On 12/16/2022 22:54, Don Y wrote:
> On 12/16/2022 9:56 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>> Don't hold your breath for that fresh blood.
>> Not just because they are all on tiktok (me too, hey!) but there
>> are not many people designing new stuff past our generation.
>
> Sure they are!  They just aren't starting with the same
> "components" that we did -- out of necessity!
>
> The first processor I designed was gobs of TTL and bibolar.
> It ate lots of power (to get speed) and took up a boatload
> of boardspace.  I had to do all of the timing analysis and
> AC/DC load calculations "by hand".
>
> I could design another processor in similar fashion, today.
> But, it would be silly -- like designing an analog computer just
> to *say* you'd designed one!  If I needed an application-specific
> processor, I'd *write* an emulator and purchase a platform
> fast enough to execute the emulated instruction set at a speed
> my homegrown device could achieve (or, go to full/semi-custom)
>
> I wrote my Neural Nets in C.  A "youngster" would prefer a
> language with direct support for array operations.  His
> code would *look* simpler -- because the language was handling
> a lot of the nitty-gritty "behind the scenes".  Whether it would
> execute any faster (or be any more robust) are different issues.
>
> Web pages are largely canned, nowadays.  Why bother writing
> all that cruft from scratch -- just to *say* you did?

More or less this is my point, as I say in the quote below:

>
>> It is all about utilizing what has already been done, which is
>> a lot and will suffice for generations to come I guess.
>> There is that *one* younger guy at CAE who occasionally has
>> questions, most of which David Brown has the patience and
>> expertise to answer - that's about all...

If you take a raspberry pi and connect a monitor to it to
view films you will *not* have designed a TV. You will have
utilized the designs done by other people which makes this an
easy everyday task.
Some design work is still done of course but it is just a
tiny fraction of what was being done some 30 years ago.
Most of what is presented as a design is just box moving.

See my comparison in my other post in reply to Rick to how
the car industry evolved, it is practically the same only it
happened over a shorter time, most people have yet to grasp it.

Mind you, I never/nowhere said that today's kids are not as
good as we were. In fact I think the opposite (this being the
natural order of things, the point of generational change) - it is
just a very different world where designing what we can design is
history.

On 12/16/2022 2:08 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> On 12/16/2022 22:41, Don Y wrote:
>> On 12/16/2022 10:20 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> I can't see how you can keep the threaded nature of a conversation
>> AND sort by date -- not in a one-dimensional list!  Each reply must
>> follow (i.e., be farther down the list) the post to which it replied.
>
> Well I can, if I am interested enough in the thread. Text is good
> enough for me. I don't need a piece of code tell me what I want to read,
> I just happen to know better. I am pretty good at finding what I am
> looking for at a glance.
> And thunderbird just *cannot* sort the posts within a thread by posting
> date, which in many cases is what I want.

Here is a hypothetical post, with replies, and 24hr times.
(assume clocks are synchronized)

Post 00:00
Reply1 01:00
ReReply1A 01:10
ReReply1B 02:20
ReReply1C 03:30
Reply2 02:00
ReReply2A 02:01
ReReply2B 02:02
ReReply2C 03:03
Reply3 03:00
ReReply3A 03:01
ReReply3B 03:02
ReReply3C 03:03

This is how TB would display them in threaded mode.

In date-sorted, it would be (ignore indentation):

Post 00:00
Reply1 01:00
ReReply1A 01:10
Reply2 02:00
ReReply2A 02:01
ReReply2B 02:02
* ReReply1B 02:20
Reply3 03:00
ReReply3A 03:01
ReReply3B 03:02
* ReReply2C 03:03
ReReply3C 03:03
* ReReply1C 03:30

Note that a reply to any post must occur at a time after
the time of the referenced post.

If you want to maintain threading, then you can't ensure
chronological order as the chronological order of the posts
(which may be *replies*) doesn't necessarily correspond to the
chronological order of the replies (to those "posts"/replies).

In what order do *you* want to see these listed?

On 12/16/2022 2:17 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>>> It is all about utilizing what has already been done, which is
>>> a lot and will suffice for generations to come I guess.
>>> There is that *one* younger guy at CAE who occasionally has
>>> questions, most of which David Brown has the patience and
>>> expertise to answer - that's about all...
>
> If you take a raspberry pi and connect a monitor to it to
> view films you will *not* have designed a TV. You will have
> utilized the designs done by other people which makes this an
> easy everyday task.

Yet, if you take a bunch of semiconductors and glue them
together in largely established configurations, you *have*?

I don't see how the choice of underlying technology "disqualifies"
the design.

Should you have had to dope your own semiconductors in order
to TRULY have designed that "original" TV? Grown your own
crystals? If you use any integrated devices (instead of
discretes), does that disqualify the design?

> Some design work is still done of course but it is just a
> tiny fraction of what was being done some 30 years ago.
> Most of what is presented as a design is just box moving.

It's just moved on to a higher level of abstraction.

The LORAN receivers in use when I was in that business were
all hardwired *electronic* devices. RF front ends, amplifiers,
filters, digital counters, display decoder-drivers, etc.

Then, all of the electronics (other than the front end) were
replaced with a CPU and memory. Display *decoding* was done in
software and individual *segment* drivers used. Is it no longer
a LORAN receiver? It's functionality has *improved* (because
now it can *predict* where the RF signal will likely be in
the near term based on an analysis of the receiver's motion
within the RF field ("coordinates").

I designed a video display subsystem (in the days of 1MHz 8b
CPUs) that would automatically "paint" the objects onto the
display as directed by the host CPU (basically a fancy blitter
that knew how to interpret a "display list"). Because the
host CPU simply couldn't move data that fast while also
trying to figure out HOW it should be moved. Now, the
hardware is replaced by faster CPUs and higher bandwidth
busses. How does it differ from the original -- except for
the underlying technology?

Do we say 3D printed homes aren't "designed" because there
is no timber involved?

> See my comparison in my other post in reply to Rick to how
> the car industry evolved, it is practically the same only it
> happened over a shorter time, most people have yet to grasp it.
>
> Mind you, I never/nowhere said that today's kids are not as
> good as we were. In fact I think the opposite (this being the
> natural order of things, the point of generational change) - it is
> just a very different world where designing what we can design is
> history.

You likely can't design a log cabin. Or, a stage coach.
Yet, you can still find shelter (and likely better accommodations!)
and transport (with less *shit* to clean up!)

The only time these skills "matter" is if the available technology
steps *backwards* and we can no longer rely on those building blocks.

(how many people could feed themselves without a grocery store?)

On 12/17/2022 5:40, Don Y wrote:
> On 12/16/2022 2:17 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>>>> It is all about utilizing what has already been done, which is
>>>> a lot and will suffice for generations to come I guess.
>>>> There is that *one* younger guy at CAE who occasionally has
>>>> questions, most of which David Brown has the patience and
>>>> expertise to answer - that's about all...
>>
>> If you take a raspberry pi and connect a monitor to it to
>> view films you will *not* have designed a TV. You will have
>> utilized the designs done by other people which makes this an
>> easy everyday task.
>
> Yet, if you take a bunch of semiconductors and glue them
> together in largely established configurations, you *have*?

Not really, no. I am sure you can tell the difference between
box moving and design. Routing a complex PCB is closer to design than
it is to box moving, the border is blurred somewhere around that line.

>
> I don't see how the choice of underlying technology "disqualifies"
> the design.

So you think buying a board running android or something on it,
putting it into a case and connecting it to a monitor makes you
a VCR designer? I differ.
If you design the PCB for the parts then make the same you are
the border case.
If you write some software product of significance you are designing
something.

> ....
>
> (how many people could feed themselves without a grocery store?)
>

But those people buying their food are not farmers, this is the point.

On 12/17/2022 4:41 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> On 12/17/2022 5:40, Don Y wrote:
>> On 12/16/2022 2:17 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>>>>> It is all about utilizing what has already been done, which is
>>>>> a lot and will suffice for generations to come I guess.
>>>>> There is that *one* younger guy at CAE who occasionally has
>>>>> questions, most of which David Brown has the patience and
>>>>> expertise to answer - that's about all...
>>>
>>> If you take a raspberry pi and connect a monitor to it to
>>> view films you will *not* have designed a TV. You will have
>>> utilized the designs done by other people which makes this an
>>> easy everyday task.
>>
>> Yet, if you take a bunch of semiconductors and glue them
>> together in largely established configurations, you *have*?
>
> Not really, no. I am sure you can tell the difference between
> box moving and design.

Give those boxes to a farmer and see if he can make one!
Just because the skill level has changed for a goal that
*hasn't* (in complexity) doesn't make it any less of a design
activity.

Is there a difference between an oil painter (fine artist)
and someone who "paints" in Illustrator? What about someone
who creates visual representations by manipulating mathematical
equations and rendering them with an equation plotter?

Surely, the "farmer" could do neither!

> Routing a complex PCB is closer to design than
> it is to box moving, the border is blurred somewhere around that line.

PCB layout has typically been a semi-skilled, non-engineering
function (*guided* by an engineer) in most of the places I've worked.
I wouldn't call the layout person a "circuit designer"... there's
a good chance he doesn't even understand how the circuit *works*!
His skillset is optimized for making things fit given physical
and electrical constraints THAT SOMEONE ELSE DEFINED.

>> I don't see how the choice of underlying technology "disqualifies"
>> the design.
>
> So you think buying a board running android or something on it,
> putting it into a case and connecting it to a monitor makes you
> a VCR designer? I differ.

Why? If this was done in a "back room" with the accompaniment of
suitable sound effects to emulate fabricating a circuit board,
would you know the difference? "No user serviceable parts inside"

If you use a computer reduced to an integrated circuit, are you
any *less* the designer than the engineer who designed one using
DTL flatpacks? The IC just saved you a lot of effort and gave
you improved performance. It allowed you to spend your time
and efforts on achieving something greater (or, the same thing
"quicker"!)

If I mix a collection of store-bought ingredients to make a
confection, is that any *less* than if I milled the flour,
harvested the cane, collected the spices, etc. and created
the same confection "from scratch"? If you pour a box of
"brownie" mix into a bowl, add the other dictated ingredients,
pour it into a pan and *bake* it, are you baking *less* than
if you create the Rx from scratch?

If you use a compiler/assembler to create the binary image
for a "program", are you less of a programmer than if you
used a monitor with hex keypad to enter hex codes -- created
by examining the instruction set encoding -- into successive
memory locations?

In school, I designed a video game using SSI/MSI TTL. Today,
I would create that same game using a COTS board and a bit of
code. What's changed -- other than the effort and time
required to get to a result?

> If you design the PCB for the parts then make the same you are
> the border case.
> If you write some software product of significance you are designing
> something.
>
>> (how many people could feed themselves without a grocery store?)
>
> But those people buying their food are not farmers, this is the point.

We're not claiming that people who *use* those aforementioned devices
are engineers/designers but, rather, the people who created them.

Is a farmer who uses *chemical* fertilizer less of a professional
than one who relies on "natural products" (e.g., manure)? What if
he relies on technology to irrigate his crops, instead of rainfall?
Or, harvests using a motorized device instead of picking by hand?

Just because one approach is easier/harder doesn't change the
nature of the effort; he's still a farmer, not a plumber!

There's always a tendency to assume that the way "we" (for whichever
"we" is speaking) do something is the REAL way and all this new-fangled
stuff doesn't count -- because it's "easier". But, that's progress.
Not availing oneself of the advances available is just silliness.
Spend your effort on things that *can't* be "advanced".

There are people who will build their own hand tools from wood,
forged iron, etc. But, they aren't very *productive* when it
comes to actually MAKING the items that those tools are used to
create -- because they've expended effort needlessly; a trip to
the local hardware store would have given them a likely better
quality tool for less time/effort. The savings translates to
creating more "end products".

On 12/17/2022 14:21, Don Y wrote:
> On 12/17/2022 4:41 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>> On 12/17/2022 5:40, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2022 2:17 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>>>>>> It is all about utilizing what has already been done, which is
>>>>>> a lot and will suffice for generations to come I guess.
>>>>>> There is that *one* younger guy at CAE who occasionally has
>>>>>> questions, most of which David Brown has the patience and
>>>>>> expertise to answer - that's about all...
>>>>
>>>> If you take a raspberry pi and connect a monitor to it to
>>>> view films you will *not* have designed a TV. You will have
>>>> utilized the designs done by other people which makes this an
>>>> easy everyday task.
>>>
>>> Yet, if you take a bunch of semiconductors and glue them
>>> together in largely established configurations, you *have*?
>>
>> Not really, no. I am sure you can tell the difference between
>> box moving and design.
>
> Give those boxes to a farmer and see if he can make one!
> Just because the skill level has changed for a goal that
> *hasn't* (in complexity) doesn't make it any less of a design
> activity.

But you can show the farmer which of the 5 wires has to connect where
in 5 minutes and there you are - you have your farmed design engineer.
Give me a break.

>
>> Routing a complex PCB is closer to design than
>> it is to box moving, the border is blurred somewhere around that line.
>
> PCB layout has typically been a semi-skilled, non-engineering
> function (*guided* by an engineer) in most of the places I've worked.
> I wouldn't call the layout person a "circuit designer"... there's
> a good chance he doesn't even understand how the circuit *works*!
> His skillset is optimized for making things fit given physical
> and electrical constraints THAT SOMEONE ELSE DEFINED.

Well you omitted the "complex" from my sentence. I have designed
PCB-s which I know no one but me could route in a viable way.
And with ps timings being all around us now this is not getting
easier. But like I said, routing is the border around which design
and box moving are blurring into each other.
Routing that board http://tgi-sci.com/tgi/nmc3tops.gif is way
more demanding than connecting the android board you have bought to
a monitor. And there are millions of ways to do it wrong so
the precision and speed I was after will just never be there.

>>> I don't see how the choice of underlying technology "disqualifies"
>>> the design.
>>
>> So you think buying a board running android or something on it,
>> putting it into a case and connecting it to a monitor makes you
>> a VCR designer? I differ.
>
> Why?

Because you have *bought* a VCR, not designed one.

On 12/17/2022 6:47 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> On 12/17/2022 14:21, Don Y wrote:
>> On 12/17/2022 4:41 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>>> On 12/17/2022 5:40, Don Y wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/2022 2:17 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>>>>>>> It is all about utilizing what has already been done, which is
>>>>>>> a lot and will suffice for generations to come I guess.
>>>>>>> There is that *one* younger guy at CAE who occasionally has
>>>>>>> questions, most of which David Brown has the patience and
>>>>>>> expertise to answer - that's about all...
>>>>>
>>>>> If you take a raspberry pi and connect a monitor to it to
>>>>> view films you will *not* have designed a TV. You will have
>>>>> utilized the designs done by other people which makes this an
>>>>> easy everyday task.
>>>>
>>>> Yet, if you take a bunch of semiconductors and glue them
>>>> together in largely established configurations, you *have*?
>>>
>>> Not really, no. I am sure you can tell the difference between
>>> box moving and design.
>>
>> Give those boxes to a farmer and see if he can make one!
>> Just because the skill level has changed for a goal that
>> *hasn't* (in complexity) doesn't make it any less of a design
>> activity.
>
> But you can show the farmer which of the 5 wires has to connect where
> in 5 minutes and there you are - you have your farmed design engineer.
> Give me a break.

And he can show you how to till the soil and plant seed -- are
you now a farmer?

>>> Routing a complex PCB is closer to design than
>>> it is to box moving, the border is blurred somewhere around that line.
>>
>> PCB layout has typically been a semi-skilled, non-engineering
>> function (*guided* by an engineer) in most of the places I've worked.
>> I wouldn't call the layout person a "circuit designer"... there's
>> a good chance he doesn't even understand how the circuit *works*!
>> His skillset is optimized for making things fit given physical
>> and electrical constraints THAT SOMEONE ELSE DEFINED.
>
> Well you omitted the "complex" from my sentence. I have designed
> PCB-s which I know no one but me could route in a viable way.
> And with ps timings being all around us now this is not getting
> easier. But like I said, routing is the border around which design
> and box moving are blurring into each other.
> Routing that board http://tgi-sci.com/tgi/nmc3tops.gif is way
> more demanding than connecting the android board you have bought to
> a monitor. And there are millions of ways to do it wrong so
> the precision and speed I was after will just never be there.

So, you find *experienced* layout designers.

>>>> I don't see how the choice of underlying technology "disqualifies"
>>>> the design.
>>>
>>> So you think buying a board running android or something on it,
>>> putting it into a case and connecting it to a monitor makes you
>>> a VCR designer? I differ.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because you have *bought* a VCR, not designed one.

No, you didn't go to the store and buy a VCR and put it in a box.
You bought some *components* and assembled them (using knowledge
of how to do so) to create that VCR.

You had to know how to specify and select the "android board"
(and the software that was running on it) to accomplish that goal.
Just like you had to know how to select a particular MPU to
host your MCAs. The folks who designed that MPU should look down
their noses at you -- you're just slapping boxes together, not
really *designing*... like THEY did! (?)

My first "assembler" was a small, folded sheet of paper with
Nova2 instruction formats written on it. I would mentally convert
opcodes into 6-digit octal values, set 16 toggle switches on
the front panel accordingly and press the "DEPOSIT" key to
write that value into the core memory. Then, move on to the
next instruction.

Surely, anyone using a PROGRAM that does this *for* them can't
possibly be called a programmer! And, anyone using a CPU that
supports CISC instructions, MUL/DIV, etc. is obviously just
slapping together *boxes* (instead of writing subroutines to
perform those functions)?

You're creating an arbitrary threshold where you consider something
to be a genuine "design" vs. "just slapping things together". It's
dismissive of newer technologies and the folks who use them.

On 12/17/2022 16:42, Don Y wrote:
> On 12/17/2022 6:47 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>> On 12/17/2022 14:21, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 12/17/2022 4:41 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>>>> On 12/17/2022 5:40, Don Y wrote:
>>>>> On 12/16/2022 2:17 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>>>>>>>> It is all about utilizing what has already been done, which is
>>>>>>>> a lot and will suffice for generations to come I guess.
>>>>>>>> There is that *one* younger guy at CAE who occasionally has
>>>>>>>> questions, most of which David Brown has the patience and
>>>>>>>> expertise to answer - that's about all...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you take a raspberry pi and connect a monitor to it to
>>>>>> view films you will *not* have designed a TV. You will have
>>>>>> utilized the designs done by other people which makes this an
>>>>>> easy everyday task.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet, if you take a bunch of semiconductors and glue them
>>>>> together in largely established configurations, you *have*?
>>>>
>>>> Not really, no. I am sure you can tell the difference between
>>>> box moving and design.
>>>
>>> Give those boxes to a farmer and see if he can make one!
>>> Just because the skill level has changed for a goal that
>>> *hasn't* (in complexity) doesn't make it any less of a design
>>> activity.
>>
>> But you can show the farmer which of the 5 wires has to connect where
>> in 5 minutes and there you are - you have your farmed design engineer.
>> Give me a break.
>
> And he can show you how to till the soil and plant seed -- are
> you now a farmer?

If I have the land, muscle and the desire, yes of course. It is no
rocket science. Just as screwing a box together is not.

>
>>>> Routing a complex PCB is closer to design than
>>>> it is to box moving, the border is blurred somewhere around that line.
>>>
>>> PCB layout has typically been a semi-skilled, non-engineering
>>> function (*guided* by an engineer) in most of the places I've worked.
>>> I wouldn't call the layout person a "circuit designer"... there's
>>> a good chance he doesn't even understand how the circuit *works*!
>>> His skillset is optimized for making things fit given physical
>>> and electrical constraints THAT SOMEONE ELSE DEFINED.
>>
>> Well you omitted the "complex" from my sentence. I have designed
>> PCB-s which I know no one but me could route in a viable way.
>> And with ps timings being all around us now this is not getting
>> easier. But like I said, routing is the border around which design
>> and box moving are blurring into each other.
>> Routing that board http://tgi-sci.com/tgi/nmc3tops.gif is way
>> more demanding than connecting the android board you have bought to
>> a monitor. And there are millions of ways to do it wrong so
>> the precision and speed I was after will just never be there.
>
> So, you find *experienced* layout designers.

I know one of the most experienced ones (a friend of mine) and I
might consider. However he has also designed numerous gadgets in
the past, without this he would have been useless for the task.

Above some point of complexity, performance demand etc. routing
the PCB becomes part of the design process. Said from experience.

>
>>>>> I don't see how the choice of underlying technology "disqualifies"
>>>>> the design.
>>>>
>>>> So you think buying a board running android or something on it,
>>>> putting it into a case and connecting it to a monitor makes you
>>>> a VCR designer? I differ.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> Because you have *bought* a VCR, not designed one.
>
> No, you didn't go to the store and buy a VCR and put it in a box.
> You bought some *components* and assembled them (using knowledge
> of how to do so) to create that VCR.

Oh come on, now screwing together a board into a box now makes you
a design engineer. If you really think so there is nothing more to
be said, I said already where I draw the (blurred) line.

>
> You're creating an arbitrary threshold where you consider something
> to be a genuine "design" vs. "just slapping things together".  It's
> dismissive of newer technologies and the folks who use them.
>

I am not dismissive at all. I just don't consider using something
you buy off the shelf without putting some considerable amount of
work into it a "design".
To get back to the VCR example, if you buy a board and just screw
it together, plug into the monitor and watch videos you are a user,
not a designer.
If, OTOH, you write some software on which a good programmer would
spend over say a month - e.g. a video decoder - you have clearly
designed something.

On 12/17/2022 8:43 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>> You're creating an arbitrary threshold where you consider something
>> to be a genuine "design" vs. "just slapping things together".  It's
>> dismissive of newer technologies and the folks who use them.
>
> I am not dismissive at all. I just don't consider using something
> you buy off the shelf without putting some considerable amount of
> work into it a "design".
> To get back to the VCR example, if you buy a board and just screw
> it together, plug into the monitor and watch videos you are a user,
> not a designer.

What if you have to put *three* boards together (power supply, processor,
video) -- selecting each of them based on *some* criteria of your own
choosing -- and then *finding* a piece of software that will run on
that collection of boards to provide the functionality you require?

Clearly, putting a CPU and some memory chips on a board would be
no more complicated than those above three boards -- connect power
pins to power, address lines to address lines, data lines to data
lines. You're obviously not a designer, in that case, right?
Add in a SuperIO and you're still just a User... when do you
graduate to being a real designer?

> If, OTOH, you write some software on which a good programmer would
> spend over say a month - e.g. a video decoder - you have clearly
> designed something.

So, the amount of effort required separates designers from users?

I had an officemate who spent months designing a current mode
motor driver -- largely selecting COTS devices to do so. Was
he a "bad designer"? Above-average User?

Have you On 12/17/2022 19:10, Don Y wrote:
> On 12/17/2022 8:43 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>>> You're creating an arbitrary threshold where you consider something
>>> to be a genuine "design" vs. "just slapping things together".  It's
>>> dismissive of newer technologies and the folks who use them.
>>
>> I am not dismissive at all. I just don't consider using something
>> you buy off the shelf without putting some considerable amount of
>> work into it a "design".
>> To get back to the VCR example, if you buy a board and just screw
>> it together, plug into the monitor and watch videos you are a user,
>> not a designer.
>
> What if you have to put *three* boards together (power supply, processor,
> video) -- selecting each of them based on *some* criteria of your own
> choosing -- and then *finding* a piece of software that will run on
> that collection of boards to provide the functionality you require?

Box moving.

>
> Clearly, putting a CPU and some memory chips on a board would be
> no more complicated than those above three boards -- connect power
> pins to power, address lines to address lines, data lines to data
> lines.  You're obviously not a designer, in that case, right?
> Add in a SuperIO and you're still just a User...  when do you
> graduate to being a real designer?

Can go either way. With today's SOCs, it is closer to box moving
than it used to be when we had to put a system together. If you have
to design in some task specifics - analog frontend, power supplies
which maintain the system noise well below what you can buy off the
shelf - it is way above the "design" threshold.

>
>> If, OTOH, you write some software on which a good programmer would
>> spend over say a month - e.g. a video decoder - you have clearly
>> designed something.
>
> So, the amount of effort required separates designers from users?

Do I have to explain the part you are replying to? I am sure you
understand the difference between qualified effort and effort.

>
> I had an officemate who spent months designing a current mode
> motor driver -- largely selecting COTS devices to do so.  Was
> he a "bad designer"?  Above-average User?
>

I don't know him so I cannot say. spending months on a hardware
design means he has never done that one before; we have all been there.
Learning is also part of the design process.

It looks like the spam is getting worse. No new threads, but a bunch of replies to existing threads.

On 22/12/2022 17:12, Ricky wrote:
> It looks like the spam is getting worse. No new threads, but a bunch of replies to existing threads.

If you insist on using GoogleGroups then you are stuck with it.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

> On 22/12/2022 17:12, Ricky wrote:
>> It looks like the spam is getting worse. No new threads, but a bunch
>> of replies to existing threads.
>
> If you insist on using GoogleGroups then you are stuck with it.

You get it anyway. You can plonk the senders but they keep changing their
names.

They probably use spamming software so they never see replies.

They all seem to use gmail. But google probably has a trillion fake gmail
addresses so it will be impossible for google to delete them.

Unfortunately, google does not verify account owners so this problem is
permanent.

--
MRM

On 2022-12-16 22:08, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> On 12/16/2022 22:41, Don Y wrote:
>> On 12/16/2022 10:20 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> I can't see how you can keep the threaded nature of a conversation
>> AND sort by date -- not in a one-dimensional list!  Each reply must
>> follow (i.e., be farther down the list) the post to which it replied.
>
> Well I can, if I am interested enough in the thread. Text is good
> enough for me. I don't need a piece of code tell me what I want to read,
> I just happen to know better. I am pretty good at finding what I am
> looking for at a glance.
> And thunderbird just *cannot* sort the posts within a thread by posting
> date, which in many cases is what I want.
>

You want grouped by subject, then sorted by date, but not threaded.
Weird, first one I meet that want this method.

--
Cheers, Carlos.