Building Mental Models of Ideas That Don’t Change

Building Mental Models of Ideas That Don’t Change

Editor's note: These ideas were also presented live and the video is available. If you find this useful, stay updated by following me on Twitter or my blog.

There’s always new stuff: new frameworks, new languages, and new platforms. All of this adds up. Sometimes it feels like you’re just treading water, and not actually getting better at what you do. I’ve tried spending more time learning this stuff, but that doesn’t work—there’s always more. I have found a better approach is learning things at a deeper level and using those lessons as a checklist. This checklist of core principles are called mental models. 

I learned this approach by studying how bright people think. You might have heard Richard Feynman describe the handful of algorithms that he applies to everything. Maybe you’ve  seen Elon Musk describe his approach as thinking by fundamental principles. Charlie Munger also credits most of his financial success to mental models. All of these people are amazing and you won’t get to their level with mental models alone, but mental models give you a nudge in the right direction.

So, how does one integrate mental models into their life and work? The first thing that you need is a method for prioritizing new concepts that you should learn. After that, you’ll need a good system for keeping track of what you have identified as important. With this process, you’ll identify mental models and use them to make more informed decisions. Below I start by describing some engineering and management mental models that I have found useful over the years.

Table of Contents

Engineering Mental Models

 Management Mental Models

 Engineering Mental Models

Avoid Silent Failures

When something breaks you should hear about it. This is important because small issues can help you find larger structural issues. Silent failures typically happen when exceptions are silenced—this may be in a networking library, or the code that handles exceptions. Failures can also be silent when one of your servers is down. You can prevent this by using a third party system that pings each of the critical components.

As your project gets more mature, set up a dashboard to track key metrics and create automated alerts. Generally, computers should tell you when something is wrong. Systems become more difficult to monitor as they grow. You want to measure and log everything at the beginning and not wait until something goes wrong. You can encourage other developers to do this by creating helper classes with a really simple APIs since things that are easy and obvious are more likely to be used. Once you are logging everything, create automated alerts. Post these alerts in shared communication channels, and automatically page the oncall developer for emergencies.

Do Minimal Upfront Work and Queue the Rest

A system is scalable when it handles unexpectedly large bursts of incoming requests. The faster your system handles a request, the faster it gets to the next one. Turns out, that in most cases, you don’t have to give a response to the request right away—just a response indicating you've started working on the task. In practice, you queue a background job after you receive a request. Once your job is in a queue, you have the added benefit of making your system fault tolerant since failed jobs can be tried again.

Scaling Reads with Caching and Denormalizing

Read-heavy systems mean some data is being read multiple times. This can be problematic because your database might not have enough capacity to deal with all of that work. The general approach of solving this is by pre-computing this data (called denormalizing) and storing it somewhere fast. In practice, instead of letting each request hit multiple tables in a database, you pre-compute the expected response and store it in a single place. Ideally, you store this information somewhere that’s really fast to read from (think RAM). In practice this means storing data in data stores like Memcached.

Scaling Writes with Sharding or Design Choices

Write-heavy systems tend to be difficult to deal with. Traditional relational databases can handle reads pretty well, but have trouble with writes. They take more time processing writes because relational databases spend more effort on durability and that can lock up writes and create timeout errors.

Consider the scenario where a relational database is at it’s write-capacity and you can’t scale up anymore. One solution is to write data to multiple databases. Sharding is the process where you split your database into multiple parts (known as shards). This process allows you to group related data into one database. Another method of dealing with a write heavy system is by writing to Non-relational (NoSQL) databases. These databases are optimized to handle writes, but there’s a tradeoff. Depending on the type of NoSQL database and its configuration, it gives up:

  • atomic transactions (they don’t wait for other transactions to fully finish), 
  • consistency across multiple clusters (they don’t wait for other clusters to have the same data),
  • durability (they don’t spend time writing to disk). 

It may seem like you are giving up a lot, but you mitigate some of these losses with design choices. 

Design choices help you cover some of the weaknesses of SQL databases. For example, consider that updating rows is much more expensive than creating new rows. Design your system so you avoid updating the same row in multiple flows—insert new rows to avoid lock contention. With all of that said, I recommend starting out with a SQL database, and evolving your setup depending on your needs.

Horizontal Scaling Is the Only Real Long Term Solution

Horizontal scaling refers to running your software on multiple small machines, while vertical scaling refers to running your software on one large machine. Horizontal scaling is more fault tolerant since failure of a machine doesn’t mean an outage. Instead, the work for the failed machine is routed to the other machines. In practice, horizontally scaling a system is the only long term approach to scaling. All systems that appear ‘infinitely-scalable’ are horizontally scaled under the hood: Cloud object stores like S3 and GCS; NoSQL databases like Bigtable and Dynamo DB; and stream processing systems like Kafka are all horizontally scaled. The cost for horizontally scaling systems is application and operational complexity. It takes significant time and potential complexity to horizontally scale your system, but you want to be in a situation where you can linearly scale your system by adding more computers.

Things That are Harder to Test Are More Likely to Break

Among competing approaches to a problem, you should pick the most testable solution (this is my variant of Occam’s Razor). If something is difficult to test, people tend to avoid testing it. This means that future programmers (or you) will be less likely to fully test this system, and each change will make the system more brittle. This model is important to remember when you first tackle a problem because good testability needs to be baked into the architecture. You’ll know when something is hard to test because your intuition will tell you.

Antifragility and Root Cause Analysis

Nassim Taleb uses the analogy of a hydra in Antifragile; they grow back a stronger head every time they are struck. The software industry championed this idea too. Instead of treating failures as shameful incidents that should be avoided at all costs, they’re now treated as opportunities to improve the system. Netflix’s engineering team is known for Chaos Monkey, a resiliency system that turns off random components. Once you anticipate random events, you can build a more resilient system. When failures do happen, they’re treated as an opportunity to learn.

Root cause analysis is a process where the people involved in a failure try to extract the root cause in a blameless way by starting off by what went right, and then diving into the failure without blaming anyone.

Big-O and Exponential Growth

The Big-O notation describes the growth in complexity of an algorithm. There’s a lot to this, but you’ll get very far if you just understand the difference between constant, linear, and exponential growth. In layman’s terms, algorithms that perform one task are better than algorithms that perform many tasks, and algorithms that perform many tasks are better than ones where the tasks are ever increasing with each iteration. I have found this issue visible at an architectural level as well.

Margin of Safety

Accounting for a margin of safety means you need to leave some room for errors or exceptional events. For example, you might be tempted to run each server at 90% of its capacity. While this saves money, it leaves your server vulnerable to spikes in traffic. You’ll have more confidence in your setup, if you have auto-scaling setup. There’s a problem with this too, your overworked server can cause cascading failures in the whole system. By the time auto-scaling kicks in, the new server may have a disk, connection pool or an assortment of other random fun issues. Expect the unexpected and give yourself some room to breathe. Margin of safety also applies to planning releases of new software. You should add a buffer of time because unexpected things will come up.

Protect the Public API

Be very careful when making changes to the public API. Once something is in the public API, it’s difficult to change or remove. In practice, this means having a very good reason for your changes, and being extremely careful with anything that affects external developers; mistakes in this type of work affect numerous people and are very difficult to revert.


Any system with many moving parts should be built to expect failures of individual parts. This means having backup providers for systems like Memcached or Redis. For permanent data-stores like SQL, fail-overs and backups are critical. Keep in mind that you shouldn’t consider something a backup unless you do regular drills to make sure that you can actually recover that data.

Loose Coupling and Isolation

Tight coupling means that different components of a system are closely interconnected. This has two major drawbacks. The first drawback is that these tightly coupled systems are more complex. Complex systems, in turn, are more difficult to maintain and more error prone. The second major drawback is that failure in one component propagates faster. When systems are loosely coupled, failures can be self contained and can be replaced by potential backups (see Redundancy). At a code level, reducing tight coupling means following the single responsibility principle which states that every class has a single responsibility and communicates with other classes with a minimal public API. At an architecture level, you improve tightly coupled systems by following the service oriented architecture. This architecture system suggests dividing components by their business services and only allows communication between these services with a strict API.

Be Serious About Configuration

Most failures in well-tested systems occur due to bad configuration; this can be changes like environmental variables updates or DNS settings. Configuration changes are particularly error prone because of the lack of tests and the difference between the development and production environment. In practice, add tests to cover different configurations, and make the dev and prod environment as similar as possible. If something works in development, but not production, spend some time thinking about why that’s the case.

Explicit Is Better than Implicit

The explicit is better than implicit model is one of the core tenants from the Zen of Python and it’s critical to improving code readability. It’s difficult to understand code that expects the reader to have all of the context of the original author. An engineer should be able to look at class and understand where all of the different components come from. I have found that simply having everything in one place is better than convoluted design patterns. Write code for people, not computers.

Code Review

Code review is one of the highest leverage activities a developer can perform. It improves code quality and transfers knowledge between developers. Great code reviewers change the culture and performance of an entire engineering organization. Have at least two other developers review your code before shipping it. Reviewers should give thorough feedback all at once, as it’s really inefficient to have multiple rounds of reviews. You’ll find that your code review quality will slip depending on your energy level. Here’s an approach to getting some consistency in reviews: 

  1. Why is this change being made? 
  2. How can this approach or code be wrong? 
  3. Do the tests cover this or do I need to run it locally? 

Perceived Performance

Based on UX research, 0.1 second (100 ms) is the gold standard of loading time. Slower applications risk losing the user’s attention. Accomplishing this load time for non-trivial apps is actually pretty difficult, so this is where you can take advantage of perceived performance. Perceived performance refers to how fast your product feels. The idea is that you show users placeholder content at load time and then add the actual content on the screen once it finishes loading. This is related to the Do Minimal Upfront Work and Queue the Rest model.

Never Trust User Input Without Validating it First

The internet works because we managed to create predictable and secure abstractions on top of unpredictable and insecure networks of computers. These abstractions are mostly invisible to users but there’s a lot happening in the background to make it work. As an engineer, you should be mindful of this and never trust input without validating it first. There are a few fundamental issues when receiving input from the user.

  1. You need to validate that the user is who they say they are (authentication).
  2. You need to ensure that the communication channel is secure, and no one else is snooping (confidentiality).
  3. You need to validate that the incoming data was not manipulated in the network (data integrity).
  4. You need to prevent replay attacks and ensure that the same data isn’t being sent multiple times.
  5. You could also have the case where a trusted entity is sending malicious data.

This is simplified, and there are more things that can go wrong, so you should always validate user input before trusting it.

Safety Valves

Building a system means accounting for all possibilities. In addition to worst case scenarios, you have to be prepared to deal with things that you cannot anticipate. The general approach for handling these scenarios is stopping the system to prevent any possible damage. In practice, this means having controls that let you reject additional requests while you diagnose a solution. One way to do this is adding an environment variable that can be toggled without deploying a new version of your code.

Automatic Cache Expiration

Your caching setup can be greatly simplified with automatic cache expiration. To illustrate why, consider the example where the server is rendering a product on a page. You want to expire the cache whenever this product changes. The manual method is by expiring the cache expiration code after the product is changed. This requires two separate steps, 1) Changing the product, and then 2) Expiring the cache. If you build your system with key-based caching, you avoid the second step all together. It’s typically done by using a combination of the product’s ID and it’s last_updated_at_timestamp as the key for the product’s cache. This means that when a product changes it’ll have a different last_updated_at_timestamp field. Since you’ll have a different key, you won’t find anything in the cache matching that key and fetch the product in it’s newest state. The downside of this approach is that your cache datastore (e.g., Memcached or Redis) will fill up with old caches. You can mitigate it by adding an expiry time to all caches so old caches automatically disappear. You can also configure Memcached so it evicts the oldest caches to make room for new ones.

Introducing New Tech Should Make an Impossible Task Possible or Something 10x Easier

Most companies eventually have to evaluate new technologies. In the tech industry, you have to do this to stay relevant. However, introducing a new technology has two negative consequences. First, it becomes more difficult for developers to move across teams. This is a problem because it creates knowledge silos within the company, and slows down career growth. The second consequence is that fewer libraries or insights can be shared across the company because of the tech fragmentation. Moving over to new tech might come up because of people’s tendency to want to start over and write things from scratch—it’s almost always a bad idea. On the other hand, there are a few cases where introducing a new technology makes sense like when it enables your company to take on previously impossible tasks. It makes sense when the technical limitation of your current stack is preventing you from reaching your product goals.

Failure Modes

Designers and product folks focus on the expected use cases. As an engineer you also have to think about the worst case scenarios because that’s where the majority of your time will go. At scale, all bad things that can happen do happen. Asking “What could go wrong” or “How can I be wrong” really helps; these questions also cancel out our bias towards confirmation of our existing ideas. Think about what happens when no data, or a lot of data is flowing through the system (Think “Min-Max”). You should expect computers to occasionally die and handle those cases gracefully, and expect network requests to be slow or stall all together.

Management Mental Models

The key insight here is that "Management" might be the wrong name for this discipline all together. What you are really doing is growing people. You’ll rarely have to manage others if you align your interests with the people that report to you. Compared to engineering, management is more fuzzy and subjective. This is why engineers struggle with it. It's really about calibration; you are calibrating approaches for yourself and your reports. What works for you, might not work for me because the world has different expectations from us. Likewise, just reading books on this stuff doesn't help because advice from the book is calibrated for the author.

With that said, I believe the following mental models are falsifiable. I also believe that doing the opposite of these will always be harmful. I find these particularly valuable while planning my week. Enjoy!

Create Motivation by Aligning Incentives

Incentives drive our behavior above all else. You probably feel this yourself when you procrastinate on tasks that you don't really want to do.  Work with your reports to identify the intersection of:

  1. What do they want to work on?
  2. What does the product need?
  3. What does that company need?  

Venn diagram of the intersection of the three incentives
The intersection of the three incentives

Magic happens when these questions produce themes that overlap with each other. The person will have intrinsic motivation for tasks that build their skills, improve their product, and their company. Working on the two intersecting themes to these questions can be fruitful too. You can replace 'product' with 'direct team' if appropriate.

 Occasionally you'll find someone focusing on a task that's only:

  • done because that's what the person wants (neglecting the product and the company)
  • what the product needs (neglecting the person's needs or the company)
  • what the company wants (neglecting the person's needs or their product). 

This is fine in the short term, but not a good long term strategy. You should nudge your reports towards these overlapping themes.

Create Clarity by Understanding the "Why" and Having a Vision for the Product

You should have a vision for where your product needs to go. This ends up being super helpful when deciding between competing tactical options and also helps clear up general confusion. You must communicate the vision with your team.  While being a visionary isn't included in your job description, aligning on a "why" often counteracts the negative effects of broken-telephone effect in communication and entropy in organizations.

Focus on High Leverage Activities

This is the central idea in High output management. The core idea is similar to the "Pareto principle" where you focus your energy on the 20% of the tasks that have 80% of the impact. If you don't do this, your team will spend a lot of time, but not accomplish much. So, take some time to plan your approach and focus on the activities that give you the most leverage. I found Donella Medow’s research to be a super user for understanding leverage. A few examples of this include:

Promote Growth Mindset in Your Team

If you had to start with zero, what you'd want is the ability to acquire new skills. You want to instil a mindset of growth in yourself and the rest of the team. Create  an environment where reflection and failures are talked about. Lessons that you truly learn are the ones that you have learnt by making mistakes. Create an environment where people obsess about the craft and consider failures a learning opportunity.

Align Your Team on the Common Vision

Aligning your team towards a common direction is one of the most important things you can do. It'll mean that people will go in the same general direction.

Build Self-organizing Teams

Creating self-sufficient teams is the only way to scale yourself. You can enable a team to do this by promoting a sense of ownership. You can give your input without taking authority away from others and offer suggestions without steamrolling leaders.

Communication and Structural Organization

You should focus on communication and organization tools that keep the whole team organized. Communication fragmentation leads to massive waste.

Get the Architecture Right

This is where your engineering chops will come in handy. From a technical perspective, getting the core pieces of the architecture right ends up being critical and defines the flow of information in the system.

Don’t Try to be Efficient with Relationships

As an engineer your brain is optimized to seek efficiency. Efficiency isn’t a good approach when it comes to relationships with people as you often have the opposite effect as to what you intended. I have found that 30 minute meetings are too fast for one-on-ones with your reports. You want to give some time for banter and a free flow of information. This eases people up, you have better conversations and they often end up sharing more critical information than they would otherwise. Of course, you don't want to spend a lot of time in meetings, so I prefer to have longer infrequent meetings instead of frequent short meetings.

This model also applies to pushing for changes or influencing others in any way. This is a long game, and you should be prepared for that. Permanent positive behavioral changes take time.

Hire Smart People Who Get Stuff Done and You Want to Be Around

Pick business partners with high intelligence, energy, and, above all, integrity
Pick business partners with high intelligence, energy, and, above all, integrity. -@Naval

Hiring, when done right, is one of the highest-leverage activities that you can work on. You are looking for three key signals when hiring:

When looking for the "smart" signal, be aware of the "halo effect" and be weary of charmers. "Get stuff done" is critical because you don't want to be around smart people who aren’t adding value to your company. Just like investing, your aim should be to identify people on a great trajectory. "Good to be around" is tricky because it's filled with personal bias. A good rule is to never hire assholes. Even if they are smart and get stuff done, they’ll do that at the expense of others and wreak havoc on the team. Avoid! Focus on hiring people that you would want long term relationships with. It is also important to differentiate between assholes and disagreeable people. A disagreeable and useful person is much better to be around than someone who is agreeable but not useful. 

Be Useful

You could behave in a number of different ways at any given time or interaction. What you want is to be useful and add value. There is a useful way of giving feedback to someone that reports you and a useful way to review code. Apply this to yourself and plan your day to be more useful to others. Our default instinct is to seek confirmation bias and think about how we are right. We don’t give others the same courtesy. The right approach is to reverse that default instinct: Think “how can I make this work” for other people, and “how can this be wrong” for your own ideas.

Don’t compete with your reports either. As a manager, this is particularly important because you want to grow your reports. Be aware of situations or cases where you might be competing, and default to being useful instead of pushing your own agenda.

Get the Requirements Right Early and Come Up with a Game Plan

Planning gets a bad rep in fast moving organizations, but it ends up being critical in the long term. Doing some planning almost always ends up being much better than no planning at all. What you want to do is plan until you have a general direction defined and start iterating towards that. There are a few questions can help getting these requirements right:

  • What are the things that we want in the near future? You want to pick the path that gives you the most options for the expected future.
  • How can this be wrong? Counteract your confirmation bias with this question by explicitly thinking about failure modes.
  • Where do you not want to go? Inversion ends up being really useful. It’s easier to avoid stupidity than seeking brilliance
  • What happens once you get there? Seek second order effects. What will one path unlock or limit?
  • What other paths could you take? Has your team settled on a local maxima instead and not the global maxima?

Once you have a decent idea of how to proceed with this, you are responsible for communicating this plan with the rest of the team too. Not getting the requirements right early on means that your team can potentially end up going in the wrong direction which ends up being a net negative.

Establish Rapport Before Getting to Work

You will be much more effective at work, if you connect with the other people before getting to work. This could mean banter, or just listening—there’s a reason why people small-talk.  Get in the circle before attempting to change the circle. This leads to numerous positive improvements in your workflow. Slack conversations will sound like conversations instead of arguments and you'll assume positive intent.  You’ll also find that getting alignment in meetings and nudging reports towards positive changes ends up being much more useful this way. Icebreakers in meetings and room for silliness helps here.

There Is No One-size-fits-all Approach to People. Personality Tests Are Good Defaults

Management is about calibration. You are calibrating  your general approach to others, while calibrating a specific approach to each person. This is really important because an approach that might work for one person won’t work on others. You might find that personality tests like the Enneagram serve as great defaults to approaching a person. Type-5, the investigators, work best when you give them autonomy and new ideas. Type-6, the loyalists, typically want frequent support and the feeling of being entrusted. The Last Dance miniseries on Netflix is a master class on this topic.

Get People to Lead with Their Strengths and Address Their Growth Areas as a Secondary Priority

There are multiple ways to approach a person's personal growth. I’ve found that what works best is first identifying their strengths and then areas of improvements. Find people’s strengths and obsessions then point them to that. You have to get people to lead with their strengths. It’s the right approach because it gives people confidence and momentum. Turns out, that’s also how they add the most value. Ideally, one should develop to be more well-rounded, so it’s also important to come up with a game plan for addressing any areas of improvements. 

Focus on the Positives and Don't Over Index on the Negatives

For whatever reasons, we tend to focus on the negatives more than we should. It might be related to "deprival super reaction syndrome" where we hate losing more than we like winning. In management, we might have the proclivity to focus on what people are doing poorly instead of what they’re doing well. People may not feel appreciated if you only focus on the negatives. I believe this also means that we end up focusing on improving low-performers more than amplifying high-performers. Amplifying high-performers may have an order of magnitude higher impact.

People Will Act Like Owners if You Give Them Control and Transparency

Be transparent and don’t do everything yourself. Talk to people and make them feel included. When people feel left out of the loop, they generally grow more anxious as they feel that they’re losing control. Your ideal case is that your reports act like owners. You can do this by being transparent about how decisions are made. You also have to give others control and autonomy. Expect some mistakes as they calibrate their judgement and nudge in the right direction instead of steamrolling them.

There are other times where you'll have to act like an owner and lead by example. One hint of this case will be when you have a nagging feeling about something that you don't want to do. Ultimately, the right thing here is to take full ownership and not ask others to do what you wouldn't want.

Have High Standards for Yourself and the People Around You

Tech markets and products are generally winner-take-most. This means that second place isn’t a viable option—winning, in tech, leads to disproportionately greater rewards. Aim to be the best in the world in your space and iterate towards that. There’s no point in doing things in a mediocre way.  Aiming high, and having high standards is what pushes everything forward.

To make this happen, you need to partner with people who expect more from you. You should also have high standards for your reports. One interesting outcome of this is that you get the positive effects of the Pygmalion effect: people will rise to your positive expectations.

Hold People Accountable

When things don't get delivered or when you see bad behavior, you have to have high standards and hold people accountable. If you don't, that's an implicit message that these bad outcomes are ok. There are many cases where not holding others accountable can have a spiraling effect.

Your approach to this has to be calibrated for your work style and the situation. Ultimately, you should enforce all deal-breaker rules. Set clear expectations early on. When something goes wrong, work with the other person or team to understand why. Was it a technical issue, does the tooling need to be improved, or was it an issue with leadership?

Bring Other People Up with You

We like working with great and ambitious people because they raise the bar for everyone else. We’re allergic to self-obsessed people who only care about their own growth. Your job as a manager is to bring other people up. Don’t take credit for work that you didn’t do and give recognition to those that did the work. What's interesting is that most people only really care about their own growth. So, being the person who actually spends time thinking about the growth of others differentiates you, making more people want to work with you.

Maintain Your Mental Health with Mindfulness, Rest, and Distance

A team's culture is top down and bottom up. This means people mimic the behavior of others in the position of authority—for better or for worse. Keeping this in mind, you have to be aware of your own actions. Generally, most people become less aware of their actions as fatigue builds up. Be mindful of your energy levels when entering meetings.  Energy and positivity is phenomenal, because it's something that you can give to others, and it doesn't cost you anything.

Stress management is another important skill to develop. Most people can manage problems with clear yes/no solutions. Trickier problems with nuances and unclear paths, or split decisions tend to bubble up. Ambiguity and conflicting signals are a source of stress for many people and treating this like a skill is really important. Dealing with stressful situations by adding more emotion generally doesn't help. Keep your cool in stressful situations.

Aim to Operate Two to Three Months Into the Future

As an engineer you typically operate in scope between days and weeks. As you expand your influence, you also have to start thinking in a greater time horizon. As a manager, your horizon will be longer than a typical engineer, but smaller than someone who focuses on high level strategy. This means that you need to project your team and reports a few months into the future and anticipate their challenges. Ideally, you can help resolve these issues before they even happen. This exercise also helps you be more proactive instead of reacting to daily events.

Give Feedback to People That You Want Long Term Relationships with

Would you give feedback to a random stranger doing something that's bad for them? Probably not. Now, imagine that you knew this person. You would try to reason with this person, and hopefully nudge them in the right direction. You give feedback to people that you care about and want a long term relationship with. I believe this is also true at work. Even if someone isn’t your report, it’s worth sharing your feedback if you can deliver it usefully.

Giving feedback is tricky since people often get defensive. There are different schools of thoughts on this, but I try to build a rapport with someone before giving them direct feedback. Once you convince someone that you are on their side, people are much more receptive to it. Get in the circle. While code review feedback is best when it's all at once, that isn't necessarily true for one-on-one feedback. Many people default to quick-feedback and I think that doesn't work for people you don't have good rapport with and that it only really works if you are in a position of authority. The shortest path is not always the path of least resistance, and so you should build rapport before getting to work.

ShipIt! Presents: Building Mental Models of Ideas That Don’t Change


Wherever you are, your next journey starts here! If building systems from the ground up to solve real-world problems interests you? Visit our Engineering career page to find out about our open positions.