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

261–270 of 297 posts

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#261

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

gizmo wrote: post #235
MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #54

Incidentally: Chamath plays a fair amount of high stakes poker recreationally, including on various streams and/or filmed poker content. I forget if it was on twitter or a Reddit AMA or what, but he once gave a blurb about what he had learned playing the game for some time, and he said something to the effect of "Poker is a fundamentally defensive game", which is an absurd statement. There is no strategic bias toward…

With investing you can make 1000x your money if you bet right. Your returns are determined by your best bets. You can be spewy and it doesn't matter much. Or you can wait for aces and then bet big. It's up to you. With poker it's not like that. Blinds force you to play mediocre hands and make bets when you're weak. Minimizing your losses with correct play is essential, otherwise you'll bleed out. You can only make mo…

Minimizing your losses is essential; so is maximizing your gains. TBF, in a tournament there is something to be said for biasing towards loss minimization because of the need to preserve your tournament life resulting in chip value being non-linear. But, in cash games (which ironically is what Chamath mostly plays), there is no such bias. Most amateur players arrive incorrectly at that bias over time because frequently miss thin value themselves, and also miss on value when they have the nuts because they don't bluff enough, while also often giving up value incorrectly to better players who are exploiting them, so their experiential bias tells them to err on the side of playing it safe and waiting for a set up in their favor to realize most of their EV, not realizing they are bleeding it away on the margins in countless other spots.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#263

Post by nerdponx »

lmm wrote: post #219
nerdponx wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The assertion that the deep state skews Democrat is so preposterous it sounds like an SNL sketch. Imagine a bunch of G-men sitting around in a conference room with oat milk lattes while the Cigarette Smoking Man lays out plans for the next year Pride parade. Also consider that maybe only Republicans filed suits because their presidential candidate lost. But more direct to your point: No consequential voting irregular…

> The assertion that the deep state skews Democrat is so preposterous it sounds like an SNL sketch. Imagine a bunch of G-men sitting around in a conference room with oat milk lattes while the Cigarette Smoking Man lays out plans for the next year Pride parade. The top LGBT-friendly employer these days is Raytheon. Even pre-Trump the Dems were the party of big government, unions, urbanity, education...; now they're al…

> The top LGBT-friendly employer these days is Raytheon.

The what? Slapping a pride flag on a jet engine isn't exactly a political bias, it's a marketing / reputation-washing gimmick.

> Even pre-Trump the Dems were the party of big government, unions, urbanity, education

"Even pre-Trump"? This goes back to the 1950s.

> now they're also the party of military interventionism, the media, and really most of the establishment.

You are implying that the Republican party is not also this. That implication is utter nonsense beyond what can be excused by ignorance.

> Now you're subtly narrowing the goalposts a whole lot. Voting irregularities, no (other than that ballot box getting set on fire, but I guess you're saying that's not "consequential"), but plenty of potential crime in the overall process (lists of names being added to the rolls at the last minute, that sort of thing). The legal challenges will likely be dropped, if they haven't already, because the Republicans won the election anyway, so what relief could they possibly ask a court to grant?

Voting or voter registration -- citation needed. Voter fraud is a criminal offense, the courts can do plenty.

> Some of the alleged misdeeds of 2020 were only possible because the pandemic created an excuse - rapid expansion of postal voting in violation of the law and/or under "creative" executive orders was something that could happen in plain sight then, but would be rather harder to brush under the carpet now. But, again, a lot of the same allegations were being made in the run-up to this election - we're only not hearing so much about them because the Republicans won.

You don't think the Democrats would love to make a stink about it if there was any hint of real irregularities? Or are you claiming that the irregularities only were irregular in the Democrats' favor, and that they lost in spite of committing widescale voter registration fraud?

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#264

Post by science4sail »

The All-In podcast should not be listened to as a reliable source of news, but rather as a data point providing insight into the perspectives and attitudes of Silicon Valley's leadership class.

If one finds their views to be objectionable/incorrect, then that means that the hosts' peers are likely also holding objectionable/incorrect views of a similar form.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#265

Post by science4sail »

llamaimperative wrote: post #62
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.

What does this mean for journalists and historians then? Both are professionally obligated to expose themselves to power brokers (either in person or through textual records), many of whom are pathologically dishonest. Any serious biographer will tell you that self-recollections and memoirs are at best deeply flawed.

I think that it's more important to cultivate media literacy and critically examine "what is the author doing", not just "what is the author saying".

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#266

Post by sporkland »

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…

I remember them talking about self driving and the tesla's being so far ahead and then not being able to tell the difference between Cruise and Waymo. Waymo is so far ahead of everyone else as someone that uses them in SF it's not even funny. It definitely was my Gell-Mann amnesia moment with them.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#267

Post by mayhaps »

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.

Former Zenefits employee, present for both Parker + Sacks eras. I'm with you, and I'd like to add additional color to David Sacks time as CEO.

David Sacks was uninspiring and aloof. As Zenefits CEO, he worked remote from his office at Craft Ventures. When he rarely appeared on-site, he was escorted around by handlers. On top of everything Zenefits was going through, it didn't help morale having an absentee leader. In retrospect, the guy lacks charm and charisma, so in a way it was a blessing not having him around.

Before the major 2017 layoffs, Sacks held an all-hands announcing a new CEO had been found. His impending departure was explained by repeating that he never intended to be CEO, and only took on the role because he felt obligated. What is more, he admitted he was upset over his long working hours, saying he had been sacrificing time to be at home with his family for quite some time. He even shared that his newborn didn't recognize him or his face, to illustrate how long he had been away. Home for him was roughly 3 miles away. Remarkably pathetic.

Couple points in retrospect:

1. Back in 2016, Sacks created "The Offer", an agreement where Zenefits paid a severance to employees to quit voluntarily. About 10% did. It was clear later that Sacks wasn't all-in as CEO or previously COO. Perhaps he should have taken "The Offer" himself?

2. Remote work vs RTO. Given productivity data on remote work, combined with his personal story about his newborn, you'd think Sacks would be an advocate of remote work. Yet he's hardline RTO. He also gets memmed on by other pod hosts who tease him with questions, like if he can remember his kids' names.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#269

Post by flappyeagle »

eschaton wrote: post #213
throwaway-blaze wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really think poor people and minorities don't have IDs? They must never interact with any form of government or finance that ever needs an ID. This is a massive trope some people bring up all the time. Please show credible data that this is true and I'll happily admit I'm wrong.

Enough don’t that this can be an effective means of voter suppression, otherwise the states doing it would not be doing it. It doesn’t actually improve election security at all, all it does is add expense and difficulty to voting even for their own voters.

is there research on this?

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#270

Post by nfw2 »

nerdponx wrote: post #259
nfw2 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You actually do have a right to that, and to suggest otherwise is a much worse stance on public policy than someone incorrectly describing a quarter's GDP growth.

Freedom (such as free speech) has always been limited by harm caused to others. Or do you suggest that we somehow impose a Pigouvian tax on letting people lie to you for "entertainment"? Let's also be clear: the people crying "it's entertainment stop taking it so seriously!" are probably just unwilling to admit that they didn't realize they were being lied to. This is a common phenomenon.

> (free speech) has always been limited by harm caused to others

No it hasn't, except for specific enumerated circumstances

Post reply on HN