Meredith Whittaker: Revolutionizing Tech Privacy and Power

Here's something remarkable and not in a good way. Disengaged employees cost US companies almost $1.9 trillion a year. That's a lot of zeros. Why? Because when teams lack the right skills, productivity declines, turnover increases, and strategies stagnate. But it doesn't have to be that way. At Project Management Institute, home of the PMP and globally recognized certifications, your people can learn to collaborate, deliver on time, and actually get things the cost of not upskilling way higher than the investment. Project Management Institute. Find the answers@pmi.org.

I'm Guy Kawasaki and this is the Remarkable People podcast. And we're on a mission to make you remarkable. And today we have really remarkable guests. Total badass. And I say it as a compliment, total badass. So this is Meredith Whitaker. Meredith, welcome to the show.

Thank you, Guy. It is a delight to be here.

With you, even though you're on Paris time.

I am on Paris time, but that just means I'm likely to say something more interesting because who knows what hour it is.

We offer you full editing privileges.

Oh, bless you. Thank you.

I just. When I read about your background and I heard about you, like the most fascinating thing. Well, not the most fascinating because there's many fascinating things, but tell me about the Google walkout. I just love that story.

Have you ever been so indignant that you had to just pick up and do something? Because that's kind of the origin story every day. Yeah, right. And you're a doer, so I think we relate there. That was. I was at Google since 2006, and that was a really different time in tech. It was a really wild and fun place. And I learned most of what I know about tech at Google. I was taking classes. I shared an office with Brian Kernahan, so I was asking him questions and from the author of C programming language, he was explaining very kindly to a novice. So I really came up inside of Google in terms of my tech education, and in some sense, I think I really believed it. There was don't be evil. There was these kind of principles, and there was this idea that you could be virtuous and you could be successful. And I was part of that wave. And as Google grew, as I could use a ungenerous term, metastasized. It became just this giant with so many different divisions that culture didn't always follow. And I think, you know, I was very dedicated, almost naive in some sense, really trying to make change. I had founded an AI research group. I was speaking around the world about Some of these harms and earnestly trying to change the conversation and the direction in ways I thought were beneficial based on the force of ideas. Right. And there was a time around 2017 when I realized a lot of this. They seem to clap at the end of my speeches, but then the decisions don't change. And the walkout was born out of that. There was Google moving forward to be an AI military contractor. A lot of the bad cultural trends were just toxic. Behavior was rewarded, which you would see just eroding your teams, eroding the work that you were doing. Just really this kind of unforced error, I felt. And I wasn't the only one who felt that. So the walkout was a collective action where we all just said enough.

Was that around the time where our best friend got like $90 million after sexual harassment?

Yeah, yeah.

How do you even explain that to yourself? You just fired a guy and he got $90 million.

That was the spark that lit the fire on the mom's messaging group at Google. And people were just like, are you kidding me? I have been working nights and weekends. I had not seen my baby. You know, all of this. And then this guy who everyone knew was, he drove success sometimes, but you work at a company, you know the stories, right? And it just, it became the representative for a lot of smaller harms and problems that people felt. But yeah, $90 million. And we did the math and we were like a person, a contractor working minimum wage would have to work something like 3,000 years every single day to make that. So there was also just a feeling of inequity that really cut against the grain of the Google that a lot of people felt they were promised.

Wasn't the walkout only about half an hour, though? Why such a short time?

Don't actually remember the reasoning for some of that, but I think it was, we're efficient people. And it was, how do you stage an action in a bounded way? Right. It was around the world. We started in Singapore and I remember going to bed in New York and we had this Instagram account set up to share photos from the walkout because every office was going to walk out at 11, 11am and we're going to. We had a rolling thunder. So you start in Singapore and it moves through the time zones as the sun rises. We're walking out, we're walking out, we're walking out. And I remember looking. We didn't know if it would work. Right. Maybe 13 people will show up. But, like, we're going to do this. There's momentum, there's energy. Let's go. And I looked at the photo going to bed in New York and there were hundreds of people in Singapore. And I was like, okay, Singapore popped off. This is a thing. And I was trying to sleep and then got to the park in New York in the morning and it just, that was a day. And now it's five years ago.

And did Google retaliate?

Yeah, yeah, they did.

How did they do it?

They basically reshuffled my job responsibilities in a way that I couldn't accept if I wanted to pursue what I was doing. And it's classic. I think there's. Constructive termination is the labor law term for it.

So constructive termination, that's an oxymoron.

Yeah, yeah. This is lawyer language, right? Where you're like. The literal term doesn't make sense, but I'm sure you know what that means. I was given the choice to basically become an administrator who did budgeting for the open source office. And I was like, I did found an AI research group and I have all this work and I'm recognized publicly for this, so I'm obviously not going to take that option. And at some point you get tired of fighting. Right? It wasn't personal to me. Right. There are a lot of people I really love and value at Google. I was just like, if you any human being, however much I love them, if you have that type of responsibility in the world and that type of power, you need to live up to it. And if you have real friends, they're going to tell you that this do.

No harm thing is just total bullshit at this point.

I don't know if it's total bullshit. I think there are a lot of people who feel it sincerely. But ultimately, if the incentives of these companies are driven by forever growth and forever profit, and you have a board with a fiduciary duty that is not to harmlessness but to growth and profit, you are going to prioritize those things. And at some point, the far horizons of those ethical, ethically dubious choices that felt so far away in 2006, like military contracting, like building a surveillant version of the search engine for the Chinese market, et cetera, or maybe the American market in the future, whatever it is, those horizons got closer and closer. And the people filling Google were again, what is the objective function here? Profit and growth. And I think that's with the type of power that the tech industry has now with centralized surveillance, centralized information platforms, we really need to be looking at that incentive structure because it's not healthy.

I feel like the moment when I figured out there was no Santa Claus.

I know, I know. But you still got presents.

Or gift certificate at Amazon up. So now your Signal. Tell us about Signal.

Signal is so cool. I think it is the coolest tech organization in the world. It is the world's most widely used, actually private communication service. And you can think about it almost as a nervous system for confidential communication. Militaries use it, governments use it. Any CEO who has a deal to make uses it. Sports stars use it to broker their deals. So it's truly private, and we stay truly private. In an industry that pushes toward data collection by being a nonprofit, how do.

You put two and two together? Like it's totally private, but you're helping military, so you're helping the same military that might be killing people.

Look, this is one of the facts about communications networks, right? And the facts about encryption and privacy we could also talk about in this context. But Signal has to be available for everyone to use for it to be useful for everyone.

Whether you're a priest or a pedophile.

Whether you're a type of human or another type of human. Right? Because ultimately I can't sell a telephone network just to the good guys. I don't know who's going to be using that. Right. And I think we also have to separate the infrastructure from the action. There's a human being making choices. It's not the roads that drove the car to commit the crime. It's a human being in a car who rode on those roads to go commit the crime. We don't license Signal to any one of these entities. Signal is free to use for everyone. And we don't have a military version or a CEO version or we don't have an enterprise business model, any of that. But the fact is that anywhere where confidentiality is valued by anyone, Signal is valuable.

And if I'm listening to this and I'm just a husband or a wife and I have teenage kids, is there an argument to be made that I should be using Signal?

Yeah, there is.

And what's the argument?

I think the argument is one, Signal is pleasant. It is lovely. We're not selling you ads. We're not farming for engagement. You're not going to get on a feed and fall into a. A whole of Instagram ads. So there's something crisp and clean and elegant about Signal that I just want to forward before we talk about any of the values, because it's actually, it's a lovely, simple app and it takes us Back to the days before that, over saturation of everything's a bot, everything's an ad, everything's a feed. Beyond that, I think we do need to be serious about the times we live in. Right. Data can be indelible. My Gmail from 2005 is stored in a Google server somewhere. But our political context has moved pretty dramatically since 2005. And we're living in a time right now where there is a woman living in prison because Facebook turned over messages between her and her daughter in Nebraska after the Dobbs decision. And the Dobbs decision is what kicked abortion rights down to the state level and allowed states to criminalize it. And they're living in prison because they discussed accessing reproductive care and dealing with that over Facebook Messenger. Those messages turned over to law enforcement, and she's probably cold right now in prison waiting to get out. There is a reason here that is really, really deep. And it isn't just a reason that exists in the present moment. We need to recognize that we are in very volatile times. And I think of it simply as hygiene. Right. Why would you want that out there? Why would you want every thought you thought 10 years ago in a database that now may be leaked or breached or turned over?

But I still need a network effect.

Right.

I have to convince the other five people in my family to get onto.

Exactly.

So, like, you know, you went around the edges of this. So basically, if you are a woman in Florida or Texas and you're considering an abortion, you shouldn't use Gmail or Facebook messenger or anything, Right?

I wouldn't Google it.

And what about the relationship with WhatsApp? Isn't your technology part of WhatsApp? So is it safe to discuss abortion on WhatsApp?

This gets into threat modeling and all the nuance there. But let's quickly go through the differences and similarities between WhatsApp and Signal. So WhatsApp licenses the Signal protocol, which is the core encryption that protects what you say. So anything you write in WhatsApp. WhatsApp can't see it. Only the people you're talking to can see it. And that's great. But what they don't do is encrypt metadata. They aren't keeping facts about who you talk to, who's in your contact list. When you start talking to someone, when you stop talking to them, who's in your group chats. Really important, intimate information is not protected by WhatsApp. And that's a key differentiator between WhatsApp and Signal, minus the fact that WhatsApp is also part of Meta and Meta. You could join database, join with Facebook data, you get into some.

Here comes Cambridge.

Yeah.

And how do you pay the bills at Signal?

Donations. And that's going out to all the listeners who might be looking for a righteous tech cause. We are a non profit. We are funded by donations. And this is not a nice little philanthropic outfit. This is because we looked at the hard facts and we realized the core business model of communications tech in this day and age is collecting data. You model that data to sell ads, you sell that data to data brokers, you use that data to farm engagement, to sell ads, or train AI models. And so if we were governed by that type of fiduciary duty to the shareholders and we were trying to stay private, we're basically rowing up against this business model. And it would be beholden on our board probably at some point to be like, hey, can you cut some of this privacy stuff out? Because we got to make some money. So we're very self aware in that regard and we're looking to shape new models for tech that are actually breaking that surveillance business model and creating a more independent ecosystem in a sense.

Are you like the Wikipedia of messaging then?

I think the similarities is that we're a nonprofit and Wikipedia is a nonprofit. I think of Wikipedia is sort of an online library. So it's a different in terms of revenue model.

Donations.

Donations. And it's, you know, we're exploring other models as well. Are there endowments that we could set up? Are there hybrid or tandem forms of profit? Nonprofit. But the absolute primary objective here is we need to shield Signal from the pressures of surveillance, from the pressures of data collection.

And what happens if the Koch brothers or Elon Musk or the Gates foundation decides we want to give you a $1 billion donation?

I sit at the table and we talk it through. Right. So what are the terms of that? Signal must stay open source, it must stay independent, it must stay private. It is laser focused on its mission. And so, all right, let's talk about where that billion dollars goes, I think. Is that an endowment? How do we work with that? But it wouldn't come with control or the ability to inject code into Signal. And our principles would remain really steadfast. And one of the things that's super lucky about us is we came up in a very different tech era. Moxie founded Signal in the 2000s and it developed because of the virtuosic work of Moxie and Trevor on the protocol and a lot of the development work, a Community of experts have formed around Signal. So our protocol and the encryption implementation that we use are open and they're scrutinized by thousands and thousands of hackers and infosec folks. We have a security community that is a train spotter for signal codes. When we cut a new branch and it's in GitHub, we have people on the forums and Reddit looking at it. So there's an immune system that we really, really value out there that would call BS on any move and we would listen to them because we really value them.

I was on the board of trustees of Wikipedia and what you just described is very similar. The Wikipedians are like their, I thought I knew evangelism because of Macintosh people. But oh my God, Wikipedia blows them away.

And we should trade notes sometimes because there's some, there's some men in my mentions very passionate.

When it comes to growing your business, sometimes you need more than financial investment, you need personal investment. That's what Jeff Plotner, Capital One business customer and co founder of Brackish, discovered after a unique groomsman gift in the form of a turkey feather bow tie grew into a successful men's accessory line. But when they were ready to expand, Jeff turned to his Capital One representative, Alex Parker, who wasn't just an advisor, but a Brackish customer. Because of the encouraging conversation with Alex, Jeff launched a women's line, scaling the Brackish brand to the next level. Because at Capital One, it's not just business, it's relationships that help you do more business. Learn more@capitalone.com businesscards.

If I'm a young, I don't have to be young. But if you're an engineer and you're thinking, wow, I'd like to go and join this Signal team, I know the answer, but I'm going to ask you should I think, oh, not for profit based on donations means I'm not going to get paid a lot. So how does this work?

Let me assure you young engineer, we pay very well. We pay as close to industry salaries as we can. We have certain benefits that I think are non monetary. So it's, we are a remote organization. We work in US time zones, but remotely. So you have that flexibility. And I do think it really matters. We're a very high caliber team. So you enter in there, you're literally shaping core infrastructure that human rights groups and journalists rely on. I got off a phone with a publisher this morning that I was talking about a book I'm working on and she was talking about, she published Snowden's book. And she's like, we couldn't have done that without Signal because we had to be communicating sensitive information. Right? So you're contributing to something that really matters, and you personally, on this small team, have a real impact. So I think there's experience, you gain, and then there's just. We have one magical life in this world, so how do we want to spend it? And I think. I think a lot of people are weighing that right now in this weird.

Time we live in in a very sick way. I would make the case that if Donald Trump got elected, Signal will explode. Because Donald Trump gets elected, he makes Elon Musk Secretary of Efficiency. And all of a sudden, man, you really got to be careful what you say.

Yeah, yeah. And what you said, because that data is still there on those platforms, Right? And this is why I say, moms, teens, it doesn't matter if you have anything to hide. You don't want to be that weak link in your network.

So speaking of this kind of threat, I understand the difference between Signal and other things, but a CEO was just arrested, right. In France, of all places, and. And now couldn't some government make the case? Well, there's drug dealers and pedophiles on Signal, so we're going to shut that down and we're going to arrest you.

They do make that case. Sometimes. Not arrest me. We haven't gotten to that point. I think just addressing the Telegram situation quickly, there are vast differences. Telegram is basically an unmoderated social media platform that has messaging bolted onto the side. They're not encrypted. They do have the data. And under European regulations, there's a very particular threshold that social media platforms of their size, with the data they have and the public broadcast features they offer have to meet. Signal is only messaging. We don't have any social media broadcast functions. You don't have a directory. You can't find your friends. So we actually think about how do we avoid those thresholds, how do we avoid culpability here so that we are building something that's very pure and not subject to those laws. So the terms of the arrest are very unlikely to hit Signal. However, I think it is notable that executives of core infrastructure tech companies are now on the playing board in that way. And we do have to be aware of that in a geopolitically fractured world. And I think it's notable that there is a war on encryption. There's been a war on encryption since 1976 and before when Whit Diffie and Martin Hellman tried to publish their paper on public key cryptography, and the US government freaked out and tried to stop the publication. We went through the crypto wars in the 90s. After Snowden, you saw full disk encryption on iOS and Android. And then suddenly 2015, there was a kind of manufactured crisis where James Comey tried to browbeat Apple, and the pretext then was terrorism. And now you have new pretexts around child safety. But again, the target is always encryption and the ability for everyday people, dissidents, organizers, anyone, to communicate privately outside of government and corporate scrutiny.

You're not giving me peace of mind, Meredith.

That's not what I serve, Guy.

I wanna know your checkered past.

Tell me, houndstooth, please.

What is it like to testify in front of Congress?

It's really stressful. Like, your amygdala is firing. You're, like, thinking about your posture, and then suddenly it's over and you're, like, toddling out onto the street trying to find an Uber. But you prep, you prep, you prep, you prep, you prep. You have all of your answers there. You have to make sure your numbers are right. So I remember having these little sheets. I was like, I had my flashcards with what are the things I'm going to cite? I felt, when I did it, a real responsibility, Right. Because I'm not just speaking for Meredith. I'm trying to get this message through, and I'm trying to get it through to people who are probably not thinking that hard. They probably didn't read my opening statement. Their staff did. They handed them some talking points. But if I mess up, that's the clip they're going to pick, right? And that's the narrative they're going to remember.

So.

So it does feel to me like it's something you. You really prep for, and then it's over. And then you sleep on the Acela back to New York.

I would love to see you testify in front of Jim Jordan. I think you would have him for breakfast.

I did. I did, actually.

Was Jim Jordan.

Oh, yeah. Jim Jordan was there and he was trying to get at. He was like, is Amazon political? Because he was trying to get it, like tech is answer, you know, whatever this thing. And I remember hearing that question, I was like, oh, he wants me to say, like, tech is biased against the right or what have you. And I sat with it and I was like, I don't know how to answer that. That's a trap. And I was like, well, they do hire many lobbyists. And he got so mad at that answer. He just stopped questioning me. But yeah, I go for round two.

Let's talk about AI now. All right, so first of all, what was your reaction when there was this move in? Let's pause AI for six months.

I think unserious is the word that comes to mind. I get it. Right. But one, what is AI? We gotta answer that question. And as a pedant, I often start there. And two, it was a very splashy statement that certainly it generated a lot of heat and a lot of smoke. But the reasoning for pausing AI, what a pause meant in a world where is it developing a core library that then becomes part of an AI system? Is it collecting data that then is aggregated and clean to train an AI model? Is it developing an Nvidia chip that is going to accelerate training? What is AI here and what do you mean by pause it? You know, again, it didn't feel serious to me and clearly it wasn't because here we, here we are in the moment of increasing acceleration.

Well, and the people talking about that were seemingly intelligent, experienced people. Like, seriously, what does it mean to pause development? Like you turn off all the computers, what is it? It's not like I'm gonna stop harvesting redwood trees for six months. That I can understand.

Exactly. That was my question as well. Are we talking about Larry and Jihad? What are we talking? And again, this isn't a game. Right. Are you sincerely worried about these threats then a five line letter that is sent to the New York Times with no specificity is not actually a theory of change. Right? What are we doing here?

So I have a marketing question for you. I want to tap that. No one has been able to answer for me. I have a folder of Claude and Perplexity and OpenAI and all that, like five of them. And I have zero brand loyalty to any of them. So how do these companies create brand loyalty to an LLM?

I think the AI market is interesting because ultimately it's contingent on one compute, so servers and two data. Right? And so we know this well. There are a handful of large companies that came up, 2000s established platforms and cloud businesses, and they now dominate and ultimately the path to market, whatever the app or the LLM is through them. So a good example is Mistral in France. They build open source models, large language models, open source. They're kind of a national champion in France. I'm sure many of the listeners know them, they do really interesting work, but they can't just ipo. Right, There's a model. What are you going to do with that? You can post it on hugging face, but that's not a business model. What do they need to do? They need to find market fit and you either do that by licensing it to one of the cloud giants. So Google, Amazon, Microsoft. And what they did is license it to Microsoft. And now people who want to sign an Azure contract can sign up for a Mistral API or you go through one of the platforms. This is Meta. Right. You could be acquired by Meta and they integrate your AI into their platforms for news feed calibration, for advertiser services, for whatever it is. And this also helps explain the open closed AI debate, because of course the platform companies want proprietary models because if they have them and they're licensing them to you, that's a market advantage. Sorry, the cloud companies want proprietary models. So you're signing up for an Azure contract. You can only get that through Azure or what have you. But the platform companies want to integrate this. They don't have their market is integrated into the platform that you're looking at all day. So they want open models. They want to be able to harvest from the work of people who are building on top of these open LLMs. So I think there's interesting market dynamics that help us dig into questions like that.

A few minutes ago you alluded to the fact you're writing a book.

Yeah, yeah.

So what is this book?

I just sold it. And it's kind of an alternative history of tech that starts with Charles Babbage. And you're going way back. Yeah. You did ask if I were crazy and I'll say maybe this is a slight symptom of that. But I've done a lot of research on this actually, and it was for me, I get a lot of joy and spending time in the archives, spending time with ideas. There's an itch that gets scratched every time something comes together that I didn't understand. And I'm like, wow, okay, now I get something. Or whoa. I had completely misunderstood that. I spent some time looking at the relationship between the Industrial Revolution, as it's called computation, and the age of abolition and this sort of period when Britain was looking to, and then did in some sense abolish slavery and plantation technologies that were then imported into the Industrial Revolution and actually informed the blueprints for computation as a side project, as a treat.

And you're doing this while you're running signal?

Well, I've done some of this research before, so I spent about two years reading through this and getting that. But this is how I spend my weekends and I Love it.

I'm an author also, and I'm just curious about your attitude. I have written 16 books, or some people say I wrote one book 16 times, but I love it. I have made a concerted effort to get them into every LLM that I can. There are many authors who have the exact opposite reaction, which is, I don't want my stuff in LLMs because I'm not going to get rewarded for it. They're just going to take my work and intellectual property. So where are you on this kind of. Is your book going to be out there in LLMs so that when people ask ChatGPT, what did Charles Babbage do? It's going to psych you?

I imagine the second someone posts it to Libgen, it will be in an LLM. So it's unclear that I would have that much control over that, given the web scraping that is generally creating the Data sets that LLMs use and the fact that they're too big to be auditable. That aside, I think the question generally to me is less like, is it in? Is it not in what is the intellectual property argument? Is it fair? What use? That's fine. I'm really just interested, like, are we cultivating an economic system in which creativity and intellectual work and art continue to be rewarded? Who is getting paid, is my question. And if the answer is only Microsoft, then I don't really care what we call it. That is not a system that I want to endorse because I went through art school. I. I think art and writing and language are the way that we're able to express our place in the world to each other. It's so core to human life and human flourishing. And I dread a world in which there's no reward for that work, in which it's just reproduced by massive companies or sort of, you know, a simulacra of that work is produced by these models. Because I don't think we thrive as human beings without that.

Okay, yeah. You could not find someone who is more optimistic about the impact of AI on society. I, in fact, think AI could save society. So that's where I'm coming from.

Cool.

But I want you to explain, Guy, you're being naive. These are the existential threats that AI provide, if you believe this. So what are the threats?

I want to look away from AI as a technology in a vacuum to explain where I come from here, because obviously, finding patterns in large amounts of data, super useful, right? Assuming the data is good, assuming the decision makers who are acting on those patterns are benevolent, all of that. But right now, when we're talking about AI, we're talking about these massive models. They rely on huge amounts of compute. And you see this sort of like, you know, bank busting, data center build outs, all of this. We haven't even talked about the environmental impact, but that is, you know, we're reopening Three Mile Island. Like it's, we're in what a concept.

Weird waters off running Three Mile Island.

As a New Yorker, I'm like, excuse me. And then we're talking about the need for huge amounts of data, the kind of data that the platform companies and a handful of other companies have and most people don't. So my concern is with centralized power and the way that AI as a general purpose utility threaded through our lives and institutions around the world, could enable those with that power to shape, reshape and control our lives in ways that are not beneficial. Right? And so I want to look at that and think about is this healthy and safe, given that the incentives driving these companies are profit and growth and not necessarily benefit. Right.

At some level, Apple has one of the most compelling stories of AI because literally it can be at the system software level, right? It's not something people go out and get. It's in every phone. So is Apple like the best thing for AI or the worst thing for AI?

Apple is doing the on device model, which means that there's sort of less leakage, let's say. But I think, let's get into that. What is the core of what is happening there? Right? So Apple trains a model, it's small enough to run on your device. And we need to be clear, these large LLMs and generative models are not that small. Which is part of Apple trying to figure out a server side, private server arrangement for the OpenAI deal. Right? But nonetheless, there's on device AI. It's small enough to run, but it's also oftentimes making really key decisions, right? So it's do you want to read this email or not? Or here's. I'm not coming up with a hypothetical, but like scanning your photos and saying, this is bad, this is maybe you don't want to send this, whatever. And I think it's more private. But you're still giving Apple sort of an obscure power to make decisions and determinations that I think we need to look at in the context of this privacy and agency conversation.

If anybody believed that Google was gonna do no harm, you should ask yourself if you believe Apple's gonna do no harm too. Because obviously things can change.

Well, I know WhatsApp, Signal and others were pulled from the App Store in China. Right. And that's not a. I completely understand companies have to work within the laws of certain governments. But nonetheless, I think we can't treat these companies and their incentive structures as good or bad. We have to recognize they're going to be compelled to do certain things under certain conditions. And we need to create structures and systems that act as prophylactics from the harmful decisions. Right. And this is why I'm always looking at the structural level. I'm always looking at the system even. You know, I love people. I'm very easy on people. I'm very hard on ideas and systems. Right. Because I think we need to build it for robustness and we need to build it to make sure that massive power and responsibility is not misused.

Meet Nicole Nicholas, Capital One business customer and co owner of Ansett Uncles, a plant based restaurant and community space in Brooklyn, New York that got its start from a need for unity.

The inspiration, it was born from the desire to create a space that felt like home, where we can connect community, culture, good food and come together with family and friends. That's how we birthed aunts and uncles.

Nicole and her husband Mike were fulfilling their dream of bringing people together out of their home kitchen. But they soon learned that the demand for community was greater than they knew.

It became overwhelming and we were like, we need home, but not in our actual home. We realized that there was also a need in our community for something bigger in our neighborhood. So we had to find a place.

Moving from a home operation into a storefront was a huge next step. But Nicole and Mike were able to take it on with the help of Capital One Business.

Not for the weak. As a small business, finding resources is super important because that's the way you'll be able to manage and scale. We would have never done that without having Capital One to be able to help us along the way. The cashback rewards are very helpful. You know, it just gave us that Runway to be able to breathe a little bit. Then you get to focus on the cooking of the food and making the experience great.

To learn more, go to capitalone.com businesscards.

Let'S suppose that I am a parent or I am a young girl and I'm listening to this podcast and I'm saying to myself, or I'm saying to myself for my kids, I want my daughter or I want myself to be like Meredith. So now with everything you know, how does someone become A woman. How does a woman become a leader like you today?

Oh, well, I will just say you all can become better leaders than me. I think there's no recipe, but I was very lucky to get a lot of good mentorship, and I think, find your mentors. And then I entered into tech. Not knowing that much about tech. I have a humanities background. I went to art school for most of my life. I still love that world. But I, like, said yes to everything I said, signed up for everything. I tried to learn everything, and I didn't quite understand. There were rooms I wasn't supposed to be in. I'd just walk in, right? There were tables I wasn't supposed to be in. And I think there's a. It's not a secret, but if you can get in, figure out where you fit, right? I would just. I would take notes at meetings I wasn't supposed to be in or I wasn't invited to, or I would join initiatives to try to figure out, is there a place I can help? Okay, I can help by ordering the catering, right? That's a helpful thing. And then suddenly I was in the other meeting. I'm like, hey, do these things connect? Oh, that was a good idea. Someone recognized I had a good idea. Okay, Now I'm gonna be part of doing this. And I think there was a stubbornness and a sort of, like, elbowing everyday mentality that just. I didn't grow up in the elite. And so I think if you don't come from this world, don't worry. There's a lot you can do with a little bit of street smarts and a willingness to wedge your way into the room.

Did you have to get over the imposter syndrome?

In a sense, I was an imposter because there's no reason I was supposed to be there, right? Like an art school kid with a humanities degree who plopped in the middle of building 40s at Google. Right? But then I was like, okay, well, I'm. I'm gonna just be my own version of myself, because clearly I don't fit in with the hoodie Stanford culture. I'm gonna try to figure out what I bring. And so I also don't think. Don't let the normative terms of whatever environment you're in define whether you are, whether you fit or not, make them fit to you.

This may seem like a dumb question, but then if you were not the Stanford hoodie culture with a Ph.D. in computer science, how the hell did you get into Google at all?

Well, at the time I was hired if you had a super high GPA from a social sciences or humanities background they were hiring us to do. I was basically hired for customer support, although they didn't call it that. They called it a consumer operations associate. And I remember getting the call and I was like, I don't have any idea what that is, but it sounds like a business job. Okay. And I need to pay rent. I just graduated Berkeley. And I was like, all right, I'll take this call. And then I had seven interviews, two kind of personality IQ tests and a writing test. And I knew I was getting close to being hired because the size of the diamonds on the engagement rings of the women who were interviewing me kept getting bigger. So I was like, must be going up the chain. And then I got in, and then I was like, oh, there's all kinds of stories. But again, I was like, I don't know what this job is supposed to be, so I'm gonna try to make know they have 20% projects, they have all this stuff. I'm like taking the bike around campus, meeting everyone during the office hours.

Did you have to answer the question, like, how many manhole covers are there in the United States?

Or no, it was ping pong balls in a 747. And I was like, what the. Like, is this a cult? What are we doing here?

And now at Signal? How does Signal interview? You're not doing stuff like that?

No, we don't do that. It's a little excessive. And I think it's more of a flex than an actual methodology for rigorous talent finding.

In a flex in a pejorative sense.

Well, flex in, like, we are big enough and desirable enough, we can make you jump through as many hoops as we want, even for an entry level job. And look like that job was really cool. They hired really rad people. So it was this, like, bullpen of, like, hyper achieving humanities and social sciences kids who would get all their work done in an hour and then just bounce around. It was. It was a really. It was a wild.

There is some irony, you sitting in this chair at this conference about the masters of scaling, because one of the concepts of Reed is that when you're scaling, you put in these things that are not exactly humanitarian and warm and fuzzy, and you look at GPAs and you look at degrees and you look at that and you just hire higher, higher, higher to scale. And in a sense you're saying, look at all the problems that can create.

I think so. I mean, small is also a scale, right? So what is the problem we actually want to solve. What is it we want to do in the world and how do we be discerning about that? I don't think one size fits all. Doesn't always fit.

This interview has turned into a big ad for Signal, which I'm okay with.

I'm doing my job.

You're a Signal evangelist.

I genuinely love it. Yeah.

So since we've gone that far, I'm gonna just let you, for the next, I don't know, 30 or 60 seconds, just give this plug for Signal. Why people should use Signal or join Signal if they are looking for employment. So this is, this is your ad.

Amazing. Signal is a really special organization. I think it takes us back to an earlier day in tech where the cool people and the weirdos had their moment. And I think we're going back there. By the way, I also think Signal is, it is at the cusp of a movement and a growing awareness that we need to change the models for tech. So if you want to be part of building a new model for healthier, cooler, more private, less surveillant, less harmful tech, Signal is not only doing that, but it's shaping a model for how we can do that across the ecosystem. To quote my colleagues Maria Farrell and Robin Bjorn, to rewild the tech ecosystem. So we don't just have a handful of giants consuming all of our data and producing products we may or may not like because they have OKRs, they have to meet. We actually have a teaming ecosystem of really smart solutions built on open source and open protocols that are actually private, that are swimming upstream and doing it successfully. If you're into badass shit, I think you're into Signal.

I must say, this is about the 260 episode of remarkable People and this is the only one that basically turned into an ad for the guest company. You should be proud of that.

Thank you. I'm glad it worked out that way because again, the ad is coming from the most sincere place of my being.

Your PR person over there is gonna say, oh my God, Meredith, you just hit it out of the park.

Thank you. That's for you. You know who you are.

All right, listen, this has been the Remarkable People podcast and I hope you appreciated this ad for Signal and Meredith Whitaker. And particularly if you're a woman and want to emulate her, I think you learn a lot about climbing the ladder, kicking ass.

Thank you, Guy, it's been just a delight and thank you everyone who listened to this non targeted ad.

This is remarkable people.