Learning not to trust the All-In podcast • Hacker News Board

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#281

Post by Melting_Harps » Fri, Nov 08, 2024, 5:57 AM UTC

throwaway-blaze wrote: post #205

Melting_Harps wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think you’re exactly right, it’s a show for insiders to know what these 4 people think so the next time they directly or indirectly encounter them they are known quantities. Its masked as news & informative media but its principally brand marketing for these 4 people and their funds & companies. I use it as a 'weight' of sorts when dealing with topics i know about, mainly Bitcoin and AI since I'm involved both th…

You can say you don't care for Elon for a thousand reasons, but you lose credibility if you call the guy who is leading multiple companies that are crushing it in their respective fields an "incompetent fraud".

> but you lose credibility if you call the guy who is leading multiple companies...

Leads? How many Musk corps have you worked at? I have been at 2 of Elon's and one of Kimbal's, I can tell you from from first hand experience, neither of them 'lead' anything there and their titles are merely on paper.

They were merely figureheads, who came in for photo ops and to be seen on occasion (especially when things went wrong) and made their presence felt but that is the extent of it. Elon didn't sleep on the factory floor during Model 3 hell, he was shit posting photos of himself at Sparks in NV at the time: Panasonic was having major issues and was a major choke point for the battery packs all the while the assembly lines for M3 were being revised without his 'insight' at all.

I'm convinced it was him who did the whole crowdfund Elon a couch non-sense, despite him being a damn billionaire who can buy the entire work force a couch without noticing in his bank account, the whole thing smelled of a typical Elon clout chasing tactic.

(All he does is shit post all day on Twitter, how can he lead anything with his posting history?!)

Rather they both rely on an extensive team to handle day to day operations, and a deep pool of exploitable talent to achieve the goals: who eventually burn out in the process after countless iterations before things work correctly.

Go look at the average lifespan of workers at Tesla/SpaceX. It's incredibly short, in the best case of both it's only long enough to vest (the pay is horrible, but the stock options make up for it if you make it that long) but often layoffs or targeted firings (union threats) are often the cause for premature terminations as well.

It's really not hard to see that SpaceX is run by Shotwell, even as an outsider, and I wish she would stage a coup already as she has the loyalty of the rank and file there, unfortunately Elon's title as 'chief engineer' there remains and the way he has structured these companies post-paypal means he cannot be ousted.

That doesn't mean he shouldn't be, as he does more harm than good at this point.

Again, people want to simp for Elon having no first-hand experience and posting behind throwaways online is the extent of his marketing prowess (the only thing I think he really excels at) which makes him like a modern PT Barnum.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#282

Post by lmm » Fri, Nov 08, 2024, 6:43 AM UTC

nerdponx wrote: post #210

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…

But the electoral process already has integrity. There is nothing to rebuild. There was no voter fraud. It was a big baseless fuss and a lot of lies specifically to keep the core Trump supporter base hooked and radical.

Well, that's exactly what's in dispute. The person I replied to said "it doesn't even matter if you agree with the claims that were made about voter fraud"; if your whole argument is that those claims are wrong then it matters quite a lot.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#283

Post by musicale » Fri, Nov 08, 2024, 7:09 AM UTC

swyx wrote: post #27

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…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect

I consider it the cost of information rather than amnesia.

When I read articles about something that I don't know much about, I usually don't have time to fact-check everything individually if it's not obviously wrong and seems to be plausibly presented, so I use it as a base theory until I receive evidence to the contrary - while knowing that it is likely still full of errors.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#284

Post by MisterBastahrd » Fri, Nov 08, 2024, 7:25 AM UTC

slices wrote: post #254

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

a guy with a Ph.D. in electrical and computer engineering, who then worked for years at MIT, isn't an intellectual?

Having a PhD in a field doesn't make you an intellectual. It means you worked long enough to have a defensible dissertation. I know some absolute morons who have PhDs.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#285

Post by thecyborganizer » Fri, Nov 08, 2024, 10:13 AM UTC

flappyeagle wrote: post #269

eschaton wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

An enormous amount - see, for example, this study: https://www.voteriders.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CDCE_V...

About 10% of eligible voters don't have the ID they would need. The people most likely to lack proper ID for voting are young, Black or Hispanic, and poor.

Lots more details in the report!

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#286

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Nov 08, 2024, 4:14 PM UTC

MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #261

gizmo wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 frequent…

[deleted]

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#287

Post by Slyfox33 » Fri, Nov 08, 2024, 4:26 PM UTC

toephu2 wrote: post #115

greenie_beans wrote: post #5

I watched their election result livestream last night. They had some notable guests, like Donald Trump Jr. and Steve Bannon. Bannon was excited about the prospect of deporting 15 million people. Jason seemed shocked, as if this wasn't what he's been supporting all along. Does he not realize that he's in bed with fascists? Or he's just a fascist too? They hinted at knowing who will be the secretary of state and treasu…

Now they're fascist? I don't think you know what the definition of fascism is... (sounds like you're repeating a talking point of the left of calling everyone on the right a fascist..)

You voted for the rapist felon buddy. Please go ahead and explain your definition of fascism.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#288

Post by MisterBastahrd » Fri, Nov 08, 2024, 4:52 PM UTC

newsreaderguy wrote: post #176

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A journalist is supposed to pursue the truth, not be a firehose for incoherent stupidity. I'm sorry your education system failed you.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#289

Post by vekker » Fri, Nov 08, 2024, 8:51 PM UTC

nerdponx wrote: post #260

vekker wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is, the legacy media is confidently wrong about all kinds of matters too, all the time. Why would they have the right to broadcast misinformation, and popular podcasters not? The answer to this isn't censorship. It's in education and teaching people to think critically.

If you are being lied to, then the liars are at fault. If you know that you are being lied to and keep on listening without at least increasing your level of skepticism, then you are a collaborator and an enabler and a public-information-well-poisoner. I maintain that you should not get a free pass to consume bullshit just because you personally find it entertaining , regardless of whether it comes from CNN or a podc…

You say you don't say anything about what we as a society should do about it, but it's definitely implied... or can be seen as such. Especially because it's quite a colored opinion - do you need a list of hoaxes and lies disseminated by the political left in the last 4 years?

Point is, everyone has biases, and everyone makes mistakes. We're only human. I think we should judge an information channel by the way they self-correct for those mistakes. That tells a lot about character and values, and whether or not to trust the source. So I believe we desperately need a meta layer on the Internet, much like X introduced with community notes, but on a larger scale. Open source, fully auditable, immutable (append-only and decentralized, so probably on a blockchain cause of the Byzantine Generals problem) - but I'll admit, that's just the tech geek in me trying to find a practical tech solution to a complex social problem.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#290

Post by cywick » Fri, Nov 08, 2024, 9:32 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #240

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 think vibes are underrated. The smart people can easily mislead you because they're smart. So you can cover things up with "official statistics", maliciously or by accident. For instance, inflation is a big one. I remember during the first spike in inflation (2021 I believe), I started nothing prices have gone up between 25-50%. We've been told at the time inflation was something like 7% but that would mean paying…

> I think vibes are underrated. The smart people can easily mislead you because they're smart. So you can cover things up with "official statistics", maliciously or by accident.

> For instance, inflation is a big one. I remember during the first spike in inflation (2021 I believe), I started nothing prices have gone up between 25-50%. We've been told at the time inflation was something like 7% but that would mean paying $5.35 for something that used to cost $5, which was obviously not what was happening. In short, they play games with the numbers.

When there is a mismatch between your personal gut feeling and some official number or alleged fact in the world, there are different ways you can react:

A) You could think "Hmm, that's weird, is it possible that I'm missing something?"

B) You default to thinking that clearly you are right, so this is just another case of those so-called experts lying to you.

Had your response been A), you would have looked a bit more into it and realized that the overall inflation number is not based just on a subset of a few grocery items, but based on all different kinds of living expenses that people have. Many of those prices increased much less in 2021 than the overall 7% inflation rate (e.g., prescription drugs, cell phone plans, airline fares, motor vehicle insurance), so naturally, inflation in other categories was much higher to result in an overall rate of 7%.

If your gut feeling also tells you to doubt the inflation numbers for individual item categories released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics ([1]), you can get the raw data for those too, if I remember correctly.

One problem with your gut feeling is that it's very susceptible to various biases. For instance, the price of one grocery item increasing by 30% will be much more noticeable to you than the price of another item staying the same. It's also very easy to not realize that you are comparing the current price to the one from two years ago or so, thereby dramatically overestimating the yearly inflation rate.

I didn't mean to single you out, but the tendency by so many people to have overconfident knee jerk reactions to various information, instead of at least considering that they might have unknown unknowns or things they don't fully understand, is something that really concerns me.

[1]: https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2022/consumer-price-index-2021-...