can see exactly what passwords you need to go fix; the interface helps you understand that and make progress there... And that's something that, of course, is more fit for a desktop app... Whereas the browser is very good at helping you use your passwords, we wanna give you ways to also sort of organize and work on your security situation.
+
+So that's one example... Another would be our sharing features, which - again, the desktop app is a natural place to have sharing; both the ability to share, and also to understand what information is being shared with whom... And a lot more of that is now exposed in the new desktop apps than it was before.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice. Okay. That makes sense, because I was actually -- I did download the early access, and I was comparing it to the old version, and I was like, "Oh, this Watchtower thing is cool." I thought that there was that in the old app, but there wasn't... And I really like that dashboard a lot. I only have six terrible passwords, by the way, so...
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** \[19:54\] Well, that's fantastic... And that's funny too, because we've had several people point ou things that they don't like about the new app, that weren't in the old app... So it's always interesting to see how people remember what was there versus what they have now, and in some cases the grass is always greener... But we know, we have the data, we can do this side by side, and we're specifically focused on improving a lot of the experience in big and small ways.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** Yeah. And discoverability was a big piece of this project. We wanted as part of this, essentially a complete rewrite of the client app experience; we wanted to make sure that we were building a product that was modern and discoverable in this day and age. And we had a lot of problems there, whether you were on a Mac and switched to Windows, or at the time we didn't even have a Linux client... There were parts of 1Password that felt, looked and acted differently. And a lot of that is because of our origin story. We had two founders that started this company over 15 years ago. They built the first Mac app, and essentially built the company from the ground up that way... And when the time came to add Windows, they just hired someone to write a Windows app... Join the company, start building up a small team; same for Android, started with one person... And we've grown in size of just like the ecosystem, the complexity of 1Password adding on memberships, and sharing, and all of those things, where it's no longer just like one individual developer adding something to the app that they think is a good idea... And we have a more well thought out design and engineering process now. A lot of that comes down to how can you capture those thoughts, have your own design language, and then share that across your entire ecosystem.
+
+**Break**: \[21:40\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Alright y'all, so that was really incredible, learning about some of the reasoning behind those decisions, which for me seem really obvious at this point. You've seen successful platforms like Xamarin enable cross-platform development for mobile apps, where you're able to ship to the iOS store, the App Store, and the Windows store, writing one language; it's easy for dev teams to have end-to-end ownership of all of your apps... And nowadays Flutter has kind of taken over that industry; maybe the best in class for cross-platform apps... Although Flutter web has failed pretty hard, thank God... \[laughter\]
+
+And obviously, we've seen Electron over the past decade just really kind of take off, and really push forward what you can do with the web across desktop apps... Linux included, which is great. But I'm curious, there's still this gap of browser extensions, where you're still writing something for Chrome, for Mozilla... So you're still writing these different things. And then also the security around browser extensions is quite horrible; the ecosystem is quite sketchy, to say the least... And I'm just curious, what's that like for y'all, having to navigate in these murky waters, and also, how do you trust other extensions that are on your users' browser, in terms of snooping and whatever else? They're constantly fixing security holes, so I'm just curious how y'all are dealing with that... Because there's still fragmentation, and there's also bad security...
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** \[24:15\] That is a lot of questions in one question...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Sorry.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** I will try to start at the beginning, and you'll let me know which ones I don't answer. So browser extension - great example. And it's actually the origin story for 1Password 8. A few years ago, I wanna say a few friends got together... And this was when Mitch and I actually worked as developers directly together... And we rewrote our browser extension, with a lot of different goals in mind. One of the really important goals was we wanted a browser extension that could work without a natively-installed application on the machine. And there was a lot of reasons for that. One, at the time we had no Linux app, so that was a part of the market where -- I've been using Linux since like Yellow Dog on my original iMac... Whether I'm using Linux now or not, I always wanted 1Password on Linux. And this was a really easy way to make something that would run on Linux immediately.
+
+The other thing is you have this thing called ChromeOS, which is the system; it runs Android apps sometimes, but it's another place where a lot of things are done on the web, they're done within Chrome... It's a great place where you want a web extension or a browser extension that doesn't need a Mac app running, or something like that. That is kind of our starting point of where we built something that was a web-based 1Password client; it can run completely by itself inside of your browser, and it has a React app frontend, and all of this is done in TypeScript, because we get a little scared of JavaScript... \[laughter\] I don't honestly understand people who don't use TypeScript. TypeScript is freakin' awesome...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Did you hear that, Jerod?
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** ...especially in this day and age, with browsers just constantly evolving, and JavaScript platforms, and all of that... Holy cow, TypeScript is awesome. So that's kind of like what we at the time branded as 1Password X. We did that because we had two browser extensions. Now with the 1Password 8 transition this is the browser extension. And what's awesome about it is that it really is better for your every day user. Like Nick said, 90% of his time is done in the browser... I would say as a new 1Password user probably about 100% of your time should be done in the browser. You go install 1Password... All you really need is the browser extension to start saving and filling logins, generating passwords with our smart password generator; those kind of things.
+
+Once you get more than three of these things, or ten, or twenty, or fifty of them, you wanna start sharing them, you wanna start managing them in different ways, you wanna start adding new, different and exciting item types... That's where it really makes sense to download the app, start digging deeper into 1Password. So that was kind of the goal of the browser extension, and why it's so important to 1Password.
+
+The cross-platform thing I will push back on a little bit, and say that's getting better. It started with Google; they created this thing called Web Extensions. It's not an official platform API. And then Mozilla finally kind of converted over Firefox. Edge for a while were working on this Web Extensions API.
+
+What was a real shocker to us was Safari always had this thing called an app extension... And two years ago they actually launched support for the same Web Extensions API... And then one year -- well, actually three months ago, they launched support for the Web Extension API on iOS and iPad OS, which is like a billion plus devices... So Apple is actually heavily invested in "We're gonna support this Web Extension API technology."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's great.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** So I will push back and say, it's not 100% standard across the board, like everything on the web is... But essentially, if you can write something in JavaScript, if you can learn and use the Web Extension API, you can actually build a web extension or a browser extension that works in all of the major browsers. Pretty much everything is Chromium nowadays, and then you have Firefox, then you have Safari, and it'll work everywhere.
+
+\[28:12\] There's a lot of caveats to that, where "Okay, Safari supports this, you've gotta package it into a macOS app and ship it on the Mac App Store..." There's all sorts of distribution issues. For example, for 1Password we have to work with Google to distribute our browser extension, we have to work with Mozilla to distribute our browser extension, we have to work with Microsoft to distribute our browser extension, and we work with Apple. So it's pretty much all of the major companies. So it's not as easy as "I have DNS and a domain name, and now I have a website." You do have to do a lot of work to get there... But there is a standardization of the ecosystem for browser extensions, and honestly, it's really good for us, and it's really good for anybody who wants to build an application that will run everywhere.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** There's not a lot of apps out there that can say that. They will run on ChromeOS even. So I think it is getting better. Security-wise, you are correct. Web extensions, browser extensions - they have a ton of power inside of the browser. So this is managed by way of a permissions system, so when you install a browser extension, it will basically tell you "Here's the creepy permissions that your browser extension will have", but it's not language that users --
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Nobody reads that.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** Yeah, nobody reads that, and it's not really --
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Also, Incognito Mode is another thing that's scary. Sometimes they're still listening in Incognito Mode, unless you explicitly tell them not to, or you have to explicitly disable some things in Incognito Mode... It's kind of crazy. It's crazy all the verticals that they have.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** Yeah. And to that point, I think one of your questions was "How do we trust other browser extensions?" and the answer is we don't. Our company policy is you're not allowed to use any browser extension that we don't use. And the reason for that is because it is a very scary ecosystem. You install one of these things and it could essentially be scraping every website you go to and throwing that up on a server somewhere.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Correct.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** So you have to be extremely careful in what browser extensions you use, and you have to trust the company that is creating them. We've been essentially creating browser extensions since before there were browser extensions; so Dave and Rustem, our founders --
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Since before browsers!
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** Well, they would actually swizzle Safari, and inject some creepy code (that was legit) into your browser to make 1Password work in Safari. And Safari saw that and they were like, "We need to add something to not get people to go down this road." My friend Rustem actually demo-ed the very first version of 1Password as an extension, at WWDC 2010, or 2005, or something; I don't know. Back before I even worked in development that much.
+
+But to be honest, browser extensions are super-scary. I don't use a ton of them. I'm very careful with them.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Same.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** I use different browsers or different Chrome profiles if I do need to use an extension that I don't trust as much... But I am happy to say, this is a known problem, and people are working on it. Apple and Google are sharing a new W3C community group for web extensions, and Google is pushing this new (what they call) Manifest v3 changes, which do dial back some of the permissions, and they really change the overall architecture to browser extensions.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's awesome.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** So Apple is also co-chairing that, and if anybody listening to this podcast or watching live is interested - we need more people to join that group. That is one of the ways -- 1Password has a whole bunch of people in there, but we need that diverse community helping to drive the next revision of the standard... Diversity in people, but also diversity in markets, and engineers, and that kind of thing.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** What's it called? Is there a link to the group, and stuff like that?
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** \[31:58\] Yeah, I can post it in the chat... But you can also go on w3c.org. There's a GitHub repo, go read the charter and open issues, but also there's a community that you can go join. They meet bi-weekly. It's new, within the last couple months new, but that is gonna be, in my opinion -- a year or two from now, that will be a really solid web standard. You basically have Apple and Google behind it, Mozilla is participating as well, and then there's people from your favorite ad blocker companies, your favorite password manager companies... We're all trying to come together as a community...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** All the security nerds...
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** ...and drive a standard that works for us, but also helps make the end user more secure.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** The web a better place.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Totally. That's amazing. And yeah, kudos to Google for doing that. They're so great at pushing standards forward, and I think nerd herding, a similar kind of initiative happened with DevTools. But DevTools in Chromium were developed as an interfaceable API, such that you could connect with DevTools in VS Code, and you can have that same protocol in Edge... So it's really great to see things like that get standardized. Things that are kind of outside of the box that we typically interact with in the browser. But that's awesome.
+
+So I think maybe my last question on this is really now that you've done this shift to cross-platform, and you're able to, I'm sure, leverage your own abstractions to manage the same codebase for all these different extensions, because you can write your own abstractions...
+
+But I'm curious, how has your development cycle changed now that you are basically shipping in one language, one stack across all these platforms? Are you still supporting "the old stuff", all the native apps? Or you have to retrain your dev teams... I'm sure there's a ton of velocity that you've gained, but I'd love to hear about this from your own mouths, I guess.
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** I wanna push back on this idea of native app, because it comes up in every conversation these days... We've done a ton of research, a ton of interviews, and to the normal person who doesn't watch this show and isn't part of our Twitter tech community, a native app is an app that has an icon or your dock, that has keyboard shortcuts that you can download and install on your computer...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And a preferences panel that opens up in its own window, right?
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** We're building that, and we're building that in a big way, and we're building it for every platform we support... And I mean, we're going deep into platform features. So we're doing things on Linux that no one's ever done before, for instance having biometrics and browser extension integration, and integration with the system keychain... The Linux community has been really grateful and appreciative of that. And me too, because I love Linux... And on Mac - I can go into detail forever - there's a ton of native code in this app, and native integrations, from support for touch ID, to Apple Watch, to all the keyboard shortcuts you can think of, to text transformations, to interaction with the system clipboard for secure copy and paste to the universal clipboard sharing setting... It goes on and on. And we're always going to do that, because the app isn't very useful if it doesn't integrate well with your computer. But the buttons are not NSButton, and that's where I'm just -- I don't really care anymore; I wanna build a great product, with great features, and I think that's true for all of us. So that's basically what we're doing.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, I think that that's a really good vision to have. You care more about the result than how you got there. And I do, too. All of those features that you listed - those are the things that I absolutely love about 1Password. And if this changed to somehow not let me use touch ID, or the Apple Watch to unlock, and things like that, then it would be a big step backward. But it's not, because it does support that.
+
+And kind of shifting a little bit, I wanna talk about the technology, and actually getting into the weeds a little bit about that... So kind of to tie this up, I'm curious - are the browser extensions still going to be fundamentally the same codebase going forward? And did the new Electron style native app - did that get born out of the original 1Password X-Code? Or how did that happen?
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** \[36:08\] It's a bit of both, actually. Some of the heritage of the app is 1Password X, especially the React components that we share between them. Some of it is actually in code that was originally written for our older Windows app, which was written in Rust, which is an important foundational element of the new app. And a lot of it is brand new.
+
+So we have such a huge iceberg of a tech stack behind us that we can sort of pull the pieces that have worked best, and then innovate in areas where we haven't had anything before.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Your much older Rust app... For some reason, that's just not computing to me. I don't see Rust being old enough to have old apps yet, but... That's just me. \[laughs\]
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** Yeah, so 1Password 7 for Windows had a ton of Rust code. That team was kind of early adopters into Rust, and they were essentially like "Why are you looking at all this other stuff? Rust is awesome."
+
+Rust got really interesting to us, because we were actually doing this cross-platform code thing for quite a while... And our infrastructure is written in Go. So we were big Go fans... We still are. Our infrastructure still is. And for a while, we were writing cross-platform code in Go, and using it kind of cross-platform, all the way to the browser, using this really cool library called GopherJS, which will transpile your Go code into JavaScript.
+
+It has some ramifications there, which is you get an entire Go runtime, garbage collector, all of that running in JavaScript, so you get a fairly large bundle... But it does work. And as a browser extension where you're not loading it on the web, you're kind of downloading it maybe once a week or once a month... The GopherJS approach kind of worked for us for a while, but we ran into those performance limitations.
+
+So that's why we really looked heavily into Rust, is because they had - and probably still do; I don't wanna get into any debates about it, but they had a really incredible WebAssembly toolchain, and folks running on WebAssembly support. So a lot of the code that you see running natively in 1Password 8, from things like how we compute time-based one-time passwords, how we generate your passwords - all of that code, even in our browser extension, isn't actually run in JavaScript. It is Rust running natively on your system in the case of the Mac and Windows apps and Linux, or it is Rust code that's compiled to WebAssembly and used within our browser extension. And that is one of the ways that we have this whole new "write it once, use it everywhere" mentality, or the way we look at it as kind of project managers and developers, is all of your bugs exist in one area of code. So if there's a bug in one of these things, whether it be URL parsing, any of this backend business logic of the apps, it's gonna be in one place, no matter where you find it in the apps.
+
+So we're very heavy backend in Rust to WebAssembly for the web, but we're very heavy frontend in languages like TypeScript and frameworks like React. We even use Svelte from time to time, when it's interesting. For example, our in-page suggestions - we needed a really fast JavaScript solution there to draw a menu on the page, and so that's written in Svelte. So we kind of toy and play around with pretty much every possible solution, and that's one of the reasons why the desktop apps landed on Electron, was we looked at every framework; we tried everything, and Electron just happens to be the industry standard and the best. We went from basically almost in a single night - well, maybe it was like two nights - the very first version of 1Password 8, and we took some React components, and we took some of our backend code, we threw it in Electron, and we had a desktop app in it. It was ugly. I wish I had a screenshot of it, but it worked in basically a day. And that is what's really amazing about it.
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** \[39:52\] The funny thing about Electron is it's actually the most boring part... And I know everyone wants to talk about it, but there's not much to it. It's effectively a glorified packaging format. It just takes a web frontend and a native backend and connects them. And actually, in our case, we're connecting them with a really nice tool called Neon, which has done a lot for us. If you do wanna use Rust inside of an Electron app, I strongly recommend checking out the Neon project.
+
+But there's not much to say about Electron itself. I'm sure something eventually will come along that does what it does better, or makes a more compelling case... But until that happens, there's not much use to be gained out of railing against Electron on the internet; you're not gonna get much from the development community.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's pretty much like your unified client, and you ship a bunch of different binaries with it, that are native... Is that right? I'm just trying to understand what's it like hooking into that, because there's -- Node is supported by default, right? What are you using to connect that Node layer to run your binaries? Are you using C++, or is that where the Rust support comes in? I'm just really curious to understand that architecture; it's a little fuzzy in my brain right now.
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** So that's what I was just referring to, which is we write our code in Rust, and actually compile it to your system. So not just in native code, but to architecture-specific native code.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Okay.
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** For instance, if you took our Mac Electron app, you couldn't take the resources and run them; never mind on Windows, you couldn't even run them on an Intel Mac, because it's compiled to native Apple Silicone machine code, and it's very fast, by the way. And we hooked that up to the frontend with the Neon project, which basically exposes an FFI (foreign function interface) to allow JavaScript to talk to Rust. And it's a nice developer experience; it kind of lets us get past that part and focus on the app and what we wanted to do, so... It's good.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** Yeah. And then the cool thing about this architecture and one of the reasons why I would advocate looking at web technologies is if you write your frontend in a web technology, not only can you use it in the browser, but a lot of these cross-platform frameworks and utilities and packaging and all of that stuff will essentially support this stuff going forward. So we're not really coupled to Electron in any way. It's the smartest way to package and ship the app today, but it probably won't be in 5-10 years, who knows...
+
+We're actually funding a couple projects to see if one day we can do this all in native system WebViews, and those kinds of things. We're actually very interested in driving this approach of like "Write a cross-platform app using web technologies", because it's awesome; you get to dictate your own design language. I don't know if anybody's been paying attention, but CSS-in-JS has gotten really freakin' good in the last 5-10 years. It's a whole different world from when I was trying to write websites back 20 years ago. It's a really awesome technology stack to work with, and it's very developer-friendly, I would say.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. I was gonna ask about the choice to go with TypeScript there. Was that an easy choice, or was there some picking and pulling?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[laughs\] Always looking for a TypeScript angle, Nick...
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** That was the easiest choice we've ever made as a company.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** If I'd had a dollar for every time I heard that question from Nick, you know...
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** It's pretty funny, Mitch used to toy with me, he'd be like "Once you need TypeScript, you can use TypeScript", when we would start a little project in JavaScript... But honestly, even now, in my side projects, everything I do in JavaScript, I start with TypeScript. It is amazing tooling for what you get. Just even the compiling it to run on different platforms, and that kind of thing. It's really awesome.
+
+**Break:** \[43:26\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Let's dive deeper into the architecture a little bit, and kind of the native and web interface, and where those two meet. I wanna dig and understand a little bit more about how it all works together, and why it's the best decision for 1Password.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** I think the question we're looking for is like "The architecture --" and I'll be honest, one of the places where I think we as 1Password probably didn't have the best messaging out the gate, when we first launched 1Password 8... Because we did go heavily into the architecture, which is - look, a lot of your app is running native, and that is true; the vast majority of your app is either native code running in the backend, all the business logic, or we have a ton of Swift and native API code tying stuff together.
+
+I'm not 100% -- like, I'm still waiting to see, is there another Electron app that does unlocking with Apple Watch? We might be the only ones. I haven't found another one. But we spend a heck of a lot of effort into the actually making our Mac app as good in 1Password 8 as 1Password 7. And unfortunately, I think one of the messaging approaches we had was to talk about that. We were really proud of that, and we still are, obviously... But what people see between Electron and something that's written in AppKit or Swift UI is a lot of times they're kind of looking at like the Mac-native UI. Mac-native UI is really the " When I click into a dropdown menu, does it look like the dropdown menu on other parts of my system?" And the truth of the matter is you can actually do a lot of that stuff in Electron.
+
+One of the things you brought up was the permissions dialogue not being in a separate window. We actually at one point had the app do that; that is something you can absolutely do. It's not an Electron feature, or a problem with Electron that prevents you from having multiple windows.
+
+We made a conscious design choice to bring the 1Password design language into these new apps. So in a lot of places where it didn't make sense to use native UI for your system, whether it be for consistency, for things like when you switch platforms, consistency and support documentation - all of those kind of reasons. And we think that we've developed an incredible-looking 1Password design language; a look and feel to it where whether you're using a desktop app, whether you're going onto a web client, whether you're using our browser extension, you're gonna get the same exact experience... And that is where we technologies really help us. What do you have to add to that, Mitch?
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** So a lot of this conversation has been about what Mac users expect... And it's always like a hypothetical Mac user. People will tell us "This is what Mac users expect." It's interesting to me... First of all, I've been a Mac user for as long or longer than the people telling me this, and I know what I expect; I know lots of Mac users.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Wait, are you Steve Jobs? Because you guys might have been inventing browser extensions before browsers, you've been using Macs since before Macs... You know, just being like Steve reincarnated.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** \[47:59\] He may or may not have a Lisa in that room...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, nice...!
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** I actually have an Apple Lisa sitting in my desk over there.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Oh, man...
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** You can see it on the stream...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** OMG... That belongs in a museum. That's incredible.
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** It doesn't turn on. I'm still working on it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's cool.
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** Yeah, the wonderful thing about Steve Jobs, by the way, is that he was not nostalgic, which is --
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Well, I think you can just go to his grave and get like a drop of his blood or a piece of his hair and it will turn on, you know? I'm just kidding... \[laughs\] Alright, I'll stop now.
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** I love the Mac, I love the platform, I love every Mac that comes out... I'm sitting here on this wonderful M1 MacBook Air; it's the best computer I've ever had. And the Mac has succeeded vastly beyond where it was when I joined this company, when we were making just a Mac app... And that's wonderful. And when you look at people who use Macs today, they're not part of that community that wanted a very specific kind of Mac app. They're just normal everyday people. You go to a Starbucks, a college campus, you just look at your friends, family and co-workers, and they love their Macs. But you look at the software they're using, and it's normal software. It's cross-platform software, web-based; a lot of times, just inside of a web browser. And they don't really think about it that way. They don't ask for apps that look like Apple made them in the '90s, the way that I think a lot of people kind of want us to go back and do that... And regardless of what technology we use, we're not gonna do that. We're gonna make an app that looks and feels like the experience we want, just like every other developer effectively is doing in 2021.
+
+I mean, really - you look at the apps that come out nowadays, they have their own very strong branding, their own design language, their own user interface... And that's just kind of what people expect. I actually think that for the average college student, for instance, who uses a Mac, they'll think of something like Discord or Slack or Notion and say "That's what a Mac app looks like. That's how it works." They're not gonna point to these apps that came out decades ago, that sort of are the standard bearers for what a native Mac app is supposed to be.
+
+So I have these users in mind, as much as myself and sort of the culture that I came from when I'm thinking about how our app should look, how it should work, and what its relationship is to the host platform, which is MacOS, in this case.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. How challenging is it to work for or on a platform that is so closed, in many ways? In terms of community feedback, and having your input actually heard, and having an opportunity -- like, it's a very different company than Google and Microsoft, right? Google being on the far left, Microsoft being somewhere in the middle, and Apple just being far on the right in terms of community engagement and taking people's inputs, and also the extensibility of the platform is fairly limited... So I'm just curious what that's like for you.
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** I think this is almost a different question if you're talking about macOS versus iOS.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** macOS, I guess... I mean, I'm not familiar with the differences between the two though, so I don't even -- yeah.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** It's kind of a hard question to answer, because I don't honestly really feel that way, especially on the Mac. I think that in this day and -- honestly, macOS, at the time OS X 10 was one of the coolest innovations the Mac platform has ever had, and there's a reason why we're still on that foundation. You take something like a Homebrew package manager, and a terminal... And I don't really feel like I need Linux. I use Apple platforms because I love the ecosystem; they do work really well together, whether it be receiving notifications on your Apple Watch, and those kind of things... It sounds silly, and if you're fortunate enough to be able to afford kind of a more expensive ecosystem - like, that is one of the downsides, it is a little bit more expensive. But working on Apple products and using Apple products I think is very open and inclusive.
+
+I don't know how many developers know this, but when you go to WWDC (the Worldwide Developer Conference for Apple), they give developers time with Apple engineers. Three months ago, when they announced iOS web extensions, I had three separate sessions with engineers directly working on those APIs, and we were able to say "Hey, here's what we need, here's the problems we're encountering, here's what we're working on." And you do have a lot of input there.
+
+\[52:23\] Also, Apple is very open source and open in the community as well. Swift is open source; WebKit - you can go on there and just file any issue you want. I don't really feel that it's a hostile environment for developers or users. I know we hear the horror stories where some high school student reported a bug to Apple via radar and didn't hear anything back, and it was this huge security issue... There's a lot of horror stories, but to be honest, you go on Google's bug tracker and file an issue, there's a good chance you won't get -- I have issues that have been open for six years over there. It's just the nature of the game and it's part of the prioritization... But I would say it's a great platform to work on and build for.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Well, I'm really so happy to hear that feedback, because I don't think that -- it's just not a common sentiment, I think, outside of people who are doing the day-to-day work... Because I think a lot of us still have that perception of Apple, and its closed system, and Apple is really hostile towards the web, Apple keeps trying to kill PWAs, because they want things going through the App Store... So there's just kind of like Apple vs. Web and Apple vs. open source, the ecosystem -- you know, we can't even get their developers to come to a conference, for God's sake... There's still a level of reservedness which is there...
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** What I would say is every company changes... I remember when I was 13, 14 years old, running -- I mean, I was running openSUSE 7.3 or something back in the day, just lovin raging on how **** Microsoft was for the, you know like, the man has got me down and I gotta go Linux. But look at Microsoft today. They own GitHub. They are pushing TypeScript. They are just crushing it in developer relations. And I would say Apple is probably on that trend as well.
+
+It takes a lot of effort to move a company that big, and they have a lot of different challenges, both internally and externally, communication-wise, I'm sure, just like we do... But I would say they're on that trend as well. There were days when we would say "Internet Explorer is killing the internet", right? And look at them now. They're just another arguably pretty great Chromium browser these days.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Well, I just wanna actually hand the mic back to Nick, because I think Nick had a point... But I just wanted to say - funny story about Internet Explorer... A lot of people think that it was the worst thing for the web, but in actually many ways it was like the best thing for the web, because it actually pushed the web -- it did its job so well that it's still relevant today. It kind of went off the track and really innovated hard. And yeah, it's a ton of stuff that's not standardized, or whatever, but it's all stuff that really pushed the web forward, and so in that way, it really actually did its job very well.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** You really need a villain to push the heroes.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. But it's a perspective that people don't get to really think about often... And I was taught that by a friend of mine, who is kind of a platform nerd... But yeah - so Nick, you were saying...?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, I hear that sentiment about Apple being like that. Not necessarily for the Mac, much more so for the iOS, and their close-mindedness on PWAs and things like that, and just the approach to the web, and the overall -- Safari being so far behind, and not allowing any other browser out there on iOS. I guess that's the bigger debate and the bigger controversy with Apple.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Everything is WebKit, you know? Firefox on iOS, Edge on iOS, Chrome on iOS - it's all WebKit underneath.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** But WebKit is great. We like the browser engine competition...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Of course. We don't mind WebKit, yeah. WebKit's great, yeah.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** \[55:58\] I did not know we were gonna get into an Apple, Microsoft, Google debate, honestly, so I didn't come prepared for it... \[laughter\] But I will say that -- I mean, I am an iPhone user, I know at certain times there were Android phones that came prepackaged with antivirus, and stuff like that... And when it comes to my mobile platforms, I just want them to work really well, and s some of the closed nature do promote an environment that just works really well. Don't get me wrong, we have spent our fair share of praying for just our app not to get killed because we go over a RAM limit, or those kinds of things, and I really am excited about -- that's one of the things that's so exciting about web extensions on iOS to me... I saw the other day someone wrote an iOS web extension that allows you to use developer tools on your iPhone, or your iPad, basically. That's something that doesn't actually work natively. So you can actually start writing JavaScript there, you can manipulate the DOM... Like, the fact that they did that makes me think that Apple is definitely on the track where they understand the status quo... And they are willing to allow you to basically write a JavaScript app and run it in Safari on iOS and iPad OS.
+
+I think it's gonna be super-exciting... I think that's gonna actually cause a surge in the market of browser extensions. Right now password managers and ad blockers are the big ones that everybody knows about, but I'm super-excited to see, even day one, from what I've seen on Twitter, there's a lot of really cool stuff coming out to iPhone, because of the fact that they're allowing JavaScript apps to just basically run inside the browser.
+
+It'd be interesting to see how that works, and as we noted security before, it will be interesting to see -- I'm sure there will be some sort of level of fall-out or something that happens because of that. But I think Apple is becoming very open to the fact that -- and I think being fairly respectful of the web and a lot of the APIs and the platform APIs.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I'm so glad. Great. It's 2021. I'm glad they're coming to the party. They're not quite here yet, but they're in the cab. So we'll welcome them when they arrive. But just to kind of wrap this discussion up, I can't end this show without asking my burning questions, which are really around Web 3.0 and this world of permissionless apps that we're seeing with blockchain technologies... And I'm really curious where you all see, if you had to wave a magic wand and put your speculation hats on - where do you see digital identity really heading? Are we gonna be more anonymized, are we going to go the other way hard, integrating with technologies or services like CLEAR, biometrics verification...? So are we going to be real on the web, or are we going to be anonymized? What does permissionless mean for tools like 1Password? I'm curious if you guys are even part of the blockchain conversation around development.
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** So there's two parts to that answer... One is that we've been through several changes in user behavior on the web, in relation to their own privacy, security and digital identity, and we've always succeeded by adapting how 1Password works to how people actually think about their identity online. The first big transition was from an app to the web, and then to mobile, and then wanting it to become a collaborative sharing experience on the service... And now we're seeing another transition to passwordless, for a lack of a better term. And we want to be there too, because we don't wanna be telling people "Here is what you have to do to be productive, to be secure online." We want to help them do it the way they already want to. So obviously, we've done a lot to make sure that biometrics are a first-class feature of 1Password, so that -- it used to be all about what we used to call your master password, and now that's like a minor detail. Most of the time you're not even thinking of that password; you're interacting with us through the biometric interfaces on your device, and we keep sort of making that more central to the experience.
+
+\[01:00:05.24\] Beyond that though, we also are very interested to see how people are using passwordless services and SSO, as you mentioned, Amal, blockchain services for identity. And we wanna help them do that, because the one thing that we've seen that will always be true is there are all of these services competing for people's one true identity, but we're always gonna be there as kind of the source of truth for all these things you have to keep track of and pay attention to to keep yourself secure online. We're gonna be a safe place for you to store and use and interact with those services.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You guys are the shovels and the highways.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** Yeah, that's one of the reasons we don't have an SSO service ourselves. We saw it in the beginning days, but we wanna be that collection, that out of bad place that you store your entire digital life and digital identity... And I think we are gonna see more moves to passwordless, but I think you'll always have secrets you need to store, just like somehow I find things where I have to actually fax people information... And it's just one of those things where we have a bunch of stuff on our radar and on our long-term roadmap to support a lot of the transition, and kind of be the industry thought leaders in that space.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right. That makes a lot of sense. You kind of mentioned something, Mitch, around SSO, and Adam, you did as well... So there's essentially kind of like these widely growing adoption of third party logins, whether you're logging in with Facebook everywhere, or Google, or GitHub, Twitter... And then there's kind of this centralization on the engineering side of services like Auth0, that are kind of gateways and providers for that login and auth handshake, right? So I'm just curious, do you see that as a good thing, a bad thing, a liability? Clearly, it's a vertical that you've intentionally chosen to stay out of, which I think is so smart... You wanna make sure that you're relevant in all cases, and you're not trying to compete here... So I think it's a very strategic move on your side, but I'm just curious what are your thoughts on these services. Because I'm personally starting to see Auth0 is a bigger and bigger liability for the web...
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** I'll take one of them, and that is I have a recent personal SSO story... So I will share it with the group, just so if anybody else -- I was gonna write a blog post about it and I just haven't gotten around to it. But my recent personal SSO story was I've used Gmail basically since the beta days, when they released the -- I think it was at the time called Google Domains, and then it was like Google Apps, Google Suite, now Google Workspace... Whatever it was called, I basically always had my own personal domain, hosted on Gmail, using a G suite(ish) account. And just this year, I finally decided "You know what - it's time for me to take this off of the Google ecosystem." I actually switched to FastMail, who are very privacy and security-focused, and a really cool company that do contribute to a lot of open source technologies, and they're right over there, writing RFCs on JMAP, and if you haven't seen that, you should definitely check it out... But basically, I did do that, and I finally shut down my Google account. And of course, with that, I actually had Google Fi, which I basically couldn't close this G Suite account without switching my Google Fi to another carrier... And I had - not a lot, but quite a few little SSO sign-in websites where essentially once I closed that Google account, that no longer worked anymore.
+
+So I look at SSO as kind of a "You're tying yourself to that company or that provider", and in some ways, that can be good. For example, I think it's really smart from a business perspective to off-board a user and just immediately kind of kill their access to various services... But from a personal perspective, especially in this day and age, if Facebook or Google or somebody does something that you don't wanna support them anymore, SSO is a way that you're really tied in, and it makes it very challenging to get out of that ecosystem.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[01:04:08.16\] Agreed. Quite frankly though, on that same note, the fact that people's emails are centralized and they don't own their domain, nor their content... You know, if Google cuts you off, there goes your email - that's a problem also, you know?
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** Yeah, there's a ton of ramifications there. So that's why I'm a little mixed. Honestly, what I want is I want SSO in certain scenarios, I suppose, but I want a service like 1Password to basically keep track of all of my SSO logins - where they are, what they are... So if I do go through a transition like that, I know immediately "Alright, here's the accounts that are gonna be affected by it."
+
+And I think that's a place where having a third-party who aren't invested in trying to lock you into their ecosystem is a huge benefit of using a product like 1Password.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's awesome.
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** And to your question about the trends - I think users are eager to adopt passwordless technologies, but they wanna feel like they still have control, and that's something that a lot of these providers aren't really offering, or at least aren't being open enough about... Like, "What do I give up if I use my Microsoft account without a password for everything? How do I change my mind about that? How do I migrate?" So we kind of wanna help people have that control and flexibility, and we don't want to create another system of lock-in that forces people to do it the 1Password way instead of someone else's way.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's pretty cool. So does that mean it's easy to migrate into 1Password as a customer, and migrate out as well?
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** Yup. Essentially, we've always had the premise that it's your data, it's your secrets, so you can export them and take them anywhere with you. Also, if you sign up for a membership and you stop paying us, you'll essentially still have read-only access to that data. We'd never make it to the point where we're keeping anything from you. I think that's always been one of the big values of 1Password - we're gonna respect your privacy, and we're gonna do our dang best to keep everything as secure as possible... And something that we include into our design, even though it's sometimes user hostile - building something that's secure sometimes makes it more challenging to use... And you're always gonna have that data portability in and out of 1Password.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Well, honestly, kudos to you all for even just doing what you've done. I'm really excited to check out your whitepapers; I'll link them in the show notes as well. Ultimately - I've said this tons of times, and I'll say it again... The internet was designed to be open, this open network between trusted peers, and architecting security into a system that was designed to be open is extremely challenging. That's why it's so painful.
+
+So if we could re-envision what the web could be, if we architected the web and created new protocols that were secure first, how game-changing could that be? Those would be great conversations to start having, but first we have to stop arguing about basic stuff.
+
+So with that said... Actually, I do have a security question for you before we end. Do you know how with password managers you're always copying things onto your clipboard? I always find that a liability, because it's not a one-time copy... So I'm just curious if you guys have ever considered working with browser operating software folks to maybe change that, or develop a new standard for a password copy that's secure and one-time, and that's also time-limited? So if it's still on your clipboard and you haven't pasted it anywhere, it just goes away after 30 seconds, or something like that...
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** That's actually a feature of 1Password.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** OMG.
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** Even in our new modern web-based frontends we use the system APIs to do that most effectively. So on macOS we actually use the secure clipboard, and clear it after a time-out; we even do this on Linux and Windows, in sort of native ways.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[01:08:03.12\] That's amazing.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** And on iOS and mobile platforms as well. Basically, that is one of the reasons we always go out of our way to support those APIs. And I'll be honest, that's actually a web extension API I would love to see, because we don't have one of those from the browser extension... But in the browser extension, one of the nice things is you can basically click on an item and have it automatically fill into the page, so it basically keeps your system clipboard or anybody listening to that clipboard kind of out of the loop.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's awesome. Well, I'll tell you, you gained one customer today, I'll tell you that much. It's perfect timing.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** One by one. That's how we grew.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I'm due for my LastPass renewal, so I'm sorry, LastPass; you guys have been great, but... Time for something new. It's been a pleasure having you all today... Seriously. Thank you so much.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** Yeah, absolutely. Thank you for having us. I will do one quick call-out, which is if anything we said sounded cool or something you're interested in, we are definitely hiring. I am looking for web developers. If you know TypeScript, you wanna come join us, just check out our Jobs page on 1Password.com. Honestly, we are a really cool group of people to work with, not to mention we're trying to really innovate, and there's opportunities with us if anybody's interested.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Awesome. And where can people find you all online
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** You can find me on Twitter at @firebeyer. That's basically the only social media platform I use. I'm not a huge social person. Even LinkedIn, it just makes you a spearfishing target... So I've deleted pretty much every other social media platform... But you can find me there if you wanna chat or set something up. Obviously, you can find 1Password at 1Password.com. And then Mitch...
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** I am also really only on Twitter, @mitchchn. I've enjoyed all the conversation there about 1Password 8 and participated in it, so please feel free, hit me up with what you like, what you don't like, what you disagree with, what I said on this show... That's great; I really love this conversation, and - hey, you might find out that I agree with you and we'll get your change into the app... Because like I said, it's in early access and we still have some time to go before we're ready to release it to everyone... So now is the time to let us know what you think about 1Password. We're listening and we're working to make it great for you.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** Mitch does funny tweets of 1Password spinning on the desktop, because people thought that Electron couldn't do shaking, like we had in the old app... So some of his content is really funny to watch.
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** I also do real work, by the way... \[laughs\]
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** He does some real work, by the way... And I will give a quick shout-out, if you are an iPhone user, iPad user, on Monday iOS 15 comes out, and 1Password will have, I'm hoping, the best web extension there, so you can see what it's like to run 1Password as a web app on an iOS device, which is pretty groundbreaking. It's really awesome.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, that's so cool. Thank you so much for listening to your customers, and thank you so much for helping drive really good decisions, and obviously, I would say, world-class user experiences. I think a lot of product companies, regardless of what they're doing for their customers, I think could take a few notes from you all. So thank you, again. It's been a pleasure. And that's a wrap, kids. It's been super-fun...
+
+**Andrew Beyer:** Awesome. Thanks.
+
+**Mitchell Cohen:** Thank you.
diff --git a/Are web apps fundamentally different than web sites_transcript.txt b/Are web apps fundamentally different than web sites_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1124ce768e33689b5382103708d8c566dfe2cf2d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Are web apps fundamentally different than web sites_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,439 @@
+**Jerod Santo:** Hello, friends. It's time once again for a JS Party. I'm Jerod, and I'm here to host a debate. This is our Yep/Nope format, wherein we come up with a premise, we team up, and we debate either side of that premise; whether or not we actually believe in the side that we're assigned we'll find out later.
+
+I'm joined by four friends. Let's just get through it real quick - we've got Nick, Amal, Divya and Feross with us. What's up, everybody?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Hoy-hoy!
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Hey, everybody.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** What's going on?
+
+**Divya:** Helloooooo...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And our teams will be Divya and Feross versus Amal and Nick. Are you all ready?
+
+**Divya:** Let's do it...!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Do we want any smack talk to get started, or announce how you're about to dominate, or anything like that?
+
+**Divya:** \[laughs\] Like in WWE?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Divya:** "Take you DOWN!!" I don't know what they say. Well, I used to watch it actually a lot, strangely...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Or do we just do a staredown like at a weigh-in for MMA, or something, where you just stare at each other. Oh, Nick's staring us down. It doesn't make for very good podcasting, so I'll move on...
+
+The premise for today's debate is one that is debated online and in the industry sometimes, which is that web apps are fundamentally different than websites. So we will have one team representing the Yep, which is agreeing that web apps are fundamentally different than websites, and that will be team Amal. And then we'll have team Divya representing the Nope side of the debate, which argues that web apps are not fundamentally different than websites.
+
+So two minutes on the board... We do this semi-formal. We don't get totally dressed up; we get dressed up a little bit... \[crickets\] That was a failed attempt at a semi-formal dance joke; I'm not sure if nobody got it, or if it just wasn't very funny... Oh well.
+
+We set some timers... So there'll be a two-minute timer for you to make your case. If you run out of time, you'll hear this sound \[alert 00:04:37.01\] and your time will be up. If you run short, that's totally cool as well; just go ahead and concede the rest of your time... And we'll go back and forth.
+
+So we'll have the Yeps first, team Amal, two minutes on the board. Who's going first for team Amal? Is it Amal or Nick?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I say gentlemen first, so...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, reverse chivalry. Appreciate it. \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, I know...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, Nick, you're on the board for two minutes.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I was gonna make a really bad joke about how, you know, men actually run the world anyway, so "Oh, well..." \[laughs\] Just kidding...
+
+**Divya:** Amal dropping truth bombs... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I like how Amal introduces her jokes by saying she was gonna make the joke, and then she makes it anyways... Kind of in a reverse, kind of a sneaky joke there... Alright.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's a joke, not.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Nick, you're running the world. I'm running the clock. Two minutes on the board. Here we go, Nick.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Alright. Web apps are fundamentally different than websites. Now, my opponents here are probably going to say that to an end user it probably is no different, because you're just hitting them from a browser, you're going to a URL, and you're using whatever is there... And I'm going to say that I disagree with that, because they are fundamentally different. And when you look at it from the perspective of actually building them, they're really fundamentally different, or they can be fundamentally different.
+
+But first, I'll start by trying to define what each one is, and I'll just say quickly that a website is informational, it's defined by its content, and it can be minimal on scripting, although that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. The content is typically static. In a web app, it's defined by its interaction with the user, so it's more "What can the user do with this?" and it definitely expects interaction, which means it probably has scripting on the heavier side, so a lot of JavaScript, a lot of other scripting languages in there, potentially, doing things.
+
+So I think that they are fundamentally different, just in that definition, because a web app is something that you're going to interact with, and a website is going to be something that you're just going to look at and consume the data. Some examples of that is -- I think that GitHub is a really good website to look at my code, and to see what's going on there, and to do a little bit of minimal interaction. I can press a button to do a pull request, as long as everything is green, and I can't really change things, like resolve conflicts or anything, because it's just a website that's giving me a lot of information and letting me interact with it in a minimal way. But if I wanna go in and change my code, I'm going to load the Codespaces web app and use that to change my code. Or Vim, if I wanna actually be productive. \[laughter\]
+
+Another example would be like I wanna look at pretty web design... \[alert\] Oh, alright.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Sorry, Nick, you wasted all your time doing Vim drops... \[laughter\] Which is time well-spent, I will say.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Great job, teammate, though...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, so team Divya, you now have two minutes to respond. You can also just ignore everything Nick said and just state your case; however you wanna do it. Who's gonna go first for team Divya?
+
+**Divya:** I can go.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright. Divya, you've got two minutes on the board. It's all yours, go ahead.
+
+**Divya:** Alright, so websites and web applications are not fundamentally different, but I will make the argument that at one point in time the reason why there seems to be this artificial difference is because in the beginning websites or the way we see websites and web properties was static, in the sense that you had to SSH into your server, you had to FTP your content, everything was static, mostly HTML. But then in the early 2000's we saw full-stack frameworks coming to the fore, mainly LAMP stack and so on, and these were web applications in the sense that they were not static, they were not just plain HTML files; they were actual PHP running on a server, you needed Apache, and so on.
+
+But as time moved on and as web development developed, we saw this shift where now we have software as a service, where there's hosted platforms that allow you to do things that were not possible before. And what I mean by that is that the traditional sense of the website and the traditional sense of web app no longer exists. The difference between them is fairly -- well, non-existent in this point... Because now whatever you can do with regards to this static versus dynamic is not really a dichotomy that you can talk about.
+
+For example, Nick brought up this idea that there's minimal user interaction on a static site. Well, there actually is a lot of user interaction that you can include, because you have things like hosted databases that you can make calls to, sites can start static and then you can build up APIs using -- there's so many microservices, there's a whole API economy that allows you to do things. So you could have something super-dynamic, like a Shopify site, that is completely end-to-end. And therefore, websites and web applications are not very different. Feross, did you wanna add...?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Ten seconds.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Okay, ten seconds, really? \[laughter\] I'll just give back the time and I'll take the ten seconds in the second part. \[alert\] Is that legal...?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, fair enough. Yeah, we'll get you an extra ten on the next time.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Alright.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, that was Divya's turn. And of course, as your moderator, I'm here to provide real-time fact-checking... Nick asserted that you cannot perform merge conflicts - or you cannot fix merge conflicts on github.com. Fact-check - false. You can actually do that. Okay...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** We can.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Limited. You can do limited merge conflict fixes now. Some things they still make you \[unintelligible 00:10:04.03\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You can do limited--
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Really?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, I don't know how fancy they're gonna get...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Limited, yeah. I think it's limited. But anyways...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** If there's a conflict--
+
+**Jerod Santo:** But Nick did not say it, so you're fact-checking my fact-check, or what's going on here? \[laughter\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[unintelligible 00:10:17.08\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh yeah, there's definitely a merge conflict resolution UI...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** There is, there is...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I don't know how limited it is, because apparently my merge conflicts are all relatively simple, because I'm so basic...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** When did GitHub become a web app? \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, let's get back onto the board. We're going now back to team Amal, and to Amal herself, the chivalrous one... Amal, you get one minute to respond, because that's less time than the other people got; I don't know, it doesn't explain why, but go ahead. You've got one minute.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Sure. So I'd like to say that I'm gonna take a different approach with my one-minute, which is just like fundamentally assert that the web has evolved, and that websites and web apps are terms used to, I think, distinguish the level of complexity and expected interaction for users.
+
+If I'm interacting on a website, I'm really expecting a more static experience; something that's typically a read. And when I'm interacting with web apps, there's a context shift there. There's a lot of read/write behavior. And I think it's really important for us as web developers to push the term of web app, because users have native apps on their phone, and we have progressive web apps that essentially are allowing web apps to compete with native apps in their domain... So users essentially can't distinguish sometimes between "Is this button launching a browser that's full-screen, or is this launching a native app?" \[alert\] Yes, that's it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I'll continue the rest of my argument later.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Good job, Amal. We'll go now to Feross. One minute and ten seconds to respond.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, so we're talking about whether websites and web apps are different from each other, and I'll concede right away that obviously there are different types of websites; there's static blogs on one end, static sites that are basic HTML... And then on the other end there's things like full graphic editors, like Figma, and there's 3D multiplayer games... So there's obviously a huge range of different types of websites.
+
+The other side is arguing that there are differences in the types of websites that you can build, and that obviously makes sense. Our side will totally concede that. But at the end of the day, these are all just websites. The web is extremely capable and amazing. It can do all kinds of types of experiences; but fundamentally, we're dealing with the same web technology. You know, a user visits a URL, the server sends some HTML, the browser displays it, it runs some scripts, and all this stuff is running inside of the same thing, it's running inside of a web browser. All the same browser features work - the Back button, the Forward button, the Refresh button, the bookmarks, the history, your browser extensions, you can copy and paste URLs and share websites to other people...
+
+So you know, if we were debating whether native apps and web apps are different, I would agree; but come on, we're talking about websites here. All these different types of things are websites. Just ask the W3C, or WATWG, or TC39 - they're all working on one set of standards for websites. They're not making a separate set of standards for other websites. So by this appeal to authority, you should see that we're talking about the same thing here. Not to mention the other side has already been fact-checked and proven wrong, so... Take that into account. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, real-time fact-check here... Feross stated that the Back button always works; fact-check - false... \[laughter\]
+
+**Divya:** Oh, my God... No, it usually works, unless it's been tampered with. I think it's a fair point.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I was gonna argue that that's a key feature of a web app, is you don't have all of that built-in functionality working...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** With that fact, we will take a break and we'll begin round two right after this.
+
+**Break:** \[14:05\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Round two of Yep/Nope. We are debating "Are web apps and websites fundamentally different? Yep? Nope?" We're here to find out. Divya, it is now your turn. You have two minutes to state a case or refute something that your opponent said. Go ahead.
+
+**Divya:** Thank you for the floor. As Feross mentioned, I'd like to just build upon his case, which is a lot of the times when we talk about this artificial difference between websites and web applications, we actually mean the same thing, because we're talking about browsers, and browser technology, and how exactly these assets are viewed by users. And I know Amal had mentioned that the end user experience doesn't matter so much, and we should focus on the building of it as a whole... But I think it should account as a whole, because ultimately, when you look at websites, and maybe if you wanna call it web applications - which is basically a website - ultimately it's about how you build it, as well as how it's perceived from an end user's perspective.
+
+What I've focused on so far is the building of a website and a web app - same thing, again. The idea that you can build a fully-functional, dynamic website using a lot of technologies without you having to artificially call it an application. So this difference between static and dynamic is kind of artificial. If anything, it's a range, as Feross had mentioned. Websites can range from something incredibly static, to something incredibly dynamic, like doing merge conflicts on GitHub, which is possible... And that is something that we should take into consideration.
+
+And from a user's perspective, they also don't see that difference as a whole, because in addition to being able to see content directly, they can also interact directly with a website; to them, it's unperceivable, the difference. And of course, they would not know the terminology and the differences between them, but I think it matters to talk about and to focus on as well.
+
+I think the other thing to talk about also is just how websites are served. We often talk about websites as static, where it's on a CDN, and web apps as something that are on servers. And the thing is that artificial difference makes sense when we think of static sites, and CDNs as hosting static properties. However, with the movement of edge computing, CDNs are getting more powerful. You can run a lot of logic at a CDN level. So when websites and web apps - that artificial difference is sort of removed completely, because you can make something incredibly static have logic, like redirects, for instance, where you can route a user from asset to another. \[alert\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Very good.
+
+**Divya:** That is all.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. Amal, we pitch to you. Two minutes to respond.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Well, the only thing about that argument that was made that made sense to me was when she said the lines that web apps and websites - it makes sense for them to be distinguished as differently, so I just wanted to say thanks for agreeing with our argument in one line, Divya... \[laughter\]
+
+**Divya:** I think that was taken out of context.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, whatever, anyways... Case in point--
+
+**Divya:** What's the fallacy? \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Okay... \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's the "Whatever..."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So I think it's really important for us to start educating users around the scale of the web, especially as users are accessing the web through mobile devices, understanding that a site, a simple kind of bulletin board for the web is really different than building a complex, interactive experience, with a lot of read/write, a lot of data usage, potentially more assets to download upfront... So I think it's important for us to start making the web more accessible in terms of its ability to have scales and tiers... And I think we all fundamentally agree that a web app is certainly an evolution of good old-fashioned websites... But they are absolutely not the same, and nor do they take the same level of skill to build, or create, or maintain.
+
+I think tossing something up on WordPress as a static site is not the same level of effort as building a WASM game engine in the browser. So you have fundamentally different skills needed to perform the work, and therefore that alone for me just speaks to why they are fundamentally different things.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yup, very good. Time's pretty much up, so we'll pass it now to Feross and give you, Feross, one minute to respond. Go ahead.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** So I'd like to remind everyone, the premise that we're debating here is that web apps are fundamentally different than websites... And I'll just focus on the word there "fundamental". That web apps are fundamentally different than websites. What we've heard from the other side is an argument that web apps and websites are kind of different; they've argued that web apps and websites are built a bit differently, that they're an evolution, and that users may perceive a bit of a difference in the degree to which a website versus a web app is dynamic, and you know, the degree to which the Back button may or may not work. But fundamentally here, the argument is about whether web apps are fundamentally different than websites.
+
+And I think if we were debating the difference between websites and native apps, there would be a very fundamental difference there. But since we're talking about an issue of degree here - you know, a website can be a little bit more appy, or a little bit less appy - I'd argue that really, the difference between websites and web apps is really not that great, and it's certainly not great enough to rise to the level of describing it as fundamentally different. \[alert\] So for that reason, I urge you to support our side.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, very good. Nick, the final word of this segment. You've got one minute.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Alright, so I'll just respond to both of my opponents real quick, and I'll say that in Divya's argument she talked about being able to do more at the CDN level, which stands for Content Delivery Network, Content being the key word there; so you're delivering content to consume... So therefore you're thinking more of websites. Whereas web apps would be more -- I lost where I was going with that thread, so let's just go to Feross...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** The compute would happen somewhere else, typically a server. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Phone a friends... Thanks, Amal. \[laughter\] Go on.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And Feross, you were talking about maybe if we were comparing web apps to native apps, for example... And I would say that with the underlying APIs that you get natively, like battery, and geolocation, and compass, and all of these, and with things like service workers, where can you draw the line between what's a native app and a web app? You can install them just like you would a regular app... It's just the underlying technology that they're built in. But they are applications, and... \[alert\] Saved by the bell.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Saved by the bell there... \[laughter\] We've now reached the conclusion of our semi-formal debate... I've been keeping score the entire time, and I'm not ready to claim the victor...
+
+**Divya:** We won, clearly...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** How does this algorithm work? Tell us.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** He has a web application to do that...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh yeah, that makes sense.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And the winner of this debate is me, because the only way to win is by not participating. And I'm the only one here who did not actually play, so... I win. congratulations to me. After this break we're gonna come back and we're gonna peel back the veil; we're gonna talk about what our participants actually believe, maybe get into a real-world debate around the nuances here... Because there's no nuance in that premise, but there's a lot of nuance in this discussion. So we'll return and we will see what everybody really thinks right after this.
+
+**Break:** \[25:10\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, so let's talk about what we really think about this. The premise was web apps and websites are fundamentally different, and that's worded in such a way that it is defensible from either side. I think Feross keyed in on the word "fundamental", which I thought was the strong argument myself, even though he still lost at the end of the day, but... \[laughter\] Remember, I was the only one that won, so... Sorry, but you participated, which was foolish. But what do you all really think? Do you make distinguishments? Are they different but not fundamentally different? If we can just relax and chat, what do you all really think about this?
+
+**Divya:** I felt like there was -- the PWA argument was a good one, because it is the weird divide... In a way, I think there was two sets of arguments. It was the websites/web apps - actually, the part that was hardly talked about was the... Well, we talked about it a lot. It was that websites and web apps, the full-stack, versus JAMstack maybe is the term... And then there was the argument, which was like mobile and web merging... Which I thought that one was more nuanced. Because the first argument was like "It's very clear that we're moving away from this website/web app thing." But I felt like with mobile, and this idea of cross-platform, where it's like React Native, there's -- I guess NativeScript is still a thing, Ionic... And I guess Flutter is also really exciting for a lot of developers; or Flutter is unique... Actually, everything else is unique, except for React Native... Because React Native is building on a framework that developers already know. So if you're building websites (well, React apps), you would be able to build something hybrid. And there's a lot of other framework, like Nuxt, and Next, and they do kind of this idea of universal apps... But yeah, I thought that was a good argument, honestly. Just saying. Even though I still disagree... \[laughs\]
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** I think the focus on how the technologies that are involved in building websites vs. web apps - that's one way of looking at the argument. I was looking at it more from like "What is the user experience like for the end user?" And I think that when you tell people about a website, you say "Hey, have you seen this app, or have you seen this site?" the main differentiating line that they think about in their mind is whether it's a website or it's an app... And an app meaning like a native app that they'll search for in their app store.
+
+So I've built sites before where people are searching for it in the app store, and they're like "I can't find your app", and it's like "Well, it's because it's a website. It's not an app, yet. So go to Safari and search for it there and you'll find it."
+
+But from a user perspective, I actually agree with the side that I was assigned to... Because I don't think users are really thinking about, when they go to Safari or whatever browser on their phone, and they're going to some kind of website, they're not really thinking about whether it's an app or it's a website. It's just that they're in the web browser.
+
+I don't know how you distinguish there for the user, because before we even had the concept of a web app, there were for example e-commerce sites that implemented things like shopping carts, where there was state on the server, and you're adding things to your card, and you're adjusting the quantity, and you're checking out, and you're doing all this very stateful stuff... And nowadays a site or an app like that would be built with more of the web appy technologies, like React or something, and you would very clearly argue "Oh, that's obviously an app, because it's using all this client-side stuff, and all this fancy routing, and all this really complicated machinery to do it... But we had that kind of stuff in the '90s, too. And back in the '90s, I think that would have been called a website, for sure, because it was just like a website with a PHP server on the backend doing some stateful things. So it's all very mixed up, and I don't think users really think about the difference. So if we're looking at it from the user perspective, then I think it's really the same.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** To add to that... So when I think about a quintessential web app, maybe the first (at least for me) major web app was Gmail. As an informed user, I was like "This seems fundamentally different than other things." But it was still in my browser. And as less informed users, as maybe more mainstream users, I know that for instance my parents are on Gmail, and when I talk to them about their email, I'll tell them certain configurations, like blacklist, or whatever you're gonna do - those can only be done via the web, versus inside their mail app that's connected to Gmail. Their differentiation is "Is it in my mail app, or is it on the web?" And I'll tell them "Go to the web interface to do that", and to them there's no differentiation. If it's on the web, it's a website thing. And if it's in an app, it's an app thing. So I think that is an anecdotal piece of evidence around the concept that end users are like "Is it in a web browser or not?" And that's probably where they think about it. Or maybe the other way around - is it in an app or not? Which I think PWAs do kind of start to change that calculus a little bit... Because if you find it in the app store and you install it onto your phone, and it is a website that's being wrapped and doing fancy things, now it's different than a website.
+
+**Divya:** Yeah, it's interesting to think about it that way, because a lot of native apps -- I know Facebook has their own browser thing that they're working on, and it's just like... It's an app, kind of, but it's an in-app browser window. So users are still interacting with the website, so to speak, but they see it in the app shell... So from that perspective it seems different.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I feel like maybe instead of developing their own browser, or browser extension, or whatever, maybe Facebook should just give all of their users cameras to put in their house... It would be easier to keep track of users.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It's called a portal. \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** A portal, yeah. They already did that. \[laughter\] Alright, I'll stop the Facebook \[unintelligible 00:32:27.22\]
+
+**Divya:** Amal is on fire...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** No, it's fine, it's fine. Whatever. User privacy is important, but not to social media companies, so...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That was actually gonna be one of my arguments for the distinction between the two... A web app is something that you're going to use to do something for you, and a website is going to be something that is spying on you for their benefit. It's a bad argument... \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah... So for me, this is super-nuanced, because I think it's very important that we continue to blur the lines between native desktop apps or native mobile apps and web apps, mainly because the web is definitely the better platform for users, because it's open, but it's also -- it's gotta get better; it's gotta get better for small screens, it's gotta get better for other ephemeral interactions...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I think it definitely does have to get better, and I think when we think about the difference between the two -- I think developers obviously talk about these things more often. Fundamentally, are they different? I don't think they're different, because - Feross' argument is strong; the technical ways that they're delivered and executed - it's all the same technology, it's all the same platform, so they aren't fundamentally different...
+
+But what if we change that to "It's useful to distinguish." Because I think when we get to the side of somebody who's building one of these things, I think that's where we start to consider them different. Like, what am I building and how am I trying to build it? What's it going to be? Does that change the technologies that I select? Does that change the decisions that I make? And I think at that point maybe you can say fundamentally, but at least there is a distinguishment that says "I'm building a rich in-browser experience which is gonna be app-like, and I can probably enumerate what app-like means... And therefore I'm gonna pick this technology stack, or these particular ways of building it, or this architecture, in order to make that the best thing it can be..." Versus "What I'm really making over here is a content-first publishing website, and so I might reach for different technologies." I think that's where it starts to become more of a useful way of thinking about things... Or do you guys think that even that is not worth distinguishing?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** I mean, everybody's building their websites like web apps these days. A lot of people are just using the same tools for everything, so... But I agree, that is a more useful place to distinguish between the two, when you're thinking from a developer's perspective, like "How should I build this?" There's definitely different decisions that you can make there.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I think GitHub's such a fascinating case, because it really was a thing that moved from kind of website-looking things to actually some pretty rich interactions now... Although they've kept -- they're not a single-page app. They didn't come out and say "We are an app." It was a place to host your code. And of course, there's tons of stuff that makes that possible, which is very app-like. But the interface was very much like, you know, search for a thing, read a thing, find a thing, write, comment... These are very basic interactions, but over time it's gotten more and more rich... And they really have blurred the lines between the two.
+
+**Divya:** Web 2.0...! The rise of user interactivity.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yup.
+
+**Divya:** Honestly, it's the same if you look at websites that were just like purely one way, where it's like a user didn't really interact; they kind of hyperlinked. It was just like hyperlinks to different things, and everything was static... And now a lot of sites are very interactive; you have things like sockets and WebRTC that allows people to communicate with each other on a single browser tab session... Which I think is really cool and powerful. So the line is blurred, definitely, but yeah, I think there's something to be said about from a user's perspective they might see the difference.
+
+Actually, I think a really interesting argument that we can have later, like another Yep/Nope, is websites are \[unintelligible 00:36:17.21\] web apps, just to troll this argument further...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] There you go.
+
+**Divya:** Write it down.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Write it down. Future premise. Oh, by the way, if you're out there listening, we do take episode requests. So if there's a specific Yep/Nope premise that you want debated, we are happy to take that up, we're happy to invite guests and other people to debate these topics, not just us regular panelists... To do that, all you have to do is head to changelog.com/request, select JS Party in the dropdown, drop a topic, drop a guest, you can pick your panelists... We know we've had specific panelists requested for specific topics; we're cool with that, too... So just a shout-out out there - if you're listening and you want to hear more debates like this, with premises that you come up with, please do drop us a note. We would love to hear from you.
+
+Okay, final thoughts before we call it a day. This was a lot of fun... I always enjoy the argumentation, whether or not I agree or disagree, and I always enjoy declaring myself the winner. Nick, you've been quiet recently. Do you have any thoughts on the distinguishments, the usefulness, and what you really believe in this context?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, coming back to what Feross was saying about how everything is being built as a web app nowadays - that's totally true. My blog, that I really haven't posted on since 2015 - I just redid it with Eleventy, and it's all JavaScript... But at the end of the day it's no JavaScript at all running on the page. So it feels like an app that I'm working on, but it's served like a site. And to an end user, I don't think that there's any difference. I think that's the most important takeaway.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I have to say, to that point, Nick... People who can write or build web apps - we tend to kind of over-engineer everything. So you don't need React running your blog, for example, or even an npm dependency toolchain, for example. Obviously, you can do whatever you want; you're an engineer, you can do it. But I think it's important for us to really think about the future of the web, and for me, the future of the web needs to include more web authors and content creators, and what does that world look like. And not just like folks posting content through social media platforms like TikTok. You see the engagement level there for people who are interested in putting things out there onto the web... But I think it would be nice for people to be able to put content onto the open web without that intermediary. And for that, we're gonna need to have a more distinct, simpler, more accessible class of tools than -- you know, \[unintelligible 00:38:54.02\] That's actually really why I think the distinguishment between sites and apps can help define those boundaries for people on the other side of the spectrum.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Maybe if we can quantify the level of over-engineering that's going into something, we can distinguish it on a scale between website and web app...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And maybe we can do it on page size... Like, if it's 3 MB of JavaScript bundle, then it's a web app, right? \[laughter\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** But if it's 10 MB of images, then it's a website.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There you go... \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Totally fair argument.
+
+**Divya:** I also think there's something to be said about the terminology. You know how web developer and software engineer - people choose whichever to use depending on how they want to be perceived... For example - I'll just give you my biased opinion... Which is whenever I tell people I'm a web developer, it's not as cool as saying I'm a software engineer. Because "I'm a software engineer" holds a lot of gravity. And also, in certain countries you're not allowed to say you're a software engineer without an actual degree. So there's this distinction. Which I imagine it's the same with websites and web apps to some extent, where it's not as cool when I say I'm working on a website. But when I say I'm working on a web app, people are like "That's awesome! What are you using?" But when it's website, it's like "Oh, it's just HTML and CSS. Whatever."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Divya's on Geocities again.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. Kinda, like, demeaning. Let me go on record and say "Websites are cool. Websites are cool." Come on, people.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah. What about the term "programmer?" Do any of you call yourselves programmers?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I call myself a brogrammer.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** A brogrammer... \[laughter\] That's appropriation. \[laughter\]
+
+**Divya:** Take it \[unintelligible 00:40:36.12\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. "Don't steal my culture...!"
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. That is total appropriation... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's funny. I've been around long enough to see the transition, and I know a lot of people actually take offense to certain -- I've seen blog posts like "Do not call me a coder", because they think coder is belittling... They're like "Don't call me a coder, call me a programmer. Don't call me a programmer, call me a developer. Don't call me a developer, call me an engineer. Oh, actually I'm an architect." I feel like we kind of get caught up on these things. And because each of us does view the world through a different lens, these words have different connotations.
+
+I don't take it as speaking down to me to call me a developer versus an engineer. I couldn't care less. But I can see where for Divya, especially if it has to do with certain job opportunities or whatever, her context is "Engineer is more uplifting", and she'd rather be called that. So it's weird, because we all kind of just have our own ways of defining it in our heads what the words mean.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I think that's a really interesting topic for a debate though, these words. I remember Silicon Valley, that show on HBO - I remember getting so distinctly annoyed every time I heard the word "coder." Because I was like -- I do personally feel like coder just belittles the craft a little.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Hm. What if coding was the craft?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, but this is completely subjective.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right, that's why it's interesting, because we all bring our own contextual baggage to the words, and then we interpret them according to us... And I used to write for a blog called Fuel Your Coding, and I thought it was totally cool. Then I read somebody else saying what you've just said, like "Coding is not cool." And I'm like "Well, I thought it was cool..." But I think maybe coding attaches to the code monkey term, which is incredibly belittling... That whole "Just go grab a ticket and write the code." That makes us seem like we are not all that we are. So I understand that maybe there's an attachment there, but... It's a fascinating linguistics problem.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah... For some reason, I just feel like programmer is the most pure term. A person who makes programs. It doesn't have the baggage of coder... Software engineer feels a little bit grasping to me... In the same way that the term "computer science" is also grasping. It's like, "Oh, we've got to add the word science to make it seem real legit."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] Yeah... Please respect us.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, computer science?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Science.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah. Because you're adding the word science at the end. It's like, "Oh, the science of computers", when really it could just be called computation, or...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Computation... \[laughter\] I teach computation. I like that.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Well, it's not about the physical computer hardware. You wouldn't call -- I'm trying to think of a good example... You wouldn't call -- it's weird to call an entire field, like name it based on the tool that you use, the physical tool that you use.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, I see. Yeah.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Really, what we're doing is more abstract.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. \[unintelligible 00:43:37.18\]
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, exactly. It's not like microscope science.
+
+**Divya:** I think it's the same with like when you see people having degrees, and there's some countries where they call computer science "informatics". And then when you see that, you're like "Oh, they're not really a computer scientist", and you're like "We're studying the same thing!" Informatics is the study of computational systems. That's literally what computer science is.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, literally. I have to say, there is a sciency part to comp sci, and I think it starts at the graduate level... But there's a ton of theory, and I don't know if that really for me falls under the computation description...
+
+**Divya:** Oh, interesting. So it's like research versus...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Computational theory could work, instead of computer science... But you know, there's a lot of theory, and...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Divya:** Actually, that's so cool, because I have used that before when I talk about myself. I never talk about myself as a computer scientist, because I am not very theory-driven. I tend to be very vocation -- like, "How does it look? How do you implement it?"-driven. And I think I've used this distinction when I have certain conversations with people, when they talk about programming languages, and I talk about the syntax, and how exactly it works when you're building a thing, and the ergonomics \[unintelligible 00:44:57.17\] "Isn't it beautiful from a research perspective in terms of how the language is organized?" I'm like, "No, but it sucks to work with though..." \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, I think we have stumbled upon a couple of future Yep/Nope debates around terminology and its usefulness... But quite a ways upstream from where we started today, web apps and websites. That being said, a fun debate, a fun post-conversation... And gotta give a shout-out to Thomas Eckhart in the chat for the best joke of the day, which I missed on...
+
+**Divya:** It was so good...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...when Amal called herself a brogrammer... It was "abropriation"... \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's so awesome. Oh my God, our listeners are so smart.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes. So you win, Thomas. So thanks everybody for listening. This is our show for this week, and we'll talk to you next time.
+
+**Outro:** \[45:44\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I had to fact-check you, because you'd just stated that one of your arguments is the other team got fact-checked... \[laughter\]
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** That's true...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...which shows how bad they are. And I was like, "Hold on, I was about to fact-check you."
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** I was trying to use as many appeals to -- you know, different fallacies...
+
+**Divya:** Oh, like different fallacies.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, so I used the appeal to authority at the end, and then the one about them being fact-checked, the one where you disparage the other side's credibility...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. Like an ad hominem kind of a thing.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, kind of. And then I tried to do -- I redefined... I don't know if that is one too, but I changed the goal posts.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Redefined the premise...
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yes. I also did the thing that Biden does, where he's like "Come on..." \[laughter\] Or what does he say? Doesn't he say like--
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, "Come on, man..."
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You should have said "That's a bunch of malarkey." \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** We're gonna end up with so many adorable isms from him over the next four years...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** "Come on, man..."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. He's a funny dude.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, shall we hop back in? So not we'll flip the script and we'll go Divya and Feross first... Is that right? Yes. Because Nick was first-first, so...
+
+**Divya:** Feross, did you wanna go first, or how do you feel...?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** No, you can go.
+
+**Divya:** Okay.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** I've already dropped the mic, so... \[laughter\]
+
+**Divya:** Pick it back up.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Pick it back up. \[laughter\] The show's not over.
+
+**Jingle:** \[48:22\]
+
+**Divya:** I love how Nick just said "Websites have content, and web apps..." \[laughter\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I realized that I was making that argument, and I was just trying to step away...
+
+**Divya:** They don't have content...? \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That was awesome. Wait - Jerod, you need to share this algorithm, dude...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, here's the algorithm - I listen to all you guys, and then I declare myself the winner. That's the algorithm. \[laughter\] It's a simple algorithm; it's just like "While true, Jerod wins."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, yeah. It makes sense.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So... Oh, thank you. I'm getting congratulated on our chat room. Thanks, Aaron. Cheers. Hey, Aaron - technically, you also won, because the only way you win is by not participating... And you and I both just sit around without participating.
+
+**Divya:** Is that how kids' soccer works, too?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, yeah... Everybody wins...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's kind of different. Everybody wins. Here, nobody wins, except for me and Aaron Yoshitake.
+
+**Divya:** This is the downside of being an adult... \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** One of many...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** The one thing that sucks about being an adult is we don't all get to win our little participation trophies...
+
+**Divya:** I know...!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I mean, I'll send you a trophy if you want it.
+
+**Divya:** I don't want a trophy, I just want orange slices. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's the other downside of being an adult - you've gotta buy your own orange slices.
+
+**Divya:** You have to cut them yourself. If you want them sliced, you've gotta slice them.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I know...
diff --git "a/Are web apps fundamentally different than web sites\357\274\237_transcript.txt" "b/Are web apps fundamentally different than web sites\357\274\237_transcript.txt"
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6e334de3b4b1ed4504837d48e3a4f918c090544c
--- /dev/null
+++ "b/Are web apps fundamentally different than web sites\357\274\237_transcript.txt"	
@@ -0,0 +1,1964 @@
+[0.00 --> 6.50]  Maybe if we can quantify the level of over-engineering that's going into something, we can distinguish it on a scale between website and web app.
+[7.06 --> 8.40]  Maybe we could do it on page size.
+[8.52 --> 12.10]  Like if it's three megabytes of JavaScript bundle, then it's a web app.
+[13.48 --> 16.18]  But if it's 10 megabytes of images, then it's a website.
+[16.18 --> 17.04]  There you go.
+[17.72 --> 19.56]  That's a totally fair argument.
+[21.14 --> 23.82]  BAM with 4ChangeLog is provided by Fastly.
+[24.14 --> 26.02]  Learn more at Fastly.com.
+[26.26 --> 28.54]  Our feature flags are powered by LaunchDarkly.
+[28.54 --> 30.62]  Check them out at LaunchDarkly.com.
+[30.86 --> 32.86]  And we're hosted on Leno Cloud Servers.
+[33.06 --> 36.64]  Get $100 in hosting credit at Leno.com slash ChangeLog.
+[37.30 --> 38.36]  What's up, party people?
+[38.46 --> 41.04]  This episode is brought to you by Strapi.
+[41.26 --> 45.18]  Strapi is an open source, headless CMS that front-enders love.
+[45.44 --> 49.26]  It's 100% JavaScript, fully customizable, and developer-first.
+[49.64 --> 53.12]  Strapi is more than a node framework and more than a headless CMS.
+[53.56 --> 57.66]  It saves API development time through a beautiful admin panel anyone can use.
+[57.66 --> 58.90]  It's open source.
+[59.22 --> 60.08]  It's agnostic.
+[60.52 --> 64.08]  Choose your preferred database and API options using GraphQL or REST.
+[64.30 --> 66.30]  It's self-hosted and GDPR compliant.
+[66.62 --> 69.34]  Control your data, privacy, and cost at all time.
+[69.58 --> 70.44]  It's customizable.
+[70.84 --> 73.12]  Create content structures that flex to fit your needs.
+[73.34 --> 75.24]  Customize the admin panel as well as the API.
+[75.72 --> 77.96]  And extend your content management with custom plugins.
+[77.96 --> 81.16]  To get started, head to the homepage using our special URL,
+[81.36 --> 83.24]  strappy.io slash jsparty.
+[83.48 --> 87.28]  That's S-T-R-A-P-I dot I-O slash jsparty.
+[87.40 --> 91.46]  And click the Get Started button for a step-by-step guide to create a sample app using CreateStrapi app.
+[91.76 --> 93.62]  Strapi is also enterprise-ready.
+[94.00 --> 96.28]  For those who need to unlock enterprise features and services,
+[96.74 --> 99.02]  email jsparty at strappy.io
+[99.02 --> 104.24]  and connect with Maxime, the resident expert, on guidance and a special offer for JS Party listeners.
+[104.24 --> 107.20]  Again, that's strappy.io slash jsparty.
+[111.28 --> 121.06]  This is JS Party, your weekly celebration of JavaScript and the web.
+[121.66 --> 127.14]  We record live on Thursdays at 1 p.m. U.S. Eastern and you can be part of the show.
+[127.74 --> 129.94]  Come hang with us in our community Slack.
+[130.06 --> 131.06]  It's totally free.
+[131.06 --> 134.24]  Head to changelog.com slash community and sign up today.
+[134.62 --> 135.88]  Okay, let's get into it.
+[135.92 --> 137.60]  Hey, it's party time, y'all.
+[151.10 --> 152.22]  Hello, friends.
+[152.30 --> 154.98]  It's time once again for a JS Party.
+[155.16 --> 155.96]  I'm Jared.
+[156.38 --> 158.32]  I'm here to host a debate.
+[158.32 --> 162.94]  This is our yep, nope format wherein we come up with a premise,
+[163.20 --> 166.78]  we team up, and we debate either side of that premise.
+[166.92 --> 172.60]  Whether or not we actually believe in the side that we're assigned, we'll find out later.
+[173.12 --> 174.58]  I'm joined by four friends.
+[174.94 --> 176.00]  Let's just get through it real quick.
+[176.10 --> 179.36]  We got Nick, Amel, Divya, and Feras with us.
+[179.40 --> 179.94]  What's up, everybody?
+[181.10 --> 181.48]  Hoi, hoi.
+[182.02 --> 182.66]  Hey, everybody.
+[182.68 --> 183.16]  What's going on?
+[183.46 --> 183.86]  Hello.
+[183.86 --> 192.62]  And our teams will be Divya and Feras versus Amel and Nick.
+[193.24 --> 194.08]  Are you all ready?
+[195.04 --> 196.40]  Let's do it.
+[196.42 --> 200.92]  Do you want to do any smack talk to get started or like announce how you're about to dominate
+[200.92 --> 201.66]  or anything like that?
+[202.06 --> 203.28]  Like in WWE?
+[204.04 --> 204.34]  Yeah.
+[204.58 --> 205.60]  Take you down.
+[205.60 --> 207.80]  I don't know what they say.
+[208.06 --> 210.28]  Well, I used to watch it actually a lot, strangely.
+[211.38 --> 214.58]  Or we just do a stare down like at a weigh in for MMA or something.
+[214.70 --> 215.56]  You just stare at each other.
+[215.72 --> 217.78]  But that doesn't make for, oh, Nick's staring us down.
+[218.06 --> 219.80]  Doesn't make for very good podcasting.
+[220.30 --> 221.08]  So I'll move on.
+[221.20 --> 228.54]  The premise for today's debate is one that is debated online and in the industry sometimes,
+[228.54 --> 233.60]  which is that web apps are fundamentally different than websites.
+[233.60 --> 238.90]  So we will have one team representing the yep, which is agreeing that web apps are fundamentally
+[238.90 --> 239.72]  different than websites.
+[240.08 --> 242.72]  And that will be team Amel.
+[242.98 --> 248.42]  And then we'll have team Divya representing the nope side of the debate, which argues that
+[248.42 --> 252.22]  web apps are not fundamentally different than websites.
+[252.42 --> 254.06]  So two minutes on the board.
+[254.20 --> 255.90]  We do this semi-formal.
+[256.30 --> 257.54]  We don't get totally dressed up.
+[257.60 --> 258.54]  We get dressed up a little bit.
+[258.54 --> 263.50]  That was a failed attempt at a semi-formal dance joke.
+[263.92 --> 266.94]  I'm not sure if nobody got it or if it just wasn't very funny.
+[267.54 --> 267.84]  Oh, well.
+[268.52 --> 270.36]  And we set some timers.
+[270.52 --> 274.74]  So there'll be a two-minute timer for you to make your case.
+[274.98 --> 277.12]  If you run out of time, you'll hear this sound.
+[278.74 --> 279.94]  And your time will be up.
+[280.18 --> 282.08]  If you run short, that's totally cool as well.
+[282.14 --> 284.66]  Just go ahead and concede the rest of your time.
+[284.66 --> 285.80]  And we'll go back and forth.
+[286.02 --> 288.04]  So we have the yeps first.
+[288.40 --> 288.86]  Team Amel.
+[289.54 --> 290.88]  Two minutes on the board.
+[291.68 --> 293.50]  And who's going first for Team Amel?
+[293.62 --> 294.36]  Is it Amel or Nick?
+[294.90 --> 296.16]  I say gentlemen first.
+[296.94 --> 296.96]  So.
+[297.18 --> 297.56]  Okay.
+[298.00 --> 298.96]  Reverse chivalry.
+[299.22 --> 299.74]  Appreciate it.
+[299.86 --> 299.90]  Wow.
+[299.90 --> 300.34]  Reverse.
+[300.58 --> 301.22]  Yeah, I know.
+[302.12 --> 302.94]  All right, Nick.
+[303.00 --> 304.70]  You are on the board for two minutes.
+[304.92 --> 309.80]  I was going to make a really bad joke about how, you know, men actually run the world anyway.
+[310.06 --> 310.82]  So, oh, well.
+[312.20 --> 312.90]  Just kidding.
+[313.06 --> 313.46]  No, I was.
+[313.46 --> 315.06]  Amel dropping truth bombs.
+[316.02 --> 319.70]  I like how Amel introduces her jokes by saying she was going to make the joke and then she
+[319.70 --> 320.50]  makes it anyways.
+[320.66 --> 321.42]  Kind of in a reverse.
+[321.60 --> 322.86]  Kind of a sneaky joke there.
+[322.98 --> 323.30]  All right.
+[323.30 --> 324.90]  Nick, you're running the world.
+[325.08 --> 325.98]  I'm running the clock.
+[326.08 --> 326.92]  Two minutes on the board.
+[327.22 --> 328.10]  Here you go, Nick.
+[328.66 --> 329.02]  All right.
+[329.34 --> 332.08]  Web apps are fundamentally different than websites.
+[332.68 --> 337.50]  Now, my opponents here are probably going to say that to an end user, it probably is no
+[337.50 --> 340.34]  different because you're just hitting them from a browser.
+[340.68 --> 343.76]  You're going to a URL and you're using whatever is there.
+[344.52 --> 347.76]  And I'm going to say that I disagree with that because they are fundamentally different.
+[347.88 --> 351.98]  And when you look at it from the perspective of actually building them, they're really fundamentally
+[351.98 --> 354.32]  different or they can be really fundamentally different.
+[354.90 --> 357.82]  But first, I'll start by kind of trying to define what each one is.
+[357.84 --> 361.46]  And I'll just say quickly that a website is informational.
+[361.88 --> 364.14]  It's defined by its content.
+[364.14 --> 368.58]  And it can be minimal on scripting, although that doesn't necessarily have to be the case.
+[369.30 --> 370.52]  The content is typically static.
+[370.88 --> 374.22]  And then a web app is defined by its interaction with the user.
+[374.46 --> 377.14]  So it's more, what can the user do with this?
+[377.76 --> 382.56]  And it definitely expects interaction, which means it probably has scripting on the heavier
+[382.56 --> 383.00]  side.
+[383.16 --> 387.84]  So a lot of JavaScript, a lot of other scripting languages in there potentially doing things.
+[387.84 --> 395.56]  So I think that they are fundamentally different just in that definition, because a web app
+[395.56 --> 397.08]  is something that you're going to interact with.
+[397.40 --> 401.72]  And a website is going to be something that you're just going to look at and consume the
+[401.72 --> 401.92]  data.
+[402.38 --> 406.94]  And some examples of that is I think that GitHub is a really good website to look at my code
+[406.94 --> 410.22]  and to see what's going on there and to do a little bit of minimal interaction.
+[410.22 --> 415.98]  I can press a button to do a pull request as long as everything is green and I can't really
+[415.98 --> 422.32]  change things like resolve conflicts or anything because it's just a website that's giving me
+[422.32 --> 425.76]  a lot of information and letting me interact with it in a minimal way.
+[426.10 --> 430.38]  But if I want to actually go in and change my code, I'm going to load the Codespaces web
+[430.38 --> 432.80]  app and use that to change my code.
+[433.48 --> 436.36]  Or Vim if I want to actually be productive.
+[436.36 --> 440.84]  Another example would be like, I want to look at pretty web design.
+[441.02 --> 441.66]  Oh, all right.
+[442.02 --> 442.46]  Sorry, Nick.
+[442.50 --> 444.28]  You wasted all your time doing Vim drops.
+[446.38 --> 447.96]  Which is time well spent, I will say.
+[448.38 --> 449.72]  Great job, teammate, though.
+[450.22 --> 450.54]  Okay.
+[450.94 --> 454.04]  So Team Divya, you now have two minutes to respond.
+[454.22 --> 456.82]  You can also just ignore everything Nick said and just state your case.
+[457.10 --> 457.84]  However you want to do it.
+[457.88 --> 459.12]  Who's going to go first for Team Divya?
+[459.46 --> 460.30]  I can go.
+[460.72 --> 461.12]  All right.
+[461.20 --> 462.60]  Divya, you got two minutes on the board.
+[463.04 --> 463.46]  It's all yours.
+[463.52 --> 463.76]  Go ahead.
+[464.28 --> 464.62]  All right.
+[464.62 --> 468.62]  So websites and web applications are not fundamentally different.
+[468.62 --> 475.34]  But I will make the argument that at one point in time, the reason why there seems to be
+[475.34 --> 479.36]  this artificial difference is because in the beginning, websites or the way we see websites
+[479.36 --> 483.46]  and web properties were static in the sense that you had to SSH into your server.
+[483.58 --> 484.90]  You had to FTP your content.
+[485.14 --> 487.22]  Everything was static, mostly HTML.
+[487.62 --> 493.80]  But then in the early 2000s, we saw full stack frameworks coming to the fore, mainly LAMP stack
+[493.80 --> 494.44]  and so on.
+[494.82 --> 497.56]  And these were web applications in the sense that they were not static.
+[497.72 --> 499.88]  They were not just plain HTML files.
+[500.00 --> 501.92]  They were actual PHP running on a server.
+[502.36 --> 503.72]  You needed Apache and so on.
+[504.22 --> 510.72]  But as time moved on and as web development developed, we saw this shift where now we have
+[510.72 --> 515.16]  software as a service where there's hosted platforms that allow you to do things that
+[515.16 --> 516.48]  were not possible before.
+[516.48 --> 523.10]  And what I mean by that is that the traditional sense of the website and the traditional sense
+[523.10 --> 525.12]  of web app no longer exists.
+[525.36 --> 529.32]  Like the difference between them is fairly, well, non-existent in this point.
+[529.32 --> 535.92]  Because now whatever you can do with regards to this static versus dynamic is not really
+[535.92 --> 537.66]  a dichotomy that you can talk about.
+[537.82 --> 542.68]  So for example, Nick brought up this idea that you can't do this minimal user interaction
+[542.68 --> 543.56]  on a static site.
+[543.80 --> 549.84]  Well, there actually is a lot of user interaction that you can include because you have things
+[549.84 --> 552.40]  like hosted databases that you can make calls to.
+[552.90 --> 554.10]  Sites can start static.
+[554.10 --> 558.12]  And then you can build up APIs using this like so many microservices.
+[558.30 --> 560.86]  There's a whole API economy that allows you to do things.
+[560.86 --> 566.54]  So you could have something super dynamic, like a Shopify site that is completely full
+[566.54 --> 567.26]  end to end.
+[567.38 --> 571.70]  And therefore, websites and web applications are not very different for us.
+[571.76 --> 572.72]  Did you want to add?
+[573.40 --> 573.68]  10 seconds.
+[574.46 --> 574.70]  Okay.
+[574.80 --> 575.30]  10 seconds.
+[576.48 --> 577.72]  I'll just give back the time.
+[577.80 --> 579.74]  I'll take the 10 seconds in the second part.
+[580.90 --> 581.48]  All right.
+[581.56 --> 581.82]  Fair enough.
+[581.82 --> 584.26]  Yeah, we'll get you an extra 10 on the next time.
+[584.62 --> 584.96]  All right.
+[585.32 --> 585.72]  All right.
+[586.32 --> 588.54]  That was Divya's turn.
+[588.86 --> 592.32]  And of course, as your moderator, I'm here to provide real time fact checking.
+[592.96 --> 597.56]  Nick asserted that you cannot perform merge conflicts on or you cannot fix merge conflicts
+[597.56 --> 598.36]  on github.com.
+[598.50 --> 599.28]  Fact check false.
+[599.68 --> 600.66]  You can't actually do that.
+[600.80 --> 600.94]  Okay.
+[601.64 --> 601.94]  We can.
+[602.60 --> 602.98]  Limited.
+[602.98 --> 605.80]  You can do limited merge conflict fixes now.
+[606.16 --> 606.32]  Can't you?
+[606.42 --> 608.10]  Like some things they still make you check out.
+[609.16 --> 609.38]  Do they?
+[609.74 --> 610.36]  You can do.
+[610.76 --> 611.00]  Really?
+[611.00 --> 613.06]  Well, I don't know how fancy they're going to get.
+[613.08 --> 614.04]  Yeah, I think it's limited.
+[614.38 --> 615.12]  But anyways.
+[616.18 --> 616.90]  If there's conflict.
+[617.10 --> 618.00]  But Nick did not say it.
+[618.04 --> 619.96]  So you're fact checking my fact check or what's going on?
+[619.98 --> 621.00]  I've never seen that UI.
+[621.70 --> 622.16]  Oh yeah.
+[622.22 --> 625.04]  There's definitely a merge conflict resolution UI.
+[625.38 --> 625.64]  There is.
+[625.64 --> 630.76]  I don't know how limited it is because apparently my merge conflicts are all relatively simple
+[630.76 --> 632.28]  because I'm so basic.
+[632.96 --> 634.30]  When did GitHub become a web app?
+[634.30 --> 637.02]  All right.
+[637.10 --> 638.28]  Let's get back onto the board.
+[638.28 --> 641.26]  We're going now back to team Amel and to Amel herself.
+[641.96 --> 643.00]  The chivalrous one.
+[643.60 --> 648.66]  Amel, you get one minute to respond because that's less time than the other people got.
+[648.90 --> 649.14]  I don't know.
+[649.20 --> 650.04]  It doesn't explain why.
+[650.12 --> 650.38]  But go ahead.
+[650.40 --> 650.82]  You got one minute.
+[651.18 --> 651.28]  Sure.
+[651.28 --> 655.72]  So I'd like to say that I'm going to take a different approach with my one minute, which
+[655.72 --> 663.64]  is just like fundamentally assert that the web has evolved and that websites and web
+[663.64 --> 670.08]  apps are terms used to, I think, distinguish level of complexity and expected interaction
+[670.08 --> 671.02]  for users.
+[671.64 --> 678.02]  And so, you know, if I'm interacting in a website, I'm really expecting a more static experience,
+[678.02 --> 680.42]  something that's typically a read.
+[681.06 --> 685.44]  And when I'm interacting with web apps, I'm really, you know, like there's a context shift
+[685.44 --> 685.78]  there.
+[686.04 --> 687.76]  There's a lot of read-write behavior.
+[688.36 --> 694.32]  And I think it's really important for us as web developers to push the term of web app
+[694.32 --> 698.92]  because, you know, users have native apps on their phone and we have progressive web
+[698.92 --> 707.58]  apps that essentially are allowing web apps to compete with native apps in their domain.
+[708.02 --> 713.58]  And so, you know, users essentially can't distinguish sometimes between, you know, is this button
+[713.58 --> 717.54]  launching a browser that's full screen or is this launching a native app?
+[718.02 --> 720.80]  And I think it's, you know, yes, that's it.
+[721.22 --> 721.54]  Okay.
+[721.98 --> 724.02]  I'll continue the rest of my arguments later.
+[724.48 --> 724.92]  Okay.
+[725.44 --> 726.34]  Good job, Mel.
+[726.38 --> 727.44]  We go now to Feras.
+[727.56 --> 729.66]  One minute and 10 seconds to respond.
+[730.16 --> 730.32]  Yeah.
+[730.40 --> 734.50]  So we're talking about whether websites and web apps are different from each other.
+[734.50 --> 738.62]  And, you know, I'll concede right away that obviously there are different types of websites.
+[739.04 --> 742.94]  There's static blogs on one end, you know, static sites that are basic HTML.
+[743.58 --> 746.84]  And then on the other end, there's things like full graphic editors like Figma and there's
+[746.84 --> 747.96]  3D multiplayer games.
+[748.54 --> 751.44]  So there's obviously a huge range of different types of websites.
+[751.84 --> 755.24]  So, you know, the other side is arguing that there are differences in the types of websites
+[755.24 --> 755.96]  that you can build.
+[756.04 --> 757.18]  And that obviously makes sense.
+[757.34 --> 759.60]  So, you know, our side will totally concede that.
+[759.98 --> 761.70]  But at the end of the day, these are all just websites.
+[762.22 --> 763.96]  You know, the web is extremely capable and amazing.
+[764.10 --> 766.32]  It can do all kinds of types of experiences.
+[766.88 --> 769.32]  But fundamentally, we're dealing with the same web technology.
+[769.84 --> 771.06]  You know, a user visits a URL.
+[771.28 --> 772.50]  The server sends some HTML.
+[773.08 --> 773.92]  The browser displays it.
+[774.06 --> 774.90]  It runs some scripts.
+[775.40 --> 777.70]  And all this stuff is running inside of the same thing.
+[777.76 --> 778.84]  It's running inside of a web browser.
+[779.20 --> 780.76]  All the same browser features work.
+[780.76 --> 784.30]  The back button, the forward button, the refresh button, the bookmarks, the history,
+[784.70 --> 785.48]  your browser extensions.
+[785.84 --> 788.88]  You know, you can copy and paste URLs and share websites to other people.
+[788.88 --> 792.40]  So, you know, if we were debating whether native apps and web apps are different,
+[792.74 --> 793.28]  I would agree.
+[793.52 --> 794.02]  But come on.
+[794.08 --> 795.98]  We're talking about websites here.
+[796.08 --> 797.48]  All these different types of things are websites.
+[797.80 --> 800.70]  Just ask the W3C or what WG or TC39.
+[801.14 --> 803.72]  You know, they're all working on one set of standards for websites.
+[803.92 --> 806.36]  They're not making a separate set of standards for other websites.
+[806.88 --> 812.78]  So by this appeal to authority, you should see that we're talking about the same thing here.
+[813.22 --> 816.38]  Not to mention, the other side has already been fact-checked and proven wrong.
+[816.66 --> 818.10]  So take that into account.
+[818.88 --> 820.68]  All right.
+[820.76 --> 822.00]  Real-time fact-check here.
+[822.22 --> 824.50]  Feras stated that the back button always works.
+[825.04 --> 825.58]  Fact-check false.
+[825.58 --> 826.42]  Oh my God.
+[826.64 --> 829.74]  No, it usually works unless it's been tampered with.
+[829.82 --> 831.08]  I think that's a fair point.
+[831.44 --> 833.78]  I was going to argue that that's a key feature of a web app.
+[834.06 --> 837.30]  You don't have all of that built-in functionality working.
+[837.30 --> 843.64]  With that fact, we will take a break and we'll begin round two right after this.
+[843.64 --> 861.74]  This episode is brought to you by Sourcegraph.
+[862.10 --> 864.64]  Sourcegraph is code search for every developer and team.
+[864.88 --> 868.14]  Easily search across all the code that matters to you and your organization.
+[868.58 --> 869.54]  Find example code.
+[869.54 --> 870.86]  Explore and read code.
+[871.08 --> 871.96]  Debug issues.
+[872.34 --> 873.16]  And so much more.
+[873.46 --> 876.28]  And I talked with Byung Liu, CTO and co-founder of Sourcegraph.
+[876.60 --> 881.34]  And asked him to share what code search is, what developers and teams are missing out on,
+[881.46 --> 884.50]  and how Sourcegraph provides code search to every developer in the world.
+[884.50 --> 891.96]  If you've worked inside a Google or a Facebook or any one of these really big, well-respected technology companies,
+[892.08 --> 897.26]  chances are you've used something like code search before and you know the value that it provides to your team.
+[897.34 --> 902.80]  You know that almost every single engineer inside these organizations uses it on a daily basis.
+[903.18 --> 907.72]  If you've never had that experience, chances are you may not know what you're missing out on.
+[907.72 --> 912.74]  You know, the term code search sounds a lot like, you know, grep or the search inside your editor.
+[913.12 --> 915.10]  And that's what a lot of people think when they first hear it.
+[915.16 --> 916.86]  But it's really about much more than that.
+[916.96 --> 923.02]  It's really about connecting you as a developer to the broader universe of code and code-related data
+[923.02 --> 928.78]  that's relevant to you, that you need at hand in order to enter that, you know, magical flow state of, you know,
+[928.78 --> 934.66]  being in your editor, writing code quickly, making rapid progress towards that feature bug fix that you're working on.
+[934.78 --> 938.90]  It's really about making all that contextual information accessible at your fingertips.
+[939.36 --> 944.70]  And what that means is, think about every single repository, every single file, and every single language,
+[945.04 --> 948.94]  every single diff, and every single open source dependency,
+[949.12 --> 952.04]  or maybe closed source dependency that's shared across your organization.
+[952.04 --> 954.86]  All that is searchable through a single text box.
+[954.86 --> 960.96]  And that's really powerful because it means all this friction is eliminated between you and understanding that broader world of code.
+[961.04 --> 962.70]  You don't have to clone stuff down to your local machine.
+[962.82 --> 964.54]  You don't have to mess around with editor config.
+[964.98 --> 969.96]  You don't have to be constantly bugging people on other teams who may not even know who you are
+[969.96 --> 973.40]  in order to teach yourself how all that code works.
+[973.80 --> 978.00]  What Sourcegraph is, is really a way for the rest of us,
+[978.00 --> 981.06]  the people who don't work inside the Googles, the Facebooks,
+[981.06 --> 987.38]  to get a tool that gives us access to that sort of information readily and at our fingertips.
+[987.38 --> 992.62]  It's really about bringing this type of tool that a lot of the larger technology companies have developed,
+[992.74 --> 997.36]  invested hundreds of millions of dollars into making for the productivity of their own engineers,
+[997.64 --> 1000.66]  and making that accessible to every single developer in the world.
+[1000.66 --> 1004.60]  All right, if code search powered by Sourcegraph sounds like something you and your team could use,
+[1004.82 --> 1009.60]  head to info.sourcegraph.com slash changelog and click the button that says try Sourcegraph now.
+[1009.84 --> 1012.94]  You can install it locally, deploy it to a server, or to a cluster.
+[1013.34 --> 1016.56]  They have a quick start guide that takes less than five minutes to install Sourcegraph using Docker,
+[1016.74 --> 1018.40]  so it's too easy to give it a try.
+[1018.66 --> 1022.04]  Again, head to info.sourcegraph.com slash changelog.
+[1022.04 --> 1052.02]  We'll be right back.
+[1052.02 --> 1053.94]  of yep, nope, we are debating.
+[1054.24 --> 1056.76]  Are web apps and websites fundamentally different?
+[1057.20 --> 1058.22]  Yep, nope.
+[1058.64 --> 1059.50]  We're here to find out.
+[1059.68 --> 1061.00]  Divya, it is now your turn.
+[1061.08 --> 1062.86]  You have two minutes to state a case
+[1062.86 --> 1065.44]  or refute something that your opponent said.
+[1065.96 --> 1066.28]  Go ahead.
+[1066.66 --> 1067.76]  Thank you for the floor.
+[1068.00 --> 1071.28]  As Feras mentioned, I'd like to just build upon his case,
+[1071.36 --> 1073.10]  which is a lot of the times when we talk about
+[1073.10 --> 1075.62]  this artificial difference between websites
+[1075.62 --> 1078.36]  and web applications, we actually mean the same thing
+[1078.36 --> 1079.92]  because we're talking about browsers
+[1079.92 --> 1082.28]  and browser technology and how exactly
+[1082.28 --> 1085.10]  these assets are viewed by users.
+[1085.28 --> 1086.86]  And I know Amal had mentioned
+[1086.86 --> 1089.38]  that the end user experience doesn't matter so much
+[1089.38 --> 1091.92]  and we should focus on the building of it as a whole,
+[1092.04 --> 1093.88]  but I think it should account as a whole
+[1093.88 --> 1095.88]  because ultimately when you look at websites
+[1095.88 --> 1098.32]  and maybe if you want to call it web applications,
+[1098.40 --> 1099.50]  which is basically a website,
+[1099.96 --> 1101.54]  ultimately it's about how you build it
+[1101.54 --> 1102.96]  as well as how it is perceived
+[1102.96 --> 1104.22]  from an end user's perspective.
+[1104.84 --> 1108.36]  What I've focused on so far is the building of a website
+[1108.36 --> 1110.56]  and a web app, same thing again.
+[1110.98 --> 1115.82]  The idea that you can build a fully functional dynamic website
+[1115.82 --> 1117.46]  using a lot of technologies
+[1117.46 --> 1120.22]  without you having to artificially call it an application.
+[1120.80 --> 1122.70]  So this difference between static and dynamic
+[1122.70 --> 1124.06]  is kind of artificial.
+[1124.34 --> 1126.48]  If anything, it's a range, as Feras had mentioned,
+[1126.90 --> 1128.94]  websites can range from something incredibly static
+[1128.94 --> 1130.38]  to something incredibly dynamic,
+[1130.38 --> 1132.72]  like doing merge conflicts on GitHub, which is possible.
+[1133.32 --> 1135.46]  And that is something that we should take into consideration.
+[1135.46 --> 1139.16]  And from a user's perspective, they also don't see that difference as a whole
+[1139.16 --> 1142.84]  because in addition to being able to see content directly,
+[1142.84 --> 1145.82]  they can also interact directly with a website.
+[1146.40 --> 1148.46]  And to them, it's imperceivable, the difference.
+[1148.54 --> 1150.38]  And of course, they would not know the terminology
+[1150.38 --> 1151.66]  and the differences between them,
+[1151.70 --> 1155.74]  but I think it matters to talk about and to focus on as well.
+[1156.00 --> 1157.46]  I think the other thing to talk about also
+[1157.46 --> 1159.42]  is just how websites are served.
+[1159.42 --> 1162.36]  We often talk about websites as static,
+[1162.60 --> 1163.68]  where it's on a CDN,
+[1163.82 --> 1166.86]  and web apps as something that are on servers.
+[1167.28 --> 1169.50]  And the thing is that artificial difference makes sense
+[1169.50 --> 1171.38]  when we think of static sites
+[1171.38 --> 1173.80]  and CDNs as hosting static properties.
+[1173.96 --> 1176.50]  However, with the movement of edge computing,
+[1176.98 --> 1178.80]  CDNs are getting more powerful.
+[1179.04 --> 1181.26]  You can run a lot of logic at the CDN level.
+[1181.70 --> 1184.16]  And so websites and web apps,
+[1184.56 --> 1187.36]  that artificial difference is sort of removed completely
+[1187.36 --> 1189.92]  because you can make something incredibly static
+[1189.92 --> 1192.44]  have logic like redirects, for instance,
+[1192.56 --> 1195.34]  where you can route a user from one asset to another.
+[1196.00 --> 1196.38]  Very good.
+[1196.58 --> 1197.04]  That is.
+[1197.92 --> 1200.44]  Okay, Amel, we pitched to you two minutes to respond.
+[1201.00 --> 1202.70]  Well, the only thing about that argument
+[1202.70 --> 1205.22]  that was made that made sense to me
+[1205.22 --> 1208.82]  was when she said the lines that something,
+[1209.98 --> 1211.60]  that web apps and websites,
+[1211.74 --> 1213.86]  it makes sense for them to be distinguished as differently.
+[1214.02 --> 1214.82]  So I just wanted to say,
+[1214.98 --> 1216.72]  thanks for agreeing with our argument.
+[1217.36 --> 1218.42]  In one line, Divya?
+[1219.70 --> 1221.50]  I think that was taken out of context.
+[1221.86 --> 1222.44]  Yeah, whatever.
+[1222.80 --> 1225.22]  Anyways, so case of point.
+[1225.44 --> 1226.30]  Quick, what's the fallacy?
+[1227.18 --> 1227.58]  Okay.
+[1228.34 --> 1229.00]  It's the whatever.
+[1229.72 --> 1231.84]  So I think it's really important for us
+[1231.84 --> 1235.12]  to start educating users around the scale of the web,
+[1235.36 --> 1237.92]  especially as users are accessing the web
+[1237.92 --> 1239.00]  through mobile devices,
+[1239.54 --> 1240.92]  understanding that a site,
+[1241.36 --> 1244.44]  a simple kind of bulletin board for the web
+[1244.44 --> 1246.24]  is really different than,
+[1246.34 --> 1246.62]  you know,
+[1246.90 --> 1249.36]  building complex interactive experience,
+[1249.36 --> 1249.92]  which, you know,
+[1249.96 --> 1251.40]  with a lot of read-write,
+[1251.64 --> 1252.94]  a lot of data usage,
+[1253.24 --> 1253.46]  you know,
+[1253.56 --> 1256.08]  just potentially just more assets
+[1256.08 --> 1258.06]  to download up front, right?
+[1258.06 --> 1259.96]  And so I think it's important for us
+[1259.96 --> 1261.90]  to start making the web more accessible
+[1261.90 --> 1264.76]  in terms of its ability to kind of,
+[1264.80 --> 1265.16]  I think,
+[1265.30 --> 1266.96]  have its scales and tiers.
+[1267.34 --> 1269.12]  And I think we all fundamentally agree that,
+[1269.12 --> 1269.68]  you know,
+[1269.98 --> 1272.10]  a web app is certainly an evolution of,
+[1272.20 --> 1272.46]  you know,
+[1272.88 --> 1273.98]  good old-fashioned websites,
+[1273.98 --> 1276.22]  but they are absolutely not the same
+[1276.22 --> 1278.38]  and nor do they take the same level of skill
+[1278.38 --> 1279.04]  to build,
+[1279.42 --> 1279.66]  you know,
+[1279.70 --> 1281.10]  or create or maintain.
+[1281.54 --> 1281.66]  You know,
+[1281.70 --> 1283.46]  I think tossing something up on,
+[1283.98 --> 1284.22]  you know,
+[1284.30 --> 1285.58]  WordPress as a static site
+[1285.58 --> 1287.68]  is not the same level of effort
+[1287.68 --> 1287.92]  as,
+[1288.04 --> 1288.16]  you know,
+[1288.56 --> 1289.26]  building a,
+[1289.26 --> 1289.82]  you know,
+[1289.88 --> 1291.24]  a Wasm game engine,
+[1291.24 --> 1291.76]  like,
+[1291.88 --> 1292.36]  in the browser.
+[1292.90 --> 1294.64]  And so you have fundamentally different,
+[1294.64 --> 1295.30]  like,
+[1295.42 --> 1297.80]  skills needed to perform the work
+[1297.80 --> 1298.54]  and therefore,
+[1298.88 --> 1299.20]  you know,
+[1299.26 --> 1299.90]  that alone,
+[1300.28 --> 1300.84]  for me,
+[1300.84 --> 1304.20]  it just speaks to why they are fundamentally different things.
+[1304.54 --> 1304.94]  Yep,
+[1305.04 --> 1305.46]  very good.
+[1305.66 --> 1306.60]  Time's pretty much up.
+[1306.66 --> 1307.88]  So we'll pass it now to Firas
+[1307.88 --> 1308.64]  and give you,
+[1308.76 --> 1308.88]  Firas,
+[1309.04 --> 1310.04]  one minute to respond.
+[1310.54 --> 1310.92]  Go ahead.
+[1311.22 --> 1312.58]  So I'd like to remind everyone,
+[1313.02 --> 1314.80]  the premise that we're debating here
+[1314.80 --> 1317.38]  is that web apps are fundamentally different than websites.
+[1317.92 --> 1319.88]  And I'll just focus on the word there,
+[1320.04 --> 1320.56]  fundamental.
+[1321.28 --> 1323.18]  The web apps are fundamentally different than websites.
+[1323.84 --> 1325.46]  What we've heard from the other side
+[1325.46 --> 1328.76]  is an argument that web apps and websites
+[1328.76 --> 1330.08]  are kind of different.
+[1330.08 --> 1332.74]  They've argued that web apps and websites
+[1332.74 --> 1334.00]  are built a bit differently,
+[1334.64 --> 1336.00]  that they're an evolution,
+[1336.66 --> 1340.86]  and that users may perceive a bit of difference
+[1340.86 --> 1345.30]  in the degree to which a website versus a web app is dynamic
+[1345.30 --> 1346.78]  and, you know,
+[1346.84 --> 1348.72]  the degree to which the back button may or may not work.
+[1349.50 --> 1351.52]  But fundamentally here,
+[1351.78 --> 1354.20]  the argument is about whether web apps
+[1354.20 --> 1356.68]  are fundamentally different than websites.
+[1356.68 --> 1359.68]  And I think if we were debating the difference
+[1359.68 --> 1361.34]  between websites and native apps,
+[1361.50 --> 1363.64]  there would be a very fundamental difference there.
+[1364.02 --> 1368.04]  But since we're talking about an issue of degree here,
+[1368.64 --> 1368.78]  you know,
+[1368.80 --> 1370.54]  a website can be a little bit more appy
+[1370.54 --> 1371.78]  or a little bit less appy.
+[1372.32 --> 1374.56]  I argue that really,
+[1374.82 --> 1376.68]  the difference between websites and web apps
+[1376.68 --> 1377.90]  is really not that great.
+[1377.90 --> 1379.96]  And it's certainly not great enough
+[1379.96 --> 1381.76]  to rise to the level of describing it
+[1381.76 --> 1382.98]  as fundamentally different.
+[1383.50 --> 1384.56]  And so for that reason,
+[1385.02 --> 1386.84]  I urge you to support our side.
+[1387.68 --> 1388.60]  Okay, very good.
+[1388.70 --> 1391.66]  Nick, the final word of this segment.
+[1391.90 --> 1392.48]  You got one minute.
+[1393.16 --> 1393.50]  All right.
+[1393.50 --> 1396.82]  So I'll just respond to both of my opponents real quick.
+[1397.10 --> 1398.82]  And I'll say that in Divya's argument,
+[1399.40 --> 1402.66]  she talked about being able to do more
+[1402.66 --> 1403.78]  at the CDN level,
+[1404.28 --> 1405.92]  which stands for content delivery network.
+[1406.10 --> 1408.06]  Content being the key word there.
+[1408.14 --> 1410.36]  So you're delivering content to consume.
+[1411.24 --> 1412.06]  And so therefore,
+[1412.56 --> 1414.00]  you're thinking more of websites.
+[1414.68 --> 1418.34]  Whereas web apps would be more,
+[1419.34 --> 1419.80]  I don't know.
+[1419.80 --> 1423.68]  I lost where I was going with that thread.
+[1423.88 --> 1424.66]  So I'll just go for us.
+[1424.68 --> 1426.00]  The compute would happen somewhere else,
+[1426.08 --> 1426.40]  typically.
+[1426.94 --> 1427.40]  A server.
+[1428.28 --> 1428.78]  Phone a friend.
+[1429.14 --> 1429.80]  Thanks for that.
+[1431.40 --> 1432.68]  And for us,
+[1432.70 --> 1433.62]  you were talking about,
+[1433.70 --> 1435.72]  maybe if we were comparing web apps
+[1435.72 --> 1437.86]  to native apps, for example.
+[1438.20 --> 1438.90]  And I would say that
+[1438.90 --> 1441.50]  with the underlying APIs
+[1441.50 --> 1442.56]  that you get natively,
+[1442.70 --> 1444.58]  like battery and geolocation
+[1444.58 --> 1446.30]  and compass and all of these,
+[1446.78 --> 1448.58]  and with things like service workers,
+[1448.58 --> 1450.14]  where can you draw the line
+[1450.14 --> 1451.06]  between what's a native app
+[1451.06 --> 1452.40]  and a web app?
+[1452.46 --> 1453.34]  You can install them
+[1453.34 --> 1454.92]  just like you would a regular app.
+[1454.96 --> 1456.24]  It's just the underlying technology
+[1456.24 --> 1457.12]  that they're built in.
+[1457.60 --> 1458.46]  But it's,
+[1458.94 --> 1460.72]  they are applications.
+[1462.02 --> 1462.42]  And,
+[1463.16 --> 1463.58]  um,
+[1463.98 --> 1465.74]  All right.
+[1465.74 --> 1466.24]  Saved by the bell.
+[1466.58 --> 1467.68]  Saved by the bell there.
+[1469.16 --> 1470.78]  We've now reached the conclusion
+[1470.78 --> 1471.90]  of our formal,
+[1472.08 --> 1473.50]  semi-formal debate.
+[1473.50 --> 1474.78]  I've been keeping score
+[1474.78 --> 1475.60]  the entire time.
+[1476.24 --> 1477.44]  And I'm now ready to claim
+[1477.44 --> 1478.34]  the victor.
+[1478.66 --> 1479.72]  How does this algorithm work?
+[1479.96 --> 1480.60]  Tell us.
+[1481.44 --> 1482.60]  He has a web application
+[1482.60 --> 1483.24]  to do that.
+[1483.24 --> 1483.54]  Oh yeah,
+[1483.62 --> 1484.30]  that makes sense.
+[1484.98 --> 1486.08]  And the winner of this debate
+[1486.08 --> 1486.88]  is me.
+[1487.34 --> 1487.74]  Because
+[1487.74 --> 1488.90]  the only way to win
+[1488.90 --> 1489.90]  is by not participating.
+[1490.14 --> 1491.00]  And I'm the only one here
+[1491.00 --> 1492.10]  who did not actually play.
+[1492.40 --> 1492.64]  So,
+[1493.18 --> 1494.02]  I win.
+[1494.30 --> 1495.40]  Congratulations to me.
+[1495.92 --> 1496.78]  After this break,
+[1496.82 --> 1497.48]  we're going to come back.
+[1497.52 --> 1498.88]  We're going to peel back the veil.
+[1499.48 --> 1500.22]  We're going to talk about
+[1500.22 --> 1500.92]  what our participants
+[1500.92 --> 1501.96]  actually believe.
+[1501.96 --> 1502.66]  Maybe get into
+[1502.66 --> 1503.66]  a real world debate
+[1503.66 --> 1505.64]  around the nuances here.
+[1505.64 --> 1506.72]  because there's no nuance
+[1506.72 --> 1507.38]  in that premise.
+[1507.58 --> 1508.54]  But there's a lot of nuance
+[1508.54 --> 1509.30]  in this discussion.
+[1509.44 --> 1509.54]  So,
+[1509.60 --> 1510.06]  we'll return
+[1510.06 --> 1510.82]  and we will see
+[1510.82 --> 1512.20]  what everybody really thinks
+[1512.20 --> 1512.76]  right after this.
+[1525.76 --> 1526.26]  What's up,
+[1526.32 --> 1527.00]  JS Party people?
+[1527.10 --> 1528.04]  Have you ever wondered
+[1528.04 --> 1529.02]  if you could be offering
+[1529.02 --> 1529.92]  a faster,
+[1529.92 --> 1531.28]  less buggy experience
+[1531.28 --> 1531.88]  for your customers?
+[1531.88 --> 1532.56]  Well,
+[1532.80 --> 1533.72]  with Raygun Error
+[1533.72 --> 1534.74]  and Performance Monitoring,
+[1534.92 --> 1536.22]  you have all the information
+[1536.22 --> 1537.60]  you need at your fingertips
+[1537.60 --> 1538.78]  to quickly find
+[1538.78 --> 1539.70]  and fix errors
+[1539.70 --> 1540.86]  and performance issues
+[1540.86 --> 1542.04]  across your tech stack
+[1542.04 --> 1543.10]  down to the line of code.
+[1543.42 --> 1544.34]  Raygun makes it easy
+[1544.34 --> 1545.18]  to monitor the impact
+[1545.18 --> 1546.28]  of your performance improvements,
+[1546.50 --> 1547.58]  quickly identify issues
+[1547.58 --> 1548.92]  across web and mobile apps,
+[1549.10 --> 1550.80]  and see how your code performs
+[1550.80 --> 1551.90]  in the hands of your customers.
+[1552.32 --> 1553.58]  This saves you time,
+[1553.76 --> 1554.54]  this saves you money,
+[1554.54 --> 1555.98]  and this saves your sanity.
+[1556.36 --> 1557.32]  Head to raygun.com
+[1557.32 --> 1557.94]  to join thousands
+[1557.94 --> 1559.30]  of customer-centric software teams
+[1559.30 --> 1559.98]  who use Raygun
+[1559.98 --> 1560.94]  every single day.
+[1560.94 --> 1562.48]  Again, raygun.com
+[1562.48 --> 1563.22]  to give them a try
+[1563.22 --> 1565.12]  with a free 14-day trial.
+[1590.94 --> 1592.98]  Okay, so let's talk about
+[1592.98 --> 1594.06]  what we really think
+[1594.06 --> 1594.86]  about this.
+[1595.18 --> 1596.02]  The premise was
+[1596.02 --> 1597.20]  web apps and websites
+[1597.20 --> 1599.34]  are fundamentally different,
+[1599.84 --> 1600.66]  and that's worded
+[1600.66 --> 1601.22]  in such a way
+[1601.22 --> 1602.08]  that it is defensible
+[1602.08 --> 1602.82]  from either side.
+[1602.92 --> 1603.52]  I think for Ross,
+[1604.02 --> 1605.22]  keyed in on the word fundamental,
+[1605.38 --> 1605.62]  which I thought
+[1605.62 --> 1606.84]  was a strong argument myself,
+[1606.90 --> 1607.90]  even though he's still lost
+[1607.90 --> 1608.54]  at the end of the day.
+[1611.08 --> 1611.44]  Remember,
+[1611.52 --> 1612.34]  I was the only one that won,
+[1612.48 --> 1614.10]  so sorry,
+[1614.32 --> 1615.40]  but you participated,
+[1615.62 --> 1616.28]  which was foolish.
+[1616.28 --> 1618.58]  But what do you all really think?
+[1618.72 --> 1619.48]  So do you make
+[1619.48 --> 1620.22]  distinguishments?
+[1620.52 --> 1621.72]  Are they different
+[1621.72 --> 1622.74]  but not fundamentally different?
+[1622.88 --> 1624.30]  Like, we can just relax
+[1624.30 --> 1625.20]  and chat.
+[1625.58 --> 1626.10]  What do you all
+[1626.10 --> 1626.94]  really think about this?
+[1627.16 --> 1628.34]  I felt like there was
+[1628.34 --> 1630.16]  the PWA argument
+[1630.16 --> 1630.94]  was a good one
+[1630.94 --> 1632.24]  because it is
+[1632.24 --> 1634.00]  the weird divide.
+[1634.24 --> 1635.46]  Like, in a way,
+[1635.58 --> 1636.22]  I think there's like,
+[1636.36 --> 1637.70]  there was two sets
+[1637.70 --> 1638.88]  of arguments in a way.
+[1639.00 --> 1639.66]  It was like the
+[1639.66 --> 1641.12]  websites, web apps.
+[1641.26 --> 1641.78]  Actually, the part
+[1641.78 --> 1642.24]  that was like
+[1642.24 --> 1643.40]  hardly talked about
+[1643.40 --> 1643.82]  was the,
+[1644.30 --> 1645.70]  well, we talked about it a lot,
+[1645.70 --> 1646.50]  was like websites
+[1646.50 --> 1647.18]  and web apps,
+[1647.34 --> 1648.58]  like the full stack
+[1648.58 --> 1650.80]  versus like Jamstack,
+[1650.88 --> 1651.98]  maybe is the term.
+[1652.70 --> 1653.46]  And then there was
+[1653.46 --> 1654.08]  the other argument,
+[1654.16 --> 1655.14]  which was like mobile
+[1655.14 --> 1656.94]  and web merging,
+[1657.58 --> 1658.12]  which I thought
+[1658.12 --> 1659.70]  that one was more nuanced
+[1659.70 --> 1661.24]  because the first argument
+[1661.24 --> 1661.66]  was like,
+[1661.72 --> 1662.42]  it's very clear
+[1662.42 --> 1663.36]  that we're moving away
+[1663.36 --> 1664.16]  from this website,
+[1664.26 --> 1664.84]  web app thing.
+[1665.00 --> 1666.46]  But I felt like with mobile
+[1666.46 --> 1668.40]  and this idea
+[1668.40 --> 1669.58]  of like cross-platform
+[1669.58 --> 1670.78]  where it's like React Native,
+[1671.20 --> 1672.26]  there's, I guess,
+[1672.34 --> 1673.26]  NativeScript still a thing,
+[1673.40 --> 1673.68]  Ionic,
+[1674.28 --> 1675.44]  and I guess Flutter
+[1675.44 --> 1676.56]  is also really exciting
+[1676.56 --> 1677.62]  for a lot of developers
+[1677.62 --> 1679.02]  and that's just like using,
+[1679.22 --> 1680.54]  well, Flutter is unique
+[1680.54 --> 1681.96]  and actually everything else
+[1681.96 --> 1682.32]  is unique
+[1682.32 --> 1683.26]  except for React Native
+[1683.26 --> 1684.38]  because React Native
+[1684.38 --> 1685.34]  is like building on
+[1685.34 --> 1686.08]  a framework
+[1686.08 --> 1687.84]  that developers already know.
+[1687.96 --> 1688.52]  So if you're building
+[1688.52 --> 1689.26]  like websites,
+[1689.52 --> 1690.62]  well, React apps,
+[1691.10 --> 1691.98]  you would be able
+[1691.98 --> 1693.16]  to build like something hybrid
+[1693.16 --> 1694.52]  and there's a lot
+[1694.52 --> 1695.32]  of other frameworks
+[1695.32 --> 1697.02]  like Nuxt and Next
+[1697.02 --> 1698.04]  and they do like
+[1698.04 --> 1698.98]  kind of this idea
+[1698.98 --> 1700.60]  of like universal apps.
+[1701.36 --> 1702.08]  But yeah,
+[1702.08 --> 1702.64]  I thought that was
+[1702.64 --> 1703.24]  a good argument,
+[1703.60 --> 1703.96]  honestly.
+[1704.60 --> 1705.56]  Just saying.
+[1706.22 --> 1707.48]  Even though I still disagree.
+[1709.08 --> 1710.02]  I think the focus
+[1710.02 --> 1711.02]  on how the technologies
+[1711.02 --> 1711.70]  are, you know,
+[1711.76 --> 1712.76]  involved in building
+[1712.76 --> 1714.26]  websites versus web apps
+[1714.26 --> 1715.14]  is that's one way
+[1715.14 --> 1716.88]  of looking at the argument.
+[1717.42 --> 1718.22]  I was looking at it
+[1718.22 --> 1718.70]  more from like
+[1718.70 --> 1719.76]  what is the user experience
+[1719.76 --> 1721.16]  like for the end user?
+[1721.58 --> 1722.64]  And I think that
+[1722.64 --> 1723.94]  when you tell people
+[1723.94 --> 1724.90]  about a website,
+[1725.14 --> 1725.26]  you know,
+[1725.28 --> 1725.50]  you say,
+[1725.58 --> 1726.72]  hey, have you seen this app
+[1726.72 --> 1727.60]  or have you seen this site?
+[1727.60 --> 1729.26]  The main like differentiating line
+[1729.26 --> 1730.06]  that they think about
+[1730.06 --> 1730.50]  in their mind
+[1730.50 --> 1731.64]  is like whether it's a website
+[1731.64 --> 1732.46]  or it's an app
+[1732.46 --> 1734.12]  and an app meaning
+[1734.12 --> 1734.80]  like a native app
+[1734.80 --> 1735.54]  that they'll search for
+[1735.54 --> 1736.74]  in like their app store.
+[1737.64 --> 1738.40]  And so like
+[1738.40 --> 1739.72]  I've built sites before
+[1739.72 --> 1740.74]  where people are like
+[1740.74 --> 1741.86]  searching for it
+[1741.86 --> 1742.54]  in the app store
+[1742.54 --> 1742.92]  and they're like,
+[1742.96 --> 1743.98]  I can't find your app.
+[1744.08 --> 1744.52]  And it's like,
+[1744.56 --> 1745.12]  well, it's because
+[1745.12 --> 1745.80]  it's a website.
+[1746.00 --> 1747.80]  It's not an app yet.
+[1748.16 --> 1749.38]  So, you know,
+[1749.38 --> 1749.90]  go to Safari
+[1749.90 --> 1751.24]  and search for it there
+[1751.24 --> 1751.96]  and you'll find it.
+[1752.32 --> 1754.06]  But like from a user perspective,
+[1754.06 --> 1755.10]  I actually agree
+[1755.10 --> 1755.84]  with the argument
+[1755.84 --> 1756.30]  I was made
+[1756.30 --> 1757.28]  that I was assigned to,
+[1757.38 --> 1757.44]  you know,
+[1757.46 --> 1758.36]  the side that I was assigned to
+[1758.36 --> 1760.56]  because like I don't think
+[1760.56 --> 1761.68]  users are really thinking about
+[1761.68 --> 1762.76]  when they go to Safari
+[1762.76 --> 1763.72]  or whatever browser
+[1763.72 --> 1764.28]  on their phone
+[1764.28 --> 1765.48]  and they're going to
+[1765.48 --> 1766.70]  some kind of website,
+[1766.88 --> 1767.84]  they're not really thinking about
+[1767.84 --> 1768.58]  whether it's an app
+[1768.58 --> 1769.18]  or it's a website.
+[1769.70 --> 1770.32]  It's just that
+[1770.32 --> 1771.04]  they're in the web browser.
+[1771.92 --> 1772.62]  And, you know,
+[1772.68 --> 1773.50]  like I don't know,
+[1773.54 --> 1774.50]  I don't know how you distinguish
+[1774.50 --> 1776.38]  there for the user
+[1776.38 --> 1777.20]  because, you know,
+[1777.26 --> 1778.16]  before we even had
+[1778.16 --> 1779.32]  like the concept of a web app,
+[1779.42 --> 1779.92]  there were like,
+[1780.04 --> 1780.40]  for example,
+[1780.50 --> 1781.24]  e-commerce sites
+[1781.24 --> 1782.28]  that implemented things
+[1782.28 --> 1783.10]  like shopping carts
+[1783.10 --> 1783.86]  where there was like
+[1783.86 --> 1784.66]  state on the server
+[1784.66 --> 1785.60]  and, you know,
+[1785.66 --> 1786.36]  you're adding things
+[1786.36 --> 1786.88]  to your card
+[1786.88 --> 1787.46]  and you're adjusting
+[1787.46 --> 1787.94]  the quantity
+[1787.94 --> 1789.06]  and you're checking out
+[1789.06 --> 1789.38]  and you're doing
+[1789.38 --> 1790.50]  all this very stateful stuff.
+[1791.08 --> 1791.50]  And nowadays,
+[1791.68 --> 1792.84]  a site or an app like that
+[1792.84 --> 1793.38]  would be built
+[1793.38 --> 1794.84]  with like more of the
+[1794.84 --> 1796.24]  sort of web app-y technologies,
+[1796.46 --> 1796.60]  you know,
+[1796.62 --> 1797.60]  like React or something
+[1797.60 --> 1799.34]  and you would very clearly argue,
+[1799.46 --> 1800.56]  oh, that's obviously an app
+[1800.56 --> 1801.36]  because it's using
+[1801.36 --> 1802.58]  all this client-side stuff
+[1802.58 --> 1803.54]  and all this fancy routing
+[1803.54 --> 1805.34]  and all this really complicated
+[1805.34 --> 1806.96]  machinery to do it.
+[1807.26 --> 1807.60]  But, you know,
+[1807.62 --> 1808.78]  we had that kind of stuff
+[1808.78 --> 1809.62]  in the 90s too.
+[1810.14 --> 1810.74]  And that was definitely,
+[1810.92 --> 1811.56]  back in the 90s,
+[1811.60 --> 1812.22]  I think that would have been
+[1812.22 --> 1813.44]  called a website for sure
+[1813.44 --> 1814.84]  because it was just a website
+[1814.84 --> 1815.64]  with like a server,
+[1815.64 --> 1816.80]  like a PHP server
+[1816.80 --> 1817.72]  on the back end
+[1817.72 --> 1818.84]  doing some stateful things.
+[1819.48 --> 1820.82]  So this is all very,
+[1820.86 --> 1821.84]  it's all very mixed up.
+[1822.04 --> 1823.36]  I don't think users really
+[1823.36 --> 1824.70]  think about the difference.
+[1824.90 --> 1825.44]  So if we're looking at it
+[1825.44 --> 1826.26]  from the user perspective,
+[1826.48 --> 1827.86]  then I think it's really the same.
+[1828.48 --> 1829.66]  To add to that,
+[1829.80 --> 1830.86]  so when I think about
+[1830.86 --> 1832.76]  a quintessential web app,
+[1832.98 --> 1833.96]  maybe like the first,
+[1834.32 --> 1835.06]  at least for me,
+[1835.20 --> 1836.50]  major web app was Gmail
+[1836.50 --> 1837.92]  where it was like,
+[1838.42 --> 1840.04]  as a informed user,
+[1840.20 --> 1840.62]  I was like,
+[1840.78 --> 1842.46]  this seems fundamentally different
+[1842.46 --> 1843.78]  than other things.
+[1844.42 --> 1846.28]  But it was still in my browser.
+[1847.12 --> 1849.28]  And as less informed users,
+[1849.40 --> 1851.04]  as maybe more mainstream users,
+[1851.18 --> 1851.94]  I know that,
+[1852.42 --> 1852.90]  for instance,
+[1853.12 --> 1853.28]  you know,
+[1853.64 --> 1854.98]  my parents are on Gmail.
+[1855.40 --> 1856.52]  And when I talk to them
+[1856.52 --> 1857.46]  about, you know,
+[1857.54 --> 1858.52]  their email,
+[1858.74 --> 1859.18]  it's like,
+[1859.26 --> 1859.52]  do I,
+[1859.92 --> 1861.04]  I'll tell them
+[1861.04 --> 1862.26]  certain configurations
+[1862.26 --> 1862.88]  or I don't know
+[1862.88 --> 1863.90]  if it's like blacklist
+[1863.90 --> 1864.66]  or whatever you're going to do,
+[1865.08 --> 1866.08]  those can only be done
+[1866.08 --> 1867.12]  via the web
+[1867.12 --> 1869.34]  versus inside their mail app
+[1869.34 --> 1870.90]  that's connected to Gmail.
+[1871.12 --> 1872.20]  Their differentiation is,
+[1872.56 --> 1873.78]  is it in my mail app
+[1873.78 --> 1875.56]  or is it on the web?
+[1876.10 --> 1876.38]  You know,
+[1876.46 --> 1877.00]  and I'll tell them,
+[1877.08 --> 1877.18]  like,
+[1877.22 --> 1878.14]  go to the web interface
+[1878.14 --> 1878.64]  to do that.
+[1878.70 --> 1879.04]  And to them,
+[1879.08 --> 1879.98]  there's no differentiation.
+[1880.24 --> 1880.32]  Like,
+[1880.34 --> 1880.90]  if it's on the web,
+[1880.98 --> 1882.52]  it's a website thing.
+[1882.86 --> 1883.78]  And if it's in an app,
+[1883.82 --> 1884.42]  it's an app thing.
+[1884.48 --> 1885.02]  So I think that
+[1885.02 --> 1886.58]  is an anecdotal
+[1886.58 --> 1887.62]  piece of evidence
+[1887.62 --> 1888.80]  around the concept
+[1888.80 --> 1889.86]  that end users are like,
+[1889.94 --> 1890.76]  is it in a website?
+[1891.24 --> 1892.50]  Is it in a web browser or not?
+[1892.58 --> 1893.26]  And that's probably
+[1893.26 --> 1894.96]  where they think about it.
+[1895.42 --> 1895.84]  Or is it,
+[1895.92 --> 1896.82]  maybe even the other way around,
+[1896.86 --> 1898.02]  is it in an app or not?
+[1898.20 --> 1899.10]  Which I think PWAs
+[1899.10 --> 1899.70]  do kind of start
+[1899.70 --> 1900.50]  to change that calculus
+[1900.50 --> 1900.92]  a little bit,
+[1900.96 --> 1901.10]  you know,
+[1901.12 --> 1901.76]  because if you find it
+[1901.76 --> 1902.40]  in the app store
+[1902.40 --> 1903.48]  and you install it
+[1903.48 --> 1904.20]  onto your phone
+[1904.20 --> 1905.58]  and it is a website
+[1905.58 --> 1906.58]  that's being wrapped
+[1906.58 --> 1908.06]  and doing fancy things,
+[1908.06 --> 1909.74]  now is it different
+[1909.74 --> 1910.32]  than a website?
+[1910.78 --> 1910.88]  Yeah,
+[1910.92 --> 1911.36]  it's interesting
+[1911.36 --> 1912.42]  to think about it that way
+[1912.42 --> 1912.80]  because,
+[1913.30 --> 1913.52]  like,
+[1913.62 --> 1914.92]  a lot of native apps,
+[1915.00 --> 1915.10]  like,
+[1915.14 --> 1915.68]  I know Facebook
+[1915.68 --> 1915.92]  has,
+[1916.02 --> 1916.06]  like,
+[1916.08 --> 1917.36]  their own browser thing
+[1917.36 --> 1918.40]  that they're working on
+[1918.40 --> 1919.30]  and it's just like,
+[1919.58 --> 1920.22]  it's an app,
+[1920.38 --> 1920.84]  kind of,
+[1920.92 --> 1922.24]  but it's an in-app browser
+[1922.24 --> 1923.32]  window
+[1923.32 --> 1924.32]  and so users
+[1924.32 --> 1925.26]  are still interacting
+[1925.26 --> 1926.20]  with the website,
+[1926.66 --> 1927.20]  so to speak,
+[1927.24 --> 1928.02]  but they see it
+[1928.02 --> 1928.96]  in the app shell
+[1928.96 --> 1930.08]  and so,
+[1930.36 --> 1931.18]  from that perspective,
+[1931.18 --> 1932.14]  it seems different.
+[1932.46 --> 1933.34]  I feel like maybe
+[1933.34 --> 1934.34]  instead of developing
+[1934.34 --> 1935.56]  their own browser
+[1935.56 --> 1936.92]  or browser extension
+[1936.92 --> 1937.42]  or whatever,
+[1937.56 --> 1938.06]  maybe Facebook
+[1938.06 --> 1938.70]  should just give
+[1938.70 --> 1939.64]  all of their users,
+[1939.64 --> 1939.98]  like,
+[1940.14 --> 1941.00]  cameras to put
+[1941.00 --> 1941.62]  in their house
+[1941.62 --> 1942.68]  so it'll just be easier
+[1942.68 --> 1944.04]  to keep track of users,
+[1944.20 --> 1944.42]  you know?
+[1944.48 --> 1944.92]  It's called a portal.
+[1946.92 --> 1947.68]  A portal,
+[1947.78 --> 1947.90]  yeah,
+[1947.94 --> 1949.00]  they already did that.
+[1949.78 --> 1950.18]  Sorry,
+[1950.24 --> 1950.56]  anyways.
+[1950.56 --> 1952.62]  All right,
+[1952.68 --> 1953.84]  I'll stop the Facebook show.
+[1953.84 --> 1954.02]  A mouse on fire.
+[1954.44 --> 1954.62]  No,
+[1954.74 --> 1955.16]  it's fine,
+[1955.22 --> 1955.72]  it's fine.
+[1955.86 --> 1956.58]  I'll just,
+[1956.76 --> 1956.98]  you know,
+[1957.32 --> 1957.64]  whatever.
+[1957.88 --> 1958.18]  It's fine.
+[1958.68 --> 1960.00]  User privacy is important
+[1960.00 --> 1961.56]  but not to social media companies,
+[1961.72 --> 1961.92]  so.
+[1962.06 --> 1962.78]  That was actually going to be
+[1962.78 --> 1963.48]  one of my arguments
+[1963.48 --> 1964.58]  for the distinction
+[1964.58 --> 1965.32]  between the two
+[1965.32 --> 1966.50]  was a web app
+[1966.50 --> 1966.84]  is something
+[1966.84 --> 1967.68]  that you're going to use
+[1967.68 --> 1968.84]  to do something for you
+[1968.84 --> 1969.62]  and a website
+[1969.62 --> 1970.66]  is going to be something
+[1970.66 --> 1972.02]  that is spying on you
+[1972.02 --> 1972.82]  for their benefit.
+[1974.12 --> 1975.30]  It's a bad argument.
+[1975.70 --> 1976.36]  That's a really,
+[1976.54 --> 1976.78]  yeah.
+[1976.78 --> 1977.42]  Yeah,
+[1978.16 --> 1978.42]  I mean,
+[1978.48 --> 1978.98]  so for me,
+[1979.02 --> 1980.38]  this is like super nuanced
+[1980.38 --> 1981.16]  because,
+[1981.72 --> 1981.98]  you know,
+[1982.04 --> 1983.10]  I think it's very important
+[1983.10 --> 1984.58]  that we continue
+[1984.58 --> 1985.78]  to blur the lines
+[1985.78 --> 1986.44]  between,
+[1986.44 --> 1986.90]  you know,
+[1986.98 --> 1988.40]  native desktop apps
+[1988.40 --> 1989.50]  or native mobile apps
+[1989.50 --> 1989.92]  and,
+[1990.16 --> 1990.32]  you know,
+[1990.56 --> 1991.22]  web apps,
+[1991.58 --> 1992.38]  mainly because,
+[1992.56 --> 1992.76]  you know,
+[1993.10 --> 1994.00]  the web is definitely
+[1994.00 --> 1995.18]  the better platform
+[1995.18 --> 1996.10]  for users
+[1996.10 --> 1997.02]  because it's open
+[1997.02 --> 1998.12]  but it's also,
+[1998.74 --> 1999.62]  it's got to get better.
+[1999.80 --> 2000.40]  It's got to get better
+[2000.40 --> 2001.60]  for like small screens.
+[2001.82 --> 2002.48]  It's got to get better
+[2002.48 --> 2003.56]  for other,
+[2003.80 --> 2004.32]  you know,
+[2004.56 --> 2006.18]  ephemeral interactions.
+[2006.18 --> 2006.80]  I think it definitely
+[2006.80 --> 2008.12]  does have to get better
+[2008.12 --> 2009.68]  and I think when we think
+[2009.68 --> 2010.40]  about the difference
+[2010.40 --> 2011.02]  between the two,
+[2011.10 --> 2011.76]  I think developers
+[2011.76 --> 2012.46]  obviously talk
+[2012.46 --> 2013.12]  and think about these things
+[2013.12 --> 2013.78]  more often.
+[2014.70 --> 2015.10]  Fundamentally,
+[2015.94 --> 2016.50]  are they different?
+[2016.62 --> 2017.26]  I don't think they're different
+[2017.26 --> 2018.14]  because for us,
+[2018.18 --> 2019.02]  his argument's strong.
+[2019.20 --> 2020.04]  Like the technical ways
+[2020.04 --> 2020.60]  that they're delivered
+[2020.60 --> 2021.80]  and executed,
+[2021.92 --> 2022.92]  like it's all the same technology,
+[2023.06 --> 2023.98]  it's all the same platform
+[2023.98 --> 2025.58]  so they aren't fundamentally different
+[2025.58 --> 2027.50]  but what if we change that
+[2027.50 --> 2029.24]  to it's useful to distinguish
+[2029.24 --> 2030.38]  because I think
+[2030.38 --> 2031.66]  when we get to the side
+[2031.66 --> 2032.52]  of somebody who's building
+[2032.52 --> 2033.36]  one of these things,
+[2033.82 --> 2034.50]  I think that's where
+[2034.50 --> 2037.62]  we start to consider them different.
+[2038.24 --> 2039.40]  Like what am I building
+[2039.40 --> 2040.66]  and how am I trying to build it?
+[2040.70 --> 2041.66]  What's it going to be?
+[2042.00 --> 2043.28]  Does that change the technologies
+[2043.28 --> 2044.00]  that I select?
+[2044.06 --> 2044.80]  Does that change the decisions
+[2044.80 --> 2045.36]  that I make?
+[2045.72 --> 2046.70]  And I think at that point,
+[2046.78 --> 2047.68]  maybe you can say fundamentally
+[2047.68 --> 2049.06]  but at least there is
+[2049.06 --> 2050.10]  a distinguishment that says
+[2050.10 --> 2051.98]  I'm building a rich
+[2051.98 --> 2054.40]  in-browser experience
+[2054.40 --> 2056.98]  which is going to be app-like
+[2056.98 --> 2058.68]  and I can probably enumerate
+[2058.68 --> 2059.66]  what app-like means
+[2059.66 --> 2061.60]  and therefore I'm going to pick
+[2061.60 --> 2063.06]  this technology stack
+[2063.06 --> 2064.24]  or these particular ways
+[2064.24 --> 2064.84]  of building it
+[2064.84 --> 2065.88]  or this architecture
+[2065.88 --> 2067.68]  in order to make that
+[2067.68 --> 2068.68]  the best thing it can be
+[2068.68 --> 2071.04]  versus what I'm really making
+[2071.04 --> 2072.12]  over here is
+[2072.12 --> 2076.40]  a content-first publishing website
+[2076.40 --> 2078.58]  and so I might reach
+[2078.58 --> 2079.42]  for different technologies.
+[2079.56 --> 2080.28]  I think that's where
+[2080.28 --> 2080.82]  it starts to become
+[2080.82 --> 2081.94]  more of a useful way
+[2081.94 --> 2082.72]  of thinking about things
+[2082.72 --> 2083.32]  or do you guys think
+[2083.32 --> 2083.84]  that even that
+[2083.84 --> 2084.80]  is not worth distinguishing?
+[2085.32 --> 2086.08]  I mean, everybody's
+[2086.08 --> 2086.92]  building their websites
+[2086.92 --> 2088.36]  like web apps these days.
+[2088.58 --> 2089.82]  You know, even a lot of people
+[2089.82 --> 2091.04]  are just using the same tools
+[2091.04 --> 2091.56]  for everything.
+[2092.00 --> 2092.78]  But I agree.
+[2092.92 --> 2094.90]  I think that is a more useful place
+[2094.90 --> 2096.10]  to distinguish between the two
+[2096.10 --> 2096.70]  when you're thinking
+[2096.70 --> 2098.22]  from a developer's perspective
+[2098.22 --> 2099.98]  like how should I build this?
+[2100.38 --> 2101.56]  There's definitely different decisions
+[2101.56 --> 2103.06]  that you can make there.
+[2103.42 --> 2103.86]  I think GitHub's
+[2103.86 --> 2104.90]  such a fascinating case
+[2104.90 --> 2106.18]  because it really was a thing
+[2106.18 --> 2107.30]  that moved from
+[2107.30 --> 2109.00]  kind of website-looking things
+[2109.00 --> 2109.62]  to like actually
+[2109.62 --> 2111.46]  there's some pretty rich interactions now
+[2111.46 --> 2112.20]  although they've kept
+[2112.20 --> 2114.50]  they're not a single-page app.
+[2114.50 --> 2115.66]  You know, like they didn't come out
+[2115.66 --> 2117.34]  and say we are an app, right?
+[2117.38 --> 2118.92]  It was a place to host your code
+[2118.92 --> 2120.50]  and of course there's tons of stuff
+[2120.50 --> 2121.66]  that makes that possible
+[2121.66 --> 2122.70]  which is very app-like.
+[2123.24 --> 2123.80]  But the interface
+[2123.80 --> 2124.66]  was very much like
+[2124.66 --> 2126.38]  you know, search for a thing
+[2126.38 --> 2127.40]  read a thing
+[2127.40 --> 2128.16]  find a thing
+[2128.16 --> 2128.84]  write a thing
+[2128.84 --> 2128.98]  comment
+[2128.98 --> 2131.00]  these are very basic interactions
+[2131.00 --> 2131.66]  but over time
+[2131.66 --> 2132.88]  it's gotten more and more rich
+[2132.88 --> 2134.60]  and they really have blurred the lines
+[2134.60 --> 2135.28]  between the two.
+[2136.04 --> 2137.08]  Web 2.0
+[2137.08 --> 2140.04]  The rise of user interactivity.
+[2140.66 --> 2140.76]  Yep.
+[2140.94 --> 2142.00]  Honestly, I mean it's the same
+[2142.00 --> 2143.18]  with like if you look at websites
+[2143.18 --> 2146.10]  that were just like purely one way
+[2146.10 --> 2147.42]  where it's like a user
+[2147.42 --> 2148.28]  didn't really interact
+[2148.28 --> 2149.64]  they kind of hyperlinked
+[2149.64 --> 2150.70]  it was just like hyperlinks
+[2150.70 --> 2151.38]  to different things
+[2151.38 --> 2152.30]  and everything was static
+[2152.30 --> 2154.56]  and now a lot of sites
+[2154.56 --> 2155.64]  are very interactive
+[2155.64 --> 2157.30]  and in, you know
+[2157.30 --> 2158.00]  like you have things
+[2158.00 --> 2159.26]  like sockets and WebRTC
+[2159.26 --> 2160.16]  that allows people
+[2160.16 --> 2161.06]  to like communicate
+[2161.06 --> 2162.90]  with each other
+[2162.90 --> 2165.08]  on a single browser tab
+[2165.08 --> 2165.92]  like session
+[2165.92 --> 2167.90]  which I think is really cool
+[2167.90 --> 2168.44]  and powerful
+[2168.44 --> 2170.08]  and so the line is blurred
+[2170.08 --> 2170.68]  definitely
+[2170.68 --> 2171.32]  but yeah
+[2171.32 --> 2171.86]  I think
+[2171.86 --> 2173.40]  there's
+[2173.40 --> 2174.86]  something to be said
+[2174.86 --> 2176.00]  about from a user's perspective
+[2176.00 --> 2177.40]  they might see the difference
+[2177.40 --> 2178.16]  actually
+[2178.16 --> 2179.52]  I think a really interesting
+[2179.52 --> 2180.70]  argument
+[2180.70 --> 2181.58]  that we can have
+[2181.58 --> 2182.18]  later
+[2182.18 --> 2183.44]  like another yup nope
+[2183.44 --> 2184.52]  is websites
+[2184.52 --> 2185.06]  are dead
+[2185.06 --> 2186.36]  long live web apps
+[2186.36 --> 2187.44]  just to like
+[2187.44 --> 2188.70]  troll
+[2188.70 --> 2190.68]  this argument
+[2190.68 --> 2191.28]  further
+[2191.28 --> 2192.12]  there you go
+[2192.12 --> 2192.96]  write it down
+[2192.96 --> 2193.98]  write it down
+[2193.98 --> 2195.00]  future premise
+[2195.00 --> 2196.40]  by the way
+[2196.40 --> 2196.92]  out there
+[2196.92 --> 2197.56]  listening
+[2197.56 --> 2198.98]  we do take episode requests
+[2198.98 --> 2200.22]  so if there's a specific
+[2200.22 --> 2200.86]  yup nope
+[2200.86 --> 2202.40]  premise that you want debated
+[2202.40 --> 2204.14]  we are happy to take that up
+[2204.14 --> 2205.40]  we're happy to invite on guests
+[2205.40 --> 2206.24]  and other people
+[2206.24 --> 2207.28]  to debate these topics
+[2207.28 --> 2207.86]  not just
+[2207.86 --> 2209.68]  us regular panelists
+[2209.68 --> 2211.40]  so to do that
+[2211.40 --> 2212.16]  all you have to do
+[2212.16 --> 2212.72]  is head to
+[2212.72 --> 2213.50]  changelog.com
+[2213.50 --> 2214.78]  slash request
+[2214.78 --> 2216.38]  select JS Party
+[2216.38 --> 2217.22]  in the drop down
+[2217.22 --> 2218.40]  drop a topic
+[2218.40 --> 2219.26]  drop a guest
+[2219.26 --> 2220.92]  you can pick your panelists
+[2220.92 --> 2222.10]  we know we've had
+[2222.10 --> 2223.16]  specific panelists
+[2223.16 --> 2224.22]  requested for specific topics
+[2224.22 --> 2224.88]  we're cool with that too
+[2224.88 --> 2226.38]  so just a shout out
+[2226.38 --> 2226.70]  out there
+[2226.70 --> 2227.22]  if you're listening
+[2227.22 --> 2228.42]  and you want to hear more
+[2228.42 --> 2229.56]  debates like this
+[2229.56 --> 2230.10]  with premises
+[2230.10 --> 2230.90]  that you come up with
+[2230.90 --> 2232.96]  please do drop us a note
+[2232.96 --> 2234.18]  we would love to hear from you
+[2234.18 --> 2236.00]  okay final thoughts
+[2236.00 --> 2237.74]  before we call it a day
+[2237.74 --> 2238.70]  this was a lot of fun
+[2238.70 --> 2239.88]  I always enjoy
+[2239.88 --> 2240.74]  the argumentation
+[2240.74 --> 2241.60]  whether or not I
+[2241.60 --> 2242.88]  agree or disagree
+[2242.88 --> 2244.76]  and I always enjoy
+[2244.76 --> 2245.72]  declaring myself the winner
+[2245.72 --> 2246.58]  Nick you've been quiet
+[2246.58 --> 2247.00]  recently
+[2247.00 --> 2247.60]  do you have any thoughts
+[2247.60 --> 2248.52]  on the distinguishments
+[2248.52 --> 2249.90]  the usefulness
+[2249.90 --> 2251.10]  and what you really believe
+[2251.10 --> 2251.80]  in this context
+[2251.80 --> 2252.86]  yeah I think
+[2252.86 --> 2253.88]  just I think
+[2253.88 --> 2254.36]  going back to
+[2254.36 --> 2255.24]  maybe what Frost
+[2255.24 --> 2255.74]  was saying
+[2255.74 --> 2256.60]  about how
+[2256.60 --> 2257.74]  like everything
+[2257.74 --> 2258.52]  is kind of being built
+[2258.52 --> 2259.72]  as a web app
+[2259.72 --> 2260.24]  nowadays
+[2260.24 --> 2261.36]  like that's
+[2261.36 --> 2262.14]  that's totally true
+[2262.14 --> 2263.30]  my blog that I haven't
+[2263.30 --> 2264.00]  really posted on
+[2264.00 --> 2264.56]  since 2015
+[2264.56 --> 2266.52]  I just redid with 11d
+[2266.52 --> 2267.22]  and it's all
+[2267.22 --> 2267.62]  JavaScript
+[2267.62 --> 2268.72]  but at the end of the day
+[2268.72 --> 2269.76]  it's no JavaScript
+[2269.76 --> 2271.08]  at all running on the page
+[2271.08 --> 2273.14]  so it feels like an app
+[2273.14 --> 2274.04]  that I'm working on
+[2274.04 --> 2275.68]  but it's served
+[2275.68 --> 2276.26]  like a site
+[2276.26 --> 2278.30]  and to an end user
+[2278.30 --> 2278.96]  I don't think
+[2278.96 --> 2280.06]  that there's any difference
+[2280.06 --> 2281.06]  so I think that's the
+[2281.06 --> 2282.06]  the most important takeaway
+[2282.06 --> 2283.96]  I have to say
+[2283.96 --> 2285.52]  like to that point
+[2285.52 --> 2286.02]  Nick
+[2286.02 --> 2287.08]  people who can write
+[2287.08 --> 2288.00]  or build web apps
+[2288.00 --> 2289.24]  we tend to kind of
+[2289.24 --> 2290.28]  over-engineer everything
+[2290.28 --> 2291.62]  so you know
+[2291.62 --> 2292.42]  you don't need
+[2292.42 --> 2294.00]  React running your blog
+[2294.00 --> 2294.62]  for example
+[2294.62 --> 2295.14]  right
+[2295.14 --> 2296.48]  or even an NPM
+[2296.48 --> 2297.90]  dependency tool chain
+[2297.90 --> 2298.48]  for example
+[2298.48 --> 2299.26]  right
+[2299.26 --> 2300.18]  obviously like
+[2300.18 --> 2301.28]  you can do whatever you want
+[2301.28 --> 2301.88]  you're an engineer
+[2301.88 --> 2302.74]  you can do it
+[2302.74 --> 2304.20]  but I think it's important
+[2304.20 --> 2305.16]  for us to really think
+[2305.16 --> 2306.36]  about the future of the web
+[2306.36 --> 2307.04]  and for me
+[2307.04 --> 2307.90]  the future of the web
+[2307.90 --> 2308.76]  needs to include
+[2308.76 --> 2310.08]  like more web authors
+[2310.08 --> 2311.54]  and content creators
+[2311.54 --> 2313.14]  and like what does that world
+[2313.14 --> 2313.86]  look like
+[2313.86 --> 2314.52]  and so
+[2314.52 --> 2316.34]  and not just like folks
+[2316.34 --> 2317.54]  posting content
+[2317.54 --> 2319.28]  through social media platforms
+[2319.28 --> 2319.80]  like TikTok
+[2319.80 --> 2320.34]  right
+[2320.34 --> 2321.76]  like you see the engagement
+[2321.76 --> 2322.48]  level there
+[2322.48 --> 2323.94]  for people who are
+[2323.94 --> 2324.86]  interested in
+[2324.86 --> 2326.32]  in putting things out there
+[2326.32 --> 2327.20]  onto the web
+[2327.20 --> 2327.94]  but you know
+[2327.94 --> 2329.14]  I think it would be nice
+[2329.14 --> 2330.24]  for people to be able to
+[2330.24 --> 2332.36]  put content onto the open web
+[2332.36 --> 2333.74]  without that intermediary
+[2333.74 --> 2335.18]  and so you know
+[2335.18 --> 2336.34]  and for that
+[2336.34 --> 2337.20]  we're going to need to
+[2337.20 --> 2337.78]  kind of I think
+[2337.78 --> 2339.14]  have a more distinct
+[2339.14 --> 2339.74]  simpler
+[2339.74 --> 2340.38]  more accessible
+[2340.38 --> 2341.26]  class of tools
+[2341.26 --> 2342.10]  and you know
+[2342.10 --> 2343.38]  we really want to get there
+[2343.38 --> 2344.42]  that's actually really why
+[2344.42 --> 2345.54]  I think the distinguishment
+[2345.54 --> 2347.00]  between sites and apps
+[2347.00 --> 2348.02]  can help
+[2348.02 --> 2348.50]  I think
+[2348.50 --> 2349.36]  define those boundaries
+[2349.36 --> 2350.00]  for people
+[2350.00 --> 2350.54]  you know
+[2350.54 --> 2351.28]  on the other side
+[2351.28 --> 2351.76]  of the spectrum
+[2351.76 --> 2352.46]  you know
+[2352.46 --> 2352.72]  so
+[2352.72 --> 2353.22]  maybe
+[2353.22 --> 2354.32]  maybe if we can quantify
+[2354.32 --> 2355.92]  the level of over engineering
+[2355.92 --> 2356.82]  that's going into something
+[2356.82 --> 2357.70]  we can distinguish it
+[2357.70 --> 2358.26]  on a scale
+[2358.26 --> 2359.34]  between website
+[2359.34 --> 2359.92]  and web app
+[2359.92 --> 2360.56]  right
+[2360.56 --> 2361.08]  maybe we could do it
+[2361.08 --> 2361.76]  on page size
+[2361.76 --> 2363.16]  like if it's three megabytes
+[2363.16 --> 2364.74]  of JavaScript bundle
+[2364.74 --> 2365.52]  then it's a web app
+[2365.52 --> 2365.92]  right
+[2365.92 --> 2368.24]  but if it's 10 megabytes
+[2368.24 --> 2368.68]  of images
+[2368.68 --> 2369.66]  then it's a website
+[2369.66 --> 2370.54]  there you go
+[2370.54 --> 2373.04]  totally fair argument
+[2373.04 --> 2374.32]  I also think
+[2374.32 --> 2374.70]  there's something
+[2374.70 --> 2375.18]  to be said
+[2375.18 --> 2375.78]  about like
+[2375.78 --> 2376.96]  the terminology
+[2376.96 --> 2377.64]  so
+[2377.64 --> 2378.58]  you know how
+[2378.58 --> 2379.98]  web developer
+[2379.98 --> 2381.16]  and software engineer
+[2381.16 --> 2381.94]  like people
+[2381.94 --> 2383.12]  choose whichever
+[2383.12 --> 2384.02]  to use
+[2384.02 --> 2385.06]  depending on how
+[2385.06 --> 2386.60]  they want to be perceived
+[2386.60 --> 2388.22]  so for example
+[2388.22 --> 2389.44]  I'll just give you
+[2389.44 --> 2390.42]  my biased opinion
+[2390.42 --> 2391.42]  which is
+[2391.42 --> 2392.42]  whenever I tell people
+[2392.42 --> 2393.22]  I'm a web developer
+[2393.22 --> 2394.74]  it's not as cool
+[2394.74 --> 2395.34]  as saying
+[2395.34 --> 2396.46]  I'm a software engineer
+[2396.46 --> 2397.20]  because I'm just like
+[2397.20 --> 2398.06]  I'm a software engineer
+[2398.06 --> 2399.32]  holds a lot of gravity
+[2399.32 --> 2400.50]  and also
+[2400.50 --> 2401.68]  in certain countries
+[2401.68 --> 2402.30]  you're not allowed
+[2402.30 --> 2403.38]  to say you're a software engineer
+[2403.38 --> 2404.56]  without an actual degree
+[2404.56 --> 2406.00]  so there's like
+[2406.00 --> 2406.64]  this distinction
+[2406.64 --> 2407.92]  which I imagine
+[2407.92 --> 2408.56]  is the same
+[2408.56 --> 2409.16]  with websites
+[2409.16 --> 2409.72]  and web apps
+[2409.72 --> 2410.60]  to some extent
+[2410.60 --> 2412.48]  where it's not as cool
+[2412.48 --> 2413.00]  when I say
+[2413.00 --> 2414.32]  I'm working on a website
+[2414.32 --> 2415.64]  but when I say
+[2415.64 --> 2416.72]  I'm working on a web app
+[2416.72 --> 2417.32]  people are like
+[2417.32 --> 2418.36]  that's awesome
+[2418.36 --> 2419.54]  what are you
+[2419.54 --> 2420.98]  like what are you using
+[2420.98 --> 2422.60]  but when it's website
+[2422.60 --> 2423.00]  it's like
+[2423.00 --> 2423.40]  oh it's just
+[2423.40 --> 2424.20]  HTML and CSS
+[2424.20 --> 2424.70]  whatever
+[2424.70 --> 2425.08]  right
+[2425.08 --> 2427.22]  let me go on record
+[2427.22 --> 2427.86]  and say websites
+[2427.86 --> 2428.62]  are cool
+[2428.62 --> 2429.58]  websites are cool
+[2429.58 --> 2430.66]  come on people
+[2430.66 --> 2431.00]  yeah
+[2431.00 --> 2432.02]  what about the term
+[2432.02 --> 2432.50]  programmer
+[2432.50 --> 2433.22]  do any of you
+[2433.22 --> 2433.64]  call yourselves
+[2433.64 --> 2434.06]  programmers
+[2434.06 --> 2434.96]  I call myself
+[2434.96 --> 2435.60]  a programmer
+[2435.60 --> 2436.52]  a programmer
+[2436.52 --> 2440.44]  that's appropriation
+[2440.44 --> 2444.06]  taking it back
+[2444.06 --> 2444.46]  yeah
+[2444.46 --> 2445.20]  you can't steal
+[2445.20 --> 2446.42]  my culture
+[2446.42 --> 2446.84]  yeah
+[2446.84 --> 2447.94]  that is total
+[2447.94 --> 2448.68]  appropriation
+[2448.68 --> 2450.78]  so it's funny
+[2450.78 --> 2451.26]  I've heard that
+[2451.26 --> 2451.74]  I've been around
+[2451.74 --> 2452.10]  long enough
+[2452.10 --> 2453.16]  to see the transition
+[2453.16 --> 2454.42]  and I know
+[2454.42 --> 2454.98]  a lot of people
+[2454.98 --> 2456.08]  actually take offense
+[2456.08 --> 2456.56]  to certain
+[2456.56 --> 2458.54]  like I've seen blog posts
+[2458.54 --> 2460.08]  like do not call me a coder
+[2460.08 --> 2461.28]  because they think coder
+[2461.28 --> 2462.34]  is belittling
+[2462.34 --> 2462.92]  but then like
+[2462.92 --> 2463.92]  don't call me a programmer
+[2463.92 --> 2464.82]  like don't call me a coder
+[2464.82 --> 2465.70]  call me a programmer
+[2465.70 --> 2466.72]  don't call me a programmer
+[2466.72 --> 2467.60]  call me a developer
+[2467.60 --> 2468.34]  don't call me a developer
+[2468.34 --> 2469.26]  call me an engineer
+[2469.26 --> 2470.42]  actually I'm an architect
+[2470.42 --> 2471.04]  I feel like
+[2471.04 --> 2472.18]  we kind of get caught up
+[2472.18 --> 2472.58]  on these things
+[2472.58 --> 2473.08]  and because
+[2473.08 --> 2474.84]  each of us does
+[2474.84 --> 2475.84]  view the world
+[2475.84 --> 2476.86]  through a different lens
+[2476.86 --> 2478.00]  these words have
+[2478.00 --> 2479.36]  different connotations
+[2479.36 --> 2480.58]  or like to me
+[2480.58 --> 2481.58]  I don't think
+[2481.58 --> 2482.58]  I'm a smaller
+[2482.58 --> 2483.34]  or I don't take it
+[2483.34 --> 2484.40]  as speaking down to me
+[2484.40 --> 2485.14]  to call me a developer
+[2485.14 --> 2486.02]  versus an engineer
+[2486.02 --> 2487.34]  I couldn't care less
+[2487.34 --> 2488.10]  but I can see
+[2488.10 --> 2488.84]  where to for Divya
+[2488.84 --> 2489.72]  especially if it has to do
+[2489.72 --> 2490.92]  with like certain
+[2490.92 --> 2491.98]  you know job opportunities
+[2491.98 --> 2492.38]  or whatever
+[2492.38 --> 2493.38]  her context is
+[2493.38 --> 2494.34]  like engineer
+[2494.34 --> 2496.44]  is more uplifting
+[2496.44 --> 2498.14]  or she'd rather be called that
+[2498.14 --> 2499.18]  so it's weird
+[2499.18 --> 2500.00]  because we all kind of
+[2500.00 --> 2501.48]  just have our own
+[2501.48 --> 2503.30]  ways of defining
+[2503.30 --> 2503.82]  in our heads
+[2503.82 --> 2504.76]  what the words mean
+[2504.76 --> 2505.08]  you know
+[2505.08 --> 2505.68]  yeah
+[2505.68 --> 2506.90]  I think that's a really
+[2506.90 --> 2507.62]  interesting topic
+[2507.62 --> 2508.42]  for a debate though
+[2508.42 --> 2510.14]  like these words
+[2510.14 --> 2512.10]  I remember Silicon Valley
+[2512.10 --> 2513.22]  that show on HBO
+[2513.22 --> 2514.32]  I remember
+[2514.32 --> 2516.28]  getting so distinctly annoyed
+[2516.28 --> 2517.08]  every time I heard
+[2517.08 --> 2518.00]  the word coder
+[2518.00 --> 2519.56]  because I was like
+[2519.56 --> 2520.00]  you know
+[2520.00 --> 2521.58]  I do personally feel like
+[2521.58 --> 2522.36]  coder just
+[2522.36 --> 2523.46]  it belittles
+[2523.46 --> 2524.92]  like the craft
+[2524.92 --> 2526.20]  a little
+[2526.20 --> 2527.26]  what if coding
+[2527.26 --> 2528.22]  was the craft
+[2528.22 --> 2529.30]  yeah but like
+[2529.30 --> 2529.80]  it's
+[2529.80 --> 2531.02]  this is completely
+[2531.02 --> 2531.90]  like subjective
+[2531.90 --> 2532.32]  right
+[2532.32 --> 2533.16]  that's why it's interesting
+[2533.16 --> 2533.74]  because we all bring
+[2533.74 --> 2535.86]  our own contextual baggage
+[2535.86 --> 2536.54]  to the words
+[2536.54 --> 2536.92]  you know
+[2536.92 --> 2537.92]  and then we interpret them
+[2537.92 --> 2538.80]  according to us
+[2538.80 --> 2539.46]  and I've
+[2539.46 --> 2540.72]  I used to write for a blog
+[2540.72 --> 2541.78]  called fuel your coding
+[2541.78 --> 2542.34]  and I thought it was
+[2542.34 --> 2543.06]  totally cool
+[2543.06 --> 2544.36]  and then I read somebody else
+[2544.36 --> 2544.80]  saying that
+[2544.80 --> 2545.68]  like you that says
+[2545.68 --> 2546.78]  coding is not cool
+[2546.78 --> 2547.16]  and I'm like
+[2547.16 --> 2547.94]  well I thought it was cool
+[2547.94 --> 2548.44]  when I wrote
+[2548.44 --> 2548.72]  you know
+[2548.72 --> 2550.12]  but I think
+[2550.12 --> 2551.72]  maybe coding attaches
+[2551.72 --> 2553.98]  to the code monkey term
+[2553.98 --> 2555.06]  which is incredibly
+[2555.06 --> 2556.20]  belittling
+[2556.20 --> 2556.58]  right
+[2556.58 --> 2557.34]  and that whole like
+[2557.34 --> 2558.24]  hey just go grab a ticket
+[2558.24 --> 2558.94]  and write the code
+[2558.94 --> 2560.08]  or like that makes us seem
+[2560.08 --> 2560.80]  like we are not
+[2560.80 --> 2561.72]  all that we are
+[2561.72 --> 2562.48]  and so I understand that
+[2562.48 --> 2563.54]  maybe there's an attachment there
+[2563.54 --> 2564.94]  but it's a fascinating
+[2564.94 --> 2566.00]  linguistics problem
+[2566.00 --> 2566.88]  yeah
+[2566.88 --> 2567.52]  yeah
+[2567.52 --> 2568.46]  I think for some reason
+[2568.46 --> 2569.02]  I just feel like
+[2569.02 --> 2571.10]  programmer is the most pure term
+[2571.10 --> 2572.68]  like a person who makes programs
+[2572.68 --> 2574.08]  it doesn't have the baggage
+[2574.08 --> 2574.66]  of coder
+[2574.66 --> 2576.48]  and it doesn't have the
+[2576.48 --> 2577.30]  like software engineer
+[2577.30 --> 2578.24]  feels a little bit
+[2578.24 --> 2579.74]  grasping to me
+[2579.74 --> 2580.14]  like
+[2580.14 --> 2581.62]  like
+[2581.62 --> 2582.22]  in the same way
+[2582.22 --> 2583.44]  that the term computer science
+[2583.44 --> 2584.34]  is also grasping
+[2584.34 --> 2584.82]  it's like
+[2584.82 --> 2586.32]  oh we got to add the word science
+[2586.32 --> 2587.40]  to make it seem like
+[2587.40 --> 2587.82]  we're legit
+[2587.82 --> 2588.40]  you know
+[2588.40 --> 2590.16]  please respect us
+[2590.16 --> 2590.94]  yeah
+[2590.94 --> 2591.36]  yeah
+[2591.36 --> 2591.78]  oh wait
+[2591.78 --> 2593.10]  oh computer science
+[2593.10 --> 2593.42]  science
+[2593.42 --> 2593.72]  yeah
+[2593.72 --> 2594.44]  because you're adding
+[2594.44 --> 2595.04]  the word science
+[2595.04 --> 2595.40]  on the end
+[2595.40 --> 2595.64]  it's like
+[2595.64 --> 2596.16]  oh the science
+[2596.16 --> 2596.78]  of computers
+[2596.78 --> 2597.24]  when really
+[2597.24 --> 2598.52]  it could just be called
+[2598.52 --> 2599.12]  computation
+[2599.12 --> 2599.94]  or
+[2599.94 --> 2602.02]  computation
+[2602.02 --> 2603.38]  also like
+[2603.38 --> 2604.90]  I teach computation
+[2604.90 --> 2606.56]  I like that
+[2606.56 --> 2607.30]  it's not about
+[2607.30 --> 2607.44]  the
+[2607.44 --> 2608.10]  it's not about
+[2608.10 --> 2609.04]  like the physical
+[2609.04 --> 2610.12]  computer hardware
+[2610.12 --> 2610.62]  that like
+[2610.62 --> 2610.90]  we're not
+[2610.90 --> 2611.94]  like you wouldn't call
+[2611.94 --> 2613.24]  I'm trying to think
+[2613.24 --> 2613.82]  of a good example
+[2613.82 --> 2615.08]  you wouldn't call
+[2615.08 --> 2615.24]  it
+[2615.24 --> 2615.92]  it's weird to call
+[2615.92 --> 2616.74]  an entire field
+[2616.74 --> 2617.62]  like
+[2617.62 --> 2618.78]  to name it
+[2618.78 --> 2619.34]  based on
+[2619.34 --> 2620.38]  the tool
+[2620.38 --> 2621.08]  that you use
+[2621.08 --> 2622.14]  like the physical tool
+[2622.14 --> 2622.48]  that you use
+[2622.48 --> 2623.02]  oh I see
+[2623.02 --> 2623.92]  really what we're doing
+[2623.92 --> 2624.26]  is like
+[2624.26 --> 2624.92]  it's more abstract
+[2624.92 --> 2625.62]  yeah
+[2625.62 --> 2626.26]  biology
+[2626.26 --> 2627.40]  like assays
+[2627.40 --> 2627.88]  you know
+[2627.88 --> 2628.50]  or whatever
+[2628.50 --> 2629.68]  like spectrums
+[2629.68 --> 2630.10]  or yeah
+[2630.10 --> 2630.86]  it's not like
+[2630.86 --> 2631.84]  microscope science
+[2631.84 --> 2632.78]  I think it's
+[2632.78 --> 2633.52]  it's the same with
+[2633.52 --> 2634.34]  like when you see
+[2634.34 --> 2635.40]  people having degrees
+[2635.40 --> 2636.50]  and there are some
+[2636.50 --> 2637.12]  countries where
+[2637.12 --> 2638.24]  they call computer science
+[2638.24 --> 2639.22]  like informatics
+[2639.22 --> 2640.74]  and then when you see
+[2640.74 --> 2641.24]  that you're like
+[2641.24 --> 2642.08]  oh they're not really
+[2642.08 --> 2642.84]  a computer scientist
+[2642.84 --> 2643.32]  and you're like
+[2643.32 --> 2643.76]  they're studying
+[2643.76 --> 2644.40]  the same thing
+[2644.40 --> 2645.46]  informatics is a study
+[2645.46 --> 2646.86]  of computational systems
+[2646.86 --> 2647.58]  that's literally
+[2647.58 --> 2648.80]  what computer science is
+[2648.80 --> 2649.46]  yeah yeah
+[2649.46 --> 2649.94]  literally
+[2649.94 --> 2651.68]  yeah I have to say
+[2651.68 --> 2652.38]  that there is a
+[2652.38 --> 2653.86]  science-y part
+[2653.86 --> 2654.72]  to comp sci
+[2654.72 --> 2656.08]  and I think it starts
+[2656.08 --> 2657.36]  at the graduate level
+[2657.36 --> 2658.96]  like but there's
+[2658.96 --> 2660.54]  there's a ton of theory
+[2660.54 --> 2662.32]  and I don't know
+[2662.32 --> 2663.82]  if that really for me
+[2663.82 --> 2664.58]  falls under the
+[2664.58 --> 2665.22]  computation
+[2665.22 --> 2666.36]  description
+[2666.36 --> 2667.18]  you know
+[2667.18 --> 2668.18]  ah interesting
+[2668.18 --> 2669.46]  so it's like
+[2669.46 --> 2670.44]  research versus
+[2670.44 --> 2671.76]  computational theory
+[2671.76 --> 2672.58]  could work
+[2672.58 --> 2674.06]  instead of computer science
+[2674.06 --> 2674.90]  but you know
+[2674.90 --> 2675.64]  it's definitely
+[2675.64 --> 2676.50]  there's a lot of
+[2676.50 --> 2676.82]  theory
+[2676.82 --> 2678.96]  actually that's so cool
+[2678.96 --> 2679.52]  because I
+[2679.52 --> 2680.76]  I have used that
+[2680.76 --> 2681.28]  before
+[2681.28 --> 2682.84]  when I talk about
+[2682.84 --> 2683.10]  myself
+[2683.10 --> 2683.84]  I never talk about
+[2683.84 --> 2684.68]  myself as a computer
+[2684.68 --> 2685.08]  scientist
+[2685.08 --> 2686.82]  because I am not
+[2686.82 --> 2687.86]  very theory driven
+[2687.86 --> 2688.90]  I tend to be very
+[2688.90 --> 2690.60]  like vocation
+[2690.60 --> 2691.78]  like how does it work
+[2691.78 --> 2692.58]  how do you implement
+[2692.58 --> 2693.08]  it driven
+[2693.08 --> 2694.38]  and I think I've
+[2694.38 --> 2695.40]  used this distinction
+[2695.40 --> 2696.16]  with certain
+[2696.16 --> 2697.20]  when I have certain
+[2697.20 --> 2698.24]  conversations with people
+[2698.24 --> 2699.02]  when they talk about
+[2699.02 --> 2700.00]  like programming languages
+[2700.00 --> 2700.72]  and I talk about
+[2700.72 --> 2701.64]  like the syntax
+[2701.64 --> 2702.78]  and how exactly it works
+[2702.78 --> 2703.82]  when you're building a thing
+[2703.82 --> 2704.80]  and the ergonomics
+[2704.80 --> 2705.58]  and then they're coming
+[2705.58 --> 2705.98]  from it
+[2705.98 --> 2707.20]  isn't it beautiful
+[2707.20 --> 2708.48]  from a research perspective
+[2708.48 --> 2709.72]  in terms of how the language
+[2709.72 --> 2710.22]  is organized
+[2710.22 --> 2710.78]  and I'm like
+[2710.78 --> 2711.56]  no but it sucks
+[2711.56 --> 2712.32]  to work with
+[2712.32 --> 2712.72]  though
+[2712.72 --> 2714.64]  well I think we have
+[2714.64 --> 2715.48]  stumbled upon a couple
+[2715.48 --> 2716.10]  of future
+[2716.10 --> 2717.04]  yep nope debates
+[2717.04 --> 2718.56]  around terminology
+[2718.56 --> 2719.64]  and usefulness
+[2719.64 --> 2721.24]  but quite a ways
+[2721.24 --> 2722.14]  upstream from where
+[2722.14 --> 2723.00]  we started today
+[2723.00 --> 2723.90]  web apps and websites
+[2723.90 --> 2724.88]  that being said
+[2724.88 --> 2725.98]  a fun debate
+[2725.98 --> 2727.86]  a fun post conversation
+[2727.86 --> 2730.54]  and gotta give a shout out
+[2730.54 --> 2731.40]  to Thomas Eckert
+[2731.40 --> 2732.30]  in the chat
+[2732.30 --> 2733.14]  for the best joke
+[2733.14 --> 2733.56]  of the day
+[2733.56 --> 2734.50]  which I missed on
+[2734.50 --> 2736.36]  when Amel
+[2736.36 --> 2738.00]  called herself a programmer
+[2738.00 --> 2738.62]  it was
+[2738.62 --> 2739.80]  a bro-preation
+[2739.80 --> 2741.58]  a bro-preation
+[2741.58 --> 2743.80]  that's so awesome
+[2743.80 --> 2744.66]  oh my god
+[2744.66 --> 2745.18]  our listeners
+[2745.18 --> 2745.96]  are so smart
+[2745.96 --> 2746.38]  yes
+[2746.38 --> 2747.40]  so you win Thomas
+[2747.40 --> 2749.70]  so thanks everybody
+[2749.70 --> 2750.20]  for listening
+[2750.20 --> 2751.24]  this is our show
+[2751.24 --> 2751.96]  for this week
+[2751.96 --> 2752.74]  and we'll talk to you
+[2752.74 --> 2753.08]  next time
+[2753.08 --> 2758.14]  support our work
+[2758.14 --> 2759.20]  and help ensure
+[2759.20 --> 2760.54]  JS Party continues
+[2760.54 --> 2761.58]  into the future
+[2761.58 --> 2762.32]  with a
+[2762.32 --> 2763.74]  Changelog++ membership
+[2763.74 --> 2765.60]  ditch the ads
+[2765.60 --> 2766.76]  get closer to the metal
+[2766.76 --> 2768.16]  and directly contribute
+[2768.16 --> 2769.04]  to all of
+[2769.04 --> 2770.08]  Changelog's podcasts
+[2770.08 --> 2770.52]  at
+[2770.52 --> 2771.50]  changelog.com
+[2771.50 --> 2772.62]  slash plus plus
+[2772.62 --> 2773.48]  once again
+[2773.48 --> 2773.82]  that's
+[2773.82 --> 2774.76]  changelog.com
+[2774.76 --> 2776.04]  slash plus plus
+[2776.04 --> 2777.96]  music for JS Party
+[2777.96 --> 2778.82]  is provided by
+[2778.82 --> 2779.34]  the mysterious
+[2779.34 --> 2780.44]  Breakmaster Cylinder
+[2780.44 --> 2781.60]  and we're brought to you
+[2781.60 --> 2783.00]  by our awesome sponsors
+[2783.00 --> 2784.62]  thanks again to Fastly
+[2784.62 --> 2785.38]  Linode
+[2785.38 --> 2786.64]  and LaunchDarkly
+[2786.64 --> 2787.98]  for their continued support
+[2787.98 --> 2789.20]  on the next episode
+[2789.20 --> 2790.04]  I'm joined by
+[2790.04 --> 2791.60]  KBall and special guest
+[2791.60 --> 2792.56]  Eric Normand
+[2792.56 --> 2793.36]  to talk about
+[2793.36 --> 2794.30]  functional programming
+[2794.30 --> 2794.94]  with JavaScript
+[2794.94 --> 2796.76]  stay tuned for that
+[2796.76 --> 2797.64]  it's coming at you
+[2797.64 --> 2798.72]  next week
+[2813.00 --> 2817.54]  clap your hands everybody
+[2817.54 --> 2818.52]  if you got
+[2818.52 --> 2819.66]  what it takes
+[2819.66 --> 2820.98]  cause I'm Curtis Blow
+[2820.98 --> 2822.22]  and I want you to know
+[2822.22 --> 2823.40]  that these are
+[2823.40 --> 2824.10]  the boys
+[2824.10 --> 2825.54]  I had to fact check you
+[2825.54 --> 2826.26]  cause you just stated
+[2826.26 --> 2827.28]  that one of your arguments
+[2827.28 --> 2828.22]  is the other team
+[2828.22 --> 2829.16]  got fact checked
+[2829.16 --> 2832.18]  which shows how bad
+[2832.18 --> 2832.44]  they are
+[2832.44 --> 2832.80]  and I was like
+[2832.80 --> 2833.56]  well hold on
+[2833.56 --> 2834.58]  I was about to fact check you
+[2834.58 --> 2835.82]  I was trying to use
+[2835.82 --> 2836.56]  as many appeals
+[2836.56 --> 2836.92]  to
+[2836.92 --> 2837.78]  to like
+[2837.78 --> 2838.26]  different
+[2838.26 --> 2838.46]  you know
+[2838.46 --> 2839.04]  different fallacies
+[2839.04 --> 2840.10]  oh like different fallacies
+[2840.10 --> 2840.46]  yeah
+[2840.46 --> 2841.62]  so I used appeal to authority
+[2841.62 --> 2842.16]  at the end
+[2842.16 --> 2843.00]  and then I was gonna
+[2843.00 --> 2843.76]  the one about them
+[2843.76 --> 2844.36]  being fact checked
+[2844.36 --> 2844.78]  was like
+[2844.78 --> 2845.22]  whatever the
+[2845.22 --> 2846.18]  one is
+[2846.18 --> 2846.42]  where you
+[2846.42 --> 2848.82]  disparage the other side's
+[2848.82 --> 2850.02]  credibility
+[2850.02 --> 2851.10]  right
+[2851.10 --> 2852.70]  like an ad hominem
+[2852.70 --> 2853.16]  kind of a thing
+[2853.16 --> 2853.38]  yeah
+[2853.38 --> 2853.80]  and then
+[2853.80 --> 2854.56]  well yeah kind of
+[2854.56 --> 2855.68]  and then I tried to do
+[2855.68 --> 2857.18]  I redefined
+[2857.18 --> 2858.62]  I don't know if that is one too
+[2858.62 --> 2859.12]  but I like
+[2859.12 --> 2860.38]  changed the goal posts
+[2860.38 --> 2861.22]  oh
+[2861.22 --> 2862.46]  redefined the premise
+[2862.46 --> 2864.10]  I also did the thing
+[2864.10 --> 2864.64]  that Biden does
+[2864.64 --> 2865.06]  where he's like
+[2865.06 --> 2865.64]  come on
+[2865.64 --> 2868.78]  or what does he say
+[2868.78 --> 2869.46]  does he say like
+[2869.46 --> 2870.68]  yeah come on man
+[2870.68 --> 2871.18]  yeah he's like
+[2871.18 --> 2871.70]  come on man
+[2871.70 --> 2872.04]  yeah yeah
+[2872.04 --> 2872.50]  you should have said
+[2872.50 --> 2873.50]  that's a bunch of malarkey
+[2873.50 --> 2874.32]  that's what you should have said
+[2874.32 --> 2876.16]  he's like
+[2876.16 --> 2877.30]  we're gonna end up
+[2877.30 --> 2878.48]  with so many adorable
+[2878.48 --> 2879.58]  isms from him
+[2879.58 --> 2880.46]  over the next four years
+[2880.46 --> 2881.70]  come on man
+[2881.70 --> 2882.34]  yeah
+[2882.34 --> 2883.60]  that's funny dude
+[2883.60 --> 2884.02]  alright
+[2884.02 --> 2884.86]  should we hop back in
+[2884.86 --> 2885.90]  so now we'll flip the script
+[2885.90 --> 2887.60]  and we'll go Divya
+[2887.60 --> 2888.38]  and Feras
+[2888.38 --> 2889.40]  first
+[2889.40 --> 2890.14]  is that right
+[2890.14 --> 2890.88]  yes
+[2890.88 --> 2892.60]  because Nick was first first
+[2892.60 --> 2893.86]  Feras did you want to go first
+[2893.86 --> 2894.76]  or what do you
+[2894.76 --> 2895.64]  how do you feel
+[2895.64 --> 2896.38]  you can go
+[2896.38 --> 2897.04]  no you can do that
+[2897.04 --> 2897.28]  okay
+[2897.28 --> 2899.24]  I've already dropped the mic
+[2899.24 --> 2899.58]  so
+[2899.58 --> 2902.70]  pick it back up
+[2902.70 --> 2903.52]  pick it back up
+[2903.52 --> 2905.08]  the show's not over
+[2905.08 --> 2911.58]  I love how Nick just said
+[2911.58 --> 2913.50]  websites have content
+[2913.50 --> 2914.42]  and web apps
+[2914.42 --> 2919.34]  I realized that I was making
+[2919.34 --> 2919.84]  that argument
+[2919.84 --> 2921.22]  I just tried to step away
+[2921.22 --> 2924.56]  that was awesome
+[2924.56 --> 2925.08]  yeah
+[2925.08 --> 2925.50]  wait
+[2925.50 --> 2926.54]  Jared you need to share
+[2926.54 --> 2927.26]  this algorithm
+[2927.26 --> 2927.90]  dude
+[2927.90 --> 2928.40]  you know
+[2928.40 --> 2928.98]  here's the algorithm
+[2928.98 --> 2929.92]  I listen to all you guys
+[2929.92 --> 2930.80]  and then I declare myself
+[2930.80 --> 2931.16]  the winner
+[2931.16 --> 2931.94]  that's the algorithm
+[2931.94 --> 2935.90]  it's the simple algorithm
+[2935.90 --> 2936.44]  it's just like
+[2936.44 --> 2937.06]  while true
+[2937.06 --> 2937.72]  Jared wins
+[2937.72 --> 2938.18]  you know
+[2938.18 --> 2938.56]  yeah
+[2938.56 --> 2938.90]  yeah
+[2938.90 --> 2939.06]  yeah
+[2939.06 --> 2939.62]  makes sense
+[2939.62 --> 2939.86]  so
+[2939.86 --> 2940.76]  oh thank you
+[2940.76 --> 2941.64]  I'm getting congratulated
+[2941.64 --> 2942.54]  in our chat room
+[2942.54 --> 2943.38]  thanks Aaron
+[2943.38 --> 2944.46]  cheers
+[2944.46 --> 2945.24]  you know
+[2945.24 --> 2946.26]  hey Aaron
+[2946.26 --> 2947.42]  technically you also won
+[2947.42 --> 2948.40]  because the only way you win
+[2948.40 --> 2949.26]  is by not participating
+[2949.26 --> 2950.54]  and you and I both just
+[2950.54 --> 2950.90]  sit around
+[2950.90 --> 2951.44]  is that how like
+[2951.44 --> 2952.64]  kid soccer looks dude
+[2952.64 --> 2953.56]  oh no
+[2953.56 --> 2954.28]  it's kind of different
+[2954.28 --> 2955.04]  everybody wins
+[2955.04 --> 2955.92]  here nobody wins
+[2955.92 --> 2956.58]  except for me
+[2956.58 --> 2957.20]  and Aaron
+[2957.20 --> 2958.12]  Yoshitake
+[2958.12 --> 2959.70]  this is the downside
+[2959.70 --> 2960.70]  of being an adult
+[2960.70 --> 2963.58]  one of many
+[2963.58 --> 2964.34]  the one thing
+[2964.34 --> 2965.08]  that is stuck
+[2965.08 --> 2965.80]  about being an adult
+[2965.80 --> 2966.98]  is we don't all get to win
+[2966.98 --> 2968.48]  our little
+[2968.48 --> 2970.38]  participation trophies
+[2970.38 --> 2971.02]  I mean I'll send you
+[2971.02 --> 2972.16]  a trophy if you want it
+[2972.16 --> 2973.02]  I don't want a trophy
+[2973.02 --> 2974.22]  I just want orange slices
+[2974.22 --> 2977.44]  that's the other downside
+[2977.44 --> 2977.92]  of being an adult
+[2977.92 --> 2978.62]  you gotta buy your own
+[2978.62 --> 2979.34]  orange slices
+[2979.34 --> 2980.66]  you have to cut them yourself
+[2980.66 --> 2981.86]  you want them sliced
+[2981.86 --> 2982.78]  you gotta slice them
+[2982.78 --> 2983.42]  I know
+[2983.42 --> 2984.44]  listen around
+[2984.44 --> 2985.14]  fight you
+[2985.14 --> 2986.16]  fight you
+[2986.16 --> 2987.52]  to the guy in blue
+[2987.52 --> 2988.78]  what you gonna do
+[2988.78 --> 2989.36]  fight you
+[2989.36 --> 2990.46]  fight you
+[2990.46 --> 2991.18]  and do the girl
+[2991.18 --> 2993.28]  GAME GONE
+[2993.28 --> 2995.28]  GAME GONE
diff --git a/Automate all the things with Node.js_transcript.txt b/Automate all the things with Node.js_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7288a341b5284f40bfdbd91b2aded3eef46ac439
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Automate all the things with Node.js_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,404 @@
+**Amal Hussein:** Hello, party people! I'm so excited to be hosting Ahmad Awais today as our special guest. We're here to talk about all things Node automation. I think we'll be covering automation broadly, so for those of you who are listening to a JavaScript podcast who don't like JavaScript, I'm sure there's lots of transferable knowledge that we'll be sharing today... But maybe we'll convert you otherwise. So welcome, Ahmad.
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** Hey, hey. Nice to be here.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And on the panel today we have Amelia...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Hey-hey!
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Jerod...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Hi, Amal. I'm excited to automate all the things. Or at least learn how to automate more things than I'm currently automating.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I have a feeling we're gonna blow some minds today, so... I have the most fun stories to share about automation. I'm such a nerd about this... I can't wait to get into that. But before we dive in, Ahmad Awais, if you could tell us a little bit about your background. You have a really interesting story. You're really involved with the open source community, you're involved with the developer community at large as an instructor and a thought leader and someone who really contributes a lot of great educational content... So tell us a little bit about yourself.
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** Thank you for saying all that. I don't know what I can say beyond that... I'm Ahmad Awais, and a fun bit about me is right now I am the head of developer relations at this company called Rapid API. I have been a teacher -- I call this a genetic bug in me, because I come from a family of teachers, both grandparents and my parents are teachers... So I tried running away from it for a couple of years, and then I saw like "Okay, I have to teach, no matter what profession I'm working on."
+
+So beyond that, I've spent a major part of my career writing open source software. I have over 200+ GitHub repositories, all free and open source software... And as you all know, I'm a big fan of automation; saving time, being productive... And I'm spending more time on automation than I'm supposed to.
+
+\[04:05\] I have contributed to the core software of WordPress, WebPack, React... A teeny-tiny contribution to NASA's Ingenuity Mars Helicopter mission. That was a really big deal to me. And happy to be here.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's amazing. We're so happy to have you. So would you consider yourself like a polyglot? Is JavaScript your favorite, or are you language-agnostic?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** So the fun story there is before me there were like 13 electrical engineers in my family, so every engineer was an electrical engineer from the same university. So when I asked "What should I do?", they were like "Electrical engineering is the mother field of everything. Even computer science." And they knew that I was interested in computer science. I was writing Python script shells back then, before college. Then I ended up becoming an electrical engineer, for a lack of guidance, or whatever you wanna say.
+
+So I tried out like 26 different languages, and now I call myself a web purist; I love the web platform. There's nothing anyone can do to make me change my opinion on that. I used to be one of the few people who used to manage a couple of lines of JavaScript in the WordPress code, back when JavaScript was not cool at all. And now JavaScript is this big thing, and Node.js is this big thing.
+
+So definitely, JavaScript and the web platform, as I said, being a web purist, is what I do. I love the web platform, the openness of it, the APIs, and everything.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Amen, brother. Preach on.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You're in good company, yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Amelia, did you catch that shade, where he was like "I became an electrical engineer, for a lack of a better guidance?" \[laughter\]
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I did...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So I've been automating things for many years, but I haven't used Node very much to do so. I think we're gonna focus on automation, but also Node-based automation. Ahmad, are you doing everything in Node nowadays? Do you automate in Bash, or do you use other things, or is it all Node-based?
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** For the life of me, I was afraid of the terminal. I was like "I don't know who these people are." And the funny thing is I come from the world where I used to write firmware software. It doesn't get more meta than that. You're writing machine code by hand, counting those zeros and ones and everything... And I would just grab a couple of zeros and ones to do just switch to off. And that's how I started; I was like "Okay, if I grab \[unintelligible 00:06:32.16\] menu button it's sort of a fake security patch, so no one can press the menu button and go to the menu and see videos and photos or whatnot... Stuff like that.
+
+I used to see people who would write really weird-looking Bash scripts, and do really fun stuff... So I kind of forced myself into learning Bash early on, because I wanted to kind of like -- I didn't even know back then that I would be pretty much excited about automating anything. I kind of foresaw that if I could automate just three things, like -- for example, I'm in this mindset that I want to work on this project. If it could just open up the browser and the code editor (the terminal), that would be it for me. Even if I'm watching Netflix or whatnot, if it just opens up at a particular time, I would start writing code, so I would be more productive. And that is how it started with Bash, as you all said.
+
+And then I started \[unintelligible 00:07:28.03\] I don't know if I'm pronouncing his name right; he's an engineer \[unintelligible 00:07:35.05\] Google, and he has his dotfiles open sourced. And then I learned about "Okay, dotfiles. Right." And everything about Bash and dotfiles got me away from Windows to Linux, and even to macOs, where dotfiles are a thing.
+
+\[07:58\] And I think I've spent a couple of years writing only Bash, and when I really got excited about it, I kind of found out that the community that is around Bash automation is not that interactive. You know, you put a Node package on npm and you can expect thousands of downloads by the end of the week, right? You put a Bash package - where and how, what is the package management there? What is the release cycle? How do you version it? It's a bunch of tangled mess, right? And that is what I'd never really liked about Bash. So when I started writing automation scripts in Node.js, and being a web purist, I love the web platform, I know the JavaScript syntax, I have always -- "hate" might be the wrong word, or too strong, but I could never remember how to write in Bash, how many square brackets it has to have, and what is that hyphen and z thing. So JavaScript is more natural to me as a web developer. But right now, I have been able to write so much automation software around my work that is in JavaScript, that allows me to not context-switch a lot. But there are definitely things that you cannot do in Node.js.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I love your point about how important the ecosystem around the language is. I keep trying to learn Bash, but it never sticks, because you never get feedback, and there's no one place to go look to see what's available, or what the right way to do things is... So I thought that was a great point.
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** Yeah, I think it came as a realization. It was not "Okay, Node.js has a better ecosystem." You know how you go to a particular cafe or a particular restaurant and they tell you their Wi-Fi password, and you have it stored, you just don't remember what that is? And now you're with friends, and the waiter is not coming; they're asking you "How are you able to connect to the Wi-Fi? What is the password? So you always have to dig through a bunch of files to see what was the password. So I wrote a Bash script Wi-Fi password that would just tell me the password for the Wi-Fi that I'm connected to, using the macOS keychain.
+
+While CLI, the automation there was really fun. Everyone would have odd questions around "How do I install this Bash script? Where should I put it? On the desktop, or in some system resources folder, whatnot?" But I did the same thing with Node.js and now everyone knows "Okay, I'm just gonna npm install it." Or even, Npx run it.
+
+So it was a realization there, like - if I create more automation software in a language that people like me understand better, it would just be adopted more. There would be more people that would get excited about it, there would be more people contributing to it... The community part of it is much bigger now. Bash has a big history that Node.js just does not have... But Bash is still stuck there, where a bunch of things are not -- there are no standards there. And that is I think what is actually hurting Bash; not its syntax. It's the way we distribute it, the way we interact with it. \[unintelligible 00:11:06.20\] has to be ASCII. How are people generating that ASCII code? I've seen beginners ask such questions when learning Bash.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I think Bash is great for when you're just starting something. So if you have seven command line commands that you run all the time, you pull those seven out, you slap into a Bash script, verbatim, pretty much, make it executable, and run it. And now you have the start of something great. Maybe you're done, maybe it's never gonna leave your laptop, and it's just gonna work that way... But I think that's a very good point you're making. When it comes time to actually get serious about this automation, and distribute it, and have collaboration on it, you just need better tooling. And Bash is as old as time itself, so it existed and it began in a time where we just would -- you know, we'd just copy and paste somebody else's Bash script into our own Bash script, and that's how you'd distribute your code... Like, "Here. Either download this file and throw it in your path, or literally just copy the parts you want and type them out", or what have you.
+
+\[12:13\] But I often start with Bash, and as soon as it gets complicated, maybe I'll do a little bit of looping, and that's about it. But once it gets beyond, like, these are shell commands that are run in order, and maybe I'm looping over some files and doing it again - beyond that, I'm reaching for a "real" programming language.
+
+Now, I know a lot of Bash enthusiasts who go beyond that. Maybe they have a couple hundred line Bash scripts... But those are few and far between.
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** Yeah, it has it charm. For example, when you start piping things in Bash, and you have to use some sort of UI... It may not even be UI; it may be just templating. Like, for example, I want to rename a couple of files and I want to rename it -- for example, I'm scrapping a couple of YouTube videos from a YouTube playlist and I want the name to look a particular way, I want to use a couple of things, the time and whatnot... Doing the same thing with JavaScript is just so easy. And with Bash, you have to have a cut command, pipe to that, and then a grep. It's more harder than regex for me, and that is why I like -- I used to completely lose hope... Only when I kind of got this realization "Maybe I should try Node.js for doing this."
+
+I think about a year ago I did this Twitter poll, and I also did it on Reddit - "What do you really use Node.js for?" And I was able to pinpoint that people actually write a lot of scripts with Node.js. Whenever someone talks about automation, it's more Golang, Python, Bash or whatnot. But there were more votes for creating automation scripts with Node.js than creating APIs... Whereas you would think that Node.js is for APIs, right? But everyone is writing npm scripts nowadays; it is sort of a small Node.js script. If you want to go beyond that packages and file you end up with something .js, because who likes to create a Bash file to run their unless they're trying to run on the server. And the server has also Node.js nowadays... So it comes from there, I think.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. You know, I've been trying to stick up for Bash here... Y'all have been bashing it down...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Haah! You just wanted to use that pun.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** No, actually -- everyone's analysis is so on point. I think Bash is like this little curmudgeon in the corner, that nobody likes talking to... And I think always to your point about community - there is no community around Bash, really. There's maybe a small -- I would say like a hobbyist community, or people that are maybe super/hyper into automation, that are really Bash afficionados... But the majority of engineers I know - they have their set of Bash tricks, and they copy-pasta them again and again, because they don't even take the time to really internalize what is actually going on here. But for me, Bash does so much heavylifting, and it's just -- you know, Node.js is an abstraction that uses C++. C++ is kind of painful to write and maintain, and we just keep building these building blocks... And npm packages are also abstractions. And I just feel like -- you know, the terminal is the most intimate conversation you're gonna have with your computer, and really when we're writing software, we're just telling other programs what to do. It's just a whole bunch of APIs talking to each other. And I really think Node, with the help of C++, is able to kind of like super-charge what you can do with JavaScript... And yeah, you might not be able to do everything you can do in Bash, but you can get pretty far.
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** \[16:01\] Yeah, I'm not saying Bash should not exist... \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Of course.
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** I once had this epiphany that all of my dotfiles should now be small CLIs in Node.js, so ungratefully I started with this mkd function I have in Bash, which also creates your directory and CDs into it in one go... And it turns out cannot really do that with Node.js. I've written hundreds of CLIs, and I was stuck at this basic thing, where it's a child process and it does not understand what was created, because it was sort of created at the OS, and not Node.js, and there are not APIs there... And I spent like two good days on creating a one-liner that Bash had in Node.js, and I just gave up. I was starting to really -- like, I think JavaScript and React has corrupted us... I have a bunch of files in a folder, and I am trying to list them and do things with them in Bash. I can do that, right? But I want to await that thing. \[laughs\] And I have no idea how I can do that with Bash. I want to make a UI, a loader, so I know it's happening in real time, and it's not a fake loading bar or whatnot.
+
+There's a really great project called ZX, by Google. It's a tool that is actually a Node.js-based Bash scripting language, where you could just await something like this, await LS. So it's a bunch of Bash inside your JavaScript, inside Node.js, and it just works. So I think that tool actually came out of this frustration that people wanna write JavaScript, but they want to use some parts of Bash just as is, you know? So I think there is a fun exchange between these two languages.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, but don't you think that some of these problems are because these concepts don't actually exist in the lower-level languages? Like the concept of await, and promises - they don't exist in C, and they don't exist in these low-level languages. And funny-funny back-story, actually - coincidentally, I was having a conversation about this exact topic with Alex Russell yesterday, and he was explaining to me why they tried implementing promises with TC39 in 2010, and they just gave up... Because they kept trying to explain to these low-level implementers what are promises, why is this important to web developers. TC39 a long time ago didn't really have a good representation of web developers. It was mostly actually language designers and implementers, the folks who actually work on the engine in browsers... So you know, there was just no empathy. It was like "What is this promise thing? What are these web developers doing? Why do I need to deal with timing issues? Why do I need to introduce handling for asynchronicity?"
+
+It's really interesting, concepts don't always translate one to one across languages and ecosystems as well... So there's a little bit of this uncanny valley where you need to kind of like make Bash do an await; like, how do you do that? I can't do it. If you gave me a million dollars I don't think I could do it today... So how did you solve that problem Awais? Tell us.
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** Yeah, it's this library from Google that I talked about, ZX. Before that -- I think it's really new; it has like (I think) 20,000 stargazers on GitHub, or something... But before that, it was a bunch of different packages hacked together. Some of them had WebAssembly, some of them had lower-level Node.js and C++ code. That would allow you to, in a very hacky way, do this kind of stuff.
+
+I had this huge course on Lynda.com, I was trying to learn photography. I promise you, I've still not watched that thing... And really like a ten-hour long course. And somehow my ISP in Lynda was not working out really well, so I've figured they're not allowing me to download this. Maybe I could write a script to download it. But then downloading it would be really bad, because I didn't have that much space. It was like a terabyte, or something. It was really big, because it had draw files that that instructor wanted us to do look at, and whatnot...
+
+\[20:14\] So I hacked together a bunch of CLIs, and I was able to download it through a CLI called YouTubeDL. Then I uploaded it to Dropbox through a server on DigitalOcean. And from there, I was able to kind of stream it on a peer-to-peer network. So my electrical engineering knowledge came to a little bit of help there.
+
+But the fact that I was able to do that was impressive. I completely left -- you know, I had just bought a new DSLR for the first time, and this was like 6-7 years ago... And then I put that camera aside and I just got more and more excited about this whole new world of automation. Like, if I can do this, what can I do?
+
+And then I started really liking data. Where I come from - the stock exchange actually still publishes numbers using PDFs. They don't have a public-level API that anyone could use. So I had to scrub those numbers from PDFs to create a sort of real-time database plus API... And that was so much fun.
+
+I know it's a bunch of things that were hacked together and bashed together... The developer experience was just not there back then. And that is what I think Node.js does for me. If I have to do this same thing again, I just do it with Node.js. It just makes sense.
+
+People are even crazier... They are trying to write CLIs with React. For me it's too much... \[laughter\] But people are doing that.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, I'm gonna refrain. I have no comment on that. \[laughter\] Yeah, that's just kind of like, you know, everybody seeing React as the nail, and they have the hammer, or whatever. Trying to fit it into places that it doesn't necessarily belong. But I once learned about a real-life project that used React's render lifecycle to control events in a drone. So they were using React's lifecycle hooks, and they were using React in a non-rendering capacity to run a drone. I'll see if I can find that project and link it in the show, but... Where there's a will though, there's a way.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I'm surprised there's enough space on that drone hardware for the entire React runtime... That's amazing.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Agreed. I'm just amazed that an engineering manager approved this project... But that's besides the point. I think the point is maybe that all these things are just -- you know, everything's software, everything has an interface, and it's just bits talking to bits. And Node.js kind of gives you that -- it just gives you an entire ecosystem of reusable, composable utils that you can use to supercharge and solve all your problems. That's kind of like what I'm walking away from conversation with.
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** Yeah. For me, on one end, I don't like UIs anymore. I love to design. I wanted to be a designer. I couldn't ever sketch. And then I found out like, okay, engineering is paying for the food on the table and everything... But on one end I create CLIs in the terminal which has no UI or whatnot and the other UI for me is components. It does not have to be even \[unintelligible 00:23:48.01\] It doesn't even have to be Markdown. I love React Components a lot.
+
+\[23:58\] For example, my resume has gone through so many iterations over the last 15 years. It started with a Word document, and I used to have InDesign for my resume and whatnot. And now it's based on Next.js, because it's so easy... Like, there are numbers in there which are live, so whenever someone asks for my resume, I just send \[unintelligible 00:24:16.04\] and those numbers are live. They're my followers that are being pulled through the API and whatnot. So I just don't know of a better construct for UI than components. It's sort of minimal in that way to me.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, I was waiting for the data viz expert to chime in here, because --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I was also deferring to Amelia on that one... \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** She's thinking...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I was thinking... I'm just a little slow today. I was thinking how interesting it is that you were interested in design, and then you switched to -- I think what you were saying is being more interested in component design, and the design of programs, which... I think that's a really interesting parallel between like - you don't have to be pushing pixels on a web page to be a designer, but if we're creating scripts, then we're also designing things for humans.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Like, Bash has a user experience. It's painy, but it's there...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Might need a few more designers...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** But no, I mean -- like, I actually think not all CLIs are created equal, and there's a lot you can do when designing a tool that doesn't use a graphical user interface, no GUI... Yeah, there's a lot that you can do to make things easy or painful. Think Vim versus your favorite CLI tool. It's a much more delightful experience in the terminal when you have a sense of predictability, you have a way to get in, get out, you know it's coming, you have helpful messaging... So there's definitely an arc there, I think. Not all CLI tools are created equal.
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** A recent trend that I've been looking at is a mixture of both. For example, whenever I want to send an API request, I love my terminal. I can send a call request. It's just when it's bigger than a GET request, it's a POST request when it has a bunch of data - I hate writing those. Slash this, slash that, slash... Right? I'm completely forgetting what the name of that company is, but it's a CLI -- I think it's called... I'm completely forgetting what it is.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Are you talking about Fig?
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** Yeah, it's Fig. Yeah. So inside the terminal, for the silly parts where there's a lot of repetition, it opens up a UI. That part of UI is really good. You can fill that data, the parameters there, and then it turns back to the CLI. So it's like Zapier with code, right? \[laughs\] If that makes sense.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** No, totally. So we're gonna get into all the kind of nitty-gritties of this ecosystem... We'll be right back, kids.
+
+**Break**: \[27:00\]
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Alright, so I'm curious - we were just talking about how to design good user experiences... I'm curious, how do you go about creating scripts in Node, and how do you know of build in that user experience that's easier to use for developers?
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** Yeah, so I think there are two parts to this question. One is how do I end up thinking about "Okay, this should be a CLI", right? That is sort of a life choice I made; whenever I wake up, I open up my terminal and I write "dashboard", and it prints out everything I care about for that day. It has my to do list, it has the number of sales of my courses, the meetings I'm gonna go to... A bunch of things, all inside the terminal. And these things keep changing. I scrape a lot of data. I use \[unintelligible 00:28:57.15\] from GitHub as well.
+
+So what I do is, for example -- I also don't watch news. It's been a long-term commitment; I think I'm in the 9th or 10th year of it. For example, a fun story here is -- Covid was happening, and I was the last person to realize that it was happening. I actually just quit my job to travel to 40 different countries throughout 2020, in Covid...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Wow.
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** ...and I spent six months planning that. So I was the last person to find out like "Okay, this is something that is beyond -- It's global", right? And then there was just so much weird news out there, I just couldn't pinpoint what was the right thing... Even if I went to WHO's website, it was very hard to figure out where is the Covid data, where are the stats that would give me information the way I wanted. I don't think there's a news channel that would let you customize news the way you wanted. There's a good startup idea, by the way... \[laughs\]
+
+So I created the CLI and I just put it out there... And that CLI has about 2.89 billion API requests. I'm just scrapping a bunch of Covid data, and I just put it on GitHub. And that is exactly what I do. Even for a really small thing as a CLI user experience on how to tell people "Press space" or "Press enter", in the Bash community -- and I'm not trying to bash them again... But there are just so many assumptions that a dollar sign -- that dollar sign kept me away from the terminal for so long. Whenever I would run a script, it would just not recognize the dollar sign.
+
+I tried to create so many packages. That could be just a couple of lines of code to make sure people were doing it. There's a CLI welcome package that so many CLIs are using, that I created. All it does is just branch out the header of a CLI. There is a CLI help package, and then there's a particular way people write so many spaces to generate help, and they are really good packages. Sindre Sorhus has a lot of work on this, like his [meow framework](https://github.com/sindresorhus/meow). Where it falls behind is when you have to write things that would contribute to user experience and the design of your CLI.
+
+So I've matched a couple of different projects to create a tabular interface, so you would just have to create a JSON file - or a JavaScript object, if you may - to tell that CLI what is your flagged JavaScript object. In that object you can define, if you type let's say minimal or m, it would just print out the less designed version of the CLI right now.
+
+But to be able to that in the Bash community - I don't know how they do it. They manually enter and calculate the amount of space, or they run a loop on something like that... But in JavaScript we have really good tools that could map things out like this.
+
+\[32:02\] So throughout my journey of open sourcing and creating CLI projects I have relied on creating lots and lots of small, tiny projects that I'm just pooling together to create CLIs. Once I'm done, it takes me literally less than five minutes when I start writing a CLI project to create a small CLI and to be able to publish it on GitHub, on npm, with really good documentation and API reference of all the objects - less than five minutes for a small CLI. And that only happens because I have so many different packages, so many automations running for me... And I feel really good when I'm able to do that.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** What's your philosophy behind writing scripts for yourself and writing scripts and then publishing them on npm for everyone to use?
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** So I used to be like "You know, I should start writing open source code", and I started 15 or so years ago with WordPress. I've contributed to a bunch of different software: React, Next.js, WebPack... I actually helped React get relicensed as an MIT level... But things like that happen really rarely in your life; you cannot really wait. There's a child team concept in WordPress, and everyone knows it's just one functions.php file, then a style.css file where you just write one thing, that my parent team is this team. I created a small package for that, and that was a huge success. And it was like I think 8 or 9 years ago.
+
+Then I realized that I can never decide what or which of my open source work is going to go viral and is going to be something that people are going to be crazy about. Or something that I would be good about, that it had a big impact. So what I decided was if I could automate a bunch of different things that are just wasteful... For example, you see how many automation scripts you find on GitHub gists... I think that happens because people are like "I don't wanna write a readme. I don't want to publish it on npm. Maybe I'm on a machine where my things are not set up, but this is a really cool script that I just want to put out there." But the problem there is it's not really useful. People cannot pull that into their -- you know, you just broke JavaScript's community part. That was what it was good for, right?
+
+So I automated all of these functions, so I don't have to worry about "Okay, now I have to have a changelog file, and now I have to publish notes on GitHub releases." I automated all of that, so all I could focus on was solving a small or big problem. That way, anything that I see when writing code in whatever project that "Okay, this could be useful", it takes me literally a really small amount. It's like copy-paste here, run a command... In my Node CLI of course I created a CLI that creates CLIs. I actually got so excited about it I ended up recording a huge amount of videos on it... But it's so intuitive that you only have to have done one command and it will know all your defaults, what should be in your changelog... Then I invented a small emoji log commit spec for messages, which relies on 5-7 emojis, nothing more than that... Which is really good for generating changelogs and generating release notes.
+
+So a bunch of these things get automated by just writing good commit messages. So once I was able to do that, I was able to improve my output from churning out let's say a couple of open source software packages to 30-40 open source repositories, even if they are really small, even if they are not that useful.
+
+For example, there's this month where all of our Muslims fast. It's called Ramadan. And we have sehar and iftar times. So I have a CLI for that... And a bunch of people use it. Every time you wake up, like 3 AM in the morning, and everyone's like what is the sehar time today? I only have to open up my terminal.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[36:22\] I identify as a Muslim as well, and I love how your answer to "It's 3 AM and I don't know if I can eat yet" is like -- you know, I'm gonna just open up my laptop, run some commands in my shell... I love how that's your answer, versus like, you know, refresh this website that I may or may not have open. You've clearly gone to the other side, my friend, in a good way. And I just wanna step back a few, because you dropped a lot of good knowledge there.
+
+First of all, thank you for the Covid CLI. I think that was the one project where I feel like "Wow, any JavaScript is actually useful." Just kidding. \[laughter\] No, it just made me really proud of npm and the community and the ecosystem that we've built, that has really solved a lot of pain points around code distribution very well. So that's amazing about our ecosystem, and we're very lucky for that. Folks are coming into JavaScript without scars from prior lives. You don't know how good you have it, folks... We have a really nice ecosystem for code distribution.
+
+But that being said, what you're talking about here is -- you're really humbly talking about good software design and good software architecture. And we're using automation as a use case... I feel like you're talking about principles of modularity, you're talking about really building out the pipelines so that you can actually focus on the problem that you're trying to solve... And I feel like one thing that really gets in the way for a lot of people when they're trying to get started with automation work or writing scripts - it's the pipeline piece... Because so often everybody knows what business logic or what method they need to write to do the thing that they need to do. It's all of the other pieces around like "How do I connect with my OS? How do I get it out? How do I get it in? How do users interact with it?" That's the stuff that really trips people up.
+
+And it really feels like we're at a tipping point now where automation is really critical. I think it's a critical skill for developers to be able to really -- I hate to use the word "10x", but to 10x yourself. And I'm using this in a way that's really very much around the marathon that you have with yourself, not with others. If you wanna free yourself up to not work on the same problems again, look for ways to reuse tooling and code and being able to build these pipelines for yourself. But maybe we're at a point now where we don't even need people to learn how to make CLIs for CLIs, because - it's an open source tool; go use that. And then focus on the code you need to write to solve your problem. We'll take care of the plumbing. That's the beauty of open source.
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** I think you kind of picked up on one thing I was trying to mention... For example, you would listen to \[unintelligible 00:39:18.29\] motivational speaker or something and then they are saying "You just have to pick yourself up and go to where you run. Nothing more. If you feel like running, you can go on. Your task is to get yourself in a car and drive to where you go to run." The rest, your body and your brain will just make things work for that.
+
+For example, as I told you earlier, I was studying electrical engineering. I started double-majoring in CS; I had less time. Even to date, I have this alias called "o", and if I'm on my work computer, I go to my work terminal and I type "o" and press enter, it will just open up everything I need, the way I left it there, for that particular project. For example, there's a project for TypeScript, so it's "to", or it's something for recording, it's "ro" (recording open), so it would open up everything.
+
+\[40:14\] So it gets me to that point where "Okay, now I have to open up ScreenFlow, and now I have to open up Adobe Audition, and now I have to set up all these three different screens I have..." You know, when you sit down to study and you're just sharpening your pencils, and you're like "Okay, I'm done for today." So for me, getting productive is -- I want to spend the most amount of time on the actual thing, and that is what I'm mostly excited about, not writing documentation. I know documentation is useful, but the fun begins when I'm trying to solve a problem and when I have solved a problem... And then it's all about "Okay, now I have to write TypeScript types" and whatnot to make it look really good. So I want to be able to get there as soon as possible. I'm wired that way I think.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So let's say I wanted to take your CLI superpowers and inject them into my body, to also become super-powerful like you. Where do I start? Because I see there's a Create Node CLI repo... Is that the one? Or where do people go to say "He's done all the work. I can create CLIs that are super-awesome, super-easy, just like he does"? Where do we go?
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** There are a bunch of places you can go. First thing I would say is if you want something completely free, I have -- for example, I've been creating these CLIs for a while now, and people have been asking me to teach this, so I started a course called NodeCLI.com. It's a paid course, and I recorded 30 hours of content, I deleted two thirds of it. It's ten hours of content now, 20 projects, 100 videos. So I'll handpick you, I'll teach you what is Node, how people are teaching Node.js event loop in the wrong way, stuff like that. I will give you how to create templates, how to create -- it's more than just creating a CLI. It's more about "How can you automate your life as a software developer?" And the fun part is all of the exercises, all of the code that I created in that course is open source. So you can go to my github.com/ahmadawais and you can find it there. It's pinned right there.
+
+Even if you don't want to go through that, even if you just want to create good CLIs, I created a project which was like two hours of videos, called "Create Node CLI." It's just like Create React App for Node.js and CLIs. It was a fun project. It can remember things locally; what was the author name you put in last, it can remember that kind of stuff. It's really \[unintelligible 00:42:41.20\] that way. It can generate all the files you need, it can set things up, wire things up in a way that you start right there with "Okay, this is the bunch of code I picked up from Stack Overflow, or I've figured it out." It has everything figured out - the documentation and everything else. So you just paste that code and now you have a CLI.
+
+So Create Node CLI for something you want right away. My Node CLI projects on GitHub, which are completely open source, even the documentation is open source... And if you want paid videos, NodeCLI.com.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I saw a tweet today that said something about "I don't understand why people pay for courses. I'd rather you just offer me a service and I'll pay for that. Don't make me pay to learn something..." which first of all, I totally disagree with... And second of all, I think it's funny that you're both offering a course to teach people, and you also have the automated scripts to do the services for them. I'm also curious, which do you see more interest in? Are more people using the automated script to make a Node CLI, or are more people interested in taking the course?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Wait, is this a trick question, Amelia? Because I just was curious if you were trying to bait at the engineers constantly reinventing the wheel problem... \[laughter\] You know what I mean? So Awais, do they use your awesome tool that's been vetted, or is everybody trying to...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Build their own.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** ...fork and one-up your-- yeah, I'm just joking. Just kidding. Just kidding.
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** \[44:22\] I think people learn in different ways. I think part of me open sourced it because I come from open source and I've learned so much from open source. Every problem I have, I just go to GitHub and 
+Sindre Sorhus \[laughter\]. If he has a package, I can just trust that package. So I kind of owe that to open source. But I'm also selfish here - I really want people to build CLIs, because I know I don't have all the time in the world, but they are gonna build something that I'm gonna use. So there are a bunch of CLIs that my students have created that I am using. So they paid me for my course and created something that is actually helping me. It's either being selfish or whatnot... I just wanted people to know that this is how I do it, and you should definitely do it, even if you don't use what I teach here.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. So I went through my own journey with automation, and overcoming my fear of Bash, and the term-- I would say going beyond surface-level terminal commands which most people are familiar with doing day-to-day work... And I have to say, just from my own experience, it's a journey, and not everybody's path is the same, you're not solving the same problems as other people... I really love this distinction of pipeline versus source code. If you can kind of really maybe just draw the line there - write the code that does the thing that you want it to do, and then tackle the problem of how does it connect to everything else and how do you get things in and out of it as a secondary step. Because I think sometimes when you start doing things that are so brand new, and -- you know, it can be daunting. It's hard to get steam and momentum. So you can kind of build on your successes incrementally in that way. But it really is a journey, and it's a journey that never ends; operating systems and languages, libraries, tools, new problems arise, new APIs come out, old problems creep up, security issues pop up... It's very much a living, breathing ecosystem, even though a lot of us think of the terminal as very static. Did y'all know there's new versions of Git? There's features being added to Git. Linux is a living, breathing project... There's just so much. So it's a journey, but it's foundational knowledge that really is like the missing manual for many web developers who started out kind of doing higher-level software design.
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** I should probably just mention this - I used to think that creating automation is so hard, and what clicked for me was when Chris Coyier showed that you can actually write "cd", space, and then just drag and drop that folder, and it really just translated that path and just press enter. That was so easy. It was two years ago, and I learned that - okay, "usr" is not user. It's user system resources. And everyone says go to this user library. Not everyone has that deep, in-depth knowledge of how Linux was based on Unix, and how these resource folders were created, and whatnot.
+
+For me, what was stopping me from jumping into this command line world was "How do I even cd to this folder?" I know it's on Desktop and this is it's name, but I don't know where is Desktop... When I was young. And just somebody showing me "Okay, you can just drag and drop and cd into it", I'm like "Okay." And there's a fair amount of \[unintelligible 00:48:04.25\] It starts with that thing, and then it's a big rabbit hole, you really start to enjoy it, and you spend more time writing automation software than actual software... But it's so much interesting.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[48:18\] Yeah. Also, Awais -- Awais... I called you by your last name. Ahmad, to your point - it's a journey, but also a lot of software engineering is kind of fighting your distraction factor. You have to not be distracted by what you don't know. You don't have to know all of the methods in the jQuery API to use a few methods in jQuery. Or even create great apps using jQuery, right?
+
+So the really beautiful thing about the shoulders of giants -- like, we're standing on the shoulders of giants because they've designed these great APIs that are very modular and can be used as individual segments.
+
+So first you're learning how to use cd, then you're learning how to use mkdir, then you're learning how to use touch, then you're learning how to do pipes, and greps... These are all composable elements that you're gonna kind of put in your knowledge tool chain. So with that said, before we close this segment out, Ahmad, I'm gonna ask you a question. Do you have one inspiring thing to say to someone who's like "You know what - CLI? No way. Terminal? Yuck. I don't even use command line for Git, I use a GUI. The terminal is scary." What's an inspiring thing to say to that person to get them over the hump?
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** Yeah, I don't know what that could be... For me it was like -- I wanted to be a designer, and now I love the terminal, the idea of automation. I haven't given up on design since. I love writing CSS from scratch. I've contributed to Bootstrap, but I've never really used Bootstrap. I am weird that way. I love the design part of things, but it doesn't always have to be GUI versus terminal.
+
+If I'm git-bisecting something, I would definitely recommend doing that. It's so easy in a GUI. You just drag a branch here and drop it and it will just take care of everything. But everything else - I don't want to write a bunch of things. I think sometimes once you start writing automation, it's the same thing; you have like ten images and you want to rename them, or a hundred images and you want to rename them in a particular way, then you feel like "I don't know why I became a software engineer, if I can't even write something that would just--" I can see it, I can mentally imagine it, at least in JavaScript... If you just know what are the basic integrations, how to test the file system, how to read these files and rename them, everything else is just really, really easy. So it's a superpower that you can just have. It will pay its dividends over the years.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Amal, can I take a crack at answering that one?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh yeah, please.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So if you're sitting at your laptop and somebody comes over, and they look over your shoulder, maybe you're trying to impress them. Maybe it's a girl, maybe it's a boy. And you fire up your terminal, and you type in a command and fire it off and things start happening. They'll think you're really cool.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** They'll think you're a hacker, man...!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's right!
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Dude... Bro...!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** They'll think you're smarter than you actually are. There's a reason.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You're hacking the world. Yeah, it's so funny --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Do you need any other reason? It's fun.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** No, legit, that's actually very true... Because I'll be doing work on airplanes sometimes, and then like an hour later I look up and the person next to me is like "You're my superhero." I'm like "Really? I was just struggling with some basic stuff for like 40 minutes, but I'm glad you think so."
+
+\[51:57\] But yeah, Awais, to your point - know your shortcuts. If anything, just for your own ego, so you can feel superhuman and get a little closer to the metal. So that's it, we're gonna take a short break and we'll be right back with fun stories of our automation journeys, and fun examples... And our folks on Twitter who've shared their favorite automation tips... So - talk soon!
+
+**Break**: \[52:23\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Alright everyone, so we're back, and this is gonna be my favorite part of the show, which is like story time. Automation story time. And no, we haven't written a bunch of scripts that are using robot voices to narrate these stories. That's not happening.
+
+**Horse JS**: Are you telling me I narrated this stories for no reason? Beep. Boop. Bummer.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** These are true stories, real humans, real war stories and proud moments... So everyone, what's the thing that you're really proud of doing using automation? Even if it was renaming a thousand files... Like, that's a thousand files. That's cool. But what are some stories? Jerod, do you wanna go first?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Sure. So back when I first got started I actually didn't consider myself a programmer or a developer; I was more of a scripter. I was studying information security in school, and I liked to just script things, but I didn't actually think of myself as a developer. When I first got out of college, I was a network administrator, so I had managed some Linux machines, mail servers, stuff like that... And there was a lot of manual tasks on a network to keep it running. This is back in the early aughts... And I had a lot of jobs I had to do every single day. And then slowly I just automated every single one of those jobs to the point where I didn't really have a job anymore, but everything was still running smoothly. So I used that opportunity to learn web development on the job, while my job was doing the job for me... Which was pretty cool.
+
+So I actually learned how to do web development while being a Linux network administrator, because I had automated all the things. So that was pretty powerful. But my more fun one - I'll do this one real fast - is that I like to smoke cigars, and there is a website... It's a cigar auction website, and they have a particular auction style called freefall, where they have these falling prices that reset on occasion. So the prices start high, and then they fall down to some sort of threshold, then they go back up. And the reason they do this is because they want you to sit there and watch it and buy it when you think it's low, but you're not sure exactly "Is this lowest, or could it get lower? I don't know, I'm gonna buy it anyways." But as a developer, I thought "You know, there's some sort of minimum amount that it's going to get to eventually. And it may not hit it every time through, but it's gonna hit it at some point."
+
+\[56:07\] And one of my best friends used to have a job where he would make phone calls all day, so he would sit there and stare at the screen and watch them free-fall, and buy cigars for us at the lowest possible price. And then he doesn't work there anymore, and I didn't wanna stare at the screen all day, so I wrote a script that would basically imitate my eyes, watch for the lowest price, and let it run for hours upon hours on end, until it got to the lowest price, and it would log it... Then it'd come back and it'd say "Okay, here's the lowest possible price." Then I'd put it in buy mode and it would watch it again until that lowest price came in, and it would buy the cigars for me. I actually still use that. I just used it yesterday. It still works... And I think that's pretty cool.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Jerod, I think the biggest thing I'm surprised at is that you smoke cigars. You don't strike me as like a cigar guy, you know? This is fascinating.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Hm... What kind of a guy do I strike you as?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I don't know, not a cigar guy. Now I have to reevaluate my understanding of who you are.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Hm, the plot thickens.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, the plot thickens. I'm like "Jerod--"
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I'm a multi-faceted person.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Twist! Yeah, I love this.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You have depth.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Thank you. You thought I was shallow, but it turns out there's one facet...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I feel like a lot of people did that with the vaccine situation... I know I did. I built a little script that just refreshed and checked when appointments were available in my neighborhood. I didn't really wanna track like two hours to get a vaccine in the pandemic... So that's what we did. I think it's amazing how -- it feels like cheating, but...
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** When I went there, I was the only one... \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I think anytime there's a job that's like "Refresh this web page over and over again", that's a key moment of like "Yeah, I'm gonna automate this, because I'm not gonna sit here and just hit refresh for hours", you know?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. And actually, speaking of which - so we did a Twitter poll, so we'll be sharing a few stories from what folks shared online... But Cypress - Cypress is a tool that is used for automated, end-to-end testing. It's like the little robot that clicks on your web apps... But there's developers who use Cypress to avoid having to get back into the same state and click a bunch of buttons and manually log in every time... So it's like -- Cypress is running in watch more, it gets them back to the exact same state that they need to be in for the code that they're writing. I'm like "That's genius."
+
+I have to say, the worst part about UI development for me is all of the iteration cycles. So if I can get a robot to do that for me, and while also getting test coverage... Like, you're writing your test to continue testing your code, getting to this state, and then you're able to just reproduce it. And that's a trick that I learned a very long time ago, when I was very new to software engineering.
+
+There's a senior engineer who has really shaped a lot of my thinking... I got a bug for the first time, and he's like "Alright, cool, let's figure out how to solve this." He was like "Well, the first thing we're gonna do is write a test. We're gonna write a test that reproduced the bug. And then we're gonna be able to keep running that test to reproduce the bug as we fix the software. And then by the time we fix the software, that test should start passing. It will be failing now." So I was like "Wow. I would never have thought of that on my own." I always give him credit for that... But that's another cool way to -- like, back to your refresh point, Jerod... That's a good way to bring that into your developer workflow, as opposed to like buying cigars on the internet. Nothing wrong with that though.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So Amelia, how about you?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** \[59:46\] So Jerod, your story really resonates with me. I have done a lot of data viz client work where you're scraping data, or there's some cool stories there with automating getting from Google Sheets, or turning Google Docs into a CMS, which is crazy, but sometimes the right tool... But I don't want to talk about any of those, because there's a fresh one that I think is kind of interesting... I just did a quick exploration of -- like, we always look at our codebases as a series of folders and files, and I was wondering if maybe there is a different way to visualize that so you can kind of enhance your understanding of where files live... When you come into a new codebase you don't really know how big it is, or where things live, or what languages it's in... So I built this interactive tool in React for -- you type in your repo name, and then it can go look at your repo, it'll git clone it, and then it'll recursively look at all the files, and then visualize it for you...
+
+But I was like "No one's gonna use this if it's not part of their existing workflow." So what I did was I created a Node script that you can use as a GitHub Action, which I've been using more and more recently. What it does is it actually renders that React component, because I didn't wanna spend a lot of time on it... Which spits out SVG. So I could use the exact same React component but call it from a Node script, and then save out an SVG file, which kind of blew my mind that things could be this easy. So that's one of the only things in my life that's been that easy, and I love it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, while we're here, we've gotta give you props, because that repo visualization thing you did is spectacular. Amal and Ahmad, did you guys see what Amelia made?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** No, I feel like I saw something on Twitter from you recently about something similar to this. I didn't see a repo visualization though. That's cool.
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** Yeah. I saw somebody talking about it...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I'm super-jealous that GitHub has you on their payroll. I feel like -- no offense to GitHub, but I just feel like you're like next-level, Amelia. They're very lucky.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Thanks.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Seriously.
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** Most definitely.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We'll link that up in the show notes so that the listeners can check it out as well.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, so that the listeners can visualize. \[laughter\]
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** I actually have a fun (you could say) war story of automation. It was when I was at college... So we had been contracted by this bank to create some thing that was on top of a PLC, it was a hardware automation thing... And we would burn it with the same code, and it would work, we would show the manager "Look, it's working."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Wait, what's a PLC? Like a PoS, like a Point of Sale device?
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** No, a PLC is a programmable logic controller, but it's huge. How you see is small \[unintelligible 01:02:54.12\] It used to be about this big like ten years ago.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Okay.
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** I think they are completely deprecated now. But the software that was running in that PLC - we just created a small \[unintelligible 01:03:06.00\] module that we'd just set on top of it and automate a bunch of things in a bank. And we spent three days mind-boggling about it, like "What the heck is wrong with this?" We would burn the same code, it would pass all kinds of tests, we would show the manager, the thing would be working, and we would always go there after hours when the bank would open up... It would just flip the switch. Everything that should be on, would become off. It would happen momentarily, for some weird moments of the \[unintelligible 01:03:40.03\]
+
+And I somehow wrote a small Bash script that helped me continuously basically DDOS that PLC to figure out "What are you thinking now? What are you thinking now?" And we've found out through that - so there was like \[unintelligible 01:03:55.09\] we had placed it in the wrong way, and it would get so much sunlight that it would get charged up, it would retain so much charge that it would start thinking "Okay, I'm in the on straight right now" and it would mess up with our code.
+
+\[01:04:12.07\] So the hardware code was the same, but it would just stay flipped it was so mind numbing. This is one thing that I know it was really hard for any human to pick on something and learn, so I started looking at "Okay, automation is interesting." This was more of a nerdy example.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That was cool. I'm sorry I just interrupted you. That was really cool.
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** No, seriously. I don't have a ton of hardware experience, but the little that I know is -- like, working with hardware is so complicated, because there's physics. Physics is a thing. And it's like this variable that's like -- you know, sometimes you know and sometimes you don't, and it's like "Oh, there's literally a piece of dust here" or "The spit has flipped" or... It's crazy.
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** Yeah. Sometimes my electrical engineering background comes into play... Not anymore, but... I used to be famous that I used to \[unintelligible 01:05:08.21\] and one of my friends actually brought a lot of that; his mother has cooked that in the hostels when we were attempting exams, which were like a month long... And we put it in the hostel's kitchen, we called it a mess, and it was locked. It had an automated lock. And around 3 AM we felt so hungry that we felt like "Okay, we should just destroy that door. It's our bread, we need to eat it." And the fun thing that happened there was like -- since we were electrical engineers, we were able to figure out "Okay, this lock must have LMC555" so there is a timer and it must have LM393 it can definitely detect sound. The sound it used to detect was the sound of our... who used to lock the door with his voice signature. It was a company.
+
+We were able to create a fake network of Wi-Fi around that lock, and put a patch inside it so that LMC timer would switch everything without code on a particular timebase that was around 3:47 AM. It took us about an hour to figure out. And then finally, we just had to clap and the door opened. It was so good... Because you know, the sound sensor picked up on the tap. It was \[unintelligible 01:06:28.21\] So it was such a cool hacking experiment for us... Like, okay, this is something we've gotta try out. We completely forgot about eating bread after that.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** This is like the best heist movie I've ever watched...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Totally.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I'm thinking this is why you should teach your kids science, math and engineering. That's what I'm thinking. This is just great, I love all this experimenting while you were so young. So when did you start writing software, Ahmad?
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** I think I must have been like 11 or 12 years old.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, that's pretty young.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Pretty young.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I mean, it's not like you're an 11-year-old in 2020, picking up Python or Ruby or JavaScript. There was no npm. Was there even Ruby Gems? I don't know...
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** Early 2000's. Ruby didn't exist, so... \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's incredible. Well, my automation story -- I think the thing that I'm most proud of... And for me it's definitely a journey, it's still continuing... I always tell this to my DevOps teams, I don't wanna be a sysadmin when I grow up, but I wanna impress one. So that's like my goal, is to end my career as a software engineer having really mastered computer architecture, networking systems, all that back door, back alley knowledge that is just always with us as we switch jobs, and machines, and products...
+
+\[01:08:08.17\] But for me it was actually working with ASTs. I kind of talked about this actually on the Changelog a few years ago... But I worked on a really cool project with the Microsoft Edge team while I was an open web engineer at Bocoup... And it was basically like taking a bunch of JavaScript files and tests for the web platform. They were actually tests that test CSS properties, and web APIs. But the tests themselves were totally still valid, but they used a lot of proprietary API hooks from IE. So they're valid tests, but we need to now have these tests be open sourceable, as well as these tests need to run on all browsers, not just Edge IE. So how do we do that? We have thousands of test files, lots of repeatable patterns... And that was like my really deep, deep dive into ASTs, and something that would have taken like weeks of manual work that would have probably been error-prone. I was able to automate with Bash, Python, and JavaScript ASTs. So writing a bunch of custom transforms and identifiers. And of course, there was stuff that I couldn't transform...
+
+By the way, ASTs are abstract syntax trees. It's like the thing that your compiler uses to read your code. So it's like this predictable tree that literally tells your compiler "This line has this character, and this function has this method", and whatever else. It's extremely precise, it's unlike regex. It's very reliable. That's why we have linting tools and all of that jazz, right? We trust them because they're using ASTs, they're not using a bunch of regex to format your code... So it's not static analysis.
+
+But yeah, so we transformed like thousands of test files, did that successfully... That was when I was like "Wow, this is powerful stuff, and I really wanna invest in it." And I don't get to invest in that skill set as much as I would like, but it's always a goal of mine. It's a constant thing that I'm chipping away at.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, Amal, we had a deep dive on that conversation in episode 362, "Machine-powered refactoring with ASTs." So if you wanna hear Amal talk about that for over an hour (64 minutes), I'll link that one up in the show notes. \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yap, yap, yap-yap-yap...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We go deep on that one.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I mean, it's cool... Ultimately, we're software engineers because we're force-multiplying something. We just rarely get to turn that inwards. We rarely get to force-multiply ourselves, because we have a bias. We're like "No! I need to do it my way, and I need to write it again. I need to reinvent the wheel." And it's fine, everybody has this thought, everybody does that. You've just gotta fight the bias sometimes, and try something new and uncomfortable and see where the journey takes you. So do you wanna share some stuff from Twitter, Jerod?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You have the info, I don't have it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Alright. Well, I'll show a couple... One was from someone who's similar to me... Like, I'm working on a set of good morning scripts. I don't wanna have to manually log into my VPN, do my authentication, blah-blah-blah. There's a whole like pull rebase other folks are doing that, and Peter Lions is hooking into even having a bunch of default tabs open with his good morning scripts... Which is kind of cool. All the right tabs open based on branch names, or something like that, like what JIRA tickets open -- it's crazy. He's gone totally out in the deep end, in the right way.
+
+And then there's other folks that are doing all kinds of things with Android Automation, trying to automate turning off alarms, GPS locations, a lot of security stuff which you don't really think about, which is really smart to do.
+
+\[01:11:59.28\] And then Jeff Posnick from Google - he works on Workbox, service worker tooling and other stuff. He's starting to write all of his build scripts in TypeScript. I don't know, do you wanna talk about that a little, Ahmad? You saw that thread, right?
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** Yeah, I think ESM modules are really good, and everything, and TypeScript has its place... I just have -- in my experience, adding a layer of ESM, of TypeScript has been a performance bottleneck for me. For example, when I'm done recording my course, and it takes a long time, because I'm not a native English speaker, what I do is I run this CLI called ctime (course time) in the folder where there are all the rendered videos... And it just goes out and kind of figures out the total seconds of each video, and then prints out "Okay, your course is eight hours, this much long." That \[unintelligible 01:12:51.06\] "Okay. Finally, I'm done."
+
+I wrote that thing with TypeScript, and then I converted it to ESM... And it was so slow, for some reason, and I could not for the life of me figure out what was making it so slow. But when I transpiled it to Node.js v12, I think back then, it was just so fast. It did it in milliseconds.
+
+So from that, you know, my gut feeling whenever I'm doing something that has some production consequences, like whenever some CLI or automation is in production, I try to stay away from TypeScript and ESM. But Sindre Sorhus has been pushing a lot that we should all adopt ESM. So I think ESM is gonna get there sooner. I'm not so sure about TypeScript. But hopefully, soon.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I'm with you on the ESM part, but TypeScript - I'm not a fan of introducing transpiling unless I absolutely have to. So for server runtimes, I'm not a fan of TypeScript. Please don't hate me, internet... But I've come a long way with TypeScript. I'm just... Yeah. \[laughs\] We'll end it there. I'm just... Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I'm just... Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Dot. I'm just, yeah, full stop. Yeah, read between the lines. So yeah, Ahmad, it's been really wonderful having you. Sorry for pronouncing your name 12 different ways... We'll have to blame Ahmad Nasri, who's like the person who I talk to a lot, who has a similar spelling name, different pronunciation. For the record, do you wanna pronounce your name the right way for everybody, so that everybody can hear you say it, your full name?
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** Yeah, for sure. And don't worry about it. All pronunciations were good. \[laughs\] So my name is Ahmad Awais, and the fun part is Awais is my actual name, and Ahmad is my family name. For some reason, my parents thought it would be fun to put my second name first... \[laughs\] So I kind of tell people, "Call me Awais", and they always feel odd about it, because it's my second name... So it's Ahmad Awais. \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** See, Amal? You've been doing it right the whole time, calling him Awais.
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Apparently... My husband's Korean, and they do the same thing; every time we're in Asia, all of a sudden everybody is calling him Kim. I'm like "Who's Kim?" He's like "Last name first. That's the way we do it here. Get with the program." I'm like, "Okay, okay..." \[laughs\] But anyways...
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** Yeah, here we don't do it like that. It's just my family... \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Just your family did it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Well, clearly, a family of very special people, and we're really lucky to have you contributing to the web platform, Ahmad, as well as teaching with such enthusiasm... I think we all have a lot to learn from you. So we wish you the best of luck. We'll put all the links in the show notes, and we hope everyone is feeling a little more excited about their terminal, and trying something new. Just start with the problem that bugs you, and see where it takes you. And tell us about it. Tweet at us.
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** Yeah, awesome. Awesome to be here. And I will just say one thing - if you're creating some CLI, definitely tweet at me, @mrahmadawais. I love using CLIs, so you never know...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, you should start a hashtag, you know?
+
+**Ahmad Awais:** We should.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, we should. Alright, so Jerod, do you wanna take us out?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I do.
diff --git a/Best of the fest! Volume 1_transcript.txt b/Best of the fest! Volume 1_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8860f63d1620a54de74a86838bf8ac8d6c038af7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Best of the fest! Volume 1_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,653 @@
+**Jerod Santo:** Hey there. Jerod here, your internet friend. Today we have a very special episode. It's the big number 200. Can you believe we've made 200 of these suckers? I guess time flies when you're throwing weekly parties to celebrate JavaScript and the web
+
+On this episode we're going to take a moment to celebrate the party itself. We're calling it Best of the Fest, and this is vol. 1. Last week I put out a call to JS Party listeners and panelists to send in their favorite moments from the pod. You could write in, or even cooler, you could record your voice and send that in to be played on the episode. Many of you wrote in, which is awesome, but only one brave listener took the time to record their message and send it to us. Well, fortune favors the brave, so here is listener Brian kicking off Best of the Fest. Take it away, Brian!
+
+**Brian Zelip:** Hey, this is Brian Zelip in Baltimore, Maryland. Congratulations on making it to 200 episodes. I've been listening to JS Party since it's release. I've been loving The Changelog since at least 2014. I remember spinning up a couple servers on DigitalOcean back then for free using the Changelog discount, and it really felt like I was getting over... Like, "What's to stop me from using this discount over and over and over again?"
+
+As a web developer with a day job, JS Party and The Changelog family in general have really helped keep me in the loop over all these years, providing guidance and pointers, and especially language to use when talking with others.
+
+In looking over the past 100 shows, the first one that really jumped out at me was the functional programming show, \#163, with Eric Normand. That was a great show. I understood it and got a lot out of it. It really resonated with me. I got his book afterwards using the Changelog discount as well, and it's been great to dig a bit deeper into functional programming patterns using JavaScript.
+
+As an extra bonus though, I have to give a shout-out to the music underneath and in between the podcasts. I just simply love what I call the Zelda trap jazz of Breakmaster Cylinder. And I love its variations into like island vibes, dance, and especially vapor vibes. I'm a big fan. Really looking forward to the Changelog feature on Breakmaster Cylinder. Thanks for everything, y'all. Cheers.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And thank you, Brian, for sending that in, and for listening to us so faithfully over all these years. 2014 - that goes quite a ways back. I love how you described Breakmaster Cylinder's music, "the Zelda trap jazz." You definitely get it. In fact, many of our tracks are inspired by the 8 and 16-bit video games of our youth. We'll often ask BMC things like "Hey, give us a Donkey Kong theme to transition", or we'll hop into the Slack channel and do an all-caps "MORE METROID VIBES!"
+
+Here's a track we use... It's called Zegend of Lelda. Anybody who's familiar with the Zelda franchise will immediately spot the influence.
+
+**Zelda track:** \[04:22\] to \[04:42\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I am also with you on your episode selection. Our interview with Eric Normand on functional programming is definitely a highlight from our catalog. Here is a great moment from that episode. It's Eric Normand describing functional programming and how to think functionally in a language that developers can easily understand.
+
+**Eric Normand:** Functional programming is like an onion, so you can go real deep… And there’s some people who go super-deep. But that first layer, that first gateway into the onion… \[laughs\] I started mixing metaphors…
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It’s like the Onion routing; it’s like a Tor network kind of a thing.
+
+**Eric Normand:** Yeah. I imagine it like – have you ever seen the original show Get Smart, the intro, where he has 30 different doors he walks through…?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, and then he holds up his shoe to his ear and talks into it.
+
+**Eric Normand:** Yeah. He has a cell phone in his shoe. Yeah, but you go through all these doors, and you get deeper and deeper into the sanctum of functional programming. Well, that first door is just recognizing the difference between what I call actions, calculations and data.
+
+Calculations are often known as pure functions. They’re the stuff you can do in your language that always gives you the same answer, no matter how many times you run them, or when you run them. So this is like addition. 2+2 is always 4, it doesn’t matter how many times you run that. But then there’s actions that do depend on when you run them or how many times you run them. So reading from an immutable variable - if you read after someone has written to it, you’re gonna get a different answer than reading before the other part of the code writes to it. Likewise sending an email, or writing something to disk - these are all actions, because sending the email zero times is different from sending it one time, or ten times.
+
+And so making this distinction between actions that depend on time - because they’re hard to deal with - and calculations is like the first gateway into functional programming. Oh, and data is easy. Data is just the stuff that doesn’t do anything; it’s just inert. The strings, and numbers, and HashMaps, and lists, stuff like that.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I like how simple your language is there… Because I feel like one of the barriers to a lot of folks getting into FP is it feels like there’s a lot of jargon. And you start talking with somebody and you’re like “I just wanna send an email”, and before you know it, they’re talking about monads, and you’re like “What in the world is all of this…?!”
+
+**Eric Normand:** \[laughs\] Yeah… I think that - you know, and I speak for functional programming as a community - we have over-complicated it. Functional programming has been incubated in Academia, and you don’t get tenure by making stuff easy. \[laughter\] You have to find a hard problem and solve it in some weird way, a novel way…
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Eric Normand:** And you don’t show credibility by just talking about basics. You have to use the jargon and show that you’re one of the club, and you understand this, you’ve earned your Ph.D. by learning all these obscure terms. So that’s a shame for the rest of the industry, for the non-academic side, that we don’t have a lot of good literature that has taken the time to like “Let me just shed all that academic stuff, and start over, and talk like real people, without all the jargon.”
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[08:05\] That clip is just the beginning of a truly great conversation. Even Kball and I, who have been exposed to epic concepts for many years, had some a-ha moments during it. If you want to hear more, it's episode 163. It's called "JS is an occasionally functional language."
+
+Okay, up next we have a message from listener Heady Glee who says:
+
+"Hi. I really, really loved the JS Danger episodes where Emma was the host. It was really funny. I was able to work through the questions with you guys and I could test my JS/Web knowledge together."
+
+Well, Heady, as the now permanent host of JS Danger, I choose not to be offended by how much you like it specifically when Emma hosts. Just kidding... Emma is absolutely hilarious. JavaScript Jeopardy was her idea, and she was the host of our very first time playing the game.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** This defines the element or elements to which a set of CSS rules apply.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** What is a selector?
+
+**Emma Bostian:** That is correct! Finally, selector is in the answer! That brings you up to 7,000. Alright, go for it, Jake.
+
+**Jake Dohm:** Okay, I'll take JS Frameworks for 200.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I somehow knew you were going there... I hope you get this one right. This library was developed by Facebook in 2013, and is still the most popular JavaScript library.
+
+**Jake Dohm:** What is React?
+
+**Emma Bostian:** That is absolutely correct.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Popular by what dimension? I think jQuery is still...
+
+**Jake Dohm:** Ooh...!
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Oh, we're not doing this right now... \[laughter\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** No, I think it is the most popular among current developers, it's just the long legacy --
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, I don't mean popular in terms of usage necessarily, I mean in terms of likability.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Ooh, likability... Now, there - I don't know if React is gonna win on that, but... Usefulness, or usability, being used... I don't know. I've happened to use React recently, and I'm telling you, it's making Vue look better every day.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, it is... Alright, Jake, we've got -- oh, wait, Kball, we've got two categories left. Do you want JavaScript Again, or Even More JavaScript?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Well, let's go with even more JavaScript then.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** \[laughs\] Let's do it. Your last question - This method tells the user agent that if the event does not explicitly get handled, its default action should not be taken as it normally would be.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** What is prevent default?
+
+**Emma Bostian:** That is correct. Prevent default. I don't know if it's default or default... I never know how to pronounce it. Okay, Jake, take it home, JavaScript Again, for 200. So - this is the very last question before we get to the super-final round, which is literally just one question. Okay, JavaScript Again, for 200.
+
+**Jake Dohm:** Alright.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** This data type holds key-value pairs and remembers the original insertion order of the keys.
+
+**Jake Dohm:** What is an object?
+
+**Emma Bostian:** No... Kball, you look like you know it.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I wanna go with "What is a map?"
+
+**Emma Bostian:** That is correct.
+
+**Jake Dohm:** Oh, a map... There you go.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** That is correct. So --
+
+**Kevin Ball:** It's that insertion order thing...
+
+**Jake Dohm:** I was like, "It can't be that again..." Yeah, yeah. That's a good steal.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Speaking of episode \#112, we have another listener who wrote in about it, saying "Petruso Keterov here. My favorite moment was in the JS Jeopardy episode \#112, more specifically the TCP/IP question. I was working on a college assignment on the OSI model while listening to the episode, and like Chris, my first guess was the OSI model. I guess "conceptual model" really threw me a curveball."
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Let's go with The Web for 500.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** The Web for 500. You guys are just diving right in. "This is a conceptual model, and is a set of communication protocols used in the internet and similar computer networks."
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Can you repeat the question?
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Absolutely. "This is a conceptual model, and is a set of communication protocols used in the internet and similar computer networks."
+
+**Kevin Ball:** It's a conceptual model... Interesting. Huh.
+
+**Jake Dohm:** \[12:08\] Doo-doo-doo-doo...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, I know...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Five more seconds! Take a guess!
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I'm gonna say "What is HTTP?", but I don't think that's right, because that's not the conceptual model...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Wrong...
+
+**Jake Dohm:** Oh, no...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I think you let that term throw you off. Unfortunately, that is incorrect, so it moves on to Chris. Chris, would you like me to repeat the question?
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** What is the OSI model?
+
+**Emma Bostian:** That is also incorrect. Oh, no...! Jake, it's up to you.
+
+**Jake Dohm:** Okay, could you repeat it one more time, so I can not get it?
+
+**Emma Bostian:** \[laughs\] "This is a conceptual model and is a set of communication protocols used in the internet and similar computer networks." Why don't you just ignore the words "conceptual model". This is a set of communication protocols used on the internet and similar computer networks.
+
+**Jake Dohm:** I'm so bad at this type of thing...
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I call shenanigans...
+
+**Jake Dohm:** ...communication... Like, I don't know. LAN? What is LAN? \[laughter\]
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** If it's protocol, I would say TCP/IP.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** See, that would have been correct.
+
+**Jake Dohm:** Oh...!!
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** But conceptual model - well, there is this model of the network stack, and...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah. I was in between TCP/IP and HTTP, but... Whatever. We got it.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Well, hold on to that term for later
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And why choose TCP instead of like UDP?
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Because it was the only one I knew... \[laughs\] Don't judge me. Alright, well that round nobody got any points, so...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That episode was called "Do you want JavaScript Again, or More JavaScript?" You can tell we weren't taking it too seriously back then. No sound effects, no official scoreboard... But once we decided to play the game more often, we came up with the name JS Danger, so as to avoid any copyright claims by the fine folks at America's favorite game show.
+
+The first JS Danger party was episode \#123, which Heady Lee also wrote in about saying "I also love that time where at the time of one of the JS Danger episodes contestants had to wager some points for the final question, and at some point Emma was like "Hey, is this in Euros?" LMAO.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** This open source JavaScript database was created to help web developers build applications that work as well offline as they do online.
+
+One more time - this is the question for Final Trouble, Offline First: This open source JavaScript database was created to help web developers build applications that work as well offline as they do online. Please submit to me your answers.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** I've got two of them, going back and forth...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We are waiting for Emma...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I have no idea... \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, all the answers are in. The wagers are tallied; the math makes no sense... But we're doing this thing. With a wager of 101.895 Euros...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** No, that was 101,895...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, you use a decimal point as a separator.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, that's what they use in Europe.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Gosh, okay... \[laughter\]
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Oh, gosh...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Emma’s answer - what is Elastic Search? \[correct sound\] \[fail sound\] \[fail sound\] I hit the wrong button. \[laughter\] Too much pressure. That answer is wrong, and that point total is ridiculous. You now have negative infinity points.
+
+Up next, special guest Scott Tolinski wagered 100% of his points, so 1,400 points on the line, and he says “I’m wagering whatever makes me beat Emma.”
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** I don't wanna get last place... \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** His answer, "What is CouchDB?" \[fail sound\] was a valiant guess. And so he ends up his game at zero, or -2,800, depending on how you do math... But way better than negative infinity... Which means Nick Nisi, who wagered 2,700 - is this all your points, Nick?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[16:12\] It is. I should have done one less.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...answered "What is Firebase." \[fail sound\] Answer fail, and wager fail, because you could have left money on the table and gotten first place, but now you've tied with Scott, in the most ridiculous game of JS Danger in human history.
+
+The correct answer, of course - Scott was off literally by one letter... The correct answer the open source database us called PouchDB.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** What?!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Inspired by CouchDB, PouchDB aims to help web developers build applications that work as well offline as they do online. Well, this has been something else.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Enlightening... Enlightening...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We hope you enjoyed it. We had a lot of fun for this edition of JS Danger game. Remember, here at JS Party, Danger is our middle name.
+
+**Break:** \[17:12\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Hey there. This is Kball, and my absolute favorite moment in the past hundred episodes of JS Party was during an Explain It Like I'm Five segment. I had just gone and done what I thought was a pretty good job of Explaining WebAssembly Like I'm Five, and Nick Nisi busts out this amazing five-minute-long story where he was mapping React hooks to the stories of Moana, and mixing in a little bit of Coco and these other animated films... And he just did this incredible job, and completely blew my explanation out of the water... But also, our jaws were on the floor listening to him. Definitely worth a listen through the entire thing.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Once upon a time there was a community of JavaScript developers that lived on an island. I’m tying in Moana right now, in case you need to know… \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Thank you for the reference.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Oh, good, I know that one.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Spoilers for Moana, by the way... This was a very special island, full of proud people, who braved the waters of the JavaScript language, and even forged their own destiny by creating an add-on to the language called JSX. Now, over the years they moved on from a functional, class-like way of JavaScript and started to develop an elegant way to survive, and built a way to develop applications using component-based classes… Because JavaScript got classes.
+
+Now, the chief developer learned the class-based way of her people, and she was very excited about that, but she always wondered if there was something more to the language that might be able to come in and play a role later on in our story.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Is this usually where she sings a song?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It is, yeah. I can do that, but I’ll get us demonetized again. \[laughter\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I think if you sing it it’s fine, right?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I guess… But you don’t want that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You might get us banned.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[20:03\] Yeah. \[laughs\] So she thought of the class-based approach to what they were doing was just too verbose, and she constantly pushed for a new way of doing things, but she was shut down because classes are the way of her people, of her development team.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And did she know the way?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** She did because of that; that was all she’d ever done.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** This is the way.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** A lonely programmer on the island - think of her grandma Tala, from Moana - showed her a hidden cave that contained JavaScript classes’ true heritage, and she realized that they were once function-based, and they could be again… So she told her lead developer of this revelation, but he simply carried on that state could not be managed in a function, and that her ideas were as whacky as trying to go beyond the reef of their island. Well, that’s exactly what she did. She set off to find the great JavaScript demigod Monad, to restore the state of the function – \[laughter\] …restore the state of the function and bring efficiency to her dev team.
+
+Now, upon discovering Monad, he told her of the ways in which functions could not work until they set off to find his missing hook; only then could he restore the state and restore functional components.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Wait, you’ve gotta work your welcome in here somehow…
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah… \[laughs\] I don’t know how.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[singing\] I see what’s happening here… You’re face to face with JavaScript, then it’s strange… You don’t even know how to feel… It’s adorable! It’s nice to see that programmers never change… Open your eyes, let’s begin… Yes, it’s really me. It’s Monad. Breath it in… I know it’s a lot, the code, the state… When you’re staring at programming concepts… What can I say, except you’re welcome. Um, let’s see…
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Thank you so much for that…
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I’ve lost my – alright, if I’d thought of this ahead of time, I could have ridden this out, but I was trying to do it real-time and I just failed.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I disagree one hundred percent. That was not a fail.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, that was amazing.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Keep going, Nick.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** So Monad told her that he needed to find his hook to be able to restore the state in functional components. That developer was curious though. “What is this hook you speak of?” she asked. And this is where I kind of trail into Coco, because that’s another favorite of my daughter’s right now.
+
+So Monad says “Imagine that your ancestors are in the afterlife. If you want their memory or their state to live on, you need to put their picture up on the ofrenda, or in this case, call them as a function within your component.” Now, when that happens - what happens to your state in that afterlife? Well, it lives in this magical world of memory; and it can live on in that memory for as long as you keep their picture on your ofrenda. As long as that’s up there, it will be living and it can be accessed by your state component.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[singing\] Remember me...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** As soon as you neglect to call it, its state gets cast to the after-afterlife, called the garbage collector. Now, the order of which you put up those pictures really matters, or the order in which you call those functions really matters, because it helps the environment map the correct state to the correct hook call.
+
+Monad also explained that hooks need to be called every time, and not just conditionally. Not just on Día de Muertos, but every day, every time… And they need to be called by the top-level functional component, and not just inside of some kind of callback.
+
+Now, Monad continued to explain the basics of useState, useMemo, and useEffect to this developer. And then went on to explain that his hook was unlike any other. It was a custom hook. Now, with this custom hook, Monad could use the underlying functionality of the other hooks to construct the perfect hook to destroy the extremely verbose monster Teh Class, and restore the heart of the function (or the state of the function) to the development team.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Teh Class... Are you done?!
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Almost...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[24:06\] Okay... Because you stopped like you're waiting for an applause. I feel like we're not quite there yet. Please, continue.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\] So Monad’s custom hook could be used to recall the existing application’s state, but it could also be used to have an effect on the world around it, because it could use effects. And he could also listen to the ocean, mouse clicks, page scrolls and other things, and he could establish a plan for when his component was cleaned up or removed, and he could talk to the all-knowing cloud by using fetch.
+
+Now, as they faced Teh Class in an epic battle, the developer realized that she could make a custom hook, for hooks were just a way to hook into her environment - React in this case - and then combine that with the strength of other hooks, like Monad’s hook, she could vanquish Teh Class to the murky syntactical depths.
+
+Now, with this new power she returned to her people, and once and for all replaced their class-based components with functional components, supported by the power of hooks, that were within them all along. The end.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Quite the story... And it might just be the most Nick has ever talked on an episode. Most shows he just sits quietly until an opportune moment to save Vim or TypeScript. So nice selection, Kball, and you aren't alone on that one. Listener Jarvis says episode \#168 was epic. "Loved the story on hooks." But if we're being honest, I'm not so sure any of us walk away from hearing that epic story with a better understanding of React hooks than we brought into it.
+
+Good thing we had Kent C. Dodds on episode \#186, which a few listeners cited as their favorite. Chris Benjamin writes:
+
+"I really enjoyed the episode with Kent C. Dodds on July 30th, Getting Hooked On React. The way Kent described hooks made it click.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** When I was first learning React, we didn’t even have classes. It was createClass, and all of that; and I think it was the same for both of you. So coming into Hooks, it took me a little bit of time to be like “Okay, this is kind of interesting.” A little time as in like minutes. Initially, I was like “I’m not sure about this”, then “Oh my gosh, I love this.” And the biggest thing for me was getting rid of class components and shareability of code… Because with class components, we always talk about the separation of concerns and how important that is in maintainable architecture… And one of the things I loved about React was that it embraced the fact that HTML, CSS and JavaScript are part of a single concern. Those aren’t separate concerns. Those are separate technologies when combined, to create a single concern, of your button component, or your accordeon, or whatever it is.
+
+But within that individual component there could be multiple concerns in there. One part of it is updating the document title to say how many unread messages you have, and the other one is subscribing to Firebase to get those messages… And it’s spread between these lifecycles. And so with Hooks, I was able to keep those concerns together within the component; and if it was a reusable bit, then it’s just a matter of pulling that out and sticking it into a function. It’s just JavaScript at that point. You’re just moving stuff around, just like you do with JavaScript.
+
+Anyway, I didn’t have a huge problem with jumping into Hooks, but I know a lot of people switching from classes to hooks was a bit of a big jump. But one of the things that I just wanted to mention too, like some of the hard parts of learning React - I can tell you based on the number of people who are reading my blog posts what are the things people have the most trouble with… \[laughs\] Because I don’t track Google Analytics on my blog, but I do have Netlify Analytics, and that gets when people land on my blog… And the number one blog post right now over the last month is “How to use React context effectively.” That, Emma, speaks to you… And then useMemo and useCallback are the next. And that one actually has been really popular for years. Yeah, those two are tricky. They’re absolutely tricky.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** \[28:02\] And then I’ve got a couple of things about testing… And state management is another thing that people struggle with quite a bit… And then useEffect and useLayoutEffect are pretty big ones, too. So I would say that there are definitely hard parts about learning React, and it’s very possible that it’s harder to learn React than it is to learn other frameworks… But I just come back again to - I feel like React is simple, and it’s easier to build a simple application with a simple framework than it is to build a simple application with a complicated one.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** As a side note, I think I probably make up 50% of the traffic on your “Common mistakes with React Testing Library.” \[laughter\] I think I link to that in almost every pull request that I’m doing.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah. We’re using React Testing Library too, and I’m like “Oh, gotta go see Kent again…”
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Ahoy-hoy, JS Party. Nick Here... Now, looking back over the last 200 episodes, we really had a lot of fun. In particular, I really enjoyed listening back to that time on episode \#126 where Jerod tried to take the unpopular stance that customizing your terminal environment and editor is a waste of time. You know, it's YAGNI... It's time that could be better spent just accepting the mediocrity of the popular editors and environments... I felt it at the time, and I still feel it now, that Jerod wasn't speaking to JS Party; he was speaking to me, disparaging my life's work, my dotfiles which will be handed down to my children, but now they're forever tainted by the comments Jerod made that one time... \[laughs\]
+
+It's all in good fun, and I really enjoyed hearing the regular panelists riff on that topic. And now I just have to ask if Jerod still holds that opinion. How many episodes of The Changelog has Jerod done on Vim and command line tools since then? Were they pretty popular? Think about it as you listen to this next clip...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** This is also, I think, probably unpopular, because I've disagreed with it myself in the past, and I might disagree with it by the time we're done talking here. But I do believe it right now, which is that I think most of the time that you spend tweaking, customizing, optimizing your terminal, your editor...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Oh, no...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...your tools, most of that is time not well spent.
+
+**Divya:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\] How can you do this...?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I think most of that stuff is YAGNI. I think we spend six hours to save 60 seconds, and I think we yakshave far too much.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** You never know if you're gonna do that 60 seconds again sometime... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I think I've hit an unpopular cord here, because everyone just kind of sat there and laughed, and was shocked...
+
+And there's an old Japanese proverb that says "Don't feed the trolls." So I will not be justifying Nick's trolling with a response. What I will do however is read another listener favorite. "Squid here. I've been listening before the '90s. The party that you can always attend, no matter how strict Covid restrictions get. Keep partying." Thanks for writing in, Squid. I like your game.
+
+To honor JS Party continuing to rock even during Covid restrictions, here's Suz sharing her book recommendations on our "Working From Home" episode recorded at the very start of lockdowns.
+
+**Suz Hinton:** I’m a bookworm, so I have three books to recommend. The first one is Cal Newport’s Deep Work, which I mentioned before… And the next one is Jenny Odell’s “How To Do Nothing.” Jenny Odell is one of my favorite speakers. She speaks at I/O Festival over the last few years, and she’s an artist and she talks about the fact that the new hustle culture and things like that - it’s just constantly tearing at our personal time, our personal space, our mental well-being… And I think that right now I’m seeing a lot of that chatter on Twitter. It’s like “This is time for your side-project now that you’re quarantined”, and “This is the time to do this and that”, and just not allowing people to ever take a break, because things are crappy. So I think that this book is particularly relevant. It’s very popular and it has really great reviews.
+
+\[32:15\] And then also Contact, by Carl Sagan. I’m seeing a lot of parallels in this book, compared to what we’re seeing now… So yes, it’s a science-fiction book, and it has nothing to do with a virus worldwide, but it has to do with worldwide cooperation, the breakdown of barriers between science and religion, as well as just watching different nations try to own different solutions.
+
+I think that there are just so many themes that we’re seeing, and I think that Carl Sagan kind of thinks about this stuff the right way, and you might actually find it quite comforting to imagine ideologically what would be the greatest way that we could deal with this kind of thing right now.
+
+So I think that those three books are particularly relevant. There’s the work, but there’s also “How do you then switch off and just treat yourself nicely, given that this is just quite an unprecedented experience to go through in your lifetime?”
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Next up, LoganLific writes: "I busted out laughing during the episode "We really need new jingles" when Jerod cracked down on the TIL segment and Mat mentioned that it felt like he was having dinner with Saddam Hussein. The banter on JS Party is a trip."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Mat, how about yourself? What have you learned today, and/or recently?
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah. Well, it was today, actually. I think I’m the only one that’s really respected this segment in that way…
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, you win.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah. I’ll tell you what - I mentioned earlier the APIs now in browsers, and this might be old news to people that do a lot more JavaScript than I do… But there’s a WebAuthn API that lets you use the fingerprint or Face ID stuff in your JavaScript code for authentication, things like this… Which is kind of what you need, isn’t it? It’s what you expect. But you see, when I started doing this, everything was sandboxed so tightly… The world was so different, the JavaScript world was just so different. You didn’t really interact much with the device at all. And increasingly, as they open all these APIs, I think we’re just gonna see more and more powerful things being built… And I kind of love seeing that.
+
+I remember when I first discovered about local storage, and there’s IndexedDB in the browser… It is kind of amazing to see that… But yeah. So I learned that. That’s what I TIL-ed today, was that you can use fingerprint auth in your JavaScript.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That is awesome.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** You can access sensors as well on the device… GPS coordinates I guess have been around a while… But also things like the battery. So maybe don’t do some things; turn off animations if the user’s battery is low, or something. Be a nice citizen for them. It’s a good one.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Absolutely. And the fact that you learned it today means you really respect my authority, you know?
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Which I also appreciate.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah. I feel like I'm having dinner with Saddam Hussein, and I'm really nervous about upsetting him. \[laughter\] I've never had dinner with Saddam Hussein, or any dictator, actually...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We need to back that one off...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** You haven't had dinner with Jerod yet, not to mention any dictator...
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah. \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That's right, internet acquaintances.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Remember, I already said hopefully we'll never have dinner; didn't I say that earlier on the show? Hopefully we'll never meet...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Jerod is not so bad over dinner... Or lunch I guess is what we shared.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We did.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** What did you have?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Lunch. He just told you.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah. Well, what specifically?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Food.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Okay. Thank you.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Mat Ryer:** See what I mean? I'm nervous now. \[laughter\] I don't wanna upset the king.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[36:04\] Logan isn't the only one who liked this episode. Take it away, Kball...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Hey, Kball here. Another one of my favorite moments from this last hundred episodes was when we had Mat Ryer from Go Time on as a guest for a segments episode... And Jerod just springs on him "Hey, we need a jingle for this next segment. Can you make one up?" And he kind of looked at him for a second, and then just busted out this incredible tune for Story of the Week. I wish I had those types of skills...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We like to have jingles for our segments… And you may remember that Nick came up with this excellent jingle for Pro Tip Time. \[jingle 00:36:53.25\]
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Brilliant.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So we do not have a story of the week jingle, and what you may not know is that Mat Ryer is actually very musically inclined. He plays the guitar; if you’re watching live, you can see some guitars back there. He sings songs, he writes songs… So Mat, if I might just really put you on the spot and challenge you, can you please come up for us a Story of the Week jingle, live, on the spot, without any rehearsal? We appreciate that.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** But there really is no rehearsal; because you’re saying it like we’ve planned this.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I know… But I was gonna set you up to embarrass yourself.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Story of the Week.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, Story of the Week.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Right, okay. Okay, ready? \[live jingle 00:05:12.10\] “It’s time to take a peek… It’s time for the Story of the Week.”
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Damn…
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That’s actually better than I was expecting, dude. Nice job.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Way to play my jingle first, just to give like the opposite of that…
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] Well, we wanted to lower the bar and make sure there wasn’t too much of expectation… And that was actually completely ad-hoc. Mat did not know about that. So… Nice job, Mat.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** The first of many surprises that we’re going to spring on him today.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's right.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** This does feel increasingly like an ambush.
+
+**Break:** \[38:12\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So what I absolutely love about JS Party is how much fun we have on the show, and just all of the goofball moments that are interspersed between technical facts. So my favorite shows have been my intro show, where I got to talk a little bit about my background... And I never really thought the word "pirates" would come up in a JavaScript podcast, but I was wrong.
+
+**Divya:** Yeah. I feel like I know Amal a lot, so it’s really hard to ask questions, because I know a lot of the answers… But I guess for the listeners who don’t know her as well, here’ s a curveball of a question - do you like to live dangerously?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, a hundred percent. My parents are East-Africa, enough said. I’m pretty sure Somalis brought pirating into the mainstream conversation more recently… \[laughter\] I’m a descendant of some serious bad\*\*\*\*\*, so yes. I love to live dangerously.
+
+**Divya:** Nice.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Another favorite of mine was a show we did with Ben Ilegbodu on TypeScript, and Suz and Divya were on the panel with me, and I called Divya out for changing her accent and going full Aussie... That was pretty hilarious. And she actually admitted it on air, so... Listen up.
+
+**Divya:** Hello, hello, and welcome to a new episode of JS Party. Today we have a wonderful guest, Ben Ilegbodu. But before I introduce him, I would like to introduce the panel that we have with us. We have Amal...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Hello, everybody...
+
+**Divya:** And we also have Suz!
+
+**Suz Hinton:** Hello! How's it going?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Did your accent just change? You said Suz in like an Aussie accent. Did you realize that? \[laughter\] She’s like “And with us, we have Suz!” I was like, “Okay… Hi, Suz.”
+
+**Divya:** Okay, yeah. You caught me.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I thought that was cute.
+
+**Divya:** I don't know... Sometimes I say things in weird voices... I don't know if you have this. I wanna introduce Ben before I jump into other things, but... \[laughter\]
+
+**Ben Ilegbodu:** We're like 30 seconds in and it's already off the rails... \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And last but not least, how could I forget the one and only Ahmad Nassri, whose classic line will forever be etched in my memory.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** If you’re in surgery, they don’t kill you, do the thing, and then bring you back to life, right? You’re still living. That’s the thing. A mechanic gets to turn the car off…
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Top modular replacement.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, exactly. That’s a great analogy. A cardiovascular surgeon doesn’t, right?
+
+**Ahmad Nassri:** That’s actually a very good example, because you won’t take a surgeon seriously if he’s gonna say “I’m just gonna replace your heart instead of trying to fix it.”
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[laughs\] Exactly.
+
+**Ahmad Nassri:** Or replace your kidney without trying to understand what the problem is. “Oh, your kidney is too old. We’d better put React there instead.”
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[laughs\] Poor React…
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show title right there.
+
+**Ahmad Nassri:** “…because it’s just too old and I don’t wanna bother with it.”
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[laughs\] Replace your kidneys with React, everybody…
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Thank you, Amal. It has been so awesome having you on the pod. Alright, it is time to read another listener message.
+
+"Hello, world. This is Chris Torres from Carson, California, and I'm a fellow software engineer who loves all things frontend, especially React and Svelte. My former manager said that JS Party is a good listen, and you guys definitely did not disappoint. I've been listening to this podcast since the beginning of 2021. My favorite episodes so far are $166, JS Danger CSS Tricks Edition, and \#192, Frontend Feud Shoptalk versus Syntax, because they are so fun and entertaining. I also like Explain It Like I'm Five, which is featured in some episodes, because it helps me learn how to explain technical concepts more casually and less formally.
+
+Well, enough said... Thank you so much for keeping me sane during this time of uncertainty, and keep on keeping on!"
+
+\[44:23\] Thank you for the kind words, Chris. We appreciate having you with us. Here is a clip from that CSS Tricks edition of JS Danger. One thing we've learned with that game is that a key to winning is not stealing unless you're sure you know the answer. I advise contestants about this, but few heed the advice. In this clip I thought Geoff Graham was about to do himself in, but...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Framewords for 1,000.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh my goodness, he’s going big. The less formal CSS framework. Its goal is to be as minimal as possible when adding classes.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Adding classes… I don’t know. It’s not Tailwind, but I’m gonna say Tailwind.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail sound\] That is incorrect.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Their goal is to be as maximal as possible.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, here’s where I’ll remind people to be careful with the steals, because you can lose a thousand by stealing haphazardly. Sarah, do you know what it is? Would you like to steal?
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Um… Tachyons?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail sound\] Sorry, that’s also incorrect. Geoff, would you like to steal?
+
+**Geoff Graham:** I’m gonna go out on a limb, yes…
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] Despite all advice, they’re just going for it…
+
+**Geoff Graham:** What is PaperCSS?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win alert\] You got it!
+
+**Chris Coyier:** No way…!
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Oh…!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Very good.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Nicely done.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It was an obscure one.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, we have time to read one more listener message.
+
+"Scott here. The episode where you talked about saying no really helped me out. Hearing other developers who experience the same BS I was at a company gave me the strength to quit a toxic workplace, and now I'm way happier."
+
+That is very cool, Scott. Thanks for letting us know that. Happy to hear that you're happier, and that we could play even a small role in that decision. Here is a clip from that episode. This is just a small part of a much larger conversation.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Are there ways that you’ve gone about saying no that have worked better than others, or how do you do it?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I’ll tell you the way that I use the most, which is by far not the best way, but it’s the most effective way sometimes… And that’s - I ignore it until it goes away on its own. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So the ghost no… Okay. I mean, that is, I think – in certain cold requests… I mean, we do that all the time. We get so much email for The Changelog; people wanna come on the shows… I’m not gonna respond to every single email and say no.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, is that why you’ve been ignoring all my emails? \[laughter\] Gosh, Jerod, I thought it was like –
+
+**Nick Nisi:** The truth comes out.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Gosh, now I know…
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I don’t know how to break this to you, Amal, but you’re on the show right now.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Anyways… No, no, I’m just kidding.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] Anyway. So in that case, a cold email - you don’t know the person, they’re asking for something… I’m totally fine with not responding, because there’s just too many emails in life. But what if it’s like a colleague, or a friend? You’re not gonna ghost a colleague if they ask you for something, right? You’re gonna have to tell them something. Amelia, what about you? How do you say no?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I’ve been waiting to hear answers on this… \[laughter\] I need all the help I can get.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Out of office message saying you’re in Alaska for three months… \[laughter\] And hoping that they forget about it by the time you’re “back.” \[laughs\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I have a built-in excuse. I just say –
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Kids…
+
+**Nick Nisi:** …I have kids and I can’t do it.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, that’s a good reason to have kids.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, kids are a great excuse. It is.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah. I never wanna lie about it, and my reason is always like “This isn’t a priority for me” or “I don’t think that sounds great”, which I’ve tried before…
+
+**Jerod Santo:** “I don’t think that sounds great…” \[laughs\] Yeah, it’s honest.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** It’s just like, this isn’t – I don’t want to. You hate when you ask someone to do something and they lie about like “Oh, no, I can’t do that, because I’m not available” and you’re like “I didn’t say when…” \[laughter\] That never feels good.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[48:14\] Yeah…
+
+**Jerod Santo:** They’re like “I have bowling league that night” and you’re like “Yeah, I didn’t give a date yet.”
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Honestly, a line that I’ve been able to use pretty successfully so far is that I just have too many commitments right now, and my plate’s really full, and I would love to…
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. That’s true, right?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It’s the truth though… I just can’t take anything else on right now. And it’s always nice to give people another option, so like if you can redirect them to someone else, like if you’re being asked to do a talk, or whatever… Just say, “Hey, maybe this person can help” and then just – I think that’s the most you can do. But yeah, you need to be protective of your time and energy, and most of the time people are understanding, so…
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I do like that approach though, Amal, because it really shows that you did consider it, and you put a little bit of thought into it, which is – it’s not just like a canned no response in that regard. And even – I’m thinking back to maybe what you said, Amelia… Like, if you were brutally honest, like “No, that doesn’t sound good to me”, that would probably stand out as a significant response that they might get for something like that, and it might lead to collaborating or changing it to be exactly what you want, and that could be good, too.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, totally.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So I like the honesty of “Too busy, too many things going on.” One thing that happens with that with a persistent requester is they will then set a reminder to ask you again in a month, or 60 days… And that can be problematic. So now you’ve gotta do it again… So at times I will say – it’s similar to what Amelia says, but I’ll say something like “This just doesn’t feel like a great fit” or “It doesn’t feel right.”
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** That’s good.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It just doesn’t feel right.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It’s not you, it’s me.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And it’s really hard – I mean, it’s not really offensive. It’s not saying it’s a bad idea…
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It’s not you, it’s me… You know? It’s like a break-up. \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Anyway, so it doesn’t feel right. I’ve never gotten someone to write back and be like “How dare you?!” Of course, maybe they’re thinking that, but they’re like “Oh, okay. I appreciate the time.”
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah. That’s great, because it’s not like “This isn’t good, objectively.” It’s like “It’s not good for me.”
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. It just doesn’t feel right. It doesn’t feel like a great fit.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Hey, Kball here. One more moment from out last 100 episodes of JS Party that I wanna plug... This one starts behind the scenes. We had an episode coming up with Adam Wathan, the creator of Tailwind CSS, and I think Nick had jokingly titled the episode "The Tailwind Beneath my Wings", playing off the Bette Midler song... And I couldn't make it, but I joked in the channel, "Hey, it would be amazing if you all worked in the lyrics from the song", not expecting it to actually work. But those crazy guys - Jerod, Feross, and especially Nick Nisi carrying the show, managed to work in the entire song as part of the episode, most of it without Adam even knowing what was going on. It was just hysterical, and funny, and... Unique.
+
+**Bette Midler Song:** \[51:11\] \[Nick Nisi\] It just really must have been cold there, in the shadow... \[Jerod Santo\] To never have sunlight on your face. \[Nick Nisi\] Content to let me shine; that's your way... You're always walking a step behind. \[Feross Aboukhadijeh\] So you're really the one with all the glory. \[Nick Nisi\] You're the one with all the strength. \[Feross Aboukhadijeh\] A beautiful face without a name, for so long. \[Nick Nisi\] A beautiful smile to hide the pain. \[Jerod Santo\] Did you ever know that you're my hero...? \[Nick Nisi\] It's everything I would like it to be. \[Feross Aboukhadijeh\] I can fly higher than an eagle. \[Jerod Santo\] Thank you for putting the Tailwind beneath our wings, Adam.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Kball drilled it. This was our finest moment, if I do say so myself. When the show first started, only Nick and I knew about the gag, and it was so awkward keeping it a secret. Here's Nick squeezing one of the lines in early on.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** But yeah, I think part of that is just using a tool for more than it was originally intended to be used for, so it’s taken a while for the spec to catch up to what people wanna do with it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. I think it just really must have been cold there, in the shadow, for CSS and the tooling around it… Yeah, just in the shadow of JavaScript and HTML.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That’s true.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** The editing removed some of the awkwardness, but you should have seen Feross' face when Nick said that. It was just too much, so we revealed our secret to Adam and Feross during the first break. After that, things got better, but we were having a hard time squeezing in the penultimate line in any context that made sense. Then, which was a surprise to all of us, Adam masterfully delivered that line, and it left me completely speechless. Like, literally. I didn't know what to say.
+
+**Adam Wathan:** Firefox Send used to be my go-to one, but they shut that service down, so…
+
+**Jerod Santo:** They did. That was sad…
+
+**Adam Wathan:** And now it doesn’t even have a placeholder page, it just links to the Mozilla homepage. So it’s sad.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That was a service – I never used it, but the fact that it existed, I respected that…
+
+**Adam Wathan:** Yeah, exactly. I felt the same way. \[laughter\]
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Cool.
+
+**Adam Wathan:** Did you guys know – something I can actually do that most other people can’t do is that I can fly higher than an eagle.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Wow… Well, I mean, you’re really making – I can’t respond to that… \[laughter\] Oh, Adam broke the show…
+
+**Jerod Santo:** This has been Best of the Fest vol. 1. Here's to the last 200 episodes, and to the next 200 as well. Special thanks to the many listeners, guests and panelists who contributed to Best of the Fest. You are what makes JS Party awesome. I've included links to every episode referenced in order of appearance in your show notes.
+
+**Outro:** \[55:19\]
+
+**Horse JS:** Hello, JavaScript developers. I just want to take a moment...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Horse JS, what are you doing here? Everybody left. The show is over.
+
+**Horse JS:** I just want you to know that I've cried.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, I see. You're upset because nobody picked your interview in episode \#142 as their favorite.
+
+**Horse JS:** Any JavaScript nerds wanna get wrecked?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Actually, one listener did pick you, but we ran out of time, we had so much good stuff that I decided not to include it.
+
+**Horse JS:** Name a funnier person in the JS community. I'll wait...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, okay, fine. Just pick your favorite JS quote, say it right now, and we'll include it in the show. But you've gotta move fast, because I'm really ready to wrap this up.
+
+**Horse JS:** Okay, let me toss out one last hand grenade before I go to bed. Immutability is sometimes.
diff --git "a/Blasting off with Apollo \357\243\277\303\274\303\266\303\204_transcript.txt" "b/Blasting off with Apollo \357\243\277\303\274\303\266\303\204_transcript.txt"
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1775af01af6ef3049820a5bfa3386e48b066e768
--- /dev/null
+++ "b/Blasting off with Apollo \357\243\277\303\274\303\266\303\204_transcript.txt"	
@@ -0,0 +1,353 @@
+**Kevin Ball:** Hello, JS Party people, and welcome to this week's JS Party. I am Kball, I will be your MC this week. I am joined both by some of my favorite panelists - they're all my favorites - who I have not seen in a little while... Let me welcome them first, and then introduce you to our amazing guest. So first off, welcome, Amal. How are you doing?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Hey, everyone.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And Feross. Long time, no see, but I'm so excited to have you on.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Same! Excited to be here.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Next let me introduce our guest for the week. We have a special guest today... Introducing Jenn Creighton. Jenn, hello.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Hi, everyone! I'm glad to be here.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Awesome. So let's actually get started a little bit with exploring who you are, Jenn. Do you wanna give us a quick "Jenn Creighton in 30 seconds"?
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** The too-long-didn't-read - I am an open source engineer at Apollo GraphQL, working very specifically on Apollo Client. That's pretty much my life right now. I work in open source, and that has consumed me. I have pink hair, very much enjoying that... Oh, and I also run my own podcast called Single-threaded, that just wrapped its first little mini-season.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Awesome. I love the hair, by the way. It looks great. And if anybody is listening but not looking, check out the YouTube stream of this; you can see, it's matching Amal's typical looks, though Amal is not overshadowing Jenn today \[unintelligible 00:03:38.15\]
+
+Awesome. I know a lot of folks are interested in this idea of working in open source... Do you wanna actually talk a little bit about how you got into that?
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Yes. I kind of fell into it by accident, which is to say that I was already working with open source technologies at my job. I worked with React for 5-6 years, and decided that I wanted to speak at events about React, and sort of brought myself into open source that way... And also, occasionally, you could find me in the middle of the night kind of like scrolling through the React codebase, trying to understand how things worked. I was just curious about what was going on.
+
+\[04:25\] And then Apollo reached out to me with this opportunity and I was like "Getting paid to do open source? Yeah, I'm gonna try that out. I'm gonna see what that is like." It's a wild ride... \[laughs\] It's a whole new thing from product engineering.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Absolutely, absolutely. So in that context, are you primarily doing coding, or are you managing community? I know when I was paid to work on open source it was like a whole lot of things that maybe I hadn't even thought about as part of engineering prior to getting involved.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** My time right now is mostly in the actual codebase, looking through issues, checking out reproductions, figuring out what we actually should be fixing, which is sometimes not the thing that people ask you to do in issues... So those types of things, as well as working on new features. I do some community work still. I just hosted Apollo GraphQL Summit with my co-worker Alan. We both tag-teamed that. And occasionally, in other respects I have to do events like that, or answer community questions, or be available for those types of things... So it's a mix of both.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** There's something really daunting about doing your work in the open, and there's also something super-liberating at the same time, because it's like "Hey--" Nothing to to forget; there's this trail of easy access, I think, which is very liberating, and can be very productive, because you're able to work with people across lots of different boundaries... But yeah, the transition of doing open source work full-time - that's gotta be pretty fun.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Yeah, there's no hiding your code... If you really want someone not to see it, you can't push it out. I think that's the rule. If you're not ready for anyone to look at it, don't push it out. But that's all you've got.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Absolutely. Feross, you've done a lot of your work in the open source world as well, right?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yup, pretty much most of my code is online... And I remember feeling the same way at first. Actually, I remember getting interested in open source also in a similar vein to Jenn, but it was jQuery that I got really interested in... And I remember watching some videos on YouTube where Paul Irish was explaining things that he learned from reading the jQuery codebase... And I remember after I saw that I was like "Wow, this is peeling behind, to see how the sausage is made", and it was really cool. Then I wanted to be cool enough to do open source, too. That was kind of how I got started, so it totally sounds familiar.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Oh, yeah. I actually remember Paul Irish going through the jQuery source code and explaining why things worked the way they did, and that was really cool.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, so many browser hacks... But there was a reason for everything. It was nice to actually know why you were seeing all these arcane spells... Yeah, just explaining how this stuff works.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That's a random tangent, but I love the metaphor "software is magic." It's got all of the same things of like bizarre incantations, very strange lines between what is easy and what is hard, and... I don't know, the only question in my mind is "Is it better represented as black magic, or just magic in general?"
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** \[07:45\] I think of it as -- there's some shows that have magic in them, but they take a scientific approach to it, where they're like "Actually, this is all about just manipulating molecules, depending on how you do X, Y and Z..." So it's not magic in this sense of unknown, how it's working; you actually do know how it's working. And that is really close to code. Because if you really fundamentally break it down to the smallest possible unit, you're gonna figure out how the code works. It's not ultimately something you can't understand... But yeah, I love "Code is magic", too.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Totally agree. The best magic systems have their internal logic, and it's totally sealed up, and it works, and it's bizarre if you don't understand that internal logic. \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** One thing I've learned from peering through the React codebase is a lot about scheduling... I think it's interesting how different libraries have their own little hard problems that they're trying to solve, and it's like, you really wanna learn about complex scheduling with just JavaScript \[unintelligible 00:08:45.07\] Go look in the React codebase. Lots of requestIdleCallbacks and more... \[laughs\] It's fun.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So let's move a little bit more into specifically Apollo, because it's something that -- I know GraphQL in general has exploded in popularity, and it's something we've talked about a little bit here... Apollo seems to be the frontrunner of that movement, in a lot of ways, but I don't think we've dug deep into it. So can you kind of flesh out for us, just starting with what is Apollo? When you say "I worked in Apollo", there's so many things that could mean. What do you think of?
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Right. For me, I tend to -- if I'm talking to an engineer, I caveat it with "I work on Apollo Client." So I work on the web caching system. That's what I work on. Because there are so many different things that Apollo does in this space... From your server, to your client, to the paid products that we offer for you to handle your schema and federation... There's just a whole host of things that we do. We're just like a full-service GraphQL frontrunner. If you're working with GraphQL and you wanna make it easy on your engineers, you tend to go with Apollo.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That makes sense. So you're involved specifically with the client.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Yes.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And is that co-owned with the DevTools, or those are separate?
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** When you say the DevTools, do you mean the Chrome extension?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Yeah. My first project at Apollo was to completely rewrite those DevTools, which I had never written a Chrome browser extension before... And - oh, that's not fun. That's not a fun time. That's a system that feels terrible to work in.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Do you wanna expand on that a little bit? \[laughter\] Because both the beauty and the pain of browser extensions today is they're all web technologies...
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Right.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** ...but with obscure APIs and permissions that you have to have in mind.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Yeah, so ultimately, if you're using the DevTools, which are on Chrome and Firefox, you're ultimately using a React application. That's all built as a simple React web application. What's not simple about working with the browser extension is that you're dealing with sandboxed environments... And this makes sense, for security reasons. You can't just run any code you want on anyone's web page. That's obviously very clearly a security concern. So they sandbox all the environments, and you have to push messages back and forth using their API... Which is not well-documented, sometimes documented erroneously... Sometimes they just straight up tell you things are available when they are not... And you have to get, like you said, specific permissions to use specific things.
+
+If you wanna interact with the tab system, you have to kind of put that on a list of saying "I wanna use the tab system", and then you can use it, and then Chrome extensions always go through a review process. So it's like a very laborious process, and you're just trying to deal with passing messages back and forth all over the place. It's kind of a nightmare.
+
+\[12:05\] Also, once you get the thing actually working, that doesn't mean that it's gonna work on everyone's browser with everyone's system, because you just never know what they're dealing with on their end of their setup... So we just get a lot of issues that are like "Well, this doesn't work. I need to know a little bit more about your setup to fix that for you. I will fix it for you, but you've gotta tell me more than it just doesn't work."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I feel like anytime software at scale is outside of the standards process, it just gets into this weird world... But I feel like browser extensions are so due for just better standardization, so developers don't go insane...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Oh, but it's so much better than it used to be...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, I believe you... \[laughter\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** The Chrome extensions were just this massive step forward from Firefox extensions where you're coding stuff in XML things, and...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, my God...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, it was a disaster. But I do recall -- it's been a few years, so it may have changed, but I do recall a very large amount of the time I spent on browser extensions, in building abstractions layers on top of the message passing, so that I could deal with all the different various ways that that interacted with permissions; it was different in different ways.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Yeah, that was the first thing I had to do, I had to build an abstraction that was gonna clean up what messages were being passed and what they were being passed to... And there's some historical way that you build certain things in the extensions, where they call things a background page, but also you would have like -- these aren't in the docs, by the way. It's just a backend system that's not a backend, and... It never made sense... So I just kind of redid it all.
+
+Folder structures, as it turns out, kind of matter, and so putting everything that actually lives in the tab space under the tab folder actually makes sense, as opposed to everything that lives in the DevTools space, as opposed to everything that actually does live in the background; it turns out that's helpful for your mental model.
+
+**Break:** \[14:15\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So let's hop back into things and talk about Apollo Client. Jenn, can you explain a little bit, what is the role that the client plays? If I'm somebody coming in who doesn't know anything about the GraphQL ecosystem, where should I put this in my mental map of how I'm gonna start using this thing?
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** \[15:56\] If you ever built an application with React and Redux, you would swap out Redux for Apollo Client when you're working with GraphQL. Apollo Client is just made to work with caching your GraphQL responses on the frontend, and allowing you to do things on the frontend with those GraphQL responses. That would be really difficult for you to do with another library. Because your data is now in a graph model, you actually need a caching strategy that understands that it's a graph model, and how to store those things properly. So that's what we do.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Got it. And that actually fits interestingly with this idea of GraphQL as an evolution of state management. On the frontend we've gone through this evolution of how we think about state, and looking at state in terms of "Does it make sense to be done on the component, versus some sort of centralized state manager, and all these different pieces?" GraphQL, in some ways is - or at least I think of it as - extending that state model in a way that maps to our backend representation a little bit more, so that we've got a unified state model for the communication between backend and frontend, but we don't have to do that mapping all in our frontend.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Let's see if anyone else wants to jump in... You can also ask questions.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. There's this shift, I think, that was made with GraphQL, but I consider it to be very much like a milestone, noteworthy kind of shift - it's pretty pivotal - where folks were like "You know, REST - we're done with you. You don't actually work for the new world. These tiny devices and all these different screens and contexts that we need to support... We can't be making all these API calls to stitch this data together in my clients, and I can't support different versions of APIs for mobile."
+
+It's been really interesting to watch that shift. And then to see this evolution with Apollo, and the services around this world... What's it like to have this open source standard and really be the lead implementation of this standard...? But y'all are doing so much more than just providing clients; it's just like a full-service. There's a lot to manage. I'm curious what's that like, that ecosystem of Apollo things that's growing.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** It's really interesting, because you could see it as the leaders of Apollo sort of saw that GraphQL was a good use case and they should jump on board and create some things around it and build a company about it... But the truth is at the very top they just very deeply believe that GraphQL is a really great technology, and they wanted to make working with it something that companies could adopt more easily.
+
+GraphQL, while it is very popular in concept, isn't actually adopted in a lot of places yet. A lot of places are still using REST APIs. And in some cases, that's what you should be doing; that's fine. But if your data actually needs to act as a graph, you are well served by GraphQL, for obvious reasons... As well as if you have this problem that you've just mentioned, of your clients needing different things at different times.
+
+It turns out being able to push that on to the client team to decide what they're actually going to pull out of your graph is a really great idea, and really helpful, and really lovely to work with, as well as a strong typing system, as well as just looking more declarative in what you're getting. My biggest pain as a frontend engineer was always figuring out what the REST API was actually doing, and why it was giving me things. With GraphQL you can even just say like "Hey, by the way, this still is deprecated." That's a wild concept to me as a frontend engineer, that "Oh, I could look at this and just tell that it's deprecated", instead of a backend engineer being like "Oh, no, you don't wanna use that. You actually wanna use this other thing that we added later", which almost always happens.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And your tooling can tell you, because it's declared.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** \[20:00\] Yes...! There's so much tooling you can do with GraphQL that it's just amazing. It's a space that's very rapidly evolving at Apollo about what we wanna push the graph to do, what we want companies to be able to do with their graph... You get into this with Apollo Federation, which we can definitely talk about; it's very cool. And being at a company that's at a forefront of that, you are on just like a wild rollercoaster ride. You're just learning a lot. I've learned so much in the past year at Apollo... Because to be honest, I wasn't working with GraphQL before I joined the company, and I had to really amp up all my knowledge about this in a year... And still, every day, someone says something else that I'm like "Oh, what? What are we doing? Why are we doing it? Oh, my God... What? You can do that?" It's great.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You're the second person I know who's joined Apollo in the past year who didn't really use GraphQL... It's a trend that -- I love it, that they're recruiting folks that are not necessarily users.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Well, like I said, it's popular in concept, but not fully adopted... So if we didn't, we would be limiting our hiring pool. You would not have hired me. I'm a pretty damn good engineer; that would have been a bad idea. I can learn things... You can learn GraphQL, it's cool. You can learn on the job. You're literally surrounded by experts at Apollo, so you can't help but learn it, by osmosis even.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** I have a question about that - the part about it being popular in concept, but less so in practice... So why do you think that is? And related to that, I guess - I started a company recently, and it's just me and one other engineer right now... And I'm wondering if it's too early for us to use something like GraphQL. It sounds like the benefits are coordination between different teams, and right now we don't really have different teams; we just have the team of the two of us. So yeah, is it like a thing that you actually see people using from the very beginning, your project? I imagine some people are, but is that advisable? Is there a lot of overhead or boilerplate, extra things you need to do over what you would need to do to just quickly write an express route for a REST endpoint that you could do in a couple lines? Is that the reason why you think it's more that people like the idea? What are your thoughts?
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** So GraphQL isn't the newest thing on the block, but it is newer... So people are still actually grasping the concept of what GraphQL actually is... And I remember when I learned about it the first time, I really didn't truly understand what was going on. It just seemed like - going back to an earlier conversation - just magic, and I didn't understand what was under the hood that was making it work together... I was like, people just keep telling me "Oh, you just use GraphQL and you can grab whatever you want", and I was like "But how? Please tell me." Now that I have a better conceptual model about it, it's different.
+
+So one, just wrapping your brain around how different this is from hitting your REST APIs. And then two, have you ever tried to make a change at an org after things had been built? It's hard. So if GraphQL is of interest to you - and I've worked at multiple companies that the engineering team wanted to adopt GraphQL, but figuring out how to do it and how to get everyone on board with what we were gonna do was really difficult... And that was at a startup size, so I imagine at a larger org it's even more difficult to do.
+
+I would say if you wanna spin up an express API real quick and have some data, versus invest in GraphQL - okay, that's fine. It's cool. It really just depends on your trade-offs. And if you early on have a really great use case for the fact that your data is gonna be really graph-heavy - yeah, you probably should just go ahead in early. But if you don't - okay, build your express API. Maybe try out GraphQL at some point and see if it gives you anything that you really want. I mean, it does have some really nice features to it, but... By no means does everyone have to adopt GraphQL at all times. Not even other people at Apollo believe this, so...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[24:13\] To jump in a little bit on some of those trade-offs... Some of the things that we've found at Humu where I'm working, where we are using GraphQL, but we do have some REST endpoints as well... So on the drawbacks side, partly because of our setup, but partly also just because of how GraphQL is, there's more boilerplate to set up. There's more things that you have to declare, there's more stuff that you put out there. So if you're setting something up quick and dirty, you're setting things up -- it is more work to set up the GraphQL side of it.
+
+That being said, some of the things you get from it are 1) you get end-to-end typing, which - if you're working all in TypeScript front-to-back, you may already have some of that. We have Python on our backend and TypeScript on the frontend, so having end-to-end typing across languages in that way just out of the box is beautiful, and it works really well.
+
+Another thing that you get that I didn't really appreciate until it had shown up a time or two is how reusable it makes the APIs that you build. I used to actually think "REST APIs, if you do them really well, they're reusable, too", and that turns out to not actually be as true as I thought it was... In the sense that usually, when you start reusing a REST API in a new situation, especially if you're developing it fast, like you didn't do a big, long API design, but you're just developing fast, you're gonna have to come back and rethink about how you set it up, so that it now works properly in all of your situations... Whereas with GraphQL - that's what some of that boilerplate is doing - you're declaring exactly what that is upfront, and people can pick and choose, "Oh, I want this piece of it, I want that piece of it, I wanna do this..."
+
+So I've found that even though conceptually, REST APIs seem like they should be as reusable, practically speaking, anything we've built it in GraphQL, it ends up being far easier to reuse in new ways in our frontend.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Yeah. Definitely, when you're setting up GraphQL, the thing you have to do that is kind of like Wild Wild West with other things is you have to design a schema. You have to actually design a schema and tell it what's available. And schema design is like its own whole thing, but I think you get a lot of value out of it, because it is also -- besides the typing, it's like documentation being written for you, that otherwise you would have to do extra work to be documenting these things and keeping them up to date; you don't have that issue with GraphQL. Your schema keeps everything up to date for you.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah. And you can start reusing those types that you've created in other places. If it's an entity in your system, by putting it in a GraphQL schema, now it's an entity in your API. And if you wanna have a new entity that happens to reference this old entity, it's super-easy to do.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, yeah. I have to say, the TypeScript/GraphQL story is pretty beautiful... And I'm saying that as somebody who's still a little grumpy about TypeScript, so that's like a lot coming from me...
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Saaaame...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I know, I know.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Same! \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** But I would say, on the GraphQL piece, I think my critique - and this isn't a specific critique of the tool, it's more maybe of the hive culture around JavaScript... There's a misconception around basic stack, and I would say GraphQL definitely is not part of your basic stack. It's very much a conscious decision that you bring into your application because you have a use case for it, and it solves a problem for you... And there's a lot of hidden cost in maintenance with adopting every new tool, but especially GraphQL.
+
+So the hype thing is what's weird for me, because you see people using it to power their blogs, or very simple websites with just -- you're putting it in front of one or two REST APIs, and like "Is that really necessary?" So just weigh your trade-offs, kids, before adopting... That's all.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** \[28:09\] That is also 100% how I feel about TypeScript or people using React for something that I'm like "But you could have just written the HTML yourself... Why are you doing this...?"
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Or a basic templating language, or something... Yeah, I'm with you. I think we have a lot of bias as engineers, and that bias tends to skew towards over-engineering, and...
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** And shiny, new stuff.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And shiny, new, right. Yeah.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** We love it. We're all raccoons going toward shiny, new things.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** But if only we could get that fix out of the way, somewhere safe... There's these shopping websites where you can put a bunch of stuff in your cart, and then even put in a fake or a real credit card, and then it goes nowhere - if only we had that equivalent... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** I do believe that's what they use the side projects for these days...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, I was gonna say--
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I was gonna say, "I thought that's what engineering blogs are for", right?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, that's true.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** ...like, Nick's blog, that he keeps rebuilding and rebuilding, and never publishing...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right. That's totally fair. So just side-project your fix for complexity.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Or if you're dying to work with a certain technology, I see nothing wrong with hopping to a job that has it. I wanted to work with GraphQL, so I joined Apollo. I didn't think I was gonna get to use it at any of my other companies.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Straight from the source.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You're like, "I'm not messing around."
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Drink it straight from the well. Just give it to me, you know? \[laughter\]
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Nice.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I want to learn the thing from the thing-maker. \[laughter\]
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's cool. So Feross, do you wanna throw GraphQL in front of a Node library? Do you wanna figure out a way to incorporate GraphQL into something that's totally pure JavaScript and doesn't need a backend? \[laughs\]
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** It's a joke?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's a joke... But yeah.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, I like the discussion about where it's appropriate, because that often is a thing people don't really sit down and think about before just pulling in a thousand packages... So it totally makes sense. I think it might be a little too early for us to look at it, and our APIs - we have six endpoints right now, and one database table. It's maybe a little early.
+
+I think maybe when we start to have different clients consuming it, and things like that, it could make sense.
+
+Speaking of someone who's never used it before, one thing that I'm also kind of curious about is the need -- why is there a need for this schema layer? I guess this is turning into me asking a lot of GraphQL questions; maybe we don't have to do this, but... Yeah, I'm just curious - is there any way to infer it from the database? It seems like I've already gone out of my way to explain "This table has a foreign key. The reference is this column in this other table, and I've already expressed the types in the columns of the database."
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I've seen libraries that will do that.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Oh, really? Okay.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So it depends.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** That makes a lot of sense.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** If you want to directly expose your database schema to your frontend, which is a question for you - maybe you do, maybe you don't.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah. For a lot of sites where most of the content is public, and you're just sort of like letting the client query it, then it seems like that could be a good starting place... Like, generate a schema from it and then maybe go in and tweak hiding certain fields. It could be a good starting place.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Yeah. When we're talking about the tooling that can be done, that's part of it. You can generate a schema from things, which is very useful. The other part of the schema though is that you may not be getting your data straight from a database. You might be getting it from somewhere else.
+
+\[31:55\] So GraphQL is really agnostic about where you're getting it from, but it does need to know what it's getting... And that is then provided to anyone who wants to use your GraphQL endpoint. So it is important, I think, to have that schema layer and have it not have to be hooked into something specific like a database; it can just be generated somewhere else.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** One really nice feature of that is you can have computed fields, essentially, in your schema... And some of them maybe quite expensive to compute. But you only have to compute them when someone requests them.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** There's also the layer to annotate the schema... So being able to annotate that a field was deprecated, or something else about it is useful as well, which you wouldn't get from just a straight-up database layer.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Right, okay.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Similar to the computed stuff, you can do compositional data as well, so you can create things from multiple sources, and then you can kind of define a new thing.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Yup.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** In some ways, that's why I go back and forth about using Gatsby as an example... One of the really interesting things about what they did is they basically said "You can pull form any data source, and we're gonna agglomerate that all up into a single GraphQL representation of it, so it can abstract away your backend data sources."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, I just had a really interesting thought... Do you guys wanna hear it?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Well, you can't just drop that and not tell us...
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Right, that's not a question... \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. So based on what you've just said, Kball, I wonder if Google search input was the original GraphQL... You type something, and it pulls from all the -- I don't know; just internet search indexing \[unintelligible 00:33:35.14\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I mean, I wouldn't call it the original GraphQL necessarily, but I think that idea of being able to put a data pipeline layer where you source from many different possible sources, and then having that generate a kind of universally queriable middle layer is a really valuable concept... And you could do that in sort of a pre-processed manner, which Google search does, I think, and Gatsby does, or you could do that in an on-the-fly manner, where you're wrapping other APIs with a GraphQL layer or some other layer that does that... But I think that concept of being able to create a linchpin data layer that you can then have a single format that all of your different clients can talk to is one of the incredible, powerful concepts that GraphQL adopts.
+
+**Break:** \[34:25\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Let's dig into some of these more advanced features... So you briefly mentioned, Jenn, Apollo Federation. Can you flesh it out a little bit more for us? What is that?
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** \[35:55\] So Apollo Federation -- it's a technology and an architecture. To break it down into a concept - if you have REST microservices and different teams working on these microservices, if you replace that REST with GraphQL, how does that work? So how can everyone have their slice of the data graph, but also there will be reusable parts of that that need to span across the teams, so how does that work.
+
+It used to be that you would use a process called schema stitching to integrate all your separate microservice graphs together into the one big graph. That was a really manual process that you did on the server... So Apollo Federation is a way to do this without having to do that manual process. It has a declarative process that you use in the schema to say when you're extending a certain type, and there's a gateway that sits in front of your different microservices that will do the orchestration for you, of picking what it needs from which graph.
+
+So all the small pieces of the graph come together into one endpoint that you can then query from any point in the graph. But it's nice, because there's a separation of concerns. If one team is only working on one slice of the graph, then they can do that without concern for having to build into a whole, huge graph system. That's the high-level of Federation.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Where do fragments come into this? I'm just curious... Because there's this funky area with fragments and needing to kind of do some extra set up if you wanna get introspection working... I guess maybe what's the philosophy on shared -- well, I guess maybe we can define what are fragments for folks, and then how are they supposed to be used and shared in the context of this Federation world.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** I can answer the first question for you. The second question I don't have as much knowledge about. I do know more about extending whole entities instead of fragments. I'm unsure about fragment sharing between them. But if you don't know what a fragment is, it's basically like a piece of reusable fields, basically, that you can assign to different queries. You kind of use like a spread operator, and you spread them out in your query.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah. I've found fragments to be super-useful, because they let you essentially define the data that you're gonna want down at the level of whatever component is asking for it or using it, but then roll up your queries to do a single query at the top level of your page, so you're able to consolidate the sets of things that you want. Are there caching implications of using fragments as well?
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** I am unsure. When we start to get into the more server-side heavy stuff, I have less GraphQL knowledge on that side.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** In the client are there? Or that's just cached based on which fields have been fetched, and your related entity IDs?
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Yeah, that has more to do with entity IDs, because your fragments don't really have that at the top level. They always roll up to a top-level field that would have an ID. So you can do things like - on the client you can read a fragment or write a fragment into the cache, but as far as caching goes, the bigger concern is more about arguments and variables to keep track of what you set to your query, and be able to allow you to pull back that data if you want.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So federation feels like a pretty advanced feature in GraphQL, and it's something that I think came onto the stage a little bit more recently than some of the other things... What else is going on in terms of moving the standard and the state of the art forward in GraphQL?
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** I know that for Apollo federation is the future. We're investing very heavily in federation. We see it as the way that companies can really adopt the graph more easily, and get the most benefits out of this graph. We're building a lot of tooling around it, we're really working heavily on it. That's important to Apollo.
+
+\[40:05\] As far as GraphQL and the spec in general, there hasn't been as much going on with that as of late, from what I know. I do know that defer @defer and @stream directives are still not fully adopted, though some GraphQL servers have already adopted them... So we are going to, in Apollo, start to adopt those as well, including on the client. So we're gonna be working on that next, as part of our big Apollo Client roadmap. That's really all I've got on that side of things.
+
+By the way, the spec is one of the nicer specs to read through. It's actually quite clear. It's nice bedtime reading. It's real chill bedtime reading.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Oh, man... By the time we get that late, I can't focus on anything... And that late is like 8:30 for me, so...
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** \[laughs\] I'm seriously like at 10 PM just like reading through the spec, being like "Oh yeah, that's right. That is what that is. Okay, cool. Thank you."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[laughs\] That's reinforcing... \[unintelligible 00:41:05.05\] So I think this spec originally came out of Facebook, and there were Facebook engineers, folks I've actually been fortunate to meet some of them, who worked really, really hard on making this a spec, and they were really excited about it. I remember the first version came out, was released publicly... What involvement folks at Apollo have with pushing the spec forward now? Is there more of a kind of open community around this now? GraphQL is in a foundation; there is a foundation that exists for this, right?
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Yes, it is a foundation.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So it's definitely a project that's grown beyond Facebook in that sense, right?
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Yes, it has.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So it started at Facebook, but it is technically now a foundation... So we do have representation in that, same as we do with TC39. If we're involved in a technology, then we also need to be involved in pushing the spec forward. I would say though, because there's not a lot of active changes happening with the spec, there's just not as much to try to move forward.
+
+A lot of Apollo's open source work now too is really shoring up the projects like Apollo Server and Apollo Client. Apollo Client, for instance - my co-worker on that, the lead architect on the project, Ben, rewrote all of Apollo Client, basically, for a huge 3.0 release that changed a lot of how we were doing caching on the frontend. It used to be a little bit more of a manual thing; now you can declare things a little bit more declaratively, and it's very nice... So that's sort of where our focus has been. Less on, I would say, pushing the GraphQL spec to certain places and more on making sure that if you wanna work with GraphQL, we're still giving you the best experience possible.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[43:09\] Yeah, it's very much like a Ferrari experience, I would say, Apollo Client. It's like, lots is in there. I mean, my only feedback to you all would be consider breaking it apart; doing the Lodash thing and letting people import certain modules... Because I think people don't use all of it, and then there's just a lot of bloat sometimes, if you're trying to be conservative with your bundle size. That's my only gripe with it, but... It's pretty impressive.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** There was some work done on that in 3.0. You can import specific things in 3.0 and leave a bunch of stuff out...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Nice.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** But I know that Ben has future ideas. Ben always has future ideas, so it's not surprising.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Send Ben flowers...
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Oh yeah, send Ben all the things, because he worked basically alone on that for a long time, and did incredible work on it, and cares very much about the end user's experience... He's fantastic.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, we're still on a 2.something variant of Apollo Client at home, and everytime I try to figure something out, I go to the docs and I'm like "Oh, this would be easy if we were on 3..."
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** It would be easy if you were on 3, that's correct. That's all the work Ben did, yup.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Gotta figure out what that migration looks like.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Yeah. Admittedly, it's not the easiest migration path, because so much did change... But 3.0 is such a nice experience. It's really, really great.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Alright. Anything else you wanna let folks know about or leave the audience with before we wrap up?
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** I don't know, try out GraphQL. If you've never experienced it, at least set up a side project, see what it's like. Check it out. Maybe move to a company that uses it.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Amal, are you using GraphQL at work?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I am, yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Okay. And your company is...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Indigo Ag.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Okay. So yeah, you could go work at Indigo, come work at Humu... Don't go work with Feross. It sounds like that's not gonna happen for a little while... \[laughter\]
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Or go work with Apollo.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** You can come work at Apollo. We do have open RECs. We're definitely growing. So come hang out.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. You get to work with Ben, and Jenn. Their names rhyme...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And it's an open source project, so if you can't get paid for it right now, you could still dig into the code, submit a PR... Learn about it.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Yeah. If you want to contribute to an Apollo project, by the way, the one that I would say is the easiest to get started with is the Apollo Client DevTools project. That one is more similar to like a React application you would know, but you're still getting some GraphQL experience.
+
+Apollo Client as an open source project is really difficult to dig into... So by all means, do it, but just know that your contributions - it might take you a while to get one in the system.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Awesome. Well, thank you so much for joining us today, Jenn. This has been fun.
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Thank you for having me.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I am renewed in terms of energy to go and try to do a migration from Apollo 2 to Apollo 3... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jenn Creighton:** Nice!
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Awesome. Well, thank you, Feross, thank you, Amal... And that has been this week's JS Party. Catch us again next week, and every week. If you're not listening to this live, you can listen live, Thursdays 10 o'clock Pacific, AM not PM, as noted. I'll be asleep by 10 PM. I hope to see you next time.
+
+Alright, take care, y'all. This is Kball, signing out!
+
+**Outro:** \[46:30\]
+
+**Horse JS:** Hey, JS buds. I know lots of you have had some "moments".
diff --git "a/Blasting off with Apollo \360\237\232\200_transcript.txt" "b/Blasting off with Apollo \360\237\232\200_transcript.txt"
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7238ff4cfd617e48da98886488cc5bafb486cb37
--- /dev/null
+++ "b/Blasting off with Apollo \360\237\232\200_transcript.txt"	
@@ -0,0 +1,848 @@
+[0.00 --> 4.12]  If you're dying to work with like a certain technology, I see nothing wrong with hopping
+[4.12 --> 5.50]  to a job that has it.
+[5.66 --> 7.06]  I wanted to work with GraphQL.
+[7.60 --> 9.22]  So I joined Apollo, right?
+[9.24 --> 12.18]  I didn't think I was going to get to use it at any of my other companies.
+[12.30 --> 13.24]  Straight from the source.
+[13.86 --> 14.22]  Yeah.
+[14.72 --> 15.48]  You're like, I'm not messing around.
+[15.48 --> 16.58]  Drink it straight from the well.
+[16.82 --> 17.78]  Like, just give it to me.
+[17.78 --> 19.06]  You know?
+[19.58 --> 19.94]  Nice.
+[22.34 --> 24.96]  Big thanks to our partners, Linode Fastly and LaunchDarkly.
+[25.32 --> 25.88]  We love Linode.
+[25.96 --> 27.38]  They keep it fast and simple.
+[27.50 --> 29.86]  Check them out at linode.com slash changelog.
+[30.16 --> 32.16]  Our bandwidth is provided by Fastly.
+[32.50 --> 36.06]  Learn more at Fastly.com and get your feature flags powered by LaunchDarkly.
+[36.32 --> 38.06]  Get a demo at LaunchDarkly.com.
+[40.98 --> 43.54]  This episode is brought to you by our friends at O'Reilly.
+[43.54 --> 47.56]  Many of you know O'Reilly for their animal tech books and their conferences, but you may
+[47.56 --> 50.02]  not know they have an online learning platform as well.
+[50.40 --> 54.82]  The platform has all their books, all their videos, and all their conference talks.
+[55.18 --> 59.38]  Plus, you can learn by doing with live online training courses and virtual conferences,
+[59.38 --> 64.90]  certification practice exams, and interactive sandboxes and scenarios to practice coding
+[64.90 --> 65.96]  alongside what you're learning.
+[65.96 --> 71.80]  They cover a ton of technology topics, machine learning, AI, programming languages, DevOps,
+[72.30 --> 78.48]  data science, cloud, containers, security, and even soft skills like business management
+[78.48 --> 79.92]  and presentation skills.
+[80.04 --> 81.82]  You name it, it is all in there.
+[81.82 --> 85.76]  If you need to keep your team or yourself up to speed on their tech skills, then check
+[85.76 --> 87.32]  out O'Reilly's online learning platform.
+[87.82 --> 91.38]  Learn more and keep your team skills sharp at O'Reilly.com slash changelog.
+[91.52 --> 93.78]  Again, O'Reilly.com slash changelog.
+[93.78 --> 106.74]  This is JS Party, your weekly celebration of JavaScript and the web.
+[106.88 --> 110.88]  If you haven't joined the JS Party community yet, what are you waiting for?
+[111.02 --> 115.98]  It's a fun and welcoming place where you can discuss web dev, ask questions, get notified
+[115.98 --> 119.38]  of live shows, and help make the podcast even more awesome.
+[119.38 --> 123.90]  Just head to jsparty.fm slash community and sign up today.
+[124.34 --> 125.54]  Okay, let's get into it.
+[125.58 --> 127.12]  Hey, it's party time, y'all.
+[137.06 --> 142.16]  Hello, JS Party people, and welcome to this week's JS Party.
+[142.36 --> 142.94]  I'm K-Ball.
+[143.02 --> 144.60]  I will be your emcee this week.
+[144.72 --> 148.38]  I am joined both by some of my favorite panelists.
+[148.38 --> 150.72]  They're all my favorites who I have not seen in a little while.
+[151.04 --> 154.12]  Let me welcome them first and then introduce you to our amazing guests.
+[154.22 --> 156.50]  So first off, welcome, Amel.
+[156.86 --> 157.60]  How are you doing?
+[158.00 --> 158.58]  Hey, everyone.
+[158.92 --> 159.50]  And Feras.
+[159.92 --> 162.30]  Long time no see, but I'm so excited to have you on.
+[162.54 --> 162.78]  Same.
+[163.04 --> 163.72]  Excited to be here.
+[163.94 --> 166.64]  Next, let me introduce our guest for the week.
+[166.76 --> 170.54]  We have a special guest today introducing Jen Creighton.
+[170.68 --> 171.16]  Jen, hello.
+[171.58 --> 172.02]  Hi.
+[172.26 --> 173.00]  Hi, everyone.
+[173.38 --> 174.08]  I'm glad to be here.
+[174.30 --> 174.60]  Awesome.
+[174.60 --> 179.00]  So let's actually get started a little bit with exploring who you are, Jen.
+[179.08 --> 182.18]  Do you want to give us the quick, you know, Jen Creighton in 30 seconds?
+[182.44 --> 183.76]  The too long don't read.
+[184.22 --> 191.16]  I am a open source engineer at Apollo GraphQL, working very specifically on Apollo Client.
+[191.94 --> 194.66]  And that's pretty much my life right now.
+[194.76 --> 197.14]  I work in open source and that has consumed me.
+[197.32 --> 199.98]  I have pink hair, pretty much enjoying that.
+[199.98 --> 205.38]  Oh, and I also run my own podcast called Single Threaded that just wrapped up its first little
+[205.38 --> 206.00]  mini season.
+[206.38 --> 206.52]  Awesome.
+[206.86 --> 207.98]  I love the hair, by the way.
+[208.00 --> 208.56]  It looks great.
+[208.86 --> 213.90]  And if anybody is listening but not looking, check out the YouTube stream of this.
+[214.10 --> 219.84]  You can see it's matching Amel's typical looks, though Amel is not overshadowing Jen today.
+[220.06 --> 220.82]  She's got to cover that.
+[221.34 --> 221.64]  Awesome.
+[221.78 --> 227.04]  So I know a lot of folks are interested in this idea of working in open source.
+[227.16 --> 229.62]  Do you want to actually talk a little bit about how you got into that?
+[229.62 --> 237.28]  Yes, I kind of fell into it by accident, which is to say that I was already working with open
+[237.28 --> 239.08]  source technologies at my job.
+[239.64 --> 248.34]  I worked with React for, I don't know, five, six years and started to decide that I wanted
+[248.34 --> 254.56]  to speak at events about React and sort of brought myself into open source that way.
+[254.72 --> 259.24]  And also occasionally you could like find me in the middle of the night, kind of like scrolling
+[259.24 --> 261.98]  through the React code base, trying to understand how things worked.
+[262.08 --> 265.52]  I was just curious about what was going on.
+[266.12 --> 269.10]  And then Apollo reached out to me with this opportunity.
+[269.10 --> 271.24]  And I was like, yeah, getting paid to do open source.
+[271.86 --> 273.26]  Okay, yeah, I'm going to try that out.
+[273.30 --> 274.64]  I'm going to see what that is like.
+[275.08 --> 276.10]  It's a wild ride.
+[276.10 --> 281.20]  That's a whole new thing from product engineering.
+[281.88 --> 282.90]  Absolutely, absolutely.
+[283.08 --> 287.62]  So then in that context, are you primarily doing coding?
+[287.76 --> 288.84]  Are you managing community?
+[289.00 --> 293.60]  Like I know when I was paid to work on open source, there was like a whole lot of things
+[293.60 --> 297.58]  that maybe I hadn't even thought about as part of engineering prior to getting involved.
+[297.58 --> 305.88]  My time right now is mostly in the actual code base, looking through issues, checking out
+[305.88 --> 310.58]  reproductions, figuring out what we actually should be fixing, which is sometimes not the
+[310.58 --> 313.76]  thing that people ask you to do in the issues.
+[314.00 --> 316.88]  So those types of things, as well as like working on new features.
+[317.38 --> 324.20]  I do some community work still, like I just hosted Apollo GraphQL Summit with my coworker,
+[324.28 --> 324.48]  Ellen.
+[324.48 --> 332.74]  And we both tag team that and occasionally like in other respects have to do like events
+[332.74 --> 337.60]  like that or answer community questions or be available for those types of things.
+[337.60 --> 338.86]  So it's a mix of both.
+[338.86 --> 343.10]  It's like really daunting, I think, about doing your work in the open.
+[343.88 --> 348.38]  And there's also something super liberating at the same time, you know, because it's like,
+[348.88 --> 350.82]  hey, you know, nothing to forget.
+[350.82 --> 356.38]  But there's this trail of easy access, I think, which, you know, is very liberating and can
+[356.38 --> 359.46]  be very productive because you're able to like work with people across lots of different
+[359.46 --> 359.86]  boundaries.
+[360.40 --> 365.88]  But yeah, I mean, the transition of I think doing open source work, you know, full time,
+[365.98 --> 367.68]  that's got to be pretty, pretty fun.
+[367.90 --> 370.34]  Yeah, there's no hiding your code.
+[370.76 --> 374.14]  Like if you really want someone not to see it, you can't push it up.
+[374.26 --> 375.18]  I think that's the rule.
+[375.72 --> 378.04]  If you're not ready for anyone to look at it, don't push it up.
+[378.04 --> 379.46]  But like, that's all you got.
+[379.72 --> 380.00]  Absolutely.
+[380.22 --> 383.06]  For us, you've done a lot of your work in the open source world as well, right?
+[383.50 --> 383.70]  Mm hmm.
+[384.58 --> 384.84]  Yep.
+[385.08 --> 388.08]  Pretty much most of my code is is online.
+[388.56 --> 390.22]  And I remember feeling the same way at first.
+[390.68 --> 394.02]  Actually, I remember getting interested in open source also kind of in a similar vein
+[394.02 --> 398.06]  to Jen with but it was jQuery that I got really interested in.
+[398.06 --> 405.82]  And I like remember watching some videos on YouTube where Paul Irish was explaining things
+[405.82 --> 408.52]  that he learned from reading the jQuery code base.
+[409.24 --> 413.52]  And I remember after I saw that, I was like, wow, this is like peeling behind, you know,
+[413.58 --> 415.34]  like to see how the sausage is made.
+[415.38 --> 416.16]  And it was really cool.
+[416.34 --> 420.46]  And then I wanted to be, you know, cool enough to to do open source, too.
+[420.72 --> 423.20]  That was kind of how how I got started.
+[423.26 --> 425.66]  So it's it totally sounds familiar.
+[425.66 --> 431.40]  Oh, yeah, I actually remember Paul Irish, like going through the jQuery source code
+[431.40 --> 433.82]  and explaining why things work the way they did.
+[433.94 --> 435.24]  And that was really cool.
+[435.60 --> 437.08]  Yeah, so many browser hacks.
+[437.38 --> 439.36]  And like, but there was like a reason for everything.
+[439.36 --> 445.26]  It was like nice to actually know why you were seeing all these like arcane spells kind of
+[445.26 --> 446.82]  yeah, just explaining how the stuff works.
+[446.96 --> 447.96]  That's a random tangent.
+[447.96 --> 450.18]  But I love the metaphor of software is magic.
+[450.18 --> 455.18]  You know, it's it's got all of the same things of like bizarre incantations,
+[455.18 --> 458.54]  very strange lines between what is easy and what is hard.
+[458.80 --> 463.68]  And like, I don't know, the only question in my mind is, is it better represented as black
+[463.68 --> 465.98]  magic or just magic in general?
+[465.98 --> 472.90]  I think of it as there's some shows that have magic in them, but they take a scientific
+[472.90 --> 478.62]  approach to it where they're like, actually, this is all about just manipulating like molecules
+[478.62 --> 480.94]  depending on like how you do X, Y, and Z.
+[481.18 --> 487.18]  So it's not magic in this like sense of like an unknown, how it's working, you actually do
+[487.18 --> 488.02]  know how it's working.
+[488.64 --> 491.10]  And that is like really close to like code.
+[491.20 --> 495.64]  Because if you really fundamentally like break it down to the smallest possible unit, you're
+[495.64 --> 497.28]  going to figure out like how the code works.
+[497.28 --> 500.40]  It's not ultimately like something you can't understand.
+[500.62 --> 502.32]  But yeah, I love code as magic, too.
+[502.80 --> 503.18]  Totally agree.
+[503.18 --> 508.14]  The best magic systems have their internal logic, and it's totally sealed up and it works
+[508.14 --> 511.46]  and is bizarre if you don't understand that internal.
+[512.24 --> 516.72]  One thing I've learned from peering through the React code base is a lot about scheduling,
+[517.38 --> 517.60]  you know?
+[517.66 --> 521.80]  So I think it's interesting how like different libraries, like they have their own little
+[521.80 --> 523.72]  hard problems that they're trying to solve.
+[523.80 --> 528.14]  And it's like, you really want to learn about complex scheduling with just JavaScript.
+[528.14 --> 536.48]  You know, go look in the React code base, you know, lots of, you know, request idle callbacks
+[536.48 --> 540.18]  and more, you know, so it's fun.
+[540.56 --> 546.20]  So let's move a little bit more into specifically Apollo, because it's something that I know,
+[546.28 --> 549.50]  you know, GraphQL in general has exploded in popularity.
+[549.60 --> 551.78]  And it's something we've talked about a little bit here.
+[552.18 --> 556.30]  Apollo seems to be the front runner of that movement in a lot of ways, but I don't think
+[556.30 --> 557.34]  we've dug deep into it.
+[557.34 --> 562.36]  So can you kind of flesh out for us, just starting with like, what is Apollo?
+[562.50 --> 566.42]  Like when you say, I work in Apollo, like there's so many things that could mean.
+[566.74 --> 567.90]  What do you think of?
+[568.14 --> 568.26]  Right.
+[568.54 --> 575.26]  I mean, for me, I tend to like, if I'm talking to an engineer, I caveat with like, I work on
+[575.26 --> 576.36]  Apollo client.
+[576.54 --> 579.88]  So I work on like the web caching system.
+[579.88 --> 581.12]  Like that's what I work on.
+[581.38 --> 585.34]  Because there are so many different things that Apollo does in this space.
+[585.34 --> 593.42]  Like from your server to your client to the paid products that we offer for you to handle
+[593.42 --> 595.64]  your schema and federation.
+[596.04 --> 598.80]  There's just a whole host of things that we do.
+[598.90 --> 603.06]  We just like our like a full service, like GraphQL, like front runner.
+[603.28 --> 608.46]  If you're working with GraphQL and you want to make it like easy on your engineers, you tend
+[608.46 --> 609.24]  to go with Apollo.
+[609.24 --> 610.04]  That makes sense.
+[610.10 --> 612.80]  So you're involved specifically with the client.
+[613.28 --> 613.54]  Yes.
+[613.78 --> 617.24]  And is that co-owned with the dev tools or those are separate?
+[617.50 --> 620.16]  When you say the dev tools, do you mean the Chrome extension?
+[620.56 --> 620.72]  Yeah.
+[620.94 --> 621.20]  Yeah.
+[621.34 --> 627.24]  My first project at Apollo was to completely rewrite those dev tools, which I had never
+[627.24 --> 631.18]  written a Chrome browser extension before.
+[631.18 --> 633.58]  And, oh, that's not fun.
+[633.96 --> 635.16]  That's not a fun time.
+[635.40 --> 638.08]  That's a system that feels terrible to work in.
+[638.36 --> 639.82]  Do you want to expound on that a little bit?
+[641.68 --> 647.64]  Because I mean, both the beauty and the pain of browser extensions today is they're all web
+[647.64 --> 648.28]  technologies.
+[648.58 --> 648.80]  Right.
+[649.18 --> 653.08]  But with obscure APIs and permissions that you have to have in mind.
+[653.08 --> 653.76]  Yeah.
+[653.94 --> 659.52]  So ultimately, if you're using the dev tools, which are on Chrome and Firefox, you're ultimately
+[659.52 --> 661.54]  using a React application.
+[661.78 --> 665.10]  Like that's all built as a simple React web application.
+[665.80 --> 669.92]  What's not simple about working with the browser extension is that you're dealing with
+[669.92 --> 671.18]  sandboxed environments.
+[672.04 --> 673.78]  And this makes sense for security reasons.
+[673.78 --> 677.46]  You can't just run any code you want on anyone's web page.
+[677.56 --> 681.24]  That's obviously very clearly a security concern.
+[681.24 --> 686.46]  So they sandbox all the environments and you have to push messages back and forth using
+[686.46 --> 694.38]  their API, which is not well documented, sometimes documented erroneously.
+[695.16 --> 698.04]  Sometimes they just straight up tell you things are available when they are not.
+[698.58 --> 702.50]  And you have to get, like you said, specific permissions to use specific things.
+[702.90 --> 708.48]  So if you want to interact with the tab system, you have to kind of put that on a list of saying,
+[708.48 --> 711.88]  I want to use the tab system and then you can use it.
+[712.04 --> 715.62]  And then like Chrome extensions always go through like a review process.
+[715.84 --> 718.66]  So it's like a very laborious process.
+[719.18 --> 724.92]  And you're just trying to deal with like passaging like messages back and forth all over the place.
+[725.22 --> 726.22]  It's kind of a nightmare.
+[726.46 --> 732.56]  Also, like once you get the thing like actually working, that doesn't mean that it's going to
+[732.56 --> 737.76]  work on everyone's browser with everyone's like system because you just never know what
+[737.76 --> 740.18]  they're dealing with on their end of their setup.
+[740.38 --> 743.86]  And so we just get like a lot of issues that are like, well, this doesn't work.
+[744.10 --> 748.32]  I need to know a little bit more about your setup to fix that for you.
+[748.80 --> 749.96]  I will fix it for you.
+[750.08 --> 752.40]  But you've got to tell me more than it just doesn't work.
+[752.40 --> 759.44]  I feel like anytime software at scale is outside of the standards process, you know, just gets
+[759.44 --> 761.10]  into this, I don't know, weird world.
+[761.42 --> 768.68]  But I feel like browser extensions are so due for just better standardization so that so
+[768.68 --> 770.02]  developers don't go insane.
+[770.44 --> 772.20]  Oh, but it's so much better than it used to be.
+[772.28 --> 772.50]  Yeah.
+[772.90 --> 773.72]  I believe you.
+[773.72 --> 779.44]  Like the Chrome extensions were just this massive step forward from back when like you
+[779.44 --> 784.08]  Firefox extensions where you're coding stuff in like XML things and.
+[784.54 --> 785.06]  Oh, my God.
+[785.14 --> 787.28]  Yeah, it was a disaster.
+[787.60 --> 791.10]  But yeah, I do recall it's been a few years, so it may have changed.
+[791.18 --> 795.64]  But I do recall build spending a very large amount of the time I spent on browser extensions
+[795.64 --> 800.56]  in building abstraction layers on top of the message passing so that I could deal with all
+[800.56 --> 805.84]  the different various ways that that interacted with permissions and was different in different
+[805.84 --> 806.22]  ways.
+[806.34 --> 810.22]  Yeah, that was the first thing I had to do was I had to like build an abstraction that
+[810.22 --> 814.76]  was going to clean up when messages were being passed and what they were being passed to.
+[815.32 --> 823.16]  And there's some historical way that you build certain things in the extensions where they call
+[823.16 --> 824.76]  things a background page.
+[825.24 --> 829.34]  But also you would have like these aren't in the docs, by the way, it's just like a back
+[829.34 --> 831.54]  end system that's not a back end.
+[831.80 --> 833.88]  And it never made sense.
+[834.08 --> 839.20]  And so I just kind of redid it all so that like older structures actually, as it turns
+[839.20 --> 840.32]  out, like kind of matter.
+[840.52 --> 845.02]  And so putting everything that actually lives in the tab space under the tab folder actually
+[845.02 --> 848.46]  makes sense as opposed to everything that lives in the dev tools space, as opposed to
+[848.46 --> 849.98]  everything that actually does live in the background.
+[849.98 --> 853.28]  Like turns out that's helpful for your mental model.
+[859.34 --> 875.22]  What up party people?
+[875.34 --> 879.24]  If you want to know what's happening with your code, track errors and monitor your app's performance
+[879.24 --> 879.92]  with Sentry.
+[880.30 --> 884.00]  Build better software faster with Sentry's application monitoring platform.
+[884.00 --> 888.02]  Diagnose, fix, and optimize the performance of your code.
+[888.36 --> 891.26]  Cut your time on error resolution from hours to minutes.
+[891.58 --> 894.66]  It works with any language and integrates with dozens of services.
+[895.10 --> 899.14]  Over 1 million developers and 68,000 organizations already use Sentry.
+[899.48 --> 903.28]  And best of all, JS Party listeners new to Sentry get the team plan for free for three months.
+[903.28 --> 907.26]  Head to Sentry.io to get started and use the code PARTYTIME when you sign up.
+[907.48 --> 912.50]  Again, Sentry.io and use the code PARTYTIME because, hey, it's PARTYTIME, y'all.
+[914.00 --> 943.86]  So let's hop back into things.
+[944.00 --> 946.02]  And talk about Apollo Client.
+[946.52 --> 950.32]  Jen, can you explain a little bit, like, what is the role that the client plays?
+[950.38 --> 954.32]  If I'm somebody coming in who doesn't know anything about the GraphQL ecosystem, like,
+[954.42 --> 957.86]  where should I put this in my mental map of how I'm going to start using this thing?
+[957.86 --> 965.58]  If you've ever built application with React and Redux, you would swap out Redux for Apollo
+[965.58 --> 967.68]  Client when you're working with GraphQL.
+[967.68 --> 975.90]  Apollo Client is just made to work with caching your GraphQL responses on the front end and allowing
+[975.90 --> 978.70]  you to do things on the front end with those GraphQL responses.
+[979.06 --> 983.70]  That would be really difficult for you to do with another library.
+[983.70 --> 990.26]  Because your data is now in a graph model, you actually need a caching strategy that understands
+[990.26 --> 993.08]  that it's a graph model and how to store those things properly.
+[993.26 --> 994.18]  So that's what we do.
+[994.34 --> 994.54]  Got it.
+[994.60 --> 998.54]  Well, and that actually fits, interestingly, with this idea of GraphQL as an evolution of
+[998.54 --> 999.22]  state management.
+[1000.08 --> 1003.58]  It's kind of like, on the front end, we've gone through this evolution of how we think about
+[1003.58 --> 1009.00]  state and looking at state in terms of, you know, does it make sense to be down in the
+[1009.00 --> 1012.62]  component versus some sort of centralized state manager and all these different pieces.
+[1012.80 --> 1018.08]  And GraphQL, in some ways, is like, or at least I think of it as extending that state
+[1018.08 --> 1023.68]  model in a way that sort of maps to our back end representation a little bit more.
+[1024.28 --> 1028.86]  So that we've got a unified state model for the communication between back end and front
+[1028.86 --> 1029.02]  end.
+[1029.20 --> 1031.64]  We don't have to do that mapping all in our front end.
+[1031.64 --> 1033.44]  See if anyone else wants to jump in.
+[1033.52 --> 1034.60]  You can also ask questions.
+[1034.90 --> 1035.06]  Yeah.
+[1035.22 --> 1040.82]  There's this shift, I think, that was made with GraphQL that I consider it to be like
+[1040.82 --> 1045.18]  very much of a milestone, noteworthy kind of shift, right?
+[1045.20 --> 1046.86]  It's pretty pivotal, right?
+[1046.90 --> 1048.04]  Where folks were like, you know what?
+[1048.12 --> 1049.40]  Rest, like we're done with you.
+[1049.82 --> 1051.42]  You don't actually work for the new world.
+[1051.94 --> 1056.88]  You know, these like tiny devices and like all these different screens and contexts that we
+[1056.88 --> 1057.58]  need to support.
+[1057.58 --> 1062.56]  We're like, you know, can't be making all these API calls to stitch this data together
+[1062.56 --> 1063.68]  in my clients.
+[1063.90 --> 1067.90]  And I can't support different versions of APIs for mobile, you know?
+[1068.08 --> 1070.10]  Like been really interesting to watch that shift.
+[1070.10 --> 1075.60]  And then I think like to see this evolution with Apollo and like the services around this
+[1075.60 --> 1076.20]  like world.
+[1076.20 --> 1081.90]  What's it like to like have this kind of open source standard and really kind of be this
+[1081.90 --> 1086.32]  like lead, you know, the lead implementation of the standard.
+[1086.50 --> 1091.02]  But y'all are doing so much more than just, you know, providing clients.
+[1091.02 --> 1092.54]  It's just like a full service.
+[1092.92 --> 1093.86]  There's a lot to manage.
+[1093.86 --> 1099.02]  Like I'm curious, what's that like that ecosystem of Apollo things that's growing?
+[1099.02 --> 1104.88]  It's really interesting because you could see it as the leaders of Apollo sort of saw
+[1104.88 --> 1108.78]  that GraphQL was a good use case and they should jump on board and create some things
+[1108.78 --> 1110.62]  around it and build a company about it.
+[1111.34 --> 1115.84]  But the truth is like at the very, very top, they just very deeply believe that GraphQL
+[1115.84 --> 1118.26]  is a really great technology.
+[1118.46 --> 1124.92]  And they wanted to make working with it something that companies could adopt more easily.
+[1124.92 --> 1131.42]  GraphQL, while it is very popular in concept, isn't actually adopted in a lot of places yet.
+[1131.56 --> 1133.70]  A lot of places are still using REST APIs.
+[1133.98 --> 1137.38]  And in some cases, that's like what you should be doing.
+[1137.48 --> 1138.14]  That's fine.
+[1138.62 --> 1144.62]  But if your data actually needs to act as a graph, you are well served by GraphQL for obvious
+[1144.62 --> 1151.32]  reasons, as well as if you have this problem that you just mentioned of your clients needing
+[1151.32 --> 1157.72]  different things at different times, turns out being able to push that onto the client
+[1157.72 --> 1162.56]  team to decide what they're actually going to pull out of your graph is a really great
+[1162.56 --> 1168.94]  idea and really helpful and really lovely to work with, as well as a strong typing system,
+[1168.94 --> 1172.80]  as well as just like looking more declarative in what you're getting.
+[1173.10 --> 1178.70]  My biggest pain as a front-end engineer was always figuring out what the REST API was actually
+[1178.70 --> 1180.88]  doing and why it was giving me things.
+[1181.46 --> 1184.74]  And with GraphQL, you can even just like say like, hey, by the way, this field's deprecated.
+[1185.18 --> 1190.02]  Like that's a wild concept to me as a front-end engineer that I could like be like, oh, I can
+[1190.02 --> 1193.66]  look at this and just tell that it's deprecated instead of a back-end engineer being like, oh,
+[1193.68 --> 1194.92]  no, you don't want to use that.
+[1195.00 --> 1199.14]  You actually want to use this other thing that we added later, which almost always happens.
+[1199.42 --> 1202.42]  And your tooling can tell you because it's declared.
+[1202.42 --> 1202.90]  Yes.
+[1204.02 --> 1208.58]  There's so much tooling you can do with GraphQL that it's just amazing.
+[1209.38 --> 1215.60]  So it's a space that's like very sort of rapidly evolving at Apollo about what we want to push
+[1215.60 --> 1220.64]  the graph to do, what we want companies to be able to do with their graph.
+[1220.76 --> 1223.98]  You get into this with Apollo Federation, which we can definitely talk about.
+[1224.04 --> 1224.80]  It's very cool.
+[1225.40 --> 1231.06]  And being at like a company that's at the forefront of that, you were on just like a wild roller
+[1231.06 --> 1231.74]  coaster ride.
+[1231.84 --> 1233.76]  It's like, you're just learning a lot.
+[1234.40 --> 1239.18]  I've learned so much in the past year at Apollo because to be honest, I wasn't working with
+[1239.18 --> 1240.46]  GraphQL before I joined the company.
+[1240.92 --> 1244.34]  And I had to really amp up all my knowledge about this in a year.
+[1244.74 --> 1248.16]  And still every day someone says something else that I'm like, oh, what?
+[1248.54 --> 1248.98]  What are we doing?
+[1249.20 --> 1249.84]  Why are we doing it?
+[1249.98 --> 1250.32]  Oh my God.
+[1250.44 --> 1250.60]  What?
+[1250.80 --> 1251.34]  You can do that?
+[1251.80 --> 1252.08]  It's great.
+[1252.08 --> 1256.30]  You're like the second person I know who's joined Apollo in the past year who didn't really
+[1256.30 --> 1257.00]  use GraphQL.
+[1257.00 --> 1262.12]  Well, like it's a trend that I think, you know, I love it that they're like recruiting
+[1262.12 --> 1266.48]  folks that are like, you know, not necessarily users.
+[1266.68 --> 1270.76]  Well, like I said, it's like popular in concept, but not fully adopted.
+[1270.92 --> 1275.24]  So if we didn't, we would be limiting our hiring pool, right?
+[1275.60 --> 1276.80]  You would not have hired me.
+[1277.14 --> 1278.80]  I'm a pretty damn good engineer.
+[1279.08 --> 1281.68]  Like that would have been a bad idea.
+[1281.76 --> 1283.82]  I can learn things like you can learn GraphQL.
+[1283.96 --> 1284.30]  It's cool.
+[1284.66 --> 1285.42]  You can learn on the job.
+[1285.42 --> 1288.16]  You're like, you're literally surrounded by experts at Apollo.
+[1288.32 --> 1291.50]  So it's just like, you can't help but learn it by osmosis even.
+[1291.90 --> 1292.90]  So I have a question about that.
+[1293.02 --> 1298.58]  The part about it being popular in concept, but less so in practice.
+[1298.98 --> 1301.00]  So why do you think that is?
+[1301.40 --> 1305.38]  And related to that, I guess I started a company recently and it's just me and one other engineer
+[1305.38 --> 1305.90]  right now.
+[1306.42 --> 1310.68]  And I'm wondering if like, it's too early for us to use something like GraphQL.
+[1311.28 --> 1314.36]  It sounds like the benefits are like coordination between different teams.
+[1314.36 --> 1316.74]  And like right now we don't really have different teams.
+[1316.86 --> 1319.32]  We just have the team of the two of us.
+[1319.80 --> 1320.00]  So yeah.
+[1320.00 --> 1324.36]  Is it like a thing that you actually see people using from the very beginning of their project?
+[1324.58 --> 1328.02]  I mean, I might imagine some people are, but like, is that advisable?
+[1328.22 --> 1332.72]  Is there, is there a lot of overhead or boilerplate, like extra things you need to do over like what
+[1332.72 --> 1339.02]  you would need to do to just, you know, quickly write like an express route for a rest endpoint,
+[1339.22 --> 1340.56]  you know, that you can do in a couple of lines?
+[1340.68 --> 1344.92]  Is that the reason why you think it's more that people like the idea or like, what are
+[1344.92 --> 1345.68]  your thoughts?
+[1346.10 --> 1350.10]  So GraphQL isn't like the newest thing on the block, right?
+[1350.16 --> 1351.20]  But it is newer.
+[1351.20 --> 1357.22]  And so people are still actually grasping the concept of like what GraphQL actually is.
+[1357.32 --> 1362.56]  And I remember when I learned about it the first time, I really didn't truly understand
+[1362.56 --> 1363.44]  what was going on.
+[1363.50 --> 1366.60]  It just seemed like going back to an earlier conversation, just magic.
+[1366.60 --> 1371.18]  And I didn't understand what was under the hood that was making it kind of work together.
+[1371.70 --> 1375.24]  And I was like, people just keep telling me, oh, you just use GraphQL and you can grab
+[1375.24 --> 1375.76]  whatever you want.
+[1375.82 --> 1376.56]  I was like, but how?
+[1376.92 --> 1377.48]  Please tell me.
+[1377.48 --> 1380.94]  Now that I have like a better conceptual like model about it that's different.
+[1381.06 --> 1385.62]  So one, like just wrapping your brain around like how different this is from hitting your
+[1385.62 --> 1386.78]  REST APIs.
+[1387.10 --> 1390.96]  And then two, like, have you ever tried to make like a change at an org after things had
+[1390.96 --> 1391.30]  been built?
+[1391.40 --> 1392.22]  Like it's hard.
+[1392.76 --> 1398.64]  So if GraphQL is like of interest to you, and I worked at multiple companies that the
+[1398.64 --> 1405.52]  engineering team wanted to adopt GraphQL, but figuring out how to do it and how to get
+[1405.52 --> 1410.04]  everyone on board with what we were going to do was really difficult.
+[1410.60 --> 1412.58]  And that was at a startup size.
+[1412.64 --> 1416.84]  So I imagine at a larger org, it's even more difficult to do.
+[1417.22 --> 1422.22]  I would say if you want to like spin up an express API real quick and have some data versus
+[1422.22 --> 1423.46]  like invest in GraphQL.
+[1424.10 --> 1425.02]  Okay, that's fine.
+[1425.26 --> 1425.82]  Like, it's cool.
+[1425.94 --> 1428.04]  It really just depends on your trade-offs.
+[1428.16 --> 1432.82]  And if you early on have like a really great use case for the fact that your data is going
+[1432.82 --> 1437.38]  to be really graph heavy, yeah, you probably should just go ahead and early.
+[1437.48 --> 1441.42]  But if you don't, okay, build your express API.
+[1441.62 --> 1445.56]  Maybe try out like GraphQL at some point and see if it like gives you anything that you really
+[1445.56 --> 1445.90]  want.
+[1445.98 --> 1448.26]  I mean, it does have like some really nice features to it.
+[1448.34 --> 1453.32]  But by no means does everyone have to like adopt GraphQL at all times.
+[1453.32 --> 1456.52]  Like not even I think other people at Apollo like believe this.
+[1456.80 --> 1461.48]  To jump in a little bit on some of those trade-offs, some of the things that we found at
+[1461.48 --> 1465.46]  Humu where I'm working where we are using GraphQL, but we do have some REST endpoints
+[1465.46 --> 1465.90]  as well.
+[1466.42 --> 1472.52]  So on the drawback side, partly because of our setup, but partly also just because of
+[1472.52 --> 1474.56]  how GraphQL is, there's more boilerplate to set up.
+[1474.76 --> 1476.48]  There's more things that you have to declare.
+[1476.62 --> 1477.96]  There's more stuff that you put out there.
+[1478.42 --> 1482.38]  And so if you're setting something up quick and dirty, you're setting things up like it
+[1482.38 --> 1484.50]  is more work to set up the GraphQL side of it.
+[1484.50 --> 1489.88]  That being said, some of the things you get from it are one, you get end-to-end typing,
+[1490.22 --> 1495.86]  which if you're working all in TypeScript front to back, you may already have some of
+[1495.86 --> 1496.12]  that.
+[1496.28 --> 1500.20]  We have Python on our back end and TypeScript on the front end.
+[1500.28 --> 1505.10]  And so having end-to-end typing across languages in that way, just out of the box is beautiful
+[1505.10 --> 1506.74]  and works really well.
+[1506.98 --> 1512.32]  Another thing that you get that I didn't really appreciate until it had shown up a time or two
+[1512.32 --> 1516.64]  is how reusable it makes the APIs that you build.
+[1517.32 --> 1522.38]  I used to actually think REST APIs, if you do them really well, they're reusable too.
+[1523.24 --> 1527.50]  And that turns out to not actually be as true as I thought it was.
+[1527.78 --> 1534.72]  And in the sense that usually when you start using a REST API in a new situation, especially
+[1534.72 --> 1538.06]  if you're developing it fast, like you didn't do a big, long API design, but you're just
+[1538.06 --> 1538.84]  developing fast.
+[1538.98 --> 1542.22]  You're going to have to come back and rethink about how you set it up so that you can
+[1542.22 --> 1544.80]  it now works properly in all of your situations.
+[1545.50 --> 1550.00]  Whereas with GraphQL, that's what some of that boilerplate is doing is you're declaring
+[1550.00 --> 1555.84]  exactly what there is up front and people can pick and choose, oh, I want this piece of
+[1555.84 --> 1555.94]  it.
+[1555.98 --> 1556.80]  I want that piece of it.
+[1556.86 --> 1557.52]  I want to do this.
+[1557.66 --> 1562.74]  And so I've found that even though conceptually REST APIs seem to be like they should be as
+[1562.74 --> 1568.34]  reusable, practically speaking, anytime we've built it in GraphQL, it ends up being far easier
+[1568.34 --> 1571.30]  to reuse in new ways in our front end.
+[1571.62 --> 1572.16]  Yeah, definitely.
+[1572.16 --> 1576.54]  When you're setting up GraphQL, the thing you have to do that you can just kind of like
+[1576.54 --> 1580.52]  wild, wild west with other things is like you have to design a schema.
+[1580.94 --> 1584.60]  You have to actually design a schema and tell like what's available.
+[1584.60 --> 1587.76]  And schema designs like its own whole thing.
+[1587.88 --> 1592.48]  But I think you get a lot of value out of it because it is also besides the typings, it's
+[1592.48 --> 1595.54]  like documentation being written for you.
+[1595.86 --> 1600.76]  That other words, you would have to do extra work to be documenting these things and keeping
+[1600.76 --> 1601.52]  them up to date.
+[1601.80 --> 1604.06]  You don't have that issue with GraphQL.
+[1604.48 --> 1606.58]  Your schema keeps everything up to date for you.
+[1606.86 --> 1606.88]  Yeah.
+[1606.94 --> 1610.70]  And you can start reusing those types that you've created in other places, right?
+[1610.70 --> 1615.58]  If it's an entity in your system by putting it in a GraphQL schema, now it's an entity
+[1615.58 --> 1616.28]  in your API.
+[1616.46 --> 1621.68]  And if you want to have a new entity that happens to reference this old entity, it's super easy
+[1621.68 --> 1622.06]  to do.
+[1622.32 --> 1625.94]  Yeah, I have to say the TypeScript GraphQL story is pretty beautiful.
+[1626.28 --> 1629.38]  And I'm saying that as somebody who's still a little grumpy about TypeScript.
+[1629.76 --> 1631.84]  So that's a lot coming from me.
+[1631.96 --> 1632.28]  I know.
+[1632.48 --> 1632.88]  I know.
+[1633.02 --> 1633.30]  Same.
+[1633.74 --> 1639.18]  But I would say like, you know, on the GraphQL piece, I think my kind of critique,
+[1639.18 --> 1643.84]  and this isn't like specific critique of the tool, it's more kind of maybe of the
+[1643.84 --> 1645.56]  hive culture around JavaScript.
+[1645.92 --> 1650.36]  It's, you know, you see folks needing to like, there's kind of misconception around
+[1650.36 --> 1652.16]  like basic stack, right?
+[1652.20 --> 1656.44]  And like, I would say GraphQL definitely is not part of your basic stack, right?
+[1656.46 --> 1661.52]  Like it's very much a conscious decision that you bring into your application because you
+[1661.52 --> 1664.74]  have a use case for it, you know, and it solves a problem for you.
+[1664.74 --> 1669.10]  And one of the things that, you know, you just, there's a lot of hidden cost and maintenance,
+[1669.32 --> 1672.32]  you know, with adopting every new tool, but especially GraphQL, right?
+[1672.42 --> 1677.72]  So the hype thing is what's weird for me, because you see people using it to power their blogs
+[1677.72 --> 1681.80]  or very, very simple websites with, you know, just, you know, you're putting it in front
+[1681.80 --> 1683.20]  of like one or two REST APIs.
+[1683.20 --> 1685.26]  And like, is that really necessary?
+[1685.58 --> 1690.48]  You know, so just weigh your trade-offs, kids, you know, before adopting.
+[1690.48 --> 1693.04]  That's all like, you know.
+[1693.22 --> 1700.24]  That is also like 100% how I feel about TypeScript or people using React for something that like,
+[1700.34 --> 1704.52]  I'm like, but you could have just written the HTML yourself.
+[1704.84 --> 1706.52]  Why are you doing this?
+[1706.58 --> 1709.78]  Or basic templating, like language or something.
+[1710.26 --> 1711.34]  Yeah, I'm with you.
+[1711.52 --> 1715.08]  I mean, you know, I think, you know, we have a lot of biases engineers and that bias tends
+[1715.08 --> 1719.20]  to skew towards over-engineering and, you know.
+[1719.34 --> 1719.96]  And shiny.
+[1720.20 --> 1721.66]  And shiny new, right.
+[1722.40 --> 1722.60]  Yeah.
+[1722.74 --> 1723.12]  We love it.
+[1723.14 --> 1726.60]  We're all raccoons going towards shiny new things.
+[1726.62 --> 1730.46]  But if only we could get that fix out of the way somewhere safe, you know, like there's
+[1730.46 --> 1734.02]  these shopping websites where, you know, you can put a bunch of stuff in your cart and
+[1734.02 --> 1738.60]  then like even put in like a fake or real credit card and then, you know, it goes nowhere.
+[1739.12 --> 1740.88]  You know, if only we had that equivalent.
+[1740.88 --> 1748.78]  I do believe that's what they use the side projects for these days.
+[1748.80 --> 1749.32]  Oh, yeah, yeah.
+[1749.36 --> 1753.68]  I was going to say, I was going to say, I thought that was what engineering blogs are
+[1753.68 --> 1753.94]  for.
+[1754.12 --> 1754.90]  Yeah, that's true.
+[1755.76 --> 1758.96]  Nick's blog that he keeps rebuilding and rebuilding and never publishing.
+[1759.26 --> 1759.48]  Right.
+[1759.68 --> 1761.22]  That's totally fair, you know.
+[1761.34 --> 1765.48]  So just side project your fix for complexity.
+[1765.80 --> 1770.12]  Or like if you're dying to work with like a certain technology, I see nothing wrong with
+[1770.12 --> 1772.08]  like hop into a job that has it.
+[1772.28 --> 1774.72]  Like I wanted to work with GraphQL.
+[1775.50 --> 1777.64]  Like so I joined Apollo, right?
+[1777.66 --> 1780.60]  I didn't think I was going to get to use it at any of my other companies.
+[1780.92 --> 1781.66]  Straight from the source.
+[1782.30 --> 1782.62]  Yeah.
+[1783.14 --> 1784.26]  You're like, I'm not messing around.
+[1784.28 --> 1784.98]  Drink it straight from the well.
+[1785.24 --> 1786.22]  Like just give it to me.
+[1787.10 --> 1787.48]  You know?
+[1788.04 --> 1788.40]  Nice.
+[1788.82 --> 1791.78]  I want to learn the thing from the thing maker, you know?
+[1794.28 --> 1794.64]  Yeah.
+[1794.90 --> 1795.24]  That's cool.
+[1795.24 --> 1798.46]  So for us, do you want to throw GraphQL in front of like a node library?
+[1798.78 --> 1803.76]  Do you want to like figure out a way to incorporate GraphQL into something that's totally pure
+[1803.76 --> 1804.16]  JavaScript?
+[1805.16 --> 1806.34]  Doesn't need a backend.
+[1808.10 --> 1808.66]  It's a joke.
+[1809.00 --> 1809.40]  Yeah, no.
+[1810.28 --> 1811.16]  It's a joke.
+[1811.28 --> 1811.42]  Yeah.
+[1811.50 --> 1812.02]  But yeah.
+[1812.22 --> 1812.50]  Yeah.
+[1812.94 --> 1817.32]  I think I like the discussion about where it's appropriate because that often is a thing
+[1817.32 --> 1822.80]  people don't really sit down and think about before just pulling in, you know, just pulling
+[1822.80 --> 1823.72]  in a thousand packages.
+[1824.20 --> 1825.44]  So totally makes sense.
+[1825.66 --> 1828.60]  I think it so might be a little too early for us to look at.
+[1828.70 --> 1832.84]  And our APIs are, I mean, we have like six endpoints right now.
+[1832.90 --> 1835.58]  It's like in one table, one database table.
+[1835.72 --> 1837.06]  It's like maybe a little early.
+[1837.48 --> 1841.62]  I think maybe when we can start to have different clients consuming it and things like that,
+[1841.72 --> 1843.48]  that it could make sense.
+[1844.34 --> 1847.52]  Speaking as someone who's never used it before, one thing that I'm also kind of curious about
+[1847.52 --> 1851.98]  is the, like the need, why is there a need for this schema layer?
+[1852.16 --> 1856.10]  Like, I guess this is turning into like me, like asking all my GraphQL questions.
+[1856.22 --> 1858.08]  Maybe we don't have to do this, but yeah.
+[1858.10 --> 1860.70]  And I'm just curious, like, is there any way to infer it from the database?
+[1860.70 --> 1865.62]  It seems like I've already gone out of my way to sort of explain like this table has a
+[1865.62 --> 1868.30]  foreign key that references this column in this other table.
+[1868.30 --> 1871.84]  And I've already expressed the types in the columns of the database.
+[1872.06 --> 1873.50]  I've seen libraries that will do that.
+[1873.62 --> 1873.88]  Oh, really?
+[1874.00 --> 1874.16]  Okay.
+[1874.28 --> 1874.82]  So it depends.
+[1874.92 --> 1875.64]  That makes a lot of sense.
+[1875.64 --> 1880.52]  If you want to directly expose your database schema to your front end, which is a question
+[1880.52 --> 1881.12]  for you, right?
+[1881.20 --> 1882.72]  Maybe you do, maybe you don't.
+[1882.80 --> 1882.96]  Yeah.
+[1883.10 --> 1887.20]  For a lot of sites that have just like most of the content is public and you're just sort
+[1887.20 --> 1891.78]  of like letting the client query it, then it seems like that could be a good starting
+[1891.78 --> 1892.18]  place.
+[1892.18 --> 1898.16]  Like generate a schema from it and then maybe go in and tweak like hiding certain fields,
+[1898.30 --> 1900.14]  but like could be a good starting place.
+[1900.32 --> 1900.40]  Yeah.
+[1900.42 --> 1903.86]  When we're talking about the tooling that can be done, like that's part of it.
+[1903.86 --> 1909.26]  You can generate a schema from things, which is very useful, right?
+[1909.26 --> 1915.50]  The other part of the schema though is that you may not be getting your data straight from
+[1915.50 --> 1916.06]  a database.
+[1916.50 --> 1918.80]  You might be getting it from somewhere else.
+[1919.44 --> 1923.34]  So GraphQL is really agnostic about where you're getting it from, but it does need to
+[1923.34 --> 1924.36]  know what it's getting.
+[1924.90 --> 1929.20]  And that is then provided to anyone who wants to use your GraphQL endpoint.
+[1929.20 --> 1935.90]  So it is important, I think, to have that schema layer and have it not have to be hooked into
+[1935.90 --> 1937.18]  something specific like a database.
+[1937.18 --> 1939.40]  It can just be generated somewhere else.
+[1939.56 --> 1940.06]  But yeah.
+[1940.52 --> 1945.74]  One really nice feature of that is you can have sort of computed fields essentially in
+[1945.74 --> 1946.18]  your schema.
+[1946.70 --> 1951.04]  And some of them may be quite expensive to compute, but you only have to compute them when
+[1951.04 --> 1951.82]  someone requests them.
+[1951.82 --> 1955.70]  There's also the layer to like annotate the schema.
+[1956.08 --> 1961.18]  So being able to annotate that a field was deprecated or something else about it is useful
+[1961.18 --> 1964.74]  as well, which you wouldn't get from just a straight up database layer.
+[1965.04 --> 1965.14]  Right.
+[1965.24 --> 1965.44]  Okay.
+[1965.58 --> 1969.56]  Similar to the computed stuff, you can do compositional data as well.
+[1969.68 --> 1975.20]  So you can create things from multiple sources and then, you know, you can kind of define
+[1975.20 --> 1975.68]  a new thing.
+[1976.10 --> 1976.58]  Yep.
+[1976.58 --> 1982.12]  In some ways, that's why I go back and forth about using Gatsby as an example.
+[1982.32 --> 1986.28]  But that's one of the really interesting things about what they did is they basically said,
+[1986.44 --> 1991.38]  you can pull from any data source and we're going to agglomerate that all up into a single
+[1991.38 --> 1993.08]  GraphQL representation of it.
+[1993.32 --> 1997.02]  And so it can abstract away your backend data sources.
+[1997.62 --> 1998.00]  Yeah.
+[1998.04 --> 1999.66]  I just had a really interesting thought.
+[1999.80 --> 2000.74]  Do you guys want to hear it?
+[2001.14 --> 2003.96]  We can't just drop that and not tell us.
+[2004.00 --> 2004.26]  All right.
+[2004.32 --> 2005.12]  That's not a question.
+[2005.12 --> 2011.12]  So based on, yeah, based on what you just said, K-Ball, I wonder if Google search input
+[2011.80 --> 2013.48]  was like the original GraphQL.
+[2014.38 --> 2021.64]  Like, you type something, you know, bolts from all the, I don't know, just internet search
+[2021.64 --> 2022.42]  indexing.
+[2023.22 --> 2028.92]  I mean, I wouldn't call it the original GraphQL necessarily, but I think that idea of being
+[2028.92 --> 2034.86]  able to put a data pipeline layer where you source from many different possible sources,
+[2034.86 --> 2042.28]  and then having that generate a kind of universally queryable middle layer is a really valuable
+[2042.28 --> 2042.88]  concept.
+[2043.22 --> 2049.68]  And you could do that in sort of a pre-processed manner, which Google search does, I think,
+[2049.72 --> 2050.66]  and Gatsby does.
+[2050.80 --> 2057.42]  Or you could do that in an on the fly manner where you're wrapping other APIs with a GraphQL
+[2057.42 --> 2059.50]  layer or some other layer that does that.
+[2059.50 --> 2066.04]  But I think that concept of being able to create sort of a linchpin data layer that you can
+[2066.04 --> 2069.86]  then have a single format that all of your different clients can talk to is one of the
+[2069.86 --> 2072.90]  incredibly powerful concepts that GraphQL adopts.
+[2072.90 --> 2084.14]  What up, party people?
+[2084.26 --> 2088.18]  If you want to know what's happening with your code, track errors and monitor your app's performance
+[2088.18 --> 2088.84]  with Sentry.
+[2089.24 --> 2092.94]  Build better software faster with Sentry's application monitoring platform.
+[2093.52 --> 2096.94]  Diagnose, fix, and optimize the performance of your code.
+[2097.30 --> 2100.22]  Cut your time on error resolution from hours to minutes.
+[2100.22 --> 2103.62]  It works with any language and integrates with dozens of services.
+[2104.10 --> 2108.08]  Over one million developers and 68,000 organizations already use Sentry.
+[2108.48 --> 2112.22]  And best of all, GSParty listeners new to Sentry get the team plan for free for three months.
+[2112.52 --> 2116.20]  Head to Sentry.io to get started and use the code PARTYTIME when you sign up.
+[2116.42 --> 2121.44]  Again, Sentry.io and use the code PARTYTIME because, hey, it's PARTYTIME, y'all.
+[2130.22 --> 2152.32]  Let's dig into some of these more advanced features.
+[2152.50 --> 2156.10]  So you briefly mentioned, Jen, Apollo Federation.
+[2156.34 --> 2158.30]  Can you flesh out a little bit more for us?
+[2158.36 --> 2159.04]  Like, what is that?
+[2159.04 --> 2164.50]  So Apollo Federation, it's a technology and an architecture.
+[2165.16 --> 2168.16]  So it is a concept, but to break it down into a concept, right?
+[2168.26 --> 2174.90]  If you have REST microservices and different teams working on these microservices, if you
+[2174.90 --> 2178.30]  replace that REST with GraphQL, how does that work?
+[2178.56 --> 2181.84]  So how can everyone have their slice of the data graph?
+[2182.02 --> 2186.64]  But also there will be reusable parts of that that need to span across the teams.
+[2186.64 --> 2188.06]  So how does that work?
+[2188.58 --> 2194.40]  And it used to be that you would use a process called schema stitching to integrate all your
+[2194.40 --> 2198.50]  separate microservice graphs together into the one big graph.
+[2198.76 --> 2201.16]  That was a really manual process that you did on the server.
+[2201.86 --> 2207.00]  So Apollo Federation is a way to do this without having to do that manual process.
+[2207.00 --> 2213.44]  It has a declarative process that you use in the schema to say when you're extending a certain type.
+[2213.96 --> 2221.98]  And there's a gateway that sits in front of your different microservices that will do the orchestration for you of picking what it needs from which graph.
+[2221.98 --> 2229.16]  So all the small pieces of the graph come together into one endpoint that you can then query from any point in the graph.
+[2229.68 --> 2232.24]  But it's nice because there's a separation of concerns.
+[2232.66 --> 2242.12]  If one team is really only working on one slice of the graph, then they can do that without concern for having to build into a whole huge graph system.
+[2242.26 --> 2244.46]  That's the high level of Federation.
+[2244.46 --> 2246.38]  Where do fragments come into this?
+[2246.44 --> 2247.24]  I'm just curious.
+[2247.64 --> 2256.12]  Like, and because there's this funky area with fragments and, you know, needing to kind of do some extra setup if you want to get introspection working.
+[2256.64 --> 2259.40]  And I guess maybe what's the philosophy on like shared?
+[2260.02 --> 2262.86]  Well, I guess maybe we can define like what are fragments for folks?
+[2262.98 --> 2268.46]  And then, you know, how are they supposed to be used and shared in the context of this Federation world?
+[2268.76 --> 2270.56]  I can answer the first question for you.
+[2270.64 --> 2273.76]  The second question I don't have as much knowledge about.
+[2273.76 --> 2278.54]  I do know more about extending whole entities instead of fragments.
+[2279.00 --> 2281.26]  So I'm unsure about fragment sharing between them.
+[2281.56 --> 2287.24]  But if you don't know what a fragment is, it's basically like a piece of reusable fields.
+[2287.44 --> 2290.42]  It's reusable fields, basically, that you can assign to different queries.
+[2290.82 --> 2294.76]  You kind of use like a spread operator to like spread them out in your query.
+[2295.18 --> 2295.30]  Yeah.
+[2295.46 --> 2303.56]  I've found fragments to be super useful because they let you essentially define the data that you're going to want down at the level of whatever
+[2303.56 --> 2306.14]  component is asking for it or using it.
+[2306.28 --> 2309.86]  But then roll up your queries to do a single query at the top level of your page.
+[2309.94 --> 2312.80]  So you're not you're able to consolidate the sets of things that you want.
+[2313.06 --> 2315.86]  Are there caching implications of using fragments as well?
+[2316.16 --> 2316.64]  I'm unsure.
+[2317.06 --> 2323.46]  When we start to get into like the more like server side heavy stuff, I have less graphical knowledge on that side.
+[2323.46 --> 2331.86]  In the client, are there or that's just all cached based on like which fields have been fetched and your related entity IDs?
+[2332.20 --> 2339.32]  Yeah, that has more to do with entity IDs because your fragments don't really have that at the top level, right?
+[2339.42 --> 2342.84]  They always roll up to a top level field that would have an ID.
+[2342.84 --> 2350.04]  So you can do things like on the client, you can read a fragment or write a fragment into the cache.
+[2350.44 --> 2364.90]  But as far as caching goes, the bigger concern is more about like arguments and variables to keep track of like what you set to your query and be able to allow you to pull it back that data if you want.
+[2364.90 --> 2370.20]  So Federation feels like a pretty advanced feature in GraphQL.
+[2370.38 --> 2375.26]  And it's something that I think came onto the stage a little bit more recently than some of the other things.
+[2375.56 --> 2383.30]  What else is going on in terms of like moving the standard and the state of the art forward in GraphQL?
+[2383.60 --> 2388.42]  I know that for Apollo, like Federation is like the future.
+[2388.56 --> 2391.34]  We're investing very heavily in Federation.
+[2391.34 --> 2402.64]  We see it as the way that companies can really adopt the graph more easily and get the most benefits out of this graph.
+[2402.88 --> 2404.90]  We're building like a lot of tooling around it.
+[2405.00 --> 2406.68]  We're really working heavily on it.
+[2407.10 --> 2409.66]  That's really important to Apollo.
+[2410.26 --> 2417.98]  As far as GraphQL and the spec in general, there hasn't been as much going on with that as of late.
+[2418.20 --> 2420.44]  From what I know, I do know that.
+[2421.34 --> 2431.00]  Defer and stream directives are still not fully adopted, though some GraphQL servers have already adopted them.
+[2431.14 --> 2437.06]  And so we are going to, in Apollo, start to adopt those as well, including on the client.
+[2437.68 --> 2441.28]  So we're going to be working on that next as part of our big Apollo client roadmap.
+[2441.90 --> 2444.90]  That's really all I got on that side of things.
+[2445.02 --> 2448.84]  By the way, the spec is like one of the nicer specs to read through.
+[2448.84 --> 2450.92]  It's actually like quite clear.
+[2451.62 --> 2452.52]  It's a nice bedtime reading.
+[2453.02 --> 2454.82]  Just real chill bedtime reading.
+[2455.00 --> 2455.50]  Oh, man.
+[2455.76 --> 2458.28]  By the time we get that late, I can't focus on anything.
+[2459.06 --> 2460.90]  And that late is like 830 for me, right?
+[2460.90 --> 2467.58]  So I'm like seriously, like at 10 p.m. just like reading through the spec being like, oh, yeah, that's right.
+[2467.66 --> 2468.44]  That is what that is.
+[2468.54 --> 2468.78]  Cool.
+[2468.86 --> 2469.28]  Thank you.
+[2469.86 --> 2470.26]  Chill.
+[2470.88 --> 2471.86]  It's reinforcing.
+[2472.72 --> 2476.16]  I'm actually just like reassurance, you know.
+[2476.24 --> 2476.48]  Yeah.
+[2477.22 --> 2482.04]  Gravity, you know, like time space continuum, like reality check.
+[2482.04 --> 2493.74]  So I think the spec originally came out of Facebook and the Facebook engineers, you know, folks have I've actually been fortunate to meet some of them worked really, really hard on making this a spec and they were really excited about it.
+[2493.82 --> 2497.66]  And I remember like first version came out and was released publicly.
+[2497.92 --> 2501.44]  What involvement folks at Apollo have with pushing the spec forward now?
+[2501.56 --> 2506.92]  Like, is it is there more of a kind of open community around this now?
+[2507.72 --> 2511.36]  GraphQL isn't a foundation or there is a foundation that exists.
+[2511.36 --> 2512.52]  Yes, it is a foundation.
+[2512.66 --> 2517.46]  So it's definitely like a project that's grown beyond Facebook in that sense, right?
+[2517.62 --> 2518.40]  Yes, it has.
+[2518.48 --> 2518.64]  Yeah.
+[2518.82 --> 2524.08]  So it started at Facebook, but it is technically now a foundation.
+[2524.88 --> 2529.98]  And so we do, you know, have representation in that same as we do TC39.
+[2530.56 --> 2535.12]  You know, if we're involved in a technology, then we also need to be involved in pushing the spec forward.
+[2535.12 --> 2542.04]  I would say, though, because there's not a lot of active like changes happening with the spec.
+[2542.82 --> 2546.94]  And there's just not as much to try to move forward.
+[2546.94 --> 2556.52]  A lot of Apollo's open source work now, too, is really shoring up the projects like Apollo Server and Apollo Client.
+[2557.12 --> 2570.02]  So Apollo Client, for instance, my coworker on that, the lead architect on the project, Ben, rewrote all of Apollo Client, basically, for a huge like 3.0 release.
+[2570.02 --> 2574.08]  That changed a lot of how we were doing caching on the front end.
+[2574.22 --> 2577.30]  It used to be a little bit more of a manual thing.
+[2577.42 --> 2580.98]  Now you can declare things a little bit more declaratively, and it's very nice.
+[2580.98 --> 2583.24]  And so that's sort of where our focus has been.
+[2583.50 --> 2594.90]  Less on, I would say, pushing the GraphQL spec to certain places and more on making sure that if you want to work with GraphQL, we're still giving you like the best experience possible.
+[2595.08 --> 2599.52]  Yeah, it's very much like a Ferrari experience, I would say, Apollo Client.
+[2599.88 --> 2601.54]  It's like lots is in there.
+[2602.40 --> 2609.58]  I think my only feedback to y'all would be consider breaking it apart, you know, doing the Lodash thing and letting people like import certain modules.
+[2609.58 --> 2611.94]  Because I think people don't use all of it.
+[2612.18 --> 2618.50]  And then there's just a lot of bloat, I think, sometimes that you if you're trying to be conservative with your bundle size.
+[2618.70 --> 2619.96]  That's my only gripe with it.
+[2620.02 --> 2621.68]  But it's pretty impressive.
+[2622.42 --> 2625.30]  There was some work done on that in 3.0.
+[2625.40 --> 2631.02]  Like you can import specific things in 3.0 and leave like a bunch of stuff out.
+[2631.14 --> 2631.46]  Nice.
+[2631.56 --> 2633.64]  But I know that Ben has future ideas.
+[2633.86 --> 2635.28]  Though Ben always has future ideas.
+[2635.32 --> 2636.40]  So it's just like not surprising.
+[2636.58 --> 2637.52]  Send Ben flowers.
+[2637.52 --> 2638.82]  Oh, yeah.
+[2638.94 --> 2646.84]  So send Ben like all the things because he worked basically alone on that for a long time and did incredible work on it.
+[2647.18 --> 2650.02]  And cares very, very much about the end user's experience.
+[2650.44 --> 2651.64]  So he's fantastic.
+[2652.26 --> 2656.22]  Yeah, we're still on a two dot something variant of the Apollo Client at Home.
+[2656.32 --> 2660.42]  And every time I try to figure something out and I go to the docs, I'm like, oh, this would be easy if we're on 3.
+[2660.74 --> 2662.30]  It would be easy if you're on 3.
+[2662.36 --> 2663.02]  That's correct.
+[2663.34 --> 2664.62]  That's all the work Ben did.
+[2664.62 --> 2666.96]  Got to figure out what that migration looks like.
+[2666.96 --> 2667.22]  Yeah.
+[2667.60 --> 2671.80]  Admittedly, it's not the easiest migration path because so much did change.
+[2671.98 --> 2674.76]  But 3.0 is such a nice experience.
+[2675.24 --> 2676.18]  Like really, really great.
+[2676.60 --> 2677.02]  All right.
+[2677.10 --> 2682.06]  Anything else you want to let folks know about or leave the audience with before we wrap up?
+[2682.68 --> 2683.44]  I don't know.
+[2683.60 --> 2684.52]  Try out GraphQL.
+[2684.76 --> 2689.06]  If you've never experienced it, I mean, at least like spin up a side project.
+[2689.22 --> 2690.58]  See what it's like, you know.
+[2691.18 --> 2691.84]  Check it out.
+[2691.84 --> 2694.04]  Maybe move to a company that uses it.
+[2694.12 --> 2694.50]  I don't know.
+[2695.00 --> 2695.18]  You know?
+[2695.46 --> 2696.96]  Amel, are you using GraphQL at work?
+[2697.18 --> 2697.68]  I am.
+[2697.80 --> 2698.16]  Yes.
+[2698.54 --> 2698.78]  Yeah.
+[2699.12 --> 2699.40]  Okay.
+[2699.56 --> 2700.74]  And your company is?
+[2700.98 --> 2701.34]  Indigo.
+[2702.06 --> 2702.42]  Indigo.
+[2702.48 --> 2703.02]  Indigo AG.
+[2703.22 --> 2703.42]  Yeah.
+[2703.56 --> 2703.88]  Indigo.
+[2704.48 --> 2704.80]  Okay.
+[2705.14 --> 2706.44]  So yeah, you could go work at Indigo.
+[2706.72 --> 2707.52]  Come work at Humu.
+[2707.78 --> 2708.76]  Don't go work with Feras.
+[2708.86 --> 2710.60]  Sounds like that's not going to happen for a little while.
+[2710.60 --> 2710.96]  Yeah.
+[2712.90 --> 2713.74]  Or go work with Apollo.
+[2714.08 --> 2714.96]  You can come work at Apollo.
+[2715.06 --> 2716.22]  We do have open recs.
+[2716.36 --> 2717.22]  Like we're definitely growing.
+[2717.48 --> 2718.90]  So come hang out.
+[2718.94 --> 2719.14]  Yeah.
+[2719.20 --> 2721.22]  You get to work with Ben and Jen.
+[2722.06 --> 2722.98]  Their names rhyme.
+[2724.84 --> 2726.20]  And it's an open source project.
+[2726.20 --> 2731.66]  So if you can't get paid for it right now, you could still dig into the code, submit a PR, learn about it.
+[2731.70 --> 2732.52]  Oh, yeah.
+[2732.52 --> 2741.28]  If you want to contribute to an Apollo project, by the way, the one that I would say is the easiest to get started with is the Apollo Client DevTools project.
+[2741.80 --> 2748.32]  That one is more similar to like a React application you would know, but you're still getting some GraphQL experience.
+[2749.16 --> 2754.64]  Apollo Client as an open source project is really difficult to dig into.
+[2754.86 --> 2761.66]  So like by all means do it, but just know like your contributions, like it might take you a while to like get one in the system.
+[2761.66 --> 2762.10]  Awesome.
+[2762.38 --> 2762.66]  Awesome.
+[2763.02 --> 2765.02]  Well, thank you so much for joining us today, Jen.
+[2765.06 --> 2765.84]  This has been fun.
+[2766.00 --> 2766.82]  Thank you for having me.
+[2766.82 --> 2773.26]  I am renewed in terms of energy to go and try to do a migration from Apollo to Apollo Client.
+[2774.92 --> 2775.34]  Nice.
+[2775.76 --> 2776.12]  Awesome.
+[2776.36 --> 2777.96]  Well, thank you, Firas.
+[2778.18 --> 2778.90]  Thank you, Amel.
+[2779.56 --> 2782.26]  And that has been this week's JS Party.
+[2782.46 --> 2784.60]  So catch us again next week.
+[2784.80 --> 2787.60]  Every week, if you're not listening to this live, you can listen live.
+[2787.60 --> 2791.04]  Thursdays, 10 o'clock Pacific, a.m.
+[2791.06 --> 2791.66]  Not p.m.
+[2791.66 --> 2793.66]  As noted, I'll be asleep by 10 p.m.
+[2794.10 --> 2795.44]  Hope to see you next time.
+[2795.54 --> 2795.78]  All right.
+[2795.88 --> 2796.48]  Take care of all.
+[2796.60 --> 2798.04]  This is K-Ball signing out.
+[2798.04 --> 2803.44]  Thank you for listening to this episode of JS Party.
+[2803.64 --> 2806.28]  If you enjoy the show, please do share it with a friend.
+[2806.60 --> 2810.68]  Personal recommendations are the number one way people find new podcasts they love.
+[2810.92 --> 2814.18]  Also, check out the back catalog at jsparty.fm.
+[2814.42 --> 2820.68]  There you'll find our recommended episodes, plus listener favorites, and you can even request your own guest or topic idea.
+[2821.08 --> 2822.96]  JS Party is produced by Jared Santo.
+[2823.18 --> 2823.60]  That's me.
+[2823.60 --> 2826.28]  With music by the mysterious Breakmaster Cylinder.
+[2826.52 --> 2830.32]  Thanks again to our sponsors, Fastly, LaunchDarkly, and of course, Linode.
+[2830.74 --> 2834.82]  On the next episode, Amel, Nick, and I welcome Googler Paul Backhouse to the show.
+[2835.02 --> 2840.38]  Paul is heading up a new initiative to promote, educate, and equip web creators to do their thing.
+[2840.62 --> 2841.56]  Stay tuned for that one.
+[2841.68 --> 2843.04]  It'll be coming at you next week.
+[2845.70 --> 2847.06]  Hey, JS Buds.
+[2847.22 --> 2849.96]  I know lots of you have had some, quote, moments.
+[2849.96 --> 2851.62]  Game on.
diff --git a/Breaking down the State of CSSJS_transcript.txt b/Breaking down the State of CSSJS_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f2527b2f35d1a725c74741817680d4a4f1aa0dce
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Breaking down the State of CSSJS_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,473 @@
+**Kevin Ball:** Hello, JS Party people! Welcome back to another week of partying about JavaScript and the web. I'm Kball, I will be your host this week, and with me today to discuss the State of \* surveys, where \* = CSS or JS, I have the one and only Jerod Santo. Hey, Jerod.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I thought we were gonna be the stars.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** We could change it up - State of the Stars Survey...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] I thought we were just gonna talk about how we're doing.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** How are you doing, Jerod?!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I'm doing quite fine, thanks for having me.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** You're a star. Alright, the other friend/panelist/star joining me today is the one and only Nick Nisi. Hello, Nick!
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Hoy-hoy. How's it going?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Making it through. We are in 2021 now, for real; not like the last episode that I recorded for 2021, when we were recording it in 2020...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We were faking it.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So excited to be here. Last year was a \*bleep\*, but we made it! By virtue of speaking or listening to this podcast, you made it. You are here, in 2021, and we are gonna talk about what's changing in JavaScript and CSS, and we're gonna jump into that by looking at the State of JS and State of CSS surveys that were done and published at the end of last year. There's a State of JS 2020, a State of CSS 2020... And one of the fun things about that is we can actually look at the differences between what was going on in 2020, what people said, and what was going on in 2019, talk about those trends... We can prognosticate about whether or not they missed something...
+
+\[04:03\] But yeah, let's start with just kind of talking about those surveys, because we've talked about them before... What strikes you guys when you think about these surveys? I know when we talked about doing it, some folks were like "Oh, those surveys..." and some folks were like "Yeah, those surveys!!"
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I like surveys, I like to look at data... And I appreciate the work that goes into these surveys. We've of course broke them down in the past, and... Doing surveys is hard. In fact, we at Changelog have thought about doing surveys, and talked to folks about doing some surveys, and we were always like "Do we really wanna do surveys?", because it's tough to do well, and you open yourself to all sorts of criticism, which - I don't like criticism. I just prefer to be a star...!
+
+So I just appreciate Sacha and the team and everybody who works on these, because it's tough to do well, and they've come under some criticism because of how they've been conducted over the years; I'm sure we'll dive into all that, but... I do enjoy just looking at what's going on and seeing the changes over time, and then talking about it. I think some of these things have to be taken with a grain of salt, but that being said, it's good conversation pieces.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, and I really like that it validates all of my conceptions about JavaScript and CSS of today.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That's sweet.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And when it doesn't, then I don't like it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Then it's biased.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That's the real value of surveys, right? The ones that tell you that all your priors are correct, and all the other guys/girls' opinions are wrong.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. You can just survey yourself and then you'll bat 1,000. Sample size one, all the answers are correct... Moving on.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Well, and that is one of the interesting both critiques that have been leveled at these surveys, but also one of the things that they've worked on and done well - how do you determine what's the sample for your survey? Who is being surveyed? And if you're doing a scientific survey with the purpose of trying to prove something, then you wanna figure out what the population is that you're trying to understand, and survey a representative sample.
+
+Here we're trying to kind of get a sense of just the broadest possible swathe of the web, and I think they've taken the spray and pray approach, which is like "Okay, push this in as many directions as we possibly can, so we can get the most possible data, and worry a little bit less about does this accurately model any particular population within the web dev community." As a result, we have lots of data to look at. As you do this, do be a little bit careful in drawing conclusions about the representation of all of JavaScript or all of CSS.
+
+One of the things they do do nicely is they print out the demographics of who it was that answered the surveys, so that you can see who is this representative of, and if you come in with a feeling about what the web industry looks like, or what your company looks like, you can get a sense of whether or not this data is likely to be representative of you.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Plus, you have to ask yourself how much does it really matter, as well. You know, like "So other people are digging this particular technology... Does that mean that I need to be using that technology? Or does that mean that I'm less than because I use this other technology?" It's worth understanding what other people are doing, what they appreciate, what they're moving away from, what they're moving towards... But all those are just data points for you and your life and your work and your team to make decisions. So that's why we say "Take it with a grain of salt, because even if this survey was 100% the actual facts of the world of JavaScript and CSS, that doesn't mean that it informs your context whatsoever."
+
+So - grain of salt. Still enjoyable to look at, and of course, confirming your priors is always fun, so... You know, we're here to see if TypeScript is doing awesome, or...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Oh, yeah. We don't have to look.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** We know... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We just know...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I mean, the new government website that just was relaunched after the inauguration - folks were tearing it down. It's using jQuery. Not a problem. So they're still like -- that's one of the wealthiest governments in the world doing their website, and they're using jQuery. So if you're using jQuery - no shame, even if it's not showing up in this survey. Lots of different stuff there.
+
+\[08:11\] Okay, cool. So before we dig in, we've talked about values, pros and cons, but the team behind these surveys has also talked a little bit about what they want to do moving forward. I know some of the big changes that they made coming into 2020 from 2019 was they improved the breadth of demographics that they were looking for, and they did a lot more in terms of pulling in information from the community about learning, where to learn from, what good resources are... Which I think highlights that strength point you were talking about, Jerod, of using this as a place to get a sense of what people are doing, and kind of explore, rather than use it to try to tell yourself if you're doing good or not. What are some of the other things they've said they're gonna do?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I mean, it's worth giving a shout-out to Sacha Greif and Raphaël Benitte - I believe that's how you say his name - who is really the team behind both State of CSS and State of JS; they've been doing it for many years, so this is very much a labor of love. A lot of people pitched in this year, so they have a special thanks on their website, including some folks doing translation, so that's really cool...
+
+And we've had Sacha on this show, I believe. We've definitely had him on the Changelog, and we've talked about the trials and tribulations of doing surveys; the way that his branding - or I should say their branding - and design is so good that it gives them a lot of clout, which is why some of the criticism comes with the clout, when you say "This is the state of this", you are making yourself authoritative, and they've done a really... I mean, their websites are always spectacular. So shout-out to all that.
+
+And they also know that it can be improved, year by year, just like anybody would do with a project that they care about. So like you said, Kball, they've made some improvements this year... Sacha recently tweeted that he wanted to do some new stuff in 2021 for the next round, which I'm sure will be coming out soon... At least the survey part, maybe not the results. They wanna start measuring disabilities among respondents, which of course would help us with our LI decisions, our accessibility decisions and information around that, improve the translation process... Of course, the more languages you can get to, the better sampling you can have of the world writ large, not just the U.S. and English... They want to do a better job of highlighting minoritized voices, whether by gender, race, geography etc. and the results through data visualization.
+
+So just a few things that he put out that they would like to do this year, and just continue to improve and refine what these surveys are.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I do like that they see the criticisms that come from this and they respond to it, honestly and openly. That's really reassuring... Because it's a hard problem to solve, no matter how you look at it. Coming from a conference organizer perspective - you know, we always strive for having really good, diverse... In both people that are coming, the speakers and the opinions that are being thrown out at the conferences, trying to have a diverse opinion across all of that. It's not easy, but it's much easier when it's a finite set of people, like 10-20 speakers that you're picking out, and trying to set the tone with that. With this, you're trying to expand beyond the audience.
+
+They call it in a blog post, that they're two white guys trying to do this on Twitter, which is predominantly white male, and trying to reach out through that... And it's hard when you're trying to get thousands more, as opposed to like 10-20 more for a conference.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[11:38\] Yeah. And if you look at the demographic trends that they have over time, they are trending more diverse. They're getting a wider range of folks from different countries around the world, they started measuring primary languages, and they're getting more and more diversity there... There's somewhat more gender diversity... There's definitely room to grow on that dimension, but they're acknowledging it as an issue and they're moving in the right direction.
+
+**Break:** \[12:08\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Alright, so coming back into it, let's talk about what stood out in the State of CSS survey and what you're taking away from it. Let's start with you, Jerod - when you looked at this State of CSS 2020, what did you notice? What stood out to you?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** For me what stood out is that people who responded to this survey (let me preface that), they generally like CSS quite a bit... Which is somewhat funny when we talked about a few weeks back why people complain about CSS so often. Because even since that conversation, I put a post out on Changelog.com as well, just reviewing some of the reasons that we thought, I've seen so much complaining about CSS over the last few weeks just on Twitter alone, that it seems like it's like the whipping boy - or girl, depending on how you think of CSS - of the community. There's just so much complaining, and rabble-rousing, and debating... It's just like, wow. Very interesting.
+
+\[16:24\] And then the survey says people are generally pretty happy with CSS, which I think is appropriate and cool... Because let's face it, it's a very powerful set of tools and technologies, and there's so much that people accomplish on the web, and build amazing things. I just love going to a website and being like "Wow, this website is amazing. The person that put this CSS together really knows their stuff." That's such a great feeling, and celebrating that.
+
+So just seeing that, you know, of course, there are things that could be better, there are things that are hard to learn, things that are hard to use, waiting for browsers to support X, Y or Z... There's all these little intricate details. But in general, people do like CSS, and that was just really nice to see. And then secondly, I think the trending thing is no surprise, because we've been talking about it recently... It's that Tailwind has really taken over the mindshare, I think, of the frontend CSS space in 2020.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** So you think that that's -- does that support the idea that people love CSS?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I mean, it's a CSS framework, so... They love it. \[laughs\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Well, you don't really write CSS with it... \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, like I said, there's reasons why it's difficult, and one of the things that Adam said on the show we did - referencing back to our episode we did late last year with Adam Wathan of Tailwind CSS, why it has been difficult and it can be difficult to really feel like you've mastered it is because the best practices have not historically congealed to a place where it's like "Here is how you do it." There's different takes, a lot of experimentation, things go in and out of style, technology changes... You know, responsive web design really shook up the CSS best practices landscape; but that was probably a decade ago now.
+
+And the utility classes are starting to be something that a lot of people are congealing around. Of course, Tailwind provides that set of utility classes, and so it seems like a radical idea. You know, Tachyons, Bulma is another one... There's a handful of these things over the years that have been saying "Let's do CSS with these utility classes, which seem they're non-semantic etc. and it really makes things better, and it seems like that's starting to become -- I don't know if it's a best practice, Kball... What do you think? It's becoming popular-er, and Tailwind is leading that charge.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, I think similar to what we've seen in the JavaScript ecosystem, there are ongoing both questions and trends around what are the right abstractions to use. And the types of abstractions that are gonna make sense in a CSS environment that is visual, and spacial, and essentially intended to apply to wide varieties of screen dimensions, and things like that, the problem space of CSS - that's a very different problem space than you encounter in JavaScript, so it's not surprising that the ideas about what's gonna make sense there are not the same.
+
+I think we went a little overboard on the semantic CSS approach because it modeled closer to how we were used to thinking about things in more imperative programming languages like JavaScript... And that turns out to have some challenges when you shifted into that visual space.
+
+I wanted to jump back a little bit to what you said about people liking CSS, because I think it highlights one of the challenges in this type of survey... I think there might be a selection bias. The people who chose to take the State of CSS survey - they break down demographics by reported skill level and CSS proficiency, and 61% of the people who answered this survey consider themselves experts, with expert being defined as "Able to style an entire frontend from scratch, following a consistent methodology."
+
+\[20:18\] That body of people have likely already put in a tremendous amount of work learning the mental models of CSS... Which, as I mentioned, CSS is a very different problem domain and mental model than most other programming domains you're gonna end up with... And I think that might be the source of a lot of hate. A lot of the folks who hate on CSS - they have not made that shift into understanding the mental model. And because it's different, it feels painful; it's raw, it doesn't work right for how their heads are set up.
+
+So I think we should 1) use this to say "Yes, there's a large body of people out there who do love CSS", and for good reason. It's an incredibly powerful and interesting language, and I think that mental model is actually a really interesting one to wrap your head around... But not necessarily take this as representative of the community as a whole. Because everyone who hasn't climbed that learning curve, from what I can see, they didn't take the survey.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, really good point. And perhaps a bright spot for those who are banging their head against CSS right now; maybe you're just getting started. It is one of the first things that you learn, as well. HTML and CSS, and then JavaScript. I think you should learn them in that order.
+
+HTML you can actually pick up in a day or two, because once you understand the sideways tree... I'm saying the basics; it takes a long time to master, of course. But it's so approachable... Like, "Okay, here's a tree structure. We nest things inside. We give them names. Take a cheatsheet, memorize these elements", and then attributes, and it goes from there. We learn forms, that kind of stuff. You can pick that up in a day. I have taught it to people and they have had no problem. Mentally, they're just like "Cool!" and they're excited to come back for day two.
+
+And then day two - I used to do a three-day real basic web development class, and it was like day one, HTML, day two, CSS, day three, how to make something hide in JavaScript. So it was like the most basic JavaScript you could do. Day two, come back and now it's time to start talking CSS, and it can be a real struggle at first. Like you said, that mental model is not mapped as easily, by anybody probably... By most folks at least.
+
+But these experts, the 60% who can do it, they've made it through that way - they like it, they enjoy it. They're productive. And so for those of us who are in the mucky-muck, trying to figure out the mental model, trying to figure out why it doesn't look the way that we want it to, if we power through and persist and persevere, likely at the end of that tunnel is a technology that a) is very powerful, and you can accomplish a lot, and make money, and make cool things, and all that, but b) you'll probably end up liking it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** One thing that the survey doesn't -- I'm not sure, I haven't found it at least - tell me is the preference towards more straight, more traditional CSS... Or I would even put Sass in there... But you're writing more like, you know, "Here's my style files" versus "Here's my very tool-optimized CSS that I'm writing either with CSS-in-JS, or with PostCSS, or some other tool that's helping me to write better CSS, that's maybe more scoped to a specific component that I'm working on, or something. It doesn't really tell me if there's a preference more one way or the other when I look at this. Have you seen that?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There's a little bit with the CSS methodology section, but it's not exactly what you're talking about...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, that's where I was going. There's a little bit in that breakdown of technologies and methodologies.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** The methodologies are really like BEM vs. SMACSS vs. object-oriented CSS etc. Utility CSS or Atomic CSS. But it doesn't say like thinking in components like with CSS-in-JS, or anything like that. That's actually its own separate area. So I don't think it addresses directly what you're referring to, or there's no traditional cascade, or I don't know what you call the way that we historically did it... What do you call that, Kball? The cascade style, or nested...?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** We call that CSS. \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, just CSS. Just start slapping stuff out there.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[24:26\] But that could lead one way or the other. Like, do you actually like CSS? Or if you're writing this very different variant that is hyperscoped, and gets rid of the cascade, and is in -- I mean, not necessarily in JS, but it's not traditional CSS, and it's kind of changing the rules of CSS... Is that making someone like CSS more, because it's making it easier to use? And also, is that kind of making people feel like they're more of an expert, because there's so much tooling that you have to setup beforehand?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Hm... These are great questions that I have no answers to...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah. No idea. I think one interesting thing in this space that actually contrasts it a little bit with the JavaScript space, is - especially if we look at the changes and how much people are using different things, there has been dramatic change both in the libraries and tooling space, but also just in the underlying features of CSS. So there's a dramatic increase in folks using CSS Grid. There's a dramatic increase in folks using customer properties. And those are things that allow you to do stuff that you used to need a lot of tooling to do. And in some cases, they let you do things that you basically couldn't do at all, even with tooling.
+
+So there's quite a bit of innovation in what the underlying platform supports and how much people are able to use that... At the same time, there is also this change in framework; there's a lot of people using Tailwind. That's dramatically changing. Many moves towards these sort of, as you highlight, the more functional and utility-based CSS, and away from some of the more semantic CSS frameworks... And there's increasing amounts of CSS-in-JS. Folks using Styled Components, folks using CSS modules. There's a lot of movement in both dimensions of that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** One of the areas that you mentioned movement, which - I don't even know what this is... It's object-fit. Can you describe what object-fit is?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yes. So object-fit... Let's even look it up. So this is basically around how you can display images and videos at particular sizes within their containers. For example, if you have images with different aspect ratios, that all are gonna have to go into a single container, or a single component, how does it make sense to do those? Do you want to trim them? Do you want to have them cover the space? Do you want to have them be resized, so the entire thing is fit? Those used to be so hard to do... And you'd have to basically do a lot of hackery to try to get it. Now you have a single property where you can say "Okay, for this one - I want it to be contained", which means that the entire image should fit within this space, and shrink it until that's possible. That may mean white space on the outsides in one dimension or the other, but that's fine.
+
+Or you can say "I want this to be covering the space", in which case it will trim a set of things, but it'll make sure that it's covering the entire thing. So it's giving you fine-grained control of how images and videos are resized to fit their containers.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And particularly for images like -- I can remember times in the past where I inappropriately would use a background image, because I wanted that kind of feature... And that's not very accessible. So in this, you can use an image tag, or video, like you said, and then just set this property and get the same result.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Pretty cool. I did not know about that one. I will answer to using it in the 2021 survey.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[28:14\] That gives us a good jumping off point - what did you all take from this survey, of things that you want to either start using, or at least dig into and learn about?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Object-fit. \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** You're a star, Jerod...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, there we go... I'm gonna be an object-fit star next year. Honestly, at this point I think the groundswell of interest, and talking to Adam on the show, I think Tailwind CSS is on my list of things to actually pick and try on a real project, versus just toying around with it and reading about it and then moving on. So that's on my to-do list. And I wouldn't say this survey made me think that, but I was already kind of thinking it, and then I see this, and I'm like "You know what - let's give it a shot", so I can talk about it in more expert terms and not just armchair/quarterback terms. So that's something I'm definitely gonna do here soon.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I would say the same. I've been using Tailwind on my continuously-evolving blog I just never post to...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I didn't know you had a blog.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Because I don't post to it. I just change the technology that runs it.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** You have fallen into that classic developer blunder where to get started with a blog you have to build yourself a custom blog, and you end up in this never-ending loop of iterating and tuning, and never publishing.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's right. You only have one post every couple of years, and it's about how you rewrote your blog engine, you know?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yes... \[laughs\] That's totally me.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So that's your goal for this year, you're gonna rewrite it again with Tailwind?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I've already started, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, okay. \[laughter\] Why wait...?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** But Tailwind 2 came out and it has a dark mode now, so I need to figure out how to integrate that before I can actually post anything. I can't post anything without a dark mode...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's true.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, I think that's interesting... I will say that day-to-day what I write is React, and specifically a lot of the components that we're using are stylized Material-UI components, from the Material-UI React library... And in a lot of ways I don't end up writing CSS a lot. I like writing CSS, but I don't end up doing it because I get to play within the components that they provide, which is like a box component, for example, or a Grid component, which gives me a Flexbox style grid that I can lay things out with... And in Box I can set specific margin and paddings. I like that because when I'm not writing straight CSS, I know that what I'm writing and the way that I'm styling things on the page is conforming to the overall design system that we have... And I like that I have those guardrails on me, and I know that I'm only ever reaching out to real CSS when I have something that doesn't fit within those guard rails... So I have like an extra justification for that. I would be interested to see how that evolves. This is my first experience with it, and I wonder where stuff like that will be next year.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** My largest active project is Changelog.com, and the CSS on Changelog.com was written not by myself, but by Cody Peterson and his team, and it's modified and extended by me now. And it's BEM. And I hit my head against it enough, especially when it comes times of like "Hey..." -- it's almost like I need more componentization, and BEM is not providing it. Or maybe \[unintelligible 00:31:19.11\] I'm not here to throw neither BEM nor Cody under the bus. It's just the state of the world that I'm in.
+
+I just find myself being like "I wanna use this thing over here", and in order to get that done, I just feel like it's way harder than it needs to be, so I'm excited for the utility styles idea, and see if that eases some of my pains with my current site.
+
+So I'm thinking about just taking the main design of Changelog.com and just seeing if I can port it, look for look, from its current over to Tailwind, and just see what that process is like. That's kind of the working plan.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I'm also doing most of my -- well, when I'm working in the frontend these days, I'm doing most of my work in React, and Styled Components, and largely using an existing design library to the extent possible... So I don't get to play with this stuff as much as I used to. But I think one of the really interesting areas that to me is only really getting explored by a subset of folks is the extent to which you can use custom properties to enable that type of almost state-driven component.
+
+\[32:24\] In your example, Jerod, I imagine a lot of those BEM classes have hard-coded values in them, and that's part of what makes it hard to move them over to new locations, where things are slightly different. But one of the really cool things about custom properties is you can actually -- like, they are scoped, in the same way that CSS is scoped, and they cascade... So if you were to rewrite those all using customer properties, then you could have whatever their container is in the new location override those customer properties and have it essentially work in both locations.
+
+I think there's some really, really interesting stuff there, and I've only seen a few people digging into that.
+
+There was a post I've read recently, that I can dig up for the show notes - it was talking about the ways in which you can actually use CSS custom properties to communicate state in general to your UI, and using it as a way to, for example, communicate... You could set up an API that actually is -- what the API returns is a set of CSS custom properties, and you plug those CSS custom properties into your site, and it ripples through, because it communicates a set of state. A bunch of other interesting things that could happen there... So I feel like that's an area that is ripe for some more tooling and some more exploration about the possibilities.
+
+A lot of the use cases I'm seeing out there right now for custom properties are pretty straightforward. They're replacing Sass variables, which is great. I mean, being able to do what we used to do with Sass variables in CSS is phenomenal, don't get me wrong...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** For sure.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** ...but I think there's something that has potential to allow us to reimagine some of the ways we write CSS and do some really interesting things.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That sounds fascinating. What if I have prefers-reduced-motion turned on? Will it still ripple through, or will it just... \[crickets\]? The joke wasn't even worth trying a second time... \[laughter\] But I tried it anyways. Sorry, I just got \[unintelligible 00:34:27.02\] "it just ripples through your site." I was like--
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Maybe I should have said "it cascades through your site."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Thank you. Much better.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** What does that mean?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's kind of like a ripple effect...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** ...except playing on the cascade...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I write modern CSS, I don't know what cascade is anymore.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[laughs\] Right.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I think next year -- maybe not next year's, but this survey in 3-4 years will just continue to become more interesting because of... Specifically, I'm thinking of Houdini, and exposing a CSS parser API, and some of the layout stuff that they're bringing... It's gonna change what you can do with CSS, and it's gonna make it so powerful... And it's gonna be really interesting to see how that trickles into the everyday CSS frameworks and libraries that we use, and what that will mean in the future for styling the web.
+
+**Break:** \[35:16\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Okay, let's get back into it and dig into the State of JS 2020. Nick, I know there was something you had your eye on there...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And to see how TypeScript was doing...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And what's the story?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Surprise... It's on top! \[laughter\] It's on top. Yeah, since 2017 - in fact, every year of this survey except for the first year (2016) it's been in the first place for the preferred flavors of JavaScript. In 2016 it was in the second place. But it's remained in the first place, it's very popular, and it's pretty cool seeing that it has nearly 88% of respondents really approve of it, meaning that they are interested in it, or have used it or would use it again... Which is extremely high. We don't really have things that get that much universal approval, except for on this podcast.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] I don't like it. Just kidding... \[laughter\] No reason. I'd just like to state that.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I didn't take the jump for a long time, and then at my job, when I started there, a year and two months ago or whatever, they were using TypeScript, so I started making the jump... And now I don't know how I'd live without it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Exactly. It's painful to write regular JS now.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Why? Because you have Stockholm Syndrome?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Probably... I've used Vim for ten years, and for most of that, Vim was just an editor that really didn't give me much help. I didn't have completion turned on at all for anything... And I would just write straight JavaScript, and I'd have so much of the state of what I'm working on built up in my head; I would just be reciting it from memory. And of course, I've gotten older now, which means I probably can't do that anymore, and the tools have just gotten so amazing that now I just rely on it for everything. And I'm constantly trying to figure out ways to creatively use TypeScript to make sure that things that normally aren't autocompleted can be autocompleted, to make my life and everyone else's life easier... Because I also can't spell. And I constantly just write things incorrectly, and I get that checked in, and I realize later that I misspelled something. I'm talking about things that aren't type-checked, like keys to things.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I will point out that function names get misspelled still. And autocomplete in some ways actually makes that worse, because people will misspell it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[40:08\] You propagate the misspelling?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** People will misspell it once, and then they'll just keep it going through everything.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Nick, I think at this point if Vim is doing most of the work for you, maybe your employer should just reduce your salary and make donations to the Vim working group... Don't you believe that's the case?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** We're gonna have that stricken from the record, Jerod, but... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Real developers have all the APIs memorized, don't you know that? Come on, man... You've gotta have it internalized.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** No. Remember, Jerod, it's about the value being provided; it's like the value-added tax, right?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I agree. Vim is providing a lot of value. \[laughter\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** He might internally choose to pay Vim, but that's a black box to his employer. Or it was, until this podcast.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] Nick chooses to pay Vim by making mentions of it on podcasts.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Oh, my God...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's promotional. He's promoting it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I'm like the guy from Office Space; I talk to Vim, so that my employer doesn't have to.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Your employer doesn't have to... \[laughs\] Well, I think your employer would appreciate that... Let's hard-transition away from TypeScript, shall we? \[laughter\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Sure. Jerod, what did you notice?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** People more and more do not thing that building JavaScript apps is overly complex. I said that in a confounding way... People think it's getting less complex. From 2016 to 2020, opinions have started to shift. Maybe we're starting to see some -- I don't know what you call it; centralization around certain things? Maybe the Cambrian explosion of frameworks and tools and build tools and stuff started to kind of congeal around generally speaking React and WebPack and other things on the periphery of that... I don't know. Why do you guys think that is? Has it gotten less complex in the last four years? Because the opinions around it, at least according to this survey, are that it's less complex now. Or "I used to think it was complex and now I don't", or "I didn't take this before and now I took it, and I don't think it's complex." But overall opinions going to disagree with that statement, that it's complex. I don't know why.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I would think that there's a huge correlation between thinking it's complex and writing your own WebPack config, versus using something like Create React App and just getting to work on your project.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So back in 2016 we all wrote our configs, and now we've just been using that config for the last four years, and it feels great.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Exactly.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's factual for me. Good point.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Somewhat related to that - I think there has been a rise in what I've kind of called meta frameworks, or higher-level frameworks. So this is things like Next and Nuxt, or Gatsby, or other things, where we're basically building -- you know, there's still innovation happening at the level of the frameworks of React, or Vue, or Angular, or Svelte, or what have you... And we can talk about Svelte a little bit, because that was one of the fun stars of this report... But there's also been tremendous emphasis on going one level up and saying "Okay, we're going to wrap up a lot of the common problems that people are solving over and over again with these frameworks, and just provide standardized ways to do them." That I think has dramatically simplified the experience of building an app.
+
+I don't know if I saw in this survey -- it was probably there somewhere; I can look for that as we speak, but... I think the adoption of those libraries has gone way up, probably looking at this graph, in that same time span of 201-2019.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. And Next.js overtook Express as the most popular backend framework, which was really interesting.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Hm... Why do you think that happened?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I think for a lot of the reasons that we've been talking about. It just provides a more cohesive experience for putting things together... And it kind of puts those rails in place a little bit for you to follow... So it feels like you're doing the right thing. Whereas Express can be like a Wild West of stringing things together.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[44:14\] Yeah. Less decisions to make. So my criticism of the early Node.js JavaScript web-based community, back when I was more on the Ruby side of the fence, was that it was so micro and library-focused that it was like assembling a transformer from parts. You had to pick everything, you had to make all your own decisions, and that's really empowering to a lot of expert-level developers, because they already have well-formed opinions and they know what they like and they don't like, they know what works well in this case and what doesn't... But for the rest of us, it's kind of like "I don't wanna make 1,000 decisions before I can say Hello World, or slightly better than Hello World. Before I can start my first dynamic web page." And there was way more configuration and choice than there was convention and opinionated things.
+
+We've definitely seen more opinionated frameworks and tools coming out over the last few years in the JavaScript space, and JavaScript developers adopting those things. And I think that that makes you feel like the whole process is less complex, because just way less decisions to make, like you said, Nick.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Another interesting thing that I saw on the backend satisfaction survey was the decline of Gatsby. It dropped five places in a year. It's almost like it got hit by a meteor, which also dropped five places.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] Well-played...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Those are two falling stars at this point... And it's hard to tell, because a lot of these items that are being put in here in 2020 - it's just got a lot more data; there's a much broader dataset being put there... But I think there was a lot of disillusionment with Gatsby in this last year. There was a lot of people refuting the performance claims and saying essentially that they were gaming the benchmarks.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, I guess the thing that ties those two particular frameworks together is that they're both open source, but venture-backed... Are they venture-backed? Or at least business-backed; I know that's true. I'm not sure if Meteor was venture-backed or not. But when we mix those things together - business concerns, open source concerns - it goes back to the open core problem of what goes in the open source and what is a commercial feature... Which every open core style company has to decide over and over again.
+
+Gatsby is not typical open core, but it's like open build... Or I don't know how you call it. Anyways, the commercial side and the open source side definitely have that give and take... So I'm not saying that's the reason why these things are falling out of favor, I'm just saying it's interesting that both of those frameworks have that in common.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah. Though the counterpoint is Next.js is primarily backed by Vercel, and they are also a for-profit business... Though they, I think, sell more general-purpose hosting, so it's not just about their framework, where Gatsby - I think their business stuff was all just about the framework.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, it's like, Vercel has enough of a dividing line between Next.js and their hosting services; that may be somewhat that conflict of interesting, which is effectively what we're talking about. It doesn't mean you're not doing it right, but that conflict is there and you have to navigate that. Maybe their conflict is not quite as tightly tied, because Gatsby is Gatsby, so to speak.
+
+I'm not sure what the details behind Meteor's business model was, because I was never in that community... But yeah, a lot of these things do have corporate backing, whether they're tied to the product or not. It's just that it seems like when you're tied directly to the product, it's more difficult to navigate that relationship for people.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[48:10\] Yeah. And in Gatsby's case, I think, you ran into a very specific conflict of interest, where the product was about speeding up the build, and so if they did a good job at speeding up the build in the open source project, the project became more obsolete. So you not only have decisions to navigate, but you have direct conflict between what's better for the open source project and what's better for the business.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Mm-hm. But Svelte on the other hand...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Svelte was the rising star here, in terms of coming out of nowhere in 2019, and being the top-ranked frontend framework for 2020. Just slightly beating out React, which had kind of been on and off holding that top stop for a while. Vue stepped in the top spot for one year in 2018... And really, they're all kind of bunched towards the top. But yeah, Svelte is kicking butt and taking names.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. It's worth noting that this is based on overall satisfaction, interest, usage and awareness, and that the percent differences are like 1% or 2% here or there... So it's not like 40% more people chose Svelte over React. We're talking literally in this case it's 1% difference on the satisfaction chart. It's 89% for Svelte, and 88% for React. But yeah, definitely the new kid on the block last year, and top of the block this year.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And one of the other interesting things there is the vast majority of those folks are not saying they've tried it, they liked it and they wanna use it again. They're instead saying "I've heard about it and I'm interested."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I know why it overtook in 2020. There's a blog post that they have, from July 17th, called "Svelte loves TypeScript", where they \[unintelligible 00:49:59.19\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Stop it! \[laughs\] Don't do that to us. Oh, that reminds me about a good blog post we should write... "JS Party loves TypeScript." \[laughs\] Is that all I've gotta do to get number one?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Apparently...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** The other really interesting thing looking at this overall rankings chart is the extent to which both Angular and Ember have crashed and burned over the last few years. Ember was never one of the super-top frameworks, but Angular - I mean, look at them. They've gone from 2017, 66% satisfaction/interest/usage or however that's getting broken out, down to 42%, second from the bottom.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** This is where the bias of this survey kind of shows, though... Because I still feel like - just from my own anecdotal experience - Angular is king in the enterprise.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So if you guys are looking at the rankings chart and you're on the first tab, you're looking at satisfaction, you have to click over to Interest and Usage. So when you click over to Usage, it changes things quite a bit.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Oh, I see how that is.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So Angular \[unintelligible 00:51:08.26\] 56% usage. What Svelte is topping is the satisfaction and the interest. It's definitely not topping the usage, because it's still pretty new. So you've gotta click through. Angular is still greatly used, but the satisfaction is down.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** There we go.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, that makes sense. So Angular is number two in usage, but second-to-last place in satisfaction.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I totally buy that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, some of it is like - you're forced to use a thing at your job. That's a real thing. It's like, "Well, we're using Angular, so you're gonna use Angular." Whether or not it's on merit or not, we just have bad feelings when it's like "My boss made me do this." And the more and more enterprise you are, the less and less agency you have as an individual developer to choose your tools. So anything that's big in the enterprise, I think is naturally gonna struggle in a satisfaction survey. That's just my opinion.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[52:01\] Except TypeScript.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's just your opinion... \[laughter\] Actually, no, it's not, because it did really well. Darn it.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That is an interesting point, because if I look at these graphs side by side, the satisfaction and the usage, Angular's satisfaction numbers plummet when their usage numbers skyrocket. So a lot of folks are suddenly having to use this thing, and ain't liking it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So one cool thing as we're going a bit meta about the charting - one cool thing they've done this year is they've integrated some qualitative data as well, which is like random shout-outs from different developers... Which I think is really cool. Whenever you're just staring at charts and data and numbers, you can get kind of that blank stare, and sometimes misery things; but as you scroll some of these, they'll have different people giving their qualitative picks...
+
+For instance, Cassidy Williams on the Opinions section - her pick was Ben Hong. So she links out to Ben Hong and gives them a shout-out and says why he's awesome stuff for the community. So I think that was a nice touch this year, adding those little things... Because it breaks up the data and it also allows individual voices to be heard, versus just like "Here's what everybody said."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And when you've actually filled out the survey, I thought it was kind of cool that they showed you how you ranked compared to everyone else who's previously taken it. So if you -- it said "Oh, you know, 3% of what our typical survey user does", in my case, and in some cases.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, that's neat. They tell you at the very end, or they tell you right after you answer?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** At the very end, I believe.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. Because I'd use that to change my answers... Like, "Hm, what's this one...?" That would be bad.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That would be bad. Cool. Well, the same question we asked on CSS - based on this, anything you are particularly looking to check out this year? And Nick, TypeScript is not a valid answer for you, because I know you've already checked this out.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\] Yeah, I'll go first and say that I really wanna try out Svelte. I've seen not just this, but blog posts about it, and overall in just random Discords and Slacks that I'm in, it does seem like it's a satisfactory library that people generally like to use... And I wanna know why. So I need to play around with it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I gave Svelte a try back in 2019; I did a talk at All Things Open about it, just like an intro talk, and so that allowed me an opportunity to dive into it and to build a little thing, like a little one-page app with Svelte, that I used at the conference... And it was lots of fun; I really liked it. I just haven't revisited it yet. So looking at this and just thinking in general, a technology that I am gonna give a shot this year - I've never used Next.js myself. I like the idea of a hybrid, mostly JAMStack, but also with some backend possibilities, and pre-rendering a bunch of stuff, but then allowing for updates... I think it looks like it's a very flexible tool, that is up my alley, so I'm gonna give Next.js a try. Or at least I want to. What about you, Kball?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, so I have tried Svelte, and I have played with Next a little bit, though nothing serious... Both phenomenal pieces of work, so definitely check those out and enjoy them. The one that I'm actually looking at, that I'd heard show up a little bit on my radar before, but that I haven't tried out, and it showed up at the top of the satisfaction list for the testing category is the new Testing library that I think it was Kent C. Dodds putting it together. I think he put it together as a part of writing a course... But I've heard a few things trickling through, and it looks like the people who are trying it are loving it. So that's on my radar for this year - trying out the Testing library.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I have tested that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** What's it called?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Testing library.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I believe it's called Testing library.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** No, seriously, what's it called? \[laughter\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I have tried it, and it's pretty nice. I like it a lot.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So you've tried it, Nick... Is it different, or new? I'm most familiar with Mocha; what's different about it? Why would I be more satisfied, or why would I give it a shot?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[56:13\] So I'm probably gonna get this totally wrong, but it seems like it's a tool written to help you write tests in the way that I think Kent C. Dodds prescribes, which is writing a lot of tests that are most integration-style tests. And I've only used it in the context of React, so it gives me this render method that I can call, and I can render any component that I want... And then I have the screen object that I import, and from that screen, it's basically like my computer screen. So I can do queries to find things... It just makes it really easy to traverse the DOM, get at what I want, and then I use a Jest -- what are those libraries called? A Jest assertion library that adds in a whole bunch of -- like, testing library-specific, or DOM-specific assertions. So I can just say "Expect this element is visible", and when I fire this event - and the testing library makes it very easy to fire events on buttons or whatever - then I can assert and expect that a button or a modal is now showing up.
+
+So I'm testing from the perspective of the user, rather than just writing unit tests, which might not really represent the state of the application.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So it's closer to something like a Selenium, or that type of testing?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, but not doing anything with regards to the Selenium APIs - I forgot what those are called. You're not controlling a browser, you're still just like -- it has a virtual DOM and you're working within that virtual DOM to manipulate the DOM nodes with it. But not a real browser.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Which probably keeps it pretty fast. It might be worth getting Kent on the show. I haven't heard about this, and I definitely think it's interesting if you have a new testing library - first of all, we'll get our crack team of marketers on the case and we'll get Kent a better name for this thing... Unless it's like THE Testing library; then I guess he's already dominated the industry. \[laughter\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** But if you search for "testing library" right now, it's number one.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, maybe he wins, and we don't need to rename it.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That might actually be pretty brilliant.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] But in 2020 or 2021 to come up with a new testing library and then have it be enjoyed by many people - it has to kind of have its own view of the world. So I think maybe it'd be a good show, bringing him on and talking about it. Would you use it alongside a unit testing library, or can it also just do unit testing as well?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, I'm using it within Jest. So I'm writing typical Jest tests. I have some unit tests interspersed within there as well, but then most of it is driven through Testing library and rendering my components that way.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Neat.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** So it's more of a replacement for -- now I'm forgetting the name of that library that was really popular in React. Do you know what I'm talking about?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Let's see... There's Cypress, Playwright, Storybook, Puppeteer, Mocha... I'm just reading the different testing libraries on the web page. Ava?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** No... I cannot believe I can't remember the name of it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** WebDriverIO? \[laughs\] Okay, I've exhausted the list...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And I'm googling for it and I can't find it, so it's not--
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Maybe it was just in your head, Nick...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Enzyme. That's it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, okay.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It's more of a replacement for Enzyme.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Alrighty. Well, Kent, if you're listening, hit us up. We'd love to have you on the show to talk about Testing library.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Absolutely. One more thing I wanna try this year on build tools - ESBuild.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Oh, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Pure speed, baby. I love it. Let's just go as fast as we can. And this is the Go-based JavaScript build tool that's high on satisfaction and pretty new; I think it came out last year. Very low on usage. 6% usage, because it's new... And pretty low on awareness - 26%. But 94% satisfaction. So I definitely wanna give that a try, because the faster things build, the better, in my humble opinion.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[01:00:08.05\] Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And this year, I think in April, the last version of Node that doesn't support - I think that's 10.x - the ESModule syntax will be end-of-lifed. So then we will have that in Node for sure, everywhere. So it'll be really interesting to see how that works, and kind of along the whole lines of the FredKSchott pipeline, seeing how that grows over the next couple of years.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. How up to date do folks run Node, just generally, Node developers - are they generally on the latest major release, or do people stay behind?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I suspect it depends on whether you're writing Node apps, or you're using Node as a way to render a web application?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I'm referring more to like apps.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I don't know.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. I guess I'm asking a question--
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I can tell you that we're \[unintelligible 01:00:57.19\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** "How would you know?" Well, we could take a survey...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, I'm not confident in our ability to get representative samples after all... In our surveys nobody liked Reggaeton; I mean...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] I mean, come on...! That actually might be representative. Nick, I ask you because you're a little more plugged into corporate America than I am; just generally, Node developers, in your experience - not a survey - do people generally wanna keep their Node apps running the latest Node, or do they lock one version and they're running Node from three years ago, or what?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I've seen a lot of both, but mostly I think that it tends towards trying to run the latest LTS version.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It makes sense. Well, definitely we should see a pick-up of things like ESBuild and Snowpack and whatnot after April. So I would expect the next survey to have -- because the interest is high and the satisfaction is high on these things, you'd expect that you should spike, so maybe we can check back next year on that front.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Sounds good. Well, with that I think we have sufficiently beaten these surveys to death. Thank you both, gentlemen, for exploring this, for not sticking too much in TypeScript land when we were talking about everything else, and for joining me in the bad puns.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It's popular, I can't help it.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Alright. With that, we're gonna sign off. Thank you, JS Party people. Enjoy your week. We'll catch you next week with another party. Remember, we record live on Thursdays, 10 AM. Jerod will tell you that again, but really - join us. It's what makes this a party - it's when we're all hanging out on Slack. Y'all are making fun of us at the same time as we're making fun of us. It's a good time.
+
+Alright, take care. This is Kball, signing out!
+
+**Outro:** \[01:02:40.22\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I've gotta decide if I'm gonna leave that ripple part in or take it out... \[laughter\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** With all of the white space, the white noise...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah... All of it just standing there... First of all, I fumbled it. Then it wasn't fun anyways. So it's like a double-whammy. It's hard to say prefers-reduced-motion off the top of your head.
+
+\[prefers-reduced-motion. Yeah, that was really difficult\]
diff --git "a/Breaking down the State of CSS\342\247\270JS_transcript.txt" "b/Breaking down the State of CSS\342\247\270JS_transcript.txt"
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bfbd265883801fea7e75074fe5d0d99408594d16
--- /dev/null
+++ "b/Breaking down the State of CSS\342\247\270JS_transcript.txt"	
@@ -0,0 +1,989 @@
+[0.00 --> 13.44]  If we look at the changes in how much people are using different things, there has been dramatic change both in the libraries and tooling space, but also just in the underlying features of CSS, right?
+[13.44 --> 16.68]  So there's a dramatic increase in folks using CSS Grid.
+[16.78 --> 20.00]  There's a dramatic increase in folks using custom properties.
+[20.56 --> 27.34]  And those are things that allow you to do stuff that you used to need a lot of tooling to do.
+[27.34 --> 31.82]  And in some cases, they let you do things that you basically couldn't do at all, even with tooling.
+[32.20 --> 37.66]  So there's quite a bit of innovation in what the underlying platform supports and how much people are able to use that.
+[37.82 --> 40.84]  At the same time, there is also this change in framework.
+[42.44 --> 45.02]  Bandwidth for Change Log is provided by Fastly.
+[45.34 --> 47.22]  Learn more at Fastly.com.
+[47.46 --> 49.74]  Our feature flags are powered by LaunchDarkly.
+[50.02 --> 51.82]  Check them out at LaunchDarkly.com.
+[52.06 --> 53.92]  And we're hosted on Leno cloud servers.
+[53.92 --> 57.82]  Get $100 in hosting credit at Leno.com slash Change Log.
+[58.62 --> 60.02]  What's up, JS Party people?
+[60.14 --> 64.88]  Have you ever wondered if you could be offering a faster, less buggy experience for your customers?
+[65.44 --> 70.62]  Well, with Raygun Error and Performance Monitoring, you have all the information you need at your fingertips
+[70.62 --> 76.12]  to quickly find and fix errors and performance issues across your tech stack down to the line of code.
+[76.46 --> 79.30]  Raygun makes it easy to monitor the impact of your performance improvements,
+[79.30 --> 84.92]  quickly identify issues across web and mobile apps, and see how your code performs in the hands of your customers.
+[85.42 --> 89.00]  This saves you time, this saves you money, and this saves your sanity.
+[89.34 --> 93.96]  Head to Raygun.com to join thousands of customer-centric software teams who use Raygun every single day.
+[94.26 --> 98.14]  Again, Raygun.com to give them a try with a free 14-day trial.
+[98.14 --> 123.06]  Welcome to JS Party, your weekly celebration of JavaScript and the web.
+[123.36 --> 125.30]  We have some great episodes in the pipeline.
+[125.30 --> 130.30]  Next week, Ben Coe from Google joins Amel and Divya to talk testing coverage.
+[130.66 --> 132.58]  After that, Yep, Nope returns.
+[132.78 --> 133.70]  That's our debate show.
+[133.86 --> 135.10]  I think this one's going to be heated.
+[135.40 --> 140.88]  And it only gets better from there, so subscribe now at jsparty.fm or in your favorite podcast app.
+[141.08 --> 143.02]  Just search for JS Party, you'll find us.
+[143.42 --> 145.42]  Let's break down some survey results, shall we?
+[145.48 --> 146.88]  Hey, it's party time, y'all.
+[146.88 --> 155.94]  Hello, JS Party people.
+[156.18 --> 159.50]  Welcome back to another week of partying about JavaScript and the web.
+[159.60 --> 160.20]  I'm K-Ball.
+[160.30 --> 161.56]  I will be your host this week.
+[161.78 --> 168.06]  And with me today to discuss the state of star surveys, where star equals CSS or JS,
+[168.06 --> 170.88]  I have the one and only Jared Santo.
+[171.08 --> 171.44]  Hey, Jared.
+[171.64 --> 173.04]  I thought we were going to be the stars.
+[173.68 --> 174.64]  We could change it up.
+[174.90 --> 176.90]  State of the stars survey.
+[177.34 --> 178.92]  I thought we were just going to talk about how we're doing.
+[179.30 --> 180.10]  How are you doing, Jared?
+[180.44 --> 181.56]  I'm doing quite fine.
+[181.66 --> 182.44]  Thanks for having me.
+[182.80 --> 183.46]  You're a star.
+[184.06 --> 184.48]  All right.
+[184.56 --> 189.56]  The other friend panelist star joining me today is the one and only Nick Neesey.
+[189.62 --> 190.10]  Hello, Nick.
+[190.52 --> 191.06]  Ahoy, ahoy.
+[191.56 --> 192.02]  How's it going?
+[192.46 --> 193.40]  Making it through.
+[193.40 --> 195.76]  We are in 2021 now, for real.
+[195.86 --> 200.38]  Not like the last episode that I recorded for 2021 when we were recording it in 2020.
+[200.64 --> 201.50]  We were faking it.
+[201.78 --> 205.86]  So excited to be here last year was a bit, but we made it.
+[205.98 --> 210.30]  Though if by virtue of speaking or listening to this podcast, you made it.
+[210.82 --> 217.14]  You are here in 2021 and we are going to talk about what's changing in JavaScript and CSS.
+[217.14 --> 223.10]  And we're going to jump into that by looking at the state of JS and state of CSS surveys.
+[223.40 --> 225.58]  That were done and published at the end of last year.
+[225.66 --> 228.82]  There's a state of JS 2020, state of CSS 2020.
+[229.34 --> 236.64]  And one of the fun things about that is we can actually look at the differences between what was going on in 2020, what people said, and what was going on in 2019.
+[237.04 --> 238.36]  Talk about those trends.
+[239.26 --> 243.38]  We can prognosticate about whether or not they missed something.
+[243.72 --> 247.34]  But yeah, let's start with just kind of talking about those surveys.
+[247.44 --> 248.76]  Because we talked about them before.
+[249.30 --> 251.28]  What strikes you guys when you think about these surveys?
+[251.28 --> 254.42]  Because I know when we talked about doing it, some folks were like, oh, those surveys.
+[254.54 --> 256.04]  And some folks were like, yeah, those surveys.
+[256.54 --> 257.62]  I like surveys.
+[257.98 --> 259.18]  I like to look at data.
+[260.32 --> 263.02]  And I appreciate the work that goes into these surveys.
+[264.28 --> 266.90]  We've, of course, broke them down in the past.
+[267.16 --> 269.44]  And doing surveys is hard.
+[269.98 --> 274.86]  In fact, we've at ChangeLog thought about doing surveys and talked to folks about doing some surveys.
+[275.12 --> 276.70]  And we're always like, do we really want to do surveys?
+[276.70 --> 278.48]  Because it's tough to do well.
+[278.62 --> 282.36]  And you open yourself to all sorts of criticism, which I don't like criticism.
+[282.54 --> 283.96]  I just prefer to be a star.
+[284.68 --> 289.14]  And so I just appreciate Sasha and the team and everybody who works on these.
+[289.50 --> 291.60]  Because it's tough to do well.
+[291.68 --> 294.98]  And they've come under some criticism because of how they've been conducted over the years.
+[295.08 --> 296.96]  And I'm sure we'll dive into all that.
+[296.96 --> 300.78]  But I do enjoy just looking at what's going on, seeing the changes over time.
+[300.98 --> 305.16]  And then talking about it, I think some of these things have to be taken with a grain of salt.
+[305.44 --> 308.50]  But that being said, it's good conversation pieces.
+[309.20 --> 309.22]  Yeah.
+[309.38 --> 314.94]  And I really like that it validates all of my conceptions about JavaScript and CSS of today.
+[315.02 --> 315.42]  That's sweet.
+[315.60 --> 317.24]  And when it doesn't, then I don't like it.
+[317.30 --> 318.12]  Then it's biased.
+[319.48 --> 321.06]  That's the real value of surveys, right?
+[321.06 --> 326.10]  The ones that tell you that all your priors are correct and all the other guys or gals' opinions are wrong.
+[326.10 --> 326.34]  Yeah.
+[326.86 --> 329.66]  Just survey yourself and you'll bet 1,000, you know?
+[331.06 --> 332.12]  Sample size one.
+[332.48 --> 333.84]  All the answers are correct.
+[334.10 --> 334.60]  Moving on.
+[334.86 --> 339.56]  Well, and that is one of the interesting both critiques that has been leveled at these surveys,
+[339.68 --> 342.68]  but also one of the things that they've worked on and done well is like,
+[342.80 --> 345.42]  how do you determine what's the sample for your survey?
+[345.54 --> 346.76]  Who is being surveyed?
+[347.06 --> 352.96]  And if you're doing a scientific survey with the purpose of trying to sort of prove something,
+[352.96 --> 358.12]  then you want to figure out kind of what the population is that you're trying to understand
+[358.12 --> 361.28]  and survey a representative sample.
+[362.32 --> 367.76]  Here we're trying to kind of get a sense of just the broadest possible swath of the web,
+[367.80 --> 370.60]  and I think they've taken the spray and pray approach, which is like, okay,
+[371.02 --> 375.38]  push this in as many directions as we possibly can so we can get the most possible data
+[375.38 --> 380.74]  and worry a little bit less about does this accurately model any particular population
+[380.74 --> 382.14]  within the web dev community.
+[383.34 --> 385.86]  As a result, we have lots of data to look at.
+[386.12 --> 392.56]  As you do this, do be a little bit careful in drawing conclusions about the representation
+[392.56 --> 395.02]  of all of JavaScript or all of CSS.
+[395.02 --> 399.70]  And one of the things they do do nicely is they print out the demographics of who it was
+[399.70 --> 403.58]  that answered the survey so that you can see who is this representative of.
+[404.28 --> 411.60]  And if you come in with a feeling about what the web industry looks like or what your company
+[411.60 --> 416.08]  looks like, you can get a sense of whether or not this data is likely to be representative of you.
+[417.12 --> 420.16]  Plus, you have to ask yourself, like, how much does it really matter as well?
+[420.16 --> 425.48]  You know, like, so other people are digging this particular technology, and so does that
+[425.48 --> 429.28]  mean that I need to be using that technology, or does that mean that I'm less than because
+[429.28 --> 430.72]  I use this other technology?
+[431.02 --> 436.14]  And, you know, it's worth understanding what other people are doing, what they appreciate,
+[436.38 --> 438.98]  what they're moving away from, what they're moving towards.
+[439.50 --> 443.14]  But all those are just data points for, you know, you and your life and your work and your
+[443.14 --> 444.92]  team to make decisions.
+[445.68 --> 449.06]  And so that's why I say take it with a grain of salt, because even if this survey was like
+[449.06 --> 454.50]  100% the actual facts of the world of JavaScript and CSS, like, that doesn't mean that it informs
+[454.50 --> 455.72]  your context whatsoever.
+[456.12 --> 458.96]  So, grain of salt, still enjoyable to look at.
+[459.06 --> 461.82]  And of course, confirming your priors is always fun.
+[462.24 --> 465.94]  So, you know, we're here to see if TypeScript's doing awesome or...
+[465.94 --> 466.24]  Oh, yeah.
+[466.54 --> 467.14]  We don't have to look.
+[468.06 --> 468.76]  We know.
+[469.28 --> 470.42]  We just know.
+[470.42 --> 475.18]  I mean, the new government website that just was relaunched after the inauguration,
+[475.66 --> 476.70]  folks were tearing it down.
+[476.70 --> 477.10]  Yeah.
+[477.10 --> 477.88]  It's using jQuery.
+[478.44 --> 479.10]  Not a problem.
+[479.48 --> 480.96]  So, they're still like...
+[480.96 --> 485.60]  That's one of the wealthiest governments in the world doing their website, and they're
+[485.60 --> 486.22]  using jQuery.
+[486.42 --> 489.74]  So, if you're using jQuery, no shame, even if it's not showing up in this survey.
+[490.80 --> 492.74]  Lots of different stuff there.
+[493.08 --> 493.66]  Okay, cool.
+[494.14 --> 498.46]  So, before we dig in, we've talked about values, pros and cons.
+[498.64 --> 502.40]  But the team has also, behind these surveys, has also talked a little bit about what they
+[502.40 --> 503.62]  want to do moving forward.
+[503.62 --> 509.24]  I know some of the big changes that they made coming into 2020 from 2019 is they improved
+[509.24 --> 513.40]  the breadth of demographics that they were looking for, and they did a lot more in terms
+[513.40 --> 519.88]  of pulling in information from the community about learning, where to learn from, what to
+[519.88 --> 524.44]  learn, or what good resources are, which I think highlights that strength point you're
+[524.44 --> 529.22]  talking about, Jared, of using this as a place to get a sense of what people are doing and kind
+[529.22 --> 534.26]  of explore rather than use it to try to tell yourself if you're doing good or not.
+[534.84 --> 536.72]  What are some of the other things they've said they're going to do?
+[537.50 --> 541.66]  Yeah, well, I mean, I think it's worth giving a shout out to Sasha Grief and Rafael Benite,
+[542.02 --> 546.48]  I believe is how you say his name, who is really the team behind both State of CSS and State
+[546.48 --> 546.80]  of JS.
+[546.96 --> 548.02]  And they've been doing it for many years.
+[548.14 --> 549.68]  So, this is very much labor of love.
+[550.52 --> 551.98]  A lot of people pitched in this year.
+[551.98 --> 556.48]  So, they have a special thanks on their website, including some folks doing translations.
+[556.68 --> 557.58]  So, that's really cool.
+[558.26 --> 561.02]  And we've had Sasha on this show, I believe.
+[561.12 --> 562.48]  We've definitely had him on the changelog.
+[562.54 --> 567.28]  And we've talked about the trials and tribulations of doing surveys, the way that his branding,
+[567.82 --> 574.60]  or I should say their branding and design is so good that it gives them a lot of clout,
+[574.84 --> 577.06]  which is why some of the criticism comes with the clout.
+[577.12 --> 581.46]  When you say this is the state of this, you are making yourself authoritative.
+[581.46 --> 584.00]  I mean, their websites are always spectacular.
+[584.40 --> 585.20]  So, shout out to all that.
+[585.32 --> 590.10]  They also know that it can be improved year by year, just like anybody would do with a
+[590.10 --> 591.38]  project that they care about.
+[591.70 --> 593.92]  And so, like you said, K-Ball, they've made some improvements this year.
+[594.72 --> 599.28]  Sasha recently tweeted that he wanted to do some new stuff in 2021 for the next round,
+[599.64 --> 603.52]  which I'm sure will be coming out soon, at least the survey part, maybe not the results.
+[604.16 --> 609.68]  They want to start measuring disabilities among respondents, which, of course, would help us
+[609.68 --> 614.02]  with our ally decisions, our accessibility decisions and information around that.
+[614.54 --> 616.12]  Improve the translation process.
+[616.22 --> 620.84]  Of course, the more languages you can get to, the better sample lean you can have of the world
+[620.84 --> 623.30]  writ large, not just the U.S. and English.
+[623.72 --> 628.02]  They want to do a better job of highlighting minoritized voices, whether by gender, race,
+[628.12 --> 631.84]  geography, et cetera, in their results through data visualization.
+[631.84 --> 636.44]  So, just a few things that he put out that they would like to do this year and just continue
+[636.44 --> 639.70]  to improve and refine what these surveys are.
+[640.26 --> 646.44]  I do like that they see the criticisms that come from this and they respond to it, honestly
+[646.44 --> 647.12]  and openly.
+[647.88 --> 651.66]  And that's really reassuring because it's a hard problem to solve, no matter how you look
+[651.66 --> 651.92]  at it.
+[651.92 --> 659.56]  Coming from a conference organizer perspective, we always strive for having really good, diverse
+[659.56 --> 664.98]  in both the people that are coming, the speakers, and in the opinions that are being thrown out
+[664.98 --> 668.00]  at the conferences, trying to have a diverse opinion across all of that.
+[668.42 --> 674.50]  It's not easy, but it's much easier when it's a finite set of people, like 10 to 20 speakers
+[674.50 --> 677.56]  that you're picking out and trying to set the tone with that.
+[677.56 --> 682.98]  With this, you're trying to expand beyond the audience.
+[683.20 --> 687.82]  And they call out in a blog post that there are two white guys trying to do this on Twitter,
+[688.18 --> 693.40]  which is predominantly white male, and trying to reach out through that.
+[693.84 --> 700.18]  And it's hard when you're trying to get thousands more, as opposed to like 10 to 20 more for a conference.
+[700.82 --> 705.44]  Yeah, and if you look at the demographic trends that they have over time, they are trending
+[705.44 --> 706.18]  more diverse.
+[706.18 --> 712.14]  You know, they're getting a wider range of folks from different countries around the
+[712.14 --> 712.38]  world.
+[712.56 --> 717.02]  They started measuring languages, primary languages, and they're getting more and more diversity
+[717.02 --> 717.42]  there.
+[717.82 --> 719.30]  There's somewhat more gender diversity.
+[720.30 --> 725.70]  There's definitely room to grow on that dimension, but they're acknowledging it as an issue, and
+[725.70 --> 726.74]  they're moving in the right direction.
+[726.74 --> 745.90]  This episode is brought to you by Sourcegraph.
+[746.28 --> 748.82]  Sourcegraph is code search for every developer and team.
+[749.06 --> 752.30]  Easily search across all the code that matters to you and your organization.
+[752.30 --> 757.32]  Find example code, explore and read code, debug issues, and so much more.
+[757.58 --> 762.14]  And I talk with Byung Liu, CTO and co-founder of Sourcegraph, and asked him to share what
+[762.14 --> 766.74]  code search is, what developers and teams are missing out on, and how Sourcegraph provides
+[766.74 --> 768.66]  code search to every developer in the world.
+[768.66 --> 774.80]  If you've worked inside a Google or a Facebook or any one of these really big, well-respected
+[774.80 --> 779.16]  technology companies, chances are you've used something like code search before, and you
+[779.16 --> 781.42]  know the value that it provides to your team.
+[781.50 --> 786.52]  You know that almost every single engineer inside these organizations uses it on a daily
+[786.52 --> 786.96]  basis.
+[787.20 --> 791.66]  If you've never had that experience, chances are you may not know what you're missing out
+[791.66 --> 791.88]  on.
+[791.88 --> 796.46]  You know, the term code search sounds a lot like, you know, grep or the search inside
+[796.46 --> 796.90]  your editor.
+[797.26 --> 799.26]  And that's what a lot of people think when they first hear it.
+[799.32 --> 801.02]  But it's really about much more than that.
+[801.12 --> 806.74]  It's really about connecting you as a developer to the broader universe of code and code-related
+[806.74 --> 811.02]  data that's relevant to you, that you need at hand in order to enter that, you know,
+[811.02 --> 816.50]  magical flow state of, you know, being in your editor, writing code quickly, making rapid
+[816.50 --> 818.80]  progress towards that feature bug fix that you're working on.
+[818.80 --> 823.08]  It's really about making all that contextual information accessible at your fingertips.
+[823.60 --> 827.88]  And what that means is, think about every single repository, every single file, and every
+[827.88 --> 834.16]  single language, every single diff, and every single open source dependency or maybe closed
+[834.16 --> 836.20]  source dependency that's shared across your organization.
+[836.36 --> 839.00]  All that is searchable through a single text box.
+[839.42 --> 843.66]  And that's really powerful because it means all this friction is eliminated between you and
+[843.66 --> 845.12]  understanding that broader world of code.
+[845.20 --> 846.86]  You don't have to clone stuff down to your local machine.
+[846.86 --> 848.70]  You don't have to mess around with editor config.
+[849.44 --> 853.72]  You don't have to be constantly bugging people on other teams who may not even know who you
+[853.72 --> 857.58]  are in order to teach yourself how all that code works.
+[857.96 --> 863.50]  What Sourcegraph is, is really a way for the rest of us, the people who don't work inside
+[863.50 --> 869.64]  the Googles, the Facebooks, to get a tool that gives us access to that sort of information
+[869.64 --> 871.54]  readily and at our fingertips.
+[871.54 --> 875.98]  It's really about bringing this type of tool that a lot of the larger technology companies
+[875.98 --> 880.64]  have developed and invested hundreds of millions of dollars into making for the productivity
+[880.64 --> 884.84]  of their own engineers and making that accessible to every single developer in the world.
+[884.96 --> 885.50]  All right.
+[885.52 --> 888.78]  If code search powered by Sourcegraph sounds like something you and your team could use,
+[888.84 --> 893.28]  head to info.sourcegraph.com slash changelog and click the button that says try Sourcegraph
+[893.28 --> 893.78]  now.
+[893.98 --> 897.10]  You can install it locally, deploy it to a server or to a cluster.
+[897.48 --> 900.40]  They have a quick start guide that takes less than five minutes to install Sourcegraph using
+[900.40 --> 902.58]  Docker. So it's too easy to give a try.
+[902.76 --> 906.22]  Again, head to info.sourcegraph.com slash changelog.
+[930.40 --> 939.90]  All right. So coming back into it, let's talk about what stood out in the state of CSS survey
+[939.90 --> 942.76]  and what you're taking away from it. Let's start with you, Jared. When you looked at this
+[942.76 --> 946.22]  state of CSS 2020, what did you notice? What stood out to you?
+[946.70 --> 951.64]  For me, what stood out is that people are generally people who responded to this survey. Let me
+[951.64 --> 958.22]  preface that. They generally like CSS quite a bit, which is somewhat funny when we talked about a few
+[958.22 --> 963.72]  weeks back, why people complain about CSS so often. Because even since that conversation,
+[963.90 --> 968.28]  I put a post out on changelog.com as well, just like reviewing some of the reasons that we thought.
+[969.04 --> 973.06]  I've seen so much complaining about CSS over the last few weeks, just on Twitter alone,
+[973.58 --> 977.94]  that it seems like it's like the whipping boy or girl, depending on how you think of CSS,
+[978.74 --> 983.94]  of the community. I mean, there's just so much complaining and rabble rousing and debating and
+[983.94 --> 987.94]  stuff. And just like, wow, very interesting. And then the survey says, you know, people are
+[987.94 --> 994.30]  generally pretty happy with CSS, which I think is appropriate and cool. Because let's face it,
+[994.30 --> 999.50]  it's a very powerful set of tools and technologies. And there's so much that people accomplish on the
+[999.50 --> 1004.40]  web and build amazing things. I just love going to a website and being like, wow, this website's
+[1004.40 --> 1009.70]  amazing. And the person that put this CSS together really knows their stuff. I mean, that's such a great
+[1009.70 --> 1014.56]  feeling and celebrating that. And so just seeing that, you know, of course, there are things that
+[1014.56 --> 1018.26]  could be better. There are things that are hard to learn, things that are hard to use, waiting for
+[1018.26 --> 1023.52]  browsers to support X, Y, or Z. There's all these little intricate details. But in general, people do
+[1023.52 --> 1030.52]  like CSS. And that was just really nice to see. And then secondly, I think the trending thing is no
+[1030.52 --> 1035.02]  surprise, because we've been talking about it recently, is that Tailwind has really taken over the
+[1035.02 --> 1040.16]  mindshare, I think, of the front-end CSS space in 2020.
+[1040.80 --> 1044.18]  So you think that that's, does that support the idea that people love CSS?
+[1045.08 --> 1047.92]  I mean, it's a CSS framework, so they love it.
+[1047.94 --> 1049.82]  Well, you don't really like CSS with it.
+[1051.28 --> 1057.64]  Well, like I said, I mean, there's reasons why it's difficult. And one of the things that Adam said
+[1057.64 --> 1062.10]  on the show that we did, we're referencing back to our episode we did late last year with Adam
+[1062.10 --> 1068.54]  Wath and uptailing CSS, why it has been difficult and can be difficult to really feel like you've
+[1068.54 --> 1077.42]  mastered it, is because the best practices have not historically congealed to a place where it's
+[1077.42 --> 1083.32]  like, here is how you do it, right? There was different takes, a lot of experimentation, things
+[1083.32 --> 1089.80]  go in and out of style, technology changes, you know, RWD, responsive web design really shook
+[1089.80 --> 1095.58]  up the CSS best practices landscape. But now it's probably a decade ago now. And utility
+[1095.58 --> 1101.32]  classes are starting to be something that a lot of people are congealing around. And of
+[1101.32 --> 1107.46]  course, Tailwind provides that set of utility classes. And so seems like a radical idea, you
+[1107.46 --> 1112.58]  know, tachyons, is Burma another one? There's a handful of these things over the years that
+[1112.58 --> 1118.16]  have been saying, let's do CSS with these utility classes, which seem they're non-semantic,
+[1118.16 --> 1122.20]  et cetera, et cetera. And it really makes things better. And it seems like that's starting to
+[1122.20 --> 1127.16]  become, I don't know if it's a best practice cable. What do you think? It's becoming popular-er
+[1127.16 --> 1128.56]  and Tailwind's leading that charge.
+[1128.78 --> 1134.50]  Yeah. I mean, I think similar to what we've seen in the JavaScript ecosystem, like there are
+[1134.50 --> 1144.16]  ongoing both questions and trends around what are the right abstractions to use. And the types
+[1144.16 --> 1150.02]  of abstractions that are going to make sense in a CSS environment that is visual and spatial and
+[1150.02 --> 1157.40]  essentially applying to, or intended to apply to wide varieties of screen dimensions and things like
+[1157.40 --> 1163.04]  that, like the problem space of CSS, that's a very different problem space than you encounter in
+[1163.04 --> 1168.48]  JavaScript. And so it's not surprising that the ideas about what's going to make sense there
+[1168.48 --> 1175.10]  are not the same. I think we went a little overboard on the semantic CSS approach because it modeled
+[1175.10 --> 1180.28]  closer to how we were used to thinking about things in more imperative programming languages like
+[1180.28 --> 1187.60]  JavaScript. And that turns out to have some challenges when you shifted into that visual space.
+[1187.82 --> 1192.12]  I wanted to jump back a little bit to what you said about people liking CSS, because I think
+[1192.12 --> 1197.22]  it highlights one of the challenges in this type of survey is I think there might be a selection bias.
+[1197.22 --> 1204.94]  The people who chose to take the state of CSS survey, they break down demographics by reported
+[1204.94 --> 1213.36]  skill level and CSS proficiency. And 61% of the people who answered this survey considered themselves
+[1213.36 --> 1219.06]  experts in this with expert being defined as able to style an entire front end from scratch
+[1219.06 --> 1227.20]  following a consistent methodology. That body of people have likely already put in a
+[1227.20 --> 1234.24]  tremendous amount of work learning the mental models of CSS, which, as I mentioned, like CSS has a very
+[1234.24 --> 1239.00]  different problem domain and mental model than most other programming domains you're going to end up
+[1239.00 --> 1243.64]  with. And I think that that might be the source of a lot of hate. You know, a lot of the folks who hate on
+[1243.64 --> 1251.00]  CSS, they have not made that shift into understanding the mental model. And because it's different, it feels painful.
+[1251.00 --> 1260.40]  It's raw. It doesn't work right or how their heads are set up. So, you know, I think we should, you know, one, use this to say, yes,
+[1260.44 --> 1267.46]  there's a large body of people out there who do love CSS. And for good reason. It's an incredibly powerful and interesting
+[1267.46 --> 1274.42]  language. And I think that mental model is actually a really interesting one to wrap your head around. But not necessarily take this as
+[1274.42 --> 1280.72]  representative of the community as a whole, because everyone who hasn't climbed that learning curve, from what I can see,
+[1280.78 --> 1281.76]  they didn't take the survey.
+[1282.26 --> 1289.76]  Yeah, good, really good point. And perhaps a bright spot for those who are, you know, banging their head against CSS right now,
+[1289.90 --> 1295.90]  maybe you're just getting started. It is one of the first things that you learn as well, right? Like HTML and CSS, and then
+[1295.90 --> 1301.56]  JavaScript, I think you should learn them in that order. HTML, you can actually pick up in a day or two, because, you know, once you
+[1301.56 --> 1305.86]  understand like the sideways tree, I'm saying like the basics, right? Like it takes a long time to master,
+[1305.98 --> 1310.88]  of course, but it's not, it's so approachable, right? Like, okay, here's a tree structure, we nest
+[1310.88 --> 1316.62]  things inside, we give them names, take a cheat sheet, memorize these elements, you know, and then
+[1316.62 --> 1321.20]  attributes. And it goes from there. We learn forms, that kind of stuff. You can pick that up in a day.
+[1321.66 --> 1324.88]  I've taught it to people, they've had no problem. Like mentally, they're just like, cool. And they're
+[1324.88 --> 1330.80]  excited to come back for day two. And then day two, I used to do a three day, like real basic web development
+[1330.80 --> 1335.94]  class. And it was like day one, HTML, day two, CSS, day three, how to make something hide,
+[1336.10 --> 1340.66]  right? In JavaScript. So it was like the most basic JavaScript you could do. Day two, come back. And
+[1340.66 --> 1345.10]  now it's time to start talking CSS. And it's, it can be a real struggle at first. Like you said,
+[1345.14 --> 1353.32]  that mental model is not mapped as easily by anybody, probably by most folks, at least. But these
+[1353.32 --> 1359.88]  experts, right, the 60% who can do it, they've made it through that way. They like it. They enjoy it.
+[1359.88 --> 1366.42]  They're productive. And so for those of us who are in the mucky muck, right, trying to figure out the
+[1366.42 --> 1372.20]  mental model, trying to figure out why it doesn't look the way that we want it to, if we power through
+[1372.20 --> 1378.36]  and persist and persevere, likely at the end of that tunnel is a technology that A, is very powerful.
+[1378.90 --> 1383.72]  And you can accomplish a lot and make money and make cool things and all that. But B,
+[1384.48 --> 1385.64]  you'll probably end up liking it.
+[1385.64 --> 1390.30]  One thing that the survey doesn't, I'm not sure, I haven't found it, at least, that it doesn't tell
+[1390.30 --> 1397.88]  me is like the preference towards like more straight, more traditional CSS, or I would even
+[1397.88 --> 1403.06]  put like SAS in there, but you're writing more like, you know, here's my style files versus here's my
+[1403.06 --> 1410.76]  very tool optimized CSS that I'm writing either like with CSS and JS or with post CSS or some other
+[1410.76 --> 1416.26]  tool that's helping me to write better CSS that's maybe more scoped to like a specific component that
+[1416.26 --> 1420.98]  I'm working on or something. It doesn't really tell me, you know, if there's a preference more
+[1420.98 --> 1424.36]  one way or the other when I look at this. Have you seen that?
+[1424.92 --> 1428.66]  There's a little bit with the CSS methodology section, but it's not exactly what you're talking
+[1428.66 --> 1428.98]  about.
+[1429.42 --> 1432.82]  Yeah, that's where I was going. There's a little bit in that breakdown of technologies and
+[1432.82 --> 1433.58]  methodologies.
+[1433.58 --> 1442.02]  The methodologies are really like BEM versus SMACS versus object oriented CSS, etc. Utility
+[1442.02 --> 1447.80]  CSS or atomic CSS. But it doesn't say like, you know, thinking in components like with CSS
+[1447.80 --> 1451.78]  and JS or anything like that. That's actually its own separate area. So I don't think it addresses
+[1451.78 --> 1456.24]  directly what you're referring to or there's no like traditional cascade or I don't know what
+[1456.24 --> 1462.66]  you call the way that we historically did it. What do you call that cable? The cascade style
+[1462.66 --> 1463.70]  or nested?
+[1464.02 --> 1464.68]  We call it CSS.
+[1465.16 --> 1466.06]  Yeah, just CSS.
+[1467.66 --> 1469.34]  Just start slapping stuff out there.
+[1470.16 --> 1473.66]  But that could lead in like one way or the other. Like, do you actually like CSS? Or if
+[1473.66 --> 1478.54]  you're writing this like, you know, very, very different variant that is, you know, hyperscoped
+[1478.54 --> 1484.66]  and gets rid of the cascade and is in, I mean, not necessarily in JS, but, you know, more
+[1484.66 --> 1490.46]  it's not traditional CSS and it's kind of changing the rules of CSS. Is that making someone
+[1490.46 --> 1496.18]  like CSS more because it's making it easier to use? And also is that kind of making people
+[1496.18 --> 1499.62]  feel like they're more of an expert because there's so much tooling that you have to set
+[1499.62 --> 1500.12]  up beforehand?
+[1501.32 --> 1503.56]  These are great questions that I have no answers to.
+[1503.56 --> 1509.68]  Yeah, no idea. I mean, I think one interesting thing in this space that actually contrasted
+[1509.68 --> 1515.62]  a little bit with the JavaScript space is especially like if we look at the changes in how much people
+[1515.62 --> 1524.58]  are using different things, there has been dramatic change both in the libraries and tooling
+[1524.58 --> 1529.70]  space, but also just in the underlying features of CSS, right?
+[1529.70 --> 1535.82]  So there's a dramatic increase in folks using CSS grid. There's a dramatic increase in folks using
+[1535.82 --> 1545.54]  custom properties. And those are things that allow you to do stuff that you used to need a lot of
+[1545.54 --> 1550.76]  tooling to do. And in some cases, they let you do things that you basically couldn't do at all,
+[1550.92 --> 1555.94]  even with tooling. So there's quite a bit of innovation in what the underlying platform
+[1555.94 --> 1562.36]  supports and how much people are able to use that. At the same time, there is also this change in
+[1562.36 --> 1571.22]  framework. There's a lot of people using Tailwind that's dramatically changing. Many moves towards
+[1571.22 --> 1577.28]  these sort of, as you highlight, like the more functional and utility-based CSS and away from
+[1577.28 --> 1585.92]  some of the sort of more semantic CSS frameworks. And there's increasing amounts of CSS and JS.
+[1585.94 --> 1592.62]  You know, folks using styled components, folks using CSS modules. There's a lot of movement
+[1592.62 --> 1594.58]  in both dimensions of that.
+[1595.30 --> 1599.48]  One of the areas that you mentioned movement, which I don't even know what this is, is object fit.
+[1599.74 --> 1601.28]  Can you describe what object fit is?
+[1601.72 --> 1611.64]  Yes. So object fit. Let's even look it up. So this is basically around how you can display images
+[1611.64 --> 1620.02]  and videos at particular sizes within their containers. So for example, if you have images
+[1620.02 --> 1626.98]  with different aspect ratios that all are going to have to go into a single container or a single
+[1626.98 --> 1633.80]  component, how does it make sense to do those? Do you want to trim them? Do you want to have them
+[1633.80 --> 1638.34]  cover the space? Do you want to have them be resized so the entire thing is fit?
+[1638.34 --> 1645.56]  Those used to be so hard to do. And you'd have to basically do a lot of hackery to try to get it.
+[1645.62 --> 1650.46]  And now you have a single property where you can say, okay, for this one, I want it to be contained,
+[1650.56 --> 1656.00]  which means that the entire image should fit within this space and shrink it until that's possible.
+[1656.10 --> 1659.92]  And that may mean white space on the outsides of in one dimension or the other, but that's fine.
+[1659.92 --> 1667.12]  Or you can say, I want this to be covering the space, in which case it will trim a set of things,
+[1667.20 --> 1673.56]  but it'll make sure that it's covering the entire thing. So it's giving you fine grain control of how
+[1673.56 --> 1676.48]  images and videos are resized to fit their containers.
+[1677.18 --> 1682.34]  And particularly for images, like I can remember times in the past where I inappropriately would
+[1682.34 --> 1687.00]  use like a background image because I wanted that kind of feature. And that's not very accessible.
+[1687.00 --> 1690.66]  So in this, you can use like an image tag or a video, like you said,
+[1690.96 --> 1694.04]  and then just set this property and get the same result.
+[1694.46 --> 1698.92]  Pretty cool. I did not know about that one. I will answer to using it in the 2021 survey.
+[1699.62 --> 1704.04]  That gives us a good jumping off point. What did you all take from this survey of things that
+[1704.04 --> 1707.32]  you want to either start using or at least dig into and learn about?
+[1707.94 --> 1708.76]  Object fit.
+[1710.68 --> 1711.72]  You're a star, Jared.
+[1711.86 --> 1716.34]  Yeah, there you go. I'm going to be an object fit star next year. Honestly, at this point,
+[1716.34 --> 1723.04]  I think the groundswell of interest and talking to Adam on the show, I think Tailwind CSS is on my
+[1723.04 --> 1727.22]  list of things to actually pick up and try on a real project versus just toying around with and
+[1727.22 --> 1732.94]  reading about and then moving on. So that's on my to do list. And I wouldn't say this survey made
+[1732.94 --> 1737.76]  me think that, but I was already kind of thinking it. And then I see this and I'm like, you know what,
+[1738.16 --> 1743.92]  let's give it a shot so I can talk about it in more expert terms and not just armchair quarterback
+[1743.92 --> 1747.02]  terms. So that's, that's what I'm definitely going to do here soon.
+[1747.62 --> 1753.48]  I would say the same. I've been using Tailwind on my continuously evolving blog. I just never post to.
+[1753.58 --> 1754.44]  I didn't know you had a blog.
+[1754.72 --> 1758.38]  Because I don't post to it. I just change the technology that runs it.
+[1758.64 --> 1762.88]  You have fallen into that classic developer blunder where to get started with a blog,
+[1762.88 --> 1766.54]  you have to build yourself a custom blog and you end up in this never ending loop of
+[1766.54 --> 1768.34]  iterating and tuning and never publishing.
+[1768.34 --> 1772.32]  Yeah. You only have one post every couple of years and it's about how you rewrote your blog engine,
+[1772.56 --> 1772.86]  you know?
+[1774.86 --> 1777.88]  So that's your goal for this year. You're going to rewrite it again with Tailwind.
+[1778.60 --> 1779.36]  I've already started.
+[1779.68 --> 1780.04]  Oh, okay.
+[1781.74 --> 1782.12]  Why wait?
+[1782.22 --> 1785.02]  Tailwind 2 came out and it has a dark mode now. So I need to figure out how to
+[1785.02 --> 1789.00]  integrate that before I can actually post anything. I can't post anything without a dark mode.
+[1789.26 --> 1789.70]  That's true.
+[1789.90 --> 1794.92]  Yeah. I think that that's interesting. I will say that like day to day, so like day to day,
+[1794.92 --> 1800.50]  what I write is React and specifically like a lot of the components that we're using are
+[1800.50 --> 1808.72]  stylized material UI components, like from the material UI React library. And in a lot of ways,
+[1808.76 --> 1816.02]  I don't end up writing CSS a lot. I like writing CSS, but I don't end up doing it because I get to
+[1816.02 --> 1822.14]  play within the components that they provide, which is like a box component, for example, or a grid
+[1822.14 --> 1827.64]  component, which gives me like a flex box style grid that I can lay things out with. And then box,
+[1827.72 --> 1834.16]  I can set specific margin and paddings. And I like that because when I'm not writing straight CSS,
+[1834.40 --> 1838.96]  I know that what I'm writing and the way that I'm styling things on the page is conforming to the
+[1838.96 --> 1845.12]  overall design system that we have. And I like that I have those guardrails on me. And I know that
+[1845.12 --> 1850.06]  I'm only ever reaching out to real CSS when I have something that doesn't fit within those guardrails.
+[1850.06 --> 1857.42]  So I have like a, an extra justification for that. I will be interested to see how that evolves.
+[1857.84 --> 1863.26]  This is my first experience with it. And I wonder where stuff like that will be next year.
+[1863.86 --> 1870.36]  My largest active project is changelog.com. And the CSS on changelog.com was written not by myself,
+[1870.68 --> 1878.20]  but by Cody Peterson and his team and is modified and extended by me now. And it's BEM. And I hit my
+[1878.20 --> 1881.82]  head against it enough, especially when it comes time to like, hey, it's almost like I need more
+[1881.82 --> 1886.10]  componentization and BEM is not providing it. And or maybe Cody style BEM. I'm not,
+[1886.16 --> 1890.24]  I'm not here to throw any, neither BEM nor Cody under the bus. It's just the state of the world
+[1890.24 --> 1895.98]  that I'm in. I just find myself being like, I want to use this thing over here. And in order to get that
+[1895.98 --> 1900.82]  done, I just feel like it's way harder than it needs to be. So I'm excited for the utility styles
+[1900.82 --> 1907.12]  idea and see if that eases some of my pains with my current site. So I'm thinking about
+[1907.12 --> 1911.80]  just taking the main design of changelog.com and just seeing if I can port it, you know,
+[1911.86 --> 1916.58]  look for look from its current over to the tail end and just see what that process is like. That's,
+[1916.66 --> 1917.88]  that's kind of the working plan.
+[1918.46 --> 1922.68]  So I'm also doing most of my, well, when I'm working in the front end these days,
+[1922.68 --> 1926.86]  I'm doing most of my work in React and it's styled components and largely using a
+[1926.86 --> 1932.34]  existing design library to the extent possible. So I don't get to play with this stuff as much
+[1932.34 --> 1938.02]  as I used to. But I think one of the really interesting areas that to me is only really
+[1938.02 --> 1942.32]  getting explored by a subset of folks is the extent to which you can use custom properties
+[1942.32 --> 1950.80]  to enable that type of almost state-driven component. So like in your example, Jared,
+[1950.98 --> 1956.76]  I imagine a lot of those BEM classes have hard-coded values in them and that's part of what makes it hard
+[1956.76 --> 1960.10]  to move them over to new locations where things are slightly different.
+[1961.04 --> 1964.72]  But one of the really cool things about custom properties is you can actually,
+[1965.22 --> 1969.06]  like they're scoped in the same way that CSS is scoped and they cascade. So you could,
+[1969.20 --> 1975.10]  if you were to rewrite those all using custom properties, then you could have whatever their
+[1975.10 --> 1982.04]  container is in the new location, override those custom properties and have it essentially work
+[1982.04 --> 1986.04]  in both locations. So I think there's some really, really interesting stuff there.
+[1986.04 --> 1991.16]  And I've only seen a few people digging into that. There was a post I read recently that I can dig
+[1991.16 --> 1997.88]  up for the show notes that was talking about the ways in which you can actually use CSS custom
+[1997.88 --> 2004.04]  properties to communicate state in general to your UI and using it as a way to, for example,
+[2004.60 --> 2011.66]  communicate. You could set up an API that actually is what the API returns is a set of CSS custom
+[2011.66 --> 2017.78]  properties and you plug those CSS custom properties into your site and it ripples through because it
+[2017.78 --> 2022.00]  communicates a set of state. A bunch of other interesting things that could happen there.
+[2022.20 --> 2028.54]  And so I feel like that's an area that is ripe for some more tooling and some more exploration
+[2028.54 --> 2032.96]  about the possibilities. Like a lot of the use cases I'm seeing out there right now for custom
+[2032.96 --> 2037.38]  properties are pretty straightforward. They're replacing SAS variables, which is great. I mean,
+[2037.38 --> 2043.20]  being able to do what we used to do with SAS variables in CSS is phenomenal. Don't get me
+[2043.20 --> 2049.32]  wrong, but I think there's something that has potential to allow us to reimagine some of the
+[2049.32 --> 2051.90]  ways we write CSS and do some really interesting things.
+[2052.72 --> 2053.56]  That sounds fascinating.
+[2053.98 --> 2054.38]  If I turn...
+[2055.10 --> 2062.38]  What if I have prefers reduced motion turned on? Will it still ripple through or will it just...
+[2062.38 --> 2068.20]  That joke wasn't even worth trying a second time.
+[2069.56 --> 2070.80]  But I tried it anyways.
+[2072.40 --> 2076.66]  Sorry, I just got keyed in on when you're like, it just ripples through your site. I was like...
+[2076.66 --> 2078.78]  Maybe I should have said it cascades through your site.
+[2078.92 --> 2079.84]  Thank you. Much better.
+[2080.94 --> 2081.72]  What does that mean?
+[2082.10 --> 2083.58]  Kind of like a ripple effect.
+[2084.02 --> 2085.42]  Except playing on the cascade.
+[2087.52 --> 2090.22]  I write modern CSS. I don't know what a cascade is anymore.
+[2090.22 --> 2090.72]  Right.
+[2092.40 --> 2098.60]  I think that next year, maybe not next year, but this survey in three to four years, it'll
+[2098.60 --> 2104.12]  just continue to become more interesting because of, specifically I'm thinking of Houdini and
+[2104.12 --> 2110.66]  exposing a CSS parser API and some of the layout stuff that they're bringing. It's going to
+[2110.66 --> 2114.62]  change what you can do with CSS and it's going to make it so powerful. And it's going to be
+[2114.62 --> 2121.40]  really interesting to see how that trickles into the everyday CSS frameworks and libraries
+[2121.40 --> 2125.08]  that we use and what that will mean in the future for styling the web.
+[2125.08 --> 2147.86]  Have you heard about Knowable? It is an awesome new platform for learning from the world's best minds.
+[2147.86 --> 2151.76]  Anytime, anywhere, at your own pace, through audio.
+[2151.76 --> 2158.70]  Learn about the performance benefits of a plant-based lifestyle from NBA All-Star Chris Paul or how to
+[2158.70 --> 2163.96]  launch a startup from Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian. There's even a 10 lesson course from
+[2163.96 --> 2166.38]  astronaut Scott Kelly. Here's a sneak peek.
+[2167.94 --> 2174.24]  We learned a lot up there, but what can you learn from a life in space? The answers might surprise you.
+[2174.66 --> 2179.32]  In this Knowable course, I want to share some of the things I've learned that you might not expect.
+[2179.32 --> 2185.40]  Lessons about leadership on a dark night on an aircraft carrier in the middle of a churning sea.
+[2186.26 --> 2191.48]  Lessons about the fear you feel with 7 million pounds of thrust exploding underneath you.
+[2192.70 --> 2196.76]  And most of all, there's an idea out there that astronauts are always perfect.
+[2197.64 --> 2199.16]  Failure is not an option, right?
+[2199.16 --> 2205.10]  That's why I want to take you through some of my life experiences to show you how that's just not true.
+[2206.10 --> 2214.70]  I believe everyday, regular, human failure, if we handle it right, can be one of our greatest opportunities to learn, grow, and succeed.
+[2214.70 --> 2223.26]  Knowable is accessible on your phone and on the web, and each audio course is broken out into individual lessons, usually around 15 minutes long.
+[2223.64 --> 2228.22]  As a ChangeLog listener, you can get an annual membership to Knowable for 20% off.
+[2228.70 --> 2232.16]  Get unlimited access to every Knowable audio course right now.
+[2232.40 --> 2239.58]  Just download the Knowable app or visit knowable.fyi and use code CHANGELOG for that 20% discount.
+[2239.58 --> 2242.74]  We put a link in your show notes for easy click-ins.
+[2242.94 --> 2247.66]  Check out Knowable today and start learning from hundreds of top experts from around the world.
+[2247.94 --> 2250.90]  Once again, that's knowable.fyi, code CHANGELOG.
+[2262.04 --> 2267.02]  Okay, let's get back to it and dig into the state of JS 2020.
+[2267.02 --> 2269.72]  Now, Nick, I know there was something you had your eye on there.
+[2269.98 --> 2271.62]  Just had to see how TypeScript was doing.
+[2271.80 --> 2272.68]  And what's the story?
+[2272.88 --> 2274.04]  Surprise, it's on top.
+[2274.68 --> 2275.50]  It's on top.
+[2277.30 --> 2289.38]  Yeah, since 2017, in fact, every year of this survey, except for the first year, 2016, it's been in first place for the flavors of JavaScript, the preferred flavors of JavaScript.
+[2289.78 --> 2292.82]  And in 2016, it was in second place.
+[2293.22 --> 2294.84]  But it's remained in first place.
+[2294.84 --> 2295.74]  It's very popular.
+[2296.28 --> 2308.72]  And it's pretty cool seeing that it has nearly 88% of respondents really approve of it, meaning that they are interested in it or have used it and would use it again, which is extremely high.
+[2308.84 --> 2314.94]  Like, we don't really have things that get that much universal approval, except for on this podcast.
+[2314.94 --> 2318.06]  I don't like it.
+[2318.22 --> 2318.36]  See?
+[2318.40 --> 2318.74]  Just kidding.
+[2321.34 --> 2322.04]  No reason.
+[2322.74 --> 2323.64]  I just like to say that.
+[2324.22 --> 2326.66]  I didn't take the jump for a long time.
+[2326.78 --> 2332.18]  And then at my job, when I started there, what, a year and two months ago or whatever, they were using TypeScript.
+[2332.34 --> 2333.76]  And so I started making the jump.
+[2333.80 --> 2336.00]  And now I don't know how I'd live without it.
+[2336.00 --> 2336.44]  Exactly.
+[2337.64 --> 2339.80]  It's painful to write regular JS now.
+[2340.28 --> 2340.62]  Why?
+[2341.30 --> 2342.70]  Because you have Stockholm Syndrome?
+[2343.62 --> 2344.10]  Probably.
+[2344.82 --> 2348.40]  I used to think, like, oh, I've used Vim for 10 years, right?
+[2348.46 --> 2353.76]  And for most of that, Vim was just an editor that really didn't give me much help.
+[2353.84 --> 2356.84]  It didn't do, I didn't have completion turned on at all for anything.
+[2356.84 --> 2363.96]  And I would just write straight JavaScript and I'd have so much of the state of, like, what I'm working on built up in my head.
+[2364.38 --> 2366.60]  And I would just be resetting it from memory.
+[2366.68 --> 2369.92]  And, of course, I've gotten older now, which means I probably can't do that anymore.
+[2370.62 --> 2376.52]  And the tools have just gotten so amazing that now I just rely on it for everything.
+[2376.52 --> 2388.30]  And I'm constantly trying to figure out ways to creatively use TypeScript to make sure that things that normally aren't autocompleted can be autocompleted to make my life and everyone else's life easier.
+[2388.38 --> 2390.56]  Because I also can't spell.
+[2390.78 --> 2394.36]  And I can constantly just write things incorrectly.
+[2394.62 --> 2397.84]  And I get that checked in and then realize later that I misspelled something.
+[2398.16 --> 2402.82]  And, you know, I'm talking about things that aren't type checked, like keys to things.
+[2402.82 --> 2407.46]  I will point out that function names get misspelled still.
+[2408.06 --> 2412.90]  And autocomplete, in some ways, actually makes that worse because people will misspell it.
+[2412.94 --> 2414.18]  You propagate the misspelling.
+[2414.52 --> 2419.36]  People will misspell it once and then they'll just, like, keep it going through everything.
+[2420.00 --> 2428.88]  Nick, I think at this point, if Vim is doing most of the work for you, maybe your employer should just reduce your salary and make donations to the Vim working group.
+[2428.98 --> 2430.14]  Don't you believe that's the case?
+[2430.42 --> 2432.04]  We're going to have that stricken from the record, Jared.
+[2432.04 --> 2435.04]  But, uh...
+[2435.04 --> 2437.80]  Real developers have all the APIs memorized.
+[2438.04 --> 2438.72]  Don't you know that?
+[2438.80 --> 2439.48]  Come on, man.
+[2439.62 --> 2440.74]  You got to have it internalized.
+[2440.82 --> 2444.40]  Now, remember, Jared, it's about the value being provided.
+[2444.64 --> 2446.28]  Like, it's the value-added tax, right?
+[2446.40 --> 2446.84]  I agree.
+[2446.94 --> 2448.46]  Vim is providing a lot of value.
+[2449.12 --> 2454.66]  He might internally choose to pay Vim, but, like, that's a black box to his employer.
+[2455.14 --> 2456.62]  Or it was until this podcast.
+[2458.22 --> 2461.40]  Nick chooses to pay Vim by making mentions of it on podcasts.
+[2461.40 --> 2461.76]  See?
+[2462.06 --> 2462.70]  It's promotional.
+[2462.90 --> 2463.34]  He's promotional.
+[2463.44 --> 2465.02]  I'm like the guy from Office Space.
+[2465.16 --> 2468.86]  I talk to Vim so that my employer doesn't have to.
+[2468.92 --> 2470.34]  Your employer doesn't have to.
+[2471.50 --> 2473.46]  Well, I think your employer would appreciate that.
+[2474.02 --> 2476.44]  Let's hard transition away from TypeScript, shall we?
+[2476.44 --> 2477.44]  Sure.
+[2480.76 --> 2481.80]  Jared, what did you notice?
+[2482.76 --> 2487.92]  People, more and more, do not think that building JavaScript apps is overly complex.
+[2488.96 --> 2490.58]  I said that in a confounding way.
+[2491.12 --> 2492.64]  People think it's getting less complex.
+[2493.28 --> 2497.34]  From 2016 to 2020, opinions have started to shift.
+[2497.34 --> 2503.86]  Maybe we're starting to see some, I don't know what you call it, centralization around certain things.
+[2504.76 --> 2515.00]  Maybe the Cambrian explosion of frameworks and tools and build tools and stuff started to, like, kind of congeal around, generally speaking, React and Webpack.
+[2515.00 --> 2518.34]  And other things kind of on the periphery of that.
+[2518.54 --> 2518.88]  I don't know.
+[2519.14 --> 2520.48]  Or why do you guys think it is?
+[2520.58 --> 2522.88]  Has it gotten less complex in the last four years?
+[2522.92 --> 2528.84]  Because the opinions around it, at least according to this survey, are that it's less complex now.
+[2528.92 --> 2530.90]  Or I used to think it was complex and now I don't.
+[2530.92 --> 2533.52]  Or I didn't take this before and now I took it and I don't think it's complex.
+[2534.04 --> 2538.82]  But overall opinion is going to disagree with that statement, that it's more, that it's complex.
+[2539.34 --> 2539.80]  I don't know why.
+[2539.80 --> 2547.66]  I would think that there's a huge correlation between thinking it's complex and writing your own Webpack config.
+[2548.38 --> 2552.58]  Versus using something like Create React app and just getting to work on your project.
+[2553.26 --> 2558.18]  So back in 2016 we all wrote our configs and now we've just been using that config for the last four years and it feels great.
+[2558.34 --> 2558.78]  Exactly.
+[2559.00 --> 2559.88]  That's factual for me.
+[2560.42 --> 2560.90]  Good point.
+[2561.40 --> 2567.98]  Somewhat related to that, I think there has been a rise in what I've kind of called meta frameworks or higher level frameworks.
+[2567.98 --> 2584.14]  So this is things like Next and Nuxt or Gatsby or other things where we're basically building, you know, there's still innovation happening at the level of the frameworks of React or Vue or Angular or Svelte or what have you.
+[2584.56 --> 2589.38]  And we can talk about Svelte a little bit because that was one of the fun stars of this report.
+[2589.38 --> 2605.28]  But there's also been tremendous emphasis on going one level up and saying, okay, we're going to wrap up a lot of the common problems that people are solving over and over again with these frameworks and just provide standardized ways to do them.
+[2605.28 --> 2610.62]  And that, I think, has dramatically simplified the experience of building it now.
+[2610.96 --> 2615.90]  And I don't know if I saw in this survey, it was probably there somewhere.
+[2616.26 --> 2617.98]  I can look for that as we speak.
+[2618.10 --> 2631.10]  But I think the adoption of those libraries has gone way up probably looking at this graph in that same time span of like 2018, 2019.
+[2631.10 --> 2631.54]  Yeah.
+[2632.74 --> 2638.48]  And NextJS overtook Express as the most popular backend framework, which was really interesting.
+[2639.82 --> 2641.00]  Why do you think that happened?
+[2641.64 --> 2648.70]  I think for a lot of the reasons that we've been talking about, it just provides a more cohesive experience for putting things together.
+[2648.70 --> 2652.54]  And it kind of puts those rails in place a little bit for you to follow.
+[2652.98 --> 2654.70]  So it feels like you're doing the right thing.
+[2655.58 --> 2660.84]  Whereas Express can kind of be like a wild west of stringing things together.
+[2661.10 --> 2662.84]  Less decisions to make.
+[2663.20 --> 2681.10]  So my criticisms of the early Node.js JavaScript web-based community back when I was more on the Ruby side of the fence was that it was so micro and library focused that it was like assembling a transformer from parts.
+[2681.94 --> 2683.20]  You had to pick everything.
+[2683.40 --> 2684.24]  You had to make all your own decisions.
+[2684.24 --> 2693.14]  And that's really empowering to a lot of expert level developers because they already have well-formed opinions and they know what they like and they don't like.
+[2693.36 --> 2695.84]  They know what works well in this case and what doesn't.
+[2696.24 --> 2703.90]  But for the rest of us, it's kind of like, I don't want to make a thousand decisions before I can say hello world or slightly better than hello world, right?
+[2704.18 --> 2706.68]  Before I can serve my first dynamic web page.
+[2706.68 --> 2713.52]  And there was way more configuration and choice than there was convention and opinionated things.
+[2714.30 --> 2724.20]  And we've definitely seen more opinionated frameworks and tools coming out over the last few years in the JavaScript space and JavaScript developers adopting those things.
+[2724.20 --> 2733.68]  And I think that that makes you feel like the whole process is less complex because just way less decisions to make, like you said, Nick.
+[2733.82 --> 2741.70]  Another interesting thing that I saw on the backend satisfaction survey was the decline of Gatsby.
+[2741.90 --> 2743.98]  It dropped five places in a year.
+[2744.56 --> 2747.66]  It's almost like it got hit by a meteor, which also dropped five places.
+[2750.88 --> 2752.08]  Well played.
+[2752.08 --> 2755.30]  Those are two falling stars at this point.
+[2756.06 --> 2764.58]  And it's hard to tell because a lot of these items that are being put in here in 2020, it got a lot more data.
+[2764.78 --> 2766.96]  There's a much broader data set being put there.
+[2767.08 --> 2771.14]  But I think there was a lot of disillusionment with Gatsby in this last year.
+[2771.20 --> 2780.16]  There was a lot of people refuting the performance claims and saying essentially that they were gaming the benchmarks.
+[2780.16 --> 2788.88]  Yeah, I guess the thing that ties those two particular frameworks together is that they're both open source but venture backed.
+[2789.38 --> 2790.10]  They venture backed?
+[2790.32 --> 2791.30]  At least business backed.
+[2791.60 --> 2792.36]  I know that's true.
+[2792.54 --> 2794.24]  I'm not sure if Meteor was venture backed or not.
+[2794.24 --> 2812.52]  But when we mix those things together, business concerns, open source concerns, it goes back to the open core problem of what goes in the open source and what is a commercial feature, which every open core style company has to decide over and over again.
+[2812.52 --> 2819.42]  And in the case of Gatsby, it's not typical open core, but it's like open build.
+[2819.88 --> 2821.22]  I don't know how you call it.
+[2821.28 --> 2826.38]  Anyways, the commercial side and the open source side definitely have that give and take.
+[2827.22 --> 2829.68]  And so I'm not saying that's the reason why these things are falling out of favor.
+[2829.78 --> 2833.72]  I'm just saying it's interesting that both of those frameworks have that in common.
+[2833.72 --> 2839.92]  Yeah, though the counterpoint is Next.js is primarily backed by Vercel, right?
+[2840.00 --> 2842.46]  And they are also for-profit business.
+[2842.70 --> 2846.20]  Though they, I think, sell more general purpose hosting.
+[2846.44 --> 2849.44]  So it's not just about their framework.
+[2849.56 --> 2853.48]  Where Gatsby, I think their business stuff was all just about the framework.
+[2853.48 --> 2869.60]  Yeah, it's like Vercel has enough of a dividing line between Next.js and their hosting services that maybe that somewhat, that conflict of interest, which is effectively what we're talking about, doesn't mean you're not doing it right.
+[2869.64 --> 2871.96]  But that conflict is there and you have to navigate that.
+[2872.12 --> 2875.46]  Maybe their conflict is not quite as tightly tied, right?
+[2875.52 --> 2877.52]  Because Gatsby is Gatsby, so to speak.
+[2877.52 --> 2883.36]  And I'm not sure what the details behind Meteor's business model was because I was never in that community.
+[2884.04 --> 2889.44]  But yeah, I mean, a lot of these things do have corporate backing, whether they're tied to the product or not.
+[2889.54 --> 2896.28]  It's just that it seems like when you're tied directly to the product, it's more difficult to navigate that relationship for people.
+[2897.22 --> 2906.46]  Yeah, well, and in Gatsby's case, I think you ran into a very specific conflict of interest where the product was about speeding up the build.
+[2906.46 --> 2911.98]  And so if they did a good job at speeding up the build in the open source project, the product became more obsolete, right?
+[2912.02 --> 2919.52]  So you not only have decisions to navigate, but you have like direct conflict between what's better for the open source project and what's better for the business.
+[2920.74 --> 2922.86]  But Svelte, on the other hand...
+[2922.86 --> 2929.90]  Svelte was the rising star here in terms of coming out of nowhere in 2019
+[2929.90 --> 2937.04]  and being the top-ranked front-end framework for 2020.
+[2938.50 --> 2945.42]  Just slightly beating out React, which had kind of been on and off holding that top spot for a while.
+[2945.54 --> 2948.04]  Vue stepped in the top spot for one year in 2018.
+[2948.86 --> 2951.96]  And really, like, they're all kind of bunched towards the top.
+[2952.40 --> 2952.50]  Yeah.
+[2952.50 --> 2955.94]  But yeah, Svelte is kicking butt and taking names.
+[2956.60 --> 2961.38]  Yeah, it's worth noting that this is based on overall satisfaction, interest, usage, and awareness.
+[2961.78 --> 2966.28]  And that like the percent differences are like 1% or 2% here or there.
+[2966.50 --> 2972.26]  So it's not like, you know, 40% more people chose Svelte over React.
+[2972.26 --> 2977.78]  We're talking like literally in this case, it's 1% difference on the satisfaction chart.
+[2978.10 --> 2982.00]  89% for Svelte and 88% for React.
+[2982.00 --> 2987.94]  But yeah, definitely new kid on the block last year and top of the block this year.
+[2988.56 --> 2993.06]  Well, and one of the other interesting things there is like the vast majority of those folks
+[2993.06 --> 2996.30]  are not saying they've tried it, they liked it, and they want to use it again.
+[2996.46 --> 2999.22]  They're instead saying, I've heard about it and I'm interested.
+[2999.80 --> 3001.34]  I know why it overtook in 2020.
+[3002.02 --> 3006.64]  There's a blog post that they have from July 17th called Svelte Loves TypeScript.
+[3007.68 --> 3009.24]  Where they have 50% introduced support.
+[3009.24 --> 3009.98]  Stop it.
+[3010.62 --> 3011.62]  Don't do that to us.
+[3012.00 --> 3015.30]  Oh, that reminds me about a good blog post we should write.
+[3015.78 --> 3017.08]  JSParty loves TypeScript.
+[3019.08 --> 3021.34]  Is that all you got to do to get number one?
+[3021.74 --> 3022.02]  Apparently.
+[3022.56 --> 3026.96]  The other really interesting thing looking at this like overall rankings chart
+[3026.96 --> 3035.30]  is the extent to which both Angular and Ember have crashed and burned over the last few years.
+[3035.30 --> 3039.08]  Ember is never one of the super top frameworks.
+[3039.08 --> 3041.20]  But Angular, I mean, look at them.
+[3041.34 --> 3049.84]  They've gone from 2017, 66% kind of satisfaction, interest usage, however, that's getting broken out,
+[3050.08 --> 3053.94]  down to 42% second from the bottom.
+[3053.94 --> 3058.26]  This is where the bias of the survey kind of shows, I think, though.
+[3058.32 --> 3064.64]  Because I still feel like, just from my own anecdotal experience, Angular is king in the enterprise.
+[3064.64 --> 3070.46]  So if you guys are looking at the rankings chart and you're on the first tab, you're looking at satisfaction,
+[3070.66 --> 3072.30]  you have to click over to interest and usage.
+[3072.50 --> 3074.82]  So when you click over to usage, it changes things quite a bit.
+[3074.82 --> 3075.24]  Oh, I see how that is.
+[3075.24 --> 3077.42]  Okay, so Angular is quite a bit.
+[3077.42 --> 3077.60]  Oh, yeah.
+[3077.68 --> 3079.26]  Now you're at 56% usage.
+[3079.98 --> 3083.02]  What Svelte is topping is the satisfaction and the interest.
+[3083.78 --> 3086.96]  It's definitely not topping the usage, right, because it's still pretty new.
+[3087.14 --> 3087.98]  So you got to click through.
+[3088.56 --> 3091.48]  Angular is still greatly used, but the satisfaction is down.
+[3091.86 --> 3092.34]  There we go.
+[3092.62 --> 3093.38]  Yeah, that makes sense.
+[3093.46 --> 3099.38]  So Angular is number two in usage, but second to last place in satisfaction.
+[3099.90 --> 3100.20]  Yeah.
+[3100.28 --> 3101.04]  I totally buy that.
+[3102.08 --> 3104.84]  Well, I mean, some of it's like you're forced to use a thing at your job.
+[3105.24 --> 3106.84]  You know, like that's a real thing, right?
+[3106.84 --> 3109.28]  Like, well, we're using Angular, so you're going to use Angular.
+[3109.46 --> 3113.62]  And it's like, whether or not it's on merit or not, we just have bad feelings when it's
+[3113.62 --> 3115.54]  like, oh, my boss made me do this.
+[3115.62 --> 3119.44]  And the more and more enterprise you are, the less and less agency you have as an individual
+[3119.44 --> 3121.80]  developer to choose your tools, right?
+[3121.88 --> 3125.94]  And so anything that's big in the enterprise, I think, is naturally going to struggle in a
+[3125.94 --> 3126.76]  satisfaction survey.
+[3127.20 --> 3128.02]  That's just my opinion.
+[3129.06 --> 3129.64]  Subtype script.
+[3131.60 --> 3132.60]  That's just your opinion.
+[3133.36 --> 3135.00]  Actually, no, it's not, because it did really well.
+[3135.00 --> 3135.38]  Oh, darn it.
+[3135.86 --> 3140.94]  That is an interesting point, because if I look at these graphs side by side, the satisfaction
+[3140.94 --> 3148.38]  and the usage, Angular's satisfaction numbers plummet when their usage numbers skyrocket.
+[3149.38 --> 3153.58]  So a lot of folks are suddenly having to use this thing and ain't liking it.
+[3153.58 --> 3154.28]  Mm-hmm.
+[3154.28 --> 3158.64]  So one cool thing, as we're going a bit meta about the charting, one cool thing I've done
+[3158.64 --> 3164.24]  this year is they've integrated some qualitative data as well, which is like random shout outs
+[3164.24 --> 3166.22]  from different developers, which I think is really cool.
+[3166.34 --> 3170.28]  Like whenever you're just staring at charts and data and numbers, you know, you can get
+[3170.28 --> 3173.50]  kind of like that blank stare and sometimes misread things.
+[3173.50 --> 3179.04]  But as you scroll some of these, they'll have different people giving their qualitative kind
+[3179.04 --> 3179.52]  of picks.
+[3181.22 --> 3186.46]  And like, for instance, Cassidy Williams on the opinion section, her pick was Ben Hong.
+[3186.46 --> 3192.42]  So she then links out to Ben Hong and like gives him a shout out and says why he's doing
+[3192.42 --> 3194.00]  awesome stuff for the community.
+[3194.12 --> 3197.78]  So I think that was a nice touch this year, adding those little things, because it breaks
+[3197.78 --> 3203.40]  up the data and it also allows individual voices to be heard versus just like, here's
+[3203.40 --> 3204.16]  what everybody said.
+[3204.52 --> 3204.84]  Cool idea.
+[3204.84 --> 3209.24]  And when you actually filled out the survey, I thought it was kind of cool that they showed
+[3209.24 --> 3212.80]  you how you ranked compared to everyone else who's previously taken it.
+[3213.70 --> 3220.38]  So like if you said, oh, you know, 3% of what our typical survey user does in my case,
+[3220.48 --> 3221.02]  in some cases.
+[3221.46 --> 3223.58]  They tell you at the very end or they tell you right after you answered?
+[3224.04 --> 3225.16]  Yeah, at the very end, I believe.
+[3225.44 --> 3225.76]  Okay.
+[3225.96 --> 3227.64]  Because I'd use that to change my answers.
+[3228.64 --> 3229.32]  What's this one?
+[3229.72 --> 3230.50]  That would be bad.
+[3230.82 --> 3231.30]  That would be bad.
+[3231.80 --> 3232.16]  Cool.
+[3232.16 --> 3234.84]  Well, same question we asked in CSS.
+[3235.12 --> 3240.00]  Based on this, anything you are particularly looking to check out this year?
+[3240.28 --> 3244.52]  And Nick, TypeScript is not a valid answer for you, because I know you've already checked
+[3244.52 --> 3245.02]  this out.
+[3247.28 --> 3250.94]  Yeah, I'll go first and say that I really want to try out Svelte.
+[3251.36 --> 3254.18]  I've seen, you know, not just this, but blog posts about it.
+[3254.32 --> 3259.72]  And overall, in just like random discords and slacks that I'm in, it does seem like it's
+[3259.72 --> 3264.16]  a satisfactory library that people generally like to use.
+[3264.30 --> 3265.32]  And I want to know why.
+[3266.08 --> 3267.56]  So I need to play around with it.
+[3268.72 --> 3271.68]  I gave Svelte a try back in 2019.
+[3272.28 --> 3275.24]  I did a talk at All Things Open about it, just like an intro talk.
+[3275.40 --> 3279.62]  And so that allowed me an opportunity to dive into it and to build a little thing, like
+[3279.62 --> 3283.28]  a little one-page app with Svelte that I used at the conference.
+[3283.28 --> 3285.26]  And it was lots of fun.
+[3285.34 --> 3286.12]  I really liked it.
+[3286.16 --> 3287.82]  I just haven't revisited it yet.
+[3288.22 --> 3293.74]  So looking at this and just thinking in general, a technology that I am going to give a shot
+[3293.74 --> 3295.72]  this year, I've never used Next.js myself.
+[3296.14 --> 3302.50]  So I like the idea of a hybrid, you know, mostly JAMstack, but also with some backend possibilities
+[3302.50 --> 3305.88]  and pre-rendering a bunch of stuff, but then allowing for updates.
+[3305.88 --> 3312.32]  I think it looks like it's a very flexible tool that is up my alley.
+[3312.66 --> 3314.46]  So I am going to give Next.js a try.
+[3314.64 --> 3315.26]  At least I want to.
+[3315.88 --> 3316.56]  What about you, K-Ball?
+[3317.26 --> 3317.54]  Yeah.
+[3317.66 --> 3321.90]  So I have tried Svelte and I have played with Next a little bit, though nothing serious.
+[3323.10 --> 3325.04]  Both phenomenal pieces of work.
+[3325.18 --> 3327.46]  So definitely check those out and enjoy them.
+[3327.92 --> 3333.04]  The one that I'm actually looking at that I'd heard show up a little bit on my radar before,
+[3333.04 --> 3338.30]  but that I haven't tried out and it showed up at the top of the satisfaction list for
+[3338.30 --> 3344.70]  the testing category is the new testing library that I think was Kent C. Dodds putting it together.
+[3344.94 --> 3347.84]  And I think he put it together as a part of writing a course.
+[3348.38 --> 3352.76]  But I've heard a few things trickling through and it looks like the people who are trying
+[3352.76 --> 3354.10]  it are loving it.
+[3354.26 --> 3359.46]  So that's on my radar for this year is trying out the testing library.
+[3360.00 --> 3361.36]  I have tested that.
+[3361.84 --> 3362.44]  What's it called?
+[3362.44 --> 3364.44]  I believe it's called testing library.
+[3366.04 --> 3366.78]  No, seriously.
+[3366.90 --> 3367.30]  What's it called?
+[3368.84 --> 3370.92]  I have tried it and it's pretty nice.
+[3371.28 --> 3371.82]  I like it a lot.
+[3372.40 --> 3372.96]  What makes it sad?
+[3373.06 --> 3373.84]  So you've tried it, Nick.
+[3374.10 --> 3375.50]  Is it different or new?
+[3375.60 --> 3377.34]  I mean, I'm most familiar with Mocha.
+[3377.62 --> 3378.36]  What's different about it?
+[3378.40 --> 3380.90]  Like, why would I be more satisfied or why would I give it a shot?
+[3381.38 --> 3386.82]  So I'm probably going to get this totally wrong, but it seems like is a tool written to
+[3386.82 --> 3391.72]  help you write tests in the way that I think Kent C. Dodds kind of prescribes, which is
+[3391.72 --> 3395.58]  writing a lot of tests that are mostly integration style tests.
+[3395.58 --> 3399.30]  And so this gives us, and I've only used it in the context of React.
+[3399.30 --> 3403.46]  So it gives me like this render method that I can call and I can render any component that
+[3403.46 --> 3403.80]  I want.
+[3404.32 --> 3406.42]  And then I have this screen object that I import.
+[3406.88 --> 3409.32]  And from that screen, it's basically like my computer screen.
+[3409.32 --> 3411.38]  And so I can do queries to find things.
+[3411.74 --> 3414.98]  Like it just makes it really easy to traverse the DOM, get at what I want.
+[3415.44 --> 3419.48]  And then I use a Jest, what are those libraries called?
+[3419.74 --> 3424.54]  Like the, the Jest assertion library that adds in a whole bunch of like testing library
+[3424.54 --> 3428.16]  specific or, or DOM, I guess, specific assertions.
+[3428.34 --> 3431.32]  So I can just say like, you know, expect that this element is visible.
+[3431.48 --> 3436.36]  And when I fire this event and testing library makes it really easy to fire events on buttons
+[3436.36 --> 3443.02]  or, or whatever, then, you know, I can assert and expect that, that a button or modal is
+[3443.02 --> 3443.76]  now showing up.
+[3444.16 --> 3449.90]  And so I'm testing from the perspective of the user rather than just writing unit tests,
+[3449.90 --> 3454.04]  which might not really represent the state of the application.
+[3455.04 --> 3460.68]  So it's closer to something like a Selenium or that type of testing?
+[3461.42 --> 3465.98]  Yeah, but not doing anything with regards to like the Selenium APIs.
+[3465.98 --> 3469.24]  I forgot what those are called, but like you're not controlling a browser.
+[3469.42 --> 3473.26]  You're still just like, it has a virtual DOM and you're working within that virtual DOM
+[3473.26 --> 3477.64]  to manipulate the DOM nodes within, but not a, not a real browser.
+[3478.36 --> 3479.60]  Which probably keeps it pretty fast.
+[3479.88 --> 3482.98]  Might be worth getting Kent on the show and haven't, I haven't heard about this.
+[3483.22 --> 3488.72]  And I definitely think it's interesting if you have a new testing library.
+[3488.96 --> 3492.56]  First of all, we'll get our crack team of marketers on, on the case and we'll get Kent
+[3492.56 --> 3493.58]  a better name for this thing.
+[3493.58 --> 3497.16]  Unless it's like the testing library, then I guess he's already dominated the industry.
+[3498.02 --> 3501.18]  I mean, if you search for testing library right now, it's number one.
+[3501.38 --> 3503.94]  So like, all right, maybe he wins and we don't need to rename it.
+[3503.96 --> 3505.22]  That might actually be pretty brilliant.
+[3507.08 --> 3513.24]  But you know, in 2020 or 2021 to come up with a new testing library and then have it be enjoyed
+[3513.24 --> 3515.60]  by many people, it has to kind of have its own view of the world.
+[3515.60 --> 3519.74]  And so I think maybe it'd be a good show is bringing him on and talking about it.
+[3520.36 --> 3524.96]  Would you use it alongside like a unit testing library or, or can also just do unit testing
+[3524.96 --> 3525.34]  as well?
+[3525.98 --> 3527.22]  Yeah, I'm using it within Jest.
+[3527.38 --> 3532.44]  So I'm writing typical Jest tests and I have some unit tests kind of interspersed within
+[3532.44 --> 3533.08]  there as well.
+[3533.08 --> 3538.56]  But then most of it is driven through testing library and, and rendering my components that
+[3538.56 --> 3538.84]  way.
+[3539.40 --> 3539.58]  Neat.
+[3539.78 --> 3544.78]  So it's, it's more of a replacement for, um, oh, what now I'm forgetting the name of
+[3544.78 --> 3548.04]  that, that library that was really popular in React.
+[3548.26 --> 3549.32]  You know what I'm talking about?
+[3549.70 --> 3550.18]  Let's see.
+[3550.24 --> 3553.62]  There's Cypress, Playwright, Storybook, Puppeteer, Mocha.
+[3553.78 --> 3556.10]  I'm just reading the different testing libraries on the webpage.
+[3556.46 --> 3556.70]  Ava.
+[3557.06 --> 3560.28]  No, I can't, I cannot believe I can't remember the name of it.
+[3560.68 --> 3561.60]  Web driver IO.
+[3565.06 --> 3565.46]  Okay.
+[3565.48 --> 3566.50]  I've exhausted the list.
+[3566.92 --> 3568.78]  And I'm Googling for it and I can't find it.
+[3568.84 --> 3569.36]  So it's not.
+[3569.76 --> 3571.30]  Maybe it was just in your head, Nick.
+[3572.50 --> 3572.88]  Enzyme.
+[3573.48 --> 3573.88]  That's it.
+[3574.18 --> 3575.08]  Oh, okay.
+[3575.18 --> 3576.28]  It's more of a replacement for enzyme.
+[3576.72 --> 3577.18]  All right.
+[3577.44 --> 3581.18]  Well, Kent, if you're listening, hit us up.
+[3581.22 --> 3583.36]  We'd love to have you on the show to talk about testing library.
+[3584.10 --> 3584.42]  Absolutely.
+[3584.42 --> 3587.16]  One more thing I want to try this year on build tools.
+[3587.44 --> 3588.04]  Yes, build.
+[3588.82 --> 3589.12]  Oh, yeah.
+[3589.46 --> 3590.28]  Pure speed, baby.
+[3590.48 --> 3590.96]  I love it.
+[3591.28 --> 3592.58]  Let's just go as fast as we can.
+[3593.66 --> 3599.70]  And this is the Go-based JavaScript build tool that's high on satisfaction and pretty new.
+[3599.86 --> 3600.96]  I think it came out last year.
+[3601.22 --> 3602.32]  Very low on usage.
+[3602.64 --> 3604.68]  6% usage because new.
+[3605.54 --> 3609.38]  And pretty low on awareness, 26%, but 94% satisfaction.
+[3609.38 --> 3616.26]  So definitely want to give that a try because the faster things build, the better, in my humble opinion.
+[3616.90 --> 3616.96]  Yeah.
+[3616.96 --> 3630.06]  And this year, I think in April, the last version of Node that doesn't support, I think that's 10.x, that doesn't support the ES module syntax will be end of life.
+[3630.32 --> 3633.92]  So then we will have that in Node for sure everywhere.
+[3633.92 --> 3644.06]  And so it'll be really interesting to see how that works and kind of along the whole lines of the Fred K. Shop pipeline, seeing how that grows over the next couple of years.
+[3644.62 --> 3646.90]  How up to date do folks run Node?
+[3647.14 --> 3648.36]  Just generally, Node developers.
+[3648.54 --> 3653.30]  Are they generally on the latest major release or do people stay behind?
+[3653.30 --> 3661.66]  I suspect it depends on whether you're writing Node apps or you're using Node as a way to render a web application.
+[3662.28 --> 3663.78]  I'm referring more to apps.
+[3664.08 --> 3664.70]  I don't know.
+[3665.70 --> 3667.00]  I guess I'm asking a question.
+[3667.02 --> 3667.78]  I can tell you that we're writing.
+[3667.92 --> 3668.42]  How would you know?
+[3668.46 --> 3669.18]  Well, we could take a survey.
+[3669.88 --> 3670.02]  Yeah.
+[3670.60 --> 3671.02]  Yeah.
+[3671.08 --> 3674.74]  I'm not confident in our ability to get representative samples after all.
+[3675.10 --> 3677.34]  In our surveys, nobody liked reggaeton.
+[3677.58 --> 3679.06]  I mean, come on.
+[3679.46 --> 3680.72]  That actually might be representative.
+[3680.72 --> 3685.74]  Nick, I ask you because you're a little more plugged into corporate America than I am.
+[3686.30 --> 3690.00]  Just generally, like Node developers, in your experience, not a survey.
+[3690.98 --> 3699.40]  Do people generally want to keep their Node apps running the latest Node or do they lock one version and they're running Node from three years ago or what?
+[3699.88 --> 3701.30]  I've seen a lot of both.
+[3701.68 --> 3706.18]  But mostly I think that it tends towards trying to run the latest LTS version.
+[3706.72 --> 3707.24]  Makes sense.
+[3707.24 --> 3712.56]  Well, definitely we should see a pickup of things like ESBuild and Snowpack and whatnot after that, after April.
+[3712.92 --> 3719.58]  So I would expect the next survey to have, because the interest is high and the satisfaction is high on these things, you'd expect a usage spike.
+[3719.72 --> 3722.08]  So maybe we can check back next year on that front.
+[3722.46 --> 3723.30]  Sounds good.
+[3723.30 --> 3728.66]  Well, with that, I think we have sufficiently beaten these surveys to death.
+[3729.18 --> 3740.04]  Thank you both, gentlemen, for exploring this, for not sticking too much in TypeScript land when we're talking about everything else, and for joining me in the bad puns.
+[3740.04 --> 3740.60]  It's popular.
+[3740.94 --> 3741.56]  I can't help it.
+[3742.20 --> 3742.56]  All right.
+[3742.56 --> 3744.72]  With that, we're going to sign off.
+[3744.88 --> 3746.20]  Thank you, JS Party people.
+[3746.56 --> 3748.04]  Enjoy your week.
+[3748.26 --> 3750.92]  We'll catch you next week with another party.
+[3751.42 --> 3755.16]  Remember, we record live on Thursdays, 10 a.m.
+[3755.48 --> 3757.68]  Jared will tell you that again, but really join us.
+[3757.78 --> 3760.72]  It's what makes this a party is when we're all hanging out on Slack.
+[3761.26 --> 3763.96]  Y'all are making fun of us at the same time as we're making fun of us.
+[3764.08 --> 3764.76]  It's a good time.
+[3765.16 --> 3765.40]  All right.
+[3765.48 --> 3765.90]  Take care.
+[3766.08 --> 3767.88]  And this is K-Ball signing out.
+[3767.88 --> 3773.72]  We do record live, just like K-Ball said.
+[3774.02 --> 3776.16]  Subscribe and watch on our YouTube channel.
+[3776.42 --> 3778.72]  That's youtube.com slash changelog.
+[3778.82 --> 3781.80]  And join our community Slack where all the chatter is.
+[3781.80 --> 3784.28]  We hang in the JS Party channel during the show.
+[3784.46 --> 3787.12]  Head to changelog.com slash community to sign up.
+[3787.32 --> 3788.28]  It'll cost you $0.
+[3789.16 --> 3793.94]  Congrats to Maxime Dupree and Eddie Vink for winning those free TestJS Summit tickets.
+[3794.28 --> 3796.24]  Follow us on Twitter for upcoming giveaways.
+[3796.24 --> 3797.98]  We are at JS Party FM.
+[3798.54 --> 3801.06]  Music for JS Party is provided by Breakmaster Cylinder,
+[3801.30 --> 3804.08]  and we are sponsored by awesome people at Companies Who Get It.
+[3804.24 --> 3807.54]  Thanks to Fastly, Linode, and LaunchDarkly for having our back.
+[3807.86 --> 3808.62]  Stay tuned.
+[3808.76 --> 3811.74]  We have special guest Benjamin Coe from Google on the next episode.
+[3812.00 --> 3814.24]  That one will hit your podcast feed next week.
+[3814.24 --> 3842.12]  I gotta decide if I wanna leave that ripple part in and take it out.
+[3842.12 --> 3843.02]  Yes.
+[3844.40 --> 3846.04]  All of the white space.
+[3846.48 --> 3846.78]  The white space.
+[3847.08 --> 3848.30]  All of it just standing there.
+[3848.80 --> 3849.58]  What if I...
+[3849.58 --> 3850.80]  First of all, I fumbled it.
+[3851.12 --> 3852.48]  Then it wasn't funny anyways.
+[3853.18 --> 3854.50]  So it was like a double whammy.
+[3855.82 --> 3858.76]  It's hard to say preferred reduced motion off the top of your head.
+[3859.10 --> 3860.46]  Prefers reduced motion.
+[3860.88 --> 3862.38]  Yeah, that was really difficult.
+[3862.38 --> 3865.16]  Well, my friend respecto.
+[3865.38 --> 3866.66]  I've got one full of photos.
+[3866.90 --> 3867.66]  And then...
+[3867.66 --> 3869.32]  My friend said to me,
+[3869.32 --> 3869.70]  I'll see you later.
+[3869.70 --> 3871.54]  Heavenly woosh.
+[3871.54 --> 3872.44] 했습니다 impostor.
+[3872.68 --> 3873.36]  Equal Shayk.
+[3873.72 --> 3874.36]  I know.
+[3874.60 --> 3875.34]  ι supremacy
+[3875.34 --> 3875.70] érica cars.
+[3875.70 --> 3876.40]  I know.
+[3876.40 --> 3877.58]  It's just a little scary opportunity here.
+[3877.72 --> 3880.28]  Let's go help.
+[3880.38 --> 3880.98]  Today...
+[3880.98 --> 3881.72]  Today...
+[3881.72 --> 3882.28]  Is there a voice.
+[3882.30 --> 3882.82]  Today...
+[3882.82 --> 3883.32]  Wednesday...
+[3883.32 --> 3884.26]  Tonight...
+[3884.26 --> 3884.80]  Twitter...
+[3884.80 --> 3885.44]  Today...
+[3885.44 --> 3885.82]  Today...
+[3885.82 --> 3886.22]  Leadies on...
+[3886.22 --> 3887.28]  Night...
+[3887.28 --> 3887.80]  Ohio...
+[3887.80 --> 3888.00]  lover...
+[3888.00 --> 3888.22]  Today...
+[3888.22 --> 3888.78]  Playlings...
+[3888.78 --> 3889.26]  East...
+[3889.26 --> 3889.84]  City...
+[3889.84 --> 3890.92]  ...
+[3890.92 --> 3891.22]  огμεlass.
diff --git a/Building GraphQL backends with NestJS_transcript.txt b/Building GraphQL backends with NestJS_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..457f0aa465bfb7c2fc787e6e693064e20cdb7cd6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Building GraphQL backends with NestJS_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,359 @@
+**Nick Nisi:** Hello, JS Party! Welcome to another fantastic episode of your favorite show about JavaScript that's a party as well. It's JS Party, and I'm your host today, Nick Nisi. Hoy-hoy. With me today I have a very special guest, this is Doug Martin. Doug, say hello.
+
+**Doug Martin:** Hi, everyone.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Welcome to the show. So tell us a little bit about yourself, Doug.
+
+**Doug Martin:** Well, let's see... I'm Doug, I'm the VP of engineering at a company called C2FO. We're a fintech company based out of Kansas City. I've been doing open source software for about ten years, had a few projects that have had a little bit of traction, but I've always been interested in building tools to make other engineers more productive. It's just always been my MO. I've been working with JavaScript since 2008, starting with Dojo... Nick knows all about that one...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That's right.
+
+**Doug Martin:** So Dojo already did it... \[laughs\] But yeah, I'm excited to be here.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, yeah. We actually work at the same company, C2FO, so that's awesome. We've known each other for several years, and I've used a lot of the JavaScript that you've written, the projects that make my life better in a lot of ways. So yeah, we're here to talk about one of them specifically, and that is NestJS query. But first, I don't think that we've really talked about NestJS on this podcast before... So Doug, I think that you'd be a good person to kind of give us an introduction to what that actually is.
+
+**Doug Martin:** Yeah, so NestJS is a server-side framework that's really TypeScript-first. You can always drop back to JavaScript if you want to...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** But why would you want to?
+
+**Doug Martin:** \[04:04\] I don't know, I honestly can't think of a reason you'd want to... \[laughs\] But NestJS is an interesting framework; it's one of the first ones I've found that really guides you into a nice architecture. Some of the things that initially drew me to it were that it had dependency injection built-in first class, and the way it really has you organize your modules, so you can expose your services to other modules... But you can be picky about what you wanna actually expose out, which is cool... It's built on top of Express or Fastify - you get to choose - and it kind of like abstracts some of that away from you.
+
+Going back to the architecture point, one of the things that it does well is it provides you a place to kind of put everything. Before, I'd oftentimes find myself putting a lot of stuff into middleware, and wasn't really sure "Okay, where does this belong?", so I'd create another middleware. But NestJS - it really gives you pipes to transform the data that's coming in, you can do validation in there, you can do guards for authorization, and then interceptors to find logic before or after a request or a method. So for like logging, timing... Where before, you would all be shoving that into one place.
+
+So I really like that it focuses on single responsibility, which is pretty neat. When looking at it, it felt like one of the -- it was still relatively new, but it felt pretty mature in some of the design decisions it makes... And it gets me to doing business logic in the interesting stuff a lot quicker, which is something I appreciate.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, definitely. There's a couple of points that you touched on in there that I thought were important... The first one being kind of built on top of either Fastify or Express. I think I've really only ever used it with Express so far, but we do have a show upcoming on Fastify, so I'm excited to learn more about that. But when you get into an Express app, it does feel like there's not a lot of guided structure to it. You can really just kind of create your routes, and then they're just doing whatever they need to do, and returning things.
+
+**Doug Martin:** Yup.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** So you end up with a lot of custom structure built... And it's like one of those things where there no express app is the same, in a lot of ways... But Nest takes a different approach, and everything is very structured... It has a much more handholdy approach, I would say. There's generators to generate the exact files that you need... And then you did mention that it is built around dependency injection. So the first real experience that I ever had with that, not really considering myself like a Java developer, was with Angular. And when I saw it, I was like "Well, this kind of looks a lot like modern Angular code." Did they kind of take --
+
+**Doug Martin:** I think they did take a lot of cues from Angular, yeah. Sometimes you'll see them reference Angular in the docs... And I think on the backend it makes a little bit more sense when you're creating some of these APIs...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Doug Martin:** On the frontend it felt awkward to me sometimes, when doing that on the frontend. But it definitely led to more testable code, which is one of the things I love about dependency injection... It's that you're tying yourself to an implementation; as long as you're conforming to interfaces and stuff like that, you can mock that stuff out a lot easier, which is something that's really cool. So it definitely is composition over inheritance, usually.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, I like that a lot. And I think that you're right, it does feel more at home on the server, on the backend side, as opposed to like the frontend... The frontend - you don't really even touch classes, or class-based approaches anymore, but this is like, everything is a class. Even things that you might just have a completely empty class, but your decorator has to attach to a class somewhere...
+
+**Doug Martin:** Yup. \[laughter\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** So it's definitely going the complete opposite way of tools like React and other modern frontend frameworks... Which is cool. I do think that it fits well, because it does give you a lot of structure... And maybe we could break down a little bit of that structure. So you mentioned being able to use -- what was it... There was pipes, and...
+
+**Doug Martin:** \[07:52\] Yeah, so there's pipes, guards, interceptors... I think one thing that's important to touch on is that it's kind of transport-agnostic. So as long as you have your structure in place, you can have REST, you can do microservices, you can do GraphQL and you'll feel at home in probably each one of those, because you can reuse your services. And then for each one of the endpoints that you're exposing, you can throw a guard on there to make sure that only certain people can access that. Or you can do the pipes to convert a request parameter coming into an int. Or validate that it matches some format, which is pretty interesting, especially when -- so when I started with NestJS, I was looking at REST at first, but I definitely wanted to start getting into GraphQL more... So I created basically a REST endpoint and a GraphQL endpoint, and they were both really similar. One's a controller and one's a resolver. That's the big difference. But then I could reuse the same services that back them. So I did have to really worry about changing any business logic, or how I'm accessing the database... I'm just purely flipping that out.
+
+And the same, I think, applies for a lot of the microservices stuff. So yeah, you can have requests coming in, you can connect a RabbitMQ, or a Kafka, or whatever, and really plug into that pretty seamlessly... And I think that's one thing I really appreciated about how they designed this framework - they really encourage you to have those separate layers. So you have your controller or resolver, you have your service, you have your entities and DTOs... It feels like a lot of files at first, but then once you start going, your files become pretty short, and they're very pointed in what they're trying to address, which is -- like we talked about with Express - that sometimes got muddied up, when they definitely encourage you down a certain path.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, definitely. So breaking that down maybe a little bit more - everything starts with a module, right? The module is kind of the main file that will dictate...
+
+**Doug Martin:** Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It kind of sets up how the dependency injection will work, and what can be injected, and things like that.
+
+**Doug Martin:** Yup.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And then from there, you mentioned controllers and services. Can you kind of give a brief explanation of each of those?
+
+**Doug Martin:** So everything within there is kind of a provider. NestJS will expose -- in the module, you can set up what your controllers are, and then everything else is a provider. It's something that can be injected into something else through the constructor.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That was one of the most confusing pieces when I got started... It was like, "What the heck is a provider?" Because everything's a provider...
+
+**Doug Martin:** \[laughs\] All the things are providers, yeah. That was something that was confusing to me at first too, until I started to play with it... It took probably 30 minutes or so, and then I'm like "Oh, I'm starting to get it." It's when you start exporting stuff that it gets a little confusing, or when it doesn't work quite as you expected... But it's pretty good about telling you what you did wrong. So you create your controller, and then you can have your services in there, which - we say it's pretty structured in the way it does it, but honestly, your services can be anything that's injectable... And I don't think they necessarily always call it a service, but it's usually just a provider.
+
+So you could have like your cats controller, and then you could have your cats service, that then interacts with the database to fetch your data for your controller. And then if you wanna throw a GraphQL resolver, you just reuse that same cats service, and then expose your GraphQL endpoints.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice. So you can really encapsulate more of the business logic of actually pulling, and maybe manipulating the data from the database within the service, and then expose it through either a resolver or a controller based on what you want to actually expose.
+
+**Doug Martin:** Yeah. And then in your cats module say you had an animals module that's separate from it, and you wanna reuse the cats service for some reason - you could, just by exporting it from your module, but they can't import your controller. So you can be really specific on what you wanna expose that other modules can use. So then you can really keep stuff decoupled, and prevent them from dipping into your database, and instead they go through your service, which I think is a pretty powerful concept, because it's so easy to create spaghetti code when you're just reusing everything. Instead, you have to be explicit about that, which is something I do appreciate.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Definitely. Then you also mentioned touching -- the service can access stuff from the database, and it's doing that through models. Let's talk about that a little bit. Are the models -- I guess this is where I'm a little hazy on it... Is it specifically tied to TypeORM as its ORM solution?
+
+**Doug Martin:** \[12:08\] No, it's not. So your service is really just an area to put your data access layer; you can do that in there. And then TypeORM -- Nest just kind of wraps this, so you do have a couple things, but oftentimes you call it an entity... And this is what's stored in your database. And that could be Mongo, that could be -- you can be using Typegoose, Sequelize, TypeORM, Prisma...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Gotcha.
+
+**Doug Martin:** You can really use anything you want. And then you just create your entity and you can throw your different decorators on there, or whatever is required by your persistence framework. So it doesn't tie you to those. It definitely currently guides you down the TypeORM path. I had some complaints about TypeORM, but overall, it's suited my needs pretty well.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. I mean, ORMs are tough, right?
+
+**Doug Martin:** Does that make sense? Yeah...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** They're complex things...
+
+**Doug Martin:** Oh, yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I don't think I've met one that I really love... But TypeORM does seem to get the job done in a lot of ways, and I appreciate that.
+
+**Doug Martin:** Me personally, I've always been thinking of query builders instead of going full TypeORM. Then you can create your business objects, but then you can generate your SQL. I never have been a fan of writing raw SQL, because then you don't get some of the type safety when compiling or doing whatever... But if you have your query builder, which is -- I mean, I have a Golang that's fairly popular that is just a query builder, and it doesn't introduce a lot of that ORMy stuff, which I think just gets confusing and is error-prone...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It is.
+
+**Doug Martin:** ...so I agree with you on that.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. It's a very leaky abstraction that can be tough to get right. But it is pretty cool. In the most basic cases, you're able to create these classes to act as your entities, and that will represent the data that's in the database, and you can have fairly complex relations between other entities, and pull all of that data back, which is just really cool.
+
+**Doug Martin:** The other thing it pushes you too is a data transfer object (DTO), which allows you to decouple what you're exposing in your API from how it's actually persisted in the database, which is something they talk about a lot... I think the best way that I think about it -- it's like, you have your normal DTO, and you might have some fields in your database you don't wanna expose to the end user for reads... But then you can also do a create DTO, that only has your input fields; then you have your update. And each one of those might be slightly different...
+
+DTOs weren't something that I used a whole lot, until I really started to dive into Nest and some of, I guess, domain-driven design and thinking about how you actually do some of these communication patterns. And looking at the DTOs, I have to question why I didn't do it sooner. \[laughs\] Having to create an update separated from your model, and then having the DTO itself for reads... We can have a single DTO that's actually backed by more than one table. Or you might wanna store everything - snake case in the database, and then camel case, exposing it out... And there was never a good way to think about that without just putting that logic in your ORM layer, or mapping the columns.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. So they're really meant to be translated between the entity and what you actually want to expose.
+
+**Doug Martin:** Yes. Or if something's coming in from an end user on the create and you wanna expose that as a single field or a JSON object, you can flatten that out in the entity and make that a lot simpler for the end user, and then store it however you want in the backend. So that's one thing that Nest calls out quite a bit; they're not super-explicit about it, but all their examples have it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Doug Martin:** Something I really appreciate about that.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That's really nice, being able to have that separation. And kind of speaking of that, I wanted to also touch up on GraphQL a little bit more in detail, because that is something that you mentioned that Nest supports out of the box... And you do that through the resolvers, rather than a controller. Do you wanna briefly talk about how you set that up?
+
+**Doug Martin:** Yeah. So like in a RESTful API you create a controller and you do your get, put, post, delete, patch endpoints, and within GraphQL you have your queries, so your query endpoints and your mutation endpoints. So you create a resolver, and then you can decorate it with an @query decorator and say "Expose this method in my GraphQL API." And Nest will then use all the metadata collected from those decorators to then generate your schema for you at runtime. This is, of course, if you're going code-first. So you can create those different endpoints.
+
+\[16:27\] And what's really nice about GraphQL is that it takes away a lot of the boilerplate of ensuring that you document everything with Swagger. It gives you a lot of that documentation explorability out of the box. You can build a lot of that validation in in GraphQL, but just make sure that you aren't requesting things that aren't there. The query language that GraphQL provides is awesome. I really fell in love with that with the GitHub API, when they started transitioning stuff over, and playing with that more. That was really eye-opening, to see how explorable it was. I could just create and only fetch the data that I needed. And Nest makes that really easy with the resolvers.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice. Yeah, I agree. And you mentioned code-first, versus -- what would you call the other way?
+
+**Doug Martin:** Schema-first?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Schema-first, yeah. If you were doing schema-first, would that be where you're manually creating a GraphQL schema, and then ingesting that with Nest?
+
+**Doug Martin:** Yeah, so you'd be -- I'm not an expert in this one, with Nest, because I've always done schema-first at first, and then I didn't like it, so I went code-first immediately. But you'd write out gql file, with your different input types, your object types, and your different endpoints, and you'd write all those out by hand. And then you could generate some of your DTOs from that. You would also have to write your resolver, and then Nest will tie those together. But like I said, I'm not an expert in that real, because what I appreciated about code-first is that I'm not double-defining things. I'm gonna need the DTOs anyway. So I write the DTO and I let it do the hard work. I don't enjoy writing out gql files, personally. \[laughs\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Agreed, yes. And that's why I was asking, because that's really the only way that I've done it, is the code-first way. But that also leaves me more time in the TypeScript world, rather than writing GraphQL specifically. And it really lets the TypeScript DTOs in this case become the source of truth for what you can query or mutate within your API.
+
+**Doug Martin:** Well, I find that I'm iterating so quickly in TypeScript, and I'm changing stuff in the DTO, especially if I'm doing a PoC or something, or an example for NestJS query. I'll be iterating on all of those details; I don't wanna think about the gql file, I just wanna be in my TypeScript, adding fields, putting validators on those, and then let Nest do the heavylifting.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Exactly.
+
+**Doug Martin:** So instead of starting with schema-first and then having to generate my details every time - that would just annoy me... I think it would slow me down.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, definitely. Circling back to that - having the DTOs be the source of truth... And then another really cool thing that is kind of outside of all of this, but then when you're actually exposing this on the frontend and you're consuming it on the frontend, you can use tools like GraphQL Code Generator that can then generate the types that you need on the frontend based on the queries that you're making to your backend, and those are all tied to that.
+
+**Doug Martin:** Yes.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** So then you're not even generating types on the frontend. Everything, frontend to backend, is the DTO as the source of truth, which is just super-cool.
+
+**Doug Martin:** Yeah. I'm so glad to see a lot of the new codegen tools coming out to make life easier... I mean, they've been in the Java space for a long time; always felt kind of clunky...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** What's that?
+
+**Doug Martin:** What - Java? I don't know. Don't worry about it. You don't need it. \[laughter\] What is weird about the frontend to me, for GraphQL - so you have your DTO on the backend, and in the frontend everything is essentially a partial, right? You don't know what will be fetched until you write your query. So then codegen can look at your actual queries and create the correct types for you, which is pretty cool. I've been excited to see a lot of the teams where we work starting to use that and embrace it more. It has been really exciting for me.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, agreed. It's just -- striving to be lazy. It's less code for me to write and maintain, and if I need to change something, it's just the DTO, in most cases, that I need to change it. And then re-generate files from there. I really like that... That's kind of the big, promising feature that I see of all of this, and it really makes approaching GraphQL on the backend quite easy, I think... Because you're really thinking about it in terms of entities and DTOs, and translating between them, and then exposing them.
+
+**Doug Martin:** \[20:22\] I mean, that's what it's all about for me, especially with a lot of these projects. It's like, how do you not have to do anything, and just get up and running quickly? So you can get back to writing React or whatever you wanna be doing that actually interests you.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Absolutely.
+
+**Doug Martin:** That's the important part.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, absolutely. And to make that a little bit easier, you also have a project that you've created called Nestjs-query. We're going to introduce and talk about that here after the break.
+
+**Break:** \[20:47\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** So in one segment we talked about NestJS and what it does, and we really only scratched the surface, because there's a big surface area, as you mentioned in the break, of what Nest can actually do... But those are the pieces that we're kind of excited about with it, and really leveraging it to empower us to quickly work on the things that we want to do, and expose it, so that we can go back to working on more fun things, like the frontend.
+
+You also have a project called Nestjs-query, and I wanted to touch on that. It's something that we use at C2FO in our dayjob, and it really helps to simplify using GraphQL in a number of different ways, with NestJS. So why don't you tell us -- do a better introduction to that project than I just did, and kind of tell us what it does.
+
+**Doug Martin:** Yeah, so Nestjs-query - it tries to make CRUD and GraphQL super-simple, to the point where you define an entity and a DTO and you're done. So where this really came from - I was starting a side-project, and I find myself creating all these different entities and DTOs, and then writing every service, and "How do I filter this?", and making it consistent... It was a pain, at least for me, because it felt like I was retyping the same thing over and over again, and just switching up the types for modifying it slightly... And where a lot of the inspiration for Nestjs-query -- because I think the most powerful feature it has is the query generator. So it generates these query endpoints for you, so you can look up... Like, the main example in the repo is a simple to-do item, with subtasks, and tags, and things like that... So you define your DTO, but in your entities, and then expose these endpoints so you can look up all your tasks and you can do these complex filters on them.
+
+Where a lot of that came from is - for the past five years we've been doing something similar internally at C2FO, where we had what we call the domain query... So it gave you a lot of the basic operators, like equal, not equal, like, not like, greater than, less than... All the standard ones, which is what you need 99% of the time, without exposing all these database details and all these database-specific operators. So we really abstracted that out, and that's the goal in Nestjs-query, is to make that really simple, so you don't have to think about a lot of that and you just get back to writing your frontend, and you can query all the data you need.
+
+\[24:08\] It is a little opinionated... It's become less so as more people have adopted it, and there's more features, but it's cursor-based pagination first, which - if you haven't used it before, it feels a little awkward, I think... But once you start diving into it, you don't have to maintain the state of where you're at with the previous offset, or limit, and all that stuff. You really get away from that and you can just use whatever objects you're currently at, take its cursor, and then you can start paging from there. So it's really good for continuous pagination.
+
+Facebook, I think, is the one that originally pioneered it, and then we've kind of expanded on that. We allow you to do offset paging and things like that, getting total counts... You can aggregate a lot of stuff. So you can group by, and sum, and all those standard things... And on top of that, you get a lot of your create endpoints, and it standardizes -- between all your mutations, it standardizes and makes sure that everything uses the term "input". So developers aren't trying to think "Okay, what do they call this parameter?" It's the same every time, which I know I personally enjoy, because it's so easy for teams to diverge when they're writing their different endpoints, and you have one that names it the name of the type, the other one calls it input... Who knows what they'll name it next. So it really focuses on standardizing a lot of that.
+
+But the real magic here is that once you write your DTO and entity, you just register it with NestJS and GraphQL, and everything is done for you. And you get this giant schema file and it breaks it all out, but you didn't have to do any of it. So going back to the previous theme, it makes us lazy, and that's perfect.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yes. I love it. So let me break that down a little bit, to kind of highlight some of the things that it's really doing. You mentioned that you just have to create the DTO for it, and you use a couple of different decorators for those DTOs. I'm thinking specifically the filterable, or -- is it filterable field?
+
+**Doug Martin:** Yeah. So on your DTO, one of the initial decisions that I've made when designing it is that on your DTO you might want some fields that are filterable, and then others that you don't wanna allow users to do filters on. And so we introduced a new decorator that really just wraps the NestJS field with a new decorator called filterable field. That basically exposes that in the generated output as something that you can do your equal or greater than or less than comparisons on, and actually query with. I think that's the main change from the core stuff.
+
+Then we've added a few other decorators for your DTOs, like you can do authorizers. So as requests come in, you can provide an additional filter that the user may not specify, to ensure that "Hey, only the current logged in user - fetch only their data." Or you can reject a request and throw an error immediately. GraphQL will wrap that for you. You can do relations... So that's one thing that's different about Nestjs-query.
+
+And one thing I don't care about in a lot of the ORMs is that you had these stub relations on your entity, that may or may not be populated, you're not sure if they'll be there... Nestjs-query kind of removes those from the DTO, and you do it through a decorator and you say "Hey, my to-do item is related to sub-tasks." So instead of having a sub-task field on your DTO - because it won't be there when you're actually using it, until you fetch it. And that makes it really lazy. And I think it pairs well with the generated schema, because with GraphQL you're only fetching what you need. So we can expose those things, you can do synthetic relations that you may not have in your entity, but you can throw them on there and throw an additional filter with it, and say "Only give me completed sub-tasks." Or "Give me uncompleted sub-tasks", and you can create these two different relationships on there, really decoupling your DTO from your entity and how it's stored.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[27:50\] Yeah, I like that a lot. And kind of bringing it down a little bit more... So you create those DTOs and the entities, and for -- like, if you just accept all of the opinions, and for a lot of the basic CRUD examples, that would really be it, right? You'd just then assemble those with your Nestjs-query module, and it will generate basically the resolver for you and the service for you, because it will know how to take that entity, and what it can grab from it, and it will know how to take the stuff that you're requesting through like a resolver, and pipe that to the service to give you back the data... And then also - you know, we're talking about GraphQL here - you only selected a partial subset of the actual data that's available... It's also going to automatically just filter out the fields that you don't need, so you're not sending back everything. It's just giving you exactly what you ask for.
+
+**Doug Martin:** Right.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** So when you went and wrote that code - it was just a basic CRUD to-do example - if I had my entity and my DTOs for what I want to accept for creating, reading, updating and deleting, that's it. There's no more code to write, right?
+
+**Doug Martin:** Mm-hm. That's it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Doug Martin:** One thing to point out - you talked about generated services... This was another design decision that I made pretty early on, it was separating the service generation from the GraphQL layer. So the GraphQL layer only does the resolver. And then you get to choose your backend persistence. So we have adaptors for Typegoose, Mongoose, Sequelize and TypeORM, so you can flip those out, and we'd just define a simple query service interface, that as long as you implement that, you can really do whatever you want. So you can write your own custom service if you want. I think we do quite a bit of that at C2FO with some of the things we do internally. But everything else can still be auto-generated for you, and you pick and choose when you need to write something custom.
+
+So by decoupling that from the GraphQL piece I think has really made it pretty powerful in what it can do. When I've seen some other frameworks, they just bind it to TypeORM, or they bind it to whatever that is... And while that might give you some more seamless stuff, I think it makes it less flexible to pick and choose when you're gonna do certain operations.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I agree. That makes it way more flexible. Like you said, you can also kind of break out of that. If you need to do something a little bit more complex than just take the data and throw it into a database, or read from a database. You could implement your own service and just have the auto-generated resolver call that, or you could -- there's other ways to inject yourself in, is that right?
+
+**Doug Martin:** So you can do your own service, you can do your own resolver. We make it simple through the module that you can have everything auto-generated. But for example, the resolver - you just extend our CRUD resolver, and then you can start writing your own stuff, and you can override endpoints, and things like that... So you can then start to inject other services that may not be there. So you can really kind of step back whenever you need to. Does that answer your question?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, I think so. And another thing that I was thinking about was - sometimes you might need to do a more complex translation between a DTO and an entity...
+
+**Doug Martin:** Oh, yeah. So we introduced a -- there's a concept we call an assembler. So this is the translation layer between the DTO and the entity... And we create a default one for you, where we just use a class transformer and validator and we transform them between the two classes... But you can also write your own. A common use case is converting from snake case to camel case. Or you might have a composite ID that comes in and you wanna split that into two pieces and turn that into two fields. I won't say I've seen a lot of use cases for it, but those have been the most common ones.
+
+Or, like with Sequelize, we had to create a different assembler to turn it into the correct sequelized model. You could just use a class transformer to do it... So it provided us a nice, simple place to do that. And that's one thing that's always bothered me when writing APIs before, it's like "Okay, where do I put this translation logic?" and you just shove it and you're out. But that doesn't make it super-testable... So by creating these assemblers to do that translation, you're testing just that piece with the input and output, and there's no question of like really where does it exist, or where should it exist.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, that's really cool. The actual code that you're writing becomes super-testable, because you can just test that assembler class in isolation, for example, without having to run everything... And then a lot of the code is just auto-generated for you, the schema is auto-generated for you... And is there a way to use this with the schema-first approach? Or do you have to go with the code-first?
+
+**Doug Martin:** \[32:20\] You have to go code-first currently. And I've kind of done that on purpose, mainly because I was doing code-first... But I suppose you could create your classes from there, but then because it's generating your schema for you entirely, you'd have to figure out how to merge the two, and I think it's more error-prone. If you just let the system generate it for you, it's way less likely to miss it out. So no schema-first... \[laughs\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, that's okay. That's another opinion. And as long as you're willing to tolerate that, which I think is personally the way to go, just because I'd rather write classes in TypeScript than GraphQL schemas directly.
+
+**Doug Martin:** Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** So yeah, I think that that's a more approachable way, especially as you're first getting started, into all of these new technologies. The code-first approach is a little bit more friendly, in my opinion, than just setting you loose writing a GraphQL schema... \[laughter\]
+
+**Doug Martin:** Yeah, I agree.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Another thing that you touched on, but I really wanna dive into a little bit more, is kind of that pagination piece, because I think that that is super-powerful, not having to write that yourself, or manage that yourself. So what got you into thinking that that was a key feature that this library needed?
+
+**Doug Martin:** At the time when I was writing it, back in 2019, cursor-based pagination was kind of what they always pushed you down, but there wasn't an easy way to just implement that out of the box. So one of the inital tasks I had was "Okay, let's figure out how to make this as simple as possible." So I started to write the cursor-based pagination, and then that was the only option at first. You couldn't do offset, or just disable pagination entirely... So then as more features came in from other users, we started to implement these other ways of doing it.
+
+Over time, the cursor-based pagination has gotten a lot smarter. So out of the box, you can do an offset-based cursor, which is the simplest way of doing it and implementing it, and you just basically take you current limit --
+
+**Nick Nisi:** "Give me the first ten rows, and then give me 11 through 20", or whatever...
+
+**Doug Martin:** Yup. And the way that works is that we just take that limit and offset and we Base64-encode it and throw it into our cursor. So we'll take that for every entity that comes back and assign a unique cursor based off its position in the list.
+
+The problem with offset-based pagination is if you have a large table, it gets slower the more you page into it, because the database has to go through more pages, and it's not as efficient. So then we implemented keyset-based pagination, where you get to define "Here's the unique identifiers for this table that I wanna actually page on." So usually, it'd be like an ID. The real benefit of this is that we can then quickly create an additional filter that we just throw on there and say "Okay, if you're paging forward, we're looking for all records that have an ID greater than the one past it." So the database is gonna have indexes on those typically, and so it's very quick lookups. I mean, you get consistent response times.
+
+And then with the offset -- so if you don't wanna use cursor-based pagination at all, you can always drop back to offset, where you just pass in a limit and offset, and go about your day... And then you can have the option, like I said earlier, to turn off pagination entirely. Sometimes you have a really small result set and you don't wanna deal with that, so you just wanna get everything back at once, and you're able to do that
+
+With each one of these strategies, offset and cursor, we also automatically include a page info. So you can get total page count, you can find out if you have next page, previous page... And with cursor you also get the start cursor and end cursor, so you don't need to look at every node in the response, or every edge in the response... So you can quickly just create a table and just plug it in, especially with a lot of relay support for these cursor-based pagination that's plug-and-play for the most part.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[36:03\] Yeah, that's really cool. And speaking to that too, when you're developing your DTOs, you don't have to worry about those edges and nodes pieces...
+
+**Doug Martin:** Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Those will be automatically generated and put in, and then also the more -- I don't know, I'd call it metadata about where you're at, like the current cursor, and how many records you have left... Things like that are just automatically provided to you. From a client requesting that, do you have to ask for that as part of your query, and it's just like part of the schema?
+
+**Doug Martin:** Yeah, so you get to choose at the detail level, you can do -- there's a decorator called query options where you can say, "Okay, here's the paging strategy I have." And in fact, you can do multiple paging strategies, especially for relations, you can do one that's offset and one that's cursor... So you could call it subtasks connection and then just subtasks. And then on the client, you can do things for the API and you can request that data back implicitly or explicitly, based off whatever strategy you're using.
+
+So sometimes a team may start up with offset-based pagination, and then they can transition to cursor pretty simply by just changing something in the backend... And they don't have to really worry about a lot of those details.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Very cool.
+
+**Doug Martin:** Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That's kind of a lot that it does for you, and it really builds on top of the basic GraphQL support that Nest gives you. If you had to say, when would you recommend someone reach for this as an extension of Nest, rather than trying to go just like plain Nest and GraphQL? Is there like a key feature or something that you would need to have before you'd recommend it, or...?
+
+**Doug Martin:** For me personally, I'd probably just start with this, and then I would drop down to Nest when I need some more complex things. So this is gonna provide a lot of the things that you'll need out of the box, and then what I find myself doing is then I'll write an additional resolver, and Nest will merge those two. You don't have to extend, or anything. You can just write your own custom resolver and your own customer services when you need to do more complex operations. But if you're just trying to get up and running with a simple app and you wanna get started on that frontend real fast, I would think this is the way to go, because you're not having to write all your resolver endpoints, your database integration, your service... You don't have to do any of that. You focus on what your data looks like, how you wanna expose it, and you're ready to go, as long as you accept a lot of the opinions that are built in, which... I'd rather not have to make a lot of those decisions, so... Just go with it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, I agree. Based on my usage of it, it does seem like it is the way to go forward... Just like, getting started, getting going, and then if you have to get more complex with things, like if you really need to break out of an opinion or do something that's super-complex, then it can get out of your way quite easily, which is really nice. That's what I really like the most about it - it's there for the basic things, but it's not locking me in and making me regret picking it, if there's something that it doesn't support out of the box; like, it just gets out of the way.
+
+**Doug Martin:** Right. Yeah. It's built to be simply an additional tool built on top of the NestJS GraphQL. It doesn't really replace anything that it does. It builds on that solid foundation that it provides. And like you said, you can drop out of it anytime you want. And you can still keep around Nestjs-query and then write your own custom stuff. I think that's the really cool thing about some of the code-first approach, and the way NestJS does a lot of that merging between the resolves is the fact that you can have them live side by side with your own custom query endpoints... Which is something -- at first I was like "How is that gonna work? Am I gonna have to extend the CRUD resolver?" and then I just wrote a separate one with the things that I needed... I'm like, "Oh, that actually works. That's really cool." Super-excited to see that just worked.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, definitely.
+
+**Break:** \[39:51\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** So Doug, specific to Nestjs-query, is there anything else that you want to highlight or touch on before we talk about more meta things in general?
+
+**Doug Martin:** I think the biggest thing that I -- and it's not necessarily a NestJS-query thing, it's a Nest community. This has been the first open source project that I've worked on where everybody has been super-friendly when they're submitting an issue... Pretty much every single one of them is like "Thanks for the project, this is amazing." They're not coming in and demanding something of you, which is so refreshing. And to see the chats that go on in the Discord community, and the way people have just jumped in to help has been amazing. I'm not always around all the time to answer questions and to then come back and find somebody else posting your project as a solution, and then really hyping it up... Or answering questions on GitHub and trying to contribute back is just really nice. I can't stress enough how great the community is in the NestJS ecosystem.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. That's gotta be a good feeling, coming into a chat and seeing your solution posted without you prompting it, right? It's just pretty cool.
+
+**Doug Martin:** Yeah. This one developer - his name is Scott, and he has been an amazing advocate. And he's also contributed back a lot of stuff. He talks about coding just kind of being a hobby for him. But to see how involved he is with the community and everything he does to help push it forward is super-cool.
+
+The other thing that has been interesting working with Nest is how many amazing engineers outside of the U.S. that I get to interact with... From Europe, Russia, all over Asia... It's people from all over the world, and it's not just so U.S.-centric, which has been really nice. To know that my project is helping a company halfway across the world deliver solutions is really cool.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, that's awesome. And that kind of gets into another thing I wanted to talk about, which is developing tools and applications for developers. How do you feel about that? Is it quite different, is it more fun than traditional client work, or daily work that you end up working on? Is it a different feeling in general?
+
+**Doug Martin:** I think it's a different feeling in general. For me, building tools for other engineers that aren't always the flashiest things, but it's like query builders, parsing csv's, thing like that - it gives me that nice feeling of knowing that I'm helping another engineer out, without having to be there.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Doug Martin:** \[44:09\] When you're writing something for an end user or a business application, you're trying to think of the ways they could break it. When you're writing something for an engineer, you're trying to think about the ways that they could use it, or would want to use it. So it's kind of a different frame of mind, especially when creating something like Nestjs-query or Goku, or FastCSV; there's all these different use cases... And then when you get an issue come in, you're like "Wow, I never thought about that before." It's really -- you have to take a lot more time to dive in and figure out "Okay, what are you trying to accomplish here?" and "How can I help you?"
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Doug Martin:** It's just a different frame of mind. I love that piece of it. I wish I had more time to stay on top of everything all the time, but it's purely like a side project to get my coding fix...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah... \[laughs\]
+
+**Doug Martin:** But doing that is -- it's enjoyable. I just like doing it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Definitely, because it is kind of scratching your own itch, in a lot of ways... You're building a tool that you would wanna use, but it just turns out that others would also really like to use it, which is really nice. And coming from a developer mindset - you're a developer, working on tools for yourself, that other developers find very helpful.
+
+**Doug Martin:** Well, it's a way to put yourself in another developer's shoes, and get a glimpse of their job and what they're trying to do. That's a cool thing, because you can become so siloed in your own work and what you're focusing on, and how you do it at your shop, that when you get to see the way somebody else does it and what their problems are, it's like living another life for a brief moment.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, definitely. There's also something that you said. You mentioned end users - you were thinking about how they might break the code... I've gotta imagine that you would think that about developers, too - "How can I manipulate this code to do what I want?" \[laughs\]
+
+**Doug Martin:** Yeah, you definitely do have to think about that... But it's always the use cases -- and I've found with developer tools... I've spent a lot more time -- and every engineer should be doing this, spending a lot of time testing... But I've spent a lot of time trying to cover all the edge cases and stuff like that, because this is the foundation of somebody else's application, so it has to have good test coverage, it has to throw errors in the correct place, or handle certain scenarios. So I'm always keeping that in mind when I'm releasing a new piece of software that -- if I do a bad release, that could break thousands of applications. I think FastCSV is nearing a million downloads a day, or a week, or whatever... You look at that and you're like, "Okay, the impact that you could have if you break it is a little bit scarier, but also exciting..." So definitely thinking about how they could break it, and making sure that you have test coverage for all that has always been super-important to me, especially in these types of tools.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, definitely. And FastCSV being another open source project that you've created, right?
+
+**Doug Martin:** Yeah, that was -- I think you were around when I created that one.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I was, yeah.
+
+**Doug Martin:** The CSV parser we were using at the time wasn't quite quick enough to do ten million lines... So we had to figure that one out. And then it's kind of continued to just be adopted, which is pretty cool, without having to do -- I've never been a marketer, or somebody that's good at marketing the work that I've done... To see something like that just continue to be used and to grow in the community is pretty neat.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It goes back to scratching your own itch, and it just turns out that other people have that itch, too. It's really cool. Taking another step back, I wanted to ask you about -- when we first started working together, almost a decade ago, or maybe more than a decade ago now, we were writing a lot of JavaScript, Dojo, things like that... What got you over to TypeScript? You went there as a result of Nest? You found Nest after falling for TypeScript, or...?
+
+**Doug Martin:** Let's see... I remember when they announced TypeScript at JSConf, and I think there were mixed reactions at the time... And at the time -- I loved JavaScript. I'd probably created some projects I shouldn't have, like a rules engine written in JavaScript... I think you remember Nools...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yup.
+
+**Doug Martin:** And I was a huge JavaScript developer, up until (I think) about 2015. Then I started doing Golang. Then I moved on to Scala, and doing a lot of that. Then I wanted to come back to my roots, I guess, and started doing more JavaScript, and uplifting some of the old projects that I had -- like, FastCSV was written in JavaScript initially. So I wanted to look at what the latest technologies were, and TypeScript was really starting to take off, and I had been doing typed languages a lot recently... And I fell in love with how much safety it provides you... It's kind of like that warm blanket at night. You feel a little bit safer.
+
+So I went through and started upgrading FastCSV, and what I quickly found is starting JavaScript first and then porting over - how many things that you just ignore that could break your code, or whatever... And then TypeScript's like, "Nope, you shouldn't be doing that."
+
+So that's when I really started to fall in love with it and see the power of it. I mean, it's not giving you as many checks as a fully-typed language would, but it makes JavaScript just a little bit better. So it was really that -- coming back from typed languages to JavaScript.
+
+And the other thing that TypeScript helped me do, when coming back to an old JavaScript project, you have to build up this huge mental -- the full context of the project, to know how everything ties together and make sure you're thinking about all the edge cases. And if you haven't looked at a piece of code in a couple of years, especially JavaScript code, that's hard. So you're like "How is this called again?" and then you right-click, and find usages, and nothing pops up. And you're like, "Oh, that's because I did a dynamic lookup or something on it, and it's not actually referenced anywhere."
+
+So TypeScript gives me the ability to come back and support projects, even though I'm not actively working on them day to day. So once I really embraced the power of that, I'm not looking back.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. That's just a hilarious observation that I've had, too. I used to pride myself on all of the ridiculous world building that I could do in my head, to keep it all going...
+
+**Doug Martin:** \[laughs\] Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And I'd just type it, and -- I knew exactly what it was, and I type it, very errors and everything... And now I'm just like, if I go back to a project that doesn't have TypeScript, I'm just like "Was it just that I was younger then, and I just can't do that anymore? Or am I just so spoiled now by the tools?" Yeah... Either way, I don't wanna find out; I'll just keep it...
+
+**Doug Martin:** We're getting old, Nick. We can't do it. \[laughter\] Oh, man... I think you and I were sitting next to each other when they announced TypeScript...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[50:40\] Yeah.
+
+**Doug Martin:** You know, "If I wanted TypeScript, I'd be using Java, right? Go to a typed language." How wrong we were... \[laughs\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** We had the same reaction, because we were also sitting next to each other when - probably on Hacker News, or something - CoffeeScript was announced, or came out, or got popular, or something... It was just like, "That looks cool, but why would I want that...?"
+
+**Doug Martin:** I think we were sitting next to each other when React came out of JSConf, too... Or when they really started to talk about it... And that was another one, we were like "Hm... That's interesting." But then I automatically went back to "Well, I could kind of do that in Dojo, with widgets, and the binding stuff in there..." I'm like, "Dojo already did it." But then, once I started to actually use React, I'm like, "This is amazing. This is the easiest way to get an application up and running and create a cool frontend..." I think that's the thing - over the years, you're like, "How many times have I been wrong?" It teaches you to not have strong opinions.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** You know, that's the great thing - learn to fail fast, learn to grow from those failures, and that's how you will grow, I guess.
+
+**Doug Martin:** Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** But yes, I do remember that at JSConf. That was a lot of fun. We were writing a Backbone application at the time, and we were actually writing almost a Dojo declarative syntax, right? Remember Thumbs?
+
+**Doug Martin:** Thumbs... \[laughter\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. We're like, "Nah, we'll stick with Backbone." And here we are, a little less than a decade later of fawning over React and TypeScript now...
+
+**Doug Martin:** Yup, yup... \[laughs\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. Well, Doug, thanks so much for coming on. Is there anything else before I let you go that you want to say about NestJS, Nestjs-query, TypeScript, GraphQL?
+
+**Doug Martin:** I'm always looking for contributors. If you have any interest in helping to move this project along, or you heard something you might have liked, feel free to put an issue out there, or just start going through an issue in PRs. There's not a better feeling than the maintainer of an open source project to get this random, amazing PR that just drops in your lap and you're like, "Wow, that's amazing. You should become part of the core contributors."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Doug Martin:** So if you're at all interested in helping to contribute and move this project along, I'd love that. That'd be amazing.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Would it be best to reach out in an issue, GitHub discussion, Discord, Twitter?
+
+**Doug Martin:** Honestly, just start participating in the issues. And you can also reach out to me directly, that's fine as well.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Awesome. Yeah, and we'll have links in the show notes for all of that. Doug, thanks so much for coming on and chatting with us about React -- sorry, not React; about NestJS, Nestjs-query, and TypeScript and GraphQL. I really appreciate it.
+
+**Doug Martin:** Thank you for having me.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Thanks so much.
+
+**Outro:** \[53:18\]
+
+**HorseJS:** Is JavaScript the language suffering?
diff --git a/Building on the TanStack_transcript.txt b/Building on the TanStack_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..501aff378631ceec6b216830a1185db4f23b7e8f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Building on the TanStack_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,321 @@
+**Nick Nisi:** Hello, hoy-hoy! Welcome to JS Party. I'm your host this week, Nick Nisi, and I am very excited to have a special guest, and that is Tanner Linsley. Tanner, how's it going?
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** It's going great. How are you?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I'm doing excellent. Welcome to the show. Thanks for being here, and we are excited to talk about the TanStack, which is a really exciting set of projects that you have worked on and created. Let's dig right in...
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Let's do that.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** First off, maybe tell us a little bit about yourself.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Sure. I'm an open source software developer and entrepreneur. I've been developing for probably about eight years, ten years, somewhere in between there. I've been doing React -- I started using React about a year after it came out; so not like super-early adopter, but I've been using it for quite a while.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** What got you into React?
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Well, initially I was an Angular fanboy. Whatever I'm into, I dig my heels in real hard... So I just loved Angular. Eventually, I just started hitting bottlenecks, and design constraints, and architectural questions that I didn't like the answers to... And one day it just became apparent that I needed to change. So I took the plunge, and I actually took the plunger from Angular into both React and Redux at the same time. So it was a big change.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Oh, wow. \[laughs\] Yeah, a completely different mindshift. And just to give a context for the time period - this probably would have been Angular 1.x then? Is that right?
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Yeah, this Angular 1.x, Angular.js, back when it was still cool. At look at Angular now and I don't even know what I'm looking at, but...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, for sure.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** \[04:09\] Actually, Vue reminds me a little bit more about the Angular that I used to use.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice. I have luckily avoided Angular.js in my career so far, but not true with Angular 2+. But yeah... Cool. So you got into React into something like the 2014 time period... What got you thinking about open source? Because you have a lot of really cool and popular open source projects. What got you started with that?
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Believe it or not, I was in open source before I even started really programming a ton... Just because from my young, naive mindset it was like a place to get free software. So I was like "Wow, people are building things for free and I can just take them." So I was a leecher for a very long time as a youth, and even in my early development career, when I was doing WordPress for a long time, before I even became a "real" programmer. I used so much open source stuff for WordPress, and that was kind of when I started getting into contributing little bug fixes, and dealing with PHP... It was a mess. So really when I kind of started diving into it was when I learned about Angular, and I learned that it was this open source piece of software that was just really cool, and it really changed my life, to be honest.
+
+I love React, but Angular was my first big love into frontend. And when I learned it was open source, I just thought that was awesome. And then I learned that I could start creating my own open source libraries... I remember going to meetups -- in fact, I remember one of the very earliest meetups I went to; Kent C. Dodds was actually there, here in Utah...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** And I think it was one of our first meetups for both of us, but he was there presenting one of his very first open source libraries that he had created. He's like "Yeah, I created my own library", and I was like "Man, that guy is cool. I wanna do that, too." I thought he was my hero, and he was doing this awesome stuff... Little did I know, he's still learning, too. We all don't know what we're doing, but we like to make it look like we do.
+
+So from that point, I just kind of became obsessed with "I'm gonna build these great tools in open source and give them back to the world for all of the leeching that I have done in my past." That's how it all started. The reasons that I'm into open source today, and even in the last few years, have changed drastically from that mindset... But that's kind of what got me started.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice. So now, today, do you work on open source full-time, or what do you do as your day to day?
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** So a majority of my day is spent on my startup, Nozzle. I started Nozzle with two co-founders. Our CEO is in the office behind me, and our VP of backend in the other office behind him. So us three, we started Nozzle about seven years ago, and - it's always hard to describe what Nozzle does, but essentially we are reverse-engineering Google search rankings. Google is crawling the internet, but we are crawling Google, to find out where people rank, why they rank where they do... Basically, take everything on the search page and just turn it into big data. That's what Nozzle does, and we do it as scale, and there's a lot of hard, fun problems that come with trying to do that.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice. I can probably guess that you're using React in that stack for Nozzle...
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** \[07:37\] Absolutely. Nozzle uses a lot of React. I mean, to be honest, a lot of the tools that I have built in the last few years have been there because I needed them at Nozzle. It's kind of this symbiotic relationship where if I can build a tool that's open source and help other people, and also get their help in testing the library and getting the features so that they're solid... There's only two of us frontend developers here at Nozzle, but sometimes I feel like there's hundreds with all the help and the people who help out with my open source libraries... In a way, they're kind of directly contributing back to what I've built for Nozzle. So it's kind of cool to see the two of them work together.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, that's awesome. So we are gonna dive into some of the projects that make up the TanStack, but I wanted to ask you about that specifically - TanStack is like a great way to market this set of projects together, and I'm wondering how you got started with that, or that mentality or thinking mindset when it came to packaging and/or marketing these tools together. And the tools are react-query, react-table and react-charts.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Right. You know, I have to give credit to Shawn Wang (@swyx). One day I was talking with Shawn and he's like "Man, you've got these libraries. This is so great." I was like, "Oh, thanks." He was like "You need a brand", and I was like, "I know. I just use my name for now." He's like, "No, it's the TanStack!" And he kind of said it -- I don't know if it was tongue-in-cheek, but in a funny way... And I was like "Oh, man. That's just seems so narcissistic." And then I think he told a few other people, and then one other person was like "Well, the TanStack..." And at one point I just said, "Okay, it sticks... And it sounds cool, because it rhymes with JAMstack..." And I was like "Yeah, let's do it. Why not."
+
+So it wasn't a super-conscious decision at first. It was just more of like a hashtag, right? And after he did that and I started calling it the TanStack, I was like "Well, now I'm really deep in. So I have to buy the domain, and I have to get all the things..." So that's kind of how it all started with the branding.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** And early on -- so the only other big library I built before these was react-static. And I initially built react-static under Nozzle's GitHub, which ended up being kind of strange, because it really didn't have anything to do with what we did at Nozzle. The goals weren't aligned, and I actually ended up not using react-static that much anyway. That's another story for another day. So react-static is gone... I just figured I needed a home that wasn't my startup, but was in my personal name, to kind of put these projects and let them even potentially live on beyond me. The TanStack - yeah, it's got Tan in it, but it doesn't necessarily mean that if I were to leave, it couldn't be called TanStack still. It was just kind of fun.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, absolutely. That's been the interesting thing, too. For me, coming to know about you has been through React Query, and we'll kind of dive into that library a little bit here after the break... But I saw that, and the docs have been really great going there, and I get a little pop-up in the docs that talks about the TanStack, and that's where I got the introduction to that. That's all just to say that it is very catchy and memorable, so...
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Oh, thanks. Good.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I think it's working.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Yeah, I think so...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Props to swyx for that name, because it's really nice.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Yeah. I own him lunch \[unintelligible 00:11:07.23\] come and visit.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. \[laughs\] Awesome. So what has that journey been like so far? Creating these popular libraries that have quite a few stars on GitHub, for example, and react-query in particular - that's the one I'm most familiar with; but it's very popular... I've heard about it on other podcasts, and see articles about it all the time, and I really like using it at my day job... But what has it been like riding that wave of popularity with these really nice open source tools?
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** It just kind of comes at you really fast. I remember -- I wasn't surprised necessarily that I was able to get a couple thousand stars with react-query. React-table was the first library I built that kind of got a fair amount of stars, but it was much slower over time, so it didn't really take me by surprise with react-table, just because it's slow. But with react-query it was different, because I could tell early on that there was something kind of magical about the timing and all of the ecosystem that it was released in. It was prime for a library like this to come out. And I could tell because I wrote it internally for Nozzle at first, used it internally for a couple months, and then decided it was time to open source it. And when I released it, I got a lot of stars; more stars than I had ever gotten on any other project, really early on.
+
+\[12:37\] I was marketing it, I was telling people about it, but not necessarily any more than I was doing with react-table. I still think that it could be that react-query is just a little more general-purpose than any other library. So I think comparing the two isn't really apples to apples for me, but it's been a whirlwind. Lots of influx of users, so many feature requests, so many bugs... There have been so many people that have stepped up to help, and people that have stepped up to voice their opinions as well, kind of the leechers of today... And there's a lot of things that have come up, but none of them necessarily have been new; they've just been at a bigger scale than I'm used to.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Okay.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Luckily, I've had great people step up to help. Niek Bosch and Dominik Dorfmeister (TkDodo) - these have been two people that have really stepped up with react-query specifically to help triage and work on features with me, and fix bugs. I'm more of the inventor mentality/inventor personality, and I can't tell you how valuable it's been to have people who are definitely more of the maintainer personality step up and help me take care of things.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, I imagine it must be tough with being a co-founder in a startup and having these very popular libraries... How do you find the time? Is it really just the influx of help that you get from other maintainers and other contributors to the projects that helps you stay on top of that?
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** A lot of bug fixes and triaging does happen asynchronously, not during the day, and for the most part I don't have to do too much. I kind of set aside at least an hour every day, maybe at night when things calm down, to just go through as many issues as I can, and pull requests, and make sure that things are moving well. I try and get on my Discord channel and answer any really pertinent questions that pop up... But for the most part, I'm trying to let the community handle it as much as I can, just for my own sanity. Because it is a lot to juggle a startup and also a bunch of open source, and my family. There's just a lot of things to do and not enough time to do it. So managing time is probably one of the hardest things to do as a maintainer.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Absolutely, yeah.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** When it comes to -- like, the most time that I'll spend on a library is usually when Nozzle needs something new, or I need something new out of the libraries that either doesn't exist, or needs to exist in a new version. That's when I can justify taking a large chunk of a few days and say "Okay, I'm going to work on these new features for the library, which I need for my startup." That feels right to me.
+
+For the last few days I've been taking maybe half of the day and working on the new version for react-table, because there's new things that I need for Nozzle that I need in this new version. So it's easy for me to justify taking that time and investing that into the library?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, absolutely. Scratching your own itch raises all boats, to mix metaphors...
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** \[15:56\] Yeah, and it's important to dogfood your own libraries, right? That's one of the reasons that I'm still around on these libraries, is because I need them. They're not just some weekend project that is now a burden. They're just as much of a dependency of my business as it is my stack.
+
+**Break:** \[16:16\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Admittedly, I was very excited to get you on this podcast to talk about the project of yours that I've used the most, and used quite extensively at my day job, and that is react-query. Maybe I thought we could start with you describing the power of react-query. How would you describe what it is and what you can do with it?
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** My description has changed over the last two years, as people ask what it is... I still think one of the best descriptions is just what's on the react-query.tanstack.com, "Performant and powerful data synchronization for React." That's really what it is. I think a lot of people equate react-query with a fetching library when they first hear about it, and they're like "Nice, it's gonna replace my thunks" or "It's gonna replace my fetch promise hook" or whatever. And yes, it can replace some of that functionality, but it's agnostic to how you fetch. Really, it's more of like a coordinator of fetching, if you can think of it that way. And it really is more of a library for synchronization instead of just fetching kind of one-offs. It almost takes people by surprise when they're like "Oh, sweet, now I get to rip out all my used state and use \[unintelligible 00:18:55.18\] stuff and then put react-query in." But then they realize that it's not just fetching once, it's kind of like "Wow, it's keeping my stuff up to date." It's almost like a meta stream of data coming into your application. It's not WebSockets or anything live like that, it's just using intelligent user input actions to trigger those refetches under the hood.
+
+So synchronization is always the word that comes to my mind when people are like "What is react-query?" Well, it's synchronization between remote data and your application. And the next word that comes to mind is cache. It is a temporary mirror of things that live in a remote location in a very accessible way. So a little different than how I initially described it, but it's what it is.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I like that a lot, and I think it's very accurate based on my usage of it as well. I'll tell you, me coming into it -- so I came into it about a year ago, and I was kind of thrown in with this, and I think we were looking at another tool, like maybe SWR at the time... And we were also creating a lot of new GraphQL endpoints. So I immediately - just based on the work that we were doing - equated it with that; and then looking through the API, it has a mutation... Is that what it's called, mutate...?
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** \[20:21\] Yeah, use mutation.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Use mutation, that's it. A use mutation hook. So I was like "Oh yeah, this is just a GraphQL library." But then as I actually started using it, and thinking kind of "This is gonna replace Axios throughout our application, and we're just gonna be using React Query, and doing GraphQL queries and mutations." That was the mindset that I went in with it. But then as I used it, I realized that, like you said, it's really not about replacing any of those. We're still using Axios.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** You're still using Axios? Oh, okay...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah... \[laughs\]
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** It's kind of a surprise; you get in there and you're like "Oh. Oh, okay..."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, it's great. So we're still using that, and we are using it with GraphQL as well, and I think we're wrapping GraphQL Request with this.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Very common.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. That's the cool thing about it - you really don't need to think about it as just strictly fetching data. It kind of works just with promises. Anything that is asynchronous, it can work with. So you can use that to pretty much do anything.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Yeah. I've had people even wrap asynchronous SQLite things with react-query. People have wrapped a lot of different things, if it supports a promise. There's even people that will use it with Firebase; the initial request to Firebase will be a promise, and then they'll also set up a subscription on Firebase and say "Anytime that it changes, we'll just update the data that's in react-query", or invalidate, whichever way you wanna do it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, nice.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** As long as it's got a promise...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That's the powerful piece of it. I mean, that's kind of half of it. And then the other piece is -- I don't know how best to describe it in technical React terms, but every query that you do, you give it a key, and that key can be a string (we use a string a lot), or it can be an array, or an object, and that'll get serialized into some unique value... And then it's used as like an identifier in the "global" state that react-query is storing the values for everything. And that's a way that you can reference it and pull it out later to use everywhere.
+
+That is super-powerful, I think, because then I can use a useQuery anywhere, and the way that I create it is basically wrapping useQuery with my own hook, and then using that hook somewhere else.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** That's a great pattern. I think that's the best way to use react-query, is creating a custom hook for some asset, and then just passing that hook around. It encapsulates so much of good practices, I guess, of not repeating keys that you might have typos in, and having to pass the functions around everywhere. You can encapsulate all of your side effects, and your data manipulation that happens in between fetching and supplying it to your components... It can all happen in one place.
+
+That is the powerful part about it - you can use that custom hook after that anywhere in your application, at any level, and you can use it as many times as you want. You could have ten, or a hundred of those useQuery instances on the same page, but it's really only ever going to result in one query going out.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Right. That's the super-powerful thing, is just being able to use that, but then also that goes back to synchronization that you used as kind of a keyword to describe it. When you start using that hook everywhere, and then data gets updated through some invalidation process, it's going to update everywhere that's using that data, and then React just takes over and rerenders from there. So yeah, that's the super-powerful part of it.
+
+\[24:09\] Also, some of the things that I really like about it are how much configuration that you can really do, but also how much you don't really have to do... But you can really customize how it controls its cache, and things like that. Do you want to maybe talk about some use cases for that?
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Yeah. I love how you say that you can configure everything, but it comes with some automatic stuff. In the docs I actually call this "aggressive, but sane defaults."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yes.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** And that's exactly what it is; there's an option for everything, but you should never have to supply everything, and infer as much as you can. And the defaults that come with react-query are very aggressive. The defaults are there to basically overfetch; the first priority is just to keep your data up to date all the time, really almost at any cost. So every time you refocus the window -- there's no stale time. So data is always considered out of date as soon as it hits the client. And anytime you click the screen, refocus the window, it's gonna go fetch everything again. And if the network reconnects again, it's gonna go fetch everything...
+
+So it's very heavy on fetching out of the box. I think that's pretty safe bet for most people. Some people like to worry a lot about network bandwidth, and I think that is a concern if you are building a very specific kind of application for low bandwidth devices. But for the most part -- if you're fetching really small JSON blobs, latency might be a thing to worry about. But other than that, the user can always refresh the page. If they refresh the page five times, they're gonna be making five brand new rounds of requests. So it really shouldn't be any different than the user doing that. That should not bring your app to its knees.
+
+So I feel like that's been a really good default, to just kind of be aggressive. And it's easy to teach people how to tune it back from that point. You can change the stale time to make it so that when data comes back to your application, it's considered fresh and up to date for a certain amount of time before React query will try and go and fetch the latest version. So if you've got some asset coming back from your API, you know that it's never, ever changing. I get situations like - the demos that use the Pokémon API... Pokémon are not changing. They're stats, and all the info of the Pokémon is not changing really ever. You could put stale time to infinity and React query is like "Yay, I got the copy. I don't need it again. That's it."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[unintelligible 00:27:02.19\]
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** But if you have something like an admin dashboard for teams of people that are working together, you'll have objects that are getting edited and saved all the time between people. And that's a situation where, regardless of whether you set up WebSockets or something to listen to those changes, it's just kind of nice to be able -- you know, you come back to your application and everything's just up to date. You don't have to do anything. So that's where the aggressive part really comes in handy. But like I said, you can tune that back as far as you want.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, definitely. And I think I agree with you on the balance between aggressiveness and usability with that. For the most part, we haven't touched that in our app. One of the key distinctions or highlighted behaviors that we see with react-query is what you said - we're kind of transitioning between the Chrome DevTools and the app, and you immediately see new network lines going into the network tab, because we're refocusing, and the cash is invalidated, so it's refetching.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[28:11\] But then on the other hand, or at the same time, we have some -- specifically, I worked on some code that's pulling in some documents, so it's like kind of bigger, raw HTML blobs that it's pulling in, and will use. And those are not changing. So I set the cache time on that as like an hour, so they're only pulled in once and we don't have to go fetch them again probably throughout the entire session. But that's something that I can really just configure because I'm making those custom hooks wrapped around react-query every time. I can just configure that per hook and have it set up so that anyone who tries to fetch those documents is always going to get this data that is cached for an hour, versus -- you know, when we're pulling up live user data, that is immediately invalidated, so every time it will try and refetch that... And it's overall a good balance. The configuration is there when I need it, but otherwise I don't have to think about it.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Yeah, that's great. That's exactly why I designed it the way I did. I was gonna say, there's also something to be said about the garbage collection features of it, too. Caching is a hard problem, but what we're talking about is in-memory caching, but react-query also has some semi-persistent caching too, where if you request something and it gets cached and then you kind of leave that screen and it becomes unused, it still stays there in the cache for a specific amount of time, so that if you ever go back to that screen, it will show you the outdated data right immediately, and then get the newest stuff in the background.
+
+It also has this automatic garbage collection lifecycle behind the hood that's saying "If there's old, unused data that lives beyond a certain amount of time, kind of like a max age inside of the cache, then it gets garbage collected."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Is that all based on max age, or does it somehow know what is actually being used and rendered by a live component?
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** It's based on both. So the max age garbage collection lifecycle never kicks in if you have active subscriptions to any data on the screen. But if you have a subscription to a user and there's five hook instances, then if all five of those instances disappear off the screen, and that hook user data is still in the cache, by default it will sit there for five minutes. And if that five minutes passes and a new instance doesn't pop up to bring it out of cold storage, then it gets evicted from the caching garbage collected.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice. Another cool thing that I really like about it is really the way that react-query kind of hides -- not hides, but it makes working with the fact that the data that you're working with is asynchronous, it makes it really kind of seamless in a lot of ways. And one of those ways could be, like we were saying, just wrapping the hook and then I could provide it with an empty array whenever useQuery \[unintelligible 00:31:01.07\] is true, or whatever.
+
+But another thing is you can set a primary set of data for it, so that it'll just return that immediately. Is that also a way that you could hydrate it with server-provided data?
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Yeah. That goes into a lot of cool things, what you've just said. So there's a couple of different concepts there. There's the concept of placeholder data; placeholder data is just fake data. It's nothing that you really wanna keep in your cache, it's just kind of like a loading state data that you can provide. Sometimes it's an empty array, or an object with a bunch of John Doe type fields in it.
+
+So there's placeholder data. Then there's initial data, which - initial data is more of like "Hey, here's the data that I'm fetching. I already know what it is, I already have it, so I'm going to provide it with initial data." It gets puts into the cache. So that is useful if you are -- say you fetched a list of users, and then you're moving into a detailed user view. You can take the users that you already fetched from the list of users and use it as the initial data for the user subscription, the individual one.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[32:16\] Nice.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** And it'll kind of "hydrate" that way. But if you're actually talking about SSR hydration, there's much better ways of doing that with react-query. There's a whole SSR kind of recipe to get a great experience with it. And really the way that that works is you just kind of use all of your queries as if the data is there, and then during your SSR stage you basically just kind of suspend your SSR and prefetch the data that you need into your cache, and then you render and all the useQueries just kind of work synchronously, because the data is already there.
+
+So it's definitely a spectrum of temporary data, to persisted data, and when it gets picked up. There's a recipe for everything in react-query, so...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, definitely. And those recipes allow you to, for example from your component, really be able to trust that the data is there. it's also suspensified, or it does support suspense, so that you can use that if you like, as well.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Yeah. Some people don't like that, if you use -- I don't mind either way. I like -- you know, useQuery, I just kind of have it return a query object, and it's universal throughout the app. You've got asynchronous queries and you've gotta handle your loading, and your error states, compose them together, whatever.
+
+Some people don't like that that leaks into everything, so you can set up suspense and just kind of say "useQuery" and the data is going to be there all the time... Because you know that the queries are going to suspend your rendering until it is. So you're just kind of trading that status boolean checking in your rendering - you're exchanging that for suspense and error boundaries is really all you're doing.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. Nice. Now, there is one other piece -- a couple of other pieces, actually, that I wanted to touch on... And one really cool thing about react-query is that it does actually come with its own dev tools. What gave you the idea to ship custom dev tools as part of the project?
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Well, I think it was natural, looking at other tools, to do it. Redux has dev tools, and Apollo has dev tools... A lot of things have dev tools, and I also saw -- Kent likes to talk about shipping your own dev tools a lot as well. It's just kind of been around. I knew that I wanted dev tools from the very beginning, because I wanted to be able to inspect this -- the lifecycle of react-query can be a mystery sometimes, unless you have the dev tools there to show you what's going on.
+
+So I knew I wanted them from the very beginning, I just didn't know how I wanted to implement them. I looked into building an actual Chrome extension, and I can tell you that that was very quickly not going to work for me, mostly because of the time that I was going to have to invest. It was not worth the ROI.
+
+Chrome extensions are a bunch of domain knowledge that I don't really want to have and I don't really care about right now; maybe in the future, but I don't want right now. So I'm like, "I'm just gonna use the tools that I have and that I know work for me. I'm just gonna build a component. It's a React component, you can put it anywhere you want, and it's the dev tools. And I'm gonna ship it with a bunch of in-line styles." I even made a little styled-component type thing that just uses inline styles, and a theme, and everything. It just kind of ships an all-in-one inclusive component. And it worked out great; you can render it wherever you want, or you can just use the React dev tools main one and it just renders at the bottom of your screen type of thing... And it works great.
+
+There are some drawbacks... People are like "Oh, I wish it wasn't taking up part of my screen. I wish I could have it in an external window." Yeah, sorry... If that's really that much of a pain, you can go build the dev tools extension, because I'm not doing that.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[36:10\] Yeah. At C2FO where I work we're pretty used to seeing the little floating flower down at the bottom of the screen.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Yeah, I love seeing that now. I see it in random places too on videos, and screenshots, and it just kind of makes me giggle a little bit... Just like "Oh, look, there's the React flower."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And then one other thing I wanted to touch on with this - and correct me if my timeline or understanding of things is wrong, but I think that when I came in and started using this project it was written in JavaScript. But now it's written in TypeScript. And I'm just curious about the transition to that.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** I mean, I've known that TypeScript is in my future since I heard about it. Types are great, and they come with a lot of great things. I didn't know how to write TypeScript and I didn't have a lot of experience with typed languages. I just know from programming principle perspective, like "Yes, I want types. I want things to be strict. It's gonna help me out." But it was difficult to go all in on that when I didn't have that skillset. I wasn't using TypeScript at Nozzle, and I wasn't using it in any of my personal projects or my open source... So I was really new. And I just knew that one day there was gonna come a point where I have to do it. React-table almost got me there, because there's a lot of people who use react-table. But for the most part, there's people in the community that were like "We're gonna build types for react-table." I was like "Sweet! Do it. I don't wanna have to do that." And I've been getting away with not using types at Nozzle for a while. I was. And then react-query got huge, and at some point you've just gotta bite the bullet and say "Well, I guess I'm learning TypeScript." And there's a lot of great things that come with TypeScript, and I'm glad that we moved... But I can't even remember when we moved over. I actually didn't even do the initial TypeScript migration for react-query. That was actually all Niek Bosch, who is just a wizard. He really understands TypeScript, and he has more of an object-oriented background, which is why you'll see a lot of that in react-query core. There's a lot of classes... And that's all great. TypeScript and classes work great together, and the model actually fits really well, since 99% of react-query isn't even React; it's kind of just TypeScript.
+
+So yeah, after that I was like "Well, my library is in TypeScript now. \[unintelligible 00:38:37.26\] So I started learning TypeScript and migrating Nozzle over, migrating some of my smaller tools, internal tools over to use it... And then right now I'm actually building react-table version 8, and it's all in TypeScript. It's a full -- I wanna say I'm migrating, but it's really just a rewrite. I'm rewriting it in TypeScript with entirely new -- I wouldn't say new API; that's gonna scare people that it's gonna be breaking changes... But it's gonna be new for TypeScript. So yeah, unavoidable, but great.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\] Yeah. So it's safe to say that it's kind of lived up to the thoughts that you had, or the hopes that you had for converting over to TypeScript.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Yeah, writing libraries - this is something that I had to learn very quickly, but writing library TypeScript code is just a whole other ball game than just using TypeScript. Unless you've written a library that uses generics and is even moderately complex, you have no idea. You don't know what you don't know. So I'll just say that - writing generic code in TypeScript is just like you're writing in the meta, meta level of programming. It's mind-boggling sometimes. But it's a lot of fun. It is a lot of fun. Sometimes I've gone too deep with that, I got sucked into a plugin rabbit hole with React table for the last nine months, and I'm finally back out of it and just kind of using TypeScript instead of trying to bend its limits and go crazy with generics.
+
+\[40:15\] So it was difficult to learn, I'm still learning, but I feel like I'm in a good place now, where I recognize the trade-offs. There are definitely places where I wish TypeScript had better answers for things that I wanna do. And most of those are centered around generics and how to type flexible APIs. Some of that may never change, but that's okay.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. Well, hopefully it does. Hopefully they can bring that functionality, to keep it as flexible as possible, while still being as performant and powerful as it is.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** I mean, just to make sure that the TypeScript team knows that I appreciate even just the work that's gone into the last year or year and a half of TypeScript has just been phenomenally amazing. That's been another reason too that it took me so long to change over, is just because I felt like it just wasn't quite where I wanted it to be yet... But I can tell you that for the regular use case there's very little that TypeScript can't do now.
+
+**Break:** \[41:18\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Alright, so we talked about react-query quite a bit, and that fantastic framework or utility for writing synchronized code that is coordinated throughout our frontend. Trying to use the keywords that you used to describe it in that sentence... But I did wanna touch on another piece of the TanStack, and that is react-table. This is an interesting project, and I think you said in the last section that you're working on version eight of it right now... Is that right?
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Yup.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice. To be honest, I hadn't really heard of it before too long ago. I think I saw you talking about it, probably in the context of TypeScript; I think I saw you talking about it on Twitter. But it is a pretty interesting library. And one of the biggest things that immediately struck me when I was researching it was the fact that it's not actually a table component. It's just a series of utilities for you to build your own, which is fascinating. So do you wanna talk about what it is and introduce this in a way that is better than what I just did?
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Yeah. So I'm gonna throw out a term here, and then I'm gonna describe the background of this term... React-table is very much a headless UI utility.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. I like that.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** And people are becoming very familiar with this term, headless UI, because even the Tailwind guys have built headless UI. It's kind of the same concept, where they're building a UI library, but it just has no styles, is very unopinionated about what it renders, and they actually took the term headless and branded it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. A project by Tailwind Labs.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** \[43:57\] Perfect. So I got it right. It's becoming more popular, this term... But back when I learned about it - way, way back when, just a couple years ago - was there was a utility that Kent wrote. If you can't tell, I just love everything Kent does. I hope he loves the stuff that I do, too... But Kent wrote a utility called Downshift. It's for building autocomplete and select box experiences... But it doesn't render anything, it just gives you the utilities to build your own. And I was like "This is genius", because especially for tables -- so version 6 of react-table was a component. And it came with all the bells and whistles. You drop it in and it just works. But it was the worst to maintain, because it had over 120 props for customizing HTML. And then within those options, there was just like "Okay, now you can override the style, and the class name, or you can give it your own component." Once you own any of the markup or the styles, you're in for a world of hurt... Because people do not like your styles. People don't want your styles, they don't want your markup. Even if they think they do, they won't in the future. I knew this because I built my own React table library. I was like "I'm gonna build react-table." And then I dropped it into Nozzle, that I needed it for, and I was like "Well, this doesn't match at all. The style here does not match." And we just used it because we needed to. I was like "Okay, I'm actually gonna tweak react-table's core styles to kind of look like Nozzle, that way I don't have to do any work."
+
+But everybody else that uses react-table, their tables are gonna look like Nozzle. I hated that, and a lot of other people hated it too... And I would listen to people talk about competitor libraries like AG Grid, or Material-UI table, and they're like "I can't change the theme. I can't change the styles. I can't override this. What if I wanna move this part of the table to the bottom?" I'm like, "Um, sorry." That's why when I saw Downshift, I said "This is genius. I'm going to take react-table and I'm just going to rip it into two pieces. I'm going to rip all the UI and the styles and the markup away from the logic, and just turn it into a render prop component." I was like "Let's do it."
+
+I was in the middle of writing react-table version 7 render prop style when Hooks came out. And I was like "Oh, man... This is so good." The day that hooks came out, I downloaded it and I started building react-table in Hooks. And it was the best thing ever.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** I even built a compatibility library for Hooks, so you could use it on version 16.whatever, but still get Hooks, so you could use react-table. I'm glad I didn't end up shipping that, but... That was fun.
+
+Anyways. It's a headless library now. There were some people who definitely cried. Gnashing of teeth, many tears shed over the fact that react-table was no longer a component library. They were like "What? I have to build my own markup and my own styles? Are you kidding me? I'm out of here." I'm like "Okay, bye... Because this is so good." And what happened was great, because I realized that the examples could just use table markup really simple. You didn't have to understand a whole lot of the UI to grasp the concepts of what this table library did. And when you break it down from that, instead of being a grid, it just became this kind of sequential package of utilities that's responsible for all of the data grid things that people want. Just to name a few, but it's like, as soon as you wanna add filtering, sorting, grouping... If you wanna have column metadata, or have custom renderers per column, or have an abstraction layer, or invert control for columns to render things however they want - as soon as you wanna do any of that, it's a pain. And that's what react-table solves.
+
+\[48:09\] Today it's still called react-table, but it's more of just like a data manipulation and data modeling library than anything else. You could take the data that spits out of react-table and put it into a chart if you wanted, but...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** It's convenient for tables, and there's a lot of utilities inside it for tables... Like calculating headers, and building row headers that are nested, calculating column and row spans, resizing columns... All the typical things that usually come with a table. But it's all headless, so you get to do whatever you want. You wanna build it in Tailwind, you can do it. If you wanna take Material-UI and shove react-table on top of it, you can do that. And that made people really happy, especially bigger enterprise companies that are like "We have very specific UI library stuff and we need it to look a very specific way, but we need all this great functionality."
+
+There's a company that is really big. Everybody uses this product; every developer I know uses this product, and they're releasing something new in a month that uses react-table. I don't even know if I can say what it is; I probably could, but just to be safe, I'm not going to. But it's so cool that it's going to look exactly like their branding, and you're not even gonna really know that it's react-table, but it's using it under the hood to perform all this data manipulation. It's really cool.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. That's fascinating, and it's a fascinating way to build out this functionality, because really, when you're working with that, the hard parts are the filtering, the sorting, those pieces... I've worked on a data grid component for Dojo back in the day (it was called dgrid) and a lot of the bugs, and as a user of it, a lot of the work that would go into using it was in being able to customize how it rendered rows, or rendered columns, or rendered column headers, and how the footer was placed, and what that looked like, and how the pagination buttons looked and worked, and everything that they did. There was so much -- every client that we had that would work with that, they wanted it customized to look like their stuff. They didn't want this generic grid. And this is just such a mind-blowing thing to look at as something that I'm just seeing right now, because it eliminates all of that, and it takes away all of the stress from you as a maintainer, because you just get to focus on the stuff that it's going to do best, which is the data store manipulation type stuff, and then getting you what you need to do the rendering that you want exactly. Once you build those components on top of this, you can reuse those yourself, which is super-great.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Yeah. I won't lie, some of it was selfish. I just did not wanna have to go through issues anymore, that says like "How can I change the styles on the header?" And now, I don't even get issues like that, but for a while I was like "You just change them, because it's yours. You own it, and when you design a bad abstraction around your styles, you're the person responsible, not me."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That's brilliant as a maintainer. I love that. So some of the things that it does, looking at this - is it fair to say that it ships as like a set of hooks that you would use for this?
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Version 7, yes. There's a base use table hook, and then you kind of add in functionality as you need it, to that hook. That's how it ships.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, that's what I'm looking at, is the docs for that, and specifically use table. So you pass in an object that lets it know what the columns are that it's going to render, and then a second object that is the data. And I'm curious, does it do anything -- does it just work with that static dataset, or does it have a way of doing any kind of dynamic fetching, or anything like that? Or is that kind of left up to the user as well?
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** It's mostly designed as a controlled component. And the more I get into building complex dashboards and data manipulation experiences, I think that's the best decision. And that's partially why I built react-query - if you wanna do data fetching the right way and synchronization, use react-query and then pipe it into the table.
+
+\[52:15\] It's built in a way so that you can control -- well, version 7 is not as good as good as v8 is gonna be, but you can control and opt-in to control specific parts of the table from outside. And you can do that just by passing in some state overrides, and using some callbacks. And that's kind of the concept around asynchronous data, is that you fetch the data and you supply it to the table. That was I don't have to deal with any asynchronous stuff inside of the table. I think that's the best way forward that I've found.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, and that's a good merging of those two projects together to create these really powerful components. And then of course, you can take that data and render it as a chart with your other library...
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Which is exactly what I'm doing... \[laughter\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I love that. I love how it all comes together and they just work together very well for the different pieces that they're in charge of, but then they can also be used separately for each individual piece. Yeah, that's great.
+
+So what can we expect to see in version 8, that's kind of the defining feature of that?
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** TypeScript's gonna be a big one.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** The community types are less than okay today. This new version is going to be just so great for types, and autocomplete. There are a lot of options for react-table. The API surface area is larger, even for a headless utility, but it's all gonna be autocompletable, and you're gonna have some really good type safety options with really great generics that kind of permeate through the entire system and keep things really easy on you, the developer. And that's more like a developer experience improvement, and also it's covering a lot of just like the static testing layer that didn't exist before in react-table, that we kind of just had more of like the integration testing type stuff.
+
+So this is gonna cover a whole slew of tests that we don't have to write, and then on top of the developer experience improvements, it's coming with a couple of API improvements as well. So controlled tables are going to be much easier to do . So you'll be able to basically house all of the state for the table outside of the table, say in a larger dashboard container...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** ...and use that to control the table. But you'll be able to opt into specific pieces. So if you don't want to manage the pagination, you can just let react-table keep managing that automatically internally. But for everything else, it can call back out into your code. So the controlled aspect of it is gonna be a lot better.
+
+There's gonna be some quality of life improvements for performance, so I've eked out a couple more -- you know, like 100 more milliseconds less on the rendering time for accessing rows, and there's gonna be some better APIs for composing your own row props, or building your own plugins. And plugins is a great thing to bring up, because v7 has this concept of plugins.
+
+Let me tell you, building a plugin system in JavaScript is the easiest, coolest thing you can do with JavaScript, because it's just like "What do you wanna do? We can do it. It's flexible. We can do whatever you want. You've got a callback? We can mutate things." TypeScript doesn't even enter the picture. But building a plugin system with TypeScript - I spent the last nine months researching the best way to do this, and ultimately, I decided that there's no sunk cost fallacy here; I'm not going to do a TypeScript plugin system in version 8. And that might take people by surprise, like "What?! All my plugins I wrote for v7, they're gonna go away?" I'm like, "Yeah. You asked for TypeScript, this is what's happening."
+
+\[56:01\] So version 8 is going to be shipped with -- basically, all of the features that you're currently looking at as plugins are going to be just in a monolithic bundle. But that bundle is going to be half the size of what it would have been if they were individual, because all of the glue code disappears, and everything just works much closer together.
+
+That also means that types are gonna be way better together, there's not gonna be this weird mismatch of types between plugins... And I just think it's gonna be overall better. You won't be able to get down to 5 kilobytes for react-table. It'll probably be more like 12 to 15. But it's a data grid library, for crying out loud. Go use AG Grid or Material-UI Grid and tell me how big those are. Now I'll let you complain about how big it is. I was making the wrong trade-offs... I'd rather have a system that works great than worry about code-splitting on a library that probably doesn't even really need it.
+
+So those are gonna be probably some of the biggest breaking changes. Overall though, everything's gonna be way more performance, especially for people who are trying to \[unintelligible 00:57:11.00\] their rows, or save on renders throughout the table; they're gonna be able to do that a lot easier.
+
+So I realized I just said a lot about v8. That's what I'm working on right now, so it's easy for me to spew information about it. I'm really excited about it. It's probably about a third of the way done.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice. Awesome. That's great to hear. Great to hear that there's going to be an improvement, or -- not an improvement, but an improved focus on developer experience. I'm really looking forward to playing with v7 now more, and getting into v8 when that comes out as well.
+
+One thing that I just wanted to close on real quick is just kind of a general comment about the TanStack in general, and that is the documentation is just fantastic. I really appreciate the work that has gone into that, because clearly, you can see that work has -- everytime I have to go look up very specific react-query options that I wanna set, like increasing the cache, or being able to invalidate the cache after I run a mutation on other queries, it's really easy, there's really good examples... And in a lot of cases you link out to code sandboxes so I can just go play with it and see it running live and change it right there, which is great. I appreciate that, and thank you for the work that you've put into that.
+
+Any closing thoughts that you have as we close out the show on TanStack?
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Yeah, something just came to my mind, something that's been on my mind - not necessarily for react-query, but for react-table. I've been digging into open source sustainability for a long time. I'm in a unique position where I don't necessarily have to sustain my projects, because I have a startup, I have a job, and I'm not full-time on my open source. But for some reason, I feel like the open source sustainability model could be better, and I would want that to be an option if I wasn't in my position. So I take that as an opportunity for me to explore new ways of sustaining open source that wouldn't put my family in danger or put my career in danger, because I have great things to fall back on.
+
+One of the things that I've been trying over the last year or two has just been general sponsorship for my libraries. And it's working out really well. I've learned there's sponsors that care about different things; some of them want developer advertising by showing their logo, some of them want consultation hours, or free courses, the react-query course, or whatever. Or some of them just wanna give back. Everybody has different reasons, and it's been fantastic so far.
+
+One of the things that I'm going to be trying here with react-table version 8 is kind of a new experiment; not new like I'm the first one doing it, but new for me. I'm going to be running version 8 as kind of a time-based sponsorware for a little bit.
+
+\[01:00:14.28\] So version 8 is going to come out as an alpha and a beta for react-table. The alpha version is going to be available to upper-level sponsors for a few months, and the beta is going to be available to upper and lower-level sponsors for a few months, and then there's finally going to be a general public roll-out as a full open source product. Because I do believe that everything should stay open source that is, and I wanna keep building open source software to help everybody out. But I think that this is going to be a great opportunity to explore sponsorware as a viable solution.
+
+So I just wanted to put that out there for people listening. If tables are something that you're excited about, and react-table version 8 sounds like it's gonna be game-changing for you and your company, I'm always looking for sponsors who are willing to - not just help out with the project and maintaining, but also help design the beginnings and work through the initial design of these alpha stages. Kind of shape the future of react-table, if you will. So that's gonna be coming very soon. I'm gonna be opening the alpha stage of react-table probably in the next month or two, I hope, and that's gonna be a thing. So I'd like to just throw that out for anybody listening that that's the plan.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That's great. I'm glad you brought this up. It is kind of a whole other topic to talk about, but it is something that I'm glad that you're exploring. Sustainability in open source is something that is obviously a problem that we need to experiment with and to solve, and to just become more comfortable with. Open source doesn't necessarily just mean it's free forever and that you should just work on it for free, and give up all of this time, because it's just not sustainable, it'll lead to burnout, and overall, packages will get abandoned, or they just won't keep up, which is not great for anyone. So I'm glad that you're exploring this. Where would people go to sponsor that? Is that your GitHub Sponsors page?
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Yup. I'm doing it all through GitHub. If you wanna become a sponsor, it's just github.com/sponsors/tannerlinsley is where you can sign up to be a sponsor. There's some different tiers there; there's a tier for everybody, depending on what you wanna do. Also, even if you don't wanna be a sponsor, I have a Discord channel that you can sign up for. There's a link to the Discord channel on tanstack.com. So you can basically get anywhere that you need to get for all my stuff if you go to tanstack.com. Everything's gonna be there.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Cool. Yeah, we will put that in the show notes, for sure. And like I said, I'm glad that you're exploring this, and I'm excited about other projects too that are exploring it, because we do need that sustainability in open source.
+
+**Tanner Linsley:** Yeah. And I plan to keep exploring it even beyond the sponsorship level. I'm hoping soon that I'll be able to build something akin to an AG Grid, enterprise grid that's like an actual paid product. Supported by an open source entity, but has a paid manifestation. It kind of reminds me of what Ryan and Michael are doing with Remix. I think that's also a great way. I'm really excited about exploring these new ways to keep open source going and keep it healthy.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, absolutely. Well, good luck with that. I hope that your experiment works out really well. We'll have links to that in the show notes. Tanner, thank you so much for coming on. Hopefully we can have you back to talk about that maybe sometime, and see how it's going, and the future of these projects as well.
+
+So thank so much, and we will see you next time.
diff --git a/CSS! Everyone's favorite programming language_transcript.txt b/CSS! Everyone's favorite programming language_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..60d9c3b87dcf91ab1d7fecd181b95cb4fe9d3595
--- /dev/null
+++ b/CSS! Everyone's favorite programming language_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,339 @@
+**Emma Bostian:** What's up, party people?! We have an exciting episode today. We are talking about everyone's favorite programming language, which is CSS, and I'm very excited, because we are joined by one of my favorite Twitter acquaintances, but also we worked at the same place, at the same time, without ever having spoken... But that is Una Kravets.
+
+**Una Kravets:** Hello! It's so funny that you say that, because I just recorded a podcast yesterday, where I'm interviewing someone who worked at IBM at the same time that I did, but it was just such a big company that we never kind of see each other... But hi, everyone. My name is Una, I'm a developer advocate at Chrome, focusing on CSS and DevTools, basically just trying to make the web platform a little bit better and more stylable for all the people that are trying to build on it today.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yay! We're so excited. And Una and Adam Argyle have your own CSS podcast, so I'm thrilled that you were able to join us and share some knowledge.
+
+**Una Kravets:** Yes, I have two podcasts, actually. I have the CSS Podcast, which is focused on CSS, and then I also host a podcast called Toolsday with my colleague Chris Dhanaraj, who also worked at IBM.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yes, yes, yes. I knew Dhanaraj.
+
+**Una Kravets:** Yes. So we've been doing that podcast for 5,5 years now. It's kind of crazy.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Wow. Congrats.
+
+**Una Kravets:** I know, I feel old... It's not like a congrats thing, it's like a "Wow, we've been doing this for so long." But it's fun to record that podcast too, because unlike the CSS Podcast, which is mostly information that doesn't change, it's about the spec, this podcast is about tech tools. Things are changing all the time, and the tools that we used five years ago are just completely different than the tools that we're using today. So it's fun to see how that's evolved.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** \[04:03\] Absolutely. Well, I'm excited to chat a little bit more about some difficult CSS concepts, but we're also joined by Adam Stacoviak, who is a big-time player in JS Party, but you don't often join us, do you, Adam?
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Almost never, except for when it makes sense, which is almost never. \[laughter\] There you go.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Well, we're excited that you're here. I'd say we kick things off by just having a really quick discussion around why CSS has such a polarizing reputation. I've noticed this in the techsphere on Twitter. I personally love CSS; I think it's invaluable, and has a lot of strengths... And it's a lot more robust of a language than we give it credit for, but a lot of people either say one of those things - they either say it's too easy to be on the same level as JavaScript, or Java, or another language, or it's too difficult to learn properly, and they just don't understand specificity and all of those things. What do you y'all think about this polarizing issue?
+
+**Una Kravets:** I think that a lot of it stems from this division that we used to have very clearly in design versus engineering... And I do think that some developers kind of equate CSS with design, and don't really think of it as engineering, which I think is very inaccurate. CSS is one of those languages that is very easy to pick up quickly and learn things like how to change a text color, but it is very tricky to master... And that's where we see a lot of the frustration now. Because I think what's happening is when you look at job listings, you will see "Requires five years of React experience and JavaScript." You're not gonna see as often "Requires semantic HTML and CSS styling experience." So bootcamps aren't teaching proper CSS and HTML semantics. They're just kind of focusing on what the resumes need to say to get a job.
+
+So now we have all of these senior developers who have been working in the industry for years, who don't have a strong baseline for how to style things on the web, and it's because it's not as valued in resumes... And then you find these companies kind of struggling with accessibility, and with just getting things to have decent user experiences... And I feel like the web is worse off for it right now.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah. And I think there are severe implications to not understanding CSS... One example I always like to give is this example from a book called Atomic Habits by James Clear, and it says "Imagine you're flying from L.A. to New York. If the pilot leaves from Los Angeles airport and adjusts the heading of the airplane just by 3.5 degrees South, you're gonna land in Washington DC instead of New York." And for those non-United States of America listeners, those states are not close. My point with this is that we get high-fidelity designs from our designers, and if we are not careful with implementing those designs are they're meant to be, in terms of respecting padding, margin, color properties, typography, our product is going to look vastly different, even though they're minor changes in your eyes.
+
+**Una Kravets:** Yeah, and it's not even just about typography and color... It's about layout, it's about user experience, it's about overall the ability to implement components that are useful, and that work effectively... And this is core to building web apps and websites. But I think that when we equate JavaScript to logic and action, and then CSS to just a layer of design, that's where I think that there is a little bit of a disrespect for the craft of a website. I mean, it's very clear that user experience is the number one driver of users back to your product, and differentiator of your product... So I think that it's a little bit telling now, as we've kind of fallen into this trap of "Oh, we have all these developers who don't know styling anymore", how important this has become, to kind of reeducate people and bring back to the forefront of web development.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** \[08:08\] It's also an accessibility issue, too. One common issue I see - and actually, this is a common interview question as well for frontend development roles, is "How would you visually hide something in the DOM, but still make it available to screen readers?" And a lot of people don't know this. Putting a display none on an element seems like a quick fix, but in reality that's going to make it inaccessible for people relying on these tools. So it has implications above and beyond just these "superficial" reasons.
+
+**Una Kravets:** Yeah. And there's so much you can do with CSS to simplify your life... I've seen just so many JavaScript solutions that hack around basic things that you can do with CSS, if you just knew like a line of code or two... And to your point, Emma, there is this idea of certain properties affect the DOM and the accessibility tree and other things in very specific ways... And if you kind of skim over that or gloss over that, you might mistakenly make things completely inaccessible. There's also things like content that are visible to some screen readers. There's a lot of nuance in CSS, and I think this is where that whole idea of very easy to pick up and make some things like get a background and a certain text color - yes, but then with mastery of it, with the layout and all of the nuances for accessibility and semantics, that's where things get pretty interesting. And that is where I think the community has a lot of room to grow.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Absolutely. I would love to talk about a couple areas of CSS that we've found particularly challenging when we were learning... Because I remember sitting in my little office in IBM in Austin, Texas -- first of all, I studied Java in school. I was a computer science major, so I never fully learned web development. Ironically, I took one web dev class, and I've spent one day on HTML and CSS, and then the rest of the time on bootstrapping, PHP... So I never learned CSS. And I remember struggling immensely with position. Position fixed, position absolute... I did not understand the difference between those for like a year at least.
+
+**Una Kravets:** Yeah. It's funny that you actually mentioned what you learned in school, because I also studied computer science, and we did Python and Java... And then I never really got a chance to learn web technology -- my web development class was Cold Fusion, and I never touch that now, even just like MySQL. But I do think that that is funny. I feel like in schools, when you learn computer science, you don't learn web development. You usually don't learn JavaScript. You don't learn HTML and CSS. I got to learn that stuff in a design class, kind of... But a lot of it was kind of like "explore on your own."
+
+But yeah, I think the positioning thing is interesting... With CSS there are a few concepts. There's the box model concept, there's the cascade concept, there's encapsulation, there's compositing, composite layers... And all of these things are various concepts that help you to understand why the language is the way it is
+
+So with positioning, I think that's one example where you're creating essentially a layer of information, where like an absolute position would position something to its immediate parent that has relative positioning in the document. So as that relative parent - or absolute parent; whatever the top-most layer for the positioning is - as that scrolls down the page, that absolutely-positioned element will move with it. So as you move around, a tool tip might be absolutely positioned to its sibling, and then as you scroll, that will move with it.
+
+But then something that is fixed goes to the top-most layer of the root, and it stays on that page. It's funny, because now there's like this whole concept of position sticky, which will stay in scroll when you are at a certain point; you give it a top positioning. But then fixed - it stays on that page. So you can do some fun things like background styles...
+
+\[12:01\] I saw this one example years ago - talking about college - when it was kind of new, like background attachment fixed, where as you scrolled, only one layer, the background layer moved, but the rest of the page remained the same. So it was kind of like, if you can imagine, a paper doll, and then the outfits are changing, but the head's staying the same. It was that kind of aesthetic.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** That's an awesome analogy.
+
+**Una Kravets:** Yeah.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Well, with CSS, the possibilities are just so massive. There's just so many ways you can style a website, an app... And I think that the reason why it gets so polarizing and so difficult to master is it's just so powerful. And when it's so powerful, it's hard to really know all the things. It's a mixture of design, it's a mixture of engineering, it's a mixture of all these different disciplines... And I tried even googling "What's a current CSS standard?" Is there a way, like "Here is the right way"? There is no right way for CSS. It's more like "Here's a bunch of standards that are adopted by browsers, and find a way to hack those together to make your interesting interface, or your creative ways to do things." Like position sticky, for example - that's a hacky way you can do that, it works, but finding what works in CSS is almost like digging for gold. You might find it, you might not.
+
+**Una Kravets:** I think that this is not actually that much different than JavaScript, where there are a lot of different ways to do the same thing. And there are certain ways that are better for certain situations than others. So I think it's the same thing with CSS. Take a look at Flexbox and Grid, for example. With Grid - Grid is a great layout mechanism that can do the same thing that Flexbox can do, but they're sort of intended for different things. Grid is more intended for two-dimensional layouts, macro layouts it's really good at doing... But it can also do in-line, so like a horizontal menu bar the same way that Flexbox can do. Flexbox has a little bit more, I guess, flexibility, in some ways... \[laughter\] With things that are single-dimensional. So I'll use them for different things. If I have a more complex layout, I'm probably gonna use a grid. I can set the columns, and the rows, and the positioning of everything... And then with Flexbox, if I have an unidentified number of items, I might use that. If I want them to flow in a certain way, I can use a grid, too. But then with cards and smaller elements, I will usually use Flexbox.
+
+I think this is similar to making a decision in what type of function to use in JavaScript to get an output.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Exactly.
+
+**Una Kravets:** You can get an output array in a billion different ways.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Well, you need to experience. It's like any person using a tool, or a set of tools, or learning a set of tools. Over time you become a master because you've had experience with the tool, you understand the minimum and maximum capabilities of it, you understand the nuances of it, and then you know when to reach for it and how to master it over time, because you have that experience.
+
+I don't know how you describe experience - you mentioned a job post, for example, recently; you were saying that five years of React experience and maybe not asking for that with CSS... I don't know why that's the case, honestly... But you only get mastery or even close to mastery with CSS, and I think that's pretty hard to achieve mastery, but - because you get experience, because you build complex interfaces. Not just once, but many times. So many times that you almost love-hate it, because you've just done it so many times and you really understand the tool.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I was just gonna mention, in the past I think there was such an emphasis on JavaScript... If we took a look at the interviewing process just a few years ago, it was heavily oriented towards JavaScript algorithms, data structures, problem solving... Now we're seeing this shift towards more all-encompassing in terms of technical interviews; you're getting asked to -- you know, "Here's a mockup. Can you create this in HTML and CSS?" I'm happy to see that shift, because now it feels a little bit more equal. But I don't know where this gatekeeping mentality of like "HTML and CSS are not as hard as JavaScript" and it's like, okay, the syntax is more simplistic, but that doesn't mean it's any less powerful.
+
+**Una Kravets:** \[15:59\] Yeah. And I think another element of all this is the rise of component libraries and systems. I think Bootstrap is actually a really big reason why needing to learn how to style things was less important. I mean, I used to go to hackathons all the time, and everyone was using Bootstrap, because you didn't have time to build a UI like this, and it was also very limiting. So we have all these websites that look the exact same because they're all using the exact same component libraries and systems. And now bigger companies have their own design systems teams, and that's usually where you'll find more of the CSS experts.
+
+I think it's interesting, because there's also a lot of different ways you can architect CSS, and one of those ways is called object-oriented CSS. That was initially pioneered Nicole Sullivan. Now there's a re-emergence of that, it's called Tailwind; it's one example of a product that uses those same concepts, of essentially you're -- instead of writing color red using a class, called cRed, or whatever. And I think that this helps developers who for some reason have a mental block about writing styles in CSS, and just wanna have that all in one page. It also helps with some things like if you don't have a really robust architecture for your app and you just wanna have it as simplistic as possible, and just keep it all in HTML and JavaScript; it helps with that. But when you want to go outside of that system, it makes it really difficult. So you end up running into the same issue again, of every app looks the same, with a different color theme... Because when you go outside of that boundary, if you don't have the skillset to make something function differently or be styled differently, what are you gonna do then?
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Yeah. I wonder if we can look at how we got here though... Because you mentioned Bootstrap, and I think it's almost like the interface is a nuisance to a minimum viable product (MVP), like shipping something. And I think we got here because we had so many disruptions in web standards; we lived in an era where browsers were leapfrogging in terms of adoption of certain features. We have sort of stabilized to some degree now, but the reason why bootstrap came about was because writing interfaces was super-hard. And there weren't that many masters at it, so you needed an easy button; and the easy button became frameworks, or Bootstrap, or... There's a ton of other different ones out there. But the reason I think we may have gotten there was because it was very difficult. It's stabilized now and it's a little bit easier just to say in a coding interview "Make this mockup", and you could probably do it in an hour or two, maybe less, depending on how skilled you are. But we probably got here because of the need for an easier way to interface, because it was just so dang hard. It's not that it's easier now, but the standards have stabilized, in comparison. I can recall making rounded corners with images...
+
+**Una Kravets:** Oh, yeah.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** That was terrible. It was the worst ever.
+
+**Una Kravets:** It's not only that they've stabilized, it's that they've enabled us to do so much more they've evolved. And I could really make an analogy here with jQuery, and how everyone used to use jQuery; when you'd google something on Stack Overflow, you'd not find an answer in vanilla JavaScript, you'd only find the jQuery solutions. So I think that it's analogous to that, where building components allowed the components that Bootstrap for example provided for us was just much harder to do than they are now.
+
+But in addition to that, Sass and all of the emergence of what was Ruby-based, now Node-based, pre-processors now post-processors - those I think really put CSS on the map as a complex programming language, because you had loops, you had logic, you had all of these things, nesting, mixins, that are becoming something that is an integral part of the system for how we write code. And even though now pre-processors are kind of like phasing out, we still have a lot of logic that people used to process CSS with post CSS, and the spec itself is evolving to accommodate for a lot of the things that Sass provided us. For example, CSS variables that are true dynamic variables \[unintelligible 00:20:01.13\] That is something that completely changes the game, because you could use that within any function inside of CSS. You could use that as an updated value from JavaScript without changing the styling. You could definitely separate your logic and styling that way.
+
+\[20:19\] Nesting is a spec that my colleague Adam Argyle is actually working on, to see how we can bring that to the web. The challenges there are like "How do we not break existing Sass implementations that have versions of nesting?"
+
+There's a lot of really cool, powerful tools that we're now putting into the spec to give us the ability to create components and style things. And it's not just CSS. I also co-chair a WAWG community group called Open UI. And the idea there is "Why are forms so annoyingly hard to style still?" Why can't we have a range slider where you could change the background color? What about pop-ups? That feels like a common pattern. What about little toggle buttons? There's all of these things that are annoying, like select menus, dropdowns... So I think we're just now trying to really figure out how we can get browsers on board to create unified implementations and make this stuff easier to, as a base layer, put onto the web. Fix accessibility, stop people from building things with a million divs, and make it right on the web.
+
+**Break:** \[21:22\]
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Let's talk a little bit more about CSS specificity, because to be honest with you, when I was learning CSS, I did not understand that there is a mathematical formula that determines how our styles get applied based off of the type of selectors that we are using. Would you want to give us a high-level overview on what specificity is and why it's important?
+
+**Una Kravets:** Yeah, so specificity is the way to make sure that you could write a style that applies to a specific set of elements, give that more specific instruction. Because CSS can be very broad, you can apply it to all of your paragraphs - that's one way to have specificity - or you could be more specific in what you are applying, so you could give it a class name, and then apply "For the blue class, I want all my paragraphs to have the color blue."
+
+So specificity is pretty critical in how you write CSS, because it tells the browser when to apply styles and when not to apply styles; when to overwrite other styles that are applied, and when not to do that.
+
+Actually, a very interesting concept from Harry Roberts is called "inverted triangle CSS", and it is an architectural paradigm of "You want all of your CSS to go from least specific to most specific." So kind of like inverted triangle - at the top least specific - and then only override little parts when you need to do that... If you can imagine that inverted triangle in your head as you're listening to this podcast.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Isn't it like the more specific selectors take more processing power to actually query for? I heard that somewhere, where like if you have a lot of selectors that are very specific, it's going to be a lot more performance-heavy. I don't know what the implications are of that, but...
+
+**Una Kravets:** \[24:13\] Yes, and it's also very negligible. The general best practice is not to go more than like three levels deep. Also, if you're targeting something like a class of blue, you don't need p.blue, you just put .blue. So you don't need to repeat selectors. But generally, the three-levels-deep thing would be p, and the space .blue, space span would mean that within your paragraph you'd have something with a class of blue, and then within that you have a span tag. So when you have a space, that is a child of the parent within--
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Right. Those are called descendant combinators, and this is where I wanna move us into these different kinds of selectors... Because I didn't actually know the words for some of these, but they're quite powerful. So what Una just mentioned is called a descendant combinator. And combinators are used to combine element selectors in a semantic hierarchy... So again, yeah, descendant combinators are delineated by space, so this will affect any child, even nested children. But there are a couple other combinators that you can use to select specific elements; one that you might see all the time is like the > symbol. That is called a child combinator, but it only affects direct children.
+
+Combinators kind of confused me when I started. I was seeing all these characters in CSS, and I'm like "What are they? I don't understand them."
+
+**Una Kravets:** Yeah, I think that's a great thing to bring up. Back to the specificity thing - there are a lot of ways to tag an element. You could give it a class name that we mentioned, you can give it an ID, which is more specific, because you can only have one ID on a page; that's what you're supposed to have. Unique IDs. There's also attribute selectors as ways that you can attach styles to an element; so you could use data attributes to apply styles... There's a bunch. You could use ahref= and then apply certain styles to things that have links, or are links. You can get really specific in that sense.
+
+But then you've just mentioned combinators, and this is like the next step of the specificity chain. So not only is it important how you tag something, but you could apply styles based on an element's siblings, so the things that are next to them, or its parent, by this top-down approach. So you mentioned that child combinator - so the > sign is, say you have... I don't know, I'm using paragraphs here; we'll go with paragraphs. So you have a paragraph, and you want to apply a style to only its direct children. So say you have like a paragraph that is your first paragraph and it's called the .hero paragraph, and say you wanna apply the span tags within the .hero paragraph - you could use that direct child combinator.
+
+So if you have a span tag with another span tag inside of it, it won't apply it to that style, because it's not a direct child of the top-most parent. You kind of protect it.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Yeah. Even the .hero though - if you're doing a blog post for example and you wanna style that first paragraph, where you don't wanna have to always add a class or a specific thing in there, you could just put a paragraph, and the styles know that it is the first paragraph, that is not .hero, for example, or class of hero, for example. And that's a great way to use that specificity to your advantage, so that you don't have to constantly, every time you're at that blog post, put \[unintelligible 00:27:20.01\] That would be painful.
+
+And some people, they don't even have those skills, or they don't wanna know how to put a class on a paragraph. You just don't wanna teach that to everybody, so you wanna use CSS to give you the power to do it.
+
+**Una Kravets:** And for that example, you could use something like first of type. So you could do like \[unintelligible 00:27:39.26\]
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Exactly.
+
+**Una Kravets:** ...and then where that also becomes even more handy is when you don't have access to control the markup. For example, I used to work in publishing, and everything was converted into HTML automatically, and it would add all these classes. There wouldn't be additional markups, so we would have to use specificity and sort of combinators of certain things to style that article, to style what paragraphs look like surrounding ads, and we'd get creative with :nth-child, and types, and things like that, to apply those styles.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** \[28:15\] Yeah. And these are examples of pseudo-classes, actually. We have two other areas as they relate to selectors - pseudo-classes and pseudo-elements. Pseudo-classes - there are so many of them; I didn't realize until I was preparing for this show. Some of the ones that I use all the time are hover, focus, disabled, things like that. You have visited if a link is visited, but to Una's point, there's :nth-of-type, there's first child, last child, :nth-last-childs... You can even select the last four elements; if you have an unordered list and you want the last four elements or something to be a different color, you could do :nth-last-child and use -n+4.
+
+There's a lot of math that goes into this that I don't think we take the time to learn... I'm not sure why. I think maybe because it's so easy to just slap a class on an HTML element and say "Okay, we're gonna use class." But pseudo-classes are so powerful.
+
+**Una Kravets:** Yeah. When you really have a good grasp on this, you could do some creative things... For example, when I was working with this publisher, we had a section for credits. So you would have like a photoshoot, and you might wanna credit the hairdresser, or the model, the editor for the article... And just using nth types, this kind of syntax, I was able to say "Alright, if you have four or more people, make this view look in-line. If it's less than four items, less than four attributes, paragraphs, make it stack." And I didn't need to apply classes, doing JavaScript; you can just do it all in CSS.
+
+Another cool thing that you can do is with these advanced selectors, like the general sibling selector - the general sibling selector is that wavy thing...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** The tilde.
+
+**Una Kravets:** The tilde, that's the name... \[laughs\] General sibling selector says like "Select any of a certain type that is a sibling to this element." So you can create CSS games, and you can use counters, and this general sibling selector to identify -- I made this game that was like a target game, where you have these divs moving up in front of a target, and you kind of have to click when the div isn't covering the target to get it, and you could use the counters to count it up... And then the general sibling selector would then style all of the siblings when that thing was hit. So it would stop moving, because it has a sibling that is in-line with that other element.
+
+So you could do a lot of cool things. I'm kind of like \[unintelligible 00:30:39.07\] about I guess creative CSS. \[laughter\]
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** I think this is where it really goes from design-focused, Cascading Style Sheets, for example, to programmatic. Because once you do -- it's sort of like "If this contains X, then do Y." That's where you start to get into those engineering/programming kind of ways, and that's where I think maybe the divide we talked about in section one was really like -- that's where it comes from. Because once you get to a certain point, there is so much power in CSS that you can begin to program interfaces, and create games even. It isn't necessary to just say "bold this element", for example. It's not the case.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** One thing I always struggle with though is like the cascade where it starts up at the parent level and trickles down, like styles do... But one thing I struggle with is like, okay, if a child is selected, I want the parent to take on this style. It's like, you can't pass it upwards. Is there a best practice for this type of situations?
+
+**Una Kravets:** That is one of the biggest struggles in CSS, is just because of the way the cascade works -- the cascade is downward, so there is really no way to get the parent based on a child's adusted styles. It is something that we talk about in the CSS working group; it's just really hard to calculate.
+
+\[31:58\] I think if that does happen, it might be like a direct parent. That is a lot easier than just doing a general parent... But it's not as useful, because usually if you have a style selected, like say when you focus on an Add to Cart button, you probably wanna style parent card, not the direct parent, which migh be like another div that has the paragraph in it and an image. So it gets a little tricky there, because you can't really go backwards of the latter.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** It almost seems like an advanced mode. You might have an interface that's just pretty simple; it's a blog, it doesn't require interactivity as much as say an application might; or maybe you have an advanced mode and you could say "Well, in this advanced mode we have these newer specifications that allow us to be more experimental with the transfer of the cascade, for example, to go up versus just down."
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, that's a hard problem to solve, and I hope one day we get to see some kind of solution... Or maybe I just need to rewire my brain to architect things differently. One area I'd love to quickly touch on is pseudo-elements, because I feel like they can be used for powerful things, but to be honest with you, I don't know the best use cases for them. So this is the other question I have... Typically, the pseudo-elements would be two colons before the keyword... But we don't need them anymore, right? We can just use one colon now, can't we? Didn't that change?
+
+**Una Kravets:** Technically, two colons is correct, because it is a way to differentiate from pseudo-classes...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Oh, okay.
+
+**Una Kravets:** ...but both will work. The browser will read them both the same way. It just fixes it for you.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Oh, okay. I love that. \[laughs\]
+
+**Una Kravets:** The great thing about CSS is if you have an error, it will just not read that line of code. It won't break your entire applications. They can kind of keep going.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Yeah.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah. Pseudo-elements are kind of interesting, because they're like a subset or like a piece of an element that you can do things to. First line, if you have a paragraph - I assume that's what that corresponds to. Or it would be like the first letter in a paragraph or a heading. Before and after are also really interesting, and I'm trying to remember what I would use these for. Let's say you have a piece of text and you've got like two lines on either side to make it look fancy, or whatever... You could use the pseudo-elements before and after to actually generate those lines. But what other use cases would we have for the before and after pseudo-elements?
+
+**Una Kravets:** There's a lot. So the difference between pseudo-classes and pseudo-elements is classes act on a state; that state can be hover or link, which means that it's an unvisited link... Things like that. States. And then the pseudo-elements are parts of the UI. So with before and after you can put content in there, you could use it for arrows, you could have like a blank content, and then use it to make like a tooltips arrows, or any other decorative elements; you can use it for a background layer to create like a funky border, or to create like a blend mode on top of another element...
+
+There's also additional pseudo-elements like marker, where you could style list item markers; that little dot - you could put emojis in it, or whatever you wanna put in it. But pseudo-elements let you style UI elements that would otherwise be inaccessible. So in a way, you can kind of think of this as like a shadow DOM, where the way to access them is through the pseudo-elements. You typically don't have access to that in the DOM. You don't have access to that marker in the DOM. But when you use the marker's pseudo-element, you can style that market.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I love that. I think that's a great explanation, and I didn't know that. One question I have is are these accessible to screen readers? I assume if you have textual content in the content property, that that would be accessible... But how does that work
+
+**Una Kravets:** It depends, which is the fun thing. \[laughter\] I think that the newer screen readers do read out content. Older screen readers don't. So I don't know what the percentage of screen readers that do is; typically, that content is read out, but it's generally a best practice to not rely on the content within the pseudo-element for actual important text content. It's better for a visual layer, or something that's some kind of other treatment. I think like triangles for tooltips is a good example.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** \[36:09\] Wow, that was heavy. I wish specificity was taught as like a concept... I feel like maybe nowadays it is being taught more... I don't know if specificity was a thing when I was taking my web development course in college, so... It can be a lot to learn if you're not aware that it exists.
+
+**Una Kravets:** That's a problem.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** It is a problem. It's a huge problem. It's like we're learning to drive a car without understanding what the things that we're doing are actually doing.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** For me it was like the box model. I learned this concept you've mentioned, Una, earlier in segment one... I think if you have some of those core theory things around the way CSS works - not just specificity, but all the things - I feel like if you have that sort of undercurrent of your understanding of the tool and the language, then you really have a wide variety of the ways; not just tricks and hacks. I can remember even having a whole hacks file, where it was just like "This is where we put hacks" and once these things hit the spec, we'd delete them, or we'd change them, we'd encapsulate them.
+
+But I think if you had that theory, those core concepts, the way that positioning works, or specificity works, and different things, then you could really use the tool much better. I think maybe a lot of people learned it by cargo-culting, or just looking at what somebody else does...
+
+**Una Kravets:** Learn as you go, yeah...
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Yeah, I feel like that's the way that a lot of -- at least that's the way I've learned. I didn't go to school for it; I read books... I took some notes before this started, because I was like "What was that first book I read around CSS?" and it was literally Eric Meyer on CSS. One of the OG books on the subject, and it was like forever ago.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I have it sitting over there... \[laughs\]
+
+**Una Kravets:** I think I have it upstairs, too.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Yeah. And then Transcending CSS. These are early days of the language, and I think that that's how I learned even. It was just like "What are other people doing that have more experience than me, that I can l leverage?" There was no school for it, there was no "Here's the core principle theories of CSS. Go learn these and then be powerful." It was sort of like incremental, and learning iteratively, and sort of like scattered; it was never really like "Here's exactly how it works. Go do well."
+
+**Una Kravets:** Well, it's funny that you mentioned this, because my team's been working on helping people to learn these things, and on the 18th of May my team is launching an online course called Learn CSS, which we will add to the show notes when that launched.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yes...!!
+
+**Una Kravets:** But it goes through this - it goes through the box model, the specificity, the cascade; a bunch of CSS concepts like inheritance, and sizing units, and colored layout, Flexbox, logical properties, which is a way to inject internationalization in your styles. It goes through \[unintelligible 00:38:48.09\] All those fun things like z-index, and making sure that things are layered on top of each other, like "What is compositing? Why is the index working or not working in one place or another?"
+
+And then for the specificity part, it's one of my favorite parts, because we go through how to calculate specificity. With an element and a pseudo-element, that would be like one point of specificity; it's like your base layer. Well, actually the base layer is the universal selector, which gets no points, because that's like a star... \[laughter\]
+
+**Emma Bostian:** No points for you!
+
+**Una Kravets:** Yeah, no points. But then on top of that you could do classes; those get 10 points. IDs get 100 points, because you're now getting more and more specific... And then the important rule - you get 10,000 points of specificity. So when you're applying multiple selector styles, like if you did like a.myclass.another-class, and then an attribute of ahref: hover - that is 41 points. You can calculate and see what is more specific than another thing. And just like learning the nth syntax value, like how you do :nth-child, this is another thing to learn as like a micro-syntax of CSS. Within this language there's a bunch of these smaller, nuanced things that can really help you get a very clear understanding of why something is happening. People struggle with CSS because they don't understand why things are getting applied styles.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** \[40:13\] Very true. Which is why you've got tricks and hacks, because it's like "What is working? How did it work? Why is it there? Why has it moved?" or "In Firefox it's this way, and in Chrome it's that way." "Why, why, why...?", essentially.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** You know what I want - I want someone listening to build a VS Code plugin that will give me on hover the specificity calculation of a selector. Can someone build that?
+
+**Una Kravets:** That's a good idea.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, that needs to be a thing. I don't have time to build it.
+
+**Una Kravets:** I think with some of the newer techniques of like CSS-in-JS and CSS Modules, it's a little bit less critical, because you're scoping the styles to that element.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yes, absolutely.
+
+**Una Kravets:** So you don't have to worry about global styles in your app, you just have to worry about specificity within a component.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, for sure.
+
+**Break:** \[40:52\]
+
+**Emma Bostian:** So we've talked about specificity, we've talked about lots of other things regarding CSS, but now we're gonna talk about one area of CSS I feel like many people get excited about, and that is responsive design or responsive layouts using Flexbox and Grid.
+
+Really quickly, let's talk about how we got here, because it used to be we needed floats to position things, and we had to use media-- I know those are like two different things, but then we had to use media queries to do breakpoints, and there was mobile-first... And now we've got responsive layouts with Flexbox and Grid, and you had talked about this earlier, Una, about the different use cases... But I always hear people like "Should I use Flexbox or Grid, one or the other?" I'm like "Well, you can kind of use both. You can use them in tandem. It kind of all depends on what you're going for."
+
+**Una Kravets:** Yeah, totally. I think that was a good estimation. Even before media queries, it was tables, and you could do fluid tables; so you could have a layout that had two sidebars, and the center was fluid... And that was a table-based layout. And then CSS 3 really emerged about ten years ago, and that was where we got media queries, and all of those great ways to adjust styles, exactly as you said, to fit mobile, tablet, desktops etc. And now I even feel like that is getting a little bit outdated, because we're getting even more capabilities.
+
+So media queries -- I like to think of responsive design as not just about screen size; I like to think of it as about user experience, making something responsive to the user, making it responsive to the form factor, and making it responsive to the container. We can get to that in the end, because that's kind of like the next era of responsive design, it's very much among us. I think it's just understanding the tools that you have, and knowing that you can very much combine Grid and media queries and Flexbox to fit your use cases.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** \[44:03\] The place where the screen would end up has changed, and I think it's also how we got here too, because if you rewind ten years, we didn't have mobile as prevalent, we didn't have applications as prevalent. We had -- maybe the screen would change because people's literal screen they used for work or for fun... People sometimes used computers for fun; now many people just use their phone or a tablet for their fun, and not so much a computer itself. And I think over time that screen that essentially captured the users' interests was ever-changing. I remember it was 1024x768. That's how far back -- I can remember designing for that specific screen size, and like "What is this interface optimizing for?" And then this whole idea of like mobile-first, and things like that... That came because where we've put our applications, where we've put our interface had new screens to deal with, and that's why I think we maybe designed for desktop first way back, and now it's like "Well, when you design, you design for mobile first or for the smallest screen first." That's kind of how we got here, it was like this constant evolution, and maybe that's the downfall of CSS, it's that we are in a constant evolution... And now maybe it's a bit more stable, but the last 15 years has been like constant change \[unintelligible 00:45:14.18\] interface.
+
+**Una Kravets:** But I think that that constant change is specifically to support our users and to support the use cases. As you mentioned, mobile usage has eclipsed desktop usage of most types of websites, specifically e-commerce, and we're seeing a lot of people shopping on their phone. We're seeing a lot of people coming online that didn't have internet access ten years ago, and the majority of those users are banking and using their mobile devices to access the internet.
+
+So when we are building, there's this whole idea of mobile-first, simplifying the UI, making sure that content is king on your interface, and then expanding it from there. So when we do have these CSS adjustments, things that are added to the spec, it's very much intended to give developers the tools they need to create modern interfaces, as modern interfaces change. And now we're seeing foldable screens, so we need CSS to target foldable screens. What do we do there, when you wanna create a UI for those screens? And it goes even beyond that... Like, you're gonna hate this, because now it goes to user preferences; so you have to think about --
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Dark mode, or not dark mode...
+
+**Una Kravets:** Yeah. A dark theme, which saves battery life, you have to think about prefers-reduced-motion, first contrast, there's a battery saver mode that Adam was working on and prototyped in Canary... So there's a lot of different things that you can do with CSS to create more responsive experiences that are beyond just the screen size. And there's also performance things you can do with CSS, like with containment and content visibility, and have things not render until they're ready to enter the screen... So it's such a cool, evolving area that -- I don't know, I get really excited about where it's going. And now with container queries... I don't know, should we take a step back and talk about some of the \[unintelligible 00:46:58.24\]
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Well, we're going deeper into responsive of course, but I think over the three segments here so far, that's where the complexity comes in. It's just so much to do.
+
+**Una Kravets:** Yeah.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** And you get, I suppose, to the need to understand those things when you get more and more experience, and/or do more and more complex work. Somebody building a blog is not gonna need to know most of that, at least.
+
+**Una Kravets:** Well, somebody building a blog won't need to JavaScript either; they just need to use an existing template platform.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Right. And that's what I mean; that's why you had this graduated scale of where you need to sort of learn more about it, the way CSS works... But yeah, you get more giddy, I get more and more afraid. I have no envy for the spec writers, I have no envy for that at all. It's like, that's very tough work.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** \[47:47\] Yeah, so one of the things that actually as soon as I thought about doing a CSS episode I wanted to run straight to you, Una, was because you published a YouTube video called "Ten modern layouts in one line of CSS", that totally blew my mind. And you used a lot of the heavy-duty CSS Grid (I don't know) functions...? Is that what they're called? Like minmax, fraction, repeat, clamp... Those things are all super-powerful, but I never fully understood them. Minmax is kind of a little bit self-explanatory, where you can set a minimum, what width or height or size, I guess, and a maximum size... But how is that different from clamp? What is the difference there?
+
+**Una Kravets:** Yeah, that's a great question. I think something people don't realize is CSS has a ton of functions that give you some sort of output... And with these functions, like min, max, minmax - they're actually all different functions - you can do a lot of robust information in one small piece of code.
+
+A simple example of a function that you would use within a grid is repeat. So instead of setting a grid template columns to 100px, 100px, 100px, 100px, you could do repeat \[unintelligible 00:49:03.03\] So you can just more succinctly write that all together. Then there's things like minmax, where you can set a minimum and maximum size for something to grow and shrink into... And on top of that, outside of Grid, there are also min functions and max functions, and the clamp function. And I wrote an article about that specifically... But this you could use for anything, like an element, and give it like a size, and what min will do is it'll read two different sizes - you could do like 100px, 50%, and it'll take the minimum of those two values, like which one's smaller. And then max is the opposite.
+
+And then clamp will give you three values, where you set an actual value - so say I want my actual value to be 0.5vw, or 50%, and then you can set a minimum and a maximum to clamp it between. So if that 50% is smaller than, say, a minimum size of 100 pixels, it will clamp it to 100 being the minimum; and the max the opposite - if it's bigger than that, it will clamp it to max.
+
+So you can use these for sizing, for typeface sizing; people will do that for font size... And then you can also use something like minmax within a grid, which sets a column or a rows minmax size to fit the space, because you have fluid grids... And you can use other keywords like autofill and autofit to have those elements fit or fill a space and give those more advanced, specific sizing.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** What's the difference between autofit and autofill? Because they sound like they would do the same thing.
+
+**Una Kravets:** Well, they don't do the same thing. They're very similar. So this is one that I always also have to look up, because I can't remember the difference... But autofit is when you have a full page and some items within it - say you have the Grid template columns; I'm just gonna take one from the \[unintelligible 00:50:54.14\] repeat, and then that's function, and within that you can have another function. So \[unintelligible 00:50:59.15\] you set your minimum of 150 pixels, your maximum of one fr, which is one fractional unit of remaining space... And then with autofit it will fit it so that even as it expands past 150 pixels, that one fr will fill that space.
+
+With autofill you're going to take that baseline size, and as you expand, it's not going to stretch out to fill the remaining space. So that is useful when you have logos, or you have more set sizing that you don't want to fully fill out a parent.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Oh, interesting...
+
+**Una Kravets:** So they're very -- one of those elements that I always forget the difference between, and I will just fiddle.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah. To be honest, fractional units confused the living crap out of me. I can kind of understand it conceptually, but it's one of those things where I just don't get it. If I have like five elements and you have one fr on one of them, and two fr on the second, and then the rest don't have anything - I don't understand what's gonna happen. I'm very confused by Grid, to be honest... \[laughs\] I only use it for setting template columns, and rows, and that's about it. I don't understand fractional units.
+
+**Una Kravets:** \[52:12\] So the fractional units - say you have a space... And the reason why we have fractional units is so that we have more flexibility in that space. Say we have like five divs inside of a parent, and if you have the columns being five one fractional unit, they'll all take up that remaining space. Now you remove a div and there's only four divs. Now each one of those will be a little bit bigger, because each fractional unit is a little bit bigger.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Oh, got it. Okay, cool. And then if something's like two fr, it'll take up double the amount of space as like the other...
+
+**Una Kravets:** Exactly, yes.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Okay. This is my naivety here, but how is this different than percentages? I don't understand what the difference is there.
+
+**Una Kravets:** So percentage is the percentage of the parent, right?
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Okay, okay.
+
+**Una Kravets:** And if you add or remove divs, they're all going to take that percentage size, so you have to adjust the percentage. With fractional units you don't have to actually do any adjustment and calculation of percentage, you just say like "I want all these to take up one fractional unit." Maybe you want like a hero to take up three fractional units to have more space than something else would have... So you could really start specifying there how much space you take up, without doing all the calculation.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Oh, my gosh... That's really cool, and I feel like I need to learn it better. One tool that I used to learn Grid originally was called Grid Garden, and they have one for Flexbox, too. I think it's probably the same creator, because it looks the same style; that was Flexbox Froggy. But are there other resources that you would recommend for learning Grid and Flexbox?
+
+**Una Kravets:** Well, check out our Grid and Flexbox guides for Learn CSS... \[laughter\] That is our next sequel... I'll definitely share a link for that. MDN Docs are really good. I love reading MDN Docs for any of my CSS needs. Basically, when I have a CSS question, we'll go to MDN, which is developer.mozilla.org, and then I'll search in the Search box there, instead of just the general web search for CSS stuff.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, and I think actually CSS-Tricks, when I was talking to Chris Coyier about it, he was saying that Flexbox and Grid are their most looked up articles on their entire platform... And I believe it, because I access it at least once a day.
+
+**Una Kravets:** I think it's because it's so ubiquitous...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah.
+
+**Una Kravets:** And that's something that a framework like Tailwind can't really help you with, because you still have to create generalized layouts and overall Grid and Flexbox UI's to still be able to use some of the object-oriented CSS stuff.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah. It's so nice now that these tools exist, because I remember having to use Bootstrap or another framework, because building robust, complex grids was really just not possible at the time.
+
+One question I have is about subgrids, because I think this is up and coming, having a grid within a grid...
+
+**Una Kravets:** Yeah...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** ...but it doesn't exist yet.
+
+**Una Kravets:** Not yet. It's still work in progress. Subgrids basically will attach onto a parent grid, and allow you to use elements of that parent grid along with a subgrid. So there's like a pass-through component, and that is still work in progress, getting worked on/implemented.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Awesome. Well, I'm looking forward to some of the specifications coming down the pipeline. And yeah, I think this is maybe like a nice note to kind of end things on... But I feel like we've covered a lot of ground today... We talked about a lot of stuff.
+
+**Una Kravets:** \[55:35\] Yeah. I think one last thing to mention is an experimental property that you can play with in Canary, with a flag turned on, and that is @container, which enables container queries. And container queries are sort of like the next generation of responsive design, because instead of relying on global media queries to adjust page styles, you can use a parent container size to apply styling to its children. So now something like a card can own all of its responsive information. You could put it in a sidebar, you could put it in a hero, you could put it in a product grid, and that component itself knows how to style itself based on where it lives in that page. It's going to change how we think of responsive design completely.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, that's something we actually had to build ourselves at Spotify. We had to build a custom hook to get the container queries... Because we've got the left sidebar that's resizable, and we have the friend feed on the right size which is resizable, and that main content container needed to obviously resize based on those two components... So we actually had to build like a custom hook for it, and I would be so thrilled if we could rip that out and replace it with CSS...
+
+**Una Kravets:** Yeah, because it's super not-performant to have the browser do all the calculation for you.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah.
+
+**Una Kravets:** So I'll hit you up when that's good to go... And you can experiment with it now.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yes, I'm sure that we will. That would be a fun hack day project. Awesome! If you all listening liked this, Una and Adam have their own CSS podcast; Una also has another podcast she mentioned, called Toolsday, with Chris Dhanaraj. We're going to link both of those in the show notes, as well as all of the courses and resources mentioned.
+
+I'm so thrilled that we got to talk today... I really look up to you in terms of -- well, lots of things, but CSS specifically. You're one person I really admire, so I appreciate you taking the time.
+
+**Una Kravets:** Oh, I appreciate that, because you're definitely someone that I look up to, and the community, and I love following what you're doing... And it's just such a joy to get to sit down and chat with you for the first time...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I know, that's so unbelievable this is the first time, even though we worked in the same building for a couple of years.
+
+**Una Kravets:** I feel like there's so many people I met at IBM that I didn't really get a chance to work with until later... Which is ironic and funny.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, like Jason Lengstorf. How funny - people just think we knew each other from Twitter, I'm like "No, we worked in the same building." I knew him pretty well, and he's the reason that I got into speaking... Because I remember being like "Oh my gosh, you could speak for a living and people will pay for you to fly there? That's nuts!"
+
+**Una Kravets:** That's exactly why I started doing it, because I was like "I wanna travel. That's what I wanna do with my life." And I also like tech. And there was this thing that combined those two... Which is awesome. And I just love meeting developers who are working on such different things around the world, because in those localities tech is completely different... And that's one of the \[unintelligible 00:58:27.19\] about conference speaking.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Well, I've enjoyed this episode... Just remember that CSS is beautiful and robust, and we need to all -- not defend it, but let's all preach that in the twittersphere. Let's improve the reputation, because it is an amazing tool.
+
+**Una Kravets:** Hashtag CSS is a programming language... \[laughter\] Spicy takes...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I love it. That's gonna be the title of this episode. \[laughs\]
+
+**Una Kravets:** Yes, yes...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Alright ya'll, I hope y'all enjoyed it, I hope y'all have a great rest of your day, and with that, thank you so much again.
diff --git a/Do you know the muffin fairy_transcript.txt b/Do you know the muffin fairy_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0c1d5c5e2db24eeb0c4380a2c28829df1491511c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Do you know the muffin fairy_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,491 @@
+**Jerod Santo:** Hello, world. It's your internet friend, Jerod Santo, and I am excited for JS Party today. I have three of our regular panelists here with me. Amelia, how are you?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I'm good. Thanks for asking.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You're welcome. Thanks for being good. If you would have said "I'm bad", I would have felt awkward...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** \[laughs\] You're welcome.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So I'm glad you're good, or at least willing to lie about it. Kball, what's up, man?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I'm bad.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Bad to the bone.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** You just set me up for that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** No, I'm happy to be back on. Excited to be here.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, that's how it works around here - I set them up and you knock 'em down, Kball. We also have b0neskull, who is a fan of knocking things down. What's up, Chris?
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** What's up?! Here I am...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] See? He's already knocking things down, and we're just getting started. So we have a couple of awesome recurring segments for everyone today, and we're gonna start off with story of the week.
+
+**Jingle:** \[03:35\] to \[03:50\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Story of the week is one of our recurring segments where we just take turns sharing what we believe is the most important or the biggest story of the week, or recently, or maybe just the one that we've found before the show started... So take it for what you will. Some of these are newsy, some of these are just cool things that we think are interesting. Here we go! Let's start off with Kball. What's your story of the week?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[04:14\] Yeah, so the story I picked up is not JavaScript-specific, but it was a study that came out recently, looking at the impact of the dramatic shift to remote work, looking at a whole bunch of Microsoft employees that apparently gave access to all sorts of tracking info about how they work, and who they meet with, and all these other things. So these researchers dug into it, and found a couple of interesting things about the impact, and how generalizable this is to remote work globally is an interesting question, because we all have seen working in a pandemic is not the same as just working remotely... But one of the things that stood out to me is how communication across different parts of the company changed. And what they said is they've found that the networks kind of ossified and shrunk. So people communicated as much or more with the people they were really, really close to, but those kind of weak connections across different parts of the organization went away, and there was a lot less communication across kind of outside of your immediate team, or beyond your department.
+
+It got me thinking a lot about remote work practices... I'm somebody who worked remotely long before the pandemic... I spend a ridiculous amount of time just scheduling random meetings with people. Having seen this, I'm like, "Oh. That's why." Because when you're remote, you don't get those casual connections; you have to be extremely deliberate about it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I thought it was interesting, I thought it was worth considering for, both as individuals, like "How do we make sure that if we're still working remotely, we're maintaining those connections?", but then also for folks who are running teams, to say "Okay, check in with your team. Are they still connecting to people outside their team?" How do we make sure that we maintain those diverse connections? Because that's where -- I mean, for me, that's where the fun stuff is. I know what my team is working on. It's neat to learn about what other teams are working on, and often, those conversations generate new ideas and breakthroughs.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, absolutely. Amelia, you joined GitHub, and you probably have never been -- I mean, did you go to the HQ? I'm guessing you've been remote-only since you joined...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I actually had a full job during the pandemic before GitHub, where I met one of my co-workers really briefly, but I basically still haven't met any of them... And it's strange. And I definitely get that my team is really small, we're four people, and we hang out with each other a lot, and we hang out with other people very much not a lot.
+
+It's also interesting - in a physical office there's proximity between teams; there's other teams who you sit near... So I wonder what the remote proximity is like. Is there anyone who's closer than anyone else, like, digitally? Probably not.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You need a study. You need to perform a study to find the answers to these things.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** It's too much work.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. \[laughs\] We're not gonna study we write code. Chris, what about you? Were you remote the entire time, or you went remote? I can't recall.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I've been remote for like a decade now. I don't really remember what it's like to work in an office.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Same. So one thing I've read which ties in with what you've found, Kball, is interesting, about the culture changes in and around Apple because of their adoption of company-wide Slack. I think it's a Verge article which maybe I can find and link up... And I'm not sure if the move to Slack coincided with the remote or came before that. Whatever it is, still, you're using mostly these chat and digital tools to communicate company-wide... And how that changed dramatically the relationships cross-functionally, or even vertically inside the company, because now you have direct access to folks that you otherwise would have had to go upstairs and talk to if you were at HQ. There's lots of things that change, and change quite dramatically, because so many people went remote in dramatic fashion, thinking it was temporary, and now kind of having pushback by employees saying "No, no, no. This is better."
+
+\[08:13\] So we can find that one as well, but I think things are changing inside of organizations due to this. Some for the better, and some for the worst.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Apple is a really interesting example too, because they are historically so incredibly private and siloed.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Not so much anymore. In fact, I just saw today that Tim Cook made some sort of statement that people who leak are not Apple people. And that information came from a leak out of Apple. \[laughter\] It was a private thing that leaked... So the irony there is quite thick.
+
+Well, let's get to some other stories. Definitely, the remote work thing is an ongoing and very important story and aspect of our lives... Amelia, yours are a little bit more technical and nitty-gritty. Do you wanna share your story of the week?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah... I couldn't think of anything that happened recently, so I just picked two things. The first one is a little bit newsy, but it's CSS container queries are in the Chrome Canary. Super-exciting. This is like -- so you know how you can have viewport units like viewport width viewport height in CSS, and you can say something is 10% of the width? Well, now in (only) Chrome Canary you can base it on its container. So you can say "I want this image to be 10% of the width", but you can also do more complicated things, like stack things differently... I haven't totally read into it yet, but it's very exciting. I'm excited to read about it, I'm excited to use it sometime in the future.
+
+The other thing that's not newsy, that I think is really cool is Harry Roberts - he did some talk that you can't listen to, but you can see the slides, and he released this CSS snippet where it basically turns all of the links and scripts and things in the head of your document into visible things. Basically, they exist, they're just not visible. With a little bit of CSS, you can make these things visible. And if you use it on any web page, you can see things that are maybe not as performant as you want them to be. It'll highlight if your title is blocked by some blocking JavaScript that has to execute before crawlers might get the title and, like there's green orange and red blacks and, I don't know, I think it's super-cool that you can just use a litlte bit of CSS and get this kind of performance report.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That is cool. So it provides a bookmarklet; drag and drop the following link in your bookmark bar. So you can do that on any website, right? You just click that and it's gonna show you that.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Mm-hm.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's spectacular. This is very cool. And it gets an award for Pun of the Day, because it's called Check your Head. Get it? Check your Head...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, he's got a ton of puns in his slides. If you like puns, you should go through the slides. I don't remember them though.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I like the Beastie Boys...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] There you go. If you like puns or if you like the Beastie Boys, this is an article for you. Well, since yours aren't exactly news, I think it's fit to share mine, because mine's not newsy at all. In fact, mine is an article that wasn't even posted recently. It was posted in July.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Hey, that's recent... Isn't it?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Actually, that's gonna be a part of this conversation. Very poetically so, months later I'm reading this... And it's by Rach Smith, and her article says "I completely ignored the frontend development scene for six months. It was fine." And it's not the "It was fine" with the dog and fire who's saying that everything's fine; this is like actually okay. So if you don't know who Rach Smith is, she is a long-time developer. She works at Codepen, and has been publishing on the web for many years, so I've read her stuff over the years. In fact, she says in this post she first started coding professionally -- it was with Adobe Flash. Then Steve Jobs decided to kill Flash, and it forced her to learn how to animate things with JavaScript, CSS 3 and HTML Canvas.
+
+\[12:20\] She goes on to talk about a long progression in her career in which things moved fast and she was always trying to keep up... And then nine years passed, she took six months off, and as many of us do, we think if we're taking six months off from the frontend scene, or heck, from the web scene in general, that you're gonna be light years behind when you come back. But she found that not to be the case... So she says what she learned through this experience is that the number of languages she's learned, or the specific framework she's gained experience with matters very little. What actually matters is her ability to upskill quickly and effectively.
+
+I appreciate Rach for sharing this, because it's something that -- I think it's a nice reminder that things do move fast, and the list of technologies on any given job post are changing all the time... And many times they'll want you to have ten years experience, and I think this has been out for eight years, or such monstrosities as that... But our fear of missing out, our fear of falling behind isn't not real, but isn't always well-placed. The technologies change, shift, but the foundations, the fundamentals and the skills that you're building transcend those technologies... So you're gonna be just fine. You're gonna be okay. I thought that that was a good story for this week, even though it was a story for a week in July. What do you think, Kball?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I've spent 2,5 or 3 years publishing a weekly frontend development newsletter... And I stopped doing that a few months ago. One, I wanna say that I'm so much happier not keeping up on what's happening every week... \[laughter\] It's so stressful to feel like there's this constant churn, and you've gotta constantly keep up, and do this, and do that.
+
+So I'm personally happier not trying to keep up with everything all the time. I like to catch up every now and then, but if something's big it'll get to me eventually. I don't have to keep pulling. But the other thing that I learned from doing that is even though there's this sense of constant churn, and I could find tons of articles every week, all the time... Like, the amount of actually new content is pretty low. A lot of times I'd be linking something and I'm like "Oh, this is another take on that thing. That's pretty well done. Maybe this one will work for you." But after doing that for three years of like "Okay, I'm just seeing all the content that's coming through in this space", actual legitimate, new, interesting changes - they're not as frequent as they feel like. We've just got this industry of churn, and this feeling of "I've gotta keep publishing, and I've gotta keep reading, and I've gotta keep doing all these things to keep up." And at the core, it's like - no, there's change, but it's built on the same fundamentals.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Where do you think this sort of fear comes from? I see a lot of junior developers lamenting on Twitter that it's hard to keep up, or on Reddit, and they're complaining about it... So is it just you wanna keep up to maximize your career potential, or is it something else? What is the root of that fear of not keeping up with JavaScript?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, I think it's fear of irrelevancy. I used to say that tongue-in-cheek, that my greatest virtue as a software developer is fear of irrelevancy, because that means I'm always abreast of what's new and shakin'. And I said that kind of tongue-in-cheek, because it's true, but it's overstated. And as a person who has been in the news for many years - I'm always logging with Changelog News what's fresh and new in open source; it's kind of what we do at Changelog - so I see a lot of things come and go... And I will say that in the last - let's just call it 10 years, the pace of releases and the announcements and the blog posts have multiplied exponentially at the merger of, let's just say, capitalism and open source.
+
+\[16:28\] When everybody jumped on open source as a way of getting ahead for whatever your goals are, waaaay more things came out. I remember when Rails took over back in '04, it was like THE big announcement of the year. There's other projects, but it wasn't like now, where there'll be 5, 6, 7 credibly awesome new things that actually launch on a weekly basis, that you're like "This is a whole world that is really interesting, and is powerful, and it's legit..." And there it is. And you see that across your feeds. So I think social media, to a certain degree, drives that; the FOMO, the feeling that other people are shipping things and you aren't, and then other people that you respect are also liking those things that are being shipped, and maybe you should jump on that ship...
+
+I don't know, there's a lot of just hype, and it's gotten louder and louder and louder. So disconnecting is a nice way to appease those fears... But that's what I'm seeing. Amelia, what do you think about why people have this fear of not catching the next wave, or whatever it is?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, that's a really good question. I'm talking through this, I don't actually believe this, but I think there's a lot of ground to cover; more and more things are possible on the web, and there's more and more types of applications, and corporate websites, and marketing websites, and they have to do all these things... Like, you can't just publish a website that doesn't have any CSS on it, even though that's a perfectly functional website.
+
+So I wonder if -- joining the industry, there's just so much to learn, and people don't specialize, at all. When you're just learning, you're not like, "Oh, I'm gonna be a developer for marketing websites." You're like, "I have to learn everything." And then it takes years, five years to get your feet down and actually figure out "Oh, okay, I don't need to know everything. I can only pay attention to things in my own niche", and figuring out where your niche is.
+
+I think really experienced developers probably have all gone through a period where they're really stressed out, and then have hopefully found some sanity and found their own niche they can pay attention to, and not to other things... I wonder if that's just learning what's important. We don't have any tracks, but hopefully in the future we'll have "I wanna be this kind of developer." But I don't know. Maybe not.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I also wonder how much of this is that -- like, getting your first job in tech is hard.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Getting your second, your third, your fourth - not so hard. Once you're kind of in and you have a little bit more of a track record, it becomes a lot easier to find those jobs. And some of that is problems in our hiring practices, and the fact that companies don't wanna hire entry-level folks, because they've gotta invest in them... Some of it is we've got a glut of folks coming in from bootcamps, so there's just a way larger number of entry-level... But getting that first job is hard. So people are kind of looking at these job rec lists and they're like "Oh, this one wants these five things. Well, maybe if I learn those things, I'll have an opportunity there." And "Oh, this one over here - this wants these other five things", and they're trying to bridge across all the different things, so they can apply to all the different jobs to get their first job... Because it's hard, and they're getting a lot of rejections along the way.
+
+\[19:53\] This is pure speculation, because it's been a long time since I was in that boat; I won't date myself on that, but... I have this feeling like the way that we hire junior folks is contributing to the FOMO. Those of us who are more senior or who are helping make hiring decisions or things like that - there are things that we can do, that would reduce some of that FOMO.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I think so. I think focusing in on individual technologies is one of the things. I was just also, I guess, thinking about the fact that this blog post comes from a very experienced developer, so it's kind of a mature thought, and why is that... And I think it's because when you just get started, maybe you only know one thing. If you're just like, "I learned React, sorta, and I can do stuff with it", something else coming and replacing React is existential at that point. Maybe that's where it comes from. I mean, if all I knew was Ruby on Rails, and all of a sudden Django was all anybody was hiring for, I need to learn something else, or get a different career.
+
+So I think maybe over time, as you realize you can kind of collect to yourself these different technologies -- but as I said earlier, and as Rach says in that post, the underlying, foundational understanding of software is what really transcends and matters, then you can kind of chill out and relax. But when you don't know any better, you don't know any better. And when the jobs are so focused on these hiring practices that target these specific things, then something replacing that is legitimately scary, with regards to career at least.
+
+Lots of thoughts there... A couple of good things coming out in the chat. One thing that Matt said which I thought was good is it's a good idea to wait to see what sticks, too. The other thing you see over time is how many things come and go, and jumping onto something too early, that's gonna fail, is gonna end up being a waste of time as well. So yeah, not following so closely, or at least not investing too much in brand new things, and waiting to see how it shakes out before you decide "Yeah, that's something worth investing my time in."
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Yeah, it's like these job postings that list all these technologies - you know, React, or AWS, whatever they want you to do... And then you get to the interview, and the interview is like whiteboard questions. It has nothing to do with any of that stuff.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** So maybe you weren't really prepared for it, maybe you're not good at that stuff... It's like, "Okay, I went out and I learned React so I could get jobs like this, but now I can't get jobs like this because I've gotta go back and do lead code" I don't know, it's busted.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's busted. Well, let's turn briefly to something that is still kind of busted, but gets better every single time a new release comes out. Chris, you wanna talk about iOS 15, right?
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Well, yeah. So I've been heads down on a thing that I've been working on for the past couple of weeks, and I saw there was some sort of announcement about iOS 15... But I am completely ignorant, and I have no idea what's in it, and I have no idea what that means, especially for the mobile web, and Safari, and iOS. Can anybody help me, please?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Well, I heard that it does some bizarre design change to where the address bar is. Like, it moves it to the bottom instead of the top, which is just messing with my brain here...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes. So I actually like it on the bottom. I did not run the betas, but I know there's a lot of discussion around the betas, because it moved a lot, throughout. It was a very dramatic redesign, which has been changed throughout the betas, and finally settled; it still is at the bottom. You can put it back at the top. This is the address bar and the tabs. So the nice thing about it on the bottom is that it's easier to get with your thumb, and just to swipe, and stuff... So there are some virtues to having it there.
+
+There are other aspects of the browser which the UI also has thrown people for a loop, but in terms of web development, I guess -- I'm not sure how relevant that topic is for us web devs. I think in web developer world the main thing is it's still one rendering engine to rule them all, and Apple has not released their grip on WebKit-only-based browsers in iOS 15. That would be an amazing change and boon for web developers, to allow the Chromes and the Firefoxes and the Edges and the mobile Brave browsers to bring their own rendering engine. That didn't change. In fact, JS Party panelist Feross has taken to Twitter and started posting these very interesting and fun browser-ban tweets with some memes he's created to try to convince Apple to release their grip on the browsers inside of iOS. But that has not changed. That would be huge.
+
+\[24:44\] There are a few things that are new. I think the biggest one is probably the web extensions. Apple brought web extensions to Safari and macOS last year, and now they're bringing it to iOS, so people can write extensions for Safari, with web technologies, and they will run inside of Safari to do various things. That's pretty cool.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** So you can run any sort of extension on mobile Safari?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes, you can run extensions on mobile Safari.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Like uBlock Origin?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, exactly. Well, that was already available. Content blockers were already approved prior to this. But this opens it up even more so. One example of that that I have been running is Apollo - which is a popular Reddit app, which is better that Reddit's Reddit app - has built in an extension, so now inside of Safari if you click a Reddit link, you can set it up to automatically open an Apollo, versus going to Safari's mobile view that wants to launch the Reddit app, and if you don't use the Reddit app, it won't blah-blah-blah.
+
+So that's like just one example. Another one that's cool is there's a macOS extension called Apple Keywords Search, or Safari Keywords search, which allows you to throw in shortcuts into the search bar, and automatically search Amazon, automatically search Imdb, whatever you can imagine. And that was only on macOS Safari for a while, and now, since iOS 15, you can now get that on mobile Safari... Which is great, because on mobile you're already trying to type less letters to get to searches. So that's extending the built-in search inside the address bar in mobile Safari. So those are a few examples of what people are doing with them.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I wanna go back to that address bar more again. Do they expose that via media query, or something? Because I know a lot of folks will write mobile web apps and they'll try to do the style of like the bottom nav bar that mirrors the iOS thing, or things like that. And I feel like that gets kind of weird if you've shifted around where the address bar and things are. So is that exposed to developers, to be able to tell?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That I don't know. But I feel like those UI's fell by the wayside when Apple did their big redesign back in iOS 5, or something... I haven't seen those tabbed brow-- like, that was a thing that people did with Mobile jQuery, or jQuery Mobile, but I'm not sure people are really doing lower tabbed base navigation in their web apps like they used to, unless they're maybe a litlte bit older. But I don't know if you can actually detect it or not. To me I just think it's the viewport starts above wherever that is, and that's just kind of how it works. Maybe you can.
+
+There's also some other small improvements, things that were in beta, web features... But apparently, the link that I've put into our show notes is dead now, so I can't click on it and read those... So let's forget about it. I'll put that in the show notes if people are interested in certain small things, like new CSS features, new JavaScript features, can read through those. We'll be right back with Explain It like I'm Five."
+
+**Break:** \[27:50\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, we are here, and it is time for Explain It like I'm Five. Kball, what have you got? Virtual DOM. That sounds complex. Can you explain it like I'm five?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So this is something that I think was initially made famous by React, and has been adopted by many, but not all advanced JavaScript frameworks. To explain it like I'm explaining it to a five-year-old, I'm gonna go into the physical world. Imagine that you have a room with furniture in it - a bunch of couches, and tables, and chairs... And you wanna move it around. You wanna reorganize things.
+
+Now, one way you could approach this is you could say "Okay, to do this in order - so I'm gonna move that chair over across the room. And in order to do that, I actually need to move this couch out of the way, and then I'm gonna move the chair, and then I'll put the couch back where it started...", kind of moving things around.
+
+Then you say "Okay, now that chair is where I want it to be. Let me move something out. Okay, this table. I wanna move this table. So let me pick this table up, move it -- ohh... Where I want it to go has something else in, and I've gotta push that out of the way. Now I'll put the table there."
+
+So you're doing these changes one by one, and they're fairly expensive. You've gotta move a bunch of stuff around to move things. That is changing things in the DOM. I have a web page, I'm moving stuff around... Anytime I touch something in the DOM itself, it's pretty expensive. It takes a bunch of time; maybe I've gotta move other things around, reflow the browser, all that sort of thing.
+
+Now, in a physical world, I could do this faster by saying, "Okay, let me first actually make a little model of my room. I'm gonna have a toy version of the room, or I'm gonna have papers, or maybe I'm advanced and I have a computer model of my room..." I wanna move around all the different pieces, and I'm gonna say, "Okay, I'm gonna move the chair there, and the couch there, and the chair there... Okay. Now I've got every change that I wanna make", and I look at that and I say "Okay, what's the smallest possible difference from my room as it is? What's the smallest change I can make? Okay, I still need to move this couch out of the way, but I know where it's going, so I'll move that first, put it where it's going, move the chair over, move the table, do all the moves at once, so I can minimize the amount of work I'm actually doing, and speed it up a lot."
+
+That little model that I did, that is the virtual DOM. So what React and one of these other frameworks will do is it'll pool together a set of changes that you wanna make to the DOM and it'll say "Okay, we're gonna rearrange things, we're gonna put this title there, we're changing the text here, we're moving this around... Let's gather up all those changes, analyze to say "Okay, what's the smallest possible difference that we can make to make those changes true?" and then do that change all at once, so that all our shared work of moving things out of the way, or reflowing, or whatever it happens to be, happens exactly once.
+
+So the virtual DOM is a representation of the DOM as a model, in JavaScript, that lets you do all that manipulation the cheap and easy way, and figure out what's the smallest possible change I need to do in the real, expensive, physical world, in this case the DOM, and do that all at once. There you have, the virtual DOM, as if you're five.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Pretty good, Kball. Pretty good. I'm starting to feel like mine is gonna be terrible.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, I'm feeling really bad about mine after that... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** This is why we should have saved Kball for last. Alright... Pass it over to Chris, who said "Please don't make me go first", so I'm making him go second. Chris, you're gonna explain variable hoisting, right?
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** \[32:24\] Yeah. So I'm trying to explain hoisting in JavaScript.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Hoisting.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** So it's kind of like -- so you... Oh, my God. Come back to me, come back to me...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] I love his game. I'm gonna come back to Chris. We're gonna go to Amelia.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Alright. I'm going to explain the CSS cascade as if I were five. I mean, as if --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, that's a whole different angle at the game, explain it as if you were the one who's five...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** It's gonna be some combination; I think we're both five in this scenario... \[laughs\] Alright. So what's a game that kids play? Let's say it's like playing Thumb War, where I want something to be a certain way, and you want something to look a certain way... Let's say we want our toy to be orange or green. Alright, so there's four stages to this Thumb War, and if anybody wins any of the stages, then they win, and the toy is whatever color they want it to be.
+
+So the first stage of our Thumb War is basically looking at importance. This is where the metaphor is gonna break down... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** My thumb's more important than your thumb.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Exactly. Jinx!
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** \[laughs\] Okay, okay... Let's keep going with that. So there's four levels of how important your thumb is. The first is if one of our thumbs is in an act of transition, then we're on the first tier of this tier. The second level is if one of our thumbs uses "bang important." The third level is if it's in an active animation, and the fourth is everything else.
+
+So in this tier, each thumb has a level -1, 2, 3 or 4. The smaller number wins. So most likely, both of our thumbs are in the normal category, so - ding-ding-ding, we ran out of time; no one wins this round of the thumb war.
+
+The second tier of the thumb war is origins. So where your thumb came from. \[laughter\] Alright, there's three levels to this. There's whether your thumb came from the website, so it's website styles - which is usually what you're dealing with as a web developer. And then the second one user-defined styles. So maybe you painted your thumb. And the third level is browser-defined styles; so whether a browser painted your thumb.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Like, somebody else painted it before you got there.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So that's like when I paint my nails, versus when my kids paint my nails.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There you go.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Exactly. So... This metaphor is making it more confusing, isn't it? So if it's on a website vs. a user-defined style, then the website styles win. If it's going up against the browser default styles - like there's a default button style - then that gets overridden really easily; you can basically just write any styles for your website.
+
+Alright, tier two is over. We're both website-defined styles. Nobody wins. Tier three - this is the longest one, and this is the one you're usually dealing with when you're writing styles for a website... The first level is in-line styles. So... I cannot relate this to a thumb, but basically, you have a style attribute on an element, you say "color red", that's the first level. The second level is whether it's based on an ID; so if this is like a CSS rule that's targeting a selector that has an ID in it. The third level is classes, attributes, or pseudo-classes, so CSS rules that target any of those, and the fourth rule is a type or pseudo-element.
+
+\[36:18\] So in-line styles always win, and then for the rest of them, you kind of have to add up how many IDs, which are level two classes attributes, or pseudo-classes, which are level three, and types or pseudo-elements, which are level four. And whichever number is largest or smallest - that style wins.
+
+Alright, we're almost over. Let's say there's a tie on that one, which - there very rarely is. Say there's two in-line styles. The last tier is position. So if one CSS style comes first and the other comes last, that later one will win. So that'll pretty much make sure there aren't any ties, because you can't define things at the same time.
+
+And that is how thumb wars work in the web world. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I like it. I wonder if a Paper, Rock, Scissors metaphor would have also been able to be used...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** It might have been better.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Because like, this one always beats that one, for example.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I was just trying to figure out in-line styles - is that like if I tattoo under my thumbnail, or something? \[laughter\]
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, I don't know... You have to inject it into your thumb, which - not advisable.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Maybe it'd have to be like a Henna tattoo, because JavaScript can always come and change those. Nothing's permanent.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Somehow the color of your thumb influences if you capture the other player's thumb... I'm digging this.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I like it, too. Although, whenever I'm ready to thumb war, I always bring my separate hand in and just put it over the top, and declare victory... So maybe that's like --
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Oh, my kids do that 100%. They like to have both of them. So one gets one hand, and they have both of their hands on that, and the other gets the other hand, and both of their hands on that...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. There's your "bang important" right there.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, exactly.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, Chris, are you ready? Or should we stall a whole other round? Because I could go.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** No, no, no. Let's do it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, here we go.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I'm gonna explain the function hoisting like you are five. So say you are at the park, and you see a playground. In your hand is a muffin. You have a muffin. And so you see the playground, and you run over there, and you wanna climb up to the top. And you need both hands to climb up to the top, because there's like a ladder, so you dropped your muffin in the sawdust. And you climb all the way to the top, and it's awesome, and you are hungry now. You wanna eat your muffin, but it's in the sawdust. So function hoisting would allow you to eat your muffin even though you're on top of the play structure.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** But is it the Invisible Sawdust Fairy that picks the muffin up and raises it to the top?
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Yes, Sawdust Fairy, Muffin Fairies get your muffin. They will magically take the muffins out of the sawdust and put them in your mouth.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That sounds magical. It sounds kind of scary, too.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, now I wanna use it. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's like, all of a sudden there's a muffin in your mouth, and you're like "What?!" \[laughter\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** JavaScript! The language of Sawdust Fairies.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** The muffin fairy is actually your mom or dad... And they hide it from you, but they give you the muffin.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright. That's less scary. Thank you for changing that for me. So I should say that all of these topics were submitted by people in the chat, so I appreciate that...
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Okay, but wait - did that make sense?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, man.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Nah...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Magical Sawdust Muffin Fairies. I was with it. Kball, you're saying no. You're against.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Did it, or no?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Amelia's just staring off into the sky, thinking about it. She's like "Does it? Does it make sense...?"
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I was trying to think, but then I kept listening.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So your muffin is your function or variable? Is that right?
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And you wanna use it, but you're up at the top.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** \[40:09\] Mm-hm...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And it was down there in the sawdust.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Your muffin started down in the sawdust, because you defined it later?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, you defined it down there, but actually it got hoisted up.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Sure. Okay.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I did my best.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I don't have anything better... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** He's like, "Come on, man...!"
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I did my best.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** "I don't have anything better, and I love the Muffin Fairy." We were talking about this a little bit earlier... The real truth is that hoisting just doesn't actually make any sense... Like, why do you do that?
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** No, it's magical. I'm sitting here, I'm trying to think of "Okay, how can I explain this in real-world terms, in things that actually make sense?" and you can't, because it's nonsense, and you've gotta come up with a Muffin Fairy.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** It's nonsense, exactly...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So I think given the nonsense that is variable and function hoisting, your Muffin Fairy is an excellent explanation.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There you go. It doesn't make any sense... Why is this muffin suddenly in my mouth? I don't know why it's here. I thought I'd put it down in the sawdust.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I think this is actually a great argument against hoisting.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Exactly. \[laughs\] You well elucidated why I don't like hoisting.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yup, 100%. You've done it well. Chris, I withdraw my objection; given the nonsense that is hoisting, your explanation is perfect.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** On the same note though, this is like the principle of least surprise. I mean, the thing should be defined where I define it. Don't magically move it somewhere else. That to me is a surprise, and I'm always surprised. I'm like, "Oh, I have to remember this random thing it does for me on my behalf. Thanks a lot, mom and dad. I don't even like muffins, so I've put it in the sawdust."
+
+Alright, now can we move on? Because I have Docker. And while Chris had to invent just off the top of his head an amazing metaphor for hoisting, Docker is a metaphor. So I'm just gonna use that one. So hey, kids - do you know how computers programs are flaky, and they always break, and stuff, and that's annoying? Like, it works on this machine, but not on that machine? Or it always crashes? Well, that's because computer programs are a lot like the way people ship produce around the world.
+
+So in the old days, if I had some bananas in Asia, and some oranges in Africa, and some pineapples also in Africa - these also grow other places, but that's just where they were... And I wanna ship them to America to eat them here - you would have to have a different way of handling it for each kind of good. So bananas have their own rules, pineapples... What's the other thing I said? ...it also has its own rules... And so everybody along the way that shipped that to me so I could eat it here - they would have to handle it in a very specific way, and that's flaky; it can break. Until the invention of shipping containers.
+
+The cool thing about shipping containers is they're all the same exact size, and the same dimensions, and they're stackable. And so you can take your shipping container, you can throw your bananas in it, you can throw your pineapples in it... I still can't remember the third piece of produce that I name - so you still throw that one in there, and now every single boat, every single train, the forklifts, everything along the way doesn't have to care what kind of thing it is, they just move the containers from where they started to where you want them, and you can just eat those bananas and those apples, and that third mystery fruit.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** It's oranges.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oranges, thank you. \[laughter\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** For some reason, they're coming from overseas, instead of Florida.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I didn't think about this very long. And that's what Docker is for computers. You just package up all the details of that particular thing that you wanna ship somewhere else and run, and you put it into this Docker container, and nobody has to care how the insides work. They just run it over there, it's all self-contained, like a shipping container. It's almost like you have a docker/shipping container metaphor that's just waiting to be used. There we go. How did I do?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** \[44:06\] It was great. I was just thinking about how much money I would pay for a kid's book with all of these things in it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, that would be kind of cool... Because we've done these throughout the years; we could actually gather up a bunch of them.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** That would be so good.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And then pay someone to animate it.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I was gonna say, what about an animated short? I think Nick's story - from whenever that was - would just be priceless.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, Nick went on like a 15-minute tale. What was he explaining that one day?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** React Hooks.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And he used Moana?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** He used Moana and Coco.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And he merged the movies...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, the merge was a little stretched. I felt like there was a lot of good Moana stuff, and then the Coco reference was a little bit like, "Um, okay..."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. He was grasping at straws, but he still got an episode named after him. I think it's called Monad's Hook.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yes.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So go look that one up and listen to that one.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I regularly referenced that to folks who are like, "What's a good episode?" and I'm like, "Well, if you wanna laugh, go listen to Nick in this episode."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, totally. \[laughs\] Or "The Tailwind beneath my wings", which is to this day my most pride moment on JS Party...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That one was delightful.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...when we managed to work in all the lyrics to "Wind beneath my wings" into a conversation about Tailwind. And only had the grace to tell Adam Wathan and Feross about it midway through the show... And then managed to put it all together, and land it with our own cover of the song to open up the show. So definitely also, if you wanna laugh and just be super-impressed by our musical talents, go listen to that episode as well.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Nick Nisi once again carried that episode. He did incredible.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Because I was gonna bail on the idea, because it was getting so awkward, and Nick just stuck to it, and I'm like "This is happening. We're doing it all the way through." Alright, this has been Explain it like I'm Five. We'll be right back for "I'm excited about X", where X is literally... Anything!
+
+**Break**: \[45:59\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So Chris, do you have anything you're excited about?
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** This is hard for me.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It can be anything. I know... This is against your personality. \[laughter\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** My six-year-old has got me into Taylor Swift recently. I was never a TSwift fan, and then my six-year-old is mad about TSwift... And there's a song that is "This is me trying", and I just saw you, and I was like, "Yeah, this is Chris trying."
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** This is me trying.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** He's gotta work up the gusto to be excited about something.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** So - alright, you know Legos? I like Legos.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** \[47:54\] So I'm gonna talk about Legos. They've got this Lego Ideas. If you don't know what that is - it's kind of like a contest. You make something with a Lego, you upload it to the site, and then people come and they vote on it. And if you get like 10,000 votes on your thing that you made, the Lego team and their designers will make sure that they can get the rights to whatever you've made, if it's like a licensed thing. But they'll work with you to actually make it a real Lego set, and they'll release it. There have been a whole bunch of these over the years. There was like a tron one, there was a fishing cabin, like a great, big fishing thing... Lots of other ideas. And birds, and things like that. Just random stuff. And I always get kind of excited when I see that another thing has made it to 10,000, because the ones that get that many votes are always really awesome, and I'm like, "Wow, I can't wait to not justify spending $300 on that when it comes out." But they're cool. There's so many things people make, and... I don't know, I'm just really impressed. And that's what I'm excited about, I guess.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** How could would it be to have your thing made into an actual Lego set? That would be just amazingly cool.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That's super-cool. And it's such a great example of a company that is not just listening to their customers, but it's really engaging with them, and being like "Okay, Lego superfans, let's make stuff together!"
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** The people that are submitting these things - these aren't kids. They're adults with lives, and they enjoy Lego... Which makes me not feel so stupid and nerdy. People like me - maybe not like me, because I suck at doing that sort of thing... But they build these things out of this toy, and they get real Lego sets. And then when the set comes out, there's always a really fancy booklet about the design, and it talks about the designer... So that must be a real thrill for people.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Mm-hm. Have you watched the Lego Masters game show on TV?
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I tried to watch the first episode, but I don't really like things like that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** The stuff they built is absolutely amazing... But if you don't like things, and stuff, it is one of those.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I don't...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I don't have kids as an excuse to have Legos, although you definitely don't need that excuse... But I got to play with them recently, because GitHub had swag for our internal conference of like - you put together a little mona octocat and you get this whole kit... And it was so much fun. I'm gonna break it apart and do it again, I had that much fun.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Buy some Legos.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I've never been the break it apart and do it again kind of person... I would just do it once, put it on the shelf, and stare at it. \[laughter\]
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I might also do that. It was a lot of work.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** It's cool, because you're building a thing and you get this feeling of accomplishment, even though what you have done isn't really that hard... But it looks cool, and you did it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** But it does prove you can follow directions.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** True.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I actually failed at that part. I didn't follow the directions, and mine turned out weird, but... It doesn't always prove that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Did you also color outside of the lines in kindergarten?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I definitely did.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** We do a lot of Legos in our house, and anytime you have something like that, or you can't find the right color block so you fill it in, we just call it "That's being creative." You've gotta be creative with your Legos.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I hate that, because I'm a perfectionist/completionist. So I'll look forever for that color... Like, hours. I've gotta find a black, flat, 2x1. If I don't find it, I'm not gonna finish the piece.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, that's what we're trying to cut off at the pass with my kids.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's smart. I'm not saying my way is good, I just can't stand having that one weird colored thing.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I'm like you, Jerod... And basically, it creates paralysis, where you can't finish the thing until you find the right piece, the black 2x1 tile.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Just reimagine it. You're practicing being creative.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** \[52:09\] I don't wanna be creative. I wanna follow directions and make the thing.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. I want it to look awesome.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Different personalities. Hilarious. Alright, let's move on. Amelia, what are you excited about?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I have two things. The first one is just a concept... WebRTC - I was playing with it recently, it's super-cool. I had never played with it. Multiplayer web things are very easy when you're using it.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Have you hung out with Feross?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I haven't, actually. But I want to.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I've gotta get you two across those streams, because yeah, he's a WebRTC fiend.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, it's super-cool. It just connects your browser to other people using the same... Connection? I don't know what they're called. But it's really hard until it clicks, and then it's really easy to do things that I am very impressed by.
+
+And the other thing I'm really excited about right now is generative art, which - there's a lot of opinions here, but I feel like as developers we wanna be creative with our code... Unless maybe we're being perfectionist about what we wanna create... \[laughter\] It's like Legos in the browser, where you can use random as part of what creates the art, or some other input that you don't totally have control over, so you're kind of like working with a computer to make something cool, and you don't have to do it all yourself, and you can use these skills that you use every day to make things that please you visually... So it's been something I've been really enjoying recently.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Very cool. I like the conversation around generative art, especially when you get into the full deep learning generated art, and authorship, and intellectual property, and these things... Because it gets very grey in terms of who actually created what, and do we assign authorship to GPUs etc. Kball, what are you excited about?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I am excited about a virtual conference that happened recently, that I did not attend, but they have posted all their videos online and I've been going through them... Which is LeadDev did a conference focused on Staff+, so like senior IC engineers, that has a bunch of really cool stuff in it. I find it -- I'm really happy to see people publishing content that is focused on senior folks that are still in very technical roles, and not just assuming that as you get senior, you become a manager, and only providing engineering manager content. So yeah, go check that out. You create a free account and you can access all of it... And we will, I'm sure, have a link in the show notes.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Absolutely. Very cool. Well, last but not least, I'm excited, because we're getting close to episode number 200, and we'd love to do something special, since it's a nice, round number. We don't have any ideas as of yet, so we are soliciting ideas from listeners in teh JS Party channel. We'll of course be thinking as well about something we can do to celebrate a little bit our 200th episode, which is five recordings away.
+
+What I'm not so excited about is that our rival podcast, Go Time, those ghouls over there at Go Time are hitting 200 this week. And they have stolen our Frontend Feud format. They're calling it Gophers Say... And they're recording that one live. So if you love Frontend Feud and you don't mind, you can stomach a little bit of people talking about Golang and stuff, then I guess you could listen to that, because it'll probably be a lot like Frontend Feud... But just a poor impression. So I can't exactly recommend it, but I'm not gonna stop you from going to GoTime.fm/200 and listen to that episode... And then come right back to us and help us figure out an even better thing to do for our 200th episode coming right up.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Hey, there's a Golang WebAssembly compilation and runtime, right? So you could imagine that they're talking about that, and it's for the web, and therefore, if they knew what they were doing, they would be talking about it on JS Party; but since they don't, they can do it on their own episode.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I like that. This is kind of like GoTime web dev fan fic. Like, you're just listening, but you're tricking yourself into a whole other storyline, where there are actually web people. This might work... If you can pull that off, you should come on JS Party for our next Explain it like I'm Five, because you have a great imagination, and you can probably explain things much better than I can, like I'm five.
+
+Well, that's our show for today. Thanks for hanging out. Hopefully, you learned something. Hopefully, you laughed a little, or at least rolled your eyes a lot. Kball, Amelia and Chris - thanks for partying with me today. That's JS Party for this week. We'll talk to y'all next time!
+
+**Outro:** \[56:55\]
+
+**Horse JS:** Don't be the last kid on your block to get Firebase JS SDK 9.0.0. Don't be.
diff --git "a/Do you know the muffin fairy\357\274\237_transcript.txt" "b/Do you know the muffin fairy\357\274\237_transcript.txt"
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..21126cbbd49e43fccf4bde3bd74c489075b77562
--- /dev/null
+++ "b/Do you know the muffin fairy\357\274\237_transcript.txt"	
@@ -0,0 +1,1035 @@
+[0.00 --> 1.94]  Okay, but wait, did that make sense?
+[2.26 --> 2.80]  Yeah, man.
+[3.04 --> 3.34]  No.
+[3.56 --> 5.80]  Magical sawdust muffin fairies.
+[6.58 --> 7.34]  I was with it.
+[7.62 --> 9.00]  K-ball, you're saying no, you're against.
+[9.46 --> 10.16]  Did it or no?
+[10.52 --> 13.60]  So your muffin is your function or variable?
+[13.82 --> 14.04]  Yeah.
+[14.14 --> 14.62]  Is that right?
+[14.78 --> 15.04]  Yeah.
+[15.30 --> 17.46]  And you want to use it, but you're up at the top.
+[17.80 --> 19.72]  And it was down there in the sawdust.
+[19.88 --> 23.18]  Your muffin started down in the sawdust because you defined it later?
+[23.68 --> 26.08]  Yeah, you defined it down there, but actually it got hoisted up.
+[26.28 --> 26.54]  Sure.
+[26.82 --> 27.06]  Okay.
+[27.58 --> 28.66]  I did my best.
+[28.66 --> 30.74]  He's like, come on, man.
+[30.86 --> 31.94]  I don't have anything better.
+[32.12 --> 33.72]  And I love the muffin fairy.
+[36.66 --> 39.98]  Big thanks to our partners, Linode, Fastly, and LaunchDarkly.
+[40.42 --> 41.04]  We love Linode.
+[41.12 --> 42.88]  They keep it fast and simple.
+[43.20 --> 46.04]  Get $100 in credit at linode.com slash changelog.
+[46.38 --> 48.56]  Our bandwidth is provided by Fastly.
+[48.70 --> 52.98]  Learn more at Fastly.com and get your feature flags powered by LaunchDarkly.
+[53.12 --> 55.18]  Get a demo at LaunchDarkly.com.
+[55.88 --> 56.88]  What's up, party people?
+[56.88 --> 58.46]  Are you ready for Core Web Vitals?
+[58.68 --> 60.80]  Well, our friends at Raygun can help.
+[61.16 --> 64.62]  These modern performance metrics play an important role in determining the health of your website.
+[64.96 --> 68.88]  That's exactly why Raygun has made them into their real-time user monitoring tools.
+[69.28 --> 74.22]  Now you can see how your Core Web Vital scores are trending across your entire website in real time.
+[74.22 --> 79.42]  And drill into individual pages to focus your efforts on the biggest performance gains.
+[79.94 --> 85.80]  Unlike traditional tools, Raygun surfaces real user data, not synthetic, giving greater insights and control,
+[86.14 --> 92.24]  filter score by time frame, browser, device, geolocation, whatever matters most to you and your team.
+[92.24 --> 97.38]  And what makes Raygun truly unique is the level of detail they provide so you can take action quickly,
+[97.74 --> 101.96]  identify and resolve front-end performance issues with full waterfall breakdowns,
+[102.18 --> 107.60]  user session data, instance level, diagnostics of every page request, and a whole lot more.
+[108.00 --> 112.12]  Learn more at Raygun.com today and take control of your Core Web Vitals.
+[112.58 --> 113.88]  Plan start at $8 a month.
+[113.88 --> 117.32]  Again, Raygun.com for your free 14-day trial.
+[126.82 --> 132.44]  This is JS Party, your weekly celebration of JavaScript and the web.
+[133.02 --> 134.24]  Did you know we have a website?
+[134.74 --> 140.40]  JSParty.fm is where you'll find our favorite episodes, the most popular ones, and a request form
+[140.40 --> 142.80]  so your favorite guest or topic can get featured as well.
+[142.80 --> 146.58]  And don't forget to follow us on Twitter at JSPartyFM.
+[146.78 --> 147.82]  All right, let's do this.
+[148.00 --> 148.96]  It's party time, y'all.
+[162.78 --> 164.22]  Hello, world.
+[164.74 --> 169.06]  It's your internet friend, Jared Santo, and I am excited for JS Party today.
+[169.20 --> 172.18]  I have three of our regular panelists here with me.
+[172.18 --> 173.48]  Amelia, how are you?
+[173.94 --> 174.56]  I'm good.
+[174.80 --> 175.74]  Thanks for asking.
+[176.16 --> 176.62]  You're welcome.
+[176.76 --> 177.62]  Thanks for being good.
+[177.70 --> 180.04]  If you would have said I'm bad, then I would have felt awkward.
+[180.80 --> 181.40]  You're welcome.
+[181.70 --> 184.16]  So I'm glad you're good or I'm at least willing to lie about it.
+[184.52 --> 185.26]  K-Ball, what's up, man?
+[185.54 --> 186.28]  I'm bad.
+[186.58 --> 187.34]  Bad to the bone.
+[187.56 --> 189.00]  You just set me up for that.
+[189.32 --> 190.66]  I'm happy to be back on.
+[190.94 --> 191.66]  Excited to be here.
+[191.88 --> 192.88]  Well, that's how it works around here.
+[192.92 --> 194.44]  I set them up and you knock them down, K-Ball.
+[194.44 --> 198.22]  We also have Bone Skull, who is a fan of knocking things down.
+[198.30 --> 198.86]  What's up, Chris?
+[198.86 --> 199.66]  What's up?
+[200.20 --> 201.58]  I'm here I am.
+[202.84 --> 203.44]  See?
+[203.80 --> 208.08]  He's already knocking things down and we're just getting started.
+[208.20 --> 212.00]  So we have a couple of awesome recurring segments for everyone today.
+[212.12 --> 214.82]  And we're going to start off with Story of the Week.
+[214.82 --> 228.66]  Story of the Week
+[228.66 --> 235.38]  So Story of the Week is one of our recurring segments where we just take turns sharing what
+[235.38 --> 241.50]  we believe is the most important or the biggest story of the week or recently or maybe
+[241.50 --> 244.12]  just the one that we found before the show started.
+[244.84 --> 246.56]  So take it for what you will.
+[246.64 --> 247.38]  Some of these are newsy.
+[247.46 --> 250.62]  Some of these are just cool things that we think are interesting.
+[251.08 --> 251.58]  Here we go.
+[251.78 --> 253.62]  So let's start off with K-Ball.
+[254.00 --> 254.78]  What's your Story of the Week?
+[254.78 --> 255.26]  Yeah.
+[255.42 --> 260.30]  So the story I picked out is not JavaScript specific, but it was a study that came out
+[260.30 --> 268.54]  recently looking at the impact of the dramatic shift to remote work, looking at a whole bunch
+[268.54 --> 274.14]  of Microsoft employees that apparently gave access to all sorts of tracking info about
+[274.14 --> 276.36]  how they work and who they meet with and all these other things.
+[276.36 --> 282.32]  And so these researchers dug into it and found a couple interesting things about the impact
+[282.32 --> 287.10]  and how generalizable this is to remote work globally is an interesting question, right?
+[287.14 --> 291.76]  Because we all have seen like working in a pandemic is not the same as just working remotely.
+[292.16 --> 296.74]  But one of the things that stood out to me is how communication across different parts
+[296.74 --> 298.60]  of the company changed.
+[298.78 --> 304.04]  And what they said is they found that the networks kind of ossified and shrunk.
+[304.04 --> 308.02]  So people communicated as much or more with the people they were really, really close
+[308.02 --> 308.28]  to.
+[308.58 --> 313.70]  But those kind of weak connections across different parts of the organization went away.
+[314.00 --> 320.40]  And there was a lot less communication across kind of outside of your immediate team or beyond
+[320.40 --> 321.14]  that, your department.
+[322.00 --> 325.38]  And it got me thinking a lot about remote work practices.
+[325.62 --> 328.42]  I'm somebody who worked remotely long before the pandemic.
+[328.84 --> 332.48]  I spend a ridiculous amount of time just scheduling random meetings with people.
+[332.48 --> 335.40]  Well, having seen this, I'm like, oh, that's why.
+[335.52 --> 338.94]  Because when you're remote, you don't get those casual connections.
+[339.06 --> 340.66]  You have to be extremely deliberate about it.
+[340.98 --> 341.08]  Right.
+[341.24 --> 342.42]  But I thought it was interesting.
+[342.54 --> 347.56]  I thought it was worth considering for both as individuals, like how do we make sure that
+[347.56 --> 350.96]  if we're still working remotely, we're maintaining those connections.
+[350.96 --> 356.10]  But then also for folks who are running teams to say, OK, check in with your team.
+[356.16 --> 358.44]  Are they still connecting to people outside their team?
+[358.44 --> 361.50]  Like how do we make sure that we maintain those diverse connections?
+[361.92 --> 364.72]  Because that's where, I mean, for me, that's where the fun stuff is, right?
+[364.72 --> 366.12]  Like I know what my team's working on.
+[366.48 --> 369.08]  It's neat to learn about what other teams are working on.
+[369.08 --> 373.16]  And often those conversations generate new ideas and breakthroughs.
+[373.16 --> 374.30]  Yeah, absolutely.
+[374.50 --> 377.92]  Amelia, you've joined GitHub and you probably have never been.
+[378.02 --> 378.18]  Have you?
+[378.24 --> 379.16]  Did you go to the HQ?
+[379.30 --> 381.48]  I'm guessing you've been remote only since you joined.
+[381.48 --> 388.26]  I actually had a full job during the pandemic before GitHub where I met one of my coworkers
+[388.26 --> 391.48]  really briefly, but basically still haven't met any of them.
+[392.22 --> 394.18]  And it's strange.
+[394.46 --> 397.76]  And I definitely get the like, my team's really small.
+[397.90 --> 400.72]  We're four people and we hang out with each other a lot.
+[400.72 --> 403.78]  And we hang out with other people very much, not a lot.
+[404.28 --> 409.42]  So it's also interesting, like in a physical office, there's proximity between teams.
+[409.42 --> 411.52]  Like there's like other teams who you sit near.
+[411.74 --> 416.06]  So I wonder what the remote proximity is like.
+[416.64 --> 419.22]  Is there anyone who's closer than anyone else?
+[419.22 --> 420.52]  Like digitally?
+[421.16 --> 421.90]  Probably not.
+[422.14 --> 422.96]  You need to study.
+[423.10 --> 425.60]  You need to perform a study to find the answers to these things.
+[425.84 --> 426.56]  It's too much work.
+[426.82 --> 428.20]  Yeah, we're not going to study.
+[428.40 --> 428.78]  We're right in the gut.
+[429.56 --> 430.32]  Chris, what about you?
+[430.32 --> 433.02]  Were you remote the entire time or you went remote?
+[433.12 --> 433.58]  I can't recall.
+[434.00 --> 436.92]  No, I've been remote for like a decade now.
+[437.32 --> 440.18]  I don't really remember what it's like to work in an office.
+[440.40 --> 441.58]  Yeah, same.
+[442.22 --> 446.38]  So one thing I read, which ties into what you found, K-Ball, is interesting about the
+[446.38 --> 453.56]  culture changes in and around Apple because of their adoption of Slack, company-wide Slack.
+[453.56 --> 456.24]  I think there's a Verge article, which maybe I can find and link up.
+[456.82 --> 461.98]  And I'm not sure if the move to Slack coincided with the remote or came before that.
+[462.16 --> 467.58]  Whatever it is, still you're using mostly these chat and digital tools to communicate company-wide.
+[467.58 --> 469.58]  And how that changed dramatically.
+[469.58 --> 481.78]  I think the relationships cross-functionally or even like vertically inside the company because now you have direct access to folks that you otherwise would have had to like go upstairs and talk to if you're at HQ.
+[481.78 --> 492.66]  There's lots of things that change and change quite dramatically because so many people went remote in dramatic fashion thinking it was temporary and now kind of having pushback by employees saying, no, no, no, no, no.
+[492.72 --> 494.28]  This is better.
+[495.22 --> 496.94]  So we can find that one as well.
+[497.02 --> 500.40]  But I think things are changing inside organizations due to this.
+[500.80 --> 502.08]  Some for the better and some for the worst.
+[502.32 --> 508.90]  Apple's a really interesting example too because they are historically so incredibly private and siloed.
+[508.90 --> 510.78]  Yeah, not so much anymore.
+[510.96 --> 517.90]  In fact, I just saw today that Tim Cook made some sort of statement that people who leak are not Apple people.
+[518.42 --> 521.88]  And that information came from a leak out of Apple.
+[522.54 --> 525.20]  It was a private thing that leaked.
+[526.10 --> 528.58]  So the irony there is quite thick.
+[528.66 --> 530.38]  Well, let's get to some other stories.
+[530.50 --> 536.38]  Definitely the remote work thing is an ongoing and very important story and aspect of our lives.
+[536.38 --> 540.08]  Because Amelia, yours are a little bit more technical and nitty gritty.
+[540.18 --> 541.12]  You want to share your story of the week?
+[541.68 --> 543.94]  Yeah, I couldn't think of anything that happened recently.
+[544.24 --> 545.86]  So I just picked two things.
+[546.44 --> 553.70]  The first one is a little bit newsy, but it's CSS container query units are in Chrome Canary.
+[554.48 --> 555.58]  Super exciting.
+[556.08 --> 562.16]  This is like, so you know how you can have viewport units like viewport width, viewport height in CSS.
+[562.16 --> 564.52]  You can say something's 10% of the width.
+[564.86 --> 571.18]  Well, now in only Chrome Canary, you can base it on its container.
+[571.46 --> 576.52]  So you can say, you know, I want this image to be 10% of the width.
+[576.64 --> 580.14]  But you can also do more complicated things like stack things differently.
+[580.98 --> 583.70]  I haven't totally read into it yet, but it's very exciting.
+[584.22 --> 585.40]  I'm excited to read about it.
+[585.54 --> 588.48]  I'm excited to use it sometime in the future.
+[588.48 --> 594.04]  The other thing that's not newsy that I think is really cool is Harry Roberts.
+[594.30 --> 597.46]  He did some talk that you can't listen to, but you can see the slides.
+[597.76 --> 610.66]  And he released this CSS snippet where it basically turns all of the links and scripts and things in the head of your document into like visible things.
+[610.82 --> 612.54]  Like basically, they exist.
+[612.86 --> 615.38]  They're just like not visible.
+[615.38 --> 619.04]  So there's with a little bit of CSS, you can make these things visible.
+[619.36 --> 627.84]  And if you use it on any web page, you can see like things that are maybe not as performant as you want them to be.
+[627.94 --> 637.72]  Like it'll highlight if your title is blocked by some blocking JavaScript that has to execute before, you know, like crawlers might get the title.
+[637.72 --> 641.00]  And like there's green, orange and red, blacks.
+[641.32 --> 642.32]  And I don't know.
+[642.40 --> 647.00]  I think it's super cool that you can just use a little bit of CSS and get this kind of performance report.
+[647.42 --> 647.78]  That is cool.
+[647.82 --> 649.18]  So he provides a bookmarklet.
+[649.44 --> 649.60]  Yeah.
+[649.60 --> 651.60]  Dragon Doctor following link in your bookmark bar.
+[651.80 --> 653.62]  And so you can do that on any website, right?
+[653.66 --> 655.32]  You just click that and it's going to do it.
+[655.72 --> 656.78]  It's going to show you that.
+[657.50 --> 658.60]  Ah, that's spectacular.
+[659.06 --> 659.64]  This is very cool.
+[659.64 --> 664.22]  And he gets an award for the pun of the day because it's called check your head.
+[664.32 --> 664.70]  Get it?
+[664.80 --> 665.28]  Check your head.
+[665.58 --> 665.70]  Yeah.
+[665.70 --> 667.78]  He's got a ton of puns in his slides.
+[667.98 --> 670.54]  If you like puns, you should go through the slides.
+[671.06 --> 671.96]  I don't remember them, though.
+[672.40 --> 673.54]  I like the Beastie Boys.
+[675.18 --> 675.96]  There you go.
+[676.30 --> 680.06]  If you like puns or if you like the Beastie Boys, this is a article for you.
+[680.06 --> 686.66]  Well, since yours aren't exactly news, I think it's fit to share mine because mine's not newsy at all.
+[687.00 --> 691.28]  In fact, mine is an article that wasn't even posted recently.
+[691.60 --> 694.16]  It was posted in July.
+[694.86 --> 696.30]  Hey, that's recent, isn't it?
+[696.52 --> 698.26]  Actually, that's going to be a part of this conversation.
+[698.50 --> 699.98]  So very poetically so.
+[700.54 --> 703.48]  Months later, I'm reading this and it's by Rach Smith.
+[703.80 --> 708.84]  And her article says, I completely ignored the front end development scene for six months.
+[708.84 --> 710.16]  It was fine.
+[710.56 --> 715.20]  And it's not the it was fine with the dog in the fire who's saying everything's fine.
+[715.28 --> 716.48]  It's like actually okay.
+[717.14 --> 721.54]  So if you don't know who Rach Smith is, she is a longtime developer.
+[722.04 --> 725.52]  She works at CodePen and has been publishing on the web for many years.
+[725.62 --> 728.02]  So I've read her stuff over the years.
+[729.00 --> 731.38]  In fact, she says in this post, she first started coding professionally.
+[731.92 --> 733.68]  It was with Adobe Flash.
+[734.28 --> 736.42]  Then Steve Jobs decided to kill Flash.
+[736.42 --> 741.86]  Flash and it forced her to learn how to animate things with JavaScript, CSS3 and HTML Canvas.
+[742.58 --> 747.52]  She goes on to talk about a long progression in her career in which things moved fast and
+[747.52 --> 748.84]  she was always trying to keep up.
+[749.60 --> 751.34]  And then nine years passed.
+[751.92 --> 753.22]  She took six months off.
+[753.22 --> 764.18]  And as many of us do, we think if we're taking six months off from the front end scene or from heck from the web scene in general, that you're going to be light years behind when you come back.
+[764.52 --> 766.48]  But she found that not to be the case.
+[766.48 --> 774.54]  And so she says what she learned through this experience is that the number of languages she's learned or the specific framework she's gained experience with matters very little.
+[775.06 --> 780.32]  What actually matters is her ability to upskill quickly and effectively.
+[780.32 --> 787.96]  And so I appreciate Rach for sharing this because it's something that I think is a nice reminder that, you know, things do move fast.
+[787.96 --> 794.14]  And the list of technologies on any given job posts are changing all the time.
+[794.14 --> 800.84]  And many times they'll want you to have 10 years experience in a thing that's been out for eight years or such monstrosities as that.
+[800.84 --> 810.48]  But our fear of missing out, our fear of falling behind isn't not real, but isn't always well placed.
+[810.66 --> 818.76]  The technologies change and shift, but the foundations, the fundamentals and the skills that you're building transcend those technologies.
+[818.92 --> 819.86]  So you're going to be just fine.
+[819.96 --> 820.58]  You're going to be OK.
+[820.58 --> 825.14]  And I thought that was a good story for this week, even though it was a story for a week in July.
+[825.32 --> 826.44]  What do you think, K-Ball?
+[826.94 --> 831.58]  I spent, what, two and a half, three years publishing a weekly front-end development newsletter.
+[832.24 --> 835.24]  And I stopped doing that a few months ago.
+[836.46 --> 841.90]  And one, I want to say that I'm so much happier not keeping up on what's happening every week.
+[843.66 --> 849.62]  It's so stressful to feel like there's this constant churn and you've got to constantly keep up and do this and do that.
+[849.62 --> 854.00]  So I'm personally happier not trying to keep up with everything all the time.
+[854.00 --> 857.72]  I like to catch up every now and then, but if something's big, it'll get to me eventually.
+[858.24 --> 859.66]  I don't have to keep pulling.
+[859.76 --> 869.98]  But the other thing that I learned from doing that is even though there's this sense of constant churn and, you know, I could find tons of articles every week and all the time.
+[869.98 --> 874.10]  And, like, the amount of new, actually new content is pretty low.
+[874.66 --> 878.20]  A lot of times I'd be linking something and I'm like, oh, this is another take on that thing.
+[878.36 --> 879.22]  Yeah, that's pretty well done.
+[879.28 --> 880.34]  Maybe this one will work for you.
+[880.72 --> 887.98]  But after doing that for three years of, like, okay, I'm just seeing all the content that's coming through in this space.
+[887.98 --> 894.28]  Like, actual, legitimate, new, interesting changes, they're not as frequent as they feel like.
+[894.36 --> 902.26]  It's just we've got this, like, industry of churn and this feeling of I've got to keep publishing and I've got to keep reading and I've got to keep doing all these things to keep up.
+[902.26 --> 908.74]  And at the core, it's like, no, there's change, but it's built on the same fundamentals.
+[909.44 --> 912.86]  Where do you think this sort of fear comes from?
+[913.12 --> 924.52]  I see a lot of junior developers lamenting on Twitter that it's hard to keep up or they're on Reddit and they're complaining about it.
+[924.52 --> 933.62]  And so, I mean, is it just you want to keep up to maximize your career potential or is it something else?
+[933.70 --> 937.86]  Like, what is the root of that fear not keeping up with JavaScript?
+[938.64 --> 939.86]  Yeah, I think it's fear of irrelevancy.
+[940.36 --> 950.26]  I used to say that tongue in cheek that my greatest virtue as a software developer is fear of irrelevancy because that means I'm always abreast of what's new and shaken.
+[950.26 --> 955.76]  And I say that kind of tongue in cheek because it's true, but it's overstated.
+[956.34 --> 963.02]  And as a person who has been in the news for many years, I mean, I'm always logging with changelog news.
+[963.18 --> 965.66]  What's fresh and new and open source is kind of like what we do at changelog.
+[965.76 --> 967.76]  So I see a lot of things come and go.
+[968.44 --> 978.96]  And I will say that in the last, let's just call it 10 years, the pace of releases and the announcements
+[978.96 --> 989.78]  and the blog posts have multiplied exponentially at the merger of, let's just say, capitalism and open source.
+[989.92 --> 997.40]  Like when everybody jumped on open source as a way of getting ahead for whatever your goals are, way more things came out.
+[998.10 --> 1004.58]  And so, I mean, I remember when Rails took over back in 04, it was like the big announcement of the year.
+[1004.58 --> 1015.60]  I mean, there's other projects, but it wasn't like now where there'll be five, six, seven, like credibly awesome new things that actually launch on a weekly basis.
+[1015.60 --> 1021.50]  That you're like, this is a whole world that is really interesting and is powerful and it's legit.
+[1021.90 --> 1022.94]  And there it is.
+[1023.02 --> 1024.56]  And you see that across your feed.
+[1024.66 --> 1027.30]  So I think social media to a certain degree drives that.
+[1027.30 --> 1033.06]  And the FOMO, the feeling that other people are shipping things and you aren't.
+[1033.70 --> 1037.36]  And then other people that you respect are also liking those things that are being shipped.
+[1037.60 --> 1039.32]  And maybe you should jump on that ship.
+[1039.78 --> 1040.02]  I don't know.
+[1040.04 --> 1041.36]  There's a lot of just hype.
+[1041.92 --> 1043.84]  And it's gotten louder and louder and louder.
+[1044.56 --> 1049.18]  And so disconnecting is kind of a nice way to appease those fears.
+[1049.34 --> 1050.68]  But that's what I'm seeing.
+[1050.68 --> 1056.68]  Amelia, what do you think about why people have this fear of not catching the next wave or whatever it is?
+[1056.68 --> 1058.54]  Yeah, that's a really good question.
+[1059.02 --> 1060.02]  I'm talking through this.
+[1060.10 --> 1060.98]  I don't actually believe this.
+[1061.12 --> 1065.30]  But I think there's a lot of ground to cover.
+[1065.54 --> 1069.08]  Like more and more things are possible on the web.
+[1069.26 --> 1074.76]  And there's more and more types of applications and corporate websites and marketing websites.
+[1074.76 --> 1076.42]  And they have to do all these things.
+[1076.42 --> 1082.66]  Like you can't just publish a website that doesn't have any CSS on it, even though that's a perfectly functional website.
+[1082.66 --> 1082.70]  Right.
+[1083.32 --> 1088.74]  So I wonder if joining the industry, there's just so much to learn.
+[1088.74 --> 1091.76]  And people don't specialize at all.
+[1091.84 --> 1092.04]  Right.
+[1092.06 --> 1096.46]  Like when you're just learning, you're not like, oh, I'm going to be a developer for marketing websites.
+[1096.46 --> 1098.20]  You're like, I have to learn everything.
+[1098.20 --> 1108.28]  And then it takes, you know, years, five years to get your feet down and actually figure out like, oh, OK, like I don't need to know everything.
+[1108.28 --> 1113.26]  I can only pay attention to things in my own niche and figuring out where your niche is.
+[1113.26 --> 1128.16]  And so like I think really experienced developers probably have all gone through a period where they're really stressed out and then have hopefully found some sanity and found their own niche where they can pay attention to and not to other things.
+[1128.16 --> 1131.90]  And I wonder if that's just learning what's important.
+[1132.40 --> 1138.98]  And we don't have any tracks, but hopefully in the future we'll have, you know, I want to be this kind of developer.
+[1139.46 --> 1140.32]  But I don't know.
+[1140.42 --> 1140.82]  Maybe not.
+[1140.82 --> 1145.88]  I also wonder how much of this is that like getting your first job in tech is hard.
+[1146.34 --> 1146.44]  Yeah.
+[1147.04 --> 1149.38]  Getting your second, your third, your fourth, not so hard.
+[1149.64 --> 1149.78]  Right.
+[1149.82 --> 1156.96]  Like once you're kind of in and you have a little bit more of a track record, it becomes a lot easier to find those jobs.
+[1156.98 --> 1164.72]  And some of that is problems in our hiring practices and the fact that companies don't do good, like don't want to hire entry level folks because they've got to invest in them.
+[1164.72 --> 1168.96]  And some of it is we've got a glut of folks coming in from boot camps.
+[1168.96 --> 1172.44]  And so there's just a way larger number of entry level.
+[1172.64 --> 1174.66]  But getting that first job is hard.
+[1175.10 --> 1180.94]  And so people are kind of looking at these job reckless and they're like, oh, this one wants these five things.
+[1181.02 --> 1183.52]  Well, maybe if I learn those things, I'll have an opportunity there.
+[1183.62 --> 1185.62]  And oh, this one over here, this wants these other five things.
+[1185.62 --> 1192.30]  And they're trying to like bridge across all the different things so they can apply to all the different jobs to get their first job because it's hard.
+[1192.30 --> 1194.20]  And they're getting a lot of rejections along the way.
+[1195.32 --> 1201.00]  And I mean, this is pure speculation because it's been a long time since I was in that boat.
+[1201.38 --> 1202.82]  I won't date myself on that.
+[1202.82 --> 1209.86]  But I have this feeling like the way that we hire junior folks is contributing to the FOMO.
+[1210.04 --> 1218.96]  Those of us who are more senior or who are helping make hiring decisions or things like that, like there are things that we can do that would reduce some of that FOMO.
+[1219.46 --> 1219.82]  I think so.
+[1219.90 --> 1223.50]  I think focusing in on individual technologies is one of the things.
+[1223.60 --> 1229.26]  I was just also, I guess, thinking about the fact that this blog post comes from a very experienced developer.
+[1229.26 --> 1231.38]  And so it's kind of a mature thought.
+[1231.60 --> 1232.70]  And why is that?
+[1232.74 --> 1237.34]  And I think it's because when you just get started, maybe you only know one thing, right?
+[1237.38 --> 1241.18]  Like if you just like, I learned React, sort of, and I can do stuff with it.
+[1241.64 --> 1245.66]  Something else coming and replacing React is like existential at that point, right?
+[1246.30 --> 1247.76]  I mean, maybe that's where it comes from.
+[1248.06 --> 1257.80]  I mean, if all I knew was Ruby on Rails and all of a sudden Django was all anybody was hiring for, I need to learn something else or get a different career.
+[1257.80 --> 1263.90]  And so I think maybe over time, as you realize you can kind of collect to yourselves these different technologies.
+[1264.26 --> 1272.50]  But as I said earlier, and as Rach says in that post, the underlying foundational understanding of software is what really transcends and matters.
+[1273.22 --> 1275.00]  Then you can kind of chill out and relax.
+[1275.14 --> 1276.92]  But when you don't know any better, you don't know any better.
+[1276.92 --> 1288.98]  And when the jobs are so focused on these hiring practices that target these specific things, then something that replacing that is legitimately scary with regards to career, at least.
+[1289.66 --> 1290.46]  Lots of thoughts there.
+[1290.52 --> 1292.80]  A couple of good things coming out in the chat.
+[1292.90 --> 1297.44]  One thing that Matt said, which I thought was good, is it's a good idea to wait to see what sticks, too.
+[1297.44 --> 1301.08]  So the other thing you see over time is how many things come and go.
+[1301.80 --> 1306.86]  And jumping onto something too early that's going to fail is end up being a waste of time as well.
+[1307.02 --> 1317.92]  So, yeah, not following so closely or at least not investing too much in brand new things and waiting to see how it shakes out before you decide.
+[1318.08 --> 1319.74]  Yeah, that's something worth investing my time in.
+[1319.74 --> 1322.56]  Yeah, it's like these job postings.
+[1322.74 --> 1328.92]  They'll list all these technologies like, you know, React or AWS, whatever they want you to do.
+[1329.36 --> 1331.02]  And then you get to the interview.
+[1332.56 --> 1335.04]  And the interview is like whiteboard questions.
+[1335.16 --> 1336.94]  It has nothing to do with any of that stuff.
+[1337.18 --> 1337.34]  Right.
+[1337.46 --> 1339.64]  And so maybe you weren't really prepared for it.
+[1339.72 --> 1341.36]  Maybe you're not good at that stuff.
+[1341.36 --> 1347.30]  It's like, OK, I went out and I learned React so I could get jobs like this.
+[1347.38 --> 1350.46]  But now I can't get jobs like this because I got to go back and do leak code.
+[1351.22 --> 1352.04]  I don't know.
+[1352.26 --> 1352.96]  It's busted.
+[1353.34 --> 1353.98]  It's busted.
+[1354.44 --> 1361.22]  Well, let's turn briefly to something that is still kind of busted, but gets better every single time a new release comes out.
+[1361.28 --> 1364.14]  Chris, you want to talk about iOS 15, right?
+[1364.14 --> 1365.54]  Well, yeah.
+[1365.74 --> 1371.84]  So I've been heads down on a thing that I've been working on for the past couple weeks.
+[1372.50 --> 1380.52]  And I saw there was some sort of announcement about iOS 15, but I'm completely ignorant and I have no idea what's in it.
+[1380.96 --> 1386.56]  And I have no idea what that means, especially for the mobile web and Safari and iOS.
+[1387.00 --> 1389.74]  Can anybody help me, please?
+[1389.74 --> 1401.12]  Well, I heard that it does some bizarre design change to where the address bar is, like moves it to the bottom instead of the top, which is just like messing with my brain here.
+[1401.34 --> 1401.62]  Yes.
+[1401.70 --> 1402.88]  So I actually like it on the bottom.
+[1402.98 --> 1409.20]  So I did not run the betas, but I know there's a lot of discussion around the betas because it moved a lot throughout.
+[1409.48 --> 1415.52]  There's a very dramatic redesign, which has been changed throughout the betas and finally settled.
+[1415.62 --> 1416.50]  It still is at the bottom.
+[1416.58 --> 1417.70]  You can put it back at the top.
+[1417.70 --> 1420.88]  This is the tab, the address bar and the tabs.
+[1421.30 --> 1425.84]  So the nice thing about it on the bottom is that it's easy to get with your thumb and just a swipe and stuff.
+[1426.18 --> 1427.86]  So there are some virtues to having it there.
+[1428.36 --> 1433.92]  There are other aspects of the browser, which the UI also has thrown people for a loop.
+[1433.92 --> 1441.66]  But in terms of web development, I guess I'm not sure how relevant that topic is for us web devs.
+[1441.74 --> 1448.74]  I think in web developer world, the main thing is, you know, it's still one rendering engine to rule them all.
+[1448.96 --> 1455.38]  And Apple has not released their grip on WebKit only based browsers in iOS 15.
+[1455.38 --> 1466.22]  Like that would be an amazing, I think, change in boon for web developers is to allow the Chromes and the Firefoxes and the edges and the mobile brave browsers to bring their own rendering engine.
+[1466.22 --> 1467.80]  That didn't change.
+[1468.50 --> 1484.74]  In fact, JS Party panelist for us has taken to Twitter and started posting these very interesting and fun browser ban tweets with some memes he's created to get to try to convince Apple to release their grip on the browsers inside of iOS.
+[1484.74 --> 1487.04]  But that has not changed.
+[1487.10 --> 1487.66]  That would be huge.
+[1487.74 --> 1489.06]  There are a few things that are new.
+[1489.62 --> 1494.04]  I think the biggest one is probably the web extensions.
+[1494.92 --> 1501.44]  So Apple brought web extensions to Safari and Mac OS last year, and now they're bringing it to iOS.
+[1501.74 --> 1509.82]  So people can write extensions for Safari with web technologies, and they will run inside of Safari to do various things.
+[1510.04 --> 1510.66]  That's pretty cool.
+[1510.66 --> 1514.44]  So you can run any sort of extension on mobile Safari?
+[1514.74 --> 1516.78]  Yes, you can run extensions on mobile Safari.
+[1516.98 --> 1518.24]  Like uBlock Origin?
+[1519.16 --> 1520.08]  Yeah, exactly.
+[1520.72 --> 1521.74]  Well, that was already available.
+[1521.90 --> 1525.22]  Content blockers were already approved prior to this.
+[1525.78 --> 1527.84]  But this opens it up even more so.
+[1528.56 --> 1539.44]  One example of that that I've been running is Apollo, which is a popular Reddit app, which is better than Reddit's Reddit app, has built in an extension.
+[1539.44 --> 1549.96]  So now that inside of Safari, if you click a Reddit link, you can set it up to automatically open in Apollo versus going to Safari's mobile view that wants to launch the Reddit app.
+[1550.02 --> 1551.82]  If you don't use the Reddit app, it won't blah, blah, blah.
+[1551.98 --> 1553.58]  So that's just one example.
+[1553.58 --> 1568.00]  Another one that's cool is there's a Mac OS extension called Apple Keyword Search, or Safari Keyword Search, which allows you to throw in shortcuts into the search bar and automatically search Amazon, automatically search IMDB, whatever you can imagine.
+[1568.00 --> 1571.22]  And that was only on Mac OS Safari for a while.
+[1571.36 --> 1579.28]  And now since iOS 15, you can now get that on mobile Safari, which is great because on mobile, you're already trying to type less letters to get to searches.
+[1579.62 --> 1583.96]  So that's extending the built-in search inside the address bar in mobile Safari.
+[1584.16 --> 1586.52]  So those are a few examples of what people are doing with them.
+[1587.10 --> 1589.58]  I want to go back to that address bar move again.
+[1590.00 --> 1593.64]  So do you know, do they expose that via a media query or something?
+[1593.64 --> 1603.10]  Because I know a lot of folks will write like mobile web apps and they'll try to do the style of like the bottom nav bar that mirrors like the iOS thing or things like that.
+[1603.16 --> 1608.80]  And I feel like that gets kind of weird if you've shifted around where the address bar and things are.
+[1608.94 --> 1611.86]  So is that exposed to developers to be able to tell?
+[1612.48 --> 1613.36]  That I don't know.
+[1613.48 --> 1620.42]  But I feel like those UIs fell by the wayside when Apple kind of did their big redesign back in iOS 5 or something.
+[1620.42 --> 1622.70]  I haven't seen those like tabbed browse.
+[1622.70 --> 1626.60]  But like that was like a thing that people did with mobile jQuery or jQuery mobile.
+[1627.10 --> 1635.76]  But I'm not sure people are really doing like lower tabbed base navigation in their web apps like they used to, unless they're maybe a little bit older.
+[1636.20 --> 1637.98]  I don't know if you can actually detect it or not.
+[1638.48 --> 1642.66]  To me, I just think it's the viewport starts above wherever that is.
+[1643.00 --> 1644.00]  And that's just kind of how it works.
+[1644.06 --> 1644.48]  Maybe you can.
+[1644.48 --> 1652.30]  There's also some other small improvements, you know, things that were in beta like web features.
+[1652.90 --> 1656.40]  But apparently the link that I put into our show notes is dead now.
+[1656.54 --> 1658.32]  So I can't click on it and read those.
+[1658.54 --> 1660.42]  So let's forget about it.
+[1660.78 --> 1662.32]  I'll put that in the show notes.
+[1662.32 --> 1669.24]  And people who are interested in certain small things like new CSS features, new JavaScript features can read through those.
+[1669.72 --> 1673.08]  And we'll be right back with Explain It Like I'm Five.
+[1673.08 --> 1681.28]  This episode is brought to you by Sentry.
+[1681.42 --> 1682.84]  Build better software faster.
+[1683.46 --> 1686.68]  Diagnose, fix, and optimize the performance of your code.
+[1687.02 --> 1692.80]  Over 1 million developers and 68,000 organizations already use Sentry, including us.
+[1693.18 --> 1697.74]  Sentry also recently shipped a new SDK for Next.js applications.
+[1698.30 --> 1700.36]  Check the show notes for links to more details.
+[1700.36 --> 1704.28]  Best of all, our listeners get the team plan for free for three months.
+[1704.62 --> 1707.62]  Head to Sentry.io and use the code THECHANGELOG when you sign up.
+[1707.70 --> 1711.42]  Again, Sentry.io and use the code THECHANGELOG.
+[1730.36 --> 1741.62]  All right, we are here and it is time for Explain It Like I'm Five.
+[1745.70 --> 1748.30]  Can you explain it like I'm five?
+[1749.00 --> 1749.52]  K-Ball.
+[1750.26 --> 1750.90]  What you got?
+[1751.00 --> 1751.80]  Virtual DOM.
+[1752.26 --> 1753.16]  That sounds complex.
+[1753.50 --> 1755.36]  Can you explain it like I'm five?
+[1755.36 --> 1762.40]  So this is something that I think was initially made famous by React and has been adopted by many,
+[1762.52 --> 1764.70]  but not all, advanced JavaScript frameworks.
+[1765.56 --> 1769.88]  And to explain it like I'm explaining to a five-year-old, I'm going to go into the physical world.
+[1770.08 --> 1777.44]  So imagine that you have a room with furniture in it, like a bunch of couches and tables and chairs,
+[1777.82 --> 1781.34]  and you want to move it around, right?
+[1781.40 --> 1783.06]  And you want to reorganize things.
+[1783.06 --> 1787.92]  Now, one way you could approach this is you could say, okay, to do this in order.
+[1788.02 --> 1790.46]  So I'm going to move that chair over across the room.
+[1790.78 --> 1793.36]  And in order to do that, actually, I need to move this couch out of the way,
+[1793.46 --> 1795.80]  and then I'm going to move the chair, and then I'll put the couch back where it started.
+[1796.40 --> 1799.82]  Kind of moving things around, and then you say, okay, now that chair is where I want it to be.
+[1800.20 --> 1801.30]  Let me move something else.
+[1801.34 --> 1803.58]  Let me say, okay, this table, I want to move this table.
+[1803.68 --> 1807.50]  So let me pick that table up, move it, oh, where I want it to go has something else in it.
+[1807.50 --> 1811.26]  I got to push that out of the way, and now I'll put the table there, and okay, now I'm going to do it.
+[1811.26 --> 1814.52]  And so you're doing these changes one by one, and they're fairly expensive.
+[1814.78 --> 1817.48]  Like, you got to move a bunch of stuff around to move things.
+[1817.58 --> 1820.50]  Like, that is changing things in the DOM, right?
+[1820.72 --> 1821.78]  I have a web page.
+[1821.90 --> 1822.86]  I'm moving stuff around.
+[1822.94 --> 1825.66]  Anytime I touch something in the DOM itself, it's pretty expensive.
+[1825.94 --> 1827.62]  It's, you know, it takes a bunch of time.
+[1827.70 --> 1830.84]  Maybe I got to move other things around, reflow the browser, all that sort of thing.
+[1830.84 --> 1838.94]  Now, in a physical world, I could do this faster by saying, okay, let me first actually make a little model of my room.
+[1839.38 --> 1844.90]  I'm going to have a toy version of the room, or I'm going to have papers, or maybe I'm advanced and I have a computer model of my room.
+[1845.32 --> 1846.84]  I want to move around all the different pieces.
+[1846.92 --> 1849.90]  I'm going to say, okay, I'm going to move the chair there and the couch there and the chair there.
+[1850.50 --> 1853.08]  Okay, now I've got every change that I want to make.
+[1853.74 --> 1858.74]  And I look at that and I say, okay, what's the smallest possible difference from my room as it is?
+[1859.18 --> 1860.74]  What's the smallest change I can make?
+[1860.82 --> 1863.34]  Okay, I still need to move this couch out of the way, but I know where it's going.
+[1863.44 --> 1872.10]  So I'll move that first, put it where it's going, move the chair over, move the table, do all the moves at once so I can minimize the amount of work I'm actually doing and speed it up a lot.
+[1872.90 --> 1875.30]  That little model that I did, that is the virtual DOM.
+[1875.30 --> 1882.54]  So what React or one of these other frameworks will do is it'll pull together a set of changes that you want to make to the DOM.
+[1882.60 --> 1885.44]  And it'll say, okay, we're going to rearrange things.
+[1885.48 --> 1886.62]  We're going to put this title there.
+[1886.72 --> 1887.82]  We're changing the text here.
+[1887.82 --> 1888.74]  We're moving this around.
+[1889.02 --> 1896.66]  Let's gather up all those changes, analyze to say, okay, what's the smallest possible difference that we can make to make those changes true?
+[1896.72 --> 1904.16]  And then do that change all at once so that all of our shared work of moving things out of the way or reflowing or whatever it happens to be happens exactly once.
+[1904.16 --> 1922.08]  So the virtual DOM is a representation of the DOM as a model in JavaScript that lets you do all that manipulation the cheap and easy way and figure out what's the smallest possible change I need to do in the real expensive physical world, in this case, the DOM, and do that all at once.
+[1922.94 --> 1925.48]  There you have the virtual DOM as if you're five.
+[1925.48 --> 1927.12]  Pretty good, K-Ball.
+[1927.56 --> 1928.40]  Pretty good.
+[1928.96 --> 1930.82]  I'm starting to feel like mine's going to be terrible.
+[1931.30 --> 1933.62]  Yeah, I'm feeling really bad about mine after that.
+[1934.62 --> 1936.88]  This is why we should have saved K-Ball for last.
+[1936.88 --> 1938.86]  All right.
+[1939.44 --> 1943.36]  Pass it over to Chris, who said, please don't make him go first.
+[1943.54 --> 1944.62]  So I'm making him go second.
+[1945.22 --> 1948.66]  Chris, you're going to explain variable hoisting, right?
+[1949.28 --> 1949.58]  Yes.
+[1949.60 --> 1952.44]  I'm trying to explain like hoisting in JavaScript.
+[1953.00 --> 1953.60]  So hoisting.
+[1954.00 --> 1957.82]  It's kind of like, so you.
+[1958.34 --> 1959.36]  Oh, my God.
+[1959.88 --> 1960.60]  Come back to me.
+[1960.68 --> 1961.24]  Come back to me.
+[1961.24 --> 1963.76]  I love this game.
+[1964.16 --> 1965.20]  We're going to come back to Chris.
+[1965.26 --> 1966.28]  We're going to go to Amelia.
+[1966.86 --> 1967.36]  All right.
+[1967.78 --> 1971.36]  I'm going to explain the CSS cascade as if I were five.
+[1971.46 --> 1971.66]  Okay.
+[1971.86 --> 1972.68]  I mean, as if.
+[1972.68 --> 1974.74]  Oh, that's a whole other different angle at the game.
+[1974.86 --> 1976.58]  Explain it as if you were the one who's five.
+[1977.04 --> 1978.44]  It's going to be some combination.
+[1978.64 --> 1980.26]  I think we're both five in this scenario.
+[1981.96 --> 1982.60]  All right.
+[1982.74 --> 1985.18]  So what's a game that kids play?
+[1985.34 --> 1986.20]  Let's say this is.
+[1986.62 --> 1991.10]  It's like playing some more where I want something.
+[1991.24 --> 1994.98]  to be a certain way and you want something to look a certain way.
+[1995.10 --> 1999.32]  Let's say we want our toy to be orange or green.
+[1999.94 --> 2000.26]  All right.
+[2000.36 --> 2004.06]  So there's four stages to this thumb war.
+[2004.28 --> 2009.58]  And if anybody wins any of the stages, then they win.
+[2009.66 --> 2012.02]  And the toy is whatever color they want it to be.
+[2012.36 --> 2017.66]  So the first stage of our thumb war is basically looking at importance.
+[2017.88 --> 2020.28]  This is where the metaphor is going to break down.
+[2021.24 --> 2024.54]  My thumb is more important than your thumb.
+[2024.76 --> 2024.96]  Exactly.
+[2025.48 --> 2025.86]  Jigs.
+[2026.24 --> 2026.40]  Yeah.
+[2026.56 --> 2026.96]  Yeah.
+[2027.02 --> 2027.30]  Okay.
+[2027.38 --> 2027.66]  Okay.
+[2027.66 --> 2029.68]  So let's keep going with that.
+[2029.94 --> 2034.04]  So there's four levels of how important your thumb is.
+[2034.04 --> 2041.82]  The first is if one of our thumbs is in an active transition, then we're on the first tier of this tier.
+[2042.52 --> 2046.64]  The second level is if one of our thumbs uses bang important.
+[2047.10 --> 2050.12]  The third level is if it's in an active animation.
+[2050.12 --> 2052.48]  And the fourth is everything else.
+[2052.48 --> 2057.38]  So in this tier, each thumb has a level one, two, three, or four.
+[2057.78 --> 2061.72]  And the smaller the number wins.
+[2061.86 --> 2066.36]  So most likely both of our thumbs are in the normal category.
+[2066.36 --> 2068.54]  And so ding, ding, ding.
+[2068.66 --> 2069.92]  We ran out of time.
+[2070.12 --> 2072.42]  No one wins this round of the thumb war.
+[2072.98 --> 2076.80]  So the second tier of the thumb war is origin.
+[2077.16 --> 2080.68]  So where your thumb came from.
+[2083.24 --> 2083.98]  All right.
+[2084.02 --> 2086.04]  There's three levels to this.
+[2086.04 --> 2089.62]  There's whether your thumb came from the website.
+[2089.88 --> 2091.52]  So is it website styles?
+[2091.90 --> 2094.40]  Which is usually what you're dealing with as a web developer.
+[2094.68 --> 2097.46]  And then the second one is user defined styles.
+[2097.70 --> 2099.54]  So maybe you painted your thumb.
+[2100.04 --> 2104.10]  And the third level is browser defined styles.
+[2104.32 --> 2107.16]  So whether a browser painted your thumb.
+[2108.24 --> 2109.90]  Like somebody else painted it before you got there.
+[2110.46 --> 2113.92]  So that's like when I paint my nails versus my kids paint my nails.
+[2114.12 --> 2114.56]  There you go.
+[2114.56 --> 2115.04]  Exactly.
+[2116.58 --> 2120.34]  So this metaphor is making it more confusing, isn't it?
+[2120.84 --> 2127.38]  So if it's on a website versus a user defined style, then the website styles win.
+[2127.56 --> 2132.52]  If it's going up against the browser default styles, like there's a default button style,
+[2132.82 --> 2135.18]  then that gets overwritten really easily.
+[2135.34 --> 2138.08]  You can really basically just write any styles for your website.
+[2138.88 --> 2139.12]  All right.
+[2139.42 --> 2140.14]  Tier two is over.
+[2140.48 --> 2142.56]  We're both website defined styles.
+[2143.04 --> 2143.58]  Nobody wins.
+[2143.58 --> 2145.02]  Tier three.
+[2145.18 --> 2146.22]  This is the longest one.
+[2146.40 --> 2150.20]  And this is one you're usually dealing with when you're writing styles for a website.
+[2150.56 --> 2153.30]  The first level is inline styles.
+[2153.52 --> 2156.14]  So I cannot relate this to a thumb.
+[2156.34 --> 2159.32]  But basically, you have a style attribute on an element.
+[2159.66 --> 2160.92]  You say color red.
+[2161.72 --> 2162.74]  That's the first level.
+[2163.10 --> 2165.74]  The second level is whether it's based on an ID.
+[2165.74 --> 2172.78]  So this is like a CSS rule that's targeting a selector that has an ID in it.
+[2173.26 --> 2176.84]  The third level is classes, attributes, or pseudo classes.
+[2177.46 --> 2179.92]  So CSS rules that target any of those.
+[2180.04 --> 2183.48]  And the fourth rule is a type or pseudo element.
+[2183.48 --> 2185.84]  So inline styles always win.
+[2185.84 --> 2199.26]  And then for the rest of them, you kind of have to add up how many like IDs, which are level two, classes, attributes, or pseudo classes, which are level three, and types or pseudo elements, which are level four.
+[2199.26 --> 2206.88]  And whichever number is largest or smallest, that style wins.
+[2207.30 --> 2207.70]  All right.
+[2207.74 --> 2208.38]  We're almost over.
+[2208.94 --> 2212.16]  So let's say there's a tie on that one, which there very rarely is.
+[2212.36 --> 2214.44]  So say there's two inline styles.
+[2214.64 --> 2216.34]  The last tier is position.
+[2216.34 --> 2224.44]  So if one CSS style comes first and the other comes last, that later one will win.
+[2225.16 --> 2231.00]  So that'll pretty much make sure there aren't any ties because you can't define things at the same time.
+[2231.14 --> 2234.34]  And that is how thumb wars work in the web world.
+[2236.42 --> 2237.44]  I like it.
+[2237.92 --> 2241.64]  I wonder if a paper, rock, scissors metaphor would have also been able to be used.
+[2241.76 --> 2242.38]  Might have been better.
+[2242.46 --> 2244.70]  Because like this one always beats that one, for example.
+[2244.70 --> 2246.94]  I was just trying to figure out inline styles.
+[2247.10 --> 2249.98]  Is that like if I tattoo under my thumbnail or something?
+[2252.08 --> 2252.92]  Yeah, I don't know.
+[2253.04 --> 2256.68]  You have to like inject it into your thumb, which is not advisable.
+[2256.94 --> 2260.36]  Maybe it had to be like a henna tattoo because JavaScript can always come and change those.
+[2260.64 --> 2261.80]  You know, nothing's permanent.
+[2262.22 --> 2266.68]  Somehow the color of your thumb influences like if you capture the other player's thumb.
+[2267.20 --> 2268.18]  I'm digging this.
+[2268.38 --> 2269.14]  I like it too.
+[2269.58 --> 2273.86]  Although whenever I write a thumb war, I always bring my separate hand in and just like put it over the top
+[2273.86 --> 2274.84]  and declare victory.
+[2274.98 --> 2275.60]  So maybe that's like...
+[2275.60 --> 2277.36]  Oh, my kids do that 100%.
+[2277.36 --> 2279.02]  So they like to have like both of them.
+[2279.14 --> 2281.84]  So one gets one hand and they have both of their hands on that.
+[2281.88 --> 2284.18]  And the other gets the other hand and both of their hands on that.
+[2284.40 --> 2285.10]  That's smart.
+[2285.16 --> 2286.44]  There's your bang important right there.
+[2286.54 --> 2287.16]  Yeah, exactly.
+[2287.54 --> 2287.70]  Yeah.
+[2288.00 --> 2289.50]  All right, Chris, are you ready?
+[2289.58 --> 2291.08]  Or should we stall a whole nother round?
+[2291.16 --> 2291.80]  Because I could go.
+[2292.14 --> 2293.20]  No, no, no, no, no, no.
+[2293.20 --> 2293.82]  Let's do it.
+[2293.88 --> 2294.14]  All right.
+[2294.26 --> 2295.20]  Okay, here we go.
+[2295.20 --> 2299.68]  So I'm going to explain function hoisting like you are five.
+[2300.22 --> 2307.88]  So say you are at the park and you see a playground.
+[2308.32 --> 2310.56]  In your hand is a muffin.
+[2311.02 --> 2311.70]  You have a muffin.
+[2312.72 --> 2317.04]  And so you see the playground and you run over there and you want to climb up to the top.
+[2317.96 --> 2321.82]  And you need both hands to climb up to the top because there's like a ladder.
+[2321.82 --> 2323.76]  So you drop your muffin in the sawdust.
+[2324.34 --> 2324.64]  Okay.
+[2325.26 --> 2328.48]  And you climb all the way to the top and it's awesome.
+[2328.48 --> 2334.74]  And you are hungry now and you want to eat your muffin, but it's in the sawdust.
+[2335.26 --> 2344.82]  So function hoisting would allow you to eat your muffin even though you're on top of the play structure.
+[2345.18 --> 2349.14]  It is the invisible sawdust fairy that picks the muffin up and raises it to the top.
+[2349.14 --> 2357.70]  Yes, sawdust fairy, muffin fairies get your muffin and they will magically take them out of the sawdust.
+[2357.70 --> 2360.16]  You're the muffins out of the sawdust and put them in your mouth.
+[2360.28 --> 2361.42]  That sounds magical.
+[2361.92 --> 2362.98]  Sounds kind of scary too.
+[2363.20 --> 2364.50]  Yeah, no, I want to use it.
+[2365.18 --> 2367.66]  It's like all of a sudden there's a muffin in your mouth and you're like, what?
+[2370.02 --> 2370.38]  JavaScript.
+[2370.56 --> 2370.96]  JavaScript.
+[2371.30 --> 2373.00]  The language of sawdust fairies.
+[2373.00 --> 2379.52]  The muffin fairy is actually your mom or dad and they hide it from you, but they give you the muffin.
+[2379.98 --> 2380.30]  All right.
+[2380.38 --> 2383.02]  This last scary, thank you for changing that for me.
+[2383.10 --> 2388.10]  So I should say that all of these topics were submitted by people in the chat.
+[2388.32 --> 2389.58]  So appreciate that.
+[2389.64 --> 2391.24]  Okay, but wait, did that make sense?
+[2391.52 --> 2392.08]  Yeah, man.
+[2392.44 --> 2392.70]  No.
+[2392.86 --> 2395.08]  Magical sawdust muffin fairies.
+[2395.64 --> 2396.62]  I was with it.
+[2396.90 --> 2398.28]  K-ball, you're saying no, you're against.
+[2398.74 --> 2399.44]  Did it or no?
+[2399.56 --> 2402.22]  Amelia's just staring off into the sky thinking about it.
+[2402.22 --> 2402.98]  She's like, does it?
+[2403.06 --> 2403.98]  Does it make sense?
+[2404.20 --> 2406.04]  I was trying to think, but then I kept listening.
+[2406.92 --> 2407.12]  Yeah.
+[2407.36 --> 2410.44]  So your muffin is your function or variable?
+[2410.64 --> 2410.88]  Yeah.
+[2410.96 --> 2411.44]  Is that right?
+[2411.62 --> 2411.86]  Yeah.
+[2412.14 --> 2414.46]  And you want to use it, but you're up at the top.
+[2415.14 --> 2416.72]  And it was down there in the sawdust.
+[2416.88 --> 2420.18]  Your muffin started down in the sawdust because you defined it later?
+[2420.70 --> 2423.08]  Yeah, you defined it down there, but actually it got hoisted up.
+[2423.54 --> 2423.84]  Sure.
+[2424.14 --> 2424.38]  Okay.
+[2424.90 --> 2425.94]  I did my best.
+[2426.16 --> 2427.54]  I don't have anything better.
+[2427.54 --> 2428.74]  I was like, come on, man.
+[2428.82 --> 2429.60]  I did my best.
+[2429.72 --> 2430.64]  I don't have anything better.
+[2430.64 --> 2432.36]  And I love the muffin fairy.
+[2432.84 --> 2435.38]  And we were talking about this a little bit earlier, right?
+[2435.42 --> 2439.52]  Like the real truth is that like hoisting just doesn't actually make any sense.
+[2439.52 --> 2440.76]  Like, why do you do that?
+[2440.88 --> 2442.04]  No, it's magical.
+[2442.28 --> 2446.66]  Like I'm sitting here, I'm trying to think of, okay, how can I explain this in real world
+[2446.66 --> 2448.42]  terms and things that actually make sense?
+[2448.48 --> 2452.68]  And you can't because it's nonsense and you got to come up with a muffin fairy.
+[2452.80 --> 2453.16]  It's nonsense.
+[2453.38 --> 2453.66]  Exactly.
+[2453.66 --> 2459.48]  So I think given the nonsense that is variable and function hoisting, your muffin fairy is
+[2459.48 --> 2460.70]  an excellent explanation.
+[2461.02 --> 2461.10]  Yeah.
+[2461.52 --> 2461.98]  There you go.
+[2462.38 --> 2463.24]  It doesn't make any sense.
+[2463.32 --> 2465.04]  Why is this muffin suddenly in my mouth?
+[2465.10 --> 2466.14]  I don't know why it's here.
+[2466.74 --> 2468.46]  I thought I put it down in the sawdust.
+[2468.72 --> 2471.48]  I think this is actually a great argument against hoisting.
+[2472.60 --> 2473.04]  Exactly.
+[2473.78 --> 2475.92]  You're well elucidated why I don't like hoisting.
+[2476.20 --> 2476.40]  Yep.
+[2477.10 --> 2477.54]  100%.
+[2477.54 --> 2478.64]  You have done it well.
+[2478.64 --> 2481.02]  Well, Chris, I withdraw my objection.
+[2481.76 --> 2485.40]  Given the nonsense that is hoisting, your explanation is perfect.
+[2485.66 --> 2488.54]  On the same note, though, this is like the principle of least surprise, right?
+[2488.96 --> 2492.94]  I mean, the thing should be defined where I define it.
+[2493.58 --> 2495.12]  Don't magically move it somewhere else.
+[2495.66 --> 2496.88]  That to me is a surprise.
+[2497.08 --> 2497.94]  And I'm always surprised.
+[2498.06 --> 2501.42]  I'm like, oh, I have to remember this random thing it does for me on my behalf.
+[2501.98 --> 2503.00]  Thanks a lot, mom and dad.
+[2503.00 --> 2504.00]  I don't even like muffins.
+[2504.12 --> 2505.10]  So I put in the sawdust.
+[2505.96 --> 2506.34]  All right.
+[2506.52 --> 2507.58]  Now can we move on?
+[2507.64 --> 2508.56]  Because I have Docker.
+[2509.44 --> 2515.28]  And while Chris had to invent, just off the top of his head, an amazing metaphor for hoisting,
+[2515.98 --> 2517.06]  Docker is a metaphor.
+[2517.64 --> 2519.32]  So I'm just going to use that one.
+[2519.38 --> 2525.08]  So hey, kids, you know how computers' programs are flaky and they always break and stuff and
+[2525.08 --> 2528.14]  that's annoying, like it works on this machine but not on that machine?
+[2529.42 --> 2530.82]  Or it always crashes?
+[2530.82 --> 2539.20]  Well, that's because computer programs are a lot like the way people ship produce around
+[2539.20 --> 2539.70]  the world.
+[2539.70 --> 2549.08]  So in the old days, if I had some bananas in Asia and some oranges in Africa and some pineapples
+[2549.08 --> 2550.26]  also in Africa.
+[2550.26 --> 2551.98]  These also grow other places.
+[2551.98 --> 2552.90]  But that's just where they were.
+[2552.90 --> 2556.26]  And I want to ship them to America to eat them here.
+[2556.80 --> 2560.24]  You would have to have a different way of handling it for each kind of good.
+[2560.24 --> 2562.68]  So bananas have their own rules.
+[2563.50 --> 2567.00]  Pineapples, what's the other thing I said, also has its own rules.
+[2567.00 --> 2572.04]  And so everybody along the way that shipped that to me so I could eat it here, they would
+[2572.04 --> 2573.98]  have to handle it in a very specific way.
+[2574.06 --> 2574.74]  And that's flaky.
+[2574.86 --> 2578.76]  It can break until the invention of shipping containers.
+[2579.66 --> 2584.64]  The cool thing about shipping containers is they're all the same exact size and the same
+[2584.64 --> 2587.60]  dimensions and they're stackable.
+[2587.90 --> 2591.60]  And so you can take your shipping container, you can throw your bananas in it, you can throw
+[2591.60 --> 2593.10]  your pineapples in it.
+[2593.40 --> 2595.86]  I still can't remember the third piece of produce that I named.
+[2595.86 --> 2597.08]  So you throw that one in there.
+[2597.84 --> 2605.12]  And now every single boat, every single train, the forklifts, everything along the way doesn't
+[2605.12 --> 2606.92]  have to care what kind of thing it is.
+[2606.98 --> 2612.10]  They just move the containers from where they started to where you want them.
+[2612.92 --> 2617.64]  And you can just eat those bananas and those apples and that third mystery fruit.
+[2617.84 --> 2618.46]  It's oranges.
+[2618.82 --> 2619.80]  Oranges, thank you.
+[2620.62 --> 2623.24]  For some reason, they're coming from overseas instead of Florida.
+[2623.42 --> 2624.64]  I didn't think about this very long.
+[2624.64 --> 2627.52]  And that's what Docker is for computers, right?
+[2627.58 --> 2633.28]  You just package up all the details of that particular thing that you want to ship somewhere
+[2633.28 --> 2633.96]  else and run.
+[2634.92 --> 2637.02]  And you put it into this Docker container.
+[2637.66 --> 2640.56]  And nobody has to care how the insides work.
+[2641.10 --> 2642.78]  They just run it over there.
+[2643.20 --> 2645.56]  It's all self-contained like a shipping container.
+[2646.04 --> 2650.24]  It's almost like you have a Docker shipping container metaphor that's just waiting to be used.
+[2650.82 --> 2651.50]  There we go.
+[2651.98 --> 2652.48]  How do I do?
+[2652.48 --> 2653.38]  That's great.
+[2653.56 --> 2657.84]  I was just thinking about how much money I would pay for a kid's book with all of these
+[2657.84 --> 2658.86]  things in it.
+[2659.46 --> 2662.56]  Oh, that would be kind of cool because we've done these throughout the years.
+[2662.64 --> 2664.28]  We could actually gather up a bunch of them.
+[2664.40 --> 2665.44]  That would be so good.
+[2665.66 --> 2666.94]  And then pay someone to animate.
+[2666.94 --> 2668.92]  I was going to say, what about an animated short, right?
+[2669.04 --> 2676.14]  Like I think Nick's story from whenever that was would just be priceless.
+[2676.14 --> 2676.78]  Yeah.
+[2676.78 --> 2678.42]  Nick went on like a 15 minute tale.
+[2678.98 --> 2680.28]  What was he explaining that one day?
+[2680.64 --> 2681.34]  React hooks.
+[2681.66 --> 2682.44]  And he used Moana?
+[2682.88 --> 2684.30]  He used Moana and Coco.
+[2684.68 --> 2686.02]  And he merged the movies.
+[2686.74 --> 2686.92]  Yeah.
+[2686.92 --> 2688.02]  The merge was a little stretched.
+[2688.14 --> 2690.30]  I felt like there was like a lot of good Moana stuff.
+[2690.42 --> 2693.04]  And then the Coco reference was a little bit like, okay.
+[2693.60 --> 2693.86]  Yeah.
+[2694.18 --> 2696.82]  He was grasping at straws, but he still got the episode named after him.
+[2696.86 --> 2698.42]  I think it was called Monad's Hook.
+[2698.80 --> 2699.14]  Yes.
+[2699.14 --> 2701.68]  So go look that one up and listen to that one.
+[2702.06 --> 2705.22]  I regularly reference that to folks who are like, what's a good episode?
+[2705.38 --> 2708.76]  And I'm like, well, if you want to laugh, like go listen to Nick in this episode.
+[2709.00 --> 2709.54]  Yeah, totally.
+[2710.30 --> 2716.80]  Or the Tailwind Beneath My Wings, which is to this day my most proud moment on JS Party
+[2716.80 --> 2722.78]  when we managed to work in all the lyrics to Wind Beneath My Wings into a conversation
+[2722.78 --> 2723.78]  about Tailwind.
+[2723.78 --> 2731.18]  And only had the grace to tell Adam Wathen and Feroz about it midway through the show.
+[2731.96 --> 2737.62]  And then managed to put it all together and land it with our own cover of the song to
+[2737.62 --> 2738.24]  open up the show.
+[2738.40 --> 2743.02]  So definitely also, if you want to laugh and just be super impressed by our musical talents,
+[2743.24 --> 2744.42]  go listen to that episode as well.
+[2745.04 --> 2747.36]  Nick Neesey once again, like carried that episode.
+[2747.72 --> 2748.58]  He did incredible.
+[2748.94 --> 2749.14]  Yeah.
+[2749.24 --> 2752.92]  Because I was going to bail on the idea because it was getting so awkward and Nick just stuck
+[2752.92 --> 2753.24]  to it.
+[2753.28 --> 2754.16]  I'm like, this is happening.
+[2754.38 --> 2755.76]  We're doing it all the way through.
+[2756.14 --> 2757.50]  So, all right.
+[2757.54 --> 2759.26]  This has been Explain It Like I'm Fine.
+[2759.32 --> 2764.32]  We'll be right back for I'm Excited About X, where X is literally anything.
+[2764.32 --> 2778.36]  What's up, party people?
+[2778.46 --> 2780.86]  This episode is brought to you by Auth0.
+[2781.38 --> 2786.34]  Auth0 is a for developers, by developers identity platform built for the cloud era.
+[2786.70 --> 2788.82]  They secure billions of logins every year.
+[2788.82 --> 2794.76]  Identity is the front door of every user interaction, and the login experience can make or break a user's
+[2794.76 --> 2795.50]  first impression.
+[2795.92 --> 2798.76]  Identity and authentication is never a set it and forget it thing.
+[2799.14 --> 2803.16]  That means when teams decide to roll their own, they are taking on the full burden of constantly
+[2803.16 --> 2806.78]  evolving industry standards, customer expectations, and data breach tactics.
+[2807.08 --> 2811.32]  And they often don't have the time, expertise, or resources to meet those needs.
+[2811.58 --> 2815.26]  This takes away from critical time needed to innovate and to improve their core product.
+[2815.26 --> 2820.22]  Auth0 has solved this problem for every developer to give teams their time back and to make
+[2820.22 --> 2821.78]  applications more secure.
+[2822.18 --> 2826.92]  With Auth0's security, compliance, and industry standards, they're always up to date.
+[2827.26 --> 2832.88]  Developers are free to provide the login options their users want with the security their application
+[2832.88 --> 2833.54]  demands.
+[2833.98 --> 2836.02]  Make login Auth0's problem, not yours.
+[2836.58 --> 2838.26]  Learn more at Auth0.com.
+[2838.50 --> 2840.30]  Again, Auth0.com.
+[2845.26 --> 2850.86]  So Chris, you got anything you're excited about?
+[2852.20 --> 2853.42]  This is hard for me.
+[2853.60 --> 2854.10]  It can be anything.
+[2854.92 --> 2855.54]  I know.
+[2855.84 --> 2857.06]  This is against your personality.
+[2859.62 --> 2862.78]  My six-year-old has got me into Taylor Swift recently.
+[2862.90 --> 2864.06]  I was never a T-Swift fan.
+[2864.18 --> 2866.34]  And then my six-year-old is like mad about T-Swift.
+[2866.46 --> 2868.36]  And there's a song that is, this is me trying.
+[2868.58 --> 2872.52]  And I just saw, like, you were like, ah, and I'm like, yeah, this is Chris trying.
+[2872.52 --> 2873.74]  And this is me trying.
+[2873.82 --> 2876.48]  Just kind of work up the gusto to be excited about something.
+[2876.68 --> 2879.14]  So, like, all right, you know Legos?
+[2879.58 --> 2880.46]  I like Legos.
+[2880.66 --> 2880.84]  Yeah.
+[2881.12 --> 2882.46]  So I'm going to talk about Legos.
+[2882.70 --> 2885.12]  They got this Lego Ideas.
+[2885.42 --> 2888.20]  And if you don't know what that is, it's kind of like a contest.
+[2889.10 --> 2897.40]  And you make something with a Lego, you upload it to the site, and then people come and they
+[2897.40 --> 2898.02]  vote on it.
+[2898.02 --> 2905.02]  And if you get, like, 10,000 votes on your thing that you made, the Lego team and their
+[2905.02 --> 2911.60]  designers will make sure that they, like, can get the rights to whatever you've made if
+[2911.60 --> 2912.74]  it's, like, a licensed thing.
+[2912.94 --> 2917.18]  But they'll work with you to actually make it a real Lego set, and they'll release it.
+[2917.22 --> 2919.44]  And there have been a whole bunch of these over the years.
+[2919.66 --> 2923.14]  Like, I don't know, there was, like, a Tron one.
+[2923.14 --> 2929.08]  There was, like, some, like, a fishing cabin, like a great big fishing thing.
+[2929.46 --> 2932.20]  Lots of other ideas, some birds and things like that.
+[2932.84 --> 2934.24]  Just random stuff.
+[2934.72 --> 2943.14]  And I always get kind of excited when I see that another thing has made it to 10,000 because
+[2943.14 --> 2946.32]  the ones that get that many votes are always really awesome.
+[2946.32 --> 2953.26]  And I'm like, wow, I can't wait to not, like, justify spending $300 on that when it comes
+[2953.26 --> 2953.50]  out.
+[2953.64 --> 2955.46]  But, like, they're cool.
+[2956.02 --> 2958.30]  There's so many cool things people make.
+[2958.48 --> 2959.38]  And I don't know.
+[2959.52 --> 2960.50]  I'm just really impressed.
+[2960.62 --> 2962.86]  And that's what I'm excited about, I guess.
+[2963.56 --> 2967.02]  How cool would it be to have your thing made into an actual Lego set?
+[2967.10 --> 2968.50]  That would be just amazingly cool.
+[2968.54 --> 2968.78]  Yeah.
+[2969.18 --> 2970.12]  That's super cool.
+[2970.12 --> 2974.26]  And it's such a great example of a company that is not just listening to their customers,
+[2974.26 --> 2980.38]  but is, like, really engaging with them and being like, okay, like, Lego super fans, let's
+[2980.38 --> 2981.42]  make stuff together.
+[2981.70 --> 2985.48]  The people that are submitting these things, you know, these aren't kids, right?
+[2986.26 --> 2987.56]  They're adults with lives.
+[2988.28 --> 2993.78]  And, like, they enjoy Lego, which makes me not feel so stupid and nerdy.
+[2994.26 --> 2998.42]  People like me, maybe not like me because, like, I suck at doing that sort of thing.
+[2998.42 --> 3003.54]  But they build these things out of this toy and they get real Lego sets.
+[3003.64 --> 3009.74]  And then when the set comes out, there's always, like, a really fancy booklet about the design
+[3009.74 --> 3012.08]  and it talks about the designer.
+[3012.52 --> 3015.40]  And so that must be a real, you know, a thrill for people.
+[3015.54 --> 3015.68]  Yeah.
+[3016.28 --> 3019.16]  Have you watched the Lego Masters game show on TV?
+[3019.52 --> 3024.58]  I, like, tried to watch the first episode, but I don't really like things like that.
+[3024.88 --> 3026.66]  The stuff they built is absolutely amazing.
+[3026.66 --> 3030.32]  But if you don't like things and stuff, it is one of those.
+[3030.72 --> 3031.36]  I don't.
+[3031.84 --> 3037.30]  I don't have kids as an excuse to have Legos, although you definitely don't need that excuse.
+[3037.50 --> 3044.10]  But I got to play with them recently because GitHub had swag for our, like, internal conference
+[3044.10 --> 3049.98]  of, like, you put together a little Mona Octocat and you get this whole kit.
+[3050.42 --> 3052.18]  And it was so much fun.
+[3052.68 --> 3054.24]  I'm going to break it apart and do it again.
+[3054.88 --> 3055.66]  I had that much fun.
+[3055.66 --> 3057.56]  Buy some Legos.
+[3057.74 --> 3060.06]  I've never been the break it apart and do it again kind of person.
+[3060.18 --> 3064.00]  I would just do it once, put it on the shelf and stare at it.
+[3065.34 --> 3066.56]  I might also do that.
+[3066.88 --> 3067.92]  It was a lot of work.
+[3068.58 --> 3072.56]  It's cool because, like, you're building a thing and you get this feeling of accomplishment,
+[3072.56 --> 3075.38]  even though what you have done really isn't that hard.
+[3076.12 --> 3077.72]  But it looks cool and you did it.
+[3077.72 --> 3080.38]  But it does prove you can follow directions.
+[3080.80 --> 3081.04]  True.
+[3081.36 --> 3082.52]  I actually failed that part.
+[3082.62 --> 3087.38]  I didn't follow the directions and mine turned out weird, but it doesn't always prove that.
+[3087.76 --> 3090.62]  Did you also color outside of the lines in kindergarten?
+[3091.04 --> 3091.88]  I definitely did.
+[3092.36 --> 3092.58]  Yeah.
+[3092.58 --> 3094.38]  We do a lot of Legos in our house.
+[3094.54 --> 3099.20]  And anytime you have something like that or, like, you can't find the right color block or whatever,
+[3099.30 --> 3101.20]  so you fill it in, we just call it that's being creative.
+[3101.46 --> 3103.08]  You've got to be creative with your Legos.
+[3103.36 --> 3105.76]  I hate that because I'm a perfectionist completionist.
+[3105.82 --> 3107.88]  So I'll look forever for that color.
+[3108.02 --> 3108.98]  I'm like, hours.
+[3109.16 --> 3112.28]  I've got to find a black flat two by one.
+[3112.40 --> 3114.36]  And if I don't find it, I'm not going to finish the piece.
+[3114.52 --> 3114.70]  Yeah.
+[3114.70 --> 3116.80]  That's what we're trying to cut off at the pass with my kids.
+[3116.92 --> 3117.58]  No, that's smart.
+[3117.70 --> 3118.66]  I'm not saying my way is good.
+[3118.66 --> 3122.16]  I just can't stand having that one weird colored thing.
+[3122.44 --> 3123.24]  I'm like you, Jared.
+[3123.54 --> 3130.06]  And it basically creates, like, paralysis where you can't, like, finish the thing until you find the right piece.
+[3130.70 --> 3130.86]  Yeah.
+[3130.94 --> 3132.34]  The black two by one tile.
+[3132.66 --> 3133.80]  Just reimagine it.
+[3133.84 --> 3135.16]  You're practicing being creative.
+[3135.90 --> 3136.96]  I don't want to be creative.
+[3137.08 --> 3138.90]  I want to follow directions and make the thing.
+[3139.12 --> 3139.38]  Right.
+[3139.48 --> 3140.26]  I want to look awesome.
+[3140.92 --> 3141.20]  Yeah.
+[3141.88 --> 3142.92]  Different personalities.
+[3143.14 --> 3143.52]  Hilarious.
+[3144.10 --> 3144.40]  All right.
+[3144.40 --> 3144.86]  Let's move on.
+[3144.92 --> 3145.92]  Amelia, what are you excited about?
+[3146.40 --> 3147.16]  I have two things.
+[3147.16 --> 3149.98]  The first one is just a concept.
+[3150.28 --> 3151.10]  Web RTC.
+[3151.38 --> 3152.58]  I was playing with it recently.
+[3152.84 --> 3153.66]  It's super cool.
+[3153.94 --> 3155.04]  I had never played with it.
+[3155.90 --> 3159.96]  Multiplayer web things are very easy when you're using it.
+[3160.32 --> 3161.34]  Have you hung out with Feras?
+[3161.98 --> 3162.88]  I haven't, actually.
+[3163.60 --> 3164.28]  But I want to.
+[3164.62 --> 3169.20]  Oh, I got to get you to cross those streams because, yeah, he's a Web RTC fiend.
+[3169.68 --> 3169.94]  Yeah.
+[3170.02 --> 3170.96]  It's super cool.
+[3171.16 --> 3176.38]  It just, like, connects your browser to other people using the same connection.
+[3176.38 --> 3177.50]  I don't know what they're called.
+[3177.78 --> 3181.34]  But it's, like, really hard until it clicks.
+[3181.48 --> 3185.90]  And then it's really easy to do things that I am very impressed by.
+[3186.64 --> 3192.54]  And the other thing I'm really excited about right now is generative art, which there's a lot of opinions here.
+[3192.54 --> 3197.20]  But I feel like, as developers, we want to be creative with our code.
+[3197.70 --> 3200.72]  Unless maybe we're being perfectionist about what we want to create.
+[3200.72 --> 3212.78]  But it's, like, Legos in the browser where you can use, like, random as part of what creates the art or some other input that you don't totally have control over.
+[3212.92 --> 3217.16]  So you're kind of, like, working with a computer to make something cool.
+[3217.34 --> 3218.80]  And you don't have to do it all yourself.
+[3218.96 --> 3224.92]  And you can use these skills that you use every day to make things that please you visually.
+[3224.92 --> 3228.28]  So it's been something I've been really enjoying recently.
+[3229.18 --> 3229.62]  Very cool.
+[3229.74 --> 3232.76]  So I like the conversation around generative art.
+[3232.90 --> 3236.28]  Especially when you get, like, into the full deep learning generated art.
+[3236.50 --> 3239.80]  And, like, authorship and intellectual property and these things.
+[3239.92 --> 3244.26]  Because it gets very gray in terms of who actually created what.
+[3244.84 --> 3248.84]  And do we assign authorship to GPUs, etc.
+[3248.84 --> 3250.22]  K-Ball, what are you excited about?
+[3250.86 --> 3255.96]  I am excited about a virtual conference that happened recently that I did not attend.
+[3256.08 --> 3257.72]  But they have posted all their videos online.
+[3257.84 --> 3258.82]  And I've been going through them.
+[3259.28 --> 3264.94]  Which is LeadDev did a conference focused on Staff Plus.
+[3265.20 --> 3271.06]  So, like, senior IC engineers that has a bunch of really cool stuff in it.
+[3271.06 --> 3282.24]  And I find it, I'm really happy to see people publishing content that is focused on senior folks that are still in very technical roles.
+[3282.40 --> 3287.42]  And not just assuming that as you get senior you become a manager and only providing engineering manager content.
+[3288.20 --> 3288.78]  So, yeah.
+[3289.02 --> 3289.88]  Go check that out.
+[3289.98 --> 3290.42]  It's free.
+[3290.50 --> 3292.58]  You create a free account and you can access all of it.
+[3292.78 --> 3296.02]  And we will, I'm sure, have a link in the show notes.
+[3296.60 --> 3296.92]  Absolutely.
+[3297.08 --> 3297.60]  Very cool.
+[3297.60 --> 3303.54]  Well, last but not least, I'm excited because we are getting close to episode number 200.
+[3303.90 --> 3309.38]  And we'd love to do something special since it's a nice round number.
+[3309.46 --> 3311.54]  We don't have any ideas as of yet.
+[3311.56 --> 3315.26]  So, we are soliciting ideas from listeners in the JS Party channel.
+[3315.76 --> 3324.58]  We'll, of course, be thinking as well about something we can do to celebrate a little bit our 200th episode, which is five recordings away.
+[3324.58 --> 3333.48]  What I'm not so excited about is that our rival podcast, GoTime, those ghouls over there at GoTime, are hitting 200 this week.
+[3334.08 --> 3336.36]  And they have stolen our front-end feud format.
+[3336.72 --> 3338.58]  They're calling it Gophers Say.
+[3339.24 --> 3340.86]  And they're recording that one live.
+[3340.94 --> 3346.62]  So, if you love front-end feud and you don't mind, you can stomach a little bit of people talking about Golang and stuff,
+[3346.62 --> 3352.82]  then I guess you could listen to that because it'll probably be a lot like front-end feud, but just a poor impression.
+[3353.26 --> 3355.04]  So, I can't exactly recommend it.
+[3355.62 --> 3361.24]  But I'm not going to stop you from going to gotime.fm slash 200 and listening to that episode.
+[3361.52 --> 3367.60]  But then come right back to us and help us figure out an even better thing to do for our 200th episode.
+[3367.94 --> 3369.46]  Coming right up.
+[3369.46 --> 3374.40]  Hey, there's a Golang WebAssembly compilation and runtime, right?
+[3374.50 --> 3378.24]  So, you could imagine that they're talking about that and it's for the web.
+[3378.52 --> 3382.64]  And therefore, if they knew what they were doing, would be talking about it on JS Party.
+[3382.80 --> 3384.80]  But since they don't, they can do it on their own episode.
+[3385.02 --> 3385.62]  I like that.
+[3385.68 --> 3389.14]  This is kind of like GoTime web dev fanfic.
+[3389.30 --> 3392.58]  Like, you're just listening, but you're tricking yourself into a whole other storyline
+[3392.58 --> 3394.60]  where they're actually web people.
+[3395.04 --> 3396.44]  This might work.
+[3396.44 --> 3400.90]  If you can pull that off, you should come on JS Party for our next Explain It Like I'm 5
+[3400.90 --> 3404.34]  because you have a great imagination and you can probably explain things much better than
+[3404.34 --> 3406.46]  I can like I'm 5.
+[3406.52 --> 3408.86]  Well, that's our show for today.
+[3409.00 --> 3409.86]  Thanks for hanging out.
+[3410.38 --> 3411.50]  Hopefully, you learned something.
+[3411.72 --> 3415.48]  Hopefully, you laughed a little or at least rolled your eyes a lot.
+[3416.28 --> 3419.46]  K-Ball, Amelia, and Chris, thanks for partying with me today.
+[3419.62 --> 3421.02]  That's JS Party for this week.
+[3421.58 --> 3422.78]  We'll talk to you all next time.
+[3422.78 --> 3422.86]  Bye.
+[3426.44 --> 3430.52]  Thanks for listening to JS Party.
+[3430.72 --> 3432.70]  We appreciate you spending your time with us.
+[3432.98 --> 3439.02]  If you haven't joined the community yet, fix that bug at jsparty.fm slash community.
+[3439.38 --> 3445.68]  Get yourself some comfy threads at jsparty.fm slash merch and take it to the next level by
+[3445.68 --> 3447.02]  joining Changelog++.
+[3447.38 --> 3453.32]  That gets you all of our shows ad-free, occasional bonus content, plus that warm fuzzy feeling you
+[3453.32 --> 3455.92]  get by supporting people who make cool stuff for you.
+[3456.32 --> 3459.02]  Learn more at changelog.com slash plus plus.
+[3459.68 --> 3463.60]  JS Party is produced by Jared Santo with music by Breakmaster Cylinder.
+[3463.82 --> 3466.96]  We are brought to you by Fastly, LaunchDarkly, and Linode.
+[3467.60 --> 3475.50]  Next up on the pod, Nick invites Doug Martin to the show to talk about NestJS, GraphQL, and
+[3475.50 --> 3477.24]  of course, TypeScript.
+[3477.78 --> 3478.78]  So stay tuned.
+[3478.92 --> 3481.30]  That one will be hitting your podcast feed next week.
+[3481.30 --> 3494.34]  Don't be the last kid on your block to get Firebase JS SDK 9.0.0.
+[3494.54 --> 3495.06]  Don't be.
diff --git "a/Fastify served with a refreshing Pino \357\243\277\303\274\303\247\342\210\221_transcript.txt" "b/Fastify served with a refreshing Pino \357\243\277\303\274\303\247\342\210\221_transcript.txt"
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..066cbcdb0937f440258e1edfaaf7cd2abaed5f5d
--- /dev/null
+++ "b/Fastify served with a refreshing Pino \357\243\277\303\274\303\247\342\210\221_transcript.txt"	
@@ -0,0 +1,457 @@
+**Amal Hussein:** Hello, party people! We are so, so, so excited to be with you today. We're excited to welcome a very special guest, Matteo Collina. Welcome, Matteo.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Hi, Amal! I'm so happy to be here again.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Hello! We're so excited to have you. And on the panel with us we've got Nick Nisi today. Hello, welcome, Nick.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Hoy-hoy. Excited to be here!
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Hi, Nick.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, so we could probably invite Matteo on for the next month continuously and not run out of topics, but we're gonna try and limit the discussion today to talk about his open source work on Node, and specifically a couple of really popular packages in the Node ecosystem that he's the lead maintainer of - Fastify and Pino.
+
+Fastify is one of the fastest Node web server frameworks out there, no pun intended... And Pino is an incredible logger; definitely, the fastest and best-in-class logger in the Node.js ecosystem. I'm a proud user of it.
+
+So yeah, Matteo, before we get into the specifics on the libraries, why don't you introduce yourself? Tell us a little bit about your background, how you got started in open source, and what led you to becoming a member of the Node.js Technical Steering Committee?
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Okay. So this could be the show, right? You have asked me that question - I'll try to limit it. It's a long story; I'm going to cut it very shortly. I started coding very early; way too early that's healthy for a kid, so that's probably maybe not something that we all want to do with our kids... I don't know if I'm going to put my kid in front of a keyboard, coding at four... That was my dad -- I was watching my dad coding when I was four. That was probably a little bit too early.
+
+\[04:17\] Anyway, that was the starting time. I started wobbling into the open source world and community... I started using Linux when I was a teenager, something like that. Linux came in CDs at the time; that was a long, long time ago. Then - what else? Well, after that I went to a very, very normal thing; I went to uni. I did my Bachelor and Master...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Did you finish?
+
+**Matteo Collina:** I finished them all. I enjoyed my time. And then it was not enough, and then I did a Ph.D. Well, I went back one year in the industry here in Italy. I did not like what I saw in the industry. During my time at my Master I was studying how to build custom databases, robot arms, how to do the equations to send a rocket to the atmosphere... That was the type of stuff that I was doing.
+
+After that, I ended up writing the \[05:14\] WSDL, SOAP... A lot of libraries that start with a J at the beginning...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\] PTSD for me.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yeah... Java being 1, 2, 3 at the time, my first encounter with open source was when I tried to fix -- so when I was doing my Master, I started publishing... npm came our, more or less -- I don't remember... Not npm. GitHub came out more or less like -- I don't remember the year. I can probably look it up. But this was probably 2008-2009 type of years. I started publishing my first thing. I was really into Ruby at the time. I was not using Ruby in my job, and I loved it, and I really wanted to use Ruby and Ruby on Rails... But I loved the Ruby language more than Rails, for whatever reason...
+
+Then I went one year in the industry, didn't like what I saw, tried to get a job out of Italy, apply to a few of the big co's... Typically, I wanted to move to London, so London jobs, so I applied to a few there... I failed spectacularly at all the job interviews, so - you know what, folks? If you fail at job interviews, it's totally normal. The miracle is when you pass. It's not when you fail. The starting point is -- I will know about that, I will understand that later in my career... But at the time it was totally not clear to my why I kept failing at those interviews... And I was passing the interviews in Italy, but I did not want those kinds of jobs; I really wanted to bring up the boundaries of --
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You wanted to write Java... Java Beans, like all those other cool kids.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yeah, yeah. The problem was not even that; the problem was it was not the top, latest Java; it was the Java five years before, the problem... I don't know, sorry; I was not very excited.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Not to go on a huge tangent, but - you know, I mean, I am Amal... I'm curious - in Europe I always hear this "Oh, Europe is 5-10 years behind the United States when it comes to enterprise infrastructure technology." Would you say that that's accurate?
+
+**Matteo Collina:** No, it's not that -- it depends. It was like that, especially Italy, when I entered the career. However, it's accelerating significantly things here in Europe.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You have more engineers.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** No, it's not about the engineers. It's about the consumers.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** But you do have more engineers, right? There are more software engineers in Europe.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** \[07:56\] I don't know the stats. What I know is that the consumers expect a certain level of quality now. And it's driven by big U.S. companies. So they want that same level of quality for products built in Europe. So even for internal company software, that's usually not very nice. So they expect this level of technology and this level of user experience. Because of that, that has crippled down into "How can we implement those things? How can we improve the user experience for our products?" So this has been pushing the technology in Europe to catch up.
+
+So it's catching up. It's still not probably there, it's probably a little bit late, at least on a certain class of companies, but it's catching up quickly. We start to see some good class of startups emerging, producing really interesting technology, especially in London, Amsterdam... We even have a few interesting startups in Italy, which - you know, one that raised 300 million this year.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Wow.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** I was just like, "Whoa...!"
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Is it 300 million lira?
+
+**Matteo Collina:** No. Euros. The lira is -- okay, you want some? I have some. It's nothing anymore.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** My parents are Somali, and they both left when they were teenagers, but shilling is the same thing; it's buckets and buckets of cash to buy a cup of tea.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yeah. So... It's like that. So after this I ended up going back to doing a Ph.D. Doing my Ph.D. - I started my Ph.D. at the beginning of 2011, and at that time Node.js existed already. The super-famous talk from Ryan Dahl happened, and there was a lot of very interesting communities forming.
+
+At that same time there were people trying to put JS everywhere. So they were doing the Node bots, they were doing the drones, they were doing all the things JavaScript. JavaScript all the things. So I tried this, and I wanted to do a certain level of research during my Ph.D, and instead of using -- it was alone, and they wanted to be very productive... And I know how faster I could write Ruby compared to what I could write Java... But Ruby - let's face it, it's slow. It was a very slow language at the time. You could not do parallel programming, and so on. And I needed a language that will perform as good as Java, but will take a third of the time, or a tenth of the time to write, because I was alone. I tried Node, ran some benchmarks, was totally --
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Mind-blown.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** ...mind-blown. Then I tried npm, and when I tried npm, it was totally clear to me Node.js was going to take over the industry. The reason - it's Maven.
+
+**Jingle:** \[10:51\] Please hold, we're having technical difficulties. \[11:02\]
+
+**Matteo Collina:** One of the key fundamental issues in Maven was that you could not have the same library at two different versions at the same time. So let's say that you wanted to use a library that had a certain version of a utility library. Now, that utility library yourself, your software will not compile, because it needed to all be at the same version, which meant that people could not break backward compatibility and innovate freely. npm allows this. npm allows the same dependency to be present thousands of times, at all the possible versions, which means that we have solved the reusing software problem. It also means that Node modules become the heaviest subject in the Universe. We have been successful at it. We have been trying hard to make that happen for at least as long as I've been in the industry, and with npm we actually reached that state.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Okay, so I feel like it's not an issue for me, them being the heaviest objects in the universe, because it's a server technology, it's never getting shipped in the browser... But I feel like these issues with dependencies really became a problem once the frontend community hijacked Node as their build chain and their dependency management.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** \[12:18\] It's totally fine. They are not shipping them in the brow-so, all of those things that I'm pressing in Node modules, most of them is not stuff that you want to ship in the browser anyway. It's all the toolchain. In fairness, it's bytes on disk, disk is very cheap; it's bytes on network, and bytes on the wire are somewhat cheap in the vast majority of the world where you would develop software anyway... So the reality is that that's fine. And that's the price for using a lot of software. You can build everything yourself and not have all those things you have to download.
+
+But I don't know, for all my time, I have been -- you know, at some point, in order to have the new version of Red Hat, I needed to receive a CD. You see, that was slow. Downloading a few megabytes over the wire - well, it's not slow. But that thing would actually -- the full disk was 600 MB, and now a Node module is a hundred and something...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, I think that's a really good analogy, because you're absolutely right - you're not getting CDs in the mail; you're just able to npm install. I think the concern is more that bytes to parse, and then making users wait while your JavaScript is parsing, or creating janky experiences because your JavaScript is parsing - that's the problem. And I understand, open source is working, because I think most people only write like 10% of the code actually needed to run their application these days. Everything else, that 90% comes from open source modules... And yeah, if you wanted to write that yourself, knock yourself out; you're not gonna do as good of a job, I can tell you that, because you're not gonna beat millions of developer brains... But it's still something that you need to manage, right? And I can tell you, when I'm picking a package, I have a rubric, like "How many dependencies does this package have?" Because I don't want my packages to have a lot of dependencies. I don't need packages that bring their own luggage to the party. It's like, okay, you're my house guest, you're not allowed to invite your own set of guests. So I try to keep it very light with my dependencies as much as possible, and I'm very careful about the number of dependencies I use that require peer dependencies as well... Because peer dependencies is like an ecosystem that you need to keep an eye on. So there is a cost, is what I'm trying to say, Matteo.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yeah, absolutely. I don't think this is simple in any form or fashion. It's just that the level of efficiency that the industry requires to us right now in how we develop software - it's impossible to reach without massive software reuse across projects.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right, exactly. And so what led you down the path of -- because you now have hundreds of npm packages...
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Four hundred and something. Something like that.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And a lot of them are quite popular... So what led you down that rabbit hole? Were you your first customer?
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yeah, totally. I code things for myself. No, it's not necessarily true -- I code these because I need them to exist. So I'm not necessarily certain that I need -- I first try small, with low investments of time, to develop something, and then invest more time as I see if something is getting popular and it's useful. So it's a slow curve. Typically, I am the first client of all my modules. I need something to exist in order to what I want to do. This is also part of my job... I work for a company called NearForm, I am essentially a consultant... I help companies using JavaScript. That's part of what NearForm does... Which means that we have teams, we have our clients and so on that might need something.
+
+\[16:08\] So I have a very good pulse of -- I always had a very good pulse... I've been at this company for seven years and nine months, or something, so I have a good pulse on what the user needs. I can see what is missing and I can start developing it. Or I can foretell problems and plan for the worst, and start something, so that when the time is right, you have it done. And that was kind of what happened. So that's kind of what I've done so far. In between, I ended up doing a Ph.D, and that's a story on itself. Then I worked for NearForm. That was the gap that we didn't cover.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And then somewhere you also joined the Node.js Technical Steering Committee...
+
+**Matteo Collina:** I joined after. I joined the Node Tech Steering Committee before Pino and Fastify existed. First of all, I tried to work on Node core for a while; at that point in time, the leadership was at Joyent; they were doing a really bad job at maintaining Node, and they did not want Node to evolve. They considered things done. They had a huge amount of bugs to fix, and they didn't want them to be fixed.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Interesting. I'm like, "Okay, we should do a show on this. Open source drama..."
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yeah... That's open source drama.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Drama is very real. But yeah, despite it all, what's it been like being on the TSC? It's a very elite club of people, but also, there's a lot of --
+
+**Matteo Collina:** It's very simple to get on the TSC. It's not hard.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Okay...
+
+**Matteo Collina:** It's not hard in the sense of "Oh, this is an impossible job and you need to be such an incredible developer to be there." That's not true, okay? What is true is that in order to be at the TSC you need to keep a same level of contributions to Node.js through the times. So it means that you need to keep a strong, consistent number of contributions for 3-6 months more or less, and show that you deeply care about the success of the platform. After that, somebody will tap your shoulder and you will get on the TSC. So that is the simplicity of it. It just requires hard work. It's probably three months to become a collaborator and another 3-6 months to get to the TSC, if you want to reach. So if you want to get there, it's probably a one-year project, overall. That's cool. It's not something that --
+
+The problems that we fix at the TSC can be hard, it can be a lot of drama... The Java ones are the worst. From time to time we want to discuss technical problems and thing, and instead we ended up discussing drama. There has been a lot of drama over the years; some of that was handled well, some of that was handled less well... I'm proud of certain things, I'm not proud of certain others... We have our own scars as a community. However, the project now is in a very good shape. We are very focused on shipping new things, improving it where it's lacking... I feel it's moving into the right direction. We have shipped ESM; this was a miracle. Everybody was betting against ESM. We can talk about ESM.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh my God, ESM has gotta be its own show. We need like an ESM follow-up.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yeah... Yeah, but you know, we need to invite a bunch more people, not me. Invite Myles to talk about ESM.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Myles is like the poster child for Node's implementation of ESM, but...
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** But I think for me what's really impressive, obviously on the JavaScript, on the language side - the TC39 has been kicking butt for quite a while. They've been really helping shape the language and evolve it in the right direction. But I think on the other side of that, I think Node contributors and collaborators have really done a good job of keeping up with the spec; more and more of new features in the language are being supported natively, you don't need that experimental flag, or harmony flag as much...
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yup.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And then also modules. That's a huge, huge win. I don't know if people really fully understand how difficult it is to implement a modules system in Node... Because Node had its own module system; getting that to work, and be back-compat, and not break the web... That's a huge, huge accomplishment. So really, kudos to the team.
+
+**Break:** \[20:34\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That was a fascinating journey through the early days of Node and your early career... Very exciting. You were also on JS Party 103, talking about Streams. So we've definitely heard some great things from you, more great history, and we were just talking in the break about how we need to have you back. So we will definitely do that. But I definitely wanted to segue us into your libraries, and particularly Fastify and Pino. If I understand correctly, Fastify came out of Pino, so maybe let's start with Pino, talk about what it is and how it came to be...
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Pino is a logging library for Node. Now, logging - what is logging? Logging is the thing that you do -- you know, the most crude way of logging in Node is doing console log something. It's printing on a terminal However, when you're printing on a terminal, you really don't want to be just printing on a terminal, because you want to add a lot of other metadata to it. You want to add the timestamp, the time at which you have been logging your things, you want to add - this is one, for example... You can add the time -- you might want to change and make it pretty, and add colors, or you might want to change the format and ship it to Elasticsearch, for example... Or OpenSearch, whatever... You know, let's be friendly to everybody. This is another fight that I don't want to open, but this is an interesting one to have on this show... Anyway. There is Elasticsearch, you might want to ship it to syslog, you might want to get it collected via the Docker logs, or CloudWatch, or I don't know...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Logrotate.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Or Logrotate! Okay. So one of the earliest problems in Node was - when Node came to be, people started developing loggers, that are useful for creating structured information from your application. And they are often required even for some regulations, or for actually knowing what is going on in your app the moment you have a bug. So - very useful. It saved my life a few times already. You really want a good logging library in your system, and use it.
+
+\[24:04\] So what happened at the time was the popular ones were -- we're talking about 2016, something like that. In 2016, there were two main popular logging libraries; one was Bunyan, developed by Joyent, and one was Winston, maintained by our friend, Charlie Robbins, Indexzero. However, they both had the same approach, which is "Oh, I follow the Java approach for loggers, which is I have a logger that wraps a logger, that wraps a logger (three, four times) before I am going to write down to a file." And they have this approach of nesting things, and being able to create multiple loggers, and so on, create multiple destinations, and so on and so forth.
+
+The typical problem those loggers had - one was throughput, and the other one was memory usage. So it was very hard to control the amount of memory those loggers were using before writing. You know, you want your log -- you do console log, right? Node.js is a synchronous platform. But you're not waiting for that log line to be written to continue. However, you're doing something synchronous, but it's something that is asynchronous in nature, or synchronous in nature. So you have this dichotomy. And in some cases, memory could actually explode, because let's say that you want to send all your logs to Elasticsearch, for example - then you might produce more logs than what you can ship to Elasticsearch in time, and in the meanwhile, your memory will start ballooning. All of that comes to be very complicated, okay?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Well, I do think log management is honestly one of the most complicated things, that seems so simple on the surface.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yeah, and it's also so boring.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yes. \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, it's like the least glamorous, attractive thing. It's like, "Oh yeah, I've just gotta build a logger. I've gotta find a way to get my logs to the cloud, off of the server." I need to get it to another cloud, or I need to get it to another part of the cloud, to be more specific. It's crazy. And then there's always a cost to logging, and people always forget that. You have to log carefully, and selectively...
+
+**Matteo Collina:** And it's very tricky, exactly. So... At the time, I started doing some performance optimizations to clients' application. There were a lot of startups and big companies that started shipping Node.js projects at scale, and they were having such a big problem.
+
+It turned out that it was -- this is a fun story, as usual... I was in London for doing one of those consulting with my friend, David Mark Clements, that you have met, Amal... And I don't know, Nick, if you have met Dave, but we have some stories together... He was working with NearForm at the time and we were doing a lot of those things together. We were doing some consulting in London.
+
+We at the company do some performance optimizations and so on, and then we reached a point that their biggest problem was the logger. They were logging so much... They were not really logging so much, but the main bottleneck for their application was the logger. And I was asked "What should we use?" They told me, "We've found out that the bottleneck was the logger", and then they asked us "What should we use?" This was Bunyon, and this is the most popular logger. We really like this logger. What can we do?" So I said "Well, the only thing that I can do is write one." So we start writing a very, very minimal version of the logger.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's so heroic. That's like the romantic comedy line...
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Wait a second...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** "If this most popular logger is treating you so badly, the best thing I can do is write you a new one, baby..."
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yeah... And it was so romantic. So that happened, okay... And we started developing the thing. And it's called Pino, because Pine was taken. And in front of my house at the time there was a pine. That's it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** But that's Italian for pine, right? It's not in English.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yes, of course.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[28:11\] All of your packages were actually Italian. I mean, what's the Italian way to say "fast"?
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Veloce.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Veloce. See, Veloce would be a great name for a Node package...
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yeah, I know... It went for Fastify at the time. Anyway. This shipped in the summer of 2016, something like that. And we presented at a talk at Node Summit, I think it was August 2016. But the module was already done; we were using it in production. The typical thing is memory reduction in such cases were dropped by 200-300 MB, easy, and throughput was -- removing the bottleneck, so the throughput was 1,5 or 2 times, essentially, for the application with the problem. So a success.
+
+The problem is, all those loggers, Bunyon and Winston, were doing a lot too many things, and we didn't need to do all those things to log. They just want to write things out as fast as possible, to STDOUT, because that's what we use; we use containers, right? We don't want to rotate logfiles, or ship it to Elasticsearch on process, and so on. No. Just send out to standard output, or write them to a file, and then somebody else will pick those things up and ship it where it needs to be shipped... Which is the philosophy of cloud-based logging anyway, so why the heck would you want to do something different?
+
+So after that, I think I was having a beer or dinner with David, and David said "Yeah, we have done Pino... So what are we doing next?" And I told him, "Well, the next biggest bottleneck for Node.js is Express."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah...
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Express is slow. Just by using Express, you are cutting your throughput by five. And Hapi was worse.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Is this as opposed to the vanilla HTTP module?
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yeah, exactly.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Interesting.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** I don't remember what was at the time is 5-6-10 right now. It's not 10, but it's probably 5-6 times.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Is Koa fast? I've never done any benchmarking for Koa.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** It's slightly faster. It's kind of 2x compared to Express. Probably half what Node Core can do. Still, you're still paying a significant penalty on using those frameworks.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And what about -- I'm just curious... I'm sorry, this is the stuff I nerd out about. So at Netflix I know they're using a bunch of Node.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Restify. Restify. And Express. And they are more or less happy, because they have a lot of codebase using it, developed back in the day. So it's probably not worth to change it unless you really need to. The problem was already on the TSC, and the question was "Why the heck are we spending effort in improving the performance of Node if then you use a logger and a web framework that will destroy your performance?" So it's not worth optimizing Node Core, or improving Node Core if we have those problems in the ecosystem.
+
+So I started doing some research... However, I picked one choice. Writing a web framework. Try to look at the HTTP spec, the GP101 1.1LFC and cry and run away. It's a Gargantuan job. That should be a very important read at every course, bootcamp, university, whatever... But it's a big, big spec.
+
+So I know it was a massive, Gargantuan task, so I decided "Well, I can't do this alone, and I can't get NearForm to pay for it, because it's a new web framework and it will take years to get it done. So how can we get it done?" I decided, "Well, let's see if there is somebody else that is seeing the same problems, and if they wanted to join me on that journey."
+
+\[31:59\] At that time I was giving a Node.js workshop in Bologna. One of the students that came there was a university graduate; he was a university student, he was just finishing his degree... Anyway, we were doing that, and at that time he asked me "Well, I want to get into open source", and I said "Well, of course. We can build this together." And he said "Sure, why not.
+
+We started developing this thing together. Then I used a little bit of my open source conference time to develop it. At the beginning it was really conference-driven development, I call it. So you write a talk, and your pitch for a talk, and then you write the software to sustain that talk. I don't know, at the beginning it was something like that to create some attention. However, it became the concept of "Well, if you want something -- it's a very open community, so if you want something to happen, you should join the community." That makes sense; it's an open community.
+
+So this is the source of the problem with Express and Restify. So those communities have a little bit stagnated over the years, because a few individuals kept all the decision-making to themselves, and they did not open it up to everybody to contribute. So instead of saying "Oh, I have a bug", instead of saying "Hey, can you send me a fix?", they were burning out, trying to fix everybody's bug.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, wow.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** I have noticed that, so I know that it was a non-sustainable model. The reason why Fastify instead embraced "If you have a bug with my software, it's your problem, not mine. You have two choices now. Either you fix it yourself, or you pay somebody to fix it. The only thing I'm happy to do is I'm happy to review your fix, and guide you through getting the fix done. That's the only thing that I'm willing to do."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's not a sustainable attitude for somebody who has 400 packages on npm, for God's sake...
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yes, exactly. So I know that it's a tiny fraction of those bugs that I need to fix myself, because probably some of those bugs are not for everybody to fix. There's probably some hard piece of code that very few people can touch; they're not many, but they exist, as in every codebase that has that little file where you hide all your secrets...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, yeah. Under the rug, don't look here... We'll fix some day... There be dragons... All of that stuff.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Apart from those type of files, which have been decreasing
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right, right. No, it's good to encapsulate those files though, right? It's good to have them --
+
+**Matteo Collina:** I'm even better than that. Usually, I put that stuff in a different module...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, nice.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** So all Fastify dirty secrets are not in Fastify. The Fastify codebase is very clean. But there is another module - which I'm not going to mention, because it has a nice story on its own - which has all the secrets, and it's all the dirty code that will make a few of my Node.js colleagues be very nervous about some of the things that I'm doing with Node to make it behave like I want it to behave... But the end result is quite a nice user experience, so I'm very happy about it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, my God... Alright. Well, that's great to know. Thank you for sharing that incredible story. We're gonna take another break and we're gonna get into some of the more specific perks around these really key libraries in the Node.js ecosystem. And then yet, I'm still gonna ask that burning question, "Matteo, what do you think of Deno?" So stay tuned, kids. We'll be right back.
+
+**Break:** \[35:43\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Let's talk about Fastify and get into a little bit more of its features and its API. I guess we can start off and probably presume that it's fast, given the name.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Okay, so Fastify has two goals. One is to not create overhead compared to what Node Core provides. Of course, it's not Rust, so it will have some overhead, but to minimize that overhead compared to what Node.js can provide. This is possible, and in fact, Node.js is as fast as the core HTTP module, by providing a set of added features.
+
+So given that focus on not adding overhead, we add a certain class of features that are very useful for most people developing Node.js applications. And these are the key things that you really want to stay in Fastify, use Fastify for those; probably not for the speed, in most apps. However, Fastify will not let you down when your product starts scaling. So it's having a very good developer experience without overhead.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice. Is there anything that it is sacrificing to stay true to that in terms of not adding too much overhead to the HTTP
+
+**Matteo Collina:** There was more at the beginning than there is now. We have been able to do most things at this point in time. A key part of that experience has been to embrace the concept of plugins. And this is part of the great success of the framework. So instead of middlewares, which is the most popular thing in Express land, we have the concept of plugins. And plugins can either add some functionality to the library... Oh, by the way, Fastify is one critical feature that Express does not have, nor Restify, or Koa, or others. It has a boot sequence. So you can start a Fastify server and it's an asynchronous startup sequence. So you can do your database connections, do your pre-rendering if you want to do pre-rendering of your things... And it's all asynchronous, so you don't need to have that complex codebase at the beginning to bootstrap your Node process... Which can get very ugly. This is a critical feature, because then it enables very fine-grained unit testing of the library. So this is the type of decisions where you can have a great user experience, because testing is as important as the rest.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[40:06\] Before we get into testing though, could you explain to me why this boot sequence is important? Because if I write my asynchronous code with some control flow, I could mimic that boot sequence, yes?
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yes, of course. Of course. So here is a typical problem. You want to start your application, and then you need to connect to your Postgres, Mongo, Redis, MySQL database, or whatever you want to connect to. Then you want to listen, to open the port and listen. Once you know that all your dependencies are up and running, you want to open the port to the world and say "Hey, I am exposing my -- here, I am available. It is a port. You can start sending me HTTP requests." The reason why you want your boot sequence to be controlled, fine-grain-controlled, is because you want to be able to unit-test them. And this -- I'm going back to testing. You want to be able to spin up multiple instances of your app, one for each of your tests. The predominant pattern back in 2015-2016 was - and it still is, to some extent, in certain companies, is to have one global Express app, or Restify, or Hapi, that's more or less exposed as a singleton, and it's there to exist.
+
+And then you have the problem that when you run tests against that, you start having flaky tests, or conflicting tests, or you have problems with mocking, for example; you have problems with ensuring that your code is well-written, and tested, and ends up being even reusable, because then I can pack things up in a certain way and reuse them across several areas of my code. So that is part of the reason why Fastify has a boot sequence.
+
+On top of that boot sequence, it loads multiple plugins one at a time. They are loaded as a reentrant graph, so you can load one plugin that can have its own dependencies, that can have their own dependencies, and so on and so forth... And they will all be loaded one at a time. And these become the hard things. All of these can be written using AsyncAwait or callbacks. And you can even await in between, so that "Oh, I want to wait until this tree of plugins is loaded, and then I want to execute some more code." And all of this is seamlessly done by Fastify, and all of these can be several nesting levels of plugins. I've seen it in the wild... And it's probably the most important feature, because it enables reuse.
+
+I can even develop a good chunk of my whole application as its own plugin, and then later on think "Oh I have all this part of my app; instead of deploying inside my container, I can take and put it in a Lambda..." And the only thing that I need to do is to change how I start my server and use the Lambda adapter and it's done. Or I want to take it and deploy it in a microservice, and then I can do that as well. It takes very little effort to move those things around.
+
+So that type of flexibility is more or less -- almost unique in the frameworks. It's also the fact that that flexibility does not come at a huge performance penalty, so you will still get more or less a consistent level of throughput throughout the -- as much as you add complexity to a Fastify application.
+
+So while Express, for example, decrease very quickly, even more when you add a lot of complexity, especially on the routing side... It has a very naive router, which is great simplicity, because a lot of people can understand it very quickly how it works. However, it's also not great for perf. It's the most naive router that you can implement. Just a set of regular expressions and test them one at a time.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. And order matters.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** \[44:06\] In Fastify order matters, but they are created in a shared data structure, so it's called a tree, and it's a radix prefix tree, and it's a complex data structure, built more or less for this specific use case, where all the routes are being inserted in. And it's actually pretty fast.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** What kind of a tree did you say it was?
+
+**Matteo Collina:** It's a radix prefix tree. I'm going to paste it in the chat.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, we'll have to put that in our show notes. Okay, so Express was really cool because of middleware, right? Everybody loved middleware; easy to use, easy to understand. You're saying not the best to scale, right? So could you explain more specifically, or even if you have to repeat yourself, I apologize... But the actual difference between middleware patterns and Fastify pluggin pattern. What if I want something to work like middleware, right?
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Perfect. Let's talk about how middleware works, okay? Whenever a request comes in, you add a bunch of middlewares to your applications. Each one of them, they have this pattern; they say "if something" and then they do whatever they need to do.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right, right.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** So if you want to parse a body, if per request.method === body, I am parsing a body. Or if this method matches a certain prefix, then I want all those requests to be authenticated, for example. Okay?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Correct.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Now, a typical Express application has between 20 to 30 middlewares installed before it reaches any of the routes. So for each one of them, in order to fully implement that pattern, you need to have a tree function call. So it's a tree nested function call for each one of them.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Wow, okay... I can see why this isn't scaling... \[laughs\]
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Now, if none of them triggers, or if some of them triggers, whatever, you are at least talking about a call stack of more or less a hundred call stack, a hundred functions nested within each other.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Geez.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yeah. So this is the reason why the middleware pattern is problematic.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Let me clarify that though, Matteo... Is it the middleware pattern, or is it Express' implementation of the middleware pattern?
+
+**Matteo Collina:** It's the middleware pattern as a whole, in the sense of it comes -- like, JavaScript does not have tail call optimization. If it had tail call optimization, things will be different. But things are, with JavaScript being what it is...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Didn't we implement that with ES6?
+
+**Matteo Collina:** No, that was scrapped.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Every engine didn't do it...
+
+**Matteo Collina:** No, they didn't do it. So it's not there. Anyway, the problem is that -- you know, you put all those calls in the call stack, okay? Now, the fundamental issue instead is what we do in Fastify is if you want to have a certain class of routes authenticated, we only run the authentication logic for those routes.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And is this because the data structure stores that information?
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yes.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** A-ha! So this is the beauty of data structures, you know? It looked like a logic path for your code. Without them, you're just running around blind, doing everything, checking all the things.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yes.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** But yeah, Memoization, and using keys... I mean, this is what it's made for.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** In Express and Restify and Koa and all those things you have your routes, you have your middlewares coming in one at a time. You can only do that because you never know when you will encounter a route. So with Fastify, the first thing that we do is routing. We decide what is the route that's going to match.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Honestly, that's what I want out of a web framework, is routing.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** \[47:58\] Yes. So it decides what routes you're going to hit. And this is one of the limitations of the framework. In Express you could do "Oh, I'm writing a route, but if I can decide I'm not handling this payload, I can bump it to the next one in the chain."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** In Express, you could do that. You can't do it in Fastify. In Fastify, whenever a route is settled, it's settled. You can't unsettle it. And this is one of the limitations that we were talking about, that you asked me if there is limitations... This is one of the decisions that we had to take.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So what happens though -- because that's the beauty of Express; you can just go "Next..." Right?
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yes, exactly. You can do that in Fastify.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So does that put that onus back onto the caller?
+
+**Matteo Collina:** So what we do is that you call it with a given route... So in that route, we decide what code is going to be executed, and what -- we call them "lifecycle hooks." Essentially, we do something like when we receive a request, something before the handle is called, we all do something after the body is parsed, so there are moments where you can inject your code in the sequence... And then we execute your function code, and then you can execute some more things at the end.
+
+And end the cycle ok. It's very straightforward, and there are no weird turns here. The weird turns are exception paths, and so on. So in this way, the code can be very streamlined.
+
+The logic that I cannot write -- and you were right, there's no Next, in the sense of... The next level, there is a Done. We call it Done in Fastify, to differentiate of that... Because even when you resolve a promise, you move to the next step, but you cannot fork it in that sense. So let's say that you have a route that matches -- you put something a route that matches certain IDs, and you want to say "Oh, if I cannot find these in the database, move to this other route that generates it on the fly", or something. You can do that in Fastify. You will need to find some other different pattern to implement this same logic... Which is probably a little bit more complex, but nevertheless, it enables us to minimize the amount of checks that we need to execute to reach your route. So a complex 30-something, 30 or 50-something hook multiplied by three become a smaller, maybe 5-10 multiplied by two. So we have shrinked completely the call stack. And this is part of the reason why Fastify is good. And Fastify can maintain that level of performance while providing a good level of user experience.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That makes a lot of sense. So Fastify does borrow from Express and Hapi a little bit...
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yeah. Both of them, yes.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So how big of a transition is it for users...? For example, I don't need to think about Express. I can use Express without looking at the docs. It's been so many years... It's like the go-to Hello World for Node is Express for me. Not even Koa, as much as I love Koa. If I use Koa, I have to look at the docs. If I use Express, I don't have to look at the docs. So how do you translate that? How do you bring that very familiar experience into the Fastify API?
+
+**Matteo Collina:** We have a bunch of things. First of all, if you are migrating from an Express app, you can actually just run your Express app on top of Fastify.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[laughs\] Well, what about all those call stacks? \[laughs\]
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yeah, well... You know, you can migrate your things a little bit whenever you are ready.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Interesting. Module by module.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** There is a module called Fastify Express, and it enables you to mount a full Express application on top of Fastify model, because that level of routing and checks is so flexible.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Well, what's the actual benefit of doing that though?
+
+**Matteo Collina:** It's a migration benefit. Let's say that you want to migrate your application from using Express to use Fastify. You can do that. Or maybe there is a chunk of your applications that you don't want to migrate, for whatever reason, and you can keep it there and use the rest somewhere else. There's a few companies that have done this, because it's simpler dong that than rewrite that piece, essentially.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[52:16\] Okay. That's very cool. I love the migration benefit... That's very forward-thinking.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yes. We introduced this on Fastify v3. That was not possible in Fastify v2. But we reached that level in Fastify v3 last year.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** For us, we're using NestJS, and we talked about Nest actually last week on the show... And it does by default use Express under the hood, but it can easily use Fastify as well.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yeah, it's pretty good. Now, Nest is not my loaf of bread, as you say, but if you're looking for that type of experience, it's a great framework. I'm typically doing a lot more customer things to benefit from a framework like Nest... But usually, it can be a good choice for a certain class of products.
+
+Going back to the Express thingy - so the API is very familiar. However, with a few key differences. First of all, it supports AsyncAwait out of the box, which is not there with Express. If you try to use AsyncAwait with Express out of the box, you're going to get some very, very bad surprises very soon. So that's the problem that everybody has. And it's not being evolved. Express 4, which is the current released version and stable version of Express was released seven years ago, and not updated in the last two years... It's extremely stable, as you say.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** But it's also not being in--
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, it's quite stagnant. I know.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** It's stagnating at the minute.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** What's familiar if I need to do something really quickly, and it's prototyping code?
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Funnily enough, if you open up the docs, it's actually very -- it will get a sense of familiarity. The snippet is actually very similar to what you would use with Express, the callback version of it. I'm going to pass the callback snippet in here. Oh, it didn't render correctly... But you can find it on the website. It's in there.
+
+But it also supports AsyncAwait, so you can just return from your async function, and if you return an object, that will automatically be rendered as a JSON, which is essentially even simpler than using .send
+
+**Amal Hussein:** No, that's cool. Well, no - Matteo, I mean, Fastify is awesome. Pino -- so I haven't used Fastify in production. I've been following the project, it's very cool, I can't wait to try it at a real company... But I've been using Pino, and I love Pino. Pino is incredible, and the ecosystem around it is great; it's very easy to create your own abstractions, really low overhead... And yeah, log management is hard, people. Don't diss it, okay? A great interview question, I think. \[laughs\]
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Oh, yes. But I don't ask logging when I'm interviewing candidates. So I do interview a lot of candidates at NearForm. We are hiring a lot at the moment. We hired so many people this year. We keep adding more, so if you want to join, nearform.com/careers. Have fun.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** A good place to write JavaScript and learn from people who...
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yeah... And Fastify and Pino... So - going back to Pino, which is actually one of the nicest things, is that we are actually shipping a major release of Pino, Pino 7, which I've been writing on my newsletter for probably the last six months now... So they took a long time to get there. We are moving part of the logic or producing those logs to worker threads.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** But does that mean that you're going to require a certain -- like, you have to have this Node version, and this OS?
+
+**Matteo Collina:** It's supported in Node 12+, so yes.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, I'm saying -- you can't use it with Node 11 or 10.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** \[56:02\] Well, yes, but you should not be using those anyway, because...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Agree, I'm with you. I'm 100% with you. But believe it or not, you and I both know there's lots of servers in the world running --
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Oh, don't tell me. We were working on one this morning...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, yeah. \[laughs\]
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Somebody opened an issue during this show that they were running Node 6 in production, and it was just like...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, my God... Yeah, where is your security and compliance team? But anyways... So Matteo - awesome projects. Thank you so much for all the incredible work that you do in the open source community. And you give back a lot in terms of teaching, you've got some really great courses that I think helped me understand promises and async code a lot better. We'll link those in the show notes, but Matteo has got a lot of really great material on just asynchronousness in JavaScript.
+
+So Matteo, before we end this show, we promised everyone we were gonna talk about Deno briefly... If that's even possible.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Okay.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I'm dying to hear -- I have yet to actually have this conversation with a hardcore Nodie. I've had this conversation with lots of people in the JavaScript community, yet to have this conversation with a Node TSC. What do you think?
+
+**Matteo Collina:** I would say a few things. So the first one is I did not like at all --
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[laughs\] Why am I not surprised? Just kidding, just kidding.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** The marketing approach that they've taken in the first few period of the years - there have been written communicates about essentially that we're stating falsehood, or even pointing out certain things and just telling a very specifically framed part of the story, that did not really reflect reality. Or did reflect some part of the reality without telling the rest. I have been not happy about the way they launched it. Not the way that Ryan did the talk at JSConf. That was fine. The talk was good, and I think it was spot on on most of the things that he said. What I did not -- the follow-on narrative on the project, it was not good. They changed the narrative lately, and started focusing on their own specific features. I like that. I think you should be focusing on your own features and what you can do for the community, and not on throwing rocks at others, without even justifying them, to be honest.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's quite hard to praise new work without totally pooping on old work, right? It takes class, it takes finesse, it takes effort... And sometimes even when people aren't intending to poopoo on someone else's parade, they do so. It's just -- it's nerd-sniping, what we experience... And I'm sorry about that; there's no excuses there.
+
+But that being said, if we kind of move the conversation to focus on the API itself, and the actual code... What are your thoughts there? We are driving a car with three wheels, right? There was definitely some architectural and fundamental decisions that were made. Even Ryan's talk covered --
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Oh, yeah, it's --
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That have hampered the project's success. Nobody knew it was going to take off in the way that it did, right? And similar to JavaScript, right?
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yes, exactly. I am not a fan of the approach. If I code something that I think is not correct, I go in and try to fix what I did. He did something else, okay? That's the part of the approach that I am not fond of. The project itself is amazing. Deno is amazing. It's an amazing piece of software. It's really great. It's actually being the force that was necessary to Node to unlock itself from some of the mud that it was in.
+
+\[01:00:02.02\] Thanks to Deno existing, Node.js could do a lot of things and move faster, and remove a lot of the discussion. At some point, we were sitting a little bit on ourselves; we were like "Oh, we are Node. We are the TSC. We are great" etc. There was a little bit of that. But that's gone, and we are back shipping things, and improving things, and maintaining things.
+
+In fact, some of the stuff -- like, a lot of the drama is not existing even anymore. There was a lot of drama in some years in the Node community. That's gone. So it's no drama; people are doing things, contributing... We are always contributing; maybe some other people are not contributing, but more or less, the level of contribution has stayed the same, and some people went away, and new people came in... It's still a good project to contribute to, and there is a lot of work to do. Things are moving really well, so it was a great benefit for Node.
+
+My main take here is how much time it will take for Node to get the bunch of the features that makes Deno really useful, in which Deno is better - how much time it will take Node to catch up there. Deno is better in a certain area, for example web standard compatibility, and so on and so forth... But the ecosystem is not there, npm is not there... You have a massive amount of ecosystem network value on Node, and Node needs to keep existing to support the JavaScript community. So all those people that started using -- oh, when Deno came out, "Oh, Node modules - boom. Node is dead", and all those things.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, I mean -- people who say that, I'm like, "Jesus Christ, have you looked at the internet?" Like, jQuery is still the most popular framework in the world, and React is 2% of websites, if even... Web devs are in a bubble, and they don't understand the arc of software. Software gets shipped, written, never updated... Okay? \[laughs\]
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yaay!
+
+**Amal Hussein:** But anyways... So just real quick - we'll link to how to get started as a Node contributor, there's some really great guides...
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yes. Nodetodo.org.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** C++ do you need to know versus JavaScript? Like, do you need to even know C++? Can you just know JavaScript?
+
+**Matteo Collina:** You can just know JavaScript, but you might be willing to learn some C++.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, yeah. And why don't I. I learned it, I feel like I'm re-learning it now... But it's a very good investment, learning how to write C++. Learning about memory management - it will change your whole framework as an engineer. So it's good fundamentals, if and when you're ready for that next step. But you don't have to.
+
+So Matteo, where can people find you online? And then there's a Node conference coming up, right?
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Yes... So - a few things. You can find me online at twitter.com/matteocollina. Just reach out and ask me whatever question you want. I have a newsletter, so you can check that. If you like me writing and rambling about Node.js, that's probably the right place. This is a big announcement, because we have NodeConf on the 18th of October; from the 18th to the 21st of October. So it's ten days from now; a little bit more than ten days. So it's ten days from now. You can definitely attend if you want. It's packed of Node core contributors and Node users that are going to speak on how they improve the platform or use the platform that you all know and love. So it's a great conference. I can tell, because I assembled the agenda, so I can definitely tell it's a great agenda. I ended up running most of it, so it's on my major to-do list.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. That's great. Well, thank you again for everything that you've done for our community, all the contributions, all the great software, for making my code better, and everyone else's that uses the software... And yeah, I'm off to go look for that module now, with all the secrets at Fastify. You said Fastify had no dependencies... So is this module like an internal module...?
+
+**Matteo Collina:** No, Fastify has plenty of dependencies.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, okay, okay, okay. I was like, "Wait a second here... I thought it had dependencies."
+
+**Matteo Collina:** No, no.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Okay, so I misunderstood.
+
+**Matteo Collina:** If you find it, shhh...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** If I find it, shush. Okay, got it. That's the name of the package, actually; it's shush. \[laughs\] Alright everyone, thank you again, Matteo. It's a wrap, kids. Talk to you next week. Bye...!
+
+**Matteo Collina:** Bye! Bye-bye!
diff --git "a/Fastify served with a refreshing Pino \360\237\215\267_transcript.txt" "b/Fastify served with a refreshing Pino \360\237\215\267_transcript.txt"
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..810da7e83b05a178d86a220955f656d6163e9851
--- /dev/null
+++ "b/Fastify served with a refreshing Pino \360\237\215\267_transcript.txt"	
@@ -0,0 +1,1274 @@
+[0.00 --> 6.24]  we added a certain class of features that are very useful for most people developing Node.js applications.
+[6.64 --> 11.82]  And these are the key things that you really want to stay in Fastify, use Fastify for those,
+[12.08 --> 14.12]  probably not for the speed in most apps.
+[14.38 --> 18.12]  However, Fastify will not let you down when your product starts scaling.
+[20.76 --> 24.18]  Big thanks to our partners, Linode Fastly and LaunchDarkly.
+[24.18 --> 27.04]  We love Linode. They keep it fast and simple.
+[27.04 --> 30.22]  Get $100 in credit at Linode.com slash changelog.
+[30.32 --> 34.04]  Our bandwidth is provided by Fastly. Learn more at Fastly.com.
+[34.96 --> 39.40]  And get your feature flags powered by LaunchDarkly. Get a demo at LaunchDarkly.com.
+[41.44 --> 45.00]  What's up, party people? This episode is brought to you by Auth0.
+[45.54 --> 50.48]  Auth0 is a for developers, by developers identity platform built for the cloud era.
+[50.84 --> 52.98]  They secure billions of logins every year.
+[52.98 --> 56.14]  Identity is the front door of every user interaction,
+[56.14 --> 59.64]  and the login experience can make or break a user's first impression.
+[60.08 --> 62.92]  Identity and authentication is never a set it and forget it thing.
+[63.30 --> 64.98]  That means when teams decide to roll their own,
+[65.20 --> 68.56]  they are taking on the full burden of constantly evolving industry standards,
+[68.80 --> 70.92]  customer expectations, and data breach tactics.
+[71.16 --> 75.48]  And they often don't have the time, expertise, or resources to meet those needs.
+[75.72 --> 79.42]  This takes away from critical time needed to innovate and to improve their core product.
+[79.42 --> 82.10]  Auth0 has solved this problem for every developer
+[82.10 --> 85.94]  to give teams their time back and to make applications more secure.
+[86.36 --> 89.58]  With Auth0's security, compliance, and industry standards,
+[89.70 --> 91.08]  they're always up to date.
+[91.42 --> 94.84]  Developers are free to provide the login options their users want
+[94.84 --> 97.70]  with the security their application demands.
+[98.14 --> 100.18]  Make login Auth0's problem, not yours.
+[100.74 --> 102.42]  Learn more at Auth0.com.
+[102.66 --> 104.46]  Again, Auth0.com.
+[104.46 --> 116.86]  This is JS Party, your weekly celebration of JavaScript and the web.
+[117.66 --> 123.98]  Our next front-end feud takes place at the React Advanced After Party on October 22nd.
+[124.12 --> 125.14]  It'll be a lot of fun.
+[125.34 --> 126.14]  You don't want to miss it.
+[126.28 --> 128.54]  Find out more at ReactAdvanced.com.
+[129.20 --> 130.26]  All right, let's do it.
+[130.26 --> 131.68]  Hey, it's party time, y'all.
+[131.68 --> 148.38]  Hello, party people.
+[148.78 --> 153.36]  We are so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so excited to be with you today.
+[153.78 --> 157.86]  We're excited to welcome a very special guest, Mateo Colina.
+[158.40 --> 159.22]  Welcome, Mateo.
+[159.22 --> 160.46]  I am Al.
+[160.70 --> 162.72]  I'm so happy to be here again.
+[162.92 --> 163.28]  Hello.
+[164.08 --> 165.18]  We're so excited to have you.
+[165.58 --> 168.14]  And on the panel with us, we've got Nick Nisi today.
+[168.32 --> 168.46]  Hello.
+[168.58 --> 169.14]  Welcome, Nick.
+[169.32 --> 169.84]  Ahoy, ahoy.
+[170.02 --> 170.88]  Excited to be here.
+[171.16 --> 171.58]  Hi, Nick.
+[171.76 --> 172.06]  Yeah.
+[172.18 --> 178.04]  So, we could probably invite Mateo on for the next month, like continuously,
+[178.42 --> 180.48]  and not run out of topics.
+[180.48 --> 187.12]  But we're going to try and limit the discussion today to talk about his open source work on Node
+[187.12 --> 193.00]  and specifically a couple of really popular packages in the Node ecosystem that he's the
+[193.00 --> 196.12]  lead maintainer of, Fastify and Pnode.
+[196.52 --> 203.92]  And so Fastify is like one of the fastest Node web server frameworks out there, no pun intended,
+[204.14 --> 204.36]  right?
+[204.36 --> 209.76]  And Pnode is an incredible logger, definitely the fastest and best in class logger in the Node.js
+[209.76 --> 210.28]  ecosystem.
+[210.94 --> 212.18]  I'm a proud user of it.
+[212.68 --> 213.74]  So, yeah.
+[213.88 --> 217.68]  So, Mateo, before we get into the specifics on the libraries, why don't you introduce yourself?
+[217.86 --> 222.80]  Can you tell us a little bit about your background, how you got started in open source, and what
+[222.80 --> 226.70]  led you to becoming a member of the Node.js Technical Steering Committee?
+[226.70 --> 227.14]  Okay.
+[227.62 --> 230.16]  So, this could be the show, right?
+[230.26 --> 231.18]  You have asked me a question.
+[231.26 --> 232.14]  I try to limit it.
+[232.42 --> 233.54]  It's a long story.
+[233.66 --> 233.90]  Okay.
+[234.10 --> 235.80]  I'm going to cut it very shortly.
+[235.98 --> 238.68]  I started coding very early, way too early.
+[238.80 --> 240.84]  That's healthy for a kid.
+[241.46 --> 247.40]  So, that probably not, I don't know, maybe not something that we all want to do with our
+[247.40 --> 247.60]  kids.
+[247.70 --> 248.02]  I don't know.
+[248.08 --> 252.16]  I don't know if I'm going to put my kid in front of a keyboard coding at four.
+[252.78 --> 253.68]  That was my dad.
+[253.68 --> 256.10]  I was watching my dad coding when I was four.
+[256.32 --> 258.32]  That was probably a little bit too early.
+[258.80 --> 261.06]  Anyway, that was the starting time.
+[261.22 --> 266.86]  I started bubbling into the open source world and community.
+[267.22 --> 269.74]  I started using Linux when I was a teenager, something like that.
+[270.26 --> 272.72]  So, Linux came in CDs at the time.
+[272.98 --> 275.20]  That was a long, long, long time ago.
+[275.70 --> 276.52]  Then what else?
+[276.64 --> 280.88]  Well, after that, I went to a very, very normal thing.
+[280.88 --> 284.70]  I went to uni, did my bachelor and master.
+[284.92 --> 285.54]  Did you finish?
+[285.74 --> 287.26]  I finished them all.
+[287.48 --> 289.04]  I enjoyed my time.
+[289.22 --> 290.94]  And then I even, you know, it was not enough.
+[291.02 --> 291.86]  And then I did a PhD.
+[292.14 --> 292.26]  Okay.
+[292.44 --> 295.34]  Well, I went back one year in the industry, here in Italy.
+[295.34 --> 298.42]  I did not like what I saw in the industry.
+[298.42 --> 311.38]  Like during my time at my master, I was studying how to build custom databases, robot arms, how to do the equations to send a rocket to the atmosphere.
+[311.38 --> 311.96]  I don't know.
+[312.04 --> 313.92]  That was the type of stuff that I was doing.
+[314.36 --> 321.38]  After that, I ended up writing the W, WS star, the death star microservices.
+[321.58 --> 323.14]  I don't know how many of you have had to deal with.
+[323.56 --> 326.70]  Excel, SST, WSDL, SOAP.
+[327.28 --> 330.02]  A lot of libraries that start with a J at the beginning.
+[330.70 --> 331.72]  PTSD for me.
+[332.30 --> 332.82]  Yeah.
+[332.82 --> 333.26]  Okay.
+[334.48 --> 337.32]  Like Java being one, two, three.
+[337.68 --> 342.96]  At the time, my first encounter with open source was when I tried to fix.
+[343.30 --> 347.22]  So when I was doing my master, I started publishing.
+[347.70 --> 349.22]  The NPM came out more or less.
+[349.30 --> 349.74]  I don't remember.
+[349.84 --> 350.20]  Not NPM.
+[350.36 --> 352.56]  GitHub came out more or less.
+[352.64 --> 354.28]  Like, I don't remember the year.
+[354.56 --> 355.44]  Can probably look it up.
+[355.44 --> 360.12]  But these were probably 2008, 2009 type of years.
+[360.38 --> 362.18]  I started publishing my first thing.
+[362.18 --> 365.74]  I was really into Ruby at the time.
+[366.00 --> 368.20]  I was not using Ruby in my job.
+[368.42 --> 371.42]  And I loved, I wanted really to use Ruby and Ruby on Rails.
+[371.54 --> 374.74]  But I loved Ruby language more than Rails for whatever reason.
+[375.46 --> 378.14]  And then I went one year in the industry.
+[378.24 --> 379.22]  Didn't like what I saw.
+[379.72 --> 382.48]  Tried to get a job out of Italy.
+[383.22 --> 385.96]  Applied at a few of the big co's.
+[386.60 --> 388.24]  Typically, I wanted to move to London.
+[388.40 --> 389.28]  So London jobs.
+[389.78 --> 391.30]  So I applied a few there.
+[391.30 --> 394.42]  I failed spectacularly at all the job interviews.
+[394.86 --> 396.24]  So you know what, folks?
+[396.60 --> 398.84]  If you fail at job interviews, it's totally normal.
+[399.28 --> 400.70]  The miracle is when you pass.
+[401.02 --> 401.22]  Okay?
+[401.30 --> 402.34]  It's not when you fail.
+[402.70 --> 405.56]  The starting point is, I will know about that.
+[405.66 --> 408.84]  I will understand that later in my career.
+[408.84 --> 410.86]  But not at the time.
+[410.92 --> 414.34]  It was totally not clear to me why I was keep failing those interviews.
+[414.50 --> 416.10]  And I was passing the interviews in Italy.
+[416.10 --> 419.10]  But I did not want those kind of jobs.
+[419.24 --> 422.84]  I really wanted to bring up the boundaries of...
+[422.84 --> 423.98]  You wanted to write Java.
+[424.12 --> 426.18]  Java beans like all those other cool kids.
+[426.18 --> 426.66]  Yeah.
+[426.66 --> 426.78]  Yeah.
+[427.20 --> 429.32]  The problem was not even that.
+[429.44 --> 433.42]  The problem was that it was not the top latest Java.
+[433.56 --> 435.66]  It was the Java five years before the problem.
+[435.94 --> 436.92]  You know, it's...
+[436.92 --> 437.22]  I don't know.
+[437.30 --> 437.46]  Sorry.
+[437.56 --> 438.64]  I was not very excited.
+[438.88 --> 441.88]  Not to go on a huge tangent, but you know, I mean, I am Amel.
+[442.06 --> 442.96]  I'm just curious.
+[443.28 --> 447.92]  Like in Europe, I always hear this like, oh, Europe is like five to ten years behind the
+[447.92 --> 451.92]  United States when it comes to like enterprise infrastructure technology.
+[452.34 --> 452.86]  Like is that...
+[452.86 --> 454.00]  Would you say that that's accurate?
+[454.82 --> 456.94]  No, it's not that.
+[457.36 --> 458.06]  It depends.
+[458.32 --> 458.66]  Okay.
+[458.66 --> 460.66]  It was like that when I...
+[461.82 --> 464.74]  Especially Italy, when I entered the career.
+[465.32 --> 469.14]  However, it's accelerating significantly things here in Europe.
+[469.30 --> 470.08]  You have more engineers.
+[470.56 --> 472.06]  No, it's not about the engineers.
+[472.32 --> 473.38]  It's about the consumers.
+[473.68 --> 475.46]  But you do have more engineers, right?
+[475.60 --> 477.54]  There are more software engineers in Europe.
+[477.54 --> 478.92]  I don't know the stats.
+[479.28 --> 484.90]  What I know is that the consumers expect a certain level of quality now and is driven
+[484.90 --> 487.42]  by big US companies.
+[487.94 --> 491.62]  So they want that same level of quality for products built in Europe.
+[492.16 --> 496.10]  So even for internal company software, that's usually not very nice.
+[496.42 --> 500.66]  So they expect this level of technology and this level of user experience.
+[501.00 --> 505.72]  Because of that, that has crippled down into how can we implement those things?
+[505.72 --> 509.04]  How can we improve the user experience for our products?
+[509.22 --> 513.30]  So this has been pushing the technology in Europe to catch up.
+[513.62 --> 514.86]  So it's catching up.
+[514.92 --> 516.04]  It's still not probably there.
+[516.12 --> 520.40]  It's probably a little bit late, at least on certain class of companies.
+[520.40 --> 522.10]  But it's catching up quickly.
+[522.10 --> 527.76]  Like we start to see like some good class of startups emerging, producing really interesting
+[527.76 --> 531.96]  technology, especially in London, Amsterdam, and so on.
+[531.96 --> 537.10]  Even a few interesting startups in Italy, which, you know, one that raised 300 million this
+[537.10 --> 537.34]  year.
+[537.52 --> 538.72]  So I was like, whoa.
+[539.02 --> 540.40]  Is it 300 million lira?
+[541.24 --> 541.68]  No.
+[542.08 --> 543.20]  You know, euros.
+[543.36 --> 543.68]  Euros.
+[543.68 --> 544.12]  Okay.
+[544.60 --> 546.06]  The liras is, okay.
+[546.14 --> 546.70]  You want some?
+[546.84 --> 547.18]  Yeah, yeah.
+[547.18 --> 547.56]  You have some.
+[547.60 --> 548.26]  You want some liras?
+[548.46 --> 549.04]  I can't, I can't.
+[549.32 --> 550.72]  There's nothing anymore.
+[550.80 --> 551.16]  No, no.
+[551.20 --> 552.60]  My parents are Somali.
+[552.88 --> 555.08]  And I mean, they both left when they were teenagers.
+[555.28 --> 556.74]  But shilling is the same thing.
+[556.84 --> 558.94]  You know, it's buckets and buckets of cash.
+[559.30 --> 560.92]  You buy a cup of tea, you know?
+[561.22 --> 561.44]  Yeah.
+[561.50 --> 563.36]  So it's like that.
+[563.50 --> 567.46]  So after this, I ended up going back to doing a PhD.
+[567.46 --> 574.76]  Doing my PhD, I started my PhD at the beginning of 2011.
+[575.90 --> 576.02]  Okay.
+[576.28 --> 580.02]  And at that time, Node.js existed already.
+[580.72 --> 583.82]  The super famous talk from Ryan Dahl happened.
+[584.48 --> 587.24]  And there was a lot of very interesting community forming.
+[587.76 --> 591.30]  At that same time, there were people trying to put JS everywhere.
+[591.84 --> 595.28]  So they were doing the Node.bots.
+[595.38 --> 596.90]  They were doing the drones.
+[596.90 --> 598.86]  They were doing all the things, JavaScript.
+[599.00 --> 599.88]  JavaScript, all the things.
+[600.50 --> 606.90]  So I tried this and I needed to do, wanted to do a certain level of research during my
+[606.90 --> 607.28]  PhD.
+[607.72 --> 611.44]  And instead of using, it was alone and I wanted to be very productive.
+[611.80 --> 616.30]  And I know how faster I could write Ruby compared to what I could write Java.
+[616.50 --> 618.86]  But Ruby, let's face it, is slow.
+[618.98 --> 620.68]  It was a very slow language at the time.
+[620.80 --> 623.82]  Like you could not do parallel programming and so on.
+[623.82 --> 629.18]  And I needed a language that would perform as good as Java, but would take a third of the
+[629.18 --> 631.92]  time or a tenth of the time to write because it was alone.
+[632.40 --> 633.06]  I tried Node.
+[633.20 --> 634.82]  Ransom Benchmark was totally...
+[635.98 --> 636.58]  Mind blown.
+[636.80 --> 637.40]  Mind blown.
+[637.66 --> 638.64]  Then I tried NPM.
+[638.64 --> 642.78]  And when I tried NPM, that was totally clear to me.
+[643.30 --> 648.04]  Node.js was going to take over the industry.
+[648.60 --> 650.74]  The reason, it's Maven.
+[653.12 --> 654.38]  Please hold.
+[654.64 --> 656.54]  We're having technical difficulties.
+[656.54 --> 670.40]  One of the key fundamental issues in Maven was that you could not have the same library
+[670.40 --> 673.52]  at two different versions at the same time.
+[673.52 --> 679.66]  So let's say that you wanted to use a library that had a certain version of an utility library.
+[680.12 --> 685.54]  Now, that utility library yourself, your software would not compile because they needed to all
+[685.54 --> 691.58]  be at the same version, which meant that people could not break backward compatibility and innovate
+[691.58 --> 692.06]  freely.
+[692.94 --> 693.92]  NPM allows this.
+[694.26 --> 698.92]  NPM allow the same dependency to be present thousands of times at all the possible versions,
+[698.92 --> 703.44]  which means that we have solved the reusing software problem.
+[703.44 --> 706.68]  It also means that Node modules become the heaviest object in the universe.
+[706.90 --> 708.48]  We have been successful at it.
+[708.56 --> 714.16]  We have been trying hard to make that happen for at least as long as I've been in the industry.
+[714.40 --> 716.80]  And with NPM, we actually reached that state.
+[717.16 --> 717.20]  Okay.
+[717.28 --> 721.84]  So, I mean, I feel like it's not an issue for me, like them being the heaviest objects in
+[721.84 --> 725.14]  the universe because it's a server tech, you know, it's a server technology.
+[725.26 --> 727.04]  It's never getting shipped in the browser.
+[727.04 --> 732.80]  But I feel like these issues with, you know, dependencies really became a problem once
+[732.80 --> 738.78]  the front end community kind of like hijacked Node as their like build chain and their dependency
+[738.78 --> 740.28]  management and like, you know.
+[740.50 --> 741.72]  It's totally fine.
+[742.12 --> 744.22]  They're not shipping it, them in the browser.
+[744.34 --> 748.54]  So, all of those things that NPM is in Node modules, most of them is not stuff that you
+[748.54 --> 750.00]  want to ship in the browser anyway.
+[750.54 --> 751.90]  So, it's solved the tool chain.
+[752.58 --> 754.70]  It's, in fairness, it's bytes on disk.
+[755.32 --> 756.34]  Disk is very cheap.
+[756.34 --> 756.78]  Right.
+[756.94 --> 763.94]  It's bytes on network and bytes on the wire are somewhat cheap in the vast majority of
+[763.94 --> 766.54]  the world where you would develop software anyway.
+[767.24 --> 771.52]  So, the reality is that that's fine.
+[771.74 --> 772.04]  Okay.
+[772.58 --> 775.48]  And that's the price of reusing a lot of software.
+[775.84 --> 779.34]  So, you can build everything yourself and not have all those things you have to download.
+[779.34 --> 781.08]  But, I don't know.
+[781.20 --> 786.10]  For all my time, I have been, you know, at some point in order to have the new version
+[786.10 --> 789.02]  of the Red Hat, I needed to receive a CD.
+[789.66 --> 791.58]  So, you see, that was low.
+[792.00 --> 793.96]  Downloading a few megabytes over the wire?
+[794.20 --> 795.32]  Well, it's not slow.
+[795.58 --> 795.92]  I don't know.
+[796.02 --> 796.74]  I have a different.
+[797.10 --> 799.84]  But that thing was actually, the full disk was 600 megabytes.
+[799.94 --> 801.90]  And now Node modules is 100 and something.
+[801.90 --> 802.38]  Yeah.
+[802.62 --> 805.94]  No, I think that's a really good analogy because you're absolutely right.
+[806.06 --> 808.34]  Like, you're not getting CDs in the mail, right?
+[808.36 --> 809.86]  You're able to just NPM install.
+[810.42 --> 816.56]  I think the concern is more that, like, bytes to parse and then making users wait while your
+[816.56 --> 821.92]  JavaScript is parsing or creating janky experiences because your JavaScript is parsing.
+[821.92 --> 823.62]  Like, that's the problem.
+[823.94 --> 827.76]  And, you know, I understand, like, open source is working because, like, you know, I think
+[827.76 --> 833.68]  most people only write, like, 10% of the code actually needed to run their application these
+[833.68 --> 833.94]  days.
+[834.44 --> 837.10]  Everything else, that 90% comes from open source modules.
+[837.86 --> 840.44]  And, yeah, if you wanted to write that yourself, knock yourself out.
+[840.80 --> 843.56]  You're not going to do as good of a job, I can tell you that, you know, because you're
+[843.56 --> 845.86]  not going to beat, like, millions of developer brains.
+[846.10 --> 848.32]  But it's still something we need to manage, right?
+[848.32 --> 852.80]  And I can tell you when I'm picking a package, like, I have a rubric, like, how many dependencies
+[852.80 --> 854.00]  does this package have, right?
+[854.00 --> 856.34]  Because I don't want my packages to have a bunch of dependencies.
+[856.50 --> 860.52]  Like, I don't need packages that have, like, bring their own luggage to the party, right?
+[860.56 --> 862.66]  Like, it's like, okay, you're my house guest.
+[862.80 --> 864.84]  You're not allowed to invite your own set of guests.
+[865.46 --> 869.12]  So I try to keep it very light with my dependencies as much as possible.
+[869.12 --> 874.26]  And I'm very careful about the number of dependencies I use that require peer dependencies as well,
+[874.36 --> 874.52]  right?
+[874.52 --> 878.30]  Because peer dependencies is like an ecosystem that you need to, like, keep an eye on.
+[878.32 --> 882.14]  And so there is a cost, is what I'm trying to say, Matteo.
+[882.50 --> 883.60]  Yeah, oh, absolutely.
+[883.82 --> 886.84]  Like, I don't think this is simple in any form or fashion.
+[887.34 --> 895.28]  It's just that the level of efficiency that the industry requires to us right now in how
+[895.28 --> 901.66]  we develop software, it's impossible to reach without massive software reuse across projects.
+[902.14 --> 902.92]  Right, right.
+[902.92 --> 903.36]  Exactly.
+[903.36 --> 903.70]  Exactly.
+[904.20 --> 909.32]  And so what led you down the path of, like, because you now have, like, hundreds of NPM
+[909.32 --> 909.84]  packages.
+[910.54 --> 912.26]  400 and something, likely.
+[912.44 --> 913.12]  Something like that.
+[913.20 --> 914.62]  A lot of them are quite popular.
+[914.82 --> 916.70]  So what led you down that rabbit hole?
+[916.88 --> 919.28]  Was it just, like, were you your first customer?
+[919.66 --> 920.26]  Or like...
+[920.26 --> 921.00]  Yeah, totally.
+[921.14 --> 922.88]  Like, I don't, like, I code things for myself.
+[923.04 --> 924.60]  No, it's not necessarily true.
+[924.88 --> 927.46]  I code this because I need them to exist.
+[928.12 --> 932.66]  So I'm not necessarily certain that I need...
+[932.66 --> 937.26]  And I first try small with low investment of time to develop something and then grow, invest
+[937.26 --> 942.98]  more time as I see if something is getting popular and it's useful.
+[942.98 --> 944.88]  So it's a slow curve.
+[945.62 --> 949.22]  Typically, I am the first client of all my modules.
+[949.40 --> 953.68]  Like, I need something to exist in order to what I do, to what I want to do.
+[954.14 --> 955.88]  This is also part of my job.
+[955.98 --> 958.58]  Like, I work for a company called Nearform.
+[958.74 --> 960.14]  I am essentially a consultant.
+[960.68 --> 962.02]  I have companies using JavaScript.
+[962.44 --> 963.66]  That's part of what Nearform does.
+[964.04 --> 964.34]  Okay.
+[964.58 --> 969.90]  And which means that we have teams, we have our clients and so on that, you know, might need
+[969.90 --> 970.20]  something.
+[970.20 --> 973.20]  So I have a very good pulse of...
+[973.20 --> 974.54]  I always had a very good pulse.
+[974.84 --> 978.12]  I've been at this company for seven years and nine months or something.
+[978.68 --> 982.80]  So I have a good pulse on what the users of Node needs.
+[983.18 --> 986.76]  I can see what is missing and I can start developing it.
+[987.16 --> 994.66]  Or I don't know, I can foretell problems and plan for the worst and start something so
+[994.66 --> 997.10]  that when the time is right, you have it done.
+[997.74 --> 999.06]  And that was kind of what happened.
+[999.06 --> 1002.74]  So that's kind of what I've done so far.
+[1003.06 --> 1008.46]  So in between, I ended up doing a PhD and this is the story on itself.
+[1008.70 --> 1010.26]  And then I worked for Nearform.
+[1010.54 --> 1012.18]  That was the gap that we didn't cover.
+[1012.82 --> 1016.82]  And then somewhere you also joined the Node.js Technical Steering Committee and you've been...
+[1016.82 --> 1018.00]  I joined after...
+[1018.00 --> 1022.44]  I joined the Node Tech Steering Committee before Pino and Fastify existed.
+[1022.94 --> 1025.18]  First of all, I tried to work on Node.com for a while.
+[1025.18 --> 1028.96]  At that point in time, the leadership was at Giant.
+[1029.26 --> 1031.82]  They were doing a really bad job at maintaining Node.
+[1032.44 --> 1034.50]  And they did not want Node to evolve.
+[1035.02 --> 1036.76]  And they considered things done.
+[1037.08 --> 1040.82]  And they had a huge amount of bugs to fix and they didn't want them to be fixed.
+[1041.26 --> 1041.58]  Interesting.
+[1041.58 --> 1041.70]  Interesting.
+[1042.36 --> 1045.34]  I'm like, okay, we should do a show on this open source drama.
+[1045.58 --> 1047.38]  Yeah, that's open source drama.
+[1047.70 --> 1049.52]  Drama is very real, very real.
+[1049.86 --> 1053.74]  But despite it all, what's it been like being on the TSC?
+[1053.98 --> 1057.90]  I mean, that's a very elite club of people, but also there's a lot of...
+[1057.90 --> 1059.54]  It's very simple to get on the TSC.
+[1059.96 --> 1060.32]  Okay.
+[1060.38 --> 1061.14]  It's not hard.
+[1061.22 --> 1061.58]  Okay.
+[1061.92 --> 1067.62]  It's not hard in the sense of, oh, this is an impossible job and you need to be such
+[1067.62 --> 1070.32]  an incredible developer to be there.
+[1070.74 --> 1072.14]  That's not true.
+[1072.82 --> 1073.34]  Okay.
+[1073.34 --> 1083.20]  What is true is that in order to be at the TSC, you need to keep a same level of contributions
+[1083.20 --> 1085.48]  to Node.js through the time.
+[1085.80 --> 1090.84]  So it means that you need to keep a strong, consistent number of contributions for three,
+[1091.06 --> 1097.30]  six months, more or less, and show that you deeply care about the success of the platform.
+[1097.86 --> 1103.32]  And after that, somebody will notice, somebody will tap your shoulder and you're going to
+[1103.34 --> 1104.72]  you will get on the TSC.
+[1105.40 --> 1105.54]  Okay.
+[1105.70 --> 1107.82]  So that is the simplicity of it.
+[1108.00 --> 1108.14]  Okay.
+[1108.24 --> 1109.26]  It's not...
+[1109.26 --> 1111.42]  It just requires hard work.
+[1112.20 --> 1116.70]  And essentially, it's probably three months to become a collaborator, another three, six
+[1116.70 --> 1119.92]  months to get to the TSC if you want to reach.
+[1120.06 --> 1124.40]  So if you want to get there, it's probably a one-year project overall.
+[1125.06 --> 1125.82]  That's cool.
+[1126.16 --> 1127.38]  Like, it's not something that...
+[1128.52 --> 1132.36]  Then the problems that we fix at the TSC can be hard, can be a lot of drama.
+[1132.36 --> 1133.84]  The drama ones are the worst.
+[1134.12 --> 1140.30]  Like, you know, it's from time to time, we want to discuss problems, technical problems
+[1140.30 --> 1141.04]  and things.
+[1141.38 --> 1143.40]  And instead, we ended up discussing drama.
+[1143.90 --> 1145.34]  There's been a lot of drama over the years.
+[1145.76 --> 1147.08]  Some of that was handled well.
+[1147.18 --> 1148.64]  Some of that was handled less well.
+[1149.14 --> 1150.60]  I'm proud of certain things.
+[1150.66 --> 1152.12]  I'm not proud of certain others.
+[1152.46 --> 1154.52]  We have our own scars as a community.
+[1155.20 --> 1157.38]  However, the project now is in a very good shape.
+[1157.38 --> 1161.94]  Like, we are, you know, very focused on shipping new things, improving it where it's lacking.
+[1162.62 --> 1165.06]  I feel it's moving into the right direction.
+[1165.18 --> 1166.70]  We have shipped ESM, right?
+[1166.82 --> 1167.16]  I don't know.
+[1167.24 --> 1168.98]  That was a miracle.
+[1169.50 --> 1171.04]  Everybody was betting against ESM.
+[1171.10 --> 1172.00]  We can talk about ESM.
+[1172.18 --> 1172.56]  Oh, my God.
+[1172.60 --> 1173.92]  ESM has got to be its own show.
+[1174.00 --> 1175.12]  We need like an ESM follow-up.
+[1175.12 --> 1178.38]  Yeah, but, you know, we need to invite a bunch more people, not me.
+[1178.54 --> 1179.96]  Invite Miles to talk about ESM.
+[1180.18 --> 1183.98]  Miles is like the poster child for Node's implementation of ESM.
+[1184.20 --> 1189.78]  But I think for me, what's really impressive, obviously, on the JavaScript, on the language
+[1189.78 --> 1193.18]  side, you know, the TC39 has been kicking butt for quite a while.
+[1193.36 --> 1197.70]  You know, they've been really helping shape the language and evolve it in the right direction.
+[1197.70 --> 1203.24]  But I think on the other side of that, you know, I think the Node contributors and collaborators
+[1203.24 --> 1206.44]  have really, I think, done a good job of keeping up with the spec.
+[1207.00 --> 1211.12]  More and more of new features in the language are being supported natively.
+[1211.22 --> 1214.88]  You don't need that experimental flag or harmony flag as much.
+[1215.12 --> 1216.32]  And then also modules.
+[1216.50 --> 1217.90]  You know, that's a huge, huge win.
+[1218.04 --> 1222.94]  I mean, you know, I don't know if people really fully understand how difficult it is to implement
+[1222.94 --> 1228.28]  a module system in Node because, like, Node had its own module system.
+[1228.90 --> 1232.16]  Getting that to work and be back compat and not break the web.
+[1232.34 --> 1234.30]  And, you know, that's a huge, huge accomplishment.
+[1234.80 --> 1236.72]  So really, kudos to the team.
+[1242.44 --> 1243.38]  What's up, party people?
+[1243.52 --> 1244.96]  Are you ready for Core Web Vitals?
+[1245.18 --> 1247.30]  Well, our friends at Raygun can help.
+[1247.64 --> 1251.10]  These modern performance metrics play an important role in determining the health of your website.
+[1251.10 --> 1255.40]  That's exactly why Raygun has made them into their real-time user monitoring tools.
+[1255.78 --> 1260.70]  Now you can see how your Core Web Vitals scores are trending across your entire website in real time
+[1260.70 --> 1265.92]  and drill into individual pages to focus your efforts on the biggest performance gains.
+[1266.40 --> 1269.94]  Unlike traditional tools, Raygun surfaces real user data, not synthetic,
+[1270.34 --> 1276.88]  giving greater insights and control, filter your score by time frame, browser, device, geolocation,
+[1277.26 --> 1278.74]  whatever matters most to you and your team.
+[1278.74 --> 1283.88]  And what makes Raygun truly unique is the level of detail they provide so you can take action quickly,
+[1284.24 --> 1286.46]  identify and resolve front-end performance issues,
+[1286.62 --> 1289.72]  with full waterfall breakdowns, user session data,
+[1290.06 --> 1292.96]  instance level, diagnostics of every page request,
+[1293.18 --> 1294.10]  and a whole lot more.
+[1294.48 --> 1296.48]  Learn more at Raygun.com today
+[1296.48 --> 1298.62]  and take control of your Core Web Vitals.
+[1299.06 --> 1300.38]  Plan start at $8 a month.
+[1300.56 --> 1303.80]  Again, Raygun.com for your free 14-day trial.
+[1303.80 --> 1328.82]  That was a fascinating journey through the early days of Node in your early career,
+[1328.82 --> 1330.46]  and very exciting.
+[1330.82 --> 1334.38]  You were also on JS Party 103 talking about streams,
+[1334.38 --> 1337.48]  so we've definitely heard some great things from you,
+[1337.56 --> 1338.42]  more great history,
+[1338.62 --> 1341.00]  and we were just talking in the break about how we need to have you back,
+[1341.08 --> 1342.24]  so we will definitely do that.
+[1342.54 --> 1345.74]  But I definitely wanted to segue us into your libraries,
+[1346.14 --> 1348.16]  and particularly Fastify and Pino.
+[1348.28 --> 1351.16]  And if I understand correctly, Fastify came out of Pino,
+[1351.28 --> 1354.48]  so maybe let's start with Pino and talk about what it is and how it came to be.
+[1354.48 --> 1357.26]  Pino is a login library for Node.
+[1357.56 --> 1359.16]  Now, logging, what is logging?
+[1359.34 --> 1360.74]  Logging is the thing that you do,
+[1361.16 --> 1364.40]  the most crude way of logging in Node is doing console log something.
+[1364.76 --> 1366.20]  It's printing on a terminal.
+[1366.84 --> 1368.92]  However, when you're printing on a terminal,
+[1369.36 --> 1371.64]  you really don't want to be just printing on a terminal
+[1371.64 --> 1374.70]  because you want to add a lot of other metadata to it.
+[1374.90 --> 1377.26]  You want to add the timestamp,
+[1377.36 --> 1379.30]  the time at which you have been logging your things.
+[1380.00 --> 1383.32]  You want to add the, for example, this is one, for example,
+[1383.32 --> 1385.68]  you can add the time.
+[1386.28 --> 1389.38]  You might want to change and make it pretty and add colors,
+[1389.38 --> 1395.44]  or you might want to change the format and ship it to Elasticsearch, for example,
+[1396.02 --> 1397.36]  or OpenSearch, whatever.
+[1397.62 --> 1399.66]  You know, let's be friendly to everybody.
+[1400.18 --> 1402.22]  This is another fight that I don't want to open,
+[1402.42 --> 1404.56]  but this is an interesting one to have on the show.
+[1405.10 --> 1406.80]  Anyway, there is Elasticsearch.
+[1406.88 --> 1408.42]  You might want to ship it to Syslog.
+[1408.42 --> 1415.04]  You might want to get it collected via the Docker logs or CloudWatch or I don't know.
+[1415.24 --> 1415.92]  LogRotate.
+[1416.44 --> 1417.42]  Or LogRotate.
+[1418.20 --> 1418.32]  Okay.
+[1418.52 --> 1422.72]  So one of the earliest problems in Node is when Node came to be,
+[1422.86 --> 1425.42]  people started developing loggers,
+[1426.12 --> 1430.94]  which is that are useful for creating structured information from your application.
+[1431.20 --> 1434.52]  And they are often required for even for some regulations
+[1434.52 --> 1438.96]  or for actually knowing what is going on in your app the moment you have a bug.
+[1439.24 --> 1440.40]  So very useful.
+[1440.86 --> 1443.12]  It saved my life a few times already.
+[1443.68 --> 1447.52]  You really want a good logging library in your system and use it.
+[1448.18 --> 1451.94]  So what happened at the time was the popular ones were,
+[1452.34 --> 1454.58]  we were talking about 2016, something like that.
+[1455.02 --> 1458.56]  And in 2016, there were two main popular logging libraries.
+[1458.56 --> 1461.40]  One was Bunion, developed by Giant.
+[1462.04 --> 1469.26]  And one was Winston, maintained by our friend, Charlie, Index Zero, Charlie Robbins.
+[1469.72 --> 1472.90]  However, they both had the same approach, which is,
+[1473.02 --> 1477.42]  oh, I follow the Java approach for loggers,
+[1477.68 --> 1481.64]  which is I have a logger that wraps a logger that wraps a logger three,
+[1481.76 --> 1485.02]  four times before I am going to write down to a file.
+[1485.02 --> 1488.30]  And they have this approach of nesting things
+[1488.30 --> 1492.68]  and be able to create multiple loggers and so on,
+[1492.74 --> 1494.66]  create multiple destinations and so on and so forth.
+[1495.14 --> 1497.28]  The typical problem those loggers had,
+[1497.64 --> 1501.06]  one was throughput and the other one was memory usage.
+[1501.62 --> 1504.70]  So it was very hard to control the amount of memory
+[1504.70 --> 1506.50]  those loggers were using before writing.
+[1506.92 --> 1509.16]  You know, you want your log, you do console log, right?
+[1509.30 --> 1511.56]  You don't, Node.js is a synchronous platform,
+[1511.56 --> 1516.76]  but you're not waiting for that log line to be written to continue.
+[1517.54 --> 1520.08]  So, however, you're doing something synchronous,
+[1520.26 --> 1523.12]  but it's something that is asynchronous in nature or synchronous in nature.
+[1523.28 --> 1524.88]  So you have this dichotomy.
+[1525.20 --> 1527.56]  And in some cases, memory could actually explode
+[1527.56 --> 1529.30]  because let's say that, you know,
+[1529.32 --> 1531.36]  you want to send all your logs to Elasticsearch,
+[1531.80 --> 1533.16]  for example, then, you know,
+[1533.28 --> 1536.14]  you might produce more logs than what you can send ship
+[1536.14 --> 1537.30]  to Elasticsearch in time.
+[1537.68 --> 1539.94]  And in the meanwhile, your memory will start ballooning.
+[1539.94 --> 1542.88]  All of that comes to be very complicated, okay?
+[1543.20 --> 1545.08]  Well, I would say, like, log management
+[1545.08 --> 1548.04]  is honestly one of the most complicated things
+[1548.04 --> 1550.86]  that seems so simple on the surface.
+[1551.14 --> 1552.70]  Yeah, and it's also so boring.
+[1552.86 --> 1554.10]  Like, it's also so boring.
+[1554.34 --> 1554.70]  Yes.
+[1555.04 --> 1558.00]  Like, yeah, the least glamorous, attractive thing.
+[1558.08 --> 1559.88]  It's like, oh, yeah, I just got to build a logger.
+[1559.96 --> 1563.12]  I got to find a way to get my logs to the cloud off of the server.
+[1563.24 --> 1564.50]  I need to get it to another cloud, right?
+[1564.50 --> 1565.98]  I need to get it to another part of the cloud
+[1565.98 --> 1566.96]  to be more specific, right?
+[1567.30 --> 1567.84]  It's crazy.
+[1567.84 --> 1569.40]  And then there's always a cost to logging.
+[1569.40 --> 1570.78]  And people always forget that.
+[1571.08 --> 1575.40]  You have to log carefully and selectively and, you know...
+[1575.40 --> 1576.48]  And it's very tricky.
+[1576.82 --> 1577.20]  Exactly.
+[1577.44 --> 1581.56]  So at the time, I started doing some performance optimizations
+[1581.56 --> 1583.10]  to clients' applications.
+[1583.30 --> 1587.84]  There were a lot of startups and big companies
+[1587.84 --> 1591.38]  that were starting shipping Node.js projects at scale.
+[1591.38 --> 1595.10]  And they were having such a big problem.
+[1595.72 --> 1598.74]  And it turned out that it was...
+[1598.74 --> 1600.10]  This is a fun story, as usual.
+[1600.38 --> 1605.38]  I was in London for doing one of those consulting
+[1605.38 --> 1608.00]  with my friend, David Mark Clements,
+[1608.08 --> 1609.88]  that you have met, Amal, Dave.
+[1610.00 --> 1611.68]  And I don't know if you, Nick, you have met Dave,
+[1611.80 --> 1614.34]  but we have some stories together, okay?
+[1614.76 --> 1616.46]  He was working with Nearform at the time,
+[1616.46 --> 1618.76]  and we are doing a lot of those things together.
+[1619.24 --> 1621.18]  We were doing some consulting in London.
+[1621.58 --> 1624.58]  We had the company do some performance optimization and so on.
+[1624.62 --> 1627.48]  And then we reached a point that their biggest problem
+[1627.48 --> 1628.68]  was the logger.
+[1629.46 --> 1631.12]  Like, they were logging so much,
+[1631.84 --> 1633.82]  but they were not really logging so much.
+[1633.98 --> 1636.80]  But the main bottleneck for their application was the logger.
+[1636.80 --> 1639.04]  And I was asked, what should we use?
+[1639.20 --> 1640.92]  They said, well, your bottleneck is...
+[1640.92 --> 1644.20]  They told me, we found out that the bottleneck was the logger.
+[1644.58 --> 1646.40]  And then they asked us, what should we use?
+[1646.50 --> 1648.76]  This was Bunyan.
+[1649.08 --> 1651.60]  And this is the most popular logger that...
+[1651.60 --> 1653.84]  We really like this logger, and what can we do?
+[1654.26 --> 1658.22]  So I said, well, the only thing that I can do is write one.
+[1658.54 --> 1662.08]  So we start writing a very, very minimal version of the logger.
+[1662.28 --> 1663.20]  That's so heroic.
+[1663.20 --> 1668.42]  That's like the romantic comedy line that's like, you know...
+[1668.42 --> 1669.12]  Wait a second.
+[1669.14 --> 1672.76]  If this most popular logger is treating you so badly,
+[1672.92 --> 1675.64]  well, you know, the best thing I can do is write you a new one, baby.
+[1675.82 --> 1677.80]  Yeah, and it was unvalentic.
+[1679.00 --> 1681.38]  So that happened, okay.
+[1681.74 --> 1684.68]  And we started developing the thing,
+[1685.02 --> 1687.60]  and it's called Pinot because pine was taken.
+[1688.10 --> 1690.40]  And in front of my house at the time, there was a pine.
+[1690.98 --> 1691.30]  That's it.
+[1691.30 --> 1693.12]  It's Italian for pine, right?
+[1693.12 --> 1693.82]  It's not in English.
+[1693.96 --> 1694.76]  Yes, of course.
+[1694.86 --> 1695.32]  Of course.
+[1695.42 --> 1695.84]  Of course.
+[1696.06 --> 1698.20]  All of your packages were actually Italian.
+[1698.38 --> 1700.08]  I mean, what's the Italian way to say fast?
+[1700.62 --> 1701.06]  Veloce.
+[1701.60 --> 1701.96]  Veloce.
+[1702.02 --> 1704.78]  See, Veloce would be a great name for a Node Packer.
+[1705.40 --> 1706.54]  I know.
+[1706.70 --> 1707.24]  Yeah, I know.
+[1707.48 --> 1709.30]  I went for Fastify at the time.
+[1709.46 --> 1714.18]  Anyway, this shipped in the summer of 2016, something like that.
+[1714.18 --> 1714.50]  Okay.
+[1714.50 --> 1719.60]  And we presented in a talk at Node Summit.
+[1719.60 --> 1721.84]  I think it was August 2016.
+[1722.36 --> 1722.48]  Okay.
+[1722.96 --> 1724.96]  But the module was already done.
+[1725.08 --> 1726.18]  We were using it in production.
+[1726.76 --> 1732.62]  Typical thing is memory reduction in such cases were dropped by 200, 300 megabytes.
+[1732.70 --> 1732.92]  Easy.
+[1733.74 --> 1736.76]  And throughput was removing the bottleneck.
+[1736.76 --> 1741.32]  So the throughput was one and a half, two times, essentially, for the application with the problem.
+[1741.42 --> 1742.24]  So, hey, success.
+[1743.04 --> 1746.32]  Problem is, all those logger, Bonion and Winston, were doing a lot of many things.
+[1746.52 --> 1748.86]  And we didn't need to do all those things to log.
+[1748.96 --> 1753.44]  They just want to write things out as fast as possible to standard out.
+[1753.44 --> 1754.50]  Because that's what we use.
+[1754.54 --> 1755.62]  We use containers, right?
+[1755.70 --> 1761.96]  We don't do what to do to rotate log files or ship it to Elasticsearch on process and so on.
+[1761.96 --> 1762.12]  No.
+[1762.58 --> 1766.16]  Just send out to standard output or write them to a file.
+[1766.34 --> 1770.68]  And then somebody else will pick those things up and ship it where they need to be shipped,
+[1771.00 --> 1773.68]  which is the philosophy of cloud-based logging anyway.
+[1773.92 --> 1775.94]  So why the heck you want to do something different?
+[1776.60 --> 1781.54]  So after that, I was, I think, having a beer or dinner with David.
+[1781.54 --> 1783.58]  And David said, yeah, we have done Pino.
+[1783.84 --> 1785.34]  So what are we doing next?
+[1785.74 --> 1791.82]  And I told him, well, the next biggest bottleneck for Node.js is Express.
+[1792.06 --> 1792.26]  Yeah.
+[1792.76 --> 1794.26]  Express is slow.
+[1794.72 --> 1798.60]  Just by using Express, you are cutting your throughput by five.
+[1799.14 --> 1801.08]  So, and Happy was worse.
+[1801.14 --> 1805.32]  As opposed to the vanilla HTTP module.
+[1805.44 --> 1806.34]  Yeah, exactly.
+[1806.54 --> 1807.34]  Yes, yes.
+[1807.62 --> 1809.66]  I don't remember what was at the time.
+[1809.66 --> 1811.78]  It's five, six, ten right now.
+[1812.00 --> 1815.48]  It's like, it's not ten, but it's probably five to six times.
+[1815.62 --> 1816.46]  Is Cola faster?
+[1816.54 --> 1818.44]  I've never done any benchmarking for Cola.
+[1818.56 --> 1819.94]  It's slightly faster.
+[1820.30 --> 1822.04]  It's kind of 2x compared to Express.
+[1822.30 --> 1824.66]  Probably half what Node Core can do.
+[1824.96 --> 1829.20]  Still, you're still paying a significant penalty on using those frameworks.
+[1829.46 --> 1829.62]  Okay.
+[1829.88 --> 1834.12]  And what about, I'm just curious, like this is a, I'm sorry, this is the stuff I nerd out about.
+[1834.12 --> 1837.64]  So, like Netflix, I know they're using a bunch of nodes.
+[1838.08 --> 1840.76]  Restify, Restify and Express.
+[1841.28 --> 1845.54]  And they are more or less happy because they have a lot of code base using it developed back in the day.
+[1845.68 --> 1849.58]  So, it's probably not worth to change it unless you really need to.
+[1849.96 --> 1851.38]  The problem, I was already on the TSC.
+[1851.38 --> 1863.34]  And the question was, why the heck are we spending effort in improving the performance of Node if then you use a logger and a web framework that will destroy your performance?
+[1863.90 --> 1871.72]  So, it's not worth optimizing Node Core or improving Node Core if we have those problems in the ecosystem.
+[1872.00 --> 1873.74]  So, I started doing some research.
+[1874.40 --> 1876.04]  However, I picked one choice.
+[1876.04 --> 1885.22]  So, writing a web framework, like if you try to look at the HTTP spec, the GP101, 1.1 RFC and cry and run away.
+[1885.66 --> 1887.20]  It's a gargantuan job.
+[1887.76 --> 1888.48]  Please start reading.
+[1888.66 --> 1894.34]  Everybody should, that should be a very important read at every course, bootcamp, university, whatever.
+[1894.78 --> 1897.10]  But it's a big, big, big spec.
+[1897.54 --> 1902.88]  So, I know it was a massive problem, a massive gargantuan task.
+[1902.88 --> 1905.70]  So, I decided, well, I can do this alone.
+[1906.20 --> 1910.40]  So, and I can get near from Tupay for it because it's a new web framework.
+[1910.52 --> 1912.22]  It will take years to get it done.
+[1912.62 --> 1914.38]  So, how can we get it done?
+[1914.64 --> 1922.76]  I decided, well, let's see if there is somebody else that is seeing the same problems and if they wanted to join me on that journey.
+[1923.34 --> 1927.80]  At that time, I was giving a Node.js workshop in Bologna.
+[1927.80 --> 1931.66]  One of the students that came there was a university graduate.
+[1932.14 --> 1933.44]  Like he was a university student.
+[1933.54 --> 1935.42]  He was just finishing his degree.
+[1935.84 --> 1937.46]  Anyway, we were doing that.
+[1938.10 --> 1942.60]  And at that time, he asked me, well, I want to get into open source.
+[1943.16 --> 1946.42]  And then I said, well, of course, we can build this together.
+[1946.54 --> 1947.76]  And he said, sure, why not?
+[1948.06 --> 1950.62]  We started developing this thing together.
+[1950.62 --> 1956.24]  Then I used a little bit of my open source and conference time to develop it.
+[1956.42 --> 1960.66]  So, at the beginning, it was really conference-driven development, I call it.
+[1961.18 --> 1967.02]  So, you write a talk and then you pitch for a talk and then you write the software to sustain that talk.
+[1967.60 --> 1968.12]  I don't know.
+[1968.18 --> 1970.78]  At the beginning, it was something like that to create some attention.
+[1971.50 --> 1977.60]  However, it became the concept of, well, if you want something, it's a very open community.
+[1977.60 --> 1980.82]  So, if you want something to happen, you should join the community.
+[1981.36 --> 1981.48]  Okay?
+[1981.68 --> 1984.72]  Does it make sense?
+[1985.04 --> 1986.14]  It's an open community.
+[1986.74 --> 1992.02]  So, this is the source of the problem with Express and Restify.
+[1992.46 --> 2001.94]  So, those communities have a little bit stagnated over the years because a few individuals kept all the decision-making to themselves.
+[2001.94 --> 2008.00]  And they did not open it up to everybody to contribute.
+[2008.54 --> 2010.80]  So, instead of saying, oh, I have a bug.
+[2011.00 --> 2012.80]  Instead of saying, hey, can you send me a fix?
+[2013.04 --> 2015.44]  They were burning out trying to fix everybody's bug.
+[2015.60 --> 2016.06]  Oh, wow.
+[2016.16 --> 2017.74]  So, I have noticed that.
+[2017.88 --> 2020.42]  So, I know that it was a non-sustainable model.
+[2020.76 --> 2026.90]  The reason why Fastify instead embraced, you know, if you have a bug with my software, it's your problem, not mine.
+[2028.12 --> 2028.50]  Okay?
+[2028.78 --> 2030.04]  You have two choices now.
+[2030.04 --> 2033.56]  Either you fix it yourself or you'll pay somebody to fix it.
+[2034.32 --> 2040.04]  The only thing I'm happy to do is I'm happy to review your fix and guide you through getting the fix done.
+[2040.68 --> 2042.42]  That's the only thing that I'm willing to do.
+[2042.48 --> 2047.52]  I have a sustainable attitude for somebody who has 400 packages on NPM, for God's sake.
+[2048.06 --> 2049.72]  Yes, exactly.
+[2049.72 --> 2056.18]  So, I know there is a tiny fraction of those bugs that I need to fix myself.
+[2056.74 --> 2057.10]  Okay?
+[2057.20 --> 2058.72]  Because it's probably not...
+[2059.36 --> 2062.44]  Some of those bugs are not for everybody to fix.
+[2063.18 --> 2063.48]  Okay?
+[2063.68 --> 2067.88]  There are probably some hard piece of code that I need to...
+[2067.88 --> 2069.14]  A very few people can touch.
+[2069.14 --> 2073.14]  So, there are not many, but they exist.
+[2073.14 --> 2077.84]  As in every code base, there is that little file where you idle your secrets.
+[2078.14 --> 2078.30]  Okay?
+[2078.54 --> 2079.86]  So, you know, it's...
+[2079.86 --> 2080.32]  Yeah, yeah.
+[2080.46 --> 2081.38]  Under the rug.
+[2081.46 --> 2082.44]  Don't look here.
+[2082.78 --> 2084.38]  Like, we'll fix someday.
+[2085.00 --> 2086.26]  Like, there be dragons.
+[2086.54 --> 2087.46]  You know, all of that stuff.
+[2087.46 --> 2091.28]  Apart from those type of files, which have been decreasing over the years.
+[2091.28 --> 2091.74]  Right, right.
+[2091.78 --> 2094.00]  No, it's good to encapsulate those files, right?
+[2094.08 --> 2095.32]  Though it's good to have them, like...
+[2095.32 --> 2096.40]  I'm even better than that.
+[2096.48 --> 2098.60]  Usually, I put that stuff in a different module.
+[2098.74 --> 2099.38]  Oh, nice.
+[2099.46 --> 2102.08]  So, all Fastify dirty secrets are not in Fastify.
+[2102.20 --> 2103.76]  The Fastify code base is very clean.
+[2104.14 --> 2108.34]  But there is another module, which I'm not going to mention because it has a nice story on its own,
+[2108.78 --> 2110.20]  which has all the secrets.
+[2110.20 --> 2122.28]  And it's all the dirty code that will make a few of my Node.js colleagues be very nervous about some of the things that I'm doing with Node to make it behave like I want it to behave.
+[2122.68 --> 2124.72]  But the end result is quite a nice user experience.
+[2124.88 --> 2126.04]  So, I'm very happy about it.
+[2126.28 --> 2127.04]  Oh, my God.
+[2127.16 --> 2127.48]  All right.
+[2127.56 --> 2129.28]  Well, that's great to know.
+[2129.44 --> 2131.22]  Thank you for sharing that incredible story.
+[2131.22 --> 2140.28]  So, we're going to take another break and we're going to get into some of the more kind of specific perks around these really key libraries in the Node.js ecosystem.
+[2141.10 --> 2144.56]  And then, yeah, I'm still going to ask that burning question, like, where...
+[2144.56 --> 2146.04]  Mateo, what do you think of Dino?
+[2146.16 --> 2147.06]  So, stay tuned, kids.
+[2147.12 --> 2147.92]  We'll be right back.
+[2161.22 --> 2165.62]  This episode is brought to you by our friends at Square.
+[2166.02 --> 2167.98]  Square is the platform that sellers trust.
+[2168.46 --> 2175.32]  There is a massive opportunity for developers to support Square sellers by building apps for today's business needs.
+[2175.74 --> 2178.48]  And I'm here with Shannon Skipper, Head of Developer Relations at Square.
+[2178.90 --> 2182.88]  Shannon, can you share some details about the opportunity for developers on the Square platform?
+[2183.20 --> 2183.62]  Yeah, absolutely.
+[2183.84 --> 2186.52]  So, we have millions of sellers who have unique needs.
+[2186.52 --> 2189.90]  And Square has apps like our point of sale app, like our restaurants app.
+[2189.90 --> 2196.28]  But there are so many different sellers, tuxedo shops, florists, who need specific solutions for their domain.
+[2196.54 --> 2207.60]  And so, we have a Node SDK written in TypeScript that allows you to access all of the backend APIs and SDKs that we use to power the billions of transactions that we do annually.
+[2207.86 --> 2212.20]  And so, there's this massive market of sellers who need help from developers.
+[2212.20 --> 2223.62]  They either need a bespoke solution built for themselves on their own Node stack where they are working with Square dashboard, working with Square hardware, or with the e-com, you know, what you see is what you get builder.
+[2223.80 --> 2224.88]  And they need one more thing.
+[2224.96 --> 2226.24]  They need an additional build.
+[2226.56 --> 2234.58]  And then finally, we have the app marketplace where you can make a Node app and then distribute it so it can get in front of millions of sellers and be an option for them to adopt.
+[2234.58 --> 2235.38]  Very cool.
+[2235.48 --> 2235.72]  All right.
+[2235.74 --> 2243.50]  If you want to learn more, head to developer.squareup.com to dive into the docs, APIs, SDKs, and to create your Square Developer account.
+[2243.80 --> 2245.60]  Start developing on the platform seller's trust.
+[2246.04 --> 2248.28]  Again, that's developer.squareup.com.
+[2248.28 --> 2269.74]  Let's talk about Fastify and get into a little bit more of its features and its API.
+[2269.74 --> 2274.34]  And I guess we can start off and probably presume that it's fast, given the name.
+[2274.94 --> 2275.90]  So, okay.
+[2276.00 --> 2277.04]  Fastify has two goals.
+[2277.20 --> 2277.36]  Yep.
+[2277.36 --> 2283.84]  One is to not create overhead compared to not what Node Core provides.
+[2283.94 --> 2286.64]  Of course, it's not Rust, so it will have some overhead.
+[2286.82 --> 2291.28]  But to minimize that overhead compared to what Node.js can provide.
+[2291.44 --> 2292.64]  This is possible.
+[2292.80 --> 2298.82]  And in fact, Node.js is as fast as the core HTTP module by providing a set of added features.
+[2298.82 --> 2310.30]  So, given that focus on not adding overhead, we add a certain class of features that are very useful for most people developing Node.js applications.
+[2310.30 --> 2315.48]  And these are the key things that you really want to stay in Fastify.
+[2315.48 --> 2316.70]  Use Fastify for those.
+[2316.70 --> 2319.22]  Probably not for the speed in most apps.
+[2319.22 --> 2323.78]  However, Fastify will not let you down when your product starts scaling.
+[2323.78 --> 2328.64]  So, it's having a very good developer experience without overhead.
+[2328.64 --> 2329.24]  Nice.
+[2329.24 --> 2337.58]  Is there anything that it is sacrificing to stay true to that in terms of like not adding too much overhead to the HTTP?
+[2337.58 --> 2340.68]  There was more at the beginning than there is now.
+[2341.10 --> 2344.62]  We have been able to do most things at this point in time.
+[2344.62 --> 2350.62]  A key part of that experience has been to embrace the concept of plugins.
+[2350.90 --> 2353.74]  And this is part of the great success of the framework.
+[2353.74 --> 2359.70]  So, instead of middlewares, which is the most popular thing in Express land, we have the concept of plugins.
+[2360.16 --> 2364.86]  Plugins can either add some functionality to the library.
+[2365.22 --> 2371.62]  Oh, by the way, Fastify has one critical feature that Express does not have, nor Restify or CoA or others.
+[2371.96 --> 2373.20]  It has a boot sequence.
+[2373.20 --> 2378.60]  So, you can start a Fastify server and it's a synchronous startup sequence.
+[2378.82 --> 2387.14]  So, you can do your database connections, do your all the things, do your rendering, pre-rendering if you want to do pre-rendering of your things.
+[2387.78 --> 2389.22]  And it's all asynchronous.
+[2389.52 --> 2396.82]  So, you don't need to have that complex code base at the beginning to bootstrap your node process, which can get very ugly.
+[2397.42 --> 2402.84]  This is a critical feature because then it enables very fine-grained unit testing.
+[2403.20 --> 2404.46]  of the library.
+[2404.86 --> 2411.72]  So, this is the type of decisions where you can have a great user experience because testing is as important as the rest.
+[2411.98 --> 2415.78]  Before we get into testing, though, could you explain to me why this boot sequence is important?
+[2416.04 --> 2424.70]  Because, I mean, if I write my asynchronous code with some control flow, I could mimic that boot sequence, right?
+[2424.70 --> 2426.44]  Yes, of course, of course.
+[2426.44 --> 2428.46]  So, it is the typical problem.
+[2428.46 --> 2439.30]  You want to start your application and then you need to connect to your Postgres, Mongo, Redis, MySQL database or whatever you want to connect to.
+[2439.84 --> 2443.46]  Then you want to listen, to open the port and listen.
+[2443.92 --> 2447.56]  Once you have all your dependencies, you know that all your dependencies are up and running.
+[2447.56 --> 2456.64]  If you want to open the port to the Word and say, hey, I am exposing my, here I am available.
+[2456.96 --> 2457.66]  It is the port.
+[2458.06 --> 2460.14]  You can start sending me a HTTP request.
+[2460.70 --> 2470.52]  The reason why you want your boot sequence to be controlled, fine-grained controlled, it's because you want to be able to unit test them.
+[2470.52 --> 2472.58]  And this, I'm going back to testing.
+[2472.90 --> 2478.40]  You want to be able to spin up multiple instances of your app, one for each of your tests.
+[2479.12 --> 2494.46]  The predominant pattern back in 2016, 2015 was, and it still is to some extent in certain companies, is to have one global Express app or RESTify or HAPI that's more or less exposed as a singleton.
+[2494.98 --> 2497.40]  And it's there to exist.
+[2497.40 --> 2505.76]  And then you have the problem that when you run tests against that, you start having flaky tests or conflicting tests.
+[2506.08 --> 2508.98]  Or you have problem with mocking, for example.
+[2509.16 --> 2517.44]  You have problem with ensuring that your code is well written and tested and ends up being even reusable.
+[2517.84 --> 2518.04]  Okay?
+[2518.12 --> 2523.72]  Because then I can pack things up in a certain way and reuse them across several areas of my code.
+[2523.72 --> 2528.28]  So, that is part of the reason why Fastify has a boot sequence.
+[2528.92 --> 2533.62]  On top of that boot sequence, it loads multiple plugins one at a time.
+[2534.08 --> 2537.18]  Now, they are loaded as a re-entering graph.
+[2537.86 --> 2545.82]  So, you can load one plugin that can have its own dependencies, that can have their own dependencies, and so on and so forth.
+[2546.22 --> 2546.36]  Okay?
+[2546.56 --> 2548.56]  And they will all be loaded one at a time.
+[2548.56 --> 2550.60]  And this becomes the hard things.
+[2550.82 --> 2554.74]  All of these can be done written using async await or callbacks.
+[2555.38 --> 2564.42]  And you can even await in between so that, oh, I want to wait that all this tree of plugins is loaded, and then I want to execute some more code.
+[2564.52 --> 2566.46]  And all of this is seamlessly done by Fastify.
+[2566.46 --> 2571.86]  And all of this can be, you know, nesting level of, several nesting levels of plugins.
+[2572.06 --> 2573.10]  I've seen it in the wild.
+[2573.58 --> 2577.28]  And it's probably the most important feature because it enables reuse.
+[2577.74 --> 2587.50]  So, I can even develop a good chunk of my wall application as its own plugin, and then later on take, oh, I have all this part of my app.
+[2587.50 --> 2591.96]  Instead of deploying inside my container, I can take and put it in a Lambda.
+[2592.40 --> 2599.80]  And the only thing that I need to do is to change how I start on my server and use the Lambda adapter, and it's done.
+[2600.30 --> 2604.58]  Or I want to take it and deploy it in a microservice, and then I can do that as well.
+[2604.80 --> 2607.12]  It takes very little effort to move those things around.
+[2607.66 --> 2613.74]  So, that type of flexibility, it's more or less almost unique in the frameworks.
+[2613.74 --> 2618.76]  It's also the fact that that flexibility does not come at a huge performance penalty.
+[2618.96 --> 2626.74]  So, you will still get more or less a consistent level of throughput throughout the, as much as you add complexity to a Fastify application.
+[2627.46 --> 2635.08]  So, while Express, for example, decreased very quickly, even more when you add a lot of complexity, especially on the routing side.
+[2635.22 --> 2641.24]  It has a very naive router, which is great simplicity because a lot of people can understand it very quickly how it works.
+[2641.46 --> 2643.68]  However, it's also not great for Perf.
+[2643.74 --> 2646.06]  It's the most naive router that you can implement.
+[2646.46 --> 2650.26]  Just a set of regular expression and test them one at a time.
+[2650.46 --> 2652.20]  Yeah, and order matters.
+[2652.62 --> 2658.42]  In Fastify, order matters, but they are created in a shared data structure.
+[2658.70 --> 2661.82]  So, it's called a tree, and it's a Radix Preface tree.
+[2662.48 --> 2667.64]  And it's a complex data structure built more or less for this specific use case,
+[2668.16 --> 2672.74]  and where all the routes are being inserted in, and it's actually pretty fast.
+[2672.74 --> 2674.22]  What kind of a tree did you say it was?
+[2674.44 --> 2678.74]  It's a Radix Prefix tree, and I'm going to pass it in the chat.
+[2678.88 --> 2680.38]  Yeah, we'll have to put that in our show notes.
+[2680.52 --> 2680.78]  So, okay.
+[2680.88 --> 2683.40]  So, Express was really cool because of middleware, right?
+[2683.44 --> 2686.08]  Everybody loved middleware, easy to use, easy to understand.
+[2686.80 --> 2689.42]  You're saying not the best to scale, right?
+[2689.42 --> 2694.20]  And so, could you explain more specifically, or even if you have to repeat yourself, I apologize,
+[2695.12 --> 2702.72]  but the actual difference between middleware patterns and classic plug-in architecture pattern.
+[2702.96 --> 2705.60]  What if I want something to still work like middleware, right?
+[2705.68 --> 2705.96]  Perfect.
+[2705.96 --> 2709.34]  Let's talk about how middleware works, okay?
+[2709.76 --> 2713.90]  Whenever a request comes in, you add a bunch of middleware to your applications.
+[2714.28 --> 2716.56]  Each one of them, they have this pattern.
+[2716.98 --> 2720.96]  They say if something, and then they do whatever they need to do.
+[2721.02 --> 2721.52]  Right, right.
+[2721.52 --> 2721.82]  Okay.
+[2722.48 --> 2730.14]  So, if you want to parse a body, if request.method equals equals equals body, I'm parsing a body.
+[2730.52 --> 2730.86]  Okay?
+[2731.20 --> 2738.32]  Or if this method matches a certain prefix, then I want all those routes, all those requests
+[2738.32 --> 2740.32]  to be authenticated, for example.
+[2740.50 --> 2741.08]  Okay?
+[2741.36 --> 2741.72]  Correct.
+[2741.72 --> 2750.12]  Now, a typical Express application has between 20 to 30 middleware installed before it reaches
+[2750.12 --> 2750.94]  any of the routes.
+[2750.94 --> 2751.66]  Mm-hmm.
+[2752.04 --> 2752.34]  Okay?
+[2752.76 --> 2760.66]  So, for each one of them, in order to fully implement that pattern, you need to have three
+[2760.66 --> 2761.46]  function calls.
+[2761.92 --> 2764.10]  So, it's three nested function calls for each one of them.
+[2764.26 --> 2764.60]  Wow.
+[2764.78 --> 2765.12]  Okay.
+[2765.62 --> 2767.06]  I can see why this isn't scaling.
+[2767.84 --> 2775.82]  So, now, if none of them triggers, or if some of them triggers whatever, you are at least
+[2775.82 --> 2783.84]  talking about a call stack of more or less 100 call stack, 100 function nested within each
+[2783.84 --> 2784.06]  other.
+[2784.12 --> 2784.48]  Jeez.
+[2784.70 --> 2785.08]  So, yeah.
+[2785.16 --> 2787.88]  So, this is the reason why the middleware pattern is problematic.
+[2787.88 --> 2789.28]  Let me clarify that, though, Matteo.
+[2789.36 --> 2794.18]  Is it the middleware pattern, or is it Express's implementation of the middleware pattern?
+[2794.34 --> 2802.60]  It's the middleware pattern as a whole in the sense of, you know, it comes, like, JavaScript
+[2802.60 --> 2804.24]  does not have tail call optimization.
+[2804.24 --> 2806.62]  If it had tail call optimization, things will be different.
+[2806.88 --> 2806.92]  Okay?
+[2807.06 --> 2807.28]  Right.
+[2807.42 --> 2810.28]  But things are, with JavaScript being what it is...
+[2810.28 --> 2812.40]  Didn't we implement that with ES6?
+[2812.56 --> 2813.48]  No, it was not.
+[2813.56 --> 2814.30]  That was crap.
+[2814.40 --> 2816.48]  Every engine didn't do it, I know.
+[2816.54 --> 2817.90]  No, they didn't do it.
+[2817.98 --> 2819.14]  So, it's not there.
+[2819.60 --> 2824.88]  So, anyway, the problem is that, you know, you put all those calls in the call stack.
+[2824.88 --> 2825.18]  Okay?
+[2825.62 --> 2833.34]  Now, the fundamental issue, instead, is what we do in Fastify is, if you want to have a
+[2833.34 --> 2839.78]  certain class of routes authenticated, we only run the authentication logic for those
+[2839.78 --> 2840.14]  routes.
+[2840.38 --> 2843.98]  Is this because the data structure stores that information?
+[2844.38 --> 2844.66]  Aha!
+[2844.96 --> 2847.04]  So, this is the beauty of data structures, you know?
+[2847.40 --> 2848.24]  You literally...
+[2848.24 --> 2850.70]  It is like a logic path for your code.
+[2851.06 --> 2854.86]  Without them, you're just running around blind, doing everything, checking all the
+[2854.86 --> 2855.68]  things, you know?
+[2855.80 --> 2856.10]  Yes.
+[2856.18 --> 2860.36]  But, yeah, memorization and using keys, I mean, this is what it's made for.
+[2860.42 --> 2866.82]  So, in Express and Restify and Coa and all those things, you have your routes, you have
+[2866.82 --> 2869.10]  your middlewares coming in one at a time.
+[2869.10 --> 2872.96]  You can only do that because you never know when you will encounter a route.
+[2873.74 --> 2877.34]  So, with Fastify, the first thing that we do is routing.
+[2877.96 --> 2880.40]  We decide what is the route that's going to match.
+[2880.54 --> 2883.36]  Honestly, that's like what I want out of a web framework is routing.
+[2884.34 --> 2884.72]  Yes.
+[2884.86 --> 2887.72]  So, it decides what route you're going to hit.
+[2888.06 --> 2888.28]  Okay?
+[2888.36 --> 2890.12]  And this is one of the limitations of the frameworks.
+[2890.44 --> 2896.00]  Like, in Express, you could do, oh, I'm routing a route, but if I can decide I'm not handling
+[2896.00 --> 2899.42]  this payload, I can bump it to the next one in the chain.
+[2899.66 --> 2899.84]  Yeah.
+[2900.26 --> 2901.58]  In Express, you could do that.
+[2901.66 --> 2902.88]  You can't do it in Fastify.
+[2903.26 --> 2906.60]  In Fastify, whenever route is decided settled, it's settled.
+[2907.00 --> 2908.06]  You can't unsettle it.
+[2908.60 --> 2911.52]  And this is one of the limitations that we were talking about.
+[2911.52 --> 2912.90]  That you asked me, there is limitation.
+[2913.06 --> 2916.02]  This is one of the decisions that we had to take.
+[2916.10 --> 2917.36]  Well, so what happens?
+[2917.50 --> 2919.04]  I mean, because that's the beauty of Express.
+[2919.04 --> 2920.74]  You can just go next, right?
+[2920.98 --> 2921.86]  Yes, exactly.
+[2922.16 --> 2923.24]  You can do that in Fastify.
+[2923.42 --> 2926.84]  So, does that put that onus back onto the caller?
+[2926.84 --> 2930.30]  So, what we do is that you call it with a given route.
+[2930.70 --> 2930.86]  Okay?
+[2931.30 --> 2938.56]  So, in that route, we decide what code is going to be executed and what we call them lifecycle
+[2938.56 --> 2939.08]  hooks.
+[2939.72 --> 2944.90]  So, essentially, we do something like when we receive a request, something before the
+[2944.90 --> 2948.08]  handler is called, we all do something after the body is parsed.
+[2948.12 --> 2950.84]  So, there are moments where you can inject your code in the sequence.
+[2950.84 --> 2953.72]  And then we execute your function code.
+[2953.82 --> 2956.40]  And then you can execute some more things at the end.
+[2956.86 --> 2957.64]  And that's the cycle.
+[2957.86 --> 2958.00]  Okay?
+[2958.44 --> 2960.34]  So, it's very straightforward.
+[2960.70 --> 2962.78]  And there are no weird turns here.
+[2962.98 --> 2965.94]  So, the weird turns are exception paths and so on.
+[2966.02 --> 2968.54]  So, in this way, the code can be very streamlined.
+[2969.04 --> 2973.54]  The logic that I cannot write, and you were right, is there's no next.
+[2974.06 --> 2974.42]  Okay?
+[2974.54 --> 2977.42]  In the sense of the next level, there is a done.
+[2977.42 --> 2982.94]  We call it done in Fastify to differentiate of that because it's, if you resolve, or even
+[2982.94 --> 2986.16]  when you resolve a promise, you move to the next step.
+[2986.46 --> 2989.44]  But there is no, you cannot fork it in that sense.
+[2989.66 --> 2995.88]  So, let's say that you have a route that, I don't know, matches, you put something around
+[2995.88 --> 2997.08]  that matches certain IDs.
+[2997.64 --> 3005.02]  And you want to say, oh, if I cannot find this in the database, call, move to this other
+[3005.02 --> 3007.30]  route that generates it on the fly.
+[3007.42 --> 3007.72]  Okay?
+[3007.78 --> 3008.36]  Or something.
+[3008.94 --> 3010.22]  You can do that in Fastify.
+[3010.32 --> 3014.26]  You will need to find some other different pattern to implement this same logic, which
+[3014.26 --> 3016.14]  is probably a little bit more complex.
+[3016.54 --> 3023.38]  But nevertheless, it enables us to minimize the amount of checks that we need to execute
+[3023.38 --> 3024.42]  to reach your route.
+[3024.42 --> 3033.52]  So, a complex 30-something, 30 or 50-something hook multiplied by three become a smaller, maybe
+[3033.52 --> 3035.62]  510 multiplied by two.
+[3035.96 --> 3039.28]  So, we have shrinked completely the call stack.
+[3039.76 --> 3042.86]  And this is part of the reason why Fastify is good.
+[3043.54 --> 3050.42]  And Fastify can maintain that level of performance while providing a good level of user experience.
+[3050.42 --> 3051.62]  That makes a lot of sense.
+[3051.78 --> 3058.14]  And so, like, so Fastify does borrow from Express and Happy a little bit.
+[3058.26 --> 3059.06]  Yeah, both of them.
+[3059.12 --> 3059.36]  Yes.
+[3059.50 --> 3062.00]  So, I mean, how big of a transition is it for users?
+[3062.14 --> 3065.22]  Kind of like, like, for example, like, I don't need to think about Express.
+[3065.36 --> 3067.42]  Like, I can use Express without looking at the docs.
+[3067.60 --> 3068.18]  You know what I mean?
+[3068.60 --> 3070.08]  It's been so many years, right?
+[3070.08 --> 3073.88]  It's like the go-to hello world for Node is Express for me.
+[3074.22 --> 3076.68]  Not even Koa, as much as I love Koa.
+[3076.98 --> 3078.84]  If I use Koa, I have to look at the docs.
+[3079.26 --> 3081.70]  If I use Express, I don't have to look at the docs, you know?
+[3081.90 --> 3084.08]  And so, how do you translate that?
+[3084.16 --> 3087.72]  How do you bring that very familiar experience into the Fastify API?
+[3088.18 --> 3089.72]  So, we have a bunch of things, okay?
+[3090.16 --> 3094.92]  So, first of all, if you are migrating from an Express app, you can actually just run your
+[3094.92 --> 3096.12]  Express app on top of Fastify.
+[3096.92 --> 3098.72]  What about all those call stacks?
+[3098.72 --> 3104.16]  Yeah, well, you know, you can migrate your things a little bit whenever you're ready,
+[3104.40 --> 3104.62]  okay?
+[3104.66 --> 3105.04]  Interesting.
+[3105.26 --> 3106.04]  Module by module.
+[3106.46 --> 3111.14]  There is a module called Fastify Express, and it enables you to mount a full Express application
+[3111.14 --> 3117.38]  on top of Fastify model, because that level of routing and checks is so flexible.
+[3117.58 --> 3119.92]  Well, what's the actual benefit of doing that, though?
+[3120.16 --> 3121.86]  So, it's a migration benefit.
+[3122.24 --> 3126.98]  So, let's say that you want to migrate your application from using Express to Fastify.
+[3126.98 --> 3128.28]  You can do that.
+[3128.72 --> 3132.54]  Or maybe there is a chunk of your application that you don't want to migrate for whatever
+[3132.54 --> 3136.98]  reason, and you can keep it there and use it the rest somewhere else.
+[3137.04 --> 3141.12]  I've seen there's a few companies that have done this, because it's simpler doing that
+[3141.12 --> 3143.76]  than provide that piece, essentially.
+[3144.00 --> 3144.30]  Okay.
+[3144.78 --> 3145.70]  That's very cool.
+[3145.88 --> 3147.22]  I love the migration benefit.
+[3147.36 --> 3149.18]  I mean, that's very forward-thinking.
+[3149.18 --> 3150.18]  Yes.
+[3150.18 --> 3152.42]  We introduced this on Fastify V3.
+[3152.56 --> 3157.50]  That was not possible in Fastify V2, but we reached that level in Fastify V3 last year.
+[3157.50 --> 3159.80]  For us, we're using Nest.js.
+[3159.88 --> 3162.10]  And we talked about Nest actually last week on the show.
+[3162.36 --> 3168.22]  And it does, by default, use Express under the hood, but it can easily use Fastify as well.
+[3168.48 --> 3169.22]  Yeah, it's pretty good.
+[3169.32 --> 3172.92]  And Nest is not my loaf of bread, as you say.
+[3173.44 --> 3177.52]  But if you're looking for that type of experience, it's a great framework.
+[3177.52 --> 3182.08]  I'm typically doing a lot of more custom things to benefit from a framework like Nest.
+[3182.52 --> 3186.60]  But usually, it can be a good choice for a certain class of products.
+[3187.22 --> 3193.56]  So going back to the Express thingy, so the API is very familiar, however, with a few key
+[3193.56 --> 3194.00]  differences.
+[3194.36 --> 3198.86]  First of all, it supports Async Await out of the box, which is not there with Express.
+[3199.60 --> 3204.36]  If you try to use Async Await with Express out of the box, you're going to get some very,
+[3204.46 --> 3206.10]  very bad surprises very soon.
+[3206.10 --> 3209.10]  So that's the problem that everybody has.
+[3209.62 --> 3211.18]  So that is not being evolved.
+[3211.50 --> 3218.24]  OK, it's Express 4, which is the current released version and stable version of Express, was
+[3218.24 --> 3222.28]  released seven years ago and, you know, not updated in the last two years.
+[3223.72 --> 3226.62]  It's extremely stable, as you say.
+[3226.86 --> 3227.04]  Yeah.
+[3227.24 --> 3229.32]  But it's also not being...
+[3229.32 --> 3229.86]  Yeah, yeah, yeah.
+[3229.88 --> 3230.94]  It's quite stagnant.
+[3231.04 --> 3231.74]  Yeah, I know.
+[3232.00 --> 3233.30]  It's stagnating at the minute.
+[3233.54 --> 3233.74]  OK.
+[3233.74 --> 3239.34]  What's familiar if I need to do something really quickly and it's prototyping code?
+[3239.70 --> 3245.88]  Funnily enough, if you open up the docs, OK, it's actually very, you know, it will get
+[3245.88 --> 3246.86]  a sense of familiarity.
+[3247.54 --> 3252.32]  The snippet is actually very, very similar to what you would use with Express.
+[3252.32 --> 3256.74]  OK, so even if Express with the callback version of it.
+[3257.24 --> 3257.42]  OK.
+[3257.86 --> 3260.82]  And I'm going to pass the callback snippet in here.
+[3261.58 --> 3263.24]  So, oh, it didn't render correctly.
+[3263.74 --> 3266.20]  But you can find it on the website.
+[3266.50 --> 3267.72]  So it's in there.
+[3267.88 --> 3269.32]  But it also supports Async Await.
+[3269.32 --> 3271.92]  So you can just return from your Async function.
+[3272.54 --> 3277.80]  And if you return an object, that will automatically be rendered as a JSON, which is essentially even
+[3277.80 --> 3279.30]  simpler than using .send.
+[3279.36 --> 3279.98]  No, that's cool.
+[3280.12 --> 3282.52]  Well, no, Matteo, I mean, Festify is awesome.
+[3282.68 --> 3285.08]  Pino, so I haven't used Festify in production.
+[3285.72 --> 3286.96]  I've been following the project.
+[3287.20 --> 3288.04]  It's very cool.
+[3288.04 --> 3291.32]  I can't wait to try it, like, at a real company.
+[3291.70 --> 3293.84]  But I've been using Pino, and I love Pino.
+[3294.20 --> 3296.16]  And Pino is just, it's incredible.
+[3296.44 --> 3297.98]  And the ecosystem around it's great.
+[3298.14 --> 3300.16]  It's very easy to create your own abstractions.
+[3300.74 --> 3301.82]  Really low overhead.
+[3302.62 --> 3304.74]  And, yeah, log management is hard, people.
+[3305.02 --> 3306.06]  Don't diss it, OK?
+[3306.34 --> 3308.24]  A great interview question, I think.
+[3308.50 --> 3309.26]  Oh, yes.
+[3309.46 --> 3313.80]  By the way, I don't ask logging when I'm interviewing candidates, OK?
+[3313.82 --> 3316.04]  So I do interview a lot of candidates at NearForm.
+[3316.04 --> 3317.74]  So we are adding a lot at the moment.
+[3317.74 --> 3319.00]  We are adding so many people this year.
+[3319.34 --> 3320.28]  We are keep adding more.
+[3320.56 --> 3323.64]  So if you want to join nearform.com slash careers, have fun.
+[3323.80 --> 3326.42]  Good place to write JavaScript and learn from people.
+[3326.72 --> 3328.34]  Yeah, and Festify and Pino.
+[3328.90 --> 3332.98]  So going back to Pino, which is actually one of the nicest things,
+[3333.40 --> 3337.76]  is that we are actually shipping a new major release of Pino, Pino 7,
+[3338.04 --> 3343.52]  which I have been writing on my newsletter for probably the last six months now.
+[3344.12 --> 3347.08]  So it took a long time to get there.
+[3347.08 --> 3354.12]  We are moving part of the logic of producing those logs to work at threads.
+[3354.46 --> 3361.92]  But does that mean you're going to require certain, like, you have to have this node version and this OS and whatever, you know?
+[3361.94 --> 3363.48]  It's supported in Node 12+.
+[3363.48 --> 3365.16]  So, yes, it's your requirement.
+[3365.24 --> 3365.92]  Yeah, yeah, I'm saying.
+[3366.06 --> 3368.86]  You can't use it with Node like 11 or 10.
+[3368.86 --> 3372.92]  Well, yes, but you should not be using those anyway because they're people there.
+[3372.92 --> 3372.94]  I agree.
+[3372.94 --> 3373.78]  I'm with you.
+[3373.94 --> 3374.74]  100% with you.
+[3374.90 --> 3379.72]  But believe it or not, you and I both know there's lots of servers in the world.
+[3379.84 --> 3380.72]  Oh, don't tell me.
+[3381.36 --> 3383.12]  We were working on one this morning.
+[3383.56 --> 3384.02]  Yeah, yeah.
+[3385.22 --> 3390.90]  Somebody opened an issue during this show that they were running Node 6 in production and they were just like...
+[3390.90 --> 3391.96]  Oh, my God.
+[3392.48 --> 3393.04]  Yeah.
+[3393.18 --> 3395.54]  Where's your security and compliance team, you know?
+[3395.64 --> 3398.12]  But anyways, so, Mateo, awesome projects.
+[3398.22 --> 3401.08]  Thank you so much for all the incredible work that you do in the open source community.
+[3401.08 --> 3403.10]  And you give back a lot in terms of teaching.
+[3403.10 --> 3410.58]  You've got some really great courses that I think helped me understand promises and async code a lot better.
+[3410.58 --> 3418.06]  Like, we'll link those in the show notes, but Mateo's got a lot of really great material on just asynchronousness in JavaScript.
+[3419.46 --> 3419.94]  Asynchronousness.
+[3420.44 --> 3427.86]  So, Mateo, before we end this show, we promised everyone we were going to talk about Dino briefly, if that's even possible.
+[3428.12 --> 3428.42]  Okay.
+[3428.66 --> 3430.62]  I'm dying to hear.
+[3430.78 --> 3434.58]  I have yet to actually have this conversation with a nodi, like a hardcore nodi.
+[3434.58 --> 3439.76]  I've had this conversation with lots of people in the JavaScript community, yet to have this conversation with a Node TSC.
+[3439.76 --> 3440.78]  What do you think?
+[3441.18 --> 3442.58]  I would say a few things.
+[3442.92 --> 3446.40]  So, the first one is I did not like at all.
+[3447.22 --> 3448.46]  Why am I not the price?
+[3448.54 --> 3448.88]  Just kidding.
+[3448.94 --> 3449.24]  Just kidding.
+[3449.66 --> 3465.96]  The marketing approach that they've taken in the first few period of the years that have been written communicates about essentially that we're stating falsehood or even pointing out, you know, certain things.
+[3465.96 --> 3477.22]  And just telling a very specifically framed part of the story that did not really reflect reality or did reflect some part of the reality without telling the rest.
+[3477.38 --> 3482.74]  I have been not happy about the way they launched it.
+[3483.06 --> 3483.18]  Okay.
+[3483.64 --> 3484.48]  Let me be.
+[3484.64 --> 3487.76]  Not the way that Ryan did the talk at JSConf.
+[3488.00 --> 3488.64]  That was fine.
+[3488.94 --> 3489.22]  Okay.
+[3489.40 --> 3490.10]  The talk was good.
+[3490.10 --> 3492.82]  And I think he was spot on on most of the things that he said.
+[3493.38 --> 3499.08]  What I did not, the follow-on narrative on the project, it was not good.
+[3499.20 --> 3503.28]  They changed the narrative lately and starting focusing on their own specific features.
+[3503.78 --> 3504.60]  I like that.
+[3504.72 --> 3504.90]  Okay.
+[3504.90 --> 3516.46]  I think you should be focusing on your own features and what you can do for the community and not on, you know, throwing rocks at others without even justifying them, to be honest.
+[3516.60 --> 3524.96]  It's quite hard to praise new work without totally pooping on old work, right?
+[3525.12 --> 3527.74]  I mean, it takes class.
+[3527.74 --> 3528.74]  It takes finesse.
+[3528.84 --> 3529.52]  It takes effort.
+[3530.26 --> 3537.22]  And sometimes even when people aren't intending to poo-poo on someone else's parade, like, they do so, right?
+[3537.28 --> 3539.26]  It's just, it's nerd sniping.
+[3539.38 --> 3540.92]  It's what we experience.
+[3541.36 --> 3542.82]  And I'm sorry about that, you know.
+[3543.22 --> 3545.34]  And there's no excuses there.
+[3546.02 --> 3555.94]  But that being said, if we kind of move the conversation to focus on the API itself and the actual, like, the actual code, like, what are your thoughts there?
+[3555.94 --> 3559.52]  Just, you know, we are driving a car with three wheels, right?
+[3559.62 --> 3566.06]  There was definitely some architectural and fundamental decisions that were made, like even Ryan's talk covered.
+[3566.28 --> 3566.96]  Oh, yeah.
+[3567.38 --> 3570.30]  That have hampered the project's success.
+[3570.60 --> 3573.46]  Nobody knew it was going to take off in the way that it did, right?
+[3573.56 --> 3575.48]  And similar to JavaScript, right?
+[3576.18 --> 3577.24]  Yes, exactly.
+[3578.00 --> 3580.62]  I am not a fan of the approach, okay?
+[3580.62 --> 3587.48]  If I code something that's not correct and that I think is not correct, I go in and try to fix what I did.
+[3587.96 --> 3589.14]  It did something else, okay?
+[3589.22 --> 3592.90]  That's the type of the part of the approach that I am not fond of.
+[3593.22 --> 3594.74]  The project itself is amazing.
+[3594.92 --> 3595.60]  Like, Dino is amazing.
+[3595.70 --> 3597.78]  It's an amazing piece of software, okay?
+[3597.92 --> 3599.58]  It's really great.
+[3599.58 --> 3610.22]  So, it's actually being the force that was necessary to Node to unlock itself from some of the mud that it was in.
+[3610.58 --> 3618.58]  Thanks to Dino existing, Node.js could do a lot of things and move faster and remove a lot of the discussion.
+[3618.92 --> 3623.42]  And at some point, we were sitting a little bit on ourselves.
+[3623.76 --> 3625.16]  We were, you know, oh, we are Node.
+[3625.28 --> 3625.94]  We are the TSC.
+[3626.16 --> 3626.64]  We are great.
+[3626.78 --> 3627.22]  Blah, blah, blah, blah.
+[3627.30 --> 3628.42]  There was a little bit of that.
+[3628.42 --> 3630.28]  But that's gone.
+[3630.74 --> 3634.56]  And we are back shipping things and improving things and maintaining things.
+[3635.42 --> 3639.92]  So, in fact, some of the stuff, like a lot of the drama is not existing even anymore.
+[3640.06 --> 3643.24]  There was a lot of drama in some years on the Node community.
+[3643.52 --> 3644.60]  That's gone, okay?
+[3645.10 --> 3646.32]  So, it's no drama.
+[3646.56 --> 3648.54]  People are doing things, contributing.
+[3648.94 --> 3649.90]  Who is contributing?
+[3650.14 --> 3652.18]  Maybe some other people are not contributing.
+[3652.38 --> 3655.90]  But more or less, their level of contribution has stayed the same.
+[3655.90 --> 3660.16]  And new people went, some people went away, new people came in.
+[3660.56 --> 3662.42]  It's still a good project to contribute to.
+[3662.62 --> 3663.90]  And there is a lot of work to do.
+[3664.36 --> 3665.52]  Things are moving really well.
+[3665.64 --> 3667.44]  So, it was a great benefit for Node.
+[3667.44 --> 3679.26]  And my main take here is how much time it will take for Node to get a bunch of the features that makes Dino really, really useful.
+[3679.44 --> 3679.72]  Okay?
+[3679.86 --> 3681.20]  In which Dino is better.
+[3681.58 --> 3683.84]  And how much time it will take Node to catch up there.
+[3684.10 --> 3686.08]  Dino is better in certain areas.
+[3686.22 --> 3689.02]  For example, web standard compatibility and so on and so forth.
+[3689.42 --> 3690.68]  But the ecosystem is not there.
+[3690.80 --> 3691.72]  NPM is not there.
+[3691.72 --> 3696.56]  You have a massive amount of ecosystem network value on Node.
+[3696.68 --> 3700.00]  And Node needs to keep existing to support the JavaScript community.
+[3700.58 --> 3706.36]  So, all those people that started using, oh, when Dino came out, oh, Node modules boom.
+[3706.94 --> 3708.20]  And Node is dead.
+[3708.40 --> 3709.42]  And all those things.
+[3709.70 --> 3709.90]  Yeah.
+[3709.96 --> 3713.82]  I mean, people who say that, I'm like, Jesus Christ, have you looked at the internet?
+[3714.38 --> 3717.84]  Like, jQuery is still the most popular framework in the world.
+[3718.00 --> 3720.96]  And React is like, what, 2% of websites, if even?
+[3720.96 --> 3723.80]  I mean, it's just that web devs are in a bubble.
+[3724.08 --> 3726.22]  And they don't understand the arc of software.
+[3726.56 --> 3729.76]  Like, software gets shipped, written, never updated.
+[3730.32 --> 3730.42]  Okay?
+[3730.90 --> 3731.10]  Yay!
+[3732.00 --> 3737.48]  But anyways, so just real quick, we'll link to how to get started as a Node contributor.
+[3737.76 --> 3739.66]  There's some really great, like, guides.
+[3740.14 --> 3740.56]  Yes.
+[3741.54 --> 3742.66]  Node2do.org.
+[3742.80 --> 3745.10]  C++ do you need to know versus JavaScript?
+[3745.56 --> 3747.60]  Like, do you need to even know C++?
+[3747.92 --> 3749.12]  Can you just know JavaScript?
+[3749.12 --> 3750.68]  You can just know JavaScript.
+[3750.96 --> 3754.30]  But you might be willing to learn something as possible.
+[3754.54 --> 3755.00]  Yeah, yeah.
+[3755.54 --> 3756.10]  I don't know.
+[3756.38 --> 3757.28]  I learned it.
+[3757.34 --> 3759.00]  I feel like I'm relearning it now.
+[3759.40 --> 3763.06]  But, like, you know, it's a very good investment, I think, you know, learning how to write C++.
+[3763.42 --> 3767.56]  Learning about memory management will just, it'll change your whole framework as an engineer.
+[3767.56 --> 3772.64]  So it's good, good fundamentals if and when you're ready for that next step, but you don't have to.
+[3773.14 --> 3774.94]  So, Matteo, where can people find you online?
+[3775.24 --> 3777.34]  And then there's Node comps coming up, right?
+[3777.54 --> 3777.92]  Yes.
+[3777.98 --> 3778.80]  So, a few things.
+[3778.92 --> 3782.32]  So, you can find me online at twitter.com slash Matteo Collina.
+[3782.32 --> 3787.84]  And, yeah, just, you know, reach out and ask me whatever question you want.
+[3788.40 --> 3790.92]  So, I have a newsletter, so you can check that.
+[3791.06 --> 3795.74]  It's, if you like me writing and rambling about Node.js, that's probably the right place.
+[3796.16 --> 3805.72]  This is a quick announcement because we have Node.com on the 18th of October, from the 18th to the 21st of October.
+[3805.72 --> 3808.92]  So, it's 10 days from now, a little bit more than 10 days.
+[3809.32 --> 3810.36]  So, it's 10 days from now.
+[3810.88 --> 3812.90]  You can definitely, you want definitely to attend.
+[3813.12 --> 3823.72]  It's packed off Node core contributors and Node users that are going to speak on how they improve the platform or use the platform that you all know and love.
+[3823.88 --> 3825.46]  So, it's a great conference.
+[3825.74 --> 3827.44]  I can tell because I assembled the agenda.
+[3827.64 --> 3829.86]  So, I can definitely tell it's a great agenda.
+[3830.32 --> 3831.84]  I ended up running most of it.
+[3832.28 --> 3834.64]  So, it's my major to-do list.
+[3834.64 --> 3835.16]  Yeah.
+[3835.72 --> 3836.70]  No, that's great.
+[3836.82 --> 3839.50]  Well, thank you again for everything that you've done for our community.
+[3840.34 --> 3846.26]  All the contributions, all the great software, for making my code better and everyone else's that uses your software.
+[3846.98 --> 3851.14]  And, yeah, I'm off to go look for that module now with all the secrets at Fastify.
+[3851.42 --> 3852.94]  You said Fastify had no dependencies.
+[3853.10 --> 3855.04]  So, is this module like an internal module?
+[3855.38 --> 3855.76]  No, no.
+[3855.82 --> 3857.06]  Fastify has plenty of dependencies.
+[3857.40 --> 3858.44]  Oh, okay, okay, okay.
+[3858.46 --> 3859.66]  I was like, wait a second here.
+[3859.70 --> 3860.70]  I thought it had dependencies.
+[3860.86 --> 3861.30]  No, no.
+[3861.48 --> 3862.42]  Okay, so I misunderstood.
+[3862.78 --> 3864.32]  If you find it, shh.
+[3864.32 --> 3865.34]  If I find it, shh.
+[3865.34 --> 3866.04]  Okay, got it.
+[3866.08 --> 3867.54]  That's the name of the package, actually.
+[3867.70 --> 3868.76]  It's shh, you know.
+[3870.24 --> 3871.12]  All right, everyone.
+[3871.48 --> 3872.68]  Thank you again, Mateo.
+[3872.80 --> 3873.72]  It's a wrap, kids.
+[3873.88 --> 3874.82]  Talk to you next week.
+[3874.94 --> 3875.28]  Bye.
+[3875.72 --> 3876.12]  Bye.
+[3876.44 --> 3876.82]  Bye-bye.
+[3876.82 --> 3882.60]  That's JS Party for this week.
+[3882.60 --> 3883.28]  Thanks for listening.
+[3883.28 --> 3885.70]  We have some awesome guests queued up.
+[3885.70 --> 3886.46]  Nader Dabbit.
+[3886.46 --> 3887.54]  Chris Ferdinandi.
+[3887.80 --> 3888.74]  Rachel Neighbors.
+[3888.98 --> 3889.56]  Rich Harris.
+[3889.78 --> 3890.32]  And more.
+[3890.52 --> 3892.90]  If you haven't subscribed at this point, what are you waiting for?
+[3893.34 --> 3896.06]  And of course, we would love for you to help spread the word about the show.
+[3896.64 --> 3899.36]  Word of mouth is the number one way people find out about us.
+[3900.24 --> 3903.72]  JS Party is produced by Jared Santo with music by Breakmaster Cylinder.
+[3903.72 --> 3905.82]  We are brought to you by our awesome sponsors.
+[3906.22 --> 3908.84]  Special thanks to Fastly, LaunchDarkly, and Leno.
+[3909.74 --> 3916.46]  Next up on the pod, we are talking Web3, DApps, Ethereum, and all that craziness with Nader Dabbit.
+[3916.68 --> 3918.38]  We'll have that one ready for you next week.
+[3918.38 --> 3948.36]  We'll be right back.
diff --git a/For a more dope web!_transcript.txt b/For a more dope web!_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5b81997f60ac6d7e51b8ce94a96ad1bb616e860b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/For a more dope web!_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,583 @@
+**Amal Hussein:** Alright, hello JS Party people! We are so excited to be here with you today. It's my favorite topic - basically, anything on the web... So I guess I'm cheating. It's not really a favorite, it includes everything that we talk about... But we're really excited to have a very special guest with us today, Paul Bakaus. He's a developer advocate at Google, working on the Web Creators project, which we're gonna learn all about today. Welcome, Paul.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Thank you. Thanks for having me. And also, coincidentally, this is also my favorite topic.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I know. It's a bunch of web lovers here.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You're in good company.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Maybe that project should just be called Web Lovers, instead of Web Creators...
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** I like it. Yeah, I like it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Just weird SEO result potentially, right? \[laughter\]
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** That's true.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Careful searching for that...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yes, exactly... "Farmers only? What?" Just kidding. Folks based in the U.S. will maybe get that joke. On our panel today we've got Nick Nisi - welcome, Nick.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Hoy-hoy.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And of course, Jerod. Hi, Jerod.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Hoy-hoy!
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Hey, you're stealing his tagline.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Copyright infringement here, you know?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I'm just here to cause trouble.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Alright, so today's show is gonna be about Web Creators. Some people might be wondering, "Wow, Web Creators - that sounds super-generic, Amal. What the hell?" And I agree. I have to wonder - since this project came out of Google, and it's called Web Creators, what's the SEO story on that? I'm curious, Paul... You know, if people are googling "web creators".
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** That's a great question.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Did Google have to hard-code something in the search algorithm to get that to pop up?
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** \[03:57\] Yeah... You know what - I still think we have to work on that, to be honest. No, to be honest, I haven't considered SEO when I started the whole thing. I really thought more about the term "blogger", and how if you go to a high school class today and you ask them "Who wants to be a blogger?" then you'll get zero hands raised. So my idea here was to shift that... To say, "Look, can we call this profession something that is a little bit more in the zeitgeist maybe of high school kids that want to become creators?" That's really the reason behind this.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Wow, that is super-practical, and super-german. I would expect nothing less from you, Paul.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's kind of sad, nobody wants to be a blogger? I mean, come on...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** They refer to it as influencer.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right, web influencers.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah, personally I still find it very cool.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I think it's called something else now exactly. They have the best jobs in the world, really. They just get to push the world; I think it's really cool. We'll be talking about lots of pushes today, like pushing to the web... This Web Creators project is really about pushing to the web, right Paul?
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Mm-hm.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So can you tell us what is this about? We've got Web Stories, Web Creators... What's the what? Break it down for us.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah, so first of all, Google Web Creators. The idea here is to, I would say, do something that we haven't done, but we should have done a long, long time ago. We used to have this \[unintelligible 00:05:16.08\] organization at Google, of course, and you have probably interacted with a lot of them... And we had that muscle for quite a while now; and yet, that doesn't just solve the whole problem, and that's something that I realized a year or two ago, where I realized in the '90s maybe content creators and developers were kind of the same person. The person who would create a Geocities page would also hand-code it. But today, those audiences are very different often. Your typical WordPress blogger might not have the technical background to reach them with \[unintelligible 00:05:47.06\] to be frank... And this is kind of embarrassing, but we never had that outreach arm; we never had education for bloggers and for non-technical content creators out there. And also, not just education, but sort of a relationship with them.
+
+So we have Search Central and we have SEO guidance, but most of it is technical. We're not really helping people along content strategy, around mental health for creators. There are so many topics that we could touch on, that we could work with people on, and we have never done this. So that's really the core idea behind this program.
+
+And now there's another aspect of this, which is bringing innovation back to content creation on the web. I'm a developer advocate, I've been a developer for a long time... My first instinct when it comes to pushing to web is "Oh, I wanna be on the edge of web development." It's WebAssembly, or it's something else that is super-hot right now. And what does that do? Well, it means that the application web will become more and more popular. But what do we do about the part of the web that is the content web? How much innovation really was there in the last 20 years in the blogging space? I'm curious if you think differently, but I think not so much. And I think we should fix that, to be honest. So that's kind of the quest I'm on.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You're fighting the good fight, man... We have this interesting problem on the web, which is the centralization of content. Everything's kind of being funnelled through Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook... So all this content is kind of owned and created and kind of stays within these walled gardens, and isn't easily accessible in the open web. And even if it is accessible in the open web, you're always getting prodded and tracked and asked to log in, and whatever else... Not so great.
+
+So first of all, we're gonna have lots of fun stuff in the show links, so everyone should check this stuff out, because it is super-cool. I think the vibe around the education arc and the roll-out of this program is just super-cool... So we're gonna play some audio for y'all. I hope you enjoy it.
+
+**Extract:** \[07:44\] Bloggers. Journalists. Editors. Content marketers. Fan artists. Curators. Activists. A diverse group on their own journeys, and yet they all have something in common - they all create on and for the web. But it's not the wide, wide web of the '90s anymore, where I could \[unintelligible 00:07:59.01\] and GIFs together to satisfy my audience.
+
+Creating on the web has become more complicated, especially if you're not technical. Mobile users have higher expectations and less patience, and there's not a lot of guidance out there to help you on your journey... Which is super-weird, right? Because the web is such a wonderful place. As the only truly open platform in the world, with an estimated four billion users, your own website allows you to own your audience, your content, and your monetization strategy.
+
+\[08:25\] Whether you're a blogger, a journalist, or a small business on the web, we're all facing similar challenges, and we can probably learn a lot from each other. So if we're stronger together, why don't we have a shared identity? We're convinced we can help each other as fellow web creators.
+
+At Google, we deeply care about the web and wanna support you the best we can. Not just with developer and search guidance, but with a completely dedicated set of content, outreach and social channels we call Google Web Creators.
+
+Become a member of our new community and follow is today across YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, and naturally, our blog. So come check us out for tips and tricks on how to make amazing web stories, and then stick around to meet your fellow creators on Creators Spotlight and Power the Web.
+
+Ask us anything on Twitter or on YouTube. Participate in the office hours. Send us dope content you create, and most importantly, help us keep the web weird, diverse and open. Let's do this!
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, amen to a diverse, open and weird web, and amen to any other advertising that uses the word "dope". It's speaking to my heart.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I was way in, and then you said my content had to be dope, and I was like "Dang it! My content is lame. Can I still publish it on the web?"
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I know... Yeah, my content's always mediocre, right? \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah... What about my mediocre content? Does that count?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right. Yeah, what's the relativity bar here? \[laughter\]
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** I don't judge. I'll take all the content.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There you go.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** So is this a way -- like, you were saying there hasn't been much innovation in this... And I think I agree. It's not something that I've really thought about in the last 10-15 years of all of this, but there's platforms, and the platforms have definitely innovated, and new closed platforms have come out... But if you want to be a creator that wants to own everything, and not just post it to \*insert social media network here\*. Is that what this project is really?
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah, that's a great question. 50% of it I would say yes. There are two halves of this. The first one is to level with the current ecosystem of the web... To say "Look, there are tons of amazing bloggers out there that honestly are not getting the support that they need from us, and they should be getting the support." We should celebrate them, we should encourage them to help them on their journey, and we're not. And we need to fix that. So that's the first one.
+
+The second one is yes, there are a ton of what we call modern creators, for a lack of a better term. Not that bloggers are not modern, it's just that creators that start on closed platforms and closed walled gardens, whether that's a TikTok influencer or someone else... And we're also seeing a pattern here -- there was an article recently in one of the big news publications around how a bunch of YouTubers have started to create their own websites, because it allows them more control to engage their most dedicated fans... And it makes complete sense. The problem with that approach is that right now it's freaking hard. It's really difficult to do that if you're just a one-person show. So these YouTubers were already very well-aware established. Big YouTubers that have a whole team around them.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** So for their middle class of creators it's still very difficult to get started on the web, and translate what they've been doing to the web. We're trying to help with that, too. So both of these.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And it's hard in two ways. It's hard technically to pull off, and it's hard to build an audience, because your audience is over there, watching YouTube all day.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So you kind of need help in multiple facets of this thing, otherwise you have to go where the audience is, don't you?
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** \[11:56\] I guess that's true, yeah. To be honest, I think it's not a zero-sum game either. So it's not like we're trying to shift everyone to the web exclusively. That I think is also important to consider, because even if you're a successful fashion blogger or food blogger today, then social media is gonna be a big part of your strategy. We're not trying to say "Stop your Instagram account and come to the web." No. It's diversification that matters here. It's the same with the stock market. You're not just gonna invest in one stock and be happy with that if you're a smart broker. You will diversify your strategy there.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, be in all the places.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You mean I shouldn't just go all-in on GameStop, or...? \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Jerod, bad retirement idea, okay? Bad, bad, bad planning.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I've gotta go, guys. I've gotta go make some trades.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So this idea of elevating the content creation game for folks putting stuff out onto the open web is really cool, because what I'm seeing with web stories and just this general push for elevating the content is that we're bringing the experiences people expect... So the web being this link-based, search-based -- just a set of links that you click and you have to scroll to navigate etc, that's not necessarily the same experience folks who are using native mobile apps are used to. They're used to swiping, and all kinds of gesturing, and all this kind of nuanced behavior that isn't necessarily native to the web yet... And you're kind of introducing this Instagram style content, these snippets of little digestible bits of information that are for the modern user, really. It's for people who are used to connecting on the web through their mobile phones. It's such a d'oh thing that we're this late to the game on that.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah, exactly right. There was this meme around stories, and everything... Even the meme is already a couple of years old, so we're definitely late to the show... But that's not the point. The point is really to figure out what works for consumers today, and then bring that to the web, and make it more webby; that's the really important thing. If you're creating a story in a closed, walled garden app, good luck adding a link to that story. But with web stories, you have that possibility. You can add links, your content doesn't expire...
+
+But the crucial thing is that we're always trying to find that compromise that keeps the user experience the way that consumers demand it, and yet, basically make it webby enough for the open web to sustain itself, and for those creators to sustain themselves. I feel like we're generally misunderstood on this question. We've been misunderstood about this intention with AMP, but it's kind of a hill that I'm willing to die on, because I really believe in the web and I want it to succeed.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** When you say open web, do you mean specifically not the closed gardens of your typical Facebooks, Instagrams, Twitters, those places? It's more like your own domain, your own host, things like that?
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** That's right.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And then adding these social features to that?
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah, exactly right. I think there's also a middle ground here... So whether something is open and closed is a very interesting topic maybe for an even longer podcast... \[unintelligible 00:14:52.19\] is a Medium link on the open web? I would say yes. But there are certain aspects of openness that you don't get as a creator, monetization being one of them, for instance. And on YouTube the same thing. So I'm not just calling out a single company; there's a spectrum of companies on the web that give you a hosting platform or something like that, that restrain what you can do as a creator. And unfortunately, it's always this kind of compromise between complete freedom, but a lot of pain to set up, and basically renting a space, being able to move in right away, but losing that control. And I wish it wasn't; that would be amazing.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, for sure.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. So to kind of summarize, this Web Creators project is - at least the first big thing that y'all are tackling is bringing Web Stories, which is a format of content, to the open web. So that's what we're talking about here. And we'll get into the tooling, and the how, and the deploy, and the what as we go through this show... But to kind of set the stage for that context, you mentioned that Google even got criticized for AMP, and all these initiatives to really just focus on "What can we desperately do to fight the native app mind share of the web experience? How do we bring folks into the web through browsers, and using open clients?" This kind of battle - Google have really been leading that effort. In some ways, obviously, there's a huge incentive for Google; Google sells ads, ads pay the bills... It's in Google's interest that the web stays healthy, vibrant etc. So luckily, the intentions are aligned with something good here.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** \[16:24\] I'm glad you're mentioning this, because so many people come to me and like "What's in it for you? Why are you doing this? I don't trust Google. Why is Google trying to do something good here? There must be some hidden intention here, right?" The fact is if you look at all the Fortune 500 companies, which company would suffer the most when open web goes away?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Google, for sure.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Right.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Google tops that list, unfortunately... So at least for me the motivations are clear here. Google's fortunate enough to have pretty talented people that can execute on a lot of this stuff. We've seen AMP come out and be pretty successful and widely adopted. We've seen progressive web apps, we've seen performance metrics being set... So definitely, I would say folks coming out of the Chromium(ish) space are really kind of fighting the good fight for the health of the web and the open web, which is really great... Obviously, folks from Mozilla and other companies are doing the same; I just think that Google has the resources to really push hard on quite a few things... But really, how does this affect social media apps? Not that I care personally, but I'm curious, is there an interop story that is going to be adopted? Can we make this better, and set a standard for "Hey, maybe this stuff shouldn't be behind walled gardens, and all this content should be indexable and searchable on the web", and whatever else... I'm just curious if that's something that could happen.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah, I would hope so. I think that's something for the social media apps to decide. But we're definitely trying to work with all of them, to make sure that the content is indexable and accessible.
+
+What I will say is I think social media has a role to play for a creator, and we continue to have a role to play, and that is to have audience connection, and that audience building an audience. I think they can really work together well in tandem. I think the one missing link - and pun intended - is the fact that you cannot link to your website from most social media, and I think that's a big issue. I wish the social platforms would be more responsible in that regard, to be honest.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, true that. Well, in the next segment we're gonna dig into the How. How do we discover this content? How is that created? All that fun stuff. We'll be right back, kids...
+
+**Break:** \[18:30\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Alrighty, so... Web Stories. How do we find them, how do we link to them? What is this thing?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's the story? \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. You know what, Paul - I was so excited about this topic, I totally forgot to tell everyone that you were one of the key instrumenter people that was involved with the AMP project. You've kind of moved on to this, so it's really nice to see that. For folks who are wondering what AMP is, do you wanna just give a 60-second summary on what AMP is? We've been mentioning it a lot.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Sure. AMP stood for Accelerated Mobile Pages. Now it's just AMP, because we went beyond pages; there's also emails and stories now, and \[unintelligible 00:20:43.14\] And we also went beyond accelerated and mobile. There's also desktop and user experience in general now. So it's a framework. It's \[unintelligible 00:20:52.10\] that has a bunch of restrictions and a validation aspect to it that ensures a pretty good experience. I think that's the most important thing to know about AMP. It's way more restrictive than building something from scratch, but it ensures a good experience, and it's meant for content. If you wanna build the next calculator app, AMP is gonna frustrate you to hell; but it is born out of the needs of publishers, to help the needs of publishers. It actually came out of the digital news initiative, where we work together with publishers to figure out solutions to help them stay afloat. They realized that it's super-hard to build fast websites, and we're like "Hm... We should do something about this."
+
+So that's what AMP is, fundamentally. It's meant to be a compromise between the free-for-all wide, wide web that we're all used to, and the very streamlined consumer experience that people demand in closed walled gardens. I think it's always been criticized for that reason too, because finding that balance is super-hard... And maybe we haven't gotten it right all the time, but that's what we've been striving for.
+
+One other thing I want to call out is that I'm still involved in AMP. The AMP \[unintelligible 00:21:59.07\] team still reports to me; my personal focus right now is to scale up that new effort around Web Creators.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. It's such a cool project. So AMP started out of Google, in collaboration with all these publishers, and the project is now open governance. Google has birthed it into the universe, so to say... But AMP had set a bunch of standard, and did a lot of things that were unconventional, and ruffled a few feathers... So it was definitely controversial, and it still is, I would say, to some degree. There's still people that are angry about it, or whatever...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Amped up...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, exactly. Amped up.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** So many.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So many... What's the arc for this new kind of controversially -- I don't know, not controversial. Stories are this thing that Google is able to uniquely surface. The content is indexable by all search engines. Can you talk a little bit about that, before we get into how the hell these things are made?
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Of course, yeah. Stories do have AMP underlying it. The technical foundation of Stories is AMP, and there's a good reason for that. It's because AMP provides this kind of restrictive user experience framework. For instance, we wouldn't wanna allow someone to make a web story that cannot be tapped. Let's say you put something on a page and it kind of hijacks the link clicks. That would be really bad. So even beyond the page framework, we need to, with Web Stories, really encourage people to keep with a consistent user experience.
+
+So a Web Stories TL;DR - they're taking that existing story format that you are used to from social walled gardens, like Instagram, TikTok, and SnapChat, so they're taking this proven user experience and bringing it to the web. And then we're working together with a whole lot of tool makers that create visual tooling, to make it easy to create those stories.
+
+We don't actually think that a lot of developers should hand-code them. Maybe the biggest platforms that create sort of an automated pipeline to create them - yes. But for the general content creator, they would go into like a Photoshop-like tool to drag those stories together and hit Publish, and then ultimately their website. So a story is just a website - a glorified website, in some ways - that has a very clear user experience that relates to what consumers relate to on mobile.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[24:08\] The idea of the Web Stories - is that more of just like a spec? And not necessarily like -- if I wanna go create a story, it's not something that is hosted on Google, right? It's more of just like "This is how it would work, and how you can implement it."
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** That's right.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Okay, cool. I was looking in there - it looks like there's a web component as a developer I could use to add these stories to my own site... But I would still be hosting all of the content myself..
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah, that's right. However, it's kind of a similar scenario to AMP, where these stories all live on your own site, but we have the AMP cache on top of it that accelerates delivery when let's say you're opening Google Discover and you're seeing the stories there. They are served from the AMP cache. Again, all analytics, all the attribution goes back to you as the creator, and any further link also goes to you... But just to accelerate the delivery, we're still using the AMP cache here.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Does the AMP cache work from other search indexes? If I was on DuckDuckGo, I could discover a story, but would the AMP cache work? It should, right?
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** So DuckDuckGo would have the choice to link to the AMP cached version of that page. I think they are not doing it right now. In this case, they just link to the story on your own site. It doesn't really matter; it's gonna be a little bit slower for that reason most likely, but it still works.
+
+Bing has their own AMP cache, for example. So if you search on Bing and you land on an AMP page or a story, then yes, they have their own cache. Everyone can build their own cache. The spec is sort of open.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So discovery has to come through Google, mostly, right? How am I gonna find these stories and consume them? Am I gonna search Google for "Nick Nisi web story" or "Paul's story"?
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** You can. Essentially, it's just a web page. Now, we have a discover carrousel on Google Discover, where we highlight the stories in a really nice visual way, with like a poster, and I think that's a great entryway for discovery. We also highlight them on Google Search.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** What is Google Discover? I'm not familiar.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Oh yeah, I should clarify this, because discovering Google Discover sometimes is hard.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] Sweet irony.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah, and we should do a better job here. Google Discover essentially, on iPhone, is the Google app. So if you open the Google app, you get this stream of feeds - that's Google Discover.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** On Android, on the Pixel phones it's the -1 screen. But again, the Google app is another entry into it. Yeah, that's Google Discover.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Basically, it's a counterpart to search, where you don't start with a query. On Google Search you have to know what you're looking for in order to look for something. And on Discover we're trying to bring content to you that we think you're interested in, but everything is web-based. So all the content there links out to web stuff.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That's algorithmically driven, probably. Is there ways to create towards that, or to game it in some way? "Game" is maybe the wrong word.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah, we don't want people to game it...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** SEO.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah, SEO for Discover is a hot topic. We're trying to figure out what the right balance is, how much do we want to reveal, versus how much do we want to make purely consumer algorithmic... And we don't have a solid answer on it yet. So we're still working on that part.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. I think one of the things that drives a lot of creators towards more closed platforms is - as Jerod said, there's the audience there. It can be tough to discover; if I have all of my stories on my website, how do you even know? I'm just screaming out into the void over here.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And I will say that Google used to have this tool that could help with it, called Google Reader...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** ...that maybe you could bring back.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** \[laughs\] Oh, man, what a good burn. Yeah. \[laughter\] You know, we have something in the works that you might like, that you will hear about in the next couple of months.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Alright...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Break some news for us here, Paul. Let us know.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** But I cannot break news yet. What I will say is that -- so Jerod, you asked about how can you discover stories. And in fact, they're web pages. So nothing stops you from linking to them on your own site. Nothing stops you from having a Carrousel experience on your own site. And some people are thinking "Well, who's gonna do that? That's weird", because the experience is so different. But in fact -- I'll just give you an example here. There's this \[unintelligible 00:28:03.15\] a third-party company in France, and they're called Join Stories. A bunch of clients in France, like big retailers, big websites, that now have stories on their sites.
+
+\[28:18\] You will be thinking, "Well, that's weird", because if you'd know more about the launch role out of Discover and Search, then you would know that we actually haven't launched this Discover carrousel in France. We have launched it so far in the U.S. and in Brazil and in India. So some people have been asking "What's in it for them?" and in fact, they just have it on their own website. They have integrated super-well into their experience, and it's working for them. So there's definitely a way to just bring it to a site.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** We'll have to link to that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Well, how does social media play a role beyond the web there? Because if I could create - in some sort of tool that I'm sure you're gonna tell me about, or tools that those people are creating - and post to my own website, but also syndicate that out to other platforms, then that would be less of a compromise, less screaming into the void, because you know, my website's cool, and all. But I probably get like 70 visitors a month.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** That's a good point.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Nick's probably gets like twice that. So can I post those into Instagram? Can I post those into Twitter stories? What about my LinkedIn stories, which is where I usually post my stories?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That kind of ties into a question I was gonna ask, which is they're just websites... And do Open Graph tags or similar for other social networks play into that as well?
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** The answer to that question is yes. Open Graph, Schema.org, whatever you want; Twitter Card data - all of that, you can bring in. We have actually been doing this with our own channel. With our Instagram account, for instance, for the Google Web Creators program, we have created a -- I jokingly call this a Trojan Horse... But we have a Story page on Instagram that links to the Web Story. So you swipe up and you go to the Web Story. And we think that's a pretty good pattern, actually, to cross-link those.
+
+But the other thing that I'm gonna call out - and this is often a confusion too, where bloggers ask me "The story that I've just put on Instagram, where I just posted what my dog ate for breakfast - should I upload it to my web page now, to my website?" And the answer to that is no, probably not.
+
+It's not like we wanna turn the web into TikTok. I think the web is really great at long-form content, editorial content, authoritative content. And I don't think we should change that. Personally, I don't think we should make it all social media, the type of content that is on social media.
+
+So we're using the same format for stories, we're using the same kind of tap-tap-tap thing, but we're kind of asking people to create a multi-page story that has a beginning and an end, that is a little bit more editorial in many ways. So that's a big difference, I would say.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Okay. So it's not like more of a stream of consciousness thing; it's like a curated, "This is what I'm gonna see every time." That was going to lead into a question I had - I wouldn't create a 75-page... I don't know what you call them - page, story? ...it would just be more to the point, and not necessarily just kind of stream of consciousness.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** That's right, yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I was also reading that these don't expire, right? They can be there forever.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah. I think the ideal target is somewhere in the 8-12 pages long, probably. That's at least the experience that we have. I think at 60 pages you would lose your readers very quickly... But yeah, absolutely.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So can we get into the nitty-gritty of how are these things deployed...? Like, is this a special HTML format? What is going on here? And you mentioned there's tools to create this, Photoshop-like tools, so it seems like there's maybe multiple vendors that are already kind of working in this space... But what's the process like from A to Z if I wanted to go from zero to hero?
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah. I mean, for everyone in this room, for everyone who's technical who's a web developer, nothing stops you from coding them from scratch. So yes, under the hood it's just HTML, but it is using the AMP library, the AMP framework.
+
+\[31:52\] So you pull in the JS library from AMP, and then you use the flavor of HTML that we call AMP HTML. So there's like an AMP story web component, and then there's like AMP grid page, and so on... So there's a bunch of special components that I use to construct the story. And there are certain tags that are not allowed, because they kind of destroy the experience. As I mentioned earlier, we don't wanna have someone clickjack the whole thing etc.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Scripts...
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** \[laughs\] Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Just kidding.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** But in the end, it's HTML and CSS.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's like the backdoor, I would say, power user experience, right?
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** The experience that is intended for everybody - everybody can make these things through GUIs...
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah, exactly right. We think that is 95% of creators would probably go that route... And there is a bunch of tools out there; I mean, my team has been building our own tool for WordPress called Web Stories for WordPress. And then there's also many third-party ones. There's Make Stories, which is a self-hosted tool on a platform, there's Newsroom AI... They actually started with other types of stories, for other ecosystems and closed apps, and then they also added the Web Story option.
+
+So there's plenty of tools available here... On stories.google, which is sort of our marketing lending page, you can find a little bit more of them. But there are many different ways of creating them.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Once we create this HTML page in this special format, I'm just deploying it to my site, but clearly, in order for it to get picked up by the AMP cache, is it just "Hey, you deployed something that uses the AMP framework, and therefore when the bots crawl, the bots will pick it up"? How does this work?
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah, so AMP has this validation system to ensure that you're creating essentially valid AMP HTML code that doesn't use anything that would break the experience... So we have the AMP validator on amp.dev that you can use to check whether it's valid AMP. But then there's also on the search console, there is a Web Story testing tool, as we call it... And you put it in there, and that one is specific to making sure that the Web Story has the ability to show up on Google in this featured way; let's say the Discover carrousel.
+
+AMP is completely open source. You could create a web story and it never appears on Google, and no one cares. But then Google has a bunch of additional requirements. For instance, it has to have a poster image, and it has to have decent Schema.org data, with a title and a publisher.
+
+So that search console testing tool for Web Stories checks on those kinds of things, and it also gives you a preview of how it would look like, which is also great... And then yeah, you put it on your own server; you put it on your own server, you host it on your own server, unless you're using a platform like Make Stories. That's really helpful if you don't have a website; then they will host it. But I would only really recommend that hosting solution if you don't already have a website.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Can you mix and match?
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** You can, of course. Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** What about sharing? If you and I were both creating stories, could I somehow highlight your story on my site, or almost like a blog roll type thing on my own platform?
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Very good question.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Blog roll. Bring it back!
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Absolutely. Yeah, so we have this thing called AMP Story Player, which is a web component that you can pull into any website, and it essentially works like a YouTube embed, like a third-party embed, where you can either include and embed your own stories, or you can include someone else's story, and either create a sort of carrousel experience, or you have like a single embed of a story that you put into a blog post and it can be \[unintelligible 00:35:15.10\] So there's multiple options there.
+
+But yeah, I would hope for that kind of ecosystem to flourish in that way, so that everyone links to each other's stories. I think that would be super-cool.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So what about the people who are out there making bank? I mean, influencers. It would be great for the open web and for Google if those people were creating Web Stories in addition to or instead of creating Instagram stories, or social media app stories.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yes, absolutely.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** On those platforms it's easy for them to monetize, there's lots of tools for them there... Because Web Stories is kind of -- I don't know if playing catch up is the right term, but there's a lot of innovation inside of those platforms to make all that stuff really easy, really seamless, constantly improving.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Are there stories for those features inside Web Stories, or how does that work? It'd be tough to get somebody who's making money posting stories all day to Instagram to come over to the open web if they can't make money somehow, or even as easy?
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** \[36:10\] For sure. this is a great question, and something that I think about, that keeps my up at night every day, because the experience of onboarding someone like that onto the web is almost comically bad. It's essentially like on Instagram the entire experience is completely integrated, as an example. The app that you consume and you create, going from consumer to creator is super-frictionless. How often do you worry about performance optimization on an Instagram post? Never. Because that whole thing is completely abstracted away for you.
+
+And how often do developers for Instagram complain about the fact that they can't do something? Never, because the platform started that way. But then if we take toys away with something like AMP, then the whole web ecosystem goes like "Oh my God, I can't drive and drink anymore?! Blasphemy."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] Blasphemy...
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** So yeah, I wish we could find good ways of getting there. I think it will be a multi-step process going forward too, but we can at least document it and we can help people along the way. One thing we have to start with is speaking the same language... Because if you are a social media influencer right now, the way you're probably making money is with brand deals, for instance. And that brand deal, what are they gonna ask you? Well, they ask you about "What does your engagement look like? How many photos do you have?" And we don't speak the same language on the web. On the web you don't have followers, you don't have engagement numbers in the same way. So you have to have an analytics thing going on your site. And then how do you translate that to convince a brand to work with you?
+
+I think these are really interesting problems too that we're trying to tackle. It's death over 1,000 cuts maybe. There are so many little things to worry about. And I think we can't just use Web Stories as a way to get people to the web, because then they have a disconnected set of pages on the web. We have to first convince them why do they need a website. I think this is not completely obvious.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** One that's not Facebook Pages...
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah. I'll give you a small example here. For instance, on social media you're creating a post. How long is the shelf life of that post? Probably a day or two, at maximum. You're creating a blog post and you could make money from this over years to come. And in fact, the most popular bloggers out there do that. They build up a corpus of content on their blog and then they make revenue over multiple years. I think this is completely not obvious to someone who's a new creator, who's starting on social. There's just a bunch of these things that we need to tell people, to be frank.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I think that's on point. I think your focus - and of course, you have lots of resources, so you don't have to have a singular focus... I think that in order to get more web creators, I think we should be talking about and focusing on the uniquely awesome things of the web...
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Absolutely.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...instead of - and maybe you do this as well - copying features of social media apps. Web Stories - we also can do that here, and we can do it sort of better in certain ways, but it's gonna be worse in lots of ways... But that, for example - like, hey, you can write something once and make money on it for years to come because of the permanence of the web, and the indexability, and the value there... That's something the web does that the social media platforms are completely against, because they want you checking the new thing all the time. They're not gonna persist that forever and pull it up when it's useful... So that's something the web is good at.
+
+I think if we could focus on what makes the web awesome - that sells more Web Creators. You may also have to have these other features too, like "Hey, you can do your stories here. Of course you can." But what's gonna get them to come over from the platforms? I think that's a good way to look at it.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** You're absolutely right.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** No FOMO on the web. Maybe that's the tagline we need... Because stories are FOMO-inducing; that's the whole thing with stories. That's the engagement that they use, these social media companies. It's like, "It's gonna disappear!! You need to read all the thiiiiiings. Like, who cares if your wife is having a baby?!" \[laughter\]
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** I know, right?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** "Watch that clip! Click that button!"
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. "Here's another one. Here's another one. Here's another one."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. "It's disappearing." Anyways. So yeah, no FOMO on the web. It's about your bibliography.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** \[40:11\] Yeah. One thing I just wanted to call out is that there's two separate goals here. One is to really make the creator experience on the web better, to make sure that we can onboard creators to the web for many years to come, and that they're successful, and that there's enough ROI - to use a businessy term - for them to stay on the web and to find it valuable... But then the other goal - and this is also actually really why we think Web Stories matters - is to make sure that the user experience of the web is not as frustrating as it is today. And it is frustrating. I think we all notice. But the part of the web that is the content web - you might be landing on one really good blog post, and you click on another blog post, and then have like a newsletter capture, and you have GDPR dialogues, whatever... There's massive plasters of ads... There's so much that has been going wrong over the last couple of years. That's something we're trying to control with that Web Stories experience on the consumer side.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's interesting - we're taking one little segment and trying to say "Okay, let's do a social experiment and see if this will make the web better", right? But we need lots of efforts like that. But what we're really missing is a framework, that easy onboarding... And it's a really tough competition with native closed source platforms, so there's a lot to improve here...
+
+We're gonna get into kind of the future, and folks who are using this stuff, and all kinds of other good stuff in the next segment y'all, so stay tuned...
+
+**Break:** \[41:33\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Alrighty everyone, we're back... So how many times do y'all think we've said "stories" in the past 30-40 minutes? Probably quite a bit...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** We own the content, so we can go back and check.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right, exactly. Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's right.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** The closest person who predicts it wins... Nothing, I guess. \[laughter\] Wins the validation of being right. So we can kind of broaden this a little bit, because there's more to this Web Creators story -- um, sorry. No pun intended, actually.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You said it again. \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** There's more to this Web Creators story than just web stories, right?
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Right.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** The most interesting things for me, and something that I've been talking about for a while, and we'll drop some clips here in a minute to show that I sort of predicted the future, that we'd be having this conversation, but - I really care about democratizing who's pushing to the web, and not just folks that are employed, not just folks who are from Western countries... We need more people pushing to the web, not just pulling it... This movement really feels like it's opening that door for higher-quality content for more people, hopefully.
+
+\[44:07\] I'm curious - this project has been going on for a few months now; it's fairly new, about seven months... What's the reach been like? Are you seeing a push in the right way that way, with new creators coming on the web?
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah, great question. I think it's too early to tell, to be honest, because we're still in our first baby steps to grow those new channels and initiatives. But everything you're saying is exactly what I'm trying to do... And to be honest, this has been the kind of reason for why I've started a lot of things over the last couple of years. In a previous life - I don't know if you're still familiar with this part of my journey - I worked on jQuery and jQuery UI.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, nice. Thank you.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** You're welcome, yeah. So when I started the jQuery UI project, we got so many haters back then who were like "No, this is not the way you should do JavaScript."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Don't you mean ActionScript? Like, come on... Okay? Seriously. \[laughter\] Just kidding.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** But yeah, the point was never to make the fastest framework, or the most elegant framework. The point was to open a path for more people to build stuff. So for the first time, web designers could build things. And it made me so supremely happy that that was the case. I call this anti-gatekeeping, and I'm still on that train.
+
+The whole reason why I started this Google Web Creators program is basically because of that... I think we need more diverse voices on the web that succeed. This is super-important to me. So a part of this is that we simply haven't helped the existing bloggers too, as I called out... And we need to help them.
+
+But yeah, the Web Stories thing is just one of many things. It's like, if you are a non-technical creator today on the web, where do you go to get help? Sure, there are other bloggers who help bloggers, and that's great, but many of them have monetary incentives, too; they're trying to upsell you to courses, they're trying to do it for their own means often, too. And I know not everyone is doing this, but I feel like we can help you to be an objective voice and to partner with the ecosystem in ways that maybe individuals cannot do. And we're doing sort of a hybrid...
+
+For instance, one of the things I'm doing right now is I'm contracting a bunch of actual successful bloggers, that are really good in their industry - let's say food, or fashion, or whatever - and you're gonna see YouTube shows from them on our channels. So that's coming soon, and this is completely unrelated to Web Stories. This is really about content creation on the web in general. Ironically, or interestingly, also unrelated to Google. So they're not gonna upsell any Google technologies in those episodes... Because who cares? If I convince someone to start blogging on the web, and they use no Google Analytics and no Google Ads and nothing, we still win. So that's the really cool thing of it, because it's a net benefit to the web, it's a net benefit to Google for the search engine... So yeah, that's kind of the train I'm on.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I'm just really happy that we have a big giant that has their incentives generally in the right direction... Because the opposite could easily happen. Somebody shifts the goal, and all of a sudden we're doing more DRM stuff... So I'm so glad that the focus is in the right direction, and I can't wait to see what else comes out of this project besides Web Stories.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Google Reader 2, we already heard about it. Google Reader 2.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, right, right. Exactly. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Confirmed. Confirmed on this show. \[laughter\]
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah... Well, don't expect too much. But yeah...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, it's interesting though, because RSS is a technology that is so pro-web. If I can syndicate my writing to people who -- I mean, that's a follow, isn't it? You're subscribing to my RSS... That's like social media pre-dating Twitter and Facebook.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah, absolutely.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And it's such a shame -- I mean, it's useful. We syndicate podcasts that way. I still RSS feeds, that's how I subscribe to bloggers. I've got Nick's blog, just waiting for him to write that next post. As soon as he does, it's gonna come right into my reader. I think that's one way--
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[48:09\] I just have to refactor the whole site...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] Yeah, he's just gotta rewrite the site, and then he'll have his next post. I really think it's such a great tool--
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** I completely agree with that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I wish it was just more discoverable. Maybe put that at the front of Google Discover, and then we'll all be happy.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** \[laughs\] This is so true. So I will say - without being able to disclose too much, but I will say we're firm believers in RSS.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay...
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** I'll leave it at that for now. Also, on a personal level, I think the fact that you see all of those newsletter platforms pop up - you have like Substack, you have all the others... And so many creators now think that they need to have a newsletter. I think that's not a coincidence.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, good point.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** It's basically a cry for help; it's a desperate cry for help, because the web isn't doing this right... And I think this is really unfortunate. We don't have this kind of \[unintelligible 00:48:54.00\] model that people really need. They wanna essentially break out of the feed-like algorithm to really build a meaningful connection to their audience... And they can only do that with email, which is so sad, because there's not a lot of innovation in email either. There's so many things you can't do with email... So why can't we not give them that on the web? I think that's super-important.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I have to say, the communities piece is probably one of the weakest parts of the web. All those things exist within spheres that are outside of the web protocol... So I'm curious, with this web 3.0, decentralized web, blockchain-blockchain-blockchain, permissionless access to apps, and being able to do permissionless verification, which I think is the coolest thing ever - Jerod, we should do a show on that on JS Party. That'd be great. I'm curious, do we think that there's a future for better web content through -- can we push this community's factor and engagement factor through tools like \[unintelligible 00:49:53.28\] I'm just curious.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Good question. I don't know. Maybe.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** People are able to identify their posses in an easier way, or... I don't know.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah, I would be lying if I said I'm an expert here. I've been following the NFT craze, but that's about it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. I think there's definitely -- I mean, the more different things we try, the more innovation happens... So there's definitely people trying to do those things. In the good old days you had a forum. To use a blockchain example, you had your Bitcoin Talk, which had their own website. They had a forum on there, and that's where you'd have your tribe, on Bitcoin Talk. Well, maybe that's still going, but now everything's just on Reddit. So it's like, Reddit took over forums... And forums were a big part of the community, I think. And maybe we're talking about slightly different things here, Amal, but I feel like forums that were hosted on people's own websites, and they would moderate their own forums, was working pretty well.
+
+But maybe - again, the tooling, the moderation tools, trouble with spam... Things that happened where if you had a centralized entity like Reddit helping you out - although they've got all sorts of problems over there, too - they become attractive. And you can also build your audience, because you know, if I'm on this Subreddit, I hop over to that Subreddit, now I'm on both - it's nice, as a user. So it's a hard problem...
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah. I think there's a theme here too for the individual creators, which is that if you talk to a content creator, all of them will say that they want community and they want to have something like a forum on day one. So most of them, for instance, use things like Discord now, to do this. They want all of those things. But you know what they want most? They want to create content.
+
+Everyone I talk to are saying the same thing here, which is "Just let me create content", but 80% of my day is focused on all the stuff around it. And this is a huge problem. If you need to fight the trolls and counterattacks from everywhere, do your taxes... There are so many aspects of being a creator that are not about creating content, and I think anything we can do as a platform and as a web community to make this easier would be amazing.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[51:57\] Yeah, we need frameworks for content authorship, making it easy to go from zero to hero, without blocking power users... So just like a ramp. It seems like Google would be in a great position to make something like that, Paul, for what it's worth.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yes, I think so. We're trying, we're trying to do something here. I think there's also the challenge here that the web means something else to everyone. The beautiful thing about the web is that it's a content platform but also an application platform, and also (to some) a social platform, and so on. I feel like we're doing moderately well; as I mentioned earlier, we're doing moderately well when it comes to the application web.
+
+If you think about how easy it is to switch your laptop now, versus how difficult it was in the '90s... Most of the apps that you're probably using day to day now run in the browser. I think that's a huge success story for the web.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** But then if you would have asked someone in the '90s where is the best place to create content, everyone would have say the web. 2000's, too. Nowadays, you will not get that answer anymore, from most people. It's a different slice of the web; I can't say the web is unsuccessful in general, it's just this slice of the web I'm worried about, and I wanna embrace.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. It feels like we're paying for years of lack of innovation. Mobile spaces were just innovating at faster paces, and just way ahead, and we just weren't really thinking that way. There's a lot of catch-up to do, which really sucks, because there's a whole generation of kids that are growing up not even using browsers. Folks like my brother's age (he's a lot younger than I am), everything is app-based. Everything. Their whole world.
+
+Some folks, I'm like "Do you know how to attach something to an email?" There's so little that they do. They really know how to use apps, but I don't -- like, do they know how to properly search on the web? Are they power users of the web? No. Are they power users of apps? Hell yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's not a talent issue. You see these brilliant kids creating complex, Oscar-worthy videos on TikTok. It's not a talent gap, it's just that the platforms that are in front of these folks, the stuff that's there, and that works well, that's integrated, that's "All-in-one. Don't think about it. Zero to hero" are these native apps. We're just really behind on that whole experience of creation and aggregation on the web.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, they're compelling platforms, and if you're getting what you want out of it, which a young person who's creating an Oscar-worthy video on TikTok is getting what they want, which is people to consume that and enjoy it, and all the feedback that you get... But they aren't seeing the long game. It's kind of like owning real estate.
+
+I think really with the web it's like, own your content. Own your own domain. Control your own stuff. Sure, syndicate it out... But I think some of us have to get, unfortunately, bit by that, when TikTok comes and sweeps the rug out from underneath somebody, or YouTube does, or all these platforms, eventually... The platform's desires clash with the creator's desires, at some point, in many different ways.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[unintelligible 00:54:58.11\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And I think sometimes you have to learn that lesson the hard way, and be like "Okay..." And that's when the web is there for you. It's like, "Hey, remember where you could just--" Your Gmail account is compromised, but -- I actually use Gmail.com. I don't have my own. Nick@nisi.org. See, he's doing it right. I'm doing it wrong. I'm at Gmail.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That's Gmail though...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** But you own that, nick@nisi.org. So yeah, you're using Gmail as your provider, but that doesn't really matter. You could sweep that out and not change your email address with a bunch of people. That's smart. My personal email, if I decide I don't want Gmail anymore, I've gotta go change all my contacts, and be like "I've got a new email address", like a dork, because I wasn't smart that way. Well, that's gonna happen on these platforms. All of a sudden your audience is gone on TikTok, and you're like "Wait a second... I built that audience", right?
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yup.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And you get booted.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's why, like Paul said, people are doing these email newsletters, because at least with that you have a direct relationship with a person's email. So sometimes you actually have to learn the hard way.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** \[55:57\] Yeah. I mean, for the browser thing too, I wish that was a surprise, that kids today don't really get it anymore... But no, it's not a surprise, because -- I mean, that browser is a gateway to the web. That's what the browser is. It's an empty shell, and the web makes it awesome. If you don't understand what's valuable about the web, then why download that empty gateway? If you're a kid today and you get a phone as your first computing platform, then everything that you put on your homescreen needs to deserve its place. It has to have value on its own. And the browser in itself doesn't provide. It's the web and all the content that you get in there that provides the value. Pun intended, right? ...and tell that story the right way, then that's not great.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I couldn't have said it any better, Paul. That's such a compelling story. We've got a tough fight ahead of us as web folks, you know? We've gotta make this platform relevant, and compelling, and more engaging, and more organized, and keep it open...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** More discoverable.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Discoverable, right. If I could design a curriculum for elementary, middle school and high school students, like "Here's what you need to know about the web", everything from security, to why native apps are at times predatory... \[laughs\] Do you know what I mean? Like, there's security issues, and -- if I could do that, I think the world would be a better place. Maybe that's what we should do; we should lobby for standard web education curriculums to be around the world. I don't know how else we would tackle this problem, to be honest. Education seems to be the only way. That, and obviously, Timothée Chalamet... Here I am with three probably cisgendered men who are maybe not as excited about Timothée Chalamet as I am. Anyone who knows who Timothée Chalamet is, I'm a fangirl.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I don't even know the story, so...
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** One thing that I will say to this is that I guess if I'd have one ask to the web developer community in that whole quest, it would be to be willing to come to the table to make compromises, needed compromises as a platform, to become relevant again. And I think not all of us are. Maybe the folks in this podcast are, but not all of us are.
+
+I made this metaphor earlier - look at the drunk driver. But this is something that I'm seeing over and over, where people are trying to keep the old web alive, not willing to make compromises. It's like you're in an NGO, you're a doctor, and you have this patient, and you can either amputate the leg or not... So do you help them survive by compromising? I hope so...
+
+So this is my plea, I guess, to the web developer community, to come to the table with open eyes and open arms, and really think about what we need to do to make the platform fast, user-friendly, for creators and consumers.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's right. "Get all that JavaScript out of your bundles, kids" is basically what Paul is trying to say. \[laughter\]
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** I didn't wanna say it explicitly, but yes.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Not just that... Fix your CSS, etc. Anyways. There's so much wrong, and it's not just on web developers. It's really everybody involved with the process; it's product owners, it's designers, it's everybody working on accessibility, and localization, internationalization... There's so much to push here, so...
+
+But thank you, Paul. We could talk about this forever; it's been such a pleasure. You're hiring for your team, I just wanna plug... Anybody who's interested in working with Paul... I think earlier I said you're a developer advocate - I think you're the head of the developer advocate program, or something like that. You're like a honcho person. But if you wanna work with Paul as a developer advocate, working on issues like this, pushing forward these really critical ideas for like the greatest thing that we've ever created as people on this Earth - the web is our best invention, in my opinion - we'll put a link to the open job role in the show notes, so you can check it out... And thank you so much for your time, Paul. It's been a pleasure.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah, thank you so much. This role is kind of unique, because it's a creator advocate. So we're doing everything that's cool about dev rel, but with a difference audience in mind. So I'm quite excited to go bigger on that journey.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Can the title be like "web savior"? I feel like if I got this job, it'd be the first thing I'd wanna negotiate as my title...
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** That would be awesome...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I'd be like "Listen, this developer advocate thing..." Web savior is really just so much cooler on LinkedIn... \[laughs\]
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Yeah. For a more dope web.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right. You got it. Web savior for a more dope web. Alright, with that said, episode \#174 is a wrap, y'all. Thanks so much for listening.
+
+**Outro:** \[01:00:16.17\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Jerod, thank you for the pivot. I -- like, you...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You like me?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. You saved our butt.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I like you, too.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** We were gonna ruin that nerd spiral, you know?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's right. We can do that sometimes...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So you saved us.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I'm a show savior, that's what you can call me now...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You got it, show savior...!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I'm over here googling Timothée Chalamet... I'm such a dork, I don't know anybody.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, my God, he's this beautiful boy. How do you -- oh, my God, you all fell...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I don't watch--
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Maybe we should just edit that out, because y'all didn't laugh...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] I didn't know who he was. I haven't seen Interstellar.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Any parents with teenager boys or girls...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** He's a heart-throb.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, everybody loves Timothée Chalamet. Gender, sexual orientation, all of it...
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Really?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Really? Paul's like "Hm..."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** He's this really good-looking little kid. I love Timothée Chalamet.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Little kid? He's 25.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Okay, I guess I've known him since he was a little kid, I feel like... But yeah, you're right; he looks really young. I'm surprised he's 25.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I know that because I'm on his Wikipedia page.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, wow. Yeah.
+
+**Paul Bakaus:** Now I'm really curious. I'm gonna google this afterwards. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's better than googling web lover, or what was the thing you were doing...?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Web lovers... \[laughs\]
diff --git a/From engineering to product_transcript.txt b/From engineering to product_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ca597a4b7d2ad74759c75aad588510ecc3206681
--- /dev/null
+++ b/From engineering to product_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,329 @@
+**Amal Hussein:** Hey, everyone! I hope you're doing well. We are super-excited about today's show. We're gonna be talking about a really important topic for software engineers who wanna be happy at work. We're joined by my lovely former co-worker, Liana Leahy. Actually, Liana, I always mispronounce your name. How do I appropriately pronounce your last name?
+
+**Liana Leahy:** The family says Leahy, but it's an Irish name and it should be pronounced Leahy. So we pronounce it wrong, too... So whatevs.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Alright. Well, Liana Leahy/Leahy... Liana Awesome, that could be your last name, because I think you're awesome.
+
+**Liana Leahy:** Oh, thank you.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Liana is a product manager at Indigo. And on the panel with me today is Kball. Welcome, Kball.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Hello, hello. Nobody has trouble pronouncing my last name... Though I have had people ask "Wait, how do you spell that?" I'm like "Ball. Like a basketball. B-A-L-L." But people still struggle.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, that's so funny. I mean, I would never have guessed that you have issues with your name, because you have a really common first name, Kevin, and then your last name is literally used in the English language, so... \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** People just can't believe it could be that easy.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, exactly. Those people might be engineers, right Kball? They're like, "What's the twist?"
+
+**Kevin Ball:** We're familiar with engineers, right? You wanna put all the fun complexity in there. We'll build our static site with React, and... \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, my God. I feel attacked. No, anyways... \[laughter\] So Liana, we're so excited to have you today.
+
+**Liana Leahy:** Me too. I'm excited to be here.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[04:13\] Yeah, we're gonna be talking about your transition from engineering into product. So you were like this principal-level senior engineer that made the pivot into product many, many years ago... And I think even before that at some point you were singing Broadway, which - like, I really wanna hear that story. So in your own words, why don't you tell us a little bit about yourself?
+
+**Liana Leahy:** Sure, sure. So, to start with the Broadway spin - I grew up in a family where my father was in music, he was a jazz pianist, and he used to gig in Manhattan, in the cat schools, and stuff. And my mom was a very fast typist, so she ended up becoming a keypunch operator in the '80s, and she was debugging mainframes, and stuff like that... So only naturally did I major in both computers and musical theater. So I always had the idea that -- I mean, my dad had a day job, and gigged on the side, so I always figured that that was what my life would be. So I was doing computers. Do computers is what we said in the day. I was programming in Manhattan during the day, and then auditioning, right before work, because you got up at five in the morning to go to a cattle call, go to work, and then be at rehearsals and stuff at night. So it was a fun time; I loved it. I was doing off broadway I did a regional tour; good time. And then I turned 30 and went "Okay, thanks. I'm done with that. I wanna actually settle down and have a family, and a real life", so then I started to work in computers in earnest. So that meant transitioning from desktop development- now I'm dating myself - to web technologies. I spent a lot of time doing that, and... Yeah, then I was doing Ruby on Rails for a number of years, and that was really great.
+
+But yeah, I've been doing software for many years before I actually landed a startup that had formalized the role of product manager. I had never seen that before. I was like, "Oh, what is this? This is cool! This is my job. I've been doing this all along! I had no idea." I had always been that person who was the glue. There's a couple blog posts about being the glue person; that one who likes to be the liaison between development and the business, and talking to everybody... I was a very social person, so I had always been that person who was writing requirements, and trying to understand what the business really wanted... I was like, "Really? You want this? Are you sure? It's gonna take a long time if we just do this little tweak. It'd be a lot faster. Oh, awesome!"
+
+So it was just a natural progression into product management. So when I reached out to my folks at the company that I'd really like to make this transition, they were like, "Great!", mentored me, and then I was on the path. But we can talk more about that as we go along.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Working in computers or with computers is such a great dayjob. It's way better than waiting tables. I know so many people who are in performing arts of some form or another, that use software as like "That's how I pay the bills, and then I do my thing."
+
+**Liana Leahy:** Yeah, I was really -- at the time, there wasn't a lot of computer scientists in theater. I'm sure there's more now... But back then, it was just me and -- it was great; I could pay for my acting classes, and my headshots, and... Being an actor is expensive. So it was very helpful.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I for one would really like to see that be normalized, where tech is a job, and not your full-time passion... Because I feel like people have the opposite mentality, where they feel like in order to be successful in tech you have to be this super-passionate engineer, and you have to live and breathe this stuff... And I feel like it's perfectly fine to normalize it and say "Hey, this is a lucrative industry, and a high-paying job, and you can use this to help fund your perhaps less lucrative passion."
+
+**Liana Leahy:** I love computer science. I miss programming. I love it. I wouldn't say that I wasn't passionate, or I'm not passionate about it... I just have multiple passions.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[08:05\] Right, exactly. That's exactly what it is, I think, is making room for multiple passions, and this not being the dominant one. So yeah, I've got a pinned tweet on that... And speaking of glue person - your whole concept of being a glue person is very true as a product manager, but I think even just in any engineering work I feel like there's glue people with many different titles, that are the folks that know where all the bodies are buried, and they know who's good at what; they are the ones that can redirect you to the right person, and get stuff done... So I'm curious what really was the catalyst for you making that formal transition into product? When did you realize this was something that you maybe were more excited about, or...?
+
+**Liana Leahy:** Yeah, I had done software for a while, and I guess I just needed a different challenge. And when I saw this role and the way that it was done, it just seemed exciting to me to formally have that as a job, as opposed to just doing it as an engineer. Because it does suck up a lot of your time when you're that glue person, to spend time making those connections and talking to people and understanding the business. It's all valuable work, and I know that a lot of engineers do that today. But when you have someone whose job it is to do that work, it leaves you free time to actually do the programming.
+
+So that's where I think product management can help out engineers, and it's really important. I just hadn't seen that before. It was always on the tech staff to try and figure out what is it that the business wanted... And they didn't really tell me why they wanted something; they were always handing us solutions, like "Go build this thing", and we would just kind of like "Okay...", just kind of guess, and then it wouldn't be the right thing, or it'd be super-waterfall and you'd spend months planning something out, and then of course, by the time it was built, they didn't need that thing anymore... It was just not an awesome way of creating software.
+
+So that was why I was being that person who was trying to make those connections, because I didn't like -- you know, no one likes building something that no one's gonna use, right? I want to build something that's useful, that is gonna work, and people are gonna be happy with... So that's why I was going to the business going "Why am I building this thing? What do you want it for? Who's using this?", and asking those types of questions, which are very product management questions.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Can we maybe divert a little bit and just kind of flesh out for folks what exactly we mean when we talk about product manager work, product manager types of things... The product manager role. Because I feel like many engineers have never worked with a product manager, or at least have never worked with a product manager who was actually good at their job and making things easy for the engineering team.
+
+**Liana Leahy:** Sure. I mean, it's a tough and challenging gig. There's a lot to do. You need to understand your industry and your company, and you need to know your users. I mean, that's number one - who are your users? And if you're in a company that makes software for everyone, like Facebook, it gets a little harder. I worked at the MBTA for a while, which everyone rides the T so who is your user? Getting to really understand the jobs to be done is one of the frameworks that we use... Like, "What is it that the user is trying to do? What are they trying to accomplish with your product?" and understanding that need and that niche that you're trying to fill with your product - super-important.
+
+Also, as a PM, you're aligning stakeholders around the vision, so you have to have a real good picture in your mind and be able to communicate that picture of what you're building, and not just that feature, but the overall, like "In a year from now, what is this product gonna do and be? What is the strategic direction of what it is that you're building?" And how is that gonna help your company? Why should they invest in building this product? How is that going to help the company move their needles?
+
+And then you're prioritizing what you need to build. So you've got like a list of features that you know that you need, that's on your roadmap... But when does this fit in? How do I put that all together? And then you're rallying the team around all of that work.
+
+\[12:10\] You're prioritizing the product features, capabilities... And then in a lot cases, some product managers depend on the organization, but you're helping to deliver that feature. So being that person that can help remove roadblocks, get people the answer to questions that they need... Really championing the team and letting them focus on the development work, while you're chasing down answering their questions about the feature from commercial teams or operational teams of the business.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. That's a really great summary. I also feel like being the internal voice of the customer is a big thing for product. You're always the litmus that's like, "Hey, I've spent a lot of time getting into our customers' heads..." Like, you know, engineers, designers, whoever, really, when you wanna understand "Is this important to our customers? I'm a good litmus for you to maybe kind of bounce off ideas with initially."
+
+And it doesn't mean you're always gonna get it right... But I think for the most part, I always feel like my product managers have always been the folks that are really the advocates for our customers inside the business. And it sucks, because sometimes what your customers want isn't also what the business wants to do... So I think striking that balance and negotiating with business on like "Hey, how can we make this work?" is something I've seen product managers do quite well.
+
+So I'm just curious, at what point do you feel like our industry being so young - I think Kball alluded to it... Maybe some engineers listening to this podcast haven't even worked with a product manager directly. So this role has kind of birthed out of software getting bigger, and us wanting to create more and more delightful user experiences... What's the kind of tipping point for product managers, and how do they fit into an org? Is there ever a time where a product manager isn't needed? Because it's a fairly new(ish) role, right?
+
+**Liana Leahy:** Yeah, that's interesting... I mean, I've certainly been the only person developing the software where I was "devsigning" everything, and trying to figure out what features to build, and doing all of it... Certainly, the things that I designed as an engineer were nowhere near as fantastic as the stuff that you have a proper designer work on, and I think it's -- like, for product management, especially as an engineer, I didn't understand the economics behind what it was I was building, or the Why, or the industry, really. Because I've worked in - gosh, almost everything... Games, and finance, healthcare, agriculture... All these different industries. And as a product manager -- for an engineer you don't need to go too deep to understand that industry. You're just building software. You need to go deep on what tech stack you're working on. Before product manager, you really need to go deep on that industry and understand that industry inside and out, to give the best user experience. To truly be able to understand your users, and also understand "How do you bring value to this industry that no other competitor has?"
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I think the distinction between technical expertise and domain expertise that's specific to an industry is key. And I think that's where maybe you see some teams getting away with the lack of a product manager, or formalized role, because perhaps someone in that organization is playing that domain expert... And as someone in that organization is saying, "Hey, I know this. This is what we should be building, engineers. Go do it."
+
+So I think that's a really good distinction, so I'm curious what are some of the -- you mentioned the how and the what, right? So we've talked about this a lot in our industry, where product folks are responsible for the What, and engineers are responsible for the How, and that's the clear line between these two disciplines that have to often work with each other. So if you ever wanna know "Hey, is this my job, or someone else's job?", you should ask yourself "Is this a What, or is this a How?" Has that distinction generally worked, and is it actually still even relevant with super-agile organizations and fast-moving projects?
+
+\[16:11\] Sometimes as a senior engineer I'm having to often make that decision, that maybe a product manager would make, right? Because I'm not going to tap my product manager on the shoulder every five minutes, so...
+
+**Liana Leahy:** Yeah, we were talking about this at the beginning of the call... I think a lot of it depends on the people and the relationships that you have. So being that I'm a product manager that has come from engineering, I'm the type of PM that is going to help you through that. But I think when you have someone who is maybe more of like an MBA type, or someone who has more of a business standpoint, they're going to approach it a little differently.
+
+So I can help you through a little bit of the how, whereas maybe someone with a business background can't... But they will be able to flex on those muscles, and be able to give you a lot more business strategic stuff...
+
+So I think as a -- I'm kind of coming around in a roundabout way, but a product manager has to be good at so many different things. You're working with design to create a product, you're working with technology to build it, and then you're working with the business to bring value... And all of those things you have to have some ability to do very well. And at any given time, you can flex on any of these different pieces, and it depends on what is needed in the moment.
+
+So when you're working with a tech lead, there might be moments where the tech lead is taking on more of that producty role as they're trying to answer things on the fly and get things done, especially if you're in an environment that has to get things done really quickly... I don't mind that, when an engineer is trying to get it out the door, because we're all trying to ship things quickly and iterate on them and learn from that... But at the same time, I think it helps that engineer if you understand very well the user that you're building for, and why are you building this feature in the first place, and having the context of all the user research. If you have the context around it, then I think the engineer can make so much better decisions. I trust that engineers can make better decisions when they understand that and can make those micro-decisions.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Liana, you said something there that I wanna double-click in on a little bit, which is you mentioned the word Why. I think the What is often a collaborative endeavor between product, between maybe the tech leads, maybe the design leads, whoever it might be. But to me, what sets a really good product manager apart is they always have that context, they always have that Why. "Why are we doing this? Why are we trying to decide on this What? Once we've decided on the What, why are we doing it now, instead of later, and why are we doing this What, instead of that What?" All of those different pieces live somewhere, and it's the product manager that, in my mind, pulls all those pieces together.
+
+**Liana Leahy:** That's right. I think that's the vision that I was mentioning earlier. I have to have a vision in my mind that I'm communicating out to everyone multiple times, over and over again, so that everyone continues to carry that picture of what we're building, and why we're building it.
+
+User research is just really a cornerstone of project management. You need to be understanding what's going on with the folks you're building for, and why they need that thing, why is it important, what kind of value does it bring to their life, so that you're building the right thing. And if you can carry that vision to everyone else and let them understand "Where's the user coming from? Why do they care about this feature?", then those smaller decisions are easier for folks to make.
+
+\[20:00\] I like to do something called a stortytime. In another company we called it a User Goal Meeting, and it's the meeting before you even solutionize anything, before you create mockups or designs. You come to that meeting with a bunch of user research, and a problem to solve. And you get everyone in the room, and when I mean everyone - every stakeholder; that's engineers, content writers, any medical folks, or stakeholders, folks that know about the industry... Put them all in a room and share the user research that you have around this problem... "Let's agree on the problem. Let's all just agree on, like, this month we're going to tackle this problem, and get agreement there", and then understanding the user research around what is that problem.
+
+Then at that point we start thinking about "As a user, to solve this problem, what do I want? What is the goal? What, as a user, I want XYZ to satisfy, to fix that problem?" And we'll step through a bunch of list of "I wants." It sounds a lot like user stories, right? That's what you're getting at, is trying to kind of understand the goals of what you're trying to accomplish with this feature. And when you do that with everybody in a room, you're not only outlining all of these goals that you can eventually use on stories, but you're getting a shared context between all of these stakeholders around what the problem is, and what the goals are, so that everyone walks away understanding the complete context around what you're gonna build.
+
+So that's the point when I go away with this as a designer, start working on mock-ups and ideas, and then when we bring it back to the team, we're talking about "These are the goals." And we might not hit every single one that we identified in the meeting, but we'll prioritize the most important ones, and point to like "Here in the design is where that's reflected." And then you're having much better discussions at that design review, because everyone already has that context. And then once you break that out and folks are going off to engineer that... Like, I can go move on to the next feature, and get that queued up for folks while they're working on the first piece, but I can trust that my tech leads and everyone has a really good idea around what it is that we're building.
+
+And when I skip that step, every time I've ever skipped that step, you suffer at the other end. You end up spending more time communicating that why to folks, because things weren't right, or there's confusion, or folks don't know what they're building... And it's always a problem. So it's never worth it to skip that step. It's really important.
+
+**Break:** \[22:40\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Liana, that was fascinating. That was a really good breakdown of how to do product, and how to do product well. I think that the Why reasoning that you and Kball were riffing off of was really cool. I'm really curious to know, how does the Why help you, not just in the way that you explain a product, but I'm curious, does your intersectionality affect the Why? I feel like you're a theater person, you're an engineer, there were so many things... Your intersectionality - does that help you tell a better story to engineers?
+
+**Liana Leahy:** Yeah, I think so. Certainly, my software background helps me communicate with engineers more effectively... But I did wanna talk about my theater background and how that helps, because it absolutely has helped my in my career, both as a software engineer and as a product manager.
+
+Obviously, I'm someone who can speak well. I enjoy speaking in front of large groups, I'll enjoy signing in front of large groups... So I have no fear in front of chatting with folks, and that is kind of what led me making that step from engineering to product management. So definitely the oral communication skills were important.
+
+But also, the problem-solving that has to happen, as in being quick on your feet... I will not say I'm the quickest person on my feet, but when a problem arises, you have to deal with it in the moment and be very present.
+
+I was just telling this story actually to my son, which is kind of funny... I think we're all familiar with West Side Story; another remake of the movie is coming out...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah...
+
+**Liana Leahy:** I was in a production where if you're familiar with the story, Chino comes out with a gun and kills Tony, and Maria has a whole monologue about the gun... And there was one night where a prop person put the gun away, Chino could find the gun... A couple of things he could possibly have done in that moment, but he was panicking and he grabbed the knife from Act I, and stabbed Tony. So Maria is left with the knife, going "Every single line I have after this is about shooting people. What do I do?" So she had to think on her feet. And we all had to just kind of run with it and be present... And I was never more present than I was in that moment, because like "What is she gonna do?" But yeah, I was all like -- I think the lines are "How many bullets are left in this gun, Chino?" "Enough for you, enough for you..." So she's like, "How many people can I stab, Tony?" Yeah, it was just ridiculous. It was a wonderful, wonderful moment in theater where everybody was just like "Why did you change the ending?"
+
+But I think that ability to think on your feet and be willing to roll with the punches and be flexible is just so important in life and in your job... And also being willing to laugh about it. Things go wrong, and what are you gonna do about it? I think your reactions in those moments are super-important.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** There's some fundamental lessons there, too... I've done a -- nowhere near to the level that you have, but I've done a fair amount of improv theater, and things around that... And some of the lessons around -- essentially, everything is about relationships. And I think especially engineers tend to fixate on the What, on the concrete objects, and the things that we're building. but the way that work gets done is about the relationships and the interactions, and who's talking to whom, and how are you co-defining this thing... And working in theater and in the arts - that teaches that like nothing that I've ever seen.
+
+**Liana Leahy:** Absolutely. I love that idea of co-defining. That's how I enjoy working with anyone; it's a very collaborative environment, because that's how you get the best stuff. And when you're working in an environment of trust, and everyone's working together - and that's not to say that we're not passionate, and don't have opinions, and voices might not be raised, but it's all in service of what you're building together, and you can all be proud of it. That's what makes me love building software.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[28:07\] It's almost like you knew what I wanted to talk about next, Liana, because you kind of hit on this really important topic of trust. I'm really curious about what makes for a good product manager? And I'm not saying this because Liana is here and Liana is my friend, but really, Liana, you are one of the best product managers I've ever worked with... You're really well organized, you're able to relay information... I would say you give us almost too much information, in the sense that there's never a stone you leave unturned, which I love... Because everything you put together is always gonna be a good resource while the project is going on... And I feel like you're incredible at that. So I'm curious, what makes for a good product manager?
+
+Also, it seems like -- you know, your theater background, your engineering background I think have helped you build empathy in different ways as well. So I'm just curious, what's the secret sauce to a good PM?
+
+**Liana Leahy:** When I think back to our relationship and some of the things that we worked on, Amal, it really was about me putting myself in the shoes of the engineer... Like, what would I need to know if I were building this, and what would I want to know? That really helps a lot.
+
+The types of questions -- like, if I were staring at a blank screen, what kind of questions would I have? So that's how I start.
+
+And then I definitely am someone who is documenting the heck out of everything, and I think -- we use Confluence at my job right now... I know people have a love/hate with that tool... I really actually enjoy using any tool where I can just organize my thoughts. Because if I can put that down on paper... I'm not really great thinking on my feet when I speak, but I certainly can write a good damn paper. That's where I think it's helpful to me to put my thoughts down and organize them just for my own self... And then you've got a document that you can share around with other folks. So I think definitely starting to collect materials that are helpful is an important part of being a PM.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Like a one source of truth.
+
+**Liana Leahy:** Yeah. Well, I mean, those things get out of date so quickly and whatnot... But in the moment - yeah, I mean... I've written so many pieces of collateral, it's ridiculous. And they're gone in the ether. It'd be cool to look back on my life when I'm 90, look at "How many one-pagers did I write over my lifetime?" It's ridiculous. But at the time, it helps me collect my thoughts and communicate them out to other folks. And I love the collaborative nature in some of these tools now, that we didn't have 10-20 years ago. It's great... You can have folks making comments, and changes, and you just kind of work async on a document and come into a shared vision, a shared communication around what it is that you're doing. I think I went off-track of your question there...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** No, you -- yeah, I mean, I certainly think having resource materials, having a single source of truth, even though it might get irrelevant later... But I think having something you can point people to at any given time... Like, "Here, look at this." That's very helpful, I find.
+
+What are some of your biggest challenges? What's really hard about being a PM on a day-to-day basis, weekly basis, monthly basis? I'm sure that changes, but I'm curious what's hard.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Actually, before we go there, can I hijack slightly and go a little deeper on one of the things?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, hijack away, KBall.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Well, so - some of the stuff you're talking about got me thinking about this sort of core challenge of being a PM and working well.. So, I especially highlighted -- I think we were talking earlier about how much of a planner you are, and I think a lot of what product managers end up doing is planning, and documenting, and pooling everything together. But I think one of the really interesting challenges there - and I say this as someone who's not a good planner - is how do you do that planning and coalescing, while still leaving room for co-creation in the moment? So we're going down this, we've created all these things, we have this big plan, and suddenly, for example, the tech lead says "Hey, if we do this piece of work that you've already highlighted here, that actually opens up this whole additional set of things that we could do." How do you manage the divergent pieces, while still trying to converge back to a coherent source of truth and plan?
+
+**Liana Leahy:** \[32:18\] That's a fantastic question. It's the difference between waterfall and agile.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I feel like it's also a polite way of saying "How do you herd the nerds back to the right direction when they're going off in different ways?"
+
+**Liana Leahy:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yes and no... Because I think that sometimes those diversions or those new possibilities - that's where the magic ends up being.
+
+**Liana Leahy:** Certainly, certainly. In software we have rituals, right? We have the daily standup, we have grooming sessions, retros... And that's a process. Having a strong product process is where the rigidity is... But it allows for the creativity outside of that.
+
+For example, that storytime meeting is super-important. That's that moment where we get to do that kind of brainstorming and just let ourselves go wild with all kinds of different ideas, what might the user want, and start to really be creative. And then we go away and I go with my designer, and then we start to kind of confine that a little bit more.
+
+One of my favorite designers that I ever worked with - she would call her design "her dream Barbie design." She would take the feature and build out this -- not just the feature, but how should this entire section of the application look and feel. "If I had unlimited time and resources and abilities, what could I build?" And that's what we would start with; like, "Okay, we've got all this magic", and then we would bring that to the tech lead and go "Okay, but we've got a month to build this. So what does that look like? If you were only given a month, what pieces of this are the most important pieces for us to tease out of it?"
+
+It's kind of a push and pull. It's like allowing people to be creative and expand out, but then reining them back in again, and out and in.
+
+So from an engineering standpoint, I will carve out pieces of the dream Barbie design and will focus on that piece, but then we'll go into grooming and talk about the different ways you might architect that, and what might it look like, and have those broader conversations that start to lead to "Well, gosh, we could architect this thing, and I need to refactor that", and all of those... Which are really important and necessary conversations. Then we come back to the timebox, and like, "Okay, these are things that we wanna do, and let's keep those in mind", and I'll find places to archive those ideas, so that we don't let go of them... But like, "Okay, now in the timebox, what can we reasonably achieve, given this broader vision?" But if you don't have that broader vision and you're only focused on the small thing, you never get a chance to innovate or be creative, and you're never building -- like, you're building the okay thing, but not the awesome thing.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** For me, I can tell you that as an engineer, I always want as much context as possible. So the "dream Barbie design" is what I wanna know. I'm like, I wanna know where we're trying to go now, but I also know where would we like to be next year? Because I think for me, when you're in the coding, you're making those micro decisions, and you can design with tomorrow in mind. So you don't have to build this rigid system where you're coding everything to be statically for today. Like, "How do I make this an open design that's extensible?" And I think having that context is really important, and that comes from, again, working with a good product manager that is able to share "Hey, here's what we need to build today, because of constraints." And again, constraints are super-important and healthy, but "Here's what you're gonna hopefully be building tomorrow. So don't make the code that you're building today - don't make it difficult to get to the next place tomorrow."
+
+**Kevin Ball:** To Liana's point, be agile about it, too. Imagine you're going to revisit. One of my favorite things about software is when I build a piece of software and people start using it and it uncovers the fact that it's incomplete. Our vision may have been complete in itself; we built this thing. But when people get their hands on it, they start to get excited, and they say "Oh, wait, what if we could do this? Can I do this with it? Can I do this with it? Can we make it do this?"
+
+\[36:15\] That is successful software. Software that the act of using it is driving new ideas for how to improve it. But that's like changing your Barbie house and saying "Okay, my Barbie house is beautiful, but it needs a turret over here, now that I've played with this part of it." Like, how do we keep moving and iterating on that vision?
+
+**Liana Leahy:** That's why you should never actually build the dream Barbie house, honestly. You should have the dream in your head, but the dream is gonna morph and change over time as you build different pieces. So yeah, eventually there could be a turret. And a moat.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And a moat. \[laughs\] Yeah, I'm really liking this concept of constraints, but leaving room for magic, but then also not leaving too much room... There's so many different factors here. It seems like this is baking, or something; like, we're trying to make the perfect cookie, or we're trying to make a meringue get all the balance of the science correct...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I mean, it's organic, right? We're creating a garden, or something. We're growing things. Some things will go as we planned them, and some things will develop turrets.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right, yeah.
+
+**Liana Leahy:** This is how you can build software. This is what I did at the MBTA. We knew at the time that I joined that the website really just needed a lot of help. It hadn't been revisited in a lot of areas. We really needed to touch every single area of it. So there was so much to do, it was just like, "Oh, there's so much. Where do you even start?" But after creating a roadmap and timeboxing things, it's like "We don't have to get it 100%, or make everything perfect all at once. Let's just get the best 80% out of it." Or just how far, given that timebox - I'm doing this with my hands, making a little square... With that timebox, how far could we get? And if we solve enough of the problem that we were trying to correct, let's move on to the next thing that's on fire. And the next thing.
+
+So you're doing what you can, given the constraints that you have, but keeping this dream Barbie vision in your head, and moving along... And you'll be surprised at the end of a year, or even less than that. When you look back -- I love doing retros... Like, "What did you do over the last year?" Because you'll be shocked -- I'm always shocked at how much we were able to accomplish in that last year, just by being focused and keeping this vision in our heads, and trotting along... Certainly, it's a painting that is never complete, but it's a pretty damn fine painting by the end of the year. And certainly there's more that you're always gonna wanna do, but as long as you're pretty methodical and careful about solving as much of the problem as you can given what you have, it's amazing what you can accomplish.
+
+**Break:** \[38:57\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Alright, Liana, that was pretty magical, if I say so myself... I think this whole concept of building in iterative chunks and never being done is really the core thesis of software development... And I'm really curious how you deal with that, like, never being perfect, never being done. Software is this living, breathing thing, and it's never, ever done, right? There's always another unit test you could write, there's always another thing that you could do, another language that you could translate and add to your website. There's so many things. So how do you deal with that backlog management, but also, how do you deal with focus as well? Because backlog management is this focus exercise, right? And so how do you figure out what the most important thing that you need to work on next is, and how do you balance than with tech debt, and all these other competing priorities? I'm curious.
+
+**Liana Leahy:** Yeah, great questions. I mean, it's not an easy thing to keep space in your plan for refactoring. It's not an easy sell to the business... But having come from the engineering background, it's something that I always try to make space for, make room for. I liken it to a chef in the kitchen; if you're cooking and you leave all the pots and pans around, eventually you won't have any pots and pans left, and it's all dirty, and it's a big ol' mess, and you're gonna have to clean up at some point. And that's appropriate when you're trying to whip up something quickly, like a prototype, to see "Is anyone even gonna eat this cake?"
+
+But at the end of the day, at some point you've gotta clean up after yourself, and if you want to have some code that you're gonna maintain or keep over time, if you're cleaning as you go along, it's just an easier and a better time for everyone. I was a girl scout back in the day, so it was always "Leave the place better than you've found it." That was one of our mottos. So when you're touching a piece of code, that's when you refactor.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, I couldn't agree with you more. An analogy I like to use is like brushing your teeth every day, versus once a month... Big difference. Once a month for like an hour is not the same as like every day for two minutes.
+
+**Liana Leahy:** It's so important to leave space for product managers to keep in mind that they need to make space for refactoring. And one thing I like to do, which is always a hard sell, but I will sell it no matter what, is that December should never be a month where you're shipping features. I just don't believe that. We're all in holiday mode, folks are focused on other things... It is the perfect month to be thinking about a refactorpalooza. Like, let's just take all of the things that have been annoying us all year, or the backlog that has accrued over time, and just kill it throughout the month of December.
+
+Inevitably, there's always some small feature, some need that the business needs at the end. Always, always. But try to slim it down or keep it as small as possible so that we're making space for that... But I don't just wait until December, honestly. If we finish a feature early, or we get to a good stopping place in our timebox and there's room left for a refactoring, I let folks do that. But when we're building our estimates, or trying to figure out what we're gonna accomplish in that timebox, we're always going to have a conversation of "Okay, what areas of the code are we touching, and how can we refactor that, and how can we fit that in as part of what we're doing?" Because part of building a new feature is fixing what was left behind, and making it better; that backend cleanup is part of building the frontend feature.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[44:04\] Question related to that... So there's kind of a couple fundamental layers that one could take that. So there's this ongoing maintenance, refactoring; this thing didn't get quite done, or didn't get quite cleaned up, or we were in a rush... And I think leaving some space between projects, we're planning an infrastructure week, that type of thing - that's a great way to deal with that, is just leaving space, leaving breadth when you finish early... Like, if that ever happens in engineering, then you have time... But the question I have for you is how you think about prioritizing larger-scale changes.
+
+An issue has come up, something similar keeps happening over and over again, and it's starting to look like actually our infrastructure under this feature is not good enough. Or we need to pull in or create a new system to handle a whole class of problems. It's not gonna be feature-facing, it's not something that's actually going to deliver immediate business value, at least in a way that the business is used to thinking about it... But it's gonna take, let's say, a solid month, a full project of this engineering team, or it's gonna take some other time. How do you think about prioritizing those types of projects relative to business features?
+
+**Liana Leahy:** Yeah, I mean, you've hit on the answer partially there in the question... You need to find what the business value is of that work. Because if there is no value to the business, there isn't a point in doing it. So why is it valuable to do refactoring work? Why is it valuable to build out infrastructure in a better way, or in a new way, and what values is that gonna bring? How much development speed comes out of that, how much money are you saving because now you're not paying for third-party services? Things like that.
+
+We did some work at MBTA where we had been using Google Maps, and they're incredibly expensive. And we wanted to swap to using something that was open source and was free... But it was a big project, that was spanning a large amount of time. It was an easy sell, because I'm like, "Hey, I'm gonna save you $10,000. Can you give me some time to do that?" Like, sure.
+
+When you can add the financial value there, or the benefit eventually to the user, and make that apparent, that makes selling those projects easy. And I think it's easy to sell too on refactoring. The business never says, "No, please don't refactor and make code beautiful." They just don't understand the value of why that's important. I like to work for organizations that do value that and understand why that's important. Certainly, there's a balance between everything being perfect and beautiful in code, and having no value to the user. You've gotta just balance those things. But that's why they say PM-ing is kind of like juggling. You've gotta juggle all of these different priorities and concerns at the same time. But that's what makes it fun.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I mean, PM-ing is like juggling knives, I would say, while being in the air and moving at 100 mph, up and down. It's a hard job. You're like at the tip of the spear.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Wait, when are we gonna just start selling people on moving into this, and now you're saying I'm catching knives?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, yeah, sorry. PM-ing is great. It's like juggling flowers, and sitting in a bed of roses, getting your feet massaged. \[laughter\] Actually, I do wanna say though... This point that you're making about tech debt refactoring, you need to kind of tie it to the business value, right? Like, "How does this improve the business value? How does this help our customers?" I'm totally with you, but I don't think it's necessarily an organizational thing though... Because yes, organizations that I think are maybe more engineering-oriented and less business-oriented will understand the value of tech debt, they will understand the value of testing, they'll understand the value of software quality, and being able to obviously ship without breaking things.
+
+I think it's a marketing problem too, and I think the marketing problem is actually on the engineering side... Because so many engineers will say, "Yeah, I need to refactor this thing etc. because this code is bad." But what they should really be saying is "Hey, I need to refactor this because this is slowing down every single release of ours, which means that our customers have to wait this much longer to get a feature."
+
+\[48:05\] So I think the framing is on us as engineers to make sure that we understand how this ties into the business value. And quite frankly, if you can't explain that, then should you be working on it at all? Especially at work, is my question. So if you can't find the business value...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Many engineers are bad storytellers. But the good ones maybe should go into product management.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It seems like that's the going trend, Kball... \[laughs\]
+
+**Liana Leahy:** But there's another question that I ask an engineer when they wanna refactor something, like "Oh, this thing is bugging me..." Like, "Why is it bugging you?" "Oh, because I can't do XYZ." "Well, great, let's expand on that." Or if they wanna work on something, like "This is really cool, and it's be really cool--" Great. Like, what kind of value would that bring?
+
+If you were me, and you had to tell the CEO that you are gonna spend your month working on this, what should I tell them? And usually, even asking that question, lots of times folks just don't even think about that. Like, "Oh, yeah, if I were to talk to someone about why I'm building this..." Then they tell me, fine, and I can put that into a story to sell.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Well, what's funny about that is I think there's the exercise of the five Why's. As a product manager, I'm sure you're very familiar with it... But if you just ask Why five times, like, for every answer, "Okay, I need to do this." "Okay, why?" "Because I need to do this." "Okay, why?" Usually, by the fifth Why, the theory is - and sometimes before that... Like Liana said, she'll get to it before that... But sometimes by the fifth Why you kind of really get to the core of the problem. And I feel like that is so much of product management, is really kind of sussing out, "Why is this really broken?" And I can share some experiences of product managers I've worked with.
+
+I run to my product manager and I'm like, "We need to do this, this and this etc." And they get me to understand why we can't do it now, just by asking me why, why, why, and reminding me -- like, it's this amazing ability of knowing what the most important thing to do is, and understanding "How does this actually help us with our current objectives?" Because there's lots of things you can do that's important, especially at a startup. But especially in a startup environment though, you need to find what's the right five things I should be doing right now. Because it's not like what you should be doing, it's like what's the right --
+
+**Liana Leahy:** Yeah, you're talking about prioritization.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. It's tough. It's a really tough thing. It's not easy to find the right thing to do in any given moment, and I think exercises like that maybe help you refine it.
+
+**Liana Leahy:** They say that a product manager's job is to say no, and protect the team. I try not to ever say no. I don't say no, I ask the why's... Like, "Why is this important?" and "Are you willing to sacrifice A for B?" Like, "Hey, we have a plan. How important is this to you, and to the business, and what value is it bringing? Is it more valuable than what we're working on right now?" And sometimes the answer is "Yes. We've gotta drop everything and do that thing, because it would be just so beneficial to the company to do that." But more often than not, it's like, "Oh, well you know what - we have that planned, and we're gonna put that in the backlog, and we're gonna do that later", because that's where it fits.
+
+But that constant revising and revisiting of the roadmap is what being agile is about. You learn things over time, you learn what's important over time, and that's how you prioritize things.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So if one of our listeners is listening to this and thinking, "Huh... Well, that sounds kind of interesting." How do you know if you should investigate being a product manager? Say you're an engineer, maybe you've been working in engineering five years, three years... I mean, let's face it, most folks haven't been in the industry that long yet. Like, how do you know, "Hey, I should actually go and think about becoming a product manager"?
+
+**Liana Leahy:** I made, Amal, a list of "You know you're a PM if..." and a bunch of statements. That said though, before I launch into that, I will say that if you're a software engineer, stay in software engineering for as long as you can, because that's invaluable.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[51:55\] This is counter to the advice I thought we'd be getting, Liana. \[laughter\]
+
+**Liana Leahy:** I mean, before I made the transition, I'd been doing software for nearly 20 years, and I have a lot of experience and stories that I can draw back on for my product management... But not that you should wait 20 years to become a product manager, but certainly all of that experience is really helpful. And the more engineering experience you have, the more helpful it is.
+
+But let's say you've been in the field for a number of years, and you're looking for your next challenge. So if you're the type of person who likes to know what features are on the roadmap, you might be a product manager. If you're questioning why the new feature is gonna be useful, that's a clue. If you like to understand the problem that a feature is trying to solve, and if you like to be involved into finding the solutions, if you care about the quality of the customer experience, as well as the quality of the code, you might be a product manager. If you love measuring success with quantifiable analytics and you don't mind talking with users and other stakeholders, if you make sure the conversations that get alignment across teams happen, you're the glue, and you might be a product manager. And if you're comfortable with the 80/20 rule, and can solve for the most common use cases and balance the trade-offs and edge cases, if you have a calm and upbeat demeanor, even when chaos swirls around you, you might be a product manager.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Okay, but say I said yes to all of those things and I'm not a product manager... \[laughs\] Asking for a friend here, what might I know that would say I shouldn't be a product manager?
+
+**Liana Leahy:** Well, do you wanna do it? \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Liana's like, "I'm hiring." \[laughter\]
+
+**Liana Leahy:** The hottest new job I guess in Silicon Valley is to become a PM... I'm like "Really?" I don't know...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Actually, you know what's so funny? I have this in my show notes, but apparently, the hottest new job at business school, at people getting an MBA, is product manager. They're actually less and less interested in entrepreneurship these days and they're more like, "How do I be a PM at Facebook? How do I be a PM at Google?" Which is interesting, that these business grads are more interested in becoming product managers than starting a business.
+
+**Liana Leahy:** Actually, that makes sense to me... I mean, if you're coming from a business background, that makes sense to me. If you're coming from an engineering software background, it makes a little less sense to me, because -- I mean, honestly, I miss programming. I miss it a lot. It was just really fun, and I don't get to do as much of it; any of it. I still have my GitHub account, and I will peek into people's PRs, and sometimes make a comment, which is usually just a thumbs up these days... But yeah, I do miss it, and I think -- if you're a software engineer who just really enjoys making software and talking to different areas of business and pulling people together, you find that you're making less and less code, and you don't mind, then that might be a clue that you're okay with making the switch over.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. It makes sense actually, because the -- there's a big overlap also between senior engineers and product managers, and I think we were discussing this with Kball earlier... Basically, we almost have to define the boundaries of when is it a product manager's role, versus a person on the team's role. So there's a little bit of a grey area Venn diagram.
+
+**Liana Leahy:** Yeah. When I was brought into product management - product managers are incredibly technical and very deeply embedded in the teams; and yet, when I moved on from that role to other companies, the reverse was true. The expectation was on the tech lead to take on a lot of that product owner/project management piece of it... So much so that I wasn't expected to write tickets or even attend stand-ups, which I think is crazy. Like, I need to know what's happening, and what's going on... I think the only way to keep things on the rails is to understand what people are building, and answer questions at stand-up. I just can't imagine not showing up for that.
+
+\[55:57\] But it really depends on the organization, and also the people involved. There are some tech leads that I can absolutely trust with that, and I can walk away and go focus on more strategic stuff. It just really depends on the situation.
+
+But who should do what - it's very cultural, around ownership and where those lines are drawn.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** People come to product management from a variety of fields. I've seen your background - folks come from engineering; I'm seeing PMs who come from a design background... We were just talking about PMs coming from a business background... And actually, one of the PMs I work with now, who's phenomenal, is coming from a behavioral science background.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, fancy.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So I'm kind of curious what you see as 1) the advantages of coming from an engineering background, because many of our audience are engineers... But also maybe what are the blind spots or challenges you might have coming into product management from an engineering background, and how would you go about remedying them?
+
+**Liana Leahy:** Absolutely. Coming from an engineering standpoint, I was able to hit the ground running on so many things in product management. It was great. And a lot of engineers do make that switch. Because I understand how to break apart a story, how to communicate to engineers and help them build the right thing. That's awesome.
+
+But where my blind spots are - and I've had to learn this over time, and it's been difficult, is that business side. I don't have an MBA, I don't really wanna get an MBA...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's okay... This is a safe space. I don't think anybody else -- highly likely that nobody listening to this... I mean, very few people --
+
+**Liana Leahy:** \[laughs\] I haven't spoke to anyone who has an MBA. Actually, if you are an engineer with an MBA, that is a fantastic resume builder and a fantastic thing to have.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, I might be the only other person on this call that wants an MBA, actually. I don't really want an MBA, I want an SDM, but anyway... I'll put a link in the show notes to the program that I wanna join.
+
+**Liana Leahy:** There's actually one you can get now -- there's MBAs you can get that are software management-focused. That I might be interested in, actually. But the skills that you're trying to flex there are understanding your industry. Understanding -- like, can you figure out how much do you charge for your product? How do you figure out what kind of team that you need, and how do you pay for that team? How much is that team gonna cost? How much is a project gonna cost, and how many people do you need, and how much is all of that gonna cost?
+
+And then there's the marketing side. So there's the business side, but then there's the marketing... Like, how do you build a go-to-market? How do you let people know about this piece of software that you've built, and train your commercial teams, your operation teams, your users how to use this feature? All of that is more like salesy-marketing stuff, that it's been very difficult for me to pick that up over time, just because that's just not one of my brain spaces, so I'm constantly trying to challenge myself to be thinking in those terms, because it just doesn't come natural to me.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, I can totally see how that is a huge mental shift... And quite frankly, it's the deterrent for me when it comes to product, really... I don't enjoy making slides, I don't enjoy having to constantly pitch, and I don't enjoy writing oodles of documentation, which is a key thing that you need to do as a product manager, because otherwise...
+
+**Liana Leahy:** As a tech lead too though, don't you think? Tech leads need to write architectural documents, right?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah... Let's just put it this way - it's the thing that I like the least about my job. I would much rather like "Can I just put this into an audio doc, and then somebody else type it up for me?" It's a hard job.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I totally hear you, Amal. I love about of things about product. I love collaborating with product folks, and I'm not enough of a planner or an organizer to be an excellent product manager. I partner really well with those folks, but... Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, that's the space that I'm in.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** There's a lot.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I'm a really good partner, I think... And I think trust is important, because --
+
+**Liana Leahy:** You are a really good partner, Amal.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, thank you. I appreciate it. But you know, you have to be able to lean on each other and trust each other and understand when it's that other person's job, and when it's your job. So that's the relationship I think between the tech lead and the PM.
+
+So Liana, this has been a really, really insightful and really interesting discussion. I wanted to say, thank you so much for all of the insights. I think we have an Easter Egg surprise, which I'm not sure where we're going to insert it, but... Let's just put it this way - Liana is a singer...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** We have a history of incorporating singing in our podcast, though most of us are not nearly as talented as I think Liana is.
+
+**Liana Leahy:** \[laughs\] Well, I told you that I like mash-ups, so it's always been important to me to bring all my passions together... So I tend to sing about tech issues, or technical things. or just goofy technical things. So I'll leave it at that...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, exactly. And maybe the surprise Easter Egg is something about Unix... And I'll leave it at that.
+
+**Liana Leahy:** In a very old and tired meme.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Old and tired meme, yes. That, too.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I'm excited. I haven't seen this.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. So where can folks connect with you on the internet, and where can folks find you?
+
+**Liana Leahy:** I'm @lleahy on Twitter, and liana.org. I got that back in 1995...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yes, this is where I'm starting to realize, Liana is like an Eternal. I don't know if anyone is familiar with Eternals. This is like a new Marvel spin-off... But they are these people who live forever, and they all look like they're 33... So you know...
+
+**Liana Leahy:** \[laughs\] Yeah, we'll see how long I can pull that off.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[laughs\] Anyways. So Liana, thank you again. It's been an absolute pleasure.
+
+**Liana Leahy:** Thank you!
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And we hope to have you back on the show in the future. Everyone, have a wonderful, wonderful day. Take care.
+
+**Outro:** \[01:01:50.25\]
+
+**Liana's Unix Song:** \[01:02:49.09\] to \[01:05:35.04\]
diff --git a/Frontend Feud React Advanced Edition_transcript.txt b/Frontend Feud React Advanced Edition_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..91ac8b07dba37e5a4e6f804887006f6e29f7ed0f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Frontend Feud React Advanced Edition_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,1341 @@
+**Jerod Santo:** Hello, and welcome to Frontend Feud. We are live at the React Advanced after-party. How are you all doing out there?
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Lovely.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** So good.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Really great.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Fantastic.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Super-good.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Excited!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We are excited as well. We've gathered together six amazing people to play Frontend Feud with us today. Let's get to know our contestants. So we have two teams. Team one is Tara, Nick and Colby. Let's start with Tara Manicsic. Nice to meet you, Tara. Thanks for joining us.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Very nice being here. I'm very excited... And it seems like I have the best team, so we're off to a great start. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Time will tell... Tara, to get to know you a little better, please tell everybody what is your favorite emoji.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Oh, it's definitely the grimace. I don't know what it's actually called...
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Same.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** ...but I make that face constantly, and it's just like for every single thing that I awkwardly encounter. It's always the grimace face.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So we do have the benefit of video with us today. Do you wanna give us a taste of what the grimace face looks like? \[laughter\]
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Nailed it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Awesome.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Perfect. Perfect.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Up next it's JS Party regular, Nick Nisi. What's up, Nick?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Hoy-hoy! Happy to be here.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Happy to have you as well. Nick, what is the strangest thing in your fridge?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Um, liquid aminos maybe right now... Which is a substitute for soy sauce. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay... Never heard of it, so I guess it's strange...
+
+**Michael Chan:** I hear ya. I'm with you on that one.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Alright.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** It's good stuff, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Rounding out team one, it's Colby Fayock. Colby, would you rather be a fish or a bird?
+
+**Colby Fayock:** I'd say probably a fish, so I can see all the cool stuff underneath the water.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Good answer, good answer. That's team one. Team two, starting off with Brandon Dail. Brandon, thanks for joining the show.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Thank you for having me.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[04:13\] And Brandon, the people really wanna know - how many tabs do you have open.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Um, like in the window that I have opened right now, or the dozens of other windows that I have?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** The aggregate. Aggregate them for us.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Okay. 50 probably.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** 50. Not too bad.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Yeah, that seems pretty good.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We also have Yuraima Estevez. Hey, Yuraima, thanks for coming on the show.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Thanks for having me. I'm so excited to be here!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We're happy to have you. We'd like to know, would you prefer a bicycle, a tricycle, a unicycle, or just a plain old sickle?
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** I mean, I play a lot of Stardew Valley, so I think a plain sickle is for me.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright. Awesome choice. And last but surely not least on team two it's Michael Chan. What's up, Michael?
+
+**Michael Chan:** What's up?! Good to see you.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Good to see you again. And - curious... What's your favorite text abbreviation?
+
+**Michael Chan:** Text abbreviation?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, you know, lgtm, iirc, brb, afk, wtf... The usual.
+
+**Michael Chan:** You've just rattled off a bunch of them. Um, I mean, favorite's gotta be wtf, but I use omg a lot, too... So between those two, I'm pretty well covered.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Awesome. Well, that's our panel today. I'm Jerod Santo, I will be your host. We're playing frontend feud. This is a game all about matching the audience's preference. So we have surveyed 100 JavaScript developers, and asked them various questions about React, about JavaScript, about development, about life... And aggregated the survey responses. The two teams are gonna try to do the best job of matching the most popular responses from the JavaScript developers who were interviewed.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** What is the sample pool? Is it like -- are we thinking like React advanced already, so are we skewing towards React, or...?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes. So we sent the survey specifically to the React advanced attendees, and then we branched out from there; we went from there to JS Party listeners, and then to the general Twitter people, and we've gotten a hundred great responses. So they're all gonna be either React advanced folk and/or JS Party listeners, and then Twitter followers from there. So that's your audience.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Okay.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Now, each round starts with a face-off, or an interface-off, if you prefer puns...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yes...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...where one person from each team steps up and tries to guess the highest matched answer on the board. Whichever person gets the highest answer, their team wins that round and they get to play the rest of that board. You have three lives, so every time you guess a response that's not on the board, you lose a live. After three lives lost, the other team can then confer and have one chance to steal all the points that are on the board, and take that round.
+
+At the end of the game, whoever has the most points wins, and the winning team gets absolutely nothing... No, just kidding. \[laughter\] The winning team gets a chance to shout out anything they would like to shout out on the show to our audience. So that's your --
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Power. So any word? No, I'm just kidding. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, just shout any random word.
+
+**Michael Chan:** You can then just yell at the end of the show.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, like "WTF!" would be a good one. So be thinking, if you win - maybe you have a favorite cause, maybe you have a developer you appreciate, maybe it's a cool project, maybe you've got some wares you wanna sell... Whatever it is, good chance to shout it out. But you've gotta win first. Any questions about the game?
+
+Alright, let's play, shall we? We'll start round one, and the two contestants facing off are gonna be Tara and Brandon. Please step right up.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Here we go...
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Here we go, here we go, here we go!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** The first question we asked one hundred JavaScript developers is to name a common file extension found in React apps. Tara, you will guess first. If you get the number one answer, you win the board. If you get anything that's not number one, then Brandon will get a chance to guess.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Js.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Js.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Have you heard of that one? \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** What is that again? Show me js. \[win sound\] The number three answer, with 13 responses...
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** \[08:15\] Three?!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...which means you did not get number one, and Brandon now has an opportunity to steal.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Oh, no...!
+
+**Brandon Dail:** I'm gonna say jsx. Final answer.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Yeah...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us jsx. \[win sound\] But where does it fall? Oh, number one answer.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Ah...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So Brandon wins the interface-off, and team two takes the board. Team two, you will now rotate opportunities to guess. You cannot confer during this time, so you will be on your own to guess... And if you get the remaining two, then you get all the points. If not, three lives lost, and we'll chance to steal. So we now go to Yuraima. Please, give us an answer.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** I'm gonna say tsx.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us tsx... \[win sound\]
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Yeah!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Number two answer, with 34 responses. You're doing quite well. You have 1, 2 and 3 all knocked out, and there's only one answer left. We go to Michael... What's that number four response?
+
+**Michael Chan:** Tsx -- I had that written down; that was the one I wanted to go with... So I guess I'm gonna go with .ts, round that out...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Let's see if it's on there... Show us .ts. \[win sound\]
+
+**Michael Chan:** Oh, yes!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That is correct. Very good. So without missing a single beat, you all just guessed the top four responses to the question "Name a common file extension." I guess there's only so many extensions out there... We have .jsx, .tsx, .js and .ts.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** There's no .mjs?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** No... I'm sorry, Nick.
+
+**Michael Chan:** Wait, can you put jsx in a .ts file? Is that even allowed?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's a good question.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** I don't think so. I think TypeScript gets mad, because there's some conflicting syntax...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** But you probably have a lot of hooks.
+
+**Michael Chan:** Yeah. True.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There you go.
+
+**Michael Chan:** True. True. Fair.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So we award 92 points to team two. Award those points; very good. And we now move on to the next round, which is going to be Nick versus Yuraima. Step right up.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Okay.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We surveyed 100 JavaScript developers and we said "What is your favorite static site generator?" Now, team one went first last round, so we'll go to team two. Yuraima, you get to guess first - what is your favorite static site generator? There are five responses on the board.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Okay. I like to think I speak for the people, and my favorite static site generator is Next.js, the static side of it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There you go.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** The static side of it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** The static half. There you go. That works.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Does the answer have a little star on there? \[laughter\]
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Yeah. A little asterisk on there.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Let's see if it's on the board. Show us Next.js. \[win sound\] Number two answer, with 23 responses, so pretty good, but not at the top. So Nick, you do have a chance to take the board. What do you think people answered, their favorite static site generator?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** You know, I am hoping that it's number one, but let's go with number Eleventy.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me Eleventy... \[win sound\] Number three.
+
+**Michael Chan:** Ooh. What's number one...?
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** I know! I know.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So you've got a correct answer, but you're actually lower, so team two once again gets to play this round. So we now go to Michael to name a static site generator.
+
+**Michael Chan:** Okay. Well, I was gonna guess Eleventy, because I love Eleventy, and I was just gonna guess it, because I like it... But I'm gonna go the opposite direction and guess Gatsby...
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** \[12:01\] How is that opposite? What are you trying to say? \[laughter\]
+
+**Michael Chan:** Oh, I mean... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Let's see if that opposite direction paid off. Show us Gatsby... \[win sound\] It sure did. And it's the number one answer, with 33 responses.
+
+**Michael Chan:** Yes!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So of the five responses on the board, we have numbers one through three taken, Gatsby.js with 33, Next.js with 23, Eleventy with 11. There's still two answers on the board, and now we go to Brandon.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Those are all the ones that I know. This is tough.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It gets harder from here, doesn't it?
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Is Hugo one? Am I thinking if the right thing?
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Yeah.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** If that is one of them, then that's my guess.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, show us Hugo. \[fail sound\] Oooh...
+
+**Brandon Dail:** First wrong answer.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** First wrong answer.
+
+**Michael Chan:** I liked the preface on that, "If that is one, that's my guess." \[laughter\]
+
+**Brandon Dail:** It was a conditional one.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So we now lost one life, and we're back at Yuraima.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Oh, man, I also don't really know... I'm gonna go default. Plain old HTML, I guess.
+
+**Michael Chan:** So human static site generator. I like that. \[laughter\]
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Pioneer.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, the old trick question. "My favorite generator is no generator." I guess "Show me no generator..." \[win sound\] What?!
+
+**Michael Chan:** What?!
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** No way...!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Seven people.
+
+**Michael Chan:** Wow. Well played.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well played. Seven people said "None" or "Handwritten", or "Plain old HTML."
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Bravo!
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Wow...
+
+**Michael Chan:** Amazing.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Anybody out there just rocking HTML for their content sites?
+
+**Michael Chan:** It's not even number five. That's incredible.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Nope, number four. We still have one more out there. You have two lives left; you've lost one life... Or have you lost two lives? Remind me. Brandon missed. Did Michael miss?
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Just one.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, just Brandon. So you have two lives left, and we're on Michael.
+
+**Michael Chan:** Oh, gosh... Okay. I just have to go with -- I don't know, I'm kind of confused at this point; I'm just gonna go with where the hype is right now, and I'm gonna say Astro. There's gotta be at least 2-3 people that said Astro.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us Astro. \[fail sound\]
+
+**Michael Chan:** Aww... Sorry, team.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I will say you're partially correct, because two people did say Astro, but you have to get five or more to make the board. So it was stated, but it's not on the board. There is something with five, we just have to find it. You have one guess left, and we are back to Brandon.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** I mean, what's less popular than nothing...? \[laughter\] So handwritten, I guess that would include hand-rolled... I don't know. What is another one? I legitimately can't think of one. I guess -- this is a tough one. Maybe I'll just say like Create React App. It's not a static site generator, but... Maybe some people think of it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right... Remember that you're not trying to get the correct answer, you're trying to guess what people said. So you never know. Let's see if it's on there. Show us Create React App... \[fail sound\] Oh, I am sorry, but it did not quite make the list. It was mentioned one time, so somebody did say it.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Okay.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** But that is three lives lost, which means team one now has the chance to steal the board. Team one, you can confer amongst yourselves, and discuss, and together pick one answer which will steal the board if it's on there.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** So I was thinking Gridsome or Nuxt...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I was thinking Jekyll.
+
+**Michael Chan:** I was originally thinking like SvelteKit.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Jekyll... I didn't think about Jekyll.
+
+**Michael Chan:** Any thoughts on Svelte?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nobody thinks of Jekyll... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Probably not a good sign, Nick.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. \[laughter\]
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Well, yeah, SvelteKit... Hm.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I could agree with going with that one.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Sure. \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[16:14\] Colby, what are you thinking? You've been pretty quiet up there.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Yeah, I think SvelteKit is interesting. I honestly thought that was gonna be higher, because I thought it was kind of growing... But I don't know.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Yeah, I thought Gridsome or Nuxt, but it's more Vue-centric than React-centric, so...
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Yeah...
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Yeah, let's roll the dice with SvelteKit...?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So far, team two has 74 points in this round.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** I love how confident we are. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** The last item on the board is five points. So if this is correct, you'll steal 79 points from team two and be right back in the game. Show us SvelteKit. \[win sound\] Hey-hey! That's correct!
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Yes! \[applause\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Team one steals the round...
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** That one hurt.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...and all points...
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** This is how I do team projects in general; I have everybody do all the work and then I sweep right in there. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well played.
+
+**Michael Chan:** That cuts deep...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So after two rounds, we have a very close game. Team one with 79 points, and team two with 92 points. Let's move now to the third round, which is an interface-off between Colby and Michael.
+
+**Michael Chan:** Let's go!
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Go Michael!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Team one gets to guess first. We asked 100 JS developers "Name a protocol that all web apps rely upon." Colby, to you.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** HTTPS?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us HTTPS. \[win sound\] Number two answer, with 16 responses.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Number two answer...?
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Number two?!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That means number one is still out there, and can be taken by Michael if you can guess it.
+
+**Michael Chan:** I'm gonna go with HTTP, no S.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oooh...! Despite the Letsencrypt folks' best efforts... \[laughter\]
+
+**Colby Fayock:** The web is still insecure...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Still a lot of sites out there using plain old HTTP... But is it the number one answer? Let's find out. \[win sound\] It is. Overwhelmingly so, with 71 responses.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** We're so insecure...
+
+**Michael Chan:** I would have said HTTP as well...
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Yeah, not HTTP/2.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** I was trying to be too best practices... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right? So there are three responses on the board. You already have two. Team two is gonna play this board. We're gonna go to Brandon. Remember, that third one is usually the trickiest, so we'll see if you guys can make it before you lose all three lives.
+
+**Michael Chan:** We believe in you.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** I'm gonna say -- maybe there's a few more low-level-minded folks; maybe TCP?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us TCP. \[win sound\] Oh my goodness, you drilled it!
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Yes!!
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Low-level-minded folks sounds like such an insult. \[laughter\]
+
+**Brandon Dail:** You know, people who just think about TCP all the time.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. Five people said TCP/IP, even though those are two separate protocols, but let's not pick a nit here... That's correct, so yeah, you guys drilled it; this round was swept by team two, with lots of points available.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** No one's doing FTP anymore? Is that what I'm hearing?
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** FTP is dead. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It appears that my scoreboard is busted; look at that, it says 179... That can't be right for this round.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** I mean, we'll take it.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** It's rigged, it's rigged.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** We accept, we accept.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** I call cahoots!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It'd be 71+16 -- I mean, it has to be less than a hundred, because there's only a hundred people surveyed... Ah, who coded this thing...?! So let me do a hard refresh real quick and see what happens. This might fix it. Team two... 71+16... Yaay, that's much better!
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** There you go.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I might have to hard-refresh each round. We'll see how this plays out. This is interesting. Alright, we're gonna award those points to team two... And now they lead, after three rounds, with 184, team one pulling up their rear with 79 points... But don't worry, there's lots of game left to play.
+
+**Break:** \[20:22\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We now move to round four, and our interface-off is between Tara and Brandon. Please step up. We surveyed 100 JavaScript developers and asked them to name a character trait that many successful developers have in common. There are five popular responses on the board. Brandon, you get to guess first.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** I'm gonna go with curiosity.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us curiosity. \[win sound\] Number two answer, with 15 responses. So you're quite high on the board, but not at the top. Tara, if you can steal it... Guess that number one response.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Part of me wants to be a smart aleck and say coding, but... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** But how many smart alecks are out there?
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** I know, but that is probably one top developer trait in itself. Um, so maybe -- um, perseverance?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us perseverance. \[win sound\] So now you managed to pull it off. Number one answer
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Oh, nice!
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Wow. Okay.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** I was a little nervous, since my job basically is me trying to know what developers are.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There you go.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** I do developer experience for a living, so bleh
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You must be good at your job.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** What even are developers...?
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** I know... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** This covered a range of words: grit, persistence, perseverance, stubbornness... All those words are basically wrapped up in that response. So Tara has won the board for team one. There are three responses left. We have one and two taken, three, four and five are still available. We go to Nick. Name a character trait that many successful devs have in common.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I am out of ideas here... Is tired a character trait? \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Do you want me to test that one, or are you joking?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** No, I'm joking... \[laughter\] Am I? Am I joking?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I know I'm tired, but am I joking...? \[laughter\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Um... I'm going to say... Everything I think of falls into those two categories, so... Um...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[23:56\] Just do your best, Nick...
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Look inside yourself and say "What am I?"
+
+**Michael Chan:** Tired. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Do you wanna test "tired"? I'll test it for you. I have the tools at my disposal.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, test that one.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, let's see.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It's only one incorrect...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Show us "tired". \[fail sound\] No, of course not. Because it's not a characteristic trait. But it's definitely a status...
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** It's definitely what we all are, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, so that's Nick we have one lost life. Colby, it is your turn. What's a character trait that many successful devs have in common?
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Let's go with creative.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Oooh...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oooh... That one's like -- let's see, should I fit that in or not?
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** I like it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me creative. \[win sound\] Number four answer; that's intelligent problem-solver, creative... People said "thinking outside the box", so it's all those kind of things. Right on the fringe of in there with intelligence, but we'll include it. So that's seven points. You now have numbers 1, 2 and 4. You're missing 3 and 5. And we go back to Tara; you have one lice loft -- one... I'm tired. \[laughter\] You have one life lost.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** You are one life, yes. Would innovative fit in that intelligence problem-solving one?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes, I would say that's grouped in.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Son of a gun. Okay. Does hardworking fit? Or that would be in persistence.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, I would group that one in as well.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Um... \[laughs\] Okay. Sorry, do I have a timer on me?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, if Nick is any indicator, no, you don't. \[laughter\]
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** I mean -- okay... So let's see. Teamwork? Is teamwork in any of these that's already there? I have to admit, this white font on yellow has hurt me a bit. I keep squinting at the words.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Teamwork is not currently listed on the board.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Teamwork? Collaboration? Yeah, teamwork/collaboration(ish).
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, that's a good guess. Show us good collaborator.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** You made the words better.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail sound\] Sorry, but that was not one of the top five.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** So we're looking for 10x developers.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Is that saying something about successful developers? \[laughter\]
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** That's what I was gonna say. Are we looking for 10x-ers here? Is that what is happening? \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So we have grit/persistence at number one, we've got curious and inquisitive at number two... At number four we have intelligence, problem-solving, thinking outside the box, being creative... We're missing 3 and 5. You have two lost lives already. Colby, this is your last chance. Can you name another trait that is on the popular board?
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Just to be clear, wasn't it Nick who's next? Or am I next?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** No, you're right, it's Nick. My apologies.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I see what you did there. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I was just trying to help your team out.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** I don't wanna be the one to blame...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, Nick...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** You're feeding my imposter syndrome, and that was what I was gonna go with. They're imposters.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Ah, show us imposter syndrome. \[fail sound\] That was definitely mentioned, but it did not score five or more points. So team two now has an opportunity to steal the board. You can confer amongst yourselves and decide; you have two opportunities. If you can match either number three or number five, you steal these points.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Oh, boy.
+
+**Michael Chan:** Okay, so is this quote about laziness being one of the characteristics of a developer? I'm kind of feeling like that's one of those two, just because it's such a popular
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** I'd +1 that.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Yeah. That's worth a shot.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** For sure.
+
+**Michael Chan:** Let's do it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[28:02\] Show us laziness. \[win sound\]
+
+**Michael Chan:** Yes!
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** What?! \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Team two steals the round.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** That's what a successful developer is. He is lazy! \[laughter\]
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Lazy, but not tired...
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** What is that saying about us? \[laughter\] I call my team a team of effective procrastinators, or successful procrastinators, functioning procrastinators...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes, high-functioning procrastinators. Love it. \[laughter\]
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Are we gonna know what the other one was? I'm really curious.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes, I need to --
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Oh, sorry.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I need to do this score here, because I hit the wrong button. Give me a second.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** 10x? It's 10x, isn't it?
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Is it communication?
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Oh, gosh...
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Didn't we already try that?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nope. Wrong team. Right?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's right, team 2 stole it. Yeah. I definitely have a bug in here, and I'm trying to debug it as we go. So the number 3 answer, with 8 points, was --
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Debugging should have been a trait.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...effective communicator.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Communicator, yeah
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So who was that -- was it Brandon that said that?
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Yeah, that was gonna be my guess if I had another chance, so...
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Yeah, that makes sense, that collaboration would fall into communicator...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right, because that'd be like writing skills etc. Collaboration - you know, these things are related, but it's tough to group them effectively. A couple of people -- this is funny... So a couple of people said "humility", and then one person said "incredibly good looks." I thought that was a nice pairing, with humility... \[laughter\]
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Clearly.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And then we did have a response that said "Complaining about HTML being a programming language or not." So there's your funny person trying to hop in there. \[laughter\] We'll leave that one right on the table, and we now move to round five. Round five is gonna work differently than other rounds...
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Oh. Okay...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** This is what we call the inverted round. So instead of having a face-off, we're going to have the teams rotate back and forth, guessing answers, and you're trying to guess the lowest answers on the board. There are six popular answers, but the points get higher and higher the further down the board. So what we try to do is match things that are on the board, but not number one, two and three, because they're worth less points.
+
+So we asked 100 JS devs "Which day of the week do you get the most coding done?" and there are six answers on the board. Let's go ahead and start with the losing team, which is team one, and we'll start with Colby. Which day of the week do you get the most coding done? There are six potential answers.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** So it has to be -- because they're six, and seven days, so it's not the least, right? So the second-least... Let's go with Saturday.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us Saturday. \[fail sound\] No, you managed to find the least...
+
+**Colby Fayock:** So it's not even on the board...
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Dang...! \[laughter\] You over-succeeded, you overachieved there, Colby... \[laughter\]
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Come on, isn't that bonus points?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You've found the one day that didn't even make it. Alright, we now go to team two. Let's go to Michael, for a chance to score here. Pick a day of the week.
+
+**Michael Chan:** Okay, I'm gonna go with Friday -- um... Friday.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us Friday. \[win sound\] Well played. Number five answer, which is 25 points. 11 people said Friday. It's the second least popular that's better than Saturday. \[laughter\] Alright, we go back now -- let's score those here... We go back to team one and Tara.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** So I'll go with Sunday.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us Sunday. \[fail sound\] The plot thickens...
+
+**Michael Chan:** What?!
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** What?!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[32:15\] Sunday did not make the board, so neither Saturday, nor Sunday.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** I guess these are people's responses, right?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** These are people's responses.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** So they don't have to be -- yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We go back now to team two... \[laughter\]
+
+**Michael Chan:** And we know dates are hard, right?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, we struggle with these things. \[laughter\] Alright, back now to team two. Let's go to Brandon.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Okay, so the weekend isn't even on here. I guess I'm gonna go Monday.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us Monday. \[win sound\] Very good, right in the middle.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Oh, okay.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** 20 points awarded. You are fourth-highest response, with 12 responses. We're gonna award those points to team two. We go back to team one, and now we're on Nick.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Hm. So there are not days of the week, but other answers in here... \[laughter\] I'm gonna say meeting days.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us meeting days. \[fail sound\] I like that guess.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Hey, this team is consistent, I'll tell you that. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Thinking outside the box. Very creative; you'd be a good developer. \[laughter\] Alright, let's go to Yuraima.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** I feel like this round makes absolutely no sense in my mind anymore... I'm gonna go with Wednesday, because those are my no-meeting days, and I always have meetings on those days.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So which day of the week do you get the most coding done? The guess is Wednesday. Is it on the board? \[win sound\] It sure is. It's the number two answer, meaning it's only worth ten points... But yet, still points. So you'll take it, right?
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** We'll take it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We award those to team two. We go back to team one... Colby's turn, right?
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Let's go "weekend".
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us the weekend. \[fail sound\] \[laughter\] For a second there I felt like Daniel Craig on Saturday Night Live, when he says "Ladies and gentlemen... The weekend."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It was a good guess though.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** I liked it
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Sorry, team one, you guys are thinking outside the box, you have creative answers, and you're just striking out left and right... So team two tends to just pick days of the week, which is turning out to work pretty well. \[laughter\]
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Let's see if it plays out in the end.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And is it Michael's turn now? I think so.
+
+**Michael Chan:** I think so. You called out my strategy, because I was just gonna play it safe again, and just pick another day of the week... I'm trying to figure out which one might be worth the most points. I don't know... Let's just go Thursday.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us Thursday. \[win sound\] Number three answer. It's gonna get you 15 points.
+
+**Michael Chan:** I'm amazed at how coordinated the not-day-of-the-week is. This is amazing.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So team two scores 15 there. We go back to team one. Let me just draw a word picture for our listeners... We have six options on the board. Number one hasn't been guessed, number six hasn't been guessed. What has been guesses is Wednesday, Thursday, Monday, Friday. I'll also tell you that Saturday and Sunday have also been guessed, as well as "weekend"... \[laughter\] So anything can happen at this point. And it's Tara's turn.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** I mean, part of me wants to say "holiday". \[laughs\] But I feel like I should also go against the grain of my team and guess an actual day. \[laughter\]
+
+**Brandon Dail:** If you do, we're gonna steal "holiday" and win.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Such a rebel, I know, I know... Um, let's try Tuesday. Let's see what happens there.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[36:15\] Show us Tuesday. \[win sound\] Number one answer. 30 respondents find Tuesday to be when they get the most coding done, which puts it at only five points, because we're inverted... But points nonetheless. We'll award those to team one, and we'll go back to team two. And Brandon is up... There's only one last thing on the board. Are you gonna go for "holiday"? What's gonna happen here?
+
+**Brandon Dail:** So literally every actual day of the week is out... \[laughter\] I'm gonna maybe account for the self-deprecating answer here and say "no days". None.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Oooh...!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, very interesting.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Manager. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, let's see if our JS devs said they're productive no days... \[fail sound\]
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** So you know that Saturday and Sunday are supposed to be the strongest days, because the rest are weekdays...
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Oooh...!
+
+**Michael Chan:** Oooh...! \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well played.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Epic.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I believe we're on Nick. Is that right, Nick? Are you ready for this?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah... What else could there possibly be? \[laughs\] Wait, did somebody else guess holidays?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** No, they just acted like they were gonna guess "holidays", but they didn't.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Okay.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** And no one guessed Fri-yay... \[laughter\]
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** No one said Black Friday either, yeah...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Let's do "holidays", and hope that if Black Friday is the day, that it's generic enough...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us "holidays". \[fail sound\] Wow... This is a stumper. We're back to Yuraima here... And almost everything that could be guessed has been guessed. \[laughter\]
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Oh, man... Okay, so how many days are in a leap year? I'm doing those calculations in my head... \[laughter\]
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Leap day?
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Honestly, leap day might be it...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Is that your final answer?
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** ...to try to get those smartasses out there. Yeah, leap day, let's go for it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us leap day.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** We're with you.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail sound\]
+
+**Brandon Dail:** I would have given that one for you. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, in the sake of time, I will now provide a hint... And because team one is getting absolutely destroyed, I'll provide it to Colby. I would suggest maybe pulling an inverted Brandon.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** I was gonna guess that anyway, so every day.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us every day... \[win sound\] Oh, there it is! Worth 40 points.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** You gave a hint, so you took my credit... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Were you gonna guess that anyways?
+
+**Colby Fayock:** I was, I was.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** My bad, my bad. I should have given you a chance.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** I looked at the nonsensical nature of every day being the day you get the most coding done. \[laughter\]
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** The most coding done, yes.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** All day, every day.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** On an anonymous survey. Like, yes, every single day. \[laughter\]
+
+**Colby Fayock:** That is very programmer.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** It totally is. Aren't most devs supposed to be good at logic?
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Every day is the most.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Yeah, exactly. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, so 30 points awarded to team one there. That ends our inverted round.
+
+**Break:** \[39:39\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We now move to our final two rounds. These are worth double points, and the teams get to decide who does the face-off. So we will now go to round six, that's worth double points. Team 1, who would you like to represent you in your face-off?
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** I say we stick with the luck of the Colby.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, so Colby is on team 1. How about team 2? Who would like to face-off?
+
+**Brandon Dail:** I nominate Michael. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We have a nomination.
+
+**Michael Chan:** A quick draw nomination. I should have spoke sooner. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There's a nomination, a second, and a ool. So that's official. Let's move to round six. Gentlemen, step right up. We asked 100 JavaScript developers "What's the first thing you do when your code doesn't work right?" Since team 1 is trailing, we'll let Colby guess first.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** I feel like I could come up with a lot of smart answers for this, but console log.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us console log. \[win sound\] Number one answer...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice!
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Wow...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...with 16 respondents, but it is the double round, so that is worth 32 points, and Michael doesn't even get a chance, and your team takes the board. So you're off to a good start in round 6. We now go to Tara. There are five answers. You've got number one, which means there's four remaining. What is the first thing you do when your code doesn't work right?
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Is dev tools too broad? Like, inspect --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's a good question... I would say yes, too broad.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Too broad. But inspect the code with dev tools is also too broad? \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** What are you trying to saying here?
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Just trolling for the answer here
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, yeah. You've gotta guess one at some point. \[laughter\]
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** This is my communicative debugging... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You can guess that and find out.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** That feels like a bait... What about running a debugger in code? It's like, debug?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Debug. Final answer?
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Yeah...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me debug. \[win sound\] Number four answer. Use the debugger. 11 respondents, worth 22 points. So you have one and four. Two, three and four remain. Nick, it is your turn.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Alright, so not the correct answer, but what the most people guessed. I'm gonna say "You run the code again."
+
+**Michael Chan:** Refresh. \[laughter\]
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Hard refresh.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Kind of like I did earlier, when I refreshed. Show us "Re-run the code." \[win sound\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[44:15\] Yes!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Number two answer. This includes "Refresh the page" or "Re-run the code." 15 respondents, which gives you 30 points. You're raking up the points in this round.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I finally got one right. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And you haven't lost any lives yet.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** We had total faith in you.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We're back to Colby, and there's two more things.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Check tests?
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Yeah, are we talking about the lazy coders, or are we talking about --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me "check tests." \[fail sound\]
+
+**Colby Fayock:** I guess lazy coders... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Checking tests did not make the cut. That's your first life lost. Back to Tara.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** So like part of me would want to say you rubber duck your co-workers, but we know from the first respondents that nobody works in teams and collaborates.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** No. \[laughter\]
+
+**Brandon Dail:** So that's the physical rubber-duck, right?
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Yes, yes... \[laughs\] So I guess I wanna go with the smart alecks and say something like cry... \[laughter\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That was gonna be my guess...
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Just sobbing at the computer... \[laughter\]
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Yeah. Whine, cry, and sob, yes.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us cry. \[win sound\] Number three answer, which includes swearing, crying, or sighing. \[laughter\]
+
+**Brandon Dail:** I like that more people cry that use the debugger. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, it's an order of operations thing, right? The first thing you do is cry. Then you reach for a debugger.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** It's a lot easier to start crying, yeah.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** The five stages of debugging...
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Exactly. \[laughter\] Yeah, is number five "All of the above"? \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, you do have numbers 1 through 4 correct; you've lost only one life, which means you have two guesses to get that tricky fifth slot... And is it now Nick's turn...? Back to Nick.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. I'm going to say that you check out or revert.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us revert. \[fail sound\]
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Aww... Because that's the smart thing to do, huh? \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Sorry, that did not make the cut. We now go to Colby. You're down to your last guess.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** So I'm trying to decide -- because I was gonna say "Delete the code." But would "Delete the code" be too similar to revert? Because technically, they're different, right?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I would just say they're probably too close. You should fish elsewhere.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Well, thank you. \[laughter\] But keep fishing, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That was good fishing though...
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Comment things out.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us comment things out. \[fail sound\]
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Aww...
+
+**Michael Chan:** Yes! Is that us?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That is your third lost life, which means it's now a chance to steal, team 2.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** We know what it is, right?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** What is it?
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Oh, do we get to confer?
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Such confidence...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, you can confer.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Oh, yeah.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Alright, we know that there's people who said they write the most code every single day... \[laughter\] So are there people who would say that their code always works? \[laughter\]
+
+**Michael Chan:** Wow... I was thinking google "Stack Overflow".
+
+**Brandon Dail:** That's more reasonable, yeah.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Yeah, that's a good one.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Is that your final answer?
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** I'd go with googling, yeah. +1.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Yeah. Look it up.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, show us "google it", for the steal! \[fail sound\]
+
+**Brandon Dail:** What?!
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Aww...!
+
+**Brandon Dail:** I'm sorry, team. I'm sorry.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** I mean, that wasn't really --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That means team 1 is awarded the points.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** That was a good guess.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Maybe when they say that the most productive code - that's where that falls into, is copying and pasting.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** \[48:03\] I thought for sure -- the whole time, I was like "Just don't guess it, because we got this", but wow. Wow. That's rough.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** It's gotta be a smart aleck answer. This is gonna be where Sunday shows up. It's just gonna be like "Sunday." \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I will say, this is a somewhat obvious one, so I'm wondering if maybe somebody said it roundabout and I said it was wrong... But the number five response, with ten people stating it, was "Check the logs", or "Check the error messages."
+
+**Brandon Dail:** I don't think anybody said that...
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Yeah, because that kind of falls in the dev tools --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** When you said -- I mean, debugging is kind of there; add a console log... But they specifically said "read the logs", "read the error messages", so I separated that one out. A couple of funny answers, when your code doesn't work right - somebody said "Ship it to prod." \[laughter\] So, I guess, don't hire that person... \[laughter\] One person said "Listen to a podcast about it", which we appreciate, but is that really gonna do any good? I don't know. One funny one - do a casual desk flip... I thought "Okay..."
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Casual...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Casual. You know, like, not the angry desk flip, but just like the --
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Just smooth and easy...
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** It's just two fingers? Yeah... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** A two-finger desk flip. \[laughter\] And then, of course, Brandon was on the right track, because two people said "My code always works."
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Wow.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Wow...
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Those are the ones that also answered "lazy" is the best trait to have. \[laughter\]
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** For sure.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So after six rounds we have a tight race once again. The double points brought team 1 back. You have 272 points. Team 2 has 301 points... So it's anybody's game. We go into our final round... This is double the score, just like last time around. Once again, you get to pick your contestants for the interface-off. Team 1, who would you like?
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Yuraima.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Oh, gosh.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** If you're okay with it.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** I'll do it. \[laughter\]
+
+**Colby Fayock:** You got the quick-draw this time.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** My team didn't ask me that... \[laughter\]
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Would you like to do it...? \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** "Would you be our captain?" Alright, Tara and Yuraima, step right up. We will let Yuraima guess first this time.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** I feel like we need to do the virtual handshake.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** The virtual handshake, yes. Good luck, good luck.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yuraima, please name one thing that React devs commonly argue about.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Oh... Functional versus class components.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us "functional versus class components." \[win sound\] That was the number five answer, with six respondents, worth 12 points. That does mean that Tara gets a chance to guess.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** I'm so nervous, because I've been out of the React realm for so long... But is it still a debate about where CSS goes?
+
+**Brandon Dail:** We're all still arguing about the same things... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us "Where the CSS goes." \[win sound\] Number three answer, CSS-in-JS, and other such things.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Oh...!
+
+**Brandon Dail:** It was a good one. It's like the Freudian stages of the React developer, and you get stuck in one for forever... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So with that, Tara answered the higher response, so team one takes the board, and there are three responses still on the board - one, two and four. So we go to team one, and Nick, it is now your turn. Name one thing that React devs commonly argue about.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I'm gonna say the language, like TypeScript, JavaScript...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[51:59\] I knew you would say that. Show us "TypeScript". \[win sound\] Yes, of course, TypeScript vs. JavaScript. Number two answer, with 11 responses. Okay, the comeback continues. Colby, you have 1 in 4 open, and you have all three of your lives left. Name something that React devs argue about.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Hooks.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us hooks. \[fail sound\]
+
+**Michael Chan:** Whoa!
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It was a good guess.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That one was definitely mentioned, but not five or more times. So that's their first life lost. We go back to Tara.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** I wanna be a smart aleck again and just say that they're arguing against each other that React is the best framework ever... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Like, how bestest it is?
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Every day the most... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Every day...
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Gosh... I guess -- I don't know...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, you have two lives to live, so you could definitely just throw one out there and hope that you hit it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Because then it's going to me. I wouldn't do that...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Brandon Dail:** I have faith in both of you. \[laughter\]
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** I can't keep it broad, like structured, like keeping stateful stuff separate, and structure, or like --
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Yeah, that'd probably component style.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** I always have the most broad answers... Yeah, and then naming conventions... Um, let's see... I'm sorry, let's say -- I feel like there's gotta be a smart aleck one in here... Like tabs versus spaces, or something ridiculous. Is syntax too broad, too?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You mean the Syntax podcast? Way too broad...
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Um... Okay, sorry. I wanna be the smart aleck and say that -- let's just say... Oh, gosh, I'm sorry...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, you've said four of them, and they're all worth guessing...
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** I don't know why this is so stressful...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Just pick one of those.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Let's say file naming conventions, like capitalizations and whatever.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, show us "naming conventions". \[fail sound\] Not quite. It definitely had a couple of mentions.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** I thought that was a good one.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That was a good one. So you're down to your last guess, and you're down to Nick Nisi, and that's never a great place to be, but here you are... \[laughter\]
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** This is where he was gonna shine. I don't know what you're talking about. He's been waiting for his moment.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** He drilled that TypeScript one. Nick lives for TypeScript answers.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. I have two guesses, but I don't know which one is better given the respondent audience.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Mm-hm...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I will say state management.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us state management... \[win sound\] Number one answer...!
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yes! \[applause\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right when I disrespect you, you just step up to the plate. \[laughter\] Well played, sir.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Just do that more, Jerod. Every time he goes to answer.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** He had to prove you wrong. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, we're back to Colby...
+
+**Colby Fayock:** If you have that other answer, I'll take that... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Colby, you have one life to live...
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Let's go with performance.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** This will be for the winning of the entire game... Show us "performance". \[fail sound\] I'm sorry, it was not on the list, which means team 2 has a chance to steal. There is one answer left, number four. Team 2 can confer amongst yourselves. What's one thing that React devs commonly argue about?
+
+**Michael Chan:** What are some things you're thinking? Just shout them out.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** File structure.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** JSX? Some people don't like --
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** JSX...
+
+**Michael Chan:** That is a good one. Yeah, I was thinking like suffixes too, like we were talking about earlier... Linting also too, I was thinking about... Like linting rules and whatnot.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** \[56:17\] Go super-broad and say Facebook. \[laughter\]
+
+**Michael Chan:** Yeah, like licensing?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's actually a pretty good point.
+
+**Michael Chan:** Yeah, that's great.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** I mean, do React devs even argue that much? Is that really a thing?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Never. \[laughter\]
+
+**Brandon Dail:** We don't get along...
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Not ever...
+
+**Brandon Dail:** I really do like the idea of governance. That is a really interesting concept. You know, like the Facebook relationship. There's a bunch of licensing stuff... That's tough. I don't know. I could go any one of these ways.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** What are you thinking, Brandon?
+
+**Brandon Dail:** I mean, I think the licensing stuff is maybe not like a popular point of contention for most people... And when they re-licensed years ago, it's kind of faded. I don't know, I could do linting, we could do -- I think JSX is just very controversial, so I think there'll always be people who are talking about it... But gosh, I don't know.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Jerod has such a good poker face, too. I get no...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I will remind you, the game is on the line...
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Yeah, this is really heavy.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, I'm just enjoying the drama...
+
+**Brandon Dail:** I think Tara had guessed file structure, or something along that vein; probably something close enough. Or someone on team one...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** She landed on naming conventions.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Naming conventions.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Oh, naming conventions.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** I really love how analytical you're being with the notes... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, Michael really has notes that he's reading from.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** He's got a whole flow chart over there... \[laughter\] He's looked up our backgrounds, he has a whole --
+
+**Michael Chan:** Yeah, just red string connecting theories together... \[laughter\] I do like -- if we think it's different enough, I do like the file system organization, if we think it's different enough.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** They feel close to me, but...
+
+**Michael Chan:** They do feel close.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Close, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Do you have any others?
+
+**Michael Chan:** Well, I feel like that was a hint.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** No, I just wanna know. \[laughter\] Well, I did give Tara and Colby some pretty sweet hints throughout, so...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** He just confirmed it's a hint...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Maybe a little bit of a bone there. Yeah, I think those two are pretty close together.
+
+**Michael Chan:** Okay.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Routing? I don't know. I guess React Router is pretty much the answer, but... We'll still argue about it
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Um, testing library? Ways to test...?
+
+**Michael Chan:** Yeah, the whole Enzyme React testing library... Yeah, that could be there. I wonder if there's like a React/React Native... I don't know. I'm at a loss. The stakes are too high; I'm freaking out.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** They're so high.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Our shout-outs are on the line here. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** This is true. \[laughs\]
+
+**Brandon Dail:** I need this!
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It's such a good guess...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, we're gonna have to land somewhere...
+
+**Michael Chan:** Alright, does anyone have any strong feelings towards one of those? I'm so in the middle...
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Testing feels like a safe potential answer...
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Testing feels safe(ish).
+
+**Michael Chan:** Yeah, I like that. Let's print it. Ship it.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Let's just do it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Ship it? Alright. Just to set the stage... The score is team one 272, team two 301. There are 82 points scored already this round, so whoever wins this round, wins... And if you steal this, you steal the entire round and all points. This is the number four answer. You guessed testing.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** The suspense...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Is it on the board? Show us testing. \[fail sound\]
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Aww!
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Nooo!
+
+**Michael Chan:** Aww! \[laughter\]
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** I feel so bad for your sound editor, because my chair is really squeaky, and I've just been like \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[01:00:26.01\] Unfortunately, I'm also our sound editor, so... I appreciate your empathy. Well, team one - congratulations. After all that, you win with 354 points.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** The underdog \[applause\]
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Wow...
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** It start with thievery. That's how you win it. \[laughter\] That's how you get ahead in life.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Great developers steal.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I had to be a little bit tickled as you guys were discussing these various steals, because it turns out Tara had landed on it, smart aleck style, earlier on, and then quickly dismissed it. The number four answer, "tabs versus spaces."
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Ooooh...! \[laughs\]
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Aww, man....!
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Oh, my gosh. That's ridiculous.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Why is that still an argument? it's obviously spaces.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Oh, wow. You went there. \[laughter\]
+
+**Michael Chan:** How much time do we have left?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Why don't I introduce you to Nick Nisi? \[laughter\] ...who will follow on the other side of that, and on the wrong side of the fence, every time.
+
+**Michael Chan:** Now you've just made it personal. It was a joke before, and now...! \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So team 1, you guys win. That means you get to do shout-outs. So all three of you each get an opportunity to shout-out anything that you would like. It cannot be TypeScript. Nick, you are up. What would you like to shout out?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Well, I already shouted out liquid aminos at the beginning, so... \[laughter\]
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** I prefer mine solid, but whatever...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\] Let's see... I'm going to shout out the...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Do you want us to come back?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, please.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright. Colby, give us a shout-out.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** How about Tara start, so I can hear what the other people say first? \[laughter\]
+
+**Michael Chan:** Man, nobody even wants to shout out.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, I'm gonna be giving this to team two.
+
+**Michael Chan:** We'll take 'em!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's like the worst prize ever. They're like "I can't think of anything!" Tara, do you have anything to shout out? It could be literally anything.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** I have lots of things to shout out, but I will limit it to something productive... And go with one of my favorite things in the world right now - it's our podcast, for all you podcast fans out there. It's called Remotely Interesting. Remotelyinteresting.netlify.com. We basically make complete fools of ourselves and have a good time doing it, and laugh a lot, and it's kind of ridiculous. But I highly recommend checking it out, for all you lazy devs out there.
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Oh, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There you go. Good shout-out. Remotely Interesting. Well, she stalled as long as she could. Does either of you have a shout-out? \[laughter\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Um... Colby? \[laughter\]
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** So much more...
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Check me out on YouTube at @colbyfayock.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There you go.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice.
+
+**Colby Fayock:** Thank you.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Nick would like to shout out tabs as a way of indenting. \[laughter\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Because state management was the number one pick in the last round, I will say XState. I'm gonna shout out XState. It's awesome. Go check it out.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And I will add my Amen to that by saying check out the episode that Nick did of JS Party on XState. It's called "X gonna state it to you." \[laughter\] Nick also came up with that name. And stick around to the end of that episode for a little bit of a Easter Egg, where you might get some DMX mixed in with some other interesting sounds. Alright, so --
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Oh, my gosh...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So piling on to the shout-outs there, I wanna shout out to React Advanced for inviting us to play this game as part of the after-party. Hopefully, all of you had as much fun listening and participating as we had playing. Thank you to each and every person who took the survey. One of you will be receiving a free JS Party T-shirt, so we'll follow up via email with that person. That means 99 of you will not win a JS Party T-shirt, but have no fear, you can always head to jsparty.fm/merch and just pick one up for yourself. They are very comfy, and you can rep our podcast out there IRL, in the meet spaces.
+
+I also just wanted to thank everybody for playing the game. This has been Frontend Feud. I have been Jerod Santo, and we'll talk to y'all next time.
+
+**Tara Z. Manicsic:** Thank you...!
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Thanks, y'all.
+
+**Brandon Dail:** Thanks this was fun!
+
+**Yuraima Estevez:** Bye! \[laughter\]
+
+**Outro:** \[01:04:53.05\]
+
+**Horse JS:** JavaScript’s security model is based.
diff --git a/Frontend Feud ShopTalk vs Syntax_transcript.txt b/Frontend Feud ShopTalk vs Syntax_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cd753b985cbaed9bc27e703e582f96751e68f0ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Frontend Feud ShopTalk vs Syntax_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,1455 @@
+**Jerod Santo:** Hello there, and welcome to Frontend Feud. I am Jerod Santo, your host for today. It has been a while since we played this game, but we are happy to be here today, and we have a podcast super-colab. We got together some of our friends from some of our favorite web dev podcasts in the space; I'm sure you've heard of them. It is gonna be Team Syntax versus Team ShopTalk. Hey, everybody. Welcome to Frontend Feud!
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Heyy!!
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Yaayy!! \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Now, we wanted to give it a little JS Party flavor, so we've sprinkled in some JS Party panelists onto each team... So joining Team ShopTalk, which is Chris Coyier and Dave Rupert, is Amelia Wattenberger. So Amelia, you are on Team ShopTalk. What do you think?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I love it. We're gonna win.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Oh, absolutely.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Good answer... Good answer... Good Answer...
+
+**Wes Bos:** No chance!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And joining Team Syntax, which is Wes Bos and Scott Tolinski is Divya. Divya, welcome to Syntax.
+
+**Divya:** Hey-hey! Best team!
+
+**Wes Bos:** Best team!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Divya is an old pro at Frontend Feud, but I believe the rest of us are all new, even Amelia, so we should have a lot of fun. I'll quickly explain the rules. So this is a game all about the JS Party lovely listeners. We had 140 people fill out our Frontend Feud survey. We appreciate y'all for doing that. I really appreciate you, because I went back to the form at the end and realized the average take time was 37 minutes. I am so sorry. That thing took forever. And that's because we asked 25 questions, so we can play the game a few times, without having to go back and do more surveys. So I super-appreciate all of y'all for filling those out.
+
+\[04:22\] The goal of the game is to match our listeners' answers. So we have polled them on different things, and each team is gonna try to match the answer with the most answers from the survey. And as you go about doing that, you win points. If you fail to do that three times in a round, the other team can steal, and the team with the most points at the end of the game wins. Any questions?
+
+**Chris Coyier:** It's not the most correct answer, right? I used to play Apples to Apples with my super-pedantic uncle, and he was always like "But my answer is more correct" and you're like "Dennis! It's not about correctness!" \[laughter\]
+
+**Wes Bos:** Oh, that's such a Dennis move. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Exactly, right. In fact, many of our questions are subjective, so it's according to people's tastes, and what they think. So there really aren't right answers. The right answers are the ones that the most people said. So we will start off with a face-off; this is where two contestants step forward virtually and get a chance to answer first. The person who gets the highest answer on the board takes that board for their team, and their team participates in that round.
+
+Ladies first, we'll have Amelia and Divya, please step right up. Round one will start with Amelia. Amelia, if you get the highest answer, you immediately take the board. If you don't take the highest answer, Divya gets a chance to take it. We asked 140 lovely JS Party listeners "What is your primary web browser?"
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Oh, no pressure... I'm gonna go with Chrome.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Good answer, good answer, good answer, good answer.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Number one answer, with 52 responses... So that means Team ShopTalk is on the board.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** ALRIGHT!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So we will now go in order. You can keep guessing. There are six browsers in the list, so you have to match all six to take the board.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** What...!?
+
+**Divya:** Oooh...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You have the number one answer, which is Chrome, with 52. There's five left. Let's go to Chris.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Firefox.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Firefox. Show me Firefox. Number two answer, with 43 points. Very good.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** There's no conferring? Who goes next? Me?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There's no conferring. Now we go to Dave. So we're going around. Dave, it's your turn.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** It gets infinitely harder from here on out... I'll go with Edge.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me Edge. Number four answer, with 11 points. Edge is on there, so you have three of the six. Now we go back to Amelia.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I literally do not know any other browsers. I don't wanna say Internet Explorer...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Is that your answer?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** It is not. \[laughter\] My answer is gonna be better than that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay... So what is your answer then?
+
+**Divya:** You got it!
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** No, it's gonna be Internet Explorer.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, show me IE. \[fail sound\]
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Sorry...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I'm sorry, that's your first strike.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** It's all good.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** That's okay, because that could have been like a total troll answer. I feel like that was fully valid, yeah.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, I was trolling.
+
+**Divya:** For all the testers out there using IE...
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Yeah.
+
+**Divya:** Gotta represent.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, we go to Chris.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** So do we keep it, because strikes? Yeah, okay.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yup. So you have one strike. You have two strikes left, and then there'll be a steal opportunity.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I'm gonna go with Safari, because it feels like one of the big three.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me Safari. Number five answer, with eight respondents using Safari.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Oh, so number three is still available?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Remember, it's their primary browser. Okay, so now we go back to Dave.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** We've got this.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Oh, boy... I'm gonna go Brave.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me Brave. Number three answer, there it was. Number three. Eighteen people out there using Brave as their primary.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Wow, number three?!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[08:05\] So we have one strike against you. You have Chrome at number one, Firefox at two, Brave at three... We also said Safari at five. Did you say the number four? You did, you said Edge, at number four. So there's one left.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** That's nuts.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And we're back to Amelia. You have two strikes... So just take a guess.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** There's that one where it has -- oh, I'm not gonna give any clues. I don't actually know the name.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. Do you wanna guess something random, or do you wanna just take a strike?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I use one called Stack, that I know no one else uses...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me Stack. \[fail sound\] You were correct, nobody else uses Stack... \[laughter\]
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Dang it.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** So are we gonna get a point for that? She was correct...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** She was correct, nobody uses it... So we go to Chris now. This is your last guess before team Syntax gets to steal.
+
+**Wes Bos:** Oh, we're gonna steal it.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I've gotta go with the big O, Opera. I know it's a wild card, but I just feel like it might be hanging on.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me Opera. \[fail sound\]
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Whow...!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Three strikes and you're out. So Team Syntax gets one guess. You can confer amongst the team. And if you get it right, you steal the board.
+
+**Divya:** Okay. Can we confer openly?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes.
+
+**Divya:** Samsung.
+
+**Wes Bos:** I was gonna say... Vidalvi?
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Yeah, maybe. Vivaldi.
+
+**Divya:** Vivaldi?
+
+**Wes Bos:** Vidalvi? Isn't that what it is?
+
+**Divya:** Vivaldi.
+
+**Wes Bos:** I'm just naming browsers here, yeah.
+
+**Divya:** I thought it was Samsung, because they have a bunch of developer advocates in this stuff. And also, you use it when you use your phone, right? So...
+
+**Wes Bos:** They don't have a desktop browser though, do they?
+
+**Divya:** No, I think it's only mobile. I think it's just like a mobile thing, which is why I'm like "Is it...?" I don't know...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** What's Vivaldi?
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Vivaldi. V-I-V-A-L-D-I.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** What is it?
+
+**Divya:** We can't google it, so I can't tell you.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, that's true. Okay, so you're thinking Samsung, you're thinking Vivaldi...
+
+**Divya:** Vivaldi is also a famous person.
+
+**Wes Bos:** I think Vivaldi is like a -- wasn't it like a security-focused browser? So I could see there being one...
+
+**Divya:** Or Tor, actually, which is also another--
+
+**Wes Bos:** Can you use that as a --
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Man, this is tough...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, let's make a decision here... What are you guys thinking?
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Okay.
+
+**Wes Bos:** I think we should go -- what do you think, Scott?
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Oh, I have no idea. In terms of browsers that I just heard mentioned recently, Vivaldi was one of them, so that's why I --
+
+**Divya:** Yeah, that sounds fine, I guess...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** I don't know though. I have no idea. Samsung could definitely be it, too.
+
+**Wes Bos:** I've seen it on Hacker News a few times, which is why I wanna go with that.
+
+**Divya:** Are JS Party listeners Orange folk, too?
+
+**Wes Bos:** I don't know... There's gotta be one...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Yeah...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's a good question.
+
+**Divya:** There has to be one, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, pick one. Let's move on. What have you got?
+
+**Wes Bos:** Vivaldi.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Vivaldi. Is that number five? Show me Vivaldi... \[win sound\]
+
+**Wes Bos:** Yeah!!
+
+**Divya:** Yeey!!
+
+**Wes Bos:** I told you! Yes!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Five JS Party listeners...
+
+**Wes Bos:** Five?!
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Five people use Vivaldi?!
+
+**Divya:** That's crazy.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Five out of 140, yeah.
+
+**Divya:** Who builds Vivaldi?
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Do they get all the points for the entire round?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** They stole 137 points on that.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Wait, we made those points!
+
+**Wes Bos:** Well, anybody can guess the other browsers... \[laughter\]
+
+**Dave Rupert:** I went out on a limb with Edge, I felt like...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** It was the third one I wrote down when I was writing down browsers here...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There you go.
+
+**Divya:** Amazing.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright. So after round one we have Team Syntax with a steal, 137 to nothing. There's lots of game left to play, so we now go to round two, a face-off between Chris and Scott.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** I hope it's about browsers again.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So we gave Amelia the first guess last round, so we're gonna give Scott the first guess...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Oh, no...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** If you don't hit number one, then Chris will have a chance.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Okay.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We asked 140 of our fascinating JS Party listeners "Name a tool or technology that you use, but don't fully understand."
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Use, but don't understand... I am going to say it is -- I have a lot of options here. \[laughter\] Let's just say... Let's say WebPack.
+
+**Wes Bos:** \[12:19\] That's a good answer.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me WebPack. Number one answer.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** I knew it! Hold it, I haven't closed my door. My wife texted me "What's going on?!" \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** He's having too much fun. Alright, so with that, Scott takes the round, and team syntax will play. Now, there's five answers on the board, of which you have taken the number one answer, so there's four left... And we go now to Divya.
+
+**Divya:** So this is frontend frameworks people don't understand?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Let me read it again. "Name a tool or technology that you use, but don't fully understand."
+
+**Divya:** Hm... A tool or technology that people use, that they don't understand... Oh, man. This is a very open-ended question.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You know, like WebPack...
+
+**Divya:** Like WebPack, yes.
+
+**Wes Bos:** I'm so impressed that you got that, Scott.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** I have a lot of options here.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, Divya, we need an answer...
+
+**Divya:** I wanna say... What's another tool that's similar to WebPack? Oh, SnowPack.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me SnowPack. \[fail sound\]
+
+**Wes Bos:** Aww...
+
+**Divya:** Not enough users of SnowPack.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Sorry, SnowPack was not on the list. Okay, Wes, we go to you.
+
+**Wes Bos:** Redux.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Good guess.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I like that one, but did it make the list? \[fail sound\]
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** What?!
+
+**Divya:** What?! I guess everyone knows Redux...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** That was almost one of my number ones here...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We've got two strikes and you still have four answers left on the board. We go back to Scott now.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Docker.
+
+**Wes Bos:** Oh, that's a good one.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me Docker. Number two answer, Docker, with 12 responses.
+
+**Divya:** Oh, man... Alright, I guess I've gotta go to CI/CD now... \[laughter\] Kubernetes... This is probably wrong.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I grouped that with Docker, because there were people answering both. So those are together, Docker and Kubernetes.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Oh, I had Kubernetes on my list here.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Divya:** They're very different tools, I will say...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I know they are. But people were mixing and matching them, so please pick another one.
+
+**Divya:** Let's see...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** I can't believe Redux wasn't there...
+
+**Divya:** Can I just say CI, or does it have to be a tool?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** A tool or technology.
+
+**Divya:** Is CI a technology, technically?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I think so...
+
+**Divya:** It's a concept?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I think it is...
+
+**Divya:** CI/CD.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright. Show me CI/CD. \[fail sound\]
+
+**Wes Bos:** Aww...
+
+**Dave Rupert:** That's surprising, actually...
+
+**Wes Bos:** There's no way they'll steal this. That's okay, no sweat.
+
+**Divya:** There's no way everyone understands CI/CD.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** But maybe they don't use it. It's a technology that you use, but don't fully understand.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Maybe they don't think about it.
+
+**Divya:** Come on! Deployments...?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Alright, Team ShopTalk can confer on a chance to steal.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Okay, we've got a couple of possible options...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You've got three possibilities here.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I've got that too
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I feel like the troll answer is to just say CSS, because people like to be like "I don't understand..."
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Okay, okay, yeah...
+
+**Divya:** Okay...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** And then the one that you probably actually don't understand is Git.
+
+**Wes Bos:** Oh, that's for sure on there...
+
+**Divya:** Oh, man...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** But those are just ideas, you know...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I had Git, too. I also have Bash...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** JavaScript is a troll answer, too...
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Bash, okay...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** JavaScript is good, Bash... And Babel, which I don't know about.
+
+**Divya:** Oh, I just thought of one...!
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** You can say it... \[laughter\]
+
+**Divya:** No, I'm not saying it. I'm gonna message Wes.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** I had serverless, and stuff like that, but... You know, I think I like Git, or... Yeah...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** What do you think, Amelia?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I like Git.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** \[15:58\] Okay, we're gonna go with Git.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright. For the steal, show me Git. \[win sound\]
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Yeah! Big steal!
+
+**Chris Coyier:** It's a game of steals.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's the number four answer, with eight respondents saying Git.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Interesting. So there's a missing three.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Number three was React... And number five was npm.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Fair enough...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** A couple of honorable mentions...
+
+**Divya:** I'm actually surprised no one said Regex.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Oh, that would have been good.
+
+**Divya:** That's a good one. Just thought about it.
+
+**Wes Bos:** Or Redis...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Tools that make me fall asleep.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** But if you don't know it, maybe you just don't use it...
+
+**Divya:** Maybe, yeah...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Chris, four people said CSS. It just barely missed the board. Three people said Node, two people said "Dependency injection", which I think you should know how it works before you use that one... And one person said PHP, and then in parentheses they said "I don't think anyone will ever fully understand PHP." \[laughter\] Okay, so some commentary there...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Install WordPress...
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Yeah, just use WordPress.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Cool. That was fun.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, so let me add these up here. So nice steal...
+
+**Divya:** Cool...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And that is--
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Was it one to one? Is that how it works?
+
+**Wes Bos:** No, we're still winning, by far.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's points-based, but I'll tell you, the last rounds the points double, so there's usually a chance to come back near the end... Okay, so you've stolen 63; there were 63 points available that round. So currently, Syntax is still in the lead, 137 to 63. But everyone's playing quite well, quite within reach...
+
+**Divya:** Nice!
+
+**Break**: \[17:26\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, let's move to round three, which is gonna be Dave versus Wes. Now, Team Syntax got to guess first last round, so we'll go to Dave for the first guess. We asked 140 brilliant JS Party listeners "What's something you do to reach a state of dev flow?" Yes, Dave.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Music. Do I need to be more specific? Like, electronic music...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Music is just fine. Show me music. Number one answer. 66 people say they listen to music. They also had a bunch of different kinds of genres and stuff, but I just combined them all together. So that's team ShopTalk, you guys get to play this round. You already have the number one answer. There are five total answers, four left on the board...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Freakin' A.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And we go to Amelia. What's something people do to reach a state of dev flow?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I drink a lot of coffee.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Totally on there.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Good answer, good answer, good answer...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me "Drink coffee." Number four answer, good job.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** \[20:07\] Wow, four...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's generally drinking things. Drink coffee, people said drink tea, drink energy drinks... That's worth nine points, so good one. And now it is Chris' turn.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I am just dying here... Dev flow. What do you do, that's like a common thing that you do...? Is there something like move locations? Is that too vague? Like, go to a coffee shop?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Somewhat vague.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Somewhat vague. Um, shut the door.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Shut the door. Show me "Shut the door." \[win alert\] I will give it to you.
+
+**Divya:** Wow, nice...!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** This is a category of things where people said "Remove distractions, go to DND, close the door..." Have a quiet place, some people were saying. So I'll give you that one.
+
+**Divya:** I feel like Wes clued them in when he closed the door... \[laughter\] It definitely helped.
+
+**Wes Bos:** I'm sinking my own ship here.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Wes is really in dev flow right now. So that was 26 points. That's the number two answer. So you have one, two and four. So three and five are still on the board, and that puts us back to Dave.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Oh, boy. Blocking time on your calendar?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That was part of the remove distractions one, yeah.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Well, I need a new one... And the next one is not good. \[laughter\] Let's see... You've gotta have your hot chip. Snacks.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] I was like, "What's Hot Chip?" Um... Show me snacks. \[fail sound\]
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Nah...!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's your first miss. So you're doing well, you have two misses left... And it is now Amelia's turn. Amelia, what's something you do to reach the state of dev flow?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I definitely eat hot chips... \[laughter\]
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Hot chip.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I guess if not that, you wanted Chris to be more clear about his going to places thing, so I'm gonna go with a specific place, which is going to your desk. I don't like that face.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me "Going to your desk." \[laughter\] Maybe just a little bit too on the nose... But a good effort. We go back to Chris.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** It sounds like none of these are related to technology. None of them is like "Troll around for cool VS Code extensions", or whatever.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** "Go on Twitter."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Is that how you get in flow? Installing plugins? \[laughs\]
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Twitter is the exact opposite of flow...
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Yeah, I know how to get out of flow. Can we do that one? \[laughter\] Like, YouTube...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Yeah... I'm gonna go with "Put on sweatpants."
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Yeah, good answer, good answer, good answer...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Good answer, good answer... I'm going to give you that one.
+
+**Divya:** Nice!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** This is a combination of "Prepare yourself." So there was like "Get the room set up, good posture, sleep first, put on certain clothes..." People said "Put on comfy clothes", so that's why I'm giving it to you. So that's ten points, which means there's one left. Number five is still out there, and you have one strike left... And Dave has a chance at it. Go ahead, Dave.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Okay, so recap - we've done music, we've done get comfy, we've done...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Remove distractions...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Coffee...
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Remove distractions, we've done coffee... And there's one more?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There is one more.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Turn off email? That's in distractions.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's remove distractions, yup.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Oh, boy...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** So sorry, Dave...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's tough.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Go for a walk?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me "Go for a walk." \[fail sound\]
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Oh... That was on my list.
+
+**Divya:** Oh, man...
+
+**Wes Bos:** Alright, we get to steal.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, chance to steal. I tell you, this is a tough one, so you've got your work cut out for you.
+
+**Wes Bos:** Alright, guys, what are you thinking?
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** I had "Put on headphones", or something...
+
+**Divya:** Yeah.
+
+**Wes Bos:** Yeah. I was gonna say, noise-cancelling headphones, white noise...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** \[24:10\] White noise, yeah...
+
+**Wes Bos:** Exercise...
+
+**Divya:** Meditate...
+
+**Wes Bos:** Meditate. I had meditate.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Somebody did say "Go for a walk", which could be constituted as exercise maybe, so...
+
+**Divya:** yeah...
+
+**Wes Bos:** Meditate, or noise-cancelling headphones.
+
+**Divya:** Wait, was noise-cancelling headphones "removing distractions" though? Is that part of the whole umbrella?
+
+**Wes Bos:** Yeah...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** I had that as my very first one on the list.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, I'm gonna say that's part of removing distractions, because it's kind of like "Get quiet."
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Okay.
+
+**Wes Bos:** So we've got white noise... I have full-screen, which is probably also "remove distractions".
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Yeah...
+
+**Wes Bos:** Blocker apps, that's part of it...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Blocker apps, remove distractions.
+
+**Wes Bos:** Meditate, white noise...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** What do people do to focus?
+
+**Divya:** I'm trying to think of all the Tim Ferriss productivity hacks... Morning routine...! \[laughter\]
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** I have a "go to coffee shop" as one of my things on my list, which is going somewhere...
+
+**Divya:** Oh, you mean like working at the coffee shop?
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Just going to the coffee shop, because that's what I do when I really can't focus...
+
+**Wes Bos:** I think that's under coffee.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, that one was kind of broached, I think both with your environment, and there was "Drink coffee", so...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Gotcha.
+
+**Wes Bos:** I think meditate.
+
+**Divya:** Maybe meditate, yeah.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Yeah. I don't have anything else.
+
+**Wes Bos:** Let's just Hail Marry it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me "Meditate." \[fail sound\]
+
+**Divya:** Oh, man...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I thought that was it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Meditate didn't make the list.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Good for us!
+
+**Chris Coyier:** What happens now?!
+
+**Dave Rupert:** But I also -- I have no idea, I wouldn't know that answer.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** This one - I would not have guessed this... Five people said they listen to podcasts. Here we all are, on a podcast...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** I do that, yeah.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** That's kind of refreshing, that at least five people listen to podcasts. That's great. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And one specifically said "Listen to the JS Party podcast." I said, "Oh, I appreciate that call-out."
+
+**Divya:** Aw, that's nice.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Happy to help you get in the flow. It's the opposite for me - I don't wanna listen to podcasts.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Oh, I do.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** What I actually do is -- like, do something that you're in the mood to do. If I'm like "I just feel like coding on this thing", then I'll get flow, because I'm not fighting against what I wanna do.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. Work on something that you feel like working on.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Where was "Wander around Home Depot for nine hours"? \[laughter\] Was that on the list?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's funny, because one person said "Procrastinate for ten hours."
+
+**Divya:** Nice. \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There's the honesty right there. And then a few people said "Drink alcohol and smoke weed", and I thought "I've never been in the flow in these states." I don't know. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
+
+Alright, so no steal, so ShopTalk gets the points... They missed the last one, but they still managed to score 110 points in the round.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Oh, wow...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** That's gonna kick us to the lead for sure
+
+**Divya:** Nice...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Major league comeback. After three rounds we have Syntax with 137 and ShopTalk with 173.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Balance restored, balance restored...
+
+**Divya:** That's a big gap.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We now move to round four...
+
+**Wes Bos:** Hey, stop giving them easy questions... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** This is called The Inverted Round. This round works a little bit different than our previous rounds. There's no face-off, it's just a back and forth between the two teams. So we just rotate back and forth... And you're trying to match the board, but it's inverted. So you wanna match the bottom of the board, not the top of the board.
+
+So there are six things on the board, and the bottom one get 60 points, and the top gets 10 points. There's lots of points to be had, but you wanna match the board, but at the bottom. Okay?
+
+So we asked 140 handsome JS Party listeners "Name your favorite HTML element." There are six common answers, and since Team Syntax is losing, we'll let them go first, and we'll start with Divya. Divya...
+
+**Divya:** Oh my gosh, this is so hard...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...name a favorite HTML element. Remember, you do not want to have the most favorite.
+
+**Divya:** I'm trying to think of the bottom ones...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Oh, my God...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And we will have no conferring during this time.
+
+**Wes Bos:** \[28:11\] Yeah, but you don't want the ones that are so far gone... You want the six most popular elements.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's right. Four, five and six are the sweet spot.
+
+**Wes Bos:** Yeah.
+
+**Divya:** I'm thinking span...
+
+**Wes Bos:** That's what I would have said. It's number four.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me "span". \[fail sound\]
+
+**Divya:** What?!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, span didn't make the board.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Who don't like span?!
+
+**Divya:** No one likes span?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It has to be your favorite...
+
+**Divya:** It's all these React developers... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, exactly.
+
+**Wes Bos:** All these React devs just using divs for everything...
+
+**Divya:** I know, seriously...
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Why use span when you can I or div inline-block
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Div inline-block, love it. Okay, we go over to Team ShopTalk. Let's have Amelia, "Name a favorite HTML element."
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Uh-oh... It might be way too obscure, but I know it's got some fans out there... We're gonna go with marquee.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me "marquee". \[win alert\]
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Good answer, good answer...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Well done!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Good answer. That's the number two answer, actually... So it ties the board
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Oh... Not obscure... \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It turns out it's not that obscure... So you get 20 points for that one. And we go back now to Syntax... And we'll have Scott.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Let's think here, about HTML elements... What elements do I like a lot? Let's say button.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me "button". Number three answer, button.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Whoa! Good!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So we get 30 points for that one. Well played. So now number two and number three are taken. Marquee and button. So number one, four, five and six are still out there... And we go now to Chris.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Okay, so we're just going back and forth here? That's another way?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, we're just gonna go back and forth.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Okay.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Two of six have been answered...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** And one's gonna be -- oh, why would I give you answers? I'm not gonna do that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I'm gonna hope that "a" is on the list. A, the Inker element.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me "a". \[fail sound\]
+
+**Dave Rupert:** That checks out. It's a JavaScript podcast. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I'll just say, personally, "a" is my favorite element, personally...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** On-click as an attribute...?
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Div with an on-click, yeah...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Div with an on-click... \[laughs\] I think we all are hovering around number one... Okay, so we go from Chris over to Wes on Team Syntax.
+
+**Wes Bos:** I'm gonna go paragraph tag.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Paragraph tag. Is it popular? \[win sound\] It is.
+
+**Divya:** Nice!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's the number five answer.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Yeah! Points, points, points, points...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So you score a whopping 50 points on that..
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Dang...! Fifty?
+
+**Wes Bos:** Yes. Oh, that probably put us ahead.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Don't you wanna get less points, for some reason, on this weird round?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So that was Wes. Now we're looking back around to Amelia.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** It's Dave's turn.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, you're right. Dave's turn. Sorry, Dave.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** We need something less popular than "p", but more popular than, like, the Ruby element... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's quite a range...
+
+**Dave Rupert:** So... "ul".
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me "ul". \[fail sound\]
+
+**Divya:** Oh, no...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** All that default styling...
+
+**Dave Rupert:** I forgot it's a JavaScript podcast!
+
+**Divya:** It's a React podcast now.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Just think, "Is there anybody out there who thinks "My favorite element is an unordered list. I just lov 'em."
+
+**Wes Bos:** Divya, now we have to decide if we take the easy, known number one, or risk it for the biscuit.
+
+**Divya:** I know...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** I think we take the easy points, if you're asking me...
+
+**Divya:** We can take the easy one and then go for the later one...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Yeah.
+
+**Divya:** That's probably a good strategy.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** You might be sick of the joke, but look at your name, you know...?
+
+**Divya:** I know...! Clearly, you have a Div on the team, gotta use it. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me "div... ya". \[win alert\] Yes, of course, the number one answer.
+
+**Wes Bos:** Nice job.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** 45 respondents' answer was div. Okay. We now have number one, div, number two, marquee... I can't remember the other ones. Number five, "p" tag.
+
+**Divya:** \[32:15\] I think it was like button and "p".
+
+**Wes Bos:** Button is number three, marquee is number two.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, that's right. So we're missing four and six.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Okay. There's only like 112 elements left in there, so... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Each team has one strike, so if you strike out, then we'll end the round. So you have a couple of guesses left. That was Divya, so now we're back to Amelia, right?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah. I like images... Kind of obscure, but also very nice...
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Okay, let's go, let's go... Let's go!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me "image". \[fail sound\]
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Who doesn't love an image?!
+
+**Wes Bos:** I would have thought that would be on.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** For sure, that's a good guess.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yup. So two strikes for ShopTalk... Let's go back over to Syntax. We're back to Scott.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Favorite. Hm... Let's see...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Consider the ruby tag, that's really popular.
+
+**Divya:** I love it.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** It's pretty popular. So for annotations, or something...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Superscript, that's a good one.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** The WBO...
+
+**Wes Bos:** WBR, yeah...
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Yeah, WBR... \[laughter\]
+
+**Divya:** The table element...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Let's say the nav element.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Getting semantic... Show me nav. \[fail sound\]
+
+**Divya:** Aww, man...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Sorry, my bad.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, each team has one more guess. One more correct guess. So here we go, back over to Team ShopTalk. It's Chris again, right? Yeah, Chris.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I'm gonna just shout out h1.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Yeah, that was my second guess.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show us h1. \[fail sound\] Ah, there's too many elements...
+
+**Wes Bos:** Alright, here's my last one... Am I allowed to confer on this one?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** No.
+
+**Wes Bos:** For the sake of like a good podcast...? \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** For the sake of good podcasting? No... Uninterested.
+
+**Wes Bos:** Okay. Well, I'm gonna think out loud here. I'm either thinking header/footer, or body, or html.
+
+**Divya:** Oh. Super-meta.
+
+**Wes Bos:** Do you think people will be sassy enough to say -- like, "What's your favorite HTML tag?" "Html". Body, header, footer... I'm gonna say...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** There's too many choices.
+
+**Wes Bos:** Part of me wants to say html. I'm saying body though.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I'll tell you - that body was answered by one person. \[fail sound\] It did not make the top six.
+
+**Wes Bos:** Okay. Svg...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So - still, pretty good scoring on that round. Number four most popular element, input.
+
+**Divya:** Oh, input.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** People like input?!
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Nobody likes inputs...
+
+**Divya:** Inputs are the worst-styled...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, but they make you be able to do things on your website.
+
+**Divya:** That's true.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And the number six most popular... Hey, it is a JavaScript podcast after all - script.
+
+**Divya:** Oh, what...?!
+
+**Wes Bos:** I forgot that that was part of HTML. I thought it was part of WebPack...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Honorable mentions - a couple people mentioned iFrame... UL was mentioned by a couple people. The picture element was mentioned twice... Somebody said "Keep it on the DL", so they're being very cute with that... And someone actually said div, and then in parentheses they put "ya", so Divya
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** We get points for that though, right?
+
+**Divya:** Yes, we get points.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I counted that towards the div, so they got their points. Alright, so in that round, ShopTalk scored 20 and Syntax scored 90. So we have a game here... It's going back and forth, and after four rounds, syntax is in the lead with 227, and ShopTalk trails with 193. It's anybody's game at this point.
+
+**Break:** \[35:40\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We now go to round five, and I'll tell you, in round five all scoring is doubled, so it's certainly anybody's match... Let's get back to the face-off. And everybody has faced off at this point, correct?
+
+**Dave Rupert:** I believe so...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I think so, because it's round -- yes, so we'll go back to the top of the face-off, with Amelia and Divya. And Amelia guessed first last round, so we'll let Divya go first this round. Alright, so there's four answers on the board... Divya, name a common mistake that developers make.
+
+**Divya:** This is such a broad question... A common mistake developers make?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It even rhymes. I've just noticed that.
+
+**Divya:** They spell debugger wrongly.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** I'm not on your team, but good answer, good answer... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me "Spelling things wrong." \[win alert\]
+
+**Divya:** Yes!!
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Oh, wow!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So we've joined forces... Typos and misspellings was the number one answer; I combined the two. So there's 29 there, with typos and misspellings. Because what is a misspelling if not a typo, and vice-versa. I mean, you end up spelling it wrong when you typo. So pretty much the same thing. That's 29 points, and you get to play the round.
+
+**Wes Bos:** Alright!
+
+**Divya:** Let's go!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Team Syntax in control. You have three things left on the board. Of course, you have three strikes to give... Scott, it's your turn. Name a common mistake that developers make.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Oh, gosh... I don't make mistakes very much, I don't know... \[laughter\] Let's see...
+
+**Dave Rupert:** It's tough, I get it. I get it. It's tough.
+
+**Divya:** Scott makes no mistakes.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Yeah, never, ever, including not spelling things wrong, ever... Let's see. Here's a decent answer; I don't know if this will work - they pick the wrong technology.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me "pick the wrong tech." \[fail sound\]
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Oh, man...
+
+**Divya:** That was very valid, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Not bad, but didn't quite make the board... Alright, Wes, it's your turn.
+
+**Wes Bos:** Alright... Would syntax error be covered under spelling things wrong?
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Ah, boo...! \[laughter\]
+
+**Wes Bos:** Is that what he was gonna guess?
+
+**Chris Coyier:** No, it's just -- it's your namesake.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's your namesake.
+
+**Wes Bos:** Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, syntax is a big mistake.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** It is? \[laughter\]
+
+**Wes Bos:** I'm gonna go like syntax error--
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I think I lumped it in with typos. I think I did, because I'm not seeing it...
+
+**Divya:** I think that's similar to typos though, yeah?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Wes Bos:** Alright, I have another one then...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay.
+
+**Wes Bos:** Forgetting to save.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Oh, that's a good one.
+
+**Divya:** Good one.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me "Forgetting to save". \[fail sound\]
+
+**Divya:** What?! Oh, man... I guess it's just us...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** It's a tough one.
+
+**Wes Bos:** They've got autosave on.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There we go. Alright, so two strikes...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** That's crazy.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** What's the average age of the audience? Are they all 12-year-olds on iPads, and everything is autosaved? \[laughs\] Oh, man...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, we're back at Divya.
+
+**Divya:** Okay, cool. I think a common mistake that developers will have is -- okay, this is very generic, but messing up version control, or Git commits.
+
+**Wes Bos:** Oh, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Hm. Show me "Git problems". \[fail sound\]
+
+**Dave Rupert:** What...?!
+
+**Divya:** Amazing.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So that's three strikes...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** All the things on my list are X'es. Yeah, this is crazy.
+
+**Divya:** \[40:19\] I know. I was like, "Come on."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So ShopTalk can steal... There's still three things on the board. We only have number one.
+
+**Wes Bos:** No, we only got two wrong.
+
+**Divya:** We only got two, didn't we?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** All three of you got one wrong, didn't you?
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Picked wrong tech, forget to save, Git mistakes...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes, there we go. Chris is in it.
+
+**Wes Bos:** Oh... Come on, give us one more. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, ShopTalk, you can confer amongst yourselves...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Oh, we get to talk. That's right.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** There's only five answers, or...?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Four total. Three left.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** There's no points to steal here...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It is a low-scoring round, yeah....
+
+**Chris Coyier:** They deploy on Friday, is a possible answer... \[laughter\]
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Deploy on Friday... Messing up types, like trying to add a number in a string?
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Type coercion, or whatever?
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Type coercion...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Or really big bundles, or memory leaks...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Oh, performance problems.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Performance? Okay, I like that...
+
+**Wes Bos:** Div as a button... \[laughter\]
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Semantic elements, yeah...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** How do you say performance -- do you just say like "Do performance bad...?"
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Yeah, like bad performance...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Yeah, you can say "Do performance bad." I think that's the way to say it... \[laughter\]
+
+**Wes Bos:** Yeah, you should say that.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Oh, no... Wes is in the database, like -- Wes has reverse-engineered the form. \[laughter\]
+
+**Chris Coyier:** He found the form printouts in the dumpster out back...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright... Show us "Do performance bad". \[fail sound\] \[laughter\] Fail to steal.
+
+**Wes Bos:** I was gonna say "Refresh production."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So a lot of missed ones here. This was a trouble round. Number two answer, "Off by one errors."
+
+**Wes Bos:** Oh, that's good.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Yeah, yeah...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Number three, "Forgetting semi-colons."
+
+**Divya:** That's a syntax error.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** I purposefully do that, yeah.
+
+**Wes Bos:** I said "Syntax error, forgetting semi-colon." \[laughter\] Roll the tape...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It was a very specific response, so I let it have its own.
+
+**Divya:** That's a stylistic thing, too...
+
+**Wes Bos:** I specifically said semi-colon though...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, you did?
+
+**Wes Bos:** Yeah.
+
+**Divya:** Wes did say that. He did say syntax.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** My fault, I'm sorry. I heard "syntax error", and then Chris started making fun of it, and I...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Point, point, point, point-point...
+
+**Wes Bos:** Alright, we'll get that back.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Everybody missed it. My bad. Number four, premature optimization.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Okay. Fair enough.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Now, there's a lot of them that just barely missed the top four...
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Who put that answer? Was that Kyle Simpson, or something? \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Spamming our forum? Yeah, perhaps... There's a bunch of them that were tied at five. Breaking production was answered a lot, editing or testing the wrong things... So that's similar to what you were talking about there, Wes, with not saving... Leftover console logs... Bad docs, no docs, and then over-engineering. Those were all mentioned five times. One person said "Building the wrong thing."
+
+**Wes Bos:** "Oh, I accidentally built a website for it."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** One said "Building things nobody wants."
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Yeah... Showed up to meeting... \[laughter\]
+
+**Divya:** Built a div instead of a button...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** One person said "Writing code", and then one person said "Getting stuck in Vim."
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Getting stuck in Vim... \[laughs\]
+
+**Divya:** Oh, man...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Every Frontend Feud has to have a Vim reference, and there it is...
+
+**Divya:** Come on...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So there's your trolls. Alright, so there's 29 points scored by team syntax, and since it's a double round, we will double that...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Yeah!
+
+**Wes Bos:** Do we get points for the semi-colon, too?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** No.
+
+**Divya:** We fought hard and we lost.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I apologize.
+
+**Wes Bos:** That's an upset.
+
+**Divya:** The law won
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So after round five, it's Syntax 285, and ShopTalk 193. We have just one round left.
+
+**Divya:** Sick...! Let's go!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, round six is also a double score round, so this is ShopTalk's big chance to make a comeback. Step right up. Chris versus Scott. Now, which one of you two got the first guess last time around? Was it Scott? We'll let Chris take the first guess here.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** \[44:12\] I did.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Round six, a double round... We asked 140 intelligent JS Party listeners "Name an organization that helps push the web forward." Chris.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** The W3C.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me the "W3C". That is the number three answer. It's not the number one answer, which means Scott has a chance to take the round... Scott, name an organization that helps push the web forward.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** An organization...
+
+**Divya:** You've got it, you've got it.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** ...that helps -- an organization. Does that include non-profits, like the -- um, helps push the web forward. Man, this is tough... I don't know...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Take a guess.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Let's say...
+
+**Wes Bos:** Come on, Scott, we had a show on this.
+
+**Divya:** Phone a friend!
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** We had a show on this?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** No helping him...!
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** We had a show on this... What is that. What could we possibly have had a show on? \[laughter\]
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Scott's now going through 300 episodes... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We're gonna need an answer here, Scott... Guess one.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Shoot! Shoot! I don't know... Organization that helps push the web forward... I'm sorry, Wes. I'm very sorry. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Wes is trying to provide visual aids here... \[laughter\]
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Whoa, whoa, whoa...! We've got some baseball --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** This is table talk... Apparently he wants you to steal a base... I don't know what he's doing.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Yeah, I don't know what he's saying either.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** The Baltimore Orioles? \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, Scott...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** I'm so sorry. Yeah, FreeCodeCamp. Who cares.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** FreeCodeCamp. Show me "FreeCodeCamp."
+
+**Wes Bos:** Oh, that's a good one.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail sound\]
+
+**Divya:** That's pretty good though.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** I liked it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright. ShopTalk gets the round. ShopTalk, you're well-positioned to steal this game right here and now. Chris got the number three answer. There's five total answers on the board...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** We've got this. We've got it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So there's four left. Numbers one, two, four and five, and we go to Dave. Dave, name an organization that helps push the web forward.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Google Chrome... Google...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me "Google". Number two answer, Google.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** That makes sense.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** With 28 responses.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** I wasn't thinking like corporations...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, that's two and three. One, four and five are left. Amelia. It's up to you.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I'm gonna go with MDN.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me "Mozilla Developer Network." Yes, number one answer; over 51 answers were Mozilla and MDN.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Yes!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So... Killin' it. You have just --
+
+**Chris Coyier:** But we can lose it if we don't get the fourth one...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...two left. There's five total. There's two left.
+
+**Divya:** Oh, no...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, back to you, Chris.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Oh, boy. Two left? Uh-oh... It's not gonna be freakin' Apple, right? All they get is yelled at for not pushing the web forward...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Divya:** WebKit everything...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Remember, you get three strikes, so you can throw one out there and see what happens.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Oh, that's true. I'm just gonna go with Microsoft, because they actually do work on the web. Microsoft.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me "Microsoft". Survey says... Number five answer. So now you've gotten one, two, three and five. There's one answer left, and you have three strikes, so you're sitting pretty... Dave, it's to you.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** I'll do TC39. ECMAScript...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Show me TC39... \[win sound\]
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Eeey!
+
+**Divya:** Wow, man...!
+
+**Wes Bos:** That was the one I was telling Scott we did a show on.
+
+**Divya:** Yeah, I know, I was like --
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I was gonna say CSS-Tricks.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Why were you touching your head? I was thinking like "Head. What's got a head involved?"
+
+**Divya:** I didn't get the hat thing...
+
+**Wes Bos:** Look at your hat! What hat are you wearing?
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** It's a GitHub hat. \[laughter\]
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Oh, GitHub would be a good answer, yeah...
+
+**Divya:** That is true, yeah.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I would have said Smashing Magazine personally...
+
+**Divya:** Well, GitHub is Microsoft at this point...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[48:14\] That's true. So that was a huge round for ShopTalk. That was round six, the final round. It was also a double round...
+
+**Wes Bos:** Oh, man...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** They've scored all of the points, and when you double all those points, that round alone was 216 points.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Oh, yeah!!
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** I'm so sorry...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So, with 409 points, the winner of Frontend Feud super-colab is ShopTalk.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I've never lost on this program! \[laughter\]
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** I'm so sorry, guys...
+
+**Wes Bos:** Congratulations... You stole it from us...
+
+**Divya:** I know...
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** "No, thanks" to double points, yeah...
+
+**Divya:** Killer
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** I like my points non-doubled, okay? Thank you. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright. Well, ShopTalk, congratulations on the big win. What do you win? Well, you win an opportunity to shout-out or say whatever you like. You cannot gloat. You must say something not about syntax. It has to be anything else. Shout-out something. This is your chance to speak to the JS Party listeners.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Chris, do you wanna go? You said you had something earlier...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I was just thinking of it, because it came across my desk... There's like a local feud in town here, in Bend, and this guy is really mad that they've put a gate on his property... And he made a whole website about the gate and how mad he is about it... And I wanna shout out to feud websites, because we're playing the feud anyway...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Nice.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I think it's extra-cool to make a website out of your madness. \[laughter\]
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Make the beef public... Just make that beef public. \[laughter\]
+
+**Wes Bos:** Well, at least build something constructive...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Yeah.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** That's beautiful. My shout-out is gonna be to Amelia's cool GitHub visualization project, to help you visualize a GitHub repo in a non-directory-of-files way... I think it's really cool, so...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Thanks, Dave.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I will double that effort. I think I shouted it out last episode; we're so impressed we just keep bringing it up, Amelia. Nice work. Would you like to give a shout-out, maybe back to Dave, or anybody else?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I was actually gonna say CSS-Tricks for the last question, so... Shout-out to CSS-Tricks, even though it wasn't on the board, for some reason...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** For pushing the web forward? I agree. That's what I do...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I should say there were a couple of honorable mentions that round, and in all of the excitement, I forgot about them. So the Chromium team themselves got a couple of shout-outs... Vercel got three shout-outs, the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) got four, and then a couple people shouted out open source, even though it's not an organization... But definitely, the open source community pushing things forward.
+
+I will back up what Amelia said and say CSS-Tricks is definitely pushing web developers and web development forward over the years... As well as y'all's podcasts... Awesome stuff continuing to put out...
+
+**Wes Bos:** Totally.
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** As well as FreeCodeCamp too, right? That's also a good one, yeah?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, absolutely.
+
+**Wes Bos:** I'm surprised that one wasn't on there...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It got one mention, I believe...
+
+**Wes Bos:** \[51:08\] And Level Up Tutorials...
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Yup.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Level Up Tutorials, yeah. Anything else to shout out?
+
+**Scott Tolinski:** Wes Bos' blog... \[laughter\]
+
+**Wes Bos:** WesBos.com/courses.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** React For Beginners wasn't on there, because I feel like 100% of people who know React know it because of Wes' course. So it's not on there...?
+
+**Wes Bos:** There we go. We got all our plugs in. There we go.
+
+**Dave Rupert:** Yup, there we go.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Definitely should have been on there. Well, we'll give one last shout-out to a JS Party listener, the winner of the free JS Party T-shirt. Remember, everybody who took the survey had a chance at it... It is \[drum roll\] Geneve Parish. Geneve, you won a free shirt.
+
+**Divya:** Yaay!
+
+**Chris Coyier:** That was so sad... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Of course, that means that 139 of you did not win, but don't fret; you can always just buy yourself a shirt at merch.changelog.com, how about that? And as a bonus, since I'm feeling generous, we'll also give out a free shirt to one random member of our JS Party community Slack... So if you don't hang out in there with us, you should. It's \#jsparty. You can hop in there at changelog.com/community; it's all free, hang out during the live shows, talk web dev with us... And on September 17th I decided we'll just pick a random person in that channel and we'll ship you a free JS Party T-shirt as well.
+
+I wanna thank the guys from Syntax and ShopTalk for joining the show and playing this awesome game with us. A round of applause for just the participation right there... And of course, thank you to Divya and Amelia for sprinkling the JS Party into the show. I love it. Thank you all listeners for playing along with us. This has been Frontend Feud, this has been JS Party, and we will talk to you next time.
diff --git "a/Frontend Feud\357\274\232 React Advanced Edition_transcript.txt" "b/Frontend Feud\357\274\232 React Advanced Edition_transcript.txt"
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4fd4ca37dad4628e96e3c9095b5c0e405cddf2f1
--- /dev/null
+++ "b/Frontend Feud\357\274\232 React Advanced Edition_transcript.txt"	
@@ -0,0 +1,1714 @@
+[0.00 --> 2.12]  Oh, man. I also don't really know.
+[3.54 --> 6.58]  I'm just, I'm going to go default.
+[6.90 --> 9.10]  Plain old HTML, I guess.
+[9.44 --> 11.00]  So human static site generator.
+[11.30 --> 11.76]  I like that.
+[14.84 --> 15.40]  Pioneer.
+[15.58 --> 16.66]  Yeah, the old trick question.
+[16.86 --> 19.04]  My favorite generator is no generator.
+[19.40 --> 20.96]  I guess show me no generator.
+[22.78 --> 23.34]  What?
+[23.58 --> 24.02]  What?
+[24.18 --> 25.24]  No way.
+[25.26 --> 26.14]  Seven people.
+[26.54 --> 26.88]  Wow.
+[27.96 --> 28.84]  Well played.
+[28.92 --> 29.50]  Well played.
+[29.50 --> 30.60]  Well played.
+[32.92 --> 36.30]  Big thanks to our partners, Linode, Fastly, and LaunchDarkly.
+[36.74 --> 37.36]  We love Linode.
+[37.44 --> 39.18]  They keep it fast and simple.
+[39.50 --> 42.36]  Get $100 in credit at linode.com slash changelog.
+[42.70 --> 44.88]  Our bandwidth is provided by Fastly.
+[45.02 --> 46.80]  Learn more at Fastly.com.
+[47.12 --> 49.30]  And get your feature flags powered by LaunchDarkly.
+[49.44 --> 51.52]  Get a demo at LaunchDarkly.com.
+[52.16 --> 54.82]  This episode is brought to you by Retool.
+[55.08 --> 58.80]  Retool is the low-code platform for developers to build internal tools.
+[58.80 --> 60.78]  Super fast and super easy.
+[61.18 --> 63.78]  They have a ton of integrations and templates to start with.
+[64.04 --> 68.44]  With a click of a button in seconds, you can start with a new Postgres admin panel application.
+[68.86 --> 73.04]  Kick off an admin panel for reading from and writing to your database built on Postgres.
+[73.48 --> 77.24]  This app lets you look through, edit, and add users, orders, and products.
+[77.56 --> 79.08]  It's too easy to get started with Retool.
+[79.08 --> 82.68]  Head to Retool.com slash changelog to learn more and try it for free.
+[83.00 --> 85.64]  Again, that's Retool.com slash changelog.
+[88.32 --> 89.44]  Please hold.
+[89.74 --> 92.08]  Your feud is important to us.
+[109.08 --> 111.44]  Feud is important to us.
+[112.90 --> 117.88]  This is JS Party, your weekly celebration of JavaScript and the web.
+[118.42 --> 120.44]  2021 is almost in the books.
+[120.64 --> 125.14]  And if you are doing a year-end roundup, we would love a mention in your list of favorite podcasts.
+[125.60 --> 128.94]  Holler at us when you publish and we'll help spread it around to the whole community.
+[129.48 --> 131.22]  We've got a great episode for you today.
+[131.60 --> 132.60]  It's party time, y'all.
+[132.60 --> 137.90]  It's time to play Front End Feud.
+[140.44 --> 144.34]  Hello and welcome to Front End Feud.
+[144.42 --> 147.56]  We are live at the React Advanced After Party.
+[147.64 --> 148.54]  How are we all doing out there?
+[149.08 --> 149.68]  Lovely.
+[150.12 --> 150.58]  So good.
+[150.68 --> 151.32]  Really great.
+[151.46 --> 151.84]  Fantastic.
+[152.68 --> 153.20]  Excited.
+[153.94 --> 154.92]  We are excited as well.
+[154.98 --> 160.82]  We've gathered together six amazing people to play Front End Feud with us today.
+[160.82 --> 163.50]  Okay, let's get to know our contestants.
+[163.72 --> 164.74]  So we have two teams.
+[165.40 --> 167.98]  Team one is Tara, Nick, and Colby.
+[168.08 --> 169.94]  Let's start with Tara Moniksik.
+[170.56 --> 171.42]  Nice to meet you, Tara.
+[171.50 --> 172.26]  Thanks for joining us.
+[172.90 --> 174.02]  Very nice being here.
+[174.08 --> 174.88]  I'm very excited.
+[175.10 --> 176.94]  And I mean, it seems like I have the best team.
+[177.08 --> 178.36]  So we're off to a great start.
+[181.90 --> 182.80]  Time will tell.
+[182.96 --> 185.98]  Tara, to get to know you a little bit better, please tell everybody, what is your favorite emoji?
+[186.42 --> 188.16]  Oh, it's definitely the grimace.
+[188.16 --> 194.08]  I don't know what it's actually called, but I make that face IRL constantly.
+[194.80 --> 199.58]  And it's just like for every single thing that I awkwardly encounter, it's always the grimace face.
+[199.76 --> 201.76]  So we do have the benefit of video with us today.
+[201.82 --> 204.10]  Do you want to give us a taste of what the grimace face looks like?
+[204.90 --> 205.46]  Nailed it.
+[207.80 --> 208.20]  Awesome.
+[208.78 --> 209.08]  Perfect.
+[209.60 --> 213.00]  Up next, it's JS Party regular Nick Neesey.
+[213.04 --> 213.50]  What's up, Nick?
+[213.96 --> 214.60]  Hoi hoi.
+[214.90 --> 215.64]  Happy to be here.
+[216.28 --> 217.84]  Happy to have you as well.
+[217.84 --> 219.80]  Nick, what is the strangest thing in your fridge?
+[220.24 --> 226.34]  Ooh, liquid aminos maybe right now, which is a substitute for soy sauce.
+[227.02 --> 227.38]  Okay.
+[227.80 --> 228.68]  Never heard of it.
+[228.78 --> 230.04]  So I guess it's strange.
+[230.38 --> 230.80]  I hear you.
+[230.88 --> 231.84]  I'm with you on that one.
+[232.04 --> 232.18]  Yeah.
+[232.28 --> 232.62]  All right.
+[232.78 --> 232.92]  Yeah.
+[233.04 --> 233.34]  Strong.
+[233.44 --> 233.94]  It's good stuff.
+[234.02 --> 234.16]  Yeah.
+[234.34 --> 234.50]  Yeah.
+[235.02 --> 236.98]  Rounding out team one, it's Colby Fayok.
+[237.14 --> 239.66]  Colby, would you rather be a fish or a bird?
+[240.38 --> 245.58]  I'd say probably a fish so I can see all the cool stuff underneath the water.
+[245.82 --> 246.30]  Good answer.
+[246.38 --> 246.86]  Good answer.
+[246.86 --> 247.22]  Fair.
+[247.22 --> 247.50]  Fair.
+[248.40 --> 249.10]  That's team one.
+[249.18 --> 251.02]  Team two, starting off with Brandon Dale.
+[251.12 --> 252.30]  Brandon, thanks for joining the show.
+[252.46 --> 253.26]  Thank you for having me.
+[253.54 --> 256.74]  And Brandon, the people really want to know, how many tabs do you have open?
+[257.94 --> 262.16]  Like in the window that I have open right now or the dozens of windows that I have?
+[263.04 --> 263.40]  Aggregate.
+[263.50 --> 264.28]  Aggregate them for us.
+[264.54 --> 264.82]  Okay.
+[265.52 --> 266.36]  50 probably.
+[266.74 --> 267.10]  50.
+[267.26 --> 267.86]  That doesn't seem...
+[267.86 --> 268.16]  Not too bad.
+[268.42 --> 269.34]  Yeah, that seems pretty good.
+[269.56 --> 270.86]  We also have Yurima Estevez.
+[272.04 --> 272.40]  Hey, Yurima.
+[272.50 --> 273.36]  Thanks for coming on the show.
+[273.36 --> 274.96]  Thanks for having me.
+[275.00 --> 276.16]  I'm so excited to be here.
+[276.46 --> 277.52]  We're happy to have you.
+[277.62 --> 281.80]  We'd like to know, would you prefer a bicycle, a tricycle, a unicycle, or just a plain old
+[281.80 --> 282.10]  sickle?
+[282.10 --> 287.84]  I mean, I play a lot of Stardew Valley, so I think a plain sickle is for me.
+[288.10 --> 288.72]  All right.
+[288.90 --> 289.66]  Awesome choice.
+[291.22 --> 294.46]  And last but surely not least on team two, it's Michael Chan.
+[294.54 --> 294.92]  What's up, Michael?
+[295.26 --> 295.86]  What's up?
+[295.96 --> 296.48]  Good to see you.
+[296.68 --> 297.70]  Good to see you again.
+[297.88 --> 300.64]  And curious, what's your favorite text abbreviation?
+[301.14 --> 302.26]  Text abbreviation?
+[302.48 --> 303.22]  Yeah, you know.
+[303.90 --> 307.02]  LGTM, IRC, BRB, AFK, WTF.
+[307.20 --> 307.56]  The usual.
+[307.90 --> 308.98]  You just rattled off a bunch of them.
+[308.98 --> 313.92]  Uh, I mean, favorites got to be WTF, but I use OMG a lot too.
+[314.22 --> 317.52]  So I mean, between those two, I'm, I mean, I'm pretty well covered.
+[317.96 --> 318.20]  Awesome.
+[318.64 --> 321.58]  Well, that's our panel today.
+[321.58 --> 322.50]  I'm Jared Santo.
+[322.64 --> 323.72]  I will be your host.
+[323.80 --> 324.68]  We are playing Front End Feud.
+[324.76 --> 328.24]  This is a game all about matching the audience's preference.
+[328.38 --> 334.48]  So we have surveyed 100 JavaScript developers and asked them various questions about React,
+[334.48 --> 341.04]  about JavaScript, about development, about life, and aggregated the survey responses.
+[341.80 --> 346.52]  The two teams are going to try to do the best job of matching the most popular responses
+[346.52 --> 349.22]  from the JavaScript developers who were interviewed.
+[349.86 --> 350.94]  What is this sample pool?
+[351.32 --> 355.02]  Is it like, are we thinking like React Advanced already?
+[355.26 --> 357.44]  So I mean, are we skewing towards React?
+[357.44 --> 362.36]  We sent the survey specifically to the React Advanced attendees.
+[362.76 --> 366.80]  And then we branch out from there and went from there to JS Party listeners and then to
+[366.80 --> 367.70]  general Twitter people.
+[367.84 --> 369.12]  And we've gotten 100 responses.
+[369.12 --> 374.24]  So they're all going to be either React Advanced folk and or JS Party listeners and then Twitter
+[374.24 --> 375.04]  followers from there.
+[375.12 --> 375.90]  So that's your audience.
+[376.10 --> 376.28]  Okay.
+[376.28 --> 381.08]  Now each round starts with a face-off or an interface-off, if you prefer puns.
+[381.56 --> 381.96]  Yes.
+[382.24 --> 388.20]  Where two people from each team or one person from each team steps up and tries to guess
+[388.20 --> 390.62]  the highest matched answer on the board.
+[391.00 --> 395.48]  Whichever person gets the highest answer, their team wins that round and they get to play the
+[395.48 --> 396.34]  rest of that board.
+[396.90 --> 397.98]  You have three lives.
+[398.46 --> 402.32]  So every time you guess a response that's not on the board, you lose a life.
+[402.32 --> 409.18]  After three lives lost, the other team can then confer and have one chance to steal all
+[409.18 --> 412.00]  the points that are on the board and take that round.
+[412.10 --> 417.46]  At the end of the game, whoever has the most points wins and the winning team gets absolutely
+[417.46 --> 417.82]  nothing.
+[417.92 --> 418.40]  No, just kidding.
+[419.38 --> 424.22]  The winning team gets a chance to shout out anything they would like to shout out on the
+[424.22 --> 425.12]  show to our audience.
+[425.20 --> 426.14]  So that's your power.
+[426.36 --> 427.36]  So like any word?
+[427.68 --> 428.16]  No, I'm just kidding.
+[428.38 --> 429.76]  Yeah, just shout any random word.
+[429.76 --> 431.00]  You can just yell at the end of the show.
+[431.00 --> 431.94]  Yeah, like WTF.
+[432.32 --> 432.94]  It would be a good one.
+[434.24 --> 437.84]  So be thinking if you win, maybe you have a favorite cause.
+[437.94 --> 439.48]  Maybe you have a developer you appreciate.
+[439.72 --> 440.70]  Maybe it's a cool project.
+[440.92 --> 442.90]  Maybe it's, maybe you got some wares you want to sell.
+[442.96 --> 444.64]  Whatever it is, a chance to shout it out.
+[444.70 --> 445.50]  But you got to win first.
+[446.06 --> 447.34]  Any questions about the game?
+[448.70 --> 450.36]  All right, let's play, shall we?
+[450.38 --> 452.04]  We'll start round one.
+[452.56 --> 458.44]  And the two contestants facing off are going to be Tara and Brandon.
+[458.44 --> 459.66]  Please step right up.
+[459.66 --> 462.60]  Here we go.
+[462.64 --> 463.04]  Here we go.
+[463.12 --> 463.58]  Here we go.
+[463.66 --> 464.14]  Here we go.
+[464.36 --> 465.60]  The first question.
+[466.38 --> 472.80]  We asked 100 JavaScript developers to name a common file extension found in React apps.
+[472.92 --> 474.04]  Tara, you will guess first.
+[474.20 --> 476.28]  If you get the number one answer, you win the board.
+[476.36 --> 480.32]  If you get anything that's not number one, then Brandon will get a chance to guess.
+[481.70 --> 482.02]  JS.
+[483.28 --> 483.80]  JS.
+[483.80 --> 485.58]  Have you heard of that one?
+[486.12 --> 487.02]  What is that again?
+[489.96 --> 491.96]  Show me JS.
+[493.08 --> 494.78]  The number three answer.
+[495.12 --> 495.20]  Three.
+[495.58 --> 498.70]  With 13 responses, which means you did not get number one.
+[498.86 --> 501.30]  And Brandon now has an opportunity to steal.
+[502.10 --> 504.12]  I'm going to say JSX.
+[504.84 --> 505.74]  Final answer.
+[505.92 --> 506.80]  Oh, yeah.
+[507.20 --> 509.18]  Show us JSX.
+[510.26 --> 511.48]  But where did it fall?
+[511.48 --> 513.74]  Oh, number one answer.
+[516.16 --> 521.46]  So Brandon wins the interface off and team two takes the board.
+[521.68 --> 524.96]  Now, team two, you will now rotate opportunities to guess.
+[525.16 --> 526.98]  You cannot confer during this time.
+[527.06 --> 528.30]  So you'll be on your own to guess.
+[528.82 --> 531.54]  And if you get the remaining two, then you get all the points.
+[531.64 --> 535.02]  If not, three lives lost and we'll have a chance to steal.
+[535.14 --> 536.08]  So we now go to Yorima.
+[536.76 --> 538.28]  Please give us an answer.
+[538.28 --> 542.62]  I'm going to say TSX.
+[543.86 --> 545.62]  Show us TSX.
+[546.58 --> 547.02]  Yeah.
+[547.28 --> 547.72]  Yeah.
+[548.58 --> 550.98]  Number two answer with 34 responses.
+[551.32 --> 552.28]  You're doing quite well.
+[552.34 --> 555.36]  You have one, two, and three all knocked out.
+[555.46 --> 557.96]  And there's only one answer left.
+[558.02 --> 558.66]  We go to Michael.
+[558.96 --> 560.48]  What's that number four response?
+[561.76 --> 563.82]  TSX was, I had that written down.
+[563.90 --> 565.00]  That was the one that I wanted to go with.
+[565.00 --> 568.62]  So I guess I'm going to go with .ts.
+[569.76 --> 570.86]  Round that out.
+[571.06 --> 572.36]  Let's see if it's on there.
+[572.62 --> 574.14]  Show us .ts.
+[574.92 --> 576.50]  Oh, yes.
+[576.56 --> 577.80]  That is correct.
+[578.22 --> 579.50]  Very good.
+[579.90 --> 585.92]  So without missing a single beat, you all just guessed the top four responses to the question.
+[586.58 --> 587.72]  Name a common file extension.
+[587.80 --> 589.56]  I guess there's only so many extensions out there.
+[589.56 --> 593.06]  We have .jsx, .tsx, .js, and .ts.
+[593.36 --> 594.26]  There's no .mjs?
+[595.02 --> 595.46]  No.
+[595.94 --> 596.68]  Sorry, Nick.
+[597.22 --> 599.94]  Wait, can you put JSX in a .ts file?
+[600.28 --> 601.46]  Is that even allowed?
+[601.86 --> 602.62]  That's a good question.
+[603.04 --> 603.88]  I don't think so.
+[603.94 --> 606.88]  I think TypeScript gets mad because of some conflicting syntax.
+[607.50 --> 608.62]  But you probably have a lot of hooks.
+[609.26 --> 609.44]  Yeah.
+[609.66 --> 609.88]  True.
+[610.06 --> 610.54]  There you go.
+[610.72 --> 611.58]  True, true, true.
+[611.80 --> 612.00]  Fair.
+[612.00 --> 616.86]  So we award 92 points to Team 2.
+[617.14 --> 618.12]  Award those points.
+[618.24 --> 618.72]  Very good.
+[619.20 --> 623.96]  And we'll now move on to the next round, which is going to be Nick versus Yurima.
+[624.20 --> 625.34]  Step right up.
+[627.34 --> 627.90]  Okay.
+[628.44 --> 635.62]  We surveyed 100 JavaScript developers, and we said, what is your favorite static site generator?
+[635.72 --> 638.36]  Now, Team 1 went first last round, so we'll go to Team 2.
+[638.88 --> 640.38]  Yurima, you get to guess first.
+[640.38 --> 642.16]  What is your favorite static site generator?
+[642.40 --> 644.32]  There are five responses on the board.
+[645.00 --> 645.36]  Okay.
+[645.68 --> 647.76]  I like to think I speak for the people.
+[648.30 --> 656.16]  And my favorite static site generator is Next.js, the static side of it.
+[656.72 --> 657.44]  There you go.
+[657.60 --> 658.70]  The static side of it.
+[658.82 --> 659.34]  The static half.
+[659.40 --> 659.84]  There you go.
+[659.94 --> 660.42]  That works.
+[660.72 --> 662.32]  Does the answer have a little star on there?
+[662.70 --> 662.96]  Yeah.
+[663.22 --> 664.62]  A little asterisk on there.
+[665.00 --> 666.40]  Let's see if it's on the board.
+[666.48 --> 667.20]  Show us Next.js.
+[667.20 --> 667.40]  Yes.
+[668.90 --> 671.30]  Number two answer with 23 responses.
+[671.30 --> 673.88]  So pretty good, but not at the top.
+[673.98 --> 675.98]  So Nick, you do have a chance to take the board.
+[676.42 --> 677.48]  What do you think people answered?
+[677.56 --> 679.20]  Their favorite static site generator?
+[680.46 --> 686.52]  You know, I am hoping that it's number one, but let's go with number 11.
+[686.52 --> 687.52]  Show me 11.js.
+[687.52 --> 689.14]  Show me 11.js.
+[691.14 --> 692.62]  Number three.
+[693.58 --> 694.76]  What's number one?
+[694.84 --> 695.00]  Okay.
+[695.52 --> 696.22]  I know.
+[696.30 --> 698.34]  So you got a correct answer, but you're actually lower.
+[698.60 --> 698.64]  I know.
+[698.64 --> 703.24]  So team two, once again, gets to play this round.
+[703.44 --> 707.58]  So we now go to Michael to name a static site generator.
+[707.98 --> 708.68]  You got this.
+[708.68 --> 714.40]  Uh, well, I was going to guess 11.js because I love 11.js and I was just going to guess
+[714.40 --> 720.06]  it because I like it, but I'm going to go the opposite direction and guess Gatsby.
+[721.44 --> 722.50]  How is that opposite?
+[722.66 --> 723.50]  What are you trying to say?
+[723.72 --> 732.98]  Oh, I mean, uh, let's see if that opposite direction paid off.
+[733.06 --> 733.88]  Show us Gatsby.
+[733.88 --> 736.30]  It sure did.
+[736.40 --> 737.38]  And it's the number one answer.
+[737.54 --> 738.64]  33 responses.
+[738.98 --> 739.32]  Yeah.
+[739.96 --> 744.44]  So of the five responses on the board, we have numbers one through three taken.
+[744.96 --> 746.20]  Gatsby.js with 33.
+[746.66 --> 747.86]  Next.js with 23.
+[748.26 --> 749.10]  Eleventy with 11.
+[749.20 --> 751.12]  There's still two answers on the board.
+[751.18 --> 752.24]  And now we go to Brandon.
+[753.50 --> 755.36]  Those are all the ones that I know.
+[755.78 --> 756.02]  Yeah.
+[756.94 --> 758.52]  It's harder from here, doesn't it?
+[759.04 --> 759.44]  Yeah.
+[760.84 --> 762.32]  Is Hugo one?
+[762.56 --> 763.68]  Is that, am I thinking of?
+[763.88 --> 764.42]  The right thing?
+[765.06 --> 765.16]  Yeah.
+[765.20 --> 767.26]  If that's, if that is one of them, then that's my guess.
+[768.28 --> 768.66]  All right.
+[768.74 --> 769.24]  Show us Hugo.
+[771.48 --> 771.80]  Oh.
+[772.48 --> 773.28]  That's a strong answer.
+[773.42 --> 774.52]  I like the preface on that.
+[774.64 --> 776.20]  If that is one, that's my guess.
+[776.46 --> 777.06]  That's a condition.
+[779.62 --> 782.78]  So we now lost one life and we're back at Yorima.
+[784.78 --> 785.38]  Oh man.
+[785.38 --> 787.10]  I also don't really know.
+[787.10 --> 793.18]  I'm just, I'm going to go default.
+[793.50 --> 796.28]  Plain old HTML, I guess.
+[796.96 --> 798.70]  So human static site generator.
+[798.98 --> 799.46]  I like that.
+[802.46 --> 803.10]  Pioneer.
+[803.74 --> 804.78]  The old, yeah.
+[804.78 --> 805.66]  The old trick question.
+[805.84 --> 808.26]  My favorite generator is no generator.
+[808.62 --> 809.18]  I guess.
+[809.24 --> 810.20]  Show me no generator.
+[810.20 --> 810.48]  What?
+[812.80 --> 813.24]  What?
+[813.40 --> 814.46]  No way.
+[814.50 --> 815.36]  Seven people.
+[815.74 --> 816.08]  Wow.
+[817.28 --> 818.04]  Well played.
+[818.12 --> 818.64]  Well played.
+[818.64 --> 819.80]  Well played.
+[819.94 --> 824.48]  Seven people said none or handwritten or plain old HTML.
+[824.70 --> 827.40]  Anybody out there just rocking HTML for their content sites?
+[827.60 --> 827.80]  You know?
+[828.06 --> 829.18]  It's not even number five.
+[829.24 --> 830.02]  That's incredible.
+[830.78 --> 831.06]  Yeah.
+[831.20 --> 831.40]  Nope.
+[831.40 --> 832.00]  Number four.
+[832.44 --> 833.84]  So we still have one more out there.
+[833.84 --> 838.64]  You have one, you have two lives left, right?
+[838.66 --> 841.02]  You've lost one life or have you lost two lives?
+[841.08 --> 841.52]  Remind me.
+[842.22 --> 843.00]  Brandon missed.
+[843.34 --> 843.86]  Did Michael miss?
+[843.88 --> 844.20]  Just one.
+[844.48 --> 845.04]  Yeah, just Brandon.
+[845.16 --> 845.32]  Oh.
+[845.48 --> 845.56]  Yeah.
+[845.62 --> 847.90]  So you have two lives left and we're on Michael.
+[848.76 --> 849.36]  Oh gosh.
+[849.48 --> 849.66]  Okay.
+[851.30 --> 854.68]  I just have to go with, like, I don't know.
+[854.74 --> 855.90]  I'm kind of confused at this point.
+[855.90 --> 858.98]  I'm just going to go with where the hype is right now and I'm going to say Astro.
+[859.74 --> 863.32]  There's got to be at least like two or three people that said Astro.
+[864.34 --> 865.40]  Show us Astro.
+[867.32 --> 867.68]  Oh.
+[868.46 --> 873.38]  I will say that you're partially correct because two people did say Astro, but you have to
+[873.38 --> 874.88]  get five or more to make the board.
+[874.98 --> 878.02]  So it was stated, but it's not on the board.
+[878.12 --> 879.30]  There is something with five.
+[880.14 --> 880.96]  We just have to find it.
+[880.98 --> 883.38]  You have one guest left and we are back to Brandon.
+[885.08 --> 886.86]  I mean, what's less popular than nothing?
+[886.86 --> 895.88]  So handwritten, I guess that would include hand rolled.
+[897.10 --> 897.94]  I don't know.
+[898.54 --> 899.98]  What is another one?
+[900.00 --> 901.42]  I legitimately can't think of one.
+[901.42 --> 908.58]  Um, I guess this is a tough one.
+[910.58 --> 913.52]  Maybe I'll just say like create react app.
+[913.60 --> 915.98]  It's not a static site generator, but right.
+[916.24 --> 917.62]  Maybe some people think of it.
+[918.04 --> 918.30]  Yes.
+[918.34 --> 920.06]  Remember that you're not trying to get the correct answer.
+[920.10 --> 921.52]  You're trying to guess what people said.
+[921.60 --> 922.22]  So you never know.
+[922.78 --> 923.78]  Let's see if it's on there.
+[923.82 --> 924.96]  Show us create racked app.
+[924.96 --> 929.92]  Oh, I am sorry, but it did not quite make the list.
+[930.02 --> 931.44]  It was mentioned one time.
+[931.44 --> 936.84]  So somebody did say it, but that is three lives lost, which means team one now has the
+[936.84 --> 938.14]  chance to steal a board team one.
+[938.28 --> 944.08]  You can confer amongst yourselves and discuss and together pick one answer, which will steal
+[944.08 --> 944.94]  the board if it's on there.
+[945.58 --> 947.78]  So I was thinking Gridsom or Nuxt.
+[948.78 --> 949.54]  I was thinking Jekyll.
+[949.88 --> 951.12]  I was originally thinking like Svelkit.
+[951.36 --> 951.76]  Jekyll.
+[951.88 --> 953.02]  I didn't think about Jekyll.
+[953.48 --> 954.32]  Any thoughts on Svelte?
+[954.32 --> 955.52]  Nobody thinks of Jekyll.
+[957.36 --> 958.68]  Probably not a good sign, Nick.
+[959.12 --> 959.28]  Yeah.
+[962.58 --> 965.24]  Well, so Svelte, I don't, yeah, Svelte, Svelte Kit.
+[965.68 --> 965.96]  Hmm.
+[968.26 --> 969.64]  I don't care what you're going with that one.
+[970.94 --> 971.30]  Sure.
+[974.34 --> 975.14]  Colby, what are you thinking?
+[975.22 --> 976.28]  You've been pretty quiet up there.
+[977.42 --> 979.76]  Yeah, I mean, I think the Svelte Kit is interesting.
+[979.88 --> 983.62]  I honestly thought that was going to be higher because I thought it was, you know, kind of
+[983.62 --> 985.64]  growing, but, yeah.
+[985.98 --> 990.84]  Yeah, I thought Gridsom or Nuxt, but it's more view-centric than react-centric.
+[992.04 --> 992.40]  Yeah.
+[993.94 --> 996.40]  Yeah, let's roll the dice with Svelte Kit.
+[996.40 --> 1000.44]  So, so far, Team 2 has 74 points in this round.
+[1000.44 --> 1001.20]  I love how confident we are.
+[1001.28 --> 1003.12]  We're like...
+[1003.12 --> 1006.70]  The last item on the board is five points.
+[1006.78 --> 1012.04]  So if this is correct, you'll steal 79 points from Team 2 and be right back in the game.
+[1013.18 --> 1014.74]  Show us Svelte Kit.
+[1016.76 --> 1018.44]  Hey, hey, that's correct.
+[1018.84 --> 1019.54]  Very nice.
+[1020.10 --> 1021.90]  Team 1 steals the round.
+[1021.90 --> 1022.60]  That one hurts.
+[1022.60 --> 1025.52]  This is how I do team projects in general.
+[1025.76 --> 1028.54]  I have everybody do all the work and then I sweep right in there.
+[1030.44 --> 1031.48]  Well played.
+[1031.52 --> 1032.34]  That cuts deep.
+[1033.30 --> 1036.34]  So after two rounds, we have a very close game.
+[1036.46 --> 1040.88]  Team 1 with 79 points and Team 2 with 92 points.
+[1041.00 --> 1046.64]  Let's move now to the third round, which is an interface off between Colby and Michael.
+[1049.18 --> 1049.80]  Let's go.
+[1049.80 --> 1051.64]  Here we go, Michael.
+[1051.66 --> 1053.14]  Team 1 gets to guess first.
+[1054.16 --> 1059.28]  We asked 100 JS developers, name a protocol that all web apps rely upon.
+[1060.18 --> 1060.88]  Colby, to you.
+[1063.26 --> 1063.78]  HTTPS?
+[1066.22 --> 1068.62]  Show us HTTPS.
+[1070.98 --> 1073.04]  Number two answer with 16 responses.
+[1073.38 --> 1073.86]  Two answer.
+[1074.46 --> 1075.00]  Number two?
+[1075.00 --> 1078.36]  That means number one is still out there and can be taken by Michael if you can guess it.
+[1078.36 --> 1079.26]  Michael.
+[1079.50 --> 1081.36]  I'm going to go with HTTP.
+[1082.30 --> 1083.00]  No S.
+[1083.16 --> 1083.34]  Yeah.
+[1083.70 --> 1084.14]  Oh.
+[1084.54 --> 1085.76]  The web is still insecure.
+[1085.94 --> 1086.68]  Despite the legend crypt folks.
+[1087.16 --> 1087.68]  Best efforts.
+[1090.24 --> 1095.38]  Still a lot of sites out there using plain old HTTP, but is it the number one answer?
+[1095.46 --> 1096.04]  Let's find out.
+[1097.86 --> 1098.86]  It is.
+[1099.34 --> 1100.18]  Overwhelmingly so.
+[1100.28 --> 1102.00]  With 71 responses.
+[1102.66 --> 1103.78]  We're so insecure.
+[1103.78 --> 1108.00]  I would have said HTTP 2 as well.
+[1109.22 --> 1110.58]  But you know, it's usually that.
+[1110.58 --> 1111.36]  Yeah, not HTTP 2.
+[1111.46 --> 1111.58]  Yeah.
+[1111.78 --> 1113.52]  I was trying to be two best practices.
+[1114.08 --> 1114.32]  Right?
+[1115.84 --> 1118.04]  So there are three responses on the board.
+[1118.10 --> 1119.16]  You already have two.
+[1119.42 --> 1120.98]  Team 2 is going to play this board.
+[1121.06 --> 1121.84]  We're going to go to Brandon.
+[1121.94 --> 1123.78]  Remember, that third one is usually the trickiest.
+[1123.84 --> 1126.14]  So we'll see if you guys can make it before you lose all three lines.
+[1126.44 --> 1127.10]  We believe in you.
+[1127.10 --> 1131.98]  I'm going to say maybe there's a few more low-level minded folks.
+[1132.10 --> 1132.68]  Maybe TCP.
+[1134.24 --> 1134.84]  Okay.
+[1135.84 --> 1137.28]  Show us TCP.
+[1139.08 --> 1140.22]  Oh my goodness.
+[1140.38 --> 1140.76]  You drilled it.
+[1141.88 --> 1144.58]  Low-level minded folks sounds like such an insult.
+[1145.74 --> 1148.76]  You know, people who just think about TCP all the time.
+[1148.76 --> 1149.04]  Right.
+[1150.24 --> 1154.98]  Five people said TCP slash IP, even though those are two separate protocols.
+[1154.98 --> 1157.22]  But let's not pick a nit here.
+[1157.42 --> 1158.38]  That's correct.
+[1158.70 --> 1160.42]  So yeah, you guys drilled it.
+[1160.48 --> 1165.82]  This round was swept by Team 2 with lots of points available.
+[1166.44 --> 1167.80]  No one's doing FTP anymore?
+[1168.04 --> 1169.10]  Is that what I'm hearing?
+[1169.70 --> 1170.36]  FTP is dead.
+[1170.40 --> 1171.32]  That was going to be my other guess.
+[1171.64 --> 1172.24]  FTP is dead.
+[1174.54 --> 1177.02]  It appears that my scoreboard is busted.
+[1177.12 --> 1177.46]  Look at that.
+[1177.50 --> 1178.46]  It says 179.
+[1178.46 --> 1179.72]  That can't be right for this round.
+[1180.00 --> 1180.84]  I mean, we'll take it.
+[1180.96 --> 1181.14]  Yeah.
+[1181.40 --> 1182.16]  It is rigged.
+[1182.30 --> 1182.90]  It's rigged.
+[1183.16 --> 1183.56]  Is it?
+[1184.10 --> 1184.50]  We accept.
+[1184.72 --> 1185.60]  I call cahoots.
+[1185.66 --> 1187.34]  It'd be 71 plus 16.
+[1187.42 --> 1190.12]  I mean, it has to be less than 100 because there's only 100 people surveying.
+[1191.36 --> 1192.74]  Who coded this thing?
+[1193.60 --> 1195.90]  Let me do a hard refresh real quick and see what happens.
+[1196.06 --> 1196.72]  This might fix it.
+[1198.08 --> 1198.56]  Team 2.
+[1199.66 --> 1201.60]  71 plus 16.
+[1202.14 --> 1203.10]  Hey, that's much better.
+[1203.60 --> 1204.06]  There you go.
+[1204.44 --> 1205.90]  I might have to hard refresh each round.
+[1205.98 --> 1206.32]  We'll see.
+[1206.40 --> 1207.32]  We'll see how this plays out.
+[1207.32 --> 1208.82]  This is interesting.
+[1208.98 --> 1209.18]  All right.
+[1209.22 --> 1210.68]  We're going to award those points to Team 2.
+[1211.78 --> 1216.26]  And now they lead after three rounds with 184.
+[1216.42 --> 1219.24]  Team 1 pulling up the rear with 79 points.
+[1219.34 --> 1219.80]  But don't worry.
+[1219.88 --> 1221.82]  There's lots of game left to play.
+[1221.82 --> 1241.52]  What's up, JS Party people?
+[1241.52 --> 1246.42]  Have you ever wondered if you could be offering a faster, less buggy experience for your customers?
+[1246.42 --> 1257.60]  Well, with Raygun Error and Performance Monitoring, you have all the information you need at your fingertips to quickly find and fix errors and performance issues across your tech stack down to the line of code.
+[1257.88 --> 1259.06]  This saves you time.
+[1259.32 --> 1260.04]  This saves you money.
+[1260.36 --> 1261.46]  And this saves your sanity.
+[1261.84 --> 1266.42]  Head to Raygun.com to join thousands of customer-centric software teams who use Raygun every single day.
+[1266.42 --> 1270.64]  Again, Raygun.com to give them a try with a free 14-day trial.
+[1270.64 --> 1290.64]  We now move to round four.
+[1291.68 --> 1294.38]  And our interface off is between Tara and Brandon.
+[1294.48 --> 1295.02]  Please step up.
+[1295.02 --> 1306.42]  We surveyed 100 JavaScript developers and asked them to name a character trait that many successful developers have in common.
+[1306.56 --> 1308.64]  There are five popular responses on the board.
+[1309.20 --> 1310.68]  Brandon, you get to guess first.
+[1311.40 --> 1313.18]  I'm going to go with curiosity.
+[1314.80 --> 1316.80]  Show us curiosity.
+[1319.18 --> 1321.68]  Number two answer with 15 responses.
+[1321.68 --> 1324.24]  So you're quite high on the board, but not at the top.
+[1324.24 --> 1328.28]  Tara, if you can steal it, guess that number one response.
+[1328.28 --> 1333.24]  Part of me wants to be a smart aleck and say coding, but...
+[1333.24 --> 1335.58]  Coding is a very good name.
+[1337.06 --> 1339.04]  But how many smart alecks are out there?
+[1339.54 --> 1339.96]  I know.
+[1340.46 --> 1343.80]  But that is probably one top developer trait in itself.
+[1345.18 --> 1347.64]  So maybe perseverance?
+[1349.80 --> 1351.54]  Show us perseverance.
+[1351.54 --> 1355.28]  So now you managed to pull it off.
+[1355.36 --> 1356.00]  Number one answer.
+[1356.50 --> 1357.02]  Nice.
+[1357.40 --> 1357.88]  Wow.
+[1358.32 --> 1358.76]  Okay.
+[1359.42 --> 1364.64]  I was a little nervous since my job basically is me trying to know what developers are.
+[1365.04 --> 1365.62]  There you go.
+[1365.62 --> 1367.56]  I do developer experience for a living.
+[1367.90 --> 1368.34]  So...
+[1368.34 --> 1370.20]  You must be good at your job.
+[1370.20 --> 1370.70]  What even are developers?
+[1372.00 --> 1372.58]  I know.
+[1372.58 --> 1375.98]  This covered a range of words.
+[1376.10 --> 1376.44]  Grit.
+[1377.24 --> 1377.68]  Persistence.
+[1378.24 --> 1378.72]  Perseverance.
+[1379.30 --> 1379.74]  Stubbornness.
+[1379.92 --> 1382.68]  So all those words are basically wrapped up in that response.
+[1383.64 --> 1385.76]  So Tara has won the board for team one.
+[1386.04 --> 1387.62]  There are three responses left.
+[1387.68 --> 1388.82]  We have one and two taken.
+[1388.96 --> 1390.26]  Three, four, and five are still available.
+[1390.38 --> 1391.10]  We go to Nick.
+[1391.52 --> 1394.56]  Name a character trait that many successful devs have in common.
+[1394.56 --> 1397.72]  I am out of ideas here.
+[1401.96 --> 1404.38]  Is tired a character trait?
+[1407.80 --> 1409.84]  Do you want me to test that one or are you joking?
+[1410.06 --> 1411.24]  No, I'm joking.
+[1411.24 --> 1412.30]  I think.
+[1413.78 --> 1414.46]  Am I?
+[1414.56 --> 1415.06]  Am I joking?
+[1416.24 --> 1418.08]  I know I'm tired, but am I joking?
+[1418.08 --> 1419.88]  Character trait.
+[1422.82 --> 1425.08]  I'm going to say...
+[1429.60 --> 1433.66]  Everything I think of falls into those two categories.
+[1438.48 --> 1439.64]  Just do your best, Nick.
+[1443.78 --> 1445.92]  Look inside yourself and say, what am I?
+[1446.88 --> 1447.16]  Tired.
+[1448.08 --> 1451.98]  If you want to test tired, I can test it for you.
+[1452.62 --> 1454.36]  I have the tools at my disposal.
+[1454.64 --> 1455.22]  Okay, let's see.
+[1455.40 --> 1456.50]  It's only one incorrect.
+[1457.20 --> 1458.30]  Show us tired.
+[1459.94 --> 1461.18]  No, of course not.
+[1461.24 --> 1464.70]  Because it's not a characteristic trait, but it's definitely a status.
+[1464.82 --> 1465.64]  It's definitely what we all are.
+[1465.64 --> 1466.14]  Okay, so that's Nick.
+[1466.24 --> 1468.08]  We have one lost life.
+[1468.20 --> 1469.28]  Colby, it is your turn.
+[1469.66 --> 1472.36]  What's a character trait that many successful devs have in common?
+[1473.20 --> 1474.50]  Let's go with creative.
+[1475.96 --> 1476.36]  Ooh.
+[1476.36 --> 1476.48]  Ooh.
+[1476.48 --> 1476.60]  Ooh.
+[1477.68 --> 1478.04]  Ooh.
+[1478.36 --> 1479.14]  That one's...
+[1479.14 --> 1479.58]  I gotta see.
+[1479.66 --> 1480.74]  Should I fit that in or not?
+[1482.30 --> 1483.40]  Show me creative.
+[1486.20 --> 1487.54]  Number four answer.
+[1488.60 --> 1491.70]  That's intelligent, problem solver, creative.
+[1492.26 --> 1494.32]  People said thinking outside the box.
+[1494.42 --> 1495.68]  So that's all those kind of things.
+[1495.82 --> 1497.82]  Right on the fringe of in there with intelligence.
+[1497.82 --> 1499.44]  But we'll include it.
+[1499.50 --> 1500.82]  So that's seven points.
+[1501.52 --> 1503.64]  You now have numbers one, two, and four.
+[1503.78 --> 1505.18]  You're missing three and five.
+[1505.38 --> 1506.62]  And we go back to Tara.
+[1506.72 --> 1508.26]  You have one life lost.
+[1508.66 --> 1509.06]  One.
+[1510.74 --> 1511.54]  I'm tired.
+[1512.10 --> 1514.12]  You have one life lost.
+[1516.94 --> 1518.22]  You are one life.
+[1518.42 --> 1518.66]  Yes.
+[1519.38 --> 1523.68]  Would innovative fit in that intelligence problem solving one?
+[1524.32 --> 1524.72]  Yes.
+[1524.72 --> 1525.32]  Would that be...
+[1525.32 --> 1525.70]  Yes.
+[1525.88 --> 1526.70]  It would fit in there?
+[1526.70 --> 1527.58]  I would say that's grouped in.
+[1527.80 --> 1528.00]  Mm-hmm.
+[1528.50 --> 1529.14]  Son of a gun.
+[1529.66 --> 1529.94]  Okay.
+[1532.86 --> 1533.42]  So...
+[1533.42 --> 1533.50]  So...
+[1533.50 --> 1535.50]  So...
+[1535.50 --> 1536.50]  So...
+[1536.50 --> 1537.50]  So...
+[1537.50 --> 1541.86]  Is hard working fit?
+[1541.96 --> 1543.14]  Oh, that would be in persistence.
+[1544.12 --> 1544.38]  Yeah.
+[1544.46 --> 1545.82]  I would group that one in as well.
+[1548.40 --> 1548.84]  Okay.
+[1550.06 --> 1550.66]  So...
+[1550.66 --> 1551.58]  Sorry.
+[1551.68 --> 1552.62]  Do I have a timer on me?
+[1553.74 --> 1555.96]  Well, if Nick has any indicator, no, you don't.
+[1559.96 --> 1561.42]  Well, I mean...
+[1561.42 --> 1561.76]  Okay.
+[1562.18 --> 1564.12]  So let's see.
+[1566.08 --> 1566.50]  Teamwork?
+[1566.50 --> 1570.54]  Like, is teamwork somewhere, like, in any of these that's already there?
+[1571.02 --> 1573.80]  I have to admit, this white font on yellow is hurting me a bit.
+[1575.10 --> 1575.78]  Hard to read.
+[1575.78 --> 1577.00]  I keep squinting at the words.
+[1579.12 --> 1579.94]  So maybe, like, teamwork...
+[1579.94 --> 1581.58]  Teamwork is not currently listed on board.
+[1581.58 --> 1581.86]  Collaboration?
+[1582.60 --> 1582.82]  Yeah.
+[1582.92 --> 1584.58]  Like, teamwork collaboration-ish.
+[1584.60 --> 1584.94]  Okay.
+[1585.30 --> 1586.02]  That's a good guess.
+[1586.08 --> 1586.58]  Show us.
+[1587.00 --> 1587.90]  Good collaborator.
+[1588.12 --> 1589.08]  You made the words better.
+[1590.78 --> 1593.48]  I'm sorry, but that was not one of the top five.
+[1593.90 --> 1594.96]  So we're looking for 10x developers.
+[1594.96 --> 1596.00]  Is that saying something about successful developers?
+[1596.00 --> 1597.02]  I was just saying.
+[1597.50 --> 1599.98]  So we're looking for 10xers over here?
+[1600.08 --> 1600.92]  Is that what's happening?
+[1601.98 --> 1606.24]  So we have grit slash persistence at number one.
+[1606.30 --> 1608.32]  We've got curious and inquisitive at number two.
+[1608.44 --> 1613.18]  At number four, we have intelligence, problem solving, thinking outside of the box, being creative.
+[1613.64 --> 1614.94]  We're missing three and five.
+[1615.02 --> 1617.24]  You have two lost lives already.
+[1617.38 --> 1618.56]  Colby, this is your last chance.
+[1618.56 --> 1621.84]  Can you name another trait that is on the popular board?
+[1622.84 --> 1625.28]  Wasn't it, just to be clear, wasn't it Nick who's next?
+[1625.40 --> 1625.94]  Or am I next?
+[1626.54 --> 1627.08]  No, you're right.
+[1627.16 --> 1627.52]  It's Nick.
+[1627.72 --> 1627.86]  Oh.
+[1628.14 --> 1628.64]  My apologies.
+[1628.94 --> 1629.96]  See, I see what you did there.
+[1631.08 --> 1632.08]  I'm just trying to help your team out.
+[1632.08 --> 1633.56]  I don't want to be the one to blame.
+[1633.86 --> 1635.04]  I'm just trying to help your team out.
+[1635.76 --> 1636.44]  All right, Nick.
+[1636.44 --> 1640.82]  You're feeding my imposter syndrome, and that was what I was going to go with.
+[1641.14 --> 1642.14]  They're imposters.
+[1642.82 --> 1645.14]  Ah, show us imposter syndrome.
+[1649.02 --> 1653.50]  That was definitely mentioned, but it did not score five or more points.
+[1653.50 --> 1658.02]  So team two now has an opportunity to steal the board.
+[1658.14 --> 1660.26]  You can confer amongst yourselves and decide.
+[1660.40 --> 1661.46]  You have two opportunities.
+[1661.46 --> 1664.70]  If you can match either number three or number five, you steal these points.
+[1664.70 --> 1665.30]  Woo.
+[1665.90 --> 1666.64]  Oh, boy.
+[1668.08 --> 1672.74]  Okay, so there's this quote about laziness being one of the characteristics of a developer.
+[1673.24 --> 1677.20]  I'm kind of feeling like that's one of those two, just because it's such a popular quote.
+[1677.20 --> 1677.40]  I plus one that.
+[1677.70 --> 1677.96]  Yeah.
+[1678.26 --> 1678.48]  Yeah.
+[1678.90 --> 1679.60]  That's worth a shot.
+[1680.16 --> 1680.62]  For sure.
+[1682.08 --> 1682.66]  Let's do it.
+[1682.66 --> 1683.08]  Show us.
+[1684.38 --> 1684.74]  Laziness.
+[1686.88 --> 1687.32]  Yes.
+[1687.64 --> 1687.84]  What?
+[1687.84 --> 1688.78]  I got it.
+[1690.62 --> 1691.52]  Team two.
+[1691.64 --> 1694.34]  I love that's what a successful developer is.
+[1694.34 --> 1695.22]  Successful developer.
+[1695.22 --> 1695.52]  It is.
+[1695.62 --> 1696.10]  Lazy.
+[1696.58 --> 1697.78]  Lazy but not tired.
+[1698.96 --> 1700.72]  What is that saying about us?
+[1701.38 --> 1708.16]  I call my team a team of us of like effective procrastinators or successful procrastinators,
+[1708.32 --> 1709.62]  functioning procrastinators.
+[1709.88 --> 1710.12]  Yes.
+[1710.32 --> 1712.08]  High functioning procrastinators.
+[1712.64 --> 1713.16]  Love it.
+[1716.12 --> 1717.24]  Oh, I need to go back.
+[1717.26 --> 1718.88]  Are we going to know what the other one was?
+[1718.98 --> 1719.72]  I'm really curious.
+[1719.72 --> 1720.18]  I need to.
+[1720.20 --> 1720.82]  Oh, sorry.
+[1721.04 --> 1723.84]  I need to do the score here because I hit the wrong button.
+[1724.34 --> 1724.70]  10x.
+[1725.02 --> 1726.02]  It's 10x, isn't it?
+[1726.80 --> 1728.40]  It doesn't have to be 10x.
+[1728.58 --> 1729.12]  Oh, gosh.
+[1729.68 --> 1731.12]  No, we tried communication.
+[1731.28 --> 1731.88]  Did we already try that?
+[1731.88 --> 1732.34]  That wasn't on the board.
+[1732.78 --> 1733.26]  Wrong team.
+[1733.74 --> 1733.90]  Right?
+[1734.62 --> 1735.10]  That's right.
+[1735.18 --> 1735.84]  Team two stole it.
+[1735.96 --> 1736.08]  Yeah.
+[1736.82 --> 1739.58]  I definitely have a bug in here, and I'm trying to debug it as we go.
+[1739.58 --> 1746.08]  So the number three answer with eight points was.
+[1746.30 --> 1747.40]  Debugging should have been a trait.
+[1748.46 --> 1749.70]  Effective communicator.
+[1750.40 --> 1750.76]  Communicator.
+[1751.62 --> 1751.90]  Yeah.
+[1751.90 --> 1752.36]  Who was that?
+[1752.42 --> 1753.46]  Was that Brandon that said that?
+[1753.70 --> 1753.90]  Yeah.
+[1753.98 --> 1756.34]  That was going to be my guess if I had another chance.
+[1757.26 --> 1758.04]  Ah, okay.
+[1758.18 --> 1759.02]  I guess that's what I'm.
+[1759.18 --> 1759.40]  Yeah.
+[1759.48 --> 1762.36]  That makes sense that collaboration is going to fall into communicator.
+[1762.72 --> 1763.12]  Right.
+[1763.26 --> 1766.44]  Because that'd be like written, you know, written skill, writing skills, et cetera.
+[1766.86 --> 1767.22]  Collaboration.
+[1767.22 --> 1771.12]  And, you know, these things are related, but it's tough to group them effectively.
+[1771.66 --> 1772.32]  A couple of people.
+[1772.44 --> 1772.88]  This is funny.
+[1772.96 --> 1774.30]  So a couple of people said humility.
+[1774.96 --> 1777.34]  And then one person said incredibly good looks.
+[1777.78 --> 1779.64]  So I thought that was a nice pairing with humility.
+[1779.64 --> 1780.04]  Clearly.
+[1782.96 --> 1787.92]  And then we did have a response that said complaining about HTML being a programming language or not.
+[1788.02 --> 1790.60]  So there's your funny person trying to hop in there.
+[1792.12 --> 1793.90]  We'll leave that one right on the table.
+[1794.04 --> 1796.64]  And we now move to round five.
+[1797.22 --> 1801.74]  Round five is going to work differently than other rounds.
+[1802.38 --> 1802.90]  Oh, okay.
+[1803.00 --> 1805.30]  This is what we call the inverted round.
+[1806.08 --> 1812.90]  So instead of having a face off, we are going to have the teams rotate back and forth, guessing answers.
+[1812.90 --> 1818.06]  And you're trying to match the lowest answers on the board.
+[1818.06 --> 1823.96]  There are six popular answers, but the points get higher and higher the further down the board.
+[1824.30 --> 1828.52]  So what you're trying to do is match things that are on the board, but not number one, two, and three.
+[1828.96 --> 1830.24]  Because they're worth less points.
+[1830.24 --> 1835.78]  So we asked 100 JS devs, which day of the week do you get the most coding done?
+[1836.30 --> 1838.60]  And there are six answers on the board.
+[1839.26 --> 1843.70]  Let's go ahead and start with the losing team, which is team one.
+[1843.70 --> 1846.76]  And we'll start with Colby.
+[1847.02 --> 1849.74]  Which day of the week do you get the most coding done?
+[1849.80 --> 1851.78]  There are six potential answers.
+[1853.54 --> 1854.70]  Let's go with...
+[1855.48 --> 1858.06]  So it has to be because there's six and seven days.
+[1858.20 --> 1860.40]  So it's not the least, right?
+[1860.80 --> 1862.40]  So the second least.
+[1863.22 --> 1865.52]  Let's go with Saturday.
+[1865.52 --> 1868.88]  Show us Saturday.
+[1871.06 --> 1871.50]  Oh.
+[1871.70 --> 1872.44]  You managed to find the least.
+[1872.44 --> 1873.32]  So that's not even on the board.
+[1873.70 --> 1874.00]  Yeah.
+[1874.14 --> 1875.34]  I didn't even make the board.
+[1875.68 --> 1877.22]  You over-succeeded.
+[1877.28 --> 1878.78]  You over-achieved there, Colby.
+[1879.26 --> 1880.60]  You right off the board.
+[1880.60 --> 1880.84]  Come on.
+[1880.92 --> 1882.02]  Isn't that bonus points?
+[1882.42 --> 1884.34]  You found the one day that didn't even make it.
+[1886.00 --> 1886.54]  All right.
+[1886.54 --> 1887.94]  We now go to team two.
+[1888.94 --> 1891.98]  Let's go to Michael for a chance to score here.
+[1892.72 --> 1893.44]  Pick a day of the week.
+[1894.66 --> 1895.06]  Okay.
+[1895.56 --> 1898.22]  I'm going to go with Friday.
+[1900.72 --> 1901.24]  Friday.
+[1901.96 --> 1903.38]  Show us Friday.
+[1905.44 --> 1906.42]  Well played.
+[1906.56 --> 1910.00]  Number five answer, which is worth 25 points.
+[1910.66 --> 1911.82]  11 people said Friday.
+[1911.82 --> 1914.32]  It's the second least popular.
+[1914.64 --> 1915.90]  That's better than Saturday.
+[1917.54 --> 1918.40]  All right.
+[1918.52 --> 1919.58]  We go back now.
+[1919.66 --> 1920.70]  Let's score those here.
+[1921.30 --> 1923.18]  We go back to team one and Tara.
+[1923.18 --> 1925.72]  So I'll go with Sunday.
+[1927.02 --> 1929.04]  Show us Sunday.
+[1931.92 --> 1933.26]  The plot thickens.
+[1934.22 --> 1934.46]  What?
+[1935.58 --> 1936.96]  Sunday did not make the board.
+[1937.34 --> 1938.94]  So neither Saturday nor Sunday.
+[1938.94 --> 1939.84]  I guess these are people's responses, right?
+[1940.18 --> 1940.64]  These are people's responses.
+[1940.64 --> 1942.14]  So they don't have to be.
+[1942.70 --> 1942.94]  Yeah.
+[1943.58 --> 1945.58]  We go back now to team two.
+[1948.40 --> 1950.06]  I mean, we know dates are hard, right?
+[1950.20 --> 1950.42]  Yeah.
+[1950.46 --> 1951.42]  We struggle with these things.
+[1951.42 --> 1952.02]  Oh, man.
+[1957.46 --> 1957.96]  All right.
+[1958.00 --> 1958.78]  Back now to team two.
+[1958.84 --> 1959.48]  Let's go to Brandon.
+[1959.48 --> 1960.72]  Okay.
+[1961.98 --> 1963.42]  So the weekend isn't even on here.
+[1963.54 --> 1965.48]  I guess I'm going to go Monday.
+[1966.24 --> 1966.60]  Monday.
+[1967.26 --> 1968.04]  Show us Monday.
+[1969.76 --> 1970.36]  Very good.
+[1970.40 --> 1970.96]  Right in the middle.
+[1971.26 --> 1971.90]  Oh, okay.
+[1972.30 --> 1973.66]  20 points awarded.
+[1973.82 --> 1977.20]  You are fourth highest response with 12 responses.
+[1978.00 --> 1979.24]  We award those points to team two.
+[1979.30 --> 1980.12]  Go back to team one.
+[1980.20 --> 1981.14]  And now we are on Nick.
+[1982.30 --> 1982.66]  Hmm.
+[1983.22 --> 1987.26]  So there are not days of the week, but other answers in here.
+[1987.26 --> 1993.62]  I'm going to say meeting days.
+[1994.76 --> 1995.16]  Yeah.
+[1995.66 --> 1998.08]  Show us meeting days.
+[2000.58 --> 2001.82]  I like that guess.
+[2001.92 --> 2003.22]  Hey, this team is consistent.
+[2003.46 --> 2004.22]  I'll tell you that.
+[2004.48 --> 2005.90]  Think outside the box.
+[2006.74 --> 2007.42]  Very creative.
+[2007.54 --> 2008.42]  You'd be a good developer.
+[2009.98 --> 2010.52]  All right.
+[2010.56 --> 2011.12]  Let's go to Uriama.
+[2013.30 --> 2017.24]  I feel like this round makes absolutely no sense in my mind anymore.
+[2017.26 --> 2025.82]  I'm going to go with Wednesday because those are my no meeting days.
+[2025.96 --> 2027.96]  And I always have meetings on those days.
+[2028.54 --> 2028.84]  Hmm.
+[2029.48 --> 2032.14]  So which day of the week do you get the most coding done?
+[2032.22 --> 2033.42]  The guess is Wednesday.
+[2033.66 --> 2034.42]  Is it on the board?
+[2036.32 --> 2037.40]  It sure is.
+[2037.42 --> 2042.48]  It's the number two answer, meaning it's only worth 10 points, but yet still points.
+[2042.66 --> 2043.52]  So you'll take it, right?
+[2043.72 --> 2044.40]  We'll take it.
+[2045.02 --> 2046.12]  Award those to team two.
+[2046.12 --> 2047.28]  We go back to team one.
+[2048.04 --> 2049.12]  Colby's turn, right?
+[2050.14 --> 2051.56]  Let's go weekend.
+[2054.14 --> 2055.12]  Show us the weekend.
+[2059.36 --> 2060.54]  What's going on?
+[2060.58 --> 2063.68]  For a second there, I felt like Daniel Craig on Saturday Night Live when he says, ladies
+[2063.68 --> 2065.46]  and gentlemen, the weekend.
+[2067.46 --> 2068.44]  I'm nowhere near that.
+[2068.50 --> 2069.24]  That was a good guess, though.
+[2069.24 --> 2070.10]  I wouldn't hear the accent.
+[2070.20 --> 2070.46]  Sorry.
+[2070.70 --> 2073.36]  Team one, you guys are thinking outside the box.
+[2073.50 --> 2076.30]  You're creative answers, and you're just striking out left and right.
+[2077.46 --> 2081.84]  So team two tends to just pick days of the week, which is turning out to work pretty well.
+[2082.80 --> 2084.14]  Let's see if it plays out in the end.
+[2084.14 --> 2090.46]  And is it Michael's turn now?
+[2090.76 --> 2091.34]  I think so.
+[2091.58 --> 2092.12]  I think so.
+[2092.50 --> 2092.72]  Yeah.
+[2093.64 --> 2097.40]  You called out my strategy because I was just going to play it safe again and just pick
+[2097.40 --> 2098.32]  another day of the week.
+[2098.80 --> 2101.60]  I'm trying to figure out which one might be worth the most points.
+[2103.60 --> 2104.32]  I don't know.
+[2104.58 --> 2106.94]  Let's just go Thursday.
+[2107.84 --> 2108.58]  Show us Thursday.
+[2108.58 --> 2108.66]  Okay.
+[2110.62 --> 2113.10]  Number three answer is going to get you 15 points.
+[2113.56 --> 2117.08]  I'm amazed at how coordinated the not day of the week is.
+[2117.74 --> 2118.74]  This is amazing.
+[2121.28 --> 2122.82]  So team two scores 15.
+[2122.92 --> 2123.26]  There we go.
+[2123.32 --> 2124.12]  Back to team one.
+[2124.20 --> 2126.58]  Let me just draw a word picture for our listeners.
+[2126.92 --> 2128.80]  We have six options on the board.
+[2128.92 --> 2130.10]  Number one hasn't been guessed.
+[2130.22 --> 2131.48]  Number six hasn't been guessed.
+[2131.48 --> 2134.28]  What has been guessed is Wednesday, Thursday, Monday, Friday.
+[2135.16 --> 2137.90]  I'll also tell you that Saturday and Sunday have also been guessed.
+[2138.58 --> 2139.58]  As well as weekend.
+[2140.42 --> 2142.40]  So anything can happen at this point.
+[2143.16 --> 2144.06]  And it's Tara's turn.
+[2144.08 --> 2145.66]  I mean, part of me wants to say holiday.
+[2146.86 --> 2147.22]  Holiday.
+[2147.86 --> 2148.10]  Yeah.
+[2149.06 --> 2149.46]  Oh.
+[2149.70 --> 2154.80]  But I feel like I should also go against the grain of my team and guess an actual day.
+[2158.80 --> 2161.88]  If you do, we're going to steal holiday and win.
+[2163.26 --> 2164.16]  Such a rebel.
+[2164.36 --> 2164.70]  I know.
+[2164.86 --> 2165.02]  I know.
+[2165.02 --> 2173.52]  But let's say, let's try Tuesday.
+[2173.98 --> 2175.10]  Let's see what happens there.
+[2175.76 --> 2176.80]  Show us Tuesday.
+[2177.94 --> 2179.06]  Number one answer.
+[2179.60 --> 2185.16]  30 respondents find Tuesday to be when they get the most coding done, which puts it at only
+[2185.16 --> 2186.70]  five points because we're inverted.
+[2186.70 --> 2191.70]  But points nonetheless, we'll award those to team one and we'll go back to team two.
+[2192.80 --> 2193.58]  And Brandon is up.
+[2193.62 --> 2196.20]  There's only one last thing on the board.
+[2196.30 --> 2197.26]  Are you going to go for holiday?
+[2197.38 --> 2198.10]  What's going to happen here?
+[2198.78 --> 2201.78]  Literally every actual day of the week is out.
+[2202.80 --> 2208.28]  I'm going to maybe account for the self-deprecating answer here and say no days.
+[2208.52 --> 2208.66]  No.
+[2209.14 --> 2209.52]  None.
+[2209.52 --> 2210.00]  Oh.
+[2210.36 --> 2210.52]  Oh.
+[2210.52 --> 2210.86]  Oh.
+[2211.24 --> 2212.06]  Very interesting.
+[2212.30 --> 2212.54]  Manager.
+[2213.28 --> 2214.24]  That is not bad.
+[2216.40 --> 2216.92]  Oh.
+[2216.92 --> 2217.84]  Yeah.
+[2220.40 --> 2220.88]  Oh.
+[2221.18 --> 2225.00]  Let's see if our JS devs said they're productive no days.
+[2227.58 --> 2228.10]  Hmm.
+[2228.42 --> 2228.74]  Okay.
+[2230.10 --> 2230.60]  This is going.
+[2230.70 --> 2235.50]  So you know that Saturday and Sunday are supposed to be the strongest days because the rest are
+[2235.50 --> 2236.10]  weekdays.
+[2236.10 --> 2237.10]  Oh.
+[2238.86 --> 2239.78]  Well played.
+[2246.66 --> 2247.02]  Epic.
+[2247.34 --> 2249.04]  I believe we're at, I believe we're on Nick.
+[2249.10 --> 2249.76]  Is that right, Nick?
+[2249.78 --> 2250.62]  Are you ready for this?
+[2250.98 --> 2251.30]  Yeah.
+[2251.48 --> 2253.44]  And what else could there possibly be?
+[2254.12 --> 2254.64]  I don't know.
+[2254.64 --> 2255.80]  Wait, did somebody already guess holidays?
+[2256.68 --> 2259.42]  No, they just act like they're going to guess holidays, but they didn't.
+[2260.06 --> 2260.36]  Okay.
+[2260.42 --> 2261.28]  I mean, no one guessed Friday.
+[2261.28 --> 2261.56]  Okay.
+[2261.56 --> 2266.16]  No one said Black Friday either.
+[2266.28 --> 2266.46]  Yeah.
+[2268.28 --> 2275.06]  Let's do holidays and hope that if Black Friday is the day that it's generic enough.
+[2275.64 --> 2276.42]  Show us holidays.
+[2278.92 --> 2279.52]  Wow.
+[2279.66 --> 2280.42]  This is a stumper.
+[2281.24 --> 2282.78]  We're back to Uriama here.
+[2284.30 --> 2286.80]  And almost everything that could be guessed has been guessed.
+[2286.80 --> 2288.32]  Oh, man.
+[2291.24 --> 2291.60]  Oh.
+[2293.52 --> 2293.92]  Okay.
+[2294.04 --> 2294.38]  So there.
+[2294.52 --> 2298.66]  How many days are in a leap year doing those calculations?
+[2298.84 --> 2299.14]  Leap day?
+[2301.08 --> 2303.22]  Honestly, leap day might be it.
+[2305.30 --> 2307.32]  Try to get those smart asses out there.
+[2307.52 --> 2307.68]  Yeah.
+[2307.74 --> 2308.08]  Leap day.
+[2308.18 --> 2308.90]  Let's go for it.
+[2309.30 --> 2310.50]  Show us leap day.
+[2310.96 --> 2311.64]  We're with you.
+[2311.86 --> 2312.04]  Yeah.
+[2314.04 --> 2314.72]  I would have.
+[2314.80 --> 2315.88]  I would have given that one for you.
+[2316.80 --> 2319.68]  Well, in the sake of time, I will now provide a hint.
+[2319.82 --> 2323.74]  And because team one is getting absolutely destroyed, I'll provide it to Colby.
+[2324.90 --> 2328.50]  I would suggest guessing maybe, maybe pulling an inverted Brandon.
+[2329.80 --> 2331.24]  I was going to guess that anyway.
+[2331.36 --> 2332.02]  So every day.
+[2332.88 --> 2334.84]  Show us every day.
+[2335.16 --> 2337.70]  Oh, there it is.
+[2337.76 --> 2339.78]  Worth 30, 40 points.
+[2339.82 --> 2340.36]  You gave the hint.
+[2340.48 --> 2341.56]  So you took my credit.
+[2342.88 --> 2344.18]  Were you going to guess that anyways?
+[2344.68 --> 2345.14]  I was.
+[2345.14 --> 2345.90]  My bad.
+[2345.90 --> 2346.40]  My bad.
+[2346.52 --> 2347.56]  I should have given me a chance.
+[2348.38 --> 2352.64]  I like the nonsensical nature of every day being the day you get the most coding.
+[2352.68 --> 2354.14]  The most coding stuff.
+[2354.56 --> 2354.98]  Yeah.
+[2355.12 --> 2356.02]  All day, every day.
+[2356.62 --> 2357.84]  On an anonymous survey.
+[2358.30 --> 2358.44]  Yeah.
+[2358.44 --> 2359.92]  Every single day.
+[2360.78 --> 2361.92]  That is very programmer.
+[2363.22 --> 2364.42]  Yeah, it totally is.
+[2364.94 --> 2366.92]  Aren't those devs supposed to be good at logic?
+[2367.24 --> 2367.42]  Yeah.
+[2368.20 --> 2368.56]  Exactly.
+[2368.56 --> 2371.18]  All right.
+[2371.18 --> 2373.68]  So 30 points awarded the team one there.
+[2373.74 --> 2376.04]  That ends our inverted round.
+[2376.04 --> 2388.36]  This episode is brought to you by our friends at Fastly.
+[2388.36 --> 2390.90]  They're running an awesome promo on Compute at Edge.
+[2391.04 --> 2395.32]  They're inviting our entire listener base to move latency sensitive workloads to the edge.
+[2395.32 --> 2401.30]  Compute at Edge free for three months, plus up to $100,000 a month in credit for an additional six months.
+[2401.30 --> 2409.74]  This is a limited time offer, so head to Fastly.com slash podcast as soon as you can to check it out and get all the details.
+[2409.74 --> 2411.16]  Here's the TLDR.
+[2411.64 --> 2422.02]  Fastly's Edge Cloud Network and modern approach to serverless computing allows you to deploy and run complex logic at the edge with unparalleled security and blazing fast computational speed.
+[2422.36 --> 2429.56]  Scale instantly and globally, reduce origin load, get real-time observability, and get seamless integration with your existing tech stack.
+[2429.96 --> 2437.44]  Head to Fastly.com slash podcast to get Compute at Edge free for three months, plus up to $100,000 a month in credit for an additional six months.
+[2437.44 --> 2440.30]  Once again, Fastly.com slash podcast.
+[2467.44 --> 2470.82]  We now move to our final two rounds.
+[2470.94 --> 2475.36]  These are worth double points, and the teams get to decide who does the face-off.
+[2475.46 --> 2477.82]  So we will now go to round six.
+[2477.94 --> 2478.96]  It's worth double points.
+[2479.14 --> 2481.52]  And team one, who would you like to represent you in your face-off?
+[2484.00 --> 2486.76]  I say we stick with the luck of the Colby.
+[2487.26 --> 2488.76]  Okay, so Colby's on team one.
+[2488.82 --> 2489.46]  How about team two?
+[2489.52 --> 2490.52]  Who would like to face off?
+[2491.80 --> 2492.12]  Oh, boy.
+[2492.52 --> 2493.46]  I nominate Michael.
+[2493.46 --> 2500.92]  We have a nomination.
+[2500.92 --> 2503.40]  I should have spoke sooner.
+[2504.96 --> 2507.44]  We have a nomination, a second, and a oop.
+[2508.66 --> 2509.72]  So that's official.
+[2510.70 --> 2512.54]  Let's move to round six.
+[2513.34 --> 2514.36]  Gentlemen, step right up.
+[2514.36 --> 2523.74]  We asked 100 JavaScript developers, what's the first thing you do when your code doesn't work right?
+[2523.88 --> 2527.84]  Since team one is trailing, we'll let Colby guess first.
+[2528.80 --> 2532.86]  I feel like I could come up with a lot of smart answers for this, but console log.
+[2533.66 --> 2534.40]  Console log.
+[2534.60 --> 2536.34]  Show us console log.
+[2536.34 --> 2538.94]  Number one answer.
+[2539.16 --> 2539.52]  Ah!
+[2539.64 --> 2540.08]  Nice.
+[2540.38 --> 2540.78]  Whoa.
+[2540.90 --> 2543.34]  With 16 respondents, but it is the double round.
+[2543.44 --> 2548.86]  So that is worth 32 points, and Michael doesn't even get a chance, and your team takes the board.
+[2549.02 --> 2550.78]  So you're going to have to start in round six.
+[2551.38 --> 2552.20]  We now go to Tara.
+[2552.30 --> 2553.46]  There are five answers.
+[2553.66 --> 2556.66]  You've got number one, which means there's four remaining.
+[2556.86 --> 2560.12]  What is the first thing you do when your code doesn't work right?
+[2560.12 --> 2563.66]  Is dev tools too broad?
+[2564.82 --> 2566.06]  Like inspect?
+[2566.84 --> 2567.00]  Oh, wait.
+[2567.60 --> 2571.40]  I would say, that's a good question.
+[2571.56 --> 2573.18]  I would say yes.
+[2573.66 --> 2574.16]  Too broad.
+[2574.76 --> 2575.30]  Too broad.
+[2576.78 --> 2581.72]  But inspect the code with dev tools is also too broad?
+[2587.22 --> 2589.36]  Just throw it for the answer right now.
+[2589.36 --> 2590.02]  Yeah, yeah.
+[2590.12 --> 2591.78]  You've got to guess one at some point.
+[2592.08 --> 2594.70]  This is my communicative debugging.
+[2598.00 --> 2600.90]  You can guess that and find out.
+[2603.06 --> 2604.48]  That feels like a bait.
+[2608.36 --> 2612.08]  What about running a debugger in code?
+[2612.96 --> 2614.04]  It's like debug?
+[2614.92 --> 2615.36]  Debug.
+[2616.18 --> 2616.86]  Final answer?
+[2617.92 --> 2618.26]  Yeah.
+[2618.84 --> 2620.48]  Show me debug.
+[2623.42 --> 2624.48]  Number four answer.
+[2624.64 --> 2625.76]  Use the debugger.
+[2626.14 --> 2628.54]  11 respondents worth 22 points.
+[2629.34 --> 2630.48]  So you have one and four.
+[2630.76 --> 2631.74]  Two, three, and five remain.
+[2631.98 --> 2633.12]  And Nick, it is your turn.
+[2633.94 --> 2634.24]  All right.
+[2634.62 --> 2637.86]  So not the correct answer, but what the most people guessed.
+[2637.98 --> 2639.92]  I'm going to say you run the code again.
+[2639.92 --> 2642.88]  Refresh.
+[2644.30 --> 2644.86]  Hard refresh.
+[2644.86 --> 2647.14]  I did earlier when I refreshed the page.
+[2647.14 --> 2647.80]  Turn it off and back on again.
+[2647.80 --> 2649.10]  Turn it off and back on again.
+[2649.10 --> 2652.12]  Show us.
+[2652.38 --> 2653.24]  Rerun the code.
+[2655.64 --> 2655.96]  Yes.
+[2655.96 --> 2657.64]  Number two answer.
+[2658.44 --> 2661.02]  This includes refresh the page or rerun the code.
+[2661.70 --> 2664.28]  15 respondents, which gives you 30 points.
+[2664.36 --> 2665.90]  You're racking up the points in this round.
+[2666.28 --> 2667.58]  I finally got one right.
+[2667.58 --> 2670.34]  You haven't lost any lives yet.
+[2670.76 --> 2672.66]  We're back to Colby and there's three more things.
+[2672.80 --> 2673.72]  There's two more things.
+[2674.78 --> 2675.36]  Check tests.
+[2676.22 --> 2676.42]  Yeah.
+[2676.46 --> 2678.56]  Are we talking about the lazy coders or are we talking about?
+[2678.76 --> 2679.94]  Show me check tests.
+[2683.22 --> 2684.46]  I guess lazy coders.
+[2685.68 --> 2687.68]  Checking tests did not make the cut.
+[2688.14 --> 2690.82]  That's your first life lost.
+[2690.92 --> 2691.42]  Back to Tara.
+[2691.42 --> 2697.54]  See, like part of me would want to say you like rubber duck your coworkers, but we know
+[2697.54 --> 2702.08]  from the first respondents that nobody works in Tuleem's and collaborates.
+[2702.48 --> 2702.60]  No.
+[2704.68 --> 2706.54]  So that's the physical rubber duck, right?
+[2707.96 --> 2708.40]  Yes.
+[2708.70 --> 2708.94]  Yes.
+[2710.36 --> 2716.44]  So I guess I want to say, I want to go with the smart Alex and say like maybe like something
+[2716.44 --> 2717.38]  like cry.
+[2720.18 --> 2721.30]  That was going to be my guess.
+[2721.42 --> 2722.52]  Sobbing at the computer.
+[2723.52 --> 2723.74]  Yeah.
+[2724.12 --> 2726.64]  Wine, cry, and sob.
+[2726.84 --> 2726.94]  Yes.
+[2726.94 --> 2728.46]  Show us cry.
+[2730.88 --> 2736.12]  Number three answer, which includes swearing, crying, or sighing.
+[2736.50 --> 2738.46]  I like that more people cry than use the debugger.
+[2739.14 --> 2739.30]  Yeah.
+[2740.30 --> 2741.88]  Well, it's an order of operations thing, right?
+[2742.02 --> 2743.26]  The first thing you do is cry.
+[2743.36 --> 2744.40]  Then you use the debugger.
+[2744.40 --> 2744.72]  It's a lot easier to start crying.
+[2744.72 --> 2745.08]  Yeah.
+[2746.16 --> 2748.04]  The five stages of debugging.
+[2749.12 --> 2749.56]  Exactly.
+[2750.44 --> 2750.88]  Yeah.
+[2750.88 --> 2751.88]  Yeah.
+[2754.10 --> 2755.50]  Is number five all of the above?
+[2757.92 --> 2760.38]  Well, you do have numbers one through four correct.
+[2760.48 --> 2765.62]  You've lost only one life, which means you have two guesses to get that tricky fifth slot.
+[2766.80 --> 2768.72]  And it is now, is it Nick's turn?
+[2769.32 --> 2769.90]  Back to Nick?
+[2770.26 --> 2770.76]  Back to Nick.
+[2770.76 --> 2770.84]  Yeah.
+[2770.84 --> 2771.44]  Back to Nick.
+[2771.44 --> 2776.44]  Um, I am going to say that you check out or revert.
+[2776.44 --> 2777.44]  Show us revert.
+[2779.04 --> 2780.20]  Show us revert.
+[2782.60 --> 2785.76]  Oh, because that's the smart thing to do, huh?
+[2785.76 --> 2787.44]  I'm sorry.
+[2787.54 --> 2789.06]  That did not make the cut.
+[2789.26 --> 2790.14]  We now go to Colby.
+[2790.32 --> 2792.72]  You're down to your last guess.
+[2793.10 --> 2797.20]  So I'm trying to decide, because I was going to say delete the code, but would delete the
+[2797.20 --> 2800.24]  code be too similar to revert?
+[2800.48 --> 2801.76]  Because technically they're different, right?
+[2802.48 --> 2804.24]  I would just say they're probably too close.
+[2804.30 --> 2805.48]  You should fish elsewhere.
+[2806.28 --> 2806.86]  Well, thank you.
+[2807.54 --> 2808.42]  But keep fishing.
+[2808.42 --> 2808.68]  Yeah.
+[2808.68 --> 2811.32]  That was good fishy, though.
+[2813.48 --> 2813.88]  Comment.
+[2814.02 --> 2814.90]  Comment things out.
+[2816.50 --> 2818.44]  Show us comment things out.
+[2820.78 --> 2821.18]  Oh.
+[2821.78 --> 2822.04]  Yes.
+[2822.06 --> 2822.64]  Is that us?
+[2822.80 --> 2825.92]  That is your third lost life, which means it's now a chance to steal.
+[2826.24 --> 2826.72]  Team two.
+[2826.92 --> 2827.06]  Oh.
+[2827.60 --> 2828.76]  We know what it is.
+[2829.34 --> 2829.64]  Right?
+[2830.44 --> 2830.94]  What is it?
+[2831.86 --> 2832.04]  Is.
+[2832.32 --> 2833.12]  Oh, do we get to confer?
+[2833.54 --> 2834.26]  Yeah, you can confer.
+[2834.80 --> 2835.26]  Oh, yeah.
+[2835.70 --> 2835.94]  All right.
+[2835.94 --> 2839.54]  We know that there's people who said they write the most code every single day.
+[2839.96 --> 2844.16]  So are there people who would say that their code always works?
+[2845.22 --> 2845.64]  Wow.
+[2845.98 --> 2847.12]  I think there are.
+[2847.20 --> 2849.10]  I was thinking Google Stack Overflow.
+[2849.96 --> 2850.40]  Oh.
+[2850.72 --> 2851.48]  That's more reasonable.
+[2851.86 --> 2851.98]  Yeah.
+[2852.36 --> 2852.58]  Yeah.
+[2852.64 --> 2854.50]  That's a good one.
+[2855.44 --> 2856.32]  Is that your final answer?
+[2858.00 --> 2859.10]  I'd go with Googling.
+[2859.10 --> 2859.50]  Yeah.
+[2860.00 --> 2860.52]  Plus one.
+[2861.18 --> 2861.48]  All right.
+[2861.48 --> 2862.12]  Let's do it.
+[2862.56 --> 2863.56]  Google it for the steal.
+[2863.56 --> 2864.56]  Google.
+[2865.88 --> 2866.32]  What?
+[2866.62 --> 2866.78]  Whoa.
+[2868.04 --> 2868.92]  I'm sorry, team.
+[2869.10 --> 2869.64]  I'm sorry.
+[2870.56 --> 2870.98]  Oh, that.
+[2871.18 --> 2872.36]  I mean, that was a really.
+[2872.72 --> 2873.70]  That was a good guess.
+[2874.12 --> 2874.34]  Whoa.
+[2874.76 --> 2878.68]  Maybe that's like when they say they're the most productive code, that's where that falls
+[2878.68 --> 2880.60]  into is copying and pasting.
+[2881.06 --> 2882.68]  That's where we were.
+[2883.08 --> 2886.82]  I thought for sure the whole time I was like, just don't guess it because we got this.
+[2886.92 --> 2887.50]  But wow.
+[2887.80 --> 2888.06]  Wow.
+[2888.10 --> 2888.78]  That's rough.
+[2889.00 --> 2891.12]  It's got to be a smart aleck answer.
+[2891.26 --> 2893.02]  This is going to be where Sunday shows up.
+[2893.02 --> 2894.06]  It's just going to be like Sunday.
+[2894.48 --> 2894.62]  What?
+[2894.86 --> 2895.18]  Sunday.
+[2896.26 --> 2896.92]  The weekend.
+[2897.92 --> 2898.32]  The weekend.
+[2901.26 --> 2903.34]  I will say that this is a somewhat obvious one.
+[2903.38 --> 2906.92]  So I'm wondering if maybe somebody said it roundabout and I said it was wrong.
+[2906.92 --> 2914.92]  But the number five response with 10 people stating it was check the logs or check the error messages.
+[2915.90 --> 2916.12]  Oh.
+[2917.18 --> 2917.62]  Okay.
+[2917.88 --> 2918.72]  I don't think anybody said that.
+[2918.84 --> 2918.96]  Yeah.
+[2918.96 --> 2922.10]  Because that kind of falls in like dead tools.
+[2922.20 --> 2924.06]  I mean, debugging is kind of there.
+[2924.20 --> 2925.26]  Add a console log.
+[2925.56 --> 2927.86]  But they specifically would say like read the error.
+[2928.20 --> 2929.00]  Read the logs.
+[2929.10 --> 2929.78]  Read the error messages.
+[2930.68 --> 2931.94]  So I separated that one out.
+[2932.00 --> 2934.66]  A couple of funny answers when your code doesn't work right.
+[2934.74 --> 2935.94]  Somebody said ship it to prod.
+[2935.94 --> 2940.66]  So I guess don't hire that person.
+[2945.22 --> 2948.08]  One person said listen to a podcast about it, which we appreciate.
+[2948.18 --> 2949.60]  But is that really going to do any good?
+[2949.68 --> 2950.02]  I don't know.
+[2951.12 --> 2952.08]  One funny one.
+[2952.20 --> 2953.64]  Do a casual desk flip.
+[2953.84 --> 2954.78]  I thought, okay.
+[2955.26 --> 2956.26]  That's kind of like swearing.
+[2956.68 --> 2957.04]  Casual.
+[2957.26 --> 2958.84]  You know, like not the angry desk flip.
+[2959.00 --> 2959.56]  Just like the.
+[2960.04 --> 2960.96]  Just smooth and easy.
+[2960.96 --> 2962.76]  It's just two fingers.
+[2962.98 --> 2963.14]  Yeah.
+[2964.20 --> 2965.82]  Two finger desk flip.
+[2967.94 --> 2972.84]  And then, of course, Brandon was on the right track because two people said my code always works.
+[2973.66 --> 2973.90]  Oh.
+[2974.20 --> 2974.64]  Wow.
+[2974.90 --> 2975.14]  Wow.
+[2975.36 --> 2975.76]  Wow.
+[2976.26 --> 2979.28]  It's those are the ones that also answered lazy is the best trade.
+[2980.56 --> 2981.24]  For sure.
+[2981.24 --> 2985.06]  So after six rounds, we have a tight race.
+[2985.24 --> 2987.62]  Once again, the double points brought team one back.
+[2987.72 --> 2989.34]  You have 272 points.
+[2989.48 --> 2991.76]  Team two has 301 points.
+[2992.38 --> 2993.62]  So it's anybody's game.
+[2993.68 --> 2994.74]  We go into our final round.
+[2994.84 --> 2996.14]  This is double the scores.
+[2996.14 --> 2997.38]  Just like last time around.
+[2997.76 --> 3001.24]  Once again, you get to pick your contestants for the interface off.
+[3001.94 --> 3002.26]  Team one.
+[3002.32 --> 3002.92]  Who would you like?
+[3004.42 --> 3004.64]  Terry.
+[3004.86 --> 3005.34]  You're Ryma.
+[3006.16 --> 3006.80]  Oh, yeah.
+[3007.22 --> 3008.26]  If you're okay with it.
+[3008.30 --> 3009.10]  If you're okay with it.
+[3009.44 --> 3010.00]  I'll do it.
+[3010.00 --> 3010.68]  I'll do it.
+[3010.68 --> 3011.04]  For sure.
+[3011.28 --> 3011.84]  I'll step up.
+[3012.54 --> 3013.94]  You got the quick draw this time.
+[3014.04 --> 3015.80]  My team didn't ask me that.
+[3017.80 --> 3019.08]  Very considerate teammates.
+[3020.08 --> 3021.08]  Would you like to do it?
+[3022.50 --> 3023.50]  Will you be our captain?
+[3023.50 --> 3025.98]  All right.
+[3026.08 --> 3027.76]  Tara and Ryma step right up.
+[3029.54 --> 3032.12]  We will let Ryma guess first this time.
+[3032.40 --> 3034.56]  I feel like we need to do the virtual handshake.
+[3034.72 --> 3035.40]  Virtual handshake.
+[3035.54 --> 3035.66]  Yes.
+[3035.70 --> 3035.98]  Good luck.
+[3036.08 --> 3036.36]  Good luck.
+[3036.74 --> 3040.50]  Ryma, please name one thing that React devs commonly,
+[3040.68 --> 3041.42]  argue about.
+[3042.70 --> 3043.08]  Oh.
+[3046.46 --> 3048.48]  Functional versus class components.
+[3050.08 --> 3053.34]  Show us functional versus class components.
+[3055.62 --> 3057.96]  That was the number five answer.
+[3059.40 --> 3061.48]  With six respondents worth 12 points.
+[3061.48 --> 3063.42]  That does mean that Tara gets a chance to guess.
+[3064.92 --> 3069.48]  I'm so nervous because I've been out of the React realm for so long.
+[3070.40 --> 3074.80]  But is it still a debate about where CSS goes?
+[3075.56 --> 3077.76]  We're all still arguing about the same things.
+[3079.20 --> 3080.46]  It hasn't changed.
+[3080.46 --> 3080.92]  It hasn't changed.
+[3081.32 --> 3082.50]  It hasn't changed.
+[3082.76 --> 3085.14]  Show us where the CSS goes.
+[3085.14 --> 3088.30]  Number three answer.
+[3088.44 --> 3090.50]  CSS and JS and other such things.
+[3090.60 --> 3091.06]  That's a good one.
+[3091.52 --> 3094.18]  It's like the Freudian stages of a React developer.
+[3094.70 --> 3096.74]  You just get stuck in one forever.
+[3098.02 --> 3101.08]  So with that, Tara answered a higher response.
+[3101.22 --> 3103.02]  So team one takes the board.
+[3103.20 --> 3105.56]  And there are three responses still on the board.
+[3105.68 --> 3107.60]  One, two, and four.
+[3107.60 --> 3108.86]  So we go to team one.
+[3109.06 --> 3110.42]  And Nick, it is now your turn.
+[3110.76 --> 3113.00]  Name one thing that React devs commonly argue about.
+[3114.10 --> 3115.94]  I'm going to say the language.
+[3116.26 --> 3117.90]  Like TypeScript, JavaScript.
+[3119.08 --> 3120.50]  I knew you would say that.
+[3120.62 --> 3121.50]  Show us TypeScript.
+[3123.20 --> 3124.22]  Yes, of course.
+[3124.42 --> 3125.94]  TypeScript versus JavaScript.
+[3126.30 --> 3127.90]  Number two answer with 11 responses.
+[3129.18 --> 3129.60]  Okay.
+[3130.16 --> 3131.46]  The comeback continues.
+[3131.64 --> 3133.78]  Colby, you have one and four open.
+[3133.92 --> 3135.36]  You have all three of your lives left.
+[3135.36 --> 3137.20]  Name something that React devs argue about.
+[3138.18 --> 3138.60]  Hooks.
+[3139.42 --> 3140.22]  Show us hooks.
+[3143.00 --> 3143.56]  Whoa.
+[3144.22 --> 3144.78]  That's a good guess.
+[3145.46 --> 3148.58]  That one was definitely mentioned, but not five or more times.
+[3148.94 --> 3151.68]  So that's their first life lost.
+[3151.78 --> 3152.62]  We go back to Tara.
+[3153.68 --> 3162.98]  I want to be a smart tackle again and just like say that they're like arguing against each other that React is the best framework.
+[3162.98 --> 3168.48]  Like how bestest it is?
+[3170.44 --> 3171.80]  Every day the most.
+[3172.12 --> 3172.70]  Every day.
+[3175.88 --> 3176.28]  Gosh.
+[3176.28 --> 3176.82]  I guess.
+[3178.50 --> 3178.66]  I don't know.
+[3178.66 --> 3182.28]  Well, you have two lives to live, so you could definitely just throw one out there and hopefully you hit it.
+[3183.46 --> 3184.36]  Because then it's going to me.
+[3184.44 --> 3185.12]  I wouldn't do that.
+[3186.58 --> 3187.80]  I have faith in both of you.
+[3187.80 --> 3198.02]  And it's like I can't keep it broad like structure, like keeping like stateful stuff separate and like structure.
+[3198.42 --> 3199.90]  Yeah, there'll probably be components down.
+[3199.90 --> 3201.90]  I always have the most broad answers.
+[3202.84 --> 3203.08]  Yeah.
+[3203.22 --> 3205.18]  And then like naming conventions.
+[3209.80 --> 3210.70]  Let's see.
+[3213.40 --> 3214.36]  I'm sorry.
+[3214.58 --> 3220.08]  Let's say I feel like there's got to be a smart aleck one in here.
+[3220.92 --> 3223.80]  Like tabs versus spaces or something ridiculous.
+[3223.80 --> 3227.60]  Is syntax too broad too?
+[3229.08 --> 3229.60]  Yes.
+[3230.86 --> 3231.24]  Yes.
+[3233.28 --> 3234.78]  You mean the syntax podcast?
+[3237.18 --> 3238.24]  Way too broad.
+[3244.42 --> 3244.90]  Okay.
+[3245.06 --> 3245.32]  Sorry.
+[3245.80 --> 3246.04]  Let's.
+[3246.62 --> 3248.90]  I want to be a smart aleck and say that.
+[3248.90 --> 3254.00]  Let's just let's just say what what what.
+[3254.18 --> 3254.80]  Oh, gosh.
+[3254.88 --> 3255.30]  I'm sorry.
+[3255.56 --> 3255.80]  Okay.
+[3255.86 --> 3256.16]  We're going to.
+[3256.52 --> 3257.42]  You've said four.
+[3257.60 --> 3258.30]  I don't know why this is so stressful.
+[3258.72 --> 3259.24]  Let's just say.
+[3259.24 --> 3259.58]  We're all worth guessing.
+[3260.18 --> 3260.92]  Just pick one of those.
+[3260.94 --> 3264.98]  Let's say file naming conventions, like capitalizations or whatever.
+[3265.28 --> 3267.02]  Show us naming conventions.
+[3270.22 --> 3271.02]  Not quite.
+[3271.14 --> 3272.18]  Definitely had a couple of mentions.
+[3272.44 --> 3273.06]  That was a good one.
+[3273.58 --> 3275.94]  So you're down to your last guess and you're down to Nick Neesey.
+[3276.00 --> 3277.22]  And that's never a great place to be.
+[3277.38 --> 3277.40]  But.
+[3277.40 --> 3280.88]  This is this is what he's going to shine.
+[3280.98 --> 3282.00]  I don't know what you're talking about.
+[3282.04 --> 3283.44]  He's been waiting for his moment.
+[3284.12 --> 3285.34]  You drill that TypeScript one.
+[3285.86 --> 3287.42]  Nick lives for TypeScript answers.
+[3289.72 --> 3291.98]  Yeah, I am going.
+[3292.14 --> 3295.40]  I have two guesses, but I don't know which one is better.
+[3296.06 --> 3296.96]  Given the audience.
+[3297.10 --> 3298.74]  Given the respondent audience.
+[3298.74 --> 3299.34]  Mm hmm.
+[3300.02 --> 3303.92]  I will say state management.
+[3303.92 --> 3307.78]  Show us state management.
+[3309.34 --> 3310.42]  Number one answer.
+[3310.60 --> 3311.00]  Yes.
+[3313.54 --> 3315.16]  Right when I disrespect you.
+[3316.54 --> 3319.82]  Just do that more, Jared.
+[3320.10 --> 3321.38]  Every time he goes to answer.
+[3324.38 --> 3325.38]  Well, we're back to Colby.
+[3325.52 --> 3327.40]  If you have that other answer, I'll take that.
+[3327.40 --> 3330.80]  Colby, you have one life to live.
+[3332.12 --> 3333.52]  Let's go with performance.
+[3335.82 --> 3337.82]  This would be for the winning of the entire game.
+[3338.14 --> 3338.80]  Show us performance.
+[3338.80 --> 3342.68]  I'm sorry.
+[3342.88 --> 3346.24]  It was not on the list, which means team two has a chance to steal.
+[3346.34 --> 3347.54]  There is one answer left.
+[3347.60 --> 3348.36]  Number four.
+[3349.10 --> 3350.70]  Team two can confer amongst yourselves.
+[3351.34 --> 3353.84]  What's one thing that react devs commonly argue about?
+[3354.38 --> 3355.32]  What are some things you're thinking?
+[3356.08 --> 3356.88]  Just shout them out.
+[3357.32 --> 3358.06]  File structure.
+[3358.94 --> 3359.34]  JSX.
+[3359.54 --> 3361.16]  Some people don't like JSX.
+[3361.16 --> 3363.26]  Oh, that is a good one.
+[3363.36 --> 3363.62]  Yeah.
+[3363.70 --> 3363.92]  Yeah.
+[3364.34 --> 3364.74]  Yeah.
+[3364.74 --> 3366.32]  I was thinking like suffixes too.
+[3366.44 --> 3367.70]  Like we were talking about earlier.
+[3368.54 --> 3371.74]  Linting also were two that I was thinking about.
+[3372.02 --> 3372.28]  Okay.
+[3372.28 --> 3373.50]  Linting rules or whatnot.
+[3375.70 --> 3376.14]  Man.
+[3377.66 --> 3379.48]  Go super broad and say Facebook.
+[3381.10 --> 3381.54]  Oh.
+[3382.40 --> 3382.84]  Yeah.
+[3382.88 --> 3383.60]  Like licensing.
+[3383.98 --> 3385.14]  That's actually a pretty good point.
+[3385.50 --> 3385.80]  Yeah.
+[3386.02 --> 3386.32]  That's a.
+[3386.78 --> 3387.22]  Yeah.
+[3387.28 --> 3387.90]  That's great.
+[3389.30 --> 3389.72]  Yeah.
+[3391.16 --> 3393.98]  I mean, do react devs even argue that much?
+[3394.08 --> 3394.96]  Is that really a thing?
+[3395.32 --> 3395.68]  Never.
+[3397.18 --> 3398.04]  Don't get along.
+[3398.40 --> 3398.94]  Not ever.
+[3399.30 --> 3401.52]  I really do like the idea of governance.
+[3401.52 --> 3403.24]  That is a really interesting.
+[3404.88 --> 3405.32]  Concept.
+[3405.96 --> 3407.36]  You know, like the Facebook relationship.
+[3407.80 --> 3410.00]  You know, there's a bunch of licensing stuff.
+[3411.38 --> 3412.04]  Oh, that's tough.
+[3412.42 --> 3413.18]  I don't know.
+[3413.30 --> 3415.10]  I could go any any one of these ways.
+[3417.04 --> 3417.32]  Good.
+[3418.12 --> 3418.98]  What do you think, Brandon?
+[3420.28 --> 3420.72]  I mean.
+[3420.72 --> 3426.48]  I think the licensing stuff is maybe not like a popular point of, you know, contention for most people.
+[3427.18 --> 3430.26]  And like when they relicensed years ago, it's kind of faded.
+[3430.94 --> 3431.70]  I don't know.
+[3431.82 --> 3432.56]  I could do linting.
+[3432.66 --> 3432.94]  We could do.
+[3433.04 --> 3435.36]  I think JSX is just very controversial.
+[3435.80 --> 3439.10]  So there'll always be people who are talking about it.
+[3439.16 --> 3441.82]  But gosh, I don't know.
+[3441.96 --> 3443.60]  Jared has such a good poker face, too.
+[3443.94 --> 3444.80]  We're getting no.
+[3444.80 --> 3446.90]  I will remind you that the game is on the line.
+[3447.94 --> 3448.30]  God.
+[3448.86 --> 3449.96]  Yeah, this is really heavy.
+[3449.96 --> 3450.84]  I'm just enjoying this.
+[3450.84 --> 3451.00]  Oh, man.
+[3451.58 --> 3451.80]  Yeah.
+[3451.88 --> 3452.88]  I'm just enjoying the drama.
+[3454.02 --> 3454.32]  So, you know.
+[3454.32 --> 3461.16]  I think Tara had guessed like file structure or something along that vein.
+[3461.26 --> 3464.12]  Probably something close enough that or someone on team one.
+[3464.44 --> 3465.90]  She landed on naming conventions.
+[3466.24 --> 3466.94]  Oh, naming conventions.
+[3466.94 --> 3467.64]  Naming conventions.
+[3467.92 --> 3468.04]  Naming conventions.
+[3468.04 --> 3470.42]  I really love how analytical you're being with the notes.
+[3470.58 --> 3470.74]  It's.
+[3472.70 --> 3474.14]  Michael literally has notes.
+[3474.14 --> 3476.18]  He's got a whole flow chart over there.
+[3476.50 --> 3477.10]  That's actually.
+[3478.66 --> 3480.10]  He's looked up our backgrounds.
+[3480.40 --> 3481.50]  He has our whole link.
+[3481.82 --> 3483.42]  Red string connecting theories together.
+[3485.00 --> 3486.34]  I do like.
+[3486.56 --> 3487.90]  If we think it's different enough.
+[3487.90 --> 3491.76]  I do like the file system organization.
+[3492.18 --> 3493.70]  If we think it's different enough.
+[3498.90 --> 3501.04]  They feel close to me.
+[3501.20 --> 3502.24]  They do feel close.
+[3502.62 --> 3503.10]  Close.
+[3503.62 --> 3503.86]  Yeah.
+[3504.14 --> 3505.18]  Do you have any others?
+[3506.58 --> 3508.00]  Well, I feel like that was a hint.
+[3508.88 --> 3510.18]  No, I just want to know.
+[3511.90 --> 3515.32]  Well, I did give Tara and Colby some pretty sweet hints throughout.
+[3515.54 --> 3515.66]  So.
+[3515.96 --> 3517.06]  He just confirmed it's a hint.
+[3517.30 --> 3518.14]  Maybe a little bit of a.
+[3518.16 --> 3519.64]  Maybe a little bit of a bone there.
+[3520.40 --> 3520.60]  Yeah.
+[3520.60 --> 3522.00]  I think those two are pretty close together.
+[3522.62 --> 3522.94]  Okay.
+[3524.82 --> 3525.22]  Routing.
+[3525.70 --> 3526.10]  Routing.
+[3526.24 --> 3526.92]  I don't know.
+[3528.14 --> 3528.28]  Yeah.
+[3528.28 --> 3530.96]  I guess React router is pretty much the answer, but.
+[3532.50 --> 3533.94]  People still argue about it.
+[3534.14 --> 3535.38]  I wonder.
+[3535.38 --> 3535.40]  I wonder.
+[3535.66 --> 3537.14]  A testing library.
+[3539.56 --> 3540.56]  Ways to test.
+[3541.50 --> 3541.78]  Yeah.
+[3542.00 --> 3542.34]  Yep.
+[3542.64 --> 3543.24]  That could be in.
+[3543.36 --> 3543.98]  Oh, that is.
+[3544.52 --> 3544.62]  Yeah.
+[3544.62 --> 3545.86]  Like the whole like enzyme.
+[3546.56 --> 3547.82]  React testing library.
+[3548.16 --> 3548.26]  Yeah.
+[3548.28 --> 3548.92]  That could be there.
+[3548.92 --> 3552.76]  I wonder if there's like a react react native.
+[3554.42 --> 3554.90]  Hmm.
+[3555.24 --> 3555.84]  I don't know.
+[3556.06 --> 3556.80]  I'm at a loss.
+[3557.28 --> 3558.36]  The stakes are too high.
+[3558.42 --> 3559.20]  I'm freaking out.
+[3559.30 --> 3559.78]  They're so high.
+[3560.02 --> 3560.56]  Freaking out.
+[3560.72 --> 3561.56]  Are on the line here.
+[3562.00 --> 3562.80]  This is true.
+[3562.80 --> 3566.44]  I need this.
+[3566.54 --> 3566.78]  Such a good guess.
+[3568.22 --> 3568.72]  All right.
+[3568.74 --> 3569.80]  We're going to have to land somewhere.
+[3571.08 --> 3571.62]  All right.
+[3571.66 --> 3574.24]  Does anyone have any strong feelings towards one of those?
+[3574.44 --> 3575.60]  I'm like so in the middle.
+[3576.16 --> 3579.34]  Testing feels like a safe potential answer.
+[3579.56 --> 3580.96]  Testing feels safe-ish.
+[3581.30 --> 3581.46]  Yeah.
+[3581.58 --> 3582.14]  I like that.
+[3582.34 --> 3582.86]  Safe-ish.
+[3582.98 --> 3583.54]  Let's print it.
+[3583.68 --> 3584.40]  Let's just do it.
+[3584.80 --> 3585.22]  Ship it.
+[3585.22 --> 3587.38]  All right.
+[3587.80 --> 3589.28]  Just to set the stage.
+[3590.04 --> 3591.60]  The score is team 1, 272.
+[3591.72 --> 3593.18]  Team 2, 301.
+[3593.94 --> 3595.82]  There are 82 points scored already this round.
+[3595.88 --> 3597.04]  So whoever wins this round wins.
+[3597.92 --> 3600.92]  And if you steal this, you steal the entire round and all points.
+[3601.04 --> 3602.14]  This is the number four answer.
+[3602.28 --> 3603.52]  You guessed testing.
+[3604.32 --> 3605.28]  The suspense.
+[3606.08 --> 3607.28]  Is it on the board?
+[3607.44 --> 3608.06]  Show us testing.
+[3610.54 --> 3610.98]  Oh!
+[3611.30 --> 3611.66]  Oh!
+[3612.78 --> 3613.26]  Oh, no!
+[3615.22 --> 3615.70]  Oh!
+[3618.70 --> 3619.18]  Wow.
+[3619.38 --> 3623.32]  I feel so bad for your sound editor because my chair is really squeaky and I've just been like,
+[3623.66 --> 3624.80]  Oh, buddy.
+[3627.34 --> 3629.64]  Unfortunately, I'm also our sound editor, so.
+[3631.36 --> 3633.26]  Appreciate your empathy.
+[3633.84 --> 3636.56]  Well, team 1, congratulations.
+[3637.00 --> 3640.32]  After all that, you win with 354 points.
+[3640.70 --> 3641.44]  The underdog wins.
+[3641.44 --> 3641.82]  Not from behind.
+[3642.32 --> 3642.52]  Wow.
+[3642.84 --> 3643.12]  Wow.
+[3645.22 --> 3648.26]  It starts with thievery.
+[3648.66 --> 3649.72]  That's how you win it.
+[3652.24 --> 3653.66]  That's how you get ahead in life.
+[3654.18 --> 3655.32]  Great developers steal.
+[3655.52 --> 3660.56]  I had to be a little bit tickled as you guys were discussing these various steals because
+[3660.56 --> 3666.14]  it turns out Tara had landed on it, smart Alex style, earlier on and then quickly dismissed it.
+[3666.22 --> 3668.48]  The number four answer, tabs versus spaces.
+[3668.98 --> 3669.34]  Oh!
+[3671.34 --> 3671.78]  Man.
+[3672.36 --> 3674.00]  Oh, my gosh.
+[3674.14 --> 3674.74]  That's ridiculous.
+[3675.08 --> 3676.50]  Why is that still an argument?
+[3676.68 --> 3677.74]  It's obviously spaces.
+[3679.18 --> 3679.72]  Oh, wow.
+[3679.94 --> 3680.60]  Oh, wow.
+[3680.70 --> 3681.24]  You went there.
+[3681.76 --> 3683.18]  How much time do we have left?
+[3683.36 --> 3684.74]  Might I introduce you to Nick Macy?
+[3686.10 --> 3686.46]  Wow.
+[3686.46 --> 3688.88]  We'll fall on the other side of that and on the wrong side of the fence.
+[3688.88 --> 3689.76]  You just made it personal.
+[3690.04 --> 3691.16]  It was a joke before.
+[3691.32 --> 3691.56]  Oh, no.
+[3692.96 --> 3694.04]  We just win.
+[3696.08 --> 3697.74]  So, team 1, you guys win.
+[3697.90 --> 3700.40]  That means you get to do shout outs.
+[3700.76 --> 3705.12]  So, all three of you each get an opportunity to shout out anything that you would like.
+[3705.42 --> 3706.56]  It cannot be TypeScript.
+[3706.76 --> 3707.64]  Nick, you are up.
+[3708.00 --> 3708.94]  What would you like to shout out?
+[3708.94 --> 3712.80]  Well, I already shouted out Liquid Aminos at the beginning, so...
+[3712.80 --> 3717.72]  I prefer mine solid, but whatever.
+[3720.24 --> 3720.86]  Let's see.
+[3721.98 --> 3724.80]  I'm going to shout out the...
+[3728.80 --> 3730.44]  You want us to come back?
+[3730.94 --> 3731.74]  Yeah, please.
+[3731.84 --> 3732.22]  All right.
+[3732.68 --> 3734.02]  Colby, give us a shout out.
+[3734.90 --> 3737.42]  How about Tara start so I can hear what other people say first?
+[3737.42 --> 3739.48]  Nobody even wants to shout out.
+[3739.52 --> 3740.90]  Yeah, I'm going to have to give us a team too.
+[3740.90 --> 3741.80]  We'll take them.
+[3742.96 --> 3744.42]  It's like the worst prize ever.
+[3744.56 --> 3746.02]  They're like, I can't think of anything.
+[3746.48 --> 3748.02]  Tara, do you have anything to shout out?
+[3748.06 --> 3749.12]  It could be literally anything.
+[3749.36 --> 3753.26]  I have lots of things to shout out, but I will limit it to something productive.
+[3754.76 --> 3760.82]  And go with one of my favorite things in the world right now is our podcast for all
+[3760.82 --> 3763.76]  you podcast fans out there called Remotely Interesting.
+[3764.38 --> 3766.04]  RemotelyInteresting.netlify.com.
+[3766.04 --> 3771.74]  We basically make complete fools of ourselves and have a good time doing it and laugh a
+[3771.74 --> 3773.20]  lot and it's kind of ridiculous.
+[3774.14 --> 3777.88]  But I highly recommend checking it out for all you lazy devs out there.
+[3778.22 --> 3779.04]  There you go.
+[3779.24 --> 3779.82]  Good shout out.
+[3780.08 --> 3781.60]  Remotely Interesting.
+[3782.60 --> 3783.92]  Well, she stalled as long as she could.
+[3784.02 --> 3785.12]  Does either of you have a shout out?
+[3785.12 --> 3787.12]  Colby?
+[3791.12 --> 3791.64]  Colby?
+[3792.58 --> 3794.38]  I can stall so much more.
+[3795.24 --> 3797.30]  Check me out on YouTube at Colby Fayok.
+[3797.66 --> 3798.34]  There you go.
+[3798.62 --> 3798.96]  Nice.
+[3799.46 --> 3799.88]  Thank you.
+[3801.04 --> 3802.64]  Nick would like to shout out Tabs.
+[3803.64 --> 3804.42]  That's true.
+[3804.42 --> 3812.88]  Because state management was the last or the number one pick in the last round.
+[3813.02 --> 3814.16]  I will say XState.
+[3814.58 --> 3815.58]  I'm going to shout out XState.
+[3815.86 --> 3816.34]  It's awesome.
+[3816.48 --> 3817.06]  Go check it out.
+[3818.12 --> 3823.80]  And I will add my amen to that by saying, check out the episode that Nick did off JS
+[3823.80 --> 3825.02]  Party on XState.
+[3825.72 --> 3827.76]  It's called X Gonna State It To Ya.
+[3828.62 --> 3830.98]  And Nick also came up with that name.
+[3831.66 --> 3835.92]  Stick around at the end of that episode for a little bit of an Easter egg where you might
+[3835.92 --> 3839.22]  get some DMX mixed in with some other interesting sounds.
+[3839.34 --> 3839.60]  All right.
+[3839.74 --> 3839.90]  So.
+[3840.10 --> 3841.04]  Oh my gosh.
+[3841.44 --> 3843.28]  Piling on to the shout outs there.
+[3843.34 --> 3847.94]  Well, I want to shout out to React Advance for inviting us to play this game as part of
+[3847.94 --> 3848.54]  the after party.
+[3849.08 --> 3853.54]  Hopefully all y'all had as much fun listening and participating as we had playing.
+[3853.54 --> 3855.84]  Thank you to each and every person who took the survey.
+[3856.22 --> 3859.38]  One of you will be receiving a free JS Party t-shirt.
+[3859.64 --> 3862.46]  So we'll follow up via email with that person.
+[3862.70 --> 3865.78]  That means 99 of you will not win a JS Party t-shirt.
+[3865.96 --> 3866.78]  But have no fear.
+[3867.34 --> 3871.26]  You can always head to jsparty.fm slash merch and just pick one up for yourself.
+[3871.78 --> 3873.10]  They are very comfy.
+[3873.70 --> 3877.64]  And you can rep our podcast out there in IRL, in the meet spaces.
+[3878.14 --> 3880.62]  Also just wanted to thank everybody for playing the game.
+[3880.90 --> 3882.24]  This has been Front End Feud.
+[3882.24 --> 3883.42]  I have been Jared Santo.
+[3884.12 --> 3885.32]  And we'll talk to you all next time.
+[3886.54 --> 3887.40]  Thank you.
+[3887.50 --> 3888.18]  Thanks y'all.
+[3888.42 --> 3888.86]  Thanks.
+[3889.06 --> 3889.46]  Bye.
+[3894.26 --> 3899.08]  This is our fourth edition of the Front End Feud game, but it won't be our last.
+[3899.80 --> 3903.82]  For more like this, head to jsparty.fm and search for Front End Feud.
+[3904.12 --> 3905.32]  You'll find lots of goodies there.
+[3905.84 --> 3909.54]  You have just listened to the final episode of JS Party in 2021.
+[3909.54 --> 3913.62]  We always take a couple weeks off at the end of each year for a hard refresh.
+[3914.12 --> 3914.96]  But don't worry.
+[3915.06 --> 3917.72]  We have lots of awesomeness headed your way on the other side.
+[3918.10 --> 3923.28]  That includes our New Year's episode where we will introduce a brand new regular panelist.
+[3923.28 --> 3925.82]  Thanks for putting us in your ear holes this year.
+[3926.06 --> 3930.22]  We know how precious your time is, and we love that you choose to spend some of it with us.
+[3931.14 --> 3933.00]  JS Party is produced by Jared Santo.
+[3933.36 --> 3937.50]  That's me with music provided by the mysterious Breakmaster Cylinder.
+[3937.74 --> 3938.46]  And that's not me.
+[3938.46 --> 3940.40]  We are brought to you by some awesome partners.
+[3940.80 --> 3943.52]  Thanks again to Fastly, LaunchDarkly, and Linode.
+[3943.96 --> 3945.14]  That's all for this time.
+[3945.36 --> 3947.00]  We'll talk to you again next year.
+[3953.18 --> 3955.70]  JavaScript security model is based.
diff --git "a/Frontend Feud\357\274\232 ShopTalk vs Syntax_transcript.txt" "b/Frontend Feud\357\274\232 ShopTalk vs Syntax_transcript.txt"
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3e53a2553b5b6b18f471a71cef1ae899d00676da
--- /dev/null
+++ "b/Frontend Feud\357\274\232 ShopTalk vs Syntax_transcript.txt"	
@@ -0,0 +1,1782 @@
+[0.00 --> 3.28]  Please hold. Your feud is important to us.
+[8.74 --> 12.16]  Big thanks to our partners, Linode, Fastly, and LaunchDarkly.
+[12.56 --> 15.02]  We love Linode. They keep it fast and simple.
+[15.34 --> 18.20]  Get $100 in credit at Linode.com slash changelog.
+[18.52 --> 20.72]  Our bandwidth is provided by Fastly.
+[20.86 --> 22.64]  Learn more at Fastly.com.
+[22.96 --> 25.12]  And get your feature flags powered by LaunchDarkly.
+[25.28 --> 27.38]  Get a demo at LaunchDarkly.com.
+[27.38 --> 32.90]  More and more startups are using Retool to focus their time on their core product.
+[32.90 --> 35.58]  And that's exactly why they launched Retool for Startups.
+[35.96 --> 38.72]  This is a program that gives early stage founders free access
+[38.72 --> 41.68]  to a lot of the software needed for great internal tooling.
+[42.08 --> 43.68]  And Retool has worked with thousands of startups.
+[44.00 --> 46.20]  And the trend line they noticed was technical founders
+[46.20 --> 48.86]  spending tons of time building internal tools.
+[49.26 --> 51.16]  That means at this critical stage,
+[51.44 --> 53.78]  these founders were distracted from their core product.
+[54.14 --> 55.00]  The goal is simple.
+[55.00 --> 57.78]  Make it 10 times faster to build the admin panels,
+[58.02 --> 61.18]  CRUD apps, and the dashboards most early stage teams need.
+[61.60 --> 64.36]  And Retool has bundled together a year of free access to Retool
+[64.36 --> 68.64]  with over $160,000 in partner discounts to save you money
+[68.64 --> 71.62]  while building Retool apps with common integrations like AWS,
+[72.20 --> 74.40]  MongoDB, Brex, and Segment.
+[74.78 --> 76.28]  There is so much you can do with Retool.
+[76.56 --> 78.78]  You can use these free credits to build tools that join product
+[78.78 --> 80.88]  and building data into a single customer view.
+[80.88 --> 85.14]  Tools that convert manual workflows into fully featured apps for your team.
+[85.44 --> 88.64]  Or tools that help non-technical teammates get access to your database
+[88.64 --> 91.04]  to read and write data, analyze, and query.
+[91.34 --> 92.68]  These are just a few examples.
+[93.24 --> 97.56]  Learn more, apply, and join Lightning Demos at retool.com slash startups.
+[97.90 --> 99.72]  Again, retool.com slash startups.
+[99.72 --> 129.70]  Thank you for calling.
+[129.70 --> 130.84]  Please hold.
+[131.18 --> 133.52]  Your feud is important to us.
+[139.70 --> 145.28]  This is JS Party, your weekly celebration of JavaScript and the web.
+[145.60 --> 150.62]  Check out our back catalog at jsparty.fm and subscribe today.
+[150.90 --> 151.98]  Okay, let's do this.
+[152.16 --> 152.92]  It's feud time, y'all.
+[152.92 --> 160.34]  It's time to play Front End Feud.
+[160.34 --> 165.00]  Hello there, and welcome to Front End Feud.
+[165.08 --> 167.52]  I am Jared Santo, your host for today.
+[167.76 --> 170.58]  It has been a while since we played this game,
+[170.66 --> 172.60]  but we are happy to be here today,
+[172.60 --> 174.82]  and we have a podcast super collab.
+[175.02 --> 176.28]  We got together some of our friends
+[176.28 --> 179.54]  from some of our favorite web dev podcasts in this space.
+[179.62 --> 180.96]  I'm sure you've heard of them,
+[181.46 --> 185.34]  and it is going to be Team Syntax versus Team Shop Talk.
+[185.34 --> 185.80]  Hey, everybody.
+[185.96 --> 186.92]  Welcome to Front End Feud.
+[187.40 --> 187.70]  Hey.
+[188.16 --> 189.10]  Ooh, yeah.
+[190.92 --> 195.66]  Now we wanted to give it a little JS Party flavor,
+[195.82 --> 196.62]  so we've mixed in,
+[196.68 --> 200.26]  we've sprinkled in some JS Party panelists onto each team.
+[200.38 --> 202.86]  And so joining Team Shop Talk,
+[203.16 --> 204.62]  which is Chris Coyer and Dave Rupert,
+[204.72 --> 206.10]  is Amelia Wattenberger.
+[206.26 --> 208.46]  So, Amelia, you are on Team Shop Talk.
+[208.50 --> 208.82]  What do you think?
+[209.16 --> 209.74]  I love it.
+[210.10 --> 210.74]  We're going to win.
+[211.46 --> 212.34]  Oh, absolutely.
+[212.62 --> 215.22]  Good answer, good answer, good answer, good answer.
+[215.22 --> 216.00]  There's no chance.
+[216.22 --> 218.70]  And joining Team Syntax,
+[218.78 --> 220.08]  which is West Boston Scott Talinsky,
+[220.30 --> 221.14]  is Divya.
+[221.36 --> 222.74]  Divya, welcome to Syntax.
+[223.02 --> 223.72]  Hey, hey.
+[223.92 --> 224.76]  Whoop, whoop.
+[224.76 --> 225.58]  Best team.
+[225.78 --> 226.46]  Best team.
+[226.78 --> 229.12]  Divya is an old pro at Front End Feud,
+[229.16 --> 231.38]  but I believe the rest of us are all new,
+[231.48 --> 231.96]  even Amelia.
+[232.56 --> 233.66]  So we should have a lot of fun.
+[233.66 --> 235.34]  I'll quickly explain the rules.
+[235.56 --> 238.92]  So this is a game all about the JS Party.
+[238.92 --> 240.32]  The lovely listeners,
+[240.56 --> 244.98]  we had 140 people fill out our Front End Feud survey.
+[245.10 --> 246.54]  We appreciate you all for doing that.
+[247.24 --> 248.28]  I really appreciate you,
+[248.30 --> 249.78]  because I went back to the form at the end
+[249.78 --> 252.58]  and realized the average take time was 37 minutes.
+[252.68 --> 253.50]  I am so sorry.
+[253.64 --> 254.54]  That thing took forever.
+[255.18 --> 257.16]  And that's because we asked 25 questions,
+[257.16 --> 258.40]  so we can play the game a few times
+[258.40 --> 260.00]  without having to go back and do more surveys.
+[260.16 --> 262.96]  So super appreciate all y'all for filling those out.
+[262.96 --> 266.48]  The goal of the game is to match our listeners' answers.
+[266.48 --> 268.28]  So we have pulled them on different things,
+[268.28 --> 271.62]  and each team is going to try to match the answer
+[271.62 --> 273.36]  with the most answered from the survey.
+[274.42 --> 276.82]  And as you go about doing that, you win points.
+[277.14 --> 279.26]  If you fail to do that three times in a round,
+[279.46 --> 281.08]  the other team can steal,
+[281.22 --> 285.06]  and the team with the most points at the end of the game wins.
+[285.44 --> 286.02]  Any questions?
+[286.90 --> 287.12]  Yeah.
+[287.24 --> 289.06]  It's not the most correct answer, right?
+[289.08 --> 289.42]  It's not.
+[289.54 --> 291.66]  It's like I used to play apples to apples
+[291.66 --> 293.34]  with my super pedantic uncle,
+[293.34 --> 294.16]  and he's always like,
+[294.26 --> 295.40]  but my answer's more correct.
+[295.40 --> 298.18]  And you're like, Dennis, it's not about correctness.
+[298.98 --> 300.18]  Such a Dennis move.
+[300.50 --> 301.32]  That's exactly right.
+[301.38 --> 303.52]  In fact, many of our questions are subjective,
+[303.52 --> 305.58]  so it's according to the people's tastes
+[305.58 --> 306.40]  or what they think,
+[306.48 --> 307.72]  and so there really aren't right answers.
+[307.82 --> 310.50]  The right answers are the ones that the most people said.
+[311.14 --> 313.74]  So we will start off with a face-off.
+[313.92 --> 316.88]  This is where two contestants step forward virtually
+[316.88 --> 319.44]  and get a chance to answer first.
+[319.56 --> 322.04]  The person who gets the highest answer on the board
+[322.04 --> 323.74]  takes that board for their team,
+[323.80 --> 326.24]  and their team participates in that round.
+[326.38 --> 327.14]  So ladies first,
+[327.22 --> 329.28]  we will have Amelia and Divya.
+[329.42 --> 330.32]  Please step right up.
+[332.74 --> 333.32]  Round one.
+[333.42 --> 334.12]  We'll start with Amelia.
+[334.28 --> 336.06]  Amelia, if you get the highest answer,
+[336.22 --> 337.18]  you immediately take the board.
+[337.24 --> 338.18]  If you don't get the highest answer,
+[338.26 --> 339.54]  Divya gets a chance to take it.
+[340.34 --> 343.56]  We asked 140 lovely JS Party listeners,
+[343.56 --> 345.90]  what is your primary web browser?
+[346.78 --> 347.74]  Oh, no pressure.
+[348.64 --> 350.16]  I'm going to go with Chrome.
+[351.46 --> 353.78]  Good answer, good answer, good answer, good answer.
+[353.78 --> 357.24]  Number one answer with 52 responses.
+[357.96 --> 361.94]  So that means Team Shop Talk is on the board.
+[362.10 --> 364.14]  So we will now go in order.
+[364.62 --> 365.94]  You can keep guessing.
+[366.10 --> 368.74]  There are six browsers in the list.
+[368.84 --> 370.54]  So you have to match all six to take the board.
+[370.54 --> 374.06]  You have the number one answer, which is Chrome, with 52.
+[374.30 --> 375.18]  There's five left.
+[375.26 --> 376.08]  Let's go to Chris.
+[376.62 --> 376.88]  Firefox.
+[377.74 --> 378.14]  Firefox.
+[378.48 --> 379.06]  Show me Firefox.
+[380.92 --> 383.74]  Number two answer with 43 points.
+[384.18 --> 384.58]  Very good.
+[385.70 --> 386.80]  There's no conferring.
+[386.88 --> 387.42]  Who goes next?
+[387.52 --> 387.68]  Me?
+[387.78 --> 388.60]  There's no conferring.
+[388.64 --> 389.38]  Now we go to Dave.
+[389.44 --> 390.24]  So we go in a round.
+[390.50 --> 391.12]  Dave, it's your turn.
+[391.82 --> 394.20]  It gets like infinitely harder from here on out.
+[394.84 --> 395.70]  Okay, go Edge.
+[396.36 --> 397.26]  Show me Edge.
+[398.22 --> 400.46]  Number four answer with 11 points.
+[400.54 --> 401.04]  Edge is on there.
+[401.10 --> 403.70]  So you have four of the six.
+[403.78 --> 404.76]  I'm sorry, three of the six.
+[405.20 --> 406.42]  And now we go back to Amelia.
+[407.10 --> 409.48]  Literally do not know any other browsers.
+[410.32 --> 413.14]  I don't want to say Internet Explorer.
+[413.92 --> 414.62]  Is that your answer?
+[415.10 --> 415.70]  It is not.
+[417.28 --> 419.66]  My answer is going to be better than that.
+[419.86 --> 420.28]  Okay.
+[422.32 --> 423.64]  So what is your answer then?
+[423.74 --> 424.56]  You got it.
+[424.56 --> 426.22]  No, it's going to be Internet Explorer.
+[426.84 --> 427.20]  Okay.
+[427.32 --> 428.40]  Internet Explorer.
+[428.70 --> 429.72]  Show me IE.
+[431.22 --> 431.62]  Sorry.
+[432.02 --> 432.42]  I'm sorry.
+[432.50 --> 433.74]  That's your first strike.
+[434.06 --> 434.48]  It's all good.
+[434.52 --> 437.42]  That's okay because that could have been like a total troll answer.
+[437.60 --> 439.76]  I feel like that was fully valid.
+[440.32 --> 441.36]  Yeah, I was trolling.
+[441.40 --> 444.36]  For all the testers out there using IE.
+[444.60 --> 444.94]  Yeah.
+[445.36 --> 446.24]  Got to represent.
+[446.74 --> 446.90]  Yeah.
+[447.10 --> 447.92]  All right, we go to Chris.
+[448.26 --> 449.80]  So do we keep it because strikes?
+[450.02 --> 450.14]  Yeah.
+[450.22 --> 450.34]  Yeah.
+[450.46 --> 451.18]  So you have one strike.
+[451.26 --> 452.12]  You have two strikes left.
+[452.14 --> 453.30]  And then there'll be a steal opportunity.
+[453.30 --> 457.38]  I'm going to go with Safari because it feels like one of the big three.
+[457.74 --> 458.52]  Show me Safari.
+[459.48 --> 460.04]  Okay.
+[460.04 --> 464.00]  Number five answer with eight respondents using Safari.
+[464.26 --> 464.58]  Remember it's-
+[464.58 --> 466.58]  Oh, so the number three is still available?
+[466.92 --> 468.90]  Remember, it's their primary browser.
+[469.40 --> 470.04]  Okay.
+[470.20 --> 472.04]  So now we go back to Dave.
+[472.20 --> 472.82]  You got this.
+[473.38 --> 473.90]  Oh, boy.
+[474.34 --> 476.36]  I'm going to go Brave.
+[476.92 --> 478.04]  Show me Brave.
+[478.04 --> 480.66]  Number three answer.
+[480.66 --> 481.38]  There it was.
+[481.50 --> 481.92]  Number three.
+[482.04 --> 482.92]  Eighteen people.
+[483.12 --> 483.38]  Wow.
+[483.52 --> 485.70]  Number three as their primary.
+[485.96 --> 488.02]  So we have one strike against you.
+[488.58 --> 491.94]  You have Chrome at number one, Firefox at two, Brave at three.
+[492.20 --> 494.90]  You also said Safari at five.
+[495.54 --> 496.64]  Did you say the number four?
+[496.72 --> 496.98]  You did.
+[497.06 --> 498.46]  You said Edge at number four.
+[498.58 --> 500.34]  So there's one left.
+[500.78 --> 501.74]  That's nuts.
+[502.36 --> 503.98]  And we're back to Amelia.
+[504.10 --> 504.78]  You have two strikes.
+[504.78 --> 505.94]  So just take a guess.
+[506.48 --> 506.86]  Dang it.
+[506.86 --> 511.26]  Um, there's that one where it has, oh, I'm not going to give any clues.
+[511.70 --> 513.10]  I don't actually know the name.
+[514.22 --> 514.62]  Okay.
+[515.14 --> 517.32]  Do you want to guess something random or you want to just take a strike?
+[517.64 --> 521.00]  I use one called Stack that I know no one else uses.
+[521.22 --> 522.20]  Show me Stack.
+[525.02 --> 525.88]  You were correct.
+[525.96 --> 526.98]  Nobody else uses Stack.
+[529.36 --> 531.06]  So we don't get a point for that?
+[531.22 --> 532.10]  She was correct.
+[532.30 --> 533.78]  She was correct that nobody uses it.
+[533.78 --> 534.80]  So we go to Chris now.
+[534.80 --> 538.42]  This is your last guess before the, before Team Syntax gets the steal.
+[538.42 --> 539.64]  Oh, we're going to steal it.
+[540.08 --> 541.98]  I got to go with the big O Opera.
+[542.44 --> 545.82]  I know it's a wild card, but I just feel like it might be hanging on.
+[546.04 --> 546.98]  Show me Opera.
+[548.64 --> 549.00]  Oh.
+[550.88 --> 552.92]  Three strikes and you're out.
+[552.92 --> 556.56]  So Team Syntax gets one guess you can confer amongst the team.
+[556.92 --> 558.84]  And if you get it right, you steal the board.
+[558.84 --> 559.02]  Okay.
+[559.04 --> 560.08]  Can we confer openly?
+[560.50 --> 560.72]  Yes.
+[561.44 --> 561.84]  Samsung.
+[562.46 --> 565.28]  I was going to say Vidalvi.
+[565.46 --> 566.10]  Yeah, maybe.
+[566.62 --> 566.98]  Vivaldi.
+[567.96 --> 568.28]  Vivaldi?
+[569.40 --> 569.76]  Vidalvi?
+[569.82 --> 570.56]  Isn't that what it is?
+[571.26 --> 571.62]  Vidalvi?
+[572.54 --> 572.94]  Vivalvi.
+[573.02 --> 573.76]  I always add random.
+[573.92 --> 574.28]  Vivaldi.
+[574.74 --> 576.14]  I'm just naming browsers here.
+[576.26 --> 576.38]  Yeah.
+[576.38 --> 579.96]  I thought it was Samsung because like they have a bunch of developer advocates and stuff.
+[580.06 --> 582.32]  And also like you use it when you use your phone, right?
+[582.46 --> 582.64]  So.
+[583.04 --> 584.80]  They don't have a desktop browser though, do they?
+[585.50 --> 586.84]  No, I think it's only mobile.
+[587.50 --> 590.98]  I think it's just like a mobile thing, which is why I'm like, is it?
+[591.16 --> 591.82]  I don't know.
+[591.84 --> 592.76]  What's Vivaldi?
+[593.62 --> 593.98]  Vivaldi.
+[594.36 --> 596.38]  V-I-V-A-L-D-I.
+[596.54 --> 597.10]  What is it?
+[597.36 --> 598.58]  We can't Google it.
+[598.74 --> 599.10]  So I can't tell you.
+[599.10 --> 599.68]  Yeah, that's true.
+[600.20 --> 601.12]  I don't know.
+[601.12 --> 604.28]  Okay, so we have Sam, you're thinking Samsung, you're thinking Vivaldi.
+[604.46 --> 606.24]  Vivaldi is also a famous person.
+[606.78 --> 607.04]  Yeah.
+[607.30 --> 612.80]  I think Vivaldi is like a, wasn't it like a, like security focused browser?
+[613.14 --> 614.92]  So I could see there being like one.
+[615.04 --> 618.22]  Oh, Tor actually, which is also a mobile.
+[618.74 --> 619.98]  Can you use that as a.
+[620.42 --> 621.38]  Man, this is tough.
+[621.66 --> 623.30]  All right, let's make a decision here.
+[623.46 --> 624.02]  What are you guys thinking?
+[624.38 --> 624.72]  Okay.
+[625.04 --> 625.84]  I think we should go.
+[626.10 --> 626.84]  What do you think, Scott?
+[627.58 --> 628.64]  Oh, I have no idea.
+[628.64 --> 632.40]  In terms of browsers that I just heard mentioned recently, Vivaldi was one of them.
+[632.50 --> 633.18]  So that's why.
+[633.48 --> 634.72]  Yeah, that sounds fine.
+[635.10 --> 635.22]  I guess.
+[635.22 --> 635.82]  I don't know though.
+[635.92 --> 636.50]  Yeah, I have no idea.
+[636.60 --> 637.76]  Samsung could definitely be it too.
+[637.94 --> 642.46]  I've seen it on Hacker News a few times, which is why I, I want to go with that.
+[642.98 --> 643.20]  Yeah.
+[643.46 --> 647.06]  Are JS Party listeners orange folk too?
+[648.16 --> 648.98]  I don't know.
+[649.42 --> 650.36]  There's got to be one.
+[650.68 --> 651.00]  Yeah.
+[651.30 --> 652.06]  That's a good question.
+[652.66 --> 653.46]  There has to be one.
+[653.56 --> 653.68]  Yeah.
+[653.68 --> 654.44]  All right, pick one.
+[654.52 --> 655.08]  Let's move on.
+[655.38 --> 655.82]  What do you got?
+[656.14 --> 656.58]  Vivaldi.
+[656.58 --> 659.72]  Vivaldi is that number five.
+[659.80 --> 660.58]  Show me Vivaldi.
+[661.86 --> 662.38]  Yeah.
+[665.38 --> 666.64]  I told you.
+[667.02 --> 667.48]  Yes.
+[667.86 --> 669.46]  Five JS Party listeners.
+[669.76 --> 670.12]  Five.
+[670.26 --> 672.10]  Five people use Vivaldi.
+[673.28 --> 674.22]  Five out of 140.
+[674.68 --> 674.82]  Yeah.
+[674.88 --> 675.88]  Who bills Vivaldi?
+[676.16 --> 678.26]  Did they get all the points for the entire round?
+[678.40 --> 680.52]  They stole 137 points on that.
+[680.52 --> 680.70]  What?
+[680.76 --> 681.82]  We made those points.
+[682.16 --> 684.08]  Well, anybody can guess the other browsers.
+[684.08 --> 689.16]  I went out on a limb with edge, I felt like.
+[689.32 --> 691.96]  It was the third one I wrote down when I was writing down browsers here.
+[692.24 --> 692.78]  There you go.
+[693.22 --> 693.58]  Amazing.
+[694.24 --> 694.58]  All right.
+[694.62 --> 697.10]  So after round one, we have team syntax with a steal.
+[697.64 --> 698.30]  137 to nothing.
+[698.38 --> 699.86]  There's lots of game left to play.
+[699.96 --> 704.82]  So we now go to round two, a face off between Chris and Scott.
+[706.42 --> 707.76]  Let's hope it's about browsers again.
+[707.76 --> 710.48]  So we gave Amelia the first guess last round.
+[710.56 --> 712.10]  So we're going to give Scott the first guess.
+[712.26 --> 714.68]  And if you don't hit number one, then Chris will have a chance.
+[715.94 --> 723.94]  We asked 140 of our fascinating JS Party listeners, name a tool or technology that you use, but don't fully understand.
+[724.60 --> 725.08]  Okay.
+[725.78 --> 726.90]  But don't understand.
+[727.36 --> 728.42]  Use, but don't understand.
+[728.42 --> 732.70]  I am going to say it is.
+[733.94 --> 735.48]  I have a lot of options here.
+[735.62 --> 736.56]  Let's just say.
+[738.96 --> 740.40]  Let's say Webpack.
+[740.64 --> 741.48]  That's a good answer.
+[741.88 --> 743.00]  Show me Webpack.
+[743.86 --> 745.16]  Number one answer.
+[745.22 --> 745.66]  Nice.
+[746.44 --> 747.04]  I knew it.
+[747.04 --> 747.54]  Damn it.
+[748.10 --> 748.90]  I knew it.
+[748.96 --> 749.16]  Hold on.
+[749.16 --> 749.86]  I had to close my door.
+[749.92 --> 751.58]  My wife texted me what's going on.
+[754.14 --> 755.50]  You're having too much fun.
+[755.50 --> 756.42]  All right.
+[756.54 --> 760.82]  So with that, Scott takes the round and team syntax will play.
+[760.94 --> 765.84]  Now there's five answers on the board of which you have taken the number one answer.
+[765.90 --> 766.96]  So there's four left.
+[767.16 --> 769.02]  And we go now to Divya.
+[769.30 --> 772.28]  So this is front end frameworks people don't understand.
+[772.48 --> 773.30]  Let me read it again.
+[773.46 --> 777.32]  Name a tool or technology that you use, but don't fully understand.
+[778.60 --> 779.08]  Hmm.
+[780.14 --> 783.84]  A tool or technology that people use that they don't understand.
+[783.84 --> 785.84]  Oh, man.
+[785.88 --> 787.66]  This is like a very open-ended question.
+[787.88 --> 788.94]  You know, like Webpack.
+[789.54 --> 790.60]  Like Webpack.
+[790.94 --> 791.34]  Yes.
+[791.70 --> 793.80]  I'm so impressed that you got that, Scott.
+[794.30 --> 794.62]  I know.
+[795.00 --> 796.30]  I have a lot of options here.
+[797.32 --> 797.94]  All right, Divya.
+[798.00 --> 798.62]  We need an answer.
+[800.02 --> 801.58]  I want to say.
+[803.16 --> 805.34]  What's another tool that's similar to Webpack?
+[806.24 --> 807.28]  Oh, Snowpack.
+[807.76 --> 809.00]  Show me Snowpack.
+[809.00 --> 809.44]  Snowpack.
+[810.84 --> 811.24]  Oh.
+[812.02 --> 813.48]  Not enough users of Snowpack.
+[813.72 --> 815.44]  Sorry, Snowpack was not on the list.
+[815.56 --> 816.54]  Okay, Wes, we go to you.
+[816.94 --> 817.30]  Redux.
+[817.76 --> 818.36]  That's a good guess.
+[818.56 --> 820.40]  I like that one, but did it make the list?
+[821.70 --> 822.06]  What?
+[822.50 --> 822.90]  What?
+[823.38 --> 824.64]  I guess everyone knows Redux.
+[824.68 --> 826.78]  That was almost one of my number ones here.
+[827.34 --> 827.48]  Oh.
+[827.98 --> 831.34]  We got two strikes and you still have four answers left on the board.
+[831.42 --> 832.58]  We go back to Scott now.
+[833.46 --> 833.74]  Docker.
+[834.32 --> 835.52]  Oh, that's a good one.
+[835.66 --> 836.22]  Show me Docker.
+[836.22 --> 836.78]  Docker.
+[837.68 --> 840.44]  Number two answer, Docker with 12 respondents.
+[840.44 --> 843.66]  All right, I guess I got to go to CICD now.
+[846.76 --> 847.12]  Kubernetes.
+[847.52 --> 848.72]  This is probably wrong.
+[849.08 --> 851.42]  I grouped that with Docker because there are people answering both.
+[851.50 --> 853.02]  So those are together, Docker and Kubernetes.
+[853.30 --> 854.66]  Oh, I had Kubernetes on my list too.
+[854.78 --> 854.98]  Yeah.
+[855.18 --> 857.08]  They're very different tools, I will say.
+[857.14 --> 859.28]  I know they are, but people were mixing and matching them.
+[859.40 --> 860.86]  So please pick another one.
+[865.18 --> 865.94]  Let's see.
+[866.22 --> 867.66]  I can't believe Redux was one.
+[867.76 --> 867.96]  Yeah.
+[868.28 --> 871.64]  Can I just say CI or does it have to be a tool?
+[872.22 --> 873.36]  A tool or technology?
+[873.70 --> 875.76]  Is CI a technology technically?
+[876.18 --> 876.68]  I think so.
+[876.74 --> 878.28]  It's in that concept?
+[878.82 --> 879.54]  I think it is.
+[880.08 --> 880.56]  CICD.
+[880.94 --> 881.30]  All right.
+[881.66 --> 882.86]  Show me CICD.
+[884.72 --> 885.12]  Oh.
+[885.20 --> 885.88]  Oh, man.
+[885.94 --> 887.02]  That's surprising, actually.
+[887.14 --> 888.40]  There's no way they'll steal this.
+[888.64 --> 889.12]  That's okay.
+[889.20 --> 889.54]  No sweat.
+[889.56 --> 891.74]  There's no way everyone understands CICD.
+[892.20 --> 893.28]  But maybe they don't use it.
+[893.28 --> 893.54]  Yeah.
+[893.84 --> 896.56]  It's a technology that you use, but don't fully understand.
+[896.80 --> 897.92]  Maybe they don't think about it.
+[898.00 --> 898.58]  Come on.
+[899.76 --> 900.12]  Deployments.
+[900.38 --> 901.12]  Maybe they do.
+[901.20 --> 901.96]  Maybe they don't.
+[902.60 --> 903.02]  All right.
+[903.12 --> 906.44]  Team Shop Talk can confer on a chance to steal.
+[906.96 --> 907.36]  Okay.
+[907.52 --> 907.88]  Okay.
+[908.00 --> 909.76]  We've got a couple of possible options.
+[909.88 --> 911.62]  You've got three possibilities here.
+[911.92 --> 913.00]  I've got thoughts, too.
+[913.10 --> 917.38]  I feel like the troll answer is to just say CSS, because people like to be like, I don't
+[917.38 --> 918.08]  understand.
+[918.58 --> 918.76]  You know?
+[918.80 --> 919.06]  Ooh.
+[919.24 --> 919.54]  Okay.
+[919.70 --> 920.00]  Okay.
+[920.12 --> 920.36]  Okay.
+[920.36 --> 920.68]  Okay.
+[920.98 --> 921.10]  Yeah.
+[921.22 --> 924.22]  And then the one that you probably actually don't understand is Git.
+[924.90 --> 925.30]  Oh.
+[925.82 --> 926.98]  That's for sure on there.
+[927.28 --> 928.28]  Oh, man.
+[928.72 --> 928.96]  Yeah.
+[929.16 --> 930.32]  But those are just ideas.
+[930.46 --> 930.84]  You know, whatever.
+[931.02 --> 931.94]  I had Git, too.
+[932.02 --> 933.52]  I also had Bash.
+[933.86 --> 935.52]  JavaScript is a troll answer, too.
+[935.68 --> 936.08]  Bash.
+[936.08 --> 936.52]  Okay.
+[937.04 --> 937.44]  JavaScript is good.
+[937.60 --> 937.96]  Bash.
+[937.96 --> 941.72]  Bash and Babel, which I don't know about.
+[942.04 --> 942.56]  Oh, Babel.
+[942.56 --> 943.86]  Oh, I just thought of one.
+[944.60 --> 945.44]  What do you think, team?
+[945.44 --> 946.20]  You can say it.
+[946.40 --> 947.64]  No, I'm not saying it.
+[948.10 --> 949.68]  I'm going to message Wes.
+[949.84 --> 954.82]  I had like server lists and stuff like that, but I think I like Git.
+[954.98 --> 955.48]  I like Git.
+[955.60 --> 956.88]  Or, yeah.
+[957.34 --> 958.12]  What do you think, Amelia?
+[958.72 --> 959.46]  I like Git.
+[959.78 --> 960.12]  Okay.
+[960.20 --> 960.64]  I like Git.
+[960.64 --> 961.50]  We're going to go with Git.
+[961.50 --> 962.14]  All right.
+[962.22 --> 964.46]  For the steal, show me Git.
+[965.54 --> 966.02]  Yeah.
+[966.60 --> 966.96]  Yeah.
+[966.96 --> 967.40]  Yeah.
+[967.52 --> 968.14]  Big steal.
+[968.20 --> 969.24]  It's a game of steals.
+[969.62 --> 973.56]  That's the number four answer with eight respondents saying Git.
+[973.86 --> 974.30]  Interesting.
+[974.50 --> 975.72]  So there's a missing three.
+[975.90 --> 976.94]  Number three was React.
+[977.42 --> 977.76]  Yeah.
+[978.08 --> 978.38]  Oh.
+[978.62 --> 978.80]  Okay.
+[979.24 --> 981.28]  And number five was NPM.
+[981.96 --> 982.40]  Oh.
+[982.72 --> 983.20]  Fair enough.
+[983.64 --> 983.80]  Yeah.
+[983.80 --> 985.04]  A couple of honorable mentions.
+[985.22 --> 987.48]  I'm actually surprised no one's at Regex.
+[987.68 --> 988.96]  Oh, that would have been good.
+[988.98 --> 989.64]  That's a good one.
+[990.08 --> 990.72]  Or Redis.
+[990.80 --> 991.42]  Thought about it.
+[991.56 --> 992.86]  Tools that make me fall asleep.
+[993.02 --> 995.02]  But if you don't knew it, maybe you just don't use it.
+[995.24 --> 995.52]  Maybe.
+[995.52 --> 997.34]  Chris, four people said CSS.
+[997.56 --> 998.60]  It just barely missed the board.
+[998.74 --> 999.12]  Oh, okay.
+[999.30 --> 1000.32]  Three people said Node.
+[1000.46 --> 1004.70]  Two people said Dependency Injection, which I think you should know how it works before
+[1004.70 --> 1005.18]  you use that one.
+[1005.58 --> 1007.06]  And one person said PHP.
+[1007.24 --> 1010.54]  And then in parentheses, they said, I don't think anyone will ever fully understand PHP.
+[1011.00 --> 1011.22]  Oh.
+[1012.22 --> 1012.66]  Okay.
+[1012.66 --> 1014.34]  So some commentary there.
+[1014.54 --> 1015.24]  It's all WordPress.
+[1017.02 --> 1017.34]  Yeah.
+[1017.64 --> 1018.50]  Just use WordPress.
+[1019.00 --> 1019.20]  Cool.
+[1019.32 --> 1019.88]  That was fun.
+[1020.30 --> 1020.58]  All right.
+[1020.62 --> 1021.64]  So let me add these up here.
+[1021.70 --> 1022.40]  So nice steal.
+[1022.74 --> 1023.08]  Cool.
+[1023.66 --> 1024.74]  And that is.
+[1024.84 --> 1025.74]  So is it one to one?
+[1025.82 --> 1026.54]  Is that how it works?
+[1026.74 --> 1027.06]  No.
+[1027.24 --> 1028.38]  We're still winning by far.
+[1028.50 --> 1029.12]  It's points.
+[1029.24 --> 1030.04]  It's points based.
+[1030.14 --> 1032.06]  But I'll tell you the last rounds, the points double.
+[1032.16 --> 1033.86]  So there's usually a chance to come back near the end.
+[1034.16 --> 1034.24]  Double.
+[1034.68 --> 1034.92]  Okay.
+[1034.96 --> 1036.10]  So you've stolen 63.
+[1036.24 --> 1037.66]  There were 63 points available that round.
+[1037.66 --> 1041.18]  So currently Syntax is still in the lead, 137 to 63.
+[1041.44 --> 1042.94]  But everyone's playing quite well.
+[1042.94 --> 1043.22]  Nice.
+[1043.22 --> 1043.92]  Quite within reach.
+[1061.92 --> 1062.84]  What's up, party people?
+[1062.84 --> 1065.34]  Well, this episode is brought to you by Auth0.
+[1065.88 --> 1070.82]  Auth0 is a for developers, by developers, identity platform built for the cloud era.
+[1071.20 --> 1073.32]  They secure billions of logins every year.
+[1073.66 --> 1076.48]  Identity is the front door of every user interaction.
+[1076.68 --> 1079.98]  And the login experience can make or break a user's first impression.
+[1080.42 --> 1083.26]  Identity and authentication is never a set it and forget it thing.
+[1083.54 --> 1087.64]  That means when teams decide to roll their own, they are taking on the full burden of constantly
+[1087.64 --> 1091.26]  evolving industry standards, customer expectations, and data breach tactics.
+[1091.26 --> 1095.82]  And they often don't have the time, expertise, or resources to meet those needs.
+[1095.82 --> 1099.76]  This takes away from critical time needed to innovate and to improve their core product.
+[1100.12 --> 1104.72]  Auth0 has solved this problem for every developer to give teams their time back and to make
+[1104.72 --> 1106.26]  applications more secure.
+[1106.64 --> 1111.42]  With Auth0 security, compliance, and industry standards, they're always up to date.
+[1111.76 --> 1117.36]  Developers are free to provide the login options their users want with the security their application
+[1117.36 --> 1118.04]  demands.
+[1118.04 --> 1120.52]  Make login Auth0's problem, not yours.
+[1121.06 --> 1122.76]  Learn more at Auth0.com.
+[1123.00 --> 1124.82]  Again, Auth0.com.
+[1140.98 --> 1141.80]  All right.
+[1141.80 --> 1146.92]  Let's move to round three, which is going to be Dave versus Wes.
+[1149.12 --> 1153.86]  Now, Team Syntax got the guest first last round, so we'll go to Dave for the first guest.
+[1154.44 --> 1161.82]  We asked 140 brilliant JS Party listeners, what's something you do to reach a state of dev flow?
+[1163.26 --> 1163.92]  Yes, Dave.
+[1166.40 --> 1166.84]  Music.
+[1166.98 --> 1168.16]  Do I need to be more specific?
+[1168.54 --> 1170.22]  Like electronic music?
+[1170.22 --> 1170.34]  Music.
+[1170.44 --> 1171.38]  Music's just fine.
+[1171.58 --> 1172.50]  Show me music.
+[1173.86 --> 1174.94]  Number one answer.
+[1175.56 --> 1178.20]  66 people say they listen to music.
+[1178.30 --> 1182.24]  They also had a bunch of different kinds of genres and stuff, but I just combined them
+[1182.24 --> 1182.54]  all together.
+[1182.74 --> 1184.60]  So that's Team Shop Talk.
+[1184.68 --> 1186.08]  You guys get to play this round.
+[1186.26 --> 1187.32]  You already have the number one answer.
+[1187.44 --> 1190.08]  There are five total answers, four left on the board.
+[1190.32 --> 1191.04]  Freaking A.
+[1191.24 --> 1192.24]  And we go to Amelia.
+[1194.00 --> 1197.74]  What something people do to reach a state of dev flow?
+[1198.38 --> 1199.68]  I drink a lot of coffee.
+[1200.22 --> 1201.84]  It's going to be totally on there.
+[1201.84 --> 1202.30]  Good answer.
+[1202.38 --> 1202.92]  Good answer.
+[1203.04 --> 1203.64]  Good answer.
+[1203.78 --> 1204.42]  Good answer.
+[1204.58 --> 1205.08]  Good answer.
+[1205.20 --> 1206.50]  Show me drink coffee.
+[1208.02 --> 1209.22]  Number four answer.
+[1209.38 --> 1209.92]  Good job.
+[1210.20 --> 1210.42]  Wow.
+[1210.52 --> 1210.78]  Four.
+[1211.06 --> 1212.74]  That's generally drinking things.
+[1212.82 --> 1213.32]  Drink coffee.
+[1213.42 --> 1214.24]  People said drink tea.
+[1214.40 --> 1215.40]  Drink energy drinks.
+[1215.68 --> 1217.36]  That's worth nine points.
+[1217.50 --> 1218.08]  So good one.
+[1218.56 --> 1221.26]  And now it is Chris's turn.
+[1221.82 --> 1223.86]  I am just dying here.
+[1225.00 --> 1225.94]  Dev flow.
+[1226.16 --> 1226.42]  Right?
+[1226.42 --> 1227.32]  What do you do?
+[1228.04 --> 1230.02]  That's like a common thing that you do.
+[1230.54 --> 1233.90]  Is there something like move locations?
+[1234.46 --> 1236.60]  Is that too vague?
+[1236.72 --> 1238.42]  Like go to a coffee shop?
+[1239.42 --> 1240.20]  Somewhat vague.
+[1240.46 --> 1241.08]  Too vague.
+[1241.18 --> 1241.64]  Too vague.
+[1242.20 --> 1243.30]  Shut the door.
+[1243.72 --> 1244.64]  Shut the door.
+[1245.66 --> 1246.42]  Show me.
+[1246.62 --> 1247.30]  Shut the door.
+[1247.30 --> 1249.88]  I will give it to you.
+[1249.98 --> 1250.30]  Wow.
+[1250.78 --> 1251.14]  Nice.
+[1251.86 --> 1254.80]  This is a category of things where people said remove distractions.
+[1255.10 --> 1256.26]  Go to do not disturb.
+[1257.54 --> 1258.28]  Close the door.
+[1258.40 --> 1259.94]  Have a quiet place, what people were saying.
+[1260.10 --> 1261.50]  So I'll give you that one.
+[1261.82 --> 1264.62]  I feel like Wes clued them in when he closed the door.
+[1264.72 --> 1264.98]  Yeah.
+[1265.12 --> 1265.48]  Yeah.
+[1266.48 --> 1266.68]  Yeah.
+[1266.68 --> 1267.68]  He definitely helped.
+[1267.82 --> 1269.16]  Sinking my own ship here.
+[1269.36 --> 1271.00]  Wes is really in dev flow right now.
+[1271.58 --> 1273.38]  So that was 26 points.
+[1273.42 --> 1274.24]  That's the number two answer.
+[1274.24 --> 1276.16]  So you have one, two, and four.
+[1276.44 --> 1278.90]  So three and five are still on the board.
+[1278.90 --> 1281.76]  And that puts us back to Dave.
+[1282.20 --> 1282.94]  Oh boy.
+[1283.88 --> 1285.42]  Blocking time on your calendar?
+[1285.82 --> 1288.04]  That was part of the remove distractions one.
+[1288.30 --> 1288.52]  Yeah.
+[1288.70 --> 1290.12]  Well, I need a new one.
+[1290.28 --> 1293.28]  And my next one is not good.
+[1295.78 --> 1296.40]  Let's see.
+[1298.10 --> 1299.84]  You got to have your hot chip.
+[1300.10 --> 1300.76]  Hot chip.
+[1301.82 --> 1302.26]  Snacks.
+[1302.84 --> 1304.06]  Got to have snacks.
+[1304.24 --> 1305.46]  I was like, what's hot chip?
+[1305.70 --> 1305.86]  Yeah.
+[1306.20 --> 1307.32]  Show me snacks.
+[1309.98 --> 1311.20]  That's your first miss.
+[1311.80 --> 1312.54]  So you're doing well.
+[1312.80 --> 1314.04]  You have two misses left.
+[1314.76 --> 1316.88]  And it is now Amelia's turn.
+[1318.50 --> 1320.96]  Amelia, what's something you do to reach the state of dev flow?
+[1321.36 --> 1322.60]  I definitely eat hot chips.
+[1324.04 --> 1324.64]  Hot chip.
+[1325.20 --> 1326.16]  That's hot chip.
+[1326.28 --> 1328.64]  Hot chip is hot chip.
+[1328.64 --> 1331.52]  I guess if not that.
+[1331.52 --> 1331.54]  I guess if not that.
+[1331.86 --> 1337.44]  You wanted Chris to be more clear about his going to places thing.
+[1337.98 --> 1343.64]  So I'm going to go with a specific place, which is going to your desk.
+[1344.10 --> 1345.30]  Going to your desk.
+[1345.40 --> 1346.12]  I don't like that face.
+[1346.52 --> 1347.76]  Show me going to your desk.
+[1347.76 --> 1354.78]  Maybe just a little bit too on the nose, but a good effort.
+[1355.40 --> 1356.68]  Can we go back to Chris?
+[1356.98 --> 1359.30]  It sounds like none of these are related to technology.
+[1359.50 --> 1363.84]  None of them is like, like troll around for cool VS code extensions or whatever.
+[1364.06 --> 1364.94]  Go on Twitter.
+[1365.60 --> 1366.78]  Is that how you get in flow?
+[1366.98 --> 1368.72]  Oh, just installing plugins.
+[1368.96 --> 1370.68]  Twitter is the exact opposite of flow.
+[1370.68 --> 1372.52]  Yeah, I know how to get out of flow.
+[1372.64 --> 1373.40]  Can we do that one?
+[1375.10 --> 1376.00]  Like YouTube.
+[1378.54 --> 1381.42]  I'm going to go with put on sweatpants.
+[1382.38 --> 1382.78]  Yeah.
+[1383.24 --> 1383.92]  Good answer.
+[1384.00 --> 1384.42]  Good answer.
+[1384.56 --> 1385.08]  Good answer.
+[1385.18 --> 1385.62]  Good answer.
+[1386.62 --> 1387.92]  I'm going to give you that one.
+[1388.50 --> 1388.86]  Oh.
+[1389.78 --> 1392.02]  This is a combination of prepare yourself.
+[1392.16 --> 1397.00]  So there was like get the room set up, good posture, sleep first, put on certain clothes.
+[1397.06 --> 1398.90]  People said I'll put on like comfy clothes.
+[1398.98 --> 1399.78]  So that's why I'm giving it to you.
+[1399.78 --> 1403.50]  So that's 10 points, which means there's one left.
+[1403.62 --> 1409.66]  Number five is still out there and you have one strike left and Dave has a chance at it.
+[1409.72 --> 1410.32]  Go ahead, Dave.
+[1410.70 --> 1411.00]  Okay.
+[1411.04 --> 1411.56]  So recap.
+[1411.70 --> 1412.42]  We've done music.
+[1412.56 --> 1414.28]  We've done get comfy.
+[1414.68 --> 1416.40]  We've done remove distractions.
+[1416.88 --> 1417.18]  Coffee.
+[1417.38 --> 1418.32]  Remove distractions.
+[1418.56 --> 1418.68]  Yeah.
+[1418.76 --> 1419.70]  We've done coffee.
+[1420.22 --> 1421.34]  And there's one more.
+[1421.50 --> 1422.22]  There is one more.
+[1422.60 --> 1423.34]  Turn off email.
+[1423.52 --> 1424.56]  Is that send distractions?
+[1424.58 --> 1425.20]  That's remove distractions.
+[1425.56 --> 1425.70]  Yep.
+[1426.90 --> 1427.84]  Oh boy.
+[1427.84 --> 1429.52]  I'm so sorry, Dave.
+[1429.78 --> 1430.44]  It's tough.
+[1431.14 --> 1431.94]  Go for a walk.
+[1432.60 --> 1433.28]  Show me.
+[1433.50 --> 1434.50]  Go for a walk.
+[1436.24 --> 1437.62]  Oh, that was on my list.
+[1437.96 --> 1439.02]  Oh man.
+[1439.26 --> 1439.76]  All right.
+[1439.80 --> 1440.58]  We get to steal.
+[1440.80 --> 1441.34]  All right.
+[1441.50 --> 1442.14]  Chance to steal.
+[1442.26 --> 1443.38]  I'll tell you, this is a tough one.
+[1443.46 --> 1444.76]  So you got your work cut out for you.
+[1445.16 --> 1446.00]  All right, guys.
+[1446.08 --> 1446.90]  What are you thinking?
+[1447.22 --> 1449.14]  I had like put on headphones or something.
+[1449.14 --> 1449.44]  Yeah.
+[1449.44 --> 1453.34]  I was going to say like noise canceling headphones, white noise.
+[1453.58 --> 1454.32]  White noise.
+[1454.52 --> 1454.70]  Yeah.
+[1454.86 --> 1455.30]  Exercise.
+[1456.10 --> 1456.50]  Meditate.
+[1457.00 --> 1457.40]  Meditate.
+[1457.48 --> 1458.14]  I had meditate.
+[1458.76 --> 1462.48]  Although somebody did say go for a walk, which like could be constituted as exercise
+[1462.48 --> 1462.90]  maybe.
+[1463.12 --> 1463.28]  So.
+[1463.52 --> 1463.92]  Yeah.
+[1464.50 --> 1467.20]  Meditate or like noise canceling headphones.
+[1467.74 --> 1467.98]  Yeah.
+[1468.28 --> 1469.14]  Wait, was noise canceling?
+[1469.88 --> 1470.02]  Yeah.
+[1470.06 --> 1472.30]  Was noise canceling headphones removing distractions though?
+[1472.38 --> 1473.94]  Is that part of the whole like umbrella?
+[1474.20 --> 1474.52]  Yeah.
+[1474.52 --> 1476.92]  I had that as my very first one on the list.
+[1477.04 --> 1477.28]  Yeah.
+[1477.46 --> 1480.24]  I'm going to say that's part of remove distractions because it's kind of like get quiet.
+[1480.24 --> 1480.44]  Okay.
+[1480.80 --> 1481.04]  Yeah.
+[1481.38 --> 1483.14]  So we got white noise.
+[1483.34 --> 1486.46]  I have full screen, which would probably also remove distractions.
+[1487.22 --> 1487.42]  Yeah.
+[1487.78 --> 1488.58]  Blocker apps.
+[1489.06 --> 1489.88]  That's part of that.
+[1490.06 --> 1490.62]  Blocker apps.
+[1490.72 --> 1491.22]  Remove distractions.
+[1491.38 --> 1491.78]  Meditate.
+[1491.90 --> 1492.84]  White noise.
+[1493.26 --> 1494.56]  What do people do to focus?
+[1495.08 --> 1498.30]  I'm trying to think of all like the Tim Ferriss productivity hacks.
+[1499.30 --> 1500.24]  Morning routine.
+[1500.40 --> 1504.50]  I have like a go to coffee shop as one of my things on my list.
+[1504.52 --> 1505.24]  Oh, yeah.
+[1505.26 --> 1506.50]  Which is going somewhere.
+[1506.90 --> 1508.78]  Oh, you mean like working at the coffee shop or like.
+[1508.78 --> 1512.56]  Just going to the coffee shop because that's what I do when I like really can't focus.
+[1512.98 --> 1514.42]  I think that's under coffee.
+[1514.82 --> 1515.06]  Yeah.
+[1515.06 --> 1516.06]  That one was kind of broached.
+[1516.06 --> 1519.76]  I think both with your environment and there's a drink coffee.
+[1520.10 --> 1520.40]  Gotcha.
+[1520.92 --> 1521.80]  I think meditate.
+[1522.02 --> 1522.26]  Okay.
+[1522.40 --> 1523.08]  Maybe meditate.
+[1523.36 --> 1523.56]  Yeah.
+[1523.66 --> 1523.92]  Yeah.
+[1524.28 --> 1525.14]  I don't have anything else.
+[1525.34 --> 1526.56]  Let's just hail Mary it.
+[1526.88 --> 1527.10]  Yeah.
+[1527.68 --> 1529.04]  Show me meditate.
+[1530.54 --> 1531.44]  Oh, man.
+[1531.66 --> 1532.42]  I thought that was it.
+[1532.44 --> 1533.94]  Meditate didn't make the list.
+[1533.94 --> 1535.14]  Good for us.
+[1535.30 --> 1536.10]  What happens now?
+[1536.30 --> 1536.36]  Not really.
+[1536.36 --> 1536.94]  But I also have.
+[1537.02 --> 1537.80]  I have no idea.
+[1538.06 --> 1539.22]  I want to know that answer.
+[1539.48 --> 1539.98]  This one.
+[1540.12 --> 1541.20]  I would not have guessed this.
+[1541.40 --> 1543.72]  Five people say they listen to podcasts.
+[1544.18 --> 1544.44]  Oh.
+[1544.44 --> 1544.54]  Oh.
+[1544.54 --> 1544.84]  Oh.
+[1545.04 --> 1545.44]  That's true.
+[1545.96 --> 1546.32]  Okay.
+[1546.50 --> 1547.94]  Here we are on a podcast.
+[1548.38 --> 1548.90]  I do that.
+[1549.02 --> 1549.18]  Yeah.
+[1549.90 --> 1552.52]  That's kind of refreshing that at least five people listen to podcasts.
+[1552.66 --> 1553.06]  That's right.
+[1553.26 --> 1553.68]  Thank you all.
+[1555.28 --> 1557.76]  And one specifically said listen to the JS Party podcast.
+[1557.98 --> 1559.56]  I said, oh, I appreciate that call out.
+[1559.58 --> 1559.86]  Oh.
+[1560.06 --> 1560.58]  That's nice.
+[1560.58 --> 1561.72]  Happy to help you get in the flow.
+[1561.92 --> 1562.98]  That's the opposite for me.
+[1563.04 --> 1564.12]  Like, I don't want to listen to podcasts.
+[1564.12 --> 1564.62]  No, I do.
+[1565.00 --> 1569.14]  You know what I actually do is like do something that you're in the mood to do.
+[1569.32 --> 1569.60]  You know?
+[1569.66 --> 1573.08]  Like if I'm like, I'm going to do, I just feel like coding on this thing.
+[1573.08 --> 1573.20]  Right.
+[1573.20 --> 1576.38]  Then I'll get flow because I'm like not fighting against what I want to do.
+[1576.42 --> 1576.78]  But how do you.
+[1576.78 --> 1577.12]  Right.
+[1577.74 --> 1579.24]  Work on something that you feel like working on.
+[1579.38 --> 1579.56]  Yeah.
+[1579.56 --> 1582.24]  Where was wander around Home Depot for nine hours?
+[1582.44 --> 1582.94]  Where was that?
+[1583.10 --> 1584.88]  Was that on the list?
+[1584.88 --> 1588.78]  That's funny because one person said procrastinate for 10 hours.
+[1589.32 --> 1589.72]  Yes.
+[1590.06 --> 1590.30]  Nice.
+[1590.86 --> 1592.24]  There's the honesty right there.
+[1593.18 --> 1595.44]  And then a few people said drink alcohol or smoke weed.
+[1595.52 --> 1596.40]  And I thought, is that?
+[1596.54 --> 1598.16]  I've never been in the flow in these states.
+[1598.24 --> 1598.58]  I don't know.
+[1598.82 --> 1600.58]  Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
+[1601.26 --> 1601.72]  All right.
+[1601.82 --> 1603.02]  So no steal.
+[1603.22 --> 1604.58]  So Shop Talk gets the points.
+[1605.06 --> 1610.98]  They missed the last one, but they still managed to score 110 points in the round.
+[1611.60 --> 1612.36]  Oh, wow.
+[1612.54 --> 1614.28]  That's going to kick us to the lead for sure.
+[1614.28 --> 1615.50]  Major League Comeback.
+[1615.60 --> 1621.30]  After three rounds, we have Syntax with 137 and Shop Talk with 173.
+[1621.44 --> 1622.32]  Oh, what?
+[1622.88 --> 1623.96]  Balance restored.
+[1624.46 --> 1625.26]  Balance restored.
+[1625.70 --> 1626.22]  There we go.
+[1626.84 --> 1628.62]  We now move to round four.
+[1628.78 --> 1630.66]  Stop giving them easy questions.
+[1631.02 --> 1631.20]  Yeah.
+[1632.32 --> 1634.56]  This is called the inverted round.
+[1636.54 --> 1639.74]  This round works a little bit different than our previous rounds.
+[1639.82 --> 1640.62]  There's no face off.
+[1640.74 --> 1642.86]  It's just a back and forth between the two teams.
+[1642.86 --> 1644.40]  So we just rotate back and forth.
+[1645.12 --> 1648.22]  And you're trying to match the board, but it's inverted.
+[1648.42 --> 1651.74]  So you want to match the bottom of the board, not the top of the board.
+[1651.78 --> 1651.98]  Whoa.
+[1652.24 --> 1652.58]  Okay?
+[1652.58 --> 1658.50]  So there are six things on the board, and the bottom one gets 60 points, and the top
+[1658.50 --> 1659.24]  gets 10 points.
+[1659.30 --> 1660.62]  There's lots of points to be had.
+[1660.80 --> 1663.28]  But you want to match the board, but at the bottom.
+[1663.64 --> 1663.92]  Okay?
+[1663.92 --> 1673.24]  So we asked 140 handsome JS Party listeners, name your favorite HTML element.
+[1673.88 --> 1676.48]  There are six common answers.
+[1677.48 --> 1681.08]  And since Team Syntax is losing, we'll let them go first.
+[1681.82 --> 1683.70]  And we'll start with Divya.
+[1683.84 --> 1687.74]  Divya, name a favorite HTML element.
+[1687.84 --> 1689.70]  Remember, you do not want to have the most favorite.
+[1689.88 --> 1691.64]  I'm trying to think of the bottom ones.
+[1691.64 --> 1692.72]  Oh, my God.
+[1693.04 --> 1694.88]  And we'll have no conferring during this time.
+[1694.96 --> 1698.48]  Yeah, but you don't want the ones that are, like, so far gone.
+[1698.86 --> 1700.50]  You want the sixth most popular element.
+[1700.50 --> 1700.88]  That's right.
+[1701.00 --> 1702.86]  Four, five, and six are the sweet spot.
+[1703.14 --> 1703.30]  Yeah.
+[1703.38 --> 1703.68]  Yeah.
+[1704.14 --> 1705.58]  I'm thinking Span.
+[1706.04 --> 1706.40]  Mm.
+[1707.52 --> 1708.58]  That's what I would have said.
+[1708.82 --> 1710.10]  Show me Span.
+[1711.46 --> 1712.30]  Oh, sorry.
+[1712.38 --> 1713.46]  Span didn't make the board.
+[1713.68 --> 1714.40]  Who don't like Span?
+[1714.56 --> 1715.92]  No one likes Span.
+[1716.32 --> 1717.54]  It's all these React developers.
+[1718.12 --> 1719.22]  It has to be your favorite.
+[1719.22 --> 1720.68]  Yeah, exactly.
+[1720.94 --> 1721.10]  Yeah.
+[1721.88 --> 1724.26]  All these React devs just using divs for everything.
+[1724.52 --> 1724.62]  Yeah.
+[1724.66 --> 1725.58]  No, seriously.
+[1725.80 --> 1728.74]  Why Span when you can I or div inline block?
+[1728.96 --> 1729.30]  To I.
+[1731.22 --> 1732.26]  Div inline block.
+[1732.32 --> 1732.64]  Love it.
+[1733.04 --> 1733.32]  Okay.
+[1733.36 --> 1734.86]  We go over to Team Shop Talk.
+[1734.94 --> 1737.70]  Let's have Amelia name a favorite HTML element.
+[1738.22 --> 1744.22]  Oh, it might be way too obscure, but I know it's got some fans out there.
+[1744.22 --> 1746.40]  We're going to go with marquee.
+[1747.70 --> 1749.36]  Show me marquee.
+[1749.36 --> 1750.08]  Good answer.
+[1750.18 --> 1750.64]  Good answer.
+[1750.82 --> 1751.14]  Yeah.
+[1751.36 --> 1752.28]  Well done.
+[1752.50 --> 1752.80]  Nice.
+[1752.86 --> 1753.40]  Good answer.
+[1753.48 --> 1755.30]  That's the number two answer, actually.
+[1755.56 --> 1756.30]  So it's highest support.
+[1756.30 --> 1756.54]  Oh, my God.
+[1756.92 --> 1757.94]  Not obscure.
+[1758.44 --> 1759.90]  Turns out it's not that obscure.
+[1760.56 --> 1762.52]  So you get 20 points for that one.
+[1763.36 --> 1765.16]  And we go back now to syntax.
+[1766.10 --> 1766.92]  And we'll have Scott.
+[1766.92 --> 1771.32]  Um, let's think here about HTML elements.
+[1772.04 --> 1773.48]  What elements do I like a lot?
+[1773.98 --> 1774.52]  Let's see.
+[1775.04 --> 1775.32]  Button.
+[1775.82 --> 1776.66]  Show me button.
+[1778.04 --> 1779.46]  Number three answer, button.
+[1779.52 --> 1780.04]  Whoa.
+[1780.54 --> 1780.76]  Good.
+[1781.38 --> 1782.94]  So we get 30 points for that one.
+[1783.84 --> 1784.70]  Well played.
+[1784.80 --> 1787.30]  So now number two and number three are taken, marquee and button.
+[1787.48 --> 1790.68]  So number one, four, five, and six are still out there.
+[1791.32 --> 1793.18]  And we go now to Chris.
+[1794.04 --> 1794.38]  Okay.
+[1794.38 --> 1795.82]  So we're just going back and forth here.
+[1795.92 --> 1796.50]  That's another win.
+[1796.50 --> 1797.60]  Yeah, we're just going to go back and forth.
+[1797.96 --> 1798.22]  Okay.
+[1799.02 --> 1800.22]  Two of six have been answered.
+[1800.68 --> 1803.50]  And one's going to be, why would I give you answers?
+[1803.62 --> 1804.20]  I'm not going to do that.
+[1805.78 --> 1807.90]  I'm going to hope that A is on the list.
+[1808.12 --> 1809.38]  A, the anchor element.
+[1809.62 --> 1811.10]  Show me A.
+[1813.16 --> 1813.52]  Whoa.
+[1814.06 --> 1814.86]  That checks out.
+[1814.92 --> 1815.96]  It's a JavaScript podcast.
+[1818.36 --> 1819.40]  Use a div for that.
+[1820.06 --> 1821.08]  Use a div with a link.
+[1821.08 --> 1824.56]  I'll just say, personally, A is my favorite element, personally.
+[1824.78 --> 1825.92]  Unclick as an attribute?
+[1825.92 --> 1826.60]  Yeah.
+[1827.04 --> 1828.08]  Div with an on click, yeah.
+[1828.38 --> 1828.80]  On click.
+[1829.10 --> 1830.16]  Div with an on click.
+[1830.96 --> 1833.28]  I think we all are hovering around number one.
+[1833.40 --> 1833.58]  Okay.
+[1833.70 --> 1837.66]  So we go from Chris over to Wes on Team Syntax.
+[1838.18 --> 1839.40]  I'm going to go paragraph tag.
+[1839.94 --> 1840.82]  Paragraph tag.
+[1841.16 --> 1841.86]  Is it popular?
+[1842.70 --> 1843.64]  It is.
+[1843.72 --> 1844.06]  Nice.
+[1844.38 --> 1845.90]  That's the number five answer.
+[1846.10 --> 1846.38]  Yay.
+[1846.84 --> 1848.30]  Points, points, points, points.
+[1848.30 --> 1848.62]  Points.
+[1848.62 --> 1851.72]  So you score a whopping 50 points on that.
+[1852.10 --> 1852.50]  Dang.
+[1852.50 --> 1853.06]  50?
+[1853.32 --> 1853.70]  Yes.
+[1853.94 --> 1855.20]  Oh, that probably put us ahead.
+[1855.66 --> 1856.26]  Yeah, Wes.
+[1856.42 --> 1859.32]  Don't you want to get less points for some reason on this weird round?
+[1859.90 --> 1861.68]  So that was Wes.
+[1861.72 --> 1864.24]  Now we're looping back around to Amelia.
+[1864.90 --> 1865.78]  It's Dave's turn.
+[1866.32 --> 1867.06]  No, yeah, you're right.
+[1867.16 --> 1867.58]  Dave's turn.
+[1867.70 --> 1868.08]  Sorry, Dave.
+[1868.38 --> 1875.56]  We need something less popular than P, but more popular than the Ruby element.
+[1876.26 --> 1879.06]  So that's quite a range.
+[1880.26 --> 1880.70]  UL.
+[1881.48 --> 1882.16]  Oh, my God.
+[1882.64 --> 1883.56]  Show me UL.
+[1885.18 --> 1885.62]  No.
+[1885.62 --> 1886.06]  No.
+[1887.14 --> 1888.24]  All that default styling.
+[1888.44 --> 1889.98]  I forgot it was a JavaScript podcast.
+[1890.62 --> 1891.90]  It's a React podcast now.
+[1892.08 --> 1895.42]  Just think, is there anybody out there who thinks, my favorite element is an unordered list?
+[1895.46 --> 1895.92]  I just love them.
+[1896.54 --> 1903.56]  Divya, now we have to decide if we take the easy known number one or risk it for the biscuit.
+[1903.56 --> 1904.12]  I know.
+[1904.44 --> 1906.96]  I think we take the easy points, if you're asking me.
+[1907.14 --> 1909.28]  We can take the easy one and then go for the later one.
+[1909.38 --> 1909.62]  Yeah.
+[1909.76 --> 1910.94]  That's probably a good strategy.
+[1911.26 --> 1911.52]  Yeah.
+[1911.60 --> 1914.18]  You might be sick of the joke, but look at your name.
+[1914.84 --> 1915.62]  I know.
+[1916.06 --> 1916.26]  Oh.
+[1917.40 --> 1918.96]  Clearly, you have a div on the team.
+[1919.06 --> 1919.74]  Got to use it.
+[1921.66 --> 1923.08]  Show me div, yeah.
+[1924.20 --> 1925.12]  Yes, of course.
+[1925.20 --> 1926.00]  The number one answer.
+[1926.38 --> 1927.24]  Nice job.
+[1927.24 --> 1930.70]  With 45 respondents answered with div.
+[1931.46 --> 1931.90]  Okay.
+[1931.90 --> 1935.84]  Okay, so we now have number one div, number two marquee.
+[1936.28 --> 1937.48]  I can't remember the other ones.
+[1937.60 --> 1939.24]  Number five, P tag.
+[1939.40 --> 1941.12]  I think it was like button and P.
+[1941.32 --> 1941.54]  Yeah.
+[1941.94 --> 1944.08]  Button is number three, marquee is number two.
+[1944.44 --> 1945.08]  Yeah, that's right.
+[1945.32 --> 1946.88]  So we're missing four and six.
+[1947.22 --> 1947.54]  Okay.
+[1947.78 --> 1950.08]  And there's only like 112 elements left.
+[1950.08 --> 1950.30]  Yeah.
+[1952.30 --> 1955.66]  Each team has one strike, so if you strike out, then we'll end the round.
+[1955.76 --> 1957.22]  So you'll have a couple of guesses left.
+[1957.72 --> 1959.82]  That was Divya, so now we're back to Amelia, right?
+[1959.82 --> 1961.50]  Yeah, I like images.
+[1963.08 --> 1965.40]  Kind of obscure, but also very nice.
+[1965.40 --> 1965.68]  Okay, let's go.
+[1965.84 --> 1966.48]  Let's go.
+[1966.70 --> 1967.30]  Let's go.
+[1967.48 --> 1968.58]  Show me image.
+[1970.00 --> 1970.40]  Oh.
+[1971.80 --> 1972.86]  Who doesn't love an image?
+[1973.18 --> 1973.30]  No.
+[1973.46 --> 1974.82]  I would have thought that would be on.
+[1975.02 --> 1975.88]  For sure.
+[1976.00 --> 1976.76]  That's a good guess.
+[1977.00 --> 1977.22]  Yep.
+[1977.60 --> 1978.98]  So two strikes for Shop Talk.
+[1979.08 --> 1980.56]  Let's go back over to Syntax.
+[1980.62 --> 1981.24]  We're back to Scott.
+[1981.74 --> 1982.18]  Favorite.
+[1982.18 --> 1982.30]  Favorite.
+[1983.78 --> 1984.46]  Let's see.
+[1984.70 --> 1985.86]  Consider the Ruby tag.
+[1985.94 --> 1986.62]  That's really popular.
+[1986.72 --> 1988.44]  Yeah, it is really popular.
+[1988.44 --> 1988.84]  I love it.
+[1988.84 --> 1990.54]  It's for annotations or something.
+[1991.10 --> 1991.58]  Yeah.
+[1992.04 --> 1992.44]  Superscript.
+[1992.58 --> 1993.06]  That's a good one.
+[1993.14 --> 1993.34]  Sup?
+[1993.70 --> 1994.98]  The WBO.
+[1995.76 --> 1996.62]  WBR, yeah.
+[1997.32 --> 1998.36]  Yeah, WBR.
+[1998.62 --> 1999.86]  The table element.
+[2000.78 --> 2004.20]  Let's say the nav element.
+[2004.96 --> 2005.56]  Getting semantic.
+[2005.84 --> 2006.56]  Show me nav.
+[2007.54 --> 2007.78]  Yeah.
+[2008.12 --> 2008.66]  No, thank you.
+[2008.78 --> 2009.24]  Sorry.
+[2009.24 --> 2009.94]  My bad.
+[2010.16 --> 2010.52]  All right.
+[2010.56 --> 2012.32]  Each team has one more guess.
+[2012.32 --> 2012.74]  All right.
+[2012.92 --> 2013.86]  One more correct guess.
+[2013.86 --> 2014.60]  So here we go.
+[2015.02 --> 2016.78]  Back over to Team Shop Talk.
+[2016.84 --> 2017.54]  It's Chris again, right?
+[2017.76 --> 2017.98]  Yeah.
+[2018.12 --> 2018.42]  Chris.
+[2019.46 --> 2022.08]  I'm going to just shout out H1.
+[2022.64 --> 2023.64]  Yeah, that was my second guess.
+[2023.74 --> 2025.60]  Show us H1.
+[2026.54 --> 2027.28]  Oh, wow.
+[2027.36 --> 2028.68]  Ah, there's too many elements.
+[2029.38 --> 2029.76]  All right.
+[2029.78 --> 2030.60]  Here's my last one.
+[2030.60 --> 2032.48]  Am I allowed to confer on this one?
+[2032.62 --> 2033.04]  No.
+[2033.42 --> 2035.08]  For the sake of like a good podcast?
+[2035.36 --> 2035.76]  No.
+[2036.98 --> 2038.84]  For the sake of good podcasting, no.
+[2039.24 --> 2039.84]  Aw.
+[2040.42 --> 2040.82]  Uninterested.
+[2041.26 --> 2041.54]  Okay.
+[2041.70 --> 2043.30]  Well, I'm going to think out loud here.
+[2043.42 --> 2048.38]  So I'm either thinking header, footer, or like a body, or HTML.
+[2048.62 --> 2049.02]  Oh.
+[2049.32 --> 2050.06]  Super meta.
+[2050.42 --> 2053.94]  You think people would be sassy enough to say, like, what's your favorite HTML thing?
+[2054.00 --> 2054.36]  HTML?
+[2055.36 --> 2057.32]  HTML, body, header, footer.
+[2058.62 --> 2059.96]  I'm going to say.
+[2060.58 --> 2061.34]  There's too many choices.
+[2061.82 --> 2062.70]  I'm going to go body.
+[2063.28 --> 2064.50]  Part of me wants to say HTML.
+[2064.62 --> 2065.44]  I'm saying body, though.
+[2065.44 --> 2065.88]  Yeah.
+[2066.32 --> 2069.56]  I'll tell you that body was answered by one person.
+[2069.66 --> 2070.14]  Oh.
+[2070.78 --> 2071.06]  Bing.
+[2071.12 --> 2073.34]  Did not make the top six.
+[2073.82 --> 2074.24]  Okay.
+[2074.36 --> 2074.74]  So.
+[2075.08 --> 2075.48]  SVG?
+[2075.94 --> 2076.38]  Still.
+[2076.70 --> 2077.88]  Pretty good scoring on that round.
+[2078.04 --> 2081.12]  Number four most popular element, input.
+[2081.84 --> 2082.20]  Oh.
+[2082.70 --> 2083.16]  Input.
+[2083.16 --> 2083.88]  People like input?
+[2084.14 --> 2084.94]  Nobody likes inputs.
+[2085.14 --> 2085.42]  Nobody.
+[2085.72 --> 2087.48]  Inputs are the worst style.
+[2087.64 --> 2087.84]  Yeah.
+[2088.02 --> 2090.92]  Yeah, but they make you be able to do things on your website.
+[2091.32 --> 2091.76]  That's true.
+[2091.98 --> 2092.32]  All right.
+[2092.40 --> 2092.48]  All right.
+[2092.48 --> 2094.48]  And the number six most popular.
+[2094.94 --> 2096.88]  Hey, it is a JavaScript podcast, after all.
+[2097.04 --> 2097.50]  Script.
+[2097.90 --> 2098.30]  Whoa.
+[2098.86 --> 2099.26]  Wow.
+[2099.26 --> 2099.66]  Wow.
+[2101.06 --> 2101.84]  I forgot that.
+[2101.96 --> 2102.92]  That was part of HTML.
+[2102.92 --> 2104.86]  I thought it was part of Webpack.
+[2105.88 --> 2106.76]  Honorable mentions.
+[2107.28 --> 2108.94]  A couple people mentioned iframe.
+[2109.10 --> 2110.60]  UL was mentioned by a couple people.
+[2110.74 --> 2113.24]  The picture element was mentioned twice.
+[2114.20 --> 2115.86]  Somebody said keep it on the DL.
+[2116.02 --> 2116.70]  So they were being very.
+[2116.70 --> 2117.10]  Oh.
+[2117.70 --> 2118.40]  Cute with that.
+[2118.54 --> 2121.24]  And someone actually said div, and then in parentheses they put yeah.
+[2121.44 --> 2122.40]  So Divya, you had div.
+[2122.40 --> 2122.72]  Yeah.
+[2123.12 --> 2123.52]  Yeah.
+[2123.86 --> 2124.26]  Wow.
+[2124.64 --> 2125.94]  We get points for that, though, right?
+[2126.10 --> 2126.90]  Yes, we get points.
+[2126.92 --> 2127.04]  Yeah.
+[2127.04 --> 2127.14]  Yeah.
+[2127.28 --> 2129.56]  I counted that towards the div, so they got their points.
+[2129.70 --> 2129.98]  All right.
+[2130.04 --> 2134.48]  So in that round, Shop Talk scored 20, and Syntax scored 90.
+[2134.62 --> 2136.02]  So we have a game here.
+[2136.44 --> 2137.84]  It's going back and forth.
+[2137.94 --> 2143.82]  And after four rounds, Syntax is in the lead with 227, and Shop Talk trails with 193.
+[2143.82 --> 2145.28]  It's anybody's game at this point.
+[2146.70 --> 2163.74]  What's up, party people?
+[2163.74 --> 2166.26]  Well, this episode is brought to you by Micro.
+[2166.76 --> 2167.96]  Micro, a.k.a.
+[2168.02 --> 2172.48]  M3O, is a new cloud platform built for developers by developers.
+[2172.90 --> 2175.02]  Our good friend, Asim Asim, is leading this.
+[2175.26 --> 2181.90]  And if you're tired of AWS and feeling overwhelmed by the cloud, infinite billing, and an endless sea of docs, it is time for a change.
+[2181.90 --> 2185.16]  The micro team is reimagining the cloud for the next generation.
+[2185.60 --> 2193.84]  M3O is a new developer-friendly platform to explore, search, and use simpler APIs for everyday consumption all in one place.
+[2194.06 --> 2198.68]  Get access to the APIs you need in one click and test them right there on the web before using them.
+[2198.68 --> 2200.98]  Simple, fast, and affordable.
+[2201.46 --> 2203.16]  You won't get burned by bottomless billing.
+[2203.46 --> 2205.12]  You top up your account and pay as you go.
+[2205.48 --> 2209.08]  And right now, they're in early development and building out the first set of APIs.
+[2209.40 --> 2211.04]  And they're looking for feedback from developers.
+[2211.52 --> 2213.30]  Sign up and get $5 in free credits.
+[2213.56 --> 2214.22]  Kick the tires.
+[2214.54 --> 2218.26]  Give them your input so they can build the best APIs you want to use every single day.
+[2218.58 --> 2220.54]  Learn more at M3O.com.
+[2220.80 --> 2222.78]  Again, M3O.com.
+[2222.78 --> 2236.38]  We now go to round five.
+[2236.46 --> 2238.92]  And I'll tell you, in round five, all scoring is doubled.
+[2239.12 --> 2241.48]  So it is certainly anybody's match.
+[2242.08 --> 2243.58]  Let's get back to the face-off.
+[2245.66 --> 2248.00]  And everybody is faced off at this point, correct?
+[2248.56 --> 2249.78]  I believe so.
+[2250.00 --> 2250.24]  Yeah.
+[2250.24 --> 2251.46]  I think so, because it's round.
+[2251.68 --> 2251.88]  Yes.
+[2251.88 --> 2256.26]  So we'll go back to the top of the face-off with Amelia and Divya.
+[2256.38 --> 2257.26]  And Amelia guessed first.
+[2257.32 --> 2257.72]  Last round.
+[2257.78 --> 2259.24]  So we'll let Divya go first this round.
+[2259.90 --> 2260.24]  All right.
+[2260.28 --> 2262.10]  So there's four answers on the board.
+[2262.36 --> 2265.46]  Divya, name a common mistake that developers make.
+[2265.88 --> 2267.42]  This is such a broad question.
+[2268.26 --> 2270.82]  A common mistake developers make?
+[2271.34 --> 2271.98]  It even rhymes.
+[2272.24 --> 2272.92]  I just noticed that.
+[2273.24 --> 2273.40]  Hmm.
+[2274.28 --> 2276.78]  They spell debugger wrongly.
+[2277.50 --> 2279.30]  I'm not on your team, but good answer.
+[2279.56 --> 2279.94]  Good answer.
+[2279.94 --> 2284.12]  Show me spelling things wrong.
+[2285.62 --> 2286.02]  Yes.
+[2286.42 --> 2286.82]  Yes.
+[2287.06 --> 2287.68]  Oh, wow.
+[2287.68 --> 2289.94]  So we've joined forces.
+[2290.12 --> 2292.80]  Typos and misspellings was the number one answer.
+[2292.86 --> 2293.52]  I combined the two.
+[2293.60 --> 2295.50]  So there's 29 there with typos and misspellings.
+[2295.60 --> 2295.90]  Oh.
+[2296.10 --> 2298.56]  Because what is a misspelling if not a typo and vice versa?
+[2298.70 --> 2300.48]  I mean, you end up spelling it wrong when you typo.
+[2300.56 --> 2301.78]  So pretty much the same thing.
+[2301.84 --> 2304.50]  That's 29 points and you get to play the round.
+[2304.96 --> 2305.14]  So.
+[2305.60 --> 2306.10]  All right.
+[2306.16 --> 2306.72]  Let's go.
+[2306.90 --> 2308.22]  Team Syntax in control.
+[2308.46 --> 2310.72]  You have three things left on the board.
+[2310.80 --> 2312.54]  Of course, you have three strikes to give.
+[2312.92 --> 2313.90]  Scott, it's your turn.
+[2313.90 --> 2315.78]  Name a common mistake that developers make.
+[2315.78 --> 2317.00]  Oh, gosh.
+[2317.80 --> 2319.36]  I don't make mistakes very much.
+[2319.56 --> 2319.80]  I don't.
+[2321.02 --> 2321.88]  Let's see.
+[2322.20 --> 2322.76]  It's tough.
+[2322.86 --> 2323.34]  I get it.
+[2323.42 --> 2324.06]  I get it.
+[2324.14 --> 2324.42]  Yeah.
+[2325.24 --> 2326.66]  Scott makes no mistakes.
+[2327.24 --> 2327.46]  Yeah.
+[2327.46 --> 2327.52]  Yeah.
+[2327.52 --> 2328.20]  Never, ever.
+[2328.62 --> 2330.26]  Including not spelling things wrong, ever.
+[2330.74 --> 2331.10]  Let's see.
+[2331.60 --> 2331.72]  I.
+[2333.32 --> 2334.76]  Here's a decent answer.
+[2334.82 --> 2335.46]  I don't know if this will work.
+[2335.52 --> 2336.94]  They pick the wrong technology.
+[2337.48 --> 2337.88]  Show me.
+[2337.94 --> 2338.68]  Pick the wrong tech.
+[2338.68 --> 2341.06]  Oh, man.
+[2341.20 --> 2341.72]  Sorry about that.
+[2341.76 --> 2342.54]  That is very valid.
+[2342.80 --> 2342.94]  Yeah.
+[2343.32 --> 2345.38]  Not bad, but didn't quite make the board.
+[2346.00 --> 2347.16]  All right, Wes.
+[2347.22 --> 2347.86]  It's your turn.
+[2348.36 --> 2349.04]  All right.
+[2349.88 --> 2352.92]  Would syntax error be covered under spelling things wrong?
+[2353.20 --> 2354.24]  Oh, boo.
+[2354.34 --> 2354.62]  Hey.
+[2357.42 --> 2359.20]  Is that what he was going to guess?
+[2359.50 --> 2361.10]  No, it's just it's your namesake.
+[2361.22 --> 2361.72]  It's your name.
+[2362.04 --> 2362.38]  Oh, yeah.
+[2362.44 --> 2362.70]  Yeah.
+[2362.70 --> 2363.06]  Yeah.
+[2363.06 --> 2363.18]  Yeah.
+[2363.18 --> 2364.52]  Syntax is a big mistake.
+[2364.66 --> 2365.04]  It is.
+[2365.10 --> 2365.38]  Okay.
+[2365.38 --> 2368.20]  I'm going to go like syntax error.
+[2368.42 --> 2369.78]  I think I lumped it in with typos.
+[2369.90 --> 2371.44]  I think I did because I'm not seeing it.
+[2371.52 --> 2372.92]  I think that's similar to typos.
+[2373.02 --> 2373.08]  No.
+[2373.08 --> 2373.34]  Yeah.
+[2373.76 --> 2374.10]  All right.
+[2374.10 --> 2374.36]  I have.
+[2374.46 --> 2375.24]  I have another one then.
+[2375.28 --> 2375.48]  Okay.
+[2375.78 --> 2376.68]  Forgetting to save.
+[2377.12 --> 2377.82]  Oh, that's a good one.
+[2378.10 --> 2379.62]  Show me forgetting to save.
+[2380.76 --> 2381.08]  Whoa.
+[2382.16 --> 2382.60]  Wow.
+[2383.06 --> 2383.16]  What?
+[2383.42 --> 2385.16]  I guess it's just a tough one.
+[2385.52 --> 2386.78]  I got auto save on.
+[2387.48 --> 2388.04]  There you go.
+[2388.30 --> 2388.60]  All right.
+[2388.60 --> 2389.46]  So two strikes.
+[2389.92 --> 2390.68]  That's crazy.
+[2390.98 --> 2391.20]  Okay.
+[2391.20 --> 2392.94]  What's the average age of the audience?
+[2393.14 --> 2393.42]  Are they.
+[2394.08 --> 2394.32]  Yeah.
+[2394.90 --> 2395.20]  Oh.
+[2395.38 --> 2396.76]  All 12 year olds on iPads.
+[2397.98 --> 2398.88]  Everything's auto saved.
+[2399.40 --> 2399.94]  Oh, man.
+[2400.36 --> 2400.56]  All right.
+[2400.56 --> 2401.34]  We're back at Divya.
+[2402.04 --> 2402.52]  Okay, cool.
+[2402.70 --> 2407.00]  I think a common mistake that developers will have is.
+[2407.68 --> 2407.90]  Okay.
+[2407.92 --> 2412.28]  This is very generic, but messing up version control or like git commits.
+[2412.50 --> 2413.24]  Oh, yeah.
+[2413.44 --> 2413.92]  Hmm.
+[2414.12 --> 2416.24]  Show me git problems.
+[2418.00 --> 2418.44]  Wow.
+[2418.92 --> 2419.48]  What?
+[2420.48 --> 2420.92]  Amazing.
+[2420.92 --> 2421.98]  So that's three strikes.
+[2422.22 --> 2422.32]  Wow.
+[2422.32 --> 2423.82]  All the things on my list are Xs.
+[2423.90 --> 2424.04]  Yeah.
+[2424.14 --> 2424.60]  This is crazy.
+[2424.60 --> 2424.78]  Yeah.
+[2424.88 --> 2425.28]  I know.
+[2425.38 --> 2426.32]  I was like, come on.
+[2426.52 --> 2427.80]  So Shop Talk and Steal.
+[2427.88 --> 2429.42]  There's still three things on the board.
+[2429.50 --> 2430.42]  We only have the number one.
+[2430.78 --> 2432.72]  No, we only got two wrong, didn't we?
+[2432.72 --> 2434.18]  We only got two, didn't we?
+[2434.28 --> 2435.74]  All three of you got one wrong, didn't you?
+[2436.12 --> 2437.18]  Pick wrong tech.
+[2437.28 --> 2438.20]  Forget to save.
+[2438.30 --> 2438.84]  Git mistakes.
+[2439.12 --> 2439.40]  Yes.
+[2439.52 --> 2439.90]  There we go.
+[2439.98 --> 2440.58]  Chris is on it.
+[2440.58 --> 2441.20]  Oh, man.
+[2441.20 --> 2441.38]  Come on.
+[2441.38 --> 2442.18]  Give us one more.
+[2442.18 --> 2443.18]  All right.
+[2443.18 --> 2444.70]  All right, Shop Talk.
+[2444.84 --> 2447.12]  You can confer amongst yourselves.
+[2447.30 --> 2448.12]  Oh, we get to talk.
+[2448.22 --> 2448.66]  That's right.
+[2448.84 --> 2449.08]  Yes.
+[2449.42 --> 2451.24]  There was only five answers?
+[2451.72 --> 2452.26]  Four total.
+[2452.36 --> 2452.82]  Three left.
+[2453.14 --> 2453.50]  Wow.
+[2453.78 --> 2456.08]  There's no points to steal here.
+[2456.40 --> 2457.68]  It is a low scoring round, yeah.
+[2457.90 --> 2460.26]  They deploy on Friday, is it possible?
+[2460.82 --> 2461.72]  Deploy on Friday.
+[2462.30 --> 2466.58]  Messing up types, like trying to add a number and a string.
+[2466.78 --> 2468.08]  Type coercion or whatever.
+[2468.08 --> 2469.08]  Type coercion.
+[2469.20 --> 2472.78]  There's like really big bundles or memory leaks.
+[2473.00 --> 2474.32]  Oh, performance problems.
+[2474.34 --> 2474.80]  Performance.
+[2475.16 --> 2475.60]  Okay.
+[2476.08 --> 2476.90]  I like that.
+[2477.26 --> 2478.06]  Dev as a button.
+[2478.50 --> 2478.90]  Mm-hmm.
+[2481.76 --> 2483.72]  Semantic elements, yeah.
+[2483.92 --> 2484.96]  How do you say performance?
+[2485.06 --> 2487.28]  You used to say like do performance bad.
+[2487.84 --> 2488.84]  Yeah, bad performance.
+[2489.02 --> 2490.38]  Yeah, you could say do performance bad.
+[2490.72 --> 2491.74]  I think that's the way it's about.
+[2492.46 --> 2494.30]  Yeah, you should say that.
+[2494.30 --> 2494.82]  Okay.
+[2496.04 --> 2496.92]  Oh, no.
+[2496.92 --> 2499.74]  So, Wes is like in the database, like.
+[2501.10 --> 2503.08]  Wes has reverse engineered the form.
+[2503.24 --> 2503.54]  Yeah.
+[2504.18 --> 2506.94]  He found the form printouts of the dumpster out back.
+[2507.28 --> 2507.66]  Yeah.
+[2508.12 --> 2508.74]  All right.
+[2508.88 --> 2510.82]  Show us do performance bad.
+[2515.14 --> 2516.26]  Fail to steal.
+[2516.28 --> 2517.94]  I was going to say refresh production.
+[2518.16 --> 2519.30]  So, a lot of missed ones here.
+[2519.36 --> 2520.90]  This was a trouble round.
+[2521.22 --> 2523.34]  Number two answer, off by one errors.
+[2523.96 --> 2525.78]  Oh, that's a good one.
+[2525.78 --> 2526.46]  Yeah, yeah.
+[2526.46 --> 2526.88]  Yeah, that's good.
+[2527.00 --> 2529.46]  Number three, forgetting semicolons.
+[2530.14 --> 2531.76]  That's why it's a syntax error.
+[2532.14 --> 2532.96]  That's a syntax error.
+[2532.96 --> 2534.14]  I purposefully do that, yeah.
+[2534.14 --> 2536.64]  I said syntax error forgetting a semicolon.
+[2537.40 --> 2538.04]  Oh, man.
+[2538.18 --> 2538.38]  Yo.
+[2538.82 --> 2539.66]  Roll the tape.
+[2539.94 --> 2541.48]  It's a very specific response.
+[2541.56 --> 2543.44]  It was a very specific response, so I let it have its own.
+[2543.46 --> 2544.88]  That's a stylistic thing, too.
+[2545.24 --> 2547.24]  I specifically said semicolon, though.
+[2547.54 --> 2548.00]  Oh, you did?
+[2548.42 --> 2548.58]  Yeah.
+[2548.58 --> 2549.42]  Wes did say that.
+[2549.56 --> 2550.22]  He did say syntax.
+[2550.22 --> 2550.66]  Oh, my fault.
+[2550.92 --> 2551.44]  I'm sorry.
+[2551.44 --> 2554.16]  I heard syntax error, and then Chris started making fun of him.
+[2554.34 --> 2554.96]  Point, point, point, point, point.
+[2555.14 --> 2555.48]  It's okay.
+[2555.60 --> 2555.96]  It's okay.
+[2556.52 --> 2556.82]  All right.
+[2556.84 --> 2557.72]  We get that back, then.
+[2558.22 --> 2559.18]  Everybody missed it.
+[2559.30 --> 2559.92]  My bad.
+[2560.10 --> 2561.96]  Number four, premature optimization.
+[2562.84 --> 2563.20]  Okay.
+[2564.02 --> 2564.58]  Fair enough.
+[2564.72 --> 2567.52]  Now, there's a lot of them that just barely missed the top four.
+[2567.98 --> 2569.52]  Who put that answer?
+[2569.62 --> 2570.90]  Was that Kyle Simpson or something?
+[2571.58 --> 2574.20]  Who put spam in our form?
+[2574.90 --> 2575.66]  Yeah, yeah.
+[2575.94 --> 2576.10]  No.
+[2576.18 --> 2576.96]  Yeah, perhaps.
+[2577.18 --> 2577.38]  All right.
+[2577.42 --> 2578.84]  There's a bunch of them that were tied at five.
+[2578.84 --> 2581.06]  Breaking production was answered a lot.
+[2581.22 --> 2582.62]  Editing or testing the wrong thing.
+[2582.70 --> 2584.88]  So that's similar to what you're talking about there, Wes, with not saving.
+[2585.56 --> 2586.90]  Leftover console logs.
+[2587.74 --> 2590.34]  Bad docs, no docs, and then overengineering.
+[2590.42 --> 2592.34]  Those are all mentioned five times.
+[2592.90 --> 2594.88]  One person said building the wrong thing.
+[2595.20 --> 2597.16]  Oh, I accidentally built a website for it.
+[2597.16 --> 2598.94]  One said building things nobody wants.
+[2599.18 --> 2599.38]  Yeah.
+[2599.74 --> 2600.00]  Yeah.
+[2600.32 --> 2601.36]  Showed up to meeting.
+[2601.72 --> 2601.90]  Yeah.
+[2602.56 --> 2604.38]  I built a div instead of a button.
+[2605.08 --> 2607.18]  One person said writing code.
+[2607.18 --> 2609.86]  And then one person said getting stuck in Vim.
+[2610.02 --> 2610.98]  So we can't go.
+[2611.30 --> 2612.34]  Getting stuck in Vim.
+[2612.34 --> 2614.32]  Every friend has to have a Vim reference.
+[2614.50 --> 2615.00]  And there it is.
+[2615.00 --> 2615.10]  Come on.
+[2615.44 --> 2616.24]  So there's your trolls.
+[2617.12 --> 2617.40]  All right.
+[2617.44 --> 2620.38]  So there's 29 points scored by Team Syntax.
+[2620.46 --> 2622.36]  And since it's a double round, we will double that.
+[2622.46 --> 2622.68]  Yeah.
+[2623.34 --> 2625.24]  Do we get points for the semicolon too?
+[2625.86 --> 2626.30]  No.
+[2627.36 --> 2628.66]  We fought hard and we lost.
+[2628.80 --> 2629.28]  I apologize.
+[2629.78 --> 2630.48]  That's an upset.
+[2630.80 --> 2631.70]  The law one.
+[2631.70 --> 2637.96]  So after round five, it's Syntax 285 and Shop Talk 193.
+[2638.06 --> 2640.34]  We have just one round left.
+[2641.18 --> 2641.62]  Sick.
+[2641.80 --> 2642.66]  Let's go.
+[2642.86 --> 2643.18]  All right.
+[2643.28 --> 2645.40]  Round six is also a double score round.
+[2645.50 --> 2647.96]  So this is Shop Talk's big chance to make a comeback.
+[2648.10 --> 2648.68]  Step right up.
+[2650.76 --> 2653.16]  Chris versus Scott.
+[2653.36 --> 2656.28]  Now, which one of you two got the first guess last time around?
+[2656.36 --> 2656.70]  Was it Scott?
+[2656.78 --> 2658.32]  So we'll let Chris take the first guess here.
+[2658.60 --> 2658.86]  I did.
+[2658.86 --> 2660.30]  Round six, a double round.
+[2660.40 --> 2667.46]  We asked 140 intelligent JS Party listeners, name an organization that helps push the web
+[2667.46 --> 2667.92]  forward.
+[2668.82 --> 2669.12]  Chris.
+[2670.02 --> 2671.68]  The W3C.
+[2672.20 --> 2673.56]  Show me the W3C.
+[2675.16 --> 2676.88]  That is the number three answer.
+[2677.00 --> 2680.22]  It's not the number one answer, which means Scott has a chance to take the round.
+[2680.84 --> 2681.50]  Oh, man.
+[2681.50 --> 2684.40]  Scott, name an organization that helps push the web forward.
+[2685.28 --> 2686.46]  An organization.
+[2686.76 --> 2687.24]  You got it.
+[2687.24 --> 2689.92]  That helps an organization.
+[2690.96 --> 2693.02]  Does that include like nonprofits?
+[2693.70 --> 2697.16]  Like the, uh, uh, helps push the web forward.
+[2697.76 --> 2698.76]  Man, this is tough.
+[2699.58 --> 2700.48]  I don't know.
+[2700.86 --> 2701.70]  Let's say.
+[2702.06 --> 2702.32]  Take a guess.
+[2702.76 --> 2703.04]  Yeah.
+[2703.26 --> 2703.80]  Come on, Scott.
+[2703.88 --> 2704.70]  We had a show on this.
+[2704.78 --> 2705.82]  Oh, and a friend.
+[2706.54 --> 2708.16]  We had a show on this?
+[2708.16 --> 2708.72]  No helping him.
+[2708.84 --> 2709.06]  Yeah.
+[2709.06 --> 2713.58]  We had a show on this.
+[2713.74 --> 2714.14]  What is that?
+[2714.66 --> 2716.60]  What else did we possibly have a show on?
+[2717.18 --> 2719.66]  Scott's now going through 300 of the states.
+[2721.30 --> 2722.76]  We're going to need an answer here, Scott.
+[2722.94 --> 2723.22]  Guess what?
+[2723.22 --> 2723.50]  Shoot.
+[2724.12 --> 2724.52]  Shoot.
+[2725.06 --> 2726.14]  I don't know.
+[2726.78 --> 2729.10]  Organization that helps push the web forward.
+[2730.84 --> 2731.92]  I know.
+[2732.02 --> 2732.74]  I'm sorry, Wes.
+[2732.74 --> 2734.12]  Uh, I'm very sorry.
+[2734.96 --> 2735.40]  Hmm.
+[2736.10 --> 2736.52]  Hmm.
+[2736.96 --> 2737.36]  Hmm.
+[2739.12 --> 2741.60]  Wes is trying to provide visual aid too.
+[2742.26 --> 2743.56]  Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
+[2743.94 --> 2745.72]  We got some baseball.
+[2746.46 --> 2747.50]  This is table talk.
+[2749.46 --> 2751.00]  Apparently he wants you to steal a base.
+[2751.08 --> 2751.74]  I don't know what he's doing.
+[2751.74 --> 2752.94]  I don't know what he's saying either.
+[2752.96 --> 2754.04]  The Baltimore Orioles.
+[2757.12 --> 2757.96]  Oh, gosh.
+[2757.98 --> 2758.60]  All right, Scott.
+[2759.38 --> 2760.22]  I'm so sorry.
+[2760.38 --> 2760.52]  Yeah.
+[2760.60 --> 2761.36]  Free code camp.
+[2761.44 --> 2761.82]  Who cares?
+[2762.30 --> 2763.00]  Free code camp.
+[2763.08 --> 2763.60]  Show me free code camp.
+[2763.62 --> 2764.40]  Oh, that's a good one.
+[2765.46 --> 2766.50]  That's pretty good, though.
+[2766.60 --> 2767.40]  Yeah, I liked it.
+[2767.62 --> 2768.24]  All right.
+[2768.60 --> 2769.76]  Shop Talk gets the round.
+[2769.84 --> 2773.42]  Shop Talk, you're well positioned to steal this game right here and now.
+[2773.78 --> 2775.78]  Chris got the number three answer.
+[2775.88 --> 2777.98]  There's five total answers on the board.
+[2778.02 --> 2778.20]  We got this.
+[2778.28 --> 2778.82]  We got it.
+[2779.12 --> 2779.94]  So there's four left.
+[2779.94 --> 2781.78]  Numbers one, two, four, and five.
+[2781.90 --> 2783.48]  And we go to Dave.
+[2783.78 --> 2786.08]  Dave, name an organization that helps push the web forward.
+[2787.02 --> 2788.16]  Google Chrome.
+[2788.44 --> 2788.68]  Google.
+[2789.18 --> 2790.26]  Show me Google.
+[2791.92 --> 2793.16]  Number two answer.
+[2793.30 --> 2793.56]  Google.
+[2793.76 --> 2794.40]  That makes sense.
+[2794.52 --> 2796.14]  With 28 responses.
+[2796.46 --> 2797.74]  I wasn't thinking like corporations.
+[2798.30 --> 2798.68]  All right.
+[2798.70 --> 2799.72]  That's two and three.
+[2799.92 --> 2800.84]  One, four, and five are left.
+[2800.96 --> 2802.76]  Amelia, it's up to you.
+[2803.40 --> 2804.88]  I'm going to go with MDN.
+[2805.44 --> 2808.24]  Show me Mozilla Developer Network.
+[2808.24 --> 2808.72]  Yes.
+[2809.72 --> 2810.82]  Number one answer.
+[2811.52 --> 2811.80]  Yes.
+[2811.80 --> 2812.38]  Oh, my God.
+[2813.12 --> 2816.38]  51 answers were Mozilla and MDM.
+[2816.84 --> 2817.18]  Yes.
+[2817.66 --> 2820.34]  So, killing it, you have just.
+[2820.48 --> 2822.42]  But we can lose it if we don't get the fourth one.
+[2822.44 --> 2822.88]  Two left.
+[2822.94 --> 2823.66]  There's five total.
+[2823.74 --> 2824.16]  There's two left.
+[2824.16 --> 2825.46]  Oh, there's five left.
+[2825.72 --> 2826.02]  Yeah.
+[2826.40 --> 2827.16]  Back to you, Chris.
+[2827.40 --> 2827.86]  Oh, boy.
+[2827.98 --> 2828.66]  Two left.
+[2828.80 --> 2829.10]  Uh-oh.
+[2829.50 --> 2831.48]  It's not going to be freaking Apple, right?
+[2831.48 --> 2834.70]  And then all they get is yelled at for not pushing the web forward.
+[2835.94 --> 2837.28]  Web kit everything.
+[2839.58 --> 2840.70]  Remember, you get three strikes.
+[2840.80 --> 2843.22]  So, you can throw one out there and see what happens.
+[2843.78 --> 2844.32]  Oh, yeah.
+[2844.54 --> 2845.54]  Oh, that's true, right?
+[2846.48 --> 2850.92]  I'm just going to go with Microsoft because they actually do work in the web.
+[2851.76 --> 2852.16]  Microsoft.
+[2852.62 --> 2853.72]  Show me Microsoft.
+[2854.04 --> 2854.52]  Survey says.
+[2854.52 --> 2857.18]  Number five answer.
+[2857.34 --> 2859.90]  So, now you've gotten one, two, three, and five.
+[2859.90 --> 2861.46]  There's one answer left.
+[2861.62 --> 2862.76]  And you have three strikes.
+[2862.84 --> 2863.56]  So, you're sitting pretty.
+[2864.46 --> 2865.24]  Dave, it's to you.
+[2866.14 --> 2868.40]  I'll do TC39.
+[2869.64 --> 2870.52]  ECMA script.
+[2871.90 --> 2873.24]  Show me TC39.
+[2874.14 --> 2874.54]  Hey.
+[2875.10 --> 2876.54]  Oh, man.
+[2876.54 --> 2877.26]  That was the one.
+[2877.46 --> 2879.18]  I was telling Scott we did a show on.
+[2879.22 --> 2879.62]  Yeah, I know.
+[2879.70 --> 2880.24]  I was like.
+[2880.96 --> 2882.32]  I didn't say CSS strikes.
+[2882.64 --> 2883.70]  Why were you touching your head?
+[2883.70 --> 2885.00]  I was thinking like head.
+[2885.24 --> 2886.30]  What's got head involved?
+[2886.32 --> 2887.46]  I didn't get the hat thing.
+[2887.48 --> 2888.36]  Look at your hat.
+[2888.98 --> 2889.82]  What hat are you wearing?
+[2889.98 --> 2890.98]  It's a GitHub hat.
+[2893.72 --> 2895.50]  Oh, GitHub would be a good answer.
+[2895.84 --> 2896.02]  Yeah.
+[2896.28 --> 2897.38]  That is true, yeah.
+[2897.50 --> 2899.38]  I would have said Smashing Magazine personally.
+[2899.46 --> 2901.30]  Well, GitHub is Microsoft at this point.
+[2901.38 --> 2901.92]  That's true.
+[2902.46 --> 2902.72]  Yeah.
+[2903.00 --> 2903.60]  That's true.
+[2903.60 --> 2906.10]  So, that was a huge round for Shop Talk.
+[2906.26 --> 2907.28]  That was round six.
+[2907.40 --> 2909.34]  The final round is also a double round.
+[2910.08 --> 2910.60]  Oh, man.
+[2910.70 --> 2912.10]  They scored all of the points.
+[2912.10 --> 2917.00]  And when you double all those points, that round alone was 216 points.
+[2917.22 --> 2918.54]  Oh, my gosh.
+[2920.48 --> 2921.68]  I'm so sorry.
+[2921.90 --> 2927.34]  With 409 points, the winner of Front End Feud Super Collab is Shop Talk.
+[2927.34 --> 2929.36]  I have never lost on this program.
+[2931.14 --> 2932.54]  I'm so sorry, guys.
+[2932.56 --> 2933.04]  Congratulations.
+[2934.20 --> 2935.56]  You stole it from us.
+[2936.36 --> 2937.12]  I know.
+[2937.56 --> 2939.42]  No thanks to double points, yeah.
+[2939.86 --> 2940.20]  Killer.
+[2940.20 --> 2941.86]  I like my points non-doubled, okay?
+[2942.00 --> 2942.34]  Thank you.
+[2943.52 --> 2944.64]  That's how you lost.
+[2946.32 --> 2947.26]  All right.
+[2947.36 --> 2949.54]  Well, Shop Talk, congratulations on the big win.
+[2949.76 --> 2950.42]  What do you win?
+[2950.50 --> 2954.68]  Well, you win an opportunity to shout out or say whatever you like.
+[2954.78 --> 2955.60]  You cannot gloat.
+[2955.68 --> 2957.64]  You must say something not about syntax.
+[2957.74 --> 2958.70]  It has to be anything else.
+[2959.46 --> 2960.22]  Shout out something.
+[2960.58 --> 2962.78]  This is your chance to speak to the JS Party listeners.
+[2963.58 --> 2964.28]  Chris, you want to go?
+[2964.42 --> 2966.12]  You said you had something earlier.
+[2966.12 --> 2968.98]  I was just thinking of it because I came across my desk.
+[2969.12 --> 2980.84]  There's like a local feud in town here in Bend, and this guy's like really mad that they put a gate on his property, and he made a whole website about the gate and how mad he is about it.
+[2980.90 --> 2985.20]  And I want to shout out to feud websites because we're playing the feud anyway.
+[2985.36 --> 2985.78]  Nice.
+[2985.92 --> 2986.88]  So I think you get extra.
+[2987.02 --> 2990.30]  It's extra cool to make a website out of your madness.
+[2990.30 --> 2993.48]  Make that beef public.
+[2993.72 --> 2994.92]  Just make that beef public.
+[2995.96 --> 2997.84]  Well, at least build something constructive.
+[2998.32 --> 2998.48]  Yeah.
+[2999.42 --> 3000.34]  That's beautiful.
+[3000.56 --> 3012.68]  Well, my shout out is going to be to Amelia's cool GitHub visualization project to help you visualize a GitHub repo in a non-directory of files way.
+[3012.78 --> 3013.54]  I think it's really cool.
+[3013.82 --> 3014.30]  So aim.
+[3014.42 --> 3014.98]  Thanks, Dave.
+[3015.80 --> 3016.06]  Yeah.
+[3016.36 --> 3017.68]  I will double that effort.
+[3017.78 --> 3019.08]  I think I shouted out last episode.
+[3019.08 --> 3019.74]  We're so impressed.
+[3019.80 --> 3020.88]  We just keep bringing it up, Amelia.
+[3020.96 --> 3021.36]  Nice work.
+[3021.44 --> 3024.42]  Would you like to give a shout out maybe back to Dave or anybody else?
+[3025.10 --> 3028.40]  I was actually going to say CSS Tricks for the last question.
+[3028.74 --> 3032.92]  So shout out to CSS Tricks, even though it wasn't on the board for some reason.
+[3033.58 --> 3034.94]  For pushing the web forward.
+[3035.16 --> 3035.74]  I agree.
+[3036.06 --> 3036.76]  That's what I do.
+[3037.28 --> 3040.46]  I should say there were a couple of honorable mentions that round in all of the excitement.
+[3040.56 --> 3041.06]  I forgot about them.
+[3041.08 --> 3043.50]  So the Chromium team themselves got a couple of shout outs.
+[3044.20 --> 3046.10]  Vercel got three shout outs.
+[3046.60 --> 3048.80]  The EFF, the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
+[3048.80 --> 3049.08]  Oh, yeah.
+[3049.20 --> 3049.52]  Four.
+[3049.78 --> 3050.12]  Oh, yeah.
+[3050.12 --> 3053.36]  And then a couple people shouted out open source, even though it's not an organization,
+[3053.58 --> 3056.62]  but definitely the open source community pushing things forward.
+[3056.78 --> 3059.48]  I will back up what Amelia says and say CSS Tricks.
+[3059.56 --> 3064.36]  Definitely pushing web developers and web development forward over the years, as well as y'all's
+[3064.36 --> 3064.94]  podcasts.
+[3065.68 --> 3067.28]  Awesome stuff continuing to put out.
+[3068.46 --> 3070.14]  As well as free Code Camp, too, right?
+[3070.52 --> 3070.92]  Yeah.
+[3071.10 --> 3072.04]  That's also a good one.
+[3072.20 --> 3072.32]  Yeah.
+[3072.38 --> 3072.82]  Yeah, absolutely.
+[3073.20 --> 3073.82]  I'm surprised that wasn't on there.
+[3073.82 --> 3075.60]  It got one mention, I believe.
+[3076.06 --> 3077.00]  And level up tutorials.
+[3077.30 --> 3077.52]  Yeah.
+[3077.78 --> 3078.38]  Level up tutorials.
+[3078.56 --> 3078.64]  Yeah.
+[3078.76 --> 3079.62]  Anything else to shout out?
+[3079.62 --> 3080.54]  West Boss' blog.
+[3081.36 --> 3082.86]  West Boss.com forward slash courses.
+[3083.22 --> 3088.94]  React for beginners wasn't on there because I feel like 100% of people who know React know
+[3088.94 --> 3090.38]  it because of Wes' course.
+[3090.74 --> 3092.06]  So is that not on there?
+[3092.44 --> 3092.88]  There we go.
+[3092.94 --> 3093.96]  Got all our plugs in.
+[3094.00 --> 3094.40]  There we go.
+[3094.62 --> 3094.88]  Yep.
+[3094.96 --> 3095.42]  There we go.
+[3095.60 --> 3096.02]  There we go.
+[3096.02 --> 3097.54]  Definitely should have been on there.
+[3097.60 --> 3101.06]  Well, we'll give one last shout out to a JS Party listener.
+[3101.52 --> 3106.56]  The winner of the free JS Party t-shirt, remember everybody who took the survey had a chance
+[3106.56 --> 3107.02]  at it, is...
+[3107.82 --> 3113.18]  Geneve Parrish.
+[3113.26 --> 3114.12]  Geneve, you won a free shirt.
+[3114.64 --> 3114.96]  Hey!
+[3115.32 --> 3115.76]  Hey!
+[3115.96 --> 3116.70]  Yes!
+[3116.94 --> 3117.20]  Yay!
+[3117.88 --> 3119.46]  That was so sad.
+[3120.80 --> 3121.24]  Yay!
+[3121.24 --> 3121.40]  Yay!
+[3121.40 --> 3121.80]  Yay!
+[3121.80 --> 3121.90]  Yay!
+[3121.90 --> 3121.98]  Yay!
+[3121.98 --> 3122.06]  Yay!
+[3122.06 --> 3122.42]  Yay!
+[3122.42 --> 3122.50]  Yay!
+[3122.50 --> 3122.98]  Yay!
+[3122.98 --> 3123.06]  Yay!
+[3123.06 --> 3123.58]  Yay!
+[3123.58 --> 3123.66]  Yay!
+[3123.66 --> 3123.70]  Yay!
+[3123.70 --> 3124.06]  Yay!
+[3124.06 --> 3124.10]  Yay!
+[3124.10 --> 3124.14]  Yay!
+[3124.14 --> 3124.18]  Yay!
+[3124.18 --> 3124.26]  Yay!
+[3124.26 --> 3124.62]  Yay!
+[3124.62 --> 3124.70]  Yay!
+[3124.70 --> 3124.78]  Yay!
+[3124.78 --> 3126.00]  Yay!
+[3126.00 --> 3127.00]  I love you.
+[3127.00 --> 3128.00]  Yay!
+[3128.00 --> 3129.00]  I love you.
+[3129.00 --> 3130.00]  I love you.
+[3130.00 --> 3131.00]  I love you.
+[3131.00 --> 3132.00]  Hey.
+[3132.00 --> 3133.00]  I love you.
+[3133.00 --> 3134.28]  Anyway, I love you.
+[3135.00 --> 3139.32]  Today, I'll give you a free shirt to one random member of our JS Party community slack,
+[3139.32 --> 3142.00]  so if you don't hang out in there with us, you should.
+[3142.00 --> 3143.00]  It's Pound JS Party.
+[3143.00 --> 3146.00]  You can hop in there at changelog.com slash community.
+[3146.00 --> 3147.16]  It's all free.
+[3147.16 --> 3148.28]  Hang out during the live shows.
+[3148.28 --> 3150.60]  Let's talk web dev with us.
+[3150.60 --> 3151.26]  On what?
+[3151.26 --> 3155.72]  September 17th, I decided we'll just pick a random person in that channel, and we'll ship you
+[3155.72 --> 3157.00]  a free JS Party t-shirt as well.
+[3157.38 --> 3160.22]  I want to thank the guys from Syntax and Shop Talk
+[3160.22 --> 3162.84]  for joining the show and playing this awesome game with us.
+[3162.92 --> 3164.76]  Round of applause for just the participation right there.
+[3167.20 --> 3170.26]  And of course, thank you to Divya and Amelia
+[3170.26 --> 3173.58]  for sprinkling the JS Party into the show.
+[3173.74 --> 3174.06]  Love it.
+[3176.32 --> 3178.72]  Thank you all listeners for playing along with us.
+[3178.80 --> 3179.72]  This has been Front End View.
+[3179.82 --> 3181.98]  This has been JS Party, and we will talk to you next time.
+[3185.72 --> 3190.34]  If you enjoyed Front End Feud, we've played it twice before.
+[3190.72 --> 3194.78]  Check out the other editions at jsparty.fm slash 147
+[3194.78 --> 3197.28]  and jsparty.fm slash 151.
+[3197.58 --> 3200.46]  Or just search for Front End Feud in your podcast app of choice.
+[3200.58 --> 3202.72]  I'm pretty sure we're the only ones playing this game.
+[3203.14 --> 3205.78]  Hey, if JS Party is your jam, take it to the next level
+[3205.78 --> 3207.64]  with a Change Log++ subscription.
+[3207.94 --> 3210.12]  That's the best way to directly support the show
+[3210.12 --> 3211.36]  and make the ads disappear.
+[3211.36 --> 3212.96]  And during the month of September,
+[3213.14 --> 3215.46]  we are throwing in a free t-shirt of your choice
+[3215.46 --> 3216.82]  when you sign up on the yearly plan
+[3216.82 --> 3220.12]  so you can rep JS Party in meat space and that comfy tee.
+[3220.64 --> 3223.20]  Sign up today at changelog.com slash plus plus
+[3223.20 --> 3225.24]  and we'll send you a coupon code for that free shirt.
+[3225.82 --> 3227.40]  JS Party is produced by Jared Santo
+[3227.40 --> 3229.30]  with music by Breakmaster Cylinder.
+[3229.56 --> 3232.06]  We are brought to you by Fastly, LaunchDarkly, and Linode.
+[3232.38 --> 3234.26]  Next up on the pod, Amelia and Nick
+[3234.26 --> 3235.74]  talk to the folks behind The Pudding,
+[3235.96 --> 3238.50]  a digital publication that explains ideas
+[3238.50 --> 3240.64]  debated in culture with visual essays.
+[3240.64 --> 3242.80]  We'll have that one ready for you next week.
+[3245.46 --> 3248.22]  Game on!
diff --git a/Getting hooked on React_transcript.txt b/Getting hooked on React_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..19e671a297ea96e9c502bff1a610bfb873f396ce
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Getting hooked on React_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,393 @@
+**Emma Bostian:** What is up, my party people? How are we doing today?
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Pretaaay! \[laughs\]
+
+**Emma Bostian:** So exciting! Today we have -- I was gonna say "the infamous Kent C. Dodds", but I realized now after looking it up that's really bad thing, so...
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** It's more than famous.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, but not in good way. So we have the famous Kent C. Dodds with us here to talk about React tonight, and I am thrilled, because when I think React, you're one of the first people that pops into my mind... So welcome to this show. We're excited to have you.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Oh, I'm excited to be here... Just honored to be a part of JS Party. I've definitely listened to this podcast many times, so I'm really happy to be here.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, great. And we also have Nick Nisi with us today. How are you doing, Nick?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Hoy-hoy! Happy to be here. Hi, Kent.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Hello.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Well, for those listening, if you're not aware, we do a livestream with YouTube video, and Nick is wearing an NSYNC shirt, which I love, and Kent is wearing a shirt that matches his background perfectly... So I love that for us. But today we're here not to talk about attire, we're here to talk about React, which I'm excited about, because I never liked React when I started with it, to be honest... And I started my frontend career with Dojo, which was quite the experience - a little bit scarring for me - and then I moved into one of the early Angulars, and then I worked with Vue for quite a long time, and I loved Vue. And when I joined my previous company, LogMeIn, they were using React with Redux, and I was like "Oh my gosh, I have to learn this... There's so much overhead." And now you could not pay me to leave the React ecosphere. I'm in love with it. What about y'all? What are your journeys with React?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** So the first JavaScript conference I ever went to was JSConf 2013, where Facebook introduced React... So I was in that room, and didn't necessarily hear boos, but if you could see boos, that's what it looked like. I looked up my old tweets from back then, and I was definitely like "Oh, this looks like PHP. Gross! Why would you combine your model and view together? It's yucky!" And here I am, several years later, writing React full-time.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** \[04:05\] Right... "No two-way data binding? This is absurd!"
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\] "I'll just stick with Backbone, thank you..." That's literally what was going through my mind at the time. But yeah, it's been a journey. I started off writing a Rect wrapper around Dojo components, just to get them to run... And I didn't really like React back then, and it was mostly like the class-based syntax that I jumped in on. I wasn't a big fan of that, and the prop types, and setting all of that... It just seemed like a lot of busy work. But that's now how I write React today. Today I really like it, and I'm with you, Emma. I don't wanna leave.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Cool. I certainly don't wanna leave either. I'm really happy with React. So I first heard of React on a podcast that I was listening to while I was driving to the first ng-conf, which I think was 2014... And yeah, I think Christopher Chedeau was on there, and Pete Hunt, and Jordan Walke. I think all three of them were on there, if I remember correctly... And they were talking about this thing, and it sounded interesting... I was pretty fresh in my developer career; I was actually still in school, I think, at the time... So I was like "That sounds interesting, but I'm going to an Angular conference. Wooh!" So it was a while before I tried it out. And when I did, if you go through my tweets back then, I was just tweeting a bunch of lines in the docs that were really solid general programming principles that they were calling out in the docs, and I was just like "This is great stuff. Even if I don't end up using React, this is really good material."
+
+But I actually did try React. And in the docs at the time they said "Give it five minutes and you'll fall in love", and I did. I just really appreciated the simplicity of React. It may not have all the bells and whistles that you get from a framework like Angular, where you have to bring more in to make a full application, but it's much easier to build a simple application when you have a simple framework, so I really appreciated the simplicity of React. I started working with React finally full-time at the end of 2015 when I joined PayPal, and haven't looked back. It's been awesome.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, it's funny that we were all into different frameworks or libraries at the time. I made the switch because I had to. I was actually quite intimidated by React, because it was like the hot new thing... And I think to some extent it still kind of is the hot thing, although Vue I think is the hot new thing...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Or Svelte...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, that's true, Svelte. Yeah. One thing that was really hard for me to understand was the difference between a framework and a library, because if you ever want to get clout on Twitter, just tweet out that React is a framework, and you will achieve that goal. So what exactly -- Kent, do you have any good explanation or analogies for what the difference is between a framework and a library?
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Yeah, so -- oh, shoot, I'm blanking on his last name. His first name is David. He is a co-host on the Soft Skills Podcast. Dave...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Smith maybe...
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** He's amazing.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** We'll link him in the show notes.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Yeah. But he once told me - or I overheard him talking about this - he said that a library is you calling into the library code. So you're calling library functions. And a framework is that they are calling your code. There's a lot more nuance than that, but I kind of like that generally. Technically, React is calling our code; we may pass our React components to create elements \[unintelligible 00:07:27.09\] but ultimately, React is calling our code. And we kind of do both; we call useState and stuff, but personally, I consider React to be a framework, and then stuff like Remix or Next.js - I refer to those as meta-frameworks. So it's a framework on top of a framework. And people can yell at me all day long about React being a library, I don't care. It's a really great tool in my tool belt.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** That's very true. And it is nuanced, for sure. Nick, what were you gonna say?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[07:57\] I think a lot of the distinction comes down -- and I don't know if it's so much true anymore, but it used to be viewed as just purely the Vue layer; it was just how you were going to render and look at that. But I think with things like -- more of the state management built in, with the use state hooks, and all of those different hooks, it does seem like it's taking over more and more of it. And then of course, there's other things that you bring in. So no React app looks the same, unless you're using something like Remix or Next... But there's a lot of flexibility in that, and I think that overall that's a positive thing.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Well, it can sometimes add overhead too, if you're trying to build a big app and you don't know how to architect it... But yeah, I would take the flexibility -- well, I don't know; I flip-flop. I like rules, so... \[laughs\] I don't know. But I think this begs the question, why would someone learn React, and why would they choose it over another framework or library? Because personally, I've found Vue much more beginner-friendly for me. I don't know what it was -- and this was several years ago. So now, looking at the ecosystem, I would say they're on-par with each other, because now that we've got React Hooks and the docs are super-thorough and all of that, I find React today to be much more approachable than it was back in the day when you had class components, and functional components... The syntax was just -- like, why would you do one over the other? We'll talk about that in the next segment... But yeah, why would someone learn React over another framework?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** To jump in there real quick, I think in the early days of it, and going back to 2013 when it was introduced, one of the biggest things that was like a hang-up for me was "I'm not really writing JavaScript. I'm writing this weird JSX syntax that goes in there." And initially, for some reason, I had a big problem with that. I don't really know why... But it took until probably, like 6to5, which became Babel, for me to realize that I haven't really written JavaScript in a long time... Like, straight JavaScript. It's all being compiled down to something, and it was okay for me to let go at that time.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Yeah. Actually, it's interesting you say that, because I saw all of the other frameworks as being even more not writing JavaScript... Because you spend a lot of your time writing template DSLs (domain-specific language) for Angular. And one of the things that I was really frustrated about is I've spent a lot of time in learning Angular... And very little of what I learned in the Angular world transferred to anything else. And that was really frustrating to me.
+
+React has JSX, but I argue that you can use JSX in a day or less. It doesn't take that long to learn the nuances around JSX. And if you learn it the way that I teach it in Epic React, I feel like you can see the JavaScript behind the JSX, which makes you have a lot more power. Whereas with other frameworks, you're forced into learning their specific syntax; like, they need to invent syntax for if statements and different things like that... Whereas with React it's really just JavaScript once you figure out how JSX converts into JavaScript. None of the other frameworks has that. You can't convert their template DSL into JavaScript; that's just not a thing. So I really appreciated that about React...
+
+And then as far as like why learn React over anything else - I mean, there are other great libraries and frameworks that are awesome. Vue and Svelte have already been mentioned, and Angular... There's still Ember, and stuff... React - it's really hard to determine popularity of a library. You can't look at downloads because there's caching, and CI is always downloading... You can't rely on any of that. But I think a pretty reasonable metric - the most reasonable that I can find - is the DevTools. So if somebody has that installed, they're more likely to actually be using it. And if you use that as the metric, then React is twice -- or React is more popular than all of the other frameworks combined.
+
+So if what you're looking for is a job, then you're certain to find a job with Vue or Svelte, but you're going to have more options and have more choice with React. And then like all of the other things that fall out of being the most popular, having a very vibrant community -- I've got a lot of thoughts about why the React community has so much innovation going on versus the other frameworks; we can talk about that later if you want.
+
+\[12:11\] But yeah, there's just so much that you get out of React just because it's popular. Now, whether it's technically better or technically more suited for different types of projects - that's honestly fairly subjective. I think that most frameworks can handle 99% of the use cases that a typical person has... So that comes down to a subjective argument. Hopefully, I gave a couple more objective reasons...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** No, that's great... If you look at ease of learning, the community aspect that's backing it, the fact that it's a very innovative community - those three things, plus other factors, I think make this one of the most robust frameworks in the community... And I don't think it's going anywhere, it's only getting better. And to Ken's point, most job postings, if you look at frontend development jobs today, a lot of the newer companies are either already using React, or are switching/in the process of migrating their legacy codebase to React. So if you're looking for a job, it is definitely the most sought after framework on the resume.
+
+However -- I got my React programming job only having known Vue. So I think if you've got the comparable experience, that's great. The caveat is - if you are only focused on learning the framework, make sure that you're not neglecting your foundational JavaScript skills. Kent mentioned earlier that one thing he loves about React is that you can still write JavaScript; it feels more like the foundational language, whereas other frameworks might abstract that away a little bit.
+
+So make sure that when you are interviewing for jobs, that you are comfortable writing your plain JavaScript, because they shouldn't test you on your knowledge of React.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Yeah. Actually, on that note - when I was at PayPal, interviewing people a couple times a week, it felt like, what I typically would try to do is get them really comfortable and ask them what they're really good at; have them tell me "Okay, so what's the thing that you're very best at." And then I would ask them questions about that thing. And often, it was "I'm really good at React."
+
+So I did ask quite a few questions about React, because that's what they told me they were really good at... And my reasoning there was if you say that this is the thing you're best at, then show me how good you are at it and I'll have a pretty good understanding of where you're at technically.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I love that. That's what we should be doing as interviewers, is playing to their strengths... Because their weaknesses can be nurtured and learned over time.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Yeah. So if somebody said "Well, I'm not super-great at React, but I'm super-good at Vue" -- nobody actually said that; I never had anybody do that. But what I would do is I would ask them "Okay, show me how to build this in Vue." It just gives me a better idea of - when they say "I'm really good at this", what does that mean. That's what I'm looking for.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah. I remember having a conversation with Dan Abramov briefly when I was in London for my first conference, and he was saying that he did interview for the Facebook React core team, and he did not ask React questions when he was interviewing for the React core team. And just goes to show that -- I feel like in your case, Kent, that was done very well, where you were like "Okay, what are you good at? What do you enjoy?" and you play to that. But yeah, most employers should not be testing framework-specific knowledge, because again, a lot of it is also proprietary architecture, at least with React apps. You can know React, but when you come into these enterprise applications, it can be very jarring to see it in an enterprise codebase... And yeah, I mean - I would rather have a candidate who is great at foundational... Like, they understand scope, they understand asynchronous JavaScript, things of that nature.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[15:54\] Yeah. And it seems like with React - modern React at least - it is kind of shying away from a lot of those "tougher parts" of it. And I'm specifically talking about classes. It kind of went away from that, and you don't have to worry about context nearly as much. The scope is still a big deal, obviously... And then just understanding the flow of like "This component function is going to get called over and over and over again." But I was going to ask Kent why you thought that React is so good at teaching the fundamentals of, or inspiring the use of the fundamental JavaScript. When that comes to my mind, it's things like using map inside of your JSX to map out, turn a property into a component. And then things like ternaries for the same type of thing.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Or array destructuring out of state. That was the first time I'd seen array destructuring used, and I was like "What the heck is this syntax?"
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Yeah, I think that because JSX is converted directly to react.createElement or the JSX function now, and you can actually call that and get a return value, and that return value is interpretable; you understand what that is. It's called a fiber. They're just React elements... Or UI descriptors I think is what I've called it before, too. But that alone makes it so much more approachable to me, because I'm literally just dealing with objects. I'm creating a bunch of objects and I'm returning those objects in my functions. That's all it is. React's component is a function that returns a React element, which is an object. And it can't get simpler than that. I really like that.
+
+Now, we could talk about useEffect, and idempotent, and all of these other things that can make React a little bit more tricky... But once you have the right mental model, then it is less tricky.
+
+And what I've found is that for some of those things there are really low-level primitives upon which we can build really powerful abstractions, and we just use the abstractions. Most of my code actually - my production code - doesn't use useEffect very often. I'm using other abstractions that are doing that for me... Which is, I think, the way that it's supposed to be. When Dan introduced it, he said that hooks were the elements within an atom. And you don't typically interact with protons and electrons, you interact with the entire atom.
+
+So I've found React to be really simple because it allows me to simply abstract away shared code, use that shared code, and then just return objects. And when we're interacting with objects, it becomes a simple matter of "I've got an array of things. I'm going to turn this array of strings or whatever it is into an array of objects." And that's something that anybody who's done JavaScript for a while should be able to do. Or if they can't do it now, then they can learn it, and then they'll know it. And that's what's cool about React, is the better I get at React, the better I get at JavaScript, and vice-versa. And that was not true when I was working with Angular. The better I got at Angular, I might get better at JavaScript, depending on what I was doing, but mostly I was just getting better at Angular... And that was frustrating, when I moved on from Angular to React. All of that stuff that I'd learned - it's gone. And I can't even remember it now, so it literally is gone... \[laughter\]
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah. I'm kind of curious - when y'all were learning, did you encounter anything that was really difficult for you to wrap your mind around? Because I had been coding React for a year and a half, two years by the time Hooks came out, and I remember some of these hooks just threw me for a loop. UseContext was very confusing to me. If you don't work in enterprise applications, or very large-scale data-driven apps, you don't really come into this hook often... Or - I'm trying to think of some of the other ones. UseMemo and useEffect, all of these were just really difficult -- useState was basically the only one that I was like "Oh, I know what it does."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[19:46\] I think that a big part of that is just the naming of it. They're using -- I don't know for sure, but I assume that it's more like computer sciency terms for effect and context, and things like that... And when I see useEffect -- when I first saw that, I was like "Wow, what effect is this having? It seems so grandiose." It just seemed like it was really tough to get my head around it because of the terminology, but it actually is pretty simple once you really think about that.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Yeah. You know, I can actually tell you... So when I was first learning React, we didn't even have classes. It was createClass, and all of that; and I think it was the same for both of you. So coming into Hooks, it took me a little bit of time to be like "Okay, this is kind of interesting." A little time as in like minutes. Initially, I was like "I'm not sure about this", then "Oh my gosh, I love this." And the biggest thing for me was getting rid of class components and shareability of code... Because with class components, we always talk about the separation of concerns and how important that is in maintainable architecture... And one of the things I loved about React was that it embraced the fact that HTML, CSS and JavaScript are part of a single concern. Those aren't separate concerns. Those are separate technologies when combined, to create a single concern, of your button component, or your accordeon, or whatever it is.
+
+But within that individual component there could be multiple concerns in there. One part of it is updating the document title to say how many unread messages you have, and the other one is subscribing to Firebase to get those messages... And it's spread between these lifecycles. And so with Hooks, I was able to keep those concerns together within the component; and if it was a reusable bit, then it's just a matter of pulling that out and sticking it into a function. It's just JavaScript at that point. You're just moving stuff around, just like you do with JavaScript.
+
+Anyway, I didn't have a huge problem with jumping into Hooks, but I know a lot of people switching from classes to hooks was a bit of a big jump. But one of the things that I just wanted to mention too, like some of the hard parts of learning React - I can tell you based on the number of people who are reading my blog posts what are the things people have the most trouble with... \[laughs\] Because I don't track Google Analytics on my blog, but I do have Netlify Analytics, and that gets when people land on my blog... And the number one blog post right now over the last month is "How to use React context effectively." That, Emma, speaks to you... And then useMemo and useCallback are the next. And that one actually has been really popular for years. Yeah, those two are tricky. They're absolutely tricky.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** And then I've got a couple of things about testing... And state management is another thing that people struggle with quite a bit... And then useEffect and useLayoutEffect are pretty big ones, too. So I would say that there are definitely hard parts about learning React, and it's very possible that it's harder to learn React than it is to learn other frameworks... But I just come back again to - I feel like React is simple, and it's easier to build a simple application with a simple framework than it is to build a simple application with a complicated one.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** As a sidenote, I think I probably make up 50% of the traffic on your "Common mistakes with React Testing Library." \[laughter\] I think I link to that in almost every pull request that I'm doing.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah. We're using React Testing Library too, and I'm like "Oh, gotta go see Kent again..."
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Yeah. Actually, Nick, I thought about this the other day... If other people find themselves in this situation where they're linking to my blog posts on pull requests, a good way to stop doing that is to talk to your manager about getting your team licensed to epicreact.dev. Everybody can go through that, and you're all on the same page, and then you don't have to link to the blog post all the time.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Absolutely.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Indeed.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** There's a little self-plug.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** And we're gonna link Kent's course in the notes and we'll talk about it a little bit at the end as well... But we're gonna take a quick break, and when we come back we're gonna talk about some of the core React concepts, and learn a little bit more the difference between hooks and class components.
+
+**Break**: \[23:45\]
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Okay, so we talked quite a bit about hooks in the first segment, but I wanna talk a little bit about hooks versus class components... Because when I was learning React, it was very much about class components. And my biggest question is "What benefits do hooks have over class components, and should newcomers to React even bother learning class components anymore?" Those are loaded questions, and I know that.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Everybody's throwing opinions about this, but I'll wait till next Nick shares his.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I'm trying to think... Like, from my own personal standpoint, I would rather work on projects that are completely using functional components and hooks. I'm trying to think if there is an actual valid reason to use class-based. Kent, you probably know more...
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Yeah, okay. So... Y'all ready for this?
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Here we go...! \[laughter\]
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** So I actually have a talk that you can find on my talks web page, that explains why React hooks are so useful, and what the benefits of hooks over class components are. And I'll just mention really quickly... So first is the JavaScript classes have a number of challenges with them, especially when we're talking about React... So yeah, I explain a couple of the gotchas when you're working with -- I remember when I was teaching React class components, the first half of the workshop was teaching about classes, and the nuances there... So it's great we don't have to worry about classes.
+
+The other thing is lifecycles. The mental model for thinking about the lifecycle of a component I think is wrong... And then logic reuse. And we had render props, and higher-order components, and each one of those had problems with those. So we've eliminated those problems by using hooks. And code reuse for me is the biggest one. I love being able to say "Oh, this is a really interesting set of hooks that I'm using here. I wanna use that over here", and I literally just make a function out of it and that's it.
+
+Sometimes it can be a little bit more challenging when we're talking about different variables that need to be in scope and stuff like that, but most of the time it's a pretty simple refactor.
+
+Anyway, on the "Should you bother to learn class components?" About every six months I will tweet a poll to ask people "What percentage of your time is spent working with hooks vs. classes?" Just as I predicted, over time it's more and more and more on 0% working with classes. "I'm just spending all my time with hooks." It's been almost three years since Hooks was announced, so this is not a surprise... So as soon as Hooks was released officially, I completely stopped teaching classes. I haven't taught anybody how to use a React class component for 2,5 years now... And that has proved to work out really nicely.
+
+\[27:56\] The thing is that if you really get into a codebase where all of a sudden now you need to use a class, then great. Go look up the bagillion articles about how to write class components with React. I've got a course on Egghead that's still available. It's the "Original Beginner's Guide to React", and you can learn everything you need to know about writing class components... Or you could watch my other course on Egghead that shows you how to refactor a class component to a function component with Hooks, which is what you should be doing whenever you run into a class component anyway.
+
+So I suggest learn on-demand. When you need to learn it, then go ahead and learn it. The only thing that you can't do with hooks that you can do with classes is error boundaries, and I wouldn't bother writing one of those anyway, because it's on npm; it's called React Error Boundary. I'm the maintainer of that actually, so... \[laughter\] So I do write class components, but... That's literally the only one that you need in your app. You don't need class components at all.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** It seems like we chose the right person to bring on and talk about React today...
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** I have opinions, sorry... \[laughs\]
+
+**Emma Bostian:** No, no, it's good, because it's helpful to inform newcomers' opinions when we have someone who's worked so intimately with React. And actually, I fully agree with your explanation. It's basically like - you will likely encounter class components if you're working in a "legacy" React codebase, so something older than three years... But unless you're doing that, you really don't need it. So yeah, that was a really great explanation.
+
+One thing that really tripped me up was this paradigm of what a hook actually is, when I first joined... And I remember, I got to read the Hooks specification before it was published, and I read through it and I'm like "Okay, cool. Sounds nice", and I didn't fully understand the impact this was going to have. But if you were to try to explain what a hook is exactly... I know there are a bunch of different ones that do different things, but what exactly is a hook?
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** So I've got just the best resource for people who want to get a deep answer to this question, and it is from Shawn Wang, also known as @swyx. He has a blog post and a talk titled "Getting closure on React Hooks", where he builds React hooks from scratch. He builds a useState hook. It's phenomenal. It's a really great resource. I would write it, except he already did, so I won't even bother, because it's just that good. So I would recommend going into that.
+
+It's difficult to describe what he does in audio format, so I don't think I'll try... But basically -- yeah, I guess I will try it. React keeps a record of every time you call a React hook. So when it's rendering your function component, because your function component is synchronous, it can do a little bit of setup work before calling your function, it'll call your function and then do some work after. So it knows what hooks you called when it calls your function, and it just keeps track of those. Every time it calls your function again, it's going to give you the right return values based on the hooks that were called.
+
+This comes with a couple of trade-offs, which is where the rules of hooks come from. You can't conditionally call hooks and stuff like that, because it needs to be able to track those. But anyway, if you wanna dive a little deeper into that, Swyx's blog post about this and talk are just phenomenal, and I recommend people look at that.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Absolutely. All of this is gonna be -- these are gonna be the largest show notes we ever create. I love it. One question that I still see to this day is "Does useState or do hooks replace Redux?", especially because there's the useReducer hook, and it's like "Okay, do I even need Redux anymore?" Because I know at Spotify we're in the process of ripping out Redux; that's what I was doing today, I was replacing Redux with hooks today. But can we fully replace Redux with hooks?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** This is a question I have too, because we don't use Redux, but I've used the useReducer hook minimally, and from that little bit of time that I've spent with it, it does seem like it... But I'd love to know your thoughts...
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Yeah, I've got lots of opinions on this, too.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Let's hear it!
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** \[31:50\] I never liked Redux. I tried it once, and I used it in a production application at PayPal, and what I've found was when I was working with Redux I spent so much time switching tabs to different files. I had 30 files open when editing any single feature. Now, there's the Redux Toolkit, which is a drastically improved situation... And things with Redux have improved even with hooks - there's some nice hooks there - although you miss out on some of the optimization that Redux does for you (performance optimizations) when you use those hooks, until we get the useMutableSource( ), if that's what it ends up being called... I think there's actually useContextSelector, or something - that one's gonna be huge; that will be awesome when we get something like that.
+
+So there's some performance optimizations you miss out on if you're using the Redux hooks right now. But yeah, I just didn't like having to open so many files to do anything. And it's not just like the "Oh, this is annoying. I have to open so many files." It's the context-switching, and it's the "I'm touching code that is totally unrelated to the feature that I'm working on." And that's dangerous anytime you do that; ask anybody who's done regular, old CSS and they'll tell you that "I don't know if it's okay for me to change this, so I'm gonna duplicate it", and now we've got -- at PayPal (this is not made up) we had 90% unused CSS on the project I was using, because everybody was afraid to touch the old stuff, so we just duplicated something new and called it something else. And you might just say that we're bad at CSS, but maybe CSS was bad at us, I don't know... \[laughter\]
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Well, that's why StyledComponents and CSS-in-JS was so pivotal; it was like "Oh, hey, we can actually encapsulate all of this logic inside the component that it's touching and don't have to worry about bleeding code anymore." It's so much easier to delete things, and add things, and all of those things.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Yeah, you're precisely right. That was the problem that those things were made to solve. And I'd love to talk about how Remix changes the game with CSS-in-JS. I don't use CSS-in-JS anymore because of Remix, because there's some really interesting things that Remix does to make it --
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I don't even know what that is, to be honest...
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Yeah, well let's talk about it later, for sure...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, give us a SparkNotes edition.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** ...because it is great. But yeah, you're absolutely right. And that's one of the things that I loved about React, was like - okay, so what is the concern? The concern is the component, and a component isn't complete without all three, JavaScript, HTML and CSS. And CSS-in-JS made that possible.
+
+The problem with Redux in that vein is it wasn't Redux by itself. In fact, I have a blog post on epicreact.dev/articles page that is "My state management mistake." So at PayPal I switched over to another project, it was brand new, fresh project, and we decided to go with a different state management library solution because I didn't like Redux at all. It was a unilateral decision. We all kind of decided. So we ended up in pretty much just the same hairy mess, and ultimately, the problem wasn't Redux, it was storing so much of our state globally, and also treating our server cache the same as we treat our UI state, and mixing those two concepts just made things really difficult, and you end up having to make changes to files that are far away from what you're actually working on, and you could end up breaking something else inadvertently.
+
+So this is why I'm so excited about React Query, although - again, Remix kind of eliminates this problem as well, so I don't need to use React Query when I'm using Remix. But if I'm not using Remix, I'm absolutely gonna be using React Query, because it takes all of my server cache stuff, puts it in a really nice abstraction, and then all I have left is UI state, and I don't need Redux for that. I collocate it with useState, pass props a couple levels, I'll compose things properly so I don't have to pass props a couple levels, or if it really just becomes a bit of a pain to pass things around, then I reach for context, and context is good enough that I don't need all the extra bells and whistles that Redux has to offer.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I'm right there with you.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Indeed. I've found Redux pretty confusing to learn.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[36:03\] I really like React Query. It's made state management simpler, in just the way that I'm thinking about it... And as a little plug for us, we did talk to Tanner Linsley about React Query on episode 179, so we'll have that in the show notes.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** I've listened to that one, it was great.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Nice. So - okay, we've talked about hooks theoretically, but let's just quickly go through what some of these are... Because you know, we might have some new listeners and I think it's really beneficial to just kind of run through what a few of these do, the ones that you're gonna see the most often. In my opinion, useState is probably the one that's used the most often. The syntax was, again, very confusing to me when I first saw it, because I had not seen array destructuring in like a proper, practical way... So you'll see `const` and then you got two square brackets and inside you've got two variable names, most likely. Do you always need to put the setter and the state variable? You need both, right?
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Yeah, if you wanna have a value that you can change, then need to get the value and then the way to change it.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah...
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** There are use cases for getting a value that you can't change, just so that you keep that stable initial value... But yeah, most of the time you'll want both.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Right. Okay, cool. So usually you've got the first variable, and the square brackets is gonna be the piece of stage; so let's say we've got color. Let's say we're building a T-shirt application and we need to keep track of the color options that are available, the selected color that the customer is currently looking at. So we've got color, and then the updater function is setColor. That's kind of like the -- I don't think it's a rule, but it's the... What's the word I'm looking for?
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Convention.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Convention, exactly. The convention is named set, and then whenever the state variable is called... And then you've got this =useState, and inside the parentheses you've got your default state value for that. So maybe we wanna default to a color of blue, or a string of blue. So yeah, this just keeps track of the state for different pieces, whether that's like your sidebar is expanded or collapsed, or your modal is visible or hidden, things of that nature.
+
+What about useEffect? We had mentioned this earlier, but why would you use useEffect?
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Well, I think Nick mentioned earlier that useEffect was a confusing name, and I tend to agree. The challenge is -- a better name might be useSideEffect. So they just saved us four characters every time we use this, I guess... \[laughter\] But yeah, useEffect basically -- I've found that in teaching people React with hooks, the people who had the most trouble were the ones who had actually used React with class components before... Because they looked at useEffect and they said "Oh, here's \[unintelligible 00:38:36.15\]." And then all of the code that you had in those lifecycles is the code that you're gonna put into useEffect, but the mental model for it is completely different.
+
+And so with hooks, instead of thinking about lifecycles and when this component mounts or unmounts, in fact you shouldn't even think about mounting or unmounting when you're working with React and with hooks. What you should be thinking about is with useEffect the objective is I've got some state inside of my application, like the modal is open, or whatever it is, and then I've got some state in the rest of the world that's not in my application. I've got a database, I've got local storage, I've got the document title. This state lives outside of your application. And so if we are looking at a list of messages or how many shirts you have in your cart, and you wanna update the document title to say how many you've got in the cart, then that document title is outside of your application; it's a different thing. So to keep that thing up to date, that is a side effect to update that value imperatively. You say documentTitle= whatever you want it to be.
+
+So if you update your UI state that's managed by React, but you don't update the document title, then you're out of sync, so you end up with the stale state of the world. So useEffect's job is to synchronize the state of the world with the state of your application. That's all that it does.
+
+\[40:03\] The entire objective of useEffect is to synchronize the state of the world with the state of your application. If you enter a chat room, the state of the world is off, because you're not subscribed to the messages from that chat room, so you're gonna use useEffect to subscribe to those messages, and as a message comes in, you can update the state to synchronize the state of your app back with the state of the rest of the world. So that's the job, is to just keep things in sync between your app and the rest of the world, everything outside your app.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Have you ever considered making a React course? Because you seem like a good teacher.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** \[laughs\] Well, that's very nice of you.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** That was a really beautiful explanation. I never thought about it like that.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** And actually - sorry to interrupt you - this is why the dependency array is so important. I think it's important to talk about that. By default, useEffect is going to re-run every time the component is rerendered... Which is good, because - let's say that we're updating the document title; all we care about is how many shirts are in the cart, so we don't need it to re-run every time the user opens and closes this modal, or something... But it's not bad to have it re-run and update the document title to just the same thing. It's not incorrect to do that. So I'm glad that that's the default. But there are other things that we do, like make requests and stuff that would probably not be a good thing to do unnecessarily... So we have this dependency array.
+
+When we're talking about synchronizing the state of the world to the state of our app, we need to tell React what are the things that, if changed, will cause this to be out of sync. So that would be the short count, or the number of shirts in our cart. So that's what we put in the dependency array. And if we say "Oh, you know what - I only care about this happening on mount", or something like that, and you put your open and close brackets as the dependency array there, that's fine; you'll have to ignore the ESLint rule, which you probably should have enabled on your project - you'll have to do that, but I always say doing that is turning on bug mode in your application... Because you are absolutely going to run into bugs by doing that... Because you're effectively telling React "There's no way for the state of the world to fall out of sync with the state of the app, so don't bother running this again", where that's actually not the case.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** That's beautiful. I love that. Wonderful. Well, Nick, did you have something to add to that?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, going on a little bit of an aside on hooks - I have an architectural question for you, Kent.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Sure.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** When it comes to hooks and setting all of this up, do you tend to just have like a bunch of useEffects? You said you don't use that too much, but - like, have a lot of hook calls in your component, or do you try and abstract those into a custom hook and just call that?
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Yeah, I'm so glad you asked this question... I see React Components as basically exactly the same as I see regular functions. So whether I'm writing React code or just some server Node stuff, or a CLI, or whatever - it's all the same to me. So in general -- I have this blog post called "AHA programming", which Cher Scarlett came up with that acronym; it's really great... It's "Avoid Hasty Abstractions." The idea is you want to avoid abstracting things too early, because the tendency is to add to an existing abstraction and re-use it, and then that abstraction just gets really complicated, where it would have been easier just to duplicate, or maybe have multiple abstractions.
+
+So anyway, I tend to try to collocate as much as I can, and I'll stuff as much as I can stand in a component. People come up with all these rules about, you know, "If the component is a hundred lines long, then break it out." I actually have another blog post about when to break up a component into multiple components. Just because a component is 100 lines long does not mean it needs to be broken out, it doesn't mean that it's complicated at all. What complicates things is when you have lots of mixed concerns, and that can make things more complicated.
+
+So when I start getting into that sort of area, that's when I'll start thinking about "Okay, let's make a hook out of this" or sometimes I'll just stick a comment above this section of hooks and say "This section of hooks is doing this." Because the fact is, as soon as you move code into another function, you instantly increase the complexity of that. That's just the way that that works. So you wanna avoid doing that by just putting things in line.
+
+\[44:11\] So I am super-opposed to just arbitrarily moving the raw hooks into custom hooks, because you end up making things more complex just by default, by doing that... But I'm not opposed to making custom hooks, even if they're not reused. It just kind of depends on how complex that component is getting, just by nature of the various concerns that are mixed.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Nice.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Great insight. I agree with that.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, that's awesome. We're gonna take a quick break, and when we come back, we're gonna continue this custom hook conversation, to learn a little bit more about why you would create a custom hook and how you do so.
+
+**Break**: \[44:52\]
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Okay, so before the break we were talking about custom hooks... I wanna ask you, Kent, what is a custom hook, and what kinds of things work well for custom hooks?
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Like I said, this is one of the things I loved about custom hooks when they were introduced... A custom hook, this is the definition - it's a function that calls another hook. That's it. That's what a custom hook is. So the hook that it calls could either be a react.useState, or it could be another hook, like useQuery, or something like that. So it doesn't matter what kind of hook it is, whether it's a custom hook or a built-in one, but it's actually -- it's very analogous to a custom component. A function component is just a function that returns a React element. A custom hook is a function that calls other hooks and that's it.
+
+So why would you create one? The biggest and most important use case is for code reuse. So let's say that you wanted to synchronize the document title - then that's gonna be a useEffect, and the useEffect will have a dependency on whatever you want the title to be, and then inside the useEffect you'll say documentTitle = whatever that value should be. So that's a pretty simple thing... I probably wouldn't bother abstracting that one, but for our purposes we'll say "We wanna reuse this in another part of our codebase", so we're gonna just literally make a function called `useUpdateDocumentTitle` it accepts a single parameter that is what the title should be, that is a string, and then you move your useEffect into that function (you don't have to even return anything) and then you call that function inside of its original place, and you pass in what the title should be, and now you can reuse that all over the place, and update the title willy-nilly, however you want. That's the primary use case for hooks.
+
+\[48:09\] The really cool thing about this is because it's a pretty low-level primitive, it works really well. So I think the best example of custom hooks actually comes from Tanner Linsley. He has just phenomenal libraries that use custom hooks. His React Virtual and React Table, and React Query - all of these things just do a really great job of abstracting things away into a custom hook that you simply call in your function component, and sometimes you'll get stuff back... Yeah, it's really powerful.
+
+And actually, Tanner has a talk that he gave at JS Hawaii, that did a really good job of explaining the power of custom hooks too, that I recommend people go look.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** That's wonderful. Yeah, at Spotify we have a ton of custom hooks, because we've got a huge application... But one of them is about using the color extraction. If you ever create a playlist, you'll know that the entity header, the playlist header - the color changes depending upon if you have custom artwork for your playlist title, or if you just have four songs, it'll do a mosaic, and it'll extract the colors out... We've got a custom hook to do that, which is really cool.
+
+And you had mentioned before the use convention - that is one of the conventions of a custom hook, it has to be called useSomething, right?
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Yeah, yeah. And that convention is important, because the React ESLint plugin relies on that convention to do some of its rules of hooks checking, and stuff... But the convention doesn't matter, and you literally can call it anything... Because remember, all that is happening is React sets up some stuff before it calls your function, then it calls your function, which is synchronous, so whether it's custom hooks or not, they're all gonna get called at that time, and then it knows which hooks were called. So that's why this works, that's why it's so brilliant, is because -- it doesn't matter how deep in the call stack JavaScript has to go to call those hooks, eventually they're all called, so React can keep track of them... And that's why it works to just like "Oh, I wanna make this custom - I'll just literally do the same thing that I do in any other JavaScript when I wanna reuse code." And I love that; that part of React Hooks is just brilliant.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And talking about the usePrefix on there, I just love -- this is the perfect example of custom ESLint rules, and they are super-helpful, because as soon as it can find a function that you're calling that starts with use, it knows that it's a hook, and it will make sure that you're not conditionally calling it if you have these ESLint rules set up. And if you're using a useEffect, it'll tell you exactly what you need to pass in to the second argument in the array, to make sure that it's set up properly. It's just a fantastic use ESLint in that custom way.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Yeah. Honestly, they nailed it too, because -- they were so lucky that that wasn't already a convention for something else. We never call our functions "useWhatever", so yeah they lucked out... And honestly, it makes sense to me that that would be the convention... So yeah, it's cool.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** That's awesome. I would like to switch gears if that's cool with y'all and talk about something that is either going to excite people, or make them cry... And that is React with TypeScript.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Wooh! I'm excited!
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, I was definitely a slow on-boarder to TypeScript, because I was so scarred by Java, which is a strongly-typed language... And I was like "I love that JavaScript is flexible", but I would spend hours trying to debug these issues that I could only find at compile-time/runtime/whatever. React with TypeScript - should I use TypeScript with React?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[whispering\] Yes...
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Yes.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, I think so too. I've used it -- well, we use it as Spotify, we used it at my previous company as well, and it just saves your butt if you have large applications that deal with -- or very complex object structures. Let's just take an example, like a Spotify playlist. You've got a list of songs. Every song has an artist, it has a duration, it has an album, it links to these different artist pages, it can feature people, playlists have names, and custom cover art... And the shape of these objects are so intensely complex that it's super-easy to forget different pieces of what's required when using them...
+
+\[52:28\] So TypeScript has saved my butt so many times with creating the shape of these different objects. You know, it has autocompletion, and it helps me avoid a lot of bugs that otherwise I would spend hours looking for the solution to.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Kind of going back to class-based -- or I don't know if it's exactly class-based React, but when I first got into React, one thing that I found super-annoying was I was creating my class, and I think I had like a static props property on there, that was everything listed out, and then I had all of that duplicated again in the prop types... And that was just so much code for not very much. A simple TypeScript interface kind of replaced it all. And it's of course not doing any runtime type checking, but it's really good enough for what we need.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Yeah, if you want runtime type checking, then that's what we have with prop types, right? People will often ask me "Does TypeScript replace prop types?" and most of the time people will just say yes, but there is nuance to that. With prop types you did get runtime type checking, but with prop types you had to run the code to get the warning, whereas with TypeScript you don't have to run the code at all. You can just get the warning right in your editor.
+
+So I think it's a fair trade as long as you do a good job of typing at the edges, where you're reading things from local storage, or getting things from the API. As long as you are confident with those typings, then you're just way better off with TypeScript.
+
+I used Flowtype before using TypeScript. We were on Flow at PayPal and then we migrated to TypeScript... Yeah, using a typed language, or type checking - I wouldn't do it any other way. It's just phenomenally better.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I also just wanna give props to the TypeScript team for so quickly jumping on and supporting things like JSX with TypeScript. They even changed the casting. It used to be the open angle brackets for casting, and now you can do "as" whatever. That was just immediate so that you wouldn't get confusing bracket syntax inside of your JSX.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Right.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I liked that sneaky little pun... You "wanna give props" to the team... \[laughter\] Cute.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Totally intentional.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I know. Dad joke radar has gone off. But I will say, if you are new to the React ecosystem and you're learning to get a job or whatnot, I would recommend not learning TypeScript right away. I think it's a lot of overhead to learn at once.
+
+I think prop types is a really great introduction to a strongly-typed version of React without all the nuance of learning union, and intersection, and all these other really complex TypeScript concepts that are definitely more, I would say -- I don't know what the right term is. They remind me more of Java, or other strongly-typed languages than prop types. Prop types is definitely a nicer introduction to that concept.
+
+So I'm gonna switch gears once more, because we're kind of nearing the end of the show, but I wanted to come back to something that you said, Kent, which was that you feel the React community is the most innovative. I would love to hear your thoughts on that.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Yeah, I definitely have thoughts on this... And I don't know, they could be controversial, but the way that I see it is React choosing to be a very specific slice of our stack ended up forcing the React community to be innovative... And I'll explain what I mean. So if we're in the Angular -- I'm not gonna speak for Vue, because I was never a part of that community, but I was a part of the Angular community, and I can say that if somebody came up with a really neat animation... Sorry, let me say that differently. They have an animation library built in. They also have an HTTP library. So many things are just built into the framework, which is great. It means that I can install it, and I have all of the tools at my disposal to use for these different things that I need to do.
+
+\[56:11\] But if those things don't satisfy my use case properly, or maybe I don't like the API, or it just doesn't fit into what I'm trying to accomplish - which always happens; we've all experienced this - we're using an abstraction and it's not quite working for what we want. So you have a couple of choices when you hit that. You're either going to work around it and just do some sort of weird workaround to make that work, or you're going to maybe file an issue and ask for somebody to fix this or change it, and potentially even make a pull request... You could potentially use Patch package and change it yourself, so you're basically vendoring the library and taking ownership over that code... Or you can write your own library and use that. Or just not use the abstraction at all. Or maybe find a different library. So you've got a couple options there...
+
+When you have a built-in and blessed library that you're supposed to use for this particular solution, you're much more likely to work around it. You're just way more likely, especially when the built-in thing is built by a really smart team of developers who are working on it and they're getting paid to work on it, whatever it is - it's like the official, blessed thing. So you're way more likely to work around it, you might file an issue on it. However, with React you're using a library to do most things. So if that library doesn't satisfy you, then you can look for something else, because it's not the blessed thing, so you're not like "I have to use this thing. I'll go look for something else." And if you can't find it, then you're gonna build it. It's just, because of the way that React has structured things, where "We're just gonna focus on the core, and everybody else does everything else around us", it forces the users to innovate.
+
+So rather than a team of really smart and awesome engineers who are trying to solve all the problems for all of the people, you instead just open it up to the entire world by accepting "We're not gonna be able to solve all of the problems for all the people, so you go solve your own problems. We'll solve this one." And for that reason, we see just a ton of innovation. Now, there are some libraries that kind of come out on top as like the natural... I don't know why anybody would use anything other than React Testing Library, for example, and React Router, the same thing. It's just kind of become the de facto standard. But I think that those only became what they are because of the innovation in the rest of the community. So that's one of the nice side effects.
+
+Now, the bad side effects there is of course that you do have to innovate as a community. Luckily, if you're just getting into React now, you don't really have to worry about that too much, because so many of the common problems have been solved already, but you won't have to worry about like "Oh, there's this official, blessed thing. I'm just gonna work around it." Instead, you can innovate, and they give you all of the right hooks (no pun intended) into React, so that you can build your own abstractions for whatever you're trying to do.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Do you think that that's also possibly a detriment to it, just in that I'm over here writing my React, and you're over there writing your React, and if I come join your team, there's a pretty good chance that I don't know a lot of the stack that you're using... Whereas with something like Ember I just jump in and pretty much go.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Yeah, I've heard that a lot from people in the Ember community; they can just jump to a different project. And yeah, I don't really have too much to say about that. it is the trade-off, I think.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Personally, I prefer the trade-off that React has made.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, I agree. I like that phrasing of it. It's a trade-off, but overall, I think that's it's led to a lot of innovation, and things are kind of getting weeded out, and things are getting kind of promoted to being more top-tier, so that at least the concepts are being reused all over, which is really good.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah. I think this community is definitely innovative, and I loved the explanations as to why, because I never really thought about that before... One thing I've said on our other podcasts about React - this goes for any popular tool though - it's popular for a reason, and that means the community is very large, which is wonderful, but just be aware if you're new to React that it can be intimidating to break in sometimes, because you do get a lot of people that are extremely knowledgeable, which is helpful, but also, you're gonna get people that potentially aren't as welcoming in the community.
+
+\[01:00:25.26\] The gatekeeping aspect I felt so much more in the React community than I did in the Vue community, and it's most likely just that React was around a lot longer, and was more widely used... But yeah, just be aware, there are trade-offs, but I wouldn't leave this community for another framework at this point in time. The benefits outweigh the costs, in my opinion.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Yeah. It is a shame, there definitely is some gatekeeping and there are some toxic individuals in the community... And I don't wanna excuse that; we just need to improve. I think one aspect of that problem is because the React community is just so big, we get a percentage of the world as part of this community. Unfortunately, a percentage of the world are a bunch of jerks, and so they're jerks in every community, just for that reason; there just happen to be more in the React community, because the React community is bigger.
+
+But again, I don't want to excuse the React community for that. And to be clear, for folks outside the React community, this is not a super-common problem, I think. For the most part, the React community is awesome...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, absolutely.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** ...and I wouldn't say the React community is especially toxic... But there is some there. We'd love your help, to join our community and make it better. \[laughs\]
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah. And you know, it's teachers like you and other industry pioneers that are doing a really great work, and calling out the bad behavior and standing up... Dan Abramov has done a really great job on that front, making it known that we've got work to do... But all those steps are steps forward, and it's just that the jerks scream louder. But to Kent's point, it's in every community, so don't let that be a deterrent to you. There are more good eggs than bad.
+
+Real quick - Nick, I think you had wanted to talk about Remix...
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** So Remix has eliminated so many of the problems that I've had with React, that I didn't realize were problems. That I just kind of had accepted. That's what hooks did for me, actually. I remember when I first saw Hooks, I told Ryan Florence "I feel like Hooks are making React better, when I thought React was as good as it could get." And Remix is kind of doing the same thing. So Remix is a framework that is built by Ryan Florence and Michael Jackson, the creators of React Router... And it is a phenomenal framework. It's still pre-release, but it is -- let me put it this way... I'm building a really awesome React application right now for my website, and my website is an actual application - there are user accounts, and a bunch of really cool things I'm adding to it. It's not just like a developer portfolio. And I have never been more productive working with React than having Remix.
+
+I also have maybe two calls useState in the whole thing. I might have one useEffect in there... It's a real app. I'm not just throwing together some toy stuff. I'm also not using any CSS-in-JS. I can write regular CSS, because what remix does is it gives you nested routing, and it allows you to have a lot of control over what is on the document at any given time. So you're in charge of rendering the entire document. You are rendering the HTML element, from the top down.
+
+Actually, when I said earlier that updating the document title is a side-effect, with Remix it doesn't have to be, because you actually render the document title. You could put that in state and just render that, which is really awesome. I have a class name on the HTML element that's actually in state... So it gives you control over the link tags that are on the page, the meta tags... You don't have to use something like React Helmet... And yeah, I could go on for way longer than we have. We've already probably talked too long... But if you haven't already looked at Remix, give it a really solid look, because it is -- it's changing the game, it really is... And I think that you should give it a solid look.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Absolutely. I love that.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** \[01:04:12.23\] Oh, and -- sorry, I should add also... They are not paying me to say this, so there's no conflicts of interest here. People often will be like, "What are they paying you for that?" No, they're not. I just tell people what I'm excited about naturally, and I've never been more excited about Remix, or about building React applications since Remix came around.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** One more thing I wanted to (I guess) kind of plug for you, is that Epic React course.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Yeah. Thanks. \[laughs\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I will say, as a paying user of that, I used that to learn hooks and learn how to do more modern React, after doing a lot of class-based React before... And I will say also that your genius marketing of the podcast you did with Chantastic on that.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Oh, yeah...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I've listened to all of the episodes before I bought the course, and it was just phenomenal being able to go through that, hear about your career and your life, and what led you to create this course, and such. And then it was just a very effective course to get me up and running with React.
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Thank you.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, our whole team bought it as Spotify, and we had an Epic React weekly meeting. Unfortunately, life gets crazy when you're working on building a Spotify desktop app, so we had to commence -- or not commence...? Pause...? English is hard for me... But yeah, I can attest to that, where your course is definitely the most comprehensive one for all things React. It's not just intro to hooks, it's from conception to deployment, including testing...
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** And performance... Yeah. Thank you. I'm glad that you mentioned that. And the podcast people can find that at epicreact.dev/podcasts. But yeah, I put a lot of stuff into this. I've been teaching React for a really long time, and it's a pretty big thing, so thank you for your kind words.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Of course. Well, we're really happy that you could join us today. It was such a pleasure to talk with you again. For those who don't know, Kent is like the nicest human. I met you the first time at All Things Open in Raleigh a couple of years ago, before the panoramic happened... And he literally invited me to his house in Utah, and his wonderful family made me waffles, and I got to play with his kids. So if you're in Utah, let Kent know. He'll invite you over. \[laughter\]
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** Yeah, that was great.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Before we go, I do want to bring up one quick announcement... Emma, this is your last show with us for a while.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** It is my last show. I mean -- man, I've been on JS Party for a couple of years. It's been a while, so it's definitely bittersweet. I think I need to take time to focus on my mental and physical health... But yeah, it's definitely sad, because I have loved working with all of you for the past couple of years. But what an episode to go out on... I mean, man, it was such a good time talking...
+
+**Kent C. Dodds:** I feel honored.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, absolutely.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I think I easily speak for the entire JS Party community that you are welcome back any time.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Thank you. Yeah, I'd love to take you up on that. Hopefully this is just like a sabbatical, and not like a "See you never" kind of a thing... \[laughter\] I'll still be dropping in the chats, don't you worry.
+
+Alright, well thank you again to Kent for joining us... And we've got the world's largest show notes, full of amazing resources and humans for you to go check out... And with that, I hope you all listening have had a great day.
+
+**Outro**: \[01:07:27.26\]
+
+**Horse JS:** Are web apps fundamentally different from web sites?” I think y'all know what side I'm on.
diff --git a/Headlines More like HeadLIES!_transcript.txt b/Headlines More like HeadLIES!_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dd673491db7c61ba52143839ac39220f03dc9877
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Headlines More like HeadLIES!_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,567 @@
+**Jerod Santo:** It's JS Party time... It's JS Party time... Oh, hi! I didn't see you there. I was just attending the pep rally for JS Party... And now I'm jacked! I'm Jerod, your internet friend, and I'm joined by my friend, Nick Nisi. What's up, Nick?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Ahoy-hoy. Hi, jacked!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Are you a dad?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\] Yes.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's usually -- "Hi, jacked. I'm dad."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You didn't quite finish the line, but I appreciate the effort anyways.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Team effort.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And it's just you and me here today, but I brought you something; I hope you appreciate it... A little gift from me to you. \[song extract 00:02:57.04\] I can't play any more of it, otherwise we'll get demonetized again, but that was a good 12 seconds...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I was trying to think of what the kids said at the end of it... I had not heard that song in a long time.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** All I remember is Will Smith saying "Daddy loves you, daddy loves you..."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I don't remember the kid's line... I think it was actually his son, wasn't it?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I think so.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Making him famous at a very young age. Of course, the Dr. Evil version with Mini-Me is even better, in which he says "Mini-Me, you complete me."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That's a set of movies that I haven't seen in a long time. I've been thinking about, but I'm just --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Austin Powers?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. I just worry that they won't hold up.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I have a feeling they do, because I still quote them on a regular basis... So maybe parts won't hold up, but there's gotta be good stuff in there.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I mean, "I eat a baby", you know, Goldmember... "I love gooooold..." There's lots of stupid things that are funny still, to me at least... But I'm perpetually 12 years old, I think. Well, I have a question for you, Nick... Do you like April Fool's Day?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** No, I don't. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I don't either... But here we are. It's April Fool's Day. Probably the worst day on the internet, isn't it?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[04:10\] For sure.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So bad that none of our friends showed up for JS Party. They're just like "We're just gonna peace out and not be on the show today, because we wanna avoid the internet." But here we are, it's April Fool's, so none of the headlines can be believed... So based on that, I came up with this cool -- you decide if it's cool... I came up with this game called Headlies. Now, it's not head lice; that would be gross. It's Headlies, like fake news. And I thought I would pitch it to you today, live on the air...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Okay...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** But first, let's talk about some of the big news that came out. This is real news; that launch is gonna be kind of a big deal, it seems like... I just wanna get your take on it... Which is the Deno.land folks now have their own company. So Ryan Dahl and Bert Belder wrote at the beginning of this week, announcing the Deno company. And they're taking it official... They've raised money, 4.9 million dollars of seed capital from folks from Four River Ventures, Guillermo Rauch from Rauch Capital (we know him from Vercel, and Next, and those things... Lee Jacobs from Long Journey Ventures, the Mozilla Corporation, Shasta Ventures, and a long-time collaborator, Ben Noordhuis, all invested up to almost five million dollars into this deal... And now Deno is like this official business now.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, so... Can you maybe explain it to me? ...like, what they're actually doing...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Like you're five? \[laughs\] It's a limited liability corp-- no, what are they doing... So I don't know exactly what they're going to do; I will tell you that they're not going to do an open core business model, which would be where they provide certain features of Deno and some sort of like an open source core, and then build on top of that, around it, more advanced, or pro, or premium features of deno, and make that what you pay for. They're not doing that. In fact, they software is MIT-licensed, and will retain the MIT license. In fact, Ryan says in their post "For Deno to grow and be maximally useful, it must remain permissively free. We don't believe the open core business model is right for a programming platform like Deno. We do not wanna find ourselves in the unfortunate position where we have to decide if certain features are for paid customers only." That's really the rub with these open cores - deciding what goes where... And there's a conflict of interest at different times, and it can be difficult to navigate that successfully.
+
+They say "If you watch our conference talks, you will find we've been hinting at commercial applications of this infrastructure for years. We are bullish about the technology stack we've built, and intend to pursue those commercial applications ourselves. Our business will build on the open source project, not attempt to monetize it directly."
+
+So that's what they're saying... Now, TBD what exactly all that means. There is on the new Deno.com - so they probably shelled out some of that five million on getting Deno.com, because it's always been deno.land, and now they have deno.com, because it's official. They have a new Deploy section, which seems a hint at their first potentially commercial offering... I just don't know exactly what that is. Did you check out that deploy thing?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. That does seem to be like the first product from the Deno company, I guess you could put it. That's what I was trying to understand... In terms of what I already know, they call it a globally-distributed JavaScript VM. So it's a V8 runtime where you can run your JavaScript, your TypeScript, your WebAssembly code... At the edge, worldwide, is what they say.
+
+What I'm trying to understand - is this their own custom way to run Deno as like a Lambda function type thing? Is that comparable, or...?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[08:06\] It seems like that's what it is... Yeah, probably competing with Cloudflare workers, and Netlify Functions (or whatever Netlify's functions thing is called). But can't all these other providers just run Deno as well and do the same thing? It seems like maybe they'll have some secret sauce that makes it fast, or cheap, or whatever way they can compete and make it better than what these other cloud(ish) things are providing. That's why it's to-be-determined on whether or not there's a real value proposition there, because anybody can spin up the Deno runtime and run it in some sort of a VM or container environment and provide you access to that, right?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I think, yeah. And what they're touting in the blog post and on the Deno Deploy landing page - the environment that you would deploy to is very similar to the Deno CLI. So it makes it really seamless for development, because you run it basically the same way, and pass it in for the cloud version... And then also, I think in the blog post they were touting the ability -- one of the key features of Deno is its different take on the security model, the JavaScript runtime, where specifically when you run Deno just by itself, you don't have access to the network, you don't have access to the file system, you don't have access to any of this... And what I got from this is that if you don't allow those flags in what you're actually deploying, then that portion of the Deno runtime just doesn't ship. There's absolutely no way to do any kind of file system stuff if it's not --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's cool...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's kind of annoying -- have you done any Deno? I've just toyed with it lately, just building a couple of things that are kind of like -- I would normally write these just in Ruby, or in Node, or whatever... I'm like "Well, I'll just try Deno out", just for utilities and scripts. And I've actually found that those \[unintelligible 00:09:56.03\] are kind of annoying... And I get it. I think it's probably worth the trade-off at the end of the day. But allowing file system access... --allow-env is one, just to get at an environment variable... So it is definitely a trade-off, and I find it to be kind of annoying for writing scripts, but maybe that's just not the main use case for Deno's scripting.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. So that kind of flips it, because if you write a script and give it to me to run, you have to tell me exactly how to run it, too... And you as a script writer, do you have to then do the checks? Like, do I have access to the environment variable? Nope. Throw up this error message, or...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Or does the thing just blow up? Because if you try to run it without, it will just error out -- the runtime just errors out; it says "I can't run this script, because I need access to this and I don't have it." So it tells you, "I've run it again with --allow-env", so that's nice... But I don't know. I'm not sure. I think ultimately that trade-off was one that they were very serious about making, so they're kind of putting a stake in the ground and saying "Well, it's worth it." And if that's the case, if you can ship these miniaturized container runtimes, that don't even have the dangerous stuff in them in those cases... Like, it can't actually access the file system, because it doesn't even have those bits anywhere in the binary, and it's just not gonna work... I think that's pretty cool for security.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. Deno is -- like, I haven't really taken too much time to play with it, although it's definitely on my list of things to look into... And going back to that runtime, that's really the appeal of it to me. I think the most right now is the idea that you can write your scripts -- if I'm thinking of things that I would wanna do, it'd be like command line applications. I'm writing stuff in Bash right now, and I write it in Bash because I know that Bash is probably on your system and there's not really like a need to npm-install anything, or set up anything like that... And that's a knock against Node and why I don't write command line stuff like that, because I consider global modules to be ephemeral, and you'd have to provide an npm install, and get all of that, and then you'd be able to run the script. But with Deno, it sounds like you can create an executable that has the entire runtime and everything you need in it, and then just ship that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[12:20\] Yeah, a single binary.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. That's one of the big things --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Which is spectacular for distribution, right?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, exactly. That's one of the big things that I've seen Go being hoisted up as being a really great way to build these completely self-contained binaries that contain everything you need. It's a really good language for creating those command line scripts, if you need it, without having to worry about what's actually available on the system... And now I really like this, because now I can do it with JavaScript and it's a lot easier.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, exactly. We actually just shipped an episode of Go Time all about releasing, and there's a project called GoReleaser, and a lot of that conversation on that episode is with Go I just create a universal binary and then I just send that where it needs to go; what kind of release process do I need. So some of the argumentation was like "Is this even necessary, to have these release tools?" Because it really is as simple as generating that binary, and then you can FTP it, you can SSH it, you can drop it in your Slack channel, you can probably email it if it's small enough, and pass it around. As long as it has been compiled for everybody's architectures - which it has, for the most part - it's just gonna work on everybody's machines... Which has been one of the reasons that Go has really succeeded. I think that's a huge advantage that Deno has over Node. And I'm sure there's Node efforts to provide tooling around making that be a thing, but having it built right into the project and being a first-party thing is gonna be something that sets it apart.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Totally.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** In terms of the business side, I'll just say, to Ryan Dahl and the team, congrats. Go ahead and get that money, get that sustainability there. Last time around - I don't remember the entire history of Node.js, but I know Ryan created this awesome thing, and many people got involved, and there's lots of early adopters and lots of other people working on it as well... And he left the project, and it went on from there. It seems like this time he worked at Joyent, and there was IP issues... There's lots of stuff that went into all that. npm came along and made a big business around the package management side, and at this time I feel like Ryan is trying to correct a lot of his mistakes with Node; it's the way he kind of set out with Deno... He came out with that talk, "10 things I regret about Node", and then Deno was kind of his new idea of fixing those things... And it seems like maybe Deno the company is him trying to fix another (maybe) mistake that he made the last time around with Node... So I hope it works out for him.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, I hope so too. It's always good to see attempts at sustainability around open source, and I really hope it works out.
+
+**Break:** \[14:56\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, let's find out who is an April fool, and who's gonna April drool... I don't know. That didn't really work out. We're gonna play a game called Headlies. I've gathered a bunch of real headlines, along with the first paragraph from the story. I've also gathered and written some fake headlines along with the first paragraph to those stories.
+
+Here's how it's gonna work... The headline will be presented, at which point, Nick, you can guess true or false, with two points on the line. So if you're wrong, I get the points. If you're right, you get the points. Or you can opt to hear the first paragraph before guessing, with only one point on the line. So you can hear more, but you win more for getting it correct.
+
+Now, at the end of the day, you've got a 50/50 shot on all these, right? So you could just guess... And you're gonna have to guess. And we'll see who comes out the victor. Sound like fun?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It sounds like every other game that we try and play, and my best shot is to not play...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] True. I do hope I win, as always... Mostly, I just hope that this is entertaining for everybody involved. Are you ready?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I'm ready. Let's do it!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, here's the first headline. "Apple adds two brand new Siri voices, and will no longer default to a female or male voice in iOS." Now, you can guess true or false with two points on the line, or you can hear the first paragraph of the article.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That is true.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win sound\] Congratulations, you got it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I've already listened to Accidental Tech Podcast today, so...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Aww... \[laughter\] Alright, so you're winning, 2-0. Not fair, you heard that headline. Alright, next one - are you ready?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I'm ready.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Enjin raises nearly 19 million dollars to build Polkadot-based blockchain for NFTs.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That sounds like a real headline, for sure... But Enjin makes me think of the Jurassic Park company, so I'm gonna say it's false.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You're gonna say it's false... \[fail sound\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Ohhh...!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Sorry, you are incorrect. It is true.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** No way...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes. Blockchain development Enjin has raised 18.9 million to build a Polkadot-based blockchain network especially for non-fungible tokens. The network, dubbed Efinity, will have its own token called Efinity token. The funding has been secured via selling EFT tokens. There you go.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Those fools were too busy worrying about if they could, they didn't stop to think whether they should...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[20:01\] \[laughs\] Very nice... A Jurassic Park pull in there... Alright, so the score is tied; I'm back at it. It's 0-0. You've lost 2. Now, remember, if you're not sure, you can listen to the first paragraph and give yourself a little more information. Or you can just keep gambling it all. Are you ready for the next one?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Alright, I'm ready.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Google's Alphabet invests 50 million dollars in soup startup.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Okay... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Go ahead, think out loud. Tell me your thought process here.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Well, Alphabet's a real company... A soup startup...? I think I do wanna hear the paragraph.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Do you wanna hear more?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. Here's the first paragraph of the article. "If you needed more indicators of easy access to capital in today's speculation-crazed market, look no further than a Silicon Valley startup called Souped Up, which announced today they've raised 100 million dollars in a series B round that is led by none other than Google's parent company, Alphabet. Souped Up applies advanced machine learning techniques to bring low-cost canned goods to developing nations and indigenous people." That's a mouthful.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Okay... It seems more plausible, but... Igor in the chat says "Alphabet Soup". I'm gonna say it's not real.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You're gonna say it's not correct, so it's a headlie...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win sound\] You are correct. I made that one up. But I had you going, didn't I?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Nice. \[laughs\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** For sure. I was gonna ask if you used GPT-3 to make that--
+
+**Jerod Santo:** To generate these... \[laughs\] Well, that would require way more forethought that I've put into this... And skill, which I hold very little of. Alright, you're now winning 1-0. You've got one point for getting that one correct. And yes, the Alphabet Soup really was the funny bit, I thought... Okay, next headline. "Carbon labels are coming to your shampoo bottle."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Carbon labels are coming to your shampoo bottle...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's correct.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I wanna hear the paragraph on this one, too.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Shoppers have been able to use nutrition labels to choose low-salt meals or reduced sugar cereal. Now some companies want to use labels to help them pick everything from shampoo to milk based on the product's carbon emissions.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I hope this is true. I'm gonna go with that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There's no hopium here... Is it true or false?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It's true.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win sound\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Alright!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You got it. You're now winning 2-0. These next few are all Florida Man headlines. Are you familiar with Florida Man?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yes. \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay... You're about to be even more familiar with Florida man.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Why don't you explain Florida Man, just in case any of our listeners aren't familiar?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay... Well, why don't you go ahead and explain Florida Man? What do you think of him?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Any time you see some ridiculous article, it usually starts with "Florida Man." Like, "Florida Man gets head stuck in alligator", or something like that. So there's this canonical Florida Man that is always getting into high jinks.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's right. These are three of those. The first one is "Florida Man gets beat up by Santa Claus."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\] True.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** True?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yup.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail sound\] Sorry, that's incorrect. It turns out it was an Easter bunny. \[laughter\] And with that, it's not 0-0 again. You're back at zero. The full story is "A Florida man received a beatdown from the Easter bunny, and the whole thing was caught on video. It all started when the man bumped into a woman and words were exchanged; the Easter bunny hopped into action and proceeded to demonstrate what happens when you're--" Oh, sorry; I rewrote it. I was trying to read the original... I'm reading mine. I changed it to "Santa leaped into action and proceeded to demonstrate what happens when you're naughty or not nice. The fight was eventually broken up by Orlando Police and a bystander."
+
+So yeah, everything there is true, except for it was the Easter bunny and not Santa Claus, and I changed the puns... I think it said "The Easter bunny showed what happens when he pulled out his fist of fury", or something stupid like that... I don't know. Anyways, that one is false.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I should get half a point, because I refuse to believe that if you went back far enough there's not some article about a Florida man fighting Santa...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] Well, if you can find the link behind this show, I'll edit it back in. Alright, next one. "Florida man with state tattooed on head calls 911 for a ride home."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[24:13\] Florida man with state tattooed... Like, the word "state", or the state of Florida?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I can't provide any more context, unless you want the paragraph. Do you want the paragraph?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, I'll do the paragraph.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright. A Florida man with his favorite state tattooed on his forehead was arrested after calling 911 multiple times requesting a ride home. A deputy who found the Florida man offered to call him a cab, but he said he didn't have money for one. He then began to walk in the direction of his home, then called 911 a second time again, requesting a ride. The same officer caught up with him and arrested him while he was on the line.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That sounds real.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win sound\] That one's real. One point.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** We've all been there, Florida man... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Have you ever had the state of Nebraska tattooed on your forehead...? \[laughter\] Alright, the last one - Florida man breaks into home, sucks on sleeping man's toes. \[laughter\] Oh, gosh... What do you think?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I think that it's false, but I wanna hear the paragraph just so I can hear that and just assume that you wrote that, and I just wanna hear what you would write about there.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. The incident occurred on Christmas Eve. According to the resident, he awoke to find the Florida man at his feet, who then proclaimed that he broke into the home "To suck toes." He then attempted to fondle the man, according to the police report. After the two got into a fight, the Florida man smashed a window and the victim's windshield before making an escape. No arrests have been made.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I think it's false. I think it's a lie.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail sound\] And you are false. That is 100% true, my friend. \[laughter\] And with that, you're back at zero. This is going very well - you get one right, you get one wrong. I wish that wasn't true as well... \[laughter\] Because that is terrible.
+
+Okay, the next line... Rapper Flavor Flav in hot water after exposing himself during Cameo.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\] I have seriously looked at getting a Cameo from Flavor Flav... So I hope that's not true. But I'm gonna say that it is true.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You're saying it's true... \[fail sound\] I made that one up.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It was somebody else, right?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** No, I just completely made that up out of whole cloth. Do you wanna hear the paragraph I wrote for it?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I do...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. I'll let you know that you have -1 one, so I'm officially winning. "William Jonathan Drayton Jr, widely known by his stage name Flavor Flav, may face charges for a video he produced on Cameo, a service where people hire celebrities to create brief videos and share them with their friends. The video in question was for a woman's 40th birthday, and according to Drayton, the customer requested "something special" for his biggest fan." Pretty believable, I guess...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I thought that one might get over on you... Although I think that would make some sort of bigger news. You probably would have heard about it... I don't know, maybe not. There's lots of ridiculous things on the news.
+
+Okay, you now have -1, you're digging out of the red. Are you ready?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I'm ready.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There's four more. Next headline. "Internet's Hide the Pain Harold accidentally used by Swedish COVID-19 vaccine website." Do you know Hide the Pain Harold? Do you know that guy?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I do. Yeah, it's the old guy holding a mug, right?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, he's smiling, but you can tell on his face that he's actually in serious pain, or hates his life, or whatever. People use it all the time when you're acting like you're okay.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I actually watched a "Where are they now?" with that guy on YouTube.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, really?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Where is he now?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** He's enjoying it. He gets noticed on the street, and people wanna take pictures with him...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, because it was a stock photo, wasn't it?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. He said he'd been doing it for years and never had anything come of it, and then...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[27:57\] And someone just noticed "This guy's eyes tell a different story than his lips/smile." That's cool, he's living it up; he's an internet celebrity now.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** "Internet's Hide the Pain Harold accidentally used by Swedish COVID-19 vaccine website." You're at -1, so you can guess, you can get the paragraph...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** If it's stock photography, how can it be accidentally used?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Hm... It's like a private eye over there...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I'm gonna say it's false.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You're gonna say it's false. \[fail sound\] You fail once again, that one's true.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Oh, no...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So "accidentally" might be an editorial word used by whoever's reporting this... I mean, it was on purpose. But I think the point of these websites is -- like, "It's a real person who's happy because they got their vaccine" or something. So it probably was accidental...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** But then he's hiding the pain...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, exactly. \[laughter\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Okay, I get it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah... He likes the pain... And according to the health authority in Sweden, officials said on Tuesday evening that the image has now been removed. So it definitely was an accident, because they got called out and they're like "Okay, we're taking that one down."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** You would think that that would get the younger folks in to actually get the vaccine...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Like, "If Harold can do it, I should be okay."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, the next one. "Pringles to launch new lip balm product line."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Oh, man... I wanna hear the--
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You've got -3. Do you wanna hear it?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** "Kellogg Company announced a new set of products from its iconic Pringles brand. The company said it would release a delicious lip balm with flavors such as salt and vinegar, and sour cream and onion."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That can't be real...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] But you're not sure, are you...?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I'm not...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's just like doing the internet on April Fool's Day, you never know, "Is this real or not?"
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I'm going to say... You know what - I'm gonna say it's real.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Are you gonna say it's real?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail sound\] I made it up. Ohh...! That was after one, so you've got -4 there. Or total -4. I'm feeling pretty happy at this point. I feel like I got you just never knowing what's true. Alright, two more. "330 million Americans sue Cardi B for psychological damage."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It's true.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail sound\] Nope. \[laughs\] This one came off The Onion, one of those satire sites; I did not write that one. But it's believable...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah... \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, you're now at -6. You're failing miserably, and you would have been better off not having played, as you said at the top. Last one... "U.S. man returns from swift shopping trip to find 15,000 bees in his car."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\] I feel like I saw this one... So I'm gonna say it's true.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win sound\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Alright!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, that's right... And you got the last one right, which puts you at -4, so still a big loser... But it feels nice to get the last one correct. Yeah, apparently this guy went shopping in New Mexico, came back, there was 15,000 honey bees who had gotten in through an open window while he spent 10 minutes buying groceries. Astonishingly, the man did not notice the sudden presence of a giant swarm of buzzing insects on this vehicle's backseat until he was driving away.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** What?!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah... So he must have been distracted, because how do you miss it, right?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. And I just wonder what they were doing. Why would they wanna be in his car?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I don't know. Maybe there was something sweet in there... You know, bees swarm, and sometimes they'll leave their hive and swarm somewhere else around specific sources of food, or something... I don't know. Bees me... \[laughter\]
+
+Alright, with that, we finish Headlies... I would say it was a big victory, for me at least... If you enjoyed this segment, please let us know and we will do it again. Otherwise, we'll banish it to the farthest recesses of the internet, never to be seen again until April Fool's Day 2022.
+
+**Break:** \[31:46\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, we're gonna finish up today's show with some shout-outs... And I'm gonna go first. I'm gonna give a shout-out to a tool and some people that we're using right now, that I've been appreciating quite a bit lately... HackMD, which you'll find at hackmd.io. It is an online collaborative markdown-based writing tool. So think about Google Docs, and how crappy the UI and everything, and writing in there, and copying and pasting out of it - think about all that. Don't you ever have Google Docs and you're like "I just wanna write in markdown"?
+
+And there's Dropbox Paper, which is better, because you can kind of write in markdown, but then it formats things weird, and then you can't copy it out exactly the same, and they have a lot of unfurling they do... And I'm just like "Please, stop unfurling. I just want the link to just sit there." Anyways. Not a huge fan... Although I would take Paper over Docs. And now I would take HackMD, because it's basically exactly what I would want. It is a markdown editor, and it even has that cool split view where the left-hand side is what you write, and the right-hand side is the rendered version; you can toggle that off and on, so you can go full writing mode, full viewing mode, or split-screen mode. But it has all the nifty collaboration tools that you would expect from a Google Docs or a Dropbox Paper, just by sharing the URL, which is my favorite thing... Like, "Give me my URL, make it an obfuscated one, so it can't be easily found, and just pass it around."
+
+Now, they do have settings... You can set up who can read, who can write... It gets more complicated, but the base use case is super-simple, and that's what I love about it. I love web tools that allow me just to share quickly and get people involved. We've been using it for JS Party documentation -- not documentation; scratch sheets, where we're sharing, to do this show for a while. I've been doing it for a lot of my blog writing... I've been doing it for pretty much everything for the last six months or so.
+
+Today, because of April Fool's, it turns out, I've realized they also have Vim mode. And the reason why I've found that out - I thought maybe this was actually an April Fool's joke, and I was like "Please, don't let this be fake. I want this to always be here." But it has existed for a while, I just didn't notice it.
+
+Today, for April Fool's, in the menu bar they did put this April Fool's joke, which was like the Nyan Cat -- they called it a Red Panda, which I'm not sure if that's like a different meme... But it's like a progress bar with the Red Panda walking across... And that drew my eyes down, and then I saw on the right-hand side they have different settings, such as "Do you wanna use tabs or spaces?" Of course, everybody picks spaces. And "Do you wanna have two or four?" and everybody picks two... But you can also set your editor, and they Sublime, and they Emacs, and they have Vim.
+
+So you get your Vim key bindings in your browser, collaborative, share via URL, with lots of cool keyboard shortcuts and all the bells and whistles. I just really like this tool, so shout-out to the folks at HackMD. I did put some tweets out today and they responded, regarding this Vim thing, ensuring me that it's not an April Fool's joke, it's actually a real feature... And I decided to invite them on the show.
+
+\[36:08\] I think it's all open source. They have 56 open source repos on their GitHub. I think they're over there in Taiwan. So they've agreed to come on... I'm not sure how it'll work out, timing and whatnot, and if they're native English speakers or anything like that, but... Cool technology, open source, all built with webby tools, and I'm a big fan, so shout-out to HackMD.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, that's awesome. I saw your tweet about the Vim mode... It made me wonder what is special about Sublime mode versus anything else, any other editor.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, I don't really know -- so I brought a lot of my Sublime shortcuts into VS Code, so I'm not sure what VS Code's defaults are, because I just kind of thought they were the same in terms of keyboard shortcuts... I wonder how different those stock Sublime Text vs stock VS Code, if those are similar. Of course, a lot of the editors used are borrowed from Emacs, which is a lot of the control-based shortcuts, and not modes. So maybe if there's an Emacs and there's a Sublime -- I don't know the difference between the two. I think it defaults to Sublime, because that's what I was in before I realized you could toggle it... But I'm not really sure. They have question mark operators? Let me see... A lot of times you can do question mark and they'll open up a keyboard shortcut overlay, which tells you what all things do... But it doesn't seem to be working, at least in Vim mode.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** In Vim mode it opens up to do a regex search.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's right. Is that what Vim does?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[unintelligible 00:37:34.12\] which it also does in here.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, so forward slash I do. I've never hit question mark to do a regex in Vim, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did that as well.
+
+Now, I've only used it in Vim mode for probably like two hours, and all of my normal navigation is working, so like dd to delete a line, :1 goes to the top, Shift+G goes to the bottom... All the things I'm used to. But I wonder how Uncanny Valley it gets the more you use it; how are they achieving this Vim support, and is it gonna be one of those things where it supports 80% of Vim key bindings, but then your favorite tip and trick doesn't work? I don't know... I haven't used it long enough to know that. But it is good enough for me to enjoy it so far.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. And real-time follow-up - I did not know this, but question mark does actually do regex search, but backwards.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Backwards meaning starting at the bottom of the document and working up?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Starting from your cursor and looking up, rather than down.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, that's nifty...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I did not know that, because I've never used it... I use slash all the time...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. And it's Shift + slash, so it makes sense. It's the same key, just one with a Shift key. So one goes one way and the other one goes the other. TIL, right here, live, on JS Party...
+
+**Jingle:** \[38:44\] to \[38:58\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** TIL, there we go. I stalled for you... We're still doing shout-outs. Do you have a shout-out, Nick? Shout us out.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I was gonna shout out also a thing, and that is an app called Keyboard Maestro. Have you heard of it?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I have heard of it. I do not know what it does, so please, tell me.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** So it does a lot... But it lets you set up automations, basically, on your Mac. It's a Mac program. So when I hit the specific keyboard shortcuts and I can have it like specific to an application, so I can say "When Slack is in the foreground and I press ?? or something like that, then run this script." Or I can record a macro and have it actually move my mouse around and quickly do something; or I can have it select from a menu... And you can mix and match these all together to build cool automations that do a lot of different things.
+
+\[40:00\] I started playing with this, and I also have a Stream Deck... And Stream Deck is a little device that has -- mine has 16 buttons, and all of the buttons are little LCD screens, so you can set what each button is... And I can trigger Keyboard Maestro macros from that. So I can push a button and have it do things like turn my lights on and off. I can also have it do things like automatically open up Audio Hijack, and get ready for a Zoom meeting, and get ready to record, or have it automatically start recording, and kind of combine them all together... So then I just push a button and it can do things like lay out windows, so I have it moving windows where I want on my screen, so everything is not overlapping, and it's all readily visible for me, and then it can start recording and turn my lights on, and do all this really cool stuff. It's a pretty cool way to do some simple and complex automation on your Mac.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That is cool. So it's actually driving the mouse around, and then everything as well, right?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It can.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, it can. So you can say "Go to this area of the screen and click here" kind of a thing?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. It's got a little recorder too, so you can just record and then do it one, and it'll figure out what to do from there. From there, it'll be like "Oh, I click inside of TweetBot and then click 60 pixels from the right and 120 pixels from the top. Click right there", so it's relative to where the window edges, and then go from there.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That sounds a little fickle.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, it can be, I'm sure...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughter\] Like, if you change the size of your TweetBot window, it's broken.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. Well, now you know about my unit tests, so... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So is this a free app, is it a paid app? Is it Mac only?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It is Mac only... It is not free either. I forgot how much it is. $36. It's pretty cool... Just being able to set these things up and have automatically set my workspace up the way I want it for different scenarios, whether that's writing code, or looking at documentation, or taking a meeting, or doing a podcast. I can have it quickly switch... And that's kind of the main thing that I've been coming into it with, is "How do I set up my workspace without me having to manually move windows around, and set things up exactly how I always want them?" It's just now a button click away for me.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, that's nice. I have this laptop, and I -- I don't dock it, but I plug it into things. I have a separate monitor, and I have my interface etc. to plug into... And then I wanna leave my desk and take my laptop downstairs, and I do that, and everything kind of like munges into one screen... So I kind of have two modes of computing on this thing - I have my plugged in -- almost like docked mode and undocked mode. And it'd be nice to have just like -- I wish it would detect, like "Hey, I just plugged into your second monitor. I'm gonna put everything back where you had it before you detached", or something like that.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I could get that done maybe with Keyboard Maestro, and just have it do certain things? Does it trigger on a keyboard shortcut, or -- can I have a trigger on an event?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. So you could have it trigger on mounting a particular volume, connecting to a specific Wi-Fi... There's display layout change, which would probably be like going from an external monitor to your laptop...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Exactly.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** ...and have it trigger based on that. So yeah, there's lots of different...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's cool.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And then there's just simple things, like you can just have it startup its own web server, and then you can send it triggers. If you publicly expose that, you can just send triggers to it... Or from your local network, you could have it -- "I'm going to just post to this address, and now my Mac's gonna go do something." Or you can just have it be a cron trigger.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That sounds dangerous... \[laughs\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** How do you do this deal where you change the lights in your room, that you just demonstrated?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, so that's actually connected with the Stream Deck software; it has a control center that is controlling them...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[44:06\] Which is a piece of software that runs on your machine... So Keyboard Maestro is just controlling that software.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Right.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. So what would be a cool thing that you would run a web server and post to it from different parts of your house?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That is a good question...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Can those Hue lights - can they do webhook kind of things? Can you configure those things to make -- because this is inbound request, right?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...like, it's posting to your Keyboard Maestro web server, so something would have to be pushing data, or pushing an event, like "The lights turned on". Maybe you could have it hook up to your switch as well; like, if you have a regular light switch, and it turned on, if you could configure the Hue lights to actually do that, they could make a post over to your web server and do something on your laptop, control your laptop somehow via some other switch in your house.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, for sure.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Pretty neat. All I want is for my windows to go back where they were when I unplugged, man. It's all I want in my life... \[laughter\] I like this dance I do, "Plug in, this goes here, that goes there, that goes there... Ah, I'm back." It's like "This seems like something a computer should do."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. They can do it, that's the amazing thing.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** They can, but they won't without a lot of tomfoolery.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, that's how it always seems like.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It is. You're like, "Ah, this thing's not gonna last." I've set up enough hacks in my life where I'm like "This hack isn't gonna last." And nowadays I just do the manual thing, I'm like -- I either set up the hack, maintain the hack, or I can just do the manual thing." And nowadays I'm just like "I'm just gonna drag the window every time, until something that actually is supported by the operating system." If Steve Jobs doesn't come back from the dead and do this feature for me, I'm not gonna have it. That's what has to happen.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Well, I haven't looked into it too much, but there is Automator that comes standard with Macs.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And you probably have to write ApplesScript, which is immediately something I don't wanna look at... But you can do a lot of automation just natively on the Mac, without any extra software.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah... So have you write AppleScripts? Because I have...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yes.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] I'd rather do it the manual way. That being said, there is a JavaScript interface now \[unintelligible 00:46:11.20\] but I've also tried to use that, and to very little success.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It's still terrible.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** The documentation - it's inscrutable. How do I even use it? I understand JavaScript, but I can't use this API.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. The only piece of AppleScript that I've written - and I wrote it actually in AppleScript and JavaScript, and that was to ask Music or Spotify what song is playing, so that I can put that in my \[unintelligible 00:46:34.18\] just refreshes every five seconds and asks "What's playing right now?" and it updates right there... And that broke in macOS Big Sur. It broke in a really weird way, where it just throws an error that the object that I'm trying to grab from Music doesn't exist, except it does if I'm playing a music file that is in my library. But if it's just like I'm listening to Apple Music Radio, whatever that's called, or an Apple Music playlist that is not in my library, then it's like "Whoa, I don't know what this is" and it just blows up.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Wow. Yeah... That's life. The best AppleScript I've written - probably ever, but definitely lately - is one that we use for our clips, the way we make our clips... Which is we actually use Keynote for our clips. And we write the text in a text document. So we pull the text out of our transcripts - and they're just markdown transcripts, so they're basically text with a little bit of formatting... And we just copy all those into a text document, and just space it out, so it'd be like Jerod, and then a thing, and then Nick, and then a thing, and just formatting it according to what I came up with... And then you copy that into your clipboard. Then you open up Keynote and you execute this AppleScript, and it actually scripts Keynote to go and parse the text and then add a slide for each one and paste it into there. And then it'll even go and switch the active face, and stuff like that...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Wow...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[48:05\] Super-cool. But it took me way too long, way too long to get this to work. But once it worked, it felt like magic, because I hit Paste... It's like a special -- and then I attach that AppleScript to a keyboard shortcut inside a Keynote... So I just execute it and it's like "PRRRRR", and all these slides come into life...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Do you watch it as it's going?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So cool.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Is it recording -- like, does it start the screen show and then record that somehow, or is that something manual?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** No... It just pastes them in, basically. Then you'll wanna do some fixes from there, usually, because the way the words show up on the slide - it will be weirdly formatted, so maybe like add a line, or remove a line, or shrink the text to make the text bigger... So you do all that; it's kind of like a QA phase.
+
+And then inside Keynote they have an actual recording option, which people use, I believe, to either prerecord their talks or to practice their talks and watch them back. So you can go inside Keynote and say "Record my talk", and it'll display your talk on the screen, as well as your regular heads-up display - what do they call that...? The presentation view. So you can see the timing, you can see the next slide etc. And it'll record what's on the screen and your voice, and anything that's going through the system.
+
+You can also add a soundtrack in keynote as well. Maybe you wanna have mood music while you're doing your talk... These weird features of Keynote - we're abusing them. So we drag the sounds into there, and we just say play, and we record it, and then we just hit the Next button over and over again as it makes sense with the person talking... So you basically perform the slide once in real time. Then it records that, and then you've got your clip.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. It still takes some work, but it's way less work than what the other way is, which is basically you get most of these tools - you get all your clips into a thing, and then you have to change the start and end times of every clip... And it's usually on every slide, and it's like this sideways horizontal scroll thing, super-annoying, and then it uses up a bunch of RAM, because it's some Adobe thing or some web thing that just clogs the rest of your machine now... And it takes like an hour to do one good clip, and this way we can crank them out.
+
+But that automator was worth writing, because I wrote it once and we've used it hundreds of times, you know?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. That's amazing.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Sometimes computers are cool. \[laughter\] As long as they don't change the size of the window, or whatever... \[laughs\] You know, until it breaks; then I'll be cursing it again.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. So did you have to write a lot of AppleScript for that, or was it more of like a recording macros type thing?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I have the AppleScript here... At the end of the day, it's probably like 100-150 lines.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Okay. But getting to those lines... I wrote probably 1,000 to get to the 150. Because there's certain ways you access the Keynote object, and you can instruct it to do things, and then pass it the data... But that's not the way. And every time that you change it, you have to run through -- you know, there's no automated test suite where I can just hit Compile and run.
+
+So it took a long time, but I think it's not very much AppleScript. And there are built-in things for parsing the text file -- or not parsing it, but ingesting the text file, and then looping over the lines, and then just very basic regular expressions stuff to say like "Is this a start of a phrase, or is this a person's name?", that kind of stuff.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I tried to write it in JavaScript and I just couldn't figure it out. It wasn't the JavaScript's fault, it was their scripting API.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Like AppleScript JavaScript?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Like, this is written in actual AppleScript... But I was trying to use the JavaScript interface. The documentation just didn't -- I just couldn't figure it out, so I was like "Well..." The AppleScript documentation is actually better, so that's gonna be the difference. Even the language is just terrible.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** "Tell this to do that." It's weird. Anyways, Keyboard Maestro - shout-out to that, and shout-out to HackMD. That's our show for this week. We have a couple of cool episodes coming down the pipeline. Next week we're gonna have the author of HTMX come on the show. This is an HTML over the wire solution, so it's similar to Livewire, or Phoenix LiveView, and Basecamp's new Hotwire stuff... So the HTMX author is gonna be on. Feross will be back for that one as well. We also have Jenn Creighton coming up soon; she is the host of the Single-threaded Podcast, so stay tuned for that one... And other cool things that I can't think about off the top of my head.
+
+We appreciate you hanging out with us. If you liked Headlies, let us know, because that's the only way we'll do it again, is if people say "Yeah, do it again!" Otherwise it was a one-hit wonder... And yeah, that's JS Party for this week. We'll talk to you next time.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** See ya!
+
+**Outro:** \[53:03\]
+
+**Horse JS:** Reading the ECMAScript standard literally changed my life. Like most people.
diff --git "a/Headlines\357\274\237 More like HeadLIES!_transcript.txt" "b/Headlines\357\274\237 More like HeadLIES!_transcript.txt"
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cf343df2847dd917112a21da5aa4d617c4f89e48
--- /dev/null
+++ "b/Headlines\357\274\237 More like HeadLIES!_transcript.txt"	
@@ -0,0 +1,2432 @@
+[0.00 --> 4.72]  Well, I haven't looked into it too much, but there is Automator that comes standard with Macs.
+[4.80 --> 4.94]  Yeah.
+[5.02 --> 8.90]  And you probably have to write AppleScript, which is immediately something I don't want to look at.
+[9.00 --> 13.42]  But you can do a lot of automation just natively on the Mac without any extra software.
+[13.42 --> 16.40]  Yeah. So have you written AppleScripts? Because I have.
+[17.86 --> 19.24]  I'd rather do the manual way.
+[19.88 --> 23.82]  That being said, there is a JavaScript interface now into scripting the Mac,
+[23.98 --> 26.64]  but I've also tried to use that and to very little success.
+[26.84 --> 26.98]  It's still terrible.
+[26.98 --> 30.52]  And like the docs, yeah, the documentation is just like, I can't, it's inscrutable.
+[30.68 --> 31.46]  How do I even use it?
+[31.46 --> 33.80]  Like I understand JavaScript, but I can't use this API.
+[36.34 --> 38.90]  Big thanks to our partners, Linode, Fastly, and LaunchDarkly.
+[39.26 --> 41.32]  We love Linode. They keep it fast and simple.
+[41.32 --> 43.82]  Check them out at linode.com slash changelog.
+[44.12 --> 46.10]  Our bandwidth is provided by Fastly.
+[46.46 --> 50.00]  Learn more at Fastly.com and get your feature flags powered by LaunchDarkly.
+[50.28 --> 52.00]  Get a demo at LaunchDarkly.com.
+[52.60 --> 53.98]  What's up, JS Party people?
+[53.98 --> 58.84]  Well, have you ever wondered if you could be offering a faster, less buggy experience for your customers?
+[59.40 --> 64.44]  Well, with Raygun Error and Performance Monitoring, you have all the information you need at your fingertips
+[64.44 --> 70.08]  to quickly find and fix errors and performance issues across your tech stack down to the line of code.
+[70.40 --> 73.26]  Raygun makes it easy to monitor the impact of your performance improvements,
+[73.46 --> 75.90]  quickly identify issues across web and mobile apps,
+[75.90 --> 78.86]  and see how your code performs in the hands of your customers.
+[79.36 --> 82.94]  This saves you time, this saves you money, and this saves your sanity.
+[83.28 --> 87.92]  Head to Raygun.com to join thousands of customer-centric software teams who use Raygun every single day.
+[88.22 --> 92.08]  Again, Raygun.com to give them a try with a free 14-day trial.
+[92.08 --> 116.12]  This is JS Party, your weekly celebration of JavaScript and the web.
+[116.12 --> 119.74]  We take requests, just like your favorite wedding DJ.
+[120.14 --> 125.74]  You can head to jsparty.fm slash request and let us know what you'd like to hear about on the pod.
+[125.96 --> 127.52]  We also have an awesome back catalog.
+[127.98 --> 131.96]  Find our recommended and popular episodes at jsparty.fm.
+[132.14 --> 133.20]  Okay, let's get into it.
+[133.24 --> 134.70]  Hey, it's party time, y'all.
+[134.70 --> 142.44]  It's JS Party time.
+[142.66 --> 144.38]  It's JS Party time.
+[144.78 --> 146.26]  Get jacked for JS Party time.
+[146.32 --> 147.14]  Oh, hi.
+[147.42 --> 148.30]  I didn't see you there.
+[149.02 --> 152.10]  I was just attending the pep rally for JS Party.
+[152.92 --> 154.24]  And now I'm jacked.
+[154.46 --> 155.86]  I'm Jared, your internet friend.
+[156.24 --> 159.40]  And I'm joined by my friend, Nick Neesey.
+[159.54 --> 160.24]  What's up, Nick?
+[160.40 --> 160.98]  Ahoy, ahoy.
+[161.08 --> 161.66]  Hi, jacked.
+[162.42 --> 163.32]  Are you a dad?
+[164.12 --> 164.60]  Yes.
+[165.60 --> 166.60]  Hijacked, I'm dad.
+[167.62 --> 170.46]  You didn't quite finish the line, but I appreciate the effort anyways.
+[170.92 --> 171.34]  Team effort.
+[171.64 --> 175.24]  And it's just you and me here today, but I brought you something.
+[175.38 --> 176.16]  I hope you appreciate it.
+[176.16 --> 177.20]  A little gift from me to you.
+[184.60 --> 187.40]  Can't play any more of it, otherwise we'll get demonetized again.
+[187.48 --> 189.10]  But that was a good 12 seconds.
+[189.56 --> 192.48]  I was trying to think of what the kids said at the end of it.
+[192.48 --> 194.80]  I have not heard that song in a long time.
+[195.10 --> 197.16]  All I remember is Will Smith saying, daddy loves you.
+[197.38 --> 197.46]  Yeah.
+[197.46 --> 198.32]  Daddy loves you.
+[198.70 --> 199.90]  I don't remember the kids line.
+[200.04 --> 201.44]  I think it was actually his son, wasn't it?
+[201.44 --> 201.74]  I think so.
+[202.62 --> 202.94]  Yeah.
+[203.90 --> 205.28]  Making him famous at a very young age.
+[205.34 --> 209.34]  Of course, the Dr. Evil version with Mini-Me is even better.
+[209.34 --> 212.52]  In which he says, mini-me, you complete me.
+[213.26 --> 216.50]  That's a set of movies that I haven't seen in a long time that I've been thinking about.
+[216.84 --> 217.56]  But I'm just...
+[217.56 --> 218.24]  The Austin Powers?
+[218.30 --> 218.50]  Yeah.
+[218.78 --> 219.94]  I just worry that they won't hold up.
+[219.94 --> 223.32]  I have a feeling they do, because I still quote them on a regular basis.
+[223.66 --> 226.64]  So maybe parts won't hold up, but there's got to be good stuff in there.
+[227.00 --> 229.02]  I mean, I eat a baby, you know?
+[229.38 --> 230.16]  Gold member.
+[230.32 --> 231.56]  I love gold.
+[231.96 --> 235.02]  I mean, there's lots of stupid things that are funny still, to me at least.
+[235.12 --> 236.98]  But I'm perpetually 12 years old, I think.
+[237.66 --> 238.86]  Well, I have a question for you, Nick.
+[238.88 --> 240.18]  Do you like April Fool's Day?
+[240.64 --> 241.90]  No, I don't.
+[241.90 --> 244.26]  I don't either.
+[245.26 --> 246.32]  But here we are.
+[246.80 --> 247.78]  It's April Fool's Day.
+[248.58 --> 250.42]  Probably the worst day on the internet, isn't it?
+[250.48 --> 250.80]  Mm-hmm.
+[251.76 --> 252.16]  For sure.
+[252.24 --> 254.42]  So bad that none of our friends showed up for Jazz Party.
+[254.56 --> 258.12]  They're just like, we're just going to peace out and not be on the show today,
+[258.18 --> 259.50]  because we want to avoid internet.
+[261.26 --> 262.44]  But here we are.
+[262.56 --> 265.18]  It's April Fool's, and so none of the headlines can be believed.
+[265.18 --> 268.18]  So based on that, I came up with this cool...
+[269.02 --> 270.22]  You decide if it's cool.
+[270.22 --> 273.32]  I came up with this game called Head Lies.
+[274.04 --> 275.80]  Now, if not Head Lies, that would be gross.
+[275.92 --> 278.18]  It's Head Lies, like fake news, you know?
+[279.30 --> 282.92]  And I thought I would pitch it to you today, live on the air.
+[283.54 --> 283.76]  Okay.
+[283.96 --> 286.44]  But first, let's talk about some of the big news that came out.
+[286.48 --> 288.68]  This is real news that launched this week.
+[288.72 --> 290.02]  Kind of a big deal, it seems like.
+[290.18 --> 291.42]  I just wanted to get your take on it,
+[291.90 --> 297.60]  which is the Dino Land folks now have their own company.
+[297.60 --> 302.26]  So Ryan Dahl and Bert Belder wrote at the beginning of this week,
+[302.46 --> 304.34]  announcing the Dino company.
+[305.20 --> 306.84]  And they're taking it official.
+[307.34 --> 308.38]  They've raised money.
+[309.04 --> 314.70]  $4.9 million of seed capital from folks from Four River Ventures,
+[315.80 --> 317.58]  Guillermo Rout from Routch Capital.
+[318.02 --> 320.70]  We know him from Vercel and Next and those things.
+[321.42 --> 323.28]  Lee Jacobs from Long Journey Ventures,
+[323.28 --> 326.24]  the Mozilla Corporation, Shasta Ventures,
+[326.54 --> 329.68]  and a longtime collaborator, Ben Nordwies,
+[330.28 --> 334.28]  all invested up to almost $5 million into this deal.
+[334.44 --> 337.12]  And now Dino's like this official business now.
+[337.40 --> 337.52]  Yeah.
+[337.72 --> 339.58]  So can you maybe explain it to me?
+[339.74 --> 341.84]  Like what they're actually doing?
+[341.90 --> 342.52]  Like you're five?
+[345.22 --> 346.38]  Limited liability.
+[346.60 --> 346.74]  No.
+[346.74 --> 349.16]  What are they doing?
+[349.46 --> 353.38]  So I don't know exactly what they're going to do.
+[353.50 --> 356.50]  I will tell you that they're not going to do an open core business model,
+[356.68 --> 359.62]  which would be where they provide certain features of Dino
+[359.62 --> 361.42]  and some sort of like an open source core,
+[361.70 --> 364.82]  and then build on top of that around it,
+[365.14 --> 368.04]  more advanced or pro or premium features of Dino,
+[368.26 --> 370.92]  and make that what you pay for.
+[371.50 --> 372.46]  They're not doing that.
+[372.46 --> 378.98]  In fact, the software is MIT licensed and will retain the MIT license.
+[379.52 --> 381.06]  In fact, Ryan says in their post,
+[381.18 --> 384.08]  for Dino to grow and be maximally useful,
+[384.22 --> 386.02]  it must remain permissively free.
+[386.28 --> 388.82]  We don't believe the open core business model is right
+[388.82 --> 391.50]  for a programming platform like Dino.
+[392.68 --> 395.10]  We do not want to find ourselves in the unfortunate position
+[395.10 --> 398.46]  where we have to decide if certain features are for paid customers only.
+[398.84 --> 400.72]  That's really the rub with these open cores.
+[400.72 --> 402.48]  It's like deciding what goes where,
+[402.66 --> 404.58]  and there's a conflict of interest at different times,
+[404.60 --> 407.38]  and it can be difficult to navigate that successfully.
+[408.20 --> 409.78]  When they say, if you watch our conference talks,
+[409.82 --> 412.28]  you'll find we've been hinting at commercial applications
+[412.28 --> 414.34]  of this infrastructure for years.
+[415.18 --> 417.48]  We are bullish about the technology stack we've built
+[417.48 --> 421.44]  and intend to pursue those commercial applications ourselves.
+[422.10 --> 425.02]  Our business will build on the open source project,
+[425.02 --> 427.82]  not attempt to monetize it directly.
+[427.82 --> 431.50]  So that's what they're saying now, you know, TBD,
+[432.08 --> 433.68]  what exactly all that means.
+[434.34 --> 436.82]  There is on the new Dino.com,
+[436.92 --> 438.92]  so they probably shelled out some of that 5 million
+[438.92 --> 442.02]  on getting Dino.com because it's always been Dino.land,
+[442.36 --> 444.78]  and now they have Dino.com because it's official.
+[445.56 --> 447.34]  They have a new deploy section,
+[447.54 --> 450.86]  which seems to hint at their first potentially commercial offering.
+[451.06 --> 451.26]  Yeah.
+[451.66 --> 453.52]  I just don't know exactly what that is.
+[453.58 --> 454.84]  Did you check out that deploy thing?
+[454.84 --> 457.68]  Yeah, that does seem to be the first product
+[457.68 --> 460.00]  from the Dino company, I guess you could put it.
+[460.38 --> 462.22]  That's what I was trying to understand.
+[462.48 --> 464.92]  In terms of, I guess, what I already know,
+[465.04 --> 467.62]  they call it a globally distributed JavaScript VM.
+[468.28 --> 471.30]  So it's a V8 runtime where you can run your JavaScript,
+[471.56 --> 473.80]  your TypeScript, your WebAssembly code
+[473.80 --> 476.80]  at the edge worldwide is what they say.
+[477.30 --> 478.60]  What I'm trying to understand,
+[478.70 --> 481.56]  is this their own custom way to run Dino
+[481.56 --> 484.44]  as like a Lambda function type thing?
+[484.60 --> 485.82]  Is that comparable?
+[486.52 --> 488.96]  It seems like that's what it is.
+[489.18 --> 493.14]  Yeah, probably competing with Cloudflare workers
+[493.14 --> 495.24]  and Netlify functions,
+[495.52 --> 497.62]  whatever their Netlify functions thing is called.
+[498.96 --> 500.22]  But can't all these other providers
+[500.22 --> 502.04]  just run Dino as well and do the same thing?
+[502.08 --> 504.14]  It seems like maybe they'll have some secret sauce
+[504.14 --> 505.90]  that makes it fast or cheap
+[505.90 --> 507.74]  or whatever way they can compete
+[507.74 --> 512.12]  and make it better than what these other cloud-ish things
+[512.12 --> 512.70]  are providing.
+[513.22 --> 514.80]  That's why I say it's kind of to be determined
+[514.80 --> 516.94]  on whether or not there's a real value proposition there
+[516.94 --> 519.48]  because anybody can spin up the Dino runtime
+[519.48 --> 522.58]  and run it in some sort of a VM or container environment
+[522.58 --> 524.44]  and provide you access to that, right?
+[525.06 --> 526.10]  I think, yeah.
+[526.72 --> 530.06]  And kind of what they're touting in the blog post
+[530.06 --> 532.66]  and on the Dino deploy landing page,
+[532.66 --> 535.82]  the runtime or the environment that you would deploy to
+[535.82 --> 538.82]  is very similar to the Dino CLI.
+[539.02 --> 541.44]  So it makes it really seamless for development
+[541.44 --> 544.14]  because you run it basically the same way
+[544.14 --> 546.66]  and pass it in for the cloud version.
+[547.28 --> 550.34]  And then also, I think in the blog post
+[550.34 --> 551.84]  they were touting the ability,
+[552.04 --> 553.52]  like one of the key features of Dino
+[553.52 --> 556.74]  is its kind of different take on the security model,
+[557.18 --> 558.22]  a JavaScript runtime,
+[558.22 --> 562.84]  where specifically when you run Dino just by itself,
+[563.32 --> 564.58]  you don't have access to the network,
+[564.68 --> 565.98]  you don't have access to the file system,
+[566.04 --> 567.20]  you don't have access to any of this.
+[567.94 --> 570.02]  And what I got from this is that
+[570.02 --> 571.88]  if you don't allow those flags
+[571.88 --> 573.66]  in what you're actually deploying,
+[574.20 --> 576.24]  then that portion of the Dino runtime
+[576.24 --> 577.10]  just doesn't ship.
+[577.34 --> 579.02]  There's absolutely no way
+[579.02 --> 581.50]  to do any kind of file system stuff if it's not.
+[581.72 --> 582.40]  That's cool.
+[582.50 --> 582.66]  Yeah.
+[582.92 --> 583.66]  It's kind of annoying.
+[583.76 --> 584.50]  Have you done any Dino?
+[584.50 --> 587.00]  So I've done some just toying with it lately,
+[587.14 --> 588.28]  just building a couple of things
+[588.28 --> 588.92]  that are kind of like,
+[589.00 --> 590.08]  I would normally write these
+[590.08 --> 592.58]  just in Ruby or in Node or whatever.
+[593.02 --> 593.26]  And I'm like,
+[593.30 --> 594.30]  well, I'll just try Dino out
+[594.30 --> 596.78]  just for utilities and scripts.
+[597.56 --> 598.50]  And I actually found that
+[598.50 --> 599.48]  those kind of headline flags
+[599.48 --> 600.20]  are kind of annoying.
+[600.76 --> 601.32]  And I get it.
+[601.36 --> 602.58]  I think it's probably worth the trade-off
+[602.58 --> 603.54]  at the end of the day.
+[603.64 --> 605.58]  But allowing file system access,
+[605.92 --> 607.60]  dash dash allow env is one,
+[607.68 --> 609.28]  just to get an environment variable.
+[610.50 --> 611.88]  And so it is definitely a trade-off.
+[611.88 --> 614.38]  And I find it to be kind of annoying
+[614.38 --> 615.30]  for writing scripts,
+[615.38 --> 617.40]  but maybe that's just not the main use case
+[617.40 --> 618.68]  for Dino's scripting.
+[618.96 --> 618.98]  Yeah.
+[619.38 --> 620.66]  So, I mean, that really puts it,
+[620.78 --> 621.66]  it kind of flips it, right?
+[621.72 --> 623.00]  Because if you write a script
+[623.00 --> 624.54]  and give it to me to run,
+[625.24 --> 627.68]  you have to tell me exactly how to run it too.
+[628.60 --> 630.38]  And you as the script writer,
+[630.48 --> 632.34]  do you have to then do the checks?
+[632.58 --> 635.00]  Like, do I have access to the environment variable?
+[635.24 --> 635.44]  Nope.
+[635.58 --> 636.64]  Throw up this error message.
+[637.14 --> 637.54]  Yeah.
+[637.62 --> 639.24]  Or does the thing just blow up, right?
+[639.24 --> 641.68]  Because, I mean, if you try to run it without,
+[641.94 --> 643.16]  it will just error out.
+[643.48 --> 644.60]  Like, the runtime just errors out.
+[644.66 --> 645.72]  It says, I can't run the script
+[645.72 --> 647.58]  because I need access to this and I don't have it.
+[647.66 --> 650.70]  So it tells you, run it again with dash dash allow env.
+[651.28 --> 652.08]  So that's nice.
+[652.26 --> 653.20]  But, yeah, I don't know.
+[653.56 --> 654.14]  I'm not sure.
+[654.24 --> 657.38]  I think, ultimately, that trade-off
+[657.38 --> 660.44]  was one that they were very serious about making.
+[660.66 --> 662.88]  And so kind of putting a stake in the ground
+[662.88 --> 664.16]  and saying, well, it's worth it.
+[664.16 --> 666.24]  Because, and it sounds like if that's the case,
+[666.28 --> 667.24]  if you can ship these, like,
+[667.80 --> 669.92]  miniaturized container runtimes
+[669.92 --> 673.38]  that don't even have the dangerous stuff in them
+[673.38 --> 674.34]  in those cases, right?
+[674.68 --> 676.98]  Like, it can't actually access the file system
+[676.98 --> 678.04]  because it doesn't even have those bits
+[678.04 --> 679.00]  anywhere in the binary
+[679.00 --> 680.52]  and it's just not going to work.
+[680.80 --> 683.64]  I think that's pretty cool for security.
+[684.08 --> 684.20]  Yeah.
+[684.68 --> 685.96]  Dino is, like,
+[686.02 --> 688.72]  I haven't really taken too much time to play with it,
+[688.76 --> 691.70]  although it's definitely on my list of things to look into.
+[691.70 --> 694.62]  And going back to that runtime,
+[694.82 --> 697.42]  that's really, like, the appeal of it to me,
+[697.56 --> 699.46]  I think, the most right now
+[699.46 --> 702.18]  is the idea that you can write your scripts.
+[702.42 --> 704.64]  Like, if I'm thinking of things that I would want to do,
+[704.70 --> 705.98]  it'd be, like, command line applications
+[705.98 --> 708.32]  where I'm writing stuff in Bash right now
+[708.32 --> 709.34]  and I write it in Bash
+[709.34 --> 711.62]  because I know that Bash is probably on your system
+[711.62 --> 715.10]  and there's not really, like, a need to, you know,
+[715.16 --> 716.32]  to npm install anything
+[716.32 --> 717.76]  or set up anything like that.
+[717.76 --> 720.30]  And that's, like, a knock against Node
+[720.30 --> 723.38]  and why I don't write command line stuff like that
+[723.38 --> 725.84]  because I consider, like, global modules
+[725.84 --> 727.06]  to be, like, ephemeral
+[727.06 --> 730.32]  and you'd have to, like, provide, like, an npm install
+[730.32 --> 731.26]  and then get all of that
+[731.26 --> 732.70]  and then you'd be able to run the script.
+[733.12 --> 733.66]  But with Dino,
+[733.90 --> 737.36]  it sounds like you can create, like, an executable
+[737.36 --> 738.74]  that has the entire runtime
+[738.74 --> 739.98]  and everything you need in it
+[739.98 --> 741.34]  and then just ship that.
+[741.44 --> 742.28]  Yeah, single binary.
+[742.56 --> 742.76]  Yeah.
+[743.10 --> 744.54]  That's one of the big things.
+[744.54 --> 747.04]  Which is spectacular for distribution, right?
+[747.04 --> 747.24]  Yep.
+[747.56 --> 748.18]  Yeah, exactly.
+[748.40 --> 749.36]  That's one of the big things
+[749.36 --> 752.70]  that I've seen Go being hoisted up as,
+[752.80 --> 754.24]  like, being a really great way
+[754.24 --> 758.58]  to build these completely self-contained binaries
+[758.58 --> 759.86]  that contain everything you need.
+[760.00 --> 761.28]  It's a really good language
+[761.28 --> 765.24]  for creating those command line scripts
+[765.24 --> 765.90]  if you need it
+[765.90 --> 767.22]  without having to worry about
+[767.22 --> 768.82]  what's actually available on the system.
+[769.40 --> 771.00]  And now, like, I really like this
+[771.00 --> 772.60]  because now I can do it with JavaScript
+[772.60 --> 774.24]  and it's a lot easier.
+[774.24 --> 775.12]  Yeah, exactly.
+[775.44 --> 777.18]  We actually just shipped an episode of GoTime
+[777.18 --> 778.00]  all about releasing
+[778.00 --> 779.66]  and there's a project called GoReleaser
+[779.66 --> 782.20]  and a lot of the conversation on that episode is
+[782.20 --> 785.32]  with Go, I just create a username and personal binary
+[785.32 --> 787.36]  and then I just, like, send that where it needs to go.
+[787.46 --> 789.22]  What kind of release process do I need?
+[789.36 --> 790.72]  You know, so some of the argumentation was, like,
+[790.76 --> 794.30]  is this even necessary to have these, like, release tools?
+[794.84 --> 797.32]  Because it really is as simple as, you know,
+[797.38 --> 798.44]  generating that binary
+[798.44 --> 801.62]  and then you can FTP it, you can SSH it,
+[801.70 --> 803.26]  you can drop it in your Slack channel,
+[803.26 --> 804.90]  you could probably email it if it's small enough
+[804.90 --> 806.94]  and pass it around
+[806.94 --> 808.46]  and as long as it's been compiled
+[808.46 --> 810.18]  for, you know, everybody's architectures,
+[810.22 --> 811.92]  which it has, for the most part,
+[811.96 --> 814.56]  it's just going to work on everybody's machines,
+[814.64 --> 816.20]  which has been one of the reasons
+[816.20 --> 818.32]  that Go has really succeeded.
+[818.42 --> 819.56]  I think that's a huge advantage
+[819.56 --> 820.96]  that Dino has over Node.
+[821.62 --> 823.06]  And I'm sure there's Node efforts
+[823.06 --> 827.32]  to provide tooling around making that be a thing,
+[827.44 --> 829.56]  but having it built right into the project
+[829.56 --> 830.58]  and being a first-party thing
+[830.58 --> 832.66]  is, I think, going to be something that sets it apart.
+[832.66 --> 833.06]  Totally.
+[833.36 --> 834.48]  In terms of the business side,
+[834.52 --> 835.40]  I'll just say, like, you know,
+[835.42 --> 837.50]  to Ryan Dahl and the team, like, you know,
+[837.84 --> 839.18]  congrats, go ahead and get that money,
+[839.30 --> 840.70]  get that sustainability there.
+[840.78 --> 841.72]  We know last time around,
+[841.80 --> 843.74]  I don't remember the entire history of Node.js,
+[843.90 --> 846.38]  but I know, like, Ryan created this awesome thing
+[846.38 --> 848.94]  and many people got involved
+[848.94 --> 850.32]  and there's lots of early adopters
+[850.32 --> 852.22]  and lots of other people working on it as well.
+[852.72 --> 853.98]  And he left the project,
+[854.28 --> 855.40]  it went on from there.
+[855.72 --> 857.16]  And it seems like this time, you know,
+[857.16 --> 858.06]  he worked at Joint
+[858.06 --> 860.24]  and there was, you know, IP issues.
+[860.24 --> 862.12]  There's lots of stuff that went in and out of that.
+[862.70 --> 863.70]  NPM came along
+[863.70 --> 865.20]  and made a big business
+[865.20 --> 866.82]  around the package management side.
+[867.34 --> 868.36]  And this time it's like,
+[868.52 --> 869.36]  I feel like, you know,
+[869.42 --> 871.56]  Ryan is trying to correct
+[871.56 --> 873.54]  a lot of his mistakes with Node
+[873.54 --> 875.14]  is the way he kind of set out with Dino.
+[875.74 --> 877.08]  You know, he came out with that talk,
+[877.16 --> 877.74]  10 mistakes,
+[878.12 --> 879.28]  10 things I regret about Node.
+[879.78 --> 881.54]  And then Dino was kind of his new idea
+[881.54 --> 882.84]  of fixing those things.
+[882.94 --> 883.90]  And it seems like maybe Dino,
+[884.06 --> 884.60]  the company,
+[885.22 --> 886.64]  is him trying to fix another,
+[886.64 --> 888.12]  maybe mistake that he made
+[888.12 --> 889.64]  last time around with Node.
+[889.90 --> 891.28]  And so I hope it works out for him.
+[891.48 --> 892.62]  Yeah, yeah, I hope so too.
+[892.88 --> 894.12]  It's always good to see
+[894.12 --> 895.74]  attempts at sustainability
+[895.74 --> 896.90]  around open source.
+[897.02 --> 898.36]  And I really hope it works out.
+[898.36 --> 899.36]  Thank you.
+[916.64 --> 920.04]  This episode is brought to you
+[920.04 --> 921.14]  by our friends at Sourcegraph.
+[921.66 --> 923.00]  Sourcegraph is code search
+[923.00 --> 924.58]  for every developer and team.
+[924.92 --> 925.62]  And in this segment,
+[925.66 --> 926.56]  I'm talking with Biong Liu,
+[926.74 --> 928.50]  co-founder and CTO of Sourcegraph.
+[928.86 --> 929.74]  And he's sharing exactly
+[929.74 --> 930.66]  how code search works
+[930.66 --> 931.32]  and how it will work
+[931.32 --> 932.04]  for you and your team.
+[932.46 --> 933.62]  So Biong, I want you to share
+[933.62 --> 935.16]  exactly what code search is
+[935.16 --> 936.66]  and how teams can use it.
+[936.94 --> 938.32]  So Adam, I think the best way
+[938.32 --> 939.16]  to describe Sourcegraph
+[939.16 --> 941.08]  is that it's this single search
+[941.08 --> 942.38]  and exploration tool
+[942.38 --> 943.22]  that encompasses
+[943.22 --> 945.54]  the entire universe of code
+[945.54 --> 946.76]  that you might care about.
+[946.96 --> 948.68]  And that includes all the code
+[948.68 --> 949.80]  inside your organization,
+[950.06 --> 951.06]  code written by other teams,
+[951.14 --> 952.14]  as well as code
+[952.14 --> 952.84]  that might be external
+[952.84 --> 953.66]  to your organization.
+[953.94 --> 954.42]  For example,
+[954.56 --> 955.30]  open source dependencies
+[955.30 --> 956.08]  that you're pulling in.
+[956.08 --> 957.48]  So it's a single portal,
+[957.60 --> 958.66]  a single search box
+[958.66 --> 960.08]  that lets you type in
+[960.08 --> 961.12]  a string literal
+[961.12 --> 962.72]  or a regex pattern
+[962.72 --> 964.04]  and instantly search
+[964.04 --> 965.38]  across all that code
+[965.38 --> 967.78]  and jump to the specific points
+[967.78 --> 968.38]  in that code
+[968.38 --> 969.40]  that you're interested
+[969.40 --> 970.30]  in learning about.
+[970.64 --> 971.14]  And then it becomes
+[971.14 --> 972.32]  this interface that allows you
+[972.32 --> 973.88]  to easily navigate
+[973.88 --> 976.00]  and build up a mental model
+[976.00 --> 978.42]  of how that part of code works.
+[978.56 --> 980.20]  So whether it's trying
+[980.20 --> 980.84]  to find a needle
+[980.84 --> 981.62]  in a haystack
+[981.62 --> 982.44]  that you're concerned about
+[982.44 --> 984.48]  or trying to find examples
+[984.48 --> 985.42]  of how to use
+[985.42 --> 987.52]  a particular unfamiliar library
+[987.52 --> 988.52]  or package,
+[988.66 --> 990.36]  or maybe you just want to
+[990.36 --> 991.58]  jump to a bunch of places
+[991.58 --> 993.02]  in code that you can then link to
+[993.02 --> 994.02]  and discuss with teammates.
+[994.40 --> 995.26]  And this is all in the service
+[995.26 --> 997.24]  of eventually getting back
+[997.24 --> 997.92]  into your editor
+[997.92 --> 999.08]  so that you have
+[999.08 --> 999.94]  all the context,
+[1000.10 --> 1000.70]  all the information
+[1000.70 --> 1001.56]  that you need to know
+[1001.56 --> 1002.74]  about the area of code
+[1002.74 --> 1003.40]  that you're modifying
+[1003.40 --> 1004.32]  and get back
+[1004.32 --> 1005.14]  into that flow state
+[1005.14 --> 1006.14]  where you're just coding
+[1006.14 --> 1006.88]  at the speed of light
+[1006.88 --> 1007.46]  and you feel like
+[1007.46 --> 1008.76]  you're making rapid progress
+[1008.76 --> 1010.00]  towards that bug fix
+[1010.00 --> 1010.78]  or that feature
+[1010.78 --> 1011.58]  that you're currently building.
+[1012.10 --> 1012.34]  All right,
+[1012.36 --> 1012.92]  if code search
+[1012.92 --> 1013.62]  powered by Sourcegraph
+[1013.62 --> 1014.32]  sounds like something
+[1014.32 --> 1015.60]  you and your team can use,
+[1015.84 --> 1017.52]  head to info.sourcegraph.com
+[1017.52 --> 1018.42]  slash changelog
+[1018.42 --> 1019.24]  and click the button
+[1019.24 --> 1020.60]  that says try Sourcegraph now.
+[1020.84 --> 1021.72]  You can install locally,
+[1022.08 --> 1022.92]  deploy it to a server
+[1022.92 --> 1023.92]  or to a cluster.
+[1024.32 --> 1025.10]  They have a quick start guide
+[1025.10 --> 1026.08]  that takes less than five minutes
+[1026.08 --> 1026.90]  to install Sourcegraph
+[1026.90 --> 1027.56]  using Docker
+[1027.56 --> 1028.78]  so it's too easy
+[1028.78 --> 1029.40]  to give a try.
+[1029.66 --> 1029.98]  Again,
+[1030.12 --> 1031.96]  head to info.sourcegraph.com
+[1031.96 --> 1033.04]  slash changelog.
+[1052.04 --> 1052.48]  Okay,
+[1052.66 --> 1053.30]  let's find out
+[1053.30 --> 1054.52]  who is an April fool
+[1054.52 --> 1057.10]  and who's going to April drool.
+[1057.22 --> 1057.68]  I don't know.
+[1057.86 --> 1058.72]  That didn't really work out.
+[1058.72 --> 1060.20]  We're going to play
+[1060.20 --> 1061.92]  a game called Headlies.
+[1062.40 --> 1063.48]  I've gathered a bunch
+[1063.48 --> 1064.68]  of real headlines
+[1064.68 --> 1066.86]  along with the first paragraph
+[1066.86 --> 1067.72]  from the story.
+[1068.06 --> 1069.34]  I've also gathered
+[1069.34 --> 1069.92]  and written
+[1069.92 --> 1071.96]  some fake headlines
+[1071.96 --> 1074.04]  along with the first paragraph
+[1074.04 --> 1075.10]  to those stories.
+[1075.74 --> 1076.92]  Here's how it's going to work.
+[1077.24 --> 1078.48]  The headline will be presented
+[1078.48 --> 1080.22]  at which point,
+[1080.68 --> 1081.02]  Nick,
+[1081.42 --> 1082.58]  you can guess
+[1082.58 --> 1083.56]  true or false
+[1083.56 --> 1085.34]  with two points on the line.
+[1085.74 --> 1086.32]  So if you're wrong,
+[1086.38 --> 1087.02]  I get the points.
+[1087.12 --> 1087.48]  If you're right,
+[1087.52 --> 1088.12]  you get the points.
+[1088.94 --> 1089.88]  Or you can opt
+[1089.88 --> 1091.20]  to hear the first paragraph
+[1091.20 --> 1092.68]  before guessing
+[1092.68 --> 1093.86]  with only one point
+[1093.86 --> 1094.40]  on the line.
+[1094.48 --> 1095.40]  So you can hear more,
+[1095.86 --> 1096.80]  but you win more
+[1096.80 --> 1097.56]  for getting it correct.
+[1097.68 --> 1098.34]  Now at the end of the day,
+[1098.40 --> 1099.36]  you got a 50-50 shot
+[1099.36 --> 1100.02]  on all these, right?
+[1100.86 --> 1102.50]  So you can always just guess
+[1102.50 --> 1103.92]  and you're going to have to guess.
+[1104.50 --> 1105.04]  And we'll see
+[1105.04 --> 1105.90]  who comes up the victor.
+[1106.06 --> 1106.60]  Sound like fun?
+[1106.84 --> 1107.52]  It sounds like
+[1107.52 --> 1108.26]  every other game
+[1108.26 --> 1109.12]  that we try and play
+[1109.12 --> 1110.80]  and my best shot
+[1110.80 --> 1111.56]  is to not play.
+[1113.52 --> 1114.22]  That's true.
+[1114.22 --> 1115.88]  I do hope I win,
+[1115.98 --> 1116.48]  as always.
+[1116.88 --> 1117.18]  Mostly,
+[1117.28 --> 1118.10]  I just hope that this is
+[1118.10 --> 1119.78]  entertaining for everybody involved.
+[1120.14 --> 1120.64]  Are you ready?
+[1120.78 --> 1121.16]  I'm ready.
+[1121.32 --> 1121.86]  Let's do it.
+[1122.20 --> 1122.52]  All right.
+[1122.58 --> 1123.56]  Here's the first headline.
+[1124.24 --> 1125.44]  Apple adds two
+[1125.44 --> 1126.80]  brand new Siri voices
+[1126.80 --> 1127.96]  and will no longer
+[1127.96 --> 1129.28]  default to a female
+[1129.28 --> 1130.74]  or male voice
+[1130.74 --> 1131.36]  in iOS.
+[1131.92 --> 1132.32]  Now,
+[1132.42 --> 1133.22]  you can guess
+[1133.22 --> 1133.86]  true or false
+[1133.86 --> 1134.60]  with two points
+[1134.60 --> 1135.06]  on the line
+[1135.06 --> 1136.16]  or you can hear
+[1136.16 --> 1137.38]  the first paragraph
+[1137.38 --> 1138.68]  of the article.
+[1138.68 --> 1139.96]  That is true.
+[1141.98 --> 1142.46]  Congratulations.
+[1142.88 --> 1143.32]  You got it.
+[1143.42 --> 1143.92]  I've already listened
+[1143.92 --> 1145.12]  to Accidental Tech Podcast
+[1145.12 --> 1145.88]  today, so.
+[1146.42 --> 1146.86]  Ah!
+[1148.46 --> 1149.10]  All right.
+[1149.18 --> 1150.12]  So you're winning
+[1150.12 --> 1150.72]  two to zero.
+[1151.66 --> 1152.32]  Not fair.
+[1152.42 --> 1153.34]  You heard that headline.
+[1153.88 --> 1154.20]  All right.
+[1154.28 --> 1154.72]  Next one.
+[1154.76 --> 1155.10]  Are you ready?
+[1155.20 --> 1155.54]  I'm ready.
+[1156.14 --> 1157.24]  Engine raises
+[1157.24 --> 1158.44]  nearly $19 million
+[1158.44 --> 1159.48]  to build
+[1159.48 --> 1160.62]  Polkadot-based
+[1160.62 --> 1162.32]  blockchain for NFTs.
+[1163.12 --> 1164.34]  That sounds like
+[1164.34 --> 1165.30]  a real headline
+[1165.30 --> 1166.38]  for sure.
+[1167.08 --> 1167.18]  But
+[1167.18 --> 1169.04]  InGen makes me think
+[1169.04 --> 1170.36]  of the Jurassic Park
+[1170.36 --> 1170.70]  company,
+[1170.92 --> 1171.54]  so I'm going to say
+[1171.54 --> 1172.02]  it's false.
+[1172.52 --> 1172.98]  You're going to say
+[1172.98 --> 1173.48]  it's false.
+[1174.52 --> 1175.00]  Oh!
+[1175.84 --> 1176.20]  Sorry,
+[1176.32 --> 1176.88]  you are incorrect.
+[1177.12 --> 1178.12]  It was true
+[1178.12 --> 1178.94]  or it is true.
+[1179.08 --> 1179.60]  No way.
+[1180.04 --> 1180.44]  Yes.
+[1180.76 --> 1181.72]  Blockchain development
+[1181.72 --> 1182.40]  firm InGen
+[1182.40 --> 1183.70]  has raised $18.9 million
+[1183.70 --> 1185.56]  to build a Polkadot-based
+[1185.56 --> 1186.52]  blockchain network
+[1186.52 --> 1187.76]  especially for
+[1187.76 --> 1188.66]  non-fungible tokens.
+[1188.82 --> 1189.28]  The network,
+[1189.42 --> 1190.18]  dubbed Efinity,
+[1190.60 --> 1191.34]  will have its own
+[1191.34 --> 1192.28]  token called
+[1192.28 --> 1193.18]  Efinity Token.
+[1194.10 --> 1194.78]  The funding has been
+[1194.78 --> 1196.42]  secured by selling
+[1196.42 --> 1197.54]  EFT tokens.
+[1198.10 --> 1198.50]  There you go.
+[1198.70 --> 1199.72]  Those fools were too
+[1199.72 --> 1200.90]  busy worrying about
+[1200.90 --> 1201.38]  if they could.
+[1201.46 --> 1201.92]  They didn't stop
+[1201.92 --> 1202.36]  to think whether
+[1202.36 --> 1202.94]  they should.
+[1205.94 --> 1206.38]  Oh,
+[1206.48 --> 1207.20]  very nice.
+[1207.70 --> 1208.38]  Jurassic Park
+[1208.38 --> 1209.02]  pull in there.
+[1210.06 --> 1210.36]  All right,
+[1210.42 --> 1210.98]  so with that,
+[1211.10 --> 1211.86]  the score is tied.
+[1211.96 --> 1212.72]  I'm back at it.
+[1212.78 --> 1213.92]  It's 0-0.
+[1214.14 --> 1214.90]  You've lost 2.
+[1214.96 --> 1215.42]  Now remember,
+[1215.62 --> 1216.40]  if you're not sure,
+[1216.48 --> 1216.96]  you can listen
+[1216.96 --> 1217.94]  to the first paragraph
+[1217.94 --> 1218.96]  and give yourself
+[1218.96 --> 1219.72]  a little more information
+[1219.72 --> 1220.60]  or you can just keep
+[1220.60 --> 1221.64]  gambling it all.
+[1221.76 --> 1222.34]  Be ready for your next one.
+[1222.34 --> 1222.66]  I'm ready.
+[1222.66 --> 1224.14]  Google's Alphabet
+[1224.14 --> 1225.54]  invests $50 million
+[1225.54 --> 1227.04]  in soup startup.
+[1227.56 --> 1228.00]  Okay.
+[1231.36 --> 1231.94]  Go ahead,
+[1232.00 --> 1232.50]  think out loud.
+[1232.58 --> 1232.92]  Tell me your
+[1232.92 --> 1233.70]  thought process here.
+[1233.94 --> 1234.16]  Well,
+[1234.24 --> 1235.28]  Alphabet's a real company.
+[1236.76 --> 1237.24]  Yes?
+[1237.38 --> 1238.32]  A soup startup.
+[1239.46 --> 1240.62]  I think I do want
+[1240.62 --> 1241.54]  to hear the paragraph.
+[1241.54 --> 1242.08]  Do you want to hear more?
+[1242.12 --> 1242.24]  Yeah.
+[1242.78 --> 1243.14]  Okay.
+[1243.60 --> 1244.64]  Here's the first paragraph
+[1244.64 --> 1245.08]  of the article.
+[1245.18 --> 1246.22]  If you need more indicators
+[1246.22 --> 1247.70]  of easy access to capital
+[1247.70 --> 1248.72]  in today's speculation
+[1248.72 --> 1249.42]  craze market,
+[1249.90 --> 1250.56]  look no further
+[1250.56 --> 1251.54]  than a Silicon Valley
+[1251.54 --> 1252.46]  startup called
+[1252.46 --> 1253.32]  Souped Up,
+[1253.90 --> 1254.84]  which announced today
+[1254.84 --> 1255.32]  they've raised
+[1255.32 --> 1255.78]  $100 million
+[1255.78 --> 1257.20]  in a series B round
+[1257.20 --> 1257.82]  that is led by
+[1257.82 --> 1258.34]  none other than
+[1258.34 --> 1259.36]  Google's parent company,
+[1259.48 --> 1259.74]  Alphabet.
+[1260.46 --> 1261.22]  Souped Up applies
+[1261.22 --> 1261.98]  advanced machine
+[1261.98 --> 1262.66]  learning techniques
+[1262.66 --> 1263.54]  to bring low-cost
+[1263.54 --> 1264.14]  canned goods
+[1264.14 --> 1265.52]  to developing nations
+[1265.52 --> 1266.68]  and indigenous peoples.
+[1267.00 --> 1267.94]  That's a mouthful.
+[1268.38 --> 1268.64]  Okay.
+[1269.30 --> 1270.80]  It seems more plausible,
+[1271.38 --> 1274.06]  but Igor in the chat
+[1274.06 --> 1275.04]  says Alphabet Soup.
+[1275.44 --> 1276.16]  I'm going to say
+[1276.16 --> 1276.84]  it's not real.
+[1277.24 --> 1277.60]  You're going to say
+[1277.60 --> 1278.66]  it's not correct.
+[1278.76 --> 1279.44]  So it's a false,
+[1279.54 --> 1280.16]  it's a headline.
+[1280.32 --> 1280.46]  Yeah.
+[1281.56 --> 1282.04]  Whew.
+[1282.32 --> 1283.14]  You are correct.
+[1283.32 --> 1284.26]  I made that one up.
+[1284.58 --> 1285.26]  But I had you going,
+[1285.36 --> 1285.62]  didn't I?
+[1285.86 --> 1286.16]  Nice.
+[1287.08 --> 1287.58]  For sure.
+[1287.64 --> 1288.18]  I was going to ask
+[1288.18 --> 1289.22]  if you used GPT-3
+[1289.22 --> 1290.24]  to make that.
+[1290.62 --> 1292.02]  To generate these.
+[1292.72 --> 1293.70]  Well, that would require
+[1293.70 --> 1294.50]  way more forethought
+[1294.50 --> 1295.44]  than I put into this.
+[1295.84 --> 1296.62]  And skill,
+[1296.90 --> 1297.98]  which I hold very little of.
+[1298.42 --> 1298.74]  All right.
+[1298.76 --> 1299.28]  You're now winning
+[1299.28 --> 1299.82]  one to nothing.
+[1299.92 --> 1300.64]  You got one point
+[1300.64 --> 1301.70]  for getting that one correct.
+[1301.88 --> 1302.34]  And yes,
+[1302.48 --> 1304.08]  the Alphabet Soup
+[1304.08 --> 1306.02]  really was the funny bit,
+[1306.28 --> 1306.78]  I thought.
+[1306.98 --> 1307.26]  Okay.
+[1308.02 --> 1308.64]  Next headline.
+[1309.12 --> 1309.92]  Carbon labels
+[1309.92 --> 1310.84]  are coming to your
+[1310.84 --> 1311.56]  shampoo bottle.
+[1312.24 --> 1313.16]  Carbon labels
+[1313.16 --> 1313.96]  are coming to your
+[1313.96 --> 1314.66]  shampoo bottle.
+[1315.30 --> 1316.08]  That's correct.
+[1316.34 --> 1317.38]  I want to hear the paragraph
+[1317.38 --> 1318.24]  on this one too.
+[1318.74 --> 1319.02]  Okay.
+[1319.78 --> 1321.08]  Shoppers have been able
+[1321.08 --> 1322.36]  to use nutrition labels
+[1322.36 --> 1323.88]  to choose low-salt meals
+[1323.88 --> 1325.50]  or reduced-sugar cereal.
+[1325.88 --> 1326.76]  Now some companies
+[1326.76 --> 1327.50]  want to use labels
+[1327.50 --> 1328.26]  to help them pick
+[1328.26 --> 1329.46]  everything from shampoo
+[1329.46 --> 1330.04]  to milk
+[1330.04 --> 1331.36]  based on products'
+[1331.52 --> 1332.18]  carbon emissions.
+[1332.18 --> 1334.22]  I hope this is true.
+[1334.64 --> 1335.70]  I'm going to go with that.
+[1335.84 --> 1336.82]  There's no hopium here.
+[1336.90 --> 1337.66]  Is it true or false?
+[1337.74 --> 1338.18]  It's true.
+[1339.30 --> 1340.02]  All right.
+[1340.10 --> 1340.84]  You got it.
+[1340.92 --> 1341.58]  All right.
+[1341.68 --> 1342.18]  You're now winning
+[1342.18 --> 1342.72]  two to zero.
+[1343.36 --> 1344.26]  These next few
+[1344.26 --> 1345.72]  are all Florida Man headlines.
+[1346.18 --> 1346.82]  Are you familiar
+[1346.82 --> 1347.46]  with Florida Man?
+[1347.50 --> 1347.80]  Yes.
+[1348.64 --> 1349.08]  Okay.
+[1350.48 --> 1351.38]  You're about to be
+[1351.38 --> 1352.04]  even more familiar
+[1352.04 --> 1352.72]  with Florida Man.
+[1352.92 --> 1353.72]  Why don't you explain
+[1353.72 --> 1354.36]  Florida Man
+[1354.36 --> 1355.70]  just in case any of our listeners
+[1355.70 --> 1357.16]  aren't familiar?
+[1357.40 --> 1357.74]  Okay.
+[1358.22 --> 1359.04]  Well, why don't you go ahead
+[1359.04 --> 1359.88]  and explain Florida Man?
+[1359.88 --> 1361.48]  What do you think of it?
+[1362.28 --> 1363.16]  Anytime you see
+[1363.16 --> 1364.32]  some ridiculous article,
+[1364.58 --> 1365.26]  it usually starts
+[1365.26 --> 1366.48]  with Florida Man.
+[1366.62 --> 1367.32]  Like Florida Man
+[1367.32 --> 1368.46]  gets head stuck
+[1368.46 --> 1368.94]  in alligator
+[1368.94 --> 1369.98]  or something like that.
+[1370.46 --> 1370.66]  Yeah.
+[1370.96 --> 1371.84]  So there's this
+[1371.84 --> 1373.60]  canonical Florida Man
+[1373.60 --> 1374.92]  that is always
+[1374.92 --> 1375.72]  getting into hijinks.
+[1376.02 --> 1376.42]  That's right.
+[1376.66 --> 1377.62]  These are three of those.
+[1378.02 --> 1379.34]  The first one is
+[1379.34 --> 1380.16]  Florida Man
+[1380.16 --> 1380.78]  gets beat up
+[1380.78 --> 1381.60]  by Santa Claus.
+[1383.10 --> 1383.58]  True.
+[1384.68 --> 1385.16]  True?
+[1385.34 --> 1385.56]  Yep.
+[1386.34 --> 1387.04]  I'm sorry.
+[1387.10 --> 1387.64]  That's incorrect.
+[1388.14 --> 1388.74]  Turns out it was
+[1388.74 --> 1389.26]  the Easter Bunny.
+[1389.88 --> 1393.72]  Oh, and with that,
+[1394.02 --> 1395.56]  it's now zero, zero again.
+[1395.64 --> 1396.32]  You're back at zero.
+[1397.06 --> 1398.26]  The full story
+[1398.26 --> 1399.04]  is a Florida Man
+[1399.04 --> 1399.92]  received a beat down
+[1399.92 --> 1400.70]  from the Easter Bunny
+[1400.70 --> 1402.00]  and the whole thing
+[1402.00 --> 1402.74]  was caught on video.
+[1402.96 --> 1403.48]  It all started
+[1403.48 --> 1403.94]  when the man
+[1403.94 --> 1404.74]  bumped into a woman
+[1404.74 --> 1405.82]  and words were exchanged.
+[1406.54 --> 1407.36]  The Easter Bunny
+[1407.36 --> 1408.24]  hopped into action
+[1408.24 --> 1409.38]  and proceeded to demonstrate
+[1409.38 --> 1410.08]  what happens
+[1410.08 --> 1410.80]  when you're...
+[1410.80 --> 1411.28]  Oh, sorry.
+[1411.74 --> 1412.64]  I rewrote it.
+[1413.66 --> 1414.52]  I was trying to read
+[1414.52 --> 1414.90]  the original.
+[1415.04 --> 1415.66]  I'm reading mine.
+[1416.18 --> 1416.76]  I changed it to
+[1416.76 --> 1417.88]  Santa leaped into action
+[1417.88 --> 1418.92]  and proceeded to demonstrate
+[1418.92 --> 1419.40]  what happens
+[1419.40 --> 1419.96]  when you're naughty
+[1419.96 --> 1420.68]  or not nice.
+[1421.16 --> 1422.38]  The fight was eventually
+[1422.38 --> 1424.10]  broken up by Orlando police
+[1424.10 --> 1424.86]  and a bystander.
+[1424.96 --> 1425.34]  So, yeah,
+[1425.42 --> 1426.32]  everything there is true
+[1426.32 --> 1426.90]  except for it was
+[1426.90 --> 1427.34]  the Easter Bunny
+[1427.34 --> 1428.20]  and not Santa Claus
+[1428.20 --> 1430.14]  and I changed the puns.
+[1430.20 --> 1431.02]  I think it said
+[1431.02 --> 1431.68]  the Easter Bunny
+[1431.68 --> 1432.84]  showed what happens
+[1432.84 --> 1433.84]  when he pulls out
+[1433.84 --> 1434.84]  his fists of fury
+[1434.84 --> 1435.56]  or something stupid
+[1435.56 --> 1435.96]  like that.
+[1436.06 --> 1436.42]  I don't know.
+[1436.62 --> 1436.88]  Anyways,
+[1436.94 --> 1437.68]  that one is false.
+[1437.68 --> 1438.74]  I should get a half a point
+[1438.74 --> 1439.90]  because I refuse to believe
+[1439.90 --> 1440.92]  that if you went back
+[1440.92 --> 1441.42]  far enough,
+[1441.52 --> 1442.60]  there's not some article
+[1442.60 --> 1443.50]  about a Florida man
+[1443.50 --> 1444.20]  fighting Santa.
+[1444.20 --> 1445.80]  Well,
+[1446.94 --> 1447.92]  if you can find the link
+[1447.92 --> 1448.62]  behind the show,
+[1448.74 --> 1449.86]  I'll edit it back in.
+[1450.36 --> 1450.68]  All right,
+[1450.72 --> 1451.32]  next one.
+[1451.72 --> 1452.36]  Florida man
+[1452.36 --> 1454.06]  with state tattooed
+[1454.06 --> 1454.72]  on head
+[1454.72 --> 1455.58]  calls 911
+[1455.58 --> 1456.78]  for a ride home.
+[1457.32 --> 1457.78]  Florida man
+[1457.78 --> 1459.16]  with state tattooed,
+[1459.16 --> 1460.22]  like the word state
+[1460.22 --> 1461.70]  or the state of Florida?
+[1462.34 --> 1462.88]  I can't provide
+[1462.88 --> 1463.46]  any more context
+[1463.46 --> 1464.38]  unless you want the paragraph.
+[1464.60 --> 1465.14]  Do you want the paragraph?
+[1465.30 --> 1465.48]  Yeah,
+[1465.58 --> 1466.26]  I'll do the paragraph.
+[1466.68 --> 1467.02]  All right.
+[1467.38 --> 1468.22]  A Florida man
+[1468.22 --> 1469.40]  with his favorite state
+[1469.40 --> 1470.68]  tattooed on his forehead
+[1470.68 --> 1471.64]  was arrested
+[1471.64 --> 1472.58]  after calling 911
+[1472.58 --> 1473.62]  multiple times
+[1473.62 --> 1474.70]  requesting a ride home.
+[1475.10 --> 1476.26]  A deputy who found
+[1476.26 --> 1476.88]  the Florida man
+[1476.88 --> 1478.18]  offered to call him a cab
+[1478.18 --> 1478.96]  but he said he didn't
+[1478.96 --> 1479.90]  have money for one.
+[1480.14 --> 1481.40]  He then began to walk
+[1481.40 --> 1482.64]  in the direction of his home
+[1482.64 --> 1483.82]  then called 911
+[1483.82 --> 1484.66]  a second time
+[1484.66 --> 1486.34]  again requesting a ride.
+[1486.56 --> 1487.38]  The same officer
+[1487.38 --> 1488.14]  caught up with him
+[1488.14 --> 1489.00]  and arrested him
+[1489.00 --> 1490.78]  while he was on the line.
+[1491.02 --> 1491.98]  That sounds real.
+[1493.32 --> 1494.34]  That one's real.
+[1494.78 --> 1495.52]  One point.
+[1495.88 --> 1496.60]  We've all been there,
+[1496.66 --> 1497.16]  Florida man.
+[1497.66 --> 1498.80]  We've all been there.
+[1498.80 --> 1500.40]  Have you ever had
+[1500.40 --> 1501.10]  the state of Nebraska
+[1501.10 --> 1502.08]  tattooed on your forehead?
+[1502.86 --> 1503.14]  All right,
+[1503.18 --> 1503.72]  last one.
+[1503.82 --> 1504.58]  Florida man
+[1504.58 --> 1505.74]  breaks into home
+[1505.74 --> 1507.48]  sucks on sleeping man's toes.
+[1511.98 --> 1513.00]  Oh gosh.
+[1513.64 --> 1514.56]  What do you think?
+[1516.66 --> 1518.22]  I think that it's false
+[1518.22 --> 1519.38]  but I want to hear
+[1519.38 --> 1519.86]  the paragraph
+[1519.86 --> 1520.78]  just so I can
+[1520.78 --> 1522.02]  hear that
+[1522.02 --> 1523.62]  and just assume
+[1523.62 --> 1524.34]  that you wrote that
+[1524.34 --> 1525.30]  and I just want to hear
+[1525.30 --> 1526.32]  what you would write
+[1526.32 --> 1526.84]  about there.
+[1527.28 --> 1528.36]  The incident occurred
+[1528.36 --> 1529.18]  on Christmas Eve.
+[1529.34 --> 1530.16]  According to the resident
+[1530.16 --> 1531.20]  he awoke to find
+[1531.20 --> 1531.88]  the Florida man
+[1531.88 --> 1532.82]  at his feet
+[1532.82 --> 1533.74]  who then proclaimed
+[1533.74 --> 1534.32]  that he broke
+[1534.32 --> 1534.92]  into the home
+[1534.92 --> 1536.82]  quote to suck toes.
+[1537.96 --> 1538.94]  He then attempted
+[1538.94 --> 1539.78]  to fondle the man
+[1539.78 --> 1540.90]  according to the police report.
+[1541.00 --> 1541.68]  After the two got
+[1541.68 --> 1542.34]  into a fight
+[1542.34 --> 1543.30]  the Florida man
+[1543.30 --> 1544.02]  smashed a window
+[1544.02 --> 1545.12]  and the victim's windshield
+[1545.12 --> 1546.36]  before making an escape.
+[1546.46 --> 1547.60]  No arrests have been made.
+[1548.40 --> 1549.40]  I think it's false.
+[1549.84 --> 1550.54]  I think it's a lie.
+[1551.18 --> 1552.28]  And you are false.
+[1552.48 --> 1553.68]  That is 100% true
+[1553.68 --> 1554.16]  my friend.
+[1554.16 --> 1557.24]  And with that
+[1557.24 --> 1558.06]  you're back at zero.
+[1558.72 --> 1559.66]  This is going very well.
+[1559.74 --> 1560.26]  You get one right
+[1560.26 --> 1560.84]  you get one wrong.
+[1560.98 --> 1561.34]  Get one right
+[1561.34 --> 1561.78]  get one wrong.
+[1562.04 --> 1562.84]  I wish that wasn't
+[1562.84 --> 1563.48]  true as well.
+[1565.62 --> 1567.06]  That is terrible.
+[1567.28 --> 1567.44]  Okay.
+[1567.86 --> 1568.78]  The next headline.
+[1569.48 --> 1570.68]  Rapper Flava Flav
+[1570.68 --> 1571.50]  in hot water
+[1571.50 --> 1572.76]  after exposing himself
+[1572.76 --> 1573.58]  during cameo.
+[1575.04 --> 1576.32]  I have seriously
+[1576.32 --> 1577.04]  looked at getting
+[1577.04 --> 1577.50]  a cameo
+[1577.50 --> 1578.36]  from Flava Flav
+[1578.36 --> 1580.04]  so I hope
+[1580.04 --> 1580.74]  that's not true
+[1580.74 --> 1581.88]  but I'm going to say
+[1581.88 --> 1582.92]  that it is true.
+[1582.92 --> 1584.34]  You're saying it's true.
+[1585.10 --> 1586.44]  I made that one up.
+[1587.04 --> 1588.42]  It was somebody else right?
+[1588.74 --> 1589.48]  No I just completely
+[1589.48 --> 1589.92]  made it up
+[1589.92 --> 1590.98]  in a full cloth.
+[1591.82 --> 1592.48]  You want to hear
+[1592.48 --> 1593.52]  the paragraph I wrote for it?
+[1593.52 --> 1593.86]  I do.
+[1594.14 --> 1594.44]  Okay.
+[1594.62 --> 1595.58]  I'll let you know
+[1595.58 --> 1596.72]  that you have negative one now
+[1596.72 --> 1597.56]  so I'm officially winning.
+[1597.86 --> 1599.40]  William Jonathan Drayton Jr
+[1599.40 --> 1600.12]  widely known
+[1600.12 --> 1600.96]  by his stage name
+[1600.96 --> 1601.56]  Flava Flav
+[1601.56 --> 1602.90]  may face charges
+[1602.90 --> 1603.54]  for a video
+[1603.54 --> 1604.84]  he produced on Cameo
+[1604.84 --> 1606.04]  a service where people
+[1606.04 --> 1606.68]  hire celebrities
+[1606.68 --> 1607.62]  to create brief videos
+[1607.62 --> 1608.10]  and share them
+[1608.10 --> 1608.62]  with their friends.
+[1609.08 --> 1609.78]  The video in question
+[1609.78 --> 1610.58]  was for a woman's
+[1610.58 --> 1611.18]  40th birthday
+[1611.18 --> 1612.28]  and according to Drayton
+[1612.28 --> 1613.68]  the customer requested
+[1613.68 --> 1615.42]  quote something special
+[1615.42 --> 1616.58]  for his biggest fan.
+[1617.02 --> 1618.04]  Pretty believable I guess.
+[1619.06 --> 1619.28]  Yeah.
+[1621.68 --> 1622.64]  I thought that one
+[1622.64 --> 1623.74]  might get over on you
+[1623.74 --> 1624.10]  although
+[1624.10 --> 1625.66]  I think that would make
+[1625.66 --> 1626.58]  some sort of bigger news
+[1626.58 --> 1627.08]  like you probably
+[1627.08 --> 1627.86]  would have heard about it
+[1627.86 --> 1628.22]  you know?
+[1628.30 --> 1628.38]  Yeah.
+[1628.46 --> 1628.76]  I don't know
+[1628.76 --> 1629.20]  maybe not
+[1629.20 --> 1629.90]  there's lots of
+[1629.90 --> 1630.62]  ridiculous things
+[1630.62 --> 1630.96]  on the news.
+[1631.48 --> 1631.88]  Okay.
+[1632.06 --> 1633.00]  You now have negative one
+[1633.00 --> 1633.64]  you're digging out
+[1633.64 --> 1634.54]  of the red
+[1634.54 --> 1635.02]  are you ready?
+[1635.16 --> 1635.46]  I'm ready.
+[1635.72 --> 1636.90]  There's one, two, three
+[1636.90 --> 1637.86]  there's four more.
+[1638.48 --> 1639.08]  Next headline
+[1639.08 --> 1640.10]  Internet's
+[1640.10 --> 1641.30]  Hide the Pain Herald
+[1641.30 --> 1642.54]  accidentally used
+[1642.54 --> 1643.24]  by Swedish
+[1643.24 --> 1644.98]  COVID-19 vaccine website.
+[1645.50 --> 1645.82]  Do you know
+[1645.82 --> 1646.44]  Hide the Pain Herald?
+[1646.56 --> 1646.88]  I do.
+[1647.18 --> 1647.64]  You know that guy?
+[1647.66 --> 1647.84]  Yeah.
+[1647.84 --> 1648.02]  Okay.
+[1648.26 --> 1649.08]  It's the old guy
+[1649.08 --> 1649.94]  holding a mug right?
+[1650.18 --> 1651.26]  Yeah and he's smiling
+[1651.26 --> 1652.82]  but you can tell
+[1652.82 --> 1653.44]  on his face
+[1653.44 --> 1654.10]  that he's actually
+[1654.10 --> 1655.58]  like seriously
+[1655.58 --> 1656.38]  in pain
+[1656.38 --> 1657.78]  or hates his life
+[1657.78 --> 1658.30]  or whatever
+[1658.30 --> 1659.06]  so people use it
+[1659.06 --> 1659.46]  all the time
+[1659.46 --> 1660.02]  when you're like
+[1660.02 --> 1661.42]  acting like you're okay.
+[1661.76 --> 1662.58]  I actually watched
+[1662.58 --> 1664.12]  a Where Are They Now
+[1664.12 --> 1665.04]  with that guy
+[1665.04 --> 1665.88]  on YouTube.
+[1666.00 --> 1666.36]  Oh really?
+[1666.54 --> 1666.74]  Yeah.
+[1667.36 --> 1668.14]  Where is he now?
+[1668.48 --> 1669.78]  He's enjoying it.
+[1669.88 --> 1670.50]  He gets noticed
+[1670.50 --> 1671.04]  on the street
+[1671.04 --> 1672.40]  and people want
+[1672.40 --> 1672.86]  to take pictures
+[1672.86 --> 1673.36]  with him.
+[1673.88 --> 1674.54]  Yeah because wasn't
+[1674.54 --> 1675.02]  he just like
+[1675.02 --> 1676.04]  it was like stock photo
+[1676.04 --> 1676.52]  wasn't it?
+[1676.58 --> 1676.70]  Yeah.
+[1677.02 --> 1677.22]  Yeah.
+[1677.22 --> 1677.74]  He's been doing it
+[1677.74 --> 1678.18]  for years
+[1678.18 --> 1679.42]  and never had
+[1679.42 --> 1680.18]  anything come of it
+[1680.18 --> 1680.54]  and then
+[1680.54 --> 1681.82]  someone just noticed
+[1681.82 --> 1683.18]  like this guy's eyes
+[1683.18 --> 1684.14]  tell a different story
+[1684.14 --> 1684.82]  than his lips
+[1684.82 --> 1685.16]  you know
+[1685.16 --> 1685.90]  his smile.
+[1686.40 --> 1687.02]  That's cool
+[1687.02 --> 1687.62]  he's living up
+[1687.62 --> 1688.72]  he's an internet celebrity now.
+[1689.54 --> 1689.94]  Internet's
+[1689.94 --> 1691.08]  Hide the Pain Herald
+[1691.08 --> 1692.06]  accidentally used
+[1692.06 --> 1692.70]  by Swedish
+[1692.70 --> 1694.38]  COVID-19 vaccine website.
+[1694.72 --> 1695.44]  You're at negative one
+[1695.44 --> 1696.08]  so you can guess
+[1696.08 --> 1697.10]  you can get the paragraph.
+[1697.62 --> 1698.88]  If it's stock photography
+[1698.88 --> 1699.72]  how can it be
+[1699.72 --> 1700.82]  accidentally used?
+[1701.18 --> 1701.54]  Hmm.
+[1702.10 --> 1702.52]  You have like
+[1702.52 --> 1703.56]  a private eye over there.
+[1704.18 --> 1705.24]  I'm gonna say it's false.
+[1705.48 --> 1706.54]  You're gonna say it's false
+[1706.54 --> 1708.52]  and you fail once again
+[1708.52 --> 1709.18]  that one's true.
+[1709.78 --> 1710.38]  So accidentally
+[1710.38 --> 1711.48]  might be a
+[1711.48 --> 1713.04]  editorial word
+[1713.04 --> 1713.86]  used by the
+[1713.86 --> 1715.22]  whoever is reporting this
+[1715.22 --> 1716.14]  maybe it was on purpose
+[1716.14 --> 1716.64]  you know
+[1716.64 --> 1718.22]  but I think
+[1718.22 --> 1718.78]  if you're using
+[1718.78 --> 1719.38]  stock photo
+[1719.38 --> 1719.92]  I think the point
+[1719.92 --> 1720.40]  of like a
+[1720.40 --> 1720.90]  you know
+[1720.90 --> 1721.42]  these websites
+[1721.42 --> 1721.68]  is like
+[1721.68 --> 1722.34]  it's a real person
+[1722.34 --> 1722.84]  who's happy
+[1722.84 --> 1723.30]  because they got
+[1723.30 --> 1723.86]  their vaccine
+[1723.86 --> 1724.30]  or something
+[1724.30 --> 1724.90]  but it's like
+[1724.90 --> 1725.62]  you know what I'm saying?
+[1725.70 --> 1726.38]  But then he's hiding the pain.
+[1726.38 --> 1727.22]  So it probably was accidental
+[1727.22 --> 1728.16]  like yeah
+[1728.16 --> 1728.66]  exactly.
+[1729.20 --> 1730.18]  Okay I get it.
+[1730.94 --> 1731.26]  Yeah.
+[1731.58 --> 1732.54]  He's hiding the pain.
+[1734.60 --> 1735.80]  And according to
+[1735.80 --> 1736.82]  the health authority
+[1736.82 --> 1737.74]  in Sweden
+[1737.74 --> 1739.02]  officials said
+[1739.02 --> 1739.78]  on Tuesday evening
+[1739.78 --> 1740.56]  that the image
+[1740.56 --> 1741.52]  has now been removed
+[1741.52 --> 1742.26]  so it definitely
+[1742.26 --> 1742.82]  was an accident
+[1742.82 --> 1743.68]  because they got called out
+[1743.68 --> 1744.10]  and they're like
+[1744.10 --> 1745.00]  okay we're taking that one down.
+[1745.36 --> 1745.64]  You would think
+[1745.64 --> 1746.32]  that that would get
+[1746.32 --> 1747.18]  the younger folks
+[1747.18 --> 1747.82]  in to
+[1747.82 --> 1749.38]  to actually get the vaccine.
+[1749.80 --> 1750.04]  Yeah.
+[1750.50 --> 1751.50]  Like if Harold can do it
+[1751.50 --> 1751.90]  you know
+[1751.90 --> 1752.72]  I should be okay.
+[1753.34 --> 1753.98]  Okay the next one
+[1753.98 --> 1755.06]  Pringles to launch
+[1755.06 --> 1756.62]  new lip balm product line.
+[1756.86 --> 1757.24]  Oh man.
+[1759.34 --> 1760.16]  I want to hear those.
+[1760.18 --> 1761.14]  You're at negative three.
+[1761.30 --> 1761.60]  You want to hear it?
+[1761.60 --> 1761.70]  Yeah.
+[1762.20 --> 1763.08]  Kellogg company
+[1763.08 --> 1764.18]  announced a new set
+[1764.18 --> 1764.66]  of products
+[1764.66 --> 1765.46]  from its iconic
+[1765.46 --> 1766.32]  Pringles brand.
+[1766.80 --> 1767.42]  The company said
+[1767.42 --> 1767.86]  it would release
+[1767.86 --> 1768.88]  a delicious lip balm
+[1768.88 --> 1769.42]  with flavors
+[1769.42 --> 1770.64]  such as salt and vinegar
+[1770.64 --> 1772.12]  and sour cream
+[1772.12 --> 1772.66]  and onion.
+[1774.06 --> 1775.12]  That can't be real.
+[1776.94 --> 1777.84]  But you're not sure
+[1777.84 --> 1778.22]  are you?
+[1778.30 --> 1778.92]  I'm not.
+[1779.06 --> 1779.52]  It's just like
+[1779.52 --> 1780.10]  doing the internet
+[1780.10 --> 1780.84]  on April Fool's Day.
+[1780.90 --> 1781.38]  You never know.
+[1781.50 --> 1782.34]  Is this real or not?
+[1782.86 --> 1784.46]  I'm going to say
+[1784.46 --> 1786.18]  you know what?
+[1786.76 --> 1787.58]  I'm going to say it's real.
+[1787.84 --> 1788.18]  You're going to say
+[1788.18 --> 1788.58]  it's real?
+[1788.86 --> 1789.12]  Yeah.
+[1790.02 --> 1791.06]  I made it up.
+[1791.50 --> 1791.86]  No.
+[1793.44 --> 1794.60]  That was after one
+[1794.60 --> 1795.80]  so you got negative four there
+[1795.80 --> 1797.40]  or total negative four.
+[1798.24 --> 1799.24]  I'm feeling pretty happy
+[1799.24 --> 1799.78]  at this point.
+[1799.94 --> 1800.52]  I feel like I got
+[1800.52 --> 1801.94]  I got you just
+[1801.94 --> 1803.12]  never knowing what's true.
+[1803.54 --> 1803.86]  All right.
+[1803.92 --> 1804.26]  Two more.
+[1805.26 --> 1806.70]  330 million Americans
+[1806.70 --> 1807.78]  sue Cardi B
+[1807.78 --> 1809.34]  for psychological damage.
+[1809.82 --> 1810.24]  It's true.
+[1810.24 --> 1812.26]  Nope.
+[1813.26 --> 1813.90]  This one
+[1813.90 --> 1815.96]  this one came off
+[1815.96 --> 1816.40]  the onion
+[1816.40 --> 1816.96]  or one of those
+[1816.96 --> 1817.66]  satire sites.
+[1817.74 --> 1818.56]  I did not write that one.
+[1819.22 --> 1820.00]  But it's believable.
+[1820.40 --> 1820.80]  Okay.
+[1821.50 --> 1823.04]  You're now at negative six.
+[1823.14 --> 1824.22]  You're failing miserably.
+[1824.78 --> 1825.98]  And you would have been
+[1825.98 --> 1827.08]  better off not having played
+[1827.08 --> 1827.88]  as you said at the top.
+[1829.28 --> 1830.30]  Last one.
+[1830.92 --> 1832.04]  U.S. man returns
+[1832.04 --> 1833.30]  from Swift shopping trip
+[1833.30 --> 1835.00]  to find 15,000 bees
+[1835.00 --> 1835.72]  in his car.
+[1835.72 --> 1838.96]  I feel like I saw this one
+[1838.96 --> 1840.10]  so I'm going to say it's true.
+[1841.04 --> 1841.80]  All right.
+[1841.88 --> 1842.56]  Yeah, that's right.
+[1842.74 --> 1843.68]  You got the last one right
+[1843.68 --> 1845.52]  which puts you at negative four.
+[1845.82 --> 1846.96]  So still a big loser.
+[1847.74 --> 1848.74]  But it feels nice
+[1848.74 --> 1849.70]  to get the last one correct.
+[1849.84 --> 1850.66]  Yeah, apparently this guy
+[1850.66 --> 1851.24]  went shopping
+[1851.24 --> 1852.52]  in New Mexico.
+[1853.32 --> 1854.02]  Came back.
+[1854.24 --> 1855.86]  There was 15,000 honeybees
+[1855.86 --> 1857.60]  who had gotten in
+[1857.60 --> 1858.58]  through an open window
+[1858.58 --> 1859.66]  while he spent 10 minutes
+[1859.66 --> 1860.48]  buying groceries.
+[1860.48 --> 1862.20]  Astonishingly,
+[1862.24 --> 1863.50]  the man did not notice
+[1863.50 --> 1864.52]  the sudden presence
+[1864.52 --> 1865.60]  of a giant swarm
+[1865.60 --> 1866.50]  of buzzing insects
+[1866.50 --> 1868.00]  on his vehicle's backseat
+[1868.00 --> 1869.30]  until he was driving away.
+[1870.34 --> 1870.66]  Yeah.
+[1871.14 --> 1872.58]  So he must have been distracted
+[1872.58 --> 1873.88]  because how do you miss it, right?
+[1873.92 --> 1874.18]  Yeah.
+[1874.38 --> 1874.94]  And I just wonder
+[1874.94 --> 1875.64]  what they were doing.
+[1876.18 --> 1876.80]  Why would they
+[1876.80 --> 1877.86]  want to be in his car?
+[1878.40 --> 1878.88]  I don't know.
+[1878.96 --> 1879.52]  Maybe there was something
+[1879.52 --> 1880.18]  sweet in there.
+[1880.34 --> 1881.40]  You know, bees swarm
+[1881.40 --> 1882.92]  and sometimes they'll leave
+[1882.92 --> 1884.06]  their hive
+[1884.06 --> 1885.32]  and swarm somewhere else
+[1885.32 --> 1886.96]  around specific
+[1886.96 --> 1888.40]  sources of food
+[1888.40 --> 1888.80]  or something.
+[1889.40 --> 1889.88]  I don't know.
+[1889.88 --> 1891.16]  bees me.
+[1892.64 --> 1893.44]  Oh, gosh.
+[1894.12 --> 1894.40]  All right.
+[1894.42 --> 1894.94]  With that,
+[1895.04 --> 1896.22]  we finish Head Lies.
+[1896.50 --> 1897.06]  I would say
+[1897.06 --> 1897.92]  it was a big victory
+[1897.92 --> 1898.76]  for me at least.
+[1899.16 --> 1900.16]  If you enjoyed
+[1900.16 --> 1900.90]  this segment,
+[1901.04 --> 1902.04]  please let us know
+[1902.04 --> 1903.08]  and we will do it again.
+[1903.16 --> 1903.44]  Otherwise,
+[1903.60 --> 1904.34]  we'll banish it
+[1904.34 --> 1905.68]  to the farthest recesses
+[1905.68 --> 1906.42]  of the internet,
+[1906.60 --> 1907.62]  never to be seen again
+[1907.62 --> 1910.18]  until April Fool's Day, 2022.
+[1916.76 --> 1918.30]  This episode is brought to you
+[1918.30 --> 1919.34]  by our friends at O'Reilly.
+[1919.34 --> 1920.48]  Many of you know O'Reilly
+[1920.48 --> 1921.62]  for their animal tech books
+[1921.62 --> 1922.34]  and their conferences,
+[1922.68 --> 1923.80]  but you may not know
+[1923.80 --> 1924.68]  they have an online
+[1924.68 --> 1925.86]  learning platform as well.
+[1926.22 --> 1927.84]  The platform has all their books,
+[1928.06 --> 1928.86]  all their videos,
+[1929.12 --> 1930.66]  and all their conference talks.
+[1931.02 --> 1932.24]  Plus, you can learn by doing
+[1932.24 --> 1934.04]  with live online training courses
+[1934.04 --> 1935.20]  and virtual conferences,
+[1935.70 --> 1937.12]  certification practice exams,
+[1937.46 --> 1939.06]  and interactive sandboxes
+[1939.06 --> 1939.86]  and scenarios
+[1939.86 --> 1940.72]  to practice coding
+[1940.72 --> 1941.78]  alongside what you're learning.
+[1941.78 --> 1943.00]  They cover a ton
+[1943.00 --> 1943.96]  of technology topics,
+[1944.08 --> 1944.82]  machine learning,
+[1945.16 --> 1945.52]  AI,
+[1946.02 --> 1946.80]  programming languages,
+[1947.34 --> 1947.62]  DevOps,
+[1948.14 --> 1948.94]  data science,
+[1949.22 --> 1949.62]  cloud,
+[1949.96 --> 1950.44]  containers,
+[1951.04 --> 1951.48]  security,
+[1951.82 --> 1953.32]  and even soft skills
+[1953.32 --> 1954.30]  like business management
+[1954.30 --> 1955.72]  and presentation skills.
+[1955.86 --> 1956.38]  You name it,
+[1956.52 --> 1957.64]  it is all in there.
+[1957.94 --> 1959.08]  If you need to keep your team
+[1959.08 --> 1960.34]  or yourself up to speed
+[1960.34 --> 1961.20]  on their tech skills,
+[1961.30 --> 1961.70]  then check out
+[1961.70 --> 1963.12]  O'Reilly's online learning platform.
+[1963.64 --> 1964.04]  Learn more
+[1964.04 --> 1965.30]  and keep your team skills sharp
+[1965.30 --> 1966.26]  at O'Reilly.com
+[1966.26 --> 1967.22]  slash changelog.
+[1967.34 --> 1967.80]  Again,
+[1967.94 --> 1968.74]  O'Reilly.com
+[1968.74 --> 1969.60]  slash changelog.
+[1980.06 --> 1982.62]  All right,
+[1982.66 --> 1983.36]  we're going to finish up
+[1983.36 --> 1984.72]  today's show
+[1984.72 --> 1986.56]  with some shout outs.
+[1987.10 --> 1988.20]  And I'm going to go first,
+[1988.32 --> 1989.28]  I'm going to give a shout out
+[1989.28 --> 1990.00]  to a tool
+[1990.00 --> 1990.82]  and some people
+[1990.82 --> 1992.36]  that we're using right now
+[1992.36 --> 1993.68]  that I've been appreciating
+[1993.68 --> 1995.04]  quite a bit lately.
+[1995.04 --> 1996.18]  HackMD,
+[1996.76 --> 1997.36]  which you'll find
+[1997.36 --> 1998.90]  at hackmd.io.
+[1999.58 --> 2002.56]  It is a online collaborative
+[2002.56 --> 2005.66]  markdown based writing tool.
+[2006.12 --> 2008.90]  So think about Google Docs
+[2008.90 --> 2011.06]  and how crappy the UI
+[2011.06 --> 2012.04]  and everything
+[2012.04 --> 2013.20]  and writing in there
+[2013.20 --> 2014.50]  and copying and pasting out of it.
+[2014.56 --> 2015.30]  Think about all that
+[2015.30 --> 2015.92]  and just,
+[2016.10 --> 2017.04]  don't you ever have Google Docs
+[2017.04 --> 2017.22]  where you're like,
+[2017.26 --> 2018.36]  I just want to write in Markdown,
+[2018.72 --> 2019.00]  you know?
+[2019.70 --> 2020.94]  And there's Dropbox Paper,
+[2021.14 --> 2021.90]  which is better
+[2021.90 --> 2022.52]  because you can kind of
+[2022.52 --> 2023.38]  write in Markdown
+[2023.38 --> 2024.68]  whether it formats things weird
+[2024.68 --> 2026.04]  and then you can't copy it out
+[2026.04 --> 2026.90]  exactly the same
+[2026.90 --> 2028.50]  and they have a lot of
+[2028.50 --> 2030.06]  unfurling they do
+[2030.06 --> 2030.84]  and I'm just like,
+[2030.94 --> 2031.96]  please stop unfurling.
+[2032.06 --> 2032.80]  I just want the link
+[2032.80 --> 2033.88]  to just sit there anyways.
+[2034.50 --> 2035.72]  Not a huge fan.
+[2035.76 --> 2036.36]  Although I would take
+[2036.36 --> 2037.40]  Paper over Docs
+[2037.40 --> 2039.68]  and now I would take HackMD
+[2039.68 --> 2040.72]  because it's basically
+[2040.72 --> 2042.80]  exactly what I would want.
+[2042.90 --> 2044.80]  It is a Markdown editor
+[2044.80 --> 2046.34]  and it even has that cool
+[2046.34 --> 2046.90]  split view
+[2046.90 --> 2047.84]  where the left-hand side
+[2047.84 --> 2048.46]  is what you write
+[2048.46 --> 2049.74]  and the right-hand side
+[2049.74 --> 2050.50]  is the rendered version.
+[2050.50 --> 2051.36]  You can toggle that
+[2051.36 --> 2051.84]  off and on.
+[2051.92 --> 2052.22]  So you can go like
+[2052.22 --> 2053.14]  full writing mode,
+[2053.28 --> 2054.14]  full viewing mode,
+[2054.26 --> 2055.90]  or split screen mode.
+[2056.06 --> 2057.26]  But it has all the nifty
+[2057.26 --> 2059.18]  collaboration tools,
+[2059.42 --> 2059.72]  you know,
+[2060.02 --> 2060.76]  that you'd expect
+[2060.76 --> 2062.16]  from like a Google Docs
+[2062.16 --> 2063.18]  or a Dropbox Paper
+[2063.18 --> 2065.04]  just by sharing the URL,
+[2065.22 --> 2066.00]  which is my favorite thing.
+[2066.06 --> 2066.20]  Like,
+[2066.26 --> 2067.00]  give me a URL,
+[2067.36 --> 2067.54]  right?
+[2067.60 --> 2069.26]  Make it an obfuscated one
+[2069.26 --> 2070.38]  so it can't be easily found
+[2070.38 --> 2071.82]  and just pass it around.
+[2071.88 --> 2071.96]  Now,
+[2071.96 --> 2072.60]  they do have settings
+[2072.60 --> 2073.40]  you can set up like
+[2073.40 --> 2074.22]  who can read,
+[2074.26 --> 2074.74]  who can write.
+[2074.86 --> 2075.86]  It gets more complicated,
+[2075.86 --> 2077.42]  but like the base use case
+[2077.42 --> 2079.18]  is super simple
+[2079.18 --> 2080.56]  and that's what I love about it.
+[2080.68 --> 2081.82]  I love web tools
+[2081.82 --> 2082.46]  that allow me
+[2082.46 --> 2083.94]  just to share quickly
+[2083.94 --> 2085.64]  and get people involved.
+[2085.72 --> 2086.26]  We've been using it
+[2086.26 --> 2089.52]  for JS Party documentation
+[2089.52 --> 2090.60]  or not documentation,
+[2090.74 --> 2091.50]  like scratch sheets
+[2091.50 --> 2092.24]  where we're sharing
+[2092.24 --> 2093.70]  to do the show for a while.
+[2093.78 --> 2094.24]  I've been doing it
+[2094.24 --> 2095.64]  for a lot of my blog writing.
+[2096.30 --> 2096.82]  I've been doing it
+[2096.82 --> 2097.68]  for pretty much everything
+[2097.68 --> 2098.32]  for the last,
+[2098.56 --> 2098.94]  I don't know,
+[2099.02 --> 2099.74]  six months or so.
+[2100.40 --> 2101.14]  And today,
+[2101.26 --> 2102.26]  because of April Fool's
+[2102.26 --> 2102.88]  it turns out,
+[2103.08 --> 2103.94]  I've realized
+[2103.94 --> 2105.26]  they also have Vim mode
+[2105.26 --> 2106.08]  and the reason
+[2106.08 --> 2106.82]  why I found that out,
+[2106.86 --> 2107.70]  I thought maybe this was
+[2107.70 --> 2108.94]  actually an April Fool's joke
+[2108.94 --> 2109.54]  and I was like,
+[2109.78 --> 2111.06]  please don't let this be fake.
+[2111.12 --> 2112.44]  I want this to always be here.
+[2113.02 --> 2115.12]  But it has existed for a while.
+[2115.18 --> 2116.12]  I just didn't notice it.
+[2116.68 --> 2117.04]  Today,
+[2117.20 --> 2118.08]  for April Fool's
+[2118.08 --> 2119.26]  in the menu bar,
+[2119.36 --> 2120.04]  they did put this
+[2120.04 --> 2121.04]  like April Fool's joke
+[2121.04 --> 2121.88]  which is like the
+[2121.88 --> 2123.42]  Nyan cat,
+[2123.54 --> 2124.62]  they called it a red panda,
+[2124.80 --> 2125.26]  which I'm not sure
+[2125.26 --> 2125.92]  if that's like a
+[2125.92 --> 2127.28]  different meme,
+[2128.02 --> 2130.06]  but it's like a progress bar
+[2130.06 --> 2131.28]  with like the red panda
+[2131.28 --> 2131.94]  walking across
+[2131.94 --> 2133.36]  and that drew my eyes down
+[2133.36 --> 2134.62]  and I saw on the right hand side
+[2134.62 --> 2135.52]  they have different settings
+[2135.52 --> 2136.40]  such as
+[2136.40 --> 2136.96]  do you want to use
+[2136.96 --> 2137.70]  tabs or spaces?
+[2137.88 --> 2138.08]  Of course,
+[2138.16 --> 2139.14]  everybody picks spaces
+[2139.14 --> 2140.40]  and you want to have
+[2140.40 --> 2141.12]  two or four
+[2141.12 --> 2142.28]  and everybody picks two
+[2142.28 --> 2143.98]  but you can also set
+[2143.98 --> 2144.46]  your editor
+[2144.46 --> 2145.64]  and they have Sublime
+[2145.64 --> 2147.76]  and they have Emacs
+[2147.76 --> 2148.50]  and they have Vim.
+[2148.88 --> 2149.84]  So you get your Vim
+[2149.84 --> 2150.68]  key bindings
+[2150.68 --> 2151.50]  in your browser,
+[2152.12 --> 2152.76]  collaborative,
+[2154.02 --> 2155.00]  share view URL
+[2155.00 --> 2157.18]  with lots of cool
+[2157.18 --> 2157.74]  keyboard shortcuts
+[2157.74 --> 2159.06]  and all the bells
+[2159.06 --> 2159.40]  and whistles.
+[2159.86 --> 2161.06]  I just really like this tool.
+[2161.40 --> 2161.92]  So shout out
+[2161.92 --> 2162.90]  to the folks at HackMD.
+[2162.90 --> 2164.20]  I did put some tweets out today
+[2164.20 --> 2164.90]  and they responded
+[2164.90 --> 2166.20]  regarding this Vim thing
+[2166.20 --> 2167.44]  ensuring me
+[2167.44 --> 2168.80]  that it's not an April Fool's joke.
+[2168.86 --> 2169.74]  It's actually a real feature
+[2169.74 --> 2171.98]  and I decided to invite him
+[2171.98 --> 2172.46]  on the show.
+[2172.68 --> 2174.76]  So I think it's all open source.
+[2174.96 --> 2175.92]  I saw they have like
+[2175.92 --> 2177.10]  56 open source repos
+[2177.10 --> 2178.28]  on their GitHub.
+[2178.42 --> 2179.08]  I think they're over there
+[2179.08 --> 2179.70]  in Taiwan.
+[2180.02 --> 2181.20]  So they've agreed to come on.
+[2181.26 --> 2181.76]  I'm not sure
+[2181.76 --> 2182.84]  how it'll work out
+[2182.84 --> 2184.52]  timing and whatnot
+[2184.52 --> 2186.98]  and if they're native English speakers
+[2186.98 --> 2187.72]  or anything like that
+[2187.72 --> 2188.90]  but cool technology,
+[2189.68 --> 2190.20]  open source,
+[2190.30 --> 2192.36]  all built with webby tools.
+[2192.90 --> 2194.02]  And I'm a big fan.
+[2194.18 --> 2195.58]  So shout out to HackMD.
+[2196.08 --> 2196.92]  Yeah, that's awesome.
+[2197.22 --> 2197.90]  I saw your tweet
+[2197.90 --> 2199.34]  about the Vim mode.
+[2199.88 --> 2200.64]  It made me wonder
+[2200.64 --> 2201.58]  what is special
+[2201.58 --> 2202.68]  about Sublime mode
+[2202.68 --> 2204.54]  versus anything else,
+[2204.74 --> 2205.40]  any other editor.
+[2205.82 --> 2206.98]  Yeah, I don't really know.
+[2207.36 --> 2208.08]  So I brought a lot
+[2208.08 --> 2209.46]  of my Sublime shortcuts
+[2209.46 --> 2211.16]  into VS Code.
+[2211.58 --> 2212.26]  So I'm not sure
+[2212.26 --> 2213.74]  what VS Code's defaults are
+[2213.74 --> 2214.62]  because I just kind of thought
+[2214.62 --> 2215.32]  they were the same
+[2215.32 --> 2217.04]  in terms of keyboard shortcuts.
+[2217.04 --> 2218.76]  I wonder how different
+[2218.76 --> 2220.80]  those like stock Sublime text
+[2220.80 --> 2222.10]  versus stock VS Code
+[2222.10 --> 2223.04]  if those are similar.
+[2223.32 --> 2223.94]  Of course,
+[2224.12 --> 2225.98]  a lot of the editors used
+[2225.98 --> 2227.34]  or borrowed from Emacs,
+[2227.56 --> 2227.82]  you know,
+[2227.86 --> 2228.78]  which is a lot of the control
+[2228.78 --> 2229.46]  based shortcuts
+[2229.46 --> 2230.46]  and not modes.
+[2231.10 --> 2232.54]  So maybe there's Emacs
+[2232.54 --> 2233.08]  and there's a Sublime.
+[2233.22 --> 2233.94]  I don't know the difference
+[2233.94 --> 2234.44]  between the two.
+[2234.54 --> 2236.10]  I think it defaults to Sublime
+[2236.10 --> 2237.46]  because that's what I was in
+[2237.46 --> 2238.78]  before I realized
+[2238.78 --> 2239.58]  you could toggle it.
+[2240.00 --> 2241.22]  But I'm not really sure.
+[2241.72 --> 2243.44]  They have a question mark operator.
+[2243.54 --> 2243.98]  Let me see.
+[2244.80 --> 2245.16]  A lot of times
+[2245.16 --> 2246.08]  you can do question mark
+[2246.08 --> 2247.90]  and just they'll open up
+[2247.90 --> 2249.26]  a keyboard shortcut,
+[2249.58 --> 2249.88]  you know,
+[2250.10 --> 2250.52]  overlay,
+[2250.70 --> 2251.10]  which tells you
+[2251.10 --> 2252.32]  what all things do.
+[2252.74 --> 2254.06]  But it doesn't seem
+[2254.06 --> 2254.54]  to be working
+[2254.54 --> 2255.42]  at least in Vim mode.
+[2255.76 --> 2256.24]  In Vim mode,
+[2256.30 --> 2256.84]  it opens up
+[2256.84 --> 2258.22]  to do a regex search.
+[2258.52 --> 2259.02]  That's right.
+[2259.30 --> 2260.06]  Is that what Vim does?
+[2260.90 --> 2261.58]  Slash does,
+[2261.66 --> 2263.04]  which it also does in here.
+[2263.28 --> 2263.56]  Yeah.
+[2263.68 --> 2264.74]  So forward slash I do.
+[2264.84 --> 2265.84]  I never hit question mark
+[2265.84 --> 2267.08]  to do a regex in Vim,
+[2267.18 --> 2268.16]  but I wouldn't be surprised
+[2268.16 --> 2269.54]  if it did that as well.
+[2269.88 --> 2270.04]  Now,
+[2270.10 --> 2271.12]  I've only used it in Vim mode
+[2271.12 --> 2272.50]  for probably like two hours
+[2272.50 --> 2274.90]  and all of my normal navigation
+[2274.90 --> 2275.38]  is working.
+[2275.52 --> 2277.02]  So like DD to delete a line,
+[2277.58 --> 2279.42]  colon one goes to the top,
+[2279.54 --> 2280.44]  shift G goes to the bottom,
+[2280.48 --> 2281.54]  like all the things I'm used to.
+[2281.64 --> 2283.32]  But I wonder how uncanny valley
+[2283.32 --> 2285.22]  it gets the more you use it.
+[2285.46 --> 2286.22]  How are they achieving
+[2286.22 --> 2287.04]  this Vim support?
+[2287.22 --> 2287.78]  And is it getting one
+[2287.78 --> 2288.16]  of those things
+[2288.16 --> 2288.76]  where it supports
+[2288.76 --> 2290.84]  like 80% of Vim key bindings,
+[2290.96 --> 2291.64]  but then,
+[2291.82 --> 2292.10]  you know,
+[2292.10 --> 2293.28]  your favorite tip and trick
+[2293.28 --> 2294.38]  doesn't work?
+[2294.44 --> 2294.88]  I don't know.
+[2295.32 --> 2296.12]  I haven't used it long enough
+[2296.12 --> 2296.52]  to know that,
+[2296.52 --> 2298.06]  but it is good enough
+[2298.06 --> 2299.12]  for me to enjoy it so far.
+[2299.32 --> 2299.42]  Yeah.
+[2299.42 --> 2299.46]  Yeah.
+[2300.10 --> 2301.68]  And real-time follow-up,
+[2301.82 --> 2302.74]  I did not know this,
+[2302.88 --> 2303.96]  but question mark
+[2303.96 --> 2305.26]  does actually do
+[2305.26 --> 2306.02]  reject search,
+[2306.22 --> 2306.78]  but backwards.
+[2307.28 --> 2307.92]  Backwards meaning
+[2307.92 --> 2308.64]  starting at the bottom
+[2308.64 --> 2309.10]  of the document
+[2309.10 --> 2309.66]  and working up?
+[2309.80 --> 2310.96]  Starting from your cursor
+[2310.96 --> 2311.68]  and looking up
+[2311.68 --> 2312.54]  rather than down.
+[2313.00 --> 2313.36]  Oh,
+[2313.72 --> 2314.34]  that's nifty.
+[2314.40 --> 2315.12]  I did not know that
+[2315.12 --> 2316.12]  because I've never used it.
+[2316.38 --> 2317.42]  I use slash all the time.
+[2317.56 --> 2317.86]  Right.
+[2318.08 --> 2318.62]  But it's the,
+[2318.74 --> 2319.62]  and it's shift slash,
+[2319.74 --> 2320.38]  so it's like,
+[2320.62 --> 2321.26]  it makes sense,
+[2321.32 --> 2321.44]  right?
+[2321.44 --> 2322.18]  It's the same key.
+[2322.30 --> 2322.50]  Yeah.
+[2322.72 --> 2323.66]  Just one with a shift key.
+[2323.66 --> 2324.38]  So one goes one way,
+[2324.44 --> 2325.02]  one goes the other.
+[2325.94 --> 2327.30]  T-I-L right here,
+[2327.40 --> 2328.52]  live on JS Party.
+[2328.52 --> 2332.24]  I got a story
+[2332.24 --> 2334.26]  that I'm going to tell.
+[2334.54 --> 2335.52]  You're gonna love it,
+[2335.60 --> 2335.80]  baby,
+[2335.92 --> 2337.02]  take it swell.
+[2337.32 --> 2339.18]  I only learned it today.
+[2339.74 --> 2341.14]  T-I-L.
+[2344.58 --> 2345.32]  T-I-L.
+[2345.38 --> 2345.80]  There we go.
+[2346.02 --> 2346.92]  I stalled for you.
+[2347.56 --> 2348.74]  We're still doing shoutouts.
+[2349.04 --> 2350.18]  Do you have a shoutout, Nick?
+[2350.32 --> 2350.84]  Shout us out.
+[2351.10 --> 2352.10]  I was going to shout out
+[2352.10 --> 2353.16]  also a thing,
+[2353.82 --> 2354.70]  and that is
+[2354.70 --> 2356.10]  an app called
+[2356.10 --> 2357.06]  Keyboard Maestro.
+[2357.70 --> 2358.22]  Have you heard of it?
+[2358.22 --> 2359.82]  I have heard of it.
+[2360.10 --> 2361.74]  I do not know what it does,
+[2362.20 --> 2363.10]  so please tell me.
+[2363.56 --> 2365.30]  So it does a lot,
+[2365.58 --> 2367.10]  but it lets you
+[2367.10 --> 2367.98]  set up
+[2367.98 --> 2369.22]  automations,
+[2369.34 --> 2369.68]  basically,
+[2369.90 --> 2371.06]  on your Mac.
+[2371.22 --> 2372.42]  It's a Mac program,
+[2373.14 --> 2374.20]  and it lets you,
+[2374.38 --> 2374.44]  like,
+[2374.60 --> 2375.06]  up so that,
+[2375.10 --> 2375.22]  you know,
+[2375.26 --> 2376.50]  when I hit these specific
+[2376.50 --> 2377.76]  keyboard shortcuts,
+[2378.18 --> 2378.78]  and I can have it,
+[2378.82 --> 2379.00]  like,
+[2379.12 --> 2380.28]  specific to an application,
+[2380.40 --> 2380.92]  so I can say,
+[2381.08 --> 2382.82]  when Slack is
+[2382.82 --> 2383.42]  in the foreground,
+[2383.80 --> 2384.56]  and I press
+[2384.56 --> 2385.40]  question mark,
+[2385.46 --> 2385.82]  question mark,
+[2385.82 --> 2386.66]  or something like that,
+[2386.66 --> 2388.44]  then run this script,
+[2388.68 --> 2389.62]  or I can have it,
+[2390.32 --> 2390.52]  like,
+[2390.56 --> 2391.52]  I can record a macro,
+[2391.66 --> 2392.36]  and have it actually,
+[2392.40 --> 2392.58]  like,
+[2392.62 --> 2393.28]  move my mouse around,
+[2393.34 --> 2395.06]  and quickly do something,
+[2395.26 --> 2396.16]  or I can have it select
+[2396.16 --> 2396.82]  from a menu,
+[2397.10 --> 2399.36]  and you can mix and match
+[2399.36 --> 2400.32]  these all together
+[2400.32 --> 2401.22]  to build
+[2401.22 --> 2402.76]  cool automations
+[2402.76 --> 2403.48]  that do a lot of
+[2403.48 --> 2404.06]  different things,
+[2404.06 --> 2406.00]  and so I started
+[2406.00 --> 2406.70]  playing with this,
+[2406.78 --> 2408.30]  and I also have
+[2408.30 --> 2409.14]  a Stream Deck,
+[2409.58 --> 2410.34]  and Stream Deck
+[2410.34 --> 2410.66]  is,
+[2410.76 --> 2411.50]  it's like a little
+[2411.50 --> 2413.02]  device that has,
+[2413.12 --> 2414.64]  mine has 16 buttons,
+[2414.74 --> 2415.52]  and all of the buttons
+[2415.52 --> 2415.92]  have,
+[2416.50 --> 2416.78]  are,
+[2416.88 --> 2416.94]  like,
+[2416.98 --> 2418.16]  little LCD screens,
+[2418.28 --> 2418.98]  so you can set
+[2418.98 --> 2420.34]  what each button is,
+[2420.52 --> 2422.74]  and I can trigger
+[2422.74 --> 2423.38]  keyboard maestro
+[2423.38 --> 2425.42]  macros from that,
+[2425.68 --> 2426.84]  and so I can push a button
+[2426.84 --> 2427.80]  and have it
+[2427.80 --> 2428.98]  do things like,
+[2429.32 --> 2429.82]  like,
+[2429.90 --> 2430.56]  turn my lights on
+[2430.56 --> 2430.90]  and off,
+[2430.90 --> 2433.50]  and I can also have it
+[2433.50 --> 2434.88]  do things like,
+[2435.14 --> 2436.26]  automatically open up
+[2436.26 --> 2437.04]  Audio Hijack,
+[2437.20 --> 2438.46]  and get ready for
+[2438.46 --> 2439.70]  a Zoom meeting,
+[2440.06 --> 2441.56]  and get ready to record,
+[2441.64 --> 2442.26]  or have it automatically
+[2442.26 --> 2442.94]  start recording,
+[2443.58 --> 2444.76]  and kind of combine
+[2444.76 --> 2445.32]  them all together,
+[2445.44 --> 2446.48]  so then I just push a button,
+[2446.98 --> 2448.16]  and it can do things
+[2448.16 --> 2448.34]  like,
+[2448.48 --> 2449.12]  lay out windows,
+[2449.22 --> 2449.60]  so I have it,
+[2449.60 --> 2449.74]  like,
+[2449.84 --> 2450.58]  moving windows
+[2450.58 --> 2451.84]  where I want on my screen,
+[2452.02 --> 2452.80]  so everything is
+[2452.80 --> 2454.04]  not overlapping,
+[2454.28 --> 2454.98]  and it's all
+[2454.98 --> 2456.86]  readily visible for me,
+[2457.14 --> 2458.28]  and then it can start
+[2458.28 --> 2458.64]  recording,
+[2458.84 --> 2459.84]  and turn my lights on,
+[2459.84 --> 2461.38]  and do all this
+[2461.38 --> 2462.02]  really cool stuff.
+[2462.54 --> 2464.08]  It's a pretty cool way
+[2464.08 --> 2466.84]  to do some simple
+[2466.84 --> 2468.12]  and complex automation
+[2468.12 --> 2468.70]  on your Mac.
+[2469.02 --> 2469.72]  That is cool.
+[2469.86 --> 2470.98]  So it's actually
+[2470.98 --> 2471.82]  driving, like,
+[2472.34 --> 2472.98]  the mouse around
+[2472.98 --> 2473.82]  and everything as well,
+[2473.88 --> 2474.02]  right?
+[2474.04 --> 2474.30]  It can.
+[2474.30 --> 2475.02]  It's not just,
+[2475.42 --> 2476.12]  yeah, it can.
+[2476.24 --> 2476.74]  So you can, like,
+[2476.76 --> 2477.00]  say,
+[2477.12 --> 2477.86]  go to this area
+[2477.86 --> 2478.30]  of the screen
+[2478.30 --> 2479.24]  and click here,
+[2479.28 --> 2480.36]  kind of a thing?
+[2480.56 --> 2480.74]  Yep.
+[2481.00 --> 2481.52]  It's got a little
+[2481.52 --> 2482.14]  recorder, too,
+[2482.14 --> 2482.66]  so you can just
+[2482.66 --> 2483.34]  record and then
+[2483.34 --> 2483.96]  do it once,
+[2484.08 --> 2484.96]  and it'll figure out
+[2484.96 --> 2485.64]  what to do from there.
+[2486.14 --> 2486.66]  So it'll, like,
+[2487.14 --> 2487.64]  from there,
+[2487.72 --> 2488.22]  it'll be like,
+[2488.34 --> 2488.92]  oh, you know,
+[2488.98 --> 2489.64]  I click in,
+[2489.84 --> 2490.84]  instead of TweetBot,
+[2491.00 --> 2492.56]  and then click,
+[2492.70 --> 2492.98]  you know,
+[2493.04 --> 2494.18]  60 pixels from the right
+[2494.18 --> 2495.46]  and 120 pixels
+[2495.46 --> 2496.50]  from the top,
+[2496.84 --> 2497.64]  click right there.
+[2497.76 --> 2498.22]  So it's, like,
+[2498.36 --> 2499.32]  relative to where
+[2499.32 --> 2500.12]  the window is,
+[2500.28 --> 2501.42]  or relative to the
+[2501.42 --> 2502.24]  window edges,
+[2502.50 --> 2503.88]  and then go from there.
+[2504.38 --> 2505.34]  That sounds a little fickle.
+[2505.68 --> 2505.88]  Yeah,
+[2506.22 --> 2506.70]  it can be,
+[2506.78 --> 2507.10]  I'm sure.
+[2507.30 --> 2507.44]  Yeah.
+[2508.48 --> 2508.86]  Like,
+[2508.90 --> 2509.92]  if you change the size
+[2509.92 --> 2510.62]  of your TweetBot window,
+[2510.74 --> 2511.06]  it's broken.
+[2511.12 --> 2511.30]  Yeah.
+[2511.72 --> 2511.96]  Well,
+[2512.12 --> 2512.96]  now you know about
+[2512.96 --> 2513.70]  my unit tests,
+[2513.76 --> 2514.02]  so.
+[2514.02 --> 2518.06]  So is this a free app?
+[2518.10 --> 2518.96]  Is it a paid app?
+[2519.00 --> 2519.90]  Is it Mac only?
+[2520.08 --> 2520.52]  What's the...
+[2520.52 --> 2521.68]  It is Mac only.
+[2522.00 --> 2524.40]  It is not free either.
+[2524.94 --> 2526.10]  I forgot how much it is.
+[2526.18 --> 2527.02]  $36 American.
+[2528.02 --> 2528.76]  It's pretty cool.
+[2529.18 --> 2529.98]  Just being able to set
+[2529.98 --> 2530.66]  these things up
+[2530.66 --> 2531.64]  and have automatically
+[2531.64 --> 2533.34]  set my workspace up
+[2533.34 --> 2534.06]  the way I want it
+[2534.06 --> 2536.02]  for different scenarios,
+[2536.12 --> 2537.12]  whether that's writing code
+[2537.12 --> 2538.90]  or looking at documentation
+[2538.90 --> 2539.86]  or taking a meeting
+[2539.86 --> 2541.36]  or doing a podcast.
+[2541.36 --> 2543.14]  I can have it quickly switch.
+[2543.76 --> 2544.72]  And that's kind of the
+[2544.72 --> 2546.10]  main thing
+[2546.10 --> 2546.76]  that I've been coming
+[2546.76 --> 2547.56]  into it with
+[2547.56 --> 2549.02]  is how do I set up
+[2549.02 --> 2549.40]  my workspace
+[2549.40 --> 2550.44]  without me having to
+[2550.44 --> 2552.56]  manually move windows around
+[2552.56 --> 2554.06]  and set things up
+[2554.06 --> 2555.94]  exactly how I always want them.
+[2556.60 --> 2557.82]  It's just now
+[2557.82 --> 2559.36]  a button click away for me.
+[2559.90 --> 2559.92]  Yeah,
+[2559.96 --> 2560.46]  that's nice.
+[2560.56 --> 2561.60]  So I have this laptop
+[2561.60 --> 2563.32]  and I don't dock it,
+[2563.38 --> 2564.32]  but I plug it into things,
+[2564.40 --> 2564.48]  right?
+[2564.52 --> 2564.76]  I come,
+[2564.86 --> 2565.80]  I have a separate monitor
+[2565.80 --> 2568.58]  and I have my interface,
+[2568.78 --> 2569.12]  et cetera,
+[2569.52 --> 2570.08]  to plug into.
+[2570.34 --> 2571.28]  And then I want
+[2571.28 --> 2572.02]  to leave my desk
+[2572.02 --> 2572.72]  and take my laptop
+[2572.72 --> 2573.38]  downstairs
+[2573.38 --> 2574.60]  and I do that
+[2574.60 --> 2575.64]  and everything kind of
+[2575.64 --> 2577.04]  like munges into one screen.
+[2577.36 --> 2578.20]  So I kind of have
+[2578.20 --> 2579.72]  two modes of computing
+[2579.72 --> 2580.26]  on this thing.
+[2580.36 --> 2581.50]  I have like my plugged in
+[2581.50 --> 2582.58]  almost like docked mode
+[2582.58 --> 2583.42]  and undocked mode.
+[2583.92 --> 2584.54]  And it would be nice
+[2584.54 --> 2585.50]  to have just like,
+[2586.12 --> 2586.94]  I wish it was just a tech
+[2586.94 --> 2587.12]  like,
+[2587.22 --> 2587.28]  hey,
+[2587.30 --> 2587.98]  I just plugged into
+[2587.98 --> 2588.98]  your second monitor.
+[2589.26 --> 2590.24]  I'm going to do all of the,
+[2590.38 --> 2591.14]  put everything back
+[2591.14 --> 2591.84]  where you had it,
+[2591.88 --> 2592.12]  you know,
+[2592.16 --> 2593.10]  before you detached
+[2593.10 --> 2593.72]  or something like that.
+[2593.94 --> 2594.02]  Yeah.
+[2594.12 --> 2594.98]  So I could get that done
+[2594.98 --> 2595.82]  maybe with keyboard maestro
+[2595.82 --> 2596.74]  and just have it
+[2596.74 --> 2598.12]  do certain things.
+[2598.12 --> 2598.96]  Does it trigger,
+[2599.42 --> 2600.10]  like it triggers
+[2600.10 --> 2600.84]  on a keyboard shortcut
+[2600.84 --> 2601.42]  or a trigger?
+[2601.52 --> 2602.00]  Can I have it trigger
+[2602.00 --> 2602.60]  on an event?
+[2602.72 --> 2602.86]  Yeah.
+[2603.16 --> 2604.00]  So you could have it trigger
+[2604.00 --> 2604.86]  on like mounting
+[2604.86 --> 2605.90]  a particular volume,
+[2606.36 --> 2608.48]  connecting to a specific Wi-Fi.
+[2609.00 --> 2610.36]  There's display layout changed,
+[2610.40 --> 2611.38]  which would probably be like
+[2611.38 --> 2612.64]  going from an external monitor
+[2612.64 --> 2613.68]  to your laptop.
+[2613.92 --> 2614.28]  Exactly.
+[2614.52 --> 2615.20]  And have it trigger
+[2615.20 --> 2615.88]  based on that.
+[2616.20 --> 2616.52]  So yeah,
+[2616.56 --> 2617.68]  there's lots of different.
+[2617.76 --> 2618.44]  That's cool.
+[2618.58 --> 2619.10]  And then there's just
+[2619.10 --> 2619.78]  simple things like
+[2619.78 --> 2620.46]  you can just have it
+[2620.46 --> 2621.58]  start up its own web server
+[2621.58 --> 2623.18]  and then you can send it triggers.
+[2623.68 --> 2625.96]  Like if you publicly expose that,
+[2626.04 --> 2627.24]  you can just send triggers to it.
+[2627.58 --> 2628.74]  Or from like your local network,
+[2628.74 --> 2629.36]  you could have it,
+[2630.10 --> 2630.32]  you know,
+[2630.38 --> 2631.92]  I'm going to just post
+[2631.92 --> 2632.54]  to this address
+[2632.54 --> 2634.10]  and now my Mac's
+[2634.10 --> 2634.80]  going to go do something.
+[2635.34 --> 2636.08]  Or you can just have it
+[2636.08 --> 2637.04]  like be a Cron trigger.
+[2637.22 --> 2638.08]  That sounds dangerous.
+[2638.80 --> 2639.20]  Yeah.
+[2640.32 --> 2641.38]  How do you do this deal
+[2641.38 --> 2642.36]  where you change the lights
+[2642.36 --> 2643.24]  in your room there
+[2643.24 --> 2644.14]  that you just demonstrated?
+[2644.46 --> 2644.70]  Yeah.
+[2644.70 --> 2646.36]  So that's actually connected
+[2646.36 --> 2648.98]  with the Stream Deck software.
+[2649.34 --> 2651.32]  It has a control center
+[2651.32 --> 2652.58]  that is controlling them.
+[2652.90 --> 2653.72]  Which is a piece of software
+[2653.72 --> 2654.78]  that runs on your machine.
+[2654.78 --> 2655.96]  So Keyboard Maestro
+[2655.96 --> 2657.30]  is just controlling that software.
+[2657.56 --> 2657.66]  Right.
+[2657.80 --> 2658.00]  Okay.
+[2658.44 --> 2660.26]  So what would be a cool thing
+[2660.26 --> 2661.40]  that you would run a web server
+[2661.40 --> 2662.40]  and post to it
+[2662.40 --> 2663.14]  from different parts
+[2663.14 --> 2664.24]  of your house?
+[2664.54 --> 2664.80]  Ooh.
+[2665.48 --> 2666.70]  That is a good question.
+[2667.16 --> 2668.78]  Can those hue lights,
+[2669.12 --> 2671.00]  can they do webhook kind of things?
+[2671.20 --> 2671.98]  Like can you configure
+[2671.98 --> 2673.08]  those things to make,
+[2673.48 --> 2674.16]  because this is like
+[2674.16 --> 2675.84]  inbound request, right?
+[2675.84 --> 2675.90]  Yeah.
+[2675.90 --> 2676.82]  Like it's posting
+[2676.82 --> 2678.22]  to your Keyboard Maestro
+[2678.22 --> 2678.80]  web server.
+[2679.16 --> 2680.32]  So something would have to be
+[2680.32 --> 2681.12]  like pushing data
+[2681.12 --> 2682.06]  or pushing an event.
+[2682.18 --> 2683.38]  Like the lights turned on.
+[2683.38 --> 2684.68]  Maybe you could have it
+[2684.68 --> 2687.34]  hook up to your switch as well.
+[2687.48 --> 2687.94]  Like if you had
+[2687.94 --> 2688.86]  a regular light switch
+[2688.86 --> 2690.52]  and it turned on,
+[2690.72 --> 2691.46]  if you could configure
+[2691.46 --> 2692.04]  the hue lights
+[2692.04 --> 2692.76]  to actually do that,
+[2692.82 --> 2693.68]  they could make a post
+[2693.68 --> 2694.72]  over to your web server
+[2694.72 --> 2695.66]  and do something
+[2695.66 --> 2696.26]  on your laptop.
+[2696.66 --> 2696.82]  You know,
+[2696.82 --> 2697.90]  control your laptop somehow.
+[2698.00 --> 2698.20]  Yeah.
+[2698.42 --> 2699.36]  Via some other switch
+[2699.36 --> 2699.88]  in your house.
+[2699.94 --> 2700.66]  Yeah, for sure.
+[2700.78 --> 2701.26]  Pretty neat.
+[2701.58 --> 2701.80]  Yeah.
+[2701.98 --> 2703.00]  All I want is for
+[2703.00 --> 2704.70]  my windows to go back
+[2704.70 --> 2705.24]  where they were
+[2705.24 --> 2706.20]  when I unplug, man.
+[2706.32 --> 2707.14]  That's all I want in my life.
+[2709.06 --> 2710.26]  I like this dance I do.
+[2710.34 --> 2711.46]  Plug in like this one here,
+[2711.60 --> 2712.14]  that goes there,
+[2712.24 --> 2712.82]  that goes there.
+[2712.82 --> 2713.56]  Oh, I'm back.
+[2713.82 --> 2714.12]  I was like,
+[2714.16 --> 2714.80]  this seems like
+[2714.80 --> 2716.32]  something a computer
+[2716.32 --> 2716.78]  should do.
+[2717.78 --> 2718.70]  They can do it.
+[2718.76 --> 2719.68]  That's the amazing thing.
+[2720.00 --> 2720.68]  They can,
+[2720.96 --> 2721.88]  but they won't
+[2721.88 --> 2723.36]  without a lot of tomfoolery.
+[2723.64 --> 2724.58]  That's what it always seems like.
+[2724.70 --> 2725.02]  So,
+[2725.72 --> 2726.28]  it is.
+[2726.44 --> 2726.68]  You're like,
+[2726.74 --> 2728.04]  oh, this thing's not going to last.
+[2728.22 --> 2728.34]  You know,
+[2728.34 --> 2729.68]  I've set up enough hacks
+[2729.68 --> 2730.20]  in my life
+[2730.20 --> 2730.64]  where I'm like,
+[2730.74 --> 2731.94]  this hack isn't going to last.
+[2732.76 --> 2733.24]  And nowadays,
+[2733.24 --> 2734.66]  I just do the manual thing.
+[2734.74 --> 2734.98]  I'm like,
+[2735.08 --> 2735.24]  yeah,
+[2735.52 --> 2737.02]  I can either set up the hack,
+[2737.24 --> 2737.94]  maintain the hack,
+[2737.94 --> 2739.82]  or I can just do the manual thing.
+[2740.72 --> 2741.48]  And nowadays,
+[2741.62 --> 2742.04]  I'm just like,
+[2742.10 --> 2742.92]  I'm just going to drag the window
+[2742.92 --> 2743.52]  every time
+[2743.52 --> 2744.72]  until something that actually
+[2744.72 --> 2746.08]  is like supported
+[2746.08 --> 2747.36]  by the operating system.
+[2747.62 --> 2747.76]  Yeah.
+[2747.82 --> 2748.04]  You know,
+[2748.30 --> 2750.04]  if Steve Jobs
+[2750.04 --> 2750.78]  doesn't come back
+[2750.78 --> 2751.24]  from the dead
+[2751.24 --> 2752.56]  and do the feature for me,
+[2752.68 --> 2753.68]  I'm not going to have it.
+[2753.82 --> 2754.96]  That's what has to happen.
+[2754.96 --> 2756.22]  I haven't looked into it too much,
+[2756.30 --> 2757.84]  but there is Automator
+[2757.84 --> 2759.80]  that comes standard with Macs.
+[2760.18 --> 2761.14]  And you'd probably have to write
+[2761.14 --> 2761.72]  AppleScript,
+[2761.88 --> 2762.58]  which is immediately
+[2762.58 --> 2764.42]  something I don't want to look at.
+[2765.00 --> 2766.98]  But you can do a lot of automation
+[2766.98 --> 2769.18]  just natively on the Mac
+[2769.18 --> 2770.28]  without any extra software.
+[2770.28 --> 2770.62]  Yeah.
+[2770.84 --> 2771.14]  So,
+[2771.36 --> 2772.62]  have you written AppleScripts?
+[2772.64 --> 2773.26]  Because I have.
+[2774.70 --> 2776.08]  I'd rather do the manual way.
+[2776.70 --> 2777.28]  That being said,
+[2777.54 --> 2779.10]  there is a JavaScript interface
+[2779.10 --> 2780.68]  now into scripting the Mac,
+[2780.80 --> 2782.08]  but I've also tried to use that
+[2782.08 --> 2783.94]  to very little success.
+[2783.96 --> 2784.28]  It's still terrible.
+[2784.28 --> 2784.52]  Like,
+[2784.72 --> 2785.16]  the docs,
+[2785.52 --> 2785.68]  yeah,
+[2785.70 --> 2786.94]  the documentation is just like,
+[2786.98 --> 2787.30]  I can't,
+[2787.34 --> 2787.84]  it's inscrutable.
+[2787.98 --> 2788.76]  How do I even use it?
+[2788.76 --> 2788.90]  Like,
+[2788.92 --> 2789.72]  I understand JavaScript,
+[2790.00 --> 2791.10]  but I can't use this API.
+[2791.46 --> 2791.58]  You know?
+[2791.96 --> 2792.88]  The only piece of AppleScript
+[2792.88 --> 2793.72]  that I've written,
+[2793.82 --> 2794.62]  and I wrote it actually
+[2794.62 --> 2796.08]  in AppleScript and JavaScript,
+[2796.68 --> 2799.24]  and that was to ask music
+[2799.24 --> 2799.96]  or Spotify
+[2799.96 --> 2801.50]  what song is playing
+[2801.50 --> 2802.18]  so that I can put that
+[2802.18 --> 2802.98]  in my T-Bunk stock.
+[2803.12 --> 2804.38]  And then the T-Bunk stock
+[2804.38 --> 2805.62]  just refreshes every five seconds
+[2805.62 --> 2806.14]  and asks,
+[2806.40 --> 2807.20]  what's playing right now?
+[2807.22 --> 2808.16]  And it updates right there.
+[2808.88 --> 2809.98]  And that broke
+[2809.98 --> 2811.82]  in macOS Big Sur.
+[2812.10 --> 2812.96]  And it broke
+[2812.96 --> 2814.00]  in a really weird way
+[2814.00 --> 2815.44]  where it just like
+[2815.44 --> 2816.18]  throws an error
+[2816.18 --> 2816.78]  that the object
+[2816.78 --> 2817.70]  that I'm trying to grab
+[2817.70 --> 2818.80]  from music
+[2818.80 --> 2819.70]  doesn't exist,
+[2820.18 --> 2821.62]  except it does
+[2821.62 --> 2822.92]  if I'm playing
+[2822.92 --> 2824.58]  like a music file
+[2824.58 --> 2825.84]  that is in my library.
+[2825.84 --> 2826.70]  But if it's just like
+[2826.70 --> 2827.60]  I'm listening to,
+[2827.60 --> 2828.34]  you know,
+[2828.52 --> 2829.60]  Apple Music Radio,
+[2829.94 --> 2830.94]  whatever that's called,
+[2831.00 --> 2832.22]  or like an Apple Music playlist
+[2832.22 --> 2833.76]  that is not in my library,
+[2834.34 --> 2834.98]  then it's like,
+[2835.08 --> 2835.26]  whoa,
+[2835.42 --> 2836.56]  I don't know what this is.
+[2836.56 --> 2837.78]  And it just blows up.
+[2837.78 --> 2838.30]  Wow.
+[2838.62 --> 2838.98]  Yeah.
+[2839.40 --> 2840.10]  That's life.
+[2840.50 --> 2841.60]  The best Apple Script
+[2841.60 --> 2842.10]  I've written,
+[2842.68 --> 2843.28]  probably ever,
+[2843.38 --> 2844.08]  but definitely lately,
+[2844.36 --> 2845.70]  is one that we use
+[2845.70 --> 2846.38]  for our clips,
+[2846.50 --> 2847.32]  the way we make our clips,
+[2847.72 --> 2848.68]  which is we actually use
+[2848.68 --> 2849.66]  Keynote for our clips.
+[2850.30 --> 2853.08]  And we write the text
+[2853.08 --> 2854.60]  in a text document.
+[2854.80 --> 2856.80]  So we pull the text
+[2856.80 --> 2857.86]  out of our transcripts,
+[2858.40 --> 2859.00]  and they're just
+[2859.00 --> 2860.18]  markdown transcripts.
+[2860.18 --> 2861.06]  So they're basically text
+[2861.06 --> 2861.58]  with a little bit
+[2861.58 --> 2861.98]  of formatting.
+[2862.56 --> 2863.60]  And we just copy all those
+[2863.60 --> 2864.62]  into a text document
+[2864.62 --> 2867.02]  and just space it out
+[2867.02 --> 2867.94]  so it'll be like Jared
+[2867.94 --> 2868.68]  and then a thing
+[2868.68 --> 2869.26]  and then Nick
+[2869.26 --> 2869.88]  and then a thing.
+[2870.22 --> 2871.16]  And just format it
+[2871.16 --> 2871.68]  according to what
+[2871.68 --> 2872.30]  I came up with.
+[2872.80 --> 2874.36]  And then you copy that
+[2874.36 --> 2875.66]  into your clipboard.
+[2876.32 --> 2877.80]  And then you open up Keynote
+[2877.80 --> 2880.02]  and you execute
+[2880.02 --> 2881.00]  this Apple Script.
+[2881.28 --> 2882.48]  And it actually scripts Keynote
+[2882.48 --> 2884.64]  to go and parse the text
+[2884.64 --> 2886.88]  and then like add a slide
+[2886.88 --> 2887.50]  for each one
+[2887.50 --> 2888.66]  and paste it into there.
+[2889.08 --> 2889.80]  And then it'll even go
+[2889.80 --> 2891.14]  and switch like the active face
+[2891.14 --> 2891.78]  and stuff like that.
+[2891.78 --> 2892.22]  Wow.
+[2892.46 --> 2893.18]  Super cool.
+[2893.26 --> 2894.76]  It took me way too long.
+[2895.12 --> 2895.64]  Way too long
+[2895.64 --> 2896.24]  to get this to work.
+[2896.34 --> 2897.44]  But once it worked,
+[2897.54 --> 2898.66]  it felt like magic
+[2898.66 --> 2899.76]  because I hit paste.
+[2900.10 --> 2900.66]  It's like a special.
+[2900.86 --> 2901.52]  And then I attached
+[2901.52 --> 2902.18]  that Apple Script
+[2902.18 --> 2902.98]  to a keyboard shortcut
+[2902.98 --> 2903.80]  inside a Keynote.
+[2904.16 --> 2905.46]  So I just like execute it
+[2905.46 --> 2905.80]  and it's like
+[2905.80 --> 2907.70]  and all these slides
+[2907.70 --> 2908.80]  come into life.
+[2908.92 --> 2909.68]  Do you like watch it
+[2909.68 --> 2910.36]  as it's going?
+[2910.48 --> 2911.08]  So cool.
+[2911.36 --> 2912.64]  Is it recording?
+[2912.80 --> 2913.36]  Like does it start
+[2913.36 --> 2914.08]  the screen show
+[2914.08 --> 2915.34]  and then record that somehow
+[2915.34 --> 2916.52]  or is that something manual?
+[2916.94 --> 2917.30]  No.
+[2917.50 --> 2918.00]  So that,
+[2918.22 --> 2919.64]  it just pastes them in basically.
+[2919.86 --> 2920.66]  And then you're like
+[2920.66 --> 2921.56]  you'll want to do some
+[2921.56 --> 2923.38]  fixes and stuff from there usually
+[2923.38 --> 2924.38]  because like the way
+[2924.38 --> 2925.68]  the words show up on the slide
+[2925.68 --> 2926.96]  will be like weirdly formatted.
+[2927.08 --> 2928.46]  So like maybe like add a line
+[2928.46 --> 2929.20]  or remove a line
+[2929.20 --> 2930.00]  or shrink the text
+[2930.00 --> 2930.72]  to make the text bigger.
+[2930.94 --> 2931.86]  So you do all that.
+[2931.92 --> 2933.48]  It's kind of like a QA phase.
+[2933.84 --> 2935.66]  And then inside Keynote,
+[2935.78 --> 2938.62]  they have an actual recording option
+[2938.62 --> 2940.00]  which people use,
+[2940.00 --> 2940.46]  I believe,
+[2940.66 --> 2942.12]  to either pre-record their talks
+[2942.12 --> 2943.18]  or to practice their talks
+[2943.18 --> 2944.00]  and watch them back.
+[2944.00 --> 2945.96]  So you can go into Side Keynote
+[2945.96 --> 2947.84]  and say like record my talk
+[2947.84 --> 2950.36]  and it will display your talk,
+[2950.62 --> 2950.90]  you know,
+[2950.96 --> 2951.74]  on the screen
+[2951.74 --> 2955.96]  as well as your regular heads up display.
+[2956.08 --> 2956.60]  What do they call that?
+[2956.64 --> 2957.24]  Like the speaker,
+[2957.36 --> 2958.24]  the presentation view.
+[2958.82 --> 2959.76]  So you can see the timing
+[2959.76 --> 2960.92]  and you can see the next slide,
+[2961.04 --> 2961.30]  et cetera.
+[2961.50 --> 2962.54]  And it will record
+[2962.54 --> 2964.00]  what's on the screen
+[2964.00 --> 2965.14]  and your voice
+[2965.14 --> 2967.18]  and anything that's going through
+[2967.18 --> 2967.90]  the system.
+[2968.50 --> 2970.88]  So you can also add a back,
+[2970.98 --> 2972.44]  a soundtrack in Keynote as well.
+[2972.44 --> 2974.30]  So like maybe you want to have like mood music
+[2974.30 --> 2975.24]  while you're doing your talk.
+[2975.46 --> 2975.88]  I don't know.
+[2975.98 --> 2977.28]  These weird features of Keynote,
+[2977.48 --> 2978.56]  we're abusing them.
+[2978.90 --> 2981.42]  So we drag the sounds into there
+[2981.42 --> 2983.46]  and we just say like play
+[2983.46 --> 2984.88]  and we record it
+[2984.88 --> 2987.08]  and then we just hit the next button
+[2987.08 --> 2988.38]  over and over again
+[2988.38 --> 2989.56]  as it makes sense
+[2989.56 --> 2990.40]  with the person talking.
+[2990.92 --> 2993.30]  So you basically perform the slide once
+[2993.30 --> 2994.84]  in real time
+[2994.84 --> 2995.98]  and then it records that
+[2995.98 --> 2996.72]  and then you got your clip.
+[2997.64 --> 2997.90]  Yeah.
+[2998.24 --> 2999.42]  It still takes some work
+[2999.42 --> 3000.48]  but it's way less work
+[3000.48 --> 3001.86]  than what the other way is
+[3001.86 --> 3003.22]  which is basically
+[3003.22 --> 3005.24]  you like get
+[3005.24 --> 3006.26]  most of these tools,
+[3006.46 --> 3007.34]  you get all your clips
+[3007.34 --> 3008.00]  into a thing
+[3008.00 --> 3009.50]  and then you have to like
+[3009.50 --> 3011.84]  change the start and end times
+[3011.84 --> 3013.76]  of every clip
+[3013.76 --> 3015.50]  and it's usually on like this side
+[3015.50 --> 3016.44]  or every slide
+[3016.44 --> 3017.96]  and it's like this sideways
+[3017.96 --> 3019.42]  horizontal scroll thing.
+[3019.82 --> 3020.58]  Super annoying
+[3020.58 --> 3022.54]  and then uses up a bunch of RAM
+[3022.54 --> 3023.18]  because it's like
+[3023.18 --> 3024.34]  some Adobe thing
+[3024.34 --> 3025.72]  or some web thing
+[3025.72 --> 3027.08]  that just clogs
+[3027.08 --> 3027.94]  the rest of your machine down
+[3027.94 --> 3029.78]  and it takes like an hour
+[3029.78 --> 3030.72]  to do one good clip
+[3030.72 --> 3031.78]  and this way we can crank them out.
+[3032.42 --> 3033.92]  But that automator
+[3033.92 --> 3035.32]  was worth writing
+[3035.32 --> 3036.48]  because I wrote it once
+[3036.48 --> 3037.32]  and we've used it
+[3037.32 --> 3037.88]  hundreds of times.
+[3037.88 --> 3038.06]  Yeah.
+[3038.24 --> 3038.56]  You know?
+[3038.96 --> 3040.14]  That's amazing.
+[3040.44 --> 3041.60]  Sometimes computers are cool.
+[3043.28 --> 3044.42]  As long as we don't change
+[3044.42 --> 3045.26]  the size of the window
+[3045.26 --> 3046.22]  or whatever.
+[3046.72 --> 3046.96]  You know,
+[3046.98 --> 3047.72]  until it breaks
+[3047.72 --> 3048.94]  and then I'll be cursing it again.
+[3049.06 --> 3049.26]  Yeah.
+[3050.20 --> 3051.08]  So did you have to write
+[3051.08 --> 3052.34]  a lot of Apple script for that
+[3052.34 --> 3054.52]  or was it more of like
+[3054.52 --> 3056.02]  recording macros type thing?
+[3056.02 --> 3058.44]  I have the Apple script here
+[3058.44 --> 3059.74]  at the end of the day.
+[3059.84 --> 3060.38]  It's probably like
+[3060.38 --> 3062.08]  100, 150 lines.
+[3062.34 --> 3062.58]  Okay.
+[3062.96 --> 3064.04]  But getting to those lines,
+[3064.28 --> 3064.42]  right?
+[3064.48 --> 3064.60]  Yeah.
+[3064.60 --> 3065.48]  Like I wrote probably
+[3065.48 --> 3066.24]  a thousand lines
+[3066.24 --> 3067.14]  to get to the 150.
+[3067.40 --> 3067.54]  Yeah.
+[3067.64 --> 3068.04]  Because there's like
+[3068.04 --> 3069.26]  certain ways you access
+[3069.26 --> 3070.86]  the keynote object
+[3070.86 --> 3071.64]  and you can like
+[3071.64 --> 3073.00]  instruct it to do things
+[3073.00 --> 3073.98]  and then pass it the data
+[3073.98 --> 3074.58]  but that's not the way.
+[3074.58 --> 3075.28]  And every time
+[3075.28 --> 3076.04]  that you change it
+[3076.04 --> 3076.58]  you have to like
+[3076.58 --> 3077.34]  run through,
+[3077.96 --> 3078.26]  you know,
+[3078.30 --> 3079.38]  there's no automated test suite
+[3079.38 --> 3080.20]  where I can just hit
+[3080.20 --> 3081.72]  compile and run.
+[3082.08 --> 3082.22]  You know?
+[3082.40 --> 3082.86]  You have to like,
+[3083.38 --> 3084.38]  so it took a long time
+[3084.38 --> 3085.20]  but I think it's not
+[3085.20 --> 3086.14]  very much Apple script
+[3086.14 --> 3087.98]  and there are built in things
+[3087.98 --> 3089.86]  for like parsing a text file.
+[3090.08 --> 3090.70]  Not parsing it
+[3090.70 --> 3092.04]  but ingesting a text file
+[3092.04 --> 3093.44]  and then looping over the lines
+[3093.44 --> 3095.06]  and then just very basic
+[3095.06 --> 3096.32]  regular expression stuff
+[3096.32 --> 3097.48]  to like say
+[3097.48 --> 3099.24]  is this a start of a phrase
+[3099.24 --> 3100.52]  or is this a person's name?
+[3101.32 --> 3102.12]  That kind of stuff.
+[3102.92 --> 3103.02]  So.
+[3103.58 --> 3103.72]  Yeah.
+[3103.82 --> 3104.20]  Nice.
+[3105.06 --> 3106.32]  I tried to write it in JavaScript
+[3106.32 --> 3107.58]  and I just couldn't figure it out.
+[3107.68 --> 3108.76]  It wasn't the JavaScript's fault.
+[3108.90 --> 3110.62]  It was their scripting API.
+[3110.98 --> 3111.94]  Like AppleScript, JavaScript?
+[3112.22 --> 3112.50]  Yeah.
+[3112.78 --> 3113.58]  Like this is written
+[3113.58 --> 3114.92]  in actual AppleScript
+[3114.92 --> 3116.38]  when I was trying to use
+[3116.38 --> 3117.62]  the JavaScript interface.
+[3118.14 --> 3119.28]  The documentation just didn't,
+[3119.36 --> 3119.58]  it was,
+[3120.60 --> 3121.72]  I just couldn't figure it out.
+[3121.76 --> 3122.02]  So I was like,
+[3122.08 --> 3122.24]  well,
+[3122.78 --> 3123.88]  the AppleScript documentation
+[3123.88 --> 3124.82]  is actually better.
+[3125.24 --> 3126.40]  So that's going to be the difference
+[3126.40 --> 3127.10]  even though the language
+[3127.10 --> 3128.06]  is just terrible.
+[3128.48 --> 3129.60]  Tell this to do that.
+[3129.70 --> 3129.86]  Like,
+[3129.92 --> 3130.48]  it's like weird.
+[3131.34 --> 3131.72]  Anyways,
+[3131.86 --> 3132.64]  Keyboard Maestro,
+[3132.90 --> 3133.66]  shout out to that
+[3133.66 --> 3135.22]  and shout out to HackMD.
+[3135.92 --> 3138.52]  That's our show for this week.
+[3138.56 --> 3140.64]  We have a couple of cool episodes
+[3140.64 --> 3141.72]  coming down the pipeline.
+[3142.06 --> 3142.64]  Next week,
+[3142.66 --> 3143.44]  we're going to have
+[3143.44 --> 3145.44]  the author of HTMX
+[3145.44 --> 3146.92]  come on the show.
+[3147.02 --> 3147.70]  This is a
+[3147.70 --> 3150.40]  HTML over the wire solution.
+[3150.40 --> 3152.32]  So similar to like Alpine
+[3152.32 --> 3153.84]  or Livewire,
+[3154.06 --> 3154.50]  excuse me,
+[3154.82 --> 3155.78]  Phoenix Live View
+[3155.78 --> 3157.32]  and Basecamp's new
+[3157.32 --> 3158.44]  Hotwire stuff.
+[3158.44 --> 3160.16]  So HTMX author
+[3160.16 --> 3160.82]  is going to be on.
+[3161.16 --> 3161.78]  We're also going to be back
+[3161.78 --> 3162.74]  for that one as well.
+[3162.92 --> 3163.94]  We also have Jen Creighton
+[3163.94 --> 3164.62]  coming up soon.
+[3165.20 --> 3165.88]  She is the host
+[3165.88 --> 3167.32]  of the Single Threaded podcast.
+[3168.02 --> 3169.74]  So stay tuned for that one
+[3169.74 --> 3171.10]  and other cool things
+[3171.10 --> 3171.78]  that I can't think of
+[3171.78 --> 3172.74]  off the top of my head.
+[3173.26 --> 3174.22]  But we appreciate you
+[3174.22 --> 3174.82]  hanging out with us.
+[3174.90 --> 3176.18]  If you liked Headlies,
+[3176.32 --> 3176.96]  let us know
+[3176.96 --> 3178.10]  because that's the only way
+[3178.10 --> 3178.64]  we'll do it again
+[3178.64 --> 3179.76]  is if people say,
+[3179.88 --> 3180.00]  yeah,
+[3180.10 --> 3180.54]  do it again.
+[3180.60 --> 3180.98]  Otherwise,
+[3181.52 --> 3182.32]  it was a one hit wonder.
+[3183.12 --> 3183.72]  And yeah,
+[3184.12 --> 3185.38]  that's Jay's Party for this week.
+[3185.46 --> 3186.18]  We'll talk to you next time.
+[3186.88 --> 3187.34]  See ya.
+[3187.34 --> 3191.78]  Thank you for listening
+[3191.78 --> 3192.48]  to Jay's Party.
+[3192.66 --> 3193.52]  We appreciate you
+[3193.52 --> 3194.58]  spending your time with us.
+[3194.88 --> 3196.06]  If you dig what we're putting out,
+[3196.20 --> 3197.30]  please do tell a friend
+[3197.30 --> 3197.96]  about the show.
+[3198.38 --> 3199.34]  Personal recommendations
+[3199.34 --> 3200.70]  are the number one way
+[3200.70 --> 3202.08]  people find new podcasts
+[3202.08 --> 3202.70]  they love.
+[3203.08 --> 3204.38]  This episode was hosted
+[3204.38 --> 3205.72]  and produced by me,
+[3205.86 --> 3206.38]  Jared Santo.
+[3206.66 --> 3207.74]  So I'm the guy to blame.
+[3207.98 --> 3208.40]  But seriously,
+[3208.50 --> 3209.34]  you should probably blame Nick.
+[3209.78 --> 3210.54]  It's all Nick's fault.
+[3210.90 --> 3212.10]  The music was produced
+[3212.10 --> 3213.66]  by our beat-freaking-residence,
+[3214.00 --> 3214.80]  Breakmaster Cylinder.
+[3215.32 --> 3216.46]  Jay's Party is brought to you
+[3216.46 --> 3217.54]  by awesome sponsors.
+[3217.88 --> 3218.80]  Check out Fastly,
+[3219.16 --> 3219.50]  Linode,
+[3219.62 --> 3220.52]  and LaunchDarkly.
+[3220.98 --> 3222.48]  Next up on Jay's Party,
+[3222.82 --> 3223.94]  for Ross and myself,
+[3224.16 --> 3225.02]  invite Carson
+[3225.02 --> 3226.12]  from Big Sky Software
+[3226.12 --> 3226.78]  to the show.
+[3226.90 --> 3228.12]  We're talking HTMX
+[3228.12 --> 3229.06]  and Hyperscript.
+[3229.48 --> 3230.46]  Stay tuned for that.
+[3230.58 --> 3231.34]  It'll be ready for you
+[3231.34 --> 3231.98]  next week.
+[3231.98 --> 3236.40]  reading the ECMAScript
+[3236.40 --> 3237.64]  standard literally
+[3237.64 --> 3238.92]  changed my life.
+[3239.46 --> 3240.66]  Like most people.
+[3240.66 --> 3242.40]  Game on!
diff --git a/Help make episode 200 extra special!_transcript.txt b/Help make episode 200 extra special!_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..57aaaf2fb0453f93f1e48adba8855a2226d8a757
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Help make episode 200 extra special!_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+[0.00 --> 7.72]  What up, party people? Jared here.
+[8.02 --> 12.32]  So, our 200th episode is next week, and I'm putting together a special highlight reel for it.
+[12.68 --> 17.08]  I would love to include some of your favorite moments, guests, and topics from the past 100 shows.
+[17.40 --> 20.16]  We have two ways for you to do it, text or audio.
+[20.82 --> 25.38]  Every listener who gets their voice or text message included in the episode gets a free JS Party t-shirt,
+[25.38 --> 30.02]  and the details for submissions are at jsparty.fm slash 200.
+[30.34 --> 34.56]  Please do get in on it and help make our 200th episode truly special.
+[35.04 --> 38.06]  Once again, that's jsparty.fm slash 200.
+[38.34 --> 39.52]  Thanks. Talk to you soon.
diff --git a/Into the Wormhole_transcript.txt b/Into the Wormhole_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..77390844af322c1e1e9ee4ddb7b3dd869ec59964
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Into the Wormhole_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,491 @@
+**Jerod Santo:** That's right, friends, it's JS Party time. I'm Jerod, I'm your internet friend, and I'm joined by a few of my internet friends - Adam, Nick, and special guest, but also regular person, Feross. What's up, guys?
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Regular person...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Hoy-hoy!
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Hey, how's it going?
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** What's up?!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's going very well. So Feross, Adam, Nick and I are here to grill you on Wormhole. So unlike the rest of us who just talk about technology, you actually build technology and launch it into the world. I'm just kidding, Nick... Nick, you do stuff...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** You can't prove it...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And we like to bring you on to talk about the stuff that you build, because it's always JavaScript-based, it's always web-based, it's usually interesting... We've done a show with you about BitMidi back when you built that... I think we did a show about your annoying website as well...
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We talked about Virus Cafe, which I think you've renamed, because we all said "Hey, this is cool. Rename it." It's called SpeakEasy now... And now you're back with Wormhole. So let's dive into it. Tell us what Wormhole is and we'll go from there.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah. By the way, thanks for always having me on to talk about whatever I'm building. It's always good fun. JS Party is like the first stop on my way to launching anything new.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There you go. Happy to do it.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah. Or Changelog, I guess, because I think maybe one or two of those things you mentioned were on Changelog.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** I think BitMidi was on Changelog.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. And we've done WebTorrent as well... So I didn't list all the things, but - yeah, we always like to talk to you. It's cool because there's context, there's reasons why you build these things, but also - you're usually building with interesting technologies, and kind of pushing the edge of the browser... So it's interesting both to see what you're interested in and what you're building, but also the how I think is very helpful, especially for those of us trying to build cool things, just getting inspiration of like what you can do with web apps. So tell us about Wormhole.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** \[04:05\] Totally, yeah. So the goal with Wormhole was to be the fastest way to send files on the internet. The way it works is you go to Wormhole.app, you drop some files on the page, it encrypts them with a key that's generated in your browser, and then it sends the files to your recipient. So you get a link, you can send a link to them however you want, and that's basically it. The trick is it's really fast. As soon as you drop those files on the page, the link shows up, and you can send it to your recipient even before the files have finished encrypting or uploading, and your recipient can just click to download them... And it uses streaming, which means that you could be like 1% uploaded and they'll be 1% downloaded. They can start to download it right away, before it's finished, which is something that I think is pretty unique as far as file transfer services go.
+
+And then the end-to-end encryption is the other part that's really unique. We designed it in a way where you can't see your files, we don't wanna see your files, and we do everything in the browser on your end. So you're encrypting the files, and then the link that you send to the recipient contains a decryption key, which they use to decrypt the files. And it's all done in such a way that the server never sees the key at any point. So there's no way for us to do anything with your files, even if we wanted to. And that's kind of Wormhole, that's the TL;DR.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I'm curious how that works. Could you break that down a little bit for me, of how the URL contains the key, and I send that to somebody, and then - how do they request the file without sending that piece of the key? Is it broken off in the frontend of the recipient, or how does that work?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, it's a great question. Because you know, your first reaction would be that "Well, okay, when the recipient clicks the link, they're gonna make an HTTP request. Their browser is gonna make an HTTP request, and that's gonna contain the key in it", so obviously our server would get that request and can look at the key. That's what you'd think. But we're using the hash part of the URL, which is the pound sign, or hash symbol, and we put the key after that symbol. What that means is that that's never sent to the server. It's funny, any time any app - it's not just Wormhole, this is not a thing we invented, but it's a common technique when you wanna make any kind of app that deals with security, you can put the key into that part of the URL... And it's totally an abuse of what that originally was meant for; that part of the URL was meant for scrolling the user down to a certain part of the page.
+
+Usually, the way it works is the browser makes the request for the URL without everything that comes after the hash sign, and then once the page is loaded, then it looks for an element with an ID that has the same name as the part after the hash symbol, and then it scrolls the user to that part of the page. So it's a way to sort of jump -- it's like an anchor link thing, but it's really handy for creating apps where you want to have some piece of data that is accessible only on the client-side, and not sent to the server.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Obviously, anybody who has that link can get the file, right? It's not so much pinned to my IP address, or some sort of Mac ID, or whatever. It's totally based upon the link. So if the link somehow gets out there, then technically it's in the wild, right? Because the decryption key is in that link. So basically, trust whomever you give that to, otherwise the trust that you're trying to build with Wormhole is broken.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, totally. So the link is like the password. It's similar to the way a Google Doc works, where the link is sort of the key into the document. It's totally the same. So if you're trying to send some super-secret files and you don't even trust the chat app that you're using to send the link, you think that someone is watching it or something, then you can't send the link through it, obviously. So it's kind of a chicken and egg problem. So in that case you can take the key out of the URL and send that maybe through another channel...
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Right. The mail. Print it out.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** ...so that the two pieces are not in the same place.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** That's a joke, print it out, because that still isn't even secure either... But some other -- you know, disconnect the "Hey, go get this here" and the "Hey, get this here with this key", separate those messages into two different conversations, so to speak, is a way you can build in security.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** \[08:19\] Totally. It's a very specific model of security that we're going for. We don't have accounts, we don't have any kind of notion of email addresses, so we can't do things like confirm who the downloader is by having them verify their email. We're not doing any of that. It's really simple, it's just - you get a link, and then the link is the thing that you need to access the file and to decrypt them.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** This seems like a collection of really awesome ideas. One of the ideas that seems to be the best is around security, end-to-end encryption. I can recall talking to you on Twitter about this, and I even went back to Jerod, and I think even on Twitter I outed myself, like "Okay, so just because it's SSL doesn't mean it's secure." I didn't really consider what it meant to be end-to-end secure, or encrypted even. I use Dropbox, I'm a Dropbox user, so from that point of view, that end-to-end encryption and security was what piqued my interest. Because sure, Dropbox can scan my files, and because of their terms of service they can share that data with third-parties and affiliates. Now, they may not -- or they may, I don't know; there's a lot behind-the-scenes.
+
+Dropbox isn't connecting with me on the daily on what they've done wrong or what they've done right. Those are obviously trying to be the least consumable post-mortems ever, right? But this is a culmination of awesome ideas - instant download because it's peer-to-peer; you've got a lot of stuff you're probably building upon... Your knowledge of WebTorrent, and the idea of peer-to-peer technologies which you've gotten a lot of... But end-to-end encryption seems like the hallmark here. Because of this, everything else fits together; it's the glue. Do you agree with that?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, so I think a lot of companies use the word encryption in a way that makes people feel nice and safe, and nice and comfy when they see it. They're like. "Ooh, encryption." And in some cases, even like a Zoom, the video chat application was saying their app was end-to-end encrypted, which is even better, but it wasn't true. It was actually just false advertising.
+
+So it's really worth looking into what exactly people mean when they say things are encrypted, and to really understand the distinction... And especially even the difference between encryption and end-to-end encryption. So those are not the same, they're not even close to the same type of guarantee for the user of an application... I'll just quickly explain the difference in case people aren't familiar.
+
+So you can think of encryption like a lock. And let's take the case of Dropbox. So Dropbox stores your files, you send them to them over an encrypted HTTPS connection... So eavesdroppers on the network can't see the data. Once the data arrives to Dropbox though, of course, they can see the data you sent them. Then they promise to store it in an encrypted form on their servers. And they key to ask yourself whenever someone says they're encrypting your data is "Okay, who has the key to unlock that encryption?"
+
+So encryption is just a lock. Literally, think of like a physical lock. And it's really important when someone's saying "Well, your stuff is locked up." Well, okay, who has access? That's the question. Who has the key? Who can open the data? Who can unlock it?
+
+In the case of using Dropbox, they have the key. So it's good that they're locking it, it's good that they're not just letting it sit there unencrypted, but they have the key. And that's really important, because a few years ago, back in 2010, Dropbox had a terrible bug on their website, that made it so that you could log into anyone's account using any password. They just forgot to check the password to make sure the password was correct. So any string would let you into that account.
+
+This was a real bug for like four hours. You could just get into any account. Rumor has it - I'm not sure this is actually true, but someone who had a friend who worked at Dropbox (so it's very through the rumor mill at this point) told me that it may have been Drew Houston himself that committed that bug...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That would \[unintelligible 00:12:01.28\] poetic-
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** That makes a good story at least, even if it's not true.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** \[12:10\] It's through like two people, so take it with a grain of salt... But anyway, that was a real bug that they shipped. And of course, that's only possible because they have the key to your files, so you're trusting them to do a good job with it. And you know, most of the time they do, but there's all these risk factors that come from giving that access out to other people.
+
+So if your data is encrypted and someone else has the key to unlock, then it's not truly fully in your control. So that's what end-to-end encryption is about - it's about doing that encryption in a way that you are the only one that has the key; so it happens on your device, the key is on your device, and then now, once you've done that encryption, the data goes across the internet, it doesn't matter what anyone wants to do, they can't access the data, they can't unlock that lock unless they have the key, and you're the only one that has it. And you can of course share it with certain people, but by default, it's just you who has it, and no one can see your data. So that's the key difference.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, it's tough to distinguish, but it means everything, when you really need that security, whatever it is. And we even have circumstances where federal agencies can coerce - or what's the word, when the government forces you to go ahead and make use of that key that you have... Even though, for other reasons, your business would never do that, but you can be forced to do that, in compliance with government agencies... Unless you don't actually have the key. It has to be not possible. If it's possible, then it can come back to bite you. So that's a huge part of what this is.
+
+The other thing is like - you mentioned the speed, and I'll just say the ease of use. For a long time sending large files on the internet was kind of like the world of kind of like scurvy, spammy websites, where you had to --
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** It still is.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, I'm sure they're still out there, but - you had to either pay some money to send a file, which always is like "Who are these people?" and then there's a lot of email hand-offs, and redirects, and... It was just never straightforward to do until Mozilla came out with their Firefox Send, which was a really cool service that I was glad existed, and they eventually shut it down, and Wormhole kind of came in to fill that vacuum... But can you talk about the why? I mean, you mentioned why Wormhole is different and interesting, but why would you wanna build something like this? You have probably a thousand ideas... Why work on Wormhole?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Well, I was really sad when Mozilla shut down Firefox Send, because it was such a nice, simple product... And I was like "There's no reason that this thing couldn't be rebuilt and done in a way that is sustainable." So that's kind of what we wanted to try, was to make a version of it that wouldn't get shut down. And it was also a really nice application of all the tech that I've been working on throughout most of my career. The peer-to-peer stuff from WebTorrent really does improve it, even beyond what Mozilla did with Firefox Send, because we can do that streaming that I mentioned, so the downloader can start downloading right away... The user experience stuff that we did too is actually another thing that Firefox Send didn't do.
+
+Here's the thing - when you're building a security product, you can either sell it to people as going into all the security details about why it's great, like I just kind of did with you guys, and told you all about end-to-end encryption... And then you're gonna get some people who are like "Oh, I am worried about people getting access to my files, so I'm gonna use this thing that is more secure." But I think most people just care about the experience of using it... So I see this mistake made a lot when people are building, especially in the decentralized space, or even like in the cryptocurrency world you see this a lot, where people are making stuff that's so hard to use that they only get the true believers, the really ideological people, who would use it no matter how terrible and hard it was to use... And everyone else who's not really that bought into the ideology of "Oh, everything needs to be decentralized" or "Everything needs to be - whatever the buzzword is." Those people are not gonna be sold by it, you know what I mean? If you're making a Twitter clone, for example - a Twitter clone, but it's decentralized. But it's like ten times harder to use than real Twitter. You're not gonna get any normal people to use it, "normal people".
+
+\[16:12\] So that was the thing I wanted to be really careful when we were building Wormhole that we didn't do. I didn't wanna be like "This thing is worse in a lot of ways, but it's most secure", and try to get people excited about that. It was like "It has to be better, even if you don't care about security." That was part of the challenge, like "Can you even do this?" Because usually, there's some kind of compromise when you're trying to increase the security or whatever... You're making it harder in some ways; it's more challenging from a technical perspective. And sometimes that tech leaks out in a way that the user sees it. Like "Oh, you've gotta save this key", or whatever nerdy thing you have to do in order to use it. We're trying to do it without any of that. So just be better, faster, simpler, quicker, get you the link right away, not at the end of the upload, all that kind of stuff. And then hopefully, they perceive that as being just way better. And then also, icing on the cake, it's end-to-end encrypted. We can't see your data. In that order.
+
+**Break**: \[17:04\]
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** You mentioned your love for Mozilla Send. Did you talk to any of the team around that? Did you see any statistics on the usage of that? I'm just curious, how often do people send files without storing them? I use Dropbox in the sense that I already store my things there, and just share them because it's there... Less of like "Oh, I wanna share this file with this person" arbitrarily, or just out of nowhere. What are the statistics on this world? How big is the send files to other people? I imagine kind of big, but then you've got the whole - you might be sharing some... What was it you said, scurvy websites, Jerod, or just something like that? You might be sending some shady things, who knows...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Shady is a good word.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** What's the space like, and did you talk to anybody at Firefox or Mozilla Send from that team around what they did or what they didn't do?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** I haven't actually spoken with anyone on the team - I probably should have - to learn a little bit more. I wanted to, but never got around to it. Files are fundamentally how data works on all operating systems. They're gonna be with us forever. But I do have to say though, on mobile devices they're not really exposed in the same way to the user... So files are kind of dying in some sense... I don't have kids or anything, but I bet if you ask an average kid "What is a file?" and they've only used iOS or something, they might not even know what a file is... That is kind of concerning in terms of the future of growing for Wormhole... So that's partially why we're thinking about expanding into other types of things besides files...
+
+\[20:02\] Like, what if we get to end-to-end encrypted photos? What if we have a photo library that was really fast, and as good or better than other services, but we do everything in your browser, including the detection of what's in the photos, all the AI stuff you can do with WebAssembly in your own browser? And then once you've figured out what's in that photo, you can attach that metadata to your photo library and upload that into the cloud, but the cloud never sees what's in that library? So the cloud is just this dumb hard drive that's far away from you, that you stick stuff on, but it doesn't actually do anything that involves seeing your data. That's probably what we'll go with, because -- I mean, right now files are still used in a lot of places, like developers, creators especially actually are using files a lot, because they still work with raw video, and photos, and that kind of stuff, and all the apps still -- it's all on desktop mainly, so...
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** And you have a large send, too. 10 gigs is the max file size right now...
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** So that's gotta be a thing. Do you plan to be Dropbox-like at some point? What's the horizon, what's the outlook?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, that's another direction that we're thinking about. Building a drive where you can put all your files permanently, instead of just what we do now, storing them for 24 hours.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** That's a thing people keep asking for, like "I wanna use Wormhole for permanent storage."
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** That's where it takes significant investment, because that's a lot of long-term storage, you've got probably some assurances there...
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Backups.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** ...some sort of agreement that your files won't be lost... This isn't long-term storage, however it is storage in general, so it should stay there and not go away... So there's just a lot of overhead, so to speak, when it comes to storing long-term files.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Not to ask you about a product you haven't built yet, but how would you even do key management with something like that?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** That's the thing about the current thing we did - we actually have the easiest problem in the world, because the link is the password, and if you lose it, okay, whatever; it was only gonna be stored for 24 hours. Anyway, you weren't putting your most precious files in here and hoping "I'm gonna download them when there's one hour left" or something. It's inherently ephemeral, so it's not a huge deal if you lose the key, or even if we lose your files... Which we're not gonna try to do, but if we did, it's still not the end of the world.
+
+Things get way harder when you're trying to provide a permanent drive... I think the model that we would follow would be something like 1Password. If you've ever used 1Password, they have a browser version now, and it does all the end-to-end encryption in the browser, and they have sort of this user experience that they walk you through, where you save an emergency kit, just like a PDF with a key on it, and they have a combination of the secret key that you can't memorize with the master password that you do memorize... And the two together make this really strong key. That's a thing that I think they've done a really good job of like explaining to normal users in a way that it makes sense, but it's also still a pretty smooth user experience...
+
+So if we did something like that, that offline emergency kit that you print out would be like your backup, and we could hopefully still have a pretty decent user experience. But that is a case where -- yeah, that's gonna be harder to set up and like just making an account with some service, and just having them be able to reset your password at any time. That is just fundamentally gonna be a worse or a harder user experience. But hopefully there's other benefits that make it better. I mean, in the case of 1Password, people are willing to put up with it, because that's a thing where they really don't want the provider to see their passwords to everything - their banks, and their files, and every single website on the internet... So it's worth it. That's kind of the idea... Does it make sense?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Absolutely, yeah. I use 1Password, and I've put up with that, and... I don't have to put up with it often, which is great. It's pretty much just like -- I don't know if it does some kind of like local syncing through iCloud or something between all of my devices with that stuff, but it's pretty simple to set up and it's overall a pretty simple solution to this problem. So yeah, I like it.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah. The reason why they do the secret key in addition to the password - do you know why they do that?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Security... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Correct.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** \[24:07\] Yeah, that is actually correct. It's because in the past 1Password was purely local on your device, and so even if you picked a crappy master password, in order for you to get successfully hacked, someone would have to first steal your database for where your 1Password stores the files, so it would have to steal that database and then they would have to try passwords and try to break in. So that's two steps. But then once they started with the cloud stuff, now they have everyone's databases sitting on their server, and so if your password is hello123, that means that 1Password themselves could, if they turn evil, try all the common passwords, and hello123 would be very easy to guess.
+
+So to help people who have terrible passwords, they combine that with a secret key that is completely long and randomly-generated, and the two together are guaranteed to be strong... Because the key is guaranteed to be strong on its own, so your password just adds extra --
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** That's smart.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah. And then the problem with that is --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's like your password's a salt \[25:11\]
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, exactly. Your password is just an extra little bit of fluff at the end of the true password, which is the key... But then you have the other problem, which is that users can't remember the key, so that the app remembers it the first time you type it in, and then you just use your password as a practical day-to-day unlock of the app. So it's a really cool design. It kind of solves all the problems that you would worry about with the cloud service.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** They've been committed to that for a while, too. I've been a 1Password user probably -- I wanna say at least a decade, at least. Probably longer than that. So they've been committed to that goal, which hopefully you and Socket Inc. and Wormhole has a similar aspiration to be committed to this goal of what you're saying here.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** One more question related to this potential future product... You're very much web-first with this, and I assume that that's kind of an aspirational goal going forward, too... So things like that randomly-generated key that would be attached to your password, if you were gonna do something like that - is that something that's safe to store in local storage?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, it should be. I mean, if it's stored in local storage, then it means it is probably accessible to other apps on the machine, which I guess that is a weaker guarantee than -- I think 1Password might do something like storing it in a secure enclave if your device has some kind of hardware place to store stuff. I'm not actually sure... So that might not be accessible through Web APIs. I would have to check. That is a good point; it's probably a fine place to store it, but I'm not exactly sure what guarantees -- how it compares to 1Password, so I'd have to look into it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I know 1Password has that 1Password X, which is just the extension... Maybe that offers some extra security, like being an extensions versus just being a web app... But if not that, then presumably they're storing it somewhere like local storage.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** You're right. And they even let you log in just purely with the web browser, without any extension... And the next time you come back to log in, you only have to type in your password. So the key is being stored somewhere in your browser storage.
+
+My general thoughts are if it's good enough for 1Password, it's probably gonna be good enough for us, because they've been iterating on that for a while... So it's really inspiring to see them do it, because then you know -- I mean, it worked for a password manager, so it's probably similar \[unintelligible 00:27:28.06\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It seems like there's iterative steps you can take between here and there with regards to Wormhole as it stands, which is drag-and-drop a file into a web app, and then copy the link and share it, and what we're talking about, the hypothetical future product, which is like a full-on Dropbox end-to-end encryption replacement with files in storage.
+
+\[27:57\] One example would be some sort of a desktop integration similar to what Dropbox does, but not having to store the files in a synced drive. You could have a Right-Click "Share on Wormhole." And then it would just upload the file that you clicked on and get you that link immediately, and you kind of feel like -- I mean, when it comes to Dropbox, there's kind of two features there. There's the backup, the syncing across your devices, which kind of acts as a backup, and then the sharing, the collaboration. And you can get the collaboration pretty easily and make it feel more like something that you're using more regularly, where you could just have a file on disk and right-click and share it, without having to actually do the crazy stuff we're talking about. Not crazy, but the heavy-lift of what you were talking about, right?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah. Fun fact - we're actually a PWA right now, so that means if you're using the right browser, you can install Wormhole as an app on your computer... And if you're doing it on the right platform - because it's not on all the platforms yet - then you can...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] A lot of if's...
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, I know. You can right-click and select Share on Wormhole and it'll actually do what you described.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh cool.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Right now if you're on Android and you install Wormhole as an app to your homescreen on Android, that means it'll get added to the Share menu. So anywhere on Android, if you have a file, you can get a Wormhole link from it in a couple taps.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That is cool.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** And on Windows, too. If you use Edge to install it, then you get the same thing.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** What's the hold-up on iOS? Because there's PWA's and there's also Share Sheet integration, but they maybe don't talk to each other.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Don't get me started on iOS... \[laughter\]
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Or do.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It sounds like you haven't gotten started on iOS.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Safari and iOS is the worst browser by far for web development... And I'm sure anyone who's a web developer knows this. It's not just in terms of support of web features, but just in terms of even bugs, like in basic features that should be working good, it's just a disaster. I don't say this lightly, but it's really bad.
+
+As an example, they completely broke IndexDB in the last version of Safari. Literally, it doesn't work. A basic web feature that's been in their browser for 2-3 years, they've just shipped it where if you call IndexDB.open it doesn't work. Nothing happens. The promise never returns. And then the workaround is - we've figured out apparently they're doing some kind of lazy-loading where the first time you mention IndexDB in your app it starts up a process, but it loses that first call that you make while that process is starting up... Anyway, the trick is you have to just say "indexdb" somewhere in your app at the top of the file, and then later on when you say IndexDB.open, then by that point the process has started, and then that second call will work. It's like, "What?!" And then they shipped that. I made a fuss about it on Twitter, I'm like "Guys, Safari literally just broke IndexDB" and then all the Chrome people were like -- because they actually have a really good Twitter presence. They were all in the replies, like "Are you guys okay over there in Cupertino? Are you doing alright?" \[laughter\]
+
+You'd think a test would catch this. A basic test, like "Does it work?" Anyway, so then they fixed it... But then you're like "When are you guys gonna release this?" and they comment on the issue tracker "Apple does not comment on future releases." It's like, okay, so now everyone has to assume this is not gonna make it into until the next version of Safari, so we're dealing with this bug for the next year. They just broke a basic feature and they're not gonna hotfix it. It's like, actively -- if you had to imagine what could you do to sabotage the web, it would no look very different than what Apple is doing.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Say you support standards, but then actually subtly break them all the time. I'm not saying this was on purpose, but I'm just saying, it's not that different in the effect it's having on the web than if they were trying to sabotage it. I know they're not trying to, but that's just the effect that it's having. Anyway...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I think when it comes to tabs, they are doing that in iOS 15, so... \[laughter\]
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Gosh...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[31:57\] I'm running the beta so...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's not even out yet...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I'm feeling the pain... \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Well, don't run betas...
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** I've heard, but I have not seen personally myself the tab snafu \[ 00:32:05.13\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[32:07\] I'm just hoping it's fixed by the time the thing ships. Well, don't get me started on Apple Podcasts, because they've completely destroyed podcasts, and there's a bug in iOS 14.6 which destroyed downloads for every podcaster in June, and up to now, because they haven't released the fix for it. They've confirmed the bug; it basically breaks downloads, so a bunch of our listeners just aren't getting our shows, and... It may get fixed someday soon, real soon...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I heard that you move fast and break things in the Valley... \[laughter\]
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah. So anyway, Safari is just -- I don't know what's going on there, honestly...
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Which is terrible, because iOS so prevalent. There's so many people out there using this really expensive device they think is state of the art... Which it is, as a device. But then the device is only as good as the software it runs, and in many cases, I replace Apple software for the most part. I don't use mail, I don't use specific things... I'm just moving away from more and more of those things. And if you can't trust Safari, which I believe they even gate which browsers you could put on the iOS device anyways; they're all really based on Safari. Even though it's a Chrome--
+
+**Jerod Santo:** The rendering engine.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Right, exactly. So there's something in there that's like always Apple.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** People need to know that, too. I think that's not a widely-known fact, but every browser on iOS that is not Safari is just a skin, basically, on top of Safari. That's the way to think about it. It's like a UI on top of WebKit, which is Safari. So even though you think you have choice and you're like "Oh, I'm gonna install Chrome", you're basically just doing that for the bookmark syncing and whatever other Chrome things like that... But you're still getting fundamentally the features that the Apple team decides to ship in their browser, and there's no alternative.
+
+I don't know, it means that there's no competition. I mean, they can just do this, they can just break the browser, and then they can say "We don't have a monopoly on the App Store, because you can always make a website." In this anti-trust case in Australia actually, in their defense they mentioned that you can use PWA's as an alternative to the App Store. So you can actually make a website that's as good as an app, they claim... But then they fail to mention that they're also in control of exactly what features you can put into your PWA, and what things they're gonna support. So they don't support notifications, they don't support a storage system that makes sense... They just break it randomly. So it's not really a true alternative.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Back to the security though, I think one of the reasons they make this choice, or at least they claim they make this choice around WebKit and other browsers being formed around WebKit is usually they'll say it's a security reason, or it's for -- they're so focused on privacy. What do you think?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** I mean, that's a fake reason.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, you can't break IndexDB and say "We did it for security", you know?
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Well, maybe not break IndexDB, but maybe you can limit the fact that you can only use WebKit. For some reason it's a security reason, it's a privacy reason.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** I think it's true, yeah. To some extent it's true.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** If you prevent the kind of fast -- the JIT compiler basically is what they specifically prevent, and that's why no browser wants to ship a browser, because it wouldn't be able to be fast, because the JavaScript engine wouldn't be able to do just-in-time compilation... That's my understanding of why no browser has actually bothered to truly ship their own browser, because it would just suck if they did... But banning that - I guess there is some theoretical security benefit to that.
+
+But I would argue the true security in iOS doesn't come from Apple reviewing things and deciding what code gets in and our of the store... Sure, that is one thing, but the true benefit comes from the other thousand things that the OS does, like sandboxing the app, preventing the app from just reading and writing files in random places, making it so the app only can touch its own files, and making it so that all the sensitive APIs have to go through these OS calls that bring up prompts for the user, that ask if the user wants to do that before it happens... All that stuff happens at the OS level. So even if an app was malicious, the iOS sandbox would do a pretty dang good job by itself of keeping you safe, I think.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** \[36:06\] In two minutes, let's say, give me an answer on this - if the WebKit/Apple team/iOS team, somebody out there who cares about let's say the future of the web and all these things, they were listening, how would you fix iOS to be better, more PWA-friendly, better web-developer-friendly? What would you fundamentally change about the way they're doing things
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** I mean, probably faster releases would be the number one thing... Because there's all these things that you can see that are master on WebKit, that you have no idea when they're gonna be released, and usually that means it's gonna be a year. So I think faster releases would help a lot.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** And also, just deciding -- like, if they want to use the web as their defense against why they're not a monopoly, then they should make sure that the web has all the features that the native platforms have, or else it's not a true defense. That's not really a thing that the WebKit engineers can decide; it's more of like an Apple strategy thing, but...
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Right. Well, at least they can petition. If they care about their jobs, and what they're doing, and they have enough passion, they can either keep doing it under that guise, or fight back and say "Listen, this is the way we have to really open up the opportunities for web on iOS." There's a choice there.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, totally.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, I'll just quote Steve Jobs when he said "We have a very sweet solution for you. They're called web apps." \[laughter\] Remember that? Before the app store existed. He put that big slide on the screen and he said "Here's our solution for apps on iPhone OS (back then)." "Really sweet solutions" is what he said - web apps. So Feross, they've been committed to web apps before the App Store existed, so I don't know what you're talking about.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah... I don't wanna turn this into me ranting only about Safari. I think that the engineers on Safari are great, and they're doing the best they can do with the limitations that they're given by the structure they're in.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** I think the reason why you got into this position though, with this "rant" as you said, is because we're speculating about the future possibilities of Wormhole, right? We got there by talking about the opportunities of files, and iOS, and that kind of thing, so that led us down that road of talking about the different ways you can utilize Wormhole on an Android device, install it as an app, and the features you get from that... Or the flipside, iOS. That's where I think we're at.
+
+And any entrepreneur is gonna have some speculation about the future of the thing they're building, and Jerod's question to you was "Why are you doing this?" And then Nick and I asked you what's the long-term of Wormhole - is it gonna be Dropbox-like, is it gonna be drive-driven, so how are you going to do that technically. \[\00:38:44.02\] So I think these are all valid concerns, because someone like you who in my opinion seems so forward-thinking about the technologies that power the web, you're gonna wanna push the boundaries. And if you can't push the boundaries on one of those prevalent platforms out there, then you're gonna not do it. And that's not innovation.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, it's definitely holding back innovation, that's for sure. I still have an iPhone, which I'm -- I don't know...
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Reluctant about?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, maybe I shouldn't -- I mean, it is the thing that makes me the saddest about it, is the browser. As someone who loves the web, I probably should just get an Android device. But I'm too hooked into the ecosystem that even after all that ranting, I still feel like I still have to have an iPhone, so... What does that tell you?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** They got you right where they wanted you. \[laughter\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I do think the WebKit engineers do care about the web, and I think that they are working on it... And it seems like more and more lately they seem pretty active on Twitter, talking about things, and being open, and being on podcasts... They were on a podcast for the Changelog, I think, a while back, which is good...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, we've had a couple of engineers on the show, and I had always been very impressed with them personally, both their intellect, their obviously knowledge of the space, and what seems to me to be sincere desire to make the web better. So that's always the --
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[40:02\] That desire boots up against the services revenue.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, it does. It totally does.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah. I don't think that it's the decisions of the team. To be fair, there is probably some difference between the way the WebKit team sees the role of the web. I think they're much more in the camp of it should be a document-viewer. Not like literally think it should be a document-viewer only, but they're more on that side than the Chrome team, which things it should be a super-powerful application platform that can access all the devices, sensors, and do all the things. So you see this in their decision to not implement the Bluetooth API, or various other very privileged APIs that Chrome and Edge are fine implementing. There is some philosophical difference there that I don't think is just about resources, to be fair.
+
+**Break**: \[40:50\] to \[42:26\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So we talked a little bit about how Wormhole works with regards to the sharing of the URL, the key being put in (I think it's called) the fragment identifier, after the fragment identifier and the URL... A little bit about how those things work... You mentioned it's peer-to-peer insofar as WebTorrent is involved, but can you break down -- give us all the boring details, like what technology, JavaScript libraries you're using, from the ground-up how does Wormhole work.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Sure. So we're using a bunch of fun things to make it work. Let's see, where do I start though...? There's a lot of directions we could go.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Well, you're using TypeScript...
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Nah, I wish we were... \[laughter\] We actually might switch to it, because I'm on a team now with like two other people, and maybe even growing... By the way, we're hiring...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It sounds like a fun job.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** So yeah, it does help to have TypeScript in those kinds of environments, versus when you're just hacking by yourself. So I'm seriously considering it. So if you're familiar with WebTorrent, that's probably a good place to start, because that is the underpinnings of the way that the file transfer stuff works... So maybe I'll just quickly explain that for people who aren't familiar.
+
+So when you use the WebTorrent library, this is an implementation of BitTorrent. The key idea about how that works is you take a file or a set of files and you wanna produce this torrent file, which is basically a metadata file. And what's in there is a list of the filenames, and then their hashes, effectively; a hash of each of the files is a way to think about it. And what's cool about that is that means now I can share this metadata file with people, and they can now accept file pieces from anybody, and then reconstruct them together on their computer, hash the file, and then compare it to the hash that they were expecting, and then if it's the same, then they know that they got the file they wanted. And they don't have to trust the person sending them the file.
+
+\[44:22\] So we use that for the file transfer part of Wormhole. That means when you send that link out to somebody, that share link, they're actually downloading the file pieces from your browser and using the whole \[unintelligible 00:44:33.20\] bittorrent protocol under the hood. That means you get nice behavior swarming. So if you have 3-4 people trying to download at the same time, then the downloaders can actually share the partial file pieces with each other, and that all just comes for free from using WebTorrent. So that makes it faster. It means that you're not the bottleneck as the uploader, sending the same file five times to five people. You can send this piece to that person, another piece to this other person, and then they can share amongst themselves, which is another nice little performance benefit.
+
+So that's WebTorrent... And then we layer on top the end-to-end encryption. So what we do is before we put the files into WebTorrent, before we create that torrent file, we have to end-to-end encrypt the file using a key that we generate on your device. So for that, we use the WebCrypto API, which is this built-in browser API that lets you do things like generate keys, make secure random numbers, hash things - all that stuff is just built into the browser. We implemented this streaming encryption, and that was based off of the Firefox Send design; we just sort of copied -- they made an RFC and explained how this thing works, and we sort of just said "Oh, that's great. That's exactly what we want." So we implemented the same RFC that we published. And it's streaming, which means that we don't need to have the entire files in memory in one big buffer in order to work on the file... So what we can do is we can actually read it in a little bit at a time from your drive, and then encrypt it as we go. So there's this huge pipeline that's going on.
+
+So first we read it in from your disk, then we encrypt a piece of it, then we feed it into WebTorrent, which produces hashes of the data that it's consuming, and then in parallel, that entire pipeline is going up to the cloud and uploading to our storage systems as well... Because we want the link to work even if you close your browser, so we also store a copy of it for 24 hours so your link works. That's all happening in parallel. At the end of that you end up with this metadata file, this torrent file that describes what is in that share link. And then we encrypt that as well and upload that to the cloud.
+
+So what the cloud sees is we have this set of encrypted files that you've uploaded to us, and then we have this metadata file that's also encrypted; that means that we can't see the file names, or even the sizes of any of the files, or anything like that. It's just all in this big blog. And that's basically what happens on the uploader's side. Any questions? \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I do have a question, but I'm not sure exactly how to ask it... You said that there's a pipeline, which I understand - take the file, read it in from the operating system; as you're getting the file read in, you're creating the torrent for it... I guess the order of operations is what I don't understand. You're doing three things - you're torrenting it, you're encrypting it, and you're uploading it to your cloud servers. You said those are in parallel?
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Torrents first.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...or what order is that?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Well, first we have to encrypt it, and then after that we take the encrypted data that's coming out of that stream and we upload it to the cloud, and we feed it through a thing that creates a torrent file. So all that thing does is it just sort of reads the data in and then hashes it and produces this list of hashes. That's what I mean by creating the torrent. It's not actually sharing it with anybody, it's just producing the metadata file that describes what you're sharing.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And that torrent file isn't really ready for sharing until it has the entire manifest, right? It has to have all the information before it's actually useful.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yes. This is one limitation of torrents that -- we'll probably switch away from WebTorrent at some point, but for now it was the quickest way to get something working in a secure way... But that is one limitation that we have to deal with - a torrent is immutable, which means it can't change, which means all the files have to be read into it. And then when you're done, then it's sort of finalized, and you can't add files to it easily, you can't remove files from it. It is what it is... And if you wanna make even any change to it, all the hashes change and the whole thing has to change, which means you've gotta read everything in again. So it's not very good for modifying. That is one limitation of our design right now.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** \[48:22\] I just have a side question to this, but why would you go through the encryption and then upload to your 24-hour hotseat so to speak, and then not actually webtorrent it first? Why wouldn't your cloud essentially be a client to the WebTorrent?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Well, we could do that...
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** What's the limitations there? Is it simply just speed, or is it simply -- I just wonder what the reasoning is for that.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, great question.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** And then also, later on, does your long-term or your 24-hour storage act as a client of -- and I'm probably not speaking perfect WebTorrent terms, so correct me where that's necessary...
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** That's fine.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** ...but does that end up being one of the places that you pull from? So you said swarming... If you've got five people out there, does your 24-hour hotseat act as one of those people, or act as one of those endpoints?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, it's great questions. Totally great questions. So the reason that we can't just have the cloud storage be a peer that downloads the files is that we're using Backblaze for our storage backend. They have this thing called Backblaze B2, which is kind of like Amazon S3; it's just a place to stash some file data... And we could put stuff into those buckets ourselves, but what we do for efficiency and also for cost reasons is we just give the client, the uploader, we give them a key that they can use to directly upload into Backblaze from their browser... So that prevents us being in the middle of that.
+
+So they have a key that we give them that authorizes them to write into a specific bucket, a specific folder in our Backblaze storage, and they upload all the data into it directly from their browser. So for that reason it just has to use plain HTTP, because Backblaze doesn't understand torrents, so the client has to just upload it into there.
+
+We could make it go through us, but why introduce extra steps? Why do we wanna have all that bandwidth going through us and have our bandwidth costs go even higher for no gain? So we just tell a client to do that.
+
+And then your other question was on the downloader side, does the downloader treat this Backblaze cloud as yet another peer? And it does. So that uses this thing that torrents can do called a web seed, which is basically a peer that is an HTTP server. So it's not speaking the torrent protocol, it's just a server that has some files on it, but your torrent client can treat it as a peer. So it can be like "Oh, that's a peer that has everything." It has the whole file already torrented, because it's sitting on a server there. And then it can just treat it as yet another peer.
+
+So maybe it gets some data from these peers, and then it sees "Oh, these peers are kind of slow. Let me go grab data from the server peer." It's a big hybrid model where it can get some from the server and some from the peers, depending on the network conditions that it's experiencing.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's a pretty cool feature. So take us to the receiving end now... You went to wormhole.app, you put a file on there, you got your URL immediately... Let's say it's a 10-gig file, max file size. So you're sitting there, you're still uploading it, but you sent me that link right away. I go post that link into my browser... What do I see? "Stand by" or "Downloading in progress."
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, yeah, so the first thing is that the URL contains two pieces. It contains the room ID (is what we call it). It's just the ID for the files (the data that contains the files) \[51:46\] and then it contains that secret key that's not sent to the server. So you make a request to the server for that room ID, it tells you "Yeah, there's a room here, but I'm not gonna tell you anything about the room until you prove that you have the key."
+
+\[52:00\] Even though everything, like I said, is end-to-end encrypted, you could imagine -- we could have designed it so like if you show up and you say "Hey, I know there's a room with this ID. Give me the files for it, please." We could have just said "Sure, here you go", because we know they're encrypted. We're not worried about your data getting out there.
+
+We don't wanna even give the copy, even of the encrypted files, out to random people, so we add this extra layer of security where you as a downloader take the secret key that's in the URL up there, you take that and you derive a new key from it. So this is a way to sort of take a key \[52:28\] and make a sub-key, and -- how do I describe it...? Basically, all you need is that main key, and then you can always get to this sub-key. You can always deterministically produce the same sub-key. But given the sub-key, you can't go back to the master key. So what you do is --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** The one-way hash kind of thing...
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** ...yeah, you can think of it kind of like that, yeah. There's no way to tell that they're related either. They're completely unrelated, as far as the person looking at the two keys can tell. So then what you do with that is you show that to the server, and the server -- by the way, the uploader did this originally. The uploader produced the sub-key and told the server the sub-key, so now the downloader does the same thing - they produce the sub-key, and then they can show that to the server, and the server is like "Oh, you must have the master key, so I'll answer all your API requests." So you need that to do anything. We call it a reader token, because it sort of authorizes you to do all the -- you can read basically everything about the room if you can prove that you have that token or that sub-key.
+
+So what that means is we're not gonna answer anyone's API requests unless they actually do have the true URL, but we also as a server we don't need the URL to know the key to know that you have the key.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. You get the room ID plus this sub-key. Is this formalized? Is this a thing that has a name, or is this something you all came up with?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** It's just called deriving a key from another key; I'm not sure if there's another name for it, but that's how we call it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. So I have my room ID, my derived key as the request... And if I don't have that derived key or it doesn't match, you're not gonna say anything to me... Like, you know, GTFO, or whatever.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And if I have the sub-key, the uploader person - they had both the private key which is in the URL fragment, and they created the sub-key as well, and since those are deterministic, they're the same. But you can't go from the sub-key back to the master key, so you're still on the server side... All you know is "This is the person that is trusted." You don't know anything else, and you can't actually decrypt that information, even though I can, because I have the key.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** You have the master key. Yup, exactly.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, that's cool.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yup.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So let's say the file is not there yet though... So I have proven to you, "Hey, Feross, send me this URL. I've got the key right here, the sub-key" and you're like "Hey, this is the room, you've got the sub-key... What's up?" But the file is not ready. Is it just like \[unintelligible 00:54:50.00\] sleep for a second and check again, or what happens?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, it's kind of like that, actually. I'm not even kidding. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Because that's how I would do it.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, it checks every five seconds to see if -- this is another limitation from using torrents that we're gonna work around once we switch to something that's custom... But right now, like I said, we need that full meta-data file, we need that torrent file in order to start doing anything, because that's just how torrents work. You need to kind of have that; it tells you how to make requests and how to validate that the file you've got back \[55:20\] is what you expected... So the downloader is sitting there, waiting for that encryption process to finish on the uploader's side. So it needs to fully read everything and encrypt it. And that shouldn't take that long. It takes maybe a minute at most if it's ten gigs... So it's not too bad. But during that time that the downloader is just sitting there waiting for -- the nice thing is the link works; they can click the link. They don't have to worry about "Oh, the link isn't ready" or something. The link is ready, it's just - the browser is gonna sit there, waiting for that torrent file.
+
+\[55:49\] Once it's available, then the server provides it to them, and then they decrypt it locally, using the master key that they have... And now they can look inside and be like "Oh, these are the files I'm gonna download." So at that point we can show the user in the UI the list of files they're gonna be able to download. At that point, they can also start to connect to the sender using WebTorrent. So it's a peer-to-peer connection; they can connect directly to them and start to download stuff. Meanwhile, the uploader is still maybe uploading stuff into the cloud, but who cares, because we're connected directly to the person with the files and we can just get whatever we want right away.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** The cloud is just the backup in that case, right? It's just meant to be -- once it's fully uploaded, if that peer goes down, then the cloud becomes the primary.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Exactly, yeah. And then all the requests that the downloader makes from the seeder are all for encrypted data, so the data needs to be decrypted as it comes out of the torrent. So everything inside there is also encrypted, so you've gotta basically feed it through that -- there's a decryption stream that decrypts the data. And we support decrypting at any point too, which is really cool. That means that we can have a video tag on a page, and if you seek halfway through the video, that causes WebTorrent to realize "Oh, we don't need the pieces at the beginning. We need the pieces at the middle." And your browser will make requests for those pieces that it knows that the video tag needs \[57:11\] and it will get the encrypted data, and then encrypted data \[57:14\] is halfway through the encrypted file, and yet we can still figure out how to decrypt that based on how it's designed.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Interesting.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah. So you decrypt it from the middle. Because sometimes some encryption doesn't work that way; some encryption is just --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Front to back, yeah.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** You start at the beginning. You can't jump into the middle. But we can jump into the middle, and then decrypt it, and then play it back for you. And that's all done using a service worker, which is another kind of cool trick. So basically, what we do is we make like a video tag and make the source of it, instead of being like an HTTP URL for an actual server on the internet, we make it a specific URL that we know that our service worker is gonna intercept... And the server worker sees that and it's like "Ah, that's a request for some data from this torrent", so it intercepts it and then it basically provides exactly the range that the video tag is asking for... So that means that you can sort of seek around and it'll just magically make the right range requests, the service worker will see those ranges, it'll ask the main page -- it'll say "WebTorrent, give me these ranges", and then WebTorrent either will use the cloud or use the peers or whatever and get those ranges, provide it back to the service worker, and the service worker feeds it back into the video tag.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** This is crazy.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah. \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So the service worker is like a proxy between your video element and your HTML, and your WebTorrent.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Correct.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Got you.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Because you see, the video tag is designed -- there's two ways you can use the video tag. You either provide an HTTP URL - that's the normal way, and you've probably used it before... And the other way is this thing that it was designed for YouTube-style adaptive streaming... Do you know what adaptive streaming is? It's like, when the video quality changes, and you're watching Netflix and then suddenly it lowers the quality or it raises the quality - that's a thing that these video streaming services needed, so they made a special API where you can sort of... If you're Netflix, you can sort of monitor how the download is going -- network doesn't just do "video source = whatever TV show". It doesn't just do "video source = some URL" and that's the whole episode of whatever you're watching. They do something fancier. What they do is they use the Fetch API to fetch a little chunk of the video, and then they monitor the speed of that... "Oh, is that going well? Is that slow or is that fast?" If it's going fast, then they can be like "Alright, the next piece we ask is gonna be higher quality, because this person's internet is fast enough. We can actually ask for a better quality piece for the next five seconds of this video."
+
+So then they ask for a better quality one, and then they need a way for the video tag to sort of stitch the different qualities together. This is called a media source API, and it's just designed to let these services basically do this thing where you can kind of take different mp4 files and sort of make them seamlessly play as if they were one, even though the details of the files are changing, the resolution is changing, the quality is changing...
+
+\[01:00:01.21\] So that's one way we could do it. We could have done that, and use that same API to get these blobs of video data and then feed them into the video tag with an API, where we just say "Here's the next piece, here's the next piece..." But the problem with that API is that it expects the files to be in a very specific format. You have to produce the mp4 files in a very specific way, with specific options that you pass to FFmpeg or whatever you're using to make your videos... And most files that you find on the internet, like random videos that run on your computer, are not gonna be designed in this specific way for streaming... So that means that if we try to use this approach, it kind of fails.
+
+So that's why what we need to do is we wanna use the first approach, where we just do "video source =" and then an HTTP URL, because then the browser can just sort of treat it like any other file that it finds on the internet, it can just sort of make requests for different parts of it, and then all we've gotta do is be the service worker and just intercept those requests and be like "Here's the data you need." And then we don't have to do anything special - we don't have to convert your file, we don't have to process it, we don't have to tell you we can't play that kind of file... So we can support anything the video tag supports, even like mkv's and weird .mov, .whatever, all the different extensions that the video tag supports. We don't have to have special code to process different types of files, or anything like that.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That's cool. So that service worker approach lets you treat it like a URL, but you're still doing the client-side decryption without you ever having to know any of the metadata about the file that's actually being transferred.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yes, correct.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Okay.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** And we do it in a way where the URL that's requested is a random ID. The way it works is the video tag says like /downloadstream or whatever thing that we're gonna intercept, / and then a random ID. And the service worker sees that request and then it asks all the open Wormhole tabs, it says "Which one of you was responsible for this URL request, this random ID?" and then whichever tab was responsible responds and says "Oh, I was. And here's the data." And what's cool about that is if for some reason the service worker fails and it doesn't intercept that request, if somehow that requests makes it to our server, which we really don't want that to happen, but if it does, the server is not gonna have the file data anyway, because the URL is gonna 404, because it's a fake URL, designed for the service worker just to intercept it... But what's cool is even if it makes it to the server, the URL just contains a random ID that means nothing. So it doesn't leak your file name, it doesn't leak anything. It's just like "Oh, someone's service worker failed." This doesn't happen often, but it can, and we just wanna design it so that even in the failure mode we don't learn anything about your files.
+
+Anyway, that's probably a lot of stuff... Does that kind of make sense about how it all fits together?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, man. It's fascinating. The only thing I'm over here wishing is - I wish I could just look at the source code and just grok it for myself, but... You've gone partially open source with this one. I know you have some open source stuff on your Socket.dev org. It looks like the wormhole-crypto is out there, and some other stuff you had to build for this... But maybe someday; maybe someday we'll have a peek at the source code. Until then, we'll just have to take your word for it...
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, that is the part I wish I could give you a better answer for right now... Okay, here's the thing - I've open sourced everything I've ever worked on in my entire life, basically. It's all on my GitHub. And with this project, we wanted to make sure that it could be sustainable from the beginning... Because you know, when you're hosting tons of files - we're paying bills to Backblaze for this stuff, we're paying for servers... And if we grow it to be ten times bigger, that's gonna start to be a really meaningful amount of money that we're paying to host the service. So we need to find some way to charge for something in order for this to be sustainable. So we're working on a pro plan right now that you'll be able to pay for, that'll give you extra features, like larger files, customizable expiration times, so you could change it to be like seven days, or a month, instead of just 24 hours... Stuff like that. And eventually, we'll have maybe the Drive features as well, and then you'll be able to store all your files, forever.
+
+\[01:04:02.20\] I'm just not sure yet if open sourcing it would somehow be a problem for the business. I don't want someone to just make a clone of it and then say -- I don't know, it somehow causes the whole thing to not make sense, and then we have to stop working on it... So it's just at this stage where -- you know, you can't un-open source something, so just erring on the side of... I open source the cryptography code so that the security community could take a look at it and make sure that there's no flaws... And we have a bug bounty program for that. So if you find any problems, you can make up to $1,000 finding bugs in that. And same thing with the Wormhole website itself - if you identify vulnerabilities in the Wormhole website, you can also make $1,000.
+
+So that's the place we're at now. I honestly think we might end up just open sourcing it, it's just that I just wanted to be a little bit thoughtful about it and not just do it that way from day one... I hope that makes sense. I just really wanna make sure that it's a thing that we can keep doing going forward and not have this be like some kind of strategic mistake from --
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** I think you're playing it smart, honestly. I don't think you should feel bad about not open sourcing it. Jerod is a developer, and curiosity is what's asking for that; less about "Hey, this should be..."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Because I think until you know "This is the secret sauce", it should just be secret sauce for you to figure that out... Because until you get the right partners involved... Because if I haven't said it yet, I believe this thing could be a big thing, and I think it's a wise move to just ensure that the source code needs to be where it's at currently, so that any future investment, anything that could happen for the company can happen without being hindered.
+
+And then if it makes sense to be community-driven and open source, then that's still a vehicle you can drive, because you've been there before. It's not un-open to you, because you didn't open the door. So I think it's a wise move.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Thanks. Yeah, I mean - the only thing is I really wish that we could show people the code so they could have even more assurances that it's doing what we say it is. That's the part that I think we're gonna try to solve by doing an audit; we're gonna hire an actual team of people who know what they're doing, who do security audits for a living, to take a look at the code.
+
+This is also what 1Password does, because they're also closed source, and they're security software, so people need to know that the design -- well, they did open source their design docs, which we've also done, to some extent. We have information on our website about the design of the crypto. All the things I just talked about are all on the website. So the design is there, but the actual implementation itself - the best we can do for now is just to audit it, just like 1Password does.
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Well, you have told us your entire secrets here on the show; you've told us exactly how it works, the entire workflow. It's a matter of having the smarts and the technology behind the scenes to put that together yourself... If somebody wanted to clone you, for example. So the idea is freely shared here today.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yup, that's true. That is totally true.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, ideas are darn near worthless, it's all about execution...
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** That's right.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[01:06:48.19\] So you've got a good headstart, anybody executing on this... It's very technically impressive. I think as an application, you can't see any of that stuff. So that's maybe the catch-22 with simple products - it's so simple for the end user, and that's beautiful; that's your goal, right? But then some of the stuff that's impressive, it's just like under the covers. So I super-enjoyed you coming and sharing those things with us, because we are curious and interested and impressed with some of the hacks and the solutions that you've put together to get this thing done. I definitely think it could be big as well. I'm looking forward to where you take it from here.
+
+This is not like your other side-projects, right? This is like a company. Because you had some side-projects, and you said "This is a side project." The Annoying Website is not something that you're ever trying to monetize, I don't think... Maybe as ransomware, you know? Get your computer back... \[laughter\]
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** Yeah, for sure.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** But you're taking this one seriously, so I think that is wise as well, to take it slow, make your moves strategically... And like you said, you can't undo the open source; you can open source it at any point, but you can't un-open source it once it's out there. It's like putting toothpaste back into the bottle. It doesn't work.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. And from a tech standpoint, it's been fascinating to hear about all of these hurdles that you've gone through to keep it web-first, and these really creative solutions for doing that. Things like the service worker, and crypto on the client side, and doing all of that, and storing the key in the -- what did you call it, Jerod? The fragment part?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I called it the fragment identifier. I'm not sure if that's the technical term, but it's close.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** I think it is.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Just really intuitive and really appreciative that you're showing the limits -- not showing the limits, but you're showing the capabilities of the web, without having to just say "Screw it" and go with a native app, or anything like that. So that's really cool.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You're making Steve Jobs proud, with a really sweet solution. \[laughter\]
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** You know, I can really appreciate too, Feross, that you've been able to build upon what you've already put out there before. You're not starting from zero with this one. You're sort of layering on the things you've already given out there freely in open source, and you're also layering on your personal knowledge base to build this next big thing... I think it's really admirable, so congrats on that.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Thanks. Yeah, I'm working with two really cool people to build it out. So it's much more of a team effort than other things I've worked on in the past... Because it's a real company. The two people I'm working with are John and Alex, and they're both really great. It's fun to work, it's fun to be on a team and have another level of seriousness to a project, and have it be a company instead of just a side-project. So that's been a really nice change of pace, too.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So shout-out to John and Alex. Thanks for letting Feross skip stand-up today, so he could be here with us... \[laughter\]
+
+**Adam Stacoviak:** That's right.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's all of our time... In fact, we've probably spent more time than we usually do, but there's just so much to dig into... Plus, you can't stop a good Apple rant. Let it happen. Just let it happen. So we hope you all enjoyed that as well. Wormhole.app is the website; Feross is hiring... Where is the contact there for people who are interested in getting involved maybe from a hiring perspective? Where do they do?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** So the company is called Socket, and our website is Socket.dev. So if you go to Socket.dev, you can see there's an email there for hiring... We're looking for JavaScript and security experts. So if you're a JavaScript wizard or a security wizard... The thing we've put on the website is "If you can make computers do things they are not supposed to do, then get in touch..."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There you go.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** So that's what we're looking for.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It sounds like a fun job to me. Adam, thanks for hanging out with us. Nick, it's always a pleasure. That's JS Party for this week, and we'll talk to you all next time...
diff --git a/Istanbul (not Constantinople)_transcript.txt b/Istanbul (not Constantinople)_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d41cfe2aae3def891bac3ca3049dc1d19691652c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Istanbul (not Constantinople)_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,331 @@
+**Amal Hussein:** Hello, party people. We're so excited to be back... Well, I guess technically JS Party has been back; I'm excited to be back on JS Party, my first 2021 show. I'm joined by Divya. Hello, Divya.
+
+**Divya:** Helloooo...!
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And a very special guest, Benjamin Coe, or Ben Coe. Welcome, Ben.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** Hi! Thanks for having me. I'm excited to be on the show.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, we're super-excited to have you as well. We're gonna be talking about a super-cool topic. And by cool I mean, you know, only cool by the ultimate nerdiest standards... Watch me as I'm pushing my glasses up as we speak. So we're gonna be talking about testing, and test coverage instrumentation.
+
+We're really lucky, actually, because Ben is founder of Istanbul, a pretty big -- I think kind of a golden STDIN the JavaScript community for testing coverage, instrumentation, and so we're gonna be getting into all the nitty-gritty details, and the back-story, and all of that. We'll talk about test coverage, testing in general, open source, project arcs... Lots of stuff to cover. So welcome, Ben. Why don't you tell us a little bit about yourself before we get started?
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** \[04:01\] Yeah, so my name is Ben Coe, as you said, and I was an early engineer at npm Incorporated. That's definitely where I got more into open source and more into actually test coverage related stuff, while I was there.
+
+Today I am what's called a developer programs engineer at Google. Basically, we're on the cusp between an engineer and a developer advocacy type of role, where we still do quite a bit of engineering, and we do do a certain amount of speaking. It's kind of a nice combination of two skills that I enjoy doing.
+
+In my time at npm and in my time at Google I've gotten involved in quite a few open source projects. Istanbul, as you say, yargs I got involved in when we started using it for quite a few things at npm... I'm a collaborator on the Node.js project, and I've contributed a little bit to things like V8.
+
+I guess my other favorite pet thing I've been working on lately is conventional commits, which is how to write nice commit messages that can be read by machines... So that's one of my favorite pet projects right now.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That sounds so exciting. I feel like that's the ultimate flame war topic, standardizing commits, and conventions around how developers communicate their work in progress... So yeah, I'm sure you're having lots of fun with that.
+
+So you've worked on a few different open source projects. You said yargs is a huge one... Tell folks a little bit about yargs.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** Basically, what was happening was in the early days of npm we were writing a lot of command line applications, just tiny little pieces of infrastructure that we needed to run on a server... And around this time Optimist was really popular, which was kind of the de facto popular argument parser in the Node community... And unfortunately, Substack had decided he was sick of writing an argument parser... Or I think he decided basically that it was a little too overwrought with features, and decided he just wanted to work on Minimist, and said Optimist is done.
+
+This other person decided to fork Optimist and give it a yargs theme. It wasn't actually me, it was the person immediately before me who did this... And he made a picture of a pirate and slapped it up on the project. Long story short, he basically only really wanted to land some of the outstanding issues and wasn't too excited to run the project long-term... And I had just got there -- it was kind of the first open source project I really started nerding out on, and went really deep on it, and have been the core maintainer of it for the last six years or so now, just trying to keep it with a good feature set, and address bugs, and make sure Node's up to date... So that's the story of yargs.
+
+**Divya:** Nice. It needs its own \[unintelligible 00:06:45.00\]
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** Yeah... \[laughter\] Everything used to be more pirate-themed, and then I got feedback that it's actually really hard for folks to --
+
+**Divya:** \[unintelligible 00:06:51.20\]
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** Well, even if your English isn't your first language, it was making some of the docs just impossible to read, so...
+
+**Divya:** That's fair.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** I love the pirate theme, but we've tried to use it selectively and not over-index on it in our docs, and stuff like that.
+
+**Divya:** Yeah, that makes sense.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I always wondered what the naming conventions of that -- why you picked that name. I don't know, was it like you were at a bar and you were just like "Yarrr..."
+
+**Divya:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** No, I have to give credit to the engineer who worked on it immediately before me for a month, because it was a stroke of genius. I have run with that stroke of genius. I can share \[unintelligible 00:07:28.07\] was their name maybe...?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, that's awesome. Well, kudos to \[unintelligible 00:07:34.14\] We'll put it in the show notes, and confirm on that.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So I think what's really interesting about you, Ben, is that you've been in the Node community for such a long time that I think you've really seen so many arcs and evolutions... And I think one of the benefits of being involved in a community that's about to hockey stick early on is that you get to really be part of the foundational toolset story. You get to contribute to things like argument parsers that are used by thousands of libraries... Bringing us to Istanbul, can you tell us a little bit about what is Istanbul and what motivated you to create it?
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** \[08:12\] Yes, I like this story. Basically, I came into npm having a belief in test coverage, because I'd seen it used really effectively at the prior company I was at... And I've learned that it was a toolset that benefitted me, because I could really start to see the parts of the codebase that just really didn't' have any testing written for them; we'll talk later in this podcast about how test coverage isn't a perfect thing, but it can certainly tell you what parts of your codebase aren't very well-exercised, which is powerful... So I came into npm and I was an advocate of this... But the way that tests were written for the npm client, because it used a technology called TAP, where it creates a sub-process for every one of the unit tests that run, there actually wasn't really an easy methodology at the time for getting test coverage.
+
+Istanbul already did exist at this time. There was another thing called blanket that existed, which was similar... And they would basically work that you instrumented your test suite - maybe it's a Mocha test suite, and it's able to do the real-time instrumentation, but they didn't work well with sub-processes.
+
+So I basically was just talking with Isaac, who was the person who wrote npm originally, and Michael was in the office too, at the \[unintelligible 00:09:30.11\] just hang out with other -- in the early days it was just a bunch of JavaScript people who would hang out in the office together, basically... And it was like "Could we collect coverage for the sub-processes somehow and then stitch them all back together again? Would there be a way to see that the program had gone into a sub-process?" And Isaac was like "Well, I think you could hook it like this, and you could do this... But it sounds like it'd be really hard, and it wouldn't work very well."
+
+So I kind of just got nerd-sniped by this conversation that we had, and went off on the weekend and started to work on this thing called NYC... And all that NYC was - this wrapper that would detect when a new process was being created, and it would do a bunch of magic so that you'd end up with Istanbul-instrumented code in that sub-process that ran.
+
+So the tool that I started working on around Istanbul was NYC. It's a play on the term Istanbul, because there's a They Might Be Giants song where it's like "Can't go back to Constantinople."
+
+**Divya:** Istanbul, not Constantinople...
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** Not Constantinople... Yeah, so we picked NYC, which used to be New Amsterdam. That was the whole line of reasoning.
+
+So that was how I started to get involved in Istanbul. It was a project that already existed; NYC was a layer on top of it. But NYC became really popular because it was just -- it turned out if it works really well for catching sub-processes, it just worked really well in general, where you could just toss the word NYC in front of any program and it would just magically start collecting coverage... And because of the way we designed it, it worked for most test runners, whether you were writing sub-processes or not sub-processes... It just was kind of really magical in how it worked.
+
+Then we'd start to find bugs with Istanbul's instrumentation, and I started pitching in... And the main maintainer of Istanbul was kind of ready to move on a little bit from the project, so they allowed me to come in and deal with the stuff that was coming up working on NYC. They were really supportive and contributing to Istanbul, so... Gradually, I created the Istanbul Organization on GitHub, I refactored how a lot of the stuff worked, and ended up maintaining it as part of the work around this NYC project.
+
+Istanbul, as I understand it, was kind of the v2 of something that grew up inside of Yahoo! originally. This approach to instrumentation was initially hammered out for Yahoo!'s testing needs.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[11:58\] I think that's just super-interesting. This clarifies a lot of misconceptions I had up until about two minutes ago... I kind of associated the two projects as one and the same, in many respects. I was like "Oh, NYC seems like the executor binary for Istanbul in many ways. It's like the front-loader, or whatever."
+
+So Istanbul was preexisting via Yahoo!, and you came in and helped augment it, it seems, and now you're a maintainer; it's just the way things go in open source.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** Exactly. That's like the majority of -- a lot of my open source has worked like that, and I think that's a valuable lesson for anyone taking part in open source. NYC is one of the few things I wrote from scratch, and I was the initial person of -- yargs, I was just one of the second folks who worked on it and gradually picked it up. That was the same as Istanbul as well. I was just an enthusiastic maintainer, and if you're too enthusiastic, eventually you own the puppy if you're not careful. \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's the truth, yeah. I could think of dozens of folks that are in that same situation, where they're maintaining projects that they didn't create, Babel being, I think a really good example of that.
+
+Okay, so we've got instrumentation as a whole... How does instrumentation work? I think I know, but how does it really work?
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** This is a good question. I gave a talk on this a couple of years ago, and I went super-deep on researching the history... And it turns out the first test coverage was actually developed in 1962 by the military, weirdly enough...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Are you serious?
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** I am 100% serious.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** This is like the government just inventing everything first and not telling people about it, or something... Just kidding.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** I think another one of the early approaches was Gcov, which is the one that C programs can use... I might be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure that these early approaches and the ones that you see work more swapping out the dynamically-linked compilation you've done, and then it's just kind of putting counters up as you execute that compiled code...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, it's like a big watch. It's like the most minimal way you can implement a watch, in many ways... It's like "Has this code run? Has this code been executed?"
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** Yeah, and I'm pretty sure in those cases it's more at the system level... But the way JavaScript code coverage has traditionally worked, and the way Blanket worked, and the way Istanbul worked was that they used something like Esprima, which is a JavaScript parser... Or Istanbul actually originally used Esprima, but moved to Babel actually; you mentioned Babel...
+
+And what they actually do is they very cleverly take the code you've written and then replace all of the code with code that would do the same thing, but has counters in it. So basically they take every single statement in the entire codebase, and someone's actually gone into the trouble of backwards-engineering how you would write identical JavaScript that does the exact same thing, but has counters in it. And it turns out that mostly using parentheses, which allow you to -- if you just put parentheses around a random set of statements in JavaScript, I believe it returns the same first thing, but executes the second thing... Or am I backwards? It executes the first thing and then returns the second thing... Either way. I might be backwards. But the point is it basically puts parentheses around tons of your code, and then these counters are just running as your code runs normally, and then there's basically a global object, it keeps track of all those lines of code that were run, and then when your thing's done running, that global object gets written somewhere, and now you're able to do a test coverage report. That's how Istanbul works... That's how NYC works, because NYC would run Istanbul and then get that report out the other end.
+
+\[15:45\] The thing I've been going really deep on for the last couple of years is the V8 JavaScript engine; it actually has test coverage built into it now, and that test coverage works a little differently, where your JavaScript code doesn't execute -- like, when you run code in the web browser and Node.js, your JavaScript code doesn't get turned into a tree and executed directly. It actually gets turned into an intermediate bytecode representation...
+
+If anyone remembers -- everyone's heard about the Java JVM, where the Java code you write actually gets turned into virtual machine code that runs in the JVM... JavaScript actually works really similarly. And V8 now lets you turn on coverage, and then as it writes this bytecode that's going to go into actually executing in your web browser to give you a pop-up or whatever, it puts additional bytecode in that also counts how many times those statements were called... So it happens kind of a layer up from the JavaScript code. I'm really excited about this, because it means that we're able to collect coverage without creating this really munged up code that has parentheses thrown into it, and has a global object that you're using to track stuff.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, you're pushing the responsibility down to the compiler, and you're not mucking with the code, so there's no integrity questions at all... That's really interesting. Because I literally was thinking earlier, while listening to you, I was like "It sounds like this coverage process could actually technically be moved to the compiler...", because in theory, that's maybe the best place to watch this. It feels a little bit like an afterthought to be injecting things into the code, or parsing it and rewriting the code in such a way... It's pretty fascinating stuff.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** I agree. And part of what motivated me on this path too was -- well, two things. First thing - Istanbul would break code pretty regularly. There's edge case features in JavaScript that some programs rely on... Like, if you have a named function, some people will look at the function.name property and do something with it. So if you're putting parentheses around that function, or if you're turning it into an anonymous function as part of your coverage step, suddenly you're losing that name variable. That was a bug we fixed a bunch of times.
+
+And then the other thing was that we weren't able to handle ESM modules, basically, but the V8 engine was able to instrument ESM modules... So that was another motivation.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Wow, that's interesting. I was just thinking, this V8 feature - I think that's what's probably powering lines of coverage. If you're doing some performance testing, you can see how much of your code is being executed on the page, and I'm assuming that's what's powering that. And DevTools, right?
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** I would guess so, yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Okay, that's interesting.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** Yeah, because you can't turn it on in DevTools, and then Node.js is able to turn it on and use the same information.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Very cool.
+
+**Divya:** So that's related to the tool that you were mentioning earlier (did you mention it earlier?) about building a native V8 code coverage tool. I think it was when you listed the list of open source projects you're working on. I just pulled it up. I think it's called C8.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** Correct.
+
+**Divya:** Can you speak more to that project, and what the implementation is with regards to that, and how that differs with --
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** Yeah, totally. This is my pet project, that at times I've been ready to throw it out the window... But I've been working on it for three years now. Basically, what happened was the Node project itself is a really big codebase; it's quite a few lines of JavaScript, compared to a lot of npm modules people write... And the way the Node codebase worked was it used NYC -- coverage is important to the Node.js project, because it gives new contributors an entry point to contribute. A really easy way to contribute is to look for something that doesn't have a test written for it, and write a test for that. And I think that's one of the real values of coverage if you're a big open source project.
+
+So the Node project relied on this, and we published nightly coverage reports, but we were using NYC to instrument. NYC does have a performance impact on your average project that's running it, but for most tiny JavaScript projects you're not gonna notice if your test took ten seconds to run, versus eight seconds to run, or something. But on the Node codebase, with this pre-instrumentation process, it was more like a 200% or 300% decrease in performance... So instead of the suite taking 15 minutes to run, it was taking 45 minutes to run, or something.
+
+\[20:18\] So around this time, one, I was concerned about just how long it was taking to run the \[unintelligible 00:20:22.18\] coverage; it felt like it was making it so people weren't able to do it themselves. Around the same time ESM was starting to get some traction, and there was no way to track coverage for ECMAScript modules... So there was a twofold motivation - I wanted to see if this could speed up the Node.js codebase, and I wanted to make sure I supported ECMAScript modules. So I started to work on the C8 project years ago, when the V8 coverage was pretty immature in the V8 codebase, ECMAScript modules were pretty immature... I didn't know if the whole project would work, basically. And I'd never contributed to V8 before.
+
+The first time I started really writing C++ code was when I started this C8 project. But it ended up being really fun. The initial versions of coverage in V8 had a ton of holes in it; it just didn't quite work very well. Because I'd become pretty obsessive about coverage working on Istanbul and NYC for years, I kind of knew what the community wanted. It was just missing certain things. It couldn't handle \[unintelligible 00:21:30.17\] statements, or it couldn't handle ternary operators; there were just random things that the coverage couldn't do, and I knew if I was gonna expose this to the wider community, that the first question I would get is why doesn't it support X, or why doesn't it support Y.
+
+So anyway, I wrote the C8 library, I called it really experimental, I started contributing to V8 at the same time, where I would work with the folks in V8 to add a new coverage thing to the compiler... Gradually, it became pretty good. So long story short, C8 is actually what Node.js itself is using now, and it runs about 5 or 6 times faster than NYC ran... So you actually can run the whole Node codebase with coverage turned on, and it runs at about 80% of the speed as if you weren't running it with coverage. It's a little slower, but not so much slower than you can't do it. And the C8 project really grew out of this close relationship with trying to improve Node's own coverage.
+
+So I like C8 a lot... I think because it's grown so slowly, people don't know about it as much. It's also definitely grown with a specific engineering need, which is I wanted to help out the Node project...
+
+**Divya:** So it's very specific to testing, specifically for V8, with the adaptation -- well, with the use case of testing Node faster.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** Yeah, I mean -- you can use it basically in any context that you would use NYC. I use it for pretty much all of my new projects. Funny enough, the instrumentation approach that Istanbul uses actually does at this time catch more edge cases that just aren't covered in the compiler yet... And every time you need to catch one of those new instances, you have to go write C++ code, maybe make a change to the bytecode generator... The turnaround is a little slower in getting the features into C8 than it would be to just maybe update the Babel parser.
+
+**Divya:** Yeah, that's fair.
+
+**Break:** \[23:22\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So Ben, that was a super-brain-dive/deep-dive...
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** Yeah, I'm sorry...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Is that even a term?
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** Yeah, I got nerd-sniped by Divya...
+
+**Divya:** Now it is... It's a term now.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Now it is, right? I've just made fetch happen. That's also another library, I think, Make Fetch Happen... It's a Node Fetch implementation, or something... \[laughs\] Anyways... So how are folks using testing instrumentation in their project? We've seen this mass adoption of NYC with the most popular testing libs nowadays... It's their kind of powering the coverage experience by default, and for many libs - I think Jest, Puppeteer was another that's there by default; I think Cypress is using it as well... It was not there by default for projects like Mocha; I think it is there for Tap...
+
+So you know, there's a lot of people using this code, there's definitely some edge cases, like you said, some extreme edge cases with JavaScript implementations, the things that could break... What's that arc been like for you as a maintainer, to have that kind of growth?
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** \[27:52\] Yeah, it's been really interesting. For me, the description that comes to mind is "exciting", because when I worked on NYC initially I really did think of it as scratching an edge case that we had for npm, which was to deal with the sub-processes, so we could actually test them... And it was surprising to me to see it become so popular across the whole community. I think it really did help drive test coverage in general, having (like you say) these integrated ways of doing it; having it so easily done just right inside of Jest, or having it right inside of a technology like Tap made it -- it really drove adoption.
+
+What's also been really neat to me is that -- I've worked with the Jest folks to help them with any bugs they've bumped into... And Jest actually supports this, a V8-based approach too, experimentally, so I've worked with them to support that alternative way of doing coverage, so Jest can do both.
+
+So for me -- it's like everything being involved in... Like you said early on in this conversation, being on this hockey stick-shaped thing... I think what I was so surprised about -- about a lot of things that happened to me in my time at npm was that so many things were hockey stick-shaped. Not just adoption of the community in general, but you could write a tool like yargs, and suddenly it has a bajillion downloads a month... And I was finding that to be true with Istanbul, and all these things. They were all kind of growing at this hockey stick rate. I guess pride, mixed with a healthy amount of being frightened, and feeling humble as well by the whole situation... \[laughter\] I think that would describe it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, it's one thing to have your tool be adopted and go through this hockey stick growth early on in an ecosystem, and it's another thing for that tool to stay the test of time. I think there's something to be said for that as well. The API design was good enough, and the implementation is good enough to survive through multiple Node versions, multiple implementations of JavaScript etc. I think there's something to appreciate there.
+
+**Divya:** And reliable, too. It's not just like a flash in the pan... Which I think we've talked about before, that a lot of open source tools -- not to rain on parades or whatever, because trends can be good sometimes, but there is something to be said for open source projects that are very intentional, and that are true to the test of time; I can't think of that phrase, but yeah...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Stand the test of time.
+
+**Divya:** Stand the test of time, yes.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** Yeah, I've definitely found my approach -- I really am methodical and like to garden these projects for a long time. So they're not the most exciting thing in the world, but I've found it works, it can get a really good adoption, and it's been really beneficial to my career. When I took my job at Google, they'd already heard of some of my projects, which was really great.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** They're probably using it, too. I mean, did you find anyone at Google use -- I mean, I'm sure some of the open source tools, for sure...
+
+**Divya:** A hundred percent.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** ...but I don't know, were folks using it internally at Google? I think that's the real question...
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** They were... Some folks were using yargs. Actually, less than you think, but some people were using yargs for some internal projects, for sure.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's cool, that's cool. That's awesome. So yargs was checked into the Google monorepo source; that's very exciting... \[laughs\] Congratulations, Ben. You've made it, I think... \[laughs\] No, that's really exciting.
+
+So getting back into community stuff - there's so much perception around test coverage, and everyone trying to get to 100%... And 100% is certainly useful, for sure, but is it the end-all-be-all? Does 100% mean no bugs? And this is a trick question, of course.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** \[31:48\] One thing I'd like to bring up -- and I've brought it up already earlier in this podcast... One real strength I see of coverage in relation to the Node project is that it tells people areas where they could contribute easily... Because you do wanna try to have test coverage of most core components of a large open source project like Node. So giving people that entry point to contribute I think is amazing. To your point, 100% coverage is not no bugs, in any regard... Because you might codify the weird, broken behavior, right?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's certainly, I think, a metric. It's a metric to the health of a codebase. But coverage doesn't tell you the quality of your -- it doesn't say that these tests are quality tests. I mean, you could just have a test that runs a high-level function, and just because it does that, you all of a sudden have all this coverage... But you know, your branching isn't there, or whatever else. I feel like there's some flaws there with test coverage being used as this metric for -- I think a lot of times it's synonymous with quality.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** I think that's a really interesting point. I'll give you one really brief story with yargs. It had not the best coverage when I took over the project...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's ironic... \[laughs\]
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** I still would not call it a quality codebase maybe, but it's maybe a better codebase in some ways. But long story short, getting the coverage up to 100%, which I did early on in the yargs project, did not make the project good. It put me in a position where I could start refactoring the codebase and be more confident that moving this function over here to a better-named file wasn't breaking 50 things... So it gave me a little bit more of a safety net that I could improve the quality of the codebase... And I think this is one of the real strengths of coverage - when you go into a codebase that is difficult to work in, or it's pretty crufty, getting the coverage and the testing to the point where "Okay, now I can start moving it towards a design that I think is better."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Divya:** Yeah, I guess it makes it so that you make sure that when you are migrating stuff, you're not breaking anything. So you're just like "Let me test everything and make sure there's good coverage", and then when you want to move stuff over from legacy, you are likely not to break things along the way, which I think is a really good way of thinking about it.
+
+There's actually a really interesting -- talking about a point that \[unintelligible 00:34:15.04\] faking code coverage... There was a tool that I heard about a long time ago; I think it was in the Ruby community) called Covernor, which Coraline Ada Ehmke wrote, which was kind of a joke tool... It was just like "Don't worry about coverage. Here's a tool that allows you to kind of fake 100% test coverage." I think the point she was making is that a lot of the times people aim for this number... And you can get the number really easily, because there's a lot of loopholes that you can jump through in order to get there, but it's not gonna give you the true meaning of what having 100% coverage is.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** Yeah, I'd love to speak to that point. I'll use yargs as an example again. I inherited yargs -- it had a way broader feature set than someone might guess for an argument parser... And I didn't even know about some of the features that had snuck into it over the years. There were features that were new to me...
+
+So I'd run coverage and I'd see these 45 lines of code aren't covered, and I'd be like "What the heck are these 45 lines of code doing?" So the approach I always take to improving coverage in a codebase that's maybe unfamiliar to me, or maybe a little crufty, or whatever, is make sure you can really describe -- the tests should kind of describe the functionality. "This feature should behave like this; this feature should behave like this, this feature should behave like this." It shouldn't be "Lines 135 to 167 in file foo.js." If your tests are just exercising some lines of code, I don't think you're gonna have well-written tests.
+
+\[36:01\] I think coverage is a good indicator of "Shoot, we haven't covered these lines of code." But it's not a substitute for writing well-written tests that are descriptive and actually explain what the heck they're testing. That's my two cents.
+
+**Divya:** That's actually a really good point, because some coverage tools it's like "These lines have been covered, therefore they have been tested", which is probably not the case... Like, \[unintelligible 00:36:24.03\] does the thing that it should be doing... So yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. So coverage tools -- I guess maybe you can clarify that... It's making sure "This line has been executed during this test run", right? If you have a function that's being called, that's not being used, we would still get coverage for that.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** Yeah. So the way I think about it, honestly, is you're not necessarily trying to write tests that target every single function in your codebase even. You definitely are trying to think of the -- I'm a somewhat product-oriented mind, and I definitely think of my open source as a product... Think of how people are actually using your product and what the public interfaces of that are, and that's where you wanna drive up the coverage, and then that should be exercising your internal helper function. Maybe it's not even attractive to test some of your internal functions, because they're private, or something; maybe you're using TypeScript and you've marked them as private. Now, if you do run coverage and you see this helper that's been run zero times, maybe you can delete it, right? Missed lines of code are maybe not an indicator you should be writing more tests; it could be an indicator that you have something that's stale in the codebase too, right?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, that's a very interesting way to look at that. I think there's this whole argument of what to test - are you testing your implementation or the output? And how testing the implementation really creates brittle tests in many ways, because you have to constantly change your tests when you change your code... Sometimes you wanna be able to refactor your code and run your tests and everything should still work, because you're testing the output, not the implementation...
+
+I think that's really challenging with unit tests in particular, because I think it's very hard to draw the line of implementation versus output with unit tests... Because you are testing a unit of work, but you're calling a function that calls a bunch of other functions. It's a tough distinction to draw.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** Yeah. What I will say is that I do think having a slight focus on coverage has helped me get better at writing unit tests, because I'm able to see that "Well, if I test the obvious interface into the program, I have good coverage." I might even have 100% coverage. Whereas I think before I thought of coverage, your brain is more like "Oh, I'd better test foo internal function XYZ and make sure that it works for all of its inputs", even though you're gonna exercise that function for all of its inputs when you're using the actual public method that is the interface into it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right, yeah. I think that's where the whole branching comes into play. Looking at the branching metrics for coverage help you suss that out, right? They help surface logic branches that you may be missing, so...
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** Definitely, yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** ...all the else cases, you know? \[laughs\] Or the if cases, sometimes.
+
+**Break:** \[39:20\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I'd love to talk to you a little bit about what you see as the future of testing coverage, and just testing maybe in general, more broadly, in the JavaScript community... I know you're very humble and you're like "I'm not a testing authority", but you kind of are... So where are things heading?
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** Yeah, I've actually been less involved in Istanbul in the last couple of years, because I do believe in this integration with the engine itself. I think it's a better design, so I'm kind of hopeful some of that stuff can be pushed into the engine. I think coverage is an important part of testing in general, and I think having it be built right into the platform is the right place for it.
+
+Similarly, you see the popularity of Jest. And Jest gives you coverage, it gives you good assertion frameworks, it gives you a lot of the things that you used to have to kind of add a la carte to your testing setup. I definitely do feel like these integrated things like Jest are probably gonna continue to be really popular in the community... And this maybe speaks to the community maturing in a certain way. There's not necessarily the same tinkerers early on who were really excited to figure out their own custom setup, with their own assertion library, and their own coverage library, and their own mix and match everything together... I think people are less excited about that.
+
+Similarly, I'm excited to push more of this stuff into Node itself. I've been working on the coverage in Node; so you can just turn on coverage in Node. But I've also been working on pretty stack traces in Node, so that it understands source maps, and can give you a stack trace of your TypeScript codebase without you having to install a tool to do that. Just trying to get you more batteries included stuff I think is really exciting.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, that's awesome. The more we can abstract into the platform or the tooling as a default, that's just more stuff we can do with the time saved, you know what I mean? That's awesome.
+
+**Divya:** Also, I'm curious -- well, the way that code is written, at least in the tiny subset of the industry that I'm in, which is JAMStack, everything is serverless, and you write a bunch of serverless functions, which means a lot of things are kind of isolated... What do you think test coverage looks like in those kinds of environments? The idea being that serverless functions, so to speak, run in isolation from the rest of your projects.
+
+Let's say you have a Node project, and then this is like a serverless thing, and then it goes and calls a database and there's lots of things that happen kind of outside of your control. So what does that mean for test coverage? Because now a lot of the logic no longer lives in your main codebase, so to speak; it kind of lives in the cloud.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** That's a good question. But first off, I do think -- like, I haven't seen this done too widely yet, but I think people are gonna start doing more coverage instrumentation of actual running applications. There's advantages to doing so; it can give you ideas of hot spots in your application where you're calling the same line of code a million times when you serve users throughout the day... And that kind of gives you an idea of where you should optimize your code.
+
+I think one approach people might start taking is instrumenting -- you know, kind of like a canary application, where you have a canary application that runs the next version of your codebase to make sure that it's healthy. Maybe people are running a canary version with instrumentation like coverage and maybe telemetry data for the first six hours after deployment, and trying to collect data that way...
+
+\[44:04\] I think that's one of the really exciting things about pushing this stuff towards the actual engines like V8 - you can actually get it so you can have that instrumentation and still run at a fairly fast rate, such that you're not impacting customers too much.
+
+I think everyone else absolutely hated it at npm - I use this one library called Nock to try to test the HTTP layer... So you kind of test your program up to the point when you have that external dependency, like the external function you're gonna invoke... And one approach, if it's (say) an HTTP API you're interacting with, Nock's such a really nice tool for testing right up to that point.
+
+Another great approach is using something like sign-in to actually do a mock of the method call you're actually gonna call in your codebase that's gonna cause that external behavior... I think those approaches can work.
+
+The thing with mocking and with anything like that is you're testing your vision of how the external thing is gonna work. It's not necessarily reality. Like all things, it's fraught with peril.
+
+**Divya:** That is true. I often actually find that - again, in projects that I've worked on, there is zero testing for any of the serverless things. You're right. It's just the assumption that it works, and then maybe locally, whatever calls that particular function, we just mock it out. So it's not actually the function execution that's checked at all, we just assume that that particular external logic works, and then we just test that it gets the data appropriately... Which then gets into issues, for instance, like when we aren't handling certain statuses properly... Like, we're giving a user 503 when it's not that the service is unavailable, it's just that they haven't logged in properly, or their login is incorrect, or their token is incorrect, or expired. So then that's an issue with regards to how we've written that particular service. We can't check for that, because then users will hit an error that is unexpected, and the test coverage doesn't speak to that at all.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** Yeah, and I think these boundary points are almost always where bugs happen.
+
+**Divya:** Yeah, exactly.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** This is definitely a challenge for engineering, yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I think this is where you just need a robot; you just need to write a bot that runs your code end-to-end. I wish end-to-end tests weren't so expensive. They're expensive to run, expensive to write, expensive to maintain, so it's just very challenging. But anyways...
+
+Ben, this has been a really fascinating discussion. I'd love to kind of close this node out with project sustainability. Clearly, you've been a maintainer for some pretty key projects for quite a number of years... Are foundations the next step for these really important projects? Do you see that as a path forward? And just in general, are you looking for help with maintenance? What's the sustainability story for the projects that you're overseeing?
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** Yeah, I've explored foundations -- I've definitely discussed with other projects that are in foundations, how they've found the experience, and it's something I'm very open to with any of the work I've contributed to, like yargs or Istanbul. I think \[unintelligible 00:47:11.23\] what interests me would probably be more in like the legal advice you can get, and having more structure around potentially reaching your community around the project... And like you say, sustainability; making sure that there's a long-term plan for this thing that a lot of folks rely on... For example how we approach security.
+
+What I have been told is you don't magically get a ton of maintainers because you joined a foundation... Like, "Oh, here's our pool of yargs maintainers that were just waiting to write command line parsers." Kind of having a core of maintainers I think is always one of the most difficult parts of an open source project... And I've found throughout the years -- sometimes I'll have a pool of 2-3 folks who are doing incredible work on a project, and it's almost always that it's a specific task they had for work, so they wanted to get it built... And I very much encourage those types of contributions and appreciate them, but definitely, it ebbs and flows, the number of folks who are working on yargs, or Istanbul, or any of these projects.
+
+\[48:10\] So I think the story for sustainability does have to be that as a maintainer you just need to not be too stressed out if your issues are counting up a little bit... And the issues that I try to put the most attention to are if we have a major, for instance, security issue. I do treat that as a P0. And because of my role at Google, where I know some googlers are using some of the libraries, and I don't feel too bad spending a couple hours out of my work week if we would have a P0 security issue I had to address.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** So I've had to learn -- like, I do not code as much as I did eight years ago; I'm not spending my entire weekend working on yargs. I just can't anymore, and then feel happy and healthy when I go in on a Monday to my workweek. So I'm just learning to choose selectively the type of work I work on, make sure I do the things that are gonna be most important to the community, like making sure that P0 bugs are fixed, and P0 security issues are fixed.
+
+**Divya:** Yeah, I actually like that, because it's more sustainable that way for yourself and for the project as well... Because I've seen a lot of people just burn out completely. Obviously, at the start of a project or at the beginning stages you're super-excited about it, and you're trying to get it off the ground, and then users are climbing, downloads are climbing, and then you're working on it all the time, to the point where you just completely burn out... And that really sucks. I've seen projects do that, where there's a lot of potential, and people use it, and then there's like a drop-off point, because the maintainer just was like "I can't do this anymore." It's either because they burned themselves out, or the community asked so much, and the climbing number of issues totally got to them, and they were like "I can't handle it.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** Yeah. I'm going on six or seven years working on some of these projects... It just really has to be seen as a marathon, not as a sprint, if you're interested in building these things that the communities can use for a long period of time. I think it's just important to tell yourself you can't work a second workday every night, working on open source, for seven years. You're gonna burn yourself out, because you're gonna be spending 80 hours a week working each week.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** And this is where I see foundations attractive, too... Because I think foundations definitely have their mind on some of the same things, which is how we can keep something sustainable for an extended period of time.
+
+**Divya:** \[50:34\] Yeah. I think there's pros and cons. The pro is you're within a foundation, so there's a lot more process. Also, within the Node Foundation there's a process around how to manage the community, so there's not a lot of people yelling at contributors, or back and forth, between the maintainers and contributors. There's more of a balance. But the downside to that also is that foundations sometimes move very slowly, and that's sometimes that I've heard a lot of people, where they're like, they don't wanna join the Node Foundation, for example, because there's a lot of process, which means that they can't move as quickly, or iterate, and have as much control anymore. Again, it's a trade-off that you have to make for yourself in the project.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, for sure. I don't know, I think that the open source sustainability problem is one that's -- I don't know if the sun is ever gonna set on that... But it interesting to hear how different maintainers tackle it.
+
+**Divya:** It's interesting - we've talked about this before, but there's two ways in which open source sustainability has been managed. A lot of people are like "I can do it by myself. I'm a sole maintainer, and I manage all of my projects with myself and the contributors", and that model I've not seen work very successfully.
+
+The ones that I've seen that are the most successful is the foundation model, or a company adopts all these projects and they run with it model. And those are the two that I see more long-term with. Obviously, one is slightly more capitalistic than the other. It depends on who you ask.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Wait, what's capitalism, Divya? Just kidding... \[laughter\]
+
+**Divya:** Well, just open a tab, research GameStop...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh yes, yes... That... OMG.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** I think of it more as patronage, in the \[52:11\] kind of sense.
+
+**Divya:** Yeah, exactly. \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** The whole free and open software story, and how companies make so much money off of it and don't contribute back in the way that they should. I mean, something's gotta give at some point. It doesn't feel very sustainable to me in the long-term, given software trajectories.
+
+I don't wanna live in a world full of FANG company sponsored software. Everybody's using a tool that's made by Netflix, Google, Microsoft... That's no fun.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** I definitely loved the early times in Node when you had these interesting characters like Substack, and Isaac, and... Being able to keep that, but being able to keep that on a 20-year scale - I don't think anyone's answered that question.
+
+**Divya:** No...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Well, that said, it's been a pleasure talking with you, Ben. Thank you so much for the innovative contributions that you have, but also - you're pushing things forward, but also maintaining a sense of continuity for key projects within the ecosystem. Thank you for everything that you do, and we'll catch you -- I don't know, we'll have to come back and talk more about all of the nerd topics that we weren't able to heavy-click into.
+
+**Divya:** Yeah. I think you're super-lowkey-awesome. I was talking to someone about this, where I was just like "Ben is lowkey very instrumental in the community, and is also very down to earth." You don't talk about yourself a lot, so people don't know who you are... But if you go through your repos and you look at the history of Node and JavaScript, you pop up a lot. \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, pretty instrumental.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** I'm blushing now, but...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. And then -- oh, we didn't even get to talk about Wombat Dressing Room, which is this really cool project that you worked on a couple years ago; or maybe a year and a half, or something ago... I mean, it was publicly released at that point. It's this whole staging process for npm packages, that Google helped open source, and Ben was a key part of that project... And I'm sure also the initiative to open source it. It's very exciting, you should check it out. We'll put it in the show notes... But thank you, Ben. We're bowing. Thank you, sensei Ben.
+
+**Benjamin Coe:** I really appreciate being on the show. I haven't done much talking recently, so it was really fun. Thanks for thinking of me and having me.
+
+**Divya:** Thank you, sensei Ben... \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Thank you...
+
+**Outro:** \[54:45\]
+
+**\[Robot voice\]** Everyone, JavaScript is so cool! Have you heard?
diff --git a/JS Danger CSS-Tricks Edition_transcript.txt b/JS Danger CSS-Tricks Edition_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c1e5257e116f70b60a84299b9e281be487cab3ee
--- /dev/null
+++ b/JS Danger CSS-Tricks Edition_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,1076 @@
+**Jerod Santo:** Welcome, everyone, to JS Party. I'm Jerod "Danger" Santo, and today we have a very special treat for you. Our "Don't call it Jeopardy" game show is back, and we're joined by the team behind CSS-Tricks; maybe you've heard of it, css-tricks.com. They're gonna face off and see which one's the best.
+
+Chris Coyier is here. Chris, thanks for coming on JS Party.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Oh, I can't wait. Thanks for having me.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Do you like to live dangerously?
+
+**Chris Coyier:** That's my middle name...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] No, that was my middle name; didn't you hear my intro?
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Dang it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We also have Sarah Drasner here. Sarah, do you have a competitive spirit?
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** I do, but not as much as Chris, who has broken both of his wrists in the last two years.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Ouch... Chris, how did you break your wrists, man?
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I was mountain-biking, and I was really just competing against myself, really... And it was my elbows, which I'm not sure which is worse, but... I could type with the elbows things, so I'm saying it's a little better maybe.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Yeah, and he was putting out articles the whole time. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It sounds like you do like to live dangerously after all.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Well, editing those was something else... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That voice you hear is Geoff Graham. Geoff, welcome to the show.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Yeah, nice to be here.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And I've wondered - have you ever considered suing Instagram for trademark infringement?
+
+**Geoff Graham:** I think so, once or twice, but for probably different reasons than you're thinking. \[laughter\] What are you thinking?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, they're using your name, man. Graham. They're using it. Come on. Not fair.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Oh, sure. Well, I hold exclusive copyright on the H and the extra A that's there as well, so I'm okay.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Excellent. And we are also joined by Miriam Suzanne.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** \[04:14\] Hello!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Welcome. Did you bring your trivia skills with you?
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Nope. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, then you'll fit right in, because we are here to have some fun and to play JS Danger. This is very much in the jeopardy style, so we will do a round-robin selection of squares from the game board. There are two rounds, and then a final trouble round. The first round is called Trouble, and there are four categories. Each category has a theme. We will take turns selecting a square. If you get it right, you get the points from that square. If you get it wrong, it goes to the next person in line. They have a change to steal. So if it's Chris' turn, Sarah will have a chance to steal, then Geoff, then Miriam, and so on. If you steal, you get the points. If you miss the steal, you also go negative, so be careful with the steals.
+
+Let's go ahead and look at our categories, and I'll describe what their themes are. The first one is called Project People. This is where you are trying to match coders with the projects that they started. The second category is called Movies Worth CSS-ing. These are movies with CSS-related things in their titles.
+
+Category three is called Tricky CSS Sites. These are websites that aren't CSS-Tricks, and yet people still somehow learn CSS from them. The next category is called Bleeding Edge. These are newish browser features. So there you go... Chris, the board is yours, please pick a square.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Oh, I get to kick it off. That's exciting! I'll take Bleeding Edge for 100, please.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Bleeding Edge for 100. Some animations can cause dizziness and nausea in people with vestibular disorders. Media queries to the rescue.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Do I have to form my answer in the form of a question, or whatever?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You could try...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** What is Prefers Reduces Motion?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That is correct. \[win alert\] 100 points to you, sir. Very well played.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** The snowball is going.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, there you go. Now we're playing; we're having some fun. Sarah, you are up. Please pick a square.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Oh... I'm interested in Movies Worth CSS-ing for 100.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Movies Worth CSS-ing. Keanu Reeves infiltrates a gang of bank-robbing surfers in this 1991 cult classic.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Isn't it Point Break?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Point Break, you pulled it out somehow, at the last second. \[win alert\] Very good.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Wow! \[laughs\]
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Incredible. Jeez...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Excellent, excellent.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** And it was there because Break was in the title, or what? Or Point?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, like breakpoints...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Oh, Point Break, breakpoint.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There you go.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Okay, thank you.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. Geoff, your turn. Please pick a square.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** I'm gonna keep it going right there - Movies Worth CSS-ing, 300.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Somehow our squares got mixed up there... 300 is in the 200 spot. I'm gonna go ahead and blame Nick for that (even though it's my fault). In a colorful future, a cab driver (who is Bruce Willis) unwittingly becomes the central figure in this search for a legendary cosmic weapon to keep evil and Mr. Zorg (played by Gary Oldman) at bay.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Oh, good Lord... I'm gonna have to pass on that one. I have no idea. I'm just not Bruce Willis-savvy.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Steal... Oh, wait.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, so a pass gets you -300, and then Miriam gets a chance to steal. Would you like to steal?
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** What is the Fifth Element?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win alert\] That is correct. Very good, very good. A successful steal.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Good job.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And you now get the board.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** I guess I'll jump back over to Bleeding Edge for 200.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Bleeding Edge for 200. This experimental CSS property allows animations to be driven by a container's scroll position.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** What is animation scroll timeline?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Hm...
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** \[08:08\] Scroll timeline?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, scroll timeline. We'll give it to you. \[win alert\] Very good!
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Wooh!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I heard "animation", I'm like "That's not right", but then you kept talking and I'm like "That sounds pretty good." Alright, very good, so you're in the lead. Looping back around - Chris, it's your turn. Please pick a square.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Bleeding edge for 300, please.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, here we go; they're going after the Bleeding Edge. This modern image format is optimized for web environments. It boasts better image compression than webp, jpeg, png and gif - with a hard 'G'.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** It's AVIF.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail sound\] I'm sorry, that's incorrect. It may also be true, now that I'm thinking about it, but it's not the one that was on the website.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Okay... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Would anybody like to steal a non-AVIF answer?
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** That was my answer... \[laughs\]
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Mine, too.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay... Maybe you guys can school me. So this was according to caniuse.com, and the feature is called JPEG XL.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Oh.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Is anybody familiar?
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Oooh... My answer is more right. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, I'm gonna defer to Chris. Let's go ahead and give him the points, because you're probably more right than I am. \[laughter\] Thank you very much, Chris.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I'm not cheating, I'm really right.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay... \[win alert\]
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** I agree, I agree.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Everybody agrees, he got it right! \[laughter\] What's funny is we were test-driving this before the show and Nick also answered the questions, and he also said AVIF, so that's where I was like "Hm... Maybe I've got it wrong there."
+
+Alright... Sarah, your turn.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** I'm gonna do Tricky CSS Sites for 100.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright. For 100. Often a top 100 related search results, but that doesn't mean devs love it.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Oooh... I can picture it in my mind. The green site! Uhm...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail sound\] Time's out. Sorry. Tip of your tongue...
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** I know the answer, I just --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Geoff, do you know what's that we're referring to?
+
+**Geoff Graham:** What is W3Schools?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win alert\]
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Yes!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's it...
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** I've been picturing you in my mind... \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes, we all have it burnt into our retinas.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** \[unintelligible 00:10:25.18\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, Geoff, your turn. Please pick a square.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Oh. Bleeding Edge, 400.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Bleeding Edge for 400. The new cookie store API has a more modern interface than document.cookie, and can also be used in these.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** What is custom properties?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail sounds\] I'm sorry, that's incorrect. Miriam, would you like to steal?
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** No, I would not.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Chris, would you like to steal?
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I don't really understand the question... That's fine. Skip.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Skip. Sarah, would you like to steal?
+
+**Geoff Graham:** We're not talking about local storage, are we?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Is that a steal or a question? \[laughter\] I'm not supposed to tell you that until you submit a steal. I would say probably skip the steal maybe... \[laughter\] Nobody is stealing... Let's go ahead and show they answer. They can also be used in service workers...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Was it a web worker? Oh, it's service workers.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Yeah...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Tough one. Geoff so far selecting the difficult ones... Let's move on.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** So you can't use a regular cookie in a service worker? TIL...
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Miriam, your turn. Please select a category.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Let's do Tricky CSS Sites for 200.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. Browser support tables for modern web technologies, including CSS.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** What is Can I Use?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win alert\] You got it.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** And/or MDN?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Hm... There's some crossover there now, isn't there? Alright, you got that one. We're back to Chris.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I'll take Tricky CSS Sites for 300.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[12:02\] Okay, here we go. This site demonstrates what can be accomplished by only changing the CSS.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Oh yeah, CSS Zen Garden.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's right. \[win alert\]
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** That's one for us old fogies. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That is an old-school one, isn't it...?
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Yeah, there's a new version of it - Style Stages.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Really?
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Yeah, by -- is that Stephanie behind that? Stephanie Eckles.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Nice.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I'll check that out.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** They kind of revitalized the Zen Garden too at one point, and you could actually submit pull requests to it, and stuff. Oh, sorry... Let's get back to the game. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We can chit-chat, no big deal... Okay, whose turn was that?
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** I think I'm next, maybe...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Miriam just got it right, right?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, so back to Chris then.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Or no, I got it right...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, you got it right, so it's Sarah's turn.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Oh, my God. Great injustice.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Very good, okay. Sarah was correct.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** God, Chris is just trying to steal... We haven't done Project People yet, so I'll do that one for 100.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright. Mat Mullenweg.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** WordPress.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win alert\] Very good.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** That feels like a softball. \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, it is a 100-point question...
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Yeah, that's true.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay... Geoff.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** I'm just gonna keep going in the red... Um, Bleeding Edge, 500. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** The guy likes to bleed, what can we say...? This CSS property sets whether an element's background extends underneath its border box, padding box or content box.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** What is border box? Oh, I mean... No, go ahead and take that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You can change it. Do you have a better guess?
+
+**Geoff Graham:** No, go right ahead.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail sound\] Alright. Sorry, Geoff. You're further in the red.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** It's fine.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Miriam for the steal?
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** What is background-clip?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win alerts\] That's correct.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Thanks for that, Geoff.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Miriam is the benefactor of --
+
+**Chris Coyier:** First debut in 1997...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's why it was "newish". \[laughter\]
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Fair enough, fair enough.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That was Geoff's turn, so it's Miriam's turn.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Yeah, okay... Tricky CSS Sites for 400.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Launched in 2005 when a small team of idealists set out to create a new, free, community-built online resource for all web developers.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** What is Web Platform Docs? \[fail sound\] No... Huh.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Chris?
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I'm not gonna steal, because that was my guess...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. Sarah?
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** This may be too late to be accurate, but Geocities?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail sound\] I'm sorry, that's not correct either. Geoff? Are you gonna dig out of that hole?
+
+**Geoff Graham:** I have a guess, but I kind of like that someone's joining me in the red, so I'm just gonna leave it at that. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, let's see what the answer was.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Oh, MDN
+
+**Geoff Graham:** That was it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There it was. 2005.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Small team of idealists... Large company of idealists.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's according to their own About page right there.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Oh, okay, okay.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Not my words. Alright, so that was... It's always hard to remember whose turn it is. Who said that one?
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** That was mine.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, so we're back to Chris then. Chris, pick a square.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Okay. Tricky CSS Sites for 500.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright. He's going back to the well.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Gotta take the lead here.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** This site shows you CSS alternatives for CommonJS UI components.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Wow... And I have to guess, right?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's correct, you have to guess.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I have to guess... Is it like "You may not need JS", or something like that?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win alert\] Wow... Way to pull it out! Look at this...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Yes...! \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** How did you pull that one out? Excellent job. Alright, Sarah, your turn. Pick a square.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Let's do Project People for 200.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. Another softball - John Resig.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** jQuery.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[15:58\] \[win alert\] There you go. Geoff, it's your turn.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** I knew the last one, too... \[laughter\]
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Jeez... Let's go Project People 300.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. David Heinemeier Hansson.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Basecamp.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Open source projects.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Ruby on Rails?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win alert\] Yes, yes. There you go. Very good. Now we're scooting along. Miriam, your turn.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Movies Worth CSS-ing for 200?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** A young Peruvian bear travels to London in search of a home, in this 2015 animated comedy.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** What is Paddington Bear?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win alert\] You got it. Very good.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Wow...
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Margining-ton... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Chris, your turn.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I'll take Project People for 400.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Dries Buytaert.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Oh, no... And I have to guess again. I'm sorry, Dries, I don't know you. Let's see... Think of a project that's something... Does everybody know it? I feel dumb... MooTools. \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail sound\] I'm sorry, that's incorrect. Sarah, would you like to steal?
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Can I say no?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, you can say no.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Okay, wait, I'm gonna make a guess.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** We did CMSes... What if he's like Drupal?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Drupal? \[win alert\] You got it.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Nice work! You just pulled that out--
+
+**Geoff Graham:** That was nice...!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Wow...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Wow...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I thought you were going further in the red there. Congratulations, that was excellent. Alright. And it's now your turn as well.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Oh, again? Oh, okay. Project People.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright. For 500. Mr.doob.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Oh, yeah...! Mr.doob does Three.js.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win alert\] That's right. Very good.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Wow, I'm pulling it together.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You are, you're on a comeback. You're now tied for second place with 800. Chris has 800, Miriam has a thousand. Geoff, it's your turn.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** I'll take Movies Worth CSS-ing, 400.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** 400... Two powerful mutants (Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr) join together to stop a ruthless dictator from thrusting Russia and the U.S. into nuclear war.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Oh, gosh... It's so showing that I don't watch movies. Jeez... I'm sorry, I'm gonna pass.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. \[fail sound\] Miriam with a chance to steal?
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Let's go with "Who are the X-men?" "Set X-Height Men"?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We're gonna have to say no on that one. You're close, but you're not on.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Alright.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Chris.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I'll pass, because it's X-men related...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes. Sarah?
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** X-men First Class.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** X-men First Class! \[win alert\]
+
+**Chris Coyier:** That's what I was gonna say!! \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Storming back to take the lead. Alright...
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Beautiful.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And that leaves with just Movies Worth CSS-ing for 500. This is Miriam's -- or is this Chris' turn?
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Yeah, that's me, I think.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's you, okay.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Who started the X-men one? That was Geoff, so it's Miriam's turn. Alright, last one on the board for 500 - Steven Spielberg directs Whoopi Goldberg, a black Southern woman struggling to find her identity after suffering abuse from her father and others.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** What is the Color Rebecca Purple?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win alert\] You got it.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Wow...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Wow. Very good.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Well done.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Thus concludes round one. Let's look at the board... We have in first place with 1,200 points Sarah Drasner. Following close behind is Miriam, with 1,100. Chris in third with 800, and Geoff still bleeding after those Bleeding Edge choices, -1,200.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** I sure do.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[19:57\] Don't worry, Geoff, Double Trouble is just around the corner.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** A real comeback for Sarah...
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Yeah, it was amazing, pulling Drupal out...
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Yeah, I was really drowning... \[laughs\]
+
+**Geoff Graham:** That was clutch.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Well done, everyone. Except Geoff. You didn't -- \[laughter\]
+
+**Geoff Graham:** I just hope my boss isn't watching... \[laughter\]
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Don't we all...?
+
+**Break:** \[20:22\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Now, this is Double Trouble... All point values are doubled, so it's a good chance to come back... Or fail terribly. So the first column category is Oh Node You Didn't! These are obviously Node-related questions. The second category is called Framewords. These are CSS frameworks in their own words, so how they describe themselves in their homepage. Actual CSS Tricks - those are hacks that devs have to do to get stuff done... And then the last one is called Divitis. On this one we've taken HTML elements which were semantic, and we've replaced them with divs, and you have to figure out which element it originally was.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Oh, my God...
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** That's cool. Also, Miriam has a leg up on the Framewords category... \[laughs\]
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Do I?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Are you a framework aficionado?
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** I don't know.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** She made one. \[laughs\]
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** I guess that counts...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay... That's one more than I've made... And let's see - we finished off with Miriam, so I guess we'll go back to Chris. Chris, go ahead and get us started with round two.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Okay, let's try Divitis for 200.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright. <div name='please'>Press me</div
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I hope it's a button...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win alert\] You got it. Alright, we go to Sarah.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** I'm gonna try Actual CSS Tricks for 200.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You can use multiple background images and nested divs to achieve the rounding effect possible with this one property.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Rounding effect like -- well, I guess you can't tell me.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Remember that it's a hack, so this is something that people did before the property existed.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** I see. Is it CSS gradient?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail sound\] Nope. Geoff to steal?
+
+**Geoff Graham:** What is border radius?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win alert\] That's it.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Well, I was thinking --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright...
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Good memories of the sliding doors...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, yes...
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Nice.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Geoff began his comeback, and now it's your turn, Geoff. You get to pick a square.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Alright, let's keep digging out... Framewords for 200, please.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Framewords for 200. Simple and flexible HTML, CSS and JavaScript for popular user interface components and interactions. From Twitter.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** What is Bootstrap?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win alert\] There you go. And we go to Miriam.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Let's do Actual CSS Tricks for 400.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Many people aren't clear why this fixes anything, but they reach for it anyways when things don't look right.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Hm... What is c-index?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail sound\] That's a good guess, but not what we were looking for. Chris?
+
+**Chris Coyier:** My guess is that it's a pun, and it's clear. Clearfix.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win alert\] You got it, the clearfix. A lot of these are older because we don't have to do them quite as often as we used to. That was Miriam's turn, so now it's Chris' turn.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Framewords for 1,000.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh my goodness, he's going big. The less formal CSS framework. Its goal is to be as minimal as possible when adding classes.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Adding classes... I don't know. It's not Tailwind, but I'm gonna say Tailwind.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail sound\] That is incorrect.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Their goal is to be as maximal as possible.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, here's where I'll remind people to be careful with the steals, because you can lose a thousand by stealing haphazardly. Sarah, do you know what it is? Would you like to steal?
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Um... Tachyons?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail sound\] Sorry, that's also incorrect. Geoff, would you like to steal?
+
+**Geoff Graham:** I'm gonna go out on a limb, yes...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] Despite all advice, they're just going for it...
+
+**Geoff Graham:** What is PaperCSS?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win alert\] You got it!
+
+**Chris Coyier:** No way...!
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Oh...!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Very good.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Nicely done.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It was an obscure one.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Thank you, thank you.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Sarah, I think...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yup, Sarah, your turn.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** I wanna do Actual CSS Tricks for 800.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, for 800. It used to be a trickier aspect of CSS, but Flexbox and Grid have made it trivial to pull off.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Floats.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail sound\] Not what we were after there... I can see where you've gone there... Geoff, for a steal?
+
+**Geoff Graham:** What is aspect ratio?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Not quite right...
+
+**Geoff Graham:** \[28:10\] No? Shoot...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Miriam.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** I'm gonna go with "What is layout?"
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, that's such a generic thing to say... \[laughter\] Layout. It's a large aspect.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Is it the holy grail?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail sound\] Not what we were looking for. Sorry, it was not what we were looking for. You have to read our minds, as well as get it right.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Just because everybody's risking it all, I'm gonna say columns.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail sound\] Also not what we were looking for.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Oh, nice...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** The question from hell...
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Welcome to the grid, everyone...
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Equal height?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's the thing that everybody complains of all the time - how to center things. Vertically center, horizontally...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Oh... That's fair, that's fair.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Okay.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That might have been too broad of a question, but at least we all got bit by it... Which means it was basically no-op at that point, right? \[laughter\] Okay, who's turn was that? Was it Sarah's turn? It's Geoff's turn.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** It's hard to even see who's winning anymore...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's just blood on the streets... Geoff.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** I'll do Divitis for 400.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright. <div> This text is important, serious, or urgent </div>
+
+**Geoff Graham:** What is -- no, that's not gonna be it. Shoot... What is alert?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail sound\] Nope. Miriam to steal.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** What is <strong>?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win alert\] You got it. <strong> Alright. And it's your turn as well, Miriam. Back in the white.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Yes...! I'll do Divitis again. Let's go with 600.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, Divitis for 600. <div>JSON</div> stands for JavaScript object notation.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** What is <abbr>?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win alert\] You got it again. Very good. It's an abbreviation. Okay, Chris, to you.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I'm so nervous... I'm gonna die. \[laughter\] I want Divitis for 1,000 though.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** He's going for 1,000 each time. Alright. Go big or go home. <div value="70" max="100"
+
+**Chris Coyier:** <progress>
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, you got it. \[win alert\] <progress>
+
+**Geoff Graham:** He knows this one.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well played, sir... And Sarah, your turn.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** I want Framewords for 800.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. This 8bit-like CSS framework is brimming with '80s nostalgia.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** That feels like something I would know... I don't know the answer.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. Geoff, would you like to steal?
+
+**Geoff Graham:** No, thanks.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Miriam to steal?
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Nope.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Chris to steal?
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Too risky.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yup.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** But I'll say, is it the Windows 98-looking one?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's a good second guess. It was actually NES.css... Which is a very cool framework.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Yes, it is cool.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, moving on... It is now Geoff's turn.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Let's take Framewords 600.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I noticed you guys are ignoring the Node category... \[laughter\]
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Absolutely.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Not a surprise. A free open source framework that provides ready-to-use frontend components that you can easily combine to build responsive web interfaces. No CSS knowledge required.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** What is -- oh, geez... Ready-to-use frontend components. This is straight off their homepage, huh?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** This is right off their homepage. They make a big deal out of the end - no CSS knowledge required.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** No CSS knowledge required. Okay... What is Material?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail alert\] I'm sorry, that's incorrect. Miriam? Saying no?
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** No, I don't know.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. Chris, steal?
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Too risky...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Sarah to steal?
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** I'm already in the red, so I'm just gonna keep going... \[laughter\] Is it Prismic?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail alert\] No, sorry. The framework is Bulma.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** \[32:06\] Oh...
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Oh, okay...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There you go. Alright.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I like Bulma, it looks good. It's a nice-looking one.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It does look nice. Marketing copy could use some work maybe... \[laughter\]
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Yeah, because it's like "CSS knowledge helpful."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Whose turn is it?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Let's see... That was Geoff's turn, so Miriam - your turn.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Actual CSS Tricks 600.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. This is the best PLACE for your style rule to ensure it gets applied.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** PLACE is all-caps. Why is PLACE all-caps?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I'll tell you afterwards.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Inline? What is in-line?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win alert\] You got it. I put PLACE in all-caps because you might think bang important is what you would do, but that's not really a place.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Oh, okay. Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So it was kind of a hint.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** It actually did help. I was just thinking of the way people used to write HTML all-caps all the time...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright. Very good, you got it right. Chris, your turn.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I feel like I'm contractually obliged to take Actual CSS Tricks for 1,000.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright... This proprietary Microsoft extension to internet explorer provides a mechanism to turn each of the versions of IE, either specifically or as a group.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I'm gonna say conditional comments.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I'm gonna say you are correct. \[win alert\] Very good.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** It feels good to be number one... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, Sarah, your turn.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Oh Node You Didn't! for 200.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, wading into the Node waters. Miss the browser? This function might console you. It works pretty much the same in Node.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** I mean, this feels too obvious...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It is the easiest in the column.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Alright... Console.log?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win alert\] You got it.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** I'm like, "Is this a trick?" \[laughter\]
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** It sure feels like it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, Geoff, your turn. Pick a square.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Framewords, 400.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** A utility-first framework to rapidly build modern websites without ever leaving your HTML.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** What is Atomic CSS?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail sound\] Incorrect. Miriam to steal?
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** I think you're on the right track. What is Tailwind?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win alert\] That's it.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Thanks, Geoff. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Miriam is benefitting from her placement on the board here. So... Your turn as well.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** I'll take Divitis for 800, because I am not touching Node.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** A common equation in physics is E = MC<div>2</div>
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** What is <sup>?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win alert\] You got it.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I'm jealous.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You avoided my opportunity to say "Not much. Sup with you?" \[laughter\] I've been waiting for it the whole game. Chris, your turn. There's only Node questions left.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I'll get the 600 one. I've got ground to cover.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. He's not going for 1,000 this time around...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** No.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You have to use 'requite' instead of 'import' in Node because it relies on this module system.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** CJS probably? CommonJS?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes, correct. \[win alert\] You got it. Not technically 100% true anymore, but it was true t the time of the writing... Because sometimes you don't have to anymore. Okay. Sarah.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** I'm gonna do Oh Node You Didn't! for 400.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Node.js runs on this JavaScript engine, which is also at the core of Google Chrome.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** It's... God. My brain is -- V8.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[win alert\] That's right. Very good. You guys are drilling the Node questions.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** That's a delicious tomato juice...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Geoff, you've got 800 or 1,000.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** 1,000. Let's do it.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Thanks.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** 'this' in the browser's global scope refers to 'window', but in Node it refers to...
+
+**Geoff Graham:** \[36:03\] What is the document?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Hm... \[laughter\]
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Mercy points, mercy points.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, we'll give it to you. \[laughter\] Module.exports is the current module, so if you're in a document -- there is no document object, but the current module, which would be top-level thing in the current document. So - close enough... We'll give it to you.
+
+Alright... Which leaves Miriam with Oh Node You Didn't! for 800. Here we go!
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Okay.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** If you want to read an environment variable or exit from a Node program, you must use this core module.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Read an environment variable... I think I've done that before... Maybe.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Do you remember the module you've used?
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Nope.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] Okay... Do you wanna hazard a guess, or we'll just subtract the points.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Hm... I think you can just subtract the points.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[fail alert\] Okay. -800. We go to Chris for the steal?
+
+**Chris Coyier:** No...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** A pass?
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I could guess, but I'm absolutely not going to.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. Sarah to steal.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Dotenv?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's close, but incorrect. \[fail alert\] Dotenv is... Yeah. Geoff to steal.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Well, that was what I was gonna guess, so I'm just gonna let it slide.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright. The module is called process.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Ooohh...!
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Okay...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So process.exit, process.env...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Yeah, there you go.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Yeah, okay...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Etc. Thus concludes round two, Double Trouble.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** I'm going down [\laughter\]
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Did your miss make me win? Yes...!!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, the game's not over yet. We still have Final Trouble. The game's not quite over yet, so...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I've gotta go actually, so... Just kidding. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, then Chris loses by forfeit...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I'm taking my chips...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Chris with 2,200 points. Miriam in second with 1,900. Geoff in third now, with -1,000, and Sarah in fourth with -2,400. Now, we're about to play Final Trouble, and for that everybody must have some points to wager. A few of us are in the red, so what we'll do is we will add 3,000 to everybody's score to get Sarah back in the red, and that way it's still even-steven.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** \[laughs\] It's like, "Poor Sarah..."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So let's go ahead and do that, and then we'll start round three right after this.
+
+**Break:** \[38:30\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, we are back for Final Trouble. This is our very last question... A little bit different than the other rounds. Instead of taking turns, everybody is going to wager some points based on the category given. Then we'll show the question. Whoever ends up with the most points at the end is our actual CSS trickster winner.
+
+The category is CSS \*emoji handshake\* R&B. So there's your category. Contestants please submit to me your wager. You can wager up to all of your points, and... That's it. Submit your wagers now.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** This should be in R&B right now...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Here comes the stressy part. I have everybody but Sarah's.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I don't like it. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, all of the wagers are in. Let's reveal our final trouble question. A year before CSS's debut, this chart-topping trio sang this song... \[song sample 00:41:49.03\] We have Jeff's, we have Chris', we have Miriam's...
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Very appropriate choice, by the way...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Thank you. And Sarah is also in. So final results time... Chris, you wagered 4,901... \[laughter\]
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Jeez...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I forgot to mention that our gameboard only works in 50-point values, so...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Oh, sorry... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Good strategy, but illegitimate due to technological hurdles...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I think you know what I was going for there...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes. Your answer was TLC, and that is correct.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Ah, yes!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You got it.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I was gonna write Tender Love & Care, but I'm glad I abbreviated it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Miriam, you wagered 500, and you also answered TLC. Congratulations, you go it right. Geoff wagered 2,000, all of his points, and he answered TLC as well, so you're correct as well... And Sarah wagered all of her points, and she also said TLC. So everybody got the Final Trouble answer right. Congratulations!
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Yay! We're all kind of winners.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** However, there can be only one, and Chris did have the most points, and the highest points at the end... So our winner of this game of JS Danger is the one and only Chris Coyier.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I'm going to Disneyworld! \[laughter\]
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** However, Miriam wasn't too far behind...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, that was a blast. Thank you to all four of you for being such good sports, for playing along, and for all of the web dev knowledge that you guys have shared over the years at CSS-Tricks, and continue to share on a daily basis. We really appreciate the work that you all do over there, and we appreciate you coming on the show and playing JS Danger with us.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Thank you for having us.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** Yeah, thank you.
+
+**Miriam Suzanne:** Thank you so much.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** It was a huge pleasure. Yeah, show my face bigger. \[laughter\]
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Don't we get like a hot dog, or something...? \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, he's hot-dogging alright...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** I'll get $50 off Linode hosting. Just kidding... \[laughter\] Alright...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's JS Party for this week. Thanks everybody for playing along, and we'll talk to you next time.
+
+**Outro:** \[44:33\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Gotta go back and strike that JPEG XL one from the record... \[laughter\] Is that a thing? I don't know...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** It is, but I don't know if it's new... And AVIF is new and has all the press lately.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right... So those I was getting off of -- I was just using Can I Use's blog... Because I figured as they added new things to Can I Use, they are relatively new features...
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Yeah... I don't know if that's true. I do that same thing, and I saw one the other day that was called "overflow overlay", and I was like "What the hell is that?"
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, I saw that too, and I went and looked at it and I was like "This doesn't seem--" And then they're like "This is deprecated." I'm like, "Well, then how is it new?"
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Yeah, they're just adding an old deprecated thing. I'm like, "Oh, good job. Thanks for that. Super-useful."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So JPEG XL image format has zero support. Global zero percent. But does that mean it's -- maybe it's brand stinkin' new. Or maybe it's so old that no one -- maybe it just didn't ever become a thing.
+
+**Geoff Graham:** XL makes it sound like it's huge...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Doesn't it?
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Yeah... it's a terrible name.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It does say "JPEG XL competes with AVIF, which has similar compression quality, but fewer features." So this might be a brand new thing that someone's trying to do... I don't know.
+
+**Sarah Drasner:** Why don't you ask Lea Verou to be on the call?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, that's a good call.
+
+**Chris Coyier:** Alright, should we do it?
++
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git "a/JS Danger\357\274\232 CSS-Tricks Edition_transcript.txt" "b/JS Danger\357\274\232 CSS-Tricks Edition_transcript.txt"
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..51944c90e73cd01f63b03b4e3043369a82caef6b
--- /dev/null
+++ "b/JS Danger\357\274\232 CSS-Tricks Edition_transcript.txt"	
@@ -0,0 +1,1320 @@
+[0.00 --> 4.84]  It used to be a trickier aspect of CSS, but Flexbox and Grid have made it trivial to pull off.
+[5.14 --> 5.58]  Floats.
+[6.86 --> 8.42]  Not what we were after there.
+[9.28 --> 10.90]  I can see where you got this.
+[11.58 --> 13.02]  Jeff, first deal.
+[13.60 --> 14.96]  What is aspect ratio?
+[16.24 --> 17.48]  Not quite, right?
+[18.22 --> 18.70]  Miriam.
+[19.20 --> 20.70]  I'm going to go with what is layout.
+[21.32 --> 22.96]  Well, that's such a generic thing to say.
+[26.96 --> 27.44]  Layout.
+[27.66 --> 28.68]  It's a large aspect.
+[28.68 --> 30.28]  It's the Holy Grail.
+[31.10 --> 32.30]  Not what we're looking for.
+[32.38 --> 32.62]  Sorry.
+[32.92 --> 33.80]  It's not what we're looking for.
+[35.00 --> 36.88]  We have to read our minds as well as get it right.
+[37.72 --> 39.66]  Just because everybody's risking it all.
+[39.72 --> 40.78]  I'm going to say columns.
+[41.56 --> 43.14]  Also not what we're looking for.
+[43.60 --> 44.04]  Nice.
+[44.74 --> 45.98]  It's a question from hell.
+[46.10 --> 46.88]  Welcome, everyone.
+[47.14 --> 48.22]  Welcome to the red.
+[50.12 --> 52.68]  Bandwidth for Change Log is provided by Fastly.
+[52.98 --> 54.86]  Learn more at Fastly.com.
+[55.10 --> 57.40]  Our feature flags are powered by LaunchDarkly.
+[57.40 --> 59.48]  Check them out at LaunchDarkly.com.
+[59.72 --> 61.56]  And we're hosted on Leno cloud servers.
+[61.96 --> 65.46]  Get $100 in hosting credit at Leno.com slash Change Log.
+[65.46 --> 67.66]  What's up, JS Party people?
+[67.78 --> 72.54]  Have you ever wondered if you could be offering a faster, less buggy experience for your customers?
+[73.08 --> 83.76]  Well, with Raygun Error and Performance Monitoring, you have all the information you need at your fingertips to quickly find and fix errors and performance issues across your tech stack down to the line of code.
+[83.76 --> 92.58]  Raygun makes it easy to monitor the impact of your performance improvements, quickly identify issues across web and mobile apps, and see how your code performs in the hands of your customers.
+[93.06 --> 96.64]  This saves you time, this saves you money, and this saves your sanity.
+[97.00 --> 101.60]  Head to Raygun.com to join thousands of customer-centric software teams who use Raygun every single day.
+[101.92 --> 105.78]  Again, Raygun.com to give them a try with a free 14-day trial.
+[105.78 --> 129.50]  This is JS Party, a weekly celebration of JavaScript and the web.
+[129.74 --> 134.02]  Follow the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app.
+[134.02 --> 136.84]  We are also on Twitter at JSParty.fm.
+[136.96 --> 139.10]  And did you know, we have a worldwide website.
+[139.36 --> 144.18]  Dig into the back catalog, comment on episodes, and a whole lot more at JSParty.fm.
+[144.34 --> 146.34]  All right, hey, it's danger time, y'all.
+[151.18 --> 153.62]  Welcome, everyone, to JS Party.
+[153.82 --> 155.90]  I'm Jared Danger Santo.
+[156.46 --> 159.18]  And today we have a very special treat for you.
+[159.88 --> 162.64]  Our Don't Call It Jeopardy game show is back.
+[162.64 --> 165.70]  And we're joined by the team behind CSS Tricks.
+[165.80 --> 168.76]  Maybe you've heard of it, csstricks.com.
+[169.30 --> 171.84]  And they're going to face off and see which one's the best.
+[172.00 --> 172.86]  Chris Coyer is here.
+[172.96 --> 175.04]  Chris, thanks for coming on JS Party.
+[175.48 --> 176.24]  Oh, I can't wait.
+[176.36 --> 177.10]  Thanks for having me.
+[177.72 --> 178.86]  And do you like to live dangerously?
+[179.46 --> 180.62]  That's my middle name.
+[181.58 --> 182.80]  No, that was my middle name.
+[182.86 --> 183.56]  Didn't you hear my intro?
+[184.14 --> 184.60]  Dang it.
+[184.92 --> 187.12]  We also have Sarah Drasner here.
+[187.42 --> 188.94]  Sarah, do you have a competitive spirit?
+[188.94 --> 195.32]  I do, but not as much as Chris, who has broken both of his wrists in the last two years.
+[198.32 --> 199.70]  Chris, how'd you break your wrist, man?
+[200.26 --> 201.72]  I was mountain biking.
+[201.90 --> 204.06]  And I was really just competing against myself, really.
+[204.28 --> 206.86]  And it was my elbows, which I'm not sure if which is worse.
+[207.12 --> 209.68]  But I could type with the elbows thing.
+[209.78 --> 211.34]  So I'm saying it was a little better, maybe.
+[211.90 --> 214.28]  Yeah, and he was putting your articles the whole time.
+[214.28 --> 217.48]  Sounds like you do like to live dangerously after all.
+[217.48 --> 218.60]  Editing those was something else.
+[220.62 --> 222.96]  That voice you hear is Jeff Graham.
+[223.08 --> 223.96]  Jeff, welcome to the show.
+[224.28 --> 224.52]  Hi.
+[224.78 --> 225.28]  Nice to be here.
+[225.72 --> 229.26]  And I've wondered, have you ever considered suing Instagram for a trademark infringement?
+[230.80 --> 231.74]  I think so.
+[232.08 --> 235.18]  Once or twice, but for probably different reasons than you're thinking.
+[236.32 --> 237.76]  What are you thinking?
+[238.84 --> 240.50]  Well, just they're using your name, man.
+[240.60 --> 241.44]  That's your name, Graham.
+[241.66 --> 242.16]  They're using it.
+[242.16 --> 243.52]  Oh, sure.
+[243.52 --> 244.54]  Okay, yeah, yeah.
+[244.94 --> 250.06]  Well, you know, I hold exclusive copyright on the H and the extra A that's in there as well.
+[250.54 --> 251.34]  So I'm all good.
+[252.26 --> 254.86]  And we are also joined by Miriam Suzanne.
+[255.20 --> 255.52]  Hello.
+[255.86 --> 256.28]  Welcome.
+[256.56 --> 257.92]  Did you bring your trivia skills with you?
+[258.40 --> 258.78]  Nope.
+[262.02 --> 267.72]  Well, then you'll fit right in because we are here to have some fun and to play JS Danger.
+[267.92 --> 270.14]  This is very much in the Jeopardy! style.
+[270.14 --> 275.36]  So we will do a round-robin selection of squares from the game board.
+[275.58 --> 278.78]  And there are two rounds and then a final trouble round.
+[278.88 --> 280.42]  First round is called trouble.
+[280.42 --> 283.30]  And there are four categories.
+[283.80 --> 285.40]  Each category has a theme.
+[285.92 --> 288.32]  We will take turns selecting a square.
+[288.70 --> 290.74]  If you get it right, you get the points from that square.
+[290.96 --> 293.92]  If you get it wrong, it goes to the next person in line.
+[294.04 --> 295.28]  They have a chance to steal.
+[295.28 --> 300.16]  So if it's Chris's turn, Sarah will have a chance to steal, then Jeff, then Miriam, and so on.
+[300.78 --> 302.40]  If you steal, you get the points.
+[302.50 --> 305.72]  If you miss the steal, you also go negative.
+[305.94 --> 307.06]  So be careful with the steals.
+[307.80 --> 312.04]  Let's go ahead and take a look at our categories, and I'll describe what their themes are.
+[312.14 --> 314.86]  So the first one is called Project People.
+[314.86 --> 320.70]  And this is where you are trying to match coders with the projects that they started.
+[321.40 --> 324.64]  The second category is called Movies Worth CSSing.
+[325.58 --> 328.90]  These are movies with CSS-related things in their titles.
+[330.80 --> 333.20]  Category three is called Tricky CSS Sites.
+[333.36 --> 338.54]  These are websites that aren't CSS tricks, and yet people still somehow learn CSS from them.
+[338.90 --> 341.28]  The next category is called Bleeding Edge.
+[341.28 --> 344.42]  These are newish browser features.
+[345.62 --> 346.26]  So there you go.
+[346.32 --> 347.50]  Chris, the board is yours.
+[347.62 --> 348.30]  Please pick a square.
+[348.80 --> 349.90]  Oh, I get to kick it off.
+[349.96 --> 350.60]  That's exciting.
+[351.16 --> 353.64]  Oh, I'm going to take Bleeding Edge for 100, please.
+[354.20 --> 355.10]  Bleeding Edge for 100.
+[355.64 --> 359.96]  Some animations can cause dizziness and nausea in people with vestibular disorders.
+[360.52 --> 361.74]  Media queries to the rescue.
+[362.16 --> 364.92]  Do I have to form my answer in the form of a question or whatever?
+[365.18 --> 365.76]  You can try.
+[366.96 --> 369.80]  What is prefers reduced motion?
+[370.64 --> 371.82]  That is correct.
+[373.48 --> 374.80]  100 points to you, sir.
+[374.86 --> 375.66]  Very well played.
+[375.66 --> 377.30]  The snowball is going.
+[377.76 --> 378.02]  Yeah.
+[378.18 --> 378.86]  There you go.
+[379.02 --> 379.50]  Now we're playing.
+[379.60 --> 380.08]  We're having some fun.
+[380.16 --> 380.82]  Sarah, you are up.
+[380.92 --> 381.54]  Please pick a square.
+[382.36 --> 382.80]  Oh.
+[383.74 --> 386.96]  I'm interested in the Movies Worth CSSing for 100.
+[387.54 --> 388.90]  Movies Worth CSSing.
+[389.04 --> 394.30]  Keanu Reeves infiltrates a gang of bank-robbing surfers in this 1991 cult classic.
+[394.90 --> 397.66]  Isn't it breaking...
+[398.20 --> 399.64]  Point Break?
+[400.20 --> 401.14]  Point Break.
+[401.14 --> 403.50]  You pulled it out somehow at the last second.
+[403.92 --> 404.32]  Wow.
+[406.32 --> 406.72]  Incredible.
+[407.60 --> 408.04]  Jeez.
+[408.50 --> 408.90]  Excellent.
+[409.36 --> 409.68]  Excellent.
+[409.78 --> 411.72]  And it was there because Break was in the title?
+[411.94 --> 412.60]  Like...
+[412.60 --> 413.10]  Or what?
+[413.24 --> 413.72]  Or Point?
+[413.86 --> 414.94]  Yeah, like Break Points.
+[415.30 --> 416.36]  Oh, Point Break.
+[416.36 --> 416.68]  Break.
+[416.88 --> 417.64]  There you go.
+[417.98 --> 418.32]  Okay.
+[418.38 --> 419.10]  Thank you.
+[419.50 --> 419.88]  Okay.
+[420.10 --> 420.84]  Jeff, your turn.
+[420.94 --> 421.58]  Please pick a square.
+[421.58 --> 423.78]  I'm going to keep it going right there.
+[423.88 --> 424.92]  Movies Worth CSSing.
+[425.00 --> 425.24]  300.
+[426.18 --> 427.80]  Somehow our squares got mixed up there.
+[427.94 --> 429.38]  300 is in the 200 spot.
+[429.54 --> 430.92]  I'm going to go ahead and blame Nick for that.
+[431.70 --> 435.72]  In the colorful future, even though it's my fault, a cab driver, who is Bruce Willis,
+[435.90 --> 440.08]  unwittingly becomes the central figure in the search for a legendary cosmic weapon to
+[440.08 --> 443.96]  keep evil and Mr. Zorg, played by Gary Oldman, at bay.
+[443.96 --> 446.92]  Oh, good lord.
+[448.80 --> 450.30]  I'm going to have to pass on that one.
+[450.50 --> 451.22]  I have no idea.
+[451.36 --> 452.78]  I'm just not Bruce Willis savvy.
+[453.12 --> 453.52]  Steal.
+[453.90 --> 454.44]  Oh, wait.
+[455.12 --> 455.44]  All right.
+[455.52 --> 457.14]  So pass gets you negative 300.
+[458.02 --> 459.66]  And Miriam gets a chance to steal.
+[460.12 --> 460.70]  Would you like to steal?
+[460.94 --> 462.12]  What is the fifth element?
+[462.66 --> 463.78]  That is correct.
+[463.94 --> 464.16]  Oh!
+[464.88 --> 465.66]  Very good.
+[465.72 --> 466.28]  Very good.
+[466.38 --> 467.32]  A successful steal.
+[467.56 --> 468.06]  Good job.
+[468.32 --> 469.56]  And you now get the board.
+[470.16 --> 473.06]  I guess I'll jump back over to Bleeding Edge for 200.
+[473.96 --> 475.82]  Bleeding Edge for 200.
+[476.56 --> 482.88]  This experimental CSS property allows animations to be driven by a container's scroll position.
+[483.24 --> 486.40]  What is animation scroll timeline?
+[489.38 --> 491.40]  Scroll timeline?
+[491.86 --> 492.76]  Yeah, scroll timeline.
+[492.88 --> 493.44]  We'll give it to you.
+[495.22 --> 496.30]  Very good.
+[497.14 --> 498.28]  I heard animation.
+[498.42 --> 499.16]  I'm like, that's not right.
+[499.22 --> 499.96]  But then you kept talking.
+[500.08 --> 501.10]  I'm like, that sounds pretty good.
+[501.96 --> 502.84]  All right.
+[502.84 --> 503.54]  Very good.
+[503.54 --> 504.68]  So you're in the lead.
+[504.76 --> 505.40]  Looping back around.
+[505.48 --> 506.16]  Chris, it's your turn.
+[506.22 --> 506.84]  Please pick a square.
+[507.46 --> 508.86]  Bleeding Edge for 300, please.
+[508.88 --> 509.30]  All right.
+[509.34 --> 509.78]  Here we go.
+[509.84 --> 511.10]  They're going after the Bleeding Edge.
+[511.60 --> 514.26]  This modern image format is optimized for web environments.
+[514.84 --> 520.30]  It boasts better image compression than WebP, JPEG, PNG, and GIF with a hard G.
+[521.56 --> 522.74]  It's A-V-I-F.
+[524.22 --> 524.88]  I'm sorry.
+[524.96 --> 525.68]  That's incorrect.
+[525.86 --> 527.94]  It may also be true now that I'm thinking about it.
+[527.94 --> 530.22]  But it's not the one that was on the website.
+[530.70 --> 531.06]  Okay.
+[533.76 --> 536.26]  Anybody like to steal a non-AVIF answer?
+[536.92 --> 537.98]  That was my answer.
+[538.52 --> 538.82]  Okay.
+[538.92 --> 539.32]  Mine too.
+[539.96 --> 541.14]  Maybe you guys can school me.
+[541.32 --> 546.16]  So this was according to caniuse.com, and the feature's called JPEG XL.
+[546.82 --> 547.06]  Oh.
+[547.62 --> 548.22]  Is anybody familiar?
+[548.22 --> 548.64]  Ooh.
+[549.48 --> 551.14]  My answer's more right.
+[551.14 --> 553.32]  All right.
+[553.54 --> 554.66]  I'm going to defer to Chris.
+[554.76 --> 555.96]  Let's go ahead and give him the points.
+[557.98 --> 560.22]  Because you're probably more right than I am.
+[561.50 --> 562.66]  Thank you very much.
+[563.12 --> 563.84]  I'm not cheating.
+[564.10 --> 565.00]  I'm really right.
+[565.24 --> 565.56]  Okay.
+[566.68 --> 567.38]  I agree.
+[567.48 --> 567.84]  I agree.
+[568.38 --> 569.24]  Everybody agrees?
+[569.40 --> 570.12]  He got it right.
+[570.32 --> 570.68]  All right.
+[572.12 --> 576.12]  What's funny is we were test driving this before the show, and Nick also went through these
+[576.12 --> 576.44]  questions.
+[576.54 --> 577.88]  And he also said A-V-I-F.
+[577.88 --> 580.72]  So that's why I was like, hmm, maybe I got it wrong there.
+[581.14 --> 582.18]  All right.
+[582.52 --> 583.38]  Sarah, your turn.
+[584.62 --> 588.12]  I want to do tricky CSS sites for 100.
+[588.12 --> 588.32]  All right.
+[588.90 --> 589.86]  For 100.
+[591.28 --> 595.26]  Often atop CSS-related search results, but that doesn't mean devs love it.
+[595.90 --> 596.50]  Ooh.
+[596.88 --> 598.66]  I can picture it in my mind.
+[600.00 --> 601.72]  The green site.
+[605.16 --> 605.80]  Green.
+[607.60 --> 608.12]  Oh.
+[608.98 --> 609.54]  Oh.
+[609.74 --> 610.40]  Time to out.
+[611.14 --> 611.70]  Sorry.
+[612.18 --> 612.96]  Tip of your tongue.
+[613.14 --> 615.30]  Jeff, do you know what site we're referring to?
+[616.26 --> 617.76]  What is W3 schools?
+[619.50 --> 619.90]  Yes.
+[620.04 --> 620.96]  That's it.
+[621.80 --> 622.70]  Go on.
+[623.42 --> 625.40]  I'm picturing it in my mind.
+[626.20 --> 626.50]  Yes.
+[626.56 --> 628.08]  We all have it burnt into our retinas.
+[628.30 --> 628.92]  You got green.
+[629.06 --> 629.70]  That's absolutely.
+[630.44 --> 630.68]  Yeah.
+[631.20 --> 631.82]  Okay, Jeff.
+[631.84 --> 632.18]  Your turn.
+[632.26 --> 632.86]  Please pick a square.
+[633.46 --> 633.68]  Oh.
+[634.28 --> 635.04]  Leading Edge 400.
+[635.64 --> 636.44]  Leading Edge for 400.
+[636.44 --> 642.46]  The new cookie store API has a more modern interface than document.cookie and can also be used in these.
+[643.32 --> 647.36]  What is custom properties?
+[647.36 --> 649.82]  I'm sorry.
+[649.90 --> 650.68]  That's incorrect.
+[651.00 --> 651.88]  Miriam, would you like to steal?
+[652.84 --> 653.24]  No.
+[653.72 --> 654.32]  I would not.
+[654.66 --> 655.52]  Chris, would you like to steal?
+[656.18 --> 656.52]  No.
+[656.52 --> 656.78]  I don't know.
+[656.84 --> 658.42]  I don't really understand the question.
+[658.68 --> 658.92]  Okay.
+[659.26 --> 659.74]  That's fine.
+[660.00 --> 660.18]  Skip.
+[660.44 --> 660.78]  Skip.
+[660.88 --> 661.64]  Sarah, would you like to steal?
+[662.14 --> 664.86]  We're not talking about local storage, are we?
+[665.84 --> 667.48]  Is that a steal or a question?
+[670.04 --> 672.62]  I'm not supposed to tell you that until you submit a steal.
+[673.66 --> 675.74]  I would say probably skip the steal, maybe.
+[679.70 --> 680.60]  Nobody is stealing.
+[680.74 --> 682.22]  Let's go ahead and show the answer.
+[682.38 --> 684.00]  They can also be used in service.
+[684.06 --> 684.76]  Was it a web worker?
+[684.76 --> 685.86]  Oh, a service.
+[686.04 --> 686.18]  Yeah.
+[686.90 --> 687.58]  Tough one.
+[688.02 --> 690.50]  Jeff, so far, selecting the difficult ones.
+[690.64 --> 691.16]  Let's move on.
+[691.16 --> 693.48]  So you can't use a regular cookie in a service worker.
+[693.72 --> 694.20]  TIL.
+[694.76 --> 695.16]  Go ahead.
+[695.88 --> 696.60]  Miriam, your turn.
+[696.68 --> 698.16]  Please select a category.
+[698.66 --> 701.94]  Let's do tricky CSS sites for 200.
+[702.44 --> 702.84]  Okay.
+[703.40 --> 706.92]  Browser support tables for modern web technologies, including CSS.
+[707.58 --> 708.90]  What is can I use?
+[709.72 --> 710.64]  You got it.
+[711.74 --> 712.82]  And or MDN.
+[715.56 --> 717.36]  There's some crossover there now, isn't there?
+[718.24 --> 718.78]  All right.
+[718.84 --> 719.56]  You got that one.
+[719.62 --> 720.68]  We're back to Chris.
+[721.16 --> 723.94]  I'll take tricky CSS sites for 300.
+[724.20 --> 724.58]  Okay.
+[724.72 --> 725.28]  Here we go.
+[726.06 --> 729.90]  This site demonstrates what can be accomplished by only changing the CSS.
+[730.72 --> 731.44]  Oh, yeah.
+[731.56 --> 732.66]  The Zen Garden.
+[733.16 --> 734.08]  CSS Zen Garden.
+[734.94 --> 735.74]  That's right.
+[736.50 --> 739.20]  Well, that's like one for us old friends.
+[739.20 --> 740.74]  That is an old school, isn't it?
+[741.44 --> 741.66]  Yeah.
+[741.66 --> 743.66]  There's a new version of it.
+[744.06 --> 745.30]  Style Stages.
+[745.80 --> 746.04]  Really?
+[746.04 --> 746.14]  Oh.
+[746.86 --> 747.26]  Yeah.
+[747.82 --> 749.86]  By, is it Stephanie behind that?
+[750.06 --> 750.74]  Stephanie Yaggles?
+[751.26 --> 751.66]  Nice.
+[752.10 --> 752.88]  I'll have to check that out.
+[752.94 --> 756.70]  There's a, they kind of like re, revitalized the Zen Garden too at one point.
+[756.74 --> 759.12]  And you could like actually like submit pull requests to it instead.
+[759.22 --> 760.04]  Oh, oh, sorry.
+[761.04 --> 762.02]  Let's get back to the game.
+[762.56 --> 762.82]  Not yet.
+[762.82 --> 763.04]  Cool.
+[763.42 --> 764.14]  We can chit chat.
+[764.24 --> 764.62]  No big deal.
+[765.26 --> 765.54]  Okay.
+[765.60 --> 766.36]  Whose turn was that?
+[766.50 --> 767.38]  I think I'm next.
+[767.58 --> 767.82]  Maybe.
+[768.60 --> 769.72]  Miriam just got it right.
+[769.78 --> 770.02]  Right?
+[770.14 --> 770.36]  Okay.
+[770.46 --> 771.30]  So back to Chris then.
+[771.52 --> 772.98]  Or no, I, I got it right.
+[772.98 --> 773.88]  Or you got that right.
+[774.00 --> 774.64]  So Sarah's turn.
+[774.64 --> 774.84]  Oh, I got it.
+[775.08 --> 775.68]  Very good.
+[775.76 --> 775.94]  Okay.
+[776.04 --> 776.68]  Sarah was correct.
+[777.86 --> 779.68]  God, Chris just trying to feel.
+[779.84 --> 780.50]  I really.
+[782.78 --> 784.64]  We haven't done Project People yet.
+[784.74 --> 785.74]  So I'll do that one for.
+[785.80 --> 786.46]  All right.
+[787.42 --> 788.54]  Matt Molenweg.
+[789.54 --> 789.74]  WordPress.
+[790.52 --> 791.12]  Very good.
+[792.32 --> 794.70]  That feels like a softball.
+[795.24 --> 797.08]  Well, that is a 100 point question.
+[797.84 --> 798.50]  Yeah, that's true.
+[799.34 --> 799.78]  Okay.
+[800.02 --> 800.46]  Jeff.
+[801.36 --> 802.70]  It's going to keep going in the red.
+[803.00 --> 803.76]  Bleeding Edge 500.
+[804.36 --> 805.40]  It kind of likes to bleed.
+[805.48 --> 806.02]  What can we say?
+[807.40 --> 814.10]  This CSS property sets whether an element's background extends underneath its border box, padding box, or content box.
+[814.78 --> 816.48]  What is border box?
+[817.60 --> 818.16]  Oh, I mean.
+[819.38 --> 819.82]  No.
+[820.10 --> 820.74]  Go ahead and.
+[820.80 --> 821.54]  You can change it.
+[821.72 --> 822.40]  You have a better guess?
+[822.68 --> 823.02]  No.
+[823.08 --> 824.08]  Go right ahead.
+[825.36 --> 825.98]  All right.
+[826.02 --> 826.54]  Sorry, Jeff.
+[826.78 --> 827.84]  Go further in the red.
+[828.08 --> 828.76]  Miriam for the steal.
+[828.76 --> 830.74]  What is background clip?
+[832.70 --> 833.46]  That's correct.
+[834.14 --> 835.42]  Thanks for that, Jeff.
+[835.42 --> 838.08]  Miriam is the benefactor of Jeff.
+[838.08 --> 840.14]  First debuted in 1997.
+[840.14 --> 843.54]  That's why it was new-ish.
+[845.32 --> 845.98]  Fair enough.
+[846.06 --> 846.40]  Fair enough.
+[847.10 --> 849.04]  That was Jeff's turn, so it's Miriam's turn.
+[850.66 --> 851.52]  Yeah, okay.
+[852.16 --> 853.78]  Tricky CSS sites for 400.
+[853.78 --> 860.78]  Launched in 2005 when a small team of idealists set out to create a new free community-built online resource for all web developers.
+[861.60 --> 863.72]  What is web platform docs?
+[865.20 --> 865.64]  No.
+[866.42 --> 866.60]  Hmm.
+[867.08 --> 867.36]  Hmm.
+[867.46 --> 867.78]  Chris.
+[868.76 --> 870.68]  I'm not going to steal because that was my guess.
+[871.16 --> 871.60]  Okay.
+[871.88 --> 872.26]  Sarah.
+[872.60 --> 875.56]  This may be too late to be accurate, but GeoCities?
+[877.24 --> 877.88]  I'm sorry.
+[877.96 --> 878.94]  That's not correct either.
+[879.04 --> 879.34]  Jeff.
+[881.34 --> 882.28]  Dig out of that hole?
+[882.28 --> 882.36]  Okay.
+[884.74 --> 890.10]  I have a guess, but I kind of like that someone's joining me in the red, so I'm just going to leave it.
+[891.68 --> 892.08]  Okay.
+[892.38 --> 893.66]  Let's see what the answer was.
+[895.36 --> 896.10]  Oh, NBN.
+[896.58 --> 898.10]  That was it.
+[898.50 --> 899.14]  There it was.
+[899.50 --> 899.94]  2005.
+[900.40 --> 901.48]  It's been that long ago.
+[901.48 --> 902.22]  Idealists.
+[902.82 --> 904.30]  Large company of Idealists.
+[904.46 --> 906.58]  That's according to their own about page right there.
+[906.64 --> 906.94]  Okay.
+[907.14 --> 907.32]  Okay.
+[907.62 --> 908.52]  Those are not my words.
+[909.32 --> 909.76]  All right.
+[909.88 --> 912.88]  So that was, it's always hard to remember whose turn it is.
+[912.94 --> 913.86]  Who said that one?
+[914.88 --> 915.58]  Oh, that was mine.
+[915.74 --> 915.98]  All right.
+[916.02 --> 916.78]  So we're back to Chris.
+[917.44 --> 917.74]  Chris.
+[917.82 --> 918.06]  Okay.
+[918.06 --> 920.10]  Tricky CSS sites for 500.
+[920.32 --> 920.72]  All right.
+[920.78 --> 921.60]  He's going back to the well.
+[921.66 --> 922.74]  Got to take the lead here.
+[923.50 --> 927.70]  This site shows you CSS alternatives for common JS UI components.
+[928.16 --> 928.52]  Oh.
+[931.06 --> 932.68]  And I have to guess, right?
+[932.76 --> 933.40]  That's correct.
+[933.52 --> 934.20]  You have to guess.
+[934.52 --> 935.50]  I have to guess.
+[935.50 --> 940.46]  Is it like, you may not need JS or something like that?
+[940.54 --> 941.44]  You don't need JS.
+[941.44 --> 941.92]  Wow.
+[942.24 --> 943.18]  Way to pull it out.
+[943.32 --> 943.86]  Look at this.
+[944.08 --> 944.18]  Yes.
+[944.98 --> 948.26]  How did you pull that one out?
+[948.34 --> 949.14]  Excellent job.
+[949.94 --> 951.06]  All right, Sarah, your turn.
+[951.18 --> 951.84]  Pick a square.
+[952.72 --> 954.50]  Let's do Project People for 200.
+[954.92 --> 955.42]  Okay.
+[956.54 --> 957.54]  Another softball.
+[957.70 --> 958.46]  John Rezig.
+[959.20 --> 959.96]  Jake Rezig.
+[961.52 --> 962.40]  There you go.
+[963.06 --> 963.96]  Jeff, it's your turn.
+[963.96 --> 965.60]  I knew the last one too.
+[969.28 --> 969.84]  Jeez.
+[970.22 --> 971.54]  Let's go Project People 300.
+[972.42 --> 972.76]  Okay.
+[974.12 --> 975.52]  David Hennemeyer Hansen.
+[976.14 --> 977.08]  That was a base camp.
+[977.98 --> 979.26]  Open source project.
+[979.64 --> 980.66]  Ruby on Rails?
+[981.58 --> 982.14]  Yes.
+[982.22 --> 982.44]  Yes.
+[982.50 --> 983.02]  There you go.
+[984.62 --> 985.52]  Very good.
+[986.96 --> 988.00]  Now we're scooting along.
+[988.10 --> 988.74]  Miriam, your turn.
+[989.12 --> 990.88]  Movies worth CSSing for 200.
+[990.88 --> 998.20]  A young Peruvian bear travels to London in search of a home in this 2015 animated comedy.
+[999.60 --> 1000.92]  What is Paddington bear?
+[1002.48 --> 1003.60]  You got it.
+[1003.68 --> 1004.18]  Very good.
+[1004.86 --> 1005.24]  Wow.
+[1005.64 --> 1007.06]  Marginnington.
+[1007.06 --> 1014.20]  Chris, your turn.
+[1015.62 --> 1017.74]  I'll take Project People for 400.
+[1018.62 --> 1020.26]  Drys Boytart.
+[1020.94 --> 1021.76]  Oh, no.
+[1021.98 --> 1023.28]  And I have to guess again.
+[1023.56 --> 1024.84]  I'm sorry, Drys.
+[1024.88 --> 1025.76]  I don't know you.
+[1026.10 --> 1026.48]  Let's see.
+[1026.60 --> 1027.46]  Think of Project.
+[1028.20 --> 1029.40]  That's something.
+[1030.94 --> 1032.30]  Oh, does everybody know it?
+[1032.30 --> 1033.02]  I feel dumb.
+[1034.30 --> 1035.24]  It's MooTools.
+[1035.24 --> 1038.36]  I'm sorry.
+[1038.46 --> 1038.96]  That's incorrect.
+[1039.96 --> 1041.26]  Sarah, would you like to steal?
+[1041.78 --> 1042.56]  Can I say no?
+[1043.02 --> 1043.66]  You can say no.
+[1043.82 --> 1044.54]  Yeah, you can say no.
+[1044.72 --> 1045.18]  Okay, wait, wait.
+[1045.26 --> 1046.26]  I'm going to make a guess.
+[1046.66 --> 1046.86]  Okay.
+[1047.80 --> 1049.16]  We did CMSs.
+[1049.70 --> 1051.16]  What if he's like Drupal?
+[1051.62 --> 1052.04]  Drupal?
+[1053.96 --> 1054.88]  You got it.
+[1055.64 --> 1056.44]  Nice work.
+[1056.68 --> 1057.46]  You just came up.
+[1057.72 --> 1058.70]  That was nice.
+[1059.28 --> 1059.64]  Wow.
+[1060.28 --> 1060.64]  Wow.
+[1061.14 --> 1062.58]  I thought you were going further in the red there.
+[1062.90 --> 1063.30]  Congratulations.
+[1063.46 --> 1063.96]  That was excellent.
+[1063.96 --> 1064.84]  All right.
+[1064.94 --> 1066.12]  And it's now your turn as well.
+[1067.10 --> 1067.76]  Oh, again.
+[1067.98 --> 1068.38]  Oh, okay.
+[1068.70 --> 1069.00]  Oof.
+[1069.22 --> 1069.84]  Project People.
+[1070.58 --> 1071.10]  All right.
+[1071.54 --> 1073.82]  For 500, Mr. Doob.
+[1074.04 --> 1074.62]  Oh, yeah.
+[1075.18 --> 1077.02]  Mr. Doob does 3JS.
+[1078.26 --> 1079.16]  That's right.
+[1079.64 --> 1079.96]  Wow.
+[1080.14 --> 1080.56]  Very good.
+[1080.62 --> 1081.88]  I'm pulling it together.
+[1082.40 --> 1082.50]  You are.
+[1082.68 --> 1083.38]  You're on the come back.
+[1083.48 --> 1085.42]  You're now tied for second place with 800.
+[1085.56 --> 1086.26]  Chris has 800.
+[1086.46 --> 1087.42]  Miriam has 1,000.
+[1087.86 --> 1088.52]  Jeff, it's your turn.
+[1088.78 --> 1089.70]  I'll take Movies Worth.
+[1089.82 --> 1090.74]  Yes, I've seen 400.
+[1090.74 --> 1091.14]  400.
+[1091.14 --> 1091.70]  400.
+[1092.36 --> 1097.18]  Two powerful mutants, Charles Xavier and Eric Lencher, joined together to stop a ruthless
+[1097.18 --> 1101.16]  dictator from thrusting Russia and the U.S. into nuclear war.
+[1101.52 --> 1102.88]  Oh, gosh.
+[1104.68 --> 1107.20]  It's like so showing that I don't watch movies.
+[1107.90 --> 1108.38]  Ah.
+[1109.96 --> 1110.48]  Jeez.
+[1110.76 --> 1111.42]  I'm sorry.
+[1111.52 --> 1112.02]  I'm going to pass.
+[1112.40 --> 1112.80]  Okay.
+[1113.92 --> 1115.14]  Miriam with a chance to steal.
+[1115.14 --> 1118.68]  Let's go with who are the X-Men.
+[1119.32 --> 1121.06]  Is that X-Height Men?
+[1123.52 --> 1126.26]  We're going to have to say no on that one.
+[1126.32 --> 1127.38]  You're close, but you're not.
+[1127.66 --> 1128.24]  You're not on.
+[1129.20 --> 1129.60]  Chris.
+[1131.04 --> 1133.82]  That's going to pass because it's X-Men related.
+[1134.22 --> 1134.48]  Yeah.
+[1134.60 --> 1134.88]  Sarah.
+[1135.60 --> 1136.84]  X-Men First Class.
+[1136.92 --> 1137.76]  X-Men First Class.
+[1138.32 --> 1139.34]  That's what I was going to say.
+[1139.34 --> 1139.62]  Whoa.
+[1143.24 --> 1144.96]  Storming back to take the lead.
+[1145.98 --> 1146.48]  All right.
+[1146.48 --> 1146.78]  Incredible.
+[1147.20 --> 1150.24]  And that leaves us with just movies worth CSSing for 500.
+[1150.40 --> 1153.24]  This is Miriam's turn, or is this Chris's turn?
+[1153.24 --> 1153.58]  Yeah.
+[1153.72 --> 1154.68]  Yeah, that's me, I think.
+[1154.70 --> 1155.08]  That's you.
+[1155.22 --> 1155.32]  Okay.
+[1156.42 --> 1156.64]  Yeah.
+[1157.30 --> 1158.30]  Who started the X-Men one?
+[1158.44 --> 1159.86]  That was Jeff.
+[1159.88 --> 1160.08]  Jeff.
+[1160.08 --> 1161.32]  Yeah, so it's Miriam's turn.
+[1162.24 --> 1162.88]  All right.
+[1162.94 --> 1164.32]  Last one on the board for round one.
+[1164.42 --> 1168.74]  Steven Spielberg directs Whoopi Goldberg, a black Southern woman struggling to find her identity
+[1168.74 --> 1171.52]  after suffering abuse from her father and others.
+[1171.90 --> 1173.66]  What is the color Rebecca Purple?
+[1175.14 --> 1176.16]  You got it.
+[1176.72 --> 1177.26]  Wow.
+[1177.56 --> 1178.08]  Wow.
+[1178.38 --> 1178.98]  Very good.
+[1179.18 --> 1179.72]  Well done.
+[1180.72 --> 1182.90]  Thus concludes round one.
+[1183.60 --> 1184.48]  Let's look at the board.
+[1185.30 --> 1188.78]  We have in first place with 1,200 points, Sarah Drasner.
+[1189.78 --> 1192.16]  Following close behind is Miriam with 1,100.
+[1192.92 --> 1194.40]  Chris in third with 800.
+[1194.88 --> 1198.30]  And Jeff still bleeding after those bleeding edge choices.
+[1198.70 --> 1199.70]  Negative 1,200.
+[1199.70 --> 1200.52]  Don't worry, Jeff.
+[1201.02 --> 1202.68]  Double troubles just around the corner.
+[1203.48 --> 1205.04]  A real comeback for Sarah.
+[1205.86 --> 1206.34]  Yeah.
+[1206.34 --> 1206.92]  That was amazing.
+[1207.16 --> 1208.08]  Pulling Jerupo out.
+[1210.16 --> 1211.24]  That was clutch.
+[1212.04 --> 1212.88]  Well done, everyone.
+[1213.52 --> 1214.10]  Except Jeff.
+[1214.28 --> 1214.46]  You didn't.
+[1217.04 --> 1219.52]  I just hope my boss isn't watching.
+[1219.52 --> 1223.64]  Don't we all.
+[1223.64 --> 1224.50]  We all.
+[1224.50 --> 1225.12]  I love you.
+[1238.18 --> 1241.20]  This episode is brought to you by Sourcegraph.
+[1241.60 --> 1244.08]  Sourcegraph is code search for every developer and team.
+[1244.34 --> 1247.58]  Easily search across all the code that matters to you and your organization.
+[1248.02 --> 1248.98]  Find example code.
+[1249.22 --> 1250.30]  Explore and read code.
+[1250.56 --> 1251.40]  Debug issues.
+[1251.40 --> 1252.60]  and so much more.
+[1252.88 --> 1255.72]  And I talked with Byung Liu, CTO and co-founder of Sourcegraph
+[1255.72 --> 1258.42]  and asked him to share what code search is,
+[1258.56 --> 1260.76]  what developers and teams are missing out on
+[1260.76 --> 1262.62]  and how Sourcegraph provides code search
+[1262.62 --> 1263.94]  to every developer in the world.
+[1264.22 --> 1266.96]  If you've worked inside a Google or a Facebook
+[1266.96 --> 1269.20]  or any one of these really big,
+[1269.42 --> 1271.38]  well-respected technology companies,
+[1271.52 --> 1274.10]  chances are you've used something like code search before
+[1274.10 --> 1276.72]  and you know the value that it provides to your team.
+[1276.78 --> 1278.72]  You know that almost every single engineer
+[1278.72 --> 1282.26]  inside these organizations uses it on a daily basis.
+[1282.46 --> 1284.16]  If you've never had that experience,
+[1284.50 --> 1287.16]  chances are you may not know what you're missing out on.
+[1287.40 --> 1289.96]  You know, the term code search sounds a lot like,
+[1289.96 --> 1292.18]  you know, grep or the search inside your editor
+[1292.18 --> 1293.64]  and that's what a lot of people think
+[1293.64 --> 1294.54]  when they first hear it.
+[1294.60 --> 1296.30]  But it's really about much more than that.
+[1296.40 --> 1298.74]  It's really about connecting you as a developer
+[1298.74 --> 1302.46]  to the broader universe of code and code-related data
+[1302.46 --> 1305.12]  that's relevant to you, that you need at hand
+[1305.12 --> 1307.38]  in order to enter that, you know, magical flow state
+[1307.38 --> 1309.06]  of, you know, being in your editor,
+[1309.56 --> 1312.22]  writing code quickly, making rapid progress
+[1312.22 --> 1314.10]  towards that feature bug fix that you're working on.
+[1314.22 --> 1316.20]  It's really about making all that contextual information
+[1316.20 --> 1318.34]  accessible at your fingertips.
+[1318.80 --> 1319.86]  And what that means is,
+[1319.96 --> 1321.48]  think about every single repository,
+[1321.66 --> 1324.14]  every single file and every single language,
+[1324.48 --> 1325.74]  every single diff
+[1325.74 --> 1328.38]  and every single open source dependency
+[1328.38 --> 1330.04]  or maybe closed source dependency
+[1330.04 --> 1331.48]  that's shared across your organization.
+[1331.48 --> 1334.30]  All that is searchable through a single text box.
+[1334.80 --> 1335.62]  And that's really powerful
+[1335.62 --> 1337.98]  because it means all this friction is eliminated
+[1337.98 --> 1339.40]  between you and understanding
+[1339.40 --> 1340.40]  that broader world of code.
+[1340.50 --> 1342.14]  You don't have to clone stuff down to your local machine.
+[1342.28 --> 1343.98]  You don't have to mess around with editor config.
+[1344.40 --> 1346.34]  You don't have to be constantly bugging
+[1346.34 --> 1347.64]  people on other teams
+[1347.64 --> 1349.40]  who may not even know who you are
+[1349.40 --> 1351.18]  in order to teach yourself
+[1351.18 --> 1352.84]  how all that code works.
+[1353.24 --> 1354.30]  What Sourcegraph is,
+[1354.30 --> 1357.44]  is really a way for the rest of us,
+[1357.50 --> 1358.76]  the people who don't work inside
+[1358.76 --> 1360.50]  the Googles, the Facebooks,
+[1360.50 --> 1362.88]  to get a tool that gives us access
+[1362.88 --> 1365.64]  to that sort of information readily
+[1365.64 --> 1366.82]  and at our fingertips.
+[1366.82 --> 1369.26]  It's really about bringing this type of tool
+[1369.26 --> 1371.22]  that a lot of the larger technology companies
+[1371.22 --> 1372.48]  have developed and invested
+[1372.48 --> 1373.96]  hundreds of millions of dollars
+[1373.96 --> 1375.92]  into making for the productivity
+[1375.92 --> 1376.80]  of their own engineers
+[1376.80 --> 1378.14]  and making that accessible
+[1378.14 --> 1380.12]  to every single developer in the world.
+[1380.30 --> 1380.78]  All right.
+[1380.80 --> 1382.10]  If CodeSearch powered by Sourcegraph
+[1382.10 --> 1384.04]  sounds like something you and your team can use,
+[1384.16 --> 1385.98]  head to info.sourcegraph.com
+[1385.98 --> 1386.88]  slash changelog
+[1386.88 --> 1387.98]  and click the button that says
+[1387.98 --> 1389.04]  try Sourcegraph now.
+[1389.24 --> 1390.18]  You can install it locally,
+[1390.50 --> 1391.38]  deploy it to a server,
+[1391.38 --> 1392.38]  or to a cluster.
+[1392.76 --> 1393.54]  They have a quick start guide
+[1393.54 --> 1394.54]  that takes less than five minutes
+[1394.54 --> 1396.02]  to install Sourcegraph using Docker,
+[1396.18 --> 1397.84]  so it's too easy to give it a try.
+[1398.10 --> 1400.42]  Again, head to info.sourcegraph.com
+[1400.42 --> 1401.48]  slash changelog.
+[1421.38 --> 1428.86]  Now this is double trouble.
+[1429.02 --> 1431.20]  All point values are doubled,
+[1431.64 --> 1433.62]  so it's a good chance to come back
+[1433.62 --> 1435.68]  or fail terribly.
+[1436.68 --> 1439.46]  So the first column category is,
+[1439.62 --> 1440.72]  oh, node, you didn't.
+[1440.88 --> 1443.24]  These are obviously node-related questions.
+[1443.82 --> 1445.90]  The second category is called frameworks.
+[1445.90 --> 1449.84]  These are CSS frameworks in their own words,
+[1450.06 --> 1452.40]  so how they describe themselves in their homepage.
+[1453.92 --> 1455.28]  Actual CSS tricks,
+[1455.42 --> 1456.58]  those are, you know,
+[1456.70 --> 1458.60]  hacks that devs have to do to get stuff done.
+[1459.16 --> 1461.14]  And then the last one is called divitis.
+[1462.00 --> 1462.58]  On this one,
+[1462.64 --> 1465.52]  we've taken HTML elements,
+[1465.96 --> 1467.96]  which were semantic,
+[1468.18 --> 1469.48]  and we've replaced them with divs,
+[1469.50 --> 1470.84]  and you have to figure out
+[1470.84 --> 1472.42]  which element it originally was.
+[1472.42 --> 1473.72]  Oh, my God.
+[1473.88 --> 1474.74]  That's cool.
+[1475.54 --> 1476.86]  Also, Miriam has a leg up
+[1476.86 --> 1478.50]  on the frameworks category.
+[1479.44 --> 1480.16]  Do I?
+[1481.46 --> 1483.56]  You a framework aficionado?
+[1483.78 --> 1484.34]  I don't know.
+[1484.76 --> 1485.60]  She made one.
+[1486.14 --> 1488.02]  I guess that counts.
+[1488.38 --> 1488.70]  Okay.
+[1489.38 --> 1490.64]  That's one more than I've made.
+[1492.00 --> 1492.60]  And let's see.
+[1492.64 --> 1493.46]  We finished off with Miriam,
+[1493.58 --> 1495.08]  so I guess we'll go back to Chris.
+[1495.22 --> 1496.20]  Chris, go ahead and get a start.
+[1496.28 --> 1496.60]  Round two.
+[1497.28 --> 1499.32]  Okay, let's try divitis for 200.
+[1499.32 --> 1500.16]  All right.
+[1500.16 --> 1503.18]  So, div, name equals please.
+[1503.48 --> 1504.60]  Press me, end div.
+[1505.88 --> 1506.96]  I hope it's a button.
+[1508.24 --> 1509.40]  You got it.
+[1510.10 --> 1511.20]  All right, we go to Sarah.
+[1511.80 --> 1516.32]  I'm going to try actual CSS tricks for 200.
+[1516.74 --> 1519.10]  You can use multiple background images
+[1519.10 --> 1521.82]  and nested divs to achieve the rounding effect
+[1521.82 --> 1523.60]  possible with this one property.
+[1524.26 --> 1525.62]  Rounding effect like,
+[1526.42 --> 1528.32]  well, I guess you can't tell me.
+[1528.52 --> 1529.98]  Remember that it's a hack,
+[1529.98 --> 1531.74]  so this is something that people did
+[1531.74 --> 1533.02]  before the property existed.
+[1534.02 --> 1534.32]  I see.
+[1534.88 --> 1535.84]  Is it CSS gradient?
+[1537.24 --> 1537.68]  Nope.
+[1538.18 --> 1538.74]  Jeff to steal.
+[1539.54 --> 1540.60]  What is border radius?
+[1542.34 --> 1542.98]  That's it.
+[1543.60 --> 1544.60]  Oh, I was thinking.
+[1545.14 --> 1545.60]  All right.
+[1545.62 --> 1547.18]  Good memories of the sliding doors.
+[1547.74 --> 1548.32]  Oh, yes.
+[1548.70 --> 1549.10]  Nice.
+[1549.82 --> 1550.94]  Jeff began his comeback,
+[1551.16 --> 1552.04]  and now your turn, Jeff.
+[1552.10 --> 1553.40]  You get to pick a square.
+[1553.40 --> 1554.42]  All right.
+[1554.50 --> 1555.74]  Let's keep digging out.
+[1556.16 --> 1557.14]  Frame words for 200, please.
+[1557.52 --> 1558.68]  Frame words for 200.
+[1558.68 --> 1560.72]  Simple and flexible HTML.
+[1560.86 --> 1561.90]  CSS is on JavaScript
+[1561.90 --> 1563.88]  for popular user interface components
+[1563.88 --> 1564.70]  and interactions.
+[1565.22 --> 1566.10]  From Twitter.
+[1567.08 --> 1568.22]  What is bootstrap?
+[1569.74 --> 1570.70]  There you go.
+[1571.46 --> 1572.34]  And we go to Miriam.
+[1573.12 --> 1575.54]  Let's do actual CSS tricks for 400.
+[1576.26 --> 1577.52]  Many people aren't clear
+[1577.52 --> 1578.96]  why this fixes anything,
+[1579.28 --> 1580.50]  but they reach for it anyways
+[1580.50 --> 1581.56]  when things don't look right.
+[1582.26 --> 1582.60]  Hmm.
+[1583.56 --> 1584.90]  What is C index?
+[1584.90 --> 1586.92]  That's a good guess,
+[1587.00 --> 1588.06]  but not what we're looking for.
+[1588.64 --> 1588.92]  Chris?
+[1589.34 --> 1590.60]  My guess is that it's a pun,
+[1590.74 --> 1591.84]  and it's clear.
+[1592.14 --> 1592.90]  Clear fix.
+[1593.56 --> 1594.06]  Clear both.
+[1595.02 --> 1595.26]  Yeah.
+[1595.60 --> 1596.16]  You got it.
+[1596.22 --> 1596.92]  The clear fix.
+[1597.14 --> 1597.66]  Mm-hmm.
+[1598.26 --> 1599.30]  A lot of these are older
+[1599.30 --> 1600.38]  because we don't have to do them
+[1600.38 --> 1601.84]  quite as often as we used to.
+[1602.58 --> 1604.76]  That was Miriam's turn,
+[1604.82 --> 1605.54]  so now it's Chris's turn.
+[1606.90 --> 1607.30]  Ooh.
+[1607.30 --> 1607.40]  Oh.
+[1608.94 --> 1610.12]  Frame words for 1,000.
+[1610.44 --> 1611.08]  Oh, my goodness.
+[1611.16 --> 1611.68]  He's going big.
+[1611.68 --> 1614.68]  The less formal CSS framework.
+[1614.96 --> 1616.56]  Its goal is to be as minimal
+[1616.56 --> 1618.48]  as possible when adding classes.
+[1619.06 --> 1620.06]  When adding classes?
+[1621.04 --> 1621.90]  I don't know.
+[1622.06 --> 1622.84]  It's not Tailwind,
+[1622.92 --> 1623.92]  but I'm going to say Tailwind.
+[1624.90 --> 1626.14]  That is incorrect.
+[1626.90 --> 1627.64]  Their goal is to be
+[1627.64 --> 1628.88]  as maximal as possible.
+[1628.94 --> 1629.38]  All right.
+[1629.66 --> 1630.90]  Here's where I'll remind people
+[1630.90 --> 1632.54]  to be careful with the steals
+[1632.54 --> 1633.64]  because you can lose 1,000
+[1633.64 --> 1635.38]  by stealing haphazardly.
+[1635.38 --> 1636.54]  Sarah, do you know what it is?
+[1636.66 --> 1637.16]  What would you like to steal?
+[1640.06 --> 1640.70]  Tachyons?
+[1641.68 --> 1643.36]  Sorry, that's also incorrect.
+[1645.04 --> 1646.42]  Jeff, would you like to steal?
+[1646.96 --> 1648.82]  I'm going to go out on a limb, yes.
+[1650.32 --> 1651.84]  Despite all advice,
+[1652.22 --> 1653.22]  they're just going for it.
+[1654.16 --> 1656.66]  What is paper CSS?
+[1658.36 --> 1659.56]  You got it.
+[1659.90 --> 1660.88]  No way.
+[1662.14 --> 1662.98]  Very good.
+[1663.34 --> 1664.06]  Nicely done.
+[1664.40 --> 1665.30]  That was an obscure one.
+[1665.32 --> 1665.64]  Thank you.
+[1665.84 --> 1666.18]  Thank you.
+[1666.54 --> 1667.32]  Sarah, I think.
+[1667.92 --> 1668.90]  Yep, Sarah, your turn.
+[1668.90 --> 1670.54]  I want to do
+[1670.54 --> 1673.78]  actual CSS tricks for 800.
+[1674.12 --> 1675.14]  Okay, for 800.
+[1676.04 --> 1678.14]  It used to be a trickier aspect of CSS,
+[1678.44 --> 1679.52]  but Flexbox and Grid
+[1679.52 --> 1680.94]  have made it trivial to pull off.
+[1681.64 --> 1682.20]  Floats.
+[1683.36 --> 1685.02]  Not what we were after there.
+[1685.86 --> 1686.48]  But that's true.
+[1686.48 --> 1687.28]  I can see where you're going.
+[1687.96 --> 1689.60]  Jeff, first steal?
+[1690.36 --> 1691.92]  What is aspect ratio?
+[1691.92 --> 1694.44]  Not quite, right?
+[1695.28 --> 1695.68]  Miriam.
+[1696.22 --> 1697.78]  I'm going to go with what is layout.
+[1698.38 --> 1700.06]  Well, that's such a generic thing to say.
+[1704.14 --> 1704.54]  Layout.
+[1704.74 --> 1705.84]  It's a large aspect.
+[1706.68 --> 1708.02]  It's the holy grail?
+[1709.78 --> 1710.90]  Not what we're looking for.
+[1710.98 --> 1711.24]  Sorry.
+[1711.50 --> 1712.40]  Just not what we're looking for.
+[1713.60 --> 1715.46]  We have to read our minds as well as get it right.
+[1716.40 --> 1718.26]  Just because everybody's risking it all.
+[1718.32 --> 1719.40]  I'm going to say columns.
+[1720.22 --> 1721.74]  Also not what we're looking for.
+[1721.88 --> 1722.74]  Oh, nice.
+[1722.88 --> 1724.50]  Let's duke the question from hell.
+[1724.50 --> 1724.86]  Welcome, everyone.
+[1725.14 --> 1726.00]  Welcome to the net.
+[1726.12 --> 1726.68]  Equal height.
+[1726.90 --> 1727.72]  It's the old,
+[1727.96 --> 1729.60]  it's the thing that everybody complains about all the time.
+[1729.66 --> 1731.02]  Just like how to center things, right?
+[1731.34 --> 1731.94]  Vertically center.
+[1732.94 --> 1733.62]  That's fair.
+[1733.76 --> 1734.32]  That's fair.
+[1734.46 --> 1735.12]  Okay, it's true.
+[1735.86 --> 1737.26]  That wasn't even too broad of a question,
+[1737.42 --> 1739.10]  but at least we all got bit by it.
+[1740.04 --> 1742.62]  Which means it was basically a no-op at that point, right?
+[1742.62 --> 1745.26]  Okay, whose turn was that?
+[1745.36 --> 1747.22]  It's hard to even see who's winning anymore.
+[1748.04 --> 1749.06]  Just blood on the streets.
+[1750.38 --> 1750.90]  Jeff.
+[1751.14 --> 1754.90]  Oh, I'll do divitis for 400.
+[1755.50 --> 1756.08]  All right.
+[1756.54 --> 1756.90]  Div.
+[1757.04 --> 1759.30]  This text is important, serious, or urgent.
+[1759.50 --> 1759.88]  End div.
+[1760.62 --> 1761.62]  What is...
+[1762.58 --> 1763.86]  No, that's not going to be it.
+[1764.56 --> 1765.08]  Shoot.
+[1765.48 --> 1765.84]  Oh.
+[1766.54 --> 1767.52]  What is alert?
+[1769.00 --> 1769.48]  Nope.
+[1769.92 --> 1770.64]  Miriam to steal.
+[1771.34 --> 1772.46]  What is strong?
+[1773.62 --> 1774.78]  You got it.
+[1775.84 --> 1776.40]  Strong.
+[1777.94 --> 1778.92]  All right.
+[1780.02 --> 1781.20]  And it's your turn as well, Miriam.
+[1781.32 --> 1782.06]  Back in the white.
+[1783.18 --> 1783.76]  Yes.
+[1784.74 --> 1786.42]  I'll do divitis again.
+[1786.62 --> 1787.36]  Let's go 600.
+[1787.66 --> 1788.04]  Okay.
+[1788.20 --> 1789.10]  Divitis for 600.
+[1789.88 --> 1790.24]  Div.
+[1790.50 --> 1794.46]  JSON and div stands for JavaScript object notation.
+[1796.20 --> 1798.36]  What is ABBR?
+[1799.16 --> 1799.86]  Got it again.
+[1799.86 --> 1800.48]  Very good.
+[1800.48 --> 1803.26]  It's an abbreviation.
+[1804.82 --> 1805.30]  Okay.
+[1805.44 --> 1806.12]  Chris, to you.
+[1807.08 --> 1808.16]  I'm so nervous.
+[1808.50 --> 1809.00]  I'm going to die.
+[1810.08 --> 1812.16]  I want divitis for 1,000, though.
+[1812.32 --> 1813.82]  He's going 1,000 each time.
+[1813.90 --> 1814.22]  All right.
+[1814.68 --> 1815.50]  Go big or go home.
+[1816.34 --> 1817.68]  Div value equals 70.
+[1818.04 --> 1818.30]  Progress.
+[1818.30 --> 1818.82]  Max equals 100.
+[1819.02 --> 1819.78]  Oh, you got it.
+[1819.90 --> 1820.22]  Progress.
+[1820.60 --> 1821.10]  No good one.
+[1821.10 --> 1824.48]  Well played, sir.
+[1825.48 --> 1826.84]  And Sarah, your turn.
+[1827.42 --> 1829.28]  I want frameworks for 800.
+[1829.78 --> 1830.26]  Okay.
+[1831.88 --> 1835.78]  This 8-bit-like CSS framework is brimming with 80s nostalgia.
+[1837.04 --> 1839.34]  That feels like something I would know.
+[1839.34 --> 1843.72]  I don't know the answer.
+[1843.72 --> 1844.32]  Okay.
+[1845.50 --> 1846.74]  Jeff, would you like to steal?
+[1847.72 --> 1848.44]  No, thanks.
+[1848.92 --> 1849.64]  Miriam to steal.
+[1850.30 --> 1850.62]  Nope.
+[1851.26 --> 1851.82]  Chris to steal.
+[1852.70 --> 1853.26]  Too risky.
+[1853.80 --> 1854.02]  Yep.
+[1854.60 --> 1857.46]  But I'll say if there's some, is it the Windows 98 looking one?
+[1857.46 --> 1858.94]  That's a good second guess.
+[1859.02 --> 1864.10]  It's actually NES.css, which is a very cool framework.
+[1864.10 --> 1865.96]  All right.
+[1866.08 --> 1866.70]  Moving on.
+[1866.86 --> 1867.84]  It is now Jeff's turn.
+[1868.30 --> 1870.96]  Let's take RaymWord600.
+[1871.48 --> 1871.76]  I know.
+[1871.82 --> 1873.82]  You guys are ignoring the Node category.
+[1875.56 --> 1876.16]  Absolutely.
+[1876.16 --> 1876.94]  Not a surprise.
+[1877.66 --> 1881.76]  A free open source framework that provides ready-to-use front-end components that you can
+[1881.76 --> 1884.70]  easily combine to build responsive web interfaces.
+[1885.42 --> 1887.48]  No CSS knowledge required.
+[1888.10 --> 1892.10]  What is, oh, geez.
+[1892.10 --> 1892.54]  Right?
+[1893.20 --> 1894.78]  Ready-to-use front-end components.
+[1895.60 --> 1897.74]  This is straight off their, they're like a homepage, huh?
+[1897.74 --> 1898.66]  This is right off their homepage.
+[1898.90 --> 1900.16]  They make a big deal out of the end.
+[1900.28 --> 1901.64]  No CSS knowledge required.
+[1902.34 --> 1904.06]  No CSS knowledge required.
+[1904.42 --> 1904.80]  Okay.
+[1905.66 --> 1909.14]  What is material?
+[1910.20 --> 1910.86]  I'm sorry.
+[1910.96 --> 1911.54]  That's incorrect.
+[1912.42 --> 1912.84]  Miriam?
+[1913.92 --> 1914.50]  Say a no.
+[1914.56 --> 1915.44]  No, I don't.
+[1915.60 --> 1916.26]  I don't know.
+[1916.52 --> 1917.08]  Okay, Chris?
+[1917.42 --> 1917.72]  Steal?
+[1918.28 --> 1918.86]  Too risky.
+[1919.30 --> 1919.86]  Sarah to steal?
+[1919.86 --> 1923.88]  I'm already in the red, so I'm just going to keep going.
+[1924.24 --> 1924.44]  Okay.
+[1925.34 --> 1926.48]  Is it Prismic?
+[1927.38 --> 1927.84]  No.
+[1928.28 --> 1928.72]  I'm sorry.
+[1928.92 --> 1930.94]  The framework is Bulma.
+[1931.64 --> 1932.16]  Oh.
+[1932.34 --> 1932.82]  Okay.
+[1933.38 --> 1934.02]  There you go.
+[1934.80 --> 1935.44]  All right.
+[1936.20 --> 1936.90]  I like Bulma.
+[1937.02 --> 1937.52]  It looks good.
+[1937.64 --> 1938.62]  It's a nice looking one.
+[1938.80 --> 1939.56]  It does look nice.
+[1940.08 --> 1941.52]  Marketing copy could use some work, maybe.
+[1942.98 --> 1943.46]  Yeah.
+[1943.46 --> 1945.66]  It's like CSS knowledge helpful.
+[1946.30 --> 1946.62]  Right.
+[1947.12 --> 1947.64]  Whose turn?
+[1948.00 --> 1948.64]  Let's see.
+[1949.02 --> 1950.52]  That was Jeff's turn.
+[1950.68 --> 1951.44]  So Miriam, your turn.
+[1951.92 --> 1954.44]  Actual CSS tricks, 600.
+[1954.84 --> 1955.24]  Okay.
+[1955.98 --> 1959.56]  This is the best place for your style rule to ensure it gets applied.
+[1960.18 --> 1961.14]  Place is all caps.
+[1961.72 --> 1962.86]  Why is place all caps?
+[1963.44 --> 1964.36]  I'll tell you afterwards.
+[1965.30 --> 1966.04]  In line?
+[1966.26 --> 1967.02]  What is in line?
+[1967.02 --> 1969.44]  You got it.
+[1970.16 --> 1974.26]  I put place in all caps because you might think bang important is what you would do, but that's
+[1974.26 --> 1975.04]  not really a place.
+[1975.06 --> 1975.20]  Okay.
+[1975.68 --> 1976.04]  Yeah.
+[1976.38 --> 1978.28]  It actually, it did help.
+[1978.80 --> 1981.98]  I was just thinking of the way people used to write HTML all caps all the time.
+[1982.80 --> 1983.20]  All right.
+[1983.38 --> 1983.70]  Oh, yeah.
+[1985.36 --> 1986.02]  Very good.
+[1986.14 --> 1986.62]  Got it right.
+[1986.74 --> 1987.36]  Chris, your turn.
+[1988.56 --> 1992.50]  I feel like I'm contractually obliged to take actual CSS tricks.
+[1992.50 --> 1995.14]  All right.
+[1995.30 --> 2000.16]  This proprietary Microsoft extension to Internet Explorer provides a mechanism to target each
+[2000.16 --> 2003.62]  of the versions of IE either specifically or as a group.
+[2004.68 --> 2008.76]  I thought that was like, I'm going to say conditional comments.
+[2009.08 --> 2010.34]  I'm going to say you are correct.
+[2011.24 --> 2011.72]  Oh.
+[2012.40 --> 2013.14]  Very good.
+[2013.52 --> 2014.92]  Feels good to be number one.
+[2014.92 --> 2020.76]  All right, Sarah, your turn.
+[2021.44 --> 2023.18]  Oh, no, you didn't for 200.
+[2023.50 --> 2023.94]  Okay.
+[2024.84 --> 2026.04]  Waiting into the Node waters.
+[2026.66 --> 2027.30]  Missed the browser?
+[2027.56 --> 2028.96]  This function might console you.
+[2029.40 --> 2031.06]  It works pretty much the same in Node.
+[2031.58 --> 2033.98]  I mean, this feels too obvious.
+[2035.58 --> 2037.22]  It is the easiest in the column.
+[2037.94 --> 2038.52]  All right.
+[2038.66 --> 2039.44]  Console.log.
+[2041.16 --> 2042.08]  You got it.
+[2042.54 --> 2043.90]  I'm like, is this a trick?
+[2044.92 --> 2046.06]  It feels like.
+[2047.26 --> 2048.72]  All right, Jeff, your turn.
+[2048.80 --> 2049.28]  Pick a square.
+[2050.30 --> 2051.32]  Framework's 400.
+[2052.02 --> 2057.06]  A utility-first framework to rapidly build modern websites without ever leaving your HTML.
+[2058.18 --> 2060.60]  What is atomic CSS?
+[2062.50 --> 2062.86]  Oh.
+[2063.36 --> 2064.00]  Incorrect.
+[2064.42 --> 2065.12]  Miriam DeSteel?
+[2065.84 --> 2067.10]  I think you're on the right track.
+[2067.10 --> 2069.14]  What is Tailwind?
+[2070.16 --> 2070.92]  That's it.
+[2071.40 --> 2072.00]  Thanks, Jeff.
+[2074.92 --> 2077.58]  Miriam is benefiting from her placement on the board here.
+[2077.68 --> 2078.74]  So your turn as well.
+[2079.94 --> 2083.50]  I'll take divitis for 800 because I am not touching Node.
+[2084.42 --> 2090.52]  A common equation in physics is E equals MC div to end div.
+[2091.10 --> 2091.88]  What is?
+[2092.00 --> 2092.54]  S-U-P?
+[2094.44 --> 2095.50]  You got it.
+[2096.44 --> 2096.98]  I'm jealous.
+[2097.34 --> 2099.06]  You avoided my opportunity to say not much.
+[2099.18 --> 2099.68]  Sup with you.
+[2099.68 --> 2101.14]  All right.
+[2102.76 --> 2104.38]  I've been waiting for it the whole game.
+[2106.10 --> 2106.94]  Chris, your turn.
+[2107.02 --> 2108.86]  There's only Node questions left.
+[2109.02 --> 2110.46]  I'll take the 600 one.
+[2110.64 --> 2111.84]  I got some ground to cover.
+[2111.92 --> 2112.16]  Okay.
+[2112.24 --> 2114.12]  He's not going for 1,000 this time around.
+[2114.62 --> 2114.90]  No.
+[2115.48 --> 2120.02]  You have to use require instead of import in Node because it relies on this module system.
+[2120.68 --> 2122.34]  Like CJS probably?
+[2123.54 --> 2123.98]  Common.
+[2123.98 --> 2124.34]  Common JS.
+[2124.34 --> 2124.74]  Yes.
+[2124.74 --> 2125.18]  Correct.
+[2125.58 --> 2126.02]  You got it.
+[2127.88 --> 2131.40]  Not technically 100% true anymore, but it was true at the time of the writing.
+[2131.78 --> 2132.10]  Okay.
+[2132.32 --> 2133.74]  Because sometimes you don't have to anymore.
+[2134.00 --> 2134.16]  Okay.
+[2135.12 --> 2135.52]  Sarah.
+[2136.62 --> 2137.66]  I'm going to do Node.
+[2137.74 --> 2138.76]  You didn't for 400.
+[2139.42 --> 2143.64]  Node.js runs on this JavaScript engine, which is also at the core of Google Chrome.
+[2145.04 --> 2147.52]  It's, oh, God.
+[2148.10 --> 2148.84]  My brain is.
+[2150.26 --> 2150.66]  V8.
+[2151.40 --> 2152.04]  That's right.
+[2153.00 --> 2153.72]  Very good.
+[2153.76 --> 2155.08]  You guys are drilling the Node questions.
+[2155.66 --> 2158.00]  Jeff, to you, you got 800 or 1,000.
+[2158.90 --> 2159.34]  1,000.
+[2159.76 --> 2160.18]  Let's do it.
+[2162.30 --> 2162.70]  Thanks.
+[2163.70 --> 2168.74]  This, in the browser's global scope, refers to window, but in Node, it refers to?
+[2169.36 --> 2170.94]  What is the document?
+[2177.88 --> 2178.66]  Mercy points.
+[2178.78 --> 2179.32]  Mercy points.
+[2179.32 --> 2179.84]  We'll give it to you.
+[2182.04 --> 2186.20]  It's actually the, it's module that I support, it's the current module.
+[2186.54 --> 2191.26]  And so the doc, if you're in a document, there is no document object, but the current
+[2191.26 --> 2193.84]  module, which would be the top level thing in the current document.
+[2193.96 --> 2194.94]  So close enough.
+[2195.02 --> 2195.50]  We'll give it to you.
+[2196.22 --> 2196.70]  All right.
+[2196.72 --> 2199.68]  Which leaves Miriam with, oh, Node, you didn't for 800.
+[2199.90 --> 2200.38]  Here we go.
+[2201.14 --> 2201.58]  Okay.
+[2201.58 --> 2206.88]  If you want to read an environment variable or exit from a Node program, you must use this
+[2206.88 --> 2207.60]  core module.
+[2207.96 --> 2209.54]  Read an environment variable.
+[2209.54 --> 2211.30]  I think I've done that before.
+[2212.76 --> 2213.16]  Maybe.
+[2213.76 --> 2215.32]  Do you remember the module you used?
+[2215.56 --> 2215.86]  Nope.
+[2216.90 --> 2217.32]  Okay.
+[2217.80 --> 2220.30]  Hazard a guess or we'll just subtract the points.
+[2221.44 --> 2223.10]  I think you can just subtract the points.
+[2223.60 --> 2224.04]  Okay.
+[2225.34 --> 2226.06]  Minus 800.
+[2226.18 --> 2227.20]  We go to Chris for the steal.
+[2227.28 --> 2227.72]  No.
+[2228.20 --> 2228.80]  I'm going to pass.
+[2228.88 --> 2231.12]  I could guess, but I'm absolutely not going to.
+[2231.28 --> 2231.50]  Okay.
+[2231.64 --> 2232.28]  Sarah to steal.
+[2234.06 --> 2234.52]  Dot end.
+[2234.52 --> 2238.24]  That's close, but incorrect.
+[2238.70 --> 2239.04]  Dot end.
+[2239.54 --> 2239.98]  Yeah.
+[2241.34 --> 2242.14]  Jeff to steal.
+[2243.44 --> 2245.24]  Oh, well, that was what I was going to guess.
+[2245.24 --> 2248.66]  So I'm just going to let it slide.
+[2249.00 --> 2249.32]  All right.
+[2249.66 --> 2251.74]  The module is called process.
+[2252.74 --> 2254.12]  Oh, okay.
+[2254.34 --> 2255.34]  Process dot exit.
+[2255.46 --> 2256.96]  Process dot end.
+[2257.32 --> 2257.74]  Yeah.
+[2258.26 --> 2258.68]  Okay.
+[2258.90 --> 2259.06]  Etc.
+[2259.06 --> 2261.82]  Thus concludes round two.
+[2262.08 --> 2263.20]  Double trouble.
+[2264.88 --> 2265.32]  What?
+[2266.64 --> 2268.58]  Did your miss make me win?
+[2269.34 --> 2269.78]  Yes.
+[2270.56 --> 2271.50]  Well, the game's not over yet.
+[2271.60 --> 2272.68]  We still have final trouble.
+[2272.78 --> 2273.88]  The game is not quite over yet.
+[2274.04 --> 2275.28]  So I got to go actually.
+[2275.56 --> 2276.24]  Oh, dang it.
+[2276.68 --> 2277.42]  I'm just kidding.
+[2277.74 --> 2279.22]  Well, then Chris loses by forfeit.
+[2279.88 --> 2280.80]  Taking my chips.
+[2281.96 --> 2284.24]  Chris with 2,200 points.
+[2284.54 --> 2285.84]  Miriam in second with 1,900.
+[2286.46 --> 2288.64]  Jeff in third now with negative 1,000.
+[2288.84 --> 2291.24]  And Sarah in fourth with negative 2,400.
+[2291.64 --> 2294.40]  Now, we're about to play final trouble.
+[2295.04 --> 2298.70]  And for that, everybody must have some points to wager.
+[2299.10 --> 2300.98]  So a few of us are in the red.
+[2301.14 --> 2304.00]  So what we will do is we will add negative 24.
+[2304.22 --> 2308.74]  Actually, we'll add 3,000 to everybody's score to get Sarah back in the red.
+[2308.74 --> 2310.14]  And that way it's still even still.
+[2310.34 --> 2312.84]  It's like poor Sarah.
+[2312.84 --> 2315.00]  So let's go ahead and do that.
+[2315.06 --> 2316.56]  And then we'll start round three right after this.
+[2316.56 --> 2339.32]  This episode is brought to you by the Dev Discuss podcast, an original show by the team behind Dev.to.
+[2339.32 --> 2342.90]  The show is hosted by Dev co-founders Ben Halpern and Jess Lee.
+[2343.24 --> 2349.86]  Ben has been on the Change Law podcast before, talking about their decision to go open source with a Dev platform now called Forum.
+[2350.20 --> 2358.40]  The Dev Discuss podcast brings on notable industry guests to discuss trends and timeless software topics to help developers succeed within their teams and grow.
+[2358.78 --> 2359.86]  Here's a clip from season two.
+[2359.86 --> 2367.46]  When you deploy Node.js code, it doesn't matter if it's ARM or X86 underneath of it when it's serverless.
+[2367.78 --> 2373.80]  AWS could probably move their fleet of Lambda services to ARM and very few customers will be affected.
+[2373.92 --> 2378.88]  And not to say nobody, but very, very few customers will be affected by that kind of migration on Lambda.
+[2378.88 --> 2387.42]  Whereas if they were to try that migration on Fargate or EC2, it's a much bigger and more complex migration for those customers.
+[2388.04 --> 2398.06]  And, you know, here is them, you know, building something in a way that, you know, they may see as more productive or more traditional, but it is actually, you know, more locked in in a way.
+[2398.56 --> 2399.46]  All right. Search for Dev Discuss.
+[2399.72 --> 2401.64]  All one word in your podcast player.
+[2401.74 --> 2404.78]  Subscribe and skim the backlog for an episode that jumps out to you.
+[2404.78 --> 2407.60]  Again, search Dev Discuss anywhere you listen to podcasts.
+[2408.88 --> 2428.44]  All right. We are back for final trouble.
+[2428.56 --> 2430.30]  This is our very last question.
+[2430.44 --> 2431.66]  A little bit different than the other rounds.
+[2432.02 --> 2438.20]  Instead of taking turns, everybody is going to wager some points based on the category given.
+[2438.20 --> 2440.04]  Then we'll show the question.
+[2440.70 --> 2446.34]  And whoever ends up with the most points at the end is our actual CSS trickster winner.
+[2447.14 --> 2453.00]  And the category is CSS Emoji Handshake R&B.
+[2453.88 --> 2455.10]  So there's your category.
+[2455.28 --> 2458.20]  Contestants, please submit to me your wagers.
+[2458.38 --> 2460.22]  You can wager up to all of your points.
+[2460.90 --> 2462.16]  And that's it.
+[2462.42 --> 2463.06]  Submit your wagers now.
+[2463.06 --> 2478.42]  Like this should be an R&B right now.
+[2480.34 --> 2481.74]  Here comes the stressy part.
+[2485.34 --> 2487.66]  I have everybody but Sarah's.
+[2487.66 --> 2495.96]  I don't like it.
+[2498.06 --> 2498.78]  All right.
+[2498.88 --> 2500.56]  All of the wagers are in.
+[2500.64 --> 2503.00]  Let's reveal our final trouble question.
+[2504.08 --> 2509.00]  A year before CSS's debut, this chart-topping trio sang this song.
+[2509.00 --> 2512.36]  Dreams are hopeless aspirations and hopes are coming true.
+[2512.56 --> 2513.46]  Believe in yourself.
+[2513.60 --> 2514.62]  The rest is up to me.
+[2514.74 --> 2518.48]  Go, go chasing waterfalls.
+[2518.84 --> 2523.72]  Please stick to the rivers and the lakes that you used to.
+[2523.78 --> 2524.40]  We have Jeff's.
+[2524.44 --> 2524.98]  We have Chris's.
+[2525.04 --> 2525.90]  We have Miriam's.
+[2527.04 --> 2528.56]  Very appropriate choice, by the way.
+[2528.90 --> 2529.24]  Thank you.
+[2529.90 --> 2531.28]  And Sarah is also in.
+[2531.42 --> 2531.68]  Okay.
+[2532.48 --> 2534.50]  So final results time.
+[2535.24 --> 2538.80]  Chris, you wagered 4,901.
+[2540.98 --> 2541.38]  Jeez.
+[2544.26 --> 2547.92]  I forgot to mention that our game board only works in 50-point values.
+[2548.74 --> 2549.22]  Sorry.
+[2549.56 --> 2553.68]  Good strategy, but illegitimate due to technological hurdles.
+[2554.36 --> 2554.72]  And your answer.
+[2554.72 --> 2556.08]  I think you knew what I was going for there.
+[2556.08 --> 2556.40]  Yes.
+[2556.48 --> 2559.72]  Your answer was TLC, and that is correct, sir.
+[2559.72 --> 2560.62]  Oh, yes.
+[2560.76 --> 2561.26]  You got it.
+[2561.26 --> 2564.26]  I was going to write tender love and care, but I'm glad I abbreviated.
+[2564.50 --> 2564.90]  I abbreviated it.
+[2565.58 --> 2569.54]  Miriam, you wagered 500, and you also answered TLC.
+[2570.08 --> 2570.56]  Congratulations.
+[2570.90 --> 2571.46]  You got it right.
+[2572.84 --> 2578.64]  Jeff wagered 2,000, all of his points, and he answered TLC as well.
+[2578.70 --> 2580.18]  So you're correct as well.
+[2580.26 --> 2584.22]  And Sarah wagered all of her points, and she also said TLC.
+[2584.34 --> 2586.28]  So everybody got the final triple answer, right?
+[2586.32 --> 2586.74]  Congratulations.
+[2586.74 --> 2586.94]  Yay.
+[2589.02 --> 2589.34]  Yay.
+[2589.34 --> 2589.54]  Yay.
+[2590.54 --> 2592.34]  However, there can be only one.
+[2593.38 --> 2598.70]  And Chris did have the most points and the highest points at the end.
+[2598.80 --> 2603.32]  So our winner of this game of JS Danger is the one more, Chris Coyer.
+[2603.32 --> 2613.84]  I'm going to Disney World.
+[2619.20 --> 2621.86]  I don't know if Miriam wasn't too far behind.
+[2621.86 --> 2624.98]  Well, that was a blast.
+[2625.26 --> 2630.36]  Thank you to all four of you for being such good sports, for playing along, and for all
+[2630.36 --> 2635.76]  of the web dev knowledge that you guys have shared over the years at CSS Tricks and continue
+[2635.76 --> 2637.70]  to share on a daily basis.
+[2637.88 --> 2640.92]  We really appreciate the work that you all do over there, and we appreciate you coming
+[2640.92 --> 2642.56]  on the show and playing JS Danger with us.
+[2642.90 --> 2643.88]  Thank you for having us.
+[2643.88 --> 2644.68]  Thank you so much.
+[2644.68 --> 2645.08]  Thank you.
+[2645.40 --> 2646.44]  That was my huge pleasure.
+[2648.14 --> 2648.50]  Yeah.
+[2648.76 --> 2650.02]  Show my face bigger.
+[2655.90 --> 2656.72]  What did he get?
+[2656.80 --> 2658.32]  Did he get like a hot dog or something?
+[2659.88 --> 2660.84]  Oh, he's hot dogging.
+[2660.92 --> 2661.14]  All right.
+[2661.54 --> 2663.64]  I get $50 off Linode hosting.
+[2664.04 --> 2664.80]  Just kidding.
+[2668.24 --> 2669.12]  All right.
+[2669.16 --> 2669.46]  All right.
+[2669.54 --> 2670.52]  That's JS Party for this week.
+[2670.60 --> 2672.82]  Thanks for everybody for playing along, and we'll talk to you next time.
+[2674.68 --> 2677.86]  Thank you for listening to JS Party.
+[2678.16 --> 2679.78]  Please do tell a friend about the show.
+[2679.96 --> 2683.08]  It's the number one way people find new podcasts they love.
+[2683.42 --> 2688.08]  This episode was streamed live on YouTube, and it's fun to watch with the video game board
+[2688.08 --> 2688.86]  and everything else.
+[2689.10 --> 2691.84]  I'll put a link to that in the show notes in case you're interested.
+[2692.52 --> 2696.44]  Music for JS Party is produced by Breakmaster Cylinder, and we're brought to you by awesome
+[2696.44 --> 2696.88]  sponsors.
+[2697.34 --> 2699.96]  Thanks again to Fastly, LaunchDarkly, and Linode.
+[2699.96 --> 2706.32]  Next week on the pod, Emma Bastian, Nick Neesey, and a special guest discuss 10 accessibility
+[2706.32 --> 2707.82]  mistakes you want to avoid.
+[2708.54 --> 2709.66]  Stay tuned for that one.
+[2709.98 --> 2712.56]  It'll be hitting your podcast feed next week.
+[2712.56 --> 2713.06]  Music.
+[2721.92 --> 2723.52]  He's on the break.
+[2723.76 --> 2725.88]  Break it up, break it up, break it up.
+[2726.08 --> 2728.86]  Gotta go back and strike that JPEG XL one from the record.
+[2728.86 --> 2732.90]  Is that a thing?
+[2732.98 --> 2733.32]  I don't know.
+[2734.14 --> 2738.74]  It is, but I don't know if it's new, and AVIF is new and has all the press lately.
+[2739.12 --> 2739.48]  Right.
+[2740.46 --> 2746.38]  So those I was getting off of, I was just using Can I Use's blog, because I figured as
+[2746.38 --> 2749.26]  they added new things to Can I Use, they were like relatively new features.
+[2750.52 --> 2751.72]  I don't know if that's true.
+[2751.84 --> 2756.56]  Yeah, I do that same thing, and I saw one the other day that was called Overflow Overlay,
+[2756.84 --> 2758.56]  and I was like, what the hell is that?
+[2758.56 --> 2762.16]  Yeah, I saw that too, and I went and looked at it, and I was like, this doesn't seem,
+[2762.42 --> 2764.42]  and then they're like, this is deprecated.
+[2764.62 --> 2765.46]  I'm like, well, then how's it new?
+[2765.48 --> 2767.92]  Yeah, they were just adding an old deprecated thing.
+[2768.10 --> 2769.14]  I'm like, oh, good job.
+[2769.26 --> 2769.94]  Thanks for that.
+[2770.02 --> 2770.64]  Super useful.
+[2770.64 --> 2779.20]  So JPEG XL image format has zero support, like global zero percent, but does that mean
+[2779.20 --> 2781.80]  it's like, maybe it's brand stinking new?
+[2782.94 --> 2786.74]  Or maybe it's so old that no one, maybe it just like didn't ever become a thing.
+[2787.54 --> 2789.44]  XL makes it sound like it's huge.
+[2789.76 --> 2790.12]  Doesn't it?
+[2790.24 --> 2790.48]  Yeah.
+[2790.84 --> 2791.78]  Well, it's a terrible name.
+[2791.78 --> 2796.24]  It does say JPEG XL competes with Avif, which has similar compression quality, but fewer
+[2796.24 --> 2796.72]  features.
+[2796.88 --> 2800.36]  So this might be like a brand new thing that someone's trying to do.
+[2801.26 --> 2801.72]  I don't know.
+[2802.16 --> 2804.28]  When you ask Leah Baru to be on the call.
+[2805.78 --> 2806.80]  Yeah, I know.
+[2806.80 --> 2808.76]  All right.
+[2808.80 --> 2809.34]  Should we do it?
+[2809.34 --> 2811.34]  Game on.
diff --git a/JS is an occasionally functional language_transcript.txt b/JS is an occasionally functional language_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ecb4f146bfa1e31e41b3a0fa746a6f54f2f0c728
--- /dev/null
+++ b/JS is an occasionally functional language_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,401 @@
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh yes, it's time once again, friends... It's JS Party time. I'm Jerod, I'm your internet friend, and I'm joined by long-time JS Party friend, Kball. What's up, KBall?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Hey, hey! Glad to be here.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Glad to have you, as always. And we're joined by a special guest - Eric Normand is here. Eric, thanks for coming on JS Party.
+
+**Eric Normand:** Yeah, thanks for having me. This is quite a party.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We like to have fun, we like to talk about JavaScript and the web... We think these things are fun, and so it's a nice combination. Today we are going to talk about some programming paradigms - one specific paradigm, and maybe contrast it to some other ones. Eric is a long-time FP guy (functional programming), and JavaScript is a functional language, sort of. JavaScript is a multi-paradigm language, so it has some functional things to it, it has some object-oriented things to it... It's very general-purpose in that way. And Eric is an advocate of FP, and says that you can improve a lot of things, write good code, maintainable etc. There's lots of virtues to functional programming. So that's the topic of conversation today.
+
+Eric, why don't you start us off with the real basics of what makes a language functional. What does that mean?
+
+**Eric Normand:** That's a really deep, philosophical question, "What makes a functional language?"
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Dang, I was trying to start basic...
+
+**Eric Normand:** \[04:04\] Yeah, yeah... So JavaScript, as you said, is a multi-paradigm language. Functional programming is possible in JavaScript; it's actually quite good, it's above average for doing functional programming... But I don't think anyone would say it is a functional language. There's other languages like Haskell, or Clojure, or Scheme... You know, these other languages are more focused on functional programming, and give you a lot more features that support functional programming.
+
+JavaScript is kind of in this place on that graph of how functional is it - it's more functional than a lot of languages; it's more functional than, say, Java, for instance.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, it's not completely a dysfunctional language, like Java...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] Well, that's both functional and dysfunctional...
+
+**Eric Normand:** Right. And it's not anti-functional, dysfunctional... It is certainly possible to do functional programming in JavaScript.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** An occasionally functional language.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Eric Normand:** Occasionally functional. And of course, you have to do a lot of discipline to maintain the functional programming. I like to say that JavaScript is okay for doing functional programming, and it's bad for learning functional programming, because you can always just slip back into procedural. You can just make a for loop wherever. But it's actually good for teaching functional programming. It has everything you need, but you kind of have to do it yourself... Because when I teach functional programming, I wanna show it's not just some feature of the language, it's a way of programming. So here is the odd way that you would program in JavaScript to keep it functional. So I find that it's pretty good for teaching.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So what is the mindset then? What is the way of programming that is functional, versus imperative, or object-oriented, or any other way?
+
+**Eric Normand:** Functional programming is like an onion, so you can go real deep...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It gives you bad breath.
+
+**Eric Normand:** ...and there's some people who go super-deep. But that first layer, that first gateway into the onion... \[laughs\] I started mixing metaphors...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's like the Onion routing; it's like a Tor network kind of a thing.
+
+**Eric Normand:** Yeah. I imagine it like -- have you ever seen the original show Get Smart, the intro, where he has 30 different doors he walks through...?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, and then he holds up his shoe to his ear and talks into it.
+
+**Eric Normand:** Yeah. He has a cell phone in his shoe. Yeah, but you go through all these doors, and you get deeper and deeper into the sanctum of functional programming. Well, that first door is just recognizing the difference between what I call actions, calculations and data.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay.
+
+**Eric Normand:** Calculations are often known as pure functions. They're the stuff you can do in your language that always gives you the same answer, no matter how many times you run them, or when you run them. So this is addition. 2+2 is always 4, it doesn't matter how many times you run that. But then there's actions that do depend on when you run them or how many times you run them. So reading from an immutable variable - if you read after someone has written to it, you're gonna get a different answer than reading before the other part of the code writes to it. Likewise sending an email, or writing something to disk - these are all actions, because sending the email zero times is different from sending it one time, or ten times.
+
+And so making this distinction between actions that depend on time - because they're hard to deal with - and calculations is like the first gateway into functional programming. Oh, and data is easy. Data is just the stuff that doesn't do anything; it's just inert. The strings, and numbers, and hashmaps, and lists, stuff like that.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[08:21\] I like how simple your language is there... Because I feel like one of the barriers to a lot of folks getting into FP is it feels like there's a lot of jargon. And you start talking with somebody and you're like "I just wanna send an email", and before you know it, they're talking about monads, and you're like "What in the world is all of this...?!"
+
+**Eric Normand:** \[laughs\] Yeah... I think that - you know, and I speak for functional programming as a community - we have over-complicated it. Functional programming has been incubated in Academia, and you don't get tenure by making stuff easy. \[laughter\] You have to find a hard problem and solve it in some weird way, a novel way...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Eric Normand:** And you don't show credibility by just talking about basics. You have to use the jargon and show that you're one of the club, you understand this, you've earned your Ph.D. by learning all these obscure terms. So that's a shame for the rest of the industry, for the non-academic side, that we don't have a lot of good literature that has taken the time to like "Let me just shed all that academic stuff, and start over, and talk like real people, without all the jargon."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So when you describe actions - and I'm gonna probably spend a lot of this trying to map between this, as I said, beautifully simple language that you're using here, and some of the language that I've previously absorbed for FP, and things like that. Is there a one-to-one between what you're calling actions and what are often called side effects? Or are those related, but not the same? Or how are you thinking about that?
+
+**Eric Normand:** They're related... It's not one-to-one. The one-to-one mapping is -- so calculations are pure functions. But then you have this other mapping of function in the mathematical sense versus the language feature \[unintelligible 00:10:16.09\] So there's that problem there. Because arithmetic is not a function in JavaScript, right?
+
+Anyway, so calculations map to pure functions, actions map to impure functions. So it's not the act of sending the email that's an action, it's the piece of code that you can pass around; it hasn't been run yet, it's just a closure, it's just a function that you're passing around, that when you call the function, it will send the email.
+
+So I toyed a lot with a whole bunch of ideas, like "How do I name them so that the words are clear, but don't have all the wrong baggage? ...but I don't wanna invent new terms just because." So I wound up just not using the term effect, because - well, I mean, to get deep into it, I didn't wanna call them effect, because it's not the cause... Right? I'm talking about the code that sends the email, not the emails being sent. So even "cause" - that's not the right word either, so...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So get us on the same page with regards to a pure function and an impure function. Let's just start at base principals there.
+
+**Eric Normand:** Sure.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Help us differentiate, if that's the big difference.
+
+**Eric Normand:** \[11:44\] Right, right. So a pure function... Like I said before, the nice thing about a pure function is that you can call it -- you know, as long as you pass it the same arguments, it's going to give you the same result. And that makes it great for testing... Because when we test; we test on our development machines, we test on the build server... And then we wanna make sure that that same function that we're testing is gonna act exactly the same way in production. So by making it a pure function, we get that out of the box; we can guarantee that we can test it a thousand times and it's gonna give us the same answer.
+
+An impure function - you can't do that. So notice it starts to become a lot harder to test. It might have to read from the database. Okay, now in your test environment you have to set up a database and put some data in there for it to read, and the reproducibility becomes a lot harder. You have to basically set up the bubble that that impure function runs in to simulate it working in production... Because that's when you want it to actually work, in production.
+
+The other thing about actions that makes them hard, besides being harder to test, is ordering and the number of times they get called is actually the point of your software. I want the email to get sent.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. That's the point.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Once... And only once.
+
+**Eric Normand:** Right, once.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Exactly. "Unless this condition happens..."
+
+**Eric Normand:** Right, right. I wanna choose if the email gets send or not, and when it gets sent... So now - this is kind of the point of your program, is to apply the break in the car or not, or how much you apply the brake, and at what time. So by pushing as much stuff as possible into calculations, we've reduced the amount of hard stuff that we have to focus on - the actions, and ordering, and timing. We've reduced that, so we can pay more attention to it. Those calculations -- I'd like to say that functional programming in general has gotten it backwards; that we like to focus on the pure functions. But really, the reason we do so much code in pure functions is because they're easy.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Eric Normand:** So we wanna just get them over with and throw them at the test server and it can deal with them from now on. Now it's the actions; now we've gotta learn how to maintain the order and the timing in everything, and how many times they get run.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Eric Normand:** And functional programming has a lot of tools for doing that, that other paradigms borrow from functional programming.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That's really interesting. You could almost describe it as it's another way of thinking about separating concerns... But in this case, what you're separating is the easy stuff and the hard stuff, and you're making sure that those are dealt with differently, so that you can really focus on the hard stuff by itself.
+
+**Eric Normand:** Right, exactly. Exactly.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Because the hard stuff is the stuff that actually matters the most at the end of the day, because that's -- not to use the word "side effect" again, but that's the point of our programs, is to change the world somehow, right?
+
+**Eric Normand:** That's right.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Or maybe it's just to provide some information, and that could be a calculation, but most of the times valuable software changes the world, interacts with the world in a way, and these are our actions. I haven't thought about it that way; I always have -- once I started picking up that distinction, I've always thought "Yes, I want as many pure functions as possible, and I wanna minimize the impure functions", because... Easy and hard - easy to test, hard to test, all the things you've just described. But I've never thought of... It's because the hard ones are the important ones, and actually you're then -- I mean, it's all important, so it's relative. But the hard ones, the actions, are where the focus needs to be because they're hard, because they change the world, because they're the point. They're kind of the point \[unintelligible 00:15:43.06\]
+
+**Eric Normand:** That's right. They're the point, and I really think that in discussions about what functional programming is, we've gotten it backwards, that we say "Oh, functional programming is all about programming with only pure functions." And I think it's really the opposite. It's like "Well, we've got this tool called Pure Functions, that will let us ignore them for a while, because we know they're not gonna change, and they're really easy to deal with."
+
+\[16:12\] They're so easy to deal with that we can put a type system on them and the computer can figure stuff out about them. It's the side effects; it's when to launch the missile, and "Do I do this first, or that first?" and "How do I guarantee that in an asynchronous environment or a multi-threaded environment? How do I do that?" That's where functional programming has a lot to say, and a lot of constructs for dealing with stuff like that.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So can we talk a little bit then about what are the language features that are important for doing this? Because as we've currently described it, this is something that you could do in Java. You could separate out the easy, deterministic functions from the actions that are changing the world... And yet, as we described, Java is a dysfunctional language; it is not a good language for functional programming, whereas JavaScript is reasonable. And then there are these dedicated functional languages, or the languages that are really functional-oriented. So what are the layers of language features that make this paradigm easier or harder?
+
+**Eric Normand:** I think the first one is something that most languages have, for this first gateway. It's simply having a way of not changing stuff.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Eric Normand:** It's something like machine going -- it's like, every single machine instruction modifies a register. It adds two numbers and stores it somewhere; it adds these two numbers and stores it. So you have to modify, and you have to build in like a stack or something, to make sure that you can allocate local variables and all this stuff that you don't get out of the box.
+
+Most languages that we use every day have this - they have local variables, they have ways to allocate new memory, new values... And then of course, you need the discipline to like "I'm not gonna change this after I set it" or "I have a list and I'm only gonna do a \[unintelligible 00:18:17.23\]" which we can talk about like an immutability discipline.
+
+But then there's the next gateway, which is sort of higher-order programming... And to do that, you need to be able to make a first-class function, as you can in JavaScript. In Java you can kind of do it with Lambdas. That makes it kind of easier. But even if you faked it with classes that you instantiated, you can get by. It just seems very heavyweight to make a function or a class called Plus, then add it to numbers, right?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Eric Normand:** But in JavaScript it's like -- you know, especially with the ES6 syntax, it's like six characters.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Just to be clear... When we're talking about a first-class function, that is a function that you can pass around as an argument. Is that a fair description?
+
+**Eric Normand:** That's right. Yeah, that's it. You can treat it like a value in your language. So it can be an argument, a return value, it can be stored in a variable, or even in the value of an object, a property of an object, put it in an array... Anything you can do to a number, or a string, you can do it to a function.
+
+**Break:** \[19:38\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So we've talked about a couple aspects of functional programming languages... Immutability, which - you avoided that word; you had your own way of describing it, which was simpler, but I can't remember what it was... Immutability and first-class functions. What was the way you described immutability? Was that on purpose? Because you seem very careful with your wording. I think you said "The ability to not change things."
+
+**Eric Normand:** Right. Yeah, so I use the term "immutability" -- I made a very conscious decision not to talk about language features...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. And that's all we ask you about... \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That was me. I'm the bad cop.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...and yet here we are. \[laughter\]
+
+**Eric Normand:** It's true, you do need some--
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We need some hooks, you know?
+
+**Eric Normand:** ...language features. But immutability is not a required language feature...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. You can do it on your own.
+
+**Eric Normand:** ...because you can do it with discipline.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. You just don't change things.
+
+**Eric Normand:** Exactly. You just don't change things. And so what I'm calling immutable is a value that you have -- even if it's just mentally marked as "I'm not gonna change this", sometimes you get help from your language... In Clojure, the data structures it gives you are immutable.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You can't do it.
+
+**Eric Normand:** There's no methods on them that allow you to change them. But in something like JavaScript or Java, that's the default, that you can change the stuff. So you have to provide the immutability yourself as a discipline.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Mm-hm. And then we talked about first-class functions...
+
+**Eric Normand:** Right.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So in JavaScript you can do immutable programming. In fact, there's libraries and things out there that will help you practice that discipline. But it does have to be a discipline, because you can mutate variables in JavaScript.
+
+**Eric Normand:** That's right. And it's so easy to just assign to a hashmap, or an object as a hashmap, and delete keys out of it... If you do any of that, you're modifying it. Any other piece of code that has a reference to it, it's also changed for them, too.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Eric Normand:** And I'm not saying it's bad; it's not bad to do that, or to be able to do that... But it's not immutable.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, to go back to your language from earlier, you're kind of taking what would have been a calculation and turning it into an action at that point, because you are changing the world...
+
+**Eric Normand:** That's right.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...and that's dangerous, because you're increasing the surface area of your actions, and we already decided that we wanna minimize those.
+
+**Eric Normand:** That's right. Another thing about actions that I didn't mention was that they spread. So if you imagine function A calls function B, and function B calls function C, if function C is an action, meaning it depends on when it's called, then function B has to be an action too, because it calls function C... And then function A has to be an action, because it calls function B. This is kind of like a corollary of the definition of actions, calculations and data. A lot of people try to put layers and layers of wrapping around mutation, so that it goes away, but it can't. If you put it down at the bottom, everything above it is gonna have to be an action. What you wanna do is kind of reverse it...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's interesting.
+
+**Eric Normand:** ...and put it all at the top. Because the top is gonna be an action anyway. Your main function, for instance - that's gonna be an action. There's no way to avoid that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Have a good piece of software... \[laughs\] "I ran it and nothing happened."
+
+**Eric Normand:** Yeah... \[laughs\] It's something that just adds some numbers up... \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I think we'll get into this a little bit more later, but I think that ties deeply into the way that frontend frameworks and their move towards functionality - how they think about where state lives, and how you wanna push state up the tree, so that you can have more and more...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Pure...
+
+**Eric Normand:** Pure components, yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, I was gonna say pure components, but I was trying to figure out, like -- calculated components? What's the nomenclature we might use here?
+
+**Eric Normand:** Well, yeah, and the move is that they become just functions of their props, you know?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah.
+
+**Eric Normand:** \[unintelligible 00:26:59.25\] and don't have any state or side effects or anything. I mean, that's the ideal, right?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Now, do we have to worry about the fact that by modifying the DOM they are in some ways taking action, or do we conceptualize that as "They return what the DOM should be, and a higher-level thing is what's actually having the action of changing the DOM"?
+
+**Eric Normand:** Right. They are not actually modifying the DOM. They are just returning a value. And something else, which someone has carefully constructed, and presumably tested, is managing the actual actions that happen... Which is a common pattern in functional programming, where you kind of return a data representation of what you wanna get done.
+
+A simple example is instead of a function looping through a bunch of customers and sending each one an email inside the loop, you could map over the customers and generate a list of the emails in a data representation (the subject, the body), and then something else will loop through that and send off the emails, maybe in batches, or however you wanna do it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[28:24\] Right.
+
+**Eric Normand:** And that way, you're pushing more and more of the code into calculations, and then you just have this little tight loop that's just "Send an email, send an email, send an email..." It doesn't have to do any decision-making or anything. It's just a very simple -- \[unintelligible 00:28:37.21\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So we're getting into some of these functional things now, where we talk about immutability - this is not a feature of JavaScript; it's something you can do in JavaScript. Then you have first-class functions - this is a JavaScript feature; so you can pass functions around as values, and that's very useful in functional programming, because that's what you wanna do... And now you also have these specific language features, which are sometimes standard library, oftentimes right there in the language, where these are functions which are useful to functional programming. You have map, reduce, filter etc. Explain why these lend themselves to make functional programming easy.
+
+**Eric Normand:** Right. So these I call functional tools. They often come in the form of a function that takes a value, often a collection - you know, in the case of map, or filter - and a first-class function as an argument. And what they let you do is stop writing for loops, basically. For loops are a very imperative construct. They require you to initialize a variable and then modify that variable...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Each time through, yeah.
+
+**Eric Normand:** You know, we've all done it... The i ++ , and the i is less than array.length, and all that stuff...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Eric Normand:** And instead of doing that, you notice these patterns where "Look, I'm taking a list and doing something to every element over and over again. I'm doing that in a lot of different places. Half of my for loops probably are just that." So instead of writing that over and over again, I can consolidate that into one place - sometimes you might think of it as drying that up - and the first-class function is what lets you represent the body of that loop. You couldn't do it without a first-class function, because typically, when you abstract with procedural abstraction, you have a ten-step process and you say "Okay, the first three steps - I'm gonna name them in a function, and I'll just call them. And then the next steps - I'll name them. And then the last two - I'll name those." So now I just have a three-step function. But you can't do that with a for loop, because the for loop needs the opening and closing braces, and you can't separate them syntactically. It's just not valid syntax to do that. So there's no way to have "Here's the two pieces of bread for your sandwich together" and then define the ingredients on your sandwich separately, at a different time.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Eric Normand:** Well, first-class functions let you do that. So you could replace a for loop with a for each. And the for each does the same thing looping through an array would do, where it gives you access to each element... And then you pass in what you want done to each element as a function.
+
+So anyway, we have a bunch of tools like this. What I really like about them is they're very simple. You could write them yourself. They're not like some complex thing. You probably have written them yourself, and maybe you didn't know it. So map is like three, four lines long. Filter - it's a few lines. Reduce starts to get a little bit more complicated, but you could write it in a couple lines. And you know, there's a number of these. Lodash has a bunch of them already built in. I know a lot of people use Lodash; it's a really great tool for that kind of thing.
+
+\[32:17\] So the reason I think that they're useful is it lets you transform really complicated, nested for loops into a sequence of steps. So you look at the for loop and you're like "I mean, I really have to trace through in my head what's happening in every iteration, and keep track of two nestings of what's going on at which point?" But if you turn it into a chained sequence of functional tools, it might be four or five steps, and each one is really simple and clear what it's doing. So you could -- you know, this nested for loop could have some conditionals inside. That conditional could be turned into a filter.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Eric Normand:** So it's like "Oh, I'm only dealing with the even numbers. Okay." And then the next step is for each of those numbers we're calculating an offset in the string. That's a map, because you're calculating based on the input. And then it just becomes this sequence of what looks like linear steps operating on collections of data.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. And it's very easy to reason about, because you see those - boom, boom, boom, boom. And you can just hop into the middle of that and insert another thing right there...
+
+**Eric Normand:** That's right.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...or take that thing out.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** When I first learned about this approach, it was probably one of the biggest productivity improvements or leaps that I've had in my career of programming... Because it changes the way that you think about this, and it gets you used to thinking about things as a series of transformations to the data.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And it really forces you to think about the data pipeline of how it's going through, which is in many examples a much more productive way to think about it, and a much simpler way to think about it than trying to think imperatively what are all the things I'm doing to a single item.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. You think smaller, because you think in smaller steps... Whereas in the past maybe you started that for loop, and then you've got your editor right there inside the for loop, and you're like "Now what are the eight things I've gotta do to get out of here?"
+
+**Eric Normand:** Right.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** But instead, you think "What's thing one? I'm gonna do that. What's thing two?" You think in those smaller steps.
+
+**Eric Normand:** The other thing is you can just -- let's say you do the first step... You could just print it out. You just print out the value you got; test it out right there. Whereas if you're in a for loop, you're like "Well, I haven't done anything yet." Like, I've just got this local variable that I've been accumulating stuff in, but at what point do I print that out? At the end of the loop? But then something else happens to it, so I can't do that..." So having these steps - each one is an immutable collection, and you could print all of them out. You have a record of everything you've done.
+
+And then the other thing is, like, often for loops start out really easy. And then as you add features, they accumulate local variables...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Conditions...
+
+**Eric Normand:** Conditionals, and stuff... They just become really hard to work with and modify. But if you've got it in steps -- it might not be a linear series of steps. It might be four series of steps. But you can reuse the first two steps for the next set of steps. You can compose these however you want... But each step is clear; each step shows you "Okay, I've gone from a list of all numbers from 1 to 100, to a list of only the multiples of 3." And that's a concrete step, that is easy to understand.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So there's probably a lot of people out there thinking "Holy cow, I've been doing functional programming this whole time, I just didn't know it."
+
+**Eric Normand:** I hope so.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] "At least in some parts of my code..." Right?
+
+**Eric Normand:** Yeah. What I've noticed is a lot of people get to the map, filter and reduce...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And stay there.
+
+**Eric Normand:** \[36:10\] Well, they stay there, yes. They get it, and they use them really productively, and that's great... But I would implore people to look at stuff that Lodash gives you besides map, filter and reduce... There's a lot of other cool tools that could really be great in your toolbox. One I really like is called frequencies. So if you have a sequence - or any collection, but let's say it's an array of values... It's surprising how often it comes up where I just wanna know how many of each thing I have; how many two's do I have, how many three's do I have, how many ten's do I have? And you can write that really easily. It's just a loop through this array, and you plop it into a hashmap with a one. But if it's already in the hashmap, you just add one to it. You could just write this, and now you have this reusable, very abstract, reusable function that is useful in so many algorithms.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** You use that all the time.
+
+**Eric Normand:** Yeah, yeah. So there's that one... There's one called groupBy, which is similar... Which instead of counting them, it actually puts them together, and the By means you're passing in the function of how to group them. Let's say you have an array of users objects, and you wanna group them by the first letter of their last name, something like that. You would pass in this array, and you would pass in the function that could calculate the first letter of their last rate, given one of them... And then it will make a map where all the e's are in an array, and all the b's are in an array... And there you go. Now you have them grouped in this way, and that's great for making indices. If you need an index so that you can do a quick look-up by a certain value, like the first letter of their last name, it's great for algorithms.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, because you avoid nesting, because you effectively return yourself what is conceptually a list of lists, and then you're just applying the next operation on that list of lists, and then you can flatten that back out and keep going.
+
+**Eric Normand:** That's right.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, that type of grouping is often a super-valuable performance improvement, too... Because I so often run into code that I'm coming in having to make it scale after the fact, where folks have written something that basically does a nested pair of loops, that scales quadratically. It's like "Okay, for this case, go and find..."
+
+**Eric Normand:** "For all the A's, loop through and figure out if it's got an A. Okay, now for all the B's, loop through..." Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Exactly. And you do a pre-groupBy, single iteration through a list, and then you list through the set of things you need to check, and you transform the quadratic operation into two linear ones, and suddenly it's fast.
+
+**Eric Normand:** It's so funny, because we often think of making a data structure as like an expensive operation... But these days, people have so much memory on their machines that a little hashmap -- I mean, literally, this hashmap could have at most 26 entries in it. It's not big. And you're not copying the users. Those objects are just being referenced. So when you think about how little is actually being allocated, it's not that much. You've got 26 entries in a hashmap and 26 arrays. And the rest is all just referenced to the original user object. So we're like counting pennies over here, and people have millions in their iPhone.
+
+**Break:** \[40:04\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** One thing that I think has brought functional paradigms very much front and center for many folks using JavaScript is the trend in frontend frameworks, and React in particular, to move towards more functional paradigms... So I'd love to get your sense of both what are the parts of that that are working well, what are the parts that are unintuitive, and how do some of the more React-specific concepts like hooks and things like that play into your mindset when you think about functional programming?
+
+**Eric Normand:** Okay, this is a big topic. I think React is a great thing for the functional programming world, just making these ideas more popular. The thing that is really the most functional that I see is this idea of a component that takes props and returns DOM. And I don't know how old the audience is, but I remember jQuery, and I remember having to keep track of what the view has in it, and what I need to change... And then every now and then being like "I'm just gonna re-render the whole thing, because I've lost track." It was really hard. You're basically doing your own little ad-hoc virtual DOM each time. So this technology of the virtual DOM, this trick, is a really cool way of making it for the programmer a very pure-function experience, and then having the React team figure out the virtual DOM diffing, and actually modifying the DOM one time for everybody. So everyone using React is getting the benefit of that one development. I think that's great.
+
+The stuff I worry about when I see people in the wild actually using React is them making impure components... Components that will call out to the server to get user data whenever they are mounted into the DOM. Now they're doing it with hooks, but they used to do it on component \[unintelligible 00:43:45.06\] or whatever lifecycle method they chose at the time... And what that means is now your component is in action. It depends on when it mounts, and how many times it mounts, and you have this same problem.
+
+\[44:02\] And you see apps that have this issue where every component on the page -- you know, the idea is the component is supposed to self-sufficient; it's supposed to know where to get its data from, and how to get it, and it's gonna get it when it needs it. So you've totally given up any ability to control how many requests it makes, or when they get made...
+
+So you have a thing where on a page it might make a hundred requests at the same time. Those are gonna get queued up in the browser in some random order, because you can't control it in an Ajax/asynchronous environment... And then maybe three or four will go out at the same time, and you're just waiting on them, and they're all blocking each other... It's the opposite of what I dreamed of when I first started using React. In React it's supposed to be very reactive; you click on something and it changes instantly, without a loading spinner, and stuff like that. Nowadays we've reimplemented the page refresh poorly...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Eric Normand:** So I think that that's the wrong direction. What I really think it is is that people don't know the functional ideals they haven't made this first gateway step of actions and calculations, this distinguishing between them... And they're thinking of components as the building blocks of their whole application, when really they're just the building blocks of the view. They're just supposed to be used for projecting the state into HTML. I mean, this is my opinion as a functional programmer. I know there's a lot of ways to write software... But this is the mistake I see from my functional programming perspective. I do a lot of ClojureScript, and we don't do that in ClojureScript.
+
+Clojure and ClojureScript are functional languages, and what we do is we keep the state outside of the DOM mostly. Sometimes you have a little bit of state in the DOM, where it makes sense. When I say "where it makes sense", I mean if you have a panel that opens and closes, that open/close state - it can be in the panel. It's tiny, it doesn't have any effect on anything else... It's fine. It doesn't hurt anything. It's so manageable that you're not gonna get into trouble. But the users' information? Come on, that's gonna be used in several places. You're gonna have a little avatar up at the top, you're gonna use the username somewhere in another component... So you wanna get that out of the DOM; just get it out. Because it needs an Ajax request... Just take it out of the DOM. So we don't put state in the DOM and we do all of our Ajax stuff outside of the DOM as well, outside of the components.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** One question on that. So thinking about the React paradigm, and different ways -- like, there are many different folks who use it in more or less functional ways... And I love the language play, the English meaning of functional as compared to our technical meaning there... But there's trends towards "Okay, every bit of state should be done in a component that renders no view, and then it should use its own set of components that are pure, and there's things around that..." But one thing I was wondering as you were talking about the approach to using ClojureScript is does the model of context and context providers get closer there if you use context providers to manage the data? Or is that not quite what you mean?
+
+**Eric Normand:** It does get closer... This is funny. In ClojureScript -- we were one of the first adopters of React. I remember David Nolan, the maintainer of ClojureScript, was experimenting with it back in 2013, and I looked at it back then, too... And then there was like an explosion of wrapper libraries in ClojureScript in 2013 and 2014... And we kind of set the trajectory back in 2014. So we haven't kept up to date with all of the developments in the React world...
+
+\[48:23\] I mean, it must have been like React 10 or 11 when we stopped doing new features, because we had everything we wanted. We had the virtual DOM, we had a better event system that React gave us... And what more could you want? We could make a wrapper to provide anything else.
+
+So we don't use context that much, but I am somewhat familiar with it. It does get closer... I still think that the big problem is that it requires those context wrapper elements, and that you can't make modifications outside of that. So this is what I'm talking about - I like to keep my state in a global variable, so an object that has semantics, in a global variable. That way, I can do -- like, what if I want to make a WebSocket to the server, and the WebSocket's gonna send me data, and I wanna put that into the state? Why should I have to go through a component to do that? The context requires you're still in the Dom, and you have to use some kind of a hook or something to get a setter for that context state, and then get it into the WebSocket...? Like, that's weird. How do you do that without all these problems? You can just have a handler on the -- I don't remember what the event is called in the WebSocket world, that "I just got a message. You handle that", and you just update the state. And then because React is reactive, it should just re-render everything that's looking at that state.
+
+So that's what I see as one of the problems. It's a lot of workarounds, when -- why don't you just not have it in the DOM, and you won't have all these problems?
+
+I do think another great advance is the hooks. They're composable (which is really nice), that you didn't have before with class-based functionality... But then the other thing which is very functional is -- so your components are functions, and so they have arguments. These are the explicit inputs to the function, and they have a return value, which is the DOM that they're returning. So in a strict sense, that's all you get; you shouldn't have any other inputs to your function, otherwise it would be impure.
+
+But with hooks, you can use state, or use something and you're getting data from outside of the props, from outside of the arguments. But the nice thing is it's all at the top, and it's all kind of declared... It's a very declarative format. So you're bending the rules... Because this functional programming stuff - it's all a mental construct. Down at the level of the machine code it's all mutation everywhere. You just wanna be explicit about where is the data coming into this function. And hooks make that easy, because they usually go up at the top, so you can see "Okay, it's getting stuff from the props, and it's also getting stuff from this other thing etc." So that's the other good thing I like about it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, I have to say, Eric, you are very good at explaining these things and your reasoning. I like how careful you are with your words. As I said at the top, you've been doing this for a very long time. I think 2001 is what your bio says you've been teaching FP to people for like 14-15 years, something like that... A long time, right?
+
+**Eric Normand:** Yeah... A long time.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, a long time. So you've had a lot of iterations on how to explain these concepts.
+
+**Eric Normand:** \[52:10\] Yes, yes...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And I think you've gotten very good at it, I should say... For those who wanna hear more from Eric, we had you on the Changelog back in 2017. Can you believe it? It was four years ago... Talking a lot about similar things. Because you've been beating the functional programming drum for a very long time. And that was a well-received episode; I'm sure we cover similar, but different ground on that. We'll link that one up in the show notes.
+
+And you're also working now on a book. Like I said, you've been teaching this stuff for a very long time - in-person, online, courses, books, videos, all the things... You're working on a book right now called Grokking Simplicity. Do you wanna tell us about it?
+
+**Eric Normand:** Yeah, sure. So the book is about functional programming. It's the kind of stuff we've been talking about. The first part is all about actions, calculations and data, how to refactor actions into calculations, how to implement immutability, and also how to do your functional tools, and how to chain them... And we also talk (something we didn't talk about much) about how to manage your actions. So there's a lot of stuff that once you get into first-class functions, you can start to build little primitives, little tools for managing the order of actions, or managing how often they get called... So those become higher-order functions, functions that take functions... So we go over stuff like that. We also do a little bit of design and architecture of functional applications.
+
+The whole idea is that functional programming isn't like this field of stuff, this abstract field of study. It's a set of practical skills that industrial programmers - meaning people who work on commercial software - that we use to look at it in a more practical way, and start to document what we actually do... Because so much of the literature is academic that there's not much to build on for someone who's getting interested in it and just wants to get some practical stuff.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Eric Normand:** And also, it's practical whether you go all-in in functional programming or not. These skills are very practical for building software. And sometimes it's exactly what you need, and it'll help.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, absolutely. And I think it's sometimes hard -- I think a lot of times the way FP is presented is impractical, pure and academic... And I think you're doing a great job of bringing it to the pragmatists, to the ones out there trying to use these things. Like I said, in some cases, in small ways, people are using it without even realizing it; it's empowering to know what you're doing and how you can embrace that, and follow it through to its full extent.
+
+One thing that's cool about this book - because you have some exercises and some other things as well... So not only are you reading these things, but aren't there ways you can take that -- because it's a way of thinking, and sometimes you just need to practice that way of thinking, right?
+
+**Eric Normand:** That's right.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And so there's opportunity there.
+
+**Eric Normand:** Yeah. I mean, even just identifying the actions and the calculations... People have told me, early readers -- because it's in early access now; it should be published soon. But people have told me "Wow, that has changed the way I see all the software. I can now say "Oh, this is gonna be hard, because look, it's an action." And all this other stuff. Oh, that's easy to test. Let's just test it and get it out of the way." Those kinds of things really help people. And I haven't seen anyone, besides this book - even in my previous \[unintelligible 00:55:50.14\] because it's a lot of work... It wasn't just like me writing down what I know. I had to figure out what's the best way to teach this... Which is why I came up with actions, calculations and data, and all these little mnemonics for remembering this stuff. This is stuff that we do, and it changes the way you see programming. And no one had gone through and actually broken down functional programming to this basic level.
+
+\[56:19\] You know, when you read a functional programming book, they might have one or two sentences explaining what a pure function is. Well, we spend the whole first part on that. We spend eight chapters just talking about what's a pure function, how do you make them, how do you recognize when it's impure, and convert it into a pure function, how do you make data immutable... All this stuff that is just kind of like a footnote in other books... I basically take a step back and say "This is the stuff that people need. You're not teaching the meat of it, you're just teaching the--" I mean, I call it froth. It's the froth of like "Oh, once you get all this other stuff, you can go super-deep." You're four levels into the onion, and you're doing all this cool stuff, but no one knows how you got there, because you're not making a path for people to follow from where they are. So that's what I try to do, is figure out where people are and bring them.
+
+The book is called Grokking Simplicity, it's published by Manning, and it's available in early access, so you can get it now. If you buy it now, you'll get the updates. And once it's finalized, you'll get the printed version.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I think those mental model shifts are where the gold is. I mentioned, I think early on in my programming career this shift of thinking about loops, and into map and filter as data pipelines... It's a mental model shift, and it massively upped my productivity.
+
+When you started talking about this distinction of action and calculation, and thinking about that - I can already see... Like, I'm thinking about that now. I've learned about pure and impure, but that shift did something for me, and I'm excited to explore that.
+
+I'm curious if there are other mind shifts you have identified through your teaching or through going through this book that also provide those kind of step function changes in how you view programming.
+
+**Eric Normand:** The third one that I deal with in the book -- so just to do them in order again... The actions, calculations and data, then the first-class functions and higher-order functions... You know, even learning that "Oh, wait, plus isn't a function. It's an operator. It's part of the syntax. But I can wrap it in a function and now it's first-class" - that's a big leap. And being able to pass it to a function - that's another leap.
+
+The third one is starting to think about having a -- I call it first-class. Maybe that's the wrong term... But an explicit model of time. So when you're dealing with any domain, the domain itself is not going to always match the languages' model. For instance, if you have a function that sends an email, every time you call it, it's gonna send that email. But your domain says "Wait, I shouldn't send it more than once." So how do you make an explicit model of time, which is like once only - how do you make that out of the implicit model of time that your language gives you?
+
+\[59:35\] So you have something like, how do you coordinate all these Ajax requests that are coming in in random order? You put them out in a certain order, but they're coming back however they come back... So you need something to reorder them in the order you want them to be in, and promises is one way to do that... But we talk about different approaches, different constructs similar to promises that you could do. So you're actually making a new model of time, that like "This is the order that things need to happen in."
+
+Here's a simple one I can describe quickly... Let's say you have two Ajax requests you need to send off, and you need to wait for both of them. Okay, I know you can do Promise.all; that exists, right? But let's say you don't have a promise, and you wanna do it a different way. You can't put a callback on the one that you think will take longer, because it's not how Ajax works. They just come back in random order.
+
+So you can create a little object that records how many times (let's call it) the done( ) method gets called. So that object has a callback, and when the done( ) method gets called twice - because you have two Ajax requests - it will then call the callback. This is equivalent to saying -- like, you go to conferences a lot. After the last session, you're like "Hey, let's meet down here for dinner." Well, you don't know who's gonna get done first, right? So if you get to the lobby and there's no one there, you have to wait, because the other person is coming. You both follow that rule and you meet up and you go to dinner, right?
+
+So you wanna make little, simple rules like that, that you can put into your code. This is like a new model of time there. That's the third one.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I think you've sold me here... I definitely need to check this out. I only have one model of time, and it's the one that's always running out...
+
+**Eric Normand:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We have friends at Manning. We've been working with them for a very long time, and they've been kind enough to give us three free eBook codes for Eric's new book, Grokking Simplicity. Like you said, it's in early access, but getting close to done now... And if you get it now, you'll get the final version as the updates come out. So three to give away, and all you have to do to enter is just join the JS Party channel in our Slack, because we're gonna keep it easy - we're just gonna give it away to our friends in our JS Party of our Slack. So if you're not in there, hop in at Changelog.com/community. Totally free, totally easy, and totally fun to hang out with us during the show, and in between shows as well.
+
+Of course, if you do not win one of the three codes, we also have a coupon code for all Manning products. 20% off all Manning products. Use coupon code "podjsparty20" at checkout to redeem that.
+
+Eric, this has been a great conversation. I feel like we really did just kind of scratch the surface, just some froth on the conversation... But you did a great job of explaining things to us, and answering all of Kball's hardballs, and my softballs... Thanks for coming on JS Party, it's been a lot of fun.
+
+**Eric Normand:** Cool, thank you so much. This was fun.
+
+**Outro:** \[01:03:00.28\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I've gotta give props before I go back in to Igor for the best drop in the chatroom so far. He says "FP is like an onion. If you go deep into it, it makes you cry." \[laughter\] Nice... I like that one. There's your hater there, Eric...
+
+**Eric Normand:** Yeah... \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yup, they're everywhere. Everywhere you find a hater.
diff --git a/JS on Wasm_transcript.txt b/JS on Wasm_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3b6122cc32c06c411b2da609b2f5f3d2f29fec11
--- /dev/null
+++ b/JS on Wasm_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,253 @@
+**Kevin Ball:** Hello, JS Party people, and welcome to another wonderful episode of your favorite party about the web on the web. We are livestreaming right now. I have our one and only Nick Nisi joining me today.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Hoy-hoy.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Hey-hey. Mr. Burns - we may be calling him Mr. Burns through this episode because our special guest today is Mr. Nick Fitzgerald, who is a staff engineer at Fastly. Hey, Nick.
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Hey! How's it going?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Hello, hello. And I, of course, am your MC this week, I'm Kball coming at you... We are super-excited to talk with you, Nick. Thank you for joining us today. The impetus for this was I saw a really cool article talking about making JavaScript run directly on WebAssembly. But before we get into that, can you tell us a little bit about yourself, your background and what kind of stuff you do?
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah. So I used to be at Mozilla, where I started on the Developer Tools team, and I did that for a bunch of time. Then one Christmas break I was thinking -- so let me back up a bit... I was the author and maintainer of the sourcemap library, and it was something that we always had trouble with for larger programs. We'd get really big sourcemaps, 15 megabytes, whatever, and starting up the DevTools would take a long time, because we'd just sit there, parsing these large sourcemaps. And the parser was all written in JavaScript, and we were writing this really contorted JavaScript. We were avoiding exceptions, we were avoiding allocating objects, so we would use the same single object as an out parameter every time we called functions and write to those properties, because allocation was too slow, and then we'd get GC pauses...
+
+\[04:06\] So one Christmas break I kind of got annoyed and fed up with this and I decided to rewrite it in Rust and interpret that to WebAssembly... And I ended up making it a bunch faster; I forget what the exact numbers were. It was quite a while now. But that was kind of like my intro to WebAssembly and how I got involved there.
+
+Then as it turned out, Mozilla was spinning up a team to work on WebAssembly stuff, different people who would work on WebAssembly -- like, the engine directly that's inside SpiderMonkey... So I joined that, and then I stayed at Mozilla for a while, and then ended up moving to Fastly with a bunch of the rest of my team. So that's kind of how I got here.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I remember when that first came out with the sourcemaps. I somehow hadn't made the connection that it was you... But it was 10 or 11 times faster than the original implementation...
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah. And \[unintelligible 00:05:01.19\] I'm not sure exactly what he goes by - he kind of took this as a challenge and took the original JavaScript and made that a bunch faster, and kind of got it close in the neighborhood of where the WebAssembly was... But what was cool was that all of his techniques for speeding up the JavaScript were algorithmic. So I just took all those algorithmic speed-ups and applied them to the Rust and WebAssembly, and that got another five times faster from what it was, or something like that. That was really fun. It was a good little back and forth blog post series.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That's awesome. And then the latest thing that I saw and what kind of let to this was now you're working on a project that involves not just replacing JavaScript with WebAssembly, but actually running JavaScript using WebAssembly, I think compiling the entire JavaScript engine down to WebAssembly, or something like that... Can you talk a little bit about this project?
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah, so I don't really like the term "replacing JavaScript." I guess something I left out in my intro is I also was the lead of the Rust project's WebAssembly Working Group, so I was kind of trying to make Rust and WebAssembly play nice with JavaScript. Our whole thing was that you shouldn't replace your JavaScript; they should live together and be friendly. So you can reach for just those kernels of really hot code, and replace them with some Rust and WebAssembly, but then that should fit to your larger program.
+
+Again, this is not about replacing JavaScript, it's about "How can we bring JavaScript to places where you don't really have access to JavaScript normally?" One example is serverless environments that just run WebAssembly. How do you run JavaScript in this environment? Or there's different environments or OS'es that you don't have a JIT compiler; all you have are the options of running an interpreter.
+
+So we have kind of like a whacky setup that surprisingly works pretty well, where - yes, we're taking SpiderMonkey, which is Firefox's JavaScript engine, and we're compiling that to WebAssembly. So we have a JavaScript engine running inside of WebAssembly. Then we run the JavaScript on top of that. And you might be thinking "Wow, that's gotta be way slower than running JavaScript how you would normally run it", and yeah, that's true for throughput, but not for latency. So latency is like "How fast can we start up the engine and respond to something?" and throughput is like "How much work can do to extend it?" or "How long does it take to finish all of the work at a time?"
+
+So we have this tool that I developed called Wizer, which takes snapshots of WebAssembly, and allows you to just basically initialize a program, take a snapshot at that point in time, and then the result of that snapshot is actually itself a WebAssembly module. And when you instantiate that WebAssembly module, everything is already initialized. So you don't need to do any of that startup again.
+
+\[08:11\] So what we can do is we can actually run all the JavaScript initialization, we can start up the JavaScript engine, we can parse the JavaScript, turn it into a AST, turn it into bytecode, evaluate the top-level so that all the event listeners are registered, and everything like that... If the JavaScript needs to build a global look-up table that is kind of in the top level, all that stuff happens, and then we take a snapshot. So that stuff's already done. When we start up again, there's basically nothing that needs to happen. We're just immediately ready to start running JavaScript.
+
+If you compare this to starting up a v8 isolate, I think it takes around 5 milliseconds to actually start the isolet, and you haven't even started processing the actual JavaScript source code at that point yet. So you would still need to then parse the JavaScript, emit bytecode etc. With our snapshot all that stuff is already done. And I think the metaphor that Lin made in her blog post was if you have a contractor, you have to first negotiate with the contractor, hire them... That's kind of like getting the JavaScript engine set up, and getting office space, and stuff. And then there's making the Trello board, or whatever; getting all those items ready. That's kind of like parsing the JavaScript. And then there's the actual work that needs to be done.
+
+So we're kind of like making an office in a box here, where you just open the suitcase and the office is already in. Everything is ready to go, and you don't have to do any of that initial setup time.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That's super-interesting. Can we actually step back for a second? Because I think you're way deep in the weeds on this in a way that I think not everybody has the context... So you mentioned a couple of things there that I'd love to dig into. First, can you just sort of explain what is a v8 isolate? Because that was the comparison you were drawing.
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah. So a v8 isolate is basically like a little world of JavaScript in v8. I'm actually much less familiar with the v8 than I am with SpiderMonkey, because I worked at Mozilla and I hacked on SpiderMonkey a bit... But basically, the idea is that any of the JavaScript within an isolate is kind of isolated from any JavaScript that you have in any other isolate.
+
+If you were developing a serverless platform and using v8 for that, you wouldn't want two customers' code to run in the same isolate, because you really don't want them to be able to poke at each other's stuff. That's a huge security vulnerability. So an isolate is kind of like the unit of -- it's kind of like a process in an OS, or a different window in a browser, a different tab.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Got it. So it's like a self-contained JavaScript execution environment.
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Exactly, yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Cool. So then you were talking a little bit about the different phases involved with running code in an isolate, right? There's like instantiation, parsing, all these different things. So can you maybe break down a little bit what was the motivation for this? Because I think we jumped right into also what does it do, but maybe we could talk a little bit about the why's behind that.
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah. So the idea was just basically "How can we bring JavaScript to environments where it otherwise wouldn't be?" For us at Fastly, the big motivating thing is our Compute@Edge platform, where we just support WebAssembly and we would also like to have some JavaScript there. But similar, there's environments where you don't have access to JITs, and so maybe you would prefer to have this approach to get really fast startups.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That was something that was new to me. This is not really my realm by any means, but the idea of a serverless environment for WASM - what are the practical uses of that?
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** \[12:04\] Yeah, so we just talked about isolates, right? A WASM instance is kind of similarly sandboxed. There's a few different kinds of state that a WASM instance has, but the one that everyone knows about is the linear memory. You just have basically this big array of bytes, and that's your sandbox to play in as a WASM instance. So it gives you similar guarantees, but it's a lot simpler, because that's it, there's just this array. We're not talking about objects in a GC heap, or anything like that. So because it's so much simpler, we can start it up a lot faster; creating a new one takes, depending on the module, a handful of microseconds, rather than milliseconds, so a whole order of magnitude faster... And WebAssembly has this nice property where it can only do stuff that it imports. So by default, WebAssembly can't really do anything; at most, it can kind of spin the CPU and cause some heat, and maybe you have to interrupt it and say "Stop doing that." But if it wants to talk to the network, or write to disk, or anything like that, you need to kind of give it functions that allow it to do that.
+
+So it's kind of like a capability-based security, if you're familiar with that, which is basically like - you don't have the capability to write to the network or communicate on the network unless I give that to you. So you get these really nice security and sandbox properties... And so that's kind of why we're interested in that and serverless, because we can create more instances faster than alternative approaches, and we can pack more of them together in one machine.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Gotcha. That's cool. That's a good reason for that that I hadn't considered. So without getting on too big of a tangent, if JavaScript isn't typically available there, what is the primary language that is typically targeted with a WASM serverless environment?
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah, so Rust is a big one... And also some people use C and C++. There's AssemblyScript, which is probably a more familiar feeling to people who are familiar with JavaScript. The idea is that it's kind of JavaScript syntax that maps pretty much directly to WebAssembly.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Gotcha.
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** So it'll look familiar, but it might feel a little bit different based on the restrictions of targeting WebAssembly.
+
+**Break**: \[14:37\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Awesome. Nick, you were sharing some about the motivations, and some of the pieces there around running in places where you wouldn't otherwise be able to run this... But you've also alluded a lot to performance benefits and trade-offs, and I'd love to dig in a little bit more then on what you accomplished... Because you started this based on "Okay, we wanna be able to run this in our WASM environments", but the blog post that Lin put together, it also highlighted some really intriguing performance improvements, and you sort of alluded to that in your startup times. But yeah, can you walk us through what did you find out? How does this thing run relative to those isolates or relative to a native JavaScript environment?
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah. So starting up the JavaScript engine and creating an isolate or kind of SpiderMonkey's equivalent takes around five milliseconds... And then actually, once the JavaScript engine is created, you have to give it a source code for your application, and then that involves parsing and all this stuff... And so it can take quite a while, maybe up to 15 milliseconds, before your application is ready to respond.
+
+People have shown all over the place that the faster you can have your pages load, the more customers will click Checkout, and generally the happier they are, or whatever. So kind of having the speed of light, the fastest that you could potentially go be on the order of like 15 milliseconds, or if even if we got down to like 6 milliseconds - that's not great. People fight hard to get better times than that, because it's worth it. So that was kind of a no-go for us. So what we wanted to figure out was how could we have basically instantaneous startup. That's kind of where my whole snapshotting work comes in.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And does it achieve that then? It's essentially unmeasurably fast?
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** I mean, yeah, we're talking microseconds... I think for the JavaScript engine it's around 300 microseconds, for a Rust program you're looking at maybe 30-40 microseconds... It's pretty dang near instantaneous.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That's wicked fast.
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Okay. And you mentioned that there are some trade-offs in terms of throughput if you end up then executing a fair amount. Have you kind of measured those curves over time? How long running of a function does this need to be before it starts to swap over to being less efficient?
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah. So there's some subtlety there, which is like - if you look at, say, my program takes one second end-to-end. It's like, "Well, how much of that one second is actually bottlenecked in JavaScript execution?" Are you doing I/O, reading from disk, or communicating with the network, or whatever? And not every program, but many programs are basically just kind of gluing together I/O. So in these cases, even if you had the most advanced JIT, a v8 or SpiderMonkey or JSC, you still wouldn't ever actually get to those top-tier JIT levels. Maybe you would break out of the interpreter into kind of a baseline compiler, but you probably wouldn't break out of the baseline compiler into the top-level compiler.
+
+So JavaScript throughput for many programs, not all programs - it doesn't really matter. So that's kind of like the area that we're trying to do well in right now... Because the truth is if you have something that is bottlenecked on JavaScript execution, this is gonna not work super-well... Because we are using just an interpreter; there's no JIT compilation happening here... And it's running in WebAssembly rather than native, so there is a little bit of overhead that's kind of stuck on there... But if you're gluing together I/O, then you'll have a great time.
+
+\[20:01\] And the other option here is there's a proposal for WebAssembly called module linking that we're kind of driving forward and we're in process of implementing... So what module linking does is it allows you to kind of create similar to like a WebPack bundle, where you are bringing together a bunch of different JavaScript modules; it's kind of similar, but for WebAssembly.
+
+So it's the same kind of vision that we were pushing on the web for the Rust and WebAssembly Working Group, where we were saying, you know, take your core compute that's actually bottlenecked on the CPU and write that in Rust, because it's just easier to write that kind of code in Rust than it is in JavaScript. And then just make it fit into the rest of your JavaScript.
+
+With module linking, what we can do is we can say hey, take that core compute that's actually bottlenecked on CPU, compile it to WebAssembly with Rust, and then link that in to your JavaScript program that's running on stuff that we've been talking about, and you can actually import that as a JavaScript module. Then any of the stuff that actually needs to be fast, you can kind of just push onto the other side of that boundary.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That makes a lot of sense. Interesting. So this type of moving dynamic run-in-time environments, and just-in-time or interpreted languages, into running within a compiled context, linking in compiled modules \[unintelligible 00:21:16.06\] - I feel like we've done that a lot on server-side, but WebAssembly lets us do it anywhere we might want. Do you see a similar approach being applied to other languages beside JavaScript?
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah. So what's cool about this approach of getting fast startup with snapshots is that it's not specific to JavaScript at all. If you happen to love Ruby more than JavaScript, you could do the same thing with Ruby and its interpreter, or Python, or Lua. As long as it can target WebAssembly, it's kind of just -- it's a feature of how simple WebAssembly is, that we can take these snapshots and make them start up really fast. Basically, anything that can go to WebAssembly, we can do this same technique on.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That's super-cool. Does Fastly support that today?
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** It's an open source tool. This isn't something that we're kind of hoarding the magic and doling it out as we please... You can download the tool, it's on github.com/bytecodealliance/wizer. It's the WASM Initializer, Wizer. And then someone suggested that we call these modules, after the snapshots, as "wizened" modules, because now they already know everything that they need to start up.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** How did you spell that?
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Wizer.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Okay. We will include a link in our show notes for all who are interested in that.
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah. And if people are really interested in the snapshot side of things, I gave a talk at this year's WebAssembly Summit specifically about Wizer and how it works... So I can share a link for that after the show.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, that would be super-cool. So where do you see this going? I think we're right now at the cusp with tools like this, and we had an episode a few weeks back when we were talking with the team behind Web Containers, they're basically running...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** StackBlitz?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** StackBlitz, yes, and web containers... Where they were talking about running Node.js and other server-side environments in the browser, and things like that. So we're kind of reaching this place where WebAssembly is letting us open all these new possibilities. What do you see as the next frontier here?
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah. So specifically for this JavaScript on WASM work, we are looking to take kind of the classic optimizations that JavaScript engines have used for improving throughput, and applying them in kind of an ahead-of-time context, rather than a just-in-time context. So what JavaScript engines do is they'll look at, you know, "This function is only ever called with two integers as arguments", and so I can optimize based on that... And you know, this plus operation - it always gets these two integers, so I can turn that into an addition, rather than a string concatenation, or having to check whether I'm doing addition or string concatenation every time.
+
+\[24:18\] And kind of the way that that happens are something called in-line caches, which kind of are like "Is it this type? Then do this. Is it that type? Then do this." And each of those "do-this'es" is a little stub in my cache stub.
+
+Traditionally, the way that in-line caches have been done in kind of a JIT environment is - say we're reading a field of an object. Every object has a shape or a hidden class, which is basically saying "What are the other of properties that I have, and what is my prototype chain?", that kind of thing. Normally, if you don't have any idea what the shape is, you have to kind of look up in a hash table to see "Okay, where does this field exist?" and then "Let me get that value." That's kind of an expensive operation for something that happens so often. But if you have an in-line cache, you can say "Is this object this shape that I've seen before?" This function happens to always be called with objects that have the same shape. And then you can just say "If it is, then I know already, I've kind of baked in that the field that I wanna read is that offset 8", or something like that. And that's just way faster. It's like a check, and then an offset read.
+
+So normally, the in-line cache would kind of bake in the pointer to that shape, and it would also bake in that offset... And those would kind of be generated in the machine code just-in-time. But what we can do is actually we can make the pointer into offset parameters, and make this in-line cache a little function that takes these things. So now this doesn't actually depend on anything at runtime, because where the shape is in memory - that's something that's at runtime. But we've kind of pulled all this stuff that happens at runtime out and we have something that we can use ahead of time.
+
+So if you're baking in pointers and stuff, there's kind of an infinite number of in-line caches that you could generate, but there's only so many types of in-line caches, where if you pull all these dynamic things that rely on what's happening at runtime out and you make them parameters, then you're left with just N different kinds of in-line caches... And we can actually compile all of those ahead-of-time and then kind of like wire them up during execution, but without any kind of just-in-time compilation.
+
+This should get us our throughput around where JavaScript was at kind of the start of the browser wars when Chrome was first coming out, and it was so much faster than Firefox, or whatever... So that's a good first step. And then the way that JavaScript engines get even faster from there is they start doing more aggressive optimizations than optimizing just the add. They kind of say, "Okay, assume that this whole function we only see integers. Don't optimize each individual operation; optimize the whole function based on this, and do lots of in-lining", and stuff like that. And we can't do any of that at runtime, because all of this depends on watching what's going on at runtime and then compiling at runtime. But if you have profile data - if you run the program over some benchmarks and then you kind of record what happened, what types flowed where, and which functions were called a bunch of times or not, you can basically gather than same data and then compile the JavaScript ahead of time.
+
+So that's kind of like the next step on the horizon after that, is basically do what JITs do, but ahead of time via some profiling maybe. That should get us, in principle -- it's kind of tricky, because you have to have a good benchmark set, which is kind of the big hurdle here... But in principle, this should get our throughput basically to where JavaScript engines are in the browser today.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[28:00\] This is really interesting. So we're essentially talking about moving JavaScript to being more and more of a compiled language in a lot of ways, rather than an interpreted language, and with a JIT compiler...
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And as you talked about profiling, it made me wonder - you're already doing precompilation, you're already putting these things in an environment where they're gonna run against the most realistic data there is, actual production data... How expensive would it be to put profiling gathering there and over time recompile these same workers that you're deploying based on profiling data of their live application?
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah. That's kind of like the long, long, long-term. We have a lot of stuff to build out before we can start thinking about that stuff... But yeah, you can do stuff like -- you don't need to profile every single execution; you can sample... So it's exciting, but we have a lot of work to do before we can start doing that kind of thing.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, that is super-cool.
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah. We were also talking about where are things going... That's one dimension for where JavaScript on WASM is going. And then there's kind of this other dimension of where WASM is going. WASM is similar to JavaScript, it has many people who are invested who are kind of doing different things... So it's not like one direction that it's going; there's a bunch of direction that different people are taking it. But one of the directions that I'm really excited about and I kind of alluded to is that module linking stuff.
+
+So it's one thing to be able to stuff WebAssembly modules together, but we talked about how simple WebAssembly modules are, and that means that there's not really a good way to communicate advanced structures. MVP/base WebAssembly has 32-bit floats, 64-bit floats, 32-bit integers, 64-bit integers. So that's not a lot of ways to communicate with each other.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And that's it.
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** That's it, right? So what compilers do is within the memory they'll lay out where structures are, the same way they would lay it out in native memory. But if I'm a Rust program and I wanna talk to a C program, C doesn't really understand Rust data structures. Rust can kind of talk at the C level, but it's a little bit painful... And now we're talking about interacting with JavaScript, but \[unintelligible 00:30:22.15\] but JavaScript running inside SpiderMonkey, a JavaScript engine that's on WASM... So the structures are just totally foreign, and communicating is really difficult. But this is where another WebAssembly proposal comes in called Interface Types. Interface types are basically a type grammar, sort of similar to Web IDL, where Web IDL defines "Here's records, here's different string types etc." Interface types defines a similar type grammar, and then the idea is you'll be able to communicate like this.
+
+Interface Types isn't quite an IDL, in that the plan is eventually you'll be able to kind of have dynamic adapter functions that allow you -- say you're receiving a string over this Interfaces Types boundary that lets modules communicate... And Rust's strings are represented as UTF-8; so it'll wanna just lower that into a flat UTF-8 array. But JavaScript strings are much more complicated. In SpiderMonkey I think there are -- I forget if it's 7, 9 or 13, but it was one of those odd numbers like that. Different representations of a string. Maybe the coolest one is called a rope. A rope is basically a tree of little strings. The idea is if you concatenate two strings and your string representation is just a buffer, you kind of have to potentially grow a new buffer that's the size of both of them, and then you have to copy the strings in, and it's really expensive. That's \[unintelligible 00:31:57.27\] operation.
+
+\[32:01\] But if you have a rope, what you can do is you can just say -- you know, it's kind of a tree, so you have a node that's just "I am the concatenation of this one string and this other string, and creating that is order one." So it's very cool, but it's very complicated. But interface types kind of will eventually allow you to define your own ways to kind of lower the platonic ideal of a string down into a rope, or something like that. Kind of like arbitrary computation for translating these types on either side.
+
+So that's kind of like the furthest vision. But right now we are defining just what's called a canonical ABI, which fixes the representation; you have to use a string buffer, or something like that. There's one representation for each type.
+
+So with just a canonical ABI it is kind of just like an IDL, but this it's open to that next step once we ship the first phase... So this is gonna allow all of these modules to talk to each other. And each of these modules - what's really key about interface types is that they're kind of \[unintelligible 00:33:04.14\] So if you think about npm modules, when you use an npm module, it gets all the same permissions and capabilities that your application has. And this is a problem; we've seen these supply chain attacks, where some generic markdown library or something - I don't think it's actually happened with a markdown library, but... You know, I just do something very innocent, and then actually I'm reading your SSH keys from disk, and I'm sending them off to some server, or I'm mining Bitcoins, or whatever... And so it's not great. We talked a bit earlier in the podcast about capabilities and how a WebAssembly module can't do anything unless you explicitly give it something to do. So Interface Types kind of preserves that ability between different WebAssembly modules. It says "Just because I can read to the disk and I'm talking with you and I'm using your markdown library doesn't mean you can talk to the disk. All you can do is take this markdown \[unintelligible 00:34:06.00\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[unintelligible 00:34:06.28\]
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah, exactly. So it kind of limits the blast radius of where things can go wrong when you have a supply chain attack like that. They can't escape their sandbox even if they're talking to you... Because the only way you can communicate is with this type grammar, and you don't automatically get any access to resources unless I explicitly give them to you.
+
+So yeah, this is the other horizon for WebAssembly in general, and we want the JavaScript to be able to participate in this ecosystem. Having this ecosystem of modules that share nothing, that don't implicitly give security capabilities and they're all kind of sandboxed from each other even while they're working together - that's kind of the direction we're going.
+
+**Break**: \[34:47\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Alright, let me jump in with a quick and potentially dumb question - or series of questions, I suppose... But it's really cool, and I know that this is an oversimplification, but it's kind of interesting to see - you know, out of JavaScript was born this WebAssembly; not really, but in a way... And now we're figuring out how to get JavaScript back into WebAssembly; I just naively think that's hilarious... But is there an interoperability path between the two? If I'm writing JavaScript for WASM, do I have to think about writing that differently than writing JavaScript for a browser environment or Node?
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah, definitely. That's actually a really great question. So it's SpiderMonkey, and it's not Node. It's not a web browser; it's just SpiderMonkey. So it's a much more paired down JavaScript environment than you would have on the web or on Node.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** So I can't have Node modules obviously, or anything like that, and I don't have any of the browser environments, like Fetch or things like that, that are more supplied by the environment. It would just be the core language itself.
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Right. So there's no DOM nodes, for example. And there's no requirefs that you would have on Node. But the replacement for that is the ecosystem that I was just talking about, of these kind of shared-nothing modules that communicate with Interface Types. We hope to build a whole ecosystem that is doing this stuff, so if you want file access, you'd be able to import something that would give that to you, potentially limiting what you can access only to a certain directory. So you can access this scratch directory, but you can't access my .ssh in my home directory.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** When we talk about that communication, does interface types define an ownership model of some sort? Or are we copying memory as we go between these? If not, how do you deal with borders between garbage-collected languages and not garbage-collected languages, and things like that?
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah. So there is a copy implied between each side, and that's basically there to make sure that you're not sharing the memory, because that's kind of the vector into heap corruption and getting rid of the sandbox properties that we care so much about. But what's nice is with the eventual full interface types that kind of allow programmatic lifting into an interface type and then lowering into a concrete type on the other side, that will be only one copy, and it will be kind of like directly into and from the representations that each module \[unintelligible 00:38:45.29\] It's basically as good as you can get, implying that you do have to have one copy.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Got it. So thinking then about the implications for application architecture, as we talk about these things, we're gonna want to have modules that essentially are self-contained relative to data, where a module is gonna own a set of data and you wanna keep the communication between them relatively minimal in terms of data size, ideally.
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah, ideally. I think it depends on the component. Copying a string is pretty fast. Memcopy is quite fast. But it also depends how nested is the loop in which you're calling it. So I don't know, there are architectural things that you can do. You can kind of like make one module own the data, and then hand out identifiers saying "This is essentially a pointer to this data, and whenever you wanna ask something about that data, give that back to me." You could almost imagine it as like an object, and that's like the little self, and then you call each method to get little bits of data, but you don't ever get the whole thing.
+
+\[39:57\] This is actually what I did with the sourcemap library, which is like - yeah, okay, we have to parse the whole sourcemap, which - it's a debug info format; I guess we didn't talk about that. It's a debug informant that maps essentially minified JavaScript to unminified JavaScript back and forth. Or, say, JavaScript to the original CoffeeScript, or ClojureScript, or whatever they compile down to.
+
+So we have to kind of parse that and get the full mappings, so we know this line corresponds to that line, and this file corresponds to that file. But whenever the debugger, for example, stops in a location, it doesn't need the full mappings. It doesn't need everything. It just needs to know "Right now I'm paused at this location. What's the real source location for where I'm currently paused at?" And that's a tiny amount of data compared to the huge map. So you just kind of expose an API that allows you to keep the full dataset in the original component, and then just make little queries where you get the little bits of data out on the other side.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, that's really interesting. How much overhead is there in terms of calling between modules? Is this like roughly equivalent to a function call even within a module, or is it a higher cost?
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** It's a little bit higher cost than function calls within a module, but not too much. Basically, maybe we're getting a little bit too bogged down into details, but there's a register for the VM context that kind of keeps track of what is my current WASM instance and what are the bounds of its memories, and things like that... And that stays in a register. When you call across instances to a new module, you have to kind of swap out that register with the new instances register. So if you're doing a micro-benchmark, you'll see it show up, but if you're doing any sort of actual work anywhere else, it's gonna be lost in the noise.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah. And that means that it's extremely viable to treat these things as essentially objects, in a lot of ways. You can say "This module owns this data", and you can call methods that are essentially accessors on it when you need the data...
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah, exactly.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** ...and really minimize the amount of copying you do. That's super-cool. So as we move towards this world, what do you think the implications are for how we develop applications, and are there particular domains of applications that are likely to benefit or be driven to adopting this sooner?
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah, so with any kind of new ecosystem, the more different it is, the harder it is to port existing applications to it. So this is pretty different... JavaScript environments today don't have capability-based security and kind of allow ambient access to the network, or to disk, or what have you... Unix generally allows the same. There are ways to lock it down, but by default it kind of allows ambient authority.
+
+Most popular platforms aren't like this. So porting existing applications - depending on how large the application is and how many things it's using and stuff, it could be hard... Similar to porting a desktop application to the web can be pretty hard, especially the larger it is. But that tells me that we'll see more new applications being developed, kind of greenfield applications. And then where are we deploying this stuff first? Well, us Fastly are doing it kind of in serverless environments, where in general you already have smaller micro-applications. I think that's relatively easy to bring over to this new paradigm.
+
+\[43:45\] Another domain where we've seen a lot of excitement for WebAssembly, and I think will work well for this kind of ecosystem, is games that want to have plugins or mods, where - say you wanna change X, Y or Z about the game, give us a WebAssembly module and that's kind of what you'll write it in; then it's sandboxed from the rest of the code and you can't break out. You can only use the game API's that we give you. Basically, any kind of plugin architecture, maybe for a digital audio workstation, something like -- I don't know, what are popular digital audio workstations? I guess Ableton, and Reaper, and these sort of things. They're taking these audio signals, midi or whatever, and then that goes into one plugin that provides a filter, and then there's another one that's a compressor, or another one that adds a chorus effect... And each of these could be their own little WebAssembly module communicating with interface types to kind of apply their transformation on that signal along the way, and you know that it's not gonna break out of the sandbox again and it's not gonna mess with your desktop, or whatever. It's just gonna work on the audio, like it said it would. So that's another area where this will be a really good fit.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Awesome. Nick Nisi, did you have any more things you wanted to dig into?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I think you covered the other question that I had... Maybe you already answered this, but did -- so this makes sense to me from having like a serverless WASM environment like this. Does it also make sense to run JavaScript in a browser through WASM?
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah. If I were to imagine use cases where that made sense, it would be very contorted. I think you have really top-quality JavaScript implementations in the browser, and you don't need to do these tricks in order to bring JavaScript to your environment, because you already have it. And if you have CPU-bound JavaScript, it will get JIT-compiled and it'll have state-of-the-art implementations making your code fast as far as throughput goes. Yeah, it just -- if you're on the web, use your web browser's JavaScript implementation.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Cool. And then another question is can you think of any triggers or things that developers should be on the lookout for for using this as a potential solution to a problem that they have? Is there something that would identify this as a solution?
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah. I would say whenever you're looking to have your users be able to run custom code, and you don't trust them, but you still wanna have them be able to plug into your architecture and customize things, that's basically what this is designed for.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice. Okay...
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** So we develop wasmtime (WASM engine), which we kind of focus a lot of work on making it easy to embed into other applications... But there's a bunch of different choices out there. If you find one that works better than wasmtime... Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I feel like the web's security model was by necessity pushed to a place where things had to be sandboxed, they had to be secure, because suddenly you've got all of this untrusted code that's gonna be running, and now WebAssembly is basically allowing us to say "Hey, that's a good idea for any type of code we might wanna run. Let's pull that in."
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah. And we can -- rather than have one sandbox for the whole tab, or something, we can have sandboxes for each different component, which is really nice. In general, trust things less. If you don't have to trust it, then don't. Even if you do trust it, don't trust it.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I feel like that's a good show title. "Trust things less." Awesome.
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** I'm not paranoid, I swear. \[laughter\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I feel like if you're running code that you didn't write, paranoia is a very healthy attitude.
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Awesome. Well, I think that is -- we've covered a lot of ground. I'm still sitting here in shock, observing all of it...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Me too... \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Nick, do you have any other things you wanna leave us with or let us know about before we wrap up?
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Well, I really liked your intro music, and I was wondering if one of you produced that, or who did the music.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yes, all of the JS Party and generally all of the Changelog family of podcasts - their music is produced by Breakmaster Cylinder.
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Cool.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** He (I think) or they have some great stuff.
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Yeah, I have to look them up.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** You'll get another taste, because we're gonna close with an outro, I'm sure...
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Oh, perfect.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Awesome. Well, if there's nothing else, then thank you so much for joining us today, Nick. I think this is a really interesting topic, and I'm super-excited to see where it continues to go.
+
+**Nick Fitzgerald:** Thanks so much for having me. This was a blast.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Thank you.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Alright. And if you're listening to this not live, if you're listening to this on your podcast and you wanna join in, you wanna be a part of the party live when we do it, we do record live and publish to YouTube at the same time we do it; every week, Thursdays, 10 o'clock Pacific, 12 Central, 1 Eastern. Check out changelog.com/live. You can join with us and slack in real time, and you are what makes this a party. So for all you listeners, we'll catch you next time. This is Kball, signing out!
diff --git a/JavaScript will kill you in the Apocalypse_transcript.txt b/JavaScript will kill you in the Apocalypse_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a85751be00d491d1185d6b4a258ee0b1e35c08a3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/JavaScript will kill you in the Apocalypse_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,387 @@
+**Amal Hussein:** Hey, everybody. We're so excited to be back this week with a very special, special, special guest. I know I say that every week. All of our guests are really special, and I feel like I have this thing called recency bias, where the one talking to right now feels like the most special. So Salma, you are the most special. Welcome, Salma. Salma Alam-Naylor is joining us today. Welcome.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** Thank you. Thank you for having me. It's a pleasure to be here in this party. The party music at the beginning was a joy to dance to. I'm ready. I'm hyped. Let's go!
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Let's do this! And we have K-Ball, not to be mistaken with disco ball, right? ...for the party. Has anybody ever made that connection - K-Ball, JS Party, disco ball...? No?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Growing up with the last name "Ball", I have heard them all.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I have heard them all. There are so many fun name jokes you can be on the receiving end of if your last name is Ball. So yes, disco ball has happened before.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Okay. Well, I mean, it's just coincidental, because our logo for the podcast is a disco ball. So it just feels very on-brand.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I dance hustle, which is a disco dance.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right. Right. A future show episode. So we're really excited to be welcoming Salma on the show today, because we're going to be talking about a super-important topic. And I have a backstory to kind of share with you all before we get into Salma's intro, because the way I met Salma was, actually, I saw her talk being advertised on the internet, and I was like, "This sounds amazing. I want to go to there." And I showed up. I wasn't part of this meetup community. It was a lovely meetup community, based out of England, called Async JS, I think, right?
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** In Brighton. Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Brighton. Yes. Yeah. Brighton is in England, right? So--
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** Yes.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** ...ballpark. I went to this online meetup event, and Salma gave this incredible talk that just really-- it had me thinking for days afterwards. Salma, I'm so excited to have you here. Can you tell us a little bit about yourself?
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** I have a very varied history. I'll start from now and go backwards. So I'm currently a developer advocate for Contentful, advocating for web development best practices and JAMstack-based architecture and approaches and frameworks. My tagline is "I help developers build stuff, learn things, and love what they do". And I think that will become relevant later as to why I do what I do; because it's not just about tech and the latest, fancy Web 3.0 stuff or whatever. It's more than that, and it's about the people, which will become important.
+
+Before that, I was a tech lead for five or six years, specializing in frontend. I was working in Manchester, in the UK, at a variety of different places, including agencies, global e-commerce, startups and other stuff. And then before that, I was working as a music teacher in secondary schools for 11 to 18-year-olds. So I've got that education background, experience, qualification that I think is really integral to what I do now.
+
+At that time, I was also a musical comedian, so I was telling jokes in the form of songs on stage around the UK. And before that, I was a freelance professional musician. I just graduated out of music college. I did composition as my degree. I was in a band. We toured the country, we got an album on Spotify, and--
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Whoa... Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Is it still there?
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** It is.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Alright. That's got to be in the show notes.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I'm typing as we speak.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** It was 2008. It was released in 2008, so it's a long time ago. So that's me. But I always did tech when I was younger. I tried. I mean, there was very little that you could actually do with the internet in its infancy in the '90s, in a very rural place in England. And so, I think maybe if I was a child now, maybe things would be a lot more different. But actually, I do not regret any of my life choices or career route, because I think that's what's ultimately brought me here, with all of the different bits of experience that helped me write talks that Amal likes so much.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Wow. Oh, my God.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Amal, I'm noticing a trend in your invited speakers. Last week was Broadway. This week it's touring in a band... Seriously, good picks.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Well, I mean, I'm an intersectional person myself, as are you K-Ball. What can I say? Intersectional people are, I think, the future, right? And they're, thus, very exciting people. Salma, that's a pretty incredible background. Thank you for sharing that. And I can say, firsthand - I haven't attended one of your talks - you really are a very passionate person, and I think you have this way of explaining things that, clearly, I think now knowing your educator background, I can see it. So kudos.
+
+So your talk, this famous talk that we keep skirting around, it was titled, How to Prevent the Collapse of Society by Building an Accessible Web. So can you speak a little bit more to that title?
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** I have a strange fascination with the impending apocalypse. I have always wanted to prepare for it since I was a child. I'm actually moving house in like a month and a half or so, and I feel like creating a special room in that house to build up a ton of supplies for when the apocalypse finally does come. And I used to have weird fantasies about the apocalypse, maybe because what the world looks like with social media, and the things that are going on, the world looks like it's heading that way, in many ways. So as a survivalist, as someone who wants to live, as someone who has a child who needs to survive for their family legacy to live on, I want to prepare for the apocalypse. And I think if you put this kind of spin on web development and thinking about how we would need to survive when the apocalypse is here, I think it helps us put into perspective what we need to be thinking about today.
+
+So for example, setting the scene in the talk: the apocalypse has arrived. It's 2031, and there are no computers, really, as we know them now. All of the display screens are broken. They've been bashed up in all the fights for food, and the internet is really, really slow. So you can't see things, which is kind of meant to be emulating people who can't see very well, or can't see at all, who are having to use technology today to help them live their lives. And also, the internet is really, really slow. And actually, one of the biggest nuggets of information that I've found when I researched for this talk was that in the whole world in 2021, the average internet speed is just marginally faster than the simulated slow 3G speed in Chromium DevTools. And so, if most of the world is operating on really slow internet, performance is key, right?
+
+And so if you're thinking about the apocalypse, when you need this life-saving information, you need to get that life-saving information as soon as possible when the zombies are hitting on your door, or whatever is happening in the apocalypse. If you have a slow web connection and the website is slow to load and it isn't performant, everyone's going to die. So if you can't see the content, how can you get that content to users in the apocalypse, if their screens are all broken? And if the internet is slow, how can you ensure that information is sent to people in a timely manner, so they don't die in the apocalypse? That is the premise of the talk.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Dun, dun, dun... So first of all, this premise of the impending apocalypse-- we're going to try not to make this show depressing, but yeah, no, real talk. Yeah. That's a very real sentiment that I think many of us have been feeling for quite some time. However, I think this constraint, this imaginary world constraint of not being able to, maybe, see well because there's dust, or not having good access to consistent electricity, or not having good access to high-speed internet - these are constraints that, I think, help build empathy in a way that's using storytelling, that I think is oddly a relatable factor for engineers, right? I feel like engineers are really into zombies and impending death by zombies, and stuff like that, and so, it's an interesting spin.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** So we know too much already, us engineers. We need to do more to prevent what's coming and help save the world with our accessibility skills and our performance skills on the web, surely, right?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Can I detour slightly and ask, what goes into a survivalist shelter in the UK? I know in the US, all the survivalists are all about guns and ammo, and things like that. But my understanding is that's a little less accessible there.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Victoria sponge, and spotted dick, and trifles, and whatever the hell else.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** \[laughs\] I was more going along the lines of baked beans and all the different beans and cans of chopped tomatoes, probably jars of pickled eggs and pickled things, and jam, and toilet roll; because we know what happens with toilet roll, in any kind of crisis.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right. So I'm going to compose myself here.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And apparently, text to speech as well; something that should be going in there.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yes. As many kind of devices that are hardware - no screens - as many accessibility devices as possible need to go into the shelter. Yes.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** Good.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** IP over radio wave, things like that.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** Uh-huh. Uh-huh.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** K-Ball, I think we need a whole spinoff show, my friend.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** How to survive in the apocalypse.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right, as a software engineer, specifically.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** It's a good user story. That's a good user story.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right. We need to start setting up land parties again, and all kinds of things.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** But anyway, so you keep talking about accessibility and performance, performance and accessibility... Are we just saying that accessibility is performance, performance is accessibility? Because it really just feels like some of these things are so related there, almost interchangeable at times...
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** I think performance is a key part of accessibility, to be honest, especially when we look at the average internet speed across the world, and we look at the variety of devices that people are using across the world, and the variety of browsers people are using across the world.
+
+I am a big believer that tech is a big enabler to get out of poverty and to get an education. If you have an internet connection, you can learn, you have the world. We're not talking about Encarta 95 anymore; we're talking about the whole world at your fingertips. So if somebody in deep, deep poverty in Africa or in South America has access to an internet connection, they have the world at their feet. And if they cannot access that information, like in the apocalypse, they can't access it, then they can't get out of where they are. And I think that's happening more and more. You hear stories, "Tech changed my life", because it's an industry that is growing, it is thriving. There's so much money in it. And at the moment, unfortunately, in this capitalist society, we need money to live and thrive and blah, blah, blah. But if people have access to this information in their hands-- because mobile devices are so much more popular than desktop devices across the world... Everyone's got a mobile phone.
+
+If you have a website or something that works effectively on a phone, on small screens, at small resolutions, big resolutions, on a slow internet connection, you have-- and it's not just about accessibility; it's about access to information, isn't it? It's about access to critical, life-saving, life-changing information. And performance is a big part of that, because if your site is slow, if your site crashes, if your site is bloated, if your images are too big, and you are robbing the internet user of their bandwidth with your large files and your large images and your slow nonsense load times, then you are doing the world a disservice, potentially. That's a profound, ridiculously silly statement, but perhaps you are. Perhaps you are depriving the next generation of people who will be able to take themselves out of poverty as a result of access to information on the internet.
+
+**Break:** \[15:12\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So Salma, that was really, really profound. And obviously, that's going to be a running theme for me here, being inspired, for the next 30, 40 minutes. However, you've kind of skirted around this - how does accessibility affect new internet users or folks maybe even remote parts of the world? But I think, for me, the core problem is I just feel like developers don't care. It pains me to say that. And so, my question to you is, "Does accessibility have a marketing problem?" And if we just-- I know we said, "Hey, they're not exactly the same thing", right? Accessibility is not perf, perf is not accessibility, right? There's a Venn diagram relationship here.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** Yes.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right? But what if we just squinted our eyes a little bit, and just renamed accessibility performance, and then, all of a sudden, we'd get a bajillion nerds to care about it, because there's all of a sudden this gamification? What do you think?
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** I think that's an interesting take, and there's so much to unpack in that question that you asked. The first thing I will say is that I believe developers do care. The developers that I have spoken with, the developers in the communities that I've been part of, the developers in the product teams that I've worked on - they care 100%. But I think this is what we were talking about at the meetup in Brighton--
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, yes.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** ...it's that companies don't care, corporations don't care, budgets don't care. And there's no room in the budget to make our sites accessible. There's no time in the time budget to make our sites accessible. You just have to ship this feature, because we want to make money and grow, capitalism, blah-blah. And so I think it's an industry problem, because the people who are controlling the industry, the people who are at the top and making these high-level decisions about what features need to go in products and what needs to go where - that gets totally lost in the journey of the ticket from the left to the right of the board, because it takes time. Accessibility takes so much time. It takes proper testing, proper QA by people who actually have disabilities and who have those impairments, and who have that experience of using devices and the internet in the way that they do.
+
+The spectrum of the people who have types of disabilities is so varied as well, that to test for every single eventuality would also take a very, very long time. And so developers try and make the most of it, I think, but they get talked down. They say, "No, we don't have time for that. Sorry. Just ship the feature, please." And I've been on developer teams where everyone is so upset that they are not allowed to make the sites accessible, because it's not in the user story or in the budget, or it's a progressive enhancement later on.
+
+Now, I think perhaps this marketing problem that you speak of-- so I talk a lot about how it generally falls upon marginalized, oppressed people to try and fix these problems in the world. And what you see on places like Twitter is that it's always the people who have these disabilities who have to advocate for themselves. That in itself is a problem, because the minority are advocating for something that should be for the majority. And you don't get people in positions of power who are "completely able" because they don't have that empathy, and they don't have that time, and they're not close to those people... Because as we know, tech is not diverse. Tech is, a lot of the time, full of white privileged men at the top in the C-suites, and they don't know.
+
+The thing is, what's interesting is that one day, one of those people could have an accessibility issue. One day, one of those people could lose an eye, or lose the use of an arm, or a leg, or their hearing. These things happen to people, sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently. Then will they think it's important? And so, I think there's a distinct, big lack of empathy at the top of tech. And I'm not saying it's completely devoid of that. There are definitely places that are talking about this and advocating for it. But it all comes down to the fact that marginalized people have to advocate for themselves, and they are not in positions of power to be able to make those changes because of the way the world, unfortunately, is structured.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Question.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Coming back to this idea of a marketing problem that Amal was talking about... Because I think, to your point, that's a very deep root cause, and it's not going to be a quick one to be addressed. I think there is a lot of really interesting activity going on in terms of trying to both surface the extent to which tech is dominated by certain majority groups and address that issue, and I always have to be careful talking about this, because I'm one of those white dudes.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's safe to that you're not a problematic person, though, K-Ball, for the record.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I try. I mean, one of the things that I always try to remember is that ally is not a permanent state, right? Allyship is an act. So I could be problematic tomorrow, if I'm not careful. You have to constantly be paying attention, because when you are not hit in the face with whether it's accessibility issue, a privilege issue, something else... If it's not causing you a problem, it's easy to have it skate out of your eyes.
+
+But where I wanted to kind of go is say - are there incentive structures we could talk about around accessibility that do hit those folks currently in power in places they care? And one I want to go into is profit. How much money is lost by having your e-commerce site be inaccessible? How much types of profit might be missed? We talk about accessibility referring to particular disabilities, and an ability to access things. But to me, accessibility is about machine readability: we're taking a site that previously required a human to make sense of it, and applying a bunch of things that allow machines to make sense of it, so that they can translate it to humans in different ways. And that machine translatability also, potentially, opens a whole range of possible applications and profit and other things that those folks at the top might well care about, even if they do not have empathy for folks who are necessarily needing these things.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** That's the thing as well. Think about how many more people could use your site and buy things from your site if they could navigate it effectively. Now, I don't wish to hate on any companies or developers right now, but in my talk, I actually have some very extensive examples of accessibility issues on one of the most popular websites in the world, which is AliExpress. And if that is one of the most popular websites in the world already and it's completely not navigable with a screen reader currently, or when I was writing this talk, think about how, if AliExpress could optimize the use of their website with the machine readability that you're talking about. That could double, triple, quadruple in profit and size.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, I think that's exactly it. You kind of hit the nail. It's like, you don't even know how good you could be, right? So it's not like you can even say, "Hey, you're losing 5% opportunity", because you know, much like compound interest, this stuff is exponential, right? So I think that's a really fascinating point.
+
+And to circle back to my marketing problem question 0 I just feel like, as a tech leader, I always encourage engineers like, "Hey, you want to work on tech debt, you want to work on writing more tests - that sounds awesome. But market it appropriately. Tie that to a business value." And I think that's kind of the point that K-Ball is making as well, is "Hey, is there a way to tie this to a business value?" And I think, for me, that's where maybe metrics come into play a little bit. This stuff is so complex. There's no fully accessible proof tooling suite that you can add to your website. There's a combination of lots of different things, along with lots of different manual efforts. And every app is a snowflake, because of its content and whatever else, and user base, and language support. And so, I'm just curious, where does it even come-- how do you even start to wrap your head around, "Okay. Well, I want to make my site accessible"? Where do I start? Because it's quite daunting.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** I've just had an idea for a new web standard that potentially could change the game. You know how there's requirements for like GDPR and all these cookie consent and all these compliance regulations to put particular things on your website when people are visiting them? How about in the footer or somewhere prominent on your website you need to display the accessibility scores that you get from WebAIM or WCAG, and then have to display them. And then maybe those kind of websites that score low - you have no choice, it's law to display them now, and the websites that score low get ranked way down in Google... And gamify it, like you were saying, like that. Let's put some numbers on it, put public numbers. Let's make sure that people understand what this actually means. So you're talking about tooling, you're talking about using automated tools and things to make sites accessible. It's so proven that those things don't work, especially in terms of speed.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's a half measure.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** Exactly. And it's, "Oh, we're doing accessibility, because we're putting an overlay on our site", or, "We're putting it through a tool, or this, and the other." The key thing, I think, with accessibility is that because it is for humans; humans need to do it. Humans need to have that empathy in order to do it. And I think using an automated tool to do a half-measure job is not how we should be thinking about it. We, every day, are building websites for people to use. We're not building websites for machines to use. And I think what I like to bring to tech is the kind of human-centered element. Like, "Can you think about the people who are going to be browsing your page and how they might be browsing it? And let's design it for them, not for you. Let's not write ridiculous, silly spaghetti code because we can, and because it looks cool, and because no one else can understand it, so you do it like a genius. Let's build things for people, right? And let's enjoy these people using it. Otherwise, what really is the point?"
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah. What are we doing, actually, if we're not making people happy?
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** No.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So one thing I think that might be helpful is talking loudly about those costs for folks and making, once again, that business case. So one thing you could do, like GDPR, is you could legislate it and say, "Okay, you must do this." And that's a hammer, but that's a very slow process to get that to actually happen and apply.
+
+And I remember, nobody used to care about performance either. And then Amazon published this study and they said, "Every 100 milliseconds is a percent of profit", and suddenly, everybody started caring about performance, and it was pushing and pushing. And then beyond that, Google started to say, okay, if sites are really slow, that impacts their use, because people would not be as satisfied with Google, because they blame everything on Google, and Google started ranking for that.
+
+So if we can start getting, once again, these incentives-- and I was looking around. It looks like there is a study on the Level Access blog, which I have no idea who this is... They have less cache than Amazon, certainly, and things like that. But I was looking at cost to e-commerce, and they pegged it as something like 10%-ish of online shoppers would click away from your site if it's difficult to use with a screen reader or something like that. So it's not as clean as every 100 milliseconds gets you 1%, but it is pretty compelling to say, okay, if you're below some bar, you're losing 10% of your revenue. I'll post that link in the JS Party channel.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And is that a correlation just saying websites that happen to be bad for screen readers are also just-- people are also just less...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** No, they're specifically for the screen reader folks.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Okay. Okay. Got it.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** The numbers they're saying here is 71% of shoppers with disabilities will click away from your website if it's too difficult to use. And the majority will pay more money for the same item on a competitor website, if that site is more accessible. And then they tried to track what percentage of online customers are in this group. And this study, which was in 2016, pegged it at 10% of online shoppers in the UK.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Fascinating. I think maybe what we're trying to really suss out here is, are there metrics that could help drive this conversation \[29:17\] I think, business leaders caring, right? And it really sucks, because it kind of comes back to that earlier point you were making, Salma, around, "Hey, my C-suite is the one that actually doesn't care. It's not the developers", right? And so, I don't know. It's a tough nut to crack.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** I'm hopeful that maybe in 30 to 50 years - it's a long time to wait - when the C-suites have diversified because they've all--
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I thought you were going to say, "When they die." I was like, "Wow, Salma, that's morbid."
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** When they diversify... Because tech is becoming more and more a place where, like you said, these intersectional people are entering those late-stage career tech converts and things like that. The landscape, I think/I hope would be pretty different in 50 years. And so, maybe it will happen, because we'll have that representation at the top. We'll have disabled people on C-suites. We'll have people who find it difficult to use internet in traditional ways in positions of "power".
+
+And I think the generation that's coming underneath us is very, very dedicated to that type of cause, I think, and things have to change. Surely, they have to change. I mean, look at what's happened to the internet since 2000. That's 20 years. And think what could happen in the next 20 years. Things are changing exponentially, right? And who knows what the future might bring as long as we keep talking about it, and educating the people that are coming after us about it, and showing people the way. We are in that middle transition point where - okay, the internet is a thing now. It's in our lives. It's never going. Everyone does everything on the internet now, especially because of what we've been through in the last two years. And so, we need to enable people.
+
+Some of the things that have happened in the UK, actually, since getting of the pandemic, the way like -- there used to be shops that you'd go to where you'd have to ask, "Do you take contactless?" And now everyone takes contactless. And those societal changes, whether it's a pandemic or not - things happen, sometimes, when you least expect them. I do have high hopes. I hope that when I'm 75 and still doing JS Party podcasts, that I can reflect on this and say, "Yeah, we did a good job by not shutting up about it and advocating for the people who need better access to information on the web."
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I also wonder how much of this is cyclical... Because when the web first was born, people were just using HTML. And HTML is extremely accessible, because it's very machine-readable. And then we started to try to build much more full-featured applications, and maneuver things with CSS into all sorts of dimensions, and have JavaScript that makes all these types of interactivity that was not naturally accessible, and didn't have accessibility baked in, in the way that native components and HTML did. And there was this rapid flowering, and everything was done in the new way, and everyone was doing their own thing, and all of these different things. And it feels like that is actually starting to calm down in some ways. There's still a lot going on in the JavaScript ecosystem, but there's also some consolidation.
+
+UI frameworks are starting to solidify much more. Many of them are baking in accessibility much more. More and more, things around that interactivity, and JavaScript is kind of getting baked in at the browser level. And so, I wonder if we're actually at a place where some of the tooling is now catching up again, and going to make it much easier to be accessible by default. Because I think that's the other piece of this, is if your platform makes it easy to write accessible and hard to write not accessible, you're going to write accessible by default, because that's the shortest path to delivery, the same way right now, the shortest path to delivery is not baking in accessibility.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. And actually, K-Ball, I think I'm going to-- Salma, I want to riff off of that, because interestingly enough, Google's taken that strategy in terms of how Google wants to influence the web being a faster place... So instead of asking library authors, "Hey, please, reduce your bundle size. Hey, this, that", they have just taken the route of making the actual frameworks, like Next.js, tools that developers use at mass, better and faster, right? That's a shift in strategy, kind of like the one that K-Ball was speaking to... But I wanted to share that as an example of something that you have people that are on staff being paid by Google, that are also contributing to Next.js full time, in that ecosystem. So I'm just saying, if you can't beat them, sneak up behind them and beat them there...? I don't know. \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** If you can't convince them to change, give them free tools that make the change easy for them.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right. Right. Right. Exactly, right. There we go. Thank you. Much better said.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** K-Ball, you make a really good point about things being cyclical. I've been doing a lot of work on the history of the JAMstack over the last couple of months, and how web development changed from 2011 to 2021. And one of the things we saw in 2011, 2010, these JavaScript frameworks were just being born. There was Backbone.js and AngularJS, and everyone was like, "Oh, JavaScript is a thing now, right? We can do everything. We can make things feel fast because, they're single-page applications."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** All those thick clients.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** ...yeah, that don't need to go back and forward from the server. "This is the future." And it's a little bit like -- you know how maybe you go to university or college, and you have mega parties for the first couple of months, and you go wild. You go right in deep and you write JavaScript, and JavaScript only, and your JavaScript creates your HTML React, JSX compiles to some kind of HTML with all this other stuff, and you go in deep... But then you start to mature and you start to realize, actually, maybe this isn't the answer. And so some of the newer more forward-looking frameworks now such as Astro and Svelte Kit, they are definitely more concerned with removing as much JavaScript as possible in the client, because we know the performance implications.
+
+In the talk that I gave that Amal saw, I analyzed my Next.js application, my personal website. Again, I love Next.js, nothing against it. But I pre-render everything on my homepage, and yet I'm still getting 30 JavaScript files delivered to the client, when I should just get an HTML document. I did some comparisons between JavaScript framework with static HTML and CSS, and the performance implications from the size of the bundle you're getting delivered to the browser - going back to the apocalypse when things need to be as quick and as small as possible; it was astronomical, the difference. And yes, these frameworks can help architect large-scale front-end applications. They're not just websites anymore. They are products.
+
+But I guess the question you can ask yourself is, do you really need that big JavaScript framework? How about, like K-Ball is saying, just write some HTML, just write some CSS. Make it lean if you don't need that. And I think that's what's really nice about Svelte kit because there's now this switch where you can just render HTML, and no JavaScript. And Astro is trying to get you as little JavaScript as possible, and it's zero by default.
+
+So I think it's cyclical. We're coming back to the web of the '90, but we've learned so much. I think we had to go on that frat party journey to understand where the pitfalls were and to have a bit of fun along the way. And now we've come out of it, we're like, "Okay, I don't need to go wild anymore. Let's be sensible and let's be mature and let's grow up." And so, I think the web is shifting, it's growing up, it's maturing. And I think it is down to people, like developer advocates and people working on these frameworks, to try and push that and educate people in that direction, especially newer developers who are often encouraged by the industry to just jump straight in on the newest, latest and greatest JavaScript framework that delivers too much JavaScript to your browser. So it's a cumulative community effort, I think, is what's needed.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I think that pressure's coming from Twitter. The Twitter-driven development; it's very real. This is an incredible segue into something that I want to get into next, which is really talking about, like, is JavaScript a liability, actually? So stay tuned for that, and more, in our next segment, with the lovely Salma. We'll be right back.
+
+**Break:** \[38:19\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So Salma, I'm loving this analogy of drinking too much, drinking too much JavaScript in this case, and learning like "Hey, we've got to take it easy. We've got to build up a tolerance." But also JavaScript, in large doses, can be a little dangerous, perhaps. And I think you're on the money with saying that we needed to feel that burn first-hand, or else we would never or have known, right? I love that. Don't you love that, K-Ball? I can see you smiling, you're just like, "Yup."
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I'm just now playing with this JavaScript party, because we are at the JS Party.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** We are.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** We are.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And I feel like some episodes are like we're shooting shots, and some episodes it's like chilling with a beer, right?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** True that.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And I'm personally much more of a chilling with a beer type of person, but--
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I'm into shots. \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** ...sometimes you need more JavaScript.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Not into shots in real life. Just shots of JavaScript. But yeah, no, I'm with you, K-Ball. So this is a super-powerful analogy, Salma. I'm going to use it in the future and I will attribute it to you. I love it. And so, we have two billion websites, and growing, on the internet, right? Internet's a really big place. Only 2% of that, by the way, is React, if even... So just FYI; just to wrap your head around the scale. And 95% those two billion websites, according to a stat that I found on your slides, use JavaScript... Which makes me think, "Wow, 5% of the web uses no JavaScript? That's cool." But also, it makes me think -- you're talking about the apocalypse, and internet connectivity, and you're talking about resilience, and I'm like, "JavaScript isn't resilient; JavaScript times out a lot." What was it -- you said the folks at BuzzFeed put together some stats on their website. Y'all are very familiar with BuzzFeed, creator and feeder of memes and internet culture. So they get a ton of hits per month, and from all kinds of devices, and their numbers were about 156 million requests for JavaScript files per year timeout. That averaged just to about 13 million failed requests a month, right? So that could be somebody's internet cut-off, that could be just a bit flip, if something's going on with the CDN... Lots of reasons. But that's a lot of JavaScript failing. And so, how do we plan for that resilience? Because it seems like the answer is HTML, but I don't see anybody really planning for HTML. So I'm just trying to -- obviously, frameworks like Astro are pushing the needle, but that's very bleeding edge, right? So how do we plan for this resilience?
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** I think it's a lot about how developers are allowed to explore and educate and develop themselves within their day jobs. I'm a very lucky person in that I get to play with tech as my day job. I don't have to build large-scale products for clients who are paying me money. And so I get to see the trade-offs, I get to experiment, I get to go down these rabbit holes...
+
+Today on my Twitch stream I was looking at front-loading, and I went down a huge rabbit hole about how fonts apparently optimized in Next.js. And I don't even think they are, but they are somewhat... But they're not, really. Fonts are a whole other podcast. So I think if developers are allowed to educate themselves and go on these journeys themselves, a bit like the JavaScript frat party journey, I think they'll be able to make more informed decisions about tech choices in their companies.
+
+A lot of the time I think you see people say, "Oh, yeah, we'll just use React. I'll just use Next. Oh, we'll just use Angular. I'll just use this", because that's what everyone else has used, so that's what they know how to use. But actually, is there something else? Maybe at a company that's building a random product, they could actually build their own framework, which solves some of these problems already, and you don't write your own framework.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's going to be called Best.js, a.k.a. Not the Best JS, actually. Please use open source tools when and if possible, kids...
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** It's a running joke, isn't it, that - how many JavaScript frameworks have been released this second, because they're a lot. But people are experimenting, which is great. But I think, again, if you go back to real-world developers, real-world people who are working in tech, there's patterns that you fall into in teams, because again, if there's no time for accessibility in the budget, there's definitely no time to educate yourself on, actually, the future of the web, and whether you should be using that framework, or how you can reduce the loading time by using less JavaScript and being a little bit more innovative. There's no time, really, for innovation in the general tech industry in most people's day-to-day jobs, because there's no space, because time is money, and money makes the world go round.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Money is time. Yeah, I hear you. Well, you know what song I'm playing in my head right now? I'm playing, "I got 99 problems, and web fonts are one." \[laughs\] It seems like -- oh my God, Salma, so many things...
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** Where fonts are probably about 20 of those problems, actually.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right. And speaking of problems 0 so you talk about there isn't enough time in the day, but there are some really low-hanging offenses on the internet, aren't there? You shared some of the top 10 common errors, and I couldn't believe how simple they were. It might take you a total of 30 minutes to fix most of these on your own personal sites. So do you want to just run through them real quick for us, Salma?
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** So the quick ones to fix and to always bear in mind - and I guess, this is where the frameworks have to help us - is alternative texts on images, right? The amount of times you see blank alternative text or no alt attribute... This is the attribute that reads out the description of the image for people who use screen readers. And also, sometimes it's absolutely bobbins alternative text. Picture of a chair, "Describe that chair to me, please." I love writing a really colorful alternative text for people... Especially on Twitter when I'm adding pictures, I write sentences and sentences to describe every single part of the image. It's like little Easter eggs for people who are using screen readers. I think it's a really fun thing to do.
+
+Missing form input labels. This one, missing form input labels, plus low contrast text, I think is a symptom of the web is designed by designers today. And designers also don't necessarily have the time-space/budget to educate themselves on actually how a webpage should be made up. And then couple that with a fresh developer who's working with a new JavaScript framework, who doesn't have time to be mentored; they've just got to get these features out. These designers and developers need to work together to create beautiful functional-- it should be function over form.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** No pun intended.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** No pun intended... And make sure that designers also have that knowledge about how a page should be machine-readable, right? I think maybe designers should go on HTML courses and have a look, actually, at how the web-- I mean, there's lots of design trends on the web, isn't there? And I think that can overtake stuff, because people want stuff to look new and flashy and pretty... But these low contrast things and missing form labels...
+
+Another one - empty links. There's this big trend, obviously, of having social icons on your webpages as SVGs or something, wrapped in links, to your social profiles. But if it's just an SVG with no context, with no ARIA role and description or title or anything, and the link doesn't have a title, it really is completely like looking at nothing if you're using a screen reader. There's no context, there's no anything. And again, empty buttons. Empty buttons. Because the text is added with CSS or some other icon, SVG, or something. How am I meant to add this to my basket if it's just got an icon on with no description or title or any contextual thing? And again, very symptomatic of this whole single-page application - you click a button, JavaScript makes all this stuff happen and you add something to your basket. If that was not in a JavaScript framework and you had to use a proper server-side redirect link to add something to your basket with query parameters, that would actually be slightly better without the JavaScript framework, even if you didn't really pay that much more attention to accessibility. Without JavaScript, it would've been better already.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. It would've been more reproducible.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And I think people forget-- some of the stuff you were sharing on your slides, people doing really clever stuff with CSS and lots of dynamic content, stuff that shouldn't be dynamic... It's almost like we decided to do everything with JavaScript as opposed to... You know, think about the web in these three layers, where it's like the DOM for structure, JavaScript for interactivity, and CSS for design. We've kind of gone full hay on the structure being created by JavaScript, right? Kind of a crazy place to be.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** I mean, CSS is created with JavaScript these days, isn't it? You have CSS-in-JS everywhere. I've tried a lot of these, especially getting to grips with something like Tailwind, where to add a tech shadow, I have to write JavaScript inside the configuration. And it's just like "Why? Why? Just let me--"
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, honestly, I think it's just -- ultimately, you have a hammer, you see everything as a nail, right? And I think for us, as engineers that write primarily with JavaScript, JavaScript is our hammer. And I think JavaScript being the hammer, this is the result, right? And this is the frat party hangover that we're, hopefully, trying to reel ourselves back from.
+
+So that's really interesting. We'll share a link to your slides where everybody can see some of these offenses... But low contrast, missing all text, missing input from labels, empty links, missing document language attributes, empty buttons... These are on a massive number of websites on the internet.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** An interesting fact is is that when WebAIM surveyed one million homepages for accessibility in 2021, there's an average of 51.4 errors per page, across one million homepages. And that's just the homepage. That's just the landing page. It's not even the functional parts of the website. 51.4 errors on one single page.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Well, so let's get a little tactical here... Because we've done a lot of, "Here's the problem. There's a big problem", and there is a big problem, right? And I think there's many places this comes from; that over-dependence on JavaScript... All of engineering is trade-offs, right? There are some beautiful things you get out of having only having to worry about a single framework that's all interconnected and can all be tied together, but there are some drawbacks, and we've been highlighting those.
+
+But let's talk a little bit about what are some just tactical things people can do to start eating away at this. And one thing I want to put out there is - we already have tools for catching these obvious errors, right? It's really easy to add some basic linting rules in your project. You probably are -- if you're writing a bunch of JavaScript, I hope you already have a JavaScript linter in there; you can add a linter that checks, "Hey, do all of my images have alt text? Do all of my form inputs have labels?"
+
+And those are things that impact accessibility, but the label one - that impacts everyone. Every time I go to a site and I'm like, "Oh, yeah, auto-fill my information", and it goes blehh and chokes on it and stuff isn't there, I'm like, "Oh, you are not labeling your form, so all of my auto-fill is not working. So I'm going to bounce. This is 2021. I'm not going to spend five minutes filling out your form. I've filled that out before. My browser takes care of that if you do your work right."
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** And I think there are a myriad tools out there that I use throughout the development process. And I think a lot of the time people will look at accessibility when the thing is finished. But I think it's something to bear in mind as you develop "Every section of code you write, let's check it."
+
+I use axe DevTools, which is a Chromium extension. It catches some great, great things; it looks at color contrast, it looks at the semantic HTML. I use WAVE Evaluation Tool, which does a very similar thing, but also which focuses very much on ARIA as well, and how you structure your page semantically. Lighthouse tools give you some accessibility tips... And a color contrast checker, I use as well...
+
+I think one of the most important things to remember in this journey is check often, with a variety of tools. Because not all tools will check everything, and you have to use your judgment sometimes. Because, for example, there's an accessibility error on my homepage where I have a hidden skip link in the header for screen reader users, but it doesn't show for people who are looking at it. That's on purpose, because it's for the semanticness of the page, but my accessibility tools will catch that.
+
+So you have to understand, actually, what you're trying to achieve. Just like you commit little and often, check accessibility little and often, so it doesn't become this huge mammoth problem when you are about to release your product. Bake it in from the beginning and factor into your user stories, factor into your testing and your QA. Then it'll just be part of your life and won't even be a big thing anymore.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I love that. I love this accessibility-as-you-go mindset, because I can say, I don't always have that. For me, it is this thing that's like pre-production. Before I release, let's do a bunch of checks and then change all of our code, because we messed it up so bad, right? Very common mistake and pitfall, everyone. And this is where I think some of that onus needs to come from us, where we need to shift our mental model about brushing our teeth every day versus once a month, right? A little accessibility every day goes a long way.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** It's the 1% thing. You talk about if you get 1% better every day or something like that, then you end up, over time, like a million percent better. I mean, the maths are wrong, but that kind of thing - just little and often.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** But I think those tools and the systems are really important. I've been paying attention to accessibility for years now, and I am not great, honestly. It's not something that I continuously do all the time, except to the extent that I've baked it into my systems and tools. And so, having the lynching rules, having the "every check-in must include an axe report", or whatever the set of things are, but make it part of the system. As long as it's individual developer responsibility, it's never going to happen.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** Very true.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I would say one more thing to maybe add to this list of things to do, is consider having a design system, and if you're a small team, just a centralized place for all of your components... Because what you can do then is-- you know, with the centralized area, it's one place to fix stuff. There's no like "50 files change in this PR", right? So if you can kind of centralize that as much as possible, any improvements that you make to ARIA, as well as including ARIA as part of the contract to use the components that you're creating... Like, "Hey, I'm going to make a button component. I'm going to make sure that this button is never going to be actually empty. I'm going to make sure that the content for this button isn't created by JavaScript", whatever it is. So all of those things are things that you can try to centralize and export, to make your life easy.
+
+So Salma, to make sure that we have some time to talk about JAMstack, can you tell us about what is JAMstack? I know you're a huge advocate of it. And just, can you explain to our guests why it's one path for maybe more accessible web applications?
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** So the biggest thing with JAMstack in terms of accessibility, really, is the speed that you can get something from X to Y, because of this whole CDNs at the edge architecture. So for those of you who don't really know much about the JAMstack, it started in 2015. JAM stood for JavaScript APIs and Markup. It was after the whole Angular, Backbone.js, React thing started happening. It came about as a little ecosystem of you built stuff with JavaScript, that connected to APIs and got data from places, and compiled down to prerenders, static HTML at build time and served from a CDN. And the CDN thing is the key here, and how that has grown.
+
+It's supposed to be fast because it's meant to be static stuff, served from CDNs all around the world, closest to where you are, regardless. So you're not waiting seconds and seconds and seconds to contact a server on the west coast if you are in Germany, that kind of thing. And so, that's where the speed aspect and the accessibility aspect around the world -- websites on the JAMstack are inherently accessible around the world, because of that architecture on the edge. And it was obviously meant to be super-speedy sites, because you've compiled everything down to just HTML. There's no JavaScript delivered, it's just static.
+
+The first static site generator was Jekyll. You could enhance that with client-side JavaScript, but the whole premise was just deliver HTML to your browser and CSS, and have a great time. Obviously, now with how JAMstack has now expanded and the ecosystem is rich, there's now over 300 static site generators in the JAMstack ecosystem. Everyone's trying something different, with all these new bleeding edge ones coming out as well to try and solve the JavaScript problem. But basically, people saw the JAMstack as a way to get stuff out quickly, get it to people quickly using what we knew JavaScript could do at the time. And now there's serverless, so you can create your own APIs in your frontend frameworks, you can do all sorts of fancy stuff, and it can scale.
+
+I was looking at the results of the 2021 JAMstack Community Survey, and in the top five types of sites now on the JAMstack, there's B2B and e-commerce. So e-commerce is starting to thrive on the JAMstack because of its capabilities. But again, we come to this whole problem - do you really need this much JavaScript to create an e-commerce site, really? And are you using the JAMstack? And why are you using the JAMstack for e-commerce? Is it just because it's cool? What are your reasonings--
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Versus server-side rendered?
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** Yeah, exactly. And what's great now is, obviously, you can get server-side rendering on the JAMstack as well. You can get everything on the JAMstack. You can get all sorts of rendering.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** We're going to have to come back and do another show on JAMstack. No, really, because I think the landscape has really changed since I've taken a look at, "What is this JAMstack thing people are going nuts about?", right? I think JAMstack has grown to be a bigger bubble, and I'm eager to maybe try to break that down a little bit, but that's really fascinating. And so, how do the Google core web vitals play into JAMstack applications? I guess, do you want to maybe just share what some of the core Google web vitals are?
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** So it's really interesting... These core web vitals have been around for quite a little while, but since June of 2021, they're actually now actively used to rank sites in Google search results. So this is the whole gamification thing. So if your site doesn't get good marks in these core web vitals, you'll be penalized on the search pages, and we know no one really goes past page one.
+
+So the core web vitals measure loading performance with large contentful paint, and if your site does not have the largest contentful paint and load most of it in within 2.5 seconds, that's when you'll get penalized. So that's still a long time to wait in this day and age, when we need stuff now, now, now. And in the apocalypse, 2.5 seconds is still actually quite a long time.
+
+There's the first input delay, which measures interactivity, and pages should have an FID of 100 milliseconds or less that can be usable. Have you ever gone to a website where you're trying to click in a form field, or you're trying to do something like click a button, and the JavaScript hasn't initiated that button click, and it's like, "Arrgh, what's going on?", and then you bounce right off?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. We call it the uncanny valley. That's kind of the popular term, I think. It's because, yeah, it looks like it works, but it doesn't. Not yet. Give it a few minutes, or a few seconds.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** 100 milliseconds. It's not very long.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Not for my brain, Salma. That's like--
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** No, I'm just kidding.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** And the third one, which is the one I talk about the most, is a cumulative layout shift, which measures visual stability. So have you ever, again, gone to a website where things start loading and, "Oh, I want to click that button. But oh, wait", as I go to click the button, some nonsense loads in, slots in via JavaScript, and I click that nonsense button instead, and oh, I've charged myself $100 because I clicked the wrong thing, because of CLS. Your CLS score should be less than 0.1. I don't know entirely how it's measured in terms of pixels and moving things on the page, but it's there all the time. It's even in my password manager on my phone. When I open the passwords up, I go to click the top password. But most of the time that I do, there's another button that moves...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** It moves. Yes. Oh, my gosh, it's annoying.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** Are you on Dashlane as well?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** No.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** Oh, interesting.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I use 1Password, but I've hit the same thing where--
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** Interesting.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** ...I'm ready to click, and it's like, "Uh-ooh!"
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I've had the same issue with 1Password and every password manager.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** Yeah. It's just-- so, I have to wait. I have to wait. I've trained myself to wait and it's difficult.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's a forms thing.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** Yeah. So largest contentful paint, first input delay, and cumulative layout shift - those three things together, again, another way to measure performance, but also accessibility. Cumulative layout shift is an accessibility problem, especially for people who aren't used to using the internet and aren't used to knowing what CLS is, especially older people who are starting to get into the internet, and even younger people. Think of the kids who are starting to use the internet, and they click a button accidentally and they cost their parents hundreds of dollars, or something like that, you know?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** There's that kind of accessibility as well.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** If they can click anything on the page and cost $100, they're going to click it. It doesn't matter if it's shifting or not.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** well, I was just thinking -- think about that 11-year-old that's used a browser for the first time. They've had iPhone since they were two, but this is their first time leaving an app where everything isn't preloaded with the binary that you download. You know what I mean?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** After virtual school, they don't exist.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** No, I'm just joking. Yeah, I know what you mean. Yeah. Pre-COVID, I would say, good chance that maybe your 11-year-old has been on the internet for seven years, but hasn't actually ever used a browser, right? It's crazy how everybody is in the native world in younger generations... But anyways.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** So I guess this is the crossover, the Venn diagram happens with accessibility and performance. Core web vitals are measuring a bottom line performance, but there are accessibility concerns that come part and parcel with that crossover in terms of who is using the page and how they are able to use it because of how you build it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. No, that's awesome. I mean, this has been a really insightful and punny talk, or conversation, I should say. I learned a lot and-- I don't know, how about you, K-Ball?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Oh, yeah. Plus it's fun.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Very fun.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** We've got some great possible show titles coming, around the apocalypse and frat parties and other things. We'll see what-- I think this metaphor of JavaScript as a frat party versus hanging over beers, versus whatever, I think that's going to stick around. I don't know.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I think so, too. You invented it. It was invented here.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** It is the JS Party, so...
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** Yeah, I'm an innovator. You heard it first here, people...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So Salma, where can people find you online? How can they connect with you?
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** You can find me as White Panther everywhere; whitep4nth3r if you use a screen reader. I have really tried to read out alternative things for screen readers. I haven't cracked that yet, because I really want people to know me as White Panther rather than silly numbers, but that's-- it was a joke name, and I'm stuck with it. You can find me on Twitter, GitHub, whitep4nth3r.com, and Twitch and YouTube, all over the internet.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And you're a streamer, right? You're on the live internet.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** I stream on Twitch twice a week. I do. I'm trying to work on the YouTubes a bit more, but it's time-consuming. I wish I could find anyone out there, a video editor, who can tell a story with tech... Because live streams are very hard to whittle down to a sensible time when you need to tell a story and show progress if you haven't built it yourself. It's a very, very, very niche skill. And if someone can have this skill, they will make a lot of money, because they can sell services very, very well.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I second that. So Salma, again, it's been an absolute pleasure having you on today. Thank you for educating us and making us think and making us laugh. It's been a pleasure. So I guess, I'm going to leave you with some closing thoughts... Some of this is from Salma's mouth directly. I'm going to quote you. "In the apocalypse, time to interactive is the difference between life and death." End quote. Salma. And for me, my quote is, "Who needs accessible websites, kids? Trick question. Everybody." It's everyone. Everyone needs accessible websites. So be inclusive, everyone. Have a phenomenal Thanksgiving or holiday season or whatever you celebrate, and we'll catch you all next week.
+
+**Salma Alam-Naylor:** Thank you.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Buh-bye.
diff --git a/Less JavaScript more htmx_transcript.txt b/Less JavaScript more htmx_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..93ffabefd18da32bbff88174d552069d87b87011
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Less JavaScript more htmx_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,373 @@
+**Jerod Santo:** Hello, everybody out there! I'm Jerod, your internet friend, and I am here for a JS Party. Excited to have Feross back on the show. What's up, Feross?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** How's it going, Jerod?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's going pretty well. And we also have a special guest, Carson from Big Sky Software. What's up, Carson?
+
+**chg:** How's it going, guys?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Excited to be here and talk about HTMX and HyperScript, and... Let me set the stage, because I feel like there's a stage to be set in this case. So there's kind of this -- I don't know if it's a bifurcation... There's kind of two extremes of where people think web development is heading. One is kind of like the old way made new, the other way is kind of the brand new way... And we've had a couple of shows on The Changelog just this year that have represented both sides. Back on the first episode of The Changelog of the year, on a show called "What the web could be in 2021 and beyond", Amal and myself were joined by Vercel CEO Guillermo Rauch to talk about where the web was headed... And the conversation there is very much focused around JAMstack, prerendering everything, computing on the edge, those kind of concepts. And then the most recent episode of The Changelog was completely opposite; it was called "The future of the web is HTML over the wire", and that is episode \#435... And that's more of a server-side approach. "Hey, let's push more to the server, let's send HTML down the wire, and let's simplify and do things that way."
+
+So we have kind of JAMstack advocation going on, and then we have server-side rendering, HTML, less JavaScript, less things on the other side. So that leads us to this show right here. In fact, we were asked to do this show by a fellow by the name of Rajasegar Chandran, who very much is interested in HTML over the wire, and he thinks that HTMX is the way to go, hence Carson.
+
+\[04:19\] So what Rajasegar said was HTML over the wire is the future of web development, and HTMX is the only library that's doing it right, because it's language and framework-agnostic, which means you can use it with any server-side platform, like Rails, PHP, Phoenix etc. So that's his take, and he asked to have Carson on the show and talk about it, so here you are, Carson... And here's HTMX.
+
+One of the things you told us in the chat, Carson, is that you're here to tell us we should be writing less JavaScript... So go ahead, let us have it. Why should we write less JS?
+
+**chg:** I know, I know... So I have to ask your listeners and the viewers to just suspend this belief for a little bit, or give the other side a fair hearing here. I don't wanna present HTMX as the way that all future web developments should be done. It's just not that. But I do think that it's a reasonable approach for a lot of websites that are being built today, often with much more complex technology.
+
+I agree with your listener's comment that -- I mean, obviously, I think HTMX is the right way to do this sort of development with HTML over the wire... HTMX is not based on WebSockets, which Hotwire (which is put out by 37signals and DHH), and they obviously have a huge amount of reach, so I think they're a big driver of the conversations that we're having right now around this... But their approach has always been tightly integrated with the backend. So the backend needs to understand what's going on with WebSockets... Or in the case of Turbolinks, an earlier sort of rendition of this idea, the backend had to understand an awful lot about exactly how Turbolinks was working. Not a ton, but enough...
+
+So I came at this problem from a slightly different perspective, which was that what we need to do rather than coming up with some integrated backend/frontend solution - and there's a bunch of these; Livewire is another example - is think about HTML, and think about removing the limitations that HTML had imposed on it, and see if we can get enough UX expressiveness out of plain HTML just by removing those constraints. That's the direction that HTMX is coming from. It's backend-agnostic, so it works with anything.
+
+I've found a lot of people on Django, for example, which has traditionally been under-served by frontend libraries. Also Go, and some of these smaller languages that have embraced HTML because of that agnosticism, and this idea that we're improving HTML, we're not trying to give you a total solution for your system.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, it's worth noting that when I talk about these two directions, you have these two extremes, of just like "We should go that way, we should go this way." Most of us don't live on either one of those extremes. Most applications are hybrids, or they've tried this approach, they've tried that approach, "I'm not totally sold..." So you have kind of like the hard push in one direction, kind of a hard push in the other direction... Some of them have commercial reasoning behind them, some of them have maybe nostalgic reasoning behind them...
+
+We all have our reasons, so we're not here to say one true way, because there are no one true ways. We're here to talk about the concepts, the tooling, and help people become more informed about how they should write their next web app, or what they should try next to learn when it comes to staying relevant and staying productive.
+
+Now, I wanna turn to Feross for a moment and ask you a personal question, Feross... Do you write a lot of JavaScript?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, I actually start by installing a minimum of one thousand npm packages before I begin.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] Okay... So how would react if someone said you need to write less JavaScript, Feross?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Honestly, jokes aside, I actually think that in general I'm trying to reduce the amount of JavaScript I write, because more code is more things that can go wrong, it's more potential bugs, it's more fragility in the system. So I'm actually all for hearing out this approach and giving it a fair chance.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[08:18\] Nice. So let's describe HTMX - this is Carson's take - on web app development, in the frontend at least, right? ...because it's backend-agnostic, so this is not a full-stack concept; it's a JS interaction replacement or tool... Go ahead - what is HTMX, for those listening? We've been talking about it, but...
+
+**chg:** So HTMX is a dependency-free library. It's about 10k now. I wanted to keep it under 10k, but I couldn't do it, unfortunately... And you can include it via CDN. You don't need to have a build step to include it if you don't want to. And what it does is it gives you attributes that allow you to specify interactions with a backend server over AJAX, or SSE, or WebSockets if you want to. There's not the focus on WebSockets that you get in some other frameworks, it's mainly focused on AJAX, just because that works, and it's easy enough to figure out.
+
+An example of this would be if you've got a button, you could put hx-post on it, and give that hx-post attribute a URL, for example "clicked". And when that button is clicked, an AJAX request will be issued to that URL. And then the response from that is expected to be an HTML response. That response can then be swapped into the DOM using other attributes. If you don't specify anything by default, it swaps it into the inner HTML of the button... But you can say, for example, hx-swap equals outerHTML. Or append, append inside... There's a bunch of different options for these attributes, which are -- I tried to base them on the standard options in JavaScript or in the DOM API that were already out there.
+
+But you could also target another element... So a very common thing is to have a button that targets some outer div, because it's gonna do some action, and then refresh a bunch of state on a server that I'll need to get rerendered... So in that case you might use hx-target equals the ID outer div. And then on that outer div you would put an ID outer div on it, or whatever; main, or whatever you wanna call it.
+
+So it just gives you these tools that allow you to issue AJAX requests, get HTML back, and then swap that content into the end of the DOM, in some way. And you do it all declaratively. There's a JavaScript API, but it's not focused on the library. And motivationally, the way to think about it - again, I'm coming from this perspective of let's improve HTML... The idea is "Why should only anchors and forms be able to issue HTTP requests? Why should only click and submit drive those requests?" That's not the world that we live in anymore. Why should only get and post be available in forms? Why should you have to replace the entire screen when you do these interactions? HTMX is trying to remove those limitations, increase the expressivity of HTML as a HyperText, and with that see how far we can push this from a UX perspective.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** That's really cool. It's sort of like you're saving the developer all the boilerplate that they would otherwise have to write to attach an event listener onto a button, and then send a fetch to the server, and then in the response you have to write code to change the DOM. You're sort of just saying "These are the types of changes that most people are gonna wanna make to the DOM, and these are the types of requests they're gonna wanna send, and we'll just kind of make it really easy to do those with HTML attributes." Is that the right idea?
+
+**chg:** Yeah, that's right. The idea, philosophically, is to stay within the original model of the web. Maybe we'll talk about REST and HATEOAS later on in the show, but there's this original model for the web where there are HTTP requests going out, and we were returning content and rendering it... So HTMX is an attempt to move back to that model, for many websites.
+
+\[12:23\] And it turns out you can actually do a fair amount with that model, much more than you might expect at first glance. There are some examples that we could talk about a bit later, if you'd like, that I think show off just how much you can accomplish with this simpler model.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's interesting... I agree with Feross that you are removing a lot of the boilerplate, a lot of the mistakes that can be made, and you are doing less code that way. You're making declarative functionality possible in HTML, that wasn't previously possible.
+
+Now, before this show we were talking about beards, and your grey beard there... And Feross has a beard; it's not quite grey yet. And I don't keep it nice and clean, but if I let it go, I'd have some grey in my beard as well. I've been around for a while, and I've written a lot of that style of code. It reminds me of the old on-click handlers, where you through a function on your on-click, and you do it; it just takes away a lot of the junk that you would have to do to get that done. I've found over time, doing a lot of websites that way, that it sprawls. You have functions sprawling, you have event handler sprawling... And there's not much structure beyond the HTML tree structure. You have duplication, and stuff like that. So does HTMX offer anything to help with those particular problems of scale? Think of scale in terms of not number of users, but breadth of features on a website.
+
+**chg:** Yeah, I mean -- it's a problem. This is a problem of the old jQuery approach, where you would end up with a mess of event handlers. And part of that, I think, revolved around the way jQuery was laid out. The idea of a separation of concerns where your event handlers lived somewhere else, and your HTML was over here... And I think that was a mistake. We can talk about why I think that was a mistake in a little bit... So that made these applications very complex to understand. So I think that was part of it.
+
+I also think that if you focus in - and you can make this mistake with HTMX - too much on micro-interactions, and you have just really gnarly dependencies, and you don't think of it more as "I'm just gonna refresh this whole div, and that's okay. I'm gonna tell the server I want a state change, and I'm gonna take everything that was rendered on the server back, and rerender this particular part of the UI." If you do that, then on the server side you can factor your templates out correctly, and have a reasonably manageable backend. Yes, it's possible to write a snake's nest mess of code in HTMX, but if you're doing it right, you should have well-factored backend templates, and a reasonable URL hierarchy, against which you can issue these requests and rerender what is necessary.
+
+So I think it pushes that factoring to the backend, so you have to properly factor on the backend, there's no doubt about that. But you can do that. That's an achievable engineering goal for most people. And then the question becomes "Is that good enough for what you're trying to achieve from a UX standpoint?" And maybe it isn't. If you're doing a 3D game - no, it's not the right thing. But it might be the right thing for your settings page. Maybe you don't want all the insanity that's necessary to maintain all that client-side state in your 3D game on your settings page. So your settings page might be more amenable through this style of programming.
+
+\[15:46\] HTMX, because it's a front-end only library, it doesn't require very much on the backend of you. It's easy enough to just sprinkle it in where you want. And that's another thing that I would say about HTMX - I would start in any web app I was building with just a DOM (I would use Rails, or whatever was available) web app, a web 1.0 style application. And then I would look in my app where the most value could be added to the application with fancier UX, and trying to achieve that with HTMX. And if it didn't get over the hump, then maybe I'd look at another library to help me out.
+
+So I would look at it more incrementally... And while there's certainly the danger that you ran into previously, of just having a snake's next of callbacks and so forth, properly-factored backend templates - they can be just as clean as a properly-factored frontend library.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. Yeah, I think a lot of us run into YAGNI problems... Because it is hard to know what you're going to need.
+
+**chg:** Sure.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And a lot of the decisions that we make is like "Well, I don't know where this application is gonna end up, so I'm gonna pick the most powerful thing. Maybe I'll pick an Ember, because this might become an ambitious web application. It's not ambitious right now, but I don't know what my desires will be in two years of my clients", or whatever it is. So we pick the biggest hammer in the toolbox first, just because we're not sure.
+
+**chg:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** But oftentimes you realize over time "Actually, my web app is not all that ambitious after all." A lot of websites have - let's just call them humble needs in terms of those kind of things, and so we end up with a power tool. Maybe all you needed was a little skilsaw, or something like that. Maybe that is a power tool; I don't know tools very well. But you know what I'm saying? I like the sprinkled in approach, kind of the incremental approach of starting simple, even going to Feross' philosophy there of less code, less things, less features. Keep it simple. As little as possible to accomplish what you know you need today, because you're not guaranteed tomorrow. And I think a lot of our technical debt and our huge overhead and our spaghetti is because we big solutions to small problems, just in case we have a big problem later.
+
+**chg:** One thing that I've noticed in the tech industry - first of all, you can't blame people for it. If you go and you look at job posts now, it's all React.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**chg:** If someone came to me and said "What should I learn, HTMX or React?", my first question to them would be "Well, are you trying to get a job, or do you have a job at which you wanna accomplish something? Do you have enough chops and enough cred at that job to do things a different way?" And if they're really just looking for a job, you've gotta learn React. Nobody ever got fired for learning React, right?
+
+In our industry in general, you know, "What's the new thing? What's the new thing?" So these approaches like HTMX, which are maybe based on slightly older concepts - it doesn't have as much sizzle maybe as some of the newer stuff. That's one reason why I think that there's a not necessarily technical advantage, but a marketing advantage for Hotwire, because it's using WebSockets, and WebSockets are exotic... Whereas to me, the majority of web interactions don't need to be over WebSockets, and we can just use AJAX; AJAX works great. But now this is not as cool of a library, because it doesn't feature WebSockets quite as prominently. It's easier to set up, easier to use, but it doesn't necessarily market as well... Which is fine. I've made my peace with what it's gonna end up being. \[laughter\] It is what it is.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Sometimes it seems like the cost of using the cool stuff -- it's like, the code that you write with the cool stuff is almost deprecated as soon as you write it. I feel like you can build really cool stuff with React and with that whole ecosystem. I'm building a site in Next.js right now, and it gives me a lot of cool stuff out of the box, and for the right kind of app, it's wonderful.
+
+But a lot of what you end up having to use in that whole ecosystem - you use these modules that are changing really fast, and they feel like they're kind of always in beta, or sometimes you've gotta pull in an alpha version to solve some problem... So you have parts that are just... Some of them are not ready quite yet... And you just know when you come back to that project in a year everything's gonna be broken or needing updates... Whereas something like this, it sounds like -- I mean, correct me if I'm wrong... It doesn't seem like it's gonna move that fast on me, and it's gonna be kind of the same when I come back in a year. Is that right?
+
+**chg:** \[20:17\] Yeah, I mean -- I don't know... Not to wax too philosophical, but HTMX really is the successor to intercooler.js. And intercooler.js has been around since 2013. And when I did HTMX, I wanted to do two things - I wanted to clean up some of the mistakes that I made in intercooler.js, and I wanted to remove the jQuery dependency, so that you could just use HTMX without anything else. But it's not changed -- I don't wanna say it's done-done, but aside from bugs, and maybe some small improvements anywhere, this is my proposal for web development. And there's not gonna be an HTMX -- you know, certainly there'll never be a 3.0, and I doubt there will ever be a 2.0, because I think I got the APIs... You know, the way that I wanted to do it is reasonably close to correct.
+
+Some things that I threw in - there's an extensions mechanism in HTMX. So if you have some need that it isn't needing, you can create an extension and hook in to the event cycles, and do whatever you wanna do. If you go to the reference page, there's an extensions reference that shows some of the things you can do with that... So that takes some pressure off the library. It's functional enough as it is to build a reasonable web app, but if you wanna use morphdon or something like that, there are some plugins that you can use around that.
+
+And then HyperScript was another thing that -- I did HyperScript, and HyperScript is much more speculative than HTMX... But I did that to take the pressure off of adding features to HTMX, so it can be a stable way to build apps... And it's backend-agnostic, and hopefully it's just gonna work for the foreseeable future with web apps.
+
+So definitely a more conservative approach, in the sense that I'm not trying to get things wrong and then rebuild everything, and all that sort of stuff... But I think it addresses that concern that you're gonna have with some of this newer stuff, where a year from now goodness knows what it's gonna look like.
+
+**Break:** \[22:22\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Carson, some of these things are better felt than telt... Unfortunately, you're on a podcast, so you're gonna have to tell us...
+
+**chg:** Yeah, sure.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** But you do have a good example, a search example, which at least gives the gist of what does it feel like to work with HTMX on an actual feature. Can you walk us through, verbally, some of the way it works?
+
+**chg:** Yeah, sure. We're gonna look at the Active Search example. You can go to HTMX.org/examples and click on the Active Search example there if you wanna take a look at it... But this is a great example, because it shows interactions that normally you would feel like would require a fair amount of JavaScript to implement, and in fact you end up being able to implement in a fairly clean manner just using attributes.
+
+So it's an active search, and what that means is you've got a text input, and you're gonna have some table of results which filters down as you type into that... And many people would -- you know, you could implement that client-side... There's a million ways to skin this cat, but you could also implement it on the server-side. HTMX is gonna do this on the server-side.
+
+So the way that it works is fairly simple. You have an input, and that input is of type text, and it has a placeholder that indicates "Start typing here to search." The attributes - it has four HTMX attributes on it, the first one being hx-post. So that posts to /search. So whenever on an input, the default trigger for an action is gonna be when it changes. We're actually gonna modify that trigger here, for reasons you'll see in a second. But if that's all that you had on this input, if you tabbed out of it and a change event fired, it would issue this request to search.
+
+The next attribute on it is hx-trigger. The hx-trigger attribute has the following values in it - keyup (it's gonna trigger on key up). Changed - a modifier to the keyup argument, and that is telling HTMX "only trigger a request if the value has actually changed." So an arrow key (a right arrow or a left arrow for example) won't trigger a request because the value of the input hasn't changed.
+
+And then finally, there's a delay: 500 milliseconds, and that debounces the request, so that you're not sending a request on every keyup, which obviously is not a good idea. So this is the mechanism in HTMX to debounce events. So after 500 milliseconds, if not receiving a keyup, it'll issue this request.
+
+The next attributes is -- we don't wanna target the input, obviously; we're not gonna want to replace the input. Instead, we're gonna replace a table that's just below the input... So we target the search result -- we actually target the body of the table via an IDE. So the body of the table has the IDE search results, and so our AJAX target uses the standard CSS selector syntax. It says hx-target="#search-results" to say "when you get stuff back, put it into there."
+
+And then finally - and this isn't necessary, but I like it for this example - there's an hx-indicator attribute, and what HTMX will do (that, again, has a CSS selector as a value for that attribute) is while a request is in flight, it will show that element in the DOM. So that element is hidden by default, and during a request, HTMX will automatically add it, will automatically show it.
+
+So those four attributes - if you go down below that, you can start typing; just hit "a", or something like that, and you'll see it issues a search. A little indicator pops up while the search is in flight, and then lo and behold, below in the table you're gonna get all the results that match that. And this is all done on the server side, with a server-side rendered template. I have to admit, for the examples on the website we're using a mock. We're using a [Sinon.JS](https://sinonjs.org) mock server, so that we don't actually have to have a real backend... But the code is written in the same manner as it would be. So everything else is hooked up as normal.
+
+\[27:55\] So this lets you do Active Search. If you go to Google and you start typing, then these search results just pop up automatically. This is a good example of something that -- how many attributes? Four attributes. Not very much HTML. And this could add a lot of value to a lot of user interfaces that I interact with anyways, on the web. Anytime there's a table that doesn't offer an active filter, I think to myself "Man, I wish these guys knew about HTMX." And maybe on the backend all this would really involve is maybe factoring out the template for the search results body of this table, and it'd be good to go. So you could add this functionality with very little code.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. On the backend you could just detect if it's an AJAX request and send only the search results table rows; but if it's a regular get request, if you're using gets, with query parameters, if you're using that search -- well, it's an hx-post, so maybe that doesn't work... But you could have it so that the entire page with the query parameters would load with that table filtered if you hit Refresh, for example, and still have the value there.
+
+**chg:** Yeah... So there's another attribute which is called hx-push. Is it hx-push? Push-url? I think it's hx-push-url. That'll do exactly what you're saying - it'll take the URL and it'll push it into the actual nav bar. Then you'll get that behavior where it's exactly like if you add it as a form. So if you're really trying to be disciplined about progressive enhancement, for example, that might be a good way to do it. Then you'd have copy and pastable URLs, in that case. So that's another attribute that would improve it here.
+
+And then I should say that HTMX includes headers, so that you can differentiate "Oh, this was an HTMX request." You can even see what the request is targeting, you can do a lot of stuff like that with a library. It will try and give you enough information to make these decisions server-side.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Let's take just a common edge case, or a common corner case even is just empty results. Complicate this a little bit more.
+
+**chg:** Yeah, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** A lot of times you get no search results, so this isn't even really an edge case. This is just like the empty case. How would you accomplish that? Would there be more attributes, or would you just return different HTML?
+
+**chg:** There are a few different ways to skin that cat. If you can't jam it into the body, the tbody if that isn't acceptable, you could trigger an event. So you could use a header to trigger an event and write a JavaScript or a HyperScript handler to maybe show a message, like some sort of growl style message indicating that there are no results. There's also an out-of-band attribute that you can put on the content that you stream back, and that will tell HTMX "This content is not destined for the normal target. Instead, swap it in somewhere else in the DOM." So if you had a place where you were showing alerts, for example, you could use the oob swap -- hold on, let me make sure I'm not... Hx-swap-oob attribute on content that you are returning from the server, to say "This needs to go somewhere else in the DOM." So you could use that to show an alert of some sort, indicating that results.
+
+Another thing that you could do, another way that you could skin this cat is to replace the entire table. Wrap a div around the whole thing and then just include that alert at the top, and don't even render a table; render some other HTML. That's often one of the best approaches, is just to expand your target until it's big enough, and that'll keep it simple. Maybe it's not as sexy a UI as a growl message or something like that, but if it's not worth the time and complexity to invest in that UX, then it's a perfectly acceptable approach.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** To me it just screams for server-side integration though... Doesn't it? I mean, I know you wanna be agnostic, but are you just gonna provide plugins for all the popular frameworks, or something? Because I would wanna write the server-side to do the detection of "Is this HTMX?" I'd like to have tooling on the server-side just to make that dead-simple. I'm assuming you could accomplish that with a Rails plugin, a Django plugin, a Phoenix plugin etc.
+
+**chg:** \[32:04\] There's a Django plugin for HTMX, and I expect there'd be more of those... But I really wanna stay disciplined about HTMX not committing to a particular backend... And I'm fine with that. There are people that know Django, or Rails, or whatever the Go web server is, really well.
+
+Even with something simple like Sinatra, you can do a lot with just raw HTMX. Yeah, you have to look at headers and so forth, but it's not crazy. So as long as your server-side API is reasonable, it's not too bad. But I do agree -- I think that one thing that comes up a bunch is the XSRF, the cross-site scripting tokens, which every server-side framework does it a little different... So for something like that - yeah, you're either gonna have to figure out how to do it, or hopefully there'll be a plugin.
+
+So my hope is -- you know, I released HTMX last summer, I think in June, so it's relatively new. Intercooler has been around for a long time, but -- so my hope is that as people pick it up, they'll develop the server-side helpers that expose a lot of functionality, whatever the native flavor of that backend is.
+
+Some people are also using it to build their own frameworks on top of it. For example, Ben Croker has something called Sprig, which is built for Craft CMS on PHP, and it uses HTMX to deal with the frontend, but then it feels much more like Livewire is my understanding. I have to admit it, I'm not a PHP person.
+
+So that's an example where someone is using HTMX to achieve something with much tighter integration with the server. But HTMX is never gonna be that. It's just trying to complete HTML. It's fixing the features that are missing in HTML, and that's it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, that leads to a question from the chat - are the hx attributes extensible? Is HTMX extensible? If you feel like it's incomplete, I can add my own custom attributes that interact with it.
+
+**chg:** Yeah, it is... You can plug in -- it's extensible. So there's an extension mechanism, and you can add your own attributes if you want to. It gets a little dicier when you wanna do things... For example, if you wanna have your own swap mechanism, there's a hook for that. But when you start talking about the internals, I have to put those hooks in place. If that hook isn't there, you might be kind of out of luck.
+
+But the events - it does have an extensive event system, so that gives you a lot of control over requests, and so on and so forth. So you do have that ability to extend the library... And that was intentionally done so that I'm not tempted to keep in functionality; just keep dumping stuff in and grow the library too large. I wanted to keep it pretty focused on this. HTML-driven server interactions concept.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** The more I look at this, the more it makes me think about Tailwind, and its rise to popularity now... Because Tailwind is really putting utility classes in your HTML. You're writing more HTML and less CSS. You have your classes, and you're doing all your customizing the look and feel right there by adding or removing certain classes... And here you have basically that concept again, with HTMX, and you're writing these additional attributes. So you could probably get away with, in a small application, maybe pulling in Tailwind, pulling in HTMX, and writing only HTML. One single page, one file, all HTML, and come up with a somewhat sophisticated web application without writing any CSS or JavaScript.
+
+**chg:** Yeah, I agree with that, and I do think that there's a conceptual synergy between Tailwind's and HTMX... And HyperScript too, which we'll talk about maybe a little bit later. They're all designed to be in the HTML. They're HTML-centric, in the sense that you work with HTML, you don't work with some other file.
+
+\[36:10\] One concept that I'm trying to push to codify that concept is this idea of locality of behavior. The idea here is that -- and I mentioned this earlier, that I thought in jQuery, when you're dealing with jQuery applications, the separation of concerns. Everyone knows about separation of concerns, right? "Oh, we've gotta separate our concerns." Well, Tailwind's CSS is not separating those concerns. It's kind of saying "Nah, we're not gonna worry. We're gonna just put the stuff there in the HTML." And HTMX is similar in that sense, in that there isn't a larger focus on the separation of concerns, but rather there's an emphasis on what I am calling locality of behavior. And the idea here is that the behavior of a code unit should be as obvious as possible by looking only at that code unit.
+
+So if I have a button that does a thing, I don't wanna have to look in ten different places to know why the button looks like it looks, or what it does. And that was a problem in jQuery, DRY... I think this gets at what you were talking about earlier, where it's like "What is going on in this app?!" You just couldn't figure out what this darn button was doing, and maybe some crazy selector in some JavaScript that lives goodness knows where was what was hooking up the event handler.
+
+So locality of behavior is the terminology that I'm trying to use to describe this idea. You put the behavior of the button on the button, not elsewhere. And that violates separation of concerns; it also, to an extent, conflicts with DRY (don't repeat yourself), because you may embed -- in jQuery anyways, you could hook up a behavior to multiple buttons by using some crazy selector... But that was its own problem.
+
+So this is, I think, another design consideration that developers should keep in mind when they're designing their systems. Ideally, we want locality of behavior. We wanna be able to look at a button and understand what the heck it does.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** I like that a lot. It's like the opposite of spooky action at a distance.
+
+**chg:** Exactly, yeah.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** You wanna be able to look at the code and figure out what is going on, and have that entire file kind of self-contained. Yeah, and it doesn't necessarily mean that you have to repeat yourself, right? I mean, if you're doing something in a bunch of different places -- I don't know if HTMX supports some way of reusability.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, that's what I was wondering, too... Is that all server-side?
+
+**chg:** You can... In HTMX, most attributes are inherited from a parent. So for example, if you have five buttons that all target the same div, you can move that AJAX target up to a parent div, and then they'll all inherit, in the normal CSS way, that behavior. So that's the mechanism in HTMX for achieving not repeating yourself. But that does violate DRY. That can get very complex, if you move it too far away from the buttons in question. So you have to ask yourself...
+
+And these are design principles. There's no hard and fast rule we can apply here; we just have to use our own best judgment to determine "Okay, this has gotten too crazy. I'm gonna move this a little closer, so that this particular code unit is understandable."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, otherwise you put your abstractions on the server-side and you render them. So you have your button function that spits out the same HTML six times, and you call it, but the logic is in a singular place... So you can accomplish that with a server-side rendering.
+
+**chg:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** When it comes to server-side versus prerendering, there are certain things that server-side can't do... Very well at least. Offline-first, for example, working with other API clients, like "Now I have an iPhone app that also needs to use the same logic. Well, I've been sending HTML down the wire this whole time; now I have to build an API." So multi-client is problematic. I think offline-first is problematic... Some distribution -- you know, if your customers are in Japan and your server is in New York City, you've got just laws of physics fighting against you...
+
+\[40:15\] So like you said at the top, this is not the solution for every problem, but when it comes to those kinds of things, is the answer "Just go with a Next.js, or with a prerendering kind of a thing"?
+
+**chg:** Yeah, and I think it's important -- and a lot of people will get confused; maybe we can move into talking about REST and HATEOAS from this point... A lot of people, when I say "Oh, just use HTML", they think "Oh, now my mobile client has to parse HTML. Are you a lunatic?" Well, yes, I'm a lunatic, but that's not what I'm saying. Those are two separate things to consider. And I'm not saying that at all. I think you should have two separate -- for most apps, of course... And it just depends, of course... You should have two separate APIs; you should have a JSON API, which should not be RESTful, by the way, and we'll talk about why that is. It shouldn't be RESTful; you should have a JSON API... And the you should have your web app. And maybe that web app on the backend even uses the REST API internally, I don't know. Typically, I would just access the database, because that's gonna be faster... But those two need to be decoupled from one another, in my opinion.
+
+And the reason for that - and this is to get into that conversation about REST - REST has kind of had its ups and downs in the web development world. People now still use the term REST, but they don't really mean it when they say it... I think it's just come to mean any JSON API. What's the query language that Facebook --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** GraphQL?
+
+**chg:** GraphQL, thank you. I always confuse that with jQuery. That's not RESTful. If you're creating an endpoint with GraphQL, you're moving way away from the original RESTful concept... And that's explicit. I think that people understand that, right? And that's the right thing for that style of API. And the reason for that is that REST and HATEOAS - that was a description of the original web model. That was not a prescriptive "You have to do things this way." It became that later on, but it was originally a description of the way the web worked in web 1.0, dumb web navigation. And for historical reasons, that became part of the discussion when XML was used for APIs. I'm old enough to remember when people used XML for APIs, in JavaScript, believe it or not. AJAX, believe it or not, has XML in it, right?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**chg:** So when they were designing these XML APIs, they had in their minds the normal interaction, and they adopted a lot of the terminology around it. So there were these arguments about whether or not an API was RESTful or not, and there's this hierarchy of RESTfulness, and so on and so forth. And that was all somewhat plausible when you were using XML rather than HTML... But once we flipped to JSON, JSON is not a hypertext, it's not a hypermedia. Once we made that flip, my opinion is that the conversation became somewhat ridiculous, and a little bit of cargo culty... Because once you've made that move to JSON, where you're in a world where there's no markup, there's no hypertext here, now you're in a world that is much more like the old \[unintelligible 00:43:28.08\] And the APIs that you're working with - they're data APIs. And you want your data API to be as powerful as the data API we have to our databases. You want that same functionality. You don't want to be doing what the web did. The web was RESTful, and you don't want that anymore.
+
+My take on this is that you need to separate those two things from one another... And the JSON API is just gonna have a very different behavior and different characteristics than your web API, than the web apps interaction with a properly-functioning RESTful backend.
+
+\[44:05\] So REST makes sense when you think about interactions with HTMX a ton, because hypertext is the application. There is the engine of application state. But when you're interacting with JSON, that's just no longer true, so you should drop that baggage. The industry has been staggering towards that for the last 5-6 years.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So in the typical case of a -- let's just call it a technology startup, where they're going to have a web app, and they're going to have a mobile app, which is iOS and Android, or whatever... And then maybe the real hips will have a command line interface.
+
+**chg:** Yeah, sure.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You say that's two APIs... There's a web API, and there's like an app API. Versus - I have one API, and it serves a web app client, it serves an iPhone client, it serves an Android client... Because they're fundamentally different things?
+
+**chg:** They are fundamentally different technical characteristics. Your web API - you need to get little things right. You've got Active Search here; you've gotta get all these little interactions right. Maybe they do various things, maybe there's an out-of-bounds swap that happens... Whatever it is, there's a lot of churn associated with your web app as you build it out. And if that churn goes through your API, then it's brutal. That's why we've moved, as an industry, towards these more generalized frontend query languages, because that was such a nightmare. When they tried to do RESTful APIs with good RESTful endpoints, you'd be on version 35 of your API before you even shipped 1.0 of the web app, because you'd gone through so much churn.
+
+And your web app, to be a good experience for the user, needs that; it needs very specific, highly-tuned queries that are best done on the server-side with SQL, or whatever it is. So that is a different use case than "Oh, I'm giving this API out to the general world, it's gonna be rate limited, because the general world does crazy stuff, and maybe it needs to be very general, so it doesn't change very much." And that is fine, but that's a different technical use case, very often. \[46:20\] you could ask for endpoints. Neither HTML or JSON, and it just never went anywhere. It didn't produce good APIs. I don't wanna say that was a mistake, because we were all trying to figure it out, but it just didn't work out that well. And I think that, again, is evidence of this distinction. A web app needs a small -- not necessarily a super-small, but a really specific and highly-tuned API to perform well, and then your general API that goes out to your clients, maybe your command line, maybe to your mobile apps, whatever it is. That just has a different set of technical requirements.
+
+**Break:** \[46:55\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, Carson, you have mentioned HyperScript a few times, but we haven't hit the nail on the head. What is HyperScript? Tell us about it.
+
+**chg:** HTMX is solid... I think it's the right thing. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay...
+
+**chg:** And HyperScript, in contrast, is much more --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** A little mushy.
+
+**chg:** It's speculative. It's a much more speculative project. I'm a programming languages person, so it's always dangerous when -- I'm like "Oh, I'll solve this with a programming language." It's turning out pretty well. And the two projects are related to one another. They're designed to work well together, but they're not required. So if you just wanna use HTMX and vanilla JS or whatever - that's fine. A lot of people use Alpine.js with HTMX, and that's fine. But HyperScript is an embedded programming language; it's a frontend programming language, and it's designed, like HTML and like Tailwind, to be embedded directly in HTML.
+
+So you write your code, you write event handlers directly in HTML... And you do that with the underscore attribute, by default. That's the one that we use. I took idea from -- I don't know if you remember \_js...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I do.
+
+**chg:** Yeah, \_js. I thought that was pretty clever.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Jeremy Ashkenas... replaced by Lodash over time...
+
+**chg:** Yeah...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Not replaced, but usurped, I guess, is the right word. \[laughs\]
+
+**chg:** Yeah, right. But I thought it was really clever that we took underscore, because that's a valid identifier, and it's the shortest, most unobtrusive identifier available... And I looked around and said "Well, I'll just take the underscore attribute, and this will be the underscore attribute JS of...", whatever. You know, if you have a button, for example, and you wanna add some code to it, you say underscore, and then the syntax of HyperScript is pretty unique... It's pretty unique, I'm not gonna lie. It's based on an older scripting language called HyperTalk. How many people here have heard of HyperTalk?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I've heard of HyperCard... Are they related?
+
+**chg:** Yeah, they are related. There you go... We've got someone who's heard of HyperCard.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, but I don't really know what it is. I know a lot of people who've been around...
+
+**chg:** You would have a grey beard if you grew it out...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes... Or at least I listen to a lot of grey beards, and I think they speak very highly of HyperCard... Was that in the '80s, or when was that?
+
+**chg:** Yeah, HyperCard was late '80s and early '90s, and it was a sort of predecessor to HTML. It was available on the Mac, and recently I've just gone on a binge of buying old HyperCard and HyperTalk books. HyperTalk was the scripting language for HyperCard... And you can search around, I think there's HyperCard.org, which has an old reference. It's cool, old vintage stuff to take a look at.
+
+There were some features that were in Intercooler I didn't wanna make part of the core of HTMX, but I still wanted to have a story for them... And I thought to myself "Well, it's always fun to make a programming language... Let's do that." And one of the things that I noted was that a lot of the attributes that I was removing from Intercooler.js were event-related... So I thought to myself "We need an event-oriented programming language", and there aren't a lot of those. But I remember when I was a young man doing work in HyperCard, and there was a really cool programming language called HyperTalk, that had event handlers baked into it, and a really nice way to work with events. So I started a programming language based on that concept, and you can check it out at HyperScript.org.
+
+The way it works effectively is, you know, if you've got a button and you wanna do something, as an attribute you say "underscore equals" and then you embed a string. And you can say "on click" or on whatever, do something. And that something is gonna be specified typically in a very English-like language. So HyperTalk had this natural language style to it, and I'm copying that for HyperScript.
+
+\[52:14\] So if you go to the docs page, the first example says "On click, put "I was clicked into me." And that's a very HyperTalk-esque thing to say. What that would do is when you click that button, it'll put the string "I was clicked" into the button. "Me" means "this", effectively, if you're used to JavaScript. So there's a working example there that you can click on.
+
+So what's the advantage of this versus just doing an on-click handler and writing a little bit of JavaScript here? That's the first thing you're gonna say. Well, the advantage here is that this syntax can handle any type of event. So HTMX fires a bunch of different events in different parts of the cycle of requests and replacements and so forth. Unfortunately, there's not a general way to hook up a handler directly on a button or on a div or whatever to handle those events. So the HyperScript syntax is more general, and you can handle not only the canonical DOM events, but you can also handle events triggered by other libraries. HTMX, if you have a drag-and-drop library that fires events or whatever - you can embed all that directly in your HTML, without having to put them in either a jQuery event handler or somewhere else, or in a vanilla JS block somewhere, where you add the event handler somehow.
+
+It's all embedded directly, so it once again satisfies that locality of behavior concept that we were talking about earlier, where you can look at this button and know what it's doing in a way that you can't if you just use the standard technologies that are available to you.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I think this is really cool. It makes me wanna show it to my kids. This is the kind of thing where - and I've taught the foundations of web development to young people, and even to some older people, and it's like, the HTML - easy. The CSS - a little bit harder, but we get it. But then it's like JavaScript - boom. Punch in the face.
+
+**chg:** Right...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And I would use jQuery to kind of ease that tension a little bit, because they had already learned their CSS selectors, so now we can use those to grab an element, and then fade out is a pretty easy thing to think about.
+
+**chg:** Right.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** But this is even more local and more human-readable, and maybe even intuitive, to say something like "on click add fade me, then wait 200 milliseconds, then remove me." That's the kind of way you think about it there, right?
+
+**chg:** Yeah. And in fact, you could do exactly what you've just said - you could say "On click, transition my opacity to zero." So you could just write that; that's valid HyperScript, and that'd exactly what you're talking about - it would transition the current element's opacity to zero.
+
+There's a bunch of commands and so forth that you can do, and it's based heavily, but in some ways loosely on HyperTalk, influenced obviously by JavaScript as well... But it has some interesting syntactic features. For example, you can use CSS literals directly. So you can say, for example, "On click add .foo to me", and that'll add the foo class to the current element. So the .foo is a literal value in the language that allows you to refer to that class directly, without having to use strings or whatever. There's a bunch of literals that are available for you to use in the language. So it's trying to be very frontend-focused, very DOM-friendly, as well as very event-friendly. So you can do all sorts of crazy stuff in it...
+
+And there's one feature that I wanna talk about, if you wanna get into it right now... So this is all kind of neat, it's a cute little toy language, but there is one really neat trick in the language that we can talk about.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[56:01\] Well, in the last episode I was lamenting to Nick about having to write some AppleScript, because that language is verbose and ridiculous... And there's a hint of that here. Is HyperTalk potentially also an inspiration for AppleScript? But AppleScript is more verbose, and this makes more sense. The "do this, then that"... In AppleScript you're like "tell application Keynote to focus itself, and then do this..." There's some of that there; I'm wondering if they had similar roots.
+
+**chg:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay.
+
+**chg:** They're both derived from HyperTalk, that's exactly right. And HyperScript, just like HyperTalk and like AppleTalk, can get out of hand if you're trying to do too much with it. So this is a scripting language; this is for glue code, and for gluing stuff together with events. It's not for creating a massive -- you don't want a massive codebase of this. That's not the idea here. The idea is to be able to capture small events, and maybe forward them or do simple interactions with the DOM.
+
+Now, what you do once you've been given this power - that's between you and your god. The idea here is not to write a ton of HyperScript. It's when necessary, to write a bit of scripting in a place that's obvious, once again, following that concept.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** One thing that comes to mind whenever I see programming languages like this that are really similar to English, natural language--
+
+**chg:** Natural language...
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** And I haven't really worked in them for too long, so maybe this is just a silly question... But because it's so similar to English, do they try to go off and just write things that the language doesn't understand? If it's like an English sentence, I might start adding other words that seem like "Oh, the computer understands what I want. Why can't I say these other words that should be obvious?" How do you give them feedback on that, and how much of a problem is that?
+
+**chg:** Well, I'll tell you in about a year, when people started using the language more extensively... I think that's definitely an issue. But I would say that HyperScript favors read time over write time, so it's not intended to be necessarily trivial to write this code. What it is intended to be is trivial to read it. So once it's written, it should be very clear what it does, and the idea there is to favor read time over write time, because read time is -- you know, the vast majority of code is read many more times than it is written. So that's a theory; this is a little bit of a meme language, so I don't wanna say that that's not a problem at all... We'll see how it goes.
+
+There are people who are very passionate about HyperTalk, so my hope is that there's a kernel there that we can capture with this language... And once again, I'll just kind of hem and haw and say "Oh, read time, when this problem comes up.
+
+But if I can -- do you mind if I spend a little bit of time talking about the cool feature of HyperScript?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Please do, because you teased it, and it would be remiss of us not to let you talk about it now.
+
+**chg:** Okay. So one thing that's really interesting about HyperTalk is that it is what I am calling async-transparent.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay...
+
+**chg:** And what that means is that you can write and mix synchronous and asynchronous code together and not have to do any sort of annotations or work with callbacks in any way. So if you go to the docs page and you click on that first button, what you'll notice is that after two seconds it reverts back to "click me". It changes its text and then it reverts back to "click me." And the way that that's happening, if you scroll down just a little bit further, is that there's actually a little bit more code in there. So what HyperScript actually says is "On click, put "I was clicked into me" and then wait two seconds. Then put "click me" into me." So what that code does is it puts the string "I was clicked into me", and then it waits two seconds. And then after two seconds, if passed, it puts "click me" back into the button to revert to its original state.
+
+\[01:00:08.20\] And the wait-two-seconds command - you can wait in HyperScript, you can throw a wait wherever you want... And that's the equivalent of, in JavaScript (that we're all used to) a setTimeout( ), where you would call set timeout 2000, or whatever, and do something after the fact. In HyperScript you can do that, and it will just work. So the HyperScript runtime figures out whether or not a particular statement, or even an expression - without getting too technical - is asynchronous, and it will delay the execution at a high level of whatever statements depend on that until that expression or statement completes.
+
+So you can mix both synchronous and asynchronous code together. You can have an asynchronous function, and call it; as long as it returns a promise, then that promise will be resolved before HyperScript continues. So the internal runtime of HyperScript resolves promises, and also (and this is without getting too deep) creates promises, depending on what your stuff does. So you're able to just write code that may be synchronous or asynchronous in a normal, linear fashion, without doing any sort of annotations, without changing... Bob Nystrom, the Dart guy, @munificentbob I believe is his handle on Twitter... What he would call the color of the function. So to him, I think he calls asynchronous functions red functions, and synchronous functions blue functions. Well, HyperScript collapses the difference between those two... So you don't have to think about whether or not your code is synchronous or asynchronous.
+
+And if you scroll just a bit further down, you'll find an example that changes the string that is put into the button to a fetch. So this all seems kind of dumb, like "Oh, great. You can wait two seconds. Who cares?" Well, if you scroll a little bit further down, you'll see an example where we issue a fetch; and that's an actual AJAX or a fetch request to the server, which is asynchronous. Nonetheless, we can treat that as if it was a synchronous call in our HyperScript. So we can write HyperScript that says "on click, fetch the click message, put the result into me..." And result - we can talk about that later. "...wait two seconds, and then put click back into me."
+
+So you can introduce asynchronous code to your event handler, without having to do any craziness. Without any callbacks, without any promises... explicit promises, and without any annotations. So this I think is the really cool technical aspect of HyperScript. This is what I think differentiates it from a lot of other approaches. Alpine.js I think is a great piece of software, but this in my mind is one of the big differentiators between HyperScript and Alpine.js. Pretty crazy, huh? \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It is...
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah. Is one way to think about it like you're kind of automatically putting in a "wait" keyword in front of every function call, so if --
+
+**chg:** Yeah...
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** ...it happens to be async, you'll just automatically await it for the user, without them having to think about "Oh, do I have to put a wait here or not?"
+
+**chg:** Yeah, that's one way to think about it. It's promises under the cover. I can walk you through the code if you're interested at some point. It's a little bonkers... But it works. \[laughter\] But yeah, you could think of that as like everything's awaited. And the way I would say it is all the promises are resolved before you evaluate something, before you execute a given command and move on to the next one. There's not a spin loop or something like that. We're using the JavaScript promises API to make all that work, and the internals of HyperScript had to get turned inside out to make all that work... But it does. It's a miracle of miracles. It works.
+
+So it lets you in write very clean (in my mind, very clean) asynchronous code, that is very close to what beginners, who don't necessarily wanna think about asynchronicity, would wanna write.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** \[01:04:01.15\] What's the downside of this approach? Maybe this how JavaScript should work. If we just magically, automatically awaited every function call, then what would be the downside of that? One thing I'm thinking off the top of my head is that meme that you can't launch two things in parallel. You can't create two promises and then await both of them, because as soon as you do one, it'll immediately await that one, and then it'll do the next one and await that one...
+
+**chg:** Yeah, so if you wanna do that style of programming, there's a keyword... The one asynchronous keyword is an async prefix, where you can say on a command "This command is asynchronous, so don't block on it. Just evaluate it, but don't block on it."
+
+There isn't right now in HyperScript a good way to say "Here are three things that I want done in parallel. Await on all of them, but wait till all of them are complete." And that's something that you can do with the promises API. So HyperScript - that's just not a use case that has been designed for yet in the language. But that's not the vast majority of usages of promises. Usually, we're calling fetch, or using Axios or whatever to get some data, whatever it is.
+
+Similarly, if you have events that are coming in - so I add a class to an element, and now I wanna wait until the transition is complete... That's an asynchronous situation. So in HyperScript you can say "Add a class to me", and then you can say "Settle me." And that will listen for the transition to complete. That's an asynchronous callback, and when it completes, then HyperScript continues. So this lets you do that style of programming.
+
+And actually, if you're willing to really get nerdy about it, there's a link to event-driven control flow, ill jam that in the chat.. which shows that this is pretty intense HyperScript, but there's a loop... \[laughs\] This is crazy; I don't even know if this is worth talking about, but... There's a loop that will loop until an event is received. You have two buttons, basically, to paint a picture... You have two buttons; you click on one and it'll start pulsing. It'll start adding and removing a class that makes it basically pulse red.
+
+There's another button that'll send an event to that button, saying "Hey, stop pulsing." And the cool thing about this, the really interesting thing about this, is that the button that is pulsing will complete a pulse before it stops, because the repeat loop in the event handler on it completes a full loop before it checks if the event has been received.
+
+So this is an example of event-driven control flow, that I think can enable some pretty interesting stuff. There are some really cool examples. They're not all up yet, but there are some really cool examples around this.
+
+We have event-driven control flow, which is enabled by this async-agnostic runtime. It all just kind of falls out of it. Pretty interesting stuff. And what's a little unnerving about this is if you click the "stop from pulsing" button, and the button has just begun to pulse, it won't stop until it finishes that pulse. But that addresses a problem that you'll often see in web apps, where something will finish, and then immediately some animation or whatever just halts. So you get an immediate swap, or just this kind of flash of -- it just doesn't feel right. Well, with HyperScript and this async runtime, you can let that animation complete, and then go on smoothly.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...and stop it. Yeah.
+
+**chg:** Pretty intense. A little intense. Sorry, guys. I'm excited.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's alright, fascinating stuff.
+
+**chg:** I'm very excited about this.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** I like intense. This is really cool.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Well, this has been an awesome episode. I like how we have kind of the practical, pragmatic approach to building web applications with HTMX, and then we have the experimental, intense, intellectual side, and whacky side, with HyperScript.
+
+**chg:** Pretty whacky... \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So there you have, listener - both things to check out. Of course, everything Carson has referenced will be in your show notes, so definitely click through and check out all the things.
+
+Carson, thanks so much for coming on the show and talking to us about all these concepts and what you're up to. It's cool stuff.
+
+**chg:** Yeah, thank you. I appreciate you guys. I know this is a little outside the normal bounds of a JavaScript podcast, so thanks for listening.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You bet.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Super-cool. Thanks for coming in and showing all this to us.
+
+**chg:** Yeah, no problem.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, thanks for listening, everybody. We'll talk to you next time.
diff --git a/Let's talk rendering patterns_transcript.txt b/Let's talk rendering patterns_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d9776a94337da1741f5ad413746100e626b32ad4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Let's talk rendering patterns_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,337 @@
+**Amal Hussein:** Hello, party people. I'm super, super-excited about today's show. I'm so excited I actually forgot - what episode number is this?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** 177.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** 177, thank you. Episode number 177. And we're talking about rendering patterns today. It's super kind of fundamental stuff to how we deliver incredible user experiences, single-page applications, server-side render, everything in between. We're gonna cover history, we're gonna cover bleeding-edge topics, and we're gonna be hopefully doing a twinkle-in-the-eye look-ahead. And we're super-excited to have a very special guest with us today, Brian LeRoux. Hello, Brian.
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Hi. I'm stoked to be here. Thanks for having me.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** We're stoked to have you.
+
+**Brian Leroux:** I love this topic.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, it's a great topic. It's a topic that I'm genuinely concerned about fitting into, you know, an hour... So Nick, you're gonna have to keep us on track, because I feel like I'm gonna nerd out, so bad, bad host today... \[laughs\]
+
+Speaking of Nick - welcome, Nick.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Hoy-hoy! I'm happy to be here. Partially rehydrating...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, so punny. How many puns can we fit into today, I wonder...? \[laughter\] So Brian, before we get started, why don't you tell us a little bit about yourself.
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Yeah. I'm Brian, I've been around here for a while now; I've been responsible for all kinds of bad websites, since the 90's and some good ones, too... I'm really passionate about this space and the topic, especially things like accessibility, and the web as a whole... This is Global Accessibility Day, so it's a good day to talk about rendering. I'm the CEO of Begin.com, I guess I should plug that... It's an elegant platform for building full-stack web apps, so you should check that out if you're into that... And yeah, that's me.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[03:56\] That's super-cool. And you've worked on some pretty cool open source projects, and you've also been involved with the mobile web space for a very long time. Do you wanna give us an insight into that?
+
+**Brian Leroux:** That's right, I almost blocked all that out. So these days I'm mostly working on sort of serverless tech, things that are on-demand and scale to zero. But the thing I kind of became known for, the thing I was working on for almost a decade, was called PhoneGap, and then later Apache Cordova. That really rose up when JavaScript became acceptable socially to admit you did, around the 2008-2009 timeframe.
+
+This is a funny thing, the way I remember it anyways... JavaScript used to be uncool, and now it's like the coolest thing ever... It's like, "Oh, really?" Okay, I'm here for that... And it didn't use to be the case. \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It feels like we've got a new tagline for JavaScript. It's like, "JavaScript. Socially acceptable since 1999." \[laughter\]
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Yeah. It was a good run there where it was not considered cool, and it still isn't in many circles, which is funny... But yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Still lots of trolls, I agree.
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Yeah. \[laughs\] That's a perpetual problem with the internet; we're always refilling it with lots of negativity, as well as positivity, unfortunately.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** TypeScript seems to be soothing some of those problems a little bit. There's a decent number of trolls who have kind of been permanently silenced by TypeScript, I think... But there's still lots more out there. So Brian is super-humble, but yeah, he's been working on the web for a long time, on some pretty cool projects, and somehow has managed to live life on the edge, I feel like... Even the serverless movement, you've really kind of got involved with that pretty early, and I think you're a subject matter expert on the serverless framework, and you're a contributor... Did you create it? I don't even know what the back-story is with that.
+
+**Brian Leroux:** No, no, no. I was there from the very beginning, for sure. That was created by a dude named Austin, and he's got a company around that. I work on one called OpenJS Architect, which would be I guess technically a competitor, but I don't really believe in that concept in open source. They take a different approach than we do, and they do good stuff.
+
+But yeah, I always end up -- this is an affliction of mine... I get interested in something probably prematurely, and then I go all-in. When mobile was happening, I was really excited about that. That was a big deal. Steve Jobs was like "Hey, you're gonna build websites and they're gonna run on your phone." That blew my mind, completely. The idea of even seeing maps on your phone was novel at that point. And getting directions was a pretty weird idea. So we've absolutely come a long way in ten years, and in a sense I actually predicated the whole SPA thing.
+
+And then yeah, when I saw serverless happen, I had been doing a bunch of cloud stuff for PhoneGap actually, up to that point, and I saw Lambda get demo-ed with API Gateway in 2015, and it's like something snapped. I was like "Yeah, that's how it's gonna work. We're not gonna build balanced containers. That's a ridiculous proposition. Why would you do that? Let somebody else do that and outsource it to them."
+
+So for me, that was just immediately obvious in 2015. Here we are in 2021 and that's still news to some people, but that's kind of my curse and my blessing. I'll see these things as they're happening and get excited about them. I kind of \[unintelligible 00:07:16.26\] to it maybe a little earlier than I should...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And for anyone who's listening, this is exactly why I wanted to talk about this topic with Brian. I feel like he's got some really unique insights as someone who's worked on these technologies, but also I think he's a little bit of a Cramer, in the sense that -- I'm curious to hear what his predictions are as somebody who's lived life on the edge for quite a long time.
+
+Let's talk about how rendering started on the web. We know there's three primitives: HTML, CSS and JavaScript. They weren't even all official at the same time, right? HTML was first... Can you talk about that?
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Yes, Style Sheets actually came later, and JavaScript came even later than that. And JavaScript was quite late, comparatively years later.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right.
+
+**Brian Leroux:** \[08:02\] The first Style Sheets - you can actually see it in the source code... I can't remember the NeXT browser Tim Berners-Lee had worked on... And back then it was like H1 and H2 could be styled differently and that was about it. \[unintelligible 00:08:13.18\] were much later other fun techniques... But originally, the whole concept was around the document. And I think this kind of gets forgotten sometimes, but there is no JavaScript without that document. You have to render a script tag at some point in order to get the JavaScript running. So that's the very first thing that's gonna happen, and it's a pretty guaranteed thing to happen... Whereas the rest of this stuff isn't necessarily guaranteed. We don't really know for sure if that thing is gonna load; the sub-resources might be turned off. They might be turned off for good reasons, because of accessibility, or they might be turned off for bad reasons, like bandwidth, or network, or who knows why. But that HTML will always get there, and that'll be the first thing... And that's really where we all started.
+
+When I first, first started looking at this stuff many years ago, it was pretty much CGI scripts and Perl, and good luck with that. Then time prevailed, and Microsoft decided they'd help us, and we got ASP classic... Somewhere in there Cold Fusion and PHP happened, and in all these cases we were running a dynamic process; a trusted process, we would call it. It was a process I controlled, and that would generate HTML usually based on some kind of database rows, or something like that, and return it.
+
+Then at some point around 2007-2008 (I think it was) GitHub did GitHub Pages, and they were like "Hey, we could just do static assets and we could pre-render this stuff." And I think a lot of people thought that was a pretty good idea for a large number of use cases, especially static content, content that's not changing. No point in using a dynamic process for that. It doesn't need to be trusted if it's public content, so you don't have to have any calls to a database, or anything like that... So that was the original pre-rendering thing; it never really had a name... And then weirdly, I guess, somewhere along the line, Netlify decided to call it JAMstack, although I still don't quite understand how JavaScript APIs and markup equals pre-rendering, and I don't think it does. They are different things, and those goalposts are currently moving.
+
+And yeah, I guess SPAs became a bit of a thing too, when JavaScript became socially acceptable around 2009 timeframe. There were a lot of projects out there that were trying to be mobile. And I'm not talking about phone apps stuff, I'm just talking about web pages.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Dojox Mobile.
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Yeah, and it was like, pinch and zoom to get to the form... It was terrible. And no one liked that. Reloading a page over a 3G network, a flash of unstyled content... Ugh! It's just bad. So SPAs became really popular as a way to deal with that navigation transition jink, and especially popular in embedded web apps, like PhoneGap/Cordova, Electron/Ionics of the world. And it's just continued to get popular, although I don't know that it is necessarily appropriate for all things. Browsers are faster now, and none of these are good at that. That's kind of my disclaimer around this - if you're building a single-page app, that's probably appropriate for your context, and good for you. That's awesome. And there are trade-offs that come with that. It might not be appropriate for all contexts. If all your data is dynamic and trusted and needs to be accessed through a database, because it's secure, and it needs to be more than one user that can access different private data, then that has to be dynamic. You can't pre-render that. So it's not a bad thing, it's just the constraints of the use case that you have.
+
+\[11:58\] There are different ways to deal with that... Single-page apps don't have to be static per se. They can call out using APIs, but now we're inviting Spinorama to the party, and not everybody likes landing on a page full of spinners... There's that trade-off, which maybe doesn't matter. I'm just gonna keep hedging here... \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Spinorama... That was quite the storytelling journey, thank you. Spinorama - I'm gonna totally use that from now on. I just call it like the Wheel of Death, or something...
+
+**Brian Leroux:** My bank does this to me. So much anxiety... And I know that they think they've got a good Lighthouse score, because those spinners load so fast... But the last place I wanna see a non-deterministic page is my bank statement. The last place. I want that rendered right away. I wanna know that you have that data and it's safe. And all they're telling me is like "Yeah, we might get to that... There's gonna be some eventual consistency here..." And often there is. Some spinners finish loading and others one don't, and it's like "What is going on on this page?!"
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right. Oh, gosh... You mentioned SPAs being this thing that made mobile particularly painful, I would say viewing the web from a mobile device... And for me, I kind of think of SPAs as something -- I feel like they were totally designed for desktop. So it's really interesting to even hear you talk about the mobile case, because I don't -- when single-page applications became a thing... I don't know, was this like sometime in early 2000's, or something like that, is like when they kind of started to become a how, new thing? Frameworks like Backbone, and Angular kind of popularized -- was there something before Backbone that helped with...? I feel like CanJS or...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Dojo...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Dojo, d'oh. Yeah.
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Dojo already did all that, yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Of course, yeah. Dojo did everything first, right?
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Yeah, yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I was like "What else...?" I'm like "I know Backbone wasn't the first..."
+
+**Brian Leroux:** It's true.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. And I'm sure even before that, a bunch of unknown -- kind of just one-off tools or processes, I'm sure people were... It's just kind of like when did it hit big; but somewhere in the early 2000's. And desktop was like -- you know, folks were just really profiling for desktop, and the whole thick client movement... It was like, "Oh, move everything to the client." Everything was server-rendered previous to this, and now with things like Ajax we had this way of doing partial rendering in the client, and it was all about trying to make experiences fast and optimized for hardwired desktop connections. And that's something that we're just still so stuck with in 2020... The web has moved on, it's accessed more on tiny devices, that are touchscreen, and that have internet intermittent connectivity... And still, our primary use case, even when new products roll out, we are assuming hardwired desktop. It's interesting how that SPA architecture has really stuck around for this long.
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Well, it's getting good... And it's never gonna recreate the whole browser, as good as the browser can be... But it's getting pretty good. And the tooling is getting pretty sharp. And the frameworks allow people to have a consistent mental model to work against their artifact. So instead of having a clean separation of concerns, we have one mental model for everything, and everything is coming out of that one place... And that's nice. There's an arity argument for simplicity. It's more simple if there's only one way to think about your JavaScript.
+
+Unfortunately, that JavaScript probably runs in a couple of places. It's gonna run in a node and it's gonna run in the browser, at least... And those are different runtimes. And that \[unintelligible 00:15:52.14\] mismatch, which does create problems. Yeah, I think it makes sense... The pendulum always swings around between client server over the years, and we're fully, deep in the client now, and a lot of people are going "Hey, this doesn't smell right."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[16:08\] Yeah, and people are trying to -- definitely, the pendulum has swung the other way in terms of thought circles. Obviously, there's the web in reality, and then there's the web that we are striving for. Those are two different things, and I think the intellectual circles and best practices have shifted towards "Hey, SPA probably not the best use case for most things." However, it's not one-size-fits-all. It really depends on your use case. It's server-side rendered versus not... There's this rubric that you need to go through for yourself, and make sure that you're not over-optimizing either, because you don't wanna try to solve problems you don't have, which is a tough thing in our community, because there's a lot of hive thinking. It's like, "Oh, let's do this new thing", without really understanding why and what problem it's solving.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Do you think that that is what precipitates these pendulum swings back and forth between server-side and client-side? It's something popular, like Facebook, for example, solving their big, massive at-scale problems with something like React, and then everyone following that, and then now maybe swinging back to more of like a server-side thing with Next.js, or things like that? What do you think precipitates that to just constantly swing back and forth?
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Well, there's lots of ways to look at this lens. I think appeals to popularity and authority are a big part of it, for sure. No one got fired for buying Oracle in the '80s, and no one gets fired for choosing React today... And it's a really solid question, because I don't think there's a clean answer to this one, like "What are the predicates for shifts?" There are massive technology shifts going on right now. Pre-rendering has truly been a solution for cold start. It takes a second to talk to that database... Whereas if you pre-render and you eat that cost locally at author time, with your build step, your user gets a much faster experience. So that is slowly becoming no longer true. Computers are getting faster, it's not a controversial statement. Networks are getting faster, it's pretty obvious that's happening as well... So do we need to eat this step anymore? And will we continue to need to eat this step on our local dev machine? I think the answer is probably no, as of like a few years ago, but it takes a while for this stuff to catch up.
+
+Other things changed, too. Like I said, it used to be pretty socially unacceptable to ship JavaScript to the client. Clearly, that has changed. Now it is acceptable to ship as much JavaScript as you want to the client. And maybe that's worth examining in the lens of accessibility, because I don't think it is actually true that it's super-acceptable for all cases... But it can be for some.
+
+The beauty and the wonder of this whole thing that we get to work on is that it is diverse... And thank God there's so many options and that we have this amount of complexity and confusion... Because the opposite is way worse. The dead years of the web, when IE was the dominant browser and had no innovation at all was horribly painful. We had to resort to some pretty ugly hacks. We used to manually make rounded corners. Can you believe that? Like, what the hell? Why were doing that?! \[laughs\] And where would the world be now if we were spending time on that, like in those dead years in the browser?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Seriously. Yeah, I couldn't agree with you more. Well, in the next segment we're gonna get into some of the specifics around what were kind of the pivotal, game-changing moments around rendering patterns, and we'll dive into some of the bleeding-edge, super-forward-thinking architectures and patterns that are being tossed around in what I like to call the Cigar Club of JavaScript... You know, the "smoking cigars and intellectualizing on how the web should be" community. So we'll get into that, and more.
+
+**Break:** \[20:11\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Wow, so what a wild journey the web has had, through its discovery... I heard a long time ago the web being described as being in its teenage years, or in its kind of like 20's, so it's still very much discovering itself... And that's maybe a permanent feature of the web, the constant innovation and discovery. Earlier you were saying computers are getting faster, so we're kind of being saved by our computer power improving... However, for me there's a linear correlation there with also web apps being more complex.
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Totally.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So yeah, our hardware is getting better, but we're doing a lot more, so it's a challenge.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And we might hit a wall with one, with Moore's Law slowing down... So will we hit a wall with complexity, or will that just keep skyrocketing fast?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I know what I think... \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right. Yeah, you should start a betting pool on that. But there's been some really key moments for the web, around not just actually native web APIs, but also tools and technologies that have really helped with how we pivot and create better experiences for our users... Kind of getting into some of those, like Ajax, CDNs, serverless APIs, ESM, web workers... Even GraphQL has changed the game for shipping less data on tiny devices, and reducing the API maintenance surface area for developers. You don't need to maintain a mobile version of an API. So yeah, can you kind of talk to some of the things that you see as really kind of game-changing?
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Well, Ajax was definitely one of the things... You don't hear that one very often anymore, but it used to be--
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Nobody loves Ajax.
+
+**Brian Leroux:** \[unintelligible 00:22:52.19\] They just call it partial hydration, or something... \[laughter\] Jesse James Garrett is the guy that coined the term. He used to work at a company called Adaptive Path, and what he predicated for was this tiny API that Microsoft actually \[unintelligible 00:23:11.19\] people that look at that and they see XMLHttpRequest and it's like an annoying API... But it used to be the way to make a network request from a client to the server, and back then we did XML... \[laughter\] So that was a while ago \[unintelligible 00:23:37.06\] And funny enough, people used to actually send document fragments very often. So you would send chunks of HTML over the wire. So this wasn't a new thing that had been recently discovered; this has been going on since IE.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It's called a Hotwire...
+
+**Brian Leroux:** \[23:53\] Yeah... \[laughs\] I don't know. Ajax really lifted the JavaScript thing out of the Dark Ages. At that point it was generally considered a thing you would use for validation and that would be about it. You'd validate your form so the user didn't have to submit it to discover if they've entered something incorrectly. And then Ajax gave us permission to start rendering little chunks of UI, and that really started snowballing fast into where we are today, where we're outsourcing as much to the client as we can.
+
+CDNs have been a pretty pivotal thing for this, especially recently. A CDN used to be where I put my fonts and stuff, and now a CDN is like the fronter for everything that happens. It is the sort of API gateway for the user interface.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That's Content Delivery Network, in case \[unintelligible 00:24:46.22\] aware.
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Yeah. And CDNs are a funny one, because people toss a turnaround now for just about anything... But really, it's supposed to mean that there are data centers closer to the user. Many of the people purporting to be CDNs do not operate data centers; they build on top of people like Amazon and Akamai to do what they do... And the idea is you push the content closer to the data center where the person is, and now you're only bound by the speed of light, and that's kind of nice. CDNs typically only deal in static stuff, although that is changing fast, and we're gonna start to put functions on the edge.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, so much edge compute happening
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Mm-hm.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** There used to be best practice info out there about loading your static JavaScript from CDNs, like jQuery or those...
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, because then it would be shared by everyone, and you probably already have it loaded by the time you got to your site.
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Yeah. And we've kind of lost that with the bundle thing a little bit... And probably for the better. \[laughter\] The joke would be we don't want John Resign to go rogue and take out half the internet. If you ever met John Resign or seen him speak, the idea of him going rogue is pretty funny, but...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** But that did happen, right? ...with I think Douglas Crockford and the JSON parser - am I wrong?
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Yeah, this is tickling a cobweb in my brain right now, but... Anyways, the idea would be you can't really necessarily trust the internet. And if you're loading your source code from some third-party that you don't control, then you might have a bad day, your data could get exfiltrated, cookies could get stolen... \[unintelligible 00:26:27.10\] I think that's a case-by-case. If you're a financial services company or you're dealing in healthcare data - yeah, load on your own same origin, don't use a third-party CDN. If it's a static web page for your personal site or something, no worries; it's probably fine.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, actually one of my favorite security headers is around just having a very strict allowed list for what origins you will accept running JavaScript from. And that's such an easy way to get a bunch of really good coverage around not having people hijack your website, or whatever.
+
+**Brian Leroux:** This is the beauty of the web - the same origin sandbox is so powerful, and it has allowed us to outsource untrusted computers all over the world, and clearly in devices in your pocket, like your phone. And that's a little bit getting lost in the complexity of the day, but at the end of the day if you can put everything on the same origin, with the same URL, and you control that DNS, then you have a really high guarantee if that sandbox is secure... Which is a publishing -- we've never really had this in the history of humanity before. Anyone can publish anything, anywhere, at any time to a trusted place, and verify that that's probably safe and good... It's kind of nice.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[27:56\] Yeah, totally agreed. So looking at this movement of JAMstack and/or the statically-rendered content, or whatever... Serverless APIs I think have been a huge enablement for that as well, and also to a degree not just serverless APIs, but I guess CDNs too in theory have also really -- like, the CDNs plus serverless APIs have made that marriage really tight...
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Yeah. The thing that kind of happened - I think, anyways; and this is super up for debate in the comments... We realized that we needed indemnity, or determinism, or another fancy word is immutability. We wanted to get the thing we thought we would get when we deployed that thing. So in the dynamic world we've got lockfiles, and infrastructure-as-code. In the static world we don't need any of that. If you pre-render it, it's done. You baked it, you can see it, and when you deploy it, that's what happens.
+
+In the server world - servers are very stateful. They have all kinds of stuff going on. They've got operating systems, they've got runtime, they've got patches, they've got network adaptors, they've got different cloud providers. They're very, very stateful... Which is a nice way of saying they're bug farms, and you kind of end up in this place where idempotency is very difficult to achieve, and so reproducibility is difficult to achieve, and if things aren't reproducible, then you're gonna have a bad day trying to fix that bug, because you can't reproduce it necessarily if it works off of my machine. It becomes a real problem.
+
+So the CDN and the move to static is a big endorsement of being stateless and deterministic. And these are also faster. There's just like a lot of guarantees here... And I don't mean runtime faster, I mean faster developer velocity. When I can reproduce a bug quickly locally, that's exactly the same to the version I thought it was, and then prove I fixed it - that's nice. I get to go home at five.
+
+If I'm running something on my machine and I'm like "It works here... It doesn't work when it ends up in Kubernetes...", that's a bad day. That's kind of how we got here. But the problem is if we do all this work at author time, it gets slow. And there's no real fix for this one. If you have a million-page website, you're gonna wait for a million pages to build. This is a good problem to have, by the way; you've got a million pages of content... Sweet. That's awesome. It sucks though if you change the copyright and you've gotta wait for that whole thing to rebuild, to discover that you got the spelling wrong on one page, or something... And I guess that kind of pushes us into this new world, where we're trying to find hybrid techniques for dealing with that build step.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I mean, optimizing that feels very much like a problem that we can engineer ourselves out of... You know, with hashes, and just more cached binaries, and whatever else...
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Fast compilers...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Exactly. So we can totally engineer ourselves out of that problem. I think web workers and service workers have also done some tremendous things for improving the web, in terms of getting things off the main thread with web workers... And service workers have kind of changed the game of -- yeah, there's a proxy in the browser now, and you can have really smart caching managed via JavaScript, and not via complex headers. You have a lot more flexibility in how you cache, and your strategy can change really in a way that's very responsive to your user's client. I think that's for me -- I feel like service workers are probably my favorite... Like, if I had to pick one API that came out in the past ten years - API, tool, framework, whatever - it would probably be service workers. They're just so under-appreciated in terms of how powerful it is to have a proxy in the browser, and what that means for just a caching strategy, and how easy it is to progressively create that strategy. It's huge.
+
+**Brian Leroux:** \[32:02\] Yeah. We use them for dealing with state with our WebSocket. So what we used to do was we had a listener \[unintelligible 00:32:08.21\] modify some state, and then we'd have something observing that state, and then that would re-render the DOM elements that we need to re-render... And like you said, it's kind of computationally expensive, and you block up the main thread, and sometimes you caught a moment where you'd be scrolling and you knew it was talking to the WebSocket when it did that... And as soon as we pushed that into a worker, all these issues went away, and now we have this wonderful little state manager hanging out in the background, that's just chucking data into the DOM indirectly.
+
+Well, that, ES Modules and Fetch. These are all kind of semi-related things. Networking, backgrounds tasks \[unintelligible 00:32:48.12\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I'd say indexing too, if we're talking about fetching. How could I forget...?
+
+**Brian Leroux:** It's a big one...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, IndexedDB giving you a really smart -- not the best API, but a smart way to be able to manage your cached or persistent data. You can version it, and it's great. Some really good libraries help you deal with some of the quirks around the API, so we'll link them in the show notes; or good abstractions on IndexedDB. I don't even think it's recommended that you -- folks are like "Just use a library to abstract it", because it on your own is just a little much...
+
+**Brian Leroux:** I would say so... \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** But yeah, so all these awesome web APIs have kind of changed the game. ESM totally -- how could I forget about ESM? ESM is the probably true kind of --
+
+**Brian Leroux:** I wish I could forget about ESM... \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Well, I mean, if you're from the Node community maybe... It's a bit painful getting there, but you know...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, I was gonna say, I think that's probably an easier one to forget because it's been kind of abstracted away for so long that you just forget about it not actually being something that existed natively in a browser... And now it does.
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Yeah. We actually as far back as 2016 have been using ES Modules - naked, standard spec ES Modules, not the transpiled kind - in the browser very happily. I've been telling people this for years; it's fast. And finally, in the last six months people are like "Hey, did you know it's fast?" I'm like, "Yes, I'm very aware it's fast... It's built into the browser, of course it's fast."
+
+The only downside is after you get a larger graph, you end up in a waterfall. So now we're still stuck with the bundle step, but... What a joy to have -- and I don't know if y'all have been playing with Deno at all, but to have a runtime like Node, except for it uses ES Modules... It's a lot of fun. And it's clear to me -- this was and still is extremely painful; it shouldn't have gone this way. We should have \[unintelligible 00:34:58.19\] but we didn't, and that's fine; we are where we are. And where we are is we have two module systems and they're competing, and we're fixing it up by adding a third and compiling into the native one... \[laughter\] That's not great, and it's probably not gonna last all that long. Eventually, people are gonna be like "Hey, we already have a module system. Why are we compiling this other third one?" It's a bit of a pain, because there's so much great JavaScript code that's been written in the last decade that is probably going to get abandoned to \[unintelligible 00:35:28.10\] because we didn't follow it along with the latest stuff... And people can say that you can transpile to fix that problem, but do you know what's better than transpiling to fix that problem? Not having that problem.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Not having that problem, yeah. \[laughter\] Oh, man... I feel like there's not a world where we're never going to have no build steps. I mean, even just beyond transpiling - there's so many other benefits that you can get, just with accessibility, and whatever else, and just managing your different versions for different browsers... But yeah, I hear you; if we could just end one thing in JavaScript, I'd say yeah, let's just get rid of transpiling. Everyone just use JavaScript that's legal...
+
+**Brian Leroux:** And spec...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[36:14\] Yeah, and spec... Yeah. Especially for our dependencies, it's a huge bottleneck. But anyways...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Meanwhile I'm just over here, writing TypeScript, and completely relying on transpiling.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, man...
+
+**Brian Leroux:** You are right, by the way - there is no version of this story where we don't do it. And there's technical reasons for that. We can sort of put a pin in this one as a discussion point, because sometimes people do think it's like an either/or, but there is no or. The network is hostile, the network is strange and weird, the topology is unknown, and the performance is unknown... And there's nothing we can do about that. And because of that fact, we have to fingerprint our files, which is a fancy way of saying we need to be able to invalidate the cache. If I have index.js being served from my origin, usually that's gonna work, and usually you'll get a fresh version over time. But you can't guarantee that. There could be a third-party proxy in the way that caches that index.js forever... And this isn't hypothetical, this happens a lot out there. So we have to fingerprint these files in order to invalidate the cache, so that our users get the latest version every time... And we have to fingerprint the file, and we have a build step. No one wants to look at a file named index-gui.gs. That's gonna be uncool.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, yeah.
+
+**Brian Leroux:** So for those that are unfamiliar with it, fingerprinting is a technique where we'll create a hash of the content from the file, we'll append that to the filename; this ensures the file is unique, and then we can cache it forever. And then if there's a new version of that file, the fingerprint will be different, and that's what will be loading the next time.
+
+So there's always a build step to fingerprint. If you're doing this in any form of scale, you'll discover this caching issue with the network. As soon as you've accepted that there's a build step, that's when things get difficult or tricky, because now it's like "Well, I might as well use Babel stage 6 stuff." That's where you end up with decorators being rewritten three times.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right. "I'm gonna use my own JavaScript. My own custom transform. This is how I would have written the Map API."
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Right.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Anyways... I love how Brian's "We're gonna put a pin in it" turns into like a masterclass... This is my favorite type of nerd, so thank you, Brian... We've been yapping so much, we haven't even had a chance to get into some of the fun acronyms that I'm excited to learn more about in today's show, like ISR, and DSR, and some of the other things that the cool kids are talking about. So folks in the cigar club - or whatever we're calling it, the intellectual, philosophizing club - just hang tight for the next segment.
+
+**Break:** \[38:40\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Okay, folks, we're gonna try to contain our nerd for this last segment, so bear with us... We've talked about some of the evolutions on the web, in terms of rendering patterns, and some of the -- not even evolutions, I would say revolutions sometimes, as we've made this 180, full-circle... Either way, we've kind of--
+
+**Brian Leroux:** We're coming to 360 now.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, we're coming to 360.
+
+**Brian Leroux:** The client render was definitely a 180 from the server-rendered...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[40:07\] Oh yeah, client render was 180, and now we're coming back to 360. So we've talked about some of the cool APIs that have powered these changes, they've enabled this stuff... So now let's talk about some of this stuff that's really, really bleeding edge. There's some patterns being pusher, like ISR and DSR. What are these thing, Brian?
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Well, I think they're primarily marketing, so we've gotta keep an eye on that... But I don't think that's necessarily bad. Sometimes marketing does turn into categories and thought processes... But the sort of crux of the problem with the client rendering everything - you've gotta wait for that JavaScript to get loaded. If you pre-render, you've fixed that, but now you've gotta wait for the build. So is there a happy medium? Can we do some build, but not all the build? And this is where incremental static render comes in. It's definitely kind of more marketing than a term I've heard organically grow out of community consensus. It's basically Vercel's idea.
+
+Vercel's idea is your component model will be aware that it is going to come in as an initial state, and then asynchronously it will statically render, and the next person will always get the static render... But somebody's gonna get \[unintelligible 00:41:20.11\] I think sometimes people call it stale when revalidating, or something like that...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I was gonna say, that sounds like the stale-while-revalidate pattern; I didn't realize it was kind of being rebranded in this ISR...
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Yeah... \[laughs\] So I'm gonna try really hard not to be cynical, but I do wanna just point out when these things are organic, community terms that have come up from a consensus of fellow, collegic technologists, or it's something that came out of a marketing blog post.
+
+I just this was more of marketing blog post, and it sort of pushes things towards that Next.js or Vercel's idea of stale-while-revalidate, which is fine; it is a very valid technique. You do end up with Spinorama as your goal, but maybe your goal is okay for that. Maybe your app is a back-office, widget ordering form for your supply manager who doesn't care if there's a spinner. But if it's the place where I'm gonna get my vaccine appointment booked, maybe not a spinner. Maybe that should be a form that loads for sure. And this is where things get sort of tricky.
+
+DSR is Netlify's response to ISR. Netlify saw ISR and was like "Well, that's cool, except now you don't have idempotency; you don't have an immutable, deterministic build. You've got a placeholder that's spinning before you get the thing that you thought you would get." So their model has always been about these immutable deploys, and you always get the same thing... So DSR is the same thing as ISR, except for it's distributed static render, and the idea is somebody out in the network pays for that first load. So it will render it, it renders it on demand, but progressively, when it's being requested. And that's it.
+
+So DSR is like ISR, except there's no spinner... But otherwise it's roughly the same idea. And I guess these are just trade-offs... Like, if you've got a gigantic content site and it's got hundreds and hundreds of pages, and you just change the copyright, that's a pain in the ass. You don't wanna wait for that whole thing to load. So sure, you're gonna push that up, and then let someone else pay for that app render; when it needs to be requested, it happens. And I think that's totally cool.
+
+I don't know how you model this yourself. These are kind of proprietary to the Vercel framework and the Netlify platform. So if you wanted to port these concepts over to Azure or AWS or something else, you'll probably have to do some of your own magic to make that happen... But ultimately, these are just tricks for pushing that cache invalidation problem around who gets the stale and who gets to deal with the build step... And increasingly, programmers are like "I don't wanna deal with this. I wanna get back to work, I've gotta close these tickets. I've got stuff to do, and waiting on this build is not part of that."
+
+\[44:17\] This is where for me things kind of start heading back in a full-circle direction, especially as technology improves. Lambda cold start used to be a few seconds, now it's 100 miliseconds. Dynamic render was a Lambda function that was actually not all that unreasonable, and lots and lots of people out there are doing it now, BBC is probably the most famous one, where the whole website is coming through a Lambda function on the way out... And people will say "Oh, that's more slow", or inefficient I've also heard, but it doesn't have to re-render ever time; you can cache. We still have headers, the web still works. Is it inefficient? I don't know. It's 10 cents for two million requests of Lambda. It seems pretty efficient to me. It might not be efficient to AWS, but from my perspective as a customer it's plenty fine for most cases. I should ask, do we have anything else to add on the ISR/DSR?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I have some thoughts... What about you, Nick? Do you wanna chime in there?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I don't know, I was trying to think -- because I hadn't heard of these terms before, and that's because I really haven't done a ton with Netlify or Vercel. So from that standpoint, it does seem more like marketing, just because like you said, it's locked into their respective stacks. And then I started thinking about how I would as a developer work with this, and work with it locally... And I guess with both of these, because you kind of have almost two different renders, or two different ways to getting to that - could you have bugs that get introduced at that point, potentially?
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Yeah, ideally there is this immutability, and everything's gonna be the same every time... And I think in the case \[unintelligible 00:46:01.20\] These things will introduce a dynamic process at runtime, which is definitely walking in the non-determinism path. Could it introduce bugs? Yeah. Will it? I don't know... \[laughs\] Maybe. How often and what kind of bugs? Like, Lambda is down and you're depending on that to render your thing - it's a bad day. But if Lambda is down is down, lots of people are having a bad day...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, that's true.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, seriously, that was the thought for me. It totally seems like a very undeterministic way of having users experience your website. There's so many paths... There's just users kind of creating their own journey, and you don't know what combination or permutation of stuff is gonna cause something weird... And for me it just feels like -- you know, there's the whole "How do I lose weight?" question. "Just exercise and eat generally okay", and I feel like "Just ship less JavaScript, keep it lean", and use tools like web workers that have been around in the browser for a very long time. All the major browsers have had them for a while, to kind of do some pre-fetching, or whatever. I feel like there's existing patterns that use open web technologies where you can achieve the same or better results even, without being locked into a stack per se, or a service provider contract.
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Yeah... It's not an easy one, because if you've committed to this architecture and you're still \[unintelligible 00:47:52.21\] and your builds are blowing up to two hours...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah...
+
+**Brian Leroux:** \[47:57\] ...that's a problem. You need better iterations from that. So any solution, any band-aid along the way is probably acceptable. If your builds are two hours though, and now you're adding band-aids, it might be time to evaluate "Hey, this data is kind of dynamic... Maybe it's time for us to consider not pre-baking all this stuff."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Not trying to pre-bake everything, yeah. And that gets into something else that we'll cover in just a bit, which is really some of the decisions -- like, "How do you develop a rubric for yourself, and your team, and your product? What solutions do you really need?" and trying to be as objective as possible, because it's really tempting to do the hot, new thing... But "What you need?" is often different than "What do you want to do?"
+
+**Brian Leroux:** There's so many weird stakeholders in this problem, too... I mentioned this at the beginning, that it's World Accessibility Day, and that's an important topic for this whole thing... The end consumer, the web consumers out there are all \[unintelligible 00:48:58.28\] And whoever they are, they're your customer, and it's who you wanna be working backwards from. And if you really do care about this thing, the craft, then you've gotta work backwards from a place of the most inclusive, the most accessible place... And accessibility isn't just about people or disabilities, it's also about people on a moped with devices, it's about people that are on networks that might be hostile, in countries that might be hostile... So there's a huge amount of power we have. There's not a lot of web developers compared to how many humans there are on the planet...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And how important the web is.
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Yeah. And it's our privilege to be able to author for this platform, and part of that - it's our responsibility to live up to this lens. So that's where I'd like to start the rubric of thinking "How do we be the most inclusive thing possible, for the most people possible?" And that will start with rendering HTML. \[unintelligible 00:49:57.15\] And this isn't to say that you have to work with JavaScript disabled, but I think you should try, and I think this is -- I'm gonna get a little challenging for some folks, because they're gonna wanna say "Oh, everyone's got JavaScript enabled", and you're right, most people do. But 1% of people don't, and that's actually millions of people, and those people matter to you.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, they do. I feel like the web is a protocol, and there's lots of different clients... And browsers are certainly the most popular client, but... Terminals are clients. Emacs browsers are clients. And we don't need to optimize for the minority use case, but it's important for us to include it in this. Give those folks something. 1% of the web is millions of people, and it's just really important to build a web that's open to everybody, and not just the select few.
+
+With that being said, there's some interesting other movements around, like islands, partial hydration... And one for me -- I don't know if we'll have time to get into too much of those, but one for me that's very exciting and radical is Astro from Fred Schott. He's the creator of Snowpack, and Skypack, and has been kind of a huge advocate of ESM on the web for a long time. He worked on something called Pika Package a while ago, that morphed a bit, but it was basically like "Hey, how do we identify ESM compat dependencies in npm?"
+
+But anyway, so Fred Schott is collaborating with some folks on this project called Astro. It's still very much in development, but we'll link to a demo and a talk that he did at Speakeasy JS. He showed this JavaScript framework that only renders HTML by default... And if you wanna render JavaScript and you wanna have that level of interactivity, it's something that you have to be intentional about... So it kind of flips the script, so instead of by default rendering lots of JavaScript etc. It's like, the JavaScript that you need, you have to be intentional about when it's loaded and when it's used. It's almost like JavaScript on a tap, where you get to turn it off and on. But yeah, any thoughts on Astro, and islands?
+
+**Brian Leroux:** \[52:20\] Yeah, Astro I'm thrilled with. They're absolutely speaking my language... Although they're using different words for the same things, but that's fine. Astro to me is really all about progressive enhancement. Progressive enhancement though does start from a world where this will fall back to links and forms that work. Astro - that's still a bit of an opt-in, but it's pushing in the right direction, where we're gonna prioritize an initial render that is content-aware, not a bunch of spinners. I think they're not saying progressive enhancement because they wanna specifically call out the islands architecture angle of this.
+
+The islands architecture idea is you separate your app not only into components, but into independent apps; they're almost like little mini applications in the page, and they progressive-enhance themselves independent of each other. And this is interesting and nice, because you could have different components evolving in the same document. So you could have your Vue.js component beside your React component besire your -- I don't know what other components are out there... And that's kind of neat.
+
+This is common, and this happens a lot. I was on a call this morning with some other CTOs who are at a bigger company than mine; they were in the midst of the migration \[unintelligible 00:53:29.06\] React, and predictably, they had both. And they imagine they will have both for the next 4-5 years, because they're not turning off their business. So something like Astro is really interesting, because this is gonna give us an evolutionary path out of these big rewrites, so we might actually see systems being composed of the older systems; they'll place nice. That was always kind of the promise. Never been able to load a React component from a Svelte component from a Vue component. The idea that we could start combining these things into larger documents is pretty cool.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I'm curious, can you elaborate for folks how this is different than micro-frontends?
+
+**Brian Leroux:** God, I don't know... \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** For me, that trend came and went.
+
+**Brian Leroux:** It did.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Like, thank God, RIP... But it was interesting...
+
+**Brian Leroux:** It's like a bunch of frameworks where like, you know, we're gonna be the Rails, except for client-side. Ember was saying this, and others have said this over the years... I think it's a neat idea. The concerns are different, and the reasons that we were doing things in one place \[unintelligible 00:54:39.29\]
+
+I think micro-frontends was one of those things where it's like as soon as you saw it, you were like "This doesn't actually make sense", but \[unintelligible 00:54:50.26\] So it's really a messaging issue... \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, I was gonna say - what's the distinction?
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Yeah... One feels icky and one feels like a place where I'd get a pina colada. That sounds nice... \[laughs\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Honestly, it's just reminding me of when I first got into -- at my first job... I can't remember what they were called, but we basically had the same thing, and I don't know if we called them applets... It wasn't like Java applets, but it was...
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Portlets.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Portlets, thank you.
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Yeah, JSF. I remember that. Oh, yeah, that's was fun.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** No, it wasn't... \[laughter\]
+
+**Brian Leroux:** \[unintelligible 00:55:26.20\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right. So we can do a whole show on decision-making, but if we can kind of summarize for folks when you need what, if you had to kind of summarize it for people.
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Use accessibility as your blueprint for making decisions.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, yes!
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Or your web consumers... As web authors, that's probably one of our biggest responsibilities. And there is no easy answers there. Different audiences are gonna have different needs, and being inclusive is gonna look different ways over the years. I think it's kind of like security and performance... There's no moment where you're like "Ah, we did it. We're secure, we're performant and we're accessible." It's not like that; it's an ongoing, continuous improvement situation." We'll never be perfect, but we're gonna try to be perfect anyways.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, totally. That was the perfect answer. I really think we should blog about that, and that should be something that we coin... Because really, using accessibility as your guide is the best way to create not just performant user experiences, but delightful ones too, for everybody. It's a healthy North Star... So thank you so much for sharing that.
+
+Again, this was such a -- a lot to fit into an hour, maybe even a little bit more than that, but we're excited to have had a chance to dive into this with you. Thank you so much, Brian. There'll be lots of links in the show notes, and we're excited that the web is continuing to evolve, and push, and question, and iterate... So we're very privileged to be contributors to this wonderful platform. Thank you, everyone, and have a wonderful day.
+
+**Brian Leroux:** Thanks for having me.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Thank you, Brian.
+
+**Outro:** \[57:15\]
+
+**Horse JS:** The JS drama. It's rare.
diff --git a/Monad's Hook_transcript.txt b/Monad's Hook_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0bf08b468dc9026710e4ef0b9d24bbfdc2787d22
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Monad's Hook_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,449 @@
+**Jerod Santo:** There ain't no party like a JS Party, because the JS Party don't stop. Hey, y'all, it's Jerod, your internet friend, and I'm joined by a couple of my friends... It's Kball. What's up, Kball?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Hello, hello. How's it going?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's going just fine. A lot better now, now that you're here. And Nick is also here. What's up, Nick?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Ahoy-hoy. It's going well.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Glad to hear it, and ahoy-hoy back to you, sir. So we have a fun show planned for you all today. We're gonna play an old game; pull it out, try it on for size, Explain It Like I'm 5. Now, if you recall, the last time we did some recurring segments, we had a good friend from Go Time, Mat Ryer on the show, and we ambushed him \[unintelligible 00:02:50.17\] asked him to come up with some new jingles on the spot... Well, unfortunately, Mat is not here, and we do not have an Explain It Like I'm 5 jingle. But I thought if I exploited Mat Ryer to get a jingle, who else could I exploit to get a jingle? And I realized I have kids, and I can use them to our great advantage. So I have a brand new jingle, ready for you right here.
+
+**Jingle:** \[03:15\] to \[03:21\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So, Explain It Like I'm 5. It's self-explanatory if you're older than five. We take complex technical subjects and we try to break it down, or metaphorize them, or do something to explain it to somebody who's younger than ourselves, maybe around five years old. So today we're gonna tackle three topics of varying degrees of difficulty. I think they're probably all pretty hard to explain. WebAssembly, React hooks, and Bitcoin.
+
+So we randomly selected people to explain these -- no, we decided who is gonna explain these before the show, and it turns out Kball is going to WebAssembly for us. Kball, can you explain WebAssembly like we're five?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[04:03\] Explain WebAssembly like we're five... Alright. So I was trying to think about different ways we could explain this, and I'm gonna try LEGOs. When you get a LEGO set, you've got these super-small, basic pieces, and then you have these instructions that kind of build up those basic pieces into larger chunks, and then you put the chunks together and you get a full, awesome Hogwarts castle, which was the biggest LEGO set we did recently.
+
+So if you think about that the other way, if you start from the vision of what you wanna do, that's the most descriptive.
+
+I wanna build a Hogwarts castle. We can think about that as a very descriptive programming language - JavaScript, or C++, or Rust, or something like that. Then we break it down into chunks, that are still potentially pretty descriptive. So in our Hogwarts castle that might be "Okay, we're gonna do the tower, or we're gonna do the secret chamber", or something like that. Those are our high-level language instructions; functions in JavaScript, or other things. But computers don't understand those high-level things. They need to get down all the way to the level of the LEGOs, and that is an assembly language. So this is true across all of our different software development; anything you do, web or not, you end up having to break it down into these very finite level instructions that are not very descriptive. And we have tools to do that; we have compilers that do that, we have runtime interpreters, things like that.
+
+So that's one set of concepts, is we have these multiple layers of increasing complexity; we might call those layers of abstraction, but five-year-olds probably don't understand that... But we can call it LEGO blocks, chunks of LEGOs at the scale of a room, or like the whole set... And in order to get something to run, we need to map things down from those high-level concepts into the LEGO blocks and understand what they need to do.
+
+Traditionally, on the web, the only way we've been able to do that is we get it down to the level of the intermediate blocks, JavaScript, and the browser does the translation into smaller LEGO blocks. And what WebAssembly is doing is saying "Okay, let's actually create a way to control things at the level of those smallest LEGO blocks. And what that lets us do is use other types of languages, other than JavaScript, to program for the web." So instead of just always having to build to JavaScript and trust that the browser is gonna translate that to LEGO blocks in a good way, we could build in another programming language. We could build in Rust, we could build in C++, we could build in something else, and use the compiler designed for this purpose to translate that down to these lowest-level LEGO blocks that are called WebAssembly. Does that feel like a five-year-old explanation?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] Maybe like you came up with it when you were five -- no. Nick, what do you think? Pretty good?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Dad, I just wanna play with my blocks...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Well, and you can. You can write raw WebAssembly. That's okay. Most people won't be doing that. So that's actually a really important thing to think about; if you're thinking "I'm gonna learn WebAssembly", you can do that and you can learn how to manipulate Assembly, but just like very few people who are coding for non-web environments are actually directly coding in Assembly, very few people who are coding for WebAssembly are going to be directly writing in WebAssembly. Most folks will be writing in some sort of higher-level language, and using a compiler to translate it down into WebAssembly.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So in this LEGO blocks metaphor, where does these other languages... Like, there's Rust bindings -- not bindings, but cross-compiled to WebAssembly, Go can compile to WebAssembly, I believe... Are these like LEGO instructions that are written in other people's languages, or...?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[08:01\] Sure. Yeah, I think that's reasonable.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Dang it, I shouldn't have given you an out like that. That was such a good out.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, I think that's a good way to think about it. One interesting thing is probably the simplest to translate into WebAssembly and the languages that first created WebAssembly approaches are those without a runtime. So I don't know if we wanna get deep into runtimes or lack of runtimes or things like that, but JavaScript has a runtime, which means there's a set of libraries and function calls you can call... WebAssembly essentially has access to that same runtime, and it doesn't have extensively other pieces, like another language runtime, like you might have for example in Golang.
+
+So if you're going to ship a Go program as WebAssembly, you need to not only ship the program, but you have to ship the whole runtime as WebAssembly, so that you can run it there. Whereas runtimeless environments like Rust or C++ - those were the first languages to be shippable to WebAssembly, because you could just compile them down. And I see Mat is commenting in the chat, so he might be telling me where I'm wrong about Go.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Ah... Pay no attention to him.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Does he know Go?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I don't know...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That joke's a no-go...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Tell me how LEGO MindStorms fit into the mix...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Tell me what a LEGO MindStorm is.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] I'm just trying to make it harder on you... Alright. Well played, well played. Now, sometimes the problem with LEGOs is they can be expensive. Is WebAssembly expensive?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** No, WebAssembly ships for free with your browser today.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** You can do it. And all of the toolchain for pretty much every language that I'm aware of that compiles to WebAssembly is free. The first versions were built entirely open source, and I don't know if there are proprietary compiler tools that also compile to WebAssembly at this point, but you should be able to get started for free.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Awesome. Thanks, dad. Alright... Nick, you're a dad.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You're a React daddy. Can you explain React hooks to Kball? This was Kball's request, so... I totally understand them, but Kball needs help. Please explain them to Kball like he's five.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Alright. Well, I'm gonna take a shot at this... And just so you know the mindset of which I'm coming to this from, I do have an almost five-year-old, and I was trying to think of how I would explain this to her, and kind of what her favorite things are right now. And her favorite bedtime routine right now is coming up with stories about our day that are just completely silly, and maybe tying in TV or movie references that she knows, to make them even more silly. So that's what I did with this... I'm gonna try and explain React hooks to Kball, who I'm thinking of as my five-year-old
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I kind of act like I'm five...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\] Once upon a time there was a community of JavaScript developers that lived on an island. I'm tying in Moana right now, in case you need to know... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Thank you for the reference...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Oh, good. I know that one.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Spoilers for Moana, by the way... This was a very special island, full of proud people, who braved the waters of the JavaScript language, and even forged their own destiny by creating an add-on to the language called JSX. Now, over the years they moved on from a functional, class-like way of JavaScript and started to develop an elegant way to survive, and built a way to develop applications using component-based classes... Because JavaScript got classes.
+
+Now, the chief developer learned the class-based way of her people, and she was very excited about that, but she always wondered if there was something more to the language that might be able to come in and play a role later on in our story.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Is this usually where she sings a song?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It is, yeah. I can do that, but I'll get us demonetized again. \[laughter\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I think if you sing it it's fine, right?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I guess... But you don't want that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You might get us banned.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[12:04\] Yeah. \[laughs\] So she thought of the class-based approach to what they were doing was just too verbose, and she constantly pushed for a new way of doing things, but she was shut down because classes are the way of her people, of her development team.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And did she know the way?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** She did because of that; that was all she'd ever done.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** This is the way.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[unintelligible 00:12:22.21\] programmer on the island - think of her grandma Tala, from Moana - showed her a hidden cave that contained JavaScript classes' true heritage, and she realized that they were once function-based, and they could be again... So she told her lead developer of this revelation, but he simply carried on that state could not be managed in a function, and that her ideas were as whacky as trying to go beyond the reef of their island. Well, that's exactly what she did. She set off to find the great JavaScript demigod Monad, to restore the state of the function-- \[laughter\] ...restore the state of the function and bring efficiency to her dev team.
+
+Now, upon discovering Monad, he told her of the ways in which functions could not work until they set off to find his missing hook; only then could he restore the state and restore functional components.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Wait, you've gotta work your welcome in here somehow...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah... \[laughs\] I don't know how.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[singing\] I see what's happening here... You're face to face with JavaScript, then it's strange... You don't even know how to feel... It's adorable! It's nice to see that programmers never change... Open your eyes, let's begin... Yes, it's really me. It's Monad. Breath it in... I know it's a lot, the code, the state... When you're staring at programming concepts... What can I say, except you're welcome. Um, let's see...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Thank you so much for that...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I've lost my -- alright, if I'd thought of this ahead of time, I could have ridden this out, but I was trying to do it real-time and I just failed.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I disagree one hundred percent. That was not a fail.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, that was amazing.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Go on, Nick.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** So Monad told her that he needed to find his hook to be able to restore the state in functional components. That developer was curious though. "What is this hook you speak of?" she asked. And this is where I kind of trail into Coco, because that's another favorite of my daughter's right now.
+
+So Monad says "Imagine that your ancestors are in the afterlife. If you want their memory or their state to live on, you need to put their picture up on the ofrenda, or in this case, call them as a function within your component." Now, when that happens - what happens to your state in that afterlife? Well, it lives in this magical world of memory; and it can live on in that memory for as long as you keep their picture on your ofrenda. As long as that's up there, it will be living and it can be accessed by your state component.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[singing\] Remember me...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** As soon as you neglect to call it, its state gets cast to the after-afterlife, called the garbage collector. Now, the order of which you put up those pictures really matters, or the order in which you call those functions really matters, because it helps the environment map the correct state to the correct hook call.
+
+Monad also explained that hooks need to be called every time, and not just conditionally. Not just on Día de Muertos, but every day, every time... And they need to be called by the top-level functional component, and not just inside of some kind of callback.
+
+Now, Monad continued to explain the basics of useState, useMemo, and useEffect to this developer. And then went on to explain that his hook was unlike any other. It was a custom hook. Now, with this custom hook, Monad could use the underlying functionality of the other hooks to construct the perfect hook to destroy the extremely verbose monster Teh Class, and restore the heart of the function (or the state of the function) to the development team.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Teh Class... Are you done?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[16:11\] Almost...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. \[laughs\] Because you stopped like you were waiting for an applause. I feel like we're not quite there yet. Please, continue.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\] So Monad's custom hook could be used to recall the existing application's state, but it could also be used to have an effect on the world around it, because it could use effects. And he could also listen to the ocean, mouse clicks, page scrolls and other things, and he could establish a plan for when his component was cleaned up or removed, and he could talk to the all-knowing cloud by using fetch.
+
+Now, as they faced Teh Class in an epic battle, the developer realized that she could make a custom hook, for hooks were just a way to hook into her environment - React in this case - and then combine that with the strength of other hooks, like Monad's hook. She could vanquish Teh Class to the murky syntactical depths.
+
+Now, with this new power she returned to her people, and once and for all replaced their class-based components with functional components, supported by the power of hooks, that were within them all along. The end.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** If I'm being honest, I haven't seen Coco, so you lost me there...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...but A for effort, and I have to say, you worked harder on that than I work on being productive in TypeScript, so... Congratulations.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Well, I'm so productive with TypeScript I had time for this...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You had time to write this story because your Vim and TypeScript tools just wrote themselves today, I suppose... Well, I surely can't follow that, so we'll have to break right here, so I have some time between me and that, to come up with my EILI5... So let's break. We'll be back in a bit.
+
+**Break:** \[17:50\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So, since Bitcoin is back in its bull run... It's just been a few years in a bear market and then came roaring back from something like $4,000 a year ago, to 60k per coin, and around there today... People are interested once again in this crazy world of cryptocurrencies, and so we thought it'd be fun to explain Bitcoin like you're five, because it is a difficult thing to explain, difficult to talk about, a lot of ins, a lot of outs, a lot of what-have-yous...
+
+\[19:57\] The first way I would like to explain this is by stealing a tweet from Theophite on Twitter, which I thought that was a hilarious way to explain Bitcoin... Somebody tweeted out "I still don't get Bitcoin", and Theophite replied "Imagine if keeping your \[unintelligible 00:20:13.18\] for 24/7 produced solved Sudokus you could trade in for heroin." \[laughter\] That's pretty classic, right?
+
+So of course, there's your bear explanation, and there are lots of downsides with Bitcoin specifically around energy use and whatnot... But there is also some real value to the network. And I'm not gonna explain how Bitcoin works like we're five, but I thought maybe I'd try to explain why some people think it's valuable like you're five... So here we go.
+
+Imagine that you're playing Monopoly with some friends... And one person decides - maybe they're the homeowner. Usually house rules... They decide that they're gonna be both the banker and the rule enforcer. Pretty typical. Everything starts off okay, but then the banker starts doing some things that you don't appreciate as someone who plays the game. For example, they start injecting new money into the game, but not equally to everyone. Just to themselves and some of their friends.
+
+They change the rules about how much money you get for passing Go, what you can go to jail for and for how long, they create over-the-top transfer fees and laws about who can trade with whom, etc.
+
+Eventually, you and a few other people in the game decide that you want to transact without the banker's rules, permissions, fees and so on. But you can't use the Monopoly bucks, because the banker runs that whole system of things. So instead, you start a grouptext on your phones. And each time you wanna transfer money to and from each other, you put that in a text. Maybe you text "I'll send five Schrute Bucks to Kball." And then you text that out.
+
+Everyone involved in this new way of sending money is in the grouptext, so that's how you keep each other honest. Bitcoin is the grouptext. The end. What do you think?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I like it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** "I like it." \[laughs\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I'm going to package that recording up as a non-fungible token and sell it later...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Now you're talking... Kball? Thoughts?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, I feel like it's okay. I might add that everytime you send a text, it actually has to send everybody -- or something about the ledger getting longer and longer. So you send a text, and it actually has to send the whole history of texts every time, so that you don't accidentally lose track of where the money has been.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's true. So when you join a grouptext -- sometimes if you add someone to a private Slack channel, for example, it may say "Hey, do you want them to just start right now, or do you wanna give them the entire history of this conversation?" And with Bitcoin that's not optional. Everybody has to have the entire history.
+
+Now, there are thin clients and stuff, where they don't have to have that, and you can trust other people to keep the entire history, but - yeah, well said. You're sending lots of texts around the world, aren't you.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah. You could also add an element about the texts getting so long they fill up your phone, so you have to buy fancier phones...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, the whole mining and mathematical computation thing is not in the analogy; that's why the analogy falls apart... But that's why I said it's more about why people would want to do this, and less about how it works. Conceptually, this side-conversation that is outside of this other system, which doesn't have the rules that you may not appreciate is why people see the value there.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah. I dig it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, boy. Chat room love it too, so... Yay for me. Maybe it's because mine wasn't like a 30-minute epic of multiple movies entwined together in order to tell a story of evil and good, although--
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Gotta keep those kids entertained.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[24:03\] It could be... \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I also liked how you focused on the financial piece of it, and not the whole blockchain thing... Because I feel like a lot of people go all-out on blockchain being a solution for stuff, rather than being a really slow distributed database...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** But the financial aspect is where cryptocurrencies actually do have some pretty interesting characteristics, and the ability to create these micro-currencies, or -- I guess Bitcoin is pretty macro at this point. That has some really interesting potential effects.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, exactly. And I think long-term... Like, where does it go long-ter - I think Bitcoin is the idea, and an instantiation of the idea that made it possible... But I think that these multi-use, build on top of platforms, streaming money systems, ultimately become probably the end game. Or maybe not the end game, but like the major game down the road. And a lot of those are solving a lot of the problems that Bitcoin has, such as the energy use etc.
+
+Alright. Well, that's Explain It Like I'm 5... Thanks for playing. Next up, we're going to change our focus to project focus, which is where we take a particular piece of software, a project out there, usually in the open source world, and we give a summary of it, we check it out, maybe we dig in a little deeper today... We like to actually dig in a little bit into some source code. And the topic of today's project focus is called Vite. Kball, yo mentioned Vite a few episodes back...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I did.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...as something that's been on your radar; you've been interested in this. We haven't done a show on Vite; we did a show on WMR, which is a similar tool to Vite... But we thought we would spend some time, the three of us, just taking a look, reading about it, picking it apart, maybe finding some interesting bits about how it does what it does. Do you wanna kick us off, Kball, with what Vite is for everybody, and we'll go from there?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, so Vite is a very fast, modern frontend dev build tool. It takes advantage of a lot of the progress that's been made in terms of native ES modules and various other things to reimagine a Webpack-style thing, to do frontend tooling that is super, super-fast, has a universal plugin interface, and is fully typed using TypeScript... Which I don't know if anyone has ever dug into the WebPack build model, and their tapping and plugins and whatever... It's really, really hard to understand, so I'm excited to see something like this, that has typing built into it and has this sort of deep thinking built into it from the start.
+
+It caught my interest because I sort of follow the Vue community, and it was initially developed by Evan You for Vue; but then he pulled out the Vue-specific parts and created this very tight core and plugin interface, so that it could be used with any frontend framework. And I thought that was a really interesting model, especially for somebody who is so deeply into the Vue community.
+
+I used to do that, and when I saw folks who were involved with the React core team tweeting excitedly about Vite, I said "Okay, there's something here. It's not just Vue. This is actually pushing the whole industry forward in some way."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That's honestly what kept it off my radar for so long... I saw it, but I'm not really tied into the Vue community, and I kind of thought of it as a Vue-specific project... Much in the way when we talked about WMR I thought that was more of a Preact-specific project.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. Yeah, it's kind of interesting, because you borrow from the strength of the brand, which is powerful. This borrows from Vue's brand. Same people, same expectations etc. And WMR borrows from the Preact people's brand... But then by doing that, you also kind of pigeonhole yourself, at least in people's perceptions... Which can ultimately limit your exposure. So it's kind of a catch-22. But I definitely thought this was just a Vue thing for a very long time... Until today, honestly.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[28:19\] Yeah, I saw you put the tweet out talking about Vite, the Vue project, and I was like "Um, Jerod, we're gonna have to put you right."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yup, I hadn't done my homework yet. \[laughs\] Put me right, Kball. Put me right. So one thing that's cool about the way this works - and we can go through some of the comparisons, because it is similar to a lot of other tools out there right now - SnowPack and WMR specifically... One of the things they do that make it conceptually different or interesting is they kind of bifurcate the idea of not just development and production, but the idea of dependencies and source code. Did you guys see that?
+
+So one of the things they do is they solved the problem of slow server starts - this is like in Dev - and slow updates, and these problems... Like, as you get more and more code into your project, you've gotta wait seconds for your server to start up, you have to wait multiple seconds for your files to reload after hitting Save etc. Or in the browser even, to refresh between saves... So they're trying to solve that problem in Dev and make that way faster and way better... So they way they do that is that they split it up, just conceptually. They say, okay, everybody has dependencies, and every has source code. And what a lot of production bundlers do is their whole point is just "Well, we're gonna merge and shake and then minify, and then do all this transpilation and crap, and then we're gonna spit it out into one big thing."
+
+The way they think about it though is they actually think about it in terms of your dependencies as one type of code, and then your source code as another type of code. So they take your dependencies and they use pre-bundling and they use esbuild, super-fast, and they treat it like it's a dependency. Well, how is a dependency different than source code? Well, it's not gonna change very often. You pull it in and you leave it, and you're gonna import it or whatever, but you're not gonna be changing it unless you upgrade a version, or something like that.
+
+Whereas your source code - you're changing it constantly, there's certain aspects of the site you're working on, these are very high-churn... There are other aspects that you don't even need at all, because you're not working on those, so they can be shaken out, or whatever... And that allows them to make it way faster, the Dev server specifically, while you're working on it with Vite. I keep wanting to say Vite \[vyte\] even though I know it's Vite \[veet\]. Forgive me if I squeeze a Vite \[vyte\] in there.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah. Looking at it a little bit, they go so strong as to say "Hey, we're actually gonna cache these things forever", essentially. And they key the cache with the version of the dependency. So if you upgrade your dependencies, it's gonna update that version, so that invalidates the cache and it works forward... But they are operating under the assumption here that default case your dependencies never change unless their versions have changed... Which makes a ton of sense for somebody working on a web app environment.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. And for those, they can use esbuild, which is the tool written in Go that's a thousand times faster than other bundlers. I don't know the exact numbers, but 10x to 100x, according to Vite's website. So I overstated by an order of magnitude... I take it back. 10x to 100x. Still pretty fast. And then the source code - they just use native ESM for that in dev... So a completely different way of handling it. So that was cool.
+
+What else about Vite do y'all find interesting?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[31:48\] Let me ask... Do you see Vite and WMR -- would you put it on the same level as things like esbuild, or is that at a different level in the stack? Or I guess another way to put it - do you see this as the modern descendence to things like WebPack and Parcel? More modern tooling written for modern ES module JavaScript?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I think it's introducing a layer. So you have WebPack, and you have WebPack Dev Server, and they kind of ship together... And I think they're reasonably entangled; or at least WebPack Dev Server just works with WebPack. This is built on top of esbuild and Rollup, and it is just that Dev server layer of utilizing the underlying bundling tools in a smarter (potentially) or at least taking more advantage of modern practices way... But it's handling the web server piece of it. How do we use these tools to package things together and do a Dev web environment that works really well, and that also then translates to production.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. So it's explicitly not a bundler. So in Dev it will take your dependencies and use esbuild to bundle those, and then it will leave your source code as native ESM, and just serve it natively in the browser. And then in production it uses Rollup to still produce a bundle, a single bundle. So some of that breaks down like "What's the difference between SnowPack and Vite?" and they're very similar. Some of the implementation is different, but basically how they go about building for production is different... But neither one of them are bundlers. So thinking about it as like "It uses bundlers, but it's not a bundler."
+
+Now, WMR - there's a nice comparison page on this website, which we'll link up as well... Where they'll compare themselves to SnowPack, WMR and Web Dev Server. And the question around WMR is "Well, what's so different about those two?" And the answer is not all that much. I think Vite is trying to position itself as more general-purpose than WMR, which is like Preact + general-purpose, but has some Preacty things built right in... If you remember that show we did, Nick, where it'll generate a bunch of Preact stuff by default etc, like in the scaffolding... Whereas WMR I think is trying to head the way of more general-purpose. It sounds like Vite thinks that they're more general-purpose than WMR is, but that's according to their comparison page. Hard to say exactly.
+
+The scopes are very similar. I'm not sure exactly if they work the same way... If you remember, Jason was talking about his Rollup plugin interface that they kind of standardized, and how WMR interacts with Rollup was they built the standard interface, and then Vite adopted that as well. So they're kind of playing off each other, learning from each other, doing things slightly different... And WMR is, I guess, fine-tuned for Preact, whereas Vite is not.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I just saw when looking at that site as they reference some of their inspirations for Vite, that the server is using Coa, which is kind of a fun alternative to Express, that is very async-focused, and it has some interesting programming models associated with it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I wonder what gave them that decision; I'd be interested in what goes into that decision. So in addition to grokking the website and the readme, it would also be fun to kind of dig in a little bit further, hop into some of Vite's code at least conceptually... We're not gonna be over here reading aloud, dramatic readings of source code... It might be a good segment, but it's not this segment... \[laughs\] But poke around a little bit.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[unintelligible 00:35:53.12\] Moana?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[35:56\] Yes, exactly. We'll get all sorts of copyright problems if we continue hitting up Disney properties like this. Just poke around, see if we find anything interesting in the bits. Now, I guess a meta-question for you two, that I'll also throw in on a little bit, is when you come to a project and you're maybe beyond "I'm just gonna use this." You're kind of thinking "I wanna learn from this. I wanna read about it. I wanna read it. I wanna consume this and play with it maybe", and you land on the GitHub page, what do you do from there? How do you approach a new piece of source code in terms of grokking it, or trying to figure out how it all fits together?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** The first thing I try and do is find the entrypoint into it. If it's a library or something, when I call this, what's the thing that I'm hitting first, and then how does it get routed to something else from there? It's typically what I'll look into.
+
+For something like this it might be -- it's a little more difficult, because it's like trying to find how... I don't know. I guess that's a way of like establishing my footing, in some way.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. What about you, Kball?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I have some of the same... I'll often look for an entry point. Sometimes what I'll do is -- depending on "Is this code solving a problem that I'm already somewhat familiar with, or that touches on that?", sometimes I'll look for "Okay, this is touching this problem domain. Let me find where it's dealing with that." So I was looking at Vite a little bit, and I was that it was doing SSR, and I thought "Well, SSR is pretty framework-specific. I wonder what they're doing within Vite to deal with server-side rendering", given that that's something for example React does very different than Vue. So I just start digging around in that folder a little bit.
+
+So that's the other approach - instead of looking for the entry point, how am I gonna call at this? Okay, I know it's dealing with this problem, and that problem is interesting to me for one reason or another. Let me go and find out how it's dealing with that.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And going to this -- I will say that one plugin that really helps navigate code on GitHub is one like Octotree, that gives you a file drawer right on GitHub, so you can easily look at the file tree without click, and then clicking, and then clicking... So it's much easier.
+
+But immediately going to this, I see that it has a Packages directory, so that immediately makes me think "Oh, this is a monorepo." So exploring it from that sense of -- that's how I can figure out how to navigate it, is treating it as a monorepo. It's not using Lerna. That's the only monorepo configuration I'm familiar with.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. So places that I'll usually start - obviously, I'll start at the readme. That's the clear and obvious one, read the readme. Oftentimes in the readme there will be instructions on how to contribute. And usually that's where they'll give you entry points, or they'll give you places to start, or at least how to get it on your machine, etc.
+
+This one has a nice contribution guide. So if you start in the readme, you find the contribution guide. That's normally going to tell you a whole bunch about getting started. In fact, theirs is pretty well written, better than most open source projects I come across. And they'll tell you how to get the repo set up, they'll tell you they're using yarn, they do tell you that this is a monorepo... So you drilled that, Nick. And they'll tell you where the packages live, where the test directories are... And then of course, PR guidelines and all that kind of stuff.
+
+Now, it's different whether you're trying to actually just understand it, or if you're actually trying to hack on it; maybe you don't care about the PR guidelines. I don't, at this phase. I'm just trying to understand where things live. So start there...
+
+And then also package.json. A lot of times you can figure out things about a project by its dependencies, and also its npm scripts, and stuff. If you go look at the scripts key in the package.json, you'll find a lot of the entry points. And this one is no different. At least you'll find out how to run the tests, what they're using, the subcommands they're using in order to run the tests... Tests are also a great place to start.
+
+\[40:01\] So this is a monorepo. If you go inside packages, you can find out "Well, it has a plugin architecture. So there's a Vite directory, and then there's plugin Vue, plugin Vue JSX, plugin React Refresh, plugin Legacy. So now I know "Okay, there's some sort of plugin architecture that's being used, and these are the official first-party plugins. And this Vite directory is probably where the bulk of the logic is."
+
+Then they also have the Playground, which -- is that... Maybe that's part of whatever monorepo system they're doing... Or is Playground a pretty typical directory path for monorepos or for projects? It's not something that I'm used to. Is that directory Playground pretty common?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Not that I've seen...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, me neither.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, I don't know...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Then you drill down in there and you see they have a bunch of .ts files. So then you close the browser tab and you move on...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** What's that extension, what was that? \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Then you realize "This project is trash." Because the .ts is .trash. That's what it stands for; and you move on... No. So that's kind of how I get started. It's like, readme, tests, package.json, contributor guidelines. And if you can't get a good idea of at least where to start from there, it's probably not a repository worth spending time reading... Because reading is a great way to learn how to write software. Just like good writers read a lot, I think good software writers read a lot of code... And especially code from people that you think is a high quality of engineers, as the Vue and the Vite team are. I don't wanna give Vue too much credit, because it's the vitejs repo.
+
+Anyways, as we dig in - you mentioned the SSR stuff... Kball, anything else pique your interest in the code itself?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I was looking around -- there's some interesting... Probably easier to understand than the SSR stuff, looking at how they do hot module reloading, or just kind of how their client is set up... Because they inject a client in with your app code - at least in development - to be able to do hot module reload. So that might be a fun place to start.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Cool, cool, cool. Anything else on Vite?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Now that I know that it's not Vue-specific, I see myself playing with it in the future. Not that I have anything against Vue, I just haven't gotten into Vue.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I was gonna say, that's a sick burn... \[laughter\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I want to get into it, I just haven't found a reason yet.
+
+**Break:** \[42:22\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So we do have a bit of a playground, Nick and I (but mostly Nick), is our quiz show repo... So if you ever listen to JS Danger or watched it on YouTube, you know that there's a pretty cool JS Danger gameboard that I imagined and Nick coded up, and Cody Peterson designed much of it... And it was originally written in Dojo, right Nick?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yup.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[44:14\] And it's still written in Dojo today. So if you wanna see a Dojo application written by Nick, that he's very proud of - I'm not sure about that last part, but... It's out there, it works...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Of course!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, it's awesome. It's TypeScript...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Oooh...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You can check that one out.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Is there gonna be a Dojo plugin for Vite?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Instead, I think he's gonna switch into React... \[laughter\] Is that right, Nick? You're rewriting it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I have been playing with rewriting it in React, yes. But it's still TypeScript, because Jerod loves that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah... Long story short is I've started writing some TypeScript and got very angry... But lashed out in our JS Party channel in the Changelog Slack. So if you want more of me making fun of TypeScript or complaining about it, then join that channel. And Nick coming to its defense like Monad's hook, the hero of the story... \[laughter\]
+
+Anyways, tell us about this rewrite. You were gonna use some React, you've been trying some Tailwind... What's going on there?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, I've been playing with React... Instead of using Dojo's middleware, using React hooks, and specifically React context to hold the application state of the game. And another new feature... Right now, if you wanna create a new game, what Jerod has to do is create a game.json file, put it into the repo into a certain place, and then change a string somewhere, and it will read that game.json and populate the game that way. But one thing I'm looking at is just having that pull from GitHub Gist, so you can just give it a query param of a Gist ID and it will go get that game from there, and then populate it.
+
+And I got the concept of that working in my completely broken React branch... But it's pretty cool, and I think it will be fun to play around with... And it's moving from Dojo's build system that is based off of WebPack, to right now I'm playing with SnowPack... But I would also like to take a look at Vite and/or WMR for this, to kind of see a comparison. It's a fun playground to experiment with that, because it's a relatively small project, but still complex enough that it's fun to work with, and has a lot of good use cases.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, it has. It has state, obviously; the scores are tracked, the point values, it's reading in some data... Of course, it's just JSON blob, but you could change the way that that worked so that you could write it in a web interface, which would be cool... But it has some keyboard shortcuts, it has some music, some audio/sound integrations, a fairly interesting UI, with some overlays... And it looks like the Jeopardy board game.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And most importantly, it has never crashed during the game.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's right. It works every time.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I have a question, looking at this... Oh, TypeScript master, I notice as I look at this code for the first time in this quiz show there's a file called app.m.css.d.ts.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** First of all, that is far too many extensions for any file...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Cool, let's team up on him, Kball...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Oh, no... \[laughter\] Yeah, it's actually fascinating.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, can you expand on that?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Sure.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** What's going on there? Because it looks like -- app.m.css, but I'm not sure what that m is doing there already... But it looks like just pretty vanilla CSS. Why do we need it to be typed?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. So it is just vanilla CSS. The .m signifies it as modular CSS, so it'll be scoped to that component; in that case app, or there's like a contestant on m.css, I think... And that has classes that will only be scoped to that, meaning that at build time the class names will be rewritten to something random, that is specific to that, so you kind of lose the cascade part of CSS, and it'll only be scoped to that file; it won't bleed out styles anywhere else.
+
+\[48:17\] The .m.css.d.ts file is very simple to talk about, but it's just -- that's actually generated by the build system... So it's not something that I wrote directly.
+
+The build tool is going in and looking at that CSS, and it sees all of the class names, and then it creates basically an interface for all of those classnames. So it's saying that when I import this module, this app.m.css - when I import that in my TypeScript, it's going to give me this interface that looks like this, so that I can have IntelliSense on my classnames, and then those will just be replaced with the random strings that get generated at build time. But it's just a way to have typed modular CSS, and then those files are just checked in.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Mm-hm. What do you think about that, Kball?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Alright... \[laughter\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I like it better than CSS-in-JS, to be honest...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's what I tell him...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Here's the one thing that I dislike - checking in generated files.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, totally.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You have to check it in?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Um, no... You could probably git ignore them. Because they're not important at runtime, right? I don't see why you would need to.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I don't know.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I also don't like checking in generated code, but that's just me. I know there's people that actually take their passwords, encrypt them, and check those into their repositories... And that's like common--
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Why even encrypt them?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Why?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I mean, you could skip that step, I suppose. I'm sure people have. \[unintelligible 00:49:48.06\] where everything lives inside of Git, and as long as your encryption algorithm is not able to be brute-forced, then it's just as safe as anything else, I suppose... But over time all algorithms have fallen eventually, so you'll want to just rotate those keys on a regular basis.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Kball, I will tell you that in the React rewrite of this I've been trying to use Tailwind instead, and trying to write as little custom CSS as possible. Just rely on that.
+
+So I have replaced these .m.css.d.ts with extremely long Tailwind strings right inside of my React component, that are just the classnames; all of the classes, listed out...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah... I have not had the chance to really do much with Tailwind. I've been using StyledComponents recently... There is value to CSS-in-JS, but I'm not sure you get that much incremental value once you get beyond module scoping, honestly. I think the \[unintelligible 00:50:47.06\] I think LinkedIn published a project on this, and things like that... Being able to scope by component - super, super-valuable. Most of the rest of this stuff that is in CSS-in-JS - pretty annoying, to be honest...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** For sure.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So there's a lot of -- I mean, I don't know. I'm dealing with it, it's fine... \[laughter\] But our tendency to push everything into JavaScript or TypeScript or whatever is... You know, there are situations in which it's extremely valuable, and for a very large number of projects, including this -- how many line project we have here? This 58-commit quiz show project - I suspect going all the way to CSS-in-JS is going to be overblown. So your Tailwind classes straight in there - that might actually be a better approach.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, except it doesn't look great, because it's just one long string. It doesn't get moved to multiple lines, or anything... I guess I could do that...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** But that's kind of a Tailwind problem though, isn't it?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[51:58\] Yeah, totally. One thing that I have been playing around with is -- well, at work I use Material-UI. That's a React library that's based on Material, and it has a whole bunch of components... And one in particular that I really like is called Box. And it's just like the most generic component, that has all of these properties that you can set on it. So you can set "my" for your padding \[unintelligible 00:52:21.29\] in both of those examples. You can just set all of these, and then it will pull those out and generate custom CSS and inject that into the page for that... So it's like, I go out of my way to just write what I want on these props, that are nice and neatly organized in the component itself, and then CSS is generated for them later.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Some real-time follow-up - I just ran Cloc on our repo. That's the command line tool Cloc, which counts lines of code... And there's about 682 lines of TypeScript and 300 lines of CSS, and 11 lines of HTML. That doesn't make sense... Or maybe it does. So under 1,000 lines of code project.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** How many of those lines of TypeScript are types for your CSS?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Good question... \[laughter\] I do not have the Cloc skills to run the diffing and the right flags to figure that out, Kball... But after the show, Nick will count them by hand, I'm sure.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Oh, yes.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I mean, I'm just kind of poking holes here... Use the tools that work for you. All these are just tools; some of them work well in some situations, some of them work well in other situations. Small projects have different needs than large projects. Projects with many contributors have different needs than projects with one or two contributors... Do what works for you.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. I would love to see some more iterations of this project in different styles, in different toolkits... You know, Nick's gonna rewrite it in React, so \[unintelligible 00:53:53.17\] which is an older Dojo at this point, because a couple years ago you wrote this initially... Maybe 18 months ago.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** About a year, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, just a year. So maybe not that old Dojo... Just with other things. And like, "Oh, here's what it looks like like that, and here's what it looks like like this", and you compare and contrast. I know there's cool projects out there, like the Todo -- what's that one called, TodoMVC?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Mm-hm.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That is one. And there's one that's called RealWorld app or something, where it's more of a real-world app that people write, and it'll have an Ember implementation, a React implementation, and Angular etc. Those things, I've found, are pretty valuable.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Maybe we should turn this into a monorepo with several implementations.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There you go. Bust out your VS Code and get going on that, Nick.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** What's that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \#vimisdead. Alright, that is our show for this week. Thanks for hanging out with us, letting us explain things in ridiculous fashion, as if you were all five-year-olds... In ways that even five-year-olds couldn't understand... \[laughter\] Or poking around...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I don't know if I understood Nick's, and I'm a lot more than five. \[laughter\] But I loved it, don't get me wrong.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** What can I say, except you're welcome...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, gosh...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Param-ching!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** With that, we just end the show, because there's nothing else to be said. He already said it, you're welcome. That's JS Party for this week. We'll talk to you next time.
diff --git a/Much ado before coding_transcript.txt b/Much ado before coding_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..18dff61fd459e704097d773db83b2c149fe95d53
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Much ado before coding_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,381 @@
+**Jerod Santo:** Welcome back, friends. It is JS Party time. We have a fun show for you today. I am joined by Amal and Chris. Let's talk non-dev things. Maybe pre-dev... Help me understand what we're about to talk about here. It's kind of like when you're not coding; there's tons of things around the code. There's decision-making, there's design, there's architecture, there's convincing people that what you're doing is the right thing...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Aligning people...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There's collaboration... There's just many concerns that happen even before you start to code. And then you have the coding stuff, which we talk about all the time, and then there's things that happen afterward... So maybe we'll get to the after as well, but we're gonna start with before, at least. And this is a world that, Amal, you've been living in quite a bit. Decision-making, what to work on, how to build it... Tell us what your thoughts are.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Jerod, this is my life, really. I mean, it feels like the longer I go in my career, the less and less code I write. And in some ways it's good, in some ways it's annoying. \[laughs\] In some ways it's good, because -- I think the thing that's changed for me is, you know, when you first start out and you're really excited about software, and you get your first job, and you get your first task, the thing you first start doing is banging your keys in the keyboard. You go right into the code, you don't even think. And then you're thinking and coding at the same time, and all the cycles... You have like 20 million cycles before you get to the solution, because you're really bad at parallelizing your thought stream... Because it's hard to write software and think about how you're going to write software at the same time, to do it well anyways... It takes years of experience to do that seamlessly.
+
+\[04:11\] And now, the more mature you get, you realize - no, no, no. You have to really design the solution, think about it, iterate on it, outside the keyboard sometimes... Potentially, depending on how large the problem is, get feedback from colleagues, align on it so you're not arguing in your PR, you don't have like a 200-comment PR, because people have opinions, and you've solved it a different way.
+
+So there's just so much that goes into that pre-time... So in a sense, I'm happy now that I spend less time on the keyboard, because I know when to just focus on the keyboard... But I think the annoying thing comes for me in that the flipside is also for me that being a principal, a lead engineer now, we're just ahead of people, and you're in this crazy land between engineering and product and design, and architecture, and platform, and this and that... And IT sometimes even, and support... You're in this world with all these other people that aren't writing software all the time necessarily; there are other stakeholders, technical or non-technical... And yeah, I'm just spending a lot of time there, coming up with how we're gonna do what we need to do, iterate on that, and then come to my team with a plan. And then it's like "Go!"
+
+**Jerod Santo:** What does that plan usually look like? What level of granularity are we talking about? "Here's a bunch of specs, or here's some user stories to go work on"? Or are we talking about bigger-picture, like "This is the direction that we're going"? Give us more the \[unintelligible 00:05:45.04\]
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Yeah, that's a great question. So it's all of the above, quite frankly. We have our kind of \[unintelligible 00:05:52.15\] and so then it's my job to come up with -- myself and other colleagues of mine that are in lead roles, come up with essentially the architecture, the implementation, the feasibility, what the MVP looks like, do the trade-off analyses for different options, present that to our stakeholders for feedback, get a thumbs up there, and then when it comes down to the actual team level, I'm involved with the story creation and breakdown and sub-tasks... Kind of like being a consultant on like "This is how we should do it." And then obviously, from there we iterate with the actual folks that are gonna implement it. But yeah, I'm kind of involved in both that, and even code reviewing it... And obviously, at times, when I get the chance these days, it seems less and less, actually contributing to the code... But yeah, I obviously work alongside that, but I'm heavily involved with the code review process, obviously.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. What about you, Chris? Are you a "grab a ticket and work on it" kind of a developer? Are you higher-level decision-making in the strategy of the software? What's your role usually in this?
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Well, it varies. My last job at IBM was more of a dev advocacy/open source engineering type role, and so I'm working with the open source communities, I'm working with maintainers and foundation peeps... So I haven't been on a product team in really any capacity in a long time.
+
+I'm trying to think about how I work and how things happen in the open source world - there are certainly quite a few differences in how work is done, and who does the work, and where the ideas come from, and how those ideas get bounced around to stakeholders or not...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[07:48\] There's some interesting parallels though, Chris... For example, folks thinking that a lead maintainer of a large open source project needs to have the highest number of commits, which is completely a very false correlation. There's so much governance that goes into open source, so I think for me there's lots of parallels with enterprisy product companies. Lots of parallels, wouldn't you say?
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Well, I can't say I've really worked on much enterprise software, but it feels a bit like night and day to me. I spent the earlier part of my career working in product companies, building products, working in a team, essentially collaborating with designers and product people and all that sort of thing, for the past five years or so, and it doesn't look like that. And I prefer what I'm doing now, obviously... \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Well, to be fair -- to clarify, Chris, I mean to say that the parallels are in how the software gets made. There's still a before-code phase for large, new features in widely-maintained, adopted projects.
+
+2. Sure. Sometimes.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And that before-code phase is usually involved in RFC, which is very similar to kind of what I would put together as my final proposal plan for architecting a new set of features... And then you have architecture proposal \[unintelligible 00:09:17.06\] on my side, and then you have feedback on the RFC, and all the discussion, and those are your stakeholders - the users of your library and the other maintainers. And they contribute to that issue on GitHub, they have that discussion... But for me, it's a series of 6-7 meetings over four weeks, or something like that. \[laughs\] Unfortunately. We're not as good at async communication in enterprise land, unfortunately...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[unintelligible 00:09:46.13\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** But for me, those are the parallels.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Yeah... Um, most open source projects don't have an RFC process.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, I'm thinking of large-scale ones, I guess...
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Right. Most are very informal.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, how about Mocha? That's the one that you maintain...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Wouldn't you say that about startups though?
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Yeah, Mocha is really informal as well.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, I would expect it to be.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I'm spending a lot of time working with Appium lately, and it's also pretty informal.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** But most software development is informal though. There's a good chunk of the internet's websites code isn't living in GitHub. It's not even in source control. I think RFCs are the most formalized way in open source to collaborate on big ideas... And I would say not every company has an architecture committee reviewing process, so...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right...
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Yeah, yeah. I mean, if you look at -- sure. So yes, this RFC is -- I can see the parallels there. I think I'm just kind of saying in my experience, the projects that I've worked with are not at that level... And that's fine. I certainly wish certain projects would have an RFC process, but you know, things happen how they happen.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** We should talk to GitHub about putting that as a default template, or issue type, or whatever... There could be a way to do that. But anyways. I hope someone at GitHub is listening. \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I think lots of us are kind of in the middle, versus in either extreme. It's probably more of us on the small extreme than the large extreme, but I think many of us live on a bell curve of org size and infrastructure around their work, and I think Amal is probably representing the larger enterprise side, where there's a lot of -- let's just call it "ceremony", for a lack of a better term... But things that need to happen.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Cogs. Just kidding.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[11:56\] But as developers -- I mean, all three of us here are developers, whether we're actively coding day in and day out or not, at a certain point some sort of idea or spec or need comes to you, and you're still pre-code. Like, "Here it is..." Whether it's a JIRA ticket that tells you exactly what needs to happen - okay, kind of not that interesting. But most of your tickets are written in a way that still you don't know what to do when you get it, right?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[laughs\] "Is this English?"
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, "What in the heck do they want here?"
+
+**Amal Hussein:** "What this?! Qu'est que c'est?"
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So when you get that, when you have that tangible thing, which is either a need, or a user story, or something... Like, "Hey, we're gonna add comments to the website." Right? Like, there you go. Before you're coding, are there processes, are there things that you do personally in your dev work to figure out how you're gonna attack that problem? Or is it just like break out the editor and start writing some tests or some code? Or pop open your WebPack config and just get it rockin'? What do you guys do?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I actually think in my head Chris, before he starts coding or solving any problems, he puts on either super heavy metal rock music, and cracks open a can of beer, or he's like listening to classical music and smoking a cigar. It's one of the two, and I'm trying to understand, Chris, which of the two is closer to reality? And you're gonna say neither, right?
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I am a paradox...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** A paradox... \[laughter\] He's not letting you in.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I'm an enigma.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You know what - dang it, you know...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** He's not gonna let you in --
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I thought a direct question would be one way to find out something more about you, but now you're just even more intriguing and mysterious. Dang it, this experiment failed...
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Well, mystique has never really been one of my strong suit...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** But okay, a lot of my role now is R&D, making hypotheses and doing research, building prototypes... That's a lot of my role right now.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** No wonder you're having fun.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I'm loving it. I get to come up with an idea, and I go and I talk to people and say "Okay, is this idea a stupid idea, or is this idea something that I should build out more and see if it's worth doing?" So I'll talk to people and find out, and then I'll go either way with it, and then if they're like "Yeah, it sounds like a great idea", then, well, I'm gonna build my prototype. And I don't do a whole hell of a lot of thinking about what I'm gonna build, because I'm trying to get in there and see what's really possible, and which direction I should really take things.
+
+It's not necessarily "Hey, let's move very fast and do things just barely scraping by, just to get it out the door; it's not like that. It's experimentation. It's fun, and I find that the easiest way for me to experiment and what makes the most sense to me is to actually build something, throw it away, and go build something else. I throw away a lot of code. It's fine, I can live with myself... But I don't know if other people who may do more prototyping kind of do things that way.
+
+I'm pretty new to having this as a defined part of my role... So if there's a better way to do it other than just getting in there and just throwing stuff to the wall and see what sticks, I'm all ears.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, that sounds like a really fun role. I've done that some, but never been cut loose to just research and develop. I sure would like to. Oftentimes when I do those things, it's at the cost of something that I'm not doing, which I know I should be doing, or I could be doing. So there's opportunity cost, which tends -- as someone who's running a small business, you tend to take the opportunity cost very highly, because it's like "Well, these things need to get done, or else things fall apart." And these things might be great, but they're gonna get dropped down. So I would love to have unfettered access to idea prototyping, and being able to just throw code away when it's not panning out.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** \[16:12\] Yeah. I wouldn't call it unfettered. It still needs to make sense.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, sure. I mean unfettered in terms of -- it's a part of what your allotted work time is for.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Yes.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes. So you're not opportunity-costing necessarily... Like, "Well, I have this time dedicated to this role, and I'm gonna do the role." And that sounds great. So you're pretty fast, so you might come up with an idea, you might throw a pass to a colleague, or maybe your users, or your customers, and then you're basically at that point breaking out the code and start coding.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Mm-hm. Mm-hm.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Any whiteboarding, any diagramming or anything you do?
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** No.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Go ahead, Amal.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** No, I said that's a super-cool job... I love that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. I'm jealous also.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I'm super-jealous. I'm so jelly. Yeah. That's great. You're gonna have to tell me if you get more creative over time, or less creative over time. I think my deepest fear is that I'm gonna run out of ideas, and I don't know -- I'm curious how the creativity might evolve. Because you're in a very creative role, so I'm just curious if there's gonna be like highs, or lows...
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Yeah, I don't tend to run out of ideas, but I have so many bad ideas... And that's why I need to validate my assumptions and talk with people who know better than I do.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** How fast is your feedback loop? When do you know your idea is bad? Are we talking within hours, within days, within weeks?
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Yeah, so I talk to a couple of people, maybe get that done in a week or two, and just kind of get a general feeling, go and maybe build that little prototype, and then from there, it can become more formal, where there's an actual proposal... And I haven't gotten to this part of the job yet. But it seems like there might be a drawback, where I had this idea and I built my prototype, and I've written a proposal. And everybody loves the proposal, and somebody else implements it, but I don't get to.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** That might be a little weird for me.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Isn't it more likely that the prototype becomes the implementation? Isn't that how things usually work?
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** It's pretty unlikely the way we're set up.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, that's a disciplined company then.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Well, I'm not like -- so I work for a product company, and there are people building our products. But I'm not in their division, or whatever. I'm not on those teams. So we're fairly sequestered, I guess. I don't think there's really any way I'm gonna build some dumb prototype and it's gonna actually show up on the website.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, that's good discipline, like I said.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** They are a testing company, you know...? Don't you work at Sauce Labs?
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Mm-hm.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And I know from a recent email that you guys just acquired Backtrace... Congratulations...
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Thank you.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** "Thank you..."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I was like, "Did you really need to email me about that, Sauce Labs?" I felt like I really didn't need to know. But now that I know, congratulations.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's really exciting.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Are you also in Mergers and Acquisitions, Chris, or...?
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** No. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You're supposed to say "No comment." You're supposed to stay mysterious.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, exactly.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** One of your good ideas...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Well, to actually answer your question, Jerod...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** For me, there is no -- at this point I can't even think of the last time I was figuring out how I wanted to design the problem before writing it... So my hands don't touch the keyboard until I kind of know how I wanna target this problem exactly. So my time \[unintelligible 00:19:58.15\] is very scapular as a result of that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Hm... Slice and dice.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[20:03\] I'm like, "I need to get from point A to point B", and it's like "Okay, most efficient route." That's it. And the only reason why I know what the most efficient route is, or my preferred route, is because I've thought about it in advance of writing anything, or touching the keyboard.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So yeah, that's my -- you know, it's required for me. It's very anxiety-inducing to write code before you know exactly how you wanna finish the solution end to end... It gives me anxiety.
+
+**Break**: \[20:30\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I kind of take the Mike Tyson approach... He says "Everybody has a plan till they get punched in the face."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, right.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So the plan becomes worthless immediately, once the real world hits. So I try to get as fast as possible into some sort of coding, knowing that whatever I come up with in my mind or on a whiteboard, it's usually gonna be like -- as soon as I start coding it, I'd be like "No. That actually sounded really good in my brain, but when it hits the real world, it ends up being tossed to the side anyhow." So I'm pretty fast to just experiment, and maybe just think through some small coding, using kind of a TDD flow to design the solution and let it kind of come out somewhat organically.
+
+That doesn't mean I don't put any thought into anything. I'm not just like a "Head West and start coding." But rarely will I spend too much time before having something that I can at least touch and feel intellectually.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. That's awesome.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Amal, you're building big things...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Usually. But even when I'm working on a small feature, I kind of like know exactly what I need to do before I touch the keyboard. I don't like figuring it out while I'm trying to write the code. I like to look at the code, know where I need to make the change, do my research, walk around and like snoop, look for how someone else did it and see if I even need to invent the solution... Is there prior art? Otherwise, you're just reinventing the wheel, or forgetting to use a common util that already existed... You know what I mean?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It pays to do a little bit of "How I do this" investigation. And literally, I did not accidentally forget a word, it's literally "How I do this." "How do", for short.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] Okay, so maybe I spoke too brashly... Because I also do those things. Maybe I just don't think about that as planning, as much as like that's part of the process. Like, "Do I even have to write this code?" is always the question that I'm asking.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yes, that's what I'm saying. That's the first thing. You've gotta be lazy.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. So I'm just kind of like--
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Um, not only lazy, but just--
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I guess I just figured that that's like dorking around time. Like, I'm not actually doing anything yet, but maybe I am... I'm \[unintelligible 00:23:39.05\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** No, you are. You are, trust me. Your mind is a powerful weapon, Jerod.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Thank you.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So you are absolutely--
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You've just made the soundboard.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, God...! \[laughter\] Of course I did... Of course. A self-serving comment. Oh, my God.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Draw a marker right there, I'm gonna cut that one out...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[23:55\] Could you just anonymize my voice? I don't wanna forever be associated as the woman who's -- "Is she the woman behind "Jerod, your mind is a powerful weapon"? \[laughter\] You know, that's my claim to fame now...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** ...because you're constantly playing it, and it ends up on all the podcasts on Changelog...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's right. I just show up as a guest on other people's shows and just play that clip... Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** The mind is a powerful -- yeah. Anyways. So... No, your mind is constantly solving problems, and our employers get a lot of free time from us. Unpaid labor, I should say... The subconscious is much more absorbent than your conscious mind. So even when your conscious mind is skimming...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Back when I was doing consulting, I would tell that to my potential clients. I would say "If your problems are interesting enough, I'll work for you 24/7, but I'll only charge you for the times when I'm writing the code." Because I actually can't stop thinking about it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[laughs\] Exactly. Exactly.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I think they like that.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It sounds like a puzzle.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yup.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, we're lucky we get to solve problems for a living, so... Lucky us, Jerod... And Chris, the enigma...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's fun. It is fun. And Chris gets to solve problems that he devises, too. He can just come up with something and solve it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, he can make up his own stuff.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Yeah, create my own problems.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Keep himself employed.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] That's right. "See, I create the bug, and then I fixed the bug. I created my own work."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. \[laughs\] But the challenge with Chris' job, which is why, Chris, I'm very genuinely curious about this for you, is like -- you know, for me it's very much like you're in Hard mode all the time. I live my life in sprints. I'm working really hard for a month or two months, and then taking a down month, where I chill out... And I feel like when you're in R&D and you're working on this creative project, and it's like one thing after another, after another - I feel like you have a lot of high-intensity intervals for your brain, so I'm really excited to see what that's like for you over time... You're just like, "No, I'm an idea factory, and I'm willing to mill it out."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** He's not going to tell you...
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I don't know... I think maybe it's just like a different style of how I prefer to work... Because what's really gonna stress me out is like daily stand-ups, and deadlines, and stuff like that. So if I can provide some vague "Well, I think it'll take me this long to have something to show", and then I'm not gonna freak out about that... But I don't get too stressed out working this way, let's just put it that way.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, but you just hit something for me that's so important, which we should double-click and do for folks... Especially folks who are managers that are listening to this... Please pay attention. I'll give you a minute to take out your notebooks...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Okay. So Chris, what you've just said was like "I don't have all these external artificial deadlines and pressures", and also just like cadence meetings, which really are more like chores than they are useful... You know, sometimes \[unintelligible 00:27:10.09\] I'm given this kind of unfederated control of my time and creativity, and because of that, I don't see myself really getting tired of this, or just... Whatever. Like, I'm productive and happy. Managers - it's about output, and I really do think we have a lot of rigidity in what we expect of engineers and their time, and also their ability to be productive. Some people are better at night, and some people prefer writing software in the mornings, or whatever. Some people, if they have one meeting in the middle of the day, it throws their entire day off.
+
+Makers' hours are a thing, and they're different than manager hours... And I think we should be working more towards making our makers as happy and comfortable as possible... Because writing software is an art, and you have to respect the creative brain that's required to produce that.
+
+**Break**: \[28:10\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** For this segment we're gonna be talking about a recent Dan Abramov blog post about npm audit, which probably at this point we're all aware of npm audit; that's one of the things this post is covering.
+
+We had some folks from npm on the show way back when. The company that got acquired and was doing the audit stuff got rolled out together. I can't remember the fella's name. - very nice guy - talking about npm audit... But here we are, it's probably a couple years later, and Dan Abramov says the way npm audit works is broken. It's rolled out as a default after every npm install, was rushed, inconsiderate and inadequate for frontend tooling. He then goes on to say "If you ever heard the story about the boy who cried wolf...", and we probably have heard that one, where every time he cried wolf it was a false alarm, and then when it was finally true, his parents didn't believe him, so the wolf ate the sheep...
+
+And Dan goes through, in great detail, how npm audit works that way, mostly becuase there's so many false positives. They're not false insofar as it really is reporting real vulnerabilities, it's false because those vulnerabilities, for whatever reason, are irrelevant to your code, in many cases. So because of that, it's mostly an annoyance, it makes everybody's lives a little bit worse, for various reasons... And it was broken by design, he says, because it was added as the default, a post-install deal.
+
+I'm curious what you two think of what Dan has to say about npm audit itself, but also about this general software challenge of tooling that is overly noisy and ends up basically making itself useless. Think of notifications and things that we build in order to notify us when there's problems such as this, which - in theory, it's very useful knowing when your code has vulnerabilities. It's very useful. But because of implementation or some of the hard problems out there to solve, end up becoming more of an annoyance, and you just ignore it; you just don't pay any attention, like "Oh, I don't pay attention to --" It's like the compiler warnings. "Ah, those warnings don't matter." And then when it actually has something that's real, you're no longer paying attention to it. What do you all think?
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** \[32:20\] Well, I've complained about this for a couple of years... And npm audit itself I don't see as being necessarily the problem, but it is part of the problem. Essentially, what Dan's saying in this article is "Okay, somebody has paid a security researcher to go and find prototype pollution bugs in these random JavaScript libraries", or what have you. And that library might be consumed by, say, a build tool. And that build tool will output code, but it doesn't really have anything to do with that vulnerability. a) The vulnerable code path might not even be hit, and b) even if it was hit, the context in which the code is running, which is like a shell, or a command line, is already vulnerable because it's already a shell.
+
+It's just like all these warnings basically become then irrelevant. Now why is it this way? Well, static analysis of security problems - that's what npm audit does; it looks and sees "Oh, is there a dependency there that has an associated CVE?" "Oh, yes." And that's essentially all it's doing. And certain other companies, that start with an S and end with a k - they do something similar, where it's like "Let's analyze your dependencies and see which ones are broken." But as I said before, it doesn't know that you're actually using the vulnerable code, and it doesn't know where that vulnerable code will be run, because it's examining code at rest. Code at rest is a text file. It's not a security risk until it is run. So then wherever the code is run, that's where you should worry about your attack surface.
+
+So these static analysis tools are essentially too dumb to do this, and with a language like JavaScript, which is extremely dynamic, it becomes an even tougher problem. With something like, say, a Java, you may have enough type information and introspection to understand "Okay, is this vulnerable code actually run?" And maybe you can do that with static analysis, I don't know. Maybe it's something you wanna throw machine learning at, I don't know. But the state of things now is that they just don't work very well; most of what they're reporting is irrelevant.
+
+So then there's these two problems. One is the boy who cried wolf, where you're confronted with all this noise and all these warnings, and you eventually ignore them. The other one is the people who are in these maybe enterprise companies where the security or IT has mandated that the code must pass these audit checks.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You mean basically hell... \[laughs\] Hell for most of us, anyway.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** But they exist, right?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, absolutely.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** And so you have to pass these audit checks, you must make sure that--
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And you can understand from a higher-up perspective why that's a good decision, you know?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Absolutely. Compliance.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** \[35:46\] Sure. And the way npm works - and maybe you can get around this problem with yarn - is that if something like Mocha is consuming some transitive dependency that's broken, well, Mocha is going to have to upgrade out of that. It's not something that the consumer can do directly, which --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, it's a supply chain problem. It's outside of your control.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Right. And so we have people who have these overzealous security policies that mean they have to pass the audit checks coming into the open source project's issue tracker, and demanding that the stuff gets upgraded.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Totally.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Maybe that turns out to be like a hundred Dependabot, or renovate, or whatever PRs every week; I don't know. But it's just like a flood of things, and then people want it to be -- so it creates more work for maintainers to try to manage what is essentially busy work because it's just irrelevant. The only real problem is that there's a warning, and somebody's company policy says they can't use this software until it's fixed, and their builds fail because of it. And that's not something I can influence. I can certainly say "That's stupid. Don't make your build fail on these things", but I can't do anything about what some random company decides they need to do.
+
+And yeah, security people I've seen do take a hard-line stance on this stuff. "Well, you might as well upgrade. You should get used to upgrading, and it's good practice to avoid these vulnerabilities wherever we see them." At one level, that is true, but unless you're paying me to do that, I have no interest in it, and people aren't paying me to do that, and they're not paying open source maintainers to address that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. So I'm gonna have Amal continue to foam for just a second; I'm gonna skip in line and just add onto that real quickly and say it's not just an npm problem, like you said, because GitHub's notifications - their whole system does the exact same thing to me all the time...
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Yup.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And I'm always like "This is irrelevant. This part of my build step of my assets, which becomes static, and it never runs in any sort of capacity or could be exploited." To their credit, you can click through on those and say "This is irrelevant." You can give them -- I'm not sure if they're capturing that feedback in terms of learning (probably not), but they're at least allowing you to say "This audit is irrelevant. Make it go away." I'm not sure if that would be compliant with certain org's policies and stuff, but you don't have to go back and have the open source person just upgrade arbitrarily because I need my audit to pass. I can just go ahead into there and say -- and it has like 5-6 options of why it might not be relevant. So it still annoys me, but at least it gives me an escape patch.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Yeah, there is no escape patch with npm, unless you adopt third-party tooling that gives you one.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, Amal... Unleash the wave.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** No, first of all, Chris, just thank you so much for walking us through that. It was really great to get your summary, and then also walk through your pain points, both as an engineer, but also as a maintainer and someone who's been aware of these problems from the points of view that Dan Abramov also has.
+
+For me, I feel like we've kind of created this problem for ourselves by not having more crowdsourced -- like, the spec is broken in the sense that it's missing context. So where is this code being run, and what's the context? How does it link into dev dependency versus production dependency? Those are inputs to really saying "This is actually a vulnerability that matters, or isn't." That's kind of what you were saying. That's the missing piece.
+
+But that should just be part of the spec, and parts of that data should be crowdsourced, or there should be a consensus, or some way of saying "Okay, 700 people agree that this is not important. Over 90%, or whatever high number/percentage of people, this number of minimum threshold..." Similar to like a machine learning training model, usually you wanna give it a score, like "Hey, this machine learning algorithm is 80% sure that this is a picture of a cat." Something like that for saying like "Hey, this vulnerability is not applicable to your context, so it's safe to ignore", and that could just be part of a configuration where you specify where these dependencies are being used, and in what context... And based on that, you have a customized report output of what's actually a vulnerability to you. I just feel like we can fix this problem for ourselves if we take that approach. I don't know if you think that would work, Chris...
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** \[40:46\] For some small subset of people it is going to be helpful, because it is going to surface an actual vulnerability. And so yeah, you wanna know about it. You wouldn't want that information to be squelched because it's not a problem for most people, but it actually is for you. I don't know, and I don't know what to do about that. I feel like whatever the real endgame solution is, it needs to be a combination of examining your code at rest and examining your code in the runtime, and what happens when it runs... And that's gonna vary depending on the language and platforms that you use.
+
+JavaScript, as we can see from this whole debacle - you're gonna learn more about if a program is actually vulnerable when that code is running, because it will have hit the code. And how do you know if something hits a code path? Well, you probably figure that out with -- I can't remember the word for it... It's like proving your code is correct; it's like a way to prove... I can't remember the word for it, but you can do that with certain languages, but probably not JavaScript. You could prove that "Hey, this vulnerable line will get run, or it won't get run, or it could get run", and that sort of thing.
+
+I think if you're running, say, tests, that's a great opportunity to do this sort of check for "Hey, you're hitting this line in Lodash version whatnot, and it's bad." I think we could build tools like that.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, it's like a world of opportunity. It's such a hard problem to solve with one turnkey solution... It's like a multi-faceted approach. So I think solving each segment alone is valuable, but it feels like maybe it alone is maybe not enough of a commercial value for companies to \[unintelligible 00:42:49.00\] I don't know, it's kind of like an all-or-nothing situation; I think that's maybe why this problem hasn't been solved yet, quite frankly...
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Yeah. I mean, I'm not sure there's really a big incentive...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, there's not an incentive enough.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** ...for npm to devote resources to do something here. Do they wanna be in the market? Do they wanna really compete with Snyk, or whatever?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right. And npm at this point is basically just GitHub, but I think it's interesting that the focus is on AI spitting out your code, having a co-pilot...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, writing my bugs for me.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah... It's similar to kind of -- you know, GitHub should be invested in the ecosystem, because the ecosystem is what feeds them, right? A healthy developer ecosystem, a healthy open source ecosystem, whatever the hell else... So they would be the perfect people to tackle this problem deeply, because they can; they have the resources to do it, and the connections, and whatever, all of that stuff. This would be an area for them to demonstrate some leadership. I hope they do... We'll see.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[44:12\] So Dan did post three quasi-solutions or workarounds, a couple that we've discussed here, none of which are spectacular. I think short-term what npm should do is cut a new version of the client and just disable the default. Let us opt into this, versus opt out. Probably they're not gonna do that, but I think that would at least take care of the crying of the wolf... And you know, if you want someone to yell at you, then you have to pass the flag.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** npm has been making some pretty bold changes lately, some very aggressive ones. For example, peer dependencies being installed for you in v7. I don't know if you're aware of this, Chris... Basically, v7 is potentially a massively breaking change for lots of people because of this peer dependency install...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** What are the implications of that?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** ...or bundle sizes getting increased, or whatever else. It's that, like, if you have missing or incorrect version of the peer dependency, it's not gonna auto-install it for you, versus just warning, where people get the warning and maybe they fix it, maybe they don't... But something's behaving potentially differently now. I think this should have been in the spec from the beginning...
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** That probably was --
+
+**Amal Hussein:** But retroactively adding it now is, I think, potentially really reckless.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I thought it used to do this, and then they changed it not to, because of dependency hell. I don't know the issues off the top of my head, but... And then now they're changing it back for -- I have no idea why. And I have no idea why they disabled it in the first place, other than it was causing problems when there's -- I think just the mismatches between peer dependencies. If you have dependency A, which depends on B version 5, and you have dependency C which depends on B version 6, then you're stuck, because you need peer dependencies of both 5 and 6 of B, and you can only install one of them. And I don't know what they're doing about that now.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, but that's the thing... It's like, changing the spec at this stage, at the scale that they're at - oof... I don't know. I mean, the reality is most people who use npm upgrade with their Node version. Rarely does the average company/set of users do an npm install \[unintelligible 00:46:37.17\] Because npm is an npm package, by the way. I know, it's super-meta. But \[unintelligible 00:46:45.17\] is what you use to bump your version of npm, which doesn't depend on the version of Node. So people aren't gonna start hitting this until they get to later Node versions; it's been caught with v7, so... You know, it could be a slow-rolling discovery, and that's why it's really -- you need to be really responsible when you have a tool that's that widely adopted and used. You can't just do things that are even mildly risky. You have to be conservative. And that's why I just feel like with this change, and the peer dependency thing - I don't know there's just been some... Whatever. I mean -- I have some interesting insight into some of the cultural changes since the acquisition, which could be attributed to this... But yeah, I think things are just a little too rogue for something that's that widely used, in my opinion.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** \[47:46\] Yeah. I mean, I do want them to turn it off, but that's probably gonna break somebody, right? Changing defaults - you don't wanna change defaults.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's what I'm saying. You don't. At all. You should try to preserve backward-compatibility as much as possible, with your life almost, you know what I mean? You know what - somebody made a comment recently about how scripting tools like npm, or a CLI, these little JavaScript modules that we write, and there's people who have hundreds of JavaScript packages - scripting in particular, it's a very unique type of engineering. It's like, there's a whole different set of constraints that they need to think about when you're connecting with the OS and you have to manage versions... Their dependency tree and matrix is quite large. There's lots of different variations of considerations to take into play, so... It's a hard job. I don't envy those engineers. Kudos... It's easy for us to judge, but I know it's a hard job.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, to be continued... I guess we'll find out what happens next in this saga. Likely nothing on this front in particular; maybe just some more discussion, a little hemming and hawing. We'd love to know what you think as a listener; definitely hit us up. You can comment on Changelog.com, you can send us a tweet at @jspartyfm, you can hit us up in the Slack, of course...
+
+Two things I wanted to know before we call it a day... The first one, we are gearing up for Frontend Feud. We have a very special -- what I think will be a very exciting episode of Frontend Feud in the works, but we need your help. Of course, Frontend Feud is our survey-based show, a lot like Family Feud, and we need to have the Survey Says. So we need more people to take the Frontend Feud survey. We have 55 respondents, we're trying to get to 100. You can find it at jsparty.fm/ff, and one lucky respondent will win a JS Party T-shirt; that's the very one I'm wearing right here, if you're watching the video... It's very comfortable. You want to go to there.
+
+So please help us out, fill out that survey, and make Frontend Feud awesome. And then secondly, we do take requests, so we'd love to hear what you would like to hear - guests or topics you wanna have on the show, so you can let us know at jsparty.fm/request. We'd be happy to do episodes that are requested by the listeners.
+
+Those are the two things... That's all we've got for today. Chris and Amal, thanks for hanging out and sharing your knowledge and wisdom. That's JS Party for this week, we'll talk to you next time.
diff --git "a/New Year's Party \357\243\277\303\274\342\200\242\342\211\245_transcript.txt" "b/New Year's Party \357\243\277\303\274\342\200\242\342\211\245_transcript.txt"
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a7df6739e747b06038ddc69dc8c9e8f499f5db02
--- /dev/null
+++ "b/New Year's Party \357\243\277\303\274\342\200\242\342\211\245_transcript.txt"	
@@ -0,0 +1,663 @@
+**Emma Bostian:** So welcome to 2021. I'm super excited to be here, and today I'm joined by Kball, Chris, Divya, Amal and Jerod. How are you all doing?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Party time, y'all. Very excited!
+
+**Emma Bostian:** This is already getting off to a great start. I love it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. \[laugh\]
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I love it!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Hi, everybody!
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I am sadly missing a kazoo, but I think Jerod's gonna fill in for me.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I'll see what I can do.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** So I think that we can kind of all agree that we were very much looking forward to this new year. 2020 kind of threw all of us through a loop... Is that a programming joke? Through a loop?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** An infinite loop...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** An infinite loop... And I think today we should touch on just a few things that maybe happened last year, but let's focus the majority of the time looking at the new year. So does anyone wanna kick us off talking about 2020 in review?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** It sucked!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I'd just like to point out how Kball failed all of his resolutions and predictions from last new year's party.
+
+**Divya:** I forgot what they were even...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Oh my gosh, this year sucked... I mean, I don't wanna rain on anybody's parade if you had a good year, but holy smokes... I mean, all my hobbits were -- habits. No, hobbies...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You have hobbits? \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Was that a Freudian slip? Is there something we need to know?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** All of my hobbies are habits... \[laughter\] All of my hobbies were dead this year. What do I like to do for fun? I go traveling, I go out dancing, I go and do improv theater... All of these are in-person, connected, person-to-person events, and they are all dead right now. And that has sucked.
+
+Also, I've lost two family members this year, another one hanging on by her fingertips... Like, life is not good this year. Or last year. 2020. 2020 sucked. But we're getting through it... And 2021 is gonna be better, right? So let's go.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** \[04:13\] It has to be. Yeah, I think it will be better. In the chat \[unintelligible 00:04:17.15\] said "2020 resolutions were off the table", and I would just like to take a moment to appreciate that, because yeah, I think we can all agree that the definition of a resolution as last year kind of changed. It changed for me a lot, too. I went from having really technical resolutions to just focusing on mental health.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I think everyone's just trying to get through it. I think it's just been a very humbling year, for everyone. It's humbling in the sense that I think we've all learned new levels of patience with ourselves and our families, and with our goals, and ambitions... You had to kind of check yourself. But yeah... I mean, certainly I would say a generation-shaping year. I feel like it's gonna shape our lives, and then folks that are younger than us, older than us; I don't know. Everyone will remember what they were doing in 2020.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Agreed. Let's take a look at a couple of the technical things that were delivered in 2020, because I -- actually, it's funny... I was putting together some of these things from ES2020, and I realized I didn't know any of them existed... And that made me realize that I'd been more focused on surviving as a human than I have been on learning new programming skills... But I think it's worth -- let's just chat about a couple of these new things that we saw in ES2020.
+
+I don't know if y'all are looking at these -- have any of you used some of these new features, like optional chaining, global this, dynamic imports...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I've started using optional chaining everywhere...
+
+**Divya:** Same! It's awesome, because now you don't have to check for undefined before you chain. You just optional chain and it's great.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. No more using Lodash get, which is my hack around having to use and, and, and, and everywhere... I would use Lodash's get, than to use the third parameter to set your default option if you can't get it... But it's a nice way of getting nested keys and objects safely... But yeah, optional chaining has definitely been everywhere, all over the place.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Has anyone here had the occasion to use BigInt?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I haven't...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Nope.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** ...other than validating that it's there. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Just in case, just checking on it?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, just checking on it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Like, "Hey, BigInt. How you doing? Are you there?"
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Basically.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** The nullish coalescing operator was a cool one I didn't know about. So it's two question marks, and it returns the right-hand operand when the left-hand operand is either undefined or null. I think that's super-cool.
+
+**Divya:** It's like a short-form ternary almost...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah.
+
+**Divya:** ...without the ternary. You just evaluate two things.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I can't wait to see all the convoluted code that comes out of that one.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So it's basically &&, but it only matches null and undefined, rather than anything that's falsy? Is that correct?
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I think so, based on my copy and paste of the definition... And then the last one that I had written down was Promise.allSettled. It returns a Promise that resolves after all the given Promises are fulfilled or rejected. So those were a few of the things that we saw come out in ES2020, or that we didn't see come out in ES2020 because we were too busy just being...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Doing other things.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** ...being people...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Eating ice-cream... Sulking in your bathroom and wondering why...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Watching Ted Lasso...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Sorry, kids, we're recording this episode in 2020, and in the event that something miraculous and joyful happens, just --
+
+**Divya:** There's a vaccine. That's miraculous!
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, right. There's that. Correct. But I meant to say, in the event that something else miraculous and super-joyful happens, and you're wondering why we're all grumpy and depressed, just some context for y'all.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[08:08\] I don't think anyone who lived through 2020 is gonna wonder why we're grumpy and depressed about 2020.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Okay... \[laughs\] It's not JS Party, it's JS Purrty...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's more like a JS Funeral... \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, no! Jerod!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Hold on, let me fix the mood here...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** It's time?
+
+\[jingle 00:08:29.18\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There you go. We're happy again?
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Okayy... That's awesome. Cool. Speaking of things that are awesome, let's talk about Vue 3 for a second.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It happened! This was one of Divya's predictions.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh wait, are we done with talking about JavaScript?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Um, Vue is also JavaScript.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, sorry, people... I am sorry!!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Come on, Amal...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Unacceptable...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Sorry! I mean JavaScript features, okay? To the pedantic people out there. Sorry, sorry.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Did you have another one?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. All of them. Are you kidding me? Dynamic imports is like a game-changer. I've been using it for a while, but it's really exciting, and it's just very -- it's a nice way to make web more accessible to folks around the world. We have an easier way of conditionally loading modules... I think globalThis is awesome because it solved a really big pain point around which This is This... Right, Kevin?
+
+**Divya:** This equals That, That equals This...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. \[unintelligible 00:09:37.11\]
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Which This is this? That's a great title for an episode.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right. Which This is that? Exactly. Or... I don't know. I'm confused. And then Promise also...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's the problem!
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right, exactly.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Promise.allSettled was really dope, too. It's also another big problem, I think... Does anyone know if that takes care of having to avoid caching at every level, if you're using Promise.all?
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Oh, I don't know...
+
+**Divya:** I think Promise.all rejects if one of the Promises is rejected. And then Promise.allSettled will resolve once everything is resolved or rejected. I don't actually know what would happen if one was resolved and one was rejected. I don't remember what would happen. But I do know that it's basically making sure that everything is resolved or rejected.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Yeah, I don't recall the syntax or the API off the top of my head, but it returns this stuff, and you can inspect it. I think it gives you back an array, and you look at it and see which one of them was rejected and which was resolved.
+
+**Divya:** Yeah. I think you chain a then, so it's like everything and then do another thing. And as you mentioned, it's available as an array. So you'd be like then, and then you can grab each individual item. I believe that's how it works.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Another one that I haven't messed with - it's kind of intriguing... It's like, "Well, are these cancelable Promises? Like, they abort controller stuff?" I saw a bit of that with regards to fetch... And I don't use fetch, I don't do most of my work on the frontend, but Node now supports AbortController for certain things... And I'm just trying to figure out "How can I use this? Can I really cancel a Promise with it? Or maybe it needs to be some sort of API that wraps a Promise and then I can cancel that?" But I think it's gonna open up some more doors for how we do flow control with Promises, and such.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Chris, can you tell people why you'd wanna abort or cancel a Promise? Since that's maybe not a hot path for folks...
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** \[12:01\] Well, for example, what I would use it for is maybe I'm spawning a worker thread, and that worker thread is running a test, and I want to stop that test and go do something else. There's several ways you could do that, of course. Right now you could just kill your worker thread, but you could also -- I don't know. It's just like being able to abort some long-running -- maybe a threaded task.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** In the frontend world a common case is like say you trigger an API call based on an interaction, and then they hit Cancel, or something like that. And you say "I don't care about that anymore", or they toggle it back, or whatever. "I don't care about that anymore. Let me just get rid of it and move forward."
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Definitely. I wanna also touch on maybe something that wasn't so awesome this year... I know we've got a lot of awesome and not-awesome stuff, so I wanna keep it moving just a little bit. But let's talk about something that maybe wasn't so awesome this year. Kball, I think you wrote this one down...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I did. I've put a lot of not-awesomes in the doc this year...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You're bringing us down, Kball. You're bringing us down.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I know, I know... So pairing the awesomeness of ES2020 and JavaScript continuing to move forward, another big area in the web recently has been WebAssembly, and Rust, and things like that. And while those do continue to move forward, the big layoffs at Mozilla, where they essentially just shut down entire teams that were focused on improving the web platform and improving these other pieces of the web platform was a very not-awesome part of 2020.
+
+I don't necessarily wanna go into some of the political questions there, because there are some, based on what their subsequent revenues were, and various other pieces... But I think it is highlighting that we do not necessarily have a robust community-supported ecosystem throughout all of the web. A lot of stuff is owned by large companies, which Mozilla, despite their Foundation piece, still is a for-profit company, and kind of is at the whims of their decisions to keep investing or not.
+
+**Divya:** They also laid off a bunch of their docs team as well...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, MDN.
+
+**Divya:** But it's interesting, because -- from my understanding, the entire MDN team was fired... And then I think yesterday I just saw a release of their new platform for MDN... So I don't actually know who took on the project, or who started working on it. I'm sure it's -- there might have been a reshuffling of people who weren't initially on the team moving on... But they did release a new platform called Yari, I think it's what it's called.
+
+So there's progress happening -- it's kind of interesting; it's almost like they went backwards, and then this progress... I don't exactly know the politics of that, as you mentioned, Kball, but there's probably a lot happening.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I thought I read they wanted to make it up like a wiki, and maybe that's what that is.
+
+**Divya:** Yes. So you can contribute through GitHub now, I think. That's the idea. It's more of an open process than what it was before. So I guess the upside is that people can contribute, but the downside is that -- MDN had very high-quality docs, because they had a docs team that was writing the docs... So we'll see what the community-contributed docs are like. Maybe it'll be good, I don't know.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[15:45\] Right. I agree with you, Kball, in terms of the frailty of our systems when we centralize around large players, who provide huge value, because they're large, and they do that... And then we just kind of allow that to go on, or we benefit from that... And then when that goes away, for whatever reason, then it's like "Now what do we do?"
+
+I think it's sort of this system working, or the open source community working to see the WebAssembly team moving and changing, and new players step up, and people that no longer work at Mozilla find work elsewhere, or can continue to contribute to the things they find interesting... So it's been a step back, and a big one, and I think it kind of pulls back the veil of, like you said, we're not that robust... But then we learn - and I think when we get to the predictions section I'll talk about this a little bit more - because we start to see the value in decentralization, and diversity, and bringing more players to the table, and not relying so much on the big players.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, that's a really good point.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's tough though, right, Jerod? I feel like that's becoming a harder and harder hill...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Because even when looking at new, popularized projects these days in the JavaScript community, a lot of them are coming out of the big tech companies... So you know, that comes with its drawbacks. I don't know.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** For sure.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And it's tough to compete with a project that has a dedicated team that's being paid full-time, versus a community-driven project.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** But hey, Vue 3 dropped, right?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, it did... It's better.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Right, yeah. When community-driven works well, it has some huge benefits. So I think actually our awesome/not-awesome pair of Vue 3 and Angular highlights this really well, where Vue 3 is a community-driven project, they've made great strides in going from a very BDFL, single-developer focus, to having a robust team over the last couple of years... And they dropped a new major version, with some big improvements, that we can get into.
+
+Contrast that to Angular, which is one of these massive mega-corp-backed frameworks, where there was a lot of drama and thrash going on around the core team... And it really feels like that framework which has been one of the big three for a few years is falling further and further behind the cutting edge. And it's struggling. And I think it's because it's mega-corp-backed, and it's not a priority for the mega-corp anymore, and there's a lot of thrash going on.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Interesting. Cultural anthropology study right there... \[laughter\] Mega-corp versus community. Who's gonna win?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I'd click on that.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** It's a lot harder to get it going in the community side. That's so much work, and it's so hard, and it's so much non-technical work to keep pushing, and maintaining, and building all those community pieces and relationship pieces, and all of that... But when it works, I think it creates a much more robust outcome. It's the whole monoculture vs. a diverse setup. A monoculture is easy to stand up and get going, it's very efficient in some ways... It's just very fragile as well.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Definitely. I think that warrants an entire conversation in and of itself. We are gonna take a quick break. When we come back, we're gonna get a little happier and we're gonna talk about something really awesome that happened in 2020, which was Vue 3.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** No Promises on that Vue part, though... Just kidding, definitely. \[laughter\]
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I'll reject your Promises. \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, good one! Points for Emma.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** We'll all settle it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh...! Okay, let's end this. Can we stop chaining? Just kidding.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Can we cancel that Promise, or that's not supported on JS Party? \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** This has been some non-optional chaining...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Alright, done. Cut it!
+
+**Break:** \[19:52\]
+
+**Emma Bostian:** So before the break I kind of mentioned that we would touch on Vue 3 a little bit... I don't wanna go too in-depth here, because we actually have two episodes we've already published on Vue, so we'll link those in the show notes for you to check out... But should we just very quickly mention just a few features of Vue 3 that were really great in 2020?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Go, Divya!
+
+**Divya:** TypeScript! Reactivity! Composition API! Those are the main three that I was excited about personally, because that was really nice...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Are you still deep in the Vue stuff, Divya?
+
+**Divya:** I'm not. I actually write a lot of React now...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Sad. \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Sad? Sad face...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Me too, and I'm sad. I miss it.
+
+**Divya:** It's fine. I already tweeted my annoyance many times. \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Another thing I haven't had the opportunity to play with very much, but I was really excited to see, is that they made it possible to really import the reactivity piece of Vue as a standalone module, so you can actually play with things doing reactivity without pulling in the whole framework. It opens a lot of cool possibilities for creating reactive code that is not tied into the UI framework.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** That's interesting. What module is that? Do you know off-hand?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I don't, off-hand... But I can look into it if you want. Let me see. Let me google that for you.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Is it like an observable type thing? Or how does it feel to use it outside of the context of Vue?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I have not gotten the chance to play with it very much yet. I would imagine it actually feels a lot more like Vue's reactivity than observable.
+
+**Divya:** I think it's sort of Vue-like, but you would just import it; so you would just import that particular component... Which I don't actually know if it's a standalone thing if you just import it from the CDN. I'm not 100% sure.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I think you can import it looks like vue/reactivity; there is a package.
+
+**Divya:** Oh, that package. Well, then yeah, maybe...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I'm seeing "Import reactive from Vue" in this documentation.
+
+**Divya:** Yeah, exactly. That's usually what you would -- you'd just extract that. But I'm sure there's a way for you to just use it -- if you were to just use... Yeah. But yeah, that is really nice.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah. So if y'all wanna learn more about Vue, we've got a couple of episodes; we'll link them down. But we wanna focus on some other best and worst moments in web dev... But not just in web dev; I think as an industry. Or as a human population, I guess. Because for me, I actually didn't do any conferences this year. I did one before Covid got bad and there was quarantine. It was in February. That was in-person. I didn't do any virtual conferences, but they were rampant... Which is good and bad.
+
+I think that they are -- I'd like to see the good in it, because it makes them accessible to more people, and it allows us to have more diverse speakers when we don't have to factor in visas, and travel, and things of that nature... But how do you all feel about virtual conferences? Did you do any this year?
+
+**Divya:** I think the timezones were a nightmare, really.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Oh, yeah.
+
+**Divya:** \[23:44\] That was the hardest. Because I love the pro upside of anyone from anywhere could participate as a speaker or as an attendee, and there was a lot more intention, at least after the initial lockdown, into how "How do we make conferences more interactive?" Because I think in the past it was just "Let's make speakers record video and throw it on YouTube, and then have people watch it", and it was horrible.
+
+But I think the timezones was really hard to work with, because now if you're speaking at a conference in Europe, you're basically accommodating for EU time, which I guess from where I am, it's six hours ahead... At least British Standard Time, that is. So that would be horrible, because sometimes you'd be like "I have to give a talk at 4 AM my time, because it's regular time wherever the conference is happening." That was the hardest part.
+
+I was part of a conferences that was happening in Australia, which is almost day and night, basically... And my talk was supposed to start at 11:30 PM, and it ended up starting at about 1 AM... And I told the organizer that I cannot stay up for it.
+
+I recorded it, and the point was that as a speaker you would participate in the chat, talk to people, and be interactive... But I was like "It's 1 AM, and I am a zombie right now." I basically start fading at 9, so I was like "1 is just way--" Like, it would ruin my workday, which honestly is the worst part of it. Because when you're at a conference, you're also taking time off from work... And I've found the weirdness of like "Now it's virtual, so am I actually taking time off work?" So I wouldn't take time off work, and I would watch events or participate in between my breaks.
+
+I'm at a point where I'm not doing it anymore, just because it doesn't work for my personality and my work/life balance... But that's been my experience in general. I know people who really enjoy it, and have been really happy because they are able to keep their home life, and keep in touch with family while also participating with the wider community.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I did a virtual conference, I did OpenJS World, a couple things there... I felt like it wasn't really worth it... There's all that stress of "Okay, I've gotta get my slide deck together, I've gotta practice my thing..." For this one I did have to do a recording... And I'm not set up to -- I don't ever do that, so that was difficult. "Okay, where do I put my webcam?" I had put my laptop on a bucket... It's just like, what am I doing? It's just like a lot of stress, and the payoff was not awesome... Because I go in there, I try to do a workshop... And I'm just talking. I'm not getting any feedback from anybody. I can't look and see how everybody's doing. I'm taking a pause, I'm not sure how long I should really wait... "Hey, people doing this workshop, do this thing", and I have no feedback. So it was just like "You know what--"
+
+Unless we all have some VR Second Life thing going on... The tech we have is not gonna make this much better. So for me, I'm not really interested in a virtual conference, and doing that again. And yeah, the timezone thing sucks.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, I have to plus one on Chris. It's been way more work as a speaker, because you have to get your stuff done way in advance, which isn't even conducive to how most people work. I don't know how many speakers y'all know, but...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** On the flight?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[27:50\] Yeah, on the flight, right before the hallway; you're still editing... So you don't get to riff on your talk in the way that you would normally. You don't get to really connect with the audience and you don't get the energy boost. So all of the rewards of doing a talk aren't there as much, so you just have more work as a speaker, and then you don't have the feedback reward as much.
+
+The conferences I've seen go off really well are actually the ones on Twitch. I've participated -- yeah, Progress DevReach was on Twitch, and I did a session with them, and I thought that was so much better than pre-recording, or this or that... Because it's a format that just lends itself to people chiming in and having a lot of chatter, it's all live... It's as close as you can get to an in-person conference.
+
+But this kind of like "I'm gonna play an 8-hour video track and hope that people around the world are tuning in" - it's just less appealing for me personally. I'm just at the point where for me conferences are more about the hallway track, and content from conferences is a thing that I do at home. I'll watch a talk at home, alone, where I'm able to digest it and take notes...
+
+**Divya:** Increase the speed...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Increase the speed, repeat, zoom into slides... But I really think that it's opened up the world of conferences to so many more people, and I do hope that parts of that are here to stay. I think there's a huge accessibility element that's been very exciting to see.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah. But if your first experience of a conference is a virtual conference, don't think that you're experiencing the same thing.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Correct.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** It's not the same. And there's value in it...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's not. You don't get to see Kball shake his hips, which by the way, we should totally link in the show notes. We're gonna find that tweet.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, my...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Kball, you have jelly hips. It's amazing.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** The hallway track, with Reggaeton.
+
+**Divya:** Yes!! I approve.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Alright, y'all... \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Kball's like "What did I just--"
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[unintelligible 00:29:52.19\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** No, it's fine. I mean, next time we have an in-person conference we'll dance. We'll dance. It's good. But yeah, I think one thing that's interesting here is - kind of tying into one of the bigger themes of 2020, of all these different things going virtual - you had folks saying "Hey, we're never gonna go back. This is the new future", and that to me is totally wrong. What we have seen is that there's a lot of things that can go well virtually, and we can be taking a lot more advantage of those things... But they are not the same as the in-person things.
+
+Many, many more people can be working from home much more of the time than generally was thought possible... And it is not at all the same as going into an office, and many, many, many people, myself included, miss that.
+
+Similarly, virtual conferences open up a set of things to many more people, and they have a lot of value, and they're not the same thing as in-person conferences. I mean, I go to an in-person conference to escape from my day-to-day life and think differently. I don't know about you all, but I'm already on Zoom all day, every day. I don't need to do that more on a conference.
+
+I think 2022 is gonna be a better year for in-person events. We're gonna have so much of that blowing back from this... I hope we're able to keep a little bit more of the virtual things as an option, because I think it does open new possibilities. It does open accessibility things, and I think it does create new and different events. Some of the virtual conferences that I think have done the best are those who have really thought about "How do we recreate some of what's good about a conference in a virtual context? ...not just take what we were doing in-person and shift it online." But gosh... No. They're not replacing in-person conferences.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I totally agree.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Well, speaking of shifting virtually, I think it warrants a quick conversation about the scaling of remote work... Because that entire paradigm shift took a few months for many companies to be onboarded to... It's funny, because I was working on GoToMeeting when all of this happened, so ironically, I was actually building a tool that became necessary to people... But I also already knew how to work remotely; but many people didn't. And I'm curious how your remote working experiences went in 2020.
+
+**Divya:** \[32:17\] I've always been working remotely, so...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Same.
+
+**Divya:** It was weird, because nothing changed, but things changed. Nothing changed meaning you were still doing the same thing, but I realized I would be inside -- because you were stuck indoors, everyone was in lockdown earlier in the year, and probably again later in the year, and probably again now, you're not going outside... So I just noticed that I'm on my laptop all the time, which is something I was doing before, but now it's increased tenfold... Because previously -- like Kball was mentioning, a lot of my hobbies involve leaving; so I go for a bike ride, or go climbing, and it would be basically you're off-screen completely. You're like "I am not available." And now because you're stuck at home, what else do you do...? You're on your laptop. Sometimes you're on a screen, whether that be your TV, you're playing a video game, you're watching a movie, whatever... So it's just constantly screen to screen. That is dizzying.
+
+Some people have been very concerned, because I would notice that I would go outside for like four days. I would just forget to go outside. Because especially as the weather gets colder, I don't wanna go outside, so I'd just be indoors the whole time... And that's just very scary.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, that's happened to me. My husband has reminded me, like "Oh, you realize you haven't left the house in like four days, right?" I'm like, "Wait, what? Really?" Yeah, I know... Because you're trying to stay indoors more often, and then you times that with remote work.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah. Well, imagine -- I live alone, but not only that; I moved countries and had to onboard remotely, alone.
+
+**Divya:** Oh, that's rough.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Onboarding remotely is tough. It's hard to make bonds with your teammates... And I cried a lot. I still cry a lot, let's be honest.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Nothing wrong with crying, for what it's worth...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I do think that Spotify in particular handled remote onboarding incredibly... And I actually -- well, I'm not trying to plug my own thing; I just don't wanna monopolize the whole conversation, because we have a lot to discuss, but... I wrote a post on why they did remote onboarding so well, and it was all about forging human connection remotely. I think this goes back to the conference thing, where - you know, conferences superficially might think that "Oh, it's the tech content that's most important. We could just throw it online, not a big deal." But realistically, many people need the human aspect out of conferences, and how do we simulate that in a virtual environment. It's the same with onboarding - how do you get up to speed all remotely? That was tough.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Link that up so we can read it.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, I will.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** What's different for me - so yeah, I've been working remotely for probably the better part of the decade, so I'm used to that... But when I would do that before, the kids would go to school, my wife would go to work, and I'd be here by myself. And that's a whole world of difference from where we're at now, where everybody's here.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Preach...!
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** So there's more disruptions... I really value my solitude, and there are always people here. So that's like one experience that a lot of people have... And of course, the other experience is that you may be by yourself and completely isolated, and that sucks, too. So nobody's having fun.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I think one thing that's been interesting to watch... So I've worked on and off remotely for also close to a decade; sometimes remote, sometimes in person. I had actually relatively recently gone back to being in-person when this all hit; I had been working at a new company for five months, it was in-person, I was really enjoying that, and then we all shifted remote...
+
+\[36:15\] So in some ways, I personally was better prepared for that than most of the folks at the company. But one of the things that I saw that was really challenging was - similar to what we were talking about with conferences, trying to take the things that were happening in-person and just shift them online. And in the particular case here, that refers to meetings; lots and lots and lots of meetings.
+
+I think a remote-first culture that is built from the ground up often will put a lot of asynchronous and textual decision-making processes in place, and you'll have ways to collaborate and coordinate that are based on asynchronous technologies, and things around that... And in a company that's set up to make decisions synchronously, because that's how they've always done it, and it's done in meetings, that's translated to (once again) the wall of Zoom, where you're just in Zoom calls all day long.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I would say there's a lot of growing up companies need to do, because quite frankly, I think working synchronously is very expensive, regardless of whether you're in the office or not. The point that you're making, Kball, of people working more efficiently, pushing more things into async communication, kind of inner-sourcing their culture - it's necessary to scale. Because you're not gonna get more hours in the day, and you can't keep hiring more people and having them work at 60% efficiency level... So yeah, major +1 on that.
+
+I think Rework is -- actually, I have it right here for folks on the live stream... I've started reading this book. And other like books about remote work as well. Well, I would say working more efficiently as a technical organization. Remote is one of them; same author, Jason Fried and DHH. Basecamp nerds. And then Accelerate is another one.
+
+**Divya:** I think they go super-hard. They go the total opposite. They're like "You don't even need to be in-person. You can do everything virtually." I think they've been on the remote train for years. I don't actually know if Basecamp started remote, but I do know that it quickly went remote if it didn't.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I think it did start remotely. I mean, I do like those books. Also, "It doesn't have to be crazy at work" is another one... But I did find some of their mentality problematic to a certain extent, because -- like, they had talked about how "Yeah, we're fully remote, but we don't expect people to be online all the time..." It was a little contradictory in their mentality of like "Okay, people can come and go as they please, but also, you have to tell us where you are at all times if you leave." And I was kind of like "Okay, but which is it? That doesn't sound super-healthy." I think good communication is important, but if you're mandating people to let you know where they are every minute of every day, that's mentally taxing.
+
+**Divya:** I think it's also worth mentioning that there's a pro to just being able to work anywhere, because it also means you can hire from anywhere... But there's also this conversation that we see happening, which is the pay scales are changing... So a lot of people are like "Well, if you live in this particular place - like, if you like in Iowa, versus San Francisco, we're gonna pay you less, because living in Iowa is cheaper than living in San Francisco", and there's a lot of weirdness around salary bands, as well as moving.
+
+So if you lived in Iowa, you started a job, or you got promoted there, and then you moved to New York, let's say, which is more expensive, your salary will not change. You'll still be at the rate that you were at where you started, or where your salary was negotiated... And I think that makes it really difficult now, because you're almost now -- there's a nicety where you can work from anywhere, but you're sort of stuck, in a way. So you're working from this place that is cheaper, let's say, and if you wanna move to somewhere more expensive, it's really difficult.
+
+\[40:28\] I mean, obviously, the reverse -- I've not actually heard companies that have gone down the pay scale... I know there are some that do that. But I think the more common scenario is that they won't upgrade you if you do move. If the company is based in San Francisco, you decide to move to San Francisco from a cheaper place, they won't change your salary... Which I think really sucks.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** How about paying people based on the value they bring, and not the location they're in?
+
+**Divya:** Exactly. That too. Yup, that too.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That seems like a much healthier way of doing it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** What's interesting about the whole salary bands thing is -- I've totally spaced out and forgot, actually... I think I was really distracted by Emma's cat. \[laughter\] So I'm gonna just retract...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Which is a great plug to say--
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And with that, let's break!
+
+**Amal Hussein:** We should break...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah. If you're not watching the live stream, we livestream on YouTube. And with that - yeah, let's take a quick break. When we come back, we're gonna wrap things up, hopefully on a lighter note.
+
+**Break:** \[41:22\]
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Okay, so it was a little bit somber, the last segment - which, to be fair, I'm glad we discussed it, because I don't think it's fair to just say "Everything was great and shiny in 2020." I think it's important to acknowledge that things weren't. But let's look forward now. It's 2021... Let's talk about a few of our resolutions and wishes. I'm gonna give it to Kball first. What are your resolutions this year, Kball?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Well... I mentioned Covid killed all my hobbies, so I've created a new hobby for myself; I've been focusing on fitness, and learning a whole lot about my body, and how I can change things about my diet, and how that impacts different things, and different types of exercise, and whatever. And part of that has me reviving long-neglected ideas about learning to do more gymnastics, and being able to do handsprings, and things like that. But those aren't gonna happen till I can have a teacher.
+
+Focusing on what I can have under my control during Covid times, my goal for this year is I'm gonna get to ten handstand push-ups by the end of the year. I've been working for it...
+
+**Divya:** Nice...!
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I can get like two right now. Handstand push-ups are hard.
+
+**Divya:** Those are so hard.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** They're so hard.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I can't even do a handstand.
+
+**Divya:** Are you doing it against the wall?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So right now for training, yes. I'm also practicing doing standalone handstands, but I can't do both at the same time right now. But the goal for end of the year, ten (knock wood) free-standing handstand push-ups in a set.
+
+Part of this is my ever-increasing desire to be able to do weird, crazy physical things, so being able to add some handsprings and break-dancing things to my dancing repertoire would be cool... \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I knew this was to feed some ulterior motive...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's all going back to the salsa...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** We'll get there, we'll get there...
+
+**Divya:** Amazing.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** ...but in the right now, I'm focused on the body control/fitness piece of it, and it's setting me up for wanting to do -- once again, when we come out of Covid, when I'm able to go do classes and things like that, I'm wanting to go to some gymnastics classes and things around that.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Awesome.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Also, real goal - if it's safe, I'm gonna be traveling. I miss it so, so, so much. As soon as we're safe, I wanna book a trip.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Where are you going? Where is your top place?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Oh, God. It depends. \[laughs\]
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Sweden! Come to Sweden.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Sweden sounds great. We have a Hawaii trip that we wanna do. We wanted to go to Mexico last summer, and it got canceled...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** "It sounds great, but..."
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[44:06\] I wanna go back to Colombia...
+
+**Divya:** Nice.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** We were gonna go for JSConf Colombia again this year, or NodeConf Colombia again this year, and that didn't happen, so... So many places. But it's gotta be safe first.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Definitely. Yeah, one of mine is to see my family, because I haven't seen them in like a year and a half... And I was supposed to go in January, which obviously got canceled... So hopefully by June I can go see them, but it will be two years, which is super-sad for me. As a result, most of my resolutions are taking care of my mental health, and not over-committing, because I do this... Especially if I'm just sitting around all day, I will say yes to basically everything, and then I get overwhelmed and burn out. So I need to work on that.
+
+But in terms of tech, I really wanna get more into animations and CSS. I've been playing around with Framer Motion. And I love CSS; I'm doing a workshop next year with Frontend Masters on CSS, and I'm very much looking forward to learning more about that.
+
+**Divya:** Are you planning on trying GSAP as well?
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I don't know. I know Sarah Drasner has a course on it, and I've been meaning to take it... I kind of wanna try all the different libraries. I have worked a lot with React Spring, I am now getting into Framer Motion... I'd like to get into GSAP; GreenSock Animation Platform, for those who don't know what that is... Yeah, I would love to look at all of them; that would be a fun episode to record, wouldn't it?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Mm-hm. Yeah.
+
+**Divya:** That's be pretty cool.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Divya, what are your resolutions for this year?
+
+**Divya:** I'm trying not to put too many resolutions, because I have this thing about setting so many resolutions for myself and never following through. My resolution this year was resilience, which I actually think I practice a lot of, considering this year has been tumultuous. There was a lot of resilience necessary. Am I good at it? Probably not. I've developed other things that are not necessarily related.
+
+But anyway... Similar to Kball, I've picked up a lot of hobbies, because I can't go anywhere... Which has resulted in a complete lack of focus. I don't know if this is a bad thing or a good thing. I've heard people say it's not a bad thing. I personally think it's not not a good thing - I don't know; double negative - because I have been doing so much, and I'm bad at so much... So I'm trying to be more focused in terms of what exactly I'm working on. One of that is hobbies - do I wanna focus on one particular hobby? Because previously I was climbing, and that was my one hobby, and I put a lot of time into it... I can't do that as much anymore. I'm also not surrounded by mountains, which sucks, so I can't go out as much...
+
+So my hobbies have included electronics, music stuff, weird animation things, pixel art... Just everything under the sun that you could do indoors. So I think my goal is just to focus on one thing, just to be like "This is the thing you're gonna do." And it's not to say that I have to do it for the entire year, but it's just focusing on it for a month. "For one month, I'm gonna just do this one thing, and then it might give me a bit more clarity, rather than feeling frazzled." That's sort of my goal.
+
+And it's the same with programming languages, because currently I am learning Go and Rust at the same time, and it's been great. And it's more for work, because I work in a role now where I'm writing JavaScript, Ruby and Go simultaneously, which has been a \[unintelligible 00:47:28.23\] As well as Rust. There was Rust as well. So it's just been a mess. My writing languages has suffered as a result. But yeah, that is my goal.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I love that. I love that you have one word to define your actions for the year. I think that's really a good mentality to have, because then you're never disappointed if you don't achieve tangible things... Yeah, that's healthy. What about you, Amal? What are some of yours?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I wanna hear from Chris first... Can we hear from Chris?
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Really?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, really.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** \[48:05\] I wanna claw my way out of the abyss of disillusionment and alienation, and also I'd like to learn how to draw. \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's awesome
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I love it. That's so good.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Oh, Chris, I love you. You're amazing.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, that's a tough act to follow.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, why did you wanna go after Chris? You should have gone first.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Well, I don't know... Quite frankly, it was out of my own sheer morbid curiosity and amusement that I was just really interested to know what Chris' resolutions were... I find Chris to be a deeply fascinating person, so that's where that's coming from.
+
+Yeah, I think for me more art, more nature, less tech. I wanna spend time doing more creative things... \[background noise 00:48:57.09\] Oh, wow. Is that the Reggaeton from your...?
+
+**Divya:** Yeah, my computer just played it out loud, and I was like "Oh, my gosh...!" I'm so sorry.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** For those of you wondering what that noise was - I don't know if you can hear it, but... I've finally found that tweet; there's a tweet of \[unintelligible 00:49:05.09\] taking a video of Kball dancing at All Things Open last year...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Just to be clear, she was taking videos of everybody dancing, so...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right, right, right. That's true.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** This was not just me being out there.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It was prompted. He was prompted.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** But it's okay.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, she was going around getting everybody to dance... Which is great. I fully support it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, I do remember that; she tried to get me to dance, and I was like "Hellz no, I'm not dancing. Definitely not." Anyways... But yeah, more art, more creative stuff, more nature. I'm moving out to the countryside... And yeah, just to kind of reconnect with nature.
+
+I feel like being a technologist there's just too much tech in my life. My husband is an engineer... I have like two jobs. I have a real job that I get paid for, and then I have another less real job, that's like community stuff, or podcasting, or whatever... There's just a lot of tech in my life, and I think I do best when I have things in moderation, and I realized for the past few years I'm growing really strong muscles in some areas, and I'm losing in other areas, because there's just too much tech in my life.
+
+So I need to diversify my portfolio, and art and nature are the best ways in order to do projects... And projects that involve maybe technology in a creative way. For example, my husband and I are gonna build an automated watering system for our plants, using Raspberry Pi's... But that's like using technology in a creative way. I've been wanting to build a little LED screen for myself, because I'm always one minute late to meetings... So I wanted to have a Google Calendar thing that hooks into -- not just Google Calendar; any calendar. I want a visual feedback with dots, so I know how much time I have until my next, and I know when I'm late to things... It just helps to have that, so we're wanting to do some hardware hacking.
+
+And then I need more friends that are not technologists, so I'm really excited. I'm moving out to a city that only has 7,500 people, and I've only lived in cities that are extremely dense... So I'm excited that I'm gonna make lots of different friends; I'm excited about making older friends, and friends who don't know what JavaScript is...
+
+**Divya:** Yes...!
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So it'll be good. That's my plan.
+
+**Divya:** I think you'll love it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, I think so too. I'm excited.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** That's awesome.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. It's been a tough year, so anything to bring back some semblance of joy...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yes. You've gotta treat yourself.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, treat yourself.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I'm gonna do that...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Where's your soundboard, Jerod?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I don't have that one. I need to go grab that sound
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You're slacking, man...
+
+**Divya:** \[unintelligible 00:51:47.26\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I'll splice it in right here! \[jingle 00:51:50.29\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, NBC might send you a bill, but... \[laughs\]
+
+**Divya:** \[52:05\] Doesn't it have to be like a few seconds? Like, if it's below a couple of seconds--
+
+**Jerod Santo:** If anyone sent us a bill, it's Bette Midler for last week's remake of "The Wind Beneath my Wings". \[laughter\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That was amazing.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That was amazing, that was amazing...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** But I don't think we're on NBC's radar just yet.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Well, Jerod, I think you're last... What are your resolutions for this year?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, I generally resolved to not have a resolution, because I'm kind of a curmudgeon like that... But my wife and I do do the one word a year kind of a thing; we've been doing that for a few years. Her idea, loved it, have been doing it... So I haven't picked my word just yet for 2021. My word for this year was "Finish", because at the end of last year I had a lot of things that were started, but I wasn't good at finishing them... And I've actually done right with that, because I've had more time to finish things.
+
+I had to tell myself not to start anything new, because it's so easy to start something new... And I almost started something new things year, but it kind of failed fast, so I didn't start it, which was good. But yeah, I feel pretty good about "Finish." I've finished this playhouse I had been telling the kids I was gonna build for a long time. We're finishing our basement right now, and generally didn't start anything new. So I feel like I've somewhat accomplished that; I don't feel terrible about it.
+
+I'm actually in the same category as Amal. I'm workshopping the word "Analog" for 2021.
+
+**Divya:** Nice.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Like, get off the digital, get onto the analog, and just focus on that... Because just like you all feel, so much of my life has been digital this year... And the things that I really have enjoyed, like building that playhouse outside - hammering something into wood, and just being in the analog space, and really enjoying that was one of the highlights of the year. So more like that, and less like this. No offence, I love all y'all, but Zoom calls, right? \[laughter\] Less of those and more of the real world. So I'm thinking about that, and I have a few other things that I'm thinking of... But that's where I stand as of now.
+
+**Divya:** From Changelog to Analog. New podcast.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** New podcast, yeah. \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Sounds like a Backstage episode...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Sounds like a good digital product we could put out, yeah...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Changelog to Analog... Oh my God... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So there you go.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Jerod, I have to say, there's something really magical about just being in the moment; being in the moment without any digital stuff connected. I just think we spend so much of our lives these days connected to something... So I almost wonder if an analog-free weekend or analog-free day is gonna be a norm in the future...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh yeah, time-box it. Yeah, it's kind of like when you leave the house and you left your phone sitting on the desk, or something... You're driving away from the house, and you freak out, like "Aaaaah! I'm disconnected!"
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I never freak out when I don't have my phone.
+
+**Divya:** Yeah, same. Me too. Unless I'm on call...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, I'm projecting. But then you decide "I'm just gonna leave it. I'm just gonna leave it." And then all of a sudden life almost feels like a little bit better. It's like, "You know what? It's no big deal. You just can't reach me right now. It's kind of nice."
+
+**Divya:** And then some people who need to reach you get annoyed...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes. And then they start a fire and you don't know about it...
+
+**Divya:** That happens. And family is like "Why didn't you pick up?!" I'm like, "I was doing things..." They're like, "I needed to talk to you...!"
+
+**Jerod Santo:** "About what?" "I had a question that didn't matter..."
+
+**Divya:** Exactly.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Sounds like family needs to meet DivyaBot. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There's a digital good you can create...
+
+**Divya:** DivyaBot does not answer... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's the best kind of bot. No code. It's a no-code bot.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** No-op. No-op bot.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Even I can write that. \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So easy even Jerod can do it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's right.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Oh, gosh...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Alrighty...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Well, I think this was a successful first episode of 2021.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Hey-hey...!
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Hey-hey. Hopefully this year is good. We've just gotta believe that it will be.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yes. To a less depressing year.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Cheers to a less depressing year.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Cheers.
diff --git "a/New Year's Party \360\237\245\263_transcript.txt" "b/New Year's Party \360\237\245\263_transcript.txt"
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3bf1f4127e73be3596be5bb9cb1f56019d2061af
--- /dev/null
+++ "b/New Year's Party \360\237\245\263_transcript.txt"	
@@ -0,0 +1,1180 @@
+[0.00 --> 5.24]  Hey, JSParty friends, we're officially ringing in the new year by throwing a New Year's themed episode.
+[5.96 --> 11.48]  So join us for our 2021 predictions, our wishlists, and stay tuned for the resolutions at the end.
+[14.52 --> 19.36]  Bama for ChangeLog is provided by Fastly. Learn more at Fastly.com.
+[19.60 --> 23.96]  Our feature flags are powered by LaunchDarkly. Check them out at LaunchDarkly.com.
+[24.20 --> 29.98]  And we're hosted on Leno Cloud servers. Get $100 in hosting credit at Leno.com slash changelog.
+[30.78 --> 37.04]  What's up, JSParty people? Have you ever wondered if you could be offering a faster, less buggy experience for your customers?
+[37.58 --> 42.74]  Well, with Raygun Error and Performance Monitoring, you have all the information you need at your fingertips
+[42.74 --> 48.26]  to quickly find and fix errors and performance issues across your tech stack down to the line of code.
+[48.58 --> 51.44]  Raygun makes it easy to monitor the impact of your performance improvements,
+[51.44 --> 57.06]  quickly identify issues across web and mobile apps, and see how your code performs in the hands of your customers.
+[57.06 --> 61.14]  This saves you time, this saves you money, and this saves your sanity.
+[61.48 --> 66.10]  Head to Raygun.com to join thousands of customer-centric software teams who use Raygun every single day.
+[66.42 --> 70.28]  Again, Raygun.com to give them a try with a free 14-day trial.
+[70.28 --> 90.58]  Welcome, everyone.
+[90.58 --> 96.08]  You're listening to JSParty, a weekly celebration of JavaScript and the web.
+[96.50 --> 98.46]  We record live on Thursdays.
+[98.56 --> 100.64]  Join us, why don't you, on our YouTube channel.
+[100.76 --> 103.12]  That's YouTube.com slash changelog.
+[103.18 --> 107.02]  Subscribe there and interact with us during the show at changelog.com slash community.
+[107.66 --> 108.62]  Okay, let's do this.
+[108.62 --> 110.20]  Hey, it's party time, y'all.
+[125.38 --> 127.72]  So, welcome to 2021.
+[128.14 --> 133.12]  I'm super excited to be here, and today I'm joined by Keyball, Chris, Divya, Amel, and Jared.
+[133.26 --> 134.22]  How are y'all doing?
+[134.84 --> 135.82]  Party time, y'all.
+[135.92 --> 136.66]  Very excited.
+[136.66 --> 142.50]  When I'm with friends, I like to have fun, fun, fun, fun, fun, fun, fun, fun, fun.
+[142.82 --> 144.80]  This is already getting off to a great start.
+[145.40 --> 145.62]  Yeah.
+[145.76 --> 146.08]  I love it.
+[147.60 --> 148.86]  I love it.
+[149.06 --> 149.68]  Hi, everybody.
+[150.10 --> 154.40]  I am sadly missing a kazoo, but I think Jared's going to fill in for me, see what I can do.
+[154.84 --> 161.08]  So, I think that we can kind of all agree that we were very much looking forward to this new year.
+[161.88 --> 164.02]  2020 kind of threw all of us through a loop.
+[164.20 --> 165.36]  Is that a programming joke?
+[165.56 --> 165.90]  Threw a loop.
+[166.66 --> 167.90]  An infinite loop.
+[168.72 --> 169.88]  An infinite loop.
+[170.16 --> 177.80]  And I think today we should touch on just a few things that maybe happened last year, but let's focus the majority of the time looking at the new year.
+[178.42 --> 182.48]  So, does anyone want to kick us off talking about 2020 in review?
+[183.14 --> 183.92]  It sucked.
+[184.44 --> 185.56]  You're enjoying your day.
+[185.76 --> 186.80]  Everything's going your way.
+[187.00 --> 188.30]  Man alone comes day.
+[188.30 --> 194.52]  I would just like to point out how K-Ball failed all of his resolutions and predictions from last New Year's party.
+[194.78 --> 196.52]  I forgot what they were even.
+[197.20 --> 197.86]  Oh, my gosh.
+[198.04 --> 198.72]  This year sucked.
+[198.90 --> 204.92]  I mean, I don't want to rain on anybody's parade if you had a good year, but holy smokes.
+[204.92 --> 207.76]  I mean, all my hobbits were habits.
+[208.18 --> 208.86]  No, hobbies.
+[209.08 --> 209.70]  You have hobbits.
+[210.10 --> 210.54]  Wait a second.
+[210.54 --> 211.62]  All of my hobbits are dead.
+[211.64 --> 212.64]  Was that a sorority of slip?
+[213.24 --> 213.60]  Hobbits.
+[213.84 --> 214.04]  Yep.
+[214.54 --> 215.94]  Is there something we need to know?
+[215.98 --> 217.36]  All of my hobbies are habits?
+[218.36 --> 218.84]  No.
+[218.84 --> 221.82]  All of my hobbies were dead this year, right?
+[221.88 --> 223.84]  Like, I like to, what do I like to do for fun?
+[223.90 --> 224.54]  I go traveling.
+[224.80 --> 225.70]  I go out dancing.
+[225.88 --> 227.28]  I go and do improv theater.
+[227.46 --> 234.30]  Like, all of these are in-person, connected, person-to-person events, and they are all dead right now.
+[234.36 --> 235.54]  And that has sucked.
+[236.22 --> 241.88]  Also, like, I mean, I've lost two family members this year, another one hanging on by her fingertips.
+[241.88 --> 249.12]  Like, life is not good this year, but, or last year, last year, 2020, 2020 sucked.
+[249.86 --> 250.26]  Yeah.
+[250.26 --> 252.98]  But we're getting through it, and 2021 is going to be better, right?
+[253.16 --> 254.62]  So, let's go.
+[254.84 --> 255.72]  It has to be.
+[255.98 --> 256.56]  It has to be.
+[256.56 --> 258.44]  I think, yeah, I think it will be better.
+[258.74 --> 271.86]  You know, in the chat, Tom Secker, it said 2020 resolutions were off the table, and I would just like to take a moment to appreciate that because, yeah, I think we can all agree that the definition of a resolution this last year is
+[271.86 --> 273.60]  last year kind of changed.
+[273.68 --> 274.84]  It changed for me a lot, too.
+[274.94 --> 280.50]  Like, I went from having really technical resolutions to just focusing on mental health.
+[280.66 --> 282.66]  Yeah, I think everyone's just trying to get through it.
+[283.10 --> 285.50]  I think it's just been a very humbling year, right?
+[285.60 --> 286.72]  Like, for everyone.
+[287.26 --> 297.70]  It's, like, humbling in the sense that, like, I think we've all learned new levels of, like, patience with ourselves and our families and, you know, with our goals and ambitions.
+[297.98 --> 300.36]  Like, you've had to kind of check yourself, right?
+[300.36 --> 306.08]  But, yeah, I mean, certainly what I would say a generation shaping year, right?
+[306.12 --> 311.92]  Like, I feel like it's just, like, going to shape our lives and then, like, folks that are younger than us, older than us.
+[312.00 --> 312.36]  I don't know.
+[313.08 --> 315.86]  So everyone will remember what they were doing in 2020.
+[317.24 --> 317.64]  Agreed.
+[317.84 --> 325.54]  I think we should – let's take a look at a couple of the technical things that were delivered in 2020 because I – I actually – it's funny.
+[325.54 --> 329.90]  I was putting together some of these things from ES 2020 and I realized I didn't know any of them existed.
+[330.52 --> 336.46]  And that made me realize that I've been more focused on, like, surviving as a human than I have been on learning new programming skills.
+[336.58 --> 341.74]  But I think it's worth – like, let's just chat about a couple of these new things that we saw in ES 2020.
+[342.74 --> 344.56]  Yeah, I don't know if y'all are looking at these.
+[344.78 --> 347.58]  Have any of you used some of these new features?
+[347.68 --> 350.34]  Yeah, like optional chaining, global this, dynamic imports.
+[350.34 --> 352.98]  It's – I've started using optional chaining everywhere.
+[353.14 --> 353.54]  Same!
+[354.02 --> 354.28]  Yeah.
+[354.66 --> 359.68]  It's awesome because now you don't have to check for undefined before you chain.
+[359.94 --> 362.10]  You just optional chain and it's great.
+[362.46 --> 362.78]  Yeah.
+[363.70 --> 370.60]  No more, like, using lodash get, which is, like, my hack around having to use and, and, and, and, and, and everywhere.
+[370.60 --> 378.98]  I would, like, use, like, lodash's get and use the default, like, the third parameter to, like, set your default option if you can't get it.
+[378.98 --> 383.40]  But it's a nice way of, like, getting nested keys and objects safely.
+[384.12 --> 388.80]  But, yeah, optional chaining has definitely been everywhere, like, all over the place.
+[389.86 --> 392.18]  Has anyone here had occasion to use BigInt?
+[392.80 --> 393.86]  I haven't.
+[393.96 --> 394.16]  Nope.
+[394.26 --> 395.88]  Other than validating that it's there.
+[397.98 --> 398.46]  Yeah.
+[398.56 --> 399.92]  Just in case? Just checking on it?
+[400.10 --> 401.22]  Yeah, just checking on it.
+[401.60 --> 402.78]  Like, hey, BigInt, how you doing?
+[403.38 --> 403.68]  You there?
+[404.18 --> 404.62]  Basically.
+[405.32 --> 408.34]  The nullish coalescing operator was a cool one I didn't know about.
+[408.34 --> 413.92]  So it's two question marks, and it returns the right-hand operand when the left-hand operand is either undefined or null.
+[414.16 --> 415.44]  I think that's super cool.
+[415.82 --> 417.74]  It's like a short-form ternary almost.
+[418.04 --> 418.16]  Yeah.
+[418.58 --> 421.66]  Without the ternary, you just evaluate two things.
+[422.08 --> 424.92]  I can't wait to see all the convoluted code that comes out of that one.
+[425.52 --> 433.26]  So it's basically and, and, but it only matches null and undefined rather than anything that's falsy?
+[433.54 --> 434.44]  Is that correct?
+[434.44 --> 438.28]  I think so, based on my copy and paste of the definition.
+[440.90 --> 445.58]  But yeah, so, you know, and then the last one that I had written down was promise.all settled.
+[445.76 --> 449.18]  So it returns a promise that resolves after all the given promises are fulfilled or rejected.
+[449.34 --> 457.64]  So those were a few of the things that we saw come out in ES 2020 or that we didn't see come out in ES 2020 because we were too busy, you know, just being.
+[458.14 --> 458.98]  Doing other things.
+[459.06 --> 459.62]  Being people.
+[460.08 --> 460.84]  Eating ice cream.
+[460.96 --> 461.66]  Eating ice cream.
+[461.66 --> 461.94]  Yeah.
+[462.48 --> 465.32]  Sulking in your bathroom and wondering why, you know.
+[465.42 --> 465.64]  Yeah.
+[465.86 --> 466.94]  Watching Ted Lasso.
+[467.12 --> 467.72]  Sorry, kids.
+[467.84 --> 469.88]  Well, you know, we're recording this episode in 2020.
+[470.12 --> 474.58]  And in the event that something miraculous and joyful happens, you know, just.
+[474.78 --> 475.56]  There's a vaccine.
+[475.92 --> 475.94]  Yeah.
+[475.98 --> 476.84]  That's pretty miraculous.
+[477.24 --> 477.28]  Yeah.
+[477.54 --> 477.92]  Right.
+[478.38 --> 479.04]  There's that.
+[479.14 --> 479.32]  Right.
+[479.40 --> 479.62]  Correct.
+[479.98 --> 484.34]  But I meant to say like, like, you know, in the event that like something else miraculous and super joyful happens.
+[484.34 --> 487.16]  And you're wondering why we're all like grumpy and depressed.
+[487.42 --> 489.26]  Like just some context for y'all.
+[489.42 --> 492.28]  I don't think anyone will ever wonder.
+[492.46 --> 496.20]  We lived through 2020 is going to wonder why we're grumpy and depressed about 2020.
+[496.64 --> 496.92]  Okay.
+[497.34 --> 498.64]  It's not JS party.
+[498.76 --> 500.02]  It's JS purdy.
+[500.58 --> 500.94]  It's like.
+[501.44 --> 503.14]  It's more like a JS funeral.
+[503.52 --> 504.28]  JS funeral.
+[505.28 --> 506.22]  Oh, no.
+[506.42 --> 506.72]  Jared.
+[507.38 --> 508.02]  Hold on.
+[508.08 --> 508.38]  Let me.
+[508.72 --> 508.96]  Oh.
+[509.22 --> 510.14]  Fix the mood here.
+[510.22 --> 510.70]  It's time.
+[510.70 --> 519.40]  There you go.
+[519.58 --> 520.34]  We're happy again.
+[520.94 --> 521.38]  Okay.
+[522.48 --> 523.18]  That's awesome.
+[523.32 --> 523.56]  Cool.
+[523.78 --> 526.18]  So speaking of things that are awesome.
+[526.70 --> 528.70]  Let's talk about Vue 3 for a second.
+[529.38 --> 530.24]  It happened.
+[530.54 --> 531.72]  This was one of Divya's predictions.
+[532.00 --> 532.24]  Oh, wait.
+[532.26 --> 533.70]  Are we done with talking about JavaScript?
+[533.70 --> 534.76]  I was.
+[535.78 --> 536.02]  Oh, whoa.
+[536.46 --> 538.20]  Vue is also JavaScript.
+[538.20 --> 539.18]  Sorry, people.
+[539.42 --> 539.92]  Come on.
+[539.92 --> 540.62]  I'm sorry.
+[540.70 --> 540.94]  It's not acceptable.
+[541.38 --> 541.72]  Sorry.
+[542.00 --> 543.46]  I meant JavaScript features.
+[543.62 --> 543.96]  Okay.
+[544.32 --> 545.76]  To the pedantic people out there.
+[545.90 --> 546.10]  Sorry.
+[546.20 --> 546.36]  Sorry.
+[546.42 --> 547.34]  Did you have another one?
+[547.36 --> 547.60]  Whoa.
+[547.82 --> 548.06]  Yeah.
+[548.16 --> 548.72]  All of them.
+[548.78 --> 549.38]  Are you kidding me?
+[549.46 --> 551.28]  Dynamic imports is like a game changer.
+[551.78 --> 555.58]  Like I've been using it for a while, but, you know, that that's really exciting.
+[555.72 --> 562.02]  And it's just very, it's a nice way to make, I think, web more accessible to folks around
+[562.02 --> 562.92]  the world, you know?
+[562.92 --> 568.64]  So we're not like we have an easier way of, you know, conditionally loading, loading in modules.
+[569.20 --> 573.90]  I think global this is awesome because like it solved a really big pain point around which
+[573.90 --> 575.24]  this is this, right?
+[575.42 --> 575.82]  Kevin?
+[576.50 --> 576.90]  I mean.
+[577.10 --> 578.12]  This equals that.
+[578.38 --> 579.46]  That equals this.
+[579.76 --> 580.02]  Right.
+[580.18 --> 580.56]  Self equals this.
+[580.56 --> 581.38]  Which this is this.
+[581.44 --> 582.82]  That's a great title for an episode.
+[583.26 --> 583.60]  Right.
+[583.70 --> 584.52]  Which this is that.
+[584.60 --> 584.94]  Exactly.
+[585.38 --> 586.36]  Or I don't know.
+[586.50 --> 587.10]  I'm confused.
+[587.10 --> 588.40]  And then promise all settled.
+[588.40 --> 589.00]  That's the problem.
+[589.34 --> 589.66]  Right.
+[589.66 --> 590.22]  Exactly.
+[590.54 --> 590.98]  Yeah.
+[591.18 --> 593.08]  Promise all settled was really dope too.
+[593.44 --> 597.42]  Like it solves another big problem, I think, you know?
+[597.56 --> 603.36]  So does anyone know if that takes care of being able to like, like having to avoid catching
+[603.36 --> 609.04]  at every level if you have like, you know, if you're using promise.all and how you can't.
+[609.48 --> 610.50]  Oh, I don't know.
+[610.50 --> 618.22]  I think promise.all rejects if one of the promises is rejected and then promise.all settled
+[618.22 --> 622.08]  will resolve once everything is resolved or rejected.
+[622.18 --> 626.16]  I don't actually know what would happen if like one was resolved and one was rejected.
+[626.38 --> 630.26]  I don't remember what the use, like what would happen.
+[630.68 --> 634.74]  But I do know that it's basically making sure that everything is resolved or rejected.
+[634.74 --> 634.98]  Yeah.
+[635.88 --> 636.28]  Yeah.
+[636.28 --> 641.36]  I don't recall the syntax or the API off the top of my head, but it lets you like,
+[641.70 --> 644.66]  it returns this stuff and you can inspect it.
+[644.72 --> 646.10]  I think it gives you back an array.
+[646.56 --> 646.72]  Yeah.
+[646.78 --> 652.76]  And you look at it and see which one of them was rejected and which was resolved.
+[653.34 --> 653.52]  Yeah.
+[653.54 --> 655.04]  I think you chain like a then.
+[655.38 --> 658.44]  So it's like everything and then do another thing.
+[658.70 --> 659.38]  But I think, yeah.
+[659.44 --> 662.42]  And as you mentioned, it's available as an array.
+[662.42 --> 666.16]  So you'd be like then and then you can grab each individual item.
+[666.62 --> 667.84]  I believe that's how it works.
+[667.96 --> 670.64]  Another one that I haven't messed with.
+[670.90 --> 672.18]  It's kind of intriguing.
+[672.44 --> 675.54]  It's like, well, are these cancelable promises?
+[675.78 --> 677.44]  Like the abort controller stuff?
+[677.74 --> 680.78]  I saw a bit of that with regards to fetch.
+[680.88 --> 685.40]  And, you know, I'm not, I don't use fetch or, you know, I don't do most of my work on the front end.
+[685.40 --> 690.86]  But Node now supports abort controller for certain things.
+[691.26 --> 694.42]  And I'm just trying to figure out, like, how can I use this?
+[694.52 --> 698.26]  Where is it okay to, can I really cancel a promise with it?
+[698.32 --> 704.62]  Or maybe it needs to be some sort of API that wraps a promise and then I can cancel that.
+[704.62 --> 714.10]  But I think it's going to open up some more kind of doors for how we do flow control with promises and such.
+[714.60 --> 719.66]  Chris, can you tell people why you'd want to abort or cancel a promise?
+[720.18 --> 723.50]  Since that's maybe not a hot path for folks.
+[723.50 --> 734.22]  So, for example, like, I don't know, just what I would use it for is, like, maybe I'm spawning a, I don't know, a worker thread or something.
+[734.34 --> 737.36]  And that worker thread is running a test.
+[738.16 --> 744.84]  And I want to stop that test and go do something else, right?
+[745.62 --> 748.16]  So there's several ways you could do that, of course.
+[748.28 --> 750.50]  Like right now you could just kill your worker thread.
+[750.64 --> 752.42]  But you could also, like, I don't know.
+[752.42 --> 759.12]  It's just like being able to abort some long-running, I don't know, maybe a threaded task.
+[760.04 --> 769.38]  In front-end world, I think a common case is, like, say you trigger an API call or something based on an interaction and then they hit cancel or something like that.
+[769.44 --> 771.04]  And you say, okay, I don't care about that anymore.
+[771.26 --> 772.84]  Or they toggle it back or whatever.
+[773.00 --> 774.32]  Like, I don't care about that anymore.
+[774.74 --> 777.42]  Let me just get rid of it and move forward.
+[778.20 --> 778.60]  Definitely.
+[778.60 --> 783.94]  I want to also touch on maybe something that wasn't so awesome this year.
+[784.40 --> 789.56]  I know we've got a lot of awesome and not awesome stuff, so I want to keep it moving just a little bit.
+[790.80 --> 793.88]  But let's talk about something that maybe wasn't so awesome this year.
+[794.52 --> 796.78]  Kaval, I think you wrote this one down.
+[797.28 --> 797.48]  I did.
+[797.58 --> 800.28]  I put a lot of not awesomes in the doc this year.
+[800.34 --> 800.84]  Bring us down, Kaval.
+[800.90 --> 801.54]  You're bringing us down.
+[801.54 --> 803.12]  I know, I know.
+[803.76 --> 816.06]  So I thought pairing the awesomeness of ES 2020 and JavaScript continuing to move forward, another big area in the web recently has been WebAssembly and Rust and things like that.
+[816.06 --> 833.90]  And while those do continue to move forward, the big layoffs at Mozilla, where they essentially just shut down entire teams that were focused on improving the web platform and improving these other pieces of the web platform, was a very not awesome part of 2020.
+[833.90 --> 844.14]  And I don't necessarily want to go into some of the political questions there, because there are some based on what their subsequent revenues were and various other pieces.
+[844.34 --> 855.18]  But I think it is highlighting that we do not necessarily have a robust community-supported ecosystem throughout all of the web.
+[855.18 --> 863.52]  A lot of stuff is owned by large companies, which Mozilla, despite their foundation piece, still is a for-profit company.
+[863.90 --> 868.76]  And kind of is at the whims of their decisions to keep investing or not.
+[869.34 --> 872.52]  They also laid off a bunch of their docs team as well.
+[872.92 --> 873.82]  Yeah, MDN.
+[874.34 --> 879.40]  But it's interesting because, like, from my understanding, the entire MDN team was fired.
+[879.74 --> 886.04]  And then I think yesterday or something, I just saw a release of their new platform for MDN.
+[886.22 --> 891.40]  So I don't actually know who, like, took on the project or who started working on it.
+[891.40 --> 896.02]  And I'm sure it's, there might have been a reshuffling of people who weren't initially on the team moving on.
+[896.10 --> 901.08]  But they did release, like, a new platform called Yari, I think it's what it's called.
+[901.54 --> 903.14]  So there's, like, progress happening.
+[903.22 --> 903.98]  It's kind of interesting.
+[904.18 --> 907.84]  It's almost like this, they went backwards and then this progress.
+[908.16 --> 911.66]  Like, I don't exactly know the politics of that, as you mentioned, K-Ball.
+[911.84 --> 914.68]  But there's probably a lot happening.
+[914.68 --> 918.46]  I thought I read they wanted to make it like a wiki.
+[919.20 --> 920.20]  And maybe that's what that was.
+[920.24 --> 920.60]  Yes.
+[921.18 --> 923.50]  So you can contribute through GitHub now, I think.
+[923.66 --> 924.24]  That's the idea.
+[924.38 --> 926.50]  Like, it's more of an open process than what it was before.
+[927.36 --> 932.04]  So I guess it means that, I mean, I guess the upside is that people can contribute.
+[932.30 --> 938.08]  But the downside is that MDN had very high quality docs because they had a docs team that was writing the docs.
+[938.08 --> 944.62]  And so we'll see what the community contributed docs are like.
+[945.64 --> 946.66]  Maybe you'll be good.
+[946.88 --> 947.30]  I don't know.
+[948.32 --> 953.30]  I think some of this is the, I agree with you, K-Ball, in terms of the frailty of our systems.
+[953.30 --> 960.46]  When we centralize around large players who provide huge value because they're large and they do that.
+[960.90 --> 964.54]  And then we just kind of allow that to go on or we benefit from that.
+[964.54 --> 968.86]  And then when that goes away for whatever reason, then it's like, now what do we do?
+[968.92 --> 977.36]  And I think it's sort of the system working or like the open source community working to see like the WebAssembly team, you know, moving and changing.
+[977.74 --> 985.82]  And like new players step up and like people that no longer work at Mozilla find work elsewhere and continue to contribute to the things they find interesting.
+[986.10 --> 988.92]  So it's been a step back and a big one.
+[988.92 --> 995.84]  And I think it kind of pulls back the veil of like, like you said, we're not that robust, but then we learn.
+[996.06 --> 1010.52]  And I think when we get to the prediction section, you know, I'll talk about this a little bit more, I think, because we start to see like the value in decentralization and diversity and like bringing more players to the table and not relying so much on the big players.
+[1011.20 --> 1012.48]  Yeah, that's a really good point.
+[1012.48 --> 1012.88]  Yeah.
+[1012.88 --> 1019.20]  It's tough, though, right, Jared and all like, I feel like that's it's becoming a harder and harder hill.
+[1019.56 --> 1019.70]  Yeah.
+[1019.70 --> 1029.58]  Because even like when looking at like, new popularized projects these days in the JavaScript community, a lot of them are coming out of the big tech companies.
+[1030.88 --> 1034.98]  And so, you know, like that comes with its drawbacks.
+[1035.36 --> 1035.48]  Yeah.
+[1035.64 --> 1036.60]  And so I don't know.
+[1037.10 --> 1037.42]  Yeah.
+[1037.62 --> 1044.44]  And it's tough to compete with a project that has like a dedicated team that's being paid full time versus like a community driven project, you know?
+[1044.60 --> 1046.08]  But hey, Vue 3 dropped, right?
+[1046.42 --> 1047.36]  Yeah, it did.
+[1047.70 --> 1048.10]  No.
+[1048.44 --> 1048.98]  It's better.
+[1048.98 --> 1049.42]  Right.
+[1049.86 --> 1049.98]  Yeah.
+[1050.04 --> 1053.64]  When community driven works well, it does have some huge benefits.
+[1053.80 --> 1063.44]  So I think actually our not awesome, not awesome pair of Vue 3 and Angular highlights this really well, where Vue 3 is a community driven project.
+[1063.96 --> 1070.86]  They've made great strides in going from a very BDFL single developer focus to having a robust team over the last couple of years.
+[1070.86 --> 1078.08]  And they dropped a new major version with some big improvements that we can get into.
+[1078.08 --> 1088.58]  Contrast that to Angular, which is one of these massive megacorp-backed frameworks where there was a lot of drama and thrash going on around the core team.
+[1088.58 --> 1097.12]  And it really feels like that framework, which has been one of the big three for a few years, is falling further and further behind the cutting edge.
+[1097.80 --> 1099.98]  And they're just, it's struggling.
+[1099.98 --> 1106.70]  And I think it's because it's megacorp-backed and it's not a priority for the megacorp anymore.
+[1107.10 --> 1109.02]  And there's a lot of thrash going on.
+[1109.14 --> 1111.94]  Interesting cultural anthropology study right there.
+[1114.94 --> 1116.60]  Megacorp versus community.
+[1116.92 --> 1117.74]  Who's going to win?
+[1118.32 --> 1118.54]  Right.
+[1118.54 --> 1119.84]  I'd click on that.
+[1121.68 --> 1124.70]  It's a lot harder to get it going in the community side, right?
+[1124.76 --> 1126.36]  Like, that's so much work.
+[1126.42 --> 1127.48]  And it's so hard.
+[1127.62 --> 1136.22]  And it's so much, like, non-technical work to keep pushing and maintaining and, like, building all the community pieces and relationship pieces and all of that.
+[1136.60 --> 1147.04]  But when it works, I think it creates a much more robust outcome than, like, it's the whole, like, monoculture versus diverse setup.
+[1147.04 --> 1149.50]  Like, a monoculture is easy to stand up and get going.
+[1150.14 --> 1151.98]  It's very efficient in some ways.
+[1152.04 --> 1153.68]  It's just very fragile as well.
+[1153.84 --> 1154.12]  Definitely.
+[1154.54 --> 1156.96]  I think that warrants an entire conversation in and of itself.
+[1157.48 --> 1159.56]  But we are going to take a quick break.
+[1159.64 --> 1161.60]  When we come back, we're going to get a little happier.
+[1161.74 --> 1166.26]  And we're going to talk about something really awesome that happened in 2020, which was View 3.
+[1166.74 --> 1168.44]  No promises on the happy part, though.
+[1168.50 --> 1168.98]  Just kidding.
+[1169.18 --> 1169.60]  Just kidding.
+[1169.90 --> 1170.26]  Definitely.
+[1171.08 --> 1172.12]  I'll reject your promises.
+[1173.06 --> 1173.80]  Oh, my.
+[1173.92 --> 1175.02]  Oh, good one.
+[1175.46 --> 1176.40]  That was all settled.
+[1176.40 --> 1176.98]  Points for Emma.
+[1177.28 --> 1177.48]  Yeah?
+[1177.60 --> 1177.86]  Oh.
+[1178.12 --> 1178.52]  Okay.
+[1179.00 --> 1179.56]  Let's end this.
+[1179.68 --> 1180.52]  Can we stop chaining?
+[1180.94 --> 1181.38]  Just kidding.
+[1182.70 --> 1184.28]  Can we cancel that promise?
+[1184.42 --> 1186.16]  Or that's not supported on JS Party?
+[1187.78 --> 1189.60]  This has been some non-optional chaining.
+[1189.62 --> 1189.80]  Beep bop.
+[1189.92 --> 1190.56]  Beep boop boop boop.
+[1190.94 --> 1191.26]  All right.
+[1191.44 --> 1191.70]  Done.
+[1191.82 --> 1192.14]  Cut it.
+[1203.50 --> 1204.90]  Hey there, party animals.
+[1205.06 --> 1205.60]  Jared here.
+[1205.60 --> 1208.56]  I want to take a moment to tell you about Changelog++.
+[1209.28 --> 1215.64]  It's our membership program where you can directly support JS Party and all of the podcasts we create here at Changelog.
+[1216.64 --> 1221.48]  Ditch the ads, get closer to the metal and enjoy supporting JS Party into the future.
+[1222.18 --> 1225.06]  Once again, that's Changelog.com slash plus plus.
+[1225.38 --> 1226.56]  We'd love to have you with us.
+[1226.56 --> 1245.70]  So before the break, I kind of mentioned that we would touch on Vue 3 a little bit.
+[1245.70 --> 1251.20]  I don't want to go too in-depth here because we actually have two episodes we've already published on Vue.
+[1251.34 --> 1253.88]  So we'll link those in the show notes for you to check out.
+[1254.00 --> 1260.46]  But should we just very quickly mention just a few features of Vue 3 that were really great in 2020?
+[1260.86 --> 1261.42]  Go Divya.
+[1262.38 --> 1265.12]  TypeScript, Reactivity, Composition API.
+[1265.12 --> 1269.42]  Those are the main three that I was excited about, personally.
+[1269.92 --> 1271.22]  Because that was really nice.
+[1271.46 --> 1273.16]  Are you still deep in the Vue stuff, Divya?
+[1273.24 --> 1274.32]  Are you working on...
+[1274.32 --> 1274.76]  I'm not.
+[1274.84 --> 1276.38]  I actually write a lot of React now.
+[1277.14 --> 1277.60]  Sad.
+[1278.96 --> 1279.44]  Sad?
+[1279.44 --> 1280.46]  Sad face.
+[1280.46 --> 1281.50]  Me too, and I'm sad.
+[1281.80 --> 1282.40]  I miss it.
+[1282.40 --> 1282.46]  It's fine.
+[1282.82 --> 1286.38]  I already tweeted my annoyance many times.
+[1287.32 --> 1291.72]  Another thing I haven't had the opportunity to play with very much, but I was really excited to see,
+[1291.90 --> 1300.28]  is that they made it possible to really import the Reactivity piece of Vue as a standalone module
+[1300.28 --> 1304.28]  so you can actually play with things doing Reactivity without pulling in the whole framework.
+[1304.28 --> 1312.66]  It opens a lot of cool possibilities for creating reactive code that is not tied into the UI framework.
+[1313.00 --> 1313.82]  That's interesting.
+[1313.94 --> 1315.62]  What module is that?
+[1315.84 --> 1316.70]  Do you know offhand?
+[1317.04 --> 1320.20]  I don't offhand, but I can look into it if you want.
+[1320.28 --> 1320.62]  Let me see.
+[1321.42 --> 1323.04]  Let me Google that for you.
+[1323.22 --> 1329.66]  Is it like an observable type thing, or how does it feel to use it outside of the context of Vue?
+[1329.86 --> 1333.24]  I have not gotten the chance to play with it very much yet.
+[1333.24 --> 1337.10]  I would imagine it actually feels a lot more like Vue's Reactivity than observable.
+[1337.80 --> 1342.78]  I think you can just, yeah, it's sort of Vue-like, but you would just import it.
+[1342.92 --> 1349.26]  So you would just import that particular component, which I don't actually know if it's a standalone thing
+[1349.26 --> 1351.54]  if you just import it from the CDN.
+[1352.36 --> 1353.74]  I'm not 100% sure.
+[1353.74 --> 1358.22]  I think you can import, it looks like Vue slash Reactivity.
+[1358.44 --> 1359.18]  Like there is a package.
+[1359.18 --> 1360.24]  Oh, like that package.
+[1360.24 --> 1364.16]  I'm seeing import Reactive from Vue in this documentation.
+[1364.30 --> 1364.86]  Yeah, exactly.
+[1365.22 --> 1367.46]  That's usually what you would, you just like extract that.
+[1367.56 --> 1370.96]  But I'm sure there's a way for you to just use it.
+[1371.08 --> 1372.86]  Like if you were to just use, yeah.
+[1373.44 --> 1374.76]  But yeah, that is really nice.
+[1375.36 --> 1375.54]  Yeah.
+[1375.60 --> 1377.94]  So if y'all want to learn more about Vue, we've got a couple episodes.
+[1378.10 --> 1378.72]  We'll link them down.
+[1378.80 --> 1383.68]  But we want to focus on some other best and worst moments in web dev, but not just in web dev.
+[1383.68 --> 1387.70]  I think as an industry or like as a human population, I guess.
+[1388.98 --> 1393.78]  Because for me, like I actually didn't do any conferences this year.
+[1393.90 --> 1398.54]  I did one before like COVID got bad and there was quarantine.
+[1398.64 --> 1399.54]  Like it was in February.
+[1399.74 --> 1400.66]  That was in person.
+[1400.92 --> 1406.56]  I didn't do any virtual conferences, but they were rampant, which is good and bad.
+[1406.56 --> 1410.62]  I think that they are, I'd like to see the good in it, right?
+[1410.72 --> 1414.94]  Because it makes them accessible to more people and it allows us to have more diverse speakers.
+[1415.12 --> 1418.86]  You know, we don't have to factor in visas and travel and things of that nature.
+[1419.40 --> 1420.20]  But I don't know.
+[1420.26 --> 1421.72]  How do y'all feel about virtual conferences?
+[1421.86 --> 1423.20]  Did you do any this year?
+[1423.60 --> 1425.36]  I think the time zones were a nightmare.
+[1426.02 --> 1426.62]  Oh, yeah.
+[1426.76 --> 1427.06]  Really?
+[1427.70 --> 1436.00]  That was the hardest because I love the pro upside of anyone or from anywhere could participate.
+[1436.00 --> 1437.92]  As a speaker or as an attendee.
+[1438.26 --> 1444.64]  And there was a lot more intention, at least after the initial like lockdown and stuff into
+[1444.64 --> 1447.20]  how do we make conferences more interactive?
+[1447.20 --> 1452.02]  Because I think in the past it was just like, let's make speakers record video and throw it
+[1452.02 --> 1453.96]  on YouTube and then have people watch it.
+[1454.02 --> 1454.96]  And it was horrible.
+[1456.14 --> 1462.94]  But I think the time zones was really hard to work with because now you would, if you're
+[1462.94 --> 1467.28]  speaking at a conference in Europe, you're basically accommodating for EU time, which
+[1467.28 --> 1472.32]  is, you know, I guess from where I am, it's six hours ahead, at least British standard time
+[1472.32 --> 1472.78]  that is.
+[1473.22 --> 1478.82]  And so that would be horrible because sometimes you'd be like, I have to give a talk at 4am
+[1478.82 --> 1484.04]  my time because it's, it's regular time wherever the conference is happening.
+[1484.26 --> 1485.36]  And that was the hardest part.
+[1485.36 --> 1491.58]  I think I was part of a conference that was happening in Australia, which is almost day
+[1491.58 --> 1492.40]  and night basically.
+[1493.26 --> 1500.68]  And my talk started at, it was supposed to start at about like 11.30pm and it ended up
+[1500.68 --> 1502.72]  starting at about 1am.
+[1503.32 --> 1507.50]  And I told the organizer that I'm, I cannot stay up for it.
+[1507.50 --> 1512.54]  Um, because like I recorded it and the point was that you, as a speaker, you would participate
+[1512.54 --> 1516.00]  in the chat, talk to people and like be interactive.
+[1516.00 --> 1519.16]  But I was like, it's 1am and I am a zombie right now.
+[1519.32 --> 1521.06]  I basically start fading at nine.
+[1521.30 --> 1527.94]  So I was like, one is just way like it would ruin my work day, which honestly like is the
+[1527.94 --> 1528.78]  worst part of it.
+[1528.78 --> 1532.26]  Cause when you're at a conference, you are also taking time off from work.
+[1532.26 --> 1535.90]  And I found the weirdness of like, now it's virtual.
+[1536.10 --> 1537.70]  So am I actually taking time off work?
+[1537.74 --> 1543.22]  So I wouldn't take time off work and I would watch events or participate in between my breaks
+[1543.22 --> 1548.00]  and it just, and I'm at a point where I'm not doing it anymore just because it doesn't
+[1548.00 --> 1552.14]  work for my personality and my work life balance.
+[1552.60 --> 1555.12]  But that's been my experience in general.
+[1555.12 --> 1560.28]  I know people who really enjoy it and have been, um, really happy because they are able
+[1560.28 --> 1566.64]  to keep their home life and keep in touch with family while also participating with the
+[1566.64 --> 1567.52]  wider community.
+[1567.78 --> 1569.92]  You know, I did a virtual conference.
+[1569.92 --> 1573.66]  I did a OpenJS world, a couple things there.
+[1573.96 --> 1578.54]  I guess I kind of felt like it wasn't really worth it.
+[1578.84 --> 1585.54]  Like just, you know, there's all that kind of stress of, okay, I got to get my slide deck
+[1585.54 --> 1585.92]  together.
+[1586.06 --> 1588.54]  I got to practice my thing for this one.
+[1588.54 --> 1595.90]  I did have to do a recording and I'm not like set up to, you know, I don't ever do that.
+[1595.90 --> 1599.58]  And so that was difficult to like, okay, where do I put my webcam?
+[1600.10 --> 1604.24]  Like, I mean, my, where do I, like, I put my laptop on a bucket.
+[1604.72 --> 1607.68]  Like, it's just like, what am I doing?
+[1607.74 --> 1613.48]  And it was just like a lot of stress just in the payoff was not awesome because I go on
+[1613.48 --> 1614.64]  there, I try to do a workshop.
+[1614.64 --> 1615.40]  Right.
+[1615.76 --> 1619.82]  And I'm just talking like I'm not getting any feedback from anybody.
+[1620.00 --> 1622.30]  I can't look and see how everybody's doing.
+[1622.50 --> 1624.24]  You know, I'm taking a pause.
+[1624.42 --> 1627.98]  I'm not sure like, you know, how long I should really wait.
+[1628.38 --> 1631.22]  You know, Hey, people doing this workshop, do this thing.
+[1631.22 --> 1633.70]  And I have no feedback.
+[1633.86 --> 1635.04]  And so it's just like, you know what?
+[1635.04 --> 1645.68]  I don't, I can't imagine like, like, unless we all have some like VR second life thing
+[1645.68 --> 1646.40]  going on.
+[1646.48 --> 1650.14]  Like it's not the tech we have is not going to make this much better.
+[1650.14 --> 1656.56]  And so for me, it's just, I'm not really interested in a virtual conference doing that again.
+[1657.18 --> 1658.74]  And yeah, the time zone thing sucks.
+[1659.14 --> 1659.22]  Yeah.
+[1659.30 --> 1664.74]  I have to plus one on like Chris, like for it's been way more work as a speaker because
+[1664.74 --> 1669.46]  you have to get your stuff done in way in advance, which isn't even conducive to how
+[1669.46 --> 1670.34]  most people work.
+[1670.58 --> 1674.22]  I don't know how many speakers y'all know, but on the flight.
+[1674.42 --> 1674.60]  Yeah.
+[1674.90 --> 1678.66]  But then on the flight, whatever, like right before the hallway, like you're still editing
+[1678.66 --> 1682.30]  and, you know, so you don't get to like riff on your talk in the way that you would normally,
+[1682.30 --> 1685.64]  you don't get to really connect with the audience and you don't get the energy boost.
+[1685.64 --> 1691.70]  So like all of the rewards of doing a talk aren't there as much, you know, so you just
+[1691.70 --> 1696.88]  have more work as a speaker and then you don't have the feedback reward as much.
+[1697.64 --> 1701.74]  The conferences I've seen go off really well are actually the ones on Twitch.
+[1702.22 --> 1703.34]  So I participated.
+[1704.18 --> 1704.50]  Yeah.
+[1705.30 --> 1706.60]  Progress is DevReach.
+[1706.60 --> 1711.12]  I was on Twitch and I did a session with them and I thought that was like so much better
+[1711.12 --> 1716.20]  than like pre-recording or this or that because it's just like this live, it's a format that
+[1716.20 --> 1719.62]  just lends itself to like people chiming in and having a lot of chatter.
+[1719.90 --> 1724.60]  It's all live and it's as close as you can get to like an in-person conference, you know,
+[1724.72 --> 1729.38]  but this kind of like, I'm going to, you know, play an eight hour video track and like hope
+[1729.38 --> 1731.10]  that people around the world are tuning in.
+[1731.42 --> 1736.56]  You know, it's just less appealing for me personally because it's for me, like I just am at the point
+[1736.56 --> 1742.64]  where for me conferences are more about the hallway track and I content from conferences
+[1742.64 --> 1745.42]  is like a thing that I do at home, right?
+[1745.42 --> 1749.98]  Like I'll watch a talk at home alone, like where I'm able to like digest it and take notes
+[1749.98 --> 1755.72]  and, you know, increase the speed, increase the speed, repeat, like, you know, like zoom
+[1755.72 --> 1756.56]  into slides.
+[1756.66 --> 1760.84]  But I really think that it's opened up the world of conferences to so many more people.
+[1760.84 --> 1764.38]  And I do hope that like parts of that are here to stay.
+[1764.78 --> 1768.82]  Like, you know, I think there's like a huge accessibility element that's been very exciting
+[1768.82 --> 1769.32]  to see.
+[1769.70 --> 1769.76]  Yeah.
+[1769.82 --> 1773.34]  But if your first experience of a conference is virtual conference, don't think that you're
+[1773.34 --> 1774.50]  experiencing the same thing.
+[1774.56 --> 1774.86]  Correct.
+[1775.18 --> 1776.30]  It's not the same.
+[1776.32 --> 1776.66]  It's not.
+[1777.20 --> 1778.36]  And there's value in it.
+[1778.72 --> 1782.06]  You don't see K-Ball shake his hips, which by the way, we should totally link in the show
+[1782.06 --> 1782.26]  notes.
+[1782.32 --> 1783.28]  We're going to find that tweet.
+[1783.70 --> 1786.16]  K-Ball, you have like jelly hips.
+[1786.38 --> 1786.96]  It's amazing.
+[1787.22 --> 1788.90]  The hallway track with reggaeton.
+[1788.90 --> 1789.54]  Yeah.
+[1790.16 --> 1790.56]  Yes.
+[1790.88 --> 1791.46]  I approve.
+[1792.00 --> 1792.64]  All right, y'all.
+[1795.42 --> 1795.98]  J.K.
+[1796.10 --> 1798.96]  Voss like, uh, what did I just, yeah.
+[1799.38 --> 1800.32]  No, I mean, it's fine.
+[1800.36 --> 1803.32]  Next time we have an in-person conference, y'all can, we'll dance.
+[1803.46 --> 1803.90]  We'll dance.
+[1803.94 --> 1804.30]  It's good.
+[1804.72 --> 1810.58]  But yeah, I think one thing that's interesting here is kind of tying into one of the bigger
+[1810.58 --> 1813.54]  themes of 2020 of all these different things going virtual.
+[1813.70 --> 1816.50]  You had folks saying, hey, we're never going to go back.
+[1816.50 --> 1818.38]  Like, you know, this is the new future.
+[1818.62 --> 1821.12]  And that to me is totally wrong.
+[1821.62 --> 1826.24]  What we have seen is that there's a lot of things that can go well virtually and we can
+[1826.24 --> 1831.60]  be taking a lot more advantage of those things, but they are not the same as the in-person
+[1831.60 --> 1832.52]  things, right?
+[1832.56 --> 1837.84]  Like many, many more people can be working from home much more of the time than generally
+[1837.84 --> 1838.80]  was thought possible.
+[1838.80 --> 1842.16]  And it is not at all the same as going into an office.
+[1842.40 --> 1845.64]  And many, many, many people, myself included, miss that.
+[1846.42 --> 1851.40]  Similarly, virtual conferences open up a set of things to many more people and they have
+[1851.40 --> 1852.20]  a lot of value.
+[1852.70 --> 1855.46]  And they're not the same thing as in-person conferences.
+[1856.16 --> 1860.80]  I mean, I go to an in-person conference to escape from my day-to-day life and think differently.
+[1860.80 --> 1864.18]  I don't know about you all, but I'm already on Zoom all day, every day.
+[1864.28 --> 1866.82]  Like, I don't need to do that more on a conference.
+[1867.44 --> 1872.54]  So, I mean, I think 2022 is going to be a banner year for in-person events.
+[1872.74 --> 1875.80]  We're going to have so much of that blowing back from this.
+[1876.64 --> 1881.18]  I hope we're able to keep a little bit more of the virtual things as an option because
+[1881.18 --> 1882.98]  I think it does open new possibilities.
+[1882.98 --> 1885.08]  It does open accessibility things.
+[1885.16 --> 1888.36]  I think it does create new and different events.
+[1888.36 --> 1891.32]  And some of the virtual conferences that I think have done the best are those who have
+[1891.32 --> 1895.70]  really thought about, like, how do we recreate some of what's good about a conference in
+[1895.70 --> 1899.48]  a virtual context, not just take what we were doing in person and shift it online.
+[1899.98 --> 1906.78]  But gosh, like, no, they're not replacing in-person conferences.
+[1907.20 --> 1908.46]  Yeah, totally agree.
+[1908.46 --> 1914.88]  Well, speaking of shifting virtually, I think it warrants a quick conversation about the scaling
+[1914.88 --> 1923.00]  of remote work because that entire paradigm shift took a few months for many companies
+[1923.00 --> 1924.30]  to be onboarded to.
+[1924.44 --> 1928.20]  It's funny because I was working on GoToMeeting when all of this happened.
+[1928.38 --> 1933.06]  So ironically, I was actually building a tool that became necessary to people, but I also
+[1933.06 --> 1934.92]  already knew how to work remotely.
+[1935.16 --> 1936.68]  But many people didn't.
+[1936.78 --> 1941.58]  And I'm curious how your remote working experiences went in 2020.
+[1941.58 --> 1943.42]  I've always been working remotely.
+[1943.64 --> 1944.00]  Same.
+[1944.18 --> 1948.28]  So it was weird because nothing changed, but things changed.
+[1948.62 --> 1950.94]  Nothing changed, meaning you were still doing the same thing.
+[1950.94 --> 1955.30]  But I realized I would be inside because you're stuck indoors.
+[1955.48 --> 1960.00]  Like everyone was in lockdown earlier in the year and like probably again later in the year
+[1960.00 --> 1961.40]  and probably again now.
+[1961.54 --> 1962.86]  You're not going outside.
+[1962.86 --> 1969.96]  So I just noticed that I'm on my laptop all the time, which is something I was doing before,
+[1969.96 --> 1973.34]  but now it's actually increased like tenfold.
+[1974.04 --> 1978.94]  Because previously, like K-Ball was mentioning, a lot of my hobbies involve like leaving.
+[1979.44 --> 1981.44]  So I'd go for a bike ride or go climbing.
+[1982.32 --> 1986.12]  And it would be basically you're off screen completely.
+[1986.30 --> 1988.62]  You're like, I am not available.
+[1988.62 --> 1992.52]  Um, and now because you're stuck at home, what else do you do?
+[1992.58 --> 1993.76]  You're like on your laptop.
+[1994.14 --> 1998.00]  Sometimes you're like on a screen, whether that be your TV, you're playing a video game,
+[1998.06 --> 1999.10]  you're watching a movie, whatever.
+[1999.46 --> 2001.68]  So it's just constantly screen to screen.
+[2002.54 --> 2004.72]  That is dizzying.
+[2005.10 --> 2009.96]  Some people have been very like concerned because I would notice that I wouldn't go outside for
+[2009.96 --> 2011.58]  like four days and forget.
+[2011.72 --> 2013.18]  Like I would just forget to go outside.
+[2013.18 --> 2018.22]  Um, because as, especially as the weather gets colder, the light, like I don't want
+[2018.22 --> 2018.84]  to go outside.
+[2018.98 --> 2020.98]  And so I'd just be indoors the whole time.
+[2020.98 --> 2022.36]  And that's just very scary.
+[2023.08 --> 2023.22]  Yeah.
+[2023.22 --> 2023.92]  That's happened to me.
+[2023.98 --> 2027.80]  My husband's reminded me like, oh, you realize you haven't left the house in like four days,
+[2027.82 --> 2028.10]  right?
+[2028.20 --> 2028.98]  I'm like, wait, what?
+[2029.08 --> 2029.32]  Really?
+[2029.76 --> 2030.30]  Yeah, no.
+[2030.36 --> 2033.64]  It's like, uh, cause you're trying to stay indoors more often.
+[2033.64 --> 2036.24]  And then you times that with remote work.
+[2036.50 --> 2036.80]  Yeah.
+[2037.56 --> 2042.14]  Well, imagine like, well, I live alone, but not only that, I moved countries and had to onboard
+[2042.14 --> 2043.30]  remotely alone.
+[2044.00 --> 2044.96]  And that's rough.
+[2045.26 --> 2046.76]  Onboarding remotely is tough.
+[2046.90 --> 2048.96]  It's hard to make bonds with your teammates.
+[2049.34 --> 2050.86]  And I cried a lot.
+[2050.98 --> 2052.28]  Um, I still cry a lot.
+[2052.36 --> 2052.98]  Let's be honest.
+[2053.24 --> 2054.90]  Nothing wrong with crying for what it's worth.
+[2055.34 --> 2060.08]  I do think that Spotify in particular handled remote onboarding incredibly.
+[2060.48 --> 2064.10]  And I, I actually, well, I'm not trying to plug my own thing.
+[2064.10 --> 2068.66]  I just don't want to monopolize the whole conversation because we have a lot to discuss, but I wrote
+[2068.66 --> 2071.52]  a post on why they did remote onboarding so well.
+[2071.52 --> 2077.06]  And it was all about forging human connection remotely, which I think this goes back to
+[2077.06 --> 2082.12]  the conference thing where, you know, conferences superficially might think that, oh, it's the
+[2082.12 --> 2083.68]  tech content that's most important.
+[2083.90 --> 2084.96]  We can just throw it online.
+[2085.06 --> 2085.76]  Not a big deal.
+[2086.06 --> 2089.50]  But realistically, many people need the human aspect out of conferences.
+[2089.50 --> 2091.90]  And how do we simulate that in a virtual environment?
+[2092.18 --> 2093.58]  It's the same with onboarding.
+[2093.70 --> 2097.80]  How do you get up to speed all remotely?
+[2097.80 --> 2100.62]  And, uh, yeah, that was tough.
+[2101.26 --> 2102.66]  Link that up so we can read it.
+[2103.02 --> 2103.28]  Yeah.
+[2103.42 --> 2103.88]  Yeah, I will.
+[2104.42 --> 2106.48]  What's, uh, different for me.
+[2106.76 --> 2110.56]  So, yeah, I've been working remotely for probably the better part of a decade.
+[2110.56 --> 2112.64]  And so I'm, I'm used to that.
+[2113.56 --> 2120.28]  But when I would do that before the kids would go to school, my wife would go to work and
+[2120.28 --> 2121.46]  I'd be here by myself.
+[2122.14 --> 2127.66]  And that's a whole world of difference from where we're at now where everybody's here.
+[2128.34 --> 2128.82]  And preach.
+[2129.24 --> 2136.48]  So there's, you know, there's more disruptions, you know, just, I really value my solitude.
+[2136.48 --> 2140.44]  And it's, uh, there are always people here.
+[2140.72 --> 2144.76]  And so, you know, that's like one experience that a lot of people have.
+[2144.82 --> 2150.20]  And of course, the other, other experiences that you may be by yourself and completely
+[2150.20 --> 2150.82]  isolated.
+[2151.50 --> 2153.94]  And yeah, that sucks too.
+[2154.58 --> 2154.88]  Right.
+[2155.42 --> 2158.82]  So it's, uh, nobody's having fun.
+[2158.82 --> 2163.74]  Well, I think one thing that's been interesting to watch at my company, so I've, I've worked
+[2163.74 --> 2168.22]  on and off remotely for also close to a decade, sometimes remote, sometimes in person.
+[2168.56 --> 2173.92]  Um, I had actually relatively recently gone back to being in person when this all hit.
+[2173.92 --> 2178.74]  So like I had been working at a new company for five months that was in person, really
+[2178.74 --> 2179.34]  enjoying that.
+[2179.42 --> 2180.44]  And then we all shifted remote.
+[2181.08 --> 2184.10]  And so in some ways I personally was better prepared for that than most of the folks at
+[2184.10 --> 2184.54]  the company.
+[2184.54 --> 2190.30]  But one of the things that I saw that was really challenging was similar to what we're
+[2190.30 --> 2194.14]  talking about with conferences, like trying to take the things that were happening in person
+[2194.14 --> 2195.52]  and just shift them online.
+[2195.52 --> 2202.62]  And in the particular case here, that refers to meetings, lots and lots and lots of meetings.
+[2203.38 --> 2209.66]  And, you know, I think a remote first culture that is built from the ground up often will put
+[2209.66 --> 2214.36]  a lot of, you know, asynchronous and textual decision-making processes in place.
+[2214.36 --> 2221.52]  And you'll have ways to collaborate and coordinate that are based on asynchronous technologies
+[2221.52 --> 2222.94]  and things around that.
+[2222.94 --> 2228.82]  And in a company that's set up to make decisions synchronously, because that's how they've always
+[2228.82 --> 2229.22]  done it.
+[2229.24 --> 2234.58]  And it's done in meetings like that's translated to once again, like the wall of Zoom where you're
+[2234.58 --> 2237.52]  just in Zoom calls all day long.
+[2237.52 --> 2238.56]  Yeah.
+[2238.56 --> 2238.64]  Yeah.
+[2239.06 --> 2239.50]  Yeah.
+[2239.60 --> 2245.88]  I would say there's a lot of growing up companies need to do, because quite frankly, like, I
+[2245.88 --> 2249.92]  think working synchronously is very expensive, like regardless of whether you're in the office
+[2249.92 --> 2250.44]  or not.
+[2250.56 --> 2250.76]  Right.
+[2250.86 --> 2256.38]  Like, like the point that you're making, K-Ball, of like people working more efficiently, you
+[2256.38 --> 2262.66]  know, pushing more things into kind of like async communication, kind of inner sourcing
+[2262.66 --> 2267.10]  their culture, it's like necessary to scale, like, you know, because you're not going to
+[2267.10 --> 2271.84]  get more hours in the day, you know, and you can't keep hiring more people and having
+[2271.84 --> 2276.10]  them work at like 60% efficiency level.
+[2276.10 --> 2276.44]  Right.
+[2276.52 --> 2277.82]  Because you know what I mean?
+[2278.12 --> 2280.64]  So, so yeah, like major plus one on that.
+[2280.64 --> 2284.50]  I think a rework is actually have it right here for folks on the live stream.
+[2284.50 --> 2287.28]  Like, like, I'm started reading this book.
+[2287.82 --> 2292.64]  And, you know, other like books about remote work as well.
+[2292.72 --> 2296.00]  Like, well, I would say working more efficiently as a technical organization.
+[2296.66 --> 2297.96]  Remote is one of them.
+[2298.06 --> 2301.72]  Same author, kind of the like Jason Fried.
+[2302.22 --> 2302.46]  Yeah.
+[2302.58 --> 2305.14]  DHH, like Base Camp Nerds.
+[2305.36 --> 2307.74]  And, and then Accelerate is another one.
+[2307.90 --> 2309.64]  But I don't know.
+[2309.82 --> 2309.94]  Yeah.
+[2310.08 --> 2311.88]  I think they go super hard.
+[2312.00 --> 2313.30]  They go like the total opposite.
+[2313.30 --> 2313.74]  Yeah.
+[2313.94 --> 2316.72]  So they're like, you don't even need to be in person.
+[2316.90 --> 2318.42]  You can do everything virtually.
+[2318.66 --> 2323.10]  I think they've been on the remote train for years.
+[2323.72 --> 2328.30]  I don't actually know if Base Camp started remote, but I do know that it quickly went
+[2328.30 --> 2329.48]  remote if it didn't.
+[2329.80 --> 2331.18]  I think it did start remotely.
+[2331.38 --> 2333.76]  But I mean, I do like those books.
+[2333.84 --> 2336.08]  Also, it doesn't have to be crazy at work is another one.
+[2336.12 --> 2342.08]  But I did find some of their mentality problematic to a certain extent, because like they had talked
+[2342.08 --> 2346.12]  about how, yeah, we're fully remote, which means people don't necessarily, like we don't expect
+[2346.12 --> 2347.88]  people to be online all the time.
+[2347.88 --> 2353.88]  But like there was a little contradictory in their, yeah, in their mentality of like, okay,
+[2353.88 --> 2355.84]  well, people can kind of come and go as they please.
+[2355.84 --> 2358.42]  But also you have to tell us where you are at all times if you leave.
+[2358.42 --> 2360.30]  And I was kind of like, okay, but which is it?
+[2360.30 --> 2361.78]  Like that doesn't sound super healthy.
+[2361.78 --> 2364.06]  I think good communication is important.
+[2364.06 --> 2368.72]  But if you're mandating people to like, let you know where they are every minute of every
+[2368.72 --> 2370.64]  day, that's mentally taxing.
+[2371.20 --> 2377.18]  I think it's also worth mentioning that there's a pro to just like being able to work anywhere,
+[2377.18 --> 2379.50]  because it also means you can hire from anywhere.
+[2379.50 --> 2384.94]  But there's also this conversation that we see happening, which is the pay scales are changing.
+[2385.40 --> 2389.64]  And so a lot of people are like, well, if you live in this particular place, like if you
+[2389.64 --> 2395.28]  live in Iowa versus San Francisco, we're going to pay you less because living in Iowa is cheaper
+[2395.28 --> 2396.32]  than living in San Francisco.
+[2396.32 --> 2400.18]  And there's a lot of like weirdness around salary bans as well as moving.
+[2400.62 --> 2404.36]  So if you lived in Iowa, you started a job or you got promoted there and then you move
+[2404.36 --> 2411.40]  to New York, let's say, which is more expensive, your salary will not be like, will not change.
+[2411.50 --> 2416.40]  Like you'll still be at the rate that you are at where you started or where your salary
+[2416.40 --> 2418.94]  was kind of negotiated.
+[2419.32 --> 2424.74]  And I think that makes it really difficult now because you're almost now there's a nicety
+[2424.74 --> 2427.76]  where you can work from anywhere, but you're sort of stuck in a way.
+[2428.12 --> 2431.02]  So you're like, you're working from this place that is cheaper, let's say.
+[2431.58 --> 2434.32]  And if you want to move to somewhere more expensive, it's really difficult.
+[2434.54 --> 2439.36]  I mean, obviously the reverse, like I've not actually heard companies that have gone down
+[2439.36 --> 2440.52]  the pay scale.
+[2440.88 --> 2445.64]  I know there are some that do that, but I think the more common scenario is that they won't
+[2445.64 --> 2447.52]  upgrade you if you do move.
+[2447.60 --> 2451.46]  Like if you're like the company's based in San Francisco, you decide to move to San Francisco
+[2451.46 --> 2455.26]  from a cheaper place, they won't change your salary, which I think really sucks.
+[2456.00 --> 2456.14]  Yeah.
+[2456.52 --> 2459.24]  How about paying people based on the value they bring and not the location?
+[2459.24 --> 2459.68]  Exactly.
+[2459.82 --> 2460.32]  That too.
+[2460.64 --> 2460.84]  Yep.
+[2460.98 --> 2461.34]  That too.
+[2461.72 --> 2464.36]  That seems like a much healthier way of doing it.
+[2464.36 --> 2470.68]  What's interesting about the whole salary bans thing is I've totally spaced out and forgot
+[2470.68 --> 2471.12]  actually.
+[2471.70 --> 2474.68]  So I think I was really distracted by Emma's cat.
+[2475.64 --> 2477.52]  So I'm going to just retract.
+[2477.52 --> 2478.58]  Which is a great plug to say.
+[2478.70 --> 2479.76]  And with that, let's break.
+[2479.76 --> 2480.08]  Yeah.
+[2480.12 --> 2483.06]  If you're not watching the live stream, we live stream on YouTube.
+[2483.72 --> 2485.96]  And with that, I think, yeah, let's take a quick break.
+[2486.24 --> 2489.58]  And when we come back, we're going to wrap things up, hopefully on a lighter note.
+[2489.58 --> 2490.02]  Okay.
+[2490.02 --> 2490.58]  Let's do it.
+[2490.58 --> 2491.16]  Let's do it.
+[2491.16 --> 2491.88]  Let's do it.
+[2491.88 --> 2492.04]  Let's do it.
+[2492.04 --> 2492.50]  Let's do it.
+[2492.50 --> 2492.64]  Let's do it.
+[2492.64 --> 2493.04]  Let's do it.
+[2493.04 --> 2493.06]  Let's do it.
+[2493.06 --> 2493.46]  Let's do it.
+[2493.46 --> 2493.88]  Let's do it.
+[2493.88 --> 2494.04]  Let's do it.
+[2508.04 --> 2509.04]  Okay.
+[2509.20 --> 2515.38]  So it was a little bit somber the last segment, which I think, to be fair, I'm glad we discussed
+[2515.38 --> 2519.10]  it because I don't think it's fair to just say everything was great and shiny in 2020.
+[2519.34 --> 2521.92]  I think it's important to acknowledge that things weren't.
+[2522.42 --> 2524.74]  But let's look forward now.
+[2524.84 --> 2525.56]  It's 2021.
+[2526.24 --> 2528.84]  Let's talk about a few of our resolutions and wishes.
+[2529.38 --> 2531.10]  I'm going to give it to KBOL first.
+[2531.50 --> 2533.94]  And what are your resolutions this year, KBOL?
+[2534.78 --> 2535.22]  Ooh.
+[2535.48 --> 2538.34]  Well, so I mentioned COVID killed all my hobbies.
+[2538.34 --> 2543.06]  So I created a new hobby for myself, which I've been focusing on fitness and figuring
+[2543.06 --> 2547.00]  out, learning a whole lot about my body and how I can change things about my diet and
+[2547.00 --> 2549.86]  how that impacts different things and different types of exercise and whatever.
+[2551.20 --> 2557.62]  And part of that has me reviving long, neglected ideas about learning to do more gymnastics
+[2557.62 --> 2559.66]  and be able to do handsprings and things like that.
+[2559.70 --> 2561.46]  But those aren't going to happen until I can have a teacher.
+[2561.82 --> 2567.12]  Focusing on what I can have under my control during COVID times, my goal for this year
+[2567.12 --> 2570.12]  is I'm going to get to 10 handstand pushups by the end of the year.
+[2570.26 --> 2571.10]  I've been working for it.
+[2571.50 --> 2573.60]  I can get like two right now.
+[2573.76 --> 2575.08]  Handstand pushups are hard.
+[2575.14 --> 2576.34]  Those are so hard.
+[2576.40 --> 2577.22]  They're so hard.
+[2577.36 --> 2578.22]  I can't even do a handstand.
+[2578.30 --> 2579.52]  Are you doing it against the wall?
+[2579.96 --> 2581.64]  So right now for training, yes.
+[2581.72 --> 2586.30]  I'm also practicing doing standalone handstands, but I can't do both at the same time right
+[2586.30 --> 2586.64]  now.
+[2586.64 --> 2587.14]  Yeah, yeah.
+[2587.22 --> 2593.08]  But goal for end of the year, 10 knockwood freestanding handstand pushups in a set.
+[2593.08 --> 2599.04]  So part of this is, you know, my ever increasing desire to be able to do weird, crazy physical
+[2599.04 --> 2599.44]  things.
+[2599.60 --> 2605.08]  So, you know, being able to add some handsprings and like breakdancing things to my dancing
+[2605.08 --> 2606.30]  repertoire would be cool.
+[2606.78 --> 2609.70]  I knew this was to feed some alter motive.
+[2609.70 --> 2611.06]  It's all going back to the salsa.
+[2611.32 --> 2611.74]  We'll get there.
+[2611.84 --> 2612.52]  We'll get there.
+[2613.38 --> 2619.30]  But in the right now, I'm focused on the sort of body control fitness piece of it.
+[2619.30 --> 2624.72]  And it's setting me up for wanting to do, you know, once again, when we come out of
+[2624.72 --> 2628.22]  COVID, when I'm able to go do classes and things like that, wanting to go to some gymnastics
+[2628.22 --> 2630.04]  classes and things around that.
+[2630.92 --> 2634.94]  Also, real goal, like if it's safe, I'm going to be traveling.
+[2635.46 --> 2637.64]  I miss it so, so, so, so much.
+[2637.74 --> 2639.54]  And as soon as we're safe, I'm on a book a trip.
+[2639.76 --> 2640.44]  Where are you going?
+[2640.58 --> 2641.52]  Where's your top place?
+[2641.76 --> 2642.28]  Oh, God.
+[2642.36 --> 2642.92]  It depends.
+[2643.50 --> 2643.86]  Sweden.
+[2644.32 --> 2644.96]  Come to Sweden.
+[2645.12 --> 2646.02]  Sweden sounds great.
+[2646.02 --> 2648.48]  We have a Hawaii trip that we want to do.
+[2648.64 --> 2652.32]  We wanted to go to Mexico by summer and that got canceled.
+[2653.66 --> 2655.44]  I want to go back to Colombia.
+[2655.94 --> 2661.00]  We were going to go for JSConf Colombia again this year and that or NodeConf Colombia again
+[2661.00 --> 2661.42]  this year.
+[2661.68 --> 2662.86]  And that didn't happen.
+[2663.08 --> 2664.58]  So, so many places.
+[2665.08 --> 2666.84]  But it's got to be safe first.
+[2667.38 --> 2667.68]  Definitely.
+[2668.40 --> 2668.54]  Yeah.
+[2668.98 --> 2672.18]  One of mine is to see my family because I haven't seen them in like a year and a half.
+[2672.18 --> 2674.70]  And I was supposed to go in January, which obviously got canceled.
+[2674.70 --> 2677.80]  So hopefully by like June, I can go see them.
+[2677.88 --> 2680.40]  But it will be two years, which is super sad for me.
+[2680.84 --> 2685.38]  And as a result, most of my resolutions are taking care of my mental health and not over
+[2685.38 --> 2688.50]  committing because I do this, especially if I'm just sitting around all day.
+[2688.56 --> 2690.16]  I will say yes to basically everything.
+[2690.46 --> 2692.20]  And then I get overwhelmed and burned out.
+[2692.24 --> 2694.06]  So that's I need to work on that.
+[2694.18 --> 2698.42]  But in terms of tech, I really want to get more into animations and CSS.
+[2698.62 --> 2700.20]  I've been playing around with frame of motion.
+[2701.44 --> 2701.88]  Yeah.
+[2702.12 --> 2702.98]  And I love CSS.
+[2702.98 --> 2705.88]  I'm doing a workshop next year with front end masters on CSS.
+[2706.20 --> 2709.32]  And I'm very much looking forward to learning more about that.
+[2710.06 --> 2712.62]  So are you planning on trying GSAP as well?
+[2713.16 --> 2714.12]  I don't know.
+[2714.22 --> 2717.62]  I know that like Sarah Drasner has a course on it and I've been meaning to take it.
+[2717.90 --> 2719.72]  I kind of want to try all the different libraries.
+[2719.72 --> 2721.28]  Like I've worked a lot with React Spring.
+[2721.54 --> 2722.90]  I know I'm getting into frame of motion.
+[2723.04 --> 2724.88]  I would love to discuss or discuss.
+[2725.04 --> 2726.14]  I'd like to get into GSAP.
+[2726.72 --> 2729.90]  Greensock Animation Library for those who don't know what that is.
+[2729.90 --> 2730.46]  Yeah.
+[2730.46 --> 2730.62]  Yeah.
+[2731.02 --> 2732.48]  I would love to look at all of them.
+[2732.56 --> 2734.46]  That would be a fun episode to record, wouldn't it?
+[2734.92 --> 2735.16]  Mm-hmm.
+[2735.56 --> 2736.60]  That would be pretty cool.
+[2737.20 --> 2737.40]  Yeah.
+[2737.62 --> 2739.86]  Divya, what are you what are your resolutions for this year?
+[2740.04 --> 2744.40]  I'm trying not to put too many resolutions because I have this thing about setting so
+[2744.40 --> 2746.54]  many resolutions for myself and never following through.
+[2746.86 --> 2751.36]  My resolution this year was resilience, which I actually think I practiced a lot of considering
+[2751.36 --> 2754.08]  this year has been tumultuous.
+[2754.08 --> 2755.78]  There was a lot of resilience necessary.
+[2756.04 --> 2756.76]  Am I good at it?
+[2756.82 --> 2757.46]  Probably not.
+[2757.90 --> 2761.24]  I've developed like other things that are not necessarily related.
+[2761.32 --> 2766.84]  But anyway, similar to K-Ball, I've picked up a lot of hobbies because I can't go anywhere,
+[2766.84 --> 2770.98]  which has resulted in a lack of a complete lack of focus.
+[2771.14 --> 2772.90]  I don't know if this is a bad thing or a good thing.
+[2772.96 --> 2775.02]  I've heard people say it's not a bad thing.
+[2775.02 --> 2779.68]  I personally think it's not not a good thing.
+[2779.84 --> 2780.62]  I don't know.
+[2781.00 --> 2787.46]  Double negative because I have been doing so much and I'm bad at so much.
+[2788.32 --> 2792.78]  And so I'm trying to be like more focused in terms of what exactly I'm working on.
+[2793.40 --> 2794.58]  One of that is like hobbies.
+[2794.84 --> 2796.98]  Do I want to focus on one particular hobby?
+[2797.10 --> 2801.02]  Because previously I was climbing and that was like my one hobby and I put in a lot of
+[2801.02 --> 2801.68]  time into it.
+[2801.94 --> 2803.08]  I can't do that as much anymore.
+[2803.08 --> 2805.92]  I'm also not surrounded by mountains, which sucks.
+[2806.54 --> 2808.86]  So I can't go out as much.
+[2809.06 --> 2815.26]  So my hobbies have included electronics, like music stuff, weird animation things, pixel
+[2815.26 --> 2819.16]  art, like just like everything under the sun that you could do indoors.
+[2819.84 --> 2823.74]  And so I think my goal is just to focus on one thing, just to be like, this is the thing
+[2823.74 --> 2824.40]  you're going to do.
+[2824.52 --> 2829.26]  And it's not to say that I can't, I have to do it for the entire year, but it's just
+[2829.26 --> 2831.30]  focusing on it for like for a month.
+[2831.30 --> 2835.36]  For one month, I'm going to just do this one thing and then it might give me a bit more
+[2835.36 --> 2838.10]  clarity rather than feeling frazzled.
+[2838.24 --> 2839.26]  That's sort of my goal.
+[2839.74 --> 2844.74]  And it's the same with programming languages because currently I am learning Go and Rust
+[2844.74 --> 2845.98]  at the same time.
+[2846.02 --> 2847.18]  And it's been great.
+[2847.64 --> 2852.60]  And it's more for work because I work in a role now where I'm writing JavaScript, Ruby
+[2852.60 --> 2858.66]  and Go simultaneously, which has been a hoot as well as Rust.
+[2858.72 --> 2859.64]  There's some Rust as well.
+[2859.78 --> 2861.80]  So it's just been, it's been a mess.
+[2862.56 --> 2866.02]  My writing languages has been, has suffered as a result.
+[2866.56 --> 2867.84]  But yeah, that is my goal.
+[2868.50 --> 2869.00]  I love that though.
+[2869.02 --> 2872.26]  I love that you have one word to define your actions for the year.
+[2872.34 --> 2876.00]  I think that's really a good mentality to have because then you're never disappointed
+[2876.00 --> 2877.84]  if you don't achieve tangible things.
+[2877.84 --> 2880.40]  It's, yeah, that's healthy.
+[2881.76 --> 2882.78]  What about you, Amal?
+[2882.86 --> 2883.58]  What are some of yours?
+[2884.70 --> 2886.60]  I want to hear from Chris first.
+[2887.32 --> 2888.14]  Can we hear from Chris?
+[2888.58 --> 2888.86]  Really?
+[2889.50 --> 2890.26]  Yeah, really.
+[2890.64 --> 2896.30]  I want to claw my way out of the abyss of disillusionment and alienation.
+[2896.60 --> 2898.80]  And also, I'd like to learn how to draw.
+[2898.80 --> 2903.18]  I love it.
+[2903.38 --> 2904.54]  Oh, Chris, I love you.
+[2904.68 --> 2905.28]  You're amazing.
+[2906.70 --> 2909.12]  That's, yeah, it's a tough, tough act to follow.
+[2910.08 --> 2911.46]  Yeah, why do you want to go after Chris?
+[2911.72 --> 2912.50]  Should I have gone first?
+[2912.50 --> 2913.30]  Well, I don't know.
+[2913.52 --> 2918.94]  Because I'm like, quite frankly, it was out of my own sheer morbid curiosity and amusement
+[2918.94 --> 2923.36]  that I was like, just really interested to know what Chris's resolutions are.
+[2923.86 --> 2926.48]  I find Chris to be a deeply fascinating person.
+[2926.48 --> 2928.32]  So that's where that's coming from.
+[2928.80 --> 2932.60]  Yeah, I think for me, more art, more nature, less tech.
+[2933.10 --> 2938.40]  That's kind of like, you know, so I want to just spend time doing more creative things.
+[2938.96 --> 2939.28]  Oh, yeah.
+[2939.46 --> 2939.94]  Oh, wow.
+[2940.26 --> 2941.94]  Was that the reggaeton from your...
+[2941.94 --> 2944.76]  Yeah, my computer just played it out loud.
+[2945.04 --> 2947.08]  And I was like, oh, my gosh, I'm so sorry.
+[2947.10 --> 2949.74]  For those of you wondering what that noise was, I don't know if you can hear it.
+[2949.80 --> 2952.04]  But I finally found that tweet.
+[2952.28 --> 2958.56]  There's a tweet of Lady Leet taking a video of K-ball dancing at All Things Open last year.
+[2958.80 --> 2962.46]  Just to be clear, she was taking videos of everybody dancing.
+[2962.80 --> 2964.02]  Oh, right, right, right.
+[2964.76 --> 2967.64]  This was not just like me being out there.
+[2968.02 --> 2968.30]  Yeah.
+[2968.62 --> 2969.34]  It was prompted.
+[2969.50 --> 2970.08]  He was prompted.
+[2970.54 --> 2971.06]  But it's okay.
+[2971.40 --> 2971.54]  Yeah.
+[2971.58 --> 2974.52]  She was going around getting everybody to dance, which is great.
+[2974.66 --> 2975.70]  I fully support it.
+[2975.92 --> 2976.84]  Yeah, I do remember that.
+[2976.84 --> 2978.00]  She tried to get me to dance.
+[2978.10 --> 2980.14]  And I was like, hells, no, I'm not dancing.
+[2980.42 --> 2981.60]  Like, definitely not.
+[2982.36 --> 2983.58]  You know, anyways.
+[2984.28 --> 2987.96]  But yeah, more art, more creative stuff, more nature.
+[2988.10 --> 2990.26]  I'm moving out to the countryside.
+[2990.94 --> 2993.52]  Like, and yeah, just to kind of reconnect with nature.
+[2993.52 --> 2997.88]  I feel like being a technologist, there's just too much tech in my life.
+[2997.96 --> 2998.88]  My husband is an engineer.
+[2999.30 --> 3000.68]  I have like two jobs.
+[3000.68 --> 3002.60]  I have like a real job that I get paid for.
+[3002.70 --> 3007.06]  And then I have like another less real job that's like community stuff or podcasting or
+[3007.06 --> 3007.80]  whatever, right?
+[3007.90 --> 3009.78]  And there's just a lot of tech in my life.
+[3009.90 --> 3013.52]  And I think I do best when I have things in moderation.
+[3013.52 --> 3019.30]  And I realized like for the past few years, I'm like growing really strong muscles in some
+[3019.30 --> 3019.72]  areas.
+[3019.72 --> 3024.18]  And I'm like losing it in other areas, you know, because my life is just it's just too much
+[3024.18 --> 3024.46]  tech.
+[3024.74 --> 3031.80]  So I need to diversify my portfolio and art and nature, like the best ways in order to
+[3031.80 --> 3032.00]  do that.
+[3032.06 --> 3037.22]  And like, you know, just on projects that are involved, you know, maybe involve technology
+[3037.22 --> 3038.10]  in a creative way.
+[3038.10 --> 3042.02]  Like, for example, like my husband and I are going to build like a automated watering system
+[3042.02 --> 3046.58]  for our plants using like raspberry pies, you know, but that that's, you know, that's
+[3046.58 --> 3048.26]  like using technology in a creative way.
+[3048.56 --> 3053.42]  Like I've been wanting to build a little LED screen for myself because I'm always like one
+[3053.42 --> 3054.40]  minute late to meetings.
+[3055.02 --> 3061.10]  And so I wanted to have like a Google Calendar thing that hooks in to not just Google Calendar,
+[3061.26 --> 3062.38]  Google, any calendar.
+[3062.82 --> 3067.54]  Like I want a visual visual feedback and with with dots, you know, it's like I know how much
+[3067.54 --> 3069.24]  time I have until my next call.
+[3069.44 --> 3071.06]  And I know when I'm late to things.
+[3071.06 --> 3072.80]  And so it just it just helps to have that.
+[3072.84 --> 3077.18]  So wanting to like do some hardware hacking and then I need like more friends that are not
+[3077.18 --> 3077.80]  technologists.
+[3078.08 --> 3079.04]  So I'm really excited.
+[3079.16 --> 3082.10]  I'm moving out to a city that only has 7500 people.
+[3082.10 --> 3085.40]  And I've only lived in cities that are extremely dense.
+[3085.56 --> 3085.80]  Yeah.
+[3085.92 --> 3087.18]  So I'm excited.
+[3087.30 --> 3088.72]  I'm going to make lots of different friends.
+[3088.72 --> 3092.62]  I'm excited about like making older friends and like friends who don't know what JavaScript
+[3092.62 --> 3093.12]  is.
+[3093.12 --> 3096.26]  And it's like, you know, so it'll be good.
+[3096.60 --> 3097.98]  So I think you'll love it.
+[3098.08 --> 3099.40]  Yeah, I think so, too.
+[3100.48 --> 3101.02]  I'm excited.
+[3101.54 --> 3104.64]  So, yeah, it's been a very tough year.
+[3104.74 --> 3106.16]  So anything to bring back.
+[3106.60 --> 3107.42]  You got to treat yourself.
+[3107.86 --> 3108.10]  Yeah.
+[3108.28 --> 3109.04]  Treat yourself.
+[3109.04 --> 3109.38]  Treat yourself.
+[3109.66 --> 3109.88]  Right.
+[3110.32 --> 3111.12]  I'm going to do that.
+[3111.12 --> 3112.84]  Where's your soundboard, Jared?
+[3113.42 --> 3114.34]  I don't have that one.
+[3114.42 --> 3115.42]  I need to go grab that sound.
+[3116.18 --> 3117.04]  Slacking, man.
+[3117.52 --> 3117.84]  You know.
+[3118.32 --> 3119.86]  I'll splice it in right here.
+[3120.34 --> 3120.70]  Clothes.
+[3120.82 --> 3121.22]  Treat yourself.
+[3121.70 --> 3122.06]  Fragrances.
+[3122.20 --> 3122.60]  Treat yourself.
+[3123.16 --> 3123.52]  Massages.
+[3123.68 --> 3124.08]  Treat yourself.
+[3124.54 --> 3124.94]  Mimosas.
+[3125.12 --> 3125.54]  Treat yourself.
+[3125.68 --> 3126.98]  Fine leather goods.
+[3127.30 --> 3127.84]  Treat yourself.
+[3127.98 --> 3128.14]  Yeah.
+[3128.32 --> 3130.36]  NBC might send you a bill, but.
+[3132.32 --> 3134.04]  Doesn't it have to be like a few seconds?
+[3134.04 --> 3136.92]  Like if it's below a couple of seconds.
+[3137.68 --> 3144.06]  If anyone sent us a bill, it's Bette Midler for last week's remake of The Wind Beneath My Wings.
+[3144.52 --> 3146.10]  That was amazing.
+[3146.78 --> 3147.60]  That was amazing.
+[3148.54 --> 3150.60]  But I don't think we're on NBC's radar just yet.
+[3151.18 --> 3151.44]  Yeah.
+[3152.20 --> 3153.90]  Well, Jared, I think you're last.
+[3154.16 --> 3155.92]  What are your resolutions for this year?
+[3156.64 --> 3162.50]  Well, I generally resolve to not have a resolution because I'm kind of a curmudgeon like that.
+[3162.70 --> 3166.46]  But my wife and I do do the one word a year kind of a thing.
+[3166.56 --> 3167.92]  We've been doing that for a few years.
+[3168.00 --> 3168.56]  Her idea.
+[3168.80 --> 3169.30]  Loved it.
+[3169.40 --> 3170.20]  Have been doing it.
+[3170.86 --> 3173.60]  And so I haven't picked my word just yet for 2021.
+[3173.88 --> 3181.12]  My word for this year was finish because I had a lot of at the end of last year, I had a lot of things that were started, but I wasn't good at finishing them.
+[3181.12 --> 3185.20]  And I've actually done all right with that because I've had more time to finish things.
+[3185.28 --> 3189.38]  I had to tell myself not to start anything new because it's so easy to start something new.
+[3189.68 --> 3193.04]  And I almost started something new this year, but it kind of failed fast.
+[3193.18 --> 3194.78]  So I didn't start it, which is good.
+[3195.30 --> 3196.72]  But yeah, I felt pretty good about finish.
+[3196.92 --> 3198.80]  I finished this playhouse.
+[3198.90 --> 3200.98]  I had been telling the kids I was going to build for a long time.
+[3201.16 --> 3205.58]  We're finishing our basement right now and generally didn't start anything new.
+[3205.64 --> 3207.80]  So I feel like I've somewhat accomplished that.
+[3207.86 --> 3208.82]  Don't feel terrible about it.
+[3208.82 --> 3212.04]  And I'm actually in the same category as Amel.
+[3212.12 --> 3216.38]  I'm thinking my, I'm workshopping the word analog for 2021.
+[3217.06 --> 3217.50]  Nice.
+[3218.22 --> 3227.96]  Like get off the digital, get onto the analog and just focus on that because just like you all feel, so much of my life has been digital this year.
+[3227.96 --> 3242.50]  And the things that I've really have enjoyed, like building that playhouse outside, like hammering something into wood, you know, and just like being in the analog space and really enjoying that was one of the highlights of the year.
+[3242.50 --> 3245.42]  So more like that and less like this.
+[3245.48 --> 3246.02]  No offense.
+[3246.34 --> 3248.58]  I love all y'all, but Zoom calls, right?
+[3249.20 --> 3249.46]  Yeah.
+[3249.80 --> 3251.58]  Lots of those and more of the real world.
+[3252.28 --> 3253.12]  So I'm thinking about that.
+[3253.20 --> 3258.06]  I have a few other things that I'm thinking of, but that's where I stand as of now.
+[3258.22 --> 3259.56]  From changelog to analog.
+[3260.90 --> 3261.94]  New podcast.
+[3262.24 --> 3262.80]  New podcast.
+[3262.80 --> 3265.68]  Sounds like a backstage episode.
+[3265.84 --> 3268.88]  Sounds like a good digital product we could put out.
+[3269.08 --> 3269.18]  Yeah.
+[3269.60 --> 3270.80]  Change that to analog.
+[3271.16 --> 3271.78]  Oh my God.
+[3272.50 --> 3273.12]  So there you go.
+[3273.94 --> 3279.66]  Jared, I have to say there is something really magical about just being in the moment.
+[3279.66 --> 3284.38]  And I think like being in the moment without any digital stuff connected, right?
+[3284.38 --> 3289.86]  Like I just think like we spend so much of our lives these days like connected to something, you know?
+[3289.86 --> 3294.66]  So I almost wonder if like a analog free weekend or analog free day is going to be in the future.
+[3294.66 --> 3294.76]  Oh yeah.
+[3294.76 --> 3295.34]  Time box.
+[3296.34 --> 3296.82]  You know?
+[3296.86 --> 3297.02]  Yeah.
+[3297.02 --> 3300.76]  It's kind of like when you leave the house and you left your phone sitting on the desk or something.
+[3300.96 --> 3301.04]  Yeah.
+[3301.06 --> 3305.18]  And you're like, you're like driving away from the house and you're like, you freak out.
+[3305.32 --> 3307.70]  Like, I'm disconnected.
+[3308.16 --> 3309.46]  I never freak out when I'm disconnected.
+[3309.46 --> 3310.28]  Then you decide.
+[3310.54 --> 3310.74]  Okay.
+[3310.84 --> 3311.04]  Yeah.
+[3311.04 --> 3311.34]  Same.
+[3311.44 --> 3313.44]  I'm projecting, but then you decide, you know what?
+[3313.46 --> 3314.34]  I'm just going to leave it.
+[3314.46 --> 3315.36]  I'm just going to leave it.
+[3315.90 --> 3318.34]  And then all of a sudden life is almost feels like a little bit better.
+[3318.38 --> 3318.96]  You're like, you know what?
+[3318.96 --> 3320.12]  It's no big deal.
+[3320.70 --> 3321.94]  You just can't reach me right now.
+[3322.06 --> 3322.70]  It's kind of nice.
+[3323.00 --> 3325.40]  So some people who need to reach you get annoyed.
+[3326.36 --> 3326.72]  Yes.
+[3327.06 --> 3329.14]  And then it's like a fire and you don't know about it.
+[3329.16 --> 3330.38]  And family is like, why didn't you pick up?
+[3330.44 --> 3331.84]  I'm like, I was doing things.
+[3331.94 --> 3333.98]  They're like, I needed to talk to you.
+[3335.48 --> 3336.22]  About what?
+[3336.46 --> 3338.30]  I had a question that didn't matter.
+[3338.44 --> 3338.58]  Yeah.
+[3339.26 --> 3341.40]  Sounds like family needs to meet Divya bot.
+[3344.40 --> 3346.08]  There's a digital good you can create.
+[3346.08 --> 3348.44]  Divya bot does not answer.
+[3349.96 --> 3351.14]  That's the best kind of bot.
+[3351.24 --> 3351.70]  No code.
+[3351.80 --> 3352.78]  It's a no code bot.
+[3353.62 --> 3354.24]  No op.
+[3354.60 --> 3354.98]  Yeah.
+[3355.54 --> 3356.60]  No op bots.
+[3356.62 --> 3357.60]  Even I can write that.
+[3359.42 --> 3360.22]  So easy.
+[3360.32 --> 3361.46]  Even Jared can do it.
+[3361.58 --> 3361.86]  That's right.
+[3364.86 --> 3366.16]  Oh, gosh.
+[3366.38 --> 3366.92]  All righty.
+[3367.12 --> 3370.24]  Well, I think this was a successful first episode of 2021.
+[3370.70 --> 3371.22]  Hey, hey.
+[3372.22 --> 3372.88]  Hey, hey.
+[3372.96 --> 3374.34]  Hopefully this year is good.
+[3374.34 --> 3376.20]  We've just got to believe that it will be.
+[3376.40 --> 3376.68]  Yes.
+[3376.76 --> 3379.30]  To a less depressing year.
+[3379.92 --> 3381.52]  Cheers to a less depressing year.
+[3381.98 --> 3382.36]  Cheers.
+[3382.36 --> 3390.94]  We are giving away two free tickets to the Test.js Summit on January 28th and 29th.
+[3391.18 --> 3395.02]  All you have to do to get in on that action is follow us on Twitter.
+[3395.18 --> 3398.46]  We are at JSPartyFM and we'll make an announcement real soon.
+[3398.82 --> 3400.36]  Follow us now so you don't miss it.
+[3400.42 --> 3401.82]  That's JSPartyFM.
+[3401.82 --> 3404.52]  This episode was hosted by Emma Bostian.
+[3404.76 --> 3405.88]  It was produced by Jared Santo.
+[3406.04 --> 3406.56]  Hey, that's me.
+[3406.70 --> 3409.46]  And our beats are provided by the mysterious Breakmaster Cylinder.
+[3409.92 --> 3412.94]  JSParty is brought to you by awesome people at Companies Who Get It.
+[3413.24 --> 3416.50]  Thanks to Fastly, Linode, and LaunchDarkly for their support.
+[3417.08 --> 3418.12]  And thank you for listening.
+[3418.38 --> 3422.64]  On the next episode, Jason Miller of Preact fame joined Nick and I to discuss the super
+[3422.64 --> 3425.98]  cool new open source tool that he and the team have been working on.
+[3426.40 --> 3427.34]  Stay tuned for that one.
+[3427.34 --> 3428.66]  Next week.
+[3431.82 --> 3432.82]  Bye.
diff --git a/Of spiders and monkeys_transcript.txt b/Of spiders and monkeys_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5e4f01614c5b30363293d5e5112cda2533fbfd14
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Of spiders and monkeys_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,459 @@
+**Jerod Santo:** Welcome back, everyone. It's JS Party time! We have a great show for you today. I'm joined by my good friend Feross. What's up, Feross?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Hey, Jerod. How's it going?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's going very well, excited to have a special guest with us from the SpiderMonkey team, it's Yulia Startsev. Yulia, thanks for joining us.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** It's my pleasure. Thank you for having me.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We are excited. So SpiderMonkey - give us the TL;DR. Introduce everybody to what this is, who's behind it, what it's for etc.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** So in the beginning there was the web... And they came up with this idea for a programming language that would be controlling the behavior of the web. Brendan Eich designed it and developed it, and it was initially called -- I think it was initially called \[unintelligible 00:02:44.05\] I should have actually practiced this intro...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] It's going so well...
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Anyway, long story short, there was the initial JavaScript engine, before it was called JavaScript. And then they scrapped it all and rewrote it, and that's SpiderMonkey. We're almost 25 years old. We started our life as part of Netscape, and since then, we moved with the rest of the Netscape codebase into being part of the Mozilla organization and making up Firefox. SpiderMonkey is a modern web browser; we are like the equivalent of V8 in Chrome, or of JSC in Safari. It's developed by Mozilla, we have contributors from the outside as well, and we're also embedded in a number of other domains, for example inside of Gnome, a couple of databases that you might be familiar with, and other places like that. That's SpiderMonkey.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Huh.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** And we really like heavy metal, so these posters. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes, they have all sorts of cool posters which they put on their website. We'll link those up in the show notes as well. So how did you get involved?
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** I have a bit of a weird back-story for ending up as a computer engineer. I'm completely self-taught. I started learning how to program maybe 5-6 years ago now... Maybe more. I've lost track of time. It's all a blur. But at some point I was like -- you know, I began programming, and I was like "Okay, this is just a job. I'm just doing this to get my next paycheck", and then I started getting really interested in "How do you program? What's the best way to do it? What are all the tools?", all these things, all these interesting bits and pieces that you can work with. Eventually, I got involved with developer tools, and got onto the DevTools team in Firefox. That codebase is entirely done in JavaScript and HTML. So if you wanted, as a JavaScript developer, to go and do your first contribution to a browser - because you know, a browser feels like this significant piece of software - that's a really great entry point, the DevTools. I think several of the DevTools teams actually use JavaScript as a backing language for what they do.
+
+So I started working there, and I got even more interested, like "What's the design of the language? How do compilers work? How do you make this magical tool that is a programming language, which is so expressive and you can talk to other people through it - how does that happen? So I started teaching myself a little bit about compilers, a little bit about how languages are designed... Somehow, by magic, I ended up on TC39, and helping with the design of the language, asking questions, helping along from a developer tools' perspective, like "What does this new language feature look like in terms of developer tools?" Eventually, I moved entirely onto the SpiderMonkey team, which was my first exposure to C++, and also my first full-blown exposure to the complete structure of a compiler and working on it directly. That's the short version of the story.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Wow, that's such an intense career arch... \[laughter\] You started programming 5-6 years ago, and then find yourself on TC39 and writing compilers... That's quite the journey.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** It was... \[laughs\]
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** There must be something different about how you learn, or you must be intensely curious to keep digging to the next \[unintelligible 00:05:43.02\] at each stage of that process. You didn't just settle at the level of understanding that you had. You kind of kept going. That's pretty cool.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Something someone once told me is that I was very brave, but my feeling of the situation, my comprehension of the situation was "Oh no, I just didn't know what was next..." \[laughs\] Somewhere between ignorance and bravery, so you end up in this situation... But yeah, generally, curiosity. Also, I think one thing that helped me go from not really knowing that much about programming to working on a compiler was I actually never accepted that I couldn't. So if some stuff was really hard and I was like "I don't really feel all that smart when I look at this", but I never thought that I couldn't. It's something that I've been telling others when they struggle, like "If you stop yourself without allowing yourself to fail, fail, fail, and then succeed, then you're not going to actually make it to that \[unintelligible 00:06:31.23\] you're going for." I have a lot of failures.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Well, one thing I truly believe is that perseverance is one of the best character traits of great software developers. The ability to persevere through that trouble, which you apparently have -- because a lot of us bang our head against hard objects, and eventually, our head hurts, and we're like "I'm just gonna stop banging it." But it seems like you really just power through until you get over that hump.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Meteoric rise... You also, I think, have a new record on JS Party - time to first shout-out. In our chat, Amry gave you a shout-out. "Thanks, Yulia, for your work. I use Firefox every day to make sure that Google's V8 monopoly does not go unchecked." So there you go.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** I mean, diversity of browsers is very important in keeping the web healthy and making sure that everybody has a voice in the ecosystem as much as possible.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** One hundred percent agree.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Thank you so much for using Firefox. It's always great to hear.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Tell us what your work looks like then... Because you're magically on TC39; we're gonna talk about some of the new things going on, the advancements of the SpiderMonkey team and all that you all have been up to... But I always get curious - I always ask open source developers "What does your day look like?", because it's kind of in their own hands; of course, a SpiderMonkey team member - I don't know what you do all day. What is it?
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Right. So I have an interesting role in SpiderMonkey, because I also handle our engagement with the committee. So part of my time - it can be an entire week - is dedicated to proposal reviews, so reading spec text. It's dedicated to opening issues on repositories about issues that have been found, either by myself or other engineers on the SpiderMonkey team; if they haven't had time to sort of formulate the issue into an understandable form, then I will go and do that. Or it's also talking to other SpiderMonkey engineers and asking "What do you think about this proposal? Have you taken a look at it? Any concerns?" If they've been working on it, I try to surface anything that they're unsure about to make sure that we communicate well with the community. So that's one part of my work.
+
+Another part of my work is implementation. At the moment, my focus is not entirely in SpiderMonkey. I'm working on Gecko. Gecko is our DOM engine; so that's the embedder, in the case of Firefox, of the SpiderMonkey engine. So it takes care of script loading, and that's specifically what I'm looking at - how do we load scripts and then execute scripts in the browser? At the moment, the specific task I'm working on is looking at how we're loading JS modules into workers. It's a feature we don't currently support, and support was added to it recently by JSC. V8 has had it for a little while.
+
+So my day starts basically with turning on my build machine and staring at a blank screen for a bit while I gather up the courage to open up a 2,000-line file, and then start poking away and taking a look at what I can do that's reasonable, asking questions about "Do I understand what's happening here?" A lot of it is reading code, and of course, coding. That makes up a big chunk of my day, switching over in the latter half of the week often to meetings. A lot of coordination meetings that I've mentioned earlier, assuming that they don't make up the whole week... And stuff like that. That's generally what it looks like.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Staring at code all day. That's like living the dream right there. Keep those meetings away. Keep them away.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Yeah, right?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You also find time to livestream on Twitch a few of the things you're doing. Do you wanna tell folks about your livestream and the kind of stuff that is on there?
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Yeah. So there's an interesting thing that's happening... The livestream is on pause right now. But what the livestream was is on a bi-weekly and then monthly cadence - I had to slow it down a bit because of the attention that it took - what I would do is I would give a guided tour through how a specific complex feature was implemented in Firefox. I started off with what I thought was a small bug, and I took people through everything. So you start at the spec text, reading spec text. How do you read spec text? It's a weird language that we use there, where we've got proper grammar -- I don't know if all of the viewers are familiar with what a language grammar is, but it's a way of writing out how a programming language's syntax is supposed to look... We call it a grammar. And then also how do you read the semantics. We walk through all of that, and then we go through and in Firefox we would implement it, test it, and then ship it.
+
+Right now, what this series is looking at is top-level await. It's a proposal I was involved in specifying; we just took it to stage 4. Top-level await allows you to use await on the top level of a module scope, so without any function wrapping it... And we're implementing that from scratch, as a guided tour, and reading all of the spec texts associated with it.
+
+What's interesting about that proposal is you can see how much the specification diverges from an actual implementation, and the kind of things that an implementation has to deal with, like performance, and how we solve those things. So that's what that is. And it's on pause right now; it's gonna come back probably in August or September. The reason it's on pause is I did do this meteoric rise in CS, but of course it didn't really stop there, and I'm in university now. I've just started my masters, so I've taken a bit of time off to acclimatize to doing both schooling and work. So that's why it's on pause. But it'll be back soon, and I'm really excited to show people how everything works, especially with my new knowledge of \[unintelligible 00:11:28.11\] computer science.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** That's super-cool. I highly recommend people go back and get their masters in the middle of their careers. I did the same thing, and it was super-fun. I think you can have a really good time.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Yeah, I totally agree. Doing a masters when you've already found what you enjoy doing - for me, compilers are just so cool. Languages are so cool. All of this stuff is amazing. So now I'm doing my masters specifically on that, and right now I'm in a software analysis class and I'm learning this stuff that I didn't know the words for, and I can directly apply it to what I'm working with; all of the things are connecting, and I feel like I have a much deeper understanding than I would have otherwise. It feels much more applied. It's really cool.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, when you learn certain things as an undergraduate, it's just so must schooling has already -- you're getting four years of schooling without any real chance to meaningfully use what you're learning... So at some point I feel you kind of get filled up with knowledge, and it's actually beneficial to go out and use the knowledge. Then what happens is you run into situations where you hit the limit of your understanding, and at least for me, I was like "Ah, I don't have time to learn this thing right now, this big topic. But one day I'll sit down and I'll learn how it works, and it'll make my life easier the next time I run into this situation." When that happens for the third or fourth time, then you go back to your masters and you're finally exposed to that topic, you're like "Oh my gosh, this is really important. I've ran into this before; now's my chance to finally learn it." You're super-eager about learning it, and you know that it's gonna be really important, and then you remember it. It's just so much more meaningful when you know that it's a thing that's actually important, because you've run into it so many times before.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Yeah. It's really cool, because everything connects right now. I'm going through so concepts that had I not known how a compiler works, and worked on one, \[unintelligible 00:13:11.18\] then coming to those mathematical concepts and being like "What is this?", I would have had so much more trouble and I would have just sort of figured it out for the tests and then forgotten about it... But now it's like "No, this is my life." \[laughs\] It's really cool.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I was just gonna add that there's also a burnout of schooling. I'm just thinking about my path... I could see this path that you guys are on being something that would be attractive to me now... Whereas when I just graduated, I had just finished like 16 straight years of schooling, or whatever it was, elementary up through university. I was just done. I'm like, "I'm not gonna go to school for my masters. I've just had enough schooling."
+
+I feel like a lot of people -- I mean, they continue that path, they're just not sure what to do next, and they'd like to learn more than I did... I didn't really enjoy it all that much... But now that I've had the gap, and I've had 15 years in industry, I could see where I have specific things that I enjoy, and I could dive into, like you've found, Yulia, with compilers... And I appreciate learning for learning's sake way more than I did back when I was in school... Because I had to learn, because that's what people told me to do for 16 years. I can see that being a refreshing change of pace, as opposed to just going one thing after the other, all the way through. I always looked at people that went from straight through grammar school up through their doctorate; 20 years of schooling... I just couldn't relate to that. But I can relate to this sentiment, so I think that's an interesting thing.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** I think in general schooling should be more of a lifelong thing, and we shouldn't compactify all of it to the front of your life, and then just stop at some point, and then you never step foot on a university campus again... I think it should be more of like -- I wish it was like you could take one class every semester, or one class every year. You just drop into something to kind of enhance your knowledge throughout your career. But it's just not easily structured that way. Even when you wanna go back to get your masters, you kind of have to put your job on hold, or take some time off to do it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yulia's over there like "I'm not putting my job on hold... Come on!" \[laughter\]
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** You know what I mean though... You know what I mean. It just takes a lot of time; you have to basically do it in a concentrated --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You have to put your livestream on hold.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** It is hard... So I'm doing a remote program that's famous for being the equivalent of its own campus program, and it is hard... It is really hard to do. I haven't crammed in ten years, and now I'm cramming again, and it's really intense. And I'm only doing one class. So this thing that you mentioned, dropping in for one semester - I'm thinking like "If I had to do this for my entire life, I think \[unintelligible 00:15:42.04\] very difficult." \[laughs\]
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Oh wow, okay...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** To each their own, I guess...
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** I'm doing exactly that right now... I've been thinking a lot about education, because of course, I'm interested -- as an educator, the reason that compilers exists is because I think that compilers and computer science should be accessible to everyone. I think that this shouldn't be a scary piece of software to write. It should be something that is like "Oh yeah, I understand how that works, and I understand the basic structure of it, and how it's built, and what it means... And I could do it", rather than "Oh, I'm someone who only knows how to write JavaScript applications, and this world is blocked off for me."
+
+Part of the reason why I kept digging was because I felt like that. I was like "Oh, I don't know how compilers works. I need to really work if I wanna know how the compiler works." And it's true, you do have to really work to learn how that thing works; but it's accessible, and I think how we do education determines whether or not people think that they can take on these complex topics.
+
+One thing that was really inspiring for me was watching Dan Abramov's series on React. He made a number of topics that could have been explained in a very complex manner, very approachable to someone who's rather new to programming. That was early on in my career as a computer programmer. I think that's very important.
+
+I have a lot of comments about university-style education exams... Oh, my God. Why do they exist?! \[laughter\] I kind of understand it, but at the same time, as someone who's studying for the sake of studying and not for the sake of accreditation, I feel like exams are sort of this arbitrary bar that's put in place - quizzes, exams, and all this kind of stuff - that I don't actually learn all that much from, and they mostly cause stress... I feel like I learn a lot more from digging into a book and doing the exercises and then talking to people, and making sure that my ideas about a problem are correct, rather than sitting down and having a test. I don't like tests.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, going back to school at this stage in your career really highlights all the things about school that are just weird, that you don't realize when you're in it the first time...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Exams are one of those, for sure. I think they're pretty helpful for people who would otherwise not do the work. You know, like when you have a deadline coming up and you finally do the thing that you've been procrastinating on - that's the purpose it mainly serves for people. And then I guess there's the whole evaluation aspect of it... But I question whether that's actually what the university is after with it. Anyway - yeah, it's just interesting; it's definitely an interesting perspective to go back. It's cool.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Yeah. We might get stuck talking about school this whole podcast, so... \[laughs\]
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, we can move on...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Let me ask one question that's somewhat on-topic, but off-topic, which is - you've found that you're fascinated and excited about compilers... And I've wondered if you've thought about that analytically, like "Why?" Because people get excited about different things... Like, somebody really loves baseball; if you ask them "Why do you love baseball?", maybe they've thought about it, maybe they haven't. But have you thought about that? What is it about compilers that really gets you going?
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** That's a great question. Actually, there's two things that I'm really fascinated about. Well, three things... Which I consider to be some of the most important parts of a process that I would call language design... Language design - you might think of it as the process of figuring out the formal specification of a language, and how it works, and what are the proofs behind it that a language is correct, and does the right thing, and that it's sound, for example with type systems and whatnot.
+
+But there are lots of different parts to language design... Soundness is one part of it. Then there is formal aspects, the observational aspects, like "How does the language perform? Is it fast for certain tasks? Is it good for concurrency?"
+
+Then there's another part to it, which is "How does the programming language impact the people who write programs with that programming language?" And how can a representation of a programming language impact how people solve problems? A really interesting example of that is the programming language R, which a statistician can pick up in about an hour and become productive in. Another excellent example of an interesting programming language that impacts how people model problems is Excel. JavaScript is another interesting programming language that models how beginners enter into the field of programming and then start immediately doing something that works.
+
+Then there's a final aspect to it, which is "How do we collectively design languages? How do we determine what the problems a language is trying to solve are, and come to an agreement about that?" So that's the committee work. So those are the pieces that I'm interested in.
+
+Actually, working on a compiler allows me to stretch that whole area of language design that I've just mentioned to you, so I get to go all the way from the nitty-gritty stuff about "How is it performing? How is it built? Is it right? Is it what we wanted to do? Are the semantics correct?" And then we can look at syntax and be like "Okay, for programmers, how are they reading this code? Are they coming to the right models in their minds about what it's supposed to do?" I find that really, really interesting. And then finally, we get into this "How do we make decisions as a group?"
+
+I find that when I say that I'm a compiler engineer, I actually see it as encompassing this whole realm, and not just the technical aspects of the work. And it's a really cool place to work.
+
+**Break:** \[20:50\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So one thing that you and the SpiderMonkey team works on is developing features not in a silo, but alongside other people who are developing the same features, and then debating how those features could look, and the approving which ones are good, which ones are not good, which ones need to be changed... Are we implementing? Are we not implementing? When? All of these things, like you said, a lot of it is the communication and the humanity side, which is a fund challenge, I believe.
+
+So you've had a lot of interaction with TC39 on your work with SpiderMonkey, and including recently top-level await is a thing that's been (I guess) approved, or ratified - I don't know; I don't know the language - and it's going into the browsers... So that's like a big feature that a lot of people have been waiting for and are excited about... Maybe tell us the top-level await story and we'll use that as kind of a view into how TC39 works.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Okay. I don't know if I remember all of the details of how top-level await evolved, but I can try to take you through our pet feature - we can call it foo - or we can take top-level await as that example, and just walk through the journey of someone's got an idea and then it turns into a full-blown feature.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** So let's say anybody, for example Feross, or Jerod - either one of you could come up with an idea, just any idea, and say "Hm, it would be really great if this was in JavaScript." What you would do then is you would go to our Discourse, the TC39 Discourse. It's discourse.tc39.es. If I'm wrong, go to the TC39 website, which is tc39/es, and then take a look at how to get involved \[unintelligible 00:23:42.17\] The Discourse is listed there. Also in the footer.
+
+We have an area in the Discourse for posting your great new idea, and getting feedback from delegates about whether or not that should be included in the language, or what they think about it, or where we're tried something like that before and it failed, or where they see inherent flows in it, or it might just be picked up. What we call this idea of yours - we have a name for it, it's called Stage 0, or the strawperson proposal. And it can be really anything.
+
+Now, to get it to stage 1 - we have a 4-stage process. Stage 0 is just any idea on the internet; usually, we know about it, sometimes we don't. Things are floating around. You can create an example repository of your idea using the TC39 proposal template on GitHub. You just create a repo based off of that template, and there you go. You've got your first stage 0 proposal, you've discussed it with people on Discourse, and ideally, someone on Discourse who is a TC39 delegate has come along and said "That's a great idea. I wanna take that to Committee", and you get to be a part of that whole process from that point on. In that case, you take the role of the author, and the TC39 delegate who's adopted your proposal will be your champion, the champion for your idea within the context of Committee.
+
+That idea is taken to Committee and presented for stage 1. So it goes onto the agenda. Right now we meet eight times a year, and we discuss it in something called Plenary for about half an hour to an hour. People will say "Oh, this is a terrible idea. We should never do it." Usually, nobody says that for a stage 1 proposal. We try to bring ideas in. It's our siphon for like "What's the internet thinking about?" and in general, we consider proposals entering stage one as problem statements.
+
+If we take, for example, top-level await, and you read the top-level await proposal repo, we have this section there called The Motivation. The Motivation is stating the problem that the top-level await is trying to solve. Stage one is really like "What is this thing? What's wrong?" and "Later how do we solve it?"
+
+The solution and the problem are bundled together. This is still something we're figuring out, how do we separate those two, so that we can really discuss the problems in isolation and understand them fully before we go forward with the solution. Right now they're tightly couples.
+
+So if we read the motivation section of top-level await, the motivation there is that the syntax overhead for doing something that will allow you to pause at the top level of a module is really, really painful. Syntactically it's buggy, and people have tried all different ways to get around this, but it's just not great. So that's the motivation for top-level await.
+
+I think between stage 1 and stage 2 -- so stage 1 is we've accepted the problem, go ahead and investigate it, and come up with the best solution that you can given the information that you have... So figure out what the spec should kind of look like, figure out what kind of initial problem areas exist, figure out what the solution should look like. That's how we ended up with top-level await having just the await keyword before whatever you're awaiting.
+
+There were other solutions for top-level await. One of them was to say that the module -- you mark the module that you're importing as async. That's another way to do it. Right now it's implicit that something is synchronous, but we had an idea of it being implicit. And there are still ideas around this floating around in the committee that we've been discussing recently.
+
+So now you wanna take your proposal, whatever it is, to stage 2. By stage 2 you should have a complete idea what the API should look like for that proposal. You should have a good argument about how it solves the problem that you want to solve, and you should already have a spec text ready.
+
+Stage 2 is about ironing out the problems, ensuring that we haven't missed anything. This is sort of like the draft process. We're drafting the final spec text, we're figuring out everything that we can before we start implementing the proposal fully in browser. That may also come with a polyfill. Maybe one browser or another browser, when they think that the idea is really good, they might implement it early at stage 2, or not. So that's what the draft stage is for. Then we move into stage 3, which is where I usually get deeply involved. For example, the transition from stage 2 to stage 3 is very hard; we want to make sure that we don't miss anything that could potentially be a problem going into stage 3, that we can foresee before we have to implement the work. Because when we're talking about implementing a proposal - for example, top-level await took six months to implement. Most browsers were around the area of six months of engineering time to implement it into a given browser... And these things can even be more work. They can be a year of work, multiple engineers working on it.
+
+So we have to be really careful before we invest that kind of work that we're not giving a specification that's inherently buggy... Although sometimes you miss things, and we have to roll back. So the stages don't just move in a forward direction, they sometimes loop back. One example is we've just had regular expression group indices move forward to stage 4... That was stuck at stage 3 for a long time; it didn't actually get rolled back. It's details... We've had stuff rolled back when we've had inherent problems between proposals that we didn't foresee... So we had these two proposals in stage three, and one of them had to be rolled back, because it turned out that that was the one that needed to be fixed in order for it to move back up the stages to stage 3. So something like that can happen... Or we may end up re-questioning whether or not the grounds for the proposal were appropriate, and then moving it back up.
+
+Another important detail is that if there's disagreements about this, the committee doesn't really reject proposals. Let's say something's going through the stages and you're like "Oh, God. Oh, God. This should never go into JavaScript" and you're really worried about it, one thing to pay attention to is if the proposal has been blocked and hasn't been progressing. We don't generally formally reject ideas. We keep a record of everything that we've tried, so that the next time maybe someone comes along in ten years and is like "Hey, that thing that you thought was a bad idea - actually, we have a really important use case for that now", and then we can pick up work from that proposal and use it as a historical base for future work.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's cool.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Yeah. It's a very long and complicated process; I'll try to keep it shorter. And then finally, stage 4 is spec. We're in spec. That's where top-level await just made that jump. We went from stage 3 to stage 4 in the last meeting.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So what do you do in the case of competing ideas around implementation or API? You mentioned the implicit await versus the explicit. Were those two different proposals, or was there one proposal and then people debating how to go about that proposal? And then how does a decision come out? Is there a vote? How does that work?
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** So we do both things, actually. We debate within the context of a single proposal, and sometimes we also have forks of the proposal which show competing ideas about how this thing could be implemented. Now, the most famous fork -- we call it the Backpocket Solution... The most famous fork of a proposal was ES5. Perhaps you recall ES4, this specification that we've worked on for ten years, and you got from ES3 directly to ES5... Why did that happen? Because ES4 was developed over ten years, and then implementers took a look at that and said "This isn't implementable. We can't do it. It's too much." It had doubled the size of the specification. We couldn't implement it. So what happened is a group of delegates sort of sprung off and sort of like started taking pieces of this massive specification, and we're like "Okay, these pieces make sense as an incremental improvement that is scoped and can be implemented." I think it was ES3.something. It was this bridge ES3.5, something like this. It was this bridge specification before we made the jump to 5, and we completely skipped ES4.
+
+So that's the most famous of the Backpocket proposal. We had also Backpocket proposals come up for private fields, which was rather contentious... But what's interesting is those Backpocket proposals were always like "Oh, there's this specific problem with our current solution to the private fields problem. We propose that we do it this way instead." But every time that we got into debate, we would compare the two and discuss whether or not this second idea was a valid, better solution than the initial idea, and we always came back that that initial idea was the better one. SO we went through this process of deciding which one really fully covers the problem space, and that's how we ended up going with private fields the way that it was designed.
+
+We also have people in committee who are protecting things that are intrinsic features of the language that could potentially disappear if we didn't protect them. One famous example is polyfillable implementations. Can we polyfill this thing? For example, had we specified modules a little bit differently, then you wouldn't be able to inject code so that it would run before the module ran, polyfilling like -- let's say a browser had the wrong implementation of Promise; you wouldn't be able to fix that implementation of Promise, because if we designed the module system in a specific way, then the modules would run before you polyfilled it. So that's one example of a critical idea to the JavaScript language that that needs to be possible, that we try to maintain.
+
+These kind of features of the language - they're a little bit strange, they're not all written down, so some of our decisions might look a little bit like "Why did you decide to do that in that way?" Oftentimes it's because we're protecting certain features of the language so that they're still possible, so certain applications remain possible as we evolve the language.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's interesting. So you should have some sort of a -- I would think there'd be a list, like "The 10 commandments of JavaScript features. Thou shalt be pollyfillable." It sounds like a pretty good guiding principle of like "Hey, if your proposal is not polyfillable, it's not gonna get accepted." Does that not exist anywhere? Is that just in the psyches of the committee, or...?
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** At the moment it's sort of held near and dear to different delegates; different delegates maintain certain values about the language that they protect... There's a real risk, and this is why the question of "How do we design as a group?" is so important. This is why this is the fourth tier of language design in my mind, is because we need to be able to make these decisions effectively, considering all of the values that are represented by this cross-section of people.
+
+And it's also a little bit arbitrary, because we have specific people on the committee. We don't have the entire planet on the committee. We wouldn't be able to handle that amount of information. But the people who are in the committee do care a lot, and they're largely volunteers, and they have been with the language for a long time.
+
+To mediate for this -- you know, it's the bus problem. If one of us gets hit by a bus, then we won't necessarily pay attention to everything about the language... To mediate that, we've started a new project, which is writing down the intrinsics and making them a part of the normative text of the specification. What does normative mean? Normative means that it impacts the implementations, and it's a much stronger guarantee than another part of the specification which we call prose, which is explanatory text around the specification that does not impact the implementations. So that's one mediation that we have upcoming that should eventually come into fruition, and we will have a list of things that we think about when we design a language.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So how big is the committee?
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** I don't know exactly how many members... So members are companies -- I don't know exactly how many members there are, because the members belong to ECMA, which is the standards body that we're a part of (ECMA International) and at committee we usually have between 40 and 80 people present.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And in the case of a contentious proposal - does it just end up going to a vote, or how do you resolve conflict?
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** We have to all agree.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Unanimous.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** This is an unusual thing... It's a unanimous agreement not to block. So not everyone is necessarily happy with the proposal, but they all accept it in the current form that it goes forward in. So 80 people have to say that they won't say no.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That sets stuff up for a filibuster, doesn't it? You've got one stuck member that's just like -- that's a lot of power in the hands of one member. "No. I'm gonna block."
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Yeah. It's a lot of power in one member.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So then that person, that entity just has to be convinced? Is that how it works?
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Yes.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Why does it work that way?
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Excellent question. It works this way because the community used to be smaller. It was like 12 people. This is when ES5 and ES6 were being developed; at the time, it was a system that made sense. But as you probably know from other political systems, once you have such a system, it's very difficult to move away from it. That said, it has saved our skin a couple of times. One example is observables. This was a popular feature proposal; a lot of JavaScript developers liked it a lot, and there was one person who said no. And they said no after -- the other thing is committee work isn't free. We spend a lot of our lives thinking about these programming language features, and how are we going to implement them, and how should they be spec'ed... So it's a lot of work that you're saying no to. There's a lot of social pressure to not say no. One person said no, and they completely stopped further discussion on that proposal.
+
+One thing that we're encouraging now - if you read the proposal document today, we have an important document around how we make decisions. It's called the Proposal Document. It tells you how to block in an effective and productive way... Because just saying no isn't very good, because it doesn't lead us anywhere. I think one important aspect of that document is that it says "When you say no, you have to give a reason, so that we can learn from why a proposal failed."
+
+Going back to the story about observables, one person said no, everybody was mad for a while, and then three years later people were like "Oh, thank God we didn't do observables. That guy was totally right. We should not have done it, for exactly the reason that he said."
+
+So it's an interesting process. I think one of the big reasons why it's working for us is that we have a lot of people participating in good faith. People want JavaScript to succeed. They want it to be a good language. They aren't blocking just to be difficult.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I would imagine there could be situations where you have members that are not acting in good faith... Or maybe not just not in good faith, but in their own interest. So if you have members who represent Apple and you have members that represent Google, those two entities could be at odds. Maybe they have corporate reasons for certain features working in certain ways, or doing this and not doing that... Ultimately, they have to implement it into their browsers anyways, so they can also I guess hold out on that aspect... But to me, it's just fascinating, and I appreciate all the work that y'all do, because us regular JavaScript developers -- I never think about this stuff. I never thought how much (for lack of a better word) political machinations go into deciding like how I wrap my regex, or how I import a module. There's a lot of thought and debate, and politicking in the sense of like dialogue that goes into these things. Feross, do you ever think about this? I guess every once in a while when we have someone on the show I think about it, but not very often.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** I think about it sometimes, but most of the time I don't have as much time as I'd like to to devote to looking into this stuff, so I just kind of learn about things when someone writes a nice blog post about them that explains how they work.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Exactly.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Sometimes I get involved earlier, when there's something that the language just feels like it's missing, and I'm looking for some solution... But this usually happens more with web features, so kind of outside of the realm of ECMA. It'd be more like I'll find some browser proposal that I'll get involved earlier with that kind of stuff... Less though in the JS language itself.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** In the language.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Yeah, I think it's also very interesting how different the HTML standard is compared to ECMA in terms of its governance... And you'll also find different standards bodies have a very different governance structure, and you end up having different conversations as a result. That's very interesting to me. And thinking about how do we best come to those decisions - it's just a very interesting area.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[unintelligible 00:39:38.10\] of "Here are N organizations that do standards in technology space, and based on these criteria, actually this way of going about it is better than that way, for these reasons." When it comes time for you to pick your governance model for your foundation - or whatever it is; for you specification - you can say "Actually, the way these people are doing it, for these scientific criteria (that I can't make up off the top of my head), this is a good way of going about it." Maybe the 100% unanimous thing makes total sense in practice, or its pros are more than its cons, and so that'd be a good one to adopt. Or maybe it's actually slowing you all down, and HTML folks do it better, and that would be a smarter of doing it. I think maybe those things exist, and this is just a world hat I don't live in, but... That would be cool.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** You know, it's really interesting that you bring that up, because there is a study of how people make decisions... It's called Argumentation Theory. It's basically the study of how rhetoric really works in large-scale discussions. When I started looking at this, I was like, "Oh, cool, rationale design." Lots of languages have rationales of how are they designed... But then also discovering programs that can determine the rationale for how a certain decision was reached - those also exist. Then there's people studying this and writing philosophical texts about how decision are made, what kinds of arguments have weight, which ones influence a discussion but maybe aren't correct - that's another really, really interesting study, and in fact, part of what I wanna do as my masters work.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, cool.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** We have a professor who specializes in that, and I've been in touch with him a little bit. I'm hoping to convince him to take me on.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You'll have to use your argumentation theory in order to convince him. What were you gonna say, Feross?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** One thing I'm curious about that just came to mind is how would you say that your perspective differs from some of the other members? I don't know if you represent just sort of -- I'm guessing you also represent SpiderMonkey, or Mozilla's position \[unintelligible 00:41:32.24\] opinion of the organization to the group... How would you say that your or Mozilla's perspective differs, and what sorts of proposals do you find yourself frequently at odds with, or more in favor of?
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** It's a fantastic question. That actually brings us back to something that Jerod said earlier, about let's say you've got Google and Apple arguing over something. One thing that happens pretty often is you have the browser space sort of saying like "This is an important feature for us", and then other embedders of JavaScript being like "Well, actually we have other concerns."
+
+We had a really interesting discussion recently... So there's two discussions I'll bring up. The first one is around realms. I don't know if you've heard of the proposal... Probably everyone's worked with iFrames, and you know that you can pass information from the parent document into the iFrame... You can actually pass objects directly in between those two documents. What realms are is realms give you the ability to create a global, a separate JavaScript global without creating a document to embed it in. What you can do with JavaScript in an iFrame without having the iFrame wrapping it.
+
+And one thing that was important from the browser's perspective is that you couldn't arbitrarily pass objects between these two things. This was something that was viewed as a mistake in the world of iFrames.
+
+Now, for other environments such as Node, this was like "Well, no, this is something that we do wanna do. This is a really nice way to program. We wanna be able to pass objects unwrapped." So that was one place where we said "No, we can't do it like that."
+
+Additionally, we also said that the JavaScript space, what we specify in ECMA, shouldn't be kept separate from the HTML APIs that are provided into JavaScript, for example Fetch. Or maybe something like B2A or A2B APIs that -- I forget; one of them is in JavaScript, one of them is in HTML, and as a JavaScript developer, you shouldn't need to know which standards body specified something in order to be able to use it. So one requirement we had for realms as well was that we consider a few HTML APIs that should also be wrapped in the realm's proposal.
+
+So that's one example where we took a strong position, and that shows also the browser interest. This is a common thing that we take - we say that JavaScript should still be coherent with the web... And that influences things for places that are not involving themselves in the web, like embedded JavaScript running on tiny microchips. They don't care about that stuff, but we do, so...
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** That makes sense, yeah. As a web browser implementer you're gonna have opinions on that. Realms is a really cool proposal, I'm really looking forward to that. I kind of wanna build some stuff with it, and it's really cool. By the way, when do you think that's gonna be something that we can play with?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Can we get an ETA on our favorite features? \[laughs\]
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, exactly.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Well, I think you may be able to play with it already. You can work with \[unintelligible 00:44:19.26\] polyfill, that allows you to do some of this stuff that realms promises to be able to do... Or if you want, you can grab the Firefox browser and try playing around with the compartments that we have, which is essentially the realms proposal... Because we do have something that allows us to generate JavaScript globals without having a document, but it's all internal browser APIs. We're really happy to expose that...
+
+Actually, the direction that the realms proposal has taken now (isolated realms) is something we're very happy with, because it not only maintains the restrictions that we've represented as browsers, it also follows some of the design principles that HTML has, which is that APIs like this should be async.
+
+So we're really happy with that new proposal and we're really hoping that it moves forward, because we think it's a good solution. Not everyone agrees with us... So it's hard to say; we thought it might move forward in the last meeting, but it didn't, so there's more to discuss and more to figure out there.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So what practical things - either of you could answer this - would realms unlock, that I couldn't do today? Why are you excited, Feross?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Well, I'm excited by the idea that we could have better permissioning for different packages/modules within an app. Right now, whenever you install something from npm, you include it in your Node.js app and it can do anything that your code can do. There's no way to say like "This module is a pure function. It's just computing something based on its inputs. Give me an output. It shouldn't really need the ability to talk to the network or to read files off my file system. I wanna be able to just run this module in like a purely isolated environment where I can restrict it from doing anything I don't want it to do... And I think realms enable that.
+
+Obviously, you need to build some tooling on top of it to make it actually easy for people to use it, because I think the API, when I last looked at it, was pretty low-level...
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Yeah, yeah.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** But that's a really cool idea, and I could see that paving the way for a world where you have almost like smartphone-style permissions... You know, when you install an app for the first time on your phone, it says "Hey, I would like to use the camera" or "Hey, I would like to use the microphone." When I install a package from npm, it would be cool if I had to opt into the permissions that it wants, and if it tried to change those permissions -- you know, if someone published a patched version and suddenly it's reading files off my disk where it wasn't before, I feel like that's a thing where you'd want it to really be a red flag. Either it should fail, or it should effectively prompt the developer for permission in some way. When I say "prompt", I don't mean literally a pop-up running in your Node app, but something where you have like a configuration file that sort of grants permissions to different packages.
+
+There's actually some cool work in this area right now with a project called LavaMoat. They're probably using the shim that you mentioned, Yulia, because you can use it today in Node... But I guess it would be better if it was using the real realms; I'm not sure, I haven't looked too in-depth into it. But it's called LavaMoat, if people are interested in looking at it.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Yeah. Another thing that people can look up is compartments. Realms is the underlying proposal that will allow compartments to exist, which is a thing that will say "This realm can have access to these pieces." And "Here you go, this realm. Go and do stuff."
+
+Realms is a fantastic way to do encapsulation of certain types of logic, in particular to keep the integrity of a program running as you expect. One thing that realms will not give you - and this is another place where browsers have a very strong opinion - is security. A realm will not be a full sandbox that will protect your code, because of Spectre. So anything that can take advantage of Spectre is immediately insecure, and realms doesn't run in a separate process. So the only way you would be able to get full security is if you have it running in a separate process, just because of this massive vulnerability that came up.
+
+But realms are still very useful for this integrity question and encapsulation. For example, if you wanna run a set of tests, you could run your test suite inside of a realm, and you can run the program that you're testing separately. So that's a really interesting application of realms.
+
+Of course, there is the compartments proposal, which will allow you to say "Okay, this should only have access to fetch, time, and some other things." And then otherwise it can't automatically access things accidentally. It just won't have access to the time API, for example. It can still escape the books, but it's a little bit more contained, a little bit more controlled.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Right. It sounds like you shouldn't run outright malicious code inside of a realm and rely on it...
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Yes.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** But I still think if I were to install a malicious npm package by accident, because it got compromised, I would be much happier having it run in a realm, than having it run randomly on my computer, being able to access all of the core Node APIs and reading files, and child-process.exec-ing things...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Totally.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Is that fair, or am I thinking about it wrong?
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Well, the thing is I don't want you to have the wrong model to think that it'll actually protect you... Because the best way to make sure that that is properly sandboxed is by running it in a separate process that doesn't have access to everything. So that's the best guarantee that it won't escape the sandbox. But if, say, you're downloading an npm library and you're not really sure if you trust them how they've used all the APIs correctly - not that they're actively malicious, but maybe they've made some small mistake - not everything blows up, for example.
+
+For example, they won't polyfill your array object to do the wrong thing suddenly, which would suck. You have your own copy of the array object outside of that realm running in the parent realm, and you can use that instead. But if you have a malicious code running in a realm and it's written in a time when realms exist, and it knows how to escape realms, it will be able to escape realms.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** And escaping a realm in this case means running code outside of the realm, not just like leaking some information...
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Yeah.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Oh, okay...
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** It's just that realms are not a strong security boundary. I'm not very confident in what I'm saying, because I haven't looked at realms for a while, but the thing that's sort of being like "Hm--" One thing you should keep in mind is it's not a strong security boundary.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Okay.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** It's more of an integrity boundary... Which is another way to think about security. The definition of security has multiple facets to it, and integrity is an important one... And that's what it gives you.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Cool. I could ask you more and more questions all day about realms, but I will refrain myself... \[laughter\] It's a cool proposal.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** It is a very cool proposal. I'm not an expert on it, actually. The best people to talk about it are the champions, so...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, I've found the compartment proposal. We'll get the realms proposal and LavaMoat in the show notes for those who wanna do their own research.
+
+**Break:** \[50:46\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Many of us are just building apps for the browser, using the browser, to live our lives... We don't really understand exactly how it works. We know that SpiderMonkey is part of Firefox. You've mentioned Gecko... We understand that V8 is inside of Chromium-based things, and SpiderMonkey - you can embed it in a bunch of stuff... But let's take Firefox, for example. When I load a web page - let's say I load hag.codes, and Firefox does its thing... can you explain, at least to some level of granularity, how it all fits together? Where is Firefox interacting with your work, for example?
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** So I won't be able to answer this fully, but I can answer it to the best of my ability, and get to the point where I start to understand things well, which is the script loader... So my understanding, my mental model of what the browser is doing is you type your URL into the URL bar and you press Enter. And when you press Enter, that string is taken and put into our network handling component (I think it's \[unintelligible 00:53:16.28\]), which is the thing that goes and retrieves information from the web; it goes and makes the requests using TCP, and then it's like "Go and get me this information", and then it starts getting a stream of information in, and packing it together... And then once it's packed together, something that looks like an HTML page -- and I think we don't even wait for the entire HTML page to load. We start parsing it earlier, and incrementally building it... Because HTML is very permissive. So this is how I imagine we're doing it.
+
+And you're loading your HTML, and as you're loading the HTML and parsing it, you're building up a representation called the DOM (document object model). In the DOM, you eventually hit something that's a script tag. Once you hit a script tag, depending on how it's being loaded - it might be loaded as async or deferred - and also the type of script that you're loading, the script loader will be called and do slightly different things.
+
+The script loader will get the request and be told "Here's the script that you need to go and fetch." It will go and open a channel to fetch the things from the network, so this is gonna be your next network request, and the stream will come in and we will pack those bytes until we have a file that we can represent. Once we have the file that we can represent, we then take that and -- I don't know the exact switch that happens here, but we usually try to parse things off the main thread. We delegate it to some other thread, and then it takes care of the parsing, and then it takes care of getting it all ready for it to be run.
+
+Once it's ready to be run, we execute the script, and depending on how you've written your HTML page, the document \[unintelligible 00:54:49.25\] will fire before or after the script has been finished executing. So depending on it you've got a regular JavaScript script, this is what will happen. So this is the regular flow, as I understand it.
+
+Then if you've got a module flow, it's a little bit different. So what happens when you've got a module that you're loading, what'll happen is it'll encounter the script tag, and the script tag will say that it's a module... Or it'll encounter a normal script and find it inside of their dynamic import. And once that happens, that triggers a slightly different process, where you'll go and you'll fetch the script, and get it and then parse it, and be like "Okay, now I've got a module", and that module will have a different representation, which is a list of other scripts that I wanna load. And immediately, your browser will go and fetch those other scripts, all of them. So the entire module tree will be fetched and parsed ahead of time.
+
+Then, once everything is ready, we start evaluating everything. Now, in classic scripts you'll evaluate from the top down. In modules you will evaluate from the innermost module back to the root module. And this is maintained even in top-level await, where all the modules are transformed from synchronous code into asynchronous code. So each module is represented as a promise, which we evaluate one after the other. In one case you're interacting with a promise machinery, and in the other case you're interacting with regular machinery.
+
+Then you load the innermost module, and then go out, like a Matryoska doll. Then you've got your complete application running, probably in a loop, doing stuff, listening for events, stuff like that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright. That was a very good explanation. I definitely appreciate it. At which point in that does the SpiderMonkey engine engage? Is it merely on "Here's a block of execute this code" or is it also in the module loading and Russian dolling effect?
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Right. So there's a really interesting thing about how this spec actually dictates how the engine also interacts with the host that it's in. These are called host hooks. So exactly what you said, that second point - the engine is engaged, SpiderMonkey gets called at the point where we're ready to parse. SpiderMonkey takes care of all of the parsing, and it takes care of all of the execution side of things.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** But for example with modules -- like, with scripts you can more closely couple those. You can parse it, and do whatever work, and then you can evaluate it, but you can also do them one after the other immediately. With modules, you can't necessarily do that. You need to first fetch everything, and do that as part of the fetch step, and in order to fetch everything, you need to parse. So you need to both fetch and parse all the scripts. Then you can separate evaluation from that.
+
+I have a proposal around this, because one of the issues around modules is that the number of network requests you need to do to load an entire module tree can impact your app's startup performance pretty significantly. That parsing and fetching chunk can take up about half the execution time of the module, so one of the thoughts was "Can we completely decouple these two parts of module loading?"
+
+So that first part is handled by SpiderMonkey. SpiderMonkey is called by the script loader to go and do this work, the parsing, the fetching and the linking of all the modules together, and then SpiderMonkey is later called to do the evaluation work. So all of these things sort of like link together, and what SpiderMonkey does is after it's parsed the modules, it actually calls back into the host, the script loader, and tells the script loader to then go and do the fetch. So these two things are sort of like hooking into each other this way.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. Now I know why my website's so slow. There's so much to do...! The amount of complexity and depth to this is somewhat overwhelming, in the sense of when we really think about it... And we take it for granted, because -- I mean, I joke about my websites being slow, but it really happens all so fast. It's crazy.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Yeah. In some cases, we might be able to improve module load performance without doing different module evaluation. There is a gulf between the CommonJS module era and where we are today, in that a number of CommonJS modules cannot be directly translated into ESMs. And that's one of the problems that I want to solve at some point... Because we have a similar problem. We have an early-adopted module system that doesn't actually work for the web. You might ask "Why doesn't it work for the web?" So I mentioned that loading modules while running scripts is something we can't do; the reason we can't do this is if we run asynchronous code during synchronous code, we have to block the main thread. That's something we never wanna do on the web, because then things lock up, and that's a bad user experience. That's why we want all of our APIs to be async. It should all be delegated to go and be done at a later point in time... So we can't do what the original CommonJS implementation did, which is block until the request finishes and come back, and then continue executing... So that's a unique problem where if you wanna transition from CommonJS into ESMs, you end up rewriting a lot of your code as async... And that can be hard to look at, and hard to reason about.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Tell us more about this proposal you have, and maybe its process. This might tie together both subjects now, because we have your own personal proposal; this ties into SpiderMonkey's work and Firefox's needs... And it's kind of a stage 1, or maybe it's on ice... What's the status, and maybe tell us the story about this deferred module loading thing. Or execution.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** So deferred module evaluation will give developers the ability to say that they don't want the module to execute until it's needed, for example on first use. Let's say you've got a module graph that you wanna load, and it all gets fetched and it's ready for you... But you can select certain modules and say "I don't want them to run yet. I want them only to run if I actually use them", for example if someone clicks a button on your React page; someone clicks that button and you wanna load that in another component, and you don't want to run all of that code ahead of time, you wanna run it later. You know, there are other optimizations for this. This is sort of a simple example of this.
+
+One way to do that is I think React now has a way to hide the asynchronous nature of this fetch, so that it looks like it's synchronous code, but it isn't actually synchronous code. I think they use error catching in order to do that. It's a really interesting approach that they took, algebraic effects, but it also shows that this is a problem, and developers are having a hard time reasoning about this asynchronous code which is a complexity of the web platform that isn't their fault and isn't actually logic in their program; it's logic about the web. The question is "How do we remove that complexity so that it's easier to program for the web without having to do asynchronous code when you don't intend to do asynchronous work?"
+
+Deferred module evaluation is one stab at it, but there is another way to do this, which is by exposing the module loader itself and allowing programmers to write their own module loaders with their own logic around module loading. So you could for example reimplement a CommonJS loader that has the same concepts as CommonJS, but it takes into account the asynchronous nature of the web, and allow people to program as they would, and then handle that stuff within the loader. So that's one way we could do that, by exposing the loader. And then deferred module evaluation does that automatically for you; it's an opinionated approach to it, and not everybody would be necessarily happy with that, and not everybody already is happy with that, so we might take a slightly different approach.
+
+It is a little bit on ice right now, because I am working on revamping the module loading in Firefox, so we can do it for workers as well... So until I figure that out -- because it also impacts our internal project, which is reworking our internal module loader so that it can do the same stuff... It might in turn influence that proposal, and then we could bring this research into the open web and allow people to use it as well.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, I can't give any opinions on your solution, but I can tell you that your problem is on point; your problem statement is 100% valid with this guy, and I would definitely appreciate ways of (I guess) papering over - maybe that's a pejorative; I don't mean that in a negative light, but like solving that problem of this impedance mismatch between async and sync, and the mindset of developer causes lots of slowdowns in development cycles, and bugs, and there's lots of education that has to happen because of it... Where if we could solve that problem in an elegant way, that would be a huge boon to all of us.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Yeah. I think this is where we come to the third phase of development. Sorry, not development... Language design. We've talked quite a bit about decision-making as a group, as an aspect of language design, and now we're talking a little bit about the mental model, how a language's design will impact how people model problems. One of the parts of that is how much do you expose of the complexities of the domain in which you're working to the programmer, so that they can work with it directly, and how much of it do you hide, so that they can work more efficiently with the domain that they're interested in representing through code.
+
+I think that's a really important problem, and in some cases we wanna give lower-level tools, in other cases we wanna give higher-level tools... And in some ways, this aspect of the web, the asynchronicity of the web by requirement - if we can do that by design, it would be really interesting, I think, for developers, and make it easier for them to work with their chosen domain, the one that they're trying to implement.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Fascinating stuff, Yulia. Hey, you are welcome back on JS Party any time. I've learned a lot today; you're very bright, you're very good at explaining things to people with lower capacities like myself...
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Thank you.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Honestly, please come back. Maybe we'll have you back to talk a full episode on realms, maybe bring somebody from the committee who's a champion, a realms champ...?
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Yeah, we should get a realms champ on here.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, we should. We'll bring our realms champ, it's Feross. He'll be on our side. You'll bring your champion, we'll bring ours...
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** \[unintelligible 01:04:40.02\] \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...and we can have a proper realms conversation, with a little less hand-waving than the three of us had to do... That would be really fun. But best of luck to you on your masters and all you're doing. I hope you get your livestream back up, and I appreciate all the work that you and everybody at Mozilla does on SpiderMonkey, and on Firefox... This is important work, and you're pushing the web forward, and you're doing it in this group, thinking in a "best idea wins" way, which ultimately means we all win. So we appreciate your efforts on that front as well.
+
+Feross, thanks for being here, thanks for hanging with us. That's our show for this week.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Thanks a lot, Yulia.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Thank you both for having me here. I had a lot of fun. I hope we can do it sometime again. That was great.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We absolutely can. Alright, that's our show, and we'll talk to everybody next week.
+
+**Outro:** \[01:05:28.02\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And Yulia... Your last name - Startsev?
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Startsev. Correct.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Startsev. Okay. Feross, your last name? Nah, I'm not gonna say it. \[laughter\] You know I know how.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Aboukhadijeh.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You know I know, because it rhymes with DJ. It sounds like DJ. Like you're booking a DJ.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, you like saying my last name. I think you find opportunities --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I kind of enjoy saying it, I'm not gonna lie.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Nice...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** But you're kind of going the Prince/Madonna route online... You're Feross.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** No last name required. Everybody knows Feross...
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah... \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** He's that mad scientist over there, that you can't figure out his last name until you book a DJ.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** It's cleaner. It's just simple. Nice and simple.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It is. Plus it's pretty unique, so there are not namespace clashes... I've got the problem of Jared the Subway guy, who turns out is like a longtime pedophile, and stuff... Terrible, terrible namespace clash. I'm not associated with that man, neither do I enjoy Subway sandwiches, so I'm doubly not with him... \[laughter\] But are there any other Feross'es out there?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** I mean, somebody else bought Feross.com, and I regret it... Because I think I was like 11 or 10 years old when I wanted to buy my first domain name, and I didn't have the $7 to buy Feross.com back then... So I only bought the other domain I wanted, for the site I was building at the time. Then a couple years later this random other guy who spells his name the same as me bought it, and I've been on .org ever since \[01:07:53.12\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, gosh... Like a chump.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, I know... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So I've wanted santo.com, which was held by some -- there's some company that just bought every last name .com just to hold them and be a jerk and sell them to you, because capitalism... But then I've found the Tonga domain, .to. So I really wanted san.to, because that's a great hack... But somebody owned that one as well. It's a three-letter domain and Tonga, san. So I've been hounding that for years. I'm playing a long game. I'm gonna get it eventually. Every six months I just go check it and see if they let it lapse... Literally, since 2008 I've been doing that. Maybe if you just stick around long enough, that guy will let it -- is he using Feross.com, or not?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** I mean, he's trying to have like a rap career, or something...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, he's never gonna give it up then... Can give that up! That's the dream. \[laughter\] You can't give up your rap dream. Sorry, you're not gonna get it. Feross.org is cool though. It's because you're a non-profit, you know?
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** \[unintelligible 01:09:00.17\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, exactly. \[laughs\]
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** ...rather than a commercial entity.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's right. You're a non-profit. It's even cooler.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah... It gets the job done.
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** I think the one web domain that I've wanted to get and couldn't is the one when they put up the xxx domain for pornography sites... I wanted to get yyy.xxx, but someone was squatting on it already, and I was like "Dang it!" This was back in my art school days; it was a perfect \[01:09:29.11\] website.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, totally... You've gotta move fast on the xxx domains, it turns out...
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** You've gotta move fast on this... \[laughter\] But when I lost my GitHub access, I ended up with hag.codes, and that works out pretty well... When they came up with the .codes domain.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I saw that one. That was cool. Because your code \[01:09:48.24\]
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** Exactly.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. I like that domain. I'm nowhere near as creative, so I just went for jerodsanto.net. I have the .com, but I redirected it to .net, because -- I don't know why... Back when I first signed up, I thought .net was cooler, and I've always just left it, because I don't really use it anyways...
+
+Anyways, we should do a podcast, shall we?
+
+**Yulia Startsev:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Here comes the intro music, and then I'll introduce the show.
diff --git a/Puddin' together cool data-driven essays_transcript.txt b/Puddin' together cool data-driven essays_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..87e766de0329341615375c95e019e022c22265f1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Puddin' together cool data-driven essays_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,255 @@
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Hello, hello, friends. This is Amelia Wattenberger. I'm here joined by Nick Nisi...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Hoy-hoy.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** ...and today we wanted to talk to some fine folks from The Pudding. The Pudding is a company that creates these wonderful, data-driven, interactive articles on the web. If you haven't checked it out, go to pudding.cool. There's some really interesting deep dives there. Here today we have with us Russell Goldenberg.
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** Hi, everybody. Thanks for having me.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** And Caitlyn Ralph.
+
+**Caitlyn Ralph:** Hi, Amelia. Hi, Nick.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Hello.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I'd love for one of you, maybe Caitlyn, to give a deeper dive into The Pudding the company, a little bit of context around all it is that The Pudding does.
+
+**Caitlyn Ralph:** Yeah, definitely. So The Pudding is like our umbrella company, but we're actually splitting to do different companies, that have two different complete brandings and logos... So when you're going to each of their websites, you think there's two separate entities, but we're actually connected in the background. We're all the same team.
+
+So The Pudding, as you've been talking about, Amelia, is our editorial publication. If you go to The Pudding, which I suggest you do, like Amelia said, there's no subscriptions, there's no subscriptions, there's no ads, we don't track page clicks. Everything is free, open to read... But to keep the lights on at The Pudding, we also have another company called Polygraph, which is our brand studio. This is where we do the same exact work at The Pudding, which is the visual and data-driven storytelling, which I'm sure we'll get into a little bit... It's a purposefully vague definition of what we do, because if you dive into our archives, it's definitely been changing more and more over the years... But we specialize in data and visual storytelling, we consider ourselves data journalists, and at Polygraph, at our studio, we do that same kind of work for different brands, organizations etc.
+
+\[04:18\] Okay, so that's like the company layout, where a team of eight - so we're very small - we've been around since about 2015. It started with just Polygraph. Matt Daniel has founded Polygraph. He got in touch with Ilia Blinderman and Russell Goldenberg, and in 2017 it split off between The Pudding and Polygraph. So that's kind of like a brief history of how we got to where we are. How is that, Amelia? More prodding questions, or is that good?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** That was wonderful. I also heard a story about how The Pudding got their name...
+
+**Caitlyn Ralph:** Oh, okay...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** ...if you wanna go into that...
+
+**Caitlyn Ralph:** The funny sub-anecdote is that I actually started with the team all the way back in 2017 as an intern, and I spent an entire summer as an intern and didn't know how we got our name. I always thought it was Polygraph, like a lie detector, and The Pudding I had no clue... The Pudding is "The proof is in the pudding"
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice.
+
+**Caitlyn Ralph:** And Polygraph is poly, like multiple graph, instead of just a lie detector. So that's the background between Polygraph and The Pudding. Is there anything else, Russell? I know you guys debated for a while what to call The Pudding.
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** I wanna say we actually wanted to call us The Proof, and in our research I think we found that that was taken. I feel like someone suggested to us "The proof is in the pudding", and we were like "Ha-ha! The Pudding." And then it stuck. That's my memory of it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I also just love the TLD that you're on, pudding.cool. And polygraph.cool. Just so cool! \[laughter\]
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** We try hard.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, I don't think I know any other sites that are on a .cool TLD... Which makes it extra-cool. I'd love to get into the process of actually making one of these stories. I know they're quite intensive, and each one kind of like has its own data, and you need to research behind it, and technically they're very impressive... I'd love to talk through maybe your process, Russell or Caitlyn, and then also how that is different across the team, because I know people use different stacks.
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** Yeah. I'll start here, and then I know Caitlyn you haven't made a story for a little bit but you definitely have in the past, so I wanna hear your thoughts, too... I think the most interesting thing to me is that every story has a different process, and that's a great thing, in the sense that we kind of get to tell the story in the best possible way, that's right for that story. The downside though is that you sometimes have to start from scratch every time. So we don't have a ton in the ways of like a streamlined process; it kind of comes with both sides of the coin.
+
+So I'd say in terms of like a story's lifecycle, most of the time it starts with us -- well, definitely starting with the question; we usually have a bunch of brainstorming phases where we just kick around ideas, and some things stick, and then someone starts looking into it... and so, we haven't really come up with this very, I guess, rigid structure to keep things evolving. I'd say more often than not we end up having to do a lot of work in actually figuring out and compiling our own data sources. I think it's exceedingly rare where the data is just sitting there, ready for us to pull down and start visualizing. I don't even remember the last time that was the case for myself. Even in seemingly obvious ones, like sports stories; those ones are usually pretty straightforward, because there's tons of data out there already... But even then -- I mean, this kind of goes with anyone in the data science field... Most of the work is actually doing cleaning of the data, and like "Oh, this data isn't as robust as I thought it was."
+
+\[08:00\] So that's a big part of what we do. And then a lot of what we lean into is spending time creating data sets that don't exist. I feel like our tried and true example is the story about women's pockets. Jan and Amber created this story around pocket sizes, comparing them in men and women's jeans... And that's not like a readily available dataset, so they literally went into a bunch of department stores and grabbed jeans, and measured them in the back, creating their own data stores.
+
+So we do a lot of that type of stuff, where, when I worked with Mat a few years ago creating this dataset around Ali Wong's stand-up comedy routine. We literally watched it, had a big spreadsheet going, annotated all this stuff... Caitlyn, I think you helped out with that one, too. And yeah, we definitely do a lot more of those type of stories, where we try to come up with these interesting datasets that don't exist. And I think people -- you don't see a lot of those out there, because it just takes so much time, and it's like, big risk, big reward. You don't know what you're gonna get. And we luckily have the luxury of being able to test that out.
+
+So that's just the data portion. When we actually get into development, the same rule kind of applies. The only piece -- actually, nothing on our site, aside from our homepage, is actually scaffolded out. Every story - there's no CMS. Everything is made from scratch, on a per-project basis. We have some starter templates in place, which you can definitely get into... But we really heavily leaned into trying to make the development experience for whoever's working on it something new. They have no constraints, and they can just do whatever they want.
+
+Everything is statically hosted, so that's really our only concern at the moment but we have had exceptions where if something needs to be bigger and have a dynamic backend, then we'll figure out a way. So I think that's our biggest philosophy, is "Let's not give anyone constraints off the bat, and see where it goes." I'll pause there in case Caitlyn wants to jump in before we talk more tech stuff.
+
+**Caitlyn Ralph:** Well, I think the only thing I can add to that is just how we package what Russell just said for a client... Because I think it's very difficult for them to wrap their head around the black box of creating an article like this. A lot of clients have never done a visual storytelling project like this, so it's brand new to them... So a lot of what Russell just said I tried to distill down into four separate stages. I always think about the story, creating kind of like a storyboard and narrative.
+
+There's some data work, there's data analysis that sometimes happens in parallel as we're creating a storyboard for the article... And then there's design... I know we can get a little deeper into how we do design. People use different tools, people like different fidelity of design, but usually we're doing pretty hi-fi mockups for clients, and then we bring it into the last stage, the fourth stage, which is common development.
+
+So that's just the distilled, simple way to pull open the curtain and let clients actually see how we create something like this. But I also think it's kind of a good breakdown of our process, very simply...
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** Yeah. Also, you can just see that Caitlyn and I, we think two little different ways. Caitlyn is very good at turning my organic "Let's just do stuff" into a very systematic approach, which is really helpful for the Polygraph side. Also, something we should talk about a little bit later, which is we actually do approach projects very differently, because of the nature of them.
+
+But, getting back to the tools and the tech stuff - I didn't mention, on the data side, again, we let everyone wield whatever they want. Some people like R, some people like Python... I use exclusively Node, and I've been really into VisiData lately, which is like the command line tool for data exploration. Some people use MySQL... It's really all over the map, and again, we really don't have any formal tooling, headshaking from my MYSQL
+
+\[11:57\] Yeah, so that spirit is again embodied on other processes, whether it's a design -- a lot of us use Figma, just because we can reuse assets, and stuff... But again, really whatever works for you. I usually skip from pencil on paper sketching right into code. I know Jan does, to Caitlyn's point, super high-fidelity mockups, so she's like "This is what I'm envisioning." And yeah, we try to make it a space for people to do what works best for them.
+
+And then the place that I care about the most is the frontend code. I spend a lot of time creating scaffolding and starter templates for us to utilize. Again, we're not totally reinventing the wheel each time. I suppose our most recent one that I'm quite fond of - no surprise to Amelia - is in Svelte.
+
+I'd say we're not like a traditional journalism outlet, but I think a lot of our workflow are similar to what you might see more in newsrooms, mostly because a few of us have backgrounds in newsroom journalism... But also just like the tooling that's used there just kind of fits with how we work. We really lean into Svelte, obviously (maybe not obviously), made by Rich Harris, who's at the New York Times. We use a lot of different tools. I mentioned we don't use the CMS, but we have our micro CMS, so for like injecting copy into our projects we use Google Docs, and we have a thing that -- we use RGML, which then converts the JSON so it can get piped into the build... And right now our starter template that I use mostly is made in Svelte, and specifically SvelteKit, which has been a great and challenging experience, using something that is still kind of in development and changes a lot. I'm currently live coding, doing a recording of our website in SvelteKit, so you can follow along to see how it challenges me on a day-to-day level.
+
+But yeah, we're really into -- I mean, I think I've converted a few people on the team to be into Svelte. It just makes so much sense for the type of work we do. I've been finding it really great for dealing with data visualization specifically... And it's really nice when we have a lot of different levels of engineering on our team. It's the only framework that I've found that actually works across all levels, because it's a really easy learning curve to just get started... So yeah, we have a go.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I really haven't used Svelte before, but it's something that's definitely on my radar, and it does really seem -- from my understanding of all of this, it really does seem like a perfect fit for this... Because the way that I imagine using Svelte is when I really want granular control of a page, or specific pieces of a page... And it just seems like it really gets out of your way and lets you focus on that.
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** Absolutely. Amelia, I know you have a lot of experience with Svelte as well.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, one of my favorite things -- I was at Pudding/Polygraph last year, I worked very closely with Caitlyn on the agency side... And one of my favorite things about the whole - there's about eight people at The Pudding - is that everyone has their own workflow, which Russell was talking about a little bit, where you really do wanna get the right balance of starting from scratch, so that you can be creative, and think through different article formats, and not just have this template that you go through... And also being able to work quickly, so you're not doing every single thing from scratch every time.
+
+I know when I joined, Russell was still kind of evangelizing Svelte to the rest of the team. I know this whole starter kit, with kind of more like a vanilla JS and Gulp, I think, workflow... And Russell and I really got into using Svelte for these articles, because it really feels like the lightest-weight JavaScript framework, at least that I've used, where you're really just writing HTML in CSS, and then you have like a script tag where you're writing JavaScript.
+
+\[16:07\] And there's a few framework-specific syntaxes, like - to do a for loop, you have the curly braces, and you say hash each, and then you loop over some array... But other than that, it's really basic HTML and CSS and JavaScript... And you can get a little bit fancier if you want to, but you don't have to... Which is just a really good fit for this kind of article.
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** Yeah, it's definitely opt-in. You can choose how much you want to Svelte it up, or if you wanna really just mostly vanilla, you can, too. It's one of those things where the more you see -- I think there's lots of (I'm still having them) little light bulbs that go off, like "I don't really understand why I would use it", and then you see it being done in a way that makes sense, and you're like "Oh, this just changed how I can approach this."
+
+And then, again, on the starter template front, we have a lot -- this is something that Amelia started doing when she was with us, which was... We had a lot of (specifically in Svelte) preset components, or stores, or things that we're like "Okay, we've used it more than once. Let's turn this into something that we can just take and use out of the box." And this is something I've been wrestling with a lot now, is I feel like I don't wanna use libraries anymore, because I'd rather just have a component that's right there, that I can just go in and customize... Because I feel like it's more often than not that I wanna change something core to how it functions.
+
+A good example was we have an accessible button set component, and I was like "This could easily be a library", but then I'm like, "If I wanna change this one little thing about it", it could be easy, depending how it's written, but it also could just be something that you have to write this hack, for like "Oh, I wanna override the styling for this specific thing", and that seems annoying, rather than just jumping into the component and mocking with it that way.
+
+So that's something I've just been embracing more, is like creating these more reusable bits that are kind of part of the Svelte starter template that we can wield, and I know there's a few different places that are doing these things, like with recipes and whatnot... But that's something I've really enjoyed with Svelte... And also because it's obviously gonna build it at runtime, you don't have to worry about it being included by default, unless you use it... So that's just like another observation.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, that's another one of the really nice things about Svelte... I think at first they called it the magic disappearing framework, and then -- there's some reason they went away from that, but... Essentially, there's no runtime. It just compiles, and it kicks out anything that you haven't used. They have built-in transitions, but if you don't use them, then they're not gonna increase your bundle size afterwards, which is really nice, because as a framework, they can add in all of these goodies, like adding animations really easily, adding transitions really easily, without having the impact of like "Oh no, we're adding megabytes to the runtime."
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** Yeah. We can just convert this to a Svelte Party, if we want... \[laughter\] No more Pudding. We can talk about Svelte.
+
+**Break:** \[19:12\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I'm curious, with these pages - I think it's really cool how you've set it up, and you kind of start from this template, and then bringing the data and use it... But one thing that's always driven into me with the use of JavaScript anywhere is how does accessibility play into that? And when you're telling a story with data, and oftentimes I'm presuming a lot of them might have animated or interactive elements to it, how does accessibility play into visual storytelling with data?
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** Yeah. It's a great question. I think it's a question that is probably becoming more mainstream in the past year in the data viz community. I feel like I didn't see a lot of it being discussed previously... And something that is admittedly lacking and lagging compared to other places. I mean, I'll be the first to admit that we're not the best stewards of all time of this. It's something that we're working on currently. This year - I think it was just this year, beginning of this year - we've put into place... We've never actually had any kind of checklist for what we should even check before publishing a story, and that's something that my former co-worker Amber and I worked on together at the start of this year... And we've put together the first step of many of like what is the baseline for what we need to do. And luckily, there have been a lot of great people working on this.
+
+Frank Elvasky - sorry if I mispronounced that; I probably did... Who's been working on this thing called Chartability - they have a bunch of documentation specifically thinking through how to think through data storytelling and accessibility, and it offers a really kind of comprehensive look at all the things that you should be considering... So that's really been the framework we've been basing things off.
+
+We've got kind of like our foundational thing, which is just like your general accessibility, like "Can you go through the whole page just using your keyboard" and all those other things that are kind of standard without data viz... And then there's kind of like different rungs of approaching it from a data viz perspective. I think the first is -- I wanna say the easiest low-hanging fruit is having good copying language and proper semantic markup around things. So if you have a chart, you should be able to understand what the chart is about, and the main takeaways, from reading the title and the description... Or if there's accompanying text, a lot of it is in having good summaries about what's in it, especially if it's like a complicated chart that you can't put actual interactive accessibility stuff with... Having really good copy that helps also explain what is going on with this crazy chart. I think that's a good starting point.
+
+Having alternative ways of viewing the data... My last real article that I did - there was a way to just look at it in tabular format, or have the data available as like a CSV download... So those are kind of -- there's basically all these different things. Some are really easy, and they get incrementally harder to implement and think of, especially as visualization gets more complicated. But I think we're really following other people that are thinking more thoroughly in this space, following what they're doing, and trying our best to integrate these into our day-to-day workflow when we publish a story.
+
+But I do know - and this is, again, stemming from the journalism world - there's so much fast and furious publishing that it's super-obvious that this is something that falls by the wayside. I've noticed that every single big news outlet, especially the New York Times - I don't wanna throw anyone under the bus, even though I just did... Because they produce some of the best visual interactive eye candy from a data visualization standpoint. There's oftentimes where they're on deadline and something has to give... There's probably different pressures being put on, like "We need to get this out by tonight." Some of this stuff takes a lot more time to think through properly.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[24:16\] There's definitely a relevancy factor...
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** Yeah. So I think part of it is having a good framework for what you actually have to check, but then there's the tooling argument, like "Is there things that we can do?", so when you make this, you don't actually have to think about it, but it'll automatically create these things for you... So I think it's a little -- a blend of both, and I feel like we're lucky that there's some people thinking through this, so we're not pioneering this space, nor do I think we're the ones that are most versed in it... So it's nice that this exists.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** And I think the checklist is really helpful. I think it'd be awesome also if you all could share that publicly... But I also think it's hard to keep track of -- there's different types of accessibility. Data viz is visualizing information, so it's inherently really hard to make it non-visual, because you've already taken the data and made it visual, and now you have to make it not visual, again, with summaries, like you mentioned, Russell... But there's also different types of colorblindness, so making sure you're not using certain greens and reds, because (what is it) like 5% of the male population can't distinguish...?
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** Let's go with that.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** It's not five... \[laughter\] There's motion sickness, so a lot of the work that you all do at The Pudding is scrollitelling, so you'll have one thing fixed, and then the text is scrolling... I know Ember did an alternative where the two things are kind of interleaved optionally, so you can toggle them on and off.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I've never heard that term, scrollitelling. I like it.
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** Oh, yes.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Russell is the king of scrollitelling.
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** I have written one library for it, but I think that's maybe -- it surprises me that you've not heard of it. I feel like that must be a very journalism-centric term of those stories that Amelia was just describing.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, yeah. I'd also love to hear -- I know, Caitlyn, you're involved in all of the client work, and I know there's differences between writing these stories, or developing these stories for journalism, and writing these stories for clients. I'd love if you could talk a little bit about what are those differences, and how does that look on the client side.
+
+**Caitlyn Ralph:** Yeah, definitely. So I started, like Russell said earlier, by making articles at The Pudding, but the reason I was the first person on our very small team to have a specialized role focused at Polygraph... And the reason I kind of gravitated in that direction - I had my personal career goals, that I liked management and things like that, and I wanted to go in that direction... But what I've found exciting about the visual and data storytelling work we do at Polygraph is that -- I know you said at the beginning we're not gonna pit The Pudding and Polygraph against each other, and now it sounds like I'm doing that... But what I find exciting about Polygraph is that right now it's set up that we can actually go outside of the page and do this kind of work... So all of The Pudding articles right now live on The Pudding's website.
+
+What we do at Polygraph lives on all of the different brands' and organizations' we worked with sites, but we actually do installation work, we've done work with the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, and stuff like that... So I think the first part of the answer to that question, what I find really exciting is that there's a lot more variety in what we're doing... And Amelia, you remember a lot of these conversations; because there's a lot more variety, we find ourselves straddling very interesting lines in between being more editorial with our client work, or being more agency, flashy, pulling in some crazy JavaScript work to create very immersive experiences with data, things that we've done with some of the installation work, and stuff like that... Or to really replicate our editorial nature for clients.
+
+\[27:59\] What I've decided to do strategy-wise this year is dabble in both, and show that in our portfolio we've done both. Again, we do see ourselves as data journalists, so that is our expertise, that storytelling... But we can't do a 40-foot installation for Universal Music Group's lobby offices of their artists and musician data, if that's something someone wants us to do.
+
+And I think it also ends up serving as a creative outlet for people at the pudding to do different things as well, but that's a whole other conversation thread as well, with how we set up our company. So go ahead, Russell; I see your face.
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** I know, I'm opening my mouth...
+
+**Caitlyn Ralph:** I know, I'm used to it. By now I know. \[laughter\]
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** I just wanted to add that it's very much like this symbiotic relationship, both financially, but then also technically, because the great example is the UMG case study. We created this - again, a big lobby visualization, and it wielded a bunch of WebGL stuff that we hadn't done before, because we weren't forced to use it, so no one on our team had a background in it... But it was like, "Oh, we need to use this, because this is the only thing that's fit for this environment." So we got to do it, find some stuff, and we were able to integrate that back on to the other side.
+
+So sometimes it's nice when you have constraints, and definitely with client projects you have a lot of constraints, so it kind of forces you to push up against those constraints and get comfortable. So I think it's like forced learning in a lot of ways for us, which is nice.
+
+**Caitlyn Ralph:** Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That's really cool. That's such a unique thing about this too, and the storytelling, and being able to kind of break out of the constraints of the browser almost, with all of that. And definitely breaking out of the constraints of making this CRUD app that has some basic state management and navigation, and doing something just much more fun.
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** Actually, the National Portrait Gallery, now that you mentioned - that was maybe the best example of this. We actually had to render a video...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Oh, yeah?
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** ...and none of us -- I mean, some of us have to use some video software, but I was like, "Why make a video when I can create a JavaScript library that basically creates a 60 fps animation with D3, and exports each frame, and then stitches the video together?" So that's what we did. I'm not sure if I would do it again, but it was a really interesting challenge, because we were like "We have to make a video", which is not something we normally think about doing, from a data web perspective. So that was really fun.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** That was my favorite thing about the client work... I know y'all are super-picky about what stories you do, both on the journalism side and on the client side, and I felt like working on the journalism side, it was too open-ended. I'd have to really believe in what I was writing about, whereas on the client side it was kind of like "Okay, we have some pretty severe constraints, and they'll force us in a certain direction", which I thought was really nice.
+
+**Caitlyn Ralph:** I think it's interesting too, because -- this kind of goes more into our company structure, and stuff like that, so I don't wanna say too much about it... But also the differences of how people like to work too, in these types of things, and I think you've just really hit on that, Amelia, because I think everyone's like "Oh, you wanna work at The Pudding because you can do anything you literally want", which is pretty much true, to an extent... Again though, the reason why I gravitated more working with clients and stuff like that is there was constraints, even on your mental state... I think Pudding articles - you can be thinking about it on a Saturday afternoon, but if I'm done picking a client on Friday, I can kind of put it away... And I personally just prefer some of that boxing a little bit.
+
+When it comes to workflow, the work itself, and just like the experience on the projects, and stuff like that. There's just a little bit more separation. But because we do both often, people get a little bit of each, so...
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** \[31:50\] Yeah. It must be real timelines. If you're like "We need to tell the client in two weeks what this is gonna be, and what it's gonna look like", that really puts your feet to the fire in a great way. You have to make decisions... So that is nice.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, and it's also nice to have a reliable thread throughout the entire team, of like data. We're visualizing data, we're finding data, we're making it understandable for humans... So there are people who go back and forth between the journalism articles and the client articles, and you can kind of like pick and choose, like "Do I want those constraints, or do I have something that I really believe in and I wanna pursue to completion, and I wanna get a little bit whacky?", but it's always gonna be in the browser... Whereas you could do a museum installation on the client-side. It's just really cool to have those options. You can switch monthly, potentially.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** How do those constraints get formed? Is it "This is the data that we have" and then do you storyboard it somehow? Or how do you determine "Here's this mass of data, and here's this beautiful story I wanna tell with that"?
+
+**Caitlyn Ralph:** Russell, do you wanna go into that on The Pudding side?
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** I think The Pudding side - it's rare that we just have a bunch of data that we weren't already knowing what we wanted to look for... So I feel like this is much more common, actually, on the client side. I feel like this is an exercise that we do often, which is "Here's the data. Can you tell us what we should make?" I think that's where we really lean into -- everyone approaches this differently.
+
+I might sit down and be like, "Okay, I'm actually just gonna scan through this data sheet you sent me, and actually just really think about this topic more", but someone else might be like "I need to know the summary of this -- I need to know the mean of the data, I need to know what it looks like, the shape of it..." So I think everyone has a little bit of a different approach. We often will do some very preliminary stuff, and then I think early on we try to just -- we call it storytiming; we just try to talk about it. I think we've found that just bouncing things off of each other really gets us thinking about it in creative ways more quickly. Caitlyn, do you have any specific examples on the client end?
+
+**Caitlyn Ralph:** Yeah. Well, actually, I'll talk for a second on The Pudding end, too; I'm about to do a talk at a university later, so I feel like I'm prepped for this question... We always do start with a question; it's very rare where we find -- and I think Russell somewhat mentioned this... It's very rare that we find just like a giant dataset unmined, and then we go in and mine the data and get insights, and then we think of the question. We're always going in with the type of story that we wanna tell, and I think the way I think about that still feels a little bit amorphous.
+
+The way I think about it is that if I'm at a bar in New York with my friends on a Saturday night and I brought up this topic, could we actually have some kind of debate and conversation about it and talk about it for a little while? And I think with that lens, that kind of like bar talk lens going into The Pudding articles, I think often -- think about the women's pockets article... I could sit and talk with my friends for ages about how dresses don't have pockets, and things like that. So that is usually kind of idea selection part zero, and then it manifests itself in something called storytime. Literally, I say this, and my mom's like "You have a meeting called Storytime?" I'm like, "Yes, it's a long story", but literally, that's what it is. We sit and we bring -- a lot of us will be like "I have the worst idea in the world, but let's just talk about it." And we talk about it, and stuff like that, and see if we can spark that kind of conversation. So it's just a little bit more color on The Pudding end.
+
+On the Polygraph end we have clients coming to us with every step of the process. Russell and I are kicking off a project this week where the clients have data - they're actually data scientists themselves, so they have the data done, the insights done, it's in a Google Doc, a narrative outline is already done, linked to the different datasets that match that part of the narrative outlined... They even have some low-level sketches and visual inspiration ready to go. So they're really giving us a headstart here. Now we just sprinkle in our data storytelling prowess and make it come to life on the page.
+
+\[35:58\] Or we have clients come to us, literally just being like "We saw your work, we love your work, we have zero clue what we wanna do with you, but we wanna do something with you." And with that, usually I end up doing a consulting contract hourly with them, where we actually kind of like embed in their team, meet with people and figure out the idea that we wanna do using our expertise, and then we actually create a scope of work to go with it.
+
+So I'm not afraid if no one knows what they wanna do; we'll figure it out. But we just have people come to us in various stages. So to Russell's point, it actually is messier often on the client side.
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** And I think practically speaking, a lot of what we do is getting a sense of the shape of the data - okay, is it temporal stuff? ...like, how many different keys and stuff are we talking about? How many different data points? And then once we have seen that, I think we have collectively just observed and consumed so much data visualization out there... I think it's a lot about just being like "Oh, what if we did something like this?" and then "Let's use that as a jumping off" point.
+
+So I don't think we're thinking about this stuff in a vacuum. It's really just kind of amassing, and just really consuming, living and breathing everything that's out there, and then kind of remixing pieces and just knowing what might fit with what. So I feel like a lot of that is where our ideas and visions come from. It's not just tunnel vision on the dataset. I think that's a real key to it.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I love those two points, because I think most people when they see those articles, they think a lot of the work or all of the work is in what they see, and they're like "Oh, how did they even make that chart?" And it's like, oftentimes you need even a separate contract for finding the data, parsing the data, exploring the data, understanding the data... And even getting to that "What is our main question for this piece?" And then that's like a totally separate job. That's often just the tip of the iceberg.
+
+**Break:** \[37:55\]
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Alright, so I heard that you all, at least on the editorial side, are leaning a little bit more into a contractor network, instead of doing everything with the people who are on the team. I don't know if, Caitlyn, you wanna talk a little bit more about how that transition is going and what that looks like.
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** Yeah, definitely. Something that Russell and I love to do is talk about strategy. In fact, in the December holidays, Russell, we have maybe three-hour meetings of just talking about strategy... Which I feel sounds so vague, but it really -- it's one of my favorite things about being at such a small company, in that we can really shape the strategy of an entire company very easily, because we're so small... So because we have these two entities, we could kind of decide "Oh, we want Polygraph to grow in parallel with The Pudding" or "We want The Pudding to grow much more than Polygraph, but then Polygraph financially supports The Pudding", so there's a lot of interesting nuggets there.
+
+\[40:23\] But what we decided to do at Polygraph is instead of increasing our personnel, we've decided to lean into a very small - so I'm not talking about like a 50-person contracting network, I'm talking like 5-8 people... Freelancers, contractors, people who are full-time freelancers at Moonlyte to work on our client projects with us, along with the seven other makers at the company who are full-time, who also do some of the client work as well.
+
+Oftentimes we'll have one of the full-time employees working on the project, and then we'll bring in maybe a contractor support for any of those stages I talked about earlier - dev, design, data, story... And - Russell has finally pushed me in this direction - bringing in a PM contractor as well for some projects, because I would default PM all the projects... Which has been really exciting from a development standpoint and just a capability standpoint. People are experts in different things, so we can bring in some really cool contractors who are -- we've just worked with a data art creative coder, which Russell has done a lot of work with in the past, but no one is an expert on the team, and has produced just some amazing work. Now we know this person and we've worked with him, and now we can wield him in different ways.
+
+A lot of people can admit being a full-time contractor and freelancer is pretty common now, so... We had a lot of people who wanted to work with us. Yeah, so that's kind of how we've been doing it.
+
+And then we've hired a -- again, I was the first person who took this type of role. In the past three months we hired an equivalent of me at The Pudding, our managing director, so our second really specialized role (who actually just pinged me). And basically, he is doing the same thing that I've done with Russell at Polygraph, which is building out our freelancers for The Pudding, for the exact same reason. I think Russell can talk more about the freelancers at The Pudding, because he was doing a lot of that management work at The Pudding before Rob came into the role... But that's how we've been thinking about it at Polygraph.
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** Yeah. I'll just add on that, first of all, I think we still have a form open somewhere, but if you are out there and are curious about contracting with us at Polygraph, we're always entertaining collaborations; so reach out. And then I'd also say that on The Pudding side, this is something that we've actually just -- we're trying to pour some gasoline on the fire, so to speak. I don't know what the number is, but we've always had freelancer contributions. Some of our best and most popular stories have been from freelancers, and we've just decided this year that it's something we wanna lean into more. We like to learn about different topics, and even like different ways of telling stories, by working with other people.
+
+Most people have stories that they wanna tell, and so it just gives us an opportunity to both work with those people, and also just be a bit of a platform for people who wanna do their own data-driven storytelling, and maybe wanna partner up with us.
+
+So we're just very much embracing the spirit of collaboration, so to speak, on both sides of the business. I think it's something we wanna keep just leaning into more in the future. It's good for everybody. It's good for us, because it keeps us energized, and I think it's good for the freelancers and contractors, because they get work and another outlet for telling stories or working on projects.
+
+**Caitlyn Ralph:** And in the same way that, Russell, you said we have an outside form, we actually don't accept pitches at certain points at The Pudding. We literally 24/7 accept pitches, so anyone can email us at any time. And you don't need to be an expert in every step of the process. You don't have to be a developer, and a designer, and a data person. You could literally just have a really great idea, and you wanna bring it to us and you wanna collaborate with us on it, and we'll kind of fill in those gaps from there.
+
+\[44:14\] I think another really important thing - obviously, another really important conversation going on is that the more freelancers we bring, the more diverse forces, the more experiences we can have on The Pudding, and the more we can give them a platform... It's not just contained to the eight people working here. I think that also has been really important for The Pudding, and obviously, it does manifest itself in a way at Polygraph as well. So. Amelia you go.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I just really like how the data viz community is made up of people from all different backgrounds. Basically, no one has the same back-story of how they got into visualizing data... So I think it's really great for people who want to try out, like "I wanna make this data viz story, but I don't necessarily have all of the skills" or "I just wanna see what it's like, what goes into making one of these stories." I think that's also a really great opportunity for people who are curious or adjacent to this space.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That probably lends itself really well to just bringing in or injecting a lot of creativity, just having so many diverse skillsets and viewpoints and everything; it really probably contributes to that, I'd imagine.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I've also heard that, Russell, your role is changing a little bit in tandem with these changes.
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** You hear a lot of things... \[laughter\] This is true. This gets into how we structure our company a little bit, but I do a lot of just frontend development and story creation, and that's kind of like my bread and butter. But in the last year I've had a lot more interest in, like we've been talking about, networking with other people and collaborating with them. And to Caitlyn's point, we need to matchmake on the client end sometimes, if we have a specific project, for the skill; we're like "Oh, yeah, they don't have that" or maybe they don't have the bandwidth for that at the moment. We can reach out to people.
+
+And that's something that I've been turned into my actual day-to-day role recently. And the reason we were able to do that is because we run on a very loosely-inspired form of holacracy, which is a way of self-governance. Something that Matt kind of pitched a while ago... Because he started the company, but didn't want to be a boss. He wanted everyone to have a voice and be an active participant in the company.
+
+So we've been leaning into this holacratic method, and so the way that I started taking on this role, which Caitlyn has called CTO, is we have a proposal system where anyone on our team - there's a very clear decision-making structure on stuff. So there's certain things that certain people own exclusively, but then most everything else at our company, anyone can create a proposal on. This was a good example - I was like "I wanna shift part of my role", so I wrote up a proposal, brought it to the team, and there's this very specific process called... What's it called? I know the acronym is IDM. I think it's --
+
+**Caitlyn Ralph:** Integrated decision-making?
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** That sounds right.
+
+**Caitlyn Ralph:** I think that's it.
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** Yes. And we've actually been trialing out a tool called Murmur which I think is in private beta, which helps streamline that process. So yeah, it just goes through this round of "Here's the proposal. Does anyone have questions? Does anyone have reactions?" People can object to it, or they can consent to it. But through that process I now have part of my role as CTO, where I get to help figure out who's working on -- it's kind of staffing; who's working on what, from an outsider perspective, and then just a lot of consulting from a technical standpoint, on how we even develop every project, and what we need to think about. Caitlyn, you can probably talk more about those things though.
+
+**Caitlyn Ralph:** \[47:59\] Yeah. I said this earlier, Russell and I would have these long strategy conversations last year. Russell and I have been working together for like four or five years now, and even though we are just polar opposites people - I don't know, it's like opposites attract, or something like that... So I think we just work really well together on the daily. I love having him as my co-worker and friend. So I was really excited that we could actually formalize this. Because when you're at such a small company, I feel like a lot of these things kind of like fall through the cracks and they're just kind of happening, and no one has written them down or documented that they're actually happening...
+
+But when we brought in Rob -- I said this earlier, but when we brought in Rob, the managing director, who was absolutely fantastic. Russell is the editor at The Pudding; a lot of his editorial management kind of got freed up there, and he's been able to -- again, because he has this lens, he can look at people's portfolios and see things that I don't see... And I think from my perspective, I was doing all of this alone, and I think I got like a hero complex, that was like "I can do all of this, it's fine. I'm good. I don't need any help." And I think admitting that I needed help and bringing in another person, which is also very difficult I think to do at a small company, has just made such a huge difference. We've been able to expand the amount of projects we bring on, work with more people, and stuff like that. But it really is all embedded in that; you know, it could be your role. It could be you don't like the family leave policy, so you wanna come and make a change... Amelia, I think you brought a proposal about our health insurance policy pretty early on, and things like that...
+
+But to kind of like bring it back - I think it fits with The Pudding, because we're so self-driven... So we're not only self-driven, we're not even -- we're exercising those muscles when it comes to the work we're doing, but we're also exercising those muscles in how the company operates. A lot of people bringing contractors to do this HR work, but we have literally written all of our company documentation, from the code of conduct, to our health insurance policy. And anyone can make changes on it when they want to.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** It's really great to have that control over the place that you work, but there's definitely a bit of a learning curve where I think it was like the first week I was there. I was like, "Can I have this external health insurance to the ones that are offered?" and everyone's just like "Sure. You just have to write the policy." I'm like, "Oh, man, I don't know how to do this... I guess I'll figure it out." \[laughs\] And literally, anytime I'd ask a question, it's just like "Yeah, whatever you want it to be, as long as you don't taint the company." I think it's really great once you get used to it, but getting used to that coming from larger companies is definitely a little bit of a mindshift.
+
+**Caitlyn Ralph:** Yeah. It also is just interesting, because I feel like you sometimes get a vibe of like "This person really doesn't want this to happen, but they can't think of a reason why it's not safe to try." So you kind of end up like, "Oh God, I know they're not happy with this, but we're gonna do it." But the point of it is to push people out of their comfort zone and to promote experimentation. The reason why we started to do it was that any small -- We got to the point, like three years ago or so - we've been doing it for about 2-3 years - where to make one tiny decision on an external health insurance policy everyone had to be in the room, and it got very slow... And this forces experimentation to be happening quickly.
+
+\[51:24\] We did four-day workweeks last years - Amelia, I don't know if we told you, we're on 4,5-day workweeks right now... So we tried out those policies, we tried out a commission model for a while... And this is literally all in like the past six months, just because we were able to do these policies. But there is a learning curve; it could be very paralyzing, coming in and being like "Oh, so just do it. Yeah, just do it. Trust yourself. Believe in yourself."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Experimentation is just written into the DNA of the company. It's cool.
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** Yeah. And it's great for a lot of things, especially, again, if you care about the company. But it's one of those things where you also have to be comfortable with change, because -- Caitlyn just brought up one, we did this experiment on the commission model, which was if we were over our yearly budget, we could take on more projects and then people would get paid a commission on them, so over the top of your salary... And we tried that out, and we collected a bunch of data on it, we ran it for 6-7 months, and there were some great things about it... But then there were some things that we learned after doing it; we were like "Well, we're actually gonna shift this policy." And I know it's not something that everyone unanimously wanted to change again... So there's those tensions that you just have to accept as part of the process. Kind of like everything, there's good and bad to it, but it just comes with the territory.
+
+**Caitlyn Ralph:** But even from there, even in that specific situation, we just had a conversation with our co-worker. It was like an hour, and we just were transparent with each other and just talked about where we were coming from. We literally called them "tensions". Like, what the tensions were, and stuff like that, and worked through it. So I think although you can kind of get those vibes, I think it just adds a level of candor to how you work, and stuff like that, because you can just be very clear with everyone about what you like.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Well, I could talk about holacracy all day... I think it's a super-interesting topic, and I don't think there are many other companies that are operating this way... But I think we're up on time. So it's been so much fun having both of you, Russell and Caitlyn on, for our chat today... And also thanks for joining us, Nick, as well.
+
+**Caitlyn Ralph:** Thank you.
+
+**Russell Goldenberg:** Thank you, guys.
diff --git a/Replacing Sass at Shopify_transcript.txt b/Replacing Sass at Shopify_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..462c277ee8e1c92ed45d22025f6e0bef335c9dda
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Replacing Sass at Shopify_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,257 @@
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh yes, the sound of those Breakmaster Cylinder beats means it is time once again for JS Party. I am Jerod, your internet friend, and I'm joined by my internet friend - it's Divya. What's up, Divya?
+
+**Divya:** Hey-hey! How's it going?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's going quite well. How are you?
+
+**Divya:** Pretty good. Good to be back.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Great to have you back. We have a couple of special guests today from Shopify. We have an excellent conversation around open research, alternatives to Sass, CSS, all sorts of goodies. We have Alex and Sam. Guys, welcome to JS Party.
+
+**Alex Page:** Thank you so much for having us. It's really great to be here. Really excited to dive into those topics as well. I feel like it's not just about us; this can benefit lots of companies and communities and things... So yeah, it's nice to be here. Thanks.
+
+**Sam Rose:** Yeah, I'll second that. Thanks.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You bet. Well, let's start by getting to know you two a little bit, and your roles at Shopify. Now, I know you work on the Polaris team, and there's a design system involved... And I'll give a little bit of the back-story on how I've found this and what I think is cool about it, not just replacing Sass; we're not here to diss on that... But just the open research, and the fact that tooling changes, need changes, and we can all kind of learn these things together, and take findings from different people's experiences. Let's start with you, Sam - what's your role at Shopify, and how involved are you in this Sass replacement project?
+
+**Sam Rose:** \[04:06\] Yeah, hi. So I'm Sam, I am a senior frontend developer at Shopify, working on the Polaris team. We've kicked off this research looking to find the next evolution for Polaris, and just kind of thinking this to be an opportunity to see what else is out there. We've kind of seen these challenges with Sass, but this was a good pivot point for us to kind of take a step back and look at these other alternatives.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Very good. Alex, tell us about Polaris, what it is inside of Shopify.
+
+**Alex Page:** Yeah, totally. So - yeah, thanks; my name is Alex. I'm a frontend engineering manager at Shopify. I spend most of my time working on the Polaris design system. Polaris - the way that we describe it right now is sort of our North Star. It's where we head to, what we wanna focus on for design quality across our different experiences. It's very focused on our admin product. The admin product with Shopify is - if you're creating a store, you obviously will get orders that come in, and you'll see them in a big list, or you'll be managing products that you also see in a big list... When you click on a product you see a form... All of these little parts of the UI are reusable pieces that we put into our design system Polaris.
+
+When a team creates a text input, or a text field, or \[unintelligible 00:05:20.03\] or a navigation, we have all of these little pieces that we've constructed, with strong opinions on design, and that we've sort of centralized in one place. We'll talk a little bit about the evolution of this, because I think that focus on this one admin product also causes pain... But we can get into that in a bit. But yeah, I'm very excited to talk design systems and our research today.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Well, what I think is cool about this - not the research itself, although that's cool as well... But what really interest me is that I had access to this research and these findings, and that's because you've done it all in the open on your GitHub -- not Issues, although I always cal it GitHub Issues... But GitHub Discussions on the Polaris repo, inside of the Shopify org. So this was something that floated around, and people shared it, and it came across my radar somehow... And I've gotta read and come along for the ride and see what you guys did, and decided on, and all of that stuff.
+
+So I just think this is a really cool trend, and I'm wondering whose idea this was. Is this how you always work? It's just - hey, put your stuff out there and just kind of learn in public.
+
+**Alex Page:** Maybe I'll start, but I want to hand over to Sam for a few things... Our team is really focused, and I think before I even joined Shopify I was really focused on building an open source community... So if you look at the Polaris React repo today, and Shopify's Polaris website, polaris.shopify.com, we've always embraced open source as a platform. We get so many benefits from that, where we have third-party developers who are building applications or products for the Shopify ecosystem, that can use the tools that we're building and learn from them...
+
+Where we're at today is "How do we make these tools better for the teams internally at Shopify and better for the teams externally?" And as we go through this process, we wanna work in the open, and we wanna work in the open for many different reasons. The things that come to my mind are strong visions for what we have, but then we wanna hear other people's opinions. We currently have some opinions now on what we think we wanna replace Sass with, but we don't just wanna replace Sass and have an internal conversation with just our team. We'd love to know other people's points or perspectives, and opening up these conversations have really helped us start some of these learning opportunities with other teams.
+
+More recently we've had a chat with the Spotify design system team around this, and sort of learning their ins and outs of how they're thinking about design systems and how they're thinking about scaling these things... I've just been able to put that research in a public place and share that with them. I think it's a great way for us to just say, like, "It's there. We don't have to have a shared Google document with just their team." We can share it with them, and maybe they'll have a meeting with another team, like the Atlassian Design System team and they can say "Hey, did you see what Shopify's working on?" That's why we have to constantly update links, and everything like that. It's just all in an open place.
+
+\[08:20\] But Sam, I know there's some other things we were think about when we made that open source. Did you wanna talk about those as well?
+
+**Sam Rose:** Sure. Again, coming back to just working in the open was a strong focus we wanted to have for this next part of Polaris. We say in Shopify defaults -- we wanna be very transparent internally, and so if we knew that we wanted to be transparent or have this available, ultimately public, why not start earlier? Still having a big release is nice; we will have a good, solid release of whatever we do come up with... But getting that feedback early on I think is really high-value, super-informative to get not only internal Shopify perspectives... And we only know what we know on the team internally, but hearing from experience and the expertise of others outside of Shopify is jsut tremendously valuable.
+
+**Alex Page:** I think some of the things that have already happened from this open source research, in a way - we've had connections with the Vanilla Extract team. We've had a meeting with them recently, and I don't know if that would have happened if our research wasn't public. We've also helped put a spotlight on the Vanilla Extract product. This is how Shopify is investing in exploring, and then putting that spotlight on that product to help other people also get excited about it and want to use or experiment or learn about it, and maybe they'll share learnings back with us.
+
+The other really awesome thing that I just didn't realize would happen is we've had so many people just jump into those research documents and be like "This is wrong." And I love being wrong, because it just helps us learn, and it helps us learn that maybe our understanding of this thing was incorrect; our understanding of this tool could have been wrong, and with this plugin or with this thing in the ecosystem we could have made a much better adjustment or solution.
+
+So it's just great to open source it, see other people's opinions, learn from other people... WE know what we know, and I think opening that up to the open source community helps us learn the gaps that we don't know as well. So that's been a really great experience, just exposing our research and being vulnerable as well. I think that's the easiest way to describe it - this is our understanding, we're gonna chuck it out there, and if people disagree with it, that's great, because we'll learn from that and we'll make a better product from that, for our users and for our teams at Shopify as well.
+
+**Divya:** That's awesome. I think it's really cool that you're including a lot of people in the process and decision-making, because it allows you to widen and broaden your own search and your own collection of knowledge... But where do you draw the line with regards to -- because there's always this phenomenon, just like too many cooks in the kitchen, making decisions... So where's that balance that your team makes with regards to filtering feedback and then making decisions yourself?
+
+**Alex Page:** I think at the end of the day our team needs to make a decision and try something. We'll appreciate all the feedback that we'll hear... We've heard some great feedback about Tailwind, or we've heard some great feedback about Emotion. It doesn't mean that we're just gonna stop doing what we're doing and go and use those other libraries; we still have to have an opinion and try something and give it a go... But it's really great, because we're sort of in a really safe environment right now that if we were to fail with a technology, it's not the end of the day. We're still early-day-prototyping and learning... So it's great to hear those insights, because maybe we'll go back to those tools and go "Maybe this would be useful with this plugin, or this other approach to using it that we didn't think about previously." Being more honest as well... Polaris React, our other open source repository - we have so many issues and so many features that people are constantly asking us to do, or constantly asking us to fix... And we don't really have an open roadmap right now or an open way that we're sort of approaching fixing those.
+
+\[12:04\] We've been putting a lot of encouragement back into the people in our community to create pull requests, and we'll review them and work with you to ship these features... But for much bigger things in that ecosystem it's really hard to change, because there are so many layers internally as a company that we've sort of built into these opinions that we've shared that it becomes really difficult to say "If you wanted this in a navigation, we actually have a really strong opinion that that shouldn't be in a navigation in our internal products." We can see how that would be valuable in the application that you're building. That becomes a really interesting tension, and I don't think we have a great answer for that right now, to just be honest; I think we're still figuring that out, like "How do we build the best product for our teams internally, as a company, so that we can keep scaling and solving the problems that we need to solve, but also empower the teams externally to build the best applications that they \[unintelligible 00:12:54.22\]?" Because we would love this system to help not just our teams, but their teams as well.
+
+**Sam Rose:** I do think it's interesting -- you mentioned too many cooks in the kitchen, and just receiving all this feedback, and how are we able to take the bits and pieces that maybe are applicable, and then others that might not be... Some of the feedback I even saw and some of the early discussions on the alternatives to Sass - it made me think about, like, not everyone has the same context our team does, and we're not able to communicate all o four needs in great detail... It really does provide though a different perspective of what someone else might have, from a different lens, and giving a different context or a different situations.
+
+So there are just like some comments, and it's interesting to see one person mention something, and then because there is this community involvement, you're not the one who is on the hook to respond or... You just kind of wait on it, and sit on it, let the feedback simmer, and it's just good information to have, and you actually see the conversation evolve and people continue to add new perspectives.
+
+**Divya:** I guess I never considered that, that if it's out in the open, as a community sort of initiative that is led by Shopify, you could let the community continue a conversation, without necessarily being the arbiter of decision-making in there. You're like, "We're making this decision, and it's open to interpretation" and then you kind of let people duke it out and then you filter the feedback... That's actually really interesting.
+
+**Alex Page:** It's always like a form of research. We know what we've learned, and now we've just opened up for that platform to say "Do you agree? Do you disagree? Do you wanna have a 50-comment thread discussion around Tailwind's theming abilities? If you do, that's awesome, and we'll read that anyway, because we're interested in that, and we wanna learn more." But we don't have to invest ourselves 100% into those discussions. What we wanna invest ourselves into is "Are we making the right decisions for our company and for our external users?" That allows us to stay a little bit more focused, I would say.
+
+**Sam Rose:** I would just add - as we kicked off that discussion, we can continue to make progress and experiment and do our own investigations, and just the feedback that comes in later on is additional information that helps inform our progress moving forward. So if we do reach either other roadblocks or see other opportunities, that conversation that continues to evolve just kind of helps inform that.
+
+**Divya:** So a lot of these discussions tend to be led from your side of things, like "Oh, we're thinking about replacing Sass", but is there also an opportunity for the external users, or -- I guess I'll talk about external users, because internally it's actually easy to raise feedback. But externally, is there like an RFC kind of a process, where users are like "Hey, we're using this particular tool, Polaris, and we want this being added"? Is there that process, or how exactly do they go about doing that?
+
+**Alex Page:** \[15:45\] It's a lot lighter on the process side right now. We don't really see Polaris being as complex as something like React, where it's like "This needs to always be backwards-compatible", and it has this gigantic community behind it... So it's a lot more lighter. I would say that our current process is open an issue or a pull request and we'll have a conversation with you. We have recently started having discussions. We wanted to start a discussion around the approach that we were taking; we'd love to talk with them... But I think that's honestly a sign that we've got a lot of room to learn, and adapting as well... It's like, "How do we engage these external teams, or agencies that are building things with Polaris, understand their problems and address them in the system?"
+
+We've heard great feedback from people that they don't wanna use React, and Polaris is a very React-based design system right now. Either it's that they struggle with setting up Create React App, or they don't know how to deploy these things... Or maybe they're just more comfortable with different technologies. We would love the system to be more agnostic, to be able to address those needs, but that also requires a lot of work and investment... So we're also trying to figure out what are the best ways to support them without also slowing down our progress.
+
+A really good example of this is if someone came and told us "We want you to support Figma, Sketch, Framer, React, Android -- I don't know what Android \[unintelligible 00:17:09.23\] these days), iOS... All of these different technologies. Say that we added a new component, so we added a new property that changed the size of something - we'd have to do that in each of those technologies. So those changes become - they scale at an exponential rate, every thing that we have to support. So we do have to be a little bit opinionated and try and guide the community, but we also really wanna support them. So yeah, back to your question - we don't really have a great process right now, but I think that's what we'd love to explore.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** The thing I love about this open research - you touched on it, Alex, when you mentioned that the Vanilla Extract team has been in touch. You all very well laid out, "These are the alternatives that we are analyzing... And it allows the people who are involved in those communities, whether they're the maintainers, the creators themselves, or a happy user (or a not so happy user) to hop in and weigh in... I just thought it was so cool that, for instance, TheMightyPenguin - which is a great handle, by the way - who is the author of dessert-box, which you all seem to be using, or at least looking at... He hopped in there and he took the opportunity to get some feedback on his API, like "Hey, why don't you like this API? What's hard about it?" and have a back and forth with you. So that was awesome.
+
+In light of that, did you all promote this discussion? Did you contact the folks? How did everybody find out about it? Because a lot of us open up a discussion and, you know, crickets. How did you get attention to this particular effort?
+
+**Alex Page:** Sam, I think you know this story...
+
+**Sam Rose:** I don't, no, actually. You seem to be the famous one here, and to be able to get the attention.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Alex Page:** Oh, yeah. I know what I know, and I know -- I think it's May, a really awesome design system community builder. She has a newsletter, and I think she actually picked up on some of our open source work and was watching it... And I can't remember the company that May works at, but I really appreciate May for doing this... But she was going through a similar challenge at her company, so she was very interested in seeing our exploration and research... And she ended up sharing that in her newsletter. And from that newsletter, other people saw it and started sharing it.
+
+I think some of the virality of that tweet, or engagement, was also around "Shopify is replacing Sass", and I don't know if that's necessarily entirely true. I think we are exploring alternatives to Sass in our design system, and we hope that these frontend opinions that we have as a design system team would scale to the rest of the company... But there's no "We're removing Sass" or "Sass is terrible for \[unintelligible 00:19:45.25\]" We actually love Sass at Shopify. We're still using Sass today in our major products, but we definitely have some concerns with the scale of Shopify and Sass that we can get into a bit later... But yeah, I think it was just May's newsletter which was really awesome to get that visibility, so we really appreciated that.
+
+\[20:03\] As an aside, I don't think we necessarily wanted that visibility just yet. We're still experimenting and exploring, and our opinions definitely could change over the coming months... But we appreciate it nonetheless, because it's been a great learning opportunity to just put it out there and work in the open and really embrace that culture. I think that's what we wanna build on our team, and scale - this is how we work and this is how we solve problems... Even if it is a little bit uncomfortable and someone can find it and put it in a newsletter and get more visibility. I think that's a problem we would like to have instead of not have.
+
+**Sam Rose:** If I could add on that - that's something I think a lot of people are maybe a little hesitant to do, is to broadcast work too early. I would certainly think we're at very early stages in this prototyping and experimentation, and a lot of learning is going on... So this kind of publicity really -- at least showed myself that getting the community involved and having this attention early on is really not too much of a bad thing. It's not a bad thing. Again, you could arrive into that "Too many cooks in the kitchen problem", too much early feedback... I certainly have been surprised with how that has not been as much of an issue I would have expected it to be.
+
+**Break**: \[21:10\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alex, I think you spoke some truth when you said some of the interest in this particular discussion is this replacing Sass. Sass has been around for a very long time, and it's helped a lot of us be more productive for many years... I've never seen a "replacing Sass" discussion until I saw this one, so I was like "Whoa! Replacing Sass." And then, of course, Shopify - y'all have a big application in business, and so people watch what you do and take note. Because when you adopt things, maybe it's worth looking at, and when you ditch things, maybe it's worth ditching as well. I think that was one of the reasons why this discussion did gain steam on the interwebs.
+
+Tell us about Sass in more detail. The history of it at the company... Like you said, you're not here to diss on it or hate on it or anything like that, but you are looking for alternatives. So maybe some of the warts, or some of the things that you've hit up against, where you decided it would be worth this effort to maybe replace it with something else.
+
+**Alex Page:** Yeah, totally. I'll kick off. Sass has been a phenomenal technology at Shopify for us to scale design decisions and opinions. Even before I joined Shopify, I worked with the Australian government, building a design system there... And we did some (I would say) really advanced things with Sass. We had functions that would find the closest accessible color... So if you had a white foreground color, and a white/pink background color, it would correct that white foreground color to be like a dark pink foreground color. So we have really advanced functionality and solutions to things in Sass.
+
+\[24:20\] I think Sass is an extremely powerful tool for solving design problems at scale. I think lots of people - I would even encourage - should still use it today. But Sass with Shopify -- like, Sass has been at Shopify long before I've joined. I wouldn't be able to tell you the date that it existed, but it exists in our legacy almost like Rails infrastructure, where we have things that were built maybe even in the first days of Shopify... We have Sass in our React infrastructure, where we just use the Sass files and compile them into CSS, or we already have the compiled CSS and use the classes from the Sass... We have so many applications for it.
+
+I think currently in Polaris React we have 152 Sass files, we have 2,000+ Sass files in our biggest monolithic repositories... And some of the things that we've really noticed as a design system team is that we haven't really scaled, I would say, our design opinions in a way that is working with Sass right now.
+
+Some of the things that we've hit up against is we've created a tokens library. This tokens library is almost like a tech-agnostic library that we could use in Figma, or we could use in HTML, or we could use in a mobile application that has color values. I think it has a few motion values, and things like this... But it doesn't have everything. It should realistically have our spacing values, it should have a whole list of all the things that sort of define Shopify's design. So where are these other values? Well, they've kind of spread between lots of different technologies. Some of our these JSON values in our tokens library get converted to CSS variables. Some of them get used as Sass variables and Sass mixins and functions. Some also just get imported into the React code and used that way, which is really bad... But we lose a lot of control over how we wanna scale those design opinions, as we've scaled as a company. CSS variables came out, like "Let's use CSS variables", but we never really cleaned up that Sass technical debt, and we never really put those variables all the way back into those tokens libraries. So that's a tension that we have.
+
+But I think the things that are more of a tension as a design systems team is that we ship Sass. And in shipping Sass to our users, they can use our functions, they can use our Mixins, they can override our variables... And this becomes really scary, maybe because if we wanna go and make a change to something, we don't know what this could affect, or what this could impact at any time right now. So if we went and said that our primary button color is changing from green to purple, and they've got a function which takes that primary button color and maybe blinds it by 20%, and it does this for some very specific reason about this icon on this one page that they actually wanna be a dark green, and then we go and replace it - we get ourselves into a world of confusion and trouble, trying to update and scale these design decisions.
+
+So what we'd love and what Sass doesn't really offer to us right now is a way to obfuscate or make it really difficult for those consumers to override those things, unless they use our approved methods of overriding them. So that's sort of the direction that we're heading in - we would love to be able to trust these teams and things to use the tools in the ways that we encourage, but it's also really easy when those APIs exist or when there's a little workaround that you could use that just touches on that... Why wouldn't you do that? But then the implications of that become so much more, and we need to go and change a function or a mixin or a way that we're solving a problem.
+
+Sam, maybe there's some things you wanna add. I don't know if I've touched on everything.
+
+**Sam Rose:** \[28:09\] No, I think you've covered a lot of great points, and some that I really wanted to touch on, like - with how some of the next explorations we have done really do help solve a lot of those problems.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So you identified these things... What I like is you've very clearly stated your goals of what it is that you are looking for; what matters most for Polaris, and then specific criteria. So when it comes time to go ahead and do the survey, you're not just at the whims of what you feel like, or what looks nice... You can create a matrix table and check the boxes and say "Does it do this? Does it do that?" Do you wanna walk us through some of the things that are in that list of goals and why they're important for you?
+
+**Alex Page:** Yeah, I might kick off... But just quickly, shot-out to Marten Bjork. He's a developer on our team; creative technologist actually on our team. He sort of sits between design and development... And he actually said -- he was looking at our research and he said "This is confusing. Can we do a matrix table of it?" And then he even went and said, "Let's add user stories", which was awesome. And I think \[unintelligible 00:29:14.10\] and a few other people on our team - maybe Chloe - had an idea of sort of prioritizing these. So it's definitely not our -- it's very much a big team effort in how we came to this table...
+
+Some of the things that we have on this table are like zero runtime. We love when things just work and don't impact our users, and Sass is a great example of that. When I use Sass, I take the burden as a developer of converting that Sass to CSS \[unintelligible 00:29:41.23\] They don't have to run anything in that browser to convert that Sass file to CSS. It's awesome. We love how powerful that is, and that was something that we thought was really important.
+
+\[unintelligible 00:29:55.18\] as a user, I don't want any additional code or processing time spent for me to see styles... And we went across these different technologies, and we looked at things like Sass, and CSS, and we were like "Yeah, these are zero runtime. You compile the Sass into CSS, the user gets the CSS file. If you just use CSS, the user just gets the CSS file." And that's a really great way to explore and understand these things.
+
+But some of these things I would say are also our opinions. We said that some things are not zero runtime, but maybe we have some plugins or some different ways of approaching using those solutions. They could become zero runtime, but we really want to focus on what does the technology give us today without those things?" Because it's really easy to add 30 plugins or write custom code and solve problems with stuff, but as a company like Shopify - maintaining that and scaling that to all the teams, that's when it becomes a lot harder or a lot trickier. So we have to be a little bit careful there. But Sam, were there any \[unintelligible 00:30:52.25\] you wanted to talk about?
+
+**Sam Rose:** I would just say maybe when constructing a matrix like this, something to be more objective about making this technology choice, just really considering those factors that apply to your company or your product, your team design system etc, simply because -- I mean, we did leverage a lot of other research on CSS library analysis, very thorough work that other people have done... But just putting it into this matrix within our own context and what we prioritized and needed in this solution I think is really just something to keep in mind.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Divya, are you looking at this matrix? It's awesome.
+
+**Divya:** Yeah. Was the way that you evaluated just sort of coming up with the criteria, to some extent, as a team, and then did each of you sort of pick a library to then do a spike on, and then from there come together as a team and then talk through the various features?
+
+**Sam Rose:** \[31:47\] I would say that was well summarized. We definitely did truncate the list of libraries to explore pretty short. We did try to diversify across some that were more runtime specific or CSS-in-JS, StyledComponents-esque; others that were a little bit more utility-based, like Tailwind... So we kind of tried to get more of a diverse set of libraries to examine. We did not look at StyledComponents and Emotion. We kind of bucked at those similar things; they both have their pros and cons, but... That was kind of our strategy.
+
+But when we did do our analysis, we did put some time forth and kind of explored them, prototyped with them... Not just kind of look at their feature list and check it off. We really did want to get hands-on experience and feel how the library was to work with, what was the developer experience like, would this fit into our tooling well, how easily would this be to adopt at scale... Those kind of questions. Alex, do you have anything?
+
+**Alex Page:** No, just a big +1. The only thing I'd add is our team is growing and getting pretty large, and there are people that have worked with these other technologies in other companies, or have experience using them as well, and that really helped us build some opinions quickly... Because some of these comments would be like "Oh yeah, I've used this tool before. I know what this should do or shouldn't do." Or some of them were like "I don't know Tailwind does this at all. Let's go spend half a day exploring the ins and outs of this library and see if that would accomplish the needs that we have."
+
+**Divya:** I've just noticed that a lot of these criteria were just various things that are really important, like zero runtime, how to overwrite styles, and so on. Was a consideration also the migration strategy? Because the end goal is that you have a new system, but the in-between transition phase is always the awkward one... So how did you actually think through that part of things?
+
+**Alex Page:** Yeah, I think that's honestly something we're still figuring out. We're doing a bit of an adoption plan right now, to say "If this is the output of our system, how would teams consume this or use this with the Shopify tooling and technologies today?" We definitely care a lot about that adoption, and we're working closely with a few partner teams, and that's something that I'm really excited about. We've partnered up with a few internal teams and we're gonna start experimenting with how does it feel to use these things, is it as you would expect, are the APIs useful? Or are they hitting roadblocks, and what are those roadblocks, and are they roadblocks that we can get over, or are they hard blockers?
+
+So we definitely are, I would say, early in that understanding the impact of that migration, but we're partnering with a few teams internally at Shopify to really understand what they need from the system and how these changes could impact that.
+
+I would say that the things that we're looking at right now have similar processes to the technologies that we were using in the past, Sass and Vanilla Extract... Even though they're two separate worlds, they both have a file type that ends up being a CSS file. And that is really awesome, because it means that that journey that our contributors or teams need to learn hopefully should be a lot more simpler, or we should be a lot more straightforward with some guidance and documentation. I think that's the other missing piece - we need a lot of documentation and explanations around why these things were chosen... And that's some of the reason as well for open sourcing this research - it almost is a starting point for us to be able to write guidance and documentation. Why did we choose this? How do we expect this to scale? How do we expect you to use this? What changes for me as a frontend developer at Shopify when I have to use this technology? I think that all hopefully will come out of this.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So let me just draw a quick word picture around this matrix that the four of us are looking at, but our listeners are definitely not looking at. By the way, we will link it up; it's in the chat, so if you're in the chat, click through on that. If you're not in the chat and you're listening to this in your podcast app, click in the show notes... Because you wanna check out this matrix. In fact, if you steal one thing from this episode, I would just steal this matrix outright and use something similar for your own research.
+
+\[35:47\] Imagine a list of features are the rows. So we mentioned open source, along with the user story, which is a nice to have. As a consumer of a library, I wanna contribute, request features, resolve issues and debugging the code. And then the different solutions are each columns. So you've got Sass, CSS, Tailwind, CSS Modules, Stitches, Vanilla Extract with sprinkles, and Emotion. So for each of those features, you score each solution on a scale of 0 - I'm assuming 0 means that it does not fit the bill - 1, which is yellow, so I guess it's kind of good, and then 2 is green, which means "Yay! Awesome." Maybe you guys can help us understand the color system and the numbering. And then you go down the list and you add them all up and you see what the score is at the bottom.
+
+What I like about this, before you help us out with the scoring, is the features are not just listed out; they're actually broken out into categories. What's essential, what's important, and then what's nice-to-haves. I think that's a great practice for anybody trying to make a decision, is to prioritize what really matters, what you're optimizing for, and make your decisions based on that order, versus just like a random list of things you want. Help us out - 0, 1 and 2. Are these quantified? Because it seems like they are.
+
+**Alex Page:** Yeah, I can talk a little bit to that. These are our opinions, again, on "Does it do what it says out of the box?" And the emphasis there I think is "out of the box." If it does it, it gets a two. If it does it, but it needs a lot of configuration, or it's a lot of technical debt to maintain, or it could be a pain for us to maintain or consume, then it's a 1.
+
+I think a great example that I can think of is autocomplete in Tailwind. For me to get autocomplete in Tailwind I have to install a VS Code extension. So for me having to then go and document that to our users if we did use a solution like Tailwind, it's like "Oh, you should use this plugin." That's an extra step every user of our design system would have to take to get that autocomplete functionality. So I'd just call that a 1, because out of the box you don't get that functionality. But it exists. And then a 0 is just - yeah, unfortunately this feature doesn't exist... And again, that's our understanding of it. We could be wrong, and I'd love to learn as well if people look at this matrix and they disagree. Feel free to chuck a comment in there and tell us. We'd love to learn.
+
+**Break:** \[38:13\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So we wanna talk about what y'all found, because that's like the \[unintelligible 00:39:43.26\] At the end of the day, you've put all the work in, you've found a solution, and you've picked one. We'll talk about how you go there. But before we get into that - of course, the aggregate scoring will come into play, so stay tuned for the way these different solutions score... But how do you even find the options? Because discoverability is a thing, and people are talking about Tailwind... I had never heard of Stitches... I think I had heard of Vanilla Extract, but I had never clicked through. I've heard of Emotion... But how do you all find solutions? How do you collect them? Maybe you say "We're not gonna check that one out." Is that a thing that happens before you get to this stage, like "What are we actually gonna try?"
+
+**Sam Rose:** I can take that. I would say largely relying on others' experience, both within our team, but also there's a lot of (like I mentioned) other research, people who have already done comprehensive assessments or comparisons of these different libraries. With CSS-in-JS, since it's become a thing, over 50 libraries, how do you make that choice? How do you find something that is as strong as a Sass has become? But that comes back to that point of what seems to have a large community support, what seems to be well-liked, well-adopted? Tailwind out of the gate screamed at us, simply just because it's been highly adopted and well-loved by a lot of other developers.
+
+So creating this list really was just, again, comparing what are our needs, and then what solutions, top 10, top 20, can we parse from really quickly and just see "Do any of these fit the bill? Do these seem to be scoped well for what we're trying to achieve?"
+
+**Alex Page:** Yeah, we have to be a little bit harsh at the start as well, because there's an infinite number of solutions right now for how should CSS get delivered to the browser. You can make something up even yourself if you wanted to. I'm sure someone's doing that right now. But we have to start with a bit of a baseline of like "If Shopify was to adopt this, would it disappear tomorrow?" If it's gonna disappear tomorrow, we probably can't use this. Some opinions are a bit more fleeting, or unused, so I think tools that are widely used, like Tailwind - that fills me with confidence, because I don't think that's gonna disappear any time soon. If anything, it will evolve and it will just keep growing with the huge community behind it.
+
+Vanilla Extract, however, is quite new, but it already is used in a few design systems which we really love, which gave us more confidence we could sort of explore and understand it. And it wasn't a hugely technical project; if you dive into the code - yes, there are technical and challenging areas, but the things that it was doing were a lot simpler than other things, mainly maybe because it is a new(ish) project; they haven't built maybe all the different layers... Or maybe they have; I don't wanna talk for their team. But it made it a lot more, I'd say, accessible and easier for us to look into those sorts of solutions.
+
+**Sam Rose:** I'd also add - not looking at just the solution itself, but the characteristics of the solution was really helpful. So knowing that Tailwind was liked - is it because its utility classes, is it because of Atomic CSS? What characteristics are loved because of -- you know, like, Chakra UI uses styled-system and Emotion. Why is it loved? What kind of those characteristics about these systems or about these technologies influences adoption? So that's kind of one thing that spoke to us as well; it kind of helped narrow down the choices.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So let's get quantitative, shall we? We have some totals here, at the bottom of this matrix. The first one is Sass. Of course you had to score Sass, because that's the base case that you're comparing all these against. It scores a 37. So if you just take the list of 30-odd features that you all listed and then the scores from 0 to 2 for each feature, Sass totals up at 37. Plain old CSS scores a 39, which I thought was pretty nice. Tailwind a 44; take note of that one, because it will not be any higher than that. CSS Modules 21, Stitches 32, Vanilla Extract 38, and Emotion 31.
+
+What hops out to me right away - and maybe, Divya, you caught on this as well - is Tailwind is the winner on the quantitative, but it's not what you all have decided on, is it?
+
+**Alex Page:** \[44:06\] Definitely. And I think there's a few things going on. One, we were just a little bit lazy, and we've totaled the whole table up... So that even includes nice-to-have things, important things, maybe things that we don't care as much about... And I think it would have been interesting to look at the scores from the essential and the important. It's not gonna change it too much; there's only two columns in there, really... That would have changed things up.
+
+But I think also - the numbers only mean so much. The numbers help us guide to -- we think maybe we should look at these four things, or maybe we should prototype with these four things, and that then helps us go and decide what we want to explore, or dive a bit deeper in... And then we can from there make a better decision.
+
+The decision that we ended up making was we wanna explore using Vanilla Extract, and that's what we're doing right now. We're using this library to explore again a bit deeper. I think Vanilla Extract scored third on our list, so it's definitely not even the top two... But if we look at the top two, like Tailwind and CSS, CSS would have required us to either lose -- and maybe "lose" isn't the wrong word, but it would have empowered teams to be a lot more flexible, but it would have made our job of maintaining and updating the design maybe a lot more challenging... Like, if every team is writing their own CSS files, and instead of using our spacing CSS variable they just hardcoded 9.25 pixels, then we'd go in and change our spacing scale, which changes all of those variables... That would mean that we'd have to go back in and find all these hardcoded values. And as someone who's done that at a company like Shopify - not fun. Really, not fun. It's really time-consuming. You're jumping up across multiple codebases, and repositories... So it'd be great to have that in a scalable way. I still think CSS is awesome, though. The ability to just trust people and give them that empowerment to make the design decisions that they need to - I also love that. But it is a balance, and we need to make a decision as a design system team and as a company of where does that balance sit.
+
+And Tailwind is also another excellent solution, but there's just some concerns that we have around scaling Tailwind as a company at Shopify. We already have 20,000 Sass files... I think it was 20,000; or 2,000? I can't remember off the top of my head. Let me double-check. Yeah, 2,000. 20,000 sounded way too much. So we already have over 2,000 Sass files, and I think that if we were to use a library like Tailwind, things like the just-in-time compilation, we'd definitely want light and dark mode, we could have maybe 2,000+ React files with those classes that it's auto-completing and adding to... It just feels like it's a risk right now to invest in a product like that. Also, we don't know if Shopify wants to have more than just light and dark mode, and Tailwind right now has really strong support for light and dark mode... But as soon as you add a new color variant, like maybe you wanted a dim, or an extra dark mode - that would then have to go and generate all the color CSS classes again, and that means that there's more just-in-time compilation and there's more CSS classes getting added to HTML. And it's not that we think that's necessarily a bad thing, but how we scale that and make sure that it doesn't turn into a big mess at Shopify is something we're concerned about. CSS variables - that approach feels a lot more powerful, and if we can have classes that we can override with CSS variables, that empowers us to move a lot quicker. But Sam, is there anything you wanted to add about the total scores?
+
+**Sam Rose:** Yeah, I would just say this was only one way of parsing through our observations and attributes that we are interested in. If we wanted to go be less lazy, and put weights to the different importance -- have weights, and "What is a non-negotiable? What's something that's a nice-to-have?", make these scores a little bit more refined, we could certainly do that. This was really more just a scrappy way for us to take the mental model of saying "What do these libraries have as a larger picture?" Kind of zooming out and putting them side by side... And really just being more data-informed, giving some kind of objective criteria. It could be more accurate, but I think we kind of understood our requirements, and by prototyping with them hands-on, that was a lot more informative for us. But this was certainly a more objective way of looking at it. So yeah, again, I think these scores could certainly be refined, but it definitely helps serve our purpose of assessing these solutions.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[48:37\] Yeah, I was gonna suggest that for an iteration on this; if you're gonna steal it, I would say at least weight the three categories, so that the more important things get more scores, and you probably would have a better reflection of the final decision.
+
+For example, in the discussion you made it sound like TypeScript support was pretty important, and it's in the important features section, but in this representation it doesn't seem as much -- maybe I read in too far, but it seemed like that was a pretty important thing... And a couple -- this is kind of an all-or-nothing thing, like "Do you have it or not?" and I think probably it might not be representative of how much it meant to y'all. Is that fair?
+
+**Alex Page:** That TypeScript support one is very interesting, I think, to pull out... I think Vanilla Extract \[unintelligible 00:49:18.16\] with TypeScript support, but it's different to the other libraries. When I think of TypeScript support for CSS, that just sounds weird, and that's like the special place to me where Vanilla Extract lives - as I create a grid component and I give it a gap value, I'm auto-completing instantly from a list of spacing tokens that comes straight from our library of atomic styles. That's through TypeScript, and that is so powerful, because I haven't had to add an extra feature, I haven't had to do anything to Visual Studio Code... I've literally just opened up this TypeScript project and it knows through the linked types that "This is auto-completing from these values."
+
+So when I think about TypeScript and CSS, it's less so TypeScript and CSS, it's more like "How can we get autocomplete into CSS?" or "How can we autocomplete from CSS our specific CSS variables that we've approved?" And our team in the past - shout-out to \[unintelligible 00:50:18.03\] - he wrote a full CSS variable linter where he would go and parse our code, check if there were people using incorrect CSS variables, or if there were typos... That's extra technical debt that we have to maintain. It was an awesome solution at the time, but if this was just built in to how we did styles, that would mean that we could sort of just ignore that completely, which is such a powerful thing.
+
+So I think that's a huge, exciting feature for me around extractors. I feel like this combination of TypeScript and CSS is something that I haven't seen before. Just as an aside, I'm terrified of TypeScript; I'm terrible at TypeScript. If you give me some crazy override or something like this, I will be the first person to trip and stumble... But what I'm talking about here is a lot more like properties auto-completing with values that come from your tokens, or come from your CSS variables. And that setup and that time that we invested as a team to get that setup is so worth it... And it just feels -- as the person using that system now, it feels really great to just easily see those values pop up and move quickly. But Sam, you know much more about TypeScript than I do, so maybe you wanna add something to that.
+
+**Sam Rose:** I would just maybe add that it's not just giving values... Really just hammering on the design system values. Really making it easy and apparent like what values are part of the system. You know, a lot of these solutions have theming support, but I think what's really nice about something like Vanilla Extract is it really has type support for both the design system values, as well as the atomic classes... Because we mentioned Vanilla Extract with sprinkles; that was kind of the nice thing about it - it brought that Tailwind factor into it. We mentioned you could have these IntelliSense third-party add-ons for TypeScript to autocomplete certain utility classes.
+
+\[52:10\] We have autocomplete with theming support in a lot of TypeScript solutions, CSS-in-JS solutions... But this really kind of combines those two worlds, and it brings it to a technology that's already within our Shopify ecosystem. We've all adopted TypeScript. We don't have to add anything new. There's no extra server running to check or lint, so it kind of just meets us where we are, in a way.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So the Vanilla Extract team has to be happy... This is like they're on The Bachelor and they got the rose.
+
+**Divya:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You fell in love.
+
+**Divya:** Did the conversation with them have any impact on the decision at all?
+
+**Alex Page:** No. We had never talked to their team until after they saw that we were using their product.
+
+**Divya:** Oh, no way.
+
+**Alex Page:** Yeah, we would have loved to have talked to them beforehand... But just as an aside, we don't really wanna bias our opinions based on talking to this team or another team. I've talked to a few people that work at Tailwind, like Simon, who does all their videos; I'm a big fan of his work, and I've hung out with him a few times in person... That doesn't mean that I'm gonna use this product, unfortunately. The reason we use that is because we actually explored it and wanted to, and then those connections opened up from that, and sharing that research... Which was really great.
+
+In terms of them getting the rose - maybe... I think that we as a company want to invest in open source, we wanna collaborate with these library maintainers to help them get some attention. I definitely think the Vanilla Extract team deserves the attention. They're a team of three, doing excellent things \[unintelligible 00:53:43.22\] in Australia, to build a design system and a whole bunch of tooling around it... And if we can put a Spotlight on the awesome work that they're doing and get other people to think about using it, that not only benefits us, it benefits them, it benefits that community around that tool and that platform. So yeah, maybe they get the rose, but I never saw it as that; it was more like we needed a solution, and that seemed like a great solution. If there's an outcome of that where they feel great that we chose that, that's awesome. But it wasn't necessarily our intention.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, I think they definitely deserve the attention, and it's awesome that they're getting it now. Divya, maybe we should bring them on JS Party and give Vanilla Extract--
+
+**Divya:** Yeah, I was just thinking that... Like almost an extension of this episode; like a part two, where we're like "Hey, we need to talk to them, just to get a sense of--" Because there is a newer library, and I think the usage is not super-high at this point... But we could definitely bring visibility to it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Mm-hm. Stay tuned for that; let us know, listener, if you are interested in that. And I forgot - Sam, your last name is Rose, so this was the perfect analogy. \[laughter\]
+
+**Sam Rose:** It is. I usually make those puns, but... I saw it in my head, I just didn't say anything. I was like "Ah..."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, you had better taste than I did. I have no shame, I'll just--
+
+**Divya:** I'm just shocked that you used The Bachelor's metaphor... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's a cultural staple at this point... I mean, how long has that show been on? Probably like 20 years.
+
+**Divya:** But that's not the metaphor I would have reached for personally, I guess, but...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Fair enough.
+
+**Divya:** ...I'm just tickled that that's the one you used.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Sam Rose:** I liked it. I thought it was \[unintelligible 00:55:22.29\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I was gonna go with Survivor, but...
+
+**Divya:** You got booted off the island...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, exactly. Kind of the other way around... So guys, what's next? We're getting towards the end of the show, but what happens next for y'all? Is it still kind of an experimentation phase? Are you starting to integrate Vanilla Extract into Polaris? Do you replace it one file at a time? What's the point of it?
+
+**Alex Page:** \[55:45\] I'll kick off... We're like exploring right now. I think the first step is get this to a state where we can get other teams using it, and then start getting feedback. So our biggest goal right now is get this into the hands of internal teams, so that we can figure out what's working, what's not working, and make this the product that's going to accelerate Shopify into the future. I think that we have a lot of work to do to make sure that this is the right solution. We have Rollup tools right now that use Vanilla Extract, and for us to use Vanilla Extract with Rollup we have to have some kind of opinion on how we wanna bundle those CSS files together... But maybe, Sam, you can take over, because you know a lot more about the next steps from the technical side that we're gonna be exploring.
+
+**Sam Rose:** Yeah, you mentioned migration strategies and adoption plans - that's what we're really focused on now. Now that we've seen the technology, we understand that this could be very right for Shopify, and we think it can scale, we think it's really good for what we're calling a foundational base to build upon... But again, making it easy to make those design system choices and kind of adhere and flex the system and make it flexible for the factors or whatever the products that we're delivering at Shopify. That adoption and roll-out plan is what we're working on now.
+
+So we kind of better understand the technology and now we're working with other teams within Shopify to integrate it into our common build systems, and making sure that it's seamless and easy for Vanilla Extract to be used and understood across Shopify.
+
+Some of those reasons, like we've mentioned - it is very similar to Sass, in that it's like a .css.ts file, \[unintelligible 00:57:17.10\] but it's used similar like CSS Modules, which we're already using today... So that adoption we do hope is going to be very smooth, but it's really just figuring out a lot of those technical details and getting the build integrations figured out.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Awesome. Well, we're happy that y'all did this research in the open, in the public, and allowed our prying eyes to check it out and learn alongside you, see how you made your decisions, what was important to you there, what you looked at, how you ranked it, so that we can go out and make our own decisions a little more informed than we would have otherwise. So pretty cool, guys, Sam and Alex. Thanks for coming on JS Party and talking us through this entire thing.
+
+Of course, all of the links to all the things are in your show notes; especially that matrix is in there, the discussion thread, and a link to each of the six solutions - I guess five, because... Can you link to CSS? We can find a way; we'll link to it somehow, probably the MDN article... They will be in your show notes, so you can check out all the different options that they checked out for yourself. Any final words, guys, before we call it a show?
+
+**Alex Page:** Just a huge thank you. Thanks for letting us come here and talk. I'd love to see the Vanilla Extract team on there, and sharing their technology. I think they do a much better job than we did of like pitching or explaining the different ins and outs of it. Thank you so much. It was great to be on here, talking about open research, and open source, and design systems. Thank you so much.
+
+**Sam Rose:** Yeah, just +1. It's been a party. Thank you.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You bet. Well, we definitely are interested in doing that episode, so let's make it happen. Stay tuned for that. Divya, thanks for being my co-pilot today. Happy to have you back.
+
+**Divya:** Good show.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Good show. Alright, that's JS Party for this week. We will talk to you next time.
diff --git a/Roadmaps to becoming a web developer in 2021_transcript.txt b/Roadmaps to becoming a web developer in 2021_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fc9f83f4b4bb07eeb1b0fd971966aef536d54e8a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Roadmaps to becoming a web developer in 2021_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,501 @@
+**Jerod Santo:** Hello, everybody out there in podcast land. I am Jerod, I'm your internet friend, and I'm here for an awesome episode of JS Party. We have a very topical and timely thing to talk about today - developer roadmaps. How do we become a web developer in 2021, or how to continue your journey if you're part of the way down, as we all are. I have a very special guest; today I'm joined by Kamran Ahmed, who's working on Developer Roadmap. Kamran, thanks for coming on JS Party!
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Thank for having me here.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Good to have you, very excited. I wanna start off this episode with a tweet which hit my timeline - it looks like 17 hours ago - from Sam Sycamore. Very on-topic. He said "I've spent five years gaining experience as a carpenter, landscaper and home remodeler. That work earns me $21/hour, living paycheck to paycheck. I've spent less than five months learning web development, and today I closed two freelance deals that will pay my bills for the next three months."
+
+He then follows up and says "Not everyone can do what I've done, not everyone would want to do what I've done, not everyone would wake up at 4 AM to study and to perform physical labor from 9 to 5 everyday, but it can be done. If you think you're up for it, then I hope you'll go for it."
+
+Surely, in web development land everybody's mileage varies. People learn at different paces. Some are given to it, some have to power through; we all have to power through a little bit. So it's not as if everybody can do what Sam has done, but a lot of people can really thrive in this industry, and we've seen a lot of people do it. What are your thoughts on that, and Sam's experience, Kamran?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** \[04:07\] Exactly. I know a lot of people who have not gone through the formal education of computer science and still are making good money... So I think anyone, if you have the clear path and you have the good mentors and if you're able to find out the correct way, you can even get started in a couple of months, 2-3 months and you're really able to get a good amount of money from the freelance work or the actual job as well. So definitely, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, and not everybody wants to freelance; some people want a full-time job. We know that once you get through that first set of hurdles with regards to your knowledge in web development, there's another set of hurdles which is organizations aren't always hiring for junior developers; everybody wants the senior developer, so there's a mismatch there.
+
+There's definitely challenges along the way, but we see that there's huge opportunity, and we benefitted from the huge opportunity in this industry. So anything that I find, especially around helping other people down that path, I get very excited and I like to promote that.
+
+I've found your repository, Roadmap to Becoming a Web Developer, in 2021; of course, it's linked up in the show notes. We're here to discuss it. It shows how to be a frontend web developer, how to be a backend web developer, there's DevOps... There's a bunch of stuff, and I'm sure you're working on expanding it... But I was just curious, why did you create this project? What inspired you to put this work in?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah, so I graduated from a university that is not a very good university. I graduated in the software engineering. When I graduated, I was doing random stuff; I did game development, I did Android development, I did web, I did a lot of different stuff... But I did not have a clear path of what I wanted to do, or how does the job market look like, and things like that. So I was always bugging my seniors at university and reaching out to people on LinkedIn, and GitHub, and here and there, asking them "What should I be learning?"
+
+I saw that after some time spent in the industry I was getting asked the same questions that I was asking earlier in my career to different people, from my juniors, some of the people was working with... And as you said, there are a lot of people in the industry which are not formally educated in computer science. So from that, I decided to create a path and prepare a list of items that can help anyone get into the speed. And for example if you're stuck or if you don't know what to want to learn, you can look at this list and take what you want to learn next, and continue on with your journey. This was mainly the reasoning behind me starting this project.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So when did you start it? Because it's for 2021, but I know you were working on it last year as well, and you just keep it updated. How long have you been compiling this roadmap?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** So the first version was a very basic one. I just thought the really basic stuff. It was in 2016, I believe; at the beginning of 2016. So every year I run a survey, I look at what the community looks like, and based on my own experience, I keep updating, with the help of community also... So this is the fourth version, I believe; the most recent version. I'm still working on a 2021 version, but still, it is mostly up to date with the current landscape.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And is it all from your mind, or is it a community effort?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** It's a community effort, I believe. Also, it's mostly me, because there are a lot people contributing with ideas and suggestions, but I did not really want to put everything out there. So I wanted to be very focused. So I'm really picky with the stuff that I put in there, but I have the help of the community, and I run the survey, and I look at the different -- for example the State of JavaScript and a lot of different online community surveys, and stuff. I'm very aware of this every year.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Very, very good. And it's worth pointing out that this roadmap is an awesome resource, but it is very much that. It is a map of choices. So in addition to this, you're gonna have to team this with the How. So this is kind of like the What. What you should learn, what order perhaps you should tackle these topics, which ones work together, which ones are set at odds, you're gonna have to choose between this and that as you work your way down the path...
+
+\[08:07\] And you've demarcated what's optional, what you think is required, things that you suggest, things that you would suggest necessarily... And that's all very useful, but none of this is really the How. Like, "Well, I'm gonna learn HTTP, but... How do I do that?" You're not trying to tackle that particular problem, right?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah. One more thing I wanted to point out here is that the target audience for this roadmap is mainly the intermediate developers, the people who already have some idea, who are in the speed and are stuck in there, they don't know how to level up.
+
+For a beginner developer - it's a bit different for that. I would not recommend you to go this path. I'm working on something and I hope really that in the next couple of weeks, by the end of January \[unintelligible 00:08:45.14\] But it's going to be a different path for the complete beginner.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** So there's that. And after that, the second thing is it depends on the job market also. This is mainly looking at the European market and looking at generally the area that I have worked in. So it is mainly targeting that. For example, the recommendations that I have here on the roadmap - for example, I'm not recommending React.js. In Germany there might be Vue.js, or in U.S. there might be something else, like Svelte, or whatever. So you should keep that in mind while you're following this roadmap.
+
+Now, answering your question - I wanted to give the spot... Because there's nothing on the internet. If you are just starting or if you're in the field you don't know really what to look at. So I wanted to prepare this as a source that can guide people towards what they want to learn. Because if you want to learn how, you can always google and you can find tons of different material in the written form; or on YouTube, for example, there are a lot of YouTubers doing a really good job for that. There's \[unintelligible 00:09:47.08\] There's a lot of good people doing really good stuff.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Sure.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** So you can find a lot of the sources out there. But I think the hierarchical path was missing there, so this I wanted to solve it as a source. But I have plans to put in the resources. I was working on something to make this roadmap interactive also... So there's going to be soon the interactive version, so you'll be able to click the items on the roadmap and be able to see where you can learn all of that.
+
+Also, I've recently started my YouTube channel, so I wanted to go with the roadmap... But it takes a lot of time, so I don't expect to put all of this stuff on my channel, but there's a lot of stuff out there, so I'm going to link it to the roadmaps in a couple of weeks or so. This year my plan is to expand it and put this kind of stuff.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I love the idea of the interactive roadmap, especially if you can create an ecosystem around it. You may not be the best resource on how to learn DNS, but maybe somebody else already has that, it's a great resource - well, link it through the interactive roadmap. But maybe you're the expert on Node.js, or whatever it happens to be - then you can put your own resources where they fit. But then when you don't have something, fill it in with somebody else's.
+
+So it's very on-point to mention that this is for intermediate developers. This is not for the person starting from ground zero. Like you said, you may wanna have some stuff for that person down the road. Historically, what have you told people -- I don't know if you get this question a lot, like "Hey, I wanna get into web dev. Where do I start?" And since this is for intermediates, maybe you can check out the roadmap, but it's not necessarily for you... What about a brand new person? Where do you usually point them?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** That is a question that I get a lot on my Twitter. In my Twitter messages there are a fair bit of people/beginners asking "Where should I start?" This is the question that I get the most, so mostly I have a copy-pasted message that I wrote, and I paste it down...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, paste it to me in audio form here...
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** I will do that. So first of all, it depends upon the person; for example if you want to be a frontend developer or a backend developer, or if you want to get into DevOps. For the frontend developers I normally say "Just pick HTML." For example, look at any source code... But even W3Schools is fine. Just go look at the HTML, just spend a week or two weeks going through the HTML, learn the basic -- learn how to create the forms, learn about the structure, and just get the basics out of the way... And just prepare a couple of projects; the structure of some HTML pages of the website.
+
+Then look at the CSS, for example, and then try to style these pages.
+
+\[12:13\] For example, I ask them to copy the Twitter homepage, the login page. So when you have the form and all in HTML, after the two weeks when you are done with this, for example "Style this form to look like the page that you copied." So do a couple of pages like this. Then for example pick the JavaScript and try to make it interactive. For example the form that you made, try to choose a validation method; when the user clicks it, validate the login, username and password, and show the message, like for example "Invalid username or password." And do a couple of exercises like this, for example.
+
+Then once you're done with this, you have done some projects, just start looking for open source projects, or create a couple of templates on GitHub... Learn about the Git, for example, and create \[unintelligible 00:12:53.23\] on GitHub for a couple of projects in there... And then start from there; continue onwards, and then learn React, and then you can continue on with the roadmap. The same kind of path I have for the backend also, and so on.
+
+So you don't need to look at the roadmap itself, because the beginners -- whenever I get a question, mostly on Twitter, people are really scared of this roadmap. They see that I have a hundred items in there. "It would take me like two years to go through all of this. How can I speed it up?" First of all, it looks daunting, but it really is not. If you \[unintelligible 00:13:25.23\] HTML, CSS, JavaScript, the basics, and then do a couple of projects, and then for example -- like, most of the items in there, they don't really take much time, like DNS, and how it works, and what is a domain name; you can easily do it in one hour or two hours, the internet section.
+
+But a lot of items in there -- so I plan on adding a timeline there also, in the future... But it really looks daunting, but it is not. And as I said, it is not for the beginner, it is for the intermediate... And I mentioned it also in the disclaimer, but people don't look at the disclaimer at the top...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] That's because we all just scroll right down to the shiny, colored version. You skip the words and you go right to the pictures, don't we?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah. So I need to find a better way to highlight there in the roadmap also, that it is not for the beginners. If you're a beginner, do this, this, this.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. So one thing that you have is that you can break off into your particular path - whether you wanna be a frontend developer, backend developer, and then you can break off into DevOps from there... But you have a section which is the introduction section, which is stuff that everybody should know. And in here you have things like version control, which at this point in time is basically Git, and then GitHub as an addendum to that.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yes.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Basic terminal usage, data structures and algorithms, licensing, SSH, design patterns... Okay, I can see where you can get overloaded relatively quickly. Now, I learned software development back in yesteryear, in the days of your, when a lot of this stuff didn't really matter back then. I didn't think once about licensing, I didn't know what semantic versioning was... SSH was a thing I learned pretty early on, but version control came much later. I knew I needed it by the time I picked it up, because I was too busy having file1\_copy0, copy2 etc.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Same for me...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I eventually picked it up, but... Do you think that perhaps this shared knowledge that everybody kind of has to know about is one of the things that overwhelms people? ...whether they're just getting started or they've been coding for a little time, and they're wondering "When do I really need to learn Git? When do I need to completely understand open source licenses?" It feels like some of these aren't necessarily required, but you just pick them up over time. Is that a fair assessment?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah, I agree with that stuff. For example, if I tell you also about my past, for the first two years when I was starting - I started in 2013 when I was in university \[unintelligible 00:15:41.25\] and I learned about Git after two years in the industry. I learned about SSH after 2-3 years also. Design patterns I never touched, because in the beginning I would create a mess of the code, looking at design patterns.
+
+\[15:58\] So most of this stuff I did not do in the beginning. As I said, I need to highlight that better in the paths. So this is merely the stuff that you pick up in the journey somehow, during the journey. So you don't need to learn it in the hierarchical format.
+
+As I said, if you look at the website, roadmap.sh, I did not mention all of this in the top. It's just in that position here because I did not know where to put them, because there's a common theme across all of these...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, shared knowledge.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** But I agree with you, you don't need to learn all of these in the beginning.
+
+**Break:** \[16:31\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, let's dive into the frontend roadmap. You have it laid out, and if listeners are listening along and want to have a visual, check out roadmap.sh, and also the developer-roadmap repo on GitHub, which are both in our show notes... So you can see what we're seeing as we discuss.
+
+But step one - I like your step one, because I think a lot of people skip over this step... It is "Learn the internet." Things like how does the whole internet work, and what are the protocols, what's HTTP, how do browsers work, what's DNS, what's a domain name, what's hosting - these things are really foundational to being a web developer, aren't they?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Actually, I have been experimenting on my brother also. My younger brother has just started university, so he's also learning a lot of this stuff... If you look in the first version -- I have the version tags on the repository. If you look at the older version, I did not have all of this internet stuff. So I have been experimenting on him and seeing what are the issues that he has...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] Is he cool with that? You're just running experiments on your brother... I hope he knows.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** He's fine with that, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] I'm just messing with you.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Now, if you look at the GitHub repository, I have the Release tab. It's not on the website, actually...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, okay. Yeah, three different releases...
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And you used to not have the internet stuff upfront, huh?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yes. And if you look at the first version -- not this one; I think I added it here... Go back. The last one.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** This 2017 version?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** \[20:14\] Yeah, click -- here is the link to the 2017 version. This one.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There you go.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** So if you look, this was a super-basic one. You were just learning HTML, CSS, JavaScript.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Learn the basics - HTML, CSS and JavaScript, yeah.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** So if you look, this is a bit not daunting as compared to the current one. The current one has a lot more stuff. But as I said, so he was having the issues, for example he didn't know what the domain is, what the hosting is, and all of this, so I just put that upfront because when someone is learning, it is easier to get into theoretical stuff before you get into the practical, the hands-on coding stuff. So that's why I put the internet and all the theory in the beginning. It's not really much, so you can easily learn it in one day, or something. And then you can continue on to the hands-on coding stuff, with HTML and so on.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, absolutely. I think even more so than what is HTTP -- maybe just like what it is, not necessarily how it works, is understanding DNS and understanding how a domain name such as Changelog.com, or roadmap.sh resolves into an address which can be located on the internet by a browser, and how that whole translation system works. I think it is empowering to understand all of that. It doesn't take you very much time to pick that up. You could probably learn it in a couple of hours, and toy around with your command line tools, like dig, and whois, and understand that process, and really go from there.
+
+I think knowing HTTP at like a deep level, like GETs, and POSTs, and PUTs, and DELETEs and all of that - probably not super-necessarily at this phase, but just understanding that's the language that the clients and servers talk to each other when you request web pages and when you update web pages. It's probably enough to just make it not so mystical. This is really about demystification at this point, because --
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah, so you don't need to go deep down, because if you look at any of the items, such as DNS -- DNS is also a lot of stuff. But I have just put it here so you know, if you open Google.com, what's happening behind the scenes. What is the domain name - google.com; what's the hosting, where is the website located, so that for example, when you build some website with HTML and CSS, you know where to put it, and so on.
+
+And same for the HTTP. When you open something, you need to know how to look at the console; for example if some image is being loaded, how is it being loaded? If some CSS is being loaded, how is it being loaded? And this stuff is going to be used when you look at the HTML, and when you put the link tags, and so on. So that's why just getting the basic idea of all of this in the beginning is going to be beneficial for later on.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Very good. So then we go from here and you go to - okay, now it's time for your three-layer cake: HTML, CSS and JavaScript, in that order. And I think I'm agreeing with you 100% that you have to build from the foundation, which is HTML. CSS is the look and feel, and then JavaScript is the interactivity... And it doesn't really make sense to learn them -- if you wanna be a frontender, there's no reason to go straight to JavaScript. Maybe if you're gonna be a backender, you'll go straight to JavaScript. You don't care about the HTML and CSS, but you wanna write backend JavaScript code. Frontender - learn these three, learn them in that order.
+
+We can probably skip over, for the sake of our discussion, HTML and maybe go straight to CSS. You have kind of learn the basics, making layouts (floats, positioning, box model, CSS Grid etc) and I think that's all good. I'm curious what your take is on the idea of somebody putting some rocket fuel on their CSS, or maybe kind of like skipping over, to a certain degree, with a framework... And saying "Well, I'm gonna pick up the framework and it's gonna allow me to make some websites, even if I don't totally understand exactly the way it's working", like a Tailwind or a Bootstrap, Bulma, whatever that your flavor happens to be... And actually start a little bit with the framework and learn CSS through framework usage. Do you think that's wise, or do you think that's foolhardy?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** \[24:12\] I would not recommend that. When you look at, for example, Bootstrap or Tailwind or something, you easily get motivated; you look at beautiful pages and then you get motivated to learn that stuff. But I think it is going to be later on beneficial for you if you know the CSS properly.
+
+If you look at the purple boxes, I say learn the basics, learn the layouts - so these are the items that I think you should learn beforehand, before you jump on to the frameworks... And you don't really need to learn about animation, and CSS tree stuff, and all of this deep, deep stuff... Just get the basic idea, learn how to create the basic pages and then move on to maybe the frameworks. If you look at the CSS frameworks, I have put it fifth, sixth place maybe; it's quite below there.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You have a way down there. After learning Git, after learning GitHub, and so on.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah, because if you look at the job market, people really don't ask about the CSS frameworks that much.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Sure.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** They ask you more about the CSS stuff. So if you look at the job descriptions also, there's not much about the CSS frameworks, and they're not going to ask you much about that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** True.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** They're going to ask much more about CSS itself. So I think CSS is much more beneficial... And depending upon what the end goal is - if you want to build something of your own, you might go on and learn some framework in the beginning. But if you want to find a job somewhere, then I think it is beneficial to learn CSS good, and then move on to the next thing.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I think that's 100% on point. A great distinction to draw is where are you trying to go with this? Are you trying to go from where you are right now to employable, or more employable? Or are you trying to go from where you are right now to launching your own web app or website? I think if you are just trying to put something into the world that you create, you could perhaps forgo some of the deeper knowledge with CSS and pick that up as need be. You're basically taking on technical debt to get your product out faster, to put it in startup-y terms... And I think that's probably a fair move.
+
+But if your goal is hireabilty, like you said, the knowledge about Flexbox, and Grid, and these things are gonna be the kind of questions that hiring managers are gonna ask you if they're hiring for a frontend position. They're not gonna say "Do you have Tailwind's classics memorized?" for example. Well said.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** One more thing. This roadmap gets popped up on Hacker News quite a lot, and every time I look at the comments, I get bashed for all of this... That you don't need to learn CSS that much, you don't need to learn JavaScript. Just move on to Bootstrap, or use React, and all. So this is my point - what is your end goal? If you want to be employable, then this stuff is going to be for that. If you wanna just build some stuff, you don't need to learn half of the items that are listed, and all of those roadmap items.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Well, there's not very much nuance on Hacker News. There's a lot of Caps Lock writing... But I think that conversations like these help to tease out the nuance. And one of the situations that we're in culturally is that there's a fine line between somebody who's an entrepreneur/startup/freelancer, and a full-time web developer employee... Because you can toggle back and forth between those quite often. In fact, when you can't find a job, everyone's a freelancer, right? Like "Hey, I'm freelancing. Hey, I've got my own thing I'm doing." So you get into that "Ship it" mindset, the productivity/technical debt mindset, because you are trying to get something out there and show what you can build... And a framework is absolutely gonna give you a shortcut to that.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Agreed, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** But then when you go to the point of hiring and interviewing and working full-time for a company, they aren't interested necessarily in specific CSS frameworks, they're interested in what you know, what you can build... And you kind of toggle back and forth, so it's an interesting dichotomy.
+
+Okay, so moving on from that... Then we come into JavaScript, and this is like -- you know, the cake gets bigger; it's like top-heavy, right? The base foundation - yeah, there's stuff to learn with HTML, but it's pretty straightforward. You can have a cheatsheet of all the elements, when to use what, and you understand the sideways tree structure... It's there, but it's not much. And the CSS is more, but then when you get into the land of JavaScript - holy cow. It's a whole new world of complexity and choices...
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** \[28:17\] Yeah, so JavaScript - I agree, there's a lot of stuff that you can learn. I have mentioned a couple of items. If you look, there's only 3-4 items there... So in my own opinion, I think you just need to learn all of this, and you don't really need to go deep down, because that stuff you can learn while you are for example doing projects, or you're learning about frameworks in JavaScript. You can go and learn all of that stuff while you're doing that.
+
+So you can just, for example, look at learning the basics, learn how to create the variable looks, and all of this stuff, get the idea about how to make the API calls, learn about the classes, and so on... And then you can move on to the next step.
+
+So you don't really need to master everything in JavaScript. Just get the idea about it. This will help you make the projects, and then you can move on and create projects, and then learn on the way.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. So a lot of this starts off as actually just programming ideas, right? Variables, control flow, what are functions, how do you call a function, how do you write a function. Basic syntax of JavaScript, basic constructs... And then you add to that. So if there's four things that you say right away learn for JavaScript to get going, it's the syntax and the basic constructs. It's learn DOM manipulation, understand how JavaScript maps onto the HTML that's inside of your browser, the document object model, and then how to change things inside of that by calling these functions.
+
+Then you say learn the Fetch API, or Ajax... And then you say ES6+ and modular JavaScript. So you're getting more JavaScript-specific as we go down... And then finally, just understanding some of these concepts like hoisting, event bubbling, scope - which is a generic programming concept, but how that applies inside of JavaScript... Prototypes, shadow DOM... Okay, we're getting pretty complicated at that point. And Strict Mode, stuff like that.
+
+So it's really like "Get the foundations of programming, understand how those are laid out inside of JavaScript, learn about the DOM and how to fetch things, how to go and do Ajax calls." And then you're basically ready to move on from there. Is that what you're saying?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yes.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Exactly.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There's a lot to frontend here... So we're about halfway down the frontend path... Are we halfway? I don't know if we're quite halfway. From there it's version control...
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yes.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...just like the basics. So why would we learn version control at this phase?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Because now that you know about HTML, CSS and JavaScript, now you're probably building some stuff. So you can make a simple web page or a simple project of your own... Now you can learn about Git, and GitHub, and now you can learn how to collaborate with other developers. So at this point you can make a full-fledged website, the frontend at least.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** So at this point, I think it is beneficial to learn Git, so that you can work with others, and share your work with the public - for example, put it on GitHub and share it with your employer, and so on.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, start getting that public profile so that you can display to people what it is that you've created, and things that you've built. So do you think it's fair to say at this point -- so I've made it through understanding the basics of the internet, HTML and CSS, and I've got my foundations in JavaScript - of course, there's tons more to it that I will learn over time... And I can collaborate, to a certain degree. Do you think I'm hireable probably at this point by somebody out there?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** I think you're hireable if you look at JavaScript. If you learn about HTML, CSS, JavaScript, you can easily get freelance jobs. There's a lot of people looking for freelancers who can do that. But if you're going to work for some company, I think after you learn version control, and GitHub, and Git, you should be easily hireable at a junior role at some company... Because I know a lot of people who are doing that. At my current company also we have a lot of developers who just know HTML, CSS and JavaScript and they are making the CSS pages, the frontend, the static pages.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[32:10\] Then we move into what I would consider the heavy frontend world... Package managers, pre-processors, build tools, frameworks, web components and so on.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yes.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I don't necessarily think we should go every jot and tittle down this... Maybe skip down to the one that everybody talks about the most. We can skip build tools, because hey, there's WebPack, hey, there's a few other things...
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah, before we move on, I wanted to highlight the grey text, if you look at that...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** So we have a lot of grey text in there. I think this stuff is good to have, but you don't necessarily need to know all of them while you are in that path. A lot of people think that you need to know this, but I think it is not clear enough, so you don't need to learn all of that. This is just my personal opinion. It is good to have, and you can learn it anytime.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** So they are not really that important.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's just like if you've found a treasure map to some hidden treasure, and there's a legend on that map that describes what all these items and things look like. You're never gonna find the treasure if you don't read the legend and make sure what all those things mean. So if you scroll to the top of this roadmap, you'll see that Kamran has put out a legend, where the grey mark said "You don't have to do this in order." The greyed out things he doesn't actually recommend... And then the green checkmarks are alternatives.
+
+So there are things on this list, that's why it's perhaps overwhelming when you just look at it. But as you start to read the details, there's no reason to learn, if you're doing CSS architecture, first of all, all of the architectures. I'm gonna memorize BEM, and how to do OO CSS, and SMACSS. Ten people on Earth have done that. But you might skip that one altogether and come back to it later. It's good information, but not necessarily on your critical path to being a web developer. So, well said...
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** When it comes down to picking a framework, this is one that's fraught with controversy, and opinions, and flame wars. So you have React.js as the happiest path, I think that is... Personal recommended path. Obviously, there's other options as well. How do you come to these decisions?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** It used to be Angular before... I think it is my personal opinion also, but if you look at the job market -- if you look at the 2016-2017 version I used to have purple Angular and purple React.js, and Angular was having more priority than React, because I like Angular and I saw that it was booming, and it was getting higher and higher...
+
+But if you look at the job market right now -- I mean, all of these are great; Svelte is also getting flamed now, but I think React.js has more job market, it's much simpler, and it's easier to learn as compared to other frameworks. Also, if you look at the community, React has much more community than Angular and Vue.js. That's why I think React.js is more recommended than the rest of the competitors.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Fair enough. Next up, Modern CSS. Explain this category and then some of the options here. You've got Styled Components, CSS Modules, so on and so forth \[unintelligible 00:35:00.29\] Glamorous, maybe.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Glamorous, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We've got a typo on that one.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah, the s is missing. I've found a bug now. \[laughter\] So if you look at the modern way of writing the modern JavaScript apps, whether it is React.js, Angular or Vue.js - so we are not writing the CSS in the old ways, putting the CSS inside the link tag, and all of that. Now we have CSS in JS, and so on. So for that, I have mentioned the StyledComponents, or the CSS Modules. I need to highlight this bit in the 2021 version, because I think Emotion is also getting used a lot, and also there's Chakra UI coming up also, and there's Tailwind also... So I need to highlight this section on the CSS a little bit.
+
+But yeah, if you look at the modern way of writing JavaScript apps, like the React.js and Angular or Vue or whatever, the modern CSS is a bit different from that. So I'll have a separate section highlighting that you just need to know how to write that kind of CSS inside of the link tags.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Absolutely. So then you have Web Components, which is kind of an optional path...
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[36:09\] CSS frameworks - here's where we bust open again, similar to JS frameworks; now we're talking about CSS frameworks, and there's lots of options there... How do you evaluate something to choose in this way? You gave the reason for React in terms of the JavaScript, but when it comes to CSS frameworks, what's your criteria for selecting, or starting somewhere?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** For CSS my personal criteria is just looking at the community and looking at the existing projects and are other people using it. I think when it comes to CSS frameworks, there's no recommendation, no strict kind of my personal opinion on that. So whatever works for you, you can use that.
+
+For example, I am currently using Chakra UI a lot. But before that, I've used Tailwind, I've used the React Step, and all... I mean, it depends on the project, and it depends upon the jobs that you're applying for, for example; what the company is using. It doesn't really matter what you use. But my personal preference right now is Chakra UI, because he's my colleague \[unintelligible 00:37:11.03\] and he's a good friend of mine also... And I think it really makes building the frontend applications really easy. It works kind of like Tailwind, but there's a bit of different implementation, and so on.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, you're friends with him? We did a whole episode on Chakra; you've probably heard that one.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yes, actually he's my colleague. We're working at the same company.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, awesome. Tell him we said hi. I wasn't on that show, but I was hanging around during the show. So I don't think I've met him personally, but awesome guy, and very cool project, Chakra UI. We'll link up the episode for that if you want to go back and hear the story.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah, he's a super-cool guy, and he's putting too much effort into Chakra UI himself; I see him working on that, and that's made me want to use it more in my future projects than anything else.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, that's always a good reason. Like, "Hey, my friend built this, and he's working really hard on it, so I like to use it." There's nothing wrong with that.
+
+Once we get past here, we're starting to get into some of the minutiae. A lot of optional stuff, a lot of "choose your own adventure" at that point. But testing, of course, is a critical path, I believe; I don't know exactly where it fits in the timeline, but learning how to test is a critical skill for any developer, no matter if you're frontend, backend, DevOps, whatever you are; testing, and automated testing specifically, not manual testing where you go click around things (because we all do that) is definitely something that needs to be on your roadmap somewhere.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah. I've put it a little bit down below, because I did not really know where to put it... Because if you look at the other things compared with them, there are other things that have more priority than the testing itself. For example, if you need to learn React, you need to learn React first, before you know how to test it. So that's why it's a bit down... But it should definitely be above the Web Components, and whatever.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. I'm sure it's tough to pick the exact order. And testing is a tough one, because it kind of is a broad brush. It kind of can slot into all of these different topics... But when you're just getting started and you're trying to lay a foundation, if you don't know how to test, it can be a real blocker to actually learn your technologies. It's like, "Do I have to test this as I go? I don't even know the technology. How am I gonna test the technology?"
+
+The nice thing about it is it's a skillset and a mindset, really, that once you have it and you've learned it, usually a junior developer will learn it from a team or a senior engineer who's already doing the practice and already has the test harness in place, and you can just kind of copy and paste a few tests, and change the values, so you can learn by example inside of a team.
+
+Once you understand how to do automated testing -- of course, it is contextual to the particular technology; how you go about doing unit tests versus integration tests is gonna change over time as well. Once you have that down, you can start to slot it in as you learn other things. But it is really tricky to tell somebody when they should learn how to write automated tests, because you've gotta know how to do the thing before you can learn how to test the thing, kind of.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** \[40:10\] Yeah, it's definitely an important thing. For me, honestly, I did not learn formally testing while I was applying for jobs. I definitely learned all of this while I was working at some company. Because this is not the stuff that is asked much. They definitely ask you what different types of testing there are, what the mocks are, all of this stuff, but they don't ask you how to write this and that.
+
+So definitely, you need to know about this, but once you're hired, you can definitely look, as you said, look at the people who are writing the tests and learn from them. You can learn on the job also.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Was there anything that you learned, Kamran, where you learned it thinking "This is gonna get me hired. This is really gonna help me get hired", and it ended up being completely not usable until later? Or it was like "Why did I even learn that? Because they never asked me about it" or "I have never used it." Do you have any of those skills that you've just kind of wasted your time on when it came to getting hired?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Definitely. I have a lot of stuff in the roadmap that I know about, but I have never used them. For example Electron - I have used it in a couple of my own projects, but I've never used it...WebAssembly - I learned it, but I did not use it at all, anywhere. There's definitely a lot of stuff.
+
+I have a framework of my own that I use to pick up stuff, but you definitely need to know what this thing is, and when should you use it. You don't need to learn and go deep down into the stuff, but you should know what the different items on the list are. For example, I'm working as an engineering manager, and whenever some project comes, I need to have an idea about something.
+
+So definitely, you don't need to learn all of this, but you need to know what this stuff is. You need to be very careful, especially if you're beginning in the career, to not waste your time on picking up some random stuff because your friend said to you that it's going to be really beneficial for you, but you did not use it, or whatever.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, fair enough. Anything else before we shift our focus to the backend on this? I know we've skipped over a bunch; we're not trying to be comprehensive here. But is there anything else on the frontend roadmap that you think is worth mentioning before we change our focus?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Again, I would just say, pick HTML, CSS, JavaScript, then Git, and React. js, and learn maybe the testing. Those are the 4-5 items that you need to learn. So don't look at the roadmap if you are overwhelmed by all of this. Just pick these 4-5 items and you're good. Just start working on the projects, and do a lot of projects, and then you learn along the way. Most of the items listed here - you don't even need to spend so much time on it; you can learn it while you're building stuff.
+
+For example, I have a section for npm \[unintelligible 00:42:34.02\] I have a section for a lot of different things that you don't need to learn. You learn it while you're building software.
+
+**Break:** \[42:42\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So as we turn our focus to the backend, one thing that's interesting right off the bat - it starts pretty much the same as the frontend roadmap. You start off with learning the internet, and learning basic frontend knowledge, and then going from there. Why did you start here, Kamran?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah, so I think it's the same thing - you need to learn about the internet because no matter if you are doing the frontend or the backend, you need to know how the internet is working, and the hosting, and what a domain name is, because in the end, you are building for the web, right? For the frontend or for the backend. So the internet is there; then the basic frontend knowledge - you see here, I did not mention really the items that you need to learn, because it is just a basic idea about the HTML, CSS and JavaScript... Because at some point you're going to have to do the frontend also, to be able to work with your backend. So that's why it is there, for the basic frontend knowledge you need to know.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Then I have OS and general knowledge. I need to change it to \[unintelligible 00:44:26.10\] I need to make it grey, actually. So you don't really need to know about all of this stuff, but this is definitely--
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Out of order, probably.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yes. So you can learn it any time. For example, I don't know also much about the basic networking concepts. I know the basics, but I really don't know much deep into that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Also, if you're for example doing JavaScript, you don't need to know about threads and concurrency, or whatever. So there's a lot of different stuff here in the OS segment that you don't really need to know in the beginning. This can come later also.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Let me submit something to you... So I agree that these are all things to have general operating system knowledge, and really what you're talking is kind of like how a server operates.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yes.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So you can sort of back into that, or learn it over time, especially if you're using platforms as a service, or you're deploying to things that run functions for you, and things like that... But then are you really a backend developer? I don't know, maybe you are. What you need to understand is client server interaction. You need to understand how the web works. It kind of fits into the internet and the basic knowledge. It's like, what does the client-server relationship look like? And you have that in basic networking concepts; these are high-level categories, so I'm not sure where things fit in your mind... But I think when it comes to a backend, what are we doing? Well, we're writing servers, effectively. We're writing services. So understanding the client-server interactions, a little bit about networking, TCP/IP probably, definitely HTTP... I think a backender really needs to know HTTP very well, more so than a frontender needs to... And through that, over time, you'll learn things like threads and concurrency, and stuff like that; POSIX basics etc.
+
+But I think maybe simplifying this and moving those down to where those could be things later... But I'd say client-server interactions \[unintelligible 00:46:23.21\] might be something that really gives a backend developer a good foundation, right?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah. So this is more of a dev-opsy kind of point; it's more of a dev-ops related...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, okay.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** So this stuff you don't need to know in the beginning.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** The stuff that you were mentioning, about the client and the server - I think internet covers there a bit also...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Sure.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** So yeah, that should be a little bit -- like, way down, not a little bit.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Probably worth highlighting for a backender though, instead of "What is HTTP?" I think maybe that in depth. HTTP in depth, or something like that.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well said. This goes into a DevOps thing eventually. But then we get down to what's really interesting. Of course, you're on JS Party, so we've already made our decision - the backend is JavaScript... No. Learn a language, right? So unlike in the browser -and maybe WebAssembly will change this - you're basically writing JavaScript in the browser. Maybe you're writing TypeScript, maybe you're writing something that compiles to JavaScript... But we're executing JavaScript in the browser, at least for now, until a lot of the WASM stuff really takes over and we can write whatever language we want and run it in the browser.
+
+But on the backend - choice now. Massive amounts of choice. You do not need to run JavaScript on your backend, and so now it's time to learn and pick a language.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Learn a language - so as I said earlier, in the beginning, this roadmap is more of a job-oriented. If you look at the Learn a Language section, for example I have highlighted JavaScript as my recommendation, because JavaScript definitely has more jobs than just the items that I have mentioned here... But definitely they are booming also. For example, Java has a lot of jobs, Go has a lot of jobs also...
+
+JavaScript I have mentioned because JavaScript is easier for the people with the frontend knowledge, for example, or the people who already are getting into web development; they know JavaScript a little bit also, so it is easier for them to learn JavaScript. So in this section I just mentioned to learn the basics of programming with the language of your choice, whatever you picked.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[48:23\] Yeah. So it's very much context-dependent, right? There's a lot of good languages on the backend. They all have pros and cons. I think the job market is a good way of gauging, like "Well, I'm just getting started. I don't know how to pick the best language because I don't know what the best language might look like. Why don't you just tell me what's the best language?" And when it comes to hiring - well, you just sort by most opportunity, right? And I agree with you, JavaScript is absolutely right there at the top, and it has the benefit of saving time... Because you're already learning some frontend stuff, you're already learning JavaScript, to a certain degree...
+
+Let's face it, a backend developer needs to know some frontend. And I'll say it, a frontend developer needs to know some backend. They don't need to be full-stack, they're not gonna have all the knowledge about all the things, but you are more useful and more valuable and more productive as a developer if you understand the other side of the conversation that you're having. And whether you're on the client side or the server side, you need to know some of the other.
+
+So most people writing backend - they know some JavaScript, right? You've picked up some JavaScript. So it's nice not having to learn a whole other language, especially when it's already highly in demand.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah. And also, one thing that I recommend to people mostly is to go to, for example, Stack Overflow Careers. For example, if you're targeting Germany, pick the location for Germany and look for the jobs. Sort by the skills. What is there most clear? You'll see that it's JavaScript, for example, or Go, or whatever. And pick from there.
+
+Go to LinkedIn Jobs and look at the jobs of your target area. What is the skillset that is more in demand? And pick the language from there. If you're not building your own project, it really depends on the job market.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Absolutely. That's great advice. I'm wondering - can you do those over time as well? Because then you could see which ones are trending in up or down directions... Because you want your skills to be good now, but you want them to be in demand five years from now... And usually, if you get a slight curve one direction or the other, you can see "Well, there's a lot, but it's trending down" versus "It's a lot, but it's trending up." Is there a way to get that out of the job boards, or any other source?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah, for example Stack Overflow releases their survey also... For example The State of JS, or the Stack Overflow Survey, and all. I normally look there also. You can look at this stuff also and see where it is going. For example, GitHub also releases like \[unintelligible 00:50:43.17\] So you can look at all of these surveys that other companies are doing and then get the idea from there also.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. Another way you can do it is you can sort by the language that has the best podcast support. JavaScript has JS Party, there's Syntax, there's all these shows... Yeah, sort by then. And then also Go has GoTime, which is an awesome podcast... So like hey, maybe learn Go, because there's an awesome podcast. I'm just now being silly, but... There you go; another way you can sort your languages.
+
+So you've picked a language, you've learned the language... Core details about its runtime... Really diving deep, to a certain degree. Maybe not like you are expert-level, but proficient I think is the goal here. Proficient with this language.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And then it goes to - what. We have Git at this point, hosting, GitHub... I think you're probably now hireable and you wanna get your profile out there? Is that what you're thinking?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah, so it's the same like the frontend roadmap. As I mentioned, learn the basics, and then learn how to code with other people, and put your work out there. In the Learn a Language section it's not about the databases, it's not about anything. It's just learn the langauge, learn how to program this, and learn how to for example make the API calls, and so on, and then the Git, so you can work with other people.
+
+And if you go down, then I have the databases. That's where things get interesting, where you learn how to make full-fledged applications...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[52:10\] Yeah. So you have now databases, you have relational databases as the first step, with Postgres as your personal opinion; I share that opinion, so hey - team Postgres. But then it goes -- there is the technologies, like Postgres, versus Maria, versus Microsoft, SQL, Oracle etc. but really what you want is the concepts at this point. You have to pick one to learn on. But the point is "How do I design a database? How do I run a database? How do I make queries? How do I put stuff in the database?" That's foundational knowledge and transferable knowledge, and really what you're after, regardless of which database you're picking.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah. Also, at this second what I meant to say is just learn how to do \[unintelligible 00:52:52.17\] and get the basics out of the way... Because this stuff about the performance and all - this is somewhere down below on the roadmap also. So here just learn how to do the CRUD operations. And this is transferable knowledge. For example, if you learn Postgres, you already know MySQL.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Pretty much.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** I mean, doing the CRUD at least.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** So yeah, that's about it. Learn about that. And then for example if you look at the More About Databases section, I have mentioned most of the performance stuff, and the database schema design, and all of this and that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, so one thing I've noticed as I've been in this industry for quite some time now, and have seen different people come up through different stacks and pick different technologies based on the community they're in, or just what they're exposed to, is that JavaScript backend developers do tend to get exposed to NoSQL databases, specifically MongoDB, sooner than relational databases. With other backends - I think with the Ruby community it's kind of the other way around... And I'm curious what your history is with databases. Did you start on a relational in terms of learning, or did you start with a document database like Mongo and moved to relational? What was your experience?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** I think picking the right tool for the right job is my mantra, kind of. I started with PHP in the beginning, so I did PHP a lot for 4-5 years... And I was using mainly MySQL with that. After that I tried PostgreSQL and I went with that; I used PostgreSQL for some time. Then I moved to JavaScript and started using MongoDB. So my history is kind of that...
+
+I think PostgreSQL is booming. PostgreSQL has a lot of stuff that you can do with \[unintelligible 00:54:32.19\] So PostgreSQL is definitely my choice when you know about the schema and when you know what you're going to store... But MongoDB - we are using heavily MongoDB also, because we have the third-party services, so we don't really know about the schema that is going to be coming from there... So we went with MongoDB for some of the parts, and we went with Postgres for some of the internal applications where we knew what we are going to store and how the \[unintelligible 00:55:00.26\] is going to look like. So it really depends upon the use case.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So are these specific technologies that you'll find on job boards similar to the way you would find things on the frontend? Is someone gonna say "Must have MongoDB skills"? I'm asking sincerely, because I don't go through the job boards very often. Is Postgres on the list, or does it say like "Must know SQL"?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** I think yeah, Postgres -- it really doesn't matter. It depends on the level, for example, you're applying for. If you're looking for software engineer, they mostly look for just SQL. But if you're looking at senior software engineer, or principal software engineer, they look at the intricacies, like the deep down into Postgres - how it works, and how does it compare with MySQL for example, or when you should use it, when should you not use it, and so on.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Fair enough. There's a lot here about databases, and I think that's fair... Because let's face it, a lot of backend development is all about putting data in and getting data out of databases. That's a lot of what it is, at the end of the day.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Definitely, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So the more that you can learn about how a database operates, and how you can interact with a database, and optimize that, you are going to be more valuable. And after databases it's Learning About APIs. There's a lot to talk about here as well.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** \[56:13\] Yeah, so for the APIs I think most of the applications being built these days is just the APIs. For the past 3-4 years I have never done an application which was just an application rendering the HTML page from the backend itself. I mean, we do SSR and stuff, but this is also now built with APIs. So I think APIs are really important. Learning about the REST and JSON APIs, and the authentication, those kinds of mechanisms, is important. You just learn that, and there are different mechanisms; there's gRPC, there's SOAP, and so on. And how you write the APIs.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I would tend to agree. Where does GraphQL fit into this? Because it is trending in the upward direction.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** GraphQL -- so if you look at the job market, I don't think it is as much in demand as the RESTful API, for example.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** A hundred percent agree with you. I'm just wondering where it is. Is it on there somewhere?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** It is way down, I think.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Way down. Oh, there it is. Way down.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright. I probably would at least include it in this list... Maybe it's not your opinionated one, but... If you asked me what are the common types of server-side APIs today, I would say in this order REST-based JSON APIs. Then I would say probably gRPC. Then GraphQL. And SOAP is just like legacy at this point. I'm not saying that you have to learn all of those, I'm just saying it's in the zeitgeist, and I think it's going to be on more and more job boards as time goes on.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** You're right, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Anyways, that's a nitpick.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** As I said, this popped up into my mind later on when I was building this roadmap, and making this \[unintelligible 00:57:49.11\] is a bit difficult...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, totally.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Because it's not a tool for the roadmap. So I just put it there, because it's not a recommended option, so...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Like I said, just a nitpick, just curious what your thought pattern is on that.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** No, I've been working on the restructuring a little bit of this roadmap, so there's definitely things that are going to be up and down in the next coming weeks.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Sure. And it's worth noting - this is a roadmap made by Kamran, friends and contributors, that is a roadmap. It's not the only way to do it, it's not the 100% correct way to do it. This is like one guy's advice on what could be a great way of going about things, so take it with that in mind.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah. And it's highly opinionated.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** You might have a different point of view than mine. So it's just me giving my thoughts and my idea of what the backend development or the frontend development is, or whatever.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. Alright, so the API is a huge thing to learn about; of course, you're gonna be creating APIs, so you have to know what one is and how they work in order to build them as a backender, so that's definitely there.
+
+Caching, I think, well-placed. Right next to web security knowledge. After you learn about APIs, caching is a huge aspect of backend development, and one of the trickiest things to get right... Specifically cache expiration is a lifelong pain for me, and for many people.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Likewise.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. So when you say pick up caching, you have a bunch of just technologies listed. I think most people are probably understanding CDNs to a certain degree, because that's about as outsourced as your caching can get... And then move into application-level caching with something like a Memcached or a Redis.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah. So by client-side I meant the HTTP caching; knowing about the HTTP headers, and so on. For example, cache control and all these headers that you can use to set up the content that gets cached in the browser, or the proxies... And the server-side caching - there's mainly Redis and Memached, I believe, and Redis is the one that is most commonly used. Every app that I have worked with has Redis, and every job board that I've come across has Redis. So Redis is quite common for that, so you should pick up that also.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[01:00:00.13\] Yeah. And first and foremost understanding why and when to cache; like what's its purpose, when would you do it, when would you maybe not do it, the pitfalls of caching... These are things that are all good to know... Right there next to security knowledge.
+
+Now, security to me falls into the same category as testing, where it's like "Where does it fit in?" Because it's kind of one of these things that you wanna have interspersed into all the things that you're doing, versus adding it at the end, so to speak... Just like performance, "Oh, we'll make it faster later." That doesn't always work, because you design the system in a way that's antithetical to performance. We can really shoot ourselves in the foot if we don't have any security knowledge at all, but again, where exactly does it go in your roadmap? We have it here next to caching and right before testing. And it's there; you've gotta learn certain things.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah, I think security should be also a little bit up, because there's some stuff that you need to know about when you're learning about, for example, databases, like OWASP, and SQL injection and all that stuff; you need to know about that. And also, when you are dealing with the API, you need to know for example about the SQL injection and all this stuff \[unintelligible 01:01:04.26\] So it should be a little bit up also... But definitely, it is one of the most important things that you should know about when you are working with the backend.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Absolutely. It's also a place where you can rely heavily upon established norms, established libraries, production-grade and hardened frameworks... For example if you're using a backend framework to build your APIs and you're relying upon an open source, highly-used ORM or datamap or library, that thing will be built in such a way that it's very difficult - or sometimes impossible with certain ones - to actually code in such a way that you can have a SQL injection. Because a bunch of people have been using this and working on it together, they'll make it darn near impossible for you to write SQL-injectible code in your backend, and that's a huge boon to you, especially when you don't even know what it is.
+
+It's a place where you need to know these things, but if you are not straining too far from common ground, a lot of times you're protected by the community of developers around you, which is nice.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Definitely, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Testing, CI/CD... We're getting down into things beyond testing; we get to where it's kind of choose what interests you, choose what to learn next. We're already hireable at this point, but testing, just like in the frontend, I think it kind of spans a lot of these concerns.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah. And I think for backend testing it's way more important... I mean, definitely for frontend it's also important, but for backend, because there's a lot of business logic involved, and there's a lot of the business rules, and such... So definitely the testing is really, really important, for the backend especially.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Now, at first I give pause when I hear that, but let me agree with you... And this is why - your frontend needs to be tested to ensure that it works according to the specified way it should work, correct?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Your backend needs to be tested for data consistency and protection concerns... Because you cannot trust your frontend anyways. If your frontend is compromised, you cannot trust it. So test all you want, you may not be executing your frontend. At the end of the day, I can pop up my browser and change your request and do all these things in your frontend; so your frontend is not a trusted piece of code. It's your code, and it should work as it's supposed to work, which is why you test it, but it's not internal. It's external.
+
+Your backend is internal and private, and its job is to ensure that things work the way that they need to work, and that data doesn't leak, and that all these things kind of happen, and you can't trust your frontend... But you have to trust your backend to a certain degree, so testing is paramount there. Never ever trust your frontend, regardless of how well-tested it is.
+
+So at first I was like, it's more important when you said it; I was like "Are you sure?" And then I thought like, "Yeah, actually it is more important there, even though it's important on both sides."
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** \[01:04:01.09\] Yeah, it's important on both sides. With the API and all of this - definitely, as you said; there can be different clients, you can look at the browser and look at the console and get that request and send whatever you want. But definitely it is really important from the backend also.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Very true, very true. And from there, we get into design and development principles, architectural patterns... We're starting to get pretty esoteric at this point. We're moving beyond merely hireable, to like pretty smart and useful... \[laughs\] I don't know how you rank these things, but... Design patterns. Good ways of writing software, microservices etc. The difference between monoliths, microservices, and it kind of goes from there.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** I think our field is getting broken down into multiple subfields, and so on. When I started, for example, there were just web developers. You were doing frontend, you were doing backend, you were doing everything. And then you got, for example, the frontend separately, the backend separately, then you got the DevOps separately...
+
+I think this stuff also here, \[unintelligible 01:04:57.15\] different people specializing into this item that is listed here also... But I think for backend developers it's still beneficial to know a lot of this stuff, because when you are a backend developer, you are architecting also. Not many companies have the architects as a separate role, that is going to help with the architecture of the application, and so on.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So when it comes to specializations, what do you think is popular ones, or in-demand specializations? You list out search engines... I think specific technologies like that, like "Can you do full-text search?" and stuff like that becomes important. What else?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** What I have seen is there's only frontend, backend and DevOps. That's it. But mostly in bigger, bigger corporations you have the architects, who are doing a separate job. But in 90% of the companies, as a backend developer, you are going to be doing a lot of this stuff. So it is better to know about all of this. Unless you are working for some big corp, you don't need to be a specialist, but you need to know all of this stuff as a backend developer.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Fair enough. Lots more there. We're not gonna cover this one comprehensively either, but the very last bullet point - I should also mention that there's a whole DevOps roadmap that we're not talking through today, but it's part of this... And so check that one out as well, if that's something that interests you. But yeah, Keep Learning at the very end, and of course, one of the things in this industry is you should always be learning. If you're not moving forward in your knowledge, you're actually moving backwards.
+
+Sometimes you can be moving forward and moving backwards by selecting a technology that's gonna be obsolete here soon... Hey, that's part of the game. But not only is there lots to learn here, but there's lots to learn that isn't here, and there's depth into each one of these rectangles here. You can go a certain depth into graph databases, a certain depth into web sockets, a certain depth into message brokers and RabbitMQ. So don't stay stagnant, don't think that when you get to the end of the developer roadmap you finish the game and you can just collect your trophy and your high salary and be done. It actually doesn't ever end, which is one of the reasons that you should be serious and committed if you go into this industry... Because unlike maybe a civil engineering degree, where you go to school for 4-6 years, get your degree - I'm now generalizing and assuming - you pretty much know everything you have to know from then on out... Your knowledge is gonna have a half life in software development; it's way faster than other areas. So if you're not somebody who wants to keep learning forever and ever until they retire, then maybe not the place for you.
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Exactly, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Anything else on the backend roadmap, or on roadmaps in general, or anything else before we call it a show?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah, for the backend roadmap I will again summarize that if you are a beginner, if you are trying to get into the backend development, ignore the roadmap; just pick for example a language, learn how to use the SQL queries, for example learn how to build a CRUD application, and that's it; you're done with the backend. Then you can keep learning a lot of this while you are building projects, and maybe learn about APIs, and so on.
+
+Again, as you mentioned, take it with a grain of salt. You don't need to look at my recommendations; look at what your job market looks like, what the companies are using, and then pick up whatever you want to pick. Also, it is really important to know when to use what. For example, I have mentioned PostgreSQL, I have mentioned MySQL... You need to know how are they different, in what cases you have MySQL which is better than PostgreSQL, or why PostgreSQL is better than MySQL, and so on.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There's lots to do. Get out there and learn, everybody. The website is roadmap.sh. The GitHub repo is too long, but I'll link it in the show notes, so you can go there, star the repo. Go to roadmap.sh. There's a YouTube channel upcoming, you can subscribe for updates... What else, Kamran, with regard to this project? Is there room to get involved, and give your opinons and help form the roadmap for future generations?
+
+**Kamran Ahmed:** Yeah, so people can go and open issues on the repository and suggest whatever thing can be improved, or whatever... And later on I'm going to be working on improving the website. I am working already on the redesigning of the website. It is going to be interactive, it is going to have resources on each of the \[unintelligible 01:09:04.28\] that are mentioned there... So if you have any suggestions or if you have any recommendations, feel free to shoot me an email or open the issue on the repository, and I'm looking forward to the contributions.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Awesome. Very cool. We appreciate you coming on JS Party. Thanks for listening, everybody. We'll talk to you again next time.
diff --git a/Running Node natively in the browser_transcript.txt b/Running Node natively in the browser_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..95c214c4078ee19880a589880d0209f73501d86b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Running Node natively in the browser_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,315 @@
+**Jerod Santo:** Welcome back, one and all, to another episode of JS Party. We have an exciting show for you today. Now, admittedly, I say that every episode, but I really truly mean it this time...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Jerod's excited.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...because we are joined by Eric Simons from StackBlitz. StackBlitz recently made waves with a huge announcement I think around May 21st, in conjunction with Google I/O, about this new technology they've been working on to help us run Node.js in our browsers natively. So we'll talk about what all that means.
+
+First of all, Eric, thanks for joining us.
+
+**Eric Simons:** Yeah, thanks for having me. I'm excited to be here with you all.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And we also have long-time contributor but not recent contributor - hey, it's Christopher "b0neskull" Hiller. Chris, you're back!
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I am... I think. Here I am... I think.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** From outer space.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Welcome back to the show.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Thank you.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And Kball's here... What's up, Kball?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Hey, hey! Glad to be here.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So let's start by getting excited, and then we'll talk about technology, and maybe we'll dig in, maybe we'll get less excited... Or maybe we'll get more excited. We'll see what happens throughout the show.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I don't really get excited.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, so just be quiet over there, Chris \[unintelligible 00:03:17.06\] I'll get excited.
+
+**Eric Simons:** Challenge accepted!
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Okay.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] Eric, if you can get Chris excited by the end of this show, you pretty much can just raise another round of funding probably immediately.
+
+**Eric Simons:** \[laughs\] Deal. This sounds good.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright.
+
+**Eric Simons:** Let's do it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** The announcement was web containers, which like I said in the opening, lets us run Node.js natively in the browser... So we'll dig into how it works, and how you're building this, and we'll talk future, but let's just start off with what does it mean when you all say "natively". Node natively in the browser. Tell us what that means.
+
+**Eric Simons:** Yeah, it's essentially running a direct API parity version of Node in your browser. It's actually \[unintelligible 00:03:56.18\] toolchain that will take Node.js, the source code itself, built from source, and actually pull it out, and -- I guess, let me take a step back. When you look at Node.js, if you've kind of dug into how Node.js works, when you require the fs module, the first thing that it does - you're actually touching JavaScript code. Node's built-in packages are just JavaScript code. But they inevitably have to pass over into native code on your local machine. It's like with C++ and that sort of thing.
+
+\[04:29\] So essentially what we've done at a very high level is the JavaScript stuff will just work -- you know, browsers can run JavaScript, but how do you run C++ in the browser? Well, you convert it to WebAssembly.
+
+So at a very high level what we've done here is the parts of Node.js that punch into your native operating system for \[unintelligible 00:04:44.22\] file system networking etc. we've written a WebAssembly operating system layer that actually provides those services. But actually if you go and inspect source on it and compare the Node.js runtime code against -- I think right now we support Node 14.6,or something like that... Compare that against raw source, it's one to one. So it's actually Node.js itself.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So when you're doing that, when you're running JavaScript -- like, Node packages up an implementation of V8 that it compiles.
+
+**Eric Simons:** Yup.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Are you running using that packaged V8 code running as WebAssembly, or are you cutting straight through to the browser's version of the JavaScript interpreter?
+
+**Eric Simons:** Yeah, a really good question. So this comes down to "How is it so fast?" If you rewind back to the origin of Node.js itself... You know, the web is awesome; JavaScript is awesome. We wanted to use it to build stuff not just on the web, we wanted to use it to build local applications. And browsers though have to be really secure, they have to be really fast. So to add APIs that expand capabilities takes time to do right, because the blast radius is really large. Anytime you open a browser tab, you're downloading and executing code.
+
+So Ryan Dahl -- the fastest path to bring JavaScript to local was to pull V8 out of Chrome, and bring it to local. But we had this divergence where now when you run a local toolchain, you are running multiple copies V8. Every node process has its own copy of V8 running, and usually there's a dozen processes when you're doing dev, or something... If you're using VS Code, or Atom, or whatever, that's Chromium, for Electron, so you're running another copy of V8 in that thing, and then you're previewing your app in Chrome itself, and that's another copy of it.
+
+So you have dozens of independent copies of V8 running, which is a huge inefficiency. So the key insight we had is that you can actually yield much better performance and security by kind of converging all these things that have diverged over the past decade, and use this single copy of V8 in Chrome. It's a lot faster, it's more secure. That version of V8 is evergreen. If you install Node 10 or whatever, that version of V8 is out of date. There have been security fixes that have been shipped for it.
+
+So by actually leveraging what's in your browser, you're getting all the benefits of the fact that Google is investing hundreds of millions of dollars into making this the most secure runtime on the planet.
+
+So at a technical level, that's the long answer to "Yeah, absolutely." So this is actually a really big deal, because what makes our local tool chains really insecure is that we had to diverge from being able to run this stuff in a browser and just leveraging the existing engine to bring it to local ten years ago. And now we're bringing it back, and you're kind of completing the loop there.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** To make sure I understand what you're saying is that any JavaScript that's being executed is actually being run by the browser's version of V8...
+
+**Eric Simons:** Correct.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** ...and you're then essentially providing any of Node's library functions that happen to be implemented in C++ as available in WebAssembly?
+
+**Eric Simons:** Yeah, more or less. I think there's parts of what V8 does, there's certain things that we have to port that -- we don't have access to the V8 API in the browser, for security reasons. But there are things that we can actually pull out and make run independently in a browser to provide that same sort of functionality.
+
+\[07:58\] Essentially, you lean on the existing V8 APIs available in a browser, or any browser engine, for that matter, or for things that you can't do, that are a bit more lower-level, you port them over in WebAssembly and actually use that as the target runtime there.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** So there's a ton of C++ code in Node.js that talks directly to V8 then... And if you're running this in WebAssembly, you don't have access to those APIs. Is that what you're saying?
+
+**Eric Simons:** Out of the box, yeah. And this is what took a long time for us to get right, is creating operating system interfaces where we could compile out the parts where Node.js does touch native into something that could run in WebAssembly, on top of a WebAssembly operating system... If that makes sense.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Do you follow that, Chris? You look confused.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** No...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Okay, so in Node and C++ there are all these calls to V8, directly to V8. This is why the Node Chakra project was a big effort, and they wanted to be able to decouple Node from V8. But that lost steam, it was a big undertaking...
+
+**Eric Simons:** Yeah.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** So did you have to go in there and patch Node to actually rip out those calls, or did you create an adaptor, say in the operating system, or I don't even know where exactly... But Node would get these V8 APIs from something that pretends to be V8... Do you know what I'm saying?
+
+**Eric Simons:** Yeah, totally. It's a bit of both... And there's still a lot of things that we're doing in R&D on this front. But the short of it... In certain places it doesn't make sense for those to call out to V8, because if you're trying to create a new date object - this is an absolutely arbitrary example - your browser can do that pretty well. In those cases we'll just short-circuit it and actually just leverage the existing stuff that the browser comes with. And there's a lot of things that you can do that with, right? There are more lower-level things though, like file system calls and things like that... People have tried to do this before, where they take polyfills and are like "We're gonna polyfill the surfaces." And the problem is that the runtime of Node is pretty specific in ways that aren't even -- like, they're incidental. It's not standardized, it's incidental, and people have built on top of that now. So it's not just a matter of having all the APIs, you kind of need the real thing to run. Or at least in the exact same way it went on local.
+
+You hit the nail on the head, this is exactly the big challenge in doing something like this, "Where do you draw the line? Do we port this to go into WebAssembly, or do we swap it out for something that's gonna leverage the browser's native capabilities?"
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Sure, right. So those V8 calls - yeah, maybe Node is creating a JavaScript object, but it's doing it in C++, and that's what it needs a V8 for, right? So you can rip that out and you can actually just have JavaScript do it, right? Because there you go; we already have a V8 running in the browser. What we can't just fake or rip out is stuff like filesystem APIs, things like -- I'm curious, what about libuv, what about the dependencies of Node? What about OpenSSL, what about things like that? Is that part of what you had to compile down to WebAssembly as well?
+
+**Eric Simons:** Those all actually have different answers. But something like libuv - again, browsers have a built-in event loop implementation. If you look across, obviously all of them do. It's kind of a key part of making JavaScript work.
+
+So being able to leverage the existing event loops that your browsers have - that's one thing where you can drop libuv as something that's gotta be compiled. I think one of the key things that we did, that there was not any prior art on, is actually getting a full TCP networking stack tied up to this, where you can start HTTP servers that are programmatically controlled entirely in the browser security sandbox.
+
+So for things like that, that's more on the operating system side - how do we actually create a virtualized TCP networking stack that maps to the service worker API? For those, we're kind of tied to core Node internals there to, again, operating system interfaces that you would get on a POSIX sort of system.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** \[12:12\] Right. Libuv provides Node's event loop, but it also provides system calls. So you could leverage the browser's event loop... But what about the system calls then? I assume this is where this WebAssembly operating system comes in.
+
+**Eric Simons:** Yeah.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Because you need a virtual file system to talk to. You need to be able to make system calls somehow. Can you tell us about that? What is this operating system? What can it do? Where did it come from?
+
+**Eric Simons:** Yeah, so there's been a lot of -- you know, getting an OS to run in a browser is not necessarily a new thing. This was one of the main demos -- you know, asm.js back in the day, they got Linux running as a JavaScript file, or whatever... So the problem with cross-compiling an actual Linux OS is that these things are just dog slow when you put them in the browser. And for \[unintelligible 00:13:01.14\] the key guiding principle for our product experience is that it's gotta be fast. Our goal always is it has to be faster than local. We're telling developers "Hey, you should do development in the browser. It's gotta be a better environment, and that means faster."
+
+So this was a really key part of the challenge that we had to figure out. We took a couple of different stabs at this, but we ultimately sat down and we were like "We've gotta bite the bullet. If we want the speed that we're looking for, the very light payload sizes clocks in at like under a megabyte, we're gonna have to do this from scratch, and write this thing using Rust, so it compiles out to be pretty optimal size for a WebAssembly module... And we're gonna have to identify the things that developer environments rely on, and really do a first-principles ground-up approach here." It took literally years... \[laughs\]
+
+But that's the short of it. But it's a thousand iterations that it took to figure out what are all the POSIX interfaces that Node.js requires... Not even that - when you look at developer repos, what are they relying on? What are the third-party packages doing? Part of it is just Node.js itself, and then the ecosystem does a whole bunch of crazy stuff. So testing across all of that has just been two years of trial and error, essentially.
+
+**Break:** \[14:16\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Let's zoom out and back up... I'm sure we can get right back into the weeds here soon, and I appreciate the weeds as much as anybody does, so I'm not trying to -- but why would you wanna do this? Let's answer that question. Because running Node in the browser - why? What does that unlock? Tell us what it unlocks today, and then maybe we can dream a little bit... Some of us get great ideas immediately, like "Oh, I can do this and I can do that", while others sit here and are like "Well, I don't even know why that's cool." It sounds like a lot of work, it sounds like you guys have been working hard on it, but why? Why do this?
+
+**Eric Simons:** \[15:59\] Yeah, there's a handful of benefits. I think for StackBlitz, the key insight that led to my co-founder and I to start the company was that browsers are really powerful. They're way more powerful than I think anyone has realized... Four years ago, the first version of StackBlitz, which is still online today - it was this custom version of WebPack that you could run in the browser. And what was really nice about that is that browsers are a very consistent environment. So if I wanna create a bug reproduction and send it to someone, you can instantly have these things online, right? But it allows you to actually merge -- kind of like what I was talking about before, with V8 coming out of the browser with Node, and then bringing it back in... We can actually leverage all the amazing, built-in stuff in our browser to have a much better development and debugging experience.
+
+The key examples in the blog post is -- like, when you run a Next.js toolchain in StackBlitz versus on local. With the advent of server-side rendering, you need to be able to debug what's going on on your server-side. And debugging with Node.js - it's not impossible, but it's not as easy as popping up Chrome DevTools and just hitting the debugger. With StackBlitz it's now possible to do that. \[unintelligible 00:17:04.18\] you can have a live API endpoint. When you go to the server, if there's a debugger statement, it'll actually stop the request from responding, you can step through the debugger and do your thing. And that requires no installations on your computer, no extensions, whatever.
+
+So it's essentially taking the best of what browsers allow us to do for frontend development and now applying it to this full-stack world that we're moving towards, with things -- I mean, like the JAMstack sort of space, and what Vercel is doing with Next.js.
+
+And of course, it's ridiculously fast, because you're not paying the multiprocess overhead that you would on a local computer when you're spinning up all these copies of V8, or whatever have you. So it's actually faster than your local machine to do your development builds and your reproduction builds now.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, that's cool. And some of the other things you go into is potentially in a world where this thing was prevalent and available and existent, you could have for example multiple branches side by side, in two different tabs, and the full code plus development environment in tab one, on this branch, and the full code plus development environment in branch two, in that tab.
+
+**Eric Simons:** Yup.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And just have those be isolated, sandboxed things that you can flip back and forth between without any sort of setup, or environment isolation on local hosts. So that's a really cool idea. It seems like a lot of these things are really dev oriented in terms of like, - is Node in the browser mostly about improving the development environment, or are there actually production implications of like once you send your code into the world? Are you gonna be shipping Node into the browser to your end users as well, or just when you're developing things?
+
+**Eric Simons:** Yeah, I think to start we're pretty focused on the development aspects, because the benefits are pretty immense, for the reasons you outlined. Setting up local environments is a pain for experiences devs and a huge barrier to entry for people who are entering the market. So being able to have this stuff open in a tab -- I mean, companies spend weeks having developers get onboarded to a codebase. The idea of being able to crack-open a browser tab and be able to commit code on your first day at a giant Fortune 500 company is pretty wild, right?
+
+But I think there's an interesting future here though that you're pointing out... And this is what the Chrome team is doing with their Fugu initiative - can web apps replace desktop apps that are currently using Electron? And the answer is increasingly becoming like "Yeah, they can." But they do lack right now some of the APIs and developer experience that you would need for some of these things... And so we're kind of interested in seeing "Could this be something that other developers could use to ship desktop-grade applications in the browser?"
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I think you mentioned the experimental file system API, or maybe that was mentioned in some sort of press release, or something... But that seems like it would open up instead of talking to a virtual OS, you can actually talk to the user's file system. Of course, there are a ton of security implications there, and it's probably a mined field, and there's probably a lot of people that don't want browsers to do that sort of thing... But there you go. It seems like you could use something like this.
+
+**Eric Simons:** \[20:16\] Yeah. Well, and that API, maybe to some people's dismay, is actually shipped stable in Edge and Chrome right now. So web apps - they can actually request... And if you go to StackBlitz.com/local, you can try the software itself, and add your Chrome address, and it's exactly that, where... It's wild. You're giving the StackBlitz web app read and write access to a piece of your file system, like a Next.js app you're working on, or whatever... And you could not have npm, or Node, or Git installed on your computer at all. But it would be running locally on using your CPU, \[unintelligible 00:20:47.28\] That's pretty wild. You don't have to have anything installed, but you're having read and write access to your actual file system. For us, that's been a key thing that we've been really waiting on for them to ship stable, because oftentimes you will have things installed, you do need to run things that will only run in your local environment, but the file system can act as really the bridge between an online "IDE" versus something you have to run locally now.
+
+So I think over the next five years we're gonna see a lot of desktop apps turning into desktop PWAs, because they install instantly. They can do everything you would need to, that an Electron app would etc.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** So today could I open up StackBlitz and then find a working copy on my machine and ask StackBlitz to open it, add some files, save them, and then go back into my terminal outside of StackBlitz and commit those changes? Could I do that?
+
+**Eric Simons:** Yeah. If you go to StackBlitz.com/local, you can open up from your local machine. It's buggy, largely because we've just got kinks to work out, but by the end of the summer, if not sooner... That's our target, is that there's zero reason why this can't be a desktop-grade IDE where you do exactly what you described, where you mount the folder -- you can use it just like you would use VS Code to make the changes, and you can use it even just as an editor. You don't have to run commands in StackBlitz if you don't want, but you're gonna use it literally as an editor... And then on your local machine pull up terminal and commit the changes that you saved from StackBlitz to the fs, and then commit it together, or whatever.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So there's something that's been -- this is back to an earlier part of our conversation, but something that's been chewing away in my head, which is around versioning... So if I understand, right now you're teasing apart the JavaScript interpreter V8, now you're using the browser's version of that, and you're implementing some version of all the other different Node APIs. Do you even run into version inconsistencies? Like, places where the -- I'm not super-familiar with Node internals, but I would assume that if they're interacting with V8, they're making assumptions about this version of V8, and they're testing with a particular of V8. And if you unlock that, suddenly you're in the browser... And you could be with whatever version of V8...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Evergreen.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** ...evergreen version of V8, right? Well, evergreen is great, but when they do browser stuff, they're testing with a single self-consistent version. It's not like they're separately evolving pieces. They're shipping every six weeks, right? And they have a test cycle.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Is Node pinned to specific versions? Is that something that we know? I mean, you probably know, but... I don't know, does it get pinned? ...like at a release date, like "This version of Node speaks to this version of V8."
+
+**Eric Simons:** Yeah, Node bundles its own -- just like Electron, it bundles its own copy of Chrome \[unintelligible 00:23:26.05\] Node.js bundles its own copy of V8. So it's kind of a static snapshot. But the thing is -- so it's a great question... Because it's less of a problem than you might imagine, but there are interesting ramifications that, as we go forward, we'll have to solve for... Because it's less of that there'll be backwards -- because the whole idea of browsers is that... You know, Google still has test cases from 1995 or whatever; okay, probably not that far, but 2005, or something. They test all these different things and make sure that they still work. And that's a key design requirement for browser metrics, is that they don't break backwards-compatibility. But they do introduce new functionality, they do introduce top-level await; they do introduce that.
+
+\[24:11\] So what can end up happening is if you're using a newer copy of V8 than Node 10 does, the user could write code in a web container that would run, but if you brought it to local, it wouldn't, because they're using a very outdated version of V8... Because unfortunately, it is a design flaw; in our view, it's a design flaw that we're bundling a copy of V8 that goes out of date the day after, there's a nightly that's newer the day after that these things get released. It should be evergreen. Why do we wanna do snapshotting? Browser, the same thing -- like why can't we take what is great about web browsers, which is that they are constantly adding capabilities, but do a really good job of supporting backwards-compatible code, that was written 20 years ago or whatever. So I think this is kind of like the merger of those two worlds, in our view.
+
+That said, I think a year or two from now, as code is getting executed -- and I think the big question is "Hey, async/await doesn't work in Node 12", or whatever. So we have to make sure that that code throws an error for the user, or something like that. But those are kind of the main things that you have to be conscious of.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah. They also ship regressions, occasionally, and things like that. "Don't break the web" is a wonderful concept, but one of the nice things about server-side is if you lock down your environment, you can absolutely test things and know what's going to work. And you mentioned that the browser is less variable of an environment - I think that's true \[unintelligible 00:25:37.15\] rather than shipping desktop software, but it's blatantly false when it comes to shipping application software. We can completely control and lock down our application server environment, and we cannot do that in the browser.
+
+So I'm trying to wrap my head around this, because I'm thinking about -- like, this is an interesting model for deploying software, but it feels like it actually walks in between those lines of things that we used to have locked down - or able to be locked down, even if not everyone was locking it down... And stuff that's gonna be breaking in this environment versus that one, what version of Chrome are you on, are you using Firefox and you have a completely different JavaScript interpreter? Like, how are we doing this?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, it's Chrome-only...
+
+**Eric Simons:** Yeah, totally.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That solves that problem. \[laughter\]
+
+**Eric Simons:** It runs today in Firefox. There's a couple small bugs. We don't have it available publicly just because there's bugs that we've gotta work through on the thing... But we built this on web standard API. In Safari, doing their best to ship WebAssembly --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** One of these years...
+
+**Eric Simons:** Yeah, yeah... So, I mean, enough said, I guess, on that... But this stuff is standardized; it looks like they might ship it in the next six months maybe, like WebAssembly threads and that sort of thing.
+
+But the point stands of like, you can take -- it's like, StackBlitz is a business, and the way we make money is we actually sell an enterprise version of StackBlitz. You can run it behind a firewall, which - when you talk to Fortune 100 companies that are doing literally trillions of dollars in transaction volume, they will not use AWS. They can't afford to. They have to have their own data centers where they're running this stuff.
+
+And the benefit that they see from this approach - it's a double-edged sword. Yes, you can lock down your environment, which is how we deploy our cloud-native software behind their firewall, but the reason they want StackBlitz being able to utilize the browser is because it solves a ridiculous number of security issues.
+
+You can create a container that's gonna work the same everywhere, but if part of that container is code, it can be infected and you're opening your company up to supply chain attacks... That are on the rise. And so that's the double-edged sword here - do we wanna live in a world... And it's an individual basis, right? For Fortune 100 companies, the answer -- they'll take security every day of the week.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[27:52\] Yeah, virtualization with WebAssembly gives you some very clear security wins. I do wonder about -- like, you could potentially get that by shipping a WebAssembly runtime that is not running in the browser and doesn't have these same sort of mismatch version issues... You just lock it down, ship Node, some version of WebAssembly runtime.
+
+**Eric Simons:** Well, you're relying on the implementer. You're relying on whatever is bridging out to your local machine for that WebAssembly interface. You're relying on that implementer to not have any vulnerabilities in their codebase.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Same as the browser, right? We're relying on the browser.
+
+**Eric Simons:** Bingo. But Fortune 100 companies - everyone has approved Google Chrome as a browser. These Fortune 100 companies - they have allowed a runtime explicitly for everyone at the company to use that they trust security-wise... For good reason. Google's got 15,000 cores, right now, while we're sitting, fuzzing that codebase, 24 hours a day, seven days a week... And they've got \[unintelligible 00:28:40.04\] This company is leading the web security industry. They take this stuff seriously. So if you're gonna say "Hey, we're gonna introduce a WebAssembly runtime that's more local-based...", which I have no doubt one will pop up... But if I were to bet money, I think it's gonna probably be based on all of the work that Google does from a security standpoint, for the exact reason that Cloudflare uses V8 for Cloudflare workers.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah. I mean, I might actually see us pulling out the WebAssembly runtime from Chrome.
+
+**Eric Simons:** Yeah, totally.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** It's a different set of trade-offs, but it's an interesting--
+
+**Eric Simons:** I'm not disillusioned in thinking that the world software is all gonna run on this stuff overnight, but I think the benefits are pretty enormous. I mean, certainly from a security angle, but also from a speed angle. Because V8 isolates are incredibly fast, compared to local operating system processes. They're much more secure, and very fast for context switching. So with a web container...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That's interesting.
+
+**Eric Simons:** ...your Node.js applications run 20% faster than they would on local. So even as a developer -- you know, we're kind of marrying security and productivity. Normally you only get to pick one of these things. But when you use StackBlitz, you are more productive, your builds finish faster, you can code faster and build faster, and it's far more secure.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's the interesting part for me, because I have seen a lot of these things come and go... "Put your development environment in then browser..." I remember back when Heroku was actually that. Before Heroku was successful, their first version was "Hey, it's an IDE in the browser. Isn't this cool?" It was a complete Ruby on Rails environment in your browser, and it was really impressive... And nobody wanted to use it, because it was the Uncanny Valley, and it was slower than a local host, and you would run into issues, and you couldn't pop your terminal, and just do a terminal command, and then hop back into your -- it just never has worked. And so if you are able to pull this off because of the speed... If it delivers on the speed promises, which we see in the demos and the GIFs, if that works out in practice, I think you'll have a compelling environment... Whereas nothing has convinced me, ever, that I should put my development environment in my browser to date.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Absolutely. Yeah, we've seen over the years web IDE after web IDE, and they all are just not as good as a local environment... So I think this seems to be solving one of those problems for sure, that's stopping people from using it.
+
+**Eric Simons:** I think you hit the nail on the head too, because that's kind of been our viewpoint from day one - why would you move to an online IDE if it's not gonna be better than your local environment? It can't be as good even; it has to be better. Otherwise what's the incentive? And when you break that down - what do we care about as developers? How fast can I get my ideas into my fingertips, through the keyboard, and get a response back from the computer? It's speed, right? How fast can I get a response from the computer?
+
+And also, again, with the supply chain attacks increasing for people who are employed at large organizations, that have a lot to lose, how can this give me a secure-by-default guarantee? And it runs consistently. Because that "It works on my machine" issue... I think those are the key things, to us at least, that really matter for this to work.
+
+And by the way, you can try this out. You don't even have to be logged in, because the beautiful thing is that you can go to StackBlitz.com, click the Next.js started project... You don't have to log in, because it doesn't cost us anything to run -- I think our servers cost less than $1,000 a month, and we've got 2-3 million developers that are using the product... Because it's all leveraging your local CPU and memory. So you can try it out for yourself to see just how fast it is.
+
+**Break:** \[32:10\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I'd love to dig in a little bit more on why it's faster. You've mentioned a couple times that it is faster, and you have demos that show that... I was thinking about this and I was like "Okay, there's a few different angles", and I'd be curious to \[unintelligible 00:33:12.16\]
+
+So one possibility that I was thinking about is you've essentially moved all the stuff that lived in the kernel into user space, and you've probably simplified the set of things it has to handle... So by virtue of not dipping down into kernel space, you don't have any sort of process changing or anything, so that piece could be faster.
+
+And then the other piece I was thinking about is you're mostly simulating web stuff. So you could probably shortcut the network connections, so what would be a local host connection that's going through your local network device, and HTTP, and all these other things you could probably put shortcuts in... And then there might be other things I haven't even thought of, so I'm curious, what is it that's making it so fast?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I'm guessing that's the big win, is the networking stuff. Go ahead, tell us.
+
+**Eric Simons:** It's a really good question. We spend a lot of time working on speed, because like I said, from a product perspective, this is the number one thing. What is StackBlitz? It's fast. \[unintelligible 00:34:07.05\] They are fast. Because again, how can it be better than your local environment? If it's faster -- faster is better, right?
+
+So there's kind of an array of things that play into this and work in concert with one another for this seamless experience. But to start off, something I've mentioned before was V8 isolates. The idea of not having to spin up multiple literal operating system processes for every Node.js thread you wanna run, or whatever... \[unintelligible 00:34:38.24\] But in your browser, when you open up a browser tag, you need the ability to have multiple web workers, and different processes... But it has to be really fast; browsers have to be really fast. So V8 isolates - and the other browsers have different terminologies for this, but essentially it's the equivalent of a single, unique process more or less that's running in your browser... And by being able to have one copy of V8 doing that for all of your Node.js processes, the editor that you're editing in, and the web apps that -- you know, like, when you open up the URL to view your dev server, there's an incredible amount of overhead that's cut there... Because on your computer, that's actually one operating system process. Every Chrome tab gets its own process. And we've virtualized essentially the \[unintelligible 00:35:28.24\] into that same process, shared via V8 isolates, which are super-fast, super-secure for context switching.
+
+So high-level, there's that. I can go on to the next point, but if we wanna talk more about that stuff, we can dig in a little bit... But under the hood, that's kind of the bedrock of what makes this fast.
+
+\[35:47\] The second thing is exactly what you said... So at least for your dev server, you might notice -- you know, on local, when you run a WebPack dev server build of any meaningful app, the dev builds are megabytes in size. So if you've ever used GitHub Codespaces, or CodeSandbox or anything like this, they're running it on a remote VM. And what that means is that when they crack open the server - on WebPack dev server, when the port opens, you can connect to it, or whatever - they're proxying you to that server, and you're pulling down megabytes of non-minified dev builds. It's super-slow, and it takes forever... Because this doesn't leave the Chrome security sandbox i.e. using one copy of V8, those responses from the server go through the service worker API and hit faster than you can even hit a local host URL. So when you talk about web development, that's a pretty big win, right? How fast can I see a hot reload happen? How fast can I refresh to see the latest change? With web containers you're talking about less than 15 milliseconds to actually see it start rendering.
+
+I think those are some of the key things there, and then I think on what you mentioned around an operating system and kind of like how we've decoupled it - a ton of stuff there. I think you actually did a great job explaining those optimizations. But the other side of it is the npm side. So npm normally takes forever to complete an install. This is something - when we built StackBlitz v1, we built the first npm client that would work in a browser, and it was like five times faster than you are in npm... And in the first version the key trick was being able to have a file system that could be lazy-loadable from the network. Because essentially, you don't have to download a gigabyte of modules; you can actually be really smart about "What are the files that are gonna get used from \[unintelligible 00:37:29.08\]?" and only download that. And browsers have gotten really good at just downloading -- they're doing hundreds or thousands of requests for actually really large payloads at this point, and they have great built-in caching mechanisms.
+
+So on every pageload actually we run a fresh npm install every single time. So if something goes wrong with your environment -- again, if you look at the other players in the market, like Codespaces or whatever, if something goes wrong and you hit the refresh button, it's reconnecting you to that broken container again... Unlike every other web app; if something goes wrong with Google Docs and you hit Refresh, usually it works again. With StackBlitz, now the same thing is true, because if something goes wrong with your environment, you just hit refresh and it rebuilds the container from the ground-up, because it takes only a couple of seconds. So you're guaranteed a fresh environment every single time.
+
+So it kind of relies on this custom npm technology we've made, and again, browsers have first-class networking built into them, so we're able to leverage that in a way that would be difficult to do on local.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That's fascinating. So you're redoing an npm install, but it's essentially hitting the browser cache, so they're coming from a locally-cached version of those packages.
+
+**Eric Simons:** Yeah, exactly.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I'm gonna get into the weeds a little bit... So how do you handle packages from npm that have a post install step? Maybe a build, or something that they run immediately after you npm-install them?
+
+**Eric Simons:** Yeah, it's an anti-pattern. So five years ago \[unintelligible 00:38:48.14\] filed a vulnerability that npm is yet to address, where essentially the execution of post-install scripts by default on every install you do can enable a very, very, very bad type of worm to propagate... \[unintelligible 00:39:02.02\] essentially like this - open source developer gets a bug report, and someone says "Hey, here's the repo you can download and install to reproduce the bug", except that person who's filed the bug report put a worm in the post-install script. What it does is it scans the current logged in npm user on that computer, it looks at all the open source packages that they have published, and then republishes minor versions to include that post-install script with the code that infected them in the first place.
+
+Then that gets published, other people download from this open source author's popular libraries, rinse and repeat, and this worm has gone across the entire npm ecosystem, stealing credentials, wreaking havoc. This has been unadressed by npm. I don't know why, but nonetheless, it's a huge issue.
+
+And again, when you talk about Fortune 100 companies, what happened with Solar Winds? What is going on with this stuff? Developers are the weakest link in security now, because we're running an npm-install and there's thousands of things we're installing that we're not even necessarily aware of. These people have security teams, but these things can slip in. So by removing post-install as a default thing that happens, it eliminated this attack surface. And you can introduce ways where you say "Hey, run this specific command" where the user has to take intent to do an action.
+
+\[40:18\] A lot of times too these post-install scripts are downloading, compiling and running binaries, which is not great from a security perspective necessarily... But with the transition that we're seeing, there's a lot of things that should be WebAssembly models. If you look at what Next.js is doing, they swapped their sharp image optimization to a WebAssembly variant, because it's faster, it's more secure.
+
+There's a lot of binaries that shouldn't be binaries; they should be WebAssembly binaries, because they run everywhere, they require no post-install script, they're directly inspectable... I think 5-10 years ago when the npm ecosystem came up - sure, yeah. WebAssembly didn't exist. Different world today... And lots of attacks happening. So a different world, and a world that actually needs a more secure binary runtime format like WebAssembly. Anyways, off my soapbox, but... \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I'm not gonna argue whether or not they are an anti-pattern, but my understanding is they are still supported by npm, so how does that work in a StackBlitz world?
+
+**Eric Simons:** We don't run them. And if we find packages that have a post-install script, we say "Hey, we don't run this, for your security. You can learn more about it here, or if you wanna run the script yourself, you can do that." This is an important thing for the ecosystem as a whole to take seriously. And it might sound like we're being ridiculous about this, but if/when this happens, which \[unintelligible 00:41:44.02\] has gone on record going "It is a matter of time until someone does this..." It's a matter of time. We need to take stuff like this seriously. I think the Node ecosystem -- I think it's getting to a point where security has got to be a first-class consideration with how we're building our software... And actually across the entire software industry, we are the weakest link, we've gotta take it seriously.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** And regarding the worms, since it's been brought up a couple times... npm didn't introduce two-factor authentication, which as you're describing it, would be exceedingly difficult for a worm to propagate if it had to put in the one-time password to publish something... But it seems fair to me if the companies and the intended audience for this tool prioritizes security to essentially disallow scripts on install. If they don't want them to happen, then great.
+
+And yeah, I agree, a lot of things should be WebAssembly modules. But say that you do wanna use something that (I don't know) needs to grab a binary, God forbid it needs to compile something - what happens? Can your OS compile things? What can it do in terms of -- is Bash running? How does that work?
+
+**Eric Simons:** Yeah, we've got a slimmed-down shell. I think pretty soon you'll be able to actually execute Bash scripts in the thing... But I think there's some stuff going on where you could actually compile toolchains and binaries in the browser itself, for sure. I think the work that the WASI folks are doing is paving the way for this future to happen.
+
+We're kind of betting on a larger trend, which is the world is gonna move their software more towards web-based computing, like WebAssembly. And if that's the case, then yes, you're gonna end up with WebAssembly modules that compile Python to other WebAssembly modules, or whatever. And this is already starting to happen. That strikes us as the wright way to do this, using a secure by default runtime to produce more secure by default binaries for runtimes, or whatever.
+
+\[44:07\] And to answer the direct question, like what happens if you need to compile a JVM or something \[unintelligible 00:44:11.22\] it's not gonna work, unless it's using a WebAssembly module to do the actual compilation work, of course. But yeah, it's a feature that it can't, in a sense.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So let's tease apart -- we're running a little bit low on time here, but before we go, I definitely wanna tease apart web containers versus StackBlitz. The announcement, the new tech is web containers; there's a GitHub repository, there's a working group... There's things that look very open and collaborative. StackBlitz - like you said, you're a business; you can run Node.js in your browser on StackBlitz.com, but can you run it in your browser in other places? So what's the collaboration and the open story here? Is there one, and how do we differentiate between what's StackBlitz proprietary tech and what's out there to be used by everybody kind of stuff?
+
+**Eric Simons:** Yeah, totally. I think right now -- this stuff is very new, and we're still figuring out a lot of it ourselves, so that's why we're in an open beta for people to try it out and kind of push the limits of it... Because there's still a bit more that we need to learn about how to make something like this very runtime-compatible and cross-platform compatible etc.
+
+At the same time, leading from what we were just talking about, we also need to get developers to think about how they're running their toolchains a little bit differently. And again, our pitch is it is faster and more secure to do it using WebAssembly-based toolchains, or leveraging the billions of dollars getting poured into browser innovation. But in order to do that, we need to make sure that it's seamless, because it's a key design goal; if you go to our web container working group repo, one of our key design goals is that this should not be something that requires you to change how your codebase is set up to work. It should "just work". So that means there's certain packages that are not available as WebAssembly modules, so we've gotta flip those over as a community. Kind of a host of other things.
+
+But today, where the community is really helping is helping those larger shifts happen. There's just a ton of people who are doing this now, which is so awesome to see... And also giving us feedback on the core runtime and helping us battle-test it... Because what we're tracking towards is a general availability release sometime end of the summer, or fall, or something like that... And we wanna enable developers to use this thing, with a really great API surface, and perhaps introduce standards... Like, actually introduce standards where there are currently gaps in what browser vendors are doing, or WASI, or whatever.
+
+We're still trying to get a little bit of the lay of the land to understand exactly how we need to go about solving these problems in a way where everyone can leverage the power that's in their browser, and ship better, faster, more secure application. That's the long-winded version of it...
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I guess what I don't understand is - is there a portion of this that is open source, or is it all proprietary, or how does that work?
+
+**Eric Simons:** Yeah, so today everything is largely closed source. Our intention is that this is gonna be an ever-receding closed core. If you look at what React Native did - they did not have it publicly available for a very long time as they were hammering out a lot of the core issues. That's kind of how we view this. I think the npm client thing is a great example of that. We've got the fastest, most secure npm client running in this thing, and there's no reason we shouldn't release that as open source for people to use in their local environments as well.
+
+\[47:40\] I think over the course of the next year, a lot of the things that you're seeing in this as we stabilize them -- it's not even just gonna be applicable inside of StackBlitz, it's gonna start hitting people in their local environments as well. That's our intention. But in order to do that, we have to make sure that it's a very seamless experience for the person who's gonna adopt this thing and make sure that it's not gonna cause them a huge migration effort, or it's gonna break, or whatever.
+
+So that's very valuable what we're doing right now, is getting a lot of test data in lightweight environments, because people aren't trying to use this for work that is tied to their actual job or something right now. We wanna make sure that we're pretty confident before we start rolling this out for people to rely on for their jobs, for their livelihood.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Something you said about getting this available to everyone made me wonder - is there a plan for supporting other backend languages? And I think there's an interesting question there around the performance benefits, because -- what were they called? Instantiations, or whatever it is - that benefit is not gonna be there; you are gonna be virtualizing some sort of runtime or something into WebAssembly... But some of the performance benefits you've talked about could very well generalize. The idea of package installation and utilizing the browser cache, the idea of cutting out the network stack and being able to directly access things.
+
+Does it make sense to have web containers for running Python on WebAssembly, Golang on WebAssembly? I mean, Rust already kind of goes straight to WebAssembly, but does it make sense to expand this beyond Node?
+
+**Eric Simons:** That's our goal, for sure. We think that that's absolutely how it should work. Today, JavaScript is the easiest language, or certainly the most sensible one. If anyone's gonna understand the value of an online IDE, it should be web developers. We should be able to build the web using the web. But if you look beyond that - yeah, the same benefits can absolutely apply to other languages. So I think that's the longer-term view here.
+
+What's gonna be the hardest part, and why we've put together a working group to start thinking about these problems - because you've also got the WebAssembly Standard Interface (the WASI folks) who are trying to help bridge this gap... Because WebAssembly is great, but it does not specify how you access a file system, or TCP networking, or whatever. Really important APIs for most binaries to be converted to a WebAssembly module. And they're doing a phenomenal job on that.
+
+So StackBlitz is going to have a WASI standardized interface available to developers in the next month or two here. You'll be able to actually run Python etc. And to start, you'll be running the Python repl, or something like that... Because again, as an industry, we're gonna have to make some structural changes to enable the ease of adoption and performance etc. that you'd want in order for this to be a viable switch from your local environment... But we wanna apply momentum in that direction, because that just seems like the future. It seems like a better future, at least.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Super-cool stuff, Eric. We're all excited now. Even Chris is excited. You've done a good job fielding our questions...
+
+**Eric Simons:** A couple of head nods... \[laughter\] Small ones, but... It's cool stuff.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Hey, I saw a smile from Chris. That's like -- well done, sir...
+
+**Eric Simons:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well done. You've passed the first test.
+
+**Eric Simons:** These are really good questions, by the way. These are very on the nuts and bolts of exactly what's going on here... So I really appreciate you having me on. This has been a lot of fun.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You bet! Listeners, all the links to all the things, including that introductory blog post, and places where you can go and watch the demos for yourself... Do you watch a demo? No, you try a demo. Go try the demo and see how you can get it running in your browser. Chrome, and maybe Firefox here soon...
+
+It's really exciting, Eric, to watch you guys make progress. Like you said, this is early days, this is announcement, this is excitement gathering, but there's a lot of work left to do, so we'd love to catch up with you maybe in six months to a year and see how far y'all have made it, and what is out there to be used and advanced from there.
+
+So thanks for joining us, we really appreciate it. Chris and Kball - awesome, as always, to have you here with us. That's our show... We'll talk to y'all next week.
diff --git a/Ship less JavaScript, closer to the user_transcript.txt b/Ship less JavaScript, closer to the user_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f8d15770444635cef725db2cbd423c29c8b13c2d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Ship less JavaScript, closer to the user_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,281 @@
+**Kevin Ball:** Hello, JS Party people, and welcome to this week's JS Party. I'm KBall. I will be your host today, and I am joined by the one, the only, Chris Ferdinandi, the vanilla JavaScript guy, as I think he was introduced the last time we had him on the show. Chris, welcome back!
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Thanks, Kevin. I'm really glad to be here. Thanks for having me.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, I'm excited to have you, too. So the last time we were here we talked a lot about how [JavaScript is the CO2 of the web](https://jsparty.fm/80). It's something that just kind of seems to be accumulating over and over time, we get more and more around. I think you've been beating this drum for a long time.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Do you want to give folks who maybe don't know you or weren't around for that episode - and I'll find the link to that episode and drop it in the show notes, but maybe give them a little intro of you and kind of who you are in this community... Because I think you have a bit of a stance here.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And honestly, I feel a little bit like old man yells at cloud a lot at this point... And my position has become a little bit more nuanced as the hair in my beard has gotten a bit more gray. I'm a self-taught developer, and I learned how to code at a time when it was like really this perfect storm of really good browser APIs coming online, the platform itself borrowing a lot from stuff that jQuery had paved the cow path for years earlier. And also a web that didn't do like a ton of stuff yet, and it was way less complicated than it is today.
+
+\[04:11\] And so one of the things I've really strongly started to feel is that if I were trying to self-teach myself today, I don't know that I would be able to do it or that I would really have the fortitude to stick with it. And so I really believe that there's a simpler, more resilient way to make things for the web. And I spend a lot of my time not just teaching people JavaScript, but focusing on a way to build for the web that's a bit more accessible, a bit more friendly to the people who actually use our stuff, that maybe centers the user over the developer, and in the process of doing so actually makes things easier for developers, too... And a web that's just more resilient and performant. I feel like the things we build today break really easily, don't really run meaningfully faster than the web did five or ten years ago, even though internet speeds have gotten like four or five times faster globally. Yeah, there's a lot to unpack here; we can go in a bunch of different directions.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yes, I was feeling that break really easily earlier. I just was working on a big project to migrate our build system from Webpack over to Vite, and there's all these like subtle things that are slightly different. And I thought I had it all, got it together, and then deployed a test, and it was broken, and it's like, “Oh, didn't find this package right” or “Worked in dev, didn't work in prod.”
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Yep. I actually just ran into this myself yesterday. I had a pull request on an old plugin of mine from like five or six years ago, a form validation thing; and it was a really simple request, just some basic functionality, it was like a one-line change. "Yep, no problem, happy to accept it.” They only made the change to the source, so I had to like run a build and update the version number and everything... And it was built with Gulp, which I haven't touched in like three or four years, because I'm all in on npm scripts now. And so everything was broken; the build wouldn't run, npm install was failing because of like a bunch of broken dependencies... I think I was on like an old version of Gulp, long outdated, and I ended up just bailing on the PR, with the idea that I'm going to have to literally rebuild my build process before I can accept this PR. And that's just such a crappy feeling. One of the things I love about, I think, the more close-to-the-metal approach is you can pick up codebases you built years ago and you don't have to deal with that. For me, it's one of the biggest Achilles’ heel about the way we build today.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Now, to be fair, this is not a purely JavaScript problem.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** No.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I remember trying to pick up old Rails projects, or you know, heaven forbid, compiling something that actually depends on headers that have changed, and things like that. This is a problem, in some ways, that is as old as software development.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Yeah, that's fair.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** But JavaScript skipped it for a while.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Yeah. And not just JavaScript, I feel like it's maybe the whole frontend tooling chain now. Everything requires a build step now, and there are really good reasons to do that. But the build steps do so much, and they, in particular, have such deeply nested dependency trees. Have you ever seen the meme of like, there's a bunch of really precariously stacked blocks—
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yes.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** —and there's just one little keystone block holding the whole thing up... And it's like, some guy who has been maintaining this project in his mom's basement for like a dozen years...? That’s the web, and it's so easy for the project -- you know, it's like pad-left or left-pad, whatever that left—the whole npm thing is...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yup.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** All you need one person to stop maintaining some critical infrastructure and a bunch of stuff falls apart. And that just really sucks.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That does. And that dependency tree, as you highlight, is so big. Like, I remember the whole empty Create React app project that installs 1,000 packages. I don't know if they've changed that or not. It's been a long time since I've played with that. But yeah, it's deep. Okay, this is a problem... This has been a problem for the web for a while... But you also, when you reached out, you said, “Hey, I think I see some directions we're going that might be improving that.” Do you want to talk a little bit about those?
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** \[08:19\] Yeah. And so to be fair, it's almost like there's two different directions you could go, and they're not necessarily mutually exclusive. They kind of work in tandem. And this will make a lot more sense when I actually start talking about it... So let me just shut up and do that.
+
+So I originally had flagged two trends, but I'm actually seeing a third. So the first trend is the rise of micro libraries. So for a long time, we've had these big UI rendering libraries, like originally Angular, and I think there was some before that, but I'm old and my memory is crap now... And React, and Vue, and they're pretty big; like, even minified and Gzipped, they're 30 kilobytes. And once you unpack all that code, it ends up being a lot larger. And because of how JavaScript runs in the browser, there's not just the download time to consider, but the actual compiling of all that stuff, and then the abstractions that are layered in make working with these libraries really slow for browsers that use them.
+
+I have a relatively modern smartphone, and the Stop & Shop mobile app is, I believe -- it might be an Angular app, or maybe it's React; I haven't actually looked at the source code. But I can absolutely tell that it's a JavaScript-based frontend for ordering online groceries, and stuff. And it works fine on my computer, it completely cripples my phone. It crashes constantly, just because of all the code. It just can't handle it.
+
+One of the big trends I've seen is the rise of micro libraries. As far as I can tell, this trend started with [Preact](https://preactjs.com/), but there have been others that have followed suit. And so what these libraries are is they're effectively really small libraries that do a lot of the same things as the bigger libraries, but with less code and less abstraction; they sit a little bit closer to the metal.
+
+So for example, Preact is a 3-kilobyte alternative to React; it uses the same API, but it's like a 10th of the size. And it has a few less features, but not many. So it has hooks like modern React does, and all of the state-based UI goodness that people love about React. It's not just smaller to download - you don't just benefit from that smaller footprint there - it's actually four times faster to render state updates than React is, too. So the initial renders faster, state updates are faster... And then Jason Miller, the guy who built Preact, claims he's working on a render engine update that results in optimizations that are actually up to 3x faster than Preact’s current render, and potentially even faster than the way people would normally handwrite Vanilla JavaScript, just because of some — yeah, there's just some weird stuff that's built to be optimized for the way computers handle code that isn't the way, like, someone who wants sane and maintainable code would actually author it... And that's really, really cool.
+
+There was also Alpine.js, which is still around, and was inspired by Vue.js, but never really got as big as Preact. But it did inspire Evan You, who built Vue, to create [petite-vue](https://github.com/vuejs/petite-vue), which is a 5.5. kilobyte subset of Vue, specifically optimized for progressive enhancement. And the more recent entry to the market is [SolidJS](https://www.solidjs.com/), which is another reactive state based UI micro library that claims to be nearly as fast as Vanilla JavaScript in render performance, but has a similar API to libraries like React and Preact.
+
+And so I'm really hopeful for these; they don't completely eliminate this problem, but they have less code, fewer dependencies, fewer breaking points, and generally, punish the user less for the developer making a decision that is really largely for their benefit, for developer ergonomics or developer experience.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So it sounds like a common trend on these is kind of trying to hit that Pareto principle of saying, “Okay, let's give you 80% of the functionality at 10% of the code weight.”
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[12:13\] Because React is built for Facebook's needs. If you're shipping all of Facebook, you don't care about a little extra weight in your framework, because you need all of those additional features and functionality. But if you're shipping something small, you may not.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Yeah, this was a huge part of our conversation last time. React isn't inherently bad; it solves a very legitimate problem that the developers at Facebook have. But for 99% of us, we are not building things that are anywhere near Facebook's size, scale, needs. And so we're using a tool that was built to solve a specific problem that doesn't necessarily match up with ours. State-based UI - problem; state-based UI at that level of scale, with all these other kind of moving parts and needs, usually not so much. The Pareto principle is a really good way to kind of frame that.
+
+So I find that exciting. I'm really glad to see people kind of taking this concept and saying, “What can we strip out of here and still maintain kind of the kernel of what made this so good?” But there’s another trend that I actually think is even more exciting, and that's the rise of precompilers.
+
+So a few years ago, Rich Harris, who works over at New York Times, realized that state-based reactivity can be a good thing; handling it all with a mountain of client side JavaScript is not. And I will send you a video - his kind of initial talk on this that we can link to in the show notes if you want. But he ended up creating a tool called [Svelte](https://svelte.dev/), which we talked about a little bit last time.
+
+And the way Svelte works is it gives you a similar-ish authoring experience to something you might get with like Vue or React; it lets you create reactive, state-based components. But instead of shipping them as-is to the browser and then letting the browser kind of run all that stuff in real time, it runs a compiler that spits out plain old HTML, some Vanilla JavaScript, and that's about it. The Vanilla.js does the same kinds of manual DOM manipulations that you would do if you weren't using a framework. So rather than doing DOM diffing live in the browser, the compiler figures out what needs to change when different things happen... Alright, let's spit out just a little bit of JavaScript to do just those things. And, "Oh, this HTML never changes? Let's just spit that out, like, hard-coded into the HTML file already, so it doesn't have to get rendered with JavaScript."
+
+And in my opinion, this kind of thing gives you the best of both worlds. You can write state based UI if that's your thing, but you get to serve an old school DOM manipulation experience to the users, that’s actually in many cases faster and more performant for them.
+
+Rich also started working on this thing called [SvelteKit](https://kit.svelte.dev/), which is an extension to Svelte that adds routing, and some really, really smart progressive enhancements, so that if the JavaScript fails, you can fall back to some server-side stuff. He did a talk on this last week, the week before, at the time of our recording, on a new term he coined [“transitional apps”](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=860d8usGC0o) that kind of bridged this gap between single-page apps and multi-page apps. And I'll share link to that with you as well, Kevin, just because I think it's really, really interesting.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah. So I want to dig a lot deeper on this precompilation trend, because I am also super-excited about it, and I think there's a lot of different pieces that play into that. But one of the things I want to ask about before we go too deep on it is - so this solves some of the challenges in terms of what we're shipping to the client, what we're shipping to the customer... But does it just move those problems? Do we still end up with the 1000 dependencies, because now we need to do more complex things on the compilation side?
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** \[15:45\] Absolutely. I have a lot of excitement tempered with deep resigned sigh, I guess... \[laughter\] The thing I've come to just really -- I've gotten to a very zen place about accepting this, is that my needs and wants as a developer seem to be very different from at least a vocal subset of the larger developer community. I have run into a lot of developers who legitimately enjoy the experience of working with these frameworks, and don't find kind of the maintenance costs of dealing with them particularly difficult.
+
+I don't agree, I absolutely hate it. But I know enough people that like it, that it's not just kind of this like, “Okay, you're just like an outlier, or odd.” And I thought about this a little bit more acutely. Just last week, Tim McNamara over on Twitter shared kind of this idea that like, “It's harder to build websites in 2021, than it was in 1996.” And he was kind of lamenting being able to open up notepad, and write some HTML and push it up via FTP; a bit of a chore, but you know, predictable and easy to understand.
+
+I started giving it some thought, and I realized that, first of all, you don't have to build with these tools if you don't want to. In fact, just last week I actually changed a file and pushed it up to my site with FTP, and it was glorious. Oh, my God. Like, it had some downsides, but it was also glorious in a really weird kind of way. Also, many things are easier than they used to be. Kevin, I think you're like me, probably old enough to remember when we used to have to use tables and spacer gifs to nudge and move stuff around, right? And now we have Flexbox, we have grid.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Now, you only have to do that in email.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Right. Yes. \[laughs\] Which will never apparently catch up to the modern era. But between Flexbox and grid, we can build these amazing layouts with relative ease. Browser standards literally just weren't a thing back in the day, and now you can write code once and ship it to all the browsers without a bunch of if-else statements.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Flexbox rocked my world when that came out.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Right?!
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Like, it just completely rocked my world.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** So like in many ways, web development is easier, unless you let it not be; you don't always have a choice with the tools you use. And some people jump on the tool train just because it's the thing to do. But the other piece of this is that the web also is more complicated. I have a tendency to kind of over-nostalgize the early web. But the reality is -- there was a time when you couldn't even share images on the web. Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** The things you can do have dramatically expanded.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Right. You couldn't style links on hover; they were just the color they were and that was it.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Well, and I think this is actually kind of the key to some of this, is this idea of complicated complexity, the types of things that you can do. I have this theory that in general, complexity is conserved, right? If you have a complex problem, there's going to need to be complexity somewhere in your solution.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Yes.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And this actually, I think, lies at the heart of some of the distinctions between who's really excited about these tools and who isn't. If you're solving a lot of really complex frontend problems, it's really nice to have a lot of that complexity baked into your framework. And as someone who built some very complex jQuery and Backbone apps back in the day, I love these frameworks for building complex apps. They are so much nicer than what we had to do previously, when that complexity was baked into your application and not handled by the framework.
+
+However, the frameworks do have this kind of minimum complexity bar; they bake in a lot of complexity. And so if you're set on using that framework, you can only go so low in terms of how complex the work that you're doing is. And if the work that you're doing doesn't need all that complexity, you have now baked in an unnecessary set of things.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** I mentioned at the start, that there was kind of this third trend that I've just recently started thinking about, that I didn't mention when I originally reached out to you... And I think this, for me, is the thing I'm most excited about. Compilers are really cool, and we can dig a lot more into them if you want. But I think the thing that kind of gets at both of these -- and we've seen this trend every 5-10 years or so on the web, is eventually you build up enough... Almost like a steam valve releasing. You've built up enough momentum or pressure around the tooling, that the best parts of it get absorbed into the web platform itself.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[20:15\] Yeah.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** And we saw that with ES5, where jQuery for years was the way you build things with JavaScript on the web, because it made stuff that used to be really hard, like selecting an element by something other than an ID, or adding and removing classes, really easy. And then we got querySelector() and querySelectorAll(), and the Class List API. Using an embedded video and web page used to require really complex JavaScript libraries. Now we have the video element.
+
+There's just all this really cool stuff that's getting pulled into the platform, and I'm seeing more and more of that starting to happen. I don't think we're anywhere near where we need to be, but a lot of these tools that I hate have a really important role of paving the cow paths and showing what we could do. And then that stuff hopefully eventually gets pulled into the standards process and moves into the platform, and that's where the complexity lives. And it becomes easier for you, the developer, it becomes better for the end user, because it's already built right in...
+
+I'm even seeing this now, there's been talk of interactive components, like tabs and carousels and accordions, having native elements, so that you don't have to roll your own or grab a library every time you want to add these very common user patterns into your interfaces. And so that for me is, I think, the trend that I'm most excited about, but I think it's also the longest way out. And so I'm excited, but I'm also like, “Okay, you need to be really patient, because this is not going to happen anywhere near overnight.”
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, there's a [JS Party episode that we did with Laurie Voss](https://jsparty.fm/55), who talked about exactly this idea of libraries transcending into the platform. And jQuery I think, is the best example of this. It was something that made such a massive improvement in the way that we work on the web, that the web just said, “Okay, we're going to suck that in and give you those capabilities natively.”
+
+**Break:** \[22:15\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Okay, so let's come back and dive a little bit deeper, and I'm particularly excited to dive into the precompilation trend, because I think there's a lot of interesting things going on there. And it kind of hooks into some other trends we're seeing... Because the more you precompile, the more you can push things out closer to the user, you can do very edge located computation. There's all sorts of interesting pieces there. Looking at this landscape, in some ways, this sort of precompilation mania started with tools like [Gatsby](https://www.gatsbyjs.com/), which still ends up shipping a heck of a lot of code to the browser...
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** \[24:12\] Yeah, there's a way to turn that off. But yeah, by default, it's a lot.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah. So, I feel like Gatsby kind of had a rise where it was very, very popular, and then sort of had a fall, and a lot of folks are a little bit down on Gatsby at this point. But one of the things that I think it kind of highlighted that was really interesting, and I'd love to sort of put out there and then kind of see if this is something you're seeing elsewhere in the ecosystem, is that it highlighted that precompilation not only can mean what you do on the JavaScript side generating HTML, but it can also mean doing all sorts of different data and API pieces at compile-time.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** If you have something that lives in an API, but you know that it's bounded and you can enumerate the cases, sometimes it makes sense to do all those API calls upfront, so the user doesn't have to deal with that time.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Yeah, I do that in a bunch of my own work, actually. I don't use Svelte or anything like that. My workflow is a lot more HTML-driven. I always talk about the JavaScript-driven tools, just because audience and all that, but I'm really, really, really into static site generators, like [Hugo](https://gohugo.io/) and [Eleventy](https://www.11ty.dev/). And they do the same thing; they have built-in fetch and render kind of capabilities that are really, really interesting, and I absolutely love. Personally, that's one of the more kind of powerful aspects of this, especially when you couple it with some sort of cron-based tasks, where you precompile at set intervals and then redeploy, depending on how time-sensitive your update needs are, how fresh you want the data to be, and how much traffic you get; you can reduce the load on your server, you can reduce the demands on the users’ end... It ends up being a really, really nice way to build for the web.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So essentially, what you can do in that case then, is you're basically doing all the things that a dynamic web server would do, but you're doing it asynchronously ahead of time or on a cron schedule, and then what you end up pushing out and serving from your web server is just static HTML, CSS, and JavaScript.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Yeah, let me give you an example, just because I think, for me anyways, I find examples make things a little bit more tangible. So I run like a dozen different websites, because I'm a glutton for punishment. So I have my main website at [GoMakeThings.com](https://gomakethings.com/), I have [Vanilla JS Guides](https://vanillajsguides.com/) where I sell my Pocket Guides, Vanilla JS toolkit where I have a whole bunch of like copy-paste stuff, and a handful of other kind of like "help people with JavaScript" kind of sites. And whenever I launch a new course or product, I want to let people know. But I don't want to go update a dozen sites every time I do that. And then if I'm running sales, like, kind of time-sensitive, like “Today's your last day...” I don't want to have to go update all that manually.
+
+And so for a while, what I ended up doing was I created a really simple JSON API. It's literally just a JSON file that has the sales messaging, and that's it. Like, you can call the API and get the data. And for a long time, I was doing this with JavaScript; you would inject into the page after the page loaded. But now I use Hugo, but this works with any kind of compiler tool that has API fetching capabilities or HTTP built-in.
+
+Every time my sites compile, they call that API, get that content, and then use it to hardcode HTML into the file that gets rendered, and that's what gets shipped. So when you request that file, that content is already baked right into the HTML. And I have my server set up to rebuild all of these things at midnight, every night. So every day, if the message has changed, the fresh message displays. But you can do this with all sorts of things like I did.
+
+\[28:03\] As an experiment, I used Eleventy and a fake photography website API, where it literally just had a giant array of photographs, their costs and a brief description. And with Eleventy, you can grab this API, generate different routes for each of them... So you can completely eliminate single-page apps if you want with a tool like this. And I think I'd used a GitHub action hook to recompile; the whole thing was just hosted on GitHub Pages for free. And so you know, it spit out fresh pages for each of the different photos that were available, and hardcoded all the information right in.
+
+And as a result, you hit any of the endpoints for those pages, and they load instantly. And then when you pair them with something like a CDN or service workers or both, the latency time and the user experience is on par with something like a single-page app, without the accessibility issues that come along with that, and without the fragility that comes along with that. So I think it's a really nice alternative to some of the tools we've been using up to this point.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah. You compare it to a single-page app... That's with a fast API on the single page app, right? If you have a pretty slow API you're working with... Like, a lot of single-page apps, the experience is, "Click. Loading bar, loading bar, loading bar, loading bar... Here's my page!” Right? And that's a little bit better than a "Click. Nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing... Here's my page.” But it's far inferior to "Click. Oh, there's my page.”
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Now, I think one of the limitations where we haven't talked about, but it's maybe implied here, is this approach works totally fine for API-driven content that is generic across all users. But once you start getting into customized content for individual users, it doesn't really work anymore, unless you want to precompile different views for every single user and all of their stuff, and I don't think that's necessarily reasonable or sustainable in most cases. So there's kind of that limitation there. But it does work really nice for architectures that are driven on micro services, or decoupled kind of situations, where you've got data living in a bunch of different places, all connected with API's.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah. So that raises kind of an interesting point, of what are the kind of domains in which this works well, and where does it start to break down? So you have individualized content, logged in experiences, things like that. That's definitely a place where there can start to be breakdowns.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Yep.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Though, you could have those parts be dynamic, API-based, and still statically compile most of it. Are there other places this starts to break down? Some of the things I'm thinking about is where you kind of end up with search experiences across very large numbers of pages, where you end up with just content that counts in the millions of pages, rather than thousand of pages, things like that.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Yeah... It's tough for me to say, too... Hold on, I want to run a quick little—a quick little test here. So if I were to try and build—how many pages are on my site right now? I'm running a Hugo build, just to see how long it takes.
+
+Yeah, so I do think on larger sites you maybe start to run into the kind of the edges here. The potential flipside is, you know, depending on what you're doing on the server, the server demands can be really high if you have kind of on-demand generated stuff too. And if you're like, "Okay, I'm just going to ship flat files, but then have JavaScript do its thing" you're effectively forcing every user to run their own little private server to handle all that stuff for you in the browser, and that's not necessarily very kind either.
+
+\[31:52\] I hadn't really thought about the very large site thing. I think, for me, I'd always been thinking about it in terms of content needs. Precompiling works really well for stuff that doesn't change very frequently, or is kind of really consistent from one user to the next. I think that the time-sensitivity aspect is the thing here, too. Like, if you have -- let's say it's not specific to the user; I'm thinking like a ticketing site, right? Where you're buying tickets to a concert. You want, depending on who the artist is and how tough these tickets are going to be to get, you probably want up to the second information about ticket availability, and a delay of a minute is not necessarily acceptable if these tickets are going fast. Those are the kinds of things where - same information for all users, but the time sensitivity is so high that precompiling that just doesn't make sense.
+
+Yeah, I actually think you probably have a better list for that than I do, Kevin. I don't know, I haven't given that piece of it a ton of thought.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So another dimension that we might look at here is the tooling around these, and how that's evolved, and sort of the infrastructure pieces to ship this... Some of the benefits that you get out of going this approach are, you know, we've mentioned massive performance improvements, because you can just serve static HTML, CDNs can serve it, all these different things.
+
+Another big one, in my mind, is actually security. At some point, my sites that I maintained outside of work are all static sites, static-generated. I have one that's built with Svelte and one that's built using Jekyll. I'm not using SvelteKit, I'm actually curious. I did that site before SvelteKit came out, and I was using some previous thing... But the nice thing about those is like I can invite people to try to hack them; there ain't nothing they're going to get to there, right? It's just static files, there's no vulnerabilities there. Or if there are, it's vulnerabilities in NGINX, dealing with static files, right?
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Yeah, for sure. The tooling is wide and varied, and a lot of it depends on your, I guess, really preferred stack. I tend to use Hugo for all of my things, because I've found the Ruby templating in Jekyll confusing. Not that Go is particularly clear either, but it renders really fast. And I've found that I really like old-school static site generators because they're mostly HTML, with a little sprinkling of whatever your templating language of choice is. So Eleventy is another really good choice.
+
+The one thing that has kept me from migrating to Eleventy, honestly, is I do not want to deal with maintaining Node.js on my server. And again, we're shipping flat files, but I have a process that involves, like, deploy to GitHub, send a webhook, pull the code, run a build on the server, and I just don't want to deal with the whole node on the server thing. It's a pain in the butt enough to do it on my own machine, never mind something I have to SSH into.
+
+But there are tools for any kind of workflow. So if you enjoy working with React - and we mentioned Gatsby has kind of fallen out of favor a little bit, but you can use React in Gatsby for templating, and that's totally fine. These days, you also have like, Next.js. If you like Vue, Vue has kind of a -- they have a bit of a static site compilation thing. And then I think the one I'm probably most excited for, just because I think it'll reach the most people, is the new kid on the block, [Astro](https://astro.build/), which is heavily inspired by Svelte, and works in many of the same ways, but lets you pull in components from all of your favorite JavaScript libraries. So if you have a drop-down menu component you like from React and a card component from Vue, and as Svelte project you started working on, you can mash them all together, and it's going to run and spit out plain HTML and some Vanilla JavaScript, and it's going to shed all the libraries for you.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[35:54\] Oh, that's interesting. So I haven't seen Astro before. I'm looking at it now, as you mentioned it, but... So there's a lot of talk in the micro frontend world about “Oh, let this team build with this framework, and that team build with that framework", and often what you end up with is -- you know, we talked about how painful it is shipping those 30-kilobyte runtimes or whatever... Well, try shipping three of them, or five of them, or what have you, right?
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Yup.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** If I'm understanding you correctly, Astro essentially precompiles all of that away, gets rid of the runtime, just bakes down to "What is the minimum possible needed to run this app?"
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Yup. So I'm going to totally butcher his last name, and I'm so sorry... [Jason Lengstorf](https://twitter.com/jlengstorf) from Netlify, he's over on the developer experience team... He [tweeted](https://twitter.com/jlengstorf/status/1442707241627385860) like a week or two ago that he ported a Next.js site into Astro. He used 90% of the same component code, he obviously had to make some nudges and tweaks to accommodate the build tool a little bit... But he ended up reducing the amount of client-side JavaScript that got shipped by 90%, and the page load time went down by 30%. So just really, really huge wins all around. And this is with almost entirely the same code. So using Next, but no client-side runtime on that. It's just HTML and platform-native.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Wow. What are the limitations? Where does it break?
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** That's a great question. It's still too new I think for me to really know, or for most people to really know that yet. It's on version -- the preview version right now is 0.21. So it hasn't even hit like a 1.0 release yet, it's still very much in beta. But it's gotten a lot of attention because of all the different things that it's able to do, and it seems to have a really nice developer experience, enough of it at least that the folks over at Netlify are paying attention to it. It's got really nicely laid out docs, which is always helpful, because so many tools don't. And I feel like the tools that really take off are the ones that have good documentation.
+
+The thing with a tool like this - and this is where I think a lot of these really fall down - is there's still the whole npm install, npm init kind of thing here, and then like the updating and maintaining, and it's really hard to get away from that... But I think it solves so many other problems that I'm really excited to see how this project evolves. I think it's still maybe too early to say where this falls apart, and where its real potential is. I think it has a lot.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I don't know, it looks like Astro, while it's not built all in JavaScript, it actually compiles down to Wasm, and you can run it in the browser. So maybe you don't even need to deal with all of that; you just pipe your code into a browser-based version of the compiler and go.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Oh my God, that's wild.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** This looks really interesting. I'm excited to dig into it. So Astro - we'll include a link to this in the show notes, but it's just at [Astro.build](https://astro.build/). Very, very interesting.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** There's a lot of innovation happening right now. I feel like it's -- to your point, like the whole complexity thing, I feel like it's just kicking the complexity can in a different direction, in some ways, but potentially the right direction, if that makes sense.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah. Well, let's take one more break, and then let's come back and look at, just kind of play forward the next couple years where we see this going.
+
+**Break:** \[39:22\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Okay, so let's get back into this. We've talked about what the situation is, kind of where we've come, talked about this exciting new trend in precompilation, and reducing the amount of JavaScript, and especially runtimes that we're shipping to the browser... Let's play forward a few years. Where do you see this going? Where are we going to end up? Is all of this going to get baked into the browser? That takes a problem we have now, where browsers are super complex, and monopolize because nobody can afford to build them, and makes it potentially worse. So where is this going?
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** I don't know. My hope is -- I don't think we'll ever fully pull this stuff into the browser. And if we do, there will always be -- in my opinion, there will always be limitations or things that like, the browser gives you a really good baseline experience, but if you want to do it with a little more oomph, you're going to want tools. A really good example there is, if you're an expert in CSS animations, you can hardcode those to do all sorts of crazy things. But it's really complicated to get some of those more nuanced animations, and a lot of people reach for CSS libraries to handle that sort of thing if they need it, because it's difficult. The tools are there, and then you just kind of build on top of them a little bit.
+
+But I would love to see some sort of browser-based solutions for things like DOM diffing, or tools that would make state-based UI a little bit easier to handle. There's an API in the works that's still in -- I think it might still be in spec, around sanitizing HTML strings before injecting them. Right now, either libraries like React or Vue will handle that for you, or you need to install something like [DOMPurify](https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify) into a project to do it for you, and it helps protect your client-side code from cross-site scripting attacks when working with third party.
+
+I think having that as a baked-in API, rather than something that needs to be re-rolled in every library will actually make the web more secure, and slash a bunch of weight out of these client-side libraries. I think compilers are here to stay. I feel, generally speaking, like the stuff that is predeploy always has a longer life cycle than stuff that runs in the browser. It seems like the in-browser code seems to trend and turn over a lot more quickly, whereas kind of the behind-the-scenes stuff seems to get a little bit more deeply entrenched.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Well, yeah, have you ever tried to configure your own Webpack? I'm just going to take what they built for me, right? I spent so much time changing out my build system.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** I mean, I know people who still use Grunt, and like, when's the last time you've heard Grunt mentioned in the conversation? But it's just -- once you get on a workflow, the migration cost is pretty big. But I'm really excited to see where compilers and static site generators go next, because I think they marry the best parts of the old web, the lean, performant, early 2000s web, with modern stuff. I feel like there's a really—it's a spectrum, so it's not "You can do everything with this one tool." But I think they provide some of the nicest benefits, without imparting those costs on the user, and they allow you to automate in the right places.
+
+\[44:34\] So I'm really excited about compilers... But I think looking even further out, I am really hopeful, but a little skeptical that we're going to see more and more interactivity become a native part of the web platform itself. And I think for me, perhaps the shiniest model of what this could look like is the [details and summary elements](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/details). They are hands-down my favorite HTML elements. I love them with a passion. I don't use them often, but they are, I think, the perfect example of what this could look like.
+
+So just for anybody who's listening who doesn't know what they are or how they work - you create a detail’s element in your HTML. Inside it, you nest a summary element, and then any other stuff you want. The summary element becomes text that's displayed on page with an arrow next to it. And when you click it, all the other stuff gets revealed; it's hidden by default, and then it shows. And if you click the summary element again, it collapses and all that stuff gets hidden. And you can set it to be open by default by adding the open attribute to it.
+
+And what I love about this element is that if the browser doesn't support it, it's automatically progressively enhanced, the user still gets all the content, they get a baseline experience. It's completely stylable with CSS. So you want to make that summary bold, you want to add padding or margins - you can do that. You want to change the way that arrow icon looks or replace it with something different, like a spinning yoyo or a party-popper or whatever, you can do that. And it even exposes a JavaScript event you can hook into to add additional customization.
+
+So I've built some accordion-like things using it, where I have a group of them, and if one of them gets opened, it finds all the others in that group and collapses them. It just handles so much out of the box for you. I see it as a really great model for other interactive components.
+
+And so my really big hope is that when I come back on JS Party in 10 years and we're having this conversation, we'll be talking about some completely different problems, and we'll have all these amazing native elements for all this interactive stuff we struggle with today.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, absolutely. So we talked a little bit about what some of the tooling and platform progressions are... What about in terms of like, where people are serving code from? I think we've mentioned Netlify a few times in here, and they're doing some really interesting things about making it easy to take these things and push them out towards the edge.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And Cloudflare is also pushing in that direction, and I think that's going to force AWS and some other folks to innovate in this direction. So there's this kind of meta trend of serving infrastructure, or I don't know if meta trend, but there's this other related trend of serving infrastructure, that also is facilitating these changes. What's your vision into what's happening there?
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Yeah, so I love this trend, honestly. All of these kind of processes really kind of start from this core of "Imagine if deploying a site was as easy as pushing to a Git repository." And Git isn't always the easiest thing to use; it can be a little bit easier when you layer a GUI onto it. I'm finally at a place where I feel comfortable doing it with command line. But for years, I used a GUI, and that's fine, too.
+
+It strips away some of the friction of working with FTP, but gives you a similarly easy experience, where you write some code, you push it up, and then the platform just handles the rest for you; it will run the builds, run any tests that you have, automatically deploy it, push it to a CDN... And then where I feel like Netlify, and now Cloudflare, with Cloudflare pages, are really, really winning is when they pair it with a serverless functionality.
+
+\[48:12\] So there's always certain things that you just as capable as some of these tools are running, like asynchronous stuff or calling API's, there are certain things for which you need like live real-time API calls, and that has historically always meant, "Even though I use these tools, I still need to set up a server somewhere and do something with it, even if it's a cloud-hosted one." And for those of you who don't know, serverless is -- there’s still a server involved.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** It's just not yours.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** It's not yours. But beyond—I mean, you could say that about cloud hosting too, and I think where it really... The key distinction is not only is it not yours, but you don't have to think about the server at all, you don't have to think about what bandwidth do I need? How large does it need to be? What's my input/output, any of that? It just scales up or down as needed and charges you only for what you use, and that's really cool.
+
+The way they typically work is you write a file, and you upload it to your serverless provider, and they figure out what to do with it. They give you an endpoint to call when you want to run it, and you're off to the races.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yep. Oh, man. So there's a great metaphor that I've heard around servers, which is like, when you have a small number of servers, you treat them like pets, right? You know their name, you know what each one of them is, and their nuances, their differences. And then at some point, as you scale up, it starts to be more of a farm, right? You don't know what that cow’s name is, or that pig’s name is, but you've got to herd that they're managed, in some broad way. Serverless is like, “I'm going to the supermarket and I'm getting bacon”, right? I don't even care that there was an animal in the process down the way; I just—I've got my bacon.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** That's a really good analogy, though. Yeah. What I love is most vendors allow you to author in a few different languages. A lot of them even let you mix and match across files, which is cool. So Netlify has a handful have languages, including just JavaScript. Cloudflare I love, because they run on Web Workers. And so their original kind of offering was just plain old Vanilla JavaScript, you were writing a Service Worker effectively, that lived out on the edge. It lets you do really cool things, like serve a static site, and then write like a little micro API that does just that last little bit of interactive functionality you need, without having to deal with servers at all.
+
+And where both Netlify and Cloudflare I think completely eat Amazon for lunch is in the user interface and just the general working with it, experience; it is such a clean, easy process. And AWS is just miles behind in terms of how to navigate around their UI. Not that Netlify or Cloudflare are absolutely perfect in that regard, but they are so much better from a UI/UX perspective.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, absolutely. I think this is really one of the very interesting directions that we're going, and I think the key unsolved problem for me is how we push data further and further out, and what data can be pushed further and further out... Because as you highlight with the tickets, there needs to be a source of truth for the tickets, and I need to know how many tickets are left right now; not five minutes ago, but right now. And that's hard to push out to the edge.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Cloudflare has gotten weirdly good at reducing the latency to milliseconds around -- they have a serverless database offering called Cloudflare KV. I just don't understand how they've gotten the latency down, like so low. They do kind of stress the data put in and out of those is always going to be a little bit off, just initially, as they true up... Because you know, all this stuff kind of lives out on the edge, and then eventually resyncs itself. But yeah, I feel like even like cold start is just so much faster now, with a lot of these serverless platforms. I have no idea how they do this with this technology, because I'm not a backend guy.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[52:01\] Oh, there was a super interesting— it was in [a recent episode](https://jsparty.fm/183)... Wwhat was it? I will go find it. But at least one of these providers would essentially compile all that is needed of V8 and the JavaScript application you built, down to WebAssembly. Essentially snapshot it. Because then they could do all of the slow parts of booting up the virtual machine and all of those pieces at compile time; then they get a WebAssembly snapshot, and they're off to the races.
+
+Let me find that real quick... But it was -- yeah, just fascinating how many things we can do to just speed that up.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Now, I will admit, this falls into the area of "I am so grateful that I don't have to think about that" kind of stuff for me. I appreciate these tools, because it makes standing up and deploying websites a lot easier; maybe not as easy as LiveJournal or GeoCities back in the day. But for a modern build process, it's about as close to perfect as you can get at the moment. And I really -- I'm hoping to see more and more of this kind of thing.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, I've found it. It was Fastly. And basically, they take down the speed of starting up a JavaScript thing from -- if you're starting up a V8 isolate, it's like minimum six milliseconds, and if they precompile it, they can get it going in 300 microseconds.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Wow.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Just incredible.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Yeah, that's pretty wild.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And that's for live code, that's not precompiled. That's just like—I mean, it is precompiled to Wasm, but it's like, this is running in a serverless process. It's not just statically-served HTML.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** Unbelievable.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** The world we're going towards right now is just wild. And for all that we hate on the complexity of the tooling, having it - it's more and more baked into the tooling so that you, as a developer, you don't have to think about it. Just pick your tools and you're off to the races, and your stuff is being served from all over the world in microseconds.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** This is where for me -- kind of that distinction between like... It's not really fair to like break it down this way, but like, good complexity versus bad complexity. This, to me, is like the best type of complexity, where it's relatively painless for me as a developer, and also makes it really easy for me to provide a very great experience for my end user. I feel like a lot of the other offerings either put a lot of the complexity on the developer or on the end user, so one person is always paying for it, and this seems to make it better for both people, or both parties, and that's really awesome.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Awesome. Well, I think at this point we're looking at a pretty good show. Chris, anything else you want to bring up or highlight before we go?
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** No, no, I think we covered a lot of ground, so I certainly wouldn't want to bore people with any more of that. I will, I guess, just say - if you enjoy these kinds of heady conversations or you just want to tell me that I'm wrong, you can find me over at gomakethings.com.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** You're used to people telling you that you're wrong.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** I get that a lot. Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** You put your flag out, which I appreciate, right? It's hard to take a controversial stance, and you have not shied away from that. So I appreciate that.
+
+**Chris Ferdinandi:** No worries at all.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Alright. Well, thank you, Chris, for joining. Thank you to all of you listeners following along. This is KBall, signing out.
diff --git a/So much Sveltey goodness_transcript.txt b/So much Sveltey goodness_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ac6e4d365ab9703dbb240a578a7e7e3d726c84ed
--- /dev/null
+++ b/So much Sveltey goodness_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,387 @@
+**Amal Hussein:** Hello, JS Party listeners. Welcome to a very, very special show today... I know I say this every week, and I know I say that every week, but really, I'm very excited about this show. We have a really special guest, but before we get to the guest, we're gonna introduce my co-panelist, co-pilot for today, Amelia Wattenberger. Hello, welcome, Amelia.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Hey-hey-hey.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Amelia, is your name German? Just curious... Because every time I say Wattenberger I have this urge to go full German. I'm like "All is good, ja?"
+
+**Rich Harris:** Wattenberger.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, Wattenberger... So is it German?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I actually looked this up a few days ago... My dad is really into genealogy, and he has our tree traced back to like the 1,200s...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Wow.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** But it comes from a German province Wattenberg, I think...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's awesome. Yeah, my parents are Somali, and I can trace my lineage back like 27 ancestors, or something like that as well... It's crazy. But anyways, lineage aside, we're gonna talk about someone who's really important to web lineage, web history, web herstory... Rich Harris. Welcome, Rich. Hello.
+
+**Rich Harris:** Hi. Thanks for having me.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, I don't even know how to introduce you anymore, because I would say you're that JavaScript engineer that makes everything better, who also kind of identifies as a journalist... You're an open sourcer, you're a teacher, you're an educator, a creator... And now kind of working on open source full-time. So yeah, just tell us a little bit about yourself for folks who might not be familiar... And welcome.
+
+**Rich Harris:** \[04:22\] Yeah. So I'm Rich, I work at Vercel as of three weeks ago. I joined the company said that I work on Svelte full-time. Svelte is a project that I've been developing for the last five years now. It has its fifth birthday this month -- actually, no. Last month. It's now December. Man, time moves fast.
+
+And prior to Vercel, I spent my entire career in newsrooms. I trained as a journalist, and I worked in the interactive graphics departments of The Guardian and then the New York Times.
+
+I've done a little few bits of open source here and there along the way. Some people know me as the guy who did Rollup, the module bundler. They curse my name every time they have to configure a Rollup project.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's okay, because Rich, you're only as good as the people who came before you... And I will say that Rollup has certainly pushed the needle. \[laughs\] So I think it's really incredible, Rich. I feel like you've kind of gained this reputation, at least for me, as being someone who kind of takes things that are best in class... Let's say bundlers like WebPack, that were considered maybe best-in-class, and perhaps still are, depending on your use case... But taking tools like that and then just creating something that seems to really serve a different set of constraints very well... Specifically, I think, constraints that are good for the open web... So how do we use open standards better, how do we ship less JavaScript, how do we create more performant web experiences. And Svelte is kind of, I feel like, in that same vein... It's good for the open web.
+
+So can you maybe talk to us a little bit about some of the inspirations and origin story behind Svelte? You were on Changelog three years ago, I think... January 30th. We'll link to the episode. It's a great episode... But I'm just curious if you could summarize the origin story for us.
+
+**Rich Harris:** I can certainly try. Svelte is sort of the culmination of stuff that I've been thinking about since ten years ago, roughly, when I first started writing JavaScript, and I was trying to do interactive articles... The kinds that you would see on places like The New York Times. And I was a very newbie programmer... And what I found was that it's hard. There weren't very good tools for doing what we now think of as state-driven, component-driven user interfaces.
+
+So I started kind of day-dreaming about what tools would make my life easier... Then I stopped daydreaming and I started building them. For several years I maintained a project called Ractive, which was me just sort of trying to scratch my own itch.
+
+Then after I gained a bit more experience as a programmer, and I started to become aware of differnet ways of solving some of these problems, the idea that turned into Svelte took root in 2016. Svelte is a continuation of that idea; it's like, "How do we make creating interactive content on the web as easy as possible?", but combined with some slightly more sophisticated thinking than its predecessor project had, around how you do that in a way that is gonna deliver a very small JavaScript bundle, with a very performant user experience.
+
+So that's how it started... It's since evolved into a much more comprehensive set of ideas about web development. We kind of had a realization a couple of years ago that we weren't really designing a framework, we were actually designing a language. It's a language for expressing user interfaces... But all the ancillary stuff that goes around that is -- you know, SvelteKit is this meta-framework that is our take on how you should build web apps from soup to nuts, as opposed to just the component framework part. And all of the libraries that go around it, it's like "This is how we think about the problem of web development writ large."
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** \[07:56\] I feel like there's so many good tools that come out of newsrooms, especially ones that do really fancy graphics, like The New York Times... Is there some secret sauce, or what are the conditions that lead to all of these awesome tools?
+
+**Rich Harris:** I think the conditions are very important. To give some examples of the sort of thing that you're talking about... The New York Times graphics department - I was a member of it for a while. Before that, Jeremy Ashkenas was in the graphics department, and had other jobs at the Times... And he created Backbone, he created Underscore, he created CoffeeScript... Things that have had seismic impacts on the JavaScript ecosystem. And specifically within data viz, Mike Bostock created D3 very largely while he was working at The New York Times graphics department. And there have been other examples as well. Gregor Aisch has done a lot of really cool open source, and he was a member of the department...
+
+My thesis is that the reason that that happens is because when you're building stuff in a newsroom, the constraints are just a little bit tighter than in more mainstream engineering, for a variety of reasons. Number one - the obvious one is you're working on the news cycle. You're operating at the speed of news, and you do not have time to futz around with a Babel config, or something like that. You've just gotta ship. And because of that, there is this very strong bias towards tools that are as self-explanatory as possible...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Like low-barrier...
+
+**Rich Harris:** Yes. And that's the other side of it... Because a lot of the people who are using these tools in a newsroom - they're not JavaScript rockstar ninjas; they're people who learned JavaScript in order to do their jobs better. So the consequence of that is that tools that have an unnecessarily steep learning curve, or a lot of incidental complexity - they don't tend to succeed.
+
+So there's a lot of homegrown stuff that gets its test in that fairly high-pressure environment, and it turns out that if you can solve the problems of developing in small, but fast and rich applications in a short space and time, then you've kind of solved a lot of the problems that web developers face more broadly.
+
+So because of that, D3 has certainly succeeded outside the newsroom, Underscore and Backbone took over... It seems strange to say this now, but back in the day, Underscore and Backbone just completely changed the face of web development, as did CoffeeScript. It gave way to ES6.
+
+Svelte has seen a lot of pick-up outside newsrooms. It's being used in all sorts of different contexts, far from what it was originally built for. And I think that's because, as I say, you solve the newsroom case and you've basically solved web development more broadly.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. The news is like -- it's open web-first, right? I think that's what drives a lot of healthy innovation, but also I feel like both e-commerce and news sites seem to really exercise many APIs, and a lot of richness of the web. So folks are thinking about SEO, they're thinking about images, they're thinking about content management, they're thinking about styling, they're thinking about performance, they're thinking about embedded third-party content... There's so much there, and all of that being delivered to you kind of like hot off the presses. So it really is fascinating to hear how much creativity has birthed out of that space.
+
+And to kind of maybe shift that a little bit... So I guess you've now moved on from The New York Times, and you're working kind of full-time, and you've got, I would say, more of a pure focus on your open source projects, which is really exciting. And for me, Vercel is -- you know like when a really attractive person walks into a room, and I feel like Svelte is like another really attractive person walking into the same room, and those two attractive people found each other, and they're asking each other out - that's how I feel... I feel like Vercel and Svelte - it's a marriage that makes sense, because I think at the core, Vercel is really pushing performant web experiences, more turnkey developer experiences, and I feel like Svelte is kind of tackling those same things, from a different angle.
+
+\[12:01\] So can you tell us a little bit about -- give us the Vercel story, and what can we expect with their support towards your projects?
+
+**Rich Harris:** Well, I think you hit the nail on the head there, talking about Vercel being a place that is trying to make the web more performant, and also more turnkey. I think the reason that it makes sense for me to have a home at Vercel.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Don't you mean like for you to have Vercel's number? Because you know, you're an attractive person that's maybe trying to get to know this other -- just kidding... \[laughter\]
+
+**Rich Harris:** I mean, if you wanna talk about attractive people, it so happened a couple of months after Guillermo slid into my DMs, so...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Well, well, well... \[laughs\] The plot thickens...
+
+**Rich Harris:** Right. You know, Vercel and Svelte are both very concerned with how you democratize web development, but in a way that doesn't compromise user experience. Obviously Vercel is attacking that problem in a far more expansive sense. Svelte is purely focused on authoring frontends... But there's this kind of philosophical alignment. So it just makes sense that Vercel would wanna invest in a framework like Svelte. You know, they have customers who are using Svelte, and there's always been an interplay between SvelteKit and Next, for example...
+
+So the hope from the Vercel side, as I understand it at least, is that by investing in Svelte becoming a better framework, it's better for Vercel's customers, it's better for the web at large, because it means that one of the - I guess we can call Svelte one of the major frameworks at this point - has proper backing. And from my side, it makes total sense, because the biggest blocker to Svelte's development for me over the last couple of years has been my lack of ability to devote time to it, and that's now solved.
+
+So I'm feeling really optimistic about what we're gonna be able to get done over the next year... And I think it's already starting to pay dividends. We're actually making some solid progress on the SvelteKit towards 1.0, which we had been making progress, but it's just really hard when you don't have someone working on this stuff full-time.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** What on the roadmap are you most excited for, other than SvelteKit 1.0?
+
+**Rich Harris:** There's a long list of things... I hesitate to use the word roadmap, because that implies that we've actually figured out what the priorities are, and decided to devote resource to them. At the moment it's really more of a wishlist, and some of the things that we talk about are -- so for context, one part of Svelte, the main part of Svelte, I guess, is the compiler... Which turns your declarative component code into the equivalent imperative JavaScript, essentially. And it works really well, you get these tiny bundles in most cases. But if you have a huge numbers and you're not using code-splitting, for whatever reason, then the generated JavaScript will grow faster than your component source code size. And in some cases, you can hit the inflection point where your Svelte bundle is larger than your React bundle would have been, for example. It doesn't happen often, but it can. We think we have a solution to that, which incidentally might also give us the ability to implement things like error boundaries, and stuff like that.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Like at build time? Error boundaries at runtime?
+
+**Rich Harris:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Okay. Interesting.
+
+**Rich Harris:** So that's an idea that's percolating at the moment. Also, Vercel is super-keen on Rust right now... So I've started thinking, "Should I learn Rust? Should we rewrite the Svelte compiler in Rust?" Maybe it's a terrible idea, I don't know, but I think it's at least worth investigating.
+
+What else...? We've got lots of big ideas around what motion and transitions could look like in a framework if they were a little bit more unified... This is something that Svelte's always been pretty good at. We have declarative transitions for when elements enter the stage and leave the stage, but I think we can probably push that further and do some really funky stuff with interpolating between different page layouts, and stuff like that...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I have to say, the transitions are my favorite part about Svelte. I'll go back and forth between React and Svelte projects, and being able to just say animate-in and then it does, and not have to pull in a library or write more code... It's so good.
+
+**Rich Harris:** \[16:06\] Yeah. And the React team have occasionally talked about making that stuff easier in React... Adding APIs that will allow you to defer the unmounting of elements, for example... But it's super-hard, and it's something that you've gotta actively prioritize... Because it's one thing that we've learned from the process of building those transitions is that it's gotta be a first-class consideration as you're building the framework, is kind of deeply tied in there. So I don't know, we'll see... But as I say, I think we can take that idea and super-charge it. There's a whole list of things, none of which I'm ready to commit to, but all of which we're going to be looking at in 2022.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. It seems like basically folks at Vercel have -- it's like they're giving you an official sponsorship, in these that "Hey, we see the value of this, we care about performance", and I feel like they're kind of really putting their money where their mouth is, in many ways, and it's really nice. It's a great thing to see. So again, congratulations on that opportunity. We're all hopefully gonna benefit from their sponsorship; that's the beauty of open source, the stadium effect of our code.
+
+So I'm just curious - we talked about SvelteKit a little bit... I feel like there's maybe just something that we're skirting around a little, which is this very intentional decision to be more full-featured. If you look at libraries like React, they're very clear about "We are a UI library, we don't even consider ourselves a framework." And then you have tools like Angular and Ember, that are much more opinionated about how you should be using them, and they come with all the bells and whistles. Angular, I think personally - great for enterprise teams, in many ways. It's easier to control large groups of people when there's those types of conventions built in. And I feel like Svelte is somewhere in between. It's not as rigid as Angular, but it's definitely -- there's less potential pitfalls than maybe using a tool like React, that lets you bend all the ways if you really want to.
+
+So can you maybe just talk a little bit about that decision - what were some of those constraints, and how did you find that happy balance where you wanna let people... I love the Scratch team at MIT, they have this wonderful analogy; it's "High ceilings, wide walls, low floors." Low floors meaning like it's easy for new people to come in and use it, wide walls as in you can do lots of different things with it, and high ceilings as in it doesn't stop expert users, like people who wanna go crazy and go HAM and make the complicated thing; they can do it.
+
+So it's very difficult to design an interface and design an API that meets all of those criteria - good for newbies, good guardrails, and lets experts run. So could you talk about some of those constraints and decisions?
+
+**Rich Harris:** Yeah, I think the guiding light for us is "Is this something that enough people are gonna need that it makes sense to have in the framework?" For example, every app that has ever been built on the web, with very few contrived exceptions, needs CSS. So if your framework doesn't include a blessed way to include styles in your project, then it is leaving a huge chunk of work to the user of that tool.
+
+This is something that I'm a little surprised that more frameworks haven't kind of adopted. Vue is a framework that obviously has opinions about how to get your CSS into an app, but React, and all of the React-like frameworks out there just kind of leave it to developers... To me, that just feels like an abdication of responsibility. And there is a good argument why you would do that, and the argument I think that React would make is that by being deliberately bare-boned about this stuff and letting the community come up with its own conventions, you get more people working on the problem, and the best ideas will float to the surface, and you can sort of gradually adopt them.
+
+\[20:07\] But in the meantime, you're causing a lot of confusion and a lot of work for your users. And particularly in the environment in which Svelte was created, where -- we don't have time to mess around with stuff like that. It makes total sense that styling would be a first-class concern in the framework. And the same goes for things like the transitions that we talked about. Any kind of motion, like if you wanna get spring physics in your user interface, then you can do that in Svelte with an import that comes from inside the Svelte package. And that's there because we wanna encourage people to think of that as part of what you get when you use the framework, as opposed to a problem that we're giving you to solve.
+
+But where historically we drew the line was Svelte was very much a component framework, in the manner of React or Vue; Angular and Ember would be sort of app frameworks. Because of the very different ways that you can use a component framework, and - you know, in particular at the New York Times we had these very esoteric requirements, that Svelte needs to integrate with our workflow, which is primarily driven by Google Docs. And so you just couldn't have this opinionated application framework that is gonna be able to serve all of these very different use cases... So it's always been very important that Svelte is this compiler that you can use however you like, you can build your own server-side rendering solution, you can build your own build tool, plugins, all of that stuff. It's completely free-form.
+
+But that obviously leaves a gap, which is - someone comes to Svelte for the first time, they're like "Well, how the hell do I build an app with this?" And our answer for that historically has been a little bit lackluster. Whereas if you go to Angular or you go to Ember, then it just tells you from the beginning "This is how you build an app." The problem of course is that you can't use Angular components inside a non-Angular app, and you don't use Ember components inside a non-Ember app... I mean, maybe you can. Maybe there's somewhere in the bowels of the documentation where you can figure out how to do that, but you are very much discouraged from doing so. And I think that has real downsides. And so SvelteKit is supposed to be the thing that -- like, it solves that problem of "Okay, so now how the hell do I begin writing an app?", without getting rid of any of the flexibility that those expert users need.
+
+So SvelteKit is the low floor, Svelte is (I guess) the high ceiling... I can't remember which was the high ceiling and which were the wide walls, but...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, wide walls is like do lots of things with it, and high ceiling is unlimited complexity; go crazy, you can go vertically complex. Does that make sense?
+
+**Rich Harris:** It does, yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And this attribution is to the MIT Scratch team. We'll put a link in the show notes to an article where they talked about that. Scratch is a programming language for kids, ironically written in JavaScript now... And I worked at a company -- a little company that you might know called Bocoup; we helped actually the MIT Scratch team do a full rewrite from Flash. It was a Flash-based application, and we converted it into JavaScript, and helped them convert it into JavaScript. And it's actually using React. It's one of the most complicated React applications on the open web, and it's beautiful, and performant, and thanks to the lovely engineers at Bocoup who've put a lot of thought into how to make it fast... Definitely worth checking out.
+
+So Rich, we're gonna take a break, because there's so much good stuff to get into. I wanna talk about comparisons, there's community... There's so much. So we'll be right back, after these short messages, kids.
+
+**Break:** \[23:40\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Alright... Rich, thank you for that wonderful background and context around Svelte, and SvelteKit. It was really great to learn about some of the decisions behind what came to be this interface and these constraints; it's great.
+
+You said something earlier around Svelte is maybe considered one of the major frameworks, and I kind of wanna challenge you on that a little bit. I wanna say "Really, Svelte?" Not "Really, Svelte", but "Really, Rich?" \[laughs\] I'm just gonna call you Svelte from now on. So really, Rich? Is Svelte really considered a major framework? Because -- I mean, it doesn't always take a while, but it does take a while for JavaScript UI frameworks to hit a tipping point where they're considered production-ready, stable, well-supported etc. Great, this project is now funded by Vercel; that's awesome. But who else is using it? It's been around for five years, but it seems like it's taken five years to maybe hit the "mainstream", so I'm just curious if you could maybe share some of the adoption metrics with us.
+
+**Rich Harris:** Yeah. I mean, I don't know if I would even now call it mainstream per se... But I think we have a pretty sizeable mindshare at this point. Even though it's not being used nearly as widely as React and Vue, it's something that a lot of developers have heard of, a lot of developers are excited to try it, and I think what is probably keeping the npm download numbers from being higher that they are is that for a long time companies were very reluctant to try and use something that wasn't supported by a full-time maintainer. That's feedback that I've heard a lot.People will tell me that me and my co-workers - we wanna use Svelte to build this project, but our project manager or our CTo says "No, you can't do that, because it's someone's weekend project." And that hasn't really been true for a long time. We have a pretty active core team.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Do they all work nights and weekends? Okay, no... \[laughter\]
+
+**Rich Harris:** I'm the only full-time maintainer still, but there's a lot of people who work on the project on a fairly regular basis.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Okay. That's awesome.
+
+**Rich Harris:** But now that it's got the backing of Vercel, I'm starting to hear people turn around and say "Well, actually, we can reconsider that decision." The npm numbers, to be specific - we get 200,000 downloads a week, which is not a huge number, but it's doubled since the beginning of this year... And I calculated the other day that if it continues doubling every year, then by 2037 everyone on the planet will be downloading Svelte... \[laughter\] So we're not that far from global domination.
+
+When I say that we're one of the major frameworks, what I really mean is that other frameworks in a few cases being influenced by Svelte's decisions... When people announce new things, like new cloud things, they will very often say "Okay, here is how you build a Svelte app on it." It's one of the first things that they have in their introductory documentation. Cloudflare Pages just came out and they used SvelteKit as their example of how to build a Cloudflare Pages site. And I think once you reach that level of awareness, I think it's probably fair to count yourself as one of the major frameworks, even if you are by far the smallest.
+
+\[27:48\] And I'm pretty confident that we're gonna keep growing. We have pretty high satisfaction numbers. We've got the "Most satisfied" result in the most recent State of JavaScript survey, and we were the most loved framework in the Stack Overflow developer survey this year... So it stands to reason that we're gonna keep gaining adoption. But at the same time, adoption is not why we do this. Adoption is not the metric to try and optimize. It's just something that tells you whether or not you are in fact optimizing the right things.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** If you look at JavaScript frameworks, there's like a hype cycle, if you chart how much people like it and how much people use it. How much you like it is on the X axis, and how much you use it is on the Y axis. Usually, they'll go to the right and then up... So when people really like it, there's definitely an increase in usage coming, and then you'll see the opposite on the way down. Eventually, too many developers will have to use it for work, and then they'll hate it, and then they'll stop using it. \[laughter\]
+
+**Rich Harris:** That is 100% going to happen. I think it's probably already starting to happen with Svelte. When we got those "Most satisfied" and "Most loved" recognitions, that was driven by the fact that the people who are currently using Svelte are people who've chosen to use Svelte. So they're already sort of sold on the idea of a template-driven framework, and all of the other decisions that Svelte makes, which are different to other frameworks... And there's definitely gonna be a point at which that's no longer the case.
+
+So I'm not expecting that we're gonna necessarily win the same recognition next year, but as long as the people who want to use Svelte continue wanting to use Svelte, and as long as the people who are forced to use Svelte can tolerate using Svelte, then I think we're doing okay.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** For me, this just brings back -- one of the reasons why I was excited about Svelte, I'm reminded now... It's because I was like "Wow, this is a project that's not sponsored by Facebook, Microsoft, Google, whatever billion-dollar/gajillion-dollar company." I feel like if you look at the landscape of the JavaScript open source community right now, and you look at what are the projects that get the most quick adoption, wide adoption, whatever, companies are using metrics like "Hey, are there people who are paid to work on this?" They're using things like that.
+
+You look at projects like Rush, and you look at projects like Lerna, and you look at how hard Lerna worked to get to their numbers... You know, Lerna is a monorepo management tool... Same for Rush, but Rush came out of Microsoft; we'll put a link in our show notes. But I feel like Rush came out and people were like "Oh, great! A company-backed Lerna alternative." And totally fine, nothing wrong with company-backed software. All good. Vercel is doing the same thing, in many ways. But the idea is - I feel like the spirit of open source, and community and open governance is also kind of lost in projects like that. And I feel like with Vercel your relationship is a little different. It's still your project, they're sponsoring you to work on it, but I still feel like the governance and all of those things are still very grassroots, and open to influence by people who use the library, and that's very different than React. We had a wonderful conversation with Sophie Alpert a couple weeks ago, who is a lead on the React team, and she was talking about the challenges around open governance in React, and - yeah, it is absolutely a core team show. It can cause friction in the community sometimes, especially when you have a lot of smart people, with opinions that are quite often not all bad, you know what I mean?
+
+**Rich Harris:** Yeah. It's difficult... A project like React is used for such a wide variety of projects - and I guess it's true of all frontend frameworks, that you are gonna get a lot of different decisions. We've always prided ourselves on being, to the extent possible, without things devolving into absolute chaos, this consensus and community-driven project. And the core team is very diverse. We have people from all sorts of different backgrounds...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Probably all over the world, right? It's probably folks that aren't geographically collocated either.
+
+**Rich Harris:** It's a very international project.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[31:56\] Yeah. Wonderful for the web. For me, my life mission is to increase the number of people, change the percentage of folks who are writing for the web, so that they are more reflective of the people using the web, you know what I mean? Like, let's have those demographics mirror each other, so that we create inclusive and delightful tools and applications. So I'm really happy to hear that.
+
+**Rich Harris:** Yeah. And it manifests itself in real ways. When we're discussing features inside Svelte or SvelteKit, we'll often have a lot of back and forth between people who've just had these very different experiences, and can speak to some of those decisions in different ways. And that makes the project much stronger than if the team was a lot more homogenous, and people had had the same kinds of experiences.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. That's a hot topic in itself, but we'll have to save that for another show... But thank you for that. It really makes me happy to hear that, and congrats to you and the team. I hope you're able to continue fostering that level of contribution that's varied and diverse. It's important for the web...
+
+So I'm curious, to kind of segue a little bit into maybe some of the specifics around why Svelte... I'd like to maybe prefix this conversation with - hey, everybody who's listening to this, APIs get deprecated, people don't. So when we're talking about this tool versus that tool, we're talking about it from an objective perspective, and it's not personal; this is not about beef, or flame wars, or anything. We're just engineers having an objective conversation. So I just wanna prefix the rest of this segment with that kind of warning or context.
+
+So with that said, Rich, can you tell us -- like, if we're just gonna pick React... Let's just pick on React, because it's the one to beat, right? So if we're kind of doing apples to apples, why Svelte over React? Can you maybe give me some of the specifics around -- if I'm starting a new project, why should I start it with Svelte versus React today?
+
+**Rich Harris:** The short answer is you'll ship faster. That's what we believe. And there's caveats to that, obviously. If you're someone who is already experienced with React, then it's gonna take you a bit to learn how to do Svelte. But overall, the argument for Svelte is that because of the design decisions that we're taking, and the foundational design decisions, that we have this compiler-centric mentality where we're essentially designing a component language, as opposed to trying to express user interface semantics in a language which is fundamentally ill-suited to them (namely JavaScript), because of that, you can express concepts much more concisely and idiomatically in a Svelte component than you can using React.
+
+A lot of people will just disagree with me vehemently on that, but my observation has been that, for example, if you convert a React component to a Svelte component, it will be about 40% smaller in terms of the bytes of code that you have to write. And that has real consequences - obviously, how fast you can write the component, because you're physically writing less stuff, but it's also more readable. Less code is more readable than more code.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Also maintainable.
+
+**Rich Harris:** It is more maintainable.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Easier to change too, right?
+
+**Rich Harris:** Easier to change...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I've heard you often say something that I personally take with me as my new mantra, which is "Optimize for change." And yeah, less code is easier to change, hands-down.
+
+**Rich Harris:** Yeah, absolutely. And there's been some research - not a huge amount, but there's been some research into how many bugs you will write for a given amount of code, and it turns out that the relationship between the amount of code that you write and the number of bugs in your app is basically the same across all different languages... But the relationship is super-linear with the amount of code you have. If you have a 10,000-line app, then you will have more than ten times the number of bugs you'll have on a 1,000-line app.
+
+So if you can write code as concisely as possible, without it becoming this Perl-like gibberish, then generally you'll find that your application is gonna be more robust. So that is the big argument. And that's changed a little bit, because we used to think about Svelte in very different terms. When it first came out, the big selling point was you can make tiny JavaScript bundles, because at the time, we were coming out of this era when desktop frameworks had predominated, but mobile was becoming the more important place to write stuff on the web. We were shipping too much JavaScript to our users; we're still shipping too much JavaScript to our users, but that was like the most urgent problem.
+
+\[36:19\] So that's what Svelte initially was aimed at solving, was just making bundles smaller. And because it's compiling to this sort of vanilla JavaScript without the heavy virtual DOM machinery, it also means that your updates are faster.
+
+So that's what people first associated with Svelte, is the small and fast, and that's why it's called Svelte... But nowadays we think about it more in terms of how it affects how you think about the code that you're writing.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Okay, let's see if you can solve this for me... So all my co-workers know that I would start new projects with Svelte if I could; and we're really focused on prototyping really quickly, so that would be awesome... But the issue is if we use React, there's like one million libraries that we can use for accessible components that are really easy to throw in... Which Svelte can't do anything about, because it takes a long time and a large community to build up that wealth of components... But that's like my biggest hang-up with -- we do need to go fast, and sometimes pulling in other modules is super-helpful.
+
+**Rich Harris:** Yeah, component libraries -- I mean, there's a lot of Svelte component libraries; I don't personally tend to use them, because I don't typically need to, because of the sort of apps that I'm building... But there are component libraries out there. I can't vouch for any one in particular, but they do exist.
+
+What I'm hoping is that the release of SvelteKit is gonna make it much easier for people to build really high-quality component libraries. And that's because SvelteKit, in addition to being a framework for building applications, it's a framework for building component libraries. I've used it for a couple of libraries so far, and it's just a much, much nicer workflow for building libraries than anything I've used in the past. So hopefully, touch wood, the release of SvelteKit is gonna mean that there's a bit of an explosion of component libraries. We'll check back in a few months to see if that's happened, but... I think that is the kind of problem that solves itself over time.
+
+So if you're looking to build something immediately, and you wanna have a ready-made set of component libraries, then React is probably the way to go. But that's not a foundational technology choice. That is something that happens to be the case right now, and will probably stopped being the case at some point in the future. So it depends on your timescale, it depends on your appetite for building some of the stuff yourself, and it depends on how you're evaluating technologies.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** This problem of ecosystem that Amelia brings up is very real... It's absolutely a reason why people hold off on an option; they need that table library, they need that Material UI library, they need all those bells and whistles in order to continue at least working at the same pace that they would with another ecosystem. So you don't wanna compromise on that. But I'm just curious, as a community, at what point are we going to start really leveraging web primitives like HTML, CSS and JavaScript to create this accordion widget one time for all the libraries to use. Because at the end of the day, React, Angular, Ember, Backbone, all of these libraries are still just outputting to web primitives, right? Isn't there a way for us to just kind of write this once and let people import it into the languages and the frameworks of their choice? So if you wanna interact with this thing in this way - great.
+
+Ultimately, I think it's ridiculous for us to start over and create a whole new ecosystem and solve solved problems yet again, just using a different interface. I mean, isn't that kind of bizarre to you, that we're gonna start this over?
+
+**Rich Harris:** It's almost like you're trying to goad me into sharing spicy takes on Web Components.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[40:11\] I wanted to talk about Web Components, but then I was like "Let me not get eye rolls", because people are just gonna eye roll... But I'm like, "Shouldn't this just be a custom element?" Really, I'm curious. Because it is a web API, these are web APIs, supported natively on the platform by a majority of browsers, fairly well-ish... So I'm just curious, what are your thoughts on that.
+
+**Rich Harris:** I think people tend to overstate that problem, the problem of having to rewrite things for different frameworks... Because there aren't that many frameworks. And having to rewrite something in three frameworks is a tractable problem; having to rewrite it in a thousand frameworks would not be. But that's not the situation that we find ourselves in.
+
+So I would firstly just push back on the notion that "Ugh, we've gotta rewrite this for every single framework" is like a fundamental problem. It is a nuisance; it would be better if we didn't have to do that, but the web has these very unique constraints, and unfortunately, my opinion, having dabbled in this space for long enough, is that web components do not solve it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Certainly the API failed to meet DX and -- right, there's certain usability aspects to web components that just don't jive with developers. There's certainly a disconnect with where developers are, and how people write modern web apps, and what you need to do to get Web Components to work at mass and scale. There's gonna be a chasm.
+
+But I just feel like -- I don't know, maybe you're right; maybe it is not that big of a problem. I just feel like we need to have a hackathon where one week is Svelte ecosystem week, and everyone just picks the component that they need to rewrite from this thing to that thing, and then - boom, here it is in Svelte.
+
+I find it a little ridiculous that we're just wasting any amount of brain power on solved problems. Solved problems, in a different color... I feel like web developers are the smartest people on Earth, and I just feel like that's not a good use of brain time. Making a new button type is not a good use of brain time, for me anyway. That's my salty opinion, but you know...
+
+**Rich Harris:** I mean, you're not wrong, but ultimately, if these things are important enough that we're rewriting them in multiple frameworks, then they're probably things that belong in the platform in the first place.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Agreed.
+
+**Rich Harris:** And my hope with Web Components back in the day was that they were gonna allow us to create the cow path that would later get paved. And we haven't been paving those cow paths, for a variety of reasons. So we're kind of left with this way of describing components that doesn't even work with JavaScript, which is just fatal for progressive enhancement and all these other things.
+
+I've just got so tired of thinking about Web Components and how hard they make it for me to build the apps that I wanna make... I've just stopped thinking about it. I'm just gonna use Svelte and I'm gonna target non-custom elements, and I'm gonna have a great time doing it. If other people wanna try and solve the many problems with Web Components, then that's great.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[laughs\] Different bag of problems, right?
+
+**Rich Harris:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, a different bag of problems that an increasingly shrinkig group of developers seem to be caring about as well... Yeah, so thank you so much for weighing in on that and humoring me. You did a really good job of avoiding that pitfall, so good job. Points for you, Rich.
+
+**Break:** \[43:38\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Rich, thank you for walking us through part one of hot topics in the open source community. It's like a never-ending story. Actually, Amelia, remember you and I were preparing for this show earlier today? I think you said something really funny; do you wanna share it? That he's like the kind of hot takes... \[laughs\]
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Oh, they're actually filming a Svelte documentary, which I think we can talk about...
+
+**Rich Harris:** Yeah, we can.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** They came to my house with all their film gear, which is very intimidating... And they got all situated and they're like "Can you describe Rich Harris?" \[laughs\] And I was like "Oh, man... I don't know." And the first thing that came out was like "He's the kind of hot takes, but they're also not hot takes, but they're all very reasonable." They were like, "Let's do that again." But those are my true feelings. \[laughter\]
+
+**Rich Harris:** Oh, I can definitely relate to what it's like to have a camera shoved in your face and being asked questions.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, it's horrible...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Well, I would say you're definitely really good at hot takes. You're also really great at -- I feel like when there's gasoline all over the floor, you're really great at showing up with a match on Twitter, and then dropping the match... And it's like BOOM! \[laughter\] There goes Twitter for today, you know...? Literally, three weeks later I'm still getting likes and mentiones on threads where Rich inserts himself into sharing a very reasonable opinion about JavaScript. For what it's worth, I agree with you 99% -- actually, 100% of the time, if I'm honest. But yeah, seriously, you're awesome.
+
+So kind of just to continue our hot topics... So React - I've been using the library forever; really, it helped me even be better at JavaScript. It helped really democratize the component model that we were kind of skirting around for a very long time as a community. So I'm very thankful for the way it's helped push certain things forward. However, I think there's certain things around performance and other things where I feel like maybe React has kind of stagnated. And for me, I think a product of its success in many ways, React is a product that really supports a wide variety of applications and platforms. And this reconciliation algorithm, and this virtual DOM, and the synthetic events, and all these things that are kind of like extraneous and not necessarily found in other projects on the web... You can look at Preact, Svelte - y'all don't need a virtual DOM, y'all don't need synthetic events... Extremely performant, much smaller bundler size... But the constraint that React has is we output to many DOM trees; or not DOM trees, but platformy trees... iOS and Android being the other two major platforms. So it's got some bloat because of that.
+
+\[47:48\] A friendly argument that I was having with a friend of mine a few weeks ago was like "Okay, is it safe to say at that point that maybe React is not the best choice if you're writing for just the web?" We agreed, and he was like "Yes. If you're just writing for the web, React is not the best choice." Because I was just trying to say, I don't think React is -- like, if I was starting a project in 2021 (or 2022 now almost) for the web, I wouldn't pick React. I wouldn't. Just because it's bulky. I would try to pick something that's really gonna force me to use as little JavaScript as possible. And React is more than I need, it's more engine than I need, if I'm just writing for the web. So I'm just curious, do you feel like Svelte is -- like, how is Svelte tackling this problem? Because I feel like for me Svelte feels very web-first, web-only right now. Is there a mobile story? Have you tackled those constraints around multi-platform? Because if I'm working at a company and I'm trying to get my manager to adopt Svelte, my manager is gonna say "Well, is there a native library? How does that work? I don't wanna have to hire folks to write Swift and Kotlin, or whatever."
+
+**Rich Harris:** Yeah, I have many thoughts about all of this. I'm gonna preface it all with saying that I'm not a metal developer.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Me neither.
+
+**Rich Harris:** It's not a thing that I care about. I'm a web guy. I would love it if native apps weren't a thing, and the web on mobile devices was capable enough that we could just get rid of all that. That said, it is true that React-native is probably the most tightly-integrated way to build something on iOS and Android if you already have a React codebase, or you're familiar with web development.
+
+There are some things out there which will allow you to build native apps with Svelte. There is a project called Svelte Native, which is basically a wrapper around NativeScript, which is sort of an interface that makes the mobile platform look like the DOM to whatever is using it. And there's a Vue version of this, and there's a Svelte version of this, and there's a vanilla version of this... I haven't used it personally, but as far as I can tell, the results are pretty great.
+
+There's some other attempts in this space as well that are going on. There's one that I learned about recently that isn't yet public, that is -- I think it's built on top of a Node GUI, or something like that... And there's a few of these things. So it is possible. There's also things out there that will allow you to use -- you can give them your progressive web app (PWA) and it'll bundle that as a native app and give you access to device APIs. Again, I haven't used them, can't vouch for them, but that at least on the surface would seem to solve the problem of deploying to mobile devices without having to hire Kotlin and Swift developers.
+
+And then finally, there's the question of whether Svelte is gonna be able to do this stuff natively at some point in the future. And there is really a little bit of a misconception that Svelte is web-only. Obviously, web is our priority; we are built on top of HTML, CSS and JavaScript. A Svelte component is a super-set of HTML. But the compiler, when you're converting a component to JavaScript, it can go one of two ways. It can output code that targets the DOM, or it can output code that targets server-side rendering, which will take some data and just turn that into HTML. And those are very different. The compiler is doing a very different job in each of those cases.
+
+What we haven't done is make that process pluggable and expose it via an API. But we could. We could make it such that you could build your own outputter for the compiler. And it's something that we've talked about from time to time. It's never risen to the level of a priority, of something that we actively want to pursue... But we could. And then we would have an ability to build command-line interfaces with Svelte, and other stuff like that, which you can do with React.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It opens up the mediums in the platform. It opens it up in ways that are very interesting, when you have that level of pipeability between your outputs. But it's interesting...
+
+**Rich Harris:** It's possible that Svelte will have more native support for native one day. For now, you can do it. The maybe caveats -- again, I'm not all that experienced, so I can't speak to them... But if you want a battle-tested solution for building native apps, then React Native is probably the best thing for right now.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[52:09\] That's interesting. I'm glad to hear you say that. I'm really curious to maybe see in like a year what your answer is... Because I know the exponential compound interest natures of JavaScript ecosystem, and someone could have the solution ready for this like tomorrow. So I'm curious to see how that pans out. But thank you for weighing in on that.
+
+I know Amelia and I were really excited to hear about Svelte's community. We can't end this show without talking about community. It's like the currency of open source, it's the currency of everything that we do. I know there's an incredible, very active Svelte community, and like you said earlier, there are the people who have chosen to get into Svelte - not because of work, but because they're hobbyists, or people who really appreciate the API. So can you just maybe tell us a little about the Svelte community, and where do you all convene...? You guys had your first conference recently...
+
+**Rich Harris:** Svelte has a wonderful community. Discord has -- I just opened the invite page to check these numbers. We have 35,000 people in our Discord, 4,000 of whom are online right now... Wchih is quite a lot of people. So Discord is where people in the community gather to ask each other questions and share things they're working on, and advertise jobs, and so on. And Svelte.dev/chat is how you find it.
+
+And yeah, there was a conference recently... Svelte - there's like the core team, the main maintainers, and people who work on that, and then there's also this kind of a sister organization called Svelte society. And that is run by a few people, but the two people I'm gonna call out right now are Swyx, who --
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Shawn...
+
+**Rich Harris:** Shawn Wang, everyone knows him as Swyx...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Rich Harris:** He was sort of the initial impetus behind this, because there was gonna be a London meetup, and he was like "New York cannot not have the first meetup, when it's the city where Svelte was born." And so he very quickly organized a meetup on the same day. So he had this simultaneous London/New York meetup. This was back in 2019, right before the pandemic.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That feels very classic Shawn. He is the most driven and hyper-competitive in the best possible way person. He's just incredible.
+
+**Rich Harris:** He's an absolute machine.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \#goals, you know what I mean?
+
+**Rich Harris:** Yes, he's a remarkable guy.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, for sure.
+
+**Rich Harris:** And so that was the birth of Svelte Society. There's also Svelte School, which is something set up by Kevin, who is also the host of the Svelte Radio Podcast. He made the first conferences happen. Back in (I think it was) April 2020 we had the first virtual conference, and then we've had two more since then... And then last weekend, two weekends ago we had the fourth virtual conference, but for the first time we also had an in-person component to it, here in Brooklyn. And that was wonderful. We had a bunch of people come to an event space in Brooklyn, just down the road from where the old Brooklyn JS meetups used to happen before the pandemic shut the bar down.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Oh wait, was it in the exact same space as the Brooklyn JS?
+
+**Rich Harris:** No.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Okay. Because that was a pretty cool space.
+
+**Rich Harris:** Yeah, so it's 61 local, it was 61 Bourgon Street. We were in a place called The Invisible Dog at 51 Bourgon Street. So just down the road.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, yeah. I mean, it's just down the road in Hipsterville. It's the coolest city in New York, really. Coolest city in the country, I think, Brooklyn; let's be honest, you can't get any cooler than that... So that's awesome.
+
+**Rich Harris:** I mean, the event was pretty cool, I thought.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I bet.
+
+**Rich Harris:** We had a wonderful turnout, people got together... There was a real feeling of "Yes, we can actually start having tech meetups in person again. And there was a really nice vibe; people were kind of milling about, playing board games, and just chatting and catching up. And then we all went and played Shuffleboard afterwards. It was good.
+
+Guillermo and some of the Vercel crew flew in to join the meetup, he gave a little impromptu talk to the assembled people, that was also broadcast live on the internet... It felt like a really nice moment, because as I say, it sort of coincides with Svelte's 5th birthday, and it was a really nice time to sort of take stock and think about everything that the community has achieved, and where it's going in the future.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[56:14\] That sounds amazing. And there's also like a newer community group called Svelte Sirens, I think, that's geared towards folks who are --
+
+**Rich Harris:** Oh, yes, yes, yes. I wanted to talk about Svelte Sirens.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, women and non-binary, I believe...
+
+**Rich Harris:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's just great. I'm so glad to see that there's spaces for folks that are under-represented. It's awesome.
+
+**Rich Harris:** On the core team, we've done a little bit of handwringing about the fact that open source in general is a pretty homogenous scene, and particularly early adopter open source tends to be even more homogenous. And we've definitely felt that. But the core team is also along certain dimensions pretty homogenous, and there's limited things that we can do to fix that. So it really does need to kind of come organically from the community. And the fact that Svelte Sirens has arisen from the community, and it's been spearheaded by Brittney Postma, who is --
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Incredible.
+
+**Rich Harris:** She was at the summit two weeks ago... Wonderful person. I got to meet her for the first time; absolutely brilliant person, who's set this up with some other women and non-binary people from the community... And it makes my heart sing that that's happened.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So we've covered community, we've covered hot takes... I'm eager to hear what's next. What's cutting-edge, next-gen, next-next for Svelte?
+
+**Rich Harris:** So next is SvelteKit 1.0. Everything is geared towards SvelteKit 1.0 right now. That's the big priority. And then I shared some of the wishlist items for Svelte 4. In between that, there's a few little kind of side projects that I'm into. I released a library called svelte-kubed recently, which is a Svelte wrapper around Three.js. It allows you to build interactive 3D scenes with Three.js, but as a declarative component scene.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Wow. Are you making WebGL easy for developers? Because there's such a big barrier to entry with that stuff. It sucks.
+
+**Rich Harris:** That is the hope. We're wrapping Three.js. And Three.js already does a lot of heavylift. If you've ever written raw WebGL code - it is unpleasant. It is really, really difficult to get ahead. I've spent a little bit of time in that world... Not enough to develop any real expertise, but enough to get an appreciation for how much work libraries like Three.js are doing on your behalf.
+
+So Three has done 95% of the work, and then Svelte Kubed aims to do the last 5%... Because working with Three is kind of like working with the DOM. And you can do it, you can build applications just writing against the vanilla DOM APIs. But eventually, you're gonna run into some maintainability problems if you write code that way, in my experience... Because of things like the fact that you're creating something that is essentially hierarchical, but you're not expressing it as a hierarchy. You're expressing it as linear, imperative code.
+
+At the same time, state management becomes very difficult when you're building things imperatively... If you have a component framework that lets you use the same idioms that you use elsewhere in your app, to build WebGL stuff, then it does get a hell of a lot easier to manage. But you also get things like lifecycle management, which means that you get hot module reloading inside your Three.js classes, for example, which you will not get with Three by itself. So it's not just making it slightly more idiomatic and slightly easier to use, it's actually improving the experience of building stuff in some fairly tangible, but non-obvious ways as well.
+
+\[59:48\] So I'm kind of excited by that... It's something that came out of a New York Times project over the summer, and now that it's open sourced, it starting to get some contributions from people who actually know what they're doing... So I'm excited to see how that shapes out.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I was gonna ask, as someone who has used react-three-fiber, were there implementation differences, or API differences for using it? Or is it pretty much similar?
+
+**Rich Harris:** So they're similar in the sense that they give you a declarative interface over Three.js. But in terms of implementation, they are wildly different. And here's where I've gotta be careful... Because Paul, who wrote, react-three-fiber, will disagree with me on a lot of this, and I have to channel his response as I'm saying this. But react-three-fiber is not a component library, it is a renderer. So it implements basically what React DOM gives you - it gives you that, but for Three.js, essentially. And because of that, the implementation of react-three-fiber is very complex. If you actually look at the code, it's just doing an awful lot of very clever stuff to make that possible. And there are some sort of theoretical advantages to thinking about implementing something as a renderer, as opposed to a component library. You're basically building your Three graph directly, as opposed to creating components that create the graph for you. In theory, that gives you some measure of defense against breaking changes between Three.js versions, and so on, but you have to weigh that against the implementation itself.
+
+From the users' perspective, I think the biggest difference is that you are typically just using Three.js classes inside your app. And you can do that in Svelte, because you're not re-rendering your app every frame. In a React app, you can't re-render things frequently, and so because of that, you have this sort of intermediate layer which creates the classes, and then updates them later. You can't do new 3 dot box geometry inside your component. I mean, you could, but it'd be recreating that on every update, and that's gonna be terrible for performance. In Svelte you just don't have that problem.
+
+So for my money, the way that you use Svelte Kubed is a little bit more idiomatic than the way that you use react-three-fiber. But someone who has used react-three-fiber and is familiar with it - I would love to get your take on how it feels different, and which things are nicer, and which things are not as nice.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I'm so excited to dig in.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I want Amelia's thoughts on all the things, especially when it comes to anything visual... I feel like you have a really great instinct for API interfaces, understanding how to represent information really well... Rich and Amelia, if y'all haven't collaborated yet, you should. For sure. But anyways...
+
+So just to kind of wrap up this discussion, I wanna hear just really quickly, briefly, your thoughts on HTML, because we haven't really touched on it in this show... But it does feel like we're making this full cycle on the web, where we're back to kind of just rendering HTML. Astro kind of like boldly pushed the needle with HTML only by default; JavaScript makes it difficult for you to almost use JavaScript in a good way... Same thing for SvelteKit having that option for just outputting HTML. So is the future HTML? Are we back to the web of the '90s? And I will say - we had a wonderful guest on our show last week, Salma Alam-Naylor. She's a wonderful developer advocate, who actually just recently accepted a job at Netlify, so congratulations to her. But Salma had this wonderful analogy of like "We drank too much JavaScript and we have like a hangover, and now we've learned we shouldn't be drinking so much JavaScript, we should take it easy." So it feels like we're coming full-circle, so I'm just curious if you have thoughts on that, since you're clearly part of that movement, in many ways.
+
+**Rich Harris:** \[01:03:45.28\] I have a lot of thoughts on that. A pendulum swing - we're definitely swinging back towards the server. But we're doing it in a different way. Actually, I don't really like the pendulum swinging metaphor, because it kind of implies that overall there's this stasis, and that you're just going from one thing with trade-offs to another thing with trade-offs. But actually, maybe coming full-circle is a better way to think about it, because you pick things up on each revolution, and you get smarter, and you make progress.
+
+I gave a whole talk on this recently called Transitional Apps... Because I feel like we've kind of gotten into this linguistic trap where we think about multi-page apps (MPAs) or single-page apps (SPAs) as being these completely different approaches to building the web... Whereas actually all of the application frameworks today that people are using are converging on something that is a little bit more nuances, which is something that's in between the multi-page app and the single-page app world.
+
+We are generating HTML, but in many cases, when you navigate within an application, once you're in the application and you click a link and you go somewhere else, very often that navigation is gonna happen client-side, in a way that is instantaneous, and offline-friendly, and all of these other things.
+
+And so yes, we are moving back to being more considerate about search engine optimization, and progressive enhancement, and all of those things... Not necessarily because developers care more than they used to, but because the tooling just presents that as a default, and you have to actively opt out of doing the right thing with these modern frameworks. But we are also taking the promise of the single-page app paradigm and preserving that. So this isn't a retrograde step. We're not going back to the '90s way of building apps. And we're also not going back to servers; all of our back-end rendering logic is moving --
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Edge...
+
+**Rich Harris:** ...either to -- there's obviously a lot of interest in serverless, but also to the edge. Cloudflare workers, and Vercel Edge Functions, and Netlify has edge handlers (I think it's still in beta). This is where things are moving. And you can't use that for everything yet, but you can use it for an awful lot of stuff, and that is changing the trade-offs that have informed the decisions that people have taken up till now.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Well, I couldn't think of a better way to end the show, seriously... Thank you for your time today, thank you for your contributions to the web, thank you for never being satisfied with the status quo, thank you for questioning, thank you for saying "We can do this better, actually..." Really, Rich - you've done a lot for the web, and I think we're very lucky to have thinkers like you, who are able to elevate the conversation, and also be comfortable with maybe not being the popular kid right away. I think it's hard to disagree with a bunch of really smart people who've settled on some ideas, and say like "Um, actually, no." \[laughs\] So thank you... And I'm eager to learn more about Svelte this next year, it's on my list of things that I am willing to take my increasingly limited time to learn new things... So I'm very picky about what I learn, and Svelte is on there, so that's a big deal. It's a very big endorsement, Rich.
+
+**Rich Harris:** Well, thank you so much. That really means a lot.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. And Amelia, thank you so much also for being my copilot, for your wonderful insights as always... So that's it for this week, kids. We really hope everybody has a wonderful holiday season. We've got some really fun shows to wrap up the year, and more stuff even planned for next year, so we hope to catch you in the ether somewhere, sometime, someplace. Take care, everyone. Bye-bye!
+
+**Outro:** \[01:07:38.12\] to \[01:08:40.09\]
+
+**Rich Harris:** ...and the short answer is you'll ship faster.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I thought you said the word "You'll s\*\*t faster" and I was like, "Wait, no...!" \[laughs\]
+
+**Rich Harris:** That may also happen, but we're not gonna include that in our marketing...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, we'll edit this out. Anyway... \[laughs\] So you wanna start over? We'll ship faster... \[laughter
+
+**Rich Harris:** Okay, so the short answer is you'll ship faster.
diff --git a/Sophie is the bomb diggity_transcript.txt b/Sophie is the bomb diggity_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..adbfce377a3efac370daa94a5428834c306e65a2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Sophie is the bomb diggity_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,281 @@
+**Amal Hussein:** Hello, party people. We're super-excited today. We have a very, very special guest. Someone whose career I wish I had. I was just telling her how I want her hair and I want her career, actually. Both things. We have the wonderful Sophie Alpert with us today. Welcome, Sophie.
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** Hello. Thank you for having me.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And on the panel today is Divya. Welcome back, Divya. It's been a hot minute.
+
+**Divya:** Hellooooo! It has.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Today's show is gonna probably span a few different topics. We're excited to talk with Sophie about her career. For those of you who may not be familiar with Sophie, Sophie was on the core React team for many years; I think maybe you worked at Facebook/Meta for four years, or something along those lines...
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** That's right.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. And so she's now currently head of engineering at Humu, so we'll talk a little bit about her career... But one of the reasons why we invited Sophie onto the show today was really to kind of dive into her experiences on the React team, and being part of that early growth, as part of one of the most widely-adopted open source projects in the web community... And really, just some of the challenges around what its like to manage a project at that scale, and you know, all the kind of expectations around community engagement, and API nerd turfing, and all of that other good stuff. Lots to get into, so welcome, Sophie. Do you wanna just tell us a little bit about yourself in your own words?
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** Sure. I mean, I think you covered the highlights... I worked on the React team for about four years at Facebook, from -- what year was it? Gosh...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, well I don't even know what day it is, for what it's worth...
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** \[03:57\] 2013 to 2018? I don't know... See, that's not even the right number of years. But yeah, for four years; 2015 to 2018. Wow. I used to know that off the top of my head. Now I don't. Yeah, so I joined the React team when it was very early days for React. I actually started contributing to the React project just on GitHub before that; I think I became the number one committer to React before I even worked at Facebook.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Are you kidding me? OMG. And this is while you were at Khan Academy, right?
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** That's right.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Again, another really cool job, by the way. It's like a dream of mine to one day work there, so... But Khan Academy is great.
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** Well, yeah. So my career I guess is three jobs long. I worked at Khan Academy for an online non-profit and tech startup; I did that for a couple of years, I worked on a lot of frontend stuff there. When React was originally open sourced, I think I saw it online and read the site; it was like, "This really cool", and actually, it worked really well for one of the projects I was working on at the time at Khan Academy... So I started trying it out. I shipped it to production I think two weeks after it was released, which in retrospect maybe seems a little irresponsible, but I think I was maybe the first production user of React outside of Facebook.
+
+But it worked for me, it was exactly what I wanted it to be. I was using Backbone at the time, I had a lot of troubles with managing state, and embedding components in other components, and when I saw React, I was like -- this immediately clicked for me, and I thought "This solves a lot of problems I have, and I'm excited to use it." But at that time it was not popular at all. It was released at a JS Conf in, I believe, Florida in 2013, and was honestly widely banned from the community as soon as it came out, in part because of JSX; everybody was like "This is a disaster. Why would you ever wanna put your HTML markup in your JavaScript?" Which, I must admit, I also had that reaction when I looked at it, and I was like "React looks cool--"
+
+**Amal Hussein:** No pun intended.
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** "...JSX doesn't look as cool." When I first started trying to use React, I said "Okay, I'm just gonna use React without using JSX." And I think after like three weeks I was like, "Okay, I see the purpose of JSX", and then I did start using JSX as well.
+
+But somehow, the React model of being able to nest components, and just having the props and state and saying exactly what you wanna render at any given time just clicked in my head, and I was like, "This is great. I wanna use this." So I did, and I started hanging out in the IRC channel. Can you imagine having an IRC channel for a new project these days?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, wow...
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** That was what we had in 2013, back in the Dark Ages... And some of the core developers from Facebook were hanging out there, I got to know them, and eventually just started fixing more and more bugs in React, when they came up. Both ones that I encountered, and then also ones that other people encountered, and asked questions about it in the chatroom... And ended up just getting more and more involved with the team, and really enjoying working on React. And yeah, eventually at some point I said "Well, it's kind of silly that I'm spending this much time working on React when I could just be doing it full-time as my job and getting paid for it." So I eventually went to Facebook, and took that on as my full-time work.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Wow. There are so many insights there that I was completely unaware of... First of all, being the first person -- at least the first major website that's probably using React in production outside of Facebook - like, wow. Being the number one committer, and then -- I didn't realize how early you had joined. You had been contributing for even longer. That's fascinating. And what's so interesting for me is there's this arc that I'm seeing with the folks that I personally know in the React team, folks like Dan, and Brian, and Andrew... All of them were community contributors before joining. So it seems like this interesting trend of "Hey, if you wanna go work at a FANG company, go work on their open source projects and maybe they'll give you a job." That's pretty cool.
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** \[08:13\] Yeah. As the React team, we always liked to hire people who were very in touch with React itself and the React community, because we figured that's the way you're going to be able to best support the community on the inside, is if you're already familiar with it coming in.
+
+So yeah, we did end up hiring several people who had built third-party libraries that worked well with React. It turned out that that was a really great way to hire, because we could see their work, and we knew they were interested in React, and so then it was easy for them to get up and running, I think.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Sophie, so I think what's super-cool for me about React - when it was first introduced, it didn't... Like, it wasn't just another web framework. I think it just introduced so many new components, no pun intended... We're gonna have to count the puns after this show. But there were so many new components that were introduced along with it, including the Flux architecture, and the one-way data flow, and props, and kind of this componentization of your UI code that really -- I feel like we were skirting around components for a while with MVC and MVVC and CVM, CVS, and all the permutations of that... Remember? We were skirting around it; but I feel like React just nailed it. It was just this intuitive API that, for the most part, if you squint your eyes a little bit around JSX, it is just JavaScript; like, there's just a lot of power in that... Because I think listeners on this show have heard me use this analogy 100 times, but - with Angular, you could never... Like, I could never remember how to do a pipe, or filtering. There was always this arcane syntax... Because it was made up N developer land. It wasn't JavaScript, right? So you had to learn this domain knowledge along with Angular... And with React, it felt like the amount of domain knowledge you had to learn was really minimal to be productive quickly.
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** Yeah. That was definitely the goal, and that's definitely one of the things that I loved about React, is that any of these React elements, anything that's essentially the value of a JSX expression - you can just manipulate it, the same as any other value in your program. You can put it in an array, you can store it in a variable, you can use it in a conditional, and it just works the same way as anything else that you might have in your program...
+
+So our hope always was that maybe there is a learning curve to get familiar with how to use React well, but our hope was always that if you're able to get through that, then that doesn't just teach you about React, it teaches you about JavaScript in general, and it'll give you skills that are going to be reusable for anything you wanna work on in the future.
+
+**Divya:** Yeah, I think that was also an initial appeal to React in general... Because previously, when you're learning programming or you're new to it, you had to learn this entire domain... Like, okay, you have to understand what the DOM is, and you have to understand HTML, and CSS, and JavaScript, and all of this before you could actually do anything... And I think with React there was this ability for you to just learn the Syntax and then have all this power within your toolbox to build a very fully-functional application, without fully understanding the DOM. So there was sort of a reverse approach, where you don't learn the -- it's like, I don't know if this is the right way to look at it, but it's like the fundamentals, and there was one approach where you had to learn the fundamentals before you start working on an app... And React is like "That's not the case. Let's get you started." Because generally, when you're learning, you wanna get things onto a page and be successful, and then as you're getting advanced, you learn the bits and pieces... So I think that was a really cool approach, and it gave a lot of people more agency, which was really cool to see.
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** Fundamentals are always really important... And there may be times when you can skip over them. You'll almost certainly wanna end up learning them properly later... But I think that also that was figuring out what things to teach, in what order, and what did our users know and not know is something that we had to grapple with as a growing library, or as a growing framework.
+
+\[12:23\] I think that's something that definitely changed over time as well, because in React's first couple of years basically every single person who was using it is somebody who was personally really invested in the JavaScript and the web development community, who stayed up on the latest trends and who probably knew HTML and CSS really well, knew JavaScript really well, and they were people who found React themselves and thought "Oh, this looks cool. I wanna use this in my project."
+
+But then, over time, as React continued to get more popular, many more people started to use it, both in cases where somebody else at your company introduces it to the codebase, and then now you didn't pick it, but it's in the codebase you're working with, you need to figure out how to use it... As well as people who are maybe going through a coding bootcamp, or some other type of instruction, where again, somebody else picked React and said "You're going to be learning React", and then the people who are actually done learning it don't necessarily have that same background.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You and Divya both touched on some important points here, which is like React is so easy sometimes you don't need to understand all of the -- maybe some more experienced folks like us would consider foundational fundamentals... Like, you can wave past the fundamentals, and we kind of did see that a lot with folks struggling with the actual "this" pointer in JavaScript, and the entire API shifted as a result of that.
+
+I think React landed in a place that's better, I think, because of it, which is exciting. I think hooks -- it took me a long time to get around to hooks, because I'm old and curmudgeonly, and I had a big "Who moved my cheese" moment... I'm like, "What the hell? I have to learn a new thing that does the same thing? I can do the same thing with the old thing. Why do I have to learn a new thing?" So I had that kind of curmudgeonliness. But I think after using it for a while and seeing the benefits, I get it. But it wasn't instant.
+
+And I think for me, when you know you've made it is when the bootcamps start to put you in their curriculum... So I feel like as soon as bootcamps were like "React is what you're gonna learn for frontend", everything changed. Not everything changed, but I would say the mass adoption scales had really tipped, because you had a bunch of newbies using this tool. So I'm curious to hear what were some of the challenges there with folks who are really struggling with some of the fundamentals... You know, being so productive so quickly, but then getting to this point where things are broken, and they don't really understand why...
+
+And then of course, there was the other challenge of that, which was before Create React App, I'm like "Good luck trying to set up your React environment if you don't have a masters degree in JavaScript build tooling." There's just so many challenges there I think that the community has smoothed over now, but I'm just curious what was that experience like.
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** It was definitely an ongoing thing we needed to be mindful of. I think that even the current live incarnation of the documentation site - we basically assume that you are familiar with JavaScript, and that you are familiar with HTML before you try to go through the React docs. And obviously, there's many, many different ways to learn React, and not everybody uses the official docs, especially for something like a coding bootcamp; they'll have hopefully thought about that scaffolding and exactly when to introduce what concepts.
+
+\[15:57\] The last time that we really redid the docs was probably in 2017, I wanna say... And even at that time - I mean, React was definitely getting popular, but it wasn't as popular as it is today, and it felt like that still made sense for that time to say "Okay, these are the base assumptions we're going to have, and we do expect that somebody's going to know those fundamentals."
+
+Now, there's this new beta documentation site that is out, and I think they've chosen a slightly different approach there to try to be a little more mindful of people who may not have that background, which I think is an incredibly great move... But yeah, we would routinely get people who are struggling with people in React, where the answer to their question is "Oh, you're confused about this thing, and this thing that you're confused about actually isn't React-specific, even though the first place you encountered it was in React." And I think that was true with "this" keyword, like you mentioned, Amal, and also, in Hooks, shortly after Hooks came out, I think we got a lot of questions that essentially boiled down to the behavior of capturing variables in a closure, in a function, where people were confused about "Okay, why aren't these variables not changing", and we actually had to take a step back and -- we needed to figure out how to tell that story and how to explain that, and how to teach people "It is actually just using these JavaScript features. React isn't doing anything magical here to make functions work differently than they work in an ordinary application."
+
+But then I think that's still a great opportunity to help educate people and help people gain a deeper understanding of the fundamental concepts and the tools they use every day... And that's one thing I'm really proud of in React, is that that time that you spend learning about closures, for example, is going to be useful to you in all of your JavaScript programming, and honestly probably programming in other languages as well... Whereas I think some of the other UI frameworks out there, they have more of their own concepts, where they have something else that's sort of similar to JavaScript closure, but is just a different concept that they invented, that works a little bit differently, and is specific to that framework, and then you need to relearn more things that are specific to a specific set of tools.
+
+**Divya:** I like the design methodology of building a framework that is specific, yet general enough, so that the knowledge transfers... Because yes, you want ideally folks to stay within that framework ecosystem, and keep working on it and building within that, but it's also nice that there is this flexibility that you're not tied to that per se. So if you're working in React, you could easily move to -- I mean, concepts are obviously different, but i worked in Vue a lot, and I moved from React to Vue. Honestly, React had certain concepts that translated. It was just the syntax changed. So in a sense, when you work within the React ecosystem and the framework, you're still learning the fundamentals, and understanding how the web works, how the DOM works, how things are manipulated reactivity. And those ideas -- the syntax changes, of course, but the ideas are the same... And I think that's really powerful for a framework to think about, because then it's just -- I think that creates a longevity to it as well, because then things don't expire with time. The ecosystem changes, and the framework can change alongside it, because it's already been sort of keeping par with those changes and trends.
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** A hundred percent. And I think that's one of the great things about open source in general, is that by sharing these concepts and ideating on what are different ways we can advance things, we help to build a common foundation that can be used by everybody in the future, and that future projects can build on top of.
+
+**Break:** \[20:02\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Sophie - wow, that was very poetic, and I keep having my fangirl moments here... So folks who don't get to listen in between the show, Divya and I were just gushing and laughing, so I'm gonna try to contain myself now... So I'm just curious, with this hockeystick growth wave that you got to ride and be a part of - you know, everything from the giant conferences, to the ecosystem just kind of booming... What sort of community management did you all need? Because it wasn't just this tool that Facebook was using all of a sudden. It was this tool that modern web teams were adopting. So I'm curious what types of -- how did community come into the project as the adoption grew?
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** I think a large part of it was us just needing to pay attention to what is going on in the community, what do people who are using React need, what are their top concerns, what are they thinking about, and trying to stay very in tune with that.
+
+As one example, in the very early days when we were first adopting React at Khan Academy, the number one complaint I heard from my co-workers about React was "When I run into a problem, I always google it and I get no results." Because it wasn't very popular at that time, and not a lot of other people were using it.
+
+And I thought to myself, "Well, normally, when I google for an error message or whatever it may be, where do I end up?" Well, it's usually on Stack Overflow; usually, somebody has asked and answered the question there. So I basically said to myself "I wanna help solve this, and the way I'm gonna do this is by answering every single Stack Overflow question asked about React."
+
+So I subscribed to the \#reactjs tag on Stack Overflow, and so I got an email every time somebody asked any question... And the volume wasn't too extreme; it was like maybe one a day, or something... And I said "I'm gonna try to do my best to make sure that these questions get answers, and that'll help both the people asking them in that moment, as well as it'll help make sure that there's a wide corpus of advice and knowledge about React that people can find when they search for it later."
+
+So I did that, and I did that for probably a year and a half, maybe two years. By the end of that time, it started to get a little bit unmanageable, where it was like "Okay, there's like four questions every day, and I don't know if I really have time to write answers to all of these questions." But by that time, there were also other people who were answering the questions, and so I felt that I could step back. So that was one thing that I did at the time.
+
+\[24:09\] At other times, as the React team, we tried a few different things out. We tried making a first-party official discussion forum, that we later sort of sunset in favor of other community-run platforms... And then also most of the React team has presence on Twitter, and that's where a lot of the JavaScript community in general is, of course.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** For better or worse... \[laughs\]
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** Exactly. So we ended up being pretty available there. I don't even know if that was a conscious effort; I think a lot of us were just already using Twitter, but it was something where we tried to be aware of what are people talking about, what are people listening to, what are the questions that people have about React, and what are their painpoints. And you already mentioned Create React App. I think that's another great example of something where -- that was something that we basically never heard from people inside Facebook. This pain of setting up all of the open source toolchain and figuring out how WebPack works, and figuring out how Babel works, and figuring out how to plumb all those things together is something that third-party developers struggled a lot with, because the tooling in the ecosystem wasn't very good for people who just wanted something simple and didn't wanna spend a lot of time setting things up. That wasn't something that people at Facebook had a problem with, because at Facebook the projects were already set up; people already had their tooling in place...
+
+But in the community, that was a big pain point, and so one of the things that Dan (on the team) did was to create the project Create React App to make it so that you could, with a single command, get up and running. And I think that project is obviously alive and healthy today, but also I think helped inspire some other projects in the space, or at least I like to think that it helped. I think if you look at something like Parcel today, a bit pitch they have is that you don't need any configuration. You can just install it, run it, and drop your files in, and it'll just work. And that, I think, is a huge improvement for making it easy and accessible to get started with web development.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. We see this trend a lot in the JavaScript community, of like big, influential libraries or ecosystems kind of like always raising the bar. We went from zeroconfig being a thing, to now having fully-supported boilerplates, scaffolds, Create React App being a thing... We were talking to Rachel last week on the show, and she was talking about the new documentation site, and how there's interactivity built in, and all this kind of feedback... And I think that's also becoming -- hopefully, the goal was for that to become a standard for popular documentation libraries to have interactivity, as well as a fully fleshed out tutorial in their docs.
+
+So it's really nice to see the envelope being pushed a little bit. However, there's a dark side to that, sort of... Because I remember Create React App being the first thing I remember as seeing an actual development effort that was purely community-based from you guys, from the core team. Because obviously, y'all are doing open source work, but at the end of the day, Facebook/Meta is funding you, your primary job is to create this library to make hundreds and thousands of developers internally at your company productive, right? And I'm sure there's lots on your plate even just for that. So now you're focusing on this big community project, and then doing community work on what feels like your off-time... That can be a little exhausting. I'm just curious, was that draining at some point? Because it really feels almost like there's two jobs, because you have external community work, and then there's actual commit work.
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** \[28:12\] Yeah. I think there's definitely things to balance when doing that role. I don't wanna frame it as like in our off-time. It was still --
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, I guess it was not off-time.
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** ...definitely still doing all of that at work. It's not like people were only doing community work nights and weekends. But yeah, there's multiple things to balance. The good news is that usually things that Facebook employees were asking for to make React better are in many, many cases the same as what people in open source were asking for. And oftentimes, even when there's a discrepancy, it was often just that the Facebook employees were maybe working on larger projects, and hitting problems before people in open source were... And that was actually great for us, because we solved those problems before people really hit them in earnest in open source; that's a great way for us to be able to stay ahead of the curve in the community.
+
+I mentioned Create React App is one of the maybe notable examples of a time where those needs did diverge, and we wanted to make sure to support the community still, even though that wasn't something that Facebook was asking for.
+
+So in general, I think the React team does a good job balancing concerns from different angles, and balancing requests from different audiences. Sometimes when people are annoyed at like "Oh, why isn't React spending time on this?", usually the answer isn't "Oh, because it's not important to Facebook, the answer is because the React team thinks they have other things that will help the community more, longer-term projects that are being worked on.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right.
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** You know, it can be tough to work on a really long-term project. The React team has some projects that have been going on for 4, 5, 6 years at this point, basically. Some of them will be wrapped up in the React 18 release, which will hopefully be in the coming months... But as a community member, I think it can be frustrating to have this tool that you use every day and feel like the team behind it is working on things that aren't going to benefit you immediately, or that you maybe don't understand the value of yet. But I guess it's a double-edged sword. I think there's that pain, but on the plus side, being able to invest in very long-term projects is a luxury that a lot of projects don't have, and ultimately I think helps push the project forward and push the industry forward. Or at least it will, if the projects work out, which we're always hoping they do.
+
+**Divya:** I'm actually curious, because there is a super-real concern that ultimately React was created as an open source project, and then with Facebook's interests in mind, to some extent, because you are building for internal engineers and for those processes. What was the balance between the interests of the org versus community interests when it came to figuring out what went on the React roadmap?
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** The React team at Facebook/Meta, at least when I was there, was given a lot of autonomy - I imagine that is still the case - to focus on the things that are most important for the React project. And it was very rare that we would ever have to confront a conversation of the form "Oh, should we do this thing that will benefit Facebook, or this thing that will benefit the community?" That really rarely came up. Instead, it was a question of "What are the biggest problems with React? What are the things that we can make the biggest improvements to? What are the things that people are running into again and again?" and then figuring out how to make improvements to those things.
+
+\[32:04\] And I think that -- I already mentioned this, but Facebook is operating at a larger scale than most other applications. Facebook.com, as of a year or so ago, is basically 100% React now. That was a rewrite that took quite a long time, and a lot of people worked very hard on that. I mean, I don't even know, but there's probably thousands or maybe tens of thousands of components involved in the website, and that means that some solutions that maybe would work in the community wouldn't work for Facebook.
+
+And you know, if I pick an example, it's -- like, for example, maybe it's prohibitive to send down the list of possible routes, the list of possible URL patterns for the application. At Facebook's scale, that would be a huge, huge list, and it just doesn't make sense to do. So Facebook had to -- not the React team, but the Facebook team working on the new React website... That's a confusing term; the Facebook team working on the new Facebook website built-in React ended up building a routing solution that doesn't rely on sending down that full list of URL patterns upfront.
+
+But then when you see the React team exploring things like React server components, a lot of that is inspired by some of those solutions that have been built at Facebook for routing and for data fetching and for incremental loading of component code, and doing that in the most efficient way, where oftentimes at that scale there are certain changes you need to make in order to do things efficiently, that would still benefit people at a smaller scale, but just never rise to the level of something where you would say "Oh, okay, this is one of our biggest problems and one of our biggest opportunities to improve." But then if we can use that inspiration when building React, then hopefully - that means everybody using React - will benefit from that; their sites will be a little bit faster, or a little bit more scalable, even if they don't themselves have to do anything.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I have to say, I've always personally been inspired by Facebook's scale, because I think -- for me, I've always thought about the folks working on Facebook.com as working on the most used website besides Google.com, and Google.com is just like a box. Granted, there's a lot going on, don't get me wrong, on Google.com... But there's a lot more going on on Facebook.com when you're logged in.
+
+So I think for me that scale has always been very interesting, and thank you for sharing that story about the routing. That makes a lot of sense. A lot of problems of scale aren't translatable to every average web dev problems, the everyday problems, and I think it's hilarious when I see folks trying to optimize the crap out of their to-do app, or their blogs. It's like, "Y'all, you don't need to handle a million requests per second. Chill." You know what I mean?
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So it's good to keep that in mind, that folks working at Netflix, Google, Amazon are solving scale problems that are very unique to their use cases, and you don't necessarily need to go and adopt them. However, there's lots of goodies that you can adopt, like good patterns and best practices.
+
+So I'm just curious actually, to kind of segue into maybe some of the stuff we were discussing a little earlier around community - community also means that you also need to manage opinions and have a funnel for people giving input to the API. And this is specifically folks external to Facebook. So I'm curious, what is open governance like in React right now?
+
+\[35:59\] Because I'm aware that there's a new working group - I was speaking to Brian about this a few weeks ago in New York; he told me that there's this new working group that's been put together, which is exciting, and I'm so glad to hear that... But just in general, how dd you all manage governance, and what's the funnel for community input? Because I think for me that's always been a black box with the React team. Because it just feels like it's the React team show, the core team show... Which is fine, maybe, sometimes; not always though. With Suspense there's a lot of back and forth for the community... So I'm just curious if you could shed some light on that.
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** In many ways, it is the core team's show. I don't think anybody can dispute that. And it's also hard for it to be anything else, because the React core team is several people who spend all day, every day, thinking about React, working on React, hearing about the problems people have with React, hearing about different nuances and quirks that people are running into, hearing about the problems that different people have... And if somebody who doesn't think about it, talk about it, and work on React all day, every day, wants to contribute, it's often hard to have this amount of context necessary in order to be able to make those --
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Informed opinions?
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** Yeah, exactly. It's actually not that uncommon that somebody in the community will say "Oh, can we change React in this way, to solve this problem?" And then the answer is "Well, that sounds like a cool idea, but also it would cause all these other problems, or it's not aligned with this other future direction that fits into some of the existing plans." It can be pretty difficult to explain all of that context to people, especially in a case where that context is always changing. And you mentioned Suspense; that's a great example, where Suspense for data fetching is still not released in a stable version of React. And the reason for that is because the React team is still figuring out what are the ways to make this work? What are the ways to make this intuitive and reliable and easy to use, so that it solves the problems that people actually have and doesn't cause more problems?
+
+We originally talked about Suspense -- it must have been in early 2018, maybe in March. That was 3,5 years ago. If we knew at that time that it would take this long to get it into a stable release, I'm sure we would not have talked about it that early, because it did cause a lot of thrash in the community. Because we had ideas of what would be necessary to change in people's codebases in React in order to provide those features. And ultimately, a lot of those -- well, first of all, those ideas were fairly complex and nuanced and difficult to explain, but also a lot of them ended up changing as the React team continued to iterate on those features and continued to learn more about how things are set up, or how things need to be set up.
+
+So the React team I think always wants to try to get people bought into the vision, "Here's the story, here's what we're currently thinking", but that messaging work to make it clear what's going on without worrying people, without scaring people, is a lot of work, and especially if the thing that you're trying to message is something that is constantly changing, then that's even harder. I think that's one of the things that is tough about having a really large community, is that different people will have different amounts of context, different people will have different pre-existing knowledge, and what will resonate with one user of React is not going to resonate with someone else.
+
+\[40:07\] So on React we try to be as open as possible. One of the big things we try to do is develop in the open on GitHub, where - you know, not all the conversations that the React team has are on GitHub, but a lot of them are. All of the pull request reviews are public, the React core team uses pull requests the same way that anyone else would to try to propose a change to the React project... And you can learn from all of those discussions. That was something that was really important to us as a team. It's different from what most other Facebook/Meta open source projects do, but it was important to us as the React team to try to be as open as we can, and try to get people bought in.
+
+**Divya:** I think the progression of that was pretty clear throughout the project, because in earlier versions of React at least it was -- anytime a version was released, there was some breaking changes, and if you wanted to use the next version, you kind of had to change to the next version... And I think it was like React 17, 16, something like that, where you all introduced this gradual change, where you didn't have to change the entire version. You could just sort of do partial changes, so that you could move your application up without having to create this crazy refactor, and people were not falling behind in upgrades, which I think was happening in the past... Because if you moved from React 13 to 14, it's like, okay, there's some changes there that you need to change large portions of your application, and that might not be in line with current business logic... Because you need to make money for your business, so how are you gonna do that, so you fall way behind...
+
+And I think it's interesting that you talk about just like trying to hear what the community is thinking about, also trying to balance the needs of how the team wanted the project to progress, versus what the community needed as well. And yeah, it's really cool to see just the iterations over time, where in the earlier stages it was just like "This is the direction of how things are going" and then over time I think there's been more allowance for what the community's needs are, and hearing how are people using it, and there's more of that conversation, I think... So I think I see that a lot more now, and it's really cool that that's happening, because it means there's a cohabitation between the community and the React core team as well.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, for sure. And then the RFCs - I think you brought that up in the break, Divya... Do you wanna double-click into that a little bit? I think it was cool that RFCs became more of a thing, I would say, with React...
+
+**Divya:** Yeah. At that time I think Yarn had done it, but Yarn was part of Facebook too, so... I think Ember maybe had done an RFC process as well at that time... I can't remember.
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** Yeah, I think Ember was where we originally took that inspiration from.
+
+**Divya:** Yeah, and it's cool to see, because again, it was sort of the first stage where -- I think previously there were ways in which you could talk about what you wanted, and things that the community didn't really have an avenue for talking about what they wanted, versus just going on Twitter and just being like "I wish React did this", or sliding into your DMs directly and asking you, which might be really annoying...
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Divya:** But yeah, the RFC process--
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Hey...! \[laughs\]
+
+**Divya:** I mean, it happens... I guess if you don't have a platform, you make your own... So the RFC process was nice to see. Ember sort of started that trend a bit, but it gives the community a voice, or it gives them a platform in which they could voice their opinions... And I think I've seen a lot of really fruitful discussion from there. And also feedback.
+
+I've spoken to Dan Abramov a bit at one point, about how there was a point when they were -- I can't remember which feature it was, but just like a suggestion for a specific feature, and the community was like "This doesn't make sense. We want it to be this way" or "This is how we work." And it has shifted the architecture, or at least the way you think about making decisions, which I think is very important when you are an open source project... Because ultimately - yes, there are business interests because you're part of Facebook, but the community is also part of what sort of led to the success of React overall.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Very well said. And you have to also draw the line somewhere, right? Because if you try to please everyone, you please no one, and it's a tough battle. But anyways, we're gonna take a break here, because we have lots of -- I would say the hot topics coming up next, maybe... I'd love to really hear Sophie's thoughts on what parts of React could be in the platform... All that good stuff. So we'll be right back.
+
+**Break:** \[44:53\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Alright, Sophie, so now we're on to the fun stuff, right? \[laughs\] The controversial topics. Thank God you don't -- no, I'm just kidding. I can't get you fired from Facebook because you don't work there anymore, right?
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** Exactly.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You're working at Humu, so I can't get you fired. That's good.
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** Yeah. I'll get retroactively fired.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yes. \[laughs\] No getting Sophie retroactively fired. That's bad. So obviously, we hear a lot of opinions on the internet about React. "React should be this, React should be that", people who I love and admire and I adore kind of poo-poo talk React sometimes... And I kind of wish people were nicer about the way they talk about APIs, because APIs get deprecated, people don't... So I think people should always remember to be respectful and constructive in their opinions. I wish people did that more often, but it doesn't always happen.
+
+I personally - I'll start with some of my beef with React, which is really around synthetic events. And it wasn't made clear to me until very recently -- like, I understand now why synthetic events are still a thing inside of React, and that's because I think people forget that React isn't just for the web. It renders to many different platforms, and so there's some interoperability that needs to be handled there.
+
+The way I'm thinking about React is I think it's maybe a better tool for folks who wanna keep that door open to mobile... But if you're building a web-only/web-first application, then you can use React or a bunch of other things, right? You're not just limited to React. Anyways... Any thoughts on synthetic events, and why they're still a thing?
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** \[48:05\] Yeah. Synthetic events were originally created to paper over some differences in the ways different browsers handled events... Most of those have been flushed out now, where they -- browsers these days tend to be pretty compatible, especially on the parts of the web standards that have been around for quite a long time at this point.
+
+If React was being built today, I don't know that it would have the event system in the same format... But an important question to ask is -- like, if you're asking about getting rid of the synthetic event system, what does that actually mean, and what is the benefit that a user of React would gain, or someone who has to interface with React and doesn't actually like React, or whoever it is - what is the benefit to people of getting rid of the synthetic event system.
+
+There's different answers you can find to that. One of them is that it used to be difficult to have React apps embedded in a larger page and have the events bubble correctly in the right order. And that is something that was fixed, I believe in React 17, without getting rid of the synthetic event system, but just by changing how it works slightly, by changing where it attaches the listeners in the document, so that that problem is now solved, and that type of interop does work, both between React and other frameworks, as well as between different versions of React.
+
+I think that there's a few other quirks where forms submit event bubbles in react and doesn't bubble with the normal browser event... I'll say I think that was probably a mistake, doing it that way, and it probably shouldn't bubble... But also, we always have to weigh the amount of effort to change something and the amount of thrash it will cause on the community, versus the benefit that changing it will give. That's one where it's not the decision I would have made today, but also, I don't think it's causing a lot of problems for people. It doesn't add a lot of bundle size to React, it's not making things confusing for people and their applications very much... And it would require some breaking changes to get rid of that might be annoying for people.
+
+And so for something like that, oftentimes the answer is just "Well, let's leave it as it is", because keeping a stable ecosystem is more important than getting to the magical, mythical, perfect version of React that we might ideally wanna get to.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That makes a ton of sense. I think what's challenging is - to kind of play devil's advocate here - and this is the argument I've used in the past as well, to be very clear. This is a well-rehearsed argument... Like, why can't acebook can fund those projects, they can hire Igalia, there's lots of ways to get those interop issues patched. Is it worth the overhead and the bloat in the library?
+
+Synthetic events have gotten smaller over the years, for sure, in the refactors... But I'm just curious, is that contributing to browsers and pushing them -- is it too slow? Because I really do think of Facebook engineers as probably being very fast-moving and very -- I don't know, the opposite of the standards world, where things move glacially slow. So I'm just curious, is there conflict there, or is it just faster to do it yourself?
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** Yeah, I would say Facebook is very open to getting involved in trying to change web standards when it makes sense for the community to try to do that. I think that there are definitely pros and cons to be conscious of... The speed of iteration I think is the number one thing, where when something is part of React -- obviously, React now has its own many million plus users to worry about, and not thrashing them... But still, it's something that can change over time, and can make backwards-incompatible changes, which is basically not true on the web. Once something's part of the web, it has to stay that way forever.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[52:19\] Yeah, for sure.
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** And if something is part of the JavaScript code that is downloaded on pageload, then that can change over time, as we learn new things. When you talk about standardizing something and moving parts of React into the web platform, in principle, a hundred percent on board; I think it's just a question of okay, which parts it make sense to move, that are stable enough? And oftentimes I hear like "Oh, can't we just move the React component model? Because that doesn't seem like it's changed very much... And can we standardize some form of that?"
+
+I think we need to be careful with how we do that, because doing that is committing to essentially never changing it, ever, in the future... Or at least any form of a change would be by introducing some alternate, second API into the web platform that could be used alongside it. And for the React component model, as an example, that's something where in the releases of React that have come out so far it hasn't changed very much. But then I think you can see -- I mean, even pointing to Hooks as an example, where I think before Hooks came out, people might imagine saying "Oh, it would make sense to standardize this idea of like a UI component, and have these componented mount hooks, and component update." Because that was what React did, and that was what a lot of other frameworks did at the same time. But then would that have meant that React Hooks couldn't have been invented, and couldn't have been released? I think that would have been a loss; I am, at least personally, a huge fan of React Hooks. I know some people don't love them, but I like them. And I think that Suspense - of course, another divisive topic in the React community, but that's another example...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[laughs\] Yeah, it's all in the name, Sophie. It's all in the name. You should call Suspense something fluffy and cute, instead of Suspense. Suspense reminds me of like an Alfred Hitchcock movie. That's what I think of when I hear Suspense. I'm like "Huh! Suspense!"
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** I'm actually not sure what that team's latest thinking is on that. They might actually be planning to phase out the name. Because I know some of the draft APIs are called things like "use transition" and "start transition".
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh yeah, actually. Yes, the new Transitions API I think is the new -- yeah.
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** So it's possible that maybe the Suspense name will finally die completely. Maybe Dan's listening to this right now and shaking his fist at me for saying Suspense, I don't know...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Transitions seemed to be the word that Brian was using the last time we spoke, but maybe that's -- I don't know for sure.
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** I think when it comes to -- you know, the general theme of those Transitions APIs is adding core support for asynchronous tasks into the core of React and into the component model, so that React understands "When do I need to wait for some data to be fetched, or for some operation to finish, or for some code to be loaded?" And that is something that has been a request since probably React's very first year. I think we had some requests of "Oh, can I just return a promise from my React components?" And again, with that, it can be tempting to be like "Yeah, we'll just patch that in", but instead, we tried to be a little bit more patient and think about "Okay, how does this actually all fit together? How can we make this the absolute best it can be, and sort of reimagine things from first principles?" And the result is some of these new transition-related features that will be part of upcoming React releases once they're stable. And if we had tried to standardize the existing synchronous React component model in the web platform, then it's possible that these changes could never have been added.
+
+\[56:00\] So I think you need to be careful when you're talking about adding things to the web platform, because obviously, the advantage of the web platform is that it's available, it is stable, it is something that people can build upon... But that's also the cost - it has to be stable; it can't change, it can't evolve... Or at least it can only evolve in sort of an additive way. You can't change things that are already there.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** But that doesn't mean that the React team is not invested in web standards. To give a couple of examples, the React team has been working, especially with the Google Chrome team, they've been great partners, I know, on a few new features for the web platform. One of them is a scheduling API for asynchronous tasks, another one of them is a feature called display locking, which is a way to make some changes to the DOM without having them appear on screen, that will essentially avoid the need to stall the browser while it redoes layout if you can say like "Okay, this computation can essentially be done in the background by the browser", then that gives the browser more power to schedule those computations intelligently...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. That feels like a really cool cheat, by the way. I love that. That's like a way to get around the whole single-threaded render blocking kind of actions. It almost feels like a very assistive thing to the virtual DOM reconciliation algorithm; that's really cool.
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** Yeah. I know that the React team - you know, they sit back and they say "What are the biggest problems that are facing application developers today? ...either folks who use React, or folks who don't use React." I know that they also take inspiration from like "Okay, what is happening in the game development industry? What's happening all over the place? What are the biggest barriers, and how can we make progress on them?" And if the answer to that question is "Oh, the best way to make progress on this is that we can't without making changes to the web platform", and that adding new browser APIs is a way that will unlock more capabilities for React apps, and in most cases for many other apps that are not using React as well, then that what makes sense to push on.
+
+But at least to this point, it hasn't felt to me - I'm sure opinions may differ on this, but it hasn't felt to me like taking things that are currently in React and working well in React and standardizing them, it hasn't felt like that's one of the highest leverage opportunities to improve React and improve the web in general so far.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, that's really well said. There's this kind of push-pull between web developers and folks working in the standards communities, specifically folks that are writing for JavaScript engines, and browser rendering engines, and web developers... That kind of push-pull is really around trying to follow the web developer cow paths... So web developers very often pave the cow paths for what will in ten years be maybe standard on the web platform, or maybe there would be ways to do similar things in the web platform. Promises is a great example of that.
+
+Thank you so much for, I think, for me very clearly explaining that "Hey, Amal, React needs to iterate, and we still haven't found our perfect thing yet." And "Hey, there's these browser APIs that are going to hopefully help facilitate some of the scheduling work and some of the asynchronous work that we would like to do." However, it wouldn't be wise to commit to these APIs and these interfaces just yet... Thank you for explaining it to me in those terms; I think that clicks for me... I don't know, what do you think, Divya?
+
+**Divya:** I think this is a very valid conversation.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[01:00:01.20\] I kind of wanna throw the coin over... \[laughter\]
+
+**Divya:** I think we've covered a large breadth of topics...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, we have. I know. Sophie's the bomb diggity. So I guess, to maybe continue playing devil's advocate a little bit, Sophie... So there's this need to do a lot of scheduling work with React. I remember a few years ago I was at Chrome Dev Summit, and Andrew Clark was on a panel representing React... Do you remember that?
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** I don't remember the exact one.
+
+**Divya:** Yeah, okay. But anyways... But he talked a lot about -- we'll link to it in the show notes, but he talked a lot about how React needs to do a lot of scheduling. And that was kind of the concern at the time. I think this was maybe 2017, or something like that. Or 2018, I can't remember. And I think there's lots of frameworks that don't need to do as much scheduling work... And you think about Preact, you think about Svelte, for example, that doesn't have a virtual DOM, or a lot of this other kind of internals around asynchronicity... What are some needs that are really driving that on the team for you? Or what were some needs that were driving that when you were on the team? And are those things that -- similar to what y'all are doing now with the Chrome folks, should we just be pushing those towards native APIs that will allow you to do the thing better, versus trying to do it in JavaScript? Because concurrency is really hard...
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** Definitely.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And just in general, like - working within the JavaScript event loop, and trying to game it... It's hard. It's really, really hard. So I'm just curious, how much of that is really -- what's the core driving need for that?
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** Yeah. I mean, I think it was all based in "How can we make faster applications?" or applications that feel faster. There's a few ways to do that. You can do the same things, in the same order, faster, you can do fewer things, or in some cases you can do things in a different order, where the actual things themselves may take the same amount of time, but if you can do the important ones sooner, the ones that a user is actually waiting on, and expecting and anticipating to see, where they just clicked a button and the number one thing they care about is seeing the results of that button click. Or they press the key on their keyboard while typing into a text field. That's the number one most important thing for a website to feel responsive and fast.
+
+In some cases, one of the things that the React team noticed, especially when working on larger apps, both at Facebook and outside of Facebook, is that sometimes when you're typing it'll lag, because the browser is doing something else. And when I say "The browser is doing something else", it's usually some other JavaScript on the same page that is running at that time. The browser is busy executing that JavaScript, or executing some changes that that JavaScript made to the page.
+
+\[01:03:02.13\] So I guess we asked - okay, well if we're able to make sure that the number one priority for the browser at any given time is doing the things that the user is actually actively waiting on, then that is going to make things a lot smoother, and it's going to make a much better user experience. So that is something that, to some extent, can be done without adding new browser APIs, to be honest... And React had some prototypes where essentially we built a scheduler entirely within JavaScript, that runs on top of the browser, and then we tried to schedule all other work through that. And that worked, and made some significant -- you know, it had a lot of promise. But also, when we looked at that, that was something where we said, okay, this is a case where the browser clearly can do this better than we can do in user land, and also, this is the sort of thing that in order to really, really be successful, needs to be a common API, a common single schedule that schedules all of the work that's happening on a page, that isn't just what React uses, but is also what other pieces of code that might be on the same page use. So for that reason, it can really benefit from being a standard, and so then the work on scheduling APIs in the browser really came out of that, as a way to say, okay, how can we take advantage of what the browser does best, and also make it so that there is this standard built-in API that any library, including React, can make use of.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. You know, that makes a lot of sense. I'm glad to see that there's like a user-centric-driven -- like, ultimately, it's really at the core, about improving user experiences, and that's really exciting.
+
+Sophie, it's been an absolute pleasure having you on the show today. Really, I've been a fan of you, and I've been watching your career for a long time, so I'm really glad that we got to do this today. Is there anything else you wanna let folks know? Where can they connect with you online...
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** Thank you. It's been a pleasure being here today.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And you're hiring at Humu, right?
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** Yes, we are. Yeah, at Humu I lead the engineering team; we're a small HR tech startup trying to make better work environments for people, and trying to support everyone with what they need in order to grow at work. So we are hiring engineers of all levels, we're also hiring designers and PMs, if you know anyone... So check us out there. You can also find me on most places on the internet, but I guess especially Twitter. My username is @sophiebits.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And you also work with Kball.
+
+**Sophie Alpert:** I work with Kball.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. At Humu. We'll put that in the show notes. So thank you everyone for listening. This has been a delightful conversation. We will catch you next week. We have an awesome show with my co-worker, Liana Leahy. She's a product manager. We're gonna be talking about transitioning from engineering to product... So it should be a really fun conversation. Catch you soon, folks...
diff --git a/Sweet setups for easier dev_transcript.txt b/Sweet setups for easier dev_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fa4b76484fd48ea7818dd4ad933d88160092c5cd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Sweet setups for easier dev_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,419 @@
+**Nick Nisi:** Hello, and welcome to JS Party. I am your host today, Nick Nisi. Hoy-hoy! And I am joined today by Kball. Kball, what's up?!
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Hello, hello. Calling in from a beautiful vacation home, excited to be on the air.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I'm so jealous of your vacation home. It looks beautiful in the picture you posted in our Slack... Which you can join at Changelog.com/community. Join today and see Kball's amazing view!
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And we have a special guest today - we have Brian Douglas. Brian, what is up? Hello.
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Hello! Glad to be here. I am super-interested in your view, too. All I see is a blank wall behind you though.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That's true... I decided to go for internet connectivity over view while recording.
+
+**Brian Douglas:** It makes a lot of sense.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Probably a wise choice, for sure... So today we are going to be talking about -- well, the placeholder title that we have is "Software and hardware for easier development." But really, we're gonna be talking about our suite setups. Brian, we have you on the show to talk about yours as well... I can just tell, looking at yours and comparing it to my messy setup and Kball's blank wall that you are definitely the most prepared here... But Kball, you are on vacation, so that totally makes sense.
+
+But yeah, we are gonna do that, and we thought we would start off with some software... So maybe let's start on that side and talk about some of the software that we use to make development and/or streaming easier. So why don't we start with development, and maybe start with things like where we all do our development, like a code editor. Brian, what do you use?
+
+**Brian Douglas:** I am in between -- I use Macvim as my main driver. I've been a Vim user since Thanksgiving of 2014. I took a week off and learned Vim, and I just can't really pry it away from my hands... But I also use VS Code. VS Code mainly because Vim is -- it's long in the tooth, and getting things like the TypeScript and IntelliSense stuff is more effort than I want to put in to get that to work... So I just use VS Code for that stuff.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[04:18\] I hear you, I hear you... You're making this really hard, because I did tweet right before this that I was gonna try really hard not to make this a Vim party... But I didn't know that you use Vim, so now it's really hard. \[laughs\]
+
+I do use Vim... I use Neovim for all of my development. I've used Neovim since probably 2015... But Vim straight away since 2011, probably. I'd have to go back and look at my dotfiles for the first commit, because I started that, and then I just haven't stopped. Yeah, I use that... I did go through the grueling setup. My vimrc is only like 1,200 lines, so not too bad...
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Mine's huge as well...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah... \[laughs\]
+
+**Brian Douglas:** But are you using IntelliSense though?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I am. I'm using a plugin called coc.nvim (Conquer of Completion). That gives you access to the LSP, and it does IntelliSense, and refactoring, and GoTo reference... All of that cool VS Code stuff, right in Vim. So it's the best of both worlds, for sure. What about you, Kball?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Well, let me tell you... I also am a Vim user, but I'm gonna take my Vim heritage back to 2003, when I first learned Vim for a Fortran class at my university... And have stuck in that -- I cheat on the setup front, so I actually stole Nick's setup. He publishes it on GitHub, so you get to download it and get it going...
+
+I will say -- I should spend a little bit more time understanding it, because a couple times I've tried to modify it and it ends up a little funky. I have right now something I need to fix for my TypeScript setup that I don't love... But I'm a Vim user, and I'll go one dimension deeper, which is I also have my terminals setup using Tmux with Vim bindings, so that I can treat my entire terminal environment as if it were a Vim editor, copying, pasting, and doing stuff between different environments. The kind of super-power that that unlocks is you can just kind of do anything without your hands ever leaving the keyboard, and do it incredibly fast.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, I too live inside of Vim, inside of Tmux, and find that to be a fantastic setup.
+
+**Brian Douglas:** I attempted that -- so my previous employer was Netlify, and I was like the only person doing frontend, but everybody else touched all the backend, so I was indoctrinated with Tmux... But it never stuck. So I'm familiar, but I still just use the regular MacVim.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** A fun thing that can happen when you start doing all that though... So I had an incident almost a decade ago now; it was a coffee/MacBook incident, where the coffee met the MacBook...
+
+**Brian Douglas:** I'm familiar.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, it was not a good time. And I learned, by the way, that if you Google for "How to get liquid out of a MacBook", or something like that... I am not the first person to have this. Google tells me there are over a million people who have had this problem and written about it, and went forward \[unintelligible 00:07:04.23\] But for a time period, my developer environment was just on the fritz... And at the time I was the only technical employee at a very early startup; I could not be on the fritz. But being in a Tmux and a Vim-based world, it was super-easy to set up a virtual machine that I logged into via SSH from a Chromebook, and I was able to continue doing development. And dealing with static assets sucked, but everything else just felt like my environment, more or less.
+
+So having that type of build environment that can live in the terminal in that way and has all the power that you want actually has a lot of robustness effects, as well.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Mm-hm. I kind of wanna build on that a little bit and talk about some weird things that I'm currently doing with my setup... And I've been kind of experimenting with this, but over the holidays this year I ended up picking up an M1 Mac Mini, and -- I was gonna ask, we're probably all on Macs here, right? For day to day work...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** How did you guess...?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[08:03\] Yeah... For work, I have a 16-inch 2020 MacBook Pro. And that's what I do all of my work on. But now my personal machine is this M1 Mac Mini... And I have this whole setup, which we'll kind of talk about the hardware side of things a little bit more with that... But I have that all hooked up going into the Mac Mini, including all of this audio interface stuff. I don't really wanna be switching that around constantly, like if I'm taking a Zoom call, but I also don't want my Zoom calls to suffer in audio quality by just using the built-in mic, or whatever.
+
+So sometimes I end up working -- because I'm just using Vim and Tmux, I just happen to work from the Mac Mini SSH-ed into the other machine... And if I want to access other things, like "Oh, I wanna connect to a database" or whatever, through SSH config you can just configure port forwarding, and have all of that... So I'm trying to hit my local hosts, 5432 for Postgres, and I can just have it automatically redirect to this MacBook, and run everything from there.
+
+And then I have kind of the best of both worlds, where I can run my podcast app and listen to podcasts if I want to... That is M1-based; it's an iPhone app that runs on that... But then everything that I do - it's almost indistinguishable, because it's all running through SSH, which is very transparent, when my whole setup just runs in the terminal anyway. So it's something that I've been playing around with, mostly because of this audio setup... But I thought I'd throw that out; it was a pretty fun thing to do.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** How do we get this away from being a Vim party? We've gotta move on... \[laughter\] What are some other fun software things that maybe aren't as deeply tied into the terminal?
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Yeah, I would say what I've been playing a lot around with - and my day job is at GitHub, so I had some pretty early access with GitHub Codespaces, so - plug-plug maybe, I don't know... But I've been using it for one-off instances. I've made a contribution to Node.js, very trivial, when the whole ES Modules things came through, and the error messages weren't coherent... So I ended up doing a PR to update the error message. But to make that one change and run the test on my local machine, the thing had to fly away and take off... Because I have a 2018 Mac - I don't have the M1 yet... But the cool thing about this is they actually have Codespaces set up with a .container file, so I can open up a Codespace from GitHub, run the tests in that Codespace, and it's all on GitHub servers, and stuff like that... So I can just run tests pretty easily.
+
+So I've done that quite a few times for open source contributions, running tests in a hosted environment... Kind of similar to your Mac Mini setup, but except those Mac Minis are sitting somewhere in -- I guess the Codespace is probably some sort of Microsoft server room.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, dockerizing your dev and test environments is so powerful. It's not something actually that we have set up in my current work, but it is something I've done in the past and it makes it so trivial to do things like that, where you're like "Oh... Well, why don't I just run this someplace else? Why don't I completely reproduce the environment that I'm seeing here, over here?" It's phenomenal.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And not to bring this back to Vim, but I've totally used Codespaces to use the terminal to run Vim on my iPad... So it's a cool environment, no matter how you integrate it. I really like Codespaces; that's a cool thing.
+
+**Brian Douglas:** It's really cool. I didn't think even connecting my local environment to then leverage Vim -- because I haven't set up my vim config, because I've used the Vim bindings in VS Code, which is actually the best... I was gonna say IDE. VS Code is technically not an IDE, but a code editor that uses Vim bindings... But it's still not all the way there, so I would not unleash the Vim all in VS Code. I would still use the local version of it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** One cool thing about Codespaces is if you have a public repo called Dotfiles, it will set that up in your Codespace...
+
+**Brian Douglas:** What...?! \[laughs\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, it's pretty cool.
+
+**Brian Douglas:** You're teaching me...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[12:01\] I must admit I have not tried Codespaces yet, so... I may have to go do that.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It works fantastic. I've mostly used it as an iPad dev environment, but I really like it for that. So let's talk about another piece... Let's talk about maybe remote collaboration, and kind of how that pertains to development. As we've been working remotely, whether we typically did or not, the last year has been kind of a remote-centric world... What are some of the tools that have helped you work remotely, or collaborate remotely with others? Codespaces could definitely be one...
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Yeah. I use Codespaces in combination with Twitch... I did a lot of livestreaming on Twitch. It's a nice way to -- because I'm always working out of the GitHub repo, I already have stuff up and running, so that way folks who are watching me live can get context pretty quickly, just by me dropping a link to the repo, or a PR, or an issue or whatnot... So every now and then, if I get really blocked and it's not as exciting watching me get stuck, I will drop a Codespace live share link -- well, a VS Code live share link, but it's connecting directly to my GitHub Codespace... And then folks will jump in there. Or I'll drop it in like a Discord server and people will jump in there and highlight exactly what the issue -- or just write the code. But yeah, I've been doing a lot of that, actually.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That's cool.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I'm so much more ghetto... Like, "Push up a branch. Okay, let me pull it down. Let' me screen-share with you. Okay..."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I will say that I have used -- I've jumped out of Vim and into VS Code for some pair-programming, and that is phenomenal. With that live share plugin - it's so nice, being able to work on the same files... Or a lot of times I'll just have -- Follow to the Right I think is the option, and it just keeps the right half of VS Code open to whatever file the person I'm collaborating with is in, and then I can work independently in another file... But we can see what each other are doing, and we're constantly up to date with everything. And you can share your dev server as well. So we can make changes, hit Save, and both refresh local host and we're seeing all of that; port forwarding, again... Just magic. It's really cool, and I just couldn't imagine going through the last year without tools like this. It's so nice having them.
+
+**Brian Douglas:** I'm curious, are both of you normally remote employees, or did you go remote because of last year?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I have been remote since 2013...
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Okay.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** But last year has been completely different, too.
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I go back and forth... I had been remote for a few years, and I started at where I'm working now at Humu in late October, before the pandemic; late October 2019. I was in person, and I was in person for all of five months, and then we went remote... So kind of wandering back and forth. But I think what was key is prior to that, at that particular company everybody had been in-person, so there was a lot of rediscovery of -- or at least everyone on the dev team had been in-person, so there was a lot of rediscovery of remote practices.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. And I was at a company that was fully remote up until last May, and then I joined a new company, C2FO, that are in Kansas City... So I'm working as a remote employee from Nebraska for them. And it's been really easy, because everybody has been remote this whole time. I'm hoping that the patterns that we've built up for remote work will continue when a majority of folks go back to the office.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Wait -- Nick, you got a new job?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I did, yeah. A year ago. \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Color me out of the loop... \[laughter\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I haven't talked about it too much.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Are you no longer working on Dojo?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Not too much. I'm doing mostly React stuff, but full-stack TypeScript. So still singing TypeScript's praises.
+
+Another piece - and we've kind of talked about it already - is terminals, and terminal-based work. Obviously, Tmux and Vim has been a topic, so let's try and stay away from that... But what about terminal emulators specifically? What's the ones that you all use?
+
+**Brian Douglas:** I am pretty boring, I use iTerm.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, that's probably the most popular one on Mac, for sure...
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Yup.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[15:59\] It's easy to set up, easy to configure, and looks great.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, I think I've just used Terminal.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Really?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I'm super-boring.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I do set up Homebrew or whatever -- the green on black coloring scheme, which both helps my eyes, and makes people who don't know how to code look at what I'm doing and go "Whoa, you're from the Matrix!" \[laughter\] But mostly because I'm used to it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Sure. I moved away from Terminal because it doesn't work well with -- the color scheme that I use is called Base16, and it's actually 100 or more different color schemes that are all based around these central colors... So you can switch out, and there's like a really cool command line; I just type base16\_ and then tab complete to whatever color scheme I want... And it lets me switch from light to dark, or all of these different kinds of themes really fast... But it's all through terminal commands. Last time I checked at least, the Mac Terminal.app doesn't support that, so it wouldn't work.
+
+So I was using iTerm for that, because iTerm works totally fine with it... But I've dabbled a little bit with -- I don't know if I wanna admit this, to be honest, but I've dabbled a little bit with ligatures in my font environment... And if you use ligatures in iTerm, it actually kicks it out of Metal rendering, which is the GPU rendering more. And so it significantly slows things down.
+
+So for that I've been - for probably the last year - using a terminal called Kitty, which is across OS, it works on everything... A terminal emulator that is all GPU-based, and it does some unique things with -- I'd be horrible at explaining what it's actually doing, but it works totally fine with ligature support, because it's basically only rendering the character once, and then copying it, so it doesn't have to do a lot of GPU-intensive work, or whatever, to do that... So it stays GPU-rendered and stays fast the whole time... Plus, it's really easy to configure, and it has this whole framework around writing little terminal apps called kittens that you can do. I haven't written many, but I've been looking at it... And it's ways of being able to split up the window, or have it do specific things, and the terminal emulator can render images and things like that... So it's really cool, all of the stuff that it can do.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** But why...?
+
+**Brian Douglas:** That sounds pretty cool. I've actually never heard of this... You say "Why?" but the one thing I do remember from Tmux when I did try to do it... The window splitting in the basic terminal in Mac - I'm not sure if it was my settings, but I could never get it to work properly, or I'd get stuck in a split-screen and could not move out of it... So I feel like iTerm handled that a little bit better. But I'm actually interested in looking into the Kitty, actually.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, check it out. It's really cool, really fast... And if you're running it on M1 Macs, I think you have to compile from source. It's the only thing that I'm having to do right now... But it's totally fine, it works... And it's pretty awesome.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I actually meant "Why ligatures?" That seems like the whole inspiration -- but really, why ligatures?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\] I shouldn't have brought it up. Sometimes I just wanna experiment with making my terminal look fancy. I see VS Code and it looks really good, but it's horribly slow when I'm so used to this GPU-rendered fast terminal... I'm like, "I wanna do this cool stuff." Sometimes I use ligatures, but I use this project called vim-devicons, so it renders -- it's a whole font of JS symbol, TS symbol, Python Symbol... All of these things, and it can render all of that, so I have all of this fancy little symbols everywhere that are based on this very specific font... And I just like things to look fancy sometimes. But I understand they're not for everyone, and it's the new tabs versus spaces thing, I think, so...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I'm just giving you a hard time, Nick. You know how it is... I'm gonna wait for you to perfect it, and then I'm gonna steal your config and try it... Because great developers steal ideas; that's how we work. \[laughs\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Absolutely.
+
+**Brian Douglas:** I just got done copying and pasting tons of code this morning, so... Why not copy and paste your setup as well?
+
+**Break:** \[20:01\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Alright, so we've talked about some of the more development-focused things, like editors, terminals, remote collaboration... Let's talk a little bit more about personal productivity. What are some tools that you leverage to keep yourself productive, keep yourself in the know of what you need to be doing, and keep your teammates in the know of what you are doing? Kball, do you wanna go first?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Sure. I manage a lot of my own personal productivity and other things through a tool called Roam Research, which is basically a networked note-taker, more or less. It lets you take notes -- the key concept is a nested bullet point of some sort, but then the other key concept is you can tag things; anything can be a tag, and it links off to other tags... So it lets you create sort of a network of all the different notes that you've taken.
+
+I have a few different things that I do with that that diminish my personal productivity. One is every day I have a set of priorities. One of the core concepts you get are daily notes; you're just doing daily notes, and that's automatic. I use that heavily. Every day I have a core list of priorities, things I'm trying to get done, at least one, typically no more than five. That's my key thing.
+
+I also map out my meeting for the day. I am a manager, I have other stuff around products, things -- I have a lot of meetings, so I map out what are all my meetings, and prep for those meetings, and have "Okay, what are the things that I wanna make sure I cover.
+
+One of the nice things about the networked stuff is I can tag every meeting with who is it with, particularly for one-on-ones, but also other thing, and then I can go and look at all my past conversations with that person, or other things I've tagged with that person, so that I have an easy way to boot up context for "Okay, I'm talking with this person. The last time I talked with them we were covering these things. Here's the project that's going on with them, or the state of what my interactions with them is."
+
+I use that a lot for myself. I don't share it with other people, it's entirely personal, but combining with the sort of practice of every day I'm having a set of priorities, and I'm mapping out what are my meetings and what do I need to accomplish in them, with this kind of networked concept where I'm keeping track of what are all the different ongoing threads with different people and projects and this, that and the other, and that helps tremendously for keeping myself on track.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice. Are you following -- is it called Zettelkasten? Is that kind of where that idea of daily notes or daily --
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So Zettelkasten is another thing that I think is really around processing your data inputs to create data outputs... So it's like "How do I take notes about the things that I read, aggregate, process, and do that, and then create reusable concepts and blocks that I can then generate outputs with?" I've played around with that; it's something I'd like to get better at, but it is not what I use for my personal productivity at all.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[24:07\] So you keep everything from like notes, and do you manage a to-do list in that as well?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I mean, "manage a to-do list" might be a little strong for what I do. I don't have a single global to-do list that I'm keeping track of... But I do manage my priorities on a daily, weekly and monthly basis.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Gotcha. Brian, how about you?
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Yeah, so to define my role a little bit before I jump into that - I'm a developer advocate, so I meet with different teams across organizations, like engineering, product, sometimes marketing, sometimes support... So I take a lot of meetings. So number one, I use Calendly, and I have it connected to my Google Calendar, so that way anybody can grab a 30-minute meeting with me, which I make 25 minutes, because I want a 5-minute buffer between the next meeting, if I do get back-to-back meetings...
+
+But I also run a couple of podcasts and some livestreams with guests, so Calendly also is set up to also hook up -- so you can have a livestream or a podcast with me... The podcast I run is called JAMstack Radio, so as soon as someone says "Hey... Yes, I'll be on the podcast", I'll give them a Calendly link, and then once the calendar event is selected, then I produce a paper doc.
+
+O just got into Obsidian. Obsidian is kind of like Roam Research. I haven't got that far to actually get really into it, so Dropbox Paper has been my go-to... Kind of like Notion, if anybody is not familiar with Paper... And then that Paper doc is the notes for the conversations, the meeting. I also do the same thing in all my calendar invites, is always have an agenda, so that way I can keep that 25 minutes intact...
+
+But going further down deeper into the productivity hole - I started doing this when I joined GitHub; I created a GitHub project on my actual user profile. Not a lot of people know you can do this, but if you go to your user profile on GitHub, you can create a project for yourself... And because I manage a lot of different repos and I'm in a bunch of stuff, it's like my central location to basically put issues that I'm mentioned on, or notifications... Because notifications on GitHub - it's a working feature that could be improved, and it's always being improved... But if I need to track an issue, because I was mentioned in it, or I need to wait for the responses, I add it to a column, similar to kanban boards \[unintelligible 00:26:29.09\] and then I have things I'm doing today, I've got a backlog column, I've got things that are almost complete or blocked... And I just use everything.
+
+The benefit of this is that everything's a GitHub issue at GitHub. We use GitHub to build GitHub... So it's not too hard to say "Oh, I've gotta get this conference sponsored." I'm gonna just take that issue and put it in my project board, and I'll just check it tomorrow.
+
+So GitHub issues and notifications tend to be my email. I don't actually get a lot of emails, to be quite honest, because I turn all those off...
+
+So that's what I've done... But even deeper, because I do a livestream every Tuesday and Friday on Twitch... My website, bdougie.live, is backed by a GitHub repo. Well, most websites are, but legitimately, the database for my website is a GitHub repo. So all the posts that you see on my homepage are GitHub issues. So because of that, if you ever wanna know what I'm gonna be streaming next on Twitch, my GitHub issues - those three issues are the things I'll be working on, and then I have a project board that's like my backlog for streaming topics, and if I move it to the Live column (because bdougie.live, I've gotta stick to the brand), then I will actually run a GitHub Action that runs on a cron every Tuesday and Friday early in the morning, and it looks for that column, and then it actually sends a notification to my Discord and says "Brian will be streaming with this issue. Show up at this time."
+
+I'm working on a course about automation on GitHub, so I'm kind of over the top when it comes to it... But I'm happy to dig in deeper. It's my job to know how to use GitHub, so I'm sort of over the top because of that.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That is awesome.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[28:12\] Alright, I wanna dig in right away. First off, question - are you generating posts directly from the issues then?
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Yes.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Okay, interesting. Because I've done statically-rendered sites were the files are there... But how are you doing that mapping from issue to post?
+
+**Brian Douglas:** GraphQL. Actually, that's literally the answer. GitHub has a great GraphQL API, so any issue that has the label Publish, it will actually publish it to my website. So I can write up a whole blog post, or -- what I've been doing really is my issues end up becoming blog posts... So if you look at my latest one, which is -- I think I was organizing notifications with Discord; it's like a blog post \[unintelligible 00:28:49.13\] because I'll just take that and digest it to a dev.to post eventually...
+
+Right now I'm rebuilding Netlify with GitHub Actions, which - it sounds sexier than it really is. I'm not running any servers; I just happen to want deploy previews and some other features that Netlify has, but use that with GitHub Pages... So I'm just rebuilding some of those features with the toolset I can use with GitHub Actions. So I'm working on that right now.
+
+So if you look at that issue, or post, whichever -- if you're on bdougie.live or if you're on the bdougie/live repo, you'll see I'm slowly adding comments that will eventually become a blog post. And I'm all about scaling too, as well... So the reason why I just add comments to the issue is because if I can make that into a blog post, I can probably make it into a conference talk or a YouTube video, eventually, if I just take enough notes...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That is really cool. I love all of the automation going into it, and how open it is... I definitely wanna go check it out. Would that be on your GitHub username?
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Yeah. So bdougie is my username; if you go to github.com/bdougie/live, or you can go to bdougie.live, which is the website, and click the GitHub link, or click and issue and it'll take you to GitHub as well... But yeah -- I didn't get into this as well... I'm using this tool called OneGraph, which is combining a bunch of APIs together. It's like a mesh network of APIs... I think the founders spoke at JSConf a couple years ago as well. But I'm basically using that as an aggregation to my GitHub API, but also some other APIs, like Discord and Twitch... And then I'm using Next.js as a site. So it's built on Next.js, it's using Relay to sort of consume the GraphQL... So if you're familiar with Apollo, or urql - Relay is another version of a client. And then I'm using server-side rendering to also make sure it's SEO-friendly as well.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And I'm looking at this -- it looks as though, if I'm getting this right, commenting on a blog post actually ends up going to a GitHub comment on the issue... Is that right?
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Correct, yes. So anybody can add a rocketship to my website and say "Hey, good job!" or thumbs up. That will actually apply to the issue. So I say this out loud; I probably shouldn't say it out loud, but I'm trying to get the GitHub team to add reactions webhooks. If someone does like a thumbs up, I can trigger another event based on that, and I can get notified as well whenever someone thumbs-up a post... But we'll see. I'm not holding my breath. I need to actually send that message today.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That'll be fun...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Alright, I just put a rocketship on your Netlify post... This is super-cool. I love the bdougie.
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Yeah, and major props to the OneGraph folks, Sean and Daniel. They created this tool called OneBlog, which was like the initial prototype of this, and I happened to be an early user of it... So I just sort of took their idea and just ran with it, and that now sort of powers a lot of the stuff I'm doing on the internet.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Now, if somebody didn't work at GitHub and they wanted to do this - I haven't kept up on with the pricing structures for these different things... Is this something that they could cobble together for free? Which of these services are paid?
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Yeah, everything's free. Actions - you do have 2,000 minutes for free on an open source public repo... So like on a cron job. Most of my Actions are usually within a minute; they'll build and run and trigger stuff... So I'd have to hit that a lot to hit the limit. So I'm doing a lot of crazy stuff with Actions.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[32:13\] That's 2,000 minutes a month, right?
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Yes. And that's across your entire profile, running all across the board. It's 3,000 for paid accounts, so it's a bit of a bump... And obviously, you contact your salesperson for more minutes. I will say though that the OneGraph stuff is all free as well, it's a free product. And everything else I do is pretty much free. I'm very cheap, and I try not to pay for things.
+
+I just started deploying something to Azure, and I'm just looking at that number to see if I deployed it correctly, or if I can optimize that to make it pennies instead of dollars... And I've just deployed it last week, so it was like 36 cents, or whatnot. So I am all for the 12-cent AWS build.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. Speaking of -- I tried to make a Slack bot using AWS a couple of years ago, and ever since then, every couple of months I just get charged a dollar from AWS, even though the Slack bot is long since dead... And just last week I went in and tried again to try and figure out what it was so I could stop it, and it's -- they're holding on to 0.172 keys for me, and they're charging me storage for that, like 18 cents a month. And I can't figure out how to stop it... But it's a dollar every three months, so I'm like "Do I need to really worry about this right now?" And it just keeps getting pushed down my to-do list.
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Yeah. A dollar for every six months is gonna take you six hours to figure out how to turn off.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Right... \[laughs\] I just want it to stop, but I know that this is how AWS keeps going, so I'm doing my part.
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Yeah, and we thank you for that.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Speaking of my to-do list though... I'll kind of talk about my setup a little bit, which is not nearly as robust, but does have a little bit of automation, which I'm pretty excited about... I use more closed tools, obviously, than GitHub. I don't think you can be more open than that... But I use a tool called OmniFocus on my Mac, and phone, and iPad, and all of that, to try and manage everything... But I try and make that my central hub for everything. Everything goes into that. I try and follow the GTD system of having one inbox that I check -- or multiple inboxes, but they all kind of feed into one... And I've tried to automate that as much as possible, and OmniFocus as a tool does make that pretty easy, actually... Especially for a JavaScript developer. But any mail that I get that I have to follow up on, or have some kind of action on, I just have a button in my mail client that sends it to OmniFocus, so I can check it off later... And it includes the full message, so I know exactly what to do.
+
+And then every morning I run through a checklist of things that I need to do as kind of like a morning routine to start up, and that includes things like finding out if there are code reviews that I've been assigned. And the way I do that is through -- OmniFocus has this whole automation system built in JavaScript that you can tie into... So I can press a button - or have it automatically run - that will go and fetch stuff from GitHub. So I'm using GitHub's GraphQL API to go fetch any issues that I've been set as a code reviewer on, that are not already in my system, and it'll automatically create a task for them and throw them in there with a link... And it puts a unique code that's based on the issue number, the repo, and the creator... So it's like a unique code that I can check for every day and see "Oh - nope, that one already exists, so I'll just ignore it and not create another one." Or I've dropped it, or whatever, and it doesn't have to do that. And that way I have a list of everything I need to review.
+
+And then another script that runs that will go and check JIRA's API, find any tasks that I'm assigned to that are not already in my system, and it will put them in there... But it will also check the ones that I have in there, and go check their status on JIRA, and if I've marked them as done in JIRA, it'll mark them as done in my to-do list. So it kind of keeps them in sync between that.
+
+\[36:01\] Then I just have this one place that I'm checking for everything, and I can work off of there throughout the day... And what I do with the JIRA tasks - a lot of times I'll just write up all of the different things that I need to do. I have some templates that I keep track of for typical dev work... It's like "Do this. Write tests. Open a pull request. Review any PR comments and then merge the pull request, and mark as Done." So those are like the typical things. For every JIRA ticket that comes in, it comes in as like a new project, and then it gets those templated items as tasks for that project... And then I can add any additional tasks that I want, like "Go fix the tests in this file" or "Make sure that you're checking the style guide on this" or whatever. And I'll add all of that in there, and then that kind of sets what I work on throughout the day. And I just use OmniFocus flags to flag things that I want to do today... So I'll build up a list of typically no more than five things that I want to do, and make sure that I try and get through all of those throughout the day... And then I'll review that at the end of the day in a shutdown routine that I have, that goes through and -- I try and leave something open, or write a couple of tasks that will help me get going the next day, or make sure that they're flagged, so that I know exactly where to start...
+
+I try and use all of that, and it's really cool, because it's kind of automated, and pushing and pulling from GitHub and JIRA, but it's all coming to a single inbox for me to review.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Man, I am simultaneously jealous of your setups, and grateful for the simplicity of my approach... \[laughter\] I'm like "That's amazing!", and I would forget something, or something would go stale, and I feel like I'd spend forever maintaining my setup.
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Yeah, I like that... Actually, I've heard of OmniFocus, but I've never dug into it... But you have me intrigued.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It's pretty cool. It's the complete opposite of yours, though. It's an expensive tool. I think it's like $80, or it costs so much per -- it's a different price for Mac, and iPhone, and iPad...
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Okay, yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And it's Apple-only...
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Oh, wow.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[unintelligible 00:38:06.09\]
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Yeah, you lost me at $80.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, I know... \[laughs\] I've been using it for years though, so it's kind of -- I've definitely absorbed that payment, and I think that it's brought me enough value that it's been worth it... But I totally understand.
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Not to bring up Vim one more time, but this is why I'm so ingrained, because I did so much investing in my dotfiles that it's hard to just let those go...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Me too, yeah. I mean, it's also fast, and it's fantastic, so there's that, too... But yeah, at this point - I shouldn't say this, but I feel like my identity is tied to it a little bit.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** No...!
+
+**Break:** \[38:42\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Alright, so we've talked about software that we use for development, we've talked about productivity software... Now let's talk about some hardware that we use. What do we actually look at touch/feel through the day to get our jobs done? What are the tangible pieces? Because that's very important when we work on all of this intangible stuff. Let's start with monitors. What is your ideal monitor setup, and is it what you currently have?
+
+**Brian Douglas:** I do have an ultra-wide monitor. I think three years ago I jumped on the bandwagon, and I love it. I use Spectacle as well as software to manage my windows. With Spectacle I can have my Vim here, I can have my terminal here, I can have a web browser, and I can have them all three up at the same time, which is the best productivity for myself... And yeah, I cannot complain. It's probably the best investment I've made for writing code in ever, probably...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. What do you have, 34", 38", 49"?
+
+**Brian Douglas:** I believe this one is 34".
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Okay. Thanks. I'm in the same boat. I have a 38", but I went ultra-wide, too. I kind of switched between this, and I did have two 4K monitors. Everything was just to small and too scattered. I use Moom for the same thing as Spectacle, to keep things organized... But it was just too much to handle, so I kind of switched back to a single ultra-wide monitor. And I typically have it in like a one-third/two-thirds type split, where I have one third with usually Slack, or a browser on top, and then notes on the bottom; then two thirds is usually Kitty, that has Tmux with three splits - Vim running on the top, and then two splits at the bottom, one for running my server and the other one for various Git commands, or whatever.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** When I'm working on the frontend I really like having a widescreen, because I like to have my design and my browser and my terminal all visible at the same time, to be able to be working. When I'm doing backend work, I actually don't care that much. I'm totally happy working just on a laptop screen, and it's generally fine. Similarly when I'm doing PM management, whatever. I can do that from pretty much any environment. It's really when I start working on something where there's a visual aspect to it, where I need to be looking and looking and thinking in the code at the same time. As soon as I'm in there, I'm like "Oh, give me my widescreen. I need it."
+
+**Brian Douglas:** There is a new Chrome extension that I've just started using... It's called Easy Window Resize as well. I don't know how much content creation y'all do, or the listeners do as well, but I learned from an Egghead course creator about being able to -- because of the large window size, sometimes you wanna share a window, but you don't wanna share the whole window, so you grab just the browser... But Easy Window Resize - you can actually do Cmd+Shift+A and you can set presets. So if you want 720p, or you want 1080p, because you might be doing a YouTube video or Egghead course... I've found that absolutely amazing.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That's a great idea.
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Because trying to get 16:9 out of the browser doing it by eye never works... And then obviously, Mac laptops are not 16:9, they're awkward. I know we were going into hardware, but the other thing I use is RDM. RDM actually lets you -- because the laptop screen is Retina for MacBooks, but if you want Retina but 720p, you could actually do that with RDM. It's open source software, to be able to change your screen resolution on the fly.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Oh, cool. Yeah, that kind of brings in a question I was gonna ask you, as someone who is much more prolific on Twitch than I am, how you work with an ultra-wide monitor on Twitch, since it's not very well-suited for that?
+
+**Brian Douglas:** \[44:02\] Yeah, I mean -- this might go deeper in the hardware conversation too, as well. So I have a Windows, because I've found livestreaming from just a Mac and running code -- so if I do anything Docker or anything, Twitch streaming is just not gonna work, because there's not enough power, and there's no real video card... So I have a Windows PC which I play games on, but I also stream to Twitch with, and then I take those HD60 Elgato capture cards and I plug my MacBook into there, HD, so that way inside of my OBS software, which is - we're going further down the rabbit hole, but... I use OBS to stream to Twitch; I can actually have a window which is just my Mac laptop, so I'm basically piping my Mac laptop into my PC, and then up to Twitch, so then that way nothing degrades, and I can do 1080p streams.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** So then are you physically working on the Mac?
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Yes. I honestly do not know how to code on Windows...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Who does...? \[laughs\]
+
+**Brian Douglas:** I'm so used to Mac that I don't even wanna attempt to try to open up the terminal and try to do that... I'd much rather -- I'm way more comfortable with all the commands on the Mac, so it's just emulating it... Well, not even emulating; I'm just piping it into the PC, and then up to the internet.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** But the way that it's piping in - is it piping in the whole screen, or just a portion of the screen?
+
+**Brian Douglas:** It's the whole screen.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** The whole screen?
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Yeah. I give my whole screen up.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Okay.
+
+**Brian Douglas:** And then that gives me the entire widescreen. So I'm actually coding and sharing my MacBook, but the entire widescreen is where I have the chat up, I've got the Chrome browser up over here, I've got my mixer program up... So I'm able to do all that stuff on the big screen and just share the small screen.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Cool. Yeah, this is super-interesting to me, just from like someone who wants to someday Twitch coding, or things like that... But also running meetups, and getting the best output from that, or all of this remote stuff that we do. Teaching is another thing, but also just general sharing throughout the day. When I try to share this 38-inch monitor that I have, it doesn't always come across super-well when someone else is just using their MacBook screen.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, that resize extension I'm super-excited about.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That's like, "Whoa, you've just changed my life right there."
+
+**Brian Douglas:** That's awesome. I've just learned of it this week. I was always setting Spectacle up to do proper -- not even proper; like, hacky resizing to what I think is gonna be 1080p...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice.
+
+**Brian Douglas:** But I will say that the majority of what I learned, I learned this year from being stuck at home. It's just like lots of research, lots of YouTube videos...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. How about another tangible piece of your setup... How about keyboards? What is your keyboard like? Kball, I'll ask you first. Right now it's a MacBook --
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I use the laptop keyboard...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. \[laughs\] Is that what you use full-time?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I occasionally think about getting a nicer keyboard... I usually don't bother, but if you have great recommendations, I might invest.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I'll go next, since mine is kind of boring, and it's almost the same... I use the Apple Magic Keyboard. The reason I started using this is because I wanted a seamless setup between when I'm using this, versus when I'm just working on the laptop straight... And now I pretty much almost never work on the laptop, but I still really like the feel of this keyboard. It's just awesome.
+
+Right behind me I have a Keychron K3, that I got a month or two ago, thinking I would try and use that a little bit more... And I cannot get used to it. I've tried so hard, but I just feel so clumsy with it all the time. I know I just need to invest more time, but this just feels so good. So this is what I use.
+
+**Brian Douglas:** \[47:41\] I use a $49 mechanical keyboard from Amazon called Magicforce. It comes in three different flavors - brows, red cherry, red and then the blue switches. Blues are the most clickity clackity. I've got two of them - I've got the blue, and then I've got the... Actually what is this -- the cherry red. And I like it, because I'm not really that into keyboards, but I like the feel of a mechanical keyboard, and I was Apple keyboard -- I had to do that, because that's how I write code; I just like the feel, the touch. But then when they changed the keyboard on the Macs... What was it, like 2015, 2016? Everything was different, so then I'd have the actual external keyboard, and that was fine, but whenever I leveraged my laptop, I was like "What's the point?"
+
+So my co-worker -- actually, the CTO of Netlify, I sat with him, and he was like the whole separate keyboard person, so I just asked a lot of questions, and I was like "I'm actually gonna try this one out." And I enjoyed it enough that I bought two - one for traveling and one for at home.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Alright, I might have to try... Especially given you said it's pretty cheap, so...
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Yeah, it's low effort. Magicforce.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** We'll try and drop a link in the show notes for that. As far as other peripherals go, I tend to have a mouse on the right side, and I just have the Apple Magic mouse, and I have a trackpad on the left side. And I whichever hand is free, I gravitate towards that as I'm going. But as a Vim user, I do try and not use that as well, so... There's a lot of mouseless development going on.
+
+**Brian Douglas:** I find that funny, that you could use both sides. I'm left-handed, but I've just been trained to use my right hand before the trackpad.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Really? Nice.
+
+**Brian Douglas:** I also need \[unintelligible 00:49:26.10\] correction. It's $39. It's not a $49 keyboard, it's $39. And I'll add a link.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice. It's even better. We're kind of running a little low on time, so I think what we should do maybe is go around-the-horn and talk about one more hardware item that you think really makes your setup or is a favorite part of your setup that's not your monitor, keyboard or mouse. Kball, how about you go first?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Hm... Alright, I'm gonna go off the walls, and I'm gonna say my favorite thing/biggest recommendation is actually getting kettlebells.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice!
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Because as a computer programmer you're sitting all the freaking time. You're sitting, you're coding, you're doing stuff... It's really bad for your back. What we do will rip your back up. So you need to have some sort of exercise routine to clean that up. I have this last year fallen in love with kettleballs as a way to have a super-easy gym in a small package, that you could do whatever with.
+
+I went on vacation, we went in the car, and I took a single 50-pound kettlebell and I could do a ton of different exercises with it, and I get a full-body workout just carrying it along. Super-easy. Kettlebell swings, and get-ups or a couple other things and you've got your whole body worked out right away. It's good for your back, it's good for your shoulders... I could go into so many other things on ergonomics and whatever, but no matter what you do, you're probably gonna mess up your back if you're spending a lot of time coding. Find an exercise routine that will counterbalance that.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** As someone who built a home gym since the start of quarantine, I can say that kettlebells were the first thing that I looked for. They were one of the hardest things to find, and I don't think that's the case now, but they are invaluable. I try to use them in every workout, just because they're nice. I love kettlebell swings, I love just being able to use them. They're much nicer than the adjustable dumbbells that I got too, so... They're fantastic. And one of them - like you said, a 50-pound kettlebell - can go a long way. Brian, how about you?
+
+**Brian Douglas:** I've mentioned earlier I'm cheap, but I did splurge last year on a new camera. It's a combo - it's the camera and the lends, and I think the lens is really what makes the shot that I have right now. If anybody's seen me stream, or been on a Zoom call with me, you understand the \[unintelligible 00:51:45.02\] that you're getting right now in the pizza... But it's a Canon EOS M200. The M200 is basically the same thing as the Sony A5 or A6 series. I think the Sony ones get recommended much more, and the reason for that I think is because you could plug in a USB and it would power from your laptop or computer.
+
+\[52:07\] The Canon - you do have to have a dummy battery. I'm not a Canon fan, but my wife already had a Canon camera, so it just made sense to get the Canon instead of the Sony, at least memory cards transfer, and stuff like that.
+
+But the thing that really makes it is a Sigma 16mm lens. It's a lens that -- you can't see it in the podcast, but it's about maybe 4-5 inches long, and it actually gives you that sort of... Far enough from enough from your face, but it's big enough to actually give you that \[unintelligible 00:52:32.01\] YouTube-esque feel as you're doing Zoom calls.
+
+The camera was about $499, or around that number, and the lens was about $300-something... And like I said, I splurged on it; I did not want to buy this, but it was on my wishlist for the longest time, and then I saved up enough money and got a bonus, and I was like "You know what - I think I'm gonna go ahead and purchase this thing." And I actually have not regretted it since.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice. You look fantastic.
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Oh, thank you.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** The mixture of that -- like, that with the \[unintelligible 00:53:05.04\] that you have on the pizza slice behind you, plus... We didn't talk about it earlier, but it looks like you have fantastic lighting, which I think also makes the setup, you know?
+
+**Brian Douglas:** The trick is to actually close all the windows and cover them with blackout curtains. You can control the lighting as much as possible. Because a lot of times you're trying to fight the window or what time of the day it is... It took me a long time to figure this out, but - just put up blackout curtains and then add light. That's what I've been doing.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice. Well, you've got it figured out, I can tell you that. It looks great.
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Yeah. YouTube taught me everything I know.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** What can't you learn from YouTube? It's great. \[laughs\] I will go ahead and close out with a recommendation -- I think I will go with this monitor arm that I have. I really like it. It clamps to the desk, and then it's just like a VESA mount. So it screws into four screws on the back of the monitor... And I just love being able to pull the monitor close, and go far away, and I can tilt it, or do whatever, but I can really -- like, if I wanna really dig in on something, I can bring it closer to my face, or keep it further away at the back of my desk, to keep things looking a little cleaner... But that's the other thing - it's just floating above my desk, so it feels like I have a lot more room to make the rest of my desk look really messy.
+
+So yeah, I really like it... And it's just a cheap one. It's the Amazon Basics -- I think it's like $100, but it's an Amazon Basics brand monitor arm, and it works really well.
+
+Well, that concludes our setup show for today. We kind of went long in the software and productivity parts... And we can post links to things and more info in the show notes, so definitely check those out. Thank you for tuning in, Brian; thank you for joining us this week. It's been a lot of fun.
+
+**Brian Douglas:** Thank you. It was a pleasure.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** We will see you next week.
diff --git a/Testing testing 1 2 3_transcript.txt b/Testing testing 1 2 3_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1577320eccf22979217040f495558c592c3a500d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Testing testing 1 2 3_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,295 @@
+**Emma Bostian:** Hey, party people. Long time no talk. I'm super-excited for today's episode, because today we are joined by the wonderful Angie Jones, who is absolutely notorious for her amazing work with testing. I'm thrilled to be talking to you today, Angie. How are you?
+
+**Angie Jones:** I'm great, how are you doing?
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Good! No complaints here. We also are joined by Nick Nisi. Nick, how are you?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Hey! Hoy-hoy. I'm glad to be here, and really excited to meet you, Angie, and excited to talk about some testing.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yes, absolutely. Cool. So let's kick things off by -- Angie, if you could just give us a little overview to yourself and your experience with testing, and a little bit about Test Automation University... That would be fabulous.
+
+**Angie Jones:** Alright, so I am a principal automation architect, and I've been doing development and testing forever, quite a long time at this point. Most of my roles have been very specific test automation roles, where I come in and I help teams to build up their testing process, and strategy, and the actual framework, and teach them how to test their code.
+
+I've done this full-time at several companies such as IBM, and Twitter, LexisNexis... I also consulted with quite a few companies as well, your Amazons, and Disney, and a lot of the enterprise companies. I travel all over the globe when the world is opening back up, so I do have a few gigs coming up... But yeah, I travel and do workshops at companies, and essentially teach people how to build better quality code.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** \[04:02\] That's wonderful. It's so funny, when I hear anyone asking about testing, I'm like "Angie. Angie is the expert in testing." So I'm thrilled that you could join us.
+
+So you mentioned that you primarily do test automation, and I'm curious why would we wanna automate tests? Why don't we just do them manually every single time?
+
+**Angie Jones:** Testing is something that is not regularly taught in curriculums. So it doesn't even matter what route you took; if you went to university, bootcamps, self-taught - whatever. Nobody's really talking about how do you test your code. So it's something that a lot of newer developers don't really understand how to do, or why to do. So just like you asked that question -- I get that a lot, people are like "Why would I spend time automating this? That's gonna take me forever. I wrote my feature, I clicked the button, I see that it works, and I'm good to go." People don't really understand the why of this until later, when they've been bitten.
+
+So the why is because unless that was it and you're never touching this codebase again, there's gonna be some regression. You're gonna add more to it, you're gonna refactor stuff, you're gonna delete stuff, you're gonna do a lot of different things with your application, and that one thing that you tested last month may be affected by something new that you've added today... And you don't know that because you're only manually testing what you added today.
+
+So you automate this so that you have a regression, a suite of regression tests that you can run and make sure "Okay, when I added this and I thought that it didn't touch anything else, I can be sure of that, because my test will say "No, girl. It actually breaks this other thing over here." So it kind of saved your butt. Not kind of, it definitely saved your butt. It also gives you a lot of confidence to be able to refactor your code if needed, because you know your tests have your back.
+
+So this is essentially a capture of what your application is supposed to do, kind of like documentation if you will, that is your source of truth. So you can go in and you can confidently change things, and refactor, and add new features, run those tests, and you're good to go. Without that, I always see people very hesitant and scared. You've all been there, I'm sure, where there's certain areas of the codebase, if you've gotta touch it, you're like Hail Mary three times before you do it... \[laughter\] Well, you don't have to do that if you have some tests in place. Go for it, and your tests will let you know if it still works.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** That's so funny, because Angie and I both worked at IBM. It was my very first job, and I remember it was probably like my second week on the job, straight out of Computer Science degree, I didn't know what I was doing, but I thought I did... And I pushed to the main branch and I broke everyone's dev environment... And I got a very angry call from a very angry Scottish man who said "Well, do you not know how to run tests? Did you write any tests?" And I was like "What do you mean? What is testing? I've never learned about this." And ever since that day, I'm like "Okay, I've gotta learn...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** You know, very similar situation for me, too... And I think that the fact that it's not really taught in traditional computer science degrees or things like that - it got built up as this big thing to tackle in my head, and so there was just this mental obstacle to overcome before I could even really write tests... Because it was like "How do I even do that? Am I testing the right thing? What testing framework should I use?" Of course, I started with Java, so it was JUnit to start with that, but it got built up as just this big obstacle to overcome mentally before I could even really feel comfortable writing tests on my own.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** \[08:00\] Yeah. I remember - before I joined IBM as a full-time, I had an internship where I was automating the installation of WebSphere Application Server on z/OS, and even today I still don't know what that means. But I essentially had to learn Python and then used that to automate the installation of this application server on the operating system Z. And I remember having no idea why I was doing it, but I could watch the things happening in the UI, like "Oh, button clicks. Then we go to the next modal." It was like going through a wizard, and I'm like "Okay, that's pretty cool", but it seemed very labor-intensive.
+
+At my last job, at LogMeIn, I was doing frontend work, because I'm a frontend engineer now, and we were using Jest with Enzyme, and I actually quite liked it; learning how to mock state was really cool... And then now at Spotify we're using mostly React testing library. I really like that. But something I still struggle with to this day is kind of understanding what should be tested.
+
+Correct me if I'm wrong, Angie, but I don't think you need to go for 100% test coverage on every single line, because there are some things that don't need to be tested, and I struggled with figuring out what those things are.
+
+**Angie Jones:** Yeah. I have a whole talk on this. It's called "Which tests should I automate?" I've come up with essentially this matrix, if you will, that helps you determine this. And you're absolutely right, going for 100% coverage - one of those things that sounds good in theory, but in practice... Meh, not so much.
+
+What people fail to realize - and I see folks all the time. They'll write their test, but they put so much more care into writing their feature code and just kind of treat tests as if it's throw-away code, when it's really not. You have to use the same guidelines, the same clean coding practices and things like this... Otherwise -- when you really think about what tests are, they are guarding your features. They are the source of truth on if this works or it does not work. So you can't half-ass this. Or you can break your stuff in some pretty severe ways.
+
+So try to cover everything, especially if you're gonna do crappy code. This is something else that you have to maintain in addition to your feature code. Whether you do it well or not, it's still another codebase. It's another software development project. If it's integrated \[unintelligible 00:10:36.06\] This is code, right? You have to maintain it.
+
+So trying to do everything just gives you a lot more stuff to maintain and a lot of noise. A great indicator is when you have your build fail because of some text, and the team looks at it like "Oh, okay, we don't care. Go ahead and ship it anyway. Just ignore the test." Well, why is that test there? That's a great moment to ask yourself.
+
+So I tried to move that a little earlier in the process, to say "Okay, I wanna write this test. If the build fails because this fails, do I care or not?" You might not care. Or you might care, but not enough to stop the build.
+
+So there's various things you can do... In this matrix I essentially have you evaluate your tests for four different things. One is the cost efficiency of writing it, the value that it brings, historical context around it - so is this one of those spaghetti type areas that has a lot of bugs in it, or is this running pretty solid and we rarely see any issues here? And is it covered by other things?
+
+Sometimes we have multiple variations, but the heart of it, what we're actually testing, is covered. So we don't have to go bananas by adding a million tests with all of these different variations, or whatever.
+
+\[12:11\] So given that, you kind of give scores to these things, and then I have you rank them, so not only do you see which has the highest score, meaning I need to automate it, but you have to sort it, so you know "What I need to automate next" kind of vibe, and what are the things that I thought -- because I have people do a gut check first... Like, "Do you think you would automate this?" And you end up saying yes to almost everything, and then by the time you get the score, it's like "Oh wow, that's really not worth automating, and I would have thought it was."
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Definitely. It's funny, a pilot on an airplane wouldn't take off without doing a pre-flight check, so why would you ever publish software that hasn't been tested? It's funny, because you talked about how "Oh, testing isn't necessarily taught in curriculums", which was definitely the case for me... But I think of testing as kind of on par with accessibility, where they're always thought as an afterthought. Now it seems like more attention is slowly being given to these two areas as like areas of importance... Especially -- we'll talk a little bit later about test-driven development. But yeah, I guess it's so overwhelming to -- like, where do you even start learning some of these things? It can be a little overwhelming,
+
+**Angie Jones:** Exactly. And I used to be a teacher at a university, so I was an adjunct professor teaching Java programming. I saw it for myself, there's not enough room in the semester to include lessons on testing, especially not in depth. So I was trying to kind of integrate that into every lesson. For example, if I gave them exercise to do in class, I'm like "Call me over when you're done", and I'd go and break it, basically, to show them that you have to keep these things in mind.
+
+A lot of people don't have Angie who's teaching them, that sort of thing... So they lock it. And it's one of the reasons why I started Test Automation University. So this is an online platform where all the courses are dedicated to testing. Not just JavaScript. All languages. And it's free. All the courses are absolutely free there. Self-pace, video and transcripts, and "Here's where you can go", where you're like "Okay, I need to know more about testing" or "I need to know how to use a certain testing framework", or something like that.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** That's great. And for any of you listening, we are linking all of this in the show notes, because it's definitely something you wanna check out. The fact that it's free is so invaluable... Definitely take advantage of that.
+
+Nick, I see you definitely have had some experience with testing. What is that?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. Well, earlier in my career I was working on Dojo, and with the folks behind Dojo. For that, we used a tool called the Dojo Object Harness. It was very memorable, because every time your tests would fail, there was actually an option in the UI for it where it would have the Homer Simpson "DOH!" that would play every time... And that would get really annoying. But it was kind of fun.
+
+And then from there, working on Dojo and going into Dojo 2 and such, we created a testing framework called Intern, that would kind of mix a lot of the more modern testing features that you now come to use in like Mocha, and Jest, and things like that... More of like the -- I forget the style of it, but \[unintelligible 00:15:43.18\] rather than just test and expect, things like that. Behavioral-driven maybe is more of what that's called. Anyway... We created that, and some tools on top of that to kind of drive web driver support... Because that's where we're focused, is browsers specifically, and running those, and really being able to test that the browser is actually doing what we want, rather than just this individualized unit of code as inputs and outputs.
+
+\[16:13\] So we had some test runners that were kind of promise-based, but built on top of Selenium Web Driver. And now those tools are kind of taken over by other more advanced tools like Cypress, and even Testing Library to an extent. And that was kind of an interesting thing that I have been looking at, is kind of how - at least from the frontend side - the testing game has changed a little bit, to where I'm not really thinking so much about unit tests, and I'm thinking more about almost integration tests. And it's kind of more the Kent C. Dodds -- his name comes to mind when I think of how that goes, and I think it's because of React testing library and the prescription for tests that that provides.
+
+**Break:** \[16:57\]
+
+**Emma Bostian:** So let's talk a little bit more about the different types of testing. Nick, before the break you had mentioned -- was it integration testing or regression testing? Or both? Probably all of the above.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Where is the line? That's another fun question...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I know. There are so many different kinds... We've got -- the ones that I'm aware of at least, are unit testing, regression testing, integration testing and end to end testing. Am I missing any of the big ones, before we dive into them?
+
+**Angie Jones:** You have your API testing, and you also a nice, fancy layer on top of your end to end, which is visual testing, which I specialize in... And this is really cool. I would love to talk a little bit about that at some point, if we have time.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Absolutely we do.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, I would love to learn more about that, for sure.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah. So end to end testing is -- or let's start with the smallest unit, which is unit testing... So unit testing - they're meant to test small components, right? So if you have a modal, for example, you might have like modal.test.whatever. If at Spotify I wanna do Web Components, we always have a test TypeScript file for every component. And this are meant -- like if it's a modal, to see whether or not it actually renders properly, if it's supposed to be visible, or if the text is correct, and things like that. Are there any misconceptions about unit testing? Because I feel like this is one area where people can get really minute into details, and maybe this is where they should refer to your matrix, Angie, because -- like, I struggle here to be like "Do I really need to test that a component actually renders?" It's funny, looking through our codebase, I'm like "It renders." And it's like, "Why is that always the first test? Do we really need to test that it's rendering?" I don't know... \[laughs\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[20:07\] Usually, that's the one I set up just to make sure that I actually have the test runner set properly. \[laughs\]
+
+**Angie Jones:** Yeah. And \[unintelligible 00:20:11.17\] or they won't ever get started. They need that one test just to feel confident...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** It's funny, because I'll be writing a test, and I'm like "Okay, there's definitely something wrong with it. It should break." And then it passes and I'm like "Did I do something wrong, or am I just smart? I don't know..." That's maybe why test-driven development is good. Again, we'll talk about that in a little bit, but... It is always good to see your test go from failing to successful, and unit testing is kind of -- at least for me personally, unit testing was the most comprehensible type of testing for me, because it allowed me to focus on one small piece of the UI, as opposed to like an entire use flow.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Angie Jones:** Yeah, I like that. It's very narrow... Because when you're trying to test something bigger, that's where a lot of confusion comes in, and you start going down a rabbit hole. So I really like -- for a unit test, it's kind of like "What's the smallest thing that you can target here?" Let's get away from any other dependencies, and things like that... So it's not a whole lot of setup, and all of that. Very focused. And if one of those fail, you know exactly what's wrong, so I really love those.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Would you say from like a frontend testing perspective that the smallest unit you could test is like a full component itself? Or would you dig deeper in?
+
+**Angie Jones:** It depends on what you call a component. If the component includes a field and a button, then those are two different units, in my opinion. I could exercise that field with quite a few tests. I could also execute that button, and depending on if it's supposed to have various states, like disabled, or whatever, I could exercise each one of them. So I would say unit testing at the frontend level would be down to the individual elements, and then in my opinion, the integration of that is the component, if there's multiple pieces.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Angie Jones:** Some widgets -- like a date picker, for example. I might consider that, one thing. So my unit test would be there. Versus all the selection of a certain date, or the arrows, back and forth. I wouldn't wanna get that granular. It's like Emma said... It varies, and then you start getting confused, like "Alright, where do I start?"
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. I don't know, maybe it's just my perspective, but the frontend always adds an extra layer of confusion to it too, because I always feel like I'm walking this fine line between writing good, smallest unit possible tests for whatever I'm trying to test, but also trying not to get too into the weeds with the implementation details of that component. And I think kind of what you mentioned, Angie, with testing disabled state, or maybe testing whether specific roles get set... I kind of like that idea, because then it at least lets me hook into things that I would really want to see in the actual product, as opposed to like "Oh, this div is now positioned over here", or whatever. Things that are too implementation-specific, but not really providing me a ton of value.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** And I think a lot of what you've just mentioned can be solved by visual regression testing, or visual testing in general, and we'll let Angie tell us more about that. Actually, let's just cover it now, because it fits into this conversation. Angie, could you tell us a little bit more about visual testing?
+
+**Angie Jones:** \[23:58\] Yeah, so it works whether you wanna do unit testing, or if you wanna do more of an end to end type testing... Let me tell you what it is, first off. So visual testing is where it takes a picture of your application and its desired state - it saves that as a baseline. So when you're first writing that test, you know how you look at it as a human being and you're like "Yeah, that looks good..." Alright, boom. That's your baseline. And so then when you run your regression test, it will take another screenshot and it will compare those two screenshots together, to determine if there are any differences there. So that's visual testing.
+
+Now, you can run this at like the component level. Say you have a storybook library with all of your components - you can run that visual test against... And I consider that like the unit test of frontend testing. You can run this against all of the various components to make sure in isolation they all look like they're supposed to look. You don't wanna just leave it there, because we've all seen where things start overlapping, or different viewport sizes, they're bleeding off the edge of the page, and stuff like that. So that's where you would test your full page.
+
+Now, I'm gonna say, with your frontend there's so many things that can go wrong, that if you don't do this whole visual piece, I often question "Why are you even testing the frontend at all?"
+
+So the frontend - when you are at that level, you're testing not just the functionality, because you could have tested that at a lower level, right? You're also testing the display of stuff. That's what the browser is for, to display \[unintelligible 00:25:52.02\] present some output. So you have to verify that presentation. Otherwise, why are you even on the browser?
+
+And unfortunately, a lot of the testing tools - they're amazing, but they all work with the DOM. If you ask them "Is this text present on the screen?" they're not looking on the screen, they're looking on the DOM to see if that text is in the DOM. And it's gonna say "Yes, it's there."
+
+What I've seen millions of -- not millions, but quite a few places where the text is maybe the same color as the background, so you can't even see it, or it's bleeding off the edge of the page, it's hidden by some other element that's overlapping it, it's upside down, it's whatever - there's a million things that can go wrong, and we've all seen these things before, especially when you start changing the viewport sizes. And that's the challenging thing about frontend development. You all know this - all of the different browsers, all of the different viewport sizes, breakpoints, and stuff like that... So it's a great way to test all of those things without having to write a ton of code to try to do so.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah. I think we forget sometimes that it's not just about "Does it work from a functional perspective?", it's like "Does it work visually as well?" I develop a desktop application, so it's not like I can go and test this on every single browser and every single viewport, so it's important... We actually have in our pipeline, we actually have our visual regression or integration snapshots that say "Hey, something's up. You might wanna check this out", and we have to make sure \[unintelligible 00:27:31.09\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I'm just thinking of a very specific example of where this kind of testing would have saved me in the past... And I was working on kind of a composite component that had a lot of different pieces to it, and I ended up adding a very subtle, grey background to one piece of that. And I pushed it up and then the others on the team were like "Hey, why did you add this background to it?" I'm like, "I didn't." Because looking at my monitor, which was, admittedly, not the best, it couldn't distinguish that from just the regular white... So I'm starting at it and I'm just like "I cannot see that." But I feel like a visual regression would have been able to easily point that out to me.
+
+**Angie Jones:** \[28:16\] Exactly.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I love that. I think visual tests are some of my favorites... Because I do remember the snapshots that would give you like a DOM printout, and it's be like "Your snapshot is not the same." You would look at the DOM changes and have to accept them, or reject them... But it was just recently, I think, that I really started noticing the fact that we were doing visual regression tests, and it's only been at Spotify that we've done it. I hadn't done it at IBM and I hadn't done it at LogMeIn. But it's so useful, especially -- when we think about design mockups, sometimes engineers forget that being pixel-perfect does make a big difference, and they're like "You know, it's just a couple things are off." One of my favorite examples is from the book Atomic Habits by Adam Grant, when he talks about if a plane takes off from LAX and it wants to land in New York City, and the pilot decides to turn the headwind just like two degrees in the sky, the passengers aren't even gonna notice. It's like a very minute change. But it makes a big impact, and they're actually gonna land in Washington DC, which is not anywhere close to New York City.
+
+So these seemingly minute visual regressions can compound, and then you have a massive amount of technical debt that needs to be fixed. So it's very important.
+
+**Angie Jones:** When people think about the visual part, they might think -- you know, the small cases, like "Okay, yeah, text is not perfectly aligned. Big deal..." But I've seen some visual bugs that literally affect people's bottom lines. Some examples - I was on an OpenTable trying to submit a restaurant reservation, and I clicked this modal, and the modal popped up, but I saw two buttons, and they weren't in the middle, one, so I didn't know what to do at first, and I started looking around... And they were in the upper-right corner, and they weren't aligned, but there was no text there saying what these buttons were for, or anything like this. So I immediately am thinking like "Okay, I'm making a reservation for seven people... We're gonna ball out. We're gonna buy drinks, we're gonna buy food..." And I was thinking "How much business is lost because I can't even complete this reservation?"
+
+Another one was on Instagram, where it was a sponsored post, but all of the text was overlapped on each other, and kind of jumbled, so you couldn't read it. There was no picture there... It was awful. And I'm thinking like "Someone paid to have their content shown like this, which means they're gonna ask Instagram for a refund, and probably not trust that product for their marketing needs anymore."
+
+So these are very real consequences to these visual bugs. It's not just a "Oh well" kind of thing, or small, minute stuff. It's definitely worth looking into as part of your strategy.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** That's so true. It's like, once we add dollars signs to things and people start taking it seriously, it's like -- accessibility as well was one area where no one wanted to invest, and then especially the EU got hit really hard with new regulations, and then we started seeing lawsuits coming out about inaccessible websites, and people getting sued... It's like - well, testing, I don't know if you can necessarily get sued for that directly, but it is a result of a lack of testing that these regressions or incorrect integrations are happening... And especially, like what Angie said, if you're working with sponsorships, your reputation and your income are on the line there.
+
+**Angie Jones:** \[31:56\] Yup, exactly. And visual testing can -- if we think outside of the box, it can help with even stuff like accessibility testing. My company Applitools, that's one of the features that's available in the visual testing... It's "Okay, now I have these two pictures of your application and I'm comparing... You're good to go, but did you know you're not following accessibility guidelines? Because there's not enough contrast between this text and its background." So that's really helpful information you might wanna know before shipping this out.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Absolutely it is. Let's talk a little bit about regression testing, because we actually run manual regression tests every two weeks, around two-week sprint cycles... And at the end of every cycle, when we're about to release, all of the squads get together with this huge spreadsheet and manually regression-test things.
+
+So regression tests are basically tests that ensure that anything you've committed to be published is not going to break anything that already was performing well. So my question for you, Angie, is like - we have all these different types of tests... I'm confusing now regression and integration... Because they're very similar, but integrations are a little bit different.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Very common... \[laughs\]
+
+**Angie Jones:** Yeah, regression tests are any of your kind of tests - your unit tests are regression, or integration... Regression just means that you run these over and over. This is not new functionality, not new tests... I'm just running it again on our old stuff. That's your regression.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I learned something new today, and I'm excited about that. Okay.
+
+**Angie Jones:** Good. \[laughs\]
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Fabulous. It only took me how many years of professional software development... But integration testing isn't showing that, like, when you have something new, it integrates cohesively with what exists currently... Is that true?
+
+**Angie Jones:** Yeah, making sure different components are integrated successfully.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I was just gonna ask, with integration - would you also have portions of it mocked out? Or where does mocking come in in your thoughts?
+
+**Angie Jones:** Yeah, so your mocking - I like to mock things that are like... One, if I'm doing some integration with like a third-party system... I don't wanna test their stuff. Like, I barely can test my stuff. I don't wanna \[unintelligible 00:34:10.14\] So let's say you have some integration with Twitter, or something like that. You don't wanna be on the Twitter app, and all of that. So you would kind of mock maybe your API request to Twitter, or something like that, and just essentially focus on your application versus the other part of that.
+
+Other ways people mock is if you have kind of these various development teams that they may work together, but you're working on your piece, Emma, and Nick, you're working on your piece, I'm working on my piece - well, I wanna test my piece, but I'm waiting on you. So I don't wanna wait on you, I'm gonna mock your piece out and test my piece. And I'm gonna mock Emma's piece and test my piece, just to make sure I'm holding up my end of the contract. You probably are gonna mock my piece, and whatever... But that can't be your end solution. So you do that for your kind of "I did my due diligence, you did yours." Somebody needs to actually integrate these together to make sure that they work in real life. So you would then have some additional integration tests that maybe actually put us together and exercise some scenarios.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** So mocking definitely confused me when I started out... I'm gonna spew out an analogy, and tell me if this is correct. So if we're building out, let's say, a buddy feature, whether this is -- let's say the Facebook buddy feature, where you can see who's online and chat with people. Let's say that you're testing the actual components that render whether someone's online. It's like, you don't care necessarily about the API request that's being sent to grab all of your friend information. You just care about, like, given the response that you get back, a list of friends - is it rendering properly? That's kind of what a mock does. It's just giving you this mock data or fake data.
+
+**Angie Jones:** Yeah, exactly. Exactly.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Awesome. And Nick, you mentioned end to end testing, and this is the biggest umbrella of testing -- or the biggest type of testing, because you're actually going through user flows. Or am I mistaken?
+
+**Angie Jones:** \[36:19\] That's gonna be your most complex one to write, and the longest to run, and the hardest to maintain, so you try to have very few of those. I wouldn't at all recommend making this the heart of your test suite. I believe you should have mostly unit tests, some integration tests, and a couple of very critical end to end flows.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** There's nothing more painful than having flaky end to end tests, because I've had this issue where it's like, I have to retrigger build over and over, not because my code is messing antyhing up, but just because the pipeline is so inundated, and they break...
+
+**Angie Jones:** I just wanted to take a moment to define that for anyone who's listening and might not know "What are they even talking about, end to end?" So that's where you take a scenario, a real scenario; so you're not just making sure that you could select the date, but maybe you're selecting a date as part of a longer form, for example booking a flight. So you would take that from the beginning... So you come to the application, maybe you log in, you search for flights, you choose one, you select the one you want, you go to the payment, and now it's complete. So you take a customer journey, where there's some goal that needs to be met, and you go through all the steps to make sure that works.
+
+Now, when you're doing your end to end testing, I do recommend like, alright, go ahead and do all of that on the UI, but when you're testing a certain piece -- maybe I wanna just test checkout. I don't wanna write an end to end flow just to test checkout. So that's when you start using what I call \[unintelligible 00:38:07.05\]
+
+So is there a way that I can maybe make an API call or something to essentially get my app into the testable state that I wanna test? And I feel like that's where people go wrong with frontend testing, is you're doing too much on the frontend. That's why our tests become long, and flaky, and fragile, because you just have too much going on here. I don't wanna search for flights when I'm trying to test payment of flights, right? So let's just maybe make an API call where we add this thing to the cart, or something like that... And then I can just go to the UI, make sure that looks right, do the payment, boom, I'm done.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** That's really great. I love that, because -- I always think about like... Yeah, an end to end test is a scenario; I think that's a really great way to put it. Because I just thought like "Oh, it's just testing an entire user flow." It's like, no... Like you said, you don't care about searching through an entire list of flights; you care about how the checkout works, because that's where your business could fail. Or making a reservation, right? That's awesome. Nick, what were you gonna say?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I forgot, but I do have another question... So with this -- when we were talking about integration testing and mocking, we were kind of talking about how, you know, given this set of inputs, I can mock that out and say "This API will always return me this." So is this where you would create that scene or scenario to actually verify that "Yeah, they're still sending me the same shape of data", and kind of put it together here?
+
+**Angie Jones:** Yeah, you've gotta do that part. Mocking has its place, but that cannot be your end-all strategy... Otherwise - yeah, that API changed, and you had no idea, because you were still just using the mocked response, and that's when stuff starts falling apart.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[40:01\] Yeah. I feel like this is a good place to say things like - interfaces that TypeScript can give you are a good way to know if this API or this third-party tool that I'm using gives me an interface that shows me what they're using, and I'm coding against that, maybe I can catch it earlier by noticing that I no longer match the data that's coming back. But that's overall a good thing.
+
+But yeah, the other thing I was gonna say is, in my experience with end to end testing - this is always the one that I kind of fear the most... And it's because they're the most complex, with the most number of small pieces that can go wrong, that just totally break it, and they take the longest. So they end up getting run less frequently.
+
+**Break:** \[40:42\]
+
+**Emma Bostian:** So we've talked about quite a few different types of testing, but one concept or paradigm that is gaining popularity is test-driven development. Angie, can you tell us a little bit more about what test-driven development is?
+
+**Angie Jones:** Yeah. So this is one of those things that people love it or they hate it. There's \[unintelligible 00:42:23.07\] I'm not one of those types of people, although I think it is a fantastic technique, but you're okay if you don't go that route. So what it is is where you write your tests first. And this officially drives the design and the development of your feature.
+
+Let's say for example you needed to write a login form, you needed to write some component; a login form. So you would first write your test that says -- whatever; it enters the username, it enters a password, and it clicks the button, and it should then navigate to the homepage, or something like that. So that might be your test. You write that test out.
+
+Then you would develop just enough code to make that test work. Usually, TDD is -- I haven't seen many people do it on frontend tests. I see they mostly do it on backend, very small unit test type of thing. But you could definitely do it on frontend like this, the scenario I just gave. But the idea here is you don't get to write code unless you have a test that is dictating that I need this code in order to pass. So your tests always start out as red, because you don't have the code yet, and you write only enough code to get that test to pass.
+
+\[43:58\] This helps you with staying focused, not over-engineering the problem, and also making sure you get some regression tests at the end of all of that. So you keep going down this cycle - you write enough for that scenario, and then you think, "Okay, what about if they entered the wrong password?" Well, that's another test you then write what should happen. "Okay, I'm expecting this error. Alright, now I get to go write the code that makes that test pass, makes that possible." And you continue this cycle until you feel like you've developed the feature, and covered all your bases.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I can't tell you how many times that would have saved my ass, because my team in particular - we build these really new, high-priority features in the desktop app, and when we have millions of monthly active users, it's really important that we don't over-engineer our code, and that we don't forget things. And it can definitely be maybe not as exciting for some people to jump in and do tests first. A lot of engineers wanna just get straight into the problem, and that used to be kind of how I thought about it as well, and sometimes still do... But to Angie's point, you shouldn't necessarily be writing any additional code than what you need to solve all of these design problems. It would have saved my ass so many times.
+
+**Angie Jones:** Mm-hm. And we realize a lot of assumptions that we make as well. So when you start with this approach first, I find myself sometimes jumping ahead of the gun, meaning I implemented too much. You find yourself doing that a lot.
+
+Even in that one case where I said "Okay, you need to log in." So when you go in, you're supposed to write the very smallest, most minimal thing you can do to make that pass. Say if my login is "angie" and my password is "jones", then I'm supposed to literally kind of hardcode that into that, because that makes that test pass. And you only get to write more as you come up with more scenarios, like it's a different username and password, or it's the wrong one. That's when you start adding your conditionals, and stuff like that... But we have a very bad habit of jumping right to "Okay, if this, then that..." It's like, "No, no, no." Take a step back. Only the most minimal amount of code to get that particular test to pass.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** So let me ask about that scenario then... Breaking it down to just like the first step. I'm thinking from like a frontend test, so login - username and password, and then hit the button. To do any of that, the first thing I have to do probably is find the username input. So when I don't have any code written for that component yet, how would you even start that off? Would you just like --
+
+**Angie Jones:** Oh, I love that question so much. This is why I love that question... Let me tell you, frontend folks - we have a very, very bad habit of not putting unique identifiers on our elements. And this makes your code really hard to test, it makes it really hard to automate. Because to automate this, you need to be able to get to that specific element. And yeah, I can use some CSS selectors and stuff, but you want this stuff to be as unique as possible. I don't wanna say "Find me the button" and then when we add another button it's like "Oh, well maybe find me the first button", and then we put another button later on and like "Oh, now it's not the first..." You see where I'm going with this?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Absolutely.
+
+**Angie Jones:** So if you have an \[unintelligible 00:47:35.01\] on there that says "Login button", then in my test I can say "Okay, find the thing that has ID "Login button", click it, find this etc." That forces me to then when I implement those elements, I have to put those buttons in order to make the tests pass.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[47:57\] One thing that I've seen recently -- I can't remember where I saw it, but it was taking that exact same scenario where you have something unique like that, but instead of being like an ID of a button, it was maybe like a role, or some kind of accessibility on there, so that you're searching by that, but you're also enforcing that you actually have the accessibility requirements that you need.
+
+**Angie Jones:** I like it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I love that.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Absolutely. So if someone is building out a React application from scratch and they want to create some tests - let's say unit tests - what type of technology should they be looking at for their project?
+
+**Angie Jones:** You mean like testing tools?
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, tools. Because there are quite a few that you could use. How would you know which to choose over another?
+
+**Angie Jones:** Yeah, it's time to get kind of like these frameworks out there, these frontend frameworks \[unintelligible 00:48:46.21\] Now I have so many, it's like, which one do I choose? I think there's a couple of things to keep in mind. For the most part, all of them kind of work the same, where they're querying the DOM, allowing you to interact with some elements, and reading from the DOM, that give you some information back. So all of them kind of have that in common.
+
+There's some of them that offer more codeless or low-code type approaches as well. For example, Cypress has a Recorder, Selenium Web Driver - they also have a Selenium IDE version, stuff like that. So if you maybe want, I don't know, your manual testers to write some frontend tests, maybe that's an option for you. There's some drawbacks and limitations with that sort of approach. But if you have dedicated test automation folks, or your devs are gonna write some tests, then you might wanna go with one of the coded solutions.
+
+And with that, till you start thinking "Okay, what do I have to cover? Is this something I need to cover on various browsers? On various devices even? I wanna make sure it works as a web app on my mobile phone, too." Stuff like that. So making sure those capabilities are there as well.
+
+I also like to make sure there's some support. So with so many of these new ones popping up all the time, it's really tempting to chase what's new and hot, but I've learned the hard way -- I've had to tell my development teams, like "No, that literally came out last week. There's no documentation, there's no support. If we run into any kind of issue, there's no one we can call." Not only that, sometimes people are doing this stuff as a hackathon, or a fun side-project, and then they go often do something else with their lives, so you don't even have anyone maintaining this.
+
+So that's definitely something to consider as well, like what's the community around this. Is it something that's trusted, are there people you can bounce ideas off of, go to if you have questions? Is it open source, where we contribute if we need to? If it's not, if it's a vendor, what do they have over the open source options that would make it worthwhile?
+
+**Emma Bostian:** That's really great advice, yeah. Absolutely. Nick, do you have any other questions before I ask Angie one last one?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** So you mentioned at the beginning that you do a lot of consulting, coming into companies and setting up test automation... I was just gonna ask a personal question, and I know it would be set up specifically to the problem you are trying to solve, but given free range, what's your ideal testing stack?
+
+**Angie Jones:** \[51:48\] Hm... Y'all not gonna like this, because I'm on JS Party, but I'm a Java girl. \[laughs\] Java is my fave, so I like that. I love Selenium Web Driver. For JavaScript, I really like Cypress, so I work with that when I need to work with JS teams. I'm gonna put my visual testing in all of those stats, because if I'm gonna do frontend testing, it just makes sense to test the appearance of it, right?
+
+I like Mocha, I like Chai, I like in the Java world JUnit... API type of stuff - there's like Supertest, and Nook... Is it Nook or Nock? Emma will get us the thing, with the link...
+
+**Emma Bostian:** I will.
+
+**Angie Jones:** \[laughs\] But you can use that for your API testing; I really like that. In the Java world I like REST Assured for API testing... Cucumber in different scenarios... There's also BDD - we didn't even touch on that; that's a whole other beast. And \[unintelligible 00:52:51.26\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Cool.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** That's awesome.
+
+**Angie Jones:** How about you, Nick? What do you like?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I rarely get to choose, but I've really been liking the mentality that Testing Library has kind of forced me to think in, in terms of like --
+
+**Angie Jones:** Sorry, I forgot about Testing Library. I like that, too.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, I'm approaching it more from a frontend side, for sure. That's where I spend most of my days... But I really like the idea of -- I'm not writing tests to test the code, like the inputs and outputs of the code, I'm really writing tests to verify that given user input in this way, the user sees something in this way... And Testing Library is a good introduction to that, and I'm kind of curious if I could just go further, easier with something like Cypress, to give me more control over that... Because a lot of times with Testing Library it's writing out a lot of code, it's running in JSDOM, and it's always just checking the DOM, and I'm kind of having to guess as to whether I'm actually doing things correctly... Whereas with something like Cypress, I can run the Cypress visual browser and watch it run the tests in front of me, and I can see "Oh, wait, I'm not clicking the right button right there" and then adjust the test correctly.
+
+**Angie Jones:** Yeah.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Cypress allows you to back-track in time too, to different snapshots... Is that right? Or am I thinking of something else.
+
+**Angie Jones:** Yeah, when you write it, it'll run through each step, and then when it's done, you can say "Click on when I entered my password" and it'll show you what was going on when you entered your password, and all of that. So yeah, it's pretty neat. It's pretty neat.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** So my question for you, Angie - for someone interested in getting started with testing, what's the biggest piece of advice that you wish that you had when you were starting out?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Great question.
+
+**Angie Jones:** It's more than just tech. And that's the answer for a lot of things in this industry. You have to have a culture that embraces this type of mindset. Otherwise, you're kind of off doing your own little side-project, and you have no support, no one else is contributing, no one cares, and it kind of just gets abandoned and it's a big flop. I've seen that lots of times.
+
+You have that eager kind of person that's like "Oh, we should test the things, and I'm gonna start us up our test framework, and I'm gonna bring in Cypress, I'm gonna do blah-blah-blah", and your builds are failing because you integrated them, because no one else is contributing or cares, and they're breaking stuff... And then it's like "Cut those stupid tests out. We've got features to ship." And then it just kind of gets abandoned.
+
+So I would focus on why you want to do it, and what's the goal you expect here. One of the most common goals is fast feedback. We wanna be able to make sure our application hasn't regressed, and we want that information very quickly. So with that goal in mind, all of your actions should follow that. The tools you choose, how you write your tests, what you even test - all of that stuff, you have that goal in mind... And you make sure that the team is aware of this, and they're on board with it. So there may need to be some kind of launch learning sessions or something for the whole team, where we understand the risks, the value-add that testing brings, and kind of get everybody on board, and then we move into how to implement this.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** That was wonderful advice. I wish I had learned about testing when I was starting out... Although, to be honest, I feel like I would have been overwhelmed, because at the time I didn't even know web development, but I was in a web development position... Hah! So it just probably would have been a lot.
+
+But if y'all are interested in learning more about testing, I'm gonna link all of Angie's information down below, including the Test Automation University link, which you should absolutely go check out.
+
+I wanna extend a huge thank you to you, Angie, for joining us today and sharing your knowledge. I learned a lot. I learned that regression tests is just essentially an umbrella for many different types of testing... And we're also gonna link Angie's talk about how to know which tests should be automated in the show notes, so I highly recommend checking that out.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I cannot wait to go watch that.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** So thank you once again.
+
+**Angie Jones:** Thank you so much for having me. This was fun.
+
+**Emma Bostian:** Yeah, you're welcome. Have a nice day, y'all.
+
+**Angie Jones:** Okay, bye-bye.
+
+**Outro:** \[57:21\]
+
+**Horse JS:** Do you want to start a YouTube channel together called JavaScript?
diff --git a/The Elder.js Guide to the Galaxy_transcript.txt b/The Elder.js Guide to the Galaxy_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e2a86c5d240dcc648f8b212974c71e3dfc4d7321
--- /dev/null
+++ b/The Elder.js Guide to the Galaxy_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,423 @@
+**Jerod Santo:** Welcome back, everyone. It's JS Party time! Speaking of back, Amal is back. What's up, Amal? How are you?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I am well, thank you so much, Jerod.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Happy June, happy summertime.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Indeed.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Indeed. And Kball is here. What's up, Kball?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Hey! I'm doing great. I have coffee, in the office again... It's awesome.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** He's in the office, he's drinking coffee... That's the Kball we know and love.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** You got it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And we also have a special guest, it's Nick Reese. Nick, thanks for coming on the party.
+
+**Nick Reese:** Hey. Thanks for having me.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We are excited to talk about Svelte today, to talk about static site generators, to talk about Elder.js, which is your project... But first off, we need to address this - Nick has impostor syndrome, y'all. Nick, welcome to the club. We all have impostor syndrome here, and we're all welcome... But you felt like maybe you're not qualified to be talking on a JavaScript. What's up with that, man? Of course you're here, you're qualified... No impostors.
+
+**Nick Reese:** Yeah, so I've only been writing meaningful code for like three years, and it's kind of funny, because I never really identified as being a developer/coder anything like that prior to this. I've built several ICO companies and startups and had several exits... Essentially, I have to have something to do with my time, and I find building out useful websites for consumers is kind of where I spend that. I built a static site generator for fun, and it kind of grew into something I decided to open source and that has meaningful usage in the world. It's kind of strange, because I've never had my code critiqued; it works, that's what I know... And it feels a little strange to imagine people picking through my code and saying "Oh, this could be more efficient" or whatnot, but everyone has some of that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[04:01\] Yeah, absolutely. Well, congratulations on the success. Sometimes just the confidence to put it out there is what it takes to overcome that feeling of "This is not good enough to open up or to release", and being willing to face the fire of a bunch of fellow nerds poking and prodding and saying "Why did you do this? Why did you do that? You shouldn't have done this, you shouldn't have done that." Sometimes that's the scary thing. But you've got past that, and you've got some people interested, so that's a cool thing.
+
+**Nick Reese:** Yeah, it's been fun. It's been really enjoyable to have actual feedback to my code. Before this, essentially, my team would just commit my code because I was the boss. And now, seeing people using my code because it's actually useful, it's pretty nice... \[laughter\] So yeah, it's definitely a flip of the tables. I've never really had code review, so it's cool to see other people reviewing my code, and say how things can be more efficient. It's a nice feedback loop to improve.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Code reviews are one of the most underrated tools when it comes to teaching and learning and growing. I don't know folks appreciate it; it just feels like a chore, like "Ugh, I've gotta get this over the -- I've gotta submit this PR for review", but it's such a great mechanism for giving your colleagues feedback, and then also getting inside other people's brains, of how they would do it... So I love giving feedback and getting feedback on my code. It's the best.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You love both. So I do not love giving the feedback. I don't mind receiving it, because I'm trying to improve, and I know my code is not what it could be, or there's other better ideas... But the giving side for me always feels like the chore. If I had ten to-do's on a day, and one of them was "Code review Kball's code", I automatically put it at number ten, because I just don't wanna do it, so I end up blocking people. It's terrible. What about you, Kball?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Well, I think reviewing code and reading code is its own separate skill from writing code. And it's one that we don't always flex in the same way. I've actually been investigating the possibility of putting a code review stage into an interview process, because I think it is such an important set of skills. "How do you read and understand code that you didn't write?" And let's be honest, read and understand code you wrote six months ago is basically the same problem.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You're right.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** How do you read and understand it, how do you critique it, how do you think about it, and how do you give useful and constructive feedback - those are all unique skills, but extremely valuable.
+
+I also wanna loop back a little bit on the "new to coding" thing... You actually have a super-power, Nick, which is you have experience out in things that are not coding. So many times people who are coming up purely in the coding path, they're like "Oh, but what should I build? I know! I'll make a developer tool!" because they're so stuck in this isolated world, and this idea of like what is actually useful to people who are not software developers, what's gonna make a good business, or a good open source project that's not just serving other developers. It's actually a very hard step.
+
+So I love to see folks coming to coding late in their careers, or midway in their careers, having already done some sort of other expertise. I think it sets you up very well for success within this field, just as it sounds like you've already seen success in other fields.
+
+**Nick Reese:** That makes a ton of sense to me, because on my end, I see all these opportunities, and that's the reason I got into programming, is so that I could actually start tackling those opportunities... Because there's like that step between where you actually -- you have an idea, but you need to communicate it, and sometimes that's not high enough bandwidth, especially once you're like a talented developer. You can almost just spin up your ideas faster yourself than having to manage a team.
+
+I've always been a really big fan of really tiny teams, like more than seven people. None of my companies should be larger than that, because if you can't do that, suddenly your communication explodes exponentially. You have politics, you have everything else... And for me, I like to move fast. If I'm the bottleneck and my typing speed is the bottleneck, that's generally what matters to me, and that's the reason why I've been attracted to developing in general.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[08:01\] Yeah, prototypes even are one of the most effective ways to communicate an idea. Can you create a prototype that shows what you have in mind? For me as well, doing that in code is way faster than trying to do that in some sort of GUI tool or some other thing.
+
+**Nick Reese:** I one hundred percent agree.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Plus, it's just the autonomy, and the fact that it's fun to bring at least a prototype or at least some aspect of your idea into the world, without anybody's help. Maybe a little bit of help here or there, but when you can go from idea to deployed something on your own, whether you're a CEO of a startup or whether you're just a tinkerer who has this idea - that I think is very satisfying, and I think that's what drives a lot of the willingness to learn more, and go through the arduous process of getting better. It's because that feeling, those endorphins when you actually deploy - pretty rad.
+
+And working in a team is fun. I think when it comes to creating something brand new - I think if you can do it without needing anybody, that's a superpower, too.
+
+**Nick Reese:** I would say that's probably one of my favorite things about releasing Elder.js. Generally, when you use an off-the-shelf tool, you might look at it and say "I wish it did this thing." Well, now I can do that, "Oh, I can actually make it do that thing."
+
+Just recently on a project we're building - I can talk about it later, but it's called FindEnergy. It's a site we released with Elder.js. We're shipping these huge payloads to the browser, and generally, what we'd done before that is build these little custom functions that would basically write everything to an array, and then have the reverse of that on the browser... Because if you're passing JSON, those keys can be duplicated just a huge amount of times. On our Texas page the payload was like 500 kb, because we're rehydrating it in the browser. I was like, it's really strange to me that no framework essentially goes through and collects all the props that are gonna be written to the HTML, creates a custom dictionary, and then unpacks it on the browser. And I was like "I wonder if that could work." I took a quick power nap, and I woke up and I was like "I just can't stop thinking about this idea." And about two hours later I had it built into Elder.js. And after brotli, it's still saving it 10% of the size. I was able to reduce the HTML size of those props by like 46%. So it was pretty satisfying to be able to do that very quickly. So I don't know of any other framework that does prop compression, but it feels like it should exist if you're using islands, essentially, to partially hydrate stuff.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Nick Reese:** Because often -- for instance, the word "Texas" was in those props hundreds of times. There's no reason that we should have that so many times when it's incredibly easy to use a map and build a custom dictionary for the browser to unpack that.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That's kind of fun. So you're applying code minification to data, because you've got JSON-based data...
+
+**Nick Reese:** Yup.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And knowledge of the system, and the ability to do it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. To be honest, I think the reason why maybe this hasn't been "invented" yet at scale is there's so many clean boundaries that are drawn... You know, there's separation of concerns, and a lot of times people are focused on optimizing their little bucket, their concern, and I think the orchestra of concerns when they're working together isn't the end-to-end optimization of web development and serving assets from source to user. There's lots of leaks in that pipeline, and it's because no one is solely focused on the pipeline. Everybody's focused on their little pipe.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Amal, the orchestra of concerns - I think that's like a new talk by Amal Hussein coming soon.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, yeah. \[laughter\] Yeah, I could write a coffee book with just titles of inspiring tech talks, like all the problems... Maybe we should do that as a podcast... play some slow music...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That would be cool. Just like, "Here's a bunch of ideas of talks people should do."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** To do, right. Put it out into the universe, just delegate.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Amal's gonna do inspiring ones, and I'll just do bad dad puns. \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** The flipverse?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[12:02\] So I think JavaScript frameworks have historically taken on a big burden when it comes to the orchestra of concerns. There's a lot of abstraction around multiple layers of user interactions that are just kind of simplified for developers, but it's really cool to see that y'all have taken it a step further with Elder. That's great.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I feel like this is a trend that's going on right now in the JavaScript ecosystem. JavaScript for quite a while was all-in on the fragmentation, and many small packages, and all of these different pieces, and we're seeing more and more folks going the route that we saw in some other ecosystems, where it's like "No, we want end-to-end understanding of the system, because we can do these types of optimizations." We want sensible defaults that maybe you can configure. I'm thinking frameworks like Redwood trying to do this, I'm thinking toolchains like Rome trying to do this... We're seeing this idea -- and in the tech industry we do this all the time.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** The pendulum swings.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, the pendulum swings between "Okay, we wanna coordinate everything" to "We're gonna break everything apart" to "We're gonna coordinate everything again" to "Break everything apart." This is part of what this industry does, and actually what I think technology does in general... But we're seeing that in JavaScript.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I agree with you completely, Kball, and it's something that I've been sort of preaching on this podcast for a couple of years now; I think this is a good trend, and of course, every methodology has its pros and cons, and so you can get all-in on a framework as a community and see the downside of that... That being said, I wanna generalize something that Nick said about his ability to just go ahead and put this feature into Elder - I just wanted to generalize that and say, as developers, you should be building a toolkit. You should be building reusable things that you have, that you can pull from, and you can modify. And when you have that idea, you can say "You know what - actually, if I go back to this thing I wrote before and I change it this way, then this project benefits, and I can take that to my next project that's gonna benefit..." Now, maybe it's not open source, maybe it's not a framework, maybe it's not for everybody to use, but be building up kind of a compendium of things that you can continually work on throughout your career, and carry them with you just like you would a box of tools.
+
+The nice thing about a software is you buy a hammer, it's a hammer. But with software, we can build our own hammers. So of course, use other people's code when it makes sense, but be building things that you have the control over and the knowledge over, so that when you have that idea, you don't get blocked at some upstream... Like, "Oh, I was gonna do this, but Svelte can't do that, so I can't do that." I'm not saying "Don't use Svelte", I'm just saying that when you have the autonomy inside your own tooling, it's really powerful to see your ideas to fruition.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And even if you can't control the code, write down how you solved it somewhere. I've solved the same problem for three or four different companies, at different times; a couple of different problems. Because it's one that shows up regularly. And now, when I'm at a new company and I see it starting to have that problem, I can say "Okay, great, I can solve that for you in a day", because I've done it, I've got the patterns... And yeah, it's one where there's enough nuance that a complete open source solution isn't likely to work, because it has to integrate with your data or whatever... But the pattern exists, and I can just run with it. You can do that by writing it up in a blog post, or internal notes, or something like that. So even if you can't build out that reusable code snippet for whatever reason, capturing those patterns and building yourself a pattern library is super valuable.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** One hundred percent.
+
+**Nick Reese:** Sorry to interject here - when I was writing Elder.js, I wanted to make sure plugins were essentially first-class citizens. So there's like an entire hook system that enforces what -- basically, Elder.js under the hood has a global scope everywhere, but there's like a hook system that doesn't allow you to change things that shouldn't be mutated on different hooks. What that allowed us to do is -- or the idea here was to basically make sure that plugins could be first-class citizens.
+
+\[16:09\] For instance, the number of times I've written resizing of images in order to do responsive images is just crazy. I think I've done it 4-5 times. But now, because plugins are a first-class citizen, I can just take that old code and basically put it into a plugin and now anyone can use it.
+
+That's what I love about what I've built there - all of my old tools that I have, of like hidden repositories that aren't public, I'm slowly peeling them off and making a little ecosystem for Elder.js, because now they have a place. Just a standalone package that resizes all your images doesn't really -- you know, that's cool, there's lots of those, and most people would reach for something like Sharp in the JavaScript ecosystem to resize stuff. But by having it as a part of the Elder.js ecosystem, you can now use it if you're using Elder.js's static site generator, or if you're using -- you can use the same code if you have a dashboard where you're uploading images for an internal by your team, you can still use that on an Elder site. So it's kind of nice to be tightly coupled, simlar to how Apple controls the hardware and the software. It's really nice, I really enjoy that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So we've mentioned Elder, we've said it's a static site generator... It has a very specific opinion or viewpoint of the world, which comes out of the work that you do in your business... So before we get too far into the details, Nick, why don't you just hit the nail on the head, give the synopsis of Elder.js, and the SEO aspect, and some of the high-level things, so that we all have the same foundation to build on?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, so Elder.js started because I like to build massive sites, that are basically SEO-focused. The last one was BroadBandNow. I have a few others: FindEnergy and ElderGuide. Essentially, what these do is they take a huge amount of government data and create good user tools or resources so people can make informed decisions. Well, if you're doing that and you're doing so much data, you either have the decision to spend a lot of time optimizing your SQL, or you can use a static site generator... Because then the build times don't really matter, because if you're serving it from a CDN, it doesn't really -- static content is fast, right?
+
+So that's where Elder.js was born out of. But the problem that I've found with the JavaScript ecosystem is generally SEO is kind of an afterthought. SEO is what happens after. And I got really badly burned -- I was turning around a project... I had acquired a site that had been built on WordPress, and I converted it to Gatsby with a team of really talented developers... And Gatsby kept on making core changes, and our rankings were just going down. And I was like "There needs to be a framework if I'm gonna be going all-in on JavaScript that takes SEO as a priority and makes it a priority." And while Elder.js doesn't do anything from an SEO perspective, it's always gonna be thought of first and foremost. SEO - we're not gonna do anything that's gonna hamper your efforts. Internally in the Svelte community I was spending a lot of time lobbying to work on better hydration, because the way it was working -- basically, hydration for Svelte was trashing the entire DOM model, and then rebuilding it. So that would cause - this is my hypothesis, is that Google has two different bots. One is the one that just looks at HTML, and the other one is a JavaScript bot. And that's known. When you're basically trashing the DOM, Google doesn't know if it can trust the HTML, so it sends the JavaScript bot around... So we're having indexation problems. For me, it's important that someone's watching that, especially if your business is built around SEO.
+
+So that's the main reason why I went all-in on SEO for Elder.js. Does it do anything fancy? No. It's the top consideration. Every single decision I make is from an SEO view.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Nick, don't you feel like that problem is a little -- like, SEO is a concrete nugget that you can point to for where most JavaScript frameworks fail... But I think it's a symptom of a wider problem, which I think that the root cause is just JavaScript bias. "Dun-dun-duuun...!"
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You know, "Love of JavaScript may cause using too much JavaScript to do all things."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[19:56\] Right. Sleepiness, drowsiness...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Sleepiness, drowsiness, too much JavaScript...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] Slow-loading pages.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Building a simple blog with Gatsby...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right.
+
+**Nick Reese:** Yeah, exactly.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Building a simple blog with Gatsby. That's great. Or even more concretely, just not respecting the primitives of the web, and constructing too much DOM in the browser, and putting that cost on the user... It's just asinine. Am I allowed to say that on TV? Are we on TV?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** JS-inine.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes and no.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** JS-inine. You know, it's just problematic, because we've kind of furled ourselves into this mess, and the sad thing is the arc of the web -- things get published, and a lot of times not updated... And it's the problem that's gonna live with us for a long time. It's gonna take another generation, I think, to hopefully unfurl ourselves... But I'm glad that you're taking a step in the right direction with Elder.
+
+**Nick Reese:** Yeah, it was really surprising to me to find that there wasn't a single framework that really allowed you to just serve static JavaScript, or just static HTML, that was generated by JavaScript. You had to have all this client whiz-bang. You had to have full hydration, you had to have a service worker, you had to have all this stuff. And debugging service workers because you're having SEO issues is not fun. That was an issue that we had that was the closest thing that we could point to when we had issues with Gatsby - they made a major change to the default service worker, and we just had to rip out the service worker in order to do it. It seemed like everything was overkill, and I decided to spend an afternoon building my own little framework, and it worked, but then it started growing... And you know how those things go.
+
+**Break**: \[21:41\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So Nick, let's just answer the question that's burning on everyone's mind right now - why Elder.js? Do only old people use this thing? What's with the name?
+
+**Nick Reese:** No. Basically, the start of Elder.js was -- the first project that was built with it was elderguide.com. From an SEO perspective, I always had the theory that there's not really bad links; there are bad links, that's not up for debate, but essentially any legitimate links are good links. And I decided to host the documentation on elderguide.com because people link to the documentation. So it's part SEO experiment and part it just seemed like it fit. It was an interesting name, my wife loved the name, and she's a bit of an artist, so she drew the logo...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** The logo is awesome.
+
+**Nick Reese:** ...so it fit the brand of ElderGuide, so that's what we went with.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I'll give you this - it certainly has attributes of a good name. It's easy to say out loud and to spell. So if I say it, you can spell it, so you can get there. There's no namespace clashes on Elder. It's two syllables... It's kind of a good name, actually. And I did notice that you do have the docs on your ElderGuide.com site, and I thought "This guy knows his SEO", because that's actually a nice marketing move, to put the docs right there.
+
+**Nick Reese:** \[24:06\] Yeah. Also, I think as a user, going to it - I've gotten the feedback a couple of times that people are like "What is this site?" and then it hits them, that this is like a very meta thing, because you're on the site that was generated by this tool. And I like that effect of it as well.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** All the good puns too, right? Respect your elders... There's just so many --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Get off my lawn, you darn kids...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You know, you can yell at people...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I was gonna say, it is in some ways going back to older types of technology where you can ship your HTML, and it only is shipping a little bit of augmentory JavaScript and the fact that it's a super-modern under the hood framework - you're still getting back to the roots of the web.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Like OldSchool.js.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Like JavaScriptForInteractivity.js, you know? \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** JavaScript sprinkles.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Not JavaScript for like "Make the DOM... Do all the things in the browser... While the user is waiting..."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] That was awesome, but I feel like you're just trying to get back on the soundboard now, Amal. She's like "I'm gonna start singing all of my sentences..." \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** "I'm gonna dominate this soundboard..." \[laughter\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** No, the reality is that I was just encouraged to do the thing that I love, which is sing.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, shoot. We encouraged her.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[laughs\] Oh, no... I'll stop singing. But seriously, it's a dope name. Very, very dope.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It is cool.
+
+**Nick Reese:** Thanks. Yeah, I kind of miss the days of jQuery, somewhat, just a little bit, where you sent static HTML and you made it fancy with jQuery. I mean, I don't miss jQuery, but I miss that effect of you send static HTML and it was pretty easy to reason about... And that's essentially what Elder.js started as, is just shipping static HTML, and then I found a way to partially hydrate Svelte components, and then the Svelte community asked "Hey, would you open source this?" and originally, the entire templating library wasn't written in Svelte, it was all written in like a small lit-html equivalent... And yeah, I ended up finding a way to make Svelte the default templating, so there's very clear server-side-only templates, and then there's things that are client-hydrated... And it works really well. I'm really happy with how it turned out. And what's nice about it is if you're not using any interactivity, you ship zero JavaScript to the browser. It's so nice. It's exactly the way the web used to be. But if you need interactivity, it's right there.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Wait, you said default template... Can you use other templating languages?
+
+**Nick Reese:** Currently, no.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] He wanted to say yes real bad...
+
+**Nick Reese:** But there's no limitation to -- well, technically I could make it so you could do it with any other language. The main problem Elder.js has is it needs to be able to look up a component just by its name. So currently, we have that in great support for that with Svelte, and it's tightly coupled with a Rollup system, which - I hate bundlers, by the way; thank you to all the people that write bundlers. I don't like dealing with them. Thank you so much for what you do.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Nick Reese:** And it's got an esbuild integration as well... So that has to be super-tightly integrated with Elder.js, or else Elder.js wouldn't be able to do what it does. I'm just a little bit reluctant to bite off a whole other ecosystem... So for now, unless someone is really passionate and wants to come help take over that part of it, it's gonna stay Svelte only.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So let's flesh out then a little bit what it does. So what are the things that Elder.js does for you?
+
+**Nick Reese:** Yeah, it's a great question. So before this, I ran several SEO companies, and all the way back -- basically I have said that SEO has paid the bills since I've had bills to pay. 2006 is when I built my first website. Obviously, it was on WordPress. I scale that company into having hundreds of websites built on Wordpress, and what we've found is when we had many different developers working on it, we generally just hired freelancers. It was really easy for a WordPress install to get pretty gnarly pretty quickly. So what we did is we chose a single template that had its own custom-built hooks in it. It was called Thesis Theme. We've had all of our sites ported to Thesis, and all the complexity had to live in a hooks.php file. That was our rule. And it allowed us to basically use developers interchangeably.
+
+\[28:02\] So if one developer took a different job, we were able to hire someone else, and we knew all the complexity always lived in the hooks.php. And that philosophy allowed us to scale really well. I tried to do that with Elder.js. Essentially, Elder.js started as a static site generator; it still can be an SSR framework, but right now, us as a company, we use it as an SSR framework, but most people are interested in the static site generation side of things.
+
+One of the main things that I wanted here was hooks. And you can plug in any part of the page generation process or the build process and fully customize it. You can also disable almost all the features that Elder.js offers for you and plug in your own.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Wait, wait, wait. Sorry to interrupt you, but before we run deeply on that, can you clarify what you mean by hooks? Because I think -- if I'm understanding correctly, you're meaning something that is closer to how WordPress thinks of hooks than what the JavaScript community often thinks of as hooks, which has been sort of owned as a name by React Hooks... So can you flesh out what you mean by hooking in this case, and then keep going?
+
+**Nick Reese:** For sure. You nailed it, thanks for pulling that back. Essentially, WordPress had hooks that allowed you to plug in any part of the WordPress page generation process. It's not like a React Hook, it's basically "Here are the props that are available to you, and if you mutate this state, you can expect that to be mutated for the entire generation of that page." It was pretty nice on WordPress, but it got pretty hairy too, because you're mutating global state. So what Elder.js has is an entire hooks system, so you can plug into the bootstrapping process, the page generation process... Basically, when it writes the JavaScript to the HTML, when it generates the HTML... You have full control of every single one of those steps. But what I tried to do is -- I like everything to be global scope, because it's a lot easier to reason about in a framework... But I wanted very specific rules of when you could mutate things and when you couldn't. So I have what I call a hook interface, and it enforces a contract. So if you're going to change something on a specific hook, and you're not allowed to, it's gonna throw an error.
+
+What's really nice about that is if you have a mid-sized team - well, for me a mid-sized team - like 4-5 people working on it, it's really nice to have all the complexity in a single file, and you know that no one is gonna mutate the global state ahead of you in a way that they shouldn't.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Got it. So these are request lifecycle hooks, essentially, as it goes through different parts of rendering your page... I say "request lifecycle", but they could actually be during a static site --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Build.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, build lifecycle as well. It's like page generation lifecycle hooks.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There you go.
+
+**Nick Reese:** Yup. So there's basically three steps. There's the bootstrap process where we're reading all the routes and we set up all the known pages that we're gonna generate. Then there's the page generation hooks, and then there's also build hooks. And you can plug into any of those, and basically customize how Elder.js performs.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I am in love with this idea. I love this ownership of contracts, end-to-end. It feels very much like you're building in integration testing with the way you've structured this... Because it's like, people are not stepping on each other's toes, but you're also able to enforce an event propagation workflow, because you're like "This is the way the global state should be mutated. Not that way, this way." That's super-cool. For me it's just, again, another example of ownership of the full pipeline, and I think that's very cool.
+
+Does it get annoying for users that there's so much opinion though, I'm curious... Because with great guard rails comes great...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Pushback.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** ...I would say limitations sometimes, in terms of how creative folks can get... So I'm just curious if that's been a feedback that you've received.
+
+**Nick Reese:** My goal in writing Elder.js was to have the framework get out of your way... And anytime you make that decision, you trade that for complexity upfront of learning the framework. So I actually think it's worse when you pick up a framework that's too easy to pickup, it's super-easy to pick up, but it has opinions that you can't change. So I would say that yes, Elder.js does have a learning curve. But it's gonna get out of your way if you need to customize something.
+
+\[32:04\] Astro has gotten a lot of exposure recently for doing partial hydration across Svelte, Vue and React... But when I look at their model, I'm concerned that if I wanna do anything that's against them, I'm gonna run into errors and issues. So when I look at Elder.js, I know that I can customize every part of the flow, or the users can customize every part of the flow. They can disable everything that Elder.js does internally, and write their own, or they can augment it as they please. So yes, there's a steeper learning curve, but I think with that learning curve comes power.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I think that's what's really cool here, actually - both the open and closed design, and the open architecture that you've built with these plugins and "hooks". It's just a good way to write software, because it's infinitely extensible... So yeah, kudos on that.
+
+**Nick Reese:** Thank you.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It seems like you're a good software architect actually, so...
+
+**Nick Reese:** Thank you.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I wanna dig a little more on something you've just said though, Amal. So you highlighted hooks and plugins... It feels like there's actually potentially some conflict between these.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Ooh...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** The plot thickens.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So a plugins architecture potentially allows you to essentially distribute the responsibility of having to think about logic, and encapsulate whole bodies of functionality within a plugin that you maybe don't even have to understand anything about the internals of.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right, right.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** But you've also just said you wanna be able to look at a single hooks file and have a single location of responsibility for all the sorts of modifications... And those to me feel like they're in conflict, so I'm curious how Elder handles that. Are you unable to plug into hooks as a plugin? How does that work?
+
+**Nick Reese:** So my goal was that the plugins will be first-class citizens. So they have exactly the same ability that users do, except they don't have access to one hook, which allows you to customize all the hooks. How we handle this is -- it actually happened by accident. Plugins are essentially given their own closure scope; so when a plugin initializes, they set their default configuration, but they also get that configuration object during initialization. That configuration object is passed through every single hook that the plugin calls on. So they're able to store all of their changes or their own specifications in their own scope that no one else has access to. Even the user doesn't have access to the plugins scope on their own hooks.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So then when you're rendering a page, for example, if it's using the plugin, is it getting a scoped thing, and do these scopes nest, or do they interact? Can you have plugins that interact in some way, or have dependencies between each other? How does this work?
+
+**Nick Reese:** Yup. For example, the image plugin that does something similar to Gatsby Image, that resizes all the images and makes them responsive - it interacts well with the markdown plugin. You can toggle on a feature that will replace all of your markdown images with responsive images, just under the hood. Basically, all of them run in the same scope, and you need to know -- like, there's a different priority level, so if it's 100 priority, it's gonna run first, and if it's 0, then it runs last... Yes, a plugin could cause issues, do unexpected things, but under the hood it's exactly the same hook system you're working on. So if you know how the hook system works, you can go read the plugins code. It's not a perfect implementation, but I do think that the ability to put all the plugin logic in its own scope that no one else can touch is pretty much the best solution I could come up with on that idea... But I'm honestly open to other ideas if there are ways to handle that.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Got it. So I guess part of what I'm trying to understand is -- so for a small team and small projects, or small team and large projects even, but for a small team, having everything in one place where you're continually working with global things is great, and it makes a ton of sense. And I'm trying to understand whether Elder.js is essentially limited to that type of project environment, or if it's something that can scale to larger teams, where being able to isolate segments of the site, segments of the codebase, and apply locally-scoped things.
+
+\[35:56\] It sounds like I'm hearing if I wanted to create that type of isolation, for example, I have two independent teams that are working on different parts of the site, and the want to be able to do local applications of changes via hooks, or something like that. It sounds like what they would need to do is structure -- either they're both working in the same file and having to think about the interactions, or they're structuring those local changes as plugins, so that they're entirely scoped.
+
+**Nick Reese:** Exactly.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Is that a fair assessment?
+
+**Nick Reese:** Yeah. Two separate teams - you could have them develop with the same power in a plugin by itself. And the plugin can have its own server-side templates, it can have its own hydrated Svelte templates... It has full control. Essentially, team A could be working under a plugin, team B could be working under a plugin as well... You wouldn't be stepping on each other's toes.
+
+Another thing is under the hood Elder.js has several different debug flags. So if you turn on debug hooks, you'll get every single thing that mutated, every single state on every hook. So you can see that. If you wanna know what's causing performance delays, you toggle that and you get a clean printout of every hook and how long it took to run in milliseconds.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Nice.
+
+**Nick Reese:** A whole bunch of these things are really trying to think about "How do I troubleshoot these things?" Because troubleshooting an opaque system is really hard, and so I think the framework should give you those tools.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Well, that's a great place where your background coming into this as someone with less development experience is super-helpful, because you've been feeling acutely the pain of "How do I debug this thing without fully understanding all the pieces?" So from the start, you're building in that debuggability.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Essentially, everything that Elder.js does is because I've needed it. So I didn't know SQL before I started writing ElderGuide, at all. I knew nothing. So I was just like "You know what - I can basically spend time optimizing queries, just randomly, or I can figure out which queries are running the slowest." So I built a performance monitoring system right into the system. There's a prop that is passed into all the data files, and you can basically call that to start and stop before the queries... So for me, it made it super-easy to know which queries were making the build slower. So now we build an 18,000-page site in a minute and 20-something seconds. So that's way faster. But at the beginning, it was over an hour, because the queries weren't optimized. And now more than half of all of that page generation time is waiting for data.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** For me, what I'm learning about Elder is that it's this really good marriage between (I would say) practical developer needs and easy maintenance of software... Because there's a lot of crufty developer tools that do X, Y, Z - bundlers, for example - not the easiest to maintain, and ramp up and manage either... So I think there's a really good balance that you've struck... But more importantly, I think there's so much lost with tools because they're built in silos; there's very little real-world use case that's applied to some of the designs around developer tooling... So it's just so nice that you have these real-world needs built right in. Just kudos... It's really very refreshing.
+
+**Nick Reese:** Thank you, I appreciate it. Yeah, it's intimidating to release software. I know it works, but I also know that there's probably better ways to do what I've done. I'm not the smartest person in the room, and that's the scary thing - on the internet, the room is pretty large... So I'm sure there's ways to really improve the site dramatically, and I would welcome that feedback... Or not just the site, but the architecture, dramatically.
+
+One of the things I'm most proud of is the partial hydration. Essentially, when you're going to hydrate a component, in just about any framework, you have to del with what the server rendered, and then you have to take those same props and then mount another component on a target div or element... And that's a really tedious process, and it's really surprising to me that none of these frontend frameworks - when you do server-side hydration, they just don't give you the hydration code right away; it's very surprising to me that -- like, when you pass it into the server-side object, we don't care about the bundle size that much of the server-side object; just pass me back the client-side code. All I need to do is pass in the folder structure. So that's where Elder.js kind of started... And now, if you need a hydrated component, you just go into one of your Svelte server files, you type "hydrate-client", and all those props will be hydrated under the hood for you automatically, really makes the islands approach, so to speak, or this modular "I'm only gonna hydrate what needs interactivity." Incredibly easy to do.
+
+**Break:** \[40:05\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So I'd love to dig a little bit more into what you're talking about in terms of hydration. I'm not super-familiar with the islands approach you're referencing, so maybe a little bit of a high-level explanation of what that is... But the key problem that I have seen across a number of frameworks that do server-side rendering plus client-side hydration is what's sort of the Uncanny Valley effect, where the user sees the page, it looks as though it should be able to be interactive, but there's a second, two seconds, sometimes even three or four seconds before they can actually interact with the page; clicking or hovering does not have effect in the way they'd expect. So I'm curious, one, if that's a problem within Elder.js, and if not, how you resolved it.
+
+**Nick Reese:** Yeah. So as far as what the ISLANDS approach is... I think that was popularized by Jason Miller. If I'm getting his name wrong, sorry. I don't read that much JavaScript. JavaScript blogs, so to speak. But I know that many other people have mentioned his name. He popularized the idea that instead of mounting one big component that controls the entire client-side, you're gonna mount many individual components, and they each are encapsulating their own logic. That's what the islands approach is.
+
+As far as the input delay, or the interactivity that's not there - how we've approached it on Elder.js is currently all components use an intersection observer. So on body load, it triggers an intersection observer that allows you to - you know, essentially, when you scroll into view, it mounts the component. Now, on Elder.js next what we do is we have a requestIdleCallback as the default, so now it's essentially going to -- whenever your browser's not doing anything, it's going to be hydrated. But you can override all of those features by just saying - hydration options is very clearly spelled out in the documentation... You can do it the moment the page is loaded, it can be preloaded... You can do all these different things. The assets can be preloaded. The JavaScript can be so it executes faster. In general, Svelte components mount pretty quickly, and if you're mounting very large Svelte components, what we're doing on FindEnergy - they need a lot of data; it can be a little bit slower if you're using that prop compression idea that I had suggested. In my experience, that can be like 36 milliseconds or something like that, on really major amounts of data; sometimes a bit higher on slower browsers, but in general, I haven't seen any input delay issues. And if you see them, please let me know, because I'd love to troubleshoot those.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[43:49\] So a couple of other things as we're winding down here... But I think these are important. Production, installations and stability. So one thing that we're all aware of in the JavaScript space is how fast everything moves and changes. And one thing that caught my eye about Elder - you say it right there on the homepage - is that stability is a priority for you.
+
+**Nick Reese:** Basically, I'm committed to funding or personally developing the site until 2023 or 2024. As long as I have sites that are in production that are running on it, it's going to be maintained. That's essentially the reality of it. Today I essentially run a -- you could call it a startup studio, where I make several different investments in different sites, and I have different projects that all run on Elder.js... And I don't see that ending any time soon, because some of these projects are starting to get substantial traction. As soon as the projects are self-sustaining, someone's gonna be hired to maintain Elder.js full-time. That's my goal.
+
+We're seeing this iteration on our properties where - static site generation is great, but sometimes when you're dealing with content-heavy sites, you need real-time feedback, so server-side rendering is important. That is backwards-compatible. You can basically upgrade Elder.js to the latest. I try to keep so few breaking changes... The only thing that's changed is a couple hook interfaces, a couple entries where they've been added. There's been more permissions added to it. My goal is to keep it backwards-compatible so that I don't have my own upgrading issues. But as far as server-side rendering - I was able to fit that right in, without any breaking changes, and now you have an upgrade path to go right to server-side rendering if you need it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So a stable API plus a committed team until 2023-2024 is kind of your plan; of course, you've got all these sites in production, so you're highly motivated to at least make sure it keeps building as the web changes. Tell us about some of the production installs, because this is one of the things where like - when the rubber hits the road, software that's used to build real things I think is more valuable than software that's supposed to be used to build real things... And a lot of our stuff - we hope it's adopted, we hope it's used, so we can tend to get somewhat... I think there's an old term, architecture astronaut. I don't know, you can tend to kind of develop things in a silo -- or not a silo, but in a vacuum, and they don't get used. But this has been used since day one, so I just wanna emphasize how much that actually matters with software. This is driving real-world sites, and you have - how many sites that are in production? Of course, ElderGuide.com, and you also just mentioned another one. Tell us about some of the installs, and maybe how many pages they have.
+
+**Nick Reese:** There's five that I personally manage, and there's two that I talk about publicly. One is ElderGuide, another is FindEnergy. FindEnergy is kind of the latest and greatest. This is where we've been -- if you look at the Git history, there's been a flurry of activity; it's because we were shipping that, and that added a whole bunch of features and a whole bunch of plugins that site needed... And I had already done the work, so we might as well open source it.
+
+Essentially, my business model, like I was saying, is find huge amounts of government data, make sense of it, and make tools for users to make informed decisions. Both of these businesses - ElderGuides traffic growth is going great. FindEnergy has just launched, so we'll see where it goes. I also have a couple others that I don't talk about, where the traffic growth is off the charts, which is pretty nice.
+
+It's working... And I built it for my own needs, and I'm sharing it because I want to improve as a person, and I think it's interesting to give back to the community. For a long time I was the guy that was like "WordPress is free." And it's like "I got this. I can build sites for free." And I feel like I can go back and give back now in a way that I just couldn't before. So that's really important.
+
+For me, on the different sites, it's like - having control of something and adding features based on my experience is really useful. Something we haven't touched base on is shortcodes. I think shortcodes -- I'm just very surprised they're not popularized in the JavaScript community. When you have static content, and you have a team that's managing static content, they don't wanna touch code, and you don't wanna have to interface with that team, you just wanna empower them. And shortcodes are a fantastic way to future-proof content. Instead of embedding a YouTube embed 50 different times, 50 different embeds, you just copy that off of YouTube, you can create one shortcode, and then when your content team needs to put out a video, they use that shortcode, and suddenly YouTube changes the embed code; you change it in one place. It future-proofs your content.
+
+\[47:58\] For me, Elder.js is always going to have the things that we need to build flagship SEO sites... Because we need them. And I see no downside to open sourcing it, because SEO is a hard game. If other teams start adopting this framework - great. I hope they contribute to it. And to be 100% honest, one of the other driving factors for releasing Elder.js is hiring is really hard. Hiring talented developers is hard, and if you have people who are picking up a cutting edge framework and they're using Svelte, and they're kind of at the bleeding edge, you have passionate people. When I'm in the hiring seat, so to speak, it's a lot harder to see if someone's really passionate. But already, I'm hiring people out of the Svelte community because they are passionate; they're using Elder.js, they know Svelte... And I'm looking for people that have diverse backgrounds. One guy is amazing at huge datasets. Can he pick up Svelte and Elder.js? He picked it up super-fast.
+
+So part of it for Elder.js - it's a way of hiring for me. It's also a way of casting that net, because hiring is expensive and hard. Finding good people is really what makes a difference in a business. So there's a lot of motivating factors for me to continue maintaining it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Nick, I have a burning question that I can't believe we haven't asked yet... So why Svelte? And really, also given that you're a fan of moving fast - you know, working in a bleeding edge ecosystem has its perks, but also downsides, because you don't have as much of an ecosystem, so you can't just like use the table library as easily, and use the drag and drop library as easily, or whatever; so the composability ecosystem isn't as mature. So I'm just curious, why Svelte, and why did you put your money on Svelte, even given that it's bleeding edge? Then also I'm curious what's the productionization process like, and how has it been limiting or enabling? I'm curious to hear how you feel about that.
+
+**Nick Reese:** Great question. On my end, I find that -- basically, I'd built a couple sites with Gatsby, so I was familiar with React... I felt like it was just massive overkill. I tried Vue, I had built a production app with Vue on BusinessInternet.com, and it was super-early days when I had done that. I've found its API a little hard to use, and so I was trying out Svelte on a vacation, as one does. I was like "There's this new library, let's see what this looks like." I went to the tutorials, and I was like "This just makes sense." You get basically the single-file components with interactivity that is super-easy to maintain and reason about; you get stores, so you don't have to deal with Redux or any of the other magic that needs to happen to keep things in sync... And yeah, it just seemed like it was an obvious choice.
+
+So when I started building ElderGuide, I tried to use Sapper, which is now SvelteKit, and I found it was too hard to reason about what was running on the server and what was running on the client. That was the main catalyst -- well, that and the builds of like a 4,000, 5,000-page site when it was taking an incredible amount of time. And with Elder.js, I'm like "This has to be faster." And part of the problem is many of these static site generators, what they do is they spin up a headless browser and they crawl your site, like a bot would do. One of the key things that Elder.js did from the beginning was "We need you to define all of your requests upfront, unless you're using server-side rendering", and that allows us to have a superpower where we can build everything in parallel.
+
+In some cases there was one user that was testing Elder.js against Hugo, and we were beating Hugo on like 10,000-page sites. So the JavaScript can be very fast if you're thinking about it and you have all the data upfront.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Well, before you go on to that, to bring it full-circle - it really did help you move faster, the simplicity of Svelte. There's some wind there that was worth it for y'all, right?
+
+**Nick Reese:** Definitely. A good example is that I've worked with the same HTML/CSS guy for years. He knows some JavaScript, and he picked up Vue... He's been someone that I've worked with for a long time, and I was like "Hey, try this out. Tell me what you think." He's like "I can do things that I never thought I could do." Giving people superpowers allows a small team to move much faster, and I think Svelte does that in a way that I didn't see in the Vue or React ecosystems.
+
+\[52:08\] So yeah, you don't have the huge libraries, you don't have React Table or any of these other major libraries, but building a table interface is an hour work. It's not that hard to make your own reusable components. We haven't been limited by that at all. In a lot of ways -- we also probably ship a lot less JavaScript, because we write it all in-house.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Very cool. Well, we have to wrap here. Of course, listeners, all the links to all the things, ElderGuide and Elder.js, and any other links that Nick gives -- I'm sure he'll give us a bunch, because he's the SEO guy... So we'll link them up in the show notes for you guys to click through on.
+
+Kbal, Amal, thanks so much for hanging out with us. I wanted to give a shout-out to a couple upcoming episodes. Kball's doing a cool interview about JavaScript on WASM. WASM will be back. We have a show with Feross, we're gonna dive into his Wormhole app, which is a really cool new project from Feross; we'll dive deep into that. And we also have Kent C. Dodds coming soon to JS Party, talking advanced React concepts. So that's just a few shows we have coming down the pipeline... So definitely subscribe if you haven't, and do come and join is live, each and every Thursday at 1 PM US Eastern time, hang out in the JS Party channel of our chat, and party with us y'all, because it's lots of fun as we record.
+
+Nick, we really appreciate you coming on the show, we appreciate you kicking your impostor syndrome in the face... And open sourcing Elder and getting all the goods.
+
+**Nick Reese:** Thanks for having me. It's been a blast.
+
+**Outro**: \[53:35\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I 100% talk to my code.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You talk TO your code?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah. Especially debugging.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** What do you say to it? Like, "Come on, code, you can do it."
+
+**Kevin Ball:** "Ah-hah! I've found ya, ya stinkin' bug!"
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] Well, that's talking to the bug. But do you talk to your code, like maybe in an encouraging fashion? Like, "Come on, little guy, you can do it!"
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I'd be like "What are you doing?!"
+
+**Jerod Santo:** "Just go ahead and finish that loop out! Come on!"
+
+**Kevin Ball:** It's more like -- yeah, it's a dialogue. It's like "What exactly is going on here? What do you think you're doing? Okay, what you think you're doing is not what I think you're doing, so somewhere in here we have a mismatch."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Nice. How about you, Amal? Do you talk to your code?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I think talk is an understatement.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Hah! Okay...
+
+**Break**: \[55:04\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Break right here? Break. That was a great ending to the thing. You know how these things go...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, sorry I cursed.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You didn't curse. You said "asinine". That's a word.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, I don't know if "asinine" is like a curse or not, so...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I don't know what the FAA, or whatever... PAA regulations are. I don't know. Just kidding.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Aidan says it's the FCC that would be blocking us for the word "asinine", not the FAA.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, I know. I was just --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You can't say "asinine" on an airplane. Then the FAA comes after you.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's hilarious, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** By the way, Amal, you've made the soundboard. Are you ready? \[soundboard\] "Web lovers." So... There you go.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh. Love it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Do you remember that?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yes, I do.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We've been working on the soundboard and you're on there.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's awesome.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Kball still hasn't gotten on the soundboard.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I think that's okay.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We're just waiting for Kball to say something stupid -- I mean, cool enough...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Stupid... \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I feel like every episode I have something stupid, so it's just what you wanna pick...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Is "Web lovers" stupid? \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** No, it's awesome.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Web lovers...! Oh, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[soundboard\] "You did not just say that." Alright, let's get back to the show.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[laughs\] That's awesome.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[soundboard\] "Ah-hah! I've found ya, ya stinkin' bug!"
diff --git a/The decentralized future_transcript.txt b/The decentralized future_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2234956a616c72bcea1a4630f2ce53d96e13c3bc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/The decentralized future_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,443 @@
+**Amal Hussein:** Hi, everyone! We are so, so excited for today's episode. This is a hot topic, y'all, so everybody, get your popcorn, get comfortable... We're gonna dive in pretty deep. We have a very, very special guest with us today, Nader Dabit. Hello, Nader. Welcome.
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Thank you so much for having me on. I'm really excited to be here, and I'm really excited for the convo today.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, we're excited, too. I should say I'm probably gonna turn off my Twitter mentions after this goes live... \[laughter\] Just kidding, just kidding. No, we'll keep it positive. With me today co-hosting is Jerod. Hi, Jerod.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Hi. And you know what, I brought some sunglasses... I thought maybe I'd throw these once, since this is such a cool topic... The future, right?
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Nice!
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, my God... Jerod, those glasses look amazing on you.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Thank you. \[song excerpt, Corey Heart - Sunglasses at night 00:03:41.09\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I think you should just always wear them. You should be like those rappers that wear sunglasses indoors...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Just every episode?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah... \[laughs\] It looks good. A good look.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I'm sold.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[03:55\] Yeah, good look, good look. So we've invited Nader today to talk about the decentralized future, and Web3, and crypto, and all the buzzwords that kind of go into that space. Nader is a great guest, because he, like many of our listeners, has a web development background, and kind of really made a very intentional pivot into Ethereum development over the past year, maybe, Nader...? It's been a year now?
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Yeah, it was six months ago.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, six months. Not even. Alright. So with that said, Nader, why don't you give us your back-story? We don't have time to get into your full origin story. There's a great Changelog episode that Nader was on in 2008, that we'll link in the notes, so you can learn more about Nader's background... But we're gonna start at AWS. So you were director, or lead, or something at AWS, and then you were like "I'm done." Tell us about that.
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Yeah. Well, I was at AWS for over three years, like almost 3,5 years, and I was leading the developer relations team for frontend, web and mobile, which is -- AWS has partitioned different groups that work on things. There's like the Alexa group, there's the serverless group... And I was on the frontend, web and mobile, so we were kind of building out SDKs for web and mobile developers, as well as tooling, and stuff.
+
+So yeah, I was leading the developer relations team, or developer advocacy team for the last year, a little over a year, and before that, I was just a developer advocate for the previous two years. So I was there for a little over three years; I really, I would say, learned the most of any role I've ever had while I was at AWS. I made some really great connections, and friends, and... It was just a really good experience overall. I would not go back and change anything about it.
+
+But while being there, I would say for the last year or so I did become a little bit bored, and just uninspired, a little bit, by my day-to-day work... And this was also during Covid, so it's kind of hard to tell exactly the root cause. And honestly, we're lucky to be able to even decide "Hey, I'm bored. Let me try something new." But that's kind of the way I felt. I wanted to try something new.
+
+So I started keeping my eyes out for opportunities over the course of that year. I was interviewing, I was talking to people, I was reading, and I was learning... And I was just looking for the next thing that kind of sparked that original spark that I had when I first started becoming a developer; really, when I joined AWS, I had that feeling when I was working on serverless stuff... And I still like serverless stuff, it's really interesting to me, but it doesn't make me wanna wake up and be excited and happy for my day. It's kind of like looking for that thing. And I had a lot of really great opportunities that started coming around because of just being a developer for ten years, and having that experience... You start landing some good opportunities.
+
+One of the areas that I started exploring was crypto and Web3. I had some really great opportunities that were like senior and principal level within AWS, and then outside of AWS, that actually paid twice as much as what I ultimately took in the Web3 space, but they weren't things that I was excited to go do...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** No magic feeling, right?
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Yeah, no magic feeling... And again, how fortunate was I to even be able to say something like that, right? So I recognized all that stuff. But I was looking for something, the next thing to excite me. I'd been speculating as an investor in crypto since like 2015, so buying and selling Bitcoin back in the day, and then other things more recently... And one of the ones that I looked into was something called the Graph Protocol. And it was the first time I kind of looked past the token as an investment and tried to understand why it was there and why people were buying it and using it... And when I started kind of looking into that project, the first thing I realized was that they were using GraphQL, and that was kind of like a big part of it... And that was really the first big eye-opening moment for me as a developer, when I started realizing that these tokens and these crypto-economic protocols were actually there for something other than speculation... Because honestly, at that point, even 6-7 months ago, I didn't understand how smart contracts work. I didn't understand anything past just buying and selling.
+
+\[08:12\] So I started diving into why they use GraphQL, and that kind of took me down what a lot of people call this rabbit hole of the entire ecosystem, and Web3, and all of the people, all of the communities, all of the projects and all of the stuff happening. Conferences, all types of stuff. And I became really, really fascinated, and I became really excited, and I wanted to continue doing research. I started reading and I started buying books, and really getting -- I couldn't stop thinking about it. It was one of those things, like "Oh, this is freaking cool." The reason that these things have become popular isn't just because it's like another currency, but there's actually other stuff... And when you start peeling back the layers and seeing all this stuff, it really spoke to me as an engineer, because the problems that they were solving and the stuff that they were doing seemed so much more fun and interesting than anything I'd worked on really in my career, ever.
+
+So yeah, at that point I did start considering "What if I wanted to make a move in this industry?", but it wasn't really anything I took too seriously, because of a bunch of different reasons... One of those being it just seemed so risky to me to turn down a half a million dollar type of opportunity that I had on the table to maybe join an industry that I knew nothing about; and I had zero experience... Like, why would anyone hire me anyway? And if I did, would I be successful? That's kind of where I was maybe a couple of weeks before I ultimately tried to get into the role I'm in now. So that's hopefully an overview of how I decided to even consider this area.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You said they were solving problems that were more exciting... Can you give us some examples of what problems were being solved in this industry specifically?
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Yeah, so at AWS - and really, within the Web community - for the past few years we were doing some really great stuff around improving the developer experience, improving the user experience... When you're in the area that I was in, like JAMstack, and also mobile development, we seemed to be solving kind of the same problems over and over and over. We had WordPress as the CMS like 10-15 years ago, whatever... The big rage at the time was like JAMstack and CMSes. So I felt like we're basically rebuilding a CMS over and over and over, and that was one of the really hot things that I felt like was cool, but it wasn't revolutionary, and it wasn't that huge of a deal.
+
+We were doing fun stuff, and cool stuff, but it wasn't anything that was brand new... Whereas I felt like some of this stuff in the Web3 space that I'll talk about in just a moment was kind of brand new... But yeah, I was just getting tired of seeing, and even crating myself, like "Oh, here's how you create a blog using this stack." We've created like millions of blog posts about how to create a blog. There's thousands of ways to do it. It just wasn't that interesting to me. So I would say that's kind of the feeling that I was having around some of the stuff we were doing.
+
+Databases are cool, but we were just rebuilding the same types of databases over and over, and... You know, people really have to go into details to even understand the differences between this new SQL database versus the other dozen SQL databases that were already out there. And I think when I started looking into Web3 and crypto, I started seeing that there were a multitude of different, interesting problems that some of them were in the process of being solved, some of them were theoretical and they haven't been solved yet... And some of them kind of have been solved, and they're iterating on new, improved ways of making that technology better.
+
+But really, the captivating thing I think is around how digital currency and how tokenomics work, and how they can incentivize ways of collaboration, and also enable people to make money in places in the world maybe that they had seen a lot of less opportunity in the past... And the types of applications that people were building were kind of interesting...
+
+\[12:10\] I would say a really great example of something that is concrete, that people can go and kind of look at and see the possible future repercussions of, that is happening almost as we speak, is this game called Axie Infinity. This is a game that is putting into practice a lot of the Web3 ideas... And Axie Infinity is a game that is revolutionary in a few different ways.
+
+Before I talk about Axie, let me talk about Fortnite. I have a couple of kids, and one of their favorite games is Fortnite. Fortnite was really also kind of revolutionary. They gave the game away for free, and it was kind of like the first, I would say, big hit video game, like on Nintendo, or one of those platforms that people were able to get for free, that blew up and made a lot of money. So how did they make the money? Well, they enabled digital currency. They enabled also skins, which were clothing, and stuff like that.
+
+So those two things were huge... And I spend now a couple hundred dollars a year on Fortnite for my kids, where in the past we would have paid like $80 for a game, and you never would have paid again. That was like the old way. The new way is like, you're paying every month or every year money for your kids to play these games, because they--
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I like the old way better.
+
+**Nader Dabit:** ...they've now enabled payments within the game. \[laughter\] But what is the problem with that? Well, I wouldn't say that this is a problem, it's more of like a limitation. The limitation there is like when the kid outgrows the game, then you've now dumped a thousand dollars into this thing and nothing has come of it. Maybe they've had a great time, and maybe that's enough; that is a good thing, right? Maybe having fun is good enough. But what if instead, people can actually take the value that they've put into the platform, and maybe get some of the return of their investment back? Or maybe they can give it away to someone else and have them use it, and have a really, really easy way to do that.
+
+So Axie Infinity kind of took those ideas of what Fortnite has, along with some of the Web3 ideas, and they've built this game that allows players to earn in-game currency; and they can also buy it. But they can also resell that on a liquid market. So as you play the game, you're getting paid, essentially, to play... And it's not a ton of money for maybe someone like a software engineer, but for people in other parts of the world, they're actually able to quit their jobs, and they're making more money, sometimes orders of magnitude more money just playing this game, than they would be able to working in like a local area, using their skillset.
+
+So when I started learning about stuff like this - this is an example that kind of excites me, just because it's so revolutionary... And applying these same ideas in a bunch of different areas maybe in the future is also really exciting. And I think the idea is -- like, having the combination of the technology to make it happen, the actual implementation that's successful, and then all of the different areas that have yet to be applied is very exciting, because that means we're kind of still early in on making these changes, but we can see that they are actually things that can be applied, and they can be successful.
+
+So yeah, that's kind of like -- I don't know if I went too far into a tangent there...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's a good example.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, good example, a welcome tangent... I think a good case study too, for some of these ideas, and also just being able to share and reuse wealth in some ways... But bring this conversation back to the What a little bit. First of all, I just wanna say really quickly, I 100% agree with you - web developers, we are reinventing the wheel in different ways, and it is a point of huge frustration for me... But that's a topic for another show; we'll have to do that another time.
+
+But to kind of bring this conversation back - so you are really a person who is very prominent in the educator community, and you are really big on teaching, and sharing your knowledge... And it's so funny - a fish swims, a bird flies, Nader teaches, Nader gets into this crypto space, Nader is new to this space, and the first thing Nader does is write a full guide on full-stack Ethereum development, and it goes crazy viral. So can you tell us about that? What that was like, and what inspired you to do that, and then what's life been like after...
+
+**Nader Dabit:** \[16:21\] Yeah. I guess taking a couple of steps back from that, going back to when I did decide to kind of actually take the plunge and take a role here in this space - I had been investigating a handful of protocols, and I ended up coming back... There was maybe a half dozen or so projects that I was like "Okay, I would love to work with these people", based on my initial investigation, and stuff... But the one that I ended up coming back to was the Graph Protocol, mainly because I was like, if anyone's gonna hire me, I have a ton of GraphQL experience, so maybe they would be like "Okay, let's give this person a shot."
+
+So I ended up applying, and getting the interview, and throughout the interview process I just felt like I was not good enough, and I wasn't experienced enough... Because a lot of the stuff they were talking about was way over my head, just because it's a completely different area that I've ever been in, again... But ultimately, I met the team, we talked about it, I learned that almost everyone coming into this space today has zero experience in this space. Why? Mainly because it's growing so rapidly that there is no existing pool of talent to draw from, so they have to draw from the Web 2 world, or even just other parts of the world. Anyone that has applicable experience, community experience, and other stuff.
+
+So I ended up interviewing, getting an offer, and taking the role. And it was a very, very, at the time, kind of scary decision for me... Because I did take about half as much money as I could have taken somewhere else... And I am joining a team that literally just created this new company about a month before I started interviewing... So a brand new company, less money, industry I'd never been a part of... It was all brand new to me, and rolling the dice almost, you could say. My mom and dad thought I was crazy... My wife is 100% always behind me though, so at least I have that going for me... But even after I took the offer, I was worried about how people in my network were gonna basically react to this... Because I've been so heavily in other communities before. This is such a big shift. But I knew that the things that were interesting to me had to be interesting to other people, because - how could they not be, when people actually maybe understand some of this stuff. That's at least what I was thinking.
+
+So the first glimpse that I got that people would be interested is I just sent out a tweet that was saying, "Hey, I'm writing this guide for building out a full-stack Ethereum app." I forgot exactly the way I had phrased it... But it got way, way more attention than I ever expected it to be.
+
+So that was my first glimpse in the demand or the interest in this type of content, ever, just from my perspective, in my network.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I was wondering actually if you could just double-click on that a little bit. So what I find really interesting about the crypto space in general is, unlike the stock markets, the crypto markets are 24/7, and then they're global. So it's like -- I just feel like that alone just creates a massive scale, for anything. If you're having a conference, or a webinar, or whatever - it's like, all of a sudden your audience just like 100x-es or 1,000x-es. I'm just curious if that's a little bit of what you experienced as well... You had a much wider group of people that were all of a sudden interested in what you had to say?
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Yeah, it was just definitely not expected, but it was very welcome to me, seeing it... Because I was really worried about "Okay, what if I go into this and it's not what I thought it was?" Or maybe I go into this and I'm able to not really network and create the relationships -- or really keep the relationships that I had in the past with people that I really cared about, and I always wanted to continue building those relationships. It is a 24/7 market, but it's also an accessible market, that doesn't need anyone to tell you that you can participate or you can't participate.
+
+\[20:14\] I think one of the biggest things that is interesting to me around any revolutionary technology is that it really is something that abstracts away something that in the past needed a lot more time, effort, work, and people to kind of make work... And to me, what you're seeing now, especially if you look at stuff like decentralized finance, where you have these multi-billion-dollar protocols that are doing the same work with about a dozen or two dozen people, that in the past would have taken orders of magnitude more people... So we're talking about thousands or tens of thousands of people within a traditional banking system to operate the types of operations, combining both software and physical locations and all this other stuff, that are now being done and abstracted away by teams of much smaller people... So that really excited me. The fact that anyone in the entire world can create a wallet and get paid really excited me.
+
+One of the things that really excited me at first, honestly, was also the idea of stablecoins. When I knew about crypto, I only knew about Bitcoin and Ethereum, and that they'd go up and down every day like crazy... But in reality, some of the most interesting stuff is happening in stablecoins. And stablecoins are pegged against another piece of value in the actual physical world. And this isn't that important for people in the U.S, whose U.S. dollar is very stable, but in other parts of the world, it's actually really possibly game-changing, because if your currency goes up and down like Ethereum goes up and down, or even more -- let's say that it goes down to almost nothing, like it happens all the time, what if instead you could be able to have a very easy way to get paid and hold on to your value in a currency that stays the same?
+
+I think this has really hit home for me, because I had had a family member that was visiting -- or not visiting, he actually had to move from Lebanon to the United States as an economic refugee, because all of their businesses, and even their life savings and stuff ended up being stuck in one of the banks in Lebanon, because of the financial and political crisis that they're having over there... And having a conversation with him, and seeing how someone's life can completely be ruined almost by the limitations in centralized authorities. A lot of it has to do with money; people don't wanna sometimes say that money is that important... Most logical people do, but there are people that will say "Oh, this isn't perfect, so let's not even consider it", and then they're sitting back on their half a million dollar or a hundred thousand dollar a year salaries, saying that "This solution isn't perfect yet, so let's not use it." Meanwhile, people are literally having to flee their home country and lose all their s\*\*t because the thing that may not be perfect would actually have saved them a lot.
+
+I kind of have gone off on slightly of a tangent there, but that is some of the stuff that I would say interested me about this space when I decided to ultimately make the move into it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Let me throw in another factor on the interest around this full-stack Ethereum blog post... Because there's a lot of facets here, and I find it very interesting. Amal, you mentioned the global aspect and the 24-hour aspect... There's another dimension here, which is that every cryptocurrency has built into it a set of fanboys/girls...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** They do.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You can call them fanboys. I'm happy to be a fanboy.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, fair enough.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I've got ladyparts, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[23:50\] So if you think about it, Nader - let's say you were gonna put out a post like "Hey, I'm about to write a full-stack blog engine on AWS Lambda." Who's going to engage with that content and who's going to promote that content? Well, you have you and your immediate friends, and people in your sphere of influence. You have people who are legitimately trying to learn AWS, so they're after that content, because they wanna build a career on that, and then you have people that work for and around, and are like partners with Amazon and AWS, and that's like the people who are gonna amplify and be interested in that particular piece of content. That might be a lot of people.
+
+But then when you go to an Ethereum blog post and you think about who's interested in promoting that kind of content, there's an entire third party, which is the bagholders...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Yeah, the people that are invested into that community.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** The speculators!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It is what it is. And I think it's actually -- I think it has pros and cons, because each one of these companies who builds in this space has a mechanism by which they have "investors", some who are serious, and some who are just riding the waves, who are basically invested in the success of that thing... So a lot of the amplification, a lot of that noise, good or bad - I think it's both - is because we have incentivized parties... It's almost like you're the fan of a football team; that's how much they care about these things... So it's very interesting, just culturally, what's going on here.
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Yeah, those are actually fascinating points to me, because it is fundamental to how this space actually works. It also applies to a lot of different things in the Web3 space; the idea of ownership. Being an owner of Ethereum means you're part of -- you could almost think of it as buying stock in something like Tesla, or something. You want that company to win. I think one of the main differences here is that you're part-owner of some token, and you might want that token to succeed, and you might be out there hyping it up... But you can also build software and applications with it. You can transact in the way that you might have in the bank with the U.S. dollar, but you probably don't go out there and try to have the U.S. dollar succeed or fail. It's not even probably an after-thought. Of course, you don't want it to fail, but yeah, with the cryptocurrency you can kind of do all of these different things with it...
+
+And it does provide incentives, in good and bad ways... So if the Graph token, for example, which is one of the tokens -- I would say it's the token that the Graph Network uses to make it function... People that have bought it in a speculative way might come into one of my tweets and say something stupid, because the Graph went up or down too much that week or that month, and they're upset. So you end up having people that are interested either in the technology, or they're not and they're just speculating... You have all these people in the same discussions, in the same communities, and it's definitely different.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That is really interesting. There's so much to discuss here; there's a lot to unpack. So we're gonna get into Web3... Why? Why now? All that stuff, in the next segment. So we're gonna take a little break, folks. Be right back...
+
+**Break:** \[26:59\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So you announced this full-stack Ethereum post... Tons of interest, you started working on it... What's been the ramifications, or the pros and cons? What happened after that? Tell us the rest of the story.
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Yeah, so the reason I wrote the blog post, coming back to that, is kind of like - when I first took the role, I wanted to start off by understanding, of course, how the stack works for building a Web3 app, or building a dApp is what they call it (decentralized app), so I started immediately kind of diving into all of this technology, all of these new tools, and things like that, and even a new programming language. And the first thing I realized was that there wasn't a really great place for me to go and get all this information in one place. What I ended up doing was kind of bouncing all over the place. I would go to one YouTube video and learn one thing, I would go to some set of documentation and learn a different thing... And then I would go and try to put all of these things together myself... And then I've maybe found one or two videos that tried to string them together, but --
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Are you trying to say that you centralized this information, Nader?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Aaahhh...!
+
+**Nader Dabit:** I centralized this information. \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You centralized dApp info. Got it. \[laughter\] Also, by the way, dApp - awesome acronym. dApp - that's amazing. I feel like that could be in a rap song, I feel like that could be a product, like an exercise product...
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Yeah...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I don't know, anyways. Or a dance move, dApp...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There you go, Amal. If you put dApp in a rap...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, dApp in a rap... Or it could be a dance move, like you're dApping...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Isn't that a move? Oh no, that's --
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I know...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...that's dab.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, exactly. Anywise, sorry. Distracted. So you were looking at YouTube links, and blogs, everything was everywhere...
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Yeah, so I was like "I'm gonna document essentially my learning process, and find all of the most modern tooling, and show people how to put all this stuff together and build a full-stack app. Because for me, again, I was coming from the AWS Amplify serverless world, and one of the things I was always interested in was putting the pieces together and building out full-stack applications... Because to me, people, when they accomplish building out something that they can actually run in their browser and interact with - it feels like they've not only accomplished something, but they understand how all this works together... So I always felt like that's important, to put all these things together...
+
+So yeah, I've put together a blog post, I talked to a few engineering teams in the space, asked them what their stack was, and used that stack to create an example project, and I tried to implement a lot of the most important ideas into a single blog post.
+
+So yeah, I put that together and I launched that, and it actually did so much better than anything really I'd ever written before in my life, in that set amount of time at least. I have stuff that has had more reads over time, but in a couple of months it had been read - or watched, because I ended up creating a YouTube video of it as well - well over 250,000 times. So to me, that was really awesome; it was exciting for that many people to be excited about it, but it was also pretty eye-opening that people were that interested in this stuff.
+
+So it really was altogether a great success for me, I was happy with it. It made me realize that people are hungry to learn this type of stuff, and let's get more people out there talking about it and doing it... So I think, of course, because of what I did, but it just happened so maybe that I'm coming into this space at the time that other people are starting to become interested, and we're starting to just see a lot more people doing stuff here in Web3, creating learning materials, creating companies, creating DAOs, all kinds of stuff. So yeah, in the last six months it seems to have really been blowing up.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[32:01\] There's something really magical about getting into a growing ecosystem in community early. Rust has been kind of going through this, and Node had that 12 years ago, where someone made the first CLI command parser package, Yargs, and Yargs is the official golden standard; no one's made a better thing that was as widely adopted since. It's almost like whoever gets there first gets to claim or set the tone...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** When Node first launched, it was like - there was nothing. And Ryan Dahl was like "We need packages." So it was fertile ground for anybody to get in early and lay claim, like you said.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, exactly. Lay claim, I think that's exactly the terminology, Jerod. So I think what's really interesting to me is that you're kind of coming in at the kind of peak, tip of the spear, best-in-class technology background for web development. You're coming in from Amplify, and serverless, and performant React applications... So I think for me, someone with your background getting into this space, and then trying to make a full-stack application - I truly feel like you probably were making something that was very unique and one of a kind, in many ways. I don't know how many people in that space have your background, or the capacity to use the latest and greatest of web tech to create a dApp. See, I used it in a sentence, everyone. dApp, dApp...
+
+**Nader Dabit:** \[laughs\] Very good.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well played.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** But yeah, I don't know Nader - would you say that was your experience?
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Yeah, and another thing that I think is a huge deal, that maybe had a lot to do with the interest that was there was that - to me, up until (I would say) I started following other people in the Web3 space, I felt like the communities were very siloed. Either that, or I just was completely unaware of what was going on... But I could probably point to a time late last year where my entire Twitter feed for days, weeks or months even wouldn't even really mention anything about blockchain, or crypto, or Web3... And that has completely changed now. Of course, I've started following a lot of other people, but I think also what that told me was that there wasn't a lot of overlap between the communities.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Nader Dabit:** There wasn't a lot of people in the React community, speaking at conferences, but also building blockchain stuff... And there wasn't, vice versa, people that were in this space, out there being involved in the React communities, at least not a lot of that. There may have been some, but I didn't see a lot. So I think that being able to have a massive following of people on different channels, including my blog, and just being able to expose them to some of these ideas was just probably a good mix of people that were interested and hadn't seen a lot of this stuff, and me being able to kind of like be the person to show it to them.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, there's one other person that comes to mind... I'll try to find her name at some point during this show... I think Preethi, something...
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Right, yeah, yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, she spoke a bunch of React conferences, and I think was kind of prominent in the React space, and she transitioned over into the blockchain world... But she transitioned like 3 years ago, four years ago... It's been a while.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Another thing that's happening is that there's more opportunities now, in addition to the speculation, because there's now more use cases. We're also in a bull run for cryptocurrencies, so that's gonna bring in more people, of course... But back when Ethereum first launched, you had the DAO use case, the ICO, so you had the crowd investment use case... There really wasn't much else you could do with these things besides speculate. And then the DeFi thing started to happen - decentralized finance - and I think there's a lot of snake oil in that whole deal, but maybe it's just unregulated markets; I don't know, there's some features there for lending stuff that's cool, maybe... And then what happened recently, in addition to the stuff you all are talking about, is NFTs really have become this interesting, wild, new use case for these decentralized networks... And a lot of people wanna mint NFTs and don't know how to... So what do they do? They hire somebody who can do that for them.
+
+So there's lots of opportunities to get involved in and around building auction houses, and minting platforms... So this is really brand new. I mean, 2020, 2021... I'm not sure how long it's been going, but the NFT thing is very real. Now, maybe it's just a fad, but it seems like a legitimate use case that's bringing lots of people to the table.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[36:21\] Yeah.
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Yeah, NFT is a whole different, completely new area as well. When people are asking "What is Web3?", it's kind of hard to even explain it in one sentence without sounding kind of like crazy, because there's so many different things. I think fundamentally why is this stuff happening, or why are these new ideas being able to start to come to fruition right now - I think when you fundamentally look at the technological changes that have happened, there really has only been one change... When the internet first came into existence and we started seeing a lot of developers building things, a lot of the reason that we were able to come to a consensus around how to build stuff and have things that all of us understand how to use, no matter where we are in the world... For instance, like HTTP, a protocol that we can all trust, that we can use and interact with without a centralized intermediary, or because of protocols that people have created, that are consistent, that anyone can use. So SSH, HTTP, TCP - all these things are part of how the internet functions; it doesn't matter where you are. And that means we have certain types of functionality that we can program into the internet, but we have certain types of functionality that we cannot program.
+
+The two main things that have been enabled by blockchain technology, that were not available before, that we had to make up for, were programmable digital scarcity, a.k.a. money, and also state. So the way that we got around that in the past was building out massively complex infrastructures to support that.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Wait, when you say "state", what is state? State as in like state-state? Like, literally state?
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Yeah, state, like saving information.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, yeah. I just wanna make sure that's the state that we're talking about. Okay...
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Yeah. So when you look at the PayPal founders, if you kind of listen to how they describe creating that company, it sounded kind of like a nightmare. The way that they describe all the stuff that they had to do to get this thing functioning, they basically were saying that -- I forgot which founder said this, but they thought that no one would ever build anything to compete with them because of how complex it was to make that a thing.
+
+So to enable digital payments, all of these millions of dollars and all of these hundreds and thousands of hours of work, from thousands or tens of thousands of people, along with all of this massively complex infrastructure had to be put in place... And even then, it's still not idea, because in order to use that, you have to be an elite person, especially at first to have used it, because you couldn't have used that all around the world. And even today, there are two billion people probably that can't access it, because you have to have all of these things put in place to use them.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Like a traditional bank account?
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Yeah, we have a way to actually get around that by programming our own digital scarcity. All you have to have is an internet browser. You can now receive and send payments between parties.
+
+The other thing is state. So to save information - how do we do that today? Well, we have a centralized database somewhere, like AWS, that if we don't pay the bill, goes away forever and we lose all of our information. Maybe the data leaks, maybe it gets hacked, or maybe we just -- I don't know, there's all types of stuff... Maybe it goes down because AWS has an outage in U.S. East 1. But there are a lot of things that are not ideal, and I think that with blockchain technology we've unlocked native payments and native state... And early on, with Bitcoin, it kind of jsut showed that these types of decentralized protocols were possible, but you couldn't really write a program in Bitcoin. And I think the reason that you're seeing it start to become a thing now is that the evolution of that technology and the improvement - you've had increased transactions per second, so higher throughput per second, reduced costs...
+
+\[40:07\] For instance, Solana is a good example of a blockchain that has fractions of a penny for a transaction... So you have all of these things that are kind of happening, that are now starting to become mature enough for people to build on, that people are taking advantage of them... And the things that they're unleashing are also, I would say, really interesting to people that are developers already, but they also enable people to make money. In the United States, where we can make like a couple hundred grand a year for a senior developer, we might not be that interested in this stuff... But let's say you're making 10k as an intermediate or senior developer somewhere else in the world, and you can partake in a protocol and increase your wage by 10x because all these projects are international and they're completely decentralized, and they'll hire anyone, anywhere, it doesn't matter where you live... It's just very, very interesting to a lot of people.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And that's a really good segue into what I really wanted to get into in this segment, which is Web3. So let's break it down as much as we can...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** What is it?!
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right, what is it, and what is it not? And in particular --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We'll give you more than one sentence.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Exactly, yeah. What is Web3 in a tweet? And another question is really "What does Web3 have to do with blockchain or crypto?" Specifically, if we're talking about standardized protocols.
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Well, the first thing that I would say, beyond being able to program digital money and digital state, one of the interesting things that I kind of, again, fell in love with when I started looking into the Graph Protocol itself, is this idea of serverless infrastructure protocols... And when you think of serverless, it's kind of now used more of the term to describe a type of backend solution that abstracts away a lot of the complexity and allows you to just have an API that you can interact with. And if you look at some of the writing by some of the people that I admire the most in the serverless space, they talk about this idea of a spectrum of being serverless or not serverless.
+
+So really, the first time I think that you start really seeing people talking about serverless with serverless functions, where you just have a function that you can call anytime, you don't have to build it or maintain that infrastructure; it just runs and it scales for you, by the way... And I think back when I joined AWS and I started there, one of the things that interested me the most was how really great and interesting serverless technologies were... So when I started realizing that people were building out these decentralized infrastructure protocols and that tokens were powering them, that was really interesting to me, because I'm already interested in serverless; this is just kind of a more decentralized way of building serverless applications.
+
+And ultimately, I think it will be a less expensive and cheaper way for people to build these serverless services. A really great example of this is LivePeer. LivePeer is a live streaming protocol, and at the very least, it's around 10x cheaper than anything else that's out there... And I've looked at some of the use cases that people are using it for, and it can be up to 100x or more cheaper than using a service from something like AWS.
+
+The way that it works is people have the opportunity to basically run one of these nodes that does the processing of the videos on any of their infrastructure, and they make it part of the LivePeer network... And then someone that needs to do any type of livestreaming can basically leverage that entire decentralized network and LivePeer will process that however the stream actually is processed. I don't know the nitty gritty details around this, but it will basically send that processing to one of these nodes, and that node will kind of like do the work and enable that functionality using a decentralized network, as opposed to a centralized service.
+
+\[43:53\] And the way that the people get paid for running this infrastructure is their native token. So you have these cryptocurrencies, a.k.a. tokens that power these networks. The people running the infrastructure get paid in those, and the people that are consuming them can also pay in those tokens, or they can just pay in U.S. dollars, I believe with LivePeer, and they can manage that processing under the hood. But the way that these infrastructure protocols typically run is via some native token, and they call it typically something like a work token, or there's other ways that people talk about this stuff...
+
+But the tokens aren't just for buying and selling on an exchange, they actually are for securing the network, for managing the network, for enabling participants within the network to be part of what in the past would have been run on AWS, but instead you have maybe a more efficient way of doing this.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, it's all your opperationalized costs. So how is that Web3? How is that an example of Web3 in action?
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Well, I think it's part of Web3 because it's been enabled by cryptocurrency, it's decentralized, people are able to own these tokens... And also, if you are part of building one of these protocols, you're often allocated tokens. If you're participating in the community and you're building out infrastructure, you can be given part of these tokens as part of your work, therefore you're kind of like part owner as well. And like Jerod mentioned earlier, when someone is rooting for Ethereum, instead of having people (I would say) buying shares of AWS instead, maybe it feels like they have a little bit more ownership, and they do want that thing to succeed, so you have thousands of people that are not only working to build out these protocols and these systems, but you have thousands of owners, and it kind of creates a different type of incentive structure that is really interesting, and I think it's extremely powerful when it's actually done at scale.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That makes sense. For me, the themes that I'm hearing are really decentralization, ownership, more cooperative models, and more redundancy and localization and access, right?
+
+**Nader Dabit:** That's with the web infrastructure stuff.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. So if we were gonna tweet what is Web3, what's your tweet?
+
+**Nader Dabit:** \[laughs\] My tweet is gonna be "Check out my blog post "What is Web3"
+
+**Jerod Santo:** "Check out my blog post."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Okay. \[laughs\]
+
+**Nader Dabit:** I will just say "Web3 is the decentralized web."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Alright.
+
+**Nader Dabit:** That doesn't explain it well enough for everyone to get it, but I think the core -- it's decentralizing web infrastructure, decentralizing wealth, decentralizing ownership, decentralizing opportunity... So all of these things that in the past were centralized, there are ways to make this a little bit more equitable and lowering the barrier to entry for people to participate in financial markets.
+
+Again, like DeFi, for example... Let's say you're one of the two billion people in the world that can't open a bank account, or even, by law, if you're a woman, you can't open a bank account in 50 countries, I think... Let's say that you're one of these people, and you instead get on your computer and you start working with this DAO, and you're starting to make money, when you wanna put that money to work - well, in DeFi, you can do that; you don't have to ask any person in the world to give you the opportunity. You can do that yourself. And I think that's a big difference, that people, again, outside of the United States and parts of Europe maybe, don't take as something that is that big of a groundbreaking achievement... But it is for a lot of people, and I think that we're gonna see more and more of those types of things in the future.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, amen to that. Thank you so much, Nader.
+
+**Break:** \[47:37\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Wow, so Nader, that was very poetic. I do agree that taking a truly global lens, where - in the West we have all the privilege and access in the world, but looking at countries where... I mean, I was surprised to learn 50 countries in the world (fifty, like five zero), a woman cannot open a bank account. That is wild, right?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Is that true?
+
+**Nader Dabit:** I think it's 48, or something like that... But yeah. By law.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's a shame.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You know, Jerod, I grew up in the Middle East, I grew up in Dubai, and Dubai, by most standards in the Middle East, is extremely liberal... But I remember growing up - and I don't know if this has changed, but I think you needed like your dad's permission to open up a bank account, or your husband's permission to open up a bank account as a woman... So I remember that being a thing when I was growing up. Granted, a woman could go to a night club and wear a bikini and whatever, but God forbid you open up a bank account, right? Anyways...
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Yeah...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So taking the global lens, clearly, Web3 is potentially a good catalyst for kind of democratizing access, and all those other things you were saying... So that's really exciting. Can you share some of the things that you're excited about with Web3? And I'd love to also hear some of the downsides too, because it's not all glory and good.
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Yeah. I think it's important to 100% be clear about this not being some panacea (or however you pronounce that), that there are trade-offs. I think that's one of the problems that you see in the Web3 space a lot of times, that people are only acknowledging the positives. And I think that that is actually not a good thing. And what you end up having - it's people that see these discussion from the outside and they think everyone is just full of crap, because all they're talking about is the good stuff. So yeah, it's extremely important...
+
+And just to clarify on the number of countries from that thing I referenced earlier... I did a quick Google search, and it said that there are at least 72 countries in the world where women can't open a bank account, and that was written in 2019... So I don't know the exact number, but yeah, it's still a problem. Anyway...
+
+In addition to some of the stuff I mentioned - yeah, I'm really interested, I'm excited about play-to-earn gaming. You're starting to see a lot of people in the gaming industry that are really high up, like the head of Zynga, the head of YouTube Gaming, and a handful of others publicly talk about them starting to implement these ideas in their games, via NFTs, via cryptos, and maybe via some other mechanisms... But the idea is there.
+
+When you see Axie Infinity going from almost nothing to over two million daily active users, 500 million dollars a month in transactions, 95%of that money sticking with the actual users, not going to the centralized platform - it's a very compelling case, I think, for a lot of people to take notice.
+
+\[51:49\] I mentioned accessible and stable currencies - we talked about NFTs for a little bit... We didn't really talk about them a lot. They're very controversial. I think that the fundamental technology that empowers and enables NFTs is really interesting. I'm not the type of person that thinks that selling and buying images on a marketplace like OpenSea, which by the way just surpassed Etsy in volume, which means that a lot of other people are interested... But it's not maybe the most interesting thing to me for that use case. But I do think that what you're gonna see is people using NFTs as ways to put real-world assets on a digital marketplace and make them accessible to the world, just like DeFi has.
+
+One really exciting example that I am actually diving into and trying to figure out myself and be part of if I can are people that are doing fractional real estate. Let's say you want to be a real estate owner in New York, but you're making like 100k a year or 50k a year - you're essentially just completely locked out. You have no way to really participate in that market. What people are doing now, and it's already been done in certain parts of the world, but I think we're gonna see more of it, is that people are buying a building or a real estate via either a DAO or some other type of organization like that... And they're taking it and they're fractionalizing it in the form of ERC20 tokens; they'll attach that piece of land to like an NFT and then they'll fractionalize it... And then anyone can buy and sell ownership into that piece of property on an open, liquid market.
+
+So let's say you have $1,000 to invest, you really think that this part of New York is gonna blow up in the next 2-3 years based on you living there and understanding the community... You can actually just take $100 and just buy ownership into that in an instant, and then resell it the next day if you want to... But also anyone in the entire world can do that. And I think that that implementation of what NFTs might offer is interesting.
+
+I also think of the idea around creators and people being able to buy into a community and have some type of community ownership for a few different use cases like fundraising, like people just monetizing their work, and things like that are interesting.
+
+One really good example of this is this artist - I forgot his name, but I tweeted about him not too long ago... He's actually a JavaScript developer, but he created this generative art using JavaScript, and he created an NFT collection, and he sold over 3 million dollars in NFTs over the course of like a few minutes, and he gave all of that money to the JavaScript community that wrote all of the open source libraries that he built his career upon.
+
+Now, why wouldn't he just ask people for that money, if he really wanted to do a fundraiser? Well, it's kind of hard to get people to hand over three million dollars. But when you give them an NFT that they can put and sell on a liquid marketplace, it provides some financial incentive for both parties... Because not only are you just handing over money to this platform or to this person, but you're getting something back in return. If you had bought one of those NFTs at the time, it's probably worth maybe double of what you bought it for... But it's kind of like a win/win situation. If someone wants to help and participate and buy into helping someone else succeed, and then they're getting something that they can kind of hold on to, a value out of it. And I think that, again, ownership - you're gonna hear this idea of ownership over and over again... That's pretty interesting to me.
+
+And another thing around NFTs is definitely the environmental impact, and I think we're gonna talk about that when we talk about the trade-offs, and also get more clarity as to what that discussion is.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's fascinating. Each one of those topics is its own episode... So with that being said - a good segue into the downsides. So let's talk about those downsides. Environmental impacts are huge. That's really what I think a lot of the division, and drama and debate in our community is about. Can you speak to that? And I'm sure there's other downsides, too... I can think of also just -- anyways.
+
+**Nader Dabit:** \[55:55\] Yeah, yeah. There's a couple of areas that I'd like to highlight. And first of all, I'll start with environmental impact. That was one of the reasons that I never really also got too interested in a lot of the things happening in this space as well. When I started actually diving into what was really going on, I did realize that there is a huge movement within the Web3 and blockchain space for environmentally friendly consensus mechanisms. So really, the environmental impact all has to come down to what is the consensus mechanism for coming to an agreement around what data is actually true or not true on the blockchain.
+
+So the original implementation of this is something called proof of work, and that's what Bitcoin is built on. And just like any technology, you have improvements over time; people come up with better and improved ways of doing things. So over the course of time, people have realized that this is not sustainable, so almost all of the newer chains that have come out are using environmentally-friendly consensus mechanisms like proof of stake, or proof of history, or a combination of the two. And there might be one or two other mechanisms.
+
+But over the course of the past few years you've had almost all of the new blockchains and all of the smart contract chains with the exception of Ethereum actually already running on these environmentally friendly consensus mechanisms. With NFTs being the most hotly debated topic about this, there are three main chains that NFTs run on - Solana, Ethereum, and Tezos. Now, Solana and Tezos already are environmentally friendly, and Ethereum is actually merging their proof of stake merge, which has already been kind of tested out on a couple of test networks in the next couple of months.
+
+So at that point, you're gonna have almost 100% of NFTs, if not 100% of NFT transactions happening in a way that is very environmentally friendly, definitely more environmentally friendly than packing up a piece of art, putting it on a plane, and sending it across the world. In fact, it will be more environmentally friendly to transact art digitally than physically, and there is no if, and or but about that. If anyone tries to have that conversation - it's just not logical. It will be almost like having a database operation that is a little bit more than kind of like your average database operation, but it'll be to that magnitude, as opposed to now, where you are actually spending a lot of energy to do that.
+
+So NFTs will be ultimately environmentally friendly. Really, the only chain that people are gonna be using that is of any significance after the merge will be Bitcoin... And I personally am not for Bitcoin; I'm kind of against Bitcoin, and I don't like a lot of the stuff happening in that community. I don't really like the fact that most of those people don't care about the environment, and there are a lot of other people out there like me that feel the same way.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, yeah. At least there's a choice there, right? And I'm glad to hear that communities are rectifying that. What about some of the downsides around "No physical arbitrator"? When you're transacting and you need to dispute something, there's a lawyer, there's a bank, there's a government, a town, or whatever. The traceability factor being kind of anonymous is great, but then there's also downsides too, where people's wallets get stolen, and whatever else... Do you see that as kind of a downside that's of concern?
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Yeah, totally. People can lose all of their money, and there's nothing that anyone can do about it. That's a huge risk for anyone transacting today with most of these decentralized Web3 wallets. You can use something like Coinbase, or another centralized wallet, that is a little bit more -- it's not more secure, it's actually less secure, but you have a little bit more centralization and maybe protection around those sorts of things.
+
+If you're the average user, that doesn't really maybe understand how some of these wallets work, and you accidentally lose your private key, for example, and you delete your wallet, there's no way to get your money back. If you give someone else your private key, either in a screenshot or however else - maybe they hack your computer - you can lose all of your money. And I think that that is a major concern for people that either don't know that that's the case, or don't know how to mitigate that type of stuff. Even for experienced people that have been in this space for years, you hear people that have made mistakes, and people have been able to get their private keys and they lose their money, for example...
+
+\[01:00:18.10\] A really popular social engineering hack is someone messaging me on Discord, and trying to somehow get you to screen-share, and then they ask you to open your wallet, and then they kind of like screenshot something there.
+
+So yeah, that's a big concern... And I think one of the ways that people are going around mitigating that is that we're building and innovating in the user experience of how to manage that, and having some form of backup, usually through some type of multi-signature wallet, meaning that can give access to a handful of other people, and if they all get together, they can kind of unlock something... Or maybe you have like a social mechanism where you have your mom, or your cousin, or your wife, or something, and all of you can get together to unlock it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I don't know if you guys know about care bears... Care bears, when they all get together, they shoot love out of their hearts, and then something magical happens. Care bear for crypto! Anyways... So that's really interesting. I'm glad that that's happening, and I have no doubt that there's innovation happening there; it makes sense. But it is a reality - scamming, grifting, malware... That is a real thing. And forget crypto. Just - you know, your grandma gets a phone call from some dude in central Asia, who's like, "Hey, grandma, send me a bunch of money." That happens. So how are we protecting that? Is there gonna be a Bitcoin police? Or not Bitcoin, but - like a crypto police?
+
+**Nader Dabit:** There's no way to recover this stuff...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, it sucks.
+
+**Nader Dabit:** I mean, you can basically see where it's going though, because it is all on-chain, and I think there was some type of recent news where --
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Reverse-engineering.
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Yeah, someone basically sent -- you know, they hacked that facility in the United States a few months ago, and they got Bitcoin, and they found those people somehow... I don't know how they did that; maybe they tried to cash some of it out. But yeah, ultimately, if you send it to an exchange, then the exchange can kind of identify you. There's definitely drawbacks, again, around kind of like the scammer type of thing. When you're dealing with any type of money, when you're dealing with ways that people can make money, you're gonna automatically get people that are in it just for the money, and you're gonna get scammers... You're gonna have all these people all in the same discussions sometimes, and all working for the same goals. We're trying to make things successful, but these scammers are just trying to just get rich off of it... So you have new dynamics.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right, that makes a ton of sense. Where there is money, there will be thievery, or whatever... That's not new. That's since wealth has existed, I guess, right?
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Yeah. I mean, we've had financial scams that have happened (I would say) forever, and really, the thing that you can think of - this analogy is kind of like, we've lowered the barrier to entry for financial programming and financial participation... We've also lowered the barrier to entry for scammers and people taking advantage of those people.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** What about privacy? That seems a concern to me. So if you're not doing anything wrong, why do you care? Well, maybe I don't want all my transactions on chain. And there are some privacy coins, some efforts - I'm not sure those exist in the greater Ethereum ecosystem... But as private citizens, we don't want all of our transactions to be public on a ledger, even if they're pseudonymous, and maybe you can't know who it is, but - let's face it, I think law enforcement has proven they can figure out who you are with block explorers whatnot.
+
+So is there privacy coins in Web3? Is here any chance for that ot be an aspect of this, where you're transacting anonymously AND privately, and there's no traceability?
+
+**Nader Dabit:** \[01:03:49.23\] Yeah, there's a couple of privacy coins; I don't know enough about them. I haven't investigated them enough to know whether I would use them or not... But I also think that not everyone needs to use crypto or Web3. I think it's more kind of like now we have other ways to do things, and other ways for us to build applications, other ways for people to participate financially.
+
+If people are still wary of the drawbacks, I would actually encourage to wait until things improve, or maybe just don't use it at all... Because yeah, if you have concerns that are legitimate, that you feel are concerning, like most probably do, I would say definitely investigate those and decide whether or not you feel like the trade-offs are worth it or they're not worth it.
+
+To me, it's really fun and interesting to be able to transact so much and so quickly using these wallets. You can trade between coins, you can do DeFi, you can buy NFTs, you can send money to people... In my DAO, I mint these tokens for free to get people into my DAO and send it to them for free for people that can't have gas... Yeah, there's all kinds of fun stuff.
+
+There's also financial (of course) incentives, but again, not everyone probably wants or should participate in this stuff. So I would say keep an eye, if you're still wary about this stuff - just keep an eye on the innovations and improvements that will happen over the next 6-12 months and check back again with us a year from now. Maybe we'll have adjusted some of those, and maybe we haven't, I don't really know... But yeah, I definitely think that these concerns that people have are legitimate, and I would encourage people to check out my thread that I kind of wrote, maybe going into stuff a little bit more in detail... As well as a blog post that I wrote called "Getting into crypto as a developer." I have linked in that blog post another thread from someone else that kind of talked about it... And I think he was a little bit more critical than I was, and I encourage you to read both of those.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, we'll link to both of those, the Twitter thread on drawbacks, and then the getting into crypto, as well as a bunch of your other blog posts and tutorials, in the show notes. Just really quickly, before we get off this topic and talk about your DAO real quick -- is it DAO or DOA?
+
+**Nader Dabit:** It's DAO.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, DAO. Thank you. Taoism is a religion. Did you guys know that? Of course you knew that...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I didn't, yeah.
+
+**Nader Dabit:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Anyways... Very beautiful religion, too.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** This new one kind of is too, if you think about it. \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, good point, Jerod. You can always count on you for the jokes, Jerod. You're so much funnier than I think you realize. Anyways... So what would you say to critics who see Web3 and crypto as a simple ploy to redistribute wealth from a few, to just a different few? Because we have talked about - okay, global scale; a lot of people are now gonna have access to participate. But in reality, it's a lot of --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, there's a lot of early adopter...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, a lot of white male and pale people that are profiting, right? \[laughs\] So how is that changing the status quo?
+
+**Nader Dabit:** I think it's a little bit of both. You have people that are getting new opportunities to financially participate, and then you have other people that are taking advantage of it, that are getting wealthy. You have venture capitalists that are coming in...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Can we just invent something where we don't allow them to participate? Can we have a "no VP allowed" technology? Like, honestly... Even cannabis - cannabis is starting to get legalized in the United States and in North America as a whole, and they're just swooping in, corporatizing this, and it's like... They ruin everything. Anyways, I'm sorry for the tangent.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Aren't they enabling innovation though? I mean, I see plus sides...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Ugh...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Come on.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Alright, alright.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** All these things - they need investment to exist.
+
+**Nader Dabit:** It is both, though. No one can sit there and say that everything is perfect, or that the majority of the benefits are going to people that are under-represented, or that haven't benefitted in the past... But I think what is happening is that you are seeing the barrier to entry for some of these things that in the past were not there now being accessible. And people are participating in all different parts of the world, and all different economic classes.
+
+\[01:07:58.26\] I would say some of the interesting things that I've seen personally are - especially with the Graph Protocol, people that helped create and build out some of the initial infrastructure maybe a year and a half, two years ago - a lot of these people are living in parts of the world, like in Brazil and in South America, and other parts outside of the United States and Europe, where from talking to them, the salary and wages there are in the range of like $10,000, $5,000, $15,000 a year, but their participation in building out this network, them getting those tokens has made them literally wealthy. Even here in the United States they would be considered wealthy. And by participating in building out these protocols, they've gotten that.
+
+Another example is DAOs, something we'll go into in just a moment. In the past, you might have jumped into like an AWS Discord, and you might have gone into Stack Overflow, and you might have spent a month or a year of your time helping other people build stuff... And the only thing that you really have to show for that is maybe a few points on Stack Overflow, or nothing in Discord. With DAOs, you're often given tokens for your contribution. And one of the DAOs that I am finding really interesting is called Friends With Benefits.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And actually, what does DAO stand for?
+
+**Nader Dabit:** DAO stands for Decentralized Autonomous Organization.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, okay, Decentralized Autonomous... So DAO, dApp... Y'all have some really fun acronyms. And by the way, Friends With Benefits is, first of all, a hilarious romantic comedy, but very insinuating...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So tell me about this Friends With Benefits DAO.
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Yeah, Friends With Benefits is like a social DAO, and they call it like Web3 Creators, or something like that. But to get in early, you could have either helped participate and do stuff within it, or you could have bought $20 worth of tokens... And that community has kind of grown over the course of the last year, they've built out products, they've done events and they've done a few other things, and now they're kind of doing their next level of growth. They've actually taken venture capital. But that $20 or that work that you had done over the course of that year is now worth a minimum of around $15,000, and it's kind of the idea of instead of working and participating in these social channels and not really getting anything out of it, you actually get money out of it.
+
+Now, some people are gonna say "Why should people get paid for doing that stuff?" To me - I make a couple hundred grand a year, it's not that big of a deal. But it might be a big deal, and it might be a huge deal to someone that makes that much in an entire year for them to just get that from participating in this community, making those types of contributions that they used to do for free, but instead getting something out of it. Essentially, they have ownership of that community, and I think what you've ended up seeing with some of these DAOs is that they ultimately become the next types of like Google, Facebook types of size companies...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Wow...
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Maybe not that big, but pretty big. And instead of it being owned 50% by Mark Zuckerberg - or 80%, whatever, I have no idea - and then the other top 95%owned by a small number of people, you have it now distributed between thousands of people that all worked equally to make that thing succeed. That is interesting to me.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's fascinating. I think we'll have to come back in a few months and do a whole show on this, once those have matured a little bit... But just real quick, before we end this, what's the barrier to entry for a DAO?
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Some of the DAOs allow you to just join for free, some of them ask you to mint some type of token... But either way, you have to have, for the most part, some type of token to get in. And the reason that that's the case is to kind of give ownership to everyone that's there, and also provide them a way to liquidate that ownership.
+
+So for a token, you can basically sell that, either on some digital exchange, or maybe like an NFT would be like OpenSea, or some type of NFT marketplace... But yeah, most of the time you can get a token or buy a few ERC20 tokens, or work for those tokens by participating in the Discord, and then you can participate in that way.
+
+For the Developer DAO, which is the DAO that I have created for developers, the token is completely free. All you have to do is just go to the website and mint the token. And you do have to pay the Ethereum transaction costs. When you pay that cost, you get that token sent to your wallet.
+
+And really, the reason that there is any type of cost at all is to kind of have some type of way to prevent civil resistance... Because if this token is gonna be worth money at some point, what's to stop someone from minting all 8,000 of those for themselves? Like, how do we equally distribute ownership between a large number of people? Well, there is some type of way that we can do that with needing someone to mint.
+
+But what I've been doing is actually setting aside a few thousand of my own dollars, and just minting those and sending them to people around the world that can't afford even the $20 minting cost. But that way I know that that person is real, and that they're kind of in it to be part of the community, and they're not just in there to kind of speculate.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's awesome. Well, Nader, it's been an absolute pleasure. We've covered a lot in this hour and change, so I wanna say thank you so much for your time. It's been a pleasure. Where can people find you online?
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Yeah, check out @dabit3 on Twitter, and if you're interested in the Developer DAO, it's @developer\_dao on Twitter, and dev.to, I'm also @dabit3. That's my blog.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Okay, yeah. Not to be confused with dabit2, dabit1, or dabit100 on Twitter. As we know -- we've had a fun little thread recently on the number of Dabits on the web. He's Dabit3! \[laughs\] So yeah...
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Yeah, yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Alright. Well, thanks everyone. It's been a fun show. We'll catch you all next week. Take care.
+
+**Nader Dabit:** Thank you.
+
+**Outro:** \[01:13:41.12\]
+
+**Horse JS:** RxJS. Please don't.
diff --git "a/The inside story on React\342\200\231s all new docs_transcript.txt" "b/The inside story on React\342\200\231s all new docs_transcript.txt"
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..122198c8d98ebb4494dd02051a764a12626f0d11
--- /dev/null
+++ "b/The inside story on React\342\200\231s all new docs_transcript.txt"	
@@ -0,0 +1,1279 @@
+[0.00 --> 5.70]  I really hope to see more people embedding interactive examples into their teaching materials.
+[5.98 --> 7.10]  I think it's just fabulous.
+[7.46 --> 8.82]  It should change the way people learn.
+[9.24 --> 11.12]  These tool chains are getting more and more complex.
+[11.50 --> 14.60]  The start of any bootcamp is usually just installing dependencies.
+[15.12 --> 16.86]  Run this line on your terminal.
+[17.16 --> 18.20]  You know, run this, run that.
+[18.26 --> 19.22]  Oh no, that didn't work.
+[19.32 --> 20.18]  Brew install this.
+[20.28 --> 21.24]  Did you update that?
+[21.32 --> 22.06]  Delete that file.
+[22.16 --> 22.54]  Rerun.
+[22.72 --> 25.24]  It's a huge barrier to play.
+[25.70 --> 29.56]  And let's be honest, a lot of folks are not learning React to build something from scratch.
+[29.56 --> 33.06]  They're learning React so that they can work on something that was built in React already.
+[33.24 --> 34.92]  So that's a waste of their time.
+[35.14 --> 39.66]  They just want to figure out why set state isn't doing the thing they expected.
+[39.92 --> 44.44]  They don't want to have to like go figure out how to start a blog site.
+[47.26 --> 50.58]  Big thanks to our partners, Linode, Fastly, and LaunchDarkly.
+[51.00 --> 51.62]  We love Linode.
+[51.68 --> 53.44]  They keep it fast and simple.
+[53.74 --> 56.60]  Get $100 in credit at linode.com slash changelog.
+[56.94 --> 59.12]  Our bandwidth is provided by Fastly.
+[59.12 --> 61.04]  Learn more at Fastly.com.
+[61.36 --> 62.54]  And get your feature flags.
+[62.68 --> 63.54]  Powered by LaunchDarkly.
+[63.68 --> 65.78]  Get a demo at LaunchDarkly.com.
+[69.62 --> 72.46]  This episode is brought to you by Retool.
+[72.74 --> 79.86]  Retool is a loco platform built specifically for developers that makes it fast and easy to build internal tools.
+[80.12 --> 82.00]  Instead of building internal tools from scratch,
+[82.00 --> 87.72]  the world's best teams from startups to Fortune 500s are using Retool to build their internal apps.
+[88.12 --> 93.86]  Assemble your app in 30 seconds by dragging and dropping from the complete set of powerful pre-built components.
+[94.30 --> 101.82]  From there, you write custom code, connect any data source, API, and build custom logic and queries to create exactly the right tools for your business.
+[101.82 --> 106.88]  Spend your time getting UI in front of your stakeholders, not hunting down the best React table library.
+[107.20 --> 112.24]  Retool is also highly hackable, so you're never limited by what's available out of the box.
+[112.46 --> 115.82]  If you can write it in JavaScript and in API, you can build it in Retool.
+[116.14 --> 119.30]  Try Retool off for yourself at retool.com slash changelog.
+[119.30 --> 122.72]  Again, retool.com slash changelog.
+[132.20 --> 137.66]  This is JS Party, your weekly celebration of JavaScript and the web.
+[138.20 --> 142.20]  Join us live on Thursdays at 1 p.m. U.S. Eastern.
+[142.54 --> 147.18]  Catch all the screw-ups, the outtakes, the jokes nobody laughs at, and more.
+[147.18 --> 149.26]  Oh, and don't forget to follow the show on Twitter.
+[149.46 --> 151.12]  We are at JSPartyFM.
+[151.76 --> 152.78]  Okay, let's get into it.
+[152.82 --> 154.32]  Hey, it's party time, y'all.
+[168.42 --> 169.86]  Hello, party people.
+[170.24 --> 173.84]  Well, I mean, you're JS Party people, so you're like fun nerds, right?
+[173.94 --> 175.20]  So hello, fun nerds.
+[175.20 --> 177.64]  I am so excited about today's show.
+[177.90 --> 184.38]  We are here with the wonderful, the one and only, my very good friend, Rachel Neighbors.
+[184.56 --> 184.80]  Welcome.
+[185.40 --> 186.06]  Hello, Mel.
+[186.20 --> 186.76]  Hello, Amelia.
+[186.90 --> 187.94]  Good to be with you today.
+[188.50 --> 188.96]  Yay.
+[189.16 --> 191.48]  And we have Amelia Wattenberg.
+[191.64 --> 191.86]  Hello.
+[192.04 --> 192.54]  Welcome, Amelia.
+[192.82 --> 193.34]  Hey, hey.
+[193.66 --> 194.32]  Happy to be here.
+[194.82 --> 195.10]  All right.
+[195.14 --> 195.48]  Excellent.
+[195.76 --> 199.26]  So today's show, I mean, you know, unless you've been living under a rock, you can guess
+[199.26 --> 199.92]  what it's about.
+[199.92 --> 205.14]  So the React team a few weeks ago, maybe two weeks ago, one week ago, I don't know.
+[205.34 --> 206.46]  Time is a flat circle.
+[207.00 --> 208.08]  But two weeks, I think.
+[208.24 --> 208.66]  Two weeks, yeah.
+[208.78 --> 213.68]  Two weeks ago had dropped the new React documentation site.
+[213.86 --> 219.46]  So it's the same link, but just put a .beta in front of, you know, so it's beta.reactjs.org.
+[219.46 --> 225.48]  So essentially, there's a whole new redesign and, you know, it's beyond just kind of a
+[225.48 --> 226.68]  fresh website.
+[226.68 --> 232.90]  It's really a fresh take, I think, on education and documentation for, like, popular web libraries.
+[233.24 --> 234.62]  So, like, kudos to y'all.
+[235.14 --> 236.80]  So anyways, I'm going to stop yapping.
+[237.04 --> 241.76]  Let's first get into, like, introducing who Rachel is, and then we'll get into some of
+[241.76 --> 242.88]  those specifics next.
+[243.06 --> 244.28]  So hello, Rachel.
+[244.28 --> 249.10]  Rachel, you can tell I'm excited because I've been talking nonstop for about two minutes.
+[250.28 --> 252.20]  Can you tell us who you are?
+[252.30 --> 253.52]  Tell us a little bit about yourself.
+[254.24 --> 255.44]  I'm Rachel Neighbors.
+[255.62 --> 261.68]  I am the documentation engineer working with the React core team, as well as React Native
+[261.68 --> 266.52]  and Relay, which is a React data solution you may or may not have heard about in the open
+[266.52 --> 267.24]  source ecosystem.
+[267.90 --> 271.58]  But basically, the React fam of technologies, as I like to think of them.
+[271.58 --> 276.52]  So I started out, actually, came in working on React Native's documentation.
+[277.12 --> 281.36]  And lately, I've been working with the React core team on the React documentation as well.
+[281.74 --> 282.38]  That's awesome.
+[282.88 --> 287.42]  And what's it been like to, you know, I know you used React before you had joined the company,
+[287.52 --> 291.46]  but I mean, what's it been like to work closely with the React team and, like, be able to kind
+[291.46 --> 294.96]  of see that part of the sausage, you know, come together?
+[295.70 --> 299.90]  Well, the interesting thing about the React core team is that they are engineers.
+[299.90 --> 303.86]  If you've worked with engineers before, you can kind of imagine what it might be like to
+[303.86 --> 304.96]  work with the React core team.
+[305.68 --> 307.48]  It's definitely different, though.
+[307.60 --> 312.14]  I really like working on a team that's building things that other people are using to build
+[312.14 --> 313.78]  their own solutions to problems.
+[314.56 --> 318.70]  And I think that was the real attraction for me about working with the React team.
+[319.24 --> 323.32]  I used to work with the W3C on APIs and standards.
+[323.92 --> 328.16]  And for a little while, I worked on Edge, the browser over at Microsoft.
+[328.16 --> 332.60]  I've always liked working on the things that enable other people.
+[333.34 --> 338.72]  And that team here working on React at Facebook, well, I think it's meta now.
+[338.92 --> 345.98]  But anyway, this team really focuses on the impact that React has across so many people's
+[345.98 --> 350.08]  developer experiences across the open source ecosystem.
+[350.08 --> 354.86]  I think it's interesting because you can kind of, when you're going back through the blog posts
+[354.86 --> 361.02]  on the React site, you can see how React started as this kind of cool skunkworks.
+[361.58 --> 365.68]  You know, what if we thought about building interfaces as components?
+[366.06 --> 366.52]  Yes.
+[366.54 --> 370.64]  And you could, like, compose components into greater interfaces.
+[370.92 --> 375.00]  And, you know, design systems in parallel, we're thinking about componentizing design.
+[375.00 --> 380.16]  So it's interesting to see, like, the JavaScript community and the design community both thinking
+[380.16 --> 383.76]  more and more about, like, yeah, we just need to get a slider in there.
+[383.88 --> 386.48]  We do not need to reinvent the slider.
+[386.58 --> 387.24]  We need that slider.
+[387.32 --> 388.46]  Yes, that slider there.
+[388.76 --> 391.32]  It's interesting to see that evolving over time.
+[391.50 --> 396.64]  And you can tell that originally React was, like, you know, kind of this niche, small,
+[397.12 --> 399.26]  ooh, maybe this is a new way of thinking about it.
+[399.28 --> 400.46]  Everyone was using Angular.
+[400.72 --> 401.92]  Angular 2 was coming out.
+[401.92 --> 404.82]  And then it just took off.
+[405.62 --> 410.34]  And suddenly you go from, you know, like, oh, React is this cool alternative to, like,
+[411.08 --> 416.64]  React's website gets 2 million developers visiting it from all over the world every month.
+[416.86 --> 419.90]  And React's dev tools are used by 3 million developers.
+[420.44 --> 425.48]  It's just like, oh, ah, hello there.
+[425.92 --> 430.30]  Yes, you are using this very important JavaScript library.
+[430.30 --> 441.48]  And I think that's been the most interesting thing about working on the team is that it still very much has the vibe of that original sentiment of let's try building interfaces in a different way.
+[441.68 --> 445.76]  Only it has a huge, huge consuming audience.
+[445.76 --> 452.38]  Now, it's gone from being a niche project to a stadium project in a very quick amount of time if you look at the numbers.
+[452.94 --> 457.34]  Yeah, no, I mean, the adoption of React is just kind of really massive.
+[457.78 --> 467.28]  And to kind of just give everybody a mental model for what the scale of the web is, React is still used by only 2% of websites on the internet.
+[467.28 --> 473.36]  So, like, think about how widely React is adopted and then think that's only 2%.
+[473.36 --> 476.44]  So, like, just that's how massive the web is.
+[476.52 --> 479.48]  But that 2% is a ridiculous amount of traffic.
+[479.62 --> 481.78]  It's, like, in the millions, billions, right, Rachel?
+[481.96 --> 483.72]  I mean, well, Facebook alone, it's in the billions.
+[484.28 --> 487.06]  So, yeah, Facebook plus plus all the other websites.
+[487.28 --> 488.40]  So, I mean, it's huge.
+[489.06 --> 490.00]  It's really incredible.
+[490.00 --> 492.30]  And so, like, what's your relationship with React?
+[492.42 --> 493.76]  Like, how is your relationship?
+[493.86 --> 499.18]  So, it was really nice to hear you describe, like, what it's been like for you to witness it all come together and that experience.
+[499.26 --> 505.28]  But how is your relationship with React, the library, changed now that you're kind of on the quote-unquote inside?
+[505.82 --> 511.16]  Well, to be honest, I kept trying to learn React and kept not making it stick.
+[511.30 --> 513.46]  It would just go in one ear and out the other.
+[514.02 --> 517.20]  And I was like, well, maybe I need a job where I'm working with React.
+[517.20 --> 520.80]  But at the time, I was thinking about what I wanted to do next.
+[521.06 --> 525.82]  And I was like, you know, I could just learn React from the people who build it.
+[525.94 --> 526.90]  Oh, look over there.
+[527.00 --> 528.48]  There's a team.
+[528.82 --> 530.16]  They work with React a lot.
+[530.58 --> 532.40]  Hello, do you need any assistance?
+[532.62 --> 533.68]  Can I do anything for you?
+[534.26 --> 536.08]  Oh, yeah, okay, yeah.
+[536.44 --> 538.50]  Yeah, let's write some educational materials.
+[538.58 --> 539.46]  I'm pretty good at that.
+[539.46 --> 551.06]  So, partly, I ended up taking on these projects and this mission to teach people React and React Native was partly because I wanted to learn it myself.
+[551.44 --> 567.46]  I came in with a bunch of really weird notions about React that I picked up, like many of us do, in the community, reading Medium posts, watching YouTube videos, taking the odd course that probably is a couple years out of date, and getting into really grokking React.
+[567.46 --> 576.54]  I realized it was a lot different from what I'd been led to believe and wanted to share some of those learnings with other people.
+[576.92 --> 588.10]  When you work on a team building something for so long, it can be easy to lose track of the beginner's mindset, that fresh, I have no idea how props and state work.
+[588.56 --> 589.50]  The je ne sais quoi.
+[589.90 --> 590.10]  Yeah.
+[590.10 --> 592.32]  The literally je ne sais quoi.
+[593.56 --> 596.42]  It's like the literal je ne sais quoi, you know?
+[596.64 --> 598.38]  Yeah, you don't know what the hell you're doing.
+[598.70 --> 598.94]  Right.
+[599.18 --> 600.80]  So, yeah, I get it.
+[600.96 --> 609.96]  And that can be surprisingly valuable, especially if, you know, you're writing materials for other folks who are coming in for the first time as well.
+[610.24 --> 610.50]  Yeah.
+[610.50 --> 622.94]  What do you think is the, like, the biggest thing either people have trouble with when they're first starting to learn React, or the biggest thing that you can lose track of, like, after you've been using React for three, five plus years?
+[622.94 --> 631.00]  I'd like to think that the beta docs actually changed this, because I know for me, it was really grokking how rendering works.
+[631.50 --> 640.52]  In the older docs, you could really only find out what rendering was by, there was, like, one paragraph on the site that briefly describes render and commit processes.
+[641.30 --> 647.14]  Now, these were perhaps less important to know about back when we had classes and lifecycle methods.
+[647.40 --> 650.46]  You just had to memorize the lifecycle methods, and there you go.
+[650.46 --> 657.48]  But Hooks really leans on understanding the render and commit process behind React.
+[657.66 --> 667.10]  Rendering is when React calculates the component based on how a state has changed, and commit is when that component goes and is inserted into your platform's tree.
+[667.42 --> 669.98]  When I say platform tree here, you're probably thinking, what is it?
+[670.46 --> 675.54]  I'm talking about if you're working on the web, that would be your DOM, you know, your document object model.
+[675.54 --> 681.38]  But React can actually output to different platforms, including iOS and Android via React Native.
+[681.66 --> 682.54]  They have different trees.
+[682.68 --> 684.20]  They have UI view trees.
+[684.86 --> 690.88]  So platform tree is in turn a lingo saying whatever it is that React is spitting out to, that.
+[691.04 --> 694.84]  It's usually a tree full of nodes representing content and data.
+[694.84 --> 699.48]  But when I first came in, I wasn't really sure how the state was working.
+[699.68 --> 706.42]  I mean, when you look at Vue and you look at other kinds of UI platforms, they tend to have more mutable state models.
+[706.64 --> 707.98]  But React is different.
+[708.06 --> 709.14]  It has one-way data flow.
+[709.32 --> 711.58]  You have to deliberately set the state.
+[711.86 --> 717.00]  And that act of setting the state tells React, yo, things have changed.
+[717.56 --> 718.50]  Look at that component.
+[718.68 --> 720.84]  Did that component change because the state has changed?
+[720.84 --> 729.76]  If it has changed, go to that platform tree and make any necessary adjustments, the render and the commit process.
+[730.40 --> 734.48]  And that was something, like, once you get that, everything else really falls into place.
+[734.84 --> 740.08]  Hooks, the API that you use with React, it lets you hook into different parts of this process.
+[740.60 --> 742.06]  Like, you use effects.
+[743.02 --> 745.50]  They happen after the render process.
+[745.50 --> 751.36]  And state itself kicks off set state, that hook, it kicks off the render process.
+[751.90 --> 759.52]  Anyway, that, I think, grokking that when you come in, just like, oh, oh, I'm telling React what to do with these APIs.
+[759.62 --> 760.24]  That's pretty cool.
+[760.70 --> 767.10]  I think that is the difference between really succeeding and running with React and being like, what is going on here?
+[767.10 --> 776.44]  And now it's like the new docs are completely written from the ground up with hooks first so that you really understand these internal processes.
+[776.84 --> 790.62]  I think as you go on with your React journey, the challenge has become more about edge cases and interacting with external libraries, things that want to manipulate the DOM that maybe React has some control over.
+[791.04 --> 794.72]  And how do you tell React, hey, I'm touching your things, React.
+[795.16 --> 796.34]  React, I'm touching your things.
+[796.34 --> 798.40]  And I hope this is consensual touch, Rachel.
+[798.94 --> 800.98]  I was thinking more like, you know, little kids.
+[801.04 --> 802.00]  I'm touching your CD.
+[803.28 --> 803.92]  Yes, yes.
+[803.96 --> 804.54]  I'm just joking.
+[804.62 --> 805.36]  I'm in the basement.
+[805.50 --> 806.86]  I'm messing with your stuff.
+[807.20 --> 808.36]  Are you going to come down here?
+[808.38 --> 808.90]  Oh, I see.
+[809.04 --> 809.50]  Yeah, yeah.
+[809.70 --> 809.92]  Yeah.
+[809.98 --> 810.92]  That type of yes.
+[811.04 --> 811.30]  Right.
+[811.54 --> 811.80]  Okay.
+[813.30 --> 818.88]  The challenge is more around figuring out the escape hatches from the React system.
+[819.22 --> 819.44]  Yeah.
+[820.00 --> 820.68]  No, for sure.
+[821.28 --> 826.20]  Amelia's kind of like this interesting brain to, I think, have on this conversation because, like, she's got the, like,
+[826.20 --> 830.54]  unicorn thing going where she's, like, designer, excellent, developer, excellent.
+[830.76 --> 832.46]  Like, she's, like, a designer developer.
+[833.00 --> 835.70]  So, you know, I think, like, yeah, I don't know.
+[835.92 --> 836.98]  What do you think, Amelia?
+[837.22 --> 841.96]  Like, it feels like your world is bridging a little bit in some ways, like, with these improvements.
+[842.76 --> 851.66]  Yeah, I haven't had a chance to dig in really deep with the new docs, but I love how there's, like, the interactive sandboxes.
+[851.72 --> 855.26]  You have challenges you can do in the docs themselves.
+[855.72 --> 857.14]  There's, like, gotchas.
+[857.66 --> 858.08]  Oh, yeah.
+[858.08 --> 861.80]  Callouts of, like, oh, you might think this, but actually it's this other thing.
+[862.28 --> 868.92]  Like, those are all really great ways to teach as well because you're, like, trying to think of, like, common problems people might have
+[868.92 --> 873.24]  and also letting them invalidate their wrong mental models with the challenges.
+[873.48 --> 879.46]  So, like, if you think it's one way and then you try it and it doesn't work out, then, like, it's a really quick feedback cycle,
+[879.74 --> 882.14]  which I think those are really awesome.
+[882.14 --> 889.64]  Were those, like, always in the plan when you were at the beginning, like, were going to have interactive components, like, littered throughout the docs,
+[889.64 --> 892.20]  or is that kind of, like, a stretch goal?
+[892.88 --> 893.44]  No, man.
+[893.64 --> 897.84]  These were the, first off, Amelia, by the way, big fan.
+[898.16 --> 902.10]  I absolutely love what you do in the doubt of his face.
+[902.42 --> 906.98]  And I haven't said this to you in person, I don't think, but congratulations on your book.
+[907.44 --> 910.56]  It's beautiful, and I have immense respect for your work.
+[911.12 --> 911.58]  Thanks, Rachel.
+[911.58 --> 913.60]  Now, back to the React world.
+[914.14 --> 914.84]  You're pretty awesome.
+[915.46 --> 917.36]  Maybe, let's be honest, it's a room full of awesome today.
+[917.48 --> 917.86]  It's true.
+[918.08 --> 920.06]  So, let's see.
+[920.66 --> 921.06]  Hang on.
+[921.20 --> 921.66]  You know what?
+[921.98 --> 923.46]  It's a little late here in London time.
+[923.94 --> 925.68]  I completely forgot what I'm responding to.
+[925.74 --> 933.56]  Now, the question, like, was it intentional for you to do, like, all that, like, interactive, like, the sandboxes and the visuals and the gotchas?
+[933.72 --> 936.54]  And, like, was all of that, like, a stretch goal or was that, like...
+[936.54 --> 936.82]  Yes.
+[936.92 --> 939.66]  See, I'm listening to Amelia, Rachel, for God's sake.
+[939.66 --> 940.92]  No, that was baked in.
+[941.48 --> 942.22]  You know, but that's okay.
+[942.28 --> 943.18]  Anyways, we're good.
+[943.24 --> 943.72]  You're forgiven.
+[944.04 --> 944.96]  You're Rachel, neighbors.
+[945.10 --> 946.04]  You can do no wrong.
+[946.44 --> 948.14]  Rachel, you can do no wrong.
+[948.26 --> 948.54]  Okay?
+[948.66 --> 949.14]  It's fine.
+[949.26 --> 949.90]  This is a...
+[949.90 --> 950.24]  Oh, trust me.
+[950.32 --> 952.14]  I can do plenty of wrong.
+[952.14 --> 959.14]  This is a fart cloud that smells like strawberries and, like, fresh, like, chocolate chip cookies, okay?
+[959.30 --> 960.50]  Like, you can do no wrong.
+[961.84 --> 965.62]  You know, if I could come up with a pill that would do that, I would be a millionaire.
+[966.20 --> 970.56]  I feel like there are entire crack teams of scientists working towards solving that problem.
+[970.70 --> 970.92]  Yeah.
+[971.12 --> 971.96]  Right, right, right.
+[972.02 --> 973.86]  It's like, my farts smell like cookies.
+[974.32 --> 974.84]  You know?
+[975.06 --> 976.14]  That is Rachel neighbors.
+[976.38 --> 977.16]  Genetic engineering.
+[977.16 --> 978.46]  Actually, Rachel...
+[978.46 --> 979.12]  It's going to be an add-on.
+[979.32 --> 980.38]  That could be your tagline.
+[980.48 --> 981.46]  My farts smell like cookies.
+[981.56 --> 984.78]  Like, that could be your entire, like, your branding as an engineer.
+[985.14 --> 987.72]  Like, it's like, I'm going to, like, you know...
+[987.72 --> 991.98]  That will attract the wrong crowd of people.
+[992.60 --> 993.64]  Okay, no, that's true.
+[993.74 --> 994.64]  All right, back on track.
+[994.78 --> 995.32]  Back on track.
+[995.62 --> 995.80]  So.
+[996.16 --> 996.40]  So.
+[996.62 --> 997.98]  That is a great question.
+[999.12 --> 1003.88]  So, working on the React Native documentation, like, I used to be a UX designer.
+[1004.00 --> 1006.16]  I have been way too many roles in my career.
+[1006.16 --> 1009.14]  Now I get to add documentation engineer onto the list.
+[1009.62 --> 1010.06]  Wow.
+[1010.26 --> 1012.28]  I just, I'm interested in things.
+[1012.38 --> 1014.08]  And I wander over, like, hello, Fran.
+[1014.66 --> 1015.38]  What are you doing?
+[1015.38 --> 1019.82]  You are a misshapen puzzle in a world of squares and circles.
+[1020.16 --> 1022.40]  And so, like, you can fit anywhere.
+[1022.76 --> 1026.22]  And so, like, I think you're just a really adaptable person.
+[1026.68 --> 1031.06]  And I think that's why your career is so awesome and different all the time.
+[1031.16 --> 1032.76]  Like, I think that's a skill.
+[1032.94 --> 1036.26]  And I think it's something, you know, it's like, I'm making a...
+[1036.26 --> 1039.88]  This is a safe space for you to acknowledge, Rachel Ray neighbors,
+[1040.38 --> 1042.60]  that you are a highly adaptable human being.
+[1042.68 --> 1043.98]  And, like, that's badass.
+[1044.26 --> 1045.00]  This is on YouTube.
+[1045.00 --> 1046.86]  This is hardly a safe space.
+[1048.18 --> 1048.84]  Well, no.
+[1049.08 --> 1051.06]  Yeah, YouTube is not the primary outlet.
+[1051.24 --> 1054.50]  But, yes, we are currently striving, streaming live on YouTube.
+[1054.72 --> 1055.70]  Like and subscribe, everyone.
+[1056.14 --> 1056.28]  So.
+[1056.86 --> 1057.50]  Hello, YouTube.
+[1058.04 --> 1060.44]  So, you may have recalled that I originally...
+[1061.00 --> 1063.80]  The first task that was set for me when I came and was like,
+[1064.30 --> 1067.18]  all right, I gotta go work with the people who build this stuff.
+[1067.30 --> 1068.30]  All right, what am I gonna do?
+[1068.34 --> 1070.72]  And they're like, all right, Rachel, spin this straw into gold.
+[1071.14 --> 1073.60]  This is how everything I do in my life starts.
+[1073.60 --> 1076.56]  It's like, yes, I can totally spin this straw into gold.
+[1077.14 --> 1082.02]  The React Native documentation needed a bit of love when I arrived.
+[1082.36 --> 1083.56]  And that was my first task.
+[1083.66 --> 1085.60]  Turn the React Native documentation around.
+[1086.54 --> 1088.26]  It was sorely out of date.
+[1088.60 --> 1092.66]  Ran some community API documentation update drives around that.
+[1092.66 --> 1093.54]  Love you guys.
+[1094.12 --> 1097.20]  And adding more on-ramps, et cetera.
+[1097.54 --> 1099.56]  The point was, I didn't just arrive and start writing.
+[1099.90 --> 1102.58]  No, because I used to be a UX person back in the day.
+[1102.68 --> 1106.08]  I was like, yeah, but you say the docs need work.
+[1106.16 --> 1107.62]  But what exactly needs done?
+[1108.04 --> 1109.22]  What do we need to do?
+[1109.60 --> 1112.80]  Well, we should just ask the people who are using them what they'd like.
+[1112.80 --> 1120.82]  So, you know, conducted user interviews, formulated a couple of ideas, really got to know the React Native community over here in the EU, which is really cool.
+[1121.28 --> 1122.52]  It's a pretty hop in place.
+[1123.02 --> 1130.76]  And started running surveys for the React Native and React communities to really start feeling out what it was that we were lacking, what they wanted more of.
+[1130.76 --> 1136.90]  And one thing that came through for both communities time and time again was, needs more examples, interactive examples.
+[1137.16 --> 1140.08]  I see the code, but I'm not going to spin up an environment.
+[1140.62 --> 1141.40]  Like, come on.
+[1141.54 --> 1143.22]  Yeah, especially a React environment.
+[1143.40 --> 1149.14]  I mean, there was an entire freaking side baby project company born out of that called Create React App.
+[1149.46 --> 1153.86]  Like, it was complex to do React on your own, and especially as a new engineer.
+[1154.06 --> 1155.46]  So, like, the pain is real.
+[1155.62 --> 1157.24]  Like, that's not even exaggerated, right?
+[1157.44 --> 1159.40]  Like, React is not a platform.
+[1159.40 --> 1160.32]  It's a UI library.
+[1160.32 --> 1160.90]  Let's be honest.
+[1160.98 --> 1162.82]  It's like, it's not even a hammer.
+[1162.98 --> 1163.58]  It's a nail.
+[1163.98 --> 1165.00]  Yeah, 100%.
+[1165.00 --> 1170.14]  This would be like if you invited someone to a craft workshop and said, here are all these nails.
+[1170.80 --> 1171.78]  Okay, great.
+[1172.20 --> 1173.14]  I love the nails.
+[1173.32 --> 1174.62]  What do I do with them?
+[1174.86 --> 1180.04]  So, to show you the nails, it's great if you can give people, like, here's a piece of wood and a hammer.
+[1180.50 --> 1183.14]  Now, hammer all the nails you want here.
+[1183.28 --> 1185.34]  And that's sort of what the interactive examples do.
+[1185.38 --> 1187.06]  You don't have to worry about spinning up an environment.
+[1187.06 --> 1190.36]  You don't have to make big decisions like, next or guts fee.
+[1190.68 --> 1191.90]  Or should I spend my own?
+[1192.06 --> 1192.52]  I don't know.
+[1192.70 --> 1194.12]  No, just go poke the code.
+[1194.44 --> 1196.34]  Poke the code until you're in love with the code.
+[1196.72 --> 1198.68]  Then you can make all those life-changing decisions.
+[1198.94 --> 1200.70]  I mean, stack-changing decisions.
+[1201.16 --> 1204.16]  But no pressure, no commitment, no renewal fees.
+[1204.76 --> 1205.32]  Get in there.
+[1205.32 --> 1210.54]  So, implemented these with these interactive examples for React Native, which were an even bigger challenge.
+[1211.16 --> 1212.18]  And they took off.
+[1212.28 --> 1212.92]  Everyone loved them.
+[1213.00 --> 1215.28]  They loved the API docs having interactive examples.
+[1215.78 --> 1219.28]  They loved that every single example on the site was suddenly interactive.
+[1219.46 --> 1224.80]  There were a bunch of other little things that were tested out in the React Native docs effort that tested so well.
+[1225.10 --> 1228.30]  Got such great feedback before and after, having made good on these.
+[1228.30 --> 1234.62]  When we saw the same things going on with React docs, it was like, well, we know exactly what to do here.
+[1235.36 --> 1237.48]  Anyway, the new interactive examples.
+[1237.58 --> 1242.68]  I want to give a shout-out to our partners at CodeSandbox because they were working on this cool Sandpack API.
+[1243.24 --> 1250.58]  You can actually go use this API to embed interactive examples from CodeSandbox on any project of your own.
+[1250.58 --> 1252.84]  It works really well with MDX.
+[1253.46 --> 1260.52]  So, when future people are wanting to update examples or add examples to the React documentation, you can just do it right there in Markdown.
+[1260.88 --> 1261.80]  Even edit the CSS.
+[1262.08 --> 1262.86]  It's super cool.
+[1263.24 --> 1265.88]  Just a great workflow for the contributor.
+[1266.44 --> 1268.06]  And I just wanted to give them a shout-out.
+[1268.18 --> 1268.96]  They did a great job.
+[1269.46 --> 1270.48]  It was a pleasure to work with them.
+[1270.70 --> 1274.28]  Actually, I set that up, like, yesterday or two days ago.
+[1274.46 --> 1275.56]  And it was so nice.
+[1275.74 --> 1280.34]  You just, this is the one where you just hit the, like, you just get an endpoint.
+[1280.58 --> 1282.18]  And you send it some code.
+[1282.38 --> 1284.10]  And it's like, here's your Sandbox ID.
+[1284.48 --> 1285.60]  And you can just include it.
+[1285.60 --> 1292.32]  I really hope to see more people embedding interactive examples into their teaching materials.
+[1292.60 --> 1293.88]  I think it's just fabulous.
+[1294.52 --> 1295.88]  It should change the way people learn.
+[1296.30 --> 1298.18]  These tool chains are getting more and more complex.
+[1298.44 --> 1309.54]  It's harder and harder to ask somebody, you know, like, one of the things when doing research on how people learn is that the start of any boot camp is usually just installing dependencies.
+[1309.54 --> 1312.48]  And, you know, run this line on your terminal.
+[1312.78 --> 1313.82]  You know, run this, run that.
+[1313.90 --> 1314.84]  Oh, no, that didn't work.
+[1314.94 --> 1315.82]  Brew install this.
+[1316.12 --> 1317.24]  Did you update that?
+[1317.56 --> 1318.32]  Delete that file.
+[1318.44 --> 1318.80]  Rerun.
+[1319.00 --> 1321.98]  And it's a huge barrier to play.
+[1322.44 --> 1323.16]  And let's be honest.
+[1323.54 --> 1326.74]  A lot of folks are not learning React to build something from scratch.
+[1326.92 --> 1330.22]  They're learning React so that they can work on something that was built in React already.
+[1330.66 --> 1332.52]  So that's a waste of their time.
+[1332.52 --> 1337.28]  They just want to figure out why set state isn't doing the thing they expected.
+[1337.84 --> 1342.92]  They don't want to have to, like, go figure out how to start a blog site.
+[1343.36 --> 1347.82]  Yeah, how to start a blog site or what Babel transform are you missing?
+[1348.44 --> 1353.70]  You know, ma'am who does yet to know what even, like, JavaScript is or something, right?
+[1353.72 --> 1354.46]  Like, it's crazy.
+[1355.04 --> 1356.98]  So, you know, the barrier to entry is very real.
+[1356.98 --> 1359.90]  So I think we've kind of squirted around a bunch of things in this site.
+[1360.02 --> 1365.08]  So can I just, just for the sake of it, let's, from your own words, like, what is this project about?
+[1365.86 --> 1367.94]  And, like, what were the goals?
+[1368.10 --> 1373.84]  And then we are going to take a break after that because there's so much to dig into, I think, off of that discussion.
+[1374.06 --> 1375.82]  So close us out, Rachel, neighbors.
+[1376.52 --> 1376.84]  All right.
+[1377.14 --> 1381.48]  The goal, our mission in this project, your mission, should you choose to accept it,
+[1381.48 --> 1387.02]  was to provide the best React education in the industry for anyone who wants to get started or dive deep,
+[1387.18 --> 1389.16]  no matter their background, income, or location.
+[1389.88 --> 1397.60]  The goal was to create this resource that would teach people not just, you know, what is React,
+[1397.96 --> 1401.22]  but how to think and react, how to go from good to great and react.
+[1401.84 --> 1407.50]  And if they were having some problems somewhere, you know, wanting to know what that third argument in an API is,
+[1407.82 --> 1410.36]  that they would have a reliable resource they could go back on.
+[1410.36 --> 1415.08]  Additionally, we wanted to give this to people who are training folks to learn React 2,
+[1415.18 --> 1417.98]  people who are writing articles, who are running meetups and workshops.
+[1418.48 --> 1422.68]  We want them to be able to be like, yeah, if you're struggling with that, just check out the React docs.
+[1423.02 --> 1425.52]  Or we're introducing you to this API today.
+[1425.88 --> 1430.72]  Link goes to one page in the React docs that has anything to answer any question,
+[1430.86 --> 1432.76]  any hiccup that people might have.
+[1432.76 --> 1439.82]  We wanted to create a resource that would empower the community to become authority in their own right.
+[1440.36 --> 1452.60]  What's up, party people?
+[1452.68 --> 1455.10]  This episode is brought to you by Sentry.
+[1455.32 --> 1457.96]  Sentry just shipped their SDK for Next.js.
+[1457.96 --> 1464.64]  Now, in your Next.js apps, you can capture errors, measure performance, manage releases, configure suspect commits,
+[1464.96 --> 1471.14]  and automatically upload source maps to view unminified JavaScript and TypeScript with zero-ish configuration.
+[1471.60 --> 1476.06]  You can get your events enriched with device data, breadcrumbs created for outgoing HTTP requests,
+[1476.48 --> 1479.08]  release health for tracking crash for users and sessions,
+[1479.58 --> 1482.14]  and automatic performance monitoring for both the client and the server.
+[1482.14 --> 1484.66]  Check for a link in the show notes for details to this release.
+[1485.04 --> 1488.16]  JS Party listeners new to Sentry get the team plan for free for three months
+[1488.16 --> 1492.90]  when you sign up and use the code PARTYTIME at the Sentry.io and use the code PARTYTIME,
+[1492.98 --> 1494.52]  because, hey, it's PARTYTIME, y'all.
+[1494.52 --> 1511.56]  Okay, Rachel, those are some really great goals.
+[1511.72 --> 1517.10]  I'm really curious to hear if you think you have achieved them or you are on track to achieve them.
+[1517.10 --> 1522.54]  And also, can you share some insights onto, like, the big TBD section that's on the website right now,
+[1522.58 --> 1529.28]  where it's like, we're this percent complete with the API docs, we're this percent complete with the learning docs, right?
+[1530.04 --> 1532.12]  So can you speak more about that?
+[1532.70 --> 1532.88]  Awesome.
+[1533.22 --> 1537.00]  So, yeah, we're about 75% done with the learning documentation.
+[1537.50 --> 1544.56]  That's because the remaining documentation is mostly, well, how to use things around edge cases.
+[1544.56 --> 1551.94]  You know, like, effects are largely used for doing things with React, interacting with things outside React.
+[1552.42 --> 1556.62]  There's additionally, you know, going to have to add some things for React's developer tooling,
+[1556.86 --> 1557.96]  which is coming later this year.
+[1558.26 --> 1563.32]  So there's some stuff that we didn't have finished, but we had enough done that we didn't want to hold back
+[1563.32 --> 1564.74]  until things were, like, perfect.
+[1565.10 --> 1568.72]  We wanted to make sure that we were actually getting the content to the community.
+[1569.36 --> 1573.20]  The API documentation itself is still very nascent.
+[1573.20 --> 1580.78]  We want to really make sure that we are, because hooks are very challenging to document compared to more traditional APIs.
+[1581.26 --> 1583.38]  They are deeply nested.
+[1583.64 --> 1587.94]  They do interesting things with, you know, like, there's this thing that returns a function,
+[1588.08 --> 1591.68]  that returns a cleanup function, and it takes a dependencies array,
+[1591.84 --> 1595.04]  but it does different things depending on the state of that array.
+[1595.04 --> 1604.36]  And a lot of those APIs depend on how we document that last 25% of content, how we explain how to use them.
+[1604.62 --> 1608.40]  So there's sort of roadblock by finishing the rest of the guides themselves.
+[1608.78 --> 1610.08]  So there's still an in route.
+[1611.12 --> 1615.68]  Now, the community, of course, is very eager to assist in any way possible.
+[1616.10 --> 1618.46]  And that is awesome, and we appreciate it.
+[1618.46 --> 1621.24]  But we're not quite ready to accept community assistance.
+[1621.76 --> 1628.06]  These flagship pieces of documentation are really things that come right from the core's heart.
+[1628.72 --> 1630.86]  And it's not just something you can churn out.
+[1631.00 --> 1631.64]  I would know.
+[1631.86 --> 1632.58]  I've tried.
+[1633.04 --> 1637.02]  It really does get a lot of input from the core team.
+[1637.38 --> 1639.66]  So there's a lot of nuance, right, is what you're saying.
+[1639.86 --> 1641.46]  Like, not only nuance, but like...
+[1642.32 --> 1644.92]  Well, I guess, do you ever get pull requests on your documentation?
+[1645.48 --> 1646.28]  Question mark.
+[1646.60 --> 1647.06]  We do.
+[1647.06 --> 1647.66]  Okay.
+[1648.08 --> 1651.90]  And we really appreciate pull requests for things like, you know, typos.
+[1652.32 --> 1654.42]  This example could be done like that.
+[1654.88 --> 1660.94]  I actually did partner with a couple of people from the community to work on the documentation so far.
+[1661.04 --> 1662.04]  And we'll continue to do so.
+[1662.14 --> 1664.74]  For instance, I want to give a shout out to Sylvia Vargas.
+[1665.28 --> 1668.94]  Originally, all our docs had kittens in the examples.
+[1669.24 --> 1671.52]  We were using place kitten for everything.
+[1671.96 --> 1675.60]  And I loved putting the cats jokes in there.
+[1675.60 --> 1678.48]  But cats are not very inclusive.
+[1678.90 --> 1679.90]  Not everyone loves cats.
+[1680.02 --> 1681.40]  Not every culture loves cats.
+[1681.98 --> 1688.96]  So we were like, we should do something with these docs that really showcases all of humanity, right?
+[1689.26 --> 1692.44]  Great scientists, cities, art, that sort of thing.
+[1692.44 --> 1702.44]  And partnered with Sylvia, who went through and updated all of the examples to showcase these amazing topics and really bring an added spark.
+[1702.44 --> 1707.74]  But there will be ways in the future for the community to have even more impact.
+[1707.86 --> 1710.04]  There'll be a translation effort that will kick off.
+[1710.60 --> 1712.82]  And that is a great time to get involved then.
+[1713.22 --> 1719.06]  But for now, we're mostly writing and generating and editing the content on team and with the people we've been partnering so far.
+[1719.06 --> 1721.78]  It's like getting mentored by a team member.
+[1721.78 --> 1723.48]  So it's pretty awesome.
+[1723.64 --> 1726.90]  I feel great about the quality that that has been produced so far.
+[1727.42 --> 1727.54]  Yeah.
+[1727.76 --> 1729.16]  No, that makes a lot of sense.
+[1729.26 --> 1732.96]  I mean, I'm like a completely rational decision.
+[1732.96 --> 1738.78]  And I think good move, you know, to make sure you can take full ownership of the message, right?
+[1738.82 --> 1742.34]  Like you can own the mistakes and you can own the success.
+[1742.34 --> 1743.70]  Like I get that.
+[1743.82 --> 1744.46]  So that's awesome.
+[1744.86 --> 1745.96]  I'm just kind of curious.
+[1745.96 --> 1752.86]  Like I was going to ask about like I've noticed like that there's more diverse example, like just everything.
+[1752.86 --> 1753.98]  It's not even just examples.
+[1753.98 --> 1757.88]  It's like imagery, examples, iconography, like whatever.
+[1758.04 --> 1761.82]  Like it's just it feels more diverse and inclusive.
+[1761.82 --> 1768.96]  And I couldn't quite put my finger on it because I initially thought like, oh, it looks like maybe they're just highlighting women in tech.
+[1768.98 --> 1770.88]  And then I looked around and it's like, no, no, no, no.
+[1770.88 --> 1772.20]  This is broader than that.
+[1772.20 --> 1780.56]  And so really kudos to I guess Sylvia and to you also for listening and putting that feedback, you know, into action.
+[1780.76 --> 1781.66]  So that's awesome.
+[1782.32 --> 1790.58]  Is there like a formal feedback kind of channel that you establish with the community like around like questions and or whatever?
+[1790.80 --> 1791.72]  Like I'm just curious.
+[1791.82 --> 1798.94]  There are three ways you can give feedback on the docs and they're all linked to from the front page of the site at beta.reactjs.org.
+[1798.94 --> 1803.44]  You can fill out a survey, privately drop your feedback directly to the team.
+[1803.96 --> 1805.80]  You can leave a comment on GitHub.
+[1806.16 --> 1808.02]  There's a sporting conversation going there.
+[1808.10 --> 1811.32]  We get all the feedbacks, you know, for all kinds of things.
+[1811.46 --> 1812.16]  And this is great.
+[1812.26 --> 1813.78]  We love having that feedback.
+[1814.00 --> 1816.74]  It often gets turned into an issue which someone acts on.
+[1817.38 --> 1821.40]  I think we've got someone who made dark mode persistent recently.
+[1821.48 --> 1822.00]  That's awesome.
+[1822.68 --> 1823.44]  Adore that.
+[1823.44 --> 1829.70]  But, you know, if you're shy, you can also leave feedback using the feedback button on each page.
+[1829.78 --> 1833.00]  If you want to give us your feedback directly on something you saw.
+[1833.66 --> 1835.06]  Maybe something wasn't working.
+[1835.38 --> 1836.58]  Maybe something was confusing.
+[1837.10 --> 1842.68]  This particular tool will let you tell us all about what you want, where you want it.
+[1842.68 --> 1848.04]  And that's actually really helpful to us at this stage, getting that kind of feedback about what's working, what isn't.
+[1848.44 --> 1851.84]  We really want to make sure that these docs do right by everybody.
+[1852.10 --> 1854.78]  So if you do have that feedback, we do want to hear it.
+[1854.98 --> 1860.04]  We hope we have made enough places and enough channels for you to get that feedback to us.
+[1860.34 --> 1865.18]  You mentioned that you did a bunch of user experience interviews for the React Native docs.
+[1865.86 --> 1867.64]  Have you been doing that with these docs?
+[1867.96 --> 1869.52]  And, like, do you just do them at the beginning?
+[1869.52 --> 1871.76]  Or have you been kind of doing them all the way through?
+[1871.76 --> 1872.64]  Absolutely.
+[1873.06 --> 1874.04]  Did them at the beginning.
+[1874.32 --> 1875.74]  Did them with the prototype site.
+[1875.92 --> 1877.38]  And did them, well, right now.
+[1877.48 --> 1878.94]  We're kind of always taking feedback.
+[1879.36 --> 1884.62]  You know, the sort of thing where you hand people the site and you just sit back and you watch them and take notes and ask them probing questions.
+[1885.26 --> 1889.26]  The development of the site started that way and has continued onward that way.
+[1889.78 --> 1894.62]  One of the challenges with this was, like, we could have, you know, it is a new design.
+[1894.62 --> 1899.52]  We could have just designed things and thrown them over the wall and seen how they did.
+[1899.52 --> 1903.30]  Or, you know, showed people designs with mock content in it.
+[1903.30 --> 1911.02]  But we really wanted to test the design with the content and see where people were getting stuck, where they were doing well.
+[1911.10 --> 1912.36]  We caught a lot of stuff early.
+[1912.58 --> 1919.98]  For instance, networking issues that were making the examples take very, very long to load in, like, different parts of the world.
+[1920.12 --> 1921.34]  We caught those so early.
+[1921.72 --> 1923.54]  We were really happy we were able to do that.
+[1923.54 --> 1929.22]  Other things, like, at first, people didn't realize that the interactive examples were interactive.
+[1929.48 --> 1932.76]  They thought they were, right, interactive examples are still fairly new.
+[1932.86 --> 1935.78]  They're going to be, like, old hat in a few days, I'm sure.
+[1936.38 --> 1940.68]  But right now, people are still like, I thought that was a picture of the code.
+[1940.84 --> 1942.76]  Or I expected that to be a code block.
+[1942.76 --> 1950.36]  So we had to do some things where we rejiggered the design to make it look more interactive and more like a coding editor with numbers down the side, etc.
+[1951.02 --> 1956.16]  But there is no way we would have known this if we'd just been, like, waterfall, launch everything with horns.
+[1956.70 --> 1959.36]  So this is why we did so much testing along the way.
+[1959.68 --> 1968.60]  There's also been surveys, formal surveys of people coming in and out of the testing pools to get a better idea of, like, how does this stack up against the old docs?
+[1968.70 --> 1969.96]  Would you recommend it to a friend?
+[1969.96 --> 1972.26]  And the signal has been strong.
+[1972.52 --> 1973.50]  And it remains strong.
+[1973.64 --> 1974.94]  We're still getting really good feedback.
+[1975.50 --> 1976.56]  But now there's a question.
+[1976.82 --> 1980.14]  Because, you know, you can sit over a person's shoulder and watch them for an hour.
+[1980.34 --> 1983.70]  You can ask them to fill out a survey after they've interacted with the docs for a week.
+[1984.28 --> 1990.42]  But now the question is, what kind of feedback do we get after people have been using the docs in beta for a while?
+[1990.58 --> 1991.42]  That's the feedback.
+[1991.68 --> 1994.88]  This is the third stage of user testing.
+[1995.34 --> 1998.70]  And that's why we are exceptionally keen to get that feedback.
+[1998.70 --> 2001.88]  And this is the uncharted territory stage, too, right?
+[2002.20 --> 2008.22]  The super embarrassing stage where, like, podcast hosts might say things like, yeah, I tried the docs.
+[2008.54 --> 2013.36]  But I got to ask, you know, like, when are you finishing all the API docs?
+[2013.36 --> 2014.38]  Where's the close button?
+[2014.68 --> 2015.26]  Just kidding.
+[2015.40 --> 2016.28]  Hey, oh, gosh.
+[2016.52 --> 2017.08]  Hey, no.
+[2017.16 --> 2019.62]  I didn't ask that to be, like, prudish.
+[2019.62 --> 2020.60]  No, I'm just saying.
+[2020.60 --> 2020.64]  Prudish.
+[2020.84 --> 2024.82]  I asked it to, like, say, hey, everyone's still a work in progress.
+[2025.32 --> 2028.16]  Or, like, and really, I was going to ask, well, how can people contribute?
+[2028.26 --> 2029.86]  But you answered that on your own.
+[2030.36 --> 2031.92]  Maybe because you knew I was going to ask that.
+[2032.00 --> 2033.44]  But still, thank you for doing it.
+[2033.52 --> 2036.22]  Like, you saved me the, I didn't know what the answer was going to be.
+[2036.28 --> 2038.86]  So you saved me the hassle of asking.
+[2038.86 --> 2045.10]  I am pretty sure you asked about contributions, at least in your opening statement there.
+[2045.22 --> 2045.84]  Oh, okay.
+[2046.18 --> 2046.68]  I did.
+[2046.76 --> 2049.26]  I'm pretty sure that I heard you mention that.
+[2049.44 --> 2049.60]  Okay.
+[2049.72 --> 2050.86]  Don't worry about that one.
+[2051.42 --> 2054.86]  But no, what I mean is, like, now the feedback is more public.
+[2055.20 --> 2058.36]  It's going to be one of those things where, you know, somebody might wake up in the morning
+[2058.36 --> 2061.56]  and go onto Twitter and be like, the emperor has no new clothes.
+[2061.58 --> 2061.82]  Right.
+[2062.14 --> 2063.08]  Who knows?
+[2063.08 --> 2069.34]  But you do have to eventually take your baby, release it into the wild, and see how it gets
+[2069.34 --> 2070.10]  on with others.
+[2070.44 --> 2072.76]  And it's all part of the iterative process.
+[2073.34 --> 2076.88]  I think one of the things that's really awesome about the new documentation is that we really
+[2076.88 --> 2081.50]  approached it like a product, like something we would develop, like we would solve all of
+[2081.50 --> 2084.36]  these challenging issues that have come up for the community.
+[2084.52 --> 2085.72]  We've been collecting this feedback.
+[2085.86 --> 2087.74]  We know what we think people want.
+[2088.10 --> 2090.82]  Now we've got to see if we actually solve those problems.
+[2090.82 --> 2095.90]  And there's no better, no better way to test something than production.
+[2096.32 --> 2096.46]  Yeah.
+[2096.88 --> 2097.60]  You know, it's so funny.
+[2097.70 --> 2101.94]  There's that saying, and I swear I have to remind myself all the time because I'm an
+[2101.94 --> 2102.98]  absolute perfectionist.
+[2103.48 --> 2108.50]  But it's if you wait till you're not embarrassed about your code to show your code, you've waited
+[2108.50 --> 2109.28]  too long, right?
+[2109.36 --> 2111.10]  Like, that is so true.
+[2111.22 --> 2111.34]  Yeah.
+[2111.38 --> 2114.94]  If you're if you wait till you're not embarrassed, then yeah, you've missed so many opportunities
+[2114.94 --> 2118.12]  for early feedback that could have maybe even made it better.
+[2118.12 --> 2118.42]  Right.
+[2118.42 --> 2123.52]  Because that's the beautiful thing about feedback is like, you always are in a better place
+[2123.52 --> 2124.18]  because of it.
+[2124.34 --> 2129.02]  The collaborative experience, even if it just shifts you by one degree, like you are one
+[2129.02 --> 2132.18]  degree better than you were without this feedback, you know?
+[2132.22 --> 2137.34]  And so like, I can only imagine like, what it's like to kind of really be receiving that
+[2137.34 --> 2141.46]  kind of feedback from a percentage of 2 million developers, right?
+[2141.68 --> 2143.22]  That's a pretty big percentage.
+[2143.22 --> 2148.42]  So we wanted to make sure that people were giving us like some stuff like networking issues.
+[2148.42 --> 2153.14]  We don't want people to have to tell us that we should be doing that ahead of time.
+[2153.22 --> 2157.24]  When you say that, do you mean like CDNs that CDN coverage that you needed to add?
+[2157.28 --> 2160.26]  Or like when you say networking, do you mean just that the site was chunky?
+[2160.56 --> 2162.08]  Like, what do you mean by networking?
+[2162.08 --> 2166.40]  Yeah, we just had some issues in the beginning with when we were still working out how the
+[2166.40 --> 2170.04]  interactive examples worked that, you know, in some places they took a little longer to
+[2170.04 --> 2170.80]  render than others.
+[2171.08 --> 2171.32]  Oh, yeah.
+[2171.40 --> 2177.42]  And we didn't want to launch with something that was not polished enough for everybody.
+[2177.88 --> 2181.62]  So there was a reason for keeping it behind a gate for a bit to make sure that everybody
+[2181.62 --> 2186.78]  was going to have a great experience, that user testing was all around positive.
+[2187.42 --> 2190.76]  People realized that the interactive examples were interactive, for instance.
+[2190.76 --> 2192.52]  That was all good stuff.
+[2192.82 --> 2196.44]  But now, now the real question is, how's it going to do in production?
+[2197.10 --> 2202.34]  And you can only test on a subset of users for so long.
+[2202.48 --> 2205.68]  Eventually, you do have to see how it's going to go.
+[2205.70 --> 2206.72]  And you're absolutely right.
+[2207.22 --> 2210.84]  Like, you can run all the tests on your code, make sure it's working.
+[2211.04 --> 2216.66]  But in the end, doing the code review is going to probably give you the most insights.
+[2217.04 --> 2218.42]  Eventually, you have to share.
+[2218.42 --> 2218.80]  Yeah.
+[2218.80 --> 2219.00]  Wow.
+[2219.00 --> 2225.60]  I'm so curious if you have any, like, quantifiable metrics to know how it's doing or any, like,
+[2225.68 --> 2227.76]  goals that you can measure.
+[2228.28 --> 2228.86]  I have a couple.
+[2229.18 --> 2235.14]  One thing that we measure across all the documentation in the React family is aha moments.
+[2235.32 --> 2237.98]  Well, in the testing phases of the documentation.
+[2238.60 --> 2243.22]  Actually looking at still testing to see if there's a way to let people tell us if they've had
+[2243.22 --> 2249.72]  an aha moment on a page, this is a really good signal that the content is landing and that people
+[2249.72 --> 2254.64]  are feeling like they're grokking something, like something has been a revelation to them.
+[2254.70 --> 2256.28]  You know when you're having an aha moment.
+[2256.80 --> 2259.52]  So that's one metric that's been really good for early testing.
+[2260.14 --> 2265.52]  There's also questions that you can ask in a more mature documentation that's been released
+[2265.52 --> 2265.88]  for a while.
+[2265.98 --> 2269.62]  You can ask things like MDN does, which is, you know, did you find what you were looking
+[2269.62 --> 2270.32]  for today?
+[2270.74 --> 2272.78]  What were you here to do?
+[2272.88 --> 2274.08]  Were you referencing documentation?
+[2274.48 --> 2276.06]  Were you learning something from scratch?
+[2276.14 --> 2277.32]  Were you decoding an error?
+[2277.94 --> 2279.02]  Were you making a decision?
+[2279.56 --> 2283.88]  And you can kind of, from these different things, you can triangulate where your documentation
+[2283.88 --> 2285.68]  might need to be filled out more.
+[2285.68 --> 2291.44]  This is a survey that you can share with like 1% of people who are visiting, and it kind of
+[2291.44 --> 2296.82]  really helps you keep the pulse of your documentation so you don't necessarily have to, you know,
+[2297.18 --> 2299.04]  run gigantic surveys once a year.
+[2299.54 --> 2304.10]  This way you're getting a sample from all your user base throughout the year, and it's
+[2304.10 --> 2304.98]  much less intrusive.
+[2305.58 --> 2313.58]  Additionally, I like to use, there is this thing called Net Promoter Score, which is a measure
+[2313.58 --> 2316.74]  of how likely someone is to recommend a resource.
+[2317.30 --> 2319.72]  It has been abused all over the place.
+[2319.88 --> 2324.08]  There are people who use Net Promoter Score with call centers, like, why would you do that?
+[2324.52 --> 2327.64]  Like, that's just, you're just being mean to the people at the call center for that.
+[2328.10 --> 2332.68]  Net Promoter Score doesn't really work well with people outside the American culture, because
+[2332.68 --> 2338.66]  like, Germans, you ask a German person, like, how likely are you to recommend this on a scale
+[2338.66 --> 2341.06]  from 1 to 10, and they will give you exactly what they feel.
+[2341.06 --> 2346.88]  Which, Net Promoter Score is calibrated for Americans, where if it's not like a 9 or a
+[2346.88 --> 2348.36]  10, you failed.
+[2348.76 --> 2350.16]  They're not really into it.
+[2350.26 --> 2353.94]  But, you know, like, in Germany, a 6 is actually pretty good.
+[2354.18 --> 2355.14]  They did not hate it.
+[2355.60 --> 2356.90]  It's more than half.
+[2358.20 --> 2359.74]  Yeah, that's pretty good.
+[2360.12 --> 2364.58]  So this is an interesting measure, and you really do have to read up on it before you start
+[2364.58 --> 2365.14]  using it.
+[2365.14 --> 2371.06]  But for me, from doing so much metric tracking with all the documentation efforts since getting
+[2371.06 --> 2374.46]  here, it tracks really well with a bunch of other satisfaction metrics.
+[2375.10 --> 2379.76]  So if that metric is doing well, I kind of expect that a bunch of other questions I could
+[2379.76 --> 2384.18]  ask are also doing well, which means I don't have to ask people as many questions.
+[2384.60 --> 2389.40]  How likely are you to recommend this particular set of documentation to a friend or a colleague?
+[2389.40 --> 2396.00]  And that is a pretty good baseline from which you can compare before and after photos or
+[2396.00 --> 2402.66]  compare, you know, how well is my JavaScript documentation doing next to my Android documentation?
+[2402.94 --> 2405.48]  Well, NPS is X, NPS is Y.
+[2405.64 --> 2409.08]  We can see that people are less likely to recommend this one.
+[2409.24 --> 2410.36]  So let's investigate that.
+[2410.72 --> 2413.34]  It's really good for taking the pulse and before and after pictures.
+[2413.34 --> 2417.64]  You can always do page metrics, thumbs up, thumbs down.
+[2417.82 --> 2421.42]  Those are great for tracking how people are feeling about the documentation after you've
+[2421.42 --> 2422.42]  moved on from the project.
+[2422.98 --> 2427.12]  They're a little less useful when you're doing beta testing on new content because you don't
+[2427.12 --> 2430.34]  have a lot of people there thumbs upping and thumbs downing.
+[2430.68 --> 2434.08]  You know, four people give you a thumbs up doesn't necessarily mean that that particular
+[2434.08 --> 2434.86]  page is stellar.
+[2435.52 --> 2437.94]  So that's the interesting thing about metrics.
+[2438.36 --> 2442.58]  The more people you have giving you the data, the more trustworthy it is.
+[2442.58 --> 2447.82]  When you're doing little tiny beta tests, you end up leaning more on qualitative feedback.
+[2448.18 --> 2449.96]  You know, like, what did you think of the docs?
+[2450.04 --> 2451.52]  People say, ah, this is amazing.
+[2451.68 --> 2452.84]  It's exactly what I need.
+[2453.16 --> 2454.26]  That's a really good signal.
+[2454.74 --> 2458.64]  So it's a mixture when you're developing a new learning resource.
+[2458.76 --> 2461.04]  It's a mixture of qualitative and quantitative.
+[2461.50 --> 2466.40]  But once you release it into the wild, it really is helpful to have the quantitative metrics
+[2466.40 --> 2471.96]  set up and running to help you ensure, you know, like, look and be like, oh,
+[2471.96 --> 2476.00]  these docs haven't been updated in a while and they're getting a lot of thumbs down.
+[2476.56 --> 2477.60]  You should look into that.
+[2478.00 --> 2481.94]  Ah, getting a lot of feedback that people are coming to the references section, but they're
+[2481.94 --> 2483.28]  not finding what they need.
+[2483.88 --> 2484.10]  Hmm.
+[2484.20 --> 2485.60]  I wonder what it is that they need.
+[2485.74 --> 2487.24]  Let's dive into the comments.
+[2487.90 --> 2493.28]  So metrics and both quantitative and qualitative are your friend in changing ways throughout the
+[2493.28 --> 2494.96]  educational material development lifecycle.
+[2495.44 --> 2496.38]  Did I answer your question, Amelia?
+[2496.40 --> 2497.06]  Yeah, that was.
+[2497.14 --> 2498.12]  I kind of gave you a dissertation.
+[2498.24 --> 2498.66]  Very thorough.
+[2498.82 --> 2499.88]  I really appreciate it.
+[2499.88 --> 2501.26]  That was extremely thorough.
+[2501.72 --> 2503.86]  I'm like, I should be taking notes, you know.
+[2504.20 --> 2505.16]  But no, that was awesome.
+[2505.30 --> 2507.66]  So like, where do I even start?
+[2507.86 --> 2510.52]  Like, you can edit that down for the podcast.
+[2510.52 --> 2511.04]  That's great.
+[2511.18 --> 2512.16]  You don't need to share all that.
+[2512.20 --> 2514.16]  No, you don't need to edit any of that.
+[2514.24 --> 2514.62]  It's fine.
+[2514.76 --> 2515.82]  It was phenomenal.
+[2516.22 --> 2519.04]  So like, it seems like there's a few things like I want to ask you one.
+[2519.32 --> 2521.12]  Maybe I'll combine them into two questions.
+[2521.22 --> 2524.06]  So one is like, what was it like to work in the open?
+[2524.06 --> 2526.26]  Or what was it like to not work in the open?
+[2526.34 --> 2527.72]  Because I don't actually know.
+[2528.32 --> 2533.50]  How were you working on this project before you had this massive, like, drop the ball moment?
+[2533.68 --> 2536.90]  And then like, or did people have like a smell that this was coming?
+[2537.32 --> 2540.42]  Like, or it was like, I'm just curious, like how you did that.
+[2540.54 --> 2544.12]  And then the second question is really like what it was like to like work with all these people,
+[2544.48 --> 2546.50]  maybe external to the React core team.
+[2546.50 --> 2548.52]  Because it seems like there was a whole group of people.
+[2548.62 --> 2549.28]  So who were they?
+[2549.28 --> 2550.48]  And what was it like to work with them?
+[2550.90 --> 2552.18]  So sorry for two big questions.
+[2552.54 --> 2554.98]  But you're going to have to pick one of them.
+[2555.06 --> 2555.36]  Okay.
+[2555.48 --> 2556.78]  You know, I give dissertations.
+[2556.94 --> 2557.26]  I know.
+[2557.66 --> 2560.08]  You're like an entire, I know, entire essay.
+[2560.20 --> 2562.16]  Okay, I might the external people.
+[2562.54 --> 2563.12]  Oh, actually, you know what?
+[2563.16 --> 2565.28]  No, no, I think you can list that pretty quickly.
+[2565.40 --> 2566.90]  I just was curious who was working with you.
+[2566.94 --> 2571.34]  But I think I'm maybe more curious about like how you worked on this before the launch, you know.
+[2571.78 --> 2573.60]  And like, what was that experience like?
+[2573.98 --> 2575.62]  Well, it was a couple of different experiences.
+[2575.62 --> 2583.24]  We had to build a new site that would contain the new documentation and had a really good contribution workflow.
+[2583.50 --> 2589.48]  It was hard to write the documentation before the site was finished because so much of the documentation is interactive.
+[2590.16 --> 2596.08]  You know, like you'd be writing a Google Doc and then you'd have to like put a link to a code sandbox to explain what you're talking about.
+[2596.16 --> 2597.28]  Like this would be embedded.
+[2597.64 --> 2599.60]  It was really, really slow and churny.
+[2599.96 --> 2602.86]  But things picked up once we got a prototype site in place.
+[2602.86 --> 2606.18]  That was a quick collaboration to set something like that up.
+[2606.36 --> 2609.60]  Did I read it correctly that Jared Palmer helped build the site?
+[2609.98 --> 2615.10]  Jared Palmer helped build the prototype site that we were using to write the documentation up behind the scenes.
+[2615.20 --> 2615.40]  Yes.
+[2615.94 --> 2616.38]  Wow.
+[2616.38 --> 2617.86]  That was spun up super quickly.
+[2618.16 --> 2623.30]  Code Sandbox had a dedicated team working on integrating the sandpack with the site.
+[2623.84 --> 2626.66]  And that was really fun, too, because we were sort of their guinea pig.
+[2627.10 --> 2628.26]  They were also our guinea pig.
+[2628.58 --> 2630.98]  So we were kind of like co-guinea pigs.
+[2630.98 --> 2631.70]  Guinea-pigging.
+[2631.70 --> 2632.18]  Yeah.
+[2632.40 --> 2632.80]  Yeah.
+[2633.30 --> 2633.98]  That was fun.
+[2634.32 --> 2638.90]  And then to actually build out the final site, there was a design effort.
+[2639.64 --> 2646.34]  We had a UI designer in-house who worked on the code diagrams and like how the interactive examples would work.
+[2646.96 --> 2654.30]  And another designer who came up with the design system, which actually folded into a bit of a design refresh for the React brand.
+[2654.44 --> 2657.98]  You might notice that the logo is a little smoother around the edges.
+[2657.98 --> 2658.24]  No.
+[2658.68 --> 2659.78]  It's very, very subtle.
+[2659.78 --> 2660.48]  Wait.
+[2661.48 --> 2667.08]  Is this like the difference between like a squircle and a-
+[2667.08 --> 2667.68]  A rounded rectangle?
+[2667.82 --> 2669.02]  A rounded rectangle.
+[2669.56 --> 2671.76]  Like, you know, that's like very subtle.
+[2672.62 --> 2674.16]  How different is this logo?
+[2674.50 --> 2676.22]  I would actually say that's an accurate depiction.
+[2676.56 --> 2677.04]  Oh, okay.
+[2677.12 --> 2677.68]  Oh, excellent.
+[2678.02 --> 2678.38]  Yay.
+[2678.56 --> 2681.20]  That's what I figured because it's not like very noticeable.
+[2681.20 --> 2681.60]  Yeah.
+[2681.60 --> 2682.00]  Yeah.
+[2682.46 --> 2684.74]  And that was Rajvan and Dan.
+[2684.78 --> 2689.06]  What is it with big tech companies and the desire to like constantly change logos or names?
+[2689.24 --> 2691.20]  Like Google has done this a hundred times.
+[2691.42 --> 2693.04]  Like Facebook did this.
+[2693.30 --> 2693.46]  Oh, no.
+[2693.52 --> 2696.46]  We don't need to talk about the actual, like I just talk just in general.
+[2696.56 --> 2699.14]  It's just like this hilarious thing that we don't need to spend any time on.
+[2699.32 --> 2699.92]  It's a rhetorical question.
+[2699.92 --> 2700.86]  Let's move on.
+[2701.20 --> 2702.08]  Rhetorical question.
+[2702.40 --> 2702.60]  Yes.
+[2702.70 --> 2703.98]  That's exactly what it was.
+[2704.48 --> 2704.82]  So, yeah.
+[2704.88 --> 2705.22]  I don't know.
+[2705.28 --> 2706.42]  Amelia, you go.
+[2706.60 --> 2709.20]  I mean, I have so many thoughts, but this is amazing.
+[2709.52 --> 2709.72]  Wait.
+[2709.78 --> 2711.86]  I haven't finished with my thank you card.
+[2711.86 --> 2712.60]  Oh, you haven't finished.
+[2712.70 --> 2713.30]  Oh, sorry.
+[2713.88 --> 2714.32]  Okay.
+[2714.56 --> 2714.76]  Yeah.
+[2714.88 --> 2715.10]  Great.
+[2715.24 --> 2716.70]  So then we had these cool designs.
+[2716.94 --> 2717.10]  Okay.
+[2717.22 --> 2722.12]  And we worked with Dustin and Dane over at this dot.
+[2722.68 --> 2725.38]  They did the implementation for the designs.
+[2726.16 --> 2730.44]  And so there are a couple of different teams at different places doing different integration work.
+[2730.92 --> 2737.12]  You know, different people designing UI, different people implementing it, different people putting the new design system into place.
+[2737.48 --> 2743.78]  And Maggie Appleton, like the original prototype site was all my sketches and doodles everywhere.
+[2743.90 --> 2748.76]  Because I'd be like in a meeting and I'd be like, okay, and state, does state work like this?
+[2749.20 --> 2749.60]  No.
+[2750.86 --> 2751.68]  Like this?
+[2751.76 --> 2752.52]  Is this a good metaphor?
+[2752.70 --> 2752.90]  Okay.
+[2752.92 --> 2753.38]  That's close.
+[2753.38 --> 2757.50]  And I put all these illustrations and hand-drawn diagrams in.
+[2757.62 --> 2759.96]  And you know what the alpha tester feedback was?
+[2760.16 --> 2760.40]  What?
+[2760.76 --> 2766.06]  These illustrations are interesting and nice, but I cannot read the text.
+[2766.24 --> 2767.40]  My handwriting was so bad.
+[2768.02 --> 2777.10]  So toward the end, we ended up bringing in Maggie Appleton, who does amazing React illustrations, to come up with a diagramming system that really helps.
+[2777.36 --> 2778.26]  And you'll see those soon.
+[2778.54 --> 2779.22]  We're still in beta.
+[2779.54 --> 2780.22]  They're going to be implemented.
+[2780.42 --> 2781.04]  You'll see them soon.
+[2781.04 --> 2786.16]  And these take my chicken scratchings and make them actual diagrams.
+[2786.16 --> 2787.80]  The ones in the site right now?
+[2788.06 --> 2790.28]  I thought those are your illustrations, right?
+[2790.66 --> 2791.36]  They are.
+[2791.54 --> 2792.84]  The actual illustrations.
+[2793.24 --> 2798.94]  Like, you'll notice there are illustrations that show, like, React Head, who's like this Ikea dude doing things.
+[2799.02 --> 2799.34]  Yeah.
+[2799.64 --> 2800.82]  Those are final illos.
+[2800.92 --> 2802.28]  Gender neutral dude.
+[2802.94 --> 2804.46]  Or maybe not so gender neutral.
+[2804.62 --> 2805.00]  I don't know.
+[2805.00 --> 2805.74]  It's React Head.
+[2805.82 --> 2806.48]  It's React Head.
+[2806.48 --> 2808.74]  Not the star of a horror movie.
+[2809.02 --> 2809.26]  Okay.
+[2809.26 --> 2813.48]  But your helpful Ikea person assisting you with assembling your component.
+[2813.68 --> 2816.52]  I feel like helpful Ikea person is, like, very gender neutral, though.
+[2816.56 --> 2820.14]  So I figured, like, React Head was, like, non-binary or something.
+[2820.22 --> 2820.70]  But who knows?
+[2821.06 --> 2822.46]  I'd like to think of it that way.
+[2822.58 --> 2822.76]  Yeah.
+[2822.84 --> 2825.96]  And there are diagrams, which are still very sketchy.
+[2826.14 --> 2829.30]  We've got a proper diagramming system coming in for those.
+[2829.32 --> 2830.12]  Super cool.
+[2830.12 --> 2831.14]  That's pretty awesome.
+[2831.32 --> 2833.20]  I think I've given thanks to everybody.
+[2833.56 --> 2837.38]  Of course, the actual docs themselves, the learning path, everything.
+[2837.92 --> 2845.74]  This was designed by Dan Abramov, who, you might remember, has been, like, blogging about React on overreacted.io forever.
+[2846.26 --> 2850.06]  You read these docs, you might be like, Rachel, you must know everything about React.
+[2850.28 --> 2850.88]  I do not.
+[2851.78 --> 2852.82]  No, I do not.
+[2852.82 --> 2860.44]  A lot of this is collaboration with Dan, with the core team, to bring this information to light.
+[2861.02 --> 2864.54]  And, you know, yes, I have wordsmithed a lot of it.
+[2865.08 --> 2870.58]  One or two of those pages are definitely exact products from Rachel, but most of them are team effort.
+[2871.06 --> 2873.58]  They have been through lots of revisions, iterations.
+[2874.14 --> 2877.92]  They are how to think and react directly from React core team members.
+[2878.70 --> 2880.88]  And that's what's so special about this.
+[2880.88 --> 2889.92]  I mean, it was kind of like getting to co-author a book on React for a year and also produce the interactive part of it, too.
+[2890.12 --> 2891.22]  That was just so cool.
+[2891.90 --> 2897.60]  And the docs are the way they are because of so many amazing people putting in their efforts.
+[2897.98 --> 2900.76]  We wouldn't have been able to test on real people without that prototype.
+[2901.06 --> 2904.70]  We wouldn't have been able to get the interactive examples without Code Sandbox.
+[2905.10 --> 2909.64]  We wouldn't have had these amazing examples in the first place without Sylvia.
+[2909.64 --> 2920.38]  So I really think when you look at these docs, you're looking at a synthesis of so many efforts and a feedback of so many amazing volunteers who joined us at the start of the journey.
+[2920.38 --> 2933.02]  This episode is brought to you by our friends at Square.
+[2933.24 --> 2935.36]  Square is the platform that sellers trust.
+[2935.84 --> 2942.68]  There is a massive opportunity for developers to support Square sellers by building apps for today's business needs.
+[2943.12 --> 2945.88]  And I'm here with Shannon Skipper, head of developer relations at Square.
+[2945.88 --> 2950.16]  Shannon, can you share some details about the opportunity for developers on the Square platform?
+[2950.56 --> 2951.02]  Yeah, absolutely.
+[2951.24 --> 2953.90]  So we have millions of sellers who have unique needs.
+[2954.20 --> 2957.26]  And Square has apps like our point of sale app, like our restaurants app.
+[2957.44 --> 2963.66]  But there are so many different sellers, tuxedo shops, florists who need specific solutions for their domain.
+[2963.92 --> 2974.98]  And so we have a Node SDK written in TypeScript that allows you to access all of the backend APIs and SDKs that we use to power the billions of transactions that we do annually.
+[2974.98 --> 2979.56]  And so there's this massive market of sellers who need help from developers.
+[2980.12 --> 2990.98]  They either need a bespoke solution built for themselves on their own Node stack where they are working with Square dashboard, working with Square hardware or with the e-com, you know, what you see is what you get builder.
+[2991.24 --> 2992.26]  And they need one more thing.
+[2992.34 --> 2993.62]  They need an additional build.
+[2993.94 --> 3001.98]  And then finally, we have the app marketplace where you can make a Node app and then distribute it so it can get in front of millions of sellers and be an option for them to adopt.
+[3001.98 --> 3002.78]  Very cool.
+[3002.86 --> 3003.10]  All right.
+[3003.14 --> 3010.90]  If you want to learn more, head to developer.squareup.com to dive into the docs, APIs, SDKs, and to create your Square developer account.
+[3011.20 --> 3012.98]  Start developing on the platform seller's trust.
+[3013.34 --> 3015.66]  Again, that's developer.squareup.com.
+[3016.04 --> 3019.68]  And by our friends at FASC, they're running a massive promo on Compute at Edge.
+[3019.84 --> 3030.04]  They're inviting our entire listener base to move latency-sensitive workloads to the edge with Compute at Edge free for three months, plus up to $100,000 a month in credit for an additional six months.
+[3030.04 --> 3038.52]  This is a limited-time offer, so head to Fastly.com slash podcast as soon as you can to check it out and get all the details.
+[3039.00 --> 3039.92]  Here's the TLDR.
+[3040.42 --> 3050.80]  Fastly's Edge Cloud Network and Modern Approach to Serverless Computing allows you to deploy and run complex logic at the edge with unparalleled security and blazing fast computational speed.
+[3051.14 --> 3058.32]  Scale instantly and globally, reduce origin load, get real-time observability, and get seamless integration with your existing tech stack.
+[3058.32 --> 3066.22]  Head to Fastly.com slash podcast to get Compute at Edge free for three months, plus up to $100,000 a month in credit for an additional six months.
+[3066.70 --> 3069.08]  Once again, Fastly.com slash podcast.
+[3069.08 --> 3069.32]  Fastly.com slash podcast.
+[3085.84 --> 3096.18]  Okay, Rachel, that was really incredible to hear about just how many, you know, people were involved and people, vendors, you know, like volunteers, you name it.
+[3096.18 --> 3103.02]  You have a whole kind of smorgasbord of people helping kind of birth this into the world, which is like so exciting.
+[3103.54 --> 3107.12]  I'm curious, like the goals are kind of these lofty goals, right?
+[3107.12 --> 3115.26]  Like, hey, you should be able to more or less master React through these docs, and you should be able to kind of be comfortable.
+[3115.26 --> 3120.72]  The API reference should cover everything you need to know to stay safe and be productive.
+[3120.96 --> 3127.86]  And so I'm assuming as much as, like, I know what I'm learning, I'm usually learning from multiple sources on the same topic.
+[3128.04 --> 3134.50]  And usually that's because there's, they don't all cover the same thing or in the same way, and I don't always learn from them in the same way.
+[3134.50 --> 3138.10]  And so, like, what gaps do you think that you guys are never going to cover?
+[3138.70 --> 3145.64]  And, like, what types of things would people want to kind of look to other places beyond the docs to kind of, like, gain mastery?
+[3146.42 --> 3150.00]  Well, for one thing, the docs strictly teach React.
+[3150.42 --> 3161.10]  They don't teach React and, you know, Next or React and Gatsby or React for building a blog or React for building your own app.
+[3161.10 --> 3163.80]  It's strictly how to get great with React.
+[3164.04 --> 3168.74]  If you want to learn those other things, there are amazing resources available.
+[3169.28 --> 3173.80]  The documentation at Next and Gatsby is, you know, excellent.
+[3174.22 --> 3179.50]  What we wanted to do, though, was to make sure that these people who build great courses, great platforms, et cetera,
+[3179.88 --> 3188.12]  that they had reference material that they could link out to, lean on, or even, you know, re-explain React better than we could to their audiences,
+[3188.12 --> 3194.96]  but feel certain that they were, in the case of trainers making courses, really be sure that they were explaining it right.
+[3195.48 --> 3200.34]  We're not able to go out and offer editorialship to everyone's documentation and courses.
+[3200.56 --> 3201.26]  We wish we could.
+[3201.66 --> 3201.84]  I know.
+[3201.90 --> 3202.80]  I know you wish you could.
+[3202.90 --> 3205.74]  I know you all are so generous with your time and feedback already.
+[3205.84 --> 3208.96]  Honestly, I really feel that truly about the React core team.
+[3209.18 --> 3212.60]  Like, you're very, very, very good about giving feedback to educators.
+[3212.60 --> 3218.06]  And I think, like, and also just in general, you have folks like Mark Erickson.
+[3218.22 --> 3223.86]  How can I talk about React without talking about Mark, you know, who's like Ace Mark on Twitter and in Discord.
+[3224.04 --> 3227.06]  He's a phenomenal educator, super patient.
+[3227.34 --> 3229.42]  But I feel that very strongly about the React community.
+[3229.62 --> 3231.94]  Like, y'all are just incommunicado.
+[3232.20 --> 3234.96]  But I'm so glad to hear that, like, that was the goal, you know?
+[3235.04 --> 3236.10]  Like, that's so cool.
+[3236.64 --> 3238.02]  Like, it's, like, very platformy.
+[3238.02 --> 3248.16]  It's like, I'm going to build a platform for platforms, which is, like, I'm going to make sure that we're supporting the educators when they're talking to their audiences in the language that their audiences prefer, you know?
+[3248.34 --> 3249.36]  So that's really cool.
+[3249.62 --> 3260.26]  So one thing I wanted to ask about is the layout and navigation is a little bit different from the official docs or the last docs, which I think they're both going to live in harmony now.
+[3260.72 --> 3265.14]  Well, eventually the beta documentation will be the documentation.
+[3265.48 --> 3265.72]  Gotcha.
+[3265.72 --> 3269.60]  Beta.reactjs.org will get merged to reactjs.org.
+[3270.08 --> 3270.62]  The end.
+[3270.90 --> 3271.86]  That's the end goal.
+[3272.16 --> 3272.38]  Gotcha.
+[3272.54 --> 3272.76]  Okay.
+[3272.92 --> 3274.06]  Thanks for clarifying that.
+[3274.42 --> 3276.66]  I read once that there's four.
+[3276.98 --> 3280.92]  It lists four, but there's at least four types of documentation that are all kind of different.
+[3281.14 --> 3285.58]  There's, like, tutorials, how-to guides, explanations, and references.
+[3285.58 --> 3294.92]  And it seems like you've kind of split out to treat at least two of those separately, which I'm curious what was the thinking behind that and kind of, like, what is going where?
+[3294.92 --> 3296.28]  That is great.
+[3296.36 --> 3297.52]  Thank you for bringing that up.
+[3297.52 --> 3305.96]  So originally, I don't know if you've looked at reactjs.org recently, but it's sort of all of it is guides, is guides.
+[3306.14 --> 3311.06]  There's some API documentation in there, but depending on what you're looking for, it could exist in multiple places.
+[3311.06 --> 3313.96]  Like, you go find where the API docs are on the site.
+[3314.14 --> 3316.02]  It takes a little bit of rummaging around.
+[3316.14 --> 3318.90]  If you're looking for a hook, you're going to be rummaging in a couple of different places.
+[3319.62 --> 3323.76]  But, you know, this is what happens when your information architecture kind of gets away from you here.
+[3324.00 --> 3326.28]  So there was an information architecture overhaul.
+[3326.28 --> 3340.90]  We have API references, and we have the actual React Learn content, which is step-by-step lessons and guides for how to install, how to get something quickly running, and how to dive deep with React.
+[3341.42 --> 3349.18]  These guides are actually a little bit different from the conceptual overview and guide stocks you mentioned.
+[3349.18 --> 3355.96]  They're kind of a merging of the two, because it's very hard to talk about React conceptually without actually showing things in progress.
+[3356.50 --> 3366.78]  And if we did split out the conceptual overview, we'd run into a situation where we might end up with long essays here and then explanations that don't really help you understand what's going on over here.
+[3367.18 --> 3370.28]  And you can guess how much time people are going to spend on which.
+[3370.88 --> 3379.00]  So this goal-based approach to learning React actually kind of blends those two kinds of content into one.
+[3379.18 --> 3388.48]  So as you're learning about, like, how state works, you're also learning about the concept of render and commit, which is necessary to understand how state works.
+[3388.68 --> 3390.40]  Setting state triggers the render process.
+[3390.72 --> 3392.82]  Oh, but what is that render process?
+[3392.96 --> 3394.24]  Don't go to the other side of the site.
+[3394.32 --> 3395.12]  Stay right there, kiddos.
+[3395.16 --> 3396.54]  We're going to tell you about it right here.
+[3397.00 --> 3398.98]  So that's the approach that we took with these.
+[3398.98 --> 3405.62]  It's a little different, a little experimental, but it seems to be doing well with test audiences, and we think it's doing well in production so far.
+[3405.70 --> 3406.58]  So fingers crossed.
+[3407.22 --> 3409.06]  We did take that particular approach here.
+[3409.18 --> 3411.60]  We do want to add some tutorials.
+[3411.96 --> 3420.02]  Once we've switched over to gotten out of beta and gone fully loaded into the new site, that is on the roadmap for the future.
+[3420.62 --> 3423.60]  So, so glad that you brought up those different content types.
+[3424.10 --> 3424.64]  That's incredible.
+[3424.64 --> 3428.34]  I mean, it really does feel like very intentional.
+[3428.34 --> 3438.56]  And it's clearly laid out, like, when you're kind of learning and then when you're really just in execution mode trying to access API docs.
+[3438.72 --> 3444.04]  And then when you're learning, I really like the new organization of top level contents, like buckets as well.
+[3444.04 --> 3451.50]  I think that's like, you've really kind of shifted the mental model for like how people should understand React, right?
+[3451.56 --> 3461.36]  Like, you know, like, remember you mentioned earlier, just kind of that more of a focus on the rendering, you know, life cycle, more of a focus on like how things work under the hood.
+[3461.36 --> 3462.50]  And it's phenomenal.
+[3462.76 --> 3468.50]  It just feels good, you know, you know, when it feels good to like navigate and read and learn in that order.
+[3468.78 --> 3476.20]  Like I spent a couple of hours on the new doc site and I just was, I just didn't feel exhausted two hours later, you know?
+[3476.50 --> 3477.28]  And that's a good thing.
+[3477.28 --> 3478.44]  Well, that's wonderful feedback.
+[3478.60 --> 3479.54]  I'm going to write that down.
+[3479.54 --> 3480.24]  You should write that down.
+[3480.30 --> 3482.52]  I did not feel exhausting after two hours.
+[3483.86 --> 3485.14]  Don't ask about other symptoms.
+[3485.28 --> 3485.86]  No, just kidding.
+[3486.30 --> 3489.42]  So what's your favorite part of the site?
+[3489.62 --> 3493.98]  Like, I want to hear, like you, Rachel, like, what did you love?
+[3494.14 --> 3496.36]  Whether you, you know, helped contribute to it or not.
+[3496.40 --> 3497.90]  Like, what are your favorite parts?
+[3498.26 --> 3499.64]  That's a really good question.
+[3499.88 --> 3505.00]  Because, you know, your answer is going to be the title of the book called React Docs, The Good Parts.
+[3505.18 --> 3505.78]  Just kidding.
+[3507.28 --> 3509.96]  Just kidding, kids.
+[3510.08 --> 3510.34]  Anyways.
+[3510.74 --> 3513.24]  I love so much of the documents here.
+[3513.48 --> 3516.20]  I love, like, even some of the content.
+[3516.54 --> 3522.88]  Like, there was the question of, like, did we, there's this one piece called Thinking in React, which was, like, one of the original.
+[3523.34 --> 3525.80]  Here's how React helps you think about building UI.
+[3525.80 --> 3532.14]  And at first it was like, yeah, I'm going to make a whole new page all about thinking in React.
+[3532.26 --> 3533.70]  Yeah, like for the modern world.
+[3533.70 --> 3539.62]  But people kept in beta testing being like, don't forget about keeping Thinking in React.
+[3539.76 --> 3540.76]  I love that piece, man.
+[3541.30 --> 3543.54]  And I was like, you know, it's such a classic.
+[3543.62 --> 3545.76]  We can't, we can't burn it down.
+[3545.76 --> 3549.90]  So, went through and gave it a bit of a facelift for the modern era.
+[3549.90 --> 3554.92]  You know, the original Thinking in React piece was very, you know, like, here's a new way.
+[3555.04 --> 3557.94]  You may not have thought about thinking about your interfaces, kids.
+[3558.32 --> 3559.98]  Have you heard about atomicity?
+[3560.10 --> 3561.58]  Yes, everyone has heard of that by now.
+[3561.96 --> 3565.78]  Let's write this as though people probably have encountered some of these concepts already.
+[3565.78 --> 3568.74]  They've permeated other branches of programming.
+[3569.22 --> 3573.10]  They've, you know, they've inspired new approaches out there.
+[3573.20 --> 3575.80]  So, let's talk more in the present, less in the past.
+[3576.30 --> 3578.76]  But just updating that classic was a real honor.
+[3579.20 --> 3586.28]  Very awesome to see it with actual interactive examples showing the thing that it was describing originally in the text.
+[3586.28 --> 3593.00]  My personal favorite is the describing the UI section, which is really just introducing you to the concept of components and props.
+[3593.16 --> 3594.28]  You know, what are these things?
+[3594.48 --> 3596.92]  How do you structure them into extra files?
+[3597.24 --> 3603.56]  There's a lot of stuff there that we saw people, like, coming out of boot camp, maybe not quite picked this up yet.
+[3603.90 --> 3606.06]  We got to cover some of those basics again.
+[3606.06 --> 3612.14]  And it was actually a lot of fun to work on some of those pieces and break things down.
+[3612.30 --> 3616.76]  And even more fun to get, you know, read through the individual feedback on those pieces.
+[3617.08 --> 3620.54]  And hear someone say, like, this was the best explanation of this that I've ever read.
+[3620.62 --> 3622.40]  And I'm just like, hmm.
+[3622.56 --> 3623.76]  Yeah, nailed it.
+[3624.04 --> 3625.18]  Yes, yes, yes.
+[3625.34 --> 3631.50]  So, I'm kind of proud of the whole thing, but exceptionally proud of the guides and the work done on those.
+[3632.04 --> 3634.04]  It's just, people love it.
+[3634.08 --> 3635.04]  It just came out so well.
+[3635.04 --> 3635.50]  Yeah.
+[3636.06 --> 3637.38]  That's the educator in you.
+[3637.56 --> 3640.68]  You know, Rachel, I think at core, maybe you are just a teacher.
+[3641.26 --> 3645.36]  Honestly, like, and I shouldn't say just, like, just, you know, but I think you are, like,
+[3645.86 --> 3650.92]  I think education has definitely been the theme that's, like, been woven throughout everything that you've done, I think.
+[3651.38 --> 3652.38]  And that's, you know.
+[3652.40 --> 3653.28]  It's kind of the red thread.
+[3653.40 --> 3654.46]  It's the red thread.
+[3654.68 --> 3654.96]  Yeah.
+[3655.16 --> 3661.04]  You know, so it's just, I think it's no surprise that those are the pieces that kind of, like, come home, you know, for you.
+[3661.04 --> 3662.22]  But that's really exciting.
+[3662.72 --> 3664.12]  Really, like, very, very cool.
+[3664.12 --> 3666.64]  So, I'm glad that I had the chance to be a part of this.
+[3666.88 --> 3667.58]  It's inspiring.
+[3667.78 --> 3683.06]  I know that these resources are going to change who gets great with React, who gets what jobs, who teaches who, and the quality of how people feel about that and the confidence that they have going forward.
+[3683.06 --> 3690.26]  I'm really honored that I got to be a part of something that's going to just be so useful for so many folks.
+[3690.70 --> 3691.60]  Yeah, no, for sure.
+[3691.70 --> 3702.48]  And I think what's interesting is also, like, kind of circling back to your earlier comment around, like, you're really excited to make better material for educators, right?
+[3702.48 --> 3709.24]  Like, I think what's great about this is it's one of those things that's like a rising tide lifts all boats, you know?
+[3709.48 --> 3718.12]  It really feels like with the core docks being better, everything else is going to have a new baseline as well in some ways.
+[3718.30 --> 3726.42]  You know, of course, not everything, but those things that choose to participate, I think, and pull from these docks will certainly be elevated, right?
+[3726.42 --> 3730.70]  And that makes me want to give a callback to something we talked about earlier about the metrics.
+[3731.24 --> 3734.28]  Funny thing about net promoter score, it's always falling.
+[3735.08 --> 3735.82]  You know why that is?
+[3736.02 --> 3736.42]  No.
+[3736.68 --> 3738.14]  Oh, because recency bias?
+[3738.48 --> 3739.22]  I don't know.
+[3739.58 --> 3740.06]  Why?
+[3740.40 --> 3742.18]  I don't actually know that expression.
+[3742.52 --> 3743.34]  Oh, recency bias?
+[3743.50 --> 3745.62]  Oh, it's probably because it's something I made up.
+[3745.70 --> 3749.34]  I don't know if it's official, but it's, like, just the thing that's most recent.
+[3749.34 --> 3756.24]  You know, like, let's say you have a competition and there's five people pitching, and it's usually, like, the last one or two people pitching.
+[3756.60 --> 3759.58]  Like, they have the recency bias advantage because they were most recent.
+[3759.68 --> 3761.18]  Because we tend to forget things.
+[3761.54 --> 3762.92]  We are, like, short-term members.
+[3763.08 --> 3765.22]  We have, like, low RAM, you know?
+[3765.36 --> 3766.18]  This is not that.
+[3766.34 --> 3766.98]  This is not that.
+[3767.06 --> 3767.54]  Okay, cool.
+[3767.92 --> 3771.92]  So there is a word for this, and jump in and tell me if you've heard of it before.
+[3772.62 --> 3777.10]  It's where today's amazing becomes tomorrow's expected.
+[3777.10 --> 3780.66]  You know, like, remember when the iPhone came out and it was like, it's a touchscreen!
+[3781.32 --> 3781.62]  Yeah.
+[3781.94 --> 3782.88]  It doesn't have keys!
+[3783.24 --> 3783.66]  Oh, yeah.
+[3783.72 --> 3787.82]  And now it's like, would you be able to sell someone a phone that wasn't a touchscreen?
+[3788.18 --> 3788.62]  No!
+[3789.34 --> 3793.42]  Nobody would buy that, except for very strange people who have specific needs.
+[3793.56 --> 3793.82]  Yeah.
+[3793.96 --> 3797.52]  Like, those keys are so much easier to feel if they're actually, like, physical.
+[3797.72 --> 3801.76]  But let's be honest, the mass market has changed its baseline.
+[3801.96 --> 3805.20]  They now expect what was once unexpected.
+[3805.48 --> 3806.16]  Oh, my God.
+[3806.16 --> 3807.30]  I mean, think about it.
+[3807.66 --> 3810.64]  People are going to expect interactive examples in their docs.
+[3811.34 --> 3816.40]  People are going to come to the React documentation in a few years, so they're going to be like,
+[3816.92 --> 3820.68]  yeah, but I can't just click a button and it builds my app for me.
+[3821.12 --> 3826.46]  Or, yeah, you know, these are great, but I expect to be able to dial in and talk to a core team member
+[3826.46 --> 3827.16]  when I have trouble.
+[3827.82 --> 3831.40]  Who knows what's going to happen with the future of documentation?
+[3831.40 --> 3837.08]  Yes, because React.js developers will all become Oracle Enterprise developers, too.
+[3837.58 --> 3840.50]  Anyways, actually, no, Rachel, OMG.
+[3840.78 --> 3841.68]  I can't believe I...
+[3841.68 --> 3846.70]  Like, that's why I was, like, gasping while you were saying that, because, like, I just realized, like, yeah,
+[3846.70 --> 3858.06]  this is, like, one of those tipping points that where React has enough of a market in the developer tooling community that we are going to now see this be the new standard.
+[3858.06 --> 3862.52]  Like, similar to how, like, zero config became a new standard for developer tooling.
+[3862.72 --> 3864.54]  Like, you know, install and run commands.
+[3864.74 --> 3867.18]  Like, don't worry about config files if you don't need to, right?
+[3867.32 --> 3872.68]  So this whole kind of, like, smart defaults movement, interactive API documentation, like Stripe,
+[3872.72 --> 3875.84]  and this is a really good segue into, I think, some of the inspiration for the site,
+[3875.94 --> 3879.32]  but, like, Stripe, like, set the bar.
+[3879.58 --> 3886.84]  Like, literally just kind of everything became copy-paste after that, like, where you see services like Twilio and, right?
+[3886.84 --> 3888.74]  Like, it just was, like, the first domino.
+[3889.28 --> 3893.12]  And so this might be the first domino in that same way, like, which is interesting.
+[3893.28 --> 3895.10]  And actually, yeah, I'll let you respond.
+[3895.24 --> 3897.58]  But I do remember the question that I wanted to ask you from earlier,
+[3897.70 --> 3899.90]  which I think is a very relevant question from our listeners.
+[3900.24 --> 3907.78]  So my question, Rachel, is how long are the current docs going to live side-by-side with, like, this beta?
+[3907.98 --> 3913.88]  And can we expect that, like, the current docs, like, the content is always going to be, like,
+[3913.88 --> 3917.84]  the most accurate and latest and greatest on both the beta and the current?
+[3917.98 --> 3921.88]  Like, I just wonder, like, what's the lifecycle and management of these two?
+[3922.04 --> 3928.90]  Like, because you can't strictly cut over yet because of the API docs that are still in progress and whatever else, right?
+[3929.26 --> 3930.94]  And we're achieving content parity.
+[3930.94 --> 3937.10]  There's still some documentation and content on the main site that needs to be ported to the new site.
+[3937.42 --> 3939.68]  We're writing the documentation live right now.
+[3939.68 --> 3944.98]  I can't give you an exact date about when that will land, like, if anything.
+[3945.30 --> 3949.22]  I think the last year has taught us that exact dates are kind of a tricky thing to promise.
+[3949.68 --> 3949.98]  I know.
+[3950.12 --> 3955.22]  But if you want the latest and greatest, beta.reactjs.org is a safe bet.
+[3955.66 --> 3958.98]  We are actively developing the content there and contributing to it.
+[3959.34 --> 3961.12]  And that is the place to go to.
+[3961.60 --> 3962.12]  That's awesome.
+[3962.24 --> 3963.30]  Thank you so much for that.
+[3963.78 --> 3966.28]  And so I guess kind of we can close out on the inspiration.
+[3966.28 --> 3972.32]  And it's clear that there's echoes from many different things, including even just in your collaborations, right?
+[3972.38 --> 3981.50]  Like, this new beta site wouldn't have been possible without all of the hard work from folks like Sandbox, CodePen, all of the JS Fiddle.
+[3981.80 --> 3988.16]  Whatever was the first thing made it easy for us to write JavaScript and, like, interact with it in a web browser, right?
+[3988.16 --> 3991.64]  Like, there's so many kind of shoulders of giants that you're standing on.
+[3991.70 --> 3999.88]  So can you just kind of, like, maybe talk us through, like, what were some of your inspirations and, like, how did they feed into, like, this final product?
+[4000.40 --> 4005.62]  I think a lot of our inspiration for this came from, honestly, texts about how to teach people.
+[4005.62 --> 4018.32]  Making it stick is a really good example of one of those books that really changed how we approached React, you know, instead of just telling people, like, this is how React works, you know, with a bunch of diagrams.
+[4018.68 --> 4023.06]  We added actual interactive challenges so that people could get retrieval practice in.
+[4023.62 --> 4029.20]  We were inspired by textbooks as well, the structure of textbooks with chapters, overviews.
+[4029.20 --> 4036.26]  A lot of people in courseware design are doing really amazing things that could apply to the realm of documentation.
+[4036.96 --> 4044.14]  Course design, courseware design, which takes a lot of inspiration from sketch textbooks and formal education.
+[4044.14 --> 4061.42]  I know some people who work on whole, like, computer science, like, aligning how their documentation and educational materials teach to new computer science standards for curricula that are coming out for the United States and the United Kingdom.
+[4062.06 --> 4067.36]  There's, like, an entire formal education component where I could not name all the different inspirations.
+[4067.36 --> 4069.70]  We tried to bring a little bit of that here.
+[4069.92 --> 4075.56]  We wanted it to be something that could be a good foundation or at least plug in nicely to other people's curricula.
+[4076.30 --> 4079.92]  And, of course, the Stripe documentation, you already mentioned it.
+[4080.12 --> 4087.42]  There are a lot of things that didn't make it out of prototyping stage that we wish we could have done, but we really wanted to focus on getting to beta.
+[4088.08 --> 4090.22]  That Stripe has just been such an inspiration.
+[4090.58 --> 4095.54]  I love how they use scrollytelling to get through the examples and line by line the code.
+[4095.54 --> 4097.80]  I really found that informative.
+[4098.38 --> 4102.86]  And lastly, I do want to give a shout-out to everyone's favorite, MDN.
+[4103.34 --> 4107.58]  Way back in the day, I used to write documentation for the Web Animations API with MDN.
+[4108.08 --> 4119.54]  And that spirit of collaboration of, you know, like, everyone who's written on MDN gets their name added to the, well, if you dig around on GitHub, you can find it.
+[4119.54 --> 4125.96]  But that spirit of this is a team effort, it's like documentation as open source.
+[4126.20 --> 4128.24]  And I loved how MDN did that.
+[4128.48 --> 4133.34]  I loved how MDN partnered with the community to teach the community.
+[4134.00 --> 4138.86]  And I think that a lot of that spirit has found its way into this project as well.
+[4139.68 --> 4139.76]  Wow.
+[4140.42 --> 4141.80]  Well, that was inspirational.
+[4142.20 --> 4142.88]  Are you inspired?
+[4143.00 --> 4143.84]  I'm inspired, Amelia.
+[4144.28 --> 4144.70]  Oh, yeah.
+[4145.24 --> 4145.46]  Yeah.
+[4145.50 --> 4146.46]  Such a good list.
+[4146.70 --> 4147.36]  Solid list.
+[4147.36 --> 4153.06]  It's, like, near impossible to, like, talk about documentation and not mention Stripe.
+[4153.66 --> 4155.72]  Like, it's just, like, I can't do it.
+[4155.84 --> 4159.60]  If you find a person who can, really, is my challenge to you.
+[4160.24 --> 4173.74]  But actually, kind of speaking of docs, so listening to you, I had this thought that I wanted to share, which is, I wonder if any other industry uses technical documentation in the same way that engineers do, software engineers particularly.
+[4173.74 --> 4177.04]  Like, because, like, I studied biomedical engineering.
+[4177.18 --> 4180.98]  So I do have a background that's in engineering that's not related to software.
+[4181.44 --> 4187.86]  And I can tell you, like, we read textbooks and open things and whatever, you know, my thermodynamics book or whatever.
+[4188.00 --> 4191.74]  But, like, you don't really go back to your reference material in that way.
+[4191.74 --> 4198.86]  And, like, versus, like, me, like, I have, I'm opening API docs and I'm looking at reference material and I'm reading technical content.
+[4199.04 --> 4203.10]  And there's something very educational about our documentation, right?
+[4203.14 --> 4211.28]  Like, in a way that I feel like your comment about how so much of good courseware design could be applied to technical docs.
+[4211.28 --> 4215.20]  Like, I think that that's, that's the first time I've ever heard of that.
+[4215.76 --> 4217.12]  And I couldn't agree with you more.
+[4217.54 --> 4226.42]  I just kind of wish that we really thought about technical docs really as more education versus just trying to get something done.
+[4226.90 --> 4227.26]  I agree.
+[4227.66 --> 4233.72]  And I've noticed this being in the, I came in as a developer advocate slash docs at Hybrid.
+[4233.72 --> 4243.06]  And, obviously, I found after a little bit working here, I realized, like, wow, the documentation just has such a scaling impact.
+[4243.32 --> 4245.16]  I can get up on stage and give a few talks.
+[4245.34 --> 4251.72]  But once you write something, everyone can reference it, repeat it, catches like wildfire.
+[4251.98 --> 4253.62]  And that's the big impact.
+[4254.16 --> 4260.14]  But I feel like between developer advocacy, which is very much going out and really interacting with the community,
+[4260.14 --> 4266.86]  and there's a community stewardship aspect to it, there's information teaching aspect to it.
+[4267.24 --> 4273.64]  And with documentation, you get, like, you've got the teaching aspect, you've got the formalized baking of features concept.
+[4273.96 --> 4280.70]  But there's a space that sometimes falls in between the two, this developer education space.
+[4281.38 --> 4285.60]  And it's not always clear who's running with that ball.
+[4285.60 --> 4293.94]  And I'm always interested to see who in the community is making that their job and really, like, investing efforts in that.
+[4294.04 --> 4302.00]  And I think you see that in some places, like Stripe and Twilio, where they're really going all in on the developer education aspect.
+[4302.60 --> 4304.86]  And I think that's something we'll be looking at more and more.
+[4305.24 --> 4309.38]  And pardon me for saying it, but the pandemic, with everyone being inside, not being able to be on stages,
+[4309.38 --> 4314.84]  we really only had one way of communicating, which was, you know, through the screen.
+[4315.28 --> 4319.86]  I think it brought the focus back onto, well, how do we scale this knowledge?
+[4320.08 --> 4326.82]  How do we convert the great content that the core engineers are making, that the advocates are sharing on stage and on workshops?
+[4327.24 --> 4331.14]  How do we turn that into something that anybody can access at any time, anywhere?
+[4331.76 --> 4334.64]  And I just can't wait to see what the next couple of years holds for this space.
+[4334.82 --> 4336.96]  I couldn't think of a better way to end the show.
+[4336.96 --> 4343.34]  I mean, I didn't even make that connection myself around technical docs and the pandemic.
+[4343.84 --> 4346.42]  And, like, there being less ways to learn these days.
+[4346.54 --> 4350.42]  You can't go to, like, an in-person workshop as easily as you could in the past.
+[4350.56 --> 4353.58]  And so we're forced to get better at this, right?
+[4353.62 --> 4358.84]  Similar to, like, how a lot of companies started investing in their testing infrastructure once the pandemic hit
+[4358.84 --> 4360.80]  because they found all these bugs on their website.
+[4360.80 --> 4368.12]  So, like, I just want to say thank you so much for everything that you bring to this community, Rachel.
+[4368.46 --> 4370.00]  We're really lucky to have you.
+[4370.56 --> 4373.54]  And truly, like, this is a game changer.
+[4374.02 --> 4379.64]  And I'm really excited to at least be witnessing this bar get raised, like, right in front of my eyes, you know?
+[4379.64 --> 4381.16]  So thank you so much.
+[4381.68 --> 4384.50]  And that's all for today, kids.
+[4384.78 --> 4385.80]  Have a good day, y'all.
+[4385.80 --> 4391.30]  That's JS Party for this week.
+[4391.54 --> 4392.74]  Thanks for hanging with us.
+[4393.12 --> 4397.08]  And thanks again for all of the kind words in response to our 200th episode.
+[4397.52 --> 4398.26]  Feels good, y'all.
+[4398.80 --> 4402.34]  By the way, that's a great episode to share with your friends who may enjoy the pod.
+[4402.46 --> 4404.62]  Kind of like a sampler platter, you know?
+[4404.98 --> 4406.00]  Plus, it's easy to remember.
+[4406.42 --> 4408.20]  JSParty.fm slash 200.
+[4408.80 --> 4410.28]  Did you hear the big Svelte news?
+[4410.66 --> 4414.56]  Rich Harris has been hired by Vercel to work on Svelte full time.
+[4414.56 --> 4415.92]  How cool is that?
+[4416.36 --> 4419.82]  And we have Rich coming on the pod in the first week in December, so stay tuned.
+[4420.08 --> 4421.26]  We'll surely talk about it.
+[4422.26 --> 4427.70]  JS Party is produced by me, Jared Santo, accompanied by the Zelda Trap Jazz of Breakmaster Cylinder.
+[4428.16 --> 4430.00]  We are brought to you by some awesome sponsors.
+[4430.58 --> 4433.20]  Thanks again to Fastly, Linode, and LaunchDarkly.
+[4433.82 --> 4434.92]  All right, that's all for me.
+[4435.18 --> 4436.26]  We'll talk to you again next time.
+[4444.56 --> 4448.36]  Game on!
+[4448.36 --> 4448.38]  Game on!
diff --git "a/The inside story on React\342\200\232\303\204\303\264s all new docs_transcript.txt" "b/The inside story on React\342\200\232\303\204\303\264s all new docs_transcript.txt"
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bd32bc0be048ed02d4c7f79eb34a0ba91eb99a90
--- /dev/null
+++ "b/The inside story on React\342\200\232\303\204\303\264s all new docs_transcript.txt"	
@@ -0,0 +1,479 @@
+**Amal Hussein:** Hello, party people! I mean, you're JS Party people, so you're like fun nerds, right? So hello, fun nerds. I'm so excited about today's show. We are here with the wonderful, the one and only, my very good friend, Rachel Nabors. Welcome!
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Hello, Amal. Hello, Amelia. Good to be with you today.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yay! And we have Amelia Wattenberger. Hello, welcome, Amelia.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Hey-hey! Happy to be here.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Alright, excellent. So today's show -- I mean, you know, unless you've been living under a rock, you can guess what it's about... So the React team a few weeks ago, maybe two weeks ago, or one week ago - I don't know, time is a flat circle...
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Two weeks, I think...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, two weeks ago had dropped the new React documentation site. So it's the same link, but just put a beta in front. So it's beta.reactjs.org. Essentially, there's a whole new redesign, and it's beyond just kind of a fresh website; it's really a fresh take, I think, on education and documentation for popular web libraries. So kudos to you all.
+
+Anyways, I'm gonna stop yapping... Let's first get into introducing who Rachel is, and then we'll get into some of those specifics next. So hello, Rachel. You can tell I'm excited, because I've been talking non-stop for about two minutes... Can you tell us who you are and tell us a little bit about yourself?
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** \[04:12\] I'm Rachel Nabors, I am the documentation engineer working with the React core team, as well as React Native and Relay, which is a React data solution you may or may not have heard about in the open source ecosystem, but basically, the React fam of technologies, as I like to think of them.
+
+I've started out actually -- I came in working on React Native's documentation, and lately I've been working with the React core team on the React documentation as well.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's awesome. And what's it been like to -- I know you used React before you had joined the company, but what's it been like to work closely with the React team, and be able to see that part of the sausage come together?
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Well, the interesting thing about the React core team is that they are engineers. If you've worked with engineers before, you can kind of imagine what it might be like to work with the React core team. It's definitely different though. I really like working on a team that's building things that other people are using to build their own solutions to problems. And I think that was the real attraction for me about working with the React team. I used to work with the W3C on APIs and standards, and for a little while I worked on Edge, the browser, over at Microsoft.
+
+I've always liked working on the things that enable other people, and that team here, working on React at Facebook - well, I think it's Meta now... But anyway. This team really focuses on the impact that React has across so many people's developer experiences across the open source ecosystem.
+
+I think it's interesting, because when you're going back through the blog posts on the React site, you can see how React started as this kind of cool, skunkworks "What if we thought about building the interfaces as components? Yes... And you could compose components, integrator interfaces..." And you know design systems in parallel, we're thinking about componentizing design... So it's interesting to see the JavaScript community and the design community both thinking more and more about "Yeah, we just need to get a slider in there. We do not need to reinvent the slider. Yes, we need that slider there." It's interesting to see that evolving over time. And you can tell that originally React was kind of this niche, small "Ooh, maybe this is a new way of thinking about it." Everyone was using Angular, Angular 2 was coming out... And then it just took off. And suddenly, you go from "Oh, React is this cool alternative" to React's website gets 2 million developers visiting it from all over the world every month, and React's dev tools are used by 3 million developers. It's just like "Oh... Ah... H-hello there... Yes. You're using this very important JavaScript library. Hm."
+
+And I think that's been the most interesting thing about working on the team, is that it still very much has the vibe of that original sentiment of "Let's try building interfaces in a different way", only it has a huge, huge consuming audience now. It's gone from being a niche project to a stadium project in a very quick amount of time, if you look at the numbers.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. The adoption of React is really massive. And to give everybody a mental model for what the scale of the web is - React is still used by only 2% of websites on the internet. So think about how widely React is adopted, and then think that's only 2%. So just how massive the web is. That 2% is ridiculous amounts of traffic. It's in the millions/billions, right Rachel? I mean, Facebook alone is in the billions, so... Yeah, Facebook plus all the other websites, so... It's huge. It's really incredible.
+
+\[08:09\] So what's your relationship with React? How is your relationship -- so it was really nice to hear you describe what it's been like for you to witness it all come together, and that experience, but how has your relationship with React the library changed now that you're on the "inside"
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Let's be honest, I kept trying to learn React, and kept not making it stick. It would just go in one ear and out the other. And I was like, "Well, maybe I need a job where I'm working with React." But at the time, I was thinking about what I wanted to do next, and I was like "You know, I could just learn React from the people who build it. Oh, look over there... There's a team. They work with React a lot. Hello... Do you need any assistance? Can I do anything for you?" "Oh, okay, yeah... Let's write some educational materials. I'm pretty good at that."
+
+So partly, I ended up taking on these projects, and this mission to teach people React and React Native. And it was partly because I wanted to learn it myself. I came in with a bunch of really weird notions about React that I'd picked up, like many of us do, in the community, reading Medium posts, watching YouTube videos, taking the odd course that probably is a couple of years out of date, and getting into really grokking React. I realized it was a lot different from what I'd been led to believe, and I wanted to share some of those learnings with other people.
+
+When you work on a team, building something for so long, it can be easy to lose track of the beginner's mindset; that fresh "I have no idea how props and state work."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** The "je ne sais quoi..."
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Literally, the je ne sais quoi. It's like the literal je ne sais quoi. Yeah, you don't know what the hell you're doing. Right. So yeah, I get it...
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** And that can be surprisingly valuable, especially if you're writing materials for other folks who are coming in for the first time as well.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** What do you think is the biggest thing either people have trouble with when they're first starting to learn React, or the biggest thing that you can lose track of after you've been using React for 3-5 plus years?
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** I'd like to think that the Beta Docs actually changed this... Because I know for me, it was really grokking how rendering works. In the older docs you could really only find out what rendering was by -- there's like one paragraph on the site that briefly describes render and commit processes. Now, these were perhaps less important to know about back when we had classes and lifecycle methods. You just had to memorize the lifecycle methods and there you go. But hooks really leans on understanding the render and commit process behind React. Rendering is when React calculates the component based on how state has changed, and commit is when that component goes and is inserted into your platforms tree.
+
+When I say "platform tree" here, you're probably thinking "What is she talking about?" If you're working on the web, that would be your DOM, your document object model. But React can actually output to different platforms, including iOS and Android, React Native... They have different trees; they have UIView trees.
+
+So platform tree is an internal lingo saying "Whatever it is that React is spitting out to - that." It's usually a tree, full of nodes representing content and data. But when I first came in, I wasn't really sure how the state was working. I mean, when you look at Vue, when you look at other kinds of UI platforms, they tend to have more mutable state models. But React is different. It has a one-way data flow. You have to deliberately set the state. And that act of setting the state tells React "Yo! Things have changed. Look at that component. Did that component change because the state has changed? If it has changed, go to that platform tree and make any necessary adjustments." The render and the commit process. And that was something... Once you get that, everything else really falls into place. Hooks, the API that you use with React - it lets you hook into different parts of this process. Like you use effects and they happen after the render process, and set state, that hook itself kicks off the render process.
+
+\[12:30\] Anyway... I think grokking that when you come in, just like "Oh, I'm telling React what to do with these APIs. That's pretty cool." I think that is the difference between really succeeding and running with React, and being like "What is going on here?"
+
+And now, the new docs are completely written from the ground up with hooks first, so that you really understand these internal processes.
+
+I think as you go on with your React journey, the challenges become more about edge cases and interacting with external libraries, things that wanna manipulate the DOM, that maybe React has some control over... And how do you tell React "Hey, I'm touching your things, React. React, I'm touching your things."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I hope this is consensual touch, Rachel.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** I was thinking more like, you know, little kids... "I'm touching your CDs..."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[laughs\] Yes, yes, I'm just joking.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** "I'm in the basement, I'm messing with your stuff. Are you gonna come down here...?"
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, I see. Yeah, yeah, that type of -- yes, yes. Okay.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Right.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Another challenge is more around figuring out the escape hatches from the React system.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, for sure. Amelia is kind of like this interesting brain to have in this conversation, because she's got the unicorn thing going, where she's like "Designer - excellent. Developer - excellent." She's like a designer-developer, so I think -- what do you think, Amelia? It feels like your world is bridging a little bit, in some ways, with these improvements...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, I haven't had a chance to dig in really deep with the new docs, but I love how there's the interactive sandboxes, you have challenges you can do in the docs themselves... There's gotchas, call-outs of like "Oh, you might think this, but actually it's this other thing." Those are all really great ways to teach as well, because you're trying to think of common problems people may have, and also letting them invalidate their wrong mental models with the challenges... So if you think it's one way and then you try it and it doesn't work out, then it's a really quick feedback cycle, which I think those are really awesome. Were those always in the plan when you were at the beginning like "We're gonna have interactive components littered throughout the docs", or is that kind of like a stretch call?
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** No, man... These were the -- first off, Amelia, by the way, big fan... I absolutely love what you do in the data viz space. And I haven't said this to you in person, I don't think, but congratulations on your book; it's beautiful, and I have immense respect for your work.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Thanks, Rachel.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Now, back to the React world. You're pretty awesome. \[laughter\] Let's be honest, it's a room full of awesome today.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** It's true.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** So... Let's see. Hang on - you know what? It's a little late here in London time... I completely forgot what I'm responding to.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** The question - was it intentional for you to do all that interactive... Like the sandboxes and the visuals and the gotchas - was all of that like a stretch goal, or was that like --
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yes...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** See, I'm listening to Amelia, Rachel for God's sake...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Thanks, Amal... \[laughs\]
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Yeah, that was baked in.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** But that's okay, anyways. We're good, you're forgiven. You're Rachel Nabors, you can do no wrong. Rachel, you can do no wrong, okay? It's fine.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Oh, trust me, I can do plenty of wrong.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[15:50\] This is a fart cloud that smells like strawberries and fresh chocolate chip cookies, okay? You can do no wrong. \[laughs\]
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** You know, if I could come up with a pill that would do that, I would be a millionaire. I feel like there are entire crack teams of scientists working towards solving that problem.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right, right, right. It's like, "My farts smell like cookies." \[laughs\] That is Rachel Nabors.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Genetic engineering. It's gonna be an add-on.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Actually, Rachel, that could be your tagline, "My farts smell like cookies." That could be your branding as an engineer.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** That will attract the wrong crowd of people...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[laughs\] Okay, that's true. Back on track, back on track. So...
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** So that is a great question... So working on the React Native documentation like, I used to be I used to be a UX designer, I've been way too many roles in my career. Now I get to add documentation engineer onto the list.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Wow.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** I just -- I'm interested in things, and I wonder over and "Hello, friend... What are you doing?"
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You are a mis-shapen puzzle in a world of squares and circles... So you can fit anywhere. I think you're just a really adaptable person, and I think that's why your career is so awesome and different all the time. I think that's a skill. This is a safe space for you to acknowledge, Rachel Nabors, that you are a highly adaptable human being. And that's badass.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** This is on YouTube. This is hardly a safe space.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[laughs\] Well, yeah, YouTube is not the primary outlet, but yes, we are currently streaming live on YouTube. Like and subscribe, everyone...
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Hello, YouTube. So you may have recalled that I originally -- the first test that was set for me when I came and was like "Alright, I'm gonna go work with the people who built this stuff... What am I gonna do?" And they were like, "Alright, Rachel, spin this straw into gold." This is how everything in my life starts... It's like, "Yes, I can totally spin that straw into gold."
+
+The React Native documentation needed a bit of love when I arrived, and that was my first task - turn the React Native documentation around. It was sorely out of date; I ran some community API documentation update drives around that, love you guys, and adding more on-ramps etc. But the point was I didn't just arrive and start writing. No... Because I used to be a UX person back in the day; I was like, "Yeah, you say the docs need work, but what exactly needs done? What do we need to do?" "Well, we should just ask the people who are using them what they'd like."
+
+So you know, I conducted user interviews, I formulated a couple of ideas... I really got to know the React Native community over here in the EU, which was really cool. It's a pretty hoppin' place. And I started running surveys for the React Native and React communities, to really start feeling out what it was that we were lacking, what they wanted more of.
+
+And one thing that came through for both communities, time and time again, was - "It needs more examples. Interactive examples. I see the code, but I'm not gonna spin up an environment..." I was like, "Come on...!"
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, especially a React environment. There was an entire friggin' side baby project company born out of that called Create React App. It was complex to do React on your own, and especially as a new engineer. So the pain is real, that's not even exaggerated.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** React is not a platform, it's a UI library. Let's be honest. It's not even a hammer, it's a nail.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, yeah. A hundred percent.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** This would be like if you invited someone to a craft workshop and said "Here are all these nails." "Okay, great. I love the nails. What do I do with them?" So to show you the nails, it's great if you can give people like, "Here's a piece of wood and a hammer. Now, hammer all the nails you want here." And that's sort of what the interactive examples do. You don't have to worry about spinning up an environment. You don't have to make big decisions, like "Next or Gatsby?! Or should I spin my own? I don't know!" No, just go poke the code; poke the code until you're in love with the code. Then you can make all those life-changing decisions. I mean, stack-changing decisions. But no pressure, no commitment, no renewal fees. Get in there.
+
+\[20:02\] So we implemented these interactive examples for React Native, which were a new and bigger challenge, and they took off. Everyone loved them. They loved the API docs having interactive examples, they loved that every single example on the site was suddenly interactive. There were a bunch of other little things that were tested out in the React Native docs effort that tested so well, got such great feedback before and after, having made good on these... And we saw the same things going on with React's docs. It was like, "Well, we know exactly what to do here."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Anyway... The new interactive examples - I wanna give a shout-out to our partners at CodeSandbox, because they were working on this cool Sandpack API. You can actually go use this API to embed interactive examples from CodeSandbox on any project of your own. It works really well with MDX.
+
+So when future people are wanting to update examples or add examples to the React documentation, you can just do it right there in Markdown. Even edit the CSS. It's super-cool. Just a great workflow for the contributor, and I just wanted to give them a shout-out, they do a great job. It was a pleasure working with them.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I actually set that up yesterday, or two days ago, and it was so nice. You just -- this is something where you just get an endpoint, and you send it some code, and it's like "Here's your Sandbox ID", and you can just include it.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** I really hope to see more people embedding interactive examples into their teaching materials. I think it's just fabulous. It's changed the way people learn. These toolchains are getting more and more complex. It's harder and harder to ask somebody -- you know, one of the things when doing research on how people learn is that the start of any bootcamp is usually just installing dependencies, and "Run this line on your terminal. Run this, run that. Oh no, that didn't work. Brew install this. Did you update that? Delete that file. Re-run." And it's a huge barrier to play.
+
+And let's be honest, a lot of folks are not learning React to build something from scratch. They're learning React so that they can work on something that was built in React already. So that's a waste of their time. They just wanna figure out why set state isn't doing the thing they expected. They don't wanna have to go figure out how to start a blog site...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, how to start a blog site, or what Babel transform are you missing, ma'am who has yet to know what even JavaScript is, or something... Like, it's crazy. So yeah, I know, the barrier to entry is very real.
+
+I think we've kind of skirted around a bunch of things on this site, so can I -- just for the sake of it... In your own words, what is this project about, what were the goals...? And then we are gonna take a break after that, because there's so much to dig into, I think, off of that discussion. So... Close this out, Rachel Nabors.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Alright. The goal, our mission in this project, your mission, should you choose to accept it, was to provide the best React education in the industry, for anyone who wants to get started, or dive deep, no matter their background, income, or location. The goal was to create this resource that would teach people not just what is React, but how to think in React, how to go from good to great in React, and if they were having some problems somewhere, you know, wanting to know what that third argument in an API is, that they would have a reliable resource they could go back on.
+
+Additionally, we wanted to give this to people who are training folks to learn React, too. People who are writing articles, who are running meetups and workshops... We want them to be able to be like, "Yeah, if you're struggling with that, just check out the React docs." Or "We're introducing you to this API today", and the link goes to one page in the React docs that has anything, to answer any question, any hiccup that people might have. We wanted to create a resource that would empower the community to become authority in their own right.
+
+**Break:** \[23:57\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Okay, Rachel, those are some really great goals. I'm really curious to hear if you think you have achieve them or you are on track to achieve them... And also, can you share some insights into the big TBD section that's on the website right now, where it's like "We're this percent complete with the API docs. We're this percent complete with the learning docs." So can you speak more about that?
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Awesome. Yeah, we're about 75% done with the learning documentation. That's because the remaining documentation is mostly, well, how to use things around edge cases. Effects are largely used for doing things with React, interacting with things outside React. There's additionally -- you know, we're going to have to add some things for React's developer tooling, which is coming later this year... So there's some stuff that we didn't have finished, but we had enough done that we didn't wanna hold back until things were perfect. We wanted to make sure that we were actually getting the content to the community.
+
+The API documentation itself is still very nascent. We wanna really make sure that we are -- because hooks are very challenging to document, compared to more traditional APIs. They are deeply nested, they do interesting things with -- you know, there's this thing that returns a function, and that returns a clean-up function, and it takes a dependencies array, but it does different things depending on the state of that array... And a lot of those APIs depend on how we document that last 25% of content, how we explain how to use them. So there's sort of road block by finishing the rest of the guides themselves. So they're still en route.
+
+Now, the community of course is very eager to assist in any way possible, and that is awesome, and we appreciate it... But we're not quite ready to accept community assistance. These flagship pieces of documentation are really things that come right from the core's heart... And it's not just something you can churn out. I would know, I've tried. It really does get a lot of input from the core team.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So there's a lot of nuance, is what you're saying... Not only nuance, but -- well, I guess, do you ever get pull requests on your documentation?
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** We do.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Okay.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** And we really appreciate pull requests for things like typos, "This example could be done like that..." I actually did partner with a couple of people from the community who work on the documentation so far, and we'll continue to do so... For instance, I wanna give a shout-out to Sylwia Vargas. Originally, all our docs had kittens in the examples. We were using placekitten for everything. And I loved putting the cats jokes in there, but cats are not very inclusive. Not everyone loves cats, not every culture loves cats... So we were like, "We should do something with these docs that really showcases all of humanity." Great scientists, cities, art, that sort of thing. And we've partnered with Sylvia, who went through and updated all of the examples to showcase these amazing topics, and really bring in added spark.
+
+\[28:18\] But there will be ways in the future for the community to have even more impact. There'll be a translation effort that will kick off, and that is a great time to get involved then. But for now, we're mostly writing and generating and editing the content on team, and with the people we've been partnering so far. It's like getting mentored by a team member, so it's pretty awesome. I feel great about the quality that has been produced so far.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. It's a completely rational decision and I think a good move to make sure you can take full ownership of the message, you can own the mistakes and you can own the success. I get that. So that's awesome.
+
+I'm just kind of curious -- I was gonna ask about... I've noticed there's more diverse examp -- everything; it's not even just examples. It's like imagery, examples, iconography... Whatever. It feels diverse and inclusive, and I couldn't quite put my finger on it, because I initially thought "Oh, it looks like maybe they're just highlighting women in tech", and then I looked around and it's like, "No, no, no. This is broader than that." And so really, kudos to -- was it Sylvia? And to you also, for listening and putting that feedback into action. So that's awesome.
+
+Is there like a formal feedback kind of channels that you established with the community around questions, and/or whatever? I'm just curious...
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** There are three ways you can give feedback on the docs, and they're all linked to from the frontpage of the site, at beta.reactjs.org. You can fill out a survey, privately drop your feedback directly to the team... You can leave a comment on GitHub... There's a supporting conversation going there; we get all the feedbacks, for all kinds of things, and this is great; we love having that feedback. It often gets turned into an issue which someone acts on. We've got someone who made dark mode persistent recently, and that's awesome. I adore that.
+
+But you know, if you're shy, you can also leave feedback using the Feedback button on each page, if you wanna give us your feedback directly on something you saw. Maybe something wasn't working, maybe something was confusing... This particular tool will let you tell us all about what you want, where you want it. And that's actually really helpful to us at this stage, getting that kind of feedback about what's working, what isn't. We really wanna make sure that these docs do right by everybody. So if you do have that feedback, we do want to hear it. We hope we have made enough places and enough channels for you to get that feedback to us.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** You mentioned that you did a bunch of user experience interviews for the React Native docs... Have you been doing that with these docs? Did you just do them at the beginning, or have you been kind of doing them all the way through?
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Absolutely. We did them at the beginning, we did them with a prototype site, and did them - well, right now. We're kind of always taking feedback. You know, this sort of thing where you hand people the site and you just sit back and you watch them and take notes and ask them probing questions... The development of the site started that way and has continued onward that way.
+
+One of the challenges with this was we could have -- you know, it is a new design; we could have just designed things and thrown them over the wall and seen how they did, or showed people designs with mock content in it... But we really wanted to test the design with the content and see where people were getting stuck, where they were doing well... We caught a lot of stuff early, for instance networking issues that were making the examples take very, very long to load in different parts of the world. We caught those so early; we're really happy we were able to do that.
+
+\[31:59\] Other things -- like, at first, people didn't realize that the interactive examples are interactive. They thought they were -- I mean, interactive examples are still fairly new. They're gonna be like old hat in a few days, I'm sure... But right now, people are still like "I thought that was a picture of the code." Or "I expected that to be a code block." So we had to do some things where we rejiggered the design to make it more interactive and more like a coding editor, with numbers down the side etc. But there's no way we would have known this if we'd just been like "Waterfall! Launch everything with horns." So this is why we did so much testing along the way.
+
+There's also been formal surveying of people coming in and out of the testing pools, to get a better idea of how does this stack up against the old docs which you've recommended to a friend... And the signal has been strong, and it remains strong. We're still getting really good feedback. But now there's a question, because you know, you can sit over a person's shoulder and watch him for an hour, you can ask them to fill out a survey after they've interacted with the docs for a week, but now the question is "What kind of feedback do we get after people have been using the docs in beta for a while?" That's the feedback. This is the third stage of user testing. And that's why we are exceptionally keen to get that feedback.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And this is the uncharted territory stage too, right?
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** The super-embarrassing stage where podcast hosts might say things like, "Yeah, I tried the docs, but I've gotta ask, when are you finishing all the API docs?"
+
+**Amal Hussein:** "Where's the close button?" Just kidding. Hey, no, I didn't ask that to be prudish, I asked it to say "Hey, everyone, still work in progress." And really, I was gonna ask about how can people contribute, but you answered that on your own. Maybe because you knew I was gonna ask that. But still, thank you for doing it. You saved me the -- I didn't know what the answer was gonna be, so... You saved me the hassle of asking.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** I am pretty sure you asked about contributions, at least in your opening statement there.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, okay. I did.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** I'm pretty sure that I heard you mention that. Don't worry about that one. But no, what I mean is like - now the feedback is more public. It's gonna be one of those things where somebody might wake up in the morning and go on to Twitter and be like "The emperor has no new clothes."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Who knows...? But you do have to eventually take your baby, release it into the wild, and see how it gets on with others. And it's all part of the iterative process. I think one of the things that's really awesome about the new documentation is that we've really approached it like a product, like something we would develop -- like, we would solve these challenging issues that have come up for the community. We've been collecting this feedback, we know what we think people want. Now we've gotta see if we actually solved those problems. And there's no better way to test something than production.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. You know, it's so funny - there's that saying, and I swear I have to remind myself all the time, because I'm an absolute perfectionist... But it's - if you wait till you're not embarrassed about your code to show your code, you've waited too long.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** That is so true...!
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, if you wait till you're not embarrassed, then you've missed so many opportunities for early feedback, that could have maybe even made it better. Because that's the beautiful thing about feedback - you always are in a better place because of it. The collaborative experience, even if it just shifts you by one degree, you are one degree better than you were without this feedback. So I can only imagine what it's like to really be receiving that kind of feedback from a percentage of two million developers. That's a pretty big percentage.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** We wanted to make sure that people were giving us... Like, some stuff, like networking issues - we don't want people to have to tell us that. We should be doing that ahead of time.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** When you say that, do you mean like CDN coverage that you needed to add? Or when you say networking, do you mean just that the site was chunky? What do you mean by networking?
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Oh, we just had some issues in the beginning when we were still working out how the interactive examples worked... You know, in some places they took a little longer to render than others, and we didn't want to launch with something that was --
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Subpar...
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** \[36:10\] ...not polished enough for everybody. So there was a reason for keeping it behind a gate for a bit, to make sure that everybody was gonna have a great experience, that user testing was all around positive, people realized that the interactive examples were interactive, for instance... That was all good stuff. But now? Now the real question is "How is it gonna do in production?" And you can only test on a subset of users for so long. Eventually, you do have to see how it's gonna go. And you're absolutely right; you can run all the tests on your code to make sure it's working, but in the end, doing the code review is going to probably give you the most insights. Eventually, you have to share.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I'm so curious if you have any quantifiable metrics to know how it's doing, or any goals that you can measure.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** I have a couple. One thing that we measure across all the documentation in the React family is a-ha moments in the testing phases of the documentation. We're actually looking at still testing to see if there's a way to let people tell us if they've had an a-ha moment on a page. This is a really good signal that the content is landing, and that people are feeling like they're grokking something; like something has been a revelation to them. You know when you're having an a-ha moment. So that's one metric that's been really good for early testing.
+
+There's also questions that you can ask in a more mature documentation, that's been released for a while. You can ask things like MDN does, which is "Did you find what you were looking for today? What were you here to do? Were you referencing the documentation? Were you learning something from scratch? Were you decoding an error? Were you making a decision?" And from these different things, you can triangulate where your documentation might need to be filled out more. This is a survey that you can share with 1% of people who are visiting, and it kind of really helps you keep the pulse of your documentation, so you don't necessarily have to run gigantic surveys once a year. This way you're getting a sample from all your user base throughout the year, and it's much less intrusive.
+
+Additionally, I like to use -- there's this thing called Net Promoter Score, which is a measure of how likely someone is to recommend a resource. It has been abused all over the place. There are people who use Net Promoter Score with call centers; like, why would you do that? You're just being mean with the people at the call center; the Net Promoter Score doesn't really work well with people outside the American culture, because, like, Germans - you can ask a German person "How likely are you to recommend this on a scale from 1 to 10?" and they will give you exactly what they feel. Net Promoter Score is calibrated for Americans, where if it's not like a 9 or a 10, you failed. They're not really into it. But in Germany, a 6 is actually pretty good. They did not hate it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[laughs\] It's more than half.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Yeah. That's pretty good. So this is an interesting measure... And you really do have to read up on it before you start using it. But for me, from doing so much metric tracking with all the documentation efforts since getting here, it tracks really well with a bunch of other satisfaction metrics. So if that metric is doing well, I kind of expect that a bunch of other questions I could ask are also doing well, which means I don't have to ask people as many questions. "How likely are you to recommend this particular set of documentation to a friend or a colleague?" And that is a pretty good baseline from which you can compare before and after photos, or compare how well is my JavaScript documentation doing next to my Android documentation? Well, NPS is x, NPS is y... We can see that people are less likely to recommend this one, so let's investigate that. It's really good for taking the pulse, and before and after pictures.
+
+\[40:09\] You can always do page metrics, thumbs up, thumbs down... Those are great for tracking how people are feeling about the documentation after you've moved on from the project. They're a little less useful when you're doing beta testing on new content, because you don't have a lot of people there thumbs-upping and thumbs-downing. You know, four people give you a thumbs up doesn't necessarily mean that that particular page is stellar. So that's the interesting thing about metrics. The more people you have giving you the data, the more trustworthy it is. When you're doing little tiny beta tests, you end up leaning more on qualitative feedback... Like, "What did you think of the docs?" People say "Ah, this is amazing. It's exactly what I need." That's a really good signal.
+
+So it's a mixture -- when you're developing a new learning resource, it's a mixture of qualitative and quantitative. But once you release it into the wild, it really is helpful to have the quantitative metrics set up and running, to help you ensure, you know, look and be like, "Oh, these docs haven't been updated in a while and they're getting a lot of thumbs down. We should look into that." "Huh, we're getting a lot of feedback that people are coming to the references section, but they're not finding what they need. Hm... I wonder what it is that they need. Let's dive into the comments."
+
+So metrics, and those quantitative and qualitative are your friend in changing ways throughout the educational material development lifecycle. Did I answer your question, Amelia? I kind of gave you a dissertation...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, that was very thorough. I really appreciate it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That was extremely thorough. I'm like, "I should be taking notes..." That was awesome. So where do I even start...?
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** You can edit that down for the podcast; you do not need to share all that...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** No, it was great.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** No, you don't need to edit any of that; it was phenomenal. So it seems like there's a few things I wanna ask you... Maybe I'll combine them into two questions. One is like, what was it like to work in the open, or what was it like to not work in the open? ...because I don't actually know how were you working on this project before you had this massive drop-the-ball moment... Or did people have like a smell that this was coming? I'm just curious how you did that.
+
+And then the second question is really what it was like to work with all these people, maybe external to the React core team? Because it seems like there was a whole group of people. So who were they, and what was it like to work with them? Sorry for two big questions, but...
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** I'm gonna have to pick one of them... You know I give dissertations one interview is like an entire essay here.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Okay... The external people. Actually, you know what? No, no. I think you can list that pretty quickly. I just was curious who was working with you. But I think I'm maybe more curious about how you worked on this before the launch. What was that experience like?
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Well, it was a couple of different experiences. We had to build a new site, that would contain the new documentation, and had a really good contribution workflow. It was hard to write the documentation before the site was finished, because so much of the documentation is interactive. You know, you'd be writing a Google Doc, and then you'd have to put a link to a CodeSandbox to explain what you're talking about, and this would be embedded. It was really, really slow and churny. But things picked up once we got a prototype site in place. That was a quick collaboration to set something like that up.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Did I read it correctly that Jared Palmer helped build the site?
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Jared Palmer helped build the prototype site that we were using to write the documentation up behind the scenes, yes.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Wow.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** That was spun up super-quickly. CodeSandbox had a dedicated team working on integrating the Sandpack with the site... And that was really fun too, because we were sort of their Guinea pig, they were also our Guinea pig, so we were kind of like co-Guinea pigs.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Guinea-pigging...
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Yeah. That was fun. And then, to actually build out the final site, there was a design effort. We had a UI designer in-house who worked on the code diagrams and how the interactive examples would work. And another designer, who came up with the design system which actually folded into a bit of a design refresh for the React brand - you might notice that the logo is a little smoother around the edges now. It's very, very subtle...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[44:13\] \[laughs\] But is this the difference between a squircle and--
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** A rounded rectangle?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** ...a rounded rectangle? You know, that's very subtle... How different is this logo?
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** I would actually say that's an accurate depiction.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, okay. Excellent. Yay! That's what I figured, because it's not very noticeable...
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Yeah... And I was Razvan and Dan
+
+**Amal Hussein:** What is it with big companies and the desire to constantly change logos or names? Google has done this a hundred times, Facebook did this... No, we don't need to talk about the actual -- like, just in general... It's just like this hilarious thing that we don't need to spend any time on...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** It's a rhetorical question...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Let's move on! Rhetorical question. Yes, that's exactly what it was. So yeah, I don't know... Amelia, you go. I mean, I have so many thoughts, but this is amazing...
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Wait, I haven't finished with my thank you credits...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, you haven't finished. Oh, sorry. Okay. Great.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Yeah. So then we had these cool designs, and we worked with Dustin and Dane over at This Dot, and they did the implementation for the designs. So there were a couple of different teams at different places, doing different integration work. Different people designing UI, different people implementing it, different people putting the new design system into place... And Maggie Appleton - the original prototype site was all my sketches and doodles everywhere... Because I'd be in a meeting, and I'd be like "Okay, and does state work like this?" "No..." "Like this? Is this a good metaphor?" "Okay, that's close..." And I put all these illustrations and hand-drawn diagrams in. And you know what the alpha tester feedback was?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** What?
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** "These illustrations are interesting and nice, but I cannot read the text." My handwriting was so bad. So toward the end we ended up bringing in Maggie Appleton, who does amazing React illustrations, to come up with a diagramming system that really helps... And you'll see that soon. We're still in beta. They're gonna be implemented. You'll see them soon.
+
+And these take my chicken-scratchings and makes them actual diagrams.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** The ones on the site right now? I thought those are your illustrations, right?
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** They are. The actual illustrations -- like, you'll notice there are illustrations that show React Head, who's like this IKEA dude doing things...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah...
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Those are final illustrations
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Gender-neutral dude... Or maybe not so gender-neutral. I don't know.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** It's React Head.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's React Head, yeah.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Not the star of a horror movie, but your helpful IKEA person, assisting you with assembling your component.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I feel like "Helpful IKEA person" is very gender-neutral though, so I figured React Head was non-binary, or something... But who knows.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** I like to think of it that way. And there are diagrams which are still very sketchy. You've got a proper diagramming system coming in for those.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** That's super-cool.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** That's pretty awesome. I think I've given thanks to everybody... Of course, the actual docs themselves, the learning path, everything - this was design by Dan Abramov, who you might remember has been blogging about React on overreacted.io forever. You read these docs and you may be like, "Rachel, you must know everything about React." I do not. Oh no, I do not. A lot of this is collaboration with Dan, with the core team, to bring these information to light. And yes, I have wordsmithed a lot of it. One or two of those pages are definitely exact products from Rachel, but most of them are a team effort. They have been through lots of revisions, iterations, there are "How to think in React" directly from React core team members, and... That's what's so special about this. I mean, it was kind of like getting to co-author a book on React for a year, and also produce the interactive part of it, too. That was just so cool. And the docs are the way they are because of so many amazing people putting in their efforts. We wouldn't have been able to test on real people without that prototype. We wouldn't have been able to get the interactive examples without CodeSandbox. We wouldn't have had these amazing examples in the first place without Sylvia.
+
+So I really think when you look at these docs, you're looking at a synthesis of so many efforts, and a feedback of so many amazing volunteers who joined us at the start of the journey.
+
+**Break:** \[48:33\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Okay, Rachel, that was really incredible to hear, about just how many people were involved, and vendors, volunteers, you name it... You have a whole kind of smorgasbord of people helping birthe this into the world; it's just so exciting. I'm curious - the goals are kind of these lofty goals, right? Like, "Hey, you should be able to more or less master React through these docs", and you should be able to be comfortable, the API reference should cover everything you need to know to stay safe and be productive. So I'm assuming, as much as I know when I'm learning, I'm usually learning from multiple sources on the same topic... And usually, that's because they don't all cover the same thing, in the same way, and I don't always learn from them in the same way... So what gaps do you think that you guys are never gonna cover, and what types of things would people wanna kind of look to other places beyond the docs to gain mastery?
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** \[52:19\] Well, for one thing, the docs strictly teach React. They don't teach React and Next, or React and Gatsby, or React for building a blog, or React for building your own app. It's strictly how to get great with React. If you want to learn those other things, there are amazing resources available. The documentation at Next and Gatsby is excellent.
+
+What we wanted to do though was to make sure that these people who build great courses, great platforms etc. - that they have reference material that they could link out to, lean on, or even re-explain React better than we could to their audiences, but feel certain that they were -- in the case of trainers making courses, really be sure that they were explaining it right. We're not able to go out and offer editorialship to everyone's documentation and courses. We wish we could...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I know. I know you wish you could. Y'all are so generous with your time and feedback already, honestly. I really feel that truly about the React core team. You're very, very good about giving feedback to educators, and also just in general. You have folks like Mark Erikson; how can I talk about React without talking about Mark, who's @acemarke on Twitter and Discord. He's a phenomenal educator, super-patient... But I feel that very strongly about the React community. Y'all are just incommunicado. But I'm so glad to hear that that was the goal; that's so cool. It's very platformy. It's like, "I'm gonna build a platform for platforms", which is like "I'm going to make sure that we're supporting the educators when they're talking to their audiences, in the language that their audiences prefer." So that's really cool.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** One thing I wanna ask about is the layout and navigation is a little bit different from the official docs, or the last docs, which - I think they're both gonna live in harmony now...
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Well, eventually the beta documentation will be the documentation.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Gotcha.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Beta.reactjs.org will get merged to Reactjs.org. That's the end goal.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Gotcha. Okay. Thanks for clarifying that. I read once that there's four, at least four types of documentation that are all kind of different. There's tutorials, how-to guides, explanations and references, and it seems like you've kind of split out to treat at least two of those separately, which - I'm curious what was the thinking behind that, and what is going where.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** That is great, thank you for bringing that up. Originally - I don't know if you've looked at Reactjs.org recently, but it's sort of... All of it is guides. There's some API documentation in there, but depending on what you're looking for, it could exist in multiple places. Like, you go find where the API docs are on the site; it takes a little bit of rummaging around. And if you're looking for a hook, you're gonna be rummaging a couple of different places. But you know, this is what happens when your information architecture kind of gets away from you here.
+
+So there was an information architecture overhaul. We have API references, and we have the actual React Learn content, which is step-by-step lessons and guides for how to install, how to get something quickly running, and how to dive deep with React. These guides are actually a little bit different from the conceptual overview and guides docs you mentioned. They're kind of a merging of the two, because it's very hard to talk about React conceptually without actually showing things in progress. And if we did split up the conceptual overview, we'd run into a situation where we might end up with long essays here, and then explanations that don't really help you understand what's going on over here. And you can guess how much time people are gonna spend on which.
+
+\[56:04\] So this goal-based approach to learning React actually kind of blends those two kinds of content into one. So as you're learning about how state works, you're also learning about the concept of render and commit, which is necessary to understand how state works. Setting state triggers a render process. Oh... But what is that render process? "Don't go to the other side of the site; stay right there, kiddos. We're gonna tell you about it right there." So that was the approach that we took with these. It's a little different, a little experimental, but it seems to be doing well with test audiences, and we think it's doing well in production so far... So - fingers crossed. We did take that particular approach here.
+
+We do want to add some tutorials once we've gotten out of beta and gone fully-loaded into the new site... That is on the roadmap for the future. So I'm so glad that you brought of those different content types.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's incredible. I mean, it really does feel very intentional, and it's clearly laid out when you're kind of learning, and then when you're really just in execution mode, trying to access API docs... And then when you're learning, I really like the new organization of top-level contents, like buckets, as well. I think that's like -- you've really shifted the mental model for how people should understand React. I remember you mentioned earlier just kind of that more of a focus on the rendering lifecycle, more of a focus on how things work under the hood... It's phenomenal. It just feels good. You know, when it feels good to navigate and read and learn in that order... I've spent a couple of hours on the new docs and I just didn't feel exhausted two hours later... And that's a good thing.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Well, that's wonderful feedback. I'm gonna write that down.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You should write that down. It did not feel exhausting after two hours. \[laughs\] Don't ask about other symptoms. No, just kidding. So what's your favorite part of the site? I wanna hear - you, Rachel, what did you love? ...whether you helped contribute to it or not. What are your favorite parts?
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** That's a really good question.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Because your answer is gonna be the title of the book called React Docs, The Good Parts. Just kidding. \[laughs\] Just kidding, kids... Anyways.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** I love so much of the documents here. Even some of the content -- like, there was the question of... There was this one piece called "Thinking in React", which was one of the original "Here's how React helps you think about building UI." And at first, it was like, "Yeah, I've gotta make a whole new page all about thinking in React. Yeah. And for the modern world." But people in beta testing kept being like "Don't forget about keep thinking in React. I love that piece, man." And I was like, "You know, it's such a classic. We can't burn it down." So I went through and gave it a bit of a facelift for the modern era. You know, the original Thinking in React piece was very, you know, "Here's a new way you may not have thought about thinking about your interfaces, kids. Have you heard about atomicity?" Yes, everyone has heard of that by now. Let's write this as though people probably have encountered some of these concepts already. They've permeated other branches of programming, they've inspired new approaches out there, so let's talk more in the present and less in the past... But just updating that classic was a real honor. It was very awesome to see it with actual interactive examples, showing the thing that it was describing originally in the text.
+
+My personal favorite is the Describing the UI section, which is really just introducing you to the concept of components and props... You know, "What are these things? How do you structure them into extra files?" There's a lot of stuff there that we saw people coming out of bootcamp maybe not quite take this up yet. We got to cover some of those basics again, and it was actually a lot of fun to work on some of those pieces, and break things down. And even more fun to read through the individual feedback on those pieces. You hear someone say "This was the best explanation of this that I've ever read", and I'm just like
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[01:00:14.24\] Yeah! Nailed it!
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** "Yes! Yes! Yes!" So I'm kind of proud of the whole thing, but exceptionally proud of the guides and the work done on those. People love it. It just came out so well.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. That's the educator in you. Rachel, I think at core maybe you are just a teacher, honestly... And I shouldn't say "just". But I think you are -- I think education has definitely been the theme that's been woven through everything that you've done, I think...
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Yeah, it's kind of the red thread.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's the red thread, yeah. So I think it's no surprise that those are the pieces that come home for you... But that's really exciting. Very, very cool.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** I'm glad that I had the chance to be a part of this. It's inspiring. I know that these resources are going to change; who gets great with React, who gets what jobs, who teaches who, and the quality of how people about that, and the confidence that they have going forward. I'm really honored that I got to be a part of something that's gonna just be so useful for so many folks.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, for sure. And I think what's interesting also - kind of circling back to your earlier comment around you're really excited to make better materials for educators... I think what's great about this is it's one of those things that's like "A rising tide lifts all boats." It really feels like with the core docs being better, everything else is going to have a new baseline as well, in some ways. Of course, not everything, but those things that choose to participate, I think, and pull from these docs, will certainly be elevated, right?
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** And that makes me wanna give a callback to something we talked about earlier about the metrics... Funny thing about Net Promoter Score - it's always falling.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Interesting.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Do you know why that is?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** No. Oh, because recency bias? I don't know... Why?
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** I don't actually know that expression...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, recency bias? It's probably because it's something I made up; I don't know if it's official... But it's like just the thing that's most recent. Let's say you have a competition and there's five people pitching, and it's usually like the last one or two people pitching, they have the recency bias advantage, because they were most recent... Because we tend to forget things. We have low RAM, you know?
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** This is not that.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** This is not that. Okay, cool.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** So there's a word for this, and jump in and tell me if you've heard of it before... It's where today's amazing becomes tomorrow's expected. Remember when the iPhone came out? Everyone was like, "It's a touchscreen! It doesn't have keys!"
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, yeah...
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** And now it's like, would you be able to sell someone a phone that wasn't a touchscreen? No. Nobody would buy that, except for very strange people who have specific needs. Like, those keys are so much easier to feel if they're actually physical. But let's be honest, the mass market has changed its baseline; they now expect what was once unexpected.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh my God, yeah.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** I mean, think about it... People are gonna expect interactive examples in their docs. People are gonna come to the React documentation in a few years and they're gonna be like "Yeah, but I can't just click a button and it builds my app for me." Or "You know, these are great, but I expect to be able to dial in and talk to a core team member when I have trouble."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** Who knows what's going to happen with the future of documentation...?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yes... Because ReactJS developers will all become Oracle Enterprise developers, too. Anyways. Actually, no, Rachel, OMG, I can't believe -- that's why I was gasping while you were saying that, because I just realized that yeah, this is one of those tipping points where React has enough of a market in the developer tooling community that we are going to now see this be the new standard. Similar to how zeroconfig became a new standard for developer tooling. Install and run commands; don't worry about config files if you don't need to.
+
+\[01:04:18.04\] So this whole kind of like smart defaults movement, interactive API documentation, like Stripe - and this is a really good segue into some of the inspiration for this site... But Stripe set the bar; literally, everything became copy-paste after that, where you see services like Twilio... It just was the first domino, so this might be the first domino in that same way, which is interesting.
+
+And actually -- yeah, I'll let you respond, but I do remember the question that I wanted to ask you from earlier, which I think is a very relevant question from our listeners... So my question, Rachel, is "How long are the current docs going to live side by side with this beta?" And can we expect that the current docs, the content is always going to be the most accurate and latest and greatest on both the beta and the current? I just wanna know what's the lifecycle and management of these two? Because you can't strictly cut over yet, because of the API docs that are still in progress, and whatever else.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** And for achieving content parity.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** There's still some documentation and content on the main site that needs to be ported to the new site. We're writing the documentation live right now... I can't give you an exact date about when that will land... If anything, I think the last year has taught us that exact dates are kind of a tricky thing to promise...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I know...
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** But if you want the latest and greatest, the beta.reactjs.org is a safe bet. We are actively developing the content there and contributing to it, and that is the place to go to.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's awesome. Thank you so much for that. So I guess we can close out on the inspiration... It's clear that there's echoes from many different things, including even just in your collaborations. This new beta site wouldn't have been possible without all of the hard work from folks like Sandbox, CodePen, JSFiddle... Whatever was the first thing, made it easy for us to write JavaScript and interact with it in a web browser.
+
+There's so many shoulders of giants that you're standing on... So can you maybe talk us through what were some of your inspirations, and how did they feed into this final product?
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** I think a lot of our inspiration for this, it came from honestly texts about how to teach people. Making It Stick is a really good example of one of those books that really changed how we approach React, instead of just telling people "This is how React works" with a bunch of diagrams. We added actual interactive challenges, so that people could get retrieval practice in.
+
+We were inspired by textbooks as well. The structure of textbooks, with chapters, overviews... A lot of people in courseware design are doing really amazing things that could apply to the realm of documentation. Course design, courseware design, which takes a lot of inspiration from textbooks and formal education.
+
+I know some people who work on whole computer science, aligning how their documentation and educational materials teach to new computer science standards for curricula that are coming out for United States and the United Kingdom. There's an entire formal education component where I could not name all the different inspirations. We tried to bring a little bit of that here. We wanted it to be something that could be a good foundation, or at least plug in nicely to other people's curricula.
+
+And of course, the Stripe documentation - you already mentioned it. There are a lot of things that didn't make it out of the prototyping stage that we wish we could have done, but we really wanted to focus on getting to beta. Stripe has just been such an inspiration... I love how they used scrollytelling to get through the examples, and line-by-line, the code. I really found that informative.
+
+\[01:08:09.03\] And lastly, I do wanna give a shout-out to everyone's favorite, MDN. Way back in the day, I used to write documentation for the Web Animations API with MDN, and that spirit of collaboration, of - you know, everyone who's written on MDN gets their name added to the... Well, if you dig around on GitHub, you can find it, but... That spirit of "This is a team effort." It's documentation as open source, and I loved how MDN did that. I loved how MDN partnered with the community to teach the community, and I think that a lot of that spirit has found its way into the project as well.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Wow. Well, that was inspirational... Are you inspired? I'm inspired, Amelia...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Oh, yeah. Yeah, such a good list.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Solid list. It's near impossible to talk about documentation and not mention Stripe... It's just like, I can't do it; if you find a person who can, really, is my challenge to you... But speaking of docs - listening to you, I had this thought that I wanted to share, which is... I wonder if any other industry uses technical documentation in the same way that engineers do; software engineers, particularly. Because I studied biomedical engineering, so I do have a background in engineering that's not related to software... And I can tell you, we'd read textbooks and open things in whatever; you know, my thermodynamics book, or whatever... But you don't really go back to your reference material in that way. Versus, like, me - Iike, I'm opening API docs, I'm looking at reference material and I'm reading technical content, and there's something very educational about our documentation, in a way that I feel like your comment about how so much of good courseware design could be applied to technical docs... I think that that's the first time I've ever heard of that, and I couldn't agree with you more. I just kind of wish that we really thought about technical docs really as more education, versus just trying to get something done.
+
+**Rachel Nabors:** I agree. And I've noticed this. I came in as a developer advocate/docs at Hybrid, and obviously, I've found after a little bit working here, I realized "Wow, the documentation just has such a scaling impact." I can get up on stage and give a few talks, but once you write something, everyone can reference it, repeat it; it catches like wildfire, and that's the big impact.
+
+But I feel like between developer advocacy, which is very much going out and really interacting with the community, and there's a community stewardship aspect to it, there's the information and teaching aspect to it... And with documentation you've got the teaching aspect, you've got the formalized making of features concept... But there's a space that sometimes falls in between the two. This developer education space. And it's not always clear who's running with that ball. And I'm always interested to see who in the community is making that their job, and really investing efforts in that... And I think you see that in some places, like Stripe and Twilio, where they're really going all-in on the developer education aspect... And I think that's something we'll be looking at more and more. And pardon me for saying it, but the pandemic, with everyone being inside, not being able to be on stages - we really only had one way of communicating, which was through the screen... I think it brought the focus back onto "Well, how do we scale this knowledge? How do we convert the great content that the core engineers are making, that advocates are sharing on stage and in workshops - how do we turn that into something that anybody can access at any time and anywhere?" And I just can't wait to see what the next couple of years hold for this space.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I couldn't think of a better way to end this show... I didn't even make that connection myself, around technical docs and the pandemic, and there being less ways to learn these days. You can't go to an in-person workshop as easily as you could in the past... So we're forced to get better at this. It's similar to how a lot of companies started investing in their testing infrastructure once the pandemic hit, because they've found all these bugs on their websites...
+
+So I just wanna say thank you so much for everything that you bring to this community, Rachel. We're really lucky to have you. And truly, this is a game-changer, and I'm really excited to at least be witnessing this bar get raised right in front of my eyes... So thank you so much, and... That's all for today, kids. Have a good day, y'allz...
diff --git a/This is ReScript_transcript.txt b/This is ReScript_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..be015cb92c1e06c96967269989df95e8db1f7db8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/This is ReScript_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,232 @@
+**Jerod Santo:** Hello, everyone out there in JavaScript land. It's your internet friend, Jerod, and I'm here for a fun show about ReScript today. Feross is joining us. What's up, Feross?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** How's it going, Jerod?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's going good. Hey, you launched a new thing, it's called Wormhole... How's that going? Good?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, going pretty good. It's fun times.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Tell the folks what it is real quick.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, it's a tool for sending files to people with end-to-end encryption, so you can safely send your files across the interwebs.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes. It's like Firefox Send, only they shut that down and this is probably even cooler, because you've built it... Maybe you'll have to give us the skinny sometime; remember we did the nitty-gritty on BitMidi...
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We might need to regroup and get one for Wormhole.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, let's do it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Awesome. Sounds like a plan. We're also joined by Patrick Ecker, who is with the ReScript Association. We're here to talk about ReScript. You may have heard of ReScript, or maybe not; maybe you've heard of BuckleScript, maybe not. Maybe you've heard of Reason, maybe not. Maybe you've heard of OCaml. Maybe you've heard of none of these things. We're gonna sort through all that, and hopefully dive deep into this cool language and ecosystem for building web apps... And maybe even more. Who knows. Patrick, welcome to JS Party.
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** Thank you for having me.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We're excited. I thought we would start with all of that because I had never heard of ReScript, but I had heard of Reason... And I hadn't heard of BuckleScript until I read the rebranding post... But y'all have been around for a while, in different forms, and there's multiple tools that have come together to kind of unify and hopefully have a cohesive story going forward... But give us the background of these disparate tools, or involved tools, and then kind of the coming together. Maybe sort through that from that start, and then we'll get into the nitty-gritty from there.
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** \[04:08\] Sure. This is probably the most famous question whenever someone is asking about ReScript, because a lot of people got in touch with ReasonML and BuckleScript, which is like a cohesive toolchain - Reason is the syntax and BuckleScript is the compiler which takes Reason syntax. It looks also a lot like JavaScript, and \[unintelligible 00:04:26.10\] to JavaScript. This has been going on for a few years. We also made some cross-compilation story out of it, and then people got involved with a lot of OCaml, which this whole thing is built on, basically.
+
+There were two communities going on. There was one community going more into this native exploration direction; they wanted to compile to native, they wanted to have a nice garbage-collected language that is almost as fast as Rust, and then we had the JavaScript story, which should be like a single toolchain, it should be simple to understand, it should be simple to understand, it should be easy to integrate in existing JavaScript codebases... And this was also the bigger setting point of the platform, because a lot of people got into this JavaScript compilation thing and they used it actually in their projects for more than two years, three years in production now... And the major problem here was that people got confused. So they got into the community and they were like "Okay, I want to do ReasonML. What can I do?" and then they're like "Oh, do you want to do native or do you want to do JavaScript?" And then it's like "Okay, what is the easiest?" "Oh, you can do this and that with this compiler, or with this compiler, or you can do the OCaml way with something else", which was always confusing. We never liked the idea of decoupling the syntax from the compiler.
+
+In 2020, after one year of development of a rewrite of the syntax, we decided to align the compiler with this new syntax, which is actually even more JavaScripty as ReasonML, and called it ReScript. We also made it really clear that this is all about JavaScript development. So we built a toolchain which kind of feels similar from a workflow perspective, so you basically install other compile to JS languages like TypeScript or Elm or whatever. You install one npm package, npm install ReScript and you've got all the tools you need to compile ReScript files to equivalent JavaScript files.
+
+Ever since we did that, suddenly people get it. People get to the platform, they get to one cohesive website, all the resources are on there... We have a cohesive story for React development, we have cohesive stories for how to integrate it with Next, how to integrate it with any React application that already exists... And we made it really clear -- we also removed all the diverting for ReasonML or OCaml because it's not relevant anymore. We care about minimalistic design, minimalistic CLI, no configuration or low configuration, and also a syntax formatter without any options. Without any of them. Not even the \[unintelligible 00:07:11.02\] not even semicolons, nothing. There is just one style basically enforced, and we are really glad we did that. We're really happy that this is now such -- now it's easy to understand, and now we are happy, and now we want to start out again with a fresh brand and a cohesive story.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** I just have to say, the more you kept talking, the more excited I was getting. All the words you were using - minimalist, no configuration format, or without any options, no semicolons, focusing the website down... I'm really curious now to try it.
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** \[07:46\] Right, right, right. It's so exciting also for me, because I'm also not the biggest fan of these bulky, huge languages that give you 15 different configurations and every project looks different. And the second thing is the major selling point of the platform is that it's fast, ridiculously fast. It's hard to describe, actually. We try to build a platform that doesn't really \[unintelligible 00:08:08.26\] So we can compile (I don't know) 3,000 files in a project once, and then can start a cold build... Or actually, we cache files on the file system level, but we don't need an extensive, incremental background service which requires two gigabytes of RAM, like in TypeScript. If you want to have a fast build, you need to wind up this huge server, and then it indexes all your files, and then caches get invalid in between in memory, and then you switch branches, and then suddenly all your type information is kind of corrupted, and then you need to do a cold build again and this takes 20 minutes... If you have a big codebase, like a serious codebase. For smaller projects it's probably not a problem...
+
+ReScript really scales with the amount of files you have. If you start out with a ten files project, it's instant. It's 20 to 50 milliseconds per build. It doesn't matter if it's an incremental build or a cold build. And then you have huge size projects, like -- I have one client who has 3,290 files, or something; the first initial build, if you completely clean this whole thing and build it once, it takes like one minute and thirty seconds, and this is not even optimized. There are a few things you can tweak to make the compilation faster. But after that, you change a file and it doesn't take forever to just recompile this one file, and it doesn't really rely on these caches I was talking about. And then things get way less complex if you can just rely on one simple command that winds up when you need it, and then winds down when it's done.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah. So zooming out a little bit - it sounds like you've got really good performance on builds, and as far as the compiled language goes, you have a lot of nice features... But why would I use ReScript over just plain JavaScript? Because plain JavaScript files have no build time. So what am I getting by using ReScript over plain JS, or something like TypeScript?
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** Yeah. Plain JS is a dynamic, untyped language. For me personally, when I write a bigger JavaScript application, it's usually very hard to maintain it or refactor it, especially if it's like a really complex codebase, with a lot of people working on the same codebase. If it's like a React application or an Angular application, it doesn't matter. TypeScript tries to mitigate that by being a superset of JavaScript, so you can turn around a JavaScript file into a TypeScript file and it will still compile, but then you can also add type annotations and stuff. So it is a gradual type system, and these ones have the downside that they need to deal with the complexities of JavaScript, because JavaScript is a very dynamic language, it's very polymorphic. You can do a lot of things you usually cannot do in statically-compiled, sound languages. And what ReScript is - it's a sound-typed language, which means that every value in your program has a type annotated. There is no any type, there is no mixed type, or no unknown type, or some sorts of that, which makes it very robust.
+
+We also don't have -- in the core language, if you just write ReScript code, you don't have any null pointer exceptions, because we don't have any null. We don't have the concepts of null. Instead, we have a few other niceties which help you build very complex applications. For instance, we've got variant types, which are also very well known in languages like Rust, which is a data structure to design complex domains. If you think about like TypeScript, when you're using a tagged union, you usually have an object type, and then you have an attribute type on there, and you call that type user, and then you have some certain attributes available because this is like a user type... Which is kind of like abusing the object type of some sense, and then gradually refining the type. In ReScript we have the variants, which look a little bit like -- I don't know how to explain it. You would define a type user, and then you have constructors values; call that (I don't know) admin, or user, or privileged user, or moderator, and then you can attach data to it.
+
+\[12:28\] So you can have an admin constructor, and this one contains a string for the user name, and then you can just use that as a value in your program, and then you can pattern-match on that with a very powerful switch-like expression. So you can really design your domain just with types, and then later on use these values to manage your application code.
+
+The sound type thing is also very nice, because refactoring is a totally different story there. Whenever you're doing TypeScript, you're installing some libraries, these libraries maybe involve some definition files, these definition files may come from a third-party that is maintained independently from the actual library. Maybe it's like an add-on which is -- maybe the library is not written in TypeScript, and they write a definition file for that. So information can be stale, or wrong, or some sorts, and it's not always clear when you refactor a codebase or when you raise a dependency, or when you do this kind of stuff if your code really works. And as soon as you have this one trust issue in your type system, that type system suddenly isn't that nice anymore. You have autocompletion, yeah, and some other nice tooling opportunities... But the full trust, when the program compiles - it will work, unless I'm doing bailout functionality for communicating with external JavaScript... Yeah, that's really great if you can do that. If you can say with a convincing voice "Yeah, this program compiles. I'm pretty sure this would just work."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So no bugs. That's what I want. I want no bugs.
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** I mean, you will still have bugs...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, I'm out.
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** ...but it's very easy to at least say -- if I change the interface or something, the compiler will really help me; the compiler messages are really good, especially with those variant types I was talking about. When you change something, then the compiler will say "Okay, this interface doesn't match here and there." If you do pattern-matching and you're for instance adding new cases to a variant; for instance, I have my admin and my moderator, and I want to add a user variant constructor or whatever, then pattern matchers, wherever I have a switch expression, the compiler will tell me "Hey, you forgot to add the user constructor case." And when I remove the user constructor, it says "There is no user constructor." This is super-useful when, for instance, you're building React components. React components in the beginning are super-easy. You're like "Oh, I need to have a button." Okay, HTML button. That's it. Then it's like, "Oh, but we need accessibility", right? And then you need like, okay, I need to annotate different states; when there's an hover state, or when there's like a click hover, or when you have touch, and other interactions... Suddenly, the code gets really complex.
+
+When you look at things like -- Tailwind did a really great library for doing the heavy lifting for you, where you get React components and then you just use them, and they implement a complex logic in the background. Maybe you check that out; check out how complex this code can get with TypeScript, just because they're using these tagged union objects, and then they try to shoehorn it in with some switch statements. It's really hard to read, and then you need annotate everything, because the type system needs more help inferring all your types. In ReScript, every type that is inferred from the compiler is 100% correct. This is also very nice, if you can trust the compiler there to do the right thing.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[16:22\] Well, pattern-matching is really cool, so that's a great language feature that I always appreciate. It's difficult sometimes when we are hearing about something brand new, unfamiliar, to get a frame of reference. ReScript is its own language. It's a language that compiles to JavaScript. So what are some hooks that people can have? Not like specific features, but is it like anything else? Is it kind of like Elm, is it kind of like ClojureScript? We've already contrasted it from TypeScript; it's not a superset of JavaScript. It's not JavaScript. But would you say it's Elm-esque in terms of it's kind of FP-style?
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** Yeah, yeah... So no, it's actually not. It looks a lot like JavaScript, acts a lot like JavaScript, and in our opinion, compiles to the highest quality of readable and performant JavaScript, which is really nice; it's our marketing pitch. So our idea was - which is kind of rare; we haven't seen this before, that's why we build it. You really write your code, you have your typical let bindings, or let variable kind of thing; we call it let bindings. So you define a variable, or you define a function with arrow function syntax... We only have one syntax for functions, which is the arrow syntax, which compiles to an actual named function. So you don't have to worry "Should I use a named function, or should I use a named function without a name? Should I use an arrow function? Should I use bind?" We don't have that concept. We just use the arrow function syntax for that. We don't have classes, which means that we replicate the behavior of classes by saying that we just think about values and functions, and then we have a pipe operator to chain all these things together.
+
+So we can model an object-oriented system just with values and the pipe operator, which looks a little bit like a PHP, because our pipe operator is basically like an arrow, so \[unintelligible 00:18:14.17\] which means "Oh, I cannot interact with object-oriented systems with classes in existing JavaScript code." But we can, because we also added to this an external syntax (it is called), which is finding -- you can define an external that binds to an existing JavaScript function, and you can tell the external binding if it's like a new constructor, if it's like a class constructor or whatever, or if it's like a method function; you want to call this, or you put in a value and then it calls the function on this value, like with a method.
+
+So we can interact with the more complex features of JavaScript, but in the core language we don't need that. And when we look at a ReScript file - so we have a ReScript file which is .res, and you compile it with the compiler, it will create an equivalent JavaScript file right next to it. And by default, when you define a value or a function inside a ReScript module, this value will automatically be exported or exposed as an export in this generated JavaScript file.
+
+Our recommendation is to write your functions and values just the way you used to in ReScript. You can do for loops, you can do while loops, you can do your typical array map and whatever... We have all the bindings there for all the JavaScript Web API collections and arrays and whatever. And then you open a new tab with the JavaScript output and you can see that the compiled output looks very similar to the actual ReScript code, if done correctly.
+
+\[20:05\] And since this idea of ReScript file is \[unintelligible 00:20:08.08\] you can integrate it really easily in existing codebases. So if you decide on "Okay, I just want to have one React component written in ReScript", we have dedicated -- first of all, we have JSX syntax integrated in the language. This is a one-to-one equivalent thing. You can just use JSX in the language, without Babel and whatever. The compiler will compile it into equivalent React.createElement( ) calls, or in the new JSX API, what's out there now... And then you just have this one React component, compile it to JavaScript, and then import it from other React components as if it would be a JavaScript component.
+
+This partial integrations is one of our most interesting features, because people can first try it out and see if it fits their use cases. A lot of people are having -- they cannot just rewrite their whole codebase. Nobody can do that. And with us, it's like, okay, if you want to just try out one part of the application, and maybe it's a very complicated part, and you're like "Maybe this brings us some value, because we have very complex interactions" or maybe I'm building a code editor or a rich text editor, something with a lot of state and a lot of state transitions; maybe let's try this with one React component that is written in ReScript and let's see if it works. If it doesn't work, if you do it correctly and you have always liked the JavaScript on the side to see the output, if you do it correctly, you can even after some time, when you decide this is not yours, you can just remove the ReScript files, check in the JavaScript source files, maybe rewrite it a little bit to make it a little bit cleaner, and you're done. You don't lose much in productivity there. And you're also not forced to rewrite it again in your specific other language you want to use, or JavaScript. This is just the insurance from our side that you are not locked into the system if you don't like it.
+
+**Break:** \[22:14\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So let's say I'm like Feross and I'm excited, I'm like "Hey, ReScript. Let's give this thing a shot." I know nothing about it, I write React-based web apps, and I'm at least interested enough to hop in and see what it's all about. What do you tell folks? Where do they start? What should they avoid? etc.
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** Yeah, so the most important thing is we have everything on our website, ReScriptlang.org. We've hopefully structured the documentation in a way that it's easy to follow. We usually recommend to start out with the manual, which is more written in a narrative style. So you start at the introduction, and you go through the installation, and then you can dive through the most basic features.
+
+We didn't mention the more advanced features yet on the manual, because we thought it would be easier for most users to just use the most basic stuff, and they can build all kinds of React apps with that. After you get some idea of the language, it is very important, because a lot of people are coming from a JavaScript background. They want to interact with existing JavaScript libraries. We've got a section there for interoperability for the external bindings I was talking about... So you need to get familiarized with "How do I bind to an ES6 module? How do I bind a value to a function that is exported from a CommonJS module, maybe the default export?" Or how do I map to a JavaScript class there? This is probably the first thing you should definitely check out, and at least try... Because a lot of people have this urge to jump into the ecosystem and look for existing ReScript bindings that bind to some JavaScript library, but this takes away a lot of learning possibilities. If you're in control of writing your own bindings to externals, it's much easier to do stuff, generally speaking.
+
+As soon as you've got this, we also have a ReScript React documentation section, which covers actually all the basic concepts of React. We tried our best to also cover all the React topics, because oftentimes we just refer -- like, some people refer users to the original resource, so "Go to reactjs.org, learn React, and then come back to our resource and learn ReScript React." We don't do that. So you can go from topic to topic there. How do I use JSX? How do I create elements? How do I mix them up with existing components and how do I export it to JavaScript so I can use it in JavaScript? From there on, it is usually recommended to just drop into your React codebase, run npm install ReScript in your dev dependencies, and set up a config file with Npx ReScript in it, and just point to the folder with your components. Then create your first ReScript file, write your first component, try it out, and wire it up in your existing JavaScript app, and that's it. From there on, you can just play around with all the features and see if you like it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It seems kind of like Swift in that way. When Apple was trying to encourage everybody to switch over to Swift, they had these larger decks of C codebases... And you could just sprinkle Swift in, file by file, or maybe even class by class; in this case maybe component by component. You're like "Well, I'm gonna write this component in ReScript, and it's gonna generate this nice-looking output." Do you check that in the source code as well, or...?
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** That's a really good point. Yeah, we actually recommend checking in the JavaScript output files, because -- first of all, if you're trying to bring new technology into your company, you need to convince your coworkers as well. And if they see -- it's a matter of politics as well. So you check in the source code, they can review ReScript code and their progress, and they can also see the equivalent JavaScript. Second of all, it's also very useful to spot regressions if you're doing some bindings and then you mess up a binding, and then suddenly the output changes. You see that as well, which is super-useful. But people will see the output and they're like "Oh, I can understand that. This is not that scary." And since ReScript is so fast, the compilation itself, it will also not have a heavy toll on your CI workflows, or on the consistency for your coworkers; if you check in the JavaScript source code, it's already in there, so they don't need to even run the ReScript compiler first. This has a lot of advantages, just bringing in the technology and make your coworkers like you afterwards.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[28:33\] Now, what happens when they start editing the JavaScript output, not realizing what that .res file is? They're just like "I changed this file and then you just recompiled right on top of my changes." I guess that's the magic of version control, you can always just go back in your Git history and dig that thing out.
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** Yeah. We also generate version headers, so it's usually a warning on top that this is generated.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, very obviously generated.
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** But this is actually also a good point - if you're on vacation and then someone needs to do a hotfix because something happened, even if they don't know ReScript, they can still hotfix the JavaScript source until you're back, and then you just fix the ReScript code.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I think that's smart, because honestly, something like this is a very hard adoption, because it's just so out there. It's new. We're gonna talk about people using it, and the association, and the fact that it's not all that new, but... You know, nobody ever got fired for continuing to use React and JavaScript. But maybe for pulling ReScript in, if they didn't have these paths for a) incremental adoption, which is component by component or file by file, and then b) actually having both versions right there, and the ability for people who don't wanna touch ReScript, but have to hop in and fix a variable assignment or whatever the bug is - I feel like it really does make it less risky.
+
+At the end of the day, if your team is like "We're never gonna use this ReScript thing. Stop writing ReScript", you have the JavaScript files right there; you just get rid of the ReScript files and it's just some well-formatted JS that you just didn't write by hand. So I think that's a pretty cool thing for adoption.
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** Right. And I think one thing I didn't even mention yet - because a lot of people like to do immutable JS, or this immutable data structure story... I kind of liked it in the beginning too, but then I realized that immutable data structures come with a cost. In ReScript we have a concept of zero cost interop, which means that we take a concept and translate it to idiomatic JavaScript without any runtime overhead. One of that is we have record types that compile to plain JavaScript objects. So they look like JavaScript objects, but they behave like immutable data structures. The optimizations for the immutable data structure so that it's immutable is done during the compilation process and not during runtime.
+
+This is also really great, we also have runtime-specific data structures built into the standard library. For instance, immutable lists; they're also sometimes very useful. Those are compiled to also JavaScript objects, but with an \[unintelligible 00:31:15.07\] attribute. Very easy to check out on the playground, actually. If you try to use that, you'll see straight away the output on the right side.
+
+But we also have immutable data structures if you need it, and some of them are zero cost and default. This is also really, great to explain to someone why this might be useful... Because you cannot run into these weird issues where you try to use the object spread, and you think you're immutable in JavaScript, and then suddenly you do some change in an object and you mutate it, and then you get side effects. This is super-annoying.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I'm still trying to wrap my brain around zero-cost, immutable data structures.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** \[31:59\] So in practice, if I was using ReScript -- just a totally random question, but I'm just thinking of what I would actually experience as someone who's decided to introduce this into my project. When I use a dependency that I just found on npm, what's the process for most packages that I would find in an npm search for bringing that into ReScript? Is it a lot of work to write the bindings and all that stuff? Doesn't it have the same problem as TypeScript, where the definition files will get out of date or out of sync over time?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I'm gonna let Feross ask all the questions from here on out.
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** \[laughs\] Yeah, this is exactly what we are trying to figure out for the community as well. This is actually a philosophical problem - how do you make sure that all these npm dependencies, or these ReScript bindings to these libraries are always up to date? My current approach, my practical approach is you don't try to write these bindings for the general community. It sounds a little bit weird.
+
+For instance, if I'm trying to write bindings for the full JavaScript web API, when you think about how complex this thing is, the web API itself - it has nodes, and nodes are super polymorphic, and they can have a list of attributes, and these attributes don't necessarily need to exist in certain values, and in certain situations they do... And in a static typed system like ReScript, which is also very simple - the type system is not as clever, or not trying to be as clever as TypeScript; in TypeScript you can have an integer, and an object, and a string being in one type. This is not really possible in ReScript. You need to think a little bit more simply. So you cannot really bind to a JavaScript function that accepts a string or an object or a number or whatever. So we need to make decisions. You can write a binding that binds to this function, but it only accepts one version of it. So it only accepts an object. And then you name this function \[unintelligible 00:33:58.25\] You give it a name that tells the user that this is the parameter. Then you have another one with integer, or something.
+
+So there's a lot of opinions into "How do I write these bindings?" and that's why I recommend to learn the external syntax and just -- you define it like a variable, basically. It's like one line of code, you're like "Oh, I want to map to the event DOM handler type", or like one method of it; I just create one binding with this particular interface, and then use it." Later on you can extract them into modules and just reuse them very easily. So you can either share them -- I usually actually copy paste them around in some projects. If you're really cautious about that and you want to share it in your different codebases and you want to make sure that it's always up to sync, you can of course extract it into an npm package... But many of us actually don't have that many ReScript codebases and it's actually easier if you have it in-line, and then you can edit it as you need, and then later on publish it independently from that.
+
+But this is more like this vendoring problem... So you can have N dependencies on npm, and those have another N dependencies, and then you're like "Okay, how do I fix this one bug, which should be easy to fix, but then I need to go to five different maintainers to fix that?"
+
+So my recommendation would be write them ad-hocly, and if you've got a collection of useful bindings that have practical proof, then it's a good point to start sharing them with the community... Because some people start it, and then they get overwhelmed with how complex it is, and then they stop it. Then some people rely on that, and that is a problem. So we try to educate the people to really think about what they want to depend on, and if they need to depend on it.
+
+**Break:** \[36:00\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So Patrick, if you were to meet some developers and interview them, and at the end of these interviews you could pick one to be like "This is the person that ReScript is for. This is our perfect user today", what is that person like? Are they senior-level, are they experimental, are they building production apps? Are they in a large team, small team? Give us an idea of who should be adopting ReScript right now.
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** So our ideal developer is a product person; someone who wants to build nice-looking an performant products, and someone who's not too pickery about paradigms, or dogmas we often have in the community, also in JavaScript or in Java or wherever. It shouldn't be like a black/white thing, so people are not saying "Oh, I only want to do functional programming, and I only want to do object-oriented programming", but they are more like "I want to build this (I don't know) crypto wallet with this particular design" and are excited about it, and get their stuff done, in a timely manner as well.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Good answer. So if you're that person out there -- actually, Feross, you're kind of that person, aren't you? You're a product person, you like to build stuff fast, and high-quality, and kind of in small teams, and you also work somewhat autonomously a lot. I think a lot of the difficulty is large teams, like "How do I introduce ReScript?" That's why the incremental aspect is cool, because it's hard to sell that to your boss when it's going out on a limb for benefits, but how obvious and clear are those benefits. But you're in a kind of position - and myself as well - where we can make the calls on the technology choices, and build cool products quickly and with high precision and high reliability, it sounds like.
+
+What are the big wins for somebody like Feross? I know we've kind of touched on them, but if you could say like -- I mean, zero bugs was nice... If it compiles... And no tests. Don't worry about tests. It's kind of like the TypeScript of as long as the types make sense... But there's no any type, so you actually have to have types. All of my types are just any types, because I'm just a dynamic kind of a guy. But what would Feross win if he just picked up ReScript for his next startup or his next side project? What would he feel, what would he appreciate?
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** \[39:48\] I kind of feel like - because I've seen a few projects already that are out there, and I can also mention some companies later on - what I've seen there is that there are quite a few startups using it. And for them, it's actually really good, because... I didn't even mention that too much, but as I said, the type inference in ReScript is really good, so people can write their code without much fuss. They don't need to annotate every single thing. They can just write down the code, try things out. If they don't like it, delete the code again. But it's not like the compiler always complaining about certain things, so they can move really quickly. Later on, when they start growing - they have legacy code, but they have a much easier time upgrading, because the platform is not moving as fast as for instance the JavaScript platform. JavaScript can be really churning when you think about it. The community is smaller, but more focused. We have a very nice forum where you get nice support, also by the core team members... It's very easy to upgrade codebases later on, and stay up to date. You also can grow, because there is always -- as I said, the compilation times scale linearly, so you don't have to worry about later on doing this churny work of "Okay, I need to implement some caching, I need to put this into a separate package so I can compile it independently, and then the other one" - no, you just put everything in a monorepo, just compile it once, put it on CI, build it once; everything works just the way it worked with ten files, and now with a thousand files it doesn't matter anymore.
+
+So growing is much easier with that one... And this is probably my major observation. Also, bigger companies profit from that, because feature teams for instance can choose the technology, and if they need to integrate it in existing JavaScript codebase, they can do that as well. So all use cases are kind of covered here.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I was kind of joking about the whole testing thing, but is there a testing story, or is there tooling around testing? Or do you just say "Don't worry about tests, because we've got you covered"?
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** Yeah, we -- of course, testing is important. We tend to test business logic...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Because that would sell me, you know? Wouldn't that sell you, Feross? It's like, actually, tests - I know they have their value, but with our tool, with our language, just go ahead and forget about them. You're not gonna need them."
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** You always have to worry about what's the normal, untyped JavaScript app, which is like "Do the two parts even connect together correctly? Did I rename the function in one place and I didn't rename it in another place?" There's no way to know until you run the app in production. So you need to have some integration tests. It sounds like with this you wouldn't have that problem. With any kind of sound type system you would be able to just ditch those tests.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Anytime you're asking "Did this other part of my program send the right thing I'm expecting?" It fixes that problem. But like you said, any typed language does that. What I would love to do is not write any tests. Wouldn't that be the ultimate productivity? Just write the code, and it's gonna work. \[laughs\]
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** That would be the golden dream, right?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. So that would get me on ReScript right away. I'd be done with every other language. I'd be like, "Alright. No tests, no bugs, ever. Boom."
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** Yeah. We definitely need testing, and we usually -- we're currently tinkering with very simplistic recommendation for testing... Because right now you can use Tape, or you can use Jest, or whatever... But we are not too fond of it, because it adds another layer of complexity again. When you add Jest, suddenly you have a lot of configuration again you don't want to necessarily worry about... So what we are currently tinkering with is like a minimalistic test "framework", which is like a hundred-lines file \[unintelligible 00:43:51.26\] code, and you drop it in your project and then you can just use that test framework, with the standard set of test functionality you usually expect, and just run it with Node. Just run a Node script, and you can run every test individually, like with tape, for instance. I really like this idea of reducing complexity on the tooling side, and we try our best to always follow this philosophy. So hopefully, the testing story will be as clean as the rest of the toolchain.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[44:26\] Well, there's lots of stuff here, and it's worth pointing out it's not Patrick just working on this, on your nights and weekends; this is a long-time effort by lots of people. As we mentioned at the top, different projects kind of came together, different people came together and created ReScript out of these other things that were all working together. The core team is seven folks, which is a pretty big core team. So there's lots of people working on it. Tell us about the community. I know there's also the ReScript Association, which is kind of like a foundation, like an entity that is building this thing... So flesh out the community story so that people who are thinking about giving it a shot know what all is there. It's not somebody's side project toy language that they wanna learn how to do a compiler in, so they built ReScript. It's not like that; it's serious business.
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** Yeah. So the original project started out in Bloomberg, where Hongbo Zhang, the author of the compiler started this whole effort. I think this was five years ago already; he started working on this until Facebook came out with ReasonML, and got the idea, and Cheng Lou got this really nice idea of making these two things work together, the Reason project and the BuckleScript project back then. Facebook and Bloomberg kind of collaborated on this thing until it grew a few years, and the community started to shape around it. We had a few startups in there, we had a few bigger plays in there; for instance, we had Sotheby's, which is a bidding platform for expensive artwork, which is located in \[unintelligible 00:46:09.22\] I think... And we have companies like Draftbit, a startup which has an online editor for creating mobile apps, like a no-code tool with a lot of interactions and a lot of complex workflows. They're really happy with that, of course. And Facebook, they have been using it in the Facebook Messenger app, on the web version, which is also fully written in ReScript.
+
+One of our core team members is Ricky Vetter, who is also working on the Messenger team... So we've got the insights from that, as well.
+
+We have companies like Ahrefs using it. They are a huge player in the SEO sector, for analyzing SEO data. There is Ubisoft Club, or Ubisoft Connect now; I think they rebranded. They use parts of ReScript in their React Native app. And there's also some interesting companies, like in Japan, Elm Inc. - they built an app which is called \[unintelligible 00:47:06.12\] It's a smartphone platform for the field triage of stroke patients. So when you think about these medics or paramedics currently in the field, and someone has a stroke, and they have a response app where they can ask for help, and ask for symptoms. This was very important that the app doesn't crash. And for these use cases, where things should not crash, no matter how tricky it is, ReScript is really good, so these companies adopted it.
+
+Or \[unintelligible 00:47:37.12\], which created an app for mission-critical railway safety. So when there's a train passing down, like in Swiss or in France, passing down a red light, they stop the train and then they need to fill out this form, and there's a very complex logic behind it. If you make a mistake, you can get in trouble, because there's a train standing on the tracks, and if another train goes by, then you have--
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You want that formula to work, is what you're saying.
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** \[48:07\] Yeah, yeah, sure. And companies like TinyMCE - they are building a rich-text editor platform with ReScript, and for that it's also fantastic. These really complex domains - this is where ReScript shines.
+
+On the team, we've got, as I said, Hongbo Zhang, who is now also working for Facebook, Cristiano Calcagno, who is one of the cleverest scientists I know. He has been working on the Infer project, if you know that, for code analysis and static analysis of all kinds of languages. He has huge knowledge about analyzing code, which is great for us, because we have a lot of dead code elimination analysis going on right now for ReScript, because it's fully typed. Super-nice to analyze.
+
+We've got Cheng Lou, who has a huge vision on products, and designs, and lean, clean interfaces. I love that as well. Maxim Valcke, who is our master brain on the syntax level. He has been investing so much time into writing a syntax parser that is efficient and small. It's super-fantastic work. And myself, of course, for working on the documentation; I've been doing this within the ReScript Association, as you already mentioned. The ReScript Association was founded with the goal to support the community and support a language with financial infrastructure, so people can send donations to it who are relying on the technology. So if you are a company who wants the language to succeed, the best way to invest money is to invest it in the association. They're reallocating the money for developing the documentation, growing the editor tooling, working on core essential libraries, finding other projects, organizing conferences... We had like two conferences already - ReasonConf 2018 and 2019, and also a Reason conference in the U.S, which will most likely of course be rebranded to ReScriptConf.
+
+So in the past 2,5 years we also collaborated with research institutes and companies, we collaborated with Ahrefs, which I already mentioned, with the Tezos cryptocurrency - they're also really invested in this, because they want their crypto wallet apps to be stable, and they chose ReScript for their web frontends, and stuff like that. Or subsidiaries of Tezos, of course. Tezos is a huge project.
+
+So this is how we try to set a foundation for the language on the community side, on the open source side, but also we have a strong commitment on the business side with the core team, who is working at Facebook, and all other companies that depend on it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** How about you personally? How are you paying the bills?
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** I'm getting funded, of course, with the work at the ReScript Association, but I'm also doing contracting right now... But I'm actually gonna start working together with another company who is using ReScript, which is \[unintelligible 00:51:17.22\] They're building a sales-enabling platform, and I'm really excited about this... Building something neat.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Building cool stuff is always fun. How did you come to the project? We didn't cover your personal journey to ReScript. What got you excited, what got you into it?
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** I don't know, I started out in FlowType, basically. I was trying to contribute to the FlowType project, which is kind of the equivalent of DefinitelyTyped for Flow... And I tried to get involved with this work. This excited me, and Flow was a really nice project with the type inferences and such, but TypeScript kind of won this war, I would say, or the marketing... And I kind of felt disappointed, because I didn't like the idea of TypeScript at all; the performance metrics, and stuff like this.
+
+\[52:10\] In 2017 I got introduced to Reason, and I got really hyped up with the idea of having this polyglot platform, like having one language but it compiles to different things, and maybe you can have alternative syntaxes mixed in together... Which was the initial pitch I got in my head; but later on I got more involved in this, and started meetup groups, one in Vienna and one in Munich. And I also organized the first Reason conference in Vienna in 2018...
+
+This kind of grew in me, and I was like "Okay, there is one thing that's terribly missing in the Reason community, and that is a unified documentation platform." Because every platform was one separate website, and it was really hard to figure out where to find what information, and define a user flow/funnel. So I started this project naively, I was like "Oh, I will just unify all the platforms into one website." I did this for like 1,5 years, and at some point people started to like it because it was very useful. Then at the second time we said "Okay, maybe we should raise some funding for that" and we started to think about this ReScript Association thing. Then I got to know all the people, like Cristiano, who has been very supportive of our work, and he liked the ideas, and he introduced us to the team... And ever since we started growing. Then in 2020 we really started the new brand, and then said "Okay, we have this core team, and now I'm part of this." I don't like this idea of having a core team, but I think it's important to have someone reliable for the technology you're using... And if nobody feels reliable, why should you use this? That's why I'm excited that I'm on there.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Pretty cool stuff. Feross, any other questions or thoughts from you before we call it a show?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** No, I'm gonna try and find a nice simple project to give this a try on.
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** Yeah. Let me know how you like it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That makes me wonder, are there good example apps or is there a version of the to-do MVC? Is there a real-world open source app that has a lot of frontend implementations? Is there anything like that, where folks can just poke around and look at a -- not a complex ReScript thing, but maybe like a semi-complex one. Anything out there we can point folks to in the show notes?
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Also, is there anyone who's using it for specifically cryptography code? I'm just thinking the project that might make the most sense for me to try it on is a little cryptography module that we just open sourced for Wormhole. It's not that many lines of code. It probably wouldn't take too long to port it to a new language. That's the kind of code too that you really want correctness on, and it's worth the extra cost for maybe making it a little bit harder for a random contributor to contribute, but you get more correctness guarantees. I'm just curious.
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** \[55:12\] That's a tough question I cannot answer, but maybe I can follow up later with that...
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Okay.
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** ...because I have some ideas in mind, but I'm still not sure if -- because some things are already existing, but they're still in Reason syntax, and we don't want to particularly point people to Reason resources, which doesn't make any sense... Even though it's the same compilation platform. The best real-world example app is ReScriptlang.org. It's a Next.js app. Check it out.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So the playground as well?
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** Yeah, the playground is also written in ReScript. I'm not entirely proud of it, but it's pretty damn stable. So that's at least something.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's something to be proud of, yeah.
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** Yeah. And there are some open source apps... One is called Pupilfirst, but I'm still not sure if they're still on Reason syntax, or if they already converted... Because we have this one command to convert the whole codebase and that's it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, why don't you do this - hit us up with links afterwards, and we'll put them in the show notes, if there are any ones that you would point to...
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** Absolutely.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...that way you don't have to come up with them on the spot. And then -- I mean, surely, Feross, the Tezos team is doing some aspect of that. I don't know what exactly they're using it for, but... They're a cryptocurrency, but there also is cryptography involved. \[laughs\]
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Yeah, yeah. That's what I was thinking. It sounds like a great use for it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, totally. I would definitely be interested in seeing the results of that conversion, Feross, if you ever end up doing it. I think it'd make a good blog post, or even just like tweeting out the links of the before or the after of that module would be pretty cool.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Are there any automatic tools to get you started most of the way? Something \[unintelligible 00:56:51.15\] from JavaScript.
+
+**Patrick Ecker:** No, there's nothing like that. But we have an explicit section in the docs about converting a JavaScript file over in a few steps, because we can drop in raw JavaScript in a type-safe manner, or at least in a constrained manner; you should check it out... So you can take one expression or one function, drop it in as raw JavaScript.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, I did see that in your docs, to embed raw JavaScript... %%raw( ), and then everything inside the parentheses there is just raw JavaScript. So Feross, there's your path to an easy port. You just wrap your entire module in that, and then you're done. You're in ReScript land.
+
+**Feross Aboukhadijeh:** Nice.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Well, listeners, links to all the things, even some things maybe not brought up, which Patrick has hooked us up with, will be in the show notes... SO check those out. Definitely keep up with Feross in case he does that port. He's @feross on Twitter, maybe he'll tweet about it... And check out rescript-lang.org as well.
+I should mention that this episode was requested by a listener of the show, long-time Changelog member and a friend of ours, Brett Cannon, who also happens to be on the Python core team. So you have his interest. So there's smart people who are interested in learning more about ReScript. Hopefully, this episode gave some people a start on a path down that way, at a very interesting language and toolkit and a view of making web apps.
+
+That's awesome... Patrick, thanks for joining me. Feross, thanks for hanging out. We appreciate it. That's JS Party for today, we'll talk to you next time.
diff --git a/Waldo's My Roommate_transcript.txt b/Waldo's My Roommate_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..605d87cc898ecef93d6808b7607c8212db369e06
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Waldo's My Roommate_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,469 @@
+**Jerod Santo:** Hello out there! Welcome to JS Party. It's 2021, we are here! I am Jerod, I'm your internet friend, and I'm joined - not as always, but as often - by one of my internet friends, Nick Nisi. He's in the house. What's up, Nick?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Hoy-hoy!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Hoy-hoy to you. We are joined by a special guest today, Jason Miller. You may know him as @\_developit. He is making the web faster at Google, he's the creator of PreactJS (the p very important there), and... He's on the podcast, so welcome, Jason.
+
+**Jason Miller:** Hi! I'm happy to be here.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We're very happy to have you, and we are happy to talk about your new thing. We'll talk about Preact by proxy, because it's involved in WMR, but Preact was not what prompted the call; WMR is. WMR is a cool, tiny little all-in-one development tool for modern web apps, which brings a question to my mind which I'll ask in a second... But the first question--
+
+**Jason Miller:** I know what that question's going to be...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, I've got two questions queued up, so I guess you can guess which one's which. The first one is "What does WMR stand for?" and I know that that's not controversial, but it's ambiguous, because you're not really sure yet. You've got some multiple things going on... Tell us what WMR stands for, Jason.
+
+**Jason Miller:** Yeah, I think I remember what the team decided on... To say it was an argument would be a miscategorization. It's more -- you know the npm header, how they scroll through random definitions of what npm might mean? We essentially just have a joke where we continue to do that in our chat. So I think the dry, boring version is originally I started this project as a joke, and the joke was it was going to be called Warm Module Replacement, which is...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[04:28\] Not quite hot.
+
+**Jason Miller:** Like, less hot than hot module replacement... \[laughter\] Like, it's module replacement that you can touch... I don't know. It seemed funny at the time. And the npm name was free. And then we spent a week or two trying to come up with a better name, and failed. So we called the company Apple -- or, we called the project WMR. \[laughter\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** This is probably something that we can help out with...
+
+**Jason Miller:** \[laughs\] There's a lot of funny ones. I forget what the one -- it was like "Wet Module Replacement", or somebody suggested "Web Modules Runtime", which, that feels kind of reasonable.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. That one's almost too normal. So here's what we did, Jason - we saw this conundrum, and we're fans of the npm scrolling title... Or not scrolling, but random acronym replacement... And so we thought we'd help you out. We assembled a crack team of marketers and came up with some alternate replacements for you. So we're gonna pitch you a few, and you let us know if you like these. The first one is Windows Me Returns.
+
+**Jason Miller:** \[laughs\] Yeah, I would take that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's a good one. Whales Meet Rodents?
+
+**Jason Miller:** Okay...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It doesn't make any sense at all.
+
+**Jason Miller:** Well, there's a programming language that's a rodent... Is it Go?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's a gopher. And a gopher is a rodent, so I think you're on point there, yeah.
+
+**Jason Miller:** If the gopher is a rodent -- or is it a type of... I don't know.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I do believe it is.
+
+**Jason Miller:** If a capybara is a rodent, then a gopher is definitely a rodent.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I think they're both of the Rodentia family. I know nothing about science, so... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jason Miller:** \[unintelligible 00:06:01.29\] They've got big teeth, I don't know.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's the genus, or a phylum? I don't know. I don't know what's going on here.
+
+**Jason Miller:** Is it a platypus, or is it not a platypus? That's all we care about.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** A couple other ones for you... WMR - Wicked Mr. Renderer...
+
+**Jason Miller:** Yeah, I like that one.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I like that one.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We tried a recursive acronym in the style of "GNU's Not Unix", but it didn't' work out at all. "WMR Means Reboot..." See, it doesn't even -- I couldn't even finish it.
+
+**Jason Miller:** Nice... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Where's My Rumba...
+
+**Jason Miller:** Yeah... So that would make sense, because when I googled this, after we created and launched the project, I was seeing if we had gotten any form of notoriety... Apparently, WMR was already a thing, that I wasn't aware of, called "Where's My Refund", which is like a service offer by the IRS...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, wow.
+
+**Jason Miller:** I'm not American, so I didn't know that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's like your tax returns, or something...
+
+**Jason Miller:** Yeah, so...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. Well, the last one - this one is yours, Nick... Waldo's My Roommate.
+
+**Jason Miller:** \[laughter\] Do you actually have a roommate named Waldo?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** We found him. No...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It actually answers the question also "Where's Waldo?" He's right here... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jason Miller:** Nice... \[unintelligible 00:07:04.06\] I guess he just got over it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So what we can do is when the show goes live out there on the internets, we can put a poll out and find out which of these are the best WMR, and then you'll be required to use that from here on out. I think that's a fair --
+
+**Jason Miller:** Just set up a bot to PR the headline change in the readme every week?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Just constantly, yeah. Or we'll just have Nick do it.
+
+**Jason Miller:** Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I've got the time...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** He's got the time... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jason Miller:** This is like \[unintelligible 00:07:34.03\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Nick will write a Neovim plugin which writes a bot which submits the PR. That's the way Nick does it. Okay...
+
+**Jason Miller:** Nice.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, I would say enough tomfoolery, but there'll probably be some more upcoming... But in-between the ridiculousness, let's get some actual content out there. WMR - who cares what it stands for...? As I said, your little tagline is a tiny all-in-one development tool for modern web apps, and so that begs the question then "What is a modern web app?" That's the one you knew I was gonna ask, right?
+
+**Jason Miller:** \[08:10\] Yeah, that's right.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So have at it... What's a modern web app?
+
+**Jason Miller:** So there's probably two answers for that... One is it's a web app that you're building now, because modern is a timeframe, and that timeframe is recent.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That's a good, safe answer.
+
+**Jason Miller:** Yeah, that's the lame answer.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Jason Miller:** The maybe more appropriate answer is it's a web app where the thing that you have front of mind and the constraints that you have on your mind as you develop are modern browsers, modern UX, modern dependencies... Sort of this general assumption that this is not going to be trying to use code from the late 2000's, this is not going to be trying to service necessarily browsers from the late 2000's... Certainly, it would be written in modern JavaScript, which -- yeah, another recursive definition there, but... You know, ES2017 or newer kind of thing.
+
+And the most important one, I think, at least for me, is the toolchain is optimized to give you the best experience possible for ES modules, and TypeScript, and some of these things that are now only present on npm... But there are still large swathes of modules on npm that have not moved over to those things, or that sort of exist from an era prior to all of that.
+
+So in a typical bundler setup, especially in like an ahead-of-time bundling setup, generally there's layers of abstraction added in. So you import a thing and you're not actually importing that thing, you're importing a compiled version of that thing... And WMR basically takes the stance that some of those layers of abstraction actually hurt newer, more readable dependencies in code you might write in order to support older, maybe less readable - and in WMR's case, we hope, slightly less important to your project - modules.
+
+So the idea is "Okay, well, let's build a tool that tries to still sort of support some of the older stuff, but the focus, if we have to choose, the focus is always going to be on make the more recent/newer stuff as good as it can be. So don't detract from it just in order to have compatibility."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So if you were to liken it to something that already exists, just for context or for frame of reference, what kind of a thing is it? Would you say it's kind of like a Create React App, or it's kind of like a Next.js, or it's kind of like a WebPack? What's it kind of like, that people would be like "Okay, it's like this, but different"?
+
+**Jason Miller:** It's weirdly probably closest to WebPack, but that might be sort of an awkward comparison. In terms of existing tools, it's closest to Vite, or Vite \[Veet\]. I never got clarity on how that's pronounced... Vue's new bundler, and Snowpack. And also es-dev-server or modern-dev-server; I can't remember which is the more recent name. It exists in that space of like ESM-first bundlers/non-bundlers.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Gotcha.
+
+**Jason Miller:** And I guess the thing that makes it maybe sort of like WebPack in that regard -- actually, I shouldn't say WebPack; it's closest to Parcel in that regard. WMR really, really, really tries to remove itself from your field of view as a developer. So it tries to sort of stay out of the way. Normally, when you start a project with a bundler, like a WebPack or a Rollup, your first job is configuring the bundler. You know, tell it the semantics of your project, and your file structure, and what you're trying to build. There's good reasons why bundlers allow that... Rollup, and WebPack are super-versatile tools.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Jason Miller:** \[12:08\] But that's also -- as somebody who is a fairly severe ADHD sufferer, and who does a lot of prototyping to manage to be productive, despite all of those "Stop. Configure..." Those are all steps that kind of get in the way of you actually starting a project. Or at the very least, they eat into the time that you might spend... You know, if you have two hours to prototype something, you really don't wanna spend the first hour and a half configuring your bundler. I've definitely failed hackathons for that very reason.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So it's very much about greasing the skids, right? Like, "Just get me running." No config, or out-of-the-box, preconfigured for you, don't-make-me-think style tooling.
+
+**Jason Miller:** Yeah. And the interesting take here - because we have Microbundle, which is basically written by the same people... Obviously, Microbundle is a configuration for Rollup that you would install as a command line tool, so you don't have to also install Rollup... And that one is very strictly like "We're just Rollup, but with heavy-handed defaults that make sense for a lot of modules.' WMR kind of tried to flip that on its head. We do support configuration, which is already different from Microbundle... But instead of basically saying "We're going to give you what we think is right out of the box as defaults", what WMR does is it tries to extract all of the possible configuration defaults from what you write. So rather than saying "This is how you reference entry modules in your HTML; this is how you bundle and then reference stuff from HTML." Instead we flip that on its head and we say "We will look at your HTML and find the modules that you have referenced there, and that's how we'll figure out how to bundle your application."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Gotcha...
+
+**Jason Miller:** So Parcel was definitely a trailblazer in this regard. They still do this very well. They really try and give you a bundler that incorporates the web's defaults as its defaults, so you don't have to tell the bundler "Yes, I am building for the browser. Yes, these are the semantics of our browser." Those are things that you can actually just know upfront in a bundler. And it even tries to take that -- I could probably get into the semantics of why this ends up mattering later, but... You know how WebPack has the optimized chunks configuration, and you can tell it "Oh, collapse such and such stuff if it's below this threshold..."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Jason Miller:** Rollup doesn't have that, but we grafted it into Rollup, which is what powers WMR's production output. For CSS files, as an example, WMR will try to not produce CSS files below 1 kb, because in general, that's going to be the point at which the headers for your request are approaching the size of the response body itself, and we start to see really, really diminishing returns in terms of gzip compression, which has a threshold of about 1k... So it basically tries to work back from compression thresholds, TCP window sizes, all these sorts of things that like "Oh, there's actual specifications that define these things", or at the very least there's convention that defines these things - why don't we just have that be what defines the defaults for the tool?
+
+So it really tries to stay out of your way not by telling you what to do, but by finding concrete -- I don't wanna say evidence-based; I feel like that's giving it too much credit. Finding concrete, obvious defaults that you're gonna tell the bundler at some point anyway, when you're doing your optimization... And just saying "Yeah, we're just gonna do that by default. That's a logical default to have."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[15:51\] I'm listening to you talk about it and it almost sounds like akin to a compiler doing type inference, where it's like "I think you must be using an int right now, so I'm just gonna infer that that's what it is, and not make you declare it, like you might in some other typed languages." This is kind of like config inference, or style inference, to a certain degree. Not trying to give you too much credit again, but it's kind of akin to that. You're like, "Well, find out what they're doing, and also what's the best practice here", if they don't wanna defer from that or divert from that, and just do that... But also like what style are you using - we'll just go ahead and just do that.
+
+**Jason Miller:** Right. So the similarity there is actually pretty reasonable. You could almost think of WMR as -- let's say in production mode only, because development mode is this whole other story... But in production mode, it's almost like WMR looks at your codebase and generates a Rollup config that is optimal for that codebase and then runs it. That's actually sort of how it works. It's a little bit more complex and contextual than that, but at least in terms of our production output; you can kind of think of it like that.
+
+In a normal bundler, you would configure entry points, and your minifier, and your Node modules resolution, and all the weird "Oh, but React is modules commonly used from ESM, with named imports, but it doesn't have any, so patch that." Instead, we just do all that on the fly, based on the code that you wrote. You already code that essentially said "Oh, import \[unintelligible 00:17:23.06\] from React is." So we don't need configuring to know that you're trying to use named imports from a CommonJS module; it's right there in the code. So that's the one angle.
+
+And the other whole piece of this is during development, WMR doesn't actually really bundle at all. This is where a Snowpack and Vite and modern-dev-server comparison comes into play.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right...
+
+**Jason Miller:** WMR -- it's really similar to those tools, and to be honest, throughout the entire development of this project, since we started it in May (April, May), we've been kind of discussing stuff with the authors of those tools behind the scenes, saying "Hey, at some point maybe we should just consolidate these things." But I think the logical thing, and the thing that's gonna be the most beneficial for the ecosystem right now is to just kind of let these flowers bloom for a little bit, and then see what are the similarities, what do we end up duplicating, how can we collaborate better...
+
+So what we try to do with WMR is working back from that model of "In development you are not bundling. We are just shipping modules over the wire as HTTP requests", we try to optimize the pathway for every module, from disk to browser. So instead of pulling a module off disk, running it through Babel, running it through Terser, or running it through a source code transformer that finds import statements and rewrites them because bare imports don't work in browsers - instead of doing all those steps, generally in sequence, generally with different tools, we actually wrote our own Babel-compatible AST transformer, and Rollup-compatible plugin API.
+
+So if you ever built a Rollup plugin, that whole API is actually supported by WMR, even though WMR is not running Rollup. We just call all the same hooks in the same order, we expose the same \[unintelligible 00:19:17.26\] But at the end of the day, what it means is we read a module off-disk and put it in memory cache, we pass it through, at most, one AST transformation that will parse all the code, but in almost no cases will it stringify all of the code. It's only going to reserialize mutated AST nodes, so it's extremely fast... But actually, in most cases no AST transformations. We're using Guy Bedford's es-module-lexer to do basically token-based transformations. We don't make a whole graph of your code, we literally just know that "Oh, this is an import statement. Here's the string that was imported. What are you gonna do with this string?" And then that all feeds back through this Rollup-based plugin API, or Rollup-compatible plugin API.
+
+\[20:04\] But the idea is, basically, WMR should get modules into the browser roughly as fast as it can read the module off disk, and stream it to the browser. It really shouldn't be adding overhead to each request in order to do transformations. And that originally actually just comes from -- I work on Glitch a lot; it's cheap... It's just a habit I've gotten into. And Glitch has a static mode, but the static mode just supports JSX, or TypeScript, or bare imports, or ES modules, or Node modules, for that matter... Which is just slightly too limited.
+
+So originally, I started WMR as like a better Glitch static; basically, a static file server that does some intelligent stuff with JavaScript, but very little. Just what's necessary to make it usable. So that's kind of the premise there.
+
+That's also where this whole concept of not having to install dependencies came from... So it's a pain in the butt to manage your package.json; and especially on Glitch, every edit you make to the package.json redownloads all the Node modules via Pnpm and populates them in the Node modules directory.
+
+\[unintelligible 00:21:18.21\] if you don't run npm install and you import a package in your code, will just go and fetch it for the registry, and stream it to disk. And interestingly, we stream it to disk knowing that you're only gonna use it as a source code package, so we don't run package install scripts, because that's unsafe; we don't even write temp files, test files, unused source stuff to disk. You basically get a Node modules directory that only contains package.json's JS and TS files, and TypeScript definitions... Which is kind of nice.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Something about that just sounds like almost too good to be true kind of a thing... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jason Miller:** There's definitely modules that won't work...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I mean, I'm sitting here thinking like "What could go wrong...?" Something has to be able to go wrong there, right?
+
+**Jason Miller:** Yeah. There's definitely some pushback we got in the initial announcement saying "Oh, we're doing streaming install." Because I think people think "Oh, streaming install. They're running npm install in the background", and we don't actually even use the npm client at all, in any form. This actually does --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So you're just literally fetching the source files, and that's it.
+
+**Jason Miller:** Not even that. So it's fetching the tarball direct from the npm registry...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay.
+
+**Jason Miller:** ...and it streams it. And as each file in the tarball passes through our streaming untar and ungzip mechanics, those files get analyzed and conditionally written to disk. So if you have something like a shell script, or an executable, it never even makes it out of memory. So I don't wanna say it's secure, but it definitely avoids all the footguns that would immediately jump to mind for like "Hey, streaming autoinstall." It's also just really fast. Basically, we can get your dependency installed and shipped to the browser, whatever file from it you're importing, as fast as we can get that tarball from npm, because it's streaming.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It sounds like an awesome feature. It kind of goes along with what you were talking about with the inference, where it's like "You're using this? Okay, we'll get it for you", and that's it.
+
+**Jason Miller:** But we know not only are you using the Preact package, but we know that you're using it from WMR, and we know that - as an example, the Preact package has an export map, which defines what is externally accessible, what files are externally accessible. So we know that in a properly spec-compliant bundler you can't import files that aren't in the export map, so we just won't write those files to disk, because they frankly don't exist... Unless they're TypeScript definitions, because TypeScript kind of made up its own thing there; but that's fine, it's very few files.
+
+But we can sort of infer, "Oh, this isn't just a random package. This is not a command line tool that you're installing. It's not arbitrary code. It's source text that you're gonna wanna import."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's specific.
+
+**Jason Miller:** \[24:01\] Yeah. So when we do that, again, with the inference thing - we stream it to disk, and we send you the file... Because you're waiting on this request in the browser, the browser will either have reloaded, or hot module updated, or whatever; you're sitting there, waiting for this dependency to download... We get the dependency to the browser right away; it runs through an extremely lightweight Rollup pass, but doesn't do any minification, doesn't do any \[unintelligible 00:24:26.29\] anything like that. It basically just concatenates modules together that wouldn't have been individually addressable anyways, so that we're not shipping thousands of ES modules over the wire, but as close to zero milliseconds as we can get there...
+
+And then behind the scenes, after you've actually requested that module and after it's been loaded in the browser, we then schedule it to go off into a minification and Brotli compression pass... So if you import Preact, you'll get Preact right away, but then after a second(ish) or two of idle time, WMR will have already generated a hyper-optimized version of that dependency and written it back to disk, so that the next time you request it, you get the optimized Brotli-compressed version, but just straight from disk; there's no overhead on the request itself. It's a funky setup, but...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** You said that when it goes to the browser in that - either development or production build; I guess probably both - it's just basically the concatenated values. It's not actually running like ES modules in the browser. Is that right?
+
+**Jason Miller:** So it does use native ESM for everything, yeah. Actually, that's one of the reasons why the Rollup bundling process is done even for the unoptimized version; that's where we convert CommonJS and UMD to ESM.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Gotcha. I'm a little behind on using direct ESM, as I do it through TypeScript... And I ran the create-wmr project and played around with that a little bit... It looks like there's kind of a mix of -- like, I'm specifically looking at the imports, and there's some with file extensions, some without, and I was wondering, is it doing rewrites of those for me automatically, or...?
+
+**Jason Miller:** Yes. And that has shaped a little bit since this tool was originally created... So we always have rewritten bare specifiers, just because the browser is gonna -- it just is a syntax error in the browser, and there's no way for us to patch that in on the frontend. So if you do import foo (the module foo), we will rewrite that to -- I think it's a URL like /@npm/foo.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Okay.
+
+**Jason Miller:** It's a pattern, it always looks like that, and you kind of get used to seeing it on the frontend. And in your browser's network console you'll just see foo, because it shows the base name, not the path name.
+
+In the case of something like TypeScript, or if you're using JavaScript files and you don't want to use file extensions, WMR in its current state will infer the file extension and correct it. So in the browser, if you imported /utils, and the file on disk was called utils.ts, in the browser I believe you will /utils.ts.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Oh, really?
+
+**Jason Miller:** I'll have to check if that's the case.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Interesting.
+
+**Jason Miller:** Yeah. Basically, that happens because, as I'd mentioned, we support the Rollup plugin API during development. Originally, we did not do file extension inference. So if you wanted to import a file that had an extension, whether it's TypeScript, JavaScript, TSX, whatever, you just type the file out with the extension.
+
+I actually personally really like that approach, because I know that behind the scenes that means that WMR never ever has to read a directory, or call into Node's file system API to check if something exists. Basically, when you do an import, \[unintelligible 00:27:52.06\] That's it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** So even if you were writing TypeScript, you would do a .ts extension for all of those?
+
+**Jason Miller:** \[28:01\] Yes. Or you could also use a .js extension, but that's a \[unintelligible 00:28:02.28\] .js extension when there's a .ts file on disk, it's the .ts file.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Okay.
+
+**Jason Miller:** But that was actually one of the reasons why we ended up going down the road of implementing file extension inference...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. So you kind of treat it like \[unintelligible 00:28:18.29\]
+
+**Jason Miller:** Yeah, exactly. You don't have to use it, and it is faster if you don't use it, but you can use it. One weird case where this actually rears its head is if you have a script tag in an HTML document, the correct thing to do in WMR is to include the full file extension of that script, regardless of what it is. If it doesn't exist, don't put it; if it's a .tsx, it would /foo.tsx.
+
+We're trying to steer people towards the spec, which says "There is no magic. A URL is just a URL. There is no such thing as inference." But we also, to your earlier point - we are aware that a lot of people are used to the semantics of things like Create React App, which are essentially the semantics of WebPack. So as kind of a way to bridge that gap, we do the inference.
+
+There's a debug environment variable you can set to 1, and that will print out all of the plugins that got executed on every request, and you can actually see in real-time "Oh wow, I just roundtriped through the file extension resolver three times, just because I didn't wanna type .tsx." So we won't show the performance stats on it, because it's on a per-request basis; it's very minimal. But you can still see "This is what I've opted into by choosing that thing."
+
+The other piece of this is I think the file extensions thing, especially for TypeScript, is still just sort of in the last stages of settling out. The nice thing with specifying full file extensions is at least in VS Code - and I think JetBrains - if you have any imports that have a file extension in your module, and you use the autoimport thing, like you click "Suggest the results" and it imports, that new import will also use a file extension. So it's smart enough to see "Oh, this person is typing file extensions out." I don't think it does it on a project-wide basis by default yet, which would be like a nice next step. That's sort of \[unintelligible 00:30:20.29\] And I think right now the template -- I think we ship .js by default.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yup.
+
+**Jason Miller:** Although TypeScript is supported by WMR itself by default, we don't scaffold it by default.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. I noticed that there was a tsconfig in there that it created... And then I just went into -- there's a header.js file, and I just renamed it to header.ts, and it still worked.
+
+**Jason Miller:** Yeah. That's actually an interesting point. WMR -- obviously, there's a whole bunch of stuff that it's doing, its goals, or whatever, but the other piece is... This is coming from the Preact team; and the Preact team - we still by and large write everything in vanilla JavaScript, but over the past year or two have all but replatformed onto JSDoc-based TypeScript that is actually just JavaScript, to the point where WMR itself is written in JS and JSDoc, but is strictly-typed...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Gotcha.
+
+**Jason Miller:** ...like a type error breaks the build... Which is less crazy than you'd think, because there's this clever thing where you can stick all your types as ambient types in the source directory, and then just reference them without even having to import anything from your JSDoc annotations... And the TypeScript team has been really good over the past year about extending the JSDoc functionality and finding that nice balance of JSDoc that isn't entirely TypeScript-specific... So we're all on board on that. Even the main Preact codebase right now is basically being rewritten to use this strict variant.
+
+\[31:56\] So we kind of wanted to scaffold something that shows people "Hey, you can turn on checkJs and get all these lovely compilerisms that you wouldn't expect from a standard JavaScript environment, as long as you're using an editor that cares about TypeScript."
+
+And then the other piece is we support CSS modules and some import prefixes. You can do -- it's url: and then the path to something, and the thing you import is the URL of that file... Which I think Parcel supports the same thing.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** How does TypeScript handle an import that looks like that?
+
+**Jason Miller:** That's what the tsconfig is actually for.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Oh, okay.
+
+**Jason Miller:** So when you install WMR -- or actually, it's not the tsconfig. When you install WMR, we ship ambient types in the WMR package that define ambient module definitions using wildcard statements for url:\* Same thing for CSS modules - if you import \*.module.css, the value generated by the import will be an object mapping of class names.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice.
+
+**Jason Miller:** And again, we are providing you the thing, and it's technically configurable. You can turn this off, but that's the default, so we provide you the type definitions for that default... Which is nice. It's something that I think we always wanted to do in Preact's CLI, but we didn't have the .module.css thing, that convention... And we maybe couldn't guess as much about the type of code you were trying to write to be able to infer these things.
+
+**Break:** \[33:23\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** So as I mentioned, I was playing with the create-wmr, or the npm init WMR, which was really cool, and playing with the project that it creates there. I really love just how, like you said, I wasn't spending any time configuring things, I was just going. And I wanted to use TypeScript, so I renamed the file to .ts, and it just worked. That was really awesome.
+
+But the create-wmr package, or the project template that it uses ships with Preact, and I was curios about the relationship between WMR and Preact. Is that a requirement, or can it really work with anything? Tell us a little bit about that.
+
+**Jason Miller:** It's definitely not a requirement. The struggle here is we wanted to build something that met a need that we had on the Preact team, which was like, Preact is tiny, and it's really good if you wanna do a lightweight project, so where's our tooling for that?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right...
+
+**Jason Miller:** We have a WebPack-based tool that's used in production by a bunch of high-profile sites, but that's the heavyweight tool. Where's the prototyping tool? So that was the one hand. But then the other hand is myself and a bunch of others, who just happened to be on the Preact team. We've been kind of on the sidelines in the bundler ecosystem for a little while, at least leading through 2019 and 2020... You know, prodding people, kind of trying to get consensus on a direction that we can move in to further this idea of writing modern code and shipping modern code, and getting these things right.
+
+I feel like everybody in the community at this point is at least mostly rallying around like "We want to start shipping modern code, given that it's supported in the overwhelming majority of browsers." 95% of browsers support ES2017. So actually the thing that my Google work has been focused on for the last two years has been going and finding all the chokepoints there, and trying to do the research and outline a solution that might not be the perfect solution, but it might be the way forward... So part of that is trying to convince folks to use export maps, the new Node feature, as a way to publish modern JavaScript packages.
+
+\[36:23\] So you can publish a package that has modern and legacy JavaScript, and now bundlers have a way to use one if they know how to get to it. And there's various reasons why -- in the article that I released in the December and the video that went along with it, I kind of explain how that could be justified. Node started supporting export maps in 12.7 (or 12.8?) and that version of Node supports ES2019. So if you ship an export map, it only works in a version of Node that supports modern JS, and thus you would assume that that code would be potentially modern JS, because it's a modern package.
+
+So to kind of extrapolate that - okay, well what if bundlers also jumped on that same assumption? Could this be finally the modern field that we've been not able to standardize for five years? So that and the timing of browser support kind of converging on that 2017 baseline - there was a very clear need for a tool or really a bunch of tools to basically stake the claim here, saying "Actually, it's not just that we can ship smaller bundles using modern code, but also, we can do a better development experience." We can ship readable code in development that's not one line of a val for a 2 MB module.
+
+So the non-Preact part was just getting a tool out there that demonstrates, in addition to what Snowpack and Vite and some others have demonstrated, getting a tool out there that demonstrates that there is even more that we could do if we double down on this. WMR ships HTTP/2 out of the box; on the overwhelming majority of machines it will set up certificates for you, and basically at some point you will get prompted to enter your administrator password, which I know scares the crap out of people (rightfully so), but this is using literally the de facto standard module that implements this thing. It's relatively safe, all things considered... But we ship that out of the box, because we know that H2 with ES modules is the fastest and best experience during development. And then also showing \[unintelligible 00:38:29.04\] on ES modules, things like hot module reloading and asset references can also get easier. Hot module reloading is just you dynamically import the current module with a query string parameter to bust the cache. That's it.
+
+There's some weird logic that we do right now to recache exports onto the old module, but even that we're actively pursuing avenues for getting rid of that piece. And all this to show not only can we ship something that's really good, but also, we can ship something that's fairly easy to understand.
+
+In here, I said dynamically import the current module and replace it... You can kind of picture how that would work - dynamic import, \[unintelligible 00:39:12.04\] And that's roughly accurate... \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah...
+
+**Jason Miller:** Minus some weird --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** A close enough approximation about what's exactly happening.
+
+**Jason Miller:** Right. So there's just a lot less guesswork between you and the actual generated code that you run in the browser, which is potentially less surface area to have things go wrong in.
+
+So then getting back to the Preact thing, our goal with this was basically keep WMR as agnostic as it can possibly be to Preact, so that all of the little pieces inside WMR -- because WMR is literally just built as like 20 Rollup plugins and a couple of standalone libraries, that we haven't published yet, but they're all independent... Keep that totally separate, so that Vite can grab the plugin API and use it, or... I've actually just this morning been making the rounds, looking at all of the export maps implementations in these bundlers, finding some issues with them, and it's very clear that -- it's not to say that WMR gets this right, but... Having a package, possibly WMR's export maps implementation, that just gets extracted out and published to npm as like a "Here's how you resolve export maps" type package, that's valuable.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[40:30\] Yeah.
+
+**Jason Miller:** And it would be really shameful for us to do the work of building this and hopefully getting things correct, but have it be weirdly Preact-specific, right? That doesn't make sense to me.
+
+So we try to keep the core, and essentially everything about WMR, Preact-agnostic... Except when it came to scaffolding. So by default, we scaffold the JSX support, so that it's actually generating type templates... Which is unique, and I don't know that that's been done elsewhere before... But again, it's that modern-first mantra.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Interesting.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** With the modern side, yeah.
+
+**Jason Miller:** Yeah, exactly. But the tag templates, by default, they are bound to Preact. It takes two seconds to rebind them to another library, like Vue or React, or your own custom thing, but the default is Preact, just because we have to serve both needs.
+
+And then the create-wmr package, which - that was built the day before launch, so that people could use the tool easily... But we create-wmr package scaffolds a Preact app because that's the one that we were most confident people would be able to poke around with and try -- even if you're not a Preact user, even if you're a React user or a Vue user, you can get a feel for it... And it lets \[unintelligible 00:41:47.27\] hot module reloading, and some things like that.
+
+And then the last piece is WMR in about the last two months leading up to the launch -- originally, we were gonna launch it in August, and we kind of had to sit down and decide "Oh, you know what - maybe there's more we can do here. Maybe we can ship more than just a good hot module replacement solution."And we kind of went back to the drawing board and added things like the prerendering and the CSS optimization stage... And a lot of that, a lot of the reason why you see Preact as the default now is because Preact was the testbed that we used for all of this.
+
+So create-wmr will scaffold a project that when you do wmr build or npm run build, you don't need JavaScript to run the output at all. And Preact in the scaffolded thing is how that works, but the API is actually completely independent. Prerendering in WMR is just you export a function called prerender from whatever the first script tag in your HTML file, and that function -- it's an async function, so it returns a promise resulting into an object, with an HTML string property, and the links property that is an array of strings. So the HTML is the stuff that you prerendered, however you chose to do that; it could just be returning a string if you wanted... But you can could see how that would work in Vue, and React, and Svelte, and whatever... And then the links property is, if you want, other URLs to then go and prerender. WMR won't prerender if it's already prerendered stuff, but that's actually the guts of how our automatic prerendering works, and it has nothing to do with Preact. It happens that Preact can use that in a way that is extremely optimal; we don't ever have to parse the HTML, because we generated it, and the thing that looks for links happens during the generation of the HTML... But it's just an array of strings.
+
+So anybody -- I think there was somebody working on a Svelte test for this... And we've got one bug we need to fix for having Svelte templates, but... You could easily adapt this to any framework. So my hope would be like -- because WMR supports config files, and anyone can create their own replacement for create-wmr (it's a really simple package), somebody could create a package that scaffolds a WMR-based React app, or Vue app, or Svelte app. And it would be just as much of a first-class citizen as Preact, it just would have a one-line config file that just says "export default react plugin".
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[44:24\] Right. Just minimal changes. So somebody could create that, and somebody will probably create that...
+
+**Jason Miller:** Yeah, that's my hope.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...for sure.
+
+**Jason Miller:** Or fork WMR. But forking WMR - we lose out on a lot of the shared momentum aspect and collaboration aspect. Not to say that WMR is necessarily the place where it should happen, but the hope was like - if everybody is using plugins on top of the tool, that we can make the tool better, and at some point, when we take all the pieces of the tool and publish them to npm as independent things, everyone benefits.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It kind of leads me to a meta question around collaboration versus competition, and the decision here to start a new tool... Of course, it was like "Well, Preact needs something. We need our story", and so it makes sense that the Preact team would make their own story, and I like how you're building it in a way that can be reused and collaborated as much as possible, but still be Preact's tool. But like you said, there's Snowpack, there's all these other efforts out there, and the decision was "We're gonna build at this level of abstraction. We're going to experiment, so that there's more things."
+
+But then for example the export maps level, you're like "Well, if we extract this into a library, everybody who's doing Vite, or doing these other tools, could use the export maps library, and we could collaborate at that level." How do we know which layers of abstraction is like "We need a thousand ideas to flourish", and how do we know "Hey! One good idea, we can all collaborate. Let's team up"? Where do we draw those lines? It seems to me like a very difficult thing to decide.
+
+**Jason Miller:** It is an extremely hard problem, it is a distributed problem. I have this terrible habit of throwing myself at distributed problems... For some reason, Google seems to be willing to keep me on staff partly to do that... \[laughter\]
+
+I mentioned I was making the rounds, looking at everybody's export maps implementations. Rollup just landed it. I think Lars from the modern web server implemented it in Rollup. Yay. But part of the reason why I'm doing that - and this is not to say that I'm the most objective person to be doing this, but I'm hoping that I can go and do the survey, write the doc that gives the lay of the land, publish that, and then whether or not WMR is the right implementation from which to derive the common implementation, I will have one place that summarizes all of the current implementations.
+
+I think the difficulty is always with the thing you said, which is like -- okay, export maps is an easy one, because that's a spec; that's something that Node put there, so obviously there's value in a shared implementation of a spec, and a reference implementation, essentially... And bundlers aren't necessarily able to use Node's implementation because it is not independent of Node, so it's not technically a pure reference implementation... And that's not to disparage it, but it just...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Factual.
+
+**Jason Miller:** ...fits their need. Yeah. The other things are hairier. So we wrote that custom AST transformer that is largely Babel-compatible. What do we do with that? Is that a WMR thing? We literally built it to optimize WMR's performance while still supporting Babel plugins... But does the community need a potentially lighter-weight Babel alternative? Not sure about that. My default answer would be "No, that's actually something we don't need, or potentially don't want." Yeah, that gets tricky. And all these things were also written in JavaScript, and right now there's that whole move towards "Okay, could we use a faster language?" We even have an experimental PR from a while back that uses esbuild for JS transformations and minification, which was very fast.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[48:11\] Which is a Go tool, right?
+
+**Jason Miller:** Yeah, it's written in Go. It has a great JavaScript interface. We used it prior to it being pluggable, but for our need -- we use Terser for minification, and we use this custom Babely thing for transformation. It does both of those things, and it does them faster than both of those things, by a lot.
+
+So I think there's potential there. But we didn't want to -- this is actually the reason why WMR wasn't published as "WMR and 16 packages that power WMR." There's lots of packages in there that are independent and publishable, but the rationale or the logic for why we would publish those things as independent is not clear, or we already know that we don't want to. So some of the stuff that's in there is stopgaps while we wait for the ecosystem to settle, so that we can use someone else's thing.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Gotcha.
+
+**Jason Miller:** Yeah, I don't have a clear answer on that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Not clear answer; that's a difficult decision, and like you said, it's a distributed problem, so it's not as if you just get to decide that. Everybody collaborates or doesn't, and they make their decisions, and this team makes that decision, and sometimes it's the right, sometimes it's the wrong... And it's just an interesting mind space to consider those things. But that's meta. Bringing it back down to ground floor here... For somebody who's just like "Oh, WMR looks cool. I really like how you don't even have to --" I was actually playing with it as well, with Nick, and I was like "I haven't seen this npm init thing where like I didn't even... I expect to \[unintelligible 00:49:37.14\]
+
+**Jason Miller:** \[laughs\] \[unintelligible 00:49:37.19\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Just for an emphasis on it, you don't npm install -g wmr, at all. You just init a new project; npm init wmr, and then your project name, and it just is done.
+
+**Jason Miller:** And even the project name is optional. If you run npm init wmr in a directory, it will make the directory a wmr app.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Nice.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So cool stuff like that is what gets people excited. Go ahead, Nick.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I was gonna say, when I ran it and then CD-ed into the directory, it ran so fast, so I ran npm install, just assuming \[unintelligible 00:50:06.11\] \[laughter\] Then I looked in the Node modules directory and there was nothing there it was great.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. So lots of cool stuff, like ground floor, for people who are like "This is a pretty neat tool." What else is cool about it? And I guess before you answer that, it gives us breadth, right? So it says "From development to production." So there's the breadth of the tool. You're gonna use this to dev, but you're also gonna deploy production apps with this... But it doesn't give the scale. You've mentioned prototypes, you've mentioned hackathons... If I'm reaching for a tool tomorrow to build a modern web app, what kind of web app would I use WMR? And maybe where does it stop scaling? Or does it stop scaling? Is there a complexity? Like, if I'm building a modern Gmail, would I maybe reach for something?
+
+**Jason Miller:** I'm building a modern Gmail right now with WMR, so... \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You are? That's hilarious.
+
+**Jason Miller:** Yeah. Nothing to do with my employer, but just like...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Jason Miller:** What I want is something that is not just a mail client, because I'm sick of just the mail clients; I want a work client, that has all of my tasks, and my calendar, and my emails, and my to-do's...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, wow.
+
+**Jason Miller:** ...and does time-based notifications, and stuff like that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So maybe that answers the scale question. WMR is your tool, so of course you're gonna use your own tool. But if I'm not you, is there a scale problem or not? It's smooth for prototypes, but you could build a complex, multi-faceted web app with this thing?
+
+**Jason Miller:** So there's two halves to this. The first is it's new, so like with every new tool, there's obviously always going to be warts. I don't know whether me not running into them is more because I know what the warts are, or maybe it's the other half, which is that I don't tend to be the person using the legacy packages. I mostly write my software, I don't install a lot of it... With the exception of UI toolkits, which was always the big challenge with WMR that we had to overcome... Because they're big, and early in the use, weird package semantics that aren't always correct... But those work in WMR at least.
+
+\[52:10\] The other piece is the actual physical scaling of the development time approach of shipping ES modules. There have been some maybe not super-scientific experiments, and right now the answers we have is whatever the opposite of definitive is. We know that if you ship 10,000 individual ES modules, especially if you're using HTTP 1, that's going to be somewhat slow. And I'm actually in a unique position where I am building WMR on one hand with the Preact team, and we're relying on that... But then also, I'm talking to my V8 teams on the other side, who are investigating module streaming performance. So we're actually using this, and things that look like this in benchmarks right now.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Gotcha.
+
+**Jason Miller:** So there's a bit of a cart and horse situation there form the performance standpoint for scaling up many thousands of modules... But even today, for fairly large-sized projects, the way that this constraint ends up working is that your npm dependencies actually don't scale one-to-one with the number of files on disk, because we do compile those with Rollup.
+
+In a typical project you'll add a bunch of dependencies to your project, and then at a certain point it mostly plateaus. You're not constantly re-adding new dependencies from npm as you work. You kind of end up with your framework \[unintelligible 00:53:39.08\] and then a couple of random things that get added over time. But that number doesn't grow super-fast, and those all get cached, in the HTTP cache and on disk. So they're relatively fast. And then the number that does change relative to your files on disk is your source files. So that's kind of the thing that you would wanna keep in mind.
+
+I don't know that today I would necessarily jump to using WMR on a project that has 2,000 source files. I don't have any reason not to suggest doing that...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Just don't do it.
+
+**Jason Miller:** Yeah, exactly. But that would be the scaling characteristic that I would be concerned about. Not concerned from like a "Should I do this?" standpoint, but "How long is this gonna take during development?" standpoint. And hot module reloading helps with that, because now you're only talking about the first load that might be waiting to stream modules to disk. And this all changes as the semantics of browser module streaming parsing change... But that's the main one.
+
+The other side of the coin, which is "What about production?" I don't think I'm overstating WMR's abilities -- I don't think it would be overstating WMR's abilities to say that it is fairly solid... Because in production, WMR is just a fairly sane Rollup config. We don't hit the custom code pathways. We're not running through our own plugin runner. We're not doing those things. It's pretty similar to a standard Rollup config.
+
+We use our Node modules resolution, but it's never gonna be different in production than it was in development, because that would be very awful. And some similar things for transpiling. We use the custom transpiler, again, because we don't want it to be different. But then when we go to minify, we minify with Terser standard tool; we bundle with Rollup standard tool. By default, the browser support for WMR is modern browsers...(?) You know, question mark. Essentially, Edge 16+ \[unintelligible 00:55:39.15\] But there is a one-file plugin that runs those bundles through Babel, and creates copies of them. So now you have the modern files, served via a script type module to 95% of browsers, and then it creates a second set of files that it automatically injects script no-module tags \[unintelligible 00:56:01.05\] legacy browsers, and polyfills them.
+
+\[56:05\] So in terms of the production output quality, the production output -- like, what has been taken into consideration, there's not really a consequential difference between what WMR can produce and what other tools can produce.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Jason Miller:** Honestly, the main thing to point out is the production output is Rollup-based, and Rollup is the gold standard for production output at this point. It's not the default, so that's always something to consider. Usually, this for people would mean moving away from a WebPack configuration and onto a Rollup one... But I think there's lots of reasons why one might consider doing that. So that's something to consider.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Another aspect of scale in terms of app complexity, which I think also affects the production story, is not just module count or that kind of complexity, but as soon as you start to want to do maybe custom server responses... I know there's like a plugin interface for middleware and stuff, so you can proxy, you can add some headers... Surely, you can shoot yourself at that point, once you start to extend it to return arbitrary responses based on logic... Now you're basically running a dynamic web server, and you can of course have production issues there, right?
+
+**Jason Miller:** Yes, that's a good point. I don't think we've properly put verbiage around this in the readme and in some of our stuff, but in the launch announcement and in the couple of videos I did, we wanna be clear - WMR server, our production-style server, we did not build that as a suggestion that you should use that to serve your application in production. I wouldn't do that. Because at the end of the day, the best outcome is it's the Polka module and the Sirv module, both by Luke Edwards - which are great modules, but that's all it's doing. It's \[unintelligible 00:57:51.26\] than an HTTP/2 server. And really, in production, you shouldn't be serving HTTP/2 from Node, you should be serving it from your CDN... And at that point, why serve your files from Node in the first place, and deploy it into a CDN? You know, deploy it on a Netlify, a Cloudflare, now they've got pages, or Firebase, wherever.
+
+The prod server that we bundled - its goal was to give you a very accurate local representation of what prod would be like.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay.
+
+**Jason Miller:** That's actually why we had the middleware support, so you can add proxies, and stuff. It's because in production you might have that setup. But I don't think it would make sense to do that through WMR. We're the development and bundling side of things, and we'll get you to production, but we aren't production.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. Like, it produces production assets, but it is not your production server.
+
+**Jason Miller:** Yeah. And that's actually a dividing line that I think we could make clear... And you had mentioned Next.js early on... Next.js is a server. It is a runtime that your application runs in. WMR - we have no intention of being that. There was an SSR plugin that I built, more as like an experiment to see "Could you do it?" But even then, I think if we ever actually formalized going down that road, it would still be we will generate a server as a JS file, that you're gonna go and host yourself. Or it'll be like a piece of middleware that you're gonna mount into your own Node server, because WMR is not a stack. That's kind of the dividing line.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's a good distinction from an outsider reading the readme and checking it out... And like I said, is it like a Next.js? Because I'm trying to figure out, "Is this gonna host a hybrid application or not?" I mean, it can; obviously, it could...
+
+**Jason Miller:** It can, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...but does it want to be that? And I think the answer to that sounds like no. It doesn't really wanna be that.
+
+**Jason Miller:** No. And to the point where like -- I think in order to do that, we would end up having to compromise on being good at generating static apps. If there was a need there, I would rather have it be a separate tool, or like a tool that uses WMR for bundling, but that's it.
+
+\[59:55\] There's a bunch of folks right now who are trying out wiring up Eleventy, the static site generator, and then just using WMR as the frontend thing. So you can have Eleventy with a script-type module tag that just points at WMR, or even use WMR's middleware thing to proxy to Eleventy. But then when you do a production build, you're just saying "Hey, WMR, give me your assets" - okay, those are in Eleventy now. Eleventy is ultimately the stack. And to me, that just fits a lot better with the model. It's generative, not runtime.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Gotcha. Anything, Nick?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** No. That sounds really interesting. That's kind of a use case I was thinking of, is using WMR with Eleventy, as like a side-project, fun idea, and a way to use this a little bit more. It does seem like a good fit.
+
+**Jason Miller:** And especially because we have that theme where we started from HTML files, and in development we don't even look at the HTML file, it's just that first script tag request; when it comes into the HTTP server, we deal with that. It lends itself quite well. You would get hot module replacement in Eleventy, which is normally a pain in the ass...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. That'd be really cool.
+
+**Jason Miller:** And then the other piece there is there are folks, myself included, who if you're not currently using Eleventy, or let's say you're building a website that isn't strictly content, you might want to have page-based routing, kind of in a Next.js style. So we have plugins and recipes now... There's a plugin that lets you import a directory \[unintelligible 01:01:25.05\] in the directory as an array. And you could actually build a whole static site generator on top of that. We've got demos now showing how to do that.
+
+But WMR is actually lower-level than any of those things. It's more like if you want to do that, you can; it's fully supported. But we're not telling you "This is what it's for."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, the project can be found at github.com/preactjs/wmr. Or hey, just hop into your terminal and type "npm init wmr", and you can even leave off your project name; it'll just take your current directory and turn it into something cool.
+
+**Jason Miller:** Just be aware that it will blow up your directory. \[laughter\] That's not like a WMR thing. \[unintelligible 01:02:03.10\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, just go ahead and run that in your home directory. Everything will be just fine. \[laughter\] Jason Miller, thanks so much for joining us. You can find Jason online. He's @\_developit, depending on the context... What's the best way to reach you, Jason? Twitter is the best? GitHub?
+
+**Jason Miller:** Yeah, Twitter is fine.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright. So links to Jason in the show notes... Links to WMR, all the things discussed on this episode, of course, are right there in the show notes for easy clickings. Nick, thanks for hanging out for our first episode back. JAson, thanks for joining us, and for really putting so much work into these cool, new tools. I mean, I love not having to write cool, new tools, but getting to just use these cool, new tools, and criticize them, and enjoy them... So we appreciate all the effort you are putting into pushing the web forward for all of us.
+
+That's our show. Talk to you again next week.
+
+**Outro:** \[01:02:54.14\] to \[01:03:54.17\]
+
+**Horse JS:** Just waiting for dark mode to eventually land in Node.js.
diff --git "a/Waldo's My Roommate\357\274\237_transcript.txt" "b/Waldo's My Roommate\357\274\237_transcript.txt"
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a1cdb4f11b742b9ebc75791eabf84a331e5942a7
--- /dev/null
+++ "b/Waldo's My Roommate\357\274\237_transcript.txt"	
@@ -0,0 +1,951 @@
+[0.00 --> 6.90]  The struggle here is we wanted to build something that met a need that we had on the Preact team,
+[7.02 --> 10.54]  which was like, Preact is tiny, and it's really good if you want to do a lightweight project.
+[10.78 --> 12.58]  So where's our tooling for that?
+[13.34 --> 16.58]  Where is our, you know, we have a webpack-based tool that's like, you know,
+[16.58 --> 20.18]  used in production by a bunch of high-profile sites, but that's the heavyweight tool, right?
+[20.20 --> 21.14]  Where's the prototyping tool?
+[21.88 --> 22.94]  So that was the one hand.
+[22.94 --> 28.76]  But then the other hand is myself and a bunch of others who just sort of happen to be on the Preact team.
+[29.34 --> 33.88]  We've been kind of on the sidelines in the bundler ecosystem for a little while,
+[34.22 --> 39.10]  you know, prodding people, kind of trying to get consensus on a direction that we can move in
+[39.10 --> 44.70]  to further this idea of like writing modern code and shipping modern code and getting these things right.
+[47.52 --> 50.14]  Bandwidth for Change Log is provided by Fastly.
+[50.14 --> 52.34]  Learn more at Fastly.com.
+[52.58 --> 54.84]  Our feature flags are powered by LaunchDarkly.
+[55.14 --> 56.94]  Check them out at LaunchDarkly.com.
+[56.94 --> 59.18]  And we're hosted on Leno cloud servers.
+[59.44 --> 62.92]  Get $100 in hosting credit at Leno.com slash Change Log.
+[62.92 --> 65.12]  What's up, JS Party people?
+[65.24 --> 70.00]  Have you ever wondered if you could be offering a faster, less buggy experience for your customers?
+[70.46 --> 75.22]  Well, with Raygun Error and Performance Monitoring, you have all the information you need at your
+[75.22 --> 80.46]  fingertips to quickly find and fix errors and performance issues across your tech stack down
+[80.46 --> 81.24]  to the line of code.
+[81.54 --> 85.30]  Raygun makes it easy to monitor the impact of your performance improvements, quickly identify
+[85.30 --> 90.04]  issues across web and mobile apps, and see how your code performs in the hands of your customers.
+[90.04 --> 94.12]  This saves you time, this saves you money, and this saves your sanity.
+[94.46 --> 99.08]  Head to Raygun.com to join thousands of customer-centric software teams who use Raygun every single day.
+[99.40 --> 103.26]  Again, Raygun.com to give them a try with a free 14-day trial.
+[103.26 --> 123.56]  Welcome, everyone.
+[123.90 --> 129.04]  You're listening to JS Party, a weekly celebration of JavaScript and the web.
+[129.04 --> 134.94]  We are giving away two free tickets to the Test.js Summit on January 28th and 29th.
+[135.02 --> 138.08]  All you have to do is follow us on Twitter to be entered to win.
+[138.20 --> 139.94]  We are at jspartyfm.
+[140.12 --> 142.00]  Follow that account now before you forget.
+[142.58 --> 144.04]  We have an excellent show for you today.
+[144.16 --> 146.82]  If I do say so myself, let's get right into it.
+[146.86 --> 148.26]  Hey, it's party time, y'all.
+[148.26 --> 159.58]  Hello out there.
+[159.72 --> 160.98]  Welcome to JS Party.
+[161.10 --> 161.70]  It's 2021.
+[162.30 --> 162.98]  We are here.
+[163.08 --> 163.46]  I'm Jared.
+[163.54 --> 164.86]  I'm your internet friend.
+[164.86 --> 170.46]  And I'm joined as not always, but as often by one of my internet friends, Nick Neesey is in the house.
+[170.52 --> 170.94]  What's up, Nick?
+[171.48 --> 172.02]  Ahoy hoy.
+[172.50 --> 173.60]  Ahoy hoy to you.
+[173.76 --> 174.30]  Ahoy hoy.
+[174.30 --> 178.72]  We are joined by a special guest today, Jason Miller.
+[179.04 --> 181.10]  You may know him as DevelopIt.
+[181.26 --> 181.60]  Hello.
+[181.98 --> 184.12]  He is making the web faster at Google.
+[184.32 --> 185.76]  He's the creator of Preact.
+[186.04 --> 187.50]  JS, the P very important there.
+[188.16 --> 189.46]  And he's on the podcast.
+[189.76 --> 190.36]  So welcome, Jason.
+[190.74 --> 191.00]  Hi.
+[191.44 --> 192.42]  I'm happy to be here.
+[192.84 --> 193.90]  We're very happy to have you.
+[194.02 --> 196.14]  And we are happy to talk about your new thing.
+[196.30 --> 200.96]  We'll talk about Preact, I guess, by proxy because it's involved in WMR.
+[200.96 --> 203.78]  But Preact was not what prompted the call.
+[204.08 --> 205.12]  WMR is.
+[206.20 --> 216.60]  And WMR is a cool, tiny little all-in-one development tool for modern web apps, which brings a question to my mind, which I'll ask in a second.
+[216.98 --> 218.90]  But the first question before I go.
+[218.90 --> 220.30]  I know what that question's going to be.
+[220.30 --> 224.44]  Well, I got two questions queued up, so I guess you can guess which one's which.
+[224.50 --> 227.38]  The first one is, what does WMR stand for?
+[227.50 --> 232.68]  And I know that that's not controversial, but it's like ambiguous because you're not really sure yet.
+[232.72 --> 234.12]  You've got some multiple things going on.
+[234.16 --> 236.28]  Tell us what WMR stands for, Jason.
+[236.70 --> 239.98]  Yeah, I can never remember what the team decided on.
+[240.62 --> 242.30]  To say it was an argument would be a miscategorization.
+[242.30 --> 249.26]  It's more, you know, the NPM header, how they scroll through random definitions of what NPM might mean.
+[249.62 --> 253.26]  We essentially just have a joke where we continue to do that in our chat.
+[254.00 --> 262.46]  So I think like the dry, boring version is originally I started this project as a joke.
+[262.46 --> 272.68]  And the joke was it was going to be called warm module replacement, which is like less hot than hot module replacement.
+[274.08 --> 276.40]  Like it's a module replacement that you can touch.
+[276.56 --> 276.96]  I don't know.
+[277.14 --> 279.20]  It seemed funny at the time.
+[279.52 --> 280.80]  And the NPM name was free.
+[280.98 --> 286.40]  And then we spent a week or two trying to come up with a better name and failed.
+[286.40 --> 291.02]  And so we called the company Apple or we called the project WMR.
+[292.46 --> 294.76]  You know, this is probably something that we can help out with.
+[295.98 --> 296.38]  Yeah.
+[296.48 --> 297.78]  So like there's a lot of funny ones.
+[297.88 --> 301.04]  I forget the one there's like wet module replacement.
+[301.52 --> 301.78]  Okay.
+[301.80 --> 308.36]  Or somebody suggested web modules runtime, which that feels kind of reasonable.
+[308.66 --> 309.04]  Right.
+[309.12 --> 310.00]  That one's almost too normal.
+[310.48 --> 312.94]  So here's what we did, Jason.
+[312.94 --> 321.36]  We saw this conundrum and we're fans of the NPM scrolling title or not scrolling, but, you know, random acronym replacement.
+[321.36 --> 323.22]  And so we thought we'd help you out.
+[323.30 --> 329.80]  We assembled a crack team of marketers and came up with some alternate replacements for you.
+[329.86 --> 331.52]  So we're going to pitch you a few.
+[331.66 --> 332.74]  You let us know if you like these.
+[333.34 --> 335.28]  The first one is Windows me returns.
+[337.80 --> 338.88]  Yeah, I would take that.
+[339.02 --> 339.58]  That's a good one.
+[340.30 --> 341.64]  Whales meet rodents.
+[342.28 --> 342.60]  Okay.
+[342.78 --> 343.80]  Doesn't make any sense at all.
+[344.02 --> 345.80]  Well, what's the there's a program language.
+[345.92 --> 346.42]  It's a rodent.
+[346.56 --> 347.02]  The go.
+[347.58 --> 348.28]  That's a gopher.
+[348.58 --> 349.60]  And a gopher is a rodent.
+[349.66 --> 351.52]  So I think you're I think you're on point there.
+[351.58 --> 351.70]  Yeah.
+[352.12 --> 354.16]  If a gopher is a rodent or is it a type of.
+[354.86 --> 355.30]  I don't know.
+[355.38 --> 356.56]  I do believe it is.
+[356.64 --> 359.56]  If a capybara is a rodent, then a gopher is definitely a rodent.
+[359.88 --> 362.56]  I think they are both of the rodentia family.
+[362.96 --> 364.12]  I know nothing about science.
+[364.12 --> 365.10]  I know that's gone.
+[365.86 --> 366.88]  I got big teeth.
+[367.14 --> 367.34]  I don't know.
+[367.34 --> 367.90]  It's the genus.
+[368.04 --> 368.84]  It's the or a phylum.
+[369.00 --> 369.44]  I don't know.
+[369.62 --> 370.32]  I don't know what's going on.
+[370.38 --> 371.94]  Is it a platypus or is it not a platypus?
+[372.06 --> 372.88]  That's all we care about.
+[372.88 --> 374.62]  A couple other ones for you.
+[374.84 --> 377.08]  WMR wicked Mr. Renderer.
+[377.38 --> 378.14]  Yeah, I like that.
+[378.22 --> 378.70]  I like that one.
+[378.88 --> 383.22]  We tried a recursive acronym in the style of genus, not Unix, but it didn't work out at
+[383.22 --> 383.46]  all.
+[383.74 --> 386.56]  Windows or WMR means reboot.
+[386.76 --> 388.72]  See, it doesn't even finish it.
+[390.24 --> 391.26]  Where's my Roomba?
+[392.22 --> 392.62]  Yeah.
+[392.98 --> 396.98]  So that would make sense because when I Googled this after we created and launched the project,
+[396.98 --> 400.44]  I was seeing if we had gotten any form of notoriety.
+[401.06 --> 401.14]  Yeah.
+[401.18 --> 406.42]  Apparently WMR was already a thing that I wasn't aware of called Where's My Refund, which is
+[406.42 --> 408.12]  like a service offered by the IRS.
+[408.82 --> 409.22]  Oh, wow.
+[409.26 --> 409.52]  Yeah.
+[409.60 --> 411.92]  I'm not American, so I didn't know that.
+[412.02 --> 413.42]  It's like your tax returns or something?
+[413.96 --> 414.22]  Yeah.
+[414.48 --> 414.62]  So.
+[415.42 --> 415.76]  Okay.
+[415.86 --> 417.42]  Well, the last one, this one is yours, Nick.
+[417.60 --> 418.68]  Waldo's my roommate.
+[421.28 --> 422.84]  Do you actually have a roommate named Waldo?
+[422.92 --> 425.16]  That actually answers the question also, where's Waldo?
+[425.44 --> 426.18]  He's right here.
+[426.18 --> 426.62]  Yeah, nice.
+[427.98 --> 428.52]  All right.
+[428.54 --> 429.62]  He's just never wearing stripes.
+[429.92 --> 430.08]  Whatever.
+[430.28 --> 431.42]  I guess he just got over it.
+[432.18 --> 436.82]  So what we can do is when the show goes live out there on the internet, so we can put
+[436.82 --> 440.80]  a poll out and find out which of these are the best WMR, and then you'll be required
+[440.80 --> 442.40]  to use that from here on out.
+[442.46 --> 443.22]  I think that's a fair.
+[443.70 --> 448.58]  Just set up a bot to PR the headline change in the Read Me every week.
+[448.58 --> 449.06]  Just constantly.
+[449.66 --> 449.88]  Yeah.
+[449.88 --> 451.22]  Or we'll just have Nick do it.
+[451.86 --> 452.08]  Yeah.
+[452.88 --> 453.76]  I got the time.
+[454.32 --> 455.12]  He's got the time.
+[455.12 --> 467.34]  Nick will write a Neovim plug-in, which writes a bot, which submits the PR.
+[467.50 --> 468.36]  That's the way Nick does it.
+[468.46 --> 468.60]  Okay.
+[469.34 --> 469.66]  Nice.
+[469.66 --> 473.92]  Well, I would say enough tomfoolery, but there'll probably be some more upcoming.
+[474.26 --> 478.64]  But in between the ridiculousness, let's get some actual content out there.
+[479.66 --> 481.16]  WMR, who cares what it stands for?
+[481.50 --> 485.90]  As I said, your little tagline is a tiny all-in-one development tool for modern web apps.
+[485.98 --> 490.06]  And so that begs the question then, what is a modern web app?
+[490.10 --> 491.42]  That's the one you knew I was going to ask, right?
+[491.48 --> 491.76]  Yeah, that's right.
+[491.76 --> 493.52]  So have at it.
+[493.56 --> 494.42]  What's a modern web app?
+[494.52 --> 495.98]  So there's probably two answers for that.
+[496.20 --> 499.02]  One is, it's a web app that you're building now.
+[499.94 --> 505.10]  Because modern is a time frame, and that time frame is recent.
+[505.86 --> 506.14]  Okay.
+[506.90 --> 508.24]  That's a good, safe answer.
+[508.44 --> 508.78]  Yeah.
+[508.90 --> 510.08]  That's the lame answer.
+[510.42 --> 510.84]  Right.
+[510.84 --> 520.80]  The maybe more appropriate answer is, it's a web app where the thing that you have front of mind,
+[521.02 --> 529.66]  and the constraints that you have on your mind as you develop, are modern browsers, modern UX, modern dependencies.
+[529.66 --> 540.74]  Sort of this general assumption that this is not going to be, you know, trying to use code from the late 2000s.
+[540.76 --> 545.92]  This is not going to be trying to service, necessarily, browsers from the late 2000s.
+[546.36 --> 551.70]  Certainly, it would be written in modern JavaScript, which, yeah, you know, another recursive definition there.
+[551.94 --> 554.94]  But, you know, ES 2017 or newer kind of thing.
+[554.94 --> 574.40]  And the most important one, I think, at least for me, is the tool chain is optimized to give you the best experience possible for, you know, ES modules and TypeScript and some of these things that are now omnipresent on NPM.
+[574.74 --> 583.04]  But there are still large swaths of modules on NPM that have not moved over to those things or that sort of exist from an era prior to all of that.
+[583.04 --> 593.86]  And so, you know, in a typical bundler setup, especially in like an ahead of time bundling setup, generally, there is layers of abstraction added in.
+[594.02 --> 596.90]  So, you know, you import a thing and you're not actually importing that thing.
+[596.98 --> 600.20]  You're importing like a compiled version of that thing.
+[600.20 --> 619.90]  And WMR basically takes the stance that some of those layers of abstraction actually hurt newer, more readable dependencies in code you might write in order to support older, maybe less readable.
+[619.90 --> 625.62]  And in WMR's case, we hope slightly less important to your project modules.
+[626.12 --> 633.58]  And so the idea is like, OK, well, let's build a tool that tries to still sort of support some of the older stuff.
+[633.96 --> 643.70]  But the focus, if we have to choose, the focus is always going to be on make the sort of more recent, newer stuff as good as it can be.
+[643.70 --> 646.98]  So don't don't detract from it just in order to have compatibility.
+[647.78 --> 655.58]  So if you were to liken it to something that already exists just for context or for frame of reference, like what kind of a thing is it?
+[655.64 --> 661.16]  Would you say it's kind of like a create react app or it's kind of like a next JS or like it's kind of like a webpack?
+[661.28 --> 664.68]  Like what's it kind of like that people would be like, OK, it's like this, but different.
+[664.68 --> 672.68]  It's weirdly probably closest to Webpack, but that might be sort of an awkward comparison.
+[673.64 --> 676.76]  Like in terms of existing tools, it's closest to Vite or Vite.
+[676.98 --> 679.40]  Never got clarity on how that's pronounced.
+[679.92 --> 680.04]  Right.
+[680.12 --> 682.02]  Vue's new bundler and Snowpack.
+[682.54 --> 687.08]  And also ESDevServer or ModernDevServer, I can't remember which is the more recent name.
+[687.54 --> 691.48]  It exists in that space of like ESM first.
+[691.86 --> 692.34]  Gotcha.
+[692.60 --> 694.02]  Bundlers slash non-bundlers.
+[694.76 --> 699.04]  And I guess the thing that makes it maybe sort of like Webpack in that regard.
+[699.40 --> 700.58]  Actually, I shouldn't say Webpack.
+[700.74 --> 702.46]  It's closest to Parcel in that regard.
+[702.88 --> 710.26]  WMR really, really, really tries to remove itself from your field of view as a developer.
+[710.58 --> 712.44]  So it tries to sort of stay out of the way.
+[712.90 --> 718.44]  Normally, when you start a project with a bundler, like a Webpack or a rollup, your first job is configure the bundler.
+[718.44 --> 724.20]  You know, tell it the semantics of your project and your file structure and what you're trying to build.
+[724.74 --> 726.50]  There's good reasons why bundlers allow that, right?
+[726.56 --> 728.76]  Rollup and Webpack are super versatile tools.
+[729.30 --> 729.40]  Right.
+[729.40 --> 740.44]  But that's also, you know, as somebody who has like a fairly severe ADHD sufferer and who does a lot of prototyping to manage to be productive.
+[740.44 --> 743.88]  Despite that, all of those like stop, configure.
+[743.88 --> 750.30]  Those are all steps that kind of get in the way of you actually starting a project.
+[750.74 --> 753.72]  Or they, at the very least, they eat into the time that you might spend.
+[753.84 --> 759.10]  If, you know, if you have two hours to prototype something, you really don't want to spend the first hour and a half configuring your bundler.
+[759.26 --> 761.96]  I've definitely failed hackathons for that very reason.
+[761.96 --> 764.78]  So it's very much about greasing the skids, right?
+[764.86 --> 765.98]  Like, just get me running.
+[766.62 --> 770.66]  No config or zero, you know, out of the box, pre-configured for you.
+[771.28 --> 773.78]  Don't make me think style tooling.
+[774.32 --> 774.54]  Yeah.
+[774.60 --> 779.58]  And the interesting take here, because like we have micro bundle, which is basically written by the same people.
+[780.38 --> 787.66]  Obviously, that micro bundle is, it's basically a configuration for rollup that you install as a command line tool so you don't have to also install rollup.
+[787.66 --> 795.64]  And that one is very strictly like, we are just rollup, but with heavy handed defaults that make sense for a lot of modules.
+[796.36 --> 798.40]  WMR kind of tried to flip that on its head.
+[798.66 --> 802.36]  We do support configuration, which is already different from micro bundle.
+[802.92 --> 809.86]  But instead of basically saying we're going to give you what we think is right out of the box as defaults,
+[809.86 --> 819.42]  what WMR does is it tries to extract all of the possible configuration defaults from what you write.
+[819.76 --> 829.96]  So rather than saying, you know, this is how you reference entry modules in your HTML, like this is how you bundle and then reference stuff from HTML.
+[830.68 --> 835.90]  Instead, we flip that on its head and we say, we will look at your HTML and find the modules that you have referenced there.
+[836.02 --> 838.32]  And that's how we'll figure out how to bundle your application.
+[838.32 --> 843.14]  So Parcel was definitely a trailblazer in this regard, and they still do this very well.
+[843.70 --> 849.38]  They really try and like give you a bundler that incorporates the web's defaults as its defaults.
+[849.44 --> 853.32]  So you don't have to, you know, sort of tell the bundler, yes, I am building for the browser.
+[853.60 --> 855.32]  Yes, these are the semantics of a browser.
+[855.48 --> 859.02]  Those are things that you can actually just know up front in a bundler.
+[859.82 --> 865.84]  And it even tries to take that, I could probably get into the semantics of why this ends up mattering later.
+[865.84 --> 870.88]  But like, you know, Webpack has like the optimized chunks configuration or whatever.
+[870.98 --> 874.28]  You can kind of tell it like, oh, collapse such and such as stuff if it's below this threshold.
+[874.92 --> 874.98]  Right.
+[876.06 --> 877.60]  Rollup doesn't have that.
+[877.60 --> 883.68]  But we grafted it into rollup, which is what powers WMR's production output.
+[884.58 --> 891.46]  So we basically, like for CSS files, as an example, WMR will try to not produce CSS files below one kilobyte.
+[891.46 --> 901.38]  Because in general, that's going to be the point at which the headers for your request are approaching the size of the response body itself.
+[901.54 --> 907.44]  And you start to see really, really diminishing returns in terms of like G's of compression, which has a threshold of about a K.
+[907.44 --> 919.86]  So it basically tried to work back from like compression thresholds, TCP window sizes, you know, all these sorts of things that like, oh, there's like actual specifications that define these things.
+[919.86 --> 922.78]  Or at the very least, there's convention that defines these things.
+[923.00 --> 925.84]  Why don't we just have that be what defines the defaults for the tool?
+[925.84 --> 938.58]  So it really tries to like, stay out of your way, not by telling you what to do, but by finding concrete, I don't want to say evidence based, I feel like that's, that's giving it too much credit.
+[938.84 --> 946.40]  Finding concrete sort of obvious defaults that you're going to tell the bundler at some point anyway, when you're doing your optimization.
+[946.96 --> 949.56]  And just saying, yeah, screw it, we're just going to do that by default.
+[949.70 --> 951.36]  Like that, that's a logical default to have.
+[951.36 --> 954.74]  I kind of think I'm listening to you talk about it.
+[954.74 --> 960.66]  It almost sounds like akin to like a compiler doing type inference where it's like, I think you must be using an int right now.
+[960.72 --> 966.70]  So I'm just going to infer that that's what it is and not make you declare it like you might in some other typed languages.
+[966.70 --> 975.26]  This is kind of like config inference or style inference to a certain degree, not trying to give you too much credit again, but it's kind of akin to that, right?
+[975.28 --> 977.14]  Like you're like, well, find out what they're doing.
+[977.14 --> 983.60]  And also what's the best practice here that they don't want to defer from that or divert from that and just do that.
+[983.60 --> 986.70]  But also like what style are you using?
+[986.74 --> 988.56]  I'll just go ahead and just do that.
+[989.22 --> 989.32]  Right.
+[989.40 --> 993.26]  And so like the similarity there is actually, it's pretty reasonable.
+[993.26 --> 1001.48]  You could almost think of WMR as let's say in production mode only because development mode is this whole other story.
+[1001.58 --> 1009.68]  But in production mode, it's almost like WMR looks at your code base and generates a rollup config that is optimal for that code base and then runs it.
+[1010.24 --> 1012.08]  That's actually sort of how it works.
+[1012.08 --> 1019.74]  It's a little bit more complex and contextual than that, but at least in terms of our production output, you can kind of think of it like that, right?
+[1019.74 --> 1036.86]  Like in a normal bundler, you would configure entry points and your minifier and your node modules resolution and like all the weird like, oh, you know, but the React is modules commonly used from ESM with named imports, but it doesn't have any.
+[1036.86 --> 1047.86]  So like patch that instead, we just do all that on the fly based on the code that you wrote, because like you already wrote code that essentially said, oh, you know, import type of from React is.
+[1048.92 --> 1053.76]  So we don't need configuration to know that you're trying to use named imports from a common JS module.
+[1054.10 --> 1054.86]  It's right there in the code.
+[1055.20 --> 1056.74]  So that's the one angle.
+[1057.16 --> 1065.02]  And the other whole piece of this is during development, WMR doesn't actually really bundle at all.
+[1065.02 --> 1073.70]  And so this is where the Skypack or Snowpack and Vite and modern dev server comparison kind of comes into play.
+[1075.22 --> 1078.08]  WMR, like it's really similar to those tools.
+[1079.00 --> 1093.02]  And to be honest, throughout the entire development of this project, since we started in May, I want to say April, May, we've been kind of discussing stuff with the authors of those tools behind the scenes saying like, hey, like at some point, maybe we should just like consolidate these things.
+[1093.02 --> 1103.22]  But I think the logical thing and the thing that's going to be most beneficial for the ecosystem right now is to just kind of let these flowers bloom for a little bit and then see what are the similarities?
+[1103.50 --> 1104.82]  What did we end up duplicating?
+[1104.98 --> 1106.10]  How can we collaborate better?
+[1106.84 --> 1113.50]  And so what we try to do with WMR is working back from that model of in development, you're not bundling.
+[1113.62 --> 1116.16]  We're just shipping modules over the wire as HTTP requests.
+[1116.16 --> 1120.88]  We tried to optimize the pathway for every module from disk to browser.
+[1121.80 --> 1135.84]  And so instead of pulling a module off disk, running it through Babel, running it through Terser, running it through a source code transformer that finds import statements and rewrites them because very imports don't work in browsers.
+[1135.84 --> 1150.14]  Instead of doing all those steps, generally in sequence, generally with different tools, we actually wrote our own Babel compatible AST transformer and rollup compatible plugin API.
+[1150.66 --> 1158.02]  So if you're built a rollup plugin, that whole API is actually supported by WMR, even though WMR is not running rollup.
+[1158.02 --> 1160.90]  We just call all the same hooks in the same order.
+[1161.08 --> 1162.94]  We expose the same acorn parsing stuff.
+[1163.42 --> 1168.08]  But at the end of the day, what it means is we read a module off disk and put it in a memory cache.
+[1168.60 --> 1179.04]  We pass it through at most one AST transformation that will parse all the code, but will in almost no cases will it stringify all the code.
+[1179.14 --> 1182.58]  It's only going to like re-serialize mutated AST nodes.
+[1182.68 --> 1183.94]  So it's extremely fast.
+[1183.94 --> 1187.50]  But actually, in most cases, no AST transformations.
+[1187.92 --> 1194.12]  We're using Guy Bedford's ES module Lexer to do basically token based transformations.
+[1194.38 --> 1196.52]  So we don't make a whole graph of your code.
+[1196.64 --> 1198.76]  We literally just know that like, oh, this is an import statement.
+[1198.90 --> 1200.16]  Here's the string that was imported.
+[1200.76 --> 1201.94]  What are you going to do with this string?
+[1202.64 --> 1206.96]  And then that all feeds back through this rollup based plugin API or rollup compatible plugin API.
+[1206.96 --> 1218.08]  But the idea is like, basically WMR should get modules into the browser as roughly as fast as it can read the module off disk and stream it to the browser.
+[1218.24 --> 1223.12]  It really shouldn't be adding any overhead to each request in order to do transformations.
+[1223.12 --> 1230.56]  And that originally actually just comes from, I work on Glitch a lot.
+[1232.04 --> 1232.74]  It's cheap.
+[1233.60 --> 1235.44]  It's just a habit I've gotten into.
+[1235.86 --> 1235.90]  Yeah.
+[1235.90 --> 1249.10]  And Glitch has a static like mode, but the static mode doesn't support like JSX or TypeScript or Bary imports or ES modules or node modules for that matter, which it's just slightly too limited.
+[1249.84 --> 1255.32]  And so I originally was, I started WMR as like a better Glitch static, right?
+[1255.36 --> 1262.98]  So basically a static file server that like does some intelligent stuff with JavaScript, but very little, just what's necessary to make it usable.
+[1262.98 --> 1265.56]  And so that's kind of the premise there.
+[1265.80 --> 1270.98]  That's also where this whole concept of not having to install dependencies came from.
+[1271.40 --> 1282.74]  So like it's a pain in the butt to manage your package JSON and especially on Glitch, every edit you make to the package JSON redownloads all the node modules via pnpm and populates them in the node modules directory.
+[1282.74 --> 1293.46]  In WMR, if you don't run npm install and you import a package in your code, we just go and fetch it from the registry and stream it to disk.
+[1294.40 --> 1300.80]  And interestingly, we stream it to disk knowing that you're only going to use it as like a source code package.
+[1300.88 --> 1303.54]  So we don't run package install scripts because that's unsafe.
+[1303.54 --> 1310.18]  We don't even write temp files, test files, unused source stuff to disk.
+[1310.42 --> 1319.86]  You basically get a node modules directory that only contains package.json's, JS and TS files, and TypeScript definitions, which is kind of nice.
+[1320.40 --> 1323.98]  Something about that just sounds like almost too good to be true kind of a thing.
+[1324.14 --> 1327.94]  Like is that, I mean, you're thinking like what could go wrong?
+[1328.08 --> 1329.94]  Something has to be able to go wrong there, right?
+[1329.94 --> 1336.08]  Yeah, I mean, like there was definitely some pushback we got in the initial announcement saying, oh, we're doing streaming install.
+[1336.16 --> 1340.18]  Because I think people think, oh, streaming install, they're running npm install in the background.
+[1340.42 --> 1343.80]  And we don't actually use the npm client at all in any form.
+[1344.56 --> 1345.36]  This actually does.
+[1345.80 --> 1348.84]  So you're just literally fetching the source files and that's not even that.
+[1348.90 --> 1352.26]  So it's fetching the tarball direct from the npm registry.
+[1352.46 --> 1352.72]  Okay.
+[1352.72 --> 1354.54]  And it streams it.
+[1355.34 --> 1366.54]  And as each file in the tarball passes through our streaming untar and un-gzip mechanics, those files get analyzed and conditionally written to disk.
+[1366.60 --> 1372.18]  So if you have something like a shell script or an executable, it never even makes it out of memory.
+[1372.56 --> 1380.16]  So I don't want to say it's secure, but it definitely avoids all the foot guns that would immediately jump to mind for like, hey, streaming auto install.
+[1380.16 --> 1382.44]  It's also just really fast.
+[1383.12 --> 1393.30]  So basically, we can get your dependency installed and shipped to the browser or whatever file from it you were importing as fast as we can get that tarball from npm because it's streaming.
+[1393.64 --> 1394.66]  Sounds like an awesome feature.
+[1394.74 --> 1397.86]  It kind of goes along with what you're talking about with the inference where it's like you're using this.
+[1398.06 --> 1399.26]  Okay, we'll get it for you.
+[1399.52 --> 1400.14]  And that's it.
+[1400.58 --> 1406.90]  But we know not only are you using the Preact package, but we know that you're using it from WMR.
+[1406.90 --> 1416.28]  And we know that, as an example, the Preact package has an export app, which defines what is externally accessible, what files are externally accessible.
+[1417.14 --> 1424.12]  And so we know that in a properly spec-compliant bundler, you can't import files that aren't in the export map.
+[1424.60 --> 1433.36]  So we just won't write those files to disk because they frankly don't exist, unless they're TypeScript definitions because TypeScript kind of made of its own thing there.
+[1433.36 --> 1433.76]  But that's fine.
+[1433.78 --> 1434.60]  That's very few files.
+[1435.50 --> 1438.86]  But we can sort of infer like, oh, this isn't just a random package.
+[1438.96 --> 1440.70]  It's just not a command line tool that you're installing.
+[1440.84 --> 1442.44]  It's not arbitrary code.
+[1442.78 --> 1445.02]  It's source text that you're going to want to import.
+[1445.28 --> 1445.34]  Yeah.
+[1446.12 --> 1454.70]  And so when we do that, again, with the inference thing, we stream it to disk and we send you the file because you're waiting on this request in the browser.
+[1454.80 --> 1457.60]  The browser will either have reloaded or hot module updated or whatever.
+[1457.74 --> 1459.86]  And you're sitting there waiting for this dependency to download.
+[1460.46 --> 1462.36]  We get the dependency to the browser right away.
+[1462.36 --> 1472.48]  It runs through a extremely lightweight roll-up pass, but doesn't do any minification, doesn't do any mangling, anything like that.
+[1473.10 --> 1480.52]  It basically just concatenates modules together that wouldn't have been individually addressable anyway, so that we're not shipping like thousands of VS modules over the wire.
+[1481.26 --> 1484.22]  But sort of like as close to zero milliseconds as we can get there.
+[1484.22 --> 1495.14]  And then behind the scenes, after you've actually requested that module and after it's been loaded in the browser, we then schedule it to go off into a minification and Brotley compression pass.
+[1495.14 --> 1498.58]  And so if you import Preact, you'll get Preact right away.
+[1499.00 --> 1514.80]  But then after a second-ish or two of idle time, WMR will have already generated a hyper-optimized version of that dependency and written it back to disk so that the next time you request it, you get the optimized Brotley compressed version, but just streamed from disk.
+[1514.92 --> 1516.78]  There's no overhead on the request itself.
+[1516.78 --> 1519.42]  Yeah, it's sort of a funky setup.
+[1520.08 --> 1527.70]  You said that when it goes to the browser in that either development or production build, I guess probably both, it's just basically the concatenated files.
+[1527.82 --> 1530.22]  It's not actually running like ES modules in the browser.
+[1530.66 --> 1531.10]  Is that right?
+[1531.64 --> 1533.90]  So it does use native ESM for everything.
+[1534.38 --> 1534.66]  Okay.
+[1535.02 --> 1544.02]  So actually, that's one of the reasons why the roll-up bundling process is done, even for the unoptimized version, is that's where we convert CommonJS and UMD to ESM.
+[1544.64 --> 1544.94]  Gotcha.
+[1544.94 --> 1545.02]  Gotcha.
+[1545.46 --> 1552.80]  So I guess I'm a little behind on actually using direct ESM because I do it through TypeScript.
+[1553.42 --> 1558.70]  And I ran the Create WMR project and kind of played around with that a little bit.
+[1558.70 --> 1565.22]  It looks like there's kind of a mix of like, like I'm specifically looking at the imports and like there's some with file extension, some without.
+[1565.48 --> 1569.44]  And I was wondering, like, is it doing rewrites of those for me automatically or?
+[1569.78 --> 1569.98]  Yes.
+[1569.98 --> 1570.26]  Yes.
+[1570.58 --> 1570.86]  Yes.
+[1570.94 --> 1576.66]  So, and that has shaped a little bit since this tool was originally created.
+[1577.34 --> 1583.84]  So we always have rewritten bare specifiers just because the browser is going to, it just is a syntax error in the browser.
+[1583.84 --> 1586.72]  And there's no way for us to patch that in on the front end.
+[1586.72 --> 1596.98]  So like if you do like import foo, the module foo, we will rewrite that to, I think it's import a URL like slash at NPM slash foo.
+[1597.44 --> 1597.48]  Okay.
+[1597.48 --> 1598.22]  You know, it's a pattern.
+[1598.36 --> 1599.02]  It always looks like that.
+[1599.08 --> 1600.50]  You kind of get used to seeing on the front end.
+[1600.50 --> 1605.92]  And in your browser's network console, you'll just see foo because it shows the base name, not the path name.
+[1605.92 --> 1629.08]  In the case of something like TypeScript or if you're using JavaScript files and you don't want to use file extensions, WMR in its current state will infer the file extension and like, you know, correct it.
+[1629.08 --> 1643.52]  So in the browser, you know, if you imported slash utils and the file on disk was called utils.ts in the browser, I believe you will see slash utils.ts.
+[1644.12 --> 1645.46]  I actually have to check.
+[1647.38 --> 1647.82]  Interesting.
+[1648.42 --> 1648.58]  Yeah.
+[1648.68 --> 1653.90]  And so basically that happens because I had mentioned we support the rollup plugin API during development.
+[1654.44 --> 1657.82]  Originally, we did not do file extension inference.
+[1657.82 --> 1664.46]  So if you wanted to import a file that had an extension, whether it's TypeScript, JavaScript, TSX, whatever, you just type the file out with the extension.
+[1665.28 --> 1676.06]  I actually personally really liked that approach because I know that behind the scenes, that means that WMR never ever has to read a directory or call into Node's file system API to check if something exists.
+[1676.42 --> 1678.78]  Basically, when you do an import, we call a read file.
+[1678.98 --> 1679.28]  That's it.
+[1680.20 --> 1683.96]  So even if you're writing TypeScript, you would do like a .ts extension for all of those?
+[1683.96 --> 1688.94]  Or you could also use a .js extension, but that's a TypeScriptism.
+[1689.34 --> 1693.68]  The .js extension when there's a .ts file on disk is the .ts file.
+[1694.16 --> 1694.44]  Okay.
+[1695.04 --> 1702.04]  But that was actually one of the reasons why we ended up going down the road of implementing file extension inference.
+[1702.80 --> 1704.38]  So you kind of treat it like ASI a little bit.
+[1704.94 --> 1705.62]  Yeah, exactly.
+[1706.06 --> 1707.22]  You don't have to use it.
+[1707.28 --> 1710.42]  And it is faster if you don't use it, but you can use it.
+[1710.42 --> 1721.80]  And so one weird case where this actually rears its head is like if you have a script tag in an HTML document, the correct thing to do in WMR is to include the full file extension of that script, regardless of what it is.
+[1721.92 --> 1723.44]  If it doesn't exist, don't put it.
+[1723.52 --> 1726.72]  If it's a .tsx, it would be, you know, slash foo.tsx.
+[1726.72 --> 1734.44]  And that's just like we're trying to steer people towards the spec, which says like there is no magic.
+[1734.62 --> 1735.76]  A URL is just a URL.
+[1736.12 --> 1737.72]  There is no such thing as inference.
+[1738.46 --> 1748.78]  But we also, you know, to the earlier point, we are aware that a lot of people are used to the semantics of things like Create React app, which are essentially the semantics of Webpack.
+[1748.78 --> 1753.68]  And so as kind of a way to bridge that gap, we do the inference.
+[1753.88 --> 1757.98]  You can, there's a debug environment variable that you can set to one.
+[1758.48 --> 1763.34]  And that will print out all of the plugins that got executed on every request.
+[1763.52 --> 1771.16]  And you can actually see in real time like, oh, wow, I just round tripped through the file extension resolver three times just because I didn't want to type .tsx.
+[1771.16 --> 1776.18]  And so we're not, we won't show the performance stats on it because it's on a per request basis.
+[1776.32 --> 1782.52]  It's very minimal, but you can still see like, you know, this is what I've opted into by choosing that thing.
+[1784.44 --> 1795.84]  The other piece of this is I think the file extensions thing, especially for TypeScript, is still just sort of in the last stages of kind of settling out.
+[1795.84 --> 1796.62]  Mm-hmm.
+[1796.62 --> 1815.82]  The nice thing with specifying full file extensions is at least in VS Code and I think JetBrains, if you have any imports that have a file extension in your module and you use like the auto import thing, like you click a suggested result and it imports, that new import will also use a file extension.
+[1815.94 --> 1819.34]  So it's smart enough to see like, oh, this person is typing file extensions out.
+[1819.70 --> 1824.22]  I don't think it does on a project wide basis by default yet, which would be like a nice next step.
+[1824.22 --> 1824.94]  Mm-hmm.
+[1825.18 --> 1825.98]  That's sort of why you see that.
+[1826.02 --> 1831.72]  And I think right now the template, I think we ship .js by default.
+[1832.14 --> 1832.38]  Yep.
+[1832.88 --> 1838.42]  Although TypeScript is supported by WMR itself by default, we don't scaffold it by default.
+[1839.20 --> 1839.56]  Yeah.
+[1839.66 --> 1849.00]  I noticed that there was a tsconfig in there that it created and then I just went into, there's a header.js file and I just renamed it to header.ts and it still worked.
+[1849.36 --> 1849.38]  So.
+[1849.82 --> 1849.96]  Yeah.
+[1850.02 --> 1851.42]  So that's actually an interesting point.
+[1851.42 --> 1855.24]  So like WMR, you know, obviously there's a whole bunch of stuff that it's doing, it's goals or whatever.
+[1855.86 --> 1858.88]  But the other piece is, this is coming from the Preact team.
+[1858.98 --> 1864.04]  And the Preact team, we still by and large write everything in vanilla JavaScript.
+[1864.04 --> 1875.76]  But over the past year or two have all but replatformed onto JS doc based TypeScript that is actually just JavaScript.
+[1876.56 --> 1883.18]  To the point where WMR itself is written in JS and JS doc, but is strictly typed.
+[1883.34 --> 1883.64]  Gotcha.
+[1883.64 --> 1883.76]  Yeah.
+[1884.20 --> 1886.50]  Like a type error breaks the pill.
+[1887.58 --> 1889.78]  Which is less crazy than you'd think.
+[1889.78 --> 1894.30]  Because there's this clever thing where you can stick all your types as ambient types in the source directory.
+[1894.66 --> 1900.04]  And then just reference them without even having to import anything from your JS doc annotations.
+[1900.04 --> 1910.76]  And the TypeScript team has been really good over the past year about like extending the JS doc functionality and finding like that nice balance of like JS doc that isn't entirely TypeScript specific.
+[1910.76 --> 1914.64]  And so we've like, we're all on board on that.
+[1914.78 --> 1920.68]  Like even the main Preact code base right now is basically being rewritten to use this strict variant.
+[1921.26 --> 1934.20]  And so we kind of wanted to scaffold something that kind of shows people like, hey, like you can turn on CheckJS and get all these lovely compilerisms that you wouldn't expect from a standard JavaScript environment as long as you're using an editor that cares about TypeScript.
+[1934.20 --> 1940.34]  And then the other piece is we support CSS modules and some import prefixes.
+[1940.54 --> 1945.30]  Like you can do like, I think it's a URL colon and then the path to something.
+[1945.46 --> 1952.90]  And it will, when the thing you import is the URL of that file, which I think Parcel supports the same thing.
+[1953.28 --> 1955.58]  How does TypeScript handle an import that looks like that?
+[1955.90 --> 1957.74]  Well, so that's, that's what the TS config is actually for.
+[1957.74 --> 1971.38]  So when you install WMR or actually it's not the TS config, when you install WMR, we ship ambient types in the WMR package that define ambient module definitions using wildcard statements for URL colon star.
+[1971.56 --> 1973.68]  Same thing for CSS modules.
+[1973.86 --> 1982.90]  If you import, you know, star.module.css, the import, like the value generated by the import will be an object mapping of class names.
+[1983.48 --> 1983.72]  Nice.
+[1983.72 --> 1989.04]  And again, so like we are providing you the thing and it's, it's technically configurable.
+[1989.16 --> 1990.76]  You could turn this off, but like that's the default.
+[1990.94 --> 1994.20]  So we provide you the type definitions for that default, which is, it's nice.
+[1994.26 --> 2000.76]  This is something that like, I think we always wanted to do it in Preact CLI, but we didn't have the .module.css thing, that convention.
+[2001.40 --> 2008.20]  And we maybe couldn't guess as much about the type of code you were trying to write to be able to infer these things.
+[2013.72 --> 2020.98]  Hey there, party animals.
+[2021.12 --> 2021.68]  Jared here.
+[2021.98 --> 2024.62]  I want to take a moment to tell you about Changelog++.
+[2025.36 --> 2031.70]  It's our membership program where you can directly support JS Party and all of the podcasts we create here at Changelog.
+[2032.46 --> 2037.54]  Ditch the ads, get closer to the metal, and enjoy supporting JS Party into the future.
+[2038.26 --> 2041.12]  Once again, that's changelog.com slash plus plus.
+[2041.46 --> 2042.60]  We'd love to have you with us.
+[2042.60 --> 2063.96]  So as I mentioned, I was playing with the create WMR or NPM init WMR, which was really cool.
+[2064.22 --> 2066.54]  And playing with the project that it creates there.
+[2066.82 --> 2071.34]  I really love just how, like you said, I wasn't spending any time configuring things.
+[2071.34 --> 2073.36]  I was just going and I wanted to use TypeScript.
+[2073.44 --> 2076.18]  So I renamed the file to .ts and it just worked.
+[2076.42 --> 2077.58]  And that was really awesome.
+[2078.14 --> 2084.06]  But the create WMR package or the project template that it uses ships with Preact.
+[2084.14 --> 2087.16]  And I was curious about the relationship between WMR and Preact.
+[2087.22 --> 2089.78]  And is that a requirement or can it really work with anything?
+[2090.20 --> 2090.34]  Yeah.
+[2090.38 --> 2091.44]  Tell us a little bit about that.
+[2091.86 --> 2092.96]  It's definitely not a requirement.
+[2092.96 --> 2104.50]  The struggle here is we wanted to build something that met a need that we had on the Preact team, which was like, Preact is tiny and it's really good if you want to do a lightweight project.
+[2104.76 --> 2106.54]  So where's our tooling for that?
+[2107.24 --> 2112.56]  Where is our, you know, we have a webpack based tool that's like, you know, used in production by a bunch of high profile sites.
+[2112.56 --> 2114.62]  But it's that's the heavyweight tool, right?
+[2114.66 --> 2115.58]  Where's the prototyping tool?
+[2116.32 --> 2117.40]  So that was the one hand.
+[2117.56 --> 2123.22]  But then the other hand is myself and a bunch of others who just sort of happen to be on the Preact team.
+[2123.22 --> 2131.58]  We've been kind of on the sidelines in the bundler ecosystem for a little while, at least, you know, leading through 2019 and 2020.
+[2132.34 --> 2143.48]  You know, prodding people, kind of trying to get consensus on a direction that we can move in to further this idea of like writing modern code and shipping modern code and getting these things right.
+[2143.48 --> 2159.34]  Where like, I feel like everybody in the community at this point is at least mostly, you know, rallying around like, we want to start shipping modern code, given that it's supported in the overwhelming majority of browsers, you know, 95% of browsers support ES 2017.
+[2159.34 --> 2178.26]  And so like, from my, this is actually like, the thing that my Google work has been focused on for the last like two years has been going and finding all like the choke points there and trying to do the research and outline a solution that's, it might not be the perfect solution, but it might be the way forward.
+[2178.84 --> 2187.30]  So part of that is like, trying to convince folks to use export maps, the new node feature as a way to publish modern JavaScript packages.
+[2187.30 --> 2194.44]  So you can publish a package that has modern and legacy JavaScript, and now bundlers have a way to use one if they know how to get to it.
+[2194.88 --> 2206.90]  And there's various reasons why I, you know, in the article that I released in December and the video that went along with it, kind of explain how that could be justified, right?
+[2206.96 --> 2213.06]  Like, node started supporting export maps in 12.7 and node 12.9.
+[2213.56 --> 2215.36]  And that version of node supports ES 2019.
+[2215.36 --> 2220.74]  So if you ship an export map, it only works in a version of node that supports modern JS.
+[2221.52 --> 2226.42]  And thus, you would assume that that code would be potentially modern JS because it's a modern package.
+[2227.44 --> 2228.62]  So we kind of extrapolated that.
+[2228.72 --> 2231.86]  Okay, well, what if bundlers also jumped on that same assumption?
+[2232.10 --> 2238.00]  Could this be finally the modern field that we've been not able to standardize for five years?
+[2238.00 --> 2258.96]  And so that and the timing of browser support kind of converging on that 2017 baseline, there was a very clear need for a tool or really a bunch of tools to basically, like, stake the claim here saying, like, actually, it's not just that we can ship smaller bundles using modern code, but also, like, we can do a better development experience.
+[2258.96 --> 2266.78]  You know, we can ship readable code in development that's not one line of a valve for a two megabyte module.
+[2266.78 --> 2284.02]  And so the non-preact part was just getting a tool out there that demonstrates, in addition to what Snowpack and Vite and some others have demonstrated, getting a tool out there that demonstrates that, like, there is even more that we could do if we double down on this.
+[2284.02 --> 2292.48]  Like, WMR ships HTTP2 out of the box, you know, on the overwhelming majority of machines, it will set up certificates for you.
+[2292.82 --> 2299.62]  And basically, at some point, you will get prompted to enter your administrator password, which I know scares the crap out of people, rightfully so.
+[2300.04 --> 2304.62]  But this is using literally the de facto standard module that implements this thing.
+[2304.72 --> 2306.42]  It's relatively safe, all things considered.
+[2306.70 --> 2313.50]  But we ship that out of the box because we know that H2 with ES modules is the fastest and best experience during development.
+[2314.02 --> 2323.30]  And then also showing, like, when you platform on ES modules, things like hot module reloading and asset references can also get easier.
+[2323.30 --> 2330.66]  So, like, hot module reloading is just you dynamically import the current module with a query string parameter to bust the cache.
+[2331.14 --> 2331.62]  That's it.
+[2332.42 --> 2336.32]  You know, there's some weird logic that we do right now to repatch exports onto the old module.
+[2336.50 --> 2340.96]  But even that, we're actively pursuing avenues of getting rid of that piece.
+[2340.96 --> 2349.96]  The goal there is to show, like, not only can we ship something that's truly good, but also, like, we can ship something that's actually fairly easy to understand.
+[2350.44 --> 2350.50]  Right?
+[2350.54 --> 2355.36]  Like, sitting here, you know, I said dynamically import the current module and replace it.
+[2355.42 --> 2357.32]  Like, you can kind of picture how that would work.
+[2357.58 --> 2357.76]  Yeah.
+[2358.16 --> 2359.62]  Dynamic import, object assign.
+[2360.50 --> 2360.72]  You know?
+[2360.90 --> 2363.02]  And that's roughly accurate.
+[2363.72 --> 2364.12]  Yeah.
+[2364.12 --> 2366.42]  You know, minus some weird...
+[2366.42 --> 2368.56]  Close enough approximation about what's exactly happening.
+[2369.08 --> 2369.26]  Right.
+[2369.58 --> 2380.32]  And so there's just a lot less guesswork between you and the actual generated code that you run in the browser, which is potentially less surface area to have things go wrong in.
+[2380.32 --> 2397.40]  And so then, getting back to kind of the Preact thing, our goal with this was basically keep WMR as agnostic as it can possibly be to Preact so that all of the little pieces inside WMR...
+[2397.40 --> 2405.84]  Because WMR is literally just built as, like, 20 roll-up plugins and a couple of standalone libraries we haven't yet published yet.
+[2405.98 --> 2407.22]  But, like, they're all independent.
+[2407.74 --> 2413.14]  Keep that totally separate so that, you know, Vite can grab the plugin API and use it.
+[2413.32 --> 2421.02]  Or, you know, I've actually just this morning been making the rounds looking at all of the export maps implementations in these bundlers, finding some issues with them.
+[2421.02 --> 2435.66]  And it's very clear that, like, it's not to say that WMR gets this right, but having a package, possibly WMR's export maps implementation, that just gets extracted out and published to NPM as, like, a here's how you resolve export maps type package, that's valuable.
+[2436.08 --> 2443.02]  And it would be really shameful for us to, like, do the work of building this and hopefully getting things correct, but have it be weirdly Preact-specific, right?
+[2443.08 --> 2444.92]  Like, that doesn't make sense to me.
+[2444.92 --> 2455.30]  And so we tried to keep the core and essentially everything about WMR Preact-agnostic, except when it came to scaffolding.
+[2455.80 --> 2462.92]  So by default, we scaffold the JSX support so that it generates...
+[2464.18 --> 2468.04]  It's actually generating tag templates, which is unique.
+[2468.44 --> 2470.68]  And I don't know that that's been done elsewhere before.
+[2471.10 --> 2472.66]  But again, it's that first mantra.
+[2472.66 --> 2473.72]  It's the modern side, yeah.
+[2473.72 --> 2474.60]  Yeah, exactly.
+[2474.92 --> 2478.58]  But the tag templates, by default, they are bound to Preact.
+[2478.90 --> 2484.88]  It takes two seconds to rebind them to another library like Vue or React or your own custom thing.
+[2485.40 --> 2489.10]  But the default is Preact just because we have to serve both needs.
+[2490.08 --> 2498.90]  And then the create WMR package, which that was built the day before launch just so that people could use the tool easily.
+[2498.90 --> 2507.84]  But the create WMR package scaffolds a Preact app because that's the one that we were most confident people would be able to, like, poke around with and try.
+[2507.92 --> 2514.08]  Even if you're not a Preact user, even if you're, like, a React user or a Vue user, like, you can get a feel for it.
+[2514.08 --> 2514.36]  Mm-hmm.
+[2514.36 --> 2517.60]  And it lets us show off hot module reloading and some things like that.
+[2517.60 --> 2525.20]  And then the last piece is WMR in about the last two months leading up to the launch.
+[2525.26 --> 2526.80]  Like, originally, we were going to launch it in August.
+[2526.80 --> 2530.92]  And we kind of had to sit down and decided, like, oh, you know what?
+[2531.82 --> 2532.96]  Maybe there's more we can do here.
+[2533.08 --> 2535.90]  Maybe we can ship more than just a good hot module replacement solution.
+[2536.40 --> 2543.06]  And we kind of went back to the drawing board and added things like the pre-rendering and the CSS optimization stage.
+[2543.58 --> 2551.78]  And a lot of that, a lot of the reason why you see Preact as the default now is because Preact was the testbed that we used for all of this.
+[2551.78 --> 2561.78]  So, create WMR will scaffold a project that when you do WMR build or NPM run build, you don't need JavaScript to run the output at all.
+[2562.52 --> 2566.24]  And Preact in the scaffolded thing is how that works.
+[2566.68 --> 2570.02]  But the API is actually completely independent.
+[2570.56 --> 2577.70]  Like, pre-rendering in WMR is just you export a function called pre-render from whatever the first script tag in your HTML file is.
+[2577.70 --> 2589.00]  And that function, it's an async function, so it returns a promise resolving to an object with an HTML string property and a links property that is an array of strings.
+[2589.96 --> 2592.80]  And so, the HTML is the stuff that you pre-rendered.
+[2592.92 --> 2594.02]  However, you chose to do that.
+[2594.14 --> 2595.64]  It could just be returning a string if you wanted.
+[2596.16 --> 2598.80]  But you can see how that would work in Vue and React and Svelte and whatever.
+[2599.28 --> 2604.10]  And then the links property is if you want other URLs to then go and pre-render.
+[2604.10 --> 2607.80]  And WMR won't pre-render if it's already pre-rendered stuff.
+[2608.02 --> 2611.80]  But that's actually the guts of how our automatic pre-rendering works.
+[2612.50 --> 2614.34]  And it has nothing to do with Preact.
+[2614.52 --> 2618.24]  It happens that Preact can use that in a way that is extremely optimal.
+[2618.94 --> 2622.24]  We don't ever have to parse the HTML because we generated it.
+[2622.60 --> 2626.16]  And the thing that looks for links happens during the generation of the HTML.
+[2627.08 --> 2629.44]  But it's just an array of strings.
+[2629.44 --> 2634.80]  And so, like, anybody, I think there was somebody working on a Svelte test for this.
+[2635.10 --> 2637.60]  We've got one bug we need to fix for compiling Svelte templates.
+[2637.80 --> 2640.94]  But, like, you could easily adopt this to any framework.
+[2641.12 --> 2650.18]  And so, my hope here would be, like, because WMR supports config files and anyone can create their own replacement for create WMR.
+[2650.40 --> 2651.54]  It's a really simple package.
+[2651.54 --> 2658.68]  Somebody could create, like, a package that scaffolds a WMR-based React app or Vue app or Svelte app.
+[2658.88 --> 2662.92]  And it would be just as much of a first-class citizen as Preact.
+[2663.00 --> 2670.46]  It just would have a config file, like a one-line config file that just says, like, export default React plugin.
+[2671.14 --> 2671.54]  Right.
+[2671.86 --> 2672.78]  Very minimal changes.
+[2672.94 --> 2674.94]  So, somebody could create that.
+[2675.02 --> 2677.08]  And somebody will probably create that.
+[2677.62 --> 2678.20]  Yeah, that's my hope.
+[2678.20 --> 2679.36]  Or fork WMR.
+[2679.52 --> 2688.12]  But, like, forking WMR, we lose out on a lot of the, like, shared momentum aspect and collaboration aspect.
+[2688.42 --> 2690.70]  Not to say that WMR is necessarily the place where it should happen.
+[2690.78 --> 2690.92]  Right.
+[2691.10 --> 2695.96]  But the hope was, like, if everybody's using plugins on top of the tool, that we can make the tool better.
+[2696.36 --> 2701.80]  And at some point, when we take all the pieces of the tool and publish them to NPM as independent things, everyone benefits.
+[2701.80 --> 2710.38]  Kind of leads me to a meta question around collaboration versus, you know, competition and, like, the decision here to start a new tool.
+[2710.62 --> 2712.16]  Of course, it was like, well, Preact needs something.
+[2712.42 --> 2712.68]  You know?
+[2712.82 --> 2713.68]  We need our story.
+[2713.82 --> 2716.48]  And so, it makes sense that the Preact team would make their own story.
+[2716.58 --> 2725.12]  And I like how you're building it in a way that can be reused and collaborated as much as possible but still be, like, Preact's tool.
+[2725.12 --> 2734.14]  But, like you said, there's Snowpack, there's these other efforts out there, and the decision was we're going to build at this level of abstraction.
+[2734.40 --> 2737.92]  We're going to experiment so that there's more things.
+[2738.10 --> 2748.02]  But then, for example, the Export Maps level, you're like, well, if we extract this into a library, everybody who's doing Vite or doing these other tools could use the Export Maps library.
+[2748.16 --> 2749.44]  And we could collaborate at that level.
+[2749.44 --> 2754.84]  How do we know which layers of abstraction is, like, we need a thousand ideas to flourish?
+[2754.96 --> 2758.90]  And how do we know, like, hey, one good idea, we can all collaborate, let's team up.
+[2759.40 --> 2761.66]  Like, where do we draw those lines?
+[2761.76 --> 2764.46]  It seems to me like a very difficult thing to decide.
+[2764.76 --> 2766.52]  It is an extremely hard problem.
+[2766.78 --> 2767.90]  It is a distributed problem.
+[2768.32 --> 2771.42]  I have this terrible habit of throwing myself at distributed problems.
+[2772.34 --> 2777.76]  For some reason, Google seems to be willing to keep me on staff, partly to do that.
+[2777.76 --> 2777.94]  Yeah.
+[2777.94 --> 2783.22]  And so, like I mentioned, I was making the rounds looking at everybody's Export Maps implementations.
+[2783.66 --> 2784.78]  Rollup just landed it.
+[2784.98 --> 2789.12]  I think Lars from the Modern Web server implemented it in Rollup.
+[2789.20 --> 2789.30]  Yay.
+[2789.84 --> 2796.24]  But part of the reason why I'm doing that, and this is not to say that I'm the most objective person to be doing this,
+[2796.24 --> 2803.22]  but I'm hoping that I can go and sort of do the survey, write the doc that kind of gives the lay of the land, publish that,
+[2803.34 --> 2810.92]  and then whether or not WMR is the right implementation from which to derive the common implementation,
+[2810.92 --> 2819.22]  I will have kind of one place that summarizes all of the current implementations.
+[2819.22 --> 2829.06]  I think the difficulty is always with the thing you said, which is like, okay, Export Maps is an easy one because that's a spec.
+[2829.22 --> 2830.50]  It's something that Node put there.
+[2830.68 --> 2834.92]  So obviously there's value in a shared implementation of a spec in a reference implementation, essentially.
+[2834.92 --> 2842.08]  And bundlers aren't necessarily able to use Node's implementation because it is not independent of Node,
+[2842.18 --> 2844.10]  so it's not technically a pure reference implementation.
+[2845.22 --> 2847.20]  And that's not to disparage it, but it's just...
+[2847.20 --> 2847.54]  Factual.
+[2847.54 --> 2848.60]  It fits their need.
+[2848.84 --> 2848.98]  Right.
+[2848.98 --> 2849.06]  Right.
+[2850.26 --> 2852.86]  The other things are hairier.
+[2853.04 --> 2857.62]  So we wrote that custom AST transformer that is largely Babel compatible.
+[2858.02 --> 2859.04]  What do we do with that?
+[2859.24 --> 2859.32]  Right?
+[2859.36 --> 2860.70]  Like, is that a WMR thing?
+[2860.80 --> 2866.36]  We literally built it to optimize WMR's performance while still supporting Babel plugins.
+[2866.48 --> 2872.40]  But like, does the community need a sort of potentially lighter weight Babel alternative?
+[2873.20 --> 2874.42]  Not sure about that, right?
+[2874.42 --> 2880.24]  My default answer would be no, that's actually something we don't need or potentially don't want.
+[2881.02 --> 2882.22]  Yeah, that gets tricky.
+[2882.56 --> 2884.48]  And all these things were also written in JavaScript.
+[2884.80 --> 2889.34]  And right now there's that whole move towards like, okay, could we use a faster language?
+[2889.78 --> 2897.72]  We even have an experimental PR from a while back that uses ESBuild for JS transformations and minification, which was very fast.
+[2898.72 --> 2900.08]  Which is a Go tool, right?
+[2900.26 --> 2901.26]  Yeah, it's written in Go.
+[2901.52 --> 2903.46]  It has a great JavaScript interface.
+[2903.46 --> 2905.46]  We used it prior to it being pluggable.
+[2905.72 --> 2913.96]  But for our need, because we use Terser for minification and we use this custom Babel-y thing for transformation, it does both of those things.
+[2913.96 --> 2916.58]  And it does them faster than both of those things by a lot.
+[2917.78 --> 2918.80]  So I think there's potential there.
+[2918.96 --> 2920.46]  But we didn't want to...
+[2921.04 --> 2925.90]  This is actually the reason why WMR wasn't published as WMR and 16 packages that power WMR.
+[2925.90 --> 2929.14]  There's lots of packages in there that are independent and publishable.
+[2929.76 --> 2937.54]  But where the rationale or the logic for why we would publish those things as independent is not clear.
+[2937.90 --> 2939.82]  Or we already know that we don't want to.
+[2940.38 --> 2947.72]  So some of the stuff that's in there is stopgaps while we wait for the ecosystem to settle so that we can use someone else's thing.
+[2948.28 --> 2948.50]  Gotcha.
+[2948.50 --> 2950.28]  Yeah, I don't have a clear answer on that.
+[2950.34 --> 2951.36]  Not a clear answer.
+[2951.52 --> 2953.24]  That's a difficult decision.
+[2953.48 --> 2954.72]  And like you said, it's a distributed problem.
+[2954.78 --> 2957.12]  So it's not as if you just get to decide that, right?
+[2957.18 --> 2962.66]  Like everybody collaborates or doesn't and they make their decisions and this team makes that decision.
+[2962.82 --> 2964.72]  And sometimes it's the right, sometimes it's the wrong.
+[2964.72 --> 2969.06]  And it's just an interesting, I think, mind space to consider those things.
+[2969.20 --> 2969.98]  But that's meta.
+[2970.08 --> 2972.18]  Bringing it back down to kind of ground floor here.
+[2972.96 --> 2975.82]  For somebody who's just like, oh, WMR looks cool.
+[2976.06 --> 2977.90]  I really like how you don't even have to...
+[2977.90 --> 2979.90]  Like I was actually playing with it as well with Nick.
+[2979.94 --> 2984.14]  And I was like, I haven't seen this NPM init thing where like I didn't even...
+[2984.14 --> 2985.64]  I expect to like install dash G.
+[2985.64 --> 2986.72]  That's for some reason I'd use it too.
+[2986.92 --> 2987.20]  Yeah.
+[2987.42 --> 2989.76]  I don't even like just to put an emphasis on it.
+[2989.80 --> 2992.68]  You don't like NPM install dash G WMR at all.
+[2992.68 --> 2999.18]  Like you just init a new project, NPM init WMR and then your project name and it just is done.
+[2999.36 --> 3000.94]  And even the project name is optional.
+[3001.16 --> 3005.48]  If you run NPM init WMR in a directory, we'll make the directory a WMR app.
+[3006.12 --> 3008.16]  So cool stuff like that is what gets people excited.
+[3008.24 --> 3008.56]  Go ahead, Nick.
+[3008.76 --> 3013.28]  I was going to say when I ran it and then CD'd into the directory, it ran so fast.
+[3013.36 --> 3015.58]  So I ran NPM install just assuming I had to do that.
+[3016.16 --> 3019.32]  Then I looked in the node modules directory and there was like nothing there.
+[3019.34 --> 3019.84]  It was great.
+[3020.02 --> 3020.28]  Right.
+[3020.28 --> 3025.28]  So lots of cool stuff like ground floor for people who are like, this is a pretty neat tool.
+[3026.20 --> 3027.84]  What else is cool about it?
+[3027.86 --> 3031.88]  And I guess before you answer that, it gives its breadth, right?
+[3031.92 --> 3033.50]  So it says from development to production.
+[3033.70 --> 3034.66]  So there's the breadth of the tool.
+[3034.76 --> 3038.52]  Like you're going to use this to dev, but you're also going to deploy production apps with this,
+[3038.60 --> 3040.04]  but it doesn't give the scale.
+[3041.02 --> 3042.12]  You've mentioned prototypes.
+[3042.42 --> 3043.92]  You've mentioned like hackathons.
+[3043.92 --> 3051.34]  If I'm reaching for a tool tomorrow to build a modern web app, like what kind of web app would I use WMR?
+[3051.48 --> 3053.98]  And maybe where does it stop scaling or does it stop the scaling?
+[3054.08 --> 3055.28]  Is there a complexity?
+[3055.72 --> 3059.60]  Like if I'm building a modern Gmail, would I maybe reach for something?
+[3059.68 --> 3061.90]  I'm building a modern Gmail right now with WMR.
+[3062.10 --> 3062.48]  You are?
+[3062.48 --> 3063.92]  That's hilarious.
+[3064.88 --> 3065.02]  Yeah.
+[3065.14 --> 3065.38]  Okay.
+[3065.52 --> 3073.16]  So nothing to do with my employer, but it's just like I, what I want is something that is not just a mail client because I'm sick of just a mail client.
+[3073.16 --> 3073.44]  Yeah.
+[3073.44 --> 3081.40]  I want a work client that has all of my tasks and my calendar and my emails and to-dos and does time-based notifications and stuff like that.
+[3081.40 --> 3084.70]  So maybe that answers the scale question, like, but WMR is your tool.
+[3084.84 --> 3089.46]  So of course you're going to use your own tool, but if I'm not you and I'm, is there a scale problem or not?
+[3089.52 --> 3096.26]  Like, is it just, it's, it's smooth for prototypes, but you could build a complex multifaceted web app with this thing.
+[3097.00 --> 3098.76]  So there's, there's two halves to this.
+[3098.82 --> 3100.70]  The first is it's new.
+[3101.20 --> 3106.52]  And so, you know, like with every new tool, there's obviously always going to be warts.
+[3106.52 --> 3117.22]  I don't know whether me not running into them is more because I know what the warts are, or maybe it's the other half, which is that I don't tend to be the person using the legacy packages.
+[3117.98 --> 3120.40]  I, I mostly write my software.
+[3120.54 --> 3134.20]  I don't install a lot of it with the exception of like UI toolkits, which was always the big challenge with WMR that we had to overcome because they're big and early and they use weird, weird package semantics that aren't always correct.
+[3134.20 --> 3137.18]  But they, those work in WMR at least.
+[3137.58 --> 3144.32]  The other piece is the actual physical scaling of the development time approach of shipping ES modules.
+[3144.58 --> 3150.90]  There have been some maybe not super scientific kind of experiments.
+[3151.44 --> 3156.46]  And right now the answers we have are whatever the opposite of definitive is.
+[3156.46 --> 3169.08]  It's just, we know that if you ship, you know, 10,000 individual ES modules, especially if you're using HTTP one, that's going to be somewhat slow.
+[3169.08 --> 3178.80]  And I'm actually in a, in a unique position where I am building WMR on one hand with the Preact team and we're relying on that.
+[3178.80 --> 3186.36]  But then also I'm talking to the Chrome and V8 teams on the other side who are investigating module streaming performance.
+[3186.36 --> 3193.58]  And so we're actually using this and things that look like this in benchmarks right now.
+[3193.88 --> 3193.98]  Gotcha.
+[3194.16 --> 3200.30]  So there's a, there's a bit of a cart and horse situation there from the performance standpoint for scaling up many thousands of modules.
+[3200.30 --> 3215.52]  But even today for fairly large size projects, the way that this constraint ends up working is that your NPM dependencies actually don't scale one-to-one with the number of files on disk because we, we do compile those with rollup.
+[3215.52 --> 3220.20]  And so like in a typical project, you'll kind of, you'll add a bunch of dependencies to your project.
+[3220.36 --> 3222.32]  And then at a certain point, it mostly plateaus, right?
+[3222.32 --> 3226.24]  Like you're not constantly re-adding new dependencies from NPM as you work.
+[3226.48 --> 3231.42]  You kind of end up with like your framework-y substrate and then a couple of random things that get added over time.
+[3232.06 --> 3234.04]  But that number doesn't grow super fast.
+[3234.38 --> 3237.06]  And those all get cached in the HTTP cache and on disk.
+[3237.26 --> 3238.50]  So they're relatively fast.
+[3239.02 --> 3243.72]  And then the number that does change relative to your files on disk is your source files.
+[3243.72 --> 3246.60]  So that's kind of the thing that you would want to keep in mind.
+[3246.86 --> 3254.08]  I don't know that today I would necessarily jump to using WMR on a project that has 2000 source files.
+[3255.64 --> 3259.02]  I don't have any reason not to suggest doing that.
+[3259.46 --> 3260.02]  Just don't know.
+[3261.18 --> 3261.60]  Yeah, exactly.
+[3261.70 --> 3265.68]  But like that would be the scaling characteristics that I would, that I would be concerned about.
+[3265.74 --> 3265.90]  Right.
+[3266.60 --> 3268.86]  Not concerned from like, should I do this standpoint?
+[3268.98 --> 3271.40]  But like how long is this going to take during development standpoint?
+[3271.40 --> 3278.78]  And like hot module reloading helps with that because that's, now you're only talking about the first load that might be waiting to stream modules to disk.
+[3278.94 --> 3284.00]  And this all changes as the semantics of browser module streaming parsing change.
+[3284.34 --> 3285.34]  But that's the main one.
+[3285.52 --> 3289.34]  The other side of the coin, which is what about production?
+[3289.74 --> 3289.86]  Yeah.
+[3289.86 --> 3297.26]  I don't think I'm like overstating WMR's abilities.
+[3297.96 --> 3302.26]  I don't think it would be overstating WMR's abilities to say that it is fairly solid.
+[3302.52 --> 3308.38]  Because in production, WMR is just a fairly sane rollup config.
+[3309.10 --> 3313.70]  Like it's, you know, it's not, we're actually, we don't hit the custom code pathways.
+[3313.80 --> 3315.42]  We're not running through our own plugin runner.
+[3315.42 --> 3316.74]  We're not doing those things.
+[3317.24 --> 3319.96]  It's pretty similar to a standard rollup config.
+[3320.12 --> 3322.60]  We use our node modules resolution.
+[3323.48 --> 3327.58]  But we actually do that so that it's never going to be different in production than it was in development.
+[3327.58 --> 3328.62]  Because that would be very awful.
+[3329.76 --> 3331.82]  And, you know, some similar things for transpiling.
+[3331.96 --> 3335.72]  Like we use the custom transpiler, again, because we don't want it to be different.
+[3336.26 --> 3339.36]  But then when we go to minify, like we minify with Terser, standard tool.
+[3339.60 --> 3341.08]  We bundle with rollup, standard tool.
+[3341.08 --> 3346.48]  By default, the browser support for WMR is modern browsers, you know, question mark.
+[3346.94 --> 3349.94]  Essentially Edge 16 plus stuff that supports script type module.
+[3350.34 --> 3356.12]  But there is a one file plugin that runs those bundles through Babel.
+[3356.30 --> 3358.92]  And so now they, and creates copies of them.
+[3358.96 --> 3363.54]  So now you have their modern files certify a script type module to 95% of browsers.
+[3363.54 --> 3373.06]  And then it creates a second set of files that it automatically injects script no module tags for and serves to legacy browsers and polyfills them.
+[3373.58 --> 3380.44]  So in terms of the, you know, the production output quality, the production output, like what has been taken into consideration.
+[3380.44 --> 3386.22]  There's not really a consequential difference between what WMR can produce and what other tools can produce.
+[3386.56 --> 3386.58]  Yeah.
+[3386.76 --> 3391.48]  Really, honestly, the main thing to point out is just the production output is rollup based.
+[3391.96 --> 3396.36]  And rollup, it is the gold standard for production output at this point.
+[3396.48 --> 3397.66]  It's not the default.
+[3398.38 --> 3399.52]  And so that's always something to consider.
+[3399.62 --> 3405.44]  It's like usually this for people would mean moving away from a webpack configuration and onto a rollup one.
+[3405.44 --> 3408.58]  But I think there's lots of reasons why one might consider doing that.
+[3408.86 --> 3411.46]  So that's something to kind of consider.
+[3412.16 --> 3421.28]  Another aspect of scale in terms of app complexity, which I think also affects the production story, is not just module count or that kind of complexity.
+[3421.66 --> 3426.86]  But as soon as you start to want to do like maybe custom server responses.
+[3427.56 --> 3431.30]  I know there's like a plugin interface for middlewares and stuff.
+[3431.36 --> 3432.08]  So you can proxy.
+[3432.36 --> 3433.76]  You can add some headers.
+[3433.76 --> 3440.76]  Surely you can shoot yourself at that point once you start to extend it to like return arbitrary responses based on logic.
+[3440.88 --> 3445.64]  Now you're basically running a dynamic web server and you can, of course, have production issues there, right?
+[3446.32 --> 3447.28]  Yeah, that's a good point.
+[3447.50 --> 3453.50]  And so I don't think we've properly put verbiage around this in the readme and in some of our stuff.
+[3453.66 --> 3457.28]  But in the launch announcement and in the couple of videos I did, we want to be clear.
+[3457.28 --> 3460.80]  Like WMR serve, like our production style server.
+[3461.18 --> 3467.96]  We did not build that as a suggestion that you should use that to serve your application in production.
+[3468.28 --> 3469.42]  I wouldn't do that.
+[3469.42 --> 3478.44]  Because like at the end of the day, the best outcome is it's the POCA module and the serve module, both by Luke Edwards, which are great modules.
+[3478.44 --> 3480.20]  But that's all it's doing.
+[3480.36 --> 3482.44]  Like it's, you know, it's that and then an HTTP2 server.
+[3482.66 --> 3486.14]  And really in production, you shouldn't be serving HTTP2 from Node.
+[3486.16 --> 3487.52]  You should be serving it from your CDN.
+[3487.96 --> 3491.20]  And at that point, why serve your files from Node in the first place?
+[3491.32 --> 3495.78]  Deploy them to a CDN, you know, deploy them to Netlify, to Cloudflare.
+[3496.04 --> 3498.56]  Now they've got pages or Firebase, wherever.
+[3498.56 --> 3508.76]  However, the prod server that we bundled, its goal was to give you a very accurate local representation of what prod would be like.
+[3509.50 --> 3512.66]  That's actually why we have the middleware support so you can add proxies and stuff.
+[3512.90 --> 3515.44]  It's because in production, you might have that set up.
+[3515.72 --> 3518.92]  But I don't think it would make sense to do that through WMR.
+[3519.20 --> 3524.12]  We're the development and bundling side of things and we'll get you to production, but we aren't production.
+[3524.12 --> 3524.48]  Right.
+[3524.58 --> 3528.28]  Like it produces production assets, but it is not your production server.
+[3529.32 --> 3532.54]  Yeah, and that's actually a dividing line that I think we could make clearer.
+[3533.10 --> 3534.58]  And you had mentioned Next.js early on.
+[3534.66 --> 3536.56]  Next.js, it is a server.
+[3536.88 --> 3539.36]  It is a runtime that your application runs in.
+[3539.76 --> 3543.82]  WMR, really, we have no intention of being that.
+[3543.92 --> 3550.16]  There was an SSR plugin that I built, more as like an experiment to see, could you do it?
+[3551.12 --> 3556.32]  But even then, I think if we ever actually formalized going down that road,
+[3556.32 --> 3563.96]  it would still be, we will generate a server as a JS file that you're going to go and host yourself.
+[3563.96 --> 3564.16]  Right.
+[3564.20 --> 3567.54]  And it'll, or it'll be like a piece of middleware that you're going to mount into your own node
+[3567.54 --> 3569.92]  server because WMR is not a stack.
+[3570.08 --> 3571.32]  That's kind of the dividing line.
+[3571.32 --> 3575.44]  That's a good distinction from an outsider reading the readme and checking it out.
+[3575.70 --> 3577.96]  And like I said, is it, is it like a Next.js?
+[3578.08 --> 3581.96]  Because I'm trying to figure out like, is this going to host a hybrid application or not?
+[3582.44 --> 3584.00]  I mean, it can, obviously it could.
+[3584.20 --> 3584.58]  It can, yeah.
+[3584.58 --> 3586.08]  But does it want to be that?
+[3586.42 --> 3588.88]  And I think the answer to that sounds like no, it doesn't really want to be that.
+[3588.88 --> 3589.00]  No.
+[3589.14 --> 3593.54]  And to the point where like, I think in order to do that, we would end up having to compromise
+[3593.54 --> 3595.62]  on being good at generating static apps.
+[3596.18 --> 3600.96]  And if there was a need there, I would rather have it be a separate tool or, or like a tool
+[3600.96 --> 3602.92]  that uses WMR for bundling, but that's it.
+[3603.12 --> 3607.88]  And like, there's a bunch of folks right now who are trying out wiring up Eleventy, the
+[3607.88 --> 3613.54]  static site generator, and then just using WMR as the front end thing.
+[3613.54 --> 3617.90]  So like you can have Eleventy with a script type module tag that just points at WMR or
+[3617.90 --> 3620.64]  even use WMR's middleware thing to proxy to Eleventy.
+[3621.18 --> 3625.22]  But then when you do like a production build, you're just saying, hey, WMR, give me your
+[3625.22 --> 3625.58]  assets.
+[3625.84 --> 3626.06]  Okay.
+[3626.42 --> 3627.60]  Those are in Eleventy now.
+[3627.86 --> 3629.24]  Eleventy is ultimately the stack.
+[3629.80 --> 3632.74]  And to me, that just fits a lot better with the model.
+[3633.20 --> 3635.64]  It's generative, not runtime.
+[3636.00 --> 3636.10]  Gotcha.
+[3636.76 --> 3637.32]  Anything, Nick?
+[3637.80 --> 3639.06]  No, that sounds really interesting.
+[3639.06 --> 3644.84]  I like that's kind of a use case I was thinking of is using WMR with Eleventy kind of just
+[3644.84 --> 3649.96]  as like a side project fun idea and a way to get to use this a little bit more.
+[3650.40 --> 3651.66]  It does seem like a good fit.
+[3652.24 --> 3657.24]  But especially like, because we have that thing where we start from HTML files and in
+[3657.24 --> 3659.44]  development, we don't even look at the HTML file.
+[3659.52 --> 3662.20]  It's just that first script tag request when it comes into the HP server.
+[3662.30 --> 3662.86]  We deal with that.
+[3663.10 --> 3664.40]  It lends itself quite well.
+[3664.40 --> 3669.12]  You would get hot module replacement in Eleventy, which is normally a pain in the ass to set
+[3669.12 --> 3669.34]  up.
+[3669.72 --> 3669.82]  Yeah.
+[3670.28 --> 3671.04]  That'd be really cool.
+[3671.54 --> 3678.86]  And then the other piece there is there are folks, myself included, who, if you're not
+[3678.86 --> 3684.06]  currently using Eleventy or let's say you're building a website that isn't strictly content,
+[3684.54 --> 3689.04]  you might want to have page-based routing, kind of in a Next.js style.
+[3689.84 --> 3691.68]  And so we have plugins and recipes now.
+[3691.68 --> 3695.54]  So it actually, it basically just comes, there's a plugin that lets you import a directory
+[3695.54 --> 3698.10]  that returns the files in the directory as an array.
+[3698.52 --> 3701.08]  And you could actually build a whole static site generator on top of that.
+[3701.18 --> 3703.74]  So we've got demos now showing how to do that.
+[3703.86 --> 3707.44]  But like WMR is actually lower level than any of those things.
+[3707.44 --> 3710.26]  It's more like if you want to do that, you can.
+[3710.52 --> 3713.64]  It's fully supported, but we're not telling you like, this is what it's for.
+[3713.64 --> 3719.16]  Well, the project can be found at github.com slash preact.js slash WMR.
+[3719.34 --> 3722.76]  Or hey, just hop into your terminal and type npm init WMR.
+[3723.18 --> 3725.14]  And you can even leave off to your project name.
+[3725.22 --> 3728.14]  It'll just take your current directory and turn it into something cool.
+[3728.24 --> 3730.04]  Just be aware that it will blow up your directory.
+[3730.90 --> 3732.30]  And that's not like a WMR thing.
+[3732.44 --> 3733.46]  Yeah, just go ahead and run that.
+[3733.60 --> 3733.94]  I've done that twice now.
+[3734.00 --> 3735.32]  Go ahead and run that in your home directory.
+[3735.48 --> 3736.46]  Everything will be just fine.
+[3736.46 --> 3740.18]  And Jason Miller, thanks so much for joining us.
+[3740.48 --> 3742.26]  You can find Jason online.
+[3742.52 --> 3746.60]  He's at developer at underscore develop it, depending on the context.
+[3747.32 --> 3748.88]  What's the best way to reach you, Jason?
+[3749.00 --> 3750.04]  Twitter the best?
+[3750.24 --> 3750.40]  GitHub?
+[3750.84 --> 3751.50]  Yeah, Twitter's fine.
+[3751.94 --> 3752.30]  All right.
+[3752.36 --> 3753.82]  So links to Jason in the show notes.
+[3753.94 --> 3755.28]  Links to WMR.
+[3755.44 --> 3759.16]  All the things discussed on this episode, of course, are right there in your show notes
+[3759.16 --> 3759.94]  for easy clickings.
+[3760.02 --> 3762.68]  Nick, thanks for hanging out for our first episode back.
+[3763.22 --> 3766.30]  Jason, thanks for joining us and for really putting so much work
+[3766.30 --> 3767.44]  into these cool new tools.
+[3767.70 --> 3770.96]  I mean, I love not having to write cool new tools,
+[3771.08 --> 3775.20]  but getting to just use these cool new tools and criticize them and enjoy them.
+[3775.26 --> 3779.72]  And so we appreciate all the effort you are putting into pushing the web forward for all of us.
+[3780.46 --> 3781.42]  That's our show.
+[3781.60 --> 3782.60]  Talk to you again next week.
+[3785.86 --> 3788.22]  If you're a first time listener, stick around.
+[3788.22 --> 3794.50]  Why don't you subscribe now at jsparty.fm or search for JSParty in your favorite podcast app.
+[3794.74 --> 3795.44]  You'll find us.
+[3796.24 --> 3798.40]  Oh, and while you're there, maybe leave us a nice review.
+[3798.84 --> 3799.40]  We love those.
+[3800.10 --> 3803.54]  Also, don't forget, we're giving away those two free tickets to test JS Summit.
+[3803.72 --> 3805.56]  Follow at jsparty.fm to enter.
+[3805.90 --> 3807.44]  We'll announce the winners real soon now.
+[3808.08 --> 3810.82]  Music for JS Party is produced by the Beat Freak, Breakmaster Cylinder,
+[3811.04 --> 3812.72]  and we're brought to you by some awesome sponsors.
+[3813.00 --> 3816.86]  Special thanks to Fastly, LaunchDarkly, and Linode for their continued support.
+[3817.26 --> 3820.64]  Next up on the pod, I sit down with the creator of Developer Roadmaps
+[3820.64 --> 3824.12]  to discuss the paths you can take to being a web developer in 2021.
+[3824.68 --> 3827.36]  That episode's hitting your podcast feed next week.
+[3827.36 --> 3827.86]  Music.
+[3827.86 --> 3828.36]  Music.
+[3829.30 --> 3829.86]  Music.
+[3829.86 --> 3830.44]  Music.
+[3830.44 --> 3831.36]  Music.
+[3831.36 --> 3831.94]  Music.
+[3831.94 --> 3833.50]  Music.
+[3833.50 --> 3834.44]  Music.
+[3834.44 --> 3835.32]  Music.
+[3835.32 --> 3835.94]  Music.
+[3835.94 --> 3836.54]  Music.
+[3836.54 --> 3837.48]  Music.
+[3837.48 --> 3838.38]  Music.
+[3838.38 --> 3839.30]  Music.
+[3839.30 --> 3839.48]  Music.
+[3839.48 --> 3840.38]  Music.
+[3840.38 --> 3841.44]  Music.
+[3841.44 --> 3842.26]  Music.
+[3843.02 --> 3843.50]  Music.
+[3843.50 --> 3843.78]  Music.
+[3843.78 --> 3845.02]  What I mean is this
+[3845.02 --> 3845.92]  250?
+[3845.92 --> 3846.88]  Music.
+[3847.06 --> 3847.42]  Music.
+[3847.66 --> 3848.96]  Music.
+[3853.06 --> 3853.46]  Music.
diff --git a/We ask a lawyer about GitHub Copilot_transcript.txt b/We ask a lawyer about GitHub Copilot_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..814b1ea16b8532a86c937381c0921cb5aba36e61
--- /dev/null
+++ b/We ask a lawyer about GitHub Copilot_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,281 @@
+**Nick Nisi:** Hello, and welcome to JS Party. I'm your host this week, Nick Nisi, hoy-hoy, and with me is Chris aka. b0neskull. b0neskull, what's up?!
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** What's up, Nick?! Yaay!
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, welcome to the show! Very excited about our topic today, and on that note, I wanna introduce our special guest, and that is Luis Villa. Luis, how is it going?
+
+**Luis Villa:** It's going pretty well. I mean, I'm really excited. Chris is just clearly so excited to talk to a lawyer... I'm just always really glad when I see that enthusiasm.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\] Oh, yeah. Definitely.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** It's infectious, isn't it?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Luis Villa:** Are we allowed to say it's infections now? It seems like that's one of those words that 2020 has ruined for us.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I didn't even think of that until you brought it up... On my side, I think so. \[laughs\] So Luis, tell us a little bit about yourself.
+
+**Luis Villa:** I'm a former programmer, I got a CS degree in the last millennium, and worked in open source for a while. I got involved in open source while I was in college... Actually, originally hacking on the LEGO Mindstorms, the very first generation of LEGO Mindstorms...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Oh, yeah.
+
+**Luis Villa:** And also just as a Linux user... This idea that people were building an entire operating system together on the internet was like... But I was also a political science major, so I was very interested in this overlap of politics and power and computing. It started off as just like -- I was interested in politics and I was interested in computers, and I really thought those two weren't related, and then by the end of the '90s it was like "Oh yeah, actually they're certainly super-related."
+
+I worked at a startup called Ximian, which worked on the Linux desktop... And basically then after that, I was like "Actually, law school sounds like it would be fun." Pro tip, kids - law school, not fun.
+
+\[04:09\] And since then I've worked at a series of Mozilla as an attorney, where I worked on the Mozilla public license, revisioned version 2.0. I worked at a big law firm for a while, working among other things on the Google/Oracle lawsuit for Google... Where fair use came up quite a bit, which is something we'll talk about today.
+
+Then I worked at the WikiMedia Foundation, and now I'm the co-founder of a startup called Tidelift, where we are trying to make open source better for everyone by helping build a sort of economic and payment loop so that maintainers get paid to do all the sort of not-fun parts of maintenance... They're not fun, but they're really important for businesses and enterprises, so we're trying to close that loop for the businesses.
+
+But yeah, I'm a copyright nerd at heart, and so I think that's sort why I'm here today.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That's awesome. This kind of ties into a meeting I had just before this, where I was talking to our interns... And really talking about how so much of the software that we use and so many of the big companies that we see and work with and use their products are built on all of this open source software... And it's really hard out there for open source developers, and I was kind of evangelizing that... So it's really exciting that you're working on making the lives of open source developers so much easier, so thank you for that.
+
+We're not here to talk about open source too much today... Specifically, we wanna talk about Copilot and kind of get into that. b0neskull, do you wanna maybe explain what Copilot is and kind of get us going with that?
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Yeah, so if you're not aware of what it is, essentially it's kind of like an AI-assisted autocomplete on steroids, or something like that... And your IDE may have autocomplete suggestions of like "This is the name of the function" and then you hit Tab to complete it. But it's a lot more than that. It does AI things to try to give you more code. If you write a comment that says "This function does that", it can try to write the function for you. It's good at automatically completing boilerplate.
+
+Right now, GitHub Copilot is in a -- is it called a closed beta? I'm not sure. You have to sign up and maybe they'll let you in... So yeah, it's not generally available yet.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. To that note, when you sign up, which I did on the first day, through that process they ask you -- because right now it's only available as a VS Code extension...
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Right.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And they ask you about your Visual Studio Code usage... And I answered as honest as I could, which is "I never open that app." So I don't have an invite... Luis, are you in that?
+
+**Luis Villa:** So I do have an invite... I think it's fair to disclaim here - I mentioned that my first job out of college was at Ximian... Those of you who are real old-school open source will know that Ximian was founded by Nat Friedman, who's the CEO of GitHub... So I may have gotten my invite a back way... I didn't get one at first because my IDE these days is Word mostly, which is a Microsoft product that's not VS Code... So I admit, I got an invite purely because I wanted to troll people on Twitter by trying to see if I could get VS Code to write a license... But I admit, time has not been on my side, so I haven't done that project yet. So yeah, the backdoor was there for me. Nat and I haven't talked about this much, but I felt like that was a sort of appropriate thing to lean on him for.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Luis Villa:** \[07:49\] I mean, I think it's fascinating... There's both the lawyer side of me -- but I do wanna say, boy, simply as an example of like... Some of the examples of code coming out of it are simultaneously amazing, and also very much occasionally the "Boy, the robots are not coming for us any time soon", right? I saw somebody used it to auto-generate a function about calendars, and it was like "Oh yeah, months are 30 days long and years are 365 days long", and apparently no one's trained it on like -- you know, that blog post "Falsehoods programmers believe about time" or believe about dates, or whatever... Like, nobody's trained it on that yet. Or maybe it's just not heavily weighted enough. But you know, it simply is a technical matter.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Right. It will generate code, but that code is not necessarily correct.
+
+**Luis Villa:** You've gotta double-check.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Mm-hm....
+
+**Luis Villa:** Though I have seen some amazing examples of it really filling in some -- and it was one of those things... One of the things, you know, with my business hat on - I think there's these really fascinating questions about where it goes from here... Because I assume - again, I haven't talked to anybody at GitHub about this, but this is the kind of thing that once you get it in place, the ways you can leverage it are really interesting... Like, how does it know about third-party APIs? Because it could, right? Right now it only knows about -- as best from what I've seen on the internet of people playing with it, it seems to know about third-party API's just by reading other people's source code...
+
+But you could see -- I bet GitHub's partnerships team is thinking "How can we integrate this intelligently with third-party APIs?" Or security, for example - this is showing my age, programmer-wise - my experience of security issues, I'm thinking purely about C-based string parsing kind of stuff, instead of, you know, I guess with Java it's like cross-site stuff, and things like that. But from the examples I've seen online, it seems like the AI is still -- if there are a lot of bad code examples in the codebase, which  after awhile there are, it's gonna replicate some of those security fails... And what are they doing to train it to avoid some of those security fails I don't know, but I think that's gonna be really interesting... Again, with my nerd hat on as opposed to my lawyer hat on. We can get to the lawyer bits in a second, but I just think that's really cool.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Yeah, right now it's just like -- I mean, it's pretty smart, but it's not that smart. And it just outputs things, it doesn't -- maybe in the future it will be cool if something like that could just look at your code and be like "Um, you know what? This is wrong." And it would look at what you're trying to do and it would compare it against known good implementations of that thing you're trying to do, and it will alert you to problems. That would be cool, too. So there's a lot of places it could go in the future, and that's going to be interesting.
+
+So we've kind of explained what it does, and then a little bit of what it doesn't really do. It's still operating, its training set is just source code, it uses GPT-3, I believe...
+
+**Luis Villa:** Yeah, OpenAI, whatever is behind the scenes for them.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Right. So it's just dealing with a lot of techs. But - so when Copilot came out and people started playing with it, and then on Twitter you see that you can give it certain prompts and it will actually generate code that may have been -- I mean, it's kind of obvious that it's getting the code that it's writing from GitHub. So that's anything on GitHub. So a lot of people were kind of upset about this... So Luis, why do you think people were upset about it?
+
+**Luis Villa:** Boy, that's actually a deceptively complicated question, because there's so many layers of -- you know, people are upset for very business reasons... Like, what if this code that's created is accidentally copyright-infringing for my company.
+
+\[12:11\] I've heard -- maybe they're apocryphal by now, but I've definitely heard at least some CTOs, VPEs saying "Can't use this in our company's codebase until there's a little more legal clarity." So that's one reason people are a little angry. I think there's some sense that maybe GitHub was being a little sloppy about that... So that's one source of concern. Another source of concern is simply just the emotional -- you know, authors feel ownership over their code. That's very deeply-felt for a lot of people; certainly not for everybody, but for a lot of people, for a lot of authors, and that's not unique to code. It happens for authors of books and music as well... So we've seen some of the same kind of emotional reaction to -- like, some people who get sampled, some musicians who get sampled, they're like "Oh, this is so awesome! My music is being reused." You know, Nine Inch Nails - their stuff got reused by... I've never actually said this out loud, so I may mispronounce it - Lil Nas X. His stuff sampled from an old Nine Inch Nails track, and Nine Inch Nails was like "Cool! I finally have a number one hit." Whereas a lot of other musicians that get sampled are taking it to court, literally.
+
+So there's that emotional component... And of course, there's this added component of some people placed their code under licenses that are explicitly reciprocal. The idea is that if you use part of my code, you've also gotta share with the world your code. The common name for those is copyleft, though I think reciprocal in this case really captures something important that copyleft doesn't necessarily convey... The idea is that they're supposed to be sharing and sharking-alike, and so a lot of people who deliberately chose to put their code under that license were pretty frustrated about that. So all those things sort of layered on top of each other to produce some pretty negative responses.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. Stepping back before we dig more into the legal side of it, I just wanted to disclaim that I haven't used it yet. I have used a similar tool, I think, called Tabnine, which was kind of doing a similar AI completion thing... But I don't think it was completing full functions, it was more like "Oh, I see you're naming a variable like this. This is a very common variable name", or something, and it would autocomplete it. I ended up turning it off because it was more noisy than helpful often... But I'm sure it's growing and getting better, and all of that.
+
+But from an outsider's perspective looking at it, there are definitely good and bad that I've seen from it. When I first saw it, it was like "Whoa, this is just amazing", and not necessarily thinking it's gonna take my job tomorrow or anything like that, but it was like "Wow, this could really help... If I'm staring at a blank file, how can I get going with something." It seemed like a very good way to just kind of get something on the canvas, so to speak, to get going... And whether or not it's correct - you can kind of tweak it from there and it'll learn and get better over time.
+
+It was also impressive that it didn't go the route of some other AI stuff that's come out over the years, like Microsoft Tay is coming to mind. It's good that it's not just immediately going that route, with very racist code, or something like that... But it's so far been pretty positive. And then at the same time, I've seen really (I'll just say) dumb examples of it, where somebody autocompleted an About Me page, and it autocompleted to the About Me including the Twitter handles of a GitHub employee, and stuff like that. So it's showing that it's literally just copy-paste at that point. But it is kind of in an intelligent way, so it's straddling this line of really simple and really complicated and really impressive that I think is an interesting place to be... But of course, this is the early days, so it's gonna continue learning and going from there.
+
+**Luis Villa:** \[16:04\] You know, Nick, something that I was realizing as I was preparing to talk to you guys today... Actually, a lot of the -- I mean, even before, because there were a few other things like Tabnine... There's also just been IDE autocomplete for a long time, of various sorts. Like, it knows what kind of codebase you're working in... And it's one thing when it autcompletes -- I mean, we've had our brackets get matched automatically for ages in Emacs, right? But there's also been more sophisticated stuff that will read documentation, and try to guess structures of objects, and things like that... And that actually implicates some of the same copyright concerns. Because at the end of the day -- I mean, we literally did have a huge fight that took the better part of a decade and cost hundreds of millions of dollars of attorney's fees on whether or not API function names essentially, and function declarations, are those copyrightable?
+
+And one of the things that I think that's an interesting "careful what you wish for" kind of thing here is - if a lot of this code is copyrightable and fair use doesn't apply, it's not entirely clear that even those simple, like "I'm gonna autocomplete the function name from the standard library...", like, some of the same arguments that Oracle used apply there, right? And it's actually been sort of interesting, and honestly a little frustrating for me - some of the same people who came out strongly in favor of fair use when it was Google saying "Yeah, reimplementation should be fair use." Basically, when it was Oracle's stuff getting copied, everybody was like "Hell yeah! Copying is awesome!" And now when it's GPL stuff -- like, I get the emotional valence there, but from a lawyer perspective, GPL is a copyright license, and Oracle's grungy, terrible, every-lawyer-hates-it terms of service or standard EULA around their code, copyright perspective - those are both copyright licenses. Courts aren't in the business of saying "Oh yes, but we really like Richard Stallman and we don't like Larry Ellison, so therefore one of these is fair use and the other isn't."
+
+There's been to me some sort of frustrating inconsistency about people who until a month ago were big fair use proponents... We can get into the nuances of that, because it is really complicated; the question of fair use in machine learning is in fact a really complicated one, and anyone who tells you that it's black and white - like, courts don't know what machine learning is... So the idea that you can say "Oh yeah, this is definitely fair use" or "Definitely not fair use" - there's so much grey area in there... We could go on about that for hours, but I'll pause and let you guys get in another question edge-wise.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Let's actually break right there, and we'll come back after the break and talk about that. Yeah, it's potentially terrifying, just thinking about how the technical aptitude of a court could potentially decide the faith of software... That's terrifying.
+
+**Break**: \[19:17\]
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** So Luis, you mentioned that fair use can be a grey area around this sort of thing... Can you go into a bit more about -- I know this is a thing that continually comes up in trials, is "Is this fair use or not?" So where do you think something like copilot lands, and why?
+
+**Luis Villa:** So let me first just start, for those who aren't copyrighters in the audience - and why you'd be listening to us if you're not I'm not sure, but... We'll start with a little bit -- so fair use is this very American concept - it's not present in a lot of other legal systems around the world - that copyright should be bounded. That yeah, of course, we give authors a lot of rights, it's very explicitly in the constitution that we give them rights in order to promote the progress of the country. That's literally the phrase. There used to be a copyright blog called Promote the Progress. The idea was that this was something that you gave to authors, and in exchange, they made everybody better off.
+
+So in part because of that sort of founding intuition, first the U.S. court system, and then eventually it was transferred from the court sort of, to put it a little bit in programming terms - the court's prototyped fair use. They sort of made it up on the fly when they ran into some problems... And then the Congress sort of took those ideas that had been floating around the courts for several decades at that point - maybe even almost a hundred years at that point - and Congress sort of refactored it and said "This is how we're gonna steal a phrase from one court here, and a phrase from another court here, we're gonna put it into one refactoring, make it part of the law, and then judges will sort of go on elaborating and clarifying that."
+
+This was done in - if I'm remembering my timeline correctly - the transition of fair use into actual statutory law, written-down laws as opposed to judges sort of making this up on the fly, happened in the '50s. And so very much the examples, if you go back to what was Congress talking about, they were talking about things like teachers. So if you want to use a few minutes of a movie in a classroom to teach some point, fair use protects that. Fair use says the copyright holder can't just unilaterally block that.
+
+Another canonical example is literary criticism. If you wanna quote a paragraph of a book in order to prove a point about "This author is an asshole", then you can do that, and fair use allows you to do that. Fair use does -- Chris, to your point about "It seems like it comes up in court a lot..." The whole thing about fair use is that it is sort of "I know it when I see it." There are some guidelines, there's a four-factor test that everybody applies... But the fourth-factor is sort of like "Yeah, and whatever else we wanna throw in at the time." That's because the whole point of it is like "You know what - people may be doing something new and different and innovative with this stuff, and we don't want authors to be able to block that if we think it's a good idea." That's sort of the core of it.
+
+So we think literary criticism is a good idea, and important there to note that it's criticism, right? One of the reasons that we have this fair use established is because if copyright holders could block that kind of use, then you would only have positive reviews of books. The authors would be able to say "Yeah, I didn't really like that review. Take it down." And they'd be able to use copyright to block that.
+
+\[24:30\] And so baked in from the very beginning of fair use, one of the things is you really don't want authors to be able to just say "Yeah, I've got a bad feeling about that." Done. You want copyright to have some sort of safety valves for "This is really important." Similarly, news reporting fair use is used all the time, to be able to say "Look, here's a 10-second snippet of this politician's ad", for example. "We think that this politician's ad is misleading. Let me use this 10-second snippet to set the stage for this discussion of why this politician is misleading you."
+
+The creators of that advertisement have copyright in that 10-second snippet. They could, if copyright didn't have the escape hatch of fair use, they could use copyright to take down that news segment, because they obviously don't like that the news reporter is saying "The politician is lying to you. Here's why."
+
+So copyright originally existed for all that kind of stuff. But of course, it was written in the '50s. It literally has no concept of software, much less machine learning. So there's all this settled stuff -- like, academics don't sue over fair use very much because that stuff was all settled a hundred years ago. Whereas software - it comes up quite a bit, because in fact we have no idea. Congress has never really weighed in on this courts only way in on it once in a blue moon. A lot of the arguing in Google/Oracle over "Is this reimplementation of the API a fair use?"
+
+One of the key cases in that was Lotus v. Borland, which was about whether the dropdown menus on an x86 PC in black and green on your CRT screen - a court found that those menus were a way of operating the spreadsheet in the 1980's. So here we were, 30 years later, and we're trying to -- one of the things, Nick, you mentioned about judges, how much tech do they know... We were trying to tell them, "Well, look, the API is sort of like a menu in a spreadsheet in the 1980's... How is any reasonable person supposed to find a reason--" So yeah, tons of grey area, and that's why fair use then comes in.
+
+This question has come up a lot recently, these questions of -- we joke that you could write an entire casebook... A casebook is like a legal equivalent of a sort of intro to programming kind of thing, where you take snippets (ironically through fair use) of these cases and you say "Well, here's what a judge found about this. You budding lawyer should learn about the law by reading what the judge says about this." And we often joke that you could write an entire casebook about copyright just through the lawsuits that Google has been involved in... Because in the early 2000's they were just like "You know what - we're gonna scrape the whole web. It's gonna be great. We're gonna organize all the world's knowledge." And average people were like "Yay! Organizing the world's knowledge."
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** And scan all the books...
+
+**Luis Villa:** Scan all the books, scan all the porn... There's a whole line of cases that are about Google image search and this one porn company, who just -- the guy really just didn't like Google, or search engines in general. Perfect Ten. But there's a whole line of cases about Perfect Ten.
+
+\[28:05\] Yeah, Google Book Search - another huge one where they literally just said "We're gonna scan all the books. And if you don't like it..." And the authors didn't like it. There was a big, extensive lawsuit from a bunch of authors, and the U.S. courts eventually found "No. You know what - we understand you the authors aren't happy about this, but this is so transformative."
+
+Transformative use is a concept that is not found anywhere in the statute, but has really -- a lot of courts have found that a useful concept, starting in sort of the mid '90s. U.S. courts found this idea of like "Oh, well if it's really transforming how it was used, if it was some way that the original authors wouldn't have conceived of, didn't have a business in, and it's something really radically new and different..." And you know, the book publishers were not in the business of creating something like Google Book Search. And that's where the analogy starts getting really obvious. We as code authors - were we in the business of creating something like Copilot? The trend so far in the U.S. has been that machine learning typically is so transformative... Definitely not always, but almost always in a handful of cases the courts have really considered machine learning -- courts have tended to find it transformative fair use.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** And that typically involves the training sets then...
+
+**Luis Villa:** Yeah. The training sets are really where there's a clear copyright. Copyright is really a set of rights which includes things like the right to copy it, the right to redistribute it, the right to make reproductions... So the first step of training is this idea, like "We're gonna scan all the training set", and you are making a reproduction there, and you're making a reproduction for commercial purposes, which doesn't always matter, but sometimes matters.
+
+So yeah, you've just copied the whole thing. I mean, Google Book Search is a copy in a very literal sense of all the world's books, and at least the training set, that initial training of -- you know, presumably, OpenAI was not pinging GitHub's API for code snippets at every point during the training. Presumably, they vacuumed it all down, and then did their training on it. So a copy was made, so a copyright infringement has occurred, unless fair use defends that. And courts have generally found -- and there's some good policy reasons for this.
+
+One of my favorite papers in this area is a paper -- I'll share a link with you guys so that you can put it on the... It's a paper about how fair use is actually really important to building equitable training sets. Because we know that a lot of training sets - this is not so relevant for code, but if you're doing a training set on face and you want a racially and gender-diverse set of faces in order to do your training on, you're gonna have to use fair use, because you literally can't buy a racially-diverse training set. It just doesn't exist, because Getty and all these other photo services actually have all kinds of biases. So you're gonna have to deliberately construct, and you're gonna have to rely on fair use for that.
+
+If you rely only on things you can buy a license to, you're just introducing all sorts of biases into your training dataset. Now, of course, as we know, any of you who have followed artificial intelligence policy discussions, there's all kinds of other ways you can introduce bias... But fair use is one of the good tools, one of the few good tools we have to remedy that in the AI space more generally. Again, that hasn't come up -- Nick, as you mentioned, Microsoft Tay, or whatever... I haven't seen any egregious examples; I'm actually really curious.
+
+\[32:02\] My first job out of college with Ximian was as a QA guy, and I'm deadly curios what kind of QA they did around race and gender and things like that. Because on the obvious use cases, something like "Copilot, build me a gender selector dropdown", that's fraught -- that's a super-complicated... it's one of those things that it turns out is all kinds of fraught. I have no idea, I haven't seen any particularly bad examples of that; maybe I just haven't heard enough...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. And obviously, I haven't used it yet, so everything I've gleaned about it has been just from mostly tweets and a few articles here and there... But one that comes to mind in particular is Cassidy Williams from Netlify - she does a livestream coding thing every week, and at least one week she did a showing off Copilot on the stream thing, and was specifically trying to make it be biased about something. She was writing comments in Spanish... I could be misremembering, but maybe a gender dropdown was an example of that. And overall, just gleaning from her tweets about it, it was overall pretty positive. It wasn't going to any dark places with that. So that's probably where a lot of secret sauce comes in, to really take the training data and make it into something that is not only usable, but is also ethically in bounds.
+
+**Luis Villa:** I can't wait -- one of these days somebody is gonna write a guide to regression-testing your AI, that's gonna have whole chapters on like "So - okay, you've regression-tested your AI, and it basically does what you want... Now let's test it and see how racist it is." Because at some level you do -- like, because we can't entirely peer inside the black box, we have to do... If GitHub didn't screw that up, they must have deliberately had some people poking at it with exactly those kinds of examples that Cassidy was trying. Which does actually get us to one of the interesting -- I think one of the things that might come out a little bit in our conversation is a little bit of frustration at times around... There are really interesting legal and policy questions around this. Most of the discussion online was not really about the interesting -- so much as it was emotional, frustrated... Which I get. I mean, I'm a big proponent of copyleft -- somebody challenged my copyright bonafides on Twitter and I was like "I literally don't think I can fit all the copyleft licenses that I've advised on into one tweet..." And there aren't that many of them, right?
+
+So I get it. I do believe in reciprocity as an important part of how we build software... But at the same time, we've also always -- a lot of old school copyleft folks have also been old school fair use folks... So this is a little bit of -- I think there was some tension there and some frustration on both sides of that discussion, which came through... Welcome to arguing on the internet.
+
+**Break**: \[35:15\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Taking maybe a step back from this, and thinking about this from a software perspective, and specifically a software license perspective - maybe I'm misstating the argument around that, but is it considered fair use because it's just training off of potentially certainly licensed code, and not necessarily running it? And if it were doing something to run it, would that change the way that it might be perceived?
+
+**Luis Villa:** So you do two steps if you're trying to figure out "Is there some sanctionable copy in here?" First is "Was there copying at all?" and that kind of thing doesn't come up -- you don't see that coming to court very often, or at least not in particularly dramatic, high profile ways, because usually it's pretty easy to compare this/compare that. Pretty much the same, right? That's sort of step one of your analysis.
+
+And here, it's important to distinguish that there's two possible stages at which a copyright infringement could have occurred. There's "Did GitHub infringe people's copyright?" and "Are people who are using Copilot infringing the copyright?" And the answers to those may be different. I tend to think that the answer is in both cases "There's no infringement." That's sort of my bottom line. But it's important to distinguish between those two. Because you can see a world -- there's definitely arguments to be made that GitHub is infringing, but the user of Copilot is not. So let me get into a little bit why that is. So when you're looking at fair use -- I mentioned the sort of transformative concept, but before we get to that, there's these four rules, and I can't believe... Maybe I've had a longer morning than I thought... I should normally be able to rattle them off. But we'll go through them one by one and I will really try to remember the fourth one by the time I get to it.
+
+So one is the nature of the taking. So are you doing this for some kind of societally-advancing purpose or not? This is where things like teachers get much more of a flexibility than a rival book publisher.
+
+Another is "How much did you copy?" This is one of the key ways how GitHub is copied and how a Copilot user may copy is very different. Because Copilot undoubtedly, at some point in the process, copied the whole thing. So a court looks differently at "Did you copy the whole thing, versus did you copy one function fragment out of a giant--" This came up in the Oracle/Google trial, because Google - well, really Apache, but we'll say Google for simplicity - really only copied one type of thing; they copied -- I used to have these numbers right on top of my brain. It's a really good sign that I don't remember them exactly anymore... But it's basically like 10,000 of API function names, but they didn't copy the other several million lines of the implementation.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** They just reimplemented them, right?
+
+**Luis Villa:** They carefully reimplemented them. So a court will look at that and say "Oh, it looks like actually not much of this was copied." But this is where it gets a little complicated... And again, why does this go to courts to decide these things? There's a famous case about the biography of Gerald Ford, who's our nation's most boring president, essentially... Except that he pardoned Richard Nixon, right?
+
+\[40:06\] So he wrote a biography, and a magazine go their hands on an advanced copy of the biography. And they basically reprinted the part about him pardoning Nixon. And the court was like "Let's be honest here, nobody was buying that book for any reason other than to read the part about pardoning Nixon... Because otherwise who cares? It's Gerald Ford."
+
+So the court said "Well, even though only a very small part was taken, as a percentage of the book, it's still not a fair use, because that was really the core of the value of the book." And Oracle tried to make a similar argument, which was "Okay, yeah, you didn't copy 95% of Java, but you did copy the most valuable part, which is the API." So this is where -- you know a Copilot user is gonna get... I mean, I think they said in their white paper, which I recommend everybody read, and again, I'll send you guys a link, because it's pretty short and pretty interesting... They say in their internal testing something like 0.1% of suggestions actually matched back to -- like, when they did a sampled thing, only 0.1% of suggestions looked like they were copied from another source. The other 99.9% were original... Original in the sense of like being created by the machine learning --
+
+**Nick Nisi:** By the AI.
+
+**Luis Villa:** Yeah, by the AI. It's still sort of weird to talk about things being created by an AI, right...? So if you're trying to reimplement some competitor's API, I probably wouldn't use Copilot... Because then the output is gonna look like you took the heart of this other person's thing. It's probably gonna start autosuggesting code that looks a lot like their implementation, if it's an open source implementation... So if there's like a GPL implementation of something and you wanna write an MIT implementation of it, I suspect Copilot -- I haven't seen anybody try this yet, but I suspect Copilot is gonna start doing things that look a lot like the original implementation, and then you're gonna have a problem.
+
+But because one of the tests for fair use is "How much of it did you take?", if you end up with like a five-line fragment out of somebody's GPL code that's like 100,000 lines of -- or, you know, what's the Linux Kernel these days? 6-7 million lines of code? A court is just gonna laugh that out of court. If somebdoy comes after you on a GPL claim for you as a user of Copilot - again, that's different from GitHub, because GitHub did presumably copy the entirety of the Linux Kernel.
+
+So we've got the "What was the nature of the taking? How much did you take?" Another thing that courts are gonna look at is the commercial impact of this copying. So again, GitHub, since they're copying the whole thing and they're a big corporate competitor, possibly some big -- for you as a user of Copilot... Like, that company was not trying to sell you five lines of code. They weren't trying to license five lines of code to you, and you weren't looking to buy five lines of code. You were just gonna write it yourself anyway.
+
+So a court, again, is gonna look somewhat skeptically at -- and this is something we know from the Google Book Search case, that a court is gonna say "Well, you all were selling snippet search of your book, so in fact, if anything..." and this is a key difference from Google Book Search to Copilot... The court found in that case that "Actually, this is gonna help you sell more books." Because people are gonna find books, there's a limitation on how much gets shown, and there's a Buy button right there... There's no equivalent to that in -- maybe GitHub will do something like "By the way, it looks like you copied this from the Linux Kernel. Click here to do GitHub Sponsors." That might be a little tacky, but you could see that as a thing that they could do in the future perhaps.
+
+\[44:13\] So that's sort of the basic analysis of how much got taken, was it really important stuff that got taken, what was the commercial impact, is it something new and bold and different, that wasn't gonna happen anyway? And I think looking at all those -- I find a really hard time seeing that a court is gonna say that this was not a fair use... Because it's so different, the impact is so small... The emotional impact is real, and I don't wanna downplay that. As authors -- but again, the whole point of fair use is sometimes authors are pissed, and we ignore that as a policy matter. By the way, I should say again, this is all in the U.S. The E.U. has different sets of rules about this, and I really think one of the interesting things that is under-discussed, that I would love to see more of, is commentary from the European Union lawyers, Japanese lawyers... Because I don't think we have as good a sense yet of what that would look like in other places, other legal regimes.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah,
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I'm getting the idea here that essentially you put your code on GitHub -- one, there's a Terms of Service that says "GitHub can use your code", right?
+
+**Luis Villa:** Yup.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Okay. That's one thing--
+
+**Luis Villa:** Though you don't always put your code on GitHub.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Right, but that's presumably what they used as their training set, right?
+
+**Luis Villa:** I think I even saw some suggestion that they also looked at other repositories as well... Because OpenAI scans the entire web, so I did see some suggestion -- I don't know if it's been confirmed, but I see some suggestion they would have looked at other...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** There are other repositories now?
+
+**Luis Villa:** But at this point, the fraction of the world's code which is on GitHub is large, right? So it's probably most of GitHub.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Speaking of that, it seems like the license is irrelevant, right?
+
+**Luis Villa:** I don't know -- I mean, I think it's important to say, I've been wearing my lawyer hat this whole call so far, right? And there's a whole other ethical, like "Is it legal?" I mean, like I said, I think the answer is probably pretty clearly yes. It's possible to be legal and still be a \*bleep\*. Excuse me, are we a family-friendly podcast here, or...?
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Waeeeee...!
+
+**Luis Villa:** Waeee! Alright, great. Good.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Jerod's not around...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Or... Maybe I am.
+
+**Luis Villa:** \[laughs\] Yeah, my little guy's in camp, so... Yeah, you can still be a jerk, right? And I certainly think -- GitHub talked, in that white paper that I mentioned earlier, that they are implementing... I don't know where this is at; I don't know if it's rolled out, or anything... But they mentioned that they're gonna try to implement some kind of "By the way, it looks like this probably is not original. It probably came from this." Putting aside whether or not that's legally necessary - you know, in terms of like not being a jerk... Like, "Hurray! GitHub should not be jerks, right?" They're an 800-pound gorilla, and I think maybe in their rollout of this, I think maybe one of the things here is they didn't reckon with the emotional --
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Yeah...
+
+**Luis Villa:** You know, the heft that they carry... They've been really good. I think -- I'm not a Microsoft apologist. I literally got into open source in part because I was convinced that Microsoft was evil; I'm still personally irritated by the Bill Gates image rehabilitation campaign... Like, the guy has all this money to give to charity because he operated in abuse of monopoly. That's why he has so much money. So it's nice that he gives it away, but let's not forget that first part.
+
+So I'm not a Microsoft apologist, but I think Microsoft and GitHub the past few years have mostly done really well by open source, so I think maybe they got a little laurel resting, a little too comfortable here, and didn't fully think through how much this would really emotionally piss people off, even if the lawyers gave a full thumbs-up.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[47:56\] Yeah, I think that that clout that they've built up in open source over the last couple of years probably should help give them some leeway in figuring this out... But definitely working to figure that out, figure out where the emotions are coming from, and things like that... But do you think that maybe some of this murkiness is just caused by its dealing with code itself? Or as with the books example, it's code to scan books and to open books up and create this product around that. This is using code to look at code, to suggest code... It's all just one thing.
+
+**Luis Villa:** It's layers of indirection and layers of -- it's layers on layers on layers, and it's murky, because we don't really even... I mean, this is one of these big, sort of meta trends. Copyleft has been somewhat in decline, and certainly in the JavaScript community there's essentially no copyleft. So there's this sense of like "Yeah, look--" I sometimes call it almost like car exhaust... Putting code on GitHub is like this thing that sort of happens accidentally by way of doing the thing that you actually want to do.
+
+A lot of people aren't entirely sure how much is copyright really a motivator for - especially in a SaaSy world, how much is copyright even... It doesn't have the same kind of motivational role that copyright, at least in the U.S, really assumes... It's like, "Why is this stuff even copyrighted? Because we're just gonna throw it on GitHub under a license that, by the way, we never enforce anyway." That's actually a different discussion, maybe a different day, about like - MIT and BSD require people to acknowledge, they require like "Yeah, you've gotta ship this license text." So if Copilot violates the GPL, Copilot also violates MIT and BSD, because those attribution clauses - they're part of the license. And we often pretend, in the JavaScript world... I shouldn't say "we" there, but certainly my observation is that we often pretend that MIT and BSD basically are just public domain. Nobody complies with these notice requirements pretty much, and everybody has just sort of agreed that "You know what - that's fine. That's not what I'm here for anyway."
+
+So yeah... And the law hasn't really -- there's both layers of technical indirection and layers of just like "How much do we actually care about copyright in this space right now anyway?"
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I imagine there's some people who are looking at this and are all upset, and they're thinking "Gee, there has to be some sort of way for me to create code and put it out there", but GitHub and Microsoft can't take it and make something like this with it. And then I'm thinking, "Hm, that sounds a whole lot like the ethical open source movement that wants to place restrictions on things." So it's kind of like talking out both sides of your mouth, because --
+
+**Luis Villa:** Yeah, absolutely. There's absolutely some sort of like "Oh, you can use it however you want, but not like that."
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Right.
+
+**Luis Villa:** That makes me cringe, because that is not the -- Matthew Garrett, who's a former FSF board member, has written really eloquently on this in a long blog post on his vision of software freedom is very much about tearing down the copyright system. In his view, he thinks that -- he got into free software in part because the whole idea was more people should have access to more source code, and we should have fewer restrictions on how it's used. And GPL was a tool to get to that end, but in his blog post, he talks about how we should be cheering on something that helps break down some of those barriers.
+
+\[51:52\] Again, as a long-time card-carrying FSF member, until the recent leadership stuff... I mean, I agree; it's actually really interesting, a lot of these copyleft licenses have clauses in them that very specifically say "This is limited by fair use. If there's a fair use--" And that's sort of redundant, in some sense... But you don't have to write that into the license, because it's already part of the law. So it's belts and suspenders... But it was also -- we put those in there, and I say "we" because literally, I helped put some of these into these licenses... We put those in there because it was a statement that fair use is important to us as like an ethical concern, not just a legal concern. So to see some people being like "Oh yeah, I love fair use when I get to fair use things, but when you're fair-using my stuff..." Hey. For those of you on the podcast who can't see my facial expressions, there's a lot of handwaving and grimacing right now.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** I'd love if you could share that blog post URL.
+
+**Luis Villa:** Yeah, I'll do that.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** So we can provide it to our listeners.
+
+**Luis Villa:** Yeah, will do.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** There's been a ton of fun writing about this; I can definitely send a few links. A former member of the European Parliament from the Pirate Party wrote a really good thing about it from a EU perspective... Because the EU, interestingly, actually did reform their copyright laws a couple years ago. I think I can say this without being too political, but Congress in the U.S. is not really effective at passing laws, especially when there are big lobbying companies involved, which a lot of the tech companies are these days...
+
+The E.U. passed a rule that specifically said that machine learning is, interestingly, opt out. So you can in the E.U. write a license that says "You can't use this stuff for machine learning." But you have to explicitly say "You can't use this stuff for machine learning."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Are we gonna have robots.txt inside of our Git repos now?
+
+**Luis Villa:** I bet it's coming...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Luis Villa:** In fact, actually there's a W3C working group on exactly that.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Really?
+
+**Luis Villa:** I'll send a link to the working group...
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Wow.
+
+**Luis Villa:** One of the fun things about this for me is learning -- like, because my day job is very much like not machine learning, I have not stayed super in touch with it. There's this project called Eleuther AI. I don't know if I'm pronouncing it right, but... That's like an entire -- it's not like a, it is an open source GPT model. And they have not just the model, but it is trained, by hook or by crook they got some GPU hours to train it, and they've built a whole dataset, which by the way, includes a lot of open source code. And they specifically included open source code before Copilot. They specifically included open source code because part of their vision is open source code completion.
+
+So that's out there... This W3C working group on robots.txt but for code is out there... A lot of cool stuff that I've found out about from the sort of mini-furer about this. So I'm more optimistic...
+
+\[55:00\] Besides -- yeah, I mentioned there's like the legal thing, there's the sort of "Are you a jerk thing?" and there's also this policy layer of like "Do we really like what AI is doing to centralize power with companies that can scrape a lot of data and have the GPU cycles to do training on that data?" And I think another strong reason why we should be strongly in favor of fair use in our community is that the weaker we make fair use, the more AI becomes a game that can be played only if you have a strong legal team. The position that a lot of people are taking around this would shut down Eleuther AI.
+
+Now, there's still this question of "How do you get the GPU cycles?", because those are not cheap. So maybe the answer is "It's gonna be centralized anyway." But as long as there's sort of green shoots of people doing OpenAI, we should be really worried about what clamping down on fair use for training might mean for those folks.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. We should probably wrap it up there, but this was fascinating... And it just kind of shows that there's a lot more nuance to this than just the immediate emotional reaction that comes out of seeing a potentially transformative use of AI like this... And there's a lot to think about, and - yeah, I tend to agree with you. I think overall it will be a very good thing, and it will be good for software engineers going forward. It's not going to replace us, I don't think, yet... But it will be just fascinating to see how this grows and changes, and how we grow and change to adapt to it at the same time.
+
+**Luis Villa:** Oh, absolutely. We used to have T-shirts say "Shut up or I'll replace you with a very small shell script."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Luis Villa:** Now it's gonna be "Shut up or I'll replace you with a very expensive GPU cycle." It can be potentially so empowering for programmers... Hopefully, not in the long-term future, not just VS Code users, not just GitHub users. Hopefully, there's a brave new future where access to that is democratized... We'll see. It's gonna be interesting. Definitely not a problem that's going away, that's for sure.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. Part of that democratization should be to release a Vim extension, so I don't have to use VS Code to try it out.
+
+**Luis Villa:** \[laughs\] Yeah, I was gonna say Emacs, but that's another conversation for another chat.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** We'll have this battle offline... \[laughs\] Luis, thank you so much for coming on and talking to us.
+
+**Christopher Hiller:** Yes, thank you very much.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It's been very interesting. Amazing insights.
+
+**Luis Villa:** Yeah, a pleasure. Happy to talk legal geekery with you guys anytime.
diff --git a/We really needed new jingles_transcript.txt b/We really needed new jingles_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d950dd4470cfe4a302e09b8a782a00986339bf52
--- /dev/null
+++ b/We really needed new jingles_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,792 @@
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh yes, friends, you know with the sound of those Breakmaster Cylinder beats that it is party time once again. I'm Jerod, I'm your internet friend, and I'm joined by a few of my friends. Nick Nisi is here. What is up, Nick?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Ahoy-hoy!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Ahoy-hoy to you. And we're also joined by Kball... What's up, Kball?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Hello! I am currently an internet friend, but hopefully someday we'll go back to being friends in person. One day we'll be able to travel.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Someday... One of these days we'll visit all five continents together, and do JS Parties on all five continents. Fact-check - false. We are also joined by an impostor from our sister program over there. He's a gopher, but he secretly likes JavaScript. Shh... Don't tell the Go Time listeners. It's Mat Ryer. What's up, Mat?
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Hello! We're more of internet acquaintances, aren't we, Jerod?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, let's keep it formal...
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah. Boundaries.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Boundaries are good.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And someday hopefully we won't become real friends.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Okay... It's a brutal way to find out, but... No, it's fine.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] You may know Mat from a past episode of JS Party. Mat is actually a Svelte user, and came on to talk about how they're using Svelte on Pace.dev, so there you go - happy to have you, Mat.
+
+Today we are going to do a few things, maybe even four things, which is we are going to do our recurrent segment Story of the Week, we are going to do TIL (Today I Learned), we're also gonna sneak in, if we have time, an unpopular opinion segment... And then finally, again, if we have time, shout-outs to people doing cool stuff in the industry.
+
+\[04:03\] So let's do Story of the Week, shall we? This is a fun game we play, where everybody takes turns sharing what they believe is the most important, or the biggest, or the most interesting (or at least the one that they could find) story of the week, and we discuss.
+
+Now, we like to have jingles for our segments... And you may remember that Nick came up with this excellent jingle for Pro Tip Time.\[jingle 00:04:25.28\]
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Brilliant.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So we do not have a story of the week jingle, and what you may not know is that Mat Ryer is actually very musically inclined. He plays the guitar; if you're watching live, you can see some guitars back there. He sings songs, he writes songs... So Mat, if I might just really put you on the spot and challenge you, can you please come up for us a Story of the Week jingle, live, on the spot, without any rehearsal?
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We appreciate that.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** But there really is no rehearsal; because you're saying it like we've planned this.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I know... But \[unintelligible 00:05:01.22\] embarrass yourself.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Story of the Week.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, Story of the Week.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Right, okay. Okay, ready? \[live jingle 00:05:12.10\] "It's time to take a peek... It's time for the Story of the Week."
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Damn...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's actually better than I was expecting, dude. Nice job.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Way to play my jingle first, just to give like the opposite of that...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] Well, we wanted to lower the bar and make sure there wasn't too much of expectation... And that was actually completely ad-hoc. Mat did not know about that. So... Nice job, Mat.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** The first of many surprises that we're going to spring on him today.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's right.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** This does feel increasingly like an ambush.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, you are a guest, and we like to ambush our guests... No, we like to treat them. So please lead us off, as our guest, the very first story of the week. Mat, what did you bring?
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Well, I've found this very interesting story about Citibank, who due to bad UI design accidentally sent out 500 million dollars. So yeah, apparently there was a form in this very complicated, old bit of software, and it's not very clear when you look at it what you should do, and I guess there's no confirmation... So somebody actually paid out -- they had loans that they owed, and they accidentally just paid off all the loans, to the tune of around half a billion.
+
+And apparently, in New York, according to New York law, if you make a wire transfer by mistake, then you have to pay it back... Unless it's to pay off a debt, and that was this case. So the judge found against Citibank; it's ongoing, the case, but... There you go, the importance of good UI design. I think it's vital, and this just highlights that. Your websites might not lose 500 million dollars, but it still can be annoying.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I saw some screenshots of this UI that had a form with approximately 30 checkboxes, close next to each other. Right to each other was "Pay the interest" versus "Pay the principal", and then apparently they do have a confirmation, but it doesn't say anything about what it's confirming. Just "You're gonna send some money somewhere. Do you wanna do it?"
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah. See, I like optimistic UIs. If the operation is easy to undo, then I like to be able to just click Delete, and it's gone. And if that was a mistake, I can undo it. But when you're sending out 500 million dollars...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's pretty optimistic.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah. You want slightly better confirmation, don't you?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So whose fault was this? Is there any insight onto the process that created this, the systems in place? Or was it just kind of like an ongoing story...? Because it's easy to just blame the designer or the developer... But surely, there's systemic failures that have allowed these things to go out, right?
+
+**Mat Ryer:** \[08:07\] Yeah. It'll definitely the fault of the project manager, won't it? We would never blame the developers, of course. But no -- and actually, it went through like three people who had to confirm it, because it's such a big number that they're dealing with... And they all just, by looking at the UI, they all inferred the wrong thing, they all assumed the wrong thing. And it was apparently a very reasonable thing to assume as well, when you look at what they put... So I don't know... Whose fault -- I don't know... I don't know if we have to blame, do we? Yeah, we do. It's 500 million dollars.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's right. Someone's gotta pay for that.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Someone's gotta be fired.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Pretty much...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I wonder, as the developer of that program, if you could work -- knowing that loophole exists, develop towards that loophole; what are they gonna do, fire you? You're 500 million dollars richer, so... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Like a salami attack, but in a UI. UI salami. It worked on Office Space, didn't it? I mean, he ended up on a beach somewhere, with a bunch of money...
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah. And Gus Gorman from Superman 3 was also able to -- it wasn't a UI thing, but he was able to scrape the pennies, and got himself a lovely little sports car, if I remember correctly.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's right.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I only know of that reference through Office Space.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Oh, really? \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I recently ran into a similar kind of issue... My dad was trying to get signed up for his Covid vaccine, and he had recently had a shingles vaccine... And there has to be some sort of gap between when you have one and the other... And whoever the programmer was had developed it so not only could you not schedule an appointment within that gap, you couldn't even do the scheduling within that gap. So he had to wait till the shingles gap was over to get in line for the Covid vaccine. Brilliantly stupid.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Mat Ryer:** It's funny when you think of tech that's working in such important areas, and little mistakes like that - which are very easy to make when you're a programmer...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** ...or even just a dev team. When you say "You can't schedule this in this time." I would probably think that was probably an easy fix that they did at the time, and it just turns out -- that's the importance of testing, I suppose. You should really test your bits.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Also, knowing the app as a whole, or the purpose of what you're trying to do as a whole... Because when you dive down into those micro-requirements, it all makes sense... But then when you start combining them together, then it just kind of goes awry, because it may not fit with either the actual goal that you're trying to do, or how people will actually use it... Because when they're all put together, nobody really thought about how things will go.
+
+It kind of reminds me of a similar story - it was either Venmo, or Cash App... Sending money and requesting money look the same in the UI, so people would just be like requesting money, and people who got those requests for like $500 would be like "Oh, somebody's sending me $500. Accept", and they were sending them $500, or whatever... Yeah, bad design.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It reminds me of the original Ethereum blockchain, which was pure insofar as it was immutable, you could never make a change to it... And that was part of the system. "The code is the contract" was kind of the motto. And that was all well and good until they got hacked, and I can't remember the exact details of how somebody made off with millions of dollars in cryptocurrencies... And the entire Ethereum ecosystem -- actually, they divided in half over this. That's why there's Ethereum Classic and then the one now. They basically decided "That whole immutable code as the contract thing - yeah, let's throw that out and fix this bug."
+
+**Kevin Ball:** There's so many things like that in the crypto space, where it's like, we can replace everything with the assumption that once it's in code, it's infallible... Forgetting that "No, wait - actually, humans have to write that code. And humans create bugs."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[12:00\] Right. What we do is we make our bugs immutable, we put them into an immutable system. So yeah, when money in involved, and life or death is involved, things need to be taken more seriously than the typical web developer mindset.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah. I had a manager once, who in my performance review said "We don't want to have any code that's got any errors in it." That was the thing.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Were they firing you when they said that?
+
+**Mat Ryer:** No, no... It was leading up to it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. \[laughs\]
+
+**Mat Ryer:** The proposition was they didn't want any bugs in the code, obviously...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** ...but yeah, I don't know. There seemed to be this idea -- and in Go in particular... Because Go doesn't have -- I'm not gonna talk about Go on JS Party...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We're gonna edit this part out anyway.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah, sure. Well, the error handling is explicit. It's just another value that you can return from functions, and things. So error handling is something you put a lot of thought into, because it's something you explicitly handle all the time. So there's a lot of talk about errors, and things... And I think he was just tired of hearing about errors and wanted to hear about features instead... So that was it. One of my KPIs was "Fewer errors in the computers."
+
+**Kevin Ball:** He just wanted you to get up and go.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Just tell him, "I want a toilet made out of solid gold, but it's not in the cards..."
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Here's your Austin Powers reference for the day...
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Not solid gold.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** No.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Just get gold-plated, because the solid one - it's actually quite a soft matter...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Malleable, yeah. Good point.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah. And especially if you're on there for a while... Once it's warmer, you're in trouble. I'm just saying, but...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** You've put a lot of thought into this...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, well let's move on, because Mat's trying to make this the longest Story of the Week entry. We don't vote on longest, we vote on biggest, or most important, so... It's not gonna work, Mat. Kball, what do you have for Story of the Week?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Something that is not gonna win biggest or most important...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** However, I thought it was really interesting. I recently saw a release announcement for a JavaScript framework called Blitz.js. And what made it interesting to me is not the framework itself, which looks like another take on trying to do kind of an all-inclusive JavaScript framework, kind of similar to what Redwood tries to do, things like that... But what made it interesting is that they are touting that they're built on top of Next.js. We've had this trend for a while, where - okay, React and Vue and all these frameworks, they become a base layer, and then people are building these higher-level frameworks on top of them, like Next, and Nuxt, and Redwood, and whatever.
+
+This is the first time I've seen someone explicitly going yet another layer, and saying "Okay, that first layer of additional abstraction configuration etc. - that's good, but that's not good enough. We're gonna go even further." And it made me wonder... I mean, this is a common pattern in the tech industry - you build an abstraction, once it gets solid enough you build another abstraction on top of it, once it gets solid enough you build another one on top of it... So I'm wondering if this is an outlier, or if that's the phase we're in now, where we're actually going up yet one more layer in the JavaScript framework space.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I think the key phrase there was "Once it gets solid enough", and I just wonder, if things are so moving, and at a certain point when you're playing Jenga, the top of the Jenga just gets so wobbly, because it's built on these layers that have lost some of their footing... So yes, we always wanna be adding layers on top, because that brings functionality to more and more people, which is the goal... But it's definitely a challenge to do that.
+
+I don't know... Next.js feels pretty high-level, but... Is this where they start calling things meta-frameworks? Like, it's not a framework, it's a meta-framework.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I already call Next a meta-framework, or a higher level of--
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So this is a meta-meta-framework.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, we have had Blitz's creator on JS Party last year, I believe; so he did speak Blitz, if anybody wants to go deep on that. It was just myself and Brandon talking about Blitz... So if you want a full conversation about that, the episode is called "Blitz puts React on Rails", episode \#133, so go listen to that.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Interesting.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[16:13\] I'm curious what Mat or Nick says about Kball's question there.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, it's interesting that we're seeing these, and a lot of them tend to be built on top of React. Next is, obviously, and then Redwood is too, right?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[unintelligible 00:16:26.29\] is React?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** It's built on React, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yup.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** So it's kind of further cementing something that Laurie Voss said on JS Party a few years ago now, that React may just end up becoming part of the -- not necessarily part of the language yet, but it's just expected in the ecosystem, in all of these frameworks... And maybe future frameworks - it will just be implied that it's React. It's just kind of interesting.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Oh, you're cueing up my later Unpopular Opinion.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Warm it up.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. I added \[unintelligible 00:16:58.13\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay. So you wonder - we used to have this conversation around jQuery. React in a way is at least getting to the point of jQuery's ubiquity; not really much else in similarity, but... What happened when jQuery? Wasn't that like everything eventually became built on top of it? It's like that jQuery became somewhat built into browsers... So you wonder if a React-esque thing -- I mean, then you go back to Web Components, right? Like, how much of React will just get into the platform, so that we can not have to rely upon a library, but just use some of those as primitives and build different things from there.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah, that's something that's quite exciting for me, is seeing all the innovation that's happening in browsers. I mean, some of the APIs that you have now, some of the things that you can do... Web Components is an interesting example. I find that all to be amazing.
+
+So is Blitz.js - is that like a server-side thing as well? Is it kind of a backend and a frontend thing?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. So Next.js is hybrid. So you can do all pre-rendered stuff. Similar like a Gatsby would do. You can also have some server-side functionality with Next. So they can call themselves a hybrid framework, where it's kind of pre-rendered by default, but it also has server-side hooks to do different things... And then Blitz tries to flesh that out, I think in a way that's akin to what Redwood is doing, which is to kind of give you a full-stack, but kind of JAMStack-first approach at applications. That's going from memory by the way, so I could be...
+
+**Mat Ryer:** It's got massive potential, something like that... Because there's a lot of things you have to worry about when you're working in those two different arenas. And if you could through a good abstraction do away with that... And I liked Rails; I used to be a Rails developer, actually... Some other things like convention over configuration, things like that. Go also has sensible defaults; so by default, things will kind of basically do what you want them to do, and then you kind of configure them from there. So those kinds of ideas I think are really quite nice... Especially for people that are new, and just want to get something built.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Absolutely. Well, let's do our last story of the week... This one's mine, although I didn't write it; I just found it. It's a very cool thing coming in from the V8 team.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** I didn't write mine, the one about Citibank...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, you didn't? I thought you were reporting...
+
+**Mat Ryer:** I didn't know it was a -- yeah...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And Kball actually wrote Blitz.js, so it's really interesting...
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah, for this show.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Of course.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's why he was surprised when I said we had the creator on the show, because he just didn't remember being a guest... This was from the V8 team, specifically written by Victor Gomes; the frame shredder - is that what he calls himself? He does. So on this piece, which I'll link in the show notes, he calls himself Victor Gomes, the frame shredder, which is a pretty sweet moniker if you ask me... If self-proclaimed. Maybe somebody gave him that. But his post was called "Faster JavaScript calls", and he's detailing some amazing work that he and the V8 team have done to make function calls in V8 quite a bit faster. I'm trying to pull up the numbers here...
+
+\[20:21\] So when they're able to pull this off, they have 11% performance improvement in JIT-less mode, when you do not have a just-in-time compiler... And when using TurboFan - which I did not click through on TurboFan to see what it is; TurboFan is one of V8's optimizing compilers leveraging a concept called "Sea of Nodes". I'm just reading this off the website... So this is like another level of performance improvements that V8 can do. They get up to 40% speed-up doing this interesting trick.
+
+I will just read a little bit from it, because he explains it pretty well. He writes:
+
+"JavaScript allows calling a function with a different number of arguments than the expected number of parameters, as in one can pass fewer or more arguments than the declared formal parameters. The former case is called under-application and the latter is called over-application."
+
+So this is a feature of JavaScript that allows you to do this. And he says:
+
+"In the under-application case, the remaining parameters get assigned the undefined value. In the over-application case, the remaining arguments can be accessed by using the rest parameter and the arguments property", which is the arguments keyword. "Or they are simply superfluous and they can be ignored." So lots of cases, they don't really matter.
+
+And V8 has this special machinery in place to deal with this argument size mismatch. So if you're passing in the wrong number of arguments, either too many or too little, there's like this whole dance that V8 has to do in order to handle that. And this performance improvement that they managed to do basically just optimized that case, and they do it by reversing the arguments.
+
+And he goes through, in the blog post, details on how they're changing the way things get put on the stack and off the stack. It's way over my head - or way underneath, in terms of its depth - for me to completely understand, but it's really awesome work. I just love when lower-level things get improved, and just everything in the world benefits... Because that's the power of leverage in software development. You can do this tiny little thing, which was a lot of work for them... But at the end of the day, the change they made in code I think is probably minuscule, compared to the entirety of the V8 codebase... And it can just squeeze out performance for everybody who uses V8 all around the world. It's pretty cool.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah. So that case you mentioned - would that only work if there's the wrong or different number of arguments? Or is it like the check that it has to do that was expensive? How often do you send the wrong number of arguments to a function in JavaScript?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Well, we're talking JavaScript developers, so...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I was gonna say I never do... \[laughs\] But that's because my code is always perfect. I don't know.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It's because you use TypeScript, so you know exactly how many...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I actually think it's not too uncommon of a case to have a REST parameter, right? Or instead of framing it as...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** ...accidental.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** ...the wrong number of arguments, there's two versions. One is optional arguments, and the other is variable numbers of arguments.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So this is the mechanism by which both of those are implemented within JavaScript.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Which doesn't scale very well, but is a feature that's been there for a very long time. Lots of people, when you have optional number of arguments, they'll just pass an object... And you can set defaults... There's better stuff you can do. I think the use of arguments as a keyword or as a -- I think it's a keyword inside of a function... Which represents that and returns you a list, is not something that I use very often. Maybe some library authors have to deal with in order to provide a nice API to some of their functions... But I think in many cases that pattern has been replaced by objects in terms of optional arguments, or variable parity, basically.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[24:16\] Yeah. And I don't even think arguments exists anymore in things like arrow functions.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, really? So Mat's question stands though, is it improving all function calls, or only the ones -- well, I guess, is it the check that improves the...? I don't know the answer to that, Mat - is it the check that improves the speed, or is it the process once you get into that that deals with it. I don't know, I'll have to grok the blog post better than I did to answer that one.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** One of the things that he highlights at the end of the post is that while this may not be super-common in user space code, the feature was used often in web frameworks to create more flexible APIs.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** There you go, yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So there's another example where because some of the libraries or frameworks that almost everyone is using utilized this feature, even if it's relatively obscure for some people, it is actually showing up in a lot of code.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah. And people like the frame shredder, they really measure -- you know, when they're doing optimizations like this, they're really measuring this stuff. It's often very data-driven, so they probably wouldn't waste their time if it's not gonna have a big benefit.
+
+And you know, you just imagine, at your job, the thing you do makes JavaScript a bit better, and then the whole of the internet just gets a bit better. That must be quite good for job satisfaction, don't you think?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** One hundred percent. I think if you want to maximize impact, one of the thing you can do is go work for a large B2C platform. You could work for a Twitter or a Facebook. If you wanna maximize effect, like "I wanna affect the most people this way", something with a lot of users, the other way you can do it is go the other direction and work on the platforms that people create the apps with. You could work on Apple's Swift and -- what's the name of their frameworks? I'm forgetting, because I haven't done Apple stuff a long time...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Cocoa? That's old.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** SwiftUI?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** SwiftUI, but what's the name of their iOS SDK? Anyway, it doesn't matter. Apple stuff.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** It's not open source though, that...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** No, I'm saying you can go work on it.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Oh, right. Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You could still have a large impact, right? Everybody who builds on Apple's platforms is gonna be impacted by that work. But the web is the most impactful platform you could possibly work on, to your point, Mat... And working on the things that we build on top of is a huge job satisfaction, I think.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Could you just resign to calling V8 the web, as in THE JavaScript engine?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** No, I didn't mean to, but... \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** You kind of did. I mean, I think it really depends on what you find satisfactory.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Same thing can be said for working deep in operations inside of a Google or an Amazon or something like that. You spend all of your time finding these essentially micro-optimizations, things where you're saving a few percent overall here and there. In this case it's a large percent on a particular thing, which is actually a relatively small percent of any sort of overall runtime.
+
+So you find these micro-optimizations and then you scale them out over the fact that you're running this on however many billion copies, or machines, or what have you... And I agree that doing it for something like Chrome, V8, what have you, is one of the widest scale-outs you're gonna see on that... But for me, that's actually not very satisfying, because it's focusing on these tiny little pieces, and you have to scale it out. The actual impact on any one individual is very small... And it's having massive overall impact, you're probably saving hundreds and thousands of CPU hours, and yadda-yadda, spread out across the entire world, but no individual is likely to notice the difference. I'd prefer to swing the other way, where there's a set of individuals for whom the work that I'm doing is extremely impactful, even if that set of individuals is smaller.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** \[28:10\] So you'd rather make a few people very happy, rather than loads of people a little bit happy.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I mean, ideally I'd make many people very happy, but I'm gonna start at the first part of that. And this is one of the reasons I'm kind of a startup/small company guy for a long time... You start with figuring out something that makes at least a subset of people very happy, and then you try to gradually expand the set of people that's it's applicable to.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** But even if you're only making a percent of a percent of web users happy with some optimization, that's still potentially millions of people.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I'm gonna make a percent of a percent of people happy...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** He doesn't care. Kball doesn't care.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Well, here's the thing... I think these tiny improvements aren't actually -- like, over time they add up, absolutely. But you need 20 frame \[unintelligible 00:28:55.18\] to make something that ends up being user-visible.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I think it's just two different views of the world and both have a big impact, but what do you like to do and what do you care about? Maybe you'd like to see that impact big-time in a small number of people's lives... Or maybe you like to think that about the fact that "I just made this one patch to this one project, and even in the most minuscule way possible, I've touched millions of lives." So it's kind of just a perspective thing.
+
+I definitely appreciate your perspective, Kball, being represented, because I do tend to think of like - the person who makes Ruby faster, and then look what that leverage does. But that's just -- because I've never worked on those kinds of things, maybe I have a little bit of envy of like "Man, I wish I could reach that many people with that small a change", because I just never have.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** See, I'm going the opposite way. I'm aspiring to be the next left-pad.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Break:** \[29:48\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, we are now ready to share things that we have learned recently. This is our "Today I Learned" segment, or TIL. We have an awesome jingle for TIL. Wait, no we don't... But we would love if Mat could provide one on the spot. Mat...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Since you did so well on the previous one.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Please give us a royalty-free TIL jingle.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Royalty-free?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Okay. \[live jingle 00:32:07.29\] "Today I learned." Yeah? I mean, I didn't know where that was going, but... Is that right?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[32:16\] \[laughs\] It started great... And it ended great.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And it wasn't very long, so there wasn't much of a middle.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's right. So all around, high marks.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Great.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** The only problem with it is the segment is called TIL, which you didn't even say, so...
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Okay. If I've got time, I'll do another one.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Maybe we'll do a reverse-royalty, and every time we play it you have to give us a nickel. \[laughter\]
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Right, TIL... I could do with a word that rhymes with L.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Fell. Like, I fell.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Going to hell...?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Going to hell... Under my spell...
+
+**Mat Ryer:** \[live jingle 00:32:59.24\] "I've got a story that I'm going to tell/ You're gonna love it, baby/ I think it's swell./ I only learned it today, a TIL..."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's it!
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Rock and roll.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Brilliant.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's the winner.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Cool.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Cool.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Could we have him on every week?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] Now you learn why we brought you on, because we just really needed jingles. \[laughter\]
+
+**Mat Ryer:** You're really living up to your name... Because it's JS Party, and you expect dancing, music, booze...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's right.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** With Go Time, all we're really guaranteeing is it's gonna take up some time. And to be fair, we deliver on that promise every week.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] That's right.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Well, you're talking about Go, so...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I dance every week I'm on.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah. I saw you dancing earlier, mate, actually. I'm impressed.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's why you're welcome here. Well, if Go Time and JS Party had hair, JS Party would be a blonde and Go Time would be a brunette, what can I say...
+
+**Mat Ryer:** I don't know what that means.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, blondes have more fun.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** You lost me too, Jerod.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** I'm triggered by the mention of having hair...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] You guys don't know the old saying "Blondes have more fun"? Come on.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Oh.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's a terrible stereotype about people based on the color of their hair, but...
+
+**Mat Ryer:** \[laughs\] You're walking it back...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It turns out it plays into your favor...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Jerod, when your foot gets far enough in your mouth, you wanna start pulling it out, rather than continuing to swallow.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** You're saying that because you're brunette, Kball. Alright, let's move on. Add a break right here... \[laughter\] TIL. Nick, hit us up. You've learned lots of things. I heard there might be even more than one that you might be sharing, so... Please do.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Alright. Well, this is something that I actually learned yesterday, and I used yesterday, which is pretty awesome... Have you heard of this cool thing called optional chaining? It's a new operator in JavaScript...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I have.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. It goes ?. And it's really cool. Because then you can say "I wanna get to foo ?. bar" And if that exists, I get the value of bar, but if it doesn't, I just get undefined. Did you know, in Today I Learned, that you can use that for calling a method as well? So instead of saying \[unintelligible 00:35:10.08\] and call it. And if it doesn't exist, it won't call it.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, that makes sense.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I did not know that.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Because methods are properties in JavaScript, right?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So just living on those objects.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. It's amazing.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's cool.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It's so cool... I can't wait to see how it goes over in code review.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That is cool. Now, how many times can you do that in a row? Can you just nest and nest and just keep on going?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I would imagine it depends on if your function is returning an object itself that's gonna have a method on it, right? Because it's still using the same question of "Does this property exist on this object?" But in that case the property is a method. So in like a jQuery style API you could use it indefinitely. You could ?. to your heart's content.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[36:09\] That sounds fun. That sounds like a good way of taking back that new optimization they've put in V8 and just wiping it out. \[laughter\] "Oh, you saved us 40%? I'm gonna cost us infinite percent."
+
+Anything else you learned recently, Nick?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yes. I have been playing around with SSH tunneling. It's really simple, and I don't really have a clear goal with it, other than I was trying to -- I run a lot of Docker containers, which means that my fans spin up a lot... And I was like "I wonder if I could just have a machine running those Docker containers, but pretend like it's just my machine." I could totally do that, to an extent, with SSH tunneling. So I could just SSH into that machine, and local forward all of the ports that I need, like localhost:3000. Anytime I try and hit localhost:3000 on my machine, I actually go hit 3000 on the machine that I'm SSH-ing into, which is really cool.
+
+And you can do it the opposite way too, where you could expose your local machine globally... But I'm scared to do that right now. I don't really have a use case.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Make sure you do that on purpose.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. But it's really cool that you can do that, and it's one line to set up. Or you can add it to your SSH config, so that every time I SSH into that machine, I can just have it automatically forward those ports, and everything is immediately set up... And then when I disconnect, it's all taken down. Easy peasy.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. That is cool. Here's a use case for that, which I used to do quite often... If you have an admin tool, like a GUI to connect to a database, and you wanna connect to a remote database, but you do not want to expose that port remotely of course, because you do not want your database to be exposed to the world, and if your tool does not have tunneling built-in, which a lot of them nowadays will have tunneling built-in to the connection inside the tool... But if they don't, and they just have regular SSH connections -- or not regular SSH connections; regular direct database connections... You can basically tunnel to that remote machine, expose it just locally through the SSH tunnel, and then connect directly with the database client. Pretty nifty.
+
+Nick, are you going for the trifecta, or should we pass it on to Kball?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I've got one more, I could do it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Let's do it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Alright. I've been playing around with template literal types in TypeScript 4.1. And the new type -- it's using template literals how you would use them normally in JavaScript, but you can use that to dynamically build types... Specifically like string literal types, where you can say "This value can be the string Jerod, or Kball", and if it's anything other than that, you get a type error. Well, you can dynamically create that, so I could have a list of all of the guests on JS Party, and then create a type, meaning that the current speaker is one of these three types, and it's Mat, Jerod, or Kball... And combining that with the ability to import only types where you just say "import type" and it's just a regular import statement after that, but when it goes to build, it won't actually have a binding to that library. So it's only importing the values to be used as types in your local code, so that you won't accidentally massively increase your bundle size. And the ability to call recursive types, so putting three things together.
+
+So putting all of those together you can create some really cool combinations of dynamic types. And the specific one that I've been playing around with is - for all of our internationalization, we have this massive JSON file, and it's nested. So you can have like this page is the account preferences, and that is an object that contains subkeys, and there might be subkeys in there, but they all end up becoming a string at some point, and that's your English translation of whatever, and then you can have a French file, a Chinese file, all of those.
+
+\[39:57\] And the way we reference that by using \[unintelligible 00:39:59.21\] to get that. But that's just a string in my code. But using recursive types and template literal types, and using import type to import the shape of the JSON file, I can then create a dynamic type that is the dot notation, so I can just get an array back, or a union type back of all of the possible combinations of combining account preferences \[unintelligible 00:40:30.16\] and it will all be perfectly typed... Which is really cool.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I feel like you need to write this up... \[laughter\] Because I was trying to hold that all in my head as you were saying it, and completely and utterly failed.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I think I followed you, but I couldn't repeat it back, so I probably didn't follow.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I'll put it in a TypeScript Playground link in the show notes, and I will get around to writing something up, for sure.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah. I feel like you just proved that typing in TypeScript is Turing-complete.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It is.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Wow. What's TypeScript again? Just kidding. Kball... Hit us up with a TIL.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Alright. Today, or last week, something like that, I learned that you can embed SVG filters inside CSS filters. CSS has a filter property that you can put on images; it is cool, but not as powerful -- well, powerful in general as SVG's filtering capabilities... So it used to be "Okay, I've got an image, I wanna filter it more than I can do with CSS. I need to actually embed it inside an SVG." But it turns out you can flip that around and embed your SVG filter in the CSS filter property, and just reference it there..I think that's super-cool.
+
+I'm a long-time huge fan of SVGs, but they do have this pain point of like it's hard to get them to interact with the rest of your HTML, unless you embed it straight in the page, and yadda-yadda-yadda. Here you can put it in your CSS and get all that power just out of the box.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** That's great.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, that's cool. Link us up more info on that for the show notes, please, sir. Mat, how about yourself? What have you learned today, and/or recently?
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah. Well, it was today, actually. I think I'm the only one that's really respected this segment in that way...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, you win.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah. I'll tell you what - I mentioned earlier the APIs now in browsers, and this might be old news to people that do a lot more JavaScript than I do... But there's a WebAuthn API that lets you use the fingerprint or Face ID stuff in your JavaScript code for authentication, things like this... Which is kind of what you need, isn't it? It's what you expect. But you see, when I started doing this, everything was sandboxed so tightly... The world was so different, the JavaScript world was just so different. You didn't really interact much with the device at all. And increasingly, as they open all these APIs, I think we're just gonna see more and more powerful things being built... And I kind of love seeing that.
+
+I remember when I first discovered about local storage, and there's IndexedDB in the browser... It is kind of amazing to see that... But yeah. So I learned that. That's what I TIL-ed today, was that you can use fingerprint auth in your JavaScript.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That is awesome.
+**Mat Ryer:** You can access sensors as well on the device... GPS coordinates I guess have been around a while... But also things like the battery. So maybe don't do some things; turn off animations if the user's battery is low, or something. Be a nice citizen for them. It's a good one.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Absolutely.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And the fact that you learned it today means you really respect my authority, you know...?
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Which I also appreciate.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah. I feel like I'm having dinner with Saddam Hussein, and I'm really nervous about upsetting him.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Mat Ryer:** \[44:16\] I've never had dinner with Saddam Hussein, or any dictator...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We need to back that one off...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** You haven't had dinner with Jerod yet. You don't need to mention any dictator.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah. \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That's right, internet acquaintances.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Remember, I already said, hopefully we'll never have dinner... Didn't I say that earlier on the show? Hopefully we'll never meet...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Jerod's not so bad over dinner. Or lunch I guess is what we shared...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We did.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** What did you have?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Lunch. He just told you.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Well, what specifically?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Food.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Okay, thank you. \[laughter\] See what I mean? I'm kind of nervous now... I don't wanna upset the king.
+
+**Break:** \[44:52\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, we are back... And did you know that Go Time has a regular slot called Unpopular Opinion? You may have known that, because we've stolen that slot once before, and did better on Unpopular Opinions than they generally come up with... But we actually have the man, the myth, the legend -- Mat Ryer sings the jingle for that. He went in the studio, he produced it, it took weeks... Didn't it, Mat?
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And really put a lot of effort into it. But today we're gonna have the live, acoustic version of the Unpopular Opinion theme song for you. This is a special treat, folks. Let's listen to it.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** \[live jingle 00:46:53.00\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** One thing I've noticed as the producer of Go Time is that you like to cue up other people's unpopular opinions, but you rarely turn the spotlight back on yourself and share your own thoughts. I feel like it's a cowardly move, to be honest... But now here you are, you're the guest, and you've obviously shown you have the bravado to rock'n'roll a theme song... Can you share with us an unpopular opinion?
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yes, I can. And it's about JavaScript, too.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, let's hear it.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** \[47:30\] I think there's too much stuff in JavaScript. When I write JavaScript, I use a tiny little subset of the things you can do, really tiny. And I try and shrink that as small as possible. And I feel like that improves readability. I don't have to learn all the new features... Because there's lots of really cool stuff. The ?. thing - I loved that. I'm definitely gonna be using that one. That's extremely useful. But I try and use just a really small, little -- I almost have like a subset of JavaScript that I use. It could almost have its own name...
+
+But yeah, that's my unpopular opinion. I think JavaScript has too many language features, and should be smaller. What do you think of that?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, what do you think about food options? Do you feel like there's too many choices of what you might eat out there in the world, and you'd prefer if there were less? Or would you like to just select the subset of food options that you appreciate and use those?
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah, I mean... Well actually, like -- if you go to a restaurant... Nice restaurants only give you a small menu, don't they?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** But you also have the option of restaurant, so that's kind of a subset of a subset in that case. I've got no problem with that. That's their view of the world. That's their little particular... You could have its own name, like its own little MatScript.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah. But if you're collaborating though, if we're writing open source things, there's a benefit to having not all those features used in a language. There's a benefit that you get when you can look at the code and you know immediately what it is.
+
+With all the language features that you could use, that's a steeper learning curve. It's just a simple kind of numbers game really there. So I feel like there's a benefit always to smaller and simpler, but I'm not gonna have a go at anyone if they're using complicated things... Although if I'm in charge of reviewing the pull request, one of the things I'll say is "That is really clever. Well done. Can you just write it in a really verbose, boring way, please, so that I can read it?"
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It sounds like you're gonna decline your own pull request with the ?. function.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah, but I don't know...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** He likes that one.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** We've needed that for a long time... Because I still have code that's like "If this, and this..." or using the tertiary operator to try and find out if I'm gonna show something... And I'm surprised that Svelte -- I use Svelte a lot, and I was quite surprised that they haven't solved that, actually... Because it's all processed at compile-time. So they do have an opportunity to -- they could have implemented that, frankly, quite easily. Maybe they knew about the ?. thing that was coming, but...
+
+Yeah, it's a very common case to say, in dynamic languages and with dynamic data, to say "If this \[unintelligible 00:50:28.24\] and if not, we'll use a different field, or we won't show it", or something like that. I'm actually a fan of that ?. thing... Although it is weird that you use the dot when you're calling a method. I always expect it to just be the question mark and then brackets/parentheses, but... Too late.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There might be some backwards-compatibility reason why that couldn't be the case.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** So you said that you would prefer to only use a smaller subset of JavaScript... Could you give a name to that?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Go.js? \[laughter\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** How would you enforce that?
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Well, you could do a linter. You could actually have a compiler that only understood a subset of JavaScript. You could do away with older patterns, or older languages features that you don't wanna support. There's projects that do this kind of thing sometimes, but... I don't know really exactly what it is, but... You know, when junior devs come to a project, if it's trivial for them to get going, I feel like that's kind of a good property to have in a project.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Sure. Isn't that what a linter provides though? Or a style guide, like ESLint and/or Style Guide. Doesn't that provide that guard rails?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[51:55\] This is the kind of thing that some languages do it in the language, some languages do it by adoption... Perl is infamous for TMTOWTDI (there's more than one way to do it); you do it however you want. You do you, and you have write-only code. And then Python, which is a similarly flexible language, has the Python way, and there's a right way to do it, and there's a wrong way to do it, and those are both pervasive throughout the communities... And I feel like JavaScript - it's very fragmented. There's some parts of the JavaScript world that are very much in the Perl camp - "Do what you wanna do, write it however you wanna write it..." and then there are subsets of the communities where they have very tight linting, they have various other things to assert a subset of a language.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Or a superset.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** So it sounds like they all agree with me.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Subset.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Nick is just trying to turn this into a TypeScript conversation. Let's cut it off before he succeeds... \[laughter\] And let's move to the next unpopular opinion.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** TypeScript is great, they give you two different languages to mess up in. You can mess up in the typing language and you can mess up in the actual code.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** They have three. You can do that, or you can mess up in your js.comments, because you don't want to write real TypeScript. Oh, wait, did I already give my unpopular opinion?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Do you wanna go with it? \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, feel free to reiterate it. Or if that was it, we can just go to Kball. \[laughs\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** No, that wasn't actually mine. Go ahead, Kball.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** My unpopular opinion is that it really doesn't matter at all which JavaScript framework you're using... Whether you're using React, or Vue, or Svelte, or even Angular, Ember, or vanilla JavaScript, or what have you. They're all tools; they make some things easier, they make some things harder. What really matters is that you pick something consistent across your entire team, and that you're all working within that and being consistent within that.
+
+I have worked in mixed codebases, where this team picked this thing and that team picked that thing, and that sucks. But if you're consistent within your team and your codebase, I don't really think it matters at all which framework you're using.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I like that one.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah, that's not unpopular with me. I quite like that. And I'd go as far as saying, whatever makes you productive, whatever you can get to the product quicker... We do argue a lot and we care about it, so you understand why, but... Yeah, it often gets into like right and wrong, and people have these sort of fundamental ideas about things, that are fighting. And in practice, it's rarely about right and wrong; it's about taste and trend.
+
+Tailwind is a great example of -- we're almost going back to... Do you remember we used to put the styles in the style attribute, and then we were like "Oh, that's terrible. You're repeating all the styles everywhere. We're not gonna do that." And Tailwind kind of takes a step back in that direction. And because we now have components, it's not as big a deal as it was before. But yeah, it does seem to be quite trendy, and it's worth remembering that when you really love and care about something, it's worth remembering we are just in a sort of zeitgeist of the moment, so chill out a bit, I would say. Chill out, JS.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] The only problem with not being able to switch your current framework is you can't write your blog posts about how you're switching frameworks.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** What are you gonna write about...?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Exactly. \[laughs\] That's the problem. Are you gonna write about how you rewrote your blog platform? Those are the two blog posts that we write as developers; we write the one where we rewrote out blog platform, and we write the other one where we switched from one thing to the other. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Alright, Nick, your turn.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[55:54\] Yeah. So I probably should have gone after you, Mat, because this does kind of tie into yours a little bit, now that I think about it... I think that ESLint is out of control, and it's just kind of ridiculous. There are some good rules to have in there, and linting overall is pretty good, but then I just look at all of the rules that are added to the main project I work on, and it is so constraining, and for no good reason, because I just end up writing the eslint-disable-next-line comment above it, and every time I run across an issue like this, like using that optional chaining to call a method, like I mentioned in the first segment - that is disallowed by my ESLint. And if I just did the foo and the long-form of that, where I just check to see if that value exists before calling it, that's also disabled, for the same rule.
+
+ESLint rules are out of control. They don't actually help beyond a certain limit - there's definitely diminishing returns with that - and they completely slow down your editor, because it has to chug through all of those rules and process everything.
+
+So stick to something a little more -- I won't say standard. Standard is good, but stick to some standard, small rules, and don't just go crazy, thinking that every Friday the values have to be ending in a y, or something. I don't know. \[laughter\] Just don't put the silly rules in there.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** And you can configure ESLint, right? You can configure everything about it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I disable it.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah. Go has this thing called go fmt...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Here we go...
+
+**Mat Ryer:** I know, but come on... This is something that could be valuable for the JS community. go fmt doesn't give you any options at all. It's very opinionated, that's it. You just have to use it. It sorts out your tabs, it makes you use tabs, and the code formatting is done... It's very opinionated. And what that means is a lot of Go code - I mean, all Go code - looks very familiar. Of course, there's still ways you can do different design things, and you can still make a mess... But you get this benefit of -- sometimes I'll go to repositories and I'll read the code and I feel like I've written that code. And if you think about contributing to other projects, that takes a weight off. That's a great kind of property to have.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** It's like Prettier, but--
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I really like tools like Prettier.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** ...Prettier is also configurable though, right?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yes, to an extent. But still, it's very small in what you can configure... And it's really nice having that. Like you said, I can go look at code and it looks like I wrote it... I use that as a shorthand to write code, because I know that I can write things as terse as possible, and then hit Save, and Prettier just takes care of it for me and it looks nice, which I really like.
+
+But kind of to that, we are kind of in a very roundabout way getting that in JavaScript, sort of, through Deno. Deno has a fmt command as well, that allows you to do that in a built-in way, where you don't bring in any external dependencies, which is pretty cool.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Nice.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I don't think you could add it to Node at this point, but it is pretty cool seeing that in a fresh project like Deno.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** You also said fumt instead of fmt, so you get points from the Go community for that.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Oh, no...
+
+**Mat Ryer:** I'll make sure they send them over. No, it's okay, it's not gonna hurt your reputation.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** No, thanks.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** \[unintelligible 00:59:21.25\] rejected it... \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I have an idea for an awesome fork... I think we should fork the Go project and just track it identically, everything that goes in, except for change the tabs to spaces on go fmt... And then you got me. I'm there with you.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** We'll call it Stop.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** You can change the width of a tab, you know? I don't think you can change the widths of spaces...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I don't want to. I want it to look like the way I wrote it.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[59:48\] Alright... That's an unpopular opinion right there. We're running short on time. I'll just do mine really fast. I think software developers spend too much time on Twitter... And that's my unpopular opinion. And myself included. I also think we write too much on Twitter. I've seen too many blog posts that are tweetstorms, and don't exist anywhere else. That basically goes into the ephemera and disappears, or Twitter gets your Google juice in eternity, or whatever...
+
+So I'm cool with like the one-offs, and the jokes, and all that... But if you're gonna write a blog post, write it on your blog, and then maybe tweet some quotes out of it and get the socials going around there. Just don't write for Twitter for free, because you should write for yourself.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I look forward to hearing you continue on with this on Clubhouse.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Ha-ha... Follow me on Clubhouse.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** But actually, I do spend too much time on Twitter. And I find myself getting addicted to checking the notifications sometimes as well, which is a common problem. It got so bad I almost had to discus my phone into the Thames.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, wow.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah. You know the discus, the Olympic thing...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** I would have done it with a spin, and everything... Because you know, it's an expensive phone, it deserves a good send-off.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. Some \[unintelligible 01:01:05.21\] circumstance.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Exactly, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, if you ever do that, video-tape it with your other phone... I don't know. I don't have video things once you've thrown your phone...
+
+**Mat Ryer:** I could livestream it, because for a while it keeps streaming, wouldn't it? As it's descending.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** There you go. \[laughs\] Then you can go back and watch it, and get the video that already had been streamed up to YouTube, where they take your value and give it to people. Okay.
+
+Let's really quickly do shout-outs... Make it fast, guys. I will quickly do a shout-out to FreeCodeCamp.org. You all probably know about FreeCodeCamp. It's an awesome place to send people where they can learn all sorts of programming skills... And the reason why I'm shouting Quincy and the team out - right now they are doing a new data science curriculum. So there's a pledge drive going on, and it's going on this month. It's for creating an awesome, really robust data science curriculum. It's being matched right now by Darryl Silver has agreed to match up to $150,000 raised, so every dollar you put in turns into two dollars. So shout-out to Quincy and the FreeCodeCamp team. They're doing awesome work.
+
+I used to have to hem and haw when people asked me how they get started, self-taught style, in this industry, and now I just send them to FreeCodeCamp.org, and say "Come back to me after you've spent a few hundred hours going through this content and doing those things."
+
+So it's an awesome resource, and no doubt that data science curriculum will be a huge resource. It's all free, it's all available once it's out there, for anybody to get those skills. So shout-out to FreeCodeCamp.
+
+Nick, shout-outs.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, I will shout out Shawn Wang on Twitter. He's know as @swyx. His whole Learning in Public mantra is really cool, and I've learned a lot from blog posts and things that he's been putting out, as I kind of look into building different things... Doing things more in public, and thinking about that - it's just really cool, and I like that he shares so much and he's very open about that... So yeah, @swyx.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Awesome. Kball.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[01:03:09.26\] I'm gonna shout-out the Vite project. I just learned it was pronounced Vite, which is French for "fast". This is a project that Evan You, the original creator of Vue.js was working on. I thought for a long time it was just doing fun stuff, a static site builder in Vue or whatever, but it has turned into a generic frontend build setup or web tooling build setup that uses ES modules native. It's super-fast, there's a Vue plugin, which was the original, but now there's a React plugin, and various other things... So it's a very cool, new project, and I'm shouting it out because he could have just made this particularly for Vue, but he ended up generalizing it and making it available for everyone. So the Chrome improvements - it's improving the web for everyone.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Awesome. Last but not least - Mat. Shout-out.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yes. I've found this great project... This person doing some great work on left padding strings. It's called Leftpad, and basically... \[laughter\] If you need a string to look like it's over on the right - and remember that, because that's counter-intuitive; you're padding on the left, that's important... You don't have to write that yourself now, so it can save a lot of time for a lot of us. I think we should all pop that in the old dependency tree, no probs.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** You Go developers are on the bleeding edge.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Exactly, yeah. I was either gonna do that one... I haven't really been keeping up with it. There's another one called jQuery, which I thought was quite interesting; an interesting little project. But maybe we'll do that one next time.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, you assume too much, Mat, because you're never coming back... \[laughter\] Says the dictator. But we appreciate you being here this time, because we needed some royalty-free music... So now that we've got what we want out of you, we will see you on Go Time.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** I just wanna say, I'm not royalty-free. I still have a monarch in the U.K, unfortunately. \[laughter\] Yeah. I don't wanna get into that, but... Yeah. You sorted it out, ages ago.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We can chat it out on Clubhouse...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, we have our own problems now.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah, different. Yeah. Sorry, I interrupted you, Jerod.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** How do we end the show...? Thanks for coming on the show, Mat. Nick, thanks for always being here... And Kball - I appreciate you. That's JS Party for this week. We'll talk to you next time.
+
+**Outro:** \[01:05:39.06\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I was watching basketball last night, which is an American sport where people try to throw around a ball into a hoop - that's for Mat and Nick...
+
+**Mat Ryer:** They're not running around with baskets?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Something like that... And the Miami Heat have multi-colored jerseys, where the right side is pink and the left side is blue. They're both neon -- well, not quite neon, but bright, and they fade into each other. It's very strange; it's kind of interesting. So as they run down the court one way, it looks like they're wearing pink, and as they run back the other way, it looks like they're wearing blue.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** It's really confusing. Is that like a camouflage?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** We call that a gradient...
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Yeah, could you describe it using CSS gradients, so we can get an idea for what that looks like, Jerod?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, so it's about 243,375...
+
+**Mat Ryer:** \[laughs\] We'll put it in the show notes.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** No, we won't. Okay.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I thought you were gonna do it in Tailwind classes... \[laughter\] \[unintelligible 01:07:35.11\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, yeah... I haven't learned Tailwind yet, so I couldn't do that.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Well, it's great.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Nor have I learned RGB, so I couldn't do that either... \[laughter\] Alright, are you guys ready for segment two?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** TIL?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** TIL.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Alright.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Mat, are you ready to come up with a jingle for us? \[laughter\]
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Okay, I'll do it.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Okay, let's do it.
+
+**Mat Ryer:** Are you gonna ask me...?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, I'll cue you up.
diff --git a/When (and how) to say NO_transcript.txt b/When (and how) to say NO_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2f105aeda458f12bb8fca590eaf7be3baf9f5ccf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/When (and how) to say NO_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,525 @@
+**Jerod Santo:** It is our favorite time in the week, it is JS Party time! I'm Jerod, your internet friend, and I'm joined by three of my internet friends, including a brand new friend. Let's introduce her first - Amelia Wattenberger. Welcome to JS Party!
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, thanks. So excited to be here!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We are excited to have you. And Nick Nisi is also here... What's up, Nick?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Hoy-hoy!
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Hoy-hoy back at you. We also have anoter Amel-, but it's not Amelia, it's Amal...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Amel-- oh, no... \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, I can never trick you guys...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yet another name variation butchering, but it's all good. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right... This is great, because I can pull the old bait and switch. "Why don't you answer that one, Amel...ia!
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, look at you. Tricky-tricky.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Amal Hussein is here. What's up, Amal?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Hi, everybody. Happy to be here.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Always happy to have you. Now, we wanna formally introduce Amelia. She has been on the show before, but now she's here to stay as a regular panelist, so we're excited. We're gonna get to know her just a little bit... But first, I wanted to make a big announcement, because I want everybody to get excited about this. I'm excited about this. If you've been listening to the show and you've been hearing our intros and outros, I've been teasing up our next Frontend Feud episode, in hopes that we get that survey filled out by enough people that we can actually do the episode.
+
+I'm happy to announce that we have it all locked in at this point, September 2nd, a very special episode of Frontend Feud. It is a podcast super-collab with some of our favorite web dev podcasts. So we have Shoptalk Show vs. Syntax, live on September 2nd, with myself hosting. We're also gonna sprinkle in some JS Party animals onto those teams. Amelia will be joining Chris Coyier and Dave Rupert on Team ShopTalk, and Divya will be joining Wes Bos and Scott Tolinski on Team Syntax. So look forward for that.
+
+\[04:21\] We do have a YouTube event already in the system, so if you wanna go to that YouTube page and click on the Subscribe, or whatever the button is, get the announcement when this thing goes live... You'll definitely wanna participate in that one live; it's gonna be lots of fun. And I'll include the link to the livestream in the chat, as well as in our show notes.
+
+So a very special edition of Frontend Feud. We still would like more people to take that survey, so if you haven't yet, help us out by being part of the listeners survey at jsparty.fm/ff. Of course, one survey participator will get a free JS Party T-shirt.
+
+We have to get to at least 100, otherwise it's not a good sample size, y'all, and it just breaks everything. So fill out the survey... But Amelia, don't go fill it out, because you have to be on the show, and we wouldn't want you having the questions beforehand.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Do go fill it out with questions I know the answers to...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] Well, you might be able to do that. You'll definitely give team Shoptalk the upper hand. But who do y'all think is gonna actually pull out victorious? I mean, we have a couple of weeks to prepare... Who's your bet on, Nick? Syntax or Shoptalk?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Well, I listen to both of those shows and I'm going to say that if the questions -- I haven't looked at the questions, but if they are centered around Svelte, then Team Syntax all the way. If not, if they're centered more around -- I don't know, anything but Svelte...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** jQuery... \[laughter\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I was gonna say WordPress, but I don't want that to come off as like mean... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right... Alright, so I wrote the questions, but I don't remember what they are, so I can't give you any insights. Amal, what do you think? Chris Coyier, Dave Rupert vs. Wes Bos, Scott Tolinski in Frontend Feud. You've played Frontend Feud, so you know how it goes down... Who's got the upper hand?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You know, Jerod, I think much like life, this is gonna be a rigged game. \[laughter\] You need to play to Jerod. Jerod made the questions; you need to put yourself in Jerod's shoes...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's true...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** ...and you need to have a "What would Jerod do?" moment. So that would be advice to the teams... And I don't know, it could be anybody's game. It just depends on how well they're willing to get into your head.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's right. I like that.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** The real winner is gonna be Jerod if any team scores.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Basically, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, I do have a powerful mind, so...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yes. Your mind is a powerful weapon, Jerod. We've acknowledged that, and immortalized it. Thank you for that. You know, he actually literally grabbed that soundbite and put it on Twitter... I was like, "Wow, Jerod..." \[laughs\] Wow.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, it's the first time I've had a compliment for a lot of time. \[laughter\] You've gotta hold tight to it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Take what you can get.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, enough about me... But I do agree - I think if either of those two teams want a good chance at winning, they'll probably have to kiss up to me over the next few weeks in order to have a chance at the rigged game. But enough about me. Let's talk about Amelia. So you're here to stay, you're gonna be a regular panelist. We've had you on the show before. If you've been listening for a long time, you probably remember her on episode 113, which was over a year ago now. She joined Emma and I to talk about D3, to talk about the state of CSS, or JS chart that you designed... You do a lot of visualizations, you do a lot of stuff. Tell us about yourself, Amelia - where you're coming from, where you work... All the goodies.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah. I think this is actually gonna be different than the last time I was on here and said what I do, and for who... I am Amelia, I live in DC, which I also might not have the last time I was on... I moved from Upstate New York right before the pandemic, so I don't know DC very well, but hopefully that will change soon.
+
+\[08:14\] I've been a frontend developer at small startups, so I kind of do a whole range of things; sometimes I dabble in design, but it's mostly web development, and I really enjoy making data visualizations. So it's kind of a niche that I really enjoy. Oh, and right now I'm working for GitHub. It's kind of like we're rebranding as the innovation lab. So I work on a really small team. There's like two teams within the innovation lab, and we basically are focused on what is the future of developer experience, and we get to do prototypes and experiments to try out different things that we think might be cool, to help developers make their lives easier.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Nice. So we should get you talking with Chris Hiller, who's doing R&D at Sauce Labs. A lot of his stuff is very much prototypes, and trying out new ideas... It sounds like you have a pretty fun job there.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah. I've loved it so far. I've been there about five months now...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Awesome. Anything you can talk about, or is it all hush-hush in pre-launch?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** That's a really good question, honestly. I'm still trying to figure that out... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I don't wanna get you in trouble.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You can always claim forgiveness. You can ask for permission later; ask for forgiveness now... \[laughs\]
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** That's true.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Just kidding. We don't wanna get you in trouble. But that does sound like a really cool job, and I have to say - and I told this to Chris as well when he shared the news about this new role... Developers are really hard customers, and it was always like a personal goal of mine to be a toolmaker for a little while. I think I kind of got a little bit of that taste while I was working at npm, but... It's an honor to be developing for developers, because you're upstream from people who are upstream from everyone else. So there's kind of like a high level of scrutiny on your work, and a high kind of caliber and demand for excellence... So I think that pressure is fun, but it can be really challenging, too. It's hard to make everybody happy. We're still arguing over tabs versus spaces, for God's sake. \[laughter\]
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's funny, because Nick just shared his dotfiles repo with me the other day, because we've been toying around with Neovim - or I have; he's been using it for a while... And he was showing me some stuff he was doing. And it took every ounce of control in me not to open up a pull request and change his tab stops in his vimconfig to two spaces, which is the actual correct way of doing it. I didn't do it though, which shows I'm maturing as a human.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** You're a better man than me...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] Well, we know that, because I've used two spaces, which is what \[unintelligible 00:10:56.16\]
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, for the past six months I've actually only been working on some really intense research around if two spaces is better than four spaces, and the scientific conclusion is that two spaces is better.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes!!
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I'm just kidding. \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Dang it.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I'm not sure at all.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I'm really on that page.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I was really hoping you were gonna pull that paper out and show it to us.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, I was like "Wait a second, is this written down somewhere? Like, this is fantastic. There's some actual binary evidence."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I'm just gonna edit out... I plan on editing out the part where she says "I'm just kidding." \[laughter\]
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Sabotage...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Because then we have a definitive.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right, right.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** At this point, as long as you have a .prettierrc set up to convert whatever I'm writing to whatever you want it to be, then I don't care.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's a good point.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I wish Prettier could be extended to more things... Because I really do think there's things that are just really preferences. There's so many ways to skin a cat for any particular thing when you're writing software... And if we could just kind of really clearly differentiate preference versus functionality, and kind of make that clear... You know, teams just need to align, and once you align, you're not arguing in pull requests. But if we could just codify those conventions more strongly than even just linting rules, that would be really fantastic.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[12:20\] You mean like beyond style guides?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I mean like fully enforcing conventions across the board.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Like architecture?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Mm-hm. Like file locations, naming of files, function ordering, function names... Just kind of like more broadly putting a gamut on stuff.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I already dislike how many ESLint rules yell at me, and you're talking about adding even more?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right, yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You know what - I'm looking at codebases where I don't know who wrote the code, so...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So you don't know who \[unintelligible 00:12:51.05\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yes. I like it when you can look at different files and it feels like one story. But hey, everybody can dream, you know?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. What if you super-deep and not allow -- like, "You're violating the Law of Demeter, or something. We follow these rules around here, so you can't actually do that." Now, you need some high-quality static analysis. As we talked about the last episode, static analysis tools tend to fail in human ways, so that'll probably end up just being a thing that annoys you and then you eventually turn off, because you're sick of those warnings. You're like "I know I'm violating the Law of Demeter, and I want to."
+
+**Nick Nisi:** You've described ESLint.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Or Demeter. I don't know how you say it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. But I think you might be on to something here by setting a threshold. You can only introduce four new warnings in a given PR, as opposed to like a hundred... \[laughs\] Maybe you can pick your battles a little more \[unintelligible 00:13:43.25\]
+
+**Break**: \[13:51\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So Amelia, what brought you to Washington DC? Was it GitHub, or was it you just wanted to move, or...? Why did you decide to move?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I am actually moving within the next year as well. These are the perks of marrying someone in Academia...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, okay...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** But hopefully this next move will be the last move for a very long time.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, I see.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** We basically started in Texas, in Austin, and then we went up to Upstate New York for a while, now we're in DC, and then we will be in Berkeley, California, hopefully for good.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Well, that's a big move.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, I'm excited.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[15:46\] Myself, up until six years ago, I lived across the street from where I went to elementary school. I could walk my kids to the same exact park that I went to when I was in elementary school... In fact, when I cut my chin open in third grade, and had someone's tooth go in my forehead in kindergarten. That kind of stuff.
+
+So you've moved quite a bit, but I haven't fallen very far from the tree myself. Amal, you've moved around quite a bit...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, but -- I don't know, much like a serial monogamist, I've been pretty stable in my moves, in the sense that I'm in one place for a really long time... So not like constantly moving around, but yeah, I was born in New York City, moved to Dubai when I was a child, lived there for like 17 years, came back for college in the Boston area... I have lived there since, and just recently moved out of the Boston area into the Berkshires, so I'm in this magical place... Look it up. It's pretty magical. We have lots of --
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[unintelligible 00:16:45.20\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[unintelligible 00:16:46.02\] but we get world-class performing arts, and just lots of music, and good food, and culture, and people are really progressive, so it's a very magical place in that way. So yeah... But Amelia, I'm really curious about your background. So you are like this kind of intersectional developer, kind of spanning a few different areas of expertise. I'm really curious, what are some kind of nuggets that you've taken away from being that person that's jumped around different subject matters, and having to kind of glue them together as like the one person that's doing it all for your teams?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, that's a great question... What nuggets do I know? I don't really know... It's funny, because I was a psych major and neuro major, so I come from pretty far afield... And I feel like that actually ties in a good amount when I'm working. Just thinking about like the user experience, and where people are coming from when they're looking at website.
+
+I feel like there's not enough people who work in-between design and development, where I feel like a lot of companies are still stuck in the "You make a static mock-up, and then you hand it off to the developer, and the developer codes up a website", and it goes down the waterfall.
+
+I think there's a lot of really interesting things that could happen in the browser if the designer and the developer were closer, or potentially even the same person. I feel like we just kind of like had newspapers, and now they're websites, but it's like -- that's a big one for me, articles of like teaching things. When you're reading article, you could just be reading text, or what if we could make it interactive? How can we take advantage of what the web has to offer to make things more exciting, make things easier to communicate? That's not a nugget though...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** No, that's the holy grail.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I think you've hit on some really important points. I agree. The artificial constraints around our business processes, and our need to categorize things - they've created artificial boundaries, and they're kind of stagnating our creativity in terms of what could be... So yeah, I totally agree.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** What are your thoughts on improving that? For that example of getting designers and developers to work closer together and not just like throwing something over a wall to have a developer implement a design? Is it some kind of like intersection of tools, where the design tool generates code, and then that gets kind of refined by a developer, or...?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, yeah. You can see all these no-code tools coming out... I think there's two camps right now - there's designers and there's developers. And I feel like the no-code tools are bringing designers into development land, where they can make things interactive, make them responsive.
+
+\[19:41\] I also think it's great when developers move more towards design land... Which can be really scary, because I think developers have seen a lot of websites, and they know what looks good and what doesn't look good... At least this is true for me. So when you first start trying to do anything designy, you know it looks bad. You feel bad about yourself, you don't wanna share it, and you just kind of have to do that enough times that there's that one time where you're like "This isn't so bad. I'm happy to share this with people", and then you just get better and better.
+
+I'm a big fan of the one person who can do both things, but also just like working closely together in tools like Figma, where both designers and developers are comfortable and they're kind of like moving things around
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I have to say, it's a lot to ask of someone to master everything about being a good designer, and then master everything about being a good engineer, and then go do both jobs. It's definitely a lot to ask for, and I think we're really lucky to have people who are able to shift between both worlds... But if we're really honest with ourselves, I think there's still very much a T-shape. Everybody has a T, T being like you have a breadth of things that you're good at, and then you go on and kind of have your deep areas of expertise.
+
+I think it's really hard to be both. Even folks who identify as whole stack, like myself... I definitely move up and down the stack, but I definitely have areas of expertise, and I wouldn't wanna be designing a full-scale backend that needs to serve a million requests per second, or whatever. I'm happy I'm able to consult, but that's not my area of expertise.
+
+On the same token, QA is something I think that is being shared -- I don't know, it's being kind of more absolved, like quality... There were specific roles for testers, and those roles are slowly disappearing at companies, because they're pushing that ownership onto developers... So that's another thing, building quality software or scalable software - there's an expertise to doing that well, and it's another skill that we're not making a lot of space for these days intentionally.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Ira Glass of NPR's "This American Life" has a great little quote that he talks about, which gets passed around, the taste-talent gap I think he calls it... The gap between -- and Amelia, you were speaking to this, with the developer who sees good design and likes good design, and can recognize it when they see it, and can kind of/sort of do it sometimes, but not always... And there's this void between your taste and your talent, or skill. And he's speaking generally about creative people. We all go through this, where it's like, I know what I want to produce, but I can't actually. My skill can't get me there yet, and sometimes it can take years to where you're actually producing things that satisfy your own taste.
+
+So I think we all get there -- like you talk about, Amal, different areas of the stack... I think even if you're more skilled on the frontend and you see a really nice database schema for example, or a nice pattern in code, and you can appreciate that and say "Yeah, that's good." But then when you have your blank text area or your text screen, and you're trying to design that, then you have the gap. So we all have areas where we have the gap. So I think growing as a developer - and I'm including full-stack, every aspect of what we do in software - requires you to be filling in those gaps in the area that you are over time, and just -- you have to persevere through it, because you're not gonna be excellent at everything. But the more you can do more, then you can actually provide kind of holistic solutions, the better you are.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** \[23:48\] That's one of my favorite clips... And I feel like an important part of that - maybe that's just the way I heard it - is that the gap is the painful part, but it's also a good thing to have a gap, because you know what's good and what's not, whereas there are tons of things I don't know anything about and I have no taste in, where if I tried to learn them, I wouldn't even know if what I was producing was like a good one or a bad one.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Alright, we are \[unintelligible 00:24:15.01\] for a break, and we'll be right back to talk productivity tips and tricks... What are the odds Nick brings up Vim, TypeScript, or something like this?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\] Foreshadowing...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** 100% chance.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You know what's funny actually, Jerod? I have a really quick thing to tie this segment in with the next segment. Are you ready for it?
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Oh, goodness... Let's hear it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Alright. So I'm a huge fan of knowing your gaps as well, but I've found that -- my gaps decelerate your ability to work fast, but I'm able to really quickly fill that by just knowing who I can immediately reach out to to fill those gaps. I know my experts... If I have my "Who's good at this, who's good at that, who do I need to talk to for this", so the more you're able to build out your army of people within your team or your company, that are able to help fill in your gaps, the quicker you're able to fill that pothole and move on. So that's a really key part, especially working in large organizations - you need to learn how to lean on other people, and also just not have an ego. Ask for help, lean, ask questions, listen more.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Well, it's kind of the specialized versus generalized argument, because there's definitely a school of thought that says "Why are you trying to get better at these things that you are good at? You're excellent at this thing, and you can take that to the expert-of-expert level and be the best you can be at this particular skill." Maybe it's database design. Why not just be the best database designer and don't worry about these areas where you have gaps?
+
+And I definitely can respect both perspectives. I think in software - and Amal, I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I think having a robust team is really the answer, and you can fill out that gap by learning from these people who are excellent at it. You're gonna learn way faster from somebody who's good at this, interacting with them, than just by dorking around on your own in the dark for all those years.
+
+So yeah, a team definitely fills that out, but in terms of what we should do individually, getting better - do you specialize/do you generalize? I've always been a generalist, and I think that in technology specialization can work really well in your favor if you pick the right technologies to specialize in, and it can really hamstring you if you make a wrong bet. So the hedge is to generalize, and if you find a specialty that's clearly gonna be relevant for N years, go for it. Or maybe it'll go away and come back, like Cobol. You know, I specialized in Cobol, I was out of a job for a while, but now I'm just picking whatever.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You read my mind. You literally read my mind.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, you're just picking your salary at this point. You could charge whatever you want.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Pay me one million dollars for this pull request. Thank you very much...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Exactly. \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Send it to my Swiss account...
+
+**Break**: \[27:13\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So we thought it would be fun - we've done this before, but it's probably been years - to just talk productivity, because there's lots of little takeaways you can have, tips and tricks; there's things that you can take... If you just get one thing out of this segment, then I think it's a win. So we have a big list of productivity tips and tricks. We probably won't hit them all, and they don't all have names next to them, so like who put what in... But Nick put his name in, so...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Let's start with scripting.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Ooh, yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Parenthesis Nick. What's this?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, so if you're looking to be productive -- it might be an XKCD cartoon, it might not be, but there's some meme out there that's like "Why spend five minutes doing this when I could spend three months automating it to save me that five minutes?"
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And that's the general approach I take to life, for the most part. It's being productive at being unproductive. But seriously, I think that you can get really far with just tiny improvements to your own development workflow. And I can think of just a couple right off the top of my mind... Since joining the company I'm at, one thing that's really -- we have a monorepo, and it's really hard to run tests in the monorepo, and target very specific tests. I don't use any fancy UI for that or anything, so I'm all command-line... And I wrote just a simple Bash script called T, and I can pass it in the test file, and it'll just run that very specific test, but it'll also scope code coverage down to just that one thing.
+
+So I can run that with a watcher and just see things, hone in... And it makes me productive overall, because I'm not waiting for an entire test suite to run, I'm not thinking about how I craft the special command to only run that... I just type T and it opens up fzf, which is a fuzzy file finder for the command line, and it lets me fuzzy-find to the specific spec file that I wanna run, so I don't even have to think about that at all. I just start typing the name.
+
+Then it goes and it's automatically setting up the watcher and doing everything exactly the way that I want things to work. And that's really big. And just from there, there's really cool tools -- I live in tmux, for example; I run Vim inside of Tmux. There's the first Vim reference of the day... \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It didn't take long...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** ...and I recently just learned about display pop-up in Tmux. It's something that I can run from within my commands to just have it hit display pop-up and it will show the command output or ask me questions in a popup window inside of Tmux, so I can quickly do that. And when combining it with other things, like fzf, I can have a very complicated UI for this command line tool that is really simple to wrap a basic script around with anything, so that I can quickly do what I wanna do, and then that is gone; it just disappears after it's done. Or it lets me copy what I need and then go from there.
+
+So an example of something I use for that is logging into our app with various test users and all of that. I'm lazy; I strive to be lazy, and typing in the user name and password for a user is complicated, and takes a while. I have to load the page and all of that. With this tool I can just hit a key command, it'll bring up a display pop-up window in Tmux, it will let me fuzzy-complete the email address of the user I want to log in as, and then I push a button and it will make a request, log me in itself, and it will just deliver back the jwt that I can then just paste into my local storage, and off to the races I go, without having to log in at all.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, nice.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** So just little, tiny hacks to make me faster and not have to jump through a lot of minutiae when I wanna change things around. Because I have to jump through a lot of minutiae anyway.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[32:12\] Yeah. First of all, I've never seen Nick Nisi so excited, so hallelujah, amen. \[laughter\] Praise the tmux and whatever lords...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Speaking of tmux - I can never, ever figure out how to get out of my tmux session safely. I'm always paranoid about killing it... So that's annoying, but anyways. But no, what you've just described, Nick - there's actually another kind of hack that people use to do something very similar. It's actually using your end-to-end test runner; so you actually write your end-to-end tests while you're -- like using Cypress, for example, while you're actually developing a new feature. You start writing the tests for it, and then putting that test file on watch and being able to continuously run that and get to that point, so by the time you're done you have your feature, and then you have your end-to-end test. But your \[unintelligible 00:33:01.24\] is there to kind of keep updating the UI and getting to that state, and you use a robot that moves really fast, so you're not having to click around... So that's another hack.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I can't say that I've ever done that, but I really like the idea of it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, it's cool.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I should try it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, it's pretty neat. But I think logging in - and we've done this for our end-to-end tests, where you just do the programmatic login, where you get the token and you're able to reuse that for different tests as well, so you just by-pass the whole login process and speed up your tests... But yeah, anyways... I'll stop talking now.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I think scripting automation is probably the number one way that programmers feel like they have superpowers. Even if you do the backwards thing and you've spent hundreds of hours on this thing that takes you 30 seconds a day, there is the feeling of satisfaction that's actually irreplaceable. That is worth all that extra time, isn't it, Nick? ...just because, like you said, Amal, the joy on this man's face right here and his voice...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, my God. My goodness.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** He loves doing this. It's so cool! Anytime you have something annoying and you can, by your own skill or ingenuity or whatever it is, get rid of that thing and automate it, it just feels so good.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I don't think we talk enough about Bash. Not that you need to use Bash for every single automation, but like--
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Don't bash on it.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** ...it is a really good skill to put in your toolbelt, because it will serve you for life, much like Git. It's something that's really foundational to operating systems, and our OS'es. So yeah, learn it once, use it always. It'll really make your life a lot better, I promise.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I think unfortunately I use it rarely enough that it's like learn it once every few months, but...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, yeah. That's most people.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. It's horrible.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** But it does get easier, yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** But I think that tools like other languages that make it easier to write scripts are starting to become more prevalent. I think a lot of command line tools are written in Go because you can then compile that and have that executable and you don't have to worry about if somebody has Go on their machine to be able to run it... And you can do the same thing with JavaScript or TypeScript and Deno. You can compile that down and then pass that around and it's a really nice and easy way to write in a more comfortable language and not worry about all of these dependencies, like the difficulties of running it for whoever you might be sharing that script with.
+
+But I do think that that's one thing that we kind of take for granted as professional software developers - we just write code every day, and it's just what we're accustomed to. But if you were writing scripts like this in a non-coding job, and automating pieces of your job away, it would feel like a complete super-power, and we should just remember that.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[35:56\] It's funny you say that, because we've just had a fellow write in... We've just published on The Changelog an episode all about Vim, and we've got a lot of feedback about people who use Vim and love Vim... And he is a trial lawyer, and he wrote in on that episode how he's been using Vim since the '90s. Actually, Vi before it was Vim... Since the '90s. And he's using Unix tools, like the ctags stuff, and sed and awk, and it's all text-based... And he uses it in his lawyering work, and he's literally -- I actually asked him back, I'm like "Is there anybody else? Do you have like a club? What's the cross-section of lawyers who also use Unix tools?" And he said it's one person, it's just him. But because he's that way, he has superpowers. And he handles things that take other people hours and days, especially because a lot of law is just text manipulation, and collating, and extraction... So he has these skills and he's been doing it for years and years, and he says he can't even count how many hours he saved over his career because he has these skills.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Well, Amelia, to your point about learning Bash every few months, or relearning it - I do think we need to build up an arsenal of commands and scripts, and like "This is how I did this. This is how I solved that problem." Just kind of build that for yourself, so you can just keep that as your own reference log... I mean, that's why people blog; a lot of folks blog, just to kind of remind themselves of how they did it. You don't need to make a blog, but just make a repo, and have it be your notes, and have that be something that you're able to carry with you from job to job, and it's your own arsenal of how you did a thing... Obviously, don't steal company secrets, but... You know, most of the time there's nothing really secretive about how to write this kind of a regex, or script this thing... There's usually no company secrets there. But I would highly recommend that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Another thing on this list of productivity tips and tricks is pomodoro timers. Who's using pomodoro up in here? Is that you, Amelia?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I added that... \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** But you're not a user.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** ...but I don't currently use them. No, I do sometimes, and I used to do it a lot. The concept is basically just work in sprints...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Often you'll set a timer for 25 minutes, and basically you can't do anything except work. I don't think you actually have to work, but you can't do anything else. So you have to sit there, and eventually you'll probably get bored enough that you'll get some work then...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And you'll start working, yeah.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah. And then once the timer is done, you have 5 or 10 minutes to do anything but work. It just kind of forces you to sit down and either work or don't work, and kind of treat it as like -- you're not like multi-tasking, reading Twitter at the same time as you're coding. I've done it, it's really nice.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It's a discipline practice.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, exactly.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I was gonna say, it kind of ties into the hot new buzzword in productivity circles lately, and that's time-boxing, and it's really just planning out your day fully. That can be in the style of pomodoro, but just accounting for every minute of the day, so that you are maximizing what you can do when you take breaks, and overall just feeling good about the work you're getting done because you planned to get it done at that time.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I've tried pomodoro years ago and it just didn't click for me, because for me it takes a while to get into a state of flow - about 25 minutes - and then if I'm gonna take a five-minute break, my context is gone, and then I'm back, and I've gotta get it back, it takes 5 or 10 minutes... So I like to get into a state of productivity, kind of make-your-schedule/manage-your-schedule thing, like get the maker schedule going... Give me four hours uninterrupted... And I'll take an hour off, I don't even care. Because if I can go 3-4 hours without stopping at all, that's where I feel the most productive. Because the first 10, 15, 20 minutes is wasted on remembering what I was doing, and trying to figure it out... And then \[unintelligible 00:40:02.08\]
+
+\[40:04\] So I tried pomodoro, it didn't really click with me... I know people that use it and swear by it, and they say they're just so much more productive with this 25 on/5 off cadence... But I think the key is the discipline; it provides a structure for discipline for your work, so you're not just dorking around, which we tend to do when we don't have discipline.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I'm with you, Jerod. That's for me really the maker's hours thing. If I'm implementing a task and I need to have hands-on keyboard time, I just need my uninterrupted time... And I'm in flow state for a few hours, and I get it done. But breaking that up over multiple days - it's really frustrating and not productive. I need large time chunks to get there, and it takes me about almost an hour to really get into a good flow state, too. Slow warm-up...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Around flow state, I do have a blog post I wrote back in 2011 - holy cow, I'm getting old - all about how to retain your dev flow. This is between sessions. Because what I've found is that context ramp-up can really be a killer. And maybe it's over the lunch hour, but usually it's the day-by-day. So you finish at the end of the day, you start up the next day; and there's certain little tricks that you can do to jump-start that, to get your context back quicker, and get you back in the flow faster. So there's three things that I advise in that post, which - I continue to use one of these pretty much non-stop, we're talking a decade later.
+
+The first one - just leave yourself notes. Like, "What was I working on?" You're trying to get back to where you were. Leave yourself notes saying what you're up to. That's the most obvious thing that people do.
+
+It's too much work for me... You know, at the end of my day, I'm ready to leave; I don't wanna write myself notes from the past. So I just can't really see that as a sustainable way, but it's definitely a way of getting back.
+
+The other one that I do sometimes, depending on what I'm up to, is leave failing tests. So like the last thing you do at the end of your day is to write a test that fails... Even if you have a test that's passing, maybe just make it fail real quick, and then leave it there... Because then when you come back, the first thing you do is you run your test suite, and you see the failing test, and for some reason everything kind of rushes back in, like "Oh yeah, this is exactly where I was", and you can kind of like jump back to that spot in your brain. But even that's too much work for me. So what I end up doing -- you know, I used to do all these things, but now a decade later all I do is this third technique, which is to leave some unstaged changes in your Git branch, whatever you're doing. Specifically, I'm not gonna stage these, I'm not gonna commit this, I'm gonna leave it right here, and when I get back, I'm gonna see exactly what I had edited, but not committed. For me, that's a great way to get back in the flow faster than having to start fresh and think about what I was doing yesterday.
+
+Have any of you tried any of those techniques, or do you do anything to get back to where you were more quickly?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** That last one is -- I basically do that every day, because it's just so quick to be like "Okay, this is what I was doing." And then the other thing I do that's kind of related is there will often be things that come up, like little tests where I'm like, "Oh, I just need to get this done" at the end of the day, and my instinct is to just bang them out, like "Oh, I'm gonna lose all this context. I'll just get it done", and then I'm working till like 6:30.
+
+What I've been trying to do is -- like, if I stop, having that small task to do in the morning I find is just exactly what I need to get in the groove again and then tackle the bigger tests a little bit later.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, I do something very similar. I really like having some -- not starting from a blank slate in the mornings. So I will try and stop whenever I can for that. And just the way my schedule works out right now - I have to go pick up my kids, so as soon as the end of the day is here, I'm yabba-dabba-dooing it out like Fred Flintstone sliding down the dinosaur tail.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[44:00\] I really try and actually get to a stopping point a half hour earlier than that, and then I have a checklist that I try and go through, of "Process this inbox. Go through my email and see if there's anything to add to my inbox. Go through the to-do's that I have accumulated throughout the day and try and flag priorities that I need to get done by tomorrow, or during the day tomorrow at some point", so that when I come in I'm not just like "What do I do? Where do I go from here?" I just have a set list of "Finish what I was working on, respond to this email, go help this person with this problem they're having" and just go from there.
+
+I don't always succeed at that, but it's something that I really try and set myself up for successfully, and it sometimes works.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Unfortunately, I have a combination of that. I have this rolling to-do list that I'm constantly looking at, and checking off, and moving things up and down... But I can't leave the little things for the next day, because they just fall off of my important -- my brain is very into problems, so the little problems aren't always as exciting as the big ones... And I am somebody who, because of my job, I just have multiple things going on at any given time, so if I don't finish the thing then and there, I will forget about it and I'll come back to it like a week later, because it's just falling off... Like, "Oh, great! I solved the puzzle." So I'm notorious for having the longest pull requests... It's like, "Amal, this pull request looks like it's done. Do you wanna merge it?" I'm like, "Ohh, yeah, I just need to fix this end-to-end test", but that's not the exciting part, you know what I mean? So I don't care. So that's like a me problem.
+
+But yeah, once I've solved the puzzle, that's it. I'm less interested in all of the other mechanics of it. So if I take a break and come back to it the next day, it's not gonna happen as fast, so I just need to get it all in and just roll it over the fence.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I can relate to that...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, seriously. And the best thing, that's been saving my butt a lot lately, is GitHub's new Automerge feature. So it's like, as long as your CI is green, you get all the pull requests, you're good to go - you just hit that button and you don't have to come back to it, so you don't have to baby your pull requests anymore. That's been a huge boost to my personal productivity lately, just in being able to get things over the fence faster. Because I'm constantly context-switching, and so it just goes into my rotation and "I'll get back to it in a few days..." But again, that's a me problem.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So let's do one more here... I like this one quite a bit; it's not what you would normally think of, but it says "Knowing when to say no."
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, that's a really big one for me.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That seems like a big one.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah... This is just like general life advice. Especially last year during quarantine, it was just like "Oh, well I'm not leaving the house anyway. Why would I say no to literally anything?" And then you're overwhelmed with a million contract projects, or like you said yes to some side project, and then you have like five to do in one day, and it's Saturday, and even though you're not leaving the house, it's not restful...
+
+I think my new rule there is 1) say no to most things, but also 2) there's like an inherent cost in any project, no matter how small it is, because you have to get your mind in the right mindset, and think about everything around the problem... So that was a really big one for me to learn. I'm still learning.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** There's a great quote, I think it's by Derek Sivers, I have the book right here. "Hell Yeah, or No."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yes.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** If it's not a Hell Yes, then it's a No. That's something that I constantly have to think about. Because sometimes it can be flattering to say yes to something, and you want to do that and see what opportunities might come out of it, even though it might not be... But in the end, it can become too much. It all depends. But that's generally good advice.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** \[48:07\] I like that.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, that's one that I follow as well. And in fact -- it's tough, because you look at every opportunity as such a blessing, or such a cool, interesting... Like, you wanna do all the things, right? So it's kind of like "Yes...", but is it "Hell yes"? And you get to a certain point when the opportunities -- I mean, some people are in a phase of life where there aren't very many opportunities. Then it's just kind of like - well, go ahead and take the ones that come to you. But as you move on and advance, and find opportunity, and it finds you, over time, you get to a point where you get a lot of them. And then the problem changes to which ones to select and which ones not to select. And in that case - yeah, I ask myself that question all the time. "Do I really want this? Is this an obvious thing that gets me super-excited?" Or I just kind of feel like it could be good, or it's kind of like an obligation... You feel bad to say no; saying no reminds me of that Tommy Boy quote... Remember Tommy Boy's dad was really good at selling stuff? Have you seen that movie, Amelia, Tommy Boy?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I have not.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Chris Farley. It's a classic. You need to put that on your list. Say yes to watching that movie...
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** See, I just assigned you homework. Welcome to JS Party, where I assign people to do things... No, you definitely wanna see that movie, because Tommy Boy's dad was a great salesmen, and one of his lines is -- he's selling this rotary \[unintelligible 00:49:29.24\] or I don't know what he's selling... And he tells the guy "Why say no when it feels so good to say yes?" And the guy, of course, buys the thing. He sells him.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** \[unintelligible 00:49:41.18\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** But isn't that kind of like how it is? It feels good to say yes... But does it make it the right choice?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You know, Jerod, I got advice from someone on this exact problem, a technique that they use... When you're evaluating opportunities, you always wanna say yes to everything, but a metric that you can use to weed out the ones that are maybe less ideal for you, or if you had to do this tomorrow, would you say yes? Would you do this tomorrow if you had to do it? Would you make time in your schedule to do this tomorrow? Is this something that you'd be excited about doing? That's a good way to weed out if you're saying yes because you don't wanna hurt the other person's feelings, or because you feel obligated...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right. Maybe a second part of this tip, since we all have had some experience with this, is how do you go about saying no? Because some of it is like, that's the social awkwardness, or the anxiety about that interaction, letting somebody down, or turning somebody now... It never feels good, like the quote says, but are there ways that you've gone about saying no that have worked better than others, or how do you do it?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I'll tell you the way that I use the most, which is by far not the best way, but it's the most effective way sometimes... And that's - I ignore it until it goes away on its own. \[laughter\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So the ghost no... Okay. I mean, that is, I think -- in certain cold requests... I mean, we do that all the time. We get so much email for The Changelog; people wanna come on the shows... I'm not gonna respond to every single email and say no.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, is that why you've been ignoring all my emails? \[laughter\] Gosh, Jerod, I thought it was like --
+
+**Nick Nisi:** The truth comes out.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Gosh, now I know...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** I don't know how to break this to you, Amal, but you're on the show right now.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Anyways... No, no, I'm just kidding.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** \[laughs\] Anyway. So in that case, a cold email - you don't know the person, they're asking for something... I'm totally fine with not responding, because there's just too many emails in life. But what if it's like a colleague, or a friend? You're not gonna ghost a colleague if they ask you for something, right? You're gonna have to tell them something. Amelia, what about you? How do you say no?
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** I've been waiting to hear answers on this... \[laughter\] I need all the help I can get.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Out of office message saying you're in Alaska for three months... \[laughter\] And hoping that they forget about it by the time you're "back." \[laughs\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I have a built-in excuse. I just say --
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Kids...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** ...I have kids and I can't do it.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, that's a good reason to have kids.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, kids are a great excuse. It is.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** \[52:14\] Yeah. I never wanna lie about it, and my reason is always like "This isn't a priority for me" or "I don't think that sounds great", which I've tried before...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** "I don't think that sounds great..." \[laughs\] Yeah, it's honest.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** It's just like, this isn't -- I don't want to. You hate when you ask someone to do something and they lie about like "Oh, no, I can't do that, because I'm not available" and you're like "I didn't say when..." \[laughter\] That never feels good.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** They're like "I have bowling league that night" and you're like "Yeah, I didn't give a date yet."
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Honestly, a line that I've been able to use pretty successfully so far is that I just have too many commitments right now, and my plate's really full, and I would love to...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. That's true, right?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's the truth though... I just can't take anything else on right now. And it's always nice to give people another option, so like if you can redirect them to someone else, like if you're being asked to do a talk, or whatever... Just say, "Hey, maybe this person can help" and then just -- I think that's the most you can do. But yeah, you need to be protective of your time and energy, and most of the time people are understanding, so...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I do like that approach though, Amal, because it really shows that you did consider it, and you put a little bit of thought into it, which is -- it's not just like a canned no response in that regard. And even -- I'm thinking back to maybe what you said, Amelia... Like, if you were brutally honest, like "No, that doesn't sound good to me", that would probably stand out as a significant response that they might get for something like that, and it might lead to collaborating or changing it to be exactly what you want, and that could be good, too.
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah, totally.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** So I like the honesty of "Too busy, too many things going on." One thing that happens with that with a persistent requester is they will then set a reminder to ask you again in a month, or 60 days... And that can be problematic. So now you've gotta do it again... So at times I will say -- it's similar to what Amelia says, but I'll say something like "This just doesn't feel like a great fit" or "It doesn't feel right."
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** That's good.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** It just doesn't feel right.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's not you, it's me.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** And it's really hard -- I mean, it's not really offensive. It's not saying it's a bad idea...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's not you, it's me... You know? It's like a break-up. \[laughs\]
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Anyway, so it doesn't feel right. I've never gotten someone to write back and be like "How dare you?!" Of course, maybe they're thinking that, but they're like "Oh, okay. I appreciate the time."
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Yeah. That's great, because it's not like "This isn't good, objectively." It's like "It's not good for me."
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. It just doesn't feel right. It doesn't feel like a great fit.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Can I put someone on blast? Well, I'm not gonna put someone, I'll put an organization on blast...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Maybe...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[54:53\] There's a particular Facebook recruiter whose last email to me was literally (I kid you not) like "Okay, Amal, so I know we've reached out to you like 50 times... Here's hoping that number 51 will be successful. Blah-blah-blah-blah..." I'm like, "Oh, my God. What part of not responding to your emails, like "Not interested", do you not understand?" Persistence can hurt you, so don't be that person.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. So for the person who just cold-emails you five, six, seven times in a row without a response, I have a text expander for them, which is an all-caps "UNSUBSCRIBE". And I just reply with that.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's smart.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. It's like, "No, I don't wanna hear from you anymore."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Well, Jerod, I don't know if we're gonna have time to get to this, but we'll maybe put a link to the show notes, but for me, urgency/importance matrix has changed my life these past few months. I've started to adopt that, and I got some really good coaching on this from my boss, because there's so many things we can do, also so many things that I want to do, and a lot of people and engineering leadership roles have a very hard time delegating, because they know they can do the work better than anyone else, or they have a particular way that they wanna implement this. And I'm talking to myself here... But sometimes it's like, you need to really learn how to delegate, and what to delegate... And yeah, it might get done differently or slower, but it's fine... Because it frees you up to do other stuff. But yeah, knowing what you can do first, do later, eliminate, delegate - it's been a game-changer for me.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Right on. Well, we've been having too much fun, because we are way over time. We're gonna have to just delay our brand new third segment, which was either gonna be called Awesome Hrefs, or Stumbled Upon, or Linkapalooza, which now that I say it out loud is the worst name I've ever heard... But we're not gonna do it, so who cares what it was gonna be called...? We'll save that for the next time that we do segments.
+
+This has been an awesome conversation, I really enjoyed it. All the links to all the things are in the show notes, including Amal's urgency/importance matrix... So if you just got a taste of what that is and you wanna dive into it, definitely click through and check that one out.
+
+One last reminder - please do take the Frontend Feud survey, so we have lots of awesome responses, otherwise I'll have to have Nick write a Bash script that goes and takes the survey for us, and just fills in fake information. And I'll do it... Don't make me do it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[whispering\] Vim... Tmux...
+
+**Jerod Santo:** That's at jsparty.fm/ff. Nick, Amal, Amelia - thanks so much for hanging out with us today at JS Party. Any final words before we throw that outro song?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Welcome, Amelia! We're excited to have you.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Welcome, Amelia!
+
+**Amelia Wattenberger:** Thank you, thank you.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** We are happy to have you.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** We are representing the AM crew.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** The morning people.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yes.
+
+**Jerod Santo:** Yeah. Alright, that's JS Party for this week. We will talk to you next time.
diff --git a/Who let the docs out_transcript.txt b/Who let the docs out_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e54dae316a772b8d67b6814d263f47dbbde47ff5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Who let the docs out_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,329 @@
+**Nick Nisi:** Hello, JS Party! Welcome to another exciting week of the JS Party podcast. I'm your host this week, my name is Nick Nisi (Ahoy-hoy!), and I'm joined by the one, the only, Kball. Kball, what's up?!
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Hello, hello! Glad to be here.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Excellent, thanks so much for being here. And we have two exciting guests that I want to introduce, or I want to say their names and then let them introduce themselves... But first, we have Florian Scholz. Florian, what's up?
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Hey, hello!
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Tell us a little bit about yourself.
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Yeah, so I'm Florian Scholz, I'm based in Bremen, Germany, and I'm a technical writer, and recently we've launched the Open Web Docs project.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yes, very exciting. It's what we're here to talk about today. And with you we also have Will Bamberg. Will, what's up?
+
+**Will Bamberg:** Hello, I'm Will. I'm also working on Open Web Docs as a technical writer. I started last week on this project, and I'm based in Vancouver, BC. Where it snowed this morning. Unexpectedly.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Very nice. I'm very much over snow right now. \[laughter\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, how many weeks of snow are you on now, Nick?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It's actually been melting quite a lot. I built a snowman with my daughter on Sunday, and by Monday afternoon it was totally melted. So... Very good.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That's progress.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Will Bamberg:** It's rare enough to be exciting here, but yeah...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Well, as fun as the weather is, we are not here to talk about the weather, we are here to talk about docs. Particularly web docs. Particularly Open Wed Docs... So I just have to ask the question to kind of get us started... Who let the docs out?!
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Yeah, Open Web Docs - we've been just launching it in January, so it's a pretty new initiative... And what we're trying to do is support platforms like MDN with documentation, with technical writing, and help web developers out there to read all about the web and how it works.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[04:27\] Very nice. So when I think about web docs, there are three letters that come to mind, and it goes on the end of every DuckDuckGo search that I do, and that's MDN. So can you tell us a little bit about Open Web Docs and their relationship with MDN or with Mozilla?
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Oh yeah, absolutely. Open Web Docs actually works a lot with MDN, because MDN is the premier source for documentation, it has been for many years. I think last year MDN celebrated its 15th anniversary, so it's one of those old-school sites out there, and it has been serving web developers for quite some time. And yes, we're working with them very closely, documenting web standards... And both Will and I have actually been employed there, so we've been long-time Mozillians. So yeah, we've been on this mission to document the web for quite some time now.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So I didn't know coming into this... Open Web Docs - y'all are a new organization, but not a new set of documents, is that right?
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Exactly. We are a supporting initiative... And maybe I should probably talk a little bit about the history here. Basically, I think when I got involved with MDN in 2009 (or 2010, something like that), MDN was actually changing from being strictly a platform for documentation around what Firefox implements. Stuff like the JavaScript Standard was actually invented by Mozilla engineers. So it was kind of born there. MDN used to be a very Mozilla-centric documentation platform. But over the years, and especially with the HTML5 and CSS 3 hype, the documentation on MDN changed, and it became more of an Open Web Docs platform.
+
+And I think it was 2010 or 2011 or so when first other organizations were interested in helping out on MDN. Over the years we've had different writers, say from Google, or from other bigger browser vendor organizations who helped us out in documenting the web together on MDN. And then I think about three or four years ago there was a thing called the MDN Product Advisory Board, so this kind of thing that tech projects from different organizations coming together was more formalized... So the Product Advisory Board was formed, and different organizations formally came together to document the web on MDN.
+
+Recently, even more so people got together and thought about having more diverse funding for MDN and for the writers working on it, and this is how Open Web Docs was born just a month ago. We're on Open Collective. Everyone can donate to us, and we're using the funding to help MDN and to document the web even further.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So is this related to all the restructuring and financial turmoil over at Mozilla?
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Yeah, this was kind of the event that triggered everyone getting their heads together in terms of "Okay, how can we come to a more diverse funding for such an important platform?" So we worked with Open Web Docs's founding organizations to figure out a way forward.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[08:04\] Cool. So... Talk a little bit about those founding organizations. I guess the money before was mostly coming from Mozilla. Now you're on Open Collective. I saw there are individuals fundraising... But is the expectation this is going to be something truly sponsored by the community, or is it something that's going to be a set of large companies donating, or how are you thinking about making this thing sustainable?
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Well, this is something for us to figure out this year, really. We are really happy about the generous funding that we've received from the founding organizations. We're gonna see if we're effective with this initial plan and our initial ideas around supporting the web platform documentation. And yes, ideally we can sustain, and continue with this mix of individual backers and organizations.
+
+I think everyone from the larger browser vendors or larger organizations playing a big role on the web - they do have an interest in having good documentations out there, so that web developers can develop for the web... So I'm actually quite positive about us getting continued funding with this. But time will tell, I guess.
+
+**Will Bamberg:** I think having more different sources of funding and more diverse funding obviously makes us more resilient as organization than being dependent on a small number of deep pockets first. And I think also it makes it easier for us to be independent. I think everyone involved in this is very much committed to Open Web Docs being an independent organization, but it's much easier to make that claim and for that claim to seem credible if you have a lot of different sources of funding than if you only have a few, I think. This is part of the reason why people like MDN and people use MDN, is that it's seen as a genuinely independent source of information about the web... And that's a thing that MDN has been pretty strongly protective of for a long time really. It's taken a long time to build up that kind of reputation, and I think everyone understands that that's one of the most important things about it, and it's worth protecting, you know?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, definitely. At this point, for me at least, MDN is synonymous with the Open Web Docs. If I want to find out about some esoteric web API that I didn't know about before, like I said, MDN is at the end of my search query every time.
+
+So tell us a little bit about the organization - how it's structured, what's it like, what are the different aspects that you're covering beyond contributing to MDN, to start?
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Beyond MDN, that's a good question. For now, we're really focusing on supporting MDN. Another project that I'm really passionate about is the browser-compat-data project, which is also an MDN project, but I think it goes a little bit beyond that. To explain this a bit more, the browser-compat-data project is a project that collects what each of the major browsers are supporting. And if you see the compat tables on the \[unintelligible 00:10:58.13\] for example, then this project powers those tables. But also, Can I Use these days is powered by exactly this data... So we're working with Alexis, who runs Can I Use, and we're discussing now to move forward with web compats, which as we know is one of the biggest problem, if not the biggest problem that web developers face.
+
+So next to MDN we're also supporting a lot the browser-compat-data project, and we're looking into how can we help web developers finally having more fun developing for more browsers and addressing some pain points there.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I was gonna ask about Can I Use... I didn't know that it was powered by thisbrowser-compat-data. That's really cool.
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Yeah. So we made this two years ago, or something... Basically, the browser-compat-data project is so rich these days; we have over 12,000 features in there. As you all know probably, the API surface of the web is just getting bigger and bigger every year; there's tons of APIs added to it, and so there's obviously more and more compat data about all these new features, CSS properties, new web APIs, new JavaScript/ECMAScript core features... So this browser-compat-data project is about collecting all this data and how the different browsers are supporting it.
+
+\[12:26\] And Can I Use did have really good compat data, and obviously, it's one of the premier addresses in the net to figure out compats as well... But it only covered - I think it was like 500 features or so... So we really teamed up with Alexis here and merged in the MDN compat data in Can I Use... And yeah, for quite some time now you can search on Can I Use and the results will also give you everything that's in the data store for browser compat data.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Now, in terms of what y'all are planning here - at first glance it sounds like this is essentially pull out the organization that was supporting MDN from Mozilla, create an independent organization, diverse funding sources, but essentially operating the same way. Is the intent to have primarily dedicated staff, technical writers that are employees of OWD? What's the future-facing model?
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Well, for this year and with the initial funding we reckon we can finance about four full-time people. We've hired me and Will, so we will probably have money for two more full-time employees. Depending on the things that we wanna accomplish, we might hire some freelancers or contractors to do certain things, but we don't know yet. But we reckon with the initial funding a staff team of four is possible.
+
+Organizationally -- so Mozilla still plays a big role with MDN. Mozilla is still paying the servers, Mozilla still has a writing team, Mozilla still has engineers actually building the MDN platform; they have backend and frontend engineers actually building the site, the platform MDN. So Mozilla continues to invest in MDN heavily. So that continues.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** From a project management standpoint, would decisions about that then go through the Open Web Docs organization, or how would that work?
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Currently, Mozilla is part of our steering committee, so we're working closely with them to figure out a shared roadmap, what kind of content projects to take on... So yeah, we kind of work together closely with Mozilla.
+
+**Will Bamberg:** And I think this role -- I mean, there are projects that are just content, which Open Web Docs can just do on its own; it's just our decision about whether it's a thing we want to work on. And there are also projects that cut across the content and the development, the platform side as well, and those will be figured out in the joint project with Mozilla; they will provide the engineering side of it. So those are gonna be more complicated, I think.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And is there any plan to support other docs platforms?
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Yeah, I think for this year we're focusing on MDN, and I think that's a lot of work; documenting the web on MDN is a life task... So for this year we're focusing on that, but beyond that, I think there's opportunities for us to also contribute to make spec processes better. I've been thinking a lot about how does it actually work if someone invents something and puts it in the spec, then people implement it, then people write tests for it, and test262 or wpt tests... But then what they always forget is documentation. So what I also wanna work on is how can we work closely with specifications for standards organizations, help them learn more about documentation and how can we bring documentation more into the standards organizations, and make people aware that - yes, you have written the spec, but specs aren't documentation and friendly towards developers necessarily... So what can we do. These kinds of questions is something I would really love to work on.
+
+**Will Bamberg:** \[16:25\] As I see things right now, I don't think there's any real appetite to do something like MDN, but to another platform... Because MDN does what it does, and it does what it does well. So there might be other things that fulfill different kinds of needs that we want to work on. But MDN is MDN, and there's not much point making another one that I can see.
+
+Back in 2014 there was this thing called webplatform.org, which was a project by a bunch of browser vendors to build a replacement for MDN, and it wasn't really successful because MDN was already there. So you know, I think it doesn't seem like a direction we really want to go in.
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Yeah, absolutely. I agree there. I've been participating a bit with the WebPlatform efforts and I thought it was pretty much a duplication of MDN, so I don't think this is a route that anyone should go.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Any plans or thoughts towards removing the MDN from the Docs - that name - and going with something more open?
+
+**Florian Scholz:** No, I don't think so. As you say, you DuckDuckGo with the prefix, so I don't think \[unintelligible 00:17:32.14\] I mean, if anyone wants to, maybe... We changed, by the way; we changed from MDC, if you remember this, to MDN. Maybe it was 7-8 years ago, because it was the Mozilla Developer Center, and then it was the Mozilla Developer Network, and then it officially became MDN Web Docs, which - kind of MDN stands for itself there... So it's a bit like IBM, or so...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Florian Scholz:** So I don't think this will change again.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Plus, Mozilla is already in every user string, so...
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Yeah. Right. \[laughs\]
+
+**Break:** \[18:14\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Right, so in the last section we talked about what the Open Web Docs are, what the organization is, its relationship with MDN, and a little bit about its funding... But let's dig a little bit deeper into the process and what goes into the organization, and figuring out what to actually work on... So I'll just ask you - how do you decide what to work on within this? Do you find docs that need cleaning up on MDN? Do you look at new APIs coming in and kind of base it off of that? What's the actual process that goes into the actual work?
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Yeah, that's interesting. Let's dig into that. So MDN moved to GitHub in December 2020... And now that it's not a wiki anymore, you actually have to think of MDN as the typical GitHub project with a massive repository and people coming to it and wanting to do changes, and those pull requests, that kind of stuff.
+
+If I were to describe my typical day, what the hell I am doing every day for Open Web Docs, it's I spend a lot of time on GitHub, reviewing pull requests and working with the community to get docs updated, to fix typos, to get new things, new APIs, CSS properties, and things on MDN. So I think that's really -- I don't know what percentage I should give here, but it's a lot of work, just being the cat herder on the GitHub repository.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Absolutely. It's a full-time job.
+
+**Florian Scholz:** It absolutely is.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So essentially community and project management more than doing the writing itself... Which makes sense, because that's always the hardest thing to get in an open source project, is the organizational piece.
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Yeah, of course it's writing, but in this case, because it's open source and because we're working with a global community and everyone is really happy to contribute to MDN, and that's a really good thing... But it does mean that you need a bunch of cat herders to work with the community and make them feel good about their contributions... And I love doing that job.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** How does it work in terms of the actual content, and deciding when releases get pushed to actual MDN? Is it just kind of ad-hoc as things come in? Do you wait for translations, or what's the process behind that?
+
+**Florian Scholz:** \[23:56\] I think we're gonna enable translations soon, and this is something that the Mozilla engineering team is working on... But we're not actually waiting on anything. Basically, once a pull request is reviewed, it goes live. It's merged, and then it gets deployed, so there's not much of any further approval thing in between there.
+
+It used to be a wiki, and then basically everyone who had an account could just come in, make changes and it's live, much like on Wikipedia. So by moving to GitHub, there's actually a moderation level in here, which is pull requests... That's how things get approved, really. It doesn't really need more than that, I don't think...
+
+**Will Bamberg:** Yeah, I think Florian alluded to it - it's a big change for MDN moving onto GitHub; it really changed the dynamic a lot in the way people work, and also the way staff interact with community members. And I think it really helps with collaboration, having a pull request model... Because in a wiki, your interactions with contributors are super-limited, really. Your options are if you see an \[unintelligible 00:25:08.27\] you can do nothing, or you can revert the edit, or you can revert the edit and ban them. They're all quite aggressive things to do, apart from nothing, which is kind of passive-aggressive.
+
+So it's really nice, I think, having a pull request model, where you can talk to people and say "This is a great change, but maybe we should think about doing it over there" or "Maybe we should also think about doing it on all these other pages that have this problem, too." It's much easier to just talk to people with that kind of model.
+
+As Florian said, it's kind of new, and I think we're kind of getting used to it. We're learning what it's like dealing with this big documentation site with a lot of contributors; so we're kind of finding out right there. But so far, it seems like it's going really well, I think.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That's interesting to poke at a little bit more, because I think most of our audience, probably their experience with MDN is like Nick's - they put it in their search bar, or they, like me, forget to put it in their search bar and then scroll past the W3Schools entry to get to MDN... But it is open. It's something that we can all contribute to and help out with. Are there any restrictions on who can contribute, or how to get started with that, or recommendations that you have if somebody wants to start helping out on the creation side?
+
+**Florian Scholz:** So there's no restrictions, really. Anyone can. And there's lots of newcomers that we've seen already in the first few months on GitHub, so I can only encourage your and everyone who listens in to come to the MDN content repository and browse around, make some changes, file an issue... There's many issues filed, as usual on large open source projects. Some of them we've marked with "Good first issue", so you might wanna look at these, you might wanna ping some folks like me and then see if I can help to mentor with a thing or two... I'm always happy to.
+
+Also, if you are passionate about an API or a thing that you're like "This is so cool. I love that someone shipped this, but where are all the MDN docs for this?", do tell us. Let us know, and maybe we can help with documenting it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, this is pretty cool. I'm going to admit that usually I just come to MDN through search, and I find the exact API that I'm looking for... It's usually something like slice and splice, or something like that, where I'm trying to figure out the difference... And I don't do much browsing beyond that, but I am right now - and I noticed under Reference and Guides there's accessibility, there's even one on game development that kind of gives you some resources on that... There's a lot more here than just web APIs, which is pretty cool. Or it's kind of collating stuff together as it relates to the web APIs, which is also pretty cool.
+
+\[27:54\] I was gonna ask about how new stuff gets added into MDN, particularly like new web APIs, or... I'm thinking in terms of -- like, one thing that I try to keep up on is TC39 proposals, when things get to stage four... Is it at that point that things then get added to MDN, or how does that work?
+
+**Will Bamberg:** Yeah, pretty much. I think stage four is probably a good time. Sometimes even stage three proposals make it to MDN. I think in the past it depended a lot -- like, some browsers shipped it, and then some technical writer of that browser vendor decided "Okay, it's time to get it on MDN." But as I've tried to get into earlier, I wanna kind of change this model also a bit; stage four also means not only you have Test262 tests, but also it means you have docs on MDN, please. These kinds of things would be really great going forward.
+
+So there's definitely different signals to different people really when things should go on MDN... And one is, "Well, a browser ships this thing, and it appears on the release notes of that browser, and so it should be documented on MDN."
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Nick highlights something interesting - so there's things that are tied directly to a particular API or particular feature. There's "Hey, I need to know how to use this new thing that just got approved", and in some ways it sounds like there's some work to be done, but it's pretty clear, like "Okay, once this gets past a certain stage, it should go on MDN." There's not a decision-making process saying "Does this belong here, or does this not?" What about those guides, like game-making, or accessibility, or whatever? What's the decision-making process around "Hey, we should actually build some meta content. Something that's not just describing the details of a spec or an API, but here's a guide to how to do this type of thing"?
+
+**Will Bamberg:** Yeah, this is I guess in some sense a piece of process that's work in progress for Open Web Docs. The idea is that people can request new things they want to see on MDN, they can request them as issues against the MDN content repo, I think, and also things come through from the steering committee of Open Web Docs, that we look at and we say -- we call these things opportunities; there's basically a project to work on, and we can sort of score it. There are criteria, like how timely it is, whether the time is right for this particular thing, what the impact of it is, how much work it is, that kind of thing.
+
+In terms of things likes guides - there are areas that we know MDN is lacking. We've talked about how we could have better guide docs for performance, and better guide docs for privacy. These are big areas where the MDN docs are not that great right now, I think. So we kind of know where these sorts of weaknesses are, and they're kind of floating around on the roadmap; when we decide that the time is right for us to do them, we can start working on them.
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Yeah.
+
+**Will Bamberg:** But if someone files a bug and says "I couldn't find anything about how to secure my website here that makes sense to me at that kind of high level", then that's a thing we'll take seriously and we'll look at and say "Yeah, there's obviously a gap in our docs here", and it can feed into a project like that.
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Another input to our work and decision-making is also - believe it or not, but we are running one of the largest surveys on MDN that web developers respond to. There's the Stack Overflow survey, but there's also the MDN Developer Needs Assessment. You might have heard about that one. With this one we were actually able to figure out what are the top pain points for web developers. So if they tell us it's compatibility, we should probably improve the documentation on that. If they tell us "I still don't get \[unintelligible 00:31:43.01\] I need more guide material on these things..."
+
+**Will Bamberg:** Right, yeah.
+
+**Florian Scholz:** So yeah, I think we're trying to do user testing and user interviews, maybe sometimes even A/B testing on some docs, to figure out what is best for all the web developers using MDN.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[32:10\] What's the decision-making process behind including documentation specifically about third-party -- or stuff that's not part of the platform itself? For example, just searching around - I was searching on JavaScript framework, and I saw "Oh, there's an MDN article on Ember.js specifically", where there's articles on accessibility in React specifically. So what's the distinction or what's the decision-making process around whether X, Y, Z third-party library should get included on MDN?
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Yeah, so by default, MDN really cares about the web platform, so I think vanilla JS and just documenting web standards is the top priority. However, and as we go into guide material tutorials and that sort of thing - well, there is the reality that frameworks are used, and some are used a lot, especially in a thing that we call the learning area on MDN, where people can go and actually follow a pathway, so that at the end they actually say "Okay, I've learned, I've accomplished something by going through this cause, or through this set of articles, and I've learned how to do things with Ember or React." And for how to choose, which frameworks to use, I think we really reached out to almost all of the major frameworks to give us input and to help us contribute this documentation in their learning area specifically... So I think it was kind of fair. We weren't preferring any framework there, really... And if any framework doesn't see itself on MDN, but we should have it, then talk to us; we're happy to add it.
+
+As Will said earlier, MDN was really trustworthy, because it comes from this neutral editorial voice, and we surely wanna keep that not preferring any framework or any browser vendor. I think that makes us so trustworthy in the web development community.
+
+**Will Bamberg:** Yeah. In my perspective, my sense anyway, is that historically we've been pretty reluctant to have a lot of documentation on MDN that's not Open Web Docs, for various reasons. One is that React has its own docs; they're great docs. They maintain really good docs. What's the point in us having docs that are probably not gonna be as good on MDN? It doesn't seem to add any value for anybody.
+
+On the other hand, people ask for these docs quite often, and I think especially for the JS frameworks. These are among the most requested things on MDN, "You should have docs for JS frameworks." So we do now. But I think they're kind of intentionally more high-level than the React docs for example themselves... Because another problem with this is they tend to change more often and quickly, and so maintenance becomes a huge problem. You don't have the same kind of insight into the roadmap for this project, so you don't exactly know when change is gonna come up and you're gonna have to update your docs for it, right? So you're working at kind of a disadvantage there anyway. So yeah, I think there is space for some documentation that's not Open Web Docs, but I think it kind of wants to try to be high-level, and the kind of stuff that won't age badly, you know?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, that makes a ton of sense. I feel like there is a case to be said that there shouldn't be any of these framework-specifics docs on there; that it should all link out. But as you say, you also need to react to what people want and what they're looking for.
+
+**Will Bamberg:** Yeah, that's the thing - people do ask for them.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And along the same lines, I know that they are separate things and it's not technically open web, but from just like a knee-jerk comparison between -- as a JavaScript developer I'm writing JavaScript, and me personally, I'm writing JavaScript either in a browser or on the server... And so I have caught myself typing in "readFileSync mdn" or something to try and find Node-specific APIs there. But you don't see that as a purview for Open Web Docs to be looking into?
+
+**Florian Scholz:** \[36:14\] Yeah, I don't think we're gonna write server-side Node documentation... But here again we look at what our users want, and they actually told us that the compat tables should have Node.js as a thing in there. So we did that, and people love it. Whenever they browse the core JavaScript docs and they see the Node.js support version there as well, it's like "Awesome. I just needed to know this." And apparently, the Node.js docs themselves, they probably don't make it so great to browse which version supports what... But yeah, there you have it directly on MDN too now.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. That kind of got me thinking about it, because I do see Node in those compat tables.
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Yeah. Sometimes we're like "Okay, we've gotta have Node for the compat table", but documenting \[unintelligible 00:37:00.26\] is probably stretching it a bit too far. And also, what Will said - I mean, the good thing about the web is... I mean, it's a good and a bad thing, but we're not removing much; we're just adding more, and there's no incompatibilities really. There's no versioning, there's no Web 2.0 or something, really. It's just one version, one JS. But with React, it's gonna be where we're at right now, but as Will said, those APIs, those frameworks, they just change all the time, and we have no insight into where we are with things, and we can never keep up. An impossible job.
+
+**Will Bamberg:** Yeah. They can afford to move faster, basically, than the web, right? So that's gonna be a problem for writers.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** The back-compat story is so different, right?
+
+**Will Bamberg:** Yeah, yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** The whole "You can't break the web mantra that has defined our paths forward on JavaScript and CSS and all of these things... I hadn't thought of it before, but that's a boon for you as documentation developers, because you can be append-only, essentially, for prior stuff. Maybe you tag it with Deprecated, but it's gonna keep working if it's in the platform.
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Yeah. I mean, as someone who works a lot with compat stuff, \[unintelligible 00:38:16.16\] browser-compat-data project, I know that there's lots of stuff also that we're gonna deprecate, and maybe remove one day... And just adding to the API surface - I don't know how long-term this will look like. If we're talking again in five years, I seriously don't know where the API surface will be at, and I don't know if we're still in this fun JS world. It's super-interesting to see what's happening there... But yes, we're just marking things as deprecated and don't use it anymore... But you know, it still exists, and websites from 1995 - they exist and they still work, and that's beautiful... But they probably use APIs that you shouldn't use when writing a new website today.
+
+**Will Bamberg:** Yeah, right. So the APIs are technically still there, but the \[unintelligible 00:39:05.16\] So you still have to maintain them, but you still have to write stuff that says "By the way, don't use this, even though you can." That's quite often a thing for maintenance on Open Web Docs, is updating guidance around things.
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Yeah, absolutely. One thing I noticed is that they're working a new date API, and this is so fundamental. Date APIs are one of the most browsed docs... I think a lot so because the APIs are terrible... \[laughter\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I was gonna say, they're browsed so often because it's broken.
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Yeah. But imagine we have the new Date API, or whatever it was called (I forgot), but imagine we got this implemented everywhere, and now we need to advise everyone to move away from the Date API to this new thing that's gonna be interesting, I think...
+
+This is a typical task that we do - we advise, "Hey, this thing, AppCache, or Date API - we've got a new one. If you are doing a new project, don't do this anymore; do that instead." This is what we're doing also a lot, I think - giving these kind of hints and best practices information.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** This is just my own ignorance speaking, but do you all do migration guides as well? In that example, "You're doing a new project - you shouldn't be using this, you should be using that. If you have an old project, here's how you migrate."
+
+**Florian Scholz:** \[40:22\] Well, AppCache - I think we wrote up some material, "Okay, AppCache is gone. Use Service Workers." But I don't think we do this regularly. We should probably do this more often. I think migration guides are great.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Alright. Feature request. File it \[unintelligible 00:40:35.11\]
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Yeah, file it. Just file it.
+
+**Will Bamberg:** Yeah, it is a good point.
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Some brainstorming here, I love it.
+
+**Break:** \[40:41\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** So we talked about what the Open Web Docs is and what you've been doing and what your focus is for 2021, and that is MDN specifically... But where do you see that going beyond 2020? What other kinds of ideas do you maybe hope to take on, or are thinking about taking on? What does the future look like?
+
+**Florian Scholz:** As I've said in the other section, one of the things I'd like to bring more into this standards world is how they treat documentation - in my eyes, hopefully at some point, as a first-class citizen, just like tests... This is gonna be something I wanna work on.
+
+And then another thing I'm thinking about is also writing more documentation about how web platform stuff gets done, so how specs get written... I think Bocoup was writing a web platform contribution guide at some point, which I really enjoyed... But I don't think it covers documentation very well, so we could maybe extend that and onboard more people into writing documentation for the web. So I think this could be something. I don't think we will move away from being centered around MDN next year or in the future. I think Open Web Docs is a thing that should support MDN long-term.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I know you mentioned ECMA Test262... I sometimes see tests as documentation; if they're well-written tests, you can see them as runnable documentation. Do you see something like that ever becoming the purview of Open Web Docs?
+
+Another thing I'm thinking about is -- I'm contractually obligated to bring up TypeScript... And I'm thinking like, you know, in the TypeScript core repo there's a lot of core web API types for all of the different APIs that are maintained by the TypeScript team... But that could be considered living documentation that is exposed to me through my editor...
+
+**Florian Scholz:** \[44:33\] Right. So one of the things that we started actually one or two years ago, after we kind of got started with the compat data, is to think more about data and documentation. So one of the things I could see us doing is do more research and investigate more how documentation could actually become more data. TypeScript uses this a lot to see what is this thing, and MDN could expose a lot of its information - not only the compat data, which is structured data by now, but there's so much more information in the documentation that we could expose as data and get that integrated into IDEs or into TypeScript or other languages that could make use of it. So I think this could be an area where we do more research and do interesting things in.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That raises an interesting point - is there an MDN API of some sort that, for example, IDEs could pull in documentation for all of these supported APIs?
+
+**Florian Scholz:** There isn't yet. Maybe Will will wanna -- Will is very passionate about this whole structured documentation topic, so... Take it away.
+
+**Will Bamberg:** Well, no, there isn't, but it's a really interesting idea, basically. I'm very interested in this, the idea of whether we can structure MDN content in such a way that it's consumable by different kinds of applications. As a website, MDN is still focused on web docs, but can the MDN content power other applications than just the website? Can it feed into editors and can it feed into dev tools and stuff like that? I'm really interested in this idea of having documentation be available in a developer's workflow in the most clean way, rather than maybe having to stop what you're doing and go open a browser tab and do your search for MDN and find the thing. How can we be better integrated into people's workflows. So yeah, editors is a good example of that. Dev tools is, too.
+
+So what sorts of things would developers like to see in their workflow? What kinds of things can we structure and make semantic so that we can do that? And then what kind of work do we have to do in the MDN platform to rework the content so that becomes possible? We've done a lot of thinking about this in the last year or so, and I'd love to go further with this.
+
+And as Florian says, browser compat data is one of these things that is a kind of trailblazer for this. Back five years ago, compat data was just HTML in pages. It was like it was locked up in the HTML, the compat status of, say, \[unintelligible 00:47:19.23\] It was like it was dead; it was just there in the HTML. And what happened with browser compat data is it turned into data and then it becomes live, and you can remix it, and you can build different views of this data and you can have a single page that lists a compat story for everything in an array, and it can just pull from the same data. That's a powerful thing, and if we can do that for more of our documentation, I think it would be super-cool.
+
+\[47:46\] And we do this as well -- there's this thing called mdn/data, which again, even before browser compat data, it was like a really early attempt to try and do this, and have some kind of structured content for mostly CSS properties. And it was actually used in MDN to power some stuff. It was a kind of really early prototype, and there are things we'd do differently if we did it again, and there are ways we'd consume it differently if we did it again. It's obviously an idea that has been kind of kicking around for a long time.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah.
+
+**Will Bamberg:** The more we learn about it, the better approaches \[unintelligible 00:48:15.08\] \[laughter\] And another thing is like - MDN being on GitHub makes this stuff easier, too. Because now it's just files, and I can go and make big changes to it, systemic changes across the whole thing, and it's much easier for me to make them, and it's much safer too than it used to be. It used to be terrifying, making systemic changes to the wiki, because there's no dif, right? So you have really no idea if what you're doing makes sense or not. It could change like 500 pages. I have done this, and it's terrifying... And now it's not nearly so bad. So that's another possibility that MDN being on GitHub opens up for us.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah.
+
+**Will Bamberg:** Speaking in concrete terms, one thing which people have asked about in \[unintelligible 00:49:03.07\] is having short descriptions for things... So like "What's the one-line description of what Array .splice( ) does...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It'd be helpful.
+
+**Will Bamberg:** ...and is that a thing we can slurp out of MDN? Well, okay, to do that, it has to be marked up in such a way that you can actually retrieve it... And it has to be consistent. It has to be short enough to fit, and it has to actually make sense if it gets kind of contracted. And it has to use tags to make sense in the context tree you're displaying it, and this kind of stuff. So your content has to be in good enough shape that this is gonna work properly.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, this really makes me think about -- and I was just looking right now at what the content looks like in GitHub, and it doesn't look like you have it. But some sort of equivalent to the type of social markup you might put on another website, where you have a set of structured tags that include a short description, a reference...
+
+**Will Bamberg:** Right.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** For example, if it's a browser API, include that as a structured thing, and then you can write some scripts that process that and give you an index to look things up, and all that other sort of fun stuff. But if that's not already there, that's a big project.
+
+**Will Bamberg:** Yeah.
+
+**Florian Scholz:** It absolutely is. We've been approaching this with linting, and kind of making docs more structured, and first and foremost figuring out what kind of templates, and how to structure reference documentation better, so that you can slurp information out of it... But one big blocker is also the source format currently is HTML We were thinking about moving to markdown, and then maybe structuring it and giving it semantics... But it's a long way.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I mean, it looks like you have some header data, essentially...
+
+**Will Bamberg:** Like the front matter you mean.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, the front matter.
+
+**Will Bamberg:** Yeah. I was excited to see that too, yes.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That's something that you can stash whatever you want in there; it doesn't actually have to be involved with processing the HTML. It could actually be there for your other tools.
+
+**Will Bamberg:** Right. Yeah, exactly. It's just a matter of what we put in there and how we -- I think you have to design it carefully in what you actually want to have, so it doesn't just become a big dumping ground... But yes, exactly. At the moment I think it has title and slug and tags. And the tags are just like -- like, back in the wiki days... This is just the same with the tag values the pages had.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yup.
+
+**Will Bamberg:** Back in the wiki days anybody could not just apply tags to a page, but anybody could create their own tags... As a result, there were I don't know how many tens of thousands of tag values on the site... Which I assume most still exist, so that would need some clean-up.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** You could have validation on those, and all sorts of other stuff.
+
+**Will Bamberg:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So in the compat data right now, do you have links back to relevant documentation pages?
+
+**Florian Scholz:** \[51:52\] Yeah, we do. This has been good for various embedding projects. It's not only "Can I use embedding--" So I'm thinking back to MDN. It's VS Code, and other projects - yeah, embedding the compat data... Yeah, using this part of structured MDN data already, and then this is kind of our -- we wanna do more of what BCD did really, with more short description and more data that MDN has to offer.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, absolutely. So you already have your index, right? So you just need to add whatever the sets of structured pieces that you wanna be able to display, and you can use that index to look it up.
+
+**Florian Scholz:** True.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And it may not right now be in a good structure, but with the index you can write a script that's gonna pull that stuff out.
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Yeah.
+
+**Will Bamberg:** Yeah. And the other nice thing about this whole idea is that with BCD, because it's just data, how you represent that in the rendered pages is a matter for the tooling. So if you decide you want to change how you want to represent compat across all 10,000 MDN pages, you change it in one place. Back in the old days, you'd literally have to change it in 10,000 places. So it's good for the website too, I think, having that kind of build step for the content.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah. So BCD is in the browser-compat-data repo on MDN?
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Interesting...
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Yeah, this was really cool, as well as when we moved to static HTML stuff that used to \[unintelligible 00:53:15.15\] compat tables into data, basically, into a separate repository... And now whenever we wanna change how the browser compat tables are rendered on MDB, it's just a React thing that gets the data from the data store, and then if we wanna change the presentation we just do so, and it populates to all 10,000 pages. It's just -- I want more of that, and not mass edits on MDN pages for a thing that I wanna do everywhere.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Absolutely. So looking at this - I'm looking at the compat data now. It's linking to the MDN URL. Is it straightforward to map from that to the location in GitHub, the file name? Or is there a processing step that makes that hard? Because one of the things - you might want us to access that front matter, because that's structured once again.
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Yeah, I think you have a point there. I think it's probably maps, because the files folder and the MDN content repository maps to the slugs, so to the MDN URL. So I think yeah, it should work.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Interesting. So that might be a fun little project if anybody is listening and has free time... Write something that's gonna run through the browser compat data, look up the appropriate file in the content data and just pull out the structured data and make it available. And some day, when there's more structured data there, it will probably be more useful than it might be today.
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Yeah. It's funny that you say that, because I think over the years many people have scraped MDN in various ways. They scraped the wiki, and now they're scraping the GitHub, or scrape BCD... So we're going from prototype and scraping to scraping... Which is great. Lots of good things happen there. But yes, as we said earlier, ideally one day there's gonna be some sort of MDN API that officially makes available this data. So that is definitely something in the far future to look forward to, I think.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That is exciting. I'm excited about the idea of that, and all that you could do with that data. Being able to integrate it in all sorts of different ways. I don't know if it exists, but one cool thing could be like "These are the browsers or the environments that I support", and then every time I try and use something - maybe it's like a stage three or stage four feature - show me in my editor right now if it's not going to get there with or without a build step. That'd be really cool.
+
+**Florian Scholz:** \[55:40\] Yeah. Avoiding this kind of context switch from the editor, going to the documentation, going back into the editor - that's a good thing. We've done this -- I've added a Learn More link to console errors. So if you're in DevTools and you're doing something, and then like a syntax error or whatever it's spitting out, then in Firefox you get a little Learn More that explains what is going on and how you can debug that... And this has been really cool. So whenever you integrate into the workflow and make links or contextual information available, then people really love this, and I really wanna see more of this - bring documentation closer to the developers, in their environments.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, I really like that. So we've talked about it a bit, but what is the easiest way for the community to get involved in Open Web Docs? Is it just go to MDN's GitHub and start looking at issues, or contributing to the docs there? Is it go to Open Web Docs on GitHub, and is there a way to get familiar or help contribute to the steering committee, or things like that, like the actual organization?
+
+**Florian Scholz:** Yeah, sure. Both is fine. You can file issues on Open Web Docs and on MDN. I think if it's really about some MDN page that needs fixing, I think just filing it on MDN content is the better way to go about it. But if you're really curious and interested in specifically connecting with us, file an issue on Open Web Docs project, talk to us. We have all the steering committee notes available there. You can read about what we're up to, radically transparent in that case.
+
+We have an Open Collective site where you can, of course, donate, and kind of follow our blog there. Every month I'm publishing a little worklog post where I'm kind of making a roundup of what sorts of work we've got done in a month... So you can be updated about our progress there. Follow us on Twitter, and all these kind of things where we inform about webinars, or things that we're doing.
+
+One thing we will probably organize sometime this year is a documentation sprint. We used to do this a lot back in the day as well. The idea is pick a thing where we need lots of people to help with, and then get organized, maybe hop on a Zoom call... Maybe once all this is over, meet also in person... I could imagine actually doing a little workshop or something, combined with a conference or so, when all this is back, where we could have a little session on doc sprinting, on documentation. For this year I guess we're gonna try to do this online, so definitely subscribe to our channels to be updated about information on that.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Sounds great. I'm really looking forward to seeing all the improvements coming, and keep doing what you're doing, because MDN is an invaluable resource, and I'm really excited to see how this experiment goes over the next year and into the future. I definitely wish you the best of luck, and I hope to have you on again to talk about how it's been going and how you see it going into the future from there.
+
+So thank you so much, Florian and Will, for coming on, and we will see you next week.
diff --git "a/Who let the docs out\357\274\237_transcript.txt" "b/Who let the docs out\357\274\237_transcript.txt"
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6795445c995d356ab0ca8c7b9beea82efd1f0c60
--- /dev/null
+++ "b/Who let the docs out\357\274\237_transcript.txt"	
@@ -0,0 +1,807 @@
+[0.00 --> 2.80]  The more we learn about it, the better our prototypes get, maybe.
+[4.36 --> 8.52]  And I think another thing is like MDN being in GitHub makes this stuff easier too.
+[8.84 --> 13.50]  Because now it's just files and I can go and I can make big changes to it.
+[14.06 --> 15.98]  Systemic changes across the whole thing.
+[16.46 --> 17.84]  And it's much easier for me to make them.
+[17.88 --> 19.66]  And it's much safer too than it used to be.
+[19.66 --> 24.38]  It used to be terrifying making systemic changes to the wiki because there's no diff.
+[24.62 --> 27.38]  So you have really no idea if what you're doing makes sense or not.
+[27.44 --> 29.58]  And if you change like 500 pages, it's, you know.
+[29.58 --> 31.24]  And I have done this and it's terrifying.
+[31.62 --> 33.40]  And now it's not nearly so bad.
+[35.92 --> 38.52]  Bandwidth for ChangeLog is provided by Fastly.
+[38.84 --> 40.72]  Learn more at Fastly.com.
+[40.96 --> 43.24]  Our feature flags are powered by LaunchDarkly.
+[43.52 --> 45.32]  Check them out at LaunchDarkly.com.
+[45.32 --> 47.56]  And we're hosted on Leno cloud servers.
+[47.82 --> 51.34]  Get $100 in hosting credit at Leno.com slash ChangeLog.
+[52.12 --> 53.52]  What's up, JS Party people?
+[53.64 --> 58.40]  Have you ever wondered if you could be offering a faster, less buggy experience for your customers?
+[58.40 --> 69.62]  Well, with Raygun error and performance monitoring, you have all the information you need at your fingertips to quickly find and fix errors and performance issues across your tech stack down to the line of code.
+[69.96 --> 78.42]  Raygun makes it easy to monitor the impact of your performance improvements, quickly identify issues across web and mobile apps, and see how your code performs in the hands of your customers.
+[78.42 --> 82.50]  This saves you time, this saves you money, and this saves your sanity.
+[82.82 --> 87.46]  Head to Raygun.com to join thousands of customer-centric software teams who use Raygun every single day.
+[87.78 --> 91.64]  Again, Raygun.com to give them a try with a free 14-day trial.
+[91.64 --> 115.66]  This is JS Party, your weekly celebration of JavaScript and the web.
+[115.66 --> 121.72]  We record live on Thursdays at 1 p.m. U.S. Eastern, and you can be part of the show.
+[122.32 --> 124.52]  Come hang with us in our community Slack.
+[124.64 --> 125.64]  It's totally free.
+[125.90 --> 128.80]  Head to changelog.com slash community and sign up today.
+[129.22 --> 130.44]  Okay, let's get into it.
+[130.50 --> 132.12]  Hey, it's party time, y'all.
+[132.12 --> 147.22]  Hello, JS Party.
+[147.52 --> 150.32]  Welcome to another exciting week of the JS Party podcast.
+[150.88 --> 151.92]  I'm your host this week.
+[152.06 --> 157.12]  My name is Nick Neesey, the hoi hoi, and I am joined by the one, the only K-Ball.
+[157.22 --> 157.92]  K-Ball, what's up?
+[158.34 --> 159.06]  Hello, hello.
+[159.22 --> 159.78]  Glad to be here.
+[160.20 --> 160.58]  Excellent.
+[160.58 --> 164.92]  Thanks so much for being here, and we have two exciting guests that I want to introduce,
+[165.18 --> 168.06]  or I want to say their names and then let them introduce themselves.
+[168.58 --> 170.70]  But first, we have Florian Schultz.
+[170.82 --> 171.76]  Florian, what's up?
+[172.10 --> 172.76]  Hey, hello.
+[173.16 --> 174.26]  Tell us a little bit about yourself.
+[174.58 --> 176.00]  Yeah, so I'm Florian Schultz.
+[176.52 --> 180.46]  I'm based in Bremen, Germany, and I'm a technical writer.
+[181.44 --> 184.12]  And recently, we've launched the Open Web Dogs project.
+[184.36 --> 185.56]  Yes, very exciting.
+[185.72 --> 187.40]  That's what we're here to talk about today.
+[187.40 --> 190.74]  And with you, we also have Will Bamberg.
+[190.84 --> 191.44]  Will, what's up?
+[191.64 --> 192.70]  Hello, I'm Will.
+[193.06 --> 196.40]  I'm also working on Open Web Dogs as a technical writer.
+[196.68 --> 202.70]  I started last week in this project, and I'm based in Vancouver, BC, where it snowed this
+[202.70 --> 203.76]  morning, unexpectedly.
+[204.30 --> 204.82]  Very nice.
+[205.00 --> 206.48]  I'm very much over snow right now.
+[206.48 --> 210.32]  Yeah, how many weeks of snow are you on now, Nick?
+[210.74 --> 213.86]  Oh, it's actually been melting quite a lot.
+[214.08 --> 218.46]  But I built a snowman with my daughter on Sunday, and by Monday afternoon, it was totally
+[218.46 --> 218.74]  melted.
+[219.08 --> 220.24]  So, very good.
+[220.64 --> 221.20]  That's progress.
+[221.68 --> 221.96]  Yeah.
+[222.22 --> 224.62]  It's rare enough to be exciting here, you know?
+[224.78 --> 225.14]  But yeah.
+[225.14 --> 230.56]  Well, as fun as the weather is, we are not here to talk about the weather.
+[230.68 --> 237.32]  We are here to talk about docs, particularly web docs, particularly open web docs.
+[237.72 --> 240.38]  And so, I just have to ask the question to kind of get us started.
+[240.92 --> 242.36]  Who let the docs out?
+[243.72 --> 244.84]  Yeah, open web docs.
+[246.18 --> 249.26]  We've been just launching it in January.
+[249.26 --> 256.26]  So, it's a pretty new initiative, and what we're trying to do is, well, support platforms
+[256.96 --> 264.62]  like MDN with documentation, with technical writing, and, you know, help web developers
+[264.62 --> 267.70]  out there to read all about the web and how it works.
+[268.26 --> 268.58]  Very nice.
+[268.76 --> 275.60]  So, when I think about web docs, there are three letters that come to mind, and it goes
+[275.60 --> 280.38]  on the end of every DuckDuckGo search that I do, and that's MDN.
+[281.00 --> 286.86]  And so, can you tell us a little bit about open web docs and the relationship with MDN or
+[286.86 --> 287.48]  with Mozilla?
+[288.24 --> 288.54]  Oh, yeah.
+[288.62 --> 289.02]  Absolutely.
+[289.58 --> 295.76]  Open web docs actually works a lot with MDN, because MDN is the premier source for documentation,
+[296.16 --> 297.62]  has been for many years.
+[298.36 --> 302.98]  I think last year, MDN celebrated its 15th anniversary.
+[302.98 --> 308.58]  So, it's one of those old school sites out there and has been serving web developers
+[308.58 --> 309.64]  for quite some time.
+[310.52 --> 314.86]  And yes, we're working with them very closely, documenting web standards.
+[315.92 --> 318.54]  And both Will and I have actually been employed there.
+[318.84 --> 321.14]  So, we've been long-time mazilians.
+[322.36 --> 327.50]  So, yeah, we've been on this mission to document the web for quite some time now.
+[327.50 --> 333.48]  So, I didn't know coming into this, open web docs, y'all are a new organization, but not
+[333.48 --> 334.82]  a new set of documents.
+[334.90 --> 335.36]  Is that right?
+[336.12 --> 336.60]  Exactly.
+[337.10 --> 338.82]  We're a supporting initiative.
+[339.64 --> 343.52]  And maybe I should probably talk a little bit about the history here.
+[343.80 --> 349.92]  So, basically, I think when I got involved with MDN 2009 or 2010, something like that,
+[349.92 --> 357.74]  MDN was actually changing from being strictly a platform for documentation around what Firefox
+[357.74 --> 361.00]  implements and stuff like the JavaScript standard.
+[361.24 --> 364.78]  This was actually invented by Mozilla engineers, right?
+[364.88 --> 366.78]  So, it was kind of born there.
+[367.02 --> 373.10]  And so, MDN used to be a very Mozilla-centric documentation platform.
+[373.10 --> 380.16]  But over the years, and especially with the HTML5 and CSS3 hype, the documentation on MDN changed
+[380.16 --> 383.66]  and it became more of an open web docs platform.
+[384.78 --> 392.58]  And I think it was 2010 or 11 or so when first other organizations were interested in helping
+[392.58 --> 393.92]  out on MDN.
+[393.92 --> 402.24]  And so, over the years, we had different writers from, say, from Google or from other bigger
+[402.24 --> 407.76]  browser vendor organizations who helped us out in documenting the web together on MDN.
+[408.20 --> 414.26]  And then I think about three or four years ago, there was a thing called the MDN Product
+[414.26 --> 415.10]  Advisory Board.
+[415.10 --> 422.28]  So, this kind of thing that tech writers from different organizations coming together was
+[422.28 --> 424.06]  more formalized.
+[424.56 --> 426.68]  And so, the Product Advisory Board was formed.
+[426.88 --> 432.90]  And so, yeah, different organizations formally came together to document the web on MDN.
+[433.44 --> 433.62]  Yeah.
+[433.68 --> 440.92]  And then recently, even more so, people got together and thought about having more diverse funding
+[440.92 --> 444.58]  for MDN and for the writers working on it.
+[445.20 --> 449.36]  And this is how Open Web Docs was born just a month ago.
+[450.48 --> 452.24]  And so, we're an open collective.
+[452.88 --> 455.20]  Everyone can donate to us.
+[455.60 --> 461.26]  And, yeah, we're using the funding to help MDN and to document the web even further.
+[462.36 --> 466.38]  So, is this related to all the, like, restructuring and financial turmoil over at Mozilla?
+[466.38 --> 471.78]  Yeah, this was kind of the event that triggered everyone getting their heads together in terms
+[471.78 --> 476.12]  of, okay, how can we come to a more diverse funding for such an important platform?
+[476.98 --> 481.62]  And so, we worked with our founding organizations, Open Web Docs founding organizations, to kind
+[481.62 --> 483.80]  of figure out a way forward.
+[484.56 --> 484.86]  And, yeah.
+[485.24 --> 485.46]  Cool.
+[485.62 --> 488.14]  So, you talked a little bit about those founding organizations.
+[488.30 --> 491.10]  I guess the money before was mostly coming from Mozilla.
+[491.70 --> 492.76]  Now, you're an open collective.
+[492.76 --> 497.38]  I saw there are individuals fundraising, but is the expectation this is going to be something
+[497.38 --> 498.90]  truly sponsored by the community?
+[498.90 --> 502.72]  Or is it something that's going to be, you know, a set of large companies donating?
+[503.18 --> 506.14]  Or how are you thinking about making this thing sustainable?
+[506.86 --> 509.00]  Well, this is something for us to figure out this year, really.
+[509.18 --> 514.50]  We are really happy about the generous funding that we've received from the founding organizations.
+[515.10 --> 520.70]  And we're going to see if we're effective with this initial plan and our initial ideas around
+[520.70 --> 522.54]  supporting web platform documentation.
+[523.30 --> 529.46]  And, yes, ideally, we can sustain and continue with this mix of individual backers and organizations.
+[530.18 --> 536.80]  I think everyone from the kind of larger browser vendors or larger organizations playing a big
+[536.80 --> 541.40]  role on the web, they do have an interest in having good documentations out there so that
+[541.40 --> 543.42]  web developers can develop for the web.
+[543.42 --> 548.76]  So I'm actually quite positive about us getting continued funding with this.
+[549.22 --> 550.80]  But time will tell, I guess.
+[551.46 --> 556.24]  I think having more different sources of funding and more diverse funding,
+[556.36 --> 560.54]  obviously, it makes us more resilient as an organization than being dependent on a small number of
+[560.54 --> 562.78]  people with deep pockets first.
+[562.92 --> 566.94]  I think also it makes it easier for us to be independent.
+[567.26 --> 571.22]  I think everyone involved in this is very much committed to OpenWebDocs being an independent
+[571.22 --> 571.88]  organization.
+[572.52 --> 577.56]  But it's much easier to make that claim and for that claim to seem credible if you have
+[577.56 --> 580.06]  a lot of different sources of funding than if you only have a few, I think.
+[580.74 --> 586.32]  So this is one of the things in here, I think, like part of the reason why people like MDN,
+[586.40 --> 590.36]  people use MDN, is that it's seen as a genuinely independent source of information about the web.
+[591.52 --> 597.38]  And that's a thing that MDN has been pretty strongly protective of for a long time, really.
+[597.46 --> 599.70]  And it's taken a long time, I think, to build up that kind of reputation.
+[599.70 --> 605.08]  And I think everyone understands that that's one of the most important things about it,
+[605.10 --> 605.78]  and it's worth protecting.
+[606.58 --> 607.34]  Yeah, definitely.
+[608.44 --> 612.92]  At this point, for me at least, MDN is synonymous with the OpenWebDocs.
+[613.06 --> 617.94]  And if I want to find out about some esoteric web API that I didn't know about before,
+[618.62 --> 621.42]  like I said, MDN is at the end of my search query every time.
+[622.20 --> 624.98]  So tell us a little bit about the organization.
+[624.98 --> 626.10]  How is it structured?
+[626.42 --> 627.26]  What's it like?
+[627.44 --> 632.04]  What are the different aspects that you're covering beyond contributing to MDN to start?
+[632.54 --> 633.90]  Beyond MDN, that's a good question.
+[634.08 --> 636.74]  So for now, we're really focusing on supporting MDN.
+[637.20 --> 641.78]  Another project that I'm really passionate about is the Browser Combat Data Project,
+[642.18 --> 644.20]  which is also an MDN project.
+[644.86 --> 647.40]  But I think it goes a little bit beyond that.
+[647.40 --> 655.06]  So to explain this a bit some more, the Browser Combat Data Project is a project that collects
+[655.06 --> 658.16]  what each of the major browsers are supporting.
+[659.08 --> 664.62]  And if you see the combat tables on the MDN pages, for example, then this project powers those tables.
+[665.42 --> 668.94]  But also, Can I Use these days is powered by exactly this data.
+[668.94 --> 677.38]  And so we're working with Alexis, who runs Can I Use, and we're discussing how to move forward with web compads,
+[677.68 --> 683.76]  which, as we know, is one of the biggest problem, if not the biggest problem, that web developers face.
+[684.66 --> 689.44]  So next to MDN, we're also supporting a lot the BCD, the Browser Combat Data Project.
+[689.44 --> 699.70]  And we're looking into, yeah, how can we help web developers finally, you know, having more fun developing for more browsers
+[699.70 --> 701.66]  and addressing some pain points there.
+[702.12 --> 703.80]  I was going to ask about, can I use?
+[704.36 --> 708.12]  And I didn't know that it was powered by this web compad data.
+[708.40 --> 709.14]  That's really cool.
+[709.32 --> 709.56]  Yeah.
+[709.68 --> 713.74]  So we made this, I think, is it already two years ago or something?
+[714.28 --> 717.80]  But basically, the Browser Combat Data Project is so rich these days.
+[717.80 --> 720.34]  We have, like, over 12,000 features in there.
+[720.58 --> 726.54]  Like, as you all know, probably the API surface of the web is just getting bigger and bigger and bigger every year.
+[726.64 --> 729.24]  Like, there's tons of APIs added to it.
+[729.84 --> 739.50]  And so there's obviously more and more compad data about all these new features, CSS properties, new web APIs, new JavaScript, ECMAScript core features.
+[740.28 --> 747.16]  And so this Browser Combat Data Project is about collecting all this data and how the different browsers are supporting it.
+[747.80 --> 748.74]  And can I use?
+[748.74 --> 748.80]  And can I use?
+[749.62 --> 751.92]  Did have really good compad data.
+[752.10 --> 758.84]  And obviously, it's one of the premier addresses in the net to kind of figure out compads as well.
+[759.18 --> 762.88]  But it only covered, I think it was like 500 features or so.
+[763.00 --> 771.24]  So we really teamed up with Alexis here and added in, like, merged in the MBN compad data into can I use.
+[771.24 --> 775.50]  And, yeah, for quite some time now, you can search on can I use?
+[776.12 --> 781.34]  And the results will also give you everything that's in the data store for Browser Combat Data.
+[782.18 --> 797.98]  Now, in terms of what y'all are planning here, at first glance, it sounds like this is essentially pull out the organization that was supporting MDN from Mozilla, create an independent organization, diverse funding sources, but essentially operate in kind of the same way.
+[797.98 --> 807.00]  Is the intent to have primarily dedicated staff, technical writers that are employees of OWD?
+[807.22 --> 809.20]  What's the future-facing model?
+[810.04 --> 816.38]  Well, for this year and with the initial funding, we reckon we can finance about four full-time people.
+[816.68 --> 818.16]  We've hired, like, me and Will.
+[818.16 --> 822.54]  So we'll probably have money for two more full-time employees.
+[823.26 --> 834.00]  Depending on kind of the things that we want to accomplish, we might, you know, hire some freelancers or, you know, contractors to do certain things.
+[834.24 --> 835.34]  But we don't know yet.
+[835.44 --> 839.64]  But we reckon with the initial funding, a staff team of four is possible.
+[839.64 --> 844.92]  And organizationally, so Mozilla still plays a big role with MDN.
+[845.04 --> 847.80]  Mozilla is still, you know, paying the servers.
+[848.10 --> 849.36]  Mozilla still has a writing team.
+[849.56 --> 854.00]  Mozilla still has engineers actually building the MDN platform.
+[854.00 --> 860.42]  So, like, they have backend and frontend engineers actually building the site as, like, the platform MDN.
+[861.42 --> 865.00]  And so Mozilla continues to invest in MDN heavily.
+[865.40 --> 866.58]  So that continues.
+[866.58 --> 873.46]  From, like, a project management standpoint, would, like, decisions about that then go through the Open Web Docs organization?
+[873.98 --> 875.82]  Or how would that work?
+[876.48 --> 876.68]  Yeah.
+[876.76 --> 879.36]  So currently, I mean, Mozilla is part of our steering committee.
+[879.88 --> 888.16]  So we are working closely with them to figure out a shared roadmap, what kinds of content projects to take on.
+[888.38 --> 891.22]  So, yeah, we kind of work together closely with Mozilla.
+[891.22 --> 897.72]  And I think as well, I mean, there are projects that are just content, which Open Web Docs can just do on its own.
+[897.90 --> 902.12]  And it's, you know, just our decision about whether it's a thing we want to work on.
+[902.52 --> 906.38]  And there are also projects that cut across the content and the development platform side as well.
+[906.80 --> 910.24]  And those will be figured out a joint project with Mozilla.
+[910.78 --> 913.76]  And they'll provide the kind of engineering side of it.
+[913.76 --> 917.44]  So those are going to be more complicated, I think.
+[918.26 --> 920.76]  And is there any plan to support other Docs platforms?
+[920.98 --> 923.60]  Yeah, I think for this year, we're focusing on MDN.
+[923.68 --> 924.94]  And I think that's a lot of work.
+[925.04 --> 929.04]  I mean, documenting the web on MDN is like, wow, it's a life task.
+[929.40 --> 931.66]  So for this year, we're focusing on that.
+[931.76 --> 939.92]  But beyond that, I think there's opportunities for us to also contribute to, I don't know, make spec processes better.
+[939.92 --> 943.90]  So I've been thinking a lot about how does it actually work?
+[944.06 --> 949.04]  If someone invents something and puts it in a spec, then people implement it.
+[949.10 --> 954.38]  Then people write tests for it in test 262 or in WPT tests.
+[954.92 --> 957.02]  But then what they always forget is documentation.
+[957.44 --> 964.18]  And so what I also want to work on is how can we work closely with specification for standards organizations,
+[964.72 --> 967.10]  help them learn more about documentation.
+[967.10 --> 972.62]  And how can we bring documentation more into the standards organizations?
+[973.56 --> 981.76]  And yeah, make people aware that, yes, you've written the spec, but specs aren't documentation and friendly towards developers necessarily.
+[982.32 --> 983.78]  So what can we do?
+[984.28 --> 987.86]  These kind of questions, I think, is something I would really love to work on.
+[988.26 --> 994.90]  As I see things anyway right now, I don't think there's any real appetite to do something like MDN that's another platform.
+[994.90 --> 997.66]  Because, I mean, MDN does what it does and it does what it does well.
+[998.12 --> 1001.64]  So there might be other things that fulfill different kinds of needs that we want to work on.
+[1002.10 --> 1006.12]  But, you know, MDN is MDN and there's not much point making another one that I can see.
+[1006.88 --> 1018.36]  Back in 2014, there was this thing called webplatform.org, which was a project by a bunch of browser vendors to build a replacement for MDN.
+[1018.36 --> 1021.44]  And it wasn't really successful because MDN was already there.
+[1021.92 --> 1026.98]  So, you know, I think that doesn't seem like a direction we really want to go in.
+[1027.58 --> 1028.78]  Yeah, I absolutely agree there.
+[1029.12 --> 1036.18]  I've been participating a bit with webplatform efforts and I thought it was pretty much a duplication of MDN.
+[1036.30 --> 1039.12]  So I don't think this is a route that anyone should go.
+[1039.12 --> 1048.60]  So any plans or thoughts towards changing, like removing the MDN from the docs, like that name and going with something more open?
+[1049.20 --> 1050.42]  No, I don't think so.
+[1050.54 --> 1054.36]  I think it's, as you say, you duck to go with the prefix.
+[1054.36 --> 1059.46]  So I don't think, I mean, if anyone wants to, maybe.
+[1059.62 --> 1069.00]  We changed, by the way, we changed from MDC, if you remember this, to MDN, maybe eight, seven, eight years ago or so, because it was the Mozilla Developer Center.
+[1069.72 --> 1071.76]  And then it was the Mozilla Developer Network.
+[1072.44 --> 1079.26]  And then it officially became MDN Web Docs, which kind of MDN stands for itself there.
+[1080.40 --> 1082.72]  So it's a bit like IBM or so.
+[1083.34 --> 1083.50]  Yeah.
+[1083.50 --> 1083.90]  Yeah.
+[1084.82 --> 1087.12]  But I don't think this will change again.
+[1087.70 --> 1090.16]  Plus, Mozilla is already in every user string, so.
+[1090.66 --> 1091.46]  Yeah, right.
+[1104.02 --> 1106.90]  This episode is brought to you by Sourcegraph.
+[1107.26 --> 1109.80]  Sourcegraph is code search for every developer and team.
+[1110.06 --> 1113.28]  Easily search across all the code that matters to you and your organization.
+[1113.50 --> 1114.68]  Find example code.
+[1114.88 --> 1116.02]  Explore and read code.
+[1116.28 --> 1117.12]  Debug issues.
+[1117.12 --> 1118.32]  And so much more.
+[1118.32 --> 1129.66]  And I talked about Beyond Liu, CTO and co-founder of Sourcegraph and asked him to share what code search is, what developers and teams are missing out on, and how Sourcegraph provides code search to every developer in the world.
+[1129.66 --> 1137.22]  If you've worked inside Google or Facebook or any one of these really big, well-respected technology companies.
+[1137.22 --> 1138.22]  Chances are you've used something like code search for you and your team.
+[1138.22 --> 1142.44]  Chances are you've used something like code search before, and you know the value that it provides to your team.
+[1142.44 --> 1147.98]  You know that almost every single engineer inside these organizations uses it on a daily basis.
+[1147.98 --> 1152.88]  If you've never had that experience, chances are you may not know what you're missing out on.
+[1152.88 --> 1157.90]  You know, the term code search sounds a lot like, you know, grep or the search inside your editor.
+[1157.90 --> 1160.26]  And that's what a lot of people think when they first hear it.
+[1160.32 --> 1162.02]  But it's really about much more than that.
+[1162.14 --> 1179.80]  It's really about connecting you as a developer to the broader universe of code and code-related data that's relevant to you, that you need at hand in order to enter that, you know, magical flow state of, you know, being in your editor, writing code quickly, making rapid progress towards that feature bug fix that you're working on.
+[1179.80 --> 1184.08]  It's really about making all that contextual information accessible at your fingertips.
+[1184.58 --> 1197.20]  And what that means is, think about every single repository, every single file, and every single language, every single diff, and every single open source dependency or maybe closed source dependency that's shared across your organization.
+[1197.36 --> 1200.00]  All that is searchable through a single text box.
+[1200.42 --> 1206.12]  And that's really powerful because it means all this friction is eliminated between you and understanding that broader world of code.
+[1206.12 --> 1207.86]  You don't have to clone stuff down to your local machine.
+[1207.98 --> 1209.70]  You don't have to mess around with editor config.
+[1210.12 --> 1218.58]  You don't have to be constantly bugging people on other teams who may not even know who you are in order to teach yourself how all that code works.
+[1218.58 --> 1232.54]  What Sourcegraph is, is really a way for the rest of us, the people who don't work inside the Googles, the Facebooks, to get a tool that gives us access to that sort of information readily and at our fingertips.
+[1232.54 --> 1245.84]  It's really about bringing this type of tool that a lot of the larger technology companies have developed and invested hundreds of millions of dollars into making for the productivity of their own engineers and making that accessible to every single developer in the world.
+[1246.00 --> 1246.50]  All right.
+[1246.52 --> 1254.76]  If CodeSearch powered by Sourcegraph sounds like something you and your team can use, head to info.sourcegraph.com slash changelog and click the button that says try Sourcegraph now.
+[1255.00 --> 1258.10]  You can install it locally, deploy it to a server or to a cluster.
+[1258.10 --> 1263.56]  They have a quick start guide that takes less than five minutes to install Sourcegraph using Docker, so it's too easy to give it a try.
+[1263.82 --> 1267.20]  Again, head to info.sourcegraph.com slash changelog.
+[1267.20 --> 1293.22]  All right.
+[1293.22 --> 1303.66]  So last section, we talked about what the Open Web Docs are, what the organization is, and its relationship with MDN, and a little bit about its funding.
+[1303.78 --> 1310.76]  But let's dig a little bit deeper into the process and what goes into the organization and figuring out what to actually work on.
+[1311.32 --> 1315.30]  So I'll just ask you, how do you decide what to work on within this?
+[1315.36 --> 1318.34]  Do you find docs that need cleaning up on MDN?
+[1318.50 --> 1321.72]  Do you look at new APIs coming in and kind of base it off of that?
+[1321.72 --> 1325.96]  What's the actual process that goes into the actual work?
+[1326.70 --> 1327.82]  Yeah, that's interesting.
+[1327.98 --> 1329.00]  Let's dig into that.
+[1329.20 --> 1333.08]  So MDN moved to GitHub in December 2020.
+[1333.08 --> 1334.00]  What is it?
+[1334.00 --> 1334.02]  What is it?
+[1334.08 --> 1334.44]  2020.
+[1335.06 --> 1348.00]  And now that it's not a wiki anymore, you actually have to think of MDN as the typical GitHub project with a massive repository and people coming to it and wanting to do changes.
+[1348.00 --> 1351.68]  And there's pull requests and all that kind of stuff.
+[1351.68 --> 1373.22]  So if I would describe my typical day, what the hell I am doing every day for Open Web Docs is I spend a lot of time on GitHub reviewing pull requests and working with the community to get docs updated, to fix typos, to get new things, new APIs, CSS properties and things on MDN.
+[1373.22 --> 1383.30]  So I think that's really, I don't know what percentage I should give you, but it's a lot of work is just being the cat herder on the GitHub repository.
+[1384.26 --> 1384.74]  Absolutely.
+[1385.40 --> 1386.60]  That's a full-time job.
+[1387.36 --> 1388.64]  It absolutely is.
+[1388.64 --> 1400.88]  So essentially community and project management more than doing the writing itself, which makes sense because that's always the hardest thing to get in an open source project is the organizational piece.
+[1401.26 --> 1412.66]  Yeah, I think it's, of course, it's writing, but in this case, it's because it's open source and because we're working with a global community and everyone is really happy to contribute to MDN and that's a really good thing.
+[1412.66 --> 1421.12]  But it does mean that you need a bunch of cat herders to work with the community and make them feel good about their contributions.
+[1421.56 --> 1422.84]  And I love doing that job.
+[1423.54 --> 1432.74]  How does it work in terms of the actual content and deciding when releases get pushed to actual MDN?
+[1432.82 --> 1434.84]  Is it just kind of ad hoc as things come in?
+[1435.22 --> 1439.80]  Do you wait for translations or what's the process behind that?
+[1439.80 --> 1439.84]  Yeah.
+[1440.32 --> 1444.68]  So I think we're going to enable a translation soon.
+[1444.76 --> 1449.74]  And this is something that the Muscle Engineering team is working on, but we're not actually waiting on anything.
+[1450.34 --> 1456.90]  So basically once a pull request is reviewed, it goes live, like it's merged and then it gets deployed.
+[1456.90 --> 1465.00]  So there's not much of any further approval thing in between there.
+[1465.00 --> 1473.52]  I mean, it used to be a wiki and then basically everyone who had an account could just come in, make changes and it's live, much like on Wikipedia.
+[1474.42 --> 1480.52]  So by moving to GitHub, there's actually this new, there's a moderation level in here, which is pull requests.
+[1481.28 --> 1484.12]  And that's how things get approved, really.
+[1485.08 --> 1487.34]  It doesn't really need more than that, I don't think.
+[1487.34 --> 1492.64]  Yeah, like I think Florian alluded to, it's a big change for MDN moving into GitHub.
+[1492.90 --> 1501.86]  It really changes the dynamic a lot and the way people work and also the way staff interact with community members.
+[1502.50 --> 1506.92]  And I think it really helps with collaboration, having a pull request modeled.
+[1506.92 --> 1512.12]  Because in the wiki, your interactions with contributors are super limited, really.
+[1512.26 --> 1520.10]  I mean, your options are, if you see an edit to a page, your options are you can do nothing or you can revert the edit or you can revert the edits and ban them.
+[1520.60 --> 1525.20]  And they're all quite aggressive things to do apart from nothing, which is kind of passive aggressive.
+[1526.02 --> 1531.34]  So it's really nice, I think, having a pull request model where you can talk to people and say, you know, this is a great change.
+[1531.44 --> 1533.22]  But, you know, maybe we should think about doing it over there.
+[1533.22 --> 1537.22]  Or maybe we should also think about, you know, doing it on all these other pages that have this problem, too.
+[1537.66 --> 1542.30]  And I think it's much easier to just talk to people, you know, with that kind of model.
+[1542.52 --> 1544.46]  So as Florian says, it's kind of new.
+[1544.50 --> 1545.70]  And I think we're kind of getting used to it.
+[1545.76 --> 1551.68]  We're kind of learning what it's like dealing with this kind of big documentation site with a lot of contributors.
+[1552.08 --> 1553.52]  So we're kind of finding our way there.
+[1553.64 --> 1557.04]  But so far, it seems like it's going really well, I think.
+[1557.76 --> 1559.90]  That's interesting to poke at a little bit more.
+[1559.90 --> 1563.94]  Because I think most of our audience, probably their experience with MDM is like Nick's, right?
+[1564.00 --> 1572.70]  They put it in their search bar or they, like me, forget to put it in their search bar and then scroll past the W3 schools entry to get to MDM.
+[1573.62 --> 1575.02]  But it is open.
+[1575.20 --> 1578.42]  It's something that we can all contribute to and help out with.
+[1578.96 --> 1588.26]  Are there any restrictions on who can contribute or how to get started with that or recommendations that you have for if somebody wants to start helping out on the creation side?
+[1588.26 --> 1591.30]  So there's no restrictions, really, like anyone can.
+[1591.56 --> 1596.24]  And, you know, there's lots of newcomers that we've seen already in the first few months that we're on GitHub.
+[1596.48 --> 1607.36]  So I can only encourage you and everyone who listens in to come to the MDM content repository and, you know, browse around and make some changes, file an issue.
+[1608.04 --> 1612.90]  There's many issues filed, you know, as usual on large open source projects.
+[1612.90 --> 1616.52]  Some of them, we've marked them with a good first issue.
+[1617.24 --> 1618.64]  So you might want to look at these.
+[1618.92 --> 1624.36]  You might want to ping some folks like me and then see if I can help to mentor a thing or two.
+[1625.02 --> 1626.26]  I'm always happy to.
+[1627.20 --> 1633.68]  But yeah, I mean, also, if you are passionate about an API or a thing that you're like, this is so cool.
+[1633.68 --> 1639.20]  I love that, I don't know, someone shipped this, but where are the MDM docs for this?
+[1639.42 --> 1643.90]  Like, do tell us, let us know, and maybe even help with documenting it.
+[1644.14 --> 1645.06]  Yeah, this is pretty cool.
+[1645.16 --> 1652.50]  I'm going to admit that usually I just come to MDM through search and I find the exact, you know, API that I'm looking for.
+[1652.66 --> 1656.64]  Or it's usually like something like slice and splice or something like that where I'm trying to figure out the difference.
+[1656.64 --> 1661.46]  And I don't do much browsing beyond that, but I am right now.
+[1661.56 --> 1665.42]  And I noticed like under references and guides, there's like accessibility.
+[1665.90 --> 1669.42]  There's even one on game development that kind of gives you some resources on that.
+[1669.80 --> 1672.58]  There's a lot more here than just Web APIs, which is pretty cool.
+[1672.80 --> 1678.36]  Or like it's kind of collating stuff together as it relates to the Web APIs, which is also pretty cool.
+[1678.36 --> 1687.66]  I was going to ask about like how new stuff gets added in to MDN, particularly like new Web APIs.
+[1688.02 --> 1693.32]  Or I'm thinking in terms of like one thing that I try and keep up on is like TC39 proposals.
+[1693.32 --> 1700.10]  When things get to stage four, you know, is it at that point that things then get added to MDN?
+[1700.34 --> 1701.86]  Or how does that work?
+[1702.68 --> 1703.38]  Yeah, pretty much.
+[1703.38 --> 1709.10]  I think stage four is probably a good time, sometimes even stage three proposals make it to MDN.
+[1709.38 --> 1718.66]  I think in the past it depended a lot, like some browser shipped it and then some technical writer of that browser vendor decided, okay, it's time to get it on MDN.
+[1718.88 --> 1724.18]  But as I've tried to get into earlier, I want to kind of change this model also a bit.
+[1724.68 --> 1731.26]  Stage four also means not only you have test 262 tests, but also it means you have docs on MDN, please.
+[1731.26 --> 1734.86]  So these kind of things would be really great going forward.
+[1735.44 --> 1740.98]  So there's definitely different signals to different people really when things should go on MDN.
+[1741.12 --> 1747.34]  And one is, well, a browser ships this thing and it should have, it appears in the release notes of that browser.
+[1747.84 --> 1750.52]  And so it should be documented on MDN.
+[1750.70 --> 1751.64]  And so, yeah.
+[1752.50 --> 1754.28]  So Nick highlights something interesting.
+[1754.42 --> 1758.78]  So there's things that are tied directly to a particular API or particular feature.
+[1758.78 --> 1764.00]  There's, you know, hey, I need to know how to use this new thing that just got approved.
+[1764.14 --> 1768.72]  And there in some ways it, you know, it sounds like there's work to be done, but it's pretty clear.
+[1768.84 --> 1772.28]  Like, okay, once this gets past a certain stage, it should go on MDN.
+[1772.40 --> 1775.54]  There's not a decision-making process saying, does this belong here?
+[1775.58 --> 1776.12]  Does this not?
+[1776.84 --> 1781.14]  What about those guides like game making or accessibility or whatever?
+[1781.14 --> 1794.96]  Like how, what's the decision-making process around, hey, we should actually build some meta content, something that's not just describing the details of a spec or an API, but here's a guide to how to do this type of thing.
+[1795.40 --> 1795.58]  Yeah.
+[1795.66 --> 1801.48]  I mean, this is, I guess, in some sense, a piece of process that's a work in progress for Modocs.
+[1801.48 --> 1806.28]  The idea is that people can request new things they want to see on MDN.
+[1806.36 --> 1810.02]  They can request them as issues against the MDN content repo, I think.
+[1810.58 --> 1819.30]  And also things come through kind of it through from the steering committee of OpenWebDocs that we look at and we say, we call these things opportunities, right?
+[1819.40 --> 1822.04]  Because there's basically a thing, a project you want to work on.
+[1822.42 --> 1824.74]  And we can sort of score it.
+[1824.74 --> 1833.92]  You know, there are criteria like how timely it is, whether the time is right for this particular thing, what the impact of it is, how much work it is, that kind of thing.
+[1834.38 --> 1838.02]  In terms of things like guides, I mean, there are areas that we know MDN is lacking.
+[1838.22 --> 1843.34]  Like we've talked about how we could have better guide docs for performance.
+[1843.50 --> 1845.04]  We could have better guide docs for privacy.
+[1845.58 --> 1850.78]  These are kind of big areas where the MDN docs are kind of not that great right now, I think.
+[1850.78 --> 1856.74]  So we kind of know where these sorts of weaknesses are, I think, you know, and they're kind of floating around in the roadmap.
+[1856.88 --> 1861.04]  When we decide that the time's right for us to do them, we can start working on them.
+[1861.54 --> 1861.66]  Yeah.
+[1861.90 --> 1871.56]  But I mean, if someone files a bug and says, you know, I couldn't find anything about, you know, how to secure my website here that makes sense to me at that kind of high level, then that's a thing we'll take seriously.
+[1871.68 --> 1878.20]  And we'll look at and say, yeah, there's obviously a gap in our docs here, you know, and it can feed into a project like that.
+[1878.20 --> 1890.56]  So another input kind of to our work and decision-making, I think, is also, believe it or not, but we are running one of the largest surveys on MDN that kind of web developers respond to.
+[1890.72 --> 1895.46]  So there's a Stack Overflow survey, but there's also the MDN Developer Needs Assessment.
+[1895.70 --> 1897.36]  You might have heard about that one.
+[1897.36 --> 1902.80]  And with this one, we were actually able to figure out what are the top pain points for web developers.
+[1903.38 --> 1908.10]  So if they tell us it's compatibility, we should probably improve the documentation on that.
+[1908.18 --> 1913.52]  If they tell us, I still don't get cores, CSP, like, so strange.
+[1914.00 --> 1916.66]  Like, I need more guide material on these things.
+[1916.94 --> 1917.04]  Right.
+[1917.28 --> 1917.42]  Yeah.
+[1917.42 --> 1933.24]  So, yeah, I think we're trying to, well, to do user testing and user interviews, maybe sometimes even A-B testing on some docs to figure out what is best for all the web developers using MDN.
+[1933.24 --> 1945.78]  What about, like, what's the decision-making process behind including sort of documentation specifically about third-party stuff that's not part of the platform itself?
+[1945.92 --> 1947.92]  Like, for example, I was just searching around.
+[1948.04 --> 1955.50]  I was searching on JavaScript frameworks, and I saw, oh, there's an MDM article on Ember.js specifically.
+[1955.90 --> 1960.64]  Or there's articles on accessibility in React specifically.
+[1960.64 --> 1969.76]  So, like, what's the distinction or what's the decision-making process around whether XYZ third-party library should get included on MDN?
+[1970.28 --> 1970.58]  Yeah.
+[1970.82 --> 1974.14]  So, by default, MDN really cares about a web platform.
+[1974.36 --> 1979.38]  So, I think vanilla.js and just documenting web standards is the top priority.
+[1980.12 --> 1989.14]  However, and as we go into guide material tutorials and that sort of thing, well, there is the reality that frameworks are used, and some are used a lot.
+[1989.14 --> 2005.64]  And so, especially in a thing that we call the learning area on MDN, where people can go and actually follow a pathway, like, so that at the end they actually can say, okay, I've learned, I've accomplished something by going through this course or through this set of articles.
+[2005.64 --> 2009.30]  And I've learned how to do things with Ember or React.
+[2009.30 --> 2025.08]  And, yeah, for how to choose which kind of frameworks to use here, I think we really reached out to almost all of the major frameworks to give us input and to help us contribute this documentation in the learning area specifically.
+[2025.78 --> 2027.18]  So, I think it was kind of fair.
+[2027.34 --> 2030.18]  Like, we weren't preferring any framework there, really.
+[2030.18 --> 2036.46]  And if any framework doesn't see itself on MDN, but we should have it, then, yeah, talk to us.
+[2036.56 --> 2037.70]  We're happy to add it.
+[2038.46 --> 2046.76]  So, as Will said earlier, MDN is really trustworthy because it comes from this neutral editorial voice, and we surely want to keep that.
+[2047.08 --> 2049.62]  Like, we're not preferring any framework or any browser vendor.
+[2050.38 --> 2054.56]  I think that makes us so trustworthy in the WebTablement community.
+[2054.56 --> 2066.78]  Yeah, I think my perspective, my sense, anyway, is that historically we've been pretty reluctant to have a lot of documentation on MDN that's not open web docs, you know, for various reasons.
+[2066.90 --> 2069.04]  I mean, one is that, you know, React has its own docs.
+[2069.12 --> 2071.58]  They're great docs, you know, and they maintain really good docs.
+[2071.70 --> 2076.28]  What's the point in us having docs that are probably not going to be as good on MDN?
+[2076.54 --> 2078.86]  It doesn't, you know, it doesn't seem to add any value for anybody.
+[2079.50 --> 2082.54]  And on the other hand, people ask for these docs.
+[2082.54 --> 2091.94]  People, quite often, and I think especially for the JS frameworks, like people, we run the most requested things on MDN, was, you know, you should have docs for JS frameworks.
+[2092.12 --> 2093.56]  So, we do now.
+[2093.80 --> 2106.54]  But I think they're kind of intentionally more high level than the React docs, for example, themselves, you know, because another problem with this is that they tend to change more often and more quickly.
+[2106.66 --> 2108.58]  And so, maintenance becomes a huge problem, right?
+[2108.68 --> 2111.98]  You don't have the same kind of insight into the roadmap for this project.
+[2111.98 --> 2114.82]  So, you don't exactly know when changes are going to come up.
+[2114.94 --> 2116.54]  You're going to have to update all your docs for, right?
+[2116.84 --> 2119.50]  So, you're working at kind of a disadvantage there anyway.
+[2120.24 --> 2130.54]  So, yeah, I think there is space for some documentation that's not open web docs, but I think it kind of wants to try to be high level and the kind of stuff that won't age badly, you know?
+[2130.90 --> 2131.08]  Yeah.
+[2131.22 --> 2132.32]  No, that makes a ton of sense.
+[2132.52 --> 2137.34]  I feel like there is a case to be said that there shouldn't be any of these framework-specific docs on there.
+[2137.34 --> 2138.42]  That it should all link out.
+[2138.82 --> 2144.78]  But, as you say, like, you also need to react to what people want and what they're looking for.
+[2145.24 --> 2146.04]  Yeah, that's the thing.
+[2146.12 --> 2147.50]  I mean, yeah, people do ask for them.
+[2147.86 --> 2148.08]  And, yeah.
+[2148.08 --> 2159.70]  Yeah, and along the same lines, like, I know that they are separate things and it's not technically open web, but from just, like, a knee-jerk comparison between, like, as a JavaScript developer, you know, I'm writing JavaScript.
+[2159.98 --> 2164.52]  And me, personally, I'm writing JavaScript either in a browser or on the server.
+[2164.52 --> 2172.84]  And so I have caught myself, like, typing in, you know, read file sync MDN or something to try and find no specific APIs there.
+[2173.80 --> 2178.78]  But you don't see that as a purview for open web docs to be looking into?
+[2179.28 --> 2183.60]  Yeah, I don't think we're going to write server-side, like, no documentation.
+[2183.60 --> 2192.70]  But here again, we looked at what our users want and they actually told us that the compat tables should have Node.js as a thing in there.
+[2193.12 --> 2194.68]  And so we did that and people love it.
+[2194.88 --> 2202.56]  Like, whenever they browse the core JavaScript docs and they see the Node.js support version there as well, it's, like, awesome.
+[2202.72 --> 2203.90]  I just needed to know this.
+[2203.90 --> 2212.58]  And apparently the Node.js docs themselves, they probably don't make it so great to browse which version supports what.
+[2213.16 --> 2215.78]  But, yeah, there you have it directly on MDN2 now.
+[2216.34 --> 2220.50]  Yeah, that kind of got me thinking about it because I do see Node in those compat tables.
+[2221.28 --> 2225.44]  Yeah, so, see, sometimes we're like, okay, we've got to have Node for the compat table.
+[2225.44 --> 2232.84]  But documenting it's on the server, the whole server-side APIs is probably stretching it a bit too far.
+[2232.84 --> 2240.02]  And also what Will said, I mean, the good thing about the web is, I mean, it's a good and a bad thing, but we're not removing much.
+[2240.26 --> 2244.32]  Like, we're just adding more and there's no incompatibilities really.
+[2244.60 --> 2246.18]  I mean, there's no versioning.
+[2246.32 --> 2249.12]  There's no web 2.0 or something really.
+[2249.60 --> 2251.92]  It's just one version, one JS.
+[2252.60 --> 2256.04]  But with React, you know, it's going to be, I don't know where we're at right now.
+[2256.04 --> 2263.32]  But as Will said, those APIs, those frameworks, they just change all the time and we have no insight into where we are with things.
+[2263.46 --> 2266.16]  And we can never keep up an impossible job.
+[2266.90 --> 2269.38]  They can afford to move faster, basically, than the web, right?
+[2269.54 --> 2272.70]  So, you know, that's going to be a problem for writers.
+[2272.90 --> 2274.88]  The backcompat story is so different, right?
+[2275.16 --> 2275.38]  Yeah.
+[2275.38 --> 2283.98]  The whole, you can't break the web mantra that has defined our paths forward on JavaScript and CSS and all of these things.
+[2284.16 --> 2288.48]  Like, that's actually, I hadn't thought of it before, but that's a boon for you as documentation developers.
+[2288.48 --> 2290.70]  Because you can be append only, essentially.
+[2291.34 --> 2298.12]  For prior stuff, maybe you tag it with deprecated, but it's going to keep working if it's in the platform.
+[2298.12 --> 2298.56]  Yeah.
+[2299.38 --> 2310.62]  I mean, as someone who works a lot with Compets stuff, thanks to the Compets, Browser Compet Data Project, I know that there's lots of stuff also that we're going to deprecate and maybe remove one day.
+[2311.28 --> 2315.34]  And just adding to the API service, I don't know how long-term this will look like.
+[2315.42 --> 2321.08]  Like, if we're talking again in five years, I seriously don't know where the API service will be at.
+[2321.30 --> 2324.20]  And I don't know if we're still in this one JS world.
+[2324.82 --> 2326.96]  It's super interesting to see what's happening there.
+[2326.96 --> 2330.86]  But yes, we're just marking things as deprecated and don't use it anymore.
+[2331.12 --> 2332.60]  But you know, it still exists.
+[2332.88 --> 2336.36]  And websites from 1995, they exist and they still work.
+[2336.42 --> 2337.10]  And that's beautiful.
+[2337.90 --> 2343.22]  But they probably use APIs that you shouldn't use when writing a new website today.
+[2344.66 --> 2345.66]  Yeah, right.
+[2345.82 --> 2353.18]  I mean, so like the APIs, you know, the APIs are technically still there, but the guidance changes still, right?
+[2353.18 --> 2356.48]  So you still have to maintain them, but you still have to write stuff that says,
+[2356.48 --> 2358.74]  by the way, don't use this, even though you can, you know.
+[2359.12 --> 2364.20]  So that's quite often a thing from incidents on open web docs is updating guidance around things.
+[2364.70 --> 2365.28]  Yeah, absolutely.
+[2365.64 --> 2370.66]  One thing I noticed is that they are working on a new data API and it's so, so fundamental, right?
+[2370.76 --> 2375.24]  So data APIs are one of the most browsed docs, I think.
+[2375.24 --> 2378.22]  I think also because the APIs are terrible.
+[2378.92 --> 2382.18]  I was going to say, they're browsed so often because it's broken.
+[2382.74 --> 2383.06]  Yeah.
+[2383.20 --> 2386.30]  But imagine we have the new data API, whatever it was called.
+[2386.46 --> 2386.86]  I forgot.
+[2387.34 --> 2389.48]  But imagine we got this implemented everywhere.
+[2389.68 --> 2393.66]  And now we need to advise everyone to move away from the data API to this new thing.
+[2393.72 --> 2395.08]  That's going to be interesting, I think.
+[2395.80 --> 2397.48]  But this is a typical task that we do.
+[2397.48 --> 2401.96]  Like we advise, hey, this thing, AppCache or data API, we got a new one.
+[2402.24 --> 2406.28]  Like if you are doing a new project, like don't do this anymore, do that instead.
+[2406.72 --> 2409.82]  And this is what we're doing also a lot, I think.
+[2409.96 --> 2414.50]  Like giving these kind of hints and best practices information.
+[2415.50 --> 2419.22]  This is just my own ignorance speaking, but do you all do migration guides as well?
+[2419.22 --> 2423.54]  So in that example, for example, you know, you're doing a new project.
+[2423.84 --> 2425.32]  You shouldn't be using this.
+[2425.40 --> 2426.14]  You should be using that.
+[2426.30 --> 2428.06]  If you have an old project, here's how you migrate.
+[2428.56 --> 2430.90]  Well, AppCache, I think we wrote up some material.
+[2431.18 --> 2432.56]  Okay, AppCache is gone.
+[2432.80 --> 2433.80]  Use ServiceWorker.
+[2434.32 --> 2436.04]  But I don't think we do this regularly.
+[2436.36 --> 2437.68]  We should probably do this more often.
+[2437.94 --> 2439.22]  I think migration guides are great.
+[2439.78 --> 2440.14]  All right.
+[2440.28 --> 2441.14]  Feature request.
+[2441.54 --> 2441.80]  Yeah.
+[2441.88 --> 2442.32]  File it on.
+[2442.32 --> 2442.62]  Yeah.
+[2443.04 --> 2443.96]  Yeah, file it.
+[2444.42 --> 2445.34]  Just file it.
+[2445.58 --> 2446.34]  It is a good point.
+[2446.98 --> 2448.60]  So brainstorming here.
+[2448.60 --> 2449.06]  I love it.
+[2449.22 --> 2464.40]  This episode is brought to you by the Dev Discuss podcast, an original show by the team behind Dev.to.
+[2464.74 --> 2467.98]  The show is hosted by Dev co-founders Ben Halpern and Jess Lee.
+[2468.34 --> 2474.94]  Ben has been on the Change Law podcast before, talking about their decision to go open source with the Dev platform, now called Forum.
+[2474.94 --> 2483.50]  The Dev Discuss podcast brings on notable industry guests to discuss trends and timeless software topics to help developers succeed within their teams and grow.
+[2483.84 --> 2484.94]  Here's a clip from season two.
+[2484.94 --> 2498.88]  When you deploy, you know, when you deploy Node.com, AWS could probably move their fleet of Lambda services to ARM and very few customers will be affected.
+[2499.00 --> 2503.96]  And not to say nobody, but very, very few customers will be affected by that kind of migration on Lambda.
+[2503.96 --> 2512.50]  Whereas if they were to try that migration on Fargate or EC2, it's a much bigger and more complex migration for those customers.
+[2513.14 --> 2523.16]  And, you know, here is them, you know, building something in a way that, you know, they may see as more productive or more traditional, but it is actually, you know, more locked in in a way.
+[2523.16 --> 2529.86]  All right, search for Dev Discuss, all one word in your podcast player, subscribe and skim the backlog for an episode that jumps out to you.
+[2530.22 --> 2532.68]  Again, search Dev Discuss anywhere you listen to podcasts.
+[2553.16 --> 2565.44]  So we talked about what the Open Web Docs is and what you've been doing and what your focus is for 2021.
+[2565.70 --> 2567.92]  And that is MDN specifically.
+[2568.30 --> 2570.52]  But where do you see that going beyond 2021?
+[2570.96 --> 2576.88]  What other kinds of ideas do you maybe hope to take on or think or thinking about taking on?
+[2577.22 --> 2578.34]  What does the future look like?
+[2578.34 --> 2586.84]  So, as I've said in the other section, one of the things I'd like to bring in more into the standards world is how they treat documentation.
+[2587.44 --> 2593.00]  In my eyes, hopefully at some point as a first class citizen, just like tests.
+[2593.34 --> 2595.78]  So this is going to be something I want to work on.
+[2596.60 --> 2603.58]  And then another thing I'm thinking about is also writing more documentation about how web platform stuff gets done.
+[2603.58 --> 2607.30]  So how do, you know, how specs get written?
+[2607.30 --> 2613.32]  And I think Puku was writing a web platform contribution guide at some point, which I really enjoyed.
+[2613.66 --> 2616.78]  But I don't think it covers documentation very well.
+[2617.00 --> 2624.00]  So we could maybe extend that and, yeah, onboard more people into writing documentation for the web.
+[2624.46 --> 2625.94]  So I think this could be something.
+[2625.94 --> 2632.88]  I don't think we will move away from being centered around MDN next year or in the future.
+[2632.88 --> 2641.44]  I think MDN, open web docs is, yeah, is a thing that should support MDN long term.
+[2642.14 --> 2642.24]  Yeah.
+[2642.84 --> 2646.48]  And I know you mentioned, like you mentioned ECMO 262 tests.
+[2646.90 --> 2649.14]  And I sometimes see tests as documentation.
+[2649.14 --> 2653.34]  If they're well-written tests, you can see them as like runnable documentation.
+[2653.34 --> 2657.56]  Do you see something like that ever becoming like the purview of open web docs?
+[2658.60 --> 2662.74]  Another thing I'm thinking about is like I'm contractually obligated to bring up TypeScript.
+[2663.40 --> 2673.76]  And I'm thinking like, you know, in the TypeScript core repo, there's a lot of core web API types for all of the different APIs that are maintained by the TypeScript team.
+[2673.76 --> 2678.88]  But that could be considered living documentation that is exposed to me through my editor.
+[2679.52 --> 2689.48]  So one of the things that we started actually one or two years ago after we kind of got started with the combat data is to think more about data and documentation.
+[2690.06 --> 2696.86]  So one of the things I could see us doing is do more research and investigate more how documentation could actually become more data.
+[2696.86 --> 2701.18]  And, you know, TypeScript uses this a lot to kind of see what is this thing.
+[2701.82 --> 2722.72]  And Emlian could expose a lot of its information, not only the combat data, which is structured data by now, but there's so much more information in the documentation that we could expose as data and get that integrated into IDEs or into, yeah, TypeScript or other languages that could make use of it.
+[2722.72 --> 2730.22]  So I think this could be an area where we do more research and do interesting things.
+[2731.10 --> 2732.76]  That raises an interesting point.
+[2732.84 --> 2742.46]  Is there an MDM API of some sort that, for example, IDEs could pull in documentation for all of these supported APIs?
+[2742.94 --> 2744.64]  There isn't yet.
+[2746.14 --> 2751.86]  Maybe Will is very passionate about this whole structured documentation topic.
+[2751.86 --> 2753.38]  So take it away.
+[2754.18 --> 2755.28]  Well, no, there isn't.
+[2755.36 --> 2757.40]  But it's a really interesting idea, basically.
+[2757.76 --> 2769.58]  I'm very interested in this, the idea of whether we can structure MDM content in such a way that it's consumable by different kinds of applications, right?
+[2770.00 --> 2776.32]  And so, you know, whether like, yeah, MDM as a website is still, you know, a focus of OpenWebDocs.
+[2776.32 --> 2780.08]  But can the MDM content power other applications than just the website?
+[2780.24 --> 2783.94]  Can it feed into editors and can it feed into DevTools and stuff like that?
+[2784.20 --> 2794.78]  You know, I'm really interested in this idea of having documentation be available in a developer's workflow, you know, in the most kind of clean way, you know, rather than maybe having to stop what you're doing.
+[2794.78 --> 2798.28]  Go open a browser tab and do your search for MDM and find the thing.
+[2798.66 --> 2801.02]  How can we be better integrated into people's workflows?
+[2801.20 --> 2804.98]  And so, like, yeah, like editors is a good example of that and DevTools is too.
+[2805.84 --> 2810.72]  And so, you know, what sorts of things would developers like to see in their workflow?
+[2810.72 --> 2816.26]  What kinds of things can we structure and kind of make sort of semantic, you know, so that we can do that?
+[2816.54 --> 2824.04]  And then what kind of work do we have to do in the MDM platform to rework the content so that's become as possible?
+[2825.10 --> 2828.46]  I've done a lot of thinking about this in the last, like, year or so.
+[2828.76 --> 2831.64]  And I think it's, I'd love to go further with this.
+[2831.72 --> 2837.80]  And as Florian says, I mean, browser compact data is one of these things that is a kind of trailblazer for this.
+[2837.80 --> 2843.56]  You know, like back, I guess, five years ago, compact data was just HTML in pages.
+[2843.82 --> 2845.76]  It was like it was locked up in the HTML, right?
+[2845.82 --> 2851.34]  The compact status of, say, you know, array.slice was, it was like it was dead, you know?
+[2851.40 --> 2853.04]  It was just there in the HTML.
+[2853.66 --> 2864.62]  And what happened with browser compact data is it turns into data and then it becomes kind of live and you can remix it and you can build different views of this data and you can have a single page that lists compact story for everything in array.
+[2864.90 --> 2866.50]  And it can just pull from the same data, right?
+[2866.50 --> 2869.20]  And so that's a powerful thing.
+[2869.36 --> 2872.62]  And if we can do that for more of our documentation, I think it would be super cool.
+[2873.02 --> 2873.82]  We do this as well.
+[2873.94 --> 2881.82]  Like there's this thing called MDN slash data, which is a kind of, again, like even before browser compact data, was like a really early attempt to try and do this.
+[2881.90 --> 2885.64]  And it has some kind of structured content for mostly CSS properties.
+[2886.52 --> 2889.06]  And it's actually used in MDN to power some stuff.
+[2889.28 --> 2891.12]  It's like it was a kind of really early prototype.
+[2891.12 --> 2893.60]  And there are things we'd do differently if we did it again.
+[2893.88 --> 2896.36]  And there are ways we'd consume it differently if we did it again.
+[2896.72 --> 2899.88]  It's obviously an idea that has been kind of kicking around for a long time.
+[2900.66 --> 2900.78]  Yeah.
+[2901.12 --> 2904.22]  The more we learn about it, the better our prototypes get, maybe.
+[2904.22 --> 2910.58]  You know, and I think another thing is like MDN being in GitHub makes this stuff easier too.
+[2910.92 --> 2913.94]  Because now it's just like, it's just files.
+[2914.14 --> 2917.90]  And I can go and I can make kind of big changes to it.
+[2918.42 --> 2921.76]  And kind of systemic changes across the whole thing.
+[2922.20 --> 2923.62]  And it's much easier for me to make them.
+[2923.66 --> 2925.48]  And it's much safer too than it used to be.
+[2926.00 --> 2928.94]  Like it used to be terrifying making systemic changes to the wiki.
+[2929.32 --> 2931.54]  Because there's no diff, right?
+[2931.98 --> 2934.84]  So you have really no idea if what you're doing makes sense or not.
+[2934.88 --> 2937.04]  And if you're changing like 500 pages, it's, you know.
+[2937.40 --> 2939.00]  And I have done this and it's terrifying.
+[2939.38 --> 2941.46]  And now it's not nearly so bad, right?
+[2941.46 --> 2945.78]  So that's another possibility, I think, that MDN being in GitHub opens up for us.
+[2946.62 --> 2946.98]  Yeah.
+[2947.44 --> 2951.40]  I mean, speaking in concrete terms, one thing which people have asked about is having,
+[2951.62 --> 2954.14]  in code editors, having like short descriptions for things, right?
+[2954.14 --> 2957.42]  So, you know, like what's the like one line description of what array.splice does?
+[2957.86 --> 2958.38]  That'd be helpful.
+[2958.56 --> 2961.22]  And is that a thing we can slurp out of MDN?
+[2961.62 --> 2962.26]  Well, okay.
+[2962.32 --> 2966.18]  To do that, then, you know, it has to be marked up in such a way that you can actually retrieve it.
+[2966.40 --> 2967.80]  And it has to be consistent, you know.
+[2967.82 --> 2970.26]  It has to be short enough to fit, you know.
+[2970.26 --> 2973.00]  And it has to actually make sense if it gets kind of contracted.
+[2973.78 --> 2978.48]  And it has to, you know, use tags that make sense in the context where you're displaying it.
+[2978.56 --> 2979.66]  And this kind of stuff, right?
+[2980.08 --> 2983.80]  So your content has to be in good enough shape that this is going to work properly.
+[2984.14 --> 2991.60]  Yeah, this really makes me think about, and I was just looking right now at what the content looks like in GitHub.
+[2991.82 --> 2993.30]  And I don't, it doesn't look like you have it.
+[2993.30 --> 3000.86]  But like some sort of equivalent to the type of like social markup you might put on another website or something,
+[3000.86 --> 3006.04]  where you have a set of structured tags that include like a short description, a reference.
+[3006.42 --> 3006.54]  Right.
+[3006.54 --> 3011.00]  Like if, for example, if it's a browser API, like include that as a structured thing.
+[3011.08 --> 3017.44]  And then you can write some scripts that process that and give you an index to look things up and all that other sort of fun stuff.
+[3017.74 --> 3020.14]  But that's, if that's not already there, that's a big project.
+[3020.80 --> 3020.96]  Yeah.
+[3021.44 --> 3022.40]  It absolutely is.
+[3022.40 --> 3028.02]  We've been approaching this with linting and kind of making dogs more structured.
+[3028.32 --> 3037.54]  And first and foremost, like figuring out what kind of templates and how to structure reference documentation better so that you can, yeah, slurp information out of it.
+[3038.14 --> 3042.34]  But one big blocker is also the source format currently is HTML.
+[3042.34 --> 3050.40]  So, yeah, we're thinking about moving to Markdown and then maybe structuring it and giving it semantics.
+[3051.00 --> 3052.14]  But it's a long way.
+[3053.06 --> 3056.62]  I mean, it looks like you have some header data, essentially.
+[3057.44 --> 3059.00]  Like the front matter, you mean?
+[3059.30 --> 3060.18]  Yeah, the front matter.
+[3060.36 --> 3060.72]  Yeah.
+[3061.12 --> 3061.40]  Yeah.
+[3061.40 --> 3062.78]  I was excited to see that too.
+[3063.22 --> 3063.52]  Yes.
+[3064.52 --> 3068.14]  That's something that you can stash whatever you want in there.
+[3068.20 --> 3071.02]  It doesn't actually have to be involved with processing the HTML.
+[3071.02 --> 3073.40]  It could actually be there for your other tools.
+[3074.40 --> 3074.76]  Right.
+[3075.36 --> 3076.10]  Yeah, exactly.
+[3076.24 --> 3081.34]  It's just a matter of what we put in there and how we, yeah, I think you have to kind of design it carefully, like what you actually want to have.
+[3081.40 --> 3083.58]  So it doesn't just become a big kind of dumping ground, you know?
+[3083.96 --> 3084.78]  But yes, exactly.
+[3084.90 --> 3087.62]  And at the moment, I think it has title and slug and tags.
+[3087.62 --> 3095.08]  And the tags are just like, like back in the wiki days, this is just the same, the tag values the pages had, you know?
+[3095.62 --> 3095.76]  Yep.
+[3095.76 --> 3100.84]  Back in the wiki days, anybody could not just apply tags to a page, but anybody could create their own tags.
+[3101.46 --> 3109.48]  As a result, which there were, I don't know how many, tens of thousands of tag values in the site, which I assume all still exist.
+[3109.68 --> 3111.08]  So that would need some cleanup.
+[3111.46 --> 3113.74]  You could have validation on those, all sorts of other stuff.
+[3113.94 --> 3114.08]  Yeah.
+[3114.08 --> 3119.38]  So in the compat data right now, do you have links back to relevant documentation pages?
+[3120.02 --> 3120.62]  Yeah, we do.
+[3120.84 --> 3124.76]  This has been good for various embedding projects.
+[3125.32 --> 3131.12]  Like it's not only can I use embedding us and linking back to MDN, it's VS Code and other projects.
+[3131.12 --> 3131.52]  Yeah.
+[3131.84 --> 3136.46]  Embedding the compat data and then, yeah, using this part of structured MDN data already.
+[3136.72 --> 3144.82]  And then this is kind of our, yeah, we want to do more of what BZE did really with more like short description and more data that MDN has to offer.
+[3145.70 --> 3146.44]  Yeah, absolutely.
+[3146.70 --> 3148.90]  So yeah, you already have your index, right?
+[3148.94 --> 3155.32]  So you just need to add whatever the sets of structured pieces that you want to be able to display and you can use that index to look it up.
+[3155.38 --> 3155.66]  True.
+[3155.66 --> 3161.78]  And it may not right now be in a good structure, but with the index, you can write a script that's going to pull that stuff out.
+[3162.10 --> 3162.22]  Yeah.
+[3162.34 --> 3162.48]  Yeah.
+[3162.52 --> 3172.92]  And I mean, the other nice thing about this, this whole idea, right, is that with BCD, because it's just data, how you represent that in the rendered pages is a matter for the tooling.
+[3173.14 --> 3181.02]  And so if you decide you want to change how you want to represent compat across all, you know, 10,000 MDN pages, you change it in one place.
+[3181.42 --> 3181.68]  Right.
+[3181.68 --> 3186.36]  And back in the old days, you'd have to, you literally have to change it in 10,000 places, you know.
+[3186.66 --> 3188.88]  And so it's good for the website too, right?
+[3188.90 --> 3191.02]  I think having that kind of build step for the content.
+[3191.78 --> 3191.94]  Yeah.
+[3192.22 --> 3195.40]  So BCD is in the browser compat data repo on MDN?
+[3195.90 --> 3196.28]  Yeah.
+[3197.06 --> 3197.46]  Interesting.
+[3197.98 --> 3199.00]  Yeah, this was really cool.
+[3199.00 --> 3208.52]  As well as that, like when we moved the static HTML stuff that used to be the compat tables into data, basically into a separate repository.
+[3208.52 --> 3217.34]  And now whenever we want to change how the browser compat tables are rendered on MDN, it's just, you know, it's just a React thing that gets the data from the data store.
+[3217.70 --> 3220.30]  And then if you want to change the presentation, we just do so.
+[3220.40 --> 3223.30]  And it populates to all 10,000 pages.
+[3223.50 --> 3231.12]  It's just, I want more of that and not mass edits on the MDN pages for a thing that I want to do everywhere.
+[3231.12 --> 3231.26]  Yeah.
+[3231.74 --> 3232.14]  Absolutely.
+[3232.48 --> 3236.96]  So looking at this, I'm looking at the compat data now, it's linking to the MDN URL.
+[3237.44 --> 3243.52]  Is it straightforward to map from that to the location in GitHub, the file name?
+[3244.04 --> 3246.72]  Or is there a processing step that makes that hard?
+[3247.14 --> 3250.76]  Because one of the things you might want is to access that front matter, right?
+[3250.78 --> 3252.00]  Because that's structured once again.
+[3252.00 --> 3254.04]  Yeah, I think you have a point there.
+[3254.16 --> 3262.42]  I think it's probably maps because the files folder and the MDN content repository maps to the slugs.
+[3262.76 --> 3264.08]  So to the MDN URLs.
+[3264.36 --> 3266.44]  So I think, yeah, it should work.
+[3267.06 --> 3267.36]  Interesting.
+[3268.22 --> 3271.56]  So that might be a fun little project if anybody's listening and has free time.
+[3272.00 --> 3275.82]  Write something that's going to run through the browser compat data.
+[3275.82 --> 3282.48]  Look up the appropriate file in the content data and just pull out the structured data and make it available.
+[3282.82 --> 3287.68]  And someday, when there's more structured data there, it will probably be more useful than it might be today.
+[3288.20 --> 3288.42]  Yeah.
+[3288.58 --> 3293.88]  I think it's funny that you say that because I think over the year, many people have scraped MDN in various ways.
+[3293.88 --> 3297.94]  Like you scraped the wiki and now they're scraping the GitHub or scraped BCD.
+[3298.56 --> 3303.58]  And so we're going from prototype and scraping to scraping, which is great.
+[3303.74 --> 3305.68]  Like lots of good things happen there.
+[3306.14 --> 3315.34]  But yes, as we said earlier, ideally one day there's going to be some sort of MDN API that officially makes available this data.
+[3315.86 --> 3320.08]  So that is definitely something in the far future to look forward to, I think.
+[3320.82 --> 3321.80]  That is exciting.
+[3321.80 --> 3326.48]  I'm excited about the idea of that and all that you could do with that data.
+[3326.94 --> 3329.60]  Like being able to integrate it in all sorts of different ways.
+[3329.98 --> 3330.78]  I don't know if it exists or not.
+[3331.02 --> 3334.94]  One cool thing could be like, these are the browsers or the environments that I support.
+[3334.94 --> 3339.08]  And then every time I try and use something, maybe it's like a stage three or stage four feature.
+[3339.74 --> 3345.44]  Tell me, like show me my editor right now if it's not going to get there with or without a build.
+[3345.54 --> 3345.90]  Yeah.
+[3346.16 --> 3347.46]  And that'd be really cool.
+[3347.46 --> 3348.14]  Yeah.
+[3348.38 --> 3353.50]  Avoiding this kind of context switch from the editor, going to the documentation, going back into the editor.
+[3353.74 --> 3354.74]  That's a good thing.
+[3355.08 --> 3355.70]  We've done this.
+[3355.82 --> 3359.48]  I've added a learn more link to console errors.
+[3359.48 --> 3373.06]  So if you're in DevTools and you're like doing something and then like syntax error, whatever it's spitting out, then in Firefox, you get a little learn more that explains what is going on and how you can debug that.
+[3373.42 --> 3374.56]  And this has been really cool.
+[3374.70 --> 3383.94]  So whenever you integrate into the workflow and make links or contextual information available, then people really love this.
+[3383.94 --> 3390.46]  And I really want to see more of this and bring documentation closer to the developers and their environments.
+[3390.78 --> 3392.04]  Yeah, I really like that.
+[3392.70 --> 3399.38]  So we've talked about it a bit, but what is the easiest way for the community to get involved in Open Web Docs?
+[3399.48 --> 3405.58]  Is it just go to MDN's GitHub and start looking at issues or contributing to the docs there?
+[3405.58 --> 3416.48]  Is it go to Open Web Docs on GitHub and is there a way to get familiar or help contribute to the steering committee or things like that, like the actual organization?
+[3417.80 --> 3418.38]  Yeah, sure.
+[3418.60 --> 3420.26]  So both is fine.
+[3420.40 --> 3422.86]  You can file issues on Open Web Docs and on MDN.
+[3422.96 --> 3429.68]  I think if it's really about some MDN page that needs fixing, I think just filing it on MDN content is the better way to go about it.
+[3429.68 --> 3438.62]  But if you're really curious and interested in specifically connecting with us, file an issue on Open Web Docs project, talk to us.
+[3438.92 --> 3441.64]  We have all the steering committee notes available there.
+[3441.72 --> 3446.94]  You can read about what we're up to, like radically transparent in that case.
+[3447.62 --> 3453.76]  We have an open collective site where you can, of course, donate and kind of follow our blog there.
+[3453.76 --> 3463.36]  Like every month I'm publishing a little work log post where I'm kind of making a roundup of what sorts of work we've got done in a month.
+[3463.74 --> 3467.26]  So you can be updated about our progress there.
+[3467.94 --> 3475.26]  Follow us on Twitter, you know, these kind of things where we inform about webinars or things that we're doing.
+[3475.26 --> 3481.26]  One thing we will probably organize sometime this year is a documentation sprint.
+[3482.16 --> 3485.22]  We used to do this a lot back in the day as well.
+[3485.40 --> 3492.66]  So the idea is, you know, pick a thing where we need lots of people to help with and then get organized.
+[3492.82 --> 3494.08]  Maybe hop on a Zoom call.
+[3494.90 --> 3498.02]  Maybe once all this over, meet again also in person.
+[3498.02 --> 3510.96]  You know, maybe, I don't know, I could imagine actually doing a little workshop or something combined with conference or so when all this is back where we could have a little session on doc sprinting on documentation.
+[3511.20 --> 3514.72]  For this year, I guess we're going to try to do this online.
+[3515.54 --> 3520.68]  So definitely subscribe to our channels to be updated about information on that.
+[3521.36 --> 3522.20]  Yeah, sounds great.
+[3522.20 --> 3530.46]  Really looking forward to seeing all the improvements coming and keep doing what you're doing because MDN is an invaluable resource.
+[3531.20 --> 3536.68]  And I'm really excited to see how this experiment goes over the next year and into the future.
+[3536.96 --> 3546.04]  And we definitely wish you the best of luck and hope to have you on again to talk about how it's been going and how you see it going into the future from there.
+[3546.28 --> 3548.70]  So thank you so much, Florian and Will, for coming on.
+[3548.94 --> 3550.62]  And we will see you next week.
+[3552.20 --> 3555.48]  Thank you for listening to JS Party.
+[3555.78 --> 3557.40]  Please do tell a friend about the show.
+[3557.58 --> 3560.70]  It's the number one way people find new podcasts they love.
+[3561.16 --> 3564.12]  This episode was hosted by Nick Neesey and K-Ball.
+[3564.52 --> 3567.72]  It was produced by Jared Santo with music by Breakmaster Cylinder.
+[3568.24 --> 3570.24]  We have awesome sponsors supporting the show.
+[3570.54 --> 3573.06]  Thanks again to Fastly, Launch Darkly, and Linode.
+[3573.50 --> 3577.74]  Next up on the pod, we are playing JS Danger with the CSS Tricks team.
+[3577.74 --> 3583.64]  Chris Coyer, Sarah Drasner, Jeff Graham, and Madeline Suzanne put their web dev knowledge to the test.
+[3583.90 --> 3585.26]  Who's going to finish the game on top?
+[3585.46 --> 3587.26]  Stay tuned to find out next week.
+[3587.26 --> 3599.50]  Game on.
diff --git a/Work environments & happiness_transcript.txt b/Work environments & happiness_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ecc8739f811586df116d66951417a13fc5db513d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Work environments & happiness_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,323 @@
+**Kevin Ball:** Hello, JS Party people, and welcome to another week's fabulous JS Party, where we have a party every week, talking about JavaScript and the web. I am Kball, I will be your MC this week, and I'm joined by two amazing panelists. First off, Amal, long time no chat. How are you doing?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I'm alive, everybody... I'm alive! I miss being on the show so much. Life has just been super-busy... Maybe we'll talk about that today, but happy to be back. Thank you for the warm welcome, Kball.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** We are excited to have you. And then, the one, the only - Nick Nisi.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Hoy-hoy. How's it going?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Going well. Glad that Mr. Burns is here with us... And will this week have stories from Disney movies, will it have song clips? Who knows...? You never know with Nick. But today's discussion - we're gonna be talking about work environments, and particularly what makes for a really good environment for developers. This was initially sparked as an idea because there was a Honeypot article which as of this morning is not loading, so we'll see if they ever get that back... They had a developer happiness index where they were like "Okay, where are developers most happy? What are they doing?" And it got me wondering... We've all been in very different work environments over our careers... What are the things that make for really good or really bad work environments?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Is this like a trap?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** It's the ping pong tables, right? Like, that's what makes or breaks it?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[03:58\] Honestly, there's so many factors that go into making a workplace healthy that are completely outside of the sphere of tech. So tech is like a circle in a larger sphere; there's certain things that are unique to tech that I think can either exacerbate your level of unhappiness or at minimum keep your anxiety at bay, because it's a nice place to work. But I think tech is like a really stressful industry for lots of reasons - constant change... We haven't developed a lot of good social norms around best practices... It's not like we're doctors, where doctors have been doctors for centuries; people have been web developers for a relatively short amount of time, and I think we're very much a young industry, and we're still kind of reeling from that youngness, as everybody's trying to figure out how to do something the best way... And then it turns out three months later you find out the hard way - not the best way. So I don't know... I'm not really answering your question very well, because I think if I start answering it, I won't stop, so...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I wanna hear from Nick, and then we can circle back a little more on that.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Well, for me it's more of a foosball table. That's the big key. Not ping pong so much. But to your point, Amal, there's a lot of stereotypes that we have to overcome, too. A "typical" developer is a loner, who sits alone in a dark basement and works alone, and that's really not always the case, as I sit here alone in my dark basement. There's a lot of that. There's a huge social aspect to it, but we don't always prioritize that, and it's not really "marketed" that way.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That's an interesting thing to dig into, the social aspect... Because on the one hand, I think social connection and being connected to your co-workers is really valuable. And we pick where we work, at least partially, because we like the people there. On the other hand, the idea of "Oh, we're like family here" and all these other things has been used to do all sorts of toxic types of work environments. So where do you all fall on that?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I would say that you kind of hit the nail on it. I would say something that's very common in tech - you see the unlimited vacations, unlimited PTO, but nobody takes it... \[laughter\] FANG companies popularizing free food, and laundry, and "Why don't you just live here? Let's just maximize your day, so you're productive to the N-th degree, and can be maximally efficient at work, so you don't have to think about anything else?" We've kind of applied so much of that culture of over-optimizing; we've kind of taken that to another level in our industry, where we're like "Hey, let's help people optimize their life, so they can do more work." I don't think we need to that. I think we should be more inefficient.
+
+I'm into going to the grocery, and feeling my vegetables, and stuff. That doesn't have to be a universal thing, I just mean that I'm into giving myself some slack; I don't feel the need to optimize everything, even though it's an internal bias that I have as an engineer, so it's something I'm constantly checking myself on.
+
+So I think boundaries that work are super-important, and for me, the best way I've managed to avoid that, or have good boundaries at work is really I intentionally kind of pick companies and teams that are diverse, in the sense that folks that -- you know, I don't like working at places that have monocultures, so if everybody's in their 20's, has no kids, isn't married or whatever, that's a little bit of a monoculture, and it's gonna skew towards a certain cult... Is cult the right word? What's the right word...? I don't know.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** It's a good word...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. So I think for me a balance and having diversity of lifestyle at work really helps combat that... Because people have lives, and monocultures are bad.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[07:56\] Yeah, for sure. I've definitely seen my priorities change as I've become older, and had kids... I used to want to code all the time, or go out... I remember specifically when I was younger, going out to get drinks or dinner with co-workers, and we'd be talking about work and we'd be making all these decisions about things we were gonna do, or ways to architect things, and then coming back the next day and like anybody who wasn't there just kind of felt out of the club a little bit.
+
+Now, five o'clock comes around and my focus is on my kids until they go to bed... And then usually, I just wanna go to bed after that, so coding doesn't take a priority, or my job doesn't take a priority after a specific time. There's definitely more important things, and it's been relatively easy, I'd say, to transition to that, but I know that it can be more difficult, for sure.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, I think that's really interesting to think about... And especially in this world where now there's a lot more remote work and people are in different timezones, and other things... If the expectation is you're hanging out after hours at the bar, or whatever, that doesn't work so well, not only with parents, but if you have folks who are in different locations.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Right.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Work is work, and I think if work is just work, anything beyond the eight hours or whatever you're supposed to dedicate to it, five days a week, that's the good start, right? I think when work starts to kind of blur, that eight-hour boundary... I personally think even eight hours is unhealthy. I would love to be at a place where I have a 32-hour workweek or a 30-hour workweek. I think I'm more productive that way, actually. I'd like to kind of compress my time, but I don't live in France, so... What do they have - an official 34-hour workweek in France, or something?
+
+I'd say when work starts to kind of spill over into the other parts of my life, that's where I get stressed, or burnt-out... And I'm fairly good at putting myself in that cycle, personally. Maybe this is TMI for people, but I'm a little bit of an over-achiever, and I like working hard, pushing myself professionally, taking on more responsibilities etc. That constantly leads to needing to force myself to have some downtime, and reestablish boundaries. But I'm constantly fighting that for myself. I'm constantly fighting my boundaries with work, and it's not often because of my boss or my team, it's self-inflicted... So that's something else to -- sometimes you are your own worst enemy, in that regard.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That raises a really interesting question, because I think a lot of folks, both in this and in other knowledge-intensive industries fit in this sort of anxious overachiever model, where people are feeling -- and this is where a lot of impostor syndrome and other things start to come in. You feel like "I'm never good enough, so I work really hard and push myself to be better and to get there." But that leads to this blending of boundaries, and working too much, and whatever...
+
+I had one of my reports be like "Oh yeah, I felt like we were behind on this, so I was gonna work this weekend", and I was like "Dude, it's okay if you're behind. That's not your fault, that's actually part of the system." So what I'd love to dig into here is what are the aspects of the work environments, what are the systemic factors that lead to these boundaries getting blurred or not. Because most of us in this industry push ourselves. We're here because we were good at something, and we pushed, and we've spent a lot of time learning... There's a lot of stuff you have to learn to do this. So we're all of the character types that is gonna lead to poor boundaries if we're not careful. What are the factors that go into a work environment that prevent that from happening.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I'm staring at what is possibly the chillest person on Earth, Nick Nisi... Nick, do you ever get stressed, actually? \[laughs\] I'm just waiting to hear Nick's response.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I'm like the Hulk in the first Avengers movie.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Really? Okay.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I'm just always stressed. That's my secret. \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[11:56\] I feel like, Nick, your voice is a little ASMR for me, because you're just soooo... Calm... So I love it. You are the yin to my yang. I'm like "Aaargh!!" and you're like "Whaddup, people...?"
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I just have this handy Mute switch ready, and I just scream into the void with that.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Aww...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** No, no, I do feel overly stressed a lot, and I think that that is one thing that really leads to the blurring of boundaries. If I was gonna think about when that happens regularly, it's when I don't feel like I was productive enough during the day, then I feel like I do have to come in and work after I get my kids to sleep, or over the weekend, and try and catch up a little bit... And I hate that feeling, and it's not usually my fault. A lot of times it's just I don't have the knowledge or the understanding that I need to do what I need to do, like the requirements are poor, or things like that... And I take it on me, I put that pressure on me as being "Well, I should know this. I should know how to go and do this", even though I may not have any insight into how to actually do that.
+
+So I think that having that good support structure of clearly defined tasks, that are well groomed with all of the information that I need, really helps me to stay on track... Because the second that I'm waiting or looking around or asking somebody, then I've already got another tab open with the news, or Reddit, or something going, and then it's just kind of like "Well, I surfed Reddit all day, I guess. I don't have anything to show for the day, so I'd better go make up some time later." I really hate that.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That actually to me is sounding like support staff and well-defined roles. Someone who has a well-defined (probably) product management role, that is responsible for lining things up, figuring out dependencies, making sure that the right information gets to the right people... Separating out who's responsible for figuring out the problem and who's responsible for doing the work - I think that's one place where... Those are two very different types of work, and when you blur those lines and have the same people doing both things, or at least for the same project...
+
+I do both of those types of work, but when I'm in an implementation, I usually try to stay only in implementation, and be like "Okay, for this project, y'all are figuring out what you want me to do, and I'm gonna do it. And for this project, I'm gonna figure out what we're gonna do, but I'm not gonna do it. You're gonna do it." Kind of having those separated, at least for me, leads to a lot less of that weird blurred lines, and that type of thing.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, I agree.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, I think that's a really good point. A big point of anxiety in our industry is the fact that I think there's so much discovery, and discovery is often coupled with design, and implementation... Our discovery phase is totally spread out. And if you're looking at work as a little bit of a pyramid structure, where you have maybe more junior folks on your team, and with a few kind of mid-level people, with then even fewer senior people - you really wanna try to make sure that the decision-making is clear. If I have a junior engineer on my team, the decisions for them need to be really clear and laid out. They should have less decision-making while they're doing their work. Things need to be very clear.
+
+Whereas I think for senior people that may be on the bleeding edge of the discovery train. I think maybe you're involved with making those decisions, or you're more comfortable with uncertainty... But I think it's really important to know where you fall on that line... Because some people really need to have clear decisions and clear instructions, and they're more kind of like executers. So folks are more creative, they're okay with figuring it out on the go... But both have their trade-offs, and figuring it out on the go is also extremely stressful and highly overrated, I think. Planning is something we're just universally not good at as an industry, and I think it's just because we're often moving so fast, you have folks also committing to deadlines without engineering input; that's a huge cause of stress, so there's a lot of hero culture, trying to rise to the mythical deadline that was set by someone that wasn't you...
+
+\[16:20\] So there's just so many causes for stress around planning, discovery etc. and a lot of projects are waterfall projects, in the sense of like there's a deadline, there's a set of things that they want, and go! But there hasn't been enough discovery and planning to actually account for that waterfall, because folks are maybe doing fake agile, so they're doing this scrumfall thing... Which is the most painful thing in the world, because you're pretending to do agile and bite things off week by week, or in a bi-weekly basis, but really, you have a hard deadline and you can't afford to spread out your discovery like that.
+
+So I feel like what we need as an industry is some kind of a litmus test for what type of culture is on your team, or what type of project is this; where on the spectrum is this falling? Is this scrum, waterfall? And then combat that with the team cultures... You can kind of maybe come up with some type of a formula for what's the healthiest way to operate given certain inputs? But here I am, trying to make a program out of this.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** No, I think that actually will lead well into a next segment... So let's take a short break, but then come back and start talking about -- I think there's two aspects of what you mentioned here that would be really useful. One is how do you know, when you're looking at a work culture maybe you're interviewing, what are some of the litmus tests or questions you can ask to identify what are you getting yourself into. And two is if you are an individual in a culture that is not where you'd like it to be, where it's stressed, where all these things are there, what are some tactics that you can take to improve things, at least for yourself, and ideally for the rest of your team?
+
+**Break:** \[18:02\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Well, during the break, Amal was sharing all of her great plans and ideas around -- it sounded almost like industry code of conduct, or something that companies could say "Here's the things we're gonna do to make our work environments good for our engineers, or our employees at large." Amal, do you wanna repeat some of what you were saying there, and maybe expand on it and let us know what you're thinking? What is it that the ideal work environment would do, that would make for a great place to work.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I had this midnight thought last night... What it would take to change the culture in tech? This is gonna sound kind of morbid, and I apologize, especially for the newbies. Please do not let what I'm saying discourage you in any way... But I do think that culture in technology as a whole is a little toxic, and it's not necessarily just intentionally toxic in terms of discrimination etc. it's not the stuff that you would think of, typically. I find it toxic because I think we don't really acknowledge the skill-building and the maintenance part of our job... In the sense that it takes a lot to become a software engineer, and it takes a lot to stay a good software engineer. And there's culture around what it takes to support a thriving career, that I think we don't acknowledge.
+
+So wouldn't it be cool if we had a set of standards that companies could commit to, to show that they abide by certain cultural norms? ...as in like 40-hour workweek, for real; we give you personal development time at work, as well as a budget, because we acknowledge that you're always learning new skills. We don't set deadlines without your consent...
+
+So all these things that are kind of like really common problems in our industry - what if we could just kind of nip those in the bud? Including diversity standards. Wouldn't that be cool? So it would be nice to have a little certification seal of approval stamp for like "Hey, we're a 'healthy' company. Come join us."
+
+Often, it's really hard to know the company culture until you get there, and asking all the right questions in an interview sometimes doesn't even get you that. So having some kind of a transparent, like you said, code of conduct for your tech employees, that have really hard, stressful jobs, that would be cool.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I think your point about the amount of time that it takes to upscale and to then stay and maintain those skills is really important. There's this constant toxic discussion about "Oh, you have to be passionate to be a developer", and all these things... But I think some of where that came from is an overlay to this, or is related to that. It's this sense that currently, in our industry, you are generally not given time to keep your skills up to date or to develop them. And to be successful in this industry, you need to spend a lot of time developing your skills and keeping them up to date.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Exactly.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** If you are "passionate", which I think is a terrible way to measure, and I saw a great article recently about "The dispassionate developer" and things like that. But if you are "passionate" you are probably putting a lot of time into doing exactly those things - upping your skills, maintaining your skills, doing those sorts of things. You should not have to be passionate; you should be able to do this work for a paycheck, because it's a well-paying job, and it will support you and your family and various other things... But you should also know going in that you are going to have to continually invest quite a bit of time on learning and maintaining your skills, that will probably - unless you're very lucky - not be supported directly by your work folks.
+
+\[24:10\] So if you are not passionate about this and wanting to do it in your spare time, you need to account for that, and figure out how are you going to do that work to keep yourself competitive and up to date?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yes. The amount of time it takes to stay viable in this industry, and the fact that we aren't acknowledging that companies don't actually build in time - it's kind of ridiculous. Add the fact that companies don't ever have the same stack; every company is a snowflake. So every new employee is walking in not only having to learn the domain, but they're also having to learn the stack... And of course, it's never, ever a standard implementation of XYZ. That's just software. Software has cruft, and stories, and skeletons... "Oh, we're using TypeScript this way, actually."
+
+So all of that is put on the employee's personal time... And I have to wonder -- as an industry, I just think by adopting more standards and practices around giving employees time to invest in themselves etc. what we're doing is acknowledging that the current pace is not sustainable, and in order for all of us to go faster and do it sustainably, we have to slow down. So you have to slow down to go fast, and it's counter-intuitive, but by reinvesting in people, you're gonna have happier employees, who will likely stay there longer. As an industry, we all benefit; the collective industry benefits from this type of a change. So it's a big one, because JavaScript is getting pretty complex these days...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Whaat...?!
+
+**Kevin Ball:** And apps are always complex, right? Like you say, every application is its own special snowflake. There is almost not generic application out there. And I think -- talking about standards, one I'd like to promote is it will take you six months to get up to speed and productive in a codebase.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Minimum.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** We recently made that explicit inside of the startup I work at, Humu, where as part of our onboarding documents, we expect you to be still getting up to speed for the next six months as you get on this... Because what we've found is both individuals going through the process would get down on themselves, "Why am I still feeling slow? Why am I unproductive?" But then also, their teammates need to know what to expect. This person isn't contributing as much, or they're asking a lot of questions. Yeah, they're three months in. We don't expect them to be fully productive for another three months.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Also expect other teammates to have to slow down, right? And budgeting for that, and planning for that. Going back to the planning thing, where you're looking more holistically at your inputs and outputs, keeping in mind that we should dedicate part of everybody's time to go towards this new person, right? You should expect that.
+
+Engineers are also... I don't know what profession -- there probably are professions that have more expensive onboarding, but it's a pretty expensive process to onboard an engineer, given the stuff that Kball just shared, which I totally agree with. It takes long for people to become productive, and then it takes longer for them to become domain experts as well, which is this whole other thing that's very unique to your company.
+
+So yeah, retention is something that we have an issue with in our industry, and I have to wonder what it's like for people, because people do seem to change jobs every 2-3 years. So every two to three years you're learning a new stack and a new domain. You have to wonder how many times you can do that throughout your career... \[laughs\] So I don't know...
+
+For me, JavaScript is just becoming daunting, and "No, do not enter! We're big and scary", like Wizard of Oz... You know the Wizard of Oz? I feel like the level of complexity that we've added to JavaScript - or modern web application development, to be specific - it's not friendly to newbies at all. It seems to only be getting more complex. Yeah, it's just -- we're not giving people the time to really skill up... What are we doing? We're gonna be left with nobody on the battlefield... Except for the nerds that made this mess.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[28:02\] I think, kind of going towards that, and something that Rebecca said in the chat, is about hiring junior developers. I think that junior developers are a really good way to promote that culture of learning and keeping everyone humble, and possibly shaping the stack a little bit, because you don't want it to get overly complex and take longer than six months to get somebody onboarded into... And having continuous junior developers coming in and the more senior folks teaching them, and really going through the pains of not being productive individually, but pairing or giving them a -- I was gonna say a lecture, but that can be boring, too... Like, a lecture on why things are the way they are within this project, and how it evolved to this - that's a really important and really good way to keep that going.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So we've talked a lot about the problems... What are some tactics that individuals can take to address this? And I'm interested at multiple levels. So if you're an existing senior(ish) engineer, what are some things that you can do to help either yourself or your company improve? If you're a junior engineer coming in, what are specific things that people can do to improve both personal situations and team situations?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I think if you're a senior developer, you really kind of at this stage wanna start thinking about what you wanna have as your niche... You wanna start developing your T. Your T meaning your T shape - what is your breadth of expertise and what is your depth of expertise... And really start making strategic decisions, because we all know the shelf life of software. So you really wanna be strategic about what you invest in your time into.
+
+I can tell you, I'm not the first to jump on every single new thing anymore. I'm very picky about what I spend time learning, and what I will invest in, because my time is really valuable... And I've noticed with folks that are newer in the industry, they're just looking for something to latch on to, and they wanna learn all the things... Cloud, frontend, this, that... It's like, "Awesome..." But for me at this stage it's really about developing your expertise and your niche, and making sure you have breadth, but really focusing on areas of depth in a strategic way, that are gonna help amplify your career... And really looking for companies that you can grow that depth in, so making sure that the company that you're at is able to support your plan for the next 2, 3, 4 years, and making sure that you can grow with the company and you're not just coasting.
+
+Unfortunately, there's always gonna be a level of uncomfortableness... If you're not uncomfortable as a software engineer writing modern code, tell me your secret.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, I was gonna say maybe for more senior folks on the team, kind of leading by example, in that you are an advocate for this type of learning; you're always pushing for having the budget to do more things. You're always trying to learn a different thing. It may not really make sense for your tech stack, but it's going to help you in the long run... And helping others by being an advocate for them as well, for getting things like that done.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I have a couple of tactics that I use, that I recommend to folks... And I'm cognizant that some of them may work better for me because of various types of privilege... I'm an older white dude with a lot of experience, so these may or may not apply in your situation... But one is being very deliberate about blocking out what time I'm available and what time I'm not available. I work 5:30 to 2. Starting at 2 o'clock I'm taking care of my kids. It is blocked on my calendar. I tell folks I may be available on Slack; if you slack me, I might be able to respond. I'm not gonna be able to do much, because I'll be on my phone.
+
+\[31:59\] And part of that, sometimes other things come up... This came up a lot in the pandemic - working on a project, I'll let people know "I cannot work on this for the next two days, then I will work on it", and being very, very aggressive and clear about communication there... Just saying when I'm available, being open about that, but also very clear about when I'm not. Actually, going into the pandemic, I was not available a lot, because we were still figuring out our childcare situation, and I was worried that folks would take this badly, like "Oh, he's not available that much. He's not doing work" \[unintelligible 00:32:29.17\] But what I actually got was a lot of people commenting either directly to me or indirectly to my manager about how helpful it was to have that clarity, and to have that communication. So it may be once again that this is related to my situation of privilege, but I think it's something that is broadly visible - we can be a lot clearer about our own lines, so long as we are clear about communicating them to folks. "I can do this"/"I can't do this." "No, sorry, I can't take on any more today." That type of thing.
+
+The other tactic that I use that I definitely recommend to folks is I try to only commit up to about 90% of my capacity each week.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** 90% is a lot.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Well, I buffer inside of that, too. I reserve 10% specifically for learning and reading new things; 10% of my work time.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That makes sense.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Some of that is blocked on my calendar, some of it I don't block on my calendar, but I just try not to commit as high. And this is something that I can't do all the time. I've been in a crunch project the last two weeks, because we're just sort of short on some skills that I happen to have, and so I was providing it in multiple places, and it was a crunch time, and that could happen. But deliberately under-committing as much as possible and reserving that time not just to make up for where I messed up in my estimation - which that's another thing... That 90% is after I've padded my estimations, and whatever. Estimation is a skill that we could go into and go a long time on, doing better estimates and estimates upfront would improve a lot of people's lives. But even after all of the estimate-related padding, reserving time that is there for me to read and learn and try things.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's awesome. You've got you time at work. You're literally investing in yourself so you can invest in everybody else... So it's literally going back to the company, and in exponential ways.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Exactly. It feels like "Oh, I can't do this because I won't be productive", but if you do that for six months, at the end of that you're already as productive as you would have been doing 100% of time at the beginning... And then the next six months you're gonna be more productive, and the next six months even more productive... It adds up.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, 120%. I guess if we're sharing specific tactics around happiness, I would say for me -- I can tell you what I'm working on. It's definitely similar to Kevin... Or sorry, Kball. Does anybody call you Kevin, actually?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Some people do. You can call me Kevin if you want to.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Kball's like, "The government calls me Kevin..." \[laughter\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** My wife...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Your wife. Okay. That's cute. For me it's like learning to say no, and remembering that work is always going to be there. You have to adult, you have to manage yourself. No one is gonna say "Stop working." Work is never going to say "Don't do work." We're living in capitalist societies. Work is gonna always be happy with overachievers and hardworkers and all that jazz. We don't have a culture here of looking at employees' overall betterment. So until we're there, you have to be looking out for yourself, be comfortable with no, don't over-commit... Remember that there's always tomorrow, and so it's okay to just walk away.
+
+\[35:45\] One thing I've started doing a while ago, and it's been working very well, in order to help with walking away is kind of developing a little bit of a rotunda, and when I say rotunda it's like a "Here's everything that's in my head before I leave for the day." I write it all down, and then I can just walk away. Because if I don't do that and I'm not as strict about it as I wish I was, the days that I don't do that, I'm constantly thinking about work, because I don't wanna forget that thing... But if you write it down, you're free of it, and in the morning you can come back and remember it.
+
+So just free yourself, develop rituals for dethatching from work. That's the thing, especially as knowledge workers. My company gets so much more of my time than they even know, because in your subconscious you're solving problems, and you're always thinking about the problem, so you have to consciously develop ways to remove yourself.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah. There's something -- it might be from book-writing maybe... It's like, don't ever finish that paragraph for the day. Leave it halfway unfinished, so that you can just pick it up easily and jump right in the next day. That's something that you can definitely do. And I try and do that with work, whether it's doing that, where I know what I have to do to make this work, and I'll just leave it for tomorrow, because that way I have an easy win when I start... Or it's what you do, Amal, and that's taking rigorous notes about what I did, and the thought tree that came to the actual conclusion that I'm at. Because oftentimes there's a lot of thinking that goes into a very little amount of code... So it maybe looks like I spent all day writing 11 lines, but it took me a long time to figure out that those are the exact 11 lines that I wanna write.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, yeah. Writing code should always be the last part of your process, too. Think of design, alignment etc. Then you write code. I totally agree, Nick. I guess the technique -- and this isn't obviously gonna work for everybody, everybody's different, but it's like a work journal. It's like "What did you do today?" And having a ritual at the end of the day/beginning of the day, and taking notes as you go along for what you're doing or not doing.
+
+I've noticed that when I shift my focus around "What did I accomplish?" versus "What did I do?", those are two different questions. I always have to check myself on "What did I accomplish?" Because sometimes you can do a lot and be super-busy, and I'm very unhappy when I'm constantly pulled into different directions, and I'm super-fragmented... It's busy work, but without really accomplishing everything.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Well, you go to a lot of meetings, too.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, exactly. So I always have to check my accomplishments list, because that also is another way to make sure you're moving in the direction that you need to be moving in... And that's satisfying. For me, if I go extended periods without significant accomplishments, or enough accomplishments to feed my base level of internal happiness, that's when I start to get miserable.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I have a tactic that's almost the inverse of that, which is the priorities list. I start every day with a list of priorities between -- I wanna have at least one, and less than five. And if I don't have that at the beginning of my day, I write it. A lot of times I add it to my next day, or I know that day this is gonna be important, and I'll add it ahead of time... But those are on my list, and trying to get those done. If I get those done, I'm good.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Other stuff is gonna happen. I'm a manager some of the time -- or one of the things I do is manage, so I've got a lot of meetings... But my priorities list - if I get those things done, I'm good.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[39:33\] I do that too, and I use the last 10-15 minutes of my day to make that. I have a cooldown routine that's in my to-do list, and it just pops up at 4:30 or 4:45. It's like ten steps, and they're really easy to go through. Right now it's about the next thing to do; push up any code that I have. Clean up my work area (which I sometimes don't) and then write out what I'm going to start with the next morning.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Alright, so there is a whole set of tactics that you can use to make work a little bit better for you... Let's take another quick break, and when we come back let's talk about work environments we've worked in that have been either particularly good or particularly bad, and what made them so.
+
+**Break:** \[40:10\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I was in a work environment one time... It was in a startup, it was quite a while ago... And the CEO would yell at his EA; behind closed doors, but he would yell at her. He could not seem to understand at the time... I think he did eventually -- and credit to him, he grew a lot... But he could not understand why that would upset the rest of the company and kill everyone's productivity for the day. And I think one of the things -- or the lesson I would take from this, to generalize, is that people are leaky. We're all embedded in these social networks at work. If one person is really unhappy or one person is getting treated very unfairly, that ripples out to all sorts of folks. And I think having in mind that if some people are unhappy, or are bad apples and treat people poorly, it's actually probably better, even if they're really important in one dimension, for them to leave the company.
+
+I have co-workers that I love working with - or have had co-workers that I loved working with, where I could tell they're getting unhappy and they're just not a good fit, and I'd say "You know what - I really like working with you and I'd like to keep working with you...You're unhappy; you should probably find a new job. We can maybe fix this, let's talk about it, but if we try for two months and we're not fixing it, let's find you a better place to work, that's gonna fit you better..." Because when one person's unhappy, it radiates.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, I couldn't agree with you more. It's also just not only one person that's unhappy... Sometimes when you have someone that's just dragging the team down, that's another situation. If you put someone who's maybe -- I hate using the word "performer", but I apologize, I'm gonna use it. High performers/low performers - if you put somebody that's a "low performer" with this high-functioning team, or whatever, you think like "Oh, the high-functioning team will affect this person and help them out", but it's like the opposite. That one person can throw the monkey wrench into the whole situation. The princess and the pea thing... You've gotta find that pea and take it out.
+
+I'll share some good example, good culture norms I got to experience. As folks being remote, and on Slack, there's a lot of intention around when you ping people. This is specifically for a globally distributed team that I was on - folks would intentionally not mention their name in Slack, even without the @ sign. They would put the name and they'd put slashes in between their name, so that the Slack mentions wouldn't pick them up. So these really thoughtful considerations around "Hey, this person isn't working right now. We're a globally distributed team, so how do we respect their timezone and their boundaries?"
+
+\[44:06\] And in general, I would say lots of other good examples are for me around remote working culture gone right. I think that's the true liberation for our people. When I say "our people", I mean tech people. If every company could adopt good remote-first cultural standards, regardless of whether they're remote or not, it just would help across the board with transparency, and communication, people not having anxiety, people being able to do their best work, respecting different communication styles... So I would say more of that, more examples like that would be really nice.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** To what you said about Slack - everytime somebody uses something that's not my name, like with N-ick, or something like that, I always add that to the list of highlighted words...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I go the opposite way with that.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, that's so funny... OMG.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** At my current work we actually had a push -- because folks were struggling with disconnecting in the pandemic, and they strongly recommended "Take Slack off your phone. Just have it on your work computer, don't have it on your phone." And I actually really appreciate this as something that the company was pushing, and saying "Hey, you are putting this on here. We're saying don't, because it's stressing you out, and that's our problem as a company."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. If something's really an emergency, they should know how to reach you.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** We have an on-call system.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yes.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** If you're on-call, you can get paged on-call. I got paged by an accidental on-call at the beginning of this thing, and I slacked in and said "What's the deal? Can somebody else take it?" They did. It was fine. But there's an on-call system - that's what should be reliable for off hours, not Slack.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** And don't be afraid to set up your Slack to have your -- I forgot what they call it in the UI specifically, but they have off hours, where even if somebody mentions you, it's not going to actually give you an alert. I have it between six and seven AM, or something like that.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Nick is like "I have it between six and six-thirty. Only 30 minutes in a day where you can't reach me, everybody." \[laughter\]
+
+**Nick Nisi:** No, it's a little more than that. I think it's like 5 to 7, or something like that.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** 5 PM to 7 AM, right?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yes, right. \[laughs\] 17:00 to 7:00. But it also gives you right there in the UI -- or maybe it's only if you're DM-ing someone... But if you're DM-ing someone who has that set up, it will say that they're not going to get this message, and it gives you an extra little link that you can click, that will actually send it through... So it lets you continue on and carry on and mention them without it actually popping up on their phone. And if they manually go in and check Slack, it's there, and they can see it, but it's not something that is going to disrupt them if they're not actually looking at it.
+
+So I definitely set that up, and I kind of take the liberty of assuming that other people have too, and so I will continue -- not that I ever message after-hours, but if I do, I'll have it set up and just assume that they're ignoring their phone, because it's not actually going through to them. Maybe that's a bad assumption...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Well, wouldn't it be nice if your company had a standard around that though, where everybody had to set that up?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That would be nice.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I think that is overwhelmingly one of the messages we have here... It's like, we're all trying to do individual solutions, but this is a systemic issue, and the company needs to set standards and have things... Because otherwise you're always wondering, "Oh, well if I'm not on, does that mean people are disappointed in me? Am I letting my teammates down? If I'm taking all this time for childcare, are they gonna be mad at me?" All these different pieces. Whereas if we address it at a systemic level, it's a lot cleaner.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah, for sure.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[47:55\] For me the root cause of a lot of this also just comes from a synchronous culture. If you have a culture where decisions need to be made synchronously all the time, people need to have a meeting to make decisions, and they have to have a meeting about the meeting etc. which is super-common... But ultimately, if we could all start developing better habits around asynchronous communication, and having long-form discussions on forums, or GitHub, for example, where you have a history and a log of the decisions, you can refer to it over time, it's there as a resource, it's grappable for new employees - you're able to take the anxiety factor out, because people don't have to respond 30 seconds after they're pinged on Slack. That's another unfortunate expectation that we have now, where people are just glued to their computers and devices; if someone's not responding, where are they...? It's async. We should really make it async... Unless it's marked urgent, I'm gonna respond when I can. You're in the queue, but you're not in the urgent queue, unless you put yourself in the urgent queue. But don't abuse the urgent queue.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Do you think that that's gotten better or worse in the pandemic and the rush to remote work?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I think it's worse, because you now have literally dozens of Slack channels that you're monitoring. There's a lot of chatter for companies that are new to being remote. There's FOMO... But the reality is even if you are in the office, are you literally going to every single meeting? Are you part of every single team's discussions? You can't be all in one place, so in a sense, being physical somewhere limits you. Your humanity is a limiting factor. But Slack - it just gives you this window into everybody, and everything.
+
+So for the information lovers anonymous, aka most software engineers, feeling the need to read every thread, or respond to everything - it's anxiety-inducing. I see it all the time, people are constantly eager to jump on things and be helpful, when really, they should all just be stepping back from Slack and chilling out. We don't need to be so connected.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I listened to a podcast recently about this... It was Ezra Klein interviewing Cal Newport, who's the author of Deep Work, and his new thing is a book he calls "The Hyperactive Hive Mind", describing exactly this phenomenon, of like "We've started organizing work in a way where we're all doing this real-time pinging back and forth. There are various systemic reasons that push us there, but it makes us less productive and less happy. And figuring out how we can better organize our work so that we are doing more of it in batched manners and in asynchronous manners."
+
+Because I think there is value in synchronicity for some types of work. One of the reasons we fall into this is that--
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Collaboration.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Collaboration, rapid iteration, do this, feedback, go back and forth... There is value in that for classes of work. But when all work is done that way, it's miserable. So thinking about how we organize ourselves so that we batch together our synchronous work and do it effectively, or doing it at roughly the same times, or roughly the same time windows... And then we have long periods of time for deeper work, for focused work, for stuff that is not getting interrupted all the time. I think it's super-valuable.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I can't believe we haven't talked about deep work and focus. This could be like a series. This could be its own podcast. Literally, every week, we could pick a topic and just go deep, because... No pun intended.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Thomas in the chat highlights I got the book name wrong.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I was gonna say, can we put the book in the show notes?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Definitely. The book is called "A World Without Email."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh my God, yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** The podcast was great... He overpushes a little bit. I think he is more hesitant to acknowledge some of the value points of this mode of working, but a lot of his points are just so, so spot on.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, I've never heard that term "hive thinking." That sounds so appropriate from what I've been seeing with remote teams. It's a little much.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[52:01\] Yeah. When the pandemic first started over a year ago now, it was really hard. I was in the same situation as Kball, with figuring out childcare, and all of that. It was really hard to try and figure out how to work productively. It's gotten much better now, but one thing that I am going to be thankful for, I think, post-pandemic, if that's such a thing, is that everyone -- like, at my company, where 90% of the people go to the same building every day, and I am not going to be one of those people, I am thankful that maybe they won't forget about me and the 3-4 other people who are remote... Because they have seen, they have lived that for a year.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[singing\] "Don't you... Forget about me." Do we have to do copyrights for this too, if I sing it? "Don't... Don't... Don't..." Just kidding. I won't. I'll stop now. It's less than 25 seconds.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I don't know how many episodes we have in a row now of someone singing, but we should keep this streak rolling.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yup.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's okay...
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Release a soundtrack.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** The need for me to sing was so strong that I had to interrupt Nick.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[laughs\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I think you're spot on. I think moving to a world where remote is more part of the thinking is gonna be helpful for everyone who works remote... And moving back to a world where we can actually be in-person some of the time is gonna help some of our mental health.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Alright. Well, this has been wonderfully therapeutic, hopefully helpful. Do either of you have -- actually, let me put you on the spot. Each of you, one final parting thought. Something that you would put out there to the Universe for people to think about, try, or do with related to making work environments better.
+
+I'll go first. Shameless plug - I work at a company focused on this. That's one of the reasons I'm so excited about it. Check out my company, Humu, both as a potential place to work, because we are hiring engineers, or as a place to help your place of work get better. There is so much involved in this, and there are so many different systemic aspects that it really helps to be thinking about it systemically, and not just trying to do it as an individual.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Mine is be kind to yourself. Cut yourself some slack. It's been a really difficult - not just year; I think several years. So just take it easy, yo. This is a really hard industry to be a part of and stay a part of, and so just acknowledge that you're doing your best, and your best is good enough, actually. That's it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Alright, I'll build on top of that and say acknowledge that your co-workers are doing their best, too.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Just sitting in silence, or reading things on Slack... I read everything with a very snarky tone, so I assume that everybody's mad at me... Or it can feel isolating not getting any feedback ever. So go out of your way to get feedback.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Can I give you some feedback right now?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Oh, no...!
+
+**Amal Hussein:** No, you're awesome, Nick. That's my feedback to you.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Thank you.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Put that in a while loop. It's just gonna infinitely run. So that's forever feedback from me.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Thanks, Amal. And likewise.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** You're welcome.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Excellent. Well, thank you both. I appreciate both of you, as feedback... And this has been another fun episode, JS Party. Check us live Thursdays, 10 o'clock Pacific, 12 Central I think is what folks say, since so many of you are based Central. 1 o'clock Eastern. We record live, you can just us live, streaming on YouTube... Woo-hoo! We'll catch you next week!
diff --git a/X gon' State it to ya_transcript.txt b/X gon' State it to ya_transcript.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..38528ede8533e1ddec5bb769bff9a70a6be47958
--- /dev/null
+++ b/X gon' State it to ya_transcript.txt	
@@ -0,0 +1,447 @@
+**Nick Nisi:** Hello, internet. Welcome to JS Party. I'm your host this week, Nick Nisi. Hoy-hoy. I am joined by two wonderful co-panelists. Kball. What's up, Kball?
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Hello! Good to be back. Hello, everyone.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Welcome. We're happy to have you back. And I'm also joined by Amal. Amal, how's it going?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Hello, hello. I'm having a fan girl moment, so I have to restrain myself today.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Absolutely. I think we all are. It's a very exciting podcast today. Today we are talking to David Khourshid. David, how's it going?
+
+**David Khourshid:** Going good. How are you all doing?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Fantastic. And we are talking about you and your fantastic project, XState. Why don't we kick off learning a little bit more about you? Tell us what's up.
+
+**David Khourshid:** Sure. So you might have noticed my screen name, DavidKPiano. Piano is not my last name, as you probably surmised... I went to college for piano and then discovered that doing web development actually pays a lot more than playing piano, so I sort of switched fields, went into that. I started at a startup as a junior developer, and it was like this startup where there were just all of these crazy workflows in multi-part forms... And one of those things were like you would click a check box and then a certain field would show, unless this other check box was clicked, then you'd have to do this and you might go to a different step etc. That was just really confusing to me as a junior developer, so I'm like "There's gotta be a better pattern for doing all this."
+
+So I was doing some research, and I actually just stumbled upon state machines. So it's nothing that I learned at university, like a lot of other developers might have learned. It's just like "Wow, this is a nice visual language, and I'm a visual learner", and as a musician, that's important too, because you have sheet music, which is a visual way of representing what you're supposed to play. So I was like "Hey, I really dig this visual language. Let's dig more into it and actually find out why it's not more popular today."
+
+Fast-forward a few years, I decided to just put all of my learnings into what at the time was a toy project. I actually called it Estado, like the Spanish name for estate, but I eventually changed the name...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[laughs\] That's awesome.
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah. So that toy project had all of seven GitHub stars for many years, until I actually decided to give a conference talk about it... So yeah, it became XState, and here we are. I have a lot of really good contributors working on it, and I'm just really excited where it's gotten to right now and where it's gonna be in the future.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Before we dive into XState, I'm curious to hear more about piano. Do you still play a lot? I know multiple developers who development is their -- it's their equivalent of serving tables. It's how they pay their way for either professional music or professional theater or whatever it is career. So are you still going strong on the piano?
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah, I am. In fact, my piano is right here. Actually, the piano is actually over there, but I have a Lego piano right there.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That did look very tiny.
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah, yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Tiny piano...
+
+**David Khourshid:** It is playable, actually.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Really?
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah. From time to time I still perform, just at small concerts, things like that. So yeah... I try to keep it up.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That's very cool. And is there any kind of correlation between instruments like that and state machines, now that you've really dug into those?
+
+**David Khourshid:** I would say the only correlation is the fact that -- what I talked about, sheet music, a visual representation of like... You have notes, and bar lines, and just a really limited set of notation for expressing a huge variety of music, like centuries' worth of music... And I'm like, "Okay, is there any sort of visual -- whether it's called visual formalism that exists for application logic in the same way?" So I think that's the connection. State machines and state charts can really describe not everything, but almost everything.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Okay. So I'm really digging this analogy, and... I don't consider myself a state machine nerd, because I'm very familiar with people who really love nerding out about state machines, and a lot of my state machine nerd friends who happen to also write JavaScript for a living love XState, and I'll share some interesting back-stories later... But this kind of analogy of the state machine needing a visual representation, and how it's similar to sheet music... If you really think about an orchestra - I mean, it is this giant kind of state machine between multiple musicians that need to coordinate events and activities in a synchronized fashion, for a set duration of time. It really is a very interesting analogy, and I think your background and your story is just one small example of why diversity in tech is super-important; not just age, and race, and ablism. Literally, like - what did you do before this job? That unique perspective that you bring - it shows in the way you approach problem-solving, so we're really lucky to have you, and I'm glad you've picked this profession to help pay your bills as well.
+
+**David Khourshid:** Thank you.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** \[08:01\] So before we dig too far in, maybe let's take a step back and define what a state machine is.
+
+**David Khourshid:** A state machine - it's one of those things that sounds really complicated. It's like, "Oh, I need to go get a CS degree or something in order to really understand it." But as scary as it sounds, it's actually pretty simple. A state machine is... You could describe something - even a human; let's take me as an example - as being in one of a finite number of states. And I can't be in one more than one of these finite states at a time.
+
+An example of a finite state would be sleeping, or awake. I'm either sleeping or awake. I can't be both sleeping or awake, otherwise I'd have to go see a doctor and deal with that whole thing. Don't wanna do that. So I can only be in one of those states, and I could also transition between sleeping and awake. So if my alarm goes off, hopefully I go from the sleeping to the awake state. So what finite states really are are behaviors... And by behaviors I mean how you or how some entity reacts to events. I'm gonna react differently to events when I'm sleeping versus when I'm awake.
+
+So finite state machines are just a collection of those behaviors or finite states and events that come in. So a more practical example - I mean, this is JS Party after all, so let's talk promises, and fetching data. You're either loading data, or the data loaded, or there's an error, but you're not gonna have more than one of those happen at the same time. You can't get both error and success, or you can't get both loading and error. And the problem today is that there's lots of applications where they do do that. I'm sure you've run into an application where it's like, "I know my internet's fast, but this loading spinner has been going on for like two minutes now... I'm pretty sure there's an error, but it's just not gonna tell me. It's gonna show the loading spinner indefinitely." So problems like that are solved by state machines, where that's impossible. You can't be both in an error state and in a loading state. You have to be in one of those.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Wait a second, David... Are you not familiar with a tiny little project called GraphQL? \[laughter\] Because I feel like GraphQL has broken all the rules there... I mean, you can get your success response, you can get a partial response, and you get a list of your errors. And of course, zero respect for HTTP codes, and everything is a post, and like "What the F?" You know, I love GraphQL, but some things about the spec are really bothersome to my heart.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I think GraphQL is highlighting David's point, right?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So the web in general - anything on the web, people will say "Hey, can this happen?" Hey, it's the web. Anything could happen. You could ask for things in order, they could come back out of order, all these other things... And what the state machine lets you do is collapse that infinity down to a few manageable states you can think about.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right. Some determinism right? You want determinism.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** You used that word "finite" - is that just synonymous with state machine? Like, if you're talking about a state machine, is it always a finite state machine? And does the word "finite" mean there's a finite number of states, or three's a finite number of states it can be in at once?
+
+**David Khourshid:** So finite is basically how you organize all of the possible states that your application can be in. So it's more of a communication mechanism than reality, because obviously, in this world there's an infinite number of different states that things can be in. But finite is just for grouping.
+
+For example, sleeping versus awake - my body is still the same number of cells, it's just that some are... I don't know how -- I didn't take anatomy. But it's just that we discreetly define sleeping and awake as two separate states. So again, it's a communication mechanism, and it's a necessary one too, because we as developers wanna talk about what can happen in certain states, instead of "Oh, just check this boolean flag, and if this is false and that's true, and this and this are false, then do this." That's really confusing. So yeah, it's a social construct, sort of...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[12:12\] I think we do have to be careful, too. Sleeping and awake is a really convenient pair to talk about, but we need some sort of way to capture the state of mind which is "I fell asleep on the couch, but now my 8-year-old has jumped on top of me." I'm definitely not all the way awake, but I don't think sleep captures that either.
+
+**David Khourshid:** Right. I mean, we're going really forward here, but that's where you get into state charts, where now you have all of these little states, like this half-sleep/half-awake state, where you're definitely not sleeping and you're definitely not fully awake, but you're like in between there... But you could say that's a subset of being awake. Or maybe a subset of being asleep, however you wanna categorize that. And state charts help you organize that.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I like that. So I haven't dealt that much with layered state machines in that way... So how do you think about that when you have these sort of sub-states that are going on? Is it kind of similar to what you might think of as a class hierarchy or something, where you inherit things from the above state, but you can override things? Or how else would you address that?
+
+**David Khourshid:** It's not so much inheriting, it's more just grouping similar behaviors together. The way it works is my event propagation, too. Basically, when you have a state and that state has nested state, those nested states take priority, so if an event happens, those smaller child states are going to respond to it first, and if it doesn't handle it, it goes to the parents etc.
+
+All state charts can be made into state machines, it's just that when you convert the state chart to a state machine, you get what's called state explosion, because you get al of these unorganized states. Honestly, I think this is sort of meta, but that's one of the biggest reasons for the learning curve behind XState, is that there's so much to learn with state charts... But I want to emphasize that state charts are just an organization mechanism. It's one of those things where you don't have to learn at all before you start using it. Just know that there are tools there that help you better organize your states. And all of this is a lot better than, of course, organizing it like a ton of boolean variables.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So if I was to play that back to you, the state machine is essentially the flattened version.
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** It doesn't have all the context of how these states relate to each other, except in the rules that are written out. So it can be potentially hard to understand that higher level structure... Whereas the state chart is kind of a grouped set of state machine pieces, so that you can see that bigger picture a little bit more. "Oh, these are really substates of this, and this is how they relate to each other, and what priority." Is that a fair assessment?
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah, exactly. Imagine making a web page where you have no nesting of elements. That would be your state machine. So state charts are sort of a revolutionary thing that says "Hey, you could nest elements however you'd like."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, it's a really great summary and analogy, David. Great summary, Kball, great analogy, David. So props, points for both of you. So for me, I think this concept of encapsulated states is maybe something that isn't explicitly said here... Having that encapsulation where nested states are not necessarily triggerable by higher-level state machines, so you have to get to this path, and take this left, and take this right in order to trigger this nested state - that's kind of cool, but I think for me it kind of... It still goes back to that age-old question of global application state and when to encapsulate what. If you have a calendar widget and users picking their dates, and maybe that's part of a form, and let's say you wanna have some form state - what are you persisting, what are you saving, what's the application state if the user wants to rehydrate after a refresh? Where are you bringing them back?
+
+\[15:55\] And for me, that's something that XState doesn't have as strong an opinion on, right? It's kind of like, you design it how you want to. However, I do think there are still some principles around encapsulation, when something can be shared by other things, and when it should trickle down, and also the directional management of state events... That's still a little bit fuzzy, I think, for most folks, including me. I always have to think about it. It's not always like an automatic thing for me, where I know how this is supposed to flow. And it's okay to also refactor and you get it wrong, you know?
+
+**David Khourshid:** Mm-hm. So that's where we get into the actor models. So that's sort of like the second half of XState, which again, people think it's a big learning curve, but it's actually a lot simpler than you might think. So with the actor model, instead of having just this one giant state chart determining, or even ad-hoc machines, like just figuring out the logic for different components, you have this actor model where you have individual actors where -- you can think of them as class instances, or just things that you could send messages to... And the behavior of each actor is guided by a state machine. So an actor can send a message to another actor...
+
+For example, you could consider, if you're listening for mouse move events on a DOM element, that's an actor. So when you're setting up an event listener and checking for those mouse moves, you would send those events probably to something else. So that would be another actor. That actor might be in charge of coordinating all these movements... You know, if it's a drag-drop actor, or something like that. That's another conceptual shift, at least in frontend development - thinking of everything in your app as just little entities talking to each other... And it's also something that's very different than, for example, Redux, where Redux it's like "Okay, everything is in this one global store", and if you don't have things that fit in this global store, good luck. Find somewhere else to put them. They can't live in Redux.
+
+XState takes a different approach. It doesn't matter if it's local or global, you can set up that actor hierarchy however you want and access it wherever you want.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That sounds to me a lot like the type of encapsulation we're used to thinking about in terms of data for component-level data... But in this case, it's not just data, but it's this whole state machine of like "What are the potential states?" Is this once again sort of syntactic sugar to help us think about this? Could you compile that up into a single global state machine if you wanted to? And if so, are there any sorts of interesting analyses or invariant checkings we can do on that?
+
+**David Khourshid:** As far as like compiling a bunch of actors into a single state machine, I would say not really. It's sort of like asking "Can we compile all four of us into a single mega-human?" It doesn't really work that way. As far as state machines itself, that could compile down to just normal code. You don't need to use a library. And in fact, I wrote an article, "You don't need a library for state machines." Actors sort of work the same way, too. It's just this contract between objects where you could just talk to different objects...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So what constitutes an actor? Also, by the way, does this mean, Kball, that nine women can't make a baby in a month? Because that just ruins my plans...
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I have heard that, yes... No, I guess where I was trying to get to is - conceptually, where are the lines of a state machine? Because one of the real benefits of state machines is that they're extremely analyzable. You can put something in an exact state, you can reproduce that state exactly, you can always understand what's gonna happen here. And when we talk about breaking apart into actors, there is in and of itself kind of a useful abstraction there, right? The actor model, if we're thinking about things, is quite useful. Message passing is a nice way to delineate things, and within each actor you have that property of - there's a nice, analyzable state machine.
+
+But it does make me wonder, if we put in the restriction of only actors can send messages to actors, so we're keeping -- everything is within our model of XState state machines... And to be fair, I've never played with XState, so this is all hypothetical in my head.
+
+**David Khourshid:** That's fair, yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[20:14\] You have a much more concrete model. At that point, every message is potentially the result of a state transition or something along those lines... So conceptually, these state machines are part of a larger global state machine. If we say "Only actors can send messages to actors, all actors are themselves state machines", then we should be able to do some amount of combination of actors and say "Okay, even though it's a useful organizing technique to have these be isolated, we can model them as one larger thing, so that we can run global checks and say "Are there loops that we might get into, or other situations where this is not a valid state machine?"
+
+**David Khourshid:** Alright, I understand you now. So yeah, this is more along the lines of orchestration. With orchestration you have this hierarchy of actors where - again, this is not global state like Redux, but you have a global orchestrating actor, and then you have maybe child actors that respond by it, and those child actors could also spawn child actors, and all of these actors could be talking to each other, but you are ideally organizing your app in a way that you have a central orchestrator, just like an orchestra conductor, that is receiving messages and maybe delegating to other actors "Okay, you do this and you do that." Sort of like working at a company where it's not co-workers telling each other what to do, at least hopefully. It's more like the manager is understanding what needs to be done, is getting changes as they happen and other signals, and then is telling their employees like "Okay, you do this, you do that."
+
+So doing it that way, you could think of just this massive network of actors as just like you have a central orchestration unit and events come in from the other actors. So you don't need to worry about like "Okay, how do we combine those actors together?" Just note that there's a potential number of events that are gonna come from somewhere. So with that, you can fully test your orchestration and ensure that "Hey, if this event comes in, this is gonna happen. If this other event comes in, then this behavior might change, and this might happen."
+
+So abstracting it that way - it actually makes it a lot easier to test. And that's sort of one of the central ideals behind model-based testing, it's called... Where you're not even thinking about "Man, I have to mock this, I have to make sure that this is integrated with that." It's more like "Okay, everything is just events." So you receive those events and you receive just a whole bunch of combinations of events, and you ensure that the states resulting from those events is as expected according to your model.
+
+**Break**: \[22:55\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Uno dos, estado. I definintely just said uno dos estado. That happened, because XState was originally formally known as Estado.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Not to derail, but I would love to know why you didn't stick with that.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, exactly.
+
+**David Khourshid:** I don't know.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Who made you change it, darn it?
+
+**David Khourshid:** Okay, there was Redux, MobX... The whole X thing was going on, so I'm like "Okay, I have to find something with X." And XState was available, so I took it. And then I backpedaled and added meaning to the X. It means like a transition, like a crossing of some sort... I had no idea what they mean in Redux and MobX, but at least I came up with some sort of meaning.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** They mean nothing.
+
+**David Khourshid:** It's just cool. 
+
+**Amal Hussein:** They're remixes and available domain names, you know what I'm saying? And GitHub names... But anyways. So - back to question time. We talked a little bit about orchestration and actors, we kind of did a little bit of a deep-dive, so I'm just gonna ask you to take a few steps back, because I'm a little lost... So can we talk a little bit about what actually constitutes an actor, what is an orchestrator, and really what are the general moving pieces for production-level XState state machine?
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah. So actor - think about ourselves, really. I'm an actor -- not like an actor actor, but I'm an entity, and I'm just calling us an actor. Nick's an actor, Kball's an actor, Amal, you're an actor, so --
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I'm an act-or.
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah, act-or... \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I'm actually a diva, thank you very much...
+
+**David Khourshid:** Alright, well - subset of actor.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Yeah, specialized sub-class of actor.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Thank you, thank you, gentlemen. Thank you.
+
+**David Khourshid:** So with actors, what we're doing right now is we're talking to each other, we're sending each other messages... So that's one of the primary functions of an actor. The way that actors communicate is by sending messages. So actors can send messages, actors can receive messages of course...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** But can they choose what they wanna listen to?
+
+**David Khourshid:** They can. That's an actor's behavior. So I have a behavior, and that behavior can change, depending on the message that I get... You know, like if someone offends me on Twitter, then my behavior might be a little bit different. So it depends on the messages you receive. Also, actors have their own local private state. So with this whole analogy, I have thoughts in my head right now, you're all thinking something... I don't know what those thoughts are; I can't read your mind. So how do I get that information out of you? Well, I ask you. Just like you're asking me questions right now; we're sending a message, and we're hopefully anticipating a message back, otherwise it would be really awkward. That's how actors communicate.
+
+So actors are just things that send and receive messages. Now, actors could also do things like spawn other actors and just create this network of actors, but those are the three basic parts of actors.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So just to recap - it's sending messages, listening to messages that you subscribe to, and then spawning other actors.
+
+**David Khourshid:** Exactly. And that's all there is to it.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Actors are state machines as well, right?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Well, they encapsulate state machines, right?
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah, you can think of it that way. So actors exhibit state machine behavior, whether it's implicit or explicit, just because state machines and actors go really well together. Since actors define their behavior based on the events they receive, and that's exactly how a state machine works.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Would you have a scenario where there's no actor, it's just the state machine?
+
+**David Khourshid:** Well, so a state machine - it's like a blueprint; it's a description. It's like saying there's a blueprint of a house, but there's no actual house. So yeah...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[28:02\] So then can an actor contain an actor, contain an actor? Is there infinite levels of nesting? So actors, even if they're nested and encapsulated, they still can listen to messages that are outside of their immediate scope? Like, in the upper levels of the bubble, versus the inner...
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah, so -- first of all, yeah, actors could span actors all the way down. But as far as receiving and sending messages, that's another constrain of actors, in that I can only send messages to someone that I have contact with. So right now, I could talk to all of you, but if I want to talk to someone in the YouTube chat or some other livestream somewhere, I don't have a direct connection with them, so I cannot do that right now. And likewise, if you don't have a connection with me, then you can send messages to me. Same thing with actors.
+
+So the way that actors talk to each other is by having reference to other actors, like having their email address or phone number.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That raises a question that I had, which is are all these messages point-to-point, or can you subscribe to messages so you could get like a multi-cast type of phenomenon going on?
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah, so actors are just the building block, and you could create abstractions on top of that. So one of the most popular libraries for just the actor model in general is Akka really popular in the Java and the Scala ecosystem. They also have the notion of subscribing in topics and other things you might find, like multi-casting, and all of that. So yeah, you could definitely build abstractions on top of just those basic actor model rules. For example, if you want to build your own subscription mechanism on actors, it's nothing new. It's just "Okay, as part of my internal state, I might have a list of subscribers", and whenever a subscriber sends a message saying "I want to subscribe to you", I add it to that list of subscribers and now I have a reference, so when I feel like emitting or multi-casting something, I will go to my list of subscribers and just iterate through and message each one of them.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I'm still a little confused. Sorry if I'm super-slow brain today...
+
+**David Khourshid:** It's all good.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** ...but I'm still a little confused at how an actor is supposed to know about another actor before they can communicate. You can't just publish a name of an actor -- or is that what you mean by that they need to know the name, or that they need to have a contact?
+
+**David Khourshid:** It's more like they have to have reference. For example, how did you all know about me, how did I know about you? Someone probably told you, or you saw something on Twitter, which - Twitter, you can think of Twitter as its own actor...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah.
+
+**David Khourshid:** So actors can come to know of other actors by two basic mechanisms. Either they're born with it, so when a parent actor creates a child actor, it could say "By the way, do you know this actor?" Or even as simple as "You know me as a parent." Or I could send them a message and say "Hey, you should check out this other actor. This is a reference to that actor."
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Okay.
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah. So you could send through messages.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That makes sense. That's awesome. I also love the "Maybe they were born with it." It's a good reference to Lady Gaga's "I was born this way", and then - what's the other? Maybelline?
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yup. \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Anyways... So the question I have is, in terms of event flow, the thing that flux architecture has popularized in the frontend was this kind of downwards data event propagation workflow, right? And it kind of was an attempt to wrangle all of the spaghetti events that were flying everywhere in the frontend community before that. Like, think of jQuery codebases that didn't use frameworks. jQuery is a library, and code is just - whatever. Things are using iffies, and function scope in order to encapsulate... So there just was never a predictable way to debug a problem, because you never knew what was talking to what...
+
+**David Khourshid:** Right.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[31:51\] And then we introduced this sane pub/sub pattern in the frontend, and downwards data flow, and good component architecture and hierarchies, and so... Are there some best practices that are just like recommended flows for events, or is that just something that doesn't matter in the world of XState? ...because you know, once you are in a given scenario, there is going to be a level of determinism, regardless of whether that arrow came from above, or below, or from the side...
+
+**David Khourshid:** Mm-hm. So I think one of the most important things is separation of concerns. With flux libraries, that love to just put everything in one global store - it's like, you're either making an artificial separation of concerns, or you're completely eliminating it entirely and saying "Everything is either global, or figure it out", like I talked about. So with XState, it really encourages you to be like "Okay, if there is some actor that's concerned with this and another actor concerned with that, then those should be two separate state machines or actors, however you wanna make it... And it's also forcing you to abstract everything via events. So that further reinforces separation of concerns, because now it's no longer about like "Oh, what's the right method name, or what part of the data do I have to read from this state, and when's the right time to read it?" No, it's all just events. You're just sending in events and hoping that the actor does the right thing with it. As far as getting state, it's receiving in events. Whether you're subscribing to it implicitly or you're actually explicitly getting that event sent directly from the actor to the other actor.
+
+With XState, the architecture is really about simplifying, and having everything in terms of isolated behaviors and message passing... And that's pretty much it. So I feel like that makes your logic a lot more predictable, and it's something that you could even extract and communicate with non-technical people.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** For sure, yeah. I think that's the whole -- it helps you decouple your design and discovery process, and I have to give credit to Alec Levoy who's a teammate of mine at Indigo, who was the first person who introduced me to XState. I had spent a few years kind of away from frontend explicitly... So I was at npm, and I was just doing things with Electron before that... So I kind of came back into the frontend world, and then all of a sudden XState was a thing. Alec introduced me to it, and he was really trying to push us creating state machines with our designers and incorporating that into our development process, because it's like -- you get this artifact that you can then code against, because "Here's your spec. Here's this flow chart." You can host it somewhere, you can put it in a GitHub issue... And it's this thing that helps you decouple the design and discovery process and just makes sure that you've got all your error states, you've kind of thought through all the different scenarios, and then you can decide what you wanna support in this iteration and what you don't; build in placeholders... And it's just a really great communication tool, so kudos for doing that. And kudos to Alec, you know...?
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah, yeah.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I think touching on that a little bit, Amal - you mentioned an artifact being able to look at there... The first things that you'll see, and if you go to the XState site, one of the four links on the page is to the visualizer. And that's this tool that lets you visualize the state machine in a non-code way, that's like a state chart. Or -- is that what you would consider a state chart, David?
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah, that's a state chart.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** I really like that, because that is something that you can take to your non-technical stakeholders and show every possible state of an application, or a component... And then you have this hardcoded diagram that then you can code against to actually produce the intended output, and it will only ever be the intended output because you can't be in any other non-defined state... Which is really cool.
+
+**David Khourshid:** Exactly.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And it's interactive. So it's hardcoded, but it's interactive. There's an interactive GUI to it, which can all be run in memory; you don't even need to be online.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** \[35:56\] The visualizer was also on my list of things to talk through, because I love it. I think it is a key for thinking about these things. And as y'all are talking about, it lets you bridge between things. The thing I'm curious about is does it handle multi-actor, multi-state messaging systems, or these sort of higher-level architectures with orchestrators and things that you were talking about? Is that something the visualizer can show for us?
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah, definitely. Not the visualiser the XState.js.org/viz that's actually an older version of the visualizer, and we're working right now on making a brand new version... But there's also the XState inspector, which works as a visualizer, but not for code that you pieced in, but rather for code that's actually running in your application. And so what you do is you would hook it up to an application that's using XState, and that might be an actor with a machine, which might be spawning other actors... So there's a sequence panel where you could actually see how those actors are sending messages and talking to each other. And this is actually another classic thing that you might have used before (I'm pretty sure) called sequence diagrams. Just like those line diagrams, where it's like "Alright, this is going to here, and that's going to there." And by the way, the little figures at the top - those are called actors in a sequence diagram, too. Exact same thing.
+
+So those are really useful for communicating how different systems or different actors are talking to each other, and what the potential scenarios are. So the inspector can do that, and right now we're working on just like a completely revamped visualizer/inspector that's just going to let you do everything, whether it's copy-paste code in, or inspect applications in real time.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So XState is framework-agnostic, right? You can use this with any framework. It's similar to Redux.
+
+**David Khourshid:** Mm-hm.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Does it have a bunch of dependencies, or is it like a zero-dependency library?
+
+**David Khourshid:** Zero. Right now there's zero. And it's always gonna be zero.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's awesome.
+
+**David Khourshid:** Don't quote me on that, but I'm really -- that's a high-level goal.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** And in terms of the source -- because obviously, there's a bunch of developer tooling that's not gonna ship with your production source code...
+
+**David Khourshid:** Right.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** ...but out of what ships to production, how big are we talking, of a footprint?
+
+**David Khourshid:** XState is about the same size MobX in that regard. I think between 15 and 17 kb minified. However, in version five we're working on making it smaller. And if you want to just use basic state machines and you're like "I really don't wanna pull in all the back state for it", even though it's only 15 kb, there's something called XState FSM, which weighs in at 1.5 kilobytes. It's really, really tiny.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's like XState light.
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah, it's a flatter version of XState. So you're not gonna get your nested states or any of the fancy history states or invocations or things like that, but for a basic state machine where you're like "Okay, we could draw this clearly as a flat state machine", XState FSM is gonna be your best bet.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So have you considered calling it Diet Estado? Because that would be a really good name. I don't know what FSM is.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** You're not letting go of this, are you, Amal?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I'm just saying, it's such a good name. I don't speak Spanish, but--
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Well, you could call it Estadito.
+
+**David Khourshid:** Estadito. \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Estadito, there we go.
+
+**David Khourshid:** I think I still have the npm name, so I might do something with it, just as an Easter egg, or something...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Just publish copies of what's the latest main branch onto there too, so people can choose to use that package.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** That won't get confusing at all. \[laughter\]
+
+**David Khourshid:** Not at all. It's like how React used to be called FaxJS...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, no way. I didn't know that.
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah, yeah. No one really uses that anymore.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** They used to call it Facts, like --
+
+**David Khourshid:** Like a fax machine, yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, fax. That's so weird.
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** So in terms of what XState offers - there's the visualizer, there's obviously the core source library... What else is there?
+
+**David Khourshid:** Oh, there's a lot. There's the visualizer, the inspector, the core library, there is something called XState test, which - like I was talking about earlier - is a model-based testing library where you give it the state machine describing your application and it will automatically generate all the hundreds of different ways that someone can interact with the application, and then you just run that through Jest or ad puppiteer right to that, too. And it's going to basically write the tests for you.
+
+\[40:15\] There's also -- what else do we have? XState Immer, if you want to use Immer with XState... XState FSM, XState Graph, which is just Graph-based utilities for XState... That's really useful for all of our visualization and graph drawing parts of XState, and actually mapping out all of the states.
+
+We're thinking of some future packages too, besides the adaptors to React and Vue and Svelte and all of that; we're thinking about XState Router and then XState Form. We're still planning those. It's gonna become a big ecosystem, just state machining goodness.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** As an example, would XState Router be like a replacement for React Router type of component, or would it work in tandem with that?
+
+**David Khourshid:** It would probably work in tandem... Whereas with React Router it's like "Alright, just define your routes as components", and if you don't want a route showing, then just don't render it on the screen, XState Router is more like "Give us all of your routes upfront. We're going to map it out for you, so that you could either navigate directly", or if you click Next, then the state machine knows exactly where that next link is going to be, instead of hardcoding it into your application view layer.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh, my God... Even just hearing that makes me feel good. But yeah, I think there's a lot of stuff around URL management, source of truth for state, kind of server meets client kinds of transitions for SSR apps. All that kind of stuff I wanna get into, and middleware patterns that were popularized with Redux... Like, what's the kind of XState equivalent?
+
+**Break:** \[41:48\]
+
+**Kevin Ball:** Let's bring us back and talk a little bit more about what we were just leaving off on, around state-machine-driven routing... And the piece of this that I wanna dive into is one of the age-old pendulums in software development generally and that we've seen in the frontend is between imperative and declarative approaches to programming... And we see this in our frontend frameworks; React is very imperative, even though it enables a more declarative view of components. Vue is actually a much more declarative model for programming (and mental model), but I think when it comes to stuff like routing and application state, one of the nice things that you can get with a state machine approach is it feels, once again, very declarative. Something where you can say "These are the ways that the world should be. Go and make it happen." And I'm curious - is that something that you're seeing people use XState to do? How do you think about that? How much of that kind of mapping from "Here's the declaration" to "What does the app need to do?", does XState do for you, versus you have to implement?
+
+**David Khourshid:** \[44:16\] Yeah, people have been experimenting with using XState in routing, and there's a handful or libraries just sort of playing around with this idea; it is something that we need to think about more just because there's something that seems to go against what a state machine is, which is the fact that I can navigate to any routes I want just by changing it in the address bar. So it's not exactly an event, it's more like "Hey, just teleport me directly to this state."
+
+It's not really super-against what a state machine is, it's more like there's these implicit transitions where you could just transition to any state at any time. But those still need to be made explicit. You should know what are all the routes you could go to. And also, as state machines are very founded on just having your application logic be safe, there has to be some safeguards for, like, if I go to /admin, it's gonna check, "Am I logged in?" Otherwise, it needs to boot me to a login screen. Ideally, I should be logged in in an admin; I can't just be logged in and do all sorts of crazy stuff... But yeah.
+
+Some of the earliest examples I've actually seen of using state charts was actually before I even started programming. It was with Ember, or when Ember used to be called SproutCore. SproutCore used state charts a lot. This was, again, before I even touched -- well, I touched computers before then, but before I was really hardcore into programming... And it was really interesting. There's actually this experiment with Ember and routing and using state charts for routing, and it actually has some pretty cool state chart diagrams, and that dates back to 2013, I believe. So yeah, this problem has been thought about a lot before.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** When Ember was a big advocate of what you were talking about, Amal, in the break, of everything stateful about your UI being driven by your URL, and your URL representing your state.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. I'm convinced that the Ember core team - they're like the game developers of the JavaScript community... Because you know how there's that saying that like "Hey, everything you've thought of as your big, new idea, game developers invented ten years ago"? I feel like Ember -- there's just so many things that they did right.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Dojo already did that.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, yeah. Dojo 2. But the point is - it's just amazing to see how certain patterns were in the zeitgeist very early on, but they just didn't get the traction... Until people burned their hand in the pot, and then learned the hard way. And that's the thing, sometimes people just don't -- you can preach all you want, but until they get burned and/or see the merits for themselves, with increased velocity, reduction of bugs, better predictability, faster onboarding... So this isn't just actually about how your users experience your application, because quite frankly - it's an invisible thing for your users, but it's really kind of a tool for how we do our internal data and code management.
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Communication is a big part of that, I think, both for onboarding, as well as just external stakeholders that are non-technical.
+
+**David Khourshid:** It's funny, I wanted to mention even with game developers - if you talk to them about state machines, they're like "Yeah, I've been using them. We've been using them for decades. Why do you think it's a new thing? It's not." \[laughs\]
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Right. They're like, "Oh, we have something. It's called Estado..." \[laughter\] Just kidding, just kidding, just kidding... I'm gonna stop trying to make Estado happen. This is like my fetch, you know? Keep trying to make fetch happen.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** b0neskull, one of our regular panelists, was commenting in the chat about this. He's like, "Why are there so many state libraries and ceremony around state libraries in the frontend and JavaScript world? Like, this is a solved problem. The solution is state machines. This has existed for a long, long time."
+
+\[48:05\] I'm actually kind of curious - David, as you've been kind of marketing XState, bringing this to the world, do you have any insight into why the frontend world in particular has been so slow to adopt state machines and be interested in this?
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah. And trust me, it's been an uphill battle, because first of all, we don't like being told that the way that we're doing things is not the best way to do them...
+
+**Amal Hussein:** \[laughs\] You could have just stopped right there, where you were like "We don't like being told anything." \[laughs\]
+
+**David Khourshid:** Right, yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's amazing we even have people listening to this podcast, quite frankly...
+
+**David Khourshid:** \[laughs\] Yeah, there's people who are like, "No, you're being a thought leader. You're trying to introduce something new etc." and "What I'm doing works, and is just fine." So I'm over here, trying to say "First of all, what we're doing is just a pale imitation of what we should be doing, which is modeling these things as state machines, or at least some sort of events-driven architecture, rather than trying to manipulate state directly." And notice, I didn't say "mutate state directly", because all of these state management libraries are like "Okay, we're technically not allowed to imperatively mutate state, so we're just going to give developers a really easy way to manipulate state", but it's still sort of the same problem, like "Alright, now you avoid the problem of having shared data access, but you're introducing a new problem of like "You don't know when things are gonna change", just because they could change from anywhere. And that's a huge problem.
+
+But yeah, XState takes the approach of something that's been around for just many, many decades. And also, we were talking in the break about how -- someone was like "Why do we even need state machines anyway? The way I'm doing things works just fine." I'm sort of rallying against that "Works just fine", because that's only half the battle. Like, we don't code just to make something work, we code to make it work, to prevent it from not working, and to also communicate to the rest of our team, and ideally even to users and designers and other people, how the app is supposed to work.
+
+So I could code something in Assembly -- actually, I can't; I don't know Assembly. But I could code something in C, where it's like, "Okay, I made this complex thing. It works. Don't touch it", but no one else will understand it. And I feel like my job is incomplete if the code I write is not understandable by others.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Amen. Can we just take a moment of silence? Just -- preach on, brother. Seriously, I couldn't agree more. Honestly, the other really big thing is that -- you know when you read code sometimes, and you're like "Oh my God, what's up with the paranoia level in this code?" All these shields from all these angles, it's like \*\*\*\* is this like some functions used in every file and every method? Why are you being so shielded? You can kind of reduce that paranoia level as well in your code... And for me, more importantly, if this enables you to optimize your code to be easily changed, and extensible... And we don't talk about that enough. I've been on this kick lately where I'm like "Optimize for change, everybody." I've said that literally a hundred times this week...
+
+**David Khourshid:** Right.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Because we have to optimize our code for change. If we think that our code is not going to change, or that this thing should stay the way it is - you are not living in a reality that is real world application development. Code is living, breathing, cruft - you name it; people come and go, and libraries die, things need to kind of move on, and you have to be able to kind of weather that change and support easy pivots, especially if you're a startup or a small company that's still trying to validate your product-market fit.
+
+**David Khourshid:** Right.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's just huge for bringing that ease of communication and determinism into your applications.
+
+**David Khourshid:** \[52:00\] Yeah. And that's the point. Our app logic that we write - I want that to be a communication mechanism. Something where we could create that visual artifact and share it with other people, like "Hey, this is how it works", and then if they're like "Well--" Like you were talking about, "If this is gonna change, or I need to add this feature", we could know exactly where the app is going to be affected. Whereas if you just do things the normal way we've been coding for many years, it's like, "Okay, this is another boolean that's going to go in a dozen of our if statements somewhere, and we're gonna have to check it all in. Let's hope we have tests, but there's a really good chance that we don't have tests to capture this behavior."
+
+**Kevin Ball:** I think there is a level to which -- like, this is another thing to have in your mind, another learning curve to climb... And part of the challenge here is we're still navigating this transition mentally from frontends being simple to frontends being where much of the complexity of our applications lands. And that transition is playing out in many, many different domains. But I think even within an application - to your point, managing one boolean is not very hard. It's not very much mental overhead, and if that's all it's ever going to be, probably simpler than incorporating a state machine library.
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah.
+
+**Kevin Ball:** So a question I've had for you is do you have a rule of thumb of what level of complexity, what number of different factors or states does it start to become worthwhile from a mental overhead standpoint to incorporate a state machine?
+
+**David Khourshid:** So there's no hard and fast rule. If there was, I would say as soon as you're getting to three booleans or more, then maybe consider how the different behaviors of your app can change, and just what they are.
+
+I always say, you don't need a state machine if your app isn't complex. I also say that your app will never stay complex, unless you're doing some sort of toy project that you forgot about, or just a simple app, like -- even, I was thinking of like the yo app, where you just press yo to your friends... Even that has enough complexity that merits a state machine. But yeah, we're not writing simple apps; we're not paid to write simple apps. We're paid to write apps that are eventually going to grow in complexity and features and edge cases, and we need some sort of scalable way of managing that.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** We kind of said this a little bit quickly, but - so I am a fan of your source of truth in your application being in your URL. Your applications should always be able to rehydrate from a URL refresh... Somebody refreshes their screen, or they're in a Wi-Fi situation - they should be able to refresh and stuff shouldn't break. I'd like to understand how XState makes that reality easy, the whole rehydration states... In particular when I'm working with clients in local storage, if there are tools or utils or patterns around rehydration of your application state.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** This might tie in a little bit to what I was gonna ask, too... So I'll just kind of throw it out there as well. Maybe I'm not fully seeing how it's implemented in practice; if I were going to try and implement a state machine in my existing app that has a lot of already kind of managed state with a bunch of different things... You know, maybe a lot of stuff in context, and providers, and... Is XState a way to manage that component state that might exist out there, or some other global state? Or is it more it should take the reins from that?
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah, that's two really good questions. I'll talk about the persistence one first. XState does have a way to basically take whatever state your state machine is in, including any extra data which doesn't really fall into the finite state category - you could persist that, and then you could restore the same machine at that given state. So in a way, it sort of acts like any other state management library where you could do that... And this is a hard problem to solve, but we're working on a way of also persisting actors.
+
+\[56:05\] So if your state machine is in a state where there's other child actors who also might have other child actors, then pretty soon you'll be able to persist those as well, and restore those actors to those states, or at least try. For example, if you have a promise request or something, then chances are you're going to need to rerun that promise request when you reload the page.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. But you know what - this kind of brings me to my next thing, which is actually middleware patterns... Because I could very easily see there being a middleware that was activated anytime there's a promise, and it knows how to handle a cancelation state, or a failed state... So you know, you're not repeating a bunch of code everywhere, in all these different actors. Because Redux kind of popularized the middleware model... So did Express, if we really go back a little bit further. But you know, it just kind of was like "Here's a bunch of things it'll run every time there's a state update. It may or may not trigger some business logic that's in your middleware. For example, if there's an error, log to Sentry. That's one thing you put in your middleware if you wanna normalize some data.
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah. So you might be either happy or sad to know that there is no such thing as middleware in XState, and there never will be... And that's because XState has this abstraction of state and events, and that's pretty much it. And, well, also actors, which encapsulate those states and events. So everything works through that. If you want to add analytics to something, then your state machine has a subscribe method, just like anything in RxJS and you could do whatever you want with those state updates. So you could send it to some analytics, or some logging service, and do things that way.
+
+Now, Redux and libraries like it - they need middleware to handle side effects, and that's because they are completely hands off with side effects. XState, on the other hand, says "No." Side effects - which XState calls actions - are extremely important. Your app will not work without side effects. So we need some declarative way of managing side effects, and so that's exactly what XState provides. So it does so in terms of spawning, or invoking actors, or even just performing one-off actions... So yeah, it has that built-in notion. So instead of requiring middleware for that, that's just part of just the notion of actions and services... Which you can provide externally, too.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah. Well, I guess my thing is how do you avoid duplicating subscribes or events everywhere? If I want something to happen every time a data fetch is triggered, how do I avoid needing to update all of these different state machines in my app, you know what I mean? Is there a way to centralize that? Is there like a hook for "before all", or "after all", before H I mean
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah, there's different patterns, and this gets sort of more into advanced XState, but you could have parallel states, and you could also have actions that happen on every event, and things like that. But the easiest way to get start with that is just calling .subscribe and handling state changes that way.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Okay. Wow, very cool.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Does XState work with Suspense in React?
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Oh my God, can we not talk about Suspense? That is a broken API.
+
+**David Khourshid:** Does anything work with Suspense...?
+
+**Nick Nisi:** That's a better question, I suppose...
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah, Suspense and concurrent mode - that was something tricky that we were trying to figure out for --
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Bad idea.
+
+**David Khourshid:** I won't say that loud, but... Yeah. And that's why I'm really glad that concurrent mode sort of just didn't become a whole mode, and it became like, you know, more isolated things... But XState does not work with Suspense yet. By working with Suspense we mean like just having these built-in things where it could actually throw promises and say "Hey, I'm in some sort of pending state." I think that that's a good idea at least to support, so we're going to just experiment with that. Definitely not a priority.
+
+\[01:00:01.25\] Going back to your earlier question, Nick, about how it integrates with existing code in other libraries - you could use XState either at the smallest level, or at some global orchestration level... It doesn't need to encapsulate or take over your entire application state. You could definitely do it incrementally... And that's a good way of using XState as well.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Yeah, that's actually a good point, because that actually helps with incremental adoption and refactoring. Refactoring in place, you know...
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Refactoring your views and components to slowly be managed by XState - that's pretty cool. So as we're kind of winding down here, how can folks contribute to the project? It sounds like you definitely have a roadmap, you've got an active, healthy project... So how can folks contribute and get in touch with you?
+
+**David Khourshid:** Sure. We're always accepting pull requests, especially for documentation... And we actually have a new -- I mean, I should have done this years ago, but we have an examples directory on the page where we're just filling it up with as many useful examples as we can.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Like recipes?
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah, yeah. The recipes are also in the documentation as well, like how to use this with Vue, or Angular etc. Yeah, so that, and also participating in the discussion forums. If you go to discord.gg/xstate, there's just a whole lot of really helpful people in there, either sharing crazy ideas or offering help at all hours of the day... I know because I'm one of those people offering help at all hours of the day over there. So yeah, just participating and trying it out on your projects.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's so awesome. And where is XState being used right now? Because I remember -- this goes back to my conversation with Alec... I have a very healthy skepticism for new technologies, and especially when to adopt them at a large corporation... Because if I'm gonna push a tool, then I have to take on the maintenance burden of making sure everybody's aligned and trained and everything is updated and standardized... So yeah, it's not an easy thing, or something I take lightly.
+
+I remember because I hadn't heard about XState when Alec Levoy introduced it to me. I was really like "I don't know... Where is this being used?" Especially like -- I don't know if this is JavaScript's new hot thing, you know what I mean? So yeah, can you give us a sense of what that adoption curve has been like for you?
+
+**David Khourshid:** Yeah, sure. I actually asked this question on Twitter a few months ago, and I was surprised to learn that there's a lot of companies using XState in production, notably Microsoft... I didn't work in any projects at Microsoft that used XState, but Microsoft is a huge company, so they've used XState in various projects, including one of their education tools, and also the Microsoft To Do app. Netflix is using it, LEGO... Amazon is using it in their AWS Amplify service to handle authentication. So you could say that XState is being indirectly used by hundreds of thousands of developers that way. It's part of Gatsby as well... Honestly, there's a lot of places that it's being used.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** I can't think of a project that isn't in Gatsby. Gatsby is like the kitchen sink of frameworks.
+
+**David Khourshid:** It's either Gatsby or Next.js, so... Yeah.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** That's so cool. Well, thank you so much for your time, David. It's been an absolute pleasure... And yeah, I'm excited to try this in production.
+
+**David Khourshid:** Please do.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** It's on my recommendation list for the UI architecture at Indigo.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Likewise, yeah.
+
+**David Khourshid:** Alright, awesome. And pretty soon I'm gonna write a "Getting Started with XState in 3 Minutes" articles, so - zero excuses.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Nice. Cool. Let us know and we'll retweet it.
+
+**David Khourshid:** Alright.
+
+**Nick Nisi:** Well, thank you so much for coming on. Thanks, Kball and Amal, for joining. We will see you next week.
+
+**Amal Hussein:** Bye, kids.