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.
192 karma · joined August 18, 2021
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.