I agree with those who are in favor of continuing to focus on tech/innovation, specifically energy tech. I don't even think you need to have someone who has written anything on the subject lately I think a host from the Energy Impact Podcast could be a great guest to address the array of climate tech roadblocks.
way to guide things, maybe even short surveys? Or survey questions to be asked at end (then upvoted by others) would be focused on? I do find what your specific audience thinks would be interesting but more of a snapshot. I don’t tend to love Q&A or listen to them but that’s just me. Maybe if it’s selective and planned ahead of time, like the other guests it would appeal to me.
Side note: I never know who heck is responding to polls but I’ve never once been asked do one or heard of someone I know being asked. They always seem off to me. Future topic: who is getting polled and how? 😆
Perfect timing, I was thinking about this for breaking points, but it would work for substack, too if you can figure out the details. I get push notifications for breaking news all the time from traditional media. I want to get push notifications for what is really going on. I can see the look on your face for why this can't be done, but lets figure it out. I would be more than happy to assist free of charge. Pick my brain and make the world a more informed place.
Guest wise keep up the tech talk, I work IT for K12 public school and I have been enjoying the tech/automation discussions. Maybe the guy who runs k12cybersecure.com/map/ who logs all the IT/Data breaches for schools would be amazing to hear from!
Would asking the guest to pose a question to your audience a week or so before the podcast and use some of the replies during the interview both promote the forthcoming guest and allow the listeners to acquire a voice
I think it’s great that you ask people upfront what they want to ask of a guest. But honestly - I listen to you guys because you’re smarter than me. You’re also smarter than most of the rest of us. So… audience participation is usually not that interesting. The questions you choose for Q&A are good and it would be nice to get some intelligent comments here on substack to interact with, but I’m not sure how audience participation is actually “one of [the] ways we can improve the show”.
Beyond downloading and listening why does audience participation matter to show quality?
questions for upcoming guests would be a great way to get listeners more involved - I know when I've submitted questions to shows in the past I've been especially keen to tune in to see if my question is addressed. Bret Kugelmass does that for his show Energy Impact Podcast sometimes when he has higher profile guests and the responsivness is
I liked the audience Q&A within each episode. It expands the range of insights we can hear from you and the questions can even be somehow tied to the topic of that episode if possible.
Also, on the guest front, I think you should bring Matthew Walther on. He has a really interesting perspective from the right and you're already using the concept of "barstool conservatives" regularly. On top of that, he's written some interesting columns for The American Conservative between the end of September and the beginning of November that almost defend CRT in a fashion--or at least criticize its attackers in unique ways--and raise interesting questions about what class and "the elite" mean in America.
Also, I don't mind your choice of guests, but it does make me wonder if focusing so strongly on authors of books leaves out people who would help you accomplish the goals of The Realignment but who haven't written books. For example, someone who has real experience organizing people and creating institutions in the face of the atomization of our age may not have gone on to write a book about it.
First of all I am huge fan of the show. The breadth of topics and the tag team of commentary is a breath of fresh air; please keep up the great work!
In this week's episode with Michael Shellenberger, I appreciated hearing his perspective on progressive identity. I do not live in or around a proper city and so my direct observation of progressives is that they have only failed to achieve power. To hear that Michael's take the entire identity of progressive is wound up in this specific topic of victimization. Do you two agree with that type of narrow framing? How would you define progressive identity?
One follow up thought. Michael went so far as to claim that the drug crisis we are seeing is the worst in human history. My understanding of the history of opium in China is that it was significantly larger and longer than our own drug crisis. But my preliminary search on the subject was not helpful in offering a genuine comparison. If you get a chance to talk with Michael again I would be interested to hear how he would justify his claim from that long view of human history that he invoked.
Q&A
I agree with those who are in favor of continuing to focus on tech/innovation, specifically energy tech. I don't even think you need to have someone who has written anything on the subject lately I think a host from the Energy Impact Podcast could be a great guest to address the array of climate tech roadblocks.
Ask questions ahead of time or along
way to guide things, maybe even short surveys? Or survey questions to be asked at end (then upvoted by others) would be focused on? I do find what your specific audience thinks would be interesting but more of a snapshot. I don’t tend to love Q&A or listen to them but that’s just me. Maybe if it’s selective and planned ahead of time, like the other guests it would appeal to me.
Side note: I never know who heck is responding to polls but I’ve never once been asked do one or heard of someone I know being asked. They always seem off to me. Future topic: who is getting polled and how? 😆
Perfect timing, I was thinking about this for breaking points, but it would work for substack, too if you can figure out the details. I get push notifications for breaking news all the time from traditional media. I want to get push notifications for what is really going on. I can see the look on your face for why this can't be done, but lets figure it out. I would be more than happy to assist free of charge. Pick my brain and make the world a more informed place.
We know you tryna sell books. But it feels too corporate. Talk to the peeeeeople.
Guest wise keep up the tech talk, I work IT for K12 public school and I have been enjoying the tech/automation discussions. Maybe the guy who runs k12cybersecure.com/map/ who logs all the IT/Data breaches for schools would be amazing to hear from!
A youtube livestream would be useful for a Q&A
Would asking the guest to pose a question to your audience a week or so before the podcast and use some of the replies during the interview both promote the forthcoming guest and allow the listeners to acquire a voice
I would bring back the Q & A segment
I think it’s great that you ask people upfront what they want to ask of a guest. But honestly - I listen to you guys because you’re smarter than me. You’re also smarter than most of the rest of us. So… audience participation is usually not that interesting. The questions you choose for Q&A are good and it would be nice to get some intelligent comments here on substack to interact with, but I’m not sure how audience participation is actually “one of [the] ways we can improve the show”.
Beyond downloading and listening why does audience participation matter to show quality?
I think having listeners submit specific
questions for upcoming guests would be a great way to get listeners more involved - I know when I've submitted questions to shows in the past I've been especially keen to tune in to see if my question is addressed. Bret Kugelmass does that for his show Energy Impact Podcast sometimes when he has higher profile guests and the responsivness is
great for engagement.
Definitely a YouTube live stream, so long as
you have someone who can moderate questions. I've seen some podcasts
Like Titans of Nuclear bringing back in person interviews which could
be interesting on video. Either way adding more listener questions
would be appreciated.
I liked the audience Q&A within each episode. It expands the range of insights we can hear from you and the questions can even be somehow tied to the topic of that episode if possible.
Also, on the guest front, I think you should bring Matthew Walther on. He has a really interesting perspective from the right and you're already using the concept of "barstool conservatives" regularly. On top of that, he's written some interesting columns for The American Conservative between the end of September and the beginning of November that almost defend CRT in a fashion--or at least criticize its attackers in unique ways--and raise interesting questions about what class and "the elite" mean in America.
Also, I don't mind your choice of guests, but it does make me wonder if focusing so strongly on authors of books leaves out people who would help you accomplish the goals of The Realignment but who haven't written books. For example, someone who has real experience organizing people and creating institutions in the face of the atomization of our age may not have gone on to write a book about it.
let me ponder this then provide definitive answers within two or three days
First of all I am huge fan of the show. The breadth of topics and the tag team of commentary is a breath of fresh air; please keep up the great work!
In this week's episode with Michael Shellenberger, I appreciated hearing his perspective on progressive identity. I do not live in or around a proper city and so my direct observation of progressives is that they have only failed to achieve power. To hear that Michael's take the entire identity of progressive is wound up in this specific topic of victimization. Do you two agree with that type of narrow framing? How would you define progressive identity?
One follow up thought. Michael went so far as to claim that the drug crisis we are seeing is the worst in human history. My understanding of the history of opium in China is that it was significantly larger and longer than our own drug crisis. But my preliminary search on the subject was not helpful in offering a genuine comparison. If you get a chance to talk with Michael again I would be interested to hear how he would justify his claim from that long view of human history that he invoked.
Marshall, p,ease watch your mic volume. Sometimes you fade out.