Comment by CSMastermind

I watched some talks he gave 15 years ago and what struck me was that he would use analogies to things like physics that were just objectively incorrect. He was confidently talking about a subject he clearly didn't understand at even an undergraduate level.

Then for the rest of the talk he would speak just as confidently about coding. Why would I believe anything he has to say when his confidence is clearly not correlated to how well he understand the material?