Really interesting, am a big fan of the utility that SVG's provide, an undersung hero of the web imo. One thing I've always particularly liked is you can wrap elements inside of an <svg> tag with an <a> tag, useful in the battle against a "square" web!
Canvas draws raster images, anything resembling an object in your drawing logic is already tracked separately by necessity. So regardless, you’d presumably check against whatever data model you’re using to determine what to draw.
Overly pedantic programmers always have trouble conforming to a framework where compromises are made in ways they can't get behind. For every one of these, there a thousands of programmers who are very successful with the same framework.
If I win should I lose a dice? My understanding of perudo, or liar's dice, was that the loser loses a dice as a punishment for the incorrect call. This makes it harder to make accurate guesses as they have less understanding on the total count of die there could be... Any reason for changing the rule in this instance?
Very interesting! I've just moved into a consulting role and am discovering that it is very much like this. If you don't mind me asking, may I ask for some general advice?
Would like to know if there are there any people / resources that helped you out in this role? Or even any general guidance you could give someone just starting out? Also - out of interest - what is it you do now?
Not OP, but I’ve been consulting for ~10 years across operations, sales and marketing for a wide variety of businesses at different stages and scales.
I have one key piece of advice: ask many questions. Be genuinely curious and friendly, and opportunities will continuously emerge.
I’ve landed high-value clients at coffee shops, hotel bars, music venues, or even through random emails. I was not prospecting. I was curious.
Questions are so useful at every layer of abstraction; whether you’re speaking with a server at a restaurant who’s having trouble with their POS, the general manager who’s wasted $10k on Yelp, or the real estate developer who happens to own a restaurant chain.
As a consultant your value is measured by your observations and imagination. Rich, open-ended questions allow you to absorb a vast repository of context and experience from operators. Use your skillset to imagine how things could be better if you were to apply effort.
I’ve had people quite frequently make declarations such as “you’re brilliant” or “you clearly have a lot of experience in this field” without knowing me or without me ever making a statement - only questions. It feels like a cheat code.
The only downside to this technique is you’ll be flooded with opportunities and your time won’t scale. I’ve dropped the ball on a number of awesome and profitable things because I was trying to pursue too many things at once. I’m trying to improve my consistency so I can hire more effectively, but it’s challenging.
Aside, I’ve been working on a crowdsourcing app to help solve this dilemma, as I’ve noted many others share my struggles.
OP here, I left consulting a bit more than a year ago after doing it for 8 years.
* Listening is huge.
* And knowing how to 'hedge' when having opinions also huge. Like venturing an opinion as a question or using "forgive my ignorance, let me ask a stupid question"
You're probably not going to have the 'big idea' that saves them. But rather, your role is often to help the client have the big idea and own it. You're kind of a therapist for them/the org to think through something. You'll never has as much context as they do on their org/tech specific challenges. But you can help them by bringing outside perspective and ideas.
I sort of did a retrospective on my time as a consultant on my personal blog which might help
I'd be also very interested to know more about your experience and ideas, and also, I would take the occasion to try to better understand what is exactly meant by "consultant", in this context (for some reason I would always want to distinguish between the sense where it's you working solo and independently for a company, and the other, where there's you, a company "hiring" you and their client).
Not OP, but in a tiny boutique consultancy where we build data products for large enterprise clients. End-to-end.
It's been a blast. We've worked for clients in many sectors (telecoms, energy, banking, transportation, employment, luxury, retail, and other more particular activities).
Personally, it has helped to have read books about reservoir characterization and have worked on multi-phase flows in university when we had a client in the energy sector. It has helped me having worked on heart anomaly detection in university when we worked for a health organization. It's helped that I worked on a personal project in telcos and read books when we had a telco client.
You get to do that a lot and build bridges with their domain experts. It allows them to be more precise when you help them frame the problem.
This leads to the following : one of the most important phases is problem framing and scoping. You absolutely have to nail down the actual problem, the "job to be done", what is a success, for whom, etc.
This is refined conversation. I also use what I call negative framing. Example : one client asked us if we could predict and alert about an event that caused losses in the 9 figures 48 hours in advance.
This triggered the spidey senses. What we dit was ask at what point it would be too late to alert them. The client said "It's never too late. Even if you tell me 2 minutes in advance, we can still do things. We have procedures".
A less refined way would be to accept that requirement at face value. Dig deeper. Question assumptions.
One thing we do is we insist and avocate for everyone to be involved in the project. The people we build for. Before the company reorg, execs at the client company used to be our interface. No more. If I'm building something for your marketing people, they ought to be involved.
We continually refined our way. One close way I found to ours was in a book titled "Cracked It! How to Solve Big Problems and Sell Solutions Like Top Strategy Consultants". It's a bit similar.
He does not, he presents explanations that ignore almost half the facts and for the flir video is possibly factually wrong, as the object does seem to move in the video and not only the camera
While the "go fast" video might be a balloon and we lack enough evidence for the 'gimbal' case to dismiss his explanation (or metabunks for that matter) completely, the Context of the 'flir' video, beeing multiple people observing strange tic tac shape crafts (fravor and the other female pilot, so far unnamed), multiple radar systems picking up on them as confirmed by the princeton radar operator and the flir video showing what are possibly unheard of flight characteristics as analysed in this paper https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/10/939/htm make these superficial debunking claims rather tedious if not outright disingenuous.
He's mostly "debunked" them for the group of viewers who really want this to be phenomena we already understand.
The broader group of researchers, who are open to anything from atmospheric physics phenomena to straight up aliens, are worth giving a listen regarding his debunking. IMO they ask good questions.
Have you watched his debunking of the "Go Fast" video? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M) I don't see any wiggle room around what he lays out, certainly not enough to warrant putting 'debunk' into "scarequotes". The object simply was not 'going fast'; it was a weather balloon sized object moving at weather balloon speeds that only looks like it's going fast due to parallax.
The only question in my mind is whether the USN is filled with fools who couldn't figure out what he figured out, or whether they're deliberately fucking with us. I'm strongly inclined to think it's the later.
Dude, navy pilots are trained to recognize this. They've had years now to come out with a statement saying it was a balloon and make it go away. They haven't and this story continues to pester their PR guys. But 'ol Mick here is way smarter than all of the pilots and the Navy experts and he says its a balloon, so they're all full of it and it's a balloon? I can't even begin to describe how dumb this sounds. Get real.
Lol, let's mind-fuck the public and tell em there's shit running around that can radically outperform our best jets/pilots... Um, No. That's even dumber.
If there is an error in Mick West's debunking of the 'go fast' video that changes the conclusion, then please point it out. How fast do you think it's moving, and why do you think that? Otherwise I'm afraid I have a contrary opinion about who's being dumb here. All you've done in this thread is appeal to authority.
I do not know how fast it is going, but I also don't think this Mick guy can tell from the video either. We can't tell from the video because it does not have the required information for either me or Mick to make a determination. The pilots who took the video are very sure its going fast and I think they are correct. They had the extra sensory info to make that determination and I will side with them over what Mick or I can determine by looking at the video. I'm really surprised I have to say that on a board like this which is supposed to cater to intelligent professionals, but apparently I have to. There is no appeal to authority here, I am pointing out that the people who took the video obviously had information available to them that made them say it was moving and fast, plus they are trained to make precisely that determination. I mean, go believe the ex-dev who makes videos for a living if you want, I'm sticking with the pilots.
I tend to agree that the debunking video is a little too sure of itself with regard to the speeds, though I think we could also be over-estimating the competence of the crew in the videos. Maybe they thought it was moving fast because they didn't take the time in those moments to read their instruments. As for the shapes of the objects, I would accept that they are most likely planes, and the rotation an artifact, but this doesn't rule out the possibility they are some classified new aircraft.
The immediate question that springs to mind is why the US Navy with all its sophisticated technologies were not able to identify these as known aircraft or balloons.
If they could identify these objects, why lie?
If they could not and these are in fact explainable as known craft/balloons, doesn't that imply a serious security risk?
From YT comments: Interesting times - the gvmt is releasing UFO videos and enthusiasts start debunking them. It used to be the opposite back in my day.
This explanation sounds plausible. I have a theory that maybe releasing this is also part of strategy to justify spending on the "Space Force" by Trump?...
