Can you perform the same model/garment fit with an uploaded model image? If so this would be revolutionary in reducing returns of online garment shopping. To see how a garment stretches when put on consumer's body type would be very beneficial. Ideally this would be done in real time but even a minute's wait to see how the item will look on you might be acceptable for consumers if it means less disappointment when you try on the item physically at home and elimination of a return.
This is our ultimate goal! It will take some time :)
It's very hard to ensure good quality rendering on user uploaded image (a lot of out of distribution). We've seen others who try to do that, but quality not yet great.
We're considered the 3D option, it's difficult bc most retailers don't have 3D garments and it take very long time to create them. Maybe when that content becomes more available, we'll eventually replace our current system with 3D.
Interested to learn more about the type of 3D model you make. Drop me an email kedan@revery.ai if you're interested to chat :)
To add to this I would like to say that if you do reach out to candidates be cognizant of the fact that you interrupted their life with this solicitation so be sure you provide all relevant information about the job, position, duties and details about your startup in the email so the candidate can make a decision if they are interested or not from your email.
If they have to go out and spend 30 minutes to an hour to google stuff about you then it's probably not going to happen.
Lastly if they don't respond to a LinkedIn message or email within a week just move on and don't keep sending follow up emails. There is a reason the candidates didn't respond because they don't want to and shouldn't have to spend even 5 minutes responding to your unsolicited email
This is by far the most important aspect to me with getting a message. I've only been sent around 2-4 messages with this much detail. These are the ones I actually reply to, even if I'm not interested at the moment. It's usually somebody who I'd at least want to stay in touch with. And often, if they've written something like that, it's usually something I'm somewhat interested in.
Maybe the cost versus the returns on these kind of messages aren't worth it to companies. But I really appreciate them.
> The difference is often less than a penny. But it adds up for larger trades. Schwab, for instance, says that for orders of 500 to 1,999 shares of S&P 500 companies, the average savings from price improvement is $10.80.
Ok and Schwab charges $4.95 for trades. So an investor ends up saving $5 per trade. S&P 500 companies stock price ranges from $20 to $1200 so to buy 500 shares of a company with $20 price per share would mean you spend $10000 resulting in a saving of 0.05%. On the other end of the spectrum you spend $600,000 resulting in a savings of 0.0008% assuming that when they say "average savings" they mean "average savings" per trade and not per share.
> average savings from price improvement is $10.80.
I wonder if they lie about this like Fidelity does.
If the market on some product is 100.00/100.06 with a mid price of 100.03, and I route an order at the mid price that is filled at 100.02 that is then a price improvement of 1 cent.
On Fidelity I've noticed they calculate everything off the asking price, and would say my price improvement was .04, which is not really right.
> The opportunity for "price improvement" – which is the opportunity, but not the guarantee, for an order to be executed at a better price than what is currently quoted publicly
It's measured with reference to the quote, not your order price. Think about it, if you sent a limit order for $20.02 and got filled at $10.02, did you get $10 of price improvement?
> if you sent a limit order for $20.02 and got filled at $10.02, did you get $10 of price improvement?
Yes. That's a rather extreme example, but If I route a limit order for X and get filled for Y, my price improvement is X-Y, not the asking price - X. I guess it depends on if you consider the price of something to be the mid price or the bid/ask price.
As far as I am concerned Fidelity IS lying. The market on the thing could be 100.00/100.10, with a LAST trade price of 100.05. I route a limit order for 100.05 and get filled at 100.05 and fidelity claims I got price improved by 5 cents, which is bullshit.
edit: also, that page you linked and quoted is specifically talking about market orders:
> Here's an example of how price improvement can work: Let's say you enter a market order to sell 500 shares of a stock...
We have an EM who took on grunt work (but critical) so the team could focus on tasks on the charter of the team. Personally I really appreciated that because otherwise the team would have had to spend a few sprints doing the grunt work. His rationale was "You guys are doing great work and your momentum is great. I don't want this stuff to slow you guys down. I'll take it on" +100 for that attitude.
If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound if no one's around to see it or hear it fall? That seems to be Google's logic for not disclosing this.
On the contrary they seem like perfectly rational responses to an introductory video that is redundant at best and patronising at worst.
I was dissuaded from installing it because I assume the products quality would reflect how little the founders seem to understand people in thinking that it's necessary to accurately detail what a poor start to the day would look like.
The video should be a simple gif demonstrating how an email with a negative tone is detected and turned into a positive tone. People are smart enough to figure out how that could be useful.
The feedback might have been good but the tone of those comments had hint of snark. Considering the product is to help you remove negative sentiment from your responses I would say they were good use cases.
replace blathering and blabber with more constructive words
Why not just emit the sound when going below a certain speed AND ONLY IF there are pedestrians closer than a certain distance? That would be more expensive for sure but doesn't cause unnecessary sound pollution.
You have to beware of overreaction to the bad investment. Generally folks are not savvy investors. Just look at the large number of small investors in the stock markets. When greed takes hold or FOMO does and lots of people lose money it will lead to an overreaction against investors wanting to put money in companies. This will lead to VC/angel investment drying up which in turn will curb startups.
Remember we live in a country where a cafe has to put the following disclaimer on Hot coffee paper cups "Caution: The contents of this cup could be hot!!"
Very very true. A lot of people make extremely poor decisions with their money. Perhaps there could be a threshold then? Like you are allowed to invest x% of your income/savings? I don’t really know the answer.
I think the cup example may actually be more to prevent restaurants/cafes from lawsuits vs. to actually protect their customers from burns. I suppose it could be a combination of the two though.
The cup example was to show that people are dumb enough to sue a cafe because they got burned by hot coffee. It's an example of overreaction. Instead of thinking "I ordered a hot coffee, maybe this cup is going to be hot and I should be careful", people think "I ordered a hot coffee and because the cafe gave it to me in a cup I am going to assume it's the cafe's responsibility to make sure I don't get burnt" When people get burned they react by finding scapegoats.
You should watch the episode of Black Mirror where a game developer creates a horror game with a neural link causing the gamer to "see" and "feel" things that aren't there. It goes horribly wrong. Let's hope this future you imagine never arrives.
