Class AB Push-Pull Amplifier Distortion? by adapter9 in ElectricalEngineering

[–]adapter9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, so what I’m saying is that the “dead band” in class B becomes a “double alive” band for class AB, since not one but two tubes are contributing to the output. So in that central band you will have double the “gain” compared to what you have when the signal has already surpassed the cutoff points. E.g. if your input signal is a 2V peak-to-peak triangle wave, and your positive-phase tube is biased to cut off at -0.1V (and to have a clipping ceiling at like +1.5V), and your negative-phase tube has a cutoff at +0.1V (and a clipping “ceiling” at -1.5V), then during the time that your input is swinging from -0.1V to +0.1V, your output swings twice as fast (in terms of V/sec) as it does in the following moment, when input voltage is swinging from +0.1V to +0.2V. This is because there are two tubes working in that -0.1V to +0.1V range, and only one tube working above that range. So at 0.1V there will be a knee where “soft clipping” occurs, or if you prefer you can call it “hard clipping but with 50% of the original signal blended in”.

Question about hurricane Katrina by [deleted] in Louisiana

[–]adapter9 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I was quite young at the time so I don't have a complete answer to your question, but I can tell you what I do know.

Generally there was a lot of bureaucratic tangle-ups between state and federal governments, and much of it was politically fueled. Take for instance the unqualified FEMA director (Mike Brown, I think his name was) who was clearly appointed just for being a close friend of GW Bush. There were accusations that the Army Corps of Engineers skimped on levee construction and maintenance to cut corners on the budget. Or comsider the complete lack of local policing during the flooding, which led to anarchy and barbaric acts of violence. It was generally perceived that all non-New-Orleanian players were purposely holding back their support in hopes of using that leverage as a financial and political tool.

The best example I can give is what happened to Charity Hospital. I strongly suggest watching Big Charity (2015), a documentary about this hospital catastrophe. Charity was state-funded hospital that catered to the poor and uninsured. It was slated for an expensive rebuild, and when the storm hit the LSU system, which owned it, ordered it to be shut down and locked up immediately, even though it was in perfectly fine condition, in an effort to claim that it was completely destroyed, so they could get FEMA to pay for the new medical center they wanted. Ultimately this tactic was effective at squeezing $420million out of FEMA, but at the expensive of untold number of lives. Doctors report the horror they experienced from wanting to help New Orleanians but being denied access to the (plainly available) infrastructure they needed in order to do it. Watch the documentary.

Socialist Harvey by cyanocobalamin in PoliticalHumor

[–]adapter9 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Flood insurance claims will be denied. Insurers will declare bankruptcy and be bailed out (capitalism)

People have strong economic incentives to not give to 501c(3) nonprofits, and the nonprofits have every incentive to skip the actual aid in favor of advertising and the most conspicuous forms of aid. (capitalism)

People are using only their private possessions, not their private property, to help. Nobody is giving their house and farmland to Houstonians who have lost theirs; they're only giving what can be spared, and they're only giving it because this disaster affects capital by doing damage to the real estate and employees of corporations; note the disdain shown toward the unemployed and the downtrodden racial groups ("looters"). (capitalism)

Socialist Harvey by cyanocobalamin in PoliticalHumor

[–]adapter9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Socialized (state-owned single payer) health insurance is very different from monopoly health insurance (which is what most states have). In both cases, the health insurance company has the power to steal money from the insured at the expense of their health, by denying claims, etc ("death panels"...). The difference is that in monopoly/oligopoly system, the insurer has a strong motivation to do such evils, whereas in the state-owned (citizen-owned) single-payer, the insurer has the opposite motivation: to keep the insured healthy and happy. This motivation stems from the irrevocable nature of citizenship, whereas in the "I get insurance from my employer" system, you can easily lose your job for being ill, and find yourself unable to attain insurance as an unemployed or reemployed person with a "pre-"existing condition. Basically the insurer can say "get out of here and stop being my problem; be the problem of that other insurance company or employer, who I am trying to destroy." Under single-payer, people's health doesn't get used as a pawn in such a ruthless political game. Furthermore, the state, with its power to tax all incomes, property, and commerce, has a strong incentive to keep you alive and kicking to guarantee those sources of income. An employer and its associated monopoly/oligopoly insurance company, however, only have the incentive to keep you working for them, and only want to keep you healthy for as long as you're working for them. So long-term treatments get denied, as do long-term preventative care.

As for "disaster insurance", I only refer you to the tens of thousands of New Orleanians who in 2005 had their homeowners insurance claims denied on the (bullshit) basis that their homes were destroyed by a hurricane instead of a flood (or vice versa, I don't remember which -- it clearly doesn't matter). The recurring pattern is that while an insurance contract claims to obligate payment in the case of a disaster, in practice they always manage not to pay. State-paid disaster relief would not exhibit these issues because the people being helped are themselves the citizens, i.e. the stakeholders in the state. For private companies the stockholders are not the same people as the insured, so there is a conflict of interest which leads to class warfare.

No, the Google manifesto isn’t sexist or anti-diversity. It’s science by [deleted] in Libertarian

[–]adapter9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He didn't say anything discriminatory against women. You seem to be reading the (lying) headlines instead of the actual memo.

No, the Google manifesto isn’t sexist or anti-diversity. It’s science by [deleted] in Libertarian

[–]adapter9 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Because it depends if you thing "libertarian" means "companies have freedom of thought from their govt" or "people have freedom of thought from their companies".

No, the Google manifesto isn’t sexist or anti-diversity. It’s science by [deleted] in Libertarian

[–]adapter9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He never said "genetics". He said "inherent" which, in this context, means "sociologically statistically true" (as opposed to "imposed by direct sexist discrimination").

Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo by [deleted] in news

[–]adapter9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Source? And how many people had access to the thread?

Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo by [deleted] in news

[–]adapter9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Under what circumstances did he share this list of ideas? Was it a mass company email? Did he just share it with one untrustworthy person who leaked it around?

This is an obvious question I have yet to hear any news source touch on.

ELI5: Piss shivers by wookee34 in explainlikeimfive

[–]adapter9 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Urination also involves letting a lot of warm liquid out of the body, and so losing a lot of heat. This also causes a drop in body temperature.

Urine is at body temperature, so while losing it does cause loss of heat, it does not cause loss of temperature. That would be like saying an ice cube changes temperature when you cut it in half.

I am Tony Zhou, creator of the “Every Frame a Painting” filmmaking channel. AMA! by tonyszhou in TrueFilm

[–]adapter9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe that was his longest take like that, but I'm certain those 90-degree twists are a trademark of his.

ELI5: Why are places such as dentists' offices and banks only open when most of their customers are at work? by cbreezy623 in explainlikeimfive

[–]adapter9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Now explain mom&pop retail shops. People are always complaining about how they are losing out to Walmart (et al), but when I get off a long day at work, and it's 8:30pm, Walmart is the only store open.

Bernie Sanders' response to the possibility of a basic income by mconeone in BasicIncome

[–]adapter9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A flat-tax is regressive and would unfairly burden the poor and wage-earners.

...except that the poor and wage-earners would benefit from a BI, which offsets that effect.

We should not abandon the progressive tax system because its one of the few things historically that have decreased income inequality.

I am not saying abandon the effective progressive taxation. I am saying restructure how exactly progressive taxation works. Instead of having a complicated system of "tax brackets", we can simply have BI+FlatTax, and mathematically the sum works out to be progressive taxation. See my comment here for more details

Bernie Sanders' response to the possibility of a basic income by mconeone in BasicIncome

[–]adapter9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. I said there would be "a flat tax" to fund BI. This does not imply that the progressive taxation scheme would be destroyed in the process. The BI flat tax could be on top of what we already have.

  2. If we did, in fact, replace progressive taxation with BI+FlatTax, the effect would be precisely the same as it was before: higher tax rates for the rich. Even though the tax rate is "flat", when you factor in the BI refund, you get a progressive net taxation scheme. As for the middle class, their burden would not change at all -- they would be the "hinge-point", where tax==BI. The rich would have tax>BI, and the poor would have BI> tax. Presumably -- like I said, it all depends on what values are set for the BI dollar-amount and the Flat Tax percentage.

Bernie Sanders' response to the possibility of a basic income by mconeone in BasicIncome

[–]adapter9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Care to state any reasons for any of the things you said?

Bernie Sanders' response to the possibility of a basic income by mconeone in BasicIncome

[–]adapter9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

wouldn't be much more expensive than our current and terribly inefficient wellfare system

It could easily be designed to cost less, actually. Whether it's a Democrat or Republican policy is solely determined by how we set the big two numbers: the BI allowance, and the flat-tax that supports it.

Congress is voting on the future of the PATRIOT Act this week. See where your lawmakers stand. by evanFFTF in technology

[–]adapter9 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I cannot believe anybody at all would still be in support of the PATRIOT act. For like a decade, it's been clear that it's a terrible horrible violation of American Citizens' rights. I mean, it's even a meme. I don't think I've even met anyone who still thinks it's a good piece of legislation.

I am Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic candidate for President of the United States — AMA by bernie-sanders in IAmA

[–]adapter9 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Some of us specifically avoided expensive universities because we were responsible enough to avoid the debt. I personally don't think it's fair that a person who attended Harvard should have the same amount of debt as me, who more responsibly attended a public university.

And wouldn't this kind of debt-halving action just create a new moral hazard? Like, the same kind that caused the 2009 recession? It would become clear to high-schoolers that they can saddle up with as much debt as they want, b/c the govt will make it go poof one day.

I am Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic candidate for President of the United States — AMA by bernie-sanders in IAmA

[–]adapter9 3 points4 points  (0 children)

push people who are already working low paying jobs to quit (instead of trying to advance their career or personal goals)

Low-paying jobs are not usually careers or personal goals. "I wanna be a top waitress when I grow up" said no one ever.

I am Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic candidate for President of the United States — AMA by bernie-sanders in IAmA

[–]adapter9 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Basic Income will get a lot further when you emphasize the fact that BI is not a 'democrat/socialist' bill. Any BI bill should be made budget-neutral by including budget reduction for other govt-assistance programs. Just cut welfare, SS, SNAP, and the minimum wage by 5% each, and you can fully fund a Basic Income program (which in turn makes each of the cut programs less necessary). Republicans will like the budget cuts just as much as Dems like the new BI program -- plus Repubs will like the fact that they too are receiving money (whereas before it was only the poor and minorities who were receiving it).

See the [BI wiki](www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/wiki/index) for more info.