That extra amount likely would have been more than cancelled out after your kid went to school, due to higher future wages (raises over time, plus your ex not having a huge gap in her work history).
It sounds like you are putting well more than the 150K in with your year worth of effort on the prototype. In my experience, bringing someone on who does not currently have skills that are immediately useful (besides "enthusiasm") will end with you doing all the work. You're basically giving away half of what you have spent so much time on as well as half your money, and will likely continue doing the bulk of the work moving forward. Unless this person is VERY charming and connected with maybe some business skills, I would recommend finding someone who is equally as capable as you and has produced something of similar complexity in the past. Ideally with a very complementary skill set.
I'd maybe give them 10-20%, but vested somehow and tied to deliverables.
Yeah I watched Ken Burns' Dust Bowl series, curious to find out how the dust bowl was resolved. Long story short, it was solved by pumping water from the aquifers which will eventually run out.
My induction was invasive, uncomfortable, long, and I definitely had mixed feelings about being pressured into it by doctors. If I had NO choice in it, it would have absolutely been traumatic. Might have been boring for you but maybe ask your wife how she would have felt if she had no choice in it.
Totally. My 2014 iPad mini is now retired because it won't run the latest versions of some key streaming apps (I mostly use it to watch TV in bed). I know if I had already downloaded the apps in the past I would be able to install old versions of them, but because I didn't do that, I'm stuck.
I've had the same reaction to that word, until I actually looked it up and it's more about you care about something so much you're willing to suffer for it. Soo... a little different than the colloquial version. I still dislike it and think it's overused, but am now slightly more comfortable if people describe me as "passionate".
I would try to avoid this FOMO mindset, it leads to burnout/possibly depression in like 5-10 years. I would focus on a) finding out what problems you are most interested in working on and b) having some fun while you're young and don't worry about being "lazy" (you're obviously in no danger of that).
I think it's best when you're young to not be focused/specialized too soon, but cast a wide net - maybe find a couple of projects that you're interested in doing that are somewhat interdisciplinary. College is good for this as well. Good luck!
Yeah I think it's sometimes just about time spent. I have a 15 month old and my husband and he have always had a strong bond because he's around all the time: He works from home, has more flexible work than me, and I have an office 10 min away that I go to.
You know, maybe he just has a huge blind spot when it comes to optimization: Because he's so good at it, he overestimates others' ability (and possibly appetite for - I personally find optimization grueling and soul deadening work though of course needs to be done)
Ok then crappy 3dof VR on mobile, of which GearVR was a variety. Bottom line, Facebook/Carmack pushed mobile vr prematurely in order to get the most users possible, but the experience sucked and users lost interest. Meta just made the same mistake with horizon
Yeah in my opinion him pushing so hard for GearVR seriously negatively impacted the industry. Tons of people had their first intro to VR be some crappy 360 video on mobile VR and it did lasting damage to society's perception of VR
To me, it's an art vs. craft issue and there are many shades of gray to the discussion, because the root is really based in the question that every first-year art student is tasked with answering for themselves "What is art?"
If art for you is primarily centered on fidelity of implementation (i.e. "craft") then you will be very threatened by AI, particularly if you've made it your livelihood. However, if your art is more about communication/concepts, then you might even feel empowered by having such a toolset and not having to slog through a bunch of rote implementation when developing your ideas/projects. Not to mention that a single person will be able to achieve much much more.
I feel like it's possibly a good thing for art/humanity overall to stop conflating craft with art, because new ideas will rise above all of the AI-generated images. i.e. splashiness alone will no longer be rewarded.
In an ideal future when we all live in the Star Trek universe, none of it will matter and whoever loves crafting stuff can do it all day long. Until then of course, it's tragic and lots of people will be out of jobs.
When it comes to lighting, I've realized that a portion of the population (possibly the majority) prefers everything extremely brightly lit with overhead lights. I prefer soft warm lighting with many small lamps scattered around and lots of darker areas, but through experience I've learned that this makes some people super uncomfortable, especially those with vision issues.
Exactly? I wasn't the one who classified Drew Barry's work, widely acknowledged as some of the very best and most accurate in molecular animation, as "lies" ... so, not really sure what you're saying? In reality, humans can't see down to the nanoscale with their eyes, yet there are real 3D structures down there that have a physical form. If we display them as being a couple of inches large so that humans can see the shape, is that misleading? Should we never try to visualize anything for fear of it not accurately representing reality?
I guess my point is, as someone who has done a ton of work in this area, there are a million choices one can make when choosing what to visualize, and the lines between truth/reality/lies/accuracy can get muddled. A lot of it depends on context, use cases etc. For example, a star high school teacher may show one of Drew Barry's animations to their class and use it as an example of the limitations of visualization. A creationist could use the same animation as evidence of "God's perfect design".
What I'm understanding from the article and from your arguments, is that unless you can guarantee that a piece of work 100% represents reality in all its complexity, it does more harm than good. I'm politely disagreeing, I think it's better for these works to exist: "Perfection is the enemy of done".
There was a part in Isaac Asimov's autobiography that stuck with me, where in high school he wasn't the best student in any subject. However, he was the SECOND best at EVERY subject, whereas the "best" students were only the best at one subject. So I think for some people, there is value in not being the "best" at anything but being good a lots of things regardless of overall ranking.
Yeah I mean, we could just never use real structural data and just communicate purely in symbols that way users would know it's "not real", or inherit a billion dollars and come up with a perfect simulator and high-end computers for all of humanity to view it. This stuff is HARD to make, and nearly impossible to satisfy everyone. Drew Barry's animations are "lying" because they're not a perfect representation of reality? In my opinion, it's better for his animations to exist and be "lying" than have nothing.
On the other hand, if everything is always presented in its full complexity with a million caveats and you lose people because they don't have the prerequisite knowledge to be able to digest it, I guarantee this will result in many, many more potential contributions being lost than from those who were just "satisfied that it was all worked out already".
People like this are one of the reasons biology visualization is so difficult: Nothing less than a perfect simulation is good enough, and any editorial/design choices to make certain processes perceptible to humans are problematic in some way. It's all true really, but there are many valid reasons to create visualizations that are less-than-perfect. But yeah it's a fine balance between accuracy and the appearance of accuracy (e.g presenting a process as linear when it's really stochastic)
You should definitely try beta blockers instead. Just ask your doctor, say it's for public speaking - they'll probably give it to you, it's a very common issue. Very few side effects for occasional use and completely dampens the adrenaline response
Yeah the lesson with getting IRB approval if you want it done in less than 6 months is to always use an external IRB (if possible). Institutional IRBs are sloooooowwww.
The Earth is overpopulated, and also you're completely disregarding that women may not want to do the insanely hard work of growing, birthing, and raising a child in lieu of other work they find fulfilling and which could potentially have an overall greater impact on humanity. Speaking as someone who just had a baby 1 year ago - it's great and I love my little guy, but is it the most important thing I've ever done? Debatable.
I actually was offered a free one by them, but because they would have given it as a 'gift' vs. an 'extended loan' I would have had to pay like $1k in taxes for it so I passed, knowing that I probably didn't have time to actually implement anything and that the market would be so small anyway (I had already tried one at a couple conferences).
I am the exact same way and yeah took me till my early 30's and a couple bad calls before I started fully trusting it (in my 40s now). It's weird how it doesn't translate to video chat though, but you are right that it totally doesn't work. Maybe it's because people are able to adjust aspects of their presentation that masks part of their personality. Or maybe something biochemical e.g. pheromones!