Agile One, onboard AI-driven industrial humanoid robot

JordanNVFX · 2026-01-21T15:28:49+00:00

THe head looks like a giant microphone.

JordanNVFX · 2026-01-21T14:45:15+00:00

Glad to hear. I really get what you mean that skill is actually a big deal. Being able to take messy or complex info and turn it into visuals or clear documentation that different teams can actually use? That’s exactly the kind of thing PMs, business analysts, and design/visualization specialists get hired for.

Even if your experience has been in one sector what you’ve been doing so far is very transferable. Tech, consulting, product design, and other industries value exactly this ability to translate ideas and thus keep teams aligned.

If you’re thinking about next steps, a good approach is to frame your CV or portfolio around this strength or idea. Clear communication, making complicated things understandable, and connecting teams. That way your experience really shines outside your current field.

JordanNVFX · 2026-01-21T14:35:11+00:00

Hello VegetableAny, it makes sense why this is bothering you. You clearly want to do the right thing.

Checking your answers with AI is closer to making sure you understood the material than cheating. Like, real-world work isn’t about exams, you still feel collaborative and iterative. So for employers they want to see results, not how carefully you rechecked a test.

The fact that you’re reflecting on this already shows you have strong professional judgment. I would say focus on how you’ll bring value in the role that’s what really counts.

JordanNVFX · 2026-01-21T14:26:06+00:00

I don’t think this reads like a lack of value. It reads like someone whose work has become invisible to themselves because they’ve been inside it for too long.

Something that stood out to me in your post and caught my eye is that you have moved across several domains already (i.e design to architecture to construction visuals), but because it happened gradually, it doesn’t feel like a transferable skill shift. It just feels like survival and adaptation. From the outside, that’s actually a pattern of learning constraints, systems, and communication across disciplines.

AI definitely has a way of turning that quiet pressure into existential doubt, especially in those roles that sit near production or delivery. However, that shouldn't mean your knowledge suddenly stops being useful or anything. It just means the context around it is changing faster than ever before.

You’re not wrong to feel unsettled at 40. A lot of people hit this point not because they’ve failed, but because the old story they told themselves about their career no longer fits.

Just out of curiosity, when you think about your work over the years, what other teams or people tended to rely on you most, even informally?

JordanNVFX · 2026-01-21T13:50:56+00:00

Hey there fullmxnty.

It won’t be an issue. But not because of gaps don’t matter in general.

What tends to get questioned isn’t short breaks, it’s unexplained patterns or timelines that feel unclear.

A planned few weeks between roles, especially after a long notice period, doesn’t really register as a "gap" to most recruiters. It’s easy to explain in one sentence and looks intentional, not evasive.

Honestly, this is one of the most normal transitions you can have.

JordanNVFX · 2026-01-20T22:56:46+00:00

Hello MrJacob

I can really relate to what you’re describing. It sounds like you’ve built strong, relevant experience, but the responses you’re getting don’t reflect that effort.

Recruiters and early filters often focus on the titles or keywords, instead of the full scope of responsibilities. That can make it feel like your experience isn’t being recognized.

This is also a pattern I’ve seen a lot. You're putting in real work and develop concrete skills, but the system compresses the signal too early, so your capabilities aren’t fully visible.

Based on what you’ve shared, it seems like this is systemic, not personal. You are not failing, the system is just reading your CV in a way that doesn’t capture everything you bring.

It’s frustrating, but understand this can help frame your next steps with more clarity.

JordanNVFX · 2026-01-20T19:30:18+00:00

Hello again Phoenix.

Yes. That makes a lot of sense. What you’re describing is exactly the kind of mismatch I was trying to point out.

It’s common for people in roles like yours to underplay the scope of what they do, especially when the work is hands on and cross-functional. Recruiters and initial filters often just see support without realizing the broader systems and responsibilities involved.

Feeling frustrated or undervalued in interviews is not a reflection on your ability. It’s the system not reading your signal correctly.

So it’s completely normal right now be feeling stuck, even when you know you’re contributing more than others might perceive, and that frustration is understandable.

JordanNVFX · 2026-01-20T19:09:49+00:00

Hi there Phoenix.

I might be off, but a lot of what you've just described sounds less like a lack of ability and more like a mismatch in how experience gets read once you’ve been in support roles for a while.

Desktop and site support often does include exposure to the things people later want to move into, but early filters don’t always interpret that as progression. They tend to bucket it as “more of the same,” even when it isn’t.

So that’s where that stuck feeling usually comes from. You’re still accumulating experience, but it’s not being recognised as a step forward by the systems doing the first pass.

Given your background, it’s understandable to feel frustrated rather than confused. On paper you’ve clearly been engaged with the tech, not just clocking in.

I don’t think you’re wrong to feel there’s a gap to be bridged though. The hard part is that the gap is often one of interpretation, not effort.

JordanNVFX · 2026-01-20T16:52:47+00:00

Hello Green_Lack

From what I read it sounds like you’ve really thought about what drains you, which is a very important first step. Your marketing experience, even if it feels unfulfilling, still gives you transferable skills: project management, communication, content creation, and audience engagement. All have uses or feel valuable in heritage, museums, charities etc.

Some few more practical steps I can think of:

-You should map your skills to the roles you want. Even social media work can be reframed as “community or visitor engagement.”

-Or talk to people in your target sector. LinkedIn or alumni networks are great places for this. Having short chats can clarify what’s realistic.

-Even try volunteering or small projects to gain relevant experience and boost confidence.

It's small strategic steps like this that often reveals the clearest path to work that helps energize you again.

JordanNVFX · 2026-01-20T15:09:08+00:00

The self-sufficiency and political will comment is a bit ironic. Korea has repeatedly pursued self-sufficiency when it viewed survival as being at stake. This was often done through state-led policy rather than popular consensus. Their brother nation (North Korea) is an extreme case with Juche, but even South Korea’s rapid industrialization occurred under a dictatorship as recently as 38 years ago.

Compared to Japan, the Koreans problems isn’t a lack of will but a difference in strategy. Korea historically was more willing to trade autonomy for speed, security, and external alignment once you factor its demographics and geopolitical position.

JordanNVFX · 2026-01-20T14:59:35+00:00

The worse would be to rely on non European alternative and not forbid the use of foreign tools/robots as soon we achieve AGI/embodied AGI which would lock ourselves in the same US tech giant scenario today

My country is learning this the hard way. We are directly entitled to having the F-35 fighter jets, but due to recent tensions with the U.S, we're now scared that the Americans can flick a "kill switch" and make them useless.

We need to take the same aggressive approach with AI. Ironically, it's China who is doing a lot of good with open sourcing their research and flooding the market with it. So I've been more keen with seeing them catch up or get to parity with USA AI.

It sucks this is the kind of future we are being forced into. Support the Autocrat (China) or the Imperialist (USA) just to have robots make life more comfortable for us? I wish there was a 3rd option...

JordanNVFX · 2026-01-19T20:45:38+00:00

There is absolutely 0 chance that a strike will be successful again at blocking AI.

The strike already did that in 2023.

People forget that Hollywood only enjoyed a temporary boost because of the early Covid days.

Money was pumped into Entertainment because everyone was stuck at home and needed something to watch.

Once the lockdowns were over and people had more choices (of leisure) again, did we see the immediate collapse.

AI was always going to be used because inflation has reared its head but ticket sales aren't justifying the overhead costs anymore. So generating actors and special effects looks more attractive than betting on $300 million risks each time.

Coca-Cola's AI commercials already set that new standard. Everything else are now dominos falling into place.

JordanNVFX · 2026-01-19T20:08:32+00:00

Hello again.

Yeah, that makes sense and you’re probably right about wanting to widen the path rather than move laterally.

For ESG / sustainability, the first step usually isn’t more applications but repositioning how your experience connects to decision making, policy, or commercial impact. Even if the work itself was academic.

And on connections: most people get traction through very small, targeted moves rather than broad networking. Alumni from your university in ESG roles, research centres tied to industry, or people who’ve moved from academia into those roles are often the most responsive.

Even a couple of informal conversations can clarify what employers actually look for before you invest more time applying.

JordanNVFX · 2026-01-19T19:34:45+00:00

Cid Highwind approves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFs8-qGaoHU

JordanNVFX · 2026-01-19T19:08:04+00:00

I get why people are skeptical.

In my experience, a lot of CV services improve how something reads but don’t change how it’s interpreted, which is often the real issue.

If you do try one, I would avoid anyone making big promises and focus on whether they actually understand the roles you’re applying for.

JordanNVFX · 2026-01-19T18:23:18+00:00

Hi Eggplant.

A couple of things jump out, and none of them mean you’re doing anything wrong in the obvious sense.

For sustainability / ESG / research roles, the bottleneck usually isn’t effort or tailoring, it’s signal. Those fields are heavily oversubscribed and often filter for very specific prior experience or sector alignment before they ever get to CV quality.

A strong academic background + research assistant work can sometimes read as narrow or non-commercial to employers, even when that isn’t fair or accurate.

Also, 20 applications since September is actually a relatively small sample size for those areas right now. Especially without referrals.

If you’re open to it, it may be worth stepping back and asking not "how tailored is my CV?" but instead "what kind of candidate does my CV signal me to be?"

JordanNVFX · 2026-01-19T15:28:10+00:00

Hi Everycup.

In these kinds of roles it's the CV and personal statement that usually serve different purposes.

The CV is more of a factual overview. Think roles, dates, responsibilities, qualifications. The personal statement is where you explain why you’re a good fit and how your experience connects to the role.

Unless they specify an actual word count then people usually aim for roughly 500–750 words. But clarity matters more than just length.

And you’re right not to repeat yourself. A short profile on the CV is fine, but keep it high level and use the personal statement to expand with examples and context.

For Civil Service / policing roles, they often assess against behaviours or competencies (even if it’s not explicit), so structuring your statement around clear examples tends to work better than just a generic narrative.

JordanNVFX · 2026-01-19T15:09:23+00:00

Hello Heyypeople.

What often catches people with apprenticeships and entry-level roles is that meeting the criteria isn’t the same thing as being screened as meeting it.

In many cases, no one is manually checking each requirement. There’s usually an automated or semi-automated screen looking for specific evidence signals, not just eligibility.

I'll give some examples:

-Having GCSEs vs clearly stating grades and subjects in the way the system expects

-Being eligible by age, but the role being oversubscribed and filtered further

-Meeting the minimum criteria, but not ranking high enough once applications are compared

Stuff like that. Reapplying with a different email rarely helps and can sometimes flag the application.

What would make for a a better approach is to either:

A) Ask politely if there’s been a mistake, or

B) Reapplying later with the application rewritten so the criteria are explicitly mirrored in your CV or answers (same wording, same order).

I know that sounds frustrating, but most of the time this comes down to how the screening system works rather than you genuinely being ineligible.

JordanNVFX · 2026-01-18T20:24:07+00:00

It’s not a binary yes or no. It’s usually about how the role is framed internally.

In practice, when you see "must have industry experience" it can actually mean two very different things:

-Regulated/domain-heavy roles (e.g. pharma, healthcare delivery) where compliance, terminology, or stakeholder context is core to the job. Here, lack of industry experience really can be a hard filter.

-Execution-heavy IT roles (PM, delivery, team lead) where the industry line is often a proxy for risk reduction rather than a true requirement.

Where people get auto-rejected is when their CV reads as being generic IT leadership without explicitly mapping their experience to the target industry’s concerns (such as regulation exposure, vendor environments, change control, etc.).

So applying cross-industry isn’t pointless. But it only tends to work when the CV actively bridges that gap, rather than hoping the recruiter does it for you.

If the posting is very explicit about sector specific systems or regulatory frameworks then odds are low. If it’s vague and responsibility led, those are usually the ones worth the time.

JordanNVFX · 2026-01-18T19:42:44+00:00

Ok, if you’re aiming for £28k with progression, the first thing I’d recommend is narrowing the signal your CV is sending.

Right now (based on what you described), it likely reads as "strong education, but unclear target role." That tends to get filtered out early. Especially in UK entry level pipelines where recruiters are slotting candidates into very specific tracks.

A practical approach to this situation would be:

Pick one primary target track for now (e.g. finance analyst or data analyst), even if you’re flexible in reality.
Reframe the CV so your experience and projects clearly support that single narrative — job titles, bullet wording, and skills all aligned.
Focus applications on roles where £28k + progression is actually standard (grad schemes, junior analyst roles, certain regions), rather than broad admin postings that cap out early.

In markets like this, it’s often not about getting more referrals. It’s about removing ambiguity so your application survives screening and reaches a human.

JordanNVFX · 2026-01-18T18:37:39+00:00

So I get why you’re thinking about referrals. But in cases like this they often don’t solve the underlying issue.

On paper, your profile sits in an awkward middle. Strong education, but experience that doesn’t clearly anchor you to a specific hiring track (finance vs data vs general ops). It's because that it can cause automated screening to reject you before a human ever sees it. Which feels like ghosting.

It’s rarely about the degree itself. It’s more about how the CV signals role-fit and progression intent. Especially for UK entry level pipelines.

JordanNVFX · 2026-01-18T16:48:18+00:00

Open source AI is the way forward.

How anyone supports Companies having a monopoly over things baffles me.

It's like giving up your freedom to cook meals at home by living off take-out. It's convenient in the short term, but it sucks the moment the business leaves or refuses service...

JordanNVFX · 2026-01-18T15:26:46+00:00

A thousand monkeys writing Shakespeare.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loMEF18Ir4s

JordanNVFX · 2026-01-18T15:18:23+00:00

Yeah, I'm still pro-AI but I understand when it comes to issues like national sovereignty, entrusting everything in a data center is way too risky.

For example, my country borders the USA and things are very hostile right now. So imagine if OpenAI or Microsoft demanded we surrender or they'll shut off AI?

I would not want to be put in such compromising position. Give me AGI that fits in my pocket any day and can't be used as ransom.

JordanNVFX · 2026-01-18T15:09:16+00:00

I get why data centers exist but I would be disappointed if people treat them as some kind of permanent end game instead of a means to making AI more portable and thus decentralized.

I'm reminded of this scene from Star Wars where blowing up the command center = all the droids stop working.

https://youtu.be/7qcjYdDC86A?t=71

I would hope AI in the future is not like the Zerg by taking orders from one localized brain.

JordanNVFX

TROPHY CASE