kartickv

> No one is saying watch all the years videos. I see whatever I am working on and intrested.

Yes, but if I'm working on image processing, videos related to that go back many years, and things covered in earlier videos are often not covered in later ones.

Other that than, let's agree to disagree. Maybe you're right, maybe not, we'll see :)

Oh, which one? I was under the impression it uses only Nvidia GPUs (CUDA) on desktop.

As an iOS engineer, I remember reading that OpenCV is a few TIMES slower than alternatives like Core Image.

I wish OpenCV made use of the GPU and vector hardware on phones. Is there an alternative to OpenCV that does?

I was asking if you've found your other skills ignored even when you could explain to the company how they're relevant for them. For example, if you can do accounting, and you're applying to work at a company like Tally that makes accounting software, and you explain to them how your accounting skills are an added reason to hire you, have they, in your experience, still ignored those skills?

> would a tool that educates and puts some of the cost back on the "idea person" or stakeholder be a good thing? I think it would.

So would I, as I mentioned in my reply to you. It's easy to propose ideas without regard to cost like a "minor enhancement" that takes 6 person-months.

Sure but most people don't live in the middle of the Pacific, so is an optimised system possible for them?

It's hard to reach that level of skill in two (let alone three) fields in a reasonable amount of time.

It may also take your focus away from becoming good enough in your primary skill to pass the hiring bar. If you can do engineering, marketing and UX design, but you're not good enough in any of these fields to get hired as an engineer, marketer or designer, you're in trouble.

I think it's better to pick a primary field, get to the top 10% in that field, while being good enough at a secondary skill. For example, "I'm a great engineer, but I can also get you your first 10,000 users on the marketing side. I won't be as good as a dedicated marketing person, of course, but I can get this job done." Then you can apply for an engineer job, convince them how good an engineer you're, and then convince them that you also have some design and marketing skills.

(10% was an arbitrary number. The point is that your skills in your primary field should be good enough to clear the bar.)

A possibly silly question: did you counter with "Why don't you test my engineering skills if you don't believe me? Give me a fair chance. And then, if I'm not good, by all means reject me." That's assuming you've applied for an engineering job.

Another question: as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18484883 says, would it help to rewrite your CV to highlight what the job is looking for? Again, if it's an engineering job, talk about your eng accomplishments in great detail, with perhaps only a bullet point for other skills at the bottom of the resume?

As https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/ says:

> Did the solicitation for the job say “We are seeking someone with strong skills at scaling traffic in a fast-moving environment”? Pick out the key words. Scaling traffic. Fast-moving environment. “Scaling traffic” doesn’t sound like how I’d phrase it if I were writing or speaking for myself, but if you’ve just described your need to me as scaling traffic, by golly I will tell you how great I am at scaling traffic.

Is your experience with companies that could make use of your other skill? If you understand accounting, and you're applying to a company that makes photography apps, that won't be given much value.

Are you also good in your primary skill? Is it like 100% of engineering (say) + 20% of UX design, or 60% each of engineering and UX design? In the former case, one will clear the bar for an engineer job post, with your UX design skills helping to position you above other qualified engineers. In the latter case, you may be judged unqualified and rejected.

And what do you think about related skills, like UX design or marketing in addition to programming.

Is your experience with companies that could make use of your other skill? If you understand accounting, and you're applying to a company that makes photography apps, that won't be given much value.

I agree with your main point about empower people.

It seems that people are coming to you to help estimate how long an idea takes to implement. If that's the case, I agree with everything you've said.

But if they're proposing an idea, say a new sign up form to increase conversions, phone number validation is an irrelevant detail to worry about at this point (unless that was a significant problem with the old sign up form).

I take your point about usability as opposed to visual design, and that many slick-looking UIs actually lower productivity.

But:

In this example, unless not handling international phone numbers leads to failure of the project, that can be handled later, say once the project is approved and time estimation is being done. If I'm building a notes app, and someone is proposing a new sign up form to increase conversions, and it has a phone number field, handling international numbers is the last thing to worry about at this stage (unless international numbers are a significant problem with the old form leading to abandonment).

We shouldn't doom good ideas with irrelevant details, which are absolutely relevant later, but not now. Product development happens in phases of increasing fidelity, and issues need to be brought up at the appropriate time, not too early, not too late.

Or get a list of documents sorted by access level or the person you've shared it with. Like a CA you hired 3 years ago to file your taxes no longer needs access to your financial information.

Many posts, especially when posted to HN or linked from some other blog, are read by people who're not regulars. Besides, people scan, not always read end to end.

I didn't ask about users in densely populated areas. Imagine two villagers on opposite sides of the world communicating via Starlink. Would it be cheaper per bit for Starlink to offload the data to the nearest metro area, from where it can travel around the world by fiber, till the closest metro area for the receiver, at which point it gets sent via satellite? In other words, use satellite only as the last mile on each end, not for the backbone.

Starlink wouldn't be in violation of net neutrality, so the comparison with Free Basics isn't the right one.

It will take off if it's better bang for the buck at any market segment. That can be Rs. 100 a month or Rs.2000 a month. If it's better than the alternatives people can get at that price, they'll use it.

Ouch.

That's viable for consumers only if it's shared, like by providing an open Wifi access point to everyone around it, or via Ethernet in an apartment or a small village.

Makes sense, thanks for clarifying.

I'm sure something can be worked out with an Indian partner company letting the government block sites it doesn't want and spying on us, like existing ISPs do.

If Starlink didn't route data in space and instead used space only as a last mile, would it be significantly cheaper, or have higher bandwidth, or be feasible to provide without data caps? What are the economic and technical tradeoffs here?

I don't mind the latency of today's fiber or cable Internet, and if it's problem, it can be solved by moving servers closer to users.

That is, what if, instead of bypassing the fiber backbone, Starlink just tried to connect everyone to it? Because I'm assuming that sending a terabit of data between two major cities, like Chennai to NYC is going to be cheaper via undersea fiber.

I agree with you but on second thoughts, maybe that's okay if it pays for itself over time? I pay my ISP ₹3K a month. I wouldn't mind buying SpaceX's router for say ₹30K if my bill drops to ₹1K a month.

I was also wondering about this — will it be significantly costlier than a commodity fiber / cable/ VDSL router? If it's going to cost say $500, far fewer people around the world will be able to afford one.

But GPS is cheap enough and widely enough deployed. Devices like laptops that don't usually have GPS are usually used indoors. I don't see the market.

> Cellular and WiFi AP roaming are solved problems.

While you may be right regarding the context in which you said this — satellites — as a blanket statement, that's not true: my smartphone loses Internet connectivity when I leave my house, and takes a few seconds before it connects to the cellular data network.

I'm surprised that phones don't establish a backup 4G connection when Wifi signal strength decreases suddenly, but before it disconnects. This has been talked about for years, but for whatever reason it hasn't been deployed or doesn't work well, at least with Android P.

Is lower latency the main benefit? Because there are other ways to combat that, like locating servers closer to where users are. Yes, there are some applications like HFT or gaming or whatever that need lower latency, but I think it would be more useful to the world at large if Starlink provides people all over the world with affordable broadband Internet access with a minimum speed of say 20mbps, say. People far from cities, people in developing countries with bad infrastructure (till a few years back, I had a 4mbps connection), people on islands with bad connectivity, trains, ships, planes, etc. Does it do the latter?

Has the study taken into account the indirect costs over the long term? If labor is costly, the country isn't as competitive compared to others, so jobs are outsourced.

This is a diffuse impact, rather than localised — if waiters are required to be paid more, some factory workers may lose their jobs.

Exactly. If data is the currency of the future, and we're too conservative about permitting experiments, we'll lose out on a lot of innovation. What if a smart city encourages more walking? What if it has less pollution? What about all the people who die prematurely living in today's cities for these reasons?

After experimenting, then we as a society can decide not to permit something, not before.

As an analogy, what if burning fossil fuels were banned worldwide in 1900 because people were too conservative about pollution? We all agree that pollution is bad, but we should be willing to permit some amount of negative side effects if we want progress. Otherwise, we'd still be living in medieval times.

Is it hard to tune the gyro because its accuracy is too low, or because it's accurate to begin with but degrades over the course of the long exposure?

Is a pure software solution even reliable enough under these conditions? Slowness can be worked around by doing it in the background, and you get a notification when it's complete. Some people would be okay if that's the only way to get photos they wouldn't otherwise be able to get, short of buying an SLR.

I agree. We've also had many rejections due to policies that weren't clearly stated up front, such as the price requiring to be in the button rather than below it. Apple should have given 10 examples of Dos and Don'ts with screenshots. Or even give five approved templates, so you can just change the price, duration, app name, etc and you're guaranteed to be approved.

As another example, we put the terms and conditions ("subscription will renew unless canceled...") in a web view. Apple rejected us telling us to put it in the binary. We put the HTML locally, but still in a web view to display it. Is that considered part of the binary? Apparently not. We then made it plain text and didn't use a web view. But it wasn't okay, to have this behind a button. It has to be on the subscription screen. However, having it scroll off the bottom of the screen is apparently fine.

This is why it's frustrating to develop for Apple's platforms — you have to play a guessing game, where each round results in a rejection and multiple days of turnaround time. I'm considering making our app paid up front to bypass this bullshit.

Since the iOS dialog box has all the necessary information, and Apple can present it in a way they consider transparent to users, why make apps redundantly display the same information, and then reject them? The sensible thing to do would be to ban only apps that give misleading information, like Rs.10 if it actually costs Rs.100. Not giving any information in your app UI like price, duration, terms, should be fine.

Interesting perspective; thanks for sharing.