Mental models for building products people love ft. Stewart Butterfield

发布时间 2025-11-20 14:01:21 来源

以下是翻译：斯图尔特·巴特菲尔德 (Stuart Butterfield)，Flickr 和 Slack 的创始人，在本播客中分享了大量的产品和领导力智慧。他强调为客户创造真正的价值的重要性，并强调要关注理解而非仅仅减少摩擦。巴特菲尔德介绍了“效用曲线”的概念，这是一个理解努力如何转化为价值的框架。该曲线说明，最初的努力可能几乎没有价值，直到达到某个阈值之后，价值才会急剧增加。他认为，产品团队应该战略性地投入资源以达到这个点，而不是添加那些不能显著改善用户体验的功能。他举了一个令人沮丧的例子，即 Gmail 日历的时区选择器。巴特菲尔德哲学的核心是关注工艺、品味和愉悦感。他分享了一个故事，他注意到很少有人倾斜雨伞以避免碰到其他人，这说明了细小的体贴行为如何能创造显著的优势。这可以转化为产品开发，他认为对用户的同理心可以创造关键的优势。他列举了一些帮助 Slack 取得巨大成功的微小细节。他还提到了一个违反直觉的观点，即产品体验中的摩擦可能是有益的，尤其是在主要挑战是理解的情况下。产品团队不应该盲目地消除摩擦，而应该专注于使软件简单易用，并防止用户思考过多。如果用户不理解价值主张，消除摩擦是无济于事的。他以自己在 Slack 上使用“请勿打扰”功能的经验为例。巴特菲尔德详细阐述了“别让我思考”的格言，强调了强迫用户做出他们不理解的决定的认知和情感代价。这会导致决策疲劳，并让用户感到愚蠢，从而将负面情绪与产品联系起来。巴特菲尔德以领导两家转型公司的经历而闻名，他建议那些考虑类似举措的人要“冷酷地理性”，抛开情绪来做出战略决策。他说，转型很难向员工和用户证明其合理性。他还介绍了他的“超现实工作类活动”的概念，这种活动表面上与工作相同。当企业规模过大且员工过多时，超现实工作类活动很常见。如果公司不小心，员工将会承担他们知道对业务有价值的工作任务。他还提到了“帕金森定律”，即工作会扩展以填满可用于完成的时间的格言。巴特菲尔德强调围绕这些想法构建组织的重要性。在 Slack，他让员工长期高呼“衡量成功的标准是我们为客户创造的价值量”。巴特菲尔德强调，大多数伟大的产品和企业都难以沟通他们实际所做的事情。事实上，你必须销售你的产品如何融入他们的生活，而不是功能。这就是所谓的“我们这里不卖马鞍”。最后，他讨论了商业中慷慨的重要性，这源于他个人的价值观以及合作的博弈论优势。他强调了 Slack 在补偿用户停机时间方面的主动做法，即使问题没有直接影响到他们，也表明了创造价值和培养信任的承诺。他还提到了产品创造者高估自己作品的“所有者妄想”，导致糟糕的用户体验。他敦促创造者退一步，从普通用户的角度看待他们的产品，以避免这种陷阱。

Stuart Butterfield, founder of Flickr and Slack, offers a wealth of product and leadership wisdom in this podcast. He emphasizes the importance of creating real value for customers and focusing on comprehension over mere friction reduction. Butterfield introduces the concept of "Utility Curves," a framework for understanding how effort translates into value. The curve illustrates that initial efforts may yield little value until a certain threshold is reached, after which value increases sharply. He argues that product teams should strategically invest resources to reach this point, rather than adding features that don't significantly improve user experience. He uses the frustrating example of the Gmail calendar time zone selector. Central to Butterfield's philosophy is a focus on craft, taste, and delight. He shares a story about noticing how few people tilted their umbrellas to avoid hitting others, illustrating how small acts of consideration can create a significant advantage. This translates to product development where he argues that empathy for users can create a critical advantage. He lists examples of little things that helped Slack go big. He also touches on the counterintuitive idea that friction in the product experience can be beneficial, particularly when the primary challenge is comprehension. Instead of blindly removing friction, product teams should focus on making the software simple and preventing users from having to think too much. If users don't understand the value proposition, removing friction won't help. He uses his experience with the "do not disturb" feature on slack as an example. Butterfield elaborates on the mantra "Don't make me think," emphasizing the cognitive and emotional costs of forcing users to make decisions they don't understand. This can lead to decision fatigue and make users feel stupid, associating negative emotions with the product. Butterfield, famous for leading two companies that pivoted, advises those considering a similar move to be "coldly rational," setting emotions aside to make a strategic decision. He says that pivoting can be difficult to justify to employees and users. He also introduces his "hyper realistic work like activities" concept, which is superficially identical to work. Hyper-realistic work like activities are common when businesses get too big and have too many employees. If companies are not careful, employees will take on work tasks that they know are valuable to the business. He also touches on "Parkinson's Law" the maxim that work expands to fill the time available for its complication. Butterfield emphasizes the importance of building organizations around these ideas. At Slack, he made the employees chant in the long run that "the measure of success will be the amount of value that we create for customers." Butterfield emphasizes that most great products and business have a hard time communicating what they actually do. In fact, you have to sell how your product fits into their life rather than the features. This is called, "we don't sell saddles here." He finally discusses the importance of generosity in business, stemming from his personal values and the game-theoretic benefits of cooperation. He highlights Slack's proactive approach to compensating users for downtime, even when the issue didn't directly affect them, demonstrating a commitment to creating value and fostering trust. He also touches on the "owner's delusion" that product creators overvalue their work, resulting in poor user experiences. He urges creators to step back and view their products from the perspective of regular users to avoid this trap.

摘要

Stewart Butterfield is the co-founder of Slack and Flickr, two of the most influential products in internet history. After selling Slack to ...

GPT-4正在为你翻译摘要中......

中英文字稿

This is 2014. That was the year that Slack actually launched. I was interviewed by MIT Technology Review and asked if we were working to improve Slack. I said, I feel like what we have right now is just a giant piece of shit. It's just terrible and we should be humiliated that we offered this to the public. To me, that was like, you should be embarrassed. If you can't see almost limitless opportunities to improve, then you shouldn't be deciding. Slack was famous for being one of the early consumerized B2B SaaS products. At more than one company all hands, I made everyone in the company repeat this as a chant. In the long run, the measure of our success will be the amount of value that we create for customers. And you can put effort into demonstrating that you have created this value and stuff like that. But there's no substitute for actually having created it.

这是2014年，那一年Slack正式上线。我接受了《麻省理工科技评论》的采访，他们问我是否正在努力改进Slack。我当时回答说，我觉得我们现在的产品简直就是一坨屎，糟糕透顶，我们把这样的产品推出给公众真是让人羞愧。在我看来，我们应该感到难堪。如果你看不到几乎无限的改进机会，那你就不该做决策。Slack当时以其消费化的B2B SaaS产品而闻名。在好几次公司的全员大会上，我让公司里的每个人都把这句话当作口号重复：从长远来看，我们成功的衡量标准将是我们为客户创造的价值量。你可以努力去展示你创造的价值，诸如此类的方法，但没有什么比真真实实地创造出价值更重要。

Something else I heard that you often espouse is friction in the product experience is actually often a good thing. It became an assumption that you should always be trying to remove friction when the challenge is really comprehension. If your software kind of stops me and asks me to make a decision, and I don't really understand it, you make me feel stupid. If people could get over the idea of reducing friction as a number of goals, reducing the number of plexer tabs, or something, and instead focus on, how can I make this simple? How do I prevent people from having to think in order to use my software?

我听说你常常主张产品体验中的“摩擦”其实通常是件好事。人们习惯性地认为应该总是设法去除这种摩擦，但其实真正的挑战在于如何让用户理解。如果软件在某个地方让我停下并让我做出决定，而我根本不理解这个决定，那它就让我觉得自己很笨。如果人们能够抛开减少摩擦作为目标之一的想法，比如减少需要点击的选项卡数量，而是专注于如何简化操作，如何让人们在使用软件时不必费心思考，那就更好了。

You started two companies both famously pivoted. I imagine many people come to you for advice on pivoting. The decision is about like, have you exhausted the possibilities, creating the distance so that you can make an intellectual, rational decision about it, rather than an emotional decision is essential. And the reason I say you have to be coldly rational about it is because it's fucking humiliating.

你创办了两家公司，这两家公司都因成功转型而闻名。我想很多人会向你请教如何进行转型。做出这种决定的关键在于，你是否已经耗尽了所有可能性，然后拉开距离，以便能够从理性、智性的角度做出决定，而不是感情用事。我之所以说你必须冷静理性地看待这一切，是因为这可能会让人感到极其羞辱。

Today, my guest is Stuart Butterfield, a founder and product legend who rarely does podcasts. Stuart founded Flickr and then Slack, which he sold to Salesforce in one of the biggest acquisitions in tech history at the time. There is so much product and leadership wisdom locked away in his head. I feel like our conversation just scratched the surface, which had about utility curves, something he calls the owner's delusion, a hilarious pattern. He sees a company's, he calls hyper realistic work like activities. What he's learned about product and craft and taste and Parkinson's law, why you need to obsess with not making your users think.

今天，我的嘉宾是斯图尔特·巴特菲尔德，他是一位创始人，也是产品领域的传奇人物，平时很少参加播客节目。斯图尔特创立了Flickr，后来又创立了Slack，并最终将其出售给Salesforce，这笔交易成为当时科技史上最大的一次收购之一。他脑海中蕴藏着大量关于产品和领导力的智慧。我感觉我们的对话只是触及了这些的冰山一角，我们讨论了效用曲线、他所称的“所有者错觉”这种有趣的现象、以及他看到的企业中的超现实工作活动。他分享了自己在产品、工艺、品味以及帕金森定律方面的见解，以及为什么你需要不让用户费脑去想的问题。

The backstory on his legendary We Don't Sell Saddles here, memo, and so much more, a huge thank you to Noah Weiss, Chris Cordell, Allie Rail, and Johnny Rogers for suggesting topics and questions for this conversation. This is a really special one, and I really hope to have Stuart back to delve even deeper. If you enjoy this podcast, don't forget to subscribe and follow it in your favorite podcasting app or YouTube. It helps tremendously. And if you become an annual subscriber of my newsletter, you get 17 incredible products for free for an entire year, including Devon Lovable Reflit Bolt, Init and Linear Superhuman Descript, Whisper Flow Gamma, Proplexity, Warp Grenole, and Magic Patterns, Raycast, Jepur, D&Mobbin.

关于他那篇传奇的《我们这里不卖马鞍》备忘录的背景故事，以及更多内容，特别感谢 Noah Weiss、Chris Cordell、Allie Rail 和 Johnny Rogers 为这次对话提供了话题和问题的建议。这次交流非常特别，我真的希望今后能邀请 Stuart 回来进行更深入的探讨。如果您喜欢这个播客，请不要忘记在您常用的播客应用或 YouTube 上订阅和关注，这对我们帮助很大。此外，如果您成为我新闻通讯的年度订阅者，您将免费获得包括 Devon Lovable Reflit Bolt、Init 和 Linear Superhuman Descript、Whisper Flow Gamma、Proplexity、Warp Grenole 以及 Magic Patterns、Raycast、Jepur、D&Mobbin 在内的 17 款超棒产品，为期整整一年。

Head on over to Lenny's newsletter.com and click product pass. With that, I bring you Stuart Butterfield after a short word from our sponsors. Here's a puzzle for you. What do open AI, cursor, Proplexity, Versel, Platte, and hundreds of other winning companies have in common? The answer is they're all powered by today's sponsor, Work OS. If you're building software for enterprises, you've probably felt the pain of integrating single sign-on, skim, our back, audit logs, and other features required by big customers.

请访问Lenny's newsletter.com，并点击“产品通行证”。接下来，在简短广告后的嘉宾是Stuart Butterfield。这里有个谜题：Open AI、Cursor、Proplexity、Versel、Platte和其他数百家成功公司有什么共同点呢？答案是它们都由今天的赞助商Work OS提供支持。如果你正在为企业开发软件，你可能会感受到整合单点登录、SCIM、RBAC、审计日志等大客户所需功能的痛苦。

Work OS turns those deal blockers into drop-in APIs with a modern developer platform built specifically for B2B SaaS. Whether you're a seed-stage startup trying to land your first enterprise customer, or a unicorn expanding globally, Work OS is the fastest path to becoming enterprise-ready and unlocking growth. They're essentially striped for enterprise features. Visit workos.com to get started, or just hit up their slack support where they have real engineers in there who answer your questions super fast. Work OS allows you to build like the best with delightful APIs, comprehensive docs, and a smooth developer experience. Go to WorkOS.com to make your app enterprise-ready today.

Work OS 是一个专为 B2B SaaS 搭建的现代开发平台，它将那些阻碍交易的因素转化为可直接使用的 API。无论你是一家试图赢得首个企业客户的初创公司，还是正在全球扩张的独角兽公司，Work OS 是最快让你做好企业准备并实现增长的路径。它们基本上就是为企业功能打造的“Stripe”。访问 workos.com 即可开始，或者通过他们的 Slack 支持联系，那里的工程师会非常迅速地回答你的问题。Work OS 提供愉悦的 API、详尽的文档和流畅的开发体验，让你像最顶尖的企业一样构建应用。立即访问 WorkOS.com，让你的应用具备企业级准备吧。

This episode is brought to you by Metronome. You just launched your new shiny AI product. The new pricing page looks awesome, but behind it, last minute glue code, messy spreadsheets, and running ad hoc queries to figure out what to build. Customers get invoices they can't understand, engineers are chasing billing bugs, finance can't close the books. With Metronome, you hand it all off to the real-time billing infrastructure that just works, reliable, flexible, and built to grow with you. Metronome turns raw usage events into accurate invoices, gives customers bills they actually understand, and keeps every team in sync in real-time. Whether you're launching usage-based pricing, managing enterprise contracts, or rolling out new AI services, Metronome does the heavy lifting so that you can focus on your product, not your billing. That's why some of the fastest growing companies in the world, like OpenAI and Anthropic, run their billing on Metronome. Visit metronome.com to learn more. That's metronome.com.

本集内容由 Metronome 赞助。你刚刚发布了全新的 AI 产品，新定价页面看起来很棒，但背后却是一片混乱：最后时刻的粘合代码、杂乱的电子表格，还有为了弄清楚产品构建需求而进行的临时查询。客户收到的发票看不懂，工程师疲于修复计费错误，财务部门无法完成账单结算。而有了 Metronome，你可以将这一切交给实时计费基础设施，它高效可靠、灵活多变，并且可以随你的业务一起成长。Metronome 能将原始使用数据转化为准确的发票，让客户收到真正看得懂的账单，并保持各个团队的实时同步。无论你是要推出基于使用量的定价、管理企业合同，还是发布新的 AI 服务，Metronome 都能为你承担繁重工作，让你专注于产品而不是计费。这也是为什么全球增长最快的一些公司，如 OpenAI 和 Anthropic，选择在 Metronome 上运行他们的计费系统。请访问 metronome.com 了解更多信息。网址是 metronome.com。

Stuart, thank you so much for being here and welcome to the podcast. Thank you for having me. I'm excited. I'm even more excited. I'm so honored to have you here. I never told you this, but you've been towards the very top of my wish list of guests I have on this podcast ever since I started this podcast a few years ago, so I'm very excited. They're finally making this happen. I have so many questions for you. My first question is just what the heck are you up to these days? I feel like ever since you left Slack, we haven't heard much from Stuart. I'm curious which up to you. Hopefully you're just chilling.

斯图尔特，非常感谢你来到这里，欢迎参加这期播客。感谢邀请我来。我很激动。我也非常激动，很荣幸能邀请到你。我从来没告诉过你，但自从我几年前开始这个播客以来，你一直是我最想邀请的嘉宾之一，所以现在终于能实现这个愿望，我非常高兴。我有很多问题想问你。第一个问题是，最近你都在忙些什么？感觉自从你离开Slack后，我们就很少听到你的消息。希望你过得很轻松。

I'm mostly just chilling. I left Salesforce two and a half years ago, and I have a two and a half year old. So she was actually born three days after my last day. So a lot of time with family, and it's like enormous privilege to be able to spend time with young kids while they're young. No new company to announce or anything like that. I do get a lot of emails and texts. Bees who look every three to six weeks, there's this cycle because Calhenderson who's the CTO of Slack and who also we work together on Flickr, so I've worked together now for 23 years. I've been talking about what we want to do next if there is something, but honestly, the big challenge has been, I think these things are kind of destroying the world. And what we're good at is making software. So you can find some way to make software that helped people use their phones less often than that would be a big winner, but haven't come up with anything good.

我大部分时间都在放松。两年半前我离开了Salesforce，那时候我的女儿刚刚出生，所以她是在我离职后的第三天出生的。所以我花了很多时间陪伴家人，能在孩子小的时候陪伴他们是一种巨大的特权。我没有什么新公司要宣布或者类似的事情。虽然我经常收到很多邮件和短信，大概每三到六周都会有一波，因为Slack的首席技术官Calhenderson（我们之前在Flickr也一起工作），我们已经合作了23年了，一直在探讨接下来要做些什么，不过老实说，当下的最大挑战是，我觉得这些事情正在毁掉世界。而我们擅长的是开发软件，所以如果能开发出某种软件，帮助人们减少使用手机的时间，那将会是一个很大的成功，但我们还没有想到什么好的点子。

A lot of philanthropic work, nothing to an out there yet, but there's like some cool projects that I'm working on, and a lot of like, just personal creative art projects and supporting other artists and stuff like that. To prep for this chat, I talk to so many people that have worked with you over the years to try to figure out what you taught them about building product, building teams, building companies that most stuck with them, that most helped them build amazing products. The first is a concept called Utility Curves, this game of a bunch across so many people that have worked with you. Talk about what is Utility Curves, how you think use that to build better products.

我一直在进行很多慈善工作，虽然目前还没有公布什么具体的项目，但我正在参与一些很酷的项目，也有许多个人的创意艺术项目，同时支持其他艺术家。为了这次对话，我和许多曾与你合作过的人交流，试图了解你在产品设计、团队建设和公司发展方面给他们的启示，这些经验帮助他们开发了非常优秀的产品。首先是一个叫做"效用曲线"的概念，这个理念在与你合作过的许多人的心中都留下了深刻印象。能否谈谈什么是效用曲线，以及你是如何利用这个概念来打造更好的产品的？

This is pretty easy because it's a very familiar has curve where you have, it's flat, it starts arcing up, and then there's a really steep part and then it levels off again. And on the horizontal access, you can think of cost or effort. And on the vertical access, it's value or convenience. It kind of depends exactly what you're talking about. But the idea is the first bit of effort you put into something doesn't result in a huge amount of value. And then there's some magic threshold where it produces an enormous amount of value and then continued investment doesn't really pay off. The most basic example I can think of is let's say you're making a hammer and on that bottom access, it's now quality. And if the hammer has a handle that breaks with any impact, then it's totally useless. And if you make it a little bit stronger, it's still pretty useless. And it's kind of like junk, junk, junk, junk, okay, good, great, then it doesn't matter anymore.

这很容易理解，因为这是一个我们很熟悉的哈斯曲线。曲线一开始是平的，然后开始向上弯曲，接着出现一段非常陡峭的部分，最后又趋于平缓。在水平轴上，你可以考虑是成本或努力程度。垂直轴上则是价值或便利性，具体取决于你讨论的内容。但关键是你最初投入的一点努力不会带来太大的价值，然后会有一个神奇的临界点，它会产生巨大的价值，再继续投入就不太值当了。最简单的例子就是，如果你在制作一个锤子，在底轴上你可以说是质量。如果锤子的把手受力就断，那它完全没用。你把它做得稍微结实一点，它仍然没多大用处。就好像一开始是垃圾，垃圾，垃圾，然后变得好，好，再继续提升就没多大意义了。

If you're making an app, okay, this app's gonna have users. And so let's make a user's table and a database. And so far, you have generated no value. The reason I felt like this was so important is because we would talk about a feature and usually features are thought of as a binary, like you either have this feature or you don't. And so the argument I guess was, have we just not invested enough in this or have we got all the value or convenience or quality or whatever that we could get out of this and we've had the minute appointed to mission returns and it just doesn't matter. And I think in many cases, people will add a feature. It's not good enough. And so people don't use it or appreciate it. But now you've added some complexity to the app and then people give up or take it back or they try something in casting and they don't get the results they want. And so they decide that this is the thing that we're doing.

如果你正在开发一个应用程序，好的，那么这个应用程序会有用户。因此，我们需要在数据库中创建一个用户表。不过到目前为止，这并没有创造任何价值。我之所以觉得这个问题如此重要，是因为我们通常把功能视为二元的，也就是说，你要么拥有这个功能，要么没有。不过问题是，我们是否没有在这个功能上投入足够，或者说我们已经从中获得了所有可能的价值、便利性或质量，而我们到了一个投入回报很小的阶段，这就不值一提了。我认为在很多情况下，人们会为了添加一个功能而去做。但其实这个功能并不够好，因此用户并不使用或欣赏它。这样一来，你给应用程序增加了复杂度，导致用户放弃或回撤，或在使用过程中未获得所需结果。于是，他们决定，我们就这样去做吧。

And so we would try to really investigate and decide whether we were on the first child part of the curve, the second child part of the curve or we were just coming up to it. So I think it's a lot easier to understand the value of this when you're talking about a specific app and a specific feature. But I think it was ultimately helpful on getting people to understand whether something was worth it or not. Okay, so just to be back what I'm hearing, there's kind of this, if you visualize this curve at the bottom, it's like, I don't even know what this is and then up the curve is like, okay, I sort of get it. And then at the top is, okay, I can't live without this. Now that I understand what this is for, it feels like it's like a really, it's a different way of thinking about getting to the aha moment for someone where they see, okay, save items, I get it. I need to use this constantly.

我们会认真调查并决定我们处于哪一个阶段，是在曲线的第一阶段、第二阶段，还是刚刚接近曲线的某个点。我觉得，当讨论一个具体的应用程序和具体的功能时，更容易理解这种评估的价值。最终，这种方法有助于让人们明白某事是否值得。好，回到我听到的内容，曲线底部是：“我甚至不知道这是什么。”往上走，是：“哦，我有点懂了。”而到顶端则是：“我无法离开这个。”这种理解方式是一种截然不同的思维方式，帮助人们达到那个“啊哈时刻”，当他们明白“保存项目”的意义后，就会意识到需要不断使用这个功能。

So it feels like this works both for a specific feature and also just for Slack, like getting people to even understand. Here's what Slack can do for you and then now I can't live without Slack. And essentially this is a lens you use to figure out where to spend product resources because if you don't get up that curve to, I get it and I can't live without it, nothing else matters. Is that the way, is that the framework? Yeah, yeah. And I think then you layer on another concept like the Basis use the term divine discontent. The line actually moves because once people are familiar with a piece of software or the way a feature is implemented or something like that, their standards go up.

感觉这不仅适用于特定功能，也适用于整个 Slack。首先帮助人们理解 Slack 的用途，然后让他们觉得离不开它。这种思路可以帮助你决定产品资源的投放方向，因为如果用户没有达到“理解并离不开”的状态，那么其他努力都是白费。这样的框架对吗？是的，是这样的。此外，还有一个概念叫做“神圣的不满”。意思是当用户熟悉了一款软件或某个功能的实现方式后，他们的期望和标准就会提高。

And so there's like this competition. And again, this access can be, utility is the best general term for it, but could be quality, convenience, speed, it could be any number of things. But as you improve your search capability or if, as you improve your login experience or your password experience or your checkout experience or whatever, everyone else is as well. And so there's this continued investment. And when, you know, forget about thinking about a new feature, you're looking at how the product works overall and usually things get kind of implemented once. And then if they're lucky, they get improved upon periodically. Most things get improved upon very infrequently and something's getting improved upon never.

这段话的大意为："因此存在一种竞争。这种竞争可以是由于各种原因引起的，比如效用是一个总括性的术语，但也可以是质量、便利性、速度，或者其他许多因素。当你在提高搜索功能、登录体验、密码体验或结账体验等等时，其他人也在做同样的事情。因此，这需要持续的投资。当你不考虑开发新功能时，你会关注产品整体是如何运作的。通常情况下，功能只被实施一次，如果运气好的话，会定期改进。但大多数功能改进的频率很低，有些功能甚至从未得到改进。"

And, you know, I just want to give an example at the absolute extreme because I don't actually don't know how long this has been, but I try not to criticize other people's software so much because I'm very familiar with the trade-offs and prioritization and how hard it can be and blah, blah, blah. But, okay, so most people have the Gmail calendar app on their phone. I travel a fair bit. I'm mostly in the Eastern time zone, sometimes in mountain times, sometimes in the Pacific, sometimes in English time, sometimes in Japan, Central Europe. There's like a, you know, maybe 10 time zones, 12 time zones that I would ever choose.

你知道，我想举一个非常极端的例子，因为我其实不太清楚情况持续了多久，但我尽量不去过多批评其他人的软件，因为我非常了解在软件开发中需要权衡以及优先排序，总之这是一件很难的事情。不过，好吧，大多数人手机上都有Gmail日历应用。我经常旅行，通常在东部时区，有时在山区时区、太平洋时区、英国时区、日本和中欧。这大概有十个或十二个时区我可能会用到。

When you hit the option to set the time zone on an event in Google Calendar on the iOS app, it presents all the time zones in the world in alphabetical order. And that's like the, I mean, there's probably worse orderings, but there's no value in that. And even when you start searching, it still presents them in alphabetical order by country with that turn. So I'm in California and I'm trying to send it away with a next week when I'm back in New York and I type in EAST, that I get a bunch of garbage, okay, East urn, ERN. And then the first one is Eastern Australia, New South Wales. And then Eastern Australia, Queensland. And then Eastern Australia, Daylight Sagaans and Eastern Australia, Standard Time.

当你在 iOS 版的 Google 日历应用中设置活动的时区时，它会以字母顺序显示全世界的时区。虽然可能有更糟糕的排序方式，但这种排序方式并没有什么实际价值。即便你开始搜索，它仍然会根据国家的字母顺序来显示时区。比如我在加州，现在想设置下周回纽约时的日程，当我输入 "EAST" 时，结果得到一大堆无用的信息，比如 East urn，ERN 之类。结果第一个显示的是东澳大利亚，新南威尔士，然后是东澳大利亚，昆士兰，再然后是东澳大利亚，夏令时和东澳大利亚，标准时间。

And then you're like, well, fuck, what? I can't remember which one is Daily's Havens and which one is Standard Time. And we have what? I could keep going like this for a while. This is an app that's used by at least hundreds and millions of people, presumably every single Google employee, it's bananas how bad it is. There's so many, like there's all these clever things you could do, like you know me, I'm on the West Coast, first option should be the East Coast and vice versa. But it definitely shouldn't be that every time zone is presented with equal value. I don't give a couple hundred times zones. I grew up in Canada, there's a Newfoundland has its own time zone, which is offset by half an hour. The population of Newfoundland is about half a million people. Not that many people got it. Is it Newfoundland maybe a million people in all of history? So I'm like a million and a half out of eight billion people.

然后你就会想：“哎，我该怎么办？我记不得哪个是‘每日的天堂’，哪个是‘标准时间’了。我们还有什么？我可以这样持续一段时间。这是一个至少有上亿人使用的应用程序，估计每个谷歌员工都在用，但它竟然糟糕到这种程度，真是难以置信。你有很多聪明的方法可以解决这个问题，例如你知道我在西海岸，那第一个选项就应该是东海岸的时间，反之亦然。但绝对不应该是每个时区都被等同对待。我不在乎有几百个时区。我在加拿大长大，其中纽芬兰有自己的时区，比标准时间多半个小时。纽芬兰有大约50万人口，不是那么多人，有没有可能纽芬兰整个历史才一百万人？所以我在想，八十亿人中一共才一百五十万人。”

And there's Newfoundland, you know, like the same with China time, which is like 25% of the world's population in this country. Anyway, and those a little bit longer than I intended to go on this example, but it is, it's crazy because no one's gonna switch to Gmail or to G Suite, Google Calendar from Outlook Exchange because the time zone picker is good. So maybe in some sense it doesn't matter. But at the same time, there's a real value in delighting customers and there's an emotional connection to the form or don't form. And in some cases, that could be really positive, like they would recommend it. And when they switch companies, or decide to start their own company, they're gonna choose to use this product or advocate for it because of that emotional connection. And vice versa, they'll also be like, hate this thing that drives me. Banana is really like we should stop using it or advocate for the alternative.

这段话的大意翻译如下： “你知道，还有纽芬兰（Newfoundland），就像和中国时间一样，在这个国家有相当于全球25%的人口。无论如何，这个例子比我计划中要说的内容多了一些，但令人感到疯狂的是，没有人会因为时区选择器很好用而从 Outlook Exchange 切换到 Gmail 或 G Suite、Google Calendar。所以从某种意义上说，这可能不重要。但同时，令客户满意有真正的价值，这会形成一种情感连接。在某些情况下，这种情感连接可能非常正面，例如，他们会推荐这个产品。而当他们跳槽或决定创业时，也会因为这种情感连接选择使用这个产品或为之辩护。同样地，如果有情感上的反感，他们可能会非常讨厌这个产品，认为我们应该停止使用它或者倡导使用替代品。”

And I think people just don't appreciate or come back to those things all for enough. There's this category of really essential parts of the app. Again, like a count creation, sign up, forgot password, things like that. But for most organizations, very infrequently get a lot of love and an iteration and improvement, despite the fact that the quality bar has gone up across the board and continue to lay us up. Let's go down that rabbit hole a little bit more around delight and craft. Slack was famous for being one of the early, let's say a consumerized B2B SaaS products, Slack leaned into delight and experience and craft and a great experience. And you just as a product leader, I'd say, are known as very taste forward, very craft oriented leader, which is pretty rare. And I think continues to be rare.

我认为人们往往不够重视或不经常关注这些事情。有一些应用程序中非常重要的部分，比如账户创建、注册、忘记密码等功能。但在大多数组织中，这些部分很少得到足够的关注、改进和提升。尽管整体质量要求不断提高，我们还是应该深入研究一下关于愉悦体验和精心设计的话题。Slack以其优良体验而著称，是早期将消费者体验融入商业软件服务的例子之一。Slack重视用户的愉悦体验和精致设计。作为产品负责人，你被认为是一个注重品味和精心设计的领导者，这种特质非常罕见，并且我认为将来仍会如此。

So there's a few things I wanna talk about here. One is a taste. I heard of a talk you get of a really unique, you give a talk on taste and you have a really unique perspective on just what taste is, what product taste looks like. Can you share that? There is a lot of, you're going back to the utility curves again, people who are obsessed with this one little thing and keep on adding more detail improvements beyond the point where it makes much of a difference. But I guess a couple of things about taste. So one is, can you learn to develop it? I think so because the word literally comes from experiencing food and putting stuff in your mouth and can people become better chefs with training? Yes, absolutely. Undoubtedly, some people have a natural advantage or born with this ability to make discernments that are difficult for other people to make.

有几件事情我想在这里谈谈。首先是关于“品味”。我听说你曾经做过一个非常独特的演讲，谈论了品味，以及产品品味到底是什么样子。可以分享一下吗？有很多人一直在关注效用曲线的问题，他们执着于某个小细节，不断增加更多细微的改进，甚至到了这些改进已不再显著影响整体效果的地步。但我想说一下关于品味的几点。首先是，品味是可以培养的吗？我认为是可以的，因为这个词最初与品尝食物相关，是通过把东西放在嘴里体验的，那么人们能通过训练成为更好的厨师吗？答案是肯定的，绝对如此。当然，有些人天生在辨别某些细微差别上具有优势，这对其他人来说可能比较困难。

And so like that. But you can definitely practice and you can definitely get better. The second thing I'd say is, you can create a real advantage for yourself, for your product, for your company, by leaning into it because most people don't have good taste and don't invest. And so you probably familiar with, again, Jeff Bezos line, your margin is my opportunity. And pretty obvious, he meant by that. I would tell the story at Slack over and over again and actually made it part of the new hire welcome. So I'm going, I'm in Vancouver at our Vancouver office and I'm going for a walk with Brandon Velostok who's at the time creative director for product development. I think that was his title. And we're in the Yale town neighborhood in Vancouver.

翻译成中文：就像这样。但你绝对可以练习，也一定能有所进步。我要说的第二件事是，你可以为自己、你的产品或你的公司创造出真正的优势，通过投入其中，因为大多数人没有好的品味并且不会投资。你可能熟悉的是杰夫·贝佐斯的那句话，“你的利润空间就是我的机会。” 这句话的意思很明显。我在Slack多次讲述这个故事，甚至将其作为新员工入职欢迎的一部分。所以，我去了温哥华，在我们的温哥华办公室，我和当时产品开发创意总监布兰登·维洛斯托克一起散步。我想那是他的头衔。我们在温哥华的Yale Town街区。

So there's like really narrow sidewalks because it used to be a warehouse district and now it's like fancy restaurants and nail salons and cheeks and stuff. And as it doesn't Vancouver, it starts to rain. We don't have umbrellas. We're walking back to the office and most people have umbrellas and we're kind of on these narrow sidewalks with people coming towards us with umbrellas. And we noticed how few people would move their umbrella out of the way. And of course, the other person, their umbrella, the Pokebits are exactly at I level for people walking towards them. And we would get forced off the sidewalk or having to duck down or whatever.

所以，那里的人行道非常窄，因为这里以前是仓库区，现在变成了高档餐馆、美甲店和酒吧之类的地方。就像温哥华常见的那样，开始下雨了。我们没有带伞，正往办公室走，路上大多数人都有伞，我们走在人行道上，这些人正朝我们走来。我们注意到，几乎没有人会把他们的伞挪开。当然，另一边的人，他们的伞尖正好处于我们视线的高度。我们不是被逼下人行道，就是得低头躲避。

And it became a game like we were guessing. Is this person going to tell their umbrella out of the way so we can pass or not? And something like one third of the people would do it. And we had this conversation about it where it's like, okay, I can think of three reasons why people wouldn't do it. What is, they have very few avenues in their life to exercise power and this is one of them. And they're just like, want to get out there and dominate people and cause suffering.

情况变成了一种游戏，就像我们在猜测一样：这个人会不会把他们的伞移开让我们通过呢？大约三分之一的人会这样做。我们还就此进行了一次对话，觉得可能有三个原因让人们不愿意这么做。其一是，他们在生活中几乎没有机会行使权力，而这是其中之一。他们就是想在外面支配他人，展示自己的影响力。

So, you shouldn't describe to Malice that which can be described to ignorance. So that's probably, you know, probably is the explanation for a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of people. But the other two explanations aren't that great either. One is that they see it's happening. They see they're pushing other people off the sidewalk or poking them in the eye or whatever. And they're just like, fuck, that's too bad. I wish there was something I could do about that. But I can't think of anything. And the last reason is they just don't notice at all. Like they're just oblivious to their impact on other people and they're, they're so in their head.

所以，不要把那些可以用无知来解释的事情归咎于恶意。这可能只是解释了一小小部分人的行为。但是其他两个解释也不太好。一种是他们看到事情发生了，也看到自己把别人挤下人行道或者戳到别人眼睛，但他们只会想：“哎呀，太糟了。我真希望能做点什么，但我想不出办法。”最后一种原因是他们完全没有意识到。他们根本没注意到自己对他人的影响，因为他们太沉浸在自己的世界里了。

And I can't really think of any other explanations for it besides that. And so we would say, it's like, like, tilting your umbrella is our opportunity. That's not a great rephrase of your margin as my opportunity, but your failure to really be considerate and exercise courtesy and really be empathic about other people's experience is an advantage you can create a critical advantage. And I think that there's many reasons why thought was successful at the moment it was successful.

我实在想不出除了这个以外的其他解释。我们会说，这就像是倾斜雨伞是我们的一个机会。虽然这不能很好地重述“你的边缘就是我的机会”这句话，但意思是你的失误、对他人缺乏考虑、不讲礼貌、缺乏同理心却可以成为你创造重要优势的机会。我认为，有很多原因导致某个想法在那个时候获得了成功。

And I think we had a bunch of really wonderful tailwinds and all of that stuff. But it wouldn't have grown the way it did with how those little conveniences which caused people to form an emotional connection because a lot of our growth came from, you know, start up A, use a slack and then someone leaves, start up A for start up B. And start up B doesn't use slack yet. And they would be like, oh my God, you guys, we really get this is so good. We got to try it. And the spread was driven by that cross-pollination and people really genuinely advocated for it.

我认为我们确实拥有了一些非常好的顺风效应和其他诸如此类的优势。但是，如果没有那些小便利促使人们形成情感联系，我们的增长不会像现在这样迅猛。我们的很多增长来源于这样的情况：比如，创业公司A使用Slack，然后某个人离开A公司去B公司，而B公司还没有使用Slack。他们会说：“天啊，你们真的要试试这个，这太好了。”这种交叉传播推动了我们的发展，人们真心实意地为我们推荐。

That is an amazing metaphor. I love that one moment became like a value of product craftsmanship. That's like, tell your umbrella, it was a very common saying, bend on a company's leg and stuff like that. Is there an example? I imagine there are many, but from the time of building slack, especially in the early days where you chose to go big on craftsmanship and experience and delight versus speed where you thought, looking back, that was a really great idea and it worth really gorgeous success.

这真是一个精彩的比喻。我喜欢将某个时刻形容为产品工艺的价值。这就像是一个常见的说法，比如"告诉你的伞"，或者"站在公司的肩膀上"之类的。有没有这样的例子呢？我猜肯定有不少，特别是在创建Slack的早期阶段，你选择注重工艺、体验和用户满意度，而不是一味追求速度。回过头来看，那真是一个非常好的决定，并且带来了巨大成功。

Here's a bunch of little examples. So someone else came up with this idea and I'm trying to remember who it was. Maybe Andretora's, maybe Ben Brown, something like that. We were like, why do you ask people for email address and password if their ownership of the email address was the thing that allowed them to create the account in the first place? Why don't we just ask them for their email address and then send them a link?

这是一些小例子。某个人想出了这个主意，我在努力回忆是谁，也许是Andretora，也许是Ben Brown，类似这样的人。我们当时在想，既然他们拥有这个邮箱地址就能创建账户，为什么还需要询问用户的邮箱地址和密码呢？为何不直接要求他们提供邮箱地址，然后发送一个链接给他们呢？

And so when Slack's first version of the mobile app came out, we're like typing your password on your phone if you have any minimal threshold of password hygiene is a terrible experience, say your capital H, lowercase Q, sex, correct period. So let's just have them enter the email address, we'll send them a link, the link will automatically open the app and authenticate them. And so there's one, a little example. Well, so you guys invented the magic link experience.

所以，当 Slack 的第一个移动应用版本推出时，我们意识到在手机上输入密码对密码有基本要求的人来说是个糟糕的体验，比如大小写字母、符号等等都是麻烦。所以我们决定让用户输入他们的电子邮件地址，然后我们会发送一个链接。点击链接后会自动打开应用并完成身份验证。这就是所谓的“魔力链接”体验的一个小例子。哦，所以你们是“魔力链接”体验的发明者。

Well, I had seen that idea somewhere else, like someone else a blog post about it or something like that, but we were the first ones to my knowledge that really kind of scaled that and made it a standard. There is another one which we really puzzle about in the very early days where people have a long history of using messaging apps from like AOL instant messenger to SMS to WhatsApp where their expectation is, they get a notification for every message that's received.

好的，我以前在别的地方看到过这个想法，比如在某人的博客文章里看到过这样的内容，但据我所知，我们是第一个真正将其规模化并设为标准的人。还有一个问题在早期让我们很困惑，人们使用即时通讯软件的历史由来已久，比如从AOL即时通讯到短信，再到WhatsApp，他们的期望是每收到一条信息就会得到通知。

And in the case of Slack, they doesn't make as much sense because you're a member of many channels and the messages may not be for you. And so that's why we have that at-tacking people and we certainly didn't invent that, I was Twitter, but what we realized was people were signing up for Slack and it's like one engineer on this team inside of this larger organization inside this larger company and they would pull in the person next to them and they would say let's try it out and then they would send a message and then, well, personally, I didn't get a notification. This is bullshit.

在 Slack 的情况下，这种情况不太合理，因为你可能参与了很多频道，而那些消息未必是针对你的。因此，我们引入了“@提及”这个功能。当然，这不是我们的发明，而是来自 Twitter。但我们发现，人们注册 Slack 时，往往是某个大公司大组织中的一个小团队的工程师，他们会让旁边的人也试用一下。然后，他们发出一条消息，结果却没有收到通知，于是觉得很失望：“这简直太糟糕了。”

So we reluctantly decided that we had to send notifications for every single message as the default for new accounts. But once you had, I don't remember with the threshold to where to have it, I think once you had received 10 messages, we would pop up this little thing that says, hey, you have our default settings for notifications. We'd all want Slack to be noisy for you. Would you like to switch to our recommended settings and then they would just click link and it would have what should be the default, which is you only get a notification if it's a DM or someone tags you.

我们不太情愿地决定，对新账户的每条消息都发送通知作为默认设置。然而，当用户收到10条消息后，会弹出一个提示，告诉他们当前使用的是默认通知设置。我们并不希望Slack对你来说太吵闹，是否愿意切换到我们推荐的设置？用户只需点击链接，就可以切换到推荐的通知设置，该设置仅在私人消息（DM）或有人标记你时才会收到通知。

But we realized it was worth that investment to get people over the hump. On much more, well, here's one more simple one and then one could have more complex one. People would just like the, a camera if it's called urgent or important, the flag in Outlook that, like, you know, set the priority of a message for the recipients, always got abused inside of every company. As soon as someone does it, like everyone's like, okay, I'm gonna do that too for my message and so all of your messages have the little flag and it's becoming useless.

我们意识到，为了帮助人们克服困难，这种投入是值得的。有些事情，简单的或者复杂的都有。比如说，有些人喜欢在邮件里用Outlook的"紧急"或"重要"标记来设定消息的优先级，但在公司内部，这种标记总是被滥用。一旦有人这样做，其他人就会效仿，结果所有的邮件都有这个小标记，最终变得毫无意义。

We have at everyone, which causes the notification to be sent to every member of the channel when the message is sent and people would start, you know, look, someone would find this feature inside of a organization. They would at everyone, everyone would get a notification and then the next person to send a message was like, well, my thing's more important than Bob saying, I'm gonna also at everyone. And it became really obnoxious if people complain about it, but it was said, I don't know, I guess tragedy of the comments is not quite exactly the same thing, but it was a real dynamic that happened over and over again.

我们有一个 "@everyone" 的功能，这样在消息发送时，频道中的每个成员都会收到通知。有人会发现这个功能，他们会在组织内部使用 "@everyone"，所有人都会收到通知。然后下一个发消息的人就会觉得，哦，我的消息比Bob的更重要，于是也会用 "@everyone"。结果这变得非常恼人，导致很多人抱怨这种情况。虽然这不能完全被称为“公地悲剧”，但确实是一个重复发生的问题。

So we came up with what was called the shout-e-ruster and internally we said, don't be a cock. But we didn't obviously say that publicly. When you at everyone, a little rooster would pop up and it would have like, you sound waves coming out of it's an how thing being early obnoxious and say, hey, this is gonna cause a notification for 147 people in eight different time zones. Are you sure you want to send this message with that at everyone? And of course that worked amazingly and it dropped off and again, it was really trying to shape people's behavior so that they used, we want us not to be very flexible, but we knew that there was ways to use it that would be annoying and difficult for everyone and so trying to shape the communication culture inside the organization to take best advantage on it.

于是，我们想出了一个叫做 "喊叫鸡助手" 的东西。在公司内部，我们常说“不要做讨厌鬼”，但显然我们不会公开这么说。当有人使用 @everyone 功能时，屏幕上会弹出一只小公鸡，并伴随着声波效果，显得非常烦人地提醒，“嘿，这会给8个不同时区的147个人发送通知。你确定要使用 @everyone 发送这条消息吗？”这个方法非常有效，使用频率明显下降了。我们这样做的目的是为了引导人们的行为，虽然我们希望大家的使用方式很灵活，但我们也知道有些使用方式会对所有人造成困扰。所以，我们希望通过这种方式来塑造组织内部的沟通文化，以便更好地利用这个功能。

Now, features still exist. I see that restore all of it or not. I don't see it all. Well, actually I do at channel because I've run a big slack. So I see that restore in the self and that survived. Yeah, yeah, that survived and good. Because it was a trivially easy thing to comment and made a really big difference, but also taught people how the product worked because people probably didn't know that at everyone or at channel, right? Well, didn't think about the cost at least. I mean, yes.

现在，这些功能依然存在。我看到它们是否全部恢复了。我并没有全部看到。嗯，其实我在频道看到了，因为我管理了一个很大的Slack团队。所以我看到的是自我恢复，并且它存活了。是的，是的，它存活下来了，这很好。因为这是一件非常简单的事，但却带来了很大的影响，同时也教会了人们如何使用这个产品，因为大家可能并不知道「@everyone」或「@channel」的功能，对吧？至少没有考虑过其代价。我的意思是，是的。

Yeah. Here's one more. So we decided we were gonna do, do not disturb as a future. And we had this, but conanjum, but we're trying to take into account all the different uses of slack, because the time we'd be in for what to this. Like 2017, there was, you know, tens of thousands of paying customers, the organizations, hundreds of the high millions of users, maybe hundreds of thousands of organizations that don't remember how many.

好的，这里还有一个。我们决定将“请勿打扰”作为一个未来功能。我们有这个想法，但有些困惑，因为我们试图考虑Slack的所有不同用途。在那时，比如2017年，已有成千上万的付费客户、数以百万计的用户，也许还有成千上万的组织（具体多少我记不清了）。

And everyone had set up stuff the way that they liked it, including things like ops alerts, go into channels for on-call engineers, for some of the biggest systems and apps in the world. And so we couldn't just like deploy it right away. We realized that some of the decision makers, the owners of the organizations, we're gonna have really strong opinions about this. We also realized that some of the end users can have strong opinions, and we wanted to figure out a way to kind of balance the concerns and give people appropriate means of control.

每个人都按照自己的喜好设置了各种东西，包括运维警报、供随时待命工程师使用的频道，针对的是一些全球最大型的系统和应用。因此，我们不能立刻部署。我们意识到，一些决策者和组织的负责人对这件事会有很强烈的看法。同时，我们也意识到，一些最终用户也可能有强烈的意见。我们希望找到一种方法，在平衡各方关切的同时，给予人们适当的控制权。

So we came up with this really elaborate system for the rollout, which was, we told everyone, I'm sorry, every slack administrator that this was coming weeks before it came, and we told them that we were gonna set a default for their organization, which I believe was either 7 PM to 7 AM in their local time zone, or 8 AM to 8 PM in a camera, which was, but also that they could override that default. And also that the individual end users could override that system owner default. And finally, that the system owner could, if they changed the default again, would override all of the end users' preferences, and then the end users could override them again.

我们为上线制定了一个非常复杂的系统，具体来说，我们在功能上线前几周通知了每位Slack管理员。我们告诉他们，我们会为他们的组织设置一个默认时间，这个时间可能是他们所在时区的晚上7点到早上7点，或上午8点到晚上8点。同时，我们明确表示，他们可以修改这个默认设置。此外，各个最终用户也可以修改这个系统管理员的默认设定。而且，如果系统管理员再次更改默认设置，这将覆盖所有最终用户的偏好，然后最终用户又可以再次调整。

And it wasn't to create this dynamic where people were at war, but so that you could change a policy and that people could still customize and stuff like that. But this was a much longer and more convoluted process, but it allowed the millions of people who were using Slack to get the feature without creating a bunch of conflict and without people turning it off automatically. And I think critically, with setting a bunch of defaults, because if we didn't set the default, most people wouldn't turn it on at all. You look, if we didn't default you to do not disturb from the APM to 8AM. You probably, if you're the average person, it wouldn't ever do it yourself.

这段话的大意是：这并不是为了制造一种让人们对立的局面，而是为了让你能够改变一个政策，同时人们仍然可以进行个性化设置。虽然这个过程需要更长的时间并且更加复杂，但它使数百万使用 Slack 的用户能够在不引发大量冲突和自动关闭功能的情况下获取该功能。我认为设定一系列默认设置是非常关键的，因为如果不这样做，大多数人根本就不会去启用它。举个例子，如果我们没有将默认设置为晚上8点到早上8点的勿扰模式，大多数人可能自己也不会去设置这个模式。

So that's another elaborate example where I think that investment made sense, because it was a critical feature for a lot of people. And if we hadn't done it that way, I think it would have caused a lot of complaints and conflict and stuff like that. Those are amazing examples. I very much appreciate that you and I disturb feature when you guys launched that. I still remember that coming out. I'm sure a lot of people are very thankful for that.

所以这是另一个详细的例子，我认为这项投资是有意义的，因为它是许多人非常需要的关键功能。如果我们当初没有那样做，我想会引起很多投诉和争议。那些例子真是精彩。我非常感激你们当初推出时的"勿扰模式"功能。我仍然记得那一刻。我相信很多人都对此心怀感激。

Something else I heard that you often espouse, which is counterintuitive to a lot of people, is about friction, friction in the product experience. That friction is actually often a good thing. It's a feature not a bug a lot of times. If you use it well, talk about your experience there. Yeah, well, so yes. And there's also another issue around friction, which is it became like a mantra or just like a kind of an assumption that you should always be trying to remove friction.

我听说你经常提到的一件事，对于很多人来说可能有些反直觉，那就是产品体验中的摩擦。事实上，这种摩擦常常是一件好事。很多时候它是一种特性，而不是缺陷。如果你能好好运用它，那就说说你的经验吧。是的，其实还有另一个关于摩擦的问题，那就是它几乎变成了一种口号或假设，认为你应该总是努力去除摩擦。

And in some cases, that's true. We would talk about it slack. It was hard to market. It was hard to explain what it was if you had never used to before. You could say a messaging app for businesses or whatever. But a critical disadvantage to slack doing out of home advertising, putting up a billboard, versus beer or cars is no one needs to be explained why they would want a car or beer. But everyone would have to be explained when they want to slack. And so the problem there is comprehension.

在某些情况下，这确实是事实。我们会在 Slack 上讨论这个问题。这款产品很难推销，也很难向那些从未使用过的人解释它是什么。你可以称之为商务通讯应用程序或其他什么。但是，Slack 在做户外广告（比如立广告牌）时，与啤酒或汽车相比有一个关键劣势：没有人需要被解释为什么他们需要汽车或啤酒，但每个人都需要被解释为什么他们需要使用 Slack。所以问题就在于理解上。

And this will come up an enormous amount. So now imagine you want to get tickets to the Taylor Swift concert in San Francisco. And you go to the ticket master website. If you think about both your comprehension, it's perfect to this case. And that translates into the specificity of your intent. And the degree of your intent is also kind of maxed out. So I really want to get these tickets. And I know exactly what they are. They're Taylor Swift tickets for this day at this venue. And so in that scenario, it doesn't really matter if ticket master's website is slow.

这件事会经常发生。想象一下你想要去旧金山观看 Taylor Swift 的演唱会，于是你访问了 Ticketmaster 的网站。在这种情况下，你的理解能力完全能胜任任务，因为你的意图非常明确。你非常想要得到这些门票，并且你对门票的信息非常了解：Taylor Swift 的演唱会门票、具体日期和地点。所以在这种情况下，即使 Ticketmaster 的网站速度很慢，也无所谓。

It doesn't really matter if the payments page here is out. Like you're going to persist and get through it. So obviously, they're better to reduce friction. But in some sense, it doesn't. It's not a huge amount of value in doing that. For most creators of products, there are a handful of cases where that really is true for you as well. And they include things like user registration, authentication, check out flows for e-commerce. I am significantly more likely to buy something if there's Apple Pay or Shop Pay or something like that.

“如果这里的支付页面有问题，其实并不太重要。因为你会坚持并解决这个问题。当然，减少障碍肯定更好，但在某种程度上，这不是特别重要。对于大多数产品创作者来说，确实有几个情况对你来说是必须的。这些情况包括用户注册、身份验证以及电子商务的结账流程。如果有像Apple Pay或Shop Pay这样的支付选项，我购买商品的可能性会大大增加。”

I'm significantly less likely to carry through the purchase of something if I have to manually enter all of the fields of my address when at the time rather than having one of those address pickers, it's crazy. But the issue is my intent isn't always 100% and the specificity of my intent isn't always 100%. So if your thing is direct to consumer t-shirts and you acquire customers through Instagram ads, all of them know what t-shirts are. This looks like a good t-shirt to me. But I'm rarely 100% intent. I might have a very specific intent, but it intends like 70%. So if your amount of friction is above that, I'm not going to do it.

如果在购买时需要手动输入地址信息，而不是使用地址选择器，那么我完成购买的可能性就会大大降低。这听起来有点疯狂。不过，问题在于我的购买意图并不总是百分之百明确。在某些情况下，我的购买意图可能只有70%的把握，比如我可能对某款T恤很感兴趣，通过Instagram广告认识这款产品，但如果购买过程太麻烦，我可能就不会继续购买。因此，如果你的产品是直销给消费者的T恤，而你通过Instagram广告吸引顾客，大部分人都知道这是一款T恤，对我来说，这款T恤看起来不错，但如果购买过程的麻烦程度超过了我的耐心，我就不会购买。

But now people coming to Slack.com, they had some friend had mentioned Slack and kind of talked their ear off at some point months ago, and then they saw a news article, and then they saw someone's tweet. And then they saw an ad on a website, they were really thinking, and they finally said, OK, I'm going to go to this website. So their intent is like at the absolute minimum threshold. Like it's just, it was before that last event happened, they were below and now they're above. But they're just above the specificity of their intent. Like I need to get Taylor Swift concerts for this date of this venue is also very low, because they're like, it's a work thing, I'm not sure. It's a spreadsheet or like a calendar or do you look exactly what it is. So they were coming in at 0.1% over these critical thresholds.

现在，人们访问Slack.com，可能是因为几个月前有朋友曾提到过Slack，并滔滔不绝地谈论过，然后他们又看到了相关新闻文章、某人的推文，接着在网站上看到了广告。他们经过一番思考，最终决定去这个网站看看。他们的兴趣程度处于绝对最低限度，就在最后一个事件发生前，他们还没兴趣，之后才勉强有了一点兴趣。但他们的兴趣非常模糊，比如：像是要购买某个演唱会的门票，但日期和场馆都不太确定，因为他们不太清楚Slack究竟是什么，是工作相关的东西，但不确定是电子表格还是日历。因此，这些访问者对Slack的兴趣仅比关键门槛多0.1%。

What was the challenge? It wasn't friction, right? Because it's not like they worked aiming for something, and they knew what they were aiming for, and they were just trying to get themselves to that point. What we had to worry about was creating comprehension, and in two senses. What is this thing? And what am I supposed to do next? And that creation of comprehension, in the sense of explaining stuff, that creation of comprehension, in the sense of the design of the UI, of the screen, of the page, or whatever, and the visual hierarchy, and the affordances that are there, and the indication of things to interact with, and which thing should be the next thing to do, and all of that.

挑战是什么？不是摩擦，对吧？因为他们并不是在朝着一个明确的目标努力，然后只是试图把自己推向那个目标。我们需要关注的是创造理解，这有两个方面。一是这是什么东西？二是我接下来应该做什么？为了达到理解，我们需要在两个方面进行努力：一是解释内容，二是设计用户界面，包括屏幕、页面等，视觉层次以及交互的可行性，还有指出哪些是可互动的元素，哪个是接下来需要做的事情，等等。

That becomes really critical. And I think very, very few people recognize that. They're like, I want to get people who come to my web page to decide how poor it was quickly as possible. But if they don't know what they're signing up for, and they don't know what it's going to do after, he's going to spam them, they don't know what they're going to have to pay on the next step, or what, then they're just going to back out. And this was like a lifelong battle, because the remove friction kind of orientation is so deep in people. Again, it really makes a difference in, in those cases, where people do have an intent, and they do know what they're trying to do, it is a poor approach when the challenge is really comprehension.

这变得非常关键。而我认为，只有很少的人认识到这一点。他们通常想让访问他们网页的人尽快做出判断。然而，如果用户不知道他们在注册什么，不知道随后会发生什么，比如是否会被垃圾信息轰炸，不知道下一步需要支付的费用等，他们就会选择退出。这就像一场终生的斗争，因为人们总是热衷于去除阻碍。然而，这种方法在用户明确知道自己目标的情况下很有效，但当挑战在于理解和沟通时，这种方法效果很差。

And I think the secret is, most 70%, 80%, or whatever, of a prior design, is in that comprehension step, because people, if they do ever open the Preferences tab and look at all the options, rarely have an idea. And if you can't teach them, or make it possible for them to discover what the capabilities are, then they're not going to take advantage of them, and they're not going to get as much on it. And I think that the trick is, for most of the unique parts of any application, most of the specific things that you're at, your product, your software does, are areas where the challenge is going to be comprehension, instead of friction.

我认为关键在于，大部分设计的70%或80%都集中在理解这一环节。因为人们即使打开“首选项”标签并查看所有选项，也很少真正明白它们的用途。如果你不能教会他们或者让他们自行发现软件的功能，他们就不会充分利用这些功能，也就无法从中获得最大的价值。我认为，对于任何应用的独特功能，大部分特定的功能所在之处，其实面临的挑战更多是理解，而不是使用上的困难。

It really could be anything. Shopify, the purpose of the service for its end users, is generally going to be kind to clear. But most people, most first-time store openers, don't know that they can get reports. Or if they know that they can get reports, they don't know what kinds of reports. And if they know what kinds of reports they can get, they don't know how they can tweak them, what the timing should be, and which things that are more important to display, and I could go on and on and on. And people just don't recognize that.

这真的可能是任何事情。Shopify 的服务目的对终端用户来说通常是清晰的。然而，大多数人，尤其是那些第一次开店的人，不知道他们可以获取报告。即使他们知道可以获取报告，他们也不清楚具体有哪些类型的报告。而即便他们知道可以获取哪些类型的报告，他们也不知道如何调整这些报告，不知道什么时候获取，以及不知道哪些信息更重要。这一点，很多人其实并没有意识到。

So I want to see if this is still true. I'm just going to open my iPhone and a clock app. And they had the most, the craziest description for alarms. OK, still, it's a little bit different. People can look at their own phone. So I have, it says alarms. And I says sleep and a vertical bar wake up and says no alarm and a button that says change. And then if you hit it, it says sleep is off. In order to automatically turn on sleep features and add your schedule, you need to turn sleep on. So obviously, sleep was a good name for this thing.

所以我想看看这是否仍然正确。我现在就打开我的 iPhone 和时钟应用程序。上面的闹钟描述非常奇怪。好吧，还有点不同，人们可以看自己的手机。我的手机上写着“闹钟”，然后是“睡眠 | 醒来”，显示“无闹钟”，还有一个“更改”按钮。如果你点击它，会显示“睡眠已关闭”。要自动开启睡眠功能并添加你的安排，需要开启睡眠功能。显然，“睡眠”是个好名字。

If you already had a way of getting people to understand it, if you don't, it's like ungrammatical and incomprehensible. And why would you ever do it? And I got a guess. It's been like this for years, 90 plus percent, and maybe 98% of people just do what I do, which is that you just create a, like, I want the alarm on and I'm going to set the time for it. And I don't know what turning sleep on does. But it's just like the lack of comprehension prevents people from getting the value. And I'm sure that there's a bunch of value behind turning sleep on whatever that means.

如果你已经有办法让人们理解这一点，那很好；如果没有，它就会显得不合语法且难以理解。那么你为什么还要这样做呢？我猜想，这种情况已经持续多年，有90%以上、甚至可能达到98%的人和我一样，他们只是简单地设置一个闹钟，并设定时间。我并不知道“启动睡眠功能”有什么作用，只是因为缺乏对这一点的理解，导致无法从中获得任何价值。我相信，启动“睡眠功能”背后肯定有很多好处，只是我们暂时无法理解其意义。

And people spend a lot of time on those features and that integrates with biometrics in your watch. Who knows? Again, I still don't know because turning sleep on is like, what does that do? And what is it going to cost me and what impact it's going to have? Those examples are just, to me, all over the place. And the reason I don't use most software where there was a natural choice point or the reason I don't use most features where there was a choice point for me is because I didn't understand what they were going to do. And I don't give a shit. And if there is one mantra that I would use to replace that, it's don't make me think. And I don't know if you remember that book. Absolutely. Yeah. And honestly, it's been many more than 10 years since I read it. So I don't know if you remember all the examples in the book.

人们花很多时间在这些功能上，而这些功能还与手表的生物识别技术进行了整合。谁知道呢？说实话，我还是不太明白，比如开启睡眠模式到底有啥作用？它会花费我什么，又会带来什么影响？对我来说，这些例子太多了。而我之所以不用大多数软件或者功能，是因为当我面临选择时，我不知道它们会带来什么结果，而且我也不在乎。如果要用一句座右铭来取代这种思维，那就是“别让我思考”。不知道你是否记得那本书？绝对的。我老实说，距我读那本书已经超过十年了，所以我不知道你是否还记得书中的所有例子。

But as a mantra, that was like up there with utility curves because for two reasons. One is it's just like, it's expensive to make a decision. You literally burn glucose. Like there's a metabolic action. There's like ATP created in the mitochondria in your neurons and like a bunch of stuff is happening. And people do get decision fatigue. And there is like, you know, cognitive cost of all these things. But also there's an emotional aspect, which is if you, if your software kind of stops me a second and asks me to make a decision, and I don't really understand it, you make me feel stupid. Right? I don't understand this. Some people are, you know, me, maybe their orientation is okay, but the software is stupid.

这句话大意是：这就像一种箴言，和效用曲线一样重要，有两个原因。首先，做决策的成本很高。你实际上是在消耗葡萄糖，这是一种代谢活动。你的神经元中的线粒体会产生ATP，还有很多其他事情在发生。人们确实会产生决策疲劳，所有这些事情都有认知上的代价。此外，还有情感方面的因素。如果你的软件突然停止让我做决定，而我不太明白这个决定，你让我感到自己很愚蠢，对吧？我不理解这个。有些人，比如我，可能会觉得是软件的问题。

But I think most people are like, oh, I'm dumb. And if you ever talk to him who aren't especially technologically savvy, you know, like the canonical example is like people who are under 50 talking to their parents about using some piece of software and what they're supposed to do, the parents always always feel stupid. Like they're the ones that are wrong. And so if you're causing people to think in the best case, it's like unnecessary use of their biological resources. And in the worst case, you've like now made them feel like emotionally bad, and they're gonna associate that with a product forever. And these are things are just kind of rolling one into the other.

但我认为大多数人都会觉得：“哦，我很笨。” 如果你曾与那些对科技不太熟悉的人交谈过，你就会明白，例如，典型的例子是不到50岁的人在向他们的父母解释如何使用某个软件以及该怎么做时，父母总是感到自己很笨，就好像他们总是做错了一样。所以，如果你让人们思考，即使在最好的情况下，也只是让他们不必要地消耗了自己的生理资源；而在最坏的情况下，你让他们在情感上感到沮丧，并且他们可能会永远将这种感觉与某个产品联系在一起。这些事情就这样连锁地发生了。

Keep going with one last thing, because they just kind of come together, which is along with reduced friction, it's like reduce the number of clicks or taps, it takes for someone to accomplish something, which is almost always exactly the road that like it's, the easiest way, like you could make any action in your app a single click or tap by just exposing every single possibility on one screen that scrolls for thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of pages. And obviously that's terrible. So why do people think that a little bit of that is good? And here's an example, the open menu, there's 14 things that people might wanna do. Level one is group them into like items and put a vertical, sorry, horizontal divider between them.

继续谈最后一点，因为它们有点相关：除了减少摩擦，还要减少完成某件事情所需的点击次数或点击次数。这几乎总是最简单的方法，比如你可以在应用中通过一个屏幕显示所有可能的操作，让用户只需点击一次。但显然，这样设计是很糟糕的。所以，为什么有些人觉得这样做一点点是好的呢？举个例子，打开菜单时有14个操作选项。第一个层次的优化是把相似的项目分组，并在它们之间加入水平分隔线。

So at least people can kind of chunk and see what there is. Step two is present the two or three most common things or the five most common things wherever, and then have some form of other, and then you go to a sub menu that has more items. And the decision of like how to tune that becomes incredibly important, I'm gonna pick on Google again, just because it is, I feel like a Donald Trump here, but I mean interrupt myself again with a story. It's, and that's some, some conference or event and our my road was, and this is probably eight years ago, and it's, we're in the bar after the sessions ended of the thing and John Callison from Stripe is there. And Sundar CEO of Google is there, and John, he's our Patrick goes up to Sundar, and they can talk about anything, right?

为了便于人们理解和查看内容，第一步是将信息进行分类。第二步是展示两到三项最常见的东西，或者展示五项最常见的内容，然后提供一个“其它”选项，进入一个包含更多项目的子菜单。调整这些内容的重要性不言而喻。接下来我想以谷歌为例，这让我感觉自己像是唐纳德·特朗普，总是忍不住打断自己讲故事。有一次在一个会议或活动上，大约八年前的事了，我们在活动结束后在酒吧里，我和Stripe的John Callison、以及谷歌的CEO Sundar都在那里。John或许是我们中的Patrick走到Sundar面前，他们可以谈论任何话题。

Like, yeah, Stripe wasn't the he-muff, it was now, at that point, but it's still like a significant company was up and humming, and what does Patrick wanna talk to Sundar about? It's in the Gmail at the dragging of people, like when you reply all to a message, you often wanna change the two recipient to the CCA, and move someone from CCA to two, or something like that, and just how physically, like the degree of dexterity that's required to do that inside of the Gmail is very high, it still hasn't been fixed, but it really struck me that like Patrick could have asked for anything, I could have been at any time, he could have been a partnership, it was like, it was so irritating to him that it worked like this, it couldn't click it over it.

当然，Stripe当时虽然不再是那个小角色了，但还是一家重要的公司在稳步发展中。那么Patrick想和Sundar谈什么呢？是关于Gmail里一个让人头疼的问题：当你对所有人回复邮件时，你往往需要在收件人（TO）和抄送（CC）之间进行切换，比如把某人从抄送改为收件人，或者类似的操作，而在Gmail中完成这些操作真的需要很高的灵活性。这些问题到现在都还没有解决。但让我印象深刻的是，Patrick本可以谈任何事情，比如合作等，而他却因为这个问题太烦人而无法忽视。

So anyway, back to bashing on Google, who in many respects do an incredible job, and there's all kinds of amazing stuff they do in blah, but that the Gmail actions on an individual email are broken into two very long menu items that are different, and one of them doesn't exist on either menu, there's an unlabeled icon is the only way to do it, and that's to mark something as unread once it's read. I have no idea why some of the actions are in one menu and some of the actions are in another menu, I think it's because some of them have to do with that individual email, some of them have to do with the whole thread, but it doesn't seem very consistent.

无论如何，回到对谷歌的批评：谷歌在很多方面确实做得非常出色，他们在许多领域也有惊人的创举。但是在Gmail中，对单个电子邮件的操作被分成两个非常长的菜单，而且这两个菜单是不同的，其中一个操作甚至在任一菜单中都不存在。要标记已读邮件为未读，唯一的方法是点击一个没有标签的图标。我不明白为什么有些操作在一个菜单，而另一些操作在另一个菜单上。我猜是因为有些操作与单封邮件有关，而有些操作与整个邮件线程有关，但总体显得不太一致。

Every possible thing is listed there in one place, and so it becomes incredibly difficult to use, because sometimes you have to tap and, tap with me and you read all of the options and say, okay, I've used the process of delimination and it's not here, so it must be there. The Uber doesn't work like this anymore, but when I first brought this up to people inside of Slack, there was a moment when the Uber app, when you opened it, it was just, where would you like to go and other? And other was everything, like change your payment method, say, you're location, anything you'd be doing Uber. And that was perfect, because almost all the time, people just wanted to choose where they wanted to go.

每一个可能的东西都被列在一个地方，所以用起来非常困难。有时候你得一个一个选项看过去，用排除法判断不在这里，那就一定在别的地方。Uber之前不是这样的，但当我第一次和Slack的同事们谈起这个话题时，Uber应用在打开时只问你“你想去哪里”和“其他”。“其他”包含了所有选项，比如更改支付方式、设置你的地点，以及任何你在Uber上需要做的事情。这种设计很完美，因为几乎所有时候，人们只需选择他们想去的地方。

Sometimes you wanted to change where your pickup was because you weren't there yet or whatever. And that was just like, what could be simpler than, I'm gonna tell you where I wanna go or I'm gonna choose something else. I really tried to push people to what is the thing that people, or what is the two things, or maybe three things that people could want to do here, and then put everything behind other. And then if it takes them eight clicks for taps to do something, but every single one is trivial easy, that's great. If it, you know, you would use that to two clicks or taps, but every part of it is this fraught decision where I'm opening all of the menus and trying to figure out like which thing is the right thing.

有时候，你想要改变接送地点，因为你尚未到达那里或者有其他情况。这就像，告诉司机你想去哪里或者选择其他选项再简单不过了。我真的很努力地引导人们去思考，在这种情况下，有哪一件事、两件事，或者三件事是他们想要做的。然后，把其他所有选项放在其他选项之后。如果操作需要八次点击或轻触，但每一步都非常简单，那也是很好的。如果操作只需要两次点击或轻触，但每一步都是困难重重，需要打开所有菜单并弄清楚哪一项才是对的，那就不太理想。

And like the more comparing three things to each other is this difficult, four things, it's kind of like geometrically more expensive to compare 15 different options all to the other to see if this is the one that you might want. That, you know, just becomes impossibly expensive. So to me, those are all really connected. And if people could get over the idea of reducing friction as a number of goal or reducing the number of plexio taps and do something and instead focus on, how can I make this simple?

将这段文字翻译成中文，并尽量表达得通俗易懂：比较三件事已经很困难了，如果是比较四件，那难度就像成倍增加一样。如果要将15个不同的选项互相比较，找出你可能想要的那一个，那将代价极高，几乎是不可能的。所以在我看来，这些都是密切相关的。如果人们能够不再把减少摩擦或降低步骤数量当作目标，而是专注于如何让事情变得简单，那就好了。

How do I prevent people from having to think in order to use my software? How can I make this trivial easy? One last example, because this was really influential for me. So I was going back and forth in Vancouver and South Africa. So let's go at the time when we were talking about all this inside of Slack. And it was behind a teenager in line to board the plane. And it was like, you know, we're on the jet wave. It took a long time. And I was watching her use Snapchat and it was insane.

如何让人们在使用我的软件时不必费心思考？我怎样才能让这一切变得极其简单？再举一个对我影响很大的例子。当时我在温哥华和南非之间来回往返。我们在Slack内部讨论所有这些事情的时候。我在登机排队时站在一个青少年后面，我们在登机廊桥上，花了很长时间。我看着她使用Snapchat，简直令人惊讶。

Like she was tapping at least four times a second, sometimes like six or seven times a second. It was like dismissing stories and do stuff. But there was a fluidity to it because everything was like at dead, the draw on a seed is again, I want to see the next story from this person to a person who is a different person. Like instead, she, in order to get, she came up, she answered some one's thing, she took her selfie every self. And everything was just like, she was tapping four times a second for six minutes. I mean, probably there were some breaks in there.

她每秒至少点四次，有时甚至达到六七次。就好像在快速浏览故事和做其他事情。但整个过程非常流畅，因为一切都像在枯燥中找到有趣一样，我想看下一个故事，从一个人到另一个不同的人。她就这样，不断地回应别人的信息，拍自己的自拍照。整个过程就像她在六分钟内每秒点四次。当然，中间可能会有一些停顿。

And that was like the highest and best use of Snapchat for a 15 year old girl in 2016 or whatever that was. And imagine if the goal was to try to make her cap less, like how much of an impediment it would have been to the experience that both her and Snapchat wanted to create. It's so fun to listen to this. And the examples you gave of, it gives us a lot of insight into the way your mind works of just constantly unsatisfied with the way other products work with your products. And I think that's core, like Patrick, is a good example of Stripe.

“这大概就是2016年时，或者类似的时候，一个15岁女孩使用Snapchat的最佳方式。想象一下，如果目标是让她减少使用的话，那将会在多大程度上阻碍她和Snapchat都想创造的体验。这段话听起来真有趣。你举的例子让我们对你的思维方式有了更深的了解，总是不满足于其他产品的运作方式，也不满足于自己的产品。我认为这种不满足感是核心，比如Patrick就是Stripe的一个好例子。”

I feel like that's a recurring theme with very successful product leaders, just constantly unsatisfied and unhappy with how things work. Yeah. I love just even the way you summarize this, just like a really good reframing of instead of obsessing with reducing friction and reducing steps, instead think, how do I reduce the amount of thinking the user has to do? I've never heard of it described as like, you have to think about the ATP and glucose being used to actually think in your goal is to reduce that versus let's just reduce friction, reduce clicks.

我觉得这似乎是一个成功的产品领导者常有的主题，他们总是对事物的现状感到不满和不快乐。是的，我非常喜欢你总结的方式，这种重新框架的思考很棒。与其过于专注于减少摩擦和步骤，不如想想如何减少用户需要动脑思考的程度。我从未听说过这样的描述方式：你需要关注用户为了思考所消耗的能量，比如ATP和葡萄糖，而你的目标是减少这些消耗，而不是仅仅减少摩擦和点击次数。

Yeah, I think in my more cynical examples, I would say to people like, stop, stop what you're doing for a second, close your eyes, take a couple deep breaths, and then pretend that you're an actual human being and open their eyes again and then look at this thing and see can you figure out what it's supposed to do or say or what your, what action you're in, it's supposed to take or what the impact will be if you take that action. There's a whole nother related cycle, but before I get into it cause I know that I'm for both, I wanna wrap up your last example of people being unsatisfied.

好的，我想在我比较愤世嫉俗的例子中，我会对人们说：停下来，先停一下手头正在做的事情，闭上眼睛，深呼吸几次，然后假装自己是一个真正的人类，再睁开眼睛，然后看看这个东西，想想看能否弄明白它应该做什么或者说什么，或者你处在什么情形中，它应该采取什么行动，或者如果你采取了那个行动会有什么影响。这还有一个相关的循环，但在我深入之前，因为我知道这涉及到两个方面，我想先总结一下你最后提到的人们不满意的例子。

So here's the quote that I was trying to find. This is 2014. So like those of the year that Slack actually launched officially in February and this is now like near the end of the year. I was interviewed by MIT Technology Review and asked if we were working to improve Slack. I said, oh God, yeah. I try to instill this into the rest of the team, but certainly I feel like what we have right now is just a giant piece of shit. Like it's just terrible and we should be humiliated that we offer this to the public. Not everyone finds that motivational though.

这是我一直想找到的那段话。这是2014年的事情。Slack在那年的2月份正式推出，而这个时候已经是接近年底。我接受了《麻省理工科技评论》的采访，被问到我们是否正在努力改进Slack。我回答说，天哪，是的。我试图把这种想法灌输给我的团队，但我自己确实感觉我们现在的产品就像是一大坨狗屎，简直糟透了，我们应该为把这样的产品提供给公众而感到羞愧。不过，并不是所有人都觉得这种说法富有激励性。

So I came into the office the next day and people had printed out on like 40 pieces of eight and a half by 11 paper, that quote, and like, and paste it on the wall. But to me that was like, you should be embarrassed by it. Like it should be a perpetual desire to produce therapy like this is great and you could be proud of individual pieces of work. But in the aggregate, if you can't see almost limitless opportunities to improve, then you shouldn't be designing the product where you shouldn't be in charge of the company. You know, almost nothing.

所以我第二天来到办公室，发现人们用40张8.5×11的纸打印了那句话，然后贴在墙上。但对我来说，这应该让你感到尴尬。这样的行为应该始终激励着你去改进和提升。个别的优秀作品可以让你感到自豪，但整体上，如果你看不到几乎无限的改进机会，那么你就不应该负责设计这个产品，甚至不应该掌管这家公司。你几乎一无所知。

Again, you could reduce it down to a tiny feature. Is anywhere close to perfect? And if A, that's acknowledged freely inside the organization. And B, people think about like continually improving as the goal and that could be like six sigmatoiota, Kaizen, that kind of side of thing. Or it could be that story that I can't remember. I started Bridgewater, tells about Mike. Right all you. Yeah, right all you know, in his book talks about Michael Jordan learning to ski.

再说一次，你可以将其简化为一个小特征。有什么是接近完美的吗？如果是A，那就是在组织内部被公开承认的。而B，大家认为持续改进是目标，这可以是类似六西格玛、改善（Kaizen）这样的方式。或者是那个我记不清的故事。我在桥水基金开始工作时听到的关于麦克的故事，对，就是你所知道的，是的，在他的书中提到迈克尔·乔丹学习滑雪的故事。

Every time he messed up, he wanted to ski as art or to tell him exactly what he was doing wrong. Because to him, every one of those was like a gem that he could collect and he could actually become a good skier and what he wanted to do was become a good skier. That requires a lot of trust inside the organization. But if you can get to the point where like, hey, we're trying to find improvements, we're trying to be critical because you're trying to make this as great as it can possibly be. Not always, not with every person, but most of the time with most people, you can get them to the point where that like really direct criticism is actually motivational.

每次他犯错时，他都希望能把滑雪作为一种艺术来对待，或者有人能明确告诉他他做错了什么。因为对他来说，每一个错误都像是一颗宝石，他可以收集这些经验，从而真正成为一个优秀的滑雪者，而他想要的就是成为一个优秀的滑雪者。这需要在组织内部建立很多信任。但如果你能达到这样的状态：我们在努力寻找改进的地方，我们需要批评，因为我们想把事情做到最好。大多数时候，对大多数人来说，直接的批评实际上可以成为一种激励。

It is like, you know, people are grateful to have like the feedback whether that's coming from their peers inside the company or from end users of the product. Because you realize, oh yeah, that is bad. And we should fix it. This episode is brought to you by Lovable. Not only are they the fastest growing company in history, I use it regularly and I could not recommend it more highly. If you've ever had an idea for an app, but didn't know where to start, lovable is for you.

这就像是，人们很感激能得到反馈，不管是来自公司内部同事的，还是来自产品最终用户的反馈。因为你意识到，“哦，对，那确实不好，我们应该修正它。” 本集节目由Lovable赞助。它不仅是历史上发展最快的公司，我自己也经常使用，并极力推荐。如果你曾有过开发应用程序的想法，但不知道从何开始，Lovable就是你的最佳选择。

Lovable lets you build working apps and websites by simply chatting with AI. Then you can customize it at automations and deploy it to a live domain. It's perfect for marketers, spinning up tools, product managers prototyping new ideas, and founders launching their next business. Unlike no-co tools, Lovable isn't about static pages. It builds full apps with real functionality and it's fast. We used to take weeks, months or years. You can now do over a weekend. So if you've been sitting on an idea, now is the time to bring it to life. Get started for free at lovable.dev.

Lovable让你通过与AI对话来构建工作应用程序和网站。完成后，你可以进行自动化定制，并部署到一个在线域名上。这非常适合营销人员创建工具，产品经理原型新想法，以及创业者启动他们的下一个业务。与无代码工具不同，Lovable不仅仅是关于静态页面，它构建的是具有实际功能的完整应用，而且速度很快。过去可能需要花费数周、数月甚至数年，现在你可以在一个周末内完成。所以如果你有一个一直想实现的点子，现在是时候将其实现了。免费开始，请访问lovable.dev。

That's lovable.dev. This makes me think about, let's call it a rant that you have about how it takes a lot of work to make anything work at all. The default state is not working. You just share which you share there. Yeah. I mean, so this is a lot to do with. And maybe this is more recent. It shows up in politics a lot for me. But by the way, if anyone listening to this can help me find this tweet store from somewhere between 2016 and 2020, I don't have a precise idea.

这是lovable.dev。这让我想起，你曾经发表过的一个观点，即要让任何事情正常运作需要付出很多努力。默认的状态是它不工作。你在那个地方分享了这些观点。嗯，我的意思是，这与很多事情有关，可能更近期的是在政治上让我产生了这种感觉。顺便说一下，如果有人在听这个，能帮我找到一条大约在2016到2020年间的推文，我不太确定具体是什么时候。

And it was this guy's thread about how hard it was to get a stop sign setup. And I believe it was in response to someone claiming that Bitcoin is going to replace US dollars. Something about crypto. And his point was like, here's what happened when we tried to get a stop sign put up on a residential street in my neighborhood. And the literal years it took and the numbered agencies that were involved like the engineering department, traffic planners, the H.A. way.

这个人发了一篇帖子，讨论在社区设置一个停车标志有多困难。我认为这是在回应某人声称比特币将取代美元的言论，涉及到一些关于加密货币的内容。他的观点是，看看我们试图在我所在社区的一条居民区的街道上设置停车标志时发生了什么事情。这居然花了几年时间，并且涉及到多个机构，比如工程部门、交通规划人员以及社区协会等。

I don't remember all of the organizations because I did that I could search better and find this again because it was truly a masterpiece of how difficult it is to get a stop sign put up in most places. The message that I hear from most politicians and unfortunately this works really well is, things should be good, but they're not because someone is doing something bad which is preventing the goodness. So billionaires are making things enough portable or immigrants are taking your jobs or lazy, free loaders are sucking off a government teeth and causing us all have to pay more taxes or something like that.

我记不清所有的组织名称了，因为当时我希望自己能够更好地搜索并再次找到这件事，因为它真是一部杰作，展示了在大多数地方立一个停车标志有多难。我从大多数政客那里听到的信息，遗憾的是，这一套确实很有效：事情本应该是好的，但因为有人在做坏事，阻碍了美好的实现。比如说，亿万富翁让东西变得昂贵，或者移民抢了你的工作，或者懒惰的寄生虫依靠政府养活，导致我们所有人不得不多缴税，诸如此类。

The reality is like almost nothing works. It's actually another cost in this case. John has a great encapsulation of this and I'm sure you're familiar with it like that it ends with the world is a museum of passion projects because for anything to get done at all requires like not just the resources and effort required to instantiate that thing in the real world, but all of the politicking and the sociology and the convincing and there's a book called Why Nothing Works recently which is like it's not an I'm sorry to the author they're out there listening but just, it's not like an amazingly written book I found it like a little bit repetitive but the content was really incredible just explaining why it's so hard and how there's this progressive increase in the number of vetoes that are available for any kind of course of action and how difficult it is and this tears up in permitting for new construction and stuff like that but also shows up obviously inside of organizations and the challenge is that people A, I think this is evolutionary biological, it's hard for us to understand the world except by and throughout the war facing it and so it like if it didn't rain this year, it's because a God is mad and probably because we didn't sacrifice enough goats or something last year.

现实情况是，几乎没有什么事情能够真正运作。这实际上是一种额外的代价。约翰对此有一个很好的概括，我相信你也很熟悉，就是世界就像一个充满激情项目的博物馆。因为要让任何事情得以完成，不仅需要将其具体化到现实世界所需的资源和努力，还需要所有的政治运作、社会学因素的考虑和说服工作。最近有一本书叫《为什么没有事情能奏效》，我必须说，虽然它可能不是写得特别出色（对不起作者，如果你在听的话），可能会显得有些重复，但其内容确实很棒，它揭示了为什么事情如此难以推进，以及在任何行动计划中可以行使否决权的机会不断增加的趋势。这种情况不仅影响到新建筑的审批过程，显然也出现在各种组织中。问题是，我认为这是进化生物学上的原因，人们很难理解这个世界，除了通过面对它和经历它。就像如果今年没有下雨，我们可能会认为是神灵在生气，或许是因为我们去年没有献上足够多的山羊。

It's hard for people to challenge just that while weather is incredibly complex and chaotic in ecosystems and climatology but the same thing with the world, if I am struggling to pay all of my bells and be able to afford a little bit of luxury in the sense of a complication or a present for my kids or whatever, it's gotta be somebody's fault like you're has to be a decision that's made somewhere and the reality is everything is so complicated everything is so multivariate. It's not satisfying, it's a terrible political message.

人们很难单独挑战这一点，因为天气在生态系统和气候学上极为复杂和混乱，但世界也是如此。如果我努力支付所有账单，同时还能负担得起一些奢侈品，比如一个复杂的东西或给我孩子的礼物，肯定是某个人的错，一定是在某个地方做出的决定。然而，现实是事情非常复杂，涉及许多变量。这种解释并不令人满意，也不是什么好的政治信息。

It's much easier to say that there is like, oh, we understand why things are bad in the way that you're concerned about and it turns out that it's someone's decision and because of them, it's bad and so if we got rid of them or you know, we're able to overcome their decision, overturn it and institute our own thing then films would be good for you. And this really, to me, shows up inside of those organizations as well.

这段话的大意是：人们往往很容易说，“我们明白你所担心的问题为什么会很糟糕，这都是因为某个人的决策导致的。所以，如果我们能够摆脱他们，或者推翻他们的决策，实施我们自己的方案，那么电影对你来说就会变得很好。” 这种想法在那些组织内部也很常见。

You know, I'll pause there. I know kind of along those lines, you're a big believer in something called Parkinson's Law. Yeah, so the original of that is, I think it's in 1956, it's an article in the Economist by Parkinson. And the Maxim is work expands to fill the time available for its complication. And the way that it shows that this is a little bit subtle. So like one of the things I found since I don't have a job is there's much less time pressure and that max and like if you want something to give it to a busy person, the inverse is also true that like if you're not that busy, wow, basic things take a really long time.

你知道，我在这停一下。我知道你很信奉一个叫帕金森定律的东西。这个定律最初发表于1956年的《经济学人》杂志，由帕金森提出。它的核心观点是："工作会扩展来填满可用的时间。" 这个理论的表现有点微妙。我发现自从我没有工作后，时间压力小了很多。如果你希望某件事完成，就交给一个忙碌的人去做。而反过来也是成立的：如果你不是很忙，基本的事情也会拖很长时间。

And so Parkinson actually starts off with his example of like, you know, writing and posting a letter and I don't remember who he used for the first example, but someone who's like, you know, incredibly busy and has all these things they have to respond to. And then another case like a retired woman who has all the time in the world that takes her a long time to write the letter, takes her a long time to put it in the envelope and then you go to the post office and post it.

所以，帕金森最初举了一个例子，比如写信和邮寄的过程。我不记得他用了谁作第一个例子，但这个人非常忙，有很多事情需要处理。接下来，他讲了另一种情况，比如一位退休的女士，她有大把的时间，但写信花了很长时间，把信装进信封也用了很久，然后还要去邮局寄信。

But the real meat of it is for me later, when he talks about the size of the organization. He uses a bunch of examples. This is again 1950s, so he's British. Sorry, he's looking at the Royal Navy and specifically he's looking at a chart that shows the relationship between the number of capital ships in the Navy, the number of sailors and the number of administrators. And very familiar graph for people looking at like any part of government, any part like the relationship between the number of administrators at a university and the number of students and faculty teaching faculty where it's like, okay, the number of ships goes like this and the number of sailors is like right along with it and the number of administrators goes like this.

但对我来说，真正有意思的部分在后面，他谈到了组织的规模。他用了很多例子。这又是20世纪50年代了，所以他是英国人。抱歉，他在研究皇家海军，特别是他在看一张图表，这张图表显示了海军中主力舰数量、水手人数和行政人员人数之间的关系。这种图表对于那些研究政府或其他类似组织的人来说非常熟悉，比如大学里管理人员数量与学生和教职员工人数的关系。图表显示，舰船数量和水手人数的走势基本一致，而行政人员的数量则呈现出不同的趋势。

And the reason this ties into the work expands to fill the time available for its completion is people hire and the train and here's the kind of sad truth for anyone running a company is there are exceptions, there's like certain types of engineers that are accepting to this, but the overwhelming majority of people you hire want to hire more people who report to that. And it's not because they're evil and it's not because they're stupid, in fact they're smart because everyone knows that the number of people who report to you correlates with like your career trajectory, your amount of money that you're paid, the amount of authority you have inside the organization and on and on and on.

这种现象与“工作会扩展到可以用来完成它的时间”有关的原因在于，人们会招聘并培训更多人。对于经营公司的人来说，这里有一个有点悲哀的事实：大多数情况下，人们倾向于招募更多向他们汇报的人，而这并不是因为他们邪恶或愚蠢。实际上，他们很聪明，因为大家都明白，汇报给你的人数与你的职业发展、收入、在组织中的权威等多方面都有直接关系。当然，某些类型的工程师可能是个例外，但这种情况在大多数情况下是普遍存在的。

So we would hire 27-doral product managers and Slack who immediately want to hire someone. It's like, what the hell, what would that person do? And they articulate it this way, but essentially it's like, well, that person would do the product management and then I would do strategy. It's really, I think the essential thing to understand about this is it's not because people are evil and it's not because they're stupid and it's to me very related to the everything is complex.

我们会雇佣27位Doral产品经理和立即想要雇佣某人的Slack。这就像在说，“到底怎么回事，那个人该做什么呢？” 他们会这样表达，但本质上是说，那个人会进行产品管理，而我则负责战略。我觉得关键是，了解这一点并不是因为人们邪恶，也不是因为他们愚蠢，这在我看来与一切都很复杂有很大的关系。

And if you, maybe this is my butterfly's life and thought about this before, but I tweeted this a very, very long time ago, like if you, everything is simple, if you have no idea what you're talking about. So the other side of that is like, if something seems simple, probably you don't understand. And you know, there's an exception to that, but for anything that involves a large organization or a lot of human beings, if the problem seems simple, you don't get it.

如果你曾经像我一样思考过这件事情——也许是我像蝴蝶般短暂生活的思考，但我在很久以前就发过这样的推文：如果你对某件事一无所知，一切看起来都很简单。从另一个角度看，如果某件事情看起来很简单，那你可能并没有真正理解其中的复杂性。当然也有例外，但对于涉及大型组织或许多人的事情来说，如果问题看似简单，说明你可能还没真正弄明白。

So every budget process, no head of engineering, no head of sales, no CFO, no GC, is ever gonna come back and say like, oh, I've actually think like next year we can just hire fewer people or we're gonna keep it for more, we're gonna like shrink through a Trish End because we don't need any more people to do what we're doing. Because they're evil, not because they're stupid, but it's almost overpowering impulse inside the organization that often leads to disastrous results.

每次制定预算时，没有哪位工程部门负责人、销售部门负责人、首席财务官或总法律顾问会提出，明年我们可以少招一些人，或者通过自然减员来缩小规模，因为我们不再需要更多的人来完成我们的工作。这并不是因为他们邪恶，也不是因为他们愚蠢，而是一种在组织内部几乎无法抗拒的冲动，这种冲动常常会导致灾难性的后果。

And so there's a, I'll give one example from Slack's history. And I, you know, I have tried in the past to disguise this example so that no one feels bad about it, but fortunately the specifics are so important to the example that it's not disguised as how, I'll just re-enimate that if people involved aren't stupid or evil.

翻译成中文：那么，我来举个 Slack 历史中的例子。我过去曾尝试将这个例子进行伪装，以免让任何人感到不快，但幸运的是，这个例子的细节非常重要，以至于无法进行伪装。我想重申，相关人员并不是愚蠢或邪恶的。

And one example that's from the outside. So the example inside of Slack was, we introduced threads, which is the ability to reply to a message inside of a channel. And let's say you, Lenny, post a message, I Stuart replied to it, you will automatically get a notification. And now Sarah, later on, replies to the same message, both you and I, as people who have posted that thread will receive a notification that there's been war activity.

当然，这段话的中文翻译如下：还有一个来自外部的例子。Slack 内部的例子是，我们引入了线程功能，也就是在一个频道内回复某条消息的功能。比如说，Lenny 你发布了一条消息，我 Stuart 回复了这条消息，你会自动收到通知。然后如果 Sarah 之后也回复了同一条消息，那么作为在该线程中发过消息的人，你和我都会收到一个通知，告知有新的活动。

And so what? So every single time anyone replies to it. So when the future first was released or like when we did the final product review before it was released, the input box was pre-populated with the person before you in the thread. And I was using the feature and I would like put the insertion right there, select all the lead and then start writing my message. And it's even if I wanted to add someone specifically, I almost never wanted to start my sentence with, because it just made it hard to reference what they were saying before.

这又怎么样呢？每次有人回复这个信息时，比如在发布未来版本或者在最终产品评审时，输入框总是自动填充上一个人在对话中的名字。我在使用这个功能时，会把光标放在那里，选择所有内容然后删除才开始写我的信息。即使我想特别提到某个人，我几乎也不会想以他们的名字开始我的句子，因为这会让引用他们之前说的话变得很困难。

So I said, get rid of this because, I think most people won't use it or if they did want to add someone, they're not going to want to do it to begin the sentence. And by the way, you're teaching them to use the product prompt because it's important that everyone understand that every previous poster in this thread will automatically receive a notification unless they've eithered it. So we released it six months goes by. And suddenly the hat thing comes back. And so I messaged someone on the team. I said, hey, there's been a regression at this super weird. That would happen, but like the hat thing came back. And they said, oh no, this is some purpose. We did a bunch of research. And it's like, what? And I went through this. And it was, if I recall correctly, it wasn't even like P95 certainty on this analysis. But it was something like, when we do this, threads are 2.17 messages long versus 2.14 messages long on average. For when we don't do it.

所以我说，把这个去掉，因为我觉得大多数人不会用它，或者即使他们想加某人，他们也不会愿意在句子开头这样做。顺便说一下，你要教他们使用产品提示，因为重要的是所有在这个线程中发过帖的人都会自动收到通知，除非他们选择退出。我们发布了这个功能，六个月过去了。突然，这个“帽子”的东西又出现了。我就给团队里的某个人发了信息。我说，嘿，出现了一个回归问题，超级奇怪的事，“帽子”的东西又回来了。他们说，哦不，这个是有意的。我们做了很多研究。我就想，什么？然后我检查了这个问题。如果我没记错的话，这个分析连95%的确定性都没有。最终发现，我们这么做的时候，线程平均长度是2.17条信息，而不这么做的时候是2.14条信息。

And so first of all, why is a longer thread better? Maybe a shorter thread is better. And like if it be fewer messages that people have to go back and forth. Also, that's such a tiny difference. Also, again, I don't remember the actual statistical analysis. I'm not going to claim that it was incorrect. I appreciate this was outside the bounds. It's certainly that they can have. But the real thing was, oh my god. So you guys put flags into the product. You A, B tested it. You did the instrumentation. You created tables in the data based on whatever we were using to record all of that. You wrote queries to pull that. You created charts based on that data. You had meetings to discuss it. And just like kind of unpacking all of the things that would have had to happen for this to come back.

首先，为什么更长的对话线程更好呢？也许更短的对话线程更好，因为重新来回查看的消息会更少。而且这种差异非常微小。另外，我不记得具体的统计分析了，也不打算说它有问题。我知道这可能超出了通常的范围，但关键在于，天啊，你们在产品中加了标记，进行了AB测试，做了仪表化。然后根据我们用来记录所有这些信息的工具创建了数据表，编写了查询语句以提取数据，并基于这些数据创建了图表。你们还开会讨论这个问题，梳理了为实现这个目标可能发生的所有事情。

And it's like thousands of person hours kind of at a minimum, because any feature change at that scale of the decision is involving a dozen people, engineering, QA, analytics, teams, product managers, user research and stuff. Like the problem with that, so I think it was a matter of the idea. But the problem with that was the difference that you could possibly achieve between having this feature and not having this feature is like this much, whatever units you want. The cost of doing the analysis was this much. So it's guaranteed to be a loser. There's just no world in which anyone could imagine putting that at previous respondent in the thread at the beginning of the message, could possibly make that much of a difference to the quality of Slack and how much utility it provides to people and all that.

这段文字的大意是：增加某个功能需要耗费大量的人力和时间，最少要数千小时，因为在如此规模下进行任何功能更改，需要涉及十几个人，包括工程师、质量保证人员、数据分析师、产品经理、用户研究团队等等。问题在于，增加这个功能后的效果与不增加之间的差距很小，不管用什么单位来衡量。而进行分析的成本却非常高，所以可以肯定的是，这个操作注定亏本。没有人能想象，这会对Slack的质量和实用性产生多大的影响。

But you know that to put the feature flags in, to ship new versions of the product, to put the instrumentation in, to have it all the API calls to record every action that people take to do all the analytics, to create the dashboard, to put that, paste the screenshot of that into a Google Slides presentation, to send the invitations to the meeting, to schedule the meeting, because someone could make it, to have everyone sit down and look at the things, like you know, guaranteed loser. And I know that Farid told you to ask me about this, hyper-illistic work like activities. And so here's my grand theory. Hyper-illistic work like activities, is goes along with this other concept, called known valuable work to do.

你知道，要加入功能标志、发布产品的新版本、添加工具来记录每个用户操作的API调用、进行所有数据分析、创建仪表板、将截图粘贴到Google幻灯片演示中、发送会议邀请、安排会议，因为有人能出席，大家坐下来查看结果，这一切都像是注定的失败。我知道Farid让你来问我这件事——这种超繁琐的工作活动。所以，这就是我的理论。超繁琐的工作活动，伴随着一个叫做“已知有价值的工作要做”的概念。

And when I say known, I mean both you know what it is, and you know that it's valuable. And that problem with almost every organization, at the very beginning, you have an enormous amount of work that you know what to do, and you know that it's gonna be valuable. So like starting a business, open a bank account, because like there's almost infinite gender or value of opening a bank account, you have to do it. It's very simple to do. And so at the very beginning of any startup, they're like, I'm like creating a user's table and I'm like doing salty passwords, and like you're doing all the things that are kind of absolutely necessary, and everyone knows exactly what they are. And so like everyone's going to work in the morning, they're like right on, and like I have 10 things to do, and every single one of them is like somebody I know how to do, and it's like definitely going to be valuable.

当我说“已知”时，我指的是你知道它是什么，并且你知道它很有价值。在几乎每个组织的初期阶段，你会有大量的工作，这些工作你知道该怎么做，并且知道它会带来价值。就像创办一家公司一样，比如开设一个银行账户，因为开银行账户的价值是显而易见的，你必须去做，而且做起来很简单。因此，在任何创业初期，你可能会做一些基础性的工作，比如建立用户表、设置密码加盐等，这些都是绝对必要的，大家都很清楚这些工作是什么。因此，每天早上上班时，每个人都会知道自己有10件事情要做，并且每一件事情都是他们知道怎么去做并且一定会有价值的。

Time goes on, and the relationship between the supply of work to do, and the demand for doing work just starts to change. More and more people get hired. Every part of manager wants to hire a junior part of manager, every new person, the first person you bring on the risk and compliance team is like, oh my god, there's so many risks and things we have to be compliant with. We better hire more people on my team to do more risk and compliance work, which probably to some degree is right, but we're going to have more and more of those people and they're going to call meetings with each other.

随着时间的推移，工作供需关系开始发生变化，越来越多的人被雇用。每个管理层都希望雇用一个助理，任何新加入的员工，比如第一个加入风险和合规团队的人，都会感叹，天啊，我们有这么多风险和合规事项需要处理。为了更好地进行风险和合规工作，我们最好多招些人加入团队。这个观点某种程度上可能是正确的，但随着这样的员工越来越多，他们会互相召开更多的会议。

And now suddenly you have all these people with work to do, and you've done all the easy obvious stuff, and now your questions are like, God, should we do FedRAMP high and make a Gov Slack version, which is going to require us to have a wholly separate physical infrastructure for the hardware that runs the software, and also a whole different operations team, which has only US citizens on it. What is the possible number of dollars that we could make during this and how much complexity is in the B when we want to do updates to the software, because we got being two totally separate independent systems. And it just gets out of whack.

突然之间，你发现自己有很多工作要做，而简单明了的任务你已经完成了。现在的问题变得复杂了，比如，我们是否应该达到FedRAMP高标准并开发一个政府版Slack，这将要求我们为运行软件的硬件建设一套完全独立的物理基础设施，并组建一个完全由美国公民组成的操作团队。我们可能在这个项目中赚到多少钱？当我们想要更新软件时，这种复杂性到底有多大，因为我们有两个完全独立的系统。这让事情变得非常混乱。

And so people end up like if you hire 17 product marketers, you're going to have 17 product marketers worth of demand for work to do. And if you don't have sufficient supply of product marketing work to do, they're just going to do other stuff. Again, very important, not because they're stupid, not because they're evil, but because they're like, I'm a product marketer, and I want to be recognized for my work, and my spouse has criticized me because they take like, I should have already got promoted in the last cycle, and I really got to demonstrate some wins here, and whatever it is.

因此，人们最终会发现，如果你雇佣了 17 位产品营销人员，你就需要提供相当于 17 位产品营销人员的工作需求。如果没有足够的产品营销工作来做，他们就会去做其他事情。这一点非常重要，不是因为他们愚蠢，也不是因为他们邪恶，而是因为他们会想：“我是一名产品营销人员，我希望我的工作得到认可。而且，我的配偶批评我说我应该在上一个升迁周期中就已经得到晋升，我真的需要展示一些成果，无论如何。”

And so people are like calling meetings with their colleagues to preview the deck that they're going to show and the big waiting to get feedback on whether they should like improve some of the slides. And that hyper realistic work like activity is superficially identical to work. Like we are sitting in a conference room, and there's something being projected up there, and we're all talking about it. And that's exactly what work is, hopefully not all of work for everyone inside of your company, but that's exactly what we do when we're working, but this is actually a fake minute work.

人们会召开会议，与同事一起预览他们将要展示的幻灯片，并等待反馈以决定是否需要改进其中的一些幻灯片。这种高度仿真的工作活动在表面上看起来和真正的工作一模一样，比如我们坐在会议室里，屏幕上投影着内容，大家一起讨论。这看起来像是真正的工作，虽然希望并不是公司里每个人的所有工作内容都是这样，但这确实看起来像我们在工作时的样子。然而，这实际上是一种“假装工作的状态”。

And it's so subtle that I'll do it. Our board members will do it. Every exact one will do it. And the further you are from having all of the context and all of the information, and the decision making authority and stuff like that, the easier it is to get trapped in this stuff, and people will just perform enormous amounts of hyper realistic work like activities, and have no idea that that's what they're doing. And the result of that, I guess, is that if you are a leader, if you're a manager, director, an executive, the CEO, it's on you to ensure that there is sufficient supply of known valuable work to do.

这段话的大意是：这种情况常常很微妙，我自己会做，我们的董事会成员会做，每一个人都会做。当你越不了解全貌、不能掌握所有信息和决策权时，就越容易被这种情况困扰。人们会不自觉地做出大量看似努力的工作，但其实并不了解自己究竟在做什么。因此，如果你是领导者、经理、董事、执行官或者CEO，就有责任确保有充足且明确有价值的工作可以去做。

And there almost always is, but it's creating the clarity around that, creating the alignment, making sure that everyone understands it, that's what they're supposed to be doing, and then obviously doing it. Amazing. I could listen to Stuart Rand's all day. Hyper realistic work like activities. We eat a Columbus. And the. Unfortunately, it doesn't make a good acronym. It's pretty ugly. It's okay. I'm gonna keep it trying.

译文：几乎总是这样，但关键在于要让每个人都清楚目标，确保大家达成一致，理解自己的任务是什么，然后当然就是去执行。太棒了。我可以整天听Stuart Rand的讲解。超现实的工作活动。我们吃哥伦布。而且。不幸的是，它不能组成一个好的首字母缩略词，因为不够简洁。不过没关系，我会继续努力尝试。

And just to close the loop on that, the solution is the leader recognizing this is happening and stopping it, telling people, why are we spending time on this thing that is not gonna get us anywhere? Yeah. And that, what you just said probably isn't the best way, because that sounds like you're, you're chiding them and they're dumb. It's actually your responsibility to make sure that there's sufficient clarity around what the priorities are.

为了解决这个问题，领导需要意识到这种情况并及时制止。他们应该告诉大家，为什么我们要把时间浪费在没有结果的事情上？不过，你刚才的表达可能不是最好，因为这样听起来像是在责备大家不聪明。实际上，作为领导，你有责任确保大家对优先事项有足够的了解。

And, you know, explicitly say no to things up front, and stuff like that. Rather than words you say, you guys are much the audience wasting your time on this thing that doesn't matter. Whose fault is it? It's an ender's fault. It's the VP of whatever's fault. It's the CX, whatever. It's the C. Ultimately, it's like, it's the leader of the organization that has the responsibility to make sure that there is sufficient known valuable work to do.

要明确地提前拒绝一些事情，而不是默默地接受，不再说那些无关紧要的话。谁的责任呢？是某个部门负责人的错，是副总裁的错，也可能是某个高管的错。但最终，这都是组织领导的责任，他们有责任确保团队有足够有价值的工作要做。

And that's actually harder than it might appear. Okay. Before we run out of time, I wanna touch on two other topics. One is when people think of Sturd Butterfield, I think a lot of people think of, we don't sell saddles here. Your legendary medium posts that is just sad and I was become a historic piece of literature in the, in the annals of product building and startups. I haven't heard people ask you much about this recently.

这实际上比看起来要难。好的。在我们时间不多之前，我想谈两个其他话题。首先，当人们想到斯图尔特·巴特菲尔德（Stuart Butterfield）时，很多人会想到“我们不在这里卖马鞍”这句话。你的著名博客文章，它已成为产品开发和创业史上的经典文学作品。我最近很少听到有人问你关于这件事的看法。

So let me just ask a couple questions. What is just, what was the, what was the reason you put that out? Why, what was the backstory on writing that memo? Why was it necessary? Well, it really was an internal memo and there's a bit of a digression. One of the crappy things about Slack is, if all your corporate communication is an email, depending on exactly how it works and what system you use, you probably walk away with an archive of everything you said at company X.

让我问几个问题。是什么原因让你发了那个？写那份备忘录背后的故事是什么？为什么有必要写？实际上，那只是一份内部备忘录，有些事情需要解释一下。关于Slack，比较糟糕的一点是，如果你的所有公司沟通都通过电子邮件来进行，那么根据系统的具体运作方式，你可能会留下所有在公司X说过的话的存档。

If it's Slack, once you're turned off, you lose access to all that history. And so it's kind of like, oh man, if I had only exported all of my messages before I left, I would have all this stuff. But that was, it was absolutely verbatim. I did not change the word of what I said inside the company. What I think we were still eight people, maybe, you know, I had most 10, but I think it was eight people. It was before Slack launched even. Yeah, it was before Slack launched. It was like when we were doing a privatea and the point of it was to like to start to instill those ideas as early as possible and really create this alignment inside of that small team so that it could process that survive as we grew and scaled. And yeah, that was the idea.

如果是在使用 Slack，一旦你被关闭账号，就会失去所有历史记录的访问权限。这就像是，“哎呀，如果我在离开之前导出了我的所有消息，我就能保留下所有这些东西。”但那时，我所说的内容确实是一字不差的。我没有改变自己在公司内部所讲的话。我记得我们那时大概是八个人，也许有最多十个人，但我认为是八个人。这是在 Slack 正式推出之前的事情。当时我们在进行一个私密测试，目的是尽早灌输这些理念，并在这个小团队内建立一种共识，以便我们在公司成长和扩大规模时能够继续坚持。这就是当时的想法。

And the just, just for people that aren't super familiar with it, but willing to it is just, it's not enough just to build a great product. You just as much have to put effort into communicating what this does for them, the problem that's is solving for them, the outcome, this is gonna achieve for them. Is that a good way to think about it? Yeah, and again, you know, comparing it to beer or cars, beer goes back to pre-civilization, cars were obviously not, but at some point you had to convince people that I would win a car instead of a horse. For your new AI based recruiting tool or your calendar app or whatever, there's some reason why people you think that people should use yours instead of the thing that they're using now, which might be like a wholesale one-for-one replacement or more often is like a change in the way that you're working that has a bunch of other adjacencies and you want to expand into these other categories, but you're not just responsible for creating the product, but also to sort of creating the market.

对于不太熟悉这个概念但愿意了解的人来说，仅仅打造一个优秀的产品是不够的。你还需要同样多地投入精力去传达这个产品能为他们做些什么、解决什么问题、会带来什么成果。这是一种好的思考方式吗？是的。可以拿啤酒或汽车做比较：啤酒可以追溯到文明之前，而汽车显然不是这样，但在某个时刻，你必须让人们相信他们更愿意选择汽车而不是马。对于你的新AI招聘工具或日历应用，总会有一些理由让你认为人们应该使用你的产品而不是他们现在使用的东西，这可能完全是一个一对一的替代，但更常见的是这会改变他们的工作方式，并且会涉及到许多其他的相关领域，你希望能够扩展到这些领域中。因此，你不仅需要负责创造产品，还需要创造市场。

And creating, you know, this is book, Position, which is an absolute classic, it's very short, I would recommend everyone read it, where the point of it is, from my perspective, it's almost impossible to create a new idea in someone's head, it's much easier to take a couple of existing ideas and put them together. So it's much easier to say, it's like, jaws meet starwares, so it's Uber for pets or something like that, then to come up with like an actual new idea, but you have to do that, because you, like, if your thing is different in any significant way from the alternatives, you're not just creating the product, you're creating the market, they're really kind of one in the same. The reason I wanted to such on it is I think still people continue to not listen to this advice and continue to over invest in more features, more products, things like that.

这段话可以翻译成以下中文：你知道，这本书叫《定位》，是一部绝对的经典，篇幅很短，我建议每个人都阅读一下。从我的角度来看，这本书的要点是，在某人脑中创造一个全新的想法几乎是不可能的，而将几个已有的想法结合在一起要容易得多。所以，与其想出一个全新的创意，不如说某个产品就像“《大白鲨》遇上《星球大战》”或者是“宠物专属的Uber”这样的组合要简单得多。不过你还是得这样做，因为如果你的东西与其他产品有显著的不同，你不仅是在创造产品，你也是在创造市场，两者实际上是密不可分的。我提到这一点是因为我认为很多人依旧没有听取这个建议，继续在更多功能、更多产品上过度投资。

Just the specific example of we don't sell saddles here, just to quickly communicate this to folks and correct me if I'm missing anything, is just instead of, hey, look at this amazing saddle we've bought, which you want to communicate us here, go horseback riding, look at this incredible experience you can have and they decide, oh, should I need a go buy saddle to do that? Yeah, and 100%, that aspect of it is not a bridge, it's not a bridge, I think that's something that marketers have done for a long time, truly in the Marcom and advertising, like if you want to sell Harley-Datedson's, there are people who are going to geek out on the engines and stuff like that and like the quality, the leather and stuff like that, but what you're selling is not the motorcycle, you're selling like the open road and freedom and the wind in your hair and if you're Louis Lehmann, you are obviously selling yoga pants, but you're also selling like health and aspiration and being the best version of yourself and a bunch of other stuff.

我们这里不卖马鞍——只想快速向大家传达这一点，如果我遗漏了什么请指正。这个例子是，我们不是说“嘿，看看这个我们买的惊人马鞍”，而是想要告诉大家“来骑马吧，看看你将拥有的美妙体验”，然后他们会考虑，“哦，我需要买马鞍吗？” 这正是营销人员长久以来在市场传播和广告中做的事情。举个例子，如果你想卖哈雷·戴维森摩托车，虽然有人会对发动机和皮革质量等细节感兴趣，但真正卖的是“开放的公路、自由和迎风飞驰的感觉”。如果你是露露柠檬，你当然在卖瑜伽裤，但你同时也在卖健康、理想、成为最好的自己以及其他一系列概念。

So selling that, oh my God, I forgot the classic version of it, you know, like there's the ship. That's howling this, the build of the screwdriver. Oh, oh yeah, the nail. Yeah, the nail, anyway. Yeah, what is that one? There's the one I think about is instead of trying to convince men to build a ship and still a yearning for the sea. Yes, exactly. That's the way that goes back in history. Okay, let me ask you about pivoting. You are potentially the king of pivots. You started two companies, both famously pivoted, both from video games, which is why I asked you about that at the beginning, into very successful companies. I imagine many people come to you for advice on pivoting. Let me just ask when folks come to you asking, should I stick with my idea? Should I pivot? What sort of advice do you find most helps them?

在表达意思的基础上，将这段话翻译成易读的中文：哦，我的天，我忘了它的经典版，就像船一样。正在呼啸的是螺丝刀的构建。哦，对，还有钉子，没错，钉子。不管怎样，那句话。我想到的是，与其试图说服人们去造船，不如激发他们对大海的渴望。对，正是这样，这个观点可以追溯到历史。好吧，让我问你关于转型的问题。你可能是转型之王。你创办了两家公司，两者都成功转型，起初都是从电子游戏开始的——这就是为什么我最开始问你这个的原因——后来变成非常成功的公司。我想很多人都会向你求教关于转型的问题。让我问一下，当有人来问你是否该坚持他们的想法还是应该转型时，你一般给他们什么样的建议最有帮助呢？

Yeah, I mean, I think it's partly an intuition because obviously the decision is about like have you exhausted the possibilities? And in the case where we are working on glitch, this game where we used IRC for internal communication and we added a bunch of IRC, which became the proto-slack. And I think Slack had an enormous advantage in the fact that we are working on this for several years without actually explicitly working on it and only doing the minimum number of features that were absolutely guaranteed to be successful in the sense that it was so irritating that we couldn't stand it anymore or such an obvious improvement that we couldn't help but take advantage of. We still had like $9 million left and everyone still liked the game and we were all happy working on it.

当然，我觉得这部分是凭直觉，因为这个决策明显是关于是否已经用尽了所有可能性。在我们开发游戏“Glitch”的过程中，我们使用IRC进行内部沟通，并在此基础上添加了一些功能，这些功能后来成为Slack的雏形。我认为Slack之所以具有巨大优势，是因为我们在没有明确目标的情况下，花了好几年时间去完善它，只添加那些我们觉得必不可少的功能。这些功能要么是因为让人觉得太麻烦了而不得不改进，要么是因为明显地提升了体验而无法忽视。即使是这样，我们还剩下大约900万美元的资金，所有人仍然很喜欢这个游戏，并且乐在其中地继续开发。

But I think by that point, I had exhausted every non-verdiculous, long shot idea to make it commercially successful. And so decided to abandon it. But the default advice for anyone in anything is persevere, is like, you know, kitten hanging off the branch and then posters as hanging in there. And I think there's an idea that you just like, and then there's so many stories of like, so and so started out going door to door and was rejected by everyone and then suddenly there was Nike or something like that. And then just if you stick out, stick it with that long enough, you'll eventually be successful.

但我觉得到了那个时候，我已经耗尽了所有不荒唐的、异想天开的点子来实现商业成功。所以，我决定放弃。但对于任何事情，大家通常的建议都是坚持，就像小猫挂在树枝上那种励志海报，鼓励你坚持着。我认为这是因为有这样一种观念，就是如果你喜欢某件事，那么就有很多这样的故事，比如某某人最开始是挨家挨户推销的，遭到了所有人的拒绝，然后突然之间，他们就像耐克一样成功了。因此，只要你坚持足够久，最终你会取得成功。

I think you have to really be coldly rational and now some of this shows up in the book, thinking about some of it's in Annie Duke's second book, a title of which I'm forgetting right now but in some way, well, know it. Yeah, she actually uses it. And then it was the last second I forget. She actually uses Glitch and Slack as an example of like a smart fold basically. Like my expected value here has diminished to the point where this alternative looks more attractive and the reason I say you have to be coldly rational about it is because it's fucking humiliating, you know?

我认为你必须非常冷静理性地面对这个问题。这在安妮·杜克的第二本书中也有提到，虽然我一时想不起书名，但书中确实有这样的内容。她实际上提到了Glitch和Slack，作为一个聪明的转折点的例子。就像当我预计的价值下降到某种程度时，其他选择看起来更有吸引力。我之所以说你必须冷静理性地面对，是因为放弃真的令人感到羞辱。

Like we, I convinced so many, and you have to get somebody to get a company out the way you have to go to investors, you have to go to early employees and say like you should leave her other job and come work for this because, you know, here's the incredible feature we're imagining. You have to go to the press and you have to make all these promises and you have users and you feel like committed things to the users and you can then send them to give up their time for this thing. And so it's, I think for a lot of people, it feels better to just keep doing it until it dies of suffocation due to lack of capital or something like that.

像我们一样，我说服了很多人。你得去找一些人，才能让一家公司走上正轨。你需要去找投资者，还要去找早期员工，对他们说：“你应该辞掉其他工作的，来这里工作，因为我们正在设想这个不可思议的功能。”你要去找媒体，还要做出各种承诺，并且有用户，你觉得对他们承诺了很多事情，你甚至可以让他们投入时间来参与这个项目。所以，我觉得对很多人来说，他们觉得不如一直这样做下去，直到因为资金不足而被迫停止。

Then to admit like, okay, I was wrong, this didn't work. And it's, it's humiliating, it's painful, it's like it's wrenching, it hasn't bad impact, you know? Like when we shut down Glitch, there's a lot of people who loved it and would spend all of their free time and couldn't wait to get home from work to go play it more. And that was their community and the community just like disappeared all these people and all these identities have been created. And obviously people lost their jobs and people who had like moved their families to a different city in order to take this job. Now we're gonna have a job anymore. So Piff, that's something I take lightly and you shouldn't be home.

翻译成中文如下：然后承认，比如说，好吧，我错了，这没奏效。这是很丢脸的，很痛苦的，就像是心痛，并且带来了不好的影响，对吧？比如当我们关闭Glitch的时候，有很多人非常喜欢它，他们会把所有的空闲时间都花在上面，迫不及待地想下班回家继续玩。这就是他们的社区，这个社区就这样消失了，所有这些人和身份被创造出来后又消失了。显然，有的人失去了工作，而那些为了这份工作搬家到另一个城市的人，现在就要失去工作了。所以，这不是我轻视的事情，你也不应该掉以轻心。

I think it's very different to be like, there's three of us and we started making this app and then we pivoted to a different app. That doesn't even really count. Yeah, like if you're six months into something, you're just, you're still messing around and trying to figure out what it is that you're building. That's not really a pivot. Obviously in this case, it worked out great and there's survivorship bias and that doesn't mean that everyone should pivot all the time. But I think it is trading the distance so that you can make an intellectual, rational decision about it rather than a much more decision is essential. I love all your piece of advice I've just exhausted.

我认为，情况其实很不一样。比如说，我们三个人开始做一个应用程序，然后中途转向做另一个应用程序。这种情况其实都算不上真正的“转型”。如果你在项目进行到六个月的时候，就还在尝试搞清楚你在做什么，那其实还不能算是真正的转型。当然了，在这个例子中，这样做的结果大获成功，其中有幸存者偏差的因素，但这并不意味着每个人都应该频繁转型。我认为，保持一定的距离进行理性思考和决策是非常重要的，而不是轻易做出决定。我非常喜欢你的所有建议，但我已经精疲力竭了。

Once you've exhausted all the ideas, that's a really good time to see what else is out there. Yeah, it's just all the good ideas. All the good ideas. All the realistic there. Yeah, the point you made about just kind of persevering, I just had Melanie Perkins, CEO of Canva in the podcast. They went through a hundred investors rejected her before somebody finally decided to invest and she just kept pushing. I think that's a slightly different example, because she believed in the concept of the product and the vision. I was just trying to figure out the right articulation to get investors.

当你已经尝试了所有的想法，那正是你该看看外面还有什么新的好点子的好时机。是的，这些都是好主意。都是切合实际的好主意。你提到的坚持这一点让我想起了Canva的CEO Melanie Perkins，她在一次播客中提到过，她在找到最终愿意投资的人之前，遭到了100位投资者的拒绝，但她一直坚持下去。我认为这是一个有些不同的例子，因为她坚信产品的概念和愿景。她只是努力寻找能够打动投资者的正确表达方式。

Who and let me obviously be very, very happy. Extremely happy. Oh geez. Okay, maybe a final topic depending on how time goes. I want to talk about generosity. I talked to a bunch of people, as I said, that have worked with you. The number one theme that came up again and again and again when I asked them about you and what they stuck most with them is just generosity. So I'm going to read a few examples that I heard from folks that are examples of your generosity over the years.

谁让我感到极其快乐，非常非常快乐。哦，天哪。好吧，可能根据时间我们再讨论一个最后的话题。我想谈谈慷慨大方。我和很多与您共事过的人交流过。当我询问他们对您的印象时，反复提到的第一主题就是您的慷慨大方。因此，我将分享一些我从他们那里听到的关于您多年慷慨大方的事例。

So one person shared that he needed a little money before Christmas and you said, Stuart literally walked me out of the building, went to the cash machine, handed me $500, told me to go home to my family. Other folks shared that when you talked about glitch, just recently when you had to lay people off, that you cried real tears when you were laying people off and then you spent an incredible amount of time helping them find new jobs and extending their severance pay and just taking it extremely, extremely seriously, much more than I think most people feel like CEOs do.

一个人分享说，他在圣诞节前需要一点钱，然后你说，Stuart真的带我走出了大楼，去了自动取款机，给了我500美元，让我回家陪家人。还有人提到，当你谈到公司危机时，尤其是最近不得不裁员的时候，你在裁员时流下了真诚的眼泪，并花费大量时间帮助他们找到新工作，延长他们的遣散费，并且非常认真地对待这一切，比大多数人认为的CEO要认真得多。

So when I'll share that you paid 100% of employees' health insurance to give them just fewer things to think about, when you went in public, you did a, you basically created the best possible situation for employees, no lock up, direct listing. Also with the structure of the Slack deal, people said that acquisition is very employee friendly. There's also just a bunch of, that's the employees. There's also just the way you thought about customers, a few examples, you gave free credits to businesses who were struggling to pay the bills during COVID, you released this fair billing, which I think was very innovative at the time where you didn't charge, you stopped charging people for seats they weren't using, even though they signed the deal to charge for the seats.

因此，当我分享你为员工支付了100%的健康保险费用，以减少他们的烦恼时，你在公众面前采取的行动，基本上为员工创造了最好的环境——没有限制，直接上市。还有在Slack收购案中的结构设置，也被认为对员工非常友好。此外，你对待客户的方式也很值得称赞。例如，在COVID期间，你为难以支付账单的企业提供了免费额度。你推出了当时非常创新的公平计费政策，不再收取未被使用席位的费用，即使合同中已经规定要收费。

A lot of times just you slipped release schedules because you just wanted to make features better and better for people. And I'll end with this quote, Stuart is a leader who takes the responsibility he feels for his employees personally and to which he extends the most generous circumstances he could muster, that feels worth celebrating. So first of all, I just want to celebrate you. I think it's really rare and inspiring to meet a leader like that. Clearly you've had a lot of impact on a lot of people.

很多时候，你推迟了发布时间表，因为你只是想不断改进功能，让用户体验更好。我想用这句话作为结尾：Stuart 是一位领导者，他对员工负有责任感，他将这种责任感延伸到了他所能提供的最慷慨的条件上，这实在值得庆祝。首先，我想为你庆祝。我觉得遇到这样的领导者非常难得且激励人心。显然，你对很多人产生了深远的影响。

I don't know exactly the question I want to ask, but I guess was this, is this like an, in what part is this intentional? Just like this is how we win. I'm going to be very generous and help people because I know this will help long term. How much is this just a name? That's just the way you are as a person. I think a lot of it is just the way I am as a person and I had wonderful parents who raised me right.

我不太清楚我想问的问题到底是什么，但我想是这样：这是有意为之的吗？就像这样是我们取胜的方法。我会非常慷慨地帮助别人，因为我知道这对长期有好处。这在多大程度上只是一种名声？还是说这就是你作为一个人的本性。我觉得很多都是因为我这个人的性格，并且我有优秀的父母把我培养得很好。

But I think there's also, there is a little bit of a lesson there and I'm just going to assume people's familiarity with the prisoners to lemma. The acts of generosity to me are a way of demonstrating that I am going to cooperate as we iterate in this game. And if you do that, then people will also cooperate and you both benefit. Whereas if you never really know if the other person is going to de facto the first opportunity, then your best bet is to de facto. And so there's a game theoretic aspect, usually in games that are much, much, much more complicated than the prisoners to lemma.

但我觉得这里也有一个小小的教训，我假设大家对囚徒困境比较熟悉。对我来说，慷慨的行为是一种表明我愿意在这个反复进行的游戏中合作的方式。如果你这样做，其他人也会合作，你们双方都会受益。而如果你总是不确定对方是否会在第一次机会背叛你，那么你最好的选择就是先背叛。因此，这里面有一个博弈论的方面，通常在那些比囚徒困境复杂得多的游戏中会体现出来。

I think another thing, one thing I didn't touch on before but Tani was important enough that had more than one company all hands, I made everyone in the company like repeat this as a chant. It was in the long run, the measure of our success will be the amount of value that we create for customers. And I wanted to be super clear and explicit about that because it should be, if anything you're doing feels like a little bit shady, a little bit cheating, a little bit like maximizing in the wrong moment or taking advantage of a customer or anything like that, we definitely shouldn't do it because to me it was just like, I mean, I think it's literally true, but it's also like, and an ethical way to run a business.

我想到的另一件事是，之前没提到的，但对于Tani来说，这足够重要，以至于我在多次公司全体会议上让每个人都像念口号一样重复这句话。那就是，从长远来看，我们成功的衡量标准将是我们为客户创造的价值。我希望对此有一个非常清晰和明确的认识，因为如果你做的任何事情让你感觉有些不正当，或者有点作弊，或者在不合时宜的时候追求最大化收益，甚至利用客户之类的事情，我们绝对不应该去做。因为对我来说，这不仅是一个事实，也是一种经营企业的道德方式。

And it's not just that the ethics are good, it's like there's advantages for you. Like you're able to attract a better class of employee. Like if all your employees are ethical, then it's gonna be a better place for everyone to work and you're gonna be happy, and you're gonna have fewer internal problems and all that stuff. But I think it really is true that there's no, especially in the long run, you can't like destroy value for your customers and expect to be successful. You have to actually make their lives better, and you can put effort into like, point you in out to them and demonstrating that you have created this value and stuff like that. But there's no substitute for actually having created it.

这不仅仅是说拥有良好的道德标准是好的，这样做对你也有好处。比如，你可以吸引更优秀的员工。所有员工都具备良好道德的话，工作环境就会更好，大家都会更快乐，你也会有更少的内部问题。我确实认为，从长远来看，你不能通过损害客户的利益来取得成功。你必须真正地改善他们的生活，同时努力向他们展示并证明你创造的价值。但实际上，真正创造出的价值是无法替代的。

And I think that is incredibly important and that implies a real generosity, whether that's in negotiating terms with an enterprise deal or that's like policy decisions sometimes. I'll say one time that had blew up in our face was our SLA was like for any downtime, you get a hundred times your money back. Which was like, because for Microsoft it was like, if we're down for two minutes, it's like pennies, it doesn't really make any difference. If we're down for like 10 hours or something like that, then we have bigger problems than paying back people.

我认为这点非常重要，它意味着一种真正的慷慨，无论是谈判企业交易条款还是制定政策决策。我举个例子，有一次这个观点给我们带来了麻烦。我们的服务水平协议（SLA）规定，任何停机时间都能获得一百倍的赔偿。对微软来说，这意味着如果我们停机两分钟，赔偿只是一点小钱，没什么大不了的。但如果我们停机十小时这种情况，那我们就面临比赔偿用户更大的问题。

Okay, fast forward, we now have hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and we've gone public and like shortly after we go public, we have one of the biggest outages we ever had. I don't remember how long it was, but it was like many hours. But by the time we got that scale, a hundred times the money back for like the third of a day that we were down was like eight million dollars or something like that, which had to be, it didn't cost us any money because we just gave it to people before we were credits, but it meant that a bunch of revenue that we had already anticipated for the next quarter wasn't going to show up because people's credits were going to offset what they would have otherwise pay us.

好的，快进到现在，我们的收入已达数亿美元，公司也成功上市。然而，上市后不久，我们遭遇了一次有史以来最大规模的系统故障。我记不清具体持续了多长时间，但大概有好几个小时。不过，当我们达到了那样的规模时，由于故障损失的只有三分之一天的收入，但这仍然相当于损失了约八百万美元。不过这实际上没有直接让我们损失任何资金，因为我们用积分补偿了顾客。问题是，这意味着我们原本预期在下一个季度获得的收入部分不会出现，因为顾客通过积分抵消了他们本应支付的费用。

And so we definitely changed the terms of service after that because being a public company is a little bit different. But in every other respect, I think that we're all really important decisions that were helpful in us becoming successful. Was that policy, it was automatic, like you didn't even have to claim it, it was just automatically get this credit. And then the default is you don't have to pay if you let us know. This was we will automatically like proactively, preemptively without any input from you, apply this credit to your account and just like send you a message that would happen. And by the way, we will do it on the aggregate for downtime, even if the issue didn't affect you as a customer.

因此，我们确实在那之后修改了服务条款，因为作为一家上市公司，情况有些不同。但在其他方面，我认为我们做出了非常重要的决策，这对我们的成功起到了帮助。那项政策是自动执行的，你甚至不需要申请，就会自动获得这项补偿。如果你通知我们，默认情况下你就不需要支付费用。这是我们会自动地、主动地、不需要你提供任何信息地将这项补偿应用到你的账户上，并向你发送一条通知。顺便说一下，我们会在整体范围内对停机时间进行补偿，即使问题没有影响到你作为顾客的使用。

Oh wow, who generous, you found the edge. Yeah, that was the way you might want to be. What was that mantra again that you had the company chant? I think this is a really nice way to end it. In the long run, the measure of our success would be the amount of value we create for customers. Incredible. I'm just trying to picture the entire team. It's like, I'm just saying. I'm just wondering if you felt very like, Chenjil Hong or like Stalin or something like that.

哦，哇，真慷慨啊，你找到了关键点。是的，这可能就是你想要的方式。你们公司那时候常念的口号是什么来着？我觉得这是一个很好的结尾。从长远来看，我们成功的标准是为客户创造的价值量。真是不可思议。我只是在试着想象整个团队的样子。就好像，我只是说说而已。我只是好奇你是否感到自己像陈吉尔洪或者斯大林那样。

Well, on that note, most people don't know this about you, but your actual name when you were born is not Stuart. It was Dharma. Yeah. And this all makes sense as you learn that. Yeah. It's like, my name is Dharma Jammy Butterfell. So they parents named me and when I was 12, I changed it because I just like, they wanted to be normal. And for some reason, I thought Stuart was a normal name. And by the way, you'll notice this now that I said it. Any character except for Stuart Little, the mouse, anytime you see a character in a movie, a novel, TV show, whatever, there's only the loser Stuart and the asshole Stuart. It's like, it's obviously in the collective consciousness, a terrible name and I shouldn't have chosen it. And I regret it.

好吧，说到这点，大多数人不知道你的一件事是，你出生时的名字其实不是斯图尔特，而是达摩。是的，这一切都可以理解。我的名字是达摩·贾米·巴特费尔。我的父母给我起的这个名字，但我在12岁时改变了它，因为我想要一个普通的名字，而不知为何，我觉得斯图尔特是个普通的名字。顺便说一下，你现在应该注意到了，自从我提到这件事起，无论是在电影、小说、电视节目还是其他地方，只要有名叫斯图尔特的角色，除了动画片《精灵鼠小弟》里的小老鼠，其他都是可怜的斯图尔特或讨人厌的斯图尔特。这显然在集体意识中是一个糟糕的名字，我不应该选择它，我对此感到后悔。

By the time I realized that Dharma and Greg had already come out, I would have seemed like I was like, you know, bandwagon jumping and people thought it was a girl, same for now in India. It's obviously only a boy's name. I'm going to add just one last little tidbit because I thought about this for earlier on. And I think it helps tie things together. It's true. And it's called the owner's solution. And this is based on something that I post on Twitter. The person who came up with the name later deleted their account.

当我意识到《良缘妙侣》已经播出的时候，我就好像是在随大流，人们还以为那是个女孩的名字。而现在在印度，显然这只被认为是一个男孩的名字。我想再补充一点，因为我之前就想到过这一点，我觉得这可以帮助把事情串联起来。这叫做“拥有者的解决方案”，是基于我在推特上发布的内容。最初提出这个名字的人后来删除了他们的账号。

And so I have no idea who it was, I've true to credit for this. But what I had posted was, and this is a long time ago, when restaurant websites got better and it doesn't really matter because Google local was taken over everything. But this is like, let's say 10 years ago, there's five things you could possibly want when you go to a restaurant to website. And is their street address, their phone number, the menu, that hours of operation, oh my God, I forgot to get into the fifth thing. Oh, and make any reservation.

我不确定是谁提到过这个，但我曾经发过这么一个帖子，这已经是很久以前的事了。当时餐厅的网站刚刚开始变得更好，但因为谷歌本地搜索的发展，这也变得不那么重要了。回到大约10年前，当你访问餐厅网站时，你可能想要找到五件事情：餐厅的地址、电话、菜单、营业时间，还有一个我差点忘了，就是预订。

How did it get reservation? And again, this problem has like, to some extent taken care of, it's all for release to brood. But what you would get was like the super slow loading photo, the Ken Burns effect as in class. And like, and then like fading in and then some music starts playing. And then if they show you the phone number, it's not a clickable, and it turns out, not even text that you can copy, because it's yes, it's an image. And they don't have the hours, they don't put the address or whatever. And it's just like, oh my God, what?

它是如何预订的呢？这个问题在某种程度上已经被解决了，但这个功能只是为了展示而存在。你会看到的情况是：照片加载超级慢，上面还有类似Ken Burns效果的动画。然后照片淡入，一段音乐开始播放。如果他们显示电话号码，你会发现它不是可以点击的，甚至不是你可以复制的文本，因为那其实是一张图片。他们没有提供营业时间，也没有地址之类的信息，让人感觉非常困惑。

For sure, whoever made this website for the restaurant owner and the restaurant owner themselves have definitely been in the position where they went to somebody else's restaurant website because they wanted to get the address or that opening hours of the phone number or whatever. So why does it end up like this? And what should we call this? And whoever replied to the tweet, she said, you should call the owner's delusion. And I said, oh my God, that's perfect. And I think that is incredibly powerful and what ends up with the result, like Apple naming whatever that feature is called sleep, which is like, it's too hard to understand what that can possibly mean.

可以肯定的是，无论是为餐馆老板制作这个网站的人，还是餐馆老板自己，肯定都有过这样的经历：他们去别人的餐馆网站是为了找地址、营业时间或电话号码等信息。那么，为什么会变成这样呢？我们该如何称呼这种现象呢？有一个人在推特回复中说：“你应该把这叫做老板的错觉。”我说：“天哪，这太完美了。” 我认为，这种情况非常有影响力，结果就像苹果给某个功能命名为“睡眠”一样，让人难以理解到底是什么意思。

And that's why people anticipate the fact that when they get to their website for the first time, their intent is absolutely the minimum number of micropoints above the threshold required from their actually take that action. You're like, all right, like, welcome to my website. And there's a bunch of like BS and there's a bunch of stuff that doesn't make any sense and the buttons are inspeedable and it's unclear what to do next because I think that my thing is so important.

这就是为什么人们预料到，当他们第一次访问某个网站时，他们的目标是只需达到采取行动的最低必要标准。就像这样：“欢迎来到我的网站。” 可是网站上有一堆没用的信息，还有一些莫名其妙的东西，按钮不可点击，接下来该做什么也不清楚，因为我觉得自己的网站特别重要。

And I don't recognize that you are at work and you were late this morning and you have to go to the bathroom and you're just like a regular human being who has like stuff going on and you're concerned that your kids are fuck up and they can't even trouble at school, it's like that. They're not like subjects who paid money to go to your play and are sitting in the audience and waiting for that curtain to go out. They're like people who are going to bounce in a fraction of a second.

我不觉得你在工作，而且你今天早上迟到了，还要去洗手间，你就像一个有各种事情要处理的普通人，你担心孩子们出问题，在学校惹麻烦，就是这样。他们不像那些花钱来看你演出、坐在观众席上等着开幕的观众。他们就像在瞬间就可能转身离开的人。

And so everyone should always be conscious of the other solution. I love that. What's the solution? Is it have other people like adding to be feedback? Is it? Yeah, and like recognize it. And unfortunately it's one of those things like Murphy's Law, like even you go wrong when you like even when you take into a cab Murphy's Law. It's fine. But if you don't name it and recognize it and discuss it and like train yourself to think in that way that you have to take a breath, pretend you're a regular person and then look at this again and see if it makes sense. Then I love that. You're screwed.

所以每个人都应该始终意识到另一种解决方案。我很喜欢这个。那是什么解决方案呢？是不是要让其他人也加入进来提供反馈呢？是的，并且要意识到这一点。不幸的是，这件事情就像墨菲定律一样，即使你尽力而为，也可能出错。没关系，但是如果你不命名它、不承认它、不讨论它、不训练自己去用这种方式思考，那就需要你深呼吸一下，假装自己是个普通人，然后再重新审视这个问题，看它是否合理。我很喜欢这样，否则你就倒霉了。

I love that you threw this in here. I have a billion other questions. I'm gonna ask you in part two when we do this someday. Stuart, thank you so much for doing this. Thank you so much for being here. Yeah, thank you for having me. I really enjoyed it. Same, same here. Bye everyone. Thank you so much for listening. If you found this valuable, you can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or your favorite podcast app. Also, please consider giving us a rating or a leaving review as that really helps other listeners find the podcast. You can find all past episodes or learn more about the show at Lenny'spodcast.com. See you in the next episode.

我很喜欢你把这个话题加进来。我还有很多问题，下次有机会进行第二部分时再问你。斯图尔特，非常感谢你参与这一期节目，也感谢你到这里来。是啊，谢谢你的邀请，我非常享受这次对话。同感，我也是。再见，大家。非常感谢您的收听。如果您觉得这节目有价值，可以在苹果播客、Spotify或您喜欢的播客应用上订阅节目。同时，请考虑给我们评分或留言，这将有助于更多听众找到我们的播客。您可以在Lenny'spodcast.com找到所有往期节目或了解更多信息。我们下期节目见。