ratliffchrisb

Leaving work for childcare is currently a valid reason to go on unemployment. They should try to work this out with one of their employers. They could each go down to 50% time and pay and be supplemented by unemployment currently. There is a lot of flexibility they aren't taking advantage of and then complaining about how hard it is.

That would be the opposite of paying your loan.

Yeah, my wife and I went to the spoonbread festival a few weeks ago it was a lot of fun.

The college does a lot of cool things in the area. A lot of the classes in the area for crafts and such are nice.

Yeah, that's a huge issue. The ability for the local talent to share their expertise with each other is important too. I agree, but there are solutions to the problem. More meetups and groups have been started in the area, Lexington, and some more rural areas too.

I don't know what the exact cause is, but I got the impression the reason 50 were admitted was that there was a limit to the scale of the program, not that everyone else was unqualified. The article mentioned they are admitting 90 the next year and were continuing to expand.

Very true. UK, U of L, and many other schools in the state produce solid devs. And you're right a lot of the better grads leave for better jobs. But I wouldn't agree that there are no "good" jobs here. The salary is lower, but you probably come out ahead in CoL terms. There have been some startups doing well recently in Lexington and from what I understand Louisville is only doing better. The place I work, Badger Technologies, is doing some pretty awesome things and has some open positions.

This article in the Herald Leader explains and give some numbers to what you're saying https://www.kentucky.com/news/business/article181564581.html Supposedly some of the reason the group was pushed by some larger employers in the area that were hearing potential employees were turning down offers because if the job didn't turn out well in the long run there weren't many alternatives.

I had 400 level EE classes with a couple guys who came up through community colleges. They weren't always prepared for the classes. It was ironic because it wasn't they didn't understand the previous material, but because they hadn't dealt with poor instructors and didn't have the relationships of the previous 3 years studying with the same people.

It was possible at the same university to walk into a lab and start working on joint projects with NASA, the NSA or local industry, where other local universities and community colleges don't offer as much in that regard. On the other hand those professors running the labs didn't really seem to care where the students came from, whether they were in high school or the community college up the road if they were willing to work.

How are you getting unlimited books? I'm limited to the few hundred my local library has.

I've invested and mined crypto before, but this is worrying to me. There are enough payday loan offices and gas stations minting money off lottery tickets in Kentucky. The consensus is people keep going to them because it allows them to buy hope, they aren't concerned with the odds, just the feeling they can strike it rich is enough to get someone to buy a scratcher.

The quote from the article “What crypto allows is for the masses to be venture capitalists,” seems sensationalist to me, not to mention inaccurate. Aimed more at selling a lifestyle than educating consumers.

If someone thinks an incredibly volatile and aggressive asset is a replacement for a pension they have probably have gross misconceptions about what they are investing in. Letting someone that ignorant of what they're doing buy in like that is completely irresponsible. I really hope they are being responsible in educating their investors and haven't just found a new way to fleece Kentuckians.

I think a lot of work has been undertaken for a ROS1->2 bridge. It should be feasible to use this to have ROS on a micro and bridge to an existing ROS 1 code base.

They are moving to ament. http://design.ros2.org/articles/ament.html

I think a lot of the difficulty is in the build system being federated. This makes it complex as it supports multiple build other systems for other ROS packages. I haven't looked into it much yet, but I'm curious about ROS 2 also supporting ROS on smaller micros now. I think this would make the build system more complex.

Modifying the how the devel space is handled seems like an improvement and making it more modular seems like it should help though.

I think the last paragraph in the article is key, the most interesting and tiring arguments are the ones where both parties believe the other is arguing from the gut and have retroactively reasoned while they are being perfectly rational. Being able to see when you might be doing this as well often makes the discussion much less adversarial.

I spent a good amount of time working with Brillo when Google was first pushing it. The thing I liked most about working with it was the system they had for OTA updates. Even in beta they had support for staged rollouts with some analytics on the rollout. There was lockin with the solution as updates used Google's cloud and was signed by both your and their key, but it was a really robust system considering how new it was.

I really hope the project gets more attention. Not only was the firmware update system nice, but having the promis of having the core OS managed and only having to worry about your application was nice as well.

I would really like to talk to some VC's, unfortunately I'm based in the Midwest, it might as well be the majove as far as funding goes or so I understand. So I'm trying to get a sizable MVP and traction before spending time talking to people. No one will talk to you unless you already have the product launched with users here. Where I'm at the Ben and Jerry's model almost makes more sense because by the time you can get funding you almost don't need it anymore.

On the flip side, where I'm located the 120k from yc seed money would be a year's runway for me and a cofounder or two. That and there is more talent here than people think, or at least more good devs looking for work than hiring.

If anyone has some contacts or VCs want to get in contact with me take my username at Gmail to talk.

Yes and they vary drastically. Federal courts use the same jury pool for two years, while a local court could be as little as two weeks.

Attorneys/secretaries/paralegals already do this by hand. More than scraping I'm hoping to do something useful with what they already scrape manually. By giving them a platform that make it easy to share their notes and info about jurors I should be able to start using this information.

Even so, I do have some benefit to having defense attorneys use it. I'll get more data on jurors.

Having people pay what they will or can isn't a new idea. If the defense can't pay an individual license may be cheap, while an office license could be exorbitant if the DA will pay through the nose.

The main point of the last post is that I gain nothing if they don't use it, but if anyone is paying for it I still gain from other free users.

As I mentioned the I think system is suboptimal, I think this can improve it though. I'm not a jerk who would screw the Justice system for a buck, I really do think this can improve things. I don't think the possibility that it might hurt is reason enough not to try.

I replied to PJ via email earlier because I was timed out on responses, but for anyone wondering about this:

My MVP and what would likely become a free version is an app that allows for the sharing of information about jurors and taking notes about jurors during selection. The level of trust required for this is low, just don't delete their info and your good. But while using the free version I imagine that if you had a juror the attorney rated favorably and you had evidence they were an undeniable liability and you showed this to the attorney it would prove the paid tools worth and hopefully encourage them to pay to research the other potential jurors after seeing my tool prevent such a blunder.

Even if it had a low conversion rate the free version still makes sense, more users means more data to draw conclusions to give to those that are paying.

That is a possible outcome.

Like I said though, with courtrooms being adversarial one side is incentivized to use any useful tool against the other. If the defense can't afford it and therefore doesn't use it, it becomes less likely the prosecution will use it then too. Maybe to counteract this I have to subsidize the cost of those using it for defense.

It is far to early to say for certain, but in order to generate better juror recommendations data is needed, I want as many people using it as possible to get data.

1. I agree. I think this app could be useful to the consultants too by making their jobs easier. I think I would still see a sale, just from a consultant not the attorney. I think two separate markets would be those who can't afford or it doesnt make sense to hire consultants and the consultants themselves.

2. The biogdaphic/demographic data is all from forms and attorneys would have no reason to lie to their own device they are using to reference juror information from. I think most of the information would be reliable.

3. The defense cab use it too ;). But seriously, the juror selection process is designed for each attorney to be able to get rid of anyone they think is biased against then with the hope that by both attorneys doing this those left create a fair hury. Is this optimal? No. Would my tool make a suboptimal solution better? Yes I believe it will.

I think it is the programmer optimization drive in us that makes this seem crappy that it isn't being completely overhauled since it isn't optimal, but my solution does help.

You're right, I left off a zero, 8 million people report for jury duty a year. Each potential juror is often researched by more than 4 attorneys. At $25 per juror researched you end up around a billion dollars. $25 per juror is what many attorneys pay for a criminal record check already, so this is a pricing model they are familiar with and I think if the product provides as much information as I believe it can the value could meet or exceed the value of a criminal check. A criminal record might be more indicative of a bad juror, but so few people have them compared to the number of people with other data sources I think the expected value of information evens out.

And this is just the States, there are other countries that use similar systems for jury selection.

I agree I won't make that until there is a mature product, but the question was addressable market, not expected year 1 revenue.

The mvp I'm working on now allows the sharing of information about jurors. This should allow me to gather data on how jurors vote tat can be marketed while still making profit off the sharing app alone.

It becomes public record and is free for use. The attorneys I've been working with locally have been able to hand me juror sheets. It's honestly kind of scary that I can be handed that much personal info on someone and their criminal record.

There are sites you can download this information from now. It is freely available, but not freely distributed by the government. Somehow a file server costs ten cents a page served, but you can access it all.

I don't think it would be too difficult. Any question asked or note taken can be analyzed. From whose perspective? Attorneys views on selection is simple; "if they aren't favorable to me get the juror out". They really don't care how or why. It is illegal to select based on race and gender, but it doesn't stop them. (Check recent supreme Court case and batson laws) anything other than that is fair game. Seeming to emotional or smart or attentive or inattentive or rigid or conservative or liberal or religious can get you struck. A lot of it is based off feeling and simple logic.

"I have a complex case, I need smart jurors" or "my case is based off emotions, not facts, so I need emotional jurors" are common thoughts. Because of this any insight into the potential juror is useful.

There is a great deal of rules of thumb. Strategies passed from attorney to attorney, but little verified knowledge. That is what I'm hoping I can provide.

Some added notes. Attorneys already look up juror's facebooks/twitters/etc if they can. I would just be helping them use that data. I would try to automate as much as possible, but even if I can't there is still plenty of data to look at.

Also, I've not really explored this avenue much, but any information brought up in this investigation or given to attorneys becomes a matter of public record. It seems like there would be a great deal you could do with that, but I'm not really into the personal data selling thing.

This. Kind of what I said in the main post. It seems crappy that you're giving someone an advantage, but it would be available to both sides. The justice system is structured this way because they believe attorneys will act in their self interest only and by letting them both do so it will be fair. I'm just allowing them both to have better tools while they do it.

They actually get a decent amount of information, the shortest time frame would be a few days, usually a week or more.

A sample of information, just what I remember, I'm not looking at the list.

Name

age

education

limited previous legal experiences

Address

Employer and length of time with employer

members of household with relation and age

Criminal history, down to parking records, doesn't come with the juror info sheet, but is usually easily accessible by attorneys.

Even simple things that can be grabbed from facebook/twitter/anything would be useful. Often the halo effect or a person trying to get out of jury duty cause some degree of deception. Anything that can verify what they said in court is valuable. A jury could consist of as few as 6 people, finding that one of them is biased against you and you can strike them is great. The smallest thing can mean a great deal. Say under their favorite books they list civil disobedience, you could easily strike them from a case where one side may be some sort of conscientious objector.

True, if there are millions on the line the attorney would probably hire a consultant, but in that case I think a consultants job would still be easier with my tool than without it and should result in a sale for me, just from the consultant instead of the attorney.

As far as market, not much like this exists, but it is being asked for. There are roughly 80,000 trials per year in the US, a prosecution and defense for each, so 160,000 opportunities. This also makes it such that there are 800,000 potential jurors per year. Some pricing structures I think are reasonable could result in a revenue of under one billion per year.

I'll be honest I've not talked with many people, > 10, but the reactions I received from those I've talked to has convinced me. I've talked to a few civil and criminal lawyers, both public servants and private firms and the feedback is usually ecstatic. "incredible value" might be my words, but "invaluable" was what one lawyer kept saying. Further validation comes from a rudimentary and necessary building block of this, note taking electronically during jury selection, is immature to the point it almost doesn't exist was something I was approached by attorneys to create. The data mining and giving suggestions just seemed like a natural evolution, which so far has been received well.

I know I won't be able to provide everything on every potential juror, but if I'm consistently striking one I'm showing value. And with a pool of > 200 people I'm sure there's someone that I can dig up dirt on.

No, nothing near it. There are tons of small details about jury selection that is common knowledge to attorneys that are based off very general, singular, facts. For example, a prosecutor will almost always strike a social worker if they get the chance because they are supposedly always driven by mitigating circumstances that make them highly unlikely to convict. Backing up, or refuting, things like this and finding more of them once you have actual data is child's play.

A probability based off a set of given facts and not every fact is still useful and doesn't require AI.

To fully replace a jury consultant, yes that would require AI, but at their going rate of >$250/hr I think an app could find a price point reflecting the diminished result that is still very attractive in comparison.