Beep boop - this is a robot. A new show has been posted to TWiT…
What are your thoughts about today’s show? We’d love to hear from you!
1 Like
I’m guessing that @Leo has read 1984? We often point to it in terms of mass surveillance but I don’t want to be in a world here people are bullied for wrong think. I must say that I’m on the side of Spotify in this case.
You should be allowed an opinion even if it goes against the public mood. As much as I’m on the side of being pro vaccine, people shouldn’t be punished for having an opinion. I mean, obviously, Joe Rogan probably should have said why he thinks that although, for all i know, he did.
1 Like
While I didn’t watch this episode yet and I never watched/listened to Joe Rogan, but I’m sure he’ll do just fine no matter the platform he is on if he is dropped from Spotify.
With that said, I do not believe Spotify should drop him because as you said, it’s just his opinion and I think he should be allowed to say when he wants on his show unfiltered.
If there is worry that he will cause people to do or think the wrong thing then what ever the right thing is clearly not being taught properly.
This still stems down the our amazing education system.
2 Likes
A discussion about JRE “misinformation” is incomplete without looking at news outlets like MSNBC and others. There is plenty of blame to go around but…JRE needs to be censored…come on!
Also don’t like to see TWIT attacking scientists. As a technology podcaster you damn well understand that all tech is built using “bits” created by others (libraries, frameworks, etc). As I understand it Dr Malone has (his name on) patents on some of the “bits” used to make the mRNA vaccines…I have not heard him say otherwise. This means his opinion has value. Put on you big boy pants and listen to what he has to say and then form your own opinion.
2 Likes
I’ll have to go back and relisten now, but I’m sure Leo said several times he didn’t agree with any censorship? They did explore this particular situation with Spotify having an exclusive commercial deal with Rogan and if that made any difference. The conclusion was no, it’s up to Spotify what they host, and Rogan + guests can say what they want (within the law).
3 Likes
Isn’t the concern though that with an episode like the Dr.Robert Malone one, the vast majority of us are not educated in the science being discussed (including the host). So you have a scientist with some credentials saying ‘this is the truth’.
How are the majority expected to process that?
1 Like
I think that was the conclusion…I take exception how they speak about folks appearing on JRE. Many of the doctors that have appeared are brilliant. Hinting around that they might be crackpots reinforces negative beliefs that have been distributed by less reputable media outlets.
We have Dr Fauci saying “I am science” and we have other doctors saying “I invented this stuff” and blah blah blah. Who do you believe? In the past the media could be trusted to hash these things out, not so much anymore. I don’t have a good answer for folks that lack an understanding of science. I could say “read more” but when things are being censored it gets hard to locate the dissenting views. For example google “Robert Malone” the first page of results are all about he is a crackpot, his actual writings are nowhere to be found. He has a substack if you really want to know about him.
I have never even heard of Joe Rogan before Spotify picked him up. By his own admission he is JUST a comedian. Science is consensus based. Any purported scientist can claim almost anything, it doesn’t mean they even knew what they were doing until they publish their results and other scientists can reproduce it. It appears that having real, trustworthy, scientists on Joe’s show is not to his tastes. He wants crackpots spreading misinformation because that is more entertaining to his audience. This leads me to assume the kind of person that would listen to his show is prone to enjoying the wild rantings of morons moreso than the boring reality of true credentialed scientists.
3 Likes
name the crackpots so I can do some research please…
Why should the effort land on me. I’m on the side of science (having a BSc after all.) Why don’t you list the valid/verified credentials of these supposed experts he brings on his show to provide entertainment?
1 Like
Predictable….lol
1 Like
I’m not sure, but just because someone has a higher education that doesn’t mean they are smart. I think what happens is people work hard to get the credentials and then push their views and opinions hard regardless of what they may or may not have learned in school… but this would just be my opinion. Maybe I take a listen to this episode of Joe Rogan to see if I don’t want to get vaccinated anymore /s
2 Likes
His next episode is Maajid Nawaz, which maybe Rogan is now wishing he could delay.
Dr. Malone is, indeed, a physician and immunologist. But he has used his credentials, and the fact that he was involved in very early mRNA exploration, to spread nonsense. Comparing vaccine efforts to Nazi eugenics is a bridge too far. In fact, I would submit it’s all the more damaging from someone who has his credentials. It’s just not more credible. Just because someone has scientific training doesn’t mean they’re not a crackpot.
Sadly, I believe Rogan knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s an a**hole. He should be shunned not censored.
5 Likes
On the topic of advertising, when I watch to research products that I’m not sure I’ll purchase, I use duckduckgo. This has worked well for me.
Let me preface this by saying that I have not listened to the episode in question, nor have I looked into the person. Frankly, I don’t intend to, because the snippets I hear are vastly unsupported by published results.
I work with scientists as a statistician. It’s hard to communicate to the general public why exactly the scientific community shuns the “crackpots.” There is an extent to which scientists are people too, who don’t like their ideas to be contradicted. I will not deny that.
A much bigger factor is the responsible reporting of results. As someone else said earlier, “any scientist could make wild claims,” but reporting hypotheses, methods for data collection, and results (with appropriately quantified uncertainty, of course) is a much higher standard. Those who have behaved unethically in this regard by either lying about how the hypotheses and data were generated (as in the p-hacking scandals in psychology) or by overstating the certainty of the results are not treated favorably by the scientific community.
For example, if the certainty is overstated, the journals in which the results are published will issue a retraction to the article (a big yikes). But usually this will not be found unless the author finds an error in their work as a good actor, or other researchers attempt to reproduce the results. If others can’t reproduce the results, it’s generally a drain on the scientific system, and the whole purpose of having uncertainty quantified was to put a bound on wasted resources.
What this means, unfortunately, is that it is really difficult to weigh the plausibility of a single paper/author as a layperson. Bad actors take advantage of this to make claims that have the “odor of truth” to the lay-population, but which are undersupported in the literature. This is why it is important to follow the scientific consensus, even if the scientific community is occasionally wrong. The system is constructed to ensure the community will be right in the long run. Which pants you buy has nothing to do with it.
2 Likes
I wonder if he’ll start selling scented candles with the scent of his manhood to match the vagina scented candles that Ms. Goop proffers? LOL
@Leo I agree. If JRE is going to push misinformation, it’s time for the advertisers to shun him and let his podcast become a big burden for Spotify to host. This will allow Spotify to get out of their contract with him most likely as he’s no longer worth their time.
Now as for us consumers. Find out who the advertisers are and boycott them for doing business with him after spreading misinformation. Hit them where it hurts.
1 Like
Regarding the ARM discussion and the “chips that operate the heated seats” in GM’s cars:
There is significant investment in additional fabrication capacity for “legacy nodes”.
Texas Instruments, who is one of the biggest companies in these markets is making a huge investment, with three new fabs under construction in the United States. One is due to be online late this year and one in 2023.
However, every vendor I hear from says their backlogs have no end in sight. The CEO of Swiss-based STMicroelectronics told analysts last week that his company had about 40% more orders than projected capacity for 2022. That’s despite ST bringing on a whole new fabrication plant in Lombardy, Italy. And also despite the fact that he said – in January – that his company was effectively sold out for the year.
Other companies which have recently opened fabs include Infineon (Villach, Austria) and Bosch (Dresden). I’m not sure if these are operating at capacity yet, or if they are running at low capacity while setting up tooling and qualifications.
3 Likes
It’s going to be interesting when they catch up and then there is a massive over-supply. I look forward to video cards coming as gifts in cereal boxes and 20TB SSDs being 3 for 1. 
2 Likes