WEBVTT 1 00:00:20.560 --> 00:00:21.120 Hey, Ben. 2 00:00:21.120 --> 00:00:22.980 Hey Matt. 3 00:00:22.980 --> 00:00:31.140 We're going to have to come up with a better intro. It's just cliched now. We're actually a caricature of ourselves doing our own intro. 4 00:00:31.140 --> 00:00:38.720 We can't not do it. If we don't do it, then we're doing a bit. Whereas if we do it, we're just introducing the show. 5 00:00:38.720 --> 00:00:39.840 I suppose so. 6 00:00:39.840 --> 00:00:40.280 Right? 7 00:00:40.280 --> 00:00:50.550 I suppose so. Since I've started doing little cold intros as well, I've lost the bit where we introduce each other. Maybe we should mix it up a bit. Hello, friend. 8 00:00:50.550 --> 00:00:50.880 Hello. 9 00:00:50.880 --> 00:00:56.120 What are we talking about today? 10 00:00:56.120 --> 00:00:57.740 We're talking about remote work. 11 00:00:57.740 --> 00:01:04.840 Well, which is apt because on Fridays, that's exactly what we both do, which actually enables this very podcast. 12 00:01:04.840 --> 00:01:07.840 Although I did just have a tangent idea. 13 00:01:07.840 --> 00:01:08.640 Oh. 14 00:01:08.640 --> 00:01:09.540 Maybe we should do the tangent idea. 15 00:01:09.540 --> 00:01:15.880 All right, now let's do it. Tell me your tangent idea. Everyone, this is how planned these are. 16 00:01:15.880 --> 00:01:20.060 This is like a five-minute pretangent to the remote work episode. 17 00:01:20.060 --> 00:01:20.280 Go on then. 18 00:01:20.280 --> 00:01:21.280 How about that? 19 00:01:21.280 --> 00:01:21.890 Do it. 20 00:01:21.890 --> 00:01:22.320 Um. 21 00:01:22.320 --> 00:01:26.240 I believe that it's software engineer estimates time shocker. 22 00:01:26.240 --> 00:01:30.630 Yeah, oh boy. Two hours later, we're still talking about this. 23 00:01:30.630 --> 00:01:31.560 Yes. 24 00:01:31.560 --> 00:01:41.440 Um, I thought it could actually - this just popped in that I had just as I was starting up the show - we could do a 10 minutes on... 25 00:01:41.440 --> 00:01:41.440 Mm-hmm. 26 00:01:41.440 --> 00:01:43.020 Two on five minutes on... 27 00:01:43.020 --> 00:01:47.260 Now it's 10 minutes but already. 28 00:01:47.260 --> 00:01:51.400 Two's complement, the data storage mechanism, not the podcast like. 29 00:01:51.400 --> 00:01:55.200 Oh, you mean two's complement, how we store numbers. 30 00:01:55.200 --> 00:01:55.640 Yeah, yeah, right. 31 00:01:55.640 --> 00:01:55.920 Yeah. 32 00:01:55.920 --> 00:02:04.480 It's like when you're storing numbers in binary. You can use two's complement storage to do that and why would one do that, right? 33 00:02:04.480 --> 00:02:07.320 Well, why would one do anything but two's complement is more the point. 34 00:02:07.320 --> 00:02:14.830 Well, yes. So if you sit down and teach like a sixth grader binary, right? 35 00:02:14.830 --> 00:02:14.840 Mhmm. 36 00:02:14.840 --> 00:02:49.960 It becomes fairly easy to understand when you're just using normal integer counting numbers. You say, alright, well, this is the one's place, this is the two's place, this is the four's place. You add all these things up. Then you say, OK, so computers can only store so many bits. Maybe you've heard of an 8-bit computer, maybe you've heard of a 16-bit computer. They can only perform operations on so many bits. So you can see how it would be pretty easy to just store regular old integer numbers in this thing and have the computer operate on them. 37 00:02:49.960 --> 00:03:08.820 And then you might ask that sixth grader, well, OK, but what about negative numbers? And the first thing that they're probably going to say is, well, I guess you could use one of the bits to indicate whether the number is negative or not. And you say, OK, cool. Yeah, that works. 38 00:03:08.820 --> 00:03:22.020 It's a fairly obvious thing. It's how we do it in decimal, after all. We either draw a little minus in front or we don't. And that's kind of our one bit of sign. Yeah, it makes perfect sense. Well, what - yeah, what we're done here end of five minute. 39 00:03:22.020 --> 00:03:39.280 Yeah. End of five minute thing. And then you say, okay, well what happens? So that's true. And you can do that. But what happens when the sign portion of the bits is negative, but the value portion of the bits is zero? 40 00:03:39.280 --> 00:03:41.640 What does that mean? 41 00:03:41.640 --> 00:03:47.910 Right. Right. That's like, and again, in decimal, that's like writing minus zero, like the negative zero. 42 00:03:47.910 --> 00:03:48.040 Right. 43 00:03:48.040 --> 00:03:56.560 And you're like, well, I guess that's - I wouldn't write that down. Would you write that down? I wouldn't. So let's just not write it down. 44 00:03:56.560 --> 00:03:56.780 It's just a dumb thing. 45 00:03:56.780 --> 00:04:07.220 Right. Let's just not write it down. Let's just all agree that setting the sign bit to one and having all of the other bits to zero is just a dumb thing. Don't do that. 46 00:04:07.220 --> 00:04:17.800 But then you could see like - but okay, computers don't like it when we waste things. They don't like that. They want to try to use everything. 47 00:04:17.800 --> 00:04:33.020 Like one 256th of all the possible representable numbers in an 8-bit thing is just a "don't use me." I mean it could be a NaN or a null or empty. We could use it. I'm gonna continue to devil's advocate this for what it's worth. 48 00:04:33.020 --> 00:04:48.600 You could use it for something like that. But another way - yes, yes, yes. It's like, oh, we can do it and it will work. But there is a better way. And that better way is called two's complement. 49 00:04:48.600 --> 00:04:54.030 And in that world, we use that to just represent a completely different number. 50 00:04:54.030 --> 00:04:55.140 Mm hmm. 51 00:04:55.140 --> 00:05:01.600 I actually don't remember which side of the negative chain that is. Do you remember what it is? 52 00:05:01.600 --> 00:05:14.740 Well, you negate and add one is the kind of way that I internalize it, but yeah it closes the gap between zero and minus one in terms of the bit pattern representation. 53 00:05:14.740 --> 00:05:16.630 I'm going to have to Google it now so I can take a table. 54 00:05:16.630 --> 00:05:16.760 Mm-hmm. 55 00:05:16.760 --> 00:05:43.500 Which to me is the other thing that makes two's complement numbers really elegant. It is that most of the circuitry dealing with numbers doesn't need to know if it's signed or unsigned because it just works. It works the same way, whereas if you treat the sign bit separately, you now actually have to encode the rules about some of the things that can happen with negative and positive numbers. So it is a really clever trick. 56 00:05:43.500 --> 00:06:13.280 And you'll be hard pushed to find a computer that doesn't use two's complement to represent its numbers. But until very recently, the C and C++ standards required - not required. The C and C++ had made no assumptions about the representation of numbers. And so certain things were not defined, were left as undefined behavior. You couldn't rely on, for example... 57 00:06:13.280 --> 00:06:23.120 adding one to the highest possible number to get it to wrap around to negative, whatever, because, and you know, that's usually a good thing because like nobody really wants that to happen, right? 58 00:06:23.120 --> 00:06:23.180 Okay, yeah, right. 59 00:06:23.180 --> 00:06:40.530 If you add - but let's talk in fact about the two's complement aspects of this here. It's like, you know, we have this strange now lopsided number where the highest number we can represent with say eight bits, two's complement is 127, but the lowest is minus 128, which is kind of... 60 00:06:40.530 --> 00:06:40.760 Uh-huh, yeah. 61 00:06:40.760 --> 00:07:05.850 Displeasingly asymmetric. And that also means that you can't just unary negate any number and get another number because if I have minus 128 and I get the negative of it - like oh whoops, can't represent 128 anymore. So there are some weird edge cases. We've kind of pushed them around rather than at the zero point, they're now at the extents. And so it's kind of reasonable that if you added one to 127... 62 00:07:05.850 --> 00:07:05.880 Right, right, uh huh. 63 00:07:05.880 --> 00:07:05.920 Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Mm hmm. 64 00:07:05.920 --> 00:07:40.280 And you suddenly got minus 128, you probably didn't really mean to do that. You didn't want that to happen. And so it's left as undefined behavior. And so compilers can usually optimize around that. So look, you're not - we weren't expecting you to do this. Therefore, I'm not required to do it this way. For example, it may be that you use a bigger representation than an 8-bit value when you're using a signed 8-bit value. And that means that the carry rules don't work the same way. But it's also not supposed to happen. So the compiler might be able to use a 32-bit register instead of an 8-bit like shift and add and shift and add all the time, things like this. 65 00:07:40.280 --> 00:07:51.990 But very recently, they gave up on pretending that computers aren't two's complement, and they actually accept that like all practical computers these days are in fact two's complement. 66 00:07:51.990 --> 00:07:52.140 You. 67 00:07:52.140 --> 00:08:13.060 And I forget exactly the ramifications of this. Those who know me well know that I don't really participate much in the C++ standards stuff, but that one just came up on my radar. So I apologize for not having the, especially when you just dropped this on us at the beginning of this podcast. I haven't researched it in any meaningful way. And I have a very loud mechanical keyboard, so I can't even Google it while we're talking. 68 00:08:13.060 --> 00:08:23.940 Well, I also have a mechanical keyboard and nothing prevents me from doing that other than the clackety clacks that are the low pass filter. 69 00:08:23.940 --> 00:08:33.140 Oh short of me having to edit out the clacks in a minute. But no, what an awesome idea. We've named our podcast after a very neat trick. 70 00:08:33.140 --> 00:08:51.380 It is a neat trick. It's very elegant. And there's just something abhorrent to me as a programmer about having any sort of mechanism that just allows for nonsensical values by its structure, right? 71 00:08:51.380 --> 00:08:51.940 Yeah. 72 00:08:51.940 --> 00:09:00.140 Like if I can ever find something where those types of problems just aren't possible, that is always going to be a better solution. And this does that very well. 73 00:09:00.140 --> 00:09:13.180 Absolutely. Correct by construction is the sort of way that I've always internalized that. Although I will note that in the original Knuth book, The Art of Computer Programming or the various volumes... 74 00:09:13.180 --> 00:09:14.740 Yeah, yeah, that's the phrase people use. 75 00:09:14.740 --> 00:09:32.620 The MIX architecture - so Knuth is just such a legend for me for two reasons. One, he wrote like the book or the books on all algorithms which are like the most abstract things - like how to sort numbers all the hundreds of ways you can sort numbers very abstractly. 76 00:09:32.620 --> 00:09:32.680 Huh. 77 00:09:32.680 --> 00:09:33.120 Yeah, yeah, that's the phrase people use. 78 00:09:33.120 --> 00:09:53.210 But then he wrapped around on the - you know, talking of numbers that wrap around - he wraps around to the exact other side where he then implements them in assembly code in a computer that doesn't exist, that he made up so that he can demonstrate the purity of his algorithms using this invented machine, the MIX. 79 00:09:53.210 --> 00:09:53.780 Alright. 80 00:09:53.780 --> 00:10:16.500 Nowadays, there's a RISC-based one that has MMIX or something like that. But the one I remember growing up as a kid reading was the MIX one. And the amusing thing about that is - forgive me readers, listeners, whoever they are, if I get this a bit wrong - it is a sign bit based computer that is decimal. 81 00:10:16.500 --> 00:10:20.270 It stores numbers decimally with a sign bit. 82 00:10:20.270 --> 00:10:20.360 Hmm. 83 00:10:20.360 --> 00:10:51.220 So you do in fact have plus and minus zero. And then to your point about waste, Knuth goes as far as micro-optimizing his own made up instruction set for a computer that doesn't exist to implement algorithms that are like all about the big O notation and not about the constant factors, but he optimizes them anyway, because he's Knuth. And he starts using the sign bit to essentially encode a Boolean flag, because obviously these numbers, these values in here can also be pointers. 84 00:10:51.220 --> 00:11:09.940 And it doesn't make sense to have a negative pointer. So he just uses the decimal part as the pointer address. And then you could also for free get this one bit flag. And so some of his algorithms stuff things in that one extra bit. So it's not wasted in those instances, you know, a null pointer... 85 00:11:09.940 --> 00:11:19.210 With the bit clear is different from a null pointer with the bit set because it might mean null but red or null but black in a red-black tree. 86 00:11:19.210 --> 00:11:19.900 Oh, oh wow. 87 00:11:19.900 --> 00:11:45.600 Things like that. And just now you've just lit the litmus paper under me and I'm going now. A good friend of mine has just put together a proposal for the C++ committee about canonifying, reserving certain bits in pointers. Many things - you know, you have a pointer, it points to an address in memory, the things you point to have to be aligned at certain spaces. 88 00:11:45.600 --> 00:12:00.030 So you know, if you have a double precision number, that's an eight byte quantity on almost any hardware, you have to have it at an eight byte address. What that means is every pointer has wasted bits at the bottom, which always have to be zero because it has to be in a multiple of eight, right? 89 00:12:00.030 --> 00:12:00.600 Mm hmm. 90 00:12:00.600 --> 00:12:11.710 There's some - if you can just mask those bits out, you can access it as a pointer. But if you mask them in, then you've got some bits at the bottom, you've got two or three bits worth of like extra information. 91 00:12:11.710 --> 00:12:13.360 Mm hmm. 92 00:12:13.360 --> 00:12:20.660 And so she's put together a proposal which says like, can we canonify this because strictly by the book, you're not allowed to do those kinds of things. 93 00:12:20.660 --> 00:12:20.660 Mm hmm. 94 00:12:20.660 --> 00:12:31.030 Because once you start manipulating a pointer like it's an integer, the compiler can lose track internally that it points to a valid particular object and whatever. But she's made it so that that's okay. 95 00:12:31.030 --> 00:12:31.780 Hmm. 96 00:12:31.780 --> 00:12:39.900 So yeah, sometimes if you do have redundant representation, that's wasted bits, you can find another use for them. 97 00:12:39.900 --> 00:12:41.180 Well, someone will find a use for them because that's how that works. 98 00:12:41.180 --> 00:12:43.770 Someone will find a use. Whether that's good or bad, I don't know. 99 00:12:43.770 --> 00:12:43.940 Yes. 100 00:12:43.940 --> 00:12:47.360 But no, Hana uses it in a really smart way. In fact, we had her on the podcast. 101 00:12:47.360 --> 00:12:48.580 We did. 102 00:12:48.580 --> 00:12:58.660 So Hana Dusíková is behind that proposal and very smart it is too. And it's definitely something I'll be looking to use myself, you know, sneaking bits in. 103 00:12:58.660 --> 00:13:00.500 Anyway, that was not five minutes. 104 00:13:00.500 --> 00:13:01.500 No, it was not five minutes. 105 00:13:01.500 --> 00:13:03.320 But we can talk about remote work now. 106 00:13:03.320 --> 00:13:04.920 Now we can talk about remote work. 107 00:13:04.920 --> 00:13:12.130 So, needle scratch, tell me about how remote works works for you. 108 00:13:12.130 --> 00:13:12.740 Yep. 109 00:13:12.740 --> 00:13:28.140 Well, okay. The main thing for me is remote work is a trade-off between collaboration and productivity, essentially. 110 00:13:28.140 --> 00:13:28.360 I... 111 00:13:28.360 --> 00:13:29.800 Yes. 112 00:13:29.800 --> 00:13:40.480 Currently, I'm working with people who are either in California or New York, despite the fact that we have a Chicago office, and that is just pure happenstance. 113 00:13:40.480 --> 00:13:41.680 And that's where you are, for the avoidance of confusion. 114 00:13:41.680 --> 00:13:44.260 That is - yes, I am a Chicagoan. We are Chicagoans. 115 00:13:44.260 --> 00:13:45.200 If you can't pick it up from the accent. 116 00:13:45.200 --> 00:14:02.480 Chicago - what's the multi... I don't... anyway. So I commute into our Chicago office a few days a week mostly to see my friends. 117 00:14:02.480 --> 00:14:18.340 That's the main reason that I do it. Because, you know, the people that I work with are actually in California and New York, and I'm going to be talking to them over some sort of Slack or video call or something like that, no matter where I am. 118 00:14:18.340 --> 00:14:18.760 Right. 119 00:14:18.760 --> 00:15:03.820 So, you know, regardless of where I am actually physically, it's the same medium. But there is a lot to be said - and I know that people have made this complaint before, and this was obviously true for a lot of folks in COVID - but it's even still true for folks that sort of choose to have a fully remote... You know, they either work for companies that are fully remote or they have roles that are fully remote. Some amount of face to face interaction is, I think for most of the people that I've talked about this with, some amount of face to face interaction is really important because it's hard to develop those relationships when you are talking to everyone over... 120 00:15:03.820 --> 00:15:04.060 Mm. 121 00:15:04.060 --> 00:15:11.980 A video chat. And you can do it - unless people do do it - but it's... 122 00:15:11.980 --> 00:15:26.180 It was interesting. I was discussing with a friend the other day about how you can keep in touch with friends from home. I've moved 4,000 miles away from most of my friends from when I was growing up. 123 00:15:26.180 --> 00:15:45.160 And one way you can keep in touch with friends is playing video games where you can actually talk to people in real time. I was telling them in the pub the other day about the late nineties, where for whatever reason, I wasn't leaving the house very much. I was playing EverQuest. 124 00:15:45.160 --> 00:15:50.540 And I have now made real-life friends over what was purely a text-based thing. 125 00:15:50.540 --> 00:15:50.620 Huh. 126 00:15:50.620 --> 00:16:02.220 And to this day, I still talk to them. Yes, you can build a relationship using text medium, using face-to-face medium like this, but it's harder. 127 00:16:02.220 --> 00:16:31.580 And it only really happens well under either duress or when both sides really concentrate on it, where you both work at it to build that connection because unfortunately evolution is kind of against us. We have picked up on so many subtle cues about how humans interact. 128 00:16:31.580 --> 00:16:42.180 Being in a room with someone tells you a lot about how they are and you can learn about them so much more naturally. I'm searching for the right words here. 129 00:16:42.180 --> 00:16:44.580 Yeah, it's just a higher bandwidth interaction. 130 00:16:44.580 --> 00:16:54.200 I think the other thing about it is that when you're remote, there are very few accidental interactions. 131 00:16:54.200 --> 00:17:03.360 Yes, everything has to be really intentional. You have to schedule a coffee chat or whatever, rather than bump into someone as you're passing in the hallway to the bathroom. 132 00:17:03.360 --> 00:17:12.780 Yeah, how many times have you had an all-company meeting and you get there a couple minutes early and you just sit down next to a random person and you start talking to them? 133 00:17:12.780 --> 00:17:13.320 Yeah. 134 00:17:13.320 --> 00:18:07.580 Maybe you know them a little bit, and maybe you know them well. But that kind of interaction doesn't happen when everyone joins the all-company Google Meet. You're not chatting in the Meet in front of everybody else. Those sorts of accidental things can play a big part. But for the actual act of programming, writing code - I'm increasingly feeling different, and I think COVID was really the thing that tipped the scales for me because I was forced to create such a productive home setup that is so well optimized that there's no question to me that I'm a more productive programmer when I'm staying at home. 135 00:18:07.580 --> 00:18:21.500 I definitely agree with that, although I don't agree with having built myself a productive environment, because if you could see the camera right now, it is a catastrophe where I am. I meant to fix that today, and I did not. 136 00:18:21.500 --> 00:18:41.520 The main person in my life who pointed out how important it is to go into an office is in fact my wife, who obviously during COVID was forced to suffer full time with her husband. We have a great relationship, but I think all of us suffered from being in each other's pockets for a while. 137 00:18:41.520 --> 00:18:45.990 But she's like, "You need it. You need to go and see other people." And she was right. 138 00:18:45.990 --> 00:18:46.100 Mm-hmm. 139 00:18:46.100 --> 00:19:00.160 I like to pride myself on being rational, logical, not really driven by the more animalistic whims of our reptilian brain, but she's right. I absolutely needed it. 140 00:19:00.160 --> 00:19:16.360 And yeah, I agree. But in terms of focus time, obviously, we build our own focus time in the office with headphones or by trying to find a space away from the general thoroughfares to get some stuff done. 141 00:19:16.360 --> 00:19:53.320 But that's the default situation at home, dog barking notwithstanding. And the very lack of those interactions at home, the lack of the non-intentional interactions is actually the source of focus. I can get up and make a cup of tea and I'm still thinking about the problem that I'm working on while I'm waiting for the kettle to boil, whereas probably more healthily in an office, I'm talking to somebody who's also waiting for the coffee machine or whatever. 142 00:19:53.320 --> 00:19:58.680 And maybe that break is actually what I do need, but focus wise, it's true. 143 00:19:58.680 --> 00:20:19.240 Yeah, you definitely don't have the rubber duck effect when you're at home where, you know, you're working on some hard problem and you stand up in an equal mix of frustration and need for coffee or some other thing. 144 00:20:19.240 --> 00:20:19.860 Yeah. 145 00:20:19.860 --> 00:20:27.520 And then you run into somebody who will at least understand your problem and you wind up explaining it to them. 146 00:20:27.520 --> 00:20:38.620 Right, they'll understand the concepts even over the right. 147 00:20:38.620 --> 00:20:41.050 Right. Yes. 148 00:20:41.050 --> 00:20:42.260 Right. 149 00:20:42.260 --> 00:20:43.780 Oh, of course, that's the solution. 150 00:20:43.780 --> 00:20:44.030 Yep. 151 00:20:44.030 --> 00:20:44.270 Yeah. 152 00:20:44.270 --> 00:20:44.760 Yep. Yep. 153 00:20:44.760 --> 00:20:47.340 Yeah, and that's hard to recapture as you say, remotely. 154 00:20:47.340 --> 00:20:47.520 Mm-hmm. 155 00:20:47.520 --> 00:21:01.950 I mean, if you've got, as you well know, I'm very well versed at just puking out my thought process into Slack into a long thread of things in the hope that sometimes brings people along for the ride in terms of what I'm thinking or gives them people come in and say, "Why are you doing that?" 156 00:21:01.950 --> 00:21:02.700 Huh. 157 00:21:02.700 --> 00:21:06.340 But again, it requires intentionality. 158 00:21:06.340 --> 00:21:12.840 Yeah. And so the plot twist of this whole thing, I think, is that you can make the argument. 159 00:21:12.840 --> 00:21:28.460 And I enjoy remote work and I do feel very productive when I do it. And I do it because I'm productive. But you can make the argument that productivity, in its very purest sense for programmers, is bad. 160 00:21:28.460 --> 00:21:29.280 Oh, this is. 161 00:21:29.280 --> 00:21:50.620 And the reason I say that is because I have had many times in my life, and I think that this is more common when I'm remote, when I'm working by myself, when I've got my headphones on or whatever, and I'm just in the zone and I'm programming, where you are creating code. And as we've talked about before, code is a liability. 162 00:21:50.620 --> 00:22:00.240 Code is not good. We're trying to solve problems, not make a bunch of code that we need to maintain and test and deploy and debug and all the other things. 163 00:22:00.240 --> 00:22:16.520 And there are many times when the right thing to do is not just puke out a bunch of code as efficiently and productively as you can, but to take a step back and to maybe talk to a few coworkers and be like, do I even need to be solving this problem at all? 164 00:22:16.520 --> 00:22:33.350 That my friend is absolutely spot on. I mean, yeah, so in the throws of COVID, there is at least one reasonably large chunky piece of code that I'm very proud of and is used. But ultimately is now being phased out because really was overcomplicated. 165 00:22:33.350 --> 00:22:45.190 Could be replaced with something a bit more straightforward, was part of a grander vision that didn't come to being. And ultimately, yeah, perhaps should have never been written. 166 00:22:45.190 --> 00:22:45.420 Mm-hmm. 167 00:22:45.420 --> 00:23:01.890 And it served the purpose. It kept me amused for a few months while I was sat rocking slowly backwards and forwards in this very chair. But, no, that's a really interesting observation that, unfortunately though, as programmers, we love that state and we love doing that. 168 00:23:01.890 --> 00:23:01.940 We do. 169 00:23:01.940 --> 00:23:21.860 And we love that thing as we've discussed before, the whole flow and all that good stuff. 170 00:23:21.860 --> 00:23:23.320 Yes. Right. 171 00:23:23.320 --> 00:23:29.310 Right. Yes. Do you really need this fancy thing? And I mean, a lot of the time that is a very productive and good state to be in, but it is not strictly true. 172 00:23:29.310 --> 00:23:47.720 That it is always good at the exclusion of interacting with other people, double checking your ideas, making sure that you're doing things that actually need to be done and making sure that you're doing them in a reasonable way and not just going all full mad scientist. 173 00:23:47.720 --> 00:23:58.540 Right, or "10x developer", and then you've got 10x as much code that no one else understands or has seen and doesn't even need and you're like, as you say, it's a liability. Now, that's a really interesting observation. 174 00:23:58.540 --> 00:24:04.280 Well, that seems like what a two-tone kind of a podcast we've recorded today. 175 00:24:04.280 --> 00:24:06.420 We could split this in half and do it in two parts if it wasn't like 30 minutes long. 176 00:24:06.420 --> 00:24:13.680 I don't know that I'm that skilled enough an editor for that. So I'm afraid everyone's just going to end up with it pretty much raw. 177 00:24:13.680 --> 00:24:19.320 Yeah. This is going to be the peanut butter and pickle sandwich of Two's Complement podcasts. 178 00:24:19.320 --> 00:24:20.460 Hmm. That doesn't sound too bad though. 179 00:24:20.460 --> 00:24:25.500 It's disgusting. I don't know why anyone would eat that, but we're just going to take two things. 180 00:24:25.500 --> 00:24:32.140 Actually, you know what this is like? Did you ever see the movie From Dusk Till Dawn? 181 00:24:32.140 --> 00:24:33.400 That's the vampire one, right? 182 00:24:33.400 --> 00:24:37.040 Well, the second half is vampires. The first half is a bank heist movie. 183 00:24:37.040 --> 00:24:48.980 Oh yeah, that's, oh yeah. I just remember it as vampires, but yeah, now you say that. I'm like, oh yeah, it's like a cut and shut. 184 00:24:48.980 --> 00:24:52.360 Actually, I'm not sure I do know what that means. 185 00:24:52.360 --> 00:25:01.840 That's when you've had two cars that have been involved in an accident and they're cut in half and the good halves of them welded together to make one good car out of the two. No, is that not a thing? 186 00:25:01.840 --> 00:25:02.500 I've never heard that. 187 00:25:02.500 --> 00:25:07.100 Like you can imagine like two Ford Focuses have been, one's been smashed in the front, one's been smashed in the back. 188 00:25:07.100 --> 00:25:11.160 So you just cut them in half and stick them together and you sell it as a good car. 189 00:25:11.160 --> 00:25:12.120 Okay. 190 00:25:12.120 --> 00:25:24.640 Only the British could be so unscrupulous as to do something like that. It surprises me, but whatever. 191 00:25:24.640 --> 00:25:33.400 Yeah, yeah, yeah. The first half of this podcast was a bank heist and the second half we talked about remote work. 192 00:25:33.400 --> 00:25:39.800 Well, to that effect, I think we're pretty much done for this episode. And so I will speak to you on the next one. 193 00:25:39.800 --> 00:25:42.800 Yep, next time.