"Mike Engelhardt has parted ways with Analog Devices"

Sorry Phil. As a psychological diagnostician, you don't have a lot of credibility. John Larkin isn't remotely insane, any more than I am autistic.

Your delusion that you can post claims like that doesn't make you insane, just someone who suffers from poor judgement.

Oh, go fix a broken guitar pedal. Probably someone just spilled beer in it.

Funny dude. You would think this guy has better things to do. Obviously he is as much here for the drama as the engineering.

Forget about it Jake. It's the Internet.

Bill Sloman wrote in news:6e552eb6-8c18-4b9e- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

That is not true or you would not have made that post.

Becaus if everybody had it, including you, you would have enough to know that your claim is false.

Intuitions is just "fast thinking", and everybody does it.

Pretentious twits want to dress it up as some kind of divine inspiration, but it's just the built-in system we've got for turning experience into predictions.

Because it's built-in, we aren't conscious of the rather sloppy processing involved.

Your pig-ignorant certainties come from the same unreliable source.

uTube. I really liked the guys view on what the ltspice program is for whic h is so that the engineer can get better intuition as to how his circuits w ork. It is a piece of verification but should not be used is the sole purpo se of verifying. I guess I like it because it resonated with my viewpoints about use of such a program

Hi James, I agree. Oh I put an asterisk on sailing, cause I was recently looking at Kai Lenny and his hydrofoil surfboards. Again I assume he's doing it for fun and not profit. (though life is great when profit can follow your fun :^)

George H.

Yeah I think that is sorta my picture... as I sleep my brain if fiddling with different possible solutions.

Have you read "Thinking Fast and Slow" by D. Kahneman. I'm only ~1/2 way through but enjoying it.

George h.

You have trillions of brain cells that can work in parallel, each one probably a pretty good quantum computer on its own. You can explore the solution space faster that all the supercomputers on the planet, in your sleep.

No. Is it good? I'm just about to start "The Night Witches" by Myles.

It's interesting. But seems a bit repetitive at times. So far most of it is about how the fast (intuitive) part of our brain can be mislead.

It's a bit of an interactive book with questions... and then I find he's treating me as not as smart as I am... or maybe it is that I enjoy thinking 'slow' about stuff. Anyway many useful and insightful ideas, so I would recommend it.

George H.

snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

one

planet,

Einstein said his greatest 'revelations' came while in meditation.

That is a waking endeavor.

You explore nothing real in your sleep. Dream analyses prove that.

All the big geniuses claim they were inspired through meditation.

Everything one ever wanted to know is out there.

Hear about those folks who became a super genius or became super skilled at something after a sharp knock on the head?

Makes one wonder just how tall that apple tree was.

I have wondered just how many head knocked great contributors to the world being a better place there have been throughout time.

George Herold wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

People tell me I shoot too hard in pool.

I always have said that I explore the fringes of the physics of the shot. So I feel that anyone who does not explore those limits does not learn the full gamut required to make them a good shooter (and they have no business critiquing on it at that point). I shoot super soft shots and I shoot shots where the ball literally flies to the pocket in mid air. I shoot the fool gamut. There are exactly zero practice strokes in my shots. My shots are executed in uaually less than 10 seconds each. Don't turn your back or you'll claim I cheated. I shoot banks more often than my straight shots on some racks. Taking too long to shoot contributes to loss of confidence.

I shoot the fool gamut....i like it. I think you coined a new phrase

snipped-for-privacy@columbus.rr.com wrote in news:32b52c34-b170-4278-ac65- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

phrase

It was a while ago.

It should have been my 123rd moniker.

Only one now, but I had a bunch, all Identifiable to me, and all for humorous purpose.

Yet some dopes in here went off calling me a troll, yet I never hid my ID, they always knew it was me, and if the post is looked at, the moniker I posted with many times relates.

'Fool Gamut' sounds like a good band name.

Nice little Usenet moniker too... "I like it!" --Robocop

"I'd buy that for a dollar!" --also Robocop

Oh, I think he (D. Kahneman) talks about this.. but maybe it was someone else. But for various athletes performing at their peak, they often report that the (slow) thinking part of the brain is apart/detached from the whole process... like an outside observer... thinking too much ruins your game.

George H. (I remember reading a tennis book in the ~70's that said the same thing.)

is

It is well known that muscle coordination does not require conscious though t. It happens through the nerve bundles (I forget the term for them) in th e spine. This is the basis of muscle memory which is a real thing, only it doesn't literally happen in the muscles.

Lots of simple stuff, opamps and voltage dividers and filters, can be designed with math, and one can be confident that they will work. More interesting stuff, fast things and nonlinear things, need simulation and then physical verification. Device models can be awful, so neither math nor sims are predictive. People leave out wire bond inductance. Substrate diode models can be flat wrong. Thermal effects are hard to model. And sometimes a circuit on a PCB needs a full 3D em simulation. I'd rather solder.

Here's my 20 volt pulse, 10V into 50 ohms.

This is rev C of my GaN pulser, and the last rev enabled a ton of soldering, fiddling, and filter testing to make a clean pulse. I think I finally got it right a half hour ago. I deserve a donut. Initial simulations were just a starting point, and not very accurate.

Suzana Herculano-Houzel says that it's only 86 billion.

Roger Penrose has claimed that neurones are quantum computers, but nobody takes him seriously - they are bit warm for any quantum state to last long enough to be useful.

Or so John Larkin imagines.If his brain was that good he'd be less of a sucker for climate change denial propaganda.

It was a best-seller, and Kahneman shared a Nobel Prize for the work it popularises. The work was observational science, so John Larkin won't take it seriously.

Thanks George, that was awesome. I'm forwarding that YouTube psychically to my dear brother Jeffrey, surfing fanatic, presently hunting the perfect wave somewhere in Alpha Centauri or beyond.

Cheers, James Arthur

Oh I knew nothing about it till listening to an E. Weinstein podcast with Kai Lenny.

They are still finding these big waves all over the globe... One off the coast of Portugal. He might like the podcast.

George H.