meetings should have a purpose and a good manager guides the meeting towards that purpose and minimizes the superfluous. if people are generally bad communicators or a poor self-motivators, meetings can be a good way of keeping a project moving forward.
managers that want meetings simply because that is what they are supposed to do are not giving enough consideration to everyone's time. sometimes a meeting can simply be a managers way of giving an over worked team a break (hey let's watch this TED talk) but the pointlessness there, again, has its purpose.
Adding to your understand and ask questions point; make lots of mistakes on purpose (or not) and see if the results were what you expected. the why (or why not) might be the vulnerability.
This would have been so useful years ago. I think it was 1996 or so. Most of my friends were still in college but I had already had my startup running. It was early enough in the dot com era that my business was designed to make money, so I had a decent amount of cash in comparison to my universally impoverished university buddies.
Anyhow, my best friends were throwing this weekend house party where all the local freaks, geeks, and hipsters would be in attendance. So when my best friend called me to convince me to come in for the party that weekend, for whatever reason, I had this dumb idea. Perhaps this was a harbinger of the pre-dot-com opulence to come and the idea, of course, was on a much smaller scale but nevertheless, for no reason whatsoever except that I had for the first time in my life a bunch of cash burning a hole in my pocket, I suggested we get a mariachi band for the party. My friend looked into it. He found a group. He told me the amount for the basic band. I forget what was going to cost $250 extra to bring along as a musician (maybe an extra trumpet) but it all seemed very worth it. We needed the proper instrumentation represented.
When the band arrived with the party in full swing, they were pretty freaked out, since, this was not the normal kind of gig they played; no, not collage parties. So the woman dealing with the thing asked for half the cash up front. She also upped the price a bunch from the initial agreed upon amount but I didn't care. I was really just looking forward to seeing them play near the tapped keg around a bunch of mystified acquaintances. Now if I could have only gotten this done for $100, I would have filled the whole house with competing acts that night. Great work Über and thanks for bring back a fond memory.
Since I got my Macbook Air 11", I have regularly called it an iPad Pro. "Why not just get an iPad," people ask. Well, this is my travel system for hacking.
(On initial glance, the google translate version is an acceptable translation to get an idea of what is being said).
As you will see, their platform is not a single issue and the likely reason why the Piraten Partei was successful in the last Berlin local election. They were so successful they won every seat they could possibly have held. If they were any more successful, the additional seat(s) would have had to been left empty, since the Partei only had so many candidates running.
I think the thing that you are missing here is that if a comedian of his success was to go through the normal channels, he would be able to negotiate a large upfront payout (a la HBO or comedy central). So the $0 amount Jim Gaffigan is concerned about here is releasing something that he has worked hard on and making significantly less than he would otherwise. The less well known artist would likely be overjoyed at the 1 000 000 x $0 model of exposure since that artist would not likely be able to negotiated much upfront or have much say in the editing of his act anyhow.
Still, I agree that Jim Gaffigan is presenting the copyright argument in a very un-savvy way. Louis C.K. seemed to get it.