Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

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




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.


My impression is that he often tries to 'steelman' the other side by purposely putting forth more simple-minded positions or questions than he actually holds. At least in AI territory it often seemed that way, noticeable when a guest mispeaks or mislabels a theory and Fridman corrects them, suddenly knowing the exact scientific term or implications.

I don't think he's necessarily doing a great job with this approach, but I'm guessing that there's some attempt of method behind it, rather than him being negligently oblivious to the subject at hand.

edit: grammar


> noticeable when a guest mispeaks or mislabels a theory and Fridman corrects them, suddenly knowing the exact scientific term or implications.

In my experience, (Elon interview) they are _both_ misspeaking. Just one (Elon) more so than the other (Lex).

Of course, you wouldn't know this as an outsider to that field, necessarily - and it does have the effect of making both parties seem smarter than they actually are.


Joe has this whole meat-head misunderstanding the world thing, it's actually a very useful prompting mechanism for insights from his guests.


This sort of appeal-to-the-commoner approach has been used for decades by news anchors.


But that's not generally what news anchors do - frequently they go in with a pre-established narrative; and whether or not they are agreeable or combative will depend upon that narrative.

Joe pokes the bear with his genuine (yet curious) ignorance, and listens to some very smart people with a child like wonder as they respond.


Sometimes he's like that. Other times with ivermectin etc. he slips back into this mode:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__CvmS6uw7E

More and more since joining Spotify.


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://tylercowensethnicdiningguide.com/


Similarly, I get the feeling that Lex Friedman wrote a list generic questions beforehand that he will plow through regardless of what happens.


The most annoying habit he's picked up recently is asking people to define words. It's never really interesting. For instance, during an interview with an economist, "let's start with what is economics"? He was interviewing CEO of Coinbase and Armstrong will try to give a normal answer and Lex will just interrupt "what is a wallet" or ask questions like "do you consider Coinbase layer 1, 2 or 3". They're just bad questions and interrupt a normal conversation.

On the other hand someone like Tyler Cowen doesn't ask for clarification unless he legitimately doesn't know what some is talking about. Some guests even said "maybe I should explain that", to which Cowen replies, "this conversation is for us, don't worry about the audience", and that leads to a much better natural and interesting conversation. If the listener doesn't understand anything they can always pause and look up what they don't understand


The "is Coinbase layer 1, 2, or 3" is a particularly dumb one and a good example of how eye-rollingly bad his questions can be. It's hard for the guest to get into the interesting details when interrupted with a question that's wrong in a bunch of ways that betray he has no idea what he's talking about. It just feels like he's full of shit.


If I were asked this question, I would actually consider this a good question, because:

- it probably is something people are wondering

- it's a good moment to talk about layers and where coinbase fits in the ecosystem

the answer for the curious: none of them. Coinbase is just a wallet using the layer 1 of most cryptocurrencies, and can also use apps and wallets from other layers (I'm not sure it does support any other layers at the moment though). A layer 2 can be seen like another cryptocurrency built on top of a cryptocurrency (layer 1), and a layer 3 is the same built on top of a layer 2, and so on.


It's a different kind of investigation into a subject. Perfectly valid. Any textbook on a subject, will often start with the most basic question. The Who/What/Where/Why/When of questions. Another way to describe First Principles Thinking. I find it extremely foundational to know the basics in developing higher knowledge in a field.


I've been doing podcasts and I'm often asked "what is cryptography?" as first question. I don't like it either :D


Same here I find it crazy that Joe Rogan is better at interviewing scientists than Lex.


Interviewing is a skill and Joe had a long time to perfect it. That said after 300 podcasts Lex should’ve improved but he hasn’t.

He really needs to get a producer to provide him with constant feedback and to guide him in general; every great interviewer/newsperson had an even better producer behind them.


I'm amazed at all the people here criticizing Rogan's interview skills. I think it's an instance of disliking a person in general and applying it unwittingly to everything they do.

Rogan may be a shitty person but he is a phenomenal interviewer. He manages to connect with the people that he is interviewing on a personal level in a way that makes them open up like they have known him as a childhood friend.

He's the new Larry King.


If you consider Rogan a shitty person, you must live in paradise.


The problem with rogan is that he always advocates the same 5 ifestyle choices over and over.


That just makes him a stable, consistent sounding board for his guests and listeners.

This "uniquely individual, but authentic and consistent persona" factor is a great trend for public persons. The reason why it works is because even if you don't agree with or like the host, say Lex or Joe, they are authentic and consistent enough that you can 'subtract' the difference between your average opinion and theirs from a conversation with a guest and still get back a reasonable read on the guest from your perspective.

It's like they're a human guage block, constantly measuring their guests with their own personality and reporting the relative measure. Then you slap your Rogan-to-infogulch guage block on top and now it's like you're measuring their guests yourself by proxy. (I'm tired but this seems like a reasonable analogy.)


Is he supposed to advocate a brand new and entirely contradictory diet every episode?


But does this really detract from what his guests are saying?


It’s funny how all of this works. I’ve tried many times to listen to Tyler Cowen after being introduced to him on Lex’s podcast, I’m still subscribed even. I just can’t do it, something about how he approaches the interview process grates on my nerves.


I have mixed feelings about Cowen.

On the one hand, I appreciate his breadth (but not depth, next point) of knowledge, his charisma, his pace, and his energy, all very admirable traits and qualities. I always listen to his podcasts.

On the other hand, there are many things that bother me about him. What I write may appear overly critical, but he is a public figure and it goes with the territory. Nobody criticizes me -- I am a nobody.

Some, perhaps more than a few, of his questions -- "I ask the questions I want to ask and not the questions you want to ask" -- more than curve balls seem like balls thrown off the field: "Try to hit this one!" To the point that his guests are puzzled, but they do not want to look ignorant or poor guests and do not react.

He greatly overestimates his knowledge of science, technology, art, cooking and everything else excluding, maybe, economics. Let's take languages. He says he learned to speak Spanish, then I hear him speak a few words of Spanish, and what I get is that he knows a few Spanish words and phrases, which in my opinion is not the same as speaking the language. I throw together a few ingredients, but I am not a chef.

When he talks with pace, conviction, determination and apparent curiosity -- I say apparent because I have never heard him change his outlook on anything, whatever he proposes is doable and there must be some low IQ person in charge or some sort of rent-seeking behavior to make it not happen -- about what I know (biology, AI, my country, women's rights), he is far from having a solid grasp of the subject, despite his conviction, tone and determination. But no one objects because he interviews and is not interviewed -- sometimes he is, next point -- and his guests usually shy away from replying to questions and opinions, informed or uninformed, about classical music, paintings, Chinese cuisine and obscure African poets.

He maintains his intellectual position at the top of the mountain through fog, smoke and utter confusion, which is admirable for the audacity, but also rather unsettling. When interviewed, he has a ready answer for any question, which for some may demonstrate his knowledge, wit and intelligence, to others, like me, he seems to be pulling answers out of his backpack.

He takes positions that he does not follow and marries himself to "causes" because they suit him. For example, he often speaks out against alcohol and legitimately so, but my impression is that it is convenient for him because he does not like to drink: would he follow his own recommendations if he liked alcohol instead?

In an interview about his latest book (which, like others he has written, are rather forgettable, a pot-pourri of whatever crosses his mind on the subject), he said that "on average" exercise is a net benefit to longevity and mental capacity. But he doesn't seem to exercise, and he doesn't talk about exercise or moderation at the dinner table because, as far as I can tell, he doesn't like to exercise and likes to eat plenty. But it is clear that a glass of wine a day is not a "bad thing" (some say it has positive effects on longevity) and that being 50 pounds overweight (all fine, it is his choice and my point is not about his lifestyle choices) puts one at risk for diabetes, poor quality of life, and early death. However, thanks to his assertive way of speaking and presenting his ideas, and his position among the "intellectual class" no one ever objects or asks though questions.

There is a lesson there.


I still think Cowen is about the most interesting interviewer out there, but I also think this is all spot on. I've absolutely had this skepticism for having ready answers for everything. He'd be more interesting if he said "I don't know" more often.


Fair criticism, and given how much praise I normally hear for Tyler, it's nice to hear it!


Lex is a fantastic host. Probably the best one in podcasting right now. He pushes back all the time, but knows when to move on when there is disagreement. There's nothing worse than a host who needs to win arguments.

I appreciate that he lets guests speak without any need to conform to a narrative. I can make my own opinion. I don't need the host doing it for me.

I truly don't know where you get the impression that there is no exchange of ideas. I've experienced him going very deep on many, many different topics.


> He pushes back all the time

I like Lex, but this is way overstating his pushback. He's mentioned himself how Rogan tells him he needs to push his guests more. He just prefers not to, because of an idea of love of the person...

I also think he can push back more, but on the whole he has interesting people and it's kinda nice to see him ask some basic open ended questions and see how different guests react to it.


I would say it's a strength of his that the guests just get to say what they have to say. He always prepares a couple of questions in case the conversation stalls, but other than that, he let's the guest talk about their ideas, instead of sticking to a specific story he wants to cover.


I concur with this. While Lex, IMHO, has FAR less personality than, for example, Joe Rogan, I’m not watching because of Lex; I’m watching because of the guest. I’m very happy to have the guest take over and, for the most part, lecture their thoughts and opinions. Lex allows this to happen.


>He always prepares a couple of questions in case the conversation stalls

A lot of people underestimate how much effort it takes to keep a relatively smooth flowing conversation for a matter of hours. Ultimately if the words are flowing the host is doing a good job.

In many cases for some of the more controversial guests Lex adds some disclaimers at the beginning, but it's not the host's job to argue every single statement.


It's interesting that Lex is so polarizing, I personally find him a great host.

Him almost never doing research is objectively false though. He often reads books/articles/tweets written by the guests and asks about them for example.


Yeah his style of letting guests freestyle is different than constantly challenging them on every point. It's not better or worse.

If that doesn't float your boat you can watch Carmack interviews by other people.


For me it's not that he doesn't push back, it's that he often interrupts with some trite nonsense. So the guest is getting in the details of something specific and interesting and Lex will interrupt with something he thinks is profound that's meaningless and derails the explanation. The questions he asks I find similarly frustrating - like he's not really listening, or thinking about it in any depth.

I get the sense he's constantly trying to prove how smart he is, and at least to me - it backfires badly. Hard to describe, but I guess it comes across mostly as shallow bullshit and it's tedious to listen to him despite his great guests.


> I get the sense he's constantly trying to prove how smart he is

I've listened to hundreds of hours, and I just don't get this at all. I don't think he has a selfish motive for the "interruptions". I think he's just saying what's on his mind, in a somewhat vulnerable way.


Yeah same. He might want to prove his existing knowledge (natural, to show the guest that he understands what he's talking about) but doesn't go about trying to outsmart people.


Absolutely, in so many ways he is humble enough to ask the simple questions and let the guest give his view on it


Couldn't have said it better myself. It's especially eye-rolling when he tries to inject comments or questions about how "it's all about love" straight out of nowhere. For someone with a scientific background, he sure produces a lot of fluffy nonsense, to the point where Carmack had to stop him there once or twice.

Reminded me of Jordan Peterson getting shut down by Richard Dawkins once he started going down yet another Deepak Chopra-style mystification rabbit hole.


Not so impressed by the research: I forgot the exact wording, but it took me a lot of effort to keep listening when he asked Neal Stephenson something to the effect of if he had ever heard of the metaverse.


I think I remember better now. It was Friedman discussing the notion of some iPad app that could be used to learn and educate, adapting to the user, etc. Stephenson replied that he had indeed written a whole book about it (Diamond Age).


I didn’t listen to that episode but I have to imagine that was a leading question.


Yeah, I was surprised too. I thought a technical community would appreciate the amount and breadth of technical knowledge that Lex explores with guests and allows the public domain to gain.


100% agree. But if you mention this, he will tell you that he is a college professor, and therefore you don't know what you're talking about.

In 20 years, with luck, he will look back on himself today and just sigh.

He simply does not follow what the majority of his guests are saying sometimes to the point of argument. Maybe "strong disagreement" is a better phrase. He will not understand what a guest says, then challenge it as if he did. It's infuriating to listen to.

I mostly avoid his podcast now, because of it. I may listen to this one because John always says a lot of things that are interesting to me. Unless it's VR. Then, I don't give a hoot.


I wish he was unprepared. The creepier moments of the show are when he starts talking of his own ideas which sound like someone made up a parody on naive technocratic optimism blended with teenage babbling of how all humans are going to love each other etc etc.


His more recent "it's all love" trend is the cringiest of the bunch, couldn't agree more. I truly wish you could have a Lex-free version of his podcast with just the guests talking.


Yeah it drives me crazy and I'm unable to listen to them.

It's maybe mean to say, but I just don't think he's that smart and unfortunately it shows. It also doesn't help that he doesn't seem to be aware of it.

He does get great guests though.


Curious, why do you think all those great guests come to his podcasts? Wouldn't they politely decline if they thought he's not a very smart guy and a terrible host? I really think John Carmack, Mark Zuckerberg or Kevin Systrom don't need the publicity via his podcast, so what other reason would they heave?


He has a large audience and is anodyne enough to not matter as part of the interview. He may ask some dumb questions or say some dumb stuff, but he won’t be hostile.

It’s why someone may go on tv for a few minute spot, it’s good for getting your message out to a large audience despite the interviewer being in the way of that.


I'm guessing it's because of his massive reach towards a specific type of audience that may be somehow beneficial to them. It's most certainly not because of the profundity of the intellectual exchange they have on these podcasts.


Same. I really want to like the guy, it feels like all of the credentials are there, all the stars are aligned, but his contribution always comes off as anemic and uninspired. There are plenty of times where I wish he would give more space to the guest instead of injecting something of his own that adds zero value.


Not to hate on him but the credentials are not really there. He taught a fluff seminar course on self driving at MIT and used the brand of the university to line up a ton of great guests for an AI podcast that he then pivoted into a personal brand. From what I understand his research at Drexel was focused on HCI and from the interviews that I've seen it looks like he has a pretty shallow understanding of ML.


> seminar course on self driving

what's self driving, you mean like, self-driving cars? driving yourself to greater heights or achievement?


I actually feel the complete opposite is occurring, the guests are free to go really deep on their own and Lex provides a simple sounding board without getting his ego involved he teases more out of his guests and doesn’t try to appear clever. If Lex is so uninformed, unresearched an unengaging why does he keep getting exceptional guests and have such an incredibly popular podcast. I can understand you not personally liking his style but he hardly ever interrupts his guests or gets in the way apart from smoothly moving onto the next topic. Maybe his philosophy is just enjoy the speaker and let them shine, rather than worrying his own ego to want to be constantly noticed.


> 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.


And viewers. As of now he has 235 million views.


I found his interviews with Jim Keller (the CPU architect/engineer) to be really really good.


Same. Likewise, the interviews with Roger Penrose, Jack Dorsey, Stephen Kotkin, Lisa Feldman Barrett, and his own father have stayed with me.

All for very different reasons.

I stopped binging, with great sadness, when it looked like Lex was going the down the intellectual dork web path (Malice, Rogan, Weinstein, Harris, Haidt, Ferguson). Hopefully that was just a phase.


This is probably his best interview, IMO. Keller was allowed to go very deep into interesting topics and by the end of it you get a solid perception of what CPU development was like in the earlier days (DEC, AMD Athlon) to how it has evolved with modern synthesis tools and large teams. As well as the business overall.


I saw it is as they both had a good intuition about each other, so they were both free to talk without the need for some "translation" barrier, which appear when two people are constantly struggling to translate things in a frame of reference that they think the other requires.


One of my favorites, too. Interestingly enough he is Jordan Peterson’s brother in law.


I always roll my eyes whenever Lex tries to shoe horn one of his favorite subjects into the conversation, like AI or robots.


coughs Elon Musk coughs


Lex has a special skill of making me roll my eyes every time he speaks. I hate that I always return to his episodes, though (he has amazing guests). The way I approach it is to jump the parts he speaks.


It would be nice to have a cut of these videos with only the guest talking, and with all the goofy philosophical cruft deleted.


I learned to skip forward by 30 seconds every time he speaks in the hopes of jumping straight into the guest's response. Highly recommended.


It seems like you just prefer a different interview style, but that doesn't make him a bad interviewer. A good interviewer asks questions that they know a guest can speak at length in answering. An interviewer's job isn't necessarily an archaeology quest, it's to present to an audience.


> There is no exchange of ideas, its just the guest being able to say whatever they want without any pushback.

This is precisely why I listen to his podcast. I am not interested in Lex's ideas (beyond maybe AI), I am interested in the guest's idea. The back-to-back Oliver Stone and Stephen Kotkin episodes where really interesting to that effect. Here are two people with diametrically opposite points of views on Russia and Ukraine, and both had ample time to explain their positions in depth, without a host trying to trick or confront them. Let the listener make up his own mind.

And when I'm not interested in a guest (Joe Rogan recently), I just skip that episode.

There are many small things that irritate me when listening to his podcast, but his ability to let his guest speak in depth about his ideas trumps them all.


People that rarely (or never) give interviews are not afraid to go to Lex’s podcast. This is huge.

Could he push a little bit more? Yes he could but probably potential guests would start to refuse his invitation.

I see Lex podcast almost as a terapist. People go there, talk their mind, they are not pressed or judged.


Lex Fridman has his ups and downs as a host but how on earth can you call him terrible? He made Zuckerberg prove his humanity by solving a cardboard captcha ffs


The interviews with academics and technical folks he does are fine because it's a domain where you can tell that he knows his stuff but he seems to have increasingly become an off brand Joe Rogan with political guests or nutritionists or even stranger guests on the channel, whose quackery goes largely unchallenged.

The worst offender was probably Oliver Stone. That episode became a straight up megaphone for propaganda.


He also interviewed Jo Boaler.


I watched a few. I was really uncomfortable by how unprepared he was and frequent asking for explanations to basic statements.


He asks for those explanations for the audience, in case a listener is ignorant of the subject...


In the first few minutes of the KGB interview he asks for an explanation of the Stasi. It was clear he didn’t know what the Stasi was. He didn’t just come across as unprepared he came across as someone who isn’t even interested.


>In the first few minutes of the KGB interview he asks for an explanation of the Stasi. It was clear he didn’t know what the Stasi was.

I think your perceptions of Lex will mislead you to assume he's asking out of personal ignorance instead of asking simple questions he already knows the answer to for the sake of the audience.

As a result, you happened to pick a bad example as Lex already knew what the German Stasi was before that interview because he discussed it over a year ago with Michael Malice back in December 2020 (deep link to "Stasi" conversation): https://youtu.be/uykM3NhJbso?t=56m39s

Lex does not tire out listeners with constant disclaimers in every interview by saying, "I already know about <X> but for the sake of my audience, what does <X> mean?"

Thankfully, he just shortens all that to : "What does <X> mean?"

... but then that makes him look unprepared. But if he puts in that disclaimer every time, we'd complain he tries too hard to let us know he's smart about the topic. Either way, it seems you can't please everybody.


He clearly asks these 'entry-level' questions for the audience when he thinks it's helpful. I've been thankful of that a few times when a guest, speaking about a field that is far from my own, is asked to clarify something briefly. So I'll disagree with you here that it 'is clear he didn't know what the Stasi was'.


I'm glad he does. Apparently I'm less familiar, than you, with the details of the ridiculously wide range of topics he discusses. I enjoy not having to prepare to listen to a podcast, or go through the whole thing confused, with a list of topics I need to read about to understand what I just heard.


Shouldn't he not assume that the audience knows everything about the subject already?


Agreed - he somehow gets the most amazing guests, but it's all un-interesting, softball questions that don't challenge the guest at all, delivered at a glacial pace.


Yes, it's designed that way imo. More of an exploration into a subject, letting the guest shine and transmit their thoughts.

Would you have preferred someone like Charlie Rose, constantly interrupting the guests. A 2 way dialogue might be more normal, but you lose a lot of signal. These aren't confrontational interviews, but more of an educational one hosted by a non-expert.

If people prefer a discussion of 2 experts, this is clearly not it.


Lex has been very open with how he is still finding his own in interviewing.

I agree that there are obvious opportunities for following a more in-depth rabbit to hop into...

And, there are times, when there is _such_ the obvious question/followup/conclusion that is clear, and it gets missed.

At the same time, He does a good job keeping people talking. This Carmack one so far is really good.

I highly recommend this particular episode:

--- Ariel Ekblaw is the director of the MIT Space Exploration Initiative. --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW8Vjs84Fxg

Ariel's ability to clearly express and convey such an amazing vision for space colonization... Talking about how to make self assembling space station modules.


It's interesting that Lex not injecting his own ideas is a con to you. For me, that's a huge pro. He's one of the few content producers I enjoy because he doesn't seem to push any particular agenda. He just provides a platform for really high quality guests to talk. Occasionally he'll ask them fun questions that you wouldn't expect for his guests, like asking Brian Armstrong about the meaning of life.


I wouldn’t say hes a terrible host but he is a certain kind of host which is like the opposite of a Charlie Rose- who mostly glossed over the technical details of a person’s accomplishments to get to their more personal motivations and universal human interest type stuff. From the 3 or 4 episodes I’ve seem focuses entirely on the technical and is good at that but not very good at drawing the guest out emotionally. But this method still has a lot of value for a technical podcast.


Yeah I agree, listening to this episode I was thinking "Carmack loves talking, and Lex really lets his guests talk". He often just asks things that are useful to him, and not necessarily relevant to the guest. Yet, it seems to work, I end up listening to a lot of the content and really liking it. It's not a bad formula.

This reminds me a bit of Joe Rogan who also ends up interviewing a lot of interesting people but doesn't seem to really care about where the conversation goes. Rogan talks much more though, and I think is more into discovering what kind of person he's talking to (sometimes using substances).


I agree with this take mostly. There are many times I expect Lex to guide his guest to a particular conversation and he fails to do it. Rogan is better at this, to my surprise. Though Rogan has his bad days too, but generally he's better at it. I admit though, I am not an avid listener of either shows. I think a lot of this comes down to personal preference. The beginning of Lex's shows make me cringe sometimes.


Lex has an awkward persona. He’s the Jimmy Fallon of smarty pants podcast hosts. I feel cringey trying to listen to either host.


Coming back to this. Just want to say I disagree, while it would also be a nice listen to have experts discuss topics with one another equally. It is refreshing to gain knowledge on a subject from an expert in this conversational format to basic questions.

The fact is Lex isn't an expert in 99% of the subjects his guests are coming from. And neither are we. But, the format is a great public lecture with a soft conversation in between. And it should be increasing the general knowledge of the public who are watching. And that's one of his goals. And why the podcast is popular with many not from technical backgrounds.

I feel like every technical person will surely agree that the average intelligence of most of the public is going downhill, at the same time as the complexity of science & technology increase. This kind of general intelligence podcast can only be a good thing.


Thank you for this comment. The host took me by surprise.

I saw John Carmack and 5 hours and just thought: "Wow, those two must have really hit it off somewhere". Listening to his questions was a struggle. I wish I could have only listened to Johns answers.


He should keep his opinion to himself more. He hasn't yet accomplished anything significant in the world, so nobody really cares what he thinks about particular subjects. He comes off as pompous. I also don't like that he takes crypto seriously.


Who do you find interesting to listen to for these kind of long form conversations?


I dunno, I never heard of him before but I'm at the beginning of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3FC7qIAGZk and I think he is doing fine

edit: in 15 minutes mark he disagreed with the host, the host claimed that russia is winning


> The main problem is that Lex is a terrible host.

Agreed. Three hundred episodes later, and he still hasn't learned how to interview people in a way that doesn't make the show a slog.


I totally agree. His guests are great, he stinks. I'm sure he's a perfectly nice and amiable person IRL, but as a podcast host I am not a fan. I can't really watch it.


I am also confused how he became so popular, he seems pretty uninformed, my best guess is that his suit fools people into thinking that he must know what he is doing.


this is so not true.

where else would questions like: how did commander keen come to be? would emerge?


Lex is the Joe Rogan of the college crowd


Not to mention the adoration of Elon Musk, virtually everyone is asked to comment on him.

However ... I do like that guests have a lot of time to get deep into ideas.




Applications are open for YC Winter 2023

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: