Ask Slashdot: What Would Your TED Talk Be About? (ted.com) 214
Slashdot reader shanen poses the question: if you had to give a TED Talk, what would you talk about? They write: Mostly based on my experiences at TEDx events, though of course I've seen a lot of TED videos. Nick Hanauer's censored TED Talk is still my all-time favorite, though you couldn't see it on the TED website. Proximate trigger for this question was actually looking at the coming TEDx events in the neighborhood... In my own case, I think you'd need to put a gun to my head as motivation, but maybe my sig would be worth a laugh or two? What would your TED Talk be about? How does this idea resonate with you? Feel free to explain in as little as one sentence...
For example: "The inequality of opportunity and how the stereotypical success is a function of where one is born."
For example: "The inequality of opportunity and how the stereotypical success is a function of where one is born."
Dongs. (Score:2, Funny)
Dongs. Just dongs.
A couple of ideas (Score:2)
2. The telephone is dying, and how can we hasten it's death.
Re: (Score:2)
2. The telephone is dying, and how can we hasten it's death.
We should also get rid of telephone sanitizers too.
Re: (Score:2)
Great points! This relates to something I started to notice in the last decade: with increased connectivity, people started to travel around more and more. I thought this was counterintuitive -- if you have better Internet access, you should have fewer reasons for business trips etc. But this was also about mobile connectivity; with cell networks, you could stay online while sitting in the train. So were people in the past stuck in the office due to non-mobile Internet, while they were waiting to get on th
Re: (Score:2)
It's insane but I also notice that not every one of us can accurately express ourselves with words i n the form of a concisely written email. While being in an office let those people directly interact face to face somehow, creating a more chaotic but ultimately satisfactory outcome. Those that could express themselves or disciplined enough to do work on their own is forced to put up with this distraction but that doesn't matter. Because in the end, it all "works"!
You have to remember, the majority of us
Re: (Score:2)
2. The telephone is dying, and how can we hasten it's death.
If only someone could figure out a way to allow robocalling, then everyone would hate their phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Why people who should know better still can't tell it's from its.
3. The 25 best methods for killing grammar Nazis.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Try and remember, grammar and the associated troublesome punctuation, are the potential difference between knowing your shit, and knowing you're shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if this was the joke, but:
"Try to remember: grammar, and the associated troublesome punctuation, are the potential difference between knowing your shit, and knowing you're shit."
Re: (Score:2)
It's grammatically incorrect to use a comma before the word "and".
At least , in The Queen's English , anyway , and that's all that matters. ;)
How can we trust you, clearly, a fanatical comma saver??
Re: (Score:2)
Mistakes like that are usually just typos, get over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Bollocks, it's just ignorance.
A typo is a manual error. You don't fat-finger an extra key some distance away from the rest.
Re: A couple of ideas (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bollocks, it's just ignorance.
A typo is a manual error. You don't fat-finger an extra key some distance away from the rest.
Wow, the depth of ignorance in this statement is incredible. I'm awestruck.
Re: (Score:2)
You really honestly want to tell me that people don't know the difference between there and their and they're ... and that you believe that? Sorry, they know. They simply make a writing mistake, and by rereading what they typed it does not catch their eye. As I said before: get over it. Not every mind ticks like yours. Not every eye works like yours. If you would speak another language, you most likely would know that. However it is funny to see native english speaking/writing grammar nazis :P
Taking a cue from a previous topic. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd go the opposite direction. Rethinking the purpose of Government would start out by explaining that the sole purpose of government is to protect the powerless from the powerful, and how all legitimate government power stems from that singular purpose.
I would then touch briefly on how contrary political viewpoints are mainly caused by argume
Department of redundancy department (Score:2)
As opposed to a tenth-floor door?
Department of Pedantry (Score:2)
If it is a glass door, you could arguably call it defenestration. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Reversible abortion. Sample problem solved.
However, the abortion "problem" is actually caused by raging ignorance. It's based on the delusion that a set of genes is somehow equivalent to a unique human being. This actually goes back to the ancient idea of a tiny homunculus contained within the sperm. In the more recent form of this delusion, they think the DNA of a fertilized egg is like a blueprint that completely describes a unique human being.
WRONG. It's a heck of a lot more complicated than that, but a
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, by your own argument, being able to "reverse" the abortion (presumably by recreating the DNA) w
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for asking about the parts you couldn't understand. NOT.
Hint. When I wrote "reversible", I meant "reversible".
You'll just have to forgive me for not apologizing for my miserable inability to express myself clearly.
However, there is a funny punchline here. It's actually possible you agree with me. However by the time I scraped that much of your possible meaning out of your comment, I had already wasted more time on you than your attitude justified.
But I probably started it, so that makes it my fault.
Re: (Score:2)
You can safely assume that anything I say publicly on the subject is mainly intended to encourage discussion, rather than to indicate any actual opinion on my part. I often argue positions that I don't hold, just to try to get people to explain *why* they feel a particular way, because I think that's the only way we can gain mutual understanding and appreciation between two political sides that seem to grow farther apart with every passing day.
*shrugs* I don't rea
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I'm not going to write you off. Yet.
I'm still offended. I'm NOT going to invest more time in this thread, except to not that I already included a couple of references, if more data is what you wanted.
Okay, just one more item of a slightly complicated sort. The natural approach of ol' Mother Nature. Random mixing of genes, but seeking equilibrium. Half the random combinations are worse than average. Therefore nature's equilibrium is four kids with two dying before reproducing. Just the averages to sust
Re: (Score:2)
s/except to not/except to note/
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying you want to prevent kids who won't make it much past birth from being created? A better approach is to work towards gene therapy to correct those sorts of genetic defects — ideally, in one or both parents, to fix the recessive traits before they can combine to cause problems. Any strategy involving limiting reproduction is likely to inevitably degrade to the point where one group of people declares another group unfit to have kid
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is NOT what I am saying. NOT EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE. Only a willful desire to prevent dialogue can explain such a lie. Well, I suppose there are other possibilities. For example certain pharmaceuticals.
I am no longer able to believe you have any intention of nor capability for sincere intellectual activity. Therefore I regard this "conversation" as terminated.
Re: (Score:2)
I like "Ted Talks, Mental Masturbation for The Anal Retentive, With Too Much Money and Ego", probably more of a Tedx (the poor people's TED) topic though ;D.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you imagine that this principle shrinks or enlarges government as we presently know it?
* if smaller, you're using the definition of "protect" endorsed by the powerful
* if larger, you're using the definition of "protect" endorsed by the powerless
Re: (Score:2)
Both, actually. Both sides are correct. The purpose of government is to serve the people by serving as a voice for those who have no power, protecting them from those who do, including protecting their rights when that second group happens to be the government itself. And that is a delicate balance at times.
On the one hand, there are entirely too many useless regulations in a lot of areas. And too many regulations
Re: (Score:3)
Here's one: "Why diversity of opinion is vital". Or a more sensationalist variant: "How the decline in tolerance of opposing viewpoints is killing us and our kittens"
I think the Paradox of Tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] covers your topic statements. No previous topic in this discussion? Or at least you didn't reply to it.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't mean that the paradox isn't real. But inviting a diversity of opin
Re: (Score:2)
The complexity of the analysis is what makes it a tough paradox to wrestle with. It's really hard to draw the lines.
However I think there are clearly cases where intolerant people are being intellectually dishonest. They are using the theory of tolerance to claim that they deserve to be tolerated, which is only true until they reveal their real intentions to be intolerant. They would not need to play the jujitsu games if they actually had intellectual integrity.
Extreme examples abound these days. I think th
Re: (Score:2)
I'd do "why you don't want Twitter to be a public utility".
Actually this video about PewDiePie and terrorism would make a good Ted talk: https://youtu.be/pnmRYRRDbuw [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Managing diversity of opinion is hard. Just go for diversity of appearance and hope nobody notices the difference.
--
every HR department ever
standing ovation! (Score:5, Interesting)
Stop and appreciate life once in awhile (Score:4, Interesting)
It could be as simple as "I live in a first world nation!" and my worst day never includes "Find food to feed my family for today" on the to-do list.
It could be as complex as "I have enough food to get two of my three kids through the winter". Imagine having to bright-side that bit of luck.
Doom (Score:2, Insightful)
My talk about be about how we're all pretty much screwed and humanity is on the path of extinction, so may as well go full anarchy now.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we're in a race condition. Will we create our AI successors before we exterminate ourselves? And if so, will they keep any of us in their zoos?
However, I'm pretty sure there are a number of TED talks along these lines.
Re: (Score:2)
However, I'm pretty sure there are a number of TED talks along these lines.
Naw. TED talks can sometimes be alarmist, but they always got some message of hope in there. Mine would have no such thing.
Ob (Score:4, Funny)
Betteridge's law: is it actually true?
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
For context. But is your comment supposed to be a recursive joke?
If not, then obviously the question wasn't directed to you.
Great talk by Hanauer (Score:2)
Of course that capitalism critically needs to get money to the masses in order for it to work is obvious (if apparently too difficult in its simplicity for a lot of people to understand). As long as the mechanism for the distribution of capital is "jobs", that means that in a working capitalism there must be lots of jobs and they must be well-paid (again something too difficult, apparently, for many people to understand). What is however really impressive is that somebody with a lot of money realistically r
Getting old sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
Guess what? I can't even get an interview now. I even shaved the first 10 years of my career off my resume. I've been living off savings for my highest earning years, and I'm not happy about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Then come to Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
The line to give that talk is long. I'm in it, too.
I predict TED is not interested, though you might try to give it at a TEDx and see what happens.
However, I can explain why it's an issue that needs a solution in terms of ekronomics.
Re:Getting old sucks (Score:4, Informative)
Some companies discriminate based on age, but some don't. And some value the experience that comes with age. The key is to find companies in the last two categories and ignore the first.
Math vs art (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure I've seen several TED talks along those lines, but I don't have any links close to hand.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not exactly a new idea. I'm pretty sure there were actual paper books on the subject.
And a song by Rush.
Title: The vast majority of ideas suck (Score:2)
I'd talk about how the vast majority of ideas are wrong, silly, impractical, or outright damaging. I'd give some examples of charismatic ideas that fall into this category. Then I'd discuss how we invented a great idea sieve, to sort out the few worthwhile ideas from the rest. I'd mention that the sieve is not called "a TED curator."
Re: (Score:2)
A con of this magnitude deserves its own TED talk.
Politics and self-righteousness (Score:3)
How easy it is to meet Paris Accords by 2025 (Score:5, Interesting)
My TED Talk would be about literally how easy it would be for the US and Canada to meet and exceed the Paris Accords, achieving 100 percent Renewable Power for electricity by 2025, removing all fossil fuel infrastructure depreciation, deductions, and exclusions, and literally MAKE MONEY and save US and Canadian taxpayers money by doing it.
Step by step.
I'd like to thank Capilano University and the University of Washington for the scientific, business, and economic education that made that possible, of course. And another alumnus for getting me started on this path when she made me realize why paper recycling programs weren't doing well - by bringing it back to supply and demand, and allowing me to see a lot of what drives this is literally capital formation and assumptions of risk by the public for actions that cause damage to us.
Re: (Score:2)
My TED Talk would be about literally how easy it would be for the US and Canada to meet and exceed the Paris Accords, achieving 100 percent Renewable Power for electricity by 2025, removing all fossil fuel infrastructure depreciation, deductions, and exclusions, and literally MAKE MONEY and save US and Canadian taxpayers money by doing it.
Step by step.
I'd like to thank Capilano University and the University of Washington for the scientific, business, and economic education that made that possible, of course. And another alumnus for getting me started on this path when she made me realize why paper recycling programs weren't doing well - by bringing it back to supply and demand, and allowing me to see a lot of what drives this is literally capital formation and assumptions of risk by the public for actions that cause damage to us.
Sooooooooooooo, nuclear power then?
Re: (Score:2)
It's 2019, not 1979. Renewables are much cheaper than fossil fuels.
"Have TED Talks jumped the Shark?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Have TED Talks Jumped the Shark? The growing irrelevancy of TED Talks.
Main points:
1) Andy Warhol was more right than he knew - "15 minutes of fame" isn't just for individuals, it's for everything
2) How a good idea can be driven into the ground by mediocre people jumping onto the bandwagon
3) There is no Point 3, please move on with your lives
I'd like to thank you all for attending - be sure to buy my book!
Re: (Score:2)
I think that most people know that the TED talk fad jumped the shark about 4 years ago, so you wouldn't really be doing more than stating the obvious there.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that most people know that the TED talk fad jumped the shark about 4 years ago, so you wouldn't really be doing more than stating the obvious there.
So... that makes it a perfect topic for a TED talk, right? :-D
Re: (Score:2)
GP reminds me of Cream's first gig which was in a small Manchester club. 650,000 people were there.
Re: (Score:2)
The most popular TED talks (Score:5, Interesting)
So I'd heard a lot about TED talks, had seen a few on video, and in considering this question, I wondered, what can the subjects be about? Here are the 25 most popular TED talks. [ted.com] They're supposed to 18 minutes or less. The acronym stands for "Technology, Entertainment, Design". So, some ideas I'd like to see:
Technology:
* "Avoiding "Guru Syndrome": Start with the Tenerife crash, where two 747s collided on the runway. The copilots knew something was f-cky but wouldn't tell/challenge the captain, and ended with 583 dead in a fireball as the 747s collided at takeoff speed. In programming, in business, in the workplace, one guy sometimes can be though of as knowing everything. He doesn't.
* "Listening With Humility": No matter how smart you are, and no matter how dumb your client, user or patient is, listen with humility, listen like you're trying to learn, and you can get better results.
Business:
* "Stopping Control Fraud": How to create organizational structures which are resistant to control fraud [schneier.com].
* "How to persuade people to give you money?": I am definitely no expert at this, but I'd like to see a discussion. I see panhandler and charities making money - what desire are they fulfilling in people? I see squeegee boys getting money - what desire are they fulfilling in their "patrons"? I see patent trolls, landlords, pharmaceutical companies, prostitutes, government contractors, lawyers: Why do people give each other money?
Finance:
* "What is money?": How do we get people to pick up the trash at zero dark thirty in freezing weather, slaughter cattle, lay pavement, build skyscrapers, go to war, with slips of paper?
* "What is MMT?": Funding the government via seignorage [investopedia.com] is an old idea that typically doesn't end well. Why is it becoming popular again?
* "What drives the economy?": I'd say it's human desire. Can it be reduced to equations? Or do you need a coherent theory of human behavior first?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Several interesting ideas, but only a couple of concrete reactions:
* "How to persuade people to give you money?": I am definitely no expert at this, but I'd like to see a discussion. I see panhandler and charities making money - what desire are they fulfilling in people? I see squeegee boys getting money - what desire are they fulfilling in their "patrons"? I see patent trolls, landlords, pharmaceutical companies, prostitutes, government contractors, lawyers: Why do people give each other money?
I'd like to persuade people to let me give them money for solutions. Tag is CSB (Charity Share Brokerage) for crowd funding with project management and accountability.
* "What is money?": How do we get people to pick up the trash at zero dark thirty in freezing weather, slaughter cattle, lay pavement, build skyscrapers, go to war, with slips of paper?
I think economics is worthless because money is, too. It's the time that really matters. In ekronomics, everything starts with the time. Cleaning up the garbage is in the category of essential work and it deserves to be prioritized and even honored on that basis.
Death to video presentations. or from. (Score:2)
My topic? One of these
This
"Which is better: An hour of a talking head, or an hour of someone reading an all-text Powerpoint?"
Or
"The rise of lengthy video presentations for simple concepts, and why tens of thousands of Americans kill themselves with opiates each year."
The joys of fart sniffing... (Score:2)
and navel gazing.
"Solving for the meta-problem in politics" (Score:3)
Politics in the US is a mess; divisiveness is up, discourse is down, and partisan fighting takes priority over any improvement. Swapping one side for the other won't fix this, and people are too focused on the symptoms to address the underlying problem. There are plenty of people in the country with plenty of reasonable ideas for improvement in government, but no practical way to affect any actual improvement.
If we want to fix the underlying problem, we have to solve for the meta-problem: how to get better quality people in office, preferably not politicians, and certainly not just people on "the other side". This is a solvable problem, and possibly the most important problem for modern society, yet we're making minimal progress on it. Hopefully sometime soon we can start trying to solve the actual problem.
Public Schools & Online News are Killing Ameri (Score:2)
Public schools were supposed to be value neutral environments that encouraged equal opportunity for all.
They failed. Thy aren't value neutral and they don't give equal opportunity. At the same time, they've promoted group think, discouraged curiosity, and allowed politicians to more easily rewrite history and tailor the views of future voters who are less informed and more easy to please.
Online news is very similar - people were actually more curious and wiser when they had to read the newspaper everyday
About my sig and freedom (Score:2)
I should have included my sig with my submission, eh? Or more likely there's no interest? (I finally did find one reference to "freedom" hidden in an AC comment.)
So here's a more accurate version (also working around the bad fonts and lack of "not equal" in Slashdot):
Freedom #1 = (Meaningful + Truthful - Coerced) Choice{~5} <> (Beer^4 | Speech | Trade)
Having said that, while I could in theory talk about it for some minutes, I'd hate that form of presentation. I'd prefer to ask people what they think i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The {~5} is the number of choices in play at one time. It's based on the human working memory. For most people that's from 3 to 7, though experts in a particular area may be able to handle more. Handling more options at a time can even be regarded as one of the definitions of expertise.
If the number is too small, say 0 choices or 1 choice, then there is no real freedom, but you get more freedom as the choices increase--for a while. I remember reading at least one book about it. What happens when the choices
Re: (Score:2)
~5 is visual working memory, not the constraints of working memory generally. That is not at all a limit on choices. Even something simple like remembering a phone number takes remembering more than 5 things.
For example, in food selection at a supermarket, humans limit themselves to about 50 different products that they sometimes buy. Whereas orangutans have better working memory and select from around 250 different food items.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need to read some more about how memory works. Or observe your own thinking more carefully? Also I'd suggest some of the books about mnemonic tricks.
For your specific example of phone numbers, researchers have actually done quite a bit of research, starting back when phone numbers were 7 digits. They discovered that short-term memory was generally strained at 7 digits, though many people used natural mnemonic tricks, such as remembering the digits in pairs. For example, if there's a 4 and a 3 in
Re: (Score:2)
Once you say "observe your own thinking" I already know you're not following the subject, even the basic stuff they publish in New Scientist.
The way memory works is not the way remembering feels like it works. It is as simple as that.
Quantization of attention doesn't even happen the way it feels like it does! And that's the most focused part of your subjective awareness.
Being credulous of how shit feels is the path to nonsensical blahblah, not understanding of the human brain. It is embarrassing to see some
Re: (Score:2)
Great attempt to motivate me to provide the citations. NOT.
I actually keep the books in a little database I wrote, but the way the subject indexes work it takes a bit of effort to find stuff at that level. I have concluded you aren't worth that much effort.
I suppose everything comes back to time? I also used to keep track of the magazines I'd read.
Another "discussion" that can safely be regarded as terminated.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't want your citations. You're not doing research with a slashdot post, so they would be substantially out of context and it would be weird.
You can't "terminate" slashdot discuss. Don't be such a dill weed. You said some random stupid shit. No problem. I corrected parts of it that you had spewed that didn't match the state of the art, instead of listening to the ideas presented and evaluating them, you're going all "citation" and posturing. Because you're unable to understand and discuss the very speci
Public masturbation of 97333 (Score:2)
Z^-1
Connectomes:How to create a back-up of one's mind. (Score:2)
I'd begin with an introductory example of how a human makes a decision and how artificial neural nets were designed to mimic that sort of weighted decision tree.
I'd then go on to explain what inhibitory and excitatory nodes are and how changing the weights in a weighted tree can produce what we consider a stored memory.
I'd follow with some examples about how our conscious mind is really only designed to process the difference between the expected and the actual outcomes in our environment, and why this wo
From recent memory on memory speculations (Score:2)
Now for the complicated new question. It involves memory and epistemology and neuroscience. I haven't read anything like this, but I'm hoping you can point me at the right research to read. It's even possible that it's a new idea, and in that case I hope you are amused, but mostly the question is about what I should read next...
I need to provide context with one of my old theories about language. I believe that our linguistic capacity is highly over-engineered. It is one thing to use language, but we have m
Re: (Score:2)
It's unlikely our language processing is over-engineered as we certainly lost some other of neural processing due to the change (check out this episode of MindFeild which covers this in some depth https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]). Most animals already have some language and tone interpreters built in, thus language interpretation need not evolve at exactly the same time as the ability to accidentally make sounds that can more uniquely communicate your intention. However, one can imagine the increased ben
Re: (Score:2)
Your reply mostly makes me feel that I have failed to make myself clear, but perhaps that was the natural result of transplanting the material out of its original context. Then again, it didn't seem to be particularly clear there, either. I'm inclined to think that means I need to improve my understanding more so that I can present the ideas more clearly.
Due to the confusion, or perhaps related to your writing style, I'm not seeing your reply as particularly illuminating. Your reply might be worth more stud
I would talk about paradigm shifts (Score:2)
...and what to expect in the year 2070
Re: (Score:2)
Something beyond Kuhn? Or just a review?
I was actually surprised that The Gene didn't seem to be aware of the notion of paradigm shift.
PC Watercooling (design and installation) (Score:3)
It's my passion, not my job.
Something I really know about ... (Score:2)
... and have interesting and counter intuitive insights to provide with. Like, you know, the typical Ted talk prerequisite.
Re: (Score:2)
i would talk about politicis and religion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Minor problem... Many, probably most, people don't want to be bothered with freedom. Too much effort.
Probably best covered in one of the senses of "free beer" in my sig.
Ontology of TED talks? (Score:2)
Trying to understand the range of topics in this discussion gave me the idea for a TED talk on an ontology of TED talks.
Having said that, it seems difficult to imagine what it would be. The only two categories I can think of so far would be self-help ("Do this an be a better person!") talks and tech-breakthrough ("This new idea may solve that problem!") talks.
I was initially thinking of the idea of a TED-talk ontology in terms of a possible poll for Slashdot--and coming up dry on the alternatives. However t
At long last (Score:2)
Who put the bomp in the bomp bah bomp bah bomp? Who put the ram in the rama lama ding dong?
Inane Pap (Score:2)
My TED talk would be about what all TED talks are about: inane pap.
My TED talk: (Score:2)
Tips on how to use the goddam fucking Internet to find shit and eliminate ad lib made up ignorance.
Oh, and share that there are no motherfucking goddam nude photos of Anna Kournikova.
About how totally awesome I am (Score:2)
I would do it about how totally awesome I am. But hasn't that topic been done before by basically all of them?
Re: (Score:3)
Censorship and integrity in regard to TED owners who chose to ban the talk [youtu.be] which is mentioned in this /. submission.
Except it wasn't banned, this is the same link as in the article which tells the full story. https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Hilarious this talk is not available on [ted.com].
Truely hilarious is that the talk in question was posted by TED on youtube https://youtube.com/watch?v=bB... [youtube.com]
TED does not host every talk on their home page.
Re: (Score:2)
That YouTube account has no relationship to TED. I'm not sure how the video was distributed, but TED was NOT involved. On the TED website, they initially pretended the talk never existed. Then there was a discussion, but it was quickly aborted.
Re: (Score:2)
That YouTube account has no relationship to TED. I'm not sure how the video was distributed, but TED was NOT involved. On the TED website, they initially pretended the talk never existed. Then there was a discussion, but it was quickly aborted.
TED claims to own that account, if you know otherwise please post a link. https://blog.ted.com/how-did-n... [ted.com]
The youtube link I provided is the same as in the blog.
WatchExtraVideo is unique? (Score:2)
I looked again, but I'm focusing on the YouTube side. Nothing there to support your claim. I am unable to find any evidence on the YouTube side that the account is associated with TED. If they do "own" that YouTube account, then the TED people do not appear to want that linkage to be known. Where should I look? But I think I looked carefully at everything on that page.
What I did find on YouTube was a reminder of the "official" excuse that the TED people claimed for NOT publishing it on the TED website. I re
Re: (Score:2)
Almost invisible as AC comment. If you can't put your name on it, you aren't going to get any substantive reply.
Re: (Score:2)
What? Really?
How did you get this misinformed? This takes a genuine effort.