Not to mention that one of the things experienced people learn is that vendor code is hot flaming garbage and must never be trusted. Writing a Rust implementation based on vendor code is like building a skyscraper on a landfill. Don't do that. If you have to do that, tread bloody carefully!
I am more on the hardware side these days, but Nordic's hardware docs are pretty crap. As in, they're pretty, and they're crap. (The prettiness lulls people, especially managers, into a false sense of confidence. Don't fall for the trap!) There are obvious poor choices in there, and if you call FAEs out on them, they say to just follow the docs. Experienced engineers should not follow the docs.
> Specifically if your GFCI in the bathroom (or anywhere) keeps tripping it’s because something is wrong with your wiring or something plugged into the outlet.
Unfortunately this is not quite true. For two-prong plugs, yes, it is 100% accurate. However larger devices with grounded plugs, especially heavier machinery, will typically contain a line filter with Y capacitors running line to ground. This shows up as a tiny leakage current, which some GFCIs will detect (because it really is leaking) even though this is a nuisance trip (because it is completely safe and normal operation). That's part of where the 30mA trip specification for certain types of non-normal-residential-circuit comes from.
A pair of matched Y capacitors on a 240V appliance from a single phase supply will cancel each other out. This doesn’t help people with 208V who are using two out of three phases, though.
edit: 120V is not immune. I once worked on a project involving powering equipment in a Faraday case at 120V. The mandatory filter (to prevent the wire from conducting emissions out of the cage) instantly tripped GFCI.
The right solution IMO would have been one of:
a) A better filter that doesn’t pass 50-60Hz. This is doable in theory, but I’ve never seen one.
b) A transformer or other isolated supply outside the cage, with a GFCI inside the cage (to protect the people who may enter to touch the equipment).
c) A transformer outside, not necessarily right next to the cage, supplying the inside with two opposite-phase lines at 60Vrms each. No net leakage! This would require that everything inside accept such a supply, which rules out anything that wants a real neutral.
d) I bet someone could design a transformer with a shield between the windings that would integrate with the Faraday cage. Power would couple in inductively through the shield. Common-mode RFI would have a very hard time escaping, and different mode RFI could be filtered and probably matters quite a bit less anyway.
Of course, the actual solution chosen by the site’s electrical people was rather less classy.
An ideal transformer will give you perfect galvanic isolation. A GFI therefore becomes useless on transformer secondaries, because there is no way to complete a circuit through earth back to the transformer. If you have earth grounding of stuff inside the cage (not just the cage itself)... then you have a very strange test going on.
Of course, real transformers are not ideal. This:
> I bet someone could design a transformer with a shield between the windings that would integrate with the Faraday cage. Power would couple in inductively through the shield. Common-mode RFI would have a very hard time escaping, and different mode RFI could be filtered and probably matters quite a bit less anyway.
exists and it is called an "electrostatic shield" inside a transformer. Magnetics people do not like to make these, but they are a standard enough request that they'll do it for you and the only complaints you'll get will be from the people on your side who see the invoice. Electrostatic shields are also not perfect but they help tremendously. The shield connection usually comes out of the potted assembly on another wire so you can hook it up as required.
Protip: if you are ever trying to replace or redesign equipment that uses an electrostatically shielded transformer, do ask why they went to that effort. Don't just try to use a normal transformer and then wonder why you can't get it working right... despite man-months of effort....
> An ideal transformer will give you perfect galvanic isolation. A GFI therefore becomes useless on transformer secondaries, because there is no way to complete a circuit through earth back to the transformer.
Yes and no. You declare one of the secondary wires to be neutral and the other to be the “line”, and you connect “ground” to “neutral” in exactly one place. And the GFI monitors the sum of the line and neutral current, but not the ground. And you connect your equipment chassis to ground via the wire that, in the US, is green and is called, in the NEC, the “equipment grounding conductor”. And the GFCI will protect you if you are touching a grounded object with one part of your body and accidentally contact something that’s is at “line” voltage.
If you are using a transformer to provide power to part of a building subject to the NEC, you may be required to do approximately this. And your bathroom receptacles are hopefully GFCI protected and are also fed from a transformer near your house…
> electrostatic shield
You can get a transformer with approximately this, in small sizes, sold for “medical” use, off the shelf at reasonable prices. I have one that I bought from Digikey because it had the right specs, even though I don’t need the shield.
But I haven’t seen one that has fittings intended to integrate it into a Faraday cage. Maybe someone makes it. Admittedly, I have not worked with that many Faraday cages in my life, and I didn’t get to examine the detailed construction of the giant anechoic Faraday cage in which we tested the smaller Faraday cage I was using.
There's no reason you have to connect the secondary to earth at all. This is how a lot of medical equiment (under IEC 60601) and test equipment (under IEC 61010) is designed. If earthing it makes everything worse, just don't do it.
The NEC might or might not have something silly to say about that, but when you have a giant custom-built Faraday cage, I think most people will be understanding that you might choose to call it "equipment" (and thus, for example, claim that 61010 applies) rather than "building wiring" (so not NFPA 70).
You can also earth things in some really weird ways. My favorite was to connect the secondary to earth through a 12V bidirectional TVS diode. Apparently this stops a lot of nuisance issues while still allowing serious currents to flow. Unfortunately, you want a bigass TVS to do this, and those are rather capacitive. So you still end up with RF issues. (No, you cannot use this to make an arc fault detector. Or at least, I couldn't do it.)
Electrostatically shielded transformers are not really stock items. You will usually have to get them custom-built and they will usually end up as expensive, higher-performing C-type cores. Shoutout to Triad Magnetics for being very nice to work with as a custom magnetics vendor on that horrid project even though the project was cursed and we ended up going with someone else (which we should have known a lot earlier and not strung you guys along, but engineering and management had different aims there...), right up until it got cancelled.
You are talking about industrial applications. Devices running in residential or commercial environments should be better designed. Proper shielding and grounding is a much better solution than a Y capacitor.
Line filters are everywhere. They're generally required to pass conducted emissions requirements. They aren't going away soon, and our fault protection devices need to work with them, not blindly ignore how we've been meeting EMC requirements for decades.
I thought it's the other way around. There are standards for line filters for precisely this case. The device is either non conforming or damaged or the power in this home is out of tolerance in one way or another.
Fair enough but it’s not the best example to use to introduce GFCI.
Something like this?
“Though you rarely will see your bathroom GFCI trip (unless you’re dropping the hair dryer into the bath water), some kinds of larger, more complicated machinery can cause nuisance trips.”
I have been convinced for years that the National Electrical Code is written first and foremost to serve the interests of electrical wiring device manufacturers, and not the needs of end users, or even the safety of end users.
The way the AFCI mess played out lost them so much credibility that it is hard to take this seriously as being about "safety" any more.
Search online for "AFCI" along with any appliance that has a motor in it, like a vacuum, refrigerator, or hair dryer. You'll get pages of posts of people asking why the appliances keep tripping the AFCI breaker.
The reason why is that those devices create arcs, and AFCI breakers are completely unable to handle them. Some regions require AFCI breakers, so a significant portion of household appliances will occasionally trip the breaker.
The worst part is that it isn't particularly consistent, so your fridge could last for years without tripping it, but as brushes wear the arcs they regularly create increase the chances of a trip, until one day you find that all your food is ruined, because the AFCI breaker tripped at an inopportune time.
Fortunately, my fridge trips the AFCI very reliably, so I was able to detect it before losing any food. All I had to do to fix it was make a few passes with the hot wire through a ferrite bead, right before it connects to the AFCI breaker. It completely blocks the arc-created RF that the AFCI is detecting, disabling the functionality of the AFCI, all without any code violations, because while the AFCI is required, the ferrite bead isn't prohibited.
I upgraded all of my breakers to AFCI+GFCI. Worked flawlessly so far (about 6 months in).
The only two times where my AFCI tripped were 1) my blow-dryer shorted out due to a worn out cable (WAI) and 2) the PSU on my PC started tripping the AFCI (sent back to the manufacturer and got a replacement). So in both cases, at least for me, the AFCIs caught real problems.
Not a single trip of the GFCI function so far including vacuum, fride, and various power tools (and it's great peace of mind to have this with kids in the house).
All good for the average user. You cannot run a saw or other corded power tool off an AFCI breaker. it trips _constantly_. This is a problem because NEC wants AFCI/GFCI in all rooms with concrete floors, like garages. This means you basically put those plugs in to pass and then pull them out again.
Basically they mandated hardware that is way more expensive than what it replaces and reliably gets falsely triggered by normal usage that the circuit is supposed to support.
AFCI stands for "Arc Fault Circuit Interrupter", a type of device that detects arcing (sparks) on a circuit and will shut things down if the "arc strength" is above some arbitrary threshold. The main risk from arcing is fire. Compare GFCIs, "Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters", which detect when some current supplied to the device is going missing (i.e., returning through a different path involving ground) and shut things down if the missing current exceeds some level in milliamps. The main risk from a ground fault is electrocution.
It turns out that detecting arcs is hard. Really, really hard. The window between "normal operation of some random crap that's plugged in" and "bad stuff" is tiny, or even nonexistent. (Old tools with brushed motors arc during normal operation!) I worked on an arc fault detector once, as part of a larger project. We never got the thing working before the whole project got canned. It was consistently the one piece of the project that I was reporting to management as "We have no idea how to make this work. The rest of this thing, we have a plan for (maybe a bad plan, and maybe we won't execute well; such is life in R&D), but the arc detector doesn't work, we have no plan for it, and no idea how to make a plan." And we were doing a next-generation version of a device already shipping — we should have had a working arc detector right out of the gate! But it didn't work.
(The tests for arcs, incidentally, were insane. We used the test procedure from the previous-generation product, a special board made up with various "simulated arc strengths". Then we set up a low-kV range power supply, put on those giant rubber gloves that you see in cartoons, and moved in a pointy probe, by hand, toward the right spot on the test board until it arced over. This was less than reliable, and rather difficult to automate. (My proposal to automate testing by changing the intern's name to "Automated" was not accepted.) It turns out that the arc signature is deeply dependent on the exact test method you use. We had another fixture designed in-house involving a variable-distance spark gap made with two adjustable spheres. Its results were completely and totally different than the other board, so we just pretended it had never existed.)
So arc detection is difficult. It will not surprise you then to learn that the first generation of AFCI devices and breakers did not actually work correctly. They were notorious for tripping randomly and generally not things you wanted to have in your life. They were also expensive (probably paying more for the testing than for the materials cost). The NEC mandated their use anyway. Their reliability was so ridiculously poor that there was general agreement among everyone that that part of the NEC should just be ignored and standard or GFCI devices used instead. Did the NEC care? No, they insisted that AFCIs were important. Even though they didn't work. This made a lot of people start to distrust them.
We're on second or third generation AFCI devices now, and they seem to have improved a lot. They don't really false trigger anymore. But do they correctly trigger, or did they just desensitize them so they don't do anything at all? I haven't tested, and I don't want to!
It's also worth considering the risks mitigated by AFCIs. Arc faults at 120V are not really that common, and when serious arc faults do occur, they usually result in an electrical fire. Fire is certainly very bad, but I'd say it's a lot less dangerous than the nearly-instant death by electrocution that GFCIs prevent. (Note that at 240V arc faults are much more common, and up at 480V they are straight-up lethal in their own right. DO NOT FUCK WITH 480.)
So the NEC mandated AFCI devices that caused major hassle, mitigated minor risks, and cost a lot of money. That annoyed people. This came on the heels of them requiring GFCIs everywhere (same issue; ground faults in non-wet locations are not really a major risk with North American style TN-C-S earthing, but at least GFCIs work). That annoyed people. And then they had required TR receptacles everywhere (which, personally, I consider of very little benefit, though I won't argue with anyone who disagrees; at least it's obvious what's going on there), when that technology was also half baked (seriously, early TR receptacles were horrid to use, though they are pretty decent now). That annoyed people.
You can see the trend. A lot of crappy technologies were made mandatory at our expense for minor to modest gains in safety, high losses in reliability, and extreme costs in annoyance. Thus, the question: who are these guys really looking out for? Us? Manufacturers? Insurers?
> Old tools with brushed motors arc during normal operation!
I have all of my grandfathers old Craftsman steel-shell electric power tools with brushed motors. I put a new cord on one of the hand drills a few years ago (the old cloth covered cords are terrifying) and tried using it for a project. That thing throws sparks like a Zippo.
When driving a car with internal combustion engine, you pay a lot (in Europe especially a lot!) taxes in the gas price. This means that all the people driving EV would (so far) avoid this tax and this means that this must be put to an end!!!!1
So this move might be also about taxing the EVs (just a tin-foil-hat wearing conspiracy theory maker here, don't take my words too seriously)
I think the NEC is beholden to the people who make this stuff. Right now I have a 14-50R in my garage (I don't even use it, I have it shut off at the panel; I don't have an EV, this is just new construction). The standard breaker is $18.98 right now at the big orange store. The GFCI version they're trying to make mandatory is $190.68.
I think that says all you need to know.
(And before anyone says they must cost that much more to make... they do not. I have designed GFI and AFI devices. You need to add a circuit board, yes, a pretty rugged one. The ordinary breaker is all mechanical. But that does not cost $170 more to do.)
Basic GFCIs are also around the same price in the US.
The discussion in the article is about mandating that weirdo breakers also contain GFCI/AFCI components. Unsurprisingly, manufacturers charge a lot more for the oddball parts.
(My load center's vendor also seems to be particularly bad with the price gouging, but I didn't exactly choose it, so in that respect it's perfectly representative of what gets chosen for people.)
That is amazing price for something that millions of will be made each year. Just calculate how many of them are needed in total and then take replacement even every 50 years or something. It scales to large number needed.
Indeed, and this mass-produced stuff is pretty simple compared to an IC chip. Who are handcrafting these devices, blonde virgin maidens at night under the shine of a full moon? :D
Don’t worry - in my country (Finland) they already thought of that and instead of the emissions based annual road tax, which would of course be zero, they managed to add a ‘tax on driving power’ to electric cars.
Notwithstanding that electricity for any use already has a per KWh tax added. Plus sales tax of course.
Well, in Italy the road tax has always been on engine power.
Indeed the VAT is a nuisance, actually the most regressive form of taxation possible: rich people with enough income who can afford to spend only a fraction of it, end up paying VAT accordingly; while low income citizens who have to spend all their salary end up with an additional, significant tax burden on their whole net income.
For anyone wondering why it takes so long to actually switch this stuff out, and the available alternatives to Red 3, I thought this piece from a food dyes company (no relation) was fascinating: https://na.sensientfoodcolors.com/confection/replacing-red-3...
You have to figure that if these guys had a drop-in replacement, they'd be offering it for sale at a high price, so this probably is the best you can do. The process changes and requalification looks like no fun at all. But it also looks pretty doable for a company in this line of business, so maybe you won't see too many color changes on the shelf with this ban.
> For anyone wondering why it takes so long to actually switch this stuff out
One counterpoint is do we really NEED to have brightly colored foods? It's a hard problem if you need a food to be bright red. But, that has to boil down to strictly to improving sales, right? Hypothetically, if all the artificial food dyes were banned, then all food companies would be on the same level playing field.
Color is definitely something that catches a person's eye, so if you have a "food product" that needs extra to convince someone to buy it, color is a way to do it. You can't taste it before purchasing. You can see and smell it, so they push those levers as much as they can.
Mandate big font "contains carcinogens" label when your food contains this colour. Then let the buyer choose whether s/he finds this shade of bright red attractive or not.
Maybe, and I see your point, but there are few alternatives to having them on a cig pack, whereas you could not dye your food and remove this label. As a consumer, the choice is rather simple (for me at least)
Simple has nothing to do with it. The point is that people ignore warnings all of the time for various reasons. Some people look at the risk/reward factor and decide the risk isn’t that bad. Some people have no idea what the risk means and ignore it. People go sky diving even after having to sign all of the liability release forms, make a video recording while reading a release statement, etc. in Hawaii, there are signs that suggest people to not travel any further due to safety reasons and by proceeding further you do accept all liability. Nobody stops there, and the vast majority don’t even stop long enough to read the sign.
The point being that humans are bad at weighing risk/reward and make bad decisions all of the time.
That may be true and I'm not against legislation to rule dangerous things out. I think however that big red warnings can be useful sometimes. Well, maybe not red in this case.
Visuals have a pretty big impact on food. I wonder how many foods would just look disgusting without any food dyes. Reminds me of butter companies trying to pass legislation to make margerine companies unable to dye their product to look like butter
There are a bunch of no-artificial-dye candies and whatnot on the market already, and they actually look better to me - they're not absurd unnatural colors.
In addition to what the sibling comments have said, the "axiom" is actually the term in the equations. That is, fundamentally, where this all comes from. "Stiffness" is just a word coined to help describe the behavior that arises from a term like this. Everything flows from having that piece in the math, so if you start there and with nothing else, you can reinvent everything else in the article. (Though it will take you a while.)
You might also ask where that term comes from. It really is "axiomatic": there is no a priori explanation for why anything like that should be in the equations. They just work out if you do that. Finding a good explanation for why things have to be this way and not that way is nothing more and nothing less than the search for the infamous Theory of Everything.
This is often I think a really unsatisfying thing about physics. Usually the qualitative descriptions don't quite make sense if you think very hard about them- and if you dig deeper it's often just "we found some math that fits our experimental data" - and ultimately that is as much as we know, and most attempts at explaining it conceptually are conjecture at best.
When I was a physics undergrad, most of my professors were fans of the "shut up and calculate" interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Ultimately, this is probably just a symptom of still not having yet discovered some really important stuff.
As a rule, I think physics should be expected to make less sense the further it gets from the human scale. It's not because it's inherently more complex, it's because we benefit from millions of years of brains evolving to understand what we can see and touch.
The universe does not owe us explainability in terms of everyday intuition.
You don't just "find some math that fits the data" the way you would mechanically tune the parameters of a given mathematical model to fit empirical data.
Indeed finding a mathematical formulation that seems to describe a corner of reality with any fidelity is such an extraordinary thing that physicists have always puzzled about why it is even possible!
Now it turns out that these mathematical inventions "work" even when our intuition (built on experiences around human scale) cannot quite grasp them. This is the case both in the realms of the very small (quantum) and very big (relativity).
This doesnt mean that at some point we might not find deeper mathematical abstractions that "work better" (e.g., this was the string theory ambition) but the practical result would still be every bit "shut up and calculate".
This is far from the truth in particle physics. The symmetries we've found there (together with the Lorentz symmetry from special relativity) guides and constrains the math very strongly, to the degree that it allows you to predict the photon and the other force-carrying particles, and it even allowed predicting the existence and mass of the weak force carriers (discussed in the article) along with the Higgs mechanism that gives masses to them and most of the other particles. This is certainly a triumph of the Standard Model.
There are limits to how much you can do though, I mean at some point it's going to be "just math that fits reality". If you try to enumerate the number of mechanisms and realities that could give a decent enough diversity of composition that life can arise in some form, there's going to be more than our universe possible.
> When I was a physics undergrad, most of my professors were fans of the "shut up and calculate" interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Well, you build "intuition" via "experience"--generally lots of experience to get small amounts of intuition.
> Usually the qualitative descriptions don't quite make sense if you think very hard about them- and if you dig deeper it's often just "we found some math that fits our experimental data"
Well, the math needs to fit the data and have predictive power. That "predictive" side is really important and is what sets "science" apart from everything else.
> Ultimately, this is probably just a symptom of still not having yet discovered some really important stuff.
Sure. But wouldn't the world be incredibly boring if we had it all figured out?
In my gravity simulations, on my YouTube, i found the short weak force distance was the same needed to avoid opposite charges from gaining so much speed that the next iteration's position wouldn't slow the electron down after passing the proton!
I think its more than "we just found some math that fits the data" in the sense that its not just a case of adding some terms to match an observed curve - for example like with Rayleigh-Jeans' law vs Wein's Approximation of blackbody radiation and eventually Max Planck's solution by quantizing energy to the curve match experiment, without actually having anything else to say about it.
Spiritually it feels more like what happened later, when people took the idea of quantized energy seriously and began finding ways to make it a theoretically consistent theory which also required a radical new approach of disregarding old intuitive assumptions about the way the most fundamental things worked solely to obey a new abstract, esoteric, purely theoretical framework (an approach which was sometimes controversial especially with experimentalists).
But of course this new theory of quantum mechanics turned out to be immensely successful in totally unprecedented ways, in a manner similar to Relativity and it's "theory first" origin with trying to ensure mathematical consistency of Maxwell's equations and disregarding anything else in the way (and eventually with Einstein's decade long quest to find a totally covariant general theory that folded gravity into the mix).
With physics the more I dug into "why" it was rarely the case that it was "just because", the justification was nearly always some abstract piece of math that I wasn't equipped to understand at the time but was richly rewarded later on when I spent the time studying in order to finally appreciate it.
The first time I solved Schrodinger Equation for a hydrogen atom, I couldn't see why anyone could've bothered to try discovering how to untangle such a mess of a differential equation with a thousand stubborn terms and strange substitutions (ylm??) and spherical coordinate transformations - all for a solution I had zero intuition or interest in. After I had a better grasp of the duality between those square integrable complex functions and abstract vector spaces I found classical QM elegant in an way I wasn't able to see before. When basic Lie theory and representations was drilled into my head and I had answered a hundred questions about different matrix representations of the SU(n) and S0(3) groups and their algebras and how they were related, it finally clicked how naturally those ylm angular momentum things I saw before actually arose. It was spooky how group theory had manifested in something as ubiquitous and tangible as the structure of the periodic table. After drudging through the derivation of QFT for the first time, when I finally understood what was meant by "all particles and fields that exist are nothing more than representations of the Poincare-Spacetime Algebra", I felt like Neo when everything turned into strings of code. And there's no point describing what it was like when Einstein's field equations clicked, before then I never really got what people meant by the beauty of mathematics or physics.
I guess its not really the answer "why" things are, but the way our current theories basically constrain nearly everything we see (at least from the bottom up) from a handful of axioms and cherry-picked coupling constants, the rest warped into shape and set in stone only by the self-consistency of mathematics, I feel like that's more of a "why" than I would've ever assumed answerable, and maybe more of one than I deserve.
I only got as far as "solved Schrodinger equation for a hydrogen atom" and never got to the next stage you describe with physics.
In a sense, I think your explanation is consistent with mine, but with the deeper context of math being a language itself, and the math itself being a more satisfactory explanation to someone with a greater intuition for what the equations actually mean. I can pump through all of the major equations in physics and explain almost anything I want with them, but it always just feels like rote application of algebra rules to completely arbitrary seeming formulas- nothing like what you describe. Frankly, I think I was more interested in girls than studying when I was a physics student decades ago, and I could probably get a lot more out of it revisiting this stuff now.
However, I do still think there is a real chance that we are missing something big that would fit all of these pieces together with qualitative explanations. Personally, I think Julian Barbour is likely on the right path with his timeless physics, but if so it will need a lot more research and development.
Former physicist here! I used to work on this stuff. I don't think anyone has ever been a "true believer" in dark matter or dark energy.
There was a pattern in late-19th- through late-20th-century physics wherein someone noticed something weird, said "hey, if X were true, it'd be kind of weird, but it would explain it all", then people went out and looked for evidence of X. In many, many cases, people did indeed find X, some closely related X', or at least got strong evidence in favor of something else Y, which might have disproved X but at least settled the matter.
This has not happened with dark matter or dark energy. The questions still remain open, with no good evidence for any explanations.
So... what I'm saying is, don't think less of people for trying to explain things, just because they tried and it didn't work out yet. You're seeing the scientific method play out right now: there is a whole lot of wrong. There was a lot of wrong in the old days, too, but we weren't around to see it; only the successes got passed down.
I didn't compare with the other paints (I only found that video after ordering the paint...) or with the difficulty of painting (I got the intern to do it!) but in terms of the final result, that's exactly the same result I got.
I also have some of their glow pigment and it's a lot more impressive. This particular color doesn't glow very brightly or for terribly long, but the hue... glow pigment isn't supposed to be this color!
Ironically, my experience with people close to me is that obsession with labels is actually a pretty decent hallmark of autism. One family member, upon receiving a new "diagnosis" (usually self-diagnosed) actually changes their affect to become more like the textbook examples for that label. (And has done this more than once.) It can be very frustrating to deal with. This person has been diagnosed as on the autism spectrum, and the best explanation I've heard for their behavior is that it's masking gone rather wrong. This is an extreme example, but the general map-territory-label confusion is something I've seen a lot in people I know with a neurodivergence.
Identifying things such that they become their labels and are defined by those labels is really, really harmful. You see this in BPD, too (borderline personality disorder, which the person I mentioned has also been formally diagnosed with): if someone is "good" today then they can do nothing wrong, or if they are "bad" today, then they can do nothing right... independent of the actions themselves. The same behavior, in the same context, can be received in completely different ways depending on the label the BPD person feels like assigning today. That's not healthy.
What I was getting at above is that this style of interpretation of labels seems to be somewhat common among neurodivergent people, and it's a fallacy that doesn't do anyone any good. Labels as guides or to help set priors are fine. Labels as definitions are not, and when people get upset, it's worth checking in and seeing if there's a map-territory / label-definition mistake being made.
I am more on the hardware side these days, but Nordic's hardware docs are pretty crap. As in, they're pretty, and they're crap. (The prettiness lulls people, especially managers, into a false sense of confidence. Don't fall for the trap!) There are obvious poor choices in there, and if you call FAEs out on them, they say to just follow the docs. Experienced engineers should not follow the docs.
I can't see their software side being any better.
reply