Poka-Yoke
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Suppose you have a module with 50 pins worth of connectors, but because some of the signals are in different harnesses which get installed at different times, you can't just use a 50-pin connector. For this example let's say it's sensible to break it up as 20+20+10.
You wouldn't use two identical 20-pin connectors since they carry different signals. You probably do want to use the same family of connectors so they use common pins and have a common board footprint. So you get connectors which are the same except for having different keyways, and are often molded of different colors of plastic, by convention.
If you've ever been working on a vehicle and seen identical-looking connectors where one's black and one's gray, look closer. Along with a color difference, there's a notch on the housing in a different place.
This increases the number of parts that must be stocked, but the decrease in assembly errors is worth it. (And they all share the same tooling, so the manufacturing complexity isn't bad.)
Note that this isn't required if the connectors aren't candidates for mismating in the first place. If they appear in completely different places on the harness, then it's totally fine to reuse the very same connector for the amplifier speaker signals in the trunk, and the steering column (turnsignal stalks and stuff) module signals up front. This reduces parts count without increasing errors.
I'll try to plan uses for all the pins in advance, like a deluxe version, and then cut down what's needed for the thing I'm doing now. Often I can actually add something useful (like an extra copy of a signal to reduce the need to splice in the harness) at no cost, just by thinking ahead a little.
Another thing I'm proud of recently, is having an uncommitted relay on a board, whose function could then be defined by how the harness was wired. Rather than try to anticipate how it would be used, I just figured it'd be handy. Provided an extra ground too, so you could just put a hairpin wire in the connector to ground one side of the relay since that's a pretty common usage model. And for builds where we knew we wouldn't use it, just DNP at assembly time.
But with a car that's not really practical as things may not be accessible and easy to swap around.
I didn't spend a ton of time at the plant, but there was one notable visit where I got to camp out at the station where, for the first time, a 12-volt power supply alongside the assembly line would be temporarily patched into the half-completed vehicle. This allowed all the modules that'd been added so far, to boot up and do some self-checks. There were certain missing sensors and communication errors that were expected at that point and would be ignored, but plenty of errors that _would_ be raised so they could be fixed while they were still easy-ish to reach, before the seats and trim panels started going in.
"Dubble check that spelIng" - Muphry
Murphy was a rocket engineer. One day their assistant plugged in a non-keyed connector upside down. It was very easy for that to go wrong.
Another time, in another place, a rocket assembly worker hammered in a keyed connector - upside down. It was harder for that to go wrong, but, uh, life finds a way.
It may be interpreted in a defeatist way that poka-yoke is pointless, because it can always be defeated, but in reality improvements that save almost all "idiots" are still worthwhile.
An interlock in the microwave doors can't stop a better idiot from disassembling it, but it prevents a lot of everyday mistakes, and that's super helpful.
For instance, let's say you risk electrocuting yourself if you insert a cable the wrong way. So the designers specify a keyed connector, which is the right thing to do. However, it is good to have in mind that some super-idiot will find a way to insert it the wrong way anyways. And as much as you believe in Darwinism, it may still be a good idea to mitigate the risk of electrocution if it happens.
I've been thinking about this one lately - What do we want to do? What can we do?
43. You really understand something the third time you see it (or the first time you teach it.)
I'd like to say something like: any learning you do before you start working on something is just familiarization. You can read the book 10 times, but the real learning starts when you pick up the tools.
8. In nature, the optimum is almost always in the middle somewhere. Distrust assertions that the optimum is at an extreme point.
Ah, but the middle of WHAT? How to tell if your data is skewed?
18. Past experience is excellent for providing a reality check. Too much reality can doom an otherwise worthwhile design, though.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/11/28/possible/
> When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
Stated otherwise:
Youth desires growth. Maturity desires survival.Does anyone else keep a similar collect or have advice for finding more?
(For example Gurwinder sometimes posts lists like this: https://www.gurwinder.blog/p/30-useful-concepts-spring-2024 - that's what I'm talking about.)
I don't know a more general name.
"Epistemological atom" is bulky. Some are principles, some are laws, some are aphorisms, some are patterns. Sometimes you see "nuggets" or "pearls of wisdom". The publishing industry tries to froth these ideas into $25 nonfiction hardbacks, 15 minute TED talks, and hour long podcast appearances, but they are without obvious exception small ideas.
"meme" as analogous to gene might have taken root in some alternate timeline. I think one of the characteristics that makes certain ideas compelling in this way is that they seem to be applicable in ways far beyond their origin (cf. design patterns). That's why they feel collectable.
I liked the term "knol" for a "unit of knowledge" from when Google tried to do a wikipedia like thing. There is definitely a shape and scope relatable to a wiki page. The idea should feel unique and complete enough to have its own wiki page but dense enough to fit in the summary.
Whichever name one prefers, hurray for simple interlocks that save the lives and limbs or tired inattentive operators. Dioxygen and nitrous oxide in surgical operating rooms using different connectors is a great example.
Hardly surprising these are still popular idioms.
A direct google translation comes back with "disabuse you idiot"
So maybe it means "idiot proof"?
So "couillon" is a synonym for balls and idiot if I'm understanding the GP's references correctly.
Contrary to "couilles", which are indeed "bollocks", "couillon" has no exact english synonym. Closest I can imagine, in spirit, would be "bollocks-brained", or "nutcase" which also carries the anatomical undertone.
So, "un détrompe-couillon" could directly translate as "a foolproofer" - though that translation is tamer than the original for lack of testicles.
Unfortunately, also very attractive to being used corruptly in the political arena (see nudge theory, newspeak). Can also be downright rejected, bypassed, or ignored. See most workers/employers views on OSHA.
At my job, I add automations to try to avoid problematic and common errors. But I also engineer them so that a human can override them in the event of an emergency or some other need
"A simple poka-yoke example is demonstrated when a driver of the car equipped with a manual gearbox must press on the clutch pedal (a process step, therefore a poka-yoke) prior to starting an automobile."
You would typically put the car to a neutral gear before starting up the car, clutch isn't required.
Furthermore, if there was such a poka-yoke preventing start-up when the clutch isn't pressed, it would prevent the common safety procedure when a car doesn't start and is in a dangerous position, for example on rails or in the motorway. In such situations you would drive the car with the starter engine alone, putting the first gear on, release the clutch, and start the car, thus moving it forward slowly by the battery and the starter engine.
0: This is basically everything after the three-on-the-tree/four-on-the-floor era. I have yet to drive anything with an overdrive gear that didn't require popping the clutch to crank the starter.
(Then again, seeing how nobody pronounces Pokémon as Pokémon, I guess striving for accurate pronunciation is a lost cause)
I say (and usually hear, from English speakers) "poker mon" (non-rhotically). Isn't that roughly correct, allowing for differences between English and Japanese vowels?
Or "yoh keh" as in "moth fret"
?
I pronounce pokémon as "Poh Key Mon". Which is a third variation to "ké"
Japanese vowels can vary quite a lot, because there aren't nearly as many other vowels to confuse them with as there are in English.
The Japanese "o" vowel is usually close to [ɔ], the General American English CLOTH vowel (from Wikipedia: "cough, broth, cross, long, Boston", or "moth") or THOUGHT in either GA or British Received Pronunciation ("taught, sauce, hawk, jaw, broad") than to GOAT in either dialect ("soap, joke, home, know, so, roll", or "show").
The Japanese "e" vowel is usually close to [ɛ], which is the General American English DRESS vowel (from Wikipedia: "step, neck, edge, shelf, friend, ready", to which we might add "fret") than to [e] or [ej] or [eɪ] or [ei], which is more like the General American English FACE vowel ("tape, cake, raid, veil, steak, day", to which we might add "slay"). RP doesn't have [ɛ] at all; the closest it has is that it realizes SQUARE ("care, fair, pear, where, scarce, vary") as [ɛə].
Other English dialects (AAVE, Irish, Scottish, Cajun, Southern American, Jamaican, Standard Indian, Bangladeshi, Nigerian, Australian) realize these vowels in their own different ways which may or may not correspond well to the Japanese phonemes you're asking about.