Are you using simulink for code generation or something else? I used to work at a company that made automotive controllers and a simulink "platform" for developing controls on them, and I occasionally flirt with starting a similar company that uses a cheaper/open source toolchain, but always come up empty handed. There are some academic libraries and papers around the Xcos ecosystem, but nothing near production level that I could find.
KiCad continues to improve, and that plain text file thing is a killer feature. Also in the new version they added the capability to have library databases for components which is a massive step towards professional libraries.
If they could bring in better signal integrity tools and Altiums outjobs, it would be a no brainer to use KiCad for hobbyist to small business applications.
I've really wanted a Stargate-esque galaxy explorer type game. Something 2D (like RimWorld graphics) that has procedurally generated planets and addresses, base management, etc
No Man's Sky is ok, but the alien life is mostly focused on lower intelligence animals, and base building feels clunky relative to what you can do in games like RimWorld or prison architect.
I've thought about learning unity to do this, but I have not had the time.
One of the best discussions I ever heard was from Stephan Kinsella when he discussed the patent system as a system of negative servitudes or negative easements (https://www.stephankinsella.com/paf-podcast/kol365-guest-lec...). Essentially IP is similar to joining an HOA, which might give you negative rights in your property such as the inability to use it as a dump, the inability to paint it bright pink, etc. but with IP your potential competitors are petitioning the USPTO to create negative rights in property you already own.
In general, for anyone with a general interest in the anti-IP position, the following resources are good:
* C4SIF - Center for the study of innovative freedom - c4sif.org
This is why I've heard the argument (presumably from Stephan Kinsella, who wrote a book against intellectual property) that the patent system is unconstitutional - it is dubious that patents "promote the progress of science and useful arts."
The economist Fritz Machlup did a study in the 1950s on the economics of the patent system in the US and in his conclusion came to: "If we did not have a patent system, it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge of its economic consequences, to recommend instituting one."
That is a dubious argument in its own right. Inventors undertake the considerable effort of inventing and then pay the expense of filing a patent application while disclosing their invention to the public for the reward of a limited monopoly which they would then have to defend in court, again at their expense. Your argument says they are not motivated To promote the progress of science and useful arts but they seem pretty motivated to me.
I haven't read this literature in awhile but there was a time when I was looking into it and it seemed that there was empirical evidence that if you really want to promote innovation via governmental means the way to do it is through competitions, basically like grant applications or xprize-type things.
The benefits from a patent-type system have to be compared to the alternative, which is where people innovate solely to stay ahead of market competitors and protect trade secrets. In that scenario, one might argue that there's a natural measure of innovation, the ease and speed with which a competitor can copy something or implement a competing product.
I'm not inherently opposed to patents but I do think their implementation today is extremely dysfunctional.
A technical background may be helpful for understanding IP, but certainly not sufficient. Compare Massie to someone like Stephan Kinsella (BS and MS in electrical engineering and a law degree) who literally wrote a book called "Against Intellectual Property."
I went ahead and bought a boox air within a week of the original connect service announcement (yet to arrive). I originally wanted a RM after trying a coworker's RM1 but the connect announcement pushed me away.
With supernote currently giving a roadmap that improves handwriting recognition and boox allegedly having the ability to convert and search handwritten notes already, the remarkable connect plan is very unattractive.
Is it correct to interpret this as the IEEE not recognizing any milestones since 1994? They have a list of items being considered, but such a large gap makes me think the milestones program is one of IEEEs low priority, nearly forgotten activities.
I agree it is awesome but the current semiconductor market is really hurting the ability to make this.
Note that if you follow the kitspace link for the non-FeatherWing version and use the digikey link, there is one part that disallows backorder, but 18 other line items with backorder status. This includes really important items like the microcontroller that has a 52 week lead time.
I looked into building one a while back and found that many items can have substitutes, some could be redesigned easily into leadless versions of the components, but some were just too difficult to redesign or source.
Can anyone point to any Ohio legal precedents where something not regulated by PUCO has been considered a common carrier?
Per the original "An entity can be a common carrier and/or public utility under Ohio common law,even if it is expressly excluded from regulation by PUCO"
I'd be curious what precedent makes Google a common carrier in Ohio law. From a US federal standpoint individual websites appear to me more akin to radio broadcast stations, which according to Ronald Coase had a failed attempt to be declared common carriers.
I am not a lawyer, so I'd be happy to be corrected on that.
