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

191–200 of 297 posts

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#191

Post by pkd »

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.

Here's another one: pre-Musk Twitter takeover, they had him on to make his point. Musk made an erroneous statistical comparison between Twitter likes and YouTube views to demonstrate that Twitter was shadowbanning his tweets. When in fact 30 seconds of thinking would tell you that Twitter likes and YouTube views are not the same metric and cannot be compared (YouTube views are more like Twitter views, and YouTube likes are Twitter likes). None of these four smart people pointed out this discrepancy.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#192

Post by jwiz »

tmn wrote: post #188
Lord-Jobo wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His first point was sourced with evidence, something every single one of these "believers" has failed to produce, time and time again .

I don't have a horse in this race. I just think it's easy to find stuff online to back whatever you want to back. https://electionfraud.heritage.org/ Is the above site BS?

That site seems to be making the argument that there are non-zero amounts of voter fraud.

I don't think anybody thinks there is zero voter fraud.

The position of OP was that there is not widespread voter fraud.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#193

Post by lmm »

parasubvert wrote: post #189
lmm wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't even matter if you agree with the claims that were made about voter fraud, I can't think of any good faith argument by literally anyone on the political compass that it didn't cause people to lose faith in electoral process. Maybe people shouldn't have faith in the electoral process, and the way to rebuild confidence in the integrity of the electoral process is to rebuild the integrity of the electoral p…

That would make sense if there was an actual argument for the process being compromised. But there isn’t. You can rebuild it and be accused of inserting back doors. There’s no win - the whole argument is that the process is sound if a certain party wins, if that party loses, then the process is corrupt. Notice how there’s no cries of election integrity problems for this election? Because the “right” party won.

> That would make sense if there was an actual argument for the process being compromised. But there isn’t.

There are pretty strong arguments that many states illegally (according to their own rules) expanded the scope of postal ballots in 2020, added people to the voter rolls without adequate checks that resulted in people getting added who shouldn't have, etc., which could very plausibly have added up to enough to tip the knife-edge election.

> Notice how there’s no cries of election integrity problems for this election? Because the “right” party won.

I don't think anyone seriously disputes that the civil service has a partisan imbalance. If (and it's a big if) the "deep state" were to cheat, it's pretty clear which side they would cheat for. Well before the results came out this time, it was widely reported that the Republicans had filed hundreds of lawsuits questioning various election irregularities and the Democrats... hadn't. So yeah, only one party doubts the integrity of the election (or, if you want to be more cynical, only one party cares whether it's being rigged, since both parties know which way any rigging is going). That's exactly what we'd expect, whether it's being rigged or not?

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#194

Post by the_optimist »

lmm wrote: post #165
the_optimist wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no magic here. Ballots have no identifiers attached to them. Fraudulent ballots are indistinguishable from real ballots. Envelopes do have identifiers attached to them but are separated from ballots. It is not always necessary to submit envelopes with ballots, and batch integrity is not necessarily maintained or useful based on batch size. False registration and/or false voting can produce fake ballots. Ball…

So what's the scenario where a voter ID check makes a difference - specifically, where an ID check eliminates more fake votes than it disenfranchises genuine voters? The ID check is presumably still attached to the envelope rather than the ballot, right? (Otherwise you have massive deanonymity problems). If there is fake voter registration happening, presumably obtaining fake IDs by the same methods is just as easy.…

The ID check is productive at 1) registration - ensure eligibility and 2) at ballot casting - ensure the voter is registered and unique. The match will inherently enumerate voters. Your outside assumptions that a) id requirements disenfranchise voters and b) official collusion is the “only way” are structurally and by evidence unfounded. In your argument they provide only hand-wavy service for an otherwise unsupported conclusion.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#195

Post by the_optimist »

gruez wrote: post #148
thinkharderdev wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yglesias is just repeating arguments that have been mode over and over by people who do in fact know what they are talking about (Noah Smith makes the argument well here https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/imports-do-not-subtract-from-g... ) The moon base example I think makes the argument very clearly. If you have an economy which produces nothing then it has a GDP of 0. If the increase imports for whatever reason, their…

>The moon base example I think makes the argument very clearly. If you have an economy which produces nothing then it has a GDP of 0. If the increase imports for whatever reason, their GDP is still 0, which means that imports doesn't subtract from GDP, otherwise their GDP would be negative which is nonsensical. It's technically true that imports don't decrease GDP, but that's only true if there's no substitution effe…

Correct. It’s a very straightforward algebraic correction that reflects both supply and demand. The demand is implicit and equal to production. You consumed it but you didn’t produce it. The demand is internal but the supply is not.

This equation is tautologically true. It is not some “almost always wrong” blah blah. People here know almost nothing about economics and are vulnerable to the most specious of arguments.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#196

Post by lmm »

the_optimist wrote: post #194
lmm wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what's the scenario where a voter ID check makes a difference - specifically, where an ID check eliminates more fake votes than it disenfranchises genuine voters? The ID check is presumably still attached to the envelope rather than the ballot, right? (Otherwise you have massive deanonymity problems). If there is fake voter registration happening, presumably obtaining fake IDs by the same methods is just as easy.…

The ID check is productive at 1) registration - ensure eligibility and 2) at ballot casting - ensure the voter is registered and unique. The match will inherently enumerate voters. Your outside assumptions that a) id requirements disenfranchise voters and b) official collusion is the “only way” are structurally and by evidence unfounded. In your argument they provide only hand-wavy service for an otherwise unsupporte…

> The ID check is productive at 1) registration - ensure eligibility and 2) at ballot casting - ensure the voter is registered and unique.

How does checking an ID ensure eligibility better than what's already done? And similarly for ballot casting - how would IDs make a better uniqueness/registration check than what we have?

> a) id requirements disenfranchise voters and b) official collusion is the “only way” are structurally and by evidence unfounded

It's well documented that many legitimate voters do not have IDs. And it's widely accepted that large-scale in-person voter fraud is not happening and there's no real plausible way for it to happen; if you want to claim that it is or it can, the onus is on you.

> In your argument they provide only hand-wavy service for an otherwise unsupported conclusion.

Please grow up. The over-the-top rhetoric doesn't make you more convincing, quite the opposite.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#197

Post by runako »

tmn wrote: post #188
Lord-Jobo wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His first point was sourced with evidence, something every single one of these "believers" has failed to produce, time and time again .

I don't have a horse in this race. I just think it's easy to find stuff online to back whatever you want to back. https://electionfraud.heritage.org/ Is the above site BS?

If you read through the examples on that site, it's actually pretty difficult to find any that have anything to do with ID. There's things like:

- felon (this appears to be far & away the most common)

- moved

- shouldn't have even been allowed to register

- voted twice

- illegally delivered absentee ballot for another person (while not claiming to be that person)

- etc.

The common theme, aside from the absolute rarity of these events (e.g. 36 total in GA over perhaps 40 million votes over ~25 years), is that none of them would be addressed by more stringent identity verification checks at either registration or at the polls.

Clicking through the site, I actually am unable to find a single instance where enhanced ID would have helped. Not saying they aren't in there, just that apparently they are very rare events, even in a dataset of extremely rare events.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#199

Post by echoangle »

piuantiderp wrote: post #130
capitalbreeze wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In most countries that have them, they are free. Taxes already paid for them. Yes, even replacements

In most countries? Really? All countries in Europe I’ve ever heard of make you pay for it. Where is it free?

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#200

Post by steve_adams_86 »

9cb14c1ec0 wrote: post #173
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 usefu…

What is something useful you have learned? It has been ages since I listened, but I stopped because I felt like I wasn't gaining any insight from it. Maybe I'm missing out now?
Post reply on HN