Bill Simmons: Valuing Trades More Than Friendships

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,277
Has Bill mentioned the Bruins’ cup run? I understand why the Ringer barely covers the NHL, but I’m a bit surprised I haven’t heard him talk about the Bruins on his podcasts. I don’t listen to every minute so I may have missed it.
On today's pod he talked about missing the Ruiz fight because he was watching the Bruins.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
9,842
The last segment with Klosterman is peak Klosterman. I loved it.
Are you talking about when Bill convinced Klosterman that Shea was 6’9”? That was amazing. Klosterman was great on the podcast, particularly once they started talking about GoT and modern fan culture.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,919
Are you talking about when Bill convinced Klosterman that Shea was 6’9”? That was amazing. Klosterman was great on the podcast, particularly once they started talking about GoT and modern fan culture.


Before Serrano comment. When Chuck was rolling on GoT and fan service.

When Klosterman was talking about who was reading in his book I think Bill was genuinely hurt and that killed me.

Klosterman going off about how he doesn’t even know Simmons anymore “you’re kid is on a baseball team with one of the GoT writers?!”

Awesome podcast.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
9,842
Before Serrano comment. When Chuck was rolling on GoT and fan service.

When Klosterman was talking about who was reading in his book I think Bill was genuinely hurt and that killed me.

Klosterman going off about how he doesn’t even know Simmons anymore “you’re kid is on a baseball team with one of the GoT writers?!”

Awesome podcast.
Simmons counter of “You had FreeDarko over for Thanksgiving” was also great.
 

allstonite

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 27, 2010
1,464
“The creator of thrones has a kid on my son’s team! He’s just a guy! He wears a hat! Mike Schur is there too. Mike O’Mally was the commissioner. It’s LA it’s fucking weird”
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
3,678

I sort of agree with Shank in principle, but his implication is that it's ok to be a complete asshole as long as you show up in the clubhouse each day (and try to make yourself the story by being yelled at), which I don't agree with.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
9,667
Russilo's random ass 2002 misery story was both hilarious and sad all at the same time.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
9,667
"your grandmother doesn't know what pornhub is Kyle!"

"I bet she could guess!"

Was hilarious. Broken record, but I really enjoy these podcasts
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
9,842
His podcast from this morning with Kara Swisher is really interesting; I don't read/listen to a lot of tech/innovation stuff so it was a different kind of discussion than what I would normally listen too. I disagreed with some of what she said, particularly on the future of car ownership, but that is what made it such an interesting listen.
 

johnmd20

literally like ebola
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
38,066
New York City
His podcast from this morning with Kara Swisher is really interesting; I don't read/listen to a lot of tech/innovation stuff so it was a different kind of discussion than what I would normally listen too. I disagreed with some of what she said, particularly on the future of car ownership, but that is what made it such an interesting listen.
Kara Swisher is excellent, smart and sharp. Recode/Decode is a solid podcast and Pivot is an awesome podcast.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
9,842
Kara Swisher is excellent, smart and sharp. Recode/Decode is a solid podcast and Pivot is an awesome podcast.
That is very clear. I thought it was kind of odd though; that when they were talking about Facebook Live and the Christchurch shooter and she got on the people in charge of Facebook because they should have anticipated that somebody would try something like that on that platform; but then when Bill brought up the possibility that someone would hack the self-driving cars she said "Oh, come on, who would ever try something like that?"

Her comments about Zuckerberg were pretty great; he made billions off of Facebook so he is responsible for it.
 

kelpapa

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 15, 2010
2,561
Russillo is leaving ESPN for the ringer full time in September. Hes going to be doing more podcasts. Can't wait.

Edit: wrong thread. Already covered in the ringer thread.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
34,439
Rotten Apple
Great moment of the Swisher podcast was towards the end where she was explaining her reaction to someone who kept stealing her ideas when she was a writer back in the day. Her response back then was to eventually not be concerned about the constant thefts since she would come up with many more original ideas in the future whereas the person copying her would not. She then tried to frame that healthy response onto Simmons which is an intersting take considering the current title of this thread and the context of that moment in Bill's professional life. As for Bill's response, there was a bit of a pause and a half-haerted "yeah, you always want to try new stuff" answer. I wonder if at that moment he had realized the real value of trade value columns.
 

johnmd20

literally like ebola
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
38,066
New York City
That is very clear. I thought it was kind of odd though; that when they were talking about Facebook Live and the Christchurch shooter and she got on the people in charge of Facebook because they should have anticipated that somebody would try something like that on that platform; but then when Bill brought up the possibility that someone would hack the self-driving cars she said "Oh, come on, who would ever try something like that?"

Her comments about Zuckerberg were pretty great; he made billions off of Facebook so he is responsible for it.
I agree with you about her views on cars. She thinks nobody will need a car in the future. That's so ridiculous, it is almost not even worth talking about. Maybe some people, especially those who live in cities, might not need cars, but a lot of people need cars. Uber cannot fit every need, it's just not possible. People with families, in particular, will need always need cars.

Finally, her views of why people would need clothes in the future when you could just rent them is laughable. Imagine how much of a hassle it would be if you had to rent your clothes?

Anyway, she's not going to be right about everything but she is an incredible talent, podcast presence, writer, and thinker.
 

Pablo's TB Lover

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 10, 2017
427
I agree with you about her views on cars. She thinks nobody will need a car in the future. That's so ridiculous, it is almost not even worth talking about. Maybe some people, especially those who live in cities, might not need cars, but a lot of people need cars. Uber cannot fit every need, it's just not possible. People with families, in particular, will need always need cars.
I agree with her GENERAL line of thinking, in that with the worldwide trend of city migration (30% urban pop. in 1950 vs 54% in 2010) as well as Uber, car ownership will be decreasing going forward. This will then beget higher car costs as the manufacturing costs go up on a per unit basis and the number of mechanics decrease and the ones left charge a premium. But besides guns to a certain segment of the population, cars are THE symbol of freedom and independence. It is the reason I still sometimes choose to commute for a slow hour rather than take a half hour T trip. And there will always be large rural populations who do not want to be part of the urban migration. So nobody needing a car in the future is a HUGE stretch.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
9,842
I agree with her GENERAL line of thinking, in that with the worldwide trend of city migration (30% urban pop. in 1950 vs 54% in 2010) as well as Uber, car ownership will be decreasing going forward. This will then beget higher car costs as the manufacturing costs go up on a per unit basis and the number of mechanics decrease and the ones left charge a premium. But besides guns to a certain segment of the population, cars are THE symbol of freedom and independence. It is the reason I still sometimes choose to commute for a slow hour rather than take a half hour T trip. And there will always be large rural populations who do not want to be part of the urban migration. So nobody needing a car in the future is a HUGE stretch.
I think there is no doubt that with more people moving to the city, more people are going to have greater access to public transportation and be less-reliant on cars. That being said, even if something like, 80 percent of the US population lives in cities, that is still an enormous amount of people who do not; although Swisher was kind of dismissive of that basically saying, "I'm sorry people in the Midwest, nobody is going to live there, everyone is going to cities."

The other thing is that simply living in an urban environment does not necessarily remove the need for a car. I'm a millennial with a lot of student debt, and I live in a city that borders Boston and work in another city that also borders Boston. There is no real public transportation option to get me from my house to work in under 2-3 hours, so barring just massive public transportation changes, I have to drive to work each day. All of my roomates are in a similar situation, as are most of my close friends. Sure, I know some people that live in Brighton, work in Boston and don't own a car, but that is really a small, if increasing, fraction of the population at large.

I agree on the idea of independence. I'm a fairly independent adult; but god damn do I love my car. There isn't a more personal, more controlled environment one can have than driving alone in their car. You'd have to kill me to give that up.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
12,614
Tuukka's refugee camp
The issue is you are all projecting 20+ years out through the lens of how things are today. She's not talking about the next few years, so it doesn't matter what you or your roommates do today. It is very plausible that there will be significant technological advances that make it easier to get to Burlington from Boston. Or alternatively, companies will move from Burlington closer into Boston to be closer to the talent pool.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
9,842
The issue is you are all projecting 20+ years out through the lens of how things are today. She's not talking about the next few years, so it doesn't matter what you or your roommates do today. It is very plausible that there will be significant technological advances that make it easier to get to Burlington from Boston. Or alternatively, companies will move from Burlington closer into Boston to be closer to the talent pool.
I understand that LONG term cars will eventually become obsolete. In 300 years we might all be phase-shifting to work or traveling via Floo Powder. I'm arguing against the notion that people simply moving to the city does not necessarily mean that cars will eventually disappear. The hypothesis as stated in the podcast is that historically people are moving to a more urban environment, with the assumption being that they will be less-reliant on cars to transport them to work, therefore cars would become unnecessary. Using myself and people I know, people who would all seem to be the target demographic for the car-less future, I still see a lot of reliance on cars and barring a completely different transportation infrastructure, I don't know if that is going to change to the degree that nobody is going to own a car in the next 20+ years.

Of course, nobody can predict the future, but what we have to expect from the future is the trends we see today.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
12,614
Tuukka's refugee camp
But you aren't really looking at the trends or signals outside of a very micro perspective. Self-driving cars very much exist. People are moving to cities (and I imagine it's a similar rate for industry) with some form of infrastructure. Uber and Lyft have fundamentally changed how people get places. Car ownership has fallen.

The nobody owning a car is an obvious hyperbole but car ownership will fall dramatically IMO and all signs are pointing to people using more "Just In Time" services as opposed to having a giant hunk of metal depreciate while it sits in your driveway. There will still be use cases to own a car, as this thread will surely point out, but it just won't make sense for a large portion of the population given where things are heading.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
9,842
But you aren't really looking at the trends or signals outside of a very micro perspective. Self-driving cars very much exist. People are moving to cities (and I imagine it's a similar rate for industry) with some form of infrastructure. Uber and Lyft have fundamentally changed how people get places. Car ownership has fallen.

The nobody owning a car is an obvious hyperbole but car ownership will fall dramatically IMO and all signs are pointing to people using more "Just In Time" services as opposed to having a giant hunk of metal depreciate while it sits in your driveway. There will still be use cases to own a car, as this thread will surely point out, but it just won't make sense for a large portion of the population given where things are heading.
I'm not disagreeing that car ownership is going to decline, I guess we are disconnecting on whether or not hyperbole was being used when it came to saying that nobody will own a car in the future.

Either way, again I recommend the Swisher podcast, it is really interesting.
 

8slim

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
12,599
Unreal America
Uber and Lyft have fundamentally changed how people get places.
Did they? I mean, they totally exploited the inefficiency and corruption in the taxi industry, but people using ride services is not a new thing. Plus, Uber and Lyft are massively subsidized companies that may not ever turn a profit. I think the economics of ride sharing need to catch up to the technology before we see the large decline in vehicle ownership you're predicting.
 

johnmd20

literally like ebola
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
38,066
New York City
Did they? I mean, they totally exploited the inefficiency and corruption in the taxi industry, but people using ride services is not a new thing. Plus, Uber and Lyft are massively subsidized companies that may not ever turn a profit. I think the economics of ride sharing need to catch up to the technology before we see the large decline in vehicle ownership you're predicting.
Maybe in the cities, it wasn't much different from a car service or a taxi service. But you can get rides anywhere, at the flick of the wrist. That is unlike anything we've ever seen. The subsidization has nothing to do with the fact that Uber and Lyft made getting a ride very easy, no matter where you were.
 

drleather2001

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,512
Did they? I mean, they totally exploited the inefficiency and corruption in the taxi industry, but people using ride services is not a new thing. Plus, Uber and Lyft are massively subsidized companies that may not ever turn a profit. I think the economics of ride sharing need to catch up to the technology before we see the large decline in vehicle ownership you're predicting.
The decline is already happening. And as fewer people own cars, there is a corresponding (though probably not linear) increase in demand for shared ride services. I think the future will be a ton of corporate self-driving cars that are requested and dispatched through an Uber-like system.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
3,231
New York City
We are obviously way off topic in this thread (mods maybe break into a new thread?), but I see at least three major problems with the "no cars/many fewer cars" theory:

1) It assumes that the trend of moving back to urban areas will continue. I don't necessarily see that as a given - historically we have seen something of an ebb and flow between cities and suburbs and I could see the same happening in the future. At a certain point cities are going to become even more crowded than they already are, crime may pick back up, property values will rise, etc.

2) Even if people do move to cities, the theory assumes that the cities they are moving to will have widespread, affordable alternative transit options - people aren't going to be willing to take Ubers/Lyfts to work and back every day. Put another way - it makes sense that people in Manhattan might not need cars, but how many people living in LA don't have cars now (even if they also occasionally take Ubers/Lyfts to bars, etc.)?

3) Finally, it assumes that as Millennials continue to age and actually start families they will be content to continue using public transportation or Ubers/Lyfts, which again I'm not sure is true. To use a personal example: my girlfriend has many relatives in the Westchester area of upstate New York, and currently we don't have much of an issue taking the subway to the MetroNorth, then taking an Uber from the MetroNorth to her relatives' house. But if you add two young kids into the mix that trip would be CONSIDERABLY more costly and annoying in the absence of a privately-owned car that would just take us directly from A-B.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
12,614
Tuukka's refugee camp
Did they? I mean, they totally exploited the inefficiency and corruption in the taxi industry, but people using ride services is not a new thing. Plus, Uber and Lyft are massively subsidized companies that may not ever turn a profit. I think the economics of ride sharing need to catch up to the technology before we see the large decline in vehicle ownership you're predicting.
People don't own cars in urban areas now because they can get anywhere and it's cheaper between Lyft/Uber, other established car share services like Zipcar, which was profitable prior to Avis buying them, and other upstarts like Maven and others that is more P2P car sharing. Probably need a lot more infrastructure in the second and third ones before anything widespread happens but it's an growing, non-zero possibility.

Then you throw in driverless cars on a mass adoption, affordable scale and you have the recipe for success. Of course, still a lot of variables and unknowns but it's pretty easy to see sightlines into that future.
 

8slim

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
12,599
Unreal America
Maybe in the cities, it wasn't much different from a car service or a taxi service. But you can get rides anywhere, at the flick of the wrist. That is unlike anything we've ever seen. The subsidization has nothing to do with the fact that Uber and Lyft made getting a ride very easy, no matter where you were.
I'm sincerely not trying to be argumentative, but the subsidization had nothing to do with those services growth? Every ride operates at a loss, right? How would these services be viable in sparsely populated areas if venture capitalists weren't willing to endure heavy losses?
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
12,614
Tuukka's refugee camp
Ridesharing won't be in those areas since their business model depends on a high concentration of drivers and riders being in the same area. Rural areas by definition are not that. Some other solution will need to solve for them like driverless cars, which is likely a slightly more tenable, though imperfect, solution. Or they buy cars.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
12,614
Tuukka's refugee camp
This thread has turned into one of those driverless cars that runs over humans. And I'm one of the computer chips driving the car.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,858
Santa Monica, CA
I really like Simmons' podcast, except that when he interviews interesting celebrities, he talks way too much instead of letting them talk.

Like when he had Costner on, he would ask a good question, and then right when Costner got into an answer that I wanted to hear, Simmons would be talking over him and putting words in his mouth.
 

TheStoryofYourRedRightAnkle

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
8,404
Multivac
Maybe in the cities, it wasn't much different from a car service or a taxi service. But you can get rides anywhere, at the flick of the wrist. That is unlike anything we've ever seen. The subsidization has nothing to do with the fact that Uber and Lyft made getting a ride very easy, no matter where you were.
You could always get a ride anywhere with the flick of a wrist. A different kind of flick, perhaps...
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
3,678
The Simmons and Russilo discussion about Brady's new contract and future sounded like Simmons talking about the Red Sox. But I've heard so many bad takes on that topic over the past week, I can't get overly mad about it.
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
10,088
A Lost Time
"The Orchid Spa and Tom Brady leaving in the same year, will be tough [for Kraft]. Like losing both of those of those things... He loves the spa, he loves Tom Brady".

lol