What went wrong?

What went wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gate#Symbols
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

5 band blue colored low wattage resistors.

with resistors?
they were too big.
SMD is where its at

What's the most meme electronic component again?

they chose shit colors like blue as a background for some that make it impossible to read the values correctly.

RGB LEDs

buck regulators

...

...

And what is wrong here?

>he doesnt know

Expecting other people to automatically know something you know is a sign of autism.

I want this post-post ironic trend to end holy shit

you think this is some kind of joke?
look closer. What do all these devices have in common?

...

alright. you win, I'll stop.

AmpereMemeter

I would say they are electrical, but logic gates do not have to be electrical.

If the answer is electricity, what the fuck do you propose we use instead? Electricity is fucking awesome.

Fantastic addition user.

you're getting close user, but think on a more abstract level.

I hate the American symbols for logic gates. Like, you look at it and it doesn't tell you jack shit about what the gate does, the symbols are entirely arbitrary. Like, why the fuck is AND a round helmet and OR is a pointy one? It's fucking stupid.

whats coming out of his nose?

post your idea meme gates then user.

looks like cum tbqh

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gate#Symbols

ugly af tbqh try again when you have some ~aesthetic~

They're fucking circuit symbols, they're not meant to be aesthetic but to allow you to quickly understand what a circuit does. Having a logically sound symbol in a box accomplishes that, plus if you need more than two inputs or different sizes of boxes you can just change their dimensions and it doesn't fucking matter; the American symbols look retarded when stretched.

fun fact: most of dirt cheap ICs are/were built using NAND, NOR, XNOR gates.
because they didn't need to use inverter to form "native" gates.
i wouldn't surprised if modern and bigger circuits were built the same way because of space saving and using two transistors less per gate

Also because the transistors that form those gates are cheaper to produce.

someone sounds pissed they cant handle basic symbols.

neat famalam

I feel like an OR gate in a world full of Exclusive ORs

Oh I can, but what they mean isn't immediately visible at a glance so you have to actively remember which symbol is for which function, plus if you're looking at a low-res copy of a copy of an old hand-drawn schematic they might not be easily distinguishable.
I'm just baffled that Americans show such bad practice in science and technology, and stubbornly insist on keeping their impractical symbols and unit system.
Same with the resistor and inductor symbols. European? It's a long rectangle, filled for the inductor (okay, that part doesn't make sense), you can draw them quickly and can't mistake them for anything else. American? The inductor symbol makes sense at least but the resistor symbol looks like a spring and if you draw quickly they look the same and/or retarded.

Ngl, if you think that's any less obscure its all up to bias. It's no more intuitive than random shapes to the lay person. (with the exception of the & symbol)

>I hate the American symbols for logic gates. Like, you look at it and it doesn't tell you jack shit about what the gate does, the symbols are entirely arbitrary.
Yes dumbass, that's what a symbol is - a REPRESENTATION of something.

That literally lists the American ones side by side with ugly rectangles that would become the hardware equivalent of spaghetti code for any non-trivial circuit.

>neat famalam
Oh, so you didn't know one of the first things they teach in the first week of a freshman circuit's class, no wonder all you can do is complain that you don't like the symbols because they have a property that is very useful in the real world.

>isn't immediately visible at a glance
They are immediately visible at a glance if you've worked with the symbols for longer than a semester, which I doubt you have.

>Americans have such bad practice in science and technology
Which is why they continue to lead in those fields, right?
>and stubbornly insist on keping their impractical symbols
The circuit symbols are not impractical - what's impractical are morons like you who complain about it
>and unit system
Are you talking about American science and technology, or American laymen?
>I don't know how to draw symbols
Not my problem

So much fucking this, to a point, all symbols are arbitrary. The letter F's symbolism has absolutely no relation to its pronunciation, yet you do not complain that "it's hard to read all these letters because what they mean isn't immediately visible at a glance." Literally the only reason to complain is some bias, which most people lose after working in the field for even a few weeks

>Oh, so you didn't know one of the first things they teach in the first week of a freshman circuit's class

I think you're confusing me with euro user senpaií

I wasnt complaining at all, just shitposting.

fyi was also me.

the advantage of block symbols shows in complex functionality.
pic related

The OR symbol (>=1) makes sense as well. Are one or more inputs True, in other words, are >=1 inputs True? Then output is True.
XOR: =1 -> Is exactly one input True?

>REPRESENTATION
But why did they have to choose completely unintuitive representations?

>spaghetti code for any non-trivial circuit.
So you draw individual gates for non-trivial circuits? And you can quickly distinguish really small versions of those symbols in a schematic that contains hundreds of both? Doubt it. In non-trivial circuits you'll use "shorthands" (like dedicated symbols for latches, complex ICs etc.)

>which I doubt you have.
Correct, because I've been using the superior European symbols. Currently pursuing my Master's degree.

> not impractical
They are if objectively superior alternatives exist.

> morons
Name-calling, classy.

What are you trying to prove? Should we use random squiggles for those symbols? At least with rectangles you can easily extend them and have some space to write shorthands, names for signals, add more symbols etc.

>What are you trying to prove?
i literally implied that IEC symbols are a metric shit-ton more versatile.
which is fantastic

alright, I think I see where you're coming from on the inputs. But unfortunately it doesnt make it any more approachable for a lay person, and really the explanation for the OR symbol isnt something that makes sense from a pure mathematical sense either unless you learn the abstract framework underneath it, which defeats the purpose imo

2bh the logic symbols are a clusterfuck in any case.

& in a rectangle is AND (because that's what that symbol usually means in writing)
& in formulae is XOR because fuck you
+ in formulae is OR despite (1 bit) addition being XOR
⋅ in formulae is AND despite multiplication being implemented differently
NOT in formulae is a horizontal line above the signal name, or a horizontal line with a little downwards bit on the right. Strikethrough would be more intuitive

I 100% agree.

Nice pun.

>tfw not /ece/ enough to get the pun