←back to thread

Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

(passingtime.substack.com)
349 points paulpauper | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Centigonal ◴[] No.42066519[source]
There was the opendoor ipo, there was Jason Calacanis "sharpening the knives" ahead of the Twitter acquisition, there was what David Sacks did to Zenefits, and there's more. People are going to keep trusting these guys, simply because they have a hard-on for charismatic people with a lot of money, an extremely short memory, and refusal to believe that they will be the next ones to be scammed.
replies(4): >>42066584 #>>42066750 #>>42066755 #>>42068257 #
schnable ◴[] No.42066755[source]
I find these guys are pretty insightful when discussing tech and VC news. The politics talk is awful. Chamath is a lightweight who doesn't know anything about how our government works but speaks confidently -- I remember one time he was talking about how raising the debt ceiling will allow the President to spend more money. Sacks is a partisan hack who will spin everything as a positive for Trump and MAGA politics. That's after he was a hack for Desantis.
replies(5): >>42066853 #>>42067153 #>>42067213 #>>42067328 #>>42068731 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.42067328[source]
> these guys are pretty insightful when discussing tech and VC news

They seem insightful. They’re generally behind the curve and remind of Stratfor.

If anything, All In is better connected on politics. But that may be my Gell-Mann amnesia at play because I know the finance side of tech very well, and they’re not only frequently but paradoxically consistently wrong on it in ways that one sees institutional-versus-retail flows profit off.

replies(4): >>42068880 #>>42068941 #>>42069853 #>>42069903 #
1. takinola ◴[] No.42069903[source]
Interestingly, I agreed with the idea that they are better when discussing tech and VC (after all that's their day job). Do you have any examples of where they have been significantly off on tech finance?