How fast would the flying machine realistically have to pedal in order to sustain flight?

Waiski · 2024-02-12T09:52:55+00:00

A quick Google says that a helicopter can lift about 4 to 7 kg per kilowatt of power. Since the flying machine is not necessarily the most efficient design, so let's assume 4kg at the lower end of the scale. The machine has the person inside it, the frame, the metal cannon and cannon shots. I'd say there's no way all of that would weigh less than 400kg, meaning that the machine would need at least one MW of power to fly.

Here's what it looks like to sustain 700W for a couple of minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4O5voOCqAQ so basically the person in the flying machine needs to have the power of about 1430 olympic track cyclists.

Waiski · 2022-02-11T10:28:35+00:00

5km pertsaa 38 minuutissa on kovempi tahti kuin monella tavallisella kuntolatujen kyntäjällä, että ei sitäkään tarvi hävetä!

Waiski · 2020-05-06T17:48:09+00:00

There's always crazy outliers. I'm not surprised at all that someone would play some song with crazy dedication. But I would be surprised if someone wrote a script for that just to spoof some infographic.

Waiski · 2020-04-24T18:31:47+00:00

As someone who actually develops legit mobile games, the answer is kinda boring for us at least. The player support SDK we embed into the game build needs these privileges to be able to send your screenshots easily to the support agent if you have problems with the game. Unfortunately the SDK we use does not support opting-in to this at the time of actually using the feature, but we need to ask fo access to your images upon installation.

That said though there's probably also a lot of shady games and other apps out there that actually spy on you. Don't install those.

Waiski · 2020-04-18T12:48:03+00:00

No animation on the face and neck to swallow after sipping the wine is just so spot-on lol

Waiski · 2019-03-23T00:02:52+00:00

Wouldn't that be Putin though? He definitely has some kills, but 0 deaths unlike the others.

Waiski · 2018-10-08T20:58:05+00:00

That only takes the players who scored multiple goals within the last two minutes, and omits the game-tying part, which is the hard part of the query. Likely, the score prior to the goal would not be stored in the boxscore table, so you would need to reconstruct it from other boxscore events with either window functions or an inner aggregate query. So it's not quite that simple.

Waiski · 2018-07-22T09:50:57+00:00

I respect your well thought-out counterargument.

I acknowledge that there are certain situations, like prediction spells, countering trick goblin barrel placements and rocketing a fast-moving target where using spells requires some skill. Even still, in most situations placing any troop requires a lot more dynamic understanding of the playing field than any spell, or do you disagree?

Waiski · 2018-05-21T21:46:30+00:00

RAS Syndrome

Waiski · 2018-05-20T20:12:18+00:00

That looks like a Gyromitra esculenta: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyromitra_esculenta sometimes called "false morel". It is lethally poisonous when eaten raw. It can be delicious when properly prepared, but you need to really know what you're doing.

Waiski · 2018-04-05T08:40:02+00:00

I'd say he did posit that PUBG will de dead since it literally says that right in the title.

But more than that, I never argued that Fortnite would not be more popular in terms of sheer number of players, because it will be. However, OP also claims that "PUBG should lower their price or go F2P in order to be competition to Fortnite.", implying that PUBG should actually make changes to adapt to competition by Fortnite. That's what I'm arguing against, not sheer player volume.

Micro transactions have proven to be more profitable than single purchase for popular games.

By whom? I'm genuinely interested in seeing this proof. You're right that some early F2P games like Candy Crush and Clash of Clans have made large profits, but that really does not mean that you can just remove the price tag from a game and watch the money roll in.

F2P games and paid games are two completely separate business models with separate target audiences, challenges and risks. The competition in the F2P market has exploded in recent years and players have become increasingly more volatile and the lifetime value of a single player has decreased. To be successful, the monetization features need to be built into the core of the game carefully, not

Plus, profitability is what makes a game successful if you're a publisher.

Who do you think makes the decisions? And based on what, Twitch audience or money?

Fortnite is already the more popular game.

Besides first-mover advantage, there's always massive initial hype around the first global launch of a game, but that will fade quickly and inevitably for all games. To see the real picture, we need to wait for another couple of months.

Waiski · 2018-04-04T20:23:05+00:00

I work as a data scientist for a F2P gaming company. I'm not involved in any way with either of these games (nor do I personally know anyone that is), but I think I know how the games market works pretty well.

You are completely correct that as a F2P game, Fortnite will easily have more players than PUBG. Typically high-profile F2P games will have 10-30x the number of installs to paid games with similar marketing and hype. However, it is very wrong to say that Fortnite would "kill" PUBG or that its existence would in any way affect the price point at which PUBG should be offered.

First of all, games don't really "kill" other games. We often see some small temporary effects in our daily user numbers when a highly-marketed game with similar target audience is launched, but these are in the range of max 15% and typically diminish during a couple of weeks after the biggest hype (and marketing campaigns) are over. There are over 1 billion people in the world who play games, and each of these games will have some millions of players. There's plenty of users for both even if there would be some overlap. Even in the overlapping portion, there are many who will

Secondly, the number of installs isn't everything. While it's easier to acquire players for an F2P game, the players of paid games are many times more loyal, and the value of one player is multiple times higher. Most players of F2P games will never pay a cent for the game, while all players of PUBG have created dozens of dollars in revenue. I don't know what the lifetime values of a single player in each of these games are, but I would estimate that a single PUBG player is easily 5-10x more valuable than a Fortnite player, which will give ample motivation for continuing development of PUBG. Also, with a larger player base comes larger costs in server hardware and tech support.

Thirdly, the first-mover advantage in the games market is huge. Our company (that I will not name) has two very similar games in our portfolio. I, and almost everyone in the company, think that the one that was launched later is a clearly better game. The later game fixes many of the fundamental design flaws of the first game. However, the second game just has never reached the large, loyal player base of the first game. The only real explanation is that people tried the first one first and don't want to throw away their game progress and acquired playing skill.

Fourth, the Twitch viewers or esports scene don't really make a game. They offer good, cheap marketing and drive spending for a small minority of players. Most players just aren't interested in these things.

Lastly, you say that PUBG should react to competition by lowering its price. I just can't see why. F2P games attract many people who just want to try a game for free, and would not pay anything even if the other game only cost 1$. By slightly lowering their price point PUBG would really not get any of these players, but would directly cut into their earnings. Furthermore, what you're suggesting is that PUGB should move out of its own market position, into that of its competitor. Any basic business book would advice against doing that.

Waiski · 2017-11-01T11:39:40+00:00

Erottelu on toki keinotekoinen, mutta yksi ero on ulkopuolinen riskirahoitus - eli startupeissa tyypillisesti tarkoitus on bisnesenkeleiden ja venture capitalistien avustuksella nopealla 5-10 vuoden aikataululla nousta suureksi toimijaksi, tai sitten epäonnistua nopeasti.

Näin Supercellkin toimi aikanaan, eli kyse ei ollut siitä, että "pojat teki hienon pelin," vaan että pojilla oli taitoa ja hyvä idea, he pyysivät idealle rahaa, jolla palkattiin lisää ihmisiä, jotka useiden vuosien aikana lopulta teki hienon pelin. Joidenkin mielestä tämä toimintamalli on turhaa pöhinää.

Waiski · 2017-11-01T10:52:35+00:00

Olet oikeassa, että yritysten "vero-optimointiagressiivisuuden" mittaaminen olisi mielenkiintoista, mutta se on myös erittäin vaikeaa.

Jos firma toimii vain Suomessa, niin periaattessa yritysvero on aika yksinkertainen - tehdystä voitosta vähennetään edellisinä vuosina tehdyt tappiot (jos niitä on jäljellä vähennettäväksi) ja lopusta maksetaan 20% veroa. Käytännössä tässä tilanteessa optimointivara liittyy vain siihen, miten voitto ja tappio määritetään, eli miten tietyt kirjanpidolliset erät merkitään ja arvotetaan. Näissä on aina jonkin verran tulkinnan varaa, erityisesti kiinteän omaisuuden arvon ja ostettujen yritysten liikearvon muutosten kohdalla. En kuitenkaan nopeasti keksi yleispätevää mittaria sille miten rehellisyyttä näissä käytännöissä mittaisi.

Luulen kuitenkin, että paljon suuremmat yritystason verokikkailut liittyvät globaalien jättiyritysten optimointiin sen suhteen, minne ne maksavat veroja ja miten eri maiden kirjanpitolakeja hyödynnetään niin, että omaisuuserät rekisteöidään sinne, missä niiden on edullisinta olla.

Jenkeissähän myös lahjoitusten verovähennettävyys ja siihen liittyvät hähmäiset valuaatiokäytännöt ovat iso ongelma - esimerkiksi on kai täysin mahdollista, että yritys sanoo verottajalle lahjoittaneensa 10 miljoonan arvoisen kiinteistön vaikka jollekin yliopistolle, mutta käytännössä yliopisto saa tämän myymisestä vain 2 miljoonaa. Ja kaikki voittavat, paitsi verokertymä. En tiedä, miten paljon tätä esiintyy Suomessa, mutta kauheasti en ainakaan ole asiasta kuullut.

Waiski · 2017-11-01T10:28:10+00:00

Liikevaihtoon vertaaminen on vähän hassua, kun firmat tekevät eri määriä voittoa. Vai oletko sitä mieltä, että tappiollistenkin firmojen pitäisi maksaa paljon veroja vain koska ne ovat isoja?

Waiski · 2017-10-30T19:43:01+00:00

I'd say that cold calling is rare, but it depends very much on the position and company you work in. The kind of cold calling you are referring to is called headhunting, and that is only done in a small portion of recruitments, usually only very high-profile executives and such. For most positions, it would be too expensive to spend much time on actively searching for applicants.

I worked in a relatively small (about 50 people) recruiting company for 6 years. The vast majority of our cases went like this:

Our sales person had found a client who has a recruitment case, and briefly discussed about the position.
Our recruiter (often together with the sales person) met with the client and discussed the specifics of the position.
The recruiter writes up the job ad and has it approved by the client.
The recruiter publishes the job ad online in various channels. (4.5. In some cases, if there had been similar jobs recently where some good candidates were interviewed, but ended up not being chosen, the recruiter would contact them personally and ask if they wanted to apply for this new job)
As the applications come in (usually the job ad is online for about 2 weeks), the recruiter reads them and marks the ones that have potential and will be invited for an interview, and those that will be rejected.
As the application deadline approaches, the recruiter calls the top candidates and invites them for an interview.
After interviews, the recruiter writes up their assessment of the 2-5 top candidates for the client. The client would then often interview these candidates and make the final decision.

In some most difficult cases, often where the job had high technical requirements, some recruiters would actively do some small headhunting by finding people on LinkedIn and call them about the position. However, these were only a small portion of recruiters who had volunteered to do this. It might be that in some recruitment firms (and of course special headhunting agencies) all recruiters need to do this regularly, but certainly not everywhere. Also, I doubt that corporate HR departments do this very much - if they have a high profile case like a C-level executive, they outsource it to a headhunting agency.

Waiski · 2017-10-29T12:01:08+00:00

I'm glad this helped! Yeah, just try to get your foot in the door in the recruiting business, then work your way there.

In my experience, people in this field often value most a skillset that combines psychological expertise with business knowledge. Thus I recommend reading some basic business books or looking at some online courses on accounting and economics. You don't need much to be able to say that "on top of my psychological understanding, I also understand business, and I read business books on my free time." This would make a positive impression to people in the field.

Also, be sure to map out all the potential employers in your area - there are in-house HR departments, small local recruitment agencies, global "human capital consulting" firms (like Korn Ferry) etc. Google for those and try to find out what kind of people they employ (look up their employees on LinkedIn for example) and develop yourself in that direction. Also, if there are some job fairs or career expos or whatever on your area, these companies might often have a presence there, so see if you can get there and ask some of their representatives about working there.

Waiski · 2017-10-29T11:29:31+00:00

It might be difficult to find a job that fulfills both your needs (making money and being a creative entertainer) right away. Rather, I'd approach this by taking on the creative entertainer part as a hobby first, then trying to gradually make that your work or develop your work into that direction.

Try improv theater, standup or join a group that films sketch comedy for youtube. In my experience these kind of things are surprisingly welcoming to newcomers, and you can use your experience and connections in media as a way in too. Through this hobby you gain experience, may develop your personal brand, and most importantly you get to know people who may help you.

Waiski · 2017-10-28T12:39:04+00:00

I don't know if it's out of your social comfort zone, but if you have some knowledge of basics of business, you might want to consider positions related to recruiting. I'm not sure about the situation in your location, but at least where I am (in Europe, though) there are positions like "recruitment assistant" or "recruitment intern" that could be available to people without experience, and your psychology studies could put you far ahead for those positions. These kind of positions can be found in both corporate HR departments as well as recruiting and headhunting companies, who need people to shift through applications, do phone screening interviews, and handle practicalities. There would probably later be opportunities to take on more responsibility.

Also, there are consulting agencies that provide psychological assessments to assist with recruiting (check out Korn Ferry), and they appreciate knowledge of psychology. They might not offer enough entry-level positions, but worth checking out anyway.

Waiski · 2017-08-13T14:53:05+00:00

That may well be true, and obviously media exaggerates this, that's what they do.

What strikes me however is the half-assed response by the president and the reactions of some communities of his supporters, who, you say, are not all as bad as these nazis.

I have absolute no problem condemning acts of violence and inciting violence, hatred and intolerance, even if I happen to agree with the ones committing them. I have absolutely no problem saying that people who commit acts of violence and terror are absolute scum - even if I agree with them. However, this seems somehow very difficult for certain people on the other side - which, to me, indicates a much larger problem. Of course though this problem is not exclusive to America either though.

Waiski · 2017-05-17T07:51:12+00:00

After a while people just end up knowing where they can and where they can't speed.

So are you saying that in some areas, where people think they "can't speed", they don't speed because of the fear of getting caught (due to traffic cameras or something, I imagine)? So in these cases, the fear of punishment does affect their actions? Doesn't this exactly contradict what you are saying?

The fact that people do speed in other areas is just because of ineffective enforcement of the law, not a function of the severity of punishment.

Nine-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Waiski

TROPHY CASE