just looked for that self modifying Makefile that I did using sed/awk in the target definitions, but, alas, could not find it. It must have gotten lost in the Great Purge. In other news, my TP600, the Z60, and the late 2008 Macbook all booted up.
I decided to try a long shot and bought a broken Keysight 82357B GPIB / USB adapter for 30$. How hard can it be to fix ? Probably just a cap right ? I'm sure it's working fine and the current owner don't know how to test it. Well when I received it, it was effectively dead
There is no schematic for that adapter so I started to follow the 5V supply from USB to see where is was going. First a 0Ohm resistor was burned on the ground rail going back to the USB connector. That was easy to change but was only a symptom of the problem and not the problem itself. The 5V supply was shorted to ground. I then removed a dead mosfet and finally found the short on the CY7C68013a microcontroller.
I was a bit impatient while removing the CY7C68013a and stripped 2 pads
Had to patch it soldering 2 wires directly on the vias.
The result of my master skills, it's working but it's not pretty
After a lot of fettling and swearing because of my cheap microscope, the repair was eventually a success, got another GPIB adapter to play with
Indeed. I'm recruiting at the moment and I can't find anyone who knows what they are doing qualified in any way or another. So I have to look for people who have the initiative to get from zero to knowledgeable on their own or with assistance.
Such bootstrapping usually requires a sufficient knowledge of the fundamental theory, so that it can be applied to new circumstances.
Such employees tend to be good long-term employees since they will adjust to the changing requirements over the years. After all, the half-life of specific "which button do I press" knowledge is a couple of years.
Yes that's true on both counts. However they don't teach the fundamental theory of what we do at universities. Instead we need broken people with battle scars.
That's why people look at the Russell Group universities as being a cut above the "University of an Ill-defined Area" wannabes.
I don't want universities to teach things that will be automatically encountered on the job. Universities should teach the necessary things that won't automatically be learned on the job.
mod of the day: electrified my bicycle ergometer
Indeed. I'm recruiting at the moment and I can't find anyone who knows what they are doing qualified in any way or another. So I have to look for people who have the initiative to get from zero to knowledgeable on their own or with assistance.
Such bootstrapping usually requires a sufficient knowledge of the fundamental theory, so that it can be applied to new circumstances.
Such employees tend to be good long-term employees since they will adjust to the changing requirements over the years. After all, the half-life of specific "which button do I press" knowledge is a couple of years.
Yes that's true on both counts. However they don't teach the fundamental theory of what we do at universities. Instead we need broken people with battle scars.
That's why people look at the Russell Group universities as being a cut above the "University of an Ill-defined Area" wannabes.
I don't want universities to teach things that will be automatically encountered on the job. Universities should teach the necessary things that won't automatically be learned on the job.
The only grads I've seen recently, and myself only got taught how to run an effective cargo cult at their Russel Group universities
Best one we had was from Belarusian State University of Informatics.
Indeed. I'm recruiting at the moment and I can't find anyone who knows what they are doing qualified in any way or another. So I have to look for people who have the initiative to get from zero to knowledgeable on their own or with assistance.
Such bootstrapping usually requires a sufficient knowledge of the fundamental theory, so that it can be applied to new circumstances.
Such employees tend to be good long-term employees since they will adjust to the changing requirements over the years. After all, the half-life of specific "which button do I press" knowledge is a couple of years.
Yes that's true on both counts. However they don't teach the fundamental theory of what we do at universities. Instead we need broken people with battle scars.
That's why people look at the Russell Group universities as being a cut above the "University of an Ill-defined Area" wannabes.
I don't want universities to teach things that will be automatically encountered on the job. Universities should teach the necessary things that won't automatically be learned on the job.
Disagree, university, on the tools or college trained like I was, once you pass those final exams and get your certificate you should able to hit the deck and get on with it. I have worked on a few high profile projects where the university trained electrical consultant engineers have made some very series and fundamental blunders and one that springs to mind instantly was a young consultant, working on a major project around the redevelopment of London Docklands had designed a system that showed a 13A twin socket that had 2 phases being connected to it, it was not even a twin socket made of 2 single sockets on a twin accessory box
On another similar project, the was zero provision made for the testing of all emergency lighting in a major public building, other than killing the power completely, both of which had to have it carefully explained to them why you could not carry out their designs.
Clearly @bd you are being harsh about Russell University graduates they just like waving their dicks in public
Indeed. I'm recruiting at the moment and I can't find anyone who knows what they are doing qualified in any way or another. So I have to look for people who have the initiative to get from zero to knowledgeable on their own or with assistance.
Such bootstrapping usually requires a sufficient knowledge of the fundamental theory, so that it can be applied to new circumstances.
Such employees tend to be good long-term employees since they will adjust to the changing requirements over the years. After all, the half-life of specific "which button do I press" knowledge is a couple of years.
Yes that's true on both counts. However they don't teach the fundamental theory of what we do at universities. Instead we need broken people with battle scars.
That's why people look at the Russell Group universities as being a cut above the "University of an Ill-defined Area" wannabes.
I don't want universities to teach things that will be automatically encountered on the job. Universities should teach the necessary things that won't automatically be learned on the job.
Disagree, university, on the tools or college trained like I was, once you pass those final exams and get your certificate you should able to hit the deck and get on with it.
Where have I said otherwise? But expecting new grads to have all the experience and wisdom of old hands is a recipe for disappointment.
But it sounds like you want to hire apprentices that have been taught "monkey-see-monkey-do" on
a job in
a company. Which probably doesn't match what
b company wants/needs.
I have worked on a few high profile projects where the university trained electrical consultant engineers have made some very series and fundamental blunders and one that springs to mind instantly was a young consultant, working on a major project around the redevelopment of London Docklands had designed a system that showed a 13A twin socket that had 2 phases being connected to it, it was not even a twin socket made of 2 single sockets on a twin accessory box On another similar project, the was zero provision made for the testing of all emergency lighting in a major public building, other than killing the power completely, both of which had to have it carefully explained to them why you could not carry out their designs.
We can all come up with horror stories. I've seen too many people without theoretical knowledge make claims that have long been proven to be impossible. Trying to get them to understand is an exercise in futility and flattening your forehead. (A recent one was people that believed it was possible for multiple computers to all have a single "universal time").
Too many people don't understand that learning and experience is a lifelong journey, and that if you are looking for someone with complete experience then you will be waiting a long time. So the question becomes "
at stage X of a career, what is the minimum acceptable
for this job, and what's the best way of getting somebody with that".
Clearly @bd you are being harsh about Russell University graduates they just like waving their dicks in public
Dickheads are omnipresent
If you weed out the worst cases, which establishments give the higher/lower probability of getting someone useful
for a specific job.
...Too many people don't understand that learning and experience is a lifelong journey, and that if you are looking for someone with complete experience then you will be waiting a long time. So the question becomes "at stage X of a career, what is the minimum acceptable for this job, and what's the best way of getting somebody with that".
Yeah, the problem therein lies in the damage that the corporate "race to the bottom" has done to the worker pool. It demands insane levels of specialization, learned at the worker's expense, before even allowing a candidate to talk to someone who might hire them. Then, when the specialization of the month changes, all those highly-trained personnel, and their job experience, are discarded like used tissues over and over again.
You can make a dumb building using dumb bricks. You can build a smart machine using carefully machined cogs. But the race to the bottom treats EVERYONE in EVERY ROLE like a box of disposable plastic cutlery, and none of it is really good at being a nice stable brick or a precision gear. If you want a worker that is the right tool for the job, you need to be willing to invest something in that worker, no matter what the role.
mnem
I hate to distract anyone from all these weighty topics
but...
There is a 8591E with the tracking generator, GPIB, and narrow bandwidth options on my local CL
*. I am in conversation with the seller now. If I do buy it, I will have an opportunity to test it out as thoroughly as I wish, at least once I figure out how to do so safely.
So... I have read mixed reviews about this SA. When I was evaluating my options, it was one of the models I looked at. Anyone here have one? Used one? What do you like about it? Hate?
And...
I won't get it for a jammy git price but what would be a really good deal? The prices on ebay seem to be crazy, though the "completed deal" prices are more reasonable.
Off to look through the manual in more detail and figure out if it can do anything my current SA cannot, other than look like a really sweet piece of HP TE, I mean.
*Yes I have an SA (the entry level Siglent w/ TG) so I don't really need it but then I don't really need approximately eighty percent of the TE on my shelves, so why should that stop me?
If you weed out the worst cases, which establishments give the higher/lower probability of getting someone useful for a specific job.
The problem I find is finding people who can cope with non-specific and extremly complex system-spanning jobs thrown at them rapidly and the ability to conceptualise that or create a solution to a problem out of thin air. It's really easy getting someone who can solve a constrained problem or run from a playbook.
I haven't established any correlation between education and a positive employment outcome yet. The only correlation appears to be obscure folk with home laboratories of various sorts
@mnementh our former CIO once called the workforce renewable resources ...
I
*Yes I have an SA (the entry level Siglent w/ TG) so I don't really need it but then I don't really need approximately eighty percent of the TE on my shelves, so why should that stop me?
SSA ? Set your sights on replacing it with one of the SVA's as they can do much much more.
@mnementh our former CIO once called the workforce renewable resources ...
Did he goose step into the room regularly?
...Too many people don't understand that learning and experience is a lifelong journey, and that if you are looking for someone with complete experience then you will be waiting a long time. So the question becomes "at stage X of a career, what is the minimum acceptable for this job, and what's the best way of getting somebody with that".
Yeah, the problem therein lies in the damage that the corporate "race to the bottom" has done to the worker pool. It demands insane levels of specialization, learned at the worker's expense, before even allowing a candidate to talk to someone who might hire them. Then, when the specialization of the month changes, all those highly-trained personnel, and their job experience, are discarded like used tissues over and over again.
You can make a dumb building using dumb bricks. You can build a smart machine using carefully machined cogs. But the race to the bottom treats EVERYONE in EVERY ROLE like a box of disposable plastic cutlery, and none of it is really good at being a nice stable brick or a precision gear. If you want a worker that is the right tool for the job, you need to be willing to invest something in that worker, no matter what the role.
Yup.
Once you get past HRdroids to talk to engineers, you can cut through a lot of that crap.
*Yes I have an SA (the entry level Siglent w/ TG) so I don't really need it but then I don't really need approximately eighty percent of the TE on my shelves, so why should that stop me?
SSA ? Set your sights on replacing it with one of the SVA's as they can do much much more.
sir, you are not helping the situation
at all.
If you weed out the worst cases, which establishments give the higher/lower probability of getting someone useful for a specific job.
The problem I find is finding people who can cope with non-specific and extremly complex system-spanning jobs thrown at them rapidly and the ability to conceptualise that or create a solution to a problem out of thin air. It's really easy getting someone who can solve a constrained problem or run from a playbook.
Your kind of jobs tend to require deep and broad knowledge, and that simply cannot be gained overnight (or even overyear).
HRdroids actively search out and hire the buzzword/playbook type of person. They regard other people as either tool old or a square peg for their round hole.
I haven't established any correlation between education and a positive employment outcome yet. The only correlation appears to be obscure folk with home laboratories of various sorts
For your kind of job I tend to agree.
When looking at CVs I would look for evidence of theoretical knowledge (and a Russell Group university is a good indicator) and of using that theory in practical situations. At an interview I would want to understand what the candidate had been exposed to and done, and probe to see they weren't bullshitting. I'd also ask questions to see their general theoretical knowledge, and push them to see how they think, and expect them to say "I don't know but here's how I would find out". Ditto practical experience.
True about HR droids.
We usually just toss them on a hosed windows 10 box that barely works, "so you're a python guy yeah? well i want you to solve this problem using Haskell. You have 3 hours". Then sit back and observe what happens.
30% of people refuse and get all pissy. 50% of people fail at the first hurdle. 20% of people piss themselves with excitement. It's the 20% we need even if they don't completely succeed.
Edit: most successful guy actually wrote a decision tree down as he was doing stuff and walked it on paper while he was navigating the maze of problems. Unfortunately Google snapped him up before we did
I’ve done the same. I had a box of transformers I regularly attacked for wire because I was too cheap to buy some
Nice hack that actually. Fancy fixing the USB-C on my T470?
This simple fettling is my meditation...
mnem
*fettle-fettle*
*Cue Twilight Zone Music*
So... just as I'm clearing off my bench after completing the above mods on both controllers... *DING-DONG... VROOOOM!* and the truck is long gone before I can navigate the maze of baggies & trash piles to get to the door. On the porch is the remainder of my wife's birthday goodies from Amazon; but leaning on the wall next to the Bezos' Box is a little yellow bubble mailer covered in Simplified Chinese ideographs. after giving her the box, I open the mailer... and inside is this little thing.
It's a PS3 charger dock I'd ordered months ago, before ordering the cables in the above mod; I'd actually forgotten about the damned thing. Well... as I'd guessed after buying it and then seeing more pictures long after it shipped, the stupid captive mini-USBs were a complete dicksore to get aligned with the socket in the controller; as a bonus, it would only charge on one port, and that only if plugged into a PC or the PS3. Welp, only $4 wasted... but then I looked at the magnetic cables and had a bit of a "Hmmmmm..." moment.
After gutting the thing (yay! more partzz!!! ) I started carving out the jack area of the controller recess little by little; finishing with a large drill by hand the get it just right (fettle-fettle-fettle), so that the magnetic head of the cable was captive between a hole in the top and another in the bottom, but had just enough room to "float" a millimeter or so. Added a little soft foam to protect the paint on the controllers, and now I have something that Sony was unable to (or couldn't be arsed to) accomplish in almost 10 years of the PS3 being their best-selling product of all time: A simple, drop-in charger base for the PS3 controller like every cordless XBOX has had available for over a decade.Now if Canada Post would only come back off their vacation week and actually deliver my fekking Ender 3 parts...
mnem
Nice job. That's rather cool.
True about HR droids.
We usually just toss them on a hosed windows 10 box that barely works, "so you're a python guy yeah? well i want you to solve this problem using Haskell. You have 3 hours". Then sit back and observe what happens.
30% of people refuse and get all pissy. 50% of people fail at the first hurdle. 20% of people piss themselves with excitement. It's the 20% we need even if they don't completely succeed.
Edit: most successful guy actually wrote a decision tree down as he was doing stuff and walked it on paper while he was navigating the maze of problems. Unfortunately Google snapped him up before we did
For the second half of my interviews (i.e. after I've found what the candidate has achieved elsewhere) for an embedded job, I'll ask something along the lines of "a toy car/road manufacturer wants to introduce some traffic lights into his toys. What do you say and how do you proceed?". The decent ones realise that can't be answered on that information, so try to elicit wants/needs/wishes etc. Then I get them to move onto suggesting a range of implementation technologies and their advantages/disadvantages. The poor ones only come up with one technology, the good ones come up with at least three. Then I push to see how they would proceed with their favoured technology.