12 ms·

Haven't listened to this one yet but for people with sticker shock over the time commitment, Lex consistently does amazing podcasts with really sharp people ove

Haven't listened to this one yet but for people with sticker shock over the time commitment, Lex consistently does amazing podcasts with really sharp people over the course of a few hours and imo (being an avid podcast listener) it's one of the best out there. Edit to add: His recent episode with Jack Barsky (former KGB spy) was exceptional and worth a listen if 5hrs is too long of a test case

1980phipsi 4y ago
I listen to Lex on 1.5X and usually have no problem understanding anyone.
- sph 4y ago
  I'd have a hard time following Carmack's train of thought at 1.5x. It is impressive how dense and fast-paced his conversations are.
  - dexterdog 4y ago
    I default to 2.3x plus silence skipping and I know people who go faster. Most conversational podcasts run effectively at 3x with the silence skipping. It sounds like gibberish for a second or two and then once the focus comes in it's normal. I can't listen to things are normal speed. I started out at 1.5 and then went up in .1 increments over time until it was too much. I still tune some faster speakers back to 2 or 1.1, but that is the minimum. I was always a piss-slow reader so I prefer to listen to things, but anything close to 1x just takes forever.
kepler1 4y ago
Are we listening to the same person? I find Lex Fridman to be wooden, robotic, non-sequitur, not smooth or charismatic, and (I admit, shallowly) not a pleasing speaking voice to listen to, and not that articulate actually. The main reason he gets famous guests is that he has a reputation for getting famous guests. He's like a Kardashian. I actively have to tune him out and suppress my wish that someone, anyone else were asking the questions. But it is what it is. We don't have voting rights on who random walks their way to being famous in this world.
- atlasunshrugged 4y ago
  Really? That's fascinating, if anything I usually think he's not rigid enough and too easily goes along with guest claims (the Oliver Stone episode stands out for not pushing back). Do you have a favorite podcaster/interviewer?
  - deepzn 4y ago
    Even though I didn't align or agree with Stone. It is refreshing not to hear the constant back and forth you see on TV's or just each network running their own agenda. Truth is a fine thing, nothing is black or white. I feel in these times it's more important that we stay open minded to ideas, speech and discussion. The act of pushing back, retaliation, or suppressing information actually increases the desire for said info and notoriety/fanfare of many people and ideas. In the Oliver Stone interview, they do discuss the best way to interview someone is with a blank canvas, and that is honestly refreshing. Let viewers develop their own opinions. But, a little more pushback or rather counter-arguments might have been welcomed, but that might change the tone of the interview into a more adversarial one. People need to get out of closed off echo chambers, be respectful of each other, and just agree to disagree, but still look at each other as a human being. The only way we progress through the 21st century.
- modeless 4y ago
  I know what you mean but he has improved over time. His main fault is talking too much sometimes, I'd rather hear the guest. While some of his questions are lame, he usually makes up for it with some well researched and interesting questions. Not every question can be a winner in a five hour interview.
- pizzathyme 4y ago
  It sounds like you’re evaluating the tone and charisma while others are evaluating the content and dialog. He is very wooden, but I agree with the others, his questions are incredible and cut straight to the point. For example while others (Tim Ferriss) might have asked Zuckerberg “How do you deal with negative sentiment around you and your work?” Lex asked something like “Many people believe that your products are destroying democracy, that social networks polarize us into bubbles, and you are one of the most hated men in America. How do you contend with that?” Wow and ouch! Amazing conversations
modeless 4y ago
And Carmack is known for making multi-hour extemporaneous keynote speeches that somehow remain interesting the whole way through. Should be a good one.
- deaddodo 4y ago
  Carmack is literally a legend from a completely meritocratic perspective. His respect is 100% something he’s earned by being a master at his craft and a deeply knowledgeable person who has continually pushed his field forward for decades while being an accessible and mentoring individual. In short, he’s a “nerd’s nerd”. It’s hard not to be enraptured by someone like that. It would be like listening to DaVinci discuss theoretical aerodynamics for three hours.
justapassenger 4y ago
One thing I don't like about Lex is that he doesn't really challenge his guests (which is one of the reasons why he can bring many well known names, as they know they can mostly give their talking points). That's not a ding against him, as he has very wide range of guests, so he lacks expertise to challenge them, but something to keep in mind.
- deepzn 4y ago
  He's not perfect. Though I find it pleasant that he has a mostly neutral point of view as that's when you can get the most information out of a discussion. I think in many traditional media formats, the opposite is the case, which is what we're used to. Like for e.g. Charlie Rose, or any of the biased media outlets today. One can possibly argue that information has always been manipulated and public discourse as well since the dawn of civilization. So, I find having an interviewer be open to multiple possibilities or interpretations is refreshing. He's not completely neutral though, he has a slight liberal bias, and at the same time doesn't address criticism of said guest many times especially when they are a friend, like Joe Rogan, or Elon Musk. That being said, it is a scientifically progressive podcast that is very illuminating in many fields for non-experts, and the public. And I have learned a lot and enjoyed listening to it.
- dandanua 4y ago
  Yeah, his interview with Pfizer CEO was essentially an advertisement. He also advertises cryptocurrencies a lot, like they are the next money system in the world. Largely downgrading all their harm and inabilities. The man just making his own fortune. On the other hand, the freedom that guests have is worthwhile.
cm2187 4y ago
For those who do not know Lex, just to nuance this, I think it is interesting when dealing with technical subjects (like recently with Demis Hassabis). Outside of technical subjects, it is a bit of a mixed bag, from interesting (like Roger Reaves) to appalling (like entertaining Oliver Stone's bullshit conspiracy theories). This one is likely to be a technical one and certainly something I am keen to listen.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- atlasunshrugged 4y ago
  Yes, the Oliver Stone one in particular seemed egregious in how little he pushed back.
- api 4y ago
  [flagged]
tekla 4y ago
The main problem is that Lex is a terrible host. I tried multiple times to give a fair shake, but Lex seems to never to any research on the guest, almost never has anything interesting to go back and forth on with guests, and seems mostly there to have a wall for guests to talk to, but somehow is less interesting than the wall. There is no exchange of ideas, its just the guest being able to say whatever they want without any pushback. I have no idea why interesting guests get called onto this show, other than just having a place to talk to a lot of listeners
- icelancer 4y ago
  > I have no idea why interesting guests get called onto this show, other than just having a place to talk to a lot of listeners That's how you get guests.
  - melenaboija 4y ago
    And viewers. As of now he has 235 million views.
- huevosabio 4y ago
  These are exactly my feelings with Lex Fridman Podcast. I tried with so many of his guests, the lineup is amazing! But every time I end up dropping early on the conversation. Surprisingly, I find him even worse than Joe Rogan as a host (surprising because Joe doesn't have a technical background, whereas Lex does). Joe at least is an apparently neutral host with some charisma and guests get to portray their ideas clearly. Lex somehow sucks all the fun out of the conversation. Contrast with, for example, Tyler Cowen which also hosts a wide range of interesting guests, and still is able to pose interesting questions and guide the conversations in way that are insightful for the listener.
  - atlasunshrugged 4y ago
    Cowen is absolutely one of the best out there too, but I do wish he got in deeper with his guests! His blog Marginal Revolution is also consistently interesting and he has a good map of great spots to eat across the DMV https://marginalrevolution.com/ https://marginalrevolution.com/ https://tylercowensethnicdiningguide.com/ https://tylercowensethnicdiningguide.com/
mathattack 4y ago
I concur. Friedman is the only multi-hour podcast that I can handle. I will add that speeding it up helps.
roncesvalles 4y ago
A bit of a tangent but I listened to the entire Jack Barsky podcast and my bullshit-o-meter was redlining the whole time.
deaddodo 4y ago
It is also important to note that Fridman’s conversational and interview style is very dry and information focused. About every question is interrogative with dense, deep answers; but lacking much charisma. He’s almost the inverse of Joe Rogan.

1980phipsi 4y ago

I listen to Lex on 1.5X and usually have no problem understanding anyone.

sph 4y ago
I'd have a hard time following Carmack's train of thought at 1.5x. It is impressive how dense and fast-paced his conversations are.
- dexterdog 4y ago
  I default to 2.3x plus silence skipping and I know people who go faster. Most conversational podcasts run effectively at 3x with the silence skipping. It sounds like gibberish for a second or two and then once the focus comes in it's normal. I can't listen to things are normal speed. I started out at 1.5 and then went up in .1 increments over time until it was too much. I still tune some faster speakers back to 2 or 1.1, but that is the minimum. I was always a piss-slow reader so I prefer to listen to things, but anything close to 1x just takes forever.

kepler1 4y ago

Are we listening to the same person? I find Lex Fridman to be wooden, robotic, non-sequitur, not smooth or charismatic, and (I admit, shallowly) not a pleasing speaking voice to listen to, and not that articulate actually. The main reason he gets famous guests is that he has a reputation for getting famous guests. He's like a Kardashian. I actively have to tune him out and suppress my wish that someone, anyone else were asking the questions. But it is what it is. We don't have voting rights on who random walks their way to being famous in this world.

atlasunshrugged 4y ago
Really? That's fascinating, if anything I usually think he's not rigid enough and too easily goes along with guest claims (the Oliver Stone episode stands out for not pushing back). Do you have a favorite podcaster/interviewer?
- deepzn 4y ago
  Even though I didn't align or agree with Stone. It is refreshing not to hear the constant back and forth you see on TV's or just each network running their own agenda. Truth is a fine thing, nothing is black or white. I feel in these times it's more important that we stay open minded to ideas, speech and discussion. The act of pushing back, retaliation, or suppressing information actually increases the desire for said info and notoriety/fanfare of many people and ideas. In the Oliver Stone interview, they do discuss the best way to interview someone is with a blank canvas, and that is honestly refreshing. Let viewers develop their own opinions. But, a little more pushback or rather counter-arguments might have been welcomed, but that might change the tone of the interview into a more adversarial one. People need to get out of closed off echo chambers, be respectful of each other, and just agree to disagree, but still look at each other as a human being. The only way we progress through the 21st century.
modeless 4y ago
I know what you mean but he has improved over time. His main fault is talking too much sometimes, I'd rather hear the guest. While some of his questions are lame, he usually makes up for it with some well researched and interesting questions. Not every question can be a winner in a five hour interview.
pizzathyme 4y ago
It sounds like you’re evaluating the tone and charisma while others are evaluating the content and dialog. He is very wooden, but I agree with the others, his questions are incredible and cut straight to the point. For example while others (Tim Ferriss) might have asked Zuckerberg “How do you deal with negative sentiment around you and your work?” Lex asked something like “Many people believe that your products are destroying democracy, that social networks polarize us into bubbles, and you are one of the most hated men in America. How do you contend with that?” Wow and ouch! Amazing conversations

modeless 4y ago

And Carmack is known for making multi-hour extemporaneous keynote speeches that somehow remain interesting the whole way through. Should be a good one.

deaddodo 4y ago
Carmack is literally a legend from a completely meritocratic perspective. His respect is 100% something he’s earned by being a master at his craft and a deeply knowledgeable person who has continually pushed his field forward for decades while being an accessible and mentoring individual. In short, he’s a “nerd’s nerd”. It’s hard not to be enraptured by someone like that. It would be like listening to DaVinci discuss theoretical aerodynamics for three hours.

justapassenger 4y ago

One thing I don't like about Lex is that he doesn't really challenge his guests (which is one of the reasons why he can bring many well known names, as they know they can mostly give their talking points). That's not a ding against him, as he has very wide range of guests, so he lacks expertise to challenge them, but something to keep in mind.

deepzn 4y ago
He's not perfect. Though I find it pleasant that he has a mostly neutral point of view as that's when you can get the most information out of a discussion. I think in many traditional media formats, the opposite is the case, which is what we're used to. Like for e.g. Charlie Rose, or any of the biased media outlets today. One can possibly argue that information has always been manipulated and public discourse as well since the dawn of civilization. So, I find having an interviewer be open to multiple possibilities or interpretations is refreshing. He's not completely neutral though, he has a slight liberal bias, and at the same time doesn't address criticism of said guest many times especially when they are a friend, like Joe Rogan, or Elon Musk. That being said, it is a scientifically progressive podcast that is very illuminating in many fields for non-experts, and the public. And I have learned a lot and enjoyed listening to it.
dandanua 4y ago
Yeah, his interview with Pfizer CEO was essentially an advertisement. He also advertises cryptocurrencies a lot, like they are the next money system in the world. Largely downgrading all their harm and inabilities. The man just making his own fortune. On the other hand, the freedom that guests have is worthwhile.

cm2187 4y ago

For those who do not know Lex, just to nuance this, I think it is interesting when dealing with technical subjects (like recently with Demis Hassabis). Outside of technical subjects, it is a bit of a mixed bag, from interesting (like Roger Reaves) to appalling (like entertaining Oliver Stone's bullshit conspiracy theories). This one is likely to be a technical one and certainly something I am keen to listen.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
atlasunshrugged 4y ago
Yes, the Oliver Stone one in particular seemed egregious in how little he pushed back.
api 4y ago
[flagged]

tekla 4y ago

The main problem is that Lex is a terrible host. I tried multiple times to give a fair shake, but Lex seems to never to any research on the guest, almost never has anything interesting to go back and forth on with guests, and seems mostly there to have a wall for guests to talk to, but somehow is less interesting than the wall. There is no exchange of ideas, its just the guest being able to say whatever they want without any pushback. I have no idea why interesting guests get called onto this show, other than just having a place to talk to a lot of listeners

icelancer 4y ago
> I have no idea why interesting guests get called onto this show, other than just having a place to talk to a lot of listeners That's how you get guests.
- melenaboija 4y ago
  And viewers. As of now he has 235 million views.
huevosabio 4y ago
These are exactly my feelings with Lex Fridman Podcast. I tried with so many of his guests, the lineup is amazing! But every time I end up dropping early on the conversation. Surprisingly, I find him even worse than Joe Rogan as a host (surprising because Joe doesn't have a technical background, whereas Lex does). Joe at least is an apparently neutral host with some charisma and guests get to portray their ideas clearly. Lex somehow sucks all the fun out of the conversation. Contrast with, for example, Tyler Cowen which also hosts a wide range of interesting guests, and still is able to pose interesting questions and guide the conversations in way that are insightful for the listener.
- atlasunshrugged 4y ago
  Cowen is absolutely one of the best out there too, but I do wish he got in deeper with his guests! His blog Marginal Revolution is also consistently interesting and he has a good map of great spots to eat across the DMV https://marginalrevolution.com/ https://marginalrevolution.com/ https://tylercowensethnicdiningguide.com/ https://tylercowensethnicdiningguide.com/

mathattack 4y ago

I concur. Friedman is the only multi-hour podcast that I can handle. I will add that speeding it up helps.

roncesvalles 4y ago

A bit of a tangent but I listened to the entire Jack Barsky podcast and my bullshit-o-meter was redlining the whole time.

deaddodo 4y ago

It is also important to note that Fridman’s conversational and interview style is very dry and information focused. About every question is interrogative with dense, deep answers; but lacking much charisma. He’s almost the inverse of Joe Rogan.