Conan O'Brien at Google: The World Has Completely Changed(blogs.sfweekly.com)
blogs.sfweekly.com
Conan O'Brien at Google: The World Has Completely Changed
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/shookdown/2010/05/conan_at_google.php
12 comments
This guy is smart. Also worth viewing to see the VP getting demoralized.
The interviewer has an uncanny ability to say exactly the wrong thing at the wrong time. Probably a symptom of nervousness..
I prefer Conan like this -- he's funny. I never found him funny as a talk show host.
I think this is why I found his stint on the Tonight Show so disturbing. It was like seeing a thoroughbred hitched to a plow.
He didn't seem to handle the limitations of that venue well. When he couldn't use his wit full on, he degraded quickly to mostly slapstick. Which was pretty unfunny coming from him.
He didn't seem to handle the limitations of that venue well. When he couldn't use his wit full on, he degraded quickly to mostly slapstick. Which was pretty unfunny coming from him.
The funniest moment is at 23:12 when a woman in the audience asks him to let her touch his hair. :-)
I watched this live on VC from our Chicago office and Conan was absolutely hilarious.
That was great to wake up to on this rainy Saturday.
First 15 minutes are bland jokes. A bit of interesting tidbits but now at 30 minutes it is back at random humour.
Yeah, not really worth it unless you are a fan of him. The only HN related thing I heard was a bit about twitter at ~15:00+.
Note to self: If you ever asked a question at such event, step back from the microphone so your nervous laughter does not disturb.
Yeah, not really worth it unless you are a fan of him. The only HN related thing I heard was a bit about twitter at ~15:00+.
Note to self: If you ever asked a question at such event, step back from the microphone so your nervous laughter does not disturb.
I liked hearing their laughter. It was never at a bad time (it did not "disturb"), and for me, the more people I hear laughing, the more I enjoy something.
(I did upvote you, because while I think a score of 0 is OK, I don't see why you should be at -1 just for expressing your opinion)
(I did upvote you, because while I think a score of 0 is OK, I don't see why you should be at -1 just for expressing your opinion)
I sometimes wish the up/down arrows would instead be a square a la:
P.S. I found the video hilarious :)
↑ Insightful/Agree ------ Insightful/Disagree ↑
| |
| |
↓ Uninsightful/Agree -- Uninsightful/Disagree ↓
P.S. I found the video hilarious :)
I actually briefly user-tested such a scheme back at university; if it worked well, I was going to put together a news aggregator based on the idea.
At least in my test, which was admittedly very small in scale, people almost always clicked "Insightful/Agree" or "Uninsightful/Disagree". I'd love to see a better test of this, though.
At least in my test, which was admittedly very small in scale, people almost always clicked "Insightful/Agree" or "Uninsightful/Disagree". I'd love to see a better test of this, though.
At least in my test, which was admittedly very small in scale, people almost always clicked "Insightful/Agree" or "Uninsightful/Disagree". I'd love to see a better test of this, though.
That’s very much what I would expect. You generally disagree with someone because you think they have poor arguments – how could something that is, say, factually wrong or not coherent also be insightful? I always cringe when people here say you shouldn’t downvote when you disagree. Should you really not downvote if a comment contains obvious factual errors or if the arguments obviously make no sense? (I have to add, though, that the “obvious” is important here. I think you shouldn’t downvote when someone made reasonable errors in their argument.)
I think there are cases where comments you disagree with can be insightful (when, say, a aspect of a problem is shown that you didn’t consider before) but I would also argue that those instances are rather rare.
That’s very much what I would expect. You generally disagree with someone because you think they have poor arguments – how could something that is, say, factually wrong or not coherent also be insightful? I always cringe when people here say you shouldn’t downvote when you disagree. Should you really not downvote if a comment contains obvious factual errors or if the arguments obviously make no sense? (I have to add, though, that the “obvious” is important here. I think you shouldn’t downvote when someone made reasonable errors in their argument.)
I think there are cases where comments you disagree with can be insightful (when, say, a aspect of a problem is shown that you didn’t consider before) but I would also argue that those instances are rather rare.
I like this idea, but I'm not sure about the words upon a bit of reflection.
It seems like clicking "Uninsightful/Agree" is agreeing that I believe things that are uninsightful? I imagine that would be the least used option.
Insightful/Disagree seems like a contradiction. If someone has stated a conclusion that I think is wrong, how could I see those opinions as containing notable insights?
It seems like clicking "Uninsightful/Agree" is agreeing that I believe things that are uninsightful? I imagine that would be the least used option.
Insightful/Disagree seems like a contradiction. If someone has stated a conclusion that I think is wrong, how could I see those opinions as containing notable insights?
This was arguably the funniest I have ever seen Conan - you can see how he got his start. He was funny as hell, people loved him, then he got reined in to the standard talk show paradigm.
He was still funny enough in that setting to make it work - in the 12:30 slot, anyways.
He was still funny enough in that setting to make it work - in the 12:30 slot, anyways.
I laughed, I cried, it was better than Cats!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7TwqpWiY5s#t=36m40s
Who else was astonished at the hair-ball question? I mean, I know it's a casual atmosphere, but that was a seriously stupid question.
Who else was astonished at the hair-ball question? I mean, I know it's a casual atmosphere, but that was a seriously stupid question.
I only watched the first five minutes or so, and found his treatment of the host distasteful and unfunny, and gave up watching it.
I agree. The latter part was ok though.
I found this whole performance so utterly disgusting, I can barely believe that characters like that are allowed to perform publicly on this planet, I feel shame. If there exists life beyond earth, I sincerely hope they don't judge us by these exemplars.
Do you generally not have a sense of humor? That's a serious question. Conan is hilarious, very smart and yet humble and a genuinely nice guy.
I can accept that you might not find him funny but I can't accept anyone implying he's not a good guy.
I can accept that you might not find him funny but I can't accept anyone implying he's not a good guy.