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

171–180 of 297 posts

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#171

Post by uh_uh »

newfocogi wrote: post #20

In this age of endless expertise, it's easy to be fooled into thinking someone is a true authority until you hear them speak on a topic you know well. There's a certain thrill in getting a glimpse behind the curtain, seeing the man (or woman) behind the rhetoric. While I tell myself that 40% of what they say is just made up or misinterpreted, I can't help but keep listening, captivated by the illusion of insight. Eve…

These guys are clearly at least somewhat intelligent and have brought up arguments in the past that I, in my infinite wisdom, haven’t considered. It’s up to me whether I take those arguments onboard after a sufficient amount of research. So I don’t think we should not listen at all. We should just not be all-in.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#173

Post by 9cb14c1ec0 »

senkora wrote: post #43

The one that I always remember is how they shilled for Solana immediately before it crashed hard. (I have never had any position in any crypto) I feel like their show has an implicit subtext where you’re expected to understand when they are lying. You get to feel smart by recognizing when they’re just talking their book. The tricky question is whether there is any value in the podcast besides understanding their book…

They are standard VCs who constantly hype the latest fads. I remember when the Apple Vision Pro was going to change the world overnight, according to All-In. Currently jcal loves to talk about forcing all his employees to use chatgpt as their default search engine. I'd be willing to bet that won't be the case anymore in 6 months. Still, I listen to them regularly because now and then I learn something genuinely useful.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#174

Post by 7speter »

capitalbreeze wrote: post #112
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…

Crazy no one talks about how the argument against voter ID is that IDs cost money, $90 in Washington. This essentially becomes a Voting Tax.

Its also a bit of a tax if you can only get ids at the dmv, isn’t it?

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#175

Post by TwoNineFive »

9cb14c1ec0 wrote: post #172

One person made a mistake once, so everything they ever say is useless. Got it. Now I can discredit and ignore anyone I want to, because everyone has made a mistake at some point.

That show is 95% hyperbolic con-man BS that angsty tech tweens lap up as truth. I listen to because I want to know what the hype machine is pushing, and they tell me.

It's great for following the techniques of grifter speech and influencing, but it's not a source of good information.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#176

Post by newsreaderguy »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #79
alexashka wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

let "idiots" babble and get their arguments refuted by further discourse. Sorry that i don't feel the need to have a magical truth authority tell me whats right or wrong. You don't know what a journalist is.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#177

Post by metabagel »

9cb14c1ec0 wrote: post #172

One person made a mistake once, so everything they ever say is useless. Got it. Now I can discredit and ignore anyone I want to, because everyone has made a mistake at some point.

The mistake which this podcast made was to misinform their listeners. Given that informing their listeners is their core mission, it's a pretty unforgivable mistake. Better to listen to another podcast which takes their mission more seriously.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#178

Post by 9cb14c1ec0 »

metabagel wrote: post #177
9cb14c1ec0 wrote: post #172

One person made a mistake once, so everything they ever say is useless. Got it. Now I can discredit and ignore anyone I want to, because everyone has made a mistake at some point.

The mistake which this podcast made was to misinform their listeners. Given that informing their listeners is their core mission, it's a pretty unforgivable mistake. Better to listen to another podcast which takes their mission more seriously.

Any podcast that has "informing their listeners" as a core mission will make mistakes now and then. It happens because we are all humans and not Gods. All I'm trying to do here is push back against the suggestion of the article that you write off people based on a single mistake. A world in which I can never make a mistake is not a world I want to live in.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#179

Post by seadan83 »

newfocogi wrote: post #20

In this age of endless expertise, it's easy to be fooled into thinking someone is a true authority until you hear them speak on a topic you know well. There's a certain thrill in getting a glimpse behind the curtain, seeing the man (or woman) behind the rhetoric. While I tell myself that 40% of what they say is just made up or misinterpreted, I can't help but keep listening, captivated by the illusion of insight. Eve…

Totally. Combine with a nice sweater, a headset mic, a giant screen behind them, an audience and boom! Insta credibility. Looking like it is a TED talk is just as good as being a TED talk - and of course then all true! Deep expertise.. (maybe not these guys in particular. Just musing on some very good looking disinfi. Same thing as dressing people up in lab coats)

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#180

Post by kmeisthax »

digdugdirk wrote: post #59
olix0r wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets…

It's fascinating that Michael Crichton would have a quote like that when he's been guilty of falling into the same trap himself. It really shows how difficult it is for the human mind to have perspective on itself.

"Every accusation is a confession", in other words
Post reply on HN