C (2:59)

Rio, you've been at Notion, now obviously head of Design Cursor. Why don't you take us through your journey and how you've been thinking about some of these topics.

A (3:06)

I think to me it's like building software. There's so many layers of abstractions and depth that you need to take care of. And in order to do something really great, you actually need to know everything. Or like you assemble a team that works really well together with people with different strength on every layer. Maybe you have the greatest infra engineers, people doing ML. Maybe you have really good design engineers who really, they can just hand write CSS and then they'll be like perfect. In order for say one person to do all of this or learn all of this, it takes a long time of trial and error. You have to build from the simplest things to gradually more complex. Scale it up to more people, Share your workout to the public, see what happens. Do this feedback loop. And if you're doing it in a team, sometimes it takes even longer because, say you're just a designer, you're doing some mocks in Figma and then you shared it out, you got some feedback. Then your PM needs to do this PRD thing and then run more meetings and then there's more people involved and then they're like, ah, da da da, da da da. And takes a long time. And then maybe like a year later your design came out, but then it's like 20% of what you wanted. But with this new thing, say with cursor, you can just say you have an idea. It might be a little ambiguous, you just tell it to tell the agent and then it might give you something maybe like 60%, 70% on the first shot. But you kind of skipped a lot of the, you know, complexities. We kind of transformed from, like, you need to understand all this thing, all these concepts of making software, then you can do something to, I can do something now. And then I might get something that's maybe imperfect, not exactly what I want, but the process of iterating and like kind of poking at it becomes really quick. And then as the agents evolve, as the models get better, as it talks to more tools, it understands visuals better, it can talk to Figma, the mocks that I had, it can talk to notion, all the ideas, the docs, the meeting knows, anything. And the most important Thing is it knows the code base, which is the truth, the material of how we build software. So that kind of changes the whole thing. It's like the tool not only impacts the individual software engineers for them, maybe for cursors, we kind of try to fit as many workflows and people as we can say. There's like people who they pride themselves at like, you know, really think thoroughly, write the most clean code. For those people they can just type. And then we do the tab thing. And the tab thing got really good at like, it's almost like it knows what you want to do next. So for those people, they can do that. But there's like increasingly more people doing the agents where like even for the most professional coders they start to do this new thing.

B (6:54)

Yeah, yeah. I am trying to think of even myself as a, as an example. Prior to joining the firm, I was on the product side. I was working with a lot of designing designers, design engineering teams. Back then it wasn't called that way. It's more like designers, front end engineers and then UX designers too. It was still a very disjointed workflow. A lot of the design work happens more in the isolated fashion with just the designers themselves. They spend two weeks coming up with a concept, what does the UI look like? And work with UX designers on what the UX look like and then hand it off to the product team and work with engineers. Figma already bring that sort of process a lot closer, that you can collaborate around one artifact, that everybody can give inputs and prototype and bring sort of more of a close to the reality artifacts into these people's hands. Where with cursor it's even one step closer is you can actually poke around and play with these artifacts that are functional and working. I'm curious, what does it mean for collaboration among these teams? As you're mentioning, the collapse of that iteration and the speed and also what does it mean for the different roles that's involved in design?

A (8:26)

Yes. So I think maybe over the last, I don't know, 15 years or so, I think the, the art of making software fragmented a lot and then we kind of split into different roles. Each role kind of use their own tool, use their own artifact. They think in their own kind of words and lingo. Say the designers are stuck in figma before maybe it's like sketch, there were actually like, you know, files and then the PMs. Maybe they're like just writing docs and running meetings or maybe they're in Google Docs and Say the data people maybe like, you know, some other tool and then everyone's like kind of siloed in their own way. And then we need to kind of come up with a process to tie everything or like build better tools to kind of unify everything. We tried that at notion, but the problem is like people have like already developed like so much like habits. There's like inertia to kind of change that or like change people's tools or like kind of like you can't really force anyone to like adopt something new that doesn't perfectly fit them. But with AI, with cursor, things kind of flip again, because we want to kind of build something where it can kind of connect and absorb all of these artifacts and formats. And later, maybe even within cursor, there could be different views of the same code. Like showing the code as raw code or as diffs is almost just the very beginning. The act of making software is really just modifying the code in some sense. The PM writing the PRD is modifying the code, but they're doing it through a more passive organizational way. Maybe the designers influence it more on the visuals. But when you do this disjointedly, there's so much back and forth collaboration issues. As you grow the team, it gets even more complex. People start breaking the software apart. Things are no longer simple, no longer unified. We always talk about you kind of ship your org chart type of thing and then the different roles kind of fight. Designers are right, the engineers are right, the PMs are right. But like, you know, there is this shared truth which is the code where like, you know, you can also gather a lot of information around, putting everything, synthesizing everything together. Then the agent can kind of handle all these things that you might actually not know fully. But it kind of knows the truth. It could know the present, which is maybe like what's in your code base, what are the actual running tasks or projects, even gathering feedback or information from the real world. It could be also from the past, say, all the knowledge that you've accumulated, your team preferences, how the code base evolved and goods. Maybe there's also the future, which is like say you're planning ahead, you're thinking about the vision, you're maybe ideating some bigger ideas. You can actually do all of this with just one tool, one agent. But for each individual user or team, it might take a different shape. And then what we want is there's like a base experience that almost works for anyone, anything. But you can get more specific if you know what you're doing or if you have specific needs, you can even maybe, you know, use cursor as if you were using Figma at some point in the future. But the difference is you are not interacting with these siloed apps with their own like formats. And then you don't have to do the conversion manually with meetings or whatever. Like it just does it. Then all you need to do is you're kind of thinking about the idea, you're like iterating on it in whatever way that is the best for you. For the engineer, it might be like a code editor, but maybe for a designer it's something more visual. For the pm it might be something more like a document that makes sense.

B (13:27)

I'm curious given that there's a lot more focus and emphasis on this concept of taste after AI comes about. And now there's also this coworker that's an agent helping with writing code, designing elements of the product. Where would the taste live? Where does that come from? Can you rely on agents for having good taste? Is that still heavily reliant on the creator? That's the human designer or developer.

A (13:57)

I don't really like people talking about taste as a word.

B (14:01)

Why is that?

A (14:01)

Because I think it's so ambiguous. Like how I see it is more like. I think taste is kind of like there's a part of like you're selecting out of, you know, all the options, but in order to do that you have to kind of see everything or like you have seen it, you have maybe dug into the past, you have kind of figured out, oh, these are the ways people did this kind of thing. You made a connection of, you know, some, some stuff from the past where you've seen in nature or, I don't know, some human made it or nature made it. And then you kind of connect that to, to your thing or the thing you want to do or you kind of over time develop like a, like a preference. It's almost like you're self selecting a boundary of this is what is right, this is what is beautiful, this is what is good. And I think it's very different for each person because is no right, there is no wrong. It's more dependent on say like the things that you've seen. It's almost like an LLM. But the problem with an LLM is like it actually has seen everything and it doesn't really have an opinion or like it kind of confused itself thinking that people prefer purple gradients everywhere. But what is good is like the element because it has Seen a lot of things. It can do the baseline really fast and really good. Then the thing on top is taste or like your self selection of what is good. Like you're kind of drawing the boundary that is your decision. Though the AI can increasingly help you do that. Say we have a new thing in cursor called plan mode. If you type in the prompt and then you don't really want to fill in the details, you can switch to plan go. It will kind of just build the spec for you and then you can add details, you can change it as you want. Yeah, but it's almost like I don't really believe in say you give the agent something long running or like it's really like occluded like a really non specific prompt and then expected to give you exactly what you want. Like it's just not going to work. There needs to be something for the human to specify what is good, what is right, how I want to do it. If you don't put in that opinion it will just produce AI slop. Yeah.

C (17:02)

You were alluding earlier to this sort of fight between product managers, designers and engineers to some or this sort of dance. And if you were saying a few years ago the categories were somewhat different as there is this blurring. How do you think these categories will evolve? Overviews?

A (17:22)

I think like people always have their strength or their unique special skill or some spike say like some people are more good at coordinating, some people are good at the visual space, some people are maybe good at architecting like you know, the lower level constructs. But I think of all of these people as just like they're software builders or makers. We kind of started there. If you look back when the early computing era there was no title or people were maybe researchers but they maybe designed a low level architecture. They maybe even built the UI and how to display the UI on the screen and the whole thing maybe one person or two or five. And when you did that and also I think back then there were less say economic constraints where they were funded and they weren't trying to make money as much. So they kind of made the whole thing really whole. And now it's like you kind of break everything down. You try to optimize them with like processes and cost optimizations and people become like, you know, boxed into little areas and problem sets when the whole thing is actually all together. And that causes a lot of problems. I think like people, people now make software that I don't know, like they don't even think of. Like, like there's some like ideal that's kind of lost. And people think too much on the technical problems, the design problems, the money problems, not the whole thing or what we're trying to make better for people. But you know, we're kind of going backwards now. As you know, they say tools like Cursor, if you were, you know, self identified as a designer or developer or something like I used to also struggle with this. I started like making stuff myself, the whole thing. And then I came to the us I got a job titled product Designer. I, I stopped coding, I made mocks and prototypes and I waited for them to happen for like years and they don't happen. Or like they ended up shipping as like a YouTube video. That's crazy. But you know, with this new tool a designer can build, they can actually like, you know, work on their craft, the, the stuff that they really care about, make that really good and let the rest, you know, be handled by the agents. They can, you know, kind of put their taste on top and all the stuff that they don't want to worry about, give it to the agents. But you can also assemble a really good team. There's really good infra engineers, front end engineers, PMs who are, I don't know, not just running meetings, get all of them together, give them the same tool, the same code base. They can start covering each other's weaknesses and then amplify their strength. And the agent kind of holds everything. And instead of you painting this guy, where is your design and nose?

B (21:24)

Yeah, that resolves a lot of the common conflicts of spending more effort on the functional part of the software or spending more time on the artistic aesthetic side of the product itself and being appealing to the users. And you have worked at many of the very design focused design centric companies from notion to even prior to that asana. Now given sort of the democratization of who can touch that external facing aesthetic part of the product, how do you think about influencing even I guess your current team and people at Cursor to spend more effort in thinking about that versus just the functional part of the product itself?

A (22:14)

Yeah, yeah. One thing I want to call out is design is not just about aesthetics. It is actually like how I think of it is like it's all, it's. It actually includes all the say the architectural designs or like all the concepts of what this thing is or like the company even say for notion as an example. Notion is a pure conceptual product, meaning every single concept was designed by a person. So like in notion it is really just blocks Pages, databases, the workspace. And then everything kind of works around these concepts. And then at every layer there's like a representation of them. There could be like, you know, at the very top is like the UI or like the brand or like the visuals, the aesthetics, but then there's actually the aesthetics. Every layer, how you architect, say like the front end code and architecture, how they, you know, how the reactive states sync and how you render stuff to like, how do you like store these objects, how they, you know, relate to each other, to all the core concepts of the thing. And if you look at software, it's actually really simple if you look at the concepts themselves. So design is kind of like trying to figure out what is the best configuration and the simplest state for all of this. Some people maybe only focus on the visuals where the interactions were certain slices. But I think the beauty is actually putting things all together as well as you can. So I think it is really about what I just talked about. It's like not seeing design as just should we use a 6 pixel border radius or 4. But it's rather like how do I design the most simple system, Fewest number of concepts, fewest code, pass to do the most things for most people.

C (24:29)

You, you guys obviously have incredible product market fit with developers and we've alluded to a bunch of it. But can you share more about maybe either how you guys have navigated the idea maze of how you want to serve designers or just more around what, what kind of tooling you, you think there's an opportunity to provide?

A (24:46)

Yeah, so I think cursor like is still like our primary focus is on professional developers and teams, but because of that like people around them are already here and I think for the longest time we've been actually intentionally making cursor pretty hard to get in for say the non technical people, but they're here now and they actually struggle to get in and they really want to get in. One example is like when you open up cursor, there's like three buttons, it says open project, connect to ssh, clone, repo or something. As a beginner or like a non technical person, I can't understand any of this. But what if say like we just kind of give you the agent view blank. You can just start doing things like there's a lot of little things we can kind of fix to just make cursor feel more friendly and welcoming for these people who are like kind of angel Jason People who are, maybe they know software concepts or certain layers, but they might not be Able to code. I want to make make sure that when they come in they can like without feeling overwhelmed or like feeling like ah, this is like a code editor, it's an ide. It is more like I can start doing things and as I start doing things I can maybe like pick the path that I prefer. Select a designer. Maybe they're just like kind of chatting with the browser next to it as the agent is like making edits, they can kind of preview the changes, they can maybe like interact in the browser, pick this element, change like ah, I want to swap this with something else and then boom, it happens. So how we do it is not say creating new products or splitting cursor. That is the same thing but just like different pre configurations and packaging of the same thing. Because kind of like what I just said, like thinking about the concepts, like cursor itself is actually really simple or like AI agents in general are pretty simple. What you want to do is actually like not like if you look at, I don't know, like a ChatGPT agent versus like a cursor versus like a replay, a V0, a notion agent. Even the architecture or how they work or like they're almost the same. So what if we can come up with like a set of, you know, universal shared concepts for interacting with AI, with agents, with code, with software. But you can kind of mutate each one to fit more people and to fit more use cases and then each of them can leverage say the best model to do this UI thing with the best view that fits me. I can configure it however I want. If I want to see everything I can. If I don't want to see anything, I can too.

B (28:29)

This leads to my question of over the last few years, and I don't know if it's few years or a decade, there is the concept of purpose built tools for certain Persona, whether it's webflow for you know, Persona or use cases like for landing pages vercel v0 for more of the front end developers building next JS apps. There's tools for designers, there are tools handoff from design to engineering where now there's more of a concept of the everything app. ChatGPT is kind of everything app. Notion is kind of everything app. You can go to it for your note taking but you can also publish notion. Pages. Cursor is becoming more of an everything app. Is that a path that we're going down towards of having these all encompassing apps that can do a lot more things that used to be captured by A single purpose app. Is there still place for purpose built tools for a specific use case or Persona? How do you see that dynamic?

A (29:33)

I think it's just like different philosophies of doing things and making software. I think there's like almost like two ways you can look at the thing. There's this like the user centric human centered design path, which is, you know, you start from a problem, you identify the group of people who have this problem, figure out, you know, what they want, build really specific solutions for them versus like there's the more system angle to think about things where you're just kind of looking at the software itself, how it is composed and then think about where do I tweak a little bit to satisfy this constraint or to make this use case work or to enable this tool to work for these people? I think it's like fundamentally two different philosophies and then I think it is much easier to do the say the user centric way. But it kind of limits you from the beginning because when you start building these specific solutions, they only work for those specific people. If you want to grow the people or you want to grow the use cases, you actually need to kind of tear apart everything. You have your core concepts and a lot of people just can't do that. So what they do is instead of doing that, they add more things, more concepts, more features. And then there will be a point where this thing no longer serves your initial group of people anymore. The simple thing is no longer simple. The purposeful thing is no longer simple. And all of these purposeful apps, they're kind of selfish. They are siloing people, siloing workflows for file formats, creating islands. When if you look at the thing like all these purposeful app, whatever. I also work at Asana Asana. The core concepts are really tasks and projects. Everything around tasks and projects. Everything they add needs to work with those. And that naturally limits what it can do versus say like notion. Like how we see notion. It is not note taking, it is disguised as note taking. Like you come in, you can start from a blank page, you can type, but then what you're doing is actually like, you know, blog pages, databases and the workspace. Each block is almost like a JSON object. A page is just an array of JSON objects. And then we render each block in the, you know, the layout and the type it is. And then you can put them in a database. Now they have, you know, more properties, they share more stuff, there's more hierarchy and all pages can nest each other, that is notion but then you can do whatever with it. You can have a task, project, database, they all work together, they can be a list, they can be a board, do whatever you want. But then the problem is for these more universal type of apps because it's so open ended it's kind of hard to get started if I don't have the patience to kind of figure out how it works. I might not even get to the test and projects. So there's always that tension but it is fixable. You can build better packaging, you can use AI. So I think there's just like my personal preferences. I would try to build something that works better for everyone than just ah this, these people are the people we care about, I don't care about everything else. And then I think they should use my thing. That's not how you do it.

B (33:57)

We talk about AI, we talk about agents and we talk about how it really speeds up building things and prototyping when it really comes to these type of helping users to understand a product better, onboarding, learning the new concepts. Also to you as a designer, design leader, how does interacting with AI really improves the usability utility of the products?

A (34:27)

Mm yeah, I see AI almost like it's almost like a universal interface and then the, the bare minimum of it is really just a prompt and then you get some response. Then you can kind of put this into like different forms. It could be like a little input, like a chat box, it could be like a sidebar, you know you see the chat. It could be maybe you select something, you can do stuff with it. But it could also say like you completely transform this layer. It's not chat, it's not like an input, it's more fitted to say it's more purposeful even. But underneath it is still the same thing. It is still the same AI, same agent, same architecture. You can flip different models and prompts and stuff but then fundamentally that is what it is. But because of that you can actually build a lot of different layers and shapes. Then each person can find the shape that fits them and it will feel more comfortable. But also there is always this baseline thing which is it's almost like Google, like ChatGPT is just a box, you can actually put whatever but there will be more specific tools that fit each person or each use case better.

B (35:57)

Does every software from non becomes a chat box to begin with and what's the role of UX design plays in that?

A (36:06)

Yeah, I think like imagine there is only chat. I think that will also Be like a really bad experience because you know, you stare at a blank input. You need to do something, you need to initiate the thing, you need to ask the right questions, put in the right prompt. You might not know what kind of response you will get unless you play with this thing a lot as a new person, maybe like, you know, they might try it the first time they get something that doesn't feel like what they wanted and they're like, this is not for me, this is bad. But I think there's so much potential where like I think the models today can already do so much stuff for a lot of people. For a lot of use cases we need to kind of design a mechanism to kind of help transform that input output into the form or format or views or workflows of the people today, get them through that thing to here. Instead of forcing people to be, ah, now you need to use this tool. And then you actually don't know how it connects with your current workflow. You need to figure it out. You don't really know what, how it works. It feels kind of scary. Ah, what do I do? You know, versus like you actually ease them in through the thing they are used to. And I think those are actually the more optimal form factors for say the individual person or the use case itself. Because I know like, I just don't want to like type in a question every time or it's give me this wall of text of text response I need to read versus say the lines that you autocomplete just appears, you just press tab. Or maybe I just select some element in my artboard and say make four variants of it and boom, it's there. But underneath it's the same thing.

B (38:20)

On this question I have one more thought is when thinking about creativity, a lot of times when you have more constraints and more guardrails, it's actually more of a friend to bring to creativity than not. Whereas now we have a much more open ended world, we have a much more capable tool that we can explore a lot more unconstrained domain and fashions. How do you still try to apply constraint I guess in your line of work and how do you think the software itself, now that we have this open chat window and chat box that can still bring set constraints in to give the builders more inspirations and creativity?

A (39:12)

Yeah, I think the biggest constraint is it's kind of like simplicity in a sense. Meaning like there's a limit of how much concepts or things you can expose to any given individual at any given time for them to kind of figure things out. So there is a natural constraint on that side. For example, like on the cognitive side, there's maybe like a constraint on space. So like cursor the window, you can stretch it like this. Or what if it's like this? Then you start reducing things where like, you're kind of like prioritizing what to show what is the most important. And then those things actually don't change that much. Or like it is really important to figure those things out. And then you can kind of build a mechanism where you can kind of accommodate more things. Say, like there's secondary level things that maybe some people want to do. Maybe it's like more specific modes of operations where parts of the workflow, maybe it is like for different kinds of individual word preferences, but they are still like kind of layers of the core concepts where things, they're not kind of put linearly, like additive, don't throw out all at you at once. And I think that the interface or how software manifests themselves or how we design even, it will start becoming less about, say the designer decides these are the buttons where they are, and then it's like a fixed thing. But rather there's shared concepts and shared mechanisms of the same thing. But I could say take different forms where you can kind of expose ways for people to customize and make them their own. Then it's like the designer, what they're really thinking about is what are the most important concepts? How do they relate to each other at every layer, say for 80% of people, the defaults, what should they be? What should be the simplest state of this app or this thing? What is the default for? Maybe you can start forking it for different people. And then it's like maybe at the second layer you start exposing more the power user features or the different archetypes of what you can do. But the default should still stay simple. And then the ideal is like a lot of the tools, they don't really tell you what's going on or how the things work. One example is most of the CLI coding agents today is they kind of force you to use this tiny little window with this tiny prompt that's almost like all the interactions you can do. And then you're kind of delegating everything to the agent. You don't really know how things work. Versus for cursors, like, if you prefer something minimal, I think it's fine, you can do that. But you can start digging into more things. You can customize the agent, you can make your own Custom mode with different model preferences and which tools I want, which prompts I want. You can pick like maybe instead of viewing just code. I want a preview, I want a dog thing, I want a browser thing. I can change all the colors. Like it's all up to you. I can prefer the keyboard, I can prefer the mouse. And then the designers, what they're really doing is they're thinking of what is the minimal set of abstractions, the system to kind of handle all of these permutations.

B (43:39)

I love that concept of you're not just seeing the tool itself as a tool, but it's actually a toolbox. Or you can customize and configure it to fit your purpose and build your own tool that fits your workflow and give a ton of flexibility to the end user. That's sort of the ethos of cursor and notion that the more you unpack from the beginning, there's more to come.

A (44:04)

There'S more to play and tinker.

B (44:07)

Right.

A (44:07)

Because I think there's a lot of us who are actually really into that kind of stuff.

B (44:12)

For sure. Rio, you have an impeccable taste and sense of design. I'm very curious on your day to day life, how do you cultivate the surrounding environments, your own surroundings to continue to find inspirations and bring the best design out to the world? Are there things you do, practices you want to share with the audience?

A (44:40)

I don't really have like a routine or like a kind of sporadic, like I don't sit in Figma all day and making mocks. I like, it's like doing everything at once type of, type of vibe. So like I might be thinking about a longer problem. I would maybe like just write. I like writing and kind of thinking in bullets. I would like go out of the office on a walk and then take my phone with like a notion page and I would just start writing. I'll make sketches, I'll. Maybe play individual space. I'll maybe like, you know, build a prototype and code. A lot of my inspirations come from it's like not forcing it and kind of leaving some blank space to let things simmer. A lot of it comes from like just looking at stuff or looking at everything, not just software. So like you can look at print design, graphic design, motion films, music, art, anything that humans made. The nature side of things are really cool too, like learning about natural systems. I have a biomeasure, so there's a lot of similarities and how many layers of things you can build, how they interact with each other. Looking at the past helps a lot. Say my real OS project kind of started from like last year. I was just like I bought a bunch of old Macs and ipods and I was just playing with them and I wanted to kind of recreate the feelings.

B (47:06)

I actually really want to ask about that because a lot of designers profile page has the most shiny, forward looking, futuristic designs where you have, I don't know which year it is. Like a Mac OS interface with the original version of ipod icon. Tell us more about the real OS project.

A (47:30)

Yeah, I started the thing from. So I was leaving notion and I make noises when I am in meetings. So like, oh no, it's all the same thing, stuff like that. And I wanted to make them a little gift. So I built like a soundboard app with cursor. It was just one app. Like it looked like really bad like tailwind default styles. And then I just said what if we made it more like retro Mac OS E? And then it put it in like almost like a more retro Mac OS type window basically like put it in the box and then I'm like add a menu bar and then add it on. On top. Then I'm like, now I have a menu bar and a window. Why not just make more apps and more windows? And then that's how it kind of started. And then I just couldn't stop for like, I don't know, four or three months. Yeah, but a lot of the interfaces that I created I started from. It's like, it's kind of inspired from System 7. There is like accuracy but also like I added some like future stuff in it and then I actually made like more themes. I added like a Mac OS X theme, like the first Aqua theme like Windows 95 and XP. And then if you swap between them and you play with the os, it feels really authentic to each. But then it's actually the same thing. So that's kind of like the, the message I want to kind of tell people is like we've been almost doing the same thing over and over again from the very beginning. But maybe given, you know, the technical constraints of each era, there's like just, that's how it ended there and how it ended, how it came to be. But we kind of carried a lot of these concepts and patterns over to even now and then we, we are actually still living in it. And I don't think things will change that much Meaning there is these like timeless things that don't change much and like it kind of all comes back to people are trying to come up with some really familiar ideas and then bringing them to, like a new medium. But we're doing the same thing again with back in 1984, and now, like, people are just, I don't know, using paint to draw some pictures. There's like a text editor. You can type some stuff. There's like a, you know, different, different concepts that we put in little pictures, the icons, the desktop. Like, none of that really changed.

B (50:45)

Yeah. The timeless concepts and software we're using is the browser, the player, the chat windows, and those are all on the Real OS project. So for the audience who want to check it out, it's at Real Lou.

A (51:03)

Yes. Os Real Lou OS Real Lou.

B (51:07)

Awesome. We'll wrap there. Thank you so much Real for coming. This is awesome.

C (51:22)

Thanks for listening to the A16Z podcast. If you enjoyed the episode, let us know by leaving a review@ratethispodcast.com a16z we've got more great conversations coming your way. See you next time. As a reminder, the content here is for informational purposes only, should not be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice, or be used to evaluate any investment or security, and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any A16Z fund. Please note that A16Z and its affiliates may also maintain investments in the companies discussed in this podcast. For more details, including a link to our investments, please see a16z.com disclosures.