
Naval Ravikant on Time [audio] - ston3r
https://factordaily.com/outliers-6-naval-ravikant-monk-valley-tells-us-hes-ruthless-time/
======
blizkreeg
Loved the interview and good questions overall. I like the candidness with
which Naval speaks.

A friendly suggestion to the interviewer: please keep the uhms and yeahs when
the other person is speaking to a minimum or none. It's distracting and spoils
the listening experience, especially when it's audio only. I also heard a
phone buzz at one point :)

That said, great score on getting Naval on Outliers.

~~~
birken
I'm always bothered by un-edited podcasts. It isn't hard. I have a tiny little
podcast with few listeners and still edit them all. For an hour long podcast I
can easily cut out 5 minutes worth of pauses, "ummm"s, "you know"s, talking
over each other and mis-talking. Makes the podcast sound so much smoother.

Probably takes me somewhere between 2-3 hours to edit a 1 hour podcast. Yes,
that is a lot, but if 100 people listen to it and it saves then 5 minutes then
that is well worth it. As an added plus, you and your guests sound a lot
smarter.

~~~
atom-morgan
The Joe Rogan Experience is probably my favorite podcast and the unedited
nature of it is one big plus. I think people over-exaggerate uhs and umms. If
it's every other word, yeah. Otherwise, it's not THAT big of a deal in most
cases.

~~~
birken
Some need it more than others. The local news is live and doesn't need editing
because the people doing the broadcast are pros. Joe Rogan is an absolute pro
who has been an actor, comedian, game show host, UFC commentator in addition
to being an excellent and experienced radio host. He makes a 3-hour unedited
podcast seem easy, where for me I don't think I could do 10 minutes smoothly
even if I had it all planned out.

I don't know if Joe Rogan always records in a sound studio, but in my
experience having a good mic is like 75% of the battle, and being in the same
room as your guest also helps minimize the interjections. In addition of
course to having an extremely experienced and professional host to keep the
flow.

For my particular podcast my co-host and I always record remotely, but each of
us record our sound locally and then I edit the streams together after the
fact. You wont find many top tier podcasts that don't do this because the
audio dump from skype/hangouts puts a very low ceiling on your sound quality
and if you don't have separate streams then editing becomes much harder.

Still though I don't want to make it sound like it is hard. It isn't. Two
microphones, a couple of hours of editing in Audacity (free, open source) and
you get a very good sounding podcast. You don't need a sound studio or a
degree in audio engineering.

------
henrik_w
Related: Naval Ravikant interviewed by Shane Parrish (long podcast episode):

[https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2017/02/naval-ravikant-
read...](https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2017/02/naval-ravikant-reading-
decision-making/)

~~~
BenderV
One of the most insightful podcast ! I'm sharing you my personal notes on it:
[https://gist.github.com/BenderV/44901bac756ff3b8279d018eb1e2...](https://gist.github.com/BenderV/44901bac756ff3b8279d018eb1e2cc1f)

------
untilHellbanned
The guy who made AngelList, which facilitates business networking, hates
business networking for himself.

------
developuh
Naval has such clarity of thoughts. How does one achieve this ? Is this
something that can be learnt ?

~~~
carapace
Read the works of clear thinkers (subject is not so important.)

Two that leap to mind: Wendell Berry and Norbert Wiener

~~~
travmatt
Also, having to refine and articulate your thoughts

------
EGO_DEATH
Love Naval. Great mentor.

Suggest more people with similar values & vibe. Don't have to be currently
among the living neither. Found this site thanks to him, and he has been
adding a great deal of value to me ever since I first heard of him. Grateful
to say the least.

------
lnreddy
The interviewer seems to be fawning over Naval, or maybe he's easily amused.
Either way, it was kinda annoying, but a good interview nevertheless.

------
thinbeige
OT: Is AngelList still a thing? Anyone still using it?

 _Edit: Since this post got dovnvotes let me get my point clear. None of my
friends ever raised funds via AngelList, they raised by approaching investors
directly (they say raising via AngelList is super needy and bad for your
reputation), AngelList 's traffic is not growing anymore rather the opposite,
their job section is quite popular among startups but again, does AngelList
play nowadays a crucial role for fundraising? My feeling says not really but
maybe I am wrong and you know and can tell us why people still should use
AngelList._

~~~
SeoxyS
Think of AngelList as a platform for angel investors to leverage their
expertise with outside capital. These days, founders don't raise on AngelList,
rather angel investors use AngelList to raise capital for their deals. There's
a group of people who have very good instinct, connections, and dealflow, but
don't have enough personal liquid capital to be writing frequent large checks.
There's also quite a bit of capital that doesn't itself have this access.
AngelList brings those two groups together; and it all happens privately
behind the scenes. Angels can write 100k+ checks out of lightweight funds, or
on a deal-by-deal basis. Outside investors can get exposed to high quality
early-stage deals.

