This transcript has been edited for clarity and checked against the available source transcript and recording. Filler, false starts, and obvious transcription errors have been corrected without changing the speaker’s meaning.
Yaniv: Say I make my whole team 20% more impactful and productive. We go from 500 impact points to 600. That’s how I get my 100 impact points as a manager.
Intro#
James: Hello, and welcome to Graduate Theory. My guest today is the founder and COO of his startup, Circular. He has over 10 years of work experience at Google and was recently VP of Engineering and COO at Airtasker. He’s also the co-host of his own podcast, The Startup Podcast. Please welcome Yaniv Bernstein.
Yaniv: Thanks for having me.
James: It’s great to have you on today, mate. You’ve had some really cool experiences throughout your career, held some great positions and interacted with some really interesting people. I’d love to wind back the clock a little bit and start by talking about the early days of your career.
In particular, as we discussed just before, there are some parallels between today and when you started your career. At the moment, markets are on a downward trend, particularly over the last couple of weeks. You were saying that’s similar to when you finished university. I’d love to talk about your experience looking for jobs at that stage, weighing up your opportunities and what it was like going through that period when you finished uni.
Yaniv as a Uni Student#
Yaniv: I did my undergraduate computer science degree and finished studying at the end of 2001. That was when the initial dot-com bubble had burst, around 2000–01. It was called the tech wreck or the dot-bomb: the Nasdaq was way off its highs, and a whole lot of startups cratered or laid people off.
Generally, the economy for software development had really taken a turn for the worse. One of the things that happens in those situations is that graduate programs tend to be among the first things to go. One thing that was different from today was that there was a lot less information available in terms of early-career groups, podcasts like this and so on.
I think I was your typical clueless university student. I hadn’t really thought about how to take my career into my own hands, so I applied for a few standard graduate programs. I don’t think I interviewed very well back then either. Through a combination of those factors—I had good grades but didn’t interview that well and, most significantly, graduate programs were massively tightened up—I didn’t get any job offers.
At the same time, I became aware that I could do an honours program. I hadn’t been that thoughtful about it, but with the lack of job opportunities, I felt I might as well do honours, which I did. I found myself enjoying that and enjoying research a lot more than I expected to. Of course, honours only takes one year, and the job market hadn’t massively improved in that year anyway. When that ended, I decided to do a PhD in computer science. I really enjoyed it; it was actually a nice time in my life.
It also gave me the credentials and allowed the market to recover to the point where I was able to go straight from that into a job at Google, which, for a variety of reasons, I don’t think would have been open to me straight out of undergrad. Coming into the workforce, or graduating from uni, when the job market was tough set my career on the course it’s been on.
I suspect that if I’d got into a graduate program at a managed services company, I wouldn’t have had as interesting a career. I’m grateful, in a sense, for what felt like a bit of misfortune at the time. Of course, it’s very hard to predict the future, but the markets are incredibly choppy right now. Tech company layoffs are in the news for the first time since, at the latest, 2008. People might be feeling a little nervous, so it’s worth understanding that, when you look at things over a longer arc, it’s very hard to predict which setbacks and opportunities actually end up working out.
James: I like what you said: it’s hard to know in the moment but easy to know looking backwards, when it all makes sense. Perhaps doing a PhD is partly contextual to the market and job market when you’re graduating, but is it something you’re glad you did and would perhaps do again if you were a young person today?
Doing a PhD in 2022#
Yaniv: It depends on your motivation. I would suggest that you shouldn’t do a PhD to get a leg up in the job market unless you have very specific career goals that involve either, obviously, an academic career or becoming a highly specialised data scientist or AI person, where having that deeper research credential can really get you ahead.
What I found when I did my PhD was that I enjoyed it. If you really enjoy sinking your teeth into a problem, it’s actually quite a nice halfway house, or transition, between university and work. You’re expected to do things much more on your own. You’re sitting in a lab—which, when you’re doing computer science, is basically just an office—you meet your supervisor once a week or once every two or three weeks, depending on who you’ve got, and the rest is up to you.
It’s a lot like a job, except with less money but also less pressure. In some ways, people put a lot of pressure on themselves during a PhD, and there’s certainly a lot of work to it, but I found it was a really enjoyable time in my life. I made good friends and connections there, a number of whom I’m still in touch with. But if you want a more general career and don’t think you’ll enjoy doing the PhD for its own sake, I find that people who go in without that sense of enjoyment and curiosity have a really miserable time and don’t get the benefit of it.
Yaniv after his PhD#
James: I totally see that. Let’s talk about when you finished your PhD and were on the job market looking for things to do. Did you consider continuing down the academic path?
Yaniv: I think I knew I was done then. I’d reached certain conclusions. My research was broadly in the area of information retrieval, or search. By the time I finished, in 2006, Google was already a pretty large and significant company that had IPO’d in 2004.
What I saw during my research was that the best research was being done in those private companies anyway. The big challenge that the academic sphere faced—and I think this has only got worse in a lot of disciplines—was that, to do good research, you needed access to high-quality data, and the high-quality data had become proprietary. If you’re doing research on search engines and the best algorithms require access to click data, high-quality crawls of the web and all sorts of other things, Google had all that stuff and wasn’t sharing it.
In academia, we were forced to do research on somewhat artificial problems. I felt it was starting to become a little meaningless. In a way, doing research in search engines just as Google was becoming this absolute beast made it seem like an obvious place to go. I didn’t put too much thought into what to do next. It felt like somewhere I could continue the spirit of some of the work I was doing, but at a place where I could have meaningful real-world impact. That’s pretty much how it worked out.
James: When you started at Google, did you go straight overseas to work in Switzerland?
Yaniv: It was that fairly typical Aussie thing where, before you get too many attachments and commitments, you feel it might be fun to live overseas for a few years. If I had been making the decision purely on a career basis, the obvious thing would probably have been to go to San Francisco and work at headquarters. But living in Switzerland, in the centre of Europe, felt like it would be more fun. I applied directly for the job in Zurich based on wanting to live in that part of the world.
I had applied for the job while I was finishing my thesis, but I took three months off. I travelled—not exactly overland, but on a long, slow trip—from Australia to Switzerland through China, Central Asia and South Asia, which was a lot of fun.
Did working overseas provide you with more breadth?#
James: That’s so good. It’s a good place to be able to travel around and almost do that classic Australian-European experience, but you’re there for longer and get to see more. Lots of people highlight their international experiences when they come back and say they’re able to look at problems in new and unique ways. Was that the case for you as well? Do you feel being overseas gave you more breadth when looking at different problems you’ve faced in your career?
Yaniv: I think there are two things, or maybe two and a half. One is the international experience itself, where you get to see how people live somewhere else. It helps you triangulate a bit. When you’ve got two data points—this is how we do things in Australia, and this is how they do things in Switzerland—it challenges your assumption that there’s only one way of doing something. That’s certainly valuable.
The other half is that, in the workplace, you get exposed to many different cultures and ways of thinking. I only count that as a half because you often get very international workforces in Australia. But I got to spend a lot of time working with people from various European cultures and learning how to interact with them. It’s another string to your bow.
The other thing was less about working overseas as such and more about working at a company like Google. Especially in technology, there are many best practices—the most progressive ways of building technology and software products—that are not fully developed in Australia. Working at a company that really does things to that standard was very valuable.
If I may briefly plug my podcast, The Startup Podcast, our byline is that we’re about how to build a startup Silicon Valley style: how to work in the way places such as Google, Facebook and Airbnb really did things. Even though I was never actually in Silicon Valley, having worked for Google—whether in the US, Switzerland or even Australia—gave me a perspective I wouldn’t have got if I’d worked for an Australian-based company.
James: That’s a really good answer. Sometimes, whether you’re an organisation, a young person or anyone else in your career, it’s hard to know what a good version of something looks like. You can try things and see what works, but you can take whole new leaps forward by understanding, ‘This is the bleeding-edge way of doing things.’ I think that’s really cool.
Yaniv: That’s right. People talk about standing on the shoulders of giants. If you want to be really good at your craft, it’s incredibly valuable to be exposed to people who are doing it the best in the world. Trying to bootstrap yourself and figure it all out on your own, or even just by reading, doesn’t give you the same impact and pace of learning.
What does Google do well?#
James: Google has been a big company for a while now, obviously for a reason. What do you think it does well, perhaps from an organisational perspective, that allows it to keep doing good work and making great products?
Yaniv: Two big things come to mind. One is a focus on technical excellence, and I don’t just mean software. Across the board, there’s an expectation that we’re bringing in people who are true experts at building and understanding large systems, and that we’re not going to meaningfully compromise on the quality of what we’re building. As an engineer, the strength of that engineering culture and the quality of the people brought in, whom I could learn from and alongside, was incredible.
Related to that, the second point is how loosely run Google was, which sounds strange. A lot of companies, especially older companies that predated the technology world, try to manage projects quite tightly. You’ve got things like strict roadmaps, lots of business analysts and mandated agile frameworks, perhaps something like SAFe. That really squeezes a lot of autonomy and agility out of teams, which is ironic. Many of these frameworks call themselves agile, but they constrain teams in how they operate.
At Google, we didn’t even really use Scrum. In particular, every team figured out for itself the right way it had to operate. That was a conversation within the team. The team had a high-level mandate and set some OKRs—objectives and key results—that it had to synchronise with leadership. But the team had a lot of autonomy in setting its own OKRs relative to its mission and mandate. That gave it the ability to focus on building really significant software and solving big problems.
It’s worth noting that Google was, and remains, in the luxurious position of having a lot of cash, which makes life easier. It causes problems as well, but, especially in the early days, Google made intelligent use of that cash by reinvesting it in the business. Companies in Australia are often very focused on the bottom line rather than the top line—making a profit, which is great—but that means they don’t invest as heavily as they could in building great technology.
If you view it over a long enough arc, you wouldn’t say Google’s spending billions of dollars on search technology, ad technology and Maps was anything other than a fantastic use of investors’ money. Many of these things come from the top. As I’ve progressed in my career, I’ve appreciated more and more that the way we got to operate as individual engineering teams at Google was based on how people at the very top of the company thought about things that seemed quite distant to me at the time, such as capital allocation, product and accountability in the company.
What things should a young person look for in a company?#
James: That was really interesting. Google does heaps of things well. If you were a young person looking for a job now, what would you look for in an organisation, whether that’s talented employees or a good structure? Is there anything you would highlight?
Yaniv: Talented employees are a given. Good people like working with good people, so that’s definitely a big one. In terms of company structure and culture, I would say there are two things to look out for, depending on the type of company.
If it’s an older company—say you’re looking to join an insurance company, or somewhere that’s been around for a while and predates tech, for want of a better term—it might be undergoing a digital transformation, or whatever it calls it internally. You want to look at the degree to which the company is genuinely committed to that, because it’s a profound change that needs to come from the top. In my view, you can’t incrementally undergo a digital transformation, because it’s not actually a technology transformation. It’s a cultural transformation embodied in technology. You need to start doing everything differently. You want to see whether the company really has the appetite and courage to go through that. That’s one side: an older, larger, established company.
If you’re looking to join a newer company—a scale-up, perhaps founded seven, eight or nine years ago that now has a few hundred employees—you’re looking for nearly the opposite problem: has it done what it takes to mature? A lot of companies have what I call Peter Pan syndrome, where they don’t want to grow up. This was actually one of the downsides I felt at Google; we’ve talked about the upsides. They say, ‘It was really fun when we were a startup, with a bunch of people in a room eating pizza and drinking beer. It was great.’ Suddenly, you’re 200 people and still trying to run the company in the same way.
If you’re not careful, you get a lot of the worst things about being at a larger organisation without the benefits. If you hear a bigger company saying, ‘We’re still like a startup,’ that’s a yellow flag to me. You want to dig a little deeper, because it’s like a 40-year-old saying, ‘I’m still like a teenager.’ Are you not just embarrassing yourself at that point?
You want to understand whether the company has kept the spirit of innovation and agility of a startup, but layered in structures that allow it to execute effectively at scale. Otherwise, it becomes what I think is technically called a shitshow. It might seem great that there’s no guidance and no accountability, but you end up with a lot of destructive interference, where everyone goes in a different direction. What that feels like is, one, no career progression and, two, not feeling like you’re making progress. There’s a lot of activity, but not a lot of progress.
Those are the things I’d look out for. Coming at it from opposite directions, does the organisation have the blend of maturity and agility that allows it to be a place where you can really grow in your career and have an impact on the world?
What does Yaniv try and do for his company’s culture#
James: Those are useful tips for people hunting for a job at the moment. You have your own company now and are trying to put some of these best practices in place early. As you’re building the company, are there any cornerstones you’re particularly focused on in creating a good culture and a foundation on which to build the company in the right way?
Yaniv: I think it’s about values and alignment. The first part is having shared values. It’s easy to be cynical about this: many companies have a set of company values, make a nice poster, stick it on a wall and have everyone walk past and ignore it.
But if you have values, and what we at Circular also call virtues—concrete behaviours aligned with our values, which say, ‘This is how we behave at this company’—you can create a strong culture from the beginning. For example, one of our virtues is ‘ask why a lot’. We’re encouraging people to question things. If we’re explicit about that, talk about it, lead by example, and encourage and reward those behaviours, then we’re creating that strong culture.
Why does culture get spoken about so much? It’s because it’s a highly scalable force. By ‘highly scalable’, I mean that as an organisation grows, its culture travels along with that growth because culture is imposed—or, rather, transferred—peer to peer. If you have a strong culture, it’s not a few people in management or leadership trying to get people to do things a certain way. You join a company and absorb the culture from the people around you. If you have a good culture as you grow, it’s one of the most scalable ways to ensure your organisation still functions well.
The other thing, which is very much a double-edged sword, is that a culture has what I call an immune system. Whatever culture you have is really hard to change; it resists change. If you have a good culture, it will resist change. If you have a bad culture, it will also resist change. Trying to change a culture that has already deeply established itself in an organisation is extremely difficult. It’s possible, but only in a very painful and expensive way. Setting the culture correctly from the beginning is extremely high leverage, so that’s something I try to do.
Alongside that is alignment. This relates to those companies that don’t grow up. Early on, when you can get everyone in a room or Zoom call easily and everyone knows each other well, you can have stand-ups or syncs and stay aligned that way. But when you start hiring many people and might have a few layers of management, it’s surprisingly easy for different parts of the company to have different ideas about what’s important, the right way of doing things or the organisation’s priorities. That’s when you start pulling in different directions.
At Circular, perhaps earlier than at many other companies, we’ve made an effort to build scaled rituals for sharing alignment and context. Even when there were only 10 of us, we had a weekly all-hands meeting where we’d go through all the company numbers and our top priorities, take questions and so on. With 10 people, is it overkill to do that weekly? Maybe. But now we’re 20 people, and it has scaled effortlessly. If we get to 100 people, we’ll still be able to share context and alignment that way.
Those are the sorts of things I think about. Ultimately, it’s why I ended up co-founding a startup: I see that so many of these are foundational things that need to be laid down at the beginning. Coming in later, you have much less ability to influence change. That’s true as a leader, but also as an employee.
If you look at my career, I’ve gone backwards from very big companies like Google, through scale-ups like Airtasker, and now to my own startup. There are many different ways to construct a career. I didn’t plan it this way, but I’m quite happy with how that sequencing has worked out. It gives you the context to see how things are done well at a larger scale. Then you go backwards into an earlier stage and know a little about what comes next and what you can bring to an earlier-stage company. If you go straight into a startup, as many people I admire do—and can do an incredible job—in a way it’s harder because you don’t have anything to measure things by. You’re thrown into the chaos and need to figure it out.
James: It’s really cool how you’ve done that. Having that variety of experiences and knowing great ways to do things helps a lot when you’re going into somewhere like a startup. If you’re trying to work things out from the ground up in that startup situation, things can get tricky.
Differences between producing and managing#
James: I’d love to talk about your experience at Airtasker. You started there as VP of Engineering, having perhaps been a team lead or senior engineer. What were the biggest differences between being an engineer and being a vice president, where you’re a little more detached from the actual engineering and managing people more than the specific technology?
Yaniv: When I left Google, I was already managing teams, but the real difference in going from Google to Airtasker was going from being a culture recipient to being a culture maker. As I said, Google had a very strong engineering culture and was also a massive company. I was a very small cog in that big, amazing machine. As a leader there, your job was to understand how things were done and apply them to your team’s specific context: the people, teams and missions. That was really interesting.
But after a while, I started to get my own ideas—which is always dangerous—about how things should be done. That became an itch I needed to scratch. When I came to Airtasker, it was a scale-up that needed to mature its engineering culture so its practices and ways of doing things matched the stage it had reached as a company.
It was my job to take some of the things I’d learnt at Google and not recreate them at Airtasker, because every company and every scale is different, but to take what I’d learnt and apply those lessons in thinking about the best way for Airtasker’s engineering to mature. I found that both difficult and rewarding. If you get the right team around you, that’s really exciting.
But I think you were asking a slightly different question: about the transition from being hands-on with the tools as a senior engineer to more of a management and leadership position. That really comes down to changing the way you have impact. One model I’ve heard for thinking about this, which I like, is that you change from being additive to being multiplicative.
If you’re an individual contributor, you can say, ‘The way I achieve a set level of impact—say, 100 impact points—is by doing 100 impact points’ worth of work myself.’ You can build a whole career as an individual contributor. Now that we’re going there, you asked me what made Google special. It was one of the first companies to build a proper individual contributor career track, so you could become extremely senior without moving into management, which was really important. You could keep growing the impact points you added and not hit a glass ceiling in your career. For example, if Google didn’t actually come up with terms like principal engineer and distinguished engineer, I think it was one of the first companies to implement them as a core part of its career pathway. That’s an aside.
When you move into management, you become a multiplier. Let’s say you’re managing a team of five people. You don’t get to do much adding. Instead, you say, ‘We have five people, each producing 100 impact points. If I, as a manager, can make the right moves—leading, coaching, aligning, removing obstacles or whatever it is—I can have a multiplier effect across those 500 impact points.’ Say I make my whole team 20% more impactful and productive. We go from 500 impact points to 600. That’s how I get my 100 impact points as a manager.
That makes it clear why, in many cases, management is the career pathway with the greatest impact: as you grow in your career, you can apply your multiplier over a larger and larger number of people. If you’re responsible for a group of 100 people and make them all 10% better, that’s a huge amount of leverage. That’s why senior leaders tend to be sought after and well rewarded. But it is quite a mindset shift. It’s harder to feel productive when what you’re doing is one level removed—when you’re working to make other people more productive and getting a share of the credit for that—rather than being productive yourself.
James: That’s a fantastic analogy. It makes a lot of sense. It’s interesting to see the individual contributor path you mentioned starting to get into workplaces and become a genuinely viable path.
Increasing your impact as a junior engineer#
James: There’s a lot of value in specialising and being a proper expert in what you do. I want to ask about someone who’s a junior engineer, or just starting work. In an engineering context, we spoke about those 100 impact points. What would you recommend to a junior who wants to have as many impact points as possible? Are there any principles they should follow?
Yaniv: The biggest one I can think of is to really try to understand the business and product you’re working on. Coming in as an engineer, it can be very easy to see your job as writing code and shipping features. I fell into this trap completely, but that’s not your job. I use the term ‘impact points’ deliberately because I don’t care how much work you do; it’s how much impact you have that matters.
If you want to have those impact points, you need to understand what’s important to your customers, users or stakeholders, then ultimately to the company and the business. If you’re working in government or a non-profit, understand that organisation’s ultimate goals. Become a student of that, because no matter what role you’re in, you’ll be able to make better decisions, prioritise your time better and ask more intelligent questions if you can see the big picture and understand why your employer is asking you to do things, rather than simply doing what you’re told.
Engineering is a technical role, and there’s so much to learn about building software that there’s often a big missed opportunity. As a manager, I can tell you that, in the vast majority of cases, the most valuable engineers are the ones with so-called soft skills in communication, product understanding and commercial understanding who can combine those with strong technical skills to have the maximum impact on the product.
James: Understanding why isn’t super hard, but it can have a large impact on what you’re doing, just by giving you the context of where your role fits within the organisation.
Yaniv: This may not be possible in every organisation, though hopefully it is if you’ve got a good manager. I’ve nearly set myself a principle—and, talking about the values and virtues I’m putting into Circular, I’m trying to create this for everyone—that you shouldn’t start doing a piece of work until you understand why that piece of work is worth doing.
The model in which you’re just a pair of hands renting out your time is outdated in most organisations. It’s not that you’re trading your time for money; you’re trading your ability to deliver value for money. In a sense, you need to take responsibility for making sure your time is used effectively and you’re not wasting it.
Understanding your manager’s or leadership’s motivations for asking you to do a certain piece of work often gives you an opportunity to be more effective. At the same time, it doubles as a great way of learning: you start to see how you fit into a bigger picture. It’s a good principle to understand why you’re doing something before you start, and to be as insistent as is politically viable at your organisation about gaining that understanding.
Who does Yaniv look up to#
James: Who inspires you or sets a good example for you? Is there anyone you aspire to be more like?
Yaniv: From a company leadership point of view, I really like Reed Hastings from Netflix. He wrote a book last year, I think, called No Rules Rules. His head of people wrote a similar book called Powerful a couple of years before that. Both were based, in a sense, on Netflix’s famous culture deck, which they’ve been building on for years.
I think Netflix is the best embodiment of this model. They call it leading with context, not control: hiring great people and being somewhat ruthless in your expectations of them. This is a professional sports team, not a family. That’s something I really believe in within the workplace. Families are great, but they’re a different kettle of fish. Families don’t have a mission; they just are. It’s not the right model.
The third thing is leading with context, not control, which comes down to what I’ve just been saying. You don’t tell people what to do so much as tell them what needs to be achieved. You expect them to figure out the best way to achieve those things because you’ve given them enough business and product context that they know everything you do as a senior leader and can apply it to the specific problem they and their team have been charged with solving.
It’s a very interesting combination. They call it freedom and responsibility, so they have nice slogans for all these things. You give people a huge amount of freedom and the context to exercise that freedom wisely, but you also give them a very heavy responsibility to deliver massive value with that freedom and context. If executed well, that’s the type of company and organisation I’d like to work for and be part of building.
James: I hope Circular can grow, have those kinds of values, support people and create an environment in which they have the freedom to make a great impact.
Yaniv’s Advice for Graduates#
James: I’ve got one last question for you, which I ask all the guests on the show. If you could rewind the clock to when you were first starting work, knowing what you know now, is there any advice you’d give yourself or anything you’d do differently?
Yaniv: I think I’d back myself more and be more entrepreneurial. I suspect there’s a generational element to this. A couple of generations back, there was a lifetime-employment model. My generation had much more mobility in people’s careers, but they still tended to follow a path of full-time jobs from one to another. Now I’m seeing the kinds of communities you’re serving, where people are really trying to be the architects of their own careers.
When I say entrepreneurialism, some of the time that means starting your own business. It might mean starting a side hustle or podcast, or building a personal brand. But it also means taking more active control of your career and not being as passive as saying, ‘I’ve got my job now. I need to work towards my next promotion,’ or whatnot. It’s about being the architect of your own career and understanding, of course, that the future is very difficult to predict, but having a set of goals and principles you proactively set and then trying to design your career around them.
I’m seeing much more of that with the current generation of graduates and early-career people. I’m in awe of that and a bit envious. I think, ‘If I’d been more intentional in designing my career, where could I have got to? Could I have got to where I am earlier?’ That’s the advice I’d give myself: be intentional in planning a career.
The tools available these days are incredible. They range from things like this podcast and communities like Earlywork to the vast number of resources online, the ability to start side hustles fairly easily and the availability of capital for early-stage startups. There’s a lot around now that didn’t used to exist. If I were starting now, I’d hope to make more use of it and be intentional and mindful in designing my career.
Connect with Yaniv#
James: There are certainly so many resources available today. It’s great to hear your thoughts about being more intentional because, with the things available, it’s something we can all strive to do more. Thanks so much for coming on the show today. To finish, where should people go to find out more about you and what you do?
Yaniv: I’m active on LinkedIn, so you can find me there. I’m also increasingly active on Twitter. My handle is @ybernstein, and I post different material suited to each platform.
I also have a newsletter called People Engineering at newsletter.peopleeng.com, where I share my thoughts on building a scalable, high-performing organisation, which is part of what we’ve talked about.
More recently, I also have a podcast called The Startup Podcast, available in all your favourite podcast apps. It’s a collaboration with Chris Saad, who’s a well-known operator here in Australia. It’s nearly like a mini MBA, where we talk about what you need to know as someone working at a startup or as a startup founder.
Finally, but by no means least, is my own startup, Circular. We’re live in Singapore and Australia, and we’re actively hiring in Australia for a variety of roles. Check us out at nowcircular.com/careers and have a look at what’s going on. We’re going into general availability in Australia shortly, so if you feel like checking out the product, please do.
James: I’ve had a look at Circular. I think it’s super cool what you guys are building, and I’ll hopefully be on there when I need my next new device.
Yaniv: You can do that.
James: Thanks so much for your time today. Have a great week.
Yaniv: Thank you, James. It was a pleasure.
Outro#
James: Thanks for listening to this episode. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. If you want to get my takeaways—the things I learnt from this episode—please go to GraduateTheory.com/subscribe, where you can get my takeaways and all the information about each episode straight to your inbox.
Thanks so much for listening again today, and we’re looking forward to seeing you next week.