Full Width 
Shortcuts 
Sign Up 
Log In 
Articles 
Reading List More from macwright.com
Google published Zanzibar: Google’s Consistent, Global Authorization System in 2019. It describes a system for authorization – enforcing who can do what – which maxes out both flexibility and scalability. Google has lots of different apps that rely on Zanzibar, and bigger scale than practically any other company, so it needed Zanzibar. The Zanzibar paper made quite a stir. There are at least four companies that advertise products as being inspired by or based on Zanzibar. It says a lot for everyone to loudly reference this paper on homepages and marketing materials: companies aren’t advertising their own innovation as much as simply saying they’re following the gospel. A short list of companies & OSS products I found: Companies WorkOS FGA Authzed auth0 FGA Ory Permify Open source Ory Keto (Go) Warrant (Go) probably the basis for WorkOS FGA, since WorkOS acquired Warrant. SpiceDB (Go) the basis for Authzed. Permify (Go) OpenFGA (Go) the basis of auth0 FGA. I read the paper, and have a few notes, but the Google Zanzibar Paper, annotated by AuthZed is the same thing from a real domain expert (albeit one who works for one of these companies), so read that too, or instead. Features My brief summary is that the Zanzibar paper describes the features of the system succinctly, and those features are really appealing. They’ve figured out a few primitives from which developers can build really flexible authorization rules for almost any kind of application. They avoid making assumptions about ID formats, or any particular relations, or how groups are set up. It’s abstract and beautiful. The gist of the system is: Objects: things in your data model, like documents Users: needs no explanation Namespaces: for isolating applications Usersets: groups of users Userset rewrite rules: allow usersets to inherit from each other or have other kinds of set relationships Tuples, which are like (object)#(relation)@(user), and are sort of the core ‘rule’ construct for saying who can access what There’s then a neat configuration language which looks like this in an example: name: "doc" relation { name: "owner"} relation { name: "editor" userset_rewrite { union { child { _this f } } child { computed_userset { relation: "owner" } } relation { name: "viewer" userset_rewrite { union { child {_this f} } child { computed_userset & relation: "editor" 3 } child { tuple_to_userset { tupleset { relation: "parent" } computed_userset { object: $TUPLE_USERSET_OBJECT # parent folder relation: "viewer" } } } } } } It’s pretty neat. At this point in the paper I was sold on Zanzibar: I could see this as being a much nicer way to represent authorization than burying it in a bunch of queries. Specifications & Implementation details And then the paper discusses specifications: how much scale it can handle, and how it manages consistency. This is where it becomes much more noticeably Googley. So, with Google’s scale and international footprint, all of their services need to be globally distributed. So Zanzibar is a distributed system, and it is also a system that needs good consistency guarantees so that it avoid the “new enemy” problem, nobody is able to access resources that they shouldn’t, and applications that are relying on Zanzibar can get a consistent view of its data. Pages 5-11 are about this challenge, and it is a big one with a complex, high-end solution, and a lot of details that are very specific to Google. Most noticeably, Zanzibar is built with Spanner Google’s distributed database, and Spanner has the ability to order timestamps using TrueTime, which relies on atomic clocks and GPS antennae: this is not standard equipment for a server. Even CockroachDB, which is explicitly modeled off of Spanner, can’t rely on having GPS & atomic clocks around so it has to take a very different approach. But this time accuracy idea is pretty central to Zanzibar’s idea of zookies, which are sort of like tokens that get sent around in its API and indicate what time reference the client expects so that a follow-up response doesn’t accidentally include stale data. To achieve scalability, Zanzibar is also a multi-server architecture: there are aclservers, watchservers, a Leopard indexing system that creates compressed skip list-based representations of usersets. There’s also a clever solution to the caching & hot-spot problem, in which certain objects or tuples will get lots of requests all at once so their database shard gets overwhelmed. Conclusions Zanzibar is two things: A flexible, relationship-based access control model A system to provide that model to applications at enormous scale and with consistency guarantees My impressions of these things match with AuthZed’s writeup so I’ll just quote & link them: There seems to be a lot of confusion about Zanzibar. Some people think all relationship-based access control is “Zanzibar”. This section really brings to light that the ReBAC concepts have already been explored in depth, and that Zanzibar is really the scaling achievement of bringing those concepts to Google’s scale needs. link And Zookies are very clearly important to Google. They get a significant amount of attention in the paper and are called out as a critical component in the conclusion. Why then do so many of the Zanzibar-like solutions that are cropping up give them essentially no thought? link I finished the paper having absorbed a lot of tricky ideas about how to solve the distributed-consistency problems, and if I were to describe Zanzibar, those would be a big part of the story. But maybe that’s not what people mean when they say Zanzibar, and it’s more a description of features? I did find that Permify has a zookie-like Snap Token, AuthZed/SpiceDB has ZedTokens, and Warrant has Warrant-Tokens. Whereas OpenFGA doesn’t have anything like zookies and neither does Ory Keto. So it’s kind of mixed on whether these Zanzibar-inspired products have Zanzibar-inspired implementations, or focus more on exposing the same API surface. For my own needs, zookies and distributed consistency to the degree described in the Zanzibar paper are overkill. There’s no way that we’d deploy a sharded five-server system for authorization when the main application is doing just fine with single-instance Postgres. I want the API surface that Zanzibar describes, but would trade some scalability for simplicity. Or use a third-party service for authorization. Ideally, I wish there was something like these products but smaller, or delivered as a library rather than a server.
I watched a large part of All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace this month. This also counts as a “listening” item, because the theme song, “Baby Love Child” by Pizzicato Five, is also spectacular. Guitar Moves is a good series of interviews by Matt Sweeney, who I mostly know via his involvement in Bonnie Prince Billy. It’s a really cool format. I like how he interviews guitarists with recognizable sounds, and you get to see how little they need to play to sound just like themselves. The episode with St. Vincent is excellent too: she’s one of my guitar heroes: check out the guitar solo in Just The Same But Brand New, or her version of Dig a Pony. I also watched No Other Land. Everyone should watch No Other Land. AI thoughts roundup I don’t have a conclusion. Really, that’s my current state: ambivalence. I acknowledge that these tools are incredibly powerful, I’ve even started incorporating them into my work in certain limited ways (low-stakes code like POCs and unit tests seem like an ideal use case), but I absolutely hate them. I hate the way they’ve taken over the software industry, I hate how they make me feel while I’m using them, and I hate the human-intelligence-insulting postulation that a glorified Excel spreadsheet can do what I can but better. Nolan Lawson: AI ambivalence As I always say, the purpose of the system is what it does. Or, in this case, how I think about AI stuff is mostly affected by how people use AI stuff, and how people use AI stuff is a real mixed bag. There’s the tidal wave of spam, the aesthetic of fascism, the low-effort marketing materials with nonsense images, the non-consensual AI porn. I see all of the bad stuff every day both online and in the odd subway ad. The good stuff seems pretty theoretical, though: the press releases about AI-driven medical advances never seem to break into the real world. The stories about engineers 10x’ing their ability seem pretty mixed: we’re already at the hangover-and-regret phase with programmers bemoaning how they’ve generated so much slop and lost so much knowledge. Anyway, I’m mildly optimistic about the potential! But it’s a lot like crypto in that you could theoretically use the technology for something good but most people loudly used it for bad stuff, and people including me judged it based on what it did. AI has to start doing some good stuff soon. Potential isn’t enough. I think one thing chatGPT’s invention has revealed is how many people - including some very important people in society - find just basic reading and writing to be laborious and cumbersome to perform, and how oddly closely that type of strained literacy correlates with having other shitty opinions. From mtsw on Bluesky, about this story about Andrew Cuomo using ChatGPT to half-assedly write a policy platform. Right off the bat I should say that judging people for their level of literacy reeks of classism and so on. My own ability to read & write has a lot to do with my place in society: I went to good schools, had a stable home life, and smart parents. However, “the way that society was set up” kind of evened this out. Extremely social people with cultural capital and chiseled jawlines and biceps would get their rewards, and people like… myself, we would get rewarded for literacy and critical thinking. When one group needed the other, it was usually some kind of payment or partnership: Cuomo pays his scriptwriter, the TV show creator pays the actors. And some people can do both sides of the equation. But LLMs definitely indicate that people do not like this deal. Whew, they don’t like writing, but they also don’t like paying the writers or reading what they write. Maybe they could rejigger the system so that they could do it all. They have ideas for music and art but no interest in learning about music, practicing instruments, going to art school, or concentrating on a task for a long time, so why not generate it all? Why not, well - there are reasons, those reasons being that the generated output usually passes their own vibe check but once someone who looks closely at things or reads all the words encounters it, everyone points at the slop and it’s embarrassing. (Cuomo will never be embarrassed) Plus, you’re always going to get average results by asking a device that is incapable of creativity or thought. Also, you’ll miss out on the human experience of creating. And you’ll be indirectly feeding output data into training data for future LLMs, consequentially making their output worse. (Cuomo does not care about consequences) Colophon update I’ve moved the images for this website to Bunny (that’s an affiliate link, here’s a non-affiliate link if that’s what you prefer). When I initially moved my photos to this website, I set them up with Amazon S3 for storage and CloudFront to serve them with a CDN. Using AWS is painful for me, so I moved them to Cloudflare R2, which is Cloudflare’s equivalent to S3, and Cloudflare as a CDN. Thanks to owning my own domains, swapping out image hosts is pretty quick: switching to Bunny took all of five minutes. So what’s the deal with Bunny? Partly I’ve become a little more negative on Cloudflare and R2: I think Cloudflare’s technology is neat, but R2 has iffy reliability and Cloudflare has iffy politics. I’m also intrigued by diversifying my dependencies geographically. Bunny is a Slovenian company, and my email is from an Australian company. This probably won’t have any practical effect, but it feels kind of good for obvious reasons to even minutely hedge my bets here. So far Bunny has been great. They don’t support the S3 protocol but they do support SFTP, which works just as well for my purposes and works great with the beautiful Transmit app. Before, with R2, I was using the significantly less beautiful Cyberduck application because Cloudflare R2 doesn’t support all of the S3 protocol. It seems to be just as fast as Cloudflare was, too. And I’m somewhat reassured by the prospect of paying Bunny. I don’t like the feeling of getting “free” services like I can from Cloudflare. I want that customer relationship. Reading Then again, pop culture is powerful, and even the dumbest marketing both affects and reflects it. Busch Light’s can holder shaped like a cup that holds beer is dumb, which is fine, because most beer promos are. But the fact that the brand frames it as a functional, masculine alternative to Stanley’s H2.0 Flowstate affirms a similarly retrograde outlook on gender roles to the one that young American men are seeking out on the political right. From my friend Dave’s article about Busch Light’s weird attempt to riff on the Stanley Tumbler trend. I was once a loyal listener of the Chapo Trap House podcast, but fell off of it in 2020 when their support of Bernie Sanders led them to be jerks about Elizabeth Warren. But reading this Vanity Fair article about the cohosts of the podcast endeared them to me a bit. “Like to thank” is linguistic phlegm. “I’d like to thank the Academy.” They’d “like to thank” me. Well I’d like to be 6’3” and drive a G Wagon, thanks. I’d like you to accept my novella. I’d like to quit paying three dollars to Submittable every time I want to send a story out. The world is full of actions I would like to do. The most direct way to say thank you is just to say it: “thank you, name, for doing X.” “I’d like to thank” is a performative thanks, a thanks with a smirk and a blink, eyeing for extra credit. Just because people say it in their award show acceptance speeches doesn’t mean you should say it, too. In fact, that’s the reason you shouldn’t say it. Loved this article “Close reading my rejections” from friend of the blog Barrett Hathcock.
Reading Whether it’s cryptocurrency scammers mining with FOSS compute resources or Google engineers too lazy to design their software properly or Silicon Valley ripping off all the data they can get their hands on at everyone else’s expense… I am sick and tired of having all of these costs externalized directly into my fucking face. Drew DeVault on the annoyance and cost of AI scrapers. I share some of that pain: Val Town is routinely hammered by some AI company’s poorly-coded scraping bot. I think it’s like this for everyone, and it’s hard to tell if AI companies even care that everyone hates them. And perhaps most recently, when a person who publishes their work under a free license discovers that work has been used by tech mega-giants to train extractive, exploitative large language models? Wait, no, not like that. Molly White wrote a more positive article about the LLM scraping problem, but I have my doubts about its positivity. For example, she suggests that Wikimedia’s approach with “Wikimedia Enterprise” gives LLM companies a way to scrape the site without creating too much cost. But that doesn’t seem like it’s working. The problem is that these companies really truly do not care. Harberger taxes represent an elegant theoretical solution that fails in practice for immobile property. Just as mobile home residents face exploitation through sudden ground rent increases, property owners under a Harberger system would face similar hold-up problems. This creates an impossible dilemma: pay increasingly burdensome taxes or surrender investments at below-market values. Progress and Poverty, a blog about Georgism, has this post about Herberger taxes, which are a super neat idea. The gist is that you would be in charge of saying how much your house is worth, but the added wrinkle is that by saying a price you are bound to be open to selling your house at that price. So if you go too low, someone will buy it, or too high, and you’re paying too much in taxes. It’s clever but doesn’t work, and the analysis points to the vital difference between housing and other goods: that buying, selling, and moving between houses is anything but simple. I’ve always been a little skeptical of the line that the AI crowd feels contempt for artists, or that such a sense is particularly widespread—because certainly they all do not!—but it’s hard to take away any other impression from a trend so widely cheered in its halls as AI Ghiblification. Brian Merchant on the OpenAI Studio Ghibli ‘trend’ is a good read. I can’t stop thinking that AI is in danger of being right-wing coded, the examples of this, like the horrifying White House tweet mentioned in that article, are multiplying. I feel bad when I recoil to innocent usage of the tool by good people who just want something cute. It is kind of fine, on the micro level. But with context, it’s so bad in so many ways. Already the joy and attachment I’ve felt to the graphic style is fading as more shitty Studio Ghibli knockoffs have been created in the last month than in all of the studio’s work. Two days later, at a state dinner in the White House, Mark gets another chance to speak with Xi. In Mandarin, he asks Xi if he’ll do him the honor of naming his unborn child. Xi refuses. Careless People was a good read. It’s devastating for Zuckerberg, Joel Kaplan, and Sheryl Sandberg, as well as a bunch of global leaders who are eager to provide tax loopholes for Facebook. Perhaps the only person who ends the book as a hero is President Obama, who sees through it all. In a March 26 Slack message, Lavingia also suggested that the agency should do away with paper forms entirely, aiming for “full digitization.” “There are over 400 vet-facing forms that the VA supports, and only about 10 percent of those are digitized,” says a VA worker, noting that digitizing forms “can take years because of the sensitivity of the data” they contain. Additionally, many veterans are elderly and prefer using paper forms because they lack the technical skills to navigate digital platforms. “Many vets don’t have computers or can’t see at all,” they say. “My skin is crawling thinking about the nonchalantness of this guy.” Perhaps because of proximity, the story that Sahil Lavingia has been working for DOGE seems important. It was a relief when a few other people noticed it and started retelling the story to the tech sphere, like Dan Brown’s “Gumroad is not open source” and Ernie Smith’s “Gunkroad”, but I have to nitpick on the structure here: using a non-compliant open source license is not the headline, collaborating with fascists and carelessly endangering disabled veterans is. Listening Septet by John Carroll Kirby I saw John Carroll Kirby play at Public Records and have been listening to them constantly ever since. The music is such a paradox: the components sound like elevator music or incredibly cheesy jazz if you listen to a few seconds, but if you keep listening it’s a unique, deep sound. Sierra Tracks by Vega Trails More new jazz! Mammoth Hands and Portico Quartet overlap with Vega Trails, which is a beautiful minimalist band. Watching This short video with John Wilson was great. He says a bit about having a real physical video camera, not just a phone, which reminded me of an old post of mine, Carrying a Camera.
I used to make little applications just for myself. Sixteen years ago (oof) I wrote a habit tracking application, and a keylogger that let me keep track of when I was using a computer, and generate some pretty charts. I’ve taken a long break from those kinds of things. I love my hobbies, but they’ve drifted toward the non-technical, and the idea of keeping a server online for a fun project is unappealing (which is something that I hope Val Town, where I work, fixes). Some folks maintain whole ‘homelab’ setups and run Kubernetes in their basement. Not me, at least for now. But I have been tiptoeing back into some little custom tools that only I use, with a focus on just my own computing experience. Here’s a quick tour. Hammerspoon Hammerspoon is an extremely powerful scripting tool for macOS that lets you write custom keyboard shortcuts, UIs, and more with the very friendly little language Lua. Right now my Hammerspoon configuration is very simple, but I think I’ll use it for a lot more as time progresses. Here it is: hs.hotkey.bind({"cmd", "shift"}, "return", function() local frontmost = hs.application.frontmostApplication() if frontmost:name() == "Ghostty" then frontmost:hide() else hs.application.launchOrFocus("Ghostty") end end) Not much! But I recently switched to Ghostty as my terminal, and I heavily relied on iTerm2’s global show/hide shortcut. Ghostty doesn’t have an equivalent, and Mikael Henriksson suggested a script like this in GitHub discussions, so I ran with it. Hammerspoon can do practically anything, so it’ll probably be useful for other stuff too. SwiftBar I review a lot of PRs these days. I wanted an easy way to see how many were in my review queue and go to them quickly. So, this script runs with SwiftBar, which is a flexible way to put any script’s output into your menu bar. It uses the GitHub CLI to list the issues, and jq to massage that output into a friendly list of issues, which I can click on to go directly to the issue on GitHub. #!/bin/bash # <xbar.title>GitHub PR Reviews</xbar.title> # <xbar.version>v0.0</xbar.version> # <xbar.author>Tom MacWright</xbar.author> # <xbar.author.github>tmcw</xbar.author.github> # <xbar.desc>Displays PRs that you need to review</xbar.desc> # <xbar.image></xbar.image> # <xbar.dependencies>Bash GNU AWK</xbar.dependencies> # <xbar.abouturl></xbar.abouturl> DATA=$(gh search prs --state=open -R val-town/val.town --review-requested=@me --json url,title,number,author) echo "$(echo "$DATA" | jq 'length') PR" echo '---' echo "$DATA" | jq -c '.[]' | while IFS= read -r pr; do TITLE=$(echo "$pr" | jq -r '.title') AUTHOR=$(echo "$pr" | jq -r '.author.login') URL=$(echo "$pr" | jq -r '.url') echo "$TITLE ($AUTHOR) | href=$URL" done Tampermonkey Tampermonkey is essentially a twist on Greasemonkey: both let you run your own JavaScript on anybody’s webpage. Sidenote: Greasemonkey was created by Aaron Boodman, who went on to write Replicache, which I used in Placemark, and is now working on Zero, the successor to Replicache. Anyway, I have a few fancy credit cards which have ‘offers’ which only work if you ‘activate’ them. This is an annoying dark pattern! And there’s a solution to it - CardPointers - but I neither spend enough nor care enough about points hacking to justify the cost. Plus, I’d like to know what code is running on my bank website. So, Tampermonkey to the rescue! I wrote userscripts for Chase, American Express, and Citi. You can check them out on this Gist but I strongly recommend to read through all the code because of the afore-mentioned risks around running untrusted code on your bank account’s website! Obsidian Freeform This is a plugin for Obsidian, the notetaking tool that I use every day. Freeform is pretty cool, if I can say so myself (I wrote it), but could be much better. The development experience is lackluster because you can’t preview output at the same time as writing code: you have to toggle between the two states. I’ll fix that eventually, or perhaps Obsidian will add new API that makes it all work. I use Freeform for a lot of private health & financial data, almost always with an Observable Plot visualization as an eventual output. For example, when I was switching banks and one of the considerations was mortgage discounts in case I ever buy a house (ha 😢), it was fun to chart out the % discounts versus the required AUM. It’s been really nice to have this kind of visualization as ‘just another document’ in my notetaking app. Doesn’t need another server, and Obsidian is pretty secure and private.
More in programming
This is re-post of How to Permanently Increase Your Sales by 50% or More in Only One Day article by Steve Pavlina Of all the things you can do to increase your sales, one of the highest leverage activities is attempting to increase your products’ registration rate. Increasing your registration rate from 1.0% to 1.5% means that you simply convince one more downloader out of every 200 to make the decision to buy. Yet that same tiny increase will literally increase your sales by a full 50%. If you’re one of those developers who simply slapped the ubiquitous 30-day trial incentive on your shareware products without going any further than that, then I think a 50% increase in your registration rate is a very attainable goal you can achieve if you spend just one full day of concentrated effort on improving your product’s ability to sell. My hope is that this article will get you off to a good start and get you thinking more creatively. And even if you fail, your result might be that you achieve only a 25% or a 10% increase. How much additional money would that represent to you over the next five years of sales? What influence, if any, did the title of this article have on your decision to read it? If I had titled this article, “Registration Incentives,” would you have been more or less likely to read it now? Note that the title expresses a specific and clear benefit to you. It tells you exactly what you can expect to gain by reading it. Effective registration incentives work the same way. They offer clear, specific benefits to the user if a purchase is made. In order to improve your registration incentives, the first thing you need to do is to adopt some new beliefs that will change your perspective. I’m going to introduce you to what I call the “lies of success” in the shareware industry. These are statements that are not true at all, but if you accept them as true anyway, you’ll achieve far better results than if you don’t. Rule 1: What you are selling is merely the difference between the shareware and the registered versions, not the registered version itself. Note that this is not a true statement, but if you accept it as true, you’ll immediately begin to see the weaknesses in your registration incentives. If there are few additional benefits for buying the full version vs. using the shareware version, then you aren’t offering the user strong enough incentives to make the full purchase. Rule 2: The sole purpose of the shareware version is to close the sale. This is our second lie of success. Note the emphasis on the word “close.” Your shareware version needs to act as a direct sales vehicle. It must be able to take the user all the way to the point of purchase, i.e. your online order form, ideally with nothing more than a few mouse clicks. Anything that detracts from achieving a quick sale is likely to hurt sales. Rule 3: The customer’s perspective is the only one that matters. Defy this rule at your peril. Customers don’t care that you spent 2000 hours creating your product. Customers don’t care that you deserve the money for your hard work. Customers don’t care that you need to do certain things to prevent piracy. All that matters to them are their own personal wants and needs. Yes, these are lies of success. Some customers will care, but if you design your registration incentives assuming they only care about their own self-interests, your motivation to buy will be much stronger than if you merely appeal to their sense of honesty, loyalty, or honor. Assume your customers are all asking, “What’s in it for me if I choose to buy? What will I get? How will this help me?” I don’t care if you’re selling to Fortune 500 companies. At some point there will be an individual responsible for causing the purchase to happen, and that individual is going to consider how the purchase will affect him/her personally: “Will this purchase get me fired? Will it make me look good in front of my peers? Will this make my job easier or harder?” Many shareware developers get caught in the trap of discriminating between honest and dishonest users, believing that honest users will register and dishonest ones won’t. This line of thinking will ultimately get you nowhere, and it violates the third lie of success. When you make a purchase decision, how often do you use honesty as the deciding factor? Do you ever say, “I will buy this because I’m honest?” Or do you consider other more selfish factors first, such as how it will make you feel to purchase the software? The truth is that every user believes s/he is honest, so no user applies the honesty criterion when making a purchase decision. Thinking of your users in terms of honest ones vs. dishonest ones is a complete waste of time because that’s not how users primarily view themselves. Rule 4: Customers buy on emotion and justify with fact. If you’re honest with yourself, you’ll see that this is how you make most purchase decisions. Remember the last time you bought a computer. Is it fair to say that you first became emotionally attached to the idea of owning a new machine? For me, it’s the feeling of working faster, owning the latest technology, and being more productive that motivates me to go computer shopping. Once I’ve become emotionally committed, the justifications follow: “It’s been two years since I’ve upgraded, it will pay for itself with the productivity boost I gain, I can easily afford it, I’ve worked hard and I deserve a new machine, etc.” You use facts to justify the purchase. Once you understand how purchase decisions are made, you can see that your shareware products need to first get the user emotionally invested in the purchase, and then you give them all the facts they need to justify it. Now that we’ve gotten these four lies of success out of the way, let’s see how we might apply them to create some compelling registration incentives. Let’s start with Rule 1. What incentives can be spawned from this rule? The common 30-day trial is one obvious derivative. If you are only selling the difference between the shareware and registered versions, then a 30-day trial implies that you are selling unlimited future days of usage of the program after the trial period expires. This is a powerful incentive, and it’s been proven effective for products that users will continue to use month after month. 30-day trials are easy for users to understand, and they’re also easy to implement. You could also experiment with other time periods such as 10 days, 14 days, or 90 days. The only way of truly knowing which will work best for your products is to experiment. But let’s see if we can move a bit beyond the basic 30-day trial here by mixing in a little of Rule 3. How would the customer perceive a 30-day trial? In most cases 30 days is plenty of time to evaluate a product. But in what situations would a 30-day trial have a negative effect? A good example is when the user downloads, installs, and briefly checks out a product s/he may not have time to evaluate right away. By the time the user gets around to fully evaluating it, the shareware version has already expired, and a sale may be lost as a result. To get around this limitation, many shareware developers have started offering 30 days of actual program usage instead of 30 consecutive days. This allows the user plenty of time to try out the program at his/her convenience. Another possibility would be to limit the number of times the program can be run. The basic idea is that you are giving away limited usage and selling unlimited usage of the program. This incentive definitely works if your product is one that will be used frequently over a long period of time (much longer than the trial period). The flip side of usage limitation is to offer an additional bonus for buying within a certain period of time. For instance, in my game Dweep, I offer an extra 5 free bonus levels to everyone who buys within the first 10 days. In truth I give the bonus levels to everyone who buys, but the incentive is real from the customer’s point of view. Remember Rule 3 - it doesn’t matter what happens on my end; it only matters what the customer perceives. Any customer that buys after the first 10 days will be delighted anyway to receive a bonus they thought they missed. So if your product has no time-based incentives at all, this is the first place to start. When would you pay your bills if they were never due, and no interest was charged on late payments? Use time pressure to your advantage, either by disabling features in the shareware version after a certain time or by offering additional bonuses for buying sooner rather than later. If nothing else and if it’s legal in your area, offer a free entry in a random monthly drawing for a small prize, such as one of your other products, for anyone who buys within the first X days. Another logical derivative of Rule 1 is the concept of feature limitation. On the crippling side, you can start with the registered version and begin disabling functionality to create the shareware version. Disabling printing in a shareware text editor is a common strategy. So is corrupting your program’s output with a simple watermark. For instance, your shareware editor could print every page with your logo in the background. Years ago the Association of Shareware Professionals had a strict policy against crippling, but that policy was abandoned, and crippling has been recognized as an effective registration incentive. It is certainly possible to apply feature limitation without having it perceived as crippling. This is especially easy for games, which commonly offer a limited number of playable levels in the shareware version with many more levels available only in the registered version. In this situation you offer the user a seemingly complete experience of your product in the shareware version, and you provide additional features on top of that for the registered version. Time-based incentives and feature-based incentives are perhaps the two most common strategies used by shareware developers for enticing users to buy. Which will work best for you? You will probably see the best results if you use both at the same time. Imagine you’re the end user for a moment. Would you be more likely to buy if you were promised additional features and given a deadline to make the decision? I’ve seen several developers who were using only one of these two strategies increase their registration rates dramatically by applying the second strategy on top of the first. If you only use time-based limitations, how could you apply feature limitation as well? Giving the user more reasons to buy will translate to more sales per download. One you have both time-based and feature-based incentives to buy, the next step is to address the user’s perceived risk by applying a risk-reversal strategy. Fortunately, the shareware model already reduces the perceived risk of purchasing significantly, since the user is able to try before buying. But let’s go a little further, keeping Rule 3 in mind. What else might be a perceived risk to the user? What if the user reaches the end of the trial period and still isn’t certain the product will do what s/he needs? What if the additional features in the registered version don’t work as the user expects? What can we do to make the decision to purchase safer for the user? One approach is to offer a money-back guarantee. I’ve been offering a 60-day unconditional money-back guarantee on all my products since January 2000. If someone asks for their money back for any reason, I give them a full refund right away. So what is my return rate? Well, it’s about 8%. Just kidding! Would it surprise you to learn that my return rate at the time of this writing is less than 0.2%? Could you handle two returns out of every 1000 sales? My best estimate is that this one technique increased my sales by 5-10%, and it only took a few minutes to implement. When I suggest this strategy to other shareware developers, the usual reaction is fear. “But everyone would rip me off,” is a common response. I suggest trying it for yourself on an experimental basis; a few brave souls have already tried it and are now offering money-back guarantees prominently. Try putting it up on your web site for a while just to convince yourself it works. You can take it down at any time. After a few months, if you’re happy with the results, add the guarantee to your shareware products as well. I haven’t heard of one bad outcome yet from those who’ve tried it. If you use feature limitation in your shareware products, another important component of risk reversal is to show the user exactly what s/he will get in the full version. In Dweep I give away the first five levels in the demo version, and purchasing the full version gets you 147 more levels. When I thought about this from the customer’s perspective (Rule 3), I realized that a perceived risk is that s/he doesn’t know if the registered version levels will be as fun as the demo levels. So I released a new demo where you can see every level but only play the first five. This lets the customer see all the fun that awaits them. So if you have a feature-limited product, show the customer how the feature will work. For instance, if your shareware version has printing disabled, the customer could be worried that the full version’s print capability won’t work with his/her printer or that the output quality will be poor. A better strategy is to allow printing, but to watermark the output. This way the customer can still test and verify the feature, and it doesn’t take much imagination to realize what the output will look like without the watermark. Our next step is to consider Rule 2 and include the ability close the sale. It is imperative that you include an “instant gratification” button in your shareware products, so the customer can click to launch their default web browser and go directly to your online order form. If you already have a “buy now” button in your products, go a step further. A small group of us have been finding that the more liberally these buttons are used, the better. If you only have one or two of these buttons in your shareware program, you should increase the count by at least an order of magnitude. The current Dweep demo now has over 100 of these buttons scattered throughout the menus and dialogs. This makes it extremely easy for the customer to buy, since s/he never has to hunt around for the ordering link. What should you label these buttons? “Buy now” or “Register now” are popular, so feel free to use one of those. I took a slightly different approach by trying to think like a customer (Rule 3 again). As a customer the word “buy” has a slightly negative association for me. It makes me think of parting with my cash, and it brings up feelings of sacrifice and pressure. The words “buy now” imply that I have to give away something. So instead, I use the words, “Get now.” As a customer I feel much better about getting something than buying something, since “getting” brings up only positive associations. This is the psychology I use, but at present, I don’t know of any hard data showing which is better. Unless you have a strong preference, trust your intuition. Make it as easy as possible for the willing customer to buy. The more methods of payment you accept, the better your sales will be. Allow the customer to click a button to print an order form directly from your program and mail it with a check or money order. On your web order form, include a link to a printable text order form for those who are afraid to use their credit cards online. If you only accept two or three major credit cards, sign up with a registration service to handle orders for those you don’t accept. So far we’ve given the customer some good incentives to buy, minimized perceived risk, and made it easy to make the purchase. But we haven’t yet gotten the customer emotionally invested in making the purchase decision. That’s where Rule 4 comes in. First, we must recognize the difference between benefits and features. We need to sell the sizzle, not the steak. Features describe your product, while benefits describe what the user will get by using your product. For instance, a personal information manager (PIM) program may have features such as daily, weekly, and monthly views; task and event timers; and a contact database. However, the benefits of the program might be that it helps the user be more organized, earn more money, and enjoy more free time. For a game, the main benefit might be fun. For a nature screensaver, it could be relaxation, beauty appreciation, or peace. Features are logical; benefits are emotional. Logical features are an important part of the sale, but only after we’ve engaged the customer’s emotions. Many products do a fair job of getting the customer emotionally invested during the trial period. If you have an addictive program or one that’s fun to use, such as a game, you may have an easy time getting the customer emotionally attached to using it because the experience is already emotional in nature. But whatever your product is, you can increase your sales by clearly illustrating the benefits of making the purchase. A good place to do this is in your nag screens. I use nag screens both before and after the program runs to remind the user of the benefits of buying the full version. At the very least, include a nag screen when the customer exits the program, so the last thing s/he sees will be a reminder of the product’s benefits. Take this opportunity to sell the user on the product. Don’t expect features like “customizable colors” to motivate anyone to buy. Paint a picture of what benefits the user will obtain with the full version. Will I save time? Will I have more fun? Will I live longer, save money, or feel better? The simple change from feature-oriented selling to benefit-oriented selling can easily double or triple your sales. Be sure to use this approach on your web site as well if you don’t already. Developers who’ve recently made the switch have been reporting some amazing results. If you’re drawing a blank when trying to come up with benefits for your products, the best thing you can do is to email some of your old customers and ask them why they bought your program. What did it do for them? I’ve done this and was amazed at the answers I got back. People were buying my games for reasons I’d never anticipated, and that told me which benefits I needed to emphasize in my sales pitch. The next key is to make your offer irresistible to potential customers. Find ways to offer the customer so much value that it would be harder to say no than to say yes. Take a look at your shareware product as if you were a potential customer who’d never seen it before. Being totally honest with yourself, would you buy this program if someone else had written it? If not, don’t stop here. As a potential customer, what additional benefits or features would put you over the top and convince you to buy? More is always better than less. In the original version of Dweep, I offered ten levels in the demo and thirty in the registered version. Now I offer only five demo levels and 152 in the full version, plus a built-in level editor. Originally, I offered the player twice the value of the demo; now I’m offering over thirty times the value. I also offer free hints and solutions to every level; the benefit here is that it minimizes player frustration. As I keep adding bonuses for purchasing, the offer becomes harder and harder to resist. What clever bonuses can you throw in for registering? Take the time to watch an infomercial. Notice that there is always at least one “FREE” bonus thrown in. Consider offering a few extra filters for an image editor, ten extra images for a screensaver, or extra levels for a game. What else might appeal to your customers? Be creative. Your bonus doesn’t even have to be software-based. Offer a free report about building site traffic with your HTML editor, include an essay on effective time management with your scheduling program, or throw in a small business success guide with your billing program. If you make such programs, you shouldn’t have too much trouble coming up with a few pages of text that would benefit your customers. Keep working at it until your offer even looks irresistible to you. If all the bonuses you offer can be delivered electronically, how many can you afford to include? If each one only gains one more customer in a thousand (0.1%), would it be worth the effort over the lifetime of your sales? So how do you know if your registration incentives are strong enough? And how do you know if your product is over-crippled? Where do you draw the line? These are tough issues, but there is a good way to handle them if your product is likely to be used over a long period of time, particularly if it’s used on a daily basis. Simply make your program gradually increase its registration incentives over time. One easy way to do this is with a delay timer on your nag screens that increases each time the program is run. Another approach is to disable certain features at set intervals. You begin by disabling non-critical features and gradually move up to disabling key functionality. The program becomes harder and harder to continue using for free, so the benefits of registering become more and more compelling. Instead of having your program completely disable itself after your trial period, you gradually degrade its usability with additional usage. This approach can be superior to a strict 30-day trial, since it allows your program to still be used for a while, but after prolonged usage it becomes effectively unusable. However, you don’t simply shock the user by taking away all the benefits s/he has become accustomed to on a particular day. Instead, you begin with a gentle reminder that becomes harder and harder to ignore. There may be times when your 30-day trial shuts off at an inconvenient time for the user, and you may lose a sale as a result. For instance, the user may not have the money at the time, or s/he may be busy at the trial’s end and forget to register. In that case s/he may quickly replace what was lost with a competitor’s trial version. The gradual degradation approach allows the user to continue using your product, but with increasing difficulty over time. Eventually, there is a breaking point where the user either decides to buy or to stop using the program completely, but this can be done within a window of time at the user’s convenience. Hopefully this article has gotten you thinking creatively about all the overlooked ways you can entice people to buy your shareware products. The most important thing you can do is to begin seeing your products through your customers’ eyes. What additional motivation would convince you to buy? What would represent an irresistible offer to you? There is no limit to how many incentives you can add. Don’t stop at just one or two; instead, give the customer a half dozen or more reasons to buy, and you’ll see your registration rate soar. Is it worth spending a day to do this? I think so.
I'm a big (neo)vim buff. My config is over 1500 lines and I regularly write new scripts. I recently ported my neovim config to a new laptop. Before then, I was using VSCode to write, and when I switched back I immediately saw a big gain in productivity. People often pooh-pooh vim (and other assistive writing technologies) by saying that writing code isn't the bottleneck in software development. Reading, understanding, and thinking through code is! Now I don't know how true this actually is in practice, because empirical studies of time spent coding are all over the place. Most of them, like this study, track time spent in the editor but don't distinguish between time spent reading code and time spent writing code. The only one I found that separates them was this study. It finds that developers spend only 5% of their time editing. It also finds they spend 14% of their time moving or resizing editor windows, so I don't know how clean their data is. But I have a bigger problem with "writing is not the bottleneck": when I think of a bottleneck, I imagine that no amount of improvement will lead to productivity gains. Like if a program is bottlenecked on the network, it isn't going to get noticeably faster with 100x more ram or compute. But being able to type code 100x faster, even with without corresponding improvements to reading and imagining code, would be huge. We'll assume the average developer writes at 80 words per minute, at five characters a word, for 400 characters a minute.What could we do if we instead wrote at 8,000 words/40k characters a minute? Writing fast Boilerplate is trivial Why do people like type inference? Because writing all of the types manually is annoying. Why don't people like boilerplate? Because it's annoying to write every damn time. Programmers like features that help them write less! That's not a problem if you can write all of the boilerplate in 0.1 seconds. You still have the problem of reading boilerplate heavy code, but you can use the remaining 0.9 seconds to churn out an extension that parses the file and presents the boilerplate in a more legible fashion. We can write more tooling This is something I've noticed with LLMs: when I can churn out crappy code as a free action, I use that to write lots of tools that assist me in writing good code. Even if I'm bottlenecked on a large program, I can still quickly write a script that helps me with something. Most of these aren't things I would have written because they'd take too long to write! Again, not the best comparison, because LLMs also shortcut learning the relevant APIs, so also optimize the "understanding code" part. Then again, if I could type real fast I could more quickly whip up experiments on new apis to learn them faster. We can do practices that slow us down in the short-term Something like test-driven development significantly slows down how fast you write production code, because you have to spend a lot more time writing test code. Pair programming trades speed of writing code for speed of understanding code. A two-order-of-magnitude writing speedup makes both of them effectively free. Or, if you're not an eXtreme Programming fan, you can more easily follow the The Power of Ten Rules and blanket your code with contracts and assertions. We could do more speculative editing This is probably the biggest difference in how we'd work if we could write 100x faster: it'd be much easier to try changes to the code to see if they're good ideas in the first place. How often have I tried optimizing something, only to find out it didn't make a difference? How often have I done a refactoring only to end up with lower-quality code overall? Too often. Over time it makes me prefer to try things that I know will work, and only "speculatively edit" when I think it be a fast change. If I could code 100x faster it would absolutely lead to me trying more speculative edits. This is especially big because I believe that lots of speculative edits are high-risk, high-reward: given 50 things we could do to the code, 49 won't make a difference and one will be a major improvement. If I only have time to try five things, I have a 10% chance of hitting the jackpot. If I can try 500 things I will get that reward every single time. Processes are built off constraints There are just a few ideas I came up with; there are probably others. Most of them, I suspect, will share the same property in common: they change the process of writing code to leverage the speedup. I can totally believe that a large speedup would not remove a bottleneck in the processes we currently use to write code. But that's because those processes are developed work within our existing constraints. Remove a constraint and new processes become possible. The way I see it, if our current process produces 1 Utils of Software / day, a 100x writing speedup might lead to only 1.5 UoS/day. But there are other processes that produce only 0.5 UoS/d because they are bottlenecked on writing speed. A 100x speedup would lead to 10 UoS/day. The problem with all of this that 100x speedup isn't realistic, and it's not obvious whether a 2x improvement would lead to better processes. Then again, one of the first custom vim function scripts I wrote was an aid to writing unit tests in a particular codebase, and it lead to me writing a lot more tests. So maybe even a 2x speedup is going to be speed things up, too. Patreon Stuff I wrote a couple of TLA+ specs to show how to model fork-join algorithms. I'm planning on eventually writing them up for my blog/learntla but it'll be a while, so if you want to see them in the meantime I put them up on Patreon.
Here’s Jony Ive in his Stripe interview: What we make stands testament to who we are. What we make describes our values. It describes our preoccupations. It describes beautiful succinctly our preoccupation. I’d never really noticed the connection between these two words: occupation and preoccupation. What comes before occupation? Pre-occupation. What comes before what you do for a living? What you think about. What you’re preoccupied with. What you think about will drive you towards what you work on. So when you’re asking yourself, “What comes next? What should I work on?” Another way of asking that question is, “What occupies my thinking right now?” And if what you’re occupied with doesn’t align with what you’re preoccupied with, perhaps it's time for a change. Email · Mastodon · Bluesky
There's no country on earth that does hype better than America. It's one of the most appealing aspects about being here. People are genuinely excited about the future and never stop searching for better ways to work, live, entertain, and profit. There's a unique critical mass in the US accelerating and celebrating tomorrow. The contrast to Europe couldn't be greater. Most Europeans are allergic to anything that even smells like a commercial promise of a better tomorrow. "Hype" is universally used as a term to ridicule anyone who dares to be excited about something new, something different. Only a fool would believe that real progress is possible! This is cultural bedrock. The fault lines have been settling for generations. It'll take an earthquake to move them. You see this in AI, you saw it in the Internet. Europeans are just as smart, just as inventive as their American brethren, but they don't do hype, so they're rarely the ones able to sell the sizzle that public opinion requires to shift its vision for tomorrow. To say I have a complicated relationship with venture capital is putting it mildly. I've spent a career proving the counter narrative. Proving that you can build and bootstrap an incredible business without investor money, still leave a dent in the universe, while enjoying the spoils of capitalism. And yet... I must admit that the excesses of venture capital are integral to this uniquely American advantage on hype. The lavish overspending during the dot-com boom led directly to a spectacular bust, but it also built the foundation of the internet we all enjoy today. Pets.com and Webvan flamed out such that Amazon and Shopify could transform ecommerce out of the ashes. We're in the thick of peak hype on AI right now. Fantastical sums are chasing AGI along with every dumb derivative mirage along the way. The most outrageous claims are being put forth on the daily. It's easy to look at that spectacle with European eyes and roll them. Some of it is pretty cringe! But I think that would be a mistake. You don't have to throw away your critical reasoning to accept that in the face of unknown potential, optimism beats pessimism. We all have to believe in something, and you're much better off believing that things can get better than not. Americans fundamentally believe this. They believe the hype, so they make it come to fruition. Not every time, not all of them, but more of them, more of the time than any other country in the world. That really is exceptional.
I’m working on a Go library appendstore for append-only store of lots of things in a single file. To make things as robust as possible I was calling os.File.Sync() after each append. Sync() is waiting until the data is acknowledged as truly, really written to disk (as opposed to maybe floating somewhere in disk drive’s write buffer). Oh boy, is it slow. A test of appending 1000 records would take over 5 seconds. After removing the Sync() it would drop to 5 milliseconds. 1000x faster. I made sync optional - it’s now up to the user of the library to pick it, defaults to non-sync. Is it unsafe now? Well, the reality is that it probably doesn’t matter. I don’t think lots of software does the sync due to slowness and the world still runs.
