Ryan Farley
LawnStarter
Ryan Farley, co-founder of LawnStarter, runs a national marketplace for lawn care services across over 3,000 cities. When he discovered the Topgrading interview process, it became the single most powerful lever in his hiring system. The core insight: asking candidates to name their last five bosses and predict how they’d rate their performance filters out bad candidates before they waste anyone’s time.
When Ryan first learned about the Topgrading process, he was skeptical. It felt invasive and awkward to ask candidates about their past bosses. But he ran a screening round and immediately saw the pattern. Candidates who had a strong track record were willing to have their work evaluated. Candidates who didn’t want scrutiny made excuses and withdrew.
The screening step is deceptively simple. You tell the candidate that at the end of the interview, you’ll be calling their former bosses. You ask them to list their last five bosses, where they worked together, and how they think each boss will rate their performance on a one-to-ten scale. That question alone filters out a massive portion of the pipeline. People who know they won’t get a good reference find another job.
You start getting all sorts of people withdrawing from your process for reasons like it’s not the right time for me. It’s because they don’t want you to talk to their past boss.
Ryan Farley, LawnStarter
The actual Topgrading interview works backward through a candidate’s career. You start with high school or undergrad, then move through each role. At the end of each chapter, you ask them to name their manager, confirm the spelling, and describe what it was like to work together.
Then you ask the magic questions: What did they like about working with that manager? What would the manager say were their biggest strengths? What would the manager say were their biggest areas for improvement back then? And crucially, how would that manager rate them one to ten?
The phrase “back then” is not accidental. It gives permission for the candidate to have made mistakes. It reframes the conversation from “you failed” to “you were learning.” Most people with a real track record of excellence have failed at some point and learned from it. By asking about the past, you let candidates tell you about recovery. When you later call the actual manager, they open up differently because they know the candidate already acknowledged potential gaps.
Does this person have a track record of excellence in every role that they’ve been in? That’s what you’re looking for throughout that process.
Ryan Farley, LawnStarter
When you hire a manager, you can train them. You can give them time to ramp, make mistakes, and get coached. When you hire an executive, that changes entirely. An executive needs to move the needle on day one.
That means the bar shifts. You’re no longer asking if someone could do the job. You’re asking if they have done this exact job, in a similar context, successfully. Supporting CEO transitions and understanding why your best #2 might fail as #1 reveals how critical executive-level hiring becomes at scale. If you’re building a sales function and you need revenue impact immediately, you need someone who has built a sales function before. Not someone who once worked in sales. Someone who scaled a team, hit quota, and built repeatable process.
This distinction matters because executives set the tone for their entire department. A mediocre executive hire doesn’t just fail personally. They hire people in their image, set lower standards, and put the company back a year or two. Getting that hire wrong is expensive.
LawnStarter ran into a problem a few years in. They were getting bigger, hiring more director and executive level roles, and they had built a scoring system that seemed objective. Candidates would pass all the reference checks. The numbers said yes. But when they sat around the table, nobody was actually excited about the person.
They realized they were letting a process designed to reduce bias actually remove their judgment. So they added a gut check: go around the table and ask, “Would you be enthusiastic about working with this person?” Creating full transparency on teams creates the psychological safety needed for honest conversations about whether someone is truly right for the role. If there’s any hesitation whatsoever, you missed something in the scoring. Maybe the role definition was wrong. Maybe the candidate has a red flag that didn’t show up in the framework. Either way, hesitation is a signal to dig deeper.
If somebody were to walk into your office and say I’m resigning, if you wouldn’t fight to keep that person, do you really want them on your team?
Ryan Farley, LawnStarter
This simple rule changed the entire dynamic. It acknowledged that hiring is ultimately a human judgment call. Numbers help you organize information, but they can’t make the decision for you. The best candidates generate genuine excitement. If they don’t, no scorecard should override that.
When you’re in growth mode, there’s always a fire burning somewhere. You need someone now. You need to fill a role in two weeks. That urgency is when most companies compromise. They pick the person who is 80 percent of what they want because waiting feels irresponsible.
Ryan’s observation is simple but counterintuitive: getting the wrong person in the door is more painful than leaving the role open longer. Implementing “no slop” hiring standards means resisting the pressure to compromise on quality when timelines tighten. A bad hire creates more work for everyone. They slow down the team, require management overhead, and eventually need to be replaced anyway. The time you saved by hiring quickly evaporates.
He’s also realistic. Sometimes you go to market and realize you’re being too picky. Maybe the role needs two people instead of one. Maybe you need to pay more. Maybe your hypothesis about what the role needs shifts. But the solution to those problems is not to lower your standard on the person you do hire. It’s to change the scope or the economics.
Ryan sees one common mistake across founders: no hiring process at all. It’s surprising how many companies scale to dozens or hundreds of people without a standardized way to evaluate candidates. Each hiring manager asks different questions, weighs different factors, and makes solo decisions.
The good news is you don’t need to invent one. Use established frameworks like Who and Topgrading. The books cost fifteen dollars. The process they describe has been tested across thousands of companies. You’re not reinventing the wheel.
Implementation does require discipline. Some managers will push back. They’ll say they just want to have a chat, that structure gets in the way of finding good people. Ryan’s answer is direct: as a founder, sometimes you have to be a dictator about process. But the process sells itself. Once people go through it and see the results, they stop fighting it. Better candidates actually prefer a structured process. It makes them reflect on their career. It makes your company look professional and thoughtful.
The added benefit: when your entire organization uses the same interview format, you’re comparing apples to apples. You’re not having two completely different conversations and trying to retroactively compare the results. Standardization makes judgment better, not worse.
This is very uncomfortable to ask people these questions. I'd like to you to go through your last five bosses and tell me what's their name, where did you work with them, and how do you think they'll rate your performance on a scale from one through 10? You start getting all sorts of people withdrawing from your process for reasons like, you know what, it's not the right time for me. It's because they don't want you to talk to their past boss. What you're basically looking for throughout that process is, does this person have a track record of excellence in every role that they've been in? Every great company is built on hiring decisions most people never see. The moments where a founder chooses who to trust, who to promote, and who to bet the company on, long before the outcome is obvious. This is who we hire. I'm Luis Sen, and this show is about how leaders actually make those decisions. Not frameworks, not advice, judgment. Today's guest is Ryan Farley, co-founder of Long Starter. Long Starter is a national marketplace for long-care services in over 3,000 cities. Built in an industry most people overlooked and scaled through real operational pressure. Ryan comes from analytics and systems background. He's led growth, data, and decision-making at Long Starter through multiple stages, including hiring leaders far more experienced than himself. A few years ago, I watched Ryan as a relatively young founder hire executive with decades more experience than him. I asked him how he was able to do that. His answer was simple. Not how, who. That moment changed about how I think about hiring, and it's the reason that this show exists. In this conversation, we're talking about hiring decisions. The bets that worked, the ones that didn't, and how Ryan's judgment around people evolved as Long Starter grew. As you listen, ask yourself this. Are you spending more time figuring out how to build your company or are you clear on who should be building it with you? All right, Ryan, so I want to anchor this conversation back in time. When you think of LawnStarter's early days, you know, how big was the team when hiring decisions really started to matter? Yeah, um it was probably about a year in. Uh we raised a little bit of funding that we that we started hiring people and uh like most founders, we had no freaking clue what we were doing. We were really winging it and it took us probably three or four years, actually maybe longer before somebody finally one of our investors said, "Look, guys, you got to read this book. It'll change your game." And that's the Who book that you mentioned. The Who book, absolutely fundamental, right? It's become the hiring Bible here at Latham & uh you know, I remember you just being really you know, you were a young entrepreneur and we had, you know, friends that were were decades older than us, but I I saw you going and hiring executive with 30-plus years of experience and I was thinking and I asked you, I was like, "How are you know, what what are you doing? How are you doing this? This is you know, incredible." And you told me specifically it wasn't uh how, it's who. And you know, so what once you read that book, like how did you start applying that? Can you take me back to to that season where, you know, hiring became a superpower of yours? Yeah, it it was uh yeah, maybe four or five years in. Uh we had hired an executive coach to kind of help us uh implement another book called Scaling Up, which is kind of like a collection of different frameworks and whatnot to run a growing business. And what I like remember learning there is like all 80% of problems in business that aren't related to like your core product, your core differentiation, your core go-to-market have been solved before. So, why not find somebody who's spent their entire lives working on this one problem and kind of just steal what they have? And that was Who. Um so, he had us read that book. Um I started doing it kind of like on my own. We were still kind of doing hiring by look and feel. But I like did a couple of the the the Topgrading interviews, and I I immediately went out and told her like, "Dude, this is very uncomfortable to ask people these questions. What are the names of your last five bosses and how will they rate you on a scale from 1 through 10? But like you got to you got to watch this. Like you go from like you know, a signal of like a three out of 10 to at least an eight out of 10 just by, you know, asking those questions." And uh you know, in terms of Topgrading for those that don't know, uh what is it and how you know, how natural does it feel now? Yeah, I mean it feels like supernatural. So, to give a recap on Who, there's also a book called Topgrading, which is kind of like a more complex version. I I would read Topgrading and then read Who, so you kind of have the context, but Who is like more manageable to implement. But basically, like there's four steps: a screening interview, a Topgrading interview, focus interviews, and reference interviews. The love for interview, you're starting to use the process and you know, there's a few questions, but the last one is at the end of this interview, we're going to ask you to introduce us to all of your former bosses, and we're going to do an interview with each of them. I'd like to you to go through your last five bosses and tell me what's their name, where did you work with them, and how do you think they'll going to your performance on a scale from 1 through 10. Um and what's funny about this is you start getting all sorts of people withdrawing from your process for reasons like, "You know what? It's not the right time for me." or uh "You know what? I thought about it and I'm not ready to make a move." And it's because they don't want you to talk to their past boss. Uh So, that's step one. Step two is the top grading interview where you kind of go There's a series of questions you ask starting with high school or undergrad, kind of where whenever you want to start. And again, during every you kind of conclude each chapter with "All right, remind me who you reported to. Uh oh, it's John Smith. Is Is Smith spelled S M I T H?" Uh and then you go a little bit more deep and you say, "So, how What was it like working with John?" Uh "All right, well, you know, what did you like about working with him?" Um and then you kind of flip it and it's like, "Okay, what will he say were your biggest strengths? What will he say were your biggest areas for improvement back then when we speak with him? How How will he rate you on a scale from 1 through 10?" And it's really it that combined with the other questions get you a really like honest take on what they accomplished and what they learned from that you know, step in their career. And what you're basically looking for throughout that process is does this person have a track record of excellence in every role that they've been in? Love it. The best predictor of future success better than any personality test, any assessment. It's going to be their their past behaviors, right? And uh you nailed it with the back then, right? And And there's an emphasis in the book where back then is really important. And then when you go and ask their manager, cuz you do, you go and you you you go and you talk to their manager and they might actually open up more because it Oh, well, then, right? They could have improved it, you know, in the last 3 years. Exactly. Exactly. Well, as soon as you say back then, you're giving them permission to have made mistakes, which like I mean, we've all made mistakes and screw-ups in our career and like usually the people who have a track record of excellence recover from them. Uh in future roles. So, like yeah, you're giving them permission to tell that you about, you know, what they fell short on during that period of time. Love it. So, you know, I remember you hiring senior executives. What did you believe that a senior executive would change that you couldn't get from a strong manager back then? Um yeah. Uh really um like when you hire an executive, it's you're looking for them to typically, at least in a startup kind of growth phase company, you're looking them to transform some aspect of a business uh line, whether it's engineering, whether it's product, whatever it may be. Um and typically, like when you're hiring like when you're hiring younger or sorry, more junior roles, like you know, they may not have done this job before. But when you're hiring an executive, like they need to be effective from day one. So, typically, like you're looking for a track record of excellence in addition to like when you write up what this you want this person to accomplish, you want to see that they've accomplished that some that thing in similar roles before. Like with with younger employees, you know, you've got some time to train, make mistakes, get coached, mentored. With executives, no. Like their job is to move the needle starting day one. It it starts with day day one. They need to start with with a plan. And I I love where you highlighted like they they need to come to change a business function. Uh Uh I think a lot of the listeners here are on their journey to start going and hiring executives. So, it's you know, I absolutely crucial hires to get right, right? Or it sets your company back uh a year or two if you get that wrong hire. So, like what you know, I I I know you mentioned you had uh recommendation three of these books from from investors. Um you know, you all raised over $35 million in 3,000 cities. You you run a global workforce, but it you mentioned a year in, but then four five years in you really started taking recruiting you know, more more seriously but what you know, beyond that like what problems were you trying to solve at at those moments? And you know, what why did the the decision to really focus on hiring and and develop that into a superpower of your right over time? Yeah, I mean most mostly cuz we screwed it up a lot. Um yeah, I mean like it really is you know, people are the fundamental building blocks of any business like sure, you could talk about process, strategy, whatever. Uh but getting people that one share your core values and two, you know, have the chops to actually move the needle for you. I mean it you can't really wouldn't say you can't be successful without really good people. There are definitely businesses that succeed in spite of themselves, but um they you know, your team is the fundamental unit of you know, whether you're going to be successful or not. Love it. The like so, looking back on it, you know, as as you were trying to you mentioned you know, you got a lot of things wrong. So, I want to nail that because I certainly have as well. Uh you know, I run a recruiting agency and we we we get this wrong. so um you know, can you talk to me about a hiring decision that didn't work, not to find blame, but just to understand, you know, some judgment behind that? Yeah.
Um you know, you can talk about what role was it or you know, what stage your the company was at, um you know, and when you first realize that something really wasn't working. Yeah, um I mean, the first thing to like you like you could always get the scorecard wrong. What you think that this like that the the first step of the who book is you write down what you want this person to accomplish and then what part of the core competencies that you think you need there. It's always possible that you just think about it and then reality hits you and you needed someone you know, you thought you needed somebody who is really a marketer that was really super numbers analytical or whatever and it turns out you actually needed uh creative or something like that. Um that happens. Uh I think the biggest thing that we changed in our process was you start getting more people involved. Uh you start hiring like, you know, more senior people, director level. And we had a string where we realized people were giving us the numbers when we would step three is a focus round where you evaluate competencies and that's where you bring in other people. And the numbers would all say this person passed. References were all good. But we weren't excited about this person, but we figured, okay, we we created this we adopted this process for a reason. We're great objectively. And what we started doing was we would basically go around the table and say, "Louise, would you be enthusiastic about working with this person?" And if there's any hesitation whatsoever, you probably got something wrong in those numbers. Right.
Wow. It's like
Wow, yeah. This I think popularized the like, you know, if somebody were to walk into your office and say I'm resigning, if you wouldn't fight to keep that person, do you really want them on your team? It's the same kind of like gut check litmus test of that, whereas like if somebody is and you see people like cuz they're like, you know, in a group and they might four other people may say yes, and then like you see some person just like hesitate a little as soon as you see that hesitation, you know, okay, we missed something. And you know, it's not perfect, none of this is perfect, but that's something that we implemented as like a a gut check to our process cuz the process really is about humans assigning numbers at the end of the day. Uh like you can you can try to get it as objective as you want, but there's always going to be some amount of like gut feeling judgment, and that litmus test I think really helped us raise the bar. Wow, yeah, that that quote is going to be everywhere. So, um you you want to fight for people, right? You want to be extremely excited about them. It's it's heck yes or no, and uh it you know, I think a lot of people need to hear this where it's not just about a number, and if you have Jenny at, you know, 8.9 and Allison at 8.78, oh Jenny's the, you know, ranked technically higher, so we got to choose her based on the system we designed. No, it's not about that, right? You still need to make those gut checks as you said, and um I think I think that's a very great point is like, would you enjoy working with this person? So, you you mentioned something important where, you know, going remote allowed you to to scale globally. What what did that enable for you in terms of talent? Gosh, I mean it was it was great. So, um yeah, we so once we started in Austin, we couldn't hire support as quickly as we wanted to, so we started going through that the rest of Texas and we opened a few other states you know, to try to get that on board. Then we opened the Philippines where we have you know, a large workforce now, but we kind of like kept product engineering marketing and office. Um but then we would start well once we started adopting this process and which you know, largely revolves around let's find somebody who's exceed succeeding right now at the job that we want and sometimes that was a very specific role.
And now you're 444 people is that monumental and but how you know, going from zero to 10, going from 10 to 100, going from 300 to 400 like you know, in addition to process and having like what what's changed in your head about hiring right and that a little more context there is like you know, what we we work with staff companies 40 50 50 of them that are hiring and there are some CEOs that just still have a gut check, right? They're like would I buy from this person is my gut so like did any of those things really change for you as time evolved? Yeah, I think the one thing that I am totally calm now with is that it's always going to take longer than you want it to um to find the right person. Um you know, when you're under a time crunch, when you want to be doing work and not on interviews, when there's a fire really burning and you really need somebody putting that fire out, it's so easy to just compromise your standards or start justifying why oh well, this person hasn't done that, but I mean it's just so easy to justify that stuff and I now just I've like it's just look this is going to take a while and it's going to be painful, but you know what's more painful is getting the wrong person in the world. Now, look there's times that where you go out to market and you realize I'm being way too picky. I got to either choose X or Y or maybe I need to choose two people or maybe you need to pay more or maybe like you definitely don't want to be like super rigid on your original hypothesis on what you're going out to find. Uh but I've become like way more just cool with the fact that like look this is going to suck for a while. We're just going to have to deal with it. We're going to have to let the fire burn until we get this person. We're not going to compromise um what we're looking for just because we're 8 months in, 9 months in, 10 months in. It's always worthwhile. And it always feels like once you're like worrying that you maybe are being too picky or something that's like it seems like that's always when you find the right person. It's like like house hunting or something like Oh yeah, yeah. When you lose one you always move into a better place or something like that. Uh you know, in terms of not lowering the standards it's going back to the who in the top grading and getting somebody that is checking out in all those fronts and then also the gut check. Yeah. Yeah, and we didn't really talk about the focus rounds of the process which are much more kind of like what most people do is inner behavioral interviews where you'll pick five or six things that you want to see, you know, I need to uh you know, this person needs to be you know, polished speaker or strong problem-solving skills or whatever. Um and a lot of times that's where you'll see some compromising. It's just like okay, well we said we needed a five out of five on problem solving. We rated this person a four. Do we really need a five? Like that's what that's the kind of conversation I always found myself having. Yeah. Uh And then like what what's a mistake a hiring mistake that you see founders repeat constantly? I you know, you're now going and starting a seed fund and uh you're going to be giving advice as you've given me on on hiring. Uh so, what what is a common mistake that you see them repeat? Yeah, I mean not having a process is like number one. I mean, it's pretty simple at the end of the day, but I mean, I I'm guessing most companies don't have a process. I was surprised that it took us, you know, five years or whatever for somebody to recommend us a book. I'm sure there's other great processes other than Who / Topgrading, but like I don't think so. May Yeah, maybe not. Um but if like people have solved like every company does this, like you don't need to reinvent the wheel here. Yeah. So, just have a process. A process is better than no That goes with most things in businesses. Having a process is better than no process. I think that's the the great thing. I mean, I think y'all have built out really good internal recruiting teams, right? We've worked with companies that have no process and they're bootstrap SaaS startups to, you know, companies that have built uh 600, 700 person, you know, teams and scaled internationally in Colombia or Brazil and what is is interesting there is they, you know, the one that I see successful all use a form of Who and Topgrading. Um and they, you know, they have it in their Greenhouse instance. They have the five steps. They have the gradings and the scorecards and their internal recruiters or us, we're following up with them and making sure everything's getting filled out. And it's like strong guesses need to be across the board and even a soft yes is not good enough to meet their caliber, right? Cuz everybody they bring in needs to level up the team and that is a standard that they set and I see, you know, our organizations that do create that really start to excel and create a culture that people want to go and work in. Yeah, definitely. Yeah, it could always be better, especially when it comes to like different roles and whatever. You know, you're hiring a new role, it sometimes takes you a while to kind of like hit your stride. Like, for example, one thing that we kind of tweaked a little bit with the process is on the first round we would try to figure out like this this takes a while to figure out what the role, but like okay, somebody, you know, career goals align with you, bosses would say good things, but there we would try to find one question where it's like, okay, this is going to at least knock a bunch of people out so we don't have to waste our time. And what I like doing with that question is like, okay, what does this role need? And then the question is something along the lines of tell me your most impressive accomplishment was related to this. So like, okay, let's say we're hiring like product manager needs to be super analytical, um able to solve kind of like tough multivariate problems. So it might be like, all right, cool. Tell me the most challenging analytically complex problem that you've solved in the course of your career. And if it's, well, we tested different shades of button colors, they you can just knock So Wait, what's what's the best? Yeah apparently. Uh cuz because it's like, okay, that doesn't mean that person is great, right? But if their most impressive accomplishment is below like what you need this person to perform at on a daily basis, And are that person's probably not going to pass rest of the process, but that can take some time to like iterate for different roles and kind of like nail down what you want as that like uh extra DQ stage. Um but other than that, I mean like I like the process now. Um I definitely think that there's some shortcomings on it that I, you know, personally want to figure out. Like the Who is great for figuring out people who have accomplished a lot of things, but it's not the best at uh like determining how much potential somebody has. Usually it's pretty self-evident, but um I think that that's part of a an area that um I'd like to get better at is like not just identifying what they've accomplished in their past, but like Yeah.
potential ceiling. Uh I haven't figured that out. Uh I know some people are really good at that. I'm personally not. Um Well, I think you're good at building the talent, right? So, the the other book you recommended to me uh with Multipliers after that. And you know, I I you know, I I guess yeah, it is a different power to go and say, "Okay, this person has a lot of potential." But I think when they're in your team, you have the ability to go and create that potential and fire in them if they're coachable and want to uh actually learn and grow. And I you know, I I've seen you do that numerous times where, you know, I think one of your your first em em employees, Alex, you know, went on and now is, you know, has his own seven-figure agency from the things that he learned building with you. So, that's you know, uh definitely multiplier ability and uh uh I I don't think yeah, I don't know if anybody can just say, "Yeah, that person, you know, I guess they they work in in Hollywood scouting uh actors." Yeah. Yeah, that's another good book and another example of like somebody spent, you know, a long time studying one part of business, like go steal what they have. You know. Well, not even steal, right? They they it's for for $15 you can go and buy so much time especially if you go and implement it. So I guess, you know, as we wrap up here like what recommendations you have for founders who are trying to go and implement some process like this and maybe getting some pushback or um you know, their their managers are like really I have to go and ask this. This is stupid. I just want to go and have a chat with them and you know, that is it giving them an ultimatum and saying you my way or the highway or you know, what what do you to actually implement process change? You're laughing so Yeah. No, it's funny cuz I feel like as a founder you very often do like nobody wants to talk about this, but it's like a lot of a lot of times you do have to just be a dictator and say we're doing this. It's helpful if you can get people to buy in. Higher the hiring process though is like we've had a lot of things where it's like this is the way we do things and usually people come around usually what happens is somebody comes from another company they do it their way, we do it our way. Usually they're not that different, but they're like I want to do it this way. Like it without fail. And some people are more receptive to it than others. With the hiring process though, it like it's just so good. Again, like this isn't anything I invented. This is somebody that Jeff Smart and his dad before him spent decades in the Yeah. Um it's like day one this is look this is how we do things, but I do think that like it's so evident when you have somebody that's good at it and then somebody who's kind of like riding shotgun and sees it like it sells itself internally. Love it. Love it. It also becomes like a self-fulfilling prophecy cuz like when everybody goes through it they're like, "Okay, now it's my turn." Yeah. Because it does self-select for people who actually enjoy that type of thing. Like that's a thing that I don't think the book really sells is that like you appear so much more polished, professional, disciplined up skilled skilled when you go through this process. Like people really good candidate like I've interviewed so many candidates who are like way more talented than me, way more accomplished, you know, decades of experience that would be like, "Man, I've never gone through a process before. It was kind of fun to reflect on this. Like it was really interesting. I Can you tell me like what this was because I want to adopt it? Um I love it. Like you just you appear like when we started this we were not very good at what we did to be very clear. Like we were couple 20-something-year-olds figuring it out. Um but people would go through and be like, "Wow, they're really disciplined." And it we lived up to it. Love it. Love it. Yeah, it's you know, for me I enjoy interviewing now based on that process where, you know, we're interviewing demand gen and ops and sales, but I get the you know, if I'm running a screening or a who interview, uh I I know I I don't even have to go and look at the question I'm going to ask. I know. I know the question I'm going to ask. Uh so it you know, it's created a really fun process for me. And also it's it standardized it where it's also what we're asking the same questions, right? It's not this you know, and I I think that's one of the biggest mistakes that I made personally when I was first hiring 10 years ago is you know, I would I would go and ask this person these questions, this person these questions, and it really it wouldn't give me an accurate measurement at the end of the day. I would have two whole different conversations. Yeah, 100% 100%. Orion, I appreciate you being here sharing honest answers on hiring. Uh really fantastic to see the the growth that you went through in the journey. And uh if people want to find you, you can say don't but where where could they find you? Can they email you LinkedIn, watch your TikTok dances? What's uh Yeah, I keep my TikTok dances private. But yeah, shoot me I'm not big on social media, but shoot me a message on LinkedIn is probably the best way to get in touch. Amazing. So we'll put a link to to Ryan Farley LawnStarter. If you want amazing uh outdoor lawn services, this is the place to go. They're in 3,000 cities all over the US. LawnStarter.com. Ryan, thanks so much for being here. Thanks Luis.
