JRKrause

Excuse my ignorance in this space but I want to check my understanding:

About a year ago I toyed with writing a web app that was essentially a front-end to a diffusion image generator (very original I know). The site used socket-io -> flask -> redis queue -> distributed pytorch processes.

Am I correct that several of these services are selling some equivalent of the '-> redis queue -> model' component? Is part of the value proposition here that you don't need to staff people with pytorch/equivalent familiarity?

A nebulous description of my ideal setup would be something like this:

Side-by-side schematic symbol view / code view that are actively synced to one-another in real-time. Schematic view allows basic arranging of parts, editing interconnects, triggering jump-to-reference within the code view, adding probe points for SPICE, displaying SPICE output graphs. Code side does all the heavy lifting like creating new parts, scripted behaviors, editing component values, all the cool shit that would be a nightmare to sort into a GUI.

Much easier said than done, of course.

Very neat, nice work.

I tooled around with a similar idea sometime back. There are clear advantages of code over graphical-schematics when it comes to automatic generation of component values / re-use of elements / speed of development / automatic SPICE testing / etc.

The primary issue I ran into was that: electronic circuits are inherently graph-structured and the traditional circuit schematic is well suited, optimal even, for displaying this kind of information. Trying to understand an analog circuit that is described as code seems awkward.

Using neural networks to solve inverse-scattering problems (like wifi scattering off a human body, for example) seems to have a lot of potential. The lack of phase-information (i.e. not just signal intensity but instantaneous phase of the EM wave) captured by traditional receivers makes this class of problems so difficult to approach since you are blind to a significant portion of the available EM information. Mitigating this by constraining your solution-space to 'reasonable' outcomes is practically very difficult... for a human. Very cool to see such a practical demonstration of a neural network seeming to accomplish exactly this.

Many days late on this reply but I am at 120K miles (2008 model). The engine compression is noticeably low now. Before warming up and at low RPM the car really struggles to make it up the hill out of my neighborhood. I've had 3 flooding events that were only fixed by rolling the car down that same hill 3-4 times. I have to slip the clutch a concerning amount when getting into first from a stop.

A new engine at the dealership price of $7K is still going to be cheaper than an equivalently sporty new car though!

There's a noticeable difference between self-checkout stations, for example:

The stations at my local Harris teeter are unable to handle the user quickly scanning+placing products in the bagging area. I imagine this has to do with how the software translates changes in the bagging-area weight to a count of items. When this happens you have to wait around for the system to decide you aren't, in-fact, stealing.

These same stations also prevent further item scanning once an age restricted item (e.g. alcohol) is scanned, forcing you the wait around for the attendant before you can continue with your items.

Contrasted to the self-checkout stations at my local food-lion, which have none of these issues, the lack of UX is frustrating.

To top off with some non-content: You'd really think more people would have learned how to reliably scan barcodes after observing others do it hundreds, if not thousands, of times.

Wrote a letter to my local Mazda place about this. I've had nothing but good experiences with the several Mazda vehicles I've owned (still daily-drive the rotary-engine RX8...). Seeing them engage in what appears to be dmca bullying of a project like Home Assistant feels like a betrayal.

How is paying out-of-pocket for an insulated water-bottle / better shoe insoles any different than paying a fee for a union to collectively negotiate these things for you?

In both cases you, the worker, exchange money for improved work conditions. In the second case you are simply paying comparatively more money for larger returns.

Right there with you. I've gotten so used to having it give me exactly the answer to my specific question that, when I must fall back to traditional search, it's noticeably unpleasant.

To think the UCLA article didn't even include the photograph of the asteroid taken by DART prior to impact.

I always wonder how you do the risk calculus for this kind of scenario.

Clearly if the certainty of a world-ending impact is 100% then committing the entirety of humanities resources to deflecting it would be justified and expected.

But what about if the the certainty is 90%? 80%?

The word 'unexpected' doesn't appear in the article. It's a fairly safe bet that the team of people capable of hitting a 581 foot object 6 million miles away with a 13,000 mph slug would have expected the ejection of material from the impact.

Drawing from melt to achieve a consistent crystal orientation was my first thought as well.

Looking at the Griffin paper, the Pb(2) site is described as being 1.08eV 'more energetically favorable'. I am having trouble understanding what this means.

Years back I did MOCVD semiconductor fabrication research, I never reached a mastery of it but I am still trying to leverage that understanding here.

During growth, adatoms that incorporate into proper crystal lattice locations enter a lower energy state compared to those in imperfect locations. The energy state is lower in the sense that it requires more energy to remove them from that location. Hence careful control of temperature allows you to selectively favor incorporation into these low energy locations e.g. choose a temperature high enough to remove adatoms from 'imperfect' locations but low enough to not remove them from 'perfect' (low energy) locations.

So when the author says 'energetically favorable' am I to understand this means the Pb(2) location represents a lower energy state (i.e. more difficult to remove Cu from this location) or the opposite? Or something else entirely?

To be clear, they are not sorting it by superconductivity. Their claim is that they are sorting it by the Meissner effect. More likely they are sorting it by it's exhibited diamagnetism.

  Location: South-east USA
  Remote: Yes (US timezones preferred)
  Willing to relocate:  Yes
  Technologies: Analog/Digital circuit design, Firmware development (c/c++, ARM), Software development (Python and associated libraries e.g. Django, Flask, Pytorch...), Physics (Optical engineering, semiconductor science), General IT (AWS, Linux, SSH etc)
  Résumé/CV: ~9 Years experience in above skillset at a hardware startup as team-lead and individual contributor. Additional details on request.
  Email:[email protected]

At a high-level I am skilled at identifying, learning and applying new skills. Combining these skills and knowledge to identify answers to ill-defined problems and carrying these solutions from R&D all the way to the production floor. All with limited/no oversight. At the moment I am surveying the landscape for a fresh opportunity where these skills can be leveraged for maximum value.