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

71–80 of 297 posts

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#71

Post by ks2048 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #52
ks2048 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Maybe they should just do what Canada does and have really high civil/criminal penalties for employing illegal immigrants (so no job, they just go back because no work)? The problem is that a lot of farmers, hotel owners, and people who work construction projects vote Republican also, so it seems like that will never happen in the US.

I could image a gradual shift to something like that. But if 15 million workers can't work suddenly, there aren't people to do those jobs. Those people also buy groceries, pay rent, etc.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#72

Post by TeaBrain »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #31
schnable wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-ret…

Do you think that of the four of them, Friedberg has a best grasp of the finance side of things? I would think he would be since he was apparently formerly involved in IB, PE, then corp dev when he was younger.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#73

Post by lxgr »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #31
schnable wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-ret…

Sounds like it is. When somebody is confidently wrong in an area you're familiar with, and confidently speaking about areas you're not, isn't that an instant epistemic red flag?

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#74

Post by bartread »

winterrx wrote: post #14
schnable wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I find that I listen to them mainly for the tech and VC discussion as you said. The politics conversations are very drowning and I am gladly looking forward to not having to hear as much of this given the election is over.

I have an imprecise and somewhat tongue in cheek measure of a leader’s quality that suggests it is inversely proportional to the frequency with which they appear in the news. I seem to remember from his last term that Trump is at least a daily fixture even within the British media. I think I’m just going to spend even less time consuming mainstream media.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#75

Post by TeaBrain »

FigurativeVoid wrote: post #67

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 la…

I actually was of the impression that David Friedberg got a decent amount of speaking time in the last few episodes, especially in that recent one that he moderated, which I enjoyed since he's the most level headed, least partisan and most evidence based as you said of the bunch.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#76

Post by lxgr »

mordymoop wrote: post #64
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!

There's even government infrastructure for it in most states and countries! They're called lotteries.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#77

Post by goleary »

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*

David *Sucks

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#78

Post by DashAnimal »

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…

The part i find most fascinating is that when JCal does push back, the YouTube comments are so disproportionately telling him his opinion is wrong (in a venomous way), he is ruining the podcast, Sacks is running circles around him, etc.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#79

Post by MisterBastahrd »

alexashka wrote: post #61
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 pod…

Joe Rogan has a platform because he will allow any idiot on his show and just babble about whatever it is they want to talk about. He's not a journalist, he's a 3 hour ad placement masquerading as a podcast. Lex Friedman is even worse because he gives the impression that he's an intellectual but he plays the same game. At least you know going in that Rogan behaves like a meathead.
Post reply on HN