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

61–70 of 297 posts

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#61

Post by alexashka »

dktoao wrote: post #22

Thank you so much for this analysis, even as a person with layman's grasp on economics you made the deception in host's apparent off the cuff assertion very obvious. I think a big part of the problem that we have in America (and the rest of the world) right now is that it takes these charismatic individuals (All-in, Joe Rogan, etc.) 10 seconds to confidently make these false claims based on personal bias and vibes. T…

> The information landscape is heavily weighted towards these grifters, and I am not sure how we can fix that.

We can start with not alienating the millions of people who enjoy listening to Joe Rogan and like him as a person.

What do you even mean by grifter and how is Joe Rogan a grifter? We can go back and forth on here until you are shown to have a very shallow understanding of Joe Rogan and the history of his podcast and yet feel comfortable in calling him a grifter - a derogatory and inflammatory term that is completely unnecessary in a fact based conversation.

Assuming you are wrong in calling him a grifter - what gave you the utmost confidence to do so and is that not the exact problem you decry Joe Rogan and these other 'grifters' of being guilty of? Of just saying shit based on personal bias and 'vibes'?

Anyhoo :)

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#62

Post by llamaimperative »

cryptozeus wrote: post #13

If you make investment decisions based on podcast called all-in then yes you should not watch it. It is a entertainment/ news podcast, treat it as such.

No, it's actually a bad idea to expose your brain to pathologically dishonest people.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#64

Post by mordymoop »

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…

They make me feel like becoming super rich is achievable — even they could do it!

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#65

Post by DesiLurker »

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…

Likewise for VC/tech. I started listening for those topics and in those days that used to be almost entire show then they slowly started pivot to politics & social commentary which I dont care much for (from them). they are a bunch of centi/billionaire and should stick to that lane but I feel now they have become the podcast arm of RW. I have to say I find myself skipping lots of portions now, its almost not worth it but I still do it to catch up on the dog-whistle to other closeted republican tech/VC/leadership but then WSJ does that better than them.

some observations, IDK if others have noticed: - chamath always speaks last as if he is some kind of village elder, I think it allows him to present a better pov than he actually has - sacks is good at logic/debating and It seems they use that to push a RW pov without sounding like they are endorsing it by presenting a weak/half baked opposition to it.

overall I find hard to take them seriously outside of core tech/VC stuff. the science guy is okay but meh.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#67

Post by FigurativeVoid »

When the pandemic started, I really enjoyed the podcast. They seemed to have some good insights, and I found them funny. It was a vibe that I sorely missed being home alone.

If one them sees this, I hope they take it kindly. The podcast has gone downhill drastically. The level of discourse has dropped considerably. They make all sorts of claims with very little evidence.

Recently they have all agreed that voter ID laws "just make sense." But they don't even bring up any of the unpleasant history around IDs.

When DeSantis was running, they didn't ever talk about him flying immigrant around as a horrible political stunt.

They've been leaning closer and closer to anti vax stances.

I still listen.. but I'll probably stop soon. It's becoming a bro podcast.

David Friedberg has the best mind for evidence, and he speaks less and less.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#68

Post by xmprt »

nostrebored wrote: post #19

Misinterpreting data is easy. To be clear -- I think the All In podcast is frequently flagrantly wrong, but basically all podcasts that try to foretell events are. Chamath mistaking 0.85 absolute as 0.85 relative is fairly easy to do. Even the critique's interpretation is very shallow -- things like second order effects, like the fiscal multiplier contribution, aren't considered. But macro is an art more than a scien…

> Chamath mistaking 0.85 absolute as 0.85 relative is fairly easy to do.

I would disagree. If you're actually looking at the data, then anyone with a high school education should know that you don't take percentages of percentages like this. I still think it's ignorance more than malice, but I can't trust someone who would make a simple mistake like this to prove a point. I need my sources of information to at least be unbiased in how they view facts of data.

You can represent those facts differently. For example, he might think that 30% of growth being tied to government spending is high and I can follow his reasoning based on that. However if he claims that the actual figure is 85% then the starting point itself is incorrect.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#69

Post by threeseed »

ks2048 wrote: post #50
bongodongobob wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think lots of voters want "let's deport all illegal immigrants!" I think they would be shocked if they understood what kind of operation it would take to deport 15 million and what the side effects would be. For comparison, the entire (huge) prison population is 1.9 million. I think some terrible things will happen to immigrants (and people suspected of being immigrants), but this scale doesn't seem possible and wi…

Latinos broke for Trump in unprecedented numbers, especially men.

Wonder how they will feel being constantly asked for papers lest they be thought of as undocumented and discriminated against.

Post reply on HN