Chris Lattner: The Future of Computing and Programming Languages – Lex Fridman

> I just don't get why he's popular, aside from that he's able to get interviews with famous/important people because he's popular.

I think you answered your question.

He's not bad, (he's also not mind poppingly good), but he has access.

Exactly, I feel the same way about Joe Rogan. Maybe it's because people see themselves in these two?

He let's his guests do most of the talking, and he has access to amazing guests probably by association with his father who is a respected scientist.

You are not wrong. I just tried to listen to it in the background and he does sound like a robot doing a book report.

I listened to his interview of Jim Keller and had the exact same feeling. At multiple points Keller straight up roasted him for the kind of questions he asked. One of them is one of my favourite roasts to date, where Fridman asks him what achievement he is most proud of (is this a phone interview for a junior position??) and Keller pretty much laughs at the question and tells him he has kids.

The interview with Roger Penrose was excellent. And apparently Fridman has discovered a market niche, which seems to convince the interviewees.

Asking "dumb" questions is sometimes a good quality in an interviewer. But beyond that, I agree.

2 other things in his favor:

- no one else was interviewing these people before Lex Freidman. AFAIK.

- He does a decent job of not getting stuck too much in the weeds. Though sometimes I wish he was more technically inclined and could.

His content and his guests are so interesting that I don't care what his voice sounds like. His interviews are in my opinion to the point and strips away a lot of the irrelevant noise that more "charismatic" speakers add to interviews.

I don't think you are being quite fair.

The idea that he is not sharing enough of his own stories when he has legendary engineers or computer scientists talking to him is nonsensical. His job is to let those guests talk. And follow along with what they are saying. And help encourage them to explain basic things so it is accessible.

I think he usually does a good job of those things. And when people criticise that harshly I think it'd not fair unless for example you think that you could sit down and interview Jim Keller or Musk or Joshua Bach whatever legend or genius and do a better job. Because I really doubt you could.

I found some of Lex's remarks and commentary during interviews insightful and intellectual. Like, we're listening to someone who thinks deeply in his own way about life, but doesn't really talk about his own thoughts so much, so have only the occasional glimpse. For me, this is enjoyable to listen to. But I haven't listened to all the interviews; perhaps I ended up choosing the ones that are more familiar subjects for him as well.

For example I really enjoyed the interview with Vitalik Buterin. It felt as much like two people chewing the cud about ideas for what's being created and what we might do in future, and around the economy and social development with an idealistic bent; the sorts of conversations we used to be able to enjoy in university, as it did an interview. I miss those conversations in real life. Nobody I know wants to have them any more. Of course that was driven by Vitalik's ideas, but it was a great setting to hear them; the interview was enjoyable for me.

I agree Lex's voice is remarkable and at first I found it off-putting though intriguing. But after listening for a while I found it different, and calm rather than off-putting. It may have helped me that he explained why he wears black so often, about maintaining a calm and prepared mind. I really respect thoughts expressed like that, I guess because I see myself as a mess (relatively!) and would like to be more like that myself. Just having someone articulate and demonstrate a calmness of mind is a gentle, everyday inspiration.

That calm mind is reminiscent of meditation for me. It makes other interviewers sound like they're trying too hard to be entertainers, zany and interesting, when that's not important to me. Having Lex as a counterpoint, I realised I don't like the zany interviewers at all. I'm not looking for fun, and I'm certainly not looking for the auditory equivalent of razzle-dazzle. I'm looking for calm and interesting thoughts with an air of intellectual curiosity in a calm and reflective timeframe.

I also really like the way the interviews have plenty of time to explore. Hours. It feels like they aren't force-scripted to fit in X questions into Y preset minutes as other podcast interviewers. I expect there is a fair amount of preparation, but it feels relaxed as a result. I don't have time to listen to them, to be honest. But the length makes them more of a treat. It's like reading a long book: Rather than having one hit like a short story, it's more like something which takes a week to read and is a bit of a treat at bedtime or at lunch, to read in pieces. I'll go back and listen to a single Lex podcast over repeated sessions. The continuity makes it something to look forward to, and it's pleasing to know the style of material will last me a while. It doesn't need to be densely packed to be an enjoyable listen, and this is a lovely antidote to the high-intensity workout of some other podcasts.

I think he sounds considered and authentic, and willing to ask 'dumb' questions on behalf of the audience. He definitely does have opinions... and if I had to sum it up, I would say he's a romantic optimistic. Which is in contrast to his tone but that's really what he puts out.

I like him because of his guests, his outlook and the way he approaches life. I hope you find the time to give him a chance.

He is popular because he got awesome guests, and his monotone voice stops being an issue after few hours of listening.