Hi Goefyf, writing a massage here since Susbtakc doesn't seem to have a massage fucntoin.
As a semi-literate PhD stunedt in East Asian Languages and Literatures and Philosophy at Yale Uinvsrty who appreciate the smooth tones of your voice and who (barley) read all day for job, I like listen to your podcast -- so much that I throw money to hear more. But have problem. Sometimes podcast new, sometimes reading of article. So when aritlce publish, not sure if will becomb pdocast or not. So never read until after weekly podcast. So sometimes miss out on champagne content because time pass. So that I can become more literature by reading article, ask if you already no whether you read as podcast that indaicate in caption. Thank,
Three more notes (now with my full typing skills activated):
(1) I pay for champagne. Where's the champagne? You've started mentioning that your demo is PhD students (which has made me come out of the woodwork), so I get the sense that I would vibe with some of your other readers/illiterate listeners. I'd be interested in an NYC meet up sometime, if you're ever in the city on a weekend, and especially if you would pick a topic of discussion so we're not just like your fan club, vying for attention over drinks.
(2) Your interview/promotion of Andrew Heaton a couple weeks ago worked! I'm not yet throwing money at him but I am now perusing his library of podcasts. I think you fit his interview niche or a neighboring quite well and I'd like to hear more interviews like it. For instance, I would love to hear you interview, e.g., David French to discuss his 1.4.24 NY Times piece on disqualifying Trump, or, e.g., Ezra Klein to discuss your 5.10.22 NY Times piece and your series of IMBW pieces about the problem with the Radical Left (and maybe to put that in conjunction with the moderate left's NIMBYism problem), or, e.g., Sarah Isgur on the legal underpinning of Chevron deference and policy implications if it's undone in this June's slate of opinions, or, e.g., Matt Yglesias on the evolution of media ecosystems, from his blogging days, to founding Vox, to his fancy blogging on Substack, and the implications of these media formats on political discourse and political actuality. I'm not sure how much humor these guests would allow for, but I appreciate listening to your policy takes too (which to my ears ring like a less righteous, more sensible Jon Stewart from his mid-career, when he was, e.g., grilling Donald Rumsfeld).
(3) I enjoyed this short story and would like to hear more content like this. It was funny and thoughtful picture of how the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, even in the universe's richest zip codes, as it were. That said, I have two small (though unsolicited!) critiques: (a) it got a bit repetitive as you were building the infinite being's jealousy, so maybe one or two fewer iterations would have kept it a bit more fresh, and (b) I have mixed feelings about the particular slur that you **ironically** used to show that the infinite being (by speaking over a recording of his rival) is imperfect. It is out-of-character for the infinite being and a surprising throw back to reality as we know it and not as your story has us envision it, so it has the shock value that it ought to have at that moment in the story. But (and perhaps this is my Yale snowflake/ivory tower showing) the particular slur you used lands in my ears like a mollified version of the n-word. So perhaps a slur that picks out not racial characteristics but intelligence or sexual-orientation, or perhaps applying a familiar discriminatory predicate to a futuristic group of people that has no present day analog (e.g., "the blorblorbs are taking our jobs," "the garganturoos are poisoning the universe's blood"), perhaps that kind of climax would have made your story a bit better for being a bit more sensitive without compromising its comedic value. (If you had a reason for employing--again, ironically--that particular slur, I'd be curious to know.)
(4) I want the tea on why you left Last Week Tonight (whose ethos made me trust you in the first place a couple years ago, when you started I Might Be Wrong) and your analysis of how the show has improved or deteriorated since you left, though I do appreciate your previous warnings that it's better not to meet your heroes.
Great episode. Just wanted to chime in on Conan and Leno. I was a cue card guy for Conan on the old show. My uncle was the cue card guy for Jay Leno his entire time at NBC. I know both of them better than most people. The whole Leno/Conan story is greatly misunderstood by the public. There is a lot of stuff people don't know, and a lot that is just skewed. Probably based on how people actually feel about them both. People generally "like" Conan more and think he got shafted. That's not how it was, and people might "like" Conan less if they knew how he really was. Not the character he plays on screen. Don't get me wrong. He is one of my favorite comedic personalities, and it isn't like he is some Ellen-esque monster. But he isn't the guy you think he is off-camera. Whereas, Jay is exactly the guy you think he is off-camera. Conan is funnier. But Jay is nicer. And Jay's numbers for that time slot were just better.
Hi Goefyf, writing a massage here since Susbtakc doesn't seem to have a massage fucntoin.
As a semi-literate PhD stunedt in East Asian Languages and Literatures and Philosophy at Yale Uinvsrty who appreciate the smooth tones of your voice and who (barley) read all day for job, I like listen to your podcast -- so much that I throw money to hear more. But have problem. Sometimes podcast new, sometimes reading of article. So when aritlce publish, not sure if will becomb pdocast or not. So never read until after weekly podcast. So sometimes miss out on champagne content because time pass. So that I can become more literature by reading article, ask if you already no whether you read as podcast that indaicate in caption. Thank,
Three more notes (now with my full typing skills activated):
(1) I pay for champagne. Where's the champagne? You've started mentioning that your demo is PhD students (which has made me come out of the woodwork), so I get the sense that I would vibe with some of your other readers/illiterate listeners. I'd be interested in an NYC meet up sometime, if you're ever in the city on a weekend, and especially if you would pick a topic of discussion so we're not just like your fan club, vying for attention over drinks.
(2) Your interview/promotion of Andrew Heaton a couple weeks ago worked! I'm not yet throwing money at him but I am now perusing his library of podcasts. I think you fit his interview niche or a neighboring quite well and I'd like to hear more interviews like it. For instance, I would love to hear you interview, e.g., David French to discuss his 1.4.24 NY Times piece on disqualifying Trump, or, e.g., Ezra Klein to discuss your 5.10.22 NY Times piece and your series of IMBW pieces about the problem with the Radical Left (and maybe to put that in conjunction with the moderate left's NIMBYism problem), or, e.g., Sarah Isgur on the legal underpinning of Chevron deference and policy implications if it's undone in this June's slate of opinions, or, e.g., Matt Yglesias on the evolution of media ecosystems, from his blogging days, to founding Vox, to his fancy blogging on Substack, and the implications of these media formats on political discourse and political actuality. I'm not sure how much humor these guests would allow for, but I appreciate listening to your policy takes too (which to my ears ring like a less righteous, more sensible Jon Stewart from his mid-career, when he was, e.g., grilling Donald Rumsfeld).
(3) I enjoyed this short story and would like to hear more content like this. It was funny and thoughtful picture of how the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, even in the universe's richest zip codes, as it were. That said, I have two small (though unsolicited!) critiques: (a) it got a bit repetitive as you were building the infinite being's jealousy, so maybe one or two fewer iterations would have kept it a bit more fresh, and (b) I have mixed feelings about the particular slur that you **ironically** used to show that the infinite being (by speaking over a recording of his rival) is imperfect. It is out-of-character for the infinite being and a surprising throw back to reality as we know it and not as your story has us envision it, so it has the shock value that it ought to have at that moment in the story. But (and perhaps this is my Yale snowflake/ivory tower showing) the particular slur you used lands in my ears like a mollified version of the n-word. So perhaps a slur that picks out not racial characteristics but intelligence or sexual-orientation, or perhaps applying a familiar discriminatory predicate to a futuristic group of people that has no present day analog (e.g., "the blorblorbs are taking our jobs," "the garganturoos are poisoning the universe's blood"), perhaps that kind of climax would have made your story a bit better for being a bit more sensitive without compromising its comedic value. (If you had a reason for employing--again, ironically--that particular slur, I'd be curious to know.)
(4) I want the tea on why you left Last Week Tonight (whose ethos made me trust you in the first place a couple years ago, when you started I Might Be Wrong) and your analysis of how the show has improved or deteriorated since you left, though I do appreciate your previous warnings that it's better not to meet your heroes.
The colorful probability of being on podcast gauges are great! No words there to trip me up, thanks!
Great episode. Just wanted to chime in on Conan and Leno. I was a cue card guy for Conan on the old show. My uncle was the cue card guy for Jay Leno his entire time at NBC. I know both of them better than most people. The whole Leno/Conan story is greatly misunderstood by the public. There is a lot of stuff people don't know, and a lot that is just skewed. Probably based on how people actually feel about them both. People generally "like" Conan more and think he got shafted. That's not how it was, and people might "like" Conan less if they knew how he really was. Not the character he plays on screen. Don't get me wrong. He is one of my favorite comedic personalities, and it isn't like he is some Ellen-esque monster. But he isn't the guy you think he is off-camera. Whereas, Jay is exactly the guy you think he is off-camera. Conan is funnier. But Jay is nicer. And Jay's numbers for that time slot were just better.