Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video] • Hacker News Board

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#481

Post by bmurphy1976 » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 9:14 PM UTC

redisman wrote: post #430

0898 wrote: post #174

The success of Joe Rogan is fascinating and encouraging. For a long time there was a view that attention spans were diminishing. Facebook and Tik Tok reduced content to the smallest possible dosage. But look at this. This is one of the world's most popular podcasts and it's nearly three hours long. You see it too in TV: what is a Netflix series but a 13 hour movie? I see a definite trend towards long form content rig…

I think thats Podcasts as a medium in general. IMHO Rogan could use pretty heavy editing, I guess people like having it on in the background or something.

Heavy editing can drive me crazy. The really bad ones are the podcasts/videos that jump in between each sentence. It's really disconcerting to hear somebody talk with no pauses in between sentences. I like the format of Joe's podcast because it feels like a real conversation and I'm participating in it, even if I'm not. Editing would ruin that feeling and make it something else. There's plenty of other podcasts that service that.

Joe's issues are that can be long winded at times, and he fails to press people on some issues which occasionally sucks (the first episode with Jack Dorsey, the last episode with Alex Jones, or the recent episode with Bob Lazaar). Most of the time, however, that's exactly what I want. I don't want two blowhards shouting at each other, I want two people trying to understand each other's ideas and to learn something new from it.

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#482

Post by dd36 » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 9:23 PM UTC

blotter_paper wrote: post #453

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess this isn't strictly "partisan," but it is highly political: the FBI tried to destroy Martin Luther King Jr., and even attempted to blackmail him with recordings they had taken.

Seriously, I'm amazed how many people are ignorant of this fact. They didn't just blackmail him, they clearly implied that he should commit suicide before recieving the Nobel if he didn't want the tapes released. ("There is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is.") They never released the tapes, of course, but he did die. Everyone also seems unaware that the King family was awarded $1 in damages from…

Uh... examples from 50 years ago is not what I was picturing.

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#483

Post by bmurphy1976 » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 9:25 PM UTC

pgcj_poster wrote: post #399

rpmisms wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That matches with what I remember, and I don't understand why that's a controversial thought here. Changing gender is a big deal, it can wait a few years so you're sure.

If you're trans and going through puberty, "a few years" can literally ruin your life.

But how do any of us know we are making the right call here? This is one of those wickedly complex problems where there is no right answer. It just sucks for everybody involved, nearly every decision you make can have a horrific outcome and the effects are permanent.

You can't be that surprised that in a situation like this, most people would tend to be very conservative (not republican conservative, but careful, do no harm, don't rock the boat kind of conservative).

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#484

Post by cookie_monsta » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 9:29 PM UTC

garmaine wrote: post #436

biztos wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Current POTUS has recently threatened a legally protected whistleblower with removal of protection, it wouldn't be crazy to call it a death threat. Previous POTUS wasn't any better disposed to Snowden. I'm not necessarily a fan, but I think it was a very rational choice on Snowden's part to choose "permanent exile and fear of assassination" over "trust the system."

It was a death threat. He literally said the whistleblower should be killed.

To be fair I've only seen him on record alluding to the idea that he should be killed. Can you cite his literal statement?

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#485

Post by meowface » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 9:33 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #424

meowface wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His argument is extremely clear. It's just unclear to anyone with absolutely no background knowledge, like Joe. He didn't explain it in the clearest way on the podcast because Joe was missing a lot of necessary basics, but if he sat down with Joe for longer and perhaps drew a diagram or something, I think he'd get it.

Perhaps "clear" isn't the right word. Sometimes when someone is spouting total nonsense I initially assume that I didn't understand them clearly because obviously no educated, articulate person could actually be that stupid. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, right? But no, in Bostrom's case it's total unsupported bullshit all the way down regardless of whether he's talking about AGI / singularity / simulations…

Please refute his simulation argument and arguments related to AGI, then. I find pretty much everything he says to be supported and insightful. If so many intelligent people like and agree with him, maybe the issue is with your understanding of his arguments than with the arguments themselves.

How would one "con" so many intelligent people for so many years with purely logical arguments, exactly? An argument is either coherent and valid and sound or it isn't. There's no room for conning or personal charm or anything related to the person themselves.

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#486

Post by bmurphy1976 » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 9:34 PM UTC

gurkendoktor wrote: post #93

senorjazz wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've not run across one yet that wasn't well-reasoned, Then you cannot listen to many. Joe speaks so much bollox with an authoritative air that if you didn't know the subject you would think that Joe did, when many many times he clearly does not. I agree they are interesting when he lets the guest speak (even if completely disagree with them) or it is on something Joe does know about / has researched. But that is f…

I thought the episode with James Damore was a good example of Joe ruining what could have become an interesting interview: lack of direction, ranting, pushing James towards particular statements. But I don't mind his show being hit or miss, given the sheer number of episodes.

It didn't help that Damore was a terrible interviewee. He was clearly nervous and awkward and not particularly good at arguing his viewpoints. I put more blame on Damore sucking for that one than Joe.

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#487

Post by cookie_monsta » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 9:35 PM UTC

handedness wrote: post #450

gnrlbzik wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And i think he would take this path, but i do not think he can get a fair trial right now.

A fair trial isn't what he's after. By his own admission he would be quickly and easily prosecuted for his actions. He's after something which doesn't presently exist: “If I’d made preexisting arrangements to fly to a specific country and seek asylum, for example, I would’ve been called a foreign agent of that country. Meanwhile, if I returned to my own country, the best I could hope for was to be arrested upon landi…

That sounds to me exactly like what he wants is a fair trial. The fact that the possibility doesn't exist under the current system is the larger point.

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#488

Post by bmurphy1976 » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 9:39 PM UTC

vfc1 wrote: post #384

iamthirsty wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's his formal training, he is a licensed acupuncturist. The man has absolutely no business talking about heart disease, especially with an experienced cardiologist. This is an extremely closed minded view—not everyone with formal training is automatically an expert. This is the appeal to authority fallacy, and a poor one at that. > From a scientific point of view, the only diet that as ever shown to stop the prog…

Not everyone with formal training is an expert, but its the minimum requirement. Literally no one without formal training can be an expert in such a complex topic as heart disease. Why is Joe Rogan asking about heart disease to a licensed acupuncturist in a podcast with 60 million downloads a month? It's like asking for legal advice from a massage therapist. If you had heart disease or someone in your family had it,…

> Not everyone with formal training is an expert, but its the minimum requirement. Literally no one without formal training can be an expert in such a complex topic as heart disease.

I have no bone in this particular fight. I'm inclined to agree with you, most of the time, but it's clearly possible to be an expert in nearly anything without formal training:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan

Lots of absolutes in this discussion, but reality is usually far more nuanced.

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#489

Post by vanbytheriver » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 9:40 PM UTC

Joe Rogan is very pro-institution so it’s going to be a very interesting video.

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#490

Post by cookie_monsta » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 9:43 PM UTC

asjw wrote: post #477

hos234 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a big difference between Observation (which is what Snowden is doing) and Analysis (followed by Solutions). It's not healthy to confuse the two. Snowden is pointing out an issue. And he has done it with courage that I massively respect. You hardly see it these days. And that makes it anxiety and fear inducing, as the solutions are unknown. But think of it this way - tomorrow someone might hand you a diagnosi…

The difference here is that the oncologist doesn't just observe. The oncologist deals with the consequences of the observation: communicate with the patient, gives advices on treatments, makes a therapy plan, deals with families, answer to their questions, takes the hit when the relatives think that the solution is not good enough or an Indian shaman could cure everything with snake's poison. Snowden have done good,…

I don't think there was ever a question about hiding his identity - the govt was after him before he'd even left Hong Kong or any leak had been published. At the time he said he didn't care what happened to him.

I find it interesting that you posit Deep Throat's approach as somehow more noble. If Snowden had anonymously leaked and kept on working would that have been less questionable or more honest?