hollandays

That's silly.

Also, the headline is sensationalist. The total cost per ticket the buyer pays is $2 per vehicle. I've been to state parks that charge more. Yeah, it adds up to millions for the seller, but they're not charging extortionate prices.

Now that we know this type of contract model works, and if people are bothered by the unexpected windfall, future contracts can be structured differently to taper off or something.

True. Though, I said investigate, not interrogate. In the context of the pre-bias example I was responding to, it's fine to integrate it into a search engine to assist interpreting queries and improving search results, but it shouldn't be talking back at you in the first place. The machine manipulation of information is inappropriate.

The inherent problem with chat bots is you can't investigate why they're telling you something. When I search Google, I'm critically evaluating the information, and it's frustrating when the results it gives are low-accuracy. If I ask a chat bot a question, what would I do with the answer if it might be wrong? There's no context for me to evaluate.

Are any of those examples successful open-source projects with both the computation and the GUI written in Python? I don't know of anything in any field like that.

In my opinion, the next step is to figure out a good way to combine something like gnu octave with nice modern GUIs.

Old tools were inaccessible to use because there's nothing to look at with a text-based tool, and inaccessible for engineers to develop because programming was so arcane. Look at Berkeley spice written in C. It's a lot of old-school parsing and implementing matrix methods.

The new stuff that's more accessible to use is more accessible for a software engineer to develop, but it's arguably even less accessible to other engineers and scientists to add their contributions. This creates an issue where the tools remain as good-looking toys that never get any serious technical chops.

Splitting the implementation is the way to go, but neither side would be happy about the interface. There's also the issue of platform because good engineering tools only run locally.

I don't know what the answer is, but it's not Python. We already have python, and yet, there isn't an explosion of collaboration to make great tools for the physical sciences and engineering. It's too much of a compromise for both sides.

I was being nice about saying that most other commenters probably hadn't read to the end of the article by phrasing it as an opinion.

How is this article manipulative or related to ChatGPT?

The fact that the fair didn't wait for the hearing or sue the contestant comes across like they knew they didn't own it. But the fact that they had a "no exceptions" rule instead of structuring the auction so that they're the legal buyer of the animal and the winner buys the meat from them comes across like they're stupid.

To me, this is the most important claim in the lawsuit:

> From there, the goat was delivered to unnamed individuals at the fair “for slaughter/destruction” even though the warrant required them to hold the goat for a court hearing to determine its lawful owner, the lawsuit says.

There was a property dispute, and the court issued a warrant to recover the property and hold it until a court hearing to decide ownership, but the holders disobeyed the warrant and hid or destroyed the property.

This was my biggest complaint about college. There's no reason a bachelor's degree should take 4 years.

Four year engineering programs should be shortened to three.

You can lop off a semester's worth of classes by removing general education requirements. You've already had 13 years of general education.

And then another semester by removing technical electives and such. Save it for the master's program. An MS is the new BS, anyway.

I forgot to say that the SRF is the bottom of the V in the plots.

People have preferred ways of dying. Dam flood vs nuclear radiation. Human driver vs robot. It would be nice if we could recognize and respect the difference between preference and safety.

You ask good questions so I'll give very short "answers" to get you started in your search for good explanations.

The tests are frequency sweeps, one frequency at a time over multiple frequencies. Linear models can be decomposed into individual sine waves via Laplace/Fourier transform, so it's valid as long as the model is valid. The input voltage looks like a DC (bias) plus ripple (RF). The frequency response of some capacitors depends strongly on the DC bias (the trap), and flips to being inductive above the self-resonant frequency (SRF). Good test equipment is expensive, but there are options for hobbyists. One test like that can't predict the response for all inputs and conditions, so you need a model of the dynamics.

If you're interested, you can learn enough to follow along by watching a lot of YouTube videos. I don't think it would be practical to explain all of the background in one article or one video, so you'll have to be tenacious and chase down whatever piques your curiosity. But I'll still try to get you started down the path of answering some of your questions.

The capacitors supplement the power supply by handling sudden, short changes in the load. The tests sweep through a range of frequencies one at a time. It's a powerful technique, but it has some limitations. For example, you have to know that the measurements will change if you change the DC voltage.

Determining if a physical system will work under all conditions and tolerances requires a model and some analysis techniques.