Is an O-1 or EB-1 visa viable as a grandmaster in chess? There are, for instance, only about 100 grandmasters in the United States right now. We're looking at bringing over a Chess grandmaster to our company, but don't know the most efficient route (haven't talked to an immigration lawyer). If time to visa is a factor, is there an easier route?
I assume they wouldn't be coming to the US to play chess...
> To qualify for an O-1 visa, you must demonstrate extraordinary ability by sustained national or international acclaim, or a record of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture and television industry, and must be coming temporarily to the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability.
> You must meet at least 3 of the 10 criteria* below, or provide evidence of a one-time achievement (i.e., Pulitzer, Oscar, Olympic Medal) as well as evidence showing that you will be continuing to work in the area of your expertise. No offer of employment or labor certification is required.
I believe he's asking if he qualifies under the "one-time achievement" here
> You must meet at least 3 of the 10 criteria* below, or provide evidence of a one-time achievement (i.e., Pulitzer, Oscar, Olympic Medal) as well as evidence showing that you will be continuing to work in the area of your expertise. No offer of employment or labor certification is required.
I'd like to think that continuing to play chess professionally under the US flag would qualify as "continuing to work in the area of expertise", as this is a self-sponsored visa anyway.
The company is a chess related company that sends instructors to school for afterschool events, so he would be teaching kids, instructing other instructors, helping run events (chess camps, tournaments, etc.), and giving private lessons.
I asked GM Minh Le (twitch.tv/gmminhle) to try it out, and he got a 2046 FIDE rating with 2306 lichess rating, after beating the bot. His actual FIDE rating is 2542 standard (https://ratings.fide.com/profile/12401153). His feedback was:
-Why does the bot get +20 seconds every move and you get +5 seconds?
-It seems like you have to wait a few seconds before making a move before the bot gets stuck
You can check out the VOD of him playing noctie on his channel if you want to see the full thing.
I think these tools, much like IQ tests, are not that useful when you are super good and get almost every move perfect. It was fairly accurate for me who is around 1900 lichess.
In Top Gun 2, he uses it twice. Once, during the training dogfight where Rooster has a chance to shoot him down (he says, "Too late, you had your chance" and then pulls off the maneuver, targeting Rooster instead afterwards). After the training dogfight, he is told by Cyclone, "...and I don't ever want to see that Cobra shit again. That could have gotten you both killed".
The second time was towards the end when they're fending off the SAM attacks -- Rooster is in trouble with no flares to launch, and Maverick simultaneously pulls off a Cobra Maneuver while launching his own set of flairs, resulting in his own aircraft being hit.
The film is ... filmed in/with real aircraft too. Obviously there are stand in effects when they're exploding missiles, but the in-cockpit shots are all practical "effects" of the actors sitting in second seat. Real canopies, real g-forces, etc. Pretty cool!
> And of course, the strike package would have been accompanied by the EA-18G Growler to jam SAM radar.
Well it should have been preceded by a Wild Weasel mission to take out the SAM radars and launchers. The Growler mission would just be extra SAM defense. There also should have been a counter-air element to deal with the enemy fighters flying CAP.
There was enough intelligence available for the mission every fixed SAM site should have eaten a couple Tomahawks in addition to the airfield. It's also a mystery why the whole facility wasn't just leveled by some B-2s loaded with GBU-37s.
There would have been fewer dog fights but that probably would have been ok.
Good point about the B-2. Does the Navy even perform Wild Weasel? That's usually the F-16's job and we can only "assume" that it was out of range of any USAF or collation airbase.
Of course, the country in question would have to be Iran due to the F-14... though the Felon hasn't been shipped outside (or inside of...heh) Russia.
I don't think the Navy calls their SEAD Wild Weasel. Their SEAD missions are similar to the Air Force's Wild Weasel missions but without the naming. They're both SEAD and use similar tactics and weapons.
But the movie's mission not including any SEAD was 100% suspenders of disbelief. The whole mission seemed to be planned by people that were the pilots' life insurance beneficiaries.
I think the fundamental argument against early abortion is itself not religiously based. That argument goes like:
1. There is a secondary organism (life) within the womb upon conception.
2. That life will become a human being. Therefore:
3. That life must be given the same rights to not be killed that other (fully grown) human beings have.
Where is the religion or logical fallacy in that line of thought?
We even see aspects of this logic applied within common law, in that a pregnant woman (regardless of the length of pregnancy) that is murdered is considered a double-homicide.
I think it's unhelpful to approach a highly-contentious subject with the thought that the people on one side have absolutely no logical reason for believing what they do. I say logical, because the implication that something is religious is a way in modern rhetoric to defuse the opposing view by implying that the person holding it is not approaching from any sort of empirical worldview, but instead only deriving their argument from some ancient document of (whichever) religion.
This is all based on assumption you can force someone to “donate”, or partially sacrifice, their body for whatever reason. And this assumption comes from a fundamentally misogynistic interpretation of religion.
My entire product of doing in-image advertising[1] was created in order to build a new concept website for my uncle's nautical antique store[2]. He has a store built out of an old lighthouse in Old Town San Diego, and it's basically a museum (where you can buy the stuff inside it). When he came to me, he asked me if I could build a website that has the feel of his museum-like store, so I said, "Why don't we just take pictures inside of the store itself, and let your customers browse the pictures by hovering their mouse over the products and getting more info on the products they're interested in!".
The punchline: I spent months building a pretty amazing site, to have him say that his audience was probably too old to understand how to use the site I built. So far, that technology has led to two granted patents and my startup![3]
I've always thought of Houzz as the perfect example of a site that would be ten times better with my startup's technology -- as an example, here's a comparison of Houzz's UX vs. my UX on the same image: https://youtu.be/6kOCIkJ-5vY
As a text description of what it does, PLEENQ[1] allows individual objects within images to highlight when you hover them, and directly link to the object (in this case, kithen products). Here's a much better demo version of PLEENQ's technology: https://youtu.be/tf4pE0xtYTo
Before these white rectangles over the images, they used to have "price tags" that you could hover over, but the UX was all wonky, since the price tag triggered a popup which prevented you from seeing/hovering over other price tags.
I'll probably add a feature for my users like the product options they have below the images, though -- I like that a lot!
I've been saying that the ad model is broken for a while, and prescribing a real fix for it: a new form of native advertising that actually benefits the user. My company, PLEENQ[1], makes it so users can hover over an image and click on the individual products within it to go where they can buy the product. Here's a demo video: https://youtu.be/V_oTtDUV0yI
My solution is to basically build features around the content of sites that enhance the areas of the site that already attract the users. More importantly, it simplifies the revenue model that the article talks about -- people click on your links and make purchases, and you get a share of every single purchase (CPA). The important thing is that it's compatible with any other revenue models a site might use. If, like GroundUp, they take donations, then it's just an extra revenue source on top of that.
I looked on GroundUp.org for building an example video of how that would work so I could show the community, but it doesn't really fit the model of PLEENQ. Regardless, there are a vast number of niches that this new form of native advertising would drastically improve the revenue for. Imagine an auto blog showing a picture of an engine, and you being able to hover over any part within the picture and purchase it from Auto Zone.
Another thing is that it can be used to split between revenue generating links, and informational links. Perhaps you have a news site, and a lot of your articles have pictures of politicians that your users might not be familiar with -- how about hovering over that person and being able to click on them to go to their Wikipedia page? I think that would greatly benefit a user browsing the site, and wouldn't cheapen in any way the experience of the site itself (in fact would greatly improve it).
While cool as a tech (hello again <map>, i did not miss you) , most sites do not have large pictures of sellable items -- and far from every country has amazon as a reasonable choice due the cost of shipping and import tax.
Maybe it is cool for pink bloggers ( https://goo.gl/OFWwmp ), but I don't see the use case for the masses like you do with adsense.
I'm curious what you think of my ad network[1] -- it allows for native ads that are non-intrusive and actually benefit the user. When you hover over an item in an image, an ad is displayed, but hovering off of it makes it go away.
That's neat, though looking at your demo (thru pleenq.com), the discoverability is not that good: I'd not hover things with my cursor if I didn't know that those popups would appear. You should tell that to the user somehow on the ad host.
I'm curious.... is there some sort of crazy image recognition tech going on here or does the website owner need to somehow identify what's in the image for the ads to work? If it's the former then this is seriously impressive.
Unfortunately (in terms of programming credibility), it's done manually. The process is extremely fast though -- just seconds to do a highlight, and a built-in search that hooks into all affiliate networks (Commission Junction, Linkshare, Affiliate Window, Share-a-sale, etc.) along with allowing custom links.
Huh, the startups who tried to do this before you (and died) didn't do it manually. Some crowdsourced it, some did recognition. Do you think your timing is better?
