71–80 of 81 posts
I haven't gone back to re-listen, but here's a selection from what I favorited in my podcast app: - Changelog and Friends - Even the best rides come to an end (Kelsey Hightower) - https://changelog.com/friends/6 - The Changelog - What it takes to scale engineering (Rachel Potvin) - https://changelog.com/podcast/527 - Ship It - Rust efficiencies at AWS scale (Tim McNamara) - https://changelog.com/shipit/89 - Practical…
The Freakonomics series on airlines was really great, probably my all round favourite this year.
Freakonomics is so consistently good. Dubner is one of the best interviewers out there. Great follow-up questions that force the guest to elaborate on or defend their positions. So many other interviewers in the business/econ/investing space just lob softballs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't seem to support "Carlin is discredited by most serious historians in general." Reading that comment, it sounds like I shouldn't treat Carlin as a definitive source on anything. Which seems fine? And the closest thing I can see to a specific criticism there is "oversimplification of the Roman Republic." Which I'm not even sure is a criticism. I generally expect lay history to oversimplify things. Also...…
> I shouldn't treat Carlin as a definitive source on anything Isn't this a key lesson in the study of history? There are no "definitive sources." Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary sources have their own biases, limitations, and cultural influences, sometimes to the point that they say more about their own lives than the history they portray. Sometimes it takes centuries for anyone to notice. Your best hope for assembl…
Acquired's overview of Costco is a pleasant 3 hours https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/costco
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I shouldn't treat Carlin as a definitive source on anything Isn't this a key lesson in the study of history? There are no "definitive sources." Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary sources have their own biases, limitations, and cultural influences, sometimes to the point that they say more about their own lives than the history they portray. Sometimes it takes centuries for anyone to notice. Your best hope for assembl…
I agree..? Still, there is a difference between Carlin and a "real" historian. That's what I was trying to capture with pithy phrasing. I'll leave it to you to come up with the words to draw that distinction, if you think there is one at all. (And this is actually the point of contention in this thread, which I believe your comment isn't really addressing. I'd consider your comment more of a truism IMO.)
You’re not wrong but that’s also something he openly reminds listeners of about 9 times per episode. I just listened to one of his early episodes and he voiced an opinion that is entirely wrong, but he couched it by basically saying “this is a crazy idea but maybe…” so I have no problem with it.
The two part “Why’d I take speed for twenty years?” episode of Search Engine by PJ Vogt Part 1: https://overcast.fm/+BBVQRWO5g8 Part 2: https://overcast.fm/+BBVQSkynRM
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree..? Still, there is a difference between Carlin and a "real" historian. That's what I was trying to capture with pithy phrasing. I'll leave it to you to come up with the words to draw that distinction, if you think there is one at all. (And this is actually the point of contention in this thread, which I believe your comment isn't really addressing. I'd consider your comment more of a truism IMO.)
> Still, there is a difference between Carlin and a "real" historian. You’re not wrong but that’s also something he openly reminds listeners of about 9 times per episode. I just listened to one of his early episodes and he voiced an opinion that is entirely wrong, but he couched it by basically saying “this is a crazy idea but maybe…” so I have no problem with it.
Carlin does of course remind everyone that he isn't a historian quite regularly. And that's a good thing and a good reminder. But that doesn't mean his content cannot be critiqued for accuracy.
You may consider reading my comments on this thread again. I was defending Carlin.
Most (almost all) of Dan Carlin's podcasts are nothing short of excellent. Twilight of the Æsir Parts I and II are top quality. Apart from that I used to listen to Mike Duncan's Revolutions series, even though he finished up that project in 2022. Likewise the BBC produced an Apollo-era podcast called 13 Minute to the Moon, which was excellent, and technical enough to keep even a space nerd like me interested. Shout-o…
I love Dan Carlin too, but you have to listen with a critical ear. He endorsed the standard, but very questionable, idea that the US basically had to atom bomb two Japanese cities because if we didn't they'd fight to the last grandmother. IIRC he also endorsed the now largely discredited idea that the atom bomb attack is what caused the Japanese to surrender.
> the now largely discredited idea that the atom bomb attack is what caused the Japanese to surrender Do you have a source for this? I just spent 10 minutes searching, and I could find nothing compelling. The closest I could find was Racing the Enemy , which argues that it was the planned Soviet invasion that pushed the Japanese to surrender. But otherwise, the story seems a lot more complex than that, and is certain…
Begin quote:
Even the second atomic bomb had not dissuaded them from continuing the war. But when reports from the Kwantung Army began to arrive, reporting significant Soviet penetration in Manchuria and the situation as “obscure,” objections to surrender were far less convincing.
The Soviets’ Manchurian Campaign, August Storm, destroyed the last vestige of Japanese military power outside Japan, and put the final nail in the coffin of those Japanese militarists who, even after suffering two atomic attacks, intended to continue the war to the death.
https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/the-soviet-invasio...