I agree with you this would be valuable, mostly for persuading the general public.
The skepticism you're getting amounts to "biased people/government won't care no matter what" and "fancy tech makes the evidence look more doctored, not less." They're not wrong but there are some disputes this could settle. Some people have argued that the moment where an ICE agent appears to withdraw Pretti's gun might just be him retrieving his own fumbled gun. Maybe a synthesized view could clear that up.
Personally, I think it will come down to the moment where one goon said "He's got a gun" and another one took that as license to shoot him three times. The other 6 or so gunshots were a kneejerk pile-on to that cowardly act.
So much for the 2nd Amendment, right?
Right, the analogy would be "What does being a builder mean if carpenters are swinging the hammers?" We'll have to be software "Foremen" who develop plans and know enough algorithms, data structures and architecture to tell the AI how to frame the house and what kind of pipe to lay even if we're not doing that ourselves.
I'm intrigued and might need something like this but...
Your splash page doesn't give much of an idea of what this app does (far less than what you said in the comment above).
IMO, I shouldn't have to create an account to see what an app has to offer. A few screenshots and a feature list might help me decide if creating an account is worth the trouble.
In general, how is this better than a spreadsheet of contacts or the contacts app on my phone?
A valid critique of our landing page. We will get some screenshots on there.
What is the problem we are trying to solve? Contact data is stale the moment it is shared.
You might use your phone's contact app, or a spreadsheet, but how do you know that the details in your phone/spreadsheet are still accurate? And how do you know that other people's spreadsheets have YOUR accurate details?
What we are trying to do is turn contact details into living data. EasyDex is the infrastructure to propagate contact detail changes between users and businesses securely, seamlessly, and instantly.
Your only operative complaint is "confused." What are you confused about? The high-level goals and requirements? Your own approach and criteria for success? Structuring your time/effort?
Without knowing what you are asking exactly, there are a ton of ways to structure a large project.
One of my favorites is: Pick some challenging (but not too challenging) use-case that intersects an interesting subset of the core requirements. Decide on ONE design principle you want to follow (highly testable, clear separation of concerns, pluggable sources/endpoints, whatever) and then build the crappiest/minimal version that does those two things (handles the main use-case and strictly adheres to your design principle) while being totally crappy in every other way (i.e. bad UI, brute-force algorithms, whatever).
As you design/build this "slice"/MVP of functionality, keep notes about out-of-scope parts you can't/won't touch according to the rules above. Those will become seeds for the rest later.
This method yields a lot of advantages: 1) It provides a way to get started without analysis-paralysis, 2) it results in proof-of-concept, perhaps a demo for what you are going to eventually build, 2) You think through a lot but don't build so much or get lost in details you won't build, 3) If you hate the MVP, you can throw it away and build it again the right way (which will be better, as a result).
For a really big project, just iterate on the above by picking more slices/use-cases. You might have to refactor/redesign as you go but pretty quickly you'll have built up enough scaffolding that the rest of the project will flow easily or be delegated easily.
The rule that stops this cold for me is:
"Note that the distinct numbers being sorted would be hidden. That is, all the nodes in the partial order would look the same."
So, you point to two random nodes and watch them sort? Do you see the "hidden" numbers after they are sorted?
As is, that sounds boring and "random" in the way my sons use that term, without purpose or reason.
If you had more in mind, please describe exactly what the player sees before and after they select two nodes.
This could also be a way for social discovery that studios could promote:
Imagine a rack of album cards at Target where each costs a $1 and lets you play samples of all the tracks on the album (read lyrics and liner notes, etc) and puts $1 in your online wallet. So, kids (or anyone) could sample different albums and then save up to buy whole albums they like. Also, already redeemed ("used") cards would still play samples so kids could share/trade them as a way to say "check this music out!"
Can you imagine Billboard charts of Top Album Cards (Sampled and Bought) which would be so much more impactful than a lame count of streams or whatever. The charts would represent music kids are actually trading and talking about.
Even if your observations/findings are brilliant, you can't be taken seriously unless you're published in an academic journal and you can't do that "cold."
Basically, the prerequisites are: 1) You have to speak the language and 2) You have to know some people.
#1 Know the Language - Let's say you believe you have a new mathematical proof. Even if it was perfectly valid, you'd get instantly rejected for publishing if it wasn't formatted correctly, used accepted language and definitions of things, was sufficiently rigorous and referenced relevant prior work.
That's tough for an amateur to pull off by themselves. So, one solution is to take your best attempt at a rigorous amateur proof to a mathematician at a local college or university. Even a curious grad student in the field who is willing to indulge you can help clean up the work.
As a bonus, that can help with problem #2 - knowing some people. If your proof, now translated to proper mathematician-speak, holds water maybe you can leverage your proof-reader to "level-up" and get your proof seen by an actual professor in the field who can lend you some credibility and get you introduced to other mathematicians.
Even then, your chances of getting published are near zero. However, the recent example of two high-school students who came up with a novel proof of the Pythagorean theorem shows how it can be done. They first were able to present a "poster" of their proof at a conference where it was seen by mathematicians and where they could be quizzed about it on the spot. Surviving that gauntlet PLUS the exposure allowed them to catch the eye of a publisher willing to take a chance on them.
reply