Re: yes!

On 20/08/2024 12:53 am, john larkin wrote:

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:21:55 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
 

On 19/08/2024 3:26 am, john larkin wrote:

On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:33:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
>

On 18/08/2024 2:31 am, john larkin wrote:

On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:14:51 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>

"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:dta1cj1f3pudq93ard2o2ve4dadero917e@4ax.com...

On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:26:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
>

On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:07:52 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <06jvbjp36khao0m5ot65a1o1krricoasre@4ax.com>:

<snip>

What have you designed lately? Tell us about it.

>
You first. You do seem to think that you design circuits, but you don't
tell us about them in the kind of way that suggests that you actually
designed them.

>
https://www.amazon.com/Art-Electronics-x-Chapters/dp/1108499945

>
That's Horowitz and Hill's text-book, and while that may contain their
discussion of the design of one of your circuits, it's not your
discussion - more an after-the-fact rationalisation of what you ended up
doing.

 I only got a couple of pages in AoE3, but I did better in the
X-chapters. I made the preface (with Phil Hobbs) and am in the index
at the end, and I think I'm named about 22 times between. I don't
recall seeing your name.

Your stuff sells under your name. Mine sells too, but not under my name.

What difference does the design process make, if the result works?

Thought-out designs work better and cost less.

I've always annoyed PhD academic types who resent people who are
creative and have instincts.

Academics don't resent people who are creative. They aren't fond of people who don't talk about how they get to their results, because academics are in the teaching business - academies are where people learn stuff - and if they can get hold of approaches that work, they can pass them on to their students.
Instincts aren't teachable and you can't pass them on - sometimes your kids inherit them. There are quite a few people who don't like passing on their skills, and consequently claim that they operate by instinct, so that they won't have to educate potential competitors.

The H+H books are deliberately call The ART of Electronics. I think
higher education, especially the PhD process, beats the creativity out
of people. I recently had to fire a PhD; she thought that being a PhD
made her right, which it didn't.

There are academics who study all kinds of creative arts - painting, sculpture and music all have their academies.
Knowing what you are doing, and how it fits in with what other people have done, doesn't seem to stifle creativity.
Getting a Ph.D. isn't any kind of training in being creative, and most of the ones I've known haven't been all that creative. I got together with my wife before she did her Ph.D. training, and it didn't beat any creativity out of her - she was an original thinker before she started (despite having aready got a Master's degree) and she stayed creative thereafter (and wrote lots of highly cited papers along the way).

Creationist see intelligent design in the way living beings happen to
work, but that's all after-the-fact rationalisation too.

 Neo-Darwinian evolution is crazy inefficient. Why wouldn't we evolve a
better way for evolution to work? The critters that did ate the
critters that didn't.

Language probably is that better way. We can now talk about individual defects in particular genomes, and use CRISPR to correct some of them.
It's taken more than three billion years to get this far, which would be crazy inefficient if we'd known where we were going.
Efficiency in this context, would the ratio of the time a perfect system would take to the time our actual system has taken. Since we don't know what a perfect system would be it's an imaginary number.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney