So let us again recall what we are doing we were looking at the Casorati-Weierstass theorem as a first approximation to the great Picard theorem and we also wanted to get a good idea about dealing with the point at infinity okay. So the point the idea is you want to talk about when an analytic function is you know for example analytic at infinity okay or more generally infinity when can you talk about an analytic function having a singularity at infinity okay and then classify that kind of singularity and what does it mean to say that the singularities of a certain type let us say that it is the function is having an essential singularity or a removable singularity or a pole at infinity okay we need to understand this okay and so in order to study the behaviour at infinity you first must be able to think of infinity as a point okay because you always we are used to looking at things close sufficiently close to a point. So you basically when you want to study the behaviour of a function at a point you need an open neighbourhood of that point where the function is defined and for that matter even if the point is an isolated singularity you need a deleted neighbourhood of the point where the function is defined okay and then you want to study how the function behaves as you approach that point in various ways okay and you know that is how the classification of singularities goes. So for example if you take a point in the finite complex plane okay by that I mean the usual complex plane then if a function an analytic function is defined in a deleted neighbourhood of that point then you know that the way the function behaves as you approach that point can tell you what kind of singularity that is. So as you approach that point if the function goes to infinity that is a modulus of the function goes to infinity then that point has to be a pole as you approach that point if the function goes to a limit a finite limit namely you get a complex number in the limit then the function has a removal singularity at that point and on the other hand if neither of these happen namely that you do not get a limit then it is an essential singularity. So in the same way I want to be able to say I want to be able to treat the point at infinity okay so the question is how do you think of the point at infinity and the key to that is the Riemann stereographic projection okay which tells you that you can think of the point at infinity as the north pole on the Riemann sphere okay. So you let me draw attention to this diagram that I was drawing towards the end of last class the last lecture so here is the so you can see here is the 3 dimensional real space R3 and you have the xy plane which is being thought of as the complex plane okay and then instead of the usual z axis I am calling it the u axis which is the axis perpendicular to the xy plane and the reason is obvious because I want to use reserve the symbol z for x plus i y okay and then what I do is that I take this sphere centred at the origin radius 1 unit okay and that sphere minus the north pole okay which is the point with coordinates 0, 0, 1 if you throw that point out the rest of the sphere is mapped homeomorphically on to the complex plane okay by this map phi which is called the stereographic projection and then what you do is that I asked you to check that this map phi is a homeomorphism now what you want to do is that what is missing in the complex plane is a point that corresponds to infinity so basically you want to look at c union infinity you want to take this set which is c union infinity and c union infinity is called the extended complex plane okay and your idea is to send this infinity to the north pole because that is the c union infinity contains c as a subset okay and this c the complex plane is by the stereographic projection homeomorphic to the Riemann sphere minus the north pole okay so what is missing on the Riemann sphere side is a north pole what is missing on the extended complex plane side is a point at infinity so what you do is that you send the north pole to infinity under the stereographic projection okay this is a definition you make and once you do that you get a bijective map from the Riemann sphere to the extended complex plane okay and now the point is that this bijective map if you take this map outside the north pole it is a homeomorphism okay now what you do is you do the following thing you put a topology on the extended plane c union infinity in such a way that this extended map from the full Riemann sphere to the extended plane which is c union infinity that becomes a homeomorphism okay so you see what you must understand here is a technical point okay see I have a topological space and I am seeking to add a point at infinity to it okay this is done in topology what are called as locally compact house of spaces okay so if you have studied this in a first course in topology which you should have and if you have not it is not very difficult to read it up from a standard textbook the idea is that you want to compactify a space you want to make a space compact and what you should do is that you should start with a locally compact house of space okay and then you add a point at infinity okay and just adding a point at infinity will only give you a set okay but you have to topologize it and the method and the method you and the topology that you give is the following what you do is that for this for the set along with the point at infinity which will be the one point compactification okay the open sets are going to be not only the usual open sets of your topological space but to that you also add complements of compact subsets of your topological space along with that point at infinity okay and these are supposed to give you neighbourhoods of the point at infinity okay so this is how you do the one point compactification and that is exactly what is happening here okay so let me write here so topologize the extended plane C union infinity so that phi becomes a homeomorphs this is what you do okay so again let me tell you the idea the idea is you want to think of the point at infinity okay and of course so it has to be a new point no point on the plane can be thought of as a point at infinity okay you have to add a new point and we give it the symbol infinity okay and then now you have a set you have the complex plane which is a nice topological space it is even a metric space it is R2 basically okay but then you added one extra point and once you add the extra point you also have to tell me what is going to be a topology and the idea is that you make this topology in such a way so that this complex plane along with this extended point at infinity that is the same by same I mean homeomorphic to the Riemann sphere okay so topologically it looks like a sphere okay and at first sight this looks a little complicated because you know the complex plane is unbounded okay the complex plane is unbounded and what you have done is by adding this point at infinity or made it compact because you know the extended complex plane is now you are trying to put a topology on the extended plane which is a plane plus the point at infinity in such a way that it is homeomorphic to the Riemann sphere but you know the Riemann sphere is compact because it is a close and bounded subset of Euclidean space it is compact okay and therefore and you know if a topological space is isomorphic topologically isomorphic that is homeomorphic to another topological space which is compact then the original space is also compact anything isomorphic any space homeomorphic to a compact space is compact because the image of a compact set is compact under continuous map okay therefore what you have done is you have added this point at infinity and you have put a topology in such a way that the whole thing becomes compact just adding one point you are making it compact mind you if you remove that point then the space is even unbounded okay so the plane as it is unbounded okay so now what I want you to so let me write this down so I want you to check the topology above is the same as the unique one point compactification C is equal to R2 okay so this is something that I wanted to check okay alright and well in fact let me even illustrate it for a moment because I want you to understand what it is that is going on so you know so you have this you have this so let me again redraw this diagram so I have this 3 dimensional space R3 and I have this xy plane which is for me the complex plane okay and then I have this third axis which I do not call z I call it as u okay and this is the origin so I draw this I draw this sphere of radius 1 unit and look at the surface of the sphere so here is the circle this is the unit circle in the complex plane and that is the equator for the sphere that came out to be a little okay so this is the Riemann sphere okay and what the stereographic projection does is that there is this north pole and you give me any point on the sphere on the surface of the sphere it is mapped on to the point in the complex plane that is gotten by joining the north pole to that point and by a straight line and looking at the point where the line intersects the plane okay so this is the stereographic projection so it is it is P going to P of P so this is the this is the stereographic projection. Now what I want you to understand is that what is and this you see the point at infinity on the complex plane is not visible in the picture okay the point at infinity is really at infinity you cannot really see it okay but its inverse image under the stereographic projection is visible it is the north pole on the Riemann sphere okay and now you see since the topology on the extended complex plane is a homeomorphism with the Riemann sphere a neighbourhood of the point at infinity in the extended complex plane must correspond under this homeomorphism to a neighbourhood of the north pole on the Riemann sphere and what is the neighbourhood of the north pole on the Riemann sphere after all the topology on the Riemann sphere is just the induced topology okay the Riemann sphere is just a sphere in surface of a sphere in three dimensional space R3 and R3 has a standard topology and this inherits the subspace topology okay so what is the neighbourhood of the north pole going to look like it is going to be a set that contains a disk the intersection of a three dimensional open disk centre at the centre at the north pole which is what an open disk in three spaces with the surface of the sphere so what you are going to get is that you are going to get you are going to get something like this so let me again change colour to something else so you see basically a neighbourhood of the north pole is going to look like this this is how the neighbourhood of the north pole is going to look like on the Riemann sphere okay and this by our definition is its image should give you a neighbourhood of the point at infinity on the extended complex plane so that helps us to think of a neighbourhood of infinity on the complex plane okay on the extended complex plane so what is the image of this so you know if you draw the image of this see this boundary well of course you know I am I should not include this bounding circle okay because well then it will become a compact neighbourhood okay but I but throw that do not worry about the boundary okay so if you look at the boundary circle okay so if you want you know we can I do not know if the whole of it will go away yes it does so let me put dotted lines like this okay tell you that it is actually an open set okay now this boundary dotted line which is a circle the image of that under the stereographic projection is going to give me a huge circle in the complex plane okay so if I if I draw this the image of this that circle I am going to get this I am going to get something like this this is what the image of that dotted circle on the Riemann sphere is after you do the stereographic projection on the plane okay and what about smaller and as a circles if you make this dotted circle on the Riemann sphere smaller this circle on the plane which is the image of that circle under the stereographic projection becomes larger okay so the image of this shaded region is going to be the exterior of this dotted circle on the complex plane so you know what I am going to get is I am going to get you know so you know so I am going to get something like this I am going to get all this everything outside I am going to get this is what I am going to get on the complex plane this is the image of that disk that open neighbourhood of the north pole on the Riemann sphere its image in the complex plane is the exterior of a circle okay so what this tells you is it tells you the following thing it tells you that the neighbourhood of a neighbourhood of the pointed infinity on the extended plane should be thought of as the exterior of a circle in the complex plane okay so that is the reason that when you try to write a neighbourhood of infinity in the complex plane you write it in the form mod z greater than 1 by delta okay you have to write it the exterior of a circle centre at the origin okay equation for a circle centre at the origin is mod z equal to R where R is the radius and you want R to be sufficiently large and you want to look at points outside the circle so that means mod z should be greater than R okay and instead of taking R large you can replace R by 1 by delta where delta is small okay therefore what this tells you the Riemann stereographic projection tells you that in the extended complex plane a neighbourhood of infinity is just the exterior of a circle okay and what is it that corresponds to smaller and smaller neighbourhoods of infinity it corresponds to the exteriors of larger and larger circles the larger your circle is and you take the exterior of that that means that you are getting closer to infinity okay a larger circle means if you take the exterior of a larger circle it means you are going to a smaller neighbourhood of infinity and how do you actually visualize this you visualize this by looking at what it translates to in terms of this stereographic projection on the Riemann sphere on the Riemann sphere you get smaller and smaller and smaller discs close to the north pole so it does make sense okay so the moral of the story is that so let me write it here it is very very important neighbourhood of infinity in the extended complex plane C union infinity is mod z greater than R if you if you want you can write it as 1 by delta R sufficiently large delta sufficiently small okay and the larger you take R you are going to a smaller neighbourhood of infinity okay of the point at infinity okay and because of this stereographic projection this is very easy to now visualize okay okay now given this we can now we are in a good position to define the limit of the limit as z tends to the point at infinity okay so I think let me see whether I have done this no I have not done it before so let me do this so let me anyway recall you see so let us go back to this definition what is the meaning of limit as z tends to z0 for z0 an ordinary complex number it means that your mind you z0 is fixed it is a fixed complex number z is a variable and you are letting the variable z tend to z0 and this is happening on the plane okay and what does that mean it means that you are making the distance between z and z0 which is mod z minus z0 you are letting that to go to 0 okay and which in terms of delta notation is that you are looking at this mod z minus z0 less than delta which is a sufficiently small open disk centered at z0 radius delta the interior of that disk okay and you are making delta small enough okay that is what it means now what I want to do is that I want to translate this definition and or rather give a version of this definition for which z0 is actually the pointed infinity okay because I want to make sense of limit as z goes to infinity okay and how does one do that so one uses this one uses this the intuition that comes in the last line of the definition namely you letting z to tend to z0 is supposed to mean that you are looking at a you are allowing z to vary in a small neighbourhood of z0 okay that is what limit z tends to z0 means alright in the same way if you now think letting z tend to infinity should mean that you should allow z to vary in a small neighbourhood of infinity okay so that is what it should mean so but now you know how to think of a small neighbourhood of infinity a small neighbourhood of infinity is the exterior of a large circle on the complex plane centered at the origin. So now you have a very easy way to give a definition as to what it means when z tends to infinity so let me write that down so let me write it here we may define we may thus define limit z tends to infinity for z in mind you now z should be now z is in the for z in the extended complex plane which is or let me just keep for z in c union infinity as z as mod z greater than r for r sufficiently large r tending to infinity okay or as mod z greater than 1 by del 1 by delta for delta sufficiently small and delta tending to 0 okay so this is how you can define what limit z tends to infinity means okay you are allowing z to come closer and closer to infinity that means you are restricting z to be in a neighbourhood of infinity and you know what a neighbourhood of infinity looks like it is the exterior mod z greater than r of a circle of sufficiently large radius and if you want to get it to get more closer to infinity then you must increase r you must take the exterior of larger and larger circles okay. Now well let me let me go back to something that I completely forgot which I said I would do and I did not so here it is about this check here see this check was that the topology that you put on the extended complex plane so that there is stereographic projection so homeomorphism is the same topology that you would give to the 1 point compactification and that is correct because in the 1 point compactification the topology is such that the open sets are the usual open sets of the space plus you also take complement of compact subsets of the space and add the point at infinity and if you look at the stereographic projection okay what is an open what is an open neighbourhood of infinity an open neighbourhood of infinity in the extended complex plane corresponds to an open neighbourhood of the north pole on the Riemann sphere okay and if you take an open neighbourhood of the north pole on the Riemann sphere mind you it is a complement of a compact set because it is complement on the Riemann sphere is a closed set and it is a closed subset of the Riemann sphere is already compacts okay so it is already compact so it is a complement of a compact set okay So this argument should tell you that this check is correct I mean this is how you check it okay so that is what I forgot so I just wanted to go back to it. Now let us come back to this business of defining limit as z tends to infinity now that you have this you can now for example define the limit of for example say you can take the limit of a function as z tends to infinity okay. So for example limit z tends to infinity f of z is equal to lambda which is a complex number means that given epsilon greater than 0 there exists a delta greater than 0 such that the distance between f of z and lambda can be made smaller than epsilon whenever the distance between z and infinity can be made small enough which is the same as saying that mod z can be made larger than 1 by delta okay. So this is how you define the limit as z tends to infinity of a function being a finite value finite complex number okay and you see so you must understand limit as z tends to infinity f of z is lambda means that the function values f z the distance from lambda which is mod f z minus lambda can be made as small as you want how small as small as epsilon which is already given to you that epsilon could have been any small okay you can make it as small smaller than that epsilon provided you choose z sufficiently close to infinity and what is choosing z sufficiently close to infinity you have to choose z outside a sufficiently large circle in the complex plane centre at the origin and that is exactly this condition okay that is this condition that mod z minus mod z is greater than 1 by delta for delta sufficiently small okay. So mind you in order to say this it is implicit that the function should be defined in a neighbourhood of infinity that means the function should be defined outside a circle okay the function should be defined in a neighbourhood of infinity of course if a function is not defined in the neighbourhood of a point there is you cannot talk about the limit of the function as you approach that point okay because to take a limit you must be able to approach the point and if this is to be a well defined limit then you should be able to approach that point in all directions basically you need to allow that allow the variable to approach that point from a neighbourhood of the limiting point. In this case the limiting point is a point at infinity a neighbourhood of that is exterior of circle in the complex plane and so what you must understand is it is very very important so let me write it in a different colour f needs to be defined in mod z greater than r for some r greater than 0 otherwise this definition does not make sense okay. At least this is you need to require this of f if you want to study properties of f such as analyticity okay so now what I want to say is that so suppose you are looking at a function f which is analytic and which is defined outside in a neighbourhood of infinity namely outside a circle in a complex plane okay then you see that infinity becomes a singular point it becomes an isolated singularity okay it is because the function has been assumed to be analytic in a neighbourhood of infinity okay therefore infinity if you take a deleted neighbourhood of infinity in the extended complex plane you will simply get the exterior of the exterior of a sufficiently large circle in the complex plane and then the function is analytic therefore infinity becomes a singular point and then now you can talk about whether the singular point is removable or essential or a pole okay and the standard way this is done in a first course in complex analysis is that you study the behaviour of the function at infinity you study the behaviour of f of z at infinity by looking at the behaviour of f of 1 by z at 0 this is what you do but what I want to tell you is that that is the same as what we are doing now okay so there are 2 definitions and we need to reconcile them okay and we will try to do that next okay.


Let's go boys. Welcome back. It's gonna be another banger. You already know dude. I'm so glad this is a thing I don't know if it was like the Pokemon card stuff or what but trading cards are hype again, and I'm so excited I'm glad you guys enjoyed the last video this one will be Significantly less scuffed and this is gonna be a long hybrid video because I promised you guys the NFL Sunday thing every Sunday But last week I got completely copyright claimed by the NFL And I could hardly do anything in that video the modest of that I wanted with that video I couldn't was super frustrated. So now I don't have a lot of footage to show you but here's I'm thinking I'll do this Here's what I have first. This is a thousand dollars worth of Panini absolute football I'm gonna be honest. I don't really know like what cards, you know are like insanely awesome This says that there should be about four autograph cards in this whole a thousand dollar like set here Which is what I'm pumped about I got Panini Phoenix on the way for the next opening and then I have immaculate and impeccable if you guys don't know what That is they're like insanely expensive, but you only get like five total cards It's like a thousand dollars for five total cards, but they're all signed and they're all insane and really rare So I'm super pumped about that. Yes. I'm a total total bandwagon, but listen, bro. The Detroit Okay, but listen the Detroit Lions give me existential dread every day that I have been a fan for the past 22 years of my life I wanted to die and now I have moved to Los Angeles So if I choose to bandwagon the ramps I will clap. All right. Hold up. Yeah, you'll let this thought in Okay, I was gonna do the opening. Sorry. I know it's a long intro. I will be less scuffed this time I got the dual camera setup, so I'm gonna switch over to the dual camera setup three two one I think this is gonna go a little bit better So what we got was four boxes each box comes with three of these and there's five cards in each box I don't like the packaging of the mosaics better But that doesn't mean much because when you open this guy up, it's protected like jewelry So I kind of like it it makes me feel like these cards are gonna be really good without further ado boys As you can see in there our first one is a very beautiful ty help other that corner says absolute football same as last time Thank you guys for the help on the rarities and stuff of these cards the Tom Brady and Justin Herbert really rare from last time I had no idea some said I'm supposed to not touch the corners. I don't know how you do that I feel like it's pretty natural So sorry Oh, Raheem Moster. Damn these cards are a lot prettier than I thought they'd be that packaging have me worried Got a Raheem Moster here. Ooh, Jerry Judy. Nice little Jerry Judy. Oh Did we just get an autograph already? Is it Brian Edwards? Wait a minute. I'm the first pack.  It's got a little piece of a football It's got a raiders patch. I think that's a raiders black and white patch and then a football Signature. Yo Let me pull this up here That is awesome. That is so cool. And look at this even rarer behind that is this eno benjamin 13 of 100. Wow very good start. That's so cool. Oh, yeah, this is gonna take some time That's one pack of three of one box of four boxes. Whoa Okay, so it does say that there's on average one autograph per box And that was like my first most likely won't be seeing another autograph in this box But hey, I like how he started anyway next one right out the gates. We got the mvp Russell wilson melvin gordon broncos No No That's not That's not a sign That is not a sign chase claypool.  It's upside down and it's flipped. I think that means it's signed There's a god wait a minute. What am I looking at here? Oh the same thing as the brian edwards, but it's chase claypool dog. That is so Sick rookie premiere this guy the ball on it.  I'm so geek. There's like very few rookies. I'd want more than this the andre swifts the only one I could think of Okay, gotta pause for a hot second because I don't want to mess up my ritual nfl sunday We ordered dave's hot chicken. It is the best food ever Now I always just order a postmates and it comes to the house and coincidentally Postmates reach out to partner with me on a video. So of course, I was excited to do it My dave's is on the way. I gotta grab that right now. No, you're not going out there No, it's not for you bag secured.  Luna would implode if she had dave's Let me explain to you how postmates works postmates is a food delivery app tons of restaurants around you right now Use postmates to deliver food right to your door. Of course, they have no contact delivery option They just leave it at the front door and then the app tells you it's there Now usually there's a delivery fee and that's why this deal is so insane for new users for the first two weeks You will get $150 in delivery fee credit by using my code mmg Everyone thought that was a typo last time I worked with postmates. It is not is $150 when you're reviewing your order You click promo code. You put mmg in there $150. I'm not kidding Don't tell you guys about this because I genuinely use postmates five days a week Make sure to take advantage of this deal and postmates again. Thank you for sponsoring All right, let's get back to it. We got a lot more boxes to open. Oh my god What an awesome start and then we got a to a card here that's flipped. So presumably this is a pretty good card too Oh My god, how common is what I'm doing. I just got a patch to a or two like a patch card, right? Sorry, I don't know the exact terminology. I'm not really into this stuff But to what is the rarity on that? It has the rarity on it in that corner there 66 of 199 it's got the dolphin's patch on he's playing well right now.  We got a 15 of 50 Drew breeze wait is this common in these packs? Holy shit 15 of 50 if you can read that right there you have 15 of 50 drew breeze That's the rarest thing I've pulled so far. Dude the chase clay bull is so cool. I love that. That's so badass Let's go All right final pack from this box, dude I think there's like a rookie patch in all these wait a second Did I not even did I not even look at what comes in these? Oh, wait a second.  I'm so dumb I'm so dumb It says find three autographs and two memorabilia cards per master box on average and this is a master box It does say find one rookie premiere material autograph per master box on average I already have got two so we are pretty much guaranteed a signed card every pack Just actually so cool next one starting out with the goat josh Allen So it's like the first two are like the commons josh allen larry fits and now I believe it's going to be like our signed card Like that's how it's been so far. Who is that joe? read Okay, so it's another rookie, but I don't know who this is and we totally honest has he done anything reputable this year joe read it is 16 out of 50 So it's pretty damn rare and that card is beautiful. I love what I'm looking at, but I'll be honest I'm not sure who joe read it. So I would never fake a reaction. I don't know who joe read it So I'm sorry any big joe read fans out there. Let me know.  It's so impossible Like there's no good way to choose people after time people just make up stories to get cards It just doesn't work. It's way too stressful and it's not fair. So I'm gonna find a different way to do that Michael stray hand tiki barber and the card is flipped. So that means there's oh, it's a double patch 27 out of 99 historical duels Michael stray hand gap gift names himself That's pretty cool. Definitely do not expect to see that and whoa What is this 43 of 100 thurman thomas fantasy flag back? Oh, it's like his fantasy points Wait, that's so cool. Is this like his ppr points. I wonder if it'll tell me Yeah, I think that's full ppr because they had eight receptions. That is really cool thurman thomas fantasy flashback 46 points knowing me. I probably would have betched him. I can lie Alrighty first back of the new box. Let's see if we can get some sauce open it up with a very underrated player It's your devious wife. Next up. We got an upside down dj mor is there a reason you're upside down sir I don't think upside down should mean they're rare, but this dj mor looks pretty standard No, it looks a little bit cooler actually. I don't know dj mor was upside down for some reason I'm not looking at the next card yet, but I'm sure you guys are gonna see it valued What wait what wait? What is this wait? I remember this dude for like four years ago I got something really similar this valued collector a redemption for this card can be secured in your name when you submit your request To panini america this redemption card must be redeemed by the expiration date listed on the back wait What?  Oh my god. Wait. This has to be this has to be so far dude. That's awesome I don't know what it's worth, but that's awesome excited to find out I will say though the next thing i'm looking at here is a panini and it's upside down So what is that out of 99? 48 out of 99 Payton manning patch. Wow. That's gorgeous. I am having really good luck right now I'm in a very good mood. Can't forget about the boy Gabriel davis 24 of 25 whoo Super heat. All right, beautiful. That's awesome. Yep. Next up. Where's cubie in the league? Mr Biscay Xavian Howard, what do we got for the autograph? Is that darnel mooney? Wow, this is a bearish pack right here darnel mooney Autograph looking kind of very sweet. What's the number on that 133 out of 149? Not as lucky as i guess and jefferson mooney. That's still really cool mooney He's playing really well too and he's got a very cool signature respect Leonard fernat Looks like we're getting a Leonard fernat patch. Yep. Leonard fernat patch right there. It's 22 of 99 I like to see that groundhogs respect. Oh a jaylen-hurts Introductions card that man should be starting personal once is so bad. It's atrocious 33 Out of 75 next pack. Hey prayers up prayers up for this guy right here. This is the last pack in our box I hope you heal quickly. I love you mark ingram is after odell Oh, so we do not get a signature this time. I got james morgan. I don't know who that is It's the first ever though 001 on a 199 and this michael pittman is gonna be our uh, oh I thought for a second. I didn't get an auto michael pittman michael pittman jr. I'm sorry I gotta get her right double patch got the football and the signature these look so cool.  It's unbelievable. All right starting out drew breeze next up dj chart I like to see a jerry judy Hey, we got this is double time on jerry judy, right? Didn't I already get what did I get from jerry judy? Did I get a jerry judy signature? Is it just a car? It was one of the first pack. I genuinely don't remember I got a base jerry judy before so now I have a signed jerry judy 26 out of 60 on the jerry judy. I like it, man Oh, did I just get the exact same to a card? Ah, it's slightly different. It's a different patch on the jersey I respect it. This one's out of 31 out of 49. I could just patch together a whole two of jersey What am I looking at?   Is this rare? I mean it says one of one, but I don't know if it's worth anything one of one Michael thomas. Oh my god. It's like metal dude. I don't know if this is like I don't know if this is like novelty or if this is crazy rare Definitely gonna have to refer to you guys on this one. Oh my god. Look at the other side, dude What's going on? That's so cool. Next up. We're starting out with z kill elliot and marvin jones I like to see that. I love me some marvin jones. Oh joshua kelly joshua kelly is going to be our auto or patch depends on what this is Woo, it is an autographed joshua kelly. How many of how many 53 of 100 is pretty I like him. I don't like when he takes snaps away from jesson jackson because I need him on fantasy, but I do like joshua kelly Oh AJ brown Damn, you got a lot of stuff on it 26 to 60 tools to the trade AJ brown That is a really cool card and AJ brown is such a stud dude. He's so good I love AJ brown and that leads us to our final Ooh a red zone julian edelman five of five damn only five of these cards in existence I believe that's what that means. I mean that's pretty sound explanatory five of five red zone julian edelman That's awesome.  It doesn't beat my one-on-one michael thomas, but it's still cool starting this next one out We got a double up on dj shark and a double up on chris karson. All right. Well duplicates. I like to see it I went too fast. I think I saw zack moss. Wow. We're gonna pull zack moss and back to back back openings Henry rugs though we get a what is that one 15 of 199 Henry rugs And I think that was definitely zack moss. We're looking at a zack moss Is it that what yelp it is? Geez, this one's even extra heat. This one's more heat than the last one It's zack moss is just destined to be in my packs So I got the signed zack moss before if we get another zack moss here 69 of 75 Sick ass signature and it's got some patches in the football You gotta love that man And then the last card in these packs that ends up being rare as well That is quest walkins 70 75 75 an interesting pack there for sure that leaves us with boys one final Box ladies and gentlemen this pack has been cursed by matt ryan. Damn this one can't be good petty bridge water. Okay. Okay Next one is oh, is that high tower john high tower looks like it's gonna be an autograph. Ooh That's a crispy one. I like that. Wow. Whoa. This one's really rare actually 16 of 25 John high tower next house that jared allen. Oh, this is an og card right here Very og card number 69 jared allen can't in absolutes I just respect the number and then last but not least. What is this? Was that mims 23 of 25 denzel mims denzel mims is a stud who has been banished to the new york jets I hope he finds a new team and continues to be a stud This bag is the opposite of curse because i'm looking here at a kenny got it So it's blessed by kenny got it next up is josh allen. Yes, sir duplicate That is moss wait. That's so white. I love that. He is moss randy moss's son right isn't his son Yeah, either way. That's so cool bad moss herbert. Yo The herbert ones and the burl ones are worth a ton because obvious reasons hopefully rookie of the year All right, so justin herbert. I assume That's so dope two of 99 rookie premiere autographed justin herbert with all the jersey patches and That's dope. I love to see that and the final rare card. Oh This pack was blessed I was saying this pack was blessed and I said I wanted de andre swift. I get 58 of 75 de andre swift I'm gonna get moved that is amazing final back gentlemen. Let's see how we do larry fits Deshaun watson ross who ross blacklock defensive tackle I'm gonna be honest. I don't know much about this guy, but I love seeing a signature 135 of 149 maybe not our best pack our last pack maybe won't be our best, but it'd be like that Oh, this is zack thomas wait, we're gonna get an og We get an og zack thomas of how much is that of a 199?  Uh lots of super heat in this one. Yeah Hey, I hope you guys enjoyed I will think of a more efficient way to do a giveaway next time That is what I really need to do because um just having people DM me it's just super inefficient and it never works Uh, I do love you and um, I guess I'll see you guys in the next video. This is dope. Peace out


So the talk I'm giving tonight is about development of a new product and actually commercialization, which I'll define in a moment. If you're a coder, how do you survive in this environment and how do you thrive? This is the talk that no one gave me 20 years ago, so I'm sharing it with you. So here's the outline. I'm gonna take a moment to define what is new product development and commercialization that's gonna be helpful. And then I'm gonna give two extremes of how folks talk about new product development. Once again, I only got diversion from the MBAs mostly, okay? So I'm gonna give you the other side. That, I'm gonna define a couple of ways what it means to win, because I'm in this to win, not just to collect a paycheck. I'm gonna talk about something I've been developing myself called development options, so I'll explain what that is. And then the meat of the touch is gonna be six ways to synthesize and exercise more attractive options. So I don't wanna just say you have options, like two bad ones, I want two better ones. And finally, I'm gonna end up with something I'm just developing this year called focus and expectations, which is a little broader version of a topic that you might have heard of. It's usually called business and execution, which ties back into the two approaches to product development.  In fact, a more powerful perspective, you'll be more, I think perhaps if you choose to follow some of these steps, more respected even. So that's sort of the promise of the night, so we'll see if we get there. So as some of you know, I like South Park. And in season two, they had an episode about gnomes, and this is a spoo for that. But if you ask someone to explain what product development is, they usually go something like this, step one, idea, and then add enough to that idea to at least fill up one or two pages. So not just an idea to a napkin, but I'm suggesting you have to have at least one or two pages worth. And that might be things like who's gonna buy it, how much might it cost, how long will it take, some basic things, one to two sheets of paper. And there's various names for these, the format, but it comes down to enough to fill one to two sheets of paper. And then, that's step one. And then they go, and then step three is win. And usually, win means abundant sales, abundant profits, money, bonuses, whatever. And then you'll notice that's always in terms of what the MBAs like to think about. So those are typically what it's talked about when it talks about win. And then, as in South Park, then somebody raises their hand and says, what is step two? And they go, step one is an idea, and step three is win. They go, what is step two? And they go, well, it's just development. You just tell the guys what you need comes out magically. So we're gonna talk mostly about that question mark. We're gonna talk a lot about the question mark in the middle. So here's one definition of commercialization. It's from the Product Development and Management Association. And it's their pitch on it, but it basically covers the idea. So it says, beside coders, to get a product successfully to market means you have to do things like have something called launch, ramp up of sales. You might have to have some marketing. You might have to develop a supply chain, how these people get the product. Where do they buy it? They had any training to use it. And then what happens when it breaks? Or Apple pushes an update and it stops working. These and other things, this is the definition of commercialization. So it also means if you didn't catch it, it means that the product is sold, typically for money. It has competition. There are other choices. And when people buy it, they expect it to work. And if they don't, they get mad and do all sorts of things. So I picked the title, Coding to Commercialization, because you all know what coding is. And we're going to talk about commercialization, which essentially means you have to work with some other people. So this is going to come up a little later. But in the bottom right-hand corner are two snowmobiles, two people riding them.  We can guess that when they want to ride them next time, they'll still start and they'll still go and all those sorts of things. So they produce more than one. And when this guy hits the ground, it's not like the tracks are going to fall off. So it's going to be sturdy and all that stuff. So we're going to come back to this idea of snowmobile. But the key thing is there are people riding it and enjoying it. And they paid for that experience. They didn't pay for a showroom photograph and a list of specifications. They wanted to do that. So that's called what? It's called user experience, customer experience. This is what they're paying for. So that idea is going to come up again later. OK, here's what gets a little more interesting. In step one, when you have this idea that to get to step three, there's a lot of forecast guesses, hypothesis, opinions. And that never had a good name that I understood. So I'm now calling it just expectations. So I conclude all those first items. And there's an expectation that my R&D folks and my marketing folks can actually do all the things that are required. They're going to meet their schedules. And they're going to, if you want a newer term, they're going to achieve product market fit. And they might make some minimum viable products if you want to put those new words in there. But there are expectations. But once again, their forecast guesses hypothesis. It's an expectation. That's my bucket word. OK, so there's also an expectation that some people and budgets and other resources are going to be available. Somebody decides they're going to have an expectation of certain metrics, milestones, schedules, and timelines. Once again, just an expectation. There's an expectation about what the competition is going to do next year. Once again, just a guess. There's an expectation that the next reorg is not going to ruin your team, that you're not going to get acquired and that I told somebody else. I've been on projects where one of the developers died. So you have some certain expectations going into this. But you're still expected to deliver something of value at the end. So my somewhat pessimistic statement is the probability of all these being correct is zero. No matter how much people argue that I know this or if we do this feature, my customer double sales, those are all guesses. But if you add them all up, probability is zero. OK, so that's what expectations are. They're a set of unknowns that have lots of names, but they're just guesses. OK, so I'm going to give just a very brief shopping list of a couple of them that are popular now. This one's called the Business Model Canvas. And this is popularized by colleagues and folks at Stanford. And they made this clever little grid and they put questions like, what is the value proposition?  And as you learn more, you update it. And then sort of the unwritten thing is when you get it pretty filled in and pretty confident, then you can hand it off to all the other people to implement. That's sort of how it works. So anyway, this one's called Business Model Canvas. It's some common phrases put in this box. And this is just a popular item now. There's other versions, but once again, this gets back to this idea of put what you know on one or two sheets of paper. They get you started. Here's another one. The winners always tell the story the way they like. So if you're dealing with management in most of the bigger companies around the world for the last 30 or 40 years, they had some version of this. And essentially, it's a flowchart. And the most popular implementation, this is trademarked. And it's called StageGate. And essentially, you pick some area. Oh, scoping is a good one. Someone decides where the specification is going to be. And then a small group of people work on that. And then on a certain day, those couple of people and 10 managers get together. And they ask them to explain their progress. And they ask them how much money they're going to need next quarter or whatever. And the managers at this diamond shape make a decision. And the decision is either go, stop, or wait. So these gate meetings in real life essentially means that all work on the project stops a few days before the gate meeting to get ready for the gate meeting. Then you have a gate meeting. And your hopes and dreams are crushed, maybe. There's also one guy that doesn't like something. And anyway, you work that out so that hopefully you get essentially funded for the next item. And then you complain about the meeting for a day or two. Then you get back to work. Often these meetings take a big chunk of productivity out of the group. But anyway, one can observe the new product development process from a management perspective. So that's like CX people, upper management people, budget people. They sit in the big chairs and tell you, yes, no, or wait. So they map it out. And you can actually hire the consultant to help guide you through this process. And anyway, that's from the manager's perspective. But that's not what we're talking about. I'm just putting it out there to say, there's this other perspective that's pretty popular. One of the other new ones also originated from largely from the people at IDEO, which are the people that commercialized the first apple mouse, so there's that word commercialized again. And they call their process design thinking. So they've elevated a particular group called designers. And actually what they did was they took out all the hard academic credentials, and they cherry-picked a few things, and they put it in this chart so that when they come in, they say, and we're not just managers, we're not designers. So the big thing is they talk to customers and empathize with them as one of the words. And they try to figure out what the customer needs. So they write it all down. And essentially what they're doing is saying, in about a year, when this product is going to be due, we've prepared some, not just a spec, but a sketch of the customer's hopeful experience. And they call it design thinking. So that's big at Stanford and University of Toronto. Now, in addition to a business school, they have a D school, a design school. Once again, this is from a certain perspective about how new product development works. Once again, there's no coders in there. This is just people saying, we have special knowledge and we want you to, we're gonna figure it all out, then we're gonna tell you what to do. That's what that is. And once again, just give me a couple of these, and now I'm getting to the one more interesting for you. So here's another way to think about it. I showed you a snowmobile earlier. I changed the picture a little bit here. This is some little hardware product that has an instruction manual. It connects to some other equipment. There's a website associated with it. There's some packaging associated with it and all the things. But when the person buys it, they expect it to interface with their gear and not break and when Apple changes, it still works and dah, dah, dah, dah. So anyway, once again, whenever you imagine that future product, instead of just showing a beauty shot, here's the beauty shot of the laser pointer with a hand model, you should really want somebody using the thing. So anyway, so that's, this box in the white is called user experience. What does the user think when they're doing their work? And that's ultimately why they're gonna buy it. Hopefully why they're gonna buy it. And I've coined this, one of the letters slew it off there. I've coined this other complimentary term, I call it development experience. And that is what the coders think and what the engineers think while they're slaving away to get this project done. What's their experience?  So anyway, I've adopted this term, the development experience, once again, it's what the coders feel, what the engineers feel and another way of saying it is we're the people with skin in the game. If something breaks, we're staying overnight to fix it. And if it's gotta be due on Monday, we're the ones working on the weekend, et cetera, that's called skin in the game. So we'll be exploring this picture. So essentially what we got here is at the beginning, the times go on that way, at the beginning you might have this same group of three or four people that start to fill in the idea a little bit. So at the beginning of the user experience might just be a couple of documents. And then as things progress, you fill in, you build some stuff so that it starts looking like the actual commercialized product. So this is the environment that you actually work in. So in this picture, there aren't so many managers or designers from Stanford or High Price Consultant. These are the people that are working nights and weekends to fix stuff. This is us. Okay, so it's helpful, and I see it's critical to differentiate two words. We like to use the word done. The feature needs to be implemented. I evaluated it during my sprint, I did this, that and the other. I did TDD, I tested it. I moved the Kanban board from over here to the done column, it's checked in, it's integrated, it's done. So we like to do that and there are some people that like to play planning poker and commit to get and have a Kanban board in the background and make burn down charts and say that all these things were done. But in a commercialized product, not really done. Because if the user, if it doesn't make it to the end where users pay money, it was just a waste of time or it broke or it got erased or whatever happened. But it's, you know, we checked it in, but it's a, the key thing is it's a proxymetric. It doesn't actually mean we were successful. Just means we got some code checked in that may or may not get used. If our company gets sold, it may get thrown away. That's all that happened. It's a proxymetric. The real metric we want is winning. You know, I invested a year of my life in this. I, you know, missed the softball league I was gonna join. You know, put on 30 pounds, whatever.  Or that was the best project I ever worked on. So, this fellow that I've been studying, his name is, he ended up retiring as a colonel in the Air Force, his name is John Boyd. And it turns out during his career, he had, he wanted several things. One, he was a fighter pilot. He, very successful in that area. I could spend hours talking about that, but I'll just say he was a fighter pilot and he taught at the Fighter Weapons School, which is the Air Force's elite group of the best pilots in the world. So, right, a few years down from the Fighter Weapons School is the Thunderbirds, the aerial team. And so people went back and forth between those two groups. Like you could be instructor at Fighter Weapons School and if that wasn't good enough, you could be a Thunderbird.  So, this is a big deal. So, that's another whole talk, but he did that. By the way, he was undefeated. Big deal about winning, undefeated. Next, he basically said that the planes that we have aren't adequate against the enemy. So, when most fighter pilots complained, they just complained. This is, it's a dog, blah, blah, blah. But this guy learned calculus on, you know, nights and weekends and he interacted with the manufacturers and then eventually he developed this whole new theory called EM, which, Energy Manoeuvrability Theater Theory, which could compare a US plane to, let's say, a Soviet plane across the flight envelope, flying high, flying slow, flying fast, turning, da, da, da, da, so that you could say in a dogfight at 30,000 feet at this speed, this guy has the advantage or this guy has the advantage, et cetera. So, he, instead of just complaining about the problem, he puts some math and science and he actually stole some supercomputer time and that's a whole other story, but he was very successful in that. He won a Legion of Merit awards, you know, signed by the president, da, da, da. And then, oh, one of the planes he developed nights and weekends, F-16. Oh, that's, you can look that up if you want, but that's like the, one of the coolest, lowest-cost dream planes of any fighter pilot guy, F-16. And then, then he retired and then he developed, devoted his efforts to military strategy and showed the nature of conflict and some other things. He was asked, you know, what's a winner? And interestingly enough, he came up with a definition that's pretty much a product development definition. So, here it is. He said, a winner is someone, individual or group, who can, in a metaphorical sense, build snowmobiles. So, take a moment. Snowmobile, he was just using as a placeholder for a device that has, if you will, various mechanical components. You could say software. You could say gasoline. You could say tracks, motors. But it has a combination of components that come together in a new way. So, he didn't just say you have to build them. Then he said, the really important part, and employ them, use them, in an appropriate fashion, in other words, for Snowmobile, I jumped off this hill and I, catching my buddy and I came down and the thing was still, I was still at full throttle and snow was blowing in my face in whatever, in appropriate fashion. And he said, when facing uncertainty and unpredictable change. So, going back to those expectations, it was the same thing of what you might want to build and the people are going to build it in the schedule and the da-da-da-da.  So, his definition of winning, I have adopted as a product development commercialization definition as well. So, that's Boyden, his work will come up a little bit later. Okay, so, I want to give you something simple. I wish somebody would have told me this 20 years ago. To define wins, well, there's a lot of ways, but I'm going to give you just two simple ways. One from a user experience point of view and one from a development experience point of view. The MBAs, I don't care about. And the CTOs, I don't care about tonight. I don't care about these two groups. So, I can pretty much summarize it. A user experience definition of winning. So, you build a product and the user experience version of winning is a bunch of five-star reviews. Okay, that means that it worked. When they bought it, they thought it was a good price that got delivered, it's still working. They told their friends, blah, blah, blah. So, if you see a bunch of five-star reviews, it's a pretty good indication of a good user experience. I mean, the opposite would be, this was really great except. That's usually a four-star review. So, if you want something just very portable, you can say that a good user experience correlates with a bunch of five-star reviews. That's what the user's paying for. Okay, what about the development experience version? The people like us?  They're complicated pieces of equipment with any of the results, new technology, new software, new applications, how to use it. And these two people were application chemists so they got to work with the unit a year before it was released. So, on the planet, they were two of the most knowledgeable people about that piece of equipment and software. So, if you wanted to train the rest of the world, those were two pretty important people. They have a year's worth of experience on something that's not introduced yet. And then the rest of us were in our own little development area. So, in this particular group shot, we created some multimedia training 20 years ago. Pritt, I've forgotten exactly, but let's call it 100 plus hours of training or something on us. No, that's too much. Two or three hours worth of training on a CD-ROM and then shipped it to all the customers so that when they got their new equipment, they got training from the two people in the world that already had a year's of experience. And anyway, we all got along. It was sort of almost like an unofficial project was something I thought was important and I just went and did it. So, I would borrow one person's couple hours a week and the graphic artist couple hours a week and Chris and Doug, I'd say I'm gonna meet you for three days next month and that's it. So, that was like a few hours. So, I brought them in, used them effectively and released them. So, the end was, we were a pretty happy group and sort of a little funny story. The one of the big conferences during the year happened in June and one of these was released a few weeks before. Doug was at the airport and it might have been like New Orleans or something and as he's coming into the conference, he's seeing you with some old friends and they're all smiling at him different this year. And that's the people who doesn't know are smiling at him different this year. And then finally, you can't figure out why they're giving him the goofy looks and they all said, we saw you on the training. And he was like, people you never met, but they knew him. It's sort of like seeing your favorite TV person or sci-fi person. Anyway, he got some, what's the word I'm looking for? He was a celebrity within this little group because of a CD. So, anyway, we all had a good time. So, it was a good use of our time and for me that was a great development experience and we sort of captured that with this one photo. Okay, so this list, just in case you haven't figured it out, means that as a coder, you have lots of responsibilities. One is to go in your room and code. Well, that's an easy one. And frequently that's because you're giving specifications. A lot of us prefer to work in isolation or as part of a small group of people that we like. Sometimes we get out of our little rooms and we're agents in a complex adaptive system. So, what that means is what we do impacts marketing and what marketing does impacts us. It goes both ways and what the competition does affects us and what we do affects the competition. So, there's that. If you're really good as a professional, you get to influence the direction of the product, not just be a code monkey and code what you were told, but you can actually say based on my research, we should be going in this direction. So, you can shape, if you have the proper tools and skills, you can shape the direction of the product skill. And then, finally, very important, you're an individual with other responsibilities. You'll be on other projects, you might have a wife at home, you might want to be learning a new language, but you have other responsibilities. So, if the project you're working on is something you don't like, now the new word this year is not engaged, then it gets less of your effort, it gets less of your best.  So, you have all those things that you have to balance, once again, in this question mark of what is development commercialization. So, that's what we're up against. Oh, there's the definition of complex adaptive system, which I just covered. Okay, a few years ago, there was this other guy, Talib, and he was interested in how things worked. And he wrote this book called Antifragile, and I'm just gonna give her like one or two points from that. He said that a development environment could be classified as fragile. And essentially what that means to us is, if one thing goes wrong, there's a big chain reaction in the projects later, the projects over budget or whatever, that's fragile. He talked about robust result, which I'm gonna skip. And then he talked about antifragile. Antifragile is a condition where, if there's a little bit of stress, the group performs better. If there's a little bit of uncertainty, the group finds new, amazing workarounds. So, part of the book is about what does it take to get from fragile to antifragile? Where you work better than you did before. Mostly, go over this quickly, doesn't welcome disorder. Things go bad quickly and fragile. Said that already. Oh, and this is a story I've never told in public. This represents a $475 million keychain. I have one of the few around. Now, if you want, I'll let you hold it. But $475 million, it's not the only one, but not very many of them. And the basic thing was, if you remember about 15 or 20 years ago, the development of Groupit & Tell was getting jerked around internally. I knew some of the people that worked there. And someone basically said, they forgot to fill in the rest of a table. And then in the multiplier section, they keep up with some wrong answers. And then that man said, it's some spreadsheets. You got the wrong answer. And it only happened in a few cases, but it was a big deal. They had to call all those processors back so there was an early pentium. And it was this thing of fragile. One bad thing happened. And somebody, I've never heard the rest of the story, some executive at Intel basically said, we're gonna take those processes and we're gonna make key chains out of them. So this is the $475 million key chain. So once again, you can look at that rare item. That's fragile. And if you're in a fragile environment, not likely to thrive. And I talked about antifragile. And we'll move through that. Okay, this is a picture that I just sort of composited to say what an environment may look like. A typical coding environment might look something like this where you have some people around desk, just actually just looks a lot like last night. Some whiteboards and these people all look and dress sort of the same. These are the coders. So how did they improve their ability to survive and thrive? So that's the beat of the talk. And I sort of gave you part of the answer is they develop better options instead of just doing what they're told. They get to input a little bit. So they contribute in new ways. And these development options aren't just choices like steak or chicken kind of choices. So they're more than just plain old AB choices. They're not real options where you just delay the decision till the last moment. They're not like stocks where you buy at a later date. And it's not just AB testing, it's more than that. As a developer, you can develop your options. If you've just mastered this new language that has great database access, you can say instead of what we were going to do, we can do it this way. Or there's a decision coming up and I don't know which is right, but we can develop two of them and we can test it. So the whole idea of development options is you develop new possibilities, hopefully with some new tests. And we'll talk about how you actually go about doing that. But that's a key phrase. And the basic thing I sort of hinted at is accelerate learning and they help make you more adaptive is the key item. So what you want to do is improve your ability to execute more attractive development options. And the next six items, which is once again the meat of the talk, I'm gonna briefly introduce something called requisite variety. I'm gonna introduce a concept I've been working on called pair development. I'm gonna hit a little bit on disintermediation, harmony and synergy over something called suboptimization. I'm gonna perhaps put a new spin on the word recursion. And I'm gonna finish up that section with mismatch detection over error propagation. So these are things I've been trying to make short little talks about to say, I'm not just gonna tell you develop better options, I wanna tell you some things you can do to get there. So requisite variety. It's gonna be a big deal, there's an equation, basically it says somehow in your development environment you have more potential responses than there are potential problems. So that's essentially what the definition says and W.Rosh Ashby is the guy if you wanna look it up. But greater repertoire is typically good. And then this is a picture I've not seen, I created this one. But the basic idea is if the task you're working on requires skills in orange, yellow and blue and you got two people on your team but no one person has all three of those, then you somehow have to work together to get those three so that together you have the requisite variety, the required variety to solve whatever this problem was. One person couldn't do it but together, combined, they achieved requisite variety by combining. That's the visual definition of requisite variety. And typically that means you have to work with somebody that's not a clone of you, they're gonna have some differences. Sometimes you get there by additional training, sometimes you get there by pulling in an expert, sometimes you get there through cooperation, but the point is without requisite variety you're gonna be blocked or take too long. With requisite variety, there's at least one answer available in your skill set between your group. And one of the other things, it's pretty, you know, past the beginner level is if you just say, oh, I've seen that problem before, I know on Stack Overflow I'm gonna copy this code, that's a pattern I've seen before, paste it in, hi, it works. Well, that's just pattern matching and that might be the insufficient response but you're not smart enough to know it because you haven't had enough requisite variety. So there's that to worry about. Fragile is also once again a bad thing. And then this thing, you don't want excessive variety. If there's too many opinions, you can't get anything done. So this phrase is pretty, pretty smartly named. It's called requisite variety. It's like just enough. Not too much, not too little. It's the Goldilocks one, you know, just enough. So there's that. And it's the basic thing is it ensures adaptability. You amplify the good, attenuate the bad, and that's the definition of requisite variety. The next one is pair development. And pair development is what do you need to move beyond what everybody else has been doing, what's been documented, what the familiar patterns are. So the visual on that is one guy says, oh, I've studied the problem and the problem is in the shape of a triangle. And the other guy says, no, no, I've studied the problem and it's a square with an X through it. And they each have argued vehemently and then they realize what the problem they've been looking at is really a pyramid. And they go, oh, it's a pyramid, I thought. Anyways, once you get put together two different viewpoints, produces a new perspective, in this case a sort of 3D perspective of the problem. But that's what I've defined as pair development, which is typically an intersection of disciplines. So you might have a developer and designer. You might have a marketer and a coder. And typically they don't show each other power points. This is typically most effectively done at a white board together where you're saying, let me talk about this problem, let's work through it, let's bounce some ideas.  That's what this, this is how I envision this technique. Once again, this is something I've defined and made the cartoon, so if you don't like it, I'm to blame. And the big thing is, it's a synthesis of new options and with the complementary perspectives, it has the potential to self correct your someone's focus and their direction. Once again, if the first guy would have continued to think it was a triangle, he would not reach his potential to win. But when he sees it as a pyramid, it's he was self, he was corrected and he moved on stronger. Okay, and if you want a Star Trek analogy, here it is, so there was this post and these people are arguing, it's probably on a Slack channel or something, but one person says, if you could have any Star Trek person to help you, what they were arguing between who they want, Kirk or Spock. And you can sort of guess why they were arguing. And then I basically said, I don't want Spock or Kirk. I want Spock and Kirk.  I don't want that or the other way around. I want them in a room exchanging heated opinions coming up with a new solution. So this is a television version of pair development. Little bit different perspectives, comes together, better solution. Oh, it's not cross training. Spock's not learning to be captain and Kirk's not learning to be a science officer. They're just coming up with a brand new solution, so not cross training. And I covered that. Once again, this goes beyond pattern matching, so that's the summary for pair development.  That's called availability bias. And what you learn is, often your first thing you thought of is not the best. So that's just a fancy word for that kind of pattern matching. And once again, you hopefully reduce that with pair development. Okay, disintermediation is a nice big word. Let's see what that is. Means remove the layers between individual contributors and data. At one point in my career, it was sort of weird. If I wanted to talk to somebody in R&D, when I came there, you just walked over and talked. But then various people got territorial a few years later and these one set of managers, if I wanted to talk to someone in R&D, I had to make a formal request to my boss who made a formal request to their boss who talked to the person and they would try to come up with a solution while I had to stay at my desk.  So disintermediation is the opposite of that. If I need to talk to Zach, I go talk to Zach. I check to see if he's busy. I'm polite, I'm courteous, but I talk to Zach not to the other way. And it removes the decisions, barriers so that things get done faster. So that's disintermediation and how do you get that? Well, the key thing is one, you can exchange documents. That's not the best way. That means somebody has to spend time writing those documents and interpreting those documents. So if you want the fast-tracked, facilitate disintermediation, you talk to them face-to-face. And then if you want to see our customers think about your stuff, you can also have intermediation barriers between you and customers. So the way to fast-track that is instead of getting reports about customers, you go out and meet one. So that's disintermediation on the customer level, disintermediation on the colleague level. Once again, we'll just get a little high-level overview. Okay, this one's sort of fun. Harmony and synergy, at least one of those words you may not know very well. But to give you a fast-track on that, there's a little section of the score from Handel's Messiah. And if some of you are musicians, you realize that there are four parts there, soprano, alto, tenor, bass. And if I were to say one, two, three, four, sing. Could you do it? If you were the soprano, da, da, da, da, da, could you do it? Well, no, you'd have the training. Okay, so that's, in some ways, that's what it's like when I say, you four guys work together on this project. It's like, how could you be cooperative, let alone harmonious? If you haven't invested properly, you've been trained properly. So when you put these four things together, sounds pretty nice. Then you put an orchestra behind that that sounds even better. And that's, this concept of orchestration is what you'd like a development environment to work like. You'd like marketing and engineering to occasionally get together and work to produce something useful, which is opposed to the Dibbert version of those things. Okay, so that's harmony. Can I spend more time, but I'm gonna move on. Synergy is more fun. Synergy is beyond harmony. Harmony means that you're just working together and that pretty much means you're singing the same tune. We know it's hallelujah, and we know it's in a certain key, key of D, and there's a certain time, say, didger, and da, da, da, da. And actually it's very, the requirements are pretty much specified on that sheet of paper. Synergy is more fun. Synergy is when the output is greater than the predicted outcome based on the components. In other words, it's sort of like the idea of Spock and Kirk, when you put them together, you get more than the two individuals. So I've illustrated synergy in this diagram, network diagram, of these two guys are standing a little taller and they're bathed in light. They're producing something more than they could have individually on that synergy. So that's, once again, this page is just definitions. The question is how do you do that? Get these here. One is you improve group communication. So I'll give you a silly example. During my career, at the end of, near the end of a project, we also did a beauty shots of these mass spectrometers, and we used to pay the guy like 10 or $20,000 set up for a couple of days and take these pictures and they would go on the brochures, the shiny brochures. But we in post sales, that was pre sales, we in post sales also needed pictures, but the guy that was spending the 10,000 bucks never said, hey guys, do you, well I got the stuff in the room, would you like some pictures? So he would never even tell us when he was taking the pictures. He would never offer to share the, five minutes of the photographer's time. So it was just bad communication. So when we needed our pictures, we had to go round up the equipment again next week. So just a silly example, but improve group, improve communication would have made everyone have better use of the pictures. That's the same with code or other things. Another one is you need someone to put together people that need to chat. So someone says, I heard you were doing databases and you were doing a different kind of database. Maybe you should have lunch. So someone shapes that interaction. And then just to round up your vocabulary, synergy means a more positive outcome than predicted by the components. And there's an opposite of that. When I work with you, I get nothing done. That is a word is called disergy. So we shouldn't work together. I'm not picking on you. That's disergy. So if you need the opposite, you get less when you put two people together. That's not good. So if you're the shaper of this organization, we don't work together. That's fine. Now we have words to go with it. And then sort of the opposite is called suboptimization where you polish your code so that it runs 10% faster, 20% faster, and it's checked in. But meanwhile, I can't ship because this guy didn't do something. So you can suboptimize all you want, but in terms of getting it to the customer, doesn't matter because we lost over here. So, or it's also known as local opt-in, but the idea of commercialization, you want five-star reviews. If it's all not working, we all lose. And then I'd gone on to the next one here. Recursion is solving problems of the same type. So one version of testing is, I'm gonna performance test my search speed or whatever, but another version is in commercialization. So early in the product development, you have a few people, and you might only have documents, but you test that with a customer. And one of the things you wanna do is learn how the customer, what vocabulary the customer's gonna use. So that you learn early. Late in the product, you wanna make an advertisement, you need to learn what language the customer uses. It's exactly the same problem. So, recursion means you're solving the problem of what language is the customer using at the beginning, the middle, and the end. You're solving a problem of the same type. Well, how does the customer talk about this? Or how does the customer do his work? Or whatever those things are, but recursion is something that helps you make good use of your efforts. And here's a, see how clever you are, but here's a visual example of recursion. Anybody see it? What do you see? Oh, you were just yawning, I'm sorry. Anybody see the recursion? Yes? Yes. So what they're doing in the lab, mimics what the customer's doing in the inset picture. And if you could look further, there would be another version of the picture. So that's another conception of recursion, but it's solving the problem in the same type, individual kind of way. So that's recursion, good thing. Let's get to finish these up. Mismatch is an important quality to have in commercialization. With all these people that you might be working with, there's a lot of opinions, and it's usually, they start with, I know for sure, whatever, or the research is proven, whatever. There's those opinions, how regardless of how forcefully they're stated, and there's actual reality. And you can have an argument over lunch, and sort of cut a short story short here, but I was involved in a project where there was some intellectual during, and I quickly realized that no amount of during was gonna come to any good outcome. I would just be a waste of my time as well. So it was turned out it was a user interface problem. And the person that designed the user interface, I thought had done a terrible job, but this was a very well respected, coder that didn't really have user interface experience, but he was free for a couple months. And our group said it was terrible, and they said, Tom did it, and it's great. And it doesn't matter what the argument was, we were told that the product was gonna ship with that interface, so shut up and develop the training based on that interface. What was coming up on the end of the year, and we didn't like it and argued it wasn't gonna work, so finally they said, Mark, if you don't like it, you got 30 days to win this argument, which was supposed to make me shut up and go home for the Christmas or whatever. So instead, what I did was I developed two interactive prototypes, one with their interface and one with my interface, and then I got 19 pseudo customers, 19 people, some of which were internal, some of which were customers, and I basically asked them to do tasks with version A and version B. I did metrics, timed them, how errors and how fast and blah, blah, blah. And in the end, 18 of the 19 preferred version B, and the one person didn't wanna be politically committed, so he didn't vote for anybody. But anyway, no votes for A. So I went 30 days later when I was summoned to appear, presented my interactive results that they didn't know I was doing, and was ready for a fight, and the head of the group said, B wins, let's go. So anyway, the problem was I detected the mismatch, not by arguing, but by, in this case, A, B testing an interactive version with metrics, with errors, with speed, proved that B was better. I detected the mismatch, and the interesting part of the story for me is I finished this in 1999 on this product that I've been involved with from day one, so I had invested in the product. I was the first post-sale support engineer to develop the strategy worldwide for this product, so I was pretty attached to this product. And now it's 2016, and that interface is still being made today. So the work I did to win version B is still manufacturing today, so this little thing of mismatch sometimes has long dividends. You could detect mismatches on your own smarts, or you can gather people to help you, and if you don't detect mismatches, errors get propagated, and the potential for winning goes down. So once again, this is just an introduction to the term, but mismatch detection is a big deal. Okay, so we're pretty much the last few minutes of the talk. I've given you six approaches to win. I'll just review those briefly. One is requisite variety, just enough different opinions. You might have to work with a marketing guy for a half an hour at a whiteboard, but you get a different perspective, and the phrase to describe that's called requisite variety. It has an academic tradition, so it's just not some fad of the day, but it's a real thing. Pair development is something I'm championing where two people get together to create something new beyond the previous pattern, something novel. Disillumination is going to the source to speed things up for yourself, to clear up any misconceptions. Harmony and synergy, I gave the example of Hallelujah, where I can't just ask four of you to sing Hallelujah Chorus. I gotta prepare you, I gotta pick the right four people. If I pick the right four people, it's gonna come out better.  And if you've ever been involved with synergy, it's one of the best feelings of your life. You go, I work with Bill today, and we did some amazing things. That's sort of a description of what it feels like in synergy, or flow is another word, sort of related. And then mismatch detection is taking a statement that you're told is true, or you should believe it, and going, you know what? We need to test that. We need to check the interactions. We need to put a customer in front of this. We need to time it with a stopwatch. We need to do something and see if there's a mismatch. Otherwise, the wrong things get built. Okay, so once again, the last couple slides. Another author has taken a look at this kind of problem, and he wrote this popular book called Drive, by Daniel Pink, who early in life was a lawyer, but he's come to see the light here. He decided, based on his research and others, that the three factors that drive coders and other people doing intellectual, what do we call it? Work that requires a rudimentary cognitive ability, okay? In other words, something more than flipping burgers. But he says that what drives us, are three characteristics, autonomy, mastery, and purpose. And autonomy means, if I think you're messing up, I have the autonomy, the capability for self-direction, to go, you know, develop a little new user interface and go test it with customers. I have the autonomy to learn a new language and see if the database access is better, but I'm not just told to shut up and do my job, but autonomy is I have, you're trusting my brain a little bit to also go out and find solutions. That's autonomy. Mastery is the basic thing of, last year I was beginner at Swift and OX iOS stuff, and now I've gone up two notches. I'm a little more mastery. So mastery is I'm getting better at my own craft, and perhaps mastery is I'm getting a little better at interacting with my colleagues to commercialize this product. And then purpose is the basic idea of the work I'm doing is important. So when I was working on these products, and you know, somebody was curing cancer and somebody was analyzing the spill from a ship or something, it was important work. So purpose means that the stuff I'm doing gets used and valued, that's the idea of purpose. So Dan Pink basically said these are the three factors that drive engagement or motivation. And what I've given you in those six items is a way to help say, if I want more autonomy, I might try, I might have to actually do requisite variety. I might have to pair with somebody to get more information. I might have to interact with that guy from marketing if I'm trying to win a marketing argument, but whatever. So anyway, you could, this is a nice book to read if you also want some ideas on what motivates people that do more work than rudimentary cognition. Okay, so here's the sort of the takeaway. I've been struggling for months trying to find words for this that are just real simple. So these are the two words I've adopted. So I'm testing them out with you tonight, first time. The two words are focus and expectations. So earlier I gave you my definition of, my set of items for expectation, and I said that was what should we build? What's gonna be important a year from now? What's the competition gonna be doing a year from now? What technology is gonna be important a year from now? It's what should we build, long term. And I gave you the basic ideas that the two extremes are. You could be told by the product master, project leader, CTO, whatever, that this will be important, shut up and just do it. That's one extreme. Or you could say, given this basic set of boundary conditions, I'm gonna help shape the answer. So that's expectations about what could we build a year if with all the mergers and reacquisitions in a presidential election and everything else, what could we actually do? So all that's in expectation. But focus is short term. Focus means what's important today. So the short version of that is doing your, becoming a better coder, that's important today. But spending a half an hour with somebody from marketing, probably should make that investment too. So that you can once again, understand and a better perspective, so that you can be a better contributor to the conversation, a more respected opinion. So focus is not just, should be something more than we got a backlog arranged by value, codeword, somebody guessed. And based on the backlog, he got the top and I came in five minutes late so I get the second one. I want something a little more substantial than that. So focus should be what's important. And once again, with informed opinions about what you're trying to do, how you interact, you can make a better short term decision. And expectations I talked about, but it's this idea of what should we build. And then I haven't completely, completely, come up with a great visualization for this yet, but this is my key insight actually last night. Whenever someone talks about expectations, they frequently draw a little place on a paper. And if they're a product manager, they call it a roadmap. Sort of the idea of if I want to go to Chicago, I know where Chicago is, I just follow the map and I get to Chicago, but the problem is Chicago doesn't move, okay? But products a year from now, we don't know where they're going to be a year from now because they don't exist yet. We don't know what our development situation, if the budget got slashed, if we ran out of seats in our room, if there was a merger, there's a whole bunch of things we don't know. So the next version of this picture, this expectation box, which is this top one, is actually gonna be moving around. It's gonna, might jump or something in the next version because we don't know what's gonna be in a year with all that big list I gave you. I illustrated a little bit here, if you notice this timeline has a bend in it and that's where expectations changed. Let's say that your competitor, that could have been Nokia when the iPhone was released, they suddenly realized that they should have changed, well, they were too slow, but the bend there represents a change and if you want to use Eric Reese's lean startup terminology, you could call it a pivot but it's basically just a new enlightenment you changed. So anyway, next version of this picture is going to be, the target's gonna be moving randomly because all those expectations change. So if you're working from a set of requirements that says in a year, this is what you're gonna need, you should hopefully now be a little smarter to go, those aren't requirements, those are hypotheses, they're guesses, they're projections based on unknowns and uncertainties. So the next version, this is gonna be moving but that's what I have today. Okay, so some of the what I've been talking about is lessons learned from the last 20, 30 years. I'm working on this book called Developing Winners. It has some stories in there about John Boyd, the pilot, aircraft designer, and military strategist I told you about. So hopefully the book will be out later this year so there's a site where that's happening. And once again, the title of the talk was from coding to commercialization to give you a broader idea of how you, as a coder, might fit into a successful, so that you could shape a successful commercialization effort to be a valued part of that community, perhaps shape a few things, derive a little joy and go beyond surviving to thriving.


SCP-578 is a colorless, odorless liquid. SCP-578's anomalous properties manifest when it is brought into contact with human blood. First, SCP-578 spreads throughout the blood. The enzyme in SCP-578 then causes a clotting cascade in the blood, followed by crystallization of the blood. This crystallized blood is designated an instance of SCP-578-1. Approximately 1.7 milliliters of SCP-578 is required to fully convert a liter of blood. SCP-578-1's chemical structure is reminiscent of opals, consisting of hydrated silica.