#Techso | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

techsoul-technologies · 6 months ago

Text

Techsoul: Redefining Digital Transformation

Introduction

Techsoul is a pioneering IT service firm dedicated to unlocking new possibilities through the seamless integration of information technology (IT) and artificial intelligence (AI). Our mission is to empower businesses by offering innovative solutions that streamline operations and enhance productivity. From software development to custom website design, we aim to provide organizations with the tools they need to achieve sustainable growth. With operations spanning Kerala, Qatar, and the UAE, Techsoul is on a journey to transform businesses globally.

Visit us: www.teamtechsoul.com

For support: www.techsoul.support

Explore our e-brochure: www.teamtechsoul.com/eb

Our Professional Services

1. Web Development

At Techsoul, we prioritize client needs and aim to deliver high-performing websites that exceed expectations. Every website we build reflects our commitment to user experience, speed, and scalability, ensuring your online presence leaves a lasting impression.

2. App DevelopmentOur mobile app development team specializes in creating customized apps tailored to your business objectives. With microscopic attention to detail and cutting-edge strategies, we ensure each app is user-friendly, feature-rich, and aligned with market trends.

3. Digital MarketingTechsoul is a results-driven digital marketing agency committed to accelerating business growth. Through targeted campaigns, SEO, and social media strategies, we help companies enhance their digital presence and connect with their audience.

4. Sales & ServiceTechnology is essential in today’s fast-paced world, and we ensure your business stays on top of it. Our comprehensive tech support services include device maintenance and system management, so you can focus on what matters most—your business.

5. Techsoul AcademyOur Education Competence Center offers world-class training programs designed to nurture the next generation of IT professionals. With a pool of industry experts, Techsoul Academy focuses on imparting practical skills that are in high demand.

6. Logo & BrandingWe believe every brand tells a story. Our logo and branding services blend insightful strategy with creative design, resulting in unique, impactful brands that resonate with your target audience.

Why Choose Techsoul?

1. Innovative Solutions: We incorporate AI and IT to provide advanced, future-proof solutions.

2. Customer-Centric Approach: Every project is customized to meet the specific needs of our clients.

3. Global Presence: From Kerala to Qatar and UAE, our growing footprint speaks for itself.

4. Continuous Improvement: We keep evolving, ensuring our services remain aligned with the latest technologies and market trends.

5. Reliable Support: Our dedicated support team ensures you are never alone

find us at www.techsoul.support.

Vision for the Future

Techsoul envisions a future where technology empowers businesses to achieve their full potential with minimal operational burdens. By anticipating future needs and staying ahead of market trends, we aim to remain a trusted partner in digital transformation.

Explore More

📌 Visit us: www.teamtechsoul.com

📌 Support portal: www.techsoul.support

📌 E-brochure: www.teamtechsoul.com/eb

Let Techsoul help you turn ideas into reality. Whether it’s crafting custom software, launching mobile apps, or building an impactful brand, we are here to support you every step of the way.

#Techso

1 note · View note

win-magazine · 5 years ago

Text

UNI’s Lujan is new No. 1 at 184 in WIN’s Feb. 25 rankings

Photo: Northern Iowa’s Taylor Lujan, who defeated Iowa’s Abe Assad in this year’s Midlands, has taken over the top spot at 184 pounds in WIN’s Feb. 25 rankings. (Ginger Robinson photo).

NEWTON, Iowa — Northern Iowa senior Taylor Lujan has taken over the top spot at 184 pounds in WIN Magazine’s Feb. 25 rankings, presented by Cliff Keen Athletic.

Lujan, who was a three-time national qualifier at 174 pounds before this year, moved into the top spot in this week’s national rankings after Arizona State’s two-time defending national champion Zahid Valencia was suspended indefinitely and Virginia Tech’s Hunter Bolen lost last weekend.

Meanwhile in the team rankings, Iowa (13-0) earned the top ranking in WIN’s final Team Dual ratings and the Hawkeyes maintained their lead in WIN’s Tournament Power Index. The Hawkeyes feature 10 ranked wrestlers, nine in the Top 8 of their weight class and three No. 1-rated wrestlers: Spencer Lee (125), Pat Lugo (149) and Michael Kemerer (174).

Penn State (12-2) remained the No. 2-rated team in both the Team Dual rankings and TPI (85). The Nittany Lions, which have won the past four NCAA titles, feature eight ranked wrestlers, five in the Top 8 and two No. 1-rated wrestlers: Nick Lee (141) and Vincenzo Joseph (165).

The remaining Top-5 duals team are No. 3 NC State (15-0), No. 4 Nebraska (11-3) and No. 5 Ohio State (10-4). In WIN’s TPI, the other Top 5 schools are No. 3 Ohio State (58 points), No. 4 Wisconsin (46) and No. 5 Princeton.

WIN’s TPI is a prediction of where teams could finish in the 2020 NCAA Division I Championships, March 19-21, in Minneapolis, and is based on teams’ individual rankings and predictions to where wrestlers might place at the NCAAs.

WIN’s TPI point totals are broken down by the following individual rankings: 1st – 20 (16 AA points + 4 advancement points); 2nd – 16 (12+4); 3rd – 13.5 (10+3.5); 4th – 12.5 (9+3.5); 5th – 10 (7+3); 6th – 9 (6+3); 7th – 6.5 (4+2.5); 8th – 5.5 (3+2.5). Additional points for other rankings include: 9th/12th – 2; 13th/16th – 1.5; 17th-20th – 1. TPI points will be lower than the final actual NCAA tournament points because it does not include bonus points.

The remaining top-ranked wrestlers are Wisconsin’s Seth Gross (133), Northwestern’s Ryan Deakin (157), Ohio State’s Kollin Moore (197) and Minnesota heavyweight Gable Steveson.

With the end of the regular season, programs will now focus on one of seven conference or national-qualifying tournaments that will eventually send 330 wrestlers to the NCAA tournament.

The following are dates and locations for those tournaments:

ACCMarch 8Pittsburgh, Pa.

Big TenMarch 7-8Piscataway, N.J.

Big 12March 7-8Tulsa, Okla.

EIWAMarch 6-7Bethlehem, Pa.

MACMarch 7-8DeKalb, Ill.

Pac-12March 7Palo Alto, Calif.

SoConMarch 8Boone, N.C.

WIN Magazine’s Final 2019-20 Dual Team Rankings

RkSchoolW-LPrev.

1.Iowa13-01st

2.Penn State12-22nd

3.NC State15-03rd

4.Nebraska11-34th

5.Ohio State10-45th

6.Oklahoma State13-38th

7.Lehigh12-313th

8.Arizona State15-27th

9.Pittsburgh10-410th

10.Virginia Tech11-36th

11.North Carolina14-39th

12.Wisconsin11-611th

13.Minnesota9-812th

14.Purdue12-514th

15.Missouri12-715th

16.Princeton9-417th

17.Iowa State10-525th

18.Northern Iowa8-418th

19.Army West Point10-319th

20.North Dakota State10-416th

21.Illinois11-421st

22.South Dakota State12-620th

23.Cornell11-722nd

24.Michigan7-623rd

25.Campbell11-224th

WIN Magazine’s Feb. 25, 2020 Tournament Power Index

RankSchoolTotal RankedTop 8 RankedTPI Pts

1.Iowa109136.5

2.Penn State8585

3.Ohio State6458

4.Wisconsin5346

5.Princeton4445

6t.Nebraska9443

6t.Oklahoma State9343

8.Lehigh5540

9.Northern Iowa6237

10.Northwestern4236.5

11.Minnesota5336

12.NC State6235

13.Purdue5434.5

14.Iowa State6227.5

15t.Arizona State6326

15t.Virginia3226

17.Stanford3225.5

18.Cornell3224

19.Pitt5223

20.Michigan5121.5

21.Utah Valley3220

22.Central Michigan4218.5

23.Oklahoma5118

24.North Carolina3116.5

25.West Virginia1116

26.Missouri2114.5

27t.Binghamton2114

27t.South Dakota State3214

29t.Campbell5111.5

29t.Rider2111.5

31.Illinois319.5

32.Army607.5

33t.Navy115.5

33t.Wyoming405.5

35t.Lock Haven305

35t.North Dakota State305

37t.American U.304

37t.Clarion204

37t.Penn304

37t.Rutgers304

41.Harvard203.5

42t.Michigan State203

42t.Northern Colorado203

42t.Old Dominion203

45t.Appalachian State101.5

45t.Bucknell101.5

45t.Buffalo101.5

45t.Cal Poly101.5

45t.Fresno State101.5

45t.George Mason101.5

45t.Indiana101.5

45t.Northern Illinois101.5

45t.Ohio101.5

45t.Oregon State101.5

55t.Cleveland State101

55t.Drexel101

55t.Edinboro101

55t.Kent State101

WIN Magazine’s Feb. 25, 2020 Individual Rankings

125 pounds

Wt/Rk Name School Yr Prev

1.Spencer LeeIowaJr.1st

2.Jack MuellerVirginiaSr.2nd

3.Pat GloryPrincetonSo.3rd

4.Nick PiccininniOklahoma StateSr.4th

5.Brandon PaetzellLehighJr.5th

6.Devin SchroderPurdueJr.6th

7.Drew HildebrandtCentral MichiganJr.7th

8.Brandon CourtneyArizona StateSo.8th

9.Michael ColaioccoPennFr.9th

10.Luke WernerLock HavenJr.10th

11.Patrick McKeeMinnesotaRS Fr.11th

12.Michael DeAugustinoNorthwesternRS Fr.12th

13.Jay SchwarmNorthern IowaSr.13th

14.Alex MackallIowa StateJr.14th

15.Cage CurryAmericanJr.15th

16.Liam CroninIndianaRSFr.17th

17.Trey ChalifouxArmySr.NR

18.Jakob CamachoNC StateRSFr.19th

19.Jack MedleyMichiganJr.NR

20.Killian CardinaleOld DominionSo.NR

133 pounds

Wt/Rk Name School Yr Prev

1.Seth GrossWisconsinGr.1st

2.Roman Bravo-YoungPenn StateSo.2nd

3.Austin DeSantoIowaJr.3rd

4.Sebastian RiveraNorthwesternJr.4th

5.Charles TuckerCornellSr.5th

6.Micky PhillippiPittSo.6th

7.Travis PiotrowskiIllinoisSr.7th

8.Noah GonserCampbellSr.8th

9.Sammy AlvarezRutgersFr.10th

10.Montorie BridgesWyomingJr.11th

11.Ridge LovettNebraskaFr.12th

12.Taylor LaMontUtah ValleyJr.13th

13.Zack TrampeBinghamtonSo9th

14.Cam SykoraNorth Dakota StateSr.14th

15.Devan TurnerOregon StateJr.15th

16.Derek SpannBuffaloJr.17th

17.Anthony MadrigalOklahomaSo.18th

18.Reece WitcraftOklahoma StateFr.19th

19.Tim RooneyKent StateSr.NR

20.T.J. FehlmanLock HavenSr.NR

141 pounds

Wt/Rk Name School Yr Prev

1.Nick LeePenn StateJr.1st

2Luke PletcherOhio StateSr.2nd

3.Real WoodsStanfordRSFr.3rd

4.Dom DemasOklahomaSo.4th

5.Chad RedNebraskaJr.6th

6.Max MurinIowaSo.5th

7.Ian ParkerIowa StateJr.8th

8.Mitch McKeeMinnesotaSr.9th

9.Mitch MooreVirginia TechSo.11th

10.Kyle ShoopLock HavenSr.10th

11.Tariq WilsonNC StateJr.12th

12.Michael BlockhusNorthern IowaRSFr.13th

13.Tristan MoranWisconsinSr.7th

14.Joshua HeilCampbellJr.14th

15.Dusty HoneOklahoma StateJr.15th

16.Shakur LaneyOhioSr.16th

17.Doug ZapfPennSo.17th

18.Dresden SimonCentral MichiganSo.18th

19.Zach ShermanNorth CarolinaSo.19th

20.Evan CheekCleveland StateSr.20th

149 pounds

Wt/Rk Name School Yr Prev

1.Pat LugoIowaSr.1st

2.Boo LewallenOklahoma StateJr.2nd

3.Austin O’ConnorNorth CarolinaSo.3rd

4.Brock MaullerMissouriSo.4th

5.Sammy SassoOhio StateRSFr.5th

6.Matt KolodzikPrincetonSr.6th

7.Brayton LeeMinnesotaRSFr.7th

8.Henry PohlmeyerSouth Dakota StateSr.8th

9.Max ThomsenNorthern IowaSr.9th

10.Jarrett DegenIowa StateJr.10th

11.Andrew AlirezNorthern ColoradoFr.11th

12.Brock ZacherlClarionSr.12th

13.Colston DiBlasiGeorge MasonSr.16th

14.Kanen StorrMichiganJr.14th

15.Jarod VerkleerenPenn StateSo.NR

16.John MilnerAppalachian StateSo.17th

17.Brent MooreVirginia TechSo.15th

18.Kizhan ClarkeAmerican U.Jr.13th

19.Collin PurintonNebraskaSr.19th

20.Griffin ParriottPurdueJr.20th

157 pounds

Wt/Rk Name School Yr Prev

1.Ryan DeakinNorthwesternJr.1st

2.Hayden HidlayNC StateJr.2nd

3.David CarrIowa StateRSFr.3rd

4.Quincey MondayPrincetonSo.5th

5.Jesse DellavecchiaRiderSr.7th

6.Kaleb YoungIowaJr.4th

7.Kendall ColemanPurdueRSFr.6th

8.Josh HumphreysLehighSo.8th

9.Markus HartmanArmySo.9th

10.Jarrett JacquesMissouriSo.10th

11.Will LewanMichiganRSFr.11th

12.Larry EarlyOld DominionSr.12th

13.Jacori TeemerArizona StateRSFr.NR

14.Wyatt SheetsOklahoma StateSo.19th

15.Jared FranekNorth Dakota StateRSFr.13th

16.Peyton RobbNebraskaRSFr.17th

17.Justin ThomasOklahomaJr.20th

18.Logan ParksCentral MichiganSr.NR

19.Anthony ArtalonaPennSo.NR

20.Jake TuckerMichigan StateJr.16th

165 pounds

Wt/Rk Name School Yr Prev

1.Vincenzo JosephPenn StateSr.1st

2.Alex MarinelliIowaJr.2nd

3.Evan WickWisconsinJr.3rd

4.Isaiah WhiteNebraskaSr.4th

5.Shane GriffithStanfordRSFr.5th

6.Josh ShieldsArizona StateSr.6th

7.Travis WittlakeOklahoma StateRSFr.7th

8.Tanner SkidgelNavyJr.8th

9.Andrew FogartyNorth Dakota StateSr.9th

10.Kennedy MondayNorth CarolinaJr.10th

11.David McFaddenVirginia TechSr.11th

12.Ethan SmithOhio StateSo.12th

13.Philip ConigliaroHarvardFr.13th

14.Zach HartmanBucknellSo.14th

15.Danny BraunagelIllinoisFr.15th

16.Thomas BullardNC StateJr.16th

17.Quentin PerezCampbellJr.17th

18.Ebed JarrellDrexelSr.18th

19.Jake WentzellPittJr.19th

20.Cael McCormickArmySr.20th

174 pounds

Wt/Rk Name School Yr Prev

1.Michael KemererIowaSr.1st

2.Mark HallPenn StateSr.2nd

3.Jordan KutlerLehighSr.3rd

4.Dylan LydyPurdueSr.4th

5.Bryce SteiertNorthern IowaSr.6th

6.Kaleb RomeroOhio StateSo.7th

7.Mikey LabriolaNebraskaSo.5th

8.Kimball BastianUtah ValleySr.8th

9.Devin SkatzkaMinnesotaSr.11th

10.Anthony ValenciaArizona StateSr.10th

11.Sam ColbrayIowa StateJr.12th

12.Anthony MantanonaOklahomaSo.16th

13.Joey GuntherIllinoisSr.15th

14.Ben HarveyArmySr.9th

15.Hayden HastingsWyomingSo.14th

16.Brandon WomackCornellSr.18th

17.Joe SmithOklahoma StateSr.13th

18.Jacob OliverEdinboroSo.19th

19.Gregg HarveyPittJr.20th

20.Daniel BullardNC StateJr.NR

184 pounds

Wt/Rk Name School Yr Prev

1.Taylor LujanNorthern IowaSr.3rd

2.Hunter BolenVirginia TechSo.2nd

3.Trent HidlayNC StateRSFr.4th

4.Lou DePrezBinghamtonSo.5th

5.Nino BonaccorsiPittSo.6th

6.Aaron BrooksPenn StateFr.7th

7.Zach CarlsonSouth Dakota StateSr.8th

8.Chris WeilerLehighJr.9th

9.Cameron CaffeyMichigan StateSo.10th

10.Anthony MontalvoOklahoma StateRSFr.14th

11.Abe AssadIowaFr.11th

12.Johnny SebastianWisconsinSr.12th

13.Tanner HarveyAmerican U.Jr.13th

14.Andrew MorganCampbellSr.15th

15.Taylor VenzNebraskaJr.16th

16.Brit WilsonNorthern IllinoisSo.17th

17.Jelani EmbreeMichiganSo.19th

18.Noah StewartArmyJr.20th

19.Billy JanzerRutgersFr.NR

20.Rocky JordanOhio StateRSFr.NR

197 pounds

Wt/Rk Name School Yr Prev

1.Kollin MooreOhio StateSr.1st

2.Noah AdamsWest VirginiaSo.2nd

3.Jacob WarnerIowaSo.4th

4.Ben DarmstadtCornellJr.5th

5.Patrick BruckiPrincetonJr.3rd

6.Jay AielloVirginiaJr.6th

7.Eric SchultzNebraskaJr.7th

8.Christian BrunnerPurdueSr.8th

9.Tanner SloanSouth Dakota StateRSFr.9th

10.Greg BulsakClarionJr.10th

11.Lucas DavisonNorthwesternRSFr.11th

12.Nathan TraxlerStanfordJr.12th

13.Kordell NorfleetArizona StateJr.13th

14.Thomas LaneCal PolySr.14th

15.Jake WoodleyOklahomaSo.15th

16.Ethan LairdRiderJr.16th

17.Dakota GeerOklahoma StateJr.17th

18.Stephen BuchananWyomingFr.18th

19.Jordan PaganoRutgersSr.20th

20.Shakur RasheedPenn StateSr.19th

Heavyweight

Wt/Rk Name School Yr Prev

1.Gable StevesonMinnesotaSo.1st

2.Mason ParrisMichiganSo.2nd

3.Anthony CassioppiIowaRSFr.3rd

4.Tate OrndorffUtah ValleySo.4th

5.Matt StencelCentral MichiganJr.5th

6.Trent HillgerWisconsinSo.6th

7.Tanner HallArizona StateGr.8th

8.Jordan WoodLehighJr.7th

9.Yaraslau SlavikouskiHarvardFr.9th

10.Jere HeinoCampbellJr.10th

11.Demetrius ThomasPittSr.11th

12.Gannon GremmelIowa StateJr.12th

13.Carter IsleyNorthern IowaJr.13th

14.Josh HokitFresno StateSr.14th

15.David JensenNebraskaSr.15th

16.Seth NevillsPenn StateFr.16th

17.Ben SullivanArmySo.17th

18.Brian AndrewsWyomingJr.18th

19.Dalton RobertsonNorthern ColoradoJr.19th

20.Quinn MillerVirginiaSo.20th

#college wrestling #college wrestlers #college wrestler #win magazine #wrestling #olimpic wrestling #wrestling insider #wrestling insider newsmagazine

2 notes · View notes

cryptoheard · 3 years ago

Text

What we all have to make everyone realize is that validators/miners run the software, not software developers (even if they retain some tokens letting them adjust limited parameters). The devs *can't* do KYC or censor--only miners/validators *could* do that. : ethereum

What we all have to make everyone realize is that validators/miners run the software, not software developers (even if they retain some tokens letting them adjust limited parameters). The devs *can’t* do KYC or censor–only miners/validators *could* do that. : ethereum

middleman is dead in web3 there’s no centralized authority you’d have to log in with soulbound NFT but with zero knowledge techso that privacy is ensured in public blockchain then if there’s an unlawful transaction going on, authorities can find it out themselves who that is w/o asking middleman as there is none in truly decentralized system i’m sure they can block someone from interacting with…

View On WordPress

0 notes

steelandstars · 3 years ago

Text

Tactical Sensors, Detection and You

This post will only deal with sensors during combat (hence the “Tactical”), things work a bit different on the campaign screen. Most of this will be familiar to Aurora veterans, but there are a few major differences mechanically like real-time wave propagation and terrain.

SENSOR TYPES AND EMISSIONS

To start off with, we need to decide what exactly our sensor should look for. We have a couple of options here:

Active - Bounces an energy pulse off a ship’s hull and determines both distance and bearing, and potentially other information about the target. This type of sensor provides the greatest amount of information, but usage produces massive emissions that are detectable by EM sensors, so not suitable for stealth. Detection is based on a target’s cross section (Length x armor thickness), so this system is ideal for detecting large warships or freighters or moderately long ranges. Smaller targets will require larger or more sophisticated active sensors.

Electro-Magnetic - Passively detects radiation produced by most electronic systems, particularly shields and charged energy weapons. Produce no detectible emission when used, but moderately expensive to produce.

Thermal - Passively detects thermal radiation produced by engines and heatsinks. Produce no detectible emission when used, and fairly inexpensive to produce.

Gravity - Passively detects the gravity produced by a target’s mass. Relatively expensive and short ranged compared to the others, but extremely reliable and consistent.

The bread and butter for most combat ships intended to operate independently is an active sensor designed to complement available weaponry and a thermal sensor to detect a target’s engines and warn of missile ignitions. Electro-magnetic is particularly useful when faced with an enemy that uses energy shields. Gravity detection can be useful for detecting stealth ships that venture too close or detecting strike craft at point blank range.

Mechanically, a sensor in combat will pulse every few ticks when active, this pulse expands from the ship’s position in space in realtime and reports every object hit that satisfies the detection formula. These reports are combined into TrackFiles at the fleet level, with each entity having a single track file containing all contact reports for that object. The track file determines what information is visible to the player. A ship with little or no information will be invisible in battle until detected, while a ship with a high quality track file will be visible in real time and information about its condition may be discernible to the player. In between, a ship’s approximate location may be visible, or simply a warning of emissions detected in a general area.

Every contact report has a lifespan before its discarded, usually a few ticks. This doesn't matter if you have sensors constantly pinging, but it gives a grace period if a target is a particularly far away. It also has a Quality rating, the sum of the best quality ratings for each ‘type’ of contact report (active, thermal, em etc) determines what information is provided to the player. Detection is not a binary, a contact that is more firmly within a sensor’s detection envelope will provide a higher quality rating and thus greater information. This translates to your weapon strategy, missiles mounting their own sensors can be guided to the rough area of even a barely detect contact and let loose, but beam weapons and cannons require a greater degree of certainty to hit anything.

Sensors are toggleable components and can be enabled or disabled. Certain designs may also require considerable power or other resources to be supplied while active.

TECH

So what’s actually going on here is the sensor is grabbing a spherical mesh from an object pool with a trigger attached, assigning it to a specially configured physics layer and then expanding it over time until the radius matches the maximum effective range of the sensor. OnTriggerEnter catches collisions with opposing units and a simple raycast against terrain determines whether line of sight exists.

One optimization trick here was caching the detection calculations, every time a sensor tries to detect a specific emission amount, it saves the maximum distance at which that particular emission can be detected by that specific sensor design. Future detection events against the same signature are resolved simply by comparing distances, so a sensor’s processor performance cost tends to decrease as it’s used.

I looked into a variety of ways to implement fog of war, but I didn’t find the normal solutions particularly suitable, so I decided to use unity’s Layer system, which acts as a combination of physics and camera culling, to simulate it instead. When a unit is detected, it’s shifted into a layer visible to the player camera, while when undetected it’s shifted into an unrendered layer and UI interactions are blocked. Both layers have identical physics parameters, so you can be rammed by an unseen ship for instance, but you have no way to actually see or target that ship. Performance is fantastic, and because sensors detect over hundreds of frames there's no initial ‘burp’ when lots of units are discovered. The main downside of course is Unity’s absolute limit on layer count, but there's more than enough for 3 sides to a battle, so I’ll cross that bridge if I ever come to it.

#gamedev

0 notes