pwr-electronics

I think your examples agree with my point: You found minimal-time solutions that haven't caused continuous suffering afterwards, and can be easily removed when the root cause is fixed. That's a good result.

I'm still trying to challenge your assumptions. Why does a different solution necessarily require expanding the scope of work? Like you said, that's where experience helps to have those skills in your toolbox. Doing things better doesn't have to be harder.

Try nomograms instead - you can print them on paper, and they have one for just about everything. https://youtube.com/channel/UCOLYtsL4ge6QfaAvBDeG1IA

Maybe pdf numbers are sightly annoying in the modern age of writing.

My whole point is that you don't, because there aren't always just two options. That's the false dilemma logical fallacy.

I'm saying you can fix problems without dropping everything and redoing work. You're allowed to problem solve and work with people to create a third option. And you can prevent new ones by learning and strategizing.

The choice between refactoring and money-generating work is a false dilemma. There are other options, and the developer doesn't have to make that decision or carry out the work all on their own.

As the article below explains, it's a combination of structured qualitative analysis and a review process. That process builds on top of all the other application-specific or discipline-specific processes, like a hierarchy. The higher up you go, the more generic it gets. The lower down you go, the more you critique the exact math or test or whatever.

https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1996ESASP.377...83F

Does the company have any in-house guidance on the application domain? Or is it all external feedback so far?

Riveting

The business opportunity is in software that's inseparable from the hardware. Academics won't work on that because they don't do product development.

Of course there are contradictions. I'm talking about journalistic style in magazines. You're talking about something else.

I'm running out of ways to explain myself, so I'll just reword and summarize this thread from my perspective:

OC: Is it broken?

Me: No, they make generous interpretations to claim that it's broken.

You: With a generous interpretation, they can be said to break ...

Like I said, we're not having the same conversation.

Ok, so you're confirming that you're doing exactly what I said popular science articles often do.

With a generous interpretation, they can be said to break classical thermodynamics

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31008263

I'm trying to explain how articles often conflate "intuition" with "breaking physics", and you're making your argument by conflating them. We're having different conversations.

Why would you use a classical model to describe a quantum system? That's the kind of wordplay that those articles do, and almost identical to my example about materials. It's entertaining, but meaningless.

Nothing breaks the laws of thermodynamics, ever.

I assume you're referring to how some popular science articles report things. That's just wordplay. Nothing is being bent, broken, or bypassed.

Usually it just means they did something an ordinary homogeneous material couldn't do, for example. Which is genuinely interesting, even if it's not actually breaking physics.

For graphical computation, I recommend Nomographer's YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOLYtsL4ge6QfaAvBDeG1IA

It should catch the issue and exit cleanly with an error message.

Probably not. As the author describes, LLVM has to tool to check for invalid IR, which they used to investigate the issue and generate an explanatory error message.

Somebody needs a nap.

Never made a chiplet, but as a general observation in hardware ...

Digital hardware acts predictably only when everything is electrically matched and connected properly. And the integration processes can introduce new defects. It's probably still an analog and materials problem at that point.

Yeah, I don't get it. He's a guy who runs a business to support his hobby, both pretty harmless. Bonus points for creating and sharing enjoyable and useful things and ideas. I'll debate his ideas, but I'm not gonna tell him what to do with his life.

The topic of discussion is the exchange of money for information, and how to improve the value of that business transaction.

The strengths of Matlab is that it's a domain-specific glue language with a domain-specific interactive environment. It's great if the benefits to you are worth the specificity and investment. Otherwise, something like Python might suit your needs better.

Either way, there's still often at least some native code you have to write and wrap. That's where a professional programmer might get involved. But probably more often than not, it's the engineers and scientists themselves.

I don't understand why so many people think that real-world problems and "true learning" or whatever have to be mutually exclusive.

My applied probability and statistics course for engineers was all about manufacturing quality control. We didn't have magic urns with colored balls that no one cared about. But we did pull samples off the line for destructive testing. Imagining myself troubleshooting a manufacturing problem made me more creative, tenacious, and engaged than if it was a sterile math problem with no context.

Point is, you don't necessarily have to lose anything when making a topic more relatable.

University education, in general, suffers from the implicit assumption that everyone should think like a savant. It's even worse when a topic was invented or discovered to solve a real problem, as opposed to base research, and the teaching strips all context and motivation from the presentation.

I see some other comments criticizing classes that teach certain software tools at the expense of concepts. And yeah, that's training, not education.

For 10, you can get a foldscope. Nice for taking it outside. Not what you're asking for, but cheap enough to consider for a different use case.

To expand on the source of noise and possible solutions ...

Regardless of price, multilayer ceramic capacitors are piezoelectric - meaning they physically vibrate. Inductors and transformers are electromagnets powerful enough to noticeably vibrate and move themselves. In fact, if you test them during assembly before taping them, the two halves of the ferrite core will snap together like magnets. Most noise comes instead from the windings, but that gives you an idea of their physical power. The biggest winding in an induction cooktop is the induction coil itself.

The reason you hear them is because they're being used at audio frequencies. Considerate designers choose higher switching frequencies above what humans and household pets can hear. Induction cooktops are kind of a special case where it's tempting to dip into the audible frequencies. Frequency choice alone doesn't eliminate all noise, so there are other mitigations like materials selection and assembly, to name a couple.

Overall, it's largely due to being cheap about the design and manufacturing processes.

Click a place name > "analyze" pop-up button > bottom analysis tab.

The portable ones are often touch-only.

Typo. Fixed it now.