I've got ALS (MND). Completely agree UX is the problem, gazing at a keyboard on a screen designed to stop multiple keys clogging (QWERTY) feels wrong.
Some ideas
- gesture based eye movements, maybe two sweeps on a nine by nine grid, which map directly to phonemes
- enormous 4k 75inch tv with thousands of words or ideograms or phrases
- "writing" with your eyes then doing line to text AI to clean up
- standardish keyboard with massive LLM prediction and clean UX for autocomplete/throwaway with branching options
Ideas are cheap so no clue if these work. Also Tobi split between cheap good non-hackable gaming eyetracking and medical products doesn't help. Finally, with ALS you want to communicate about different things and are more tired.
The math for cheap amazon microscopes is often based on the ratio of a digital image. So use a 60" monitor rather than 30" you have an extra 2x magnification. But not better resolution!
Did this in a shortlived startup 20 yrs ago. Other cofounder was the ideas guy. Pitch was to roll up granular, factual project achievements up into reporting data , and cascade objectives down. This avoids the red/amber/green fictional layer between PMs and sponsors.
Learned two interesting things
- if your tool mandates a philosophy or process, you massively shrink your market
- real pms , sponsors and engineer s buffer their risk by selectively disclosing information. They don't want a permanent record of open, granular outcome information unless they are in a very mature company.
Agree with this. The Lib Dems had an existential crisis at that time (2010) as Labour and the Conservatives were both fighting for the centre ground and it seemed that would become the norm (deeply ironic given Corbyn, Brexit and Truss later).
So Clegg rolled the dice on getting proportional representation rather than first past the post to solve this and lost. He also had a go at being less of an opposition party (where you oppose) and more of a coalition party like in Europe to get things done (post the financial crisis). This failed.
Everyone hates him for tuition fees, but apparently George Osborne told him to vote against the huge raise. Had this happened I doubt people would remember him with the malice they do.
Finally, he always seemed an ethical person (Lib Dems usually are excepting local election shenanigans), so the charges seem odd and out of character, but so did the move to facebook.
Management is about sensemaking. Management provides the last answer (if one is needed) for 'Why are we doing this?'. It carries accountability for calling 'when to stop', and in the obverse provides belief and is the backstop that 'this can be done'. It therefore also has accountability for changing constraints (money, scope, resource, time) if needed when asked.
Management ties contexts together, so other individuals don't have to ask infinite 'whys', they trust the manager has this covered.
Management can be done by individuals, within the team, or hierarchically. All can work.
Personally strongly disagree with 'managers typically have no skin in the game'. I find it is necessary to care about the outcome and the team and the customer when I work, but YMMV. Do agree that management is a support, though I prefer to use the analogy that it is the 'glue' role
It's always ok to leave a company - if they can't survive without you, you are doing them a disservice.
But it's an interesting question - I've been intrigued throughout my career (5-25 person project management)
"Which 'reality disconnects' are important and need addressing, which can be left to lie, and which ones are fatal?"
Still don't really have the answer but my guidelines would go like this
- There has to be at least one part of the project (hopefully the most important) that is functional and grounded in reality to grow from. If there isn't then scrap the project/ do a new project. ( In consultancy a question to ask a new client was - Tell me about your last project that succeeded and your last project that failed - sometimes they had no successes - that was worth knowing)
- Fight the small battles all the time - How do we know what done is? Are the tests good? Is that code understandable? Are the specs and interfaces understood? Are we shipping sh*t?. You need to keep your principles here or you can't mentor and good people won't follow/ trust you
- Some of the big battles especially the political ones can only be fought in very specific contexts (changing budgets, team structure, new cultures). Put down a marker you'd like to see improvement there, but also state that now is not the time till the fundamentals are done.
- At the end of the day imagine yourself as a new hire in your team. If the new hire thinks 'My boss isn't the right person to lead the team' then think about leaving/changing roles. If they think 'Wow this is a tough job but I can see how we get there' keep on going. If they think 'I respect my boss but no-one can fix this mess' then think about re-negotiating to what can be done(either leave or help re-base things). If the 'junior you' isn't going to stay in your team, then things aren't going to work.
Strongly recommend Rands in Repose - Bits, Features, Truth
Question - I've managed (bottom-up, servant-leadership, small smart teams) a few very very smart people who may or not have had ADHD, or been partially on a spectrum or ... I truly appreciated the awesome work and have been open and honest and dealt with all sorts of emotional issues and variable progress on simple tasks and diving down rat-holes etc and seen some amazing overall results and had some great co-workers. The area I really struggle with is when people get temporarily obsessed with a topic that is so far removed from the project and its goals, that I can't cover them e.g. they want to completely redevelop an established, adjacent area of expertise (new to them) from scratch. Any advice on how to have this dialog up-front e.g. we have a software project and I'll back you a long way on these areas A B C for good exploratory work, but designing a new compiler or doing a full org redesign or building custom hardware is not something I can back you on so can we agree that at the outset and just trust me, or let's agree a protocol for how to deal with these situations?
Thanks, we are pretty low budget. Image circles are in the 1/3", 2/3" range and we are looking at patterns with say 5 to 50 um pitch on a flat planar object, monochromatic, we control illumination, standard 3.45 um pixels (so 1k to 5kish).
We have a decent small design with two elements (good planarity, ok resolving and ok ish depth of field are what we care about). But we also sometimes look at larger frame (aps-c and up) and are also interested in smaller (eg VGA Omnivision type tiny module but with a decent planar macro lens e.g. f= 4 or 6mm, for 0.5 or 1x mag would be interesting). We do imager based metrology at the sub um and nm level
The back to back infinity-focussed objective set up works nicely with 2 sets of cheap infinity microscope objectives 2x or 4x back to back in a thorlabs tube. Paired lenses cancel out a lot of aberrations (but not all of them). I use this setup regularly for fairly close up, highly planar projective work. For 'low magnifications' say 2:1 and up the Edmunds 2X, 0.15 NA, Ultra Compact Objective has decent price/performance, but this is for sensors in the 1/1.8 - 1" range. If you come up with a nice, planar, cheapish 1:1 design for large sensors, drop me a line. (Disclaimer - not an optics person, but peered into the fascinating rabbit hole)
Agreed, and I would add pre-web
well authored Microsoft help files/ hypertext were often really valuable and could be very well done. Also you could build them after the software was done, or before, as the spec in progress. Think msft help was one of the unsung heroes of their success. But if you have changing software Google/SO is much faster.
(Disclaimer, used to work on 'performance support' systems late 90s, one of the points of focus was how do you help users keep improving their combined tool use, team performance and business understanding)
Was working with the x264 crowd fun or exasperating or ...? Video-encoding is such a polymath topic (compression, perception, optimisation) and that code was so smart. I clearly remember mb-tree coming out and x264 quality/bitrate performance changing from good to supergood, and reading Dark Shikari's check in note about taking the implicit dependency graph and using it to propagate the relative quality of the blocks and it was a 'wow' moment. Also the Loren Merritt quote page still holds up well http://www.x264.nl/developers/Dark_Shikari/loren.html . Thank you