I ask it to write a plan and when it starts the work, keep progress in another document and to never change the plan. If I didn't do this, somehow with each code change the plan document would grow and change. Keeping plan and progress separate prevented this from happening.
I always have to think about "Eighty percent of success is showing up" when I read about participation trophies. I think it's a good idea to stimulate participation. "Winning" is something you only do if you participate a lot.
I think an analogy could be made that you’re walking into a market hall because they promoted it. The stall owners will be paying to be part of that.
It’s not that you’re property of the market hall, but you’re on their property and they will want to be paid.
As I understand from this "The Plain Bagel" video [0], they're not bankrupt. Instead, they're likely nearing the completion of their debt restructuring.
The problem is the term "bankruptcy". Colloquially people seem to think a company is just out of money. All you need to file for bankruptcy is to be unable to service debts at a specific time. It might even just be a transitory state.
A company is insolvent when liabilities exceed assets. Companies can remain insolvent indefinitely unless they miss a payment at which point a creditor can force them into bankruptcy where a court oversees liquidation.
Evergrande is insolvent and is now bankrupt. There is no reasonable scenario here where the company continues to operate as a growing concern.
I had the same feeling with a lot of interviews from the past, but somehow, about a year ago, something changed. Not sure if it was a conscious decision or just the result of so much practice, but for quite something I haven’t screamed at my screen when listening to Lex.
I've noticed that as well. He frequently also gets distracted thinking about taking ideas to such an abstract level they don't really make sense any longer, he looks off at the ceiling somewhere, and then the guest continues off as if they didn't see that. It makes me crack up every time, hah.
This is in contrast to many other podcasters who stay engrossed in surface level details and never graduate to thinking about overarching concepts. Lex just zooms there too fast sometimes.
I think Lex is a very talented interviewer. His questions often seem low quality (to me), but he pushes the discussion in the correct direction. He seem to be e.g. build sentences where after the first part there is a moment for guest to throw in something or for Lex to judge guest reaction. Or maybe I'm reading too much into it, but regardless, he seem to be able to get something out of these guys which others interviews couldn't. Shining example is Stephen Wolfram who seem to be extremely hard to interview.
Lex's done some of my favorite geek interviews. Just from memory: Stephen Kotkin, Roger Penrose, Lisa Feldman Barrett, Everyday Astronaut, Jim Keller, his own father. Many more I'm sure, if I consulted Lex's archive.
I skip over the episodes with culture warriors. I've already had my fill, thank you very much.