Quamquam mihi semper frequens conspectus vester multo iucundissimus, hic autem locus ad agendum amplissimus, ad dicendum ornatissimus est visus, Quirites, tamen hoc aditu laudis, qui semper optimo cuique maxime patuit, non mea me voluntas adhuc, sed vitae meae rationes ab ineunte aetate susceptae prohibuerunt. Nam cum antea per aetatem nondum huius auctoritatem loci attingere auderem, statueremque nihil huc nisi perfectum ingenio, elaboratum industria adferri oportere, omne meum tempus amicorum temporibus transmittendum putavi.
Quamquam mihi semper frequens conspectus vester multo iucundissimus, hic autem locus ad agendum amplissimus, ad dicendum ornatissimus est visus, Quirites, tamen hoc aditu laudis, qui semper optimo cuique maxime patuit, non mea me voluntas adhuc, sed vitae meae rationes ab ineunte aetate susceptae prohibuerunt. Nam cum antea per aetatem nondum huius auctoritatem loci attingere auderem, statueremque nihil huc nisi perfectum ingenio, elaboratum industria adferri oportere, omne meum tempus amicorum temporibus transmittendum putavi.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/3/index.html b/3/index.html
index a9797aa3a..fd1b29b99 100644
--- a/3/index.html
+++ b/3/index.html
@@ -1 +1 @@
-Jiaqi's Leadership Blog - Leadership is, at root, about Influencing Others
What makes a great leader? Management theorist Simon Sinek suggests, it's someone who makes their employees feel secure, who draws staffers into a circle of trust. But creating trust and safety -- especially in an uneven economy -- means taking on big responsibility.
What makes a great leader? Management theorist Simon Sinek suggests, it's someone who makes their employees feel secure, who draws staffers into a circle of trust. But creating trust and safety -- especially in an uneven economy -- means taking on big responsibility.
`)[0],l=r.firstChild,a=t=>{let n=!1,s=!1;if(t instanceof ResizeObserverEntry){const[e,,i]=o(t.contentRect),r=cs(e);s=An(e,i),n=!s&&!r}else s=!0===t;n||e({ft:!0,dt:s})};if(xe){const t=new xe((t=>a(t.pop())));t.observe(l),tt(n,(()=>{t.disconnect()}))}else{if(!i)return zt;{const[t,e]=i(l,a,s);tt(n,ee([Es(r,Uo),Y(r,"animationstart",t)],e))}}return O(gt,tt(n,ft(t,r)))}},yi=(t,e)=>{let n;const s=Bt(Go),[i]=pt({o:!1}),o=(t,n)=>{if(t){const s=i((t=>0===t.h||t.isIntersecting||t.intersectionRatio>0)(t)),[,o]=s;return o&&!n&&e(s)&&[s]}},r=(t,e)=>o(e.pop(),t);return[()=>{const e=[];if(ks)n=new ks(O(r,!1),{root:t}),n.observe(s),tt(e,(()=>{n.disconnect()}));else{const t=()=>{const t=Vt(s);o(t)};tt(e,Zn(s,t)()),t()}return O(gt,tt(e,ft(t,s)))},()=>n&&r(!0,n.takeRecords())]},vi=(t,e,n,s)=>{let i,o,r,l,a,c;const d=`[${Dt}]`,h=`[${Tt}]`,p=["id","class","style","open","wrap","cols","rows"],{vt:u,ht:m,ot:y,gt:f,bt:g,nt:v,wt:w,yt:b,St:x,Ot:E}=t,O=t=>"rtl"===At(t,"direction"),L={$t:!1,ct:O(u)},S=It(),I=ie(Wn),[C]=pt({i:gn,o:{w:0,h:0}},(()=>{const s=I&&I.tt(t,e,L,S,n).ut,i=!(w&&v)&&Ss(m,Dt,be),o=!v&&b(Vo),r=o&&mt(f),l=r&&E(),a=x(Pn,i),c=o&&s&&s()[0],d=Te(y),h=xs(y);return c&&c(),xt(f,r),l&&l(),i&&a(),{w:d.w+h.w,h:d.h+h.h}})),_=es(s,{_:()=>i,v:()=>o,S(t,e){const[n]=t,[s]=e;return[ee(bt(n),bt(s)).reduce(((t,e)=>(t[e]=n[e]||s[e],t)),{})]}}),D=t=>{const e=O(u);Z(t,{Ct:c!==e}),Z(L,{ct:e}),c=e},T=(t,e)=>{const[n,i]=t,o={xt:i};return Z(L,{$t:n}),!e&&s(o),o},$=({ft:t,dt:e})=>{const n=t&&!e||!S.R?s:_,i={ft:t||e,dt:e};D(i),n(i)},A=(t,e)=>{const[,n]=C(),i={Ht:n};return D(i),n&&!e&&(t?s:_)(i),i},k=(t,e,n)=>{const s={Et:e};return D(s),e&&!n&&_(s),s},[M,P]=g?yi(m,T):[],z=!v&&Zn(m,$,{dt:!0}),[H,q]=Qs(m,!1,k,{X:p,j:p}),R=v&&xe&&new xe((t=>{const e=t[t.length-1].contentRect;$({ft:!0,dt:An(e,a)}),a=e})),F=es((()=>{const[,t]=C();s({Ht:t})}),{_:222,p:!0});return[()=>{R&&R.observe(m);const t=z&&z(),e=M&&M(),n=H(),s=S.L((t=>{t?_({zt:t}):F()}));return()=>{R&&R.disconnect(),t&&t(),e&&e(),l&&l(),n(),s()}},({It:t,At:e,Dt:n})=>{const s={},[a]=t("update.ignoreMutation"),[c,u]=t("update.attributes"),[m,f]=t("update.elementEvents"),[w,b]=t("update.debounce"),x=e||n;if(f||u){r&&r(),l&&l();const[t,e]=Qs(g||y,!0,A,{j:ee(p,c||[]),Y:m,W:d,G:(t,e)=>{const{target:n,attributeName:s}=t;return!(e||!s||v)&&Do(n,d,h)||!!qt(n,`.${yt}`)||!!(t=>wt(a)&&a(t))(t)}});l=t(),r=e}if(b)if(_.m(),Ct(w)){const t=w[0],e=w[1];i=_t(t)&&t,o=_t(e)&&e}else _t(w)?(i=w,o=!1):(i=!1,o=!1);if(x){const t=q(),e=P&&P(),n=r&&r();t&&Z(s,k(t[0],t[1],x)),e&&Z(s,T(e[0],x)),n&&Z(s,A(n[0],x))}return D(s),s},L]},wi=(t,e,n,s)=>{const i="--os-viewport-percent",o="--os-scroll-percent",r="--os-scroll-direction",{U:l}=It(),{scrollbars:a}=l(),{slot:c}=a,{vt:d,ht:h,ot:p,Mt:u,gt:m,wt:y,nt:f}=e,{scrollbars:g}=u?{}:t,{slot:v}=g||{},w=[],b=[],x=[],E=Nn([d,h,p],(()=>f&&y?d:h),c,v),L=t=>{if(ye){const e=new ye({source:m,axis:t});return{kt:t=>{const n=t.Tt.animate({clear:["left"],[o]:[0,1]},{timeline:e});return()=>n.cancel()}}}},S={x:L("x"),y:L("y")},I=(t,e,n)=>{const s=n?Es:En;G(t,(t=>{s(t.Tt,e)}))},C=(t,e)=>{G(t,(t=>{const[n,s]=e(t);ne(n,s)}))},_=(t,e,n)=>{const s=ms(n),i=!s||!n;(!s||n)&&I(b,t,e),i&&I(x,t,e)},D=t=>{const e=t?"x":"y",n=Bt(`${yt} ${t?Yo:Jo}`),i=Bt(kn),o=Bt(Cs),r={Tt:n,Ut:i,Pt:o},l=S[e];return tt(t?b:x,r),tt(w,[ft(n,i),ft(i,o),O(Zt,n),l&&l.kt(r),s(r,_,t)]),r},T=O(D,!0),$=O(D,!1);return T(),$(),[{Nt:()=>{const t=(()=>{const{Rt:t,Vt:e}=n,s=(t,e)=>wn(0,1,t/(t+e)||0);return{x:s(e.x,t.x),y:s(e.y,t.y)}})(),e=t=>e=>[e.Tt,{[i]:is(t)+""}];C(b,e(t.x)),C(x,e(t.y))},qt:()=>{if(!ye){const{Lt:t}=n,e=Bs(t,mt(m)),s=t=>e=>[e.Tt,{[o]:is(t)+""}];C(b,s(e.x)),C(x,s(e.y))}},Bt:()=>{const{Lt:t}=n,e=qs(t),s=t=>e=>[e.Tt,{[r]:t?"0":"1"}];C(b,s(e.x)),C(x,s(e.y))},Ft:()=>{if(f&&!y){const{Rt:t,Lt:e}=n,s=qs(e),i=Bs(e,mt(m)),o=e=>{const{Tt:n}=e,o=se(n)===p&&n,r=(t,e,n)=>{const s=e*t;return Ln(n?s:-s)};return[o,o&&{transform:Ho({x:r(i.x,t.x,s.x),y:r(i.y,t.y,s.y)})}]};C(b,o),C(x,o)}},jt:_,Xt:{Yt:b,Wt:T,Jt:O(C,b)},Gt:{Yt:x,Wt:$,Jt:O(C,x)}},()=>(ft(E,b[0].Tt),ft(E,x[0].Tt),O(gt,w))]},bi=(t,e,n,s)=>(i,o,r)=>{const{ht:l,ot:a,nt:c,gt:d,Kt:h,Ot:p}=e,{Tt:u,Ut:m,Pt:y}=i,[f,g]=Ft(333),[v,w]=Ft(444),b=t=>{wt(d.scrollBy)&&d.scrollBy({behavior:"smooth",left:t.x,top:t.y})};let x=!0;return O(gt,[Y(y,"pointermove pointerleave",s),Y(u,"pointerenter",(()=>{o(Ks,!0)})),Y(u,"pointerleave pointercancel",(()=>{o(Ks,!1)})),!c&&Y(u,"mousedown",(()=>{const t=os();(zs(t,Tt)||zs(t,Dt)||t===document.body)&&Ee(O(ls,a),25)})),Y(u,"wheel",(t=>{const{deltaX:e,deltaY:n,deltaMode:s}=t;x&&0===s&&se(u)===l&&b({x:e,y:n}),x=!1,o(Js,!0),f((()=>{x=!0,o(Js)})),rs(t)}),{H:!1,I:!0}),Y(u,"pointerdown",O(Y,h,"click",$n,{A:!0,I:!0,H:!1}),{I:!0}),(()=>{const e="pointerup pointercancel lostpointercapture",s="client"+(r?"X":"Y"),i=r?De:He,o=r?"left":"top",l=r?"w":"h",a=r?"x":"y",c=[];return Y(m,"pointerdown",(r=>{const u=qt(r.target,`.${Cs}`)===y,f=u?y:m,g=t.scrollbars,x=g[u?"dragScroll":"clickScroll"],{button:E,isPrimary:L,pointerType:S}=r,{pointers:I}=g;if(0===E&&L&&x&&(I||[]).includes(S)){gt(c),w();const t=!u&&(r.shiftKey||"instant"===x),g=O(Be,y),E=O(Be,m),L=(t,e)=>(t||g())[o]-(e||E())[o],S=Ye(Be(d)[i])/Vt(d)[l]||1,I=((t,e)=>s=>{const{Rt:i}=n,o=Vt(m)[l]-Vt(y)[l],r=e*s/o*i[a];xt(d,{[a]:t+r})})(mt(d)[a],1/S),C=r[s],_=g(),D=E(),T=_[i],$=L(_,D)+T/2,A=C-D[o],k=u?0:A-$,M=t=>{gt(z),f.releasePointerCapture(t.pointerId)},Z=u||t,P=p(),z=[Y(h,e,M),Y(h,"selectstart",(t=>rs(t)),{H:!1}),Y(m,e,M),Z&&Y(m,"pointermove",(t=>I(k+(t[s]-C)))),Z&&(()=>{const t=mt(d);P();const e=mt(d),n={x:e.x-t.x,y:e.y-t.y};(Se(n.x)>3||Se(n.y)>3)&&(p(),xt(d,t),b(n),v(P))})];if(f.setPointerCapture(r.pointerId),t)I(k);else if(!u){const t=ie(gi);if(t){const e=t(I,k,T,(t=>{t?P():tt(z,P)}));tt(z,e),tt(c,O(e,!0))}}}}))})(),g,w])},Si=(t,e,n,s,i,o)=>{let r,l,a,c,d,h=zt,p=0;const u=t=>"mouse"===t.pointerType,[m,y]=Ft(),[f,g]=Ft(100),[v,w]=Ft(100),[b,x]=Ft((()=>p)),[E,L]=wi(t,i,s,bi(e,i,s,(t=>u(t)&&M()))),{ht:S,Qt:I,wt:C}=i,{jt:_,Nt:D,qt:T,Bt:$,Ft:A}=E,k=(t,e)=>{if(x(),t)_(Ys);else{const t=O(_,Ys,!0);p>0&&!e?b(t):t()}},M=()=>{(a?!r:!c)&&(k(!0),f((()=>{k(!1)})))},Z=t=>{_(hs,t,!0),_(hs,t,!1)},P=t=>{u(t)&&(r=a,a&&k(!0))},z=[x,g,w,y,()=>h(),Y(S,"pointerover",P,{A:!0}),Y(S,"pointerenter",P),Y(S,"pointerleave",(t=>{u(t)&&(r=!1,a&&k(!1))})),Y(S,"pointermove",(t=>{u(t)&&l&&M()})),Y(I,"scroll",(t=>{m((()=>{T(),M()})),o(t),A()}))];return[()=>O(gt,tt(z,L())),({It:t,Dt:e,Zt:i,tn:o})=>{const{nn:r,sn:u,en:m,cn:y}=o||{},{Ct:f,dt:g}=i||{},{ct:w}=n,{k:b}=It(),{K:x,rn:E}=s,[L,S]=t("showNativeOverlaidScrollbars"),[M,P]=t("scrollbars.theme"),[z,H]=t("scrollbars.visibility"),[q,R]=t("scrollbars.autoHide"),[F,G]=t("scrollbars.autoHideSuspend"),[B]=t("scrollbars.autoHideDelay"),[N,j]=t("scrollbars.dragScroll"),[W,U]=t("scrollbars.clickScroll"),[V,K]=t("overflow"),J=g&&!e,Q=E.x||E.y,X=r||u||y||f||e,tt=m||H||K,et=L&&b.x&&b.y,nt=(t,e,n)=>{const s=t.includes(Wt)&&(z===$t||"auto"===z&&e===Wt);return _(Qo,s,n),s};if(p=B,J&&(F&&Q?(Z(!1),h(),v((()=>{h=Y(I,"scroll",O(Z,!0),{A:!0})}))):Z(!0)),S&&_(Ko,et),P&&(_(d),_(M,!0),d=M),G&&!F&&Z(!0),R&&(l="move"===q,a="leave"===q,c="never"===q,k(c,!0)),j&&_(si,N),U&&_(ei,!!W),tt){const t=nt(V.x,x.x,!0),e=nt(V.y,x.y,!1);_(ti,!(t&&e))}X&&(T(),D(),A(),y&&$(),_(Xs,!E.x,!0),_(Xs,!E.y,!1),_(Xo,w&&!C))},{},E]},Ei=t=>{const e=It(),{U:n,R:s}=e,{elements:i}=n(),{padding:o,viewport:r,content:l}=i,a=Ie(t),c=a?{}:t,{elements:d}=c,{padding:h,viewport:p,content:u}=d||{},m=a?t:c.target,y=_n(m),f=m.ownerDocument,g=f.documentElement,v=()=>f.defaultView||ut,w=O(ci,[m]),b=O(Nn,[m]),x=O(Bt,""),E=O(w,x,r),L=O(b,x,l),S=E(p),I=S===m,C=I&&y,_=!I&&L(u),D=!I&&S===_,T=C?g:S,$=C?T:m,A=!I&&b(x,o,h),k=!D&&_,M=[k,T,A,$].map((t=>Ie(t)&&!se(t)&&t)),Z=t=>t&&cn(M,t),P=!Z(T)&&(t=>{const e=Vt(t),n=Te(t),s=At(t,fn),i=At(t,mn);return n.w-e.w>0&&!Ut(s)||n.h-e.h>0&&!Ut(i)})(T)?T:m,z=C?g:T,H={vt:m,ht:$,ot:T,ln:A,bt:k,gt:z,Qt:C?f:T,an:y?g:P,Kt:f,wt:y,Mt:a,nt:I,un:v,yt:t=>Ss(T,Tt,t),St:(t,e)=>Le(T,Tt,t,e),Ot:()=>Le(z,Tt,Wo,!0)},{vt:q,ht:R,ln:F,ot:G,bt:B}=H,N=[()=>{Et(R,[Dt,Ve]),Et(q,Ve),y&&Et(g,[Ve,Dt])}];let j=ns([B,G,F,R,q].find((t=>t&&!Z(t))));const W=C?q:B||G,U=O(gt,N);return[H,()=>{const t=v(),e=os(),n=t=>{ft(se(t),ns(t)),Zt(t)},i=t=>Y(t,"focusin focusout focus blur",$n,{I:!0,H:!1}),o="tabindex",r=ws(G,o),l=i(e);return Lt(R,Dt,I?"":Fo),Lt(F,ds,""),Lt(G,Tt,""),Lt(B,Gs,""),I||(Lt(G,o,r||"-1"),y&&Lt(g,js,"")),ft(W,j),ft(R,F),ft(F||R,!I&&G),ft(G,B),tt(N,[l,()=>{const t=os(),e=Z(G),s=e&&t===G?q:t,l=i(s);Et(F,ds),Et(B,Gs),Et(G,Tt),y&&Et(g,js),r?Lt(G,o,r):Et(G,o),Z(B)&&n(B),e&&n(G),Z(F)&&n(F),ls(s),l()}]),s&&!I&&(bs(G,Tt,Mn),tt(N,O(Et,G,Tt))),ls(!I&&y&&e===q&&t.top===t?G:e),l(),j=0,U},U]},xi=({bt:t})=>({Zt:e,_n:n,Dt:s})=>{const{xt:i}=e||{},{$t:o}=n;t&&(i||s)&&ne(t,{[He]:o&&"100%"})},_i=({ht:t,ln:e,ot:n,nt:s},i)=>{const[o,r]=pt({i:Oo,o:Ns()},O(Ns,t,"padding",""));return({It:t,Zt:l,_n:a,Dt:c})=>{let[d,h]=r(c);const{R:p}=It(),{ft:u,Ht:m,Ct:y}=l||{},{ct:f}=a,[g,v]=t("paddingAbsolute");(u||h||c||m)&&([d,h]=o(c));const w=!s&&(v||y||h);if(w){const t=!g||!e&&!p,s=d.r+d.l,o=d.t+d.b,r={[un]:t&&!f?-s:0,[pn]:t?-o:0,[hn]:t&&f?-s:0,top:t?-d.t:0,right:t?f?-d.r:"auto":0,left:t?f?"auto":-d.l:0,[De]:t&&`calc(100% + ${s}px)`},l={[rn]:t?d.t:0,[ln]:t?d.r:0,[dn]:t?d.b:0,[an]:t?d.l:0};ne(e||n,r),ne(n,l),Z(i,{ln:d,dn:!t,rt:e?l:Z({},r,l)})}return{fn:w}}},Ci=(t,e)=>{const n=It(),{ht:s,ln:i,ot:o,nt:r,Qt:l,gt:a,wt:c,St:d,un:h}=t,{R:p}=n,u=c&&r,m=O(nn,0),y={display:()=>!1,direction:t=>"ltr"!==t,flexDirection:t=>t.endsWith("-reverse"),writingMode:t=>"horizontal-tb"!==t},f=bt(y),g={i:gn,o:{w:0,h:0}},v={i:ve,o:{}},w=t=>{d(Pn,!u&&t)},[b,x]=pt(g,O(xs,o)),[E,L]=pt(g,O(Te,o)),[S,I]=pt(g),[C]=pt(v),[_,D]=pt(g),[T]=pt(v),[$]=pt({i:(t,e)=>Pe(t,e,f),o:{}},(()=>zo(o)?At(o,f):{})),[A,k]=pt({i:(t,e)=>ve(t.D,e.D)&&ve(t.M,e.M),o:Dn()}),M=ie(Wn),P=(t,e)=>`${e?qo:Bo}${Ao(t)}`;return({It:r,Zt:c,_n:g,Dt:v},{fn:O})=>{const{ft:z,Ht:H,Ct:q,dt:R,zt:F}=c||{},G=M&&M.tt(t,e,g,n,r),{it:B,ut:N,_t:j}=G||{},[W,U]=fi(r,n),[V,K]=r("overflow"),J=Ut(V.x),Q=Ut(V.y);let X=x(v),tt=L(v),et=I(v),nt=D(v);U&&p&&d(Mn,!W);{Ss(s,Dt,be)&&w(!0);const[t]=N?N():[],[e]=X=b(v),[n]=tt=E(v),i=Tn(o),r=u&&ko(h()),l={w:m(n.w+e.w),h:m(n.h+e.h)},a={w:m((r?r.w:i.w+m(i.w-n.w))+e.w),h:m((r?r.h:i.h+m(i.h-n.h))+e.h)};t&&t(),nt=_(a),et=S(((t,e)=>{const n=ut.devicePixelRatio%1!=0?1:0,s={w:m(t.w-e.w),h:m(t.h-e.h)};return{w:s.w>n?s.w:0,h:s.h>n?s.h:0}})(l,a),v)}const[st,it]=nt,[ot,rt]=et,[lt,at]=tt,[ct,dt]=X,[ht,pt]=C({x:ot.w>0,y:ot.h>0}),yt=J&&Q&&(ht.x||ht.y)||J&&ht.x&&!ht.y||Q&&ht.y&&!ht.x,ft=O||q||F||dt||at||it||rt||K||U||!0,gt=mi(ht,V),[vt,wt]=T(gt.K),[Et,Ot]=$(v),Lt=q||R||Ot||pt||v,[St,It]=Lt?A((t=>{if(!f.some((e=>{const n=t[e];return n&&y[e](n)})))return{D:{x:0,y:0},M:{x:1,y:1}};w(!0);const e=mt(a),n=d(Zo,!0),s=Y(l,Wt,(t=>{const n=mt(a);t.isTrusted&&n.x===e.x&&n.y===e.y&&On(t)}),{I:!0,A:!0});xt(a,{x:0,y:0}),n();const i=mt(a),o=Te(a);xt(a,{x:o.w,y:o.h});const r=mt(a);xt(a,{x:r.x-i.x<1&&-o.w,y:r.y-i.y<1&&-o.h});const c=mt(a);return xt(a,e),ps((()=>s())),{D:i,M:c}})(Et),v):k();return ft&&(wt&&(t=>{const e=t=>[$t,kt,Wt].map((e=>P(e,t))),n=e(!0).concat(e()).join(" ");d(n),d(bt(t).map((e=>P(t[e],"x"===e))).join(" "),!0)})(gt.K),j&&B&&ne(o,j(gt,g,B(gt,lt,ct)))),w(!1),Le(s,Dt,be,yt),Le(i,ds,be,yt),Z(e,{K:vt,Vt:{x:st.w,y:st.h},Rt:{x:ot.w,y:ot.h},rn:ht,Lt:Ro(St,ot)}),{en:wt,nn:it,sn:rt,cn:It||rt,vn:Lt}}},Ii=t=>{const[e,n,s]=Ei(t),i={ln:{t:0,r:0,b:0,l:0},dn:!1,rt:{[un]:0,[pn]:0,[hn]:0,[rn]:0,[ln]:0,[dn]:0,[an]:0},Vt:{x:0,y:0},Rt:{x:0,y:0},K:{x:kt,y:kt},rn:{x:!1,y:!1},Lt:Dn()},{vt:o,gt:r,nt:l,Ot:a}=e,{R:c,k:d}=It(),h=!c&&(d.x||d.y),p=[xi(e),_i(e,i),Ci(e,i)];return[n,t=>{const e={},n=h&&mt(r),s=n&&a();return G(p,(n=>{Z(e,n(t,e)||{})})),xt(r,n),s&&s(),!l&&xt(o,0),e},i,e,s]},Li=(t,e,n,s,i)=>{let o=!1;const r=Us(e,{}),[l,a,c,d,h]=Ii(t),[p,u,m]=vi(d,c,r,(t=>{w({},t)})),[y,f,,g]=Si(t,e,m,c,d,i),v=t=>bt(t).some((e=>!!t[e])),w=(t,i)=>{if(n())return!1;const{pn:r,Dt:l,At:c,hn:d}=t,h=r||{},p=!!l||!o,y={It:Us(e,h,p),pn:h,Dt:p};if(d)return f(y),!1;const g=i||u(Z({},y,{At:c})),w=a(Z({},y,{_n:m,Zt:g}));f(Z({},y,{Zt:g,tn:w}));const b=v(g),x=v(w),E=b||x||!vs(h)||p;return o=!0,E&&s(t,{Zt:g,tn:w}),E};return[()=>{const{an:t,gt:e,Ot:n}=d,s=mt(t),i=[p(),l(),y()],o=n();return xt(e,s),o(),O(gt,i)},w,()=>({gn:m,bn:c}),{wn:d,yn:g},h]},Ht=(t,e,n)=>{const{N:s}=It(),i=Ie(t),o=i?t:t.target,r=Fn(o);if(e&&!r){let r=!1;const l=[],a={},c=t=>{const e=vn(t),n=ie(ui);return n?n(e,!0):e},d=Z({},s(),c(e)),[h,p,u]=as(),[m,y,f]=as(n),g=(t,e)=>{f(t,e),u(t,e)},[v,w,b,x,E]=Li(t,d,(()=>r),(({pn:t,Dt:e},{Zt:n,tn:s})=>{const{ft:i,Ct:o,xt:r,Ht:l,Et:a,dt:c}=n,{nn:d,sn:h,en:p,cn:u}=s;g("updated",[S,{updateHints:{sizeChanged:!!i,directionChanged:!!o,heightIntrinsicChanged:!!r,overflowEdgeChanged:!!d,overflowAmountChanged:!!h,overflowStyleChanged:!!p,scrollCoordinatesChanged:!!u,contentMutation:!!l,hostMutation:!!a,appear:!!c},changedOptions:t||{},force:!!e}])}),(t=>g("scroll",[S,t]))),L=t=>{ai(o),gt(l),r=!0,g("destroyed",[S,t]),p(),y()},S={options(t,e){if(t){const n=e?s():{},i=Hn(d,Z(n,c(t)));vs(i)||(Z(d,i),w({pn:i}))}return Z({},d)},on:m,off:(t,e)=>{t&&e&&y(t,e)},state(){const{gn:t,bn:e}=b(),{ct:n}=t,{Vt:s,Rt:i,K:o,rn:l,ln:a,dn:c,Lt:d}=e;return Z({},{overflowEdge:s,overflowAmount:i,overflowStyle:o,hasOverflow:l,scrollCoordinates:{start:d.D,end:d.M},padding:a,paddingAbsolute:c,directionRTL:n,destroyed:r})},elements(){const{vt:t,ht:e,ln:n,ot:s,bt:i,gt:o,Qt:r}=x.wn,{Xt:l,Gt:a}=x.yn,c=t=>{const{Pt:e,Ut:n,Tt:s}=t;return{scrollbar:s,track:n,handle:e}},d=t=>{const{Yt:e,Wt:n}=t,s=c(e[0]);return Z({},s,{clone:()=>{const t=c(n());return w({hn:!0}),t}})};return Z({},{target:t,host:e,padding:n||s,viewport:s,content:i||s,scrollOffsetElement:o,scrollEventElement:r,scrollbarHorizontal:d(l),scrollbarVertical:d(a)})},update:t=>w({Dt:t,At:!0}),destroy:O(L,!1),plugin:t=>a[bt(t)[0]]};return tt(l,[E]),li(o,S),Vn(qn,Ht,[S,h,a]),ri(x.wn.wt,!i&&t.cancel)?(L(!0),S):(tt(l,v()),g("initialized",[S]),S.update(),S)}return r};Ht.plugin=t=>{const e=Ct(t),n=e?t:[t],s=n.map((t=>Vn(t,Ht)[0]));return hi(n),e?s:s[0]},Ht.valid=t=>{const e=t&&t.elements,n=wt(e)&&e();return Ce(n)&&!!Fn(n.target)},Ht.env=()=>{const{T:t,k:e,R:n,V:s,B:i,F:o,U:r,P:l,N:a,q:c}=It();return Z({},{scrollbarsSize:t,scrollbarsOverlaid:e,scrollbarsHiding:n,scrollTimeline:s,staticDefaultInitialization:i,staticDefaultOptions:o,getDefaultInitialization:r,setDefaultInitialization:l,getDefaultOptions:a,setDefaultOptions:c})},Ht.nonce=oi;const us=!!document.getElementById("banner-wrapper");function Ls(t,e){document.addEventListener("click",(n=>{let s=document.getElementById(t),i=n.target;if(i instanceof Node){for(let t of e){let e=document.getElementById(t);if(e==i||e?.contains(i))return}s.classList.add("float-panel-closed")}}))}function Ti(){const t=so();no(t)}function Ai(){oo(io())}function Un(){const t=document.querySelector("body");t&&(Ht({target:t,cancel:{nativeScrollbarsOverlaid:!0}},{scrollbars:{theme:"scrollbar-base scrollbar-auto py-1",autoHide:"move",autoHideDelay:500,autoHideSuspend:!1}}),document.querySelectorAll("pre").forEach((t=>{Ht(t,{scrollbars:{theme:"scrollbar-base scrollbar-dark px-2",autoHide:"leave",autoHideDelay:500,autoHideSuspend:!1}})})))}function Oi(){const t=document.getElementById("banner");t?t.classList.remove("opacity-0","scale-105"):console.error("Failed to find the banner element")}function jn(){Ti(),Ai(),Un(),Oi()}Ls("display-setting",["display-setting","display-settings-switch"]),Ls("nav-menu-panel",["nav-menu-panel","nav-menu-switch"]),Ls("search-panel",["search-panel","search-bar","search-switch"]),jn(),document.addEventListener("astro:after-swap",jn);const tn=()=>{window.swup.hooks.on("link:click",(()=>{if(document.documentElement.style.setProperty("--content-delay","0ms"),!us)return;let t=window.innerHeight*(Ge/100)-72-16,e=document.getElementById("navbar-wrapper");!e||!document.body.classList.contains("lg:is-home")||(document.body.scrollTop>=t||document.documentElement.scrollTop>=t)&&e.classList.add("navbar-hidden")})),window.swup.hooks.on("content:replace",Un),window.swup.hooks.on("visit:start",(t=>{const e=document.querySelector("body");ao(t.to.url,ho("/"))?e.classList.add("lg:is-home"):e.classList.remove("lg:is-home");const n=document.getElementById("page-height-extend");n&&n.classList.remove("hidden");let s=document.getElementById("toc-wrapper");s&&s.classList.add("toc-not-ready")})),window.swup.hooks.on("page:view",(()=>{const t=document.getElementById("page-height-extend");t&&t.classList.remove("hidden")})),window.swup.hooks.on("visit:end",(t=>{setTimeout((()=>{const t=document.getElementById("page-height-extend");t&&t.classList.add("hidden");const e=document.getElementById("toc-wrapper");e&&e.classList.remove("toc-not-ready")}),200)}))};window?.swup?.hooks?tn():document.addEventListener("swup:enable",tn);let Ze=document.getElementById("back-to-top-btn"),Ue=document.getElementById("toc-wrapper"),je=document.getElementById("navbar-wrapper");function $i(){let t=window.innerHeight*(Ge/100);if(Ze&&(document.body.scrollTop>t||document.documentElement.scrollTop>t?Ze.classList.remove("hide"):Ze.classList.add("hide")),us&&Ue&&(document.body.scrollTop>t||document.documentElement.scrollTop>t?Ue.classList.remove("toc-hide"):Ue.classList.add("toc-hide")),us&&je){const t=16*ro;let e=Ge;document.body.classList.contains("lg:is-home")&&window.innerWidth>=1024&&(e=lo);let n=window.innerHeight*(e/100)-72-t-16;document.body.scrollTop>=n||document.documentElement.scrollTop>=n?je.classList.add("navbar-hidden"):je.classList.remove("navbar-hidden")}}function Di(){"dark"===localStorage.theme?(document.documentElement.classList.remove("dark"),localStorage.theme="light"):(document.documentElement.classList.add("dark"),localStorage.theme="dark")}function Gn(){let t=document.getElementById("scheme-switch");t&&t.addEventListener("click",(function(){Di()}));let e=document.getElementById("display-settings-switch");e&&e.addEventListener("click",(function(){let t=document.getElementById("display-setting");t&&t.classList.toggle("float-panel-closed")}));let n=document.getElementById("nav-menu-switch");n&&n.addEventListener("click",(function(){let t=document.getElementById("nav-menu-panel");t&&t.classList.toggle("float-panel-closed")}))}window.onscroll=$i,window.onresize=()=>{let t=Math.floor(window.innerHeight*(eo/100));t-=t%4,document.documentElement.style.setProperty("--banner-height-extend",`${t}px`);const e=parseFloat(getComputedStyle(document.documentElement).fontSize),n=co*e,s=(window.innerWidth-n)/2-e;document.documentElement.style.setProperty("--toc-width",`${s}px`)},Gn(),document.addEventListener("astro:after-swap",(()=>{Gn()}),{once:!1});class Hi extends HTMLElement{constructor(){if(super(),"true"!==this.dataset.isCollapsed)return;const t=this.dataset.id,e=this.querySelector(".expand-btn"),n=this.querySelector(`#${t}`);e.addEventListener("click",(()=>{n.classList.remove("collapsed"),e.classList.add("hidden")}))}}customElements.define("widget-layout",Hi);
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/_astro/translation.BexmyzJD.js b/_astro/translation.BIr-2hnc.js
similarity index 99%
rename from _astro/translation.BexmyzJD.js
rename to _astro/translation.BIr-2hnc.js
index 8f4e5de0f..aab03738f 100644
--- a/_astro/translation.BexmyzJD.js
+++ b/_astro/translation.BIr-2hnc.js
@@ -1 +1 @@
-import{e as p,a as K,z as Q,b as X,j as M,k as O,s as Y}from"./zh_TW.yAw_u0Pg.js";function N(){}function Z(t,n){for(const e in n)t[e]=n[e];return t}function D(t){return t()}function P(){return Object.create(null)}function x(t){t.forEach(D)}function I(t){return"function"==typeof t}function Nt(t,n){return t!=t?n==n:t!==n||t&&"object"==typeof t||"function"==typeof t}function tt(t){return 0===Object.keys(t).length}function At(t,n,e,o){if(t){const i=G(t,n,e,o);return t[0](i)}}function G(t,n,e,o){return t[1]&&o?Z(e.ctx.slice(),t[1](o(n))):e.ctx}function kt(t,n,e,o){if(t[2]&&o){const i=t[2](o(e));if(void 0===n.dirty)return i;if("object"==typeof i){const t=[],e=Math.max(n.dirty.length,i.length);for(let o=0;o32){const n=[],e=t.ctx.length/32;for(let t=0;t>1);e(i)<=o?t=i+1:n=i}return t}function st(t){if(t.hydrate_init)return;t.hydrate_init=!0;let n=t.childNodes;if("HEAD"===t.nodeName){const t=[];for(let e=0;e0&&n[e[i]].claim_order<=r?i+1:it(1,i,(t=>n[e[t]].claim_order),r))-1;o[t]=e[c]+1;const s=c+1;e[s]=t,i=Math.max(s,i)}const r=[],c=[];let s=n.length-1;for(let t=e[i]+1;0!=t;t=o[t-1]){for(r.push(n[t-1]);s>=t;s--)c.push(n[s]);s--}for(;s>=0;s--)c.push(n[s]);r.reverse(),c.sort(((t,n)=>t.claim_order-n.claim_order));for(let n=0,e=0;n=r[e].claim_order;)e++;const o=et.removeEventListener(n,e,o)}function F(t,n,e){null==e?t.removeAttribute(n):t.getAttribute(n)!==e&&t.setAttribute(n,e)}const ot=["width","height"];function Ht(t,n){const e=Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t.__proto__);for(const o in n)null==n[o]?t.removeAttribute(o):"style"===o?t.style.cssText=n[o]:"__value"===o?t.value=t[o]=n[o]:e[o]&&e[o].set&&-1===ot.indexOf(o)?t[o]=n[o]:F(t,o,n[o])}function zt(t,n){for(const e in n)F(t,e,n[e])}function Bt(t){return""===t?null:+t}function at(t){return Array.from(t.childNodes)}function U(t){void 0===t.claim_info&&(t.claim_info={last_index:0,total_claimed:0})}function V(t,n,e,o,i=!1){U(t);const r=(()=>{for(let o=t.claim_info.last_index;o=0;o--){const r=t[o];if(n(r)){const n=e(r);return void 0===n?t.splice(o,1):t[o]=n,i?void 0===n&&t.claim_info.last_index--:t.claim_info.last_index=o,r}}return o()})();return r.claim_order=t.claim_info.total_claimed,t.claim_info.total_claimed+=1,r}function W(t,n,e,o){return V(t,(t=>t.nodeName===n),(t=>{const n=[];for(let o=0;ot.removeAttribute(n)))}),(()=>o(n)))}function Dt(t,n,e){return W(t,n,e,R)}function It(t,n,e){return W(t,n,e,q)}function ut(t,n){return V(t,(t=>3===t.nodeType),(t=>{const e=""+n;if(t.data.startsWith(e)){if(t.data.length!==e.length)return t.splitText(e.length)}else t.data=e}),(()=>j(n)),!0)}function Gt(t){return ut(t," ")}function H(t,n,e){for(let o=e;o{const i=t.$$.callbacks[n];if(i){const r=ft(n,e,{cancelable:o});return i.slice().forEach((n=>{n.call(t,r)})),!r.defaultPrevented}return!0}}const h=[],z=[];let m=[];const B=[],dt=Promise.resolve();let A=!1;function ht(){A||(A=!0,dt.then(J))}function k(t){m.push(t)}const T=new Set;let d=0;function J(){if(0!==d)return;const t=y;do{try{for(;d-1===t.indexOf(o)?n.push(o):e.push(o))),e.forEach((t=>t())),m=n}const $=new Set;let _;function Qt(){_={r:0,c:[],p:_}}function Xt(){_.r||x(_.c),_=_.p}function gt(t,n){t&&t.i&&($.delete(t),t.i(n))}function Yt(t,n,e,o){if(t&&t.o){if($.has(t))return;$.add(t),_.c.push((()=>{$.delete(t),o&&(e&&t.d(1),o())})),t.o(n)}else o&&o()}function Zt(t){t&&t.c()}function tn(t,n){t&&t.l(n)}function yt(t,n,e){const{fragment:o,after_update:i}=t.$$;o&&o.m(n,e),k((()=>{const n=t.$$.on_mount.map(D).filter(I);t.$$.on_destroy?t.$$.on_destroy.push(...n):x(n),t.$$.on_mount=[]})),i.forEach(k)}function xt(t,n){const e=t.$$;null!==e.fragment&&(pt(e.after_update),x(e.on_destroy),e.fragment&&e.fragment.d(n),e.on_destroy=e.fragment=null,e.ctx=[])}function wt(t,n){-1===t.$$.dirty[0]&&(h.push(t),ht(),t.$$.dirty.fill(0)),t.$$.dirty[n/31|0]|=1<{const r=o.length?o[0]:e;return l.ctx&&i(l.ctx[n],l.ctx[n]=r)&&(!l.skip_bound&&l.bound[n]&&l.bound[n](r),u&&wt(t,n)),e})):[],l.update(),u=!0,x(l.before_update),l.fragment=!!o&&o(l.ctx),n.target){if(n.hydrate){nt();const t=at(n.target);l.fragment&&l.fragment.l(t),t.forEach(v)}else l.fragment&&l.fragment.c();n.intro&>(t.$$.fragment),yt(t,n.target,n.anchor),et(),J()}g(a)}class en{$$=void 0;$$set=void 0;$destroy(){xt(this,1),this.$destroy=N}$on(t,n){if(!I(n))return N;const e=this.$$.callbacks[t]||(this.$$.callbacks[t]=[]);return e.push(n),()=>{const t=e.indexOf(n);-1!==t&&e.splice(t,1)}}$set(t){this.$$set&&!tt(t)&&(this.$$.skip_bound=!0,this.$$set(t),this.$$.skip_bound=!1)}}const $t="4";typeof window<"u"&&(window.__svelte||(window.__svelte={v:new Set})).v.add($t);const vt=p,bt={es:K,en:p,en_us:p,en_gb:p,en_au:p,zh_cn:Q,zh_tw:X,ja:M,ja_jp:M,ko:O,ko_kr:O};function Et(t){return bt[t.toLowerCase()]||vt}function sn(t){return Et(Y.lang)[t]}export{Bt as A,Xt as B,Ct as C,Wt as D,Rt as E,Qt as F,Ot as G,E as H,N as I,Jt as J,Z as K,St as L,Ht as M,q as N,It as O,zt as P,Kt as Q,Zt as R,en as S,tn as T,yt as U,xt as V,sn as a,Mt as b,At as c,Dt as d,R as e,at as f,ut as g,Gt as h,nn as i,v as j,F as k,Vt as l,Ut as m,ct as n,rt as o,Ft as p,Pt as q,Lt as r,Nt as s,j as t,jt as u,kt as v,qt as w,gt as x,Yt as y,x as z};
\ No newline at end of file
+import{e as p,a as K,z as Q,b as X,j as M,k as O,s as Y}from"./zh_TW.CdORO3r2.js";function N(){}function Z(t,n){for(const e in n)t[e]=n[e];return t}function D(t){return t()}function P(){return Object.create(null)}function x(t){t.forEach(D)}function I(t){return"function"==typeof t}function Nt(t,n){return t!=t?n==n:t!==n||t&&"object"==typeof t||"function"==typeof t}function tt(t){return 0===Object.keys(t).length}function At(t,n,e,o){if(t){const i=G(t,n,e,o);return t[0](i)}}function G(t,n,e,o){return t[1]&&o?Z(e.ctx.slice(),t[1](o(n))):e.ctx}function kt(t,n,e,o){if(t[2]&&o){const i=t[2](o(e));if(void 0===n.dirty)return i;if("object"==typeof i){const t=[],e=Math.max(n.dirty.length,i.length);for(let o=0;o32){const n=[],e=t.ctx.length/32;for(let t=0;t>1);e(i)<=o?t=i+1:n=i}return t}function st(t){if(t.hydrate_init)return;t.hydrate_init=!0;let n=t.childNodes;if("HEAD"===t.nodeName){const t=[];for(let e=0;e0&&n[e[i]].claim_order<=r?i+1:it(1,i,(t=>n[e[t]].claim_order),r))-1;o[t]=e[c]+1;const s=c+1;e[s]=t,i=Math.max(s,i)}const r=[],c=[];let s=n.length-1;for(let t=e[i]+1;0!=t;t=o[t-1]){for(r.push(n[t-1]);s>=t;s--)c.push(n[s]);s--}for(;s>=0;s--)c.push(n[s]);r.reverse(),c.sort(((t,n)=>t.claim_order-n.claim_order));for(let n=0,e=0;n=r[e].claim_order;)e++;const o=et.removeEventListener(n,e,o)}function F(t,n,e){null==e?t.removeAttribute(n):t.getAttribute(n)!==e&&t.setAttribute(n,e)}const ot=["width","height"];function Ht(t,n){const e=Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t.__proto__);for(const o in n)null==n[o]?t.removeAttribute(o):"style"===o?t.style.cssText=n[o]:"__value"===o?t.value=t[o]=n[o]:e[o]&&e[o].set&&-1===ot.indexOf(o)?t[o]=n[o]:F(t,o,n[o])}function zt(t,n){for(const e in n)F(t,e,n[e])}function Bt(t){return""===t?null:+t}function at(t){return Array.from(t.childNodes)}function U(t){void 0===t.claim_info&&(t.claim_info={last_index:0,total_claimed:0})}function V(t,n,e,o,i=!1){U(t);const r=(()=>{for(let o=t.claim_info.last_index;o=0;o--){const r=t[o];if(n(r)){const n=e(r);return void 0===n?t.splice(o,1):t[o]=n,i?void 0===n&&t.claim_info.last_index--:t.claim_info.last_index=o,r}}return o()})();return r.claim_order=t.claim_info.total_claimed,t.claim_info.total_claimed+=1,r}function W(t,n,e,o){return V(t,(t=>t.nodeName===n),(t=>{const n=[];for(let o=0;ot.removeAttribute(n)))}),(()=>o(n)))}function Dt(t,n,e){return W(t,n,e,R)}function It(t,n,e){return W(t,n,e,q)}function ut(t,n){return V(t,(t=>3===t.nodeType),(t=>{const e=""+n;if(t.data.startsWith(e)){if(t.data.length!==e.length)return t.splitText(e.length)}else t.data=e}),(()=>j(n)),!0)}function Gt(t){return ut(t," ")}function H(t,n,e){for(let o=e;o{const i=t.$$.callbacks[n];if(i){const r=ft(n,e,{cancelable:o});return i.slice().forEach((n=>{n.call(t,r)})),!r.defaultPrevented}return!0}}const h=[],z=[];let m=[];const B=[],dt=Promise.resolve();let A=!1;function ht(){A||(A=!0,dt.then(J))}function k(t){m.push(t)}const T=new Set;let d=0;function J(){if(0!==d)return;const t=y;do{try{for(;d-1===t.indexOf(o)?n.push(o):e.push(o))),e.forEach((t=>t())),m=n}const $=new Set;let _;function Qt(){_={r:0,c:[],p:_}}function Xt(){_.r||x(_.c),_=_.p}function gt(t,n){t&&t.i&&($.delete(t),t.i(n))}function Yt(t,n,e,o){if(t&&t.o){if($.has(t))return;$.add(t),_.c.push((()=>{$.delete(t),o&&(e&&t.d(1),o())})),t.o(n)}else o&&o()}function Zt(t){t&&t.c()}function tn(t,n){t&&t.l(n)}function yt(t,n,e){const{fragment:o,after_update:i}=t.$$;o&&o.m(n,e),k((()=>{const n=t.$$.on_mount.map(D).filter(I);t.$$.on_destroy?t.$$.on_destroy.push(...n):x(n),t.$$.on_mount=[]})),i.forEach(k)}function xt(t,n){const e=t.$$;null!==e.fragment&&(pt(e.after_update),x(e.on_destroy),e.fragment&&e.fragment.d(n),e.on_destroy=e.fragment=null,e.ctx=[])}function wt(t,n){-1===t.$$.dirty[0]&&(h.push(t),ht(),t.$$.dirty.fill(0)),t.$$.dirty[n/31|0]|=1<{const r=o.length?o[0]:e;return l.ctx&&i(l.ctx[n],l.ctx[n]=r)&&(!l.skip_bound&&l.bound[n]&&l.bound[n](r),u&&wt(t,n)),e})):[],l.update(),u=!0,x(l.before_update),l.fragment=!!o&&o(l.ctx),n.target){if(n.hydrate){nt();const t=at(n.target);l.fragment&&l.fragment.l(t),t.forEach(v)}else l.fragment&&l.fragment.c();n.intro&>(t.$$.fragment),yt(t,n.target,n.anchor),et(),J()}g(a)}class en{$$=void 0;$$set=void 0;$destroy(){xt(this,1),this.$destroy=N}$on(t,n){if(!I(n))return N;const e=this.$$.callbacks[t]||(this.$$.callbacks[t]=[]);return e.push(n),()=>{const t=e.indexOf(n);-1!==t&&e.splice(t,1)}}$set(t){this.$$set&&!tt(t)&&(this.$$.skip_bound=!0,this.$$set(t),this.$$.skip_bound=!1)}}const $t="4";typeof window<"u"&&(window.__svelte||(window.__svelte={v:new Set})).v.add($t);const vt=p,bt={es:K,en:p,en_us:p,en_gb:p,en_au:p,zh_cn:Q,zh_tw:X,ja:M,ja_jp:M,ko:O,ko_kr:O};function Et(t){return bt[t.toLowerCase()]||vt}function sn(t){return Et(Y.lang)[t]}export{Bt as A,Xt as B,Ct as C,Wt as D,Rt as E,Qt as F,Ot as G,E as H,N as I,Jt as J,Z as K,St as L,Ht as M,q as N,It as O,zt as P,Kt as Q,Zt as R,en as S,tn as T,yt as U,xt as V,sn as a,Mt as b,At as c,Dt as d,R as e,at as f,ut as g,Gt as h,nn as i,v as j,F as k,Vt as l,Ut as m,ct as n,rt as o,Ft as p,Pt as q,Lt as r,Nt as s,j as t,jt as u,kt as v,qt as w,gt as x,Yt as y,x as z};
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/_astro/url-utils.D8gvTd-e.js b/_astro/url-utils.CenNji6B.js
similarity index 73%
rename from _astro/url-utils.D8gvTd-e.js
rename to _astro/url-utils.CenNji6B.js
index 6f48d9586..6221de20f 100644
--- a/_astro/url-utils.D8gvTd-e.js
+++ b/_astro/url-utils.CenNji6B.js
@@ -1 +1 @@
-import"./zh_TW.yAw_u0Pg.js";function i(e,r){return e.replace(/^\/|\/$/g,"").toLowerCase()===r.replace(/^\/|\/$/g,"").toLowerCase()}function t(...e){return e.join("/").replace(/\/+/g,"/")}function c(e){return t("","/",e)}export{i as p,c as u};
\ No newline at end of file
+import"./zh_TW.CdORO3r2.js";function i(e,r){return e.replace(/^\/|\/$/g,"").toLowerCase()===r.replace(/^\/|\/$/g,"").toLowerCase()}function t(...e){return e.join("/").replace(/\/+/g,"/")}function c(e){return t("","/",e)}export{i as p,c as u};
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/_astro/zh_TW.CdORO3r2.js b/_astro/zh_TW.CdORO3r2.js
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..87d6af463
--- /dev/null
+++ b/_astro/zh_TW.CdORO3r2.js
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+var t=(t=>(t.home="home",t.about="about",t.archive="archive",t.search="search",t.tags="tags",t.categories="categories",t.recentPosts="recentPosts",t.comments="comments",t.untitled="untitled",t.uncategorized="uncategorized",t.noTags="noTags",t.wordCount="wordCount",t.wordsCount="wordsCount",t.minuteCount="minuteCount",t.minutesCount="minutesCount",t.postCount="postCount",t.postsCount="postsCount",t.themeColor="themeColor",t.lightMode="lightMode",t.darkMode="darkMode",t.systemMode="systemMode",t.more="more",t.author="author",t.publishedAt="publishedAt",t.license="license",t))(t||{}),e=(t=>(t[t.Home=0]="Home",t[t.Archive=1]="Archive",t[t.About=2]="About",t))(e||{});const s={title:"Jiaqi's Leadership Blog",subtitle:"Leadership is, at root, about Influencing Others",lang:"en",themeColor:{hue:250,fixed:!1},banner:{enable:!0,src:"assets/images/banner-4.png",position:"center",credit:{enable:!0,text:"Ardeth Bay (Mummy Returns)",url:"https://youtu.be/DtKDPBqMu3o"}},toc:{enable:!0,depth:3},favicon:[]};e.Home,e.Archive,e.About;const u={[t.home]:"Home",[t.about]:"About",[t.archive]:"Archive",[t.search]:"Search",[t.tags]:"Tags",[t.categories]:"Languages",[t.recentPosts]:"Recent Posts",[t.comments]:"Comments",[t.untitled]:"Untitled",[t.uncategorized]:"Uncategorized",[t.noTags]:"No Tags",[t.wordCount]:"word",[t.wordsCount]:"words",[t.minuteCount]:"minute",[t.minutesCount]:"minutes",[t.postCount]:"post",[t.postsCount]:"posts",[t.themeColor]:"Theme Color",[t.lightMode]:"Light",[t.darkMode]:"Dark",[t.systemMode]:"System",[t.more]:"More",[t.author]:"Author",[t.publishedAt]:"Published at",[t.license]:"License"},r={[t.home]:"Inicio",[t.about]:"Sobre mí",[t.archive]:"Archivo",[t.search]:"Buscar",[t.tags]:"Etiquetas",[t.categories]:"Categorías",[t.recentPosts]:"Publicaciones recientes",[t.comments]:"Comentarios",[t.untitled]:"Sin título",[t.uncategorized]:"Sin categoría",[t.noTags]:"Sin etiquetas",[t.wordCount]:"palabra",[t.wordsCount]:"palabras",[t.minuteCount]:"minuto",[t.minutesCount]:"minutos",[t.postCount]:"publicación",[t.postsCount]:"publicaciones",[t.themeColor]:"Color del tema",[t.lightMode]:"Claro",[t.darkMode]:"Oscuro",[t.systemMode]:"Sistema",[t.more]:"Más",[t.author]:"Autor",[t.publishedAt]:"Publicado el",[t.license]:"Licencia"},n={[t.home]:"Home",[t.about]:"About",[t.archive]:"Archive",[t.search]:"検索",[t.tags]:"タグ",[t.categories]:"カテゴリ",[t.recentPosts]:"最近の投稿",[t.comments]:"コメント",[t.untitled]:"タイトルなし",[t.uncategorized]:"カテゴリなし",[t.noTags]:"タグなし",[t.wordCount]:"文字",[t.wordsCount]:"文字",[t.minuteCount]:"分",[t.minutesCount]:"分",[t.postCount]:"件の投稿",[t.postsCount]:"件の投稿",[t.themeColor]:"テーマカラー",[t.lightMode]:"ライト",[t.darkMode]:"ダーク",[t.systemMode]:"システム",[t.more]:"もっと",[t.author]:"作者",[t.publishedAt]:"公開日",[t.license]:"ライセンス"},a={[t.home]:"홈",[t.about]:"소개",[t.archive]:"아카이브",[t.search]:"검색",[t.tags]:"태그",[t.categories]:"카테고리",[t.recentPosts]:"최근 게시물",[t.comments]:"댓글",[t.untitled]:"제목 없음",[t.uncategorized]:"분류되지 않음",[t.noTags]:"태그 없음",[t.wordCount]:"단어",[t.wordsCount]:"단어",[t.minuteCount]:"분",[t.minutesCount]:"분",[t.postCount]:"게시물",[t.postsCount]:"게시물",[t.themeColor]:"테마 색상",[t.lightMode]:"밝은 모드",[t.darkMode]:"어두운 모드",[t.systemMode]:"시스템 모드",[t.more]:"더 보기",[t.author]:"저자",[t.publishedAt]:"게시일",[t.license]:"라이선스"},i={[t.home]:"主页",[t.about]:"关于",[t.archive]:"归档",[t.search]:"搜索",[t.tags]:"标签",[t.categories]:"分类",[t.recentPosts]:"最新文章",[t.comments]:"评论",[t.untitled]:"无标题",[t.uncategorized]:"未分类",[t.noTags]:"无标签",[t.wordCount]:"字",[t.wordsCount]:"字",[t.minuteCount]:"分钟",[t.minutesCount]:"分钟",[t.postCount]:"篇文章",[t.postsCount]:"篇文章",[t.themeColor]:"主题色",[t.lightMode]:"亮色",[t.darkMode]:"暗色",[t.systemMode]:"跟随系统",[t.more]:"更多",[t.author]:"作者",[t.publishedAt]:"发布于",[t.license]:"许可协议"},c={[t.home]:"首頁",[t.about]:"關於",[t.archive]:"彙整",[t.search]:"搜尋",[t.tags]:"標籤",[t.categories]:"分類",[t.recentPosts]:"最新文章",[t.comments]:"評論",[t.untitled]:"無標題",[t.uncategorized]:"未分類",[t.noTags]:"無標籤",[t.wordCount]:"字",[t.wordsCount]:"字",[t.minuteCount]:"分鐘",[t.minutesCount]:"分鐘",[t.postCount]:"篇文章",[t.postsCount]:"篇文章",[t.themeColor]:"主題色",[t.lightMode]:"亮色",[t.darkMode]:"暗色",[t.systemMode]:"跟隨系統",[t.more]:"更多",[t.author]:"作者",[t.publishedAt]:"發佈於",[t.license]:"許可協議"};export{t as I,r as a,c as b,u as e,n as j,a as k,s,i as z};
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/_astro/zh_TW.yAw_u0Pg.js b/_astro/zh_TW.yAw_u0Pg.js
deleted file mode 100644
index 29bf4959f..000000000
--- a/_astro/zh_TW.yAw_u0Pg.js
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-var t=(t=>(t.home="home",t.about="about",t.archive="archive",t.search="search",t.tags="tags",t.categories="categories",t.recentPosts="recentPosts",t.comments="comments",t.untitled="untitled",t.uncategorized="uncategorized",t.noTags="noTags",t.wordCount="wordCount",t.wordsCount="wordsCount",t.minuteCount="minuteCount",t.minutesCount="minutesCount",t.postCount="postCount",t.postsCount="postsCount",t.themeColor="themeColor",t.lightMode="lightMode",t.darkMode="darkMode",t.systemMode="systemMode",t.more="more",t.author="author",t.publishedAt="publishedAt",t.license="license",t))(t||{}),e=(t=>(t[t.Home=0]="Home",t[t.Archive=1]="Archive",t[t.About=2]="About",t))(e||{});const s={title:"Jiaqi's Leadership Blog",subtitle:"Leadership is, at root, about Influencing Others",lang:"en",themeColor:{hue:250,fixed:!1},banner:{enable:!0,src:"assets/images/banner-4.png",position:"center",credit:{enable:!0,text:"Mummy Returns",url:"https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1M6421f7Q2"}},toc:{enable:!0,depth:3},favicon:[]};e.Home,e.Archive,e.About;const u={[t.home]:"Home",[t.about]:"About",[t.archive]:"Archive",[t.search]:"Search",[t.tags]:"Tags",[t.categories]:"Languages",[t.recentPosts]:"Recent Posts",[t.comments]:"Comments",[t.untitled]:"Untitled",[t.uncategorized]:"Uncategorized",[t.noTags]:"No Tags",[t.wordCount]:"word",[t.wordsCount]:"words",[t.minuteCount]:"minute",[t.minutesCount]:"minutes",[t.postCount]:"post",[t.postsCount]:"posts",[t.themeColor]:"Theme Color",[t.lightMode]:"Light",[t.darkMode]:"Dark",[t.systemMode]:"System",[t.more]:"More",[t.author]:"Author",[t.publishedAt]:"Published at",[t.license]:"License"},n={[t.home]:"Inicio",[t.about]:"Sobre mí",[t.archive]:"Archivo",[t.search]:"Buscar",[t.tags]:"Etiquetas",[t.categories]:"Categorías",[t.recentPosts]:"Publicaciones recientes",[t.comments]:"Comentarios",[t.untitled]:"Sin título",[t.uncategorized]:"Sin categoría",[t.noTags]:"Sin etiquetas",[t.wordCount]:"palabra",[t.wordsCount]:"palabras",[t.minuteCount]:"minuto",[t.minutesCount]:"minutos",[t.postCount]:"publicación",[t.postsCount]:"publicaciones",[t.themeColor]:"Color del tema",[t.lightMode]:"Claro",[t.darkMode]:"Oscuro",[t.systemMode]:"Sistema",[t.more]:"Más",[t.author]:"Autor",[t.publishedAt]:"Publicado el",[t.license]:"Licencia"},r={[t.home]:"Home",[t.about]:"About",[t.archive]:"Archive",[t.search]:"検索",[t.tags]:"タグ",[t.categories]:"カテゴリ",[t.recentPosts]:"最近の投稿",[t.comments]:"コメント",[t.untitled]:"タイトルなし",[t.uncategorized]:"カテゴリなし",[t.noTags]:"タグなし",[t.wordCount]:"文字",[t.wordsCount]:"文字",[t.minuteCount]:"分",[t.minutesCount]:"分",[t.postCount]:"件の投稿",[t.postsCount]:"件の投稿",[t.themeColor]:"テーマカラー",[t.lightMode]:"ライト",[t.darkMode]:"ダーク",[t.systemMode]:"システム",[t.more]:"もっと",[t.author]:"作者",[t.publishedAt]:"公開日",[t.license]:"ライセンス"},a={[t.home]:"홈",[t.about]:"소개",[t.archive]:"아카이브",[t.search]:"검색",[t.tags]:"태그",[t.categories]:"카테고리",[t.recentPosts]:"최근 게시물",[t.comments]:"댓글",[t.untitled]:"제목 없음",[t.uncategorized]:"분류되지 않음",[t.noTags]:"태그 없음",[t.wordCount]:"단어",[t.wordsCount]:"단어",[t.minuteCount]:"분",[t.minutesCount]:"분",[t.postCount]:"게시물",[t.postsCount]:"게시물",[t.themeColor]:"테마 색상",[t.lightMode]:"밝은 모드",[t.darkMode]:"어두운 모드",[t.systemMode]:"시스템 모드",[t.more]:"더 보기",[t.author]:"저자",[t.publishedAt]:"게시일",[t.license]:"라이선스"},i={[t.home]:"主页",[t.about]:"关于",[t.archive]:"归档",[t.search]:"搜索",[t.tags]:"标签",[t.categories]:"分类",[t.recentPosts]:"最新文章",[t.comments]:"评论",[t.untitled]:"无标题",[t.uncategorized]:"未分类",[t.noTags]:"无标签",[t.wordCount]:"字",[t.wordsCount]:"字",[t.minuteCount]:"分钟",[t.minutesCount]:"分钟",[t.postCount]:"篇文章",[t.postsCount]:"篇文章",[t.themeColor]:"主题色",[t.lightMode]:"亮色",[t.darkMode]:"暗色",[t.systemMode]:"跟随系统",[t.more]:"更多",[t.author]:"作者",[t.publishedAt]:"发布于",[t.license]:"许可协议"},c={[t.home]:"首頁",[t.about]:"關於",[t.archive]:"彙整",[t.search]:"搜尋",[t.tags]:"標籤",[t.categories]:"分類",[t.recentPosts]:"最新文章",[t.comments]:"評論",[t.untitled]:"無標題",[t.uncategorized]:"未分類",[t.noTags]:"無標籤",[t.wordCount]:"字",[t.wordsCount]:"字",[t.minuteCount]:"分鐘",[t.minutesCount]:"分鐘",[t.postCount]:"篇文章",[t.postsCount]:"篇文章",[t.themeColor]:"主題色",[t.lightMode]:"亮色",[t.darkMode]:"暗色",[t.systemMode]:"跟隨系統",[t.more]:"更多",[t.author]:"作者",[t.publishedAt]:"發佈於",[t.license]:"許可協議"};export{t as I,n as a,c as b,u as e,r as j,a as k,s,i as z};
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/about/index.html b/about/index.html
index a4500c76e..0ecdb2ff4 100644
--- a/about/index.html
+++ b/about/index.html
@@ -1 +1 @@
-About - Jiaqi's Leadership Blog
Leadership, for me, is a Science, a discipline that involves a much broader superset beyond technology. It includes not just project management and public speaking, but also Psychology, Philosophy, and not to forget the technology itself.
leadership.qubitpi.org serves as my continuing effort that expand the boundary of my limit on being a leader
Leadership, for me, is a Science, a discipline that involves a much broader superset beyond technology. It includes not just project management and public speaking, but also Psychology, Philosophy, and not to forget the technology itself.
leadership.qubitpi.org serves as my continuing effort that expand the boundary of my limit on being a leader
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/archive/category/Chinese/index.html b/archive/category/Chinese/index.html
index 9fad3d0a3..587a64f10 100644
--- a/archive/category/Chinese/index.html
+++ b/archive/category/Chinese/index.html
@@ -1 +1 @@
-Archive - Jiaqi's Leadership Blog
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/archive/category/English/index.html b/archive/category/English/index.html
index f4668fa45..3a75f4be4 100644
--- a/archive/category/English/index.html
+++ b/archive/category/English/index.html
@@ -1 +1 @@
-Archive - Jiaqi's Leadership Blog
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/archive/category/German/index.html b/archive/category/German/index.html
index d85e5c009..934a6bce9 100644
--- a/archive/category/German/index.html
+++ b/archive/category/German/index.html
@@ -1 +1 @@
-Archive - Jiaqi's Leadership Blog
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/archive/category/Korean/index.html b/archive/category/Korean/index.html
index a5f843233..ef0e04656 100644
--- a/archive/category/Korean/index.html
+++ b/archive/category/Korean/index.html
@@ -1 +1 @@
-Archive - Jiaqi's Leadership Blog
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/archive/category/Latin/index.html b/archive/category/Latin/index.html
index 35b77a97d..b9d20d15a 100644
--- a/archive/category/Latin/index.html
+++ b/archive/category/Latin/index.html
@@ -1 +1 @@
-Archive - Jiaqi's Leadership Blog
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/archive/category/uncategorized/index.html b/archive/category/uncategorized/index.html
index d5fc6fc5a..49d627bfb 100644
--- a/archive/category/uncategorized/index.html
+++ b/archive/category/uncategorized/index.html
@@ -1 +1 @@
-Archive - Jiaqi's Leadership Blog
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/archive/index.html b/archive/index.html
index c8c37f56a..9a525d385 100644
--- a/archive/index.html
+++ b/archive/index.html
@@ -1 +1 @@
-Archive - Jiaqi's Leadership Blog
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/archive/tag/Leadership/index.html b/archive/tag/Leadership/index.html
index 4e27c0c5b..e37020683 100644
--- a/archive/tag/Leadership/index.html
+++ b/archive/tag/Leadership/index.html
@@ -1 +1 @@
-Archive - Jiaqi's Leadership Blog
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/archive/tag/Management/index.html b/archive/tag/Management/index.html
index e2e878f90..2594656b9 100644
--- a/archive/tag/Management/index.html
+++ b/archive/tag/Management/index.html
@@ -1 +1 @@
-Archive - Jiaqi's Leadership Blog
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/archive/tag/Philosophy/index.html b/archive/tag/Philosophy/index.html
index c1802918f..20182638f 100644
--- a/archive/tag/Philosophy/index.html
+++ b/archive/tag/Philosophy/index.html
@@ -1 +1 @@
-Archive - Jiaqi's Leadership Blog
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/archive/tag/Psychology/index.html b/archive/tag/Psychology/index.html
index 8d790cef9..00bc66d2f 100644
--- a/archive/tag/Psychology/index.html
+++ b/archive/tag/Psychology/index.html
@@ -1 +1 @@
-Archive - Jiaqi's Leadership Blog
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/archive/tag/Technology/index.html b/archive/tag/Technology/index.html
index b8c08fe9d..413084638 100644
--- a/archive/tag/Technology/index.html
+++ b/archive/tag/Technology/index.html
@@ -1 +1 @@
-Archive - Jiaqi's Leadership Blog
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/index.html b/index.html
index 9fcea4af7..91632cbf8 100644
--- a/index.html
+++ b/index.html
@@ -1 +1 @@
-Jiaqi's Leadership Blog - Leadership is, at root, about Influencing Others
Leibnizian idea of perfectibility made Germany so proliferate at contributing genius to the world (Book, The German Genius). His Philosophy guided German to constantly push themselves to the endless next levels of human perfection. This I believe partially contributed the unbelievable warfare technologies during World War II, such as Tiger and King Tiger
Simon Sinek has a simple but powerful model for inspirational leadership -- starting with a golden circle and the question: "Why?" His examples include Apple, Martin Luther King Jr. and the Wright brothers ...
Leibnizian idea of perfectibility made Germany so proliferate at contributing genius to the world (Book, The German Genius). His Philosophy guided German to constantly push themselves to the endless next levels of human perfection. This I believe partially contributed the unbelievable warfare technologies during World War II, such as Tiger and King Tiger
Simon Sinek has a simple but powerful model for inspirational leadership -- starting with a golden circle and the question: "Why?" His examples include Apple, Martin Luther King Jr. and the Wright brothers ...
Männer, es war ein langer Krieg, es war ein harter Krieg. Ihr habt tapfer und stolz für Euer Vaterland gekämpft. Ihr seid eine spezielle Gruppe, die ineinander einen Zusammenhalt gefunden habt, wie er nur im Kampf existiert.
…unter Brüdern, die Fuchshöhlen geteilt haben, die sich in schrechklichen Momenten gegenseitig gehalten, die den Tod zusammen gesehen und miteinander gelitten haben. Ich bin stolz mit Euch gedient zu haben. Sie verdienen ein glückliches und langes Leben.
Einer nach dem anderen beginnen die fünf Amerikaner, diese Worte zu hören Sie werden auch mit ihnen gesprochen. Als solche erleben sie einige der gleichen Gefühle wie die besiegten Truppen vor ihnen, die von der Rede ihres Kommandanten sicherlich berührt sind.
Band of Brothers, Ep. 10, Deutscher General spricht zu seinen Männern
Männer, es war ein langer Krieg, es war ein harter Krieg. Ihr habt tapfer und stolz für Euer Vaterland gekämpft. Ihr seid eine spezielle Gruppe, die ineinander einen Zusammenhalt gefunden habt, wie er nur im Kampf existiert.
…unter Brüdern, die Fuchshöhlen geteilt haben, die sich in schrechklichen Momenten gegenseitig gehalten, die den Tod zusammen gesehen und miteinander gelitten haben. Ich bin stolz mit Euch gedient zu haben. Sie verdienen ein glückliches und langes Leben.
Einer nach dem anderen beginnen die fünf Amerikaner, diese Worte zu hören Sie werden auch mit ihnen gesprochen. Als solche erleben sie einige der gleichen Gefühle wie die besiegten Truppen vor ihnen, die von der Rede ihres Kommandanten sicherlich berührt sind.
Band of Brothers, Ep. 10, Deutscher General spricht zu seinen Männern
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/posts/continuous-delivery/index.html b/posts/continuous-delivery/index.html
index c562f8629..5b40db565 100644
--- a/posts/continuous-delivery/index.html
+++ b/posts/continuous-delivery/index.html
@@ -1 +1 @@
-Continuous Delivery - Jiaqi's Leadership Blog
Continuous delivery is an approach where teams release quality products frequently and predictably from source code repository to production in an automated fashion.
Continuous Delivery is the ability to get changes of all types - including new features, configuration changes, bug fixes and experiments - into production, or into the hands of users, safely and quickly in a sustainable way.
The goal of continuous delivery is to make deployments - whether of a large-scale distributed system, a complex production environment, an embedded system, or an app - predictable, routine affairs that can be performed on demand.
We achieve all this by ensuring our code is always in a deployable state, even in the face of teams of thousands of developers making changes on a daily basis. We thus completely eliminate the integration, testing and hardening phases that traditionally followed “dev complete”, as well as code freezes.
It is often assumed that if we want to deploy software more frequently, we must accept lower levels of stability and reliability in our systems. In fact, peer-reviewed research shows that this is not the case. High performance teams consistently deliver services faster and more reliably than their low performing competition. This is true even in highly regulated domains such as financial services and government. This capability provides an incredible competitive advantage for organizations that are willing to invest the effort to pursue it.
NOTE
Firms with high-performing IT organizations were twice as likely to exceed their profitability, market share and productivity goals.
High performers achieved higher levels of both throughput and stability.
The use of continuous delivery practices including version control, continuous integration, and test automation predicts higher IT performance.
Culture is measurable and predicts job satisfaction and organizational performance.
Continuous Delivery measurably reduces both deployment pain and team burnout.
The practices at the heart of continuous delivery help us achieve several important benefits:
Low risk releases. The primary goal of continuous delivery is to make software deployments painless, low-risk events that can be performed at any time, on demand. By applying patterns such as blue-green deployments it is relatively straightforward to achieve zero-downtime deployments that are undetectable to users.
Blue-green Deployment
One of the challenges with automating deployment is the cut-over itself, taking software from the final stage of testing to live production. We usually need to do this quickly in order to minimize downtime. The blue-green deployment approach does this by ensuring we have two production environments, as identical as possible. At any time one of them, let’s say blue for the example, is live. As we prepare a new release of our software we do our final stage of testing in the green environment. Once the software is working in the green environment, we switch the router so that all incoming requests go to the green environment - the blue one is now idle.
Blue-green deployment also gives us a rapid way to rollback - if anything goes wrong we switch the router back to our blue environment. There’s still the issue of dealing with missed transactions while the green environment was live, but depending on our design we may be able to feed transactions to both environments in such a way as to keep the blue environment as a backup when the green is live. Or we may be able to put the application in read-only mode before cut-over, run it for a while in read-only mode, and then switch it to read-write mode. That may be enough to flush out many outstanding issues.
The two environments need to be different but as identical as possible. In some situations they can be different pieces of hardware, or they can be different virtual machines running on the same (or different) hardware. They can also be a single operating environment partitioned into separate zones with separate IP addresses for the two slices.
Once we’ve put our green environment live and we’re happy with its stability, we then use the blue environment as our staging environment for the final testing step for our next deployment. When we are ready for our next release, we switch from green to blue in the same way that we did from blue to green earlier. That way both green and blue environments are regularly cycling between live, previous version (for rollback) and staging the next version.
An advantage of this approach is that it’s the same basic mechanism as we need to get a hot-standby working. Hence this allows us to test our disaster-recovery procedure on every release.
The fundamental idea is to have two easily switchable environments to switch between, there are plenty of ways to vary the details. One project did the switch by bouncing the web server rather than working on the router. Another variation would be to use the same database, making the blue-green switches for web and domain layers.
Databases can often be a challenge with this technique, particularly when we need to change the schema to support a new version of the software. The trick is to separate the deployment of schema changes from application upgrades. So first apply a database refactoring to change the schema to support both the new and old version of the application, deploy that, check everything is working fine so we have a rollback point, then deploy the new version of the application. (And when the upgrade has bedded down remove the database support for the old version.)
Faster time to market. It’s common for the integration and test/fix phase of the traditional phased software delivery lifecycle to consume weeks to even months. When teams work together to automate the build and deployment, environment provisioning, and regression testing process, developers can incorporate integration and regression testing into their daily work and completely remove these phases. We also avoid the large amount of re-work that plague the phased approach.
Higher quality and Better products. When developers have automated tools that discover regressions within minutes, teams are freed to focus their effort on user research and higher level testing activities such as exploratory testing, usability testing, and performance and security testing. By building a deployment pipeline, these activities can be performed continuously throughout the delivery process, ensuring quality is built into products and services from the beginning. Continuous delivery makes it economic to work in small batches. This means we can get feedback from users throughout the delivery lifecycle based on working software.
Lower costs. Any successful software product or service will evolve significantly over the course of its lifetime. By investing in build, test, deployment and environment automation, we substantially reduce the cost of making and delivering incremental changes to software by eliminating many of the fixed costs associated with the release process.
Happier teams. Continuous Delivery makes releases less painful and reduces team burnout. Furthermore, when we release more frequently, software delivery teams can engage more actively with users, learn which ideas work and which don’t, and see first-hand then outcomes of the work they have done. By removing low-value painful activities accociated with software delivery, we can fodus on what we care about most - continuous delighting our users.
Continuous delivery is about continuous, daily improvement - the constant discipline of pursuing higher performance by following the heuristic “if it hurts, do it more often, and bring the pain forward.”
There are five principles at the heart of continuous delivery:
Build quality in
Work in small batches
Computers perform repetitive tasks, people solve problems
Relentlessly pursue continuous improvement
Everyone is responsible
It’s easy to get bogged down in the details of implementing continuous delivery - tools, architecture, practices, politics - if you find yourself lost, try revisiting these principles and you may find it helps you refocus on what’s important.
W. Edwards Deming, a key figure in the history of the Lean movement, offered 14 key principles for management. Principle three states, “Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality into the product in the first place”.
It’s much cheaper to fix problems and defects if we find them immediately - ideally before they are ever checked into version control, by running automated tests locally. Finding defects downstream through inspection (such as manual testing) is time-consuming, requiring significant triage. Then we must fix the defect, trying to recall what we were thinking when we introduced the problem days or perhaps even weeks ago.
Creating and evolving feedback loops to detect problems as early as possible is essential and never-ending work in continuous delivery. If we find a problem in our exploratory testing, we must not only fix it, but then ask: How could we have caught the problem with an automated acceptance test? When an acceptance test fails, we should ask: Could we have written a unit test to catch this problem?
In traditional phased approaches to software development, handoffs from dev to test or test to IT operations consist of whole releases: months worth of work by teams consisting of tens or hundreds of people.
In continuous delivery, we take the opposite approach, and try and get every change in version control as far towards release as we can, getting comprehensive feedback as rapidly as possible.
Working in small batches has many benefits. It reduces the time it takes to get feedback on our work, makes it easier to triage and remediate problems, increases efficiency and motivation, and prevents us from succumbing to the sunk cost fallacy.
The reason we work in large batches is because of the large fixed cost of handing off changes. A key goal of continuous delivery is to change the economics of the software delivery process to make it economically viable to work in small batches so we can obtain the many benefits of this approach.
NOTE
A key goal of continuous delivery is to change the economics of the software delivery process to make it economically viable to work in small batches so we can obtain the many benefits of this approach
Continuous improvement, or kaizen in Japanese, is another key idea from the Lean movement. Taiichi Ohno, a key figure in the history of the Toyota company, once said,
“Kaizen opportunitites are infinite. Don’t think you have made things better than before and be at ease… This would be like the student who becomes proud because they bested their master two times out of three in fencing. Once you pick up the sprouts of kaizen ideas, it is important to have the attitude in our daily work that just underneath one kaizen idea is yet another one”.
Don’t treat transformation as a project to be embarked on and then completed so we can return to business as usual. The best organizations are those where everybody treats improvement work as an essential part of their daily work, and where nobody is satisfied with the status quo.
In high performing organizations, nothing is “somebody else’s problem.” Developers are responsible for the quality and stability of the software they build. Operations teams are responsible for helping developers build quality in. Everyone works together to achieve the organizational level goals, rather than optimizing for what’s best for their team or department.
When people make local optimizations that reduce the overall performance of the organization, it’s often due to systemic problems such as poor management systems such as annual budgeting cycles, or incentives that reward the wrong behaviors. A classic example is rewarding developers for increasing their velocity or writing more code, and rewarding testers based on the number of bugs they find.
Most people want to do the right thing, but they will adapt their behaviour based on how they are rewarded. Therefore, it is very important to create fast feedback loops from the things that really matter: how customers react to what we build for them, and the impact on our organization.
Foundations - Prerequisites for Continuous Delivery#
Automation plays a vital role in ensuring we can release software repeatably and reliably. One key goal is to take repetitive manual processes like build, deployment, regression testing and infrastructure provisioning, and automate them. In order to achieve this, we need to version control everything required to perform these processes, including source code, test and deployment scripts, infrastructure and application configuration information, and the many libraries and packages we depend upon. We also want to make it straightforward to query the current -and historical - state of our environments.
We have two overriding goals:
Reproducibility: We should be able to provision any environment in a fully automated fashion, and know that any new environment reproduced from the same configuration is identical.
Traceability: We should be able to pick any environment and be able to determine quickly and precisely the versions of every dependency used to create that environment. We also want to be able to compare previous versions of an environment and see what has changed between them.
These capabilities give us several very important benefits:
Disaster recovery: When something goes wrong with one of our environments, for example a hardware failure or a security breach, we need to be able to reproduce that environment in a deterministic amount of time in order to be able to restore service.
Auditability: In order to demonstrate the integrity of the delivery process, we need to be able to show the path backwards from every deployment to the elements it came from, including their version. Comprehensive configuration management, combined with deployment pipelines, enable this.
Higher quality: The software delivery process is often subject to long delays waiting for development, testing and production environments to be prepared. When this can be done automatically from version control, we can get feedback on the impact of our changes much more rapidly, enabling us to build quality in to our software.
Capacity management: When we want to add more capacity to our environments, the ability to create new reproductions of existing servers is essential. This capability, using OpenStack for example, enables the horizontal scaling of modern cloud-based distributed systems.
Response to defects: When we discover a critical defect, or a vulnerability in some component of our system, we want to get a new version of our software released as quickly as possible. Many organizations have an emergency process for this type of change which goes faster by bypassing some of the testing and auditing. This presents an especially serious dilemma in safety-critical systems. Our goal should be to be able to use our normal release process for emergency fixes - which is precisely what continuous delivery enables, on the basis of comprehensive configuration management.
As environments become more complex and heterogeneous, it becomes progressively harder to achieve these goals. Achieving perfect reproducibility and traceability to the last byte for a complex enterprise system is impossible (apart from anything else, every real system has state). Thus a key part of configuration management is working to simplify our architecture, environments and processes to reduce the investment required to achieve the desired benefits.
Combining the work of multiple developers is hard. Software systems are complex, and an apparently simple, self-contained change to a single file can easily have unintended consequences which compromise the correctness of the system. As a result, some teams have developers work isolated from each other on their own branches, both to keep trunk/master stable, and to prevent them treading on each other’s toes.
However, over time these branches diverge from each other. While merging a single one of these branches into mainline is not usually troublesome, the work required to integrate multiple long-lived branches into mainline is usually painful, requiring significant amounts of re-work as conflicting assumptions of developers are revealed and must be resolved.
Teams using long-lived branches often require code freezes, or even integration and stabilization phases, as they work to integrate these branches prior to a release. Despite modern tooling, this process is still expensive and unpredictable. On teams larger than a few developers, the integration of multiple branches requires multiple rounds of regression testing and bug fixing to validate that the system will work as expected following these merges. This problem becomes exponentially more severe as team sizes grow, and as branches become more long-lived.
The practice of continuous integration was invented to address these problems. CI (continuous integration) follows the XP (extreme programming) principle that if something is painful, we should do it more often, and bring the pain forward. Thus in CI developers integrate all their work into trunk (also known as mainline or master) on a regular basis (at least daily). A set of automated tests is run both before and after the merge to validate that no regressions are introduced. If these automated tests fail, the team stops what they are doing and someone fixes the problem immediately.
Thus we ensure that the software is always in a working state, and that developer branches do not diverge significantly from trunk. The benefits of continuous integration are very significant - higher levels of throughput, more stable systems, and higher quality software. However the practice is still controversial, for two main reasons.
First, it requires developers to break up large features and other changes into smaller, more incremental steps that can be integrated into trunk/master. This is a paradigm shift for developers who are not used to working in this way. It also takes longer to get large features completed. However in general we don’t want to optimize for the speed at which developers can declare their work “dev complete” on a branch. Rather, we want to be able to get changes reviewed, integrated, tested and deployed as fast as possible - and this process is an order of magnitude faster and cheaper when the changes are small and self-contained, and the branches they live on are short-lived. Working in small batches also ensures developers get regular feedback on the impact of their work on the system as a whole - from other developers, testers, customers, and automated performance and security tests—which in turn makes any problems easier to detect, triage, and fix.
Second, continuous integration requires a fast-running set of comprehensive automated unit tests. These tests should be comprehensive enough to give a good level of confidence that the software will work as expected, while also running in a few minutes or less. If the automated unit tests take longer to run, developers will not want to run them frequently, and they will become harder to maintain. Creating maintainable suites of automated unit tests is complex and is best done through test-driven development (TDD), in which developers write failing automated tests before they implement the code that makes the tests pass. TDD has several benefits, the most important of which is that it ensures developers write code that is modular and easy to test, reducing the maintenance cost of the resulting automated test suites. But TDD is still not sufficiently widely practiced.
Despite these barriers, helping software development teams implement continuous integration should be the number one priority for any organization wanting to start the journey to continuous delivery. By creating rapid feedback loops and ensuring developers work in small batches, CI enables teams to build quality into their software, thus reducing the cost of ongoing software development, and increasing both the productivity of teams and the quality of the work they produce.
The key to building quality into our software is making sure we can get fast feedback on the impact of changes. Traditionally, extensive use was made of manual inspection of code changes and manual testing (testers following documentation describing the steps required to test the various functions of the system) in order to demonstrate the correctness of the system. This type of testing was normally done in a phase following “dev complete”. However this strategy have several drawbacks:
Manual regression testing takes a long time and is relatively expensive to perform, creating a bottleneck that prevents us releasing software more frequently, and getting feedback to developers weeks (and sometimes months) after they wrote the code being tested.
Manual tests and inspections are not very reliable, since people are notoriously poor at performing repetitive tasks such as regression testing manually, and it is extremely hard to predict the impact of a set of changes on a complex software system through inspection.
When systems are evolving over time, as is the case in modern software products and services, we have to spend considerable effort updating test documentation to keep it up-to-date.
In order to build quality in to software, we need to adopt a different approach.
The more features and improvements go into our code, the more we’ll need to test to make sure that all our system works properly. And then for each bug we fix, it would be wise to check that they don’t get back in newer releases. Automation is key to make this possible and writing tests sooner rather than later will become part of our development workflow.
Once we have continuous integration and test automation in place, we create a deployment pipeline. In the deployment pipeline pattern, every change runs a build that
creates packages that can be deployed to any environment and
runs unit tests (and possibly other tasks such as static analysis), giving feedback to developers in the space of a few minutes.
Packages that pass this set of tests have more comprehensive automated acceptance tests run against them. Once we have packages that pass all the automated tests, they are available for deplyment to other environments.
In the deployment pipeline, every change is effectively a release candidate. The job of the deployment pipeline is to catch known issues. If we can’t detect any known problems, we should feel totally comfortable releasing any packages that have gone through it. If we aren’t, or if we discover defects later, it means we need to improve our pipeline, perhaps adding or updating some tests.
Our goal should be to find problems as soon as possible, and make the lead time from check-in to release as short as possible. Thus we want to parallelize the activities in the deployment pipeline, not have many stages executing in series. If we discover a defect in the acceptance tests, we should be looking to improve our unit tests (most of our defects should be discovered through unit testing).
Unit tests are very low level and close to the source of an application. They consist in testing individual methods and functions of the classes, components, or modules used by our software. Unit tests are generally quite cheap to automate and can run very quickly by a continuous integration server.
Integration tests verify that different modules or services used by our application work well together. For example, it can be testing the interaction with the database or making sure that microservices work together as expected. These types of tests are more expensive to run as they require multiple parts of the application to be up and running.
Functional tests focus on the business requirements of an application. They only verify the output of an action and do not check the intermediate states of the system when performing that action.
There is sometimes a confusion between integration tests and functional tests as they both require multiple components to interact with each other. The difference is that an integration test may simply verify that we can query the database while a functional test would expect to get a specific value from the database as defined by the product requirements.
End-to-end testing replicates a user behavior with the software in a complete application environment. It verifies that various user flows work as expected and can be as simple as loading a web page or logging in or much more complex scenarios verifying email notifications, online payments, etc…
End-to-end tests are very useful, but they’re expensive to perform and can be hard to maintain when they’re automated. It is recommended to have a few key end-to-end tests and rely more on lower level types of testing (unit and integration tests) to be able to quickly identify breaking changes.
Acceptance tests are formal tests that verify if a system satisfies business requirements. They require the entire application to be running while testing and focus on replicating user behaviors. But they can also go further and measure the performance of the system and reject changes if certain goals are not met.
Performance tests evaluate how a system performs under a particular workload. These tests help to measure the reliability, speed, scalability, and responsiveness of an application. For instance, a performance test can observe response times when executing a high number of requests, or determine how a system behaves with a significant amount of data. It can determine if an application meets performance requirements, locate bottlenecks, measure stability during peak traffic, and more.
Smoke tests are basic tests that check the basic functionality of an application. They are meant to be quick to execute, and their goal is to give us the assurance that the major features of our system are working as expected.
Smoke tests can be useful right after a new build is made to decide whether or not we can run more expensive tests, or right after a deployment to make sure that they application is running properly in the newly deployed environment.
Organizations attempting to deploy continuous delivery tend to make two common mistakes. The first is to treat continuous delivery as an end-state, a goal in itself. The second is to spend a lot of time and energy worrying about what products to use.
In the context of enterprise architecture there are typically multiple attributes we are concerned about, for example availability, security, performance, usability and so forth. In continuous delivery, we introduce two new architectural attributes:
testability
deployability
In a testable architecture, we design our software such that most defects can (in principle, at least) be discovered by developers by running automated tests on their workstations. We shouldn’t need to depend on complex, integrated environments in order to do the majority of our acceptance and regression testing.
In a deployable architecture, deployments of a particular product or service can be performed independently and in a fully automated fashion, without the need for significant levels of orchestration. Deployable systems can typically be upgraded or reconfigured with zero or minimal downtime.
Where testability and deployability are not prioritized, we find that much testing requires the use of complex, integrated environments, and deployments are “big bang” events that require that many services are released at the same time due to complex interdependencies. These “big bang” deployments require many teams to work together in a carefully orchestrated fashion with many hand-offs, and dependencies between hundreds or thousands of tasks. Such deployments typically take many hours or even days, and require scheduling significant downtime.
Designing for testability and deployability starts with ensuring our products and services are composed of loosely-coupled, well-encapsulated components or modules
We can define a well-designed modular architecture as one in which it is possible to test or deploy a single component or service on its own, with any dependencies replaced by a suitable test double, which could be in the form of a virtual machine, a stub, or a mock. Each component or service should be deployable in a fully automated fashion on developer workstations, test environments, or in production. In a well-designed architecture, it is possible to get a high level of confidence the component is operating properly when deployed in this fashion.
:::note Test Double
Test Double is a generic term for any case where you replace a production object for testing purposes. There are various kinds of double:
Dummy objects are passed around but never actually used. Usually they are just used to fill parameter lists.
Fake objects actually have working implementations, but usually take some shortcut which makes them not suitable for production (an InMemoryTestDatabase is a good example).
Stubs provide canned answers to calls made during the test, usually not responding at all to anything outside what’s programmed in for the test.
Spies are stubs that also record some information based on how they were called. One form of this might be an email service that records how many messages it was sent.
Mocks are pre-programmed with expectations which form a specification of the calls they are expected to receive. They can throw an exception if they receive a call they don’t expect and are checked during verification to ensure they got all the calls they were expecting.
:::
Any true service-oriented architecture should have these properties—but unfortunately many do not. However, the microservices movement has explicitly prioritized these architectural properties.
Of course, many organizations are living in a world where services are distinctly hard to test and deploy. Rather than re-architecting everything, we recommend an iterative approach to improving the design of enterprise system, sometimes known as evolutionary architecture. In the evolutionary architecture paradigm, we accept that successful products and services will require re-architecting during their lifecycle due to the changing requirements placed on them.
One pattern that is particularly valuable in this context is the strangler application. In this pattern, we iteratively replace a monolithic architecture with a more componentized one by ensuring that new work is done following the principles of a service-oriented architecture, while accepting that the new architecture may well delegate to the system it is replacing. Over time, more and more functionality will be performed in the new architecture, and the old system being replaced is “strangled”.
The key pattern introduced in continuous delivery is the deployment pipeline. Our goal was to make deployment to any environment a fully automated, scripted process that could be performed on demand in minutes. We wanted to be able to configure testing and production environments purely from configuration files stored in version control. The apparatus we used to perform these tasks became known as deployment pipelines
In the deployment pipeline pattern, every change in version control triggers a process (usually in a CI server) which creates deployable packages and runs automated unit tests and other validations such as static code analysis. This first step is optimized so that it takes only a few minutes to run. If this initial commit stage fails, the problem must be fixed immediately; nobody should check in more work on a broken commit stage. Every passing commit stage triggers the next step in the pipeline, which might consist of a more comprehensive set of automated tests. Versions of the software that pass all the automated tests can then be deployed to production.
Deployment pipelines tie together configuration management, continuous integration and test and deployment automation in a holistic, powerful way that works to improve software quality, increase stability, and reduce the time and cost required to make incremental changes to software, whatever domain we’re operating in. When building a deployment pipeline, the following practices become valuable:
Only build packages once. We want to be sure the thing we’re deploying is the same thing we’ve tested throughout the deployment pipeline, so if a deployment fails we can eliminate the packages as the source of the failure.
Deploy the same way to every environment, including development. This way, we test the deployment process many, many times before it gets to production, and again, we can eliminate it as the source of any problems.
Smoke test your deployments. Have a script that validates all your application’s dependencies are available, at the location you have configured your application. Make sure your application is running and available as part of the deployment process.
Keep your environments similar. Although they may differ in hardware configuration, they should have the same version of the operating system and middleware packages, and they should be configured in the same way. This has become much easier to achieve with modern virtualization and container technology.
With the advent of infrastructure as code, it has became possible to use deployment pipelines to create a fully automated process for taking all kinds of changes—including database and infrastructure changes
In the context of web-based systems there are a number of patterns that can be applied to further reduce the risk of deployments. Michael Nygard also describes a number of important software design patterns which are instrumental in creating resilient large-scale systems in his book Release It!
The 3 key principles that enable low-risk releases are
Optimize for Resilience. Once we accept that failures are inevitable, we should start to move away from the idea of investing all our effort in preventing problems, and think instead about how to restore service as rapidly as possible when something goes wrong. Furthermore, when an accident occurs, we should treat it as a learning opportunity. Resilience isn’t just a feature of our systems, it’s a characteristic of a team’s culture. High performance organizations are constantly working to improve the resilience of their systems by trying to break them and implementing the lessons learned in the course of doing so.
Low-risk Releases are Incremental. Our goal is to architect our systems such that we can release individual changes (including database changes) independently, rather than having to orchestrate big-bang releases due to tight coupling between multiple different systems.
Focus on Reducing Batch Size. Counterintuitively, deploying to production more frequently actually reduces the risk of release when done properly, simply because the amount of change in each deployment is smaller. When each deployment consists of tens of lines of code or a few configuration settings, it becomes much easier to perform root cause analysis and restore service in the case of an incident. Furthermore, because we practice the deployment process so frequently, we’re forced to simplify and automate it which further reduces risk.
Continuous delivery is an approach where teams release quality products frequently and predictably from source code repository to production in an automated fashion.
Continuous Delivery is the ability to get changes of all types - including new features, configuration changes, bug fixes and experiments - into production, or into the hands of users, safely and quickly in a sustainable way.
The goal of continuous delivery is to make deployments - whether of a large-scale distributed system, a complex production environment, an embedded system, or an app - predictable, routine affairs that can be performed on demand.
We achieve all this by ensuring our code is always in a deployable state, even in the face of teams of thousands of developers making changes on a daily basis. We thus completely eliminate the integration, testing and hardening phases that traditionally followed “dev complete”, as well as code freezes.
It is often assumed that if we want to deploy software more frequently, we must accept lower levels of stability and reliability in our systems. In fact, peer-reviewed research shows that this is not the case. High performance teams consistently deliver services faster and more reliably than their low performing competition. This is true even in highly regulated domains such as financial services and government. This capability provides an incredible competitive advantage for organizations that are willing to invest the effort to pursue it.
NOTE
Firms with high-performing IT organizations were twice as likely to exceed their profitability, market share and productivity goals.
High performers achieved higher levels of both throughput and stability.
The use of continuous delivery practices including version control, continuous integration, and test automation predicts higher IT performance.
Culture is measurable and predicts job satisfaction and organizational performance.
Continuous Delivery measurably reduces both deployment pain and team burnout.
The practices at the heart of continuous delivery help us achieve several important benefits:
Low risk releases. The primary goal of continuous delivery is to make software deployments painless, low-risk events that can be performed at any time, on demand. By applying patterns such as blue-green deployments it is relatively straightforward to achieve zero-downtime deployments that are undetectable to users.
Blue-green Deployment
One of the challenges with automating deployment is the cut-over itself, taking software from the final stage of testing to live production. We usually need to do this quickly in order to minimize downtime. The blue-green deployment approach does this by ensuring we have two production environments, as identical as possible. At any time one of them, let’s say blue for the example, is live. As we prepare a new release of our software we do our final stage of testing in the green environment. Once the software is working in the green environment, we switch the router so that all incoming requests go to the green environment - the blue one is now idle.
Blue-green deployment also gives us a rapid way to rollback - if anything goes wrong we switch the router back to our blue environment. There’s still the issue of dealing with missed transactions while the green environment was live, but depending on our design we may be able to feed transactions to both environments in such a way as to keep the blue environment as a backup when the green is live. Or we may be able to put the application in read-only mode before cut-over, run it for a while in read-only mode, and then switch it to read-write mode. That may be enough to flush out many outstanding issues.
The two environments need to be different but as identical as possible. In some situations they can be different pieces of hardware, or they can be different virtual machines running on the same (or different) hardware. They can also be a single operating environment partitioned into separate zones with separate IP addresses for the two slices.
Once we’ve put our green environment live and we’re happy with its stability, we then use the blue environment as our staging environment for the final testing step for our next deployment. When we are ready for our next release, we switch from green to blue in the same way that we did from blue to green earlier. That way both green and blue environments are regularly cycling between live, previous version (for rollback) and staging the next version.
An advantage of this approach is that it’s the same basic mechanism as we need to get a hot-standby working. Hence this allows us to test our disaster-recovery procedure on every release.
The fundamental idea is to have two easily switchable environments to switch between, there are plenty of ways to vary the details. One project did the switch by bouncing the web server rather than working on the router. Another variation would be to use the same database, making the blue-green switches for web and domain layers.
Databases can often be a challenge with this technique, particularly when we need to change the schema to support a new version of the software. The trick is to separate the deployment of schema changes from application upgrades. So first apply a database refactoring to change the schema to support both the new and old version of the application, deploy that, check everything is working fine so we have a rollback point, then deploy the new version of the application. (And when the upgrade has bedded down remove the database support for the old version.)
Faster time to market. It’s common for the integration and test/fix phase of the traditional phased software delivery lifecycle to consume weeks to even months. When teams work together to automate the build and deployment, environment provisioning, and regression testing process, developers can incorporate integration and regression testing into their daily work and completely remove these phases. We also avoid the large amount of re-work that plague the phased approach.
Higher quality and Better products. When developers have automated tools that discover regressions within minutes, teams are freed to focus their effort on user research and higher level testing activities such as exploratory testing, usability testing, and performance and security testing. By building a deployment pipeline, these activities can be performed continuously throughout the delivery process, ensuring quality is built into products and services from the beginning. Continuous delivery makes it economic to work in small batches. This means we can get feedback from users throughout the delivery lifecycle based on working software.
Lower costs. Any successful software product or service will evolve significantly over the course of its lifetime. By investing in build, test, deployment and environment automation, we substantially reduce the cost of making and delivering incremental changes to software by eliminating many of the fixed costs associated with the release process.
Happier teams. Continuous Delivery makes releases less painful and reduces team burnout. Furthermore, when we release more frequently, software delivery teams can engage more actively with users, learn which ideas work and which don’t, and see first-hand then outcomes of the work they have done. By removing low-value painful activities accociated with software delivery, we can fodus on what we care about most - continuous delighting our users.
Continuous delivery is about continuous, daily improvement - the constant discipline of pursuing higher performance by following the heuristic “if it hurts, do it more often, and bring the pain forward.”
There are five principles at the heart of continuous delivery:
Build quality in
Work in small batches
Computers perform repetitive tasks, people solve problems
Relentlessly pursue continuous improvement
Everyone is responsible
It’s easy to get bogged down in the details of implementing continuous delivery - tools, architecture, practices, politics - if you find yourself lost, try revisiting these principles and you may find it helps you refocus on what’s important.
W. Edwards Deming, a key figure in the history of the Lean movement, offered 14 key principles for management. Principle three states, “Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality into the product in the first place”.
It’s much cheaper to fix problems and defects if we find them immediately - ideally before they are ever checked into version control, by running automated tests locally. Finding defects downstream through inspection (such as manual testing) is time-consuming, requiring significant triage. Then we must fix the defect, trying to recall what we were thinking when we introduced the problem days or perhaps even weeks ago.
Creating and evolving feedback loops to detect problems as early as possible is essential and never-ending work in continuous delivery. If we find a problem in our exploratory testing, we must not only fix it, but then ask: How could we have caught the problem with an automated acceptance test? When an acceptance test fails, we should ask: Could we have written a unit test to catch this problem?
In traditional phased approaches to software development, handoffs from dev to test or test to IT operations consist of whole releases: months worth of work by teams consisting of tens or hundreds of people.
In continuous delivery, we take the opposite approach, and try and get every change in version control as far towards release as we can, getting comprehensive feedback as rapidly as possible.
Working in small batches has many benefits. It reduces the time it takes to get feedback on our work, makes it easier to triage and remediate problems, increases efficiency and motivation, and prevents us from succumbing to the sunk cost fallacy.
The reason we work in large batches is because of the large fixed cost of handing off changes. A key goal of continuous delivery is to change the economics of the software delivery process to make it economically viable to work in small batches so we can obtain the many benefits of this approach.
NOTE
A key goal of continuous delivery is to change the economics of the software delivery process to make it economically viable to work in small batches so we can obtain the many benefits of this approach
Continuous improvement, or kaizen in Japanese, is another key idea from the Lean movement. Taiichi Ohno, a key figure in the history of the Toyota company, once said,
“Kaizen opportunitites are infinite. Don’t think you have made things better than before and be at ease… This would be like the student who becomes proud because they bested their master two times out of three in fencing. Once you pick up the sprouts of kaizen ideas, it is important to have the attitude in our daily work that just underneath one kaizen idea is yet another one”.
Don’t treat transformation as a project to be embarked on and then completed so we can return to business as usual. The best organizations are those where everybody treats improvement work as an essential part of their daily work, and where nobody is satisfied with the status quo.
In high performing organizations, nothing is “somebody else’s problem.” Developers are responsible for the quality and stability of the software they build. Operations teams are responsible for helping developers build quality in. Everyone works together to achieve the organizational level goals, rather than optimizing for what’s best for their team or department.
When people make local optimizations that reduce the overall performance of the organization, it’s often due to systemic problems such as poor management systems such as annual budgeting cycles, or incentives that reward the wrong behaviors. A classic example is rewarding developers for increasing their velocity or writing more code, and rewarding testers based on the number of bugs they find.
Most people want to do the right thing, but they will adapt their behaviour based on how they are rewarded. Therefore, it is very important to create fast feedback loops from the things that really matter: how customers react to what we build for them, and the impact on our organization.
Foundations - Prerequisites for Continuous Delivery#
Automation plays a vital role in ensuring we can release software repeatably and reliably. One key goal is to take repetitive manual processes like build, deployment, regression testing and infrastructure provisioning, and automate them. In order to achieve this, we need to version control everything required to perform these processes, including source code, test and deployment scripts, infrastructure and application configuration information, and the many libraries and packages we depend upon. We also want to make it straightforward to query the current -and historical - state of our environments.
We have two overriding goals:
Reproducibility: We should be able to provision any environment in a fully automated fashion, and know that any new environment reproduced from the same configuration is identical.
Traceability: We should be able to pick any environment and be able to determine quickly and precisely the versions of every dependency used to create that environment. We also want to be able to compare previous versions of an environment and see what has changed between them.
These capabilities give us several very important benefits:
Disaster recovery: When something goes wrong with one of our environments, for example a hardware failure or a security breach, we need to be able to reproduce that environment in a deterministic amount of time in order to be able to restore service.
Auditability: In order to demonstrate the integrity of the delivery process, we need to be able to show the path backwards from every deployment to the elements it came from, including their version. Comprehensive configuration management, combined with deployment pipelines, enable this.
Higher quality: The software delivery process is often subject to long delays waiting for development, testing and production environments to be prepared. When this can be done automatically from version control, we can get feedback on the impact of our changes much more rapidly, enabling us to build quality in to our software.
Capacity management: When we want to add more capacity to our environments, the ability to create new reproductions of existing servers is essential. This capability, using OpenStack for example, enables the horizontal scaling of modern cloud-based distributed systems.
Response to defects: When we discover a critical defect, or a vulnerability in some component of our system, we want to get a new version of our software released as quickly as possible. Many organizations have an emergency process for this type of change which goes faster by bypassing some of the testing and auditing. This presents an especially serious dilemma in safety-critical systems. Our goal should be to be able to use our normal release process for emergency fixes - which is precisely what continuous delivery enables, on the basis of comprehensive configuration management.
As environments become more complex and heterogeneous, it becomes progressively harder to achieve these goals. Achieving perfect reproducibility and traceability to the last byte for a complex enterprise system is impossible (apart from anything else, every real system has state). Thus a key part of configuration management is working to simplify our architecture, environments and processes to reduce the investment required to achieve the desired benefits.
Combining the work of multiple developers is hard. Software systems are complex, and an apparently simple, self-contained change to a single file can easily have unintended consequences which compromise the correctness of the system. As a result, some teams have developers work isolated from each other on their own branches, both to keep trunk/master stable, and to prevent them treading on each other’s toes.
However, over time these branches diverge from each other. While merging a single one of these branches into mainline is not usually troublesome, the work required to integrate multiple long-lived branches into mainline is usually painful, requiring significant amounts of re-work as conflicting assumptions of developers are revealed and must be resolved.
Teams using long-lived branches often require code freezes, or even integration and stabilization phases, as they work to integrate these branches prior to a release. Despite modern tooling, this process is still expensive and unpredictable. On teams larger than a few developers, the integration of multiple branches requires multiple rounds of regression testing and bug fixing to validate that the system will work as expected following these merges. This problem becomes exponentially more severe as team sizes grow, and as branches become more long-lived.
The practice of continuous integration was invented to address these problems. CI (continuous integration) follows the XP (extreme programming) principle that if something is painful, we should do it more often, and bring the pain forward. Thus in CI developers integrate all their work into trunk (also known as mainline or master) on a regular basis (at least daily). A set of automated tests is run both before and after the merge to validate that no regressions are introduced. If these automated tests fail, the team stops what they are doing and someone fixes the problem immediately.
Thus we ensure that the software is always in a working state, and that developer branches do not diverge significantly from trunk. The benefits of continuous integration are very significant - higher levels of throughput, more stable systems, and higher quality software. However the practice is still controversial, for two main reasons.
First, it requires developers to break up large features and other changes into smaller, more incremental steps that can be integrated into trunk/master. This is a paradigm shift for developers who are not used to working in this way. It also takes longer to get large features completed. However in general we don’t want to optimize for the speed at which developers can declare their work “dev complete” on a branch. Rather, we want to be able to get changes reviewed, integrated, tested and deployed as fast as possible - and this process is an order of magnitude faster and cheaper when the changes are small and self-contained, and the branches they live on are short-lived. Working in small batches also ensures developers get regular feedback on the impact of their work on the system as a whole - from other developers, testers, customers, and automated performance and security tests—which in turn makes any problems easier to detect, triage, and fix.
Second, continuous integration requires a fast-running set of comprehensive automated unit tests. These tests should be comprehensive enough to give a good level of confidence that the software will work as expected, while also running in a few minutes or less. If the automated unit tests take longer to run, developers will not want to run them frequently, and they will become harder to maintain. Creating maintainable suites of automated unit tests is complex and is best done through test-driven development (TDD), in which developers write failing automated tests before they implement the code that makes the tests pass. TDD has several benefits, the most important of which is that it ensures developers write code that is modular and easy to test, reducing the maintenance cost of the resulting automated test suites. But TDD is still not sufficiently widely practiced.
Despite these barriers, helping software development teams implement continuous integration should be the number one priority for any organization wanting to start the journey to continuous delivery. By creating rapid feedback loops and ensuring developers work in small batches, CI enables teams to build quality into their software, thus reducing the cost of ongoing software development, and increasing both the productivity of teams and the quality of the work they produce.
The key to building quality into our software is making sure we can get fast feedback on the impact of changes. Traditionally, extensive use was made of manual inspection of code changes and manual testing (testers following documentation describing the steps required to test the various functions of the system) in order to demonstrate the correctness of the system. This type of testing was normally done in a phase following “dev complete”. However this strategy have several drawbacks:
Manual regression testing takes a long time and is relatively expensive to perform, creating a bottleneck that prevents us releasing software more frequently, and getting feedback to developers weeks (and sometimes months) after they wrote the code being tested.
Manual tests and inspections are not very reliable, since people are notoriously poor at performing repetitive tasks such as regression testing manually, and it is extremely hard to predict the impact of a set of changes on a complex software system through inspection.
When systems are evolving over time, as is the case in modern software products and services, we have to spend considerable effort updating test documentation to keep it up-to-date.
In order to build quality in to software, we need to adopt a different approach.
The more features and improvements go into our code, the more we’ll need to test to make sure that all our system works properly. And then for each bug we fix, it would be wise to check that they don’t get back in newer releases. Automation is key to make this possible and writing tests sooner rather than later will become part of our development workflow.
Once we have continuous integration and test automation in place, we create a deployment pipeline. In the deployment pipeline pattern, every change runs a build that
creates packages that can be deployed to any environment and
runs unit tests (and possibly other tasks such as static analysis), giving feedback to developers in the space of a few minutes.
Packages that pass this set of tests have more comprehensive automated acceptance tests run against them. Once we have packages that pass all the automated tests, they are available for deplyment to other environments.
In the deployment pipeline, every change is effectively a release candidate. The job of the deployment pipeline is to catch known issues. If we can’t detect any known problems, we should feel totally comfortable releasing any packages that have gone through it. If we aren’t, or if we discover defects later, it means we need to improve our pipeline, perhaps adding or updating some tests.
Our goal should be to find problems as soon as possible, and make the lead time from check-in to release as short as possible. Thus we want to parallelize the activities in the deployment pipeline, not have many stages executing in series. If we discover a defect in the acceptance tests, we should be looking to improve our unit tests (most of our defects should be discovered through unit testing).
Unit tests are very low level and close to the source of an application. They consist in testing individual methods and functions of the classes, components, or modules used by our software. Unit tests are generally quite cheap to automate and can run very quickly by a continuous integration server.
Integration tests verify that different modules or services used by our application work well together. For example, it can be testing the interaction with the database or making sure that microservices work together as expected. These types of tests are more expensive to run as they require multiple parts of the application to be up and running.
Functional tests focus on the business requirements of an application. They only verify the output of an action and do not check the intermediate states of the system when performing that action.
There is sometimes a confusion between integration tests and functional tests as they both require multiple components to interact with each other. The difference is that an integration test may simply verify that we can query the database while a functional test would expect to get a specific value from the database as defined by the product requirements.
End-to-end testing replicates a user behavior with the software in a complete application environment. It verifies that various user flows work as expected and can be as simple as loading a web page or logging in or much more complex scenarios verifying email notifications, online payments, etc…
End-to-end tests are very useful, but they’re expensive to perform and can be hard to maintain when they’re automated. It is recommended to have a few key end-to-end tests and rely more on lower level types of testing (unit and integration tests) to be able to quickly identify breaking changes.
Acceptance tests are formal tests that verify if a system satisfies business requirements. They require the entire application to be running while testing and focus on replicating user behaviors. But they can also go further and measure the performance of the system and reject changes if certain goals are not met.
Performance tests evaluate how a system performs under a particular workload. These tests help to measure the reliability, speed, scalability, and responsiveness of an application. For instance, a performance test can observe response times when executing a high number of requests, or determine how a system behaves with a significant amount of data. It can determine if an application meets performance requirements, locate bottlenecks, measure stability during peak traffic, and more.
Smoke tests are basic tests that check the basic functionality of an application. They are meant to be quick to execute, and their goal is to give us the assurance that the major features of our system are working as expected.
Smoke tests can be useful right after a new build is made to decide whether or not we can run more expensive tests, or right after a deployment to make sure that they application is running properly in the newly deployed environment.
Organizations attempting to deploy continuous delivery tend to make two common mistakes. The first is to treat continuous delivery as an end-state, a goal in itself. The second is to spend a lot of time and energy worrying about what products to use.
In the context of enterprise architecture there are typically multiple attributes we are concerned about, for example availability, security, performance, usability and so forth. In continuous delivery, we introduce two new architectural attributes:
testability
deployability
In a testable architecture, we design our software such that most defects can (in principle, at least) be discovered by developers by running automated tests on their workstations. We shouldn’t need to depend on complex, integrated environments in order to do the majority of our acceptance and regression testing.
In a deployable architecture, deployments of a particular product or service can be performed independently and in a fully automated fashion, without the need for significant levels of orchestration. Deployable systems can typically be upgraded or reconfigured with zero or minimal downtime.
Where testability and deployability are not prioritized, we find that much testing requires the use of complex, integrated environments, and deployments are “big bang” events that require that many services are released at the same time due to complex interdependencies. These “big bang” deployments require many teams to work together in a carefully orchestrated fashion with many hand-offs, and dependencies between hundreds or thousands of tasks. Such deployments typically take many hours or even days, and require scheduling significant downtime.
Designing for testability and deployability starts with ensuring our products and services are composed of loosely-coupled, well-encapsulated components or modules
We can define a well-designed modular architecture as one in which it is possible to test or deploy a single component or service on its own, with any dependencies replaced by a suitable test double, which could be in the form of a virtual machine, a stub, or a mock. Each component or service should be deployable in a fully automated fashion on developer workstations, test environments, or in production. In a well-designed architecture, it is possible to get a high level of confidence the component is operating properly when deployed in this fashion.
:::note Test Double
Test Double is a generic term for any case where you replace a production object for testing purposes. There are various kinds of double:
Dummy objects are passed around but never actually used. Usually they are just used to fill parameter lists.
Fake objects actually have working implementations, but usually take some shortcut which makes them not suitable for production (an InMemoryTestDatabase is a good example).
Stubs provide canned answers to calls made during the test, usually not responding at all to anything outside what’s programmed in for the test.
Spies are stubs that also record some information based on how they were called. One form of this might be an email service that records how many messages it was sent.
Mocks are pre-programmed with expectations which form a specification of the calls they are expected to receive. They can throw an exception if they receive a call they don’t expect and are checked during verification to ensure they got all the calls they were expecting.
:::
Any true service-oriented architecture should have these properties—but unfortunately many do not. However, the microservices movement has explicitly prioritized these architectural properties.
Of course, many organizations are living in a world where services are distinctly hard to test and deploy. Rather than re-architecting everything, we recommend an iterative approach to improving the design of enterprise system, sometimes known as evolutionary architecture. In the evolutionary architecture paradigm, we accept that successful products and services will require re-architecting during their lifecycle due to the changing requirements placed on them.
One pattern that is particularly valuable in this context is the strangler application. In this pattern, we iteratively replace a monolithic architecture with a more componentized one by ensuring that new work is done following the principles of a service-oriented architecture, while accepting that the new architecture may well delegate to the system it is replacing. Over time, more and more functionality will be performed in the new architecture, and the old system being replaced is “strangled”.
The key pattern introduced in continuous delivery is the deployment pipeline. Our goal was to make deployment to any environment a fully automated, scripted process that could be performed on demand in minutes. We wanted to be able to configure testing and production environments purely from configuration files stored in version control. The apparatus we used to perform these tasks became known as deployment pipelines
In the deployment pipeline pattern, every change in version control triggers a process (usually in a CI server) which creates deployable packages and runs automated unit tests and other validations such as static code analysis. This first step is optimized so that it takes only a few minutes to run. If this initial commit stage fails, the problem must be fixed immediately; nobody should check in more work on a broken commit stage. Every passing commit stage triggers the next step in the pipeline, which might consist of a more comprehensive set of automated tests. Versions of the software that pass all the automated tests can then be deployed to production.
Deployment pipelines tie together configuration management, continuous integration and test and deployment automation in a holistic, powerful way that works to improve software quality, increase stability, and reduce the time and cost required to make incremental changes to software, whatever domain we’re operating in. When building a deployment pipeline, the following practices become valuable:
Only build packages once. We want to be sure the thing we’re deploying is the same thing we’ve tested throughout the deployment pipeline, so if a deployment fails we can eliminate the packages as the source of the failure.
Deploy the same way to every environment, including development. This way, we test the deployment process many, many times before it gets to production, and again, we can eliminate it as the source of any problems.
Smoke test your deployments. Have a script that validates all your application’s dependencies are available, at the location you have configured your application. Make sure your application is running and available as part of the deployment process.
Keep your environments similar. Although they may differ in hardware configuration, they should have the same version of the operating system and middleware packages, and they should be configured in the same way. This has become much easier to achieve with modern virtualization and container technology.
With the advent of infrastructure as code, it has became possible to use deployment pipelines to create a fully automated process for taking all kinds of changes—including database and infrastructure changes
In the context of web-based systems there are a number of patterns that can be applied to further reduce the risk of deployments. Michael Nygard also describes a number of important software design patterns which are instrumental in creating resilient large-scale systems in his book Release It!
The 3 key principles that enable low-risk releases are
Optimize for Resilience. Once we accept that failures are inevitable, we should start to move away from the idea of investing all our effort in preventing problems, and think instead about how to restore service as rapidly as possible when something goes wrong. Furthermore, when an accident occurs, we should treat it as a learning opportunity. Resilience isn’t just a feature of our systems, it’s a characteristic of a team’s culture. High performance organizations are constantly working to improve the resilience of their systems by trying to break them and implementing the lessons learned in the course of doing so.
Low-risk Releases are Incremental. Our goal is to architect our systems such that we can release individual changes (including database changes) independently, rather than having to orchestrate big-bang releases due to tight coupling between multiple different systems.
Focus on Reducing Batch Size. Counterintuitively, deploying to production more frequently actually reduces the risk of release when done properly, simply because the amount of change in each deployment is smaller. When each deployment consists of tens of lines of code or a few configuration settings, it becomes much easier to perform root cause analysis and restore service in the case of an incident. Furthermore, because we practice the deployment process so frequently, we’re forced to simplify and automate it which further reduces risk.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/posts/declaration-of-independence/index.html b/posts/declaration-of-independence/index.html
index 0e90b6bed..13e2a856e 100644
--- a/posts/declaration-of-independence/index.html
+++ b/posts/declaration-of-independence/index.html
@@ -1 +1 @@
-Infinite Game - Declaration of Independence - Jiaqi's Leadership Blog
The Infinite Game. New York: Portfolio/Penguin, 2019. ISBN 9780735213500, Chapter 2 - What a Just Cause Is - For something — affirmative and optimistic
A Just Cause is something we stand for and believe in, not something we oppose. Leaders can rally people against something quite easily. They can whip them into a frenzy, even. For our emotions can run hot when we are angry or afraid. Being for something, in contrast, is about feeling inspired. Being for ignites the human spirit and fills us with hope and optimism. Being against is about vilifying, demonizing or rejecting. Being for is about inviting all to join in common cause. Being against focuses our attention on the things we can see in order to elicit reactions. Being for focuses our attention on the unbuilt future in order to spark our imaginations.
Imagine if instead of fighting against poverty, for example, we fought for the right of every human to provide for their own family. The first creates a common enemy, something we are against. It sets up the Cause as if it is “winnable,” i.e., a finite game. It leads us to believe that we can defeat poverty once and for all. The second gives us a cause to advance. The impact of the two perspectives is more than semantics. It affects how we view the problem/vision that affects our ideas on how we can contribute. Where the first offers us a problem to solve, the second offers a vision of possibility, dignity and empowerment. We are not inspired to “reduce” poverty, we are inspired to “grow” the number of people who are able to provide for themselves and their families. Being for or being against is a subtle but profound difference that the writers of the Declaration of Independence intuitively understood.
Those who led America toward independence stood against Great Britain in the short term. Indeed the American colonists were deeply offended by how they were treated by England. Over 60 percent of the Declaration of Independence is spent laying out specific grievances against the king. However, the Cause they were fighting for was the true source of lasting inspiration, and in the Declaration of Independence it came before anything else. It is the first idea we read in the document. It sets the context for the rest of the Declaration and the direction for moving forward. It is the ideal to which we personally relate and that we have easily committed to memory. Few Americans, except for scholars and the most zealous of history buffs, can rattle off even one of the complaints listed later in the document, things like: “He has endeavored to prevent the Population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.” In contrast, most Americans can recite with ease “all men are created equal” and can usually rattle off the three tenets of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These words are indelibly marked on the cultural psyche. Invoked by patriots and politicians alike, they remind Americans of who we strive to be and the ideals upon which our nation was founded. They tell us what we stand for.
The Infinite Game. New York: Portfolio/Penguin, 2019. ISBN 9780735213500, Chapter 2 - What a Just Cause Is - For something — affirmative and optimistic
A Just Cause is something we stand for and believe in, not something we oppose. Leaders can rally people against something quite easily. They can whip them into a frenzy, even. For our emotions can run hot when we are angry or afraid. Being for something, in contrast, is about feeling inspired. Being for ignites the human spirit and fills us with hope and optimism. Being against is about vilifying, demonizing or rejecting. Being for is about inviting all to join in common cause. Being against focuses our attention on the things we can see in order to elicit reactions. Being for focuses our attention on the unbuilt future in order to spark our imaginations.
Imagine if instead of fighting against poverty, for example, we fought for the right of every human to provide for their own family. The first creates a common enemy, something we are against. It sets up the Cause as if it is “winnable,” i.e., a finite game. It leads us to believe that we can defeat poverty once and for all. The second gives us a cause to advance. The impact of the two perspectives is more than semantics. It affects how we view the problem/vision that affects our ideas on how we can contribute. Where the first offers us a problem to solve, the second offers a vision of possibility, dignity and empowerment. We are not inspired to “reduce” poverty, we are inspired to “grow” the number of people who are able to provide for themselves and their families. Being for or being against is a subtle but profound difference that the writers of the Declaration of Independence intuitively understood.
Those who led America toward independence stood against Great Britain in the short term. Indeed the American colonists were deeply offended by how they were treated by England. Over 60 percent of the Declaration of Independence is spent laying out specific grievances against the king. However, the Cause they were fighting for was the true source of lasting inspiration, and in the Declaration of Independence it came before anything else. It is the first idea we read in the document. It sets the context for the rest of the Declaration and the direction for moving forward. It is the ideal to which we personally relate and that we have easily committed to memory. Few Americans, except for scholars and the most zealous of history buffs, can rattle off even one of the complaints listed later in the document, things like: “He has endeavored to prevent the Population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.” In contrast, most Americans can recite with ease “all men are created equal” and can usually rattle off the three tenets of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These words are indelibly marked on the cultural psyche. Invoked by patriots and politicians alike, they remind Americans of who we strive to be and the ideals upon which our nation was founded. They tell us what we stand for.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/posts/docker-c-advisor/index.html b/posts/docker-c-advisor/index.html
index 98a0c708f..e3c215ac8 100644
--- a/posts/docker-c-advisor/index.html
+++ b/posts/docker-c-advisor/index.html
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-Docker cAdvisor - Jiaqi's Leadership Blog
cAdvisor (Container Advisor) provides Docker container users an understanding of the resource usage and performance characteristics of their running containers. It is a running daemon that collects, aggregates, processes, and exports information about running containers. Specifically, for each container it keeps resource isolation parameters, historical resource usage, histograms of complete historical resource usage and network statistics. This data is exported by container and machine-wide.
Although cAdvisor has some prelimilary (useful though) UI. It also offers
cAdvisor (Container Advisor) provides Docker container users an understanding of the resource usage and performance characteristics of their running containers. It is a running daemon that collects, aggregates, processes, and exports information about running containers. Specifically, for each container it keeps resource isolation parameters, historical resource usage, histograms of complete historical resource usage and network statistics. This data is exported by container and machine-wide.
Although cAdvisor has some prelimilary (useful though) UI. It also offers
There’s a man by the name of Captain William Swenson who recently was awarded the congressional Medal of Honor for his actions on September 8, 2009.
On that day, a column of American and Afghan troops were making their way through a part of Afghanistan to help protect a group of government officials, a group of Afghan government officials, who would be meeting with some local village elders. The column came under ambush, and was surrounded on three sides, and amongst many other things, Captain Swenson was recognized for running into live fire to rescue the wounded and pull out the dead. One of the people he rescued was a sergeant, and he and a comrade were making their way to a medevac helicopter.
And what was remarkable about this day is, by sheer coincidence, one of the medevac medics happened to have a GoPro camera on his helmet and captured the whole scene on camera. It shows Captain Swenson and his comrade bringing this wounded soldier who had received a gunshot to the neck. They put him in the helicopter, and then you see Captain Swenson bend over and give him a kiss before he turns around to rescue more.
I saw this, and I thought to myself, where do people like that come from? What is that? That is some deep, deep emotion, when you would want to do that. There’s a love there, and I wanted to know why is it that I don’t have people that I work with like that? You know, in the military, they give medals to people who are willing to sacrifice themselves so that others may gain. In business, we give bonuses to people who are willing to sacrifice others so that we may gain. We have it backwards. Right? So I asked myself, where do people like this come from? And my initial conclusion was that they’re just better people. That’s why they’re attracted to the military. These better people are attracted to this concept of service. But that’s completely wrong. What I learned was that it’s the environment, and if you get the environment right, every single one of us has the capacity to do these remarkable things, and more importantly, others have that capacity too. I’ve had the great honor of getting to meet some of these, who we would call heroes, who have put themselves and put their lives at risk to save others, and I asked them, “Why would you do it? Why did you do it?” And they all say the same thing: “Because they would have done it for me.” It’s this deep sense of trust and cooperation. So trust and cooperation are really important here. The problem with concepts of trust and cooperation is that they are feelings, they are not instructions. I can’t simply say to you, “Trust me,” and you will. I can’t simply instruct two people to cooperate, and they will. It’s not how it works. It’s a feeling.
So where does that feeling come from? If you go back 50,000 years to the Paleolithic era, to the early days of Homo sapiens, what we find is that the world was filled with danger, all of these forces working very, very hard to kill us. Nothing personal. Whether it was the weather, lack of resources, maybe a saber-toothed tiger, all of these things working to reduce our lifespan. And so we evolved into social animals, where we lived together and worked together in what I call a circle of safety, inside the tribe, where we felt like we belonged. And when we felt safe amongst our own, the natural reaction was trust and cooperation. There are inherent benefits to this. It means I can fall asleep at night and trust that someone from within my tribe will watch for danger. If we don’t trust each other, if I don’t trust you, that means you won’t watch for danger. Bad system of survival.
The modern day is exactly the same thing. The world is filled with danger, things that are trying to frustrate our lives or reduce our success, reduce our opportunity for success. It could be the ups and downs in the economy, the uncertainty of the stock market. It could be a new technology that renders your business model obsolete overnight. Or it could be your competition that is sometimes trying to kill you. It’s sometimes trying to put you out of business, but at the very minimum is working hard to frustrate your growth and steal your business from you. We have no control over these forces. These are a constant, and they’re not going away.
The only variable are the conditions inside the organization, and that’s where leadership matters, because it’s the leader that sets the tone. When a leader makes the choice to put the safety and lives of the people inside the organization first, to sacrifice their comforts and sacrifice the tangible results, so that the people remain and feel safe and feel like they belong, remarkable things happen.
I was flying on a trip, and I was witness to an incident where a passenger attempted to board before their number was called, and I watched the gate agent treat this man like he had broken the law, like a criminal. He was yelled at for attempting to board one group too soon. So I said something. I said, “Why do you have to treat us like cattle? Why can’t you treat us like human beings?” And this is exactly what she said to me. She said, “Sir, if I don’t follow the rules, I could get in trouble or lose my job.” All she was telling me is that she doesn’t feel safe. All she was telling me is that she doesn’t trust her leaders. The reason we like flying Southwest Airlines is not because they necessarily hire better people. It’s because they don’t fear their leaders.
You see, if the conditions are wrong, we are forced to expend our own time and energy to protect ourselves from each other, and that inherently weakens the organization. When we feel safe inside the organization, we will naturally combine our talents and our strengths and work tirelessly to face the dangers outside and seize the opportunities.
The closest analogy I can give to what a great leader is, is like being a parent. If you think about what being a great parent is, what do you want? What makes a great parent? We want to give our child opportunities, education, discipline them when necessary, all so that they can grow up and achieve more than we could for ourselves. Great leaders want exactly the same thing. They want to provide their people opportunity, education, discipline when necessary, build their self-confidence, give them the opportunity to try and fail, all so that they could achieve more than we could ever imagine for ourselves.
Charlie Kim, who’s the CEO of a company called Next Jump in New York City, a tech company, he makes the point that if you had hard times in your family, would you ever consider laying off one of your children? We would never do it. Then why do we consider laying off people inside our organization? Charlie implemented a policy of lifetime employment. If you get a job at Next Jump, you cannot get fired for performance issues. In fact, if you have issues, they will coach you and they will give you support, just like we would with one of our children who happens to come home with a C from school. It’s the complete opposite.
This is the reason so many people have such a visceral hatred, anger, at some of these banking CEOs with their disproportionate salaries and bonus structures. It’s not the numbers. It’s that they have violated the very definition of leadership. They have violated this deep-seated social contract. We know that they allowed their people to be sacrificed so they could protect their own interests, or worse, they sacrificed their people to protect their own interests. This is what so offends us, not the numbers. Would anybody be offended if we gave a 150millionbonustoGandhi?Howabouta250 million bonus to Mother Teresa? Do we have an issue with that? None at all. None at all. Great leaders would never sacrifice the people to save the numbers. They would sooner sacrifice the numbers to save the people.
Bob Chapman, who runs a large manufacturing company in the Midwest called Barry-Wehmiller, in 2008 was hit very hard by the recession, and they lost 30 percent of their orders overnight. Now in a large manufacturing company, this is a big deal, and they could no longer afford their labor pool. They needed to save 10 million dollars, so, like so many companies today, the board got together and discussed layoffs. And Bob refused. You see, Bob doesn’t believe in head counts. Bob believes in heart counts, and it’s much more difficult to simply reduce the heart count. And so they came up with a furlough program. Every employee, from secretary to CEO, was required to take four weeks of unpaid vacation. They could take it any time they wanted, and they did not have to take it consecutively. But it was how Bob announced the program that mattered so much. He said, it’s better that we should all suffer a little than any of us should have to suffer a lot, and morale went up. They saved 20 million dollars, and most importantly, as would be expected, when the people feel safe and protected by the leadership in the organization, the natural reaction is to trust and cooperate. And quite spontaneously, nobody expected, people started trading with each other. Those who could afford it more would trade with those who could afford it less. People would take five weeks so that somebody else only had to take three.
Leadership is a choice. It is not a rank. I know many people at the seniormost levels of organizations who are absolutely not leaders. They are authorities, and we do what they say because they have authority over us, but we would not follow them. And I know many people who are at the bottoms of organizations who have no authority and they are absolutely leaders, and this is because they have chosen to look after the person to the left of them, and they have chosen to look after the person to the right of them. This is what a leader is.
I heard a story of some Marines who were out in theater, and as is the Marine custom, the officer ate last, and he let his men eat first, and when they were done, there was no food left for him. And when they went back out in the field, his men brought him some of their food so that he may eat, because that’s what happens. We call them leaders because they go first. We call them leaders because they take the risk before anybody else does. We call them leaders because they will choose to sacrifice so that their people may be safe and protected and so their people may gain, and when we do, the natural response is that our people will sacrifice for us. They will give us their blood and sweat and tears to see that their leader’s vision comes to life, and when we ask them, “Why would you do that? Why would you give your blood and sweat and tears for that person?” they all say the same thing: “Because they would have done it for me.” And isn’t that the organization we would all like to work in?
There’s a man by the name of Captain William Swenson who recently was awarded the congressional Medal of Honor for his actions on September 8, 2009.
On that day, a column of American and Afghan troops were making their way through a part of Afghanistan to help protect a group of government officials, a group of Afghan government officials, who would be meeting with some local village elders. The column came under ambush, and was surrounded on three sides, and amongst many other things, Captain Swenson was recognized for running into live fire to rescue the wounded and pull out the dead. One of the people he rescued was a sergeant, and he and a comrade were making their way to a medevac helicopter.
And what was remarkable about this day is, by sheer coincidence, one of the medevac medics happened to have a GoPro camera on his helmet and captured the whole scene on camera. It shows Captain Swenson and his comrade bringing this wounded soldier who had received a gunshot to the neck. They put him in the helicopter, and then you see Captain Swenson bend over and give him a kiss before he turns around to rescue more.
I saw this, and I thought to myself, where do people like that come from? What is that? That is some deep, deep emotion, when you would want to do that. There’s a love there, and I wanted to know why is it that I don’t have people that I work with like that? You know, in the military, they give medals to people who are willing to sacrifice themselves so that others may gain. In business, we give bonuses to people who are willing to sacrifice others so that we may gain. We have it backwards. Right? So I asked myself, where do people like this come from? And my initial conclusion was that they’re just better people. That’s why they’re attracted to the military. These better people are attracted to this concept of service. But that’s completely wrong. What I learned was that it’s the environment, and if you get the environment right, every single one of us has the capacity to do these remarkable things, and more importantly, others have that capacity too. I’ve had the great honor of getting to meet some of these, who we would call heroes, who have put themselves and put their lives at risk to save others, and I asked them, “Why would you do it? Why did you do it?” And they all say the same thing: “Because they would have done it for me.” It’s this deep sense of trust and cooperation. So trust and cooperation are really important here. The problem with concepts of trust and cooperation is that they are feelings, they are not instructions. I can’t simply say to you, “Trust me,” and you will. I can’t simply instruct two people to cooperate, and they will. It’s not how it works. It’s a feeling.
So where does that feeling come from? If you go back 50,000 years to the Paleolithic era, to the early days of Homo sapiens, what we find is that the world was filled with danger, all of these forces working very, very hard to kill us. Nothing personal. Whether it was the weather, lack of resources, maybe a saber-toothed tiger, all of these things working to reduce our lifespan. And so we evolved into social animals, where we lived together and worked together in what I call a circle of safety, inside the tribe, where we felt like we belonged. And when we felt safe amongst our own, the natural reaction was trust and cooperation. There are inherent benefits to this. It means I can fall asleep at night and trust that someone from within my tribe will watch for danger. If we don’t trust each other, if I don’t trust you, that means you won’t watch for danger. Bad system of survival.
The modern day is exactly the same thing. The world is filled with danger, things that are trying to frustrate our lives or reduce our success, reduce our opportunity for success. It could be the ups and downs in the economy, the uncertainty of the stock market. It could be a new technology that renders your business model obsolete overnight. Or it could be your competition that is sometimes trying to kill you. It’s sometimes trying to put you out of business, but at the very minimum is working hard to frustrate your growth and steal your business from you. We have no control over these forces. These are a constant, and they’re not going away.
The only variable are the conditions inside the organization, and that’s where leadership matters, because it’s the leader that sets the tone. When a leader makes the choice to put the safety and lives of the people inside the organization first, to sacrifice their comforts and sacrifice the tangible results, so that the people remain and feel safe and feel like they belong, remarkable things happen.
I was flying on a trip, and I was witness to an incident where a passenger attempted to board before their number was called, and I watched the gate agent treat this man like he had broken the law, like a criminal. He was yelled at for attempting to board one group too soon. So I said something. I said, “Why do you have to treat us like cattle? Why can’t you treat us like human beings?” And this is exactly what she said to me. She said, “Sir, if I don’t follow the rules, I could get in trouble or lose my job.” All she was telling me is that she doesn’t feel safe. All she was telling me is that she doesn’t trust her leaders. The reason we like flying Southwest Airlines is not because they necessarily hire better people. It’s because they don’t fear their leaders.
You see, if the conditions are wrong, we are forced to expend our own time and energy to protect ourselves from each other, and that inherently weakens the organization. When we feel safe inside the organization, we will naturally combine our talents and our strengths and work tirelessly to face the dangers outside and seize the opportunities.
The closest analogy I can give to what a great leader is, is like being a parent. If you think about what being a great parent is, what do you want? What makes a great parent? We want to give our child opportunities, education, discipline them when necessary, all so that they can grow up and achieve more than we could for ourselves. Great leaders want exactly the same thing. They want to provide their people opportunity, education, discipline when necessary, build their self-confidence, give them the opportunity to try and fail, all so that they could achieve more than we could ever imagine for ourselves.
Charlie Kim, who’s the CEO of a company called Next Jump in New York City, a tech company, he makes the point that if you had hard times in your family, would you ever consider laying off one of your children? We would never do it. Then why do we consider laying off people inside our organization? Charlie implemented a policy of lifetime employment. If you get a job at Next Jump, you cannot get fired for performance issues. In fact, if you have issues, they will coach you and they will give you support, just like we would with one of our children who happens to come home with a C from school. It’s the complete opposite.
This is the reason so many people have such a visceral hatred, anger, at some of these banking CEOs with their disproportionate salaries and bonus structures. It’s not the numbers. It’s that they have violated the very definition of leadership. They have violated this deep-seated social contract. We know that they allowed their people to be sacrificed so they could protect their own interests, or worse, they sacrificed their people to protect their own interests. This is what so offends us, not the numbers. Would anybody be offended if we gave a 150millionbonustoGandhi?Howabouta250 million bonus to Mother Teresa? Do we have an issue with that? None at all. None at all. Great leaders would never sacrifice the people to save the numbers. They would sooner sacrifice the numbers to save the people.
Bob Chapman, who runs a large manufacturing company in the Midwest called Barry-Wehmiller, in 2008 was hit very hard by the recession, and they lost 30 percent of their orders overnight. Now in a large manufacturing company, this is a big deal, and they could no longer afford their labor pool. They needed to save 10 million dollars, so, like so many companies today, the board got together and discussed layoffs. And Bob refused. You see, Bob doesn’t believe in head counts. Bob believes in heart counts, and it’s much more difficult to simply reduce the heart count. And so they came up with a furlough program. Every employee, from secretary to CEO, was required to take four weeks of unpaid vacation. They could take it any time they wanted, and they did not have to take it consecutively. But it was how Bob announced the program that mattered so much. He said, it’s better that we should all suffer a little than any of us should have to suffer a lot, and morale went up. They saved 20 million dollars, and most importantly, as would be expected, when the people feel safe and protected by the leadership in the organization, the natural reaction is to trust and cooperate. And quite spontaneously, nobody expected, people started trading with each other. Those who could afford it more would trade with those who could afford it less. People would take five weeks so that somebody else only had to take three.
Leadership is a choice. It is not a rank. I know many people at the seniormost levels of organizations who are absolutely not leaders. They are authorities, and we do what they say because they have authority over us, but we would not follow them. And I know many people who are at the bottoms of organizations who have no authority and they are absolutely leaders, and this is because they have chosen to look after the person to the left of them, and they have chosen to look after the person to the right of them. This is what a leader is.
I heard a story of some Marines who were out in theater, and as is the Marine custom, the officer ate last, and he let his men eat first, and when they were done, there was no food left for him. And when they went back out in the field, his men brought him some of their food so that he may eat, because that’s what happens. We call them leaders because they go first. We call them leaders because they take the risk before anybody else does. We call them leaders because they will choose to sacrifice so that their people may be safe and protected and so their people may gain, and when we do, the natural response is that our people will sacrifice for us. They will give us their blood and sweat and tears to see that their leader’s vision comes to life, and when we ask them, “Why would you do that? Why would you give your blood and sweat and tears for that person?” they all say the same thing: “Because they would have done it for me.” And isn’t that the organization we would all like to work in?
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/posts/greyhound/index.html b/posts/greyhound/index.html
index 0a73116ca..517296293 100644
--- a/posts/greyhound/index.html
+++ b/posts/greyhound/index.html
@@ -1 +1 @@
-Leadership Lessons from "Greyhound" - Jiaqi's Leadership Blog
Leader doesn’t sit on top and overseas but instead is very knowledgeable and sharp at every aspect of the team work. There was a scene in the movie when two torpedoes were fired approaching the destroyer Captain Krause was on. Within a flash of seconds, he ordered the proceeding course of direction of the ship which eventually have both torpedoes missed the destroyer successfully. Captain Krause was indeed a master of his work instead of being a boss who simply sends out paycheck to his subordinates and had himself sitting in a couch and enjoy champaign every day.
Leader doesn’t sit on top and overseas but instead is very knowledgeable and sharp at every aspect of the team work. There was a scene in the movie when two torpedoes were fired approaching the destroyer Captain Krause was on. Within a flash of seconds, he ordered the proceeding course of direction of the ship which eventually have both torpedoes missed the destroyer successfully. Captain Krause was indeed a master of his work instead of being a boss who simply sends out paycheck to his subordinates and had himself sitting in a couch and enjoy champaign every day.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/posts/history-of-management/index.html b/posts/history-of-management/index.html
index 3ac36ca8f..e057e2a7f 100644
--- a/posts/history-of-management/index.html
+++ b/posts/history-of-management/index.html
@@ -1 +1 @@
-History of Management - Jiaqi's Leadership Blog
My background of Physics told me to truly master a concept, one cannot ignore its origin. If I teach you Maxwell equations now you would end up with a blank mind. You need to start with “what is an electric charge”, “what is a field”, and “how a moving charge could produce magnetic field” so on and so forth. At the end of the day, you will be making a perfect sense of what Maxell equations mean. It it only through this way you can start applying Maxwell’s equations and solve real-worl problems.
Management, and everything else in our live, goes like this.
The field of management originated in ancient China, including possibly the first highly centralized bureaucratic state, and the earliest (by the second century BC) example of an administration based on merit through testing. Some theorists have cited ancient military texts as providing lessons for civilian managers. For example, Chinese general Sun Tzu in his 6th-century BC work The Art of War recommends[citation needed] (when re-phrased in modern terminology) being aware of and acting on strengths and weaknesses of both a manager’s organization and a foe’s.
The writings of influential Chinese Legalist philosopher Shen Buhai (申子) may be considered to embody a rare premodern example of abstract theory of administration.
Various ancient and medieval civilizations produced “mirrors for princes” books, which aimed to advise new monarchs on how to govern. Examples includes The Prince by Italian author Niccolò Machiavelli
in the De Administrando Imperio of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Constantine had this written/compiled as advice to his son, Romanus. It functions as a practical manual, with a heavy foreign policy emphasis, on how to be a good emperor. Unlike some advice written by emperors and historians, this one is not a panegyric or solely praise; rather, it is candid and informative policy. Furthermore, it is (mostly) secular and research-based; though, the bit on the “obscene” and “blasphemous” Mohammed is obviously biased.
R.J.H. Jenkins, in his introduction to the De Administrando Imperio, describes Constantine’s attempt at teaching “practical wisdom” to his son by:
Scrutiny of the historical documents
writing or causing to be written histories of recent events and manuals of technical instruction on the various departments of business and administration… Documents from the files of every branch of the administration, from the foreign ministry, the treasury, the offices of ceremonial, were scrutinized and abstracted.
One of its key elements was a “summary of the recent internal history, politics, and organization within the borders of the empire.” Far from being a piece of rhetoric or self-absorbed thought, the document contains enormous, albeit intermittently erroneous, research and careful analysis. This is “no partial document of propaganda… to impress domestic or foreign circles.”
From Jenkins,
Provincial governors and imperial envoys wrote historical and topographical reports on the areas of their jurisdiction or assignment. Foreign ambassadors were diligently questioned as to the affairs of their respective countries.
One of the interesting things to note about the Administrando was its secret nature, having been written as advice for Constantine’s son, Romanus; it acts as part succession letter, part compilation, and part “confidential” advice/information.
As the emperor puts it,
On “Knowing the difference between being-managed”
it is not for those who wish to govern lawfully to copy and emulate what has been ill done by some out of ignorance or arrogance, but rather to have the glorious deeds of those who have ruled lawfully and righteously as noble pictures set up for an example to be copied, and after their pattern to strive himself also to direct all that he does… it may greatly advantage you… [to know] the difference between other nations, their origins and customs and manner of life, and the position and climate of the land they dwell in…
My background of Physics told me to truly master a concept, one cannot ignore its origin. If I teach you Maxwell equations now you would end up with a blank mind. You need to start with “what is an electric charge”, “what is a field”, and “how a moving charge could produce magnetic field” so on and so forth. At the end of the day, you will be making a perfect sense of what Maxell equations mean. It it only through this way you can start applying Maxwell’s equations and solve real-worl problems.
Management, and everything else in our live, goes like this.
The field of management originated in ancient China, including possibly the first highly centralized bureaucratic state, and the earliest (by the second century BC) example of an administration based on merit through testing. Some theorists have cited ancient military texts as providing lessons for civilian managers. For example, Chinese general Sun Tzu in his 6th-century BC work The Art of War recommends[citation needed] (when re-phrased in modern terminology) being aware of and acting on strengths and weaknesses of both a manager’s organization and a foe’s.
The writings of influential Chinese Legalist philosopher Shen Buhai (申子) may be considered to embody a rare premodern example of abstract theory of administration.
Various ancient and medieval civilizations produced “mirrors for princes” books, which aimed to advise new monarchs on how to govern. Examples includes The Prince by Italian author Niccolò Machiavelli
in the De Administrando Imperio of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Constantine had this written/compiled as advice to his son, Romanus. It functions as a practical manual, with a heavy foreign policy emphasis, on how to be a good emperor. Unlike some advice written by emperors and historians, this one is not a panegyric or solely praise; rather, it is candid and informative policy. Furthermore, it is (mostly) secular and research-based; though, the bit on the “obscene” and “blasphemous” Mohammed is obviously biased.
R.J.H. Jenkins, in his introduction to the De Administrando Imperio, describes Constantine’s attempt at teaching “practical wisdom” to his son by:
Scrutiny of the historical documents
writing or causing to be written histories of recent events and manuals of technical instruction on the various departments of business and administration… Documents from the files of every branch of the administration, from the foreign ministry, the treasury, the offices of ceremonial, were scrutinized and abstracted.
One of its key elements was a “summary of the recent internal history, politics, and organization within the borders of the empire.” Far from being a piece of rhetoric or self-absorbed thought, the document contains enormous, albeit intermittently erroneous, research and careful analysis. This is “no partial document of propaganda… to impress domestic or foreign circles.”
From Jenkins,
Provincial governors and imperial envoys wrote historical and topographical reports on the areas of their jurisdiction or assignment. Foreign ambassadors were diligently questioned as to the affairs of their respective countries.
One of the interesting things to note about the Administrando was its secret nature, having been written as advice for Constantine’s son, Romanus; it acts as part succession letter, part compilation, and part “confidential” advice/information.
As the emperor puts it,
On “Knowing the difference between being-managed”
it is not for those who wish to govern lawfully to copy and emulate what has been ill done by some out of ignorance or arrogance, but rather to have the glorious deeds of those who have ruled lawfully and righteously as noble pictures set up for an example to be copied, and after their pattern to strive himself also to direct all that he does… it may greatly advantage you… [to know] the difference between other nations, their origins and customs and manner of life, and the position and climate of the land they dwell in…
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/posts/humanistic-psychology/index.html b/posts/humanistic-psychology/index.html
index ffac26104..28da1be68 100644
--- a/posts/humanistic-psychology/index.html
+++ b/posts/humanistic-psychology/index.html
@@ -1 +1 @@
-Humanistic Psychology - Jiaqi's Leadership Blog
Humanistic psychology is a psychological perspective that arose in the mid-20th century in answer to two theories: Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory and B. F. Skinner’s behaviorism. Abraham Maslow, in this context, established the need for a “third force” in psychology.
Maslow described human needs as ordered in a prepotent hierarchy - a pressing need would need to be mostly satisfied before someone would give their attention to the next highest need. None of his published works included a visual representation of the hierarchy.
The pyramidal diagram illustrating the Maslow needs hierarchy may have been created by a psychology textbook publisher as an illustrative device. This now iconic pyramid frequently depicts the spectrum of human needs, both physical and psychological, as accompaniment to articles describing Maslow’s needs theory and may give the impression that the hierarchy of needs is a fixed and rigid sequence of progression. Yet, starting with the first publication of his theory in 1943, Maslow described human needs as being relatively fluid—with many needs being present in a person simultaneously
According to Maslow’s theory, when a human being ascends the levels of the hierarchy having fulfilled the needs in the hierarchy, one may eventually achieve self-actualization. Late in life, Maslow came to conclude that self-actualization was not an automatic outcome of satisfying the other human needs.
Human needs as identified by Maslow:
At the bottom of the hierarchy are the “basic needs or physiological needs” of a human being: food, water, sleep, sex, homeostasis, and excretion.
The next level is “safety needs: security, order, and stability”. These two steps are important to the physical survival of the person. Once individuals have basic nutrition, shelter and safety, they attempt to accomplish more.
The third level of need is “love and belonging”, which are psychological needs; when individuals have taken care of themselves physically, they are ready to share themselves with others, such as with family and friends.
The fourth level is achieved when individuals feel comfortable with what they have accomplished. This is the “esteem” level, the need to be competent and recognized, such as through status and level of success.
Then there is the “cognitive” level, where individuals intellectually stimulate themselves and explore.
After that is the “aesthetic” level, which is the need for harmony, order and beauty.
At the top of the pyramid, “need for self-actualization” occurs when individuals reach a state of harmony and understanding because they are engaged in achieving their full potential. Once a person has reached the self-actualization state they focus on themselves and try to build their own image. They may look at this in terms of feelings such as self-confidence or by accomplishing a set goal.
The first four levels are known as deficit needs or D-needs. This means that if there are not enough of one of those four needs, there will be a need to get it. Getting them brings a feeling of contentment. These needs alone are not motivating.
Maslow wrote that there are certain conditions that must be fulfilled in order for the basic needs to be satisfied. For example, freedom of speech, freedom to express oneself, and freedom to seek new information (A Theory of Human Motivation) are a few of the prerequisites. Any blockages of these freedoms could prevent the satisfaction of the basic needs.
Maslow defined self-actualization as achieving the fullest use of one’s talents and interests—the need “to become everything that one is capable of becoming”. As implied by its name, self-actualization is highly individualistic and reflects Maslow’s premise that the self is “sovereign and inviolable” and entitled to “his or her own tastes, opinions, values, etc.” Indeed, some have characterized self-actualization as “healthy narcissism”
Maslow realized that the self-actualizing individuals he studied had similar personality traits. All were “reality centered”, able to differentiate what was fraudulent from what was genuine. They were also “problem centered”, meaning that they treated life’s difficulties as problems that demanded solutions. These individuals also were comfortable being alone and had healthy personal relationships. They had only a few close friends and family rather than a large number of shallow relationships.
Self-actualizing people tend to focus on problems outside themselves; have a clear sense of what is true and what is false; are spontaneous and creative; and are not bound too strictly by social conventions.
Maslow noticed that self-actualized individuals had a better insight of reality, deeply accepted themselves, others and the world, and also had faced many problems and were known to be impulsive people. These self-actualized individuals were very independent and private when it came to their environment and culture, especially their very own individual development on “potentialities and inner resources”.
According to Maslow, self-actualizing people share the following qualities:
Truth: honest, reality, beauty, pure, clean and unadulterated completeness
Maslow based his theory partially on his own assumptions about human potential and partially on his case studies of historical figures whom he believed to be self-actualized, including Albert Einstein and Abraham Lincoln. Consequently, Maslow argued, the way in which essential needs are fulfilled is just as important as the needs themselves. Together, these define the human experience. To the extent a person finds cooperative social fulfillment, he establishes meaningful relationships with other people and the larger world. In other words, he establishes meaningful connections to an external reality - an essential component of self-actualization. In contrast, to the extent that vital needs find selfish and competitive fulfillment, a person acquires hostile emotions and limited external relationships - his awareness remains internal and limited.
The essence of science lies in its problems, questions, functions, or goals rather than the instruments, techniques, procedures, apparatus, and its methods.
(I think) This applies to everything from personal development to business
Means centering tends to push people to become the “apparatus men, “rather than the “question askers” and the problem solvers
Means centering tends strongly to overvalue quantification indiscriminately and as an end in itself
Means-centered people tends to fit problems to techniques rather than the contrary
Means-centered culture creates cleavage between teams
If workers looked on themselves as question askers and problem solvers rather than specialized technicians, there would be more autonomous and creative work outcome that targets more on the problems rathern than the means
Hunger is not a paradigm for all other motivations
Most of our desires are means to an end rather than ends in themselves.
This implies that the study of motivation must be in part the study of the ultimate human goals or desires or needs
Means are usually conscious while end are often unconscious. They are related in complicated way and we must study a person in whole to see their unconscious end.
(Human desire) Ends in themselves are universal although the means to these ends taken by different people can be dramatically different
A conscious act or wish has more than one possible unconscious motivations
Motivation never ends, because is keeps triggering other motivations
Human being is never satisfied.
We must thrive to explore a chain of motivations rather than a single one
There is not “list of drives”
Instead, there are unconscious fundamental goals/needs
Motivation theory must be anthropocentric (human) rather than animalcentric (white rat)
Environment shapes motivation
Integrated person can behave disintegrated under certain overwhelming situations so that main capacities of the person are still left free for the more important or more challenging problems that it faces
Not all behaviors are motivation-driven, for example
self-actualization
growth
maturation
expression
Human are wish-realistic
Reality shapes the dynamics between Freudian Id and Ego
Focusing on healthy person instead of psychotherapists’s neurotic sufferers.
Humanistic psychology is a psychological perspective that arose in the mid-20th century in answer to two theories: Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory and B. F. Skinner’s behaviorism. Abraham Maslow, in this context, established the need for a “third force” in psychology.
Maslow described human needs as ordered in a prepotent hierarchy - a pressing need would need to be mostly satisfied before someone would give their attention to the next highest need. None of his published works included a visual representation of the hierarchy.
The pyramidal diagram illustrating the Maslow needs hierarchy may have been created by a psychology textbook publisher as an illustrative device. This now iconic pyramid frequently depicts the spectrum of human needs, both physical and psychological, as accompaniment to articles describing Maslow’s needs theory and may give the impression that the hierarchy of needs is a fixed and rigid sequence of progression. Yet, starting with the first publication of his theory in 1943, Maslow described human needs as being relatively fluid—with many needs being present in a person simultaneously
According to Maslow’s theory, when a human being ascends the levels of the hierarchy having fulfilled the needs in the hierarchy, one may eventually achieve self-actualization. Late in life, Maslow came to conclude that self-actualization was not an automatic outcome of satisfying the other human needs.
Human needs as identified by Maslow:
At the bottom of the hierarchy are the “basic needs or physiological needs” of a human being: food, water, sleep, sex, homeostasis, and excretion.
The next level is “safety needs: security, order, and stability”. These two steps are important to the physical survival of the person. Once individuals have basic nutrition, shelter and safety, they attempt to accomplish more.
The third level of need is “love and belonging”, which are psychological needs; when individuals have taken care of themselves physically, they are ready to share themselves with others, such as with family and friends.
The fourth level is achieved when individuals feel comfortable with what they have accomplished. This is the “esteem” level, the need to be competent and recognized, such as through status and level of success.
Then there is the “cognitive” level, where individuals intellectually stimulate themselves and explore.
After that is the “aesthetic” level, which is the need for harmony, order and beauty.
At the top of the pyramid, “need for self-actualization” occurs when individuals reach a state of harmony and understanding because they are engaged in achieving their full potential. Once a person has reached the self-actualization state they focus on themselves and try to build their own image. They may look at this in terms of feelings such as self-confidence or by accomplishing a set goal.
The first four levels are known as deficit needs or D-needs. This means that if there are not enough of one of those four needs, there will be a need to get it. Getting them brings a feeling of contentment. These needs alone are not motivating.
Maslow wrote that there are certain conditions that must be fulfilled in order for the basic needs to be satisfied. For example, freedom of speech, freedom to express oneself, and freedom to seek new information (A Theory of Human Motivation) are a few of the prerequisites. Any blockages of these freedoms could prevent the satisfaction of the basic needs.
Maslow defined self-actualization as achieving the fullest use of one’s talents and interests—the need “to become everything that one is capable of becoming”. As implied by its name, self-actualization is highly individualistic and reflects Maslow’s premise that the self is “sovereign and inviolable” and entitled to “his or her own tastes, opinions, values, etc.” Indeed, some have characterized self-actualization as “healthy narcissism”
Maslow realized that the self-actualizing individuals he studied had similar personality traits. All were “reality centered”, able to differentiate what was fraudulent from what was genuine. They were also “problem centered”, meaning that they treated life’s difficulties as problems that demanded solutions. These individuals also were comfortable being alone and had healthy personal relationships. They had only a few close friends and family rather than a large number of shallow relationships.
Self-actualizing people tend to focus on problems outside themselves; have a clear sense of what is true and what is false; are spontaneous and creative; and are not bound too strictly by social conventions.
Maslow noticed that self-actualized individuals had a better insight of reality, deeply accepted themselves, others and the world, and also had faced many problems and were known to be impulsive people. These self-actualized individuals were very independent and private when it came to their environment and culture, especially their very own individual development on “potentialities and inner resources”.
According to Maslow, self-actualizing people share the following qualities:
Truth: honest, reality, beauty, pure, clean and unadulterated completeness
Maslow based his theory partially on his own assumptions about human potential and partially on his case studies of historical figures whom he believed to be self-actualized, including Albert Einstein and Abraham Lincoln. Consequently, Maslow argued, the way in which essential needs are fulfilled is just as important as the needs themselves. Together, these define the human experience. To the extent a person finds cooperative social fulfillment, he establishes meaningful relationships with other people and the larger world. In other words, he establishes meaningful connections to an external reality - an essential component of self-actualization. In contrast, to the extent that vital needs find selfish and competitive fulfillment, a person acquires hostile emotions and limited external relationships - his awareness remains internal and limited.
The essence of science lies in its problems, questions, functions, or goals rather than the instruments, techniques, procedures, apparatus, and its methods.
(I think) This applies to everything from personal development to business
Means centering tends to push people to become the “apparatus men, “rather than the “question askers” and the problem solvers
Means centering tends strongly to overvalue quantification indiscriminately and as an end in itself
Means-centered people tends to fit problems to techniques rather than the contrary
Means-centered culture creates cleavage between teams
If workers looked on themselves as question askers and problem solvers rather than specialized technicians, there would be more autonomous and creative work outcome that targets more on the problems rathern than the means
Hunger is not a paradigm for all other motivations
Most of our desires are means to an end rather than ends in themselves.
This implies that the study of motivation must be in part the study of the ultimate human goals or desires or needs
Means are usually conscious while end are often unconscious. They are related in complicated way and we must study a person in whole to see their unconscious end.
(Human desire) Ends in themselves are universal although the means to these ends taken by different people can be dramatically different
A conscious act or wish has more than one possible unconscious motivations
Motivation never ends, because is keeps triggering other motivations
Human being is never satisfied.
We must thrive to explore a chain of motivations rather than a single one
There is not “list of drives”
Instead, there are unconscious fundamental goals/needs
Motivation theory must be anthropocentric (human) rather than animalcentric (white rat)
Environment shapes motivation
Integrated person can behave disintegrated under certain overwhelming situations so that main capacities of the person are still left free for the more important or more challenging problems that it faces
Not all behaviors are motivation-driven, for example
self-actualization
growth
maturation
expression
Human are wish-realistic
Reality shapes the dynamics between Freudian Id and Ego
Focusing on healthy person instead of psychotherapists’s neurotic sufferers.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/posts/inspire-action/index.html b/posts/inspire-action/index.html
index 42268c2a2..ec9dbaa4e 100644
--- a/posts/inspire-action/index.html
+++ b/posts/inspire-action/index.html
@@ -4,4 +4,4 @@
question: "Why?" His examples include Apple, Martin Luther King Jr. and the Wright brothers ...
" property=og:description>
How do you explain when things don’t go as we assume? Or better, how do you explain when others are able to achieve things that seem to defy all of the assumptions? For example: Why is Apple so innovative? Year after year, after year, after year, they’re more innovative than all their competition. And yet, they’re just a computer company. They’re just like everyone else. They have the same access to the same talent, the same agencies, the same consultants, the same media. Then why is it that they seem to have something different? Why is it that Martin Luther King led the Civil Rights Movement? He wasn’t the only man who suffered in pre-civil rights America, and he certainly wasn’t the only great orator of the day. Why him? And why is it that the Wright brothers were able to figure out controlled, powered man flight when there were certainly other teams who were better qualified, better funded — and they didn’t achieve powered man flight, and the Wright brothers beat them to it. There’s something else at play here.
About three and a half years ago, I made a discovery. And this discovery profoundly changed my view on how I thought the world worked, and it even profoundly changed the way in which I operate in it. As it turns out, there’s a pattern. As it turns out, all the great and inspiring leaders and organizations in the world, whether it’s Apple or Martin Luther King or the Wright brothers, they all think, act and communicate the exact same way. And it’s the complete opposite to everyone else. All I did was codify it, and it’s probably the world’s simplest idea. I call it the golden circle.
Why? How? What? This little idea explains why some organizations and some leaders are able to inspire where others aren’t. Let me define the terms really quickly. Every single person, every single organization on the planet knows what they do, 100 percent. Some know how they do it, whether you call it your differentiated value proposition or your proprietary process or your USP. But very, very few people or organizations know why they do what they do. And by “why” I don’t mean “to make a profit.” That’s a result. It’s always a result. By “why,” I mean: What’s your purpose? What’s your cause? What’s your belief? Why does your organization exist? Why do you get out of bed in the morning? And why should anyone care? As a result, the way we think, the way we act, the way we communicate is from the outside in, it’s obvious. We go from the clearest thing to the fuzziest thing. But the inspired leaders and the inspired organizations — regardless of their size, regardless of their industry — all think, act and communicate from the inside out.
Let me give you an example. I use Apple because they’re easy to understand and everybody gets it. If Apple were like everyone else, a marketing message from them might sound like this: “We make great computers. They’re beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly. Wanna to buy one?” “Meh.” And that’s how most of us communicate. That’s how most marketing is done; that how most sales are done, and that’s how we communicate interpersonally. We say what we do, we say how we’re different or how we’re better; we expect some sort of a behavior, a purchase, a vote, something like that. Here’s our new law firm: We have the best lawyers with the biggest clients, we always perform for our clients. Do business with us. Here’s our new car: It gets great gas mileage, it has leather seats. Buy our car. But it’s uninspiring.
Here’s how Apple actually communicates. “Everything we do, we believe in challenging the status quo. We believe in thinking differently. The way we challenge the status quo is by making our products beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly. We just happen to make great computers. Wanna buy one?” Totally different, right? You’re ready to buy a computer from me. All I did was I reversed the order of the information. What it proves to us is that people don’t buy what you do; people buy why you do it. People don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it.
This explains why every single person in this room is perfectly comfortable buying a computer from Apple. But we’re also perfectly comfortable buying an MP3 player from Apple, or a phone from Apple, or a DVR from Apple. But as I said before, Apple’s just a computer company. There is nothing that distinguishes them structurally from any of their competitors. Their competitors are equally qualified to make all of these products. In fact, they tried. A few years ago, Gateway came out with flat-screen TVs. They’re eminently qualified to make flat-screen TVs. They’ve been making flat-screen monitors for years. Nobody bought one. Dell came out with MP3 players and PDAs, and they make great quality products, and they can make perfectly well-designed products — and nobody bought one. In fact, talking about it now, we can’t even imagine buying an MP3 player from Dell. Why would you buy MP3 player from a computer company? But we do it every day. People don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it. The goal is not to do business with everybody who needs what you have. The goal is to do business with people who believe what you believe.
Here’s the best part: None of what I’m telling you is my opinion. It’s all grounded in the tenets of biology. Not psychology, biology. If you look at a cross-section of the human brain, looking from the top down, what you’ll see is that the human brain is actually broken into three major components that correlate perfectly with the golden circle. Our newest brain, our Homo sapien brain, our neocortex, corresponds with the “what” level. The neocortex is responsible for all of our rational and analytical thought and language. The middle two sections make up our limbic brains, and our limbic brains are responsible for all of our feelings, like trust and loyalty. It’s also responsible for all human behavior, all decision-making, and it has no capacity for language.
In other words, when we communicate from the outside in, yes, people can understand vast amounts of complicated information like features and benefits and facts and figures. It just doesn’t drive behavior. When we communicate from the inside out, we’re talking directly to the part of the brain that controls behavior, and then we allow people to rationalize it with the tangible things we say and do. This is where gut decisions come from. You know sometimes you can give somebody all the facts and figures, and they say, “I know what all the facts and details say, but it just doesn’t feel right.” Why would we use that verb, it doesn’t “feel” right? Because the part of the brain that controls decision-making doesn’t control language. And the best we can muster up is, “I don’t know. It just doesn’t feel right.” Or sometimes you say you’re leading with your heart or soul. I hate to break it to you, those aren’t other body parts controlling your behavior. It’s all happening here in your limbic brain, the part of the brain that controls decision-making and not language.
But if you don’t know why you do what you do, and people respond to why you do what you do, then how will you ever get people to vote for you, or buy something from you, or, more importantly, be loyal and wanna be a part of what it is that you do. Again, the goal is not just to sell to people who need what you have; the goal is to sell to people who believe what you believe. The goal is not just to hire people who need a job; it’s to hire people who believe what you believe. I always say that, you know, if you hire people just because they can do a job, they’ll work for your money, but if you hire people who believe what you believe, they’ll work for you with blood and sweat and tears. Nowhere else is there a better example than with the Wright brothers.
Most people don’t know about Samuel Pierpont Langley. And back in the early 20th century, the pursuit of powered man flight was like the dot com of the day. Everybody was trying it. And Samuel Pierpont Langley had, what we assume, to be the recipe for success. Even now, you ask people, “Why did your product or why did your company fail?” and people always give you the same permutation of the same three things: under-capitalized, the wrong people, bad market conditions. It’s always the same three things, so let’s explore that. Samuel Pierpont Langley was given 50,000 dollars by the War Department to figure out this flying machine. Money was no problem. He held a seat at Harvard and worked at the Smithsonian and was extremely well-connected; he knew all the big minds of the day. He hired the best minds money could find and the market conditions were fantastic. The New York Times followed him around everywhere, and everyone was rooting for Langley. And how come we’ve never heard of Samuel Pierpont Langley?
A few hundred miles away in Dayton, Ohio, Orville and Wilbur Wright, they had none of what we consider to be the recipe for success. They had no money; they paid for their dream with the proceeds from their bicycle shop. Not a single person on the Wright brothers’ team had a college education, not even Orville or Wilbur. And The New York Times followed them around nowhere.
The difference was, Orville and Wilbur were driven by a cause, by a purpose, by a belief. They believed that if they could figure out this flying machine, it’ll change the course of the world. Samuel Pierpont Langley was different. He wanted to be rich, and he wanted to be famous. He was in pursuit of the result. He was in pursuit of the riches. And lo and behold, look what happened. The people who believed in the Wright brothers’ dream worked with them with blood and sweat and tears. The others just worked for the paycheck. They tell stories of how every time the Wright brothers went out, they would have to take five sets of parts, because that’s how many times they would crash before they came in for supper.
And, eventually, on December 17th, 1903, the Wright brothers took flight, and no one was there to even experience it. We found out about it a few days later. And further proof that Langley was motivated by the wrong thing: the day the Wright brothers took flight, he quit. He could have said, “That’s an amazing discovery, guys, and I will improve upon your technology,” but he didn’t. He wasn’t first, he didn’t get rich, he didn’t get famous, so he quit.
People don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it. If you talk about what you believe, you will attract those who believe what you believe.
But why is it important to attract those who believe what you believe? Something called the law of diffusion of innovation, and if you don’t know the law, you definitely know the terminology. The first 2.5% of our population are our innovators. The next 13.5% of our population are our early adopters. The next 34% are your early majority, your late majority and your laggards. The only reason these people buy touch-tone phones is because you can’t buy rotary phones anymore.
(Laughter)
We all sit at various places at various times on this scale, but what the law of diffusion of innovation tells us is that if you want mass-market success or mass-market acceptance of an idea, you cannot have it until you achieve this tipping point between 15 and 18 percent market penetration, and then the system tips. I love asking businesses, “What’s your conversion on new business?” They love to tell you, “It’s about 10 percent,” proudly. Well, you can trip over 10% of the customers. We all have about 10% who just “get it.” That’s how we describe them, right? That’s like that gut feeling, “Oh, they just get it.”
The problem is: How do you find the ones that get it before doing business with them versus the ones who don’t get it? So it’s this here, this little gap that you have to close, as Jeffrey Moore calls it, “Crossing the Chasm” — because, you see, the early majority will not try something until someone else has tried it first. And these guys, the innovators and the early adopters, they’re comfortable making those gut decisions. They’re more comfortable making those intuitive decisions that are driven by what they believe about the world and not just what product is available. These are the people who stood in line for six hours to buy an iPhone when they first came out, when you could’ve just walked into the store the next week and bought one off the shelf. These are the people who spent 40,000 dollars on flat-screen TVs when they first came out, even though the technology was substandard. And, by the way, they didn’t do it because the technology was so great; they did it for themselves. It’s because they wanted to be first. People don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it and what you do simply proves what you believe. In fact, people will do the things that prove what they believe. The reason that person bought the iPhone in the first six hours, stood in line for six hours, was because of what they believed about the world, and how they wanted everybody to see them: they were first. People don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it.
So let me give you a famous example, a famous failure and a famous success of the law of diffusion of innovation. First, the famous failure. It’s a commercial example. As we said before a second ago, the recipe for success is money and the right people and the right market conditions, right? You should have success then. Look at TiVo. From the time TiVo came out about eight or nine years ago to this current day, they are the single highest-quality product on the market, hands down, there is no dispute. They were extremely well-funded. Market conditions were fantastic. I mean, we use TiVo as verb. I TiVo stuff on my piece-of-junk Time Warner DVR all the time.
(Laughter)
But TiVo’s a commercial failure. They’ve never made money. And when they went IPO, their stock was at about 30 or 40 dollars and then plummeted, and it’s never traded above 10. In fact, I don’t think it’s even traded above six, except for a couple of little spikes.
Because you see, when TiVo launched their product, they told us all what they had. They said, “We have a product that pauses live TV, skips commercials, rewinds live TV and memorizes your viewing habits without you even asking.” And the cynical majority said, “We don’t believe you. We don’t need it. We don’t like it. You’re scaring us.”
What if they had said, “If you’re the kind of person who likes to have total control over every aspect of your life, boy, do we have a product for you. It pauses live TV, skips commercials, memorizes your viewing habits, etc., etc.” People don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it, and what you do simply serves as the proof of what you believe.
Now let me give you a successful example of the law of diffusion of innovation. In the summer of 1963, 250,000 people showed up on the mall in Washington to hear Dr. King speak. They sent out no invitations, and there was no website to check the date. How do you do that? Well, Dr. King wasn’t the only man in America who was a great orator. He wasn’t the only man in America who suffered in a pre-civil rights America. In fact, some of his ideas were bad. But he had a gift. He didn’t go around telling people what needed to change in America. He went around and told people what he believed. “I believe, I believe, I believe,” he told people. And people who believed what he believed took his cause, and they made it their own, and they told people. And some of those people created structures to get the word out to even more people. And lo and behold, 250,000 people showed up on the right day on the right time to hear him speak.
How many of them showed up for him? Zero. They showed up for themselves. It’s what they believed about America that got them to travel in a bus for eight hours to stand in the sun in Washington in the middle of August. It’s what they believed, and it wasn’t about black versus white: 25% of the audience was white.
Dr. King believed that there are two types of laws in this world: those that are made by a higher authority and those that are made by men. And not until all the laws that are made by men are consistent with the laws that are made by the higher authority will we live in a just world. It just so happened that the Civil Rights Movement was the perfect thing to help him bring his cause to life. We followed, not for him, but for ourselves. By the way, he gave the “I have a dream” speech, not the “I have a plan” speech.
(Laughter)
Listen to politicians now, with their comprehensive 12-point plans. They’re not inspiring anybody. Because there are leaders and there are those who lead. Leaders hold a position of power or authority, but those who lead inspire us. Whether they’re individuals or organizations, we follow those who lead, not because we have to, but because we want to. We follow those who lead, not for them, but for ourselves. And it’s those who start with “why” that have the ability to inspire those around them or find others who inspire them.
We trust some people and companies even when things go wrong, and we don’t trust others even though everything might have gone exactly as it should have
Trust begins to emerge when we have a sense that another person or organization is driven by things other than their own self-gain
You have to earn trust by communicating and demonstrating that you share the same values and beliefs. You have to talk about your WHY and prove it with WHAT you do. Again, a WHY is just a belief, _HOW_s are the actions we take to realize that belief, and _WHAT_s are the results of those actions.
Cultures are groups of people who come together around a common set of values and beliefs
When we share values and beliefs with others, we form trust
In general, we do better in places that reflect our own values and beliefs
the goal is not to do business with anyone who simply wants what you have, but to do business with people who believe what you believe
live and work in a place where you will naturally thrive because your values and beliefs align with the values and beliefs of that culture
It’s the culture - the strong sense of beliefs and values that everyone, from the CEO to the receptionist, all share, that brings such group of people together
the goal is not to hire people who simply have a skill set you need, the goal is to hire people who believe what you believe
The role of a leader is not to come up with all the great ideas. The role of a leader is to create an environment in which great ideas can happen
Applications of Golden Circle to Organizaiton (Part 4)#
The only contact that the organized system has with the disorganized system is at the base - the WHAT level. Clearing communicating from WHY level to WHAT level requires communications (Ch. 10)
