Nonbelievers.
toohardtopronounce.com
toohardtopronounce.com
* His standing up was interesting, but I wouldn't respect it if I were his audience. You can put all your cards on the table with less drama. To me, he was too overtly aggressive & theatrical. It unnecessarily puts the rest of the room on the defensive.
*Did anyone else not find the quality of discussion low? Poor logic and superficial, emotional responses. Reminds me why I stopped watching (almost all) television.
When I was involved in student government in college I successfully pulled off a stunt similar to this against an obdurate administration. A group of deans had started a process by which they were going to take some public, widely opposed actions that would be deleterious to campus life. They had started a series of negotiations with the heads of some major student organizations, plus me (as president of the student body), ostensibly to come to a mediated response with all of the stakeholders.
At the penultimate meeting, our student coalition came to the administration with a reasonable, but amended version of the plan that we were willing to accept. They thanked us profusely and told us and the student newspaper that they were reviewing the proposal and integrating it into their plan.
At the last meeting, they presented us with the "final plan" they were going to execute. It turned out that they had incorporated none of our changes; the series of meetings had been an elaborate kabuki designed for the illusion of "listening to the students."
I'd prepared the other students for what we'd do if this turned out to be the case. At the meeting, I told the deans that it was clear that they had no real interest in incorporating student opinions and that for them to unapologetically discard our changes meant that the whole thing was a farce. If they wanted to execute their plan while systematically disregarding student input, that's wholly their prerogative, but we have no interest in helping them with the appearance of gathering student input. If and when they were actually interested in student input, we'd love to help them but until then there was no sense wasting time with meetings. Every one of the student leaders got up and left the room as we'd done in contingency planning.
The deans caved 36 hours later.
Did anyone else not find the quality of discussion low? Poor logic and superficial, emotional responses. Reminds me why I stopped watching (almost all) television.
I think your analysis is superficial, actually. The show is quite nuanced. This was a snippet, depicting one of the characters trying to sell a lipstick ad; I don't think anything in the scene is enough for someone to conclude that the show is plagued by poor logic.
I didn't find poor logic in the show per se, but in the discussion within the show -- the thinking of the participants of the meeting. The show may have done a very nuanced job of capturing that boardroom discussion true to reality and in a way that appeals to the audience... my issue with is the quality of that discussion itself, the quality of the reasoning of the participants.
If I was me I probably would have never made that speech, and I would have remained sitting.
Some of the startups choosing between Javascript and Flash say that this is one of the problems with Flash. If you choose any recent version, some fraction of people won't have it installed, and faced with the interruption of installing it, will just click on Back instead.
Seeing what Heroku has done has encouraged us to keep going, but we wonder if picking pure javascript really was the wisest choice.
Fortunately, that particular brand of nerd can safely be ignored. They are a tiny, tiny minority who make a lot of noise on websites such as this.