This is one of those constructions that works better in French than in English. It has future tense and perfect aspect (so, "future perfect"), which gets muddled in English since English generally muddles tense and aspect.
What about it do you think doesn’t work in English? I think it works perfectly (although it is possible I’m reading too much into it given the context)—he’s saying he’ll be dead, but he’s focusing on the life he lived instead. I think there’s an element of resistance to it as well; they can kill him but they can’t take away the fact that he has lived.
As a western US speaker, I think we would let idioms and other special cases override the grammatical interpretation you are stating.
To me, "lived" is used metaphorically so often that to say "I lived" or "I have lived" does not, by default, connote death. It just reflects on an especially vivacious moment.
I think it works fine in English grammatically. We say "will have (verb)" all the time, after all. The thing that is tricky about that sentence is that one doesn't usually use "to live" on its own in English. Like, you don't say "I have lived", you add something else to the sentence to make it feel complete. I suppose it's different in French.
I'm confused by all this nuance about verb conjugations. The idea is to say "today I lived (but also am not alive anymore)" as I interpret it. Would it not suffice to say something along the lines of "by the end of today, I will have had lived". Of course, I know the response, this would not suffice, some sort of Anthony Bourdain-ish romanticism about a particular language and the romance of complicated French verb conjugations.
> Adjectives in English absolutely have to be in this order: opinion-size-age-shape-colour-origin-material-purpose Noun. So you can have a lovely little old rectangular green French silver whittling knife. But if you mess with that word order in the slightest you’ll sound like a maniac. It’s an odd thing that every English speaker uses that list, but almost none of us could write it out.
Foreign languages always sound strange. There are rules that are invisible even to the native speakers who know them. The romance is not in knowing them, but the fun of figuring them out.
I don't think there's enough manufacturing capacity in Seattle to absorb this. There are plenty of CMs here but they're small and midsized, not the big boys. And they're not in the habit of running mostly empty.
And they’re not the sort of places where you get boards for consumer electronics made. They’re doing microwave/high frequency boards for companies like Boeing.
They'll absolutely do consumer product assembly. It's short-run versus mass-production that's the real problem, most of them just aren't set up for high volume.
Board fab though, not so much. I don't think we have a PCB fab left in the area after losing Prototron. I'd be more sad about that, except that I don't think I ever had a single order with Prototron that actually went smoothly and came back correctly.
Also remember that even if you can't or don't want to connect your device via Ethernet, you might be able to use MoCA to easily move your WiFi router to a better location, or add a second router/mesh node with a reliable wired backhaul instead of a crappy radio backhaul, and that might make all the difference.
One of the critical differences about "this time" that is completely glossed over in this piece is that previous advances in "art technology" changed how one connects with an artist, but not the fact of connecting to an actual human artist. Art, for me, is about someone else sharing a piece of their soul with you through what they choose to express in their art. AI is a pile of linear algebra. I do not have any particular interest in communicating with matrices; I don't really feel they have much to add to my world. Perhaps you differ.
I do believe AI is a legitimate tool in a human artist's toolbox. I think it's one that's rather difficult to use well, but that isn't disqualifying per se.
Optimistically, if everyone is using AI like an Instagram filter to make Studio Ghibli-fied pictures of themselves, could that at least lead some people to be curious about actual Studio Ghibli art?
BGAs and LGAs are the devil, sure. But anyone who can't handle QFNs and DFNs has no business calling themselves a modern electronics shop.
(Regular QFNs, I mean. Dual-row QFNs are sick jokes, and I maintain that triple-row QFNs are just figments of my nightmares, and I won't listen to anyone who says otherwise.)
I will give you this anecdote: I find BGA easier to solder than QF[N|P]. Most soldering errors I make are due to inappropriate amount or uneven solder application. No factor if the solder is pre-applied.
In production manufacturing solder paste is generally applied to BGA pads. The amount of solder in the balls is less than the ideal amount for making a good joint, and the solder paste also helps to hold the component in position.
That said, I have ‘successfully’ soldered small BGA components by just applying a sticky flux and then reflowing with a hot air gun. It can work fine for prototypes, but it’s not really how the packages are meant to be soldered.
This is an interesting book. I've been in this space for years now and could easily see myself writing something like this, but I don't think it would look like this book.
I really don't like to see things like any sort of recommendation for use of n-propyl bromide. That shit's neurotoxic. The people who can use it safely will already know about it, know someone who knows about it, or find it on their own. Anyone who finds out about nPB here should not be touching it.
Unfortunately, many of the parts of the book that I've scanned are like that. There's a lot of prescription, not a lot of background/theory/underlying details, and no way to tell when the prescriptions are inapplicable or straight-up wrong. Which, often, they are: one of the hallmarks of deep experience is knowing when "the rules" are useful and when they're not, but what we have here is mostly rules. That will get your product out the door, I guess, but it's not going to level you up as an engineer, if that's what you're needing. Another example: stackups are discussed, but there's no mention of slash sheets, which is how you get things done cheaply and correctly. Specifying Rogers material for anything but the nastiest designs is just going to get your pockets drained and your Asian fab annoyed because they have to special order that. If you need it, sure, you need it... but can you get away with something more universal?
And then there's things like this: "Most SMPS datasheets will advise you on what
bead to use and where to put it". Hahahaha no they won't. And if they will, there's a decent chance they get it wrong. Ferrite beads are so useful and so much trouble that you can't trust an IC datasheet to get it right, even if they want to do the same things you want to do. Which they might not!
In general, people have to take a hazing at the certification lab before realizing something that "just works" is just not good enough.
There are a lot of different processes for manufacturing electronics, different DFM strategies, and choosing the right path is often a trade secret.
Usually made Jr staff read the NASA workmanship standards manual, cables and harnesses guide, and the tin whisker paper. Additionally, they would be expected to get their RF/ham technician license within the year, and practice coding test/boot-loader jigs in C/C++ in their assignments.
There is also a tacit discussion about Metrology that lasts on average 3 months if you are smart...
Book looks funny (AI slop?), as volume manufacturing is a different skill-set requiring designing to both a standard and factory capabilities. =3
> There is also a tacit discussion about Metrology that lasts on average 3 months if you are smart...
Man, EEs usually have zero clue about metrology. I worked on a big piece of T&M gear for a while. The looks I got when I said "so, we need to discuss how we plan to calibrate this thing" were... let's call them impressive. I don't think any other person on that project knew what a "traceable calibration" actually was.
It will probably not surprise you to learn that that project did not reach the finish line, at least not with my company.
Projects can be impossible with some environments, budgets, and teams.
Startup success rate is 1:22, and service companies survive 3+ years 6:1 against product companies... Thus, a hardware dependent launch has a 1:66 success rate over 3 years, and if people YOLO production it will go sideways for sure.
> This is advanced material, which assumes that you have fully understood earlier
courses. If not, then go back to those earlier texts and find out what you didn’t get.
Is this PDF part of a course series? Or the 'earlier texts' mean prerequisites gotten elsewhere?
My impression of it is that it's basically perfect to hand to fresh or about-to-be-fresh EE graduates. It fills in some of the massive practical gap between what's taught in college and what you actually need to know to be an effective engineer. So I interpret that as "this builds on your degree".
Of course, it's much more applicable than that, but it is not trying to be a from-basics textbook. Which is good, because there are lots of those, and there are very few things that teach what this teaches.
> I really don't like to see things like any sort of recommendation for use of n-propyl bromide. That shit's neurotoxic.
I don't even like to see recommendations for IPA (isopropyl alcohol). In 95%+ of the cases ethanol (ethyl alcohol) is just as good and is way less toxic than IPA.
There are two problems with ethanol, one practical and one stupid.
The stupid problem is that it's taxed heavily and thus is stupidly expensive. When not taxed it is probably denatured, but denatured with what? If you know the denaturant then you can use it with some degree of confidence. Methanol (methylated spirits) is acceptable in almost any technical application but is somewhat toxic, so for stupid reasons it is now rare. Denatonium benzoate is the other common denaturant, but it can leave annoying residues behind. Pick your poison (literally).
At one point in my career we had ready access to untaxed, undenatured, 200-proof absolute ethanol. So I used it a lot! Turns out it's significantly more aggressive than isopropanol, and can strip coatings or generally even dissolve things that isopropanol cannot. I don't use ethanol any more, I have better things to do with my life than figure out what it is and isn't going to dissolve.
I use 99.9% ethanol for electronics cleaning (not very frequently) and it leaves a white residue on some PCBs (e.g. JLCPCB ones?), but not all. It also seems more aggressive if I accidentally get it on my skin. Doesn't smell as bad as IPA though!
I haven't heard that IPA is much worse than ethanol though, beyond what's stated on Wikipedia ("somewhat more toxic"; ethanol is obviously toxic as well). Should I be more concerned about using IPA?
Personally I am not really concerned about any toxicity differences between ethanol and isopropanol. As the sibling comment says, they're both widely used in hand sanitizer. At the exposure levels present in electronics work, and compared to the other stuff that's going to be around, it doesn't seem worth worrying about to me.
The white residue is a separate problem. Alcohols are not perfectly effective at dissolving all the components of flux residue, so you often get white crud left over. It's harmless, but ugly, and sometimes you just need a clean joint. I think it is possible to get this stuff off with alcohol and some skill, but who has time for that? Just buy proper flux remover.
The best flux remover I know of is MicroCare SuprClean or PowerClean (they're very closely related, but definitely at least a little different; either way it's hard to tell them apart, so go for whatever's convenient). It is supposedly nontoxic (but remember they once said that about the last flux remover that got banned... and the one before that... and...), readily available from the usual places here in the US, and very, very powerful. Careful cleaning with it will not leave any white residue behind. (Careless cleaning will lead to the observation that flux remover solvents dissolve soils... which means the soils are right there to be redeposited should the solvents evaporate... so you have to actually manage to get the crud off the board if you want it clean. Dissolving alone is not enough!)
I haven't done an exhaustive survey of flux removers, but this stuff certainly does the trick. I was originally looking for something that could dissolve Krytox residues (long story) and while I thankfully never had cause to test it, this stuff is based off some member of the Vertrel family, which is one of the few things in chemistry capable of that job. And anything that can even threaten Krytox is probably a tool worth having!
Not really. The entire planet was rubbing it on their hands for years during the pandemic. It'll dry your skin out, sure, if you're getting a lot of it on your skin, but you shouldn't be if you're not using it as hand sanitiser, and of course you're not drinking it.
Occasionally I will "wash" dirty PCBs by spraying them with 50% ethanol, 50% water, then drying them with an air gun or the like to get the water off in a reasonable time.
Nearly any properly designed board will not hold residual voltage for long when disconnected from power, so the slight conductivity of tap water is a non-issue.
IPA is the main ingredient in many brands of hand sanitizer. I'm really not concerned about the risks involved with using a couple of millilitres of the stuff to remove some flux residue - I'd be more concerned about exposure to the flux.
Funny to see IPA called "toxic". In aircraft manufacturing it's considered the nice and friendly solvent in comparison to the stout stuff like MPK or MEK, and considerable effort is invested in convincing workers to use it when the big guns aren't needed. Or, natch, to get workers to wear gloves when working with solvents.
(Much discourse on industrial safety casts corporations as the bad guys, with considerable evidence, but it is still the case that much safety equipment is bulky or unpleasant to use. Ketone-proof gloves are thicker and less pliable than latex gloves, which is no small consideration when doing fine work under time pressure. Easier to just wear two layers and change the outer glove when it starts to break down. When do you know it's breaking down? When you feel it leaking through. When you feel that, doesn't it mean you're already getting skin contact with the solvent. Well, yes, but....)
MEK has the distinction of being the only material I know of that was simultaneously on both the FDA's "generally recognized as safe" food ingredients list and the EPA's "hazardous air pollutants" list, for which no safe emissions level is recognized. It did eventually get removed from the second.
A: Getting ethanol is tricky. Lab Alley is the only supplier I've found that will sell it to individuals. Lab suppliers will sell if you have the right business paperwork in place, but will usually attach a huge hazardous shipping fee due to the flammabililty.
You can get Isopronaol on Amazon.
B: Isopropanol isn't that toxic. Much less so than methanol, for example.
You may pay more for it, but "culinary solvent" is what you want to buy if you are trying to get it as an individual. It's pure food grade ethanol.
It's still tricky most places in the US -- you will likely have to jump through hoops to pay taxes and/or get the license to purchase, depending on your state's rules. I agree that IPA is not enough of a concern to actually justify it in my mind.
> I don't think I've ever met an engineer who used it in college.
Hey, I did! And I had to teach out of it... that was an experience. (I distinctly remember pulling it out in class one day, as a TA, to show the students a figure that was particularly good... and got yelled at by one kid because "that's not our book" and "we shouldn't have to read that". Even the other kids rolled their eyes at that one.)
It really is a text that's made for physicists and hacker-types. There is a ton of great information on building one-offs and prototypes. Not so much for getting products out (so. many. trimmers.).
Or, to frame what you said in slightly different terms:
Why do people say "the HFTs" are the enemy? I mean, it's kind of true (the mental image I have of HFT firms and hedge funds is of a swarm of locusts descending on anywhere they smell money), but it's missing a super critical piece: there's more than one HFT locust swarm, and they all hate each other. They'd much rather screw each other (more money there!) than screw you (not as much money!) and they're willing to pay you if you can help them do it.
That's what payment for order flow really is: small bribes to send them something useful (non-toxic order flow) which they can then use against each other. Retail traders aren't the ones losing out here (or, if they are missing out, they're paying less than they'd pay under the old commission structure, so who cares).
Am I missing something? All I see here is, in fact, a few basic cursive fonts? Yeah, they're not bottom-of-the-barrel OS-default cursive fonts, but they're still cursive fonts?
This is one of those constructions that works better in French than in English. It has future tense and perfect aspect (so, "future perfect"), which gets muddled in English since English generally muddles tense and aspect.
reply