Having a following on social media has great benefits for regular techies, not just influencers and entertainers, etc. It lets you magnify your resume to reach people with authority who you normally couldn't connect with. It helps you get spots at conferences, seats on cool new projects or positions that you can further leverage to increase your online fame and bump up your compensation. You can also use your following to get preferential treatment with companies and authorities, have your problems solved faster. Got your app removed from the Play Store with no explanation? Raise a stink on Twitter.
That's one of the reasons why people are so quick to join the fray and throw a punch. They want to be that one quick Tweet that goes viral, gets them thousands of followers and builds their brand.
I'm curious, what's the obstacle? Can't they take the display from the hololens, make it smaller and integrate it into one eye of an existing headset that the military uses?
I don't work with the tech, but is there a use case for operating drones in the field?
You want to peek around a corner or under a door, drop a tiny robot. Operate it with a handheld joystick and get a camera feed into your headset while still maintaining your regular field of vision.
Final product won't necessarily take the form of the hololens. Might just be an attachment to whatever standard equipment they have, more like a Google glass.
> losing half of his fortune in the case of a failed marriage
Marriage isn't a necessity for this to happen. In some jurisdictions (e.g. Canada) you even don't have to have been married to pay alimony in the case of a split.
I don't know what it is, but I actually find a visual of the speaker to improve the tutorial, even if it's not strictly necessary for the material. I think it helps with engagement.
Perhaps I was the one stretching with my "cursory search", because I missed the pseudonym. A million sales is certainly "famous" from any reasonable standpoint.
If it's the same author I found based on a cursory search from your profile, then "famous" is a bit of a stretch.
> Where I think it hurt was we didn't do any group social activities and lived in remote places
I got a similar feeling reading about Chris Paolini. Homeschooled, raised in a remote place. Fed a lot of his early life experiences, particularly travel, into his novels but felt alienated from other kids.
>Then I just got tired of having to Google obscure Linux issues, edit config files, and reboot all the time.
So is this the normal state of Linux then? Every few years I'll take some time to try and "learn Linux" by installing a distro and try to use it as part of my regular workflow. It's always been a never ending train of very specific and obscure, time consuming issues. My personal motto for Linux is "It Just Doesn't Work" (at least for desktop). Even basic stuff like Wi-Fi and the login screen often doesn't work correctly and requires more tweaking. Using MacOS, it's different and you have to get used to things. But it's not an bottomless pit of time sunk into fixing configurations. Windows isn't perfect, but at least I don't feel like I'm wasting my time.
To be fair I don't think Linux is bad (obviously or it wouldn't be widely used), just that those who like it, either enjoy solving these issues or started with it during a time when they could spare the effort, and so they built up enough experience for it to no longer be a chore.
Here's a concern I'd have investing in this space. What percent of the population* prefers receiving physical photos from loved ones instead of digital ones, and how do you expect that group to change within the next few decades?
* Within the geographic area that you plan to serve, e.g. USA and potentially Canada, West Europe
I really have to applaud your courage to start in a space that's already occupied. I know I couldn't do something that wasn't absolutely novel because the marketing chops aren't there.
EDIT: Absolutely brilliant. Your service is the top result on Google for "send photos to grandparent" and you snuck an ad into the featured result listicle. Not to mention this very "informative post" that doubles as an ad.
I recall the GeForce Partner Program raised some controversy, although I couldn't say whether or it was bad or good or why.
There's also the issue with them refusing to open source Linux drivers. Supposedly this is because they throttle workstation GPUs to create a market for higher-end versions while reducing the manufacturing diversity, but I haven't heard a definitive source for this.
>Human groups don't reproduce in pairs and undergo selection, but individual humans do.
Under a sufficiently low population density, genes among splintered groups will diverge. Groups with genes that promote expansion and/or adaptation will eventually out-compete groups that don't. Does this process not occur?
>It's hard to find any examples of genetic material of a group being lost when that group was outcompeted by another group.
Isn't the extinction of other human species an example of this?
I also think people underestimate the amount of knowledge and experience it takes to become a good manager (or any other talent for that matter). In discussions I often hear people claim that they could take on a leadership role and succeed simply because they are good in social settings and "have a way with others". I've seen a few of these people try and fail because they didn't think about the other components of management such as conflict resolution, delegation, etc.
I've only taken on trivial leadership roles, so my default assumption is that I am not a good manager. For most other skills I can practice and gain proficiency on my own, but with management, trial and error comes at the cost of others' time. I assume there is some training you can take to give you basic skills, but I think real experience has to be gained through a gradual expansion of responsibilities, which requires mentorship and an environment that supports that kind of process.
>Put someone not on a spectrum in a society of people on the spectrum, & you'd be labelling the person not on the spectrum as having a mental disorder.
You could still argue that non-spectrum people are more "naturally" normal. Competition among societies has selected for groups where non-spectrum individuals are more numerous, possibly because this ratio leads to less conflict and more cooperation.
I wonder if groups are selected for a prevalence of 2 to 4 individuals per thousand [1] because these types of individuals have been responsible for technological progress in some way.