"I keep coming back to this topic for two reasons. First, I think these components are usually explained poorly, making them a major stumbling block for folks trying to learn the craft. Second, op-amps have gotten really good, inexpensive, and small, so I think they should be used more."
No offense, but these are words typically spoken by someone who has never taken any electrical engineering courses or read any of Walter Jungs books, after having some electronics background.
"gotten really good"? Really, like in the 1970s?? (the 741, still widely used today was released in 1968). I recall in the 1980s in the electronics that were once completely discrete, they were _everywhere_ and still are today.
Totally agree, I went to fiber years ago, and the decrease in latency makes it _feel_ so much faster than 10G copper, it is not funny. Besides, if you put in the "good stuff" them moving to 40G and beyond is not a problem later on. Like others said, just add a copper line for POE devices, but for systems... its fiber all the way.
The real problem is his example, "you start off with 2 million dollars and 95% growth rate".
Fine, show me the average person who can come up with 2 million dollars. I sure as hell can not. I even went to banks and founders with my ideas, cash flow sheets and customer list looking for a loan.
No, I am convinced, the rich already have 2 million dollars, and make themselves a billionaire. The system is rigged against "normal" people.
Dropped in to say this. The Marzoccos are good, but dang the Kees van der Westen are downright amazing... I know a lot of cafe owners who threw the Marzocco out and purchased a Kees and the espresso shot quality went through the roof.
On the flip side, a really good bag, and these have lasted so long I can not recall when I purchased them, are really expensive [https://www.tombihn.com/].
What is really irritating is that sometimes we see the same thing within a single brand (we have a garbage entry-level item and a top tier item which is good).
Not sure if they were the first, or whatever, but this really seems like a breakthrough technology / methodology. How many cardboard boxes do we use a day? The mind boggles.
I will admit, I type exclusively on 40% keyboards. I used to have a Happy Hacking Keyboard, (in fact, the original Happy Hacking Keyboard (HHKB) with separate PS/2, Sun and ADB cables, still have the board and cables), then the HHKB USB, then the HHKB 2. One day I saw a 40%, in fact an original "minivan" by "The Van Keyboards" and thought I would give it a shot. For someone who uses the computer all day, this was an advancement over the HHKB in the same way the HHKB was an advancement over the 104:
* Your hands move a lot less during typing.
* Your hand is much (_much_) closer to the mouse to grab it.
Even though there is a slight learning curve using layers, after a short while it becomes just like the muscle reflex for "hit shift to use the alphanumerics", etc. When I have to run into the data center or go somewhere and use a "real" keyboard for a moment, I am reminded of just what a huge time difference it is to grab the mouse, or reach for keys like PGUP/PGDWN, etc. It may not be for everyone, but I advocate for giving small keyboards (even split ones) a try.
I worked at 5 universities, two of them in the top 50, and I do not know of one tenured professor that "does nothing" and "publishes next to nothing". Some of them teach very little, and that may have been for the best, but all tenured professors I was aware of needed to do research, bring in money (or you were, yes that's right, fired), and teach.
Granted, I worked in STEM fields. Maybe this author does not realize what it is like in the physical sciences or engineering?
Not sure why you have to read 3/4 of the article to get to a _link_ to a pdf which _only_ has the _abstract_ of the actual paper:
N. Benjamin Murphy and Kenneth M. Golden* ([email protected]), University of
Utah, Department of Mathematics, 155 S 1400 E, Rm. 233, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090.
Random Matrices, Spectral Measures, and Composite Media.
Thanks for the links, that is a company I did not know existed, and the woofers are interesting. Really makes you wonder if they have overcome the traditional problems of large woofers. The Fostex super woofer users recommended rotating it once a year due to its own weight possibly deforming the spider structure of the woofer, at only 27" across. 60" or 100" across is back to the future level ridiculous. As another poster said, I can not see this outperforming several smaller units, but I would love to see/hear it in action.
It is hard to put into words how so many people "out there" can print things, have people read them, and they are so worded that the average person is probably reading this as "the truth".
> but it’s rather difficult to build a good analog oscillator from scratch. The most common category of oscillators you can find on the internet are circuits that simply don’t work. This is followed by approaches that require exotic components, such as center-tapped inductors or incandescent lightbulbs.
It is not hard to build a good analog oscillator from scratch, we have been doing this for decades. Secondly, while an incandescent _might_ be considered exotic, and completely unnecessary for an oscillator, a center tapped inductor is totally not exotic, and also, not really necessary for an oscillator.
As others have noted, it is simple to build a really good analog oscillator. This article is blah, and "meh" at best.
No offense, but these are words typically spoken by someone who has never taken any electrical engineering courses or read any of Walter Jungs books, after having some electronics background.
"gotten really good"? Really, like in the 1970s?? (the 741, still widely used today was released in 1968). I recall in the 1980s in the electronics that were once completely discrete, they were _everywhere_ and still are today.