While traveling in Lisbon, I attended two meetups for entrepreneurs. This was my first peek into the entrepreneurial side of the city.

In teams large or small, meetings often start with a presentation. I sometimes lose attention amongst the slides, unable to understand their relevance to the main thesis. This is especially problematic in technical design reviews due to the large amount of new information presented. In my opinion, we can improve the audience experience, and thus the overall effectiveness of these meetings, by implementing a narrative in the presentation.

Consider this scenario: A team is considering replacing their database with a SaaS offering, and Kevin is assigned to find out more. Kevin designs the migration and calls a design review with the team.

In this case, the audience might disengage in step 2 because they struggle to digest the details without context. They wait for Kevin to finish before starting the discussion, then need to revisit the details to complete the discussion. Kevin's organization of the material is ineffective, requiring the audience to spend extra effort connecting the dots. Let's call this a subject-oriented presentation.

Kevin could reorganize the presentation to mix context with solution details, and demote inconsequential details to an appendix for later review:

This approach allows the audience to better digest the solution details and prepares them for the ensuing discussions. The meeting flows more smoothly and requires less effort from the audience. Let's call this a narrative-oriented presentation.

A narrative is a storyline in the presentation that the audience can easily follow. It connects the material and promotes effective discussions. A narrative-oriented presentation creates and satisfies the audience's train of curiosity, keeping their precious attention on what matters. It's UX design applied to meetings, where the audience experience is optimized. The presenter needs to see from the audience's perspective to break down the subject, separate concerns, remove confusions, and iterate for the best narrative. Subject-oriented presentations are easier to create, whereas narrative-oriented presentations are easier to receive.

While I don't consider myself "great" at giving presentations in meetings, I believe the following tips are worth trying:

Focus on what the audience cares about and what information they need for the discussion. Feed the audience important information simply, with just enough context for quick digestion, omitting unnecessary details.

Distribute details according to the narrative's emphasis rather than their natural structure. For example, split related technical details into relevant sections like "performance" and "scalability" instead of grouping them under "data types."

Ensure consistency throughout the narrative by reviewing and iterating until it's free of contradictions, confusions, and complexities.

Opinionated narratives promote more audience response. Even if incorrect, they make ensuing discussions more productive. Present a stance (e.g., "the SaaS offering is more competitive") rather than a neutral list of pros and cons.

For team design reviews, consider using an infinitely scrolled formatted document (like Google Docs) instead of slide decks, which can enforce artificial breaks in the narrative.

Use questions or imperatives as headings instead of nouns. Include expected audience questions and discussion points explicitly in the narrative.

Keep each section brief enough for the audience to read without losing focus. Break longer sections into smaller, numbered parts for easier reference during discussions.

Consider implementing a silent reading ceremony at the start of the meeting, allowing the audience to digest the material at their own pace. This approach, inspired by Amazon, eliminates the need for pre-meeting preparation.

By implementing these strategies, you can create more engaging, effective presentations that enhance meeting productivity and audience engagement.

In September 2018 and January 2020, I twice visited Teotihuacan, often referred to as the "Pyramid of the Sun" near Mexico City. The true names of these massive structures remain unknown, as the city fell a millennium ago, leaving no traceable lineage. Tourists are greeted with obsidian stones and pulque, echoes of an ancient culture.

My first ascent of the pyramid remains vivid in my memory: standing on uneven volcanic rocks cemented by limestone, bracing against the racing wind. What was it like in its heyday? The pyramid likely served as an altar, reserved for shamans and kings who performed human sacrifices at the very spot where I stood. Its construction must have spanned generations. How did these people find the resolve to build something so monumental, knowing they would never see its completion?

I imagined a society where inhabitants believed so deeply in their culture that they devoted their lives to it, becoming one with future generations. They transcended individual existence, forming a continuum that carried their collective identity into the future. The thought of the last generation of Teotihuacans, forced to abandon their ancestors' identities, disperse, and fade into anonymity, sends a chill down my spine.

Yet, they left behind the pyramid—a mark in history that has traversed time to reach us. It stands as an indestructible testament on Earth, a pile of rock that could withstand even a nuclear war. Through this enduring mark, the continuum survives, and the identities of generations persevere.

In our modern society, people outlive "eras." A 90-year-old American might remember the war in the '40s, the revolution in the '60s, the rise of computers in the '80s, and the internet boom in the 2000s. We seem to live forever, fully committed to our individual lives. We create, we interact, and there's so much to do! Yet, as a software engineer, I can't claim credit for anything that could withstand a nuclear war. I'm not part of a continuum, nor am I connected to future generations in the same way.

I find myself questioning: when I wither, will there be a mark? In our fast-paced, individualistic world, how do we leave behind something as enduring as the pyramids of Teotihuacan? Perhaps the answer lies not in physical monuments, but in the collective impact of our ideas, innovations, and the positive changes we bring to the world. While our individual contributions may seem fleeting, together they form the foundation upon which future generations will build, much like the stones of Teotihuacan.

The Free Software movement once carried a set of values that are no longer influential. It has been superseded by free food and has devolved into ideological freedom. This article is highly opinionated.

My journey with Free Software began in 2012 during an internship at Broadcom, where I hacked the Linux kernel. However, my introduction to its courage and ideals occurred in 2013 when I admired Aaron Swartz. I finally understood how the movement impacts the world at LibrePlanet 2017.

The GNU project was launched in the 1970s to replace the proprietary Unix operating system. It is better known today as GNU/Linux. GNU marked the beginning of copyleft, the General Public License (GPL), and what Richard Stallman called Free Software. In this context, free means freedom, not free food, which distinguishes it from the broader term Open Source Software. Over years of evolution, free has come to represent key ideological values beyond just having access to source code. Let me explain with counterexamples.

Execution Transparency: Owners of software-powered technology have the right to understand, control, and reproduce how the software is executed. A clear violation of this principle is the iPhone. As an iPhone owner, not only do you lack access to the source code for the operating system, but you also lack root access to the device.

Data Privacy: Individuals have the right to control their digital footprint, similar to the principles of GDPR. A clear violation of this is Facebook, which makes it impossible to use its services without allowing the company to track your behavior and analyze your data.

Decision Democracy: Software users have the right to participate in decision-making processes related to the software they use. A clear violation of this is Android. While anyone can use it for free, Google ultimately owns it and makes all the key decisions.

The GPL embodies these values through the copyleft approach, ensuring that software remains free forever. As a member of the Free Software Foundation, I advocate for these values. However, I often wonder: Are the licenses and guidelines born from these values designed for the modern software industry? Are they compatible with the current state of software development? Or are they simply aspirational goals for technology and society?

In 2018, I was introduced to the Apache Foundation and later to the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF). These organizations are incredibly successful and represent a substantial portion of the open-source building blocks of enterprise software today, including Kubernetes, Envoy, Hadoop, Maven, Kafka, Parquet, and many more. Examining their directives and licenses (Apache, BSD, MIT), it is clear that they promote a different set of values.

Safety: The Apache License prioritizes protecting participants, ensuring they feel safe. It is designed to allow businesses to share code with minimal legal or financial risk. It does not emphasize ideological values or whether the software is free.

Collaboration: These foundations and their guidelines align with corporate business values, providing inherent incentives for companies to participate and share their work. Participating corporations often lack ideological stances beyond profit, yet they still foster healthy collaborative relationships.

Standardization: Many industries greatly benefit from standardized interfaces, which help maintain consistency for consumers when switching between competing providers. Open-source foundations act as a nucleus for standardization efforts, helping the industry reach agreements.

This approach to open-source software constitutes the free food model. It creates a platform where participants gain business value. This model arose from market needs, aiming to solve business problems rather than pursue ideals. It has become a cornerstone of the software industry, advancing businesses while potentially paving the way for ideological freedom (though I remain skeptical).

Efforts by the FSF and GPL to merge code sharing with ideological values often conflict with the business priorities of corporations, limiting their influence in the industry. The FSF remains a powerful force, continuing to fight for our digital freedom. However, GNU projects have been overshadowed by organic market forces, reducing them to glimpses of what a free world could look like. The Free Software movement has lost its software focus and transformed into a digital freedom movement. Free Software is dead.

COVID-19 has prevented millions of people from returning to their offices after the Lunar New Year holidays. Right now, many software engineers in China are likely coding from their living rooms—working from home (WFH), also known as remote work. Reflecting on my three years of working from home, I’d like to share some lessons learned and insights.

In 2015, I lived in Vancouver as a Chinese national and started working for Auris Health, a medical startup developing a novel bronchoscopy procedure. This technology enables doctors to inspect the inside of lungs using a flexible wire tipped with a camera. At Auris, I worked on Linux drivers and desktop UI, which gave me valuable insights into Silicon Valley and the startup world. However, it also forced me into a WFH lifestyle.

At the time, I was a young engineer with no family, living in a foreign country, and I wasn’t very well-connected socially. By 2017, I had moved to Toronto, but the isolation and dysfunction of working from home caught up with me. In 2018, I decided to take a local job in Toronto that paid significantly less but offered a better work-life balance. From this experience, I’ve compiled tips for surviving—and thriving—while working from home.

The flexibility of software companies, coupled with a WFH setup, often leads to blurred boundaries between work and personal time. As a passionate engineer eager to meet deadlines, I often found myself working late into the night. At the beginning of the week, I could maintain a routine of waking up at 8–9 a.m. and eating breakfast. However, as the week progressed, my work hours stretched into the evening, causing me to wake up later, skip breakfast, and work even later—eventually leading to a 1 p.m.–midnight schedule by Friday.

The first point to remember is that coding is often a solitary activity, and working alone at night only deepens that isolation. The second point is that losing connection with the outside world can be easy if you don’t spend your evenings engaging with it. I often missed social gatherings or got so absorbed in work that I forgot about my plans. It became hard to feel like I truly “lived in Toronto” because I lacked a relationship with the city.

The most important point is that overworking without limits drains your energy and prevents you from enjoying life—whether it’s appreciating nature, staying updated on news, or simply living in the moment. Sometimes, taking an afternoon off can boost your overall morale and productivity. Ever since I stopped WFH, I’ve experienced a broader range of emotions and felt less like a machine. Maintaining a schedule and setting boundaries is critical to avoiding burnout.

During my WFH days, I would occasionally visit the company’s headquarters for a week at a time. Comparing my productivity in the office to at home, I found I was often more productive at home—largely because of fewer distractions. While the lack of coworkers to chat with isn’t great for mental health, it does minimize interruptions, which is beneficial for focus.

Distractions at home can come from many sources. For me, a messy room or desk was the biggest culprit. When clutter accumulated, it quietly fatigued my mood. Air quality and lighting also played a big role in maintaining focus. I sometimes played music or podcasts while working, but I rarely found them helpful. Even the living room itself can become a source of monotony, which is why I recommend working from a coffee shop occasionally to change your surroundings.

Bonus tip: I consider myself a minimalist. I don’t use multiple monitors or fancy keyboards. Instead, I trained myself to work effectively with a single screen, which makes it easy to work from anywhere—whether it’s a coffee shop, meeting room, bus, or even my bed. This adaptability has been a huge asset in WFH scenarios.

Engineers work hard, and they need more than just a paycheck from their job. Respect, a sense of belonging, and meaningful connections are essential. However, it’s challenging to feel included in a company’s office culture when you’re working remotely. Building relationships and finding communities requires intentional effort.

During my three years of WFH, I made meaningful connections with coworkers at the headquarters by taking every opportunity to mingle, have lunch, or take walks during my visits. Face-to-face meetings, even occasionally, can help build strong networks. However, when I stopped traveling to the office in late 2017, my sense of satisfaction dropped significantly.

To compensate, I sought out local communities by attending technology meetups. I looked for groups that were friendly, down-to-earth, and enjoyable to socialize with. The exact topics or programming languages didn’t matter as much as the atmosphere. In Toronto, I enjoyed meetups like HackerNest, Polyhack, and the Ember.js group. I didn’t even write Ember.js, but the people were welcoming and the events were always a good time. While many meetups focus on JavaScript, don’t be discouraged if you don’t write JS—the community is one of the friendliest in tech.

Co-working spaces are another option to explore. I tried several in Vancouver and Toronto, but they didn’t quite work for me. My job required deep focus, and while I enjoyed occasional ping-pong games and holiday parties, I found it hard to connect with people whose work was in completely different fields, like digital marketing or e-commerce.

Working from home is absolutely survivable! However, for an ambitious young engineer, an office environment might provide a richer and more fulfilling experience.