So in other parts of reddit, Dan Carlins podcasts are frequently used as the gold standard of history. Then people that disagree pick apart various aspects of why he's wrong and how he's not a reputable source.
Even Carlin will frequently mention "I'm not a historian" in his podcast, giving you the impression that some of the information may be wrong. So what's your take on his work? No one is expecting him to have a masters level understanding of the subject matter he is tackling, but for people looking to listen to a new podcast as they work/work out et cetera, is it a worthwhile launch pad?
(I'm asking this as I've read all of Jared Diamonds works and only recently found out apparently he's about as historically accurate as The Patriot or Braveheart, pick your Mel Gibson film)
Because he is not a historian he doesn't necessarily know how to weigh his source when there's controversy around a topic so occasionally he runs with one version of events that may not be the most widely accepted version.
He's an entertainer, not a historian. Enjoy the show, but don't quote it.
*Still waaaay better than The Channel That Shall Not Be Named.
There's an FAQ item on this: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/historians_views#wiki_historians.27_views_of_dan_carlin.27s_.22hardcore_history.22
From what I've read in the FAQ threads, he's worthwhile if he sparks your interest in something and makes you want to delve deeper.
I find his shows excellent and entertaining. However they are 'shows' and he is an entertainer. If you want real history, podcasting is not the medium to pursue. The real history is in books and first hand sources. That said, he does his homework and tries to give as true account as possible with the shows. They are the benchmark for historical podcasts but not the benchmark for history in general.