3 ms·

This describes my feeling about Lex's podcast as well. I was watching the interview with Jim Keller and was left dissapointed for the most part of the interview

This describes my feeling about Lex's podcast as well. I was watching the interview with Jim Keller and was left dissapointed for the most part of the interview because of - as you said - lack of good follow up questions to presented statements and ideas. It's a shame really. However if you skip trough the first about 30-40 minutes of that same interview, it get's a bit better. Also, thanks for mentioning Sean Carroll's Mindscape Podcast, will check it out for sure.

nabla9 7y ago
I just thought about Jim Keller interview as an example of one of his failed interviews, at least partially failed. Keller had interesting stuff to say but Lex was constantly pushing him into too general or too philosophical direction he was not interested in and had noting to say about. If you get one of the best microprocessor architects into your show, why not focus on that and dig deep.
- davidivadavid 7y ago
  I don't think many people have the capabilities to "dig deep" on microprocessor architecture with a sparring partner like Jim Keller. And the bulk of the audience probably doesn't have the capabilities to understand such a discussion anyway. Don't get me wrong, I wish they'd talked about deeper details, but that's more like wishing for a Jim Keller book than a realistic interview for a fairly broad audience.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    Leaving aside specific podcast episodes, podcasts, conference "fireside chats," and the like really don't lend themselves to deep dives especially podcasts that cover a fairly broad range of topics. Especially with a lot of listeners driving or multitasking, you're going to lose 75%+ of your audience on a single technical deep-dive episode, especially given the lack of any visual aids. In general, people looking for deeply technical podcasts are mostly looking in the wrong place--although, of course, your mileage will vary about what "deeply technical" means.
- AQuantized 7y ago
  I think that's antithesis to the goals of his project. He clearly wants to ask those broad philosophical questions of a variety of influential people, and mostly only talk shop when it relates to that. I think it's one of the appeals of his podcast to perspective guests, although as you mentioned for some people it falls flat.
  - sgregnt 7y ago
    Coundn't agree more, my understanding is that this podcast if primarely about deeper philosophical questions. And that's exactly what makes this podcast interesting to me! Technical details, on one subject or the other, are easier to come by, but balanced and informed inquiry about deer nature of things across many areas of science is, in my experience, harder to find.

nabla9 7y ago

I just thought about Jim Keller interview as an example of one of his failed interviews, at least partially failed. Keller had interesting stuff to say but Lex was constantly pushing him into too general or too philosophical direction he was not interested in and had noting to say about. If you get one of the best microprocessor architects into your show, why not focus on that and dig deep.

davidivadavid 7y ago
I don't think many people have the capabilities to "dig deep" on microprocessor architecture with a sparring partner like Jim Keller. And the bulk of the audience probably doesn't have the capabilities to understand such a discussion anyway. Don't get me wrong, I wish they'd talked about deeper details, but that's more like wishing for a Jim Keller book than a realistic interview for a fairly broad audience.
- ghaff 7y ago
  Leaving aside specific podcast episodes, podcasts, conference "fireside chats," and the like really don't lend themselves to deep dives especially podcasts that cover a fairly broad range of topics. Especially with a lot of listeners driving or multitasking, you're going to lose 75%+ of your audience on a single technical deep-dive episode, especially given the lack of any visual aids. In general, people looking for deeply technical podcasts are mostly looking in the wrong place--although, of course, your mileage will vary about what "deeply technical" means.
AQuantized 7y ago
I think that's antithesis to the goals of his project. He clearly wants to ask those broad philosophical questions of a variety of influential people, and mostly only talk shop when it relates to that. I think it's one of the appeals of his podcast to perspective guests, although as you mentioned for some people it falls flat.
- sgregnt 7y ago
  Coundn't agree more, my understanding is that this podcast if primarely about deeper philosophical questions. And that's exactly what makes this podcast interesting to me! Technical details, on one subject or the other, are easier to come by, but balanced and informed inquiry about deer nature of things across many areas of science is, in my experience, harder to find.