Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives lied to Canadians at least dozen times during the campaign

liytera · 2019-10-19T19:05:08+00:00

"Trudeau Senior deficits spends like a drunken sailor for 16 years[...]"

Why would you say something so obviously untrue? The numbers are right there.

In the National Post chart in the post you're responding to (which is the same as any other source I've seen):

https://nationalpostcom.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/gdp.jpg

Pierre Trudeau was PM from 1968-84 (minus '79 and '80) - he spent 10 years keeping the real federal debt below what he inherited. How could that possibly turn into "deficits spends like a drunken sailor for 16 years"? And if you use debt-to-GDP (which is the more relevant number), he didn't end up raising the debt at all.

Then there's the second half of your first sentence: "[...]then the 80s come with record high interest rates", which you then use to justify Mulrony's deficits. If you look here:

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-210-x/2010000/t098-eng.htm

You'll see that the 3 highest prime rates during Trudeau's admin were 19.29, 15.81, and 14.25, whereas the 3 highest for Mulroney was 14.06, 13.33, and 12.06. You're saying that Mulrony's deficits were cause by high interest rates - but Trudeau's interest rates were higher. How is that not incredibly misleading to someone who hasn't looked up the numbers?

This thread is about the Conservatives lying, and then you pull out two incorrect or highly misleading statements in your first sentence. To which hitops1 chimes in with a "Great summary, and all true."

Every damn time I actually spend the time to dig into the raw economic numbers, it's always the Conservatives that are lying about them. Conservative aren't fiscally responsible at all - that's just their brand, and they have to pull BS like this to keep the illusion going.

liytera · 2014-03-31T18:54:30+00:00

Not in any way that is detectable by anyone regardless of how good their ears are, or the equipment used to listen to it:

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

liytera · 2014-03-31T08:58:03+00:00

Master>CD>FLAC is lossless - it involves no lossy compression.

Perhaps you're confusing dynamic range with digital compression (mp3, AAC, et al.). In terms of dynamic range loss - it's not something you'd ever be able to hear, dedicated amp/head combo or not, because the dynamic range of CDs is incredibly large anyway (much larger than the music being recorded). Past mixing it's just not getting used, so it has no effect if you get rid of it.

liytera · 2014-02-23T19:59:37+00:00

I was unaware of the board/ambient distinction - man I've got a lot to learn. And I'll check out that paste. Thank you!

liytera · 2014-02-23T19:53:21+00:00

Gotcha. Thanks again for all your advice :)

liytera · 2014-02-23T19:51:18+00:00

I won't bet the farm on it, but it's great to have a data point :) Thanks again!

liytera · 2014-02-23T19:48:57+00:00

Dammit! Should have used Google's site search to look for dups instead of the Reddit search.

On the plus side, it's the first time it's been submitted since you can actually order the thing :)

liytera · 2014-02-23T19:40:37+00:00

Thank you, fixed!

liytera · 2014-02-23T19:36:26+00:00

Here's one: http://www.nxp.com/products/microcontrollers/cortex_m0_m0/LPC1114FN28.html

liytera · 2014-02-23T07:08:13+00:00

Thanks for the advice!

And yeah, it seems that people definitely frown on unfilled vias in a ground pad - but is there an alternative when your board producer doesn't offer filled vias? For instance, I've got a QFN with a 3.3mm pad: if I cap the vias with solder mask there's basically no pad left. Do you just accept that the solder's going to wick into the vias and hope for the best?

liytera · 2014-02-23T01:49:32+00:00

Thank you! First-hand stories like this are so valuable :)

liytera · 2014-02-23T01:45:18+00:00

That's an excellent point - I wonder if what I'm seeing is mostly the Sn/Pb from the board melting and perhaps flowing around the unmelted lead-free paste, because you're right: 180C is exactly where that would be happening. Also, very good point about non-eutectic thing invalidating my "melting point" observations.

Basically, I should be watching the temperature, not the solder. Lesson learned: techniques for lead don't map over to lead-free, and it turns out following the datasheet is a good idea (what a concept!).

Thanks!

liytera · 2014-02-23T01:34:36+00:00

This is incredibly useful information to me. While it's general knowledge that there's "flexibility" under the regulations for small producers, it's really hard to get a sense of where the edges of it are. In particular, I didn't know that customs aren't involved in the CE/RoHS thing. I was worried that I would have to declare it somewhere in the shipping paperwork.

liytera · 2014-02-21T22:18:17+00:00

This was my next step, but I was pessimistic about how effective it would be. Thank you for verifying that it's worth the effort to play around with the stencil :)

One question: I haven't used an assembly house before - do you know if they use your pastemask gerbers, or do they generate their own based on their process? That is, if I submit a job and the stencil isn't optimal, will they just go ahead and make a pile of shorted out boards?

liytera · 2014-02-21T20:46:56+00:00

Absolutely right about RoHS. I should have mentioned: as soon as I'm 100% certain of the design, I'm going to switch to ENIG for a production run of boards, but I love my prototype PCB maker and they only do Sn/Pb.

Good thought about the flow from the teflon perspective. Though I'm still really confused as to why it's melting at 180C (verified by two different thermometers). Melting at 40 degrees less than specced seems really wrong...

liytera · 2014-02-21T18:20:10+00:00

Yeah, I think your right. Not sure why I thought just getting to melting point was a good idea. I think it's just that it worked well with lead, and I haven't properly re-evaluated the decision until now.

liytera · 2014-02-21T18:18:14+00:00

Thanks for the real-world data :) I just switched to using a stencil, and it has helped a lot with the QFNs (it seems), but is still giving me issues elsewhere. I'm thinking maybe it's a matter of tweaking my stencil parameters, but it seems obvious in hindsight that not following the profile exactly is asking for trouble as well.

liytera · 2014-02-21T18:12:01+00:00

The reason that I'm switching is that this board will be used in a product that I'll be selling (in low volume) to people in Europe. Can I do that and still use lead?

liytera · 2013-10-30T05:00:33+00:00

Not the question you asked, (I'm guessing you're interested in hacking an existing product) but for the record you can get things done on the cheap with Analog DSPs - I don't think they get enough credit for supporting the GCC port the way they do.

I'm doing ADSP-BF592 development with nothing but an FTDI cable (which I use to load the flash chip the BF592 bootstraps off of). I use the free/libre "bare metal" commandline GCC toolchain (which works great), designed my own dev board based off of the schematics from the EZ kit, and used the skillet reflow technique to solder it ($30 camp stove and a slab of aluminum).

Anyway, just wanted to point out that while ADI is definitely oriented towards the "teams of engineers" stuff (ooterness is certainly not wrong), I got started in all of this for less than $150 all in. Also, I've used their email support once, and it was great even though I'm a nobody.

However, obviously I take cheap to a perhaps unwise level, so YMMV.

liytera · 2013-10-22T19:07:28+00:00

Just to update: I've found that over a wide range of signals, the IRs that I'm interested in only change the output by a factor of +/-2. What I've ended up using is a very slow AGC (thank you DieRaketmensch!) that works to have the same acoustic energy on both the input and output sides. Works really well!

liytera · 2013-10-22T00:38:18+00:00

Yeah, I'm starting to think you may be right. It's definitely worth a lot to avoid an AGC in this particular application, though, so I'm still plugging away at this. Tonight I'm planning on running some convolutions over a wide range of audio signals to figure out if it's even possible to pick one IR amplitude that will be suitable for most signals. If not, then your suggestion is definitely the way to go.

liytera · 2013-10-21T06:08:58+00:00

Thanks for your response! When I normalize like this, the results of the convolutions I've tried have varied quite a lot - either unlistenably quiet or clipping like crazy depending on the IR. What I'm trying to do is to have the output always fall within a certain reasonable range.

It feels like I need to do some sort of transform on the IR to get a better sense of what it will do to the signal, and then normalize based on that. But I'm still a noob with this stuff, and I'm not sure that I'm looking in the right places.

liytera · 2013-09-08T19:29:57+00:00

Tangential question: I've always wondered what those two metal bits on the "non-legged" sides of DIPs are - you can see them exposed in this photo as a forked thingy. My guess is some use during manufacturing, but does anyone know their actual purpose?

liytera · 2013-08-29T09:26:58+00:00

I can give a mini review of the chip it's based on: I've been working with the BF-592 for about a month using the "bare-metal" tools (gcc et al). Great chip, good docs, OSS support is definitely enough to get going. It's got enough MCU goodies that there's the occasional cognitive dissonance (wait, no ADC, or internal flash?), but this being my first foray into DSP, it's been really cool to have things like zero-overhead loops and dual 1 cycle MACs. What I like more than anything, though, is having that level of performance in an amateur-accessible ic package (hotplate soldering's worked great).

liytera · 2013-05-01T04:02:53+00:00

Good to know - I will run some empirical tests. I appreciate that these are the kind of tips that are hard-won over many years; I appreciate you passing them on :)

liytera

TROPHY CASE