What are you listening to - Podcast Edition?
-
I've been listening to the 'You'll hear it' podcasts, covering jazz, mostly piano, which I don't play. I love the way these guys talk about music.
Here's one, but there's tons of them
Link to videoanother interesting one...
Link to video -
Bret Weinstein has a fellow Ivermectin truther on his podcast today, for a three hour conversation about his guest's book, about how Ivermectin was unfairly judged by intentionally fraudulent science. This settles one question I had, about whether Brett had silently retreated from his Ivermectin support. Apparently not. His guest has a cadence one typically sees in salespeople, where he uses the other person's name constantly. "Bret" this and "Bret" that, before every declarative statement about how the big pharma fix is in.
-
Good ol' "one of the smartest people in the world" Eric Weinstein, in a recent conversation. One claim he makes that resonated, is that AI which can do all our jobs, breaks capitalism. Which is sort of a big deal.
I do wish he wouldn't dye his hair. It's ridiculous.
Link to video -
I listened to one of Jon's favorites, Advisory Opinions, about the recent court rulings. For context, the hosts are deep into the legal weeds, and are basically centrists, but almost certainly vote Democrat for POTUS in every election. At least they're adult enough not to outwardly hate the right.
I didn't hear any mention of the newest justice's opinions. I guess nobody really wants to publicly confront the depth of stupidity and disingenuousness Biden has selected onto the court. They were more comfortable taking on Kagain, where they couldn't make any sense of Kagan's claim that "scotus has, for the first time, given constitutional protection for the denial of service to protected classes". Given her strong history of advocacy for free speech, the about face on that issue in her dissent was transparently political.
They made no mention of any political disingenuousness on the part of any "conservative" judge. My take is, that "conservative", when describing supreme court justices, only means "committed to the constitution, and legal precedent". Which is literally their job. It's no wonder that they are less likely to need to twist into knots in the process of doing their jobs.
-
To cleanse my palate of relative reason from Advisory Opinions, I listened to another supreme court commentary podcast, called Strict Scrutiny. I think it's the more popular one. It's hosted by three progressive female law professors. The episode I listened to was called "Loan Forgiveness Bad, Bigotry Good". I didn't find the conversation to be fair and balanced. Three angry women. I guess it's cool to be angry, as long as you're not a conservative white male. One of them was having difficulty concentrating because she was about to go to a Taylor Swift concert. These girls were straight out of central casting.
No attempt made to understand or relate to the majority opinions on any of these rulings. Just an outraged conversation about how evil the conservative justices are, and how difficult it is to live in the country they totally control.
-
Horace - Sarah Isgur was president of FedSoc at Harvard Law, worked for Romney campaign and then Fiorona. She joined the Trump administration as Spokesperson for Attorney General Sessions. She knows TF out of DoJ and their practices. She’s married to the former Solicitor General of Texas who took the job right after Ted Cruz.
David French is a former president of FIRE, spent years litigating campus free speech issues and working for national pro life and religious freedom organizations as an attorney. He was at National Review for years before co-founding Dispatch Media.
Neither like Trump.
-
@Jon said in What are you listening to - Podcast Edition?:
Horace - Sarah Isgur was president of FedSoc at Harvard Law, worked for Romney campaign and then Fiorona. She joined the Trump administration as Spokesperson for Attorney General Sessions. She knows TF out of DoJ and their practices. She’s married to the former Solicitor General of Texas who took the job right after Ted Cruz.
David French is a former president of FIRE, spent years litigating campus free speech issues and working for national pro life and religious freedom organizations as an attorney. He was at National Review for years before co-founding Dispatch Media.
Neither like Trump.
Thanks for that surgical refutation of the least meaningful part of my post. Say jon, how about your thoughts on the liberal members of the court and their dissents? You follow this stuff and you're very smart, I would have thought maybe you'd have a thought or two. You seem eager to giggle at Clarence Thomas when he hangs with rich people, but you've been silent about these rulings. Still collecting your thoughts?
-
It’s like 250 pages that came out the day before I went on vacation.
I am curious about Kagan and Sotomayor’s dissents (if Kagan wrote one) on Harvard for a variety of reasons. I’m curious if they even acknowledged the invidious discrimination against Asians and if so what they said about it.
-
Finished a BBC podcast called "The Lazarus Heist"
"In 2016 North Korean hackers planned a $1bn raid on Bangladesh's national bank and came within an inch of success - it was only by a fluke that all but $81m of the transfers were halted, report Geoff White and Jean H Lee. But how did one of the world's poorest and most isolated countries train a team of elite cyber-criminals?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w13xtvg9/episodes/downloads
-
Lex Fridman spoke to Yuval Noah Harari, author of the smash hit book Sapiens. This one was 2:44 in length.
Link to videoLex positioned this one right after an interview with Netanyahu, to hear from the opposition. Harari's opposition is mostly about slippery slopes into a religious dictatorship.
Harari believes in the power of stories to shape humanity. His main example was fiat currency, which he claims is meaningless except for the story we are told that it's valuable. Which is a stupid point. Fiat currency is valuable by agreement, enforced by the credible threat of violence from the government that prints it. Stories have nothing to do with it. Harari needs to find a better example of the power of stories.
They also discussed 'public intellectual' mainstays about artificial intelligence and consciousness. They both admitted that consciousness cannot be determined anyway, and only has to be assumed to exist in others. Yuval claimed we don't believe livestock are conscious. Another stupid point. I guess almost everybody assumes livestock has some consciousness. Harari is preoccupied with suffering, and minimizing it. He thinks that if an AI can suffer, it's definitely conscious. He appeared to think that made a meaningful point. Which it doesn't. It only begs the question of consciousness. You can no more determine true suffering than you can determine true consciousness.
Anyway, it's good to get the other side of the Israel thing, even if there wasn't that much to chew on.
-
I take it you prefer bibi?
I think he could outpoll trump and desantis if he was running for President.
But me, I’ve known him thirty years. I’ve had enough
-
@bachophile said in What are you listening to - Podcast Edition?:
I take it you prefer bibi?
I think he could outpoll trump and desantis if he was running for President.
But me, I’ve known him thirty years. I’ve had enough
I prefer neither. Just watching from a distance and trying to make sense of both sides.
-
Well, u know me. The most sensible person around.
-
In last week’s Econtalk podcast, Russ Roberts interviewed Marc Andreesen on the future of AI.
It’s the optimistic take you rarely hear. Worth checking out.
Andreesen has a bird’s eye view on developments in the area, since he’s the cofounder of Andreesen-Horowitz he hears pitches basically every day from the extremely smart people with new ideas in the field.
-
Lex Fridman talks to a Palestinian who he considers to be a good representative for that side of the Israel/Palestine conflict:
Link to videoThe terms he puts it in, are surprisingly simple. Americans tend to think of the conflict as super complicated and impossible to form an informed judgment on, but this guy's framing would contradict that. It's just a matter of people being kicked out of their homes by largely European and secular jews, after WW2. It's been retconned as a religious conflict, but this guy rejects that. The religious Jews and Palestinians had been coexisting in that area relatively peacefully, until the largely secular european jews forced their way in.
He finds it particularly hypocritical of Westerners to so passionately defend the rights of Ukrainians, while ignoring Palestinians with the same claim to have been invaded and imperialized.
I would assume that the Yuval Noah Harari types, or more generally the westernized leftist Israelis, would side with this Palestinian in his framing of the conflict. But I'm not sure.
-
Excellent conversation with the ever-reliable Jonathan Haidt, on Megan Daum's podcast:
Link to videoThey discuss the psychology brought on by the internet, and the differences between boys and girls and generational cohorts in that regard.
One of my favorite points Haidt makes is to remind everybody that anger is not a negative emotion, unless it's a frustrated anger. If it's righteous anger, shared within a group, it's essentially a joyous emotion.
Education is extremely important.
-
Or the Tucker Carlson show.
-
Coleman Hughes interviewed the authors of this book:
Their thesis is fine, in that it boils down to a truism about how humans participate in groupthink for social advantage within tribes, and principle plays a minimal role. Hardly an original thesis, but it is among the true ideas that most of us could stand to remind ourselves of. But the authors take it too far, both in the podcast and in the book itself, by claiming that ideology has literally nothing to do with anything. They mostly accomplish this through anecdote and history-mining. If a party known today for one idea, was once known for the opposite, their thesis is proven. The fundamental ideological difference of big government vs small government, for instance, is claimed to be nonsensical, since GWB and Trump expanded the government, yet "conservatives" didn't "flee the GOP" (whatever that means. Flee where?) over that. Or the GOP tends to want to fund the military and the police, which means they are for the expansion of government. Lazy, anecdote based proofs of nothing in particular, based on framings of ideology that imply one idea at a time must reign supreme in a person's mind, to the exclusion of any other ideas. They accuse the American public of being blatantly stupid, then build a case against blatant stupidity. But few people are so blinkered as they describe. I do agree that most people are more consumed with socially advantageous groupthink than they realize.
-
