[HN Gopher] Brendan Eich on the Lex Fridman Podcast [video]
___________________________________________________________________
Brendan Eich on the Lex Fridman Podcast [video]
Author : bekantan
Score : 136 points
Date : 2021-02-14 10:15 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.youtube.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.youtube.com)
| typon wrote:
| Is worse really better though? Imagine C was designed the MIT
| way. Sure it would have taken a few more years, but maybe we
| could have avoided the billions of damages in security bugs and
| productivity loss. I think worse is better if you want to win the
| Silicon Valley race, but not if you want to design something
| useful for society.
| ZitchDog wrote:
| The problem is that something worse will always get made more
| quickly and gain traction.
| BrendanEich wrote:
| Richard P. Gabriel observed WiB in era of Lisp vs Unix, MIT vs
| New Jersey. Silicon Valley on the other coast and small then.
| Also see Dorothy Denning, talking about the Windows PC era.
|
| https://faculty.nps.edu/dedennin/publications/National%20Com...
|
| Redmond is in WA not CA. If your point is about commercial
| pressure, not just SV bashing, then please listen to my tale of
| David Hyatt and grad school friend (Hyatt writing draft code
| and rewriting five times) from the interview with Lex. That was
| an academic assignment, not commercial work.
| adolph wrote:
| _The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how
| little they really know about what they imagine the can
| design._
|
| https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/670307.Friedrich_A_H...
|
| Did you listen to Eich's statements acknowledging the errors
| and also the hypothesis of what would have been if not
| JavaScript? Since you have done some accounting, what have been
| the productivity gains and new frontiers opened by C? What is
| the amortization of damage over the length of delay?
| bsdetector wrote:
| Ada was designed a few years before C and it could do much more
| than C and without the problems you mentioned.
|
| So we don't have to wonder at all, it would have turned out
| exactly the way it did and the reason is because things like
| undefined behavior, zero terminated strings, null pointers, etc
| have positive utility underappreciated by academics.
| csb6 wrote:
| That's not really a good comparison. The reason C has been so
| prevalent is because it was used to make Unix, which was
| distributed widely for decades, and because it was relatively
| simple to write compilers for it/port it to new platforms.
| Ada doesn't exist in the same context; compilers were
| expensive and not widely distributed, there wasn't a free,
| open-source compiler until GNAT in 1995, and Ada was never
| the default systems language for any widely distributed OS. I
| mean the circumstances could not be more different.
|
| If C had been designed as a safer language (with even just
| small improvements that would not have been hard to
| implement), it would still be widely used and there would be
| fewer security problems associated with it. It is the Just
| World Fallacy [0] to assume that the most widespread language
| became so on its merits and not based on its historical
| context.
|
| [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
| jecel wrote:
| The connection with Unix was indeed a huge factor in the
| popularization of C.
|
| About Ada, it is actually a decade newer than C. In 1982 I
| was part of a group that was keeping track of its
| development and had learned C from old Bell Journals. I was
| able to a buy a book on Ada and the famous K&R C book and
| decided I preferred simplicity, so I donated the Ada book
| and dropped out of the study group. It is ironic that the
| even more complex (than Ada) C++ was what eventually became
| popular.
| mjgs wrote:
| I really liked this episode.
|
| I think Brendan Eich has got to be one of my favourite people to
| hear anecdotes about early web history. He was around at some
| pivotal moments, was in with the business side of things but also
| super technical. He's also just very good at talking, he never
| appears to talk himself into a corner, somehow always avoids
| getting into the weeds, there's a lucidity to all his answers
| that's somehow very impressive. I wonder how much preparation he
| puts into his interviews.
|
| As for Lex, personally I really like his style. He operates at a
| different pace to many of the people he's interviewing, but I
| find this often enables him to see interesting parallels and
| analysis. It's not always perfect, and maybe there's room for
| improvement, though it gives the whole show an authenticity that
| it might not otherwise have if it were too polished.
|
| I feel like his style works very well with all the guests he has
| on. They all seem to get on very well, which has a massive
| positive effect on how the guest interacts. Sure he has some
| prepared questions, but he also goes off piste quite a bit, and
| when he gets back to the prepared questions, I generally find
| they are well researched and very relevant.
|
| I'd also like to know how he gets so many great guests on the
| show.
| galfarragem wrote:
| Bill Gates, Alan Kay and Steve Wozniak would fit perfectly in
| this format. Other missing guests (yet) - from the top of my
| mind - Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook and even Mark Zuckerberg.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| I usually prefer to listen to slightly less famous people.
| The really big names usually are too used to public speaking
| and not saying anything wrong that they come across as too
| slick and guarded.
| tomthe wrote:
| Yes, but if someone with a big name says something stupid,
| that is interesting because of who says it. If some nobody
| says something stupid, it is just a podcast.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| I don't find it very inheriting when somebody trips over
| something. Must of our media already consists of trying
| to catch somebody saying something. We don't need more of
| that.
| pen2l wrote:
| > somehow always avoids getting into the weeds
|
| I hate to bring this up, but no, he's been given plenty chances
| and he does not behave responsibly as a person of his intellect
| and position should. I'd have hoped that he'd learned a lesson
| or two from the previous fiasco he was involved in,
| unfortunately he's still spewing some strange stuff on twitter
| and elsewhere, like saying masks don't work, Fauci is a liar,
| etc.: (https://twitter.com/brendaneich/status/13374961696902307
| 84?l...).
|
| I don't doubt his lucidity when it comes to his technical
| prowess, but it's just hard for me to square this with the fact
| that he keeps falling along party lines in his public
| presentation which is divisive and unneeded.
| pull_my_finger wrote:
| > he does not behave responsibly as a person of his intellect
| and position should
|
| He actually tried to doxx[1] me right here on HN because I
| spoke out against Brave.
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23442203
| mendelmaleh wrote:
| How is that a dox attempt?
| ttul wrote:
| Outing someone's Twitter handle is a form of doxing.
| goatinaboat wrote:
| _Outing someone's Twitter handle is a form of doxing._
|
| That's literally a link to his own Twitter, not yours
| whoever you are??
| BrendanEich wrote:
| I cited a twitter thread (et seq) relevant to our
| exchange. You then doxxed yourself in reply on HN. I
| don't care who you are or what your twitter handle is,
| honestly.
| chownie wrote:
| That doesn't read as him accusing you of being that person,
| but of repeating an argument someone else made.
|
| He literally links it and writes "et seq" ("and the
| following") ie: read this person who agrees with you and
| then my reply to them.
| BrendanEich wrote:
| Thanks for reading and thinking.
|
| I don't doxx. Words matter.
| specialist wrote:
| > _it 's just hard for me to square this with the fact_
|
| I don't think that's fair.
|
| I just scanned his twitfeed. It's abundently clear to me that
| Eich's ethics are _just as good as_ his technical acumen.
| nobodyandproud wrote:
| One of the most important things our adversarial system does
| is provide misstep feedback, when nobody else is willing to.
|
| Fauci likely stated the mask trope with the best of
| intentions, but its also true that it was (in hindsight at
| the very least) a mistake for the current pandemic.
|
| Most people who like what Fauci is doing would be too polite
| to call him out on it, but that's a disservice in the long
| term. Not just to us but even to Fauci.
| BrendanEich wrote:
| Fauci said he lies often, right after the NYT tried to smear
| me for noticing that Fauci, indeed, lies often.
|
| https://twitter.com/philwmagness/status/1342349517669228544?.
| ..
|
| The party-lining here is from you, not me. I gave Fauci
| credit for giving long-standing advice against mass masking
| for the whole population in March, 2020. That matched advice
| over decades from WHO and CDC.
| pen2l wrote:
| You are a star and a titan, and I hold incredible respect
| for what you've given to the world. Understand however that
| you casting aspersions upon a man leading the fight against
| this pandemic isn't a constructive thing to do. Back when
| he was iffy about masks in that 60minutes interview, it was
| because there was actual concern that frontline medical
| staff might not have enough for themselves. He revised his
| stance on what public policy should be in an evolving
| situation as he well should.
|
| He's one of the people leading this battle now, and for
| this battle to be won the public has to have trust in him,
| the public has to listen to him when he says wear masks,
| get vaccinated, etc. For folks in NIH and sciences, he's
| long been known to be a man of integrity, no doubt his
| scientific output has been pristine, no doubt he's the man
| for this job, yes that whole bout with the masks was an
| unfortunate happening, and I think I even agree he did not
| handle that situation in the most ideal way, but you're
| smart enough to know what a mucky situation that was and he
| deserves a pass for that.
|
| edit: I misread you. You're still arguing against mask-
| wearing as public policy. Come on man, what is going on
| here? This is not up for debate, there is strong consensus
| from just about all medical scientists and medical
| organizations that mask-wearing is very important and
| effective in fighting coronavirus.
|
| _Please_ give this a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F
| ace_masks_during_the_COVID-19...
|
| Numerous prestigious peer-reviewed journals have confirmed
| this studies. There is no conspiracy here. Masks work. It
| is dangerous for you to say otherwise with the platform you
| command.
| itbeho wrote:
| > for this battle to be won the public has to have trust
| in him
|
| But many don't, for reasons of Fauci's own making. You
| can't rally people around a person that lies and flip-
| flops on issues as important as this.
| blub wrote:
| Fauci is a liar or incompetent. He claimed that masks do not
| work.
| bzb6 wrote:
| If you're on Twitter you will see 99.9% of tech people spend
| all day posting left wing political takes. Just a bit of
| counterbalance is not going to hurt you lol
| mda wrote:
| You like his style? Dunno, I watched his interview with Jim
| Keller, it was terrible and I cringed several times (And Keller
| rolled his eyes mostly).
| galfarragem wrote:
| I really like Lex Fridman podcast because his guests don't feel
| under threat. In the end they open up more than if he had asked
| loaded questions "a la journalist". Probably this is the main
| reason why so many illustrious guests accept his invitation.
| tomComb wrote:
| Yes, but he is poor at challenging his guests and I think that
| is a valuable part of a good interview. I enjoyed the recent
| interview with a prominent American objectivist (Ayne Rand) but
| some of the stuff he said really need to be challenged and
| since it wasn't we didn't the opportunity to really be
| convinced.
| lordgrenville wrote:
| Great interview, what a brilliant guy.
|
| As an aside, I wish there was a simple/standard way to link to
| podcast episodes.
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| > I wish there was a simple/standard way to link to podcast
| episodes
|
| Seems to me the way it should work is that a podcast has its
| own website with a URL for each episode, but makes the episodes
| available through many different platforms. The indieweb folks
| have a term for this sort of thing, _POSSE_ , Publish (on your)
| Own Site, Syndicate Elsewhere. [0]
|
| Many podcasts upload to YouTube, which naturally supports
| linking to a specific time in an episode.
|
| Related: it's a pity so many podcasts seem to view it as a
| their duty to obscure the URLs of the audio files.
|
| [0] https://indieweb.org/POSSE
| adolph wrote:
| Here you go
|
| https://lexfridman.com/brendan-eich/
| jessaustin wrote:
| Much better link! Mods, please substitute this one at the top
| of the page.
| adolph wrote:
| As I listen to this podcast I think there should be several
| HN threads due to its range:
|
| - Browser and JS history - Adtech and trying better with
| Brave - Has SV run it's course
| TOMDM wrote:
| I've found myself enjoying these less since Lex rebranded the
| podcast. I can't quite put my finger on why and I haven't watched
| the previous few.
|
| Is it worth jumping back in for another try?
| blueboo wrote:
| Yea, there's definitely been a decline. Conspicuous injection
| of Lex talking about himself, poetry/love, and (sigh) cancel
| culture. All feels awfully Joe Rogan-wannabe-ish.
|
| The MIT AI podcast => AI podcast => Lex Podcast worked out
| great for him, though...but it feels kind of gross. There are
| some fascinating guests, but it feels like the content is good
| in spite of Lex and his "journey".
| [deleted]
| x86ARMsRace wrote:
| He's had a few guests on that are outside the realm of a
| computing/science/ect podcast (IE: Michael Malice, Yaron Brook,
| Joe Rogan), so I can see where you might be coming from. That
| being said, I think he's pretty good at doing what he does, and
| his interviews are engaging. And to an extent, he's an
| apolitical interviewer, even when his guests are not.
|
| Might be worth another shot, but maybe just pick the podcasts
| in the areas you're interested in. I can see how some guests
| may be a turn off.
| libertine wrote:
| I haven't seen any change, he just takes the liberty of
| inviting other type of guests not connected directly or
| indirectly to AI - which was his main ideia, to expand beyond
| that.
|
| So now he brings people who study quantum physics,
| philosophers, thinkers, writers, and he's free to ask more open
| ended questions.
| blackrock wrote:
| This was a pretty good interview. Really wish he didn't create
| the === implicit equivalence function. And made JavaScript
| stricter from the beginning.
| BrendanEich wrote:
| It's == that has implicit conversion semantics. === was the
| backward-compatible (because extension into formerly illegal
| syntax, which is reserved to future versions) operator we added
| that does no implicit conversions.
|
| As I said, in the beginning (Mocha in ten days), == was just as
| strict if operand types differ: false result. The lesson is to
| say "no" by default and reflex to RFEs, consider only on
| repeated request and be willing to find what they truly want
| that's not a hole in the head ;-).
|
| The other sloppiness in JS is `var obj = {prop:42}; obj.prep`
| where you get undefined instead of a thrown exception (as you
| would get in Python). That was due to 10 day rush and little
| time after for core language work leaving 0 time to add try-
| catch-finally.
| roenxi wrote:
| Just watching the start of the part on BAT tokens (2:20 - 2:22) -
| I have a prediction.
|
| Brendan Eich is going to be attacked by Google somehow for
| something, maybe through lobbying in Congress around
| cryptocurrencies. These ideas are a credible threat to their
| advertising revenue.
| echelon wrote:
| Google is under attack from all sides. Antitrust scrutiny at
| home, regulations from Australia and Europe. Apple anonymizing
| iPhone users. Brave picking up steam...
|
| Is their moat as wide as they think it is? They don't exactly
| have a healthy revenue diversity.
| simias wrote:
| They own android and chrome, that seems like a very good moat
| for the time being.
| phreeza wrote:
| Do you want to put a timeframe on the prediction to make it
| falsifiable?
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| I believe Google has something pretty similar called Google
| contributor, not sure what's it's status.
| BrendanEich wrote:
| Not similar, and it flopped. It requires the user to pay, for
| one. We pay users. See
| https://twitter.com/bcrypt/status/706597283219963904.
| ibeckermayer wrote:
| Hey Brendan, I bought $500 worth of BAT a few days ago
| under the impression that line would go up, but thus far
| line has gone down. Think I should sell? Or is it suicide
| stack time?
| mongol wrote:
| I enjoyed this. The only thing I was missing was to hear Eich's
| view of his departure from Mozilla. It's absence from the podcast
| made me wonder if leaving questions about that out was a
| condition or request from Eich.
| BrendanEich wrote:
| I cannot comment on anything about my exit. You should not
| assume this is my choice, or assume anything really. Sorry,
| can't say anything specific at all.
| mongol wrote:
| Thanks for mentioning that, it is understandable and just
| good to know.
| charliebrownau wrote:
| They might find out the true number is 275k , not 6m
|
| Check out * podcasts * Bitchute * Gab/minds/alt tech
|
| If Jews have lied about
|
| - Non white immergration
|
| - Equal outcome
|
| - fait currency + Interest loans
|
| - Anti whitism
|
| - Anti Male
|
| - Anti Merit/hard work
|
| - Feminism
|
| - Diversity
|
| - LGBT
|
| - Globl homo (Depopulation)
|
| - Trans (real name - mental illness + Mulation + Brainwashing)
|
| - Multi culturalism (real name Multi racial)
|
| Is it really a suprise they lied about
|
| - ethnic nationalism - Hilter
|
| - WWII
|
| - Death count
|
| to guilt trip whites into funding their corruption and illegal
| formation of the state of israel
| superbcarrot wrote:
| I would love to know what Lex is doing to get the guests that
| he's had on. It's an impressive list of people and he certainly
| isn't attracting them with his charisma or interviewing skills.
| jasode wrote:
| _> and he certainly isn't attracting them with his charisma or
| interviewing skills._
|
| Your criticism is an example of taking your _personal opinion_
| that he has no charisma or interviewing skills and then
| _incorrectly projecting_ it on to guests that don 't share your
| opinion.
|
| Think about how the guests must _voluntarily agree_ to be
| interviewed by Lex. Some might go through these steps:
|
| 1) get inquiry email from Lex : _" Hi, I have a podcast and I'd
| love to interview you. [... blah blah blah ...] For reference,
| here are some links to interviews with previous guests [...]"_
|
| 2) hmmm... who is this Lex guy?!? Let me look at his previous
| interviews...
|
| 3) Ok, he's non-threatening, engaging, and intellectual with
| his questions. I can sit down and chat with him for few hours.
|
| People oversell the "connections" angle. Yes, he has some
| connections (Drexel, MIT, ex-contractor at Google, etc) but
| that just means some warm introductions and a potential guest
| will politely _reply to an email inquiry_. Guests can still
| decline the podcast. Connections don 't guarantee the guest
| will actually agree to talk for 2 hours on camera.
|
| E.g. Chris Lattner has been interviewed by Lex 2 times. Unless
| he's lying, his comment doesn't seem like he shares your
| opinion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24831157
|
| EDIT to reply: _" just by cold emailing."_
|
| I didn't say he was only sending out cold emails. (I mentioned
| "warm introductions.")
|
| In any case, the main point of my comment is that you are
| (inadvertently?) _insulting_ some of his guests. In other
| words, have you considered the possibility that many of his
| guests _enjoy Lex 's interviewing style_?
| superbcarrot wrote:
| I don't know why you're assuming that he's just sending out
| emails and finding receptive people on the other end. In my
| opinion that's the least likely scenario considering the
| range and calibre of his guests. You don't get to cold-email
| Eric Schmidt as a relatively unknown person and have him be
| the guest on the 8th episode of your newly started podcast.
| You don't get Elon Musk, Ray Dalio, Jack Dorsey, Roger
| Penrose and the creator of just about every big programming
| language just by cold emailing.
| mongol wrote:
| Yes I wonder about that too. It is really impressive. Was
| he well connected and famous among the famous before
| starting his podcast?
| itsoktocry wrote:
| He's a non-threatening insider, that's how he gets these
| guests. For better or worse, the titans of Silicon Valley
| don't want to be challenged, so they seek out or start their
| own safe spaces.
| newsclues wrote:
| Not just a non-threatening insider, but someone who
| understands what they say and speaks the tech language.
|
| I think the technologist first, interviewer/journalist
| second is important.
| stickfigure wrote:
| Hi! I'm starting a podcast where I interview totally random
| commenters on HN and ask them uncomfortable, hostile
| questions with the intent of embarrassing them in public.
| Would you like to be my first guest?
| petercooper wrote:
| Not going to lie, I would subscribe to this show.
| vulcan01 wrote:
| As long as we're not the commenters being interviewed, am
| I right? ;)
| lrvick wrote:
| Sounds fun. I volunteer.
| pen2l wrote:
| No he challenges his guests, he's just not an ass when he
| does. E.g. see his Jim Keller interview, when he disagrees
| with Keller when Keller talks about machine learning. And
| after a couple minutes of back and forth Friedman just lets
| it go by saying 'yeah we'll just agree to disagree' and
| moves on instead of making it personal or drawing the point
| of contention to a long hour because you have to be right!
| (as some of here may be guilty of doing :))
| adolph wrote:
| Why does agreeing to disagree and moving on seem like
| such a radical idea?
| zarkov99 wrote:
| Just being a decent human being with no agenda but trying to
| ask interesting questions. It is shocking how rare and precious
| simply being genuine is these days.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| Having an agenda is sometimes the only way to get powerful
| people to answer for controversy.
|
| It's crazy to me that people are now claiming that asking
| "hard questions" is what is ruining journalism. As if we need
| more of Cuomo interviewing Cuomo on CNN.
| dmatech wrote:
| Both styles have their merits. That's why we have both
| adversarial debates as well as collaborative panel
| discussions.
| bostonsre wrote:
| Yea.. I'm surprised how negative the comments are here. He
| seems to be genuinely interested in a wide range of topics.
| He is able to have intelligible conversations across this
| wide spectrum and approaches it all with the incredible
| humility required to learn and teach well. His style is
| different but I would be hard pressed to think of anyone else
| that could have these conversations so well.
| sieste wrote:
| > certainly isn't attracting them with his charisma or
| interviewing skills.
|
| As a counterpoint, watch the end of his podcast with Elon Musk,
| where he made him read the Carl Sagan quote [1]. This was quite
| brilliant I thought.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVsZD2wF1vw&t=144
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| I think he took Joe Rogan as a template. Be curious, let people
| talk, maybe know something about the topic, don't judge, don't
| have an agenda, make the interview about the guest and not
| about the interviewer. It's kind of interesting that this is a
| rare thing today.
| casi wrote:
| I really enjoy his interviewing style and calm voice. It is a
| conversation rather than a list of prepared questions. I get
| much more from these than say a techcrunch interview.
| [deleted]
| Grustaf wrote:
| I think he's got excellent interviewing skills, but I am still
| amazed by his guest list, and I would really like to understand
| how he has managed to pull this off! Very impressive work.
| ChefboyOG wrote:
| Lex is a pretty unconventional interviewer, but I actually
| think he's pretty fantastic at what he does. In particular, he
| is one of the best at thinking like a beginner and asking
| clarifying questions as his guests talk. He interviews a lot of
| brilliant people who can speak at some depth about topics that
| need context, and he does a good job of in real time figuring
| out where they need to clarify without obstructing their
| explanation. For example, I think he got one of the best
| interviews I've seen out of Wolfram.
|
| I don't know if you've ever interviewed someone, but that kind
| of awareness and quick thinking is really really hard.
| [deleted]
| alexashka wrote:
| Credentials + persistence + convenient location to get the ball
| rolling.
|
| Large number of views/listens thanks to Joe Rogan + extremely
| safe interviewing style to keep the momentum going.
|
| It's really not all that impressive given the absence of
| alternatives (try searching Wolfram on youtube and see how many
| other podcasts show up) - it's more surprising how bad the
| podcast discovery scene is that almost anyone who self promotes
| through Joe Rogan and puts in the work becomes a top 100
| podcast worldwide.
| ianai wrote:
| Watch where he interviews his dad. Connections, I think.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| I would think he is rather well respected and well connected in
| the academic and "corporate R&D" world.
|
| He isn't the best interviewer because he doesn't have the
| experience yet but the podcasts are very good because he gives
| the guests an open stage, he is never adversarial and he never
| seem to push the interview into a specific direction.
|
| Overall it wouldn't surprise me if many of the guests would
| just enjoy to sit down and talk to someone who is without
| sounding too elitists a smart as they are, being able to reach
| to a lot of other people is just a bonus.
| TOMDM wrote:
| Because he doesn't have the experience yet?
|
| He's been running the podcast for two and a half years, and
| this episode makes 160.
|
| How much experience do you reckon it takes to get "good" at
| interviewing?
| bob33212 wrote:
| Some people don't like his style. I don't think they will
| ever think he is that good. Someone like Oprah would be
| considered to be far more talented at driving the
| conversation where she wants it to be. Personally I a huge
| fan of Lex, I think because the people and topics are what
| I'm interested in.
| type0 wrote:
| So much for his style that it makes his podcasts hit or
| miss (depending on the topic). For some personalities his
| conversational demagoguery feels nauseating, for others
| it fits the conversation. In my opinion Sean Carroll
| (Mindscape) has much more consistent conversational theme
| that borders on philosophical but still makes it engaging
| for the listener, where Lex often misses the red thread
| and rambles in unrelated territory. I don't think his
| podcasts are bad, just inconsistent, and thinking of how
| many he manages to do doesn't actually make it that
| strange. In order to improve Lex needs to curate his
| ramblings better and learn to read the motivations of his
| guests.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| I think the biggest thing that Lex "needs" (that's a bit
| strong wording because I do like his podcast) to change
| is that professional interviewers tend to drive the
| interview towards the benefit of the audience and the
| guest (the interviewer very well may have a hidden agenda
| but the good ones hide it well), Lex's style is more
| about his own personal interests and anecdotes his uses
| this interviews primarily to benefit his own curiosity
| than to the benefit of the of viewership which why he
| tends to go on so many tangents I think.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Look (or we'll listen) to Larry King's early years
| interviews vs later in his career, so I would say probably
| a life time.
|
| Also keep in mind Lex isn't a professional journalist he
| isn't even what one would call a science communicator.
|
| His podcast is still mainly two people having a
| conversation than a structured interview but he has gotten
| better at it overall. His early podcasts had quite a few
| wired moments where you can see that Lex was somewhere else
| thinking about something these are rarer now.
| gigatexal wrote:
| You think his interviewing skills suck? I think he's doing a
| great job. Brenden sure doesn't seem to think the questions are
| terrible.
| [deleted]
| blackrock wrote:
| He said he had originally wanted to implement Scheme as the
| scripting language. But was over-ruled by his managers, and
| forced to make it look like Java.
|
| I wonder how things would've turned out differently, had he
| implemented Scheme instead. Lisp in the browser.
| AzzieElbab wrote:
| He pretty much answered that. If they were going for 'perfect'
| we'd ended up using some form of vb from ms instead of anything
| from Netscape
| [deleted]
| dano wrote:
| This is a great interview. The early history of exposure to the
| Internet at the beginning is exactly as I remember. Brendan is a
| brilliant man and good conversationalist. He's has the ability to
| make tough technology simpler, adoptable, and do the right thing
| for the consumer. I recall several positive encounters with
| Brendan over the past 35 years, including help over Usenet on an
| NFS issue while he was at SGI. His impact has been tremendous.
| irockzz wrote:
| Netflix isn't working with brave browser? Anyone else?
| BrendanEich wrote:
| You may have missed or dismissed the prompt to enable WideVine
| (DRM). Please check brave://settings/?search=widevine.
| gigatexal wrote:
| I really, really enjoyed this interview. Such an illuminating
| history of JavaScript and such.
| christocracy wrote:
| Seatbelts weren't a thing in the first cars. People weren't
| thinking long-term about how fast these things might one day
| go.
| bsaul wrote:
| Funny how i only now discover the inventor of JavaScript is
| behind the brave browser. I've seen a few stories about brave on
| HN, but it always looked like a semi-scammy project. This adds a
| lot to the credibility of that projet...
| tomComb wrote:
| That's because it is a scammy project. I don't think that
| creating a popular technology should grant you a pass on the
| ethical issues of future endeavors.
| BrendanEich wrote:
| I would not want anyone using Brave because they blindly
| trust me. On the other hand, you libeling Brave without any
| evidence (to avoid rehashing, onlookers should see
| https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1360780527100338177
| and do their own research) reflects poorly only on you.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-14 23:02 UTC)