Gridiron football would probably work well for something like this: each play has a line of scrimmage, yards gained or lost, and a summary of the play (eg: from their own 47 yard- line, QB#3 threw a lateral to RB#8 with 3:08 remaining in the third quarter and gained 2 yards and was brought down by DT#10). Most importantly, there are defined "plays" that run from snap to down, which means you can summarize it.
NBA play would be very different and very difficult, because there are no defined plays, only possessions. It'd include relative locations on the floor (lane, 2pt area, 3pt area), list of players who touched the ball, and what the outcome was (2pt, 3pt, turnover, out-of-bounds, etc).
I used to work at Microsoft and was on the other side, unfortunately I had the exact opposite experience. I interviewed and rejected a candidate (due to poor technical performance) then had the hiring manager contact me asking if I would reconsider as he needed to "increase DEI" footprint of his team. He wanted me to lower the bar for DEI reasons.
This response seems to indicate you don't have or want children. There's the emotional and human aspect to having children. Love, family, respect, etc. I'm throwing words around but if these things mean something to you then you'd understand.
I feel western society has lost many of these but you see these concepts upheld in immigrant families in the US.
Grit and perseverance are often talked about as critical qualities in building something successful but knowing when to quit and start over is equally as important.
Food for thought, that most "startup" gurus don't preach.
There’s a big difference between quitting a side project and giving up on a startup. With the startup, you have other people depending on you.
IMO, this is the real power you can leverage with a side project, the power to change your mind and bounce between completely different ideas. Those famous side projects that become companies? I’d bet that a lot of them were not the first or even third iteration.
I thought it was the other way around nowadays, the 'lean' way?. Correct me if I am wrong, I thought founders are encouraged to pivot if can't find market fit early.
Elon was surprised too. The model 3 was supposed to have a fully automated line. He couldn't make it happen. Industrial robots are bad at wiggling stuff into place, and hopeless at handling error cases. https://qz.com/1261214/how-exactly-tesla-shot-itself-in-the-...
Elon is the biggest day dreamer who imagines everything can be solved with technology around the corner in 6 months, but has a hard time acknowledging when the harsh realities hit him in the face, that real world engineering challenges aren't as simple as those in building successful websites.
He's gotten further with subsequent products. A lot of the learnings with model 3 went into the model y and later iterations of the model 3. And of course cybertruck.
Industrial robot usage and other manufacturing innovations are a big reason they are leading the industry in manufacturing cost and speed. Other manufacturers are starting to emulate a lot of the things they are doing with structural battery manufacturing, casting big parts, etc. The likes of VW and others are (by their own admission) behind and struggling with the number of parts, amount of manual work, etc. It might not be as automated as Elon Musk would like but it is pretty impressive.
It will be interesting to see what they do with their upcoming cheaper model. He seems to be hinting at the notion that further manufacturing improvements are going to be a big part of that.
The one that really surprised me for some reason was PCB manufacturing. The Strange Parts YouTube channel has a few tours of Chinese factories, and I guess I pictured that it's just some sort of giant clean room with a long conveyor belt that goes through all the processes on its own. So I was not expecting it to start with grabbing a blank PCB from a pile stored outside and taking a band saw to it. Such a mix of high-tech automation and human hands picking things up, racking them on the table, and sticking them into the next machine.
The board level electronics assembly is mostly an solved problem that can be automated perfectly fine, but when you get to through-hole almost nobody does it, because (a) the THT capable pick and place machines are uncummon and thus somewhat expensive (b) it often requires more expensive parts that are compatible with such machines (better geometry tolerances, surfaces for the machine to pick them...) and finally (c) the NRE costs of getting that to work.
That said, then there are niches where the automated THT assembly apparently makes sense and all the NRE costs seem to be offset by lower per-unit costs of the PCB material itself. Prime example is mid-range to high-end home AV equipment (Japanese branded if not made in Japan outright), where the large mostly empty single-sided FR-2 boards with truly ridiculous amounts of obviously machine populated wire-links and discrete THT radial components are particularly striking.
I was surprised to learn that the production of stamping tools, used to shape panels from sheet stock, involves lots of manual passes to bring them to the quality and finish required by car manufacturers.
After machine milling them roughly to spec there are employees that angle grind, sandpaper and polish every critical surface of these 10 ton chunks of metal.
People think automation solves problems - it's the opposite. In order to use automation, you have to solve every problem that the automation could encounter.
It's not clearly shown in this, but the majority of the work is manually adding parts.
ATM the biggest problem for LRAD is cost, you fire a $12K Patriot missile to intercept what is either a $40 million jet or a $300 drone. This is revolutionary.
Directed energy (laser) will solve this issue, so that Patriots are only engaged for expensive planes, while lasers will destroy drones and cheap ballistic rockets
No, lasers will not be a sufficient defense against ballistic missiles. Lasers require time to burn through the target. With ballistic missiles, they're facing a target traveling 5+ times the speed of sound (ie. little time), that also has heat shielding on the bit that's facing the target. Not to mention adverse weather conditions. And missiles w
Lasers will, however, be very effective at SHORAD, especially against cheap drones, rockets, artillery shells and cruise missiles, in the proper conditions. Iron Beam is projected to cost $0.50-$1.00 in electricity per shot, compared to a $50-60k Iron Dome interceptor missile (which is already insanely cheap for what it is).
They will not solve this issue because laser weapons will not work when light is defracted (fog, heavy clouds, rain), and they will not work against targets beyond the horizon. It's not a technology hurdle, it's a physics impossibility.
Interceptor missiles are here to stay. Lasers will accompany them but never replace.
You can (in theory) guide an air-to-air missile in at that range remotely using an optical targeting pod on the launching fighter, it's generally more risky though because you can't immediately break contact like you can with a Meteor for example. Meteor is highly resistant to ECM however, and a remote guided missile might not be. In all cases however, any laser system you can power on a fighter jet (assuming current and near future technology) will not be able to target a manned or unmanned fighter jet in a way that a remote guided missile system can't. A laser system could be useful for close range defense.
Gepard is a specialized anti-air vehicle with a radar and pretty expensive shells. Very effective and cheaper than Patriot/NASAMS/IRIS-T missiles, but not really cheap. It’s mainly used on the outskirts of big cities, AFAIK.
When intercepting drones and rockets in a middle of nowhere, what’s often used is a regular machine gun that’s mounted on a pickup truck.
The better AA autocanon shells actually have a timed airburst fuze (set at firing time!) so only small fragments should be raining down (for non-dud shells).
I wonder if this is an immediate cost cutting measure to focus on manufacturing for their primary market. Seems like it would be to satisfy shareholders.
The US market has very strong incentives for electric cars (and some other clean tech) at the moment, to the point that Europeans have complained it's unfair subsidy. Makes sense to use those incentives while they last.
It isn't cost cutting in the traditional sense because it is the same production line and the same employees. They're just not having to reconfigure the production line to RHD, then reconfigure it back to normal.
Rather than measuring quality of the college or the university evaluate each person independently. I've worked with great people from "unknown" universities and vice versa. Everybody is unique.
I just bought a Mac Pro M2 in January after using a 2013 Macbook air for ~10 years. It lasted me through college and more, still runs smoothly to this day. Apple's build quality cannot be understated.
