Carl Mastrangelo

A programming and hobby blog.

Becoming an Extrovert

In 2022, I made the painful transition from introvert to extrovert. It has greatly improved my life by making me feel more confident and comfortable in social settings. While the fear of talking to new people still lingers on, I can now override that little voice inside. Several people have expressed interest in my conversion, and I wanted to document how I changed. If you are looking for an avenue for self improvement that is challenging and rewarding, I’d recommend giving this a try.


As the old joke goes, introverts look at their shoes when talking, but extroverts look at your shoes. I originally thought the truth was along these lines, where introverts don’t talk to other people, but extroverts do. When I talked to people about it, a lot of people claimed to be introverts, even though they’re social and engaging people.

Introverts do not get energy talking to other people. It’s not black and white but this is the litmus test for if you are introverted. Prior to 2022, I was like this. However, it manifested in less obvious ways. For example:

A superficial understanding would be that these sentiments are about not wanting to talk with others. However, a more introspective survey would show (at least for me) that these insecurities and confidence issues. The surface level logic makes sense, and no one can really challenge that (e.g. you might actually be interrupting someone) at face value. I would rebut that it’s more about fear of rejection.

If you want to:

Then, being an introvert will not serve you. This is the conclusion I came to at the beginning of 2022. I decided that the awkward and cringy experiences would ultimately be worth it for my own personal development. I needed to venture from one side of the social chasm to the other.


Extroverts absorb energy talking to other people. Not only do they get ramped up talking and learning about others, every moment in the conversation makes them want it more. Have you ever felt drained after attending a social obligation? Have you ever thought “Uggh I’ve been out talking to people all day, I need a break”? Extroverts do not feel this way.

I can see the internal changes inside myself. It’s a mindset thing; the first thought when seeing other people changes. Notice the difference in narrative:

If that last one bothers you, don’t let it! My own pendulum swung so far into the introversion side before I started my journey. In order to push myself to feel comfortable, I had to override my own internal monologue to be bold enough to talk to others. Remember, it’s a free country! It’s not illegal to talk to the human beings around you. The extrovert thinks: “if they don’t want to talk to me, they will let me know [via verbal or body language cues]“.

One of the major downsides I noticed of being extroverted is that we (they) feel a desire to talk to others. Some people don’t want to talk, but we have an unfulfilled need. As a result, extroverts are under constant rejection every day. They have to talk to others; their nature compels them to initiate. Would you rather live in a world where you never talk to anyone, or a world where no one wants to talk to you? I think the extrovert scenario is the more painful one!

How to Make the Leap

Several mindset changes were needed for me to make the change. I won’t sugar-coat it, it’s going to be a painful and possibly embarrassing experience. Here is what I internalized:

I had (and maybe still have?) a bad habit of trying to followup on everything someone else says. It left no room in the dialogue for the other person to open up: to be heard. It’s painful to have that silence, but I’ve noticed other people will reveal themselves more if you leave them room. And remember, they hate that silence too!


I took a Myers Briggs test at the beginning of 2022, and then again around August. I answered honestly how I really felt and what I would do. The test picked up the change from IXXX to EXXX which was kind of amazing to me.

Additionally, my confidence in myself has risen dramatically. Other people have noticed as well. It’s not fully complete, but it’s far enough long that I can see what is needed to finish.

Confidence and comfort to talk to others is held inside like a sieve. It gets refilled constantly by talking to others, which is how extroverts rally. I feel like I can last for longer and longer in conversation, and at some point I won’t be tired by it. A friend of mine said he could talk all day long (like 8 hours) and hunger for more at the end of it. This is the level I am going for and the changes in attitude I listed above are will what will get me there.

Why Does gRPC Insist on Trailers?

gRPC comes up occasionally on the Orange Site, often with a redress of grievences in the comment section. One of the major complaints people have with gRPC is that it requires HTTP trailers. This one misstep has caused so much heartache and trouble, I think it probably is the reason gRPC failed to achieve its goal. Since I was closely involved with the project, I wanted to rebut some misconceptions I see posted a lot, and warn future protocol designers against the mistakes we made.

Mini History of gRPC’s Origin.

gRPC was reared by two parents trying to solve similar problems:

  1. The Stubby team. They had just begun the next iteration of their RPC system, used almost exclusively throughout Google. It handled 1010 queries per second in 2015. Performance was a key concern.
  2. The API team. This team owned the the common infrastructure serving (all) public APIs at Google. The primary value-add was converting REST+JSON calls to Stubby+Protobuf. Performance was a key concern.

The push to Cloud was coming on strong from the top, and the two teams joined forces to ease the communication from the outside world, to the inside. Rather than boil the ocean, they decided to reuse the newly minted HTTP/2 protocol. Additionally, they chose to keep Protobuf as the default wire format, but allow other encodings too. Stubby had tightly coupled the message, the protocol format, and custom extensions, making it impossible to open source just the protocol.

Thus, gRPC would allow intercommunication between browsers, phones, servers, and proxies, all using HTTP semantics, and without forcing the entirety of Google to change message formats. Since message translation is no longer needed, high speed communication between endpoints is tractable.

HTTP, HTTP/1.1, and HTTP/2

HTTP is about semantics: headers, messages, and verbs.
HTTP/1.1 is a mix of a wire format, plus the semantics (RFCs 7231-7239). gRPC tries to keep the HTTP semantics, while upgrading the wire format. Around 2014-15, SPDY was being tested by Chrome and GFE as a work around for problems with HTTP/1.1. Specifically:

Acting on the promising improvements seen in the SPDY experimentation, the protocol was formalized into HTTP/2. HTTP/2 only changes the wire format, but keeps the HTTP semantics. This allows newer devices to downgrade the wire format when speaking with older devices.

As an aside, HTTP/2 is technically superior to WebSockets. HTTP/2 keeps the semantics of the web, while WS does not. Additionally, WebSockets suffers from the same head-of-line blocking problem HTTP/1.1 does.

Those Contemptible Trailers

Most people do not know this, but HTTP has had trailers in the specification since 1.1. The reason they are so uncommonly used is because most user agents don’t implement them, and don’t surface them to the JS layer.

Several events happened around the same time, which lead to the bet on requiring trailers:

The thinking went like this:

  1. Since we are using a new protocol, any devices that use it will need to upgrade their code.
  2. When they upgrade their code, they will need to implement trailer support anyways.
  3. Since HTTP/2 mandates TLS, it is unlikely middleboxes will error on unexpected trailers.

Why Do We Need Trailers At All?

So far, we’ve only talked about if it’s possible to use trailers, not if we should use them? It’s been over two decades, and we haven’t needed them yet, why put such a big risk into the gRPC protocol?

The answer is that it solves an ambiguity. Consider the following HTTP conversation:

GET /data HTTP/1.1

HTTP/1.1 200 OK


In this flow, what was the length of the /data resource? Since we don’t have a Content-Length, we are not sure the entire response came back. If the connection was closed, does it mean it succeeded or failed? We aren’t sure.

Since streaming is a primary feature of gRPC, we often will not know the length of the response ahead of time. HTTP aficionados are probably feeling pretty smug right now: “Why don’t you use Transfer-Encoding: chunked?” This too is insufficient, because error can happen late in the response cycle. Consider this exchange:

GET /data HTTP/1.1

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Transfer-Encoding: chunked


Suppose that the server was in the middle of streaming a chat room message back to us, and there is a reverse proxy between our user agent and the server. The server sends chunks back to us, but after sending the first chunk of 6, the server crashes. What should the Proxy send back to us? It’s too late to change the response code from 200 to 503. If there were pipelined requests, all of them would need to be thrown away too. If this proxy wanted to keep the connection open (remember connections cost a lot to make), it would not want to terminate it, for an arguably recoverable scenario.

Hopefully this illustrates the ambiguity between successful, complete responses, and a mic-drop. What we need is a clear sign the response is done, or a clear sign there was an error.

Trailers are this final word, where the server can indicate success or failure in an unambiguous way.

Trailers for JSON v.s. Protobuf

While gRPC is definitely not Protobuf specific, it was created by people who have been burned by Protobuf’s encoding. The encoding of Protobuf probably had a hand in the need for trailers, because it’s not obvious when a Proto is finished. Protobuf messages are a concatenation of Key-Length-Values. Because of this structure, it’s possible to concatenate 2 Protos together and it still be valid. The downside of this is that there is no obvious point that the message is complete. An example of the problem:

syntax = "proto3";
message DeleteRequest {
   string id = 1;
   int32 limit = 2;

The wire format for an example message looks like:

Field 1: "zxy987"
Field 2: 1

A program can override a value by adding another field on:

Field 2: 1000

The concatenation would be:

Field 1: "zxy987"
Field 2: 1
Field 2: 1000

Which would be interpreted as:

Field 1: "zxy987"
Field 2: 1000

This makes encoding messages faster, since there is no size field at the beginning of the message. However, there is now a (mis-)feature where Protos can be split or joined along KLV boundaries.

JSON has the upper hand here. With JSON, the message has to end with a curly } brace. If we haven’t seen the finally curly, and the connection hangs up, we know something bad has happened. JSON is self delimiting, while Protobuf is not. It’s not hard to imagine that trailers would be less of an issue, if the default encoding was JSON.

The Final Nail in gRPC’s Trailers

Trailers were officially added to the fetch API, and all major browsers said they would support them. The authors were part of the WHATWG, and worked at the companies that could actually put them into practice. However, Google is not one single company, but a collection of independent and distrusting companies. While the point of this post is not to point fingers, a single engineer on the Chrome team decided that trailers should not be surfaced up to the JS layer. You can read the arguments against it, but the short version is that there was some fear around semantic differences causing security problems. For example, if a Cache-Control header appears in the trailers, does it override the one in the headers?

I personally found this reason weak, and offered a compromise of treating them as semantic-less key-values surfaced up to the fetch layer. Whether it’s because I was wrong, or failed to make the argument, I strongly suspect organizational boundaries had a substantial effect. The Area Tech Leads of Cloud also failed to convince their peers in Chrome, and as a result, trailers were ripped out.

Lessons for Designers

This post hopefully exposed why trailers were included, and why they didn’t work ultimately. I left the gRPC team in 2019, but I still think fondly of what we created. There are gobs of things the team got right; unfortunately this one mistake ended up being the demise. Some takeaways:

A Better Base 58 Encoding

Base 58 is an encoding scheme with a better usability than Base 64. Base 58 offers several ease of use improvements:

Base 58 is most commonly seen in Bitcoin addresses, where it has grown in popularity. While Base 58 is slightly less information-dense than Base 64, Base 58 “fits” in more places, and is easier for humans to read. (Similar in nature to Base 32, which I describe in Let’s Make a Varint.)

Before we get into the problems of Base 58, I have included a JS implementation of the improved Base 58 encoder. Try it out!

Base 58 Encoding:
Efficiency (input bits / output bits )


Base 58 brings some complications. Power-of-2 bases are very fast to output, as the input text is also a power of two: e.g. a sequence of 8 bit bytes. Encoding the text can be seen as a change of base between base 256 to the new base. For Base 64, this can be quickly by using bit shifting and masking. For Base 58 though, we need to use division. Division is much slower than bit operations, but is unavoidable. The Base 58 encoding scheme uses long division to achieve the change of base.

This means that converting an n byte sequence to the Base 58 format is a quadratic runtime operation! This makes it useful only for very small pieces of text (e.g. Bitcoin wallet addresses) and impractical for use in most other places. There are a number of problems with the implementation:

Encoding Better - NTRU Prime

In an ideal world, we would be able to use the smaller alphabet size of Base 58, but avoid the costly quadratic conversion and complex code. Adam Langley describes in detail an algorithm called NTRU Prime encoding. The post describes an encoding that is able change base, without the slow long division. The idea is that instead of encoding the output as the minimal possible representation, small amounts of non uniformity in the digits is okay. Adjusting his example from Base 10 to Base 58, this means that not every digit has a uniformly equal probability distribution. (and as a result, doesn’t have log258 bits of entropy per character.)

However, the algorithm can be tuned based on a “comfort” margin of non uniformity. In the JS toy above, the “Base 58 Uniformity Comfort Limit” parameter changes how entropy dense the encoding is. The higher the limit, the more likely the encoder will avoid outputting a digit with a non-uniform distribution. The lower the value, the faster it outputs.

Thus, the better Base 58 Encoder uses the the same Base 58 Alphabet of characters, but uses a much faster algorithm. Notably:

There are 2 downsides to this scheme:

  1. The “comfort” limit needs to be known in advance by readers and writers.
  2. There are multiple encoded forms of the same input, so it’s not possible to compare values without decoding first.


Base 58 is a useful encoding scheme, but let’s use the fast encoder and decoder to process Base 58 text.


The formal algorithm is described in the NTRU Prime submission to the Post-Quantum cryptography contest. Originally shared by djb.

I won’t even link to the draft Base 58 encoding RFC which tried to standardize it. It is woefully under-specified, and not ready to turn into workable code. I had to scour GitHub to find out how it was actually implemented after hours of failed attempts. I want to save you that wasted time.

In addition to the JS encoder included above, I have a working Python encoder and decoder.

More Thoughts:

You can find me on Twitter @CarlMastrangelo