7 ms·

I find it shockingly absurd how the All-In podcast hosts blindly support everything one of their own does. It’s obvious they treat Musk like a god. In the lates

I find it shockingly absurd how the All-In podcast hosts blindly support everything one of their own does. It’s obvious they treat Musk like a god. In the latest episode, they even made fun of concerns about privacy, claiming that all people care about is the state not wasting money. - completely dismissing worries about data exposure.

jarsin 2y ago
[flagged]
- jawiggins 2y ago
  I recall listening to the episode of the podcast where they were discussing the pending twitter takeover. I felt very mislead about the situation when these emails came out and showed they may have been involved parties. Now I have a lot more appreciation for traditional journalistic institutions each time they disclose that they are reporting on a sponsor or otherwise affiliated institution. For as much as the All-In crowd love to rag against the MSM - they seem far less interested in disclosing their financial interest in the stories they cover.
  - jarsin 2y ago
    In the early days of the pod I felt like they tried to follow the rule of not talking their book. Now Jason straight up pumps his Wellness app on every episode.
    - creato 2y ago
      The shilling is especially cringe considering how wealthy the hosts supposedly are already.
throwxy1123 2y ago
They were good in the opposition to Biden, now they have lost all credibility. They were sympathetic to the Greenland and other annexation plans. Chamath appeared on Tucker Carlson, garnered sympathy with various sob stories but then gently pushed his agenda to the MAGA crowd. No wonder Musk wants to deregulate everything. Regulation interferes with the telemedicine, gut bacteria powders and various other nonsense that these gentlemen invest in. The (deliberate?) chaos that Trump/Musk create provides great opportunities for those in the know.
- kernal 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    You probably need to read back a few weeks on pretty much every agency with grants being in chaos, then. It's a good thing a judge shut that down relatively quickly.
  - tw123128 2y ago
    There is stock market volatility due to short lived tariff announcements. Only insiders know to what extent the strategic reserve currency scam will go through and whether to hold or sell. There was a meme coin scam for insiders. All these create volatility that could be exploited by front runners.
- jarsin 2y ago
  I'm amazed that the "Spac King" is not part of the administration. I watched Chamath call in live to a spac scammers live stream. This scammer drove a beater and would pump various spac warrants on his way home from the warehouse job on twitch. I was like wtf is a former FB executive doing showing up on this scammer live stream.
  - bag_boy 2y ago
    That’s insane lol. Is there a clip of that? Can you provide more context?
    - jarsin 2y ago
      I don't have a clip but it was in the height of the spac pump and dump craze taking place on reddit during the pandemic. The scam was buy up a bunch of warrants then release info that you had knowledge of an upcoming deal. This particular scammer got lucky on one of his spacs when it actually made a deal and from that he made quite the following. Chamath used this guy to pump his spacs because if the spac was pumping before there was even a deal it was easier for him to make the deal. I think all of Chamaths spacs are penny stocks now with multiple reverse splits to stay above $1. Edit: Except for SOFI the one good deal he made.
mvf4z7 2y ago
Could not agree more. The All In guys stopped engaging in thought provoking and critical conversations a long time ago. And holy hell, Jason Calacanis is the biggest weasel on the podcast. At least the other turds own who they are, while Jason will be whatever gets him access to the “in crowd”.
- btheunissen 2y ago
  I don't like David or Chamath, but it is quite mind-blowing how little Jason C seems to have accomplished vs. the other two, his entire claim to fame appears to be trolling online and being close enough to the rest of the PayPal mafia to be be able to feed on their scraps.
- silenced_trope 2y ago
  Jason is my least favorite of the four. Last year he was suggesting the democrats run Jeff Bezos as a candidate saying the party would rally behind him. The dude realized he was completely out of step with the democrats, so despite constantly trolling Republicans, as you suggested he finally decided to just throw in with them despite still feeling superior to all them (which you can tell by his little "wisecracks" and subtle fuck-yous to the average Repub voter).
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  Jason Calacanis has been a first rate loser from the start.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  I've seen so many personalities "shift" over this decade. I guess big platforms monetized outrage better, so what better way to generate outrage than pick up conservative talking points.
  - biohcacker84 2y ago
    I've seen so many personalities "shift" over this decade. True. Not just the All In Guys, but also Tulsi and RFK, even Trump used to be a democrat.
armchairhacker 2y ago
Elon Musk is the #1 richest man in the world, out of >7 billion. Everyone knows who he is. Celebrities to him are almost what commoners are to rich people. Joe Rogan, the biggest podcaster, has <0.1% net worth. Most have far less: they actually need to make money from podcasting and can't afford certain things, whereas 0.001% of Musk's net worth is enough to live an entire life well-off. And it's not just money; I'm sure far, far more people learned about Rogan when he interviewed Musk than vice versa. Wealth, attention, and power influence people. If you had more of them, or a solid chance at more, you'd be influenced too.
- alsoforgotmypwd 2y ago
  Integrity means not being moved by the appearance, demands, or actions of others from a course of ethical/moral behavior. It isn't as common as it used to be, and was especially prevalent amongst the Greatest Generation.
  - armchairhacker 2y ago
    Many people decide to maintain their morals and integrity instead of gambling them, maybe even the majority. You just don't hear about those people.
  - MisterBastahrd 2y ago
    Totally. One of the two generations (along with the Silent Generation) who got their pensions and cheap houses and pulled that ladder up after them because it would inconvenience them for the companies they invested in to pay for pensions for the next generation. Also, the vast majority of them were rabid racists. That was bigtime integrity.
- Spooky23 2y ago
  Rogan isn’t really about money. He has a value beyond dollars… in the end, he likely has a lot more staying power than Elon, whose fall will probably be faster than the rise. He’s like a cross of Rush Limbaugh in his early prime, Howard Stern and Art Bell. Exceptional broadcast talent with a safe space to deliver a message.
jawiggins 2y ago
One of the most frustrating parts of that podcast is that they often just read the headlines of news events and react, making it clear that they haven't bothered to read any level of detail about the event. I'll also give honorable mentions to some of their most outrageous takes: 1. Friedberg predicting that NYT and CNN would be replaced by blockchain based news reporting. 2. Chamath predicting the Ukraine/Russia tensions were just blustering prior to a deal being signed. 3. Sacks promoting the story that claimed Biden ordered the Navy to blow up the Nordstream pipeline.
- spiderfarmer 2y ago
  Even more worrying is the fact that some people think they have credibility.
  - dlmilli 2y ago
    [dead]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Spooky23 2y ago
[flagged]
reaperman 2y ago
I don't understand what relevance the All-In podcast has to this article written by Brian Krebs. Did I miss a reference to it in the article, or is there a non-obvious connection that someone could point out?
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  I looked and as far as I can tell, this podcast discussed DOGE but I don’t think they focused on the security aspects of DOGE. It’s more that the All In hosts, like most experienced business people, support aggressive cost cutting and recognize the dangers of not reducing spending - so they really want it to happen. They see the progress so far as unexpectedly fast and encouraging, and think the overall effort will be positive in the obvious ways like reducing the deficit and debt but also because it sets expectations around how the government should operate. I didn’t listen to the whole thing, but judging by the comments here, it seems a lot of HN is not interested in cutting spending or the idea of a team auditing every agency, so they probably view anyone who supports those ideas negatively too.
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    I think people here are more for a planned with intention and intelligence cost cutting not shop from the hip blow everything up, tear it all down, and clean up the mess after destruction of government cost cutting. We're more 'government isn't business, if a government isn't stable there goes business investments, soft power, and the dollar being a reserve currency' combined with 'lots of these rules are written in blood (EPA, various consumer protections agencies, various civil support agencies), throwing them out until there's more blood is sadistic'.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >judging by the comments here, it seems a lot of HN is not interested in cutting spending or the idea of a team auditing every agency That's a bit of a bad faith observation. I support feeding people. I don't support theft. When I see people stealing food I am not dismissing the former. I wouldn't mind a proper auditing process, but you can also do that without breaking multiple laws. And yes, I also do not think DOGE is acting in good faith. They are spouting about a bunch of non-sense tech solutions to the treasury like buzzwords on an earnings call. They completely failed on their suppoesd transparency claims when formed and are now outright keeping others from working with private guards (that's not how you do a proper audit). They've given me every reason not to trust them. ------- As a not so hot take, if you want to cut costs, encourage efficiency. The way a lot of government budgeting works is in a "use it or lose it" capacity. Your reward for efficiency is a smaller budget "because you didn't need it last year". Individuals can save surplus income for rainy days, I don't see why governmental organizations can't.
Terr_ 2y ago
> all people care about is the state not wasting money. - completely dismissing worries about data exposure A tangent here, but: Gas taxes paying for roads. There is a relationship between inefficiency and privacy. I often encounter some libertarian-types complaining about this, that they should only be taxed for the construction and maintenance of infrastructure they personally drive upon. Indirect benefits aside, I try to point out that the billing-system they're asking for requires a creepy surveillance panopticon, something far more ripe for abuse than any gas tax.
- cratermoon 2y ago
  I'm curious, what do libertarian types think of the per-mile car insurance deals that require the driver to install a surveillance device on their own vehicles?
  - tshaddox 2y ago
    Or grocery store checkout, where there is an individual dollar amount associated with every single item in your cart and calculating the total amount due requires knowing the entire contents of the cart.
    - dghlsakjg 2y ago
      Yeah, but it is very easy to disconnect your identity from that grocery receipt.
    - cratermoon 2y ago
      Summing the amount doesn't require knowing anything but the cost.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    I haven't talked much in those same circles after the forum was destroyed by a ban-happy Republican-lite takeover, but possible things that come to mind are: 1. It's philosophically acceptable since it's not the government doing it, even if I don't like the deal. 2. I shouldn't be forced to have insurance in the first place. 3. That wouldn't happen since I could buy insurance from another competitor that doesn't require it.
guywithahat 2y ago
To be fair, musk is a pretty outrageously successful and interesting person. I’ve seen very little criticism of him that isn’t thinly veiled jealousy
- recursive 2y ago
  I think your jealousy detector might need calibration.
- pottertheotter 2y ago
  Even if someone admires Musk’s accomplishments, blindly excusing his faults is irrational. Constructive criticism is important—his fanbase treating him like an infallible genius discourages accountability. No great business leader is above scrutiny, and people who dismiss all criticism as “jealousy” are refusing to engage with reality.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Would you be interested in hearing some? Closed minds don't help. If nothing else, listen to his Tesla earnings call and take note of how much he talks about the actual current business vs. his fantasy of consumer reboots in 2027.
Dalewyn 2y ago
[flagged]
- cycomanic 2y ago
  The irony with these arguments is that the reason for the large debt is that every time the republicans have been in power they have been cutting income by slashing taxes fro the rich, while at the same time spending big on wars etc.. They then slash funding for all programs they don't like, no matter how little dent they make into the overall budget. Let's be real if they would be worried about government spending they would start at usaid or the CDC (usaid corresponds to 1.2% of the total budget, not a significant portion of the budget by any measure). Debt vs president: https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-dollar-and-percentage-7371225 https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-dollar-and...
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    That's why I also want House Republicans including Speaker Johnson to stick to the fucking Republican Party mantra of small government this time instead of yapping about it during election years and then suffering a sudden case of amnesia for 2 years. Trump hates wars and his first term track record all but guarantees that we won't "spend big" on (more) wars as you've put it, so we likely won't have to worry about that at least. >not a significant portion of the budget These are my and our fucking tax dollars. I want every single fucking cent audited, I don't really care how big or small a portion this is of the whole budget. Americans get audited by the IRS down to their dirty laundry on a common basis, the government should face the same from the people.
    - jp_nc 2y ago
      Trump hates wars started by other people as they are means to enhance his populist support. His recent comments on Canada, Greenland, Panama and Gaza show his true colors. He is more than willing to use the military - though a lot of it was blocked in his first admin by guys like Mattis, Pompeo, Kelly, Bolton. The crew around him now only exists to carry out his insane conquests.
adamwintle 2y ago
“Elon believes he should be emperor of the world, and this is his way of showing people what he’s capable of as emperor,” — a close associate of Musk’s
- efitz 2y ago
  Unattributed hearsay is not useful in any rational debate. It is effectively just veiled ad hominem.
  - ANewFormation 2y ago
    I'm not sure it matters if it's attributed or not. Very few people are capable of setting their biases aside, so even intimate hearsay is mostly just going to be driven by subjective opinions about the person in question. I mean I think we've most all seen literally the exact same thing at any reasonably large institution.
  - EricDeb 2y ago
    If people are scared to speak out anonymous reporting is all you'll get
kernal 2y ago
[flagged]
- Larrikin 2y ago
  What are their leftist ideas?
nikkwong 2y ago
The podcast has been elucidating to me in how it exposes the way in which individuals can become corrupted. Our politicians appear good on camera, they smile to our faces and kiss the foreheads of our babies—but we have decades of anecdotes about how they are bribed by special interests, making deals behind our backs. At least I personally had no first hand experience of what that actually looked of felt like until I started listening to the show. The hosts are ostensibly all smart (with the glaring exception of Jason), but so obviously biased which is advertised by the complicated verbal arithmetic they have to do to make sure they don't say anything bad about their friends which leaves empty logistical holes in each topic they discuss. Seriously, have you ever heard them say anything bad about Elon, Trump, or the Republican agenda even one time in the last year? We know that none of those entities are perfect, they know that none of these entities are perfect, and yet they dare not say it. This is same as having politicians that are bought, and it’s maddeningly frustrating how two faced the whole ordeal is. The hosts will look at you directly in your eyes and tell you they’re being honest, and they just want to know the truth like you do. But the lie is hiding in plain sight, and everyone sees it. What’s the point of it all? They're so narcisstically working and using the show to further their own interests. Especially sacks for whom it paid off handsomely. And they do this at the direct expense to their audience who (many of whom may not know better), doing their part to build a more morally confused and bankrupt nation in the process. I still tune in every week, to happily outrage myself the convolution and lies and insane double standards that they get find themselves in in each conversation. I don't know why I do, I guess there's no other show that I find discusses politics and tech otherwise in a way that's satisfying. I wish a moderate panel (or even a liberal) one existed to counterbalance all of their BS but I haven't found that.
- gricardo99 2y ago
  Try Pivot or Prof. G. podcasts.
  - steve_adams_86 2y ago
    Pivot has been a real gem for me lately. Both hosts bring real insight and interest to the topics they discuss.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
>In the latest episode, they even made fun of concerns about privacy, claiming that all people care about is the state not wasting money. I mean, there are outcries. But nowhere near the outcry proportional to how dire this is. So maybe the host is right?
dayvid 2y ago
All-In declined quickly after the pandemic when they realized the value of their platform. They use it now to only milk their investments or push political agendas to milk their investments.
- justinbaker84 2y ago
  I have been thinking the same thing. The only other thing they do is take positions they think will increase their popularity with their audience.
- steve_adams_86 2y ago
  Absolutely, the decay of that podcast was palpable throughout 2020. I gave it an honest shot hoping it would come back around, but it became insufferable. I particularly disliked listening to them openly talk about the clout they were developing and, I don’t know, bragging and boasting about their popularity. Ego is repulsive when it’s laid on so blatantly.
dang 2y ago
Unfortunately, it seems that everyone does it. Can you point to anyone who doesn't? I find it shocking and absurd too, but in moments of self-honesty I notice myself doing it too. My sense is that the only contribution one can make to changing this pattern is to notice it in oneself and then shift a bit. That's the only place one has a chance to modify anything. Getting mad at other people for doing it doesn't change anything, and nobody can be persuaded to change.
- computerthings 2y ago
  Surely that was supposed to be a reply to something else? "It’s obvious they treat Musk like a god." "Unfortunately, it seems that everyone does it. Can you point to anyone who doesn't?" ^^
  - dang 2y ago
    Ambiguous referent, sorry. This is the part I think everyone does: > "blindly support everything one of their own does". And of course the same in the opposite direction, blindly opposing everything the other tribe does.
    - mrguyorama 2y ago
      Speak for yourself please dang
    - computerthings 2y ago
      Of course nobody is 100% above it, it happens, to be blindly partisan for someone or something and not quite honest to oneself. As Orwell described it https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/notes-on-nationalism/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel... But doing it all the time? No. It's something to overcome. None of us may be perfectly non-partisan and intellectually honest all the time, of course, but there are still two general directions: giving in to that, and wading out of it. To be super mean about it, because that's how I feel about it in my heart of hearts: insofar people were just an extension with a tribe they identify with, they could be replaced by another member of that tribe. And if every member in that tribe had no content and only a reference to the tribe, the whole thing could get garbage collected. There's a real mechanism where we don't even feel the need to examine, much less justify, things we claim or support just because we feel we're with the in-group. As in, I don't know what I'm talking about or what it means, I just need to know that it's approved by those with the biggest stick, or that "history will judge me correct" or anything like that. But IF I can argue the point on my own, what do I care that others agree? And if I can't, what does it help me? Calling that out isn't necessarily "getting mad at it" tho, it's just calling it out. Anyone who makes a podcast or gets behind any other type of podium, even this comment, is up for scrutiny. But I'd agree that we shouldn't get self-righteous about it. As in, I criticize this for being partisan because being partisan is thoughtless, but not because I never do it, and also because I want "my own" to criticize me in the same way, where applicable. And yes, it's much easier to see how crude it is, how gross to cloak something in supposed wisdom, nuance or other good things when it's really just partisan hackery (when the rationalization came after the decision to be loyal no matter what), when others do it with something we disagree with. We overlook it constantly when people do it in service of what we think is good, and the blind spots when we ourselves do it are giant. But that just means more work cut out for us :P
zo1 2y ago
This love and reverence to "privacy" is not at all a majority opinion or, at the very least, not at all held by everyone. That is where I think a lot of the HN cohort goes wrong, as a lot of us see no problem with violating privacy (if that is even happening) in this way for this purpose of solving problems and reducing waste. The rest is just media hype.

jarsin 2y ago

[flagged]

jawiggins 2y ago
I recall listening to the episode of the podcast where they were discussing the pending twitter takeover. I felt very mislead about the situation when these emails came out and showed they may have been involved parties. Now I have a lot more appreciation for traditional journalistic institutions each time they disclose that they are reporting on a sponsor or otherwise affiliated institution. For as much as the All-In crowd love to rag against the MSM - they seem far less interested in disclosing their financial interest in the stories they cover.
- jarsin 2y ago
  In the early days of the pod I felt like they tried to follow the rule of not talking their book. Now Jason straight up pumps his Wellness app on every episode.
  - creato 2y ago
    The shilling is especially cringe considering how wealthy the hosts supposedly are already.

throwxy1123 2y ago

They were good in the opposition to Biden, now they have lost all credibility. They were sympathetic to the Greenland and other annexation plans. Chamath appeared on Tucker Carlson, garnered sympathy with various sob stories but then gently pushed his agenda to the MAGA crowd. No wonder Musk wants to deregulate everything. Regulation interferes with the telemedicine, gut bacteria powders and various other nonsense that these gentlemen invest in. The (deliberate?) chaos that Trump/Musk create provides great opportunities for those in the know.

kernal 2y ago
[flagged]
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  You probably need to read back a few weeks on pretty much every agency with grants being in chaos, then. It's a good thing a judge shut that down relatively quickly.
- tw123128 2y ago
  There is stock market volatility due to short lived tariff announcements. Only insiders know to what extent the strategic reserve currency scam will go through and whether to hold or sell. There was a meme coin scam for insiders. All these create volatility that could be exploited by front runners.
jarsin 2y ago
I'm amazed that the "Spac King" is not part of the administration. I watched Chamath call in live to a spac scammers live stream. This scammer drove a beater and would pump various spac warrants on his way home from the warehouse job on twitch. I was like wtf is a former FB executive doing showing up on this scammer live stream.
- bag_boy 2y ago
  That’s insane lol. Is there a clip of that? Can you provide more context?
  - jarsin 2y ago
    I don't have a clip but it was in the height of the spac pump and dump craze taking place on reddit during the pandemic. The scam was buy up a bunch of warrants then release info that you had knowledge of an upcoming deal. This particular scammer got lucky on one of his spacs when it actually made a deal and from that he made quite the following. Chamath used this guy to pump his spacs because if the spac was pumping before there was even a deal it was easier for him to make the deal. I think all of Chamaths spacs are penny stocks now with multiple reverse splits to stay above $1. Edit: Except for SOFI the one good deal he made.

mvf4z7 2y ago

Could not agree more. The All In guys stopped engaging in thought provoking and critical conversations a long time ago. And holy hell, Jason Calacanis is the biggest weasel on the podcast. At least the other turds own who they are, while Jason will be whatever gets him access to the “in crowd”.

btheunissen 2y ago
I don't like David or Chamath, but it is quite mind-blowing how little Jason C seems to have accomplished vs. the other two, his entire claim to fame appears to be trolling online and being close enough to the rest of the PayPal mafia to be be able to feed on their scraps.
silenced_trope 2y ago
Jason is my least favorite of the four. Last year he was suggesting the democrats run Jeff Bezos as a candidate saying the party would rally behind him. The dude realized he was completely out of step with the democrats, so despite constantly trolling Republicans, as you suggested he finally decided to just throw in with them despite still feeling superior to all them (which you can tell by his little "wisecracks" and subtle fuck-yous to the average Repub voter).
DrillShopper 2y ago
Jason Calacanis has been a first rate loser from the start.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
I've seen so many personalities "shift" over this decade. I guess big platforms monetized outrage better, so what better way to generate outrage than pick up conservative talking points.
- biohcacker84 2y ago
  I've seen so many personalities "shift" over this decade. True. Not just the All In Guys, but also Tulsi and RFK, even Trump used to be a democrat.

armchairhacker 2y ago

Elon Musk is the #1 richest man in the world, out of >7 billion. Everyone knows who he is. Celebrities to him are almost what commoners are to rich people. Joe Rogan, the biggest podcaster, has <0.1% net worth. Most have far less: they actually need to make money from podcasting and can't afford certain things, whereas 0.001% of Musk's net worth is enough to live an entire life well-off. And it's not just money; I'm sure far, far more people learned about Rogan when he interviewed Musk than vice versa. Wealth, attention, and power influence people. If you had more of them, or a solid chance at more, you'd be influenced too.

alsoforgotmypwd 2y ago
Integrity means not being moved by the appearance, demands, or actions of others from a course of ethical/moral behavior. It isn't as common as it used to be, and was especially prevalent amongst the Greatest Generation.
- armchairhacker 2y ago
  Many people decide to maintain their morals and integrity instead of gambling them, maybe even the majority. You just don't hear about those people.
- MisterBastahrd 2y ago
  Totally. One of the two generations (along with the Silent Generation) who got their pensions and cheap houses and pulled that ladder up after them because it would inconvenience them for the companies they invested in to pay for pensions for the next generation. Also, the vast majority of them were rabid racists. That was bigtime integrity.
Spooky23 2y ago
Rogan isn’t really about money. He has a value beyond dollars… in the end, he likely has a lot more staying power than Elon, whose fall will probably be faster than the rise. He’s like a cross of Rush Limbaugh in his early prime, Howard Stern and Art Bell. Exceptional broadcast talent with a safe space to deliver a message.

jawiggins 2y ago

One of the most frustrating parts of that podcast is that they often just read the headlines of news events and react, making it clear that they haven't bothered to read any level of detail about the event. I'll also give honorable mentions to some of their most outrageous takes: 1. Friedberg predicting that NYT and CNN would be replaced by blockchain based news reporting. 2. Chamath predicting the Ukraine/Russia tensions were just blustering prior to a deal being signed. 3. Sacks promoting the story that claimed Biden ordered the Navy to blow up the Nordstream pipeline.

spiderfarmer 2y ago
Even more worrying is the fact that some people think they have credibility.
- dlmilli 2y ago
  [dead]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Spooky23 2y ago

[flagged]

reaperman 2y ago

I don't understand what relevance the All-In podcast has to this article written by Brian Krebs. Did I miss a reference to it in the article, or is there a non-obvious connection that someone could point out?

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
I looked and as far as I can tell, this podcast discussed DOGE but I don’t think they focused on the security aspects of DOGE. It’s more that the All In hosts, like most experienced business people, support aggressive cost cutting and recognize the dangers of not reducing spending - so they really want it to happen. They see the progress so far as unexpectedly fast and encouraging, and think the overall effort will be positive in the obvious ways like reducing the deficit and debt but also because it sets expectations around how the government should operate. I didn’t listen to the whole thing, but judging by the comments here, it seems a lot of HN is not interested in cutting spending or the idea of a team auditing every agency, so they probably view anyone who supports those ideas negatively too.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  I think people here are more for a planned with intention and intelligence cost cutting not shop from the hip blow everything up, tear it all down, and clean up the mess after destruction of government cost cutting. We're more 'government isn't business, if a government isn't stable there goes business investments, soft power, and the dollar being a reserve currency' combined with 'lots of these rules are written in blood (EPA, various consumer protections agencies, various civil support agencies), throwing them out until there's more blood is sadistic'.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >judging by the comments here, it seems a lot of HN is not interested in cutting spending or the idea of a team auditing every agency That's a bit of a bad faith observation. I support feeding people. I don't support theft. When I see people stealing food I am not dismissing the former. I wouldn't mind a proper auditing process, but you can also do that without breaking multiple laws. And yes, I also do not think DOGE is acting in good faith. They are spouting about a bunch of non-sense tech solutions to the treasury like buzzwords on an earnings call. They completely failed on their suppoesd transparency claims when formed and are now outright keeping others from working with private guards (that's not how you do a proper audit). They've given me every reason not to trust them. ------- As a not so hot take, if you want to cut costs, encourage efficiency. The way a lot of government budgeting works is in a "use it or lose it" capacity. Your reward for efficiency is a smaller budget "because you didn't need it last year". Individuals can save surplus income for rainy days, I don't see why governmental organizations can't.

Terr_ 2y ago

> all people care about is the state not wasting money. - completely dismissing worries about data exposure A tangent here, but: Gas taxes paying for roads. There is a relationship between inefficiency and privacy. I often encounter some libertarian-types complaining about this, that they should only be taxed for the construction and maintenance of infrastructure they personally drive upon. Indirect benefits aside, I try to point out that the billing-system they're asking for requires a creepy surveillance panopticon, something far more ripe for abuse than any gas tax.

cratermoon 2y ago
I'm curious, what do libertarian types think of the per-mile car insurance deals that require the driver to install a surveillance device on their own vehicles?
- tshaddox 2y ago
  Or grocery store checkout, where there is an individual dollar amount associated with every single item in your cart and calculating the total amount due requires knowing the entire contents of the cart.
  - dghlsakjg 2y ago
    Yeah, but it is very easy to disconnect your identity from that grocery receipt.
  - cratermoon 2y ago
    Summing the amount doesn't require knowing anything but the cost.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  I haven't talked much in those same circles after the forum was destroyed by a ban-happy Republican-lite takeover, but possible things that come to mind are: 1. It's philosophically acceptable since it's not the government doing it, even if I don't like the deal. 2. I shouldn't be forced to have insurance in the first place. 3. That wouldn't happen since I could buy insurance from another competitor that doesn't require it.

guywithahat 2y ago

To be fair, musk is a pretty outrageously successful and interesting person. I’ve seen very little criticism of him that isn’t thinly veiled jealousy

recursive 2y ago
I think your jealousy detector might need calibration.
pottertheotter 2y ago
Even if someone admires Musk’s accomplishments, blindly excusing his faults is irrational. Constructive criticism is important—his fanbase treating him like an infallible genius discourages accountability. No great business leader is above scrutiny, and people who dismiss all criticism as “jealousy” are refusing to engage with reality.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
Would you be interested in hearing some? Closed minds don't help. If nothing else, listen to his Tesla earnings call and take note of how much he talks about the actual current business vs. his fantasy of consumer reboots in 2027.

Dalewyn 2y ago

[flagged]

cycomanic 2y ago
The irony with these arguments is that the reason for the large debt is that every time the republicans have been in power they have been cutting income by slashing taxes fro the rich, while at the same time spending big on wars etc.. They then slash funding for all programs they don't like, no matter how little dent they make into the overall budget. Let's be real if they would be worried about government spending they would start at usaid or the CDC (usaid corresponds to 1.2% of the total budget, not a significant portion of the budget by any measure). Debt vs president: https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-dollar-and-percentage-7371225 https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-dollar-and...
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  That's why I also want House Republicans including Speaker Johnson to stick to the fucking Republican Party mantra of small government this time instead of yapping about it during election years and then suffering a sudden case of amnesia for 2 years. Trump hates wars and his first term track record all but guarantees that we won't "spend big" on (more) wars as you've put it, so we likely won't have to worry about that at least. >not a significant portion of the budget These are my and our fucking tax dollars. I want every single fucking cent audited, I don't really care how big or small a portion this is of the whole budget. Americans get audited by the IRS down to their dirty laundry on a common basis, the government should face the same from the people.
  - jp_nc 2y ago
    Trump hates wars started by other people as they are means to enhance his populist support. His recent comments on Canada, Greenland, Panama and Gaza show his true colors. He is more than willing to use the military - though a lot of it was blocked in his first admin by guys like Mattis, Pompeo, Kelly, Bolton. The crew around him now only exists to carry out his insane conquests.

adamwintle 2y ago

“Elon believes he should be emperor of the world, and this is his way of showing people what he’s capable of as emperor,” — a close associate of Musk’s

efitz 2y ago
Unattributed hearsay is not useful in any rational debate. It is effectively just veiled ad hominem.
- ANewFormation 2y ago
  I'm not sure it matters if it's attributed or not. Very few people are capable of setting their biases aside, so even intimate hearsay is mostly just going to be driven by subjective opinions about the person in question. I mean I think we've most all seen literally the exact same thing at any reasonably large institution.
- EricDeb 2y ago
  If people are scared to speak out anonymous reporting is all you'll get

kernal 2y ago

[flagged]

Larrikin 2y ago
What are their leftist ideas?

nikkwong 2y ago

The podcast has been elucidating to me in how it exposes the way in which individuals can become corrupted. Our politicians appear good on camera, they smile to our faces and kiss the foreheads of our babies—but we have decades of anecdotes about how they are bribed by special interests, making deals behind our backs. At least I personally had no first hand experience of what that actually looked of felt like until I started listening to the show. The hosts are ostensibly all smart (with the glaring exception of Jason), but so obviously biased which is advertised by the complicated verbal arithmetic they have to do to make sure they don't say anything bad about their friends which leaves empty logistical holes in each topic they discuss. Seriously, have you ever heard them say anything bad about Elon, Trump, or the Republican agenda even one time in the last year? We know that none of those entities are perfect, they know that none of these entities are perfect, and yet they dare not say it. This is same as having politicians that are bought, and it’s maddeningly frustrating how two faced the whole ordeal is. The hosts will look at you directly in your eyes and tell you they’re being honest, and they just want to know the truth like you do. But the lie is hiding in plain sight, and everyone sees it. What’s the point of it all? They're so narcisstically working and using the show to further their own interests. Especially sacks for whom it paid off handsomely. And they do this at the direct expense to their audience who (many of whom may not know better), doing their part to build a more morally confused and bankrupt nation in the process. I still tune in every week, to happily outrage myself the convolution and lies and insane double standards that they get find themselves in in each conversation. I don't know why I do, I guess there's no other show that I find discusses politics and tech otherwise in a way that's satisfying. I wish a moderate panel (or even a liberal) one existed to counterbalance all of their BS but I haven't found that.

gricardo99 2y ago
Try Pivot or Prof. G. podcasts.
- steve_adams_86 2y ago
  Pivot has been a real gem for me lately. Both hosts bring real insight and interest to the topics they discuss.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

>In the latest episode, they even made fun of concerns about privacy, claiming that all people care about is the state not wasting money. I mean, there are outcries. But nowhere near the outcry proportional to how dire this is. So maybe the host is right?

dayvid 2y ago

All-In declined quickly after the pandemic when they realized the value of their platform. They use it now to only milk their investments or push political agendas to milk their investments.

justinbaker84 2y ago
I have been thinking the same thing. The only other thing they do is take positions they think will increase their popularity with their audience.
steve_adams_86 2y ago
Absolutely, the decay of that podcast was palpable throughout 2020. I gave it an honest shot hoping it would come back around, but it became insufferable. I particularly disliked listening to them openly talk about the clout they were developing and, I don’t know, bragging and boasting about their popularity. Ego is repulsive when it’s laid on so blatantly.

dang 2y ago

Unfortunately, it seems that everyone does it. Can you point to anyone who doesn't? I find it shocking and absurd too, but in moments of self-honesty I notice myself doing it too. My sense is that the only contribution one can make to changing this pattern is to notice it in oneself and then shift a bit. That's the only place one has a chance to modify anything. Getting mad at other people for doing it doesn't change anything, and nobody can be persuaded to change.

computerthings 2y ago
Surely that was supposed to be a reply to something else? "It’s obvious they treat Musk like a god." "Unfortunately, it seems that everyone does it. Can you point to anyone who doesn't?" ^^
- dang 2y ago
  Ambiguous referent, sorry. This is the part I think everyone does: > "blindly support everything one of their own does". And of course the same in the opposite direction, blindly opposing everything the other tribe does.
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    Speak for yourself please dang
  - computerthings 2y ago
    Of course nobody is 100% above it, it happens, to be blindly partisan for someone or something and not quite honest to oneself. As Orwell described it https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/notes-on-nationalism/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel... But doing it all the time? No. It's something to overcome. None of us may be perfectly non-partisan and intellectually honest all the time, of course, but there are still two general directions: giving in to that, and wading out of it. To be super mean about it, because that's how I feel about it in my heart of hearts: insofar people were just an extension with a tribe they identify with, they could be replaced by another member of that tribe. And if every member in that tribe had no content and only a reference to the tribe, the whole thing could get garbage collected. There's a real mechanism where we don't even feel the need to examine, much less justify, things we claim or support just because we feel we're with the in-group. As in, I don't know what I'm talking about or what it means, I just need to know that it's approved by those with the biggest stick, or that "history will judge me correct" or anything like that. But IF I can argue the point on my own, what do I care that others agree? And if I can't, what does it help me? Calling that out isn't necessarily "getting mad at it" tho, it's just calling it out. Anyone who makes a podcast or gets behind any other type of podium, even this comment, is up for scrutiny. But I'd agree that we shouldn't get self-righteous about it. As in, I criticize this for being partisan because being partisan is thoughtless, but not because I never do it, and also because I want "my own" to criticize me in the same way, where applicable. And yes, it's much easier to see how crude it is, how gross to cloak something in supposed wisdom, nuance or other good things when it's really just partisan hackery (when the rationalization came after the decision to be loyal no matter what), when others do it with something we disagree with. We overlook it constantly when people do it in service of what we think is good, and the blind spots when we ourselves do it are giant. But that just means more work cut out for us :P

zo1 2y ago

This love and reverence to "privacy" is not at all a majority opinion or, at the very least, not at all held by everyone. That is where I think a lot of the HN cohort goes wrong, as a lot of us see no problem with violating privacy (if that is even happening) in this way for this purpose of solving problems and reducing waste. The rest is just media hype.