poppup

Yes. More or less I agree with what you have said. The main point is that the complaint against the TV show is ridiculous as the show is created for the purpose of entertainment, not veracity.

It's interesting that some people think of TV as somehow "true." Maybe it is emotionally true, but it is not reality. Reality is having to commute 90 minutes to work on a TV show that portrays reality falsely as many of my colleagues do.

SPA is a show that I had a lot of influence over. My editing work on the first show was mentioned in a New York Times.

Sarah was very protective of her family's image as it was airing close to the time when one of her daughter's was having or had just had a child out of wedlock.

She had good reason to be protective, but this made it difficult to produce an entertaining TV show. So, the show wasn't really a show until it got to post. The executive producers were really worried.

I remember, one of my fellow editors became frustrated with his supervising producer. He threw a stack of papers into the air and slammed the door in his face.

Also, there was a scene where Sarah'a other daughter had a boyfriend over. The boyfriend wanted to go upstairs to her bedroom. Sarah wouldn't allow it, and she demanded he come back down. We edited it so that he never came back down and that she was calling her daughter's name... as if they were up there naked or something... That is where the "lie" is most evident. When there is a clear departure from the truth, but all of TV is a lie, based on excluding the boring parts. Do I feel bad that we changed what really happened? No. That was probably the most memorable moment of the entire season and drove viewership way up for the entire season, resulting in a more satisfying product for viewers.

Also, once Sarah saw the show, she got it. She had the ability to tell us to change anything she didn't like. She didn't want to change that scene or many others. It was gold.

She does love Alaska. Todd, her husband, seems like an awesome guy. They are a pretty normal family, thrown into the limelight by John McCain.

Between pitches, production takes long breaks where Mark Cuban and the other talent have nothing to do, but sit and wait.

TV production is not very exciting. Post-production even less so. A lot of sitting and waiting. A lot of looking through useless footage to try to find the juice.

I have worked in TV for over a decade. I am leaving Santa Monica to move to Mission Bay in San Francisco in November. I hope not to work on another TV show for the rest of my life, but God laughs when we make plans.

I can imagine that only Mark Cuban has access to that information as they are private companies. Mark definitely seems to have the entrepreneurs interests more in mind, but they are all "sharks."

Do you trust a "shark" who claims to have your best interests in mind? If they are good at what they do, yes. All the way up to the time they don't have your best interests in mind.

The pitches can be shot between 15-60 minutes each. These are ballpark figures, keep in mind, and I am sure that some pitches have taken longer. The point is, there's not enough time to make an informed decision.

Production wants to shoot them as quickly as possible, as they are renting very expensive studio space and paying the talent for every shoot day.

Shark Tank is very efficient as far as TV shows go. Some shows, like Big Brother, shoot 100 minutes for every 1 minute aired. Shark Tank is probably closer to 3-5 minutes shot for every 1 minute aired. It's more like a scripted show in that regard. Certainly, all the pitches are memorized and practiced well in advance.

Someone asked my credentials. I worked on Shark Tank for one season as an editor. I have add'l credits on The Voice and Sarah Palin's Alaska for Mark Burnett Productions. I also worked for 10 other production companies on about 25-30 shows for ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and SHOWTIME. Some of them I don't remember. Some of them I would like to forget, for example, Famous in 12: http://www.tmz.com/category/famous-in-12/

I worked on Shark Tank. It is a lie (but not unlike almost every other TV show) with just enough truth to keep "suspension of disbelief" aloft. It was designed that way from the beginning. Almost all TV shows are designed this way. The "lie" is called entertainment. The subject of "high stakes" investing is ready-made for TV, but no investor can adequately research a business in the 15 minutes it takes to shoot each pitch.

TV is a lie? Is that really news?

This is the assumption I am operating on, so this is a great link. They all seem kind of mechanical, which is what I am using for some of the humor in the book. So, it was fun to watch these robots in action after having imagined what it would look like in my head for so long.

The purpose is comedy, haha, but the need I have is to realistically estimate when companion robots (clean) will become conversational. Some of the robots in the book are more mechanical-looking. Some more "human-like," meaning: difficult to discern from humans. It's all for the purpose of serving the story, and I can see your point about where the market is. That is helpful as I can see that if these nonsexual companionship robots come to exist, it will be well after every other area is dominated by more useful robots. Thanks!

I am using SendGrid on one project. Another surprising thing is that nobody from SendGrid is responding to this thread to explain and rectify as I have seen other companies do.

This practice happens all the time with books that are successful. Other books leech on to the traffic by using the same keywords, but what you'll notice is that the quality of the books is very poor because the author's heart and soul are not invested in the project. Startups that do well, like books, seem to all enjoy the participation of leadership and creativity aligned around a passionate interest in the problem, creative or logical or both.

In the spirit of providing feedback to help improve the documentation, and with regard to the bold text:

The article made it difficult to find out what React Storybook is quickly.

The style of article is informational, which is usually written like a pyramid. High level information at the top, then works into more detail-oriented sections, most important first. For example, "any react application" would probably come in the second paragraph, after the high level intro as that was an important point (based on the repetition) in the bullets.

Thanks for the information...I would think Google would make sure they don't use their name by taking them to court as it affects their brand.

This is not a programming issue, it is a health issue.

I understand the challenges in the way the policies are set up, but again, this is a health issue that needs to be addressed one way or another.

We all get a bad feeling in our gut when we know something is not right. Posing as a non profit with the "Internet" brand is not right.

To your point, if they were just upfront about what they're doing, it wouldn't be an issue.

I was just thinking about how they have buried a great product, google hangouts, inside a me too product, google+, and neglected it bc it doesn't have a business model attached. What a waste! Hangouts is much better and more reliable than Skype, but very difficult to find and sign up for. All it needs is its a stage of its own and a business model and it could destroy Skype, which needs to be destroyed imho. Combined with some business features it could rule the meeting room worldwide, then expand into consumer from there.

TV producers attempt to instill fear in order to hook viewers into watching it.

So they are using a TV show to make money to try to climb the ladder to the 1% if they aren't already there themselves.

<frauds>

Good question. In my view, thinking fast has to do with how well you can process emotion. Do you get stuck in the headlights or do you dive out of the way of the truck coming at you?

That is not a question of preparedness mentally. It is a question of emotional preparedness. As in, how do you process fear?

As to the ability to process information, that is also related to emotion, as in, what do you care to pay attention to and what do you readily discard?

Knowing how you feel and then being capable of processing emotions quickly as they arise is probably the most important skill there is for us humans and that is true whether you lived during the Rennaissance or in a cave or if you work at google.

If you are interested in more about the subject of becoming more capable, let me know. I am writing a book about it presently and would love to share it with you and get your feedback. The results have been pretty great. People say that focusing on capabilities makes them feel lighter and younger. I also feel lighter, my thoughts flow at lightning speed, making me more prepared for change. I can be found at poppitup on twitter. Just follow the cat.

Another poster also referred to the animations as interactive... I guess some people think of animations as interactive.

Facebook's pitch is to developers, not users.

I enjoyed reading your encouraging words. I know it's not encouraged to post 1 up comments, so I have more to add, but before I do, I wanted to pass along that it's nice to hear how supportive you are with regard to your parents and others.

I agree with your comment and I think the thought of ageism is what is intimidating. There is nothing that cannot be accomplished when a person sets their mind to it, regardless of age, but there is a time and energy cost. Young people have more energy, so more effort is required on the part of an older person to appear energetic and desirable. I am 46 and have worked in five different careers. Experience can be demonstrated and comes across as impressive if it is concise and on point, regardless of age. Being both energetic and concise is an art form. But I highly recommend it as a strategy when seeking employment.

I have been using rails for many years now and I'm sad to say I'm leaving it behind in my current/new project :( I will miss the familiar patterns and want to express my gratitude to the team that makes everything work so seamlessly.

Perhaps this is the function of conflict (ideally nonviolent and hopefully led by smart people), to speed up the process of change by injecting humanity's shared model(s) with new ideas. When older models become problematic, people have a duty to overturn them, toppling them like tables outside a synagogue.

"The extent of and continuing increase in inequality in the United States greatly concerns me. … It is no secret that the past few decades of widening inequality can be summed up as significant income and wealth gains for those at the very top and stagnant living standards for the majority. I think it is appropriate to ask whether this trend is compatible with values rooted in our nation’s history, among them the high value Americans have traditionally placed on equality of opportunity." Janet Yellen

There's more to this than meets the eye.

It depends on how you perceive writing. For example, "Old Man and the Sea" might be the greatest essay about criticism ever written, despite the fact that it's not an essay. You have to see through the story to get to the essay.

I think the reason so many people enjoy Paul Graham's writing is not only due to the subject or the genre, it's that he transcends the category, much like Hemingway did when he wrote "Old Man and the Sea."

The author of "The Other Money Problem," seems to assume readers are not aware of change or that Paul Graham can't continue to be honest and interesting now simply because he makes more money than he did previously. According to this theory, J.K. Rowling would be less interesting to read now that she's rich, but I would argue that her new work is better. Dave Chappelle, Chris Rock, same thing.

Each of Paul Graham's essays were written as he slowly evolved into the man he is today. He was changing the entire time. Also, he knows more now than he did before.

The thing that saddens me is not Paul Graham getting advice from friends, it's people who try to take some of the shine off.