3 ms·

The direct quotes from this article can been found elsewhere on the internet. They collate them to provide a coherent narrative which is backed up by the OP art

The direct quotes from this article can been found elsewhere on the internet. They collate them to provide a coherent narrative which is backed up by the OP article. This is an ad hominem argument and not compelling in this case.

hammock 6y ago
It's really hard to convince ZH detractors. A naive perusal of the site is definitely packed with of, at its most charitable interpretation, a bunch of gobbledegook, and at its least charitable, pure propaganda. But between the lines there is a lot of truth, and importantly, many facts and analysis that you will never find in any mainstream sources, neither NYT nor Fox News nor the Atlantic nor whatever else. It takes real critical thought and an open mind to pull the value out of it - and it is there. I read it every day.
- hogFeast 6y ago
  Yep: I worked in finance for years, have degrees in economics...and their coverage is useful. To name one example of many, they were saying that JP Morgan was rigging commodities markets for years. I know people not in finance who heard that ZH story (years ago now, when ZH was in their pomp): lololol, tinfoil hat...that JPM were rigging commodities markets was known in finance for literally decades, it was common knowledge (I didn't work in commodities and heard about it, JPM were just fined $1bn for it). I think people get confused because they have trouble signal from noise, particularly from people who are obviously biased (this is a key ability in finance, almost all the information you receive is conflicted, and you have to understand human nature at a deep level i.e. understand what people lie to each other about, what they lie to themselves about, etc.). I am totally fine with biased coverage (everyone is prone to biases, it is just some people deny that to themselves/others). I don't have to believe everything they say and, compared to every other finance publication, they really do cover stuff that no-one else is covering. Yes, it is sensational and their political coverage is usually insane (tbh, it is quite funny)...but, again, that doesn't mean they are wrong about everything or add no value (btw, almost every economist I have ever met has had bizarre political views...people who work in finance usually do because being an expert in one thing does not make you an expert in all things). In my experience, people who talk about news not being reliable also believe all kinds of insane shit that appears in the mainstream media. Believing that you are hyper rational is, in itself, not rational.
  - hammock 6y ago
    Totally. Curious, do you have any other news/blogs you recommend? I'm always looking for new ones. Epsilon Theory has been a new one for me, although its "pomp" as you put it didn't last long and seems to be on a politically motivated decline, as happened to Venkatesh Rao's blog
    - hogFeast 6y ago
      FT Alphaville. I don't keep up with this stuff as much anymore but there is a lot out there if you are willing to invest the time (just follow the right people on Twitter, read good books, etc.).
      - hammock 6y ago
        Use to read Alphaville for a time. Gave up on it early. Went back to it yesterday and surprised to see how politically left it is now.
  - carlosf 6y ago
    That's how I think too. There's a problem in wireless communications called multipath. When a signal is transmitted over the air, the receiver will often not receive the original signal. Instead, it will receive a lot of reflected, refracted and distorted versions of it. So the question is: what's the best way we can combine those signals to recreate the original? Not going into the specifics, but it turns out that to maximize information it's often necessary to listen to trash signals (one that has a lot of noise) because those might have information that good signals do not have (as many times they will be redundant).

hammock 6y ago

It's really hard to convince ZH detractors. A naive perusal of the site is definitely packed with of, at its most charitable interpretation, a bunch of gobbledegook, and at its least charitable, pure propaganda. But between the lines there is a lot of truth, and importantly, many facts and analysis that you will never find in any mainstream sources, neither NYT nor Fox News nor the Atlantic nor whatever else. It takes real critical thought and an open mind to pull the value out of it - and it is there. I read it every day.

hogFeast 6y ago
Yep: I worked in finance for years, have degrees in economics...and their coverage is useful. To name one example of many, they were saying that JP Morgan was rigging commodities markets for years. I know people not in finance who heard that ZH story (years ago now, when ZH was in their pomp): lololol, tinfoil hat...that JPM were rigging commodities markets was known in finance for literally decades, it was common knowledge (I didn't work in commodities and heard about it, JPM were just fined $1bn for it). I think people get confused because they have trouble signal from noise, particularly from people who are obviously biased (this is a key ability in finance, almost all the information you receive is conflicted, and you have to understand human nature at a deep level i.e. understand what people lie to each other about, what they lie to themselves about, etc.). I am totally fine with biased coverage (everyone is prone to biases, it is just some people deny that to themselves/others). I don't have to believe everything they say and, compared to every other finance publication, they really do cover stuff that no-one else is covering. Yes, it is sensational and their political coverage is usually insane (tbh, it is quite funny)...but, again, that doesn't mean they are wrong about everything or add no value (btw, almost every economist I have ever met has had bizarre political views...people who work in finance usually do because being an expert in one thing does not make you an expert in all things). In my experience, people who talk about news not being reliable also believe all kinds of insane shit that appears in the mainstream media. Believing that you are hyper rational is, in itself, not rational.
- hammock 6y ago
  Totally. Curious, do you have any other news/blogs you recommend? I'm always looking for new ones. Epsilon Theory has been a new one for me, although its "pomp" as you put it didn't last long and seems to be on a politically motivated decline, as happened to Venkatesh Rao's blog
  - hogFeast 6y ago
    FT Alphaville. I don't keep up with this stuff as much anymore but there is a lot out there if you are willing to invest the time (just follow the right people on Twitter, read good books, etc.).
    - hammock 6y ago
      Use to read Alphaville for a time. Gave up on it early. Went back to it yesterday and surprised to see how politically left it is now.
- carlosf 6y ago
  That's how I think too. There's a problem in wireless communications called multipath. When a signal is transmitted over the air, the receiver will often not receive the original signal. Instead, it will receive a lot of reflected, refracted and distorted versions of it. So the question is: what's the best way we can combine those signals to recreate the original? Not going into the specifics, but it turns out that to maximize information it's often necessary to listen to trash signals (one that has a lot of noise) because those might have information that good signals do not have (as many times they will be redundant).