How Palantir built the ultimate founder factory | Nabeel S. Qureshi (founder, writer, ex-Palantir)｜Lenny's Podcast: Product | Career

30 % of PMs that leave Palantir started a company.

Just give us a picture of what the people are like.

I feel like they screened really hard for a few traits in particular.

One is like, very independent -minded people who weren't afraid to push back.

Two is people with broader intellectual interests.

What's the difference between, say, a PM at Palantir versus a traditional PM?

They were extremely careful about only making people PMs who had first proven themselves out as forward -deployment engineers.

you basically could not become a PM any other way.

There's two types of engineer policy.

There's one that works on the core products and there are traditional software engineers.

There's a different type of engineer which you send into the field, right?

You would spend maybe Monday or Thursday and you would actually go into the building where the customer worked and you would work alongside them, you would literally get a desk.

And so that engineer became known as the forward deployed engineer.

What's something that you believe that most other people don't?

I think this is a somewhat contrary view within tech. Today, my guest is Nabil Qureshi.

Nabil is a founder, a writer, a researcher, and an engineer.

He was recently a visiting scholar researching AI policy at the Mercatus Center alongside Tyler Cohen.

At one point he worked with the National Institute of Health and major clinical centers to create the largest medical dataset in the world.

He worked at the Bank of England for a bit.

He was founding member and VP of Business Development at Go Cardless, one of Europe's biggest financial technology unicorns.

And most related to the topic of this conversation, Nabil spent almost eight years at Palantir as a forward -deployed engineer, working on public health projects with US federal agencies, including public health services during the COVID -19 response and applied AI in drug discovery.

Whether you are a fan of Palantir or hate everything that they do, they are an important and fast -growing company that is pumping out incredible product leaders, as you'll hear more than any other company in the world.

So, it is worth studying and understanding.

I've never heard an in -depth conversation digging into how they operate, build product, hire, and we're able to scale from a primarily services business to a software business, so I am very excited to bring you this inside look.

In our conversation we go deep into what the heck does Palantir even do?

Why getting good at managing lots of data is an under appreciated secret to their success.

A look at the unique forward deployed engineer role that they innovated and what other companies can borrow from their insights here.

Also, how they hire and how they build amazing product leaders, plus a ton of advice on talking to customers, building products and starting companies.

If you enjoy this podcast, don't forget to subscribe and follow it in your favorite podcasting app or YouTube.

Also, if you become an annual subscriber of my newsletter, you get a bunch of amazing products for free for a year, including Superhuman, Notion, Linear, Perplexity, Granola, and more.

Check it out at Lenny's newsletter .com and click bundle.

With that, I bring you Nabeel Qureshi.

This episode is brought to you by Work OS.

If you're building a SaaS app, at some point, your customers will start asking for enterprise features like SAML authentication and SCIM provisioning.

That's where Work OS comes in, making it fast and painless to add enterprise features to your app.

Their APIs are easy to understand so that you can ship quickly and get back to building other features.

Today, hundreds of companies are already powered by WorkOS, including ones you probably know like Vercel, Webflow, and Loom.

WorkOS also recently acquired Warnt, the fine -grain authorization service.

Warnt's product is based on a groundbreaking authorization system called Zanzibar, which was originally designed for Google to power Google Docs and YouTube.

This enables fast authorization checks at enormous scale while maintaining a flexible model that can be adapted to even the most complex use cases.

If you're currently looking to build role -based access control or other enterprise features like Single Sign On, SCIM or user management, you should consider WorkOS.

It's a drop -in replacement for Auth0 and supports up to one million monthly active users for free.

Check it out at WorkOS .com to learn more.

That's WorkOS .com. This episode is brought to you by Attio, the AI native CRM.

Attio is built to scale with your business from day one.

Connect your email and calendar, and Attio instantly builds a CRM that matches your business model with all of your companies, contacts and interactions enriched with actionable insights.

Sync in your product's usage, billing info, or any other data sources and Attio's flexible data model will handle it all without any rigid templates or workarounds.

With Attio AI isn't just a feature, it's the foundation.

You can do things like instantly prospect and route leads with research agents, get real -time insights from AI using customer conversations, and build powerful AI automations for your most complex workflows.

Industry leaders like FlatFile, Replic8, and Modal are already experiencing what's next for CRM.

Go to attio .com slash Lenny to get 15 % off your first year.

That's attio .com slash Lenny.

Nabil, thank you so much for being here and welcome to the podcast. Thanks, Sunny.

Glad to be here. In our chat today I want to zero in on a post that you recently wrote, where you shared your reflections on your time at Palantir.

You spent something maybe just under eight years there.

The reason I'm really interested in Palantir is I've been doing a bunch of research recently looking into which companies hire the best product managers and create the best product managers.

and Palantir just keeps coming up over and over in the work that I'm doing.

So I'll share a few stats real quick.

So I looked at which companies produced the most founders, especially out of their PM team and Palantir is by far number 1, 30 % of PMs that leave Palantir start a company.

And that's like, and number 2 is 18%, and that's Intercom.

So that's that stat.

I looked at which companies PMs that leave get immediately promoted in their next role.

Palantir is number 1 of all companies in the world.

I looked at which companies PMs become the first PM at another start -up that they join.

Palantir is No. 2 in the world.

And then I looked at which companies alumni PMs become heads of product down later in their career.

Palantir is No. 3 in the world.

Also just the company is doing extremely well.

It's worth, I think, something like $200 billion these days.

So there's a lot to learn from Palantir.

I actually want to start with a question that, I imagine every employee to Palantir constantly gets that, and I still don't think people totally have an answer in their head.

What is Palantir do?

That's a great question.

You started off with an easy one, Lenny.

So Palantir is the way I describe it, right?

Is they achieve outcomes for their customers very tactically.

The way they do that tends to be through a data platform.

So they have what I consider to be the world's best data platform.

And I can go into what that means in a second.

And then there's a couple different versions of this.

So, there's one that's optimized for intelligence and defense use cases.

That one is called Gotham.

And then there's one that's more optimized for commercial use cases and that one's called Foundry.

And that's kind of a classic explanation of what they do.

So, they sell a data platform.

They typically work with very large customers, is the other thing.

So, It's going to be, you know, fortune 50.

It's going to be governments around the world.

It's going to be those kinds of customers.

So that's the kind of capsule answer, but there's lots to unpack in there.

Awesome. Okay. And we're going to touch on a lot of this stuff, including the data piece.

I want to start with talking about just kind of the people and the culture of Palantir.

You shared a bunch of really funny stories of what it's like to come to work and even interview at Palantir.

There's a story you shared where because maybe the co -founder you're walking by and he's chewing ice And yeah, and that's like some benefits of cognition.

Just give us a picture of what the people are like, especially early days Palantir and the culture and how unique it might seem.

Yeah, it's definitely, it's an add one company.

I don't know how else you would stop this company if you were not somebody like Peter Thiel.

In so far as, it seems like, you know, there was a point at which they owned the silly fraction of the office space in Palo Alto.

So you'd walk around Palo Alto, and that would just be, you know, to hoodies, palented buildings, everywhere and so on.

And so I feel like what happened at some point is they raised a lot of money and they resorted to all these really interesting ways of just getting top talent out of places like Stanford and other top schools and just people who knew the founders who tended to be very interesting intellectual people.

And I feel like they screened really hard for a few traits in particular, right?

So I would say one is like very independent minded people, people who weren't afraid to push back, who, you know, questioned the frame of everything and thought for themselves and had sort of strong convictions.

Two is just like people with broader intellectual interests.

You know, Karp, Karp just released a new book and you know, he's quoting Habermas and all these European intellectuals and just things you don't typically see a tech CEO do.

And so I think there's that intellectual strand in the company.

And then yeah, I think three is just people who are very intensely, intensely competitive.

There's a sort of win at all costs mentality to the company.

And so I think those were the kind of set of traits that were like this gravity while in California at a certain time.

And so you just had a lot of really fascinating people joining the company at that time.

The way they screened for this was interesting too, right?

So for the longest time they had everyone does this now I think, but it's like, at the time it was a little bit rarer, a founder had to interview you in order for you to receive an offer.

And so a founder, it could have been Alex Carp, it could have been Stefan Cohen, earlier on, it might have been somebody like Joe Lunsdale, but it was always like one of these people.

And the interviews were pretty strange.

So you know, with with Stefan, it would be, you'd be chatting about philosophy for an hour and a half, and it would very much just be like he would pick a topic out of thin air, it was impossible to prepare for.

And then he would just go very, very deep and try and test the limits of your understanding, but it would really just be a fun conversation.

And then if you pass the vibe check, you'd be in.

And so there was that strong selection mechanism.

There was also the question of, I think it's, it might've been Teal who mentioned this, but he thinks that a lot of the best recruiters in the world, or companies that attract talent, they put out this kind of distinctive bat signal and it has to turn some people off.

That's kind of the key of a good bat signal, right.

So I think in the present day, open AI and old tropic, they're both sucking up, like some of the best talent that you and I know.

And I think one way they do do that, and they are sincere in this, but they do really attract people who are almost messianic about the potential of artificial super intelligence, right.

And who really believe this is the only thing that matters and it is gonna be the biggest thing in the world.

I think Palantir's version of that was the, they were quite focused on things like preserving the West. you know, there was a slogan of save the China, right?

So there was there was they were talking about military defense and intelligence and the importance of that, well before everybody else.

And bear in mind, this was during the era when it was like social, mobile, local apps, right?

Like, you had social media was on the rise, you had you know, the hot companies were like Facebook and Pinterest and things like that.

And so this was at the time a very strange thing.

And so I think to be drawn to that, you had to look at the other options and say, Well, this is fine, but what am I really doing in life, right, whereas you had this other place that was like, hey, come solve the hardest messiest problems in the world with us and I think just at that time that really drew some really good people.

We're going to talk about the thing — the reasons people don't necessarily like Ballantier and kind of the moral question of what they do, but when people look at a company that is like, like, I guess OpenAI — to your point is a good example where they're just like so turned off by maybe their approach, what you're missing is that's potentially intentional because it actually draws in the people they really want.

It makes me think about, I was involved in the creating the core values at Airbnb, and something that we learned at going through that process is when you define the values for your company, it's really important to clarify who this is not for exactly as you described, which is, feels unnatural, like oh, we want to be inclusive, we don't want to make people feel like they don't belong, but the whole idea is to be clear on here's who will thrive here, and here's who is aligned with our mission.

And what I'm hearing is volunteer care, and these companies take it to the extreme?

100 % Yeah. On my team at Palantir, one process that we followed, I could talk about this more if it's interesting, is you had to, when you started a new project, you basically had to organize what they called a murder board for it.

I think this is originally an army type, right?

So the idea is basically you write up kind of the two page plan for the project.

You invite three or four smart folks you know, who don't know anything about the project and their job is just to tear apart your plan, right?

And so you have to write, Like, here's the vision for this, here are the goals, here are the, like, tactics over the next three months.

And one section was principles that you're following for this project, and I remember giving this advice a lot.

It was just, like, when people joined, they would write principles such as, you know, move fast, and I would always be like, everyone likes to move fast. It's not a good principle, actually, because nobody can really disagree with this reasonably, right?

You need something that actually… A lot of people are going to go, like, why are you picking this principle?

This seems wrong to me.

So you need something that people can disagree with.

I want to come back to the beginning of what you described of what they look for, what Palantir looks for in people.

You talked about independent -minded, a lot of interest, broad interest and competitive.

First of all, I think a lot of people hearing that, especially the last part be like, I don't want to work there.

Why does this work?

Because this isn't naturally what you would think of as how you build the most amazing, productive team.

Yeah, I think it just draws people who want to win.

Right. I think that's what was really important though.

The other piece of it, I think, is that there's actually and this was much true of 10 years ago, right, is there was a lot of talent that was a little bit outside of the tech ecosystem, but could easily have been very successful within it.

So, you know, people who got out of the military or one of the intelligence agencies, and they were doing, let's say, an MBA somewhere to transition into the corporate world, And I think typically they would have taken a position at a kind of classic Fortune 500 corporation and actually Palantir managed to get a bunch of that talent.

And at the time that was very undervalued, the people who succeed the most in the Marines or the special forces or whatever it is, tend to be pretty smart people.

They tend to have accomplished very difficult goals in very hostile environments.

And it turns out that when you're starting a somewhat chaotic tech company that's actually a very useful skill to have. again, more companies are doing this now, so scale AI, Andrew et cetera, but at the time that was a very differentiated talent pool.

And so I think having those values as opposed to maybe the values that are more in fashion then.

So talking about how inclusive you are or the sushi that you serve at lunch or whatever it is, it just drew a very different crowd.

And I think the game that was being played there was, one, it's mission alignment, right?

Like you're doing a defense company, that's the kind of person you want to attract.

But I think there's also two, which is just what is the talent that maybe is a little bit undervalued now, and how do you actually draw those people to you.

And I think that game is always shifting.

This is definitely starting to explain why so many Palantir alumni go on to start companies and become leaders at other companies.

Like, these are leaders that you're hiring, so it feels like a lot of it is just the talent you hire, people that are naturally leaders.

I think you're right, and we can get more into it, but I think there's also, there was also a very concrete set of ways where that place was a training ground for founders.

I even think it turned a lot of people who might not have become founders into good founders because of just, because of the way it works.

So I think there was a selection effect there, but there is also some sort of training effect to, but it's kind of unique to the way the company works.

And is that along the lines of the forward to play engineer stuff or is that something else?

It is that. Okay, cool, we're going to get to that.

I love it, okay, amazing.

Before we do that, one last thing, is something I've seen is that you guys at Palantir don't have really have titles.

Everyone's kind of the same level and just like generic titles for everyone.

Talk about that. Why do you think that was important?

Why was that useful?

I don't know this for sure, but I do know that Thiel writes about this in zero to one and his take is just that as soon as you have these titles, you have a thing that people are competing for then you get these very unproductive conflicts, You get people optimizing to game the system.

You get Good Hearts law everywhere, right?

So it's like you have a metric and then people basically monitor the metrics.

There's a lot of interesting, I don't wanna pick on any one company but if you take Google, for example, there's a lot of interesting posts by people who left Google and they cite this as a reason why they got a little bit disgruntled is that there's a way to get promoted rather than like, let's say improving an existing product.

What you do is like you start a completely new product and that has your name attached to it.

And then when it comes to promotion season, And you can say, hey, I did this new thing.

And then boom, you have a new Google product.

But it is maybe confusing to the end user.

So I think they wanted to avoid all of these kinds of dynamics, right?

And so the way that they did that was they said, well, titles are not gonna be this mimeatic totem that everybody competes for.

Instead, everyone's just gonna have the same slightly meaningless title, which is Forward Faculty and Engineer.

And the only people who did have titles were the CEO, and then there were six directors, and that was it.

And now I think it's a little bit more nuanced.

There are different teams. There are some people with titles, but honestly it was almost like, we used to joke about it, right?

It's like people would leave the company and then you'd see them update their LinkedIn and they would be like, Oh yeah, I was totally the SVP of XYZ.

And it's like, no, you weren't, you just, but then it's like, I totally understand it too because when you leave the company, you have to make your experience legible to the next person.

And so guess what? Things like SVP actually do matter.

And so, yeah, I think they didn't, they wanted to avoid this Intel competition.

There are downsides to doing this.

So maybe the competition isn't as explicit around a specific title, but instead what it becomes about is, there's a particular exact something and you wanna gain that favor.

And so it becomes more about who can get in the inner circle of this person or whatever it is.

And there were those dynamics too.

I actually am a big fan of this philosophy, the No Titles one.

I think what it did do is that it basically said you, if you are in, let's say you're in a role of you're leading a very important project which would happen.

What it said was, this is always fluid.

So you are in this role because you're very good.

And so it's a meritocratic thing.

But if you stop performing well it's actually very easy to shift that because there is no explicit, like, I am the GM of this project kind of title.

And so, you always had to kind of earn your place in the company, you always had to earn the right to work on what you were working on.

I think that was a good side effect.

Let's start talking about forward deployed engineers.

What is a forward deployed engineer?

Yeah, so the way this originated was basically, you can think of it as, there's two types of engineer accounts, right?

So there's one that works on the core products.

So they don't necessarily leave the building in Palo Alto or New York or at the offices.

They're very much working on the core products and they're a traditional software engineer.

Because of the way the company works, we had these very large engagements with these large entities, there was a different type of engineer, which you sent into the field, right.

So what that meant was you would spend maybe Monday, Thursday, and you would actually go into the building where the customer worked, and you would work alongside them, you would literally get a desk there.

And so that engineer became known as a forward deployed engineer.

So within the company, that that function is known as business development or BD, and then PD is product development.

So it's where the product is made.

And so within BD, you had forward deployed engineers.

There are actually two types.

So there is one that is sort of a more technical software engineer, so you have to pass a software engineering interview and prove your chops there, and you would typically have a CS degree, but there was actually a type of forward deployed engineer that didn't have that.

So you would still get sort of a technical interview, but it would be less about, do you know the specifics of this C++ algorithm?

And it would be more about just like, can you reason about data?

And we kind of didn't have that division originally, but it turns out that there's a lot of people who are, you know, technical adjacent, shall we say, who you really need in the room when you're working with these large organizations or these large companies.

Because, you know, translating what you're doing into language that would resonate with an executive or being able to kind of navigate the social dynamics in a room, all of these are very valuable skills.

And so the hiring criteria that were a little different it was a bit more about like, are you savvy as a human?

But, you know, all of that was given the title of Ford deployed engineer and it's just an engineer who works with customers.

Okay. So just to make this crystal clear for people cause a lot of people hear this idea of Palantir having four deployed engineers if you other companies have done this, it's pretty radical.

So as you described, you basically have a desk at a company, so you worked with Airbus and we'll talk about that.

So I'll just make it real.

So you have a desk and a computer and login access and all these things at Airbus at York You go to their office four times a week you're sitting there with their employees working like side by side building a product for them Versus what most people do or they just talk to customers in quotes where they do an interview once in a while They do a zoom they share mocks things like that This is like that on steroids.

Is that roughly this the way to think about it?

It is Yeah, and so we would we would really be there a lot of the time.

And so the side effect of that was, one, you learn to live and breathe the customers problems and you learn to speak that language.

Right. And eventually they saw you sort of as one of them.

And so you develop these really close bonds with the customers.

So at Airbus, I would be at the factory where the planes would produce.

And I or I'd be sitting next to people diagnosing issues with aircraft or whatever it was.

Similarly, later on, I worked with the NIH, which is part of the US government, and I actually had a badge there.

And I would work with civil servants and biologists and clinicians and people who were working there.

And so it's this pretty radical thing, as you suggest. I think the key thing there from a business point of view, right, is the average kind of deal that Palantir had was really large, right?

It's in the many, many millions of dollars, which means that you could kind of pay for this as part of the thing that the customer got.

And then it was sort of priced according to the balance that the customer got, right?

So as a simple example, like if you're Airbus, and you're, let's say that you have an issue with one of your planes and you need to fix it and fixing that is worth, you know, a hundred million dollars or something to you, that's how it would be priced.

It would not be priced as, hey, you're buying data infrastructure and it's similar to a Snowflake or Databricks or one of these other providers.

It's much more anchored to here is the outcome.

But then, the job of the forward deployed engineers, It's not just to deploy software, it is not just to sell software, it is to actually solve the problem.

And so you would have to be there, you would have to meet the key stakeholders who are actually in charge of reporting to the CEO about this specific issue.

You would have to become their friend, you would have to gain that trust, and you would have to in some cases create new software such that it could actually solve the novel problem that was in front of you.

So I would have friends who worked with one of our energy company customers And they would have to learn the ins and outs of how oil wells work.

And then out of that, it turns out that having streaming data is actually very valuable for this use case.

And so boom, suddenly there's a product that can handle streaming data that becomes part of the core platform.

But that would be the motion is you learn about the problem, you figure out what software would best address it, you build that software, you use it to accomplish the goal.

And then eventually that kind of gets folded into the broader products suite.

And so you can start to see why this would be a good forge for founders.

Right. And this was actually part of my thesis going in and joining was, I said, well, say I got five reps of this, which I got more than that.

Right. But say you get five reps of doing this in five disparate contexts.

You actually become very good at this cycle of like, OK, go into the building, gain the trust of the person, meet the people that are going to become your users, talk to them about their problems, Make sure you're building something that actually solves them and isn't just a boondoggle.

Get really fast feedback and iteration loops.

Right. So every week you would have like a cadence where it's like Monday you go and you do your meetings.

Monday night you build something Tuesday you show it to somebody.

Tuesday you get the feedback.

Tuesday night, you iterate on it.

Wednesday you show it to somebody, Wednesday night iterate on it.

So you get like four of these, five of these cycles every single week.

You're moving incredibly fast. So six weeks in, you've suddenly gotten to, wow, this is really valuable and somebody's willing to pay you whatever, 20 million dollars for it and boom, like I think this is why you get so many kind of founders coming out of this same process.

It's becoming very clear why so many founders emerge to volunteer.

Okay, so an important element of this as you described is that the idea here is build this as a one -off solution to solve a real problem at say Airbus or some government organization, And then the idea is you create something out of that, that then Palantir can sell to other companies.

What's extra cool about that is you, they pay you to solve this problem for them.

And then that is funding this other product that Palantir can now sell to everyone.

What a cool business.

However, early days Palantir, everyone thought it was just the services business or just consultants building software for companies like Airbus.

There's no way they can make this a platform that works for a lot of people.

clearly that's what's happening and it worked out.

This is kind of like the holy grail.

Solve one customer's problem and then sell it to everyone else.

Every SaaS business basically would love to do this.

What do you think allowed them to actually achieve this and be good at this?

What are some principles that worked?

Yeah that's a great question and it's true.

I think that from when I joined until maybe till IPO and a little bit after, I was told, hey, isn't this basically like a sparkling extension, right?

Isn't it a consulting business kind of lapping as a product company, and eventually it became undeniable.

One, because, you know I always laugh when people are like, what does Palantir do?

It's like you can go onto YouTube and just search Palantir demo and you'll get plenty of demos of how the software looks.

Not many people know about this, but you can go and sign up with a credit card right now and start using it.

I can have a Palantir account.

You actually can. I did not know that.

I think it's called AIP Now.

So it's not actually that mystical and there is a product and if you look at the margins, they show that, right?

So they have like 80 % plus margins, which is not really what you would get if you were actually a consulting company or be closer to 20 or 30%.

So then your question was well, how did they actually achieve this?

I think there was just incredible talent in the product development organisation, like really top tier, incredible talent.

And it took somebody it took some really smart people to take the set of internal tools that we were using at the time to create value customers and then go, what is the unified version of this?

What is the thing that, what would this look like if this were a product and out of that process that I saw came Foundry, I assume there was a similar process with Gotham a while back, but basically it's like the motion was that you would go in and early on, you were basically armed with Jupyter Notebooks and some kind of data integration stuff, but it was very primitive, and you had to create value that way.

But, you know, we kept building tooling that was useful for forward -deployed engineers, so we were our own first customers, and at some point, there was this concept of, wait, what if we take our internal tools and we let our customers use them?

And I remember at the time, this is a really radical idea, and then Shan Sankar is one of these, I think it's the CTO, or maybe it's the president now, he just mandated like, okay, every customer deployment, you have to have a customer using this within three months or whatever it is.

And so it was horrible at the time because these had been built for these nerdy Silicon Valley engineers.

And so they weren't particularly usable.

They would crash all the time.

You'd have to debug spark errors or whatever it was.

But basically that process brought a lot more rigor to our thinking about the product.

And out of that kind of, I would say, three or four -year process came the Foundry product.

And then there was a lot of focus around things like performance and reliability and so on.

That was all really painful.

And so, yeah, I think the answer was just talent.

And then there was this recognition that we do know things that most people do not know about how data works in large organizations.

That was the other thing.

We discovered a lot of, you know, quote, unquote secrets in this process of living with customers for so long.

The basic one was just data integration is massively painful inside organizations.

This is very hard to understand unless you've worked in a large organization, but it's actually impossible to even now to get access to a lot of your own internal data that you need to do your job.

Right. So you hear stories of people being like, I'm trying to calculate our sales this quarter and I had to wait six weeks for some other analytics team to get me this deliverable, right?

And so just the knowing problems like that and being able to focus our product efforts around those problems meant that we were able to build something generalizable there.

OK, there's a lot here.

First of all, you talk about Gotham and Foundry.

I know that we'll link to videos of people checking these out.

But just what's the simplest way to understand what these two products do?

Yep. So Gotham is optimized for military and defense use cases and Intel as well.

I would say they both have some things in common, right?

So they both have, I would describe this almost as a pyramid where the bottom layer is data investment, the middle layer is data mapping, and then the top layer is anything that's user facing, so any UI component, right?

And then if you think of Foundry for a second, right?

There's different tools that allow you to ingest data to it.

There's different tools that allow you to easily build data pipelines and clean up data, which everybody has to do.

And then there's a bunch of tooling that allows you to build compelling UIs on top, to point -and -click analytics, to notebook -style workflows, whichever kind of, however technical you are.

And so that's what I mean when it's a platform, it's a suite of things that has kind of a common data backing, but contains a bunch of different applications.

And so I think that is somewhat true of Gotham as well.

But you kind of, when you log in, you see this unified interface, right?

So what is the actual difference then?

I would say with Gotham, you're looking much more at workflows, like that involve maps, for example, right?

So when you're doing a military, Operation.

Like a lot of the time you're going to be looking at a map and you are going to be monitoring, you know, the movement of troops or tanks or whatever it is.

Another big difference is the idea of graph based analysis.

So Gotham, one of the kind of early use cases right was finding combing through networks of terrorists and basically finding the bad guys and so being able to do queries that are sort of graph based was important, right?

So it's like, who is everybody that Lenny called in the last week?

Imagine, like all the nodes kind of fanning out from there.

And then it's like, Okay, well, this one looks interesting.

Let's zoom in on that.

What is this person's you know, location?

Right? And it's just like very graph based way of thinking.

That also applies to things like fraud.

And so Gotham has been deployed against fraud.

But if you look at foundry, it doesn't actually emphasize that component so much, because it turns out, you know, let's say you're a B2B SAS company, you're probably not doing that much graph based analysis.

You're doing things that look a lot more like classic SQL queries, tables, that kind of stuff, and so Foundry is a lot more kind of traditional in that way.

That was an amazing explanation.

For the first time, I'm starting to understand what these products do.

Basically it just sucks in a bunch of data, cleans it up so you can actually trust it and then helps you interact with it in various use cases, maps, graphs, tables.

Yes. Okay, amazing.

The example you gave of what you worked on at Airbus, You described it as basically a sauna for making planes, is that right?

Yes. Yes. So how much of that becomes like a part of this core product versus stays this one -off thing?

Like is it elements?

Oh, that's a cool innovation.

Let's put that into Foundry.

How does that work?

This was a really interesting story, actually.

So the initial problem that we came into with Airbus was that they had a new aircraft called the A350, beautiful aircraft, by the way.

I think if you fly New York to Singapore, it's often an A350.

Really nice. And so it was a really, relatively new aircraft at the time.

And their mandate to us was okay, we need to ramp up production of this really fast, much faster than we've ever done it before.

So it's like, the numbers are very approximate, right.

But it's like, okay, we're producing full this month, we need to do eight the next month, 16 the month after, and so forth.

And you're going to help us do it.

And so this goes back to what I was saying earlier is the mandate wasn't like, hey, we need to upgrade our data infrastructure.

And we thought You guys would be met met the list of requirements.

It was much more just like, please help us accomplish this mission.

And this is like the big thing.

And so we went in, scoped out the problem.

There were a bunch of different things that we could build that helped accelerate this.

But one of the basic problems that we figured out was that without going too much into the weeds, the way the factory would work is that there's a bunch of stations.

And you can think of the plane is literally moving between each station and that each station would do a certain set of work on it.

Right. So initially it's literally like a big fuselage and the fuselage is sitting there and then people are doing a bunch of work orders against it.

They need parts in order to do that work.

And then at some point they say, okay, this is ready to move to station 31 and the plane is physically moved to the next station and then station 31 does its next thing.

So in order for the next station to do its work properly, they need to know one, like what work was done at the previous station and what work is remaining.

Two is just like, if you think about this problem, like not all work is going to get done on time." And so things kind of carry over, right, to the next team.

And the next team then has to kind of like...

And so when I'm describing this problem to you, you can kind of start to visualize like, okay, maybe I need some sort of Gantt chart for this.

And I need the ability to click in and say, okay, what did station 30 do and what work orders remained undone?

And then it's like, okay, for those work orders, what parts do I need and where in the factory might they be?

And so, this was very, very hard to do as it is.

A lot of it was just relying on people going and having conversations with other people on the factory floor.

And you know, coming from tech where it's, maybe not as complicated as building aircraft that is a phenomenally complicated process but it is easy to see like, okay you can actually improve this problem with software, right?

They also, all that data was stored in SAP and you know, SAP is like established software, it's good at what it does but it's not the most user friendly necessarily, especially if you're not an expert in how it stores data, the table names are very hard to understand and read.

And so one of the things we figured out was just, if you can pull in these tables that may as well be written in completely alien language, like the table name would just be like S3F1 underscore Z or something like that, right.

And you'd have to know like, okay, this is the table where the part ID is stored or something.

If you could pull in those tables and join them in the right ways, and then just map them to human concepts that humans can understand, so things like a parts, a work order, an aircraft, et cetera, and basically build a kind of hierarchy or mapping between them, then what you can do is for a user, a user can just log in and say, okay, aircraft 79, where is that?

Okay, it's at station 31.

All right, these are the work orders, et cetera, right?

And so you've translated it into a more human legible thing.

And so the thing we built, I mean, I kind of slightly flippantly described it as Asana.

It's a little different, but basically that's what it did, was it gave you a unified view of, okay, this is what's going on inside the factory.

This is the work that needs to be done on this particular plane.

And then me today going to my job at Station 31, what work orders do I need to fulfill and where are the parts that I need to do that?

And so did this directly become a part of Foundry?

Not exactly because the way that other companies work is not gonna be using the same set of concepts, but the overall idea of taking a bunch of tables and then mapping them to human -understandable concepts was a very powerful one.

And so this actually resulted in a big piece of Foundry now, which they call ontology.

You probably heard this, you know, term as you've seen.

If you see pallets of presentations, they always talk about ontology.

This is what they actually mean by that is, it is a set of concepts that is understandable to you as a human, and you're not having to go and dig around and do SQL queries.

You're just able to say, like, where is the aircraft now and where is it going next, right?

And so the ontology became a huge piece of Foundry.

It was directly informed by the learnings that we had from building that application inside that factory.

And I would say it's still a very big differentiator today.

Like, I don't think too many other companies ship this kind of stuff yet.

Wow. I love how excited you still are about this because I could see it being so fulfilling to solve this big problem.

I saw a stat that I think you've 4x'd their productivity.

What was the number there?

It was. Yeah. I don't recall the exact stat, but we did ramp up production.

I think at least Forex that one year, which I mean, obviously they did this and we just helped with it.

But, you know, their CEO said that we played a critical part.

Also you moved to France, I think, for this.

That was like how forward deployed you were.

You lived in France for how long?

Yeah, I lived in France for about a year and a half.

The way they built their planes is they manufactured different components around Europe.

So they build the tail in Spain and the fuselage in part of the UK and Germany and so forth, right, and so they basically ship everything to France to be assembled at the end, which you can imagine this is a very messy process.

So I was mostly in France, but there would be weeks where I'd have to kind of fly between all these countries just to kind of figure out where things were.

And you're post, you wrote about how just the life of a forward deployed engineer is pretty crazy, you just get a call sometimes like, hey, you're flying to this random country tomorrow, get ready.

Is that just life as a forward deployed engineer?

It is, yeah. The company had a very, I would say, aggressive attitude towards travel in the sense of when you join, you were basically told, look, you have to be okay with travel, are you okay with that, right?

And the attitude, which, again, I think is a very founder -friendly one, is you need to be willing to just jump on a plane that night if that's the best thing to do for this customer and if it's gonna get us to where it needs to be to win.

And so, there are many times when it would be like, oh, I need to take this cross continental flight tomorrow for this particular thing, because it will be, it will be useful.

And so I think that's one of the kind of takeaways for me was just like being in person is so, so, so valuable when you are working with some external party, just going there for a few days and spending time with them, maybe going out for dinner, you built so much more trust than if you're trying to close a customer over Zoom or do an engagement over Zoom.

It's just the vibe is completely different.

And so yeah, getting on a plane was a really cool part of our job for a very long time.

This obviously changed around 2020 because COVID happened, the company IPO'd and so then you could be a bit more internal controls around this.

But I would say pre -2020, this is like a big part of the culture.

I'm excited to have Andrew Luo joining us today.

Andrew is CEO of One Schema, one of our long -time podcast sponsors.

Welcome Andrew. Thanks for having me Lenny.

Great to be here. So what is new with One Schema?

I know that you work with some of my favorite companies like Ramp and Vanta and Watershed.

I heard you guys launched a new data intake product that automates the hours of manual work that teams spend importing and mapping and integrating CSV in Excel files.

Yes, so we just launched the 2 .0 of One Schema file feeds.

We've rebuilt it from the ground up with AI.

We saw so many customers coming to us with teams of data engineers that struggled with the manual work required to clean messy spreadsheets.

File Feeds 2 .0 allows non -technical teams to automate the process of transforming CSV and Excel files with just a simple prompt.

We support all of the trickiest file integrations, SFTP, S3, and even email.

I can tell you that if my team had to build integrations like this, how nice would it be to take this off our roadmap and instead use something like One Schema?

Absolutely, Lenny. We've heard so many horror stories of outages from even just a single bad record in transactions, employee files, purchase orders, you name it.

Debugging these issues is often like finding a needle in a haystack.

One schema stops any bad data from entering your system and automatically validates your files, generating error reports with the exact issues in all bad files.

I know that importing incorrect data can cause all kinds of pain for your customers and quickly lose their trust. Andrew, thank you so much for joining me.

If you want to learn more, head on over to oncechema .co.

That's oncechema .co.

So there's a lot of founders listening to this and a question that I'm thinking and they're probably thinking and there's kind of two questions here.

One is just when to go, like how hardcore to go potentially with their own forward deployed sort of an operation.

And then two is just how – and a company I know is actually doing this – how far to go with one company's problem and invest in just like we're going to nail solving this one customer's problem with the hope that this is something we can abstract and sell as a big platform.

So let me start there.

And you're building a company, any insights or advice on just how far to go down this road if we will solve customer one's problem and we bet that this is gonna be a big opportunity for a lot of other companies?

So I would say on the full of deploy piece, my friend Barry McArdle, who is the CEO of HEX, the analytics company, he wrote a really good post about this actually.

And his take was just like, you probably don't need full deployed engineers.

It's very specific.

But I think basically the thing there is you have to be willing to be quite almost wasteful.

Like you have to be willing to invest a lot in finding the thing.

And for that, you just need a certain ticket size, right?

So you need each customer's revenue to be probably in the billions of dollars.

If it's below that, you're probably not looking at a traditional, forward deployed engineer motion.

It's something a little bit different.

And so, I think one thesis that a lot of people left with and started companies around was there's a lot of, a lot of customers that palantir won't serve, because, you know, maybe that's who small a ticket size.

And so actually you could go and do something like palantir for those companies, but instead of charging them $5 million, you're charging them 250K a year.

And so in a scenario like that, you might still have forward deployed engineers, but they're not really, they're not going to France and spending five days a week in a factory.

It's more like you'll have one person and they're looking after, you for customer accounts.

It's more of that ratio in order to make the numbers work.

And so I think a lot of the principles can be, can be abstracted from that experience, but it is a really specific sales motion that depends on a specific way of doing business.

I think to your other question, yeah, I think there's, it's obviously one, something that is very hard to give a general answer to.

My main thing here is just that you can definitely tell when you are just doing consulting and when you are closer to building a product.

And I think the error that people make more often than not is they are actually too stuck on their own product division.

That's the mistake I've seen a little bit more, actually, than the other way around, right?

So if you go to, I'm trying to give an example.

If you go to an enterprise customer and let's say you think you're doing analytics software and it turns out they don't actually care about internal analytics.

this much. They actually have this other massive burning problem, and they don't have a good solution to it yet.

I think a lot of people are unwilling to go and pivot to the big problem because they're like, well, we're analytics software, and so maybe this customer is a fit for our thing.

And maybe that's the right call.

In some scenarios, that is the right call, and you should go find a different customer where your thing resonates more.

In other scenarios, it's actually the right call to pivot and go just put everything on that big problem instead, and then go and find other customers for that thing.

There's no hard and fast rule.

I remember reading a really interesting post by, I think it was David Sue from retool, who had this exact thing, and I think he worked at Palantir for a while, too.

And he said that they had the retool product and it wasn't getting any traction at all.

And then he tried an outbound email campaign where he literally just changed the subject line to build internal tools easily.

And then suddenly they started getting all these replies from CEOs who were just like, oh yeah, this is actually a huge pain point for me.

But the exact same solution, they were previously kind of framing it as, I think it was like supercharged Excel or something like that, and nobody was biting.

And so they just changed the way they framed it, found a different set of buyers and succeeded that way.

So yeah, no hard and fast rule, but I think it's always, you need to kind of have this matrix of options in your mind and be very deliberate about which one you are going with and why.

I think your piece of advice is really important there.

Usually in your experience, you're saying people index too far to.

Like no, what they're asking you to do is not kind of what I think they need or what customers will need.

You're saying it's actually more likely they're right and that's maybe where you should be focusing more versus this kind of abstract vision and original idea you had?

I think so, yeah. I think it's very hard to not be anchored to your own experience and your conceptions of a problem.

And one thing I've seen in really strong founders is they're able to sort of drop a bunch of those assumptions and almost treat something a new opportunity as a completely blank slate and then just figure out how to reshape things so that it's taking advantage of that.

And that's how you don't get stuck at a local maximum.

Your other piece of advice is also really great.

So people hear this.

They're like, we don't we can't afford an engineer to sit at or one customer prospect's office and build stuff for them.

But your point is you can have one for five different customers.

They're not there full -time, they kind of bounce around, but it's almost like sales engineering, just like, what do you call it?

Sparkling sales where they help make it successful.

I know Looker is a famous example.

They think they called them forward deployed engineers.

Do you know any other companies, by the way, that did some version of forward deployed engineers?

There's a lot. I know that the AR Labs are hiring forward deployed engineers now, they're building forward deployed engineering teams and they could make it work.

But I think there's going to be key differences.

Like, I don't see Anthropic going into an enterprise customer and building some entirely from scratch solution for them.

It's going to be something that leverages the Anthropic set of products.

So, there's a lot of companies that have this label now, but I think what's really confusing about it, it's just that it means a few different things.

There's another post by Ted Mabry, who's I think the head of commercial at Palantir, and that's a very good one to point this to.

So say someone was I want to try this sort of thing in my company.

And what would be like a few bullet points of things they should get right?

You're describing kind of the spectrum of what people describe as forward deployed engineers, if they were to try to do this.

What do you think they need to most do correctly for it to be successful?

The key things that made our model work for one, they were actually real engineers who could build product themselves.

That's a very big difference.

Right? I think a lot of the time companies will say, this person's a forward deployed engineer but actually they're mostly there to be more of a solutions architect or they're not necessarily building anything to Novo.

They're just listening and trying to find a way of deploying the existing product.

They're not empowered to do new products.

And so the really radical thing Palantir said was, no, like go in and if you need a completely new product to do this, you can go ahead and build it.

And I think that's really the key difference.

The other stuff, you know, I've already mentioned the value of being in person and I think building close personal bonds with your customers, I do think the better founders do this anyway, right?

Like they're on texting terms with their buyers, they become friends with them outside of work and they see them as humans who they're trying to help.

I think that's very motivating, gaining a really deep understanding of the business that your customers are in and knowing how those dynamics work.

So, you know, a simple example might be, you know, like, say hospitals in America, right, like, I think if you if you go into it, it's very counterintuitive to think of a hospital as a business, people think of it as, you know, it's a place where you get healthcare, right.

But actually, if you view it the way a COO or CMO views it, it's going to look very, very different to you.

As a very simple example ...

Sorry, this is a little bit dark, but you know how restaurants want to turn over tables as fast as possible in order to maximize their revenue for the day?

Hospitals actually want to do the same with patients.

They would like to treat you and then get you out of a bed so they can free up the bed to get a new person in there.

And so that's not super -intuitive unless you kind of think hard about how the revenue for that hospital what?" But then once you think about it, you're like, oh, this has a bunch of problems associated with it, right?

And you start to go in really interesting directions.

There's just like the words and memes that take you a long way working and understanding it.

Yeah. Okay, so essentially, the things you want to get right, make sure it's in person, make sure the person is technical, make sure they have a deep understanding of the business and the problems they're having.

The technical piece is interesting with AI tools these days, making everyone technical in some sense.

You could argue this is going to become more common. People you can just, you know, open up cursor, windsurf, and just start adding features.

I think this is a really interesting thesis you've just hit on, and I expect to see a lot more startups that take advantage of that insight.

It basically makes forward deploying engineers cheaper.

Exactly. What is the current state of forward deploy engineers in Palantir?

How much has it changed over the past few years?

Like, if you join now, is this still something you can do?

Yeah, of course. I mean, I should obviously emphasize that, one, I left the company in 2023 and so this just my personal view.

I don't speak for them.

I think that you know, if you think about it, right?

The thing that one of the kind of metrics that the company had to measure its own success was essentially revenue per engineer, right?

And so the more kind of quote unquote product leverage you had the higher that number was.

So if you had to throw a lot of people at every marginal problem, then you weren't doing so well at that because you're basically building a a new thing every single time and you are in the factor consulting business.

If on the other hand, every time you encounter a new customer, the product turns out to be kind of relevant to them, then great.

And so this product leverage metric was actually a very unique thing and kind of a north star for the company for the whole time I was there.

If you reason that out, what that means is that in the early stage of the company, you will have a customer and then you might have five to 10 engineers working at that cost. And so over time, you want that ratio to change.

So you want it to be, you know, each customer, because the product is so powerful, maybe AI coding has gotten a lot better.

Each customer, you only need two people.

And then maybe you actually get to a point where you can't have one person looking after multiple customers.

And I think that's how the job has changed is now it's a little bit more about you have multiple customers.

Maybe you're spending less like deep time with each individual one of them.

But it's a lot clearer what problem you're solving across multiple customers, And you have more of a kind of defined offering.

And so I do think that has been a bit of a change.

But the company remains a very interesting and dynamic place to be.

Like in some sense, the story's already starting, right?

Because one lens through which you can view this company is they spent 20 years basically building the mother of all data foundations for every important institution in the world.

And guess what's very valuable now that AI models are out is proprietary data that isn't public, suddenly you have access to that and you are in a very privileged position to help your customers deploy AI in a way that makes them successful and that solves real business problems. That is essentially the bull thesis for this company in why it's probably going to 100x again, right?

And so it's still a really interesting time to join, but I do think the kind of nature of the ratio of people to customer, for example, is one big difference now.

not investment advice, but it might 100x that's a I totally understand why that might happen.

So let's talk about the data piece.

You said that this might… This was one of the secrets of Palantir success.

There's early insight into the the power of ingesting data, cleaning data, being able to analyze and work with it.

What more can you share there?

Just like what they figured out about why this is so valuable, why it's so hard, and how they achieved it.

I think it's just very obvious as soon as you step into a corporation and spend a couple of Is you're like, all right, let's suppose your job is to increase sales.

OK, so the first thing you want to do is get a clear picture of what's going on.

All right, so let me go and query the sales database.

Where's the sales database?

I can't get access to this.

OK. I need to file an access ticket.

All right, now I have to wait one week.

And so everywhere we went, this was the big point was we have to wait six, eight weeks just to get data access.

And when you do get data access, it's not like the data is an easily queryable format.

You actually really have to know what you're doing in order to get the right metrics out and so on and so forth.

So it turned out like okay, it's this iceberg analogy where the actual analysis is actually just the tip of the iceberg, it's kind of the last 5 or 10 percent and the 95 percent before that is I'm gaining access to the data, I am cleaning the data, I'm joining the data, normalizing it, putting it all to the same format.

And so once we spotted that, then it's like, okay, there's actually a lot of product to be built there just to make that process easier.

This is one way I think Palantir does...

People don't think of Palantir as this place where innovative new product and UX ideas come out but I actually think it's been one of the most generative companies for that specifically in the last 20 years.

It's just that most of that didn't see the light of day.

And so people do. But if you look at the, the product primitives that they developed in order to make the things I just mentioned a lot easier, they're actually really valuable and interesting and could probably form the basis of independent companies themselves.

And so yeah, like, it just took like every single step of that process became much, much easier once there was a software solution around it.

Right. So if you talk about data ingestion, and there's essentially a kind of universal data adapter that's part of Foundry.

It can read anything, so JDBC, S3 buckets, whatever you want.

And it allows you to kind of look into the data, maybe preview the first 20 rows.

And then it allows you, when you're ready to set up a schedule and just pull it in on some cadence.

That process alone for an engineering used to take a long time, especially pre vibe coding and managing all those cron jobs and doing this on a Linux VM somewhere inside the customer's tenant was a huge pain, right?

And so you productize that piece.

Then it's like, okay, once you have the data, it's like, how do you actually join it?

What if you're non -technical?

Is there like a, is there a way for a non -technical user to be able to join tables and see what the results is?

And so there's all these like very fascinating business problems that, because I think the access was very difficult to gain.

People hadn't really solved before.

And so there was a lot of white space to do some product innovation.

So now I would say Foundry is definitely the best data platform in the world, just because it has all these different applications within it that solve these discrete parts.

And it's just, it came out of this years of painful experience.

Watching people have to clean data and join it and figure out what this table name meant and so on and so forth.

You shared in your post this kind of evocative story of some people's jobs is just kind of gatekeep the data.

Like they're there to help you, to give you access to this very valuable data within the organization and how hard it is to get.

Like that was a lot of this work, is just breaking through those political battles of like, okay we need this data for the good of the company and took a lot of work.

I guess, anything there you want to add?

It is, yeah. I mean, it's a huge pain and there are good reasons for it, right?

Like it's not like folks are malicious here.

It's, if you're IT or if you're an infosec type person, then your goal is to prevent data breaches and to make sure that sensitive information doesn't spread too wide.

And so what's the easiest way to do that is to lock the data down and basically be a gatekeeper for access.

I think where it got a little bit more interesting was where your skills are valuable and depend on you being the gatekeeper.

So what I mean by that is like, let's say I'm the only guy who understands the way the sales calculation pipeline works, right?

And I write the SQL for it.

All the requests from business SMEs come to me.

I have a big queue of them.

It takes me weeks to get through this queue.

I have a great job.

I have great job security, and people depend on me, right?

And so now along comes this company, and they're like, hey, actually, we want to make sales data available to everyone, and we want to make it point and click.

Suddenly, you're like, hey, like, hang on, what am I going to do, right?

And so that's where I think there was a lot of difficulty and I always say, people are like, what about his competitors?

I don't think it's the ones you would think of necessarily.

Pound's his biggest competitor is a company rolling its own solution.

And so the biggest difference would just be a CIO saying, I'm going to build my own data infrastructure.

I'm going to own it.

It's going to be on top of one of the hyperscalers.

And we're all just going to do our own analytics ourselves.

And what we came along with was quite disruptive to this model was saying no, actually, all your data is going to get ingested into this one platform, and everybody in your company is going to use it.

The trade off is it's going to be really, really easy for everyone to do things.

But as you can imagine, some people weren't a huge fan of that model.

Feels like Glean is the biggest competitor to Palantir after I hear this.

Do you know about that company?

I think Yeah, clean is clean looks amazing from the outside.

I mean, you know, so many so many differences there.

I can totally see why you would stay this.

But clearly a different use case.

But it feels like the reason they've been successful is they figured out a lot of this state ingestion permissions, search stuff, and it that way.

Yeah. Interesting. Okay.

I want to talk about hiring.

You talked a bit about this, you're starting a company again, what are some of the kind of the key lessons you've learned from your and Palantir when you are hiring people for your company.

I don't know if you're actually hiring people yet, maybe when you may start hiring.

Yeah, we have six people at the moment, so a reasonably small team.

You know, I think with hiring, it's funny, man.

Like, there's so much hiring advice online, and you read it, and you're like, yeah, this is super obvious.

And then when you live it, you're suddenly like, ah, this is why people say this, right?

So a few simple examples are, I think the thing that is really hard to find is somebody who really, really cares a lot about doing the thing and will go that kind of extra 20%.

Like I think I think when you hire out of especially not to pick on them, but I think if you hire out of fanning, right, it's like people, people want like 400k a year job, they would like to work a certain number of hours, they would like to ship some code and then go home.

Like that's basically the model that you get accustomed to, even if you don't intend to when you work at a big company.

And so if you hire out of that for a really small startup, it can be really challenging because a lot of your success as a startup depends on each individual person being like, no, I'm really going to, I'm going to work this evening if that's what it takes to get this thing working.

And I'm not just going to check my boxes, I'm actually going to look towards what is the real outcome that this business is trying to achieve.

And everything I'm saying is feels kind of obvious, but when you actually feel that difference between somebody who's just checking the boxes and somebody who's kind of an animal in this way, Like they'll actually go and pursue and accomplish the end outcome.

That difference is very, very big, and it matters so much for your first 20 people, right?

And there's no science to finding these people.

It's not like you can just put somebody who cares about outcomes in your JD, and then suddenly you'll get all these people applying.

And so then it's like, okay, well, how do you screen for that?

And how do you find those types of people?

And so that's where it gets really interesting.

I think that's where the mission alignment comes in.

And so you do have to find people who for what you're doing, have this extra, maybe private reason to care about it a little bit more than the average person, right.

So I think for Palantir, they did hire a lot of vets, for example, or maybe people who were a little bit more patriotic or pro -America than the average tech employee.

And those people had an extra reason to join Palantir and an extra reason to try that little bit harder.

And so, you know, what I'm doing is a little bit more in the kind of medical and health space.

And so I think people who have themselves had experiences with this system, have maybe had relatives, you know, go through difficult experiences with things like cancer or whatever it is.

They're just that extra bit motivated to really care about the thing you're trying to do and then work that little bit harder.

And so I think aggressively filtering early on to things like Mission Fit, it, how much have you cared about stuff in the past?

And what's an example, you know, you ask questions like, what's the hardest you've ever worked to get something done and why.

Right. And that, like, does differentiate a lot of people.

A lot of people don't actually have a great answer to that.

So I would say that's been a really big learning is it's less about testing for the right skills.

Yes, that's important too.

It's much more about just like who has the extra 20%.

That is really interesting, as you just said, it's what all, everything you've shared is essentially around motivation and drive and passion, and kind of just like commitment to working on this, uh, intently and, uh, you almost like, let's almost like a second thought of just like, oh, so they're like really smart and skilled at stuff.

Like, it feels like that's just table stakes and this is actually what makes the difference in your experience.

Yeah, I totally agree.

And I think it's, it's different for every business, right?

So I think if you're in a space like B2B SaaS where maybe it's a little harder to tell the story of like, Oh, this is so mission critical, like whatever.

There are other ways of getting at this thing, right?

So for example, I know, I know a lot of people, again, it's a little played out now.

But I know a lot of people who for sales teams they will explicitly go for people who are professional athletes or played sports in college, right.

And it's like, okay, what does that test for it's like, you are very, very disciplined, you're very, very goals and numbers oriented, and you're willing to just work really, really hard. And so there's all these kind of lateral ways of getting at these qualities that I think you just have to be kind of intentional about, as as a founder, like as a personal example, I'm a And so I actually love meeting fellow runners, and I almost like to...

I kind of jump like, oh, maybe I'll go higher from like run clubs or something like that.

But it's just like, same with, you know, I play a lot of chess.

Like I love, I love meeting chess players.

I'm not necessarily saying that's the right kind of hire for me, but I think having this thing of, here are some traits that seem uncorrelated, but which actually gives you good signal to this person's personality.

Those are actually really important.

The last thing I'll say, Just as a funny illustration of that concept is, uh, I think max left, it tells the story of somebody interviewing at PayPal early on and he passed all the skill interviews and then it just got to the final round and he said something about liking to shoot hoops like you like to play basketball.

And they were like instant reject.

And it was just like, the, the, the bio here was just like, if you're not like a mega, you know, Linux nerd, hardcore computer person that we don't want you even if you actually pass the test, just because you like to shoot hoops, now whether that was the right call or the wrong call, I don't know, but that's an example of what I'm talking about.

I think that's a great echo back.

People hearing this may be like, what the hell?

That's like how dare they do that?

But this is exactly what you said at the beginning of our conversation that if you're trying, like an approach to building a generational business is to be very clear about who this is not for, and that's okay, it's your company.

Not everyone needs to work there.

And it's almost saving them time because they may, they might realize this isn't for me.

This isn't the people I wanna be around necessarily.

So I think it's important to see that side of it, it's like, it's your business.

It's important to be clear about who is a good fit for the company and who's not.

Speaking of that let's talk about product management for a bit, I know Palantir PMs are like, not traditional product managers.

What is like, I imagine people have the title Product Manager Palantir.

Okay, so if so what—as far as you understand, what's the difference between, say, a PM at Palantir versus a traditional PM, say, at a Fing company?

Panta was, as far as I remember, quite anti -PM for a while and eventually we did need them because we just got more serious about productivity.

Classic story. Classic story.

A classic story. ...

of many companies. The big difference, or one big difference, I noticed was that they were extremely careful about only making people PMs who had first proven themselves out as forward deployant engineers.

You basically could not become a PM any other way.

So as an example, when I mentioned earlier, the thing that we built for the plane factory, the person who was managing that deployment, she later became the PM for ontology.

And it was just because she'd kind of proven a metal in the field.

And the reason for that's pretty simple, right?

It's going to be someone who understands how customers work and has that customer empathy.

And it's going to be someone who has this drive to get things done, because that's what BD selected for.

I think the failure mode that they were very, very averse to in traditional PMs was this kind of Google Docs syndrome of like, okay, I'm going to write my product requirement documents and I'm going to kind of manage it in this like very sort of say in rational way, I think.

So the company was really rigorous about that.

And so basically PMs were almost always internal promotions and they always came from BD.

It was not like, I'm not aware of a single case where we took somebody who was a PM at a place like Google, which produces many excellent PMs and hide them successfully into pallets, just a very different vibe.

So I think that was one thing, this is maybe more of a classic PM trait, right?

But you just had to be either an engineer yourself or extremely good at working with engineers.

and the ones I saw who succeeded the most were just best friends with their engineering team.

And the team would always just be one, it was called a group PM.

And then it would be a lot of very, very good engineers.

And basically the successful failure mode was just do the engineers like entrust you.

And I mentioned before like Pao, it has very kind of almost disagreeable personalities.

And so if you didn't get the trust of your engineering team pretty fast, you didn't last very long.

I think we've cracked the problem, the question of why are Palantir PMs so successful?

First of all the hiring bar is just like basically hiring for leaders in a lot of different ways to this like I don't know forge for founders where they're working with a company solving a real problem, building a real product that makes money.

And then those are the people that become the PMs at Palantir and that then they go on to leave and that's why 30 % of them end up starting companies.

I'm surprised it's not a hire.

Or become first PMs at other companies or heads of product?

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, it's crazy, I was part of a pretty small team within Palantir, I think it was 20 to 25 people when I joined and I think at least six of them now are either unicorn or just pre -unicorn founders from that like group of 25 people, which is actually a crazy ratio.

And then a bunch more have become founders recently at an earlier stage.

So yeah, there's all these little pockets of excellence and it's been really interesting to see.

I think the other thing that's driving that a little bit is when you leave, it's just such an interesting company to work at that, I think the retention numbers were actually very high for that company.

Like people would often stay a lot longer than maybe the average average family tenure.

And so when you left, it was really this decision of just like something very specific is pulling you and you wanna kind of play the next level of the game.

And so it was very unusual for someone to leave and then join maybe a more traditional tech company.

It's sort of like, you're either gonna go become a founder or why would you leave when there's so many interesting different things to work on.

And I know that sounds a little cult -y but that's just that's what everyone thinks.

Yeah, you could totally see that.

A lot of people that left Airbnb never found something more meaningful.

Yeah, right. It's just hard especially if you're early.

There's a stat that I didn't share that I think is really interesting and when you look at YC founders and they're where they've come from, I think you may be shared in this in your post that there's more YC ex -Palantir founders than there are ex -Google founders in spite of Google being something like 50 times bigger sample size.

Yeah, yeah. Let's talk about the moral question of Palantir.

A lot of people probably seeing the title of this episode, hearing this, will not be excited about Palantir being highlighted and promoted.

A lot of people kind of disagree with what Palantir's doing.

You know, it builds products that kill people in some ways.

They work with governments they don't agree with.

I know you wrote a really insightful way of how you approached this question when you decided to work at Palantir and how you see people tackle with this.

You just talk about the kind of the framework that you landed on and how you thought about this yourself.

Yeah, it's a really interesting topic.

It's definitely very nuanced.

I think what I was trying to say in that post was a couple of things.

One was that there was a lot of upside there, right?

So, you know, I worked on the US COVID response.

I have friends who, you know, worked on operation Warp Speed and, you know, these are all things that I think saved a lot of lives.

And I was pretty focused while I was working at NIH on cancer research. And so to me, these were just obviously good things and you couldn't do them anywhere else.

And so that was a load of reasons to say.

The question I had in that post was well, okay, there are definitely gonna be other pieces of this that people object to.

So during the kind of 2016 to 2020 era, it became a pretty common thing to go into work in New York and you'd have people protesting outside your office or doing all kinds of things.

And so there was this question of, well, is this okay?

And I think the point I was trying to make was I don't think that it's rare that disengagement is the correct answer.

And I think it's more recognized now, but especially then it went a bit too far, right?

So the famous example here is Google kind of disengaging with a Pentagon AI project just because some people felt that working with the Pentagon was itself morally bad, I think that's way to the left of what the median American would say.

I think the median American would say it's fine to work on defense stuff within reason and assuming you're doing largely good things.

And so, there was just this kind of almost arbitrage there at some point of just like, hang on, it's not like working on defense is inherently evil.

It's actually a pretty interesting thing.

And then there's this question of, well, would you rather be in the room and making this better?

Right. And so I'm struggling with how much I can share here.

But like, as a simple example, if you're doing even a workflow, which I think many people would not be super comfortable with, like, let's say, you're targeting somebody for some kind of strike.

If you compare what the way it's done now to maybe the way it was done in 2010, it's going to be a improve that process and reduce the chance of error.

Maybe you should feel good about that, right?

Now, that is a bullet many people are not willing to buy.

I didn't work on the defence side of the company myself, but I think I think you have to be okay with these kinds of grey zones, and actually actively thinking about what you're doing.

And that doesn't mean that it's always the right thing to do to work in a defence company, right?

Maybe we go into a very dark future, we start being the bad guys in some ways, and then it's probably not a great idea to work at a defense company, right?

So it's a shifting landscape, and I think I kind of felt pretty strongly that a lot of people in tech just didn't want to think about this at all, right?

So, like, you have engineers now who are working on optimizing short -form videos for higher engagement, and you sort of want to say to them, like, hey, are you thinking about what this is doing to the brains of young children, or have you seen an 11 -year -old kind of scrolling something for five hours and do you think this is a good thing?

And I think people don't wanna think about this stuff too much. I'm not saying I know the answer, but there was almost this refusal to look at what tech was doing from a political lens for a very long time.

It was just like, hey, let us play with our toys, let us sit in Menlo Park and like, don't bother us and we're just gonna build cool stuff and watch it.

And 2025, we're in a very, very different state of the world.

Tech is involved in politics now, and politics basically came to tech, right?

There's this famous image of Mark Zuckerberg sitting in Congress, and he kind of looks very pale.

And he's like, why have they dragged me in here again?

Right? But I think, I think tech went through this journey of, oh, we're suddenly becoming important now.

Oh, we're really, really important now.

Oh, we better start playing this game of politics.

And so I think what I'm saying now is a lot more consensus than it was 10 years ago, but at the time, feeling was just, look what we are doing is political so you better engage with that.

I think when this became really real for a lot of people is with the Ukraine war, like the government's running out of certain vehicles and ammunition, we're just like not able to produce it, and then we're like oh thank god for a company like Andoril and all these other tech companies that are actually ahead and keeping us ahead.

I think the only reason the US is ahead of China in the space race is because SpaceX, this was the one company that just I've been doing this for a long time.

So I think a lot of people have kind of realized, okay, maybe we need these things.

Right, yeah. And I would make this argument as well.

It's like people are like, well, how can you feel good about working in defense?

And it's like, well, you're not gonna feel great if China invades Taiwan, actually.

You're not gonna, I think you're probably also not going to like that outcome.

So, we do just live in this world where you do need to build up the turrets to these things and they better be good.

So to me, it didn't feel that difficult of a question.

and I think when you zoom into particular things, they can be very difficult questions and there have been a bunch of those in the last couple of years, but yeah, again, disengagement isn't the answer.

Yeah, and again, it's not for everyone.

I think that's an important kind of theme through this conversation is some companies like to build, sometimes to build a generational, really successful company, you need to turn some people off because that's what brings in the best talent oftentimes.

Okay, just a few more questions.

kind of like stepping back a little bit.

You're building a company again, what are kind of like a few core pieces of advice that you're bringing to your new startup that will inform how you build this company from your experience at Palantir?

We talked about a lot of stuff.

Is there anything, I don't know if there are like three things that you think are like, I'm definitely gonna do these things this way because it worked really well at Palantir.

One thing is probably just really fast iteration cycles.

So placing a lot of bets And then being really rigorous about just going through that cycle very soon.

I have this, I have this article principles.

And one of the things on there is basically saying, like, your P successes, goes up the ball bets you make.

And it's sort of a function of how many bets you make at the probability of success with an actual bets, right.

And so one easy way to almost guarantee that you'll hit something is just to make a lot of bets, and then just kind of like cycle through them very quickly.

Now, obviously, this is difficult.

This basically often this question of, well, it's just about actually failing or like are we quitting too soon kind of thing, but that's kind of one principle I take is just test this thing very early.

You know, like the classic YC thing is just when you take something to a customer, ask them to pay you a lot of money.

And if it's in though, then find a new problem.

Like don't wait three weeks, which is what every founding team typically does cause you don't have that of time.

I do think the importance of just like having a really tight, distinctive, internal culture and building a strong feeling of trust within a team is really important and kind of like you mentioned with Airbnb, and people definitely felt this at Palantir, there was this feeling of like, well, you worked here, you must be good.

I trust you and all of that.

And I think it's so important to create that and you kind of know that feeling.

That's what, like people ask me, you know, should I go work at Place X or should I just go be a founder straight away?

I don't know the answer for everyone but I will say one of the benefits of working at a place like that is you just have all these internal benchmarks now for, okay this is what this should feel like and if it doesn't feel like that, we're off.

And I can't imagine not having those benchmarks and just kind of having to figure it out.

So yeah, I think that thing too is just like Distinctive, internal, strong team culture.

And then I think, I think for me, Thing three is just like working with a really messy part of the real world.

So, you know, I kind of joked when I left like, I'm excited to just do pure software.

I'm excited to, I don't know.

I want to build an ID or something and just like not have a support email event and all of that.

But, it turned out like, my, look, my comparative advantage in a lot of ways was, you know, the networks I'd built and the experience I'd had in engaging with the messy parts of the world, and they do need technology a lot, right?

Like there is this, there's this horrifying thought I have sometimes of just like, maybe we'll get ATI in the next two years.

And you know, the healthcare sector will still be broken, and it will still be impossible to afford rent in New York City and build houses and all these things.

And that may well become true.

And so I think it's important to engage with those parts of the world, too, even though they're really, really challenging, and I think the really nice thing about LLMs is that actually there's so many workflows now that are accessible to you as a tech founder, and people are somehow more open to working with tech companies than they ever were before.

Like, selling into the sectors of the economy in 2015, incredibly hard. I think now, post the chat GPT moment, people are willing to give chances to small startups that they weren't willing to do previously.

as you mentioned earlier, the cost of doing things like forward deployed engineering is fallen by maybe 5 to 10X now, at least. And so there's a lot of new possibilities and I'm excited to engage with the best. Wow.

That is some alpha right there that you're finding that some of these very large organizations are more open to working with startups because, you know classically investors don't invest in companies that are going after healthcare companies and governments and things like that.

So it is really interesting actually to hear.

I'm gonna mirror back to the tips you just shared, and there's actually like a secondary tip that I think is the more interesting piece, so the first thing you're taking away is iterate quickly.

But I love your tip of ask for lots of money quickly, early, to see if it's an actual idea that people will pay lots of money for, and if not, move on, I love that.

The other is build a very distinct culture, but the piece you shared there that I love even more is this idea of knowing what a high bar looks like.

knowing what awesome A -plus people look like and you need to work at a company like Palantir to actually see that so the advice there I feel is they just like work at a company that is amazing first with the best talent to understand what that should look like plus you build a network of those folks.

So I think that's really interesting and then the other pieces of advice you're pulling away is work on like really hard messy problems because that's where the biggest opportunities are and it's sounding like this is the easiest time to actually do that.

Amazing, Okay I'm gonna take us to a recurring theme on this podcast called AI corner and what we do in AI corner is we share some way that, and this is you sharing.

Some way that you've found AI to be useful in your day, day -to -day either in life or in work.

Is there any way you found some tool in a some AI tool useful that you can share?

Oh my gosh there are so many.

I'll give you a a bit, so this is the talk to your keyboard and it will transcribe for you, Pat.

Very good. It's just great when you're iterating very quickly with an LLM and sometimes you have to do these paragraph -long prompts and it's just easier to speak into them, right?

So, WhisperFlow I like.

Just to double down on that, there's like, it's like you press a button and you start talking, and it's writing out what you're saying.

Cool, and there have been these products for a long time.

Dragon Dictate on all these guys.

Is the difference now these are just like very, very good now at actually transcribing what you're saying?

I think that's right.

Yeah. The, you know, these are really good model and sort of rarely makes mistakes even when I think it's quite challenging.

And then yeah, the UX, I think they just nailed it.

So that's a really good one.

I love Claude code for developing even though I have my complaints about it.

There's something just very addictive about just telling it what to do and it can, it's basically something that you run within the terminal of your computer.

And so you just type Claude and it opens up a Claude interface It's very cute.

It's very beautifully designed.

And you just tell it what to do.

It actually operates on the file system directly.

So if you're like, hey, create a bunch of these files, that'll just do it.

And you don't need to go and mock around Inside Finder yourself.

And then it'll do these really complicated pull request, and it'll basically execute them quite well.

So to me, this is like a very exciting kind of preview of AI agents.

That's what I was going to ask.

So this is essentially like an AI agent engineer.

I didn't know that that's what Cloud Code did.

Very cool. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

It's sort of a guided agent.

But, yeah, it is really sweet.

And then, yeah, I'm just enjoying, you know, every week, there's like a new, wonderful view to play with.

Last seven days, I've been testing Gemini Pro 2 .5.

Excellent model. I don't love Google's UX sometimes, but I was playing with that.

And I use LLNs every day for all kinds of things.

The other day I was doing taxes, and I needed to classify a bunch of transactions based on some metadata.

so I just wrote a script up really quickly and it did that.

I love just like the smile on your face as you're describing all these AI tools.

I think a lot of people are just like holy shit I'm just overwhelmed with all the things I need to be paying attention to, all these things in here, all these tools I gotta try, and I love just this vibe of just like this is incredible and so fun.

We need more of that.

Okay I'm gonna take us to another recurring segment on the podcast you're gonna get a double whammy.

Contrarian corner. So Here's the question.

What's something that you believe that most other people don't?

I think going to college is great.

I think this is a somewhat contrary view within tech, maybe not in the broader economy, but you know, I often see people saying just like, oh, if you can, just drop out when you're 18 and just start working, why would you go to college?

And I think this is completely wrong, but maybe it's good advice for 5 % of the population who probably would have been Teal Fellows anyway, but college is one of the few times when you can just make really, really deep friendships, you are in, you know, typically a nice campus.

If you're in North America, you, you get to spend all of your time just thinking and writing papers and reading books and hanging out with your friends.

And it's actually very precious.

And it's very hard to find that kind of time after you turn 21, because, you know, you gotta pay your rent, you gotta work, you gotta do all this stuff, even, you know, let's say you make a bunch of money, you take a career break, it's still like, all your friends are working and you always feel like there's a ticking timer on top of your head or something.

And so just taking those three or four years at the very beginning and going really deep on lots of different intellectual topics and being able to try different things and discover more about yourself.

I'm a big college fan.

I can't comment on the ROI or whatever.

I personally think the ROI is great, even if the fees are kind of high in the US.

But that's probably my kind of contrarian within tech views.

is don't drop out of college unless you have a really good reason.

It's so funny that that is contrarian and it does sound contrarian.

I had a great time in college.

Hear, hear. OK, is there anything else, Nabil, that you wanted to share or leave listeners with before we get to our very exciting lightning round?

No, I think it's just it's a really exciting time in the world, right?

I think AI can be exhausting, but it does really just open up the possibility of building a better world in all these ways.

And so, I think just reassess what you're doing every couple of months and make sure that it's aligned with where I think AI is going and make sure that you are working on something that you feel has very high potential if it succeeds.

I think that's more important than ever now just because the amount of leverage we have for technology is at the highest point in history.

Let me double click on that real quick.

So, for people that want to do what you're describing, What helps you understand where AI is heading and just kind of like align with is?

Are there like places of information and news you find useful?

Is it just play with it kind of thing?

What, what would you recommend?

This is the big question.

Uh, I use X a lot to keep on top of AI.

So I would just recommend finding a good Twitter list and maybe following people off of that.

There's some good newsletters, so I really like Leighton Space.

Um, I know his X handle it's Swicks, S W Y X I can't remember his actual name, But that one is very good and it's pretty technical.

I would recommend trying to stick to the more technical newsletters if possible.

I think there's a lot of philosophy about AI or AI policy type stuff.

And I think that's good if that's your area.

But it's an area where it's very easy to have a lot of takes on it.

You're not necessarily learning a lot by reading those.

But I think it's just important to know what's going on and make sure you are revisiting your own workflows as often as possible And just making sure that the people who went here are going to be the kind of hybrid cyborgs who fused with the AIs.

This actually played out in chess, if I can take a slight detour, is the chess players who succeeded the most in the mid 2010s especially, were the ones who were really early adopters of neural network -based chess engines.

So when DeepMind did that thing, that was very quickly an open source version of it called Leela.

and you find, basically like the very top players, like Agnus Carlsen, Fabiano, they were the ones who kind of mind -melded the most with Lila and learned how it played and then kind of started copying its moves and so I think just like becoming a cyborg to the extent that you can and then I think there's this barbell thing of like it's also important to just leave everything and go touch grass just for your own mental sanity.

Excellent advice. And with that, Nabeel, we've reached our very exciting lightning round.

Are you ready? Yes.

Here we go. What are two or three books that you find yourself recommending most to other people?

The first one that comes to mind is Emperor by Keith Johnston.

This was actually I wrote about it in that essay.

It's one of the books that Palatay used to send to people.

I just think it's a really interesting book.

So, nominally speaking it's about improvisational theater, which I believe this guy was a pioneer of.

who was a British guy, Keith Johnstone, active between the 60s and the 80s, I think.

And improv is just this really interesting book about creativity and how social behavior works and basically just what he taught his improv students.

It's a very weird book.

It's full of these unbelievably strange ideas.

Like, there's a lot of very tactical things he tells you to do in the first chapter, for example, just to break out of your mental frameworks.

Like really, just wild stuff.

Like he'll tell you to walk backwards while counting down from 100 and think about some problems that you're struggling with.

And there's all these kind of odd things, but the number of ideas per page I've found on that book is extremely high.

The concepts about how social interaction works and how things like status and so on play into your social behavior are super important.

And they made every kind of forward deployed engineer read that for the simple reason that I think it just helps you kind of read people better and interact with them better, and become more conscious of how you are coming across and just modulate that.

What is the title again?

Impro. Impro, okay, cool.

Yeah, Impro. We'll link to it in the show notes.

Yeah, so Impro is number one.

I think just to go a little more highbrow, maybe Shakespeare's history plays.

There's a set of them called the Henriette.

So like, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI.

I find most people don't read these, So you know, they'll read Hamlet or Macbeth or whatever but the Henryon is absolutely incredible.

You don't have to be interested in British monarchy or British history in order to enjoy them.

They're actually some of the most interesting and insightful books I've read about power and how power works and politics and kind of the sacrifices that you might have to make if you want to be, you know, a successful king in that case but it transfers over.

I think it's worth thinking really hard about.

I think especially in a world where everything is kind of organized around these prominent figures and personalities.

Now, right? Like, when you think about the current administration, you think Trump, Elon, like when you think about AI, you think of Sam Dario.

Right. And so I think it's important to understand, like, how do you think about these personalities?

And yeah, the kind of game that they're playing at Henry is actually the Henry ad is an incredible kind of set of books around that.

They're also like easy to read, which sounds hilarious when I say it, but you can read a Shakespeare play in a day that they're sort of, I don't know, they're like 50 pages long, it's not that bad.

So you have to get used to the language, yes, but I would recommend that for sure.

I guess you asked for two to three.

I love a high output management by Andy Grove.

I just think that's a great business book and people sort of tend to read summaries of it on the internet more than they actually read the book, but the actual book has a lot of really interesting studies and explanations about...

I think the most powerful thing about that book is actually how Andy Grove thinks, unless any of the specific tactics there.

And I think you don't get that unless you read how he came up with all these things.

Your first two books were extremely out there versus what other people have recommended.

And the third book was the most recommended book on this podcast. So I love that spectrum that we just went on, perfect.

Okay, next question.

Do you have a favorite recent movie or TV show that you've just really enjoyed?

the last movie I really loved was a decision to leave it's a Korean movie it's by the director of old boy which maybe some people have heard of it's a great movie I think I think it was released a couple years ago and the basic premise is there's a detective who is investigating a woman who's accused of killing her husband and he gradually starts falling for her which starts to affect his judgment all these ways just like a really fascinating kind of psychological thriller with a sort of romantic element to it, visually very beautiful.

Yeah I think a lot of the most interesting movies nowadays come from abroad.

Actually it's East Asia, South Asia, places like that.

TV I don't watch so much yet, it's been a while Totally understandable for a founder.

Okay, next question.

Do you have a favorite product that you've recently discovered that you just really love?

It could be an app, could be some physical, could be a water bottle.

I don't have a good answer for that one, I guess I didn't buy enough stuff.

Fully acceptable. There's no wrong answers in the lightning round.

Moving on, do you have a favorite life motto that you often find useful in work or in life that you share with your, that you come back to, that you share with friends or family?

So, there's this architect called Christopher Alexander who wrote these beautiful books that are about, you know, beauty and kind of more than architecture, right?

And he was a teacher at UC Berkeley.

And he got really frustrated with his students because he just felt like they were always turning in kind of like average work.

And so he would always tell them every week, like, imagine the, there's a Gothic cathedral in France called Sarge, and he would say, You have to aim for Sarge.

Like you have to make something that is better than that.

That should be your goal.

Not just to like turn in something that's sort of, you know, what you feel is good enough.

you actually have to try and be better than the very, very best that ever did it.

And I find myself just like repeating this a lot to myself is just like, aim for, aim for that, like really try and do that.

Otherwise it's very easy to anchor on something right in the middle.

And you just, you do this unconsciously all the time.

So is that the motto, just aim for charge?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I love that most people have no idea what that would be.

But with the context, it's quite powerful.

Final question, what's a classic novel that would you think would be most valuable for product builders?

I just — my favorite novel is Anna Karenina.

And I recommend that everyone read Erika now.

I'm reading that right now.

I've never read it before.

No way, yes. It's by Leo Tolstoy.

As you know, it's this epic, like, 19th -century Russian novel that follows a set of characters across society.

And I think it's just extraordinary because what's, what's amazing about him is he's just able to imagine himself into the brain of anybody.

And so, even like, he will briefly just go into the consciousness of, I don't know, the servant who's bringing the meal to the table or something like that, and he'll just tell you a page of what they were thinking, and then he'll just flip back into his main character's head.

And I think that is the most impressive demonstration of this kind of skill I've ever seen.

And I I think, like to connect it to your question, this is what you have to do.

If you're gonna be really good at product is you have to really think yourself into the other person's head and you have to be really seeing it the way that they do.

And it's so hard especially as a founder or product person, not to just get stuck on your own way of seeing the problem.

It's like, you wrote up this doc, you made these box.

You're like, this is gonna be great.

And then you take it to somebody they don't care that much. You really have to like exercise your empathy and understand why they see it that way what they actually care about.

What a beautiful way to bring it all together.

Let me also add, while I'm reading the book, something a tip here is people talk about having chat GPT voice mode just kind of sitting there next to you.

I found that extremely helpful with this book where I just ask like what the hell does this thing mean?

Like there's all these Russian dances and balls in etiquette and you just ask and you're like I'm reading Anna Karenina what does this mean?

And it just tells you.

Yeah. So there's another cool tip for AI.

Okay, with that Nabil this was incredible.

Two final questions in case people want to look you up.

Where can they find you online?

And how can listeners be useful to you?

Find me online. My website is Nabilqu .co and my ex handle is Nabilqu, I'm probably most active on this, but yeah my website has all the links and, you know, a bunch of essays and interesting stuff.

How can you help me?

I would say send me an email.

My email is on my website.

Introduce yourself, say hi.

I love meeting people.

I don't always have time for coffees nowadays or things like that.

But I genuinely do get a lot of energy from just receiving emails from interesting people.

So please do reach out.

Awesome. Definitely check out Nabil's Principles.

Is that the name of that post?

Yeah. Great. Okay. That's one to start with.

And then also there's the Palantir post that we just talked through.

Okay. Nabil, thank you so much for being here.

Thank you. Appreciate it, Lenny.

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 leaving a review, as that really helps other listeners find the podcast. You can find all past episodes or learn more about the show at lennyspodcast .com.

See you in the next episode.

[Palantir의 성공 비결: '전방 배치 엔지니어' 문화와 제품 리더십의 요람]-[How Palantir built the ultimate founder factory | Nabeel S. Qureshi (founder, writer, ex-Palantir)]

📋 Summary

Palantir가 제품 리더를 배출하는 독보적인 방식

1. 인재 선발의 '배트 시그널(Bat Signal)'

2. 전방 배치 엔지니어(FDE): 현장에서 답을 찾다

3. 직함 없는 평등과 성과 중심의 문화

4. 데이터 통합의 '비밀'과 제품화

결론: 창업을 꿈꾸는 이들을 위한 조언

🎯Key Sentences

📝Key Phrases

📖 Transcript