I upvoted at the time but I just wanted to mention that I've scrolled through my comments/replies a few times and I've been chuckling every time I read it. ;)
been kind of a crappy couple weeks for me due to family illnesses and it did bring a smile to my face. feels like a "the matrix has you" sketch from the flash player days...
I get that tastes vary and some people apparently don't mind the hole punch in the display, but I'm curious why you list its presence as a hard requirement. It seems like it would make the display unnecessarily harder to source.
Annoyingly, the USB-C midplate is specified at 0.7mm. In my experience, 0.6mm boards are too thin to make a reliable connection. Going thicker has worked perfectly with all of the cables I've tried. I suppose there might be some risk of damaging your cables, but it doesn't seem too likely to me (the spec is 0.7 +/- 0.05), and I haven't had any problems.
I genuinely hope both of you continue this thread, even as I think it's unlikely that you'll come to common ground. I'm finding it extremely helpful to clarify my thoughts on this type of situation.
Yes; satellite boards tend to have conformal coatings, it helps but it's not a complete solution. (The coatings also help avoid shorts from junk floating around, and launch vibration.) Because of the inherent unreliability and difficulty in replacement, they also try really hard to avoid lead-free solder requirements.
Yes? In my experience (some spacecraft electronics stuff) this is also on the list of things where we think conformal coating/potting helps prevent tin whiskers. But there are still instances where Tin whiskers have grown and pushed through conformal coating on a PCB.
Edit: Go look at the more detailed response from robomartin
No. Can't prevent it. Yes, they can push through epoxy or buckle under it (which isn't a solution). Read my longer answer for details. These things are a nightmare.
If we let t be time in seconds, and f be frequency in Hz, the sine wave formula is y = sin(2pitf). The 2pi is the periodicity of the sine function. If f is 1, we sweep through 2pi once per second. If we let f be 2, then it sweeps through two times per second, and so on.
So, you can think of the lookup index as being the tf part, but with t counting in integer fractions of a second, with the caveat that you'll want to perform some interpolation between values.
If the waveform were more complex than a sine wave, then in the general case this "skipping agead" could cause distortion. A sine wave is one of a couple special cases (square wave being another, and arguably it's "cheating") where you're not skipping "too far" to cause distortion. (That relates to the Nyquist sampling theorem and low-pass filtering, as kens mentions)
A high-pitched square wave absolutely will have aliasing when played without interpolation. In Audacity, try creating a 30 second square chirp from 6000 to 16000 Hz, and listen to the weird and wacky frequencies far away from the intended frequency.
Because a square wave is actually infinitely many sine waves (at odd harmonic frequencies) added together. So, almost all of these will lie outside the Nyquist frequency, which is half the sampling rate for real sampling.
In practice, only the first few odd harmonics are strong enough to really matter, but with a high-pitched square wave you still need oversampling and lowpass filtering to get rid of those in the general case without aliasing[1].
However, if you choose the frequency of your square wave right (to make the sample rate an integer multiple), the aliasing products will just be reflected back to be exactly on top of the "actual" harmonics, neatly sounding like a perfect square wave again (in theory). Matching well with our intuition of what happens with the actual signal, if you do the "skipping" for such a square wave.
[1] Or maybe not if your goal is really only generating square waves: Just don’t generate these harmonics. Your 16kHz square wave without aliasing will just sound like a sine wave anyway, because your ear cannot hear its harmonics.
If existence is pointless except for procreation, what is our children's purpose? To have children, in order to have children, in order to have children? This is unbounded teleological recursion, unless you allow for a basis case in which any given life also has meaning for its own sake.
Myself, I hope for more for my own two children than just that they have children of their own some day, just as my parents didn't have me only in order that they might someday have great-great-grandkids they'll never meet
Culture and ideas transmit through channels parallel to heredity. Celibate monastic orders are one obvious example.
I want to live in a diverse culture for a reason analogous to why I'm wary of agricultural monocultures: All it takes is the right virus to come along, and all of a sudden we don't have any bananas anymore. There are some tragic failure modes associated with strong, cohesive, anti-"diverse" cultures.
