Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

passingtime.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 297 posts

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#31

Post by JumpCrisscross »

schnable wrote: post #11
Centigonal wrote: post #3

There was the opendoor ipo, there was Jason Calacanis "sharpening the knives" ahead of the Twitter acquisition, there was what David Sacks did to Zenefits, and there's more. People are going to keep trusting these guys, simply because they have a hard-on for charismatic people with a lot of money, an extremely short memory, and refusal to believe that they will be the next ones to be scammed.

I find these guys are pretty insightful when discussing tech and VC news. The politics talk is awful. Chamath is a lightweight who doesn't know anything about how our government works but speaks confidently -- I remember one time he was talking about how raising the debt ceiling will allow the President to spend more money. Sacks is a partisan hack who will spin everything as a positive for Trump and MAGA politics. T…

> these guys are pretty insightful when discussing tech and VC news

They seem insightful. They’re generally behind the curve and remind of Stratfor.

If anything, All In is better connected on politics. But that may be my Gell-Mann amnesia at play because I know the finance side of tech very well, and they’re not only frequently but paradoxically consistently wrong on it in ways that one sees institutional-versus-retail flows profit off.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#32

Post by kemiller2002 »

bongodongobob wrote: post #28
kemiller2002 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anybody who is going to be shocked at what happens as far as aggressive policies aimed at women, minorities, immigrants, the elderly, and the lower income brackets really has no excuse. They haven't been shy in stating their intentions. You can say you made a choice to support it, but don't hide and say you didn't know.

They won't be shocked, it's literally what they wanted and why people voted the way they did. You can't just blame corruption or something anymore. It's what people want.

And that is the saddest part of all.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#34

Post by tailspin2019 »

All-In is one of the few podcasts I listen to where I don’t exactly like the hosts and disagree with a high percentage of what they say. But I find them interesting, and their recent shilling for Trump gave me a bit more of a nuanced insight into what they see as Trump’s strengths.

I take everything they say with a huge grain of salt. It is incredible how confidently they talk about certain topics where it’s clear even to an uneducated listener that they only have a surface level understanding.

Their flip-flopping on AI - from it being the best thing ever to being completely overhyped and underperforming - and then back again - has been amusing.

I enjoy their insights on slightly less hyperbolic topics like SaaS business models and other more mundane things. There can be some genuine nuggets of wisdom there.

Jason sometimes pushes back on the political stuff and attempts to be a voice of reason (relatively speaking - though I’m revealing my bias there) and that can sometimes prompt some actual interesting debate. I probably wouldn’t be able to bear listening at all without him on it.

Mainly though I think it can be good to listen to people you don’t agree with every so often.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#35

Post by indy »

tailspin2019 wrote: post #34

All-In is one of the few podcasts I listen to where I don’t exactly like the hosts and disagree with a high percentage of what they say. But I find them interesting, and their recent shilling for Trump gave me a bit more of a nuanced insight into what they see as Trump’s strengths. I take everything they say with a huge grain of salt. It is incredible how confidently they talk about certain topics where it’s clear ev…

That's the best description of the All-In Podcast I've read.

It's often infuriating to listen to someone being confidently wrong, but occasionally there are some good insights.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#36

Post by Centigonal »

mhluongo wrote: post #9
Centigonal wrote: post #3

There was the opendoor ipo, there was Jason Calacanis "sharpening the knives" ahead of the Twitter acquisition, there was what David Sacks did to Zenefits, and there's more. People are going to keep trusting these guys, simply because they have a hard-on for charismatic people with a lot of money, an extremely short memory, and refusal to believe that they will be the next ones to be scammed.

David Sacks*

thanks, fixed!

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#37

Post by senkora »

Imnimo wrote: post #21
greenie_beans wrote: post #5

I watched their election result livestream last night. They had some notable guests, like Donald Trump Jr. and Steve Bannon. Bannon was excited about the prospect of deporting 15 million people. Jason seemed shocked, as if this wasn't what he's been supporting all along. Does he not realize that he's in bed with fascists? Or he's just a fascist too? They hinted at knowing who will be the secretary of state and treasu…

I remember seeing their interview with Trump over the summer. They came away convinced that Trump would offer a green card to every foreign grad student in the US. I remember how much trouble the Trump immigration policy caused for foreign students in his previous term. It's very hard for me to believe that Trump will do a complete 180 on that, and I couldn't understand why the All-In guys seemed to just eat it up un…

I remember that one. His campaign immediately walked that promise back hard:

> Asked for comment, the Trump campaign said in a statement that only after "the most aggressive vetting process in U.S. history" would "the most skilled graduates who can make significant contributions to America" be able to stay.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-foreign-college-...

Of course, no one was surprised by the reversal.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#38

Post by somethoughts »

tailspin2019 wrote: post #34

All-In is one of the few podcasts I listen to where I don’t exactly like the hosts and disagree with a high percentage of what they say. But I find them interesting, and their recent shilling for Trump gave me a bit more of a nuanced insight into what they see as Trump’s strengths. I take everything they say with a huge grain of salt. It is incredible how confidently they talk about certain topics where it’s clear ev…

Agreed - I find it useful to get unfiltered insight into how ultra high net worth people think about the world and view/approach things and what sources they use to form opinions.

I also find it useful to compare/calibrate how much about finance that's not VC specific (i.e. macro economics, interest rates, commodities, etc.) I know relative to ultra high net worth people.

It does require active listening to spot the subtle/not subtle bias, errors in logic etc.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#39

Post by Bhilai »

I was by a few right leaning friends that All-In presented neutral perspectives to political issues but after having tried a few different episodes, I felt that they were pretty biased for Trump. I heard several things which I knew were true but Sacks dismissed them or simply ignored them and continued with his circumlocution on the topic.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#40

Post by alexashka »

If you understand that these people are professional politicians in the realm of tech - it will all fall into place.

They will believe and say whatever accrues power to them. That's their nature.

What would change if they take the podcast more seriously and hire fact checkers for every segment that they do? Would that make it all a-okay? Shrugs

To me, the fact that they don't feel the need to be accurate is telling. I don't want anyone helping someone that acts in bad faith to do it better.

The better bad faith actors get at persuasion, the worse it is for everyone else. Look at Obama.

Post reply on HN