March 4, 2018

If you are a runner, then I expect Sir Roger Bannister is one of your heroic figures (as he is one of mine.) He died today at 88.

Enjoy his narration of the video of him running the first sub-four-minute mile. It’s delightful.

I love his number (41) – a prime, and somehow signaling something about the first sub-four-minute mile, along with Chataway’s 42 (the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.)

Also published on Medium.

Facebook cofounder Chris Hughes had a fateful discussion with Mark Zuckerberg on Harvard's campus in 2004. Adam Hunger/Reuters

One rainy night in March 2004, Chris Hughes had a conversation with his Harvard roommate that would radically change the course of his life.

His roommate was Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and the conversation would lead to Hughes making half a billion dollars eight years later.

Hughes is one of the four cofounders who helped turn one of Zuckerberg's dorm projects into a real company, and despite working on the site for three years, he's come to terms with the major role luck has had in his life.

It's a theme he explores in his new book "Fair Shot," and one he discussed with us for an episode of Business Insider's "Success! How I Did It" podcast.

You can listen to the full episode below:

Hughes, 34, explores how his unlikely and sudden rise from a privileged but solidly middle class upbringing to a spot among the United States' wealthiest has recently made him reconsider his role in the world — and it's why he's now advocating for a guaranteed income for working low-income Americans.

He told us he has firsthand knowledge of how the wealth gap in the US can seem so illogical.

"But that is how the economy is working today," he told us. "These small decisions, small conversations like the one I talk about in the book, where Mark Zuckerberg and I went on a walk a couple of months after Facebook had launched and we had an equity conversation," are all that it sometimes takes to separate the 1% from the rest.

The night of that conversation, Hughes was working his $10/hour job at the Hicks House library, checking student IDs. He and Zuckerberg were chatting over AOL Instant Messenger about Facebook, which was about to expand beyond Harvard to new schools. They decided to discuss Hughes' ownership stake in person.

Hughes grabbed his umbrella and met Zuckerberg by their dorm entrance and, sharing the umbrella, went for a walk — it was a conversation they needed to have in private, without risk of their roommates overhearing.

"I came out of the gate saying, 'I want 10% of the company,'" Hughes told us. "He was stressed; I was stressed. It was not the best setup."

Hughes had helped with the site's user experience, and as the cofounder Zuckerberg had deemed him the most socially adept, helped with marketing and arranging the company's earliest media coverage. He felt the 10% ask was "ambitious, but not entirely unreasonable."

As Hughes remembered it in his book, Zuckerberg replied: "I just don't think you've earned that much. I appreciate what you are doing, and I think you could do a lot more as we grow the site, but I need to keep control. And the others need fair equity too."

Facebook cofounders Dustin Moskovitz, Hughes, and Zuckerberg in their Harvard dorm.Mark Zuckerberg/FacebookHughes said he stayed in silent thought, considering that the conversation might be more important than friends discussing just another startup. The rain was coming down heavily, and they walked quickly under the single umbrella around campus.

"I am conflict-averse by nature," Hughes wrote, and realized he wasn't as confident about his request as he thought, noting that "my role was secondary and I knew it. I wasn't in a position to make demands, but I was anxious to become more involved."

Hughes made a case for himself as they walked, but caved by the time they reached Harvard's central library, Widener.

"Just give me what you think is fair," Hughes remembered telling Zuckerberg. "I know it's hard to balance all of us." Zuckerberg replied with just an "OK" and walked off into the rain, without even a hood on.

A few weeks later, Hughes discovered Zuckerberg gave him 2%, the lowest stake of the cofounders by multiples, and the stake would shrink a bit when Facebook was reincorporated later in the year.

This stake, however, still brought Hughes about $500 million after the company's IPO in 2012. He told us that for that reason, that discussion in the rain "was at once a spectacular failure of negotiation and also the most successful conversation of my life."

He's reflected on it lately, extrapolating it to the rest of American society. "But what keeps happening in this economy is these small chance events have these outsized impacts, because there's a snowballing effect, because of the winner-take-all kind of system," he said.

"So that what seemed like passing conversations in the rain, in college, can have these outsized effects. That's a new phenomenon. Never before in history have 20-somethings been able to create these companies."

Bloomberg TV

Fundstrat, the research firm, is predicting the next two years will be big for bitcoin and the world of crypto.

In a note out to clients, analysts led by Tom Lee said at least three companies could issue their own digital tokens in 2018 and 2019. They also doubled down on their bullish forecast for bitcoin, which they say could reach $25,000 by year-end.

"The fundamental story of crypto is improving in 2018," according to Fundstrat. "And improving apps, such as Robinhood, and now Circle (acquiring Poloniex), are [creating] new on ramps for users this year."

Robinhood, the California brokerage known for its popular stock-trading app, launched Robinhood Crypto in February. On Monday, payments company Circle announced its acquisition of crypto exchange Poloniex. It is also working on launching its own crypto-trading smart phone app, Circle Invest.

Bitcoin gripped the attention of Wall Street and Main Street as its soared to almost $20,000 in December 2017. The start of 2018 was rough to the digital coin, throwing it all the way down to $5,900 at the beginning of February. But a quick read of the chart indicates that the rest of the year will be bullish for bitcoin. Here's Fundstrat:

"In 6 of the last 7 years, bitcoin posted its annual low within the first 60 days, before March. In 2018, bitcoin was down 50% by Feb 6 (36 days), which falls within that time frame. In other words, as we enter March, this is another reason to view 5,900 as THE LOW for the year and we see bitcoin reaching $20,000 by mid-year and $25,000 by year-end."

As for the crypto ecosystem more broadly, Fundstrat notes three non-financial companies are in the process of issuing or could issue their own digital coins in 2018 or 2019.

Starbucks, the ubiquitous coffee maker, is one company that could dive into crypto in the next 12 to 24 months, Fundstrat said. It's something the company has hinted at before.

"I think blockchain technology is probably the rails in which an integrated app at Starbucks will be sitting on top of," Howard Schultz, the company's executive chairman, told Fox Business on Tuesday.

Schultz mentioned the possibility of launching a "proprietary digital currency" as part of those efforts.

Line, a Japanese company, could also launch a digital currency exchange in the next 12 to 24 months.

"The company said it has started the process of registering a virtual currency exchange with the Financial Services Agency but gave no indication as to when this will likely bear fruit," Fundstrat wrote. "Likely to launch a token in conjunction with this effort."

Also, ecommerce company Rakuten is one company that has already announced it's launching a cryptocurrency based on its loyalty program.

Meanwhile, Wall Street banks are staying far away from digital currencies. Financial advisers employed by Bank of America Merrill Lynch were instructed to not hawk Grayscale's Bitcoin Investment Trust, an investment product that seeks to mirror the price of bitcoin, to clients. JPMorgan head Jamie Dimon famously called bitcoin "a fraud," and he once said he would fire bankers who trade it for being stupid.

In response to the Quora question "What are the weirdest things flight attendants have seen in their line of duty?" Heather Wilde, a former flight attendant, said that among the strangest were people who made soup using the airline water.

"Guys, the water lines haven't ever been cleaned — ever," she said.

Another flight attendant told Business Insider: "Flight attendants will not drink hot water on the plane. They will not drink plain coffee, and they will not drink plain tea."

"I bring my own," one flight attendant with four years of experience told Business Insider. "Plane water isn't the best."

"Bottled water only," said a flight attendant with 40 years of experience.

Of course, not everyone avoids the water. Robert "Bingo" Bingochea, a flight attendant with United Airlines, readily drinks the coffee and told Business Insider he trusted the water's cleanliness.

Riley, a flight attendant for three years, told Business Insider that all the drinking water was bottled.

"As for the coffee and tea, it does get very hot, and I like to think that kills all the germs," she said.

Another flight attendant said that whether or not he drinks the water depends on the time of year.

"During the winter, I'll drink tea, because the water tanks are so cold that there's less bacteria buildup and the water comes out so hot that it kills most germs," the flight attendant said. "But during the summer and warmer months, I'll bring my own tea from home."

A crane moves the lower stern into place on the USS John F. Kennedy in June. US Navy

The USS John F. Kennedy, the second of the US Navy's Gerald R. Ford-class advanced nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, has reached 70% completion, according to shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls.

Like the first-in-class Gerald R. Ford, the Kennedy is being constructed using a modular technique, in which smaller parts of the ship are welded to form larger chunks, called superlifts, that then come together.

The latest construction milestone came earlier this month when crews at Huntington Ingalls' Newport News Shipbuilding shipyard dropped an 888-ton superlift — a 171-foot-long, 92-foot-wide section composed of berthing areas, electrical-equipment rooms, and workshops — into place between the carrier's bow and midship.

Below, you can see footage of the superlift being moved into place by the company's 1,157-ton gantry crane at Dry Dock 12.

The latest superlift, which took 18 months to construct, "represents one of the key build strategy changes for Kennedy: building superlifts that are larger and more complete before they are erected on the ship," Mike Butler, the program director for the Kennedy, said in a Huntington Ingalls press release.

Construction on the Kennedy started in February 2011 with the "first cut of steel" ceremony at Newport News. The ship's keel was laid in August 2015, and it hit the 50%-constructed mark in June when crews moved the 1,027-ton lower-stern section — containing rudders, tanks, steering-gear rooms, and electrical-power-distribution rooms — into place.

"We are pleased with how construction on the Kennedy is progressing, and we look forward to additional milestones as we inch closer to christening of the ship," Butler said in the release. The Kennedy is set to launch in 2020.

The USS Gerald R. Ford in dry dock during construction.US Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Joshua J. Wahl

Like the Ford, the Kennedy contains an array of advanced features, including the Electromagnetic Launch System and Advanced Arresting Gear, both of which assist with launching and landing aircraft. (The Ford, however, lacked one notable feature: urinals.)

The Ford was delivered to the Navy two years later than planned and cost about $12.9 billion, 23% more than estimated.

The Government Accountability Office said last summer that the $11.4 billion budget for the Kennedy was unreliable and didn't address lessons from the building of the Ford, The Associated Press reported. The Pentagon partially agreed with those conclusions.

In August, Huntington Ingalls completed the "first cut of steel" ceremony for the third Ford-class carrier, the USS Enterprise.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Around Silicon Valley, "regulation" is a dirty word, and one that strikes fear in the hearts of even the wealthiest and most successful executives.

Look no further than a recent panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff expressed worry. Meanwhile, Alphabet CFO Ruth Porat deflected questions on the prospect of more regulatory oversight, calling an inquiry about whether Google is too big an "unanswerable question."

Matt Moberg, a portfolio manager who oversees the $5 billion Franklin DynaTech Fund, shares no such worries or reservations.

As a long-term investor, he's focused on the big picture. And he says even if mega-cap tech titans like Facebook and Alphabet are forced to — heaven forbid — break up, historical precedent suggests that things could end up OK in the end, if not better.

In an interview with Business Insider, Moberg elaborated on those thoughts and also discussed how his European history degree informs his investment decisions and outlined his unique approach to diversification. Read the full story here. Here's what Moberg had to say (emphasis ours):

"Even big concerns like the regulations that could affect mega-cap tech companies, we've seen that play out before. So we have a playbook. And while it's not the same, they're great reference points.

Quite frankly, things rarely end that poorly. Even if these companies get broken up, their break-ups actually end up being great companies themselves. Doing this gives us some confidence over the long term."

We (the tech industry) like to label everything. I attribute the source of this desire and need to Regis McKenna although he may have just been the genius that amplified it.

The labels I dealt with early in my professional career (the 1980s) included micro computers, mini-computers, artificial intelligence, expert systems, neural networks, middleware, super computers, parallel computing, and killer app. Oh – and groovy. And music by Boston, Journey, Rush, Pink Floyd, and AC/DC.

When we invested in Fitbit in 2010, the phrase we used to describe the product was human instrumentation. If you read the original post, you’ll be amused by the lack of marketing language for what, in a few years, would evolve through labels like quantified self and wearables. And yes, I still call it human instrumentation (as a subset of human computer interaction), since that’s the part that is interesting to me.

BodyHacking and BioHacking and trendy labels for this. They’ve long been a favorite troupe of the sci-fi that I enjoy and are now regularly showing up in sci-fi movies. One of the annual conferences, BDYHAX, even has a description that fits with the notion of transhumanism.

BDYHAX is 3-day celebration of human enhancement, transhumanism, and biohacking. With a special focus on DIY healthcare and other body hacks, BDYHAX brings together industry experts, curious newcomers, and everyone else in between.

Mom / Dad – do these words skeeve you out? I’m betting they do. Or, at the minimum, you feel detached from them. It is, in this way, that I think the tech industry, with their labels, are doing humanity a great injustice on this topic.

Here are some common bodyhacks that we’ve been doing for a long time.

 

You get the idea.

I think part of the problem might be gender. Go read the following post by Kate Preston McAndrew titled Vagina, vagina, vagina.* (the subtitle is “Redesigning the pelvic exam experience“). Kate starts the post strong.

“Gender disparity is real, and traditionally, medical equipment designers have tended to have penises. That is problematic on a general level, but specifically, it means that problems that are specific to vaginas are often ignored or overlooked.”

I hadn’t connected this issue to the labels we use until I read the post. The post is outstanding, especially in the use of language and the unfolding of the thought process around the product. While reading it, I felt like I was in an alternate universe from the typical conversation I have about products. It was awesome.

Tech (hardware and software) is being interwoven into everything we do as a human species. To make this accessible to everyone, maybe we should start working a little harder on the words. More meaning, and less either (a) tech or (b) marketing. Ponder that all your cryptowarriors out there. Or members of any particular technology company mafia. And those of you in ecosystems.

What are you really trying to say?

Also published on Medium.

I woke up late this morning with a vivid dream in my head. I had shown up at my new house on the first morning of our occupancy. There were all kinds of people running around including a dozen schoolkids playing red devil on the patio. I didn’t have any clothes unpacked yet except some running shorts that I didn’t like and an old t-shirt. I went upstairs to go to the bathroom and take a shower. The bathroom floor was linoleum and the wallpaper was grandma’s English garden floral from the 1950s. I tried to figure out how to poop in the toilet but the toilet paper holder got tangled up in the seat cover and I couldn’t get the toilet open correctly, dunked the toilet paper in the water, and just gave up. I turned on the shower, which was a pink tub with yellow walls, miniature size, with a plastic shower curtain that only covered half the length of the tub. The shower nozzle was a wide-spray non-adjustable one so I ended up with water all over the bathroom, including the one towel that was hung on a metal rack in the direct line of the spray. The only soap that was available was a tiny petrified stub molded into the ridged indent in the wall. I gave up and went to brush my teeth but realized I had no toothbrush or toothpaste. I put my uncomfortable running shorts on and got in a friends car to drive up a windy hill to a potato restaurant shack like the one where I had my first job at Potatoes Etc., except it was in a wooden crab shack instead of a shiny new shopping mall. I struggled for a while to construct my order based on their extremely complex paper-based ordering system before giving up. A few more things like this happened on the way back to the house, including a short run through the woods, and then I woke up.

It’s a few hours later and the dream still lingers. The obvious analysis of it is that I’m feeling a lot of anxiety, but I’m not. We just had an awesome two-day partner offsite and we all showed up fully to the conversation. While I’m emotionally and physically tired, I realized my dream was a version of something I described – and then we talked about – for a while, which is the notion of absorbing and metabolizing stress and anxiety, especially when it is generated by other people.

Last year I wrote a post titled Do You Reduce Stress Or Increase Stress? after hearing a great quote by Mark Cuban at an event where I interviewed him. He said:

“I like to invest in people who reduce stress and avoid people who increase stress.”

This stuck with me because I view part of my role to absorb the stress in the system while working hard not to add stress to people who I work with. I’m not perfect, but I’ve come to understand the link between this activity and my depressive tendencies.

Specifically, I absorb a lot of stress and anxiety. I’ve become very good at metabolizing it (a word that I came up with in therapy to describe the activity that happens.) As a result, I can stay very calm in the face of enormous stress and anxiety of others. However, I do have to metabolize what I absorb (and expel the waste product in some way) or else it builds up. I also have to deal with my own stress and anxiety. If I reach my limit, I start reacting to the cumulative stress and anxiety in my system. If I don’t do something about that quickly (of which self-care: rest, running, meditating, eating right, spending time alone, not traveling, being with Amy, reading) and in a significant enough magnitude, a depressive episode of some duration starts to loom. In the extreme cases, I tip into depression.

I used to fight the idea of this. I foolishly thought “if I can just stop being stressed or anxious, I’ll be fine.” Rather than trying to prevent or avoid stress and anxiety, I’ve learned to embrace it, and all the signals around it.

The dream that I led this post off with is a signal that I’m metabolizing a large amount of stress and anxiety. While I can psychoanalyze the dream, I’ve had some version of this type of dream enough times in my 52 years on this planet to know what the inputs are. More importantly to me is the warning of a dream this vivid that I need to pay attention to me and to make sure I’ve got enough of a metabolism buffer. I’m good there as I’ve got four days at home in Boulder with Amy, working out of my house the next two days and then having a very quiet weekend.

For me, the metaphor of metabolizing stress and anxiety, which only emerged through my work in therapy last year, is a profound one that has been incredibly helpful to me. If it’s helpful to you, that’s great. If it’s not, I’d suggest a meta-insight, which is to search for a physical or biological metaphor for how you deal with stress and anxiety, in an effort to have a more constructive relationship with it.

Also published on Medium.