Now personally I don't think this ultimate vibe-coding paradigm is just around the corner, but it does seem that it's the direction we're heading and I think this article does a good job of explaining why.
327 karma · joined April 13, 2017
Now personally I don't think this ultimate vibe-coding paradigm is just around the corner, but it does seem that it's the direction we're heading and I think this article does a good job of explaining why.
WiFi tends to be simpler in part because the protocol authors are working more in the interest of the implementers, since it's really they who decide whether to adopt or not. Obviously a gross simplification but I think it's at the heart of the problem.
Maybe the EIRP shouldn't be unlimited, but I still think it would be beneficial to encourage spatially selective systems.
Does anyone know if there's a good reason to use EIRP that I'm missing? I figure satellite communication terminals can have huge EIRPs because they're all pointed at the sky, but the FCC can't guarantee that the beams won't cross for other bands, so they limit the EIRP, but I still think we would all be better off of our systems were spatially selective.
https://lilibots.blogspot.com/2021/01/why-is-starlink-termin...
Founded in 2015 and spun-off from the Langevin Institute (CNRS and ESPCI), Greenerwave is a mission-led GreenTech, specializing in reconfigurable metasurfaces (smart electronic surfaces) and EM wave control (from 1GHz to 77GHz). We create innovative, energy-efficient, and "plug & play" solutions. We develop patented technologies that are recognized worldwide (PACEPilot Award 2022, member of ETSI and 3GPP ...). We work on several projects with large industrial partners as well as the state and military. Our disruptive technology allows us to design solutions in telecommunications, NewSpace (SATCOM, 5G-6G) as well as in detection (RADAR, RFID).
With more than 50 employees, we're still hiring across many projects and many areas of expertise. We're looking for RF Engineers, Embedded Software Developers, Hardware or FPGA Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Physicists, and Signal Processing Engineers.
At Greenerwave, you'll have the opportunity to evolve in a field that will have an impact on the future and work with many passionate experts (PhDs, Engineers) from all over the world on complex solutions.
Please send your resume to jobs@greenerwave.com
Founded in 2015 and spun-off from the Langevin Institute (CNRS and ESPCI), Greenerwave is a mission-led GreenTech, specializing in reconfigurable metasurfaces (smart electronic surfaces) and EM wave control (from 1GHz to 77GHz). We create innovative, energy-efficient, and "plug & play" solutions. We develop patented technologies that are recognized worldwide (PACEPilot Award 2022, member of ETSI and 3GPP ...). We work on several projects with large industrial partners as well as the state and military. Our disruptive technology allows us to design solutions in telecommunications, NewSpace (SATCOM, 5G-6G) as well as in detection (RADAR, RFID).
With more than 50 employees, we're still hiring across many projects and many areas of expertise. We're looking for RF Engineers, Embedded Software Developers, Hardware or FPGA Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Physicists, and Signal Processing Engineers.
At Greenerwave, you'll have the opportunity to evolve in a field that will have an impact on the future and work with many passionate experts (PhDs, Engineers) from all over the world on complex solutions.
Please send your resume to jobs@greenerwave.com
So I've decided to get them the iPad Pro. I'm trusting Apple to focus on things like screen latency and microphone/speaker quality in their products. Plus it should be quite easy for my parents to use. It just seems to me like the iPad Pro is the best product for setting up non-tech people with a decent videoconferencing setup.
Has anyone else solved this problem, or have thoughts on using an iPad for video chatting?
I don't doubt that the advice still applies but I'm having a hard time understanding how. Are there illustrative examples of startups that did this well?
I think the only source of polling left is in USB, but I think that's inherent to the USB protocol (someone correct me if I'm wrong here). Without the USB polling I think it would be possible to have key-press-to-USB-packet completely interrupt driven which should make the latency in the keyboard itself negligible.
[0]: I say typically but like you said a lot of implementations are closed source, so who knows. All of the discussions I've seen on matrix scanning use the polling method, and the open source implementations use polling as well (e.g. Keyberon[1]).
[1]: https://github.com/TeXitoi/keyberon-grid/blob/master/src/bin...
https://www.economist.com/business/2021/08/14/one-way-to-mak...
"À mesure que le principe de la division du travail reçoit une application plus complète, l’ouvrier devient plus faible, plus borné et plus dépendant. L’art fait des progrès, l’artisan rétrograde."
Or roughly "In a system of division of labor, the work improves but the worker suffers".
I feel like, as an industry, we've settled on a way of working that probably does produce quality software faster and more reliably, but it takes a toll on the engineers.
Also, this was a really great article and congrats to the author!
And my hope was that simplifying the hardware would allow us to fit more cores on the same chip. So your first point means that the per-core performance is worse but maybe for some workloads the processor performance as a whole is better. But yeah not sure if that's realistic.
Those two examples are the only ones I could come up with, but I suspect that's because I don't know very much about hardware design. Are people working on this or am I just off-base here?
I'm still curious how the licensing from NASA works. Do they typically grant a monopoly to certain companies or can multiple competing companies license this technology?
Can anyone tell me how the Space Act Agreement works? Does the innovation developed by NASA end up as a patent for a chosen company? Or do these three patents represent work done by the company and not at NASA? If it's the former, does NASA get any money from this agreement?
The real reason we use I/Q sampling is because we want to frequency-shift a signal.
Why do we want to frequency-shift a signal? In radio frequency applications the signal of interest almost always has a much lower bandwidth than its highest frequency. In other words, the signal has a small bandwidth (say 40 MHz) centered around a high center-frequency (say 2.4 GHz). If we want to digitize the signal, then one way would be to use a very high sample-rate ADC (e.g. a 2.4 GHz ADC). But these are very expensive, and a much better way of digitizing the signal is to use a mixer (a frequency shifter) to shift the signal to be centered around 0 Hz and then use a relatively low sample-rate ADC (e.g. a 40 MHz ADC).
The way frequency shifting is done is by multipling the signal by a sine signal, which can be done in hardware. But this introduces a distortion to the signal because multiplying by a sine is not actually a frequency shift. It just so happens that this distortion is cancelled out by adding another copy of the signal multiplied with another sine delayed by 90°. But this addition needs to be complex (due to the relationship between sine functions and true frequency shifts), so what we do is sample the two distorted signals and do this complex addition with the digitial signals.
So the reason we have complex samples is because that's the best way we've found to do frequency shifting using real-only sine waves (this explains why we don't use complex numbers in audio signal processing; there's no need to do frequency shifting!). This tutorial goes into the details and is the best explanation I've seen on quadrature sampling (another term for I/Q sampling): https://www.dsprelated.com/showarticle/192.php
I think engineers (myself included) tend to get confused because using complex numbers makes the math simpler, and so they think that's the real reason we use them. All the talk about ambiguous frequencies or negative frequencies or needing to know the phase of a sample is true, but all of those problems could be solved without complex numbers simply by sampling twice as fast and then doing some math (again, audio DSP does just fine without quadrature sampling), so it's not a "real" reason to do this strange kind of sampling.
On the one hand I think it's great that the US and Canada continue to attract research talent from around the world. But on the other hand I suspect that the increased competitiveness has changed the nature of the PhD program in computer science. I think that professors these days have so many options for grad students that they can choose students with specialized experience in their research field, which means that any "exploratory" phase of the PhD process has shrunk significantly. In the article, the author says that CMU expects students to choose an advisor within a month or two of starting the program, and I guess that in reality most students have applied to work with a specific advisor before stepping foot on campus. I wonder has it always been the case? Can anyone - maybe someone who did a PhD at CMU or elsewhere more than a decade ago - shed any light here?
Of course the increased competitiveness of US CS PhD programs is just conjecture on my part. It could be that the increase in nonresident alien enrollment just means that many US and Canadian citizens are not interested in a CS PhD these days, and that the PhD programs haven't really changed, which also sounds plausible. From my experience during my short PhD attempt, the amount of time spent studying (classes, reading papers, etc) versus simply working for an advisor was smaller than I expected, and I don't know if that's because of a real change in the PhD process or simply my own naïveté.
[0]: https://cra.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2018_Taulbee_Surv...