XPost: sci.electronics.design   
   From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 15/02/2026 3:06 am, john larkin wrote:   
   > On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 22:42:53 +1100, Bill Sloman    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 14/02/2026 4:03 pm, john larkin wrote:   
   >>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 23:40:25 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.   
   >>> Lodder) wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> john larkin  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 09:50:59 +0100, Thomas Heger    
   >>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Am Mittwoch000011, 11.02.2026 um 19:47 schrieb Liz Tuddenham:   
   >>>>>>> john larkin  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> [...]   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Why are physics types so often insulting and obnoxious?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I've been to physics meetings that shocked me with their brutality.   
   >>>>>>>> That mentality is terrible for brainstorming and inventing things.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Physicists are particulary careful to prove that they are NOT inventing   
   >>>>>>> things.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Of course physicist could invent whatever they want and have the ability   
   >>>>>> to invent.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Science isn't organised in 'guilds' and everybody has the right to   
   >>>>>> invent, which would include physicists.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> But mainly the engineers invent things, because they have more training   
   >>>>>> in the use of the required means.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Training teaches repetition. Dogs are trained.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Inventing things is a separate skill. It involves being crazy,   
   >>>>> exploring the extremes of the solutuin space, staying confused.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It would seem that you have no problem with that,   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Jan   
   >>>   
   >>> Most engineers are reluctant to stay confused.   
   >>   
   >> Confused isn't the right word for it. Exploratory is probably closer to   
   >> the mark.   
   >   
   > It doesn't matter what you call it as long as you are willing to do   
   > it.   
      
   It does matter what you call it, because that does influence the way you   
   approach it.   
      
   >>> They dislike uncertainty, so lock down on a conventional, clumsy circuit or   
   >>> architecture asap and then grunt it out.   
   >>   
   >> Laziness does encourage people to go with the first idea that comes to   
   >> mind. They will try to make it work long after they should torn up the   
   >> first idea and started looking at other approaches. Not something you've   
   >> ever talked about doing.   
   >   
   > It's not usually laziness. It's fear of being criticized, fear of   
   > rejecting authority, fear of being wrong even temporarily. In the case   
   > of managers, it's fear of not meeting rigid milestones.   
      
   Trying to get an inadequate idea to work long after you should have   
   tried something different does lead to fairly fierce criticism. If it   
   does involve rejecting authority, the authority involved would be guilty   
   of micromanagement. Fear of being wrong shouldn't come into it - there's   
   rarely an absolutely right answer to any design question, and most   
   practical solutions are imperfect to some extent   
      
   >>> It's better to explore possibilities for a while, see if there is a   
   >>> better idea somewhere out there.   
   >>   
   >> That's certainly true, but they aren't confused while they are looking -   
   >> just in exploration mode rather than being locked into single-minded   
   >> exploitation   
   >   
   > I encourage genuine confusion. That's fun and it works.   
      
   Then you have a funny idea of what constitutes confusion.   
      
   The dictionary definition is   
      
   "uncertainty about what is happening, intended, or required.   
   "there seems to be some confusion about which system does what"   
      
      
   "a situation of panic or disorder.   
        "the guaranteed income bond market was thrown into confusion"   
        bles   
      
   2.   
   the state of being bewildered or unclear in one's mind about something.   
   "she looked about her in confusion""   
      
   You can't design anything if you don't know what it is intended to do.   
   It's perfectly okay to be uncertain about exactly how you are going to   
   get it do do what is required, and you should try to come up with   
   alternative approaches, but you do need to know what you are doing.   
      
   >>> Then  switch gears to careful, disciplined design, to get it right the   
   >>> first time.   
   >>   
   >> You can't be careful and disciplined until you know exactly where you   
   >> are going, and you frequently don't know that until you've got most of   
   >> the way there.   
   >>   
   >>> Not many people can do both.   
   >>   
   >> And nobody sane would try to.   
   >   
   > I do, but I don't claim to be sane.   
      
   You don't seem to have gone bust yet, so you are probably sane enough   
   for all practical purposes.   
      
   >>> The last name of s.e.d. is design.   
   >>   
   >> And you don't seem to know much about it.   
   >   
   > Design something. Then sell it.   
      
   Two different skill sets. Having worked for a guy who was much more   
   interested in getting a product that were easy to sell as opposed to one   
   that worked reliably after he'd sold it, I'm well aware of the difference.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)