Lex Fridman Podcast #309 – John Carmack
lexfridman.com
lexfridman.com
Edit to add: His recent episode with Jack Barsky (former KGB spy) was exceptional and worth a listen if 5hrs is too long of a test case
In short, he’s a “nerd’s nerd”.
It’s hard not to be enraptured by someone like that. It would be like listening to DaVinci discuss theoretical aerodynamics for three hours.
I find Lex Fridman to be wooden, robotic, non-sequitur, not smooth or charismatic, and (I admit, shallowly) not a pleasing speaking voice to listen to, and not that articulate actually. The main reason he gets famous guests is that he has a reputation for getting famous guests. He's like a Kardashian.
I actively have to tune him out and suppress my wish that someone, anyone else were asking the questions.
But it is what it is. We don't have voting rights on who random walks their way to being famous in this world.
Do you have a favorite podcaster/interviewer?
The act of pushing back, retaliation, or suppressing information actually increases the desire for said info and notoriety/fanfare of many people and ideas. In the Oliver Stone interview, they do discuss the best way to interview someone is with a blank canvas, and that is honestly refreshing. Let viewers develop their own opinions. But, a little more pushback or rather counter-arguments might have been welcomed, but that might change the tone of the interview into a more adversarial one.
People need to get out of closed off echo chambers, be respectful of each other, and just agree to disagree, but still look at each other as a human being. The only way we progress through the 21st century.
He is very wooden, but I agree with the others, his questions are incredible and cut straight to the point. For example while others (Tim Ferriss) might have asked Zuckerberg “How do you deal with negative sentiment around you and your work?” Lex asked something like “Many people believe that your products are destroying democracy, that social networks polarize us into bubbles, and you are one of the most hated men in America. How do you contend with that?” Wow and ouch! Amazing conversations
He insisted multiple times that being "canceled by the woke mob" is something that the government does to you because they are afraid of losing power to common people on the internet. That's not just kind of wrong, or kind of skewed, that's a complete inversion of reality.
You could replace him with a markov chain trained in the right wing conspiracy media bubble and get basically the same quality questions.
Fridman really seemed to be going for applause lines from a very specific crowd, not anything particularly coherent. I think he's realized that his growth as a podcaster comes from the demographic that frequents hosts like Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, and Ben Shapiro, and the more he can get them engaged the higher his numbers will get. But the topics that demographic cares about aren't AI and ML.
Compare to his last few episodes: * Steve Keen: Marxism, Capitalism, and Economics * Richard Haier: IQ Tests, Human Intelligence, and Group Differences * Susan Cain: The Power of Introverts and Loneliness * Douglas Murray: Racism, Marxism, and the War on the West * Richard Wolff: Marxism and Communism
That's a pretty hard pivot in topics that he's covering. If discussion about whether BLM is Marxism intent on destroying the West isn't the content you're looking for, I don't think you're the audience he's targeting anymore.
Maybe I just saw the wrong interviews, but I got the exact opposite impression from those I've seen. He was literally reading off a script of questions and not following through on interesting things the interviewee says or asking them to develop ideas or explain themselves. Can you point to any particularly good episodes that I can use to give him another chance?
That's not a ding against him, as he has very wide range of guests, so he lacks expertise to challenge them, but something to keep in mind.
One can possibly argue that information has always been manipulated and public discourse as well since the dawn of civilization. So, I find having an interviewer be open to multiple possibilities or interpretations is refreshing.
He's not completely neutral though, he has a slight liberal bias, and at the same time doesn't address criticism of said guest many times especially when they are a friend, like Joe Rogan, or Elon Musk. That being said, it is a scientifically progressive podcast that is very illuminating in many fields for non-experts, and the public. And I have learned a lot and enjoyed listening to it.
On the other hand, the freedom that guests have is worthwhile.
This one is likely to be a technical one and certainly something I am keen to listen.
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
That's how you get guests.
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.
https://marginalrevolution.com/ https://tylercowensethnicdiningguide.com/
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.
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.
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.)
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
- 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.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__CvmS6uw7E
More and more since joining Spotify.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
If that doesn't float your boat you can watch Carmack interviews by other people.
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'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.
Reminded me of Jordan Peterson getting shut down by Richard Dawkins once he started going down yet another Deepak Chopra-style mystification rabbit hole.
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.
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.
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 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.
what's self driving, you mean like, self-driving cars? driving yourself to greater heights or achievement?
The worst offender was probably Oliver Stone. That episode became a straight up megaphone for propaganda.
However ... I do like that guests have a lot of time to get deep into ideas.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
where else would questions like: how did commander keen come to be? would emerge?
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.
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).
edit: in 15 minutes mark he disagreed with the host, the host claimed that russia is winning
Lex Friedman is also my favorite podcaster. His podcasts are the highlight of my week.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I845O57ZSy4&t=2861sUse a goddamn IDE, you filthy barbarians.
July 10, 1989 "ParcPlace Systems Inc, of Mountain View California, has launched its Objectworks software development system for AT&T’s C++ Release 2.0: the integrated set of object-oriented tools include an incremental compiler and linker, source level debugger and source code browsing, and will be available in late August for Sun Microsystems’s Sun-3 workstation, selling for $2,500."
https://techmonitor.ai/technology/parcplace_launches_objectw...
One of Carmack's points was that gdb's terrible interface has made debuggers a tool of last resort in the Linux/open source world, when they should be a tool of first resort, and code should be stepped through even before it's run normally because that's how you get a clear picture of how it runs. Visual Studio's excellent debugger integration alone has made the open source development experience truly "stone knives and bearskins" by comparison until relatively recently.
(in reference to the pain of using multiple languages on a project) "At Meta we have a lot of projects that use React frameworks, you've got javascript here, and then you have C++ for real work, and you may have Java interfacing with some other part of the Android system, and those are all kinda horrible things."
Of course just a few minutes later Carmack says that garbage collection is unequivocally a good thing for most programs, so C++ pros shouldn't puff up their chests too much!
He was going on about how many different languages were in use. The "horrible thing" he's referring to is the variety, not that they aren't all C++.
The "real work" he's referring to is performance intensive work and I think his phrasing makes it clear that he like C++ but he gives a lot of credit to modern languages for their ease of use as well.
The thing is, he also complains about a time at Oculus where he needed C++ experts to right the ship but Facebook didn't have the talent base for it. Since he says 99% of code should be written in GC'ed languages, it shouldn't be surprising there's a talent vacuum in C++ among modern programmers.
I'll probably never be as productive as he has been, but I appreciate the games and impact he made.
I also enjoy this podcast because this is one interview of Carmack that I can almost fully understand :P
I've always followed id software's games but never really knew their origin story or the full history of how it all came together. I'm about 2/3rds of the way done with the book which I've read in 1 sitting so far. I felt compelled to stop to make this reply. This is one of the best books I've ever read in my entire life.
I believe he is trying to emulate Prince Myshkin from The Idiot, but he has a profound misunderstanding of what it means to be an Idiot in the way of the Prince, and so, he is only able to emulate the surface level behaviours but not the underlying identity.
I was watching his episode with Jaron Lanier, and because I loved what his guest had to say, I really had to push through all the cringe and force myself to watch it. The same thing has happened multiple times. Whenever I see an amazing guest on his podcast, I feel sad that I'll either have to skip it, or go through a painful experience.
It would be amazing if there was an alternate edited form of his podcast, where Lex is replaced with someone else who fills in whatever Lex is talking about in a concise way, just to keep the flow going. I would definitely watch something like that, solely because of his guest lineup.
Edit: I feel like this comment might be interpreted as too harsh, but just to clarify, I am not attacking his person. Interviewing is a skill, and I'm only criticizing his skills. If I tried interviewing, I might suck as well, but I wouldn't expect the kind of guests he gets.
Video version here:
He doesn't get in the way, and that's more than can be said about a lot of people vying for attention these days.
I don't think he got famous through Elon Musk, but maybe through Joe Rogan to some degree (he already had hundreds of thousands of views before his first episode with Elon Musk.)
How exactly is he a grifter? Sure he runs ads, like almost any podcast, but I don't think he's trying to sell anything or so.
His interviewing style is peculiar, but that's a matter of opinion, and you're free to not watch his show. He undeniably has a lot of very interesting guests on, and that's probably the main reason why people watch his show.
So what are you even saying?
You don't have to listen to podcasts you don't like.
MIT Researchers Invent ________, where the blank is billed as a self-aware machine, when in reality it's Eliza re-implemented in PHP.
In fact, if MIT students reinvented the wheel, the MIT press office would bill it as "MIT Researchers invent matter transporter".
It's understandable, reputation is valuable, both for organizations and for the individual.
So, I can't blame Lex and I can't blame MIT, but I can say that I absolutely notice it.
They call it a "a brain-to-brain interface", doesn't that imply one brain is wired directly to another electrically?
It opens with "The ability to send thoughts directly to another person’s brain is the stuff of science fiction. At least, it used to be." ... again, via a computer monitor.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/09/29/139965/the-first...
I remember when they billed kids fucking around with shape memory alloy as something really grandiose, I'll see if I can find that and come back and edit this post to include it if I do.
> They call it a "a brain-to-brain interface", doesn't that imply one brain is wired directly to another electrically?
The actual paper summary is better:
> Two of the three subjects are "Senders" whose brain signals are decoded using real-time EEG data analysis to extract decisions about whether to rotate a block in a Tetris-like game before it is dropped to fill a line. The Senders' decisions are transmitted via the Internet to the brain of a third subject, the "Receiver," who cannot see the game screen. The decisions are delivered to the Receiver's brain via magnetic stimulation of the occipital cortex.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.08632
I don't think "a brain-to-brain interface" implies wiring the brains together at all. To me it means transmitting information that bypasses the traditional human communication channels - and this certainly does because it's read via the EEGs and then sent to the reciever via magnetic stimulation.
There is no information sent between people via the screen. The senders see the full game, and send their decision via magnetic stimulation to the receiver.
The "flashing lights" are ONLY seen by the senders, and used to stimulate the senders brains to send signals that can be read by the EEG. From the paper:
Senders focused their attention on a “Yes” LED light flashing at 17 Hz placed on the left side of their computer screen; to convey a "Do Not Rotate" decision, they focused on the “No” LED light flashing at 15 Hz placed on the right side. These LEDs are depicted as circles attached to the screens in Figure 1. The cursor position provided real-time visual feedback to the Senders. The direction of movement of the cursor was determined by comparing the EEG power at 17 Hz versus 15 Hz, with a higher power at 17 Hz over that at 15 Hz moving the cursor towards the left side near the “Yes” LED, and vice-versa for the "No" LED
The decisions of the two Senders were sent to the Receiver’s computer through a TCP/IP network and were further translated into two pulses of transcranial magentic stimulation (TMS) delivered sequentially to the occipital cortex of the Receiver. Each TMS pulse lasted 1 ms. An eight-second delay was enforced between the two pulses to remain within the strictest safety guidelines of TMS stimulation29. The intensity of the stimulation was set above or below the threshold at which the Receiver could perceive a flash of light known as a phosphene: a “Yes” response was translated to an intensity above the threshold, and “No” was translated to an intensity below the threshold. During each round of trials, the Receiver always received the decision from one Sender first, then the other. The screen the Receiver saw also had visual prompts to remind them whose decision the current TMS stimulation was conveying. Receivers made their decision based on whether a phosphene was perceived and conveyed their decision (rotate or do not rotate) to the game using the same SSVEP-based procedure used by both Senders. After the game state was updated, the trial moved into the second round and the above process was repeated.
So there was no physical light flash for the receiver - their brain was just stimulated so they would perceive one.
"MIT Engineers develop magnetic soft-continuum thread-like robot with lubricating hydrogel skin"
or in no-BS language: "Some college guys move coated wire with magnets"
I mean yes. Sort of like saying a covid vaccine is "some people mixing chemicals in test tubes".
The researchers also tested the thread in a life-size silicone replica of the brain’s major blood vessels, including clots and aneurysms, modeled after the CT scans of an actual patient’s brain.
So no, not a brain. Silicone tubes. On a table somewhere.
They're happy to talk it up like its an actual in-vitro human brain though.
The point remains.
There are smarter people there, less loquacious, but more powerful. Then again, MIT also has evil people in power, like previous MIT Chancellor Eric Grimson, who killed Aaron Schwartz and betrayed the principles of the institution by secretly passing information on to the secret service. Grimson was still able to hold on to a title of Chancellor that pays him more than 400K USD per year!!! INSANE!
You are talking about Stephen Wolfram and his pothole self promoting things. Wolfram is also a very dangerous individual. he is feeding off ignorance, and corrupting young minds.
If you're going to drive-by crap on someone, at least recommend podcasters that you do like assuming there are any, especially those that might appeal to Lex's audience.
The MIT directory lists him as a "Research Scientist"[0] and he has solid set of papers he's published on self-driving cars and AI[1]. This is completely consistent with the way he describes himself: "I'm an AI researcher working on autonomous vehicles, human-robot interaction, and machine learning at MIT and beyond"
[0] https://www.mit.edu/directory/?id=lexfridman&d=mit.edu [1] https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wZH_N7cAAAAJ&hl=en...
His MIT class was of the type that is more like an ungraded bookclub than a normal MIT course.
What he did with the Tesla safety paper was far more ingratiating and conniving though.
His legacy is now: He was a brilliant pioneer in the first half of his career. Then he helped normalize and sustain an ethically dubious company.
I care because I used to respect him and I can't quite make sense of his choice.
Maybe this time will be different or maybe after a few hundred years we trim details until it becomes a digestible snippet where you never mention the bad side.
I assume he sees it differently. I'd like to understand.
Edison publicaly electrocuted elephants in an attempt to paint AC, his competitor, in a negative light. He also colluded with other light bulb makers on the planned obsolescence of light bulbs.
Ford wrote the International Jew and received the highest honour Nazi Germany could give. Like Facebook, he is responsible for inspiring hatred in a large part of the world. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew
Now you know some stuff! Share it with friends.
While I hope we get the closure of finding out why he sold to FB, I think he still has much to bring to the world.
What’s important to me about Carmack is that he was unwavering about the need for high fps and low latency through the entire pixel pipeline (as well as a lot of other things), and that he brought the skills to make it possible.
A VR industry based on a common denominator of 60fps with 10ms panel response times was very close to being the reality (and IMO that industry would have killed VR’s adoption for at least another decade)
The poster suggested joining facebook was a new low in character for Carmack. So this is hardly "whataboutism"
> are you seriously trying to argue that Facebook is as unethical as id software
I guess it depends on what your concerns about Facebook are. Did id treat employees well? Did it produce products that made that world a better place? In the 90s there was just as much bad media and controversy surrounding Doom and violent video games as there is around Facebook.
Just to clarify, I am not trying to compare them point for point. Just surprised that anyone would take issue with Carmack participating at FB. The guy is primarily known for making edgy entertainment products, not elementary schools. I don't have a problem with either.
It's not really comforting to know that Facebook is the reason the browser's find feature doesn't work on any web site, no computer is capable of running google chrome to browse a microblogging web site at 60fps, and modal forms commonly disappear losing the data you've entered into them if you resize your browser so you can see another window from which you are retrieving the data.
1. Everything you mentioned in your comment.
Preventing the browser's "find" feature from searching the text on the page (causing the user to tear their hair out, bash their computer with a rock, borrow a wilderness survival book from the local library, drive to the countryside, abandon their vehicle at a rest stop, and renounce civilization once and for all) is a technique called List Virtualization and you can learn how to do it in React here: https://www.patterns.dev/posts/virtual-lists/. react-virtualized has over 1 million weekly downloads on npm.
The benchmarks I was able to find comparing identical operations in different web frameworks look pretty bad for React as well.
The Tony Fadell interview was also interesting. A great review on the history of iPod and iPhone and what he was up to at Nest.
I don’t listen to standups thinking it will make me smarter, I don’t watch football thinking it’ll make me more athletic. Why would you assume people listen to smart people to become smarter and not just for the entertainment and informational reasons that are straight forwards reasons?
Also, I think a lot of ideas are presented black and white but podcasts like these show the intricacies of the gray area
It's always good to understand the world a bit better.
If there were another one like Lex's, how would you want it to be? What would you want to be the same, what different?
Last time I heard him, he started the podcast saying that he “fears nothing and no one”, which of course means he's either extremely immature or a psychopath. I'm betting in the former.
For whatever reason, he manages to get great guests, so I keep listening. I wouldn't say I tolerate him because he mostly doesn't get in the way of the interview much. Which is good, but the bare minimum for a good host.
I used to listen to Rogan a few years ago, but it has become unbearable to me and the Spotify exclusivity deal was the push that I needed to stop completely.
With Lex, I keep coming back, reluctantly, so I guess he's got something going with his show.
Edit: oh, and Carmack is a legend, I'll listen to him with almost any interviewer.
Not sure about his current work status with Oculus, but he did not leave immediately; turned into a consultant or something like that - from CTO
Carmack is more like an academic than a smoke and mirrors exec.
Having sat through as many as 9 keynotes in-person before that relationship went up in a blinding flash, I'll say I look forward to listening to this podcast in full.
Listening to the podcast, that wasn't him, he doesn't claim independent discovery of it either (like w/ Carmack's reverse). It was from someone else.
Offtopic: Comments like this is why I love this site.