I had heard about him a few times and I avoided listening to it for the same reason, the show lengths were a complete non-starter. But I decided to give it a try and for the topics/guests that I found interesting the show lengths seem actually necessary to dive into the depth and breadth of topics that are covered.

I personally only listen to the episodes where I have an interest in the topics or the guests themselves i.e. the intellectuals, nutritionists, incredible athletes, and scientists. In this way I use the podcast as more of a medium to experience the guests rather than listening for Rogan himself (although I do appreciate his generally progressive views and genuine intellectual curiosity). Even if I tried I can't imagine devoting 3+ hours to a comedian or MMA fighter talking about whatever.

I think the author touches on this in the article, the audiences of the podcast are quite diverse and many are only interested in a subset of the content. The diversity and neutrality of Rogan allows it to act as a neutral medium to be exposed to an in-depth view of a variety of topics and people that you would not have the opportunity to experience otherwise.