curiouscavalier

but i also “align my tires” or might check the “alignment of two vectors.” if anything, thinking of alignment of anthropomorphizing seems to only inherit it from all the other anthropomorphisms used. rogue originates from a term for vagrant, right?

Yeah, I probably should have reported it at the time. They didn’t cite anything specific even after we requested what in the on-roof (not drone) inspection indicated an issue or was missing from the inspection.

Though to be precise, this was over a year ago so I’m not remembering their exact wording. But it likely wasn’t literally “drone footage alone,” but probably something more like “our drone footage and associated analysis” — in any case the effective interpretation being “we don’t care about installation date or your inspection. Replace it or lose coverage.”

Not that it makes it right, but there’s enough providers in my area it was less effort to get new coverage than continue to fight them.

Yes, that ended up being the solution. Cost aside, I’d find it pretty wasteful to do the replacement.

The report was done at the time of the dispute. The roof was 5 years old.

The issue is that often the data gathered and used with no consideration of other evidence. For example, I had a similar situation of home insurance sending a letter demanding I replace my roof based on drone footage. No issue was immediately obvious from the footage and we had just replaced the roof less than 5 years earlier. We had an inspection done and then sent both proof of replacement and the inspection report. We were told the drone footage alone would be used in their decision, and we still had to replace the roof to keep coverage.

So it is not necessarily objective, fairly considered observations (and I think pretty different from speeding tickets). At least in our case it was maximally for the benefit of the insurer. I think that is relevant to their claimed premise.

having developed multiple apps on it and tried every which way to use it (as an XR enthusiast in general), I have never been so happy to put a headset up on the shelf and never pull it out again.

using as a spatial monitor was cool. for about 10min until my neck got tired of the added weight. but I’ll give credit that those 10min were pretty cool.

yeah this is really a part of it. Both founders and investors get spooked by the rapid entries into a market but persistent not just when it’s hard but when it’s boring goes so much farther.

Or that there is a sufficiently generalizable objective function for all “spatial intelligence.”

The adoption of it in various industries for training is larger than most people might suspect. First responders and retailers have some of the largest internal deployments out there, but they aren’t massively publicized (most people would never guess who’s fielding the largest fleet of headsets right now). That said, it’s still not mass adoption.

At the end of the day, you are asking someone to put something on their face that is still very different ergonomically than glasses (and I’m not sure even glasses would overcome enough friction). The ROI has to overcome the business (or personal) friction of buying the hardware, the friction of the form factor plus any friction from changed workflows.

Now put that in an operational workflow instead of training and the risks go up. Most are still skeptical of device reliability (not to say there aren’t suitable devices for operational roles but the perception is still a hurdle, and the applicability is often device-specific). Now add on to that limited experience with devices (many decision makers have never put one on), added security complications, specialized software development skills, limited content libraries and very real accessibility concerns and a lot of enterprises can never get past an “innovation center demo.”

For many industries the value proposition just isn’t there yet. But that said, I’d recommend digging a little deeper as there’s a lot of existing use-cases and deployments, both failed and successful, outside of IVAS.

Thanks for posting this. Water rights and who gets priority was the first thing that came to mind. The thought of “wind augmentation plans” is fun to think about.

Yep, the procurement process (and related) requires a lot be baked into pricing. I’d also be curious what the fully burdened rate of in-house staff is compared to consultants. I’ve seen situations in the gov (not DoD) where despite high consulting rates, the full cost of hiring was even higher per hour.

But I’m loath to defend the big firms. Generally, quality plus the ever push for expanding scope leaves a sensation of waste. The solution is just going to need more than simply tossing them out.

Appraisals also act as a gate for prices due to lender requirements. A bit round about, but I can see how looser appraisals can enable inflated prices. Imagining the opposite extreme is interesting: What if appraisals never returned with higher prices than the last sale of that house? Some markets would see increases from people paying the difference out of pocket, but I’d guess the rate of price increase would be much lower. (plus other effects, of course).

I’m not following the “unconnected” part. There are definitely problems with our patent system (referring to US), especially around software, but in my experience examiners are indifferent to your background and lineage (though not indifferent to their own status at USPTO). There is absolutely a monetary barrier to entry on using a lawyer to draft your patent application, but I feel like that’s more an issue of private law firms than patents in general. Though I’m sure others might have comments on how those intertwine.

But filing fees, etc (ie those things set by the USPTO) are really quite reasonable imo. Strictly speaking you don’t have to use a lawyer to file (I know that can be a minor concession in the landscape of practical success). Maybe you can clarify what you mean by “connected” vs “unconnected”in this case? I’m missing how patent law directly related to connections/lineage beyond what sister comments have said re: ability to litigate or be patent trolls. But I think that’s the point of the sister comment on it (at least ideally) cutting both ways.

One of my favourite texts. One of those that I found influential early in academics as well as when re-reading later in my career. Even for younger students I think it can be great introduction to more formal approaches, as well as a taste for the austere.

Agreed. There’s a lot of variables (and I think price is a big one). But, while slow, adoption in enterprise is showing signs that the basic concept has some legs. Even if the tech today needs some time to marinate.

That said I also don’t think we’re are a time-local maxima of users either.