I took a physics class using the Art of Electronics in my senior year of undergrad (my major was nuclear eng. and my lab partner was another nuclear eng. friend).
This class ranked right up there with my nuclear engineering labs in the following sense: 1) using an oscilloscope in a lab setting takes a lot of patience & hard work (similar to radiation detectors) 2) I wasn't prepared for how "fuzzy" (sorry, I know that is not the right word) electronic components behave when examined in a lab setting. I was used to resisters and capacitors, and in previous labs they behaved fairly well. This class showed me how complex it all is, and "Art" is not a bad word to describe it at all.
I learned a lot and strongly 2nd the Horowitz recommendation if you want to really get down into the nitty gritty. Maybe it isn't the first book you pick up depending on your background, I dont' know. AND, I hope oscilloscopes and their user manuals have gotten a lot more friendly in the intervening years since 1991 :-)
I spent quite a few years as an wide-band RF engineer and I still think it's black magic. If you're not being snobby, you can learn a lot from an experienced bench technician. If you want to get into RF electronics, you need specific features in your spectrum analyzer along with a very good return loss bridge at your target impedance.
I'm another fan of Horowitz and Hill's _The Art of Electronics_ - it's my go-to reference after 35 years in the business.
Unless someone is actively trying to sell the domain on sedo.com (or similar site) the best bet is to use whois to find the owner and email them, we get a few inquiries for our domains a year and we just send back a friendly "no we're not interested in selling" if that's the case. When we've asked to buy other domains, some say they're not selling and some have been willing to it to us... as with all business negotiation is next!
With other countries, sometimes nobody owns the one in question and they will have various willingness to sell it or not, with various levels of paperwork.
"Demotivators" was a copycat company, and the chief scientist of my previous company had this one hung on his cubicle, which I loved (by the way, he did help with customers when we asked)
Nowadays, this might not be true. 10 years ago, I hired Oracle dbas (not many, mind you) at hourly wages of 300K+ (edit: yes, they worked 40hrs/wk at least)
Huh? I am all in favor of people having kids and know it is necessary for society... But are you saying you can't pass on other stuff to the next generation? An example of this is teachers, i.e. a teacher who had no kids but who did nothing but did a great job of teaching kids, teaching and inspriring, but didn't socialize with anyone (except with parents during conferences or to the extent necessary with other teachers & administrators)... would you say they "failed at life"?
Life is the characteristic that distinguishes organisms from inorganic substances and dead objects. (WP)
Anyone who made it through the childhood and has no plan to die soon succeeded at life. You probably mistaking it with reproduction, which is often required as ability, not as demand.
It is also pretty rough to label fertile ones as losers.
>>"failure" and "success" are notions relative to goal achievement, and biology doesn't have goals - it's a mechanistic process.
Of course biology has goals. Every living organism's goal is to propagate its genes to the next generation. For details on this, read The Selfish Gene.
I haven't read The Selfish Gene, but from what I've heard it tells the exact opposite: That every gene's goal is to propagate, for which task it merely employs the living organism.
Talking about "goals" and "desires" can sometimes be a usefully simplified way to think about biology, but it's not really accurate. A bacterium doesn't "want" to reproduce anymore than a rock "wants" to roll downhill. Only quite complex animals can be truly said to have goals.
Your comment reminded me of a game (maybe the only one) I wrote in middle school, on a TRS-80 Color Computer (I think 4K, although maybe I had the 16K upgrade by the time I wrote the game). I wrote it in basic & saved it on some cassette tape... random blocks of one color on the screen, and you are a block that starts at the bottom and you use arrow keys to avoid the blocks as you are thrust upward. (I guess it was basic in more ways than one). I might have added a 3rd color block that gave you points if you hit those.
I wonder if I could even write it now - even at low resolution? My limited scripting is now systems-oriented, the tiny bit of UI stuff takes me forever & I find HTML & JS way more complex than basic ever was. (Don't misunderstand, I think my python scripts that interact with various AWS services, postgres, etc are just fine and don't take me long to write or maintain, its just the whole graphics world I never latched onto...)
The Elon Musk battery plant went through a similar bid process, although I don't know if it was on the same scale. I think Nevada and Buffalo won that bid.
This class ranked right up there with my nuclear engineering labs in the following sense: 1) using an oscilloscope in a lab setting takes a lot of patience & hard work (similar to radiation detectors) 2) I wasn't prepared for how "fuzzy" (sorry, I know that is not the right word) electronic components behave when examined in a lab setting. I was used to resisters and capacitors, and in previous labs they behaved fairly well. This class showed me how complex it all is, and "Art" is not a bad word to describe it at all.
I learned a lot and strongly 2nd the Horowitz recommendation if you want to really get down into the nitty gritty. Maybe it isn't the first book you pick up depending on your background, I dont' know. AND, I hope oscilloscopes and their user manuals have gotten a lot more friendly in the intervening years since 1991 :-)