It's not that there is zero applicable knowledge transfer, but there are definitely some fundamental differences between digital components and analog power devices, in particular.
For digital, the transistor are CMOS, optimized to be as tiny as possible, running at < 1V, and with individual devices mostly driving microamps, going up to milliamps in some particular areas of the chip.
For power, we're talking about IGBTs, optimized to handle as much power as possible with maximum efficiency, at hundreds of volts.
They are both semiconductor devices, but they are about as similar as the engine for a sports car vs. for a panamax cargo ship.
He was saying that the III of C major is the V of A minor, and so if you are planning to play in A minor using a set of chords pulled from C major, you may want to add a III alongside the iii.
The skills needed to create a chip and the skills needed to create chip design software are fundamentally different. Of all the engineers I've met who work on the physical implementation and timing closure of digital chips, only a very limited number would have any hope of creating some sort of place and route tool, and it would be rudimentary and inefficient. They are not expert programmers.
Huge part of why OpenROAD (and as this article.indicates, nvidia) are so focused on machine learning! Because the nitty gritty of chip design has abundant gnarly problems requiring deep deep expertise. Deploying software engineers is hard. But building ml is kind of our bag!
There's another nice upstart opensource project with even fancier ml placememt systems that spawned recently out of the openroad world, dreamplace, https://github.com/limbo018/DREAMPlace
This is just gonna get more & more biased against a couple super smart engineers who we've deeply entrusted to divine inner the workings of the chips on, & become increasingly a set of better modelled problems that we can machine learningly optimize.
Mario Kart on Wii was released in 2008, when the oldest of Gen-Z would have been 11 years old. I'm pretty sure that's too young to be setting design trends.
It is the perfect age to be stamping pliant young brains into the shape they'll retain for the remainder of their lives. They associate informational assault with happy and busy and expect the association to be a part of the world.
I have no idea if there are systems on a submarine that might experience extreme temperatures. But for the hull, since it is constantly surrounded by liquid water, I would expect that it does not regularly experience temperatures less than ~0C. Maybe there's a concern when surfacing in the arctic? That said she obviously shouldn't have faked data whether it was stupid or not.
This may not be the level of detail you are looking for, but I found this short tutorial to be effective at explaining the basics: https://learningsynths.ableton.com/
Ultimately, I think using synthesizers does entail a lot of exploratory knob turning, even if understanding the effect of different components can help guide you to the sound you are looking for.
Maybe I can try to explain the parent comment's point a different way. When saying that rust works on types and not on arbitrary specifications, I think he is saying that rust is more limited than languages that support arbitrary specifications. However, by making this tradeoff it achieves a reasonable degree of safety without incurring a ton of overhead.
I believe the comment that types are aligned with the syntax is meant as a contrast to other languages which include specifications written in a format substantially different from or fully removed from the implementation. This can reduce the friction of using type-based verification when compared to formal verification capable of describing an arbitrarily complicated spec.
When discussing the scalability of types, I think he is saying that because types are coupled to the implementation, and don't support non-local reasoning, it is less likely that you will run into issues with type checking as you try to compose many small components into a larger program. In contrast, my impression is that with full formal verification, it can become extremely difficult to properly verify a large system.
Regarding your comparison to C and python, I think it's clear that the parent was comparing the specific type system and borrow checker that Rust provides vs. formal verification, not making a statement about the general concept of a type system. In particular, I don't think it's reasonable to assume he was saying the existence of types provides any sort of safety. Rather, it's clear he was saying the use of a powerful type system (such as that found in Rust or Haskell) to implement a limited specification of the program functionality can provide a degree of safety.
In the original naming scheme, 2nm would be the length of the transistor gate, which is the smallest feature on the device, not a dimension of the whole transistor. It's not meaningful to compare 2nm to the area numbers given above.
Exactly this. It may be useful for OP to consider what the hypothetical opposite of significant digits would be: insignificant digits, ie. digits that tell you nothing. A leading zero can be omitted from a number without any loss of information. A trailing zero, when correctly used in a position that is not below the tolerance, gives you significant information. On the other hand, if you start combine numbers with different tolerances, but do not truncate the result, you will have a bunch of trailing digits that are meaningless in practice because they are below the combined tolerance.
For digital, the transistor are CMOS, optimized to be as tiny as possible, running at < 1V, and with individual devices mostly driving microamps, going up to milliamps in some particular areas of the chip.
For power, we're talking about IGBTs, optimized to handle as much power as possible with maximum efficiency, at hundreds of volts.
They are both semiconductor devices, but they are about as similar as the engine for a sports car vs. for a panamax cargo ship.