According to their IndieGoGo page, the Gemini is still in prototype stage - it hasn't yet entered production. Is it possible they can go to manufacture and ship devices in December?
Quote from the article: "This console, made for shooters and runners and jumpers, could become something much greater than Nintendo ever imagined, because anyone who wants to can build the software and hardware to improve it."
Is this true? Is it no longer necessary to be an approved Nintendo developer to write software for it?
I recall back in the day it was difficult for an indy to get a Nintendo dev licence. What's changed here?
EDIT: For those who care - this is what I just found...
I've seen this company (http://www.specdev.com) demoing AR visualizations for wind farm development here in the Netherlands. I've also seen another company (which I don't recall the name) demonstrating a hololens app for maintaining wind turbines.
This is very interesting, the current price of VR hardware is too high for the average consumer (based on research from EEDAR). $299 is a move further towards mass adoption for PC based VR - excellent!
Additionally, the study does not differentiate between therapy types received - treatment modalities vary in efficacy depending on person and context. For example, 20 years ago it was known within psychology that "Cognitive Therapy" had about a 50/50 success rate. However, if you try to apply cognitive therapy to someone diagnosed with borderline personality disorder - it's not likely to work ever - and might actually make things worse (Dialectic Behavioural Therapy is probably the gold standard for this).
As you travel down the road towards being a psych. professional - you tend to subscribe a school of thought about behavior and personality, and there are a few to choose from (e.g. people are generally self-directed and will solve their own problems given the opportunity, or behavioural problems have their roots in learning - so training is required) - and depending on your opinion you'll eventually subscribe to a treatment modality that resonates with what you believe (the extreme version of this is abandoning psychology & switching to medicine / psychiatry because you believe behavior is simply a neurochemical process).
Serious personality disorders are very difficult to treat, which brings me to my next point. The Big-Five factor model used to determine change over time does not factor diagnosis, so we don't really get a picture of what the cohort looks like. We know nothing about patient history or reason for seeking therapy (i.e. have you been evaluated admitted to a psychiatric ward in the past? have you suffered from substance abuse problems?). And finally, the big question that would be useful is "what problems caused you to seek therapy?" Depression vs. hearing voices in one's head vs. got divorced because I like to drink are all very different issues.
I would like to have seen at least three more measures: reason for treatment, length of treatment and therapy modality used.
However, I will say that stating that "new research proves that therapy doesn't work" will get you a click or two ;-)
A respected book on this subject is McKee : Story: Style, Structure, Substance, and the Principles of Screenwriting.
The principle is simple, each atomic item (a moment / a beat etc.) in the story needs to represent a polar change in human values (e.g. Love->Hate, Hope->Despair etc.) - atomic items are grouped into higher levels (scenes), which again have an overarching change in values, and again these levels are grouped into even higher levels (acts etc.) which repeat the same pattern. Finally, at the top level - the story itself from the beginning to end also has the value change idea.
One of the things McKee taught me - if a scene, beat or moment doesn't have a change in values - then it's probably not interesting (filler) and you should think about cutting it.
Hope this helps anyone interested in story structure... I highly recommend reading McKee.
Yes. Further, if you put yourself in his shoes. What are you doing in those three weeks? You've sold them on the growth strategy - now you're getting up to speed on the details getting ready to execute. It's natural that you'd look into things in more detail. If you find something that's not right... whoah... differences.
If you were a fraudster, you'd just go along with it ;-)
I registered a throwaway account to play devils advocate with what feels like a straw-man argument from yourself:
>digiforce.com directs to some random japanese site
It could be that the brand digaforce wasn't valuable to strategic link partners & they let it go.
> the Strategic Link site looks like something made from a (bad) wordpress template.
Their target market looks like military and law enforcement. You don't necessarily need shiny marketing to sell to the land of powerpoint: personal selling through established contacts works. Ex military stick together because of how bonds were forged.
>I almost wonder if he made up a company to acquire his company.
Are you suggesting he invented strategic link partners? This is probably pretty easy to validate as their management is well documented on their site - all ex military.
>Next, no way Facebook hires someone like that to lead "THE" growth team for pages.
You've built the next step of your argument assuming your previous allegations are true.
>Maybe as an entry level PM or something.
Is what you argued previously about his character true or not? If he was fraudulent (i.e. inventing companies etc.) then Facebook probably wouldn't hire at all (or he'd get washed out pretty quickly).
> He was only at facebook for 1.5 years, which also makes me skeptical he was such a high priority hire for Snapchat.
His allegation says that Snapchats intent was to gain confidential information about Facebook. Does 1.5 years matter in this case? Recent information is what's key here.
> Sounds like a bunch of hot air and resume puffing to me.
What are the facts we know for sure? He worked for Facebook. He was involved in some startups. He is ex military. He was hired by snapchat briefly and fired.
>My guess is that Snapchat realized he had an overly active imagination and had taken liberties with his resume.
Have you read his complaint? He alleges he was calling out snapchat internally on misrepresenting metrics to prospective investors - and they fired him for it.
What's more likely? He faked his way into Facebook and survived 1.5 year, generated enough demand to get noticed by Snapchat and then jumped to snapchat only to be found out to be completely incompetent in three weeks?
Or... his military / honour based mindset got him in trouble when he saw things happening in snapchat that were at odds with his value system.
There is definitely smoke here in my opinion. You have to be grossly incompetent to get fired within three weeks. If he did manage to fake his way into Facebook then he does have a level of competency. To me, it doesn't make sense that he'd screw up and get fired in three weeks. Especially given his military background.
http://www.computerarcheology.com/Arcade/SpaceInvaders/