On Thu, 19 May 2022 12:58:33 -0000 (UTC), Keegan Major <keegan.major@hotmail.com> wrote:>Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote: >> On 19/05/2022 04:27, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>> Is your channel really that noisy that you cannot just discard bad >>> packets? >> >> I don't have control over the transmission path, it may be noisy, it >> may not - it's not a fixed installation. [snip...] I can't request a >> resend, and sending multiple copies restricts bandwidth too much. > >Hmm, 17 messages in to the thread, and the group finally is told some >of the critical unstated requirements that *should* have been part of >the initial message, and would have avoided about 14 "can't you resend" >or "can't you send multiple" messages. > >Don't you think this above should have been in your initial post so >that the rest of us, who can't read your mind to divine unstated >limitations, were appraised of some rather critical limitations? > >It's normal here to get underspecified problems. Details usually emerge, but some people do refuse to explain their top-secret projects. -- Anybody can count to one. - Robert Widlar
Error correction in short packet.
Started by ●May 18, 2022
Reply by ●May 19, 20222022-05-19
Reply by ●May 19, 20222022-05-19
torsdag den 19. maj 2022 kl. 16.36.23 UTC+2 skrev jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com:> On Thu, 19 May 2022 12:58:33 -0000 (UTC), Keegan Major > <keegan...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Clive Arthur <cl...@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 19/05/2022 04:27, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> > >>> Is your channel really that noisy that you cannot just discard bad > >>> packets? > >> > >> I don't have control over the transmission path, it may be noisy, it > >> may not - it's not a fixed installation. [snip...] I can't request a > >> resend, and sending multiple copies restricts bandwidth too much. > > > >Hmm, 17 messages in to the thread, and the group finally is told some > >of the critical unstated requirements that *should* have been part of > >the initial message, and would have avoided about 14 "can't you resend" > >or "can't you send multiple" messages. > > > >Don't you think this above should have been in your initial post so > >that the rest of us, who can't read your mind to divine unstated > >limitations, were appraised of some rather critical limitations? > > > > > It's normal here to get underspecified problems. Details usually > emerge, but some people do refuse to explain their top-secret > projects.https://xyproblem.info/
Reply by ●May 19, 20222022-05-19
On Thu, 19 May 2022 07:40:45 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:>torsdag den 19. maj 2022 kl. 16.36.23 UTC+2 skrev jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com: >> On Thu, 19 May 2022 12:58:33 -0000 (UTC), Keegan Major >> <keegan...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Clive Arthur <cl...@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote: >> >> On 19/05/2022 04:27, Sylvia Else wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Is your channel really that noisy that you cannot just discard bad >> >>> packets? >> >> >> >> I don't have control over the transmission path, it may be noisy, it >> >> may not - it's not a fixed installation. [snip...] I can't request a >> >> resend, and sending multiple copies restricts bandwidth too much. >> > >> >Hmm, 17 messages in to the thread, and the group finally is told some >> >of the critical unstated requirements that *should* have been part of >> >the initial message, and would have avoided about 14 "can't you resend" >> >or "can't you send multiple" messages. >> > >> >Don't you think this above should have been in your initial post so >> >that the rest of us, who can't read your mind to divine unstated >> >limitations, were appraised of some rather critical limitations? >> > >> > >> It's normal here to get underspecified problems. Details usually >> emerge, but some people do refuse to explain their top-secret >> projects. > >https://xyproblem.info/Underspecified problems do encourage lots of lateral/goofy thinking. Of course, some people are hostile to ideas. Their career path is more McDonalds than electronic design. -- Anybody can count to one. - Robert Widlar
Reply by ●May 19, 20222022-05-19
On 2022-05-19 17:03, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:> On Thu, 19 May 2022 07:40:45 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen > <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote: > >> torsdag den 19. maj 2022 kl. 16.36.23 UTC+2 skrev jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com: >>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 12:58:33 -0000 (UTC), Keegan Major >>> <keegan...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Clive Arthur <cl...@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> On 19/05/2022 04:27, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Is your channel really that noisy that you cannot just discard bad >>>>>> packets? >>>>> >>>>> I don't have control over the transmission path, it may be noisy, it >>>>> may not - it's not a fixed installation. [snip...] I can't request a >>>>> resend, and sending multiple copies restricts bandwidth too much. >>>> >>>> Hmm, 17 messages in to the thread, and the group finally is told some >>>> of the critical unstated requirements that *should* have been part of >>>> the initial message, and would have avoided about 14 "can't you resend" >>>> or "can't you send multiple" messages. >>>> >>>> Don't you think this above should have been in your initial post so >>>> that the rest of us, who can't read your mind to divine unstated >>>> limitations, were appraised of some rather critical limitations? >>>> >>>> >>> It's normal here to get underspecified problems. Details usually >>> emerge, but some people do refuse to explain their top-secret >>> projects. >> >> https://xyproblem.info/ > > Underspecified problems do encourage lots of lateral/goofy thinking. > > Of course, some people are hostile to ideas. Their career path is more > McDonalds than electronic design. >Goofy ideas aren't really welcome if they upset a sizable fraction of effort already invested. Ideas are cheap. Realizing them is costly. You'll want to be selective. Jeroen Belleman
Reply by ●May 19, 20222022-05-19
On Thu, 19 May 2022 17:14:02 +0200, Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:>On 2022-05-19 17:03, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >> On Thu, 19 May 2022 07:40:45 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen >> <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote: >> >>> torsdag den 19. maj 2022 kl. 16.36.23 UTC+2 skrev jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com: >>>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 12:58:33 -0000 (UTC), Keegan Major >>>> <keegan...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Clive Arthur <cl...@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> On 19/05/2022 04:27, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is your channel really that noisy that you cannot just discard bad >>>>>>> packets? >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't have control over the transmission path, it may be noisy, it >>>>>> may not - it's not a fixed installation. [snip...] I can't request a >>>>>> resend, and sending multiple copies restricts bandwidth too much. >>>>> >>>>> Hmm, 17 messages in to the thread, and the group finally is told some >>>>> of the critical unstated requirements that *should* have been part of >>>>> the initial message, and would have avoided about 14 "can't you resend" >>>>> or "can't you send multiple" messages. >>>>> >>>>> Don't you think this above should have been in your initial post so >>>>> that the rest of us, who can't read your mind to divine unstated >>>>> limitations, were appraised of some rather critical limitations? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> It's normal here to get underspecified problems. Details usually >>>> emerge, but some people do refuse to explain their top-secret >>>> projects. >>> >>> https://xyproblem.info/ >> >> Underspecified problems do encourage lots of lateral/goofy thinking. >> >> Of course, some people are hostile to ideas. Their career path is more >> McDonalds than electronic design. >> > >Goofy ideas aren't really welcome if they upset a sizable fraction >of effort already invested.Economists call that the Sunk Cost Fallacy. Ideas are cheap. Realizing them is costly.>You'll want to be selective.Sometimes an idea can wipe out a million dollar investment but have a shorter path to done. Managers don't like that situation. -- Anybody can count to one. - Robert Widlar
Reply by ●May 19, 20222022-05-19
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:> On Thu, 19 May 2022 17:14:02 +0200, Jeroen Belleman > <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote: > >> On 2022-05-19 17:03, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 07:40:45 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen >>> <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote: >>> >>>> torsdag den 19. maj 2022 kl. 16.36.23 UTC+2 skrev jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com: >>>>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 12:58:33 -0000 (UTC), Keegan Major >>>>> <keegan...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Clive Arthur <cl...@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> On 19/05/2022 04:27, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is your channel really that noisy that you cannot just discard bad >>>>>>>> packets? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't have control over the transmission path, it may be noisy, it >>>>>>> may not - it's not a fixed installation. [snip...] I can't request a >>>>>>> resend, and sending multiple copies restricts bandwidth too much. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hmm, 17 messages in to the thread, and the group finally is told some >>>>>> of the critical unstated requirements that *should* have been part of >>>>>> the initial message, and would have avoided about 14 "can't you resend" >>>>>> or "can't you send multiple" messages. >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't you think this above should have been in your initial post so >>>>>> that the rest of us, who can't read your mind to divine unstated >>>>>> limitations, were appraised of some rather critical limitations? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> It's normal here to get underspecified problems. Details usually >>>>> emerge, but some people do refuse to explain their top-secret >>>>> projects. >>>> >>>> https://xyproblem.info/ >>> >>> Underspecified problems do encourage lots of lateral/goofy thinking. >>> >>> Of course, some people are hostile to ideas. Their career path is more >>> McDonalds than electronic design. >>> >> >> Goofy ideas aren't really welcome if they upset a sizable fraction >> of effort already invested. > > Economists call that the Sunk Cost Fallacy. > > Ideas are cheap. Realizing them is costly. >> You'll want to be selective. > > Sometimes an idea can wipe out a million dollar investment but have a > shorter path to done. Managers don't like that situation.Good ones will laugh and take the short cut (after checking it carefully, of course). They'll also listen more carefully to the person that came up with it. ;) Since the budget will already have been approved, they might continue along both paths for a bit, to build confidence in the new approach before committing fully to it. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 http://electrooptical.net http://hobbs-eo.com
Reply by ●May 19, 20222022-05-19
On 2022-05-19 17:17, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:> On Thu, 19 May 2022 17:14:02 +0200, Jeroen Belleman > <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote: > >> On 2022-05-19 17:03, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 07:40:45 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen >>> <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote: >>> >>>> torsdag den 19. maj 2022 kl. 16.36.23 UTC+2 skrev jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com: >>>>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 12:58:33 -0000 (UTC), Keegan Major >>>>> <keegan...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Clive Arthur <cl...@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> On 19/05/2022 04:27, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is your channel really that noisy that you cannot just discard bad >>>>>>>> packets? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't have control over the transmission path, it may be noisy, it >>>>>>> may not - it's not a fixed installation. [snip...] I can't request a >>>>>>> resend, and sending multiple copies restricts bandwidth too much. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hmm, 17 messages in to the thread, and the group finally is told some >>>>>> of the critical unstated requirements that *should* have been part of >>>>>> the initial message, and would have avoided about 14 "can't you resend" >>>>>> or "can't you send multiple" messages. >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't you think this above should have been in your initial post so >>>>>> that the rest of us, who can't read your mind to divine unstated >>>>>> limitations, were appraised of some rather critical limitations? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> It's normal here to get underspecified problems. Details usually >>>>> emerge, but some people do refuse to explain their top-secret >>>>> projects. >>>> >>>> https://xyproblem.info/ >>> >>> Underspecified problems do encourage lots of lateral/goofy thinking. >>> >>> Of course, some people are hostile to ideas. Their career path is more >>> McDonalds than electronic design. >>> >> >> Goofy ideas aren't really welcome if they upset a sizable fraction >> of effort already invested. > > Economists call that the Sunk Cost Fallacy. > > Ideas are cheap. Realizing them is costly. >> You'll want to be selective. > > Sometimes an idea can wipe out a million dollar investment but have a > shorter path to done. Managers don't like that situation. >Everything is easy for those who don't have to do the work themselves. I certainly include economists in that lot. The sunk costs are needed to get intimate with the problem to be solved. I think it's the guy who has to do the work who should get to choose which idea is best. Jeroen Belleman
Reply by ●May 19, 20222022-05-19
Keegan Major <keegan.major@hotmail.com> wrote:> Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote: >> On 19/05/2022 04:27, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>> Is your channel really that noisy that you cannot just discard bad >>> packets? >> >> I don't have control over the transmission path, it may be noisy, it >> may not - it's not a fixed installation. [snip...] I can't request a >> resend, and sending multiple copies restricts bandwidth too much. > > Hmm, 17 messages in to the thread, and the group finally is told some > of the critical unstated requirements that *should* have been part of > the initial message, and would have avoided about 14 "can't you resend" > or "can't you send multiple" messages. > > Don't you think this above should have been in your initial post so > that the rest of us, who can't read your mind to divine unstated > limitations, were appraised of some rather critical limitations?The original post listed the constraints, but they were lost over the serial link, and there was no error correction. I agreed though it didn't seem like any real question was being asked in the first place.
Reply by ●May 19, 20222022-05-19
On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 8:03:55 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:> On Thu, 19 May 2022 07:40:45 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen > <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote: > > >torsdag den 19. maj 2022 kl. 16.36.23 UTC+2 skrev jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com: > >> On Thu, 19 May 2022 12:58:33 -0000 (UTC), Keegan Major> Of course, some people are hostile to ideas. Their career path is more > McDonalds than electronic design.Again with the goofy personality theories! Everyone is hostile to ideas for a few minutes in the evening, when it's time to sleep. That's normal, and has nothing to do with a career path. No sane conscious mind is 'hostile to ideas' in any more general sense; that would be pathological, like being hostile to one's own body parts.
Reply by ●May 19, 20222022-05-19
On 19/05/2022 16:14, Jeroen Belleman wrote:> On 2022-05-19 17:03, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >> On Thu, 19 May 2022 07:40:45 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen >> <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote: >> >>> torsdag den 19. maj 2022 kl. 16.36.23 UTC+2 skrev >>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com: >>>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 12:58:33 -0000 (UTC), Keegan Major >>>> <keegan...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Clive Arthur <cl...@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> On 19/05/2022 04:27, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is your channel really that noisy that you cannot just discard bad >>>>>>> packets? >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't have control over the transmission path, it may be noisy, it >>>>>> may not - it's not a fixed installation. [snip...] I can't request a >>>>>> resend, and sending multiple copies restricts bandwidth too much. >>>>> >>>>> Hmm, 17 messages in to the thread, and the group finally is told some >>>>> of the critical unstated requirements that *should* have been part of >>>>> the initial message, and would have avoided about 14 "can't you >>>>> resend" >>>>> or "can't you send multiple" messages. >>>>> >>>>> Don't you think this above should have been in your initial post so >>>>> that the rest of us, who can't read your mind to divine unstated >>>>> limitations, were appraised of some rather critical limitations? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> It's normal here to get underspecified problems. Details usually >>>> emerge, but some people do refuse to explain their top-secret >>>> projects. >>> >>> https://xyproblem.info/ >> >> Underspecified problems do encourage lots of lateral/goofy thinking.Almost all of which is completely wasted. Your proposal of send it three times and vote best out of three being amongst them. There is just about enough space to do what the OP wants but whether or not they have the mathematical sophistication and programming skills to implement it quickly enough to be useful is still an open question.>> Of course, some people are hostile to ideas. Their career path is more >> McDonalds than electronic design.You have that *EXACTLY* backwards. If you cannot adequately describe the exact problem that you are trying to solve then you will spend vast amounts of effort solving the wrong problem(s) again and again. I have seen it happen many times.> Goofy ideas aren't really welcome if they upset a sizable fraction > of effort already invested. Ideas are cheap. Realizing them is costly. > You'll want to be selective.+1 Half the battle is specifying the problem and any hard constraints so that proposed solutions will actually stand a chance of working on the available hardware and quickly enough to be useful. -- Regards, Martin Brown
