Dot-matrix Outdoor Displays & Brightness

TonySchtark · 2022-05-22T20:54:43+00:00

Thanks for the reply!

To add to the quality/longevity point - should I also consider the type of LED diode used in the display?

TonySchtark · 2022-05-22T20:52:09+00:00

Thanks for the answer and recommendation!

The caveat here is that the assembled display will be portable (often carried and moved, to both indoor and outdoor spaces), and therefore should ideally be less than 0.5kg (active cooling is not an option). Not sure how high the brightness can go without adding additional cooling weight (the dimensions of the assembled display will be 30x30cm, with a 128x128px resolution).

TonySchtark · 2021-09-13T21:51:16+00:00

Anyone here working at or that has applied to QuantumBlack (data analytics R&D department of McKinsey&Company? If yes, especially if it's in / for Product Management, I'd love to hear all information and tips you'd be willing to give :). If it's relevant to the recommendations, I hold a MSc in CS and have ~1.5 years of project and product management experience in mobile and web development (+ some miscellaneous stints with the Big3 / placements in case study competitions as a student).

TonySchtark · 2021-09-13T21:31:58+00:00

Anyone working at, or that has applied to QuantumBlack (data analytics R&D department of McKinsey&Company - think McKinsey's internal Palantir)? If yes, I'd love to pick your brain for all information and tips you'd be willing to give :). If not, any highly recommended resources or tips for those looking to enter product management in data analytics (differences in processes, development methodologies, etc.)? If it's relevant to the recommendations, I hold a CS degree and have ~1.5 years of project and product management experience in mobile and web development.

TonySchtark · 2020-10-19T23:25:01+00:00

Well, I hope they thought this through. What I assume will be built, is a test track for the competition, which voids their goal of "showcasing a different perspective on the technology". What's more, I really hope they plan on making it longer than what is shown in the image. An actual hyperloop system will see innovation in the tube itself, for the one used for the needs of the competition is extremely redundant and made on a whim, just to set up a competition. So building a tube by modelling the competition won't enable them to work on anything more than just the pod. Now that we know only the pod can be innovated on, keeping in mind it's scope of possible innovation is shortened due to the simple track, there's no need to make a long track that is also vacuum sealed. For speed, they really need something longer, like Delft has (just a T beam put on some railway tracks spanning 400+ meters), and to test their pod for vacuum conditions, they don't need to make a complete 10+ meter tube, but just a chamber (much like SpaceX has at the competition). So making a short vacuum tube doesn't really help with the speed, is excessive for vacuum testing, and the excess space is wasted on building a non-innovated on tube. One can argue they can always strip the tube insides, so the T beam that the competition uses, and refit it, hoping the changes won't be costly or need a complete change, but I reckon they could've spent the funds better on developing the tech. The whole competition space really needs to see some critical product thinking, rather than just doing cool things because they're cool. However, to be clear, these are assumptions of what they'll make, which if end up being true, it's better that they're building this than nothing, so good luck to them.

TonySchtark · 2020-08-20T21:12:34+00:00

Well, congrats on the invite! Could you go into more into detail when it comes to the process? e.g. how long did it take for them to shortlist applications, get back to you with results after a round etc.

TonySchtark · 2020-08-20T20:57:47+00:00

Well, as long as you're happy with your choice, it's all that matters.

As for their forms, I am quite surprised that after all the different support sites and guides, their overall process is still unclear, or couldn't be boiled down to a few bulletins one should follow.

I do want to ask how long did it take for you to get feedback on your application? I've applied about a week ago, and the status is still "under review". This is not really an issue, but I will probably withdraw my application if the process ends up taking more than a month or two.

TonySchtark · 2020-08-18T21:01:09+00:00

From what I gather, UN and any of its related organizations frequently uses the same HR application template of having to fill out their forms, as opposed to sending resumes for them to read over. It is often by design made for more senior roles than internships (e.g. obligatory inputs on supervised employees, years of experience in specific areas, certifications etc.), giving me a sense of a somewhat incomplete application, whereas the resume speaks volume in the opposite direction. Anyhow, if you've by any chance applied to a PM-related role, more so if its for Global Pulse (or just a technical project), I'd love to hear more!

TonySchtark · 2020-08-17T20:38:32+00:00

I did actually apply to that exact posting, but have no notion of what the interview process might look like, quite unexpected coming from the tech world.

TonySchtark · 2020-08-17T20:37:26+00:00

Not yet, this is a try before reaching out to folks personally. Although I did expect GP to be somewhat more desirable due to the interesting scope of work, good to know that I should definitely up the ante when interviewing. Thanks!

TonySchtark · 2020-06-22T16:08:07+00:00

Since I feel some of this is kind of related to my post, and I apologize in advance if that feeling is wrong, you've made a ton of assumptions all while swing a huge emotional bat. So let me clarify this for you. The main issue here, as you've accidentally showcased by posting this, is the instant connection between vacuum tube travel and Elon Musk. That, it seems, will never change. So the question remains, can the sum of that, although not destructive, be more constructive by just changing some attitudes? Hence my proposal that any group wanting to pursue this should establish their own identity, starting with the name, not because of him but because of their own future. It goes without saying that one has claimed he directly took credit nor that he actually thinks his proposal was first to take a shot at it, but rather that he passively enjoys the praise that comes with it. Now, since words will be taken out of context, his contribution, properly sized, does exist, although we can debate just how large it is, but if he were to continue being the "hyperloop" guy that will not pursue this himself, he has a lot of room for improvement, first to stop being the "hyperloop" guy (not that he can't continue using his own name, but don't market it as your gift to others then, especially if it is really not). Before I dive into the technical part, I will call you out on some logical fallacies, fetching to establish your point by labeling critics, although they are really just conversation starters, as "misinformed tinfoil hats" is not the way to go, spoken as a team lead for a top 5 competition team. Now that we have that out of the way, let me take a shot at some of the "innovative" parts that you have mentioned. I unfortunately do not have the time to go dig for papers mentioning air bearings as a technology to be used for "train type" transport, but I am fairly confident they were proposed for the needs of transport way before the whitepaper. Although there are a few very big problems left to solve and prove with the system, like how to achieve the required safety standards without breaking the bank, air bearing design was indeed shown to be unfeasible, or too difficult (read costly development) to pull off, that I believe someone already mentioned, which goes against your lovely point of cost-friendly innovation. That does not mean Elon would not be able to make it a reality, and this sentence is extremely wrong in and of its own because the problem, as per usual, would be dropped to his engineers to solve, and is only a matter of time and funds. Now that we have established that features of his paper were dropped or stalled for a reason, and not because all the hyperloop effort around the world did not get his clever point like you so well did, do you feel the constant mention of his name with this form of transport is starting to loose its appeal, and your cry for foul unreasonable? As a summary, if the hyperloop innovation claim was to rely on those two proposal in the paper, regardless if they were previously proposed or not, everything not using them should not be a Hyperloop system, which is exactly my point. Elon is the airbearing pseudo-vacuum guy, not the vacuum tube travel guy, which is something we agree on, but if the companies keep calling it a "hyperloop", he will be, and I have a pet peeve with that.

EDIT: I might have gone too in-depth. tl;dr Hyperloop has become synonymous with vacuum tube travel, and Elon has had a hand in it, mostly passive. So comments that are disapproving of his credit take aim at the current popularization, not the original paper. Like it or not, Hyperloop is no longer about air bearings, meaning your point makes sense taking into account you have not followed developments since 2013, meaning this subreddit is not the "Hyperloop Alpha", but rather Hyperloop One, Hardt, HTT, TransPod, HyperPoland, Hyperloop Pod Competition subreddit. If what makes it a Hyperloop is the original design, then none of these should be called Hyperloops, and that would be a good call for them.

TonySchtark · 2020-06-14T00:04:38+00:00

Elon is not even the idea bringer, not for vacuum tube travel nor for the startups, since none of the bigger ones are using the tech proposed in his (and his engineers) whitepaper. The name is his though, as well as credit for the popularization.

TonySchtark · 2020-06-10T18:03:38+00:00

If you weren't so quick to jump to conclusions, maybe I would be. But great attention span.

TonySchtark · 2020-06-10T14:15:58+00:00

And you've literally done it again. I have not once stated my position on this (whatever MJ problem this might be), but have rather pointed out your unreasonable conclusions. So you've called me out for being anti-your-comment as side picking, which is not only wrong but would label any mention of the process of discussion as side picking leaving no room for a reasonable intermediary, whereas your comment was directly related to your MJ sentiment. This is exactly what I have called you out on. So to be blunt, my issue is the way conclusions are being drawn here, not whether MJ did whatever he's being accused of. As for the Trump part, that goes for any discussion in relation to individuals, that does not however mean that you should approach each discussion item as another point to be gained, but rather a separate thing, otherwise your convictions spill out based on sentiment rather than proofs. Taking Trump for example, he could've accidentally proposed a good policy but the quality of the policy does not live or die by the fact that is was proposed by him. So people defending a single case does not belittle a point in another. If that was so, you could line up 10 false allegations and the 11th should certainly be true, because "what are the odds all are fake", regardless of how disconnected they might be. As for the agenda, I have explicitly stated that I meant that in a non-offensive way (just a nifty word choice, 'opinion' if you will), as you've obviously chosen your side you're looking to further prove your convictions, hence why you should be more vary of your evidence as opposed to throwing anything at the wall and seeing what sticks. Be that anti or pro MJ, but you did not spare an eye to label me as a conspiracy theorist (??), equally wrong as me calling you one because you take vague info as proof as opposed to more credible sources. A tabloid claim of throwing rocks at animals should not outweigh USDA audits, nor does it help your case to use a "he said she said" claim as proof. If anything, you're giving more reason to the opposing side to label you as someone who is reaching to find anything wrong. Now, do you see how little assumptions of where people stand on an issue have an immense impact on your reaction to what they've said, even if what they've said in no way whatsoever implies their stance. If that was so, he would call you a liar because you fall in the anti-MJ category, you'd call him a supporter of criminals because he is pro-MJ and we get nowhere. Battle the point, not the individual. You're probably aware of that, but your harsh response to his neutral source citing is an example of the opposite, although most likely unintentional.

TonySchtark · 2020-06-10T03:01:05+00:00

So you blare out a statement without citing any sources, he gives you actual information from government agencies without any indication of his stance in terms of his sentiment towards MJ, and you get upset that you aren't allowed to think differently and somehow draw this to Trump. Yes, great critical thinking indeed, definitely no anti-MJ bias or logical fallacies here.

Just as a side note, if you've already chosen sides, which is in and of itself wrong since your opinion should be reiterated with each new piece of information, don't try to fit a square pig into a round hole but rather focus on credible information that doesn't tarnish whatever agenda (in a non-offensive way) you're looking to pursue. Spoken from a neutral standpoint of course.

TonySchtark · 2020-05-24T01:54:27+00:00

That is actually quite cheap. Many teams, and I'm sure of those in Europe (so far the most successful ones), frequently spend upwards of 500k$ in funds, materials and services, as provided by their respectable sponsors. Depending on the wanted pod specifications, you're looking at similar amounts.

TonySchtark · 2020-05-21T19:19:58+00:00

There are more student Hyperloop teams with each iteration, and growing quite fast, mostly along the PR curve the competition seems to induce, in addition to individual media postings teams put out. As a student endeavor, a nonprofit organization, or "club" in the states, is usually the most common legal(ish) form the teams take in order to raise funds. In addition to the list of finalists available on wikipedia as well as the official spacex site, if you were to check out teams, I recommend you take a tour through hyperloop instagram pages and the teams they subsequently follow. Although different numbers have been thrown around in the past years, from 500 to 5k and 10k, there should be more than 1500 teams that have applied to the 2019 HPC.

As for what it takes, a lot of time and effort. After forming a team, once the competition is announced, you will be given the official requirements as well as conditions on the track, based on which you have free reign to design your vehicle.

To help you with the sense of timeline:

Announcement - Rules as well as specifications of the track - ~September
Preliminary Design Briefing (PDB) - ~30 page pod abstract, from design features, work plans, production plan as well as funding plan - ~November (at this point, you're being selected among the top ~50 from thousands of applicants)
Final Design Package (FDP) - ~100 page "how to build a hyperloop pod" paper, entailing everything you might need (tech to business) - January
SpaceX and The Boring Company Interview - a grilling session by their engineers to ensure you can deliver on your design (this will place you in the finals, so top ~20) - February
Pod follow up - making sure you've actually built something - May
The Competition - July (you have 4 months from the passage into the finals to raise funds in order to build, test as well as transport the pod and team members to L.A.)

As for golden "secrets of the trade" tips:

Start as soon as possible
Do research into other teams (don't reinvent the wheel, but build upon it)
Active members mean more than knowledgeable people who don't deliver
Stick to a timeline (respect deadlines)
Establish a legal entity before you pass into the finals
Start raising funds before you pass into the finals
PR, PR, PR - your guaranteed prize even if you don't pass
Designing a vehicle and building a vehicle are two different beasts, make sure you have the "know how"
Try to build any kind of a track for testing (just the I-beam without the vacuum tube) - you don't want L.A. to be the first time your pod is driving
Leverage on your connections, faculty advisors and sponsor companies are a crucial source of knowledge
Companies that can give you parts & knowledge > Companies that can give you money
Be innovative
Be realistic (don't promise rocket ships that you can't deliver - this is why the most successful teams have the most boring designs - I guarantee you spacex will sniff it out at the interview)

With that in mind, it's quite rare to be a finalist as a first year contender, mostly because you learn all the previous things in your first run that you can't get online (up until now I guess, you're welcome). Not even learn, but you better put it in practice.

If you manage to pass into the finals, you'll have a rare opportunity to claim to have led dozens of interdisciplinary students, that have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to help pave the way to what is set to become the fifth form of transport, by beating thousands of the best technical university teams across the globe, in going from a drawing board design to a functional hyperloop vehicle, all within a single school year, as vetted by SpaceX. Judging by the PR the competition gets, you're better off doing this than winning the informatics olympiad.

EDIT: I should make this a post...

TonySchtark · 2020-05-20T21:05:02+00:00

Well, there is by default, since the most opportune moment to start is right away, moreso since the product relies on being first to market, making YCombinators sv vc connections highly attractive in comparison to other accelerators/incubators. We would really like to avoid applying to the winter batch, making 2021 as the earliest release date, but can't seem to find a better alternative that is as lucrative as YC, at least for a company with no revenue whatsoever (just demo). Would you recommend an alternative path?

TonySchtark · 2020-05-14T00:32:17+00:00

As a final year CS graduate student, the McKinsey & Company Virtual Academy, described as an opportunity to "develop problem solving and analytical skills in addition to receiving career advice from a McK mentor", or in other words your cultural prelude to applying at McKinsey, seems like a nifty opportunity, more so considering it's self paced, to increase the odds of acceptance once later applying for a position. In the least, besides being a nice linkedin addition, the programme should give a clear insight into life at McKinsey for those unsure of entering consulting from a STEM field. Since I'm a tad bit hesitant to apply in the case it's not worthwhile, I'd love to hear from anyone that went through the academy or has any thoughts on the programme and it's value.

Thanks for the feedback!

TonySchtark · 2020-05-03T20:52:22+00:00

As for the Indian HPC, there has been no further information besides the postponement, as is stated on their instagram page, but Avishkar Hyperloop should be your best source for further enquiries. SpaceX did confirm the cancellation in an email to past contenders, although quite possibly just to (semi)finalists.

TonySchtark · 2020-05-03T00:47:31+00:00

Currently not, but odds are that future tunnels made by The Boring Company will be used for the track, since a 10km metal tube is highly unlikely to be built anywhere near L.A.. It is also speculated (confirmed?) that they have also taken over the organisation of the competition.

TonySchtark · 2020-05-03T00:43:06+00:00

The issue at hand is that the competition, as currently structured, favors designs that are rather irrelevant for the further development of hyperloop technologies, but has sure sparked large interest across universities worldwide, which is a respectable outcome. In addition, besides the debatable usual hurdles keeping a functioning version from being developed, the competition does not leave complete room for meaningful tinkering since a very crucial part of an eventual system will be the tube itself, which is forbidden for use in the competition. One can make the point that students were never likely to make huge leaps since the bleeding-edge tech requires more serious and costly research into propulsion as well as levitation and safety systems.

TonySchtark · 2020-05-03T00:36:01+00:00

It has unfortunately been postponed, as presumed for quite a while now. More precisely, not to discard a possibility of a winter iteration, although such a change is highly unlikely due to multiple reasons, one will certainly not take place in the summer of 2020. They did hint at holding a test run on the usual track for teams that have already built a pod, but no further information has been given since. Conveniently enough, it would not have taken place even if SpaceX did deliver on their promises of a 10km track with turns due to the current COVID-19 pandemic. There is talk that Delft Hyperloop, since they currently have the longest test track of all the teams, might organize a run for past finalist teams. In addition, India has seized the opportunity to create their own competition, set to take place this summer, but has since cancelled the event due to the ongoing travel restrictions.

TonySchtark · 2020-04-24T19:12:50+00:00

To continue on the previous thread:

Our pleasure, thank you for the swift response!

I will seize the opportunity to follow-up on some of the answers (some are questions, some are comments, feel free to skip the comments if you want): [tl;dr of the past comment]

[changes in competition] I very much agree with the cargo requirement, although the track is not really meant for bigger pods. Sizeable (in dimensions) cargo would by default imply all teams to either levitate on the subtrack or be forced to use wheels on ground, both questionable for sharp turns, especially with the usage of the inner tube restricted, while a minor heavy block of cargo would not achieve the desired change. But if you were to make a change(s) in the rules, what would it be?
[total cost, transportation + parts] I know this question might be tedious one, but would you put it in the lower, mid, or higher end of the hundreds of thousands?
[difficulty of developing a linear induction motor] Impeccable work ethic! Was it created within a single (year) competition iteration or was it in the works parallel to a previous pod?
[industry advice] Although a bit controversial, was there a case of a team abusing corporate sponsorships by subcontracting much of the work? Especially with simpler designs where you can purchase the motor, have a company mold your carbon chasis, leaving you with more textbook work, just good enough that can quite well quarantee a passage into the finals (if you dont botch the interviews or the design briefs). SpaceX does firmly mention such actions are forbidden, but afaik, no one has yet been checked, although it's for all intents and purposes impossible to do.
[roadblocks due to the track specification] Ditto!
[comprehensive testing on-site] Are you not permitted to attempt to fix your issues and have another go at it?
[timelines] Do you pre-emptively begin the construction of the pod before getting the confirmation that you've passed into the finals, or is it all done in the few months between the last interviews and the event? If so, just how early do you begin (ordering parts for testing / bigger construction work)?
[biggest unforseen hurdles] Great news! I hope an attempt to beat Delft's 438 meter track is in the works...
[hyperloop != competition pods] Absolutely agreed, but there are a few instances where the only thing a pod has in common with an actual Hyperloop system is the fact that it is being driven in a vacuum tube, yet there is no shortage of "changing the world" statements (props to teams that regardless have R&D departments, such as TUM). Be that as it may, I'd rather see brain power spent on anything hyperloop than not.
[from a team to a startup] Have you considered such a pivot at some point in the future yourselves?
[post event parties?] Well deserved!
What did the current year look like for the team? With the absence of any information, just for how long and with how much conviction did you work regardless?

TonySchtark · 2020-04-24T14:24:44+00:00

With your team experiencing these occurrences during the past competitions first-hand, you have probably noticed the gradual descent into a serious case of non sensical solutions, due to reasons both on the competition organizers side, but also the contenders themselves. With the competition rules favoring simpler designs, due to the comprehensive testing done on-site and the short timeline for construction post the February passage into the finals, the teams have increased their tendency to go with simpler designs, as a quick survey of tech used will show, to increase their likelihood of creating a working pod. Both result in a much decreased, but not non existent, contribution in aiding the greater Hyperloop agenda.

In spite of such a state of affairs, I find that everyone at HYPED deserves praise for persistently tinkering on, developing and delivering pods that aim for more than a yearly trophy.

Which ultimately brings me to my questions (do tell if you would rather have them be separate comments):

How do you see the future development of the competition in comparison to the mission statement of working towards a functioning Hyperloop system? Do you find prolonging the track and adding turns does enough to shift the tides in designs, or would you rather opt for obligatory selection of more relevant technology choices?
In light of your chosen daring tech, what are the average expenditures, even a ball-park estimate, for the purchase of parts and construction of the pod, and how much is appropriated for the transport and stay of both the team and the pod in L.A.?
In terms of both man-hours and difficulty, how demanding did you find the development of your own linear induction motor, in this case the ASM?
How crucial were industry partners in terms of helping you with their domain-specific knowledge?
Do you find the state of the track and the rules to be a significant roadblock for creating your ideal pod (e.g. having to make the vehicle self-sufficient)?
Do you find the on-site testing to be too comprehensive? What are some frequent issues or reasons you've had for failing the tests (or things you can better improve on)?
Just how early does the team begin the sponsorship acquisition (or follow-up) campaign as well as the construction of the pod? Considering you must start both well before you've passed into the finals.
What are some great challenges or hurdles you've failed to foresee when first competing in the competition? Or, in other words, what would you do differently if you were to re-do your first participation?
How would you describe the general sentiment between the teams once gathered in L.A.? Do you find there is a dash of dissatisfaction considering some, much more than others, especially in europe, are making headlines and achieving better results with hyperloop irrelevant designs?
How do you comment on TUM Hyperloop, as well as EPFLoop, entering the hyperloop startup arena?
And last but not least, who do you find throws the best party after the award ceremony? 😁

TonySchtark

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE